>I'm confused: who was the stele raised for? "Phoke"? That's
>impossible, as his name isn't even mentioned on the front part.
Yes, Fuke.
Let's face it. The stele isn't the most finely crafted piece of work known
to man. The text as it appears in online depictions appears losely scribbled
on by a paraplegic craftsman without any deep planning into the overall
design. What's mentioned on the front appears to hastily explain what he
did, how long he lived, and what the location involved was.
>I should have added that the front part of the stele features a >drawing of
>a man with shield and spear, with text A-I vertically >between spear and
>face,
Yes, that's the text that mentions the location and something about a little
offering (tavarziu = turza + -iu):
aker : tavarz-iu
an incense box, a little offering
vanal-asi-al : zerunai : murinai-l
Of that which is of "vanal"(??), Zerunai in Murinai
>A-II horizontally above the head,
Yes, starting at /maraz .../ which describes what he did and how long he
lived the text winds like a serpent, boustrophedon-like, reading:
maraz-m : av[iz : aumai]
and official : years [ : served ]
sialchveiz : aviz
40 : years
evisthu : Zerunai-th
magistrature : at Zerunai
>A-III vertically behind it.
Yes, "To Hulaie's nephew Zia"
>Next to his forehead, as if a caption, the word "$ivai".
Of course, Miguel! It should be obvious to anyone that has an even passing
knowledge of Etruscan that /zivai/ is a verb related to death (or maybe
life, now that I think about it) (Etr. ziva). He is certainly not called
"Zivai"... In fact, wouldn't we expect _two_ names (first and last) instead
of a petname caption?? That's just plain absurd and gets us nowhere. In
fact, it may not even be a "caption" at all. It looks like a part of the
previous boustrophedon lines above his head. Thus: "and as an official was
his time [served] 40 years. The magistrature at Zerunai lived." A perfectly
sensible translation.
Further, the other mention of /zivai/ is in /zivai sialchveiz aviz/ on the
side, a typical phrase found in many Etruscan texts as well, either meaning
"dead at the age of forty" or "living till the age of forty", but certainly
not "Zivai, age of forty" (?!), a counterintuitive pattern. Can you find
Etruscan phrases that follow your pattern? I bet not. Honestly, Miguel.
You're frustrating.
>Murina is a town in West Lemnos, not a region, as far as I know.
Alright. Then perhaps Zerunai is a district of Murinai?
>The stele is dated to the 6th c. BC, so any reference to "Rome" (then
>a rather insignificant Tarquinian dependency in far-away Italy) would
>seem to be very far-fetched indeed.
Well, what does /rum/ (2nd line on side) really mean then, smarty pants? :)
The closest thing I know of in Etruscan is /Ruma/ which is Rome.
><$eronaith> is a locative in ..a-i-th (Etr. -aithi, -ethi), <$eronai>
>and <morinai> might be locatives without the -th (Etr. -ai > -e).
I doubt it. Given verbs like /zivai/, /arai/ and /aumai/ it would seem
likelier that -ai equates with Etruscan -a (since there is no -ai verb
suffix in Etruscan, afaik).
>The horizontal text above the head is in boustrophedon, so the final
>line might also be. That would make the text go:
>
>$ivai
>evistho:$eronaith
>sialchvei.$:avi.$
>maras.$:mav
>.i$ai$
I want everyone to see how flawed this idea is, so everyone turn to
"
http://www.compmore.net/~tntr/stele2.gif" where the image of the stele
exists for everyone to plainly see. Clearly, /zivai/ (left of head
horizontal) is placed too far away from /evisthu/ on the line above starting
at the right. We simply cannot read /zivai evisthu.../ out of this at all!
The central text can only credibly be read downwards from the top starting
rightward at /maraz.../ and thus we have /... evisthu : zerunai : zivai/ at
the bottom.
>(i.e. the last two lines would be: mara$-m avi$ ai$, cf. B: mara$-m
>avi$ aomai).
Miguel, your reasoning is frustrating. Since there is little motivation to
read the central text from down to up, your analysis must be flawed.
Further, not only are you reading /izaiz/ backwards but you are breaking the
word up into parts that were clearly not intended as they are written on the
stele! Stop fooling around. It is written /ziazi/, which is the last part of
the rightward vertical text saying /Hulaie-z nafuth Zia-zi/. Snap out of it.
>So the crucial part of the inscription, repeated twice, is:
>
>(A) $ivai evistho $eronaith sialchvei$ avi$ maras$m avi$ ai$
>(B) $ivai avi$ sialchvi$ mara$m avi$ aomai
The two repeated phrases actually read /zivai aviz sialchveiz/ "lived till
the age of 40" and /maraz-m aviz aumai/ "and as an official his years were
served". Your mincing and dicing of the text is iring.
>Sivai ["ruler" in Serona] at 60 years and 5(?) years died(?)
Look, Miguel, I will repeat this no further. Most people who aren't locked
up in a padded cell will agree that /maraz/ (compare Etruscan maru, mare
"official") and Etruscan /mach/ ("five") have absolutely NOTHING to do with
each other. We cannot tweak -ch- out of -r- no matter how much we squint.
It's outrageous to me that you can continue to put forth this senseless idea
without feeling the slightest bit of shame.
>(B-top)
>Holaie$i:phokiasiale:$eronaith:evistho:toveronarom:haralio:$ivai:epte>$io:arai:ti$:phoke
>(For Kolaios of Phokia "ruler" in Serona ... Sivai ...)
So you're saying /Phokiasi/ is Phocaea? Or are you saying that Phocaea is
/Phoki/? Don't you notice the double genitive ending? You either must accept
the double genitive with the translation of Phocaea as /Phok[i/e]/ or you
can keep the single genitive and claim the name to be /Phokiasi/. Can't have
both. The unlikeliness of /Phokiasi/ is overwhelming however.
><tavar$io> and <toveronarom [haralio]> might be connected to Etr.
><tevarath> "judge, referee", or Anatolian <tapar-> "to reign, >govern",
>maybe forms a a verb "to rule/to judge".
No, they can't. A sibilant or lack thereof does not a dental stop make.
Equating /z/ (your /$/) with Etruscan /th/ is foolhardy when a direct
equivalent is available in both instances (Etruscan /turza/ and /turune/).
Quit with your linguistic alchemy. The word /tavarziu/ can only be
interpreted as a noun based on Etruscan grammar (ending in -iu, a
well-established dimunitive for _nouns_). Taking away -iu, we get /tavarz-/
which is equal to /turza/ "gift".
>Note the total absence [not counting <phoke>] of -ce (-ke), the
>Etruscan preterit suffix.
I noticed this. An imperfective seems to be conveyed here by -ai (aumai,
zivai, arai) which, as I've said, is equivalent to the ending -a in
Etruscan. If so, /zivai/ would be better interpreted as meaning "lived"
(imperfective) instead of "dead" (perfective):
Rum : haral-iu : zivai
[In] Rome, the dear "haral" _lived_...
zivai : aviz : sialchviz
_lived_ [till] the age of 40
You live, you learn.
- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com