Paired Horse and PIE breakup

[H.M.Hubey]

Paul Kekai Manansala wrote:
>
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > As I said, there is pretty good evidence to link Etruscan (and
> > therefore Lemnian) to IE, especially to Anatolian/Hittite, consistent
> > with 7000 BC as an approximate date of separation.
>
> But I think most linguists do not see any relationship between Etruscan
> and IE.

If Etruscan was one of the pre-IE languages and if IE and AA were
created
as a long-term mixture then it would not be impossible. Some Etruscan
words could have sneaked into Latin and are probably unrecognizable.

But there are remarkable parallels between Turkic and Etruscan. I think
that some people (possibly Africans, maybe Nilo-Saharans) might have
been getting shoved around or were moving around in the Mediterranean
region around the time of the formation of IE and AA, and the Etruscan
and Turkic parallels are due to that. Of course, Etruscans melted into
Romans and the ones in Asia melted into the mass of peoples there. But
look at these remarkable and highly unlikely occurrences.

1. Etruscans were called Tursi/Tusci by Romans.
Nobody knows where the name 'Turk' really comes from.

2. Etruscans called themselves Rasenna or Rashna.
Asena or Ashina was the name of the Tribe/Clan that produced Royalty for
Turks.
(Nasili(Hittite) is likely a cognate of this word.)

3. The River Tiber was where the Etruscans had their iron mines.
Turkish legends tell of their discovery of iron. The early 'Turks'
were either a tribe specializing in iron-working or were iron-workers.
Tibira is Sumerian for iron and 'temir' is Turkic for iron.
(Some years ago, and this is very significant, there was a report that
the Africans (east africans) had already been using the "Bessemer
process"
of creating high-grade steel centuries before it became known in the
west
after the Industrial Revolution. I might have read a report that iron
might have been worked in East Africa very early, but I am not sure.)
Elteber was a Turkic title. I suspect this should be read as Teber-el
and referred to something like the local geophysicist who was in charge
of iron-finding and iron-making.

4. Etruscan legends tell of being descended from a she-wolf.
Turkic legends tell of being descended from a she-wolf.
Herodotus tells of people in 'Scyhia' turning to wolves although he does
not believe it. The werewolf story is today still an East-European myth.

5. The chroniclers report that the Turks had a custom of seizing the
king
and threatening to kill them, and forcing him to blurt out in fear how
many years he will rule. The concept of divinity for the king is not
there.
The African tribes (Nuer? and others) had a similar custom of killing
the
king after his appointed time was up. Being king was not such a nice
thing.
BTW, 'er' apparently means "man", for example in "Nu-er". Other words
like this can be found in Lahovary, and more on Africa can be found in
Diop.

6. The Etruscan goddess of love/fertility was Turan.
Turan is always associate with Turks, but people think Iranians named
them.
But if Troy is also from "tur" and Turan shows up in Etruria, and since
"tuw" in Turkic has to do with 'giving birth, and begetting" and in fact
"tuurghan' means (she that gives birth), and since 'tud' is also a root
found in Sumerian having to do with birth and begetting, it is pointless
to argue this incessant Iranianism. Obviously Iranians invented their
myths (and Tur and Iraj and other sons) to explain the peoples of the
area
like the ME myths of Shem and Ham, etc.

7. Nobody knows what Tarchon was to the Etruscans but it figures
prominently.
The Tarkhan in Turkic history show up in the plural as Tarkhat (a
notable
non-Turkic plural formation) and they are leaders and kings. One also
finds Tarkhunza in Anatolia. Who knows?

8. The few words of Etruscans like tul (stone),or qutu (vase), clan
(son),
ril (age) easily have Turkic cognates, and these cognates match Chuvash
(the lone l~r Turkic language found only in the west).

There is more, but this is time to quit and get back to some real work.

PS. It is obvious that most IEanists never consider peoples other than
IEans. Mostly that is because they do not know these languages. That is
one of the disadvantages of specialization. This is why mailing lists
where free flow of information is allowed is so good for everyone.

I especially join such lists so I can get relevant info from the
experts in their own fields.


> Many people explain the spread of agriculture through demic diffusion
> originating somewhere in Syro-Palestine or Mesopotamia. I'm sure if you
> can put a language tag, but the thrust seems more toward peoples
> like the Etruscans, Basques, Picts, etc.  That is, people before IE
> migrations.

If you have known people who know several languages but were not good
at any of them, you will note that they readily mix both lexemes and
syntax from several languages as they see fit. People like this are
usually formally illiterate. This is probably how complete new languages
can be created over several short centuries if the conditions are
right.

> Well, the substratum could come from extinct languages that, unlike
> Etruscan, were not literate. Or they were literate and have not left
> traces that have been found. I don't think anyone would suggest that
> Germanic and Slavic are "pure" languages free of any non-IE influence.
> Certainly there are at least some Finno-Ugrian influences even in the
> oldest examples of these languages.

For some reason nobody I asked has been able to give any reason
for this, which I discovered quite accidentally since my knowledge of
Russian consists of about 100 words.

        karınca > sarancha
        kat > soid
        kaplak/kapak > sapokh
        kırık/kırk > sorug
        köpek/köbek >sabaka

There is probably more, but I don't know any Russian. We have the
unusual /sarık/
'sheep' in Tatar which then is from /kar/  'sheep' in Uralic. Many more
parallels can be found with Dravidian in Lahovary. So all the proponents
of "regular sound correspondence" should tell us what to make of this.
Does this point to a very early contact
between Turkic and Slavic speakers? What time would that be? Is that
say, 2,000
BC?

> Regards,
> Paul Kekai Manasala

--
Best Regards,
Mark
-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
hubeyh at montclair.edu =-=-=-= http://www.csam.montclair.edu/~hubey
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity
to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
material.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of,
or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons
or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you
received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the
material  from any computer.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=