Pelasgian/was Etruscans

[Douglas G Kilday]

Larry Trask (25 Apr 2001) wrote:

>The idea that Basque <berun> 'lead' is related to the Greek and Latin words
>has been around a long time.  But it is far from being the only proposal on
>the table.

>To begin with, looking for Latin etymologies on the Tiber, we need not
>appeal to a hypothetical Ligurian *<blum-> as a source.

>Now, there are two proposals for a native origin.  One idea is that the word
>is a derivative of <bera> 'soft', with an unidentifiable second element -- and
>lead is, of course, a soft metal.  The other sees the word as built on *<bel>
>'dark', again with an unidentifiable second element -- and lead is also dark.
>The item *<bel> is nowhere recorded as an independent word, but its former
>existence is assured by its presence in a number of derivatives, both as an
>initial and as a final element.

>Nevertheless, many scholars have wanted to relate <berun> to the Greek and
>Latin words in some way, though the proposals differ substantially in detail.

>These proposals are too numerous and too complicated to repeat here -- and
>they not infrequently involve even more far-flung words, such as German <Blei>
>'lead', Georgian <brp'eni> 'lead', Hebrew <bdi:l> 'lead', and a reported
>Berber <buldun> 'tin'.

Hebrew <b'dhiyl> means 'tin'; <!o:phereth> is 'lead'. These are contrasted
in the enumeration of metals (Num. 31:22). The former is probably derived
from <b-d-l> 'to separate'. For this connection to work in a relatively sane
way, one would have to assume that Punic used <b'dhiyl> vel sim. for 'lead'
instead of 'tin', and that the word diffused through Iberia to the Basque
Country undergoing peculiar phonetic changes. I certainly wouldn't endorse
this one.

Alessio argued from <brp'eni> that the ancestor of the Greek and Latin forms
was not improbably *brub-, but I don't buy that either. The Georgian term is
most likely unrelated to the others.

>Finally, to Douglas Kilday's proposal that <berun> derives from a possibly
>Ligurian word of the form *<blum->.  There are some serious phonological
>problems with this.

>First, as noted above, it seems likely that <beraun> is the more
>conservative form of the Basque word -- not helpful.

[more problems]

>So, the phonology is not right for a "Ligurian" *<blum-> yielding Basque
><ber(a)un>.  Of course, if the borrowing was very early, then Basque might
>have been employing different strategies at the time for resolving
>impermissible clusters, but there is no evidence for such a thing, and only
>special pleading is available.

Obviously I have some homework to do before attempting any more Basque
etymologies. I'm in no position to contest the formidable array of
phonologic facts presented.

>In sum, then, Douglas Kilday's proposal is not impossible, but it faces
>serious difficulties, and I cannot see that it should be preferred to any
>one of the several other proposals on the table.  At least all of those
>proposals but one must be wrong, and very likely they are all wrong.

Well, _my_ proposal was almost certainly wrong. Of the remainder, the
nativist derivation of <berun> 'lead' from <bera> 'soft' is most
straightforward and should probably be taken as the default etymology.

>  We cannot tell, because we lack adequate evidence.  This, I think, is what
>Joat Simeon was talking about.

Fine. But if this is a valid point, one should be able to make it without
rhetorical exaggeration. Joat Simeon's reference to "a couple of toponyms"
was irresponsible. The arbitrary dismissal of systematic evidence in favor
of substratal families, such as Pelasgian and Ligurian, is unscientific.
Slinging mud at legitimate investigation, using such sophomoric sophistry as
"unfalsifiability", is worse than unscientific. It amounts to "I'm right and
to hell with you" in erudite polysyllables.

DGK
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com