Miguel:
> What about *-kWe "and"?
I already explained. It's not a suffix. It's a postclitic. It was
later independently suffixed in IE languages and Etruscan. Therefore,
*kW is not medial. It's in initial position and becomes *k in Tyrrhenian
as expected. Etruscan has /ca/ everything is normal.
>>With ITyr *kWe, we expect Tyrrhenian **i-ke under the normal rules but
>>this is homophonous with the demonstrative! We already can figure
>>out that Etruscan ica 'this' < Tyrrhenian *ike, with a later optional
>>prothetic deictic *i- for all demonstratives (cf. IE *i-). To add to
>>the complication, there is also the postclitic *kWe 'and' which must
>>surely become Tyrrhenian *-ke because we can clearly observe Etruscan
>>/-ca/
>
> -c(h), in fact.
From what I understand, the older texts have /-ca/. Etruscan syncope
starting around 480 BC changed the ending to /-c/ and aspirated and
nonaspirated stops fell together without contrast in final position.
Hence /-cH/ is equivalent to /-c/ just as /hutH/ is equivalent to
/hut/. It was originally /-ca/ which comes from Tyrrhenian *ke.
> On a slightly different topic: besides /f/ and /h/, Etruscan
> had another fricative/affricate <z>. Where do you think
> that comes from?
I've been scratching my head for some time on that one. I used
to think that it was merely a palatized dental stop but it must
be more complicated than that because /tin/ 'day' relates nicely
to IE *dei-no- < ITyr *dei-na. I now feel that it is the
palatalization specifically of _labialized_ dental stops *tW, *t:W
and *dW. This would then make the following equations work nicely:
Etruscan < Tyrrhenian < IndoTyrrhenian
za- 'two' *ce 'two' *t:We (IE *dwo-)
zeri 'rite' *cer-e 'does magic' *dWer- (IE *dHwer-)
tin 'day' *ti-na 'day' *t:ei- (IE *dei-)
I now can be reasonably certain then that the 2ps in Etruscan was
probably *zi with an oblique form *zini, based on the pattern
of the known 1ps with /mi/ and /mini/, since I'm certain that the
2ps oblique in IndoTyrrhenian was *tWe based on the IE reflex.
The relationship between /ziva/ and 'alive' is impossible considering
that the word is known to mean _dead_ in Etruscan, the very antonym
of the stem you're trying to connect it to!
> (The matter may be relevant to the topic of the labiovelars, given
> that it's always tempting to link ziv(a)- "live, alive?" to PIE
> *gWih3w-).
I think that's a red herring. The expected reflex of IE *gWihWw- in
Tyrrhenian would presumably be *kixwe in the 3ps, becoming Etruscan
*cicHva.
= gLeN