Talk:Cippus Perusinus

Italy Low‑importance

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy 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.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archaeology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology 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.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Move from Cippus perusinus to Cippus Perusinus

Perusinus needed to be capitalized because Cippus Perusinus is a title of a religious text and because Perusinus is a translation of Perugia, a city in Itlay. Thus capital letter. Redletternight (talk) 13:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the second row: there is - "ešt-la Afuna-s, spel eθ car-u tezan, " should be - "ešt-la Afuna-s, sleleθ car-u tezan, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.219.130.244 (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wrong reading

"EULAT TANNALAREZU? AMEVAKHR LAUTN VELTINAŠ E ŠTLAAPFUNAŠ SLELETHCARU TEZAN PHUŠLERI TESNŠTEIŠ RAŠNEŠIPAAMAHENNAPER KHIVELTHNATHURAŠARAŠPE RAŠCEMULMIESCULZUCIEN ESCIEPLTULARU..."

It is letter L and not R in "eurat". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.198.32.219 (talk) 05:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the cippus is damaged there, but based on the bottom of the letter, it can't be an L.Johundhar (talk) 03:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cippus Perusinus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Original text

I am not comfortable hosting the original text here.

We are not Wikisource; we're not supposed to be hosting original texts of anything here.
The text is not in a Latin script and its scratches are really subject to interpretation and various transcription techniques that may never be reproduced accurately here
The article should chiefly be based on analysis and commentary provided by secondary sources, rather than us trying to painstakingly repro its text.

Elizium23 (talk) 17:11, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is a very short but important text. The source is given, no one here is trying to 'repro' the text, painstakingly or otherwise. If you want to include other (cited) scholarly interpretations of the text, please feel free.Johundhar (talk) 03:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]