Re: Master of the twelve

--- 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:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > --- 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.

No, evidence.

> > > 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.
>

What does colon represent here?

> > > 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?

*aNs-ur- -> *ans-ur- -> *anas-r- etc.

> > > > 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)?

Two loans:
*aNsu- into PIIr
*a:su- into PPIE

> > > 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.

Since you either can't or won't write coherent English, I have attempted to translate your last paragraph in order to meet what I think you intended to say. Please object if you think I misrepresented you.

Sean:
Since Etr usil resembles IE words begining with us- / aus- you used the ephemeral similarity to make a case for borrowing, which I feel is unwarranted.

Torsten:
The similarity is with (my representation) *saN-((V)l-) "sun".

> 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.

No, I did not say 'prove', and you going on forever that I did doesn't change that.

> Of course, that is impossible.

Why did you choose that direction? Proving a loan could not have happened in one direction obviously doesn't prove it couldn't have happened in the other direction.

> Even if such a connection existed, the direction of borrowing isn't
> shown.

Shown by what? What are you talking about?

> A one-word resemblance might suggest further study,

Yes.

> but you have taken it much too far

I said:
Etruscan usil "sun" gives reason to suspect the whole complex isn't IE in origin.
That is too far how?

> and in a direction already shown to be certainly wrong.

What direction?

> In case you somehow think this borrowing of a Salishan word into
> PIE could actually have occurred,

I don't, so I'll ignore your Salishan exercise.

> you should know that the internal history of Salish makes it
> impossible.
> MS skWkWë'lí'l 'sunshine' ;
> Saa qWëlqWël'ëN~' 'sunshine'
> show that
> PS qW' > MS s ; Saa qW ; and
> PS N~W' > MS kW ; Saa N~' .
> 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 / sqWëqWël' 'sun'
> shows that m corresponds to qW, so
> PS N~W' > N~W? > N~W > qW / m .
> This shows that kWkW does not correspond to qW-qW in
> MS skWkWë'lí'l 'sunshine' ;
> Saa qWëlqWël'ëN~' ,
> which would never be apparent on first glance. The truth involves
> PS *yu-XWaN~W-?WùLY'qW' >
> *qWiLY'-yaqW'-?WùN~W / qWiLY'-LYaqW-ùN~W?W / qWiNY'-cYap'-?Wùm / etc.
>
> How did it happen?
> PS p(W)/qW/kW
> alt. as shown by
> Kl páq'ëN~ \ kWáq'ëN~ \ s^áq'ëN~ 'blossom/bloom' ;
> Saa speq'ëN~ ; 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'ëlës^ën = whirlwind Saa;
> sxWc^ay'c^i?ëqWtën = 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 sqWëqWël' 'sun' ;
> Kl sqWqWëy' ; 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.

A form with similar form and meaning in another unrelated language gives reason to suspect the word is a loan from elsewhere.

> 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.

The similarity is with (my representation) *saN-((V)l-) "sun".

> It's just as likely the true origin of Etr usil has or PIE -s- is
> from a sound completely different than s.

That would be another proposal. The fact that the similar word in another unrelated language might be native in that language, except we can't prove it, does not permit us to exclude proposals that the word in the language under study is a loan.

> In fact, Etr and Salish have the same origin since they're closely
> related desc. of PIE.

Closely related descendants of PIE. That means Etruscan and Salish are IE. Surely you mean they are related to IE? If so, what was all the hullabaloo about the Salishan "sun" words not being related to PIE *saN-Vl- all about?

> 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,

Like I said.

> 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.

I never claimed I did. I said:
Etruscan usil "sun" gives reason to suspect the whole complex isn't IE in origin.


And by the way, would you minds answering UTF-8 postings in UTF-8 so I don't have to clear up the mess you leave?


Torsten