From: tgpedersen
Message: 19959
Date: 2003-03-17
>Aha! And where do the Thuringians get into the opicture?
> Me:
> >>I have a sneaky feeling that there were many kinds of "Trojans".
> >>Some were Indo-European, some were Tyrrhenian, some were Semitic,
>
> Piotr:
> >I don't know about Semitic and Tyrrhenian, but of the IE ones at
> >least some "Trojans" were Luwian, especially at an early date.
>
> Yes, Anatolian-speaking peoples are part of this for sure.
> Perhaps not so much Semitic, although there must have been SOME
> Semitic-speaking people in Troy.
>
> Still, I can't get the equation of Etruscan /ras'na/ and "Troy"
> out of my head and I like the "shifted" accent I devised for an
> early Proto-Tyrrhenian. After thinking about it some more, I
> think I've deduced that the Etrusco-Rhaetic ended up in Italy by
> 1000 BCE, by which time, the language had already simplified most
> initial consonant clusters. Thus, *d@... (*d = [t]) would have
> become *resena around 1100 BCE. Now, I think this means that the
> *d@... people, originally from the city of *d@... "Troy",
> would end up on the tips of Egyptian tongues as the *t@...
> The ethnonym would enter Greek at around the same time as
> *tursenoi.
>
> Does anyone see a problem with that?
>
>
> - gLeN
>