Talk:Etruscan language/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Etruscan language. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Two competing hypotheses: Indo-Tyrrhenian vs. Caucaso-Tyrrhenian

Hi everyone!

The Etruscan language article could be much more informative. I think there are two hypotheses that deserve closer attention and could be described a bit.

(A) Indo-Tyrrhenian

Although there are some very brief remarks on the subject in the article, there is much more evidence for a possible deeper genetic link between Etruscan (+other Tyrrhenian languages) and Indo-European (or Indo-Hittite, if you wish) than claimed. I think Glennie Gee [ ;-) ] might contribute a lot to this matter (provided he avoids his sharp tongue, which I personally like, but others may not). Bomhard, for example, has been an advocate of the Indo-Tyrrhenian ties (Tyrrhenian being an offshoot of Nostratic, in fact), as far as I know.

(B) Caucasian

Starostin and a few others have presented some papers on possible genetic bonds between Etruscan and Nakh-Daghestanian languages. Well, that cannot be ruled out at the current state of knowledge, either. It should be mentioned, at least.

A question arises here, whether the lexical and morphological similarities are only due to contact and borrowing or not (the Caucasian languages have long been neighbours to the Indo-European ones anyway).--Pet'usek [petr dot hrubis at gmail dot com] 10:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

(C) Kartvelian

Is there reasearch suggesting connections with Kartvelian? I know Kartvelian is correlated with haplogroup G which is also associated with populations in Italy. I think Minoan and Eteocypriot might be more related to Anatolian since there is a J haplogroup connection. Also is haplogroup H Elamite? By the way E and F (G, H, IJ) must be correlating to Nostratic and K must be the ancestor of all Dene-Caucasian languages. I think Uralic and Altaic are not part of Nostratic. As you can see:

E (Afro-Asiatic)
F (Nostratic (sensu strictu))
- G Kartvelian + Tyrrhsenian
- H Elamite (NOT Dravidian)
- IJ Vinca
  - I "Pelasgic"
  - J IE
    - J1 Anatolian IE and Semitic when mixed with Afro-Asiatic (e.g. Phoenician)
    - J2 Balkan IE
- K Sumerian ???
  - L Dravidian
  - N Uralic
  - O Sino-Tibetan and Austric
  - PQR Dene-Caucasian

--Kupirijo 05:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

k

I would be able to post much more on this subject, but I really don't have the time...

Kári

Your contributions would be most welcome. - Fennec 22:14, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Let me second that, as an amateur who has reported material for this entry. This entry needs an overview from a professional to present a nuanced account of the mainstream reaction to current theories. Wetman 01:40, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hello everybody to you too. I don't think we are interested in presenting a nuanced account of all the speculations of Etruscan origin, which nearly all the professionals just reject out of hand. They are up on the Internet because they are rejected. I presumed we are most interested in getting the facts about the Etruscans, which none of these speculations are. I can see a nuanced account about the facts. The main fact behind all these is that no one not even the Etruscans knows or knew what their origin was. Now, I realize that by popular demand we are not going to get away with not covering origins. But, do you have any idea what a gigantic subject that is? So what I did here and also with the sea peoples is to distinguish carefully between speculations of origin and what we know for fact. Then I gathered the speculations into a speculation section and I would appreciate their remaining there. Just about all there is space for, unless you create different articles for different speculations, is a paragraph possibly two (although I doubt it) per hypothesis. Now by balanced view I presume you mean each speculator gets a fair hearing of his speculation. Or, if there is any speculation less speculative than another, perhaps it should get emphasized. I don't think the whole section should be much of the article. I doubt if the public cares whether so-and-so thinks Etruscan is really a form of Kartvilian or perhaps Russian or some sort of Indic and furthermore that information is not very informative. What we know about the Etruscans, that is informative. So I confess I deserted the speculation section in favor of what I could actually find out. If some of you want to step in and finish it in a way you and everyone consider balanced please do. I suspect that the additional speculations are in the discussion and not the article because you in fact are not sure and do not have your references ready. Now I am getting interested to see what kind of a professional you can get to present balanced speculation! Dazzle me, folks! Can you do that in a page?Dave 19:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Claudius' knowledge of Etruscan

Does anyone know where precisely this ability of Claudius' is attested? I have looked through Suetonius and though he notes Claudius wrote a history, he says nothing about a dictionary of Etruscan nor his knowledge of the language. In fact, he wrote that Claudius wrote his history in greek. Just wondering...and while we are at it, where do we know of Varro's knowledge from? That is where do the ancient authors claim Varro had this knowledge as well?

Some points about the article on the Etruscan Language

There are actually many thousands of inscriptions in Etruscan. The vast majority of these are completely, or more or less, understood, as they are mostly short texts.

Most people believe that Etruscan ethnogenesis occurred in Italy. This is not the same as believing them to be autochthonous. Many commentators, especially outside Italy, believe them to be of Anatolian origin, an immigrant elite who arrived approximately 1000 BCE, and conquered a previously Italic-speaking peasant class.

There are three main theories about the linguistic affinities of Etruscan:

i) That it is an isolate, not discoverably related to any other language.

ii) That it represents some sort of peri-Indo-European group of languages, ultimately related to Indo-European proper, and is particularly associated with the Indo-Anatolian languages.

iii) That it is genetically related to the East Caucasian languages, i.e. Hurrian, Urartian and the modern Nakh-Daghestanian languages, although this is masked by intensive contact with Indo-European languages.

Various wacko sites on the Internet and a good deal of amateur proposals over the years have suggested that it is actually an Indo-European language and related to or even a direct ancestor of Albanian, Lithuanian, Ukrainian etc. This is impossibly ridiculous.

Raetic was a written language and about 200 inscriptions survive. Helmut Rix demonstrated a genetic relationship between Raetic and Etruscan, which is now generally accepted by Etruscologists. It may be that the Raetic language represents an early northern military conquest by the Etruscans, later abandoned.

There are several dozen Camunic inscriptions, but no reason to believe that we are actually dealing with a single language. Some of the Camunic inscriptions are definitely Celtic, not Etruscan. As they are all very short, no clear conclusions can be made.

The Kaminia stele in the Lemnian language can be more or less understood in terms of Etruscan and is clearly in a closely related language to Etruscan. This is not seriously doubted by any mainstream Etruscologist.

The "Etruscan" golden book found in Bulgaria last year is thought now to be a FAKE.

There is a proportion of Etruscan vocabulary whose meanings are more or less known with certainty, another proportion whose meanings are rather more vaguely understood, another whose meanings are debated, and another, probably the largest in terms of quantity, but the least common in terms of number of occurrences, whose meaning is not understood at all. Many of the words which occur in Etruscan inscriptions are personal names, of course.

Hope this helps,

Ed Robertson

Hah! I thought that Bulgarian gold book with the ring binding looked suspicious! The mermaid, for a start! Any publication about it yet? All I could find was the initial PR report.

The article gives an outline of Etruscan inscriptions as published in Rix. Flesh it out! flesh it out! Add to the references and links at least, to steer us, Ed Robertson! Wetman 18:35, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ed Robertson points. Ed seems to have fallen silent. Now, the Bulgarian book mention did contain some prejudicial statement as to its authenticity. Apart from being the wrong tone, it had no footnote or any mention of reason for doubting, nor could I find any, so I just took it out. If you locate the skeptic (besides Ed) put it back in in the proper tone. As for the theories of Etruscan classification, they are not all equal weight. Etruscan or rather Tyrhhenian is an isolate and has been accepted as that for some decades or centuries now. We need to stay mainstream here. As for the non-Etruscan Etruscan, nobody serious cannot distinguish Etruscan from non-Etruscan. The professionals do not to be corrected in their reading of Etruscan inscriptions, especially by amateurs. As for the wacko sites, Ed is probably right. We need to work from authoritative works.Dave 19:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Raetian or Rhaetian?

Pardon my ignorance: can someone explain the difference between Raetian (as used in this article) and Rhaetian? Cbdorsett 17:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't that depend on whether you aspirate that h in whether, as I do, or whether it's the same as weather with you? --Wetman 01:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

raetian is an ancient language possibly related to etruscan. rhaetian is a modern-day romance language spoken in switzerland. gaidheal 20:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

See Raetia, the Roman province for the source of my foolish banter. I've made a Rhaetian (disambiguation) for Cbdorsett and all of us. --Wetman 21:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Assertive but not informative

"It must also be mentioned that there are strong evidences linking Etruscan to Pelasgian language." I moved this here: no useful information is tramsmitted in this assertive remark. Is there anything to this? What does "Pelasgian language" actually mean. --Wetman 01:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Loss of Etruscan records

The third paragraph in the "history" section is rather ambiguous to me. Were these books actually written in the Etruscan language, do we know? If so, how did people know what they were about in the 4th and 5th centuries, hundreds of years after the date given in the previous paragraph for the death of the last person known to be able to read the language?

It also seems slightly odd that no citation is given for the claim that they were burnt in the 5th century, when the rest of the section is meticulous in citing primary sources for its claims: presumably there are sources for this, so they should be named. Haeleth 14:45, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

About Alinei's theory

I read the book of Mario Alinei on Etruscan being a form of (archaic) Hungarian (M. Alinei, Etrusco: una forma arcaica di ungherese, 2003, Il Mulino, in Italian, translated into Hungarian but not, as yet, into English). Though an amateur, I am somehow puzzled by some statements in the present article. I went through the book again and, as more or less I remembered, I found the following points.

The only references to previous associations of Hungarian to Etruscan language were those of the French linguist J. Martha (1913) and the Hungarian F. von Pógrany-Nagy (1935). Alinei dismisses both, and especially dismisses the second one, that tries to link both languages to Sumerian. So it is not clear who are the Hungarian scholars who contended that Etruscan is connected to Hungarian before the publication of this book.
There is no reference to Troy or Trojans; the Lemnos simil-Etruscan inscription is tentatively explained as a remain of people coming from the Donau-Carpatians basin, which archaeologically might be reasonable (according, for example, to the American archaeologist H. Hencken) and in that basin Hungarian-Etruscan was spoken, according to Alinei.
There is no mention that the Etruscan-Hungarian grammar might have influenced the Latin grammar; quite the contrary, the very few mentions of Latin grammar are made in order to show how the two grammars differ from each other.

In addition:

Probably the contention of the book can be easily falsified; I am aware of no falsification yet, even though, naturally enough for such a bold theory, there have been negative reactions. If there is any falsification, I am very interested to know about it.

Alinei's idea of the identity of Etruscan and archaic Hungarians is embedded in his Paleolithic Continuity Theory, according to which the main boundaries of modern european languages are stable since, at least, the Upper Paleolithic. He gives much evidence, both linguistic and archaeological, to this theory, which is shared by others. With this premiss, he is able to explain many facts otherwise unexplained, in a unified and very economic way, which is not a feature of queer theories. Unfortunately for the English speaking public, the two books where the theory is expounded are in Italian, not yet translated into English. The website of the PCT, linked to in the article Paleolithic Continuity Theory contains information in English. For the rest, I found the article very informative. Guparra 17:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Today, Balasz made large part of my note above obsolete by editing the article, section "classification". However, I prefer to leave my comment here so that wikipedians can see what had to be edited and why. Guparra 19:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

By ungarese is Magyar intended? Won't readers think from this text that there is some kind of material culture evidence for Huns or Magyars in the Carpathian basin contemporary with Etruscan culture, which developed on-site in Italy in the 8th century BCE? The new version of this paragraph is scarcely an improvement on the old version. Not really good enough yet, though I don't apply stickers. --Wetman 06:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Guparra and Wetman,

My rational for rewriting the Classification section was the following: I thought that the previous version used strong and opinionated terms in which Alinei was immediately rejected, and accused of sensationalism. Moreover I thought that the historical conclusions drawn in the previous version were very far-fetched, (as clarified by Guparra). However I am under the impression that it is still worth mentioning Alinei if it is done with caution, which was my intention.

Ungherese does refer to the Hungarian language. My understanding is that some archaeologists do place the origins of the Etruscan culture in the Carpathian basin (for example Hugh Hencken). There is a review by Jonathan Morris which appeared in Mother Tongue on the book of Alinei where it is discussed how Alinei's theory is "fits" with what is commonly held in the field. Balazs 09:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

A good deal of field research has been undertaken since Hugh Hencken published Tarquinia, Villanovans and Early Etruscans in 1968, if that is the reference. Some reasons for reading Etruscan culture as developing in situ out of Late Villanovan culture are touched upon in external links in the Wikipedia article Villanovan culture. I'm sure the treatment could be improved: anyone who has Hencken's 1968 book should enter a brief synopsis there of his conclusions. Is the arrival of the Magyar language in the Carpathian basin dated as coæval with Villanovan-Etruscan culture, even by Hungarian cultural nationalists? It's a bit dicey without a single written inscription. Are there any? --Wetman 10:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Magyar does not have any written records prior to about the 13th century, I vaguely recall. Given that 896 is the generally agreed-upon date of the (latest?) Hungarian arrival to Europe, we are talking 400+ years of the language's presence without a written record. Are 2000+ years without a written record that much more incredible than 400+ years without a written record? Or do you imagine perhaps that the Magyar people did not speak their own language until the 13th century? --70.53.131.122 21:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not possess a copy of Hencken, but I agree that it would improve the quality of the article if some synopsis of his work was included. Perhaps it would be more relevant to include that in the Etruscan civilization page (for consistency between the two articles). BTW, from Morris' review on Alinei it appears that your statement about the Villanovan culture is not necessarily in contradiction with what is claimed by Hencken: what is written there (among other things) is that the culture of the Carpathian basin influenced the proto-Villanovan culture. Regarding the Hungarian presence in the Carpathian basin, the most widely accepted theory is that it dates from 900 AD. This aspect makes Alinei controversial, and it is certainly not widely accepted for this reason (and perhaps because it is relatively new). Hungarian cultural nationalists probably claim a variety of things not necessarily mutually reconcilable, however, the Hungarian language being present in the Carpathian basin earlier then what is commonly thought was also suggested by the American anthropologist Grover Krantz in his book Geographic Development of the European Languages. Balazs 18:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Wetman and Balazs,

here are the links to John Morris review of Alinei's work. [1] and [2] They are in the website [3] of the "Theory of Continuity (TC) group", where you can find much information about Alinei's and other scholars' ideas on the idea that modern European languages are the descendants of languages that have been spoken in the same regions since the last deglaciation at least.
Balazs points out correctly that Hencken, as reported in Alinei, presents the Etruscan culture as being a local, Italian, phenomenon that grew out of a proto-Villanovan local culture. It is the origin of this proto-Villanovan culture that is traced back to influences, or élite intrusion, from the Donau-Carpatian basin.
The idea that Etruscans might eventually have come from abroad does not disturb the scholars who, correctly, contend that their culture developed in Tuscany. M. Pallottino, The Leading Etruscologist between the forties and the eighties of the last century, and the leader of the opinion that Etruscan civilization is a local developement, gives the example of England: the foreign Normans conquered England but they did not carry there the English civilization, which developed in England instead.
About Magyars, yes, Alinei contends that proto-Magyars have been inhabiting what is now Hungary since prehistoric times. This sounds incredible, but he has some points in support of the contention. No mention of Huns, but rather of Turkic peoples, who, according to the TC, dwelled the euro-asian steppe and had already had strong contact with the Magyar people some thousand years BC.
While it is better to read the English presentation of the theory in the website, [4] where by the way you can also read a very unorthodox hypothesis on the origins of the germanic component of English, am I allowed to present in a nutshell Alinei's theory?

The languages and dialects spoken in Europe have been spoken within more or less their modern boundaries since the Upper Paleolithic at least (or the Mesolithic for the parts that earlier were covered with ice). This is a very strong contention, but Alinei has points both from European dialects (he was the cofounder and director of the Atlas Linguarum Europae) and from archeology.
Therefore, the substratum in Tuscany was a Latin-like speaking people, as today.
As a consequence, Etruscan were a minority élite intrusion.
Recent research of etruscologists shows that Etruscan was an Agglutinative language, with stress on the first syllable and with pospositions (see postposition).
The geographically closest modern language with these features is Hungarian.
The TC contends that (proto-)Hungarian was spoken in the Donau Carpatians basin since prehistory.
Archeological evidence shows strong connections between the North Italian bronze Age and the Donau Carpathian.
The names of two Etruscan magistratures, zilath and canthe, can be connected to two archaic Hungarian magistratures, dz.la (or gyula) and kende.
Then Alinei hypothesis follows, to which he adds about four hundred pages of linguistic and archeologic evidence, among which a sensible translation of the Pyrgi Tablets

Of course, the fact that many points clinch and that the theory is productive, in that new facts are shed a new light, does not mean that the theory is correct, but at least it is not the queer invention of an eccentric.

I think that Balazs editing yields a better version, because the attribution to Alinei of ideas that are not his had to be corrected anyway and the theory, until disproven, is well argued and interesting.
I apologize for my lengthy intervention and for pointing out facts that probably you know better tha I do. Guparra 21:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Yesterday night, I wrote the above notes in a haste: I have to correct a statement and to specify another one.

Alinei mentions Huns with few lines, only to state that their name became synomynous with steppe nomad.
Alinei puts the settlement of the first Magyars in Hungary in the third millennium BC during the Copper Age; according to him they are associated to Kurgan and moved together with a Turkish élite. Kurgans would be associated to Turkish and Ugric languages speaking peoples, not to Proto-Indo-European speaking peoples.

Sorry about not having been clear yesterday. Guparra 19:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

From the evidence at hand I thought it is too strong to claim that the "Etruscan culture originated" in the Carpathian basin. So I changed it to "partially rooted instead". Balazs 10:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Alinei is crap. He's the same sucker who thinks the ancient Thracians were Slavs. Alexander 007 21:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Did you read Alinei's books? Do you, or anybody else, have positive proof that Thracians could not possibly be and were not Slavs? Guparra 22:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the Thracians were Slavs. Just look at their names: Eptaikenthos, Sitalkes, Alioupaibes. Or their city-names: Bessapara, Selymbria, Poltymbria. I'm surprised that Alinei is the only linguist on earth who has declared that the Thracians were Slavs, in his pdf file (2003). Alexander 007 07:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

This is not a positive proof that the Thracians were not Slavs,not even if a specialist in Slavic linguistics examined all the Thracian words we know and asseverated that they cannot be Slavic. The sample is too small.

In addition, O. Trubačev, as quoted in Alinei's .pdf file Interdisciplinary and linguistic evidence for Palaeolithic continuity etc. with an excursus on Slavic ethnogenesis, finds a few affinities between Baltic and Thracian placenames. Balts and Slavs are different linguistic groups, but their affinities are such to make unlikely a definitive assertion that no Thracian word can be associated to Slavic languages.

The part of the .pdf file devoted to Slavic ethnogenesis covers a good part of the material devoted to the same subject in Alinei's books, with less space devoted to the archaeological part.

There, everybody can read that Alinei does not asseverate the identity of the Thracians with a Slavic group but says that "we could advance the hypothesis that the Thracians were a Slavic group". This makes a world of a difference. Guparra 21:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course there are cognates between Thracian and Balto-Slavic. There are also cognates between Thracian and Greek, and many elements with no cognates. It is reasonable to say that Thracian was perhaps akin to Balto-Slavic. One can even stretch that to say that Thracian may have been part of a Thraco-Balto-Slavic branch. But to state, as Alinei does, that "Thracians" was the name that Herodotus gave to the Slavs, is another example of Alinei's poor thinking. Which is relevant to evaluating his Etruscan claims... Alexander 007 23:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The claim is not an asseveration but, as before, "we could then advance the hypothesis that Thacians was the name that Herodotus gave to the Slavs...". A hypothesis that is supported by some archaeological and (very indirect) linguistic hints. Alinei does not claim that his hypothesis is proven by any means. It is to be tested.

The same applies to his work on the Etruscans, it is a hypothesis, supported by a wealth of hints, and tested against phonetics, grammar, tested against new readings of a part of the Etruscan inscriptions we have. Nowhere the claim of a proof, too early at this stage.

The summary of the book on Etruscan language is very short, Balazs correctly suggests to read both reviews by Jonathan Morris, on the Etruscan language and on the Continuity theory.Guparra 11:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Instead of biasing the reader it would be more useful to put in the actual criticisms against Alinei. Writing only that it is criticized because it is not consistent with scientific method is not very specific. Not to mention that it is already in the less accepted section. I placed the pros in the last edit, it would be helpful if someone knowledgeable would put in the cons. That would be an improvement over the previous versions. Possibly this would include answers to questions like

is it true what Alinei claims? (Is Etruscan agglutinating, does it have vowel harmony, are pronouns constructed as in Hungarian, etc.) For Hungarian all of this is easily verifiable.
what is the strong counter-evidence against the connection b/w Etruscan and Hungarian? (What are some fundamental differences)? I think agglutination, vowel harmony, etc. together are not easily brushed aside (i.e. it is not a matter of similarity between a few words).
what are the problems with Hugh Hencken (the evidence is for example that cremation, thought to have originated in Central Europe is known to have been a characteristic of the Villanova culture as well)?

It is true that there are ideological implications of Alinei's conclusions, but they are somewhat irrelevant here. The fact that Hungarian nationalists may believe Alinei does not necessarily discredit him. Balazs 17:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Isolate language?

Should we state that Etruscan is an isolate language in the info box, when the affinity to Lemnian is so strong and I believe generally accepted? Alexander 007 03:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I do agree. Guparra 11:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

No mention of Mayani?

I am curious why there is no mention of Zacharie Mayani's suggestions about an Etruscan-Albanian connection, although there is an entry about him in Wikipedia. In spite of Hoxha's use of his work for political purposes, Mayani's suggestions have always seemed to me to have merit - some more believable than others. Jpaulm 18:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Mayani's work is crank. Alexander 007 18:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

That's pretty blunt! I would be interested in seeing your proof... Jpaulm 18:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Jpaulm. Proof? Proof is simple. We've gotten lazy in the modernday. We assume that it's up to other people to do our own homework. Nope. Save yourself. Here's how. If, for example, Mayani asserts that θuva means "two" because of a connection to a similar Albanian word, then it's up to you the reader to freely question the author's statements. How? By, for example, finding all instances of θuva in all known Etruscan inscriptions for yourself. Remember to include inflected instances of the word (eg: θuveś). Then ask yourself honestly without emotion: "Does this meaning easily make sense in all contexts in which we find the word I'm investigating?". In this example, the answer is no because the true meaning of the θuva seems to more accurately mean "oneself" and related to θu "one". --Glengordon01 04:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Glengordon01. It's not sufficient to simply wave your hand at surface resemblances and say "aha! related". You have to show that the resemblances is systematic. Go and read the article on the comparative method. Lots of languages that look unrelated to other languages (e.g. Armenian to IE langs) can actually be shown by this method to be related. One has to reach a particular threshold of statistical likelihood, as defined by statistically significant chances. Furthermore, one cannot prove a negative: that's why the null hypothesis is that two given languages are NOT related until they can be shown to be so.Trwier 01:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe there is a conflation of logic and linguistic reality in the previous statement. It's possible that strictly scientific method can reveal what language is, but that's yet to be proven. In the meantime, we can use other-than-null hypotheses, because something other than "null" is known about language and how all languages work - see Chomsky. There's been a revolution in linguistics that the 19th century approach just sketched by Trwier doesn't fully take into account. That doesn't mean that just any linguistic theory should be entertained, but there's no reason to go with a null hypothesis about language (or carbon dioxide, to make a parallel case - some properties must be said to be known). Once molecules or atoms have been identified (to use Levi-Strauss's metaphor for symbol and language), more can be said. While I find Mayani's work weak in some areas, the type of work done needs to be mentioned. He may be wrong, but the argument above doesn't show that.LeValley 07:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

"Crank" or not, it ought to be mentioned. This Albanian connection theory has spawned at least one large book, and there are mentions in the article of many other obsolete and/or "cranky" theories. While I think the Albanian theory is just plain wrong, it ought to be in the article - with the usual comment as to it not being widely accepted. The theory is out there enough that people will wonder why it isn't mentioned here. Documenting its existence as well as its status as a, uhm... non-mainstream view, seems warranted. Murple 08:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Dismissing it as "crank" can be called, in turn, merely being "fussy" or, in the vernacular, a "poophead." Calling names establishes nothing. The non-mainstream view should be included.LeValley 07:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Obviously I agree with Murple. IMHO Mayani's contribution was to try to match drawings on vases and tombs with their captions. Has anyone else tried this? And yes, I do understand the problem with hapax legomena, but Mayani's book could stimulate more methodical research. Jpaulm 15:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Jpaulm wrote: "...match drawings on vases and tombs with their captions. Has anyone else tried this?..." Pretty much every serious scholar in the field does this. I invite you to start to explore this fascinating field and all the excellent work that's been done in it by competent scholars, then come back if you still think "Everything is Albanian" is really a legitimate approach. BestJohundhar (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

If we can mention Isaac Taylor and Albanian in the article, why can we not mention Mayani? I think we should put him back in, with appropriate caveats.Jpaulm 14:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

is etruscan a dravidian language??

there is research paper here which claims that etruscan is a dravidian language. could some check it include someting this in the article???

http://www.verbix.com/documents/etruscan-dravidian.htm

Whoa, nobody responded to this cry for help? Egad. Well, sufficed to say it's bunk. As usual, many overimaginative conspiracists will automatically assume Etruscan is related to something totally off the wall like Albanian, Turkish, Ukrainian or Dravidian. The crazier the connection, the more popularity they can generate through sensationalism. But is anything based on facts? Forget about it.

Analysing the information on the site, I don't have to go far to see that they bastardize both languages in order to squeeze a connection out, no matter how half-assed. For example, they list avil-χva- as "anniversary, yearly" proving that they are incompetent in Etruscan. The word means "years", merely the inanimate plural of avil but they are apparently ignorant of what -χva grammatically signifies and how the morpheme is attested in other plurals of neuter gender like śrenχva "images". They equally bastardize Dravidian by proposing slice-'n'-dice etymologies like "Drav. a-*c’erra" for an Etruscan word "acerra" which they claim to mean "incense box". Sufficed to say, **a-c’erra is a bunch of made-up crap too. Dravidian is a well-reconstructed proto-language and ample information exists. You can't just reconstruct it how you see fit and adopt an attitude of "expert Dravidianologists be damned!". One has to take their lazy ass to a university library because the information isn't available online yet as far as I can see, aside from Starostin's own bizarre reconstructions that Dravidianologists may also not recognize. --Glengordon01 12:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Alinei revisited

I will edit the section on Alinei's fringe theory linking Etruscan with Hungarian, because I found it misleading. Alinei's Theory is not just "controversial" as stated; it has been totally rejected by practically all specialists in Uralic languages and Hungarology. I am myself a professional linguist specializing in Uralic linguistics, and I haven't met a single colleague with even a slightly positive opinion of Alinei's theory.

Moreover, the following passage may be misleading to a non-specialist: "Alinei's theory is consistent with archaeological findings that established a connection between the Villanovan culture and the Urnfield culture that originated in the Carpathian basin (as concluded by archaeologist Hugh Hencken)." Every linguistic knows that language classification must be based on linguistic criteria, and archaeology is irrelevant in this respect; purely linguistic claims cannot be backed with archaology.--AAikio 11:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi, I am Adam and I have taken this case. The details of the request for mediation are at 2006-06-15 Etruscan-Albanian connection.

During this mediation please refrain from editing the article. Ideogram 15:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Jpaulm, feel free to invite Alexander 007, and anyone else, to contribute to the conversation. Wikipedia feels the more participants, the better. Ideogram 15:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I think until we get some debate going I should close this case. Alexander 007 has not logged in since 5 May 2006. If you need my assistance now or in future please leave a note on my talk page. Ideogram 05:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

On Vocabulary section: Etruscan alphabet a "variant" of Greek alphabet?

It was mentioned that the Etruscan alphabet was a "variant of" the Greek alphabet. Not quite true. It should be worded technically as "related to" the Greek alphabet, because both are equally derived from early Euboean alphabets whose origins are ultimately Semitic. The Aegean region and Mediterranean coastlines traded with each other a lot even during the turbulent Greek Dark Ages and it was around this time that both the Greeks and the Etruscans in Asia Minor adopted the same North-West Semitic alphabet for their respective languages, adding new letters or omitting letters that they didn't need. These "alphabets for the people" began to overthrow the more complicated priestly linear scripts which were syllabic and ideographic. It was the Dark Ages. What do you expect? --Glengordon01 02:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I indulged by creating a small vocabulary listing of some commonly known words. I'm worried that people will read this article actually believing the whole "Etruscan is a big fat mystery" nonsense. It's really not that mysterious but for some reason there are certain subjects (this being one of them) where people would rather reject everything written and hold on to a new agey dream of fantasy. Hopefully, we can move beyond the 1950s together and accept that some words in Etruscan are indeed known with absolute unquestionable certainty. Grrr! ;) --Glengordon01 02:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Added phonology table

I added a table of Etruscan phonology out of the kindness of my information sharing heart. I suppose we should incorporate the list of letter values into the table with Roman-alphabet-based letters used for transliteration and IPA... but I'm too lazy right now. I think I'm developping a flu and so I'm overdosing on a bottle of Vitamin C right now. --Glengordon01 14:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so the Vitamin C is kickin' in and I tidied up the consonant section. Methinks it looks much fabber than before. --Glengordon01 15:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Tyrrhenians equated with Etruscans ("no material cultural evidence to back this up"??)

I snipped this right out, under the "History" section: "[...] the Tyrrhenians of Herodotus are sometimes identified with the Etruscans, although there is no material cultural evidence to back this up."

Grr. Funny how this idiot is talking about Herodotus but forgets to read Herodotus: (I.94) "[...] until at last, after sojourning with one people after another, they came to the Ombrici (ie Umbria), where they founded cities and have lived ever since. [7] They no longer called themselves Lydians, but Tyrrhenians, after the name of the king's son who had led them there." That would be your first clue: Umbria. Where's Umbria. Duh, in Italy. Where do the Etruscans live? Duh, in Italy.

The second clue: Greek Tyrsenoi/Tyrrhenoi = Latin Etrusci/Tusci... hence English Etruscan and Tuscany. Pretty obvious.

The third clue would be things like the architectural and artistic innovations that link it to the East like Herodotus claimed and the very writing system that Etruscans use (which is ultimately West Semitic in origin... hello? Are you comatose?). If you're expecting some big papyrus to tell us "Yes, the Etruscans are indeed Tyrrhenians!" then don't quit your day job.

More info on the Tyrrhenian-Etruscan connection: [click here, my ignorant puppies] --Glengordon01 22:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

you should watch your tone a little bit. I hope it is obvious that "Tyrrhenoi" and "Etrusci" were generally equated in Hellenistic times. You do nothing than point out that the names were occasionally equated in the 5th century BC, which is no news to me. You can direct rhetorics like "Where's Umbria. Duh, in Italy" to your first-termers, but if you take a moment to glance at Image:Iron Age Italy.png, you will have to admit than "Italy=Etruscan" is far from obvious in the 6th century, and much less in the 7th or 8th. The statement you deleted wasn't mine, but I imagine it was intended to say that there is no 'material evidence' to back up Herodotus' Etruscan-Lydian connection, which I suppose is true, except for the Lemnos stele. The "idiot" was talking about the very passage you quote at us here, so I don't quite see the reason for all your condescendance. dab (ᛏ) 16:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

you might also consider using the preview button now and again, 37(!) edits for this seems like a bit much, even seeing you added a nice table. dab (ᛏ) 16:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Dab, please focus and spell properly. There is no such word "condescendance": Click here for irony. Second, you're not even clear about what your point of contention really is.

"[...] the Tyrrhenians of Herodotus are sometimes identified with the Etruscans, although there is no material cultural evidence to back this up."

The relevant questions are: Can Herodotus' own usage of "Tyrrhenoi" be equated with "Etruscans"? And only "sometimes"? Is there honestly no "material cultural evidence" to back this up? All of it is clearly false based on known facts. It couldn't be any more "duh", quite frankly.

Since no Italic-speaking peoples a) fled Lydia in a war, and b) sailed to the region where Umbrians lived, the only people left are the Etruscans. FYI, Proto-Italic (Latin, Venetic, Oscan, Umbrian, Faliscan) entered the Italian peninsula from the north, not Lydia. (Dare I say... duh!)

On your Image:Iron Age Italy.png, you don't seem to understand that the Etruscan language overlaps the pre-Etruscan Umbrian region precisely because it spread over the region from the west, matching Herodotus' account (as if the eastern-originating writing system, culture, mythology, architecture and divinatory practices aren't clear enough signs that Etruscans are in fact from Anatolia originally). The "war" is identified with the Dark Ages when the Aegean, Egypt and Anatolia was experiencing major warfare.

Comically, if you have to tell me that you need to "imagine" what was meant to have been said by the perpetrator of the sentence, then I guess I have a right to call it half-assed. So you're only trolling my comments for perverted kicks.

If I have to put up with your input, I have the right to express myself too in a truly democratic society. However, fascist societies are known to work differently. --Glengordon01 01:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, in the tale in I.94, it doesn't directly speak of "war", only "famine". I wasn't accurate enough. However the two are related in the Dark Ages anyways because of a general decline in living standards. --Glengordon01 01:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for the misspelling, and I accept with good grace that it adds a certain irony to my retort. I still stand by my point, namely, unless your "my ignorant puppies" or "this idiot" are somehow to be explained as spelling errors on your part, that your condescendence is uncalled for, and that the points you so triumphally raise are trivial. I am fully aware of the origin hypotheses concerning the Italic languages, and I have no idea what you might mean by your final point about a 'truly democratic society' vs 'fascist societies' (what society?). I wasn't even defending the original sentence: it could bear improvement, so what? Just improve it. You were able to find a weak formulation on Wikipedia, congratulations, but, to return your advice, don't quit your day job. What we should be debating is the likelihood of an Anatolian origin of the Etruscan language. The answer is that the possibility is entertained, but considered rather unlikely in mainstream opinion. You seem to be confused about the debate, no matter how many duhs you throw at us. The Anatolian origin hypothesis would place the Etruscan arrival in Italy later than the arrival of Italic speakers. You seem to favour Anatolian origin: that's fine. Document it, cite your stuff, but spare us your basking in your erudity (and before you jump at my throat: I know that's not really a word) dab (ᛏ) 10:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Further ad hominems, no facts. Telltale sign of a troll. Do stay on focus, Mr Bachmann <:/

Anatolian origin is in fact consensus by academics (ie: those who publish views which they then systematically justify with solid facts). All facts favour the Anatolian origin, as I've already presented above. It's certainly the consensus among classic historians (eg: Herodotus, Hellanikos and Anticlides) that Etruscans came by sea from the east. It is also consensus that Etruscan is a non-Italic, non-Indo-European language.

Etruscan origins aren't a matter of debate at all... unless one lowers their reading standards to include pro-Albanian theorists, Atlantis-adventurers and UFO-chasers. The only controversy is exactly when Etruscans arrived in Italy and what specific circumstances drove that demic migration. Anyone looking for some sort of immediate signal in the archaeological record of an epic take-over of Italy by an Etruscan minority are really missing the boat, pardon the pun.

Aside from a lone classical account (Dionysios of Halicarnassos), the blessed autochthonous theory you artificially prop up is baseless. At best, Dionysios is only correct in a genetic sense since most Etruscans by that time could easily lay claim to autochthonous ancestry just as easily as Anatolian.

By the way, "erudity" as you say (properly "erudition") is not a cancerous disease; ignorance is. Your lack of diction and disdain for relevant facts that require more than a five-second window of attention span suggest that you're full of the latter. So I bid you a fond "duh!", erh, I mean "farewell". --Glengordon01 15:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Similitudes with IE

Furthermore, Etruscan is very different from IE languages, having a first person singular nominative mi while Indo-European languages point to *h1egô instead.

That does not seem "very different" when we consider that Latin, German have non-nominative 1st singular forms like meus, mich, mihi. A clearly non-IE language like Basque language has ni, niretzat, neu. I am not saying that Etruscan is not very different from IE. I am saying that this example is almost a counterexample. An expert on Etruscan should substitute with something better. Error 18:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

And how about a resemblance with the Berber language? Read3r 19:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with Error more. This example is inappropriate if it is used to give proof to the fact that Etruscan and IE languages are very different. Yes, upon the face of it, hego may sound completely different from mi. But when you think that -mai/-mi was used as the first person ending for verbs eg Ancient Greek eimi - I go/I am going you could easily arrive at opposite conclusions. Oh, and what about the French word for I - moi? Furthermore, pronoun I is suppletive in IE languages, having its nominative come from one root and other cases from another like in I , me, my ...; ich, mein, mir ..., aš, manęs, man... etc. It is not so rare a phenomenon for one root to take place of another occupying a different grammatical position like in the example with French moi. This could have been the case in Etruscan.

As a sidenote, m and n are somewhat interchangeable in IE. Therefore, a sharp-eyed linguist could even bridge the gap between the Basque ni and neu and the IE mi, ego, hego or whatever. (By no means am I claiming affinity between IE and Basque or Etruscan) RokasT 16:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

that backward F

If the backward F was used for both the labiodental /f/ sound and the plosive /w/ sound, could Latin ferox have originated in Etruscan, and made its way into Latin as a euphemism for wolf? The English warg might then be connected to an Etruscan root, descended from an earlier *ferg or *fergu, related to the Italic *feroc.

The article could be improved if there were a comment or two on rules of sound formations.