Etruscan-Slavic relations?

Etrusko-Makedonski Glossary 2.2, 2020

Etruscan language (Mekh Rasnal) and Script (Zig Rasnal) with Comparative Dictionary of Etrusco-Macedonian positively equal or similar words. As is "well known" Mekh Rasnal, i.e. Etruscan language, was written in a set of syllabic alphabets-Zig Rasnal in plain Etruscan, derived from a Phoenician and Pelasgian prototypes, and there is therefore little apparent difficulty in reading the signs and a number of words to some extent. But, there is considerably more difficulty in understanding it. The largest part of the linguistic "conclusions" on Etruscan language and script are based on many proposed assumptions and presumptions of today scholars. Thus, the interpretation of Phoenician-Pelasgo-Etruscan inscriptions and texts remains conjectural and highly speculative. Generally the Etruscan language (Mekh Rasnal) is considered to be closely related to few other poorly attested syllabic languages from the Mediterranean urheimat: Pelasgian, Brygian/Phrygian and/or Lemnian 1 in the North-Northeast of the Aegean, Camunic, Raetic and Venetic in the Alps, Tartessian in the Iberian peninsula, much older Hittite and Phoenician in Asia Minor, etc. The following historical distribution of, and demographic relations between the Pelasgo-Macedonic, Tyrsenian/Etruscan, and/or Eneti-Venetic languages, underlines the undisputed continuity and unique prehistoric scenario which explains the intricated distribution of PIE language families in all of Europe from the latter half of the 3rd millennium BCE till the start of recorded history. Archaeology and Comparative Linguistics in particular registered the Early Bronze Age Pelasgo/Tyrsenian-speaking population arriving (in the same way like today migrants) to the lower Danube area across the Central Balkans route, establishing the Tumulus culture, Villanova culture being an offshoot of the same, and concluded as Istri and Veneti, the Pre-Roman inhabitants of the northeastern Apenninic peninsula. The other way was via sea as it is well known. If the Tyrseni-Etruscans did originated from Lydia/Phrygia (the area of Central-Western and Northern Anatolia described by Roman writers, such as Virgil"s Aeneid, as Phrygia) then their language would have implications on the nature of the languages in that area about the 1st millennium BCE. Nonetheless, since Erodot (Lat. Herodotus) and other historians emphasized that the Phrygians came from the Brygian area of Macedonia, this tells us that if the Phrygians and Etruscans at some antedate spoke similar Pelasgo-Proto-Macedonic language, then the language form of the area of Lake Prespa and Peneus River in Macedonia would most probably have been similar to the Tyrseni-Etruscan language. This, however, was the most fruitful of all the arts which the Etruscans brought among the peoples they meet and with whom they traded the art of syllabic-alphabetic writing. At a very early period they borrowed their syllabic alphabet, from their Pelasgian ancestors, or from the Phoenicians(?). According to more likely theory they got it from the Pelasgians, who apparently had a syllabic script at an earlier period than the Phoenicians.

It has been forty-one years since I presented my initial work on the Etruscan language to the curator of the Louvre Museum in Paris, France. It was about this time of the year and at the time I was thirtyeight years old. The curator kindly met with me but was not able to help me beyond suggesting meeting with some professors at the Sorbonne University. I was looking, of course, for the scholastic world s interest in the work and help in pursuing it in detail. I went to the Sorbonne without any positive result. I had been working then on the Etruscan language for about ten years, having been curious about Michael Ventris decipherment of Linear B, a writing system used in Crete by the Mycenaean civilization. Having spent some time on it and Linear B (which continues to be undeciphered, I switched to the examination of a curious Etruscan lead tablet called the Magliano Disk which had an inscription in the form of a spiral or meander. The Magliano Disk has been date to be around 500 B.C. Another document like the Magliano Disk is the Phaistos Disk which dates to 2,000 B.C. The Magliano Disk prompted me into searching out all of the Etruscan texts I could find, the results of which are provided on my Etruscan Phrases web pages. All written documents are intended to be understood and assume that the reader knows the value of the characters used to communicate the ideas expressed in a document. The Etruscan characters posed a unique problem, since they are almost the same as the Roman or Western alphabet and one is tempted to assign the values we know and understand to the Etruscan writings. But there is a problem with this, since the Etruscan writing often did not separate characters, phrases, or sentences, and separating distinct words in the texts is a challenge. Complicating the reading of the texts is the problem peculiar to Phoenician and later Hebrew texts where vowels are omitted. The omission of vowels in the Etruscan texts, however, did not appear to be systematic. The values of the Etruscan characters turn out to be not the same as our alphabet. The V, for instance, is not the Roman v but used as a u and o. The Etruscan F is interesting since it serves both as a consonant and a vowel. It is a v and a u, as in the word for Dionysus, Bacchus, L. Euias, Euan, which is Etruscan EFAIS, Euais. Euan is Etruscan EFAN. These and other similar relationships will be seen in the Copeland-English-Etruscan Dictionary (as well as the Etruscan Glossary A). In any event, it is now October 17, 2022 after preparing the Introduction to the Etruscan Language and further pursing the draft findings of this document, identifying specific declension and grammatical applications, another document has grown out of the work which is the Copeland-English-Etruscan Dictionary. It has been compiled using a worksheet at the end of this document called the Etruscan Glossary. Since the Etruscan Glossary is an excel spreadsheet, it could be used to organize refine and translate the Etruscan words of the Etruscan texts. Associated with preparation of the Etruscan Glossary is my Indo-European Table1 which is in 11 parts, available on academia.edu at: Introduction to the Etruscan language 2 https://www.academia.edu/35148685/Etruscan_Phrases_Indo_European_Table_1_Update_02_06_22_ The purpose and function of the table can be easily discerned by one s first look at the table and its succeeding 10 parts. Its 11 parts can also be easily accessed at: http://www.maravot.com/indo-european_Table.html. The Indo-European Table is not what I intended it to be, for it has grown into a table and worksheet on Eurasian languages. Each language represented in the Table reveals relationships that may be surprising. For instance, those who are interested in the origins of certain English words will see entries on origins (taken from The Concise American Heritage Dictionary, 1987 Houghton-Mifflin Company. Many of the English source or origin entries may not be correct, as will be seen in the Table. What does all this have to do with the Etruscans, who date from about 1,000 B.C. in Tuscany, Northern Italy? A good part of the English language derives from Latin, and Latin is very closely related to Etruscan (an older civilization that the Latin/Roman civilization). Civilizations influence on another, either by trade or conquest or both. We know the relationship of English-Latin, or French-Latin, etc. because of the Roman conquests. The Etruscan-Latin relationship is more perplexing, since the Etruscans had an established civilization long before, hundreds of years before, Rome came into existence. There were Latin-speaking tribes that were neighbors of the Etruscans but since the relationship between them and the Etruscans was before Rome came into existence we can t speak to the history of the Etruscans and Latin-speaking people. Could they understand one another? It s hard to say. We can assume that old Latin was closer to Etruscan than Roman Latin. The name of Hercules, for instance, in Etruscan is HERCLE, in old Latin it appears to be the same. In French the name of Hercules is Hercule. There is a possibility that we can write a history the Etruscan world from the Etruscan point of view and that is through the translation of the Etruscan texts. This leads you to the Copeland-English-Etruscan Dictionary, currently in preparation. There are 136 pages in the document and growing, as I convert the Etruscan Glossary A data into a working dictionary. The final Etruscan dictionary will be in excess of 300 pages, estimated to include about 3,000 words.

Etruscan is still only partially understood, and information about its lexicon is scattered across innumerable sources. It is therefore very difficult to quickly obtain an overview of our current understanding of its lexicon. The present paper aims at filling this gap, by offering a quick summary of our understanding of Etruscan basic lexicon. This paper is intended as a stepping stone for researchers who want to try and understand the origin of Etruscan by comparing its basic lexicon against other languages and language families.

This table shows an unusual spectrum of cognates: Indo-European - Sanskrit, Avestan, Persian, Belarusian, Croatian, Polish, Romanian, Greek, Armenian, Albanian, Latin, Irish, Scots-Gaelic, Welsh, Italian, French, English, Etruscan, Hittite, Tocharian, Luwian;; in addition, Hurrian, Urartian, Akkadian, Georgian, Latvian, Baltic-Sudovian, and Finnish-Uralic. Overlaying the Semitic Sumero-Akkadian cognates in this table has produced an unusual Concordance. The Concordance is also part of our Copeland-Akkadian-English.Dictionary which integrates the findings in our Indo-European Table. Part 6 (http://www.maravot.com/Indo-European_Table1B.1.html) is our first integrated Akkadian-Indo-European, Altaic, etc. Table, Click on it for the most current version.

Etruscan is still only partially understood, and information about its lexicon is scattered across innumerable sources. It is therefore very difficult to quickly obtain an overview of our current understanding of its lexicon. The present paper aims at filling this gap, by offering a quick summary of our understanding of Etruscan basic lexicon. This paper is intended as a stepping stone for researchers who want to try and understand the origin of Etruscan by comparing its basic lexicon against other languages and language families. The present update includes translations by Koen Wylin.

Etruscan is still only partially understood, and information about its lexicon is scattered across innumerable sources. It is therefore very difficult to quickly obtain an overview of our current understanding of its lexicon. The present paper aims at filling this gap, by offering a quick summary of our understanding of Etruscan basic lexicon. This paper is intended as a stepping stone for researchers who want to try and understand the origin of Etruscan by comparing its basic lexicon against other languages and language families. The present update includes translations by Mauro Cristofani.

Atti del Sodalizio Glottologico Milanese, vol. V n.s. 2010 - Edizioni dell'Orso - ISBN 978-88-6274-286-3, 2011

""Etruscan is an Indo-European language, probably belonging to a sub-branch of Anatolian which does not include Hittite. This claim is based on the following evidence: • only lexical items for which Etruscologists have proposed a gloss have been used in this research (no attempt has been made at proposing new glosses for currently obscure or highly controversial Etruscan terms); • 138 of the glosses put forth by Etruscologists belong to basic lexicon, and 97% of such basic lexicon has an IE etymology; • 19 grammar morphemes have also been assigned a value by Etruscologists: 95% of them have an IE etymology; • all such etymologies are based on regular sound laws; • a few notable innovations are shared by Etruscan and Anatolian languages (often excluding Hittite).""

The present paper deals with the possibility of interpreting the palatalizations of velars and/or the emergence of the correlation of palatalization in "Slavic" by the influence of "Altaic" languages. The negative position, recently expressed by Stachowski (2020), is discussed in the broader context of the history of this hypothesis and, above all, in terms of modern theories of language contact. It is shown that some of Stachowskiʼs objections (in particular the lack of lexical borrowings and the large difference in the features under consideration between Slavic and the putative source language) do not correspond to the principles and findings of contact linguistics. Despite illustrating the explanatory power of the most likely scenario of "Altaic" influence, as introduced by Galton, we ultimately agree that the lack of linguistic data on the languages of the Huns and Avars is a major obstacle that makes this theory unprovable.

In this paper, I have discussed the philosophical essence which to the semantics, morphology, and origins of the Etruscan language/script underlies. Further, I emphasized the Proto-Slavic-Sanskrit interpretation, which is consistent with the 5 -element Vedic philosophy. More about this theme in my new book, on the link: https://munistas.com/cube/

(from a work published in 1981) This table shows an unusual spectrum of cognates: Indo-European - Sanskrit, Avestan, Persian, Belarusian, Croatian, Polish, Romanian, Greek, Armenian, Albanian, Latin, Irish, Scots-Gaelic, Welsh, Italian, French, English, Etruscan, Hittite, Tocharian, Luwian;; in addition, Hurrian, Urartian, Akkadian, Georgian, Latvian, Baltic-Sudovian, and Finnish-Uralic. Overlaying the Semitic Sumero-Akkadian cognates in this table has produced an unusual Concordance. The Concordance is also part of our Copeland-Akkadian-English.Dictionary which integrates the findings in our Indo-European Table. Part 2 (http://www.maravot.com/Indo-European_Table1A.html) includes our integrated Akkadian-Indo-European Table. Click on it for the most current version.