Re: Master of the twelve

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@> wrote:

> > > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> > > >

> > There is no ev. to connect them in one. All ev. connects them to
> > two: * xan-xY+ and * xYes+.
>
> Please present the ev. that you think connects them to those two roots.

The resemblance they share w the roots and lack w each other.

> > This can't fit w Oscan anafríss kerríiúís & maatúís kerríiúís
> > (both aprx. 'grain spirits' (possibly one for dead ancestors,
> > another for ~ gods/fairies, who knows?)) in which the -n- is clearly
> > present and not nasalization.
>
> As to the semantics Brian already said what should be said (I might believe they used it for their ancestors, but why waste grain spirits on fairies?).

Farmers have prayed to various beings for help in making crops grow, such as spirits living in or assoc. w grain and benevolent dead ancestors. It's likely both were prayed to in the history of the Italic peoples, especially if maatú- : ma:nu- or sim.

> > The standard model might have ansuro- > ansaro- > anasro- > anafro-,
> > though it's not important for this discussion.
>
> And I could feed into that chain by epenthesis:
> *aNs-ur- -> *anas-r- etc.

But epenthesis between what two sounds?

> > > I think the Venetic and Germanic forms of the root Pokorny
> > > reconstructs as ansu-, ņsu- are borrowed from an Iranian language.
> > > Since I also think the PIE ablaut vowel e/o/zero originated in
> > > PPIE /a/ I propose that Pokorny's two entries should be one, PPIE
> > > *aNsu- -> PIE *e(:)su-, with loss of nasalization (which is kept
> > > in IIr).
> >
> >
> > How could PIE not have -N- but one of its descendants have
> > retained it? Are you attempting to split standard PIE trees in
> > some way?
>
> No, I suspect loan either within or from outside IE.

When and into what branch(es)?

> > Etruscan usil "sun" gives reason to suspect the whole complex isn't
> > IE in origin.
> >
> >
> > So one word shows that?
>
> No, Etruscan usil "sun" gives reason to suspect the whole complex isn't IE in origin. It doesn't prove that conclusively.
>
> > And what if I use four?
>
> Please do.
>
>
> > And
> > Twana sluqat!' ,
> > Kl sqWqWëy' ,
> > Saa sqWëqWël' 'sun',
> > MS skWkWë?lí?l 'sunshine' could show
> > Proto-Salish * suqWqWílY'ya 'sun'
> > conn. w
> > PIE * saxwelyo- ,
> > so I guess Etruscan and Salish are closely related and non-IE and
> > both or either is the source of many PIE words through borrowing.
>
> That is an interesting theory you present there. I have myself proposed a connection to Salishan, by loan, for the
> *λaN- "low; foundation; community"
> and
> *kaN-t- "subdivision of community"
> words.
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/65528
>
>
> > Wow, either you're on to something big or completely wrong.
>
> That was *your* theory, so either you're on to something big or completely wrong.

I was attempting to show that your line of reasoning leads to absurdity: since Etr usil resembles IE words begining w us- / aus- you used the ephemeral connection to make an etymological connection for borrowing, which I feel is unwarranted. I attempted to show that an even greater resemblance in Salishan would have at least an equal claim to prove borrowing of a Salishan word into PIE. Of course, that is impossible. Even if such a connection existed, the direction of borrowing isn't shown. A one-word resemblance might suggest further study, but you have taken it much too far and in a direction already shown to be certainly wrong.

In case you somehow think this borrowing of a Salishan word into PIE could actually have occurred, you should know that the internal history of Salish makes it impossible. MS skWkWë'lí'l 'sunshine' ; Saa qWëlqWël'ëÑ' 'sunshine' show that PS qW' > MS s ; Saa qW ; and PS ÑW' > MS kW ; Saa Ñ' . Does that seem ridiculous? On first glance, of course it would. It takes a comparison between the various words in the many Salishan forms to make it clear. Saa syalëqWëm / sqWëqWë´l' 'sun' shows that m corresponds to qW, so PS ÑW' > ÑW? > ÑW > qW / m . This shows that kWkW does not correspond to qW-qW in MS skWkWë'lí'l 'sunshine' ; Saa qWëlqWël'ëÑ' , which would never be apparent on first glance. The truth involves PS * yu-XWaÑW-?WùLY'qW' > * qWiLY'-yaqW'-?WùÑW / qWiLY'-LYaqW-ùÑW?W / qWiNY'-cYap'-?Wùm / etc.

How did it happen? PS p(W)/qW/kW alt. as shown by Kl páq'ëÑ \ kWáq'ëÑ \ s^áq'ëÑ 'blossom/bloom' ; Saa speq'ëÑ ; etc., is the first step. This shows NW > m among others. Salishan has p / p' but no f, and many examples of s. So, if f > s, XW > f, and qW(') > XW all occurred optionally, problem solved.


s : XW / xW

spxWëla? = wind Saa;
sps = NE wind BC;


qW' : XW / xW

sqW'ëlqW'ë´lës^ën = whirlwind Saa;
sxWc^ay'c^i?ë´qWtën = S wind [from mts] Kl;


qW : XW / xW

sqWël'qWël' = realistic story Saa;
sXWi?ém' = mythical story / fairy tale Saa;
st!'elëqëm = monster Saa;


If only Saa sqWëqWë´l' 'sun' ; Kl sqWqWë´y' ; etc., were known then something like Proto-Salish * suqWqWí­lY'ya 'sun' > PIE * saxwelyo- would be understandable, but it takes a comparison between the various words in the many Salishan forms to make the truth clear. This shows that picking one form that happens to look like another w sim. meaning can't be the basis for ling. comp., as should already be known. In the absence of knowledge of the history of Etr., or the presence of many languages closely related to Etr. from which comp. can be made, a small resemblance of Etr usil w IE words begining w us- / aus- is meaningless. It's just as likely the true origin of Etr usil has or PIE -s- is from a sound completely different than s. In fact, Etr and Salish have the same origin since they're closely related desc. of PIE.

Though picking one form that happens to look like another w sim. meaning can't be the basis for ling. comp. by itself, I agree it can "suggest" a connection, which in many cases should be followed up by looking for more resemblances, some less apparent, in looking for correspondences from sound changes which, if found, can then prove a connection. You have no ev. for even that, let alone borrowing or its direction.