> There is evidence in the classical sourcesThis sounds reasonable enough to me.
> that the Umbri lived also on the northern side of the Appennines, in
> today's Romagna, so maybe previously (before the Etruscan, and then
> the Gaulish colonization) also in the region where the ''Villanovian''
> villages were found.
> > There are grammatical features andI think you mean 'three', but yes, and much much more. As this subject
> > lexical material in Etruscan that are reminiscent of certain languages
> > of the Caucasus whose peoples have also shown an inclination for tower
> > building.
> Which is this material for you ? Etruscan ci 'two' = Urartean ki(g) ?
> I am also convinced of this. About the Etruscan borrowings, what IAt least Shuthri and Tarchna from the first group seem like native
> have found in the toponymy is (I quote myself):
> To a Latin /p, t, c/ may correspond either /f, th, ch/ or /p, t, c/.
> The place-names showing the first spelling (Caere/cheizra, Sutrium/
> shuthri, Tarquinia/tarchna, Volci/velch) have been reconstructed from
> a "Pelasgian" shift, namely *b,d,g>p,t,k. The place-names showing the
> second spelling (Cortona/curtun, Clusium/clevsi, Telamon/tlamu,
> Tarquinia/tarchna, Capena/capna, etc.) have instead been reconstructed
> from original (IE) *p,t,k.
> Can you suggest what this could mean ? I think this is a key problem
> to better understand the stratification of languages in Etruria, the
> relationship between Italic, ''Pelasgian'' and Etruscan, and the
> origins of Etruscan itself.
> > Can you recommend any works on Ligurian?Excellent. I shall have another look at this.
> The material is so scarse and speculative that I don't think there
> are entire books. I'm aware only of the book [edited] by V. Pisani, Le
> lingue dell' Italia antica oltre il latino, Torino, 1964. ...
> There's a chapter on Ligurian and its problem.
> > If I understand you correctly, you think [the Picenes] wereAnd yet, according to genetic data there is no evidence for this;
> > pre-Italic (there's that dreadful affix pre- again!)
> Exactly, pre-Italic. From my point of view, this would explain the
> toponymy that is clearly IE but not Osco-Umbrian, who spread out later
> from the Appennines. A 'Picene' language has been coined for a series
> of inscriptions (VI-IV sec.), including the famous 'stele di
> Novilara', that has been also interpreted as showing a "colonial"
> Greek language. These texts have not been translated, but the dominant
> archeological point of view decided that the Piceni were the
> counterpart of the Etruscans on the Adriatic, i.e., implicitly or
> explicitly saying they were a remnant of a pre-IE ('before the IE
> arrival') population.
> The Illyrian language was not unique, but at least three languages canThis sounds much more plausible than the usual story. Venetic is now
> be identified. The most northern is close - or identical - to Venetic,
> and then, for some phonetic aspects, to Latin. The central shared
> something with Osco-Umbrian. The southern branch yielded in Italy the
> Messapic. Like this latter, it is possible that the carriers of the
> Italic branch came from Illyria also (or - who knows - spread from
> Italy to Illyria, since the Umbri were already in Etruria in the
> Bronze age if the Pelasgians found them and gave them their particular
> ethnical name).