Schum PU 1
This one particular inscription that looks especially Etruscan-like. It seems to read as follows, although Adolfo Zavaroni transcribes it differently on his website under Schum PU 1:
iχ χan φelturies kala hepru śia hil / klanturusI swear I see a legible sentence in here whose equivalent in Etruscan would be:
*Iχ, can Velturies-cla hepru śia hil.If we interpret the hapax hepru as a noun referring to the artifact on which the inscription is written, we get the following phrase: "Thus (iχ), this (χan) plaque (hepru) from the Velturie (Φelturies-kala) is set down (śia) to the property (hil)."
The verb here appears to be śi, conjugated in the present tense (-a). The direct object (χan hepru) is then separated by the name of the donors in the genitive case (Φelturies) further augmented by a genitive-declined demontrative postfix (kala). This leaves the unmarked nominative hil which I've already translated as 'property, land' in my Etruscan database. This word curiously follows the verb, however this is not unusual in Etruscan for reasons I'm currently developing. It may have something to do with animacy whereby an inanimate noun (which hil is proven to be in Etruscan due to plural hilχva attested in the Liber Linteus) probably cannot be treated as the subject of a transitive verb and therefore is dethroned to a position after the verb to specify mere agent of the action instead (like a kind of 'afterthought', let's say) while still treated as an unmarked nominative noun. So, I would dare say that in both Etruscan and Rhaetic (and probably also in Lemnian), OVS word order may signal agent-focussed sentences, much like how Mandarin's passive is constructed by marking the agent with preposed bei and placing the agent/object before the verb and after the patient/subject despite the default SVO word order.
Schum CE 1
I recently came across Philip Baldi, Foundations of Latin (2002), p.154 which provides translation to another one of Rhaetic's inscriptions, Schum CE 1 (see corresponding picture on Zavaroni's website or on p.155 of the aforementioned book). The translation was suggested by Pisani 1964:323 as follows:
laviseśeli velχanuThis is somewhat similar to what I'm interpreting, except that, despite the denialist account of Rhaetic's relationship to Etruscan in Baldi's book, I know of perfect Etruscan parallels available, both of each words individually and of the sentence structure as a whole. First off, I would think it wise to resist reading the above as a single sentence since these different lines are written in various places on the surface of a situla and cannot possibly have been intended to be read as a single sentence as Pisani suggests. It looks like this book needs to be reedited a tad.
lup.nu pitiave
kusenkus trinaχe
φelna vinutalina
"(Of the son of Lavis), to Velxanu (someone) gave (this)wine-bearing tankard, for Pitiave of Kusenku."
There is such a name in Roman records as Lavus (as well as Lavinus), and appears to be present on the Tabula Cortonensis in its list of names. The same name resurfaces in Schum WE 1. It should be self-apparent that Velχanu refers to none other than Velchans, a deity that Etruscans also worshipped. Naturally, the object is being dedicated to him. I suspect that the Rhaetic language changed all instances of word-final -l (as we would find in Etruscan) to -u. Such a change is interestingly reminiscent of a similar development in Old French where word-final /l/ became velarized to a 'dark l' which most English speakers are familiar with. Note Schum PU 5 (inscribed simply: vaku), which corresponds nicely with Etruscan vacil 'votive offering', as testimony to this change.
The reading of lup(i)nu as a part of a compound name of Velchans is ad hoc and unlikely because, as I said earlier, the artifact simply cannot be intended to be read as a single sentence, based on the way the phrases are positioned throughout the artifact. The verb lup is found in Etruscan which I currently give the value of 'to cross over; to die' (n.b. most Etruscanists simply give it the value of 'to die'), commonly used in Etruscan funerary inscriptions, but it appears to be further marked with mediopassive -in- and participle -u (unless of course the latter is the genitive-II ending).
The word trinaχe is immediately recognizable by the Etruscan verb trin (attested several times in the Liber Linteus) and appears to be marked by passive -aχ- and preterite -e, just as we would find in Etruscan. That gives it a semantic value of 'it was poured'.
If I understand correctly Pisani is equating vinutalina with 'wine-bearing' but we also find Etruscan vina and θalna which together give it a similar meaning while also providing thought-provoking cognates. The use of -na as a derivational suffix is characteristically Etruscoid but Baldi dismayingly tries to give us a Latin etymology by what is in effect a whim without carefully explaining the disparity in its phonetics and without expounding on the morphology exhibited in these words that, as I've already shown, is more Etruscan-like in nature than Latin-like.
Certain elements are still a mystery to me. I don't have a clue what kusenkus is supposed to be or whether it really is a name. I have never seen it in Etruscan records and I can't think of a parallel Roman name for the life of me. All I can say for now on that item is that it appears to be marked in genitive -s and may more likely refer to either the situla itself or to the liquids to be poured from it. Likewise, I'm unsure of the value of pitiave either but the claim that it's a name seems to be a slothful ex nihilo. If not a name, it has the look of an inanimate plural noun declined in the locative (-va [plural] + -e [locative]). Perhaps lup(i)nu pitiave "dead with [pitia-things]"?
So, obviously nothing too certain yet but I think there are some interesting connections with Etruscan to be had here. I guess I'll just have to work harder to crack this walnut.
Wait... the very premise of directly recognizing something as resembling Slavic is too ridiculous to even bother debunking in more detail, but directly recognizing something as resembling Etruscan is just fine?
ReplyDeleteI missed something, didn't I?
Tropylium: "[...] the very premise of directly recognizing something as resembling Slavic is too ridiculous to even bother debunking in more detail,[...]"
ReplyDeleteAgreed but considering that Mayani's craptastic books similarly comparing Etruscan to Albanian are one of the few books about Etruscans present in the Vancouver public library, it needs to be discussed. You're being too naggy lately. Are you doing okay? ;)
Tropylium: "[...] but directly recognizing something as resembling Etruscan is just fine?
I missed something, didn't I?"
Yes you did. The sin is not in recognizing similarity but in the method you use to try to prove a genetic relationship between the two languages.
In the case of the silly Slavic comparisons, words are only connected at random with complete disregard for context. The sentences achieved by these maverick pseudo-translations are often incoherent to boot.
Unlike Slavic-biased folk, I'm not only paying attention to lexical comparisons, but grammatical and word-order comparisons as well as archaeological context.
Now, the questions I would like you to answer are:
1. "What do you expect to see in a healthy comparsion?"
2. "What is wrong with my method?"
3. "How can I improve my methods?"
If you can't answer these questions clearly, you may be inflicted with dogmatic skepticism where nothing is ever good enough... and that, my friend, is an unreasonable and unscientific attitude.
I can certainly see even without any background in Slavics that the comparisions Tomezzoli & Choodeenov employ are pretty random (let alone the result). However, considering that in your previous post you didn't delve into the details at all, I got the impression you tried to argue a stronger point - that even the idea itself is somehow deranged? My counterargument on that would've been, how do we tell e.g. that all the "Rhaetic" inscriptions represent a single language after all? I'm not convinced it can be concluded with certainty that a Slavic or closely related language (let's just say "Satem") cannot have been spoken in the same area in the same time-period & been written in the same alphabet.
ReplyDeleteBut it seems what you were going at was that anyone should be able to see the faults if they just paused to think about it? If you were also trying to point this out for the sake of the common linguistically-interested Vancouver citizen, even a single example would've probably helped in making the point...
(Also, these comments would've probably been better placed under the preceding post.)
And since you ask,
1. All elements of analyzed words, not just random snippets declared roots, accounted for;
2. I'm not seeing anything wrong with yours here, but if you're trying to make this accessible for non-specialist audiences,
3. you could to mention how much of this is previously estabilish'd and how much you're interpreting as you go. Eg. are φ- : v- in "Velturies" or x- : k- in "xan" normal Rhaetic: Etruscan correspondences? Or, if you admit not having a correspondence for "hepru", how do you tell the word separation couldn't be eg. "kalahe pru"?
Some of these might seem like dumb questions in the context of Rhaetic, but I remind being even less than an amateur on the subject :)
Tropylium: "My counterargument on that would've been, how do we tell e.g. that all the 'Rhaetic' inscriptions represent a single language after all?"
ReplyDeleteSimple: Occam's Razor. 'A single language' is the most efficient answer. If you wish to theorize a more complicated theory (i.e. that there are multiple Alpine languages written in the same Etruscoid alphabet) you better be willing to provide proof, or forfeit your claim. Views must be based on facts, even if meager, not on feelings and random imagination, of course.
Tropylium: "I'm not convinced it can be concluded with certainty that a Slavic or closely related language [...] cannot have been spoken in the same area in the same time-period & been written in the same alphabet."
Your conviction must be backed up by facts, otherwise this is nothing more than dogmatic skepticism which is a form of antischolastic sloth. It's far too easy to be skeptical of everything because then one doesn't have to commit to a structured view of one's own.
Tropylium: "[...] even a single example would've probably helped in making the point..."
Granted, I got lazy. I admit it. This month has been busy and it's a miracle that I've managed to belt out a blog entry here and there at all. Ideally, what I could do is to write my entries well ahead of a deadline so that I have a longer time to edit my entries and formulate a more solid argument. But then... a blog is a little more casual than a published article in print anyways, so please forgive the mess.
Tropylium: "And since you ask,
1. All elements of analyzed words, not just random snippets declared roots, accounted for;"
Agreed. And I admit that I don't have all elements in Rhaetic figured out because this is an evolving theory of mine. Yet, in all truth, no one else has it figured out yet either. So someone has to get their hands dirty, don't they? I'm sharing my ideas as I go along and none of this should be interpreted by the reader as finished work. Nonetheless, I still feel obligated to strengthen my views with facts as I go along.
Tropylium: "[...] but if you're trying to make this accessible for non-specialist audiences,
3. you could to mention how much of this is previously estabilish'd and how much you're interpreting as you go."
You have a point. I try my best to do this but, as I said, this month has been real sloppy and even I'm not satisfied with my entries.
Tropylium: "[...] Eg. are φ- : v- in "Velturies" or x- : k- in "xan" normal Rhaetic: Etruscan correspondences?"
In my sole view, if the letter phi is already being used to write a bilabial fricative (which sounds like "f"), then it's conceivable to me that initial /w-/ in Etruscan (written as "v") could have evolved into a bilabial approximant or voiced fricative in Rhaetic and subsequently also be represented by the same letter for its voiceless "f"-like counterpart.
As for χan, since it follows the word iχ (a word found in Etruscan to mean 'thus'), then the aspiration can be explained as a phonetic spelling hinting at sandhi.
Tropylium: "[...] how do you tell the word separation couldn't be eg. 'kalahe pru'?"
Since I'm starting from the premise that Rhaetic is related to Etruscan, I observe that Etruscan and all other "Proto-Aegean" languages that I identify strictly forbid medial /h/ in native vocabulary. There is only the rare instance in Etruscan of Uhtave, which is in fact an Oscan name (cf. Roman Octavius). Additionally, kalahe pru would yield two unidentified words while kala hepru yields only one since kala is relatable to Etruscan cala and its postfixed counterpart -cla meaning "of this".
Tropylium: "Some of these might seem like dumb questions in the context of Rhaetic, but I remind being even less than an amateur on the subject :)"
Not at all. In fact these were excellent questions and it's helpful to know whether those new to this subject are comprehending what I'm saying or whether I need to improve the way I explain things. Evidently I still have room for improvement.
OK, thanks for the clarifications.
ReplyDeleteRelated to the 'φ' <> 'v' correspondence, here's a possibly easy-to-shoot-down but intriguing idea that just occurred to me: do you kno if there's an accepted date for the Italic/Greek devoicing of aspirates? Is it at all possible that the Etruscan alphabet was estabilished at a date preceding it, & their 'φ θ x' were voiced stops? The restricted occurence of 'h' you note seems slightly odd when aspirate stops occur freely everywhere! (see Universal #389) This would also offer a neat solution for a voiced value of 'x' in Germanic runes. An aspiration contrast without a voicing contrast furthermore seems typologically unusual in Europe; no PIE branch develops as such, rather we see the system reverting to plain voiceless/voiced in both Celtic & most of Satem.
...I found a note on Greek loaning litra, attested around 500 BCE, from southern Italic *liθra (>> L. libra) so there's an upper bound. Hmm, seems like a short time-limit for devoicing & spirantization then, if they're to happen after Etruscans gain access to the alphabet. Doesn't look too good... You can probably provide the rest of the down-shooting ;)
---
On the unity of Rhaetic, 'fcors we don't need to start with assume more than one language. But as long as uninterpreted items remain, there's also no reason to dismiss interpretations offering different languages only because they don't conform to the single-language model. Having a theory doesn't require abandoning skepticism altogether on the subject.
Tropylium: "do you kno if there's an accepted date for the Italic/Greek devoicing of aspirates?"
ReplyDeleteThe devoicing of aspirates dates to Proto-Greek preceding the 2nd millenium BCE. Also it's only by the 2nd millenium BCE that Proto-Italic moves into Italy. Your hypothesis is implausible given those basic facts.
Tropylium: "Is it at all possible that the Etruscan alphabet was estabilished at a date preceding it, & their 'φ θ x' were voiced stops?"
Nope. No cigar for you. The Etruscan alphabet was developed simultaneously with the Greek alphabet, in the Aegean after the collapse of the Mycenaean civilization. Look up Euboea and its history for more info.
Tropylium: "The restricted occurence of 'h' you note seems slightly odd when aspirate stops occur freely everywhere! (see Universal #389)[...]"
Nice link! To be honest, "Universal #389" sounds like an excellent comic book title... hmmmm. But joking aside, be aware that linguistic universals are most often meant to be understood as tendencies, not absolutes. In fact, it says so on their website in fine print (see here with the query '389': "However, crosslinguistic frequency need not perforce translate into an implication.")
Languages are often unpredictable because human beings who speak them are equally unpredictable. That's what makes both history and human psychology so entertaining.
Universals in themselves don't take into account the history of the particular language in question, which may be motivated by a plethora of non-linguistic things like cultural contacts, social changes, historical migration, etc.
I already know why there is a virtual absence of mediofinal /h/ in Etruscan, something that I will write about shortly.
Tropylium: "An aspiration contrast without a voicing contrast furthermore seems typologically unusual in Europe;"
Not relevant. Aspiration without voicing is common enough in world languages as to not raise an eyebrow among linguists. Consider Chinese languages, for example. All you're noting here is what's already obvious, that Etruscan doesn't behave like an Indo-European language because it's *not* an Indo-European language.
Tropylium: "On the unity of Rhaetic, 'fcors we don't need to start with assume more than one language. But as long as uninterpreted items remain, there's also no reason to dismiss interpretations offering different languages only because they don't conform to the single-language model."
So in other words, you're saying: "Of course, Occam's Razor is cool 'n all, but I prefer claiming whatever I like as a 'mystery' in order to avoid the mental effort of addressing head-on the plausibility of competing and possibly less assumptive views." Did I hear you correctly? Tsk, tsk.
Tropylium: "Having a theory doesn't require abandoning skepticism altogether on the subject."
Never said it did... ever! But what concerns me is when someone doesn't feel obligated to ground their skepticism in *facts* and feel obligated to seek out those facts for themselves. If you really think about it, this "hyperskepticism" (i.e. skepticism without reason or "dogmatic skepticism") is just a form of paranoid schizophrenia, isn't it?
Both theory and skepticism must conform to logic. I try to conform my theories to logic based on the facts I'm aware of. You must, as a rational skeptic, also ground your skepticism in facts. When you base them on idle ideas, as you're doing now, I get worried. Nonetheless, even imaginative brainstorming (as long as it's recognized as such rather than "valid skepticism") has its place as well, I suppose.
Live long and prosper, friend :)
I didn't spot any actual arguments for the date in your citation, as far as it let me look. ("Page 226 not previewable", meh.) Presumably there should be eg. some handy loanwords? Off-hand, theta derives from Teth; but is that one necessarily anything more than "coronal stop other than plain voiceless or plain voiced"? A case of assigning leftover letters for leftover phonemes (as with the vowels).
ReplyDeleteSome googling turn'd up a paper arguing for aspirate devoicing postdating Grassman's law, on the basis of roots where G.L. doesn't produce alternation and which do not devoice in Greek. But it seems he's going for an older (shared) G.L, not a more recent devoicing.
If you check The World Atlas of Linguistic Structures, you'll see that the commodity or rarity of features can be quite strongly areal. Inconveniently, they don't have a map on aspiration, but it would be 2500+ years too late anyway.
A third possibility: the Greek / Italic devoicing could be, rather than influence from Etruscan & co, an innovation in both families, explaining the marked Etruscan aspirate distribution without resorting to juggling sound change timeframes. Hm, altho this then presupposes that pre-proto-Etruscan spontaneously developed the aspiration in the first place... all the examples I have of spontaneous *B > *Bh > Ph are from East Asian languages which had an aspiration contrast in voiceless stops to begin with. The direct etymology for runic X is also lost here, so the idea is still not looking good. Oh well, it was worth a shot.
"Of course, Occam's Razor is cool 'n all, but I prefer claiming whatever I like as a 'mystery' in order to avoid the mental effort of addressing head-on the plausibility of competing and possibly less assumptive views." Did I hear you correctly? Tsk, tsk.
Nah. Just that you can't dismiss something as "crackpot" on the basis of the conclusions alone. By definition, no theory, no matter how strong, can be infalsifiable.
If you want to make a binary distinction out of skepticism vs. brainstorming, I very much agree that we're on the latter's side here.