Etruscan numerals

Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> Hallo!
>
> R A Brown wrote:
>
>
>>Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
[nip]
>>>1. Both names mean the same. (There are plenty of cases of names of
>>>   the same place in different languages meaning entirely different
>>>   things.)
>>
>>Indeed there. For 22 years I lived in south Wales in a place called
>>'Newport'; its Welsh name is 'Casnewydd' = "new castle".
>
>
> Yes.  There are numerous other examples.
Yes, Wales is has many such examples. Moving along the south coast from
Newport (Casnewydd) one comes eventually to Swansea. The English
spelling suggests a folk etymology to do with 'swans' and the 'sea'. The
name is actually of Norse origin; some Viking leader set up a settlement
there long ago. It is actually Sven's isle (I think the modern Swedish
form is not dissimilar).

So the Welsh is something like *Ynysyswen ? No - it is 'Abertawe' =
[city at the] mouth of the [river] Tawe     :)

Other examples:
ENGLISH   WELSH
Brecon    Aberhonddu (Honddu-mouth)
Cardigan  Aberteifi (Teifi-mouth)
Cowbridge (Y) Bontfaen (The stone bridge)
Fishguard Abergwaun (Gwaun-mouth)
Holyhead  Caergybi (Cybi's fortress)
etc. etc.

The point about the Newport ~ Casnewydd examples is that a superficial
investigator, knowing that the Welsh for 'new' is 'newydd' could well
then make the mistaken assumption that 'cas' = 'port', which it doesn't.

>
>
>>>2. _Yttaria_ is from a language related to Etruscan.  (How do we know?)
>>
>>We don't! The town/city was in Lycia in Asia Minor - not exactly close
>>to Etruria in Italy. Could the name have been, er, Lycian? AFAIK there
>>is no obvious relationship or connexion between Lycian & Etruscan.
>
>
> There is certainly no "obvious" relationship between Lycian and
> Etruscan!
British fondness for understatement on my part   :)

> Lycian is an Indo-European language of the Anatolian
> branch, thus closely related to Hittite.
Yes, the language is known only from some 150 or so inscriptions from
the 5th & 4th cent BCE, and comes in two distinct dialects, usually
called Lycian A and Lycian B (sometimes, for no good reason, called
Termilian & Milyan). Enough of its flexions & vocabulary are known to
show beyond doubt that it is an IE Anatolian language, and is most
closely related to Luwian, the southern 'sister' of Hittite/Nesite.



[snip]
>>This means that two sets of opposite sides do not add up to 7, which is
>>unusual, tho not of course impossible. I would think one needs slightly
>>stronger evidence than the dubious (to put it mildly) connexion between
>>'huth' and 'hytt-'.
>
>
> Not just slightly stronger, I'd say *much* stronger.
Sorry - a mix of British understatement and mild sarcasm. It has to be
far stronger evidence indeed - and none such exists.

>That Hyttenia thing IMHO is no evidence at all!
Indeed, it is not. The whole thing falls apart on even basic examination
of the so-called 'evidence'.

[snip]
> Yes.  Actually, Glen Gordon gives a handful of further "cognate sets",
> but those don't look much better and many of them are based on
> controversial interpretations of Etruscan words.
Yes, it is surprising what one can do with controversial interpretations
of Etruscan words - so much easier to prove connexions with them than
with those troublesome certainties!

I've been pestered for the last last two or three months by some guy who
is convinced that Etruscan = Pelasgian = Albania  {groan}

>
>>Whatever order Mr Gordon thinks the numbers take, he must IMO at least
>>show plausible connexions for all six of them if his ideas are to be
>>taken seriously.
>
>
> Seconded.
Yes, it seems to me that this is essential if anyone is to put forward a
theory of relationship with Etruscan.

--
Ray
==================================
ray@carolandray.plus.com
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
MAKE POVERTY HISTORY

Replies