Etruscans (was: minimal pairs)

[Steve Gustafson]

Douglas G. Kilday wrote:

> Etruscan nominal morphology is agglutinative and allows redetermination: an
> oblique case may be substantivized and may serve as the base for further
> inflection. E.g.:

>   tus'  n. 'niche'
>   tus't(h)i  loc. 'in the niche' TLE 630,631,655
>   tus'ur  pl. 'niches'
>   tus'urthi  loc. 'in the niches' TLE 586,627
>   tus'urthir  pl. 'those (dead spouses) in the niches' TLE 587

>   papa  n. 'grandfather'
>   papals  abl. 'from the grandfather' = 'grandchild' TLE 437
>   papalser  pl. 'grandchildren (of male)' TLE 169; Tab. Cort.

>   Calu  n. 'god of Death'
>   Calus  gen. 'belonging to Calu' cf. TLE 642
>   Calusur  pl. 'those belonging to Calu' = 'the dead'
>   Calusurasi  dat. 'to those etc.' = 'to the dead' TLE 172

> Can your favorite IE language do that?

Not often, no.

But my understanding is that the business of the reconstruction of the IE
noun case system reveals a number of both stillborn and fossil cases that,
had they been generalised, would have added to the number of cases
recoverable.  Moreover, my recollection is that the existence of languages
with otherwise conservative morphology, like Greek, Gothic, and Hittite,
that never seem to have had the full complement of Sanskrit cases, and the
strongly different system that prevails in the Tocharian languages, has led
some to suggest that the PIE cases may have been added to, rather than
subtracted from.

The Sanskrit, Celtic, and Latin cases that are formed in the plural on *-bh-
seem to be elaborations on a common suffix, at least somewhat comparable to
the Etruscan cases.  Germanic and Slavic apparently used a different suffix,
*-m-, and Slavic may have worked it the same way.  This suggests to me, that
the PIE cases may once have had agglutinative features, and that we can
still see part of the process by which they were built up.

Moreover, the *bh- suffix has been fossilized in Greek words
like -thyrephi-, "outside."  This was once a productive instrumental style
case in Greek, as revealed in Mycenean ko-ru-pi, "with helmets," and
po-ni-ki-pi, "using purple dye."   Of course, you now have N. English fossil
case forms like "seldom" and "random."  This last, at least, can be nouned
as well, and made the base of new formations like "randomize."

English and Scandinavian also exhibit the interesting trait of vagrant case
markers, of the "Queen of England's knickers" type.  PIE can't do this
either.

I may be a certifiable kook [and I cheerfully confess, no more than an
interested amateur], but it seems that the Etruscan noun morphology ---
though it has obviously been substantially reshaped --- does not rule out
that there may be a common ancestor between PIE and Etruscan.  I would not
speculate that Etruscan is a direct descendant of PIE.  Etruscan strikes me
as interesting, in that it seems a logical place to -test- theories about
super-families.

--
   Farouche et raffolant des donjons moyen bge,
   J'irais m'ensevelir au fond d'un vieux manoir:
   Comme je humerais le mysthre qui nage
   Entre de vastes murs tendus de velours noir!
                                  --- Maurice Rollinat