Re: [tied] Etruscan numerals

Marco Moretti :

(me, Petusek :) :)

> > If M-R was right, I would be able to imagine a similar way in

Etruscan,

> > but we would have to explain the "5" > "4" shift, again.

= "if he was, then we would have to"
not = "he is, therefore we have to" !

Please, read thoroughly (maybe, me, please, write properly :)...?)

(Glen:)

>> Why bother? We have a connection between /hutH/ = IE *kWetwor- (MIE
>> *kWetWan) and while claiming /hutH/ is "five" is a whim with few
>> followers, /hutH/ shows other signs of actually being "four".

Yes, why bother if one agrees with Glen's IT hypothesis, yet what if one
doesn't...? :)

>> And why on goddess' green earth do feel the need to connect Etruscan
>> with NEC when there are no other secure connections? The two languages
>> are vastly different... and I guess I need to speak more on that in
>> the next post, including some ideas I have.

Marco:

>I don't agree. A shift "5" to "4" is improbable and chance

Well, I haven't found any analogy in any language yet, but, of course, it
doesn't mean I never will and that this semantic shift isn't possible (a
matter of imagination), it's improbable, yes I agree.

>resemblance is often inconsistent.

As for chance resemblances and their frequent inconsistences, I don't
understand the reply. Where and when did Glen, me or anyone else write about
chance resemblances?

As far as the following is concerned, I ask "why"?

>It's far better to consider /huth/ as belonging to:

(shortened:)

>NEC Protoform: *he>mq.y Meaning: four
>Andian Etymology : Protoform: *=uq.u- Meaning: four
>Comments: Av. unq.:o < *?unq.-go (cf. the Chad. form).
>Tsezian Etymology : Protoform: *?o~q.e-(no|) Meaning: four
>Comments: PTsKh *?u~q.e-n(o); PGB *?o~q.e-n(o|) (cf. also Bezht.Tlad.,

Khosh. o"q.ena").

>Lak Etymology : Lak: muq. Meaning: four
>Comments: Cf. Khosr. muq.=a id.
>Dargwa Etymology : Protoform: *?aw?a-l (*?aG|w|a-l) Meaning: four
>Lezghian Etymology : Protoform: *jewq.y- Meaning: four
>Comments: Cf. also Lezg. Khl. q.u-d, Tab. Kand. jaq.u-b . Ud. bip: <

*wiq.w| < *jewq.. An analogous metathesised form is reflected in Arch. buq.i
< *weq.w|y-j 'fourty'.

>Khinalug Etymology : Khinalug: unG| Meaning: four

If you mention chance resemblance, you should know what it means. Comparing
the above to /huth/, it might be considered nothing but playing chance
resemblance game, and not even that. You should ask yourself: "Can I find
other possible NEC loans? Did they undergo similar phonetic changes on their
way to Etruscan? What other (lexical? cultural? historical? geographical ?
etc.) parallels can I find that support this claim of mine?" And I can add
one more question: FOR WHAT REASON is it "far better" to consider /huth/
belonging to NEC *he>mq.y than "IT" *kWetWan? Giving a list of language
proto-forms is not a proof of anything, you know. If you do not want us to
give you "chance resemblance" **cognates**, then reveal to us the great
secret of (regular, to an extent) phonetic correspondences (or, in case of
borrowing, the adoption rules), please. Thank you.

Petusek

P.S.: Ok. Let's play the game for a while (Glen, this is just a game, don't
worry :)):

Adoption rules (???):

NEC /h/ = Etr. /h/
NEC /?/ = Etr. /h/
NEC /q/ = Etr. /t/ (or /-q/ as a numeral class marker replaced by Etr. own
something-else-marker?)
...

Rules are nice but do they work with other loans?