Re: [SPAM] Re: [tied] Re: Salt, s-/h-

----- Original Message -----
From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 1:33 AM
Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: [tied] Re: Salt, s-/h-


>
> On 2008-10-09 01:16, Rick McCallister wrote:
>
>> Let me risk a pie in the face on this one. The *turs- forms are often
>> related to a word for "tower.". What is the chance they could be a
>> bastardization of *etrus- > *trus- > *turs- ?
>
> Why the metathesis? (Etruscan speakers had no particular problems with
> /tr-/). Why should the initial vowel heve been lost? Is there any
> evidence of *tru:s- anywhere? (the vowel should have been long at this
> stage, as it was in <etru:s->).
> Piotr
=============
The form tursk may be the name Etruscans adopted for themselves from their
neighbours.
lost of initial e : because Etruscan has stress on initial, the e must be
discarded to stress tursk on the first.
metathesis : because out of etrurousk, variants like etrursk > etursk have
existed.
It may not be a metathesis but a different simplification of -uru:-
short u : because Etruscan had no long vowel.

I'm very sceptical about the idea of rejecting any connection between etrusk
and tursk.
It seems impossible. Toscana and Etruria are more or less the same place, or
not ?

Arnaud
============