Re: [tied] Tyrhennian affiliation

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

> Depends on what the environment of the 'logic' is.
>
> If you look at Etr. -c(h) "and" and PIE *-kWe "and", then it
> makes sense to derive both from a common prototype *-kWV (or
> something similar, perhaps *-ku or *-kua). Provided, of
> course, that Etruscan and PIE are related.

Yes. It's also possible, as Glen has stated before, that the PIE
labiovelar series *kW, *gW, *gWH comes from earlier *q, *G (that is,
a voiced uvular stop), *GH.

> On the other hand, if you look only at Etruscan, say at
> -c(h) "and" and -ce (verbal preterite ending), then there is
> no logic necessity to derive -c(h) from *-ce, unless you can
> derive -ce from yet something else.

I think it's doubtful that -c(h) "and" and verbal preterite -ce are
related, as the semantics hardly match. However, any bound
monophonic morpheme must come from an earlier syllabic morpheme. So,
while the verbal preterite is -ce, -c(h) "and" must come from some
earlier -c(h)V sequence, where V is probably not /e/.

- Rob