[tied] Re: Venus [was: Why borrow 'seven'? (was: IE right & 10)]

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

> 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

/Usli/ may very well be TRANSLATED as something like "with the sun".

What "with the sun" might MEAN in a religious context WE DO NOT KNOW,
DO WE?

/Usil/ may mean sun

Morten