Talk:Etruscan language/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Writing system section

I've just formatted the Etruscan/Albanian/English vocabulary section (which should probably have a different heading). Reading the above discussion about the pro-Albanian theorists, should this section go altogether? I'm afraid this really isn't my area, so I'm being cautious with edits. Squeezeweasel 13:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Not only was it highly speculative & without citations, etc. it was also out of place in the article. Wikipedia is not a place for people to expound their pet theories.Ryandaum 19:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Also runs afoul of the no original research guideline. Stephen C. Carlson 20:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! It's nice to have my original instinct on the thing confirmed. Squeezeweasel 21:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Link to outdated linkset

The linked-to page Etruscans on the Web: Language ... (in External links) linking to other Etruscan pages is pretty oldish, such as alive in June 01. F.ex. that page links to VITELIU, which I believe is alive, but the page in question links to an obsolete adress to VITELIU. Proposal: someone having time, may explore the intended links, google up those pages that still exist, and link to them. Rursus 11:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

clan

I have removed the mention that tries to relate Etruscan clan "son" with old Irish cland "offspring", largely because Old Irish cland is a borrowing from Latin planta.

129.194.8.73 15:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Borrowings into modern languages

"Some of these words can be found in modern languages, especially in Romance languages. Some English words derived from Latin — e.g. people, person, population — are theorized to be of Etruscan origin." Don't see why this is in there - if these words were borrowed into Latin from Etruscan, it doesn't seem strange that they would show up in modern languages which got them from Latin! Delete these two sentences? Jpaulm 14:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

"Impossible" clusters

Part of this article seems to assert that it is known that sometimes vowels were not written because otherwise "phonetically impossible" consonant clusters would exist. Does it mean "phonologically impossible", i.e. impossible under the phonotactics of this language? If so, how do we know this? If, on the other hand, "phonetically impossible" is supposed to mean that it is impossible to utter them using a human vocal apparatus, then that is bogus; there are many examples of words in human languages that contain no sounds considered vowels by phoneticians. Japanese and English both have syllabic nasals. Some of the Caucasian languages have very, very complicated consonant clusters.

Anyway, I don't know anything about Etruscan, so I can't fix this one myself. Someone who knows should make it more clear.

Bryce 19:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Etruscan history

I read this section and it can't seem to make up its mind what it would like to be. As this is an article on the language not the history it seems to me we should guide it to become a section on the history of the language. So, all speculation on the origin of the Etruscans and most of the archaeology would just go quietly away and quit influencing our article. What we would be left with, and what isn't basically there now, would be more like a history of the literature of the language: what writings were found where and under what contexts, including dates, etc. This material as I envision it would not contain much speculation or room for argument but would present the facts of existence, discovery, and relevant information. Subsequent sections might then present interpretations and speculations and even dictionaries, although the word list is now getting so large it probably needs a dictionary-type article. There might be one, I haven't looked. The big issue in these articles is the provenience of the Etruscans. I'm saying, not THIS article. Let's do an end run and carry the language ball not the provenience ball. I think you must distinguish between speculation and fact and we need to start with fact.Dave 20:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Removals

This paragraph contains all assertions that are either wrong or irrelevant:

"It was long ago proven that Etruscan can not possibly belong to the Anatolian branch of the Indo-European language family. The discovery of texts in the Lemnian language backs up Herodotus' ancient account of an eastern origin of the Etruscans and their language. Furthermore, Etruscan is very different from Indo-European languages, having a first person singular nominative mi while Indo-European languages point to *h₁egô instead. It also lacks any pronominal endings, a thematic class of verbs in *-e-, ablaut between *e and *o in the verb stem, and other clear features that are specifically those of the Indo-European family. While there is debate about Etruscan and the Tyrrhenian family being related to Indo-European, the debate about Etruscan being an Indo-European language is very much dead now."Dave 17:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Eteo- removal

"Ancient Cretan hypothesis Some view the Amathus Bilingual, an inscription partially translating some Eteocypriot text to Attic Greek, as similar in vocabulary and grammar to Etruscan and likely to be part of the same family. Advocates of this view include Eteocretan, as both may be reflexes of ancient Cretan."

The original author on the eteocretan and eteocypriot had marked up a few articles without any references at all, assumed eteocypriot and eteocretan were Etruscan or Etruscan-related and offered us translations of inscriptions in those languages. I will go through there and take them out. This speculation of course labeled as such and with proper references can take its place among the rest but as I thought about it realized he did not actually say what he was proposing. He (or she) just put the idea that they were related and gave the translations without development, connection or references. Is he/she saying Eteocretan and Eteocypriot are related to each other or to ancient Cretan, which is what most speculate the inscriptions descend from? Is ancient Cretan Etruscan or Tyrrhenian? I did not know these things. Since it is not my speculation and he did not say what he meant all reference to those theories and all the uncited decipherment ought to come out until properly cited and developed.Dave 19:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Croft text

"Thucidides states that these some of these Lemnians were related to the Athenian Pelasgians, or "aboriginal pre-Greek" inhabitants of Athens, who were expelled by the arriving Ionians. Herodotus states that the Etruscans originally came from North West Asia Minor, and arrived in Italy in the 9th century, when, led by a certain Tarquin, they escaped a regional famine in Anatolia."

Hello John. This text has no citations and is off the topic, which is the classification of Etruscan. I was simply making the poin that we do not know how an Etruscan-related language got on the island. The material you cite (if you cite it) would go under speculations of Etruscan origin in Etruscan civilization. The origin of the Lemnians would go under Lemnos or Lemnian. We cannot repeat the origin of the Etruscans in every Etruscan article. There are so many speculations, so many quotes from ancient sources, and they all contradict each other and need exegesis. It would be best not to have articles full of confusing fragments of speculations. If you want to do one, work it up more fully and put it under speculations of origin. This section concerns the classification of Lemnian.Dave 22:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Etruscans on the web

"* Etruscans on the Web: This Open University website collects Etruscan links of a broad spectrum of interests fom the professional linguists to the amateurs. Some links are currently non-functional and some are commercial. Included are articles from professional journals. Many are in a foreign language."

With regret I have had to remove this site from the list. It is not at all what it says it is. Apparently the site was being maintained by one person and that person has failed to keep up on its links. Most of them are dead, despite the fact that many are marked "new." His "new" is 2001. Also it is not true that he removed commercial links. The majority are in fact commercial. And then he has some links to scholarly articles. But most of these require login! Anybody can pay 30 to 60 bucks for a single article; you don't need Wikipedia for that! After 15 or so links I was unable to get to a single English article. And finally, because it is through his site, as soon as you open a link you get commercial popups plastered all over the place. If you are reading this assessment, buddy, I'd say, get your site off the Internet. I don't know what your association with the "open university" is but it doesn't look official, and if this is what its students are paying money for, I personally don't see any education in it. In any case it is not a suitable site for an English encyclopedia.Dave 13:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Talitha

The vocabulary list includes talitha with the meaning of "girl." I know that talitha has that meaning in the unrelated Aramaic, so I'm a little surprised to see it for Etruscan too. According to this page http://etruscans1.tripod.com/Language/EtruscanTA.html talitha has the meaning of "cash, counting" citing az96 (= Adolfo Zavaroni, "I Documenti Etruschi" ????). Is the "girl" meaning for the Etruscan talitha reasonably well-attested? Stephen C. Carlson 00:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm the one who put talitha and pava in (along with a great many others). I looked at your source and I must say I've been tempted to use them a lot. However, the Macallisters seem to know a little too much about Etruscan, more than any of the scholars I can find. And then there is the little matter of the Bibliography, which alas links only to the name of Macallister. What is more, the Macallisters say "This page represents the opinion of the author." A great many of the words were in the same category as talitha: they say one thing, the scholars say another. Checking out the self-proclaimed Etruscan glossaries on the Internet I found pretty much the same thing: a lot of guess-work and a big imagination. I don't use anything that is said on websites associated with individuals and not universities, and of the latter I check to see that it is not just an individual putting up a site in university space. As I discovered from looking at other language articles on Wikipedia these sites represent the original work of the authors, who cannot get published any other way. I cannot comment on the quality of their research. Now, I don't have time to verify all this original work. For my own sources, in addition to the few books I have at home and the few more I can get from the library I use Google books a lot, which usually gives you several pages of preview, sometimes a download, and at very least almost always a snippet. If you type in Talitha on Google Books you will turn up the index of "The Etruscan Language" by the Bonfantes and there will find Talitha in one of the most referenced works by two of the leading scholars. If that is not enough just continue. Now, for that section if I annotate every word we are going to multiply annotations greatly. I did put a ref to Pallottino and Bonfante in the intro. You can't even mention the word Etruscan without thinking of them. Let me see if I cannot improve the annotation. Now, give me a moment more to look at Google Books again. Well I see she appears to be a divinity on handmirrors and such in some sort of handmaiden capacity. Now, I don't believe this Talitha has a thing to do with the Biblical one who woke up when Christ commanded her to even though she was to all appearances dead. You certainly could not make any Etruscan hypotheses out of that, or if you did, you would have to have your own web site because no one else would publish it. The key that many of these original publishers aren't telling you is that they ar epresuming Etruscan is some other thing, some African language, or Slavic, or Hungarian. Beware. Nobody knows what the Macallisters seem to know but they.Dave 18:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for pointing out that the Bonfantes include that meaning in their glossary. They are sufficently reputable for Wikipedia, and I don't know anything about Zavaroni's reputation (assuming that's whom Macallister cryptically cited). My suspicions were raised because it looked like a big coincidence that Etruscan and Aramaic would have the same meaning for talitha. I tend to second guess these kind of coincidences. Perhaps talitha is really some kind of proper name that was misinterpreted as "girl"--there have been lots of misinterpretations in the history of Etruscology--but I don't really know. For purposes of Wikipedia, I am less worried now that I find out it is at least listed with that meaning in Bonfante & Bonfante (though I'd be happier if there was some support provided for that gloss). Stephen C. Carlson 00:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect to the Bonfantes, they are most likely wrong in this instance. On page 197 ofThe Etruscan Language: An Introduction, they wrote, "Cruisie (Kroisos?) The name of a youth wrestling with a young woman, Talitha, in a scene in a palestra. It probably refers to Croesus, the hugely wealthy king of Lydia. The girl's name has been connected with the Greek world talis, 'marriageable girl'." While τᾶλις does indeed mean "marriagable maiden," in Latin, talis means "distinguished," and talitha is just as likely to etymologically connected to that as to Greek or Aramaic. According to Etruskische Texte, which claims to contain all linguistically significant Etruscan texts, the word talitha occurs exactly once. On page 837 of the second volume, it lists the inscription containing it as taliθa cruisie. In More than Mere Playthings: The Minor Arts of Italy, page 27, there is a drawing of a mirror where two figures, a man and a woman labelled as Cruisie and Talitha, are depicted. Cruisie is offering Talitha a flower, and she is stroking Cruisie's cheek. This is the inscription mentioned in Etruskische Texte, and they are not wrestling. It is possible that there is another mirror depicting the same two figures in a different context, but it is also possible The Etruscan Language: An Introduction is at least partially in error. Given the context, two figures, one of whom almost certainly is listed by a proper name, and the fact that -tha is a suffix that appears in Etruscan female names, such as Crisitha and Ramtha, it seems more likely that talitha is a proper female name and not a word meaning "girl."

Vowel length

I have removed the statement implying that vowel length must not have been contrastive in Etruscan because it wasn't indicated in the writing system. Both Latin and Ancient Greek had contrastive vowel length, but neither of them indicated the contrast in their writing system. There is no reason to suppose this couldn't have been the case in Etruscan too. In the absence of any evidence one way or the other, it's best not to mention vowel length at all. —Angr 20:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Is it worth mention that this article is hopelessly disorganized?--Poissonperdu 00:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Etruscan and Nakh-Daghestanian

Hi everyone! I don't want to provoke any discussion on this, but the article should mention the NEC hypothesis as well (e.g. Starostin & Orel's article - I can't remember the title, I haven't read that). There are a few scholars who still seem to be toying with this idea. Besides the quite promising Indo-Tyrrhenian (or, if you like, Eurasiatic/Nostratic) hypothesis (for which Glen Gordon and others have offered many interesting arguments, such as the typical Eurasiatic-looking /mi/ versus /mini/ in the 1st person pronoun), the NEC one also deserves some attention, I suppose (that Starostin's reconstruction of PNC is questionable is another problem, of course).--Pet'usek ^{[petrdothrubisatgmaildotcom]} 13:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I've read the paper by Starostin and Orel. Well, there are some untenable claims, but it deserves a mention. Once I've got some time, I'll have a look at it...--Pet'usek ^{[petrdothrubisatgmaildotcom]} 11:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've just found out that the idea of a (North(east)) Caucasian connection is still pursued by some scholars, therefore I've decided to add a mention and a reference to that in the classificatory section. I hope nobody minds that. If Albanian and Semitic can be mentioned, why not Northeast Caucasian, right? No worries - just a mention. ;-) --Pet'usek ^{[petrdothrubisatgmaildotcom]} 11:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

History of Etruscan literacy

In this section, we include without references the claim:

Christian authorities collected such works of paganism and burnt them during the 5th century; the single surviving Etruscan book, Liber Linteus, being written on linen, survived only by being used as mummy wrappings.

At [1] it is noted that this claim is oft-repeated but there seems to be no primary source for it. As the available evidence seems to indicate that Etruscan books were written on linen, that alone may be a sufficient explanation for none (or rather, very few) being extant several centuries after the death of the last person able to write them.

I wonder if this originated as a reference to Stilicho's alleged burning of the last Sibylline Books. If so, it should be pointed out that by Stilicho's time, the Sybilline Books kept in the temple of Apollo were not originals, and were written in Greek, not Etruscan.

So, in short, does anyone know of any supporting evidence for this claim? -- Securiger 12:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

From the writing system section

Etruscan words have been successfully explained from the resources of the Armenian, the Albanian, and the Rhaeto-Romansch languages.

How cryptic and strange! What on Earth is this supposed to mean? FilipeS (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparent nonsense, I suppose... ;-) --Pet'usek ^{[petrdothrubisatgmaildotcom]} 11:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Uralic language family

"This theory has not been widely accepted in academic circles" But most of them are not against the uralic theory, just against the ugric therory. J. Martha: La langue étrusque - this was the first work, not the M. Alinei book. Macel Otte, Alexander Häusler, Xaviero Ballester assume this theory. I think this is an academic circle. (I dont want to write in the text because of my bad english, but please rename this subhead (ugric -> uralic) and delete this sentence) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.209.219.69 (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I want to add to this... the "This theory has not been widely accepted in academic circles" part seems rather generic. I've read 3 supportive reviews and 1 opposing one. Wile this is hardly proof of anything (I'm no specialist, so there could be hundreds of negative reviews out there) it would perhaps be better to offer some additional detail to the Uralic language section... --85.138.217.123 (talk) 03:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Not generic at all, the whole idea is pure rubbish, as the article shows by completely excluding such nationalist-derived rot.

"The Latin alphabet that is used in English "

The only approprate expression for that is "misuse"! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.221.253.31 (talk) 12:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit problems

Since some days ago a user Ornolfurk is making some editons with from dubious to silly editions. For example, (s)he claims a relation between etruscan verb cer and Latin facere dividing the Latin word as fa-cer. This is simply impossible since the Latin root is fac- and the -er appears in the infinitive which in old Latin (contemporary to the age of most Etruscan inscriptions) is -ese (>-ere), the same applies to other -s- in the verb. Other explanations are simply odd (as the theory of vowels moving such as for relating usil with solis (BTW inventing a Latin word **sulis); but the word is "sol being the -is the Genitive ending (that comes from an original -es), or explaining phersu as per sceane [sic] (real Latin per scaenam) and as Italic (when scaena is a Greek loanword), without even trying to explain the very dubious resemblance (for example, neither Etruscan, nor Latin lost the -c-). Of course these editions are done without sources or references.

I have being reverting these editions (even if I let one which was only dubious), but they are re-appearing. Can some administrator take a look on this question. Thanks. Dumu Eduba (talk) 11:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Persona

I saw the reference to "persona from Etruscan φersu", and wondered when that became generally accepted. When I was at school, we were taught that "persona" came from the masks that actors wore, that they "sounded through" (personare). Jpaulm (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Easy, it is that Latin word "persona" the one which comes from the Etruscan word. No contradiction. Dumu Eduba (talk) 10:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I didn't make myself clear: "per" is "through", and "sonare" is "to sound", in Latin. How does φersu magically split into two Latin morphemes (if that's the right word)? Any Latin scholars out there? Jpaulm (talk) 02:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Persona was borrowed into Latin from Etruscan, in which the word "phersu" does indeed mean "mask". So that part of the story you heard is right. The part about it being derived from "per-" + "sonare", however, is wrong. It's an example of folk etymology, like "sincere" being derived from "sine cere", or "without wax", another oft repeated yarn. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't spot your update. That's interesting - do we know the meaning of "phersu" from a bilingual? And could the "-na" suffix be an Etruscan case ending? Jpaulm (talk) 21:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The word phersu appears in a tomb picture for two persons wearing masks, a pointed hat and a special dress. The context of the picture are spectacles (mainly gladiators). Bonfante, for example, translates phersu as "mask" and yes, considers a word *phersu-na as an adjective (I guess that as "masked"). The images of the two phersu (one of them dancing) can be seen in this | page.Dumu Eduba (talk) 11:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Beautiful! Thanks, Dumu Eduba! I like it when a word is associated with a picture - that was a lot of the appeal for me of the (now largely discredited) Zacharie Mayani! Jpaulm (talk) 02:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Alinei and Latypov

There is website that presents the work of these two scholars, very different from each other, together. Alinei's work looks of some interest. Latypov predicates well but seems to yield to easy language scrambling an fanciful ideas.Zanzan32 (talk) 05:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thupeltha

I found this listed as a feminine proper name on the glossary of Wiki.it. It looks to be the same as the Thuflthas of the Piacenza liver, the change from f to p being attested as a later development. This identification would support Grenier's interpretation of Thuflthas as Novensiles. In fact this name is to be found on the 2nd cell of the external ring of the liver which can be confronted directly with the dwellers of the 16 regions of heaven given by Martianus Capella (I 41 and 45-46). Now in region two there are just 3 possibly feminine gods, i.e. Fons, Lymphae and Novensiles. Of course one could choose any of the 3 however Latin sources, authors cited by Macrobius (Aelius Stilo and Granius Flaccus) had said the Novensiles were the 9 Musae.

On the other hand Varro says the Etr. called the 9 Musae Casmenae sot he issue is vexed.Zanzan32 (talk) 03:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Dead links

there are many such links. I advice an overhauling.Zanzan32 (talk) 05:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

List of words

There is a list on wiki, why is it so poorly edited. it would useful to collect all the words and list them with the indication of the provenance and interpretations of scholars.Zanzan32 (talk) 08:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Not so easy. Many words are disputed (for example 'neri' as water is not as clear as it could seem; in fact in its inscription there is other word for offering water so it looks like 'neri' is another thing), and the reference to theories should be restricted to only the main authors (otherwise it could end as a new version of the never ending story). Steinbauer has a good lexical list at the end of his book. Dumu Eduba (talk) 16:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it the one online? I read it but it does not look to be the most complete.Zanzan32 (talk) 03:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

(Please feel absolutely free not to answer/comment what follows, I am just mulling it by myself). What about connecting the tmia of the Pyrgi lamellae with Lat. domus, Slavic domia? There is a post that proposes it on another page. On an already discussed matter: is scientifically possible to connect Etr. ushil with Skt. usas dawn and usra ray? Zanzan32 (talk) 03:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The vocabulary section on Steinbauer's book is much greater and complex. On completeness the question is that some sources add speculative on unsure identifications, that among experts there are some differences, and that Steinbauer's book is 11 years old. You can see also the books of Facchetti, who adds many words, but many of them with interrogation signs or as possible plausible meanings.

On connecting words there is always some margin for speculation. Think, for instance, in the much quoted question of "bad" in Persian meaning "bad" (as English) in two language genetically related (though as far relatives) but these two words have no connection (both come from different words). If we did not know anything more about Indo-European we could ask ourselves whether English "burn" and Latin "urere" are related (many languages lost b- before u and -n-us is a frequent suffix in Latin) We know that those are unrelated words, because we can reconstruct their origins and the phonetical evolution of both languages; but if we did not know anything more we could "speculate".

As the saying says: "One flower does not bring spring" so a random resemblance offers too few out of context, additional explanation is needed.

You are proposing relations for words who only have some similar meaning (usil and Usra are maybe too different). Even so, it should be explained the suffix -il. Usil / Hews relation seems very unlikely, I would reject. On tmia IE *dem, maybe or maybe not (probably some author as Georgiev or Adrados has proposed it) but needs more justification.

That said remember that wikipedia is not a place to discuss our opinions, but to add info from reliable sources; you could begin adding material from Steinbauer, Bonfante, and Facchetti (among some others) with the references (hint, some of the books of Facchetti are very cheap and very complete, even if he adds some hypothesis). After reading some of these books (and maybe some others on comparative/ Indo-European linguistics) you will be able to evaluate much better your own hypothesis, and have better ideas. The main caveat is the amount of time needed, that some of us have not. Dumu Eduba (talk) 16:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the very detailed answer. I see the point that there can be casual similarities or even identities of words in different languages and with no historical documentation it is impossible to apply a scientific method , i.e. the hypothesis of the relationship on issue cannot be falsified. On usil and usas/usra: I was thinking of a coonection via :aws not via hews i.e. in Etr. could have happened an easy semantic shift, or perhaps as D.J. Williams suggests been influenced by Sabine ausel dawn, golden light.

I found on wiki.en in the list of theonyms: Lethn/am infernal goddess (appears also on the Piacenza Liver). On this I can give an authoritative source contradicting it: it is the equivalent of Latin/Roman goddess Fortuna to whom Servius Tullius (Mastarna) dedicated 3 or 4 temples in Rome. Servius the grammarian testifies Etr. knew her (Aen. II 325). (She was also connected with the cult of M. Matuta by Ovid VI 485 ff.): Pfiffig Religio Etrusca p. 239; Cristofani Tabula Capuana 1995 p. 67 ff. as quoted by O. Sacchi "Il trivaso del Quirinale" in RIDA XLVIII 2001 p. 288.Zanzan32 (talk) 03:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Online there is a site listing E. inscriptions but it does not list the old, most well-known, perhaps only the new ones. It is dedicated to H. Rix but looks to be from the USA.Zanzan32 (talk) 04:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

True, I found Sacchi who simply states that she is "Fortuna" (as if it was something already known), but I could not find the original reasoning. I say that because (beside other theories as the infernal river Lethe) many researchers say as Bonfante: a divinitiy of unknown genre which according to his (or her) position in the liver of Piacenza was chtonian or infernal. Maybe the Etruscan Fortuna was an chtonian deity? I will try to find more data.Dumu Eduba (talk) 19:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Sacchi quotes Coarelli Il foro Boario, who says Fortuna had a strong chthonic and erotic colour. Compare also Ovid Fasti book VI, where he tells the story that Fortuna was Servius's lover and spent the night with him many a time, entering his bedroom through a small window (named fenestella). On usra>usil a sonant could change easily into another and the i could be explained as epenthetic. In Skt. final a is voiceless. BTW how did Sabine ausel(ius) derive from :aws? Cf. Skt. usas Aeolic aos that have no -il. I found a site on comparative linguistics but it deals mainly with Uralic-Turkic linguistics and is very polemic.Zanzan32 (talk) 05:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The case of Letham is confusing. In the book [The Religion of the Etruscans] 2006, Bonfante (p. 11) says he is a god of the Underworld; but Simon (p.58) says that is a deity of unknown genre but that if female seems relate to births (Letham appears in the birth of Menerva) . FInally in the collective work Gli Etruschi (2000 catalogue of the exposition) Torelli speaking on the Piacenza liver, after dealing on gods of the sky (etere) and of earth says this: " l'intervento della divinità "liminale" leθam", "intermedia" tra celo e terra" ( p. 285). It looks like he translates letham as liminal and that consideres that (s)he is between the earth and the sky. As there are so many versions maybe the best would be to delete its chtonic interpretation and let the question open (and in the article on Etruscan religion include a note). Dumu Eduba (talk) 10:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The exact quote of Ovid is Fasti VI 573-578. The fact of the goddess entering Servius Tullius's room by the small window (fenestella) is further testified by the fact that the nearby city Gate was named Porta Fenestella. The detail that the goddess presides on births is relevant as it connects her to the Matralia and to goddess Mater Matuta, with whom she shared the day of her festival (June 11). Sacchi citing Coarelli Il foro boario says the temple of Fortuna was next to that of Mater Matuta and archeological evidence proves there were no temples in the area before the 2nd quarter of of the VI century. Thus even though Matuta was certainly an ancient Latin goddess predating the Etruscan domination of Rome it is apparent that the two cults were related, at least typologically. In the most ancient Fasti it appeares that Fortuna was added in smaller charachters, i.e. at a later date. See the literature cited by Sacchi. However even though I am no expert of Etruscology I think Pfiffig and Cristofani's authority overpowers all others.

On el-ius in auselius, the remark is fruit of my carelessness: it should be the Italic ending -il-is, -el-is, al-is. Zanzan32 (talk) 03:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the link, the material is very informative and interesting, even though I do not have a high opinion of N.T. De Grummond and L. Bonfante. Here is an idea that I already had, but the reading of N. De Grummond, who overlooks the point for the main charachters as Vergil and Macrobius, put into focus: these Latin authors (as well as Properce) were Etruscans and it can be assumed that they knew very well their heritage and preserved something of it in their works. The charachters of the Saturnalia are mostly Etruscans (Vettius A. Praetextatus, Albinus Caecina, Avienus), what they say must reflect much of the Etruscan lore: an instance is the substitution of effigies or puppets for humans in sacrifice such as in the Compitalia the pilae for children heads, formerly in use at the time of tarquinius the Proud, or for the Pelasgians under Heracles's advice. It is certain the Etruscans had preserved their religious lore til the end of the Roman empire. On line there is a work by Marta Sordi on the issue on the diverse in RomePDF.Zanzan32 (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

An instance of bad etruscology by an outstanding etruscologist

Maris': quote from Wiki.en list of Etruscan theonyms: "...Pallottino refers to the formation of a god by "...fusing groups of beings...into one". Of Mars he says "...the protecting spirits of war, represented as armed heros, tend to coalesce into a single deity, the Etrusco-Roman Mars, on the model of the Greek god Ares".

Is not this pure speculation? Roman Mars is the Sabellic-Oscan Mamers or Mamurius (Properce IV 2 near the end) and it is apparent that the Etruscans borrowed their Maris' from other Italic people. Cf the Lapis Satricanus that cites Mamers along with P. Valerius Publicola, who was of Sabine descent.Zanzan32 (talk) 05:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Latin is Mavors I forgot. However I gathered Pfiffig 1975 has already proved that Maris' is not Mars.Zanzan32 (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The issue looks much more complex. Maris' may well be Mars. See G.Hermansen Ueber den italishen und den roemischen Mars 1940 pp.49-82; Dumezil quotes also J. Bayet Les origines de l' Hercule romain 1926 pp. 70-120 "Heracles Hercle dans le domain etrusque" and Hercle'. Etude critique des principaux monuments relatifs a'l'Hercule etrusque 1926 who supports strong influences from the Phoenician Melchart; F. de Ruyt "A' propos de l'interpretation du group etrusque Hercle'-Mlacukh" in Melanges F. Cumont 2, 1936 pp. 665-673. It appears also from Latin authors such as Macrobius Sat. III 12 5 ff. and Varro LL V 66 that Mars was identical with Hercules, especially in Etruria.Zanzan32 (talk) 05:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Facchetti on the Lemnian-Etruscan link

Read an article by G. Facchetti online reviewing a contribution by C. De Simone. I agree that the Tabula Cortonensis is a legal document (as far as I can read it) however Facchetti's assumption that Etruscan speaking Lemninas were Etruscan pirates come from Italy looks not well grounded. Lemnian-Etruscan objects and scattered inscriptions cover more 200 years. Also his assumption that Italian Etruscan religion was different in essence from the Cabirian religion is wrong. The Cabirian Mysteries date back to prehistoric times and form the core both of Greek and Italic religions. Ample proof of this is in the legend of Aeneas and the Roman Penates, the Mysteries of Thebae, Andania and Eleusis and Etruscan religious documents e.g. Lars Pulena's scroll where one can read the names of Hermes Pachanac and Leprnal. To this one can add the Latin testimonies on the Etruscan Penates to be found in Servius D. II 325, Arnobius Adv Nat. III 40 and 43, Festus sv. Tages (they were Fortuna, Ceres, Genius Iovialis and Pales i.e. Hermes). Callimachus said Hermes had Tyrrhenian charachters too in Diegesis VIII 33-40; cf. Varro LL VII 43 Servius D. Aen. XI 543; Macrobius Sat. III 8, 6. On Rome cf. Plutarch Numa XIII; Festus sv. Salio; Servius D. Aen. VIII 285; Dion. Hal. I 23; 69; II 22. The sacred objects taken to Italy by Aeneas were the images of the Great Gods worshipped at Samothrace. Dion. Hal. says the noble boys attending sacrifices were called Camilli by Romulus as those who by the Etruscans were named Cadmiloi and they celebrated the Mysteries in honour of the Curetes and the Great Gods. Dion. Hal. also mentions Myrisilos of Lesbos who wrote that the Etruscans practised the cult of the Great Gods. See also the name of the month Cabreas.Zanzan32 (talk) 04:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I apologise to readers. I misread the beginning of this article as I was reading from the screen. Facchetti here presents a view of De Simone's in order to reject it, i.e. he considers the above hypothesis on the origin of the Lemnians a wrong assumption. I agree with his view. On the second issue I reflected the author's views correctly even if he is quoting from Beschi. On the influence and relevance in Italy of the Samothrace Mysteries add Varro LL V 58 ff. in which the whole theological structure of Roman religion is founded on the Cabeirian Hermetism. Also VII 14 citing 3 fragments of Accius, who describes Lemnos as the island of the Cabirum and Volcanus and of the smoke of the furnaces. Zanzan32 (talk) 08:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Zavaroni's site

I wish to signal this site because it makes available almost all the extant Etruscan texts and is a critical edition, giving variant readings for the disputed passages. It compares the major editions and is very critical of Rix's readings.Zanzan32 (talk) 08:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Speculative relationships: fringe and serious mix

Speculative relationships should be lower down in the article. The following are elaborate fringe, bogus and mindlessnesses:

• Semitic - because of the sole proponents obvious bias,
• Hungarian - because of the preposterous rewritings of history it requires, and the anachronism (+ maybe some dubious Hungarian nationalist stuff in the background)

Maybe Hungarian nationalists forced Alinei to write and publish his book. :-) I have learned Hungarian and I think there are too many similarities between the BASIC VOCABULARY of Hungarian and "Toscan" (=Etruscan - according to Latin auctors). It's very important to study the pronunciation of Hungarian words! Only a few exemple. "cilla" like Hungarians call 'star' is "cael(um)" in Latin, "cielo" in Italian. Hungarian and Italian pronunciacions are the same. But in Latin and Italian this word means not only 'star' but also the whole 'sky'. Hungarian "sarva" ('deer') is "cervo" (masculinum) or "cerva" (femininum) in Latin and Italian. Hungarian "ad" ('give') is "do" (or "et" as a conjunction) in Latin and Italian. Hungarian "kap" ('get, ricieve') is "cap-" in Latin and Italian. Hung. "fojam" ('river') is "fiume" in Italian. Hung. "fia" ('the son of sby') is "filia" in Lat., "figlia" in Ital. Pronunciations are the same. Hung. "tiz" ('ten') is "dec-" in Lat., "dieci" in Ital. (Hungarians pronounce "t" like "d" and in several cases "z" like "c".) Hung. "apat" ('father') is "pate(r)" in Lat., "padre" in Ital. Hung. "virag" ('flower') is "vir(a)go" in the archaic Lat. and "fiore" in Ital. Hung. "nince" ('there's no sg') is "non ce" in Ital. with the same pronunciation. Hung. "eppen" ('just, exactly') is "appena" in Ital. Hung. "eges" and "igas" ('total' and 'true') is "jus" in Lat., "gius(to)" in Ital. Hung. "lat"+"tei" ('see'+'milk') is in connection with lightness and whiteness in Lat.&Ital. It's "lac" ('white milk') in Lat. and "latte" (the same) in Ital. Hung. "gestene" ('chestnut') is "castani" in Ital. Etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. ... In addition, there's a geographycal corridor between "Tusculanum" and Hungary. Unfortunately, I haven't read Alinei's book yet. But if I could I'll also learn more Hungarian&Latin&Italian in the future! 14:51, 7 Jan 2009 (UTC)

If you pronounce those Hungarian and Italian words "the same" there's something wrong with your pronunciation of either language. A lot of etceteras do not constitute a scientific method. Some of the Hungarian words you mention might very well be loanwords from IE, that proves nothing. And what does all that have to do with Etruscan? For further research into Latin etymology I suggest this groundbreaking work.--87.162.13.201 (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) 20:08, 15 Jan 2009 (UTC)

So the theory can't be right because it rewrites the IE invasions, and the IE invasion if right make the Hungarian relation impossible? Isn't this circular? I'm not selling the PCT as "fact" but damn, I'm guessing that someday DNA tests will be removed from Wikipedia since they don't support Gimbutas (j/k). I think as I said bellow that the reader could benefit from some further information on this theory, including why it can be considered "bogus" and "mindless", and why not. --85.138.217.123 (talk) 03:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The following is serious, but maybe obsolete:

• Indo-European - because the science didn't know better at that time, and it is revived in another way,
• not mentioned: a proposed Indo-Etruscan macro-family,

The following can be either, more citations needed:

• Luwian - because the Antique sources support the notion,

The Tyrsenian family theory is about a slightly different topic (a narrower time frame and narrower set of languages), the Pelasgian theory (Tyrsenian langs + Pelasgian/Eteokretan/+???) also regards a family grouping.

I think the heading Speculative relationships now is too fringy; it should be split into serious and fringe/obsolete (the fringe/obsolete part can retain the name "Speculative relationships"), and the serious to something like "Relationships" or "Related languages", to contain at least the other Tyrsenian languages, down to carefully words about a possible far relationship to Indo-Yooropajjan (note my innovative spelling, isn't it cyoot?). Said: Rursus ☻ 10:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

there are indeed problems here. The Albanian and Hungarian stuff do not deserve their own section, a brief mention will be more than enough. The Indo-European (or Indo-Etruscan macro-family, if you prefer) hypothesis isn't that fringy, just very speculative. The Semitic theory is just of historical interest, but notable in that respect. --dab (𒁳) 14:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dieter, feel free to recategorize these hypotheses any way you want, but IMHO it does not seem that describing a hypothesis, no matter how fringy, violates NPOV. These hypotheses are part of the history of Etruscology. I can't really say that there is a "dispute" - look at the article in its present form. There are a couple of old hypotheses which are certainly looking very improbable now, but perhaps impossible to disprove or prove 100% - unless we find a copy of Claudius' dictionary! By the way, if Albanian is now accepted as part of the IE family, why should an Albanian hypothesis be treated differently from an IE hypothesis? Thanks! Jpaulm (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you want to read up WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE. The question is, how much weight does this stuff carry in relation to the topic of "Etruscan language". --dab (𒁳) 16:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Dieter, that helps! Also, I didn't realize that Smackbot changed your undue to NPOV - that seems strange! I could live with undue, but NPOV to me puts a different twist on things! Could we just remove the template, now that you have restored the due balance?! Jpaulm (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I think the Nakh-Daghestanian/Northeast Caucasian hypothesis should be mentioned among the serious proposals as well. There have been a few serious scholars supporting that proposal (Starostin, too, considered Etruscan a "North Caucausan" language, but a link between the two constituent families , namely Nakh-Daghestanian/Northeast Caucasian and Abkhazo-Adyghean/Northwest Caucasian, hasn't been widely accepted, which casts some doubts on the validity of Starostin & Orel's comparisons, of course, but it is quite surprising to see how similar Johanna Nichols and/or Wolfgang Schulze's PEC/PND reconstructions - at least some of them - are to those of Nikolayev/Starostin, so, we'll see what time brings). True, considering the scarcity and stereotypicity of Etruscan material, it will be hard to prove anything. Anyway, I still think this proposal is worth mentioning. Do you agree? --Pet'usek ^{[petrdothrubisatgmaildotcom]} 11:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The suggestions in this section are all well-argued and tenable. I think the Proto-Boreal hypothesis (which places Hungarian/Altaic languages in the same root stock as Caucasian and Indo-European (and what used to be called Nostratic) is a useful term. The stem language would be so ancient that its traces could be weak or strong in a particular language; but the continguous nature of the languages is important. People have to come from somewhere, the linguistics and genetics need to line up. Recent work on genetics in Lombardy/Tuscany as compared to Rome or Venice may be useful, one day, in adding to the linguistic understanding.LeValley 07:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)