Re: Etymology of Rome

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Francesco Brighenti" <frabrig@...>
wrote:

>
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Abdullah Konushevci"
> <akonushevci@> wrote:
>
> > Etruscan was an IE language as was proved by Bekees in "The

Origin

> > of Etruscans", see file section on Cybalist).
>
> Sorry to contradict you, but, since it was me who first posted here
> the link to Beekes' booklet "The Origin of the Etruscans", I want

to

> point out that that author does *not* favour the thesis that
> Etruscan was an IE language. See. f.i., at p. 9 of the PDF at
>
> http://www.knaw.nl/publicaties/pdf/20021051.pdf
> "When the Indo-European speaking peoples entered Asia Minor, they
> found other languages there, of which little is known. We have a
> very few texts in Hattic, which is badly known. A language that is
> used in a certain area where another language arrives later, is
> called a substratum language. Often the substratum language
> disappears. This is what happened in western Asia Minor. It is
> probable that one of these languages was preserved: Etruscan."
>
> Kindest regards,
> Francesco Brighenti
>

Francesco, your point above, was clear for anybody here that read
your posted .pdf file, with the exception of Abdullah.

Based on his wrong understanding of that article, he considered
Estruscan an IE-Language and in addition, he have tried to derive
Rome from a PIE root via Etruscan...

In the next step, it was clear also for him, that he wrongly
understood that article, and as result his etymology for Rome is a
fake, but he doesn't want to recognize....

So, that's is...

Marius