Re: [tied] Tyrhennian affiliation

From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 33159
Date: 2004-06-08

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 17:14:15 -0700 (PDT),
enlil@... wrote:

>
>Miguel:
>> Perhaps. But what's the pattern?
>
>I already said it but let's say something explicitly:
>Tyrrhenian *x > EtruscoLemnian *kH, or *w intervocalically or when
>following a resonant.

Let's see: intervocalic: marunuchva, after resonant:
pulumchva. No, that's not the pattern.

>In other words, I'm saying that this ending was originally a
>collectivizer, not exactly a plural ending.

Obviously.

> The plural was marked by
>*-es in IndoTyrrhenian but only on _animate_ nouns.

What Adiego says, and I agree, is that the Etruscan animate
plural marker -ra is *also* in origin a collective marker,
not a "true" plural. This follows from the complete lack of
plural agreement of either verb or adjective with (animate)
plural nouns ending in -r(a). There is of course also no
agreement with inanimate "plurals" in -chva etc.


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