Talk:Tyrsenian languages

Northeast Caucasian languages

The reference for this paragraph leads to what seems to be a non published draft by Robertson [1] (see page 28: " This version is a draft of a work in progress") . If there is no alternative reference published it seems to need some special argumentation to add here a non published work as the only basis for a theory. I mean that if this is the only reference then seems non valid and the section should be deleted till it is published in some reliable source, but that maybe it has been (but not stated in the article) or there is another special reason to this exception that I am not aware of. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 11:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The Dene-Caucasian (Sino-Caucasian, etc.) hypothesis frequently includes Etruscan, but I don't know about a link specifically with NC. Little of this stuff gets into peer-reviewed journals to begin with, so it would probably be responsible of us to avoid ms. kwami (talk) 11:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The article seems sane and goes into quite a lot of detail, so I thought it worth a very brief and cautiously-worded mention. I could be wrong... Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If I do not misunderstand the rules the reference is not valid until it is in a reliable source. There should be a very good reason to make an exception. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 10:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. While it's not exactly fringy, there are tons of these long-distance proposals with very little evidence backing them up. You can suggest that English is a Chibchan language with the methodology that many of these proposals use. The approach is great to suggest possibilities to look into, including connections that people might not otherwise have thought of, but has no rigor to stand on its own. kwami (talk) 10:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I will be guided by yourselves, and I wouldn't suggest it's worth more than a mention at present. But I note that it provides better evidence than the generality of dubious inter-family relationship ideas, and is not recycling any other fringe theories. It's also not a particularly long-distance theory. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It could very well work out. People were wary of Dene-Yeneseian too before Vaida gave his talks/pubs. But Tyrsenian is so poorly attested that I'd rather wait for some response to this work. At least a passing note that it's interesting and maybe he's on to something. It's just so easy to massage the data. kwami (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

about Ed Robertson

I don't know why he got so much exposure here, but his claims are (1) nothing new and (2) debatable. Nothing new, because the core of his article is a proposition of the same ideas exposed by the Russians (which may be or may be not valid, that's not the point); debatable, because that article seems to struggle hard to discredit other hypotheses, using controversial claims like:

       Etruscan                  Chechen
phersu "mask (of an animal)"    borz "wolf"
tul    "stone"                  t.ul(-g) "stone"

and also un as "you". - Ambaradan (talk) 00:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The translation "mask (of an animal)" seems suspicious to me, only to make the fit better. As far as I am aware, phersu is simply a mask, as used in plays and perhaps religious rituals – though keeping in mind this paper, even that general meaning appears to be purely conjectural and derived from a small number of paintings that name a character phersu, but in any case nothing supports the specification "of an animal" at all. Worse, it is usually thought of as a loan from Greek πρόσωπον, which is everything but implausible (and much less far-fetched). So this (general unwillingness to exclude potential loanwords?) does not bode well. Robertson makes a huge leap of faith here, which, especially with a poorly-understood language like Etruscan, is inexcusable (and much more reprehensible than sloppiness). Or, to phrase it less politely, I suspect he's simply making stuff up, or talking out of his ass.

Vajda's scholarship, whatever one may think of his hypothesis, seems to be incomparably better. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The etruscan word for "gift" ,etc

" Etr. -(a)cvil, Raet. akvil, "gift";"

As far i know from Pyrgi tablets, the word for a gift, "to give" in Etruscan was "TUR" and not "akvil" ; and "a(k)vil"(avilχva) means "year", "yearly"... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrgi_Tablets What are the sources for those weird claims?

Probably Rix and Schumacher (both 1998), as these sources specifically address the comparison of Raetic with Etruscan. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Plus, the hyphen indicates it's not a stand-alone word in Etruscan. Maybe an element of a compound. — kwami (talk) 01:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I just checked and the word given at Pyrgi Tablets § Etruscan vocabulary for 'year' is avil, not akvil ... the IP simply ignored the missing consonant. Also, the implicit reasoning that the presence of an Etruscan word tur 'to give' somehow conflicts with the proposal that akvil means 'gift' is itself very weird. Languages often have more than a single word for a concept, and even if there was only a single word for 'to give' and 'gift' each in Etruscan, there is no compelling need for the word for 'gift' to be derived from the word for 'to give'.

According to this source, the proposed equation is Raet. aχvil : Etr. akvil 'present'. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tyrsenian languages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nostratic.ru/books/(329)EGRWND.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Removed paragraph about Genetics

Nothing in this paragraph is both true and relevant to the Etruscans:

• No ancient Etruscan Y-DNA or autosomal DNA samples have ever been published. (There is a single unpublished abstract available. Only mtDNA control-region sequences have been published, and the mtDNA of the Iron Age is so non-specific that it cannot distinguish Europeans from different cultures from the same general region.
• Y-DNA haplogroup "G2" (in fact, G2a-P15) is very common in the western and central Caucasus, but the modal G2a clades found in these regions (G-L1266 and G-Z6653), are not only completely absent from Tuscans today, but also were completely absent from Neolithic and later ancient Europeans. The closest tMRCA of G-L1266 with ancient Neolithic Europeans is 10,800 BP, and the tMRCA of G-Z6653 with the Neolithic European G2a2-L1259 samples is approximately 17,400 BP, in the Upper Paleolithic.
• Otzi was in fact in G-L166, but, while it could be possible that Otzi's people were the ancestors of some Etruscans, there's no proof of this. Otzi was in fact genetically typical for Late Neolithic Europeans, and the Neolithic Europeans most closely resemble Sardinians, but there's no proof that the ancient Etruscans were genetically similar to or for the most part descended from Late Neolithic Europeans, any more so than other Bronze and Iron Age Europeans with mixed Steppe and Neolithic ancestry.

Added new paragraph about Genetics

This references Ghirotto et al. (2013) Origins and Evolution of the Etruscans’ mtDNA, a study which analyzed 30 HVR1-only partial mitochondrial DNA sequences. Not much can be said about the ethnic origins of sets of short control region-only mtDNA sequences for a period like the Classical Era which was the result of thousands of years of admixture in European populations. Regardless, the reference is there, so people can draw their own conclusions - or not.

Age of Proto-Tyrsenian

I've rephrased the following sentence:

On the other hand, lexical correspondences are rarely documented, due to the scanty number of Rhaetian and Lemnian texts, and, above all, due to the very ancient date at which these languages split, because the split must have taken place before the Bronze Age, much earlier than was suggested by Rix who assumed a date for Proto-Tyrsenian of roughly 1000 BC.

Not only was it very close to the phrasing in the first citation (Marchesini), while the second citation doesn't say anything about the age of Proto-Tyrsenian at all, but it also takes over Simona Marchesini's opinion directly, in the voice of Wikipedia, counter to NPOV. As far as I'm aware, there is no consensus about the age of Proto-Tyrsenian, let alone that it is that ancient.

Considering that Etruscan, Raetic and Lemnian appear to have still been conspicuously similar to each other by the sixth century BC, judging by the highly similar phonological and grammatical systems and the equations proposed for morphemes and lexemes, it is unlikely (not impossible, of course, just improbable) that Proto-Tyrsenian had split up several millennia earlier. For reference, the Bronze Age starts in Italy c. 2300 BC and in Greece c. 3200 BC, so Marchesini seems to imply that Proto-Tyrsenian is about as old as (Late) Proto-Indo-European! Geographically distant contemporary Indo-European languages such as Old Persian and Ancient Greek, however, are not nearly as similar. Rix's estimate sounds a lot more plausible to me. Marchesini does not explain her reasoning, either. All in all, enough reasons for Wikipedia to avoid taking sides in this respect – in the absence of indications for a scholarly consensus. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

To say this NPOV I think it's really exaggerated. This is not only Marchesini's opinion but it's also Carlo De Simone's hypothesis, User:Florian Blaschke. Where does Rix states that 1000 BC is the date of the split? Where is the source? In one of the last texts Rix says that the date of the split can probably to be fixed to "the last quarter of the second millennium", which in any case is not supported by archaeological data. The issue is much more complex and you oversimplify it. Rix died in 2004, Marchesini and De Simone published a book in 2013 on a bronze plate from Demlfeld, near Ampass, written in Rhaetic, which is considered important in the field of etruscology. --Tursclan (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I get it, you probably only read the page from the Scuola Normale Superiore that was used as a source, but the whole explanation is in this book here https://www.univie.ac.at/raetica/wiki/De_Simone_%26_Marchesini_2013 (the book also contains contributions by Tomedi, Töchterle, Hye and others). According to their hypothesis, the split before the Bronze Age is between the Etruscan language and the Rhaetic language only, the age of pre-Indo-European languages of ancient Europe. So there would really be nothing strange in implying that Proto-Tyrsenian is about as old as (Late) Proto-Indo-European. While the split between the Etruscan language and the language of Lemnos' inscriptions would be much more recent, with the latter deriving from the Etruscan language. Obviously the previous Rix hypothesis should also be reported, simply this one is later in order of time. And I agree, there is still no definitive consensus about the age of Proto-Tyrsenian and about the homeland of Proto-Tyrsenian. That's what Rix himself said. --Tursclan (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not oversimplifying anything; if anything, you are. which in any case is not supported by archaeological data That's hard to do because pots don't talk, and archaeological cultures cannot be equated with languages directly and with certainty. As Schumacher has shown (see here for details), Raetic is very close to Etruscan. A several millennia old split between two languages this similar to each other is simply unlikely, and there's no other evidence to support it. At least you haven't mentioned any evidence, either.

I suspect the argument advanced by Marchesini and De Simone is simply fallacious. Even if Raetic and Etruscan are pre-PIE in origin, it does not follow that they split in the pre-PIE period. Not at all! It is absolutely possible that they only split in the Late Bronze Age.

I suspect Marchesini and De Simone simply assume that the Etruscan and Raetic areas are both pre-IE remnants (and that Proto-Tyrsenian was spoken in Italy), and fail to see that this hypothesis is far from compelling, failing to account for the case where non-IE languages replace IE languages – which is very much possible for both Etruscan (replacing Umbrian) and Raetic (replacing Celtic); and not only is there no reason why non-IE languages shouldn't replace IE languages, but such replacements are actually unambiguously attested in the modern era (Turkish replacing Greek, for example).

I'm not against mentioning Marchesini and De Simone's hypothesis – but as long as it's only the hypothesis of two scholars, and far from consensus, treating it as fact and dismissing Rix's competing estimate (which hasn't been refuted by any post-2004 evidence I'm aware of) does violate NPOV. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, this is Wikipedia, not an Indo-European conference. You've got an MA in Indo-European linguistics, I've got an MA in archaeology and etruscology. The closeness of the Rhaetic language to the Etruscan language is not in question. We do not even know when the Umbrian language arrived in Italy, let alone whether we can be sure that the Etruscan language arrived later. After 2004 texts by Carlo De Simone have been published: one on the inscription of Hephaestia and one on bronze plate from Demlfeld. So, it's not so true that after 2004 nothing new happened. I don't want to be rude but what you think of De Simone and Marchesini's hypothesis is not relevant. What is the source supporting Rix's claim that the Proto-Tyrsenian dates back to 1000 BC? In "The Ancient Languages of Europe" (ed. Roger D. Woodard, 2008) the chapter on the Etruscan language is written by Rix (I guess written before his death) and Rix says that "Proto-Tyrsenic, can probably be fixed to the last quarter of the second millennium BC. The location of its homeland is disputed, possibilities include: (i) the northern Aegean (ii) central Italy. A decisive judgment is not currently possible.". Apart from the fact that Rix does not mention as a third possibility the territories of the Rhaetian people (without giving any explanation), Rix's position is far from peremptory, he only estimates a date and doesn't take any position on the Proto-Tyrsenic homeland. --Tursclan (talk) 04:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Fringe scholarship and superseded theories

I'm OK with the removal of all non-encyclopedic scholars from the "fringe scholarship" section (as suggested by a recent edit) if that is supported by Wikipedia policy as long as we can define what we mean by encyclopedic/non-encyclopedic and be consistent. How do we define encyclopedic/non-encyclopedic? And do all of the other scholars in that section qualify as encyclopedic? Mr G (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC) Alternatively, should we include such sources because it's a "fringe scholarship" section? Mr G (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

As you yourself wrote, you didn't find any academic comment against Brunner (and Tóth) position, because Brunner and Tóth have been most likely ignored by scholars since what they claim is considered completely implausible, and the authors are not considered authoritative. I know you agree with me, Wikipedia cannot be a list of everything that is out there on the internet on a given topic. For the other question, probably not, not all scholars in the "Fringe scholarship and superseded theories" section qualify as encyclopedic. In fact some should be checked and removed. Looking closely, for example, S. Yatsemirsky is, I think, an amateur scholar, should be removed. How do we define encyclopedic/non-encyclopedic? In the case of the Etruscans, for example checking if they are mentioned in the main texts of Etruscology. I give an example. What Steinbauer or Facchetti have argued om the Etruscan language is not accepted by scholars of Etruscan civilization, but their position (which are, however, two completely different positions) has been mentioned, it has been part of the debate. I don't know who Palmer 1965 is. The reference seems to be missing. I think it can be removed. --Tursclan (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. That seemed reasonable. I thought since one of the sources was published in Anthropos is seemed at least as worthy of inclusion as some of the other sources, but if you agree other sources that are equally should also be removed then it seems fine. Mr G (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll check all the names in that section tomorrow. --Tursclan (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Palmer 1965

I'm not sure what "Palmer 1965" refers to as it's not in the sources section. Does anyone know? Mr G (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know who Palmer 1965 is. The reference seems to be missing. I think it can be removed.--Tursclan (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Palmer 1965 is likely Leonard Robert Palmer. --Tursclan (talk) 02:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Just a guess, but maybe it's the 1965 publication Mycenaeans and Minoans: Aegean prehistory in the light of the Linear B tablets this is listed in our article about Leonard Palmer. In Google Books I can see in snippet view that he mentions Etruscan and Lemnian in the book. –Austronesier (talk) 12:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it definitely looks like that book. I checked it out, and the reference is on page 61. But it's a very brief mention, and Palmer is referring to what Michael Ventris argued between the 1940s and 1950s (Ventris died in 1956). Since years there has been no consensus on a link between Linear B and Etruscan (partly because in addition to Lemnian, Raetic language has been included in the discussion). Furthermore, Linear B is considered Mycenaean. What Ventris exactly claimed should be checked. Because Minoan is one thing, Mycenaean is another, but in the Wikipedia article Palmer 1965 is included as source instead in another hypothesis, that of the Anatolian Indo-European languages, but I can't find any references to this hypothesis in Palmer's book. --Tursclan (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)