Re: Nordwestblock, Germani, and Grimm's law

> > > The gen. of Etr. <lautn> is <lautnes>. The late-archaic Tile
> > > of Capua has <lautun> not <lautn> because its orthography does
> > > not allow syllabic resonants. The dyslexic form <lavutn> (for
> > > *lavtun) occurs in a funerary inscription. Anyhow, try not to
> > > confuse variants of the zero-case with the genitive.
> >
> > I'll pass that admonishment on to Glen Gordon
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/5297
> > or perhaps the Bonfantes.
>
> Don't bother. You can't rehabilitate shoehorn freaks like GG.

Too bad he's not around anymore. You and he would have very interesting and entertaining discussions over that.

> The Bonfantes are usually reliable and I wonder whether they have
> been cited accurately here.

Only one way to find out.

> > > This is one of a handful of Etr. words which I argued on
> > > sci.lang in 2002 were borrowed from a pre-Italic IE language.
> > > Originally <lautn> was something like 'body of freemen'; the IE
> > > root is *h2leudH-. If Gmc. *le:Tigaz corresponds to anything
> > > in Etr. it is not <lautn> but the unrelated <Lethe>, the name
> > > sometimes bestowed upon freedmen.
>
> Oops! That should be *h1leudH- of course. The Etr. base *sacn- is
> more difficult, but I think it is also borrowed from pre-Italic IE,
> with Lat. <sa:nus> (from *sagH-nos) as a cognate. Anyone familiar
> with the Etr. corpus will reject Gordon's /n/-genitive nonsense.
>
> > Assuming of course that these are not wanderwords from *Lun,-, cf
> > the thread in
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/10861
>
> Occam would puke.

Occam would love me. So much explained from so few entibus! Whatever extra in the sociology/ethnology department has to be accepted would have to be assumed to explain the distribution of *kaN-t-, and further *saxn- (vel sim).


Torsten