In a message dated 27/03/01 13:37:54 GMT Daylight Time,
glengordon01@... writes:
> You missed the point as usual but this hasn't stopped you before from
> fighting on the losing team. No one was talking about the paleolithic at
> all. We're talking about a hypothetical connection between an NEC language
> (Nakh???) and a pre-Etruscan language (Tyrrhenian?) whose date and
location
> are unspecified. Any such occurences must be restricted to the neolithic
> stage. Supporting linguistic evidence remains unconvincing. We are not
> talking about the spread of mythology or agriculture. We are talking about
> two languages in contact. For anyone to entertain this idea, one needs to
> know "how", "when" & "where" and this information needs to make sense. So
> far, the how, when and where don't. So be my guest, John.
I agree we are talking about the neolithic. Alright then, Glen, these are the
facts:
The Etruscans are said to originate from Anatolia.
The Nakh are said to have moved into the Caucasus from Anatolia.
The Hurrians and Urartians were in Anatolia.
Key elements of the Etruscan lexicon are widely acknowledged to be non-IE.
Key elements of the Nakh lexicon do not correspond with those reconstructed
for those items in ProtoNEC based on the Daghestanian lexical material.
Hurrian/Urartian is not generally thought to be closely related to IE.
Hurrian/Urartian is thought by some people to be genetically related to NEC
(such assertions including a share of correspondences with Nakh).
There are similarities in art, architecture and religion between the
Hurrian/Urartians and the Etruscans (and metallurgy, as Alexander pointed
out).
There are a number of apparent lexical similarities between Nakh, Etruscan
and Hurrian/Urartian.
The ancient ancestors of the Nakh are said to be a people called the Tushba.
Kretschmer linked Etruscan origins with the Leleges, whose name is apparently
cognate with the Hurrian for 'enemy' and Nakh for 'neighbour'.
etc., etc.
YOU explain them then.
I'm not saying these facts constitute proof of anything but they at the very
least generate a plausible scenario that requires further study.
Ed.