Talk:Old Italic script
|WikiProject Writing systems||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Italy||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
- 1 Phi
- 2 Relation to Runes
- 3 Xi
- 4 Alphabet images
- 5 Sources for Raetic Sanzeno?
- 6 Problems with the page layout / CSS?
- 7 Old Italic versus Western Greek alphabet versus Cumaean
- 8 Etruscan
- 9 Fair use rationale for Image:Masiliana tablet.png
- 10 Similarities between Etruscan and Old Turkic
- 11 KubilayKağan (talk · contribs)
- 12 Writing direction Etruscan
- 13 Accuracy in Oscan section
Depending on your browser, you may or may not see Greek letters in this line
- Ψ ψ
Maybe those could be useful in this article? Michael Hardy 15:53, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- The only thing I see under the "letter" column is squares.--Jerryseinfeld 13:24, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- That just means you don't have an Old Italic font with Unicode encoding. Evertype 10:49, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
- And may you give as a hint as to were such a font can be retrieved? I have a bunch of Unicode fonts installed, including Code2000. I can see runic and I can see Khmer letters, but I cannot see anything here but ?'s. Salleman 22:16, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I have probably close to a thousand fonts, including those distributed with OS from Microsoft, Apple and Ubuntu Linux. Not a single one of them has any letters from the Old Italic Unicode range. I therefore surmise that apart from a handful of technically savvy specialists in ancient history, this page is unreadble for Wikipedia users and as such is not encyclopedic in nature. Until such a time when fonts normally ship with Old Italic letters, we should also present the letters as graphic images in addition to Unicode letters. (PS: I can see both the HTML entities and math tag images fine.) Geira (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- That just means you don't have an Old Italic font with Unicode encoding. Evertype 10:49, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
I know everybody loves unicode, but I have never seen a computer that has a glyph for every unicode character. Much of this page is unreadable to me, and I don't think it is reasonable to expect people to go hunting for special fonts just to read this one page. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- I absolutely agree. Images need to replace, or at least supplement, everything that relies on unicode right now because I can't see anything on this page. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Relation to Runes
Maybe it could be mentioned that, at least to one thory, this alphabet is the source for the runes.
- It's usually the Venetic alphabets that are considered the proximate source for the runes. Old Italic is their source, though. Evertype 23:56, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)
- Can you please cite your source for the Old Italic > Venetic > Runic alphabet lineage? I have not been able to verify this independently. If there is something to back it up it would be an invaluable addition to this article. Thank you. Trollaxor 16:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
well yes, please do, explain what you mean. Xi doesn't survive in Etruscan anyway. So the Masiliana alphabet is close to a Western Greek alphabet. Still, if we say that San is directly from Tsade, I don't see why we shouldn't say that Xi is directly from Samek, what's the problem? dab (ᛏ) 15:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
No, Xi is (and i agree and never claimed otherwise) from the Phoenician Samek. And pretty much everything, on this site or related is correct. But the symbol that we are arguing about, is 1. Different in appearance than phoenician Samek (3 horizontal lines and one vertical that goes beyond the 3 horizontal lines) 2. Different in appearance than the Greek Xi,(3 horizontal lines) 3. Its a square with a cross in it. 4. One asumes its the greek Xi (that derives from the phoenician samek) because of the alphabetical order of the Masiliana Etruscan compared to western greek.
so the logical conclusion would be that its either an etruscan version of the greek Xi or an individual etruscan symbol. The greeks adopted the phoenician samek and made it greek Xi (pronunciation and writing) so either its directly linked to the greek Xi or individual. So therefor it would be more correct if Xi or nothing would stand as information.
I daresay the only evidence that the Masiliana alphabet is Greek, not Phoenician, is the presence of Υ Φ Χ Ψ (which is of course a rather strong hint). The remaining letters are exactly the Phoenician alphabet. Now our Western Greek alphabet article is not very strong, but if their Χ was [ks] and their Ψ was [kʰ], what was the value of their Ξ? We have no idea what the value of the Masiliana Ξ might have been. In shape it is not identical to either Samek or Ξ, having two vertical strikes too many for the former and three for the latter. We can remove reference to Samek, if you like, but we'd then need a fuller description of the letter inventory at Western Greek alphabet. dab (ᛏ) 16:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not too fond of the idea of using example images from different alphabets (Etruscan, Phoenician, Runes) to show what the alphabet looked like, the Raetic Sanzeno alphabet in particular looks quite messy and could surely need some uniformity in style, possibly by redrawing inscription examples in a clearer style. 惑乱 分からん 19:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- very much so, you are more than welcome to the job. dab (ᛏ) 22:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Sources for Raetic Sanzeno?
The article links the TITUS page, which is extremely interesting but unfortunately lacks a bibliography. I can also find this:
Unfortunately, none of the inscriptions are a particularly close fit to the alphabet on the Titus page.
I found a few leads in Etruscan News (Newsletter Of The American Section Of The Institute For Etruscan And Italic Studies. Volume 2. Spring, 2003):
- Raetic And Etruscan Languages. Rex Wallace, University Of Massachusetts.
- Rätisch und Etruskisch, by Helmut Rix. (= Innsbrucker Beitrage zur Sprachwissenschaft: Vortrage und kleinere Schriften 68.) Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, 1998. Pages 64.
- The standard edition of Raetic inscriptions is by Stefan Schumacher, Die rätischen Inschriften. Geschichte und heutiger Stand der Forschung (Innsbruck, 1992). ADDENDA to Die rätischen Inschriften were published by Schumacher in Studi Etruschi 59, 1994, pages 306-320 and in Der Schlern, 68 (1994), pages 295-298, and by Alberto Mancini in Quaderni del Dipartimento di Linguistica -- Università di Firenze, 6 (1995), pages 137-153. Shumacher is responsible also for many of the major articles on the Raetic language published within the last 10 years, including a splendid paper entitled Sprachliche Gemeinsamkeiten zwischen Rätisch und Etruskisch, Die Schlern (1998), pages 90-114.
Several of the books and articles mentioned appear to be difficult to obtain. Does anyone have any further pointers? - emk
- OK, after much searching (and some interlibrary loan) I've found pictures of dozens of Raetic inscriptions. So far, none of my sources resemble the alphabet from the TITUS page. Raetic R typically looks like a Latin D, the Futhark double-triangle shape for "D" is transcribed as š, the Raetic P is written in a fashion similar to Raetic L, etc. Adolfo Zavaroni's page is fairly typical and comprehensive, judging from the smaller set of line drawings in Schumacher's "Die rätischen Inschriften".
- Although many of the letter forms on the TITUS page appear somewhere in an Old Italic inscription, I'm currently unable to find any inscriptions which contain that particular set of letter-forms. I can find many of the individual shapes, but not all in one alphabet, or with those transcriptions.
- Oddly, the helmet on the bottom of the TITUS page shows a fairly typical Raetic inscription, with relatively standard letter forms and a typical transliteration. I'm not sure why the illustration and table don't match.
- Unless we can get more information from the TITUS folks, I don't think we understand their table well enough to be using it, or linking to it as an example of Raetic. - emk
Problems with the page layout / CSS?
This page doesn't load correctly in Opera v9.10 or Safari 2.0.4. In Safari, the contents wind up under the image of the grave marker, and in Opera, they wind up displayed over the image. Also, this discussion page has no ToC... is that on purpose? Anyhow, just thought I'd let folks know. — gogobera (talk) 06:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Old Italic versus Western Greek alphabet versus Cumaean
There seems to be some confusion over this. Was the Cumaean alphabet an Old Italic alphabet? A western Greek aplhabet? Is Old Italic the same as Western Greek?... FilipeS (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Not sure why there's not a mention of it... but the Etruscan alphabet is the same thing as Old Italic. This alphabet is also the same as the Phoenician script, aka Paleo Hebrew or Middle Hebrew. The Phoenicians were the seafaring masters of their day, they colonized much of Italy and became the Etruscans. I've been learning Paleo Hebrew and was astonished to see that its the same as Etruscan aka Old Italic aka Phoenician script, aka "Ancient Semitic." I mean, its the same bloody thing. This didn't come from the Greek, it came from Paleo Hebrew. Check it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 05:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- Except Semitic alphabetic scripts (abjads) such as Phoenician and Paleo-Hebrew do not have vowel signs, so they are clearly not "the same bloody thing". The reappropriation of several unused characters for the marking of vowels is a Greek invention (matres lectionis are a precursor, but not as consistent). The Etruscan alphabet and its descendants, the other Old Italic alphabets (including Latin – you are right that Etruscan is the original Old Italic script and the others are derived from it), clearly owe their structure and phonetic readings to the Greek, not the Semitic model. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Masiliana tablet.png
Image:Masiliana tablet.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Similarities between Etruscan and Old Turkic
Etruscan alphabet look like closely with Old Turkic alphabet. see Old Turkic script. and should be classify with non-Indo european languages, like Mongolian or Turkic.
- Writing systems have different genetic relationships than languages do. The Latin script is also "non-Indo-European" by your argument, as it derives from Phoenician. -- Evertype·✆ 13:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
KubilayKağan (talk · contribs)
- please see WP:TALK and stick to discussing the article.
- tr:Kazım Mirşan appears to be a crackpot advocate of Pan-Turkism of limited notability. But if we have a quotable source, we may conceivable mention him at the Pan-Turkism or Turkish nationalism article. --dab (𒁳) 16:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Well you dont know that, it suggests the alphabet is related, but the same thing I said about phoenician and turkic alphabet. So most probably the ancient turks and etruscans and many more were once semitic tribes. It all fitts with the notion that the tower of babylon was struck down and the people migrated out of babylon. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Nothing linked to in the template helps people find a way they can view the misrepresented figures in their browser. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 08:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Please stop this nonsense about Etruscan being related to old turkic! Orkhon runes look way different. Orkhon runes are an abjad script, Etruscan is an alphabet! Orkhon runes originate from Soghdian, which originates from Syriac, so there is a relation, but they are NOT the same. This is just Turkish nationalist's and fashist's talk, so that they can say, that Turks have always lived in Anatolia. So please: Wikipedia is a scientifical forum and we don't want any scientifical nonsense like that in here or else we can just begin to discuss other fashist nonsense like human race teachings! Einstein92 (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Writing direction Etruscan
Etruscan alphabet - classical time: "... mostly written from left to right." JUST THE CONTRARY IS TRUE. - Cf. the image "Comparison of West Greek alphabet..." Nuremberg Sept. 17th BY: firstname.lastname@example.org 188.8.131.52 (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Accuracy in Oscan section
Unless the section is referencing a totally separate custom of Oscan writing from what is otherwise attested from different sources, it has some major errors. Í and Ú were not introduced as long variants; they were introduced as slight differences in vowel quality, both are phonetically lowered relative to the unmarked letters. Ú came to be used to represent Oscan /o/. U was used for /u/ and also historical long */oː/. The article gets this backwards. Jackwolfroven (talk) 03:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)