Your points are well taken about Etruscan being
remotely related to the IndoEuropean. However, all languages can be
"remotely" related to I-E. Does this perhaps mean the only language family
we need to consider is Indo-European?
Me thinks the only difficulty between you and
Arutiunov is that you appear to be a "lumper" and he a splitter.
BTW, could you perhaps cite a few references for
translations of Etruscan texts?
Gerry
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2001 10:36
PM
Subject: Re: [nostratic] And
finally...
Gerry:
>However, Etruscan texts still cannot be
read. Etruscan was not
>Indo-European. According to
Artuiunov, most probably Etruscan was related
>to Hurri-Urartic and
migrated from Asia Minor.
I would burn Artuiunov's books if I were you.
That's just nonsense.
The proposals regarding Etruscan's supposed
relationship to
HurroUrartian languages are riddled with logical problems
and
fantastic thinking. While Etruscan is not an IE language, it
does
appear to be a language remotely related to the
IndoEuropean
languages (as a paraIE language).
As well, the
statement that "Etruscan texts still cannot be read"
is not in line with
modern fact. They can so be read and there is
nothing mysterious about
Etruscan anymore aside from its
exact
origins.