Glen (Me, imagine that! I talk too much):
>>My opinion: the pre-IE should be divided into Etrusco-Lemnian and >>
>>Semitic dialects with a Caucasic substratum prior to agriculture.
Rex:
>(Don't know Kretschmer's stuff..but I think I like it!)
>Prior to agriculture would put your Caucasic substratum pre-8th >millennium
>BC.
That's right and sure, alot... (<- sorry but I have to use _one word_. I
hate "a lot" alot :) Anyways, alot _did_ happen during these different
periods, no doubt.
>I can not support Etrusco-Lemnian arising out of Semitic (or
> >Semitic+Tyrrenian) with only a 10K year old cauc substratum around;
Neither can I. This (Dene-)Caucasic substratum would in fact be some 25,000
years or more (remember Basque?). From what I see, Basque has the closest
relationship (albeit remote) with NEC and Hurro-Urartean. The best
explanation however both linguistically and archaeogenetically (<- John will
like this :P) for such a remote relationship is that an early form of some
DeneCaucasian language had spread across into Europe from the Balkans (prior
to agriculture and the last glacial maximum). This would no doubt leave a
"Caucasic substratum" (Caucasic meaning "NEC-like", more specifically), a
substratum largely eaten up by Semitic so as to leave few if any traces in
the end - This is the basis for my speculation here.
Glen (Silly me again):
>>EtruscoLemnian is closer to Anatolian....than anything..
Rex:
>Concur..but that would tend to complicate Anatolian over your pre ag >Cauc
>influenced Semitic. Then why isn't your Etruscan-Lemnian or >Indo-Etruscan
>just a late subordinate of IE Anatolian..(however >alternately influenced)?
Etruscan /mi/ "I" and /mini/ "me" are hard to explain in an Anatolian
context as far as I know (cf. Hittite uk/ammuk based on IE *egoh/*me).
What's more, Etruscan and Lemnian show the above Semitic influences that are
quite seperate from any observed in IE. The Etruscan term for "seven" is
/semph/ and shows no sign of -t- as we find in IE. In Semitic languages,
there is a masculine and feminine version of each numeral. It would appear
that IE had the masculine version and Etruscan the feminine (No, I'm not
confused. Numerals take the feminine *-t- to complement masculine nouns in
Semitic. I got my bases covered, baby! :P). As well, /s'a/ appears seperate
from *sweks unless we want to wildly surmise that *-ks has magically
disappeared. It wouldn't make sense that this Tyrrhenian group would have
re-adopted Semitic terms for "six" and "seven" after already being
supposedly borrowed as *sweks and *septm like in IE.
Etruscan has special and mostly different native numerals from IE as well
and archaicies like only _rare_ use of the famous nominative *-s.
The clincher is that Etruscan seems to have an initial accent if the
spelling is any indication which tends gradually to eliminate vowels from
non-initial syllables over time (lautni > lautn). As a consequence, I don't
see any ablaut as we see in IE (even Anatolian languages) - please correct
me if I'm wrong. Ablaut and a swinging accent are things deeply rooted in IE
languages. This initial accent is not an IE accent - more Uralic than
anything and, in my view, the original stress accent in all.
Thus Etruscan must represent something much older than any of the "Anatolian
languages" as traditionally defined.
>>By viewing IndoEtruscan as originating from the
>>Pontic-Caspian, EtruscoLemnian therefore must have travelled (before the
>>Anatolians did) to the Balkans in order for Etruscan >> to end up in Italy
>>further west.
>
>I have no problem with the first half, just suggesting there was a >broader
>Anatolian "stage" this omits, and that the name of the group >is a little
>misleading if so.
Say what? I got lost in your strange grammar. Omits what? We'll keep calling
this group "Tyrrhenian" then? I'm aware of Rhaetian too which belongs to
this.
>The second half..No. If we just limit this linguistic "emergence" >to
>Lemnos (which in my view is absurd) after arising from Anatolian >contact,
>it did not get there (Lemnos), nor leave (to Italy), by >walking or
>swimming. Boats
Oh, I see. So a nautical origin? I suppose this is well within possibility
too since I know the Black Sea must have been a hotbed of commerce and such,
even for the IE-speakers. I'm so used to land migrations I never really
considered this - I will now.
>..OR..it is linked to Lemnian..which means both
>represent variants (how ever wide that variance) of a wider Aegean
>linguistic layer (whether IE, proto or pre): (Pelasgian?).
That sounds reasonable actually.
>But I have just begun to read. :-)
There are always sequels to any good novel, though :)
- gLeN
______________________________________________________