From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 33161
Date: 2004-06-08
>Miguel:Of course they have different histories, that was the point
>> 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.
>
>Not necessarily. The two suffixes may have had different histories.
>For instance, I insist that 'and' is from a _postparticle_ *keThe enclitic/suffix distinction does make a difference, but
>while the verbal ending -ce was actually indeed from a suffix
>*-k:e. Maybe something in that makes a difference right there.
>Since *a appears to disappear elsewhere when we move from TyrrhenianI still haven't seen anything but -c(h).
>to Etruscan, perhaps for some yet unknown reason, what should be
>*ke ended up a bound suffix *-ka in EtruscoLemnian. It is interesting
>to note that, at least in Tyrrhenian as it is currently formulated,
>*a is the neutral vowel, the one that avoids accent. Perhaps it was
>the designated "non-vowel" for enclitics and then that would explain
>why we have what appears to be a reflex of *-ka rather than *-ke.
>... Hmm, in fact, that might then explain *ka and *ta ("this" andThe accusative in late Etruscan is _always_ cn (cen, e-cn),
>"that") which when bound to the noun, becomes /-cn/ or /-tn/ in the
>accusative from earlier a suffixed *kan and *tan. Why, yes! That's
>brilliant.
>NEW THEORY!!! Listen to this!
>
>So in other words, particles are given *a-vocalism in Tyrrhenian
>despite their original vocalisms, while suffixes remain untouched.
>
>Therefore, we have postparticle _*ka_ being 'and' but still relating
>to IE *kWe, while *-ke is the verbal suffix denoting completion. Then
>we also have *ka and *ta which are preposed demonstratives (IE *ko-
>and *to-) that sometimes end up suffixed to nouns in Etruscan, showing
>the loss of the unstressed *a in accusative *kan and *tan.