Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: R: Shelta, Polari, and my project "Nadsat 2000"

From:Lars Henrik Mathiesen <thorinn@...>
Date:Monday, July 17, 2000, 22:24
> Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 18:54:15 +0200 > From: Mangiat <mangiat@...>
> D. Wier wrote:
> > (For the record, Etruscan is considered by some to be a possibly > > Nostratic offspring, but is not generally identified as a relative of > > Basque, Pictish or Aquitanian.) > > *Really interesting : - )
A late followup, but I didn't have time to answer Danny's original message. I found an old posting from the Nostratic list, which I'll just quote instead of trying to summarize: From Thu Jan 22 23:04:35 1998 Return-Path: <owner-nostratic@...> Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 21:55:22 GMT Reply-To: Sender: Precedence: bulk From: (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal) To: umgord10@cc.UManitoba.CA Cc: Subject: Re: Neolithic and Nostratic In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.91.980122132931.24928D-100000@...> References: <Pine.SOL.3.91.980122132931.24928D-100000@...> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.326 X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.1 -- ListProcessor(tm) by CREN umgord10@cc.UManitoba.CA wrote: >[mcv] >> ...that would be significant. Suppose IE were closest to Uralic, then >> that would favour the S.Russian hypothesis, while, say, an >> IE-Kartvelian subgroup of Nostratic would be much to Renfrew's liking. > > I can see close IE-Uralic connections (linguistically speaking) >but I don't understand the other suggestions of IE-Etruscan connections >or IE-Kartvelian connections. What linguistic evidence would suggest IE >has closer ties with THOSE language groups? (ex: Uralic at least has >pronominal suffixes like IE, but Etruscan conjugates a verb with seperate >pronouns) Nobody really knows how Etruscan conjugated its verbs (all we know is that 3rd.p. sg. apparently was like 3rd.p. pl. [as in Lithuanian, I might add]; there is little evidence for other persons, although it has been suggested that -(u)n may be a 1st.p. sg. ending: inpa thapicun "which I curse[d]" [Hitt. praet. -un]. There is plenty of grammatical evidence that Etruscan is very close to IE (without it *being* IE, though): gen. -s (< *-si) gen. -l (< *-la), as in Hittite pronominal decl. dat./loc. -i acc. [pronouns only] -n ptc.praes.act. -nth -thas(a), -anas(a) [cf. IE *-to-, *-no-] 1st.p.pronoun: mi (acc. mini, mene) demonstr. pronouns: ika-, ita- (Hitt. kas, IE *to-) postfixed conjunction ("and"): -c, -m (IE *-kwe, Hitt. -ma) There is also a reasonable amount of lexical evidence (given the little we know about the Etruscan lexicon). There is no doubt in my mind that Etruscan, fragmentary and little known as it is, is the closest relative we have of IE. As to IE and Kartvelian, I wasn't seriously suggesting a close connection. But it has long been noted that the systems of ablaut in IE and Kartvelian are very similar indeed. I am not aware of any lexical or morphological evidence (apart from the old chestnut Geo. mk'erdi "breast" ~ IE *kerd- "heart", and a few coincidences in the declensions, which for all I know [which isn't much when it comes to Kartvelian historical morphology] may be just that, coincidences: Geo. gen. -is, ins. -it, abl. -dan [IE *-s, -it [Hitt.], *-d]). ======================= Miguel Carrasquer Vidal Amsterdam Lars Mathiesen (U of Copenhagen CS Dep) <thorinn@...> (Humour NOT marked)