On the translation of "usil"
> There's nothing fragmented about it.
If there's nothing wrong with it, then you should find it
easy to explain:
etnam tHacac usli necHse acil ame
It's found on the Zagreb Mummy, chapter 7. If you were in any
way correct, then /usli/, by all known Etruscan grammar, would
have to mean something ridiculous like "at the sun", "on the
sun" or "with the sun". We know with the utmost clarity that
/tins'i/ already means "on the day", so what on earth would
/usli/ mean in your fragmented head?
For all those who don't get it, /-i/ is a locative ending and is
a practically incontestable fact, being attested so many times.
It would be desperate to plead for random metathesis of /usil/
to /usli/, but nothing's stopped you before.
Instead, "in the evening" (or specifically "at the setting (of
the sun)") is far more appropriate. This text is describing a
ritual that was performed and when it was performed. We know
that /etnam/ means "and so" and /ame/ is "was". If they wanted
to "in the afternoon", they'd probably say /nac tins'i.../ or
the like.
> I just found it rich that you were accusing Pallottino and
> other experts of being sloppy, [...]
They _are_ sloppy. All of the "experts" are being influenced by
each others work, no matter how loose the threads. They clearly
aren't reviewing with precision whether the words can mean what
they say, but rather on vague impressions. If they like the
general translation of a word, chances are they won't think about
what influenced it but whether it works with some small degree
in the texts the word is found in. This might seem like a good
technique but it's actually a little sloppy because other
possibilities are not being fully considered from what I've seen.
A clear example can be seen by counting how many verbs supposedly
mean "to give"... tur-, alp-, nuntHen- & mul- to name a few. They
can't all mean "to give". Clearly, the translations given so far
still need to be at least honed if not revised completely. I've
suggested that /mul-/ means "to bless" because it not only fits
the attested evidence of the verb itself but all its derivatives
(note /mulacH, mlacH/ "blessed" => "endowed" => hence "pretty").
And when they all use the same core glossary of terms, containing
a few flawed ones in the mix, unfortunately in that respect these
people are practually interchangeable entities with nothing terribly
innovative to offer in way of understanding Etruscan better.
Even the Bonfantes admit that "The 'mystery' of Etruscan, like that
of the Great Pyramids, holds a fatal fascination for crackpots
convinced that they can decipher the language, crack the code and
find the key." (p.142 of "The Etruscan Language", 1983). I'm not sure
whether this is an honest and innocent remark or a hasty bit of
arrogance but one clear dilemma mentioned in that book is the
Arringatore statue which is translated in a very half-assed way, we
must admit:
Aules'i Metelis', Ve. Vesial clens'i,
"To Aulus Metellius, the son of Vel and Vesi,
Cen fleres' tece sans'l tenine tutHines' cHisvlics'.
"This statue set up, as a votive offering, Tenine(?)
by deliberation(?) of the people."
WHAT???? Is this a language??
Now look. "People" is /metHlum/ or /mecH/, not /tutHines'/. And who
the hell is "Tenine"??? Nobody! No such name has ever been found
elsewhere in Etruscan texts. They made it up because they were sloppy
and lazy. Where did they find such a complex word like "deliberation"?
Why would they even suggest something so abstract and complex when they
have to put a question mark beside it? Totally contrived.
This case is cut and dry and its found in the Bonfantes' book
regardless. If they weren't lazy, they were at least 'disinterested'.
Yet... we have an attested verb /ten-/, usually given as "to hold (a
term)" but then it must surely be derived from Latin /tenere/ "to
hold" if this is true.
The real translation will probably unravel itself once we grab a
brain and interpret /tenine/ as a middle (-in-) durative past (-e)
verb. But that first requires accepting one's free will. So, being that
anybody could do a better job here, let's make something better that
doesn't require a spontanteous prenomen.
Aules'i Metelis', Ve. Vesial clens'i,
"To Aulus Metellius, the son of Vel and Vesi,"
Cen fleres' tece.
"This gift has been laid."
Sans'l ten-in-e tutHines' cHisvlics'.
"The statue of 'chisvlics' was carried for the
deceased (note /sians'/)."
For some reason, Etruscanologists appear to be so unattentive that
they confuse /tHuta/ (which probably DOES mean "people" or specifically
"clan/family") with /tutHines'/. Notice the flimsy switcheroo of dental
stops? The former is on the Pyrgi thingamabob next to /mecH/. I think
/mecH tHuta/ = "clanspeople" is a better attempt than what I've seen.
The only thing to ponder is the last term which I don't recall repeated
in any other Etruscan text I've come across. Hey, I know! Let's copy
the experts' tactic and make Chisvlic an Etruscan name ad hoc!
Brilliant!
Miguel:
> and on complete disregard for the words' attestations (the liver
> is divided into a Sun's and a Moon's side,
Based on WHAT??? Did an Etruscan tell you this? _WHAT_ shows clearly
on that model that there is a "sun side" and a "moon side"? A line?
Lines mean many things. If lines weren't so enigmatic, nobody would
be so enthralled with the Nasca Lines. If you can't elaborate, you're
just sheepishly reiterating what appears to be baseless crap. Baseless
crap that you can't even justify.
And to say that I can't question authors when they are obviously self-
contradicting is disturbing. I can and I will. We're not talking
about Latin here. Etruscan is one of those "mystery languages"
still plagued by inaccurate translations and lingering theories of
old. We all know there are problems so why do you act surprised?
= gLeN