User talk:Dumu Eduba
Linguistic fringe theories
Thanks for refing the reviews! I've nominated the two articles for speedy deletion. We might opt for just shortening the "Iberian-Guanche Inscriptions" article, removing the unmethological nonsense. But we'll see what the admins will make of it. Trigaranus (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to your other personality! :-) Our good Iberodingsbums has just found out that we are actually one and the same person!!! :-D Lovely to finally meet myself. Enchanté and all. Trigaranus (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- It looks as if the two pages were sorted out. I hope that Ibero and Virgi aren't too miffed about that. I'm curious if they are going to put it up on AAV's page where it belongs, or if they'll have another try. Trigaranus (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Well yep... I wouldn't go as far as wagering who might be behind those two names, but they are certainly very passionate about the issue. Which of course makes it much easier to be persevere. Don't worry, in the worst case the article on the inscriptions would have to be kept — which I think would be fairly embarrassing for an encyclopedia, even a wiki one. It is just that then someone would have to make sure to point out its weaker points and its fringiness. And, to be honest, the language, the structure, the inconsistent argumentation and the overall look of that article do all not really tempt me to spend too much time trying to mend the rotten roof it is. Trigaranus (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- Just noticed that I'm the only one contributing to your talk page! :-) I know, I first got entangled in Wikipedia with articles I cared a lot about, myself, too, but that's generally not such a good idea. I was lucky for my contributions mostly to find open arms. But as soon as a large part of one's inputs are contested, discarded, or even summarily attacked by other contributors (happened to me on that issue the first time) one begins to lose some of the pleasure of participating in this project. And as it is with fringe topics, there are a lot of very dedicated, but not very fair users out there, trying to claim space for the more baloney kind of ideas, either by being outright aggressive, or by continuously yelling blue murder and using the WP:Guidelines as a shield for their bizarre fancies. There's not much we can do about it, apart from stating what we have to state, and trying to find a rational (though not necessarily a universally agreed-upon) solution. Most fringeheads will always find a way to confirm their bogus theories on the net, but that is really not our business. We certainly are obliged to uphold academic standards, but to a certain degree we can also expect serious readers to apply a similarly rational sense of criticism to what they find on Wikipedia (that's to cheer you up a little). So keep up the good work, keep an eye on our two boyos, and tuck in with all the good stuff on this experiment! ;-) Trigaranus (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the edit, but on an Afd page, you should try and keep it a bit shorter. I don't mean to critizise what you wrote in any way. It's just that the Aft page is intended to give an independent admin a quick overview, so it's best to keep statements below ten lines. Sorry, not my idea. Could you summarise it, perhaps? Cheers, Trigaranus (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- BTW I've looked at some IP work and on some of the earlier contribs by Virg/Ibero, and I'm now not so hesitant anymore to follow you in identifying one or rather the pair of them as AAV. It's all a bit sad, in a way. Trigaranus (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, in fact it was your last correspondent Trigaranus who wanted to move the usko-med stuff to the Arnaiz-Villena page. That was when the various usko-med articles were being proposed for deletion. He simply added a section heading but left it empty. . I initially deleted it, but now think it's appropriate to have a section. It's difficult to know how to phrase it in an NPOV way, without it either becoming a hatchet job or a forum for a fringe theory. Unfortunately, A-V can publish nonsense in apparently reliable journals (eg ) because he is a respected immunologist. I can't imagine that a linguistics journal would allow linguists to make dogmatic assertions about immunology in its pages. Paul B (talk) 11:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Bibliography on Iberian
Dumu, had a look at the extensive bibliography you added. It's impressive but also very long; I noticed that there's a lot of articles that are mentioned several times, do you think we could find a way of mentioning each article only once? Perhaps if we did larger groupings? How about General ( Works + General descriptions and considerations on the Iberian language + Others), Writing (Writing + Notable inscriptions), Lexicon, Phonology & Grammar (the "middle bit), Origins (Origin of the Iberian language+ Basque and Iberian). Good work though! Akerbeltz (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Is it ok if I tweak the Basque Bibliography in a similar style? The Bib List is longer than the artcile itself ;) Akerbeltz (talk) 11:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmm. In this case there is a question that worries me. The section on " Relation with other languages" is big because is intended to be the bibliography for a future own article on the question. So maybe it should be stored on another place an then could be shortened.
- I think that without the bibliography on "relationships" the bibliography could even be too short. As Basque is nowadays an isolate language (with the only accepted "maybe" being with Iberian), it makes more sense to shorten the section in the article and to enlarge it in an own article (IMHO), and send all that bibliography there.
- That said, yes there are still too much references to Bengtson (2 or 3 should be enough).
- But maybe the better procedure would be to ask to enlarge the article (the German version is much better, so that a translation of at least some sections could be asked).
- Another problems with the article: section on numerals with a dubious format. The section on writing and miller numbers maybe better in their own article.
- BTW. The new on-line etymological dictionary of Morvan is very disappointing. I hope he will enlarge it. As it stands now it is a very light (shortened) standard etymologies (but with too too too few explanations) plus some more than dubious uralic/altaic comparisons (even comparisons with /m/ and /p/). No mention to Lakarra proposals .... From that perspective, old odd Löppelmanns is much better. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 12:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- Haha, I hope he doesn't! To be honest, I wouldn't mind outsourcing most of the "connections" to a separate page such as Hypotheses on the origin of Basque. We could then cut down that entire section on Basque language to something like "B is today overwhelmingly considered isolate by mainstream linguists. However, over the centuries there have been numerous hypotheses on the origin of the Basque language". Akerbeltz (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- My disappointment is due also because I read Morvan's first book from the first page to the last one. I did not believe the uralic/altaic proposal (in fact I believed that that book was only a try and that Morvan was aware after the research that the hypothesis was not right but that once the research begun he had to say something in the book), but his knowledge on Basque etymologies was very impressive. I understand that in a free web page he is not going to put too much work, but lack many reference and the U/A comparisons have no coherence (and yes I am also aware that the Altaic theory is problematic/dubious and hence that the Uralic/Altaic is .....). I hoped something better from Morvan (maybe next time?).
- And yes, my opinion is that the Basque language article should be sub-divided in more sub-articles and that the "origin" is one of the better candidates.
- Even so, for me the problem is that idea of putting all theories at the same level. Today (as Jacobsen and others state) the only serious hypothesis is that of Iberian (..yes I remember that the Arnaiz'es users claim me to be a conspirator against Basque-Iberian theory, but they also claim that Punic is Basque...), although only as a maybe and not clear. The rest is mostly of historic interest (a hundred years ago they had sense but nowadays they seem very dubious or simply incredible or as a too much remote relation) or experimental, as Dene-Caucasian. Although my opinion is that Dene-Caucasian ideas on Basque seem to be a failure, I have no problem to let them to search a better method. As for Caucasian, in theory, some of his families are the best candidates to some relationship, but only for being the nearest "isolates" languages, the linguistic reasons seem to be too poor and too subjective. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 16:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, we could split them into two sections on the new page. We could have a section on "Mainstream linguistic research" (working with Protolanguages, sound etymological principles etc) and "Other approaches". No one says we have to list them alphabetically... Akerbeltz (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- It is a good idea. Even if I am afraid that it could attract to the "eccentrics". Wikipedia can be stressing. For instance, I am sick of all that mockery of sockpuppets in the discussions writing pro Arnáiz theories. They are so clumsy that it is too evident, and their bad manners and licences are tiring . Is there no method to control that play-acting? --Dumu Eduba (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Just a few remarks, I write here as it seems more appropriate. But please feel free not to answer and not be incensed at my taking the liberty of writing: noted mistakes in the current translation on the relevant page: line 3 "munistas thuvas tameresca ilacve tule rase" should mean something like: her burial took place on the Kalendae. line 4 "ci avil churvar" could also mean 3 whole years; there is no word that can be interpreted as idols; "teshameit ale ilacve alshase"seems to mean she was buried on the kalendae offerings having been given.
- Hello Zanzan32.
- The question is to know which is the source of the translation used. Then you can afford another from a book or article. Some words are dubious or temptative even for specialists.
- I copy from the Italian Wikipedia the lines on your observations, followed by the Italian translation and the English one (both as they stand today). After them I add Fachetti's translation (2000):
- Muni-s ta-s θuva-s tamer-es ca ilacv-e tuler-as-e.
- e il monumento. Col seppellimento del sole sono state soddisfatte le richieste degli stranieri
- That burial of his own by these priests with idols was encircled.
- "del sacro luogo della camera questo (fu) nelle feste Tulerasa"
- Nac ci avil χurvar, tešiam-ei tal-e, ilacv-e alš-as-e.
- nel terzo anno, e quelle degli Alsienses [i Ceretani]
- For three years [in the month of] Churvar, with Her burnt offerings, with idols [it was] buried
- "poiché (furono) tre anni completi, nel giorno del potere; nelle feste Alsasa
- Nac Θefarie Veliiunas θam-uc-e cleva etan-al Masan tiur, Uni-as šel-ac-e.
- Il grande Tefarie Veliiunas ha stabilito il patto [di alleanza coi Cartaginesi] con cui ha rinnovato le condizioni della nazione.
- When Tiberius Velianas had built the statue of the sanctuary [in] the month of Masan, Uni was pleased.
- "dacché Thefarie Veliunas <fondò>, il cleva dell' etana <la ripetizione> del <rito mensile> <officiò?>
- Vacal tmia-l avilχva-l am-uc-e pulumχva snuia-φ.
- Il rito del tempio ha avuto luogo al termine dell'anno. Con le bullae si indica l'alleanza futura.
- The votives of the temple yearly have been as numerous as the stars
- <la preghiera> del tempio degli anni ci fu, stelle <cento>
- Facchetti do not translate cleva noretana, and the words between < > are approximations (not sure ones).
- As you can see there are some differences. The question is that, before proposing another translation, the reasons for the translations proposed should be known.
- First section: as long as I know "idol" is heram, but the soruce of the article seems to believe that "idols" is 'ilacve, but this word is given by Steinbauer as "Monat, Fest"(?) ("month" "festival").
- Second section: probably the translation of Churvar as a name of month is an old translation based on the Phoenician k-r-r. In recent publications I find the translation you propose ("complete"). BTW: maybe Phoenician k-r-r is also "whole" instead of a month name (for instance Arabic kull). The meaning of tešiam-ei tal-e besides its Locative morphology seems to rely also in its Phoenician parallel (but also understood as in the burial day).
- Third section: As you can see it is unclear and Facchetti only show doubts.
- amuce is an archaic form of amce and I see no problem in it.
- The question with the article is that surely it is based on some old translation (but which?, as thera is no clear reference). It should be replaced but the translation given in some modern book. I can copy the Italian translation afforded by Faccheti, but of course not the whole of it is sure, and a proper English translation could be difficult.
Thank you for detailed answer. I see the difficulties. As for my interpretations of ilacve as kalendae and itune as idi it is taken from I. Kraukopf on the book you kindly linked for me. It seems already Cristofani identified them in the Tabula Capuana where they recur many times as such.
As for the meaning of tesiam-eit ale I just found tesham al in the glossary as bury.
I understand amuce is generally understood as praeteritum of am to be but here how can it fit the context? Clearly it is impossible that the years of this temple just founded have been numerous as the stars.Zanzan32 (talk) 08:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is twofold. For one side some references are old, the knowledge on Etruscan has advanced much in the last years. On the other side, many interpretations are subjective or only approximations or hypothesis, so much of what is translated should be with ?.
- You can see a link on an old book which adds the Phoenician text translation here.
- On amuce you can see that in this phrase Facchetti have some doubts and that his translation is different; the meaning of the subject of amuce is dubious!. So probably amuce do is the past of am- but the translation must be changed (BTW the Phoenician translation of the link says "And the years of the statue of the divinity shall be as many years as these stars. But as you know Phoenician only writes consonants, so there is some margin to correct the translation).
- I think that the translation afforded on the article on the Pyrgi tablets is wrong or obsolete, but what concerns to Wikipedia is: a) which is the source of that translation?; b) can be added another translation according to a more reliable/modern source (or delete the previous and put that instead, or add several translations with their sources...) Dumu Eduba (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. Me too I think it is essential to give sources in an encyclopedia. The Phoenician text you linked here is almost identical with the translation of Dupont-Sommer quoted by Dumezil. I think the meaning of the Phoenician text must be almost certain so it should be a guide in the interpretation of the Etruscan text as far as there is a clear correspondence. Certainly it is important the mention of the burial of the goddess in the month of ...day (of the sacrifice to the sun?).
I was writing by memory yesterday so I made some mistakes: tesham in the Italian glossary is tomb in earth and al verb to give so this would mean to give to the earth/i.e. bury. As for the terms: ilucve/ilacve=kalendae, saiuzie =nonae, ituna/itune=idi it is given by Edlund-Berry not by Kraukopf.Zanzan32 (talk) 05:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- I am aware of itun Idus, but here we have etan- (even if we had etun it could be a different word).
- On the Phoenician inscription, the lack of vowels and some lacks of our knowledge allow to consider small variations in the translation.
- On ilacve it is a similar meaning to the proposed by Seinbauer and Facchetti (a month, a festival, could be the equivalent to Kalenda).Dumu Eduba (talk) 12:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. I am making progress as I read texts and articles. Steinbauer says Tulerase and Alsase are perhaps Phoenician month names. An hypothesis came to my mind: the Etruscan text exceeds the Phoenician one so the last two lines have no Phoenician correspondent. Thus the last words could be read as a repetition of the wish or augurium of the first plate and the praeteritum a kind of Etruscan use of past in the future, i.e. a sort of second future. However an optative would be more appropriate.
On the Tabula Cortonensis I read a review by R. Wallace.
I think Peruzzi's opinion that the initial E.T. is a formula corresponding to Latin B. F. (bona fortuna, bonum factum, bona fide) is interesting as the meaning does not require an adverb at the beginning and looking at the apograph provided by Zavaroni there are clearly two points after E and T.Zanzan32 (talk) 11:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Another remark on the Pyrgi lamellae that involves an important morphological issue: the name Uni appears with different forms of genitive on line 1 and 5, Unial and Unias. Also on the bronze placque published by Pallottino in AC 19 1971 (or 72) quoted by Van der Meer we find the form Uniiathi that looks like a locative. The root stem of Uni was then maybe Uniia. In the LL cilths looks to be interchangeable with cilthl.
I think it should be important to study the various endings or suffixes that are used after a rootword.
E.g. the compounds formed by sacni: Bonfante interprets it as holy, sacred (action/place) (sacnicleri=sanctuary) whereas Steinbauer as citizenry. But this rootword in the LL appears also as sacnistres in a formula that repeats over and over (I: sacnistres/sacnileri cilthl spuresres/spurestreri (methlumeri) enas; V 22-23: zeric zec atelis sacnicla cilthl spural methlumesc enas...). The word seems to be sacnicla. Perhaps its different suffixes convey some different meaning.Zanzan32 (talk) 12:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
There are indeed many words belonging to the priviledged semantic areas that look Altaic or Uralic. I mean i.e. kinship: apa, ati, puia, and many other listed by Alinei. While I am not a supporter of his theory I think Etruscan looks morphologically and syntactically similar to these languages.
It is also interesting the question of numerals which look to use a duodenarian system: 10 would be halch and sar 12 according to a source in the article. If sa is 4 then it could be similar to Sino-Thai. (Also the word for sky, tin).
As for vowel harmony: how can it be proved or disproved on the basis of our written documents?
- These days I am somewhat too busy, so I can not make a complete answer. In any case, as long as I know the Uralic/Altaic theories are very dubious and Alinei's proposals unreliable (even in the Hungarian side of the question). For example, one of the very first ideas I knew of Allinei was that Etr. zilath was related with Hung. gyula which allegedly was the name of several Hungarian great leaders. But there is no internal Hungarian etymology for gyula, but it is an adaptation of the name Iulius.
- Take also into account that the relation between Uralic and Altaic is nowadays considered very dubious, and that the whole Altaic family is problematic (several of the traditionally considered Altaic languages seem not to be Altaic at all). In any case any comparison Etruscan/Uralic must be done using the reconstructed Proto-Uralic "language".
- On the morphological and syntactic look-alikes there is a limited number of language structures in the world, and those agglutinative usually look alike (for instance Basque, Hungarian, and Japanese). As a matter of fact, in a very same family there can be several kinds of language (compare Latin, English, Irish, Italian, and Hittite; very different languages structurally but belonging to the same family).Dumu Eduba (talk) 10:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. I wholly agree the comparison may only be done with the most ancient or reconstructed forms of these languages. To avoid misunderstandings: I was not referring to Alinei's hypothesis of a relationship with Hungarian. I cited instances from the kinship semantic field: ati, apa, puia, sech, papa perhaps. These words look Turkic, or Proto-Ugric i. I used the adjective Altaic because once linguists used to identify an Uralo-Ataic family, later they distinguished 2 separate families (Uralic and Altaic), now you tell me the Altaic family does no longer exist. All these classification problems are out of my reach, though it seems clear that these languages have many common characters and share some vocabulary. I think this is not so relevant, the important question is that some Etruscan words, e.g. those I cited above look almost identical to some Proto-Turkic ones, other to Proto-Ugric ones. I already found correspondences for the numeral cezp 8 with Proto-Sami, I wrote them on the disussion page of Etruscan language time ago. I do not know Basque, but Japanese is totally different from Hungarian, at least in the vocabulary and the morphology. BTW if halch is 10 one could explain mach as m(h)a(l)ch a half of 10. A last remark: if the forefathers of the Etruscans wandered in the steppes North of Iran this could easily explain the large number of Indoiranian loanwords that led Marzolla to formulate his theory. Sorry for being so long once again.Zanzan32 (talk) 12:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Much afraid Marzolla is also unreliable. Based on the data I could find in the web many of his Etruscan comparison are just ad hoc adjusting the meaning of an Etruscan word to a similar Sanskrit word. As for sanskrit lup at first sight I would say it is the same root as Latin rump-ere (rup-tus) (Sanskrit lump-ati).Dumu Eduba (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- About Marzolla's method you should refer to his first book L'etrusco, una lingua ritrovata. The article on combinatory linguistics states ital read as drink by Alinei is not to be found anywhere else on cups or jugs. However it appears on the Tabula Capuana in a context which allows its interpretation as libation.Zanzan32 (talk) 13:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, of course the information on Marzolla's ideas I found is very scarce, but when what is highlighted on a book is so dubious usually it is a very bad sign. IMHO it is not fair when an author pretends to sell a book with so "new" ideas when the reader (buyer) can get so few information on the goodness of the book (publish articles or an abstract in a web should be a fairer way). There are many fringe authors (not saying that Marzolla is one of them) who sell books at high prices, promising revolutionary discoveries. I am remembering some decipherer of the Phaistos disk who sued a person who in a web said it was faulty alleging that this commentary had cost the author much money pretending that otherwise he had sold thousand of exemplars --- a number which seemingly were never published --- and another decipherer of many languages-- saying that Iberian, Tartessian, Etrucan, Minoan, Bereber, Sumerian, Hittite, Akkadian, etc etc were the same language-- who claim in this same wiki that there is a conspiration against him and his ideas (even that the wikipedia's editor who reject adding his ideas to all these articles are part of some obscure secret service which work against him; the scandal arose because he arranged things to publish the books with the seal of a University). As things stand if Marzolla pretends that the only way to know his ideas is to buy his book..... I disagree. Dumu Eduba (talk) 14:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. Marzolla's book appeared in 1984 (very cheap then) and nobody in the academic etruscological circles gave it any consideration. Marzolla is an academic but not an Etruscologist! His method though is simple, as far as I remember: as Sanscrit has a richer phonologic system he streamed down what Sanscrit phonemes could give in the simpler Etruscan phnologic system: i.e. for any Sanscrit phoneme there should be a correspondent Etruscan one, but one Etruscan phoneme could be the result of many different Sanscrit phonemes. This is so both for vowels, consonants and diphtongs. He is scientifically rigorous in applying his method. His results were extremely good where they are applicable: the Volterra magpie statuette on which appears the corresponding Sanscrit word for magpie (with the forecast phonetic changes) and the lead bullet bearing the inscription killer (as interpreted by M.) among others. However he failed in his attempts to interpret the longer inscriptions. In his last book (2005) too it seems he only translates mirror inscriptions.
I have an impression that his failure might be due to the fact even though Etruscan has a large amount of words the etymology of which is Indoiranian, it might be indeed a Uralic or Turkic language. The morphology and syntax look much so. Also many words of kinship and perhaps one or two numerals. About ithal I think Alinei's interpretation as drink or libation might be supported by its occurrence on the Tabula Capuana. L.Bonfante seems to accepts his reading on the mirror where Heracles is suckling Hera's breast: she gives as possible the 2 translation became son and drank milk.Zanzan32 (talk) 13:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Time will say the last word, but I remain sceptical. I know of a few similar discoveries (the funniest of all one who considered Etruscan as a Greek dialect, with many translation) and all ended as miserable failures.
- Think that as many researchers are eager to publish novelties the fact that after 26 years no one has been tempted to follow Marzolla's ideas (even to re-discover or to make a new version) is a bad symptom.
- On the relation with Sanskrit I detect some typical mistakes. For instance: the written Etruscan word vacal of course looks like Sanskrit root vac; but while Etruscan sound is 'k', the Sanskrit one is 'ch'. So non compatible. (If the menaing of Etruscan vacal is oration or similar, it would be easier to compare with Latin voc- (vox, vocis) (specially since Etruscan has no /o/ vowel; and even so it is a very dubious idea).Dumu Eduba (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2010
I read over again the longer texts (LL and Tabula Capuana) these days. I think indeed some parallelism exist among words and concepts (see sacni- derivates for an obvious instance). I find often the word vacil or vacl, not vacal.Ithal appears as ital on the Tabula(10-11) Marza inte hamaithi ITAL SACRI!, if they are the same word. Ilucu seems to mean festival. Interesting the fact that at the beginning of June one reads (21-22): acalve apertule saiuze lethamsul ilucu perpri s'anti mavilutule iti/r svel. I think, as saiuze means nonae (Edlund) this means that the festival of Fortuna (Letham) takes place on the nonae of June, which BTW is roughly correct according to the Roman calendar (11 June). Also the words marza and turza recur often and should have a technical meaning.
May: (18) is'veitule ilucve anpilie laruns ilucu huch s'anti hurialchu eschath canulis. This should mean that on the kalendae there was a festival of Larun (Larentia, Larunda?) interesting for the correspondence with the mater larum even if the dates do not fit, however May was the month of the Lares and Lemures. 18/19...tiniantule lethamsul this means here we have an instance of a Fortuna of Tinia: how not to think of the Fortuna puer Iovis of Praeneste?Zanzan32 (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)