Talk:Etruscan language

I saw that in a revision on July 19, User:Salpynx removed the letter D from table of consonants simply with explanation "Etruscan only has voiceless stops". I will not dispute that statement which is indeed correct, but using that to argue removal of D is a non sequitur - the table previously said that Etruscan used both T and D to represent phoneme /t/ (like it used three letters C, K, Q to represent one phoneme /k/, in an identical manner to Latin). The graphic used () was apparently created after a source that is now long dead so I can't confirm anything. For the time being I've thought to restore the table back to how it was before but it would be good to find sources which support or reject the usage of D as an optional letter for /t/, as well as maybe a short explanation after the table on the usage (was it a positional variant? or did some inscriptions use T and others D?) 178.58.48.102 (talk) 08:08, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

When I removed the 'd' from the table of consonants I had assumed it was functioning as a voiced stop in a phonetic table alongside the unvoiced 't' and I thought I was simply making the table agree with the article body.

I hadn't considered it might be a hypothetical alternate transliteration of an unvoiced stop because as far as I'm aware 'd' is not used in any standard transcription of Etruscan, and that the symbol represented by the graphic named 'EtruscanD-01' only appears in Etruscan inscriptions as an 'r' variant, or in model alphabets (not strictly part of the Etruscan language), but that's not directly relevant to this article. I was primarily removing the 'd' as it has no meaning in Etruscan. The current article needs better inline sources, but I think a lot of it is coming from multiple Rix works. Using one already cited: Rix, Helmut (2004). Woodard, Roger D. (ed.). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 947. ISBN 978-0-521-56256-0. Rix doesn't list a 'd' grapheme when setting out Etruscan phonetic tables, or when listing the "The Etruscan alphabet of archaic inscriptions", (Table 39.1, p. 945).

Just now I found an archived version of the source image of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EtruscanD-01.svg -- https://web.archive.org/web/20040929221340/http://www.weikopf.de/Tabelle1.JPG It's not a good source because it's not clear where the scan is taken from, but even in that table the D symbol is NOT in the Etruscan column, so as far as I can see, no one has ever claimed 'd' is an Etruscan letter, and it never should have appeared on this page in the first place. I'm happy to let someone else remove the 'd' and D from the table again, I don't believe it is possible to find a source to justify their inclusion. Salpynx (talk) 04:04, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Are helleno-pelasgians. Their language is an ancient greek dialect. The Tyr in Tyrrhenian and the tru in Etruskian is the same... For to rub. Helleno-pelasgian TYR TOR TRO TUR : TURn, TURbo, TORture, turban, Tour, torbulent, ...able to build castles and towers you need to rub, destroy stones. The E in Etruskian is the same like the et in Eteokretes, etymology, veteran, eternal, ethnos , for well known for long time, true....etc... 77.13.149.98 (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

No, they were most definitely aliens, like the Egyptians. The -an in Etruscan is the same as the one in Martian. Also ETRuscan TR, RT MaRTian and the initial E is pronounced the same as the I in Martian and they also adored Mars. They were Tyrrhe-Copto-Martian.

All jokes apart, if you think something is wrong with an article, you can edit it yourself instead of ranting on talk page. However, be aware that pseudoscientific deliriums will be reverted.

(They/We are aliens, not Greeks) -- VerusPhoebusApollo (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

"Adding the suffix -(a)ce' to the verb root produces a third-person singular active, which has been called variously a "past", a "preterite", a "perfect." In contrast to Indo-European, this form is not marked for person."

Which is it? Is it 'a third-person singular active', or is it 'not marked for person'? 62.73.69.121 (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify what I meant in my comment in the article editing history, as we know and as the BM description says, Etruscan typically reads from right to left. My question is whether the glyphs are properly understood as mirror images if it's just the way Etruscan is written. If we produce a mirrored image of a written passage, it looks backwards to us. We recognize it as a mirror image, not the standard presentation of text. But if Etruscan (or, say, Arabic) is normally read from right to left, that alignment is not mirroring anything. It doesn't look reversed or backwards to those for whom this is the standard alignment of text and order of cognition. If we transcribe the legend to conform to the expectations of reading Greek and Latin, is it worth noting that we aren't representing Etruscan orthography? And is the character/letter/glyph mirrored (understood as backwards or reversed by the Etruscans) because we and the Greeks and Romans were used to seeing it face the other way? Or is that just Etruscan orthography? However, the use of boustrophedon alignment does complicate the question.

And honestly, I probably shouldn't be mucking about here because I haven't looked earnestly at Etruscan in a long time. I was just trying to figure out what's up with some Old Italic and Gaulish coin legends that don't seem to conform to the rules of writing either Greek/Latin or Etruscan. Peaceful holidays to all. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Those interested in this topic may want to read Early Mediterranean Scripts by Frederik Woudhuizen and Eberhard Zangger. Woudhuizen believed that Etruscan was an Iron Age dialect of Luwian and he translated and published all of the major Etruscan documents. The idea that the Etruscans came from Asia Minor was the opinion of Herodotus and others and would help explain the Lemnos stele as well as the Aenead which, while largely mythological, is an attempt to connect the Romans to an important part of their ancestry. Recent genetic studies of the Etruscan are beginning to support this theory as well.

There has been little progress made in this area over the last 50 years and it might be beneficial to reconsider the evidence. Most scholars of the subject don't read Luwian and have ignored Woudhuizen's work. Frederik Woudhuizen (1959-2021) was a serious scholar who published over 25 books and 100 articles. See also, the Luwian Studies Web site. Tuck (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2026 (UTC)