> McCallister's Etruscan Glossary supports you on both.
>
> Ati = Mother
>
> Apa = Father
It better -- It's the overwhelming consensus.
> McCallister's Etruscan Glossary:
>
> thii = baths (az96) (me: connected to water)
>
> thina, tina = vase () (me: watercontainer)
>
> thina = to bathe (az96)
You have to understand something about McCallister's "glossary". It's
really a compendium of all possible theories put forth on all the words
that are listed. This is informative only if you know which ideas are
reasonable and which are outright looney-toons. Anything by Zavaroni
must be rejected outright (anything marked with [az96]). You'd get a
better translation from a Hollywood psychic and his entries in this
glossary are the most worthless of the bunch by far. I'll go so far
as to call him a crackpot. An example:
amake "married, spouse" < "joined" [az96]
Completely hopelessly wrong! It is an early form of later /amuce/
and /amce/, all meaning "has been" (/am/ "to be"). This is an undeniable
consensus by a number of more respectable researchers. This of course
doesn't mean that he's wrong on the more common terms, but only no
doubt because the answer is so obvious in these cases that not even
a madman could deny it.
> Your BLANK is "sili".
>
> According to McCallister:
>
> zil-, Sel- = Order, govern, rule ()
Yes. This is the correct translation but /s'elace/ is found on the Pyrgi
Tablet and since /nac atranes zilacal/ is also found there, clearly
/Sel-/ and /zil-/ are different roots. Again, caveat!!! >:( If I had
half a mind, I'd make my own Etruscan glossary with Lemnian, ECyp and
Minoan references to boot... but I'm job searching like hell right now
and can't find the time.
> zil, zili, zilac, zilax, zilat, zilc, zilci, zilx, zilath =
> magistrate, official, praetor ()
>
> (As i have proposed earlyer the syllable zi (or si?) may be connected
> to breathe.
No it can't be. Please read more about Etruscan before you make up crazy
ideas. The root here is an _attested_ verb /zil-/ meaning something to
the effect of 'to rule' or 'to lead'. Hence the denominal form is
/zilacH/, translated as 'praetor' oftentimes but can be read simply
as 'leader' of some function (eg: /zilcH cecHaneri/) or the French
word 'chef'.
> Breathe is connected to life, death and SPIRIT. Forgive me, I have to
> mention it)
I can forgive you but I question your reasoning here. There's absolutely
nothing here between /zil-/ and "life, death and spirit". There's no
leeway to entertain this falsifiable theory of yours and I must say
that outright. Please look at all the attestations of /zil-/ and its
derivatives. Just go to google and type "zilace Etruscan", for example.
> I belive it also could be translated as:
>
> I am the sacred statue of the mother spirit of the water.
Many want to translate /fleres/ as "statue" while /fler/ as "gift"
but I've reviewed this word and it has to be nonsense. The word is
"gift" all around. Rather, /fler-es/ is the animatized version of
the word. The same suffix is found in /tin-s/ "Sun (god)" and is not
to be confused with the genitive, although they are usually spelled
the same.
> tin, tins, tin-S, tin-Si = day
Yes. Again, /tinS-i/ shows that /-S/ here is the animatizing suffix,
not the genitive. So /tinS-i/ means specifically "_on_ the day"
because it is the locative in /-i/. Don't believe me? Proof is on the
Zagreb mumm-ster:
tinsi . tiurim . avils
Properly segmented as => tins-i tiur-i=m avil-s
Translation is:
"On (-i) the day (tins-) and (=m) on (-i) the month (tiur-)
of (-s) the year (avil-)"
So, /tinsi/ is the locative of /tins/, not of /tin/, and certainly
not the dative **tin-Si "for the day" because of case agreement
between the known words for "day" and "month" (the latter lacks -s)
The /-s-/ in /tinsi/ here is NOT the genitive but the animatizing
suffix as I mentioned above.
>> /mula/ -> "to bless", not "to give"
>
> McCallister's:
You don't have to quote every gloss from McCallister as if he has it
all figured out. As I said it's a compendium of all ideas, not
necessarily the good ones either. Etr /mula/ is normally translated
as "to give" or "to offer" as I said but I'm considering not just
where /mul-/ is attested but _all_ its derivatives like /mlacH/ ~
/mulacH/.
> mulax, malak, mlax = votive offering, dedication (g/lb83) recepient
> for sacrifice (az96)
Do you notice "az96"? Remember what I said. He's a crackpot. More proof?
Here it is:
/mi spurias tHina mlacH mlakas/
It's NOT a sacrifice. Here /tHina/ is the object that this inscription
is on. Further, since /mlacH/ is accompanied by genitive /mlacHas/, the
translation must be "X of the X". For fun, let's say Mr Zavaroni is
sane. We get "I am Spurie's water vessel, recipients for sacrifice of
recipients for sacrifice". Clearly az96 is French for 'merda'. Rather
it means "blessed of the blessed" and perhaps by extension "most
endowed or beautiful", describing Spurie to whom this object is
dedicated.
> favi, favi-ti, favin = ditch, grave, temple vault ()
> favin = to favor (az96)
> faviti = favorable (az96)
Again, az96 is wrong as always. It's found with some frequency on the
Zagreb Mummy in various forms. I've seen /faviti/ translated as "east"
(because of the 'descending sun'). Presumably it's analysed as /favi-ti/
"in the east" (-ti ~ -tHi = "in") and /fav-in/ is the n-extended verb.
I have to still examine that word and its contexts to be sure exactly
what it means but "to descend" or possibly "to bury" seems acceptable
for /fav-/ and its derivatives.
= gLeN