ETP 187: More weirdness

I'm not sure what is up with the Etruscan Text Project (ETP) and its indexing system. I found duplicates in it that have gone unchecked for a full year (as I've explained previously on this blog). Now what is published in Etruscan News doesn't match what the ETP website claims.

I just noticed that in the newsletter Etruscan News [pdf] (Winter 2006, volume 5, page 5), Rex Wallace of UMass subtly slips in one of his ETP indices, namely ETP 187, amidst a big list of more widely recognized indices from Etruskische Texte (often abbreviated as ET). He is attempting to demonstrate here that a gentilicium Vetna (genitive Vetnal)^[1] is well attested and that it relates to the family name that is present in an inscription from the town of Chiusi. I have no objections whatsoever towards the validity of the name however since indeed it is well attested and his conclusions on the two inscriptions he speaks about here are sober and informative.

Putting aside shameless self-promotion of his own project which quite frankly isn't such a big sin considering that we're all trying to promote ourselves somehow, the real problem is that there is no trace of Vetnal on his own project's website under the index he gives. ETP 187 can be seen here. All it shows is a fragment of a vase reading [---]raices zav[---]. Whatever happened to proofreading? There's nothing on the ETP website indicating the presence of vetnal at all and so I can either surmise that it is another error thanks to ETP, or a note is in order explaining why the name is not visible here despite what is said in Etruscan News.

Perhaps those from the ivory tower don't expect plebeian pedants like myself to actually spend their spare time verifying what is published.

UPDATES:
^[1] (Jul 25/07) I added minor clarity to my hasty wording. I said quickly "the gentilicium Vetnal" but of course, more accurately, Vetna is the citation form with Vetnal as its genitive form. I felt I needed to change that. Maybe I have OCD. Whatever. Who are you to judge me? Hehe.