Talk:Etruscan language/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Another book by professor Piero Bernardini Marzolla on the subject

Yesterday I googled his name and discovered that professor Marzolla published in 2005 another book on the same subject entitled "La parola agli Etruschi" ETS. In the brief description given by the publisher it is stated that here he developes his previous discoveries and interprets a large amount of new inscriptions. He supports and develops his theory by showing that the phonetic changes underwent by Sanscrit and Greek origin words are the same in the Etruscan outcomes, that word formation, suffixes, prefixes and compounds in Sanscrit and Etruscan are identical, that the Sanscrit origin is further confirmed by the Etruscan being a Satem language as Sanscrit. He also advances the hypothesis that Etruscan might be the continuation of Indoaryan, a language attested with certainty even if poorly.Zanzan1 (talk) 04:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, you've already mentioned this guy's theory. Do you have access to this or any of his works? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 05:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I am sorry, I have none on hand now. I shall try get them.Zanzan1 (talk) 08:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but this discussion is pointless. Anybody who knows Sanskrit can see that there is no way to understand Etruscan as coming from Sanskrit. At best (at very best) it could be Indo-European (for example, man may try to relate the Etruscan copulative suffixe -c with PIE *qwe, but not with Indo-Iranian who palatalized it; add to this the vowel system, the agglutinant but not flexive morphology and the huge differences in flexion). In fact many people has tried to explain Etruscan as Indo-European, especially as Anatolian, (see the works by of Kretschmer, as an own Reto-Tyrrenian family, or of Georgiev, as Anatolian). Even so it would be a very odd I-E language.

But, as it is easy to see, no reliable expert on Etruscan language has believed the Sanskrit origin idea; and Wikipedia should depend on the reliable sources. We should quote only what the reliable works on Etruscan consider to be quotable or that at least has been published in a serious Journal, else we should quote every book "discovering" the family relations of Etruscan (there is even one saying it is a Greek dialect).

In the experts work we can only find the following relations:

• Etruscan as related to Raetic and Lemnian (considered sure at least the Lemnian link) and probably with some substrat language in Greece (Cristofani 1999, p. 83).
• Etruscan and Lemnian may have some relationship with the Anatolian languages (see for example Steinbauer 1999 pp. 366-389 or in his webpage where it is clear that is a non sure hypothesis: "as long as the relationship of the Etruscan and Lemnian languages with the Anatolian languages is admitted".
• Also quotable is Facchetti's proposal of a relation between Etruscan and Minoan (Linear A) language. Facchetti is an expert on Etruscan who has published in reputed journals on Etruscan and on Minoan (see his C.V.)

BTW anybody else has notice that in this article there is many section that should be in their own article (that's to say that do not belong to a linguistic article: such as the writing and inscriptions section) and that the section on language is very short?. Compare it with the Italian version. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 11:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there should be more about the language, and I've tried to add more detail, but there are problems, apparently with copyright on recent articles and books in the field. Anyone who can help resolve these would be most welcome. I'm relatively new, but it seems almost impossible to me that Wikip can represent the most recent scholarship in many fields and still honor the copyright policies. But I am likely just totally confused, as usual :[ Johundhar (talk) 22:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

My aim here is not entering into a long, loud and tiresome argument. Neither is it my habit to exchange views with people who speak conceitedly and arrogantly. My only aim is to let the English speaking general public be informed of the existence of this theory. They should be allowed to have the opportunity to be informed and then make their ouwn judgement about its value by themselves.

Let me point out that:

1) Professor Marzolla is no ordinary guy. He graduated in classic philology at the Scuola Normale of Pisa, perhaps the best and most renowned Italian university. He is an ordinary of classic philology at the university.

2) His method of analysis is rigorously scientific. To be scientific a theory must meet certain criteria, ie validity, accuracy, replicability. His theory meets all these criteria. It has proven valid ie succesful in interpreting a large body of documents. I shall relate here what I remember. If an Etruscan word is supposed to be the outcome of a Sanscrit one it should be possible to recover the original Sanscrit word through a definite set of phonetic changes. By studying linguistic material in the two languages Marzolla defined such a set of changes (that should have occurred over time). Once defined this set of changes must of course be strictly adhered to in order to preserve the scientific value of the theory.

Well, by applying his method he made his first discovery that confirmed the validity of his theory beyond doubt, at least in this instance. He chose at random an inscritpion from Pallottino's TLE and transformed the Etruscan word x into the corresponding word *x' in Sanscrit through his method. Looking up in Sir Monier Williams's dictionary he found that the Sanscrit word *x' means magpie (a little bird). To his own surprise the day after he discovered that this inscription is indeed on a small statue of a magpie, the Volterra magpie. This pattern of events repeated dozens of times. May this all be by chance?

3) Experts who are allowed to publish on scientific periodicals. These people fall into 2 categories: etruscologists and glottologists. Etruscologists as usual do not know much glottology or linguistcs and give arbitrary, wavering interpretations, often based on folk etimology. Eg the 'published' Facchetti understands Selvans as Lat. Silvanus! Glottologist are very strict but often get baffled by their own narrowness of view. It is no use to compare Etruscan to Retic, Lydian, Lycian, Minoan since we have too little left of them. Marzolla acknowledged that Etruscan is cognate to Laemnian and Lycian but this is not of much help. Only a well known language can help us read the extant Etruscan documents. Better then the Caucasian hypothesis. However the most ancient best known IE language is Sanscrit and it was this fact that made Marzolla start his research on it. He got his convinction that E. is an IE language from 'itanim' a word found both in Russian and E. and apparently cognate with Lat. 'ita'.

4) I already said that word formation, affixes, phonetic changes are constant and consistent in Etruscan in reflecting the original. The assumption that Etruscan is an agglutinant language proves nothing. First it is just an assumption, ie it is by no means proved that E. is agglutinant, then flexive languages can change to agglutinant (see Armenian). But I said I do not want to enter a debate.

5) If Wikipedia has informed the public of M. Alinei's (a veteran linguist) theory that E. is a form of Hungarian, I do not see why it should not give info about Marzolla's view in this discussion section.

That said I do not want that this info gets into the text by all means. I am just trying and informing the interested people who happen to read this discussion.Zanzan1 (talk) 09:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Zanzan1 (talk) 10:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Zanzan1. Thanks for the adverbs "conceitedly and arrogantly" ;-). Unfortunately I am not so conceited and arrogant as to classify Etrucologists ;-) (I still have to learn from the masters!!),but you forgot to classify Indo-Europeanists ;-). Thanks again. Your qualifications remember me the ones which wrote defenders of the translation of Etruscan through Basque some months ago, they also claimed the right to spread their theories and accused me of censorship, conspiracy and many other sympa things :-).

You should read what Wikipedia is, and what is not. Wikipedia is not a place "to let the English speaking general public be informed of the existence" of any theory or to allow them "to have the opportunity to be informed and then make their own judgement by themselves about its value". You should get used to the concept of reliable sources before speaking of conceited and arrogant (did I already thank you?. If you are annoyed by the quote of data and books written by experts,it is not a logical behaviour.

Maybe Marzolla should send his discoveries to a serious journal of Indo-iranian or of Indo-European studies. Has he done in the 25 years from the publication of his book?

BTW I have knowledge on Sanskrit and on Etruscan.--Dumu Eduba (talk) 18:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Note for the record. When I wrote that comment I did not know that Zanzan1 had written that "etruscologists are a big 'mafia' " and that the need of a reliable source to add information to Wikipedia " is simply censorship" , and that he will "refrain from posting on a site that is not open to free debate". [[1]]. What a pity, I "forsaw" too much :-(. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 12:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I wish to apologize for the adverbs. I stand by my word on the content. If you hold unconventional and/or unaccepted ideas you have no chance of seeing your works published.

I found it interesting browsing the links you provide: Steinbauer looks serious and steadfast, as any German scholar. About Facchetti I have no idea but that he makes a common mistake ie that of relying on folk etimologies: Selvans as it is stated in Wikipedia and as it has been noticed by Marzolla is a civil God, He has to do with political life and cannot be interpreted as the Lat. Silvanus. BTW Wikipedia is self contradicting on this point and makes the same mistake too. Another common example of folk etim. is Tyrhsenos as related to 'turris' (and hence to the Sardinians etc.).

Reading what is available on Wikipedia I met just one serious claim (by Bonfante) that may question the IE nature of E. ie the numerals that look from another family ( maybe centroasiatic, ie Turcomongolic?).

I am very ignorant in comparative linguistic, however I was able to identify at a glance many IE words in Steinbauer's vocabulary (and another) provided here:

ais, aisar god —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.163.7.98 (talk) 05:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

cel earth

ushil sun

luri bright

thesan dawn Skr

mi I, me

sa self

marish male, husband

lasa nymph, wife, young woman

puia wife, woman

nefts nephew

tinia day, daylight

maru magistrate, priest

ita this, so

shpur city Skr

shuthi tomb Skr

Nethuns Skr

Menrva

Uni Skr

Sorry for being long and boring.

Zanzan1 (talk) 10:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. Apologies accepted.

The question is still that the rules of the wikipedia are to follow the reputed sources, not to discuss on their validity. It is an obvious necessity as, otherwise, we should deal with forty different unpublished theories.

The method of Marzolla is dubious because Indo-Europeanists use the whole Indo-European documentation which is by far much richer than that of any Indo-European language, and the phonetic and morphological rules (at the very least they use Greek, Latin, Vedic, Hittite, Old Church Slavic and Gothic). The other bad idea in using Sanskrit is that this is a very literary language, with many semantic changes and metaphors (for example the original meaning of "hastin" "elephant" is "handed"). Besides this ancient Indo-Iranian languages had a very rich morphology (similar to the of Ancient Greek, as they are near families) which is obviously absent in Etruscan, and a very peculiar phonemic structure, again very different to Etruscan.

So the only Indo-Europeans open ways are two: Etruscan as part of an independent Indo-European family; or Etruscan as an Anatolian language; on both of them there is abundant serious academic bibliography (especially on Anatolian). But probably Etruscan was a non Indo-European language.

Two additional comments. In fact there is no such an iron censorship in regular Journals, some of the articles accepted for its publication with odd and new "theories" have little sense. In a few cases you can find in reputed journal (or allegedly reputed) completely absurd articles, but again wikipedia is not a place to judge this question (so do not ask me for examples). So there are many more bad articles that get published, that unpublished good articles (these ones used to get only deferred). The second one is that Selvans idea is not Facchetti's, and that religious syncretism is not as linear (see for example the Celtic Mercury, which is a major warrior god).

Regards. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 10:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Marzolla is hokum. " The archaeological academic world welcomed Bernardini-Marzolla's conclusions on the nature and origin of the Etruscan language with cold indifference. The major Etruscologists ( Massimo Pallottino , Mauro Cristofani , Mario Torelli , Giovanni Colonna , Romolo Staccioli , etc.) in fact, avoided expressing comments and considerations, as did other free lance scholars of the Etruscan language (Massimo Pittau, Mario Alinei). " 50.111.44.55 (talk) 07:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Piero Bernardini Marzolla's theories are not taken seriously by mainstream linguists and do not enjoy any consensus. To be picky, he was not even a linguist, but an official of the European Union. --Tursclan (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Some "ideas" for a better article

I do not have any intention to offend anybody. I respect the work made, and I do not like people who ask corrections claiming against incompetents an so.... That said, I "feel" that this article could be very improved.

My first proposal is that the the sections 4. (Writing system) and 5. (The media) should be in their own article. There are not really linguistic or concerning the language and are the largest section.

The classification section is too large for the few real data that it affords. The other section could be deleted (maybe the Caucasian theory which I do not know enough to dismiss and is recent (I mean that there may have been no enough time for the Etruscan expert to write against or to support; but is Robertson's paper published or only a pdf internet?). Woudhuizen is secondary references; it seems that the only used references are those written in English; I miss the viewpoints of Steinbauer, Cristofani, or Facchetti (including the Minoan theory), all three reputed etruscologists!.

To the language description should be added the many more material that it is in the Italian version. A translator should be asked.

BTW: answering the still not asked obvious questions: a) my level of English is too poor for big additions; b) I have too few time available. I can only make little additions. Alas, so is life!--Dumu Eduba (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I think the writing system and media sections are relevent but if they can be articles in their own right then we can always make such articles and shorten these sections. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 17:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dumu. I would be more than glad to work on translating copyright acceptable Italian articles and using them to augment the language section. Do you have some specific ones to suggest. (My Italian is very far from perfect, but linguistics, a field that I know well, has a fairly limited vocabulary and I can usually follow most articles pretty well.)Johundhar (talk) 22:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Inflected Adjectives

There are sources that say that adjectives were inflected for case, but this article say that it was totally noninflected. There are no sources shown it in the "adjective" section of the article. Any ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amiothenes (talk • contribs) 13:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I tried to clarify this with references, but I fear I may have done it wrong in some way, so please review and correct any errors, esp. wrt refs. Thanks!Johundhar (talk) 03:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Dubious word associations

I've removed a few more dubious relationships from the vocabulary section:

• Rasna → Tursenioi; lucair → regal: Letter-scrambling isn't a valid phonological process.
• pes "land" → Latin pes: The Latin word means "foot", not "land".
• neri → Modern Greek neró: Modern Greek had no contact with Etruscan.
• capra "urn" → Latin capra: The Latin word means "goat", not "urn".
• am- → English am: English am comes from the Proto-Indo-European root es- and the first-person singular suffix -mi.
• tur- → Latin dare: The root is da-; the r is part of the infinitive suffix -re.

— Eru·tuon 16:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

OK for the most, but Bonfante (The Etruscan language: an introduction (p. 72) considers kapra a Latin loanword in Etruscan (I will revise the data, but maybe the original "urn" had an animal form, as the pig shaped money boxes). On tursenoi /Ras(e)na there are many opinions (even those which conclude that Rasena does not mean "etruscus" but "populus") but probably the main hypothesis is that there are unrelated.

To make things weirder I realize now that the same Bonfantes' book in page 113 suggest an explanation for kapra as a loanword from Greek kamptra. I will search in other books. Dumu Eduba (talk) 12:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

ADDENDA: It looks like the kapra question is more complicated. It exists an ancient gloss stating that kapra in Etruscan means "goat", but some people estimate that the glosser confounded a Latin word as Etruscan (as for example that which states that dea is goddess in Etruscan). Dumu Eduba (talk) 12:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. The good version is the last. It turns out that I read too quickly the reference on page 72 and misunderstood  it (my fault, sorry); capra as "goat" is not a Etruscan word. Dumu Eduba (talk) 11:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

neri should be removed from the list. There is no indication of where this definition is from. The word only appears four times, all in the Liber Linteus (10.23 twice, 10.f3, 10.f5) , and in the most recent editions of this work by van der Meer, this word is left untranslated.Johundhar (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Usil is certainly related to Sabin ausil sun. Nero' was in use since ancient times for water in Greek.Zanzan32 (talk) 05:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what ancient times you're talking about. Etruscan is known from the 8th century BC to 1st AD. During that time, the common Greek word for water was ὔδωρ, not νερό. Νερό is not even listed in Liddell and Scott. The most similar Ancient Greek word, νηρός/νηρόν, meant "fresh" until perhaps the 4th or 6th century AD, which is too late for contact with Etruscan. — Eru·tuon 22:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. Present day nero' was in use much earlier in spoken Greek as well as many other words of common use, e.g. house no longer oikos in spoken language since Hellenistic times. Many words of Neoellenic are of obscure origin exactly because they are loans from now forgotten languages of ancient Asia Minor. Moreover nero' cannot derive from neeros "fresh" because of the phenomenon of itacism: i.e. it would now be pronounced niro'. As for usil-ausil I am not certain which of the two is a loan, given Skt. sura, surya. Cf. also Sabin Sora, soranus (hirpi sorani), Soractes. However aus- gives the idea of splendent as gold (aus-um), cf. aus-el-ius and aus-os-a dawn.

The word νερόν is listed in Glossarium Graeco-barbarum (1614) of Johannes Meursius,page. 365.Phrynicus the Bythenian (2 A.D) in his ΦΡΥΝΙΧΟΥ ΕΚΛΟΓΗ (see PHRYNICHI EKLOGAE NOMINUM ET VERBORUM ATTICORUM, LIPSIAE 1820) advises against calling υδωρ νηρον (fresh) used here as an adjective qualifing the word water:«Νηρόν ύδωρ μη είπης, αλλά πρόσφατον, ακραιφνές» (page 42). In northern dialects of modern Greek it IS pronounced niro 'νιρό'.In Thrace and Asia Minor in some places it was pronounced νιαρό .In Ioannina and Grevena νιρού and in the island of Lemnos νερού.Note that Lemnos is the island where an inscription in an unknown language thought by some to be connected with Etruscan,was found.The ancient pronounciaton of 'η' was something like a long 'ε'.Pontic greek has retained the original pronounciation of η.e.g πεγάδι,well, instead of standard greek pigadi πηγάδι.However,the word nero νερό might be vulgar greek,a loanword from other languages, since ancient times.It can be a direct loan from Etruscan neri or some other pregreek language.In dravidian languages the word for water in 'nir' or niru.Karnataka «niru», Tuluva «nir», Kurgi «niru», Toda «nir», Kota «nire», Badaga «niru», Malabar «nir», Malayalma «nir», Tamil «nir» (Sir William Wilson Hunter, A comparative dictionary of the languages of India and high Asia, London 1868, σελ. 164)..Kitsof (talk) 06:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Very informative thank you. However I think this is a Greek word: since ancient times for wet: Brugmann 1889-90. Cf. Nereus god of the sea in Homer, Hesiod and his daughters the Nereids and Naiads: all from the stem root of neaoo I swim, Skt. snau (same source). So it is the Etruscans who borrowed it and not viceversa. Or it might be a case of alliance, i.e. realisation in different languages from a common root.Zanzan32 (talk) 08:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Please refer also to the list of words of IE origin I mentioned above, based on the work of professor Marzolla:

Aisar god = Skt. ashura Avestic Ahura; luri light Lat. luridus light yellow,; shpur town Skt. pura; thesan dawn Skt.; shuthi tomb Skt. shuddi purification; etc.

I have already discussed the topic above with Dumu: I believe Marzolla is right: Etruscan at least received a strong influence from Indoiranian. It preserved too many words which are simply cognate of Vedic or even Hindi as well as Avestic and Pharsi. By far the largest part of its vocabulary. But it received influences from other ME languages e.g. Phoenician, Arabic, and ancient Anatolian languages.Zanzan32 (talk) 13:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there an Ancient Greek lexicon that mentions νερό (or νερόν, in Ancient Greek declension), to corroborate your claim that it was used in ancient times? — Eru·tuon 16:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Frisk's "Griechisches etymologisches Woerterbuch" says that though the primary meaning is fresh, it's also used for "fresh water" (http://www.indo-european.nl/cgi-bin/startq.cgi?flags=endnnnl&root=leiden&basename=\data\ie\frisk - do a search for Wasser) Akerbeltz (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I remember reading all this info on a Greek dictionary by G. Gemoll. Anyway nero' cannot derive from neeros because of itacism!Zanzan32 (talk) 04:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyway Chantraine in his dictionary admits νηρον as the origin of the modern Greek word. As the first meaning he states "fresh" (specially "fresh fish").Dumu Eduba (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I asked a Greek friend for elucidations. The essay I read as a schoolboy was written by another scholar as an introduction to G. Gemoll's dictionary. As a rule an eta cannot result in an epsilon and should remain such, thence being pronounced as a iota, i.e. niro' .

As for ausel and ushil, here are the connexions:

aurum: old Lat. aus-um gold; Der. aur-el-ia golden chrysalis; aur-e-ola halo of golden light. Latte remarks the evoked idea in Latin was that of Glanz, shine citing Quint. XI 2, 31.

Aur-ora: old Lat. aus-osa dawn, Aeolic Gk. auoos dawn; Skt. ushaas dawn.

Aus-tr-um: Lat. wind of the South.

East: German Ostan, Icel. austr. Teut. type *aus-to or aust-ro, from IDG. * aus-ro; Cf. Lat. aus-osa dawn etc. above.

Easter: AS eeastre, goddess whose festival was at the vernal equinox (Beda de Temp. Rat. XV); Cf. Lith. auszra f. dawn; Skt. usra-, m. a ray.

In conclusion Etruscan ushil sun , whatever the way of its derivation, must apparently be related to these words.

Marzolla in his last book La parola agli Etruschi, of which I have read only the presentation by the publisher, hypothesises Etruscan may have been influenced by an Indoiranian superstratum as the languages of the Mitanni-Hittite area of Anatolia and upper Mesopotamia. He also points to the same word construction of Sanskrit in the use of suffixes and prefixes and the same phonetic changes in Sanskrit and Greek derivate Etruscan words.Zanzan32 (talk) 04:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

yes, I am aware on the question of the itacism, but unfortunately I did not read the article on the question (maybe something on the vocal ablaut? the proto-word seems to be *nearos). The question is that Chantraine proposes that.

On usil, what remains if we apply the same degree of criticism that to neero for itacism?

On the indo-iranian question I am very sceptic (with suffixes one can do everything I remember to have read the same kind of "demonstration" showing that Etruscan was Luwian!

aus- and surya/sol/sun are from two unrelated Indo-European words (the second one very complicated indeed); and the first one never used (as long as I remember) for "sun".

But let us not forget that what can be added here is what come from reliable sources, no original research.

That said, I am rather curious: what is the evidence for 'neri' to mean 'water'? (I found the equivalence in Bonfante but not in other books) and the source for Sabin ausil? Dumu Eduba (talk) 12:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no good evidence for 'neri' to mean "water." In his recent, thorough evaluation of the Liber Linteus text, the only place where the form occurs, van der Meer leaves it untranslated.Johundhar (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment.

On nero': I consulted Rocci's dictionary and I agree with you that possibly the solution of the problem lies in the original word i.e. nearos: Rocci says: neeros=nearos fresh Senocr.; subst. neron, neeros water Inscriptions (unspecified). In some cases the exit may have been epsilon. This leaves the possibility open of a Greek loan for E. neri' though.

On ushil: whereas the E. word has certainly no connection with Sk. surya I think I have sufficiently shewn here above that it may be allied to Sk. ushas dawn and Sk. usra- ray.

On ausel Sabin for sun: it is to be found in Varro's Ling. L. V in a passage where the text is corrupt: mss. au vel. Some editors correct ausel as Varro is talking of the words for sun, Lat. and Sab. I ignore if this word is attested anywhere else. The Aurelii were a gens of Sab. origin and they held a gentilician cult of the sun in Rome with the support of the state that assigned a plot of land for the purpose. However the question whether their name had to do with the sun is debated: Dumezil accepts the idea while Latte rejects it as I wrote above. Aus- sparked the image of something shining as gold: cf. old Lat. ausosa, ausum and the other instances I gave.

What I wrote comes from an etymological dictionary of English, no original research!Zanzan32 (talk) 05:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

This is definitely not my area of expertise but reading your posts Zanzan, there are so many "maybes" in it, I can't see how any of this is tenable. Akerbeltz (talk) 08:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the Sabine reference, Zanzan33. Maybe the reference you were searching for was this by L._Bouke_van_der_Meer.Though Dutch is not the language I best understand.... it seems this is a valid source for the comparison Etr. usil, Sab. ausel; but I recommend to quote Varro's reference, more than simply Sabine; and only like a proposal. The Dutch quote is "Usils - genitivus van Usil, Sol, zon (in het Sabijns: Ausel)."

I could find more data on Chantraine. He quotes Festus "Aurelia (gens) ex Sabinis oriunda a sole dicta", but he proposes a contamination of *ausos from *sauel ('son').

The relationship between *aurora and *sol should be very very distant if any. The root for 'sun' is something like *seHwel/n-yos (heteroclitic root l/n plus suffix -yos in some languages), whereas that for 'gold' and 'aurora' is Hews-os-. It is very different (Dumezil of course was not a linguist). Dumu Eduba (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I did not succeeded yet in reading the PDF for technical reasons.

Yesterday I was writing by memory and now I checked the texts. As I wrote Dumezil makes reference to Sabine ausel talking of the gentilician cult of the sun of the Aurelii. He writes that ausel is an acceptable correction of mss. unreadable Solauel. The whole passage is as follows: "Solauel quod ita Sabini, vel quod solus ita lucet, ut ex eo deo dies sit." Ling. L. V 68. The text thence should read "Sol ausel quod ita Sabini...".

Now some editors, e.g. The Latin Library online correct the text thus: "Sol vel quod ita Sabini, vel quod solus ita lucet...". It seems to me that both corrections present difficulties. The first gives a Sabine word which is totally different from sol and thus the sense of Varro's passage is unclear. The second leaves the mistake of the amanuensis unexplained: it would not be possible for a simple phrase such the proposed one to run into a mistake.

Festus's gloss (p. 120 L 2nd) is thus quoted by Dumezil: "The Aurelia family of Sabine origin was thus named because the name of the sun, because the Roman people assigned to it at the expense of the state a plot of land in order to celebrate sacrifices to the sun; they were named with a derivate of the name of the sun, Aurelii". Of course the material you and me above have presented suggest rather a connexion with gold or golden shine, glittering.

On Sabine there is an old book in Italian: M.G. Tibiletti Bruno I Sabini e la loro lingus. Bologna 1969 2nd. Also can be worth seeing: Ancellotti & Cerri Le tavole di Gubbio e la civilta' umbra Perugia 1996. I have no access to a library, unfortunately...

On Nero' I think the connexion is very ancient given Neereus who was a god of the sea since Homer: Rocci writes: [snau, neoo, I swim] Homer halios Neereus marine (salty) N.

On the Indo-Aryan superastratum in Mitanni there is an article on Wiki. I also found a good work La diaspora etrusca unsigned online on the history of the E.-Pelasgians in ancient Greek sources. I shall translate some passages on the article E. civ.Zanzan32 (talk) 03:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the Dutch link, Dumu. This stuff looks good.

Chantraine does not look to be spot on: the connexion is not *sauel son but *ausel glitter, golden splendour, (see golden chrysalis above): ausum=gold, ausosa=dawn i.e. golden light.Zanzan32 (talk) 10:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello again. First of all I must point that it seems I had a laspsus: as I was working with both etymological dictionaries, instead of Chantraine it is Ernout / Meillet.

The question is that we must work on reliable sources (scientific books ans articles), not on what we think. Van der Meer seems a valid reference for the comparison (but I am not sure of what means in he in Dutch).

The Sabine reference is difficult as it is only stated in a gloss. Varro could be quoting an Etruscan loanword. (But, yeah, that is only an oppinion).

The question on Etrusca-Pelasgian-Philistine relationship is well known, as the question on Indo-iranian personal names and technical words in Mitanni (even more to the north, see Scythia)

But, I repeat, we should center the question on what is told in books and articles, and their credibility [too much fringe works on Etruscan, did you now that in Spain the Universidad Complutense it was published a decipherment of Etruscan using a Basque dictionary with complete esoteric results ..... well, it was published by the Medicine faculty).Dumu Eduba (talk) 16:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I read Van der Meer 's whole article, partly because I am interested in the subject of Etruscan and Roman religion (I will read Versnel's too later) reading and guessing.

I have to qualify my earlier good impression: while some of the stuff he presents is quite interesting e.g. the lines from the bronze concerning Uni Thesan Tina Tanachvil Catha and connecting it to Mater Matuta and the Matralia (Pallottino AC 19 1967 p.367), if he is an authority in the field well... : he misread Dumezil, Grenier and did not read Hermanssen and more recent scholarship. He also calls Iohannes Lydus Laurentius?! I know the quotation : de Ostentis 2-3 in which he states the Greek consider Tages a chthonios Hermes. However is a quotable source and I understand your worries...

On the god names of the Piacenza Liver: Cislen is Nocturnus, Cel Terra, Mae Maia Bona Dea not Iuppiter, Tecum perhaps Tellus, Thuflthas perhaps Novensiles (Grenier), Tluscv Sancus (rootstem sak). All original research I must admit, but based on other published works.

Me too I am not clear on the meaning of Dutch het, it occurs very frequently and looks to be an article: wiki has a translation service. I shall ask the help desk.

That said I think his authority on Sabine Ausel is probably Varro LL V 68, passage I quoted above. If you have the opportunity please look up for the book by Tibiletti Bruno. It may be worth its while.Zanzan32 (talk) 07:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Dutch het is both the neuter definite article and the neuter third-person pronoun ("it"). --JorisvS (talk) 08:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

According to Versnel: gladius, sacer are Etruscan!Zanzan32 (talk) 08:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Ernout /Meillet consider 'gladius' Celtic loanword, while 'sacer' can hardly be anything else than Indo-European (has I-E internal flexion in latin sanc-tus", among others, and Hittite sakl-ai).

For usil maybe we could add something lke "maybe related to Sabine ausel ('sun' according to Varro) and add a note to Van der Meer.Dumu Eduba (talk) 09:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW, there could be a problem with neri. It is clear that in Etruscan "water" is θi (and from here a "(vase) for water" is θi-na). This word appears in the Liber Linteus and so it looks like neri (which only appears i the Liber Linteus) should be another thing. That neri means water is an ld hypothesis by Pfffig, it is quoted by Bonfante, but in Steinbauer chapter on th Liber Linteus there is no ention to neri as a word of known meaning. Maybe it is unsure is meaning. In fact in the Italian wiki vocabulary of Etruscan] (very large)there is no mention to neri ! Dumu Eduba (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, neri should be deleted. I will go ahead and do so. Thanks for the link to the Italian page on Etruscan vocabulary!Johundhar (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes I agree on ausel. Versnel's reading is great: he may be right but almost 3/4 of Roman civilisation is Etruscan in his view!

BTW one could also cite Latte Roem. Religionsgesch. p.45 n.1: "Das Sol Kult der aurelier mit den Staatskult des Sol Indiges etwas zu tun hatte, ist unbezeugt. Die Ableitung des Namens von Stamme *aus (der Glanz, nicht Sonne bedeutet) ist mehrdichtig. Quint. 11.2.31 zeigt dass der Roemer dabei an aurora oder Aurum dachte wenn er nicht die verrianische Etymol. Auselii zu sol meint. Vgl. noch Deubner A. Re. W. 33 1936. 12."Zanzan32 (talk) 05:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Reading the Pyrgi lamellae: "ita tmia icac Heram asva vatieche Uniastres..." ita apart (L. istod) tmia looks to be Greek temenos.Zanzan32 (talk) 05:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Versnel hints to a cult of Aeneas in Etruria. Also interesting the find of an inscription of the III cent. at Lavinium in 1958 "Lare Aineia". What does really Lar mean in Etrurian? So many people were named Larth: it must be a title of respect. Of course in Rome too Titus, Spurius Larcius... But does it have religious menaing too? Martianus: Lars Caelestis, L. Militaris, L. Omnium Cunctalis...In Rome too we have the Lares (gods) but Lar Aineias is Indiges Aeneas. See Livy I and Dion. Hal. I 64, 5.Zanzan32 (talk) 08:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Data on ausel only would affect to Sabine language.

Sometimes tmia has been proposed to be related with τεμενος (Pallotino), as the later has been proposed to be related wit Sumerian temen, but both have internal etymologies and, as long as I know, nowadays both alleged relations are not believed.Dumu Eduba (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hesychius glosses αυσηλως (or αυκηλως) as meaning dawn in Etruscan, but probably he counfounded a Italic word (see for example here.

Another uestion is that Varro's reading ausel is dubious and rejected by many. It looks like the text says sola vel ita sabini and some read sol au[s]el ita sabini but most editions read sol uel ita sabini ("Sol or (because) so Sabines or (because)" a search on Google books of ita sabini is clear). So the question on usil: ausel has references, but many caveats.Dumu Eduba (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Fully agree on Varro's dubious text and connexion between ausel with ausosa-ushas, not directly with Sk. word for sun. Please read what I wrote above on Varro's text: "Solavel quod ita Sabini...". However please note the connexion cited in the link you prvided: auos, uhas, usra and ush to burn: L. urere, ustio. Moreover your link states clearly both in Etr. and Sabine ushil-ausil meant morning and morning golden light, not sun! I also found that capra means goat according to a gloss (820) in Bonfante.Zanzan32 (talk) 05:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

But usil is the text for the image of god Apolo. Dumu Eduba (talk) 12:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

And also on the back of the Piacenza Liver with Tivr opposite=Moon ...There must have happened a semantic shift.Zanzan32 (talk) 04:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The Bonfante give Etr. aukelos for dawn as a gloss (from a Greek source: it is too bad they do not quote the source of glosses). So the cognate word to Sabine ausel seems to be this one with identical meaning. Or perhaps the gloss mixed up things.Zanzan32 (talk) 10:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Already discussed in my message begining by "Hesychius glosses αυσηλως (or αυκηλως) as meaning dawn".Dumu Eduba (talk) 13:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I am sorry I forgot your quote. It looks D. J. Williams though gives an important piece of info here: this word aukelos-ausel stems from Sk. ush-allied to Lat. urere to burn. Never mind about Sabine ausel, Etr. ushil is certainly derived from it.Zanzan32 (talk) 04:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You are following a modern perspective. If you look at the Indo-European roots (some millenia before Etruscan and Latin) you will see that the rooy for uro came from H₁ews (that is: *ews), but that that of aurora from H₂ews- (that is :aws), so they were two different words. Any comparative theory must be done using the oldest stage known. The second question is that usil is the Etruscan god Apolo, while the idea of dawn was very different (she was a minor goddess). Dumu Eduba (talk) 09:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanantion. However what you say does not affect the derivation of Etr. ushil from IE rootstem *ews just as Lat. uro. I already implicitly acknowledged that Etr.-Sabine aukel-ausel is a different word, as you say stemmed from IE :aws.

The identification with Apolo is of course consequential as this is a Greek god commonly interpreted as the sun, i.e. a deity Etruscans borrowed.

The identification of aurora with Mater Matuta means she is the mother of the sun, probably an indigitation of Iuno-Uni: cf. Van der Meer's exposition.Zanzan32 (talk) 03:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I apologise to readers: Iohannes Lydus had Laurentius for second name, van der Meer is nort wrong.Zanzan32 (talk) 08:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks the question of the hirpi sorani is vexed. It is discussed in G. C. L. Bakkum The Latin Dialect of the Ager Faliscus 2009 online. He considers it to be a cult originating in Sabine territory and the families of these priests at Falerii as being descendents of Sabine immigrants. The ancient sources are Servius Aen. 11, 785 and 788 and Pliny NH 7, 2, 19. The first passage connects them to Dis Pater: "Sorani vero a Dite: nam Ditis Pater Soranus vocatur: quasi lupi Divis Patris". The second passage connects them to Apollo as does Pliny: "...Soractem Apollini super ambustam ligni struem...".

Bakkum thinks the word denoting them, sorex indeed means ghost. Hence stems the confusion made by Dumezil with the sun. Etr. Shura probably is a loan word from Sabine, contrary to what Versnel writes. Versnel also thinks Saturn is an Etr. name given as Satum, always meaning Dis Pater. Of course this idea could be easily supported from the archeological-topographical evidence in Rome.Zanzan32 (talk) 04:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

A shared common ancestor language (proto-Indo-European or proto-Boreal or Nostratic - depending on the scholar speaking) is such an obvious possibility. Again, genes and archaeology, trade routes and material culture, should be invoked at some point. No point in talking loan words without considering ancestral languages and shared social contexts where certain loans would occur. LeValley 08:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Vocabulary

I deleted the list of words supposed to be of Etruscan origin as I find the authority lacking. It looks as sheer speculation. I am learning little by little that the issue of ancient etymologies in the ancient Mediterranean is a highly specialstic and difficult topic, and the opinions expressed in the section look fanciful and childish.Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

James J. Bateson: If you took the pain to read here you would not write unexplained removal of content. None of the words you list is certainly Etruscan, only perhaps it was borrowed by latin Through Etruscan as in the case of persona. Hasena or fasena is Sabine. Please try to study a bit the topic before making such unwarranted additions. If you do not delete the list by yourself I will ask for an arbitration.Aldrasto11 (talk) 08:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

If you have doubts about specific words, tag them. Note every one is reffed and linked. Deleting the section is absurd. μηδείς (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Offering this without prejudice (I've no expertise and very little experience in linguistic fields): some of the disputed entries are cited inline to various pages of "Breyer (1993)"; no title, or publisher. My own search in google-scholar yields works that cite "Breyer (1993)"; again, no title or publisher. That doesn't give readers opportunity (per policy) to verify. Not sure about etymonline; sometimes fine, but not necessarily authoritative, and doesn't always give its sources. Haploidavey (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The same problem exists with the Brix citation, which I suspect goes to the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Ancient Languages. This seems to be the result of early splitting of articles and paragraphs without care to retain citations. μηδείς (talk) 19:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

"Breyer (1993)" might refer to this - it seems to have been published in several volumes. It also seems to have been cited by several, but not listed as cited by google... et voila!... "Breyer, Gertraud. 1993. Etruskisches Sprachgut im Lateinischen unter Ausschluss des spezifisch onomastischen ereiches. Leuven: Peeters". Unfortunately, it's not available online; nor to me. So good luck with that. While I'm here, on this long dull Saturday night, with nothing much to do - are you sure about "Brix" [sic]? I can't find the name anywhere in the article. .Haploidavey (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

That was Rix, Helmut. He treats the Tyrsenian membership of Etruscan as uncontroversial in the Cambridge Encyclopedia, and quotes Rix, 1998. I am unaware of any source that claims that Lemnian and Rhaetic do not form a small, obvious family with Etruscan. μηδείς (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Still worth citing in full. It's probably the work at the top of this search. Haploidavey (talk) 21:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

It's the second: "Rix, H. (1998). Rätisch und Etruskisch (Vol. 68). Institut Fur Sprachwissenschaft Der Universitat Innsbruck."

There is an article devoted to the (proposed) loanwords from Etruscan into Latin: Whatmough, M.M.T. (1997) "Studies in the Etruscan loanwords in Latin" (Biblioteca di 'Studi Etruschi' 33), Firenze. I'll see if I can get my hands on it and perhaps update that section based on it (but if anyone else has access to it, they should of course feel free to do the same).Johundhar (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I see that it is based on the author's dissertation, available here: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10121058/.Johundhar (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Puzzlement on Cultural vs Linguistic Evolution in Etruria

The consensus (reflected in the relevant articles) seems to be that culturally, Urnfield -> Proto-Villanovan -> Villanovan -> Etruscan. But there is also a consensus that Urnfield is Indo-European (maybe Proto-Celtic, or perhaps preceding the split between Celtic and Italic), while Etruscan is non-Indo-European, and apparently that any Indo-European borrowings were relatively late. This leads to a puzzle: what were the Villanovan and Villanovan languages? Does anyone know of any genetics from the period that night illuminate this? Also, if cultural innovations came to Etruria indirectly from Urnfield, even if there was large-scale linguistic and population turnover, we might expect at least some of the Etruscan words for the relevant innovations (such as wheels, iron technologies) to be old adoptions from Indo-European - is there any hint of this? Urilarim (talk) 22:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Etruscan Writing

𐌑𐌀𐌓 SergioDiaz1 (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)