"Glen Gordon" says: (and at the bottom, a thought to Sabine.)
> 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.
Are you a linguist, or an English teacher? Don't be corrupting my
"Cotton Georgian" with Canadian. We don't use adverbs for
nouns/subjects/objects. To hate alot isn't necessarily a lot of hate.
If something happened alot, it doesn't mean that a lot of things were
happening. :-)
What I think you are saying (Glen) in a brace of recent messages:
1. People from the north (Pontic to Caspian?)..these Dene Caucasian
speakers..entered Anatolia before 25,000 kya.
2. In place Semitic influences were mixed with this intrusion.
3. Eventually, the Semitic influences were all but 'overpowered'...
...or "timed out"...nearly erased.
4. The oldest IE Branch is Anatolian, but Anatolia is not the origin of IE
(?)
5. PIE and Etruscan are very closely related.
6. But...Etruscan differs enough to be separate.
7. Etruscan can't be IE, unless you extend IE back before 4,500 BCE
8. Etruscan is linked to Lemnian, a close sister language.
9. Etrusco-Lemnian (branch) sprang from a linguistic and/or physical
migration from the point of origin to Balkans c4500BCE
10. Anatolian (same general source) follows in two waves into Anat.
11. First Anat. wave was Lycos-Lydian
12. Second Anat. wave was Luwian Hittite
13. IE exists at 3500 BCE
14. Greece is Tyrrhenian/Semitic at c3000 BCE, and since C6K BCE
15. Tyrrhenian could be Pelasgic
16. Tyrrhenian as language group includes: Lemnan,Etruscan, Rhaetian
17. Etrusco-Lemnian must be Baltic centered to get to Lemnos and Italy.
Questions:
*. Any misrepresentations or major omissions above? Correct Please.
*. Would you more tightly define "Pontic to Caspian" geographically to
avoid confusion: part of "Pontic" can be construed to be in Anatolia?
Are you referring to a theoretical IE homeland?
*. Would you resolve the apparent paradox at item 4.?
*. Same between #3 and #14?
*. Explain 7? Why?
Discussion:
1. You don't need the Baltic fulcrum if Etruscan was primarily "boated"
into Italy from the Aegean.
2. As I am now understanding Tyrrhenian..it was in Greece, but displaced or
mixed with Pelasgic (IAW Strabo), to the extent that something between the
two may have existed to contribute to Greek much later. H. is the only one
referring to Tyrrhenian in Anatolia..and directly linking them to Etruscan
movement. Strabo does not put them in Anatolia, and has Pelasgi dominating
them in Greece. If Tyrrhenian center was Italy, It could have influenced
Etruscan after movement, and contribute to any difference between it and
Lemnian. If Tyrrhenian existed in Anat., it was long buried before Etruscan
movement. The Roman naming of the Etrurians in place in Italy, which seems
to have given us Etruscan may be Tyrrhenian associated, or it may stem from
a name they gave themselves from an early leader, something like "Triscan"
(can't find the reference), which led to variants of "Tuscan".
3. Rhaetian is generally considered to be Romance, derived from a pocket of
legionnaires stranded and not completely assimilated by the locals. Any
Etruscan similarities you are seeing in the language stems almost certainly
from large numbers of Etruscan soldiers in that group of legionnaires...
Like the Etruscan legionnaires who carved the very Aegean Hercules on a
cliff....in Britain. Hercules did not get to the cliff via the Balkans, he
got to the Etruscans via the Aegean.
4. Lemnian got to Lemnos by boat from Anatolia. If Ballard and crew are
right, there was no waterway connection between the Black sea and Aegean
prior to c5500 BCE. There could have been significant non-nautical exchange
between The Eastern Danube area and Anatolia from there back to the full
extent of your 25,000 kya scenario, but the Bronze age c3000 BCE layer
difference in Poliochni, Lemnos, had to be a nautical import, and most
probably came from Anatolia.
5. We seem to think IE dominated both banks of the Eastern Danube
by 3,300 BCE.
My counters to your Speculation by point number above:
7. Etruscan can stem from intrusive IE (possibly conceding down to PIE)
altered by up to 2,500 years of local Aegean influence before the move to
Italy, and 2 to 4 centuries of Italian influence after the move.
9. Etruscan and Lemnian are sister variants from the same Anatolian-Aegean
origin, and many others should be in any group that includes them, and there
was no Balkan involvement in the separation of Etruscan from the parent
group. The parent group was defined by an intrusion after 3300 BCE into the
broader Anatolian-Aegean area.
10. Described one above is the First Anatolian wave, there was no related
Balkan wave, it spawned groups that when sorted by region and influence
and time will include Luwian, Palaic, Lydian, Carian, Lemnan and Etruscan.
(If Lemnan and Etruscan have differentiated enough from all the others,
than a subordinate or subgroup is indicated)
11.-12. Second Anatolian wave was Thracian/Baltic/Danubian..and definately
IE, overlaying some of the groups in 10., yeilding over time with supporting
later settlement: Hittite, Mysian, Phrygian.
14. Tyrrhenian/Semitic influences in Greece @c3000 BCE get an overlay of
the westward moving elements already in Anatolia (before the regional
languages (10.) fully seceded).
15. No. Distinct, but some joint influence/mixing in some areas inside
Greece.
16. No. Tyrrhenian is out after 3000BCE with the new dominating influence.
Call the group Aegean, or Pelasgic. Broaden group and question Rhaetian.
17. Forget the Baltic except as contributing much earlier(pre-IE) and to
the Thracian/Danubian wave(s). And possibly the final Greek defining wave
south overland as "Dorian"
Comments:
*..From this..we should be able to narrow to exactly where we and others
differ.
*..Sabine's point: re..
"why Greek is linguistically closer to Sanskrit than to Hittite or to the
other Anatolian languages,
My thoughts: Even If I am right above, we still are not speaking Greek in
Greece. But I think we are at least PIE. If we suppose this wave took some
time to get into Anatolia, and across it, the Aegean, and finally into
Greece: It may have branched off of "IE Central" well before the arm that
would move to the Indus. Now, in established migration Turf to the direct
west, a following faster wave (after the Indus Branch off) could have
covered old ground into the Balkan/Danube areas to define the Dorians or
some other group to the North of Greece. The Hittites are already into
Anatolia, and the IE or PIE Pelasgians are already in Greece. The new folks
to the north are "super" IE and closer to the Indus movement in time and
language. Elements of them as Dorians or some other force, move very late
(after c1200) due south..to mix with the existing morass..
and we have a Distinct IE Greek..that is closer to Sanskrit than Hittite.
La Revedere;
Rex H. McTyeire
Bucharest, Romania
<
rexbo@...>