Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornellcs!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu!news.acsu.buffalo.edu!dsinc!cpp!aawest
From: aawest@CritPath.Org (Anthony West)
Subject: Re: Etruscan
Message-ID: <Dw1wy6.5x4@CritPath.Org>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 00:49:18 GMT
References: <4ujm18$5au@news.xs4all.nl> <320EC7EA.4B41@introweb.nl> <ALDERSON.96Aug12143506@netcom5.netcom.com>
Organization: Critical Path Project
Lines: 59

In article <ALDERSON.96Aug12143506@netcom5.netcom.com> alderson@netcom.com writes:
>In article <320EC7EA.4B41@introweb.nl> Hans Kamp <hanskamp@introweb.nl> writes:
>
>>Can someone explain the similarities between Etruscan and Albanian?
>
>Easily:  Both are (or were) languages spoken on the northern Mediterranean
>coast.
>
>End of similarities.
>-- 
>Rich Alderson
>
Can anyone name the scholar who (1970-90?) attempted to
derive Etruscan from Hittite? I read his effort and
thought it slightly less nutty than most such moves;
his methodology had a professional cast and I think his
credentials were somewhat mainstream.

Strikes against him: he was arrogant, and in the business
of tying up genetic relationships for *all* poorly
attested early languages from the Classical period - not
just Etruscan.

In his favor (my notes, not his): (1) both Classical
historiography and the Lemnian sister-language of 500
B.C. point Etruscanists to the NW corner of Anatolia ca.
1000 B.C. The Anatolian branch of IE is an obvious
candidate for comparison. Anatolian languages diverged
early from the mainstem of IE evolution and are shot w/
non-IE vocabulary items, making the (mostly) non-IE
vocabulary of Etruscan less anomalous than a comparison
w/ Albanian would.

(2) Etruscan shows a synthetic, case-suffixed noun
system of typical IE proportions, with 2 or 3
declensions and 2 or 3 genders. Most of its case
endings compare easily w/ those of other evolved IE
daughter tongues - including the genitival /-l/, known
mostly from Anatolia. And its gender oppositions -
animate/neuter, w/ traces of masc./fem. - are also
Anatolian in style, I believ.

The way nouns are organized and related strikes me as
a more fundamental (genetic) property than any lexical
set. Thus, the fact that Etruscan used non-IE numbers
is not a genetic problem. Modern Japanese mostly uses
Sino-Tibetan numbers, not Altaic numbers. But Japanese
compares well structurally w/ Altaic, not at all w/
Sino-Tibetan.

The "lumpers" most in fashion today - Russia's Proto-
World theorists - do not group Etruscan closely w/
IE. The "splitters" say: nothing can yet be said about
Etruscan affiliations. Obviously, at least one group
of scholars is missing the boat. I wonder if perhaps
each is right about the other.

-Tony West     aawest@CritPath.org 

