Mark:
>I stand by my comments in message 1580, but suggest that the problem >is
>the word 'decipherment'. We know what some individual Etruscan >words mean,
>can distinguish between nouns, verbs and other parts of >speech, and can
>pronounce these words with some reasonable accuracy. >But once you exclude
>proper names, these words are at best obscure >in meaning. Being able to
>recognize a verb is not the same as >knowing what that verb means.
>
>Etruscan remains largely untranslatable. If we can't translate it, >it's
>undeciphered.
What is Mark talking about?? This doesn't sound like the Etruscan I know at
all. I plan on getting to the university tomorrow... uh erh today (12.45
AM!) to check out some things, including that Etruscan book I saw. Etruscan
IS translated - not like Latin, but still significantly so. Mark, I'll be
awaiting your response from the previous message which requests you to
accurately define "undeciphered", hopefully along with the current vague
term "undecipherable". Even here, your views remain hazy - at what point is
a language "translatable"? There are words in Sumerian and Latin which have
vague meanings - are they undeciphered? Rubbish. Sounds more like an excuse
to avoid coming face to face with your linguistic fantasies.
- gLeN
______________________________________________________