Re: Views about Etruscan

That didn't take long


Sorry Glen but you need not view critical critiques as a personal
affront and what I wrote

was just my feeble attempt to pay homage to the scientific
method of categorizing information. Where by the original or most
generalized element is given classificatory priority over latter or
more specific elements. Excuse my ignorance for not knowing there are
aspects of linguistics that you enjoy, that are free from the riggers
of the scientific method. Simply stated, calling the basal language
group Tyrrhenian is yet another case of the tail waging the
linguistic dog.

Still not to toss rock at a glass window but, if one were to use Indo
as you have, the implication is that the Indic language group is the
parent of PIE and that the Indic group is more similar to the so-
called Tyrrhenian group that other IE groups. As far as Rhaetic is
concerned there are so few texts, that are so short, and date so late
that no one, with any degree of credibility, can ascertain its
relationship to Etruscan, other than at some undetermined point they
shared a common ancestor that was separate of PIE.

Again, Glen I'm sorry to disagree, as I think you have good ideas, it
just sometimes you seem to have traded the conventional for a box
less mundane.

Any thoughts


JS Crary