This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of standardized, informative and easy-to-use resources about languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
@Kwamikagami: According to this article, Camunic is thought to perhaps be related to Raetic and Etruscan. Can we treat Camunic as potentially or tentatively Tyrsenian, then? For, this is what this seems to imply, effectively, regardless of whether Camunic is a separate language (which would make it a potential fourth attested Tyrsenian language) or part of Raetic. "Rhaetian (?)" or "Raetic (?)" is a rather poor way to put it; I think "possibly Tyrsenian" would be better solution and sufficiently vague, as it remains agnostic on the precise affiliations of Camunic, saying no more that Camunic may have (not exclusively areal or contact-induced, but specifically genetic) ties to Raetic and Etruscan. We could then list Camunic on Tyrsenian languages as a possible fourth branch. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's what Schumacher (2000) says, so I agree. I might have been conservative because at the time I only had refs saying it might be related to Rhaetian, and didn't want to make claims of a wider Tyrsenian family when that's still so tentative. But with Schumacher as a source, both your changes are justified. — kwami (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)