From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 41088
Date: 2005-10-07
----- Original Message -----
From: "glen gordon" <glengordon01@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 12:15 PM
Subject: Etruscan and IE (was Re: [tied] Re: Names of a few Celtic Deities)
>
> Patrick Ryan escreveu:
> > Greenberg and Ruhlen favored the mass comparison
> > approach, [...] I attempt to make valid comparisons
> > among the reconstructed syllables and *CVCV roots
> > of the Proto-Language with words in other
> > recognized proto-languages like PIE or PAA or PU
> > or PA, etc.
>
> The basis of your comparison is your unproven
> "Proto-Language" syllables, not facts. Ergo, your
> conclusions are invalid.
>
> A valid comparison is based on sturdy reconstructions
> grounded on solid facts.
Patrick:
Incorrect. The _basis_ for the reconstructed monosyllables and their
meanings in the Proto-Language is analyses of attested words and
reconstructed roots of words in attested languages. The attested words are
certainly facts; most linguists would accept reconstructed words as
deserving of, at least, being treated as 'factual'.
I do not have 'conclusions'. I have formed hypotheses for form and meaning
based on my analyses; and because the analysis is difficult, I have been
constrained to change both forms and meanings many times based on new and
better data.
Of course, one can always claim that the analysis is incorrect, or
improperly done.
I invite anyone interested to take a look at the analysis process in one
example, *MO, a syllable I believe originally meant 'flesh':
http://geocities.com/proto-language/ProtoLangugae-Monosyllables.htm#1MO
>
> > "Days" would be an absolutely unprecedented manner
> > of nomenclature for a divinity!
>
> Based on what known fact?
***
Patrick:
Based on the known fact that no people, never, nowhere has named a divinity
'Days', unless the Etruscans did.
Does anyone doubt this known fact?
***
>
> > Glen states confidently that "tinas cliniiaras" =
> > "sons of Tin" "are related to the Dioscouri".
>
> I'm confident because this is commonly understood.
***
Patrick:
That something is "common" is no assurance that it is right. It is not even
an indication that it is right.
I presume no real evidence is available so only an appeal to "common"
opinion can be made. And what evidence do we have that this opinion is even
"common"?
***
>
> > I will say, it is a bit difficult to connect the
> > Dióskouroi, who were the tutelary deities of
> > _sailors_, with 'time', 'sky', or 'sun', for the
> > Greeks, among whom they originate.
>
> Sailors needed 'pulumcHva' (stars) to
> navigate. 'PulumcHva' also help us keep track of
> the 'tinia' (days). So being that the 'Tinas
> cliniiaras' (sons of Tin) which were known as
> Castor and 'Pultuce' (Pollux) were understood to
> be 'pulumcHva', these *'zal ruvar aisna' (two
> divine brothers) are associated also with
> the 'atHumi' (sky), naturally. Since Tin was
> originally the supreme god _and_ sun in the Proto-
> Etruscan pantheon, he was considered also the
> 'apa' (father) of the Dioskouroi by association. Or
> perhaps, the Greeks borrowed this concept from the
> Ras'na (Tyrrhenians).
***
Patrick:
Oh, the stars help us keep track of days? I always thought the 'sun' might
do that - without a great deal of non-solar help.
Where can we read that "Castor" (why no Etruscan version???) and Pultuce
were Tinas cliniiaras? And where are they "associated" with the sky, and
specifically called pulumchva?
Those might be good questions, the answers to which might inform us how
common that "common" opinion is.
***
>
> = gLeN