Re: [tied] Re: Pre-Germanic speculation

30-10-03 15:00, Marco Moretti wrote:

> So, as for you, Etruscan doesn't exist.
> In Thracian bolinthos, "aurochs", there is -inthos, but it hardly can
> be some kind of participial suffix.

Etruscan surely exists, but I fail to see why we have to explain Greek
toponyms in terms of Etruscan if there are other possibilities. Whatever
we find in <bolinthos>, it may be same suffix that we find in numerous
names of young living beings in Slavic: *-e~/*-e~t- < *-n.t . Any
analysis that works for Slavic will surely work for Thracian as well.

> Not _ALL_ your arguments, in general, but only your arguments about
> this toponym Samsø. If you have no clear etymology for it, whatever
> you say of a Germanic *sam- in it makes no sense. I only affirmed the
> non-IE, pre-Germanic nature of the item, without linking it with
> something else. Perhaps the protoform of Samsø was more convoluted,
> but it remains clearly non-IE.

I have no particular interest in Samsø; the name is etymologically
obscure to me for reasons that have nothing to do with its IE or non-IE
character (I only know its modern form, which is too short and too
uncharacteristic to be of much use). It doesn't look non-Germanic at
all, but I have already explaind my reasons for not speculating about
it. I fail to see why it should be CLEARLY non-IE.

Piotr