From: Antonio Sciarretta
>Ciao AntonioI am rather lost.
>In a message dated 03/10/02 17:53:59 GMT Daylight Time,
> > About the fricatives, I am realizing that it is a question of
> > great importance. Let assume that our "suspicion" is correct,
> > and that the letters of the Etruscan alphabets usually
> > transcribed with <tH, pH (f), kH>, were voiced stops instead.
> > This would explain many borrowings especially from Greek, but
> > also Italic/Etruscan correspondences. How came that the
> > Etruscan did not take the corresponding Greek signs for the
> > voiced and used the aspirated ?
>Pfiffig's theory on this is as follows: Although the Etruscans
>during their hegemony in Italy were well acquainted with the
>Greek alphabet of the time, their own alphabet came into
>existence as part of the general replacement of Linear B by an
>alphabetic alternative. This would account for the lack of signs
>for B, D and G. (Or at least B and G anyway). This hypothesis
>is also supported by the Caere syllabary which does not does
>not have a row beginning with L-, but it does have R- (like
>Linear B). The Etruscans therefore had their alphabet already
>before the Greek colonisation of Cumae.
> > Another problem is <f>, which in any case should have been inOK, and the fact that there are various signs for <f> should confirm that
> > the Etruscan phonetic system, because it is present in all the
> > Italic languages and the Etruscan needed it to borrow at least
> > personal names, place names, etc. But in this case, isn't there
> > one alphabet sign missing ?
>I don't think this is a problem. There is an <f>, which was
>borrowed from the Lydian alphabet around the 6th century BC to
>render the labiodentals found in the indigenous Umbrian
>anthroponyms and toponyms, which had been rendered prior to this
>by the digraph <vh>, and this new symbol was to be used alongside
>the bilabial <phi>. Only people got confused and spelled things
>'wrong'. There is a lot of confusion between <f>, <ph>, <v>, and
><h> in Etruscan inscriptions.
>One may also speculate that Etruscan may originally haveQuite interesting, would you go further with your speculation ?
>possessed glottalic consonants, which can sometimes sound
>like aspirated pulmonic consonants to the untrained ear, or at
>least they sound a bit like that in Ingush at any rate. Given that
>the Umbrian plebeians didn't have glottalics when the Etruscans
>came to rule over them, I imagine these sounds didn't last long.
> > I suggested for the theories of Massimo Pittau, professor atYes, but maybe the original assertion was only an attempt to fit the
> > the University of Sassari, his pages
> > http://web.tiscali.it/pittau/Etrusco/etrusco.html and
> > http://web.tiscali.it/pittau/Sardo/studi.html (for those who
> > can read Italian).
> > The article in which Pittau talks about the Etruscan numerals
> > is http://web.tiscali.it/pittau/Etrusco/Studi/dadi.html
> > but I can tell you in advance that his argumentation is
> > extremely unconvincing, as you can see from his conclusive
> > table where he relates <thu> to Sanskrit <tva>, <zal> to some
> > Germanic <zwa>, <ci> to some Iranic <sih>, <huth> and
> > <quattor>, <makh> and <magnus> 'five=the big (hand)'.
>And Etruscan <sar>, Sanskrit <dasa>! And yet he says that
>therefore the conclusion that Etruscan is IE "si vede
>facilmente". I don't think so.
> > Which is the evidence for Greek "pyrge" being of Caucasian
> > origin ? This word is very important for my reconstruction,
> > because it is considered as one of the clearest evidences of
> > the features postulated for this Pelasgian language:
>I am going by Diakonoff and Starostin, who are not always
>reliable, who simply say "Note that also Greek pyrgos 'tower' is
>like many other Greek substratum words, borrowed from Caucasian".
>They initially relate this to the Urartian <burgana>, but then
>in an addendum they withdraw this, saying "U[rartian] _burg-ana_
>means 'pillar, column', not 'tower' as assumed earlier, hence the
>comparison ... cannot be upheld". This is uncharacteristically
>cautious of them. However, Melikishvili glosses <burgana> as
>"fortress, fortification", and Laroche mentions Hurrian
><parkuluhuli>, "lapicide" which may be relevant.
> > It is the same process that, in my opinion, gave the nameI just take the notion of Pelasgians that the classical writers had, i.e.,
> > <turris> 'tower' > and then <Tyrrhenian> from the root IE
> > *dhergh|s- 'spike, thorn', which fits the semantics.
>So, your Pelasgians are a non-Italic IE people who became
>resident in Italy before the Etruscans. Is there a way of
>distinguishing between them and the Kelto-Ligurians?