[tied] Re: Pre-Germanic speculation

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski
<piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:

> 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.

In Greek we find some substratum word comparable with Etruscan.
For example opyio: "I take wife", Etruscan puia "wife",
(w)anaks "prince", Etruscan Vanth "Fate", "Fortune" (the central
meaning is "to pronounce", "to speak with authority"), etc...

Bolinthos is not a little living being, it is an aurochs or a bison.
The IE root is not very widespread (I find it only in Thracian and in
some Germanic), it is perhaps of remote NEC origin (cfr. Chechen
bula "aurochs").

> 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.

It is clearly non-IE as many other toponyms for this simple reason:
It cannot be found any matchup with an IE root that works.
What holds true for Samsø holds equally true for any other similar
item.

Marco