Re: [tied] Tyrhennian affiliation

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 13:15:51 +0000, Rob
<magwich78@...> wrote:

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

Who said they were related?

>However, any bound
>monophonic morpheme must come from an earlier syllabic morpheme.

It can come from another monophonic 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/.

No, that's not it. Final -e is also dropped in nouns:
*methlume > methlum (G. methlumes(')).

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...