I was going to write initially about Dionysius of Halicarnassus and his gloss Rasen(n)a but as I was writing it, I realized that this would either require a 15-page essay on all the issues inherent in the topic and that I pull my hair out, or require me to break down the topic into mini-rants. I wager that you, the reader, would rather a mini-rant (and quite frankly so would my fingers). So I'll try to make this as mini as I can. Let's first talk about what's wrong with the translations commonly given for Rasna and why this is another reason why we should always question what we read.
Case in point, the Bonfantes (Larissa and her now-deceased father) who offer no precise definition of the term, flipflopping wildly in The Etruscan language (2002). If one consults their glossary in the rear of the book on page 218, they give the following translation:
Rasna = 'people; Etruscan, of Etruria'On page 99 however they give this translation:
Rasna = 'Etruria, the Etruscan people'Yet on page 180, this equation is employed for their very partial translation of the Tabula Cortonensis:
Rasna = 'people'Now, how are we to understand the everchanging nature of this lexemic enigma? Does it have the value of 'of Etruria' or simply 'Etruria'? Is it just 'people' or specifically 'Etruscan people'? Is it a noun, an adjective or both? Neither?? And how can something mean both 'Etruria' and 'Etruscan'? This would be tantamount to someone in English describing someone living in the country called "United States" a "United States" as well! Am I a "Canada" just because I live in "Canada"? Obviously not. I've never encountered a language that behaves this way. So which one of these translations is appropriate for which context and how can we possibly know if the translation is justified at all? For some reason, these authors are unable or unwilling to give a consistent, logical account of anything and I personally expect much more from someone who is a historical expert to keep their book much more organized than this, particularly if I am to be compelled to buy it. If they are so unsure about how Etruscan grammar works, they should stop writing books about it.
Naturally, these erratic translations are too carefree and unscientific. This is unacceptable in the field of linguistics. So in order to navigate this academic minefield, we should go straight to the source and investigate how this word was actually used by Etruscans themselves. We must note on grammatical patterns as well as the proper context surrounding the word (ie. both textual and archaeological context). It's time to pull out my own database and see where we find this word and how.
The bare word is found only once, as far as I know, in the Liber Linteus (LL 11.xxxiii). Other than that, we have a proponderance of declined forms such as rasnal [TCort v, xxiv; TLE 632], raśnal [ET Ta 7.59], rasne [CPer A.xxi], rasnes [CPer A.v, A.xxii], rasneas [TLE 233], and rasnas [TLE 137]. Based simply on the forms found, we must conclude with certainty that the word is overwhelmingly a noun since Etruscan adjectives, which postpose the nouns they modify (just as in Modern French, for eg.), are never declined unless used as nouns by themselves. A clear example of this is Θefariei Velianas sal 'by the great Tiberius Veliana', inscribed in the Pyrgi Tablets where we should note that Θefariei is declined in the locative case (-i) while the adjective sal 'great, noble' is clearly not similarly declined at all). This grammatical feature is quite unlike Latin and many other languages of Indo-European descent. (Etruscan is, of course, a non-IE language.) Further, this then opposes attested meχl Rasnal (TLE 87) where Rasna, being declined in the type-II genitive (-(a)l), cannot be an adjective at all, unless of course we wish to throw consistency out the window. Thus any adjectival value assigned to this word such as 'Etruscan' must be rejected at once, even though this happens to be the most common value misassigned to this term!
The above deduction is quite unfortunate for Rex Wallace, author of Zikh Rasna: A Manual of the Etruscan Language and Inscriptions (2008) whose very book title betrays the purpose of his work. At most, ziχ Rasna can only awkwardly mean 'Etruria Text' or even 'People Text' but never what he no doubt intended to write, 'Etruscan Texts', which would be better translated as ziχcva Rasnal. Wallace's title would depend on a usage of the Etruscan term that, as far as I know, is completely unattested.
And how can something mean both 'Etruria' and 'Etruscan'?
ReplyDelete...I've never encountered a language that behaves this way.
I have. In Old Persian, Pârsa- meant both "Persia" and "Persian", the later being both a noun and an adjective. Some examples:
adam: Pârsa : amiy : hacâ : Pârsâ : Mudrâyam : agarbâyam
"I am a Persian (or I am Persian); from Persia I seized Egypt."
(DZc 7-8)
Pârsa : Pârsahyâ : puça
"a Persian and the son of a Persian"
(DNa 13-14)
anâ : Pârsâ : kârâ
"that Persian people"
(DPe 8-9)
Looking through the inscriptions, I find that the two words are the same in the following cases:
Uvja- Elam(ite)
Bâbiru- Babylon(ian)
Parthava Parthia(n)
Mudrâya- Egypt(ian)
Arabâya- Arab(ia)
Katpatuka- Cappadocia(n)
Uvârazmîy- Khwarezm(ian)
But not in these:
Athurâ/Athuriya- Assyria(n)
Sparda-/Spardiya- Sardis/Sardian
Gandâra-/Gandâraya- Gandharan
Thatagu-/Thataguiya- Sattagydia(n)
Harauvati-/Harauvatiya- Arachosia(n)
Maka-/Maciyâ Maka (wherever that is)
I don't know what the story is with these, though it could be scribal error(?):
Yauna-/Yaunâ Ionia(n)
Saka-/Sakâ Scythia(n)
Zraka-/Zrakâ Drangian(a)
Note that because of the writing system, the words ending in -ya could also just end in -y. Note too that modern Persian invariably forms ethnonyms by adding -i, as in Fârs/Fârsi and Amrikâ/Amrikâyi
Hope you find this useful.
Though I can't do anything but agree about Rasna being translated very very freely, it is possible for a word to mean both 'country' and 'of the country'.
ReplyDeleteTake Japanese for example.
nihon = Japan
nihon no terebi = A Japanese television.
It goes accompanied with a genitive particle, but from what I can see from this post and my limited knowledge of etruscan, etruscan does too. Isn't -l a genitive? or ws it -s? haha I get confused ;-)
Wait a minute here... I have to question this. Is it not King Darius himself who is stating "I am *Persia*; from Persia I seized Egypt"?? Afterall, in the specific case of a king, it's clear why he himself would be refered to as "Persia" (in the sense of being the sole representative of the country).
ReplyDeleteSo in what other contexts (such as regarding everyday people, not kings) is this construction used, if ever? I'm curious.
Vidarna : nâma : Pârsa : manâ : bandaka : avamshâm : mathishtam : akunavam
ReplyDeleteA Persian named Vidarna (Gk. Hydarnes), my subject — I made him chief of them
(DB 2.19-20)
NB: Avamshâm is avam "him" plus -shâm, which is a dative 3rd person plural enclitic pronoun.
This very common construction is encountered with many other ethnicities, for example:
Dâdarshish : nâma : Arminiya : manâ : bandaka : avam : adam : frâishayam : Arminam
An Armenian named Dadarshi, my subject — I sent him forth to Armenia.
(DB 2.29-30)
Also, in the instances I cited above with an a/â alternation, the long â is because those forms are plural (which was not clear from the transcription but presumably would have been with the artwork they captioned).
Phoenix and Sergei, we're straying from the point and these what-if examples aren't helping us achieve clarity.
ReplyDeleteWhat I'm fundamentally concerned about is people applying many meanings to a single Etruscan word in ad hoc fashion rather than methodically applying a single, consistent meaning that is applicable to all (or at the very least, the great majority of) contexts.
There's a long history of charlatans in this field and I'm trying to steer away from that self-contradictory junk to apply some sense of grammatical order to these translations.
In the Japanese example, Phoenix, Nihon is strictly "Japan" while Nihon no, with postparticle no serving as a genitive marker, obviously means "of Japan". No one questions that the lexeme Nihon consistently means "Japan", not "of Japan" in itself, however and this is how we see it translated in all dictionaries. It is also strictly a noun by way of Japanese grammatical rules, not an adjective. Japanese adjectives behave quite differently from nouns.
Likewise, in almost all uses of the word attested, Etruscan Rasna is declined **as a noun** and is **not** behaving as an adjective which remains undeclined according to known Etruscan grammar. The only time it's found undeclined, afaik, is in the Liber Linteus. Even there however, I'd argue that it's functioning as an unmarked noun in the accusative case (Rasna hilar "protecting Etruria").
And clearly because of these simple facts, Rasna in meχl Rasnal simply can NEVER refer to an individual Etruscan (because this meaning cannot be CONSISTENTLY applied in all other contexts) nor an adjective meaning "Etruscan" (because it's DECLINED unlike adjectives) putting Rex Wallace's book title in jeopardy.
The only value that can be consistently applied to Rasna is a noun referring to Etruscans as a whole, namely "Etruria" (precisely as Dionysius had said).
As for the Persian example, it is most instructive, Sergei, and I am corrected. Thank you. However, the next question I have is: Since this appears to be genuine, how common is such a thing crosslinguistically?
My bet is that it's decisively more common to see distinct names between the individual of a country and the country itself. So as such, I still must presume the more common pattern in my attempts at translation until provable otherwise. Unlike the Persian examples, there are no similar Etruscan texts I've noticed that force us to apply two values, "Etruscan" and "Etruria", to the same word. I must side with parsimony and choose the latter.
By the way, Phoenix, Etruscan has two genitives depending on whether the noun is type-I or type-II gender. The type-I genitive is -(a)s and tends to be applied to animate nouns, particularly masculine ones (eg. apa-s "of father"; Menrva-s "of (the goddess) Minerva"). The type-II genitive is -(a)l and typically applied to inanimate nouns but also animate nouns and names that are feminine (eg. spur-al "of a city"; ati-al "of mother").
ReplyDeleteThanks Glen!
ReplyDeleteThe only value that can be consistently applied to Rasna is a noun referring to Etruscans as a whole, namely "Etruria" (precisely as Dionysius had said).
This is exactly what I wanted to know.
There's a long history of charlatans in this field and I'm trying to steer away from that self-contradictory junk to apply some sense of grammatical order to these translations.
A lot of work to be done! Even the non-charlatans make many mistakes.
A question:
Your translation of
an zila0 amce
mexl rasnal:
He was zilath of the
state of Etruria,
does seem good,
but
can it be that
rasnal
is just agreeing case with
mexl?
Translated into Dutch it would be:
Hij was zilath
van (or: voor) de staat Etrurië
(The preposition "van" replaces the genitive, "voor" replaces the dative. Translating with a dative seems equally good to me, implying that a zila0 serves the mexl rasnal.).
"van/voor de staat van Etrurië"
or the equivalent
"van/voor Etrurië's staat"
would just be bad Dutch.
Since this appears to be genuine, how common is such a thing crosslinguistically?
ReplyDeleteWhile that goes far beyond my expertise, I suspect that it may occur in some other languages in flux. The inscriptions that are available to us are from quite late in the Old Persian period, and already show a number of signs of the nightmare that is Middle Persian (during which the language turned its whole inflectional system inside out).
Whenabouts is uninflected rasna attested from? Also, what precedent is there in Etruscan for unmarked accusatives?
Hans: "A lot of work to be done! Even the non-charlatans make many mistakes."
ReplyDeleteOf course, but the self-contradictions are so easily sniffed out of the prevailing literature on Etruscan that it's simply too hard for me to believe that such people, educated on a university level, actually even tried to polish their theories before publishing them. I don't want to read a myriad of editing mistakes in a book. I read books to get facts or plausible theories, as I'm sure you do. I'm finicky that way! Rough, unfinished ideas are best published on a blog. :o)
Hans: "A question: Your translation of an zila0 amce mexl rasnal: He was zilath of the state of Etruria, does seem good, but can it be that rasnal is just agreeing case with mexl?"
First off, this isn't *my* translation so much as the *prevailing* translation. Since, under grammatical analysis, we can fully see that zilaθ is in fact a participle of a verb zil (which forms other words like the adjective zilx), the interpretation of "zilath" as a kind of praetor obviously can't be entirely accurate, even if the essence of the translation may be correct (ie. the verb in question may still refer to an act of leadership).
Second of all, it's precisely because Rasna is declined that it can only be a noun in the phrase meχl Rasnal, from what I understand of the grammar. We might either interpret this as "of meχ of Rasna" or "of the meχ Rasna". Either way, Rasna is just not an adjective. If it were functioning as an adjective, we would expect to find *meχl Rasna instead (ie. minus the second genitive marker).
Now, saying for the sake of argument that meχ means "people" (as claimed by Pallottino) and Rasna means "Etruria", then either we literally have "of the people of Etruria" or "of the Etruria people" (ie. "of the Etrurian people"). In the latter option, the literal value remains "Etruria" despite the English predisposition to convert the noun to an adjective to avoid awkward wording, much like how Mandarin Zhongguo renmin (中国人民) literally means "China people" but is nonetheless translated to "Chinese people" in English. This however doesn't mean that Zhongguo honestly has the value of "Chinese" any more than Rasna truly has the value of "Etruscan". (And no this doesn't mean that Zikh Rasna by meaning "Etruria Text" can thus mean "Etruscan text" as Wallace no doubt meant it since, if taking Mandarin as an example, it would imply texts specifically *of the domain of* the government of Etruria, not necessarily of the people and culture!)
In none of these options is it possible or required to give Rasna a value of "Etruscan" as an individual Etruscan, nor as a descriptive adjective. "Etruria" appears to be sufficient in all contexts.
Now, saying for the sake of argument that meχ means "people" (as claimed by Pallottino) and Rasna means "Etruria", then either we literally have "of the people of Etruria" or "of the Etruria people" (ie. "of the Etrurian people"). In the latter option, the literal value remains "Etruria" despite the English predisposition to convert the noun to an adjective...
ReplyDeleteI already understood rasna is not an adjective. I did not realise "Etruria people" is normal English.
I was trying to ask if
mexl rasnal
can be translated as either:
of the mex of rasna
or
of the mex rasna
Again I have questions:
As zila0 is a participle,
a) does it need an (implicit) form of am (or some other verb)?
b) can these participles be used as sustantives (with declension)?
I believe that participles don't need ama to be explicitly said, at least not in the default present tense. There's nothing to stop participles from being used as nouns either. However, when modifying a preceding noun, they would remain undeclined like all adjectives.
ReplyDeleteAleθnas Arnθ Larisal zilaθ Tarχnalθi amce. (TLE 174)
On page 107 of the Etruscan Language (2002), the Bonfantes have published the following translation for the above inscription: "Arnth Alethna, son of Laris, was praetor at Tarquinia." But this cannot be a direct translation since zilaθ Tarχnal-θi amce is more literally "has been zil-ed in Tarquinia." Now perhaps zil simply means something to the effect of "to put in power" however the above inscription does not indicate a noun meaning "praetor". We should note that there is no single way of using this verb stem and sometimes we see zilci, sometimes zilχnce, etc. They are merely different derivatives of the same verb zil.
Hello Glen.
ReplyDeleteAleθnas Arnθ Larisal zilaθ Tarχnalθi amce.
On page 107 of the Etruscan Language (2002), the Bonfantes have published the following translation for the above inscription: "Arnth Alethna, son of Laris, was praetor at Tarquinia."
1) I don't understand the s in ale0nas. At least I don't see it in the translation of the Bonfantes.
2) When I saw zila0 tarxnal0i amce, at first I was surprised by tarxnal0i being before amce. Do you think this means zilath tarxnal0i should be read together?
i.e. does this locative belong to zila0 (so not to amce)?
Sergei Andropov: "While that goes far beyond my expertise, I suspect that it may occur in some other languages in flux."
ReplyDeleteSo, to sum up, since we can both agree that it's at best rare for languages to employ the exact same term for both country and ethnicity, it's not relevant to Etruscan translation unless we see similarly direct patterns like "I am Etruria" as you note in Persian.
"Whenabouts is uninflected rasna attested from?"
From the Liber Linteus which is dated to circa 1st c. BCE.
"Also, what precedent is there in Etruscan for unmarked accusatives?"
Plenty. Only pronouns and demonstratives are declined explicitly in the accusative case (eg. mi/mini 'I/me', ca/can "this (nom.)/this (acc.)"). A noun is unmarked when either the subject or direct object.
However, an enclitic accusative demonstrative may still precede or follow an unmarked object and this is probably the most direct indication that accusative nouns are simply unmarked in that case. Example, TLE 131: An cn ziχ neθśrac acasce. "He had fashioned this haruspical text." Here cn ziχ neθśrac "this haruspical text" is the accusative object of the sentence. We find the noun ziχ undeclined while cn makes it clear that the noun phrase must indeed be in the accusative.
Hans: "1) I don't understand the s in ale0nas."
ReplyDeleteAleθnas is marked in the genitive to mark it as a patronym (from the father's line). A matronym on the other hand is said to be marked by the other genitive, -l (a gentilicium coming from the mother's side). Sometimes Etruscan names are even shown without any genitive ending.
"2) When I saw zila0 tarxnal0i amce, at first I was surprised by tarxnal0i being before amce. Do you think this means zilath tarxnal0i should be read together?
i.e. does this locative belong to zila0 (so not to amce)?"
I don't know what you're asking. The only locative here is Tarχnal-θi "in Tarquinia" (-θi = "in"). The word zilaθ is given a different ending -(a)θ, the participial ending. If one wishes strongly to interpret zilaθ as a noun, one may call it a noun in the nominative case (and thus completely unmarked). However, as I said, a stem zil forms the basis of many verbal derivatives (zili, zilχ, zilχnce, zilace, etc.), so I suspect that zilaθ wasn't intended as a noun specifically meaning "praetor" as usually claimed.
Additional info: zilaθ is found in many other contexts to be sure of its nomino-accusative case (if for the sake of argument, you want to analyse it grammatically as a noun and deny that it can be a participle): TLE 87, 102, 137, 169, 174, 194, and 233.
ReplyDeleteHello Glen.
ReplyDeleteAleθnas is marked in the genitive to mark it as a patronym (from the father's line). A matronym on the other hand is said to be marked by the other genitive, -l (a gentilicium coming from the mother's side). Sometimes Etruscan names are even shown without any genitive ending.
Then, if ale0nas is a patronym, the translation of the Bonfantes cannot be right. But isn't Laris a man's name?
I think I am really confused now.
Should I understand ale0nas to be some kind of gentilicium too?
I don't know what you're asking. The only locative here is Tarχnal-θi "in Tarquinia" (-θi = "in"). The word zilaθ is given a different ending -(a)θ, the participial ending.
I already understood zila0 to be a verb (and tarxnal0i the only locative).
I now think tarxnal0i directly following zila0 more or less proves it.
If zila0 were NOT a verb (or: not used as a verb), I feel tarxnal0i would have been behind amce.
I hope this clarifies what I tried to ask/say.
On page 107 of the Etruscan Language (2002), the Bonfantes have published the following translation for the above inscription: "Arnth Alethna, son of Laris, was praetor at Tarquinia." But this cannot be a direct translation since zilaθ Tarχnal-θi amce is more literally "has been zil-ed in Tarquinia." Now perhaps zil simply means something to the effect of "to put in power"
I do not understand:
"has been zil-ed in Tarquinia.".
What is wrong with:
"has been zil- ing,
or, somewhat less precise, zil- er in Tarquinia.".
Why the passivum? Is this inspired by amce perhaps being a preterite, combined with the ergative nature of the Etruscan language?
(I am still struggling with the hypothetical extra meaning of am, but have not found time to study it. Not of any importance here.)
Hans: "Then, if ale0nas is a patronym, the translation of the Bonfantes cannot be right. But isn't Laris a man's name? I think I am really confused now."
ReplyDeleteThe Bonfantes translate the name correctly. Let's look at his name once again: Aleθnas Arnθ Larisal. Here the gentilicium (ie. "last name") is first. It is the gentilicium he adopts from his father's line. However, his father's **praenomen** is Laris. Arnth's father's full name would have consequently been inscribed as Aleθnas Laris, followed by the name of Laris's father in the genitive.
If you want an exact translation of the name, try understanding it as "Of (the gens) Alethna, Arnth, (son) of Laris". Of course this overcomplicates things and so I think it's best to always strip the gentilicium of its genitive when translating.
Hans: "I do not understand:
'has been zil-ed in Tarquinia.'. What is wrong with: 'has been zil- ing, or, somewhat less precise, zil- er in Tarquinia.'. Why the passivum?"
The word zil by itself would have been used on its own as "zil-ing".
Based on its participle form, I know that the verb does not take an accusative object. If it did, the participle form would end in -u instead (like we find in turu "given" or mulu "blessed" from verbs which do take accusative objects).
If there is no recipient to the action of zil, then we should look for an intransitive value to properly translate this word. I'm still uncertain as to what that exact value would be however.
Hello Glen.
ReplyDeleteThank you for explaining Arnth's full name.
So ale0na is a gentilicium.
And the al-genitive is sometimes used for non-female words.
The word zil by itself would have been used on its own as "zil-ing".
Based on its participle form, I know that the verb does not take an accusative object. If it did, the participle form would end in -u instead (like we find in turu "given" or mulu "blessed" from verbs which do take accusative objects).
If there is no recipient to the action of zil, then we should look for an intransitive value to properly translate this word. I'm still uncertain as to what that exact value would be however.
"Knowing" verbs with particples in a0 gives an uneasy feeling, as zil is supposed to have a meaning that needs a direct object. Well, I will (try to) read a lot more of zix rasnal to learn more about it.
Quite surprisingly, you gave me even more food for thought about am!
Again a question:
Comparing your tur and mul examples with lup made me think.
Some time ago you told that lupu was a participle of a verb possibly meaning something like "crossing over".
This means lup should take an (implicit) accusative object. Despite your translation this doesn't seem particularly likely to me. Did you find traces of some accusative object? This would be very interesting from the Etruscan death cult point of view.
Also, a translation of lupu analogous to turu "given", makes no sense. I guess ergativity playes a role here. Food for thought: Is a dead body inanimate?
Hans: "So ale0na is a gentilicium. And the al-genitive is sometimes used for non-female words."
ReplyDeleteYes to both statements. That's why I've found it easiest to think of Etruscan "gender" as a 2x2 matrix balancing between "type-I/type-II" and "animate/inanimate". Some animates use l-genitives; some inanimates use s-genitives.
"'Knowing' verbs with partic[i]ples in a0 gives [me] an uneasy feeling, as zil is supposed to have a meaning that needs a direct object."
Despite your uneasiness, the overwhelming majority of verbs in Etruscan either display one participle form or the other, but not both. The pattern became very clear as I was building up my database.
So we find turu (cf. TLE 656), never *turθ, and arθ (cf. LL 7.vii), never *aru. This must surely be because the two suffixes, -u and -θ, perform overlapping functions.
It just so happens that there is an uncanny correlation between the choice of participial ending and the transitivity of the verb.
Now, since zil and its derivatives have by no means been thoroughly explained in toto by current experts, afaik, we cannot assume a priori that the status quo translation is perfectly correct. As I said, it may still be partially inaccurate.
One possibility I'm thinking of is that zil may mean literally "to oversee" but is nonetheless an intransitive verb. Note that when an accusative is ever used, it's not with zil or its participle, but with a derivative verb stem zil-aχ-un- (cf. TLE 99: Cizi zilaχnce meθlum.)
So if zil is intransitive and yields an intransitive participle zilaθ, then its derivative transitive stem zil-aχ-un- should likewise show a transitive participle of the form zil-aχ-un-u. Indeed, we see precisely that in TLE 133, 169, 325 and 324!
"Some time ago you told [us] that lupu was a participle of a verb possibly meaning something like 'crossing over'. This means lup should take an (implicit) accusative object."
Correct. When speaking of death, the implicit accusative object then is naturally Aita, the city of the dead. An lupuce "He has crossed over" is short-hand for An Aita lupuce "He has crossed over to Hades". This is consistent with what they in fact believed and displayed in images.
The use of an accusative for a destination is precisely how Romans used their own verb īre "to go" (eg. *Romam* eō. "I go *to Rome*.") So we have a secure grammatical precedent for this. In fact, the use of an accusative as a kind of "terminative" isn't unusual at all crosslinguistically.
Obviously, if my hypothesis is correct, this merely implies that there is another verb used to say "to die" directly. That appears to be mur which is expected to have a participle *murθ.
Perhaps I should also mention, concerning the correct interpretation of lup- as "to cross over" rather than directly "to die", we might look at TLE 99:
ReplyDeleteCalusi-m lupu meiani muni-cle-θ.
Note that Calus is another name for the realm of the dead (as in TLE 270 Tinia Calusna "Tinia of the Underworld".)
"Etruria" and "Etruscan" is explained very easily.
ReplyDeleteRasna means "Etruscan". The country was called "Rasna country". Then the "country" part has been simply put in ellipsis. For example Poland is actually "Republika Polska" = "Polish republic", but is usually called just "Polska" = "Polish".
The shift "Etruscan (adj.)" => "Etruscan person" isn't magical either.
Carsten, "explaining" it was never the issue. The real issue is whether it's common for a region and its people to have the same name (it just isn't) and whether the context warrants this dual translation (it doesn't).
ReplyDelete"The country was called 'Rasna country'. Then the 'country' part has been simply put in ellipsis."
This is precisely the kind of unproven assumptions that I'm trying to avoid in my analysis. We need to assess things for what they are, not what we imagine them to be.