Re: [tied] Etruscan numerals

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:

> Morten:
> > The Etruscan Liber Linteus site
> >
> > http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/5181/etrusk/default.html
> >
> > says the following about Etruscan numerals:
> > [...] We therefore know the first six numbers:
> > thu, zal, ci, ša, mach, huth
>
> I'm aware. I don't agree and the evidence isn't as convincing as it
> at first seems.
>
> As with anything else with Etruscan, 'we therefore know' is more

like

> 'we suspect strongly but still don't have a clear indication'. The

only

> thing suggesting that /s'a/ means 'four' at all is the _assumed_

order

> in which the numbers are supposed to be placed on some other dice

that

> had been found outside of the Etruscan sphere. But it's not the only
> order possible and we don't really know how the Etruscans might have
> ordered the numbers, if at all. It's pure assumption in the end.
> The link between Ytte:nia and Tetrapolis is on the side of /hutH/
> meaning "four", not "six".
>
> In my scheme, there still is an order. Each side opposes the other

by

> a matter of three. So "6" opposes "3" (6-3 = 3) and "2" opposes "5"
> (5-2 = 3), etc. We know that "three" is a divine number because of
> trinities common throughout the Mediterranean and Middle-East (note

the

> union of Shamash, Nammu and Ishtar for example in Babylonian

beliefs).

>
> Further since /sempH/ is obviously a Semitic loan, it's likely that
> /xa/ means "six" and is also a loan from a similar source. We also
> have /xar/ "ten" which is Semitic in origin as well.
>
>
> > What these numerals show, beyond any shadow of a doubt, [...]
>
> I urge you to study Etruscan for yourself. I can demonstrate clearly
> some outright falsifiable _lies_ that surface in even the more
> credible books. I'll look right now in fact (since I'm at the

library)

> and will show you. Mayani being insane has a cornucopia of

contradictions

> but I've noticed what I thought to be ironclad translations

crumbling

> once I pursued my own internal investigation in books by Massimo.

Here

> too I've noticed inconsistent translations! Yikes!
>
> As sad as I am to say this, there is only a smattering of vocabulary
> that is certain (in the true sense of the word), particularly terms
> denoting family members like /clan/ 'son', /apa/ 'father' and /ati/
> 'mother' and some very common verbs and _some_ of their tensual

forms like

> /tur-/ 'to give' and /turce/ 'has given'. The rest is rabid
> theorizing that is often completely divorced of the texts we find

and

> shamefully dependent on ad hoc theories by madmen of old connecting

the

> language to all sorts of things from Latin to Albanian to Ukrainian.
>
> Even the reknowned experts are not impervious to embarassing

errors, no

> doubt caused by their lack of conscientious examination and

skepticism

> of other authors and perhaps a lack of access to recent texts or the
> openness of reasonable information now found on the internet

(ignoring

> the kook sites, of course).
>
>
> > Another peculiarity of the Etruscan is the formation of numbers by
> > subtraction, a system found also in Latin.
>
>
> > Is there any possibility that quattro and ša are related?
>
> No. We reconstruct *kWetwores in IE, the ultimate source for Spanish
> /quatro/ (one 't'). I would link IE *kWetwores with my retranslated
> /hutH/ "four", however I believe the ancestral form of

Etruscan /hutH/

> was Tyrrhenian *hota. The *h relates to *kW (being typically

delabialized

> with the rounding transferred to the neighbouring vowel *o). I've

stated

> my view that Tyrrhenian and IE are sister languages of an older

stage

> I call Indo-Tyrrhenian, spoken circa 7000 - 6000 BCE. This is not
> everyone's view however. It's certain that Etruscan is **NOT** an IE
> language but there may be still an indirect relationship with it.
>
>
> = gLeN

Hello, Glen

I perfectly agree about your discussion of Etruscan dice.
Naturally I don't believe in Indo-Tyrrhenian, and I think a NEC
etymology for /huth/ is far simpler.
In Spanish /quatro/ has one 't', but in Italian the numeral
is /quattro/.

Marco