Talk:Etruscan language

message: 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)
replies: text: Mayani's work is crank. Alexander 007 18:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's pretty blunt! I would be interested in seeing your proof... Jpaulm 18:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: "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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: No mention of Mayani?

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

message: Hi everyone! I don't want to provoke any discussion on this, but the article should mention the NEC hypothesis as well (e.g. Starostin & Orel's article - I can't remember the title, I haven't read that). There are a few scholars who still seem to be toying with this idea. Besides the quite promising Indo-Tyrrhenian (or, if you like, Eurasiatic/Nostratic) hypothesis (for which Glen Gordon and others have offered many interesting arguments, such as the typical Eurasiatic-looking /mi/ versus /mini/ in the 1st person pronoun), the NEC one also deserves some attention, I suppose (that Starostin's reconstruction of PNC is questionable is another problem, of course).--Pet'usek [petrdothrubisatgmaildotcom] 13:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read the paper by Starostin and Orel. Well, there are some untenable claims, but it deserves a mention. Once I've got some time, I'll have a look at it...--Pet'usek [petrdothrubisatgmaildotcom] 11:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just found out that the idea of a (North(east)) Caucasian connection is still pursued by some scholars, therefore I've decided to add a mention and a reference to that in the classificatory section. I hope nobody minds that. If Albanian and Semitic can be mentioned, why not Northeast Caucasian, right? No worries - just a mention. ;-) --Pet'usek [petrdothrubisatgmaildotcom] 11:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etruscan and Nakh-Daghestanian 

message: In this section, we include without references the claim:
:Christian authorities collected such works of paganism and burnt them during the 5th century; the single surviving Etruscan book, Liber Linteus, being written on linen, survived only by being used as mummy wrappings.
At  it is noted that this claim is oft-repeated but there seems to be no primary source for it. As the available evidence seems to indicate that Etruscan books were written on linen, that alone may be a sufficient explanation for none (or rather, very few) being extant several centuries after the death of the last person able to write them.
I wonder if this originated as a reference to Stilicho's alleged burning of the last Sibylline Books. If so, it should be pointed out that by Stilicho's time, the Sybilline Books kept in the temple of Apollo were not originals, and were written in Greek, not Etruscan.
So, in short, does anyone know of any supporting evidence for this claim? -- Securiger 12:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Etruscan literacy 

message: Etruscan words have been successfully explained from the resources of the Armenian, the Albanian, and the Rhaeto-Romansch languages.
How cryptic and strange! What on Earth is this supposed to mean? FilipeS (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparent nonsense, I suppose... ;-) --Pet'usek [petrdothrubisatgmaildotcom] 11:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: From the writing system section

message: Based on standard spellings by Etruscan scribes that appear otherwise to lack vowels or that have strings of clusters that as they occur seem phonetically impossible to pronounce, as seen in words like cl "of this (gen.)" and lautn "freeman", it is likely that "m", "n", "l" and "r" were sometimes written for syllabic resonants. Thus cl /kl̩/ and lautn /'lɑwtn̩/.
I don't understand. What is supposed to be significant about these words?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.101.76.122 (talk) 01:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps that the /l/ and /n/ in those words function as nuclei of the syllables... ;-)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petusek (talk • contribs) 11:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Also (although I am no phoneticist), certain phonetic structures are rare or unheard of in any human language; written words that appear to have so-called "illegal" phonetic structures are scrutinized closely, to see if in fact the consonants actually have vowel-sounds between them (try saying the consonants yourself and see if you can actually avoid sort of vowel).  If so, the writing system is at least partly a syllabary.LeValley 07:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consonants 

message: I was reading along looking at the vocabulary list, thinking that there were remarkable parallels, in many cases, to other languages, sometimes of disparate groupings.  Then I got to "taliθa" for "girl", and suddenly I lost all confidence in this article.  Either somebody inserted "taliθa" to be funny, or there's an uncanny similarity between a three-syllable word (one which approaches "fundamental vocabulary") in Etruscan, and in Aramaic.  If this isn't somebody's idea of a joke, please cite the source.  Any Bible scholar knows Jesus' uttrance "Talitha, kumi" (Maid, arise!)...and I have to believe serious linguists are aware of this... which is why I am dumbfound to see no mention of a possible link to Aramaic made here.  Mi/Mini, yeah, that reeks of a potential Indo-European or "Nostratic" link...but a three-syllable happenstance, not even cognate, same freaking word?  That's not happenstance...if it's not a hoax, it's either borrowing [oh, how?] or a definitive link.  What's shocking [and to me, therefore, unbelievable] is that nobody seems to have bothered to research it.  Granted, the article contains a "Semitic hypothesis" section, which dismisses the idea out of hand (even using the editorializing word "fantastical" (in violation of both WP:NOR and WP:NPOV), and without bothering to cite more than a single solitary source less than 150 years old in support of that dismissal, I might add)... To be clear, I'm not trying to advocate an Etruscan-Semitic link here...my primary thrust is to make sure that the article isn't including pranksterism in its otherwise authoritative (if excessively vague, bar the lexicon portion) text.  Gedächte?  71.87.23.22 (talk) 06:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't get too excited, buddy. Homonyms between disparate languages are fairly common and a certain number of those mean the same. No one is suggesting anything. This article needs work now, no doubt. When I worked on it there were a number of Internet speculatists that I avoided assiduously following the written advice of the major scholars in their books. I knew if I stayed away they would surely creep back in. So, thanks for pointing out this article needs work. I note it has lost your credibility. Nothing wrong with that. When articles get too far out of line someone usually turns up to fix them. I will be one of those at some point not too far off now. I usually work from a quota of articles so as soon as I can fit this in it is going in. The "pranksters" you are talking about - don't get too paranoid (like me). There are some people who sincerely believe they have have deciphered Etruscan and since they have an Internet site (in contrast to past speculatists) they can be be heard, and since they are in charge, they can attribute to it any authority they like. Don't be put off or put on; be skeptical and grant credibility only to the scholars. There is little certainty in this field. Best wishes.Dave (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Welllll, Arabic wasn't really a thing during the entire attested history of Etruscan....so...there's that. And it is by no means clear that Etruscan was an Indo-European language. Most experts in the field don't think so, as far as I can see. Am I mis-understanding you in some way, or do you need to do a bit more research here? Best wishesJohundhar (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources? 

message: Speculative relationships should be lower down in the article. The following are elaborate fringe, bogus and mindlessnesses:
* Semitic - because of the sole proponents obvious bias,
* Hungarian - because of the preposterous rewritings of history it requires, and the anachronism (+ maybe some dubious Hungarian nationalist stuff in the background)
:Maybe Hungarian nationalists forced Alinei to write and publish his book. :-) I have learned Hungarian and I think there are too many similarities between the BASIC VOCABULARY of Hungarian and "Toscan" (=Etruscan - according to Latin auctors). It's very important to study the pronunciation of Hungarian words! Only a few exemple. "cilla" like Hungarians call 'star' is "cael(um)" in Latin, "cielo" in Italian. Hungarian and Italian pronunciacions are the same. But in Latin and Italian this word means not only 'star' but also the whole 'sky'. Hungarian "sarva" ('deer') is "cervo" (masculinum) or "cerva" (femininum) in Latin and Italian. Hungarian "ad" ('give') is "do" (or "et" as a conjunction) in Latin and Italian. Hungarian "kap" ('get, ricieve') is "cap-" in Latin and Italian. Hung. "fojam" ('river') is "fiume" in Italian. Hung. "fia" ('the son of sby') is "filia" in Lat., "figlia" in Ital. Pronunciations are the same. Hung. "tiz" ('ten') is "dec-" in Lat., "dieci" in Ital. (Hungarians pronounce "t" like "d" and in several cases "z" like "c".) Hung. "apat" ('father') is "pate(r)" in Lat., "padre" in Ital. Hung. "virag" ('flower') is "vir(a)go" in the archaic Lat. and "fiore" in Ital. Hung. "nince" ('there's no sg') is "non ce" in Ital. with the same pronunciation. Hung. "eppen" ('just, exactly') is "appena" in Ital. Hung. "eges" and "igas" ('total' and 'true') is "jus" in Lat., "gius(to)" in Ital. Hung. "lat"+"tei" ('see'+'milk') is in connection with lightness and whiteness in Lat.&Ital. It's "lac" ('white milk') in Lat. and "latte" (the same) in Ital. Hung. "gestene" ('chestnut') is "castani" in Ital. Etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. ... In addition, there's a geographycal corridor between "Tusculanum" and Hungary. Unfortunately, I haven't read Alinei's book yet. But if I could I'll also learn more Hungarian&Latin&Italian in the future! 14:51, 7 Jan 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you pronounce those Hungarian and Italian words "the same" there's something wrong with your pronunciation of either language. A lot of etceteras do not constitute a scientific method. Some of the Hungarian words you mention might very well be loanwords from IE, that proves nothing. And what does all that have to do with Etruscan? For further research into Latin etymology I suggest this groundbreaking work.--87.162.13.201 (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Thanks. :-) 20:08, 15 Jan 2009 (UTC)

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

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

message: there are many same characters in both of these alphabets, is there any serious research about it?
see Old Turkic script—Preceding unsigned comment added by  (talk • contribs) 
no relation. There are only so many shapes you can form by combining two or three straight strokes. --dab (𒁳) 13:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That much seems clear.  However, the Greek alphabet's origins are a bit shrouded in mist. LeValley 07:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See Phoenician alphabet. Greek is no more shrouded than any other fairly-well documented ancient script. HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similarities between Old Turkic and Etruscan alphabets 

message: Hm. No one has said much of anything on this split. So here goes. It should not be "Tyrsenian languages". There are some legitimate evidenced Tyrsenian languages and we have an article by that name. What the tag is on are the numerous speculative "decipherments" and proposed connections, which is not the same thing at all. Therefore I recommend the split but I suggest the name "Etruscan language proposed decipherments". So I am putting a new tag for it below the old for you to consider. I can hardly work on this until we decide on this.Dave (talk) 19:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Etruscan language proposed decipherments" is totally unacceptable - it would look as if we could not read Etruscan, as if were written in an undeciphered script, as if it were a cipher. Something like "Proposed relationships" or "Proposed relatives of Etruscan" or what would be much better. Please, look at the Basque language page, at the proposals section. It's brief and informative enough. I don't think we need a larger text. Hence, I don't agree with your proposal, sorry. --Pet'usek [petrdothrubisatgmaildotcom] 16:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I had the same feeling - there is no problem deciphering the script - it's understanding the language that is the problem. Jpaulm (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, what an interesting split to make, from an ordinary language point of view.  Are both of you specialists in this area of linguistics?  I think the two concepts are inter-related.  I'm curious as to whether anyone has considered a section on language and archaeology (similar to Colin Renfrew's work).  The same people who spoke Etruscan had clothing, jewelry, amphoras.  They had trade routes linking them to the places where amber and lapis could come from (not a lot of places).  They had to maintain a language that permitted some trade - and it was either overland or oversea or both).  Has anyone, for example, considered Etruscan customs/technology as part of the puzzle of figuring out their language (I know it's been done, I'm just curious why it's not mentioned in the article).  At any rate, no one is going to either completely decipher OR understand Etruscan without the ordinary contextual framework of everyday life that is always in play in translation. LeValley 07:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed split

message: The word for grandmother, teta, reminded me of the affectionate word for grandmother in Lebanese Arabic, teta (pronounced tay-tah). Isn't this curious? Could there be a Semitic link? G. Csikos, 13 August 2009  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.238.133 (talk) 01:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If I remember rightly, Jespersen warned against drawing inferences from relationship words, as many of them seem to have their roots in baby-talk, e.g. all the mama, dada, papa, nana words that crop up in so many unrelated languages. Jpaulm (talk) 15:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My English speaking daughters called one set of grandparents Teto and Teta, a loose relationship to their names (very loose).  It's baby talk. LeValley 08:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grandmother, teta 

message: I wish to inform the English speaking readers of the work of the Italian scholar Bernardini Marzolla who in 1984 published a book entitled: "Etruscan, a found again language" (Mondadori, Milan).
In his work by using a rigourous philologic method of analysis he proves, in my opinion beyond any doubt, the strict relationship of Etruscan and Sanscrit. He interprets many epigraphic monumenta in a compelling way. Furthermore he explains the precise original meaning of many Etrusacn words that had already been previously 'guessed' or given by the ancient glossae only approximately.
He also identifies many Etruscan words as borrowed from ancient Farsi, Arabic, Phoenician and putting this info into perspective gives an explanation of the origin and wanderings of this people that broadly confirms the views of Herodotus that they came from Anatolia, although their origins should be traced to India. The stele of Lemnos too confirms this hypothesis in the author's view.
The name Tyrhsenoi  is the Sanscrit Turasena, Porsenna is Purasena, clan jilan (fetus), aisar ashura... By only using Sir Monier William's dictionary in his genial work he has solved one of the greatest mysteries of history and glottology.Zanzan1 (talk) 04:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's odd that Marzolla would be so specific.  Considering that, according to this article, Etruscan had no voiced or murmured stops, the most one could say is that it's Indo-Iranian.  — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 02:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, well until you or anyone finds this book or reference to it from other scholars, I don't see any reason to edit the article accordingly.  — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 07:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The consonant inventories of the two languages are quite different.  See Sanskrit and compare the phonology section to this article's.  — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 06:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I've read the book.  It is yet another crank theory. 06:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes, the whole idea of a Sanskrit relationship is patently absurd.50.111.44.55 (talk) 07:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sanscrit 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 17:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Some "ideas" for a better article 

message: The only approprate expression for that is "misuse"!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.221.253.31 (talk) 12:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Latin alphabet that is used in English " 

message: I saw the reference to "persona from Etruscan φersu", and wondered when that became generally accepted.  When I was at school, we were taught that "persona" came from the masks that actors wore, that they "sounded through" (personare). Jpaulm (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Easy, it is that Latin word "persona" the one which comes from the Etruscan word. No contradiction. Dumu Eduba (talk) 10:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I didn't make myself clear: "per" is "through", and "sonare" is "to sound", in Latin.  How does φersu magically split into two Latin morphemes (if that's the right word)? Any Latin scholars out there?  Jpaulm (talk) 02:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

text:  Persona was borrowed into Latin from Etruscan, in which the word "phersu" does indeed mean "mask". So that part of the story you heard is right. The part about it being derived from "per-" + "sonare", however, is wrong. It's an example of folk etymology, like "sincere" being derived from "sine cere", or "without wax", another oft repeated yarn. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, didn't spot your update.  That's interesting - do we know the meaning of "phersu" from a bilingual? And could the "-na" suffix be an Etruscan case ending? Jpaulm (talk) 21:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The word phersu appears in a tomb picture for two persons wearing masks, a pointed hat and a special dress. The context of the picture are spectacles (mainly gladiators). Bonfante, for example, translates phersu as "mask" and yes, considers a word *phersu-na as an adjective (I guess that as "masked").  The images of the two phersu (one of them dancing) can be seen in this | page.Dumu Eduba (talk) 11:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

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

message: Since some days ago a user  Ornolfurk is making some editons with from dubious to silly editions. For example, (s)he claims a relation between etruscan verb cer and Latin facere dividing the Latin word as fa-cer. This is simply impossible since the Latin root is fac- and the -er appears in the infinitive which in old Latin (contemporary to the age of most Etruscan inscriptions) is  -ese (>-ere), the same applies to other -s- in the verb. Other explanations are simply odd (as the theory of vowels moving such as for relating usil with solis (BTW inventing a Latin word **sulis); but the word is "sol being the -is the Genitive ending (that comes from an original -es), or explaining phersu as per sceane [sic] (real Latin per scaenam) and as Italic (when scaena is a Greek loanword), without even trying to explain the very dubious resemblance (for example, neither Etruscan, nor Latin lost the -c-). Of course these editions are done without sources or references. 
I have being reverting these editions (even if I let one which was only dubious), but they are re-appearing. Can some administrator take a look on this question. Thanks.
Dumu Eduba (talk) 11:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit problems 

message: Reading Versnel I found:
Lanista: trainer of gladiators (Isidorus X 159);
trossuli, flexuntes, celeres: military corps names;
tebenna : short toga:
arena: (Skeat gives as etym. Old L. hasena, from Sabine fasena though);
Idus: Etr. Itis: Iovis Fiducia (Macrob. I 15, 14) quoted by Bonfante as a gloss; perhaps tis an abbreviation for Tin(ia)s?
Camenae: Musae (Macrob. II 3,4)
Munth: mundus: Fowler cites Nettleship Contributions to Latin Lexicogr. p.258: from root MU enclose, fence. He adds Etr. origin is a similar word citing Mueller Deecke Die Etrusk. II p. 100 n. 65a; Dumezil cites E. Evangelisti in Studi ling. in on. di V. Pisani 1969 p. 347-366;
Porsenna: first;
Reading Defosse:
columna, santerna, mantisa, antemna, favisa, subulo, atrium, subura. It looks subura might derive from Etr. shpura city. It would imply that this region of Rome was  an original site of th Etr. settlements: cf. however Varro on Caelius a Caele Vibenna.
Versnel also quotes from Ernout "Les elements etrusques du voc. lat." in Philologia  Paris 1946 p. 21ff.:
satura satire, subulo flute, leno pimp, paelex concubine (Greeek via Etr.), taberna inn, cocistrio cook, caupio hotelier, sporta (Greek via Etr.) cotonea big cup, surenae, lucuns baked, vernae fermale domestic slaves, scurrae parasites.
According to Varro LL V:
Thebri(m) name of king of Veii that was given to the river Tiber, disputed by the Latins. Cf. Pyrgi lamellae: Thefariei Velianas.
Talking of the sacraria Argeorum and the 4 regions of Rome : first Suburana: ...parte princeps Caelius mons a Caele Vibenna, Tusco duce nobili, qui cum sua manu dicitur Romulo venisse auxilio contra Tatium regem. ...Vicus Tuscus... ibi Vortumnus deus Etr. princeps. Caeliolum locum: Caeliani qui a suspicione liberi essent traductos in eum locum qui vocatur Caeliolum.Zanzan32 (talk) 05:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how kahteksan can be cited here, as kahteksan is clearly "2 from 10" (Finnish kahdeksan), as Finnish yhdeksän is "1 from 10". Jpaulm (talk) 02:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other words 

message: Is rumon the word for river? I found this on the Italian Wiki, but not on the Bonfante's glossary. Servius said the first Etruscan name of the Tiber was rumon. Is it related with ruma breast? And with Gr. reoo I flow, ruma/reuma stream? Rocci says Skt. sru.
: I seem to remember the reoo, reuma words started with an 's', cf. "stream", with inserted 't'. Jpaulm (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I heard that Rome was named after the original Etruscan name for the place - Ruma.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.190.193 (talk) 08:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rumon ruma and Leper 

message: There are many of them: alumnus, Vertumnus, Autumnus, columna, antemna, Pilumnus and Picumnus, Clitumnus. According to Versnel also Volturnus, Saturnus, Iuturna, would be Etr. However while e.g. alumn- is attested in Etr. on Lars Pulena's scroll, the word for Vortumuns was Velthuna. So the Latin ending does not look to reflect regularly an equivalent Etr. ending.Zanzan32 (talk) 04:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard that alumnus is actually an old participle from alō "nourish", analogous to Greek middle or passive participles in -menos, and therefore not from Etruscan. — Eru·tuon 14:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Perhaps it is Etr. that borrowed the Italic word. Perhaps also in other instances as: laive left, eprus much, more than enough (Bonfante): cf. Lat. laevus, Galloitalic pru, apru.Zanzan32 (talk) 03:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

text: As alumnus is a form of Lat. alo, Vertumnus/Vortumnus too should be a form of verto/vorto. In such case as Dumezil suggested it is dubious whether it was really identifiable with Etr. Velthuna. Picumnus and pilumnus too do not look very Etr. as far as I can see: picus, pica, pilum all have a Lat. explainable etymology.Zanzan32 (talk) 03:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin words ending in -mn are Etruscan? 

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

message: I found this listed as a feminine proper name on the glossary of Wiki.it. It looks to be the same as the Thuflthas of the Piacenza liver, the change from f to p being attested as a later development. This identification would support Grenier's interpretation of Thuflthas  as Novensiles. In fact this name is to be found on the 2nd cell of the external ring of the liver which can be confronted directly with the dwellers of the 16 regions of heaven given by Martianus Capella (I 41 and 45-46). Now in region two there are just 3 possibly feminine gods, i.e. Fons, Lymphae and Novensiles. Of course one could choose any of the 3 however Latin sources, authors cited by Macrobius (Aelius Stilo and Granius Flaccus) had said the Novensiles were the 9 Musae.
On the other hand Varro says the Etr. called the 9 Musae Casmenae sot he issue is vexed.Zanzan32 (talk) 03:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thupeltha  

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

message: Maris': quote from Wiki.en list of Etruscan theonyms: "...Pallottino refers to the formation of a god by "...fusing groups of beings...into one". Of Mars he says "...the protecting spirits of war, represented as armed heros, tend to coalesce into a single deity, the Etrusco-Roman Mars, on the model of the Greek god Ares".
Is not this pure speculation? Roman Mars is the Sabellic-Oscan Mamers or Mamurius (Properce IV 2 near the end) and it is apparent that the Etruscans borrowed their Maris' from other Italic people. Cf the Lapis Satricanus that cites Mamers along with P. Valerius Publicola, who was of Sabine descent.Zanzan32 (talk) 05:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  An instance of bad etruscology by an outstanding etruscologist 

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

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

message: I hope to find time to do this, but if not, perhaps someone else will clean it up.  Etruscan should be capitalized all the way through, for example.  There are other punctuation and capitalization problems.  LeValley 08:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy edit needed 

message: There are indicators of possible Asian influence in the names. 
1. Etruscan an agglutinative language like Sumerian and Turkic languages.
2. Tarquinus is a possible cognate of "Tarkan" a common Turkic name.
3. Tyrhhenian a possible cognate of Turanian.
4. Rasena a link to Asena the she wolf legend of central Asia which interestingly appears in Etruscan legend also when Romulus and Remus are suckled by a she wolf.
:This is what we call original research, see WP:OR and really does not belong here as this is not a forum where we can discuss the Etruscan language. Dougweller (talk) 04:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etruscan language and names.  

message: Etruscan This could be an original research but some guy found a possibility that Etruscan is a secret language. Komitsuki (talk) 03:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The net abounds with cranks like this. Nothing of encyclopedic value here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another perspective? 

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

message: I feel the present text is unbalanced and incomplete as far as the presentation of opinions is concerned.
E. g. Marcantonio explicitly writes many Etruscan words cited by Alinei are in fact Turkic, not Hungarian.
At any rate the Turkic connection should be mentioned for two reasons:
1) Tatar-Turkish etruscologist Adile Ayda published many books both in French and in Turkish arguing for the Turkish origin of the Etruscans.
2) Genetic research conducted a few years ago on the DNA both living people from Tuscan Murlo and of ancient Etruscans by geneticians Piazza and Barbuiani support a highly significant presence of Turkish genes.
 
Of course the Turks of those times were not living in Anatolia, apart maybe the forefathers of the Etruscans, but in Central Asia. See also article on Scythian religion, section on goddess Tabiti.Aldrasto11 (talk) 09:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Just more Turkic-nationalistic crank theory. 99.99% of linguists dismiss it. Pass. 68.19.0.71 (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on other connections 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Etruscan language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110810021157/http://www.nostratic.ru/books/(329)EGRWND.pdf to http://www.nostratic.ru/books/(329)EGRWND.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I am no expert, but I know that Irish and Scots have the word 'clan' as child and 'clanna' as children. This would appear similar to the Etruscan 'Clan' for son and 'clannar' for sons. No doubt someone has already looked into this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.190.193 (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a forum for crank theories. Got a Reliable Source to talk about? 68.19.0.71 (talk) 01:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There are some theories about a Celto-Ligurian ancestor of later Celtic. They are not very popular anymore but the Ligurians and the proto Celts themselves lived in the vicinity of the Etruscans and their Rhaetian kinsmen. So it might be a loanword. The Picts are sometimes described as proto Celt rather than La Tene Celt. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

text: so how do you know the Romans did not borrow 'planta' from the Etruscans?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:34F0:C300:D105:8EF7:7AF6:4383 (talk) 08:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's called the science of linguistics - look it up some time.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.44.55 (talk) 07:29, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celtic links? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Etruscan language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100302115355/http://www.szabir.com:80/blog/etruscans-huns-and-hungarians/ to http://www.szabir.com/blog/etruscans-huns-and-hungarians/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Various news stories report an ancient gold book on display in Bulgaria that is claimed to be Etruscan .  However, I cannot find any images of the text, or any indication that it has been studied by scholars knowledgeable in the Etruscan language.  Does anyone have additional info on this? --Amble (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Such a discovery - if real - would have profound repercussions in the linguistics community - it's safe to dismiss it. HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gold book in Bulgaria? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Etruscan language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050330053810/http://etp.classics.umass.edu/ to http://etp.classics.umass.edu/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The table gives "Χ" as the glyph for kh, usually translitterated as "χ".  However, other sources give "𐌙" instead.  According to those sources, "Χ" was an archaic letter that signified "ks", and was eventually dropped from the alphabet; but was retained as a numeric symbol for "10" (pronounced "tsar"). In fact, this numeral symbol may have developed independently from the alphabet. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong symbol for K<sup>h</sup>? 

message: I think we should consider transliterating the aspirate series ⟨𐌘⟩ ⟨𐌈⟩ ⟨𐌙⟩ using either ⟨pʰ⟩ ⟨tʰ⟩ ⟨kʰ⟩ as in phonetic transcription or ⟨ph⟩ ⟨th⟩ ⟨kh⟩ as in Greek and Coptic transliteration. Using Greek letters interspaced with Latin ones doesn’t make things any more clear for readers who are not familiar with Ancient Greek orthography. Furthermore, the Modern Greek and International Phonetic Alphabet values of ⟨φ⟩ ⟨θ⟩ ⟨χ⟩—which readers are more likely to be familiar with—are different from the values of these Etrucan letters ([ɸ] [θ] [χ] vs. [pʰ] [tʰ] [kʰ]). I’m also not sure of the reasoning behind transliterating ⟨𐌅⟩ with ⟨v⟩ when digamma had this value in neither Latin nor Greek, although it did represent [w] in Greek as it does in Etruscan. Rhemmiel (talk) 03:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, we should stick to the transliterations commonly used in the lit about Etruscan, so readers who look up for info from several sources including WP will not have to flip-flop between different transliteration conventions. But I agree, it should be better explained here. The only key about it is in the sound table, so I'd suggest to add some explicit prose about what ⟨φ⟩ ⟨θ⟩ ⟨χ⟩ ⟨v⟩ are supposed to indicate. –Austronesier (talk) 10:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transliteration 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Inflected Adjectives 

message: At the vowels section, I saw that "a" in Etruscan was represented by this - "ɑ" - sign, the open back unrounded vowel. Yet there is no source that I have found, not a single one, that backs up this edit. It is safe to say that the Etruscans did not pronounce their "a" as "ɑ". Whomever made this edit is either a troll, a vandal, or a twit, or maybe all three.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.36.35.81 (talk) 06:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a citation now. You haven't looked hard enought. –Austronesier (talk) 12:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Rix and Agostiniani write /e/, but don't further bother about its exact phonetic value (unlike in the case of /a/ [ɑ]). Agostiniani writes about instability between /i/ and /e/. Do you have a source that specifcally says it's anything other than [e]? –Austronesier (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open back unrounded vowel 

message: Mel Copeland and his "research" on "Etruscan" is the most unreliable source I have ever seen on the Etruscan language. He is an utter fraud; he invents these words based on Latin ones and dresses them up as "Etruscan", and none of his works are peer-reviewed. 
The McCallisters' sources as well are of dubious validity——they know too much, it seems, and a great many of their supposed Etruscan words and meanings I cannot find anywhere else.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by My name Lɑrth (talk • contribs) 06:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mel Copeland and unreliable sources 

message: The subsection "Present active" in particular seems to convey a rather misleading impression of the nature of Etruscan verbal morphology:
"Etruscan used a verbal root with a zero suffix or -a without distinction to number or person: ar, ar-a, "he, she, we, you, they make"."
Consider on the contrary the following rather more nuanced summary discussion of present scholarly knowledge, and lack thereof, of Etruscan verbal morphology:
"The repetitive nature of most Etruscan inscriptions is such that very few distinctively different verb forms are available for analysis. Indeed, probably the only really certain verbal suffix is -ce. It must not be assumed, however, that the paucity of the verbal data from inscriptions reflects an impoverished verb system in the language; indeed, judging from the variety of verbal stems to which the recurring -ce is added, it is more likely that the Etruscan verb had a more complicated structure than the noun." ( https://www.britannica.com/topic/Etruscan-language/Grammatical-characteristics )
I think a summary in this article along the lines of the above paragraph of the britannica.com article would be much more accurate than the current content of the "Verbs" section, and especially of the "Present active" section, of the article. Skummafremdygest (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verbs section seems to be misleading 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Puzzlement on Cultural vs Linguistic Evolution in Etruria 

message: 𐌑𐌀𐌓 SergioDiaz1 (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etruscan Writing 

message: The short paragraph detailing the Piacenza Liver is corrupt. The paragraph's second sentence comprises irrelevant matter apparently derived from the Cippus Perusinus. If no-one else alters it, I may edit and rewrite the section myself.
Nuttyskin (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:   Piacenza Liver 

message: "Adding the suffix -(a)ce' to the verb root produces a third-person singular active, which has been called variously a "past", a "preterite", a "perfect." In contrast to Indo-European, this form is not marked for person."
Which is it? Is it 'a third-person singular active', or is it 'not marked for person'? 62.73.69.121 (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Person or not?