Me (gLeN):
> 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".
Miguel:
> Something has to be (acil ame = opus est) placed, or dried,
> or whatever, "in the sun". What's the problem? The meaning
> of the words <thacac> and <nechse> is unknown.
Dried _what_? What are you talking about?? Saying "placed, or dried,
or **WHATEVER**" doesn't make me convinced that you really know what
you're talking about. You're supporting a theory with another
theory. Obscurity and more obscurity.
In other words, your basis for /usil/="sun" is based on
further unverified speculation of _other_ words! This is clearly
bad methodology. It must be judged with what we *know*, not what
we don't know. We aren't concerned about /tHacac/ or /necHse/,
just /usil/ right now. Don't cloud the issue.
You'd then have to verify /acil/ and all it's attestations... which
may then be only interpreted the way they are based on other
faulty interpretations of other words in those contexts, etc, etc,
etc. And before you know it, we have an exponential amount of
research to do on a whole slew of words that have been no doubt
"translated" by way of "lazy resemblance" strategies using other
languages like Latin, Albanian, Coptic, Sumerian or whatever other
possible Illuminatiesque language you can think of.
The irony is that you're convinced that /usil/ means "sun" simply
because the authors tell you this and yet you are also clearly
aware that the Zagreb Mummy _still_ hasn't been translated in
entirety... but somehow you're still certain that /usil/ means
what they claim it to be.
Me in response to Miguel's assertion about the interpretation of
the Piacenza Liver thingamajiggy's bottom 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?
Miguel:
> Yes, a dividing line. The words <tivs> and <usils> are
> placed on either side of the line, "moon" on the left (pars
> hostilis), "sun" on the right (pars familaris). It's
> obvious.
And what is the interpretation of "pars hostilis" and "pars familaris"
based on? Do you know? More importantly _whose_ interpretation? Is this
an _authentic_ interpretation or one based on a later researcher's idea
alone? Is there potential for personal bias by this researcher?
What we see is two lines. That's it. Nothing that's terribly "obvious"
because we only have two words marked. We are sure of the translation
of one of them.
But we can indeed interpret /usil-s/ here as "of the evening" and this
would also satisfy the dual opposition of /thesan-e/ "in the morning"
and /usl-i/ "in the evening" in the Zagreb Mummy text. This would
mean that this second line on the Piacenza Liver marks the western
horizon (the horizon of the setting of the sun) while the other line
is indeed the line of the moon (not of the path of the moon, but a
line that connects all the points at which the moon meets the horizon).
If so, we must interpret this as a kind of 'ruler' that is keeping
track of where in the west the moon sets in the evening in order to
divine (based on time of year) what will take place in the future.
This is entirely plausible and is a better interpretation because it's
not based on other unknowns. It's an interpretation of what we see and
what we know, devoid of irrelevant side mysteries and hearsay.
= gLeN