Re: R: [tied] Etruscans

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
wrote:

> Cher Monsieur Sciarretta,
>
> In your explanation of Etruria, you seem to replace the

"mysterious" Etruscans by another mystery "Pelasgians", so I am afraid
this doesn't help understand who Etruscans were.

No - he adds them to the mix.

> Another point is : the place-names or river-names you give all

seem to have a rather acceptable etymology, either using Italic
languages, or Celtic or this XX (pelasgo-etruscan). So the consequence
is there is no lexical substrate at all in Etruria,

The Pelasgian etymologies make Pelasgian look Indo-European, whereas
I've never found the arguments for a close relationship between
Indo-European and Etruscan persuasive.

> When Italic and Celtic arrived and if we assume that Etruscans

also arrived from somewhere else, there were no inhabitants in Toscana.

> Or we have to assume that Etruscans precisely are the substrate.

There are a few cases of 'etymology unknown', and do we know roughly
how many of the etymologies given are wrong? (I don't ask which ones
- that's a far more difficult question.)

Richard.