Paul Hartzer wrote:
>> From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]>
>>> No obvious ones - except possibly _theos_ . but that
>>> was discussed on this list no very long ago. One
>>> apparent (and IMO wrong) exception is a poor
>>> foundation for a theory.
>> Isn't _theos_ from something like *dhes-o-s 'holy'?
> 
> Recap of the earlier discussion: Extrapolating known
> regular sound changes from Latin deus to Greek does not
> give us theos, 

Correct.

> despite the obvious similarities, which
> leaves us two main possibilities: Theos is only
> coincidentally similar to deus and the words are
> unrelated, 

Correct - see Jörg above. The root *dhes- also shows up as 
_thes-_ in the Greek compounds such as _thes-pesios_ 
"divinely uttered", _thes_kellos_ "inspired by the gods" 
etc.; it also occurs in the Latin words _fer-iae_ and 
_fes-tus_ which are exactly the sound changes one would expect.

> or theos or deus is the result of a loanword
> after certain sound changes took place (time for my
> favorite example again: German Hand [original IE] vs
> Handy [loan from English, with /&/ -> /E/]). In the
> latter case for deus/theos, the loan would presumably
> have taken place from another IE language, either known
> or not.

As I wrote in my previous email, one example is IMO a poor 
basis one which to posit the existence of an otherwise 
unattested IE language - especially if both Latin _deus_ and 
Greek _theos_ (<-- *thesos) can both be shown to come from 
different IR roots by _regular_ sound changes.
_____________________________________________________

Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
 > Hallo!
 >
 > On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 20:29:01 +0100, R A Brown wrote:
[snip]
 >>> and do they match an Armenian-like sound shift?
 >> Only with imagination   :)
 >
 > Also, there is no indication that anything closely related
 > to Armenian was ever spoken in Greece (I mean, closer yet
 > than Greek itself, which, according to some scholars, is the
 > closest living kin to Armenian, with only Phrygian being 
still
 > closer).  Anatolian also doesn't help here.

Agreed on all pints.

[snip]
 >> The Minoan syllabary would suggest that Minoan, at least,
 >> did not. The syllabary does seem to point towards plain/
 >>  > palatalized/labialized triads (there's a trace of 
that in
 >> Piashi also   ;)
 >
 > I see.  I must admit that I know too little about these 
matters to
 > give a reasonable judgement.  I am not in the position to 
question
 > the fruit of 30 years of research by a respected scholar.
 >
 > And of course, there could have been more than one 
language involved.

Indeed, there could. The very few surviving Eteocretan 
inscriptions show, alas, not the remotest resemblance to 
Etruscan - while the inscription on the Lemnos stele does. 
There is no reason IMO to assume one standard pre-Greek 
language.

 > Also, the devoicing of the voiced aspirates in Greek does 
not require
 > a substratum which had voiceless aspirated stops.

Agreed - the change _bh_ --> _ph_ seems to me one that could 
readily have occurred with no substratum interference. 
Clearly a similar sound change took place in pre-Italic 
varieties of IE - only there the aspirated plosives had 
already shifted to fricatives centuries before anything 
similar in Greek.

 > After all, the PIE
 > system was typologically odd enough to raise doubts in 
the guise of
 > the much-discussed glottalic theory; one would expect 
such a system
 > to be unstable, morphing into various other kinds of 
systems, and
 > that is exactly what we find in Indo-European.

Exactly - I haven't kept up with the latest thinking on 
these matters. But the 'classical' PIE inventory of /p b b_h 
t d d_h/ etc always struck me as odd ever since I came 
across it more than half a century ago   ;)


[snip]
 >> One thing that comes through in all the IE are the
 >> cognateness of the basic numerals (even if Armenian does
 >> quite a good job in disguising this!). But the Etruscan
 >> numerals are entirely different, cf.
 >>
 >>       Albanian   Etruscan
 >>    1  nji         thu
 >>    2  dy          zal
 >>    3  tre         ci /ki/
 >>    4  katër       śa
 >>    5  pesë        makh
 >>    6  gjashtë     huth
 >>    7  shtatë      semph
 >>    8  tetë        cezp
 >>    9  nandë       nurph
 >>   10  dhet        śar	
 >
 > Indeed.  The Albanian numerals clearly display their 
Indo-European
 > pedigree, even if some of them look a tad weird.

Quite so.

 > But there is
 > nothing Indo-European about the Etruscan numerals, and 
the rest
 > doesn't look more Indo-European either!

Agreed - Etruscan remains IMO an isolate (it doesn't even 
show any relationship with Basque - tho, as we know, there 
are some who would relate all languages to Basque   :)

[snip]
 >> Yet I have had to endure abusive emails (fortunately for 
the
 >> list, they've all be privately addressed to me) because I
 >> haven't gone along with the theory. Indeed, I shall, when I
 >> have time, remove the page
 >> http://www.carolandray.plus.com/Eteocretan/LemnianTrans.html
 >>
 >> and replace it with one that just lists book titles and
 >> websites for those who like bizarre theories.
 >
 > Keep it.  I don't think removing the page would set the 
right signal
 > - the crackpots may think that they have won.  Also, it 
is both
 > instructive and entertaining to read.

Entertaining - certainly  ;)

I'll think on it - some guy now wants me to add stuff that 
would show 'Lemnian' was really a variety of Czech!  Tho I 
get the impression that he'll be happy just fr me to record 
that, and does not insist that I buy into the theory.

-- 
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Nid rhy hen neb i ddysgu.
There's none too old to learn.
[WELSH PROVERB]


-- 
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Nid rhy hen neb i ddysgu.
There's none too old to learn.
[WELSH PROVERB]