--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Tavi" <oalexandre@...> wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Tavi" <oalexandre@> wrote:
> >
> > > That's nice. Now, if you want the rest of us to accept that
> pre-Greek
> > > was IE, you should present his arguments here.
> >
> > Unlike these authors, I don't think "Pre-Greek" was a single language,
> > but rather a label under which lie several substrates, both IE and
> > non-IE.
> >
> Besides Thracian/Pelasgian, IE sources would include also Phyrgian. For
> example, it has been suggested that Greek dithúrhambos contains
> Phrygian *dithúr '4' < *kWetwer-. See this article by Fred
> Woudhuizen:
> http://www.talanta.nl/pdfs/08-Fred_C._Woudhuizen-Frits_Waanders.pdf
That is incompatible with what we know about Phrygian phonology, and ignores the form <lathurambos> (Etym. Mag.) which appears to come from a different Pre-Greek dialect.
I agree with the connection between *-thur- of the Pre-Greek words and the zero-grade of PIE *(kWe)-twer-, also between *thri- of <thriambos> and the zero-grade of PIE *trei-. As you may recall, in 2008 I argued that this is a "mid-range" connection and Pre-Greek belongs to a "Para-IE" group. I am not sure that this is the best way to proceed. It might make more sense to redefine "Indo-European" downward, as was effectively done when Sturtevant's "Indo-Hittite" model was scrapped in favor of an Anatolian branch of IE. At any rate I find Georgiev's Pelasgian unacceptable, since too many ad-hoc assumptions are made in order to force comparanda. The branching between Pre-Greek and our usual PIE requires a greater time-depth than the Anatolian split.
If this is the same Woudhuizen who derived Etruscan <ci> '3' from PIE via *tri- > *kri- > *ki-, keep the salt shaker handy.
DGK