Discussion:
Why is Etruscan Non-IndoEuropean?
(too old to reply)
Jack Fearnley
2017-10-14 21:51:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I am happy to accept the judgement of professional linguists that
Etruscan is not part of the IndoEuropean family of languages.

I am, however, curious about how this conclusion is reached.

The distictiveness of the number names is often used to demonstrate the
separateness of Etruscan; but is this the only argument, or are there
others?

Etruscan numbers:
1,θu 2,zal 3,ci 4,huθ
5,maχ 6,śa 7,semφ 8,*cezp 9,nurφ
10,śar 20,zaθrum

Best Regards,
Jack Fearnley
Antonio Marques
2017-10-14 23:13:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jack Fearnley
I am happy to accept the judgement of professional linguists that
Etruscan is not part of the IndoEuropean family of languages.
I am, however, curious about how this conclusion is reached.
The distictiveness of the number names is often used to demonstrate the
separateness of Etruscan; but is this the only argument, or are there
others?
1,θu 2,zal 3,ci 4,huθ
5,maχ 6,śa 7,semφ 8,*cezp 9,nurφ
10,śar 20,zaθrum
Best Regards,
Jack Fearnley
It rather works in the opposite way: what is there in Etruscan that looks
like IE? And the answer is pretty much nothing.
Arnaud Fournet
2017-10-15 11:40:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Antonio Marques
Post by Jack Fearnley
I am happy to accept the judgement of professional linguists that
Etruscan is not part of the IndoEuropean family of languages.
I am, however, curious about how this conclusion is reached.
The distictiveness of the number names is often used to demonstrate the
separateness of Etruscan; but is this the only argument, or are there
others?
1,θu 2,zal 3,ci 4,huθ
5,maχ 6,śa 7,semφ 8,*cezp 9,nurφ
10,śar 20,zaθrum
Best Regards,
Jack Fearnley
It rather works in the opposite way: what is there in Etruscan that looks
like IE? And the answer is pretty much nothing.
yes, of course.
nothing has nothing to do with nothing.
A.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-14 23:21:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jack Fearnley
I am happy to accept the judgement of professional linguists that
Etruscan is not part of the IndoEuropean family of languages.
I am, however, curious about how this conclusion is reached.
The distictiveness of the number names is often used to demonstrate the
separateness of Etruscan; but is this the only argument, or are there
others?
1,θu 2,zal 3,ci 4,huθ
5,maχ 6,śa 7,semφ 8,*cezp 9,nurφ
10,śar 20,zaθrum
There is no resemblance in grammar or vocabulary (except, of course, in
religious terminology borrowed by Latins along with much of the religion).
Christian Weisgerber
2017-10-14 23:37:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jack Fearnley
I am happy to accept the judgement of professional linguists that
Etruscan is not part of the IndoEuropean family of languages.
I am, however, curious about how this conclusion is reached.
Nobody has convincingly shown that Etruscan *is* IE.

You can't prove that languages aren't related. You can only
demonstrate that they are, and unless somebody manages to do so,
the default assumption is that they aren't.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber ***@mips.inka.de
Jack Fearnley
2017-10-15 02:24:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by Jack Fearnley
I am happy to accept the judgement of professional linguists that
Etruscan is not part of the IndoEuropean family of languages.
I am, however, curious about how this conclusion is reached.
Nobody has convincingly shown that Etruscan *is* IE.
You can't prove that languages aren't related. You can only demonstrate
that they are, and unless somebody manages to do so,
the default assumption is that they aren't.
Many thanks for your replies and those of P. T. Daniels and Antonio
Marques.

I get that one cannot prove unrelatedness but, considering the historical
and geographical milieu, I would have thought that the presumption would
be IE unless shown otherwise.

Are the noun declensions and verb conjugations totally different from IE?

Does the language even have declensions and conjugations?

Jack
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-15 02:55:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jack Fearnley
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by Jack Fearnley
I am happy to accept the judgement of professional linguists that
Etruscan is not part of the IndoEuropean family of languages.
I am, however, curious about how this conclusion is reached.
Nobody has convincingly shown that Etruscan *is* IE.
You can't prove that languages aren't related. You can only demonstrate
that they are, and unless somebody manages to do so,
the default assumption is that they aren't.
Many thanks for your replies and those of P. T. Daniels and Antonio
Marques.
I get that one cannot prove unrelatedness but, considering the historical
and geographical milieu, I would have thought that the presumption would
be IE unless shown otherwise.
Are the noun declensions and verb conjugations totally different from IE?
Does the language even have declensions and conjugations?
There are almost no connected texts. Almost everything in Etruscan is names of
deceased written on the walls of their tombs, or names of gods depicted in
illustrations. We have thousands of such.

A long text -- I think 8 lines -- was discovered by archeologists last year
some time. It hasn't been published yet.
Dingbat
2017-10-16 03:20:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Jack Fearnley
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by Jack Fearnley
I am happy to accept the judgement of professional linguists that
Etruscan is not part of the IndoEuropean family of languages.
I am, however, curious about how this conclusion is reached.
Nobody has convincingly shown that Etruscan *is* IE.
You can't prove that languages aren't related. You can only
demonstrate that they are, and unless somebody manages to do so,
the default assumption is that they aren't.
Many thanks for your replies and those of P. T. Daniels and Antonio
Marques.
I get that one cannot prove unrelatedness but, considering the
historical and geographical milieu, I would have thought that the
presumption would be IE unless shown otherwise.
Are the noun declensions and verb conjugations totally different from IE?
Does the language even have declensions and conjugations?
There are almost no connected texts. Almost everything in Etruscan is
names of deceased written on the walls of their tombs, or names of gods
depicted in illustrations. We have thousands of such.
A long text -- I think 8 lines -- was discovered by archeologists last
year some time. It hasn't been published yet.
Emperor Claudius compiled a 20 volume treatise on the Etruscans and
compiled an Etruscan dictionary. Unfortunately, they are lost.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_language

There's a statue of an orator in Roman clothing with an
inscription in Etruscan:

“auleśi meteliś ve[luś] vesial clenśi /
cen flereś tece sanśl tenine /
tu θineś χisvlicś”

(“To (or from) Auli Meteli, the son of Vel and Vesi,
Tenine (?) set up this statue as a votive offering to Sans,
by deliberation of the people”)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Orator
Arnaud Fournet
2017-10-16 07:21:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Jack Fearnley
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by Jack Fearnley
I am happy to accept the judgement of professional linguists that
Etruscan is not part of the IndoEuropean family of languages.
I am, however, curious about how this conclusion is reached.
Nobody has convincingly shown that Etruscan *is* IE.
You can't prove that languages aren't related. You can only
demonstrate that they are, and unless somebody manages to do so,
the default assumption is that they aren't.
Many thanks for your replies and those of P. T. Daniels and Antonio
Marques.
I get that one cannot prove unrelatedness but, considering the
historical and geographical milieu, I would have thought that the
presumption would be IE unless shown otherwise.
Are the noun declensions and verb conjugations totally different from IE?
Does the language even have declensions and conjugations?
There are almost no connected texts. Almost everything in Etruscan is
names of deceased written on the walls of their tombs, or names of gods
depicted in illustrations. We have thousands of such.
A long text -- I think 8 lines -- was discovered by archeologists last
year some time. It hasn't been published yet.
Emperor Claudius compiled a 20 volume treatise on the Etruscans and
compiled an Etruscan dictionary. Unfortunately, they are lost.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_language
There's a statue of an orator in Roman clothing with an
“auleśi meteliś ve[luś] vesial clenśi /
cen flereś tece sanśl tenine /
tu θineś χisvlicś”
(“To (or from) Auli Meteli, the son of Vel and Vesi,
Tenine (?) set up this statue as a votive offering to Sans,
by deliberation of the people”)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Orator
Note that the morphology is basically indo-european
Dative -ey aule-s-i clen-s-i
Genitive -s meteli-s vel-us
clen is possibly from *g^en-al- > *knal > clan
teke is *dheH1- "to do" plus past passive -k-
Everything is thoroughly IE-an.
A.
Arnaud Fournet
2017-10-16 07:22:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Jack Fearnley
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by Jack Fearnley
I am happy to accept the judgement of professional linguists that
Etruscan is not part of the IndoEuropean family of languages.
I am, however, curious about how this conclusion is reached.
Nobody has convincingly shown that Etruscan *is* IE.
You can't prove that languages aren't related. You can only
demonstrate that they are, and unless somebody manages to do so,
the default assumption is that they aren't.
Many thanks for your replies and those of P. T. Daniels and Antonio
Marques.
I get that one cannot prove unrelatedness but, considering the
historical and geographical milieu, I would have thought that the
presumption would be IE unless shown otherwise.
Are the noun declensions and verb conjugations totally different from IE?
Does the language even have declensions and conjugations?
There are almost no connected texts. Almost everything in Etruscan is
names of deceased written on the walls of their tombs, or names of gods
depicted in illustrations. We have thousands of such.
A long text -- I think 8 lines -- was discovered by archeologists last
year some time. It hasn't been published yet.
Emperor Claudius compiled a 20 volume treatise on the Etruscans and
compiled an Etruscan dictionary. Unfortunately, they are lost.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_language
There's a statue of an orator in Roman clothing with an
“auleśi meteliś ve[luś] vesial clenśi /
cen flereś tece sanśl tenine /
tu θineś χisvlicś”
(“To (or from) Auli Meteli, the son of Vel and Vesi,
Tenine (?) set up this statue as a votive offering to Sans,
by deliberation of the people”)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Orator
Note that the morphology is basically indo-european
Dative -ey aule-s-i clen-s-i
Genitive -s meteli-s vel-us
clen is possibly from *g^en-al- > *knal > clan
teke is *dheH1- "to do" plus past passive -k-
Everything is thoroughly IE-an.
A.
I forgot to say that the suffix -l in sanś-l is from *d, as in domino-d "to/for Sans"
A.
Anónio Marques
2017-10-15 13:59:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jack Fearnley
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by Jack Fearnley
I am happy to accept the judgement of professional linguists that
Etruscan is not part of the IndoEuropean family of languages.
I am, however, curious about how this conclusion is reached.
Nobody has convincingly shown that Etruscan *is* IE.
You can't prove that languages aren't related. You can only demonstrate
that they are, and unless somebody manages to do so,
the default assumption is that they aren't.
Many thanks for your replies and those of P. T. Daniels and Antonio
Marques.
I get that one cannot prove unrelatedness but, considering the historical
and geographical milieu, I would have thought that the presumption would
be IE unless shown otherwise.
It doesn't quite work like that. It's true that whenever investigating a
language's origins, the first thing you do is look at nearby families for a
relationship, and in Europe that would be IE. But you still have to find
some resemblance. If none is forthcoming, and a few isolated sounds are
hardly enough, then it matters very little that most everyone else in the
vincinity is speaking IE. (As it turns out, North Picene isn't IE either,
nor are the pre-Latin languages of Corsica and Sardinia likely to have
been.)

Sometimes this means potential relationships are overlooked - for instance,
people are less likely to investigate whether Etruscan is related to East
Asian or South American languages (for good reason), so even if it were
related to those, it would be likely to go unnoticed for a good while.
Post by Jack Fearnley
Are the noun declensions and verb conjugations totally different from IE?
Does the language even have declensions and conjugations?
In a way it does, but even the little material available makes it clear
that they were more of an agglutinative type - invariable suffixes with
specific meanings that don't fuse phonetically and can be stringed
independently - rather than anything IE languages exhibit.

Put otherwise: for Etruscan to be IE, it has to have lost pretty much all
of its IE vocabulary and grammar. The working hypothesis for any scattered
resemblance one may find is that it was borrowed from the neighbouring
languages or is a coincidence. There are not that many letters in the
alphabet, after all.
Christian Weisgerber
2017-10-15 15:41:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anónio Marques
It doesn't quite work like that. It's true that whenever investigating a
language's origins, the first thing you do is look at nearby families for a
relationship, and in Europe that would be IE. But you still have to find
some resemblance. If none is forthcoming, and a few isolated sounds are
hardly enough, then it matters very little that most everyone else in the
vincinity is speaking IE. (As it turns out, North Picene isn't IE either,
nor are the pre-Latin languages of Corsica and Sardinia likely to have
been.)
For some perspective, see:
Don Ringe, "The Linguistic Diversity of Aboriginal Europe"
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=980
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber ***@mips.inka.de
Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski
2017-10-15 22:26:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jack Fearnley
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by Jack Fearnley
I am happy to accept the judgement of professional linguists that
Etruscan is not part of the IndoEuropean family of languages.
I am, however, curious about how this conclusion is reached.
Nobody has convincingly shown that Etruscan *is* IE.
You can't prove that languages aren't related. You can only demonstrate
that they are, and unless somebody manages to do so,
the default assumption is that they aren't.
Many thanks for your replies and those of P. T. Daniels and Antonio
Marques.
I get that one cannot prove unrelatedness but, considering the historical
and geographical milieu, I would have thought that the presumption would
be IE unless shown otherwise.
No. You got it upside down. The presumption is, that it is not related to anything unless shown otherwise.
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-10-16 01:53:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jack Fearnley
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by Jack Fearnley
I am happy to accept the judgement of professional linguists that
Etruscan is not part of the IndoEuropean family of languages.
I am, however, curious about how this conclusion is reached.
Nobody has convincingly shown that Etruscan *is* IE.
You can't prove that languages aren't related. You can only demonstrate
that they are, and unless somebody manages to do so,
the default assumption is that they aren't.
Many thanks for your replies and those of P. T. Daniels and Antonio
Marques.
I get that one cannot prove unrelatedness but, considering the historical
and geographical milieu, I would have thought that the presumption would
be IE unless shown otherwise.
Basque is still spoken in Europe, yet it happens not to be IE, yet no
one has presumed it be IE.
Post by Jack Fearnley
Are the noun declensions and verb conjugations totally different from IE?
Does the language even have declensions and conjugations?
Jack
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-16 02:17:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Jack Fearnley
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by Jack Fearnley
I am happy to accept the judgement of professional linguists that
Etruscan is not part of the IndoEuropean family of languages.
I am, however, curious about how this conclusion is reached.
Nobody has convincingly shown that Etruscan *is* IE.
You can't prove that languages aren't related. You can only demonstrate
that they are, and unless somebody manages to do so,
the default assumption is that they aren't.
Many thanks for your replies and those of P. T. Daniels and Antonio
Marques.
I get that one cannot prove unrelatedness but, considering the historical
and geographical milieu, I would have thought that the presumption would
be IE unless shown otherwise.
Basque is still spoken in Europe, yet it happens not to be IE, yet no
one has presumed it be IE.
Actually, Julie Blevins suggested, in an unpublished talk at the CUNY Grad
Center a few years ago, that it is. She had some arcane phonological correspondences.
I don't know whether she's tried to go any further.

And of course Theo Vennemann imagines/d that Basque is the remnant of when some
sort of Afroasiatic covered all of Europe.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2017-11-16 18:39:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by Jack Fearnley
I am happy to accept the judgement of professional linguists that
Etruscan is not part of the IndoEuropean family of languages.
I am, however, curious about how this conclusion is reached.
Nobody has convincingly shown that Etruscan *is* IE.
You can't prove that languages aren't related. You can only demonstrate
that they are, and unless somebody manages to do so,
the default assumption is that they aren't.
Many thanks for your replies and those of P. T. Daniels and Antonio Marques.
I get that one cannot prove unrelatedness but, considering the
historical and geographical milieu, I would have thought that the
presumption would be IE unless shown otherwise.
Basque is still spoken in Europe, yet it happens not to be IE, yet no
one has presumed it be IE.
Hungarian and Finnish too, as well as your own Turkish.
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Are the noun declensions and verb conjugations totally different from IE?
Does the language even have declensions and conjugations?
Jack
--
athel
Arnaud Fournet
2017-11-19 16:53:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by Jack Fearnley
I am happy to accept the judgement of professional linguists that
Etruscan is not part of the IndoEuropean family of languages.
I am, however, curious about how this conclusion is reached.
Nobody has convincingly shown that Etruscan *is* IE.
You can't prove that languages aren't related. You can only demonstrate
that they are, and unless somebody manages to do so,
the default assumption is that they aren't.
Many thanks for your replies and those of P. T. Daniels and Antonio Marques.
I get that one cannot prove unrelatedness but, considering the
historical and geographical milieu, I would have thought that the
presumption would be IE unless shown otherwise.
Basque is still spoken in Europe, yet it happens not to be IE, yet no
one has presumed it be IE.
This is not entirely true, an Italian, Forni, has proposed papers where he claims to see plenty of cognates between PIE and Basque.
Needless to say, this has not gained acceptance.
DKleinecke
2017-11-19 17:41:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by Jack Fearnley
I am happy to accept the judgement of professional linguists that
Etruscan is not part of the IndoEuropean family of languages.
I am, however, curious about how this conclusion is reached.
Nobody has convincingly shown that Etruscan *is* IE.
You can't prove that languages aren't related. You can only demonstrate
that they are, and unless somebody manages to do so,
the default assumption is that they aren't.
Many thanks for your replies and those of P. T. Daniels and Antonio Marques.
I get that one cannot prove unrelatedness but, considering the
historical and geographical milieu, I would have thought that the
presumption would be IE unless shown otherwise.
Basque is still spoken in Europe, yet it happens not to be IE, yet no
one has presumed it be IE.
This is not entirely true, an Italian, Forni, has proposed papers where he claims to see plenty of cognates between PIE and Basque.
Needless to say, this has not gained acceptance.
Maybe Daud Dedan could give Forni a helping hand.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-11-19 18:42:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by DKleinecke
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by Jack Fearnley
I am happy to accept the judgement of professional linguists that
Etruscan is not part of the IndoEuropean family of languages.
I am, however, curious about how this conclusion is reached.
Nobody has convincingly shown that Etruscan *is* IE.
You can't prove that languages aren't related. You can only demonstrate
that they are, and unless somebody manages to do so,
the default assumption is that they aren't.
Many thanks for your replies and those of P. T. Daniels and Antonio Marques.
I get that one cannot prove unrelatedness but, considering the
historical and geographical milieu, I would have thought that the
presumption would be IE unless shown otherwise.
Basque is still spoken in Europe, yet it happens not to be IE, yet no
one has presumed it be IE.
This is not entirely true, an Italian, Forni, has proposed papers where he claims to see plenty of cognates between PIE and Basque.
Needless to say, this has not gained acceptance.
Maybe Daud Dedan could give Forni a helping hand.
As I mentioned not all that long ago, Julie Blevins of the CUNY Grad Center
(mostly a phonologist) gave a talk presenting some putative sound changes for
deriving some basic Basque vocabulary from PIE.
Daud Deden
2017-11-19 20:11:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
***@Basque: forge
***@Hebrew: burnt offering*
***@English~***@Sp:fiery
Ore/ochre/*ua(ngua)lua=ola ~ or.ange.red/enraged ~ en.d.angered/afeared/***@Malay: afire ~ saphire~ xy.am.b.uatla ~ cyan/ember + aura/uatla/ola ~ hola!/hell.o/jamb.o/mate-grate

* A Hungarian friend's surname

Christian Weisgerber
2017-10-15 00:33:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jack Fearnley
I am happy to accept the judgement of professional linguists that
Etruscan is not part of the IndoEuropean family of languages.
I am, however, curious about how this conclusion is reached.
A very non-stringent argument, but suitable for laypeople like you
and me, is this one: If Etruscan was IE, somebody would have figured
it out by now.

Remember how IE was discovered: People who knew Latin and Greek ran
into Sanskrit and went "waiiit a moment, this can't be a coincidence..."
and this was expanded to more and more languages. When people
encountered Hittite they pretty soon figured out that it was IE,
which can't have been easy given the crazy script. Linear B was
shown to be an archaic form of Ancient Greek, written in a syllabary
wholly unsuited for the language. By comparison, you would expect
the task of recognizing Etruscan as IE to be easy--unless of course
it simply isn't IE.
Post by Jack Fearnley
The distictiveness of the number names is often used to demonstrate the
separateness of Etruscan;
It's a good starting point. A few years ago I had an interesting
experience. I was watching an episode of the TV show _Strike Back_
with a "ripped from the headlines" plot where terrorists took over
some hotel in India. The head villain partly spoke in some local
language--I would guess Hindi or Urdu, but I really don't know at
all--and at some point counted down from ten, and I immediately
realized that whatever language he was speaking, it clearly had IE
numerals because of the overall similarity to Latin/Germanic/Slavic.

Of course a language can borrow its number words from another
language, so this isn't conclusive.
Post by Jack Fearnley
but is this the only argument, or are there others?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_language
The Wikipedia article summarizes what's known about Etruscan
morphology and its core vocabulary. You'd think if this was an IE
language from 2000 years ago, it would look more familiar.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber ***@mips.inka.de
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-15 02:53:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by Jack Fearnley
I am happy to accept the judgement of professional linguists that
Etruscan is not part of the IndoEuropean family of languages.
I am, however, curious about how this conclusion is reached.
A very non-stringent argument, but suitable for laypeople like you
and me, is this one: If Etruscan was IE, somebody would have figured
it out by now.
Remember how IE was discovered: People who knew Latin and Greek ran
into Sanskrit and went "waiiit a moment, this can't be a coincidence..."
and this was expanded to more and more languages. When people
encountered Hittite they pretty soon figured out that it was IE,
which can't have been easy given the crazy script.
Excuse me? The "crazy script" had been fully readable for at least half a
century when the first Hittite texts were discovered in Anatolia; inflectional
endings were immediately identified, and the word wa-ta-at in association with
the Sumerian sign (logogram) NINDA 'bread' was essentially all that was needed.
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Linear B was
shown to be an archaic form of Ancient Greek, written in a syllabary
wholly unsuited for the language. By comparison, you would expect
the task of recognizing Etruscan as IE to be easy--unless of course
it simply isn't IE.
(Its alphabet is barely different from that of Greek.)
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by Jack Fearnley
The distictiveness of the number names is often used to demonstrate the
separateness of Etruscan;
It's a good starting point. A few years ago I had an interesting
experience. I was watching an episode of the TV show _Strike Back_
with a "ripped from the headlines" plot where terrorists took over
some hotel in India. The head villain partly spoke in some local
language--I would guess Hindi or Urdu, but I really don't know at
all--and at some point counted down from ten, and I immediately
realized that whatever language he was speaking, it clearly had IE
numerals because of the overall similarity to Latin/Germanic/Slavic.
Of course a language can borrow its number words from another
language, so this isn't conclusive.
Post by Jack Fearnley
but is this the only argument, or are there others?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_language
The Wikipedia article summarizes what's known about Etruscan
morphology and its core vocabulary. You'd think if this was an IE
language from 2000 years ago, it would look more familiar.
Arnaud Fournet
2017-10-15 11:43:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by Jack Fearnley
I am happy to accept the judgement of professional linguists that
Etruscan is not part of the IndoEuropean family of languages.
I am, however, curious about how this conclusion is reached.
A very non-stringent argument, but suitable for laypeople like you
and me, is this one: If Etruscan was IE, somebody would have figured
it out by now.
This is doubtless the most idiotic argument, ever.
A.
Arnaud Fournet
2017-10-15 11:40:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jack Fearnley
I am happy to accept the judgement of professional linguists that
Etruscan is not part of the IndoEuropean family of languages.
I am, however, curious about how this conclusion is reached.
The distictiveness of the number names is often used to demonstrate the
separateness of Etruscan; but is this the only argument, or are there
others?
1,θu 2,zal 3,ci 4,huθ
5,maχ 6,śa 7,semφ 8,*cezp 9,nurφ
10,śar 20,zaθrum
Best Regards,
Jack Fearnley
of course, 4,huθ (velar -u- dental) has nothing to do with *kwtwor
of course, 6,śa (sibilant + a) has nothing to do with *seks
of course, 7,semφ (sibilant + e + labial) has nothing to do with *sep-tm.
of course, 9,nurφ (nasal + u) has nothing to do with *H1neu-
etc.
A.
b***@ihug.co.nz
2017-10-15 23:15:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Jack Fearnley
I am happy to accept the judgement of professional linguists that
Etruscan is not part of the IndoEuropean family of languages.
I am, however, curious about how this conclusion is reached.
The distictiveness of the number names is often used to demonstrate the
separateness of Etruscan; but is this the only argument, or are there
others?
1,θu 2,zal 3,ci 4,huθ
5,maχ 6,śa 7,semφ 8,*cezp 9,nurφ
10,śar 20,zaθrum
Best Regards,
Jack Fearnley
of course, 4,huθ (velar -u- dental) has nothing to do with *kwtwor
of course, 6,śa (sibilant + a) has nothing to do with *seks
of course, 7,semφ (sibilant + e + labial) has nothing to do with *sep-tm.
of course, 9,nurφ (nasal + u) has nothing to do with *H1neu-
etc.
A.
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal, who used to make valuable contributions
to this group in decades past, posted a list of interesting
resemblances between Etruscan and IE. (Unfortunately I've been
unsuccessful in trying to re-locate it.) Allowing for some borrowing
and some accidental resemblance, as well as for the limits
of our knowledge of Etruscan, he concluded that it was not IE,
but perhaps its closest relative.
Arnaud Fournet
2017-10-16 07:14:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@ihug.co.nz
Post by Arnaud Fournet
Post by Jack Fearnley
I am happy to accept the judgement of professional linguists that
Etruscan is not part of the IndoEuropean family of languages.
I am, however, curious about how this conclusion is reached.
The distictiveness of the number names is often used to demonstrate the
separateness of Etruscan; but is this the only argument, or are there
others?
1,θu 2,zal 3,ci 4,huθ
5,maχ 6,śa 7,semφ 8,*cezp 9,nurφ
10,śar 20,zaθrum
Best Regards,
Jack Fearnley
of course, 4,huθ (velar -u- dental) has nothing to do with *kwtwor
of course, 6,śa (sibilant + a) has nothing to do with *seks
of course, 7,semφ (sibilant + e + labial) has nothing to do with *sep-tm.
of course, 9,nurφ (nasal + u) has nothing to do with *H1neu-
etc.
A.
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal, who used to make valuable contributions
to this group in decades past, posted a list of interesting
resemblances between Etruscan and IE. (Unfortunately I've been
unsuccessful in trying to re-locate it.) Allowing for some borrowing
and some accidental resemblance, as well as for the limits
of our knowledge of Etruscan, he concluded that it was not IE,
but perhaps its closest relative.
one of the problems in establishing relatives of PIE is that "PIE" as it is generally conceived only accounts for a relatively homogeneous block of languages, that does not include Anatolian. I call that Proto-Sanskrit-Improved. You can call it otherwise: Brugmannian PIE.
So of course Etruscan, which I've come to think is a distant and evolved form of Hurro-Urartian, is rather a sister of Proto-Sanskrit-Improved.
A.
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-10-16 01:46:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In <oru0sq$jfd$***@dont-email.me>, on Saturday, 10/14/2017, Jack Fearnley
wrote:

Your title is flawed. "Why is Etruscan Non-IndoEuropean?"

It is like saying "Why are we not brothers?". If we don't share the
same the same parents, there is nothing anybody or anything can do
about it. In the case of Etruscan, there is no evidence that Etruscan
shares the ancestor common to all IE languages. Having been once spoken
in Europe does not make it "IE".
Post by Jack Fearnley
I am happy to accept the judgement of professional linguists that
Etruscan is not part of the IndoEuropean family of languages.
I am, however, curious about how this conclusion is reached.
The distictiveness of the number names is often used to demonstrate the
separateness of Etruscan; but is this the only argument, or are there
others?
1,θu 2,zal 3,ci 4,huθ
5,maχ 6,śa 7,semφ 8,*cezp 9,nurφ
10,śar 20,zaθrum
Best Regards,
Jack Fearnley
Loading...