Mark O:
>Knowing the meanings of some words in a foreign language does not >mean you
>speak that foreign language: a Berlitz phrase book does not >make you
>fluent. We know some Etruscan words. We do not know >Etruscan. Etruscan,
>then, remains undeciphered.
Your definition of "undeciphered" remains completely vague and incorrect
because it is dependent on absolutes in a field that has none. That a
plethora of securely labeled grammatical suffixes and items exist (cf./mi,
mini/ "I, me", /-s/ [genitive] and /-c, -m/ "and"), would make anyone think
twice about the term "undeciphered". Is there a precise limit where you will
say that Etruscan IS deciphered? When we are aware of 2000 words, 20000
words? Only until we know every last detail about the grammar? At what point
will we _know_ Etruscan??
I haven't heard you leap to answering my other direct questions like "What
constitutes a secure linguistic relationship if grammatical items aren't
enough?" either. Let's hope in your stubborn opposition that you have the
courage to clarify your loose usage of this term.
Your definition as it appears here is lousy and it lets us casually say that
Hittite is undeciphered. Why maybe Akkadian is undeciphered. Ugaritic too.
Maybe Sumerian. Latine, et tu?! All these languages are quite moribund, so
does this constitute "undeciphered", Mark??
Ludicrous! A dead language does not an "undeciphered" one make. Etruscan
words, and more importantly all these tell-tale grammatical items that are
highly IEesque (a billion-to-one chance as a whole), are indeed known to a
reasonable degree and there are cognates to be found if you're unbiased
enough to look for them (cf. Lemnian, the Anatolian lgs, etc) so I really
don't understand why this clear-cut difference is made between Etruscan and
any other ancient language.
To be sure, there is a relative distinction to be made in the sense that
less is known on Etruscan than Sanskrit or Hittite - I agree here. However,
this hardly means that we don't know anything about Etruscan and that our
knowledge doesn't count for something. In the lack of knowledge,
extrapolation and imagination are an excellent tool to advancing that
knowledge (Einstein would toast to that one).
Can we please get our heads out of the sand and push archaeolinguistics
forward? Let's get this straight: Comparative linguistics will never be a
physical science with 100% absolutes, it's a theoretical one. Absolutes,
like Mark's usage of "undeciphered", have no place here and only bring the
field to a dead halt. I have alot of theories to get across and I don't want
to end up dying of old age with linguists still debating the painfully
obvious IE-Etruscan link. :P
- gLeN
______________________________________________________