Re: [tied] Apple is to Orange as Etruscan is to NEC

In a message dated 04/03/01 01:55:26 GMT Standard Time,
glengordon01@... writes:

> Etruscan contains many poignant grammatical similarities with IE that

could

> never be found with NEC:

Let's see if it is any more substantial.

> * genitive in -s & -l
> (cf. Anatolian languages)

An areal feature from Anatolian only, not IE generally. And
morphological redetermination is a feature of Caucasian languages, not
IE.

> * accusative in -n
> (IE *-m)

Only occurs in certain words (like about 3 of them). How do you know
it's an accusative?

> * 1ps pronoun /mi/
> (IE 1ps oblique *me)

Like you keep saying, languages can borrow pronouns. (Cf. Chechen
/txwo/ and Georgian /chwen/). Even if it is borrowed, /mi/ could
equally well be from Kartvelian.

> * 3ps /an/ & /in/
> (IE *e, *ei-)

The resemblance is too vague to be useful.

> * demonstratives /ica/ & /ita/
> (IE *k^e- & *to-)

Demonstratives and deictics K and T are very common in all sorts of
languages, (Cf. ik' (thus), ix^tan (this kind of) in Lezgian, a
Nakh-Daghestanian language). Then of course there is the apparent
resemblance between Etruscan /thar/ and Nakh /d'aar-/.

> * use of an optional "nominative" s-suffix
> as in /Tin-s/, /Sethlan-s/, etc.
> (IE nominative -s)

It couldn't be a genitive then? Show me some inscriptions where this
nominative is the only possible interpretation.

> * imperative /-thi/
> (IE *-dhi)

Cf. Chechen causative -u"tu. BTW, Etruscan verbs conjugate for tense
and not person, unlike IE. (And like Nakh).

> IE and Etruscan also share vocabulary items:
>
> IndoTyr | Etruscan IndoEuropean
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> to be *am- | am- *ambhi "around"

Oof! That's stretching it a bit, isn't it? Cf. Lezgian am- 'to be'.

> *deuk:e | s'ec *dhughté:r

O.k., that's interesting.

> [imperative] *-di | -thi *-dhi
> this, that *ke | ica *k^e-

You've mentioned these two already.

> to make *kWer- | car- *kWer-

Cf. Etr. /than/, Nakh /dan/ 'to build'.

> four *kWet:Wa(-n) | huth *kWetwór-

Yes, o.k. but numerals can be borrowed. (Which is my whole point).

> me *me | mi "I" *me

We've had this.

> to die of old age *sen- | san- *sen-

How about Etruscan /tesinth/ 'overseer', Hurrian /tesh-/ 'elder',
Nakh /tish/ 'old'.

> to consecrate *sek- | sac- *sek^-

Cf. Ingush /shajx/ 'sacred'.

> this, that *ta | ita *to-

You've had this already.

> two *t:We | za- *dwo-

Other examples of this sound change *tw- > z-?

I have about 40-50 interesting parallels between Nakh and Etruscan.
How many have you got between IE and Etruscan (that aren't transparent
loans)?

> >Where does PN *La" come from? Isn't /txwo/ borrowed from Kartvelian
> >and /vaj/ common Nakh-Daghestanian?
>
> If I remember, there is Kartvelian *tkwen- but... I think this is just
> coincidence.

...

> As for /vaj/, I wasn't aware of it being NEC. I had always assumed that it
> was IE in origin (*wei-).

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I just assumed it might be from
Daghestanian, as I remembered some of them having things like /yi/ and
/ya/ for 'we'. But when I look, I find even more variation, nothing
like /txwo/ or /vaj/ and hardly anything with an L in it. So,
something else that isn't genetically inherited. And you've got to
account for the fact that there is a distinction between inclusive and
exclusive. Although having two forms to choose from gives you twice
the chance of finding a vague resemblance that suits your purposes, so
I can see why you did it.


Ed.