From: Rick McCallister
Message: 54181
Date: 2008-02-26
> To Ray and Patrick____________________________________________________________________________________
>
> You are entering
> the nowhereness of
> spamesque hallucinariae.
>
> Beware cliffs and icebergs...
>
> Arnaud
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: etherman23
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 11:38 PM
> Subject: [Courrier indésirable] [tied] Re: Finnish
> KASKA
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Rick McCallister
> <gabaroo6958@...> wrote:
> >
> > It's interesting and we definitely have to step
> back
> > from IE to appreciate it. My intuition is that
> > Etruscan is more likely to be related to IE than
> to a
> > N Caucasian language but it's just that and you've
> got
> > a lot more work to do.
>
> I do think there was a healthy dose of NC influence
> though.
>
> > --- etherman23 <etherman23@...> wrote:
> > > > *deH2 to divide, itu to divide
> >
> > root of ides?
>
> Yes, IIRC.
>
> > > > *H1neun nine, nurpH nine
> > -r is from where? Some type of suffix meaning
> what?
> > . . .
> > > > *dHeu to pass away, lup to have lived, to die
> > So Etruscan did the /d/ > /l/ thing? --which I've
> seen
> > on a website as attributed to Sabellic
>
> I propose a voiced lateral affricate here. In PIE it
> becomes *dH and
> in Etr l.
>
> > > > *yeu youth, hus child
> > Etruscan kept its laryngeals or what?
>
> Not exactly. I reconstruct /? ?h kx x x_w W G h/.
> Etr loses /? h x/
> but retains the other in one form or another. PIE
> merged them into 4
> laryngeals.
>
> > . . .
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > OK, how do we get from /H3/ > /r/ --what other
> > languages do that?
>
> In this case it comes from /G/. In non-initial
> position this became a
> uvular trill, which then merged with existing /r/.
>
> > > *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.
> > OK this answers my question above, sort of
>
> This isn't really related to your previous question.
> The change is
> either *y > h, a change attested in Greek (*y is
> unchanged in PIE), or
> the more circuitous path outlined above. Normally,
> however, *xW > *H2
> in PIE.
>
> > > 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?
> >
> > You're gonna hafta do better than that. Think
> along
> > the lines of *sem- "one" but also "whole" whence
> > English same, sum, etc. The dual of "whole' would
> be
> > "2". But make it more sophisticated than my
> > suggestion. And yes, you will hafta find a word
> like
> > *dwo- meaning "one, whole, same, sum, total, etc."
>
> I was just throwing out the idea for speculation. I
> think Etr tHu is
> most likely cognate with PIE *sem, and that *dwo: is
> a NC borrowing.
>
>
>
>
>
>