Re: Finnish KASKA

----- Original Message -----
From: "etherman23" <etherman23@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 11:20 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: Finnish KASKA


--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:
>
>
> Fair enough.
>
> PIE *d, Etr t(H)
> *sed to sit, satH to sit
> *den day, Tin diety associated with the day
> *deiw god, heaven , Tivr moon
> *dem to build, t(H)am to build
>
> ***
> these three are very doubtful:

Then the above 4 are acceptable?

***

Not really, Ray, but I am trying to be open-minded about this.

Look at

http://geocities.com/proto-language/c-ETRUSCAN-13_table.htm

where I tried to establish that Etruscan <t> (but not <th>) - PIE *d.

And I realize there is inconsistency in the spellings with aspirates and
non-aspirates.

***



> *deH3 to give, tur to give
> *deH2 to divide, itu to divide
> *demH to tame, tamna horse
> ***

What's doubtful about them?

> PIE eu/u, Etr u
> *H1neun nine, nurpH nine
> *teuteH2 people, tut(H)i community, state
> *dHeu to pass away, lup to have lived, to die
> *bHeu to grow, to be, amu to be
> *yeu youth, hus child
>
> ***
> here, only <tut(H)i> has a chance of passing the Limburger test
('smelling
> less bad than ...').

My reconstructions for each of the above are:
*?nu(G, m, n) nine The reconstruction in PIE is complicated. It's
usually reconstructed with a final *n but some have argued for a *m. t
might have been variable. The Greek from looks compatible with a final
*H2. IMO final *H3 merged with final *H2, which leaves open the
possibility of a final *H3. As we see in the root for "to give"
non-initial PIE *H3 corresponds with Etr r. The pH in Etr is
analogical from sempH.

***

You go from speculative, unsubstantiated, and unlikely leap to another.

*H2 -> *H3 ???

I am not disvaluing your O but for your opinion to mean much, you have to
have reasons to hold it. Here, I presume, you are making an ad hoc
assumption to enable this single comparison to be made.

Secondly, you have not established that PIE *do:- and <tur> are related, let
alone cognate.

Perhaps they are if Greeks bear "gifts" but this could be a loan, and
certainly an <r> in Greek does not support *H3 -> Etruscan <r> but rather
PIE *r = Etruscan <r>.

And, if you want to ignore Etruscan -ph, fine, but why? is it justified?

***

*tuti people, community

***

At least there is similarity here. A possible basis for further comparison

***
*dlu to die The origin of the Etr p is unclear, however the dH~l
correspondence is also likely found in the PIE ablative *-d (< *dH#)
Etr genitive -la.

***

More ad hoc. Utterly unbelievable! And now PIE *dh = Etruscan <l>? on the
strength of difference ablative and genitive case endings?

Totally unconvincing.

***

*amb&w to be, to grow (this one was used in error since the eu~u
correspondence has a different origin) Loss of initial /a/ is regular
in PIE as is the loss of /&/ in Etr. The *mb is a prenasalized stop.

***

No one has even plausibly identified pre-nasalized stops for PIE or
Nostratic or Etruscan.

Without it, the 'comparison' is incomparably flawed.

***

*yus' child The loss of the ejective spirant is regular in PIE as is
its merger with s in Etr (4 other cognates exist). I'll grant that
this is the only example of *y~h. I've postulated this as coming from
PIT *y, but there is another possibility. It may come from PIT *xW (>
h in Etr) with an irregular PIE development of *xW > *xJ by
dissimilation > *y.

> ***
***
Ejective spirants? in what language?

Hapax legomena are to be explained not to do the explaining.

***




> GBS would have approved as, for him, <ghoti> = <fish>.

Have you been enslaved by Greenberg and Ruhlen's look-alike methodology?

***

If you ever accomplish half of what they did, you will be extremely
fortunate.

They surveyed to suggest possible connections which then people like myself
try to investigate and validate.

I do not survey. I test hypotheses.

As for look-alikes, the professor who started impressing students with the
idea that actual cognates need not look alike should have emphasized that
actually, most cognates do look alike. There seems to be an idea afoot that
"god" linguistics should concentrate on showing that grapes are dar-hued
apples - and most of it, is a complete waste of time.


***
> ***
>
> But, let us say that PIE *du (zero-grade) = Etruscan <t(h)u>
formally, which
> I do not believe.
>
> What evidence do you have that *du ever meant 'one' or anything like it?

Because PIE *dwo: is a dual formation. A dual of what? If we undualify
two we get one. Two ones are two. 1+1=2, does it not?

***

In all your schooling, no one ever told you about circular arguments?

Actually, -*w is not so much a dual as a 'set' of something ('pair of eyes'
but not 'two apples'). This is why -w could be the normal Egyptian plural
ending.

if you cannot show *dew- meaning 'one' in any but this context, you have a
circular argument - and that is even if *d(ew-) and Etruscan <th(u)> are
actually formally comparable.


***

I hope I am not putting a damper on your enthusiasm.

But you need much more training and practice in good methodology before you
are able to actually make a valid contribution.

First lope, then run.

Good luck.


Patrick