David L. White dlwhite at
Sun Mar 4 03:31:48 UTC 2001

        Well, I am getting impatient waiting for DGK to massacre me
(Remember the good old days when I was just DLW?  They are gone), so I guess
I'll just have to do it myself.  If you want a job done right ...

Demon-David, Destroyer of Self:
        Your grip on Greek historical phonology leaves somewhat to be
desired.  /s/ was never lost after /r/ and /l/.  All the rigamarole you go
through over /rs/ versus /rrh/ is therefore a complete waste of time for all
concerned.  In the future, please, spare us.
        The reason that we find not /tursk-/ but /turs-/ as the Greek form
is, fairly obviously, that /turs-/ was the native form.  (Or one of them.
Your argument that /trusk/ and /etrusk/ are variants of the same word is
admittedly difficult to reject, though I insist that it should not be
regarded as proven.)  The /k/-suffix, like the /i/-suffix, is Umbrian, not
        The word "thoursk" was cited as Umbrian, and you should be a little
more cautious before you declare it a "fact" that the word is Greek, merely
because it looks Greek.   [Intrusion from Real David:  Now what is this
word?  Umbrian does not have /th/, so how can it really be Umbrian?  It
looks as if a Greek rendering was taken straight into Umbrian without any
        It looks like everything in sight is now becoming a "/turs^-/ word"
in your deluded imagination.  Your argument that /tarkwini-/ (which is
Latin, not Etruscan, please be more careful) is highly strained, not least
by the fact that Etruscan "ch" represents /kh/, not /x/.  Furthermore, if
the /turs^-/ word had survived as /tarkhw-/ in Etruscan, what reason would
they have to re-borrow it from Greek as /truia/?
        Overall, your desparate and semi-informed notions have little if
anything to recommned them.

D-D, DoS

        Real David's response to all this will be sent after a decent

More information about the Indo-european mailing list