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.
"(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.