Re: Etruscan -na (was Re: [tied] Affects of ... etc.)

From: Glen Gordon
Message: 8475
Date: 2001-08-13

Ed states:
>You can't go trying to prove that Etruscan and IE are closely >genetically
>related by appealing to analogies and similarities in >Uralic.

You're not following. I said that I simply *agree* that Uralic's
case ending in *-na is probably related to this. However, Uralic
is hardly the big end of the stick. You are ignoring that
I have strict sound *rules* that reach back into previous stages of
IE that dictate to me what few possibilities exist in Mid or Old
IE. In fact, these laws have been brought about by the _internal
reconstruction_ you mention, by the unraveling of irregular systems
into regular ones.

First of all, I'm not the first to suggest a schwa as full vowel
in a previous stage of IE. IE *a appears to exist only next to
laryngeals as an alternative to *e and rarely anywhere else, if at
all. So only the vowels *e and *o can reach back further into
prehistory, but this just makes sense because these vowels are
used heavily in various ablauts. Clearly, if *a derives from *e,
we are left with a very odd vowel system with mid vowels, *e and *o,
as the bottom-most vowels. The only way I know how to resolve this
problem is the accept that *e < *& and *o < *a. In this way,
a more natural vowel sytem is achieved - a centralized vowel system
precisely like that of the neighbouring Abkhaz-Adhyghe languages.

Second, the penultimate law, which explains the accent differences
between the singular and plural of the active secondary for one thing
(the declensional system is another), shows me that for any accented final
syllable, there are only two possibilities: Either the accent
is not original, or a terminating vowel has been lost in MidIE.

Therefore, in the case of accented genitive plural *-om, either the
accent is unoriginal, or it derives from an earlier *-ame. There
is nothing to suggest that the accent is unoriginal. However,
*-om could have very easily derived from *-on as well by way of
labialisation of *n to *m by previous *-o-, and if so, *-ane is
another possibility. The final vowel *must* be *e (schwa) because
there are tight constraints on MidIE unstressed vowels (ie: they
can *only* be schwa).

With *-ame and *-ane to choose from as the only possibilities, *-ane
is the more Occam-compliant solution since, as part of a larger
MidIE declensional system with 3 genitives (*-ese, *ele and *-ane),
accusative (*-m), ablative (*-eta) and locative particles
(*dei, *bei), everything matches perfectly with Etruscan and
demonstrates regular sound correspondances. There is no borrowing
of any kind. These features are inherited and afterall, inheritance
is more economical as a solution than the concept of borrowing of
entire systems. The latter is by far a rarer event and thus your
solution fails under Occam's Razor.

>Assuming that Etruscan is genetically related to IE does not make it so.

Unlike your ad-hoc solutions, assumptions have nothing to do with
my theories. I have strict laws and regular, tried and true sound
correspondances that show that Etruscan and IE are related.

>You're putting the cart before the horse by assuming that
>-s in Etruscan and -s in IE have the same genetic origin.

No, I'm assuming the more economical solution - that the *entire*
declensional paradigm is inherited.

Obviously, my above explanation of internally reconstructed rules
shows that I don't have this Greenbergian attitude but on other
hand, you prove to the forum that the concept of examining systems
and "internal reconstruction" is above you by saying:

Given that the Etruscan root al- means 'give' (Cf.
Hurrian ar-, Nakh =al-), there are whiffs of lexical
economy here, indicating a creolising language contact

A completely absurd statement that ignores true relationships
governed by rules and sound correspondances in favour of something
hodgepodge. There *are* whiffs of something but it's not lexical

>it is clear from core vocabulary that Etruscan cannot be closely
>related to IE.

There is no clarity. You have failed for the longest time to
fully expound on your theory concerning where, when and how. Please
cease and desist until you can adequately justify your claims in
a more scholarly manner. I'm not interested in more discussions with
people who can't see reason or that fail to provide constructive

gLeNny gEe
...wEbDeVEr gOne bEsErK!

email: glengordon01@...

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at