Re: Etruscana (was: some Proto-Quendic grammar)

Hallo!

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 11:44:00 -0500,
Roger Mills <romilly@...> wrote:

> Ray Brown wrote:
> Andreas Johansson wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> > > Etruscan's relatives? Are there any languages known be related to
> > > Etruscan?
> >
> > The language on the stele found on Lemnos bears strong structural
> > resemblances
> > to Etruscans and is considered by many to be related.
> > (Must add a page on this to my website.)
> >
> > In 1925 Paul Kretschmer put forward a theory linking Etruscan to IE or, as
> > he called then, 'Indogermanisch'.  According to him, the IE were descended
> > from 'Urindogermanisch' (i.e. what we now call PIE), which had a sister
> > language, 'Urrätotyrrhenisch' (Proto-Raet-Tyrrhenic) from which were
> > derived
> > Raetian, Etruscan, and Pelasgic (the pre-Greek language of Greece) inter
> > alia.
> > Both Urindogermanisch & Urrätotyrrhenisch were, he said, descended from a
> > common
> > ancestor 'Protindogermanisch' - _not_ our PIE, but one generation back,
> > i.e. the Nostratic that some now theorize about.
> >
> > I don't think anyone now adheres to Kretschmer's actual theory - but I'm
> > fairly certain there are still similar ideas about that link Etruscan with
> > with the IE of Anatolia (Hittite, Luwian etc) and/or with Nostratic.
The range of proposed degrees of IE-Etruscan relationship runs
the full gamut from a member of the Anatolian branch of IE
to the closest relationship outside IE itself to Nostratic
to non-Nostratic (i.e., no particular relationship at all).

> Indeed. Perhaps not intelluctual heirs of Kretschmer, but a few
> contributors-- professional as well as amateur linguists-- to Cybalist
> espouse the idea (if I read them correctly) that Etruscan-- or
> Rhaeto/Lemno/Estruscan if you will-- and PIE were sister or at least
> "cousin" languages.  Some quite interesting evidence/theories have been put
> forward, though personally I remain skeptical.
What is most often cited as evidence are a few bits of Etruscan
morphology which look quite IE-ish.  The following was posted
on the Nostratic mailing list a few years ago by Miguel Carrasquer
Vidal:

] R.S.P. Beekes and L.B. van der Meer, in their book "De Etrusken
] spreken", identify the following gramamatical morphemes [my comments
] in square brackets]:
]
] noun:
] nominatives in -a, -u, -e, -i (later reduced to zero) and -C.
]
] Genitive:              -s  (*-si)     -l (*-la)
] Ablative (Gen+Gen)     -is (*-si-si)  -las (*-la-si)
] Dative (Gen+Loc)       -si (*-si-i)   -le (*-la-i), -lthi (*-la-thi)
] Locative               -i, -i-thi
] [cf. PIE Gen. *-s, Hitt. pron. gen. -l, PIE dat/loc *-i]
]
] Plural                 -r- (*-ra), G. -ra-s(i) etc.
] Collective in -chva, -va
]
] pronoun:
] 1sg. mi, acc. mini
] 3sg. (anaphoric) an, in
] relative/interrogative: ipa < *in-pa ?
] demonstratives: ika ~ (e)ca; ita ~ (e)ta
] These are declined as nouns, except they have an accusative in -n
] [cf. PIE acc. *-m, 1sg. *me, demonstr. *ko-, *to-]
]
] verb:
]
] 3sg:
] ind.pres.     -a
] conj.? fut.?  -a
] ind.pf.act.   -ce
] [Grk. pf. in -ke has been compared]
] ind.pf.pass.  -che
] injunct.?     -e
]
] 2sg:
] imper.        -0
] [PIE *-0]
]
] 1sg (?):
] ind. pres.    -un
] [PIE *-o-m(i)]
]
] ptc.pres.act. -th (?)  [example given points to -enth]
] [cf. PIE *-nt-]
] -as(a)
] ptc.pf.act.   -thas(a)
] -anas(a)
] [cf. PIE *-to-, *-no-]
]
] ptc.pf.pass.  -u
] gerdv.        -ri
] inf. (?)      -e

IF these suffixes are interpreted correctly, THEN an IE-Etruscan
relationship looks VERY likely.  Unfortunately, this interpretation
of the suffixes is highly controversial, and the Nostratic membership
of Etruscan is one of the hottest topics on the Nostratic-L list.

I know way too little about the whole matter to give a judgement.

Greetings,

Jörg.

Reply