From: dgkilday57
Message: 65715
Date: 2010-01-21
>Yes, and the catfights over methodology would probably get both of us banished from the group. I heard Mr. Gordon has some kind of linguistic blog now, but I don't have time to slog through the bog of a blog.
> > > > 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 haveYes, and if I had a job, I could afford to take regular trips to the state university to look at recent publications. I had an interview today, but the outfit wasn't hiring. They were just filling lists for possible future hiring. Too bad I can't get a job like your old one, traveling around learning about place-names.
> > been cited accurately here.
>
> Only one way to find out.
> > > > This is one of a handful of Etr. words which I argued onThe latter also occurs in your favorite IE language as an epithet of Reitia, you know.
> > > > 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).