On Mon, 02 Jun 2003 06:04:29 -0400 (EDT), erobert52@... wrote:

>Miguel is also correct not to believe the widely suggested,
>but unfounded idea that there is a 2nd person pronoun *<ti>.
>This is simply an abbreviation for the name <Tite>. However,
>he could have mentioned the widely accepted 3rd person
>Etruscan pronoun <an>

I have not directly discussed any 3rd. person pronouns, except those
relatable to *sa.

>> More is kown about the Etruscan noun. According to Beekes '91, the
>> following forms are found:
>> a-stems e-stems i-stems u-stems C-stems
>This presentation is unnecessarily complicated. But at least
>Beekes, thankfully, does not try to pretend that Etruscan
>nouns have an accusative by appealing to words where the
>*unmarked* form of the word ends in -ni (unlike Adrados).
>There is no need to invoke different stems, which is a product
>of the mindset of commentators on Etruscan who have an IE axe
>to grind.

Yes, there is a need: to show the umlaut of the a-stems and u-stems
in the s-ablative -es (*-a-(s)is), -uis (*u-(s)is).

>> There are two genitives, one in -s', the other in -l.
>> The genitive in *-si can be equated with the IE genitive in *-Vs(i),
>> and with the Luwian adjectival suffix -assi-, which is used instead of
>> the genitive in Luwian.
>> The genitive in *-la is reminiscent of the Hittite pronominal genitive
>> in -e:l (amme:l "mine", tue:l "your", ke:l "of this", kue:l "whose?").
>Except that we can't reconstruct these two genitives as having
>had this role in Etruscan in an earlier period. Why would
>anybody want to have two genitives, unless, at least originally,
>there was a functional difference between them?

The Etruscan genitives look like being of adjectival origin.
English has mannish (with -s') and manly (with -l-), hasn't it?

Miguel Carrasquer Vidal