Re: [tied] Etruscan genitives

I agree, and the example was in fact meant to suport your claim that the two genitives derive from different sources. I don't "misunderstand" anything here; nor do I claim anywhere that the two endings are variants of the same underlying morpheme. Their complementary distribution is interesting and should be explained somehow, but surely not by phonological means. I'd rather say that certain suffixes (-th, -is, -i, etc.) were combined with -al for some historical reasons that had to do with the original function of -al.

Cheers,

Piotr

----- Original Message -----
From: Glen Gordon

To: cybalist@egroups.com

Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 10:54 PM

Subject: Re: [tied] Etruscan genitives

As for /Vel-us-la/, you're refering to the complementary distribution of the genitives again. You misunderstand. I don't resist that reasoning. In Etruscan itself, it would appear that the endings were identical in meaning, true. However, again, surely the two genitives were not from a single source and always with the same meaning. This just can't be logically so.