From: Rob
Message: 34615
Date: 2004-10-12
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:
>
> Okay, I have thanksgiving turkey to eat pretty soon so I'll be brief
> about this and we can ask questions after the holidays :)
Take your time. :)
> Basically this is my current view of Etruscan verbs based on the
> scanty ideas presented by the Bonfantes' books and after getting my
> hands dirty to try and identify my own patterns. If you find my
> account absolutely sickening, I shall expect to enjoy the angry
> email that follows.
>
> I'm thinkin' something to the effect of:
>
> VERB (+ MOOD) (+ ASPECT) (+ TENSE)
> ZERO (act) ZERO (dur) a (pres-fut)
> an (mid) as (aor) e (past)
> acH (pas) ac (per)
>
> Get it? Good. There are _no_ personal endings whatsoever as we
> might see in IE. This makes me disappointed but what can you do, eh?
> So this explains EVERYTHING, I dare say:
It seems to me to be more likely that 'Tyrrhenian' separated from IE
before the advent of personal verb endings in the latter. I will
point out some tentative connections below.
> /eca tva/ "this shows, this will show"
> (tva- "to show" + -a [present-future])
> ACTIVE DURATIVE PRESENT-FUTURE
Etruscan /tva/ could be connected to IE /dwe-/, e.g. Latin bonus <
dwenos. I believe, under your sound-laws, 'IndoTyr' /t'we/ >
IE /dwe/ and 'Tyr' /tva/. Is it possible that the -a suffix is
really not a separate element, but rather just the bare stem?
> /Hercle Unial tHra sce/ "Heracles suckled Uni's breast"
> (sca- "to suckle" + -e [past])
> ACTIVE DURATIVE PAST
Etruscan seems rather devoid of diphthongs, which suggests that
earlier instances of such were monophthongized. If that is the case,
then perhaps past -e < -ai?
> /mi ama/ "I am, I will be"
> (am- "to be" + -a [present-future])
> ACTIVE DURATIVE PRESENT-FUTURE
>
> /an ame/ "he was"
> (am- "to be" + -e [past])
> ACTIVE DURATIVE PAST
>
> /an turuce/ "she has given"
> (tur- "to give" + -uc- [perfect] + -e [past])
> ACTIVE PERFECT PAST
It seems that there was some kind of rudimentary vowel harmony or
assimilation going on here, as you quote -ac-, not -uc-, as the
perfect affix above. Another possibility is that the root for 'give'
is really /turu-/, not /tur-/.
> /avil eniaca pulumcHva/
> "[its] age shall outnumber the stars"
> (en- "to outnumber" + -ac- [perfect] + -a [pres-fut])
> ACTIVE PERFECT PRESENT-FUTURE
Looks like the root for 'outnumber' is /eni-/, not /en-/. Also, it
seems like the present-future form of the perfect stem is more
conducive to being treated as a future than that of the 'imperfect'
stem.
> /vinum trin/ "wine is given, one gives wine"
> (tur- "to give" + -in- [middle] + (-a [pres-fut]))
> MIDDLE DURATIVE PRESENT-FUTURE
Was /vinum/ borrowed from Latin? The form /trin/, if indeed derived
from /tur-/, suggests non-regularly-initial stress accent.
Presumably, the earlier form was something like /tur-in-a/.
The middle suffix in /-Vn/ may be connected with the Altaic middle
suffix of basically the same form. I've also read that the Finnish
middle/reflexive suffix -u/-y comes from Uralic */-uN/.
> /s'utHi cericHunce/ "the tomb was built"
> (*cericH "something built" + -un- [middle] + -c- [perfect]
> + -e [past])
> MIDDLE PERFECT PAST
Based on what you say below and on your analysis of the morphemes, I
think it's possible that the -ch affix was a stative, not a passive.
So perhaps the translation should be '(the) tomb has been (something)
built)'.
> /zilcHnce/ "he led, he was a zilch"
> (zilcH "leader" + -n- [middle] + -c [perfect] + -e [past])
> MIDDLE PERFECT PAST
Again, perhaps the translation is better '(he) has been a leader'.
> /tHemiasa/ "he builds, his having built"
> (tHem- "to build" + -as- [aorist] + -a [pres-fut])
> ACTIVE AORIST PRESENT-FUTURE
This certainly suggests a connection between 'Tyrrhenian' aorist /-
as/ and IE aorist /-s/.
> Further, the passive ending that was identified as -cHe is not only
> in theory -cH-e, but also would form nouns on its own without the
> tense marker (zil-cH "leader, one who governs", ruma-cH "Roman, one
> from Rome").
Could there be a connection between the final marker /-ch/ and the
perfect non-final marker /-c/.
> Oh yeah, and you can forget those crackpots claiming that /-ne/ is
> the "future tense". I've found no support for that apparently random
> interpretation. I say it's the 'middle past'. So /tur-un-e/ actually
> probably means "[it] was given", not "[he] will give". Argh!
>
> There are also participle endings:
>
> *-tH (active)
> *-u (passive)
The active may have been earlier /-t/ or original /-th/. Could the /-
u/ participle be connected with the IE 'perfect active' participle /-
wos/?
> They may be used on there own without an implied /ama/ "is".
> Examples:
>
> caru (ama) "(is) created"
> nuntHentH "having been offered" (note middle -en-)
> *multH "having blessed"
>
> That should get everybody's goat now :) Let the flames begin!
>
>
> = gLeN
I look forward to your comments.
- Rob