David L. White
dlwhite at texas.net
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.
Real David's response to all this will be sent after a decent
More information about the Indo-european