Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Dan Alexe
dan.alexe@me.com
Etruscan, the language of the people that dominated central and northern
Italy from prehistoric time until the rise of Rome, has hitherto not been entirely
deciphered. The riddle posed by the nature of the tongue of the early masters of
Rome remains a permanent irritant; the more so since the solution to this
enigma would help shed a new light on the early history of Mediterranean
civilisation.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1
For the Kartvelian grammatical examples the main sources are The Indigenous Languages
of the Caucasus, A. C. Harris, Ed. (Caravan Books, Delmar, New York, 1991), vol. I,
Kartvelian Languages, but also G. Dumézil, Contes lazes, (Institut d'ethnologie, Paris, 1937)
and G. Dumézil, Récits lazes en dialecte d'Arhavi : parler de Şenköy (Presses univ. de
France, Paris, 1967), as well as my own knowledge of the languages. The Etruscan examples
are taken strictly from already published collections such as CIE (Corpus Inscriptionum
Etruscarum), TLE (Testimonia Linguae Etruscae), or from quoted authors. The transcription
for the Kartvelian languages is the one used in the ILC. For Etruscan, it is the traditional
translation, using the Latin alphabet with the addition of a few Greek letters.
2
J. Nichols, Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time (University of Chicago Press,
1999), p. 1.
! 2!
The fact that the two language systems (Etruscan and Kartvelian) present
similarities, grammatical and lexical, that seem to suggest linguistic kinship
would have huge implications for the study of the birth of European civilisation,
since the Etruscans, the founders and rulers of Rome for centuries, passed on to
the Romans an important part of their culture and skills.
The starting point is an analysis of the only extant bilingual inscription; the so-
called „Pyrgi tablets“. These are three golden plates that record a dedication
made around 500 BC by Θefariei Veliana, king of Caere, to the Phoenician
goddess Ashtarte. Pyrgi was the port of the southern Etruscan town of Caere.
Two of the tablets are inscribed in the Etruscan language, the third in Punic,
Phoenician from Carthage.
One of the two Etruscan golden leaves is obviously only the summary of the
main one. The text on the main one is:
ita tmia icac heram-aśva vatie-χe Unialastres θemiasa meχ θuta Θefariei
Velianas sal cluvenia-s turuce munistas θuvas tameresca ilacve tulerase nac ci
avil χurvar teśiam-eita-le ilacve alśase nac atranes zilacal sel-eita-la acnaśver-s
itanim hermave avil eniaca pulumχva
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
3
2 Pauli, C. E. Altitalische Forschungen. (J.A. Barth, 1885).
4
3 V. Thomsen, Remarques sur la parenté de la langue étrusque, in Samlede
Ahfandlinger Vol. II. (København, 1919)
! 3!
The accepted translation of the Punic (Phoenician) text runs like this:
l-rbt l-ʻštrt,
To lady Ashtarot,
ʼšr qdš ʼz, ʼš pʻl, w-ʼš ytn tbryʼ wlnš mlk ʻl kyšryʼ.
This is the holy place, which was made, and which was given by Tiberius
Velianas king of Caere (Kyšryʼ).
b-yrḥ zbḥ šmš, b-mtnʼ b-bt, wbn tw.
In the month of the sacrifice to the Sun, as a gift in the temple, he built an
aedicula.
k-ʻštrt ʼrš b-dy l-mlky šnt šlš, b-yrḥ krr, b-ym qbr ʼlm
For Ashtarot raised him with her hand to reign for three years from the month of
Churvar, from the day of the burial of the divinity [onward].
w-šnt lmʼš ʼlm b-bty šnt km h kkb m ʼl.
And the years of the statue of the divinity in the temple [shall be] as many years
as the stars above.
The first step is to break the Etruscan text into seemingly logical units,
following the structure of the Phoenician inscription.
If we compare the two texts without taking into account the traditional
interpretations, which always spoke of a "quasi"-bilingual inscription, we
cannot fail to observe the repeated presence in the Etruscan text of the
root *herm-, or *heram-, that I put into bold characters in the transcription of
the text.
The first time heram- seems to correspond to the Carthaginian QDŠ, qodesh,
holy place, sacred place or construction = temple in the Phoenician text: heram-
aśva = QDŠ, qodesh.
! 4!
The massive presence of Hermes in the Laris Pulena inscription is not justified
– and neither is it in the Pyrgi tablets, given the total absence of this Greek god
Hermes in the Etruscan iconography. We can even firmly state that the name
Hermes is wholly absent from all known Etruscan inscriptions. There is no
Hermes in the Phoenician translation either. Nothing thus would justify the
interpretation of *herm- by Hermes in an inscription specifically dedicated to
Juno/Astarte. The root should have the meaning of holy, or sacred, given that it
corresponds to the Carthaginian QDŠ and ’LM. Once we understand this, we
also realise that the Pyrgi tablets are closer to a bilingual than admitted hitherto.
We also can suppose that it is the Phoenician text that is the translation of the
Etruscan one and not the other way round. First, the Phoenician text gives the
name of the city: KYŠRY‘, Caere. There was no need for that in the Etruscan
text. For its citizens, it must have simply been: the City. Thus, the syntagm
TBRY‘ WLNŠ MLK ’L KYŠRY‘ corresponds to meχ θuta Θefariei Velianas.
Melek al KYŠRY‘, king of Caere, is thus the meχ θuta. TBRY‘ WLNŠ is
Θefariei Velianas.
Another indication that the Phoenician text is the translation of the Etruscan and
not the other way round is that the Punic (Phoenician) has kept the termination
–s of the Etruscan name, which should actually have been Θefariei Veliana.
Through the name of Θefariei Veliana we can also abandon the classical theory
that supposed the absence of voiced consonants in the Etruscan language, given
their absence in writing, something that is denied by the facts (such as TBRY’
corresponding to Θefariei, and to its probable Latin rendition: Tiberius; two
foreign and unrelated languages, Phoenician and Latin, thus reproduced
Etruscan F by B in this instance). This is one of the numerous inscriptions that
let us conclude that it is the Etruscan writing system that was poor and deficient,
not the language, and that Etruscan did actually not lack the voiced stops B, D,
G, as it is usually stated. Both Latin and Phoenician would have used a P or V,
or in Latin a simple F if the Etruscan name would have contained an actual F, as
the graphic rendition Θefariei would lead us to believe.
! 5!
Assuming that meχ θuta renders MLK ’L KYŠRY‘, the king of the city, is also
made plausible by comparing θuta with the Osco-Umbrian tuta = city. We
know the Umbrian word for a city: tuta with certitude from the Eugubine Tables
and we also know it to be an Indo-European word, related with the Germanic
teuta = people. Θuta would thus simply be a borrowing into Etruscan from one
of the neighbouring Italic languages such as Umbrian.
KYŠRY‘ is simply the name of Caere (which appears thus to have been named
Caesre, which gives regularly Caere in Latin. We know maχ to be one of the
numerals from 1 to 6 that appear on an Etruscan pair of dice where instead of
dots we have the numerals written in full letters and we can safely assume for
the time being that it corresponds to the number 1 (one). In the expression meχ
θuta, it would thus be the equivalent of the Latin primus, princeps, or of the
German Fürst, etymologically: the first, as in English. Maχ [mag] would give
meχ if we assume a passage through a form with the suffix –i: maχ / mag >
mag-i > mäg = meχ. Meχ, from the numeral 1, maχ, would thus be the title of
the chief of Caere, rendered into Phoenician by melek, king.
In the Kartvelian languages, the word for God is built on the root *γertm -, or
*γmert-, one being the metathesis of the other. We have thus for God: γmert(i)
in Georgian, γermet in the Lower Bal dialect of Svan (γerbet in Upper Bal, with
the ergative γertem), γoront(i) in Mingrelian.
objects of a transitive verb being both indicated by the ”dative“ case-, down to
the similarity of the terminations themselves.
Like in Svan, the Etruscan plural is formed by the addition of the particle
-er, -ar. In Etruscan, as well as in Svan, there is a multiple noun declension and
case terminations of the plural are identical to those in the singular, simply
added by agglutination to the noun in the plural. In both languages, there is
ablaut of the root of the declined noun in the oblique cases.
SG PL
NOM clan clen-ar
GEN clan-s clen-ar-a-s
DAT clen-s clinii-ar-a-s
SG PL
NOM xäm xam-är
GEN xäm–iš xam-är–iš
DAT xäm-s xam-är-s
G LAZ MG SV
Gen. –is –š –š –iš
Dat. –s –s –s –s
sons), functions exactly like in Old Georgian kacisa ʒesa, or kacis ʒes, ”to the
son of man“, where kac-is(a) is in the genitive (from kaci, man), and ʒe-s(a) is
in the dative (from ʒe, son).
This could pass for mere chance, were it not for the total concordance in
the special uses of this case, which, for lack of a better term, has been
traditionally called ”dative“. By applying the grammatical pattern of the
Kartvelian languages, we immediately understand the peculiar Etruscan uses of
the dative, which could not be explained until now.
- muma arʒen-s cxen-s skua-s, the father is giving a horse to his child,
where both the direct object, and the indirect object, cxen (horse) and skua
(child), are in the dative. Or, in Svan: eǯa xo:te bo:pš-s diär-s - he (eǯa) cuts
bread for the child. Or, to give an example in Svan, in the plural:
-- lamp’räl-s at’wra:lix, they light the lamps, where the termination of
the dative is simply added to the plural: lamp’räl-s.
The Etruscan dative in the plural is formed in exactly the same way as in
lamp’räl-s: by agglutinating the same termination -s, as in the singular, after the
mark of the plural: cliniiar-a-s, to the sons.
Once the rule is understood, the morphology and syntax of Etruscan start
to become comprehensible. The Kartvelian extensive use of the dative in -s
allows us to understand the similar use and the ordering of the famous
inscription on the Florence statue known as the ”Arringatore“ (on which the
signs for ś, and s, are inverted, as was the custom of the Northern Etruscan
cities):
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
6
!H. Fähnrich, Old Georgian, in The Indigenous Languages of the Caucasus, A. C. Harris,
Ed. (Caravan Books, Delmar, New York, 1991), vol. I, Kartvelian Languages, p. 188.!
!
! 9!
The meaning of the above translation has been well established. We also have
the same borrowed word for the city: tuθ, as in the Pyrgi tablets: θuta, only with
inverted values for θ and t.
However, it has never been understood why the well known word fler, statue,
offering, sacrifice, should be in the dative case, flereś, since fler is the direct
object of the active verb tece (put/dedicated). But, in the Kartvelian
grammatical logic, fler/statue has to be in the dative. (cf. Georg. cers c‘ign-s, he
writes a book, c‘ign-). Later on, we will find that Kartvelian grammatical
logic explains also why the demonstrative article eca gives cen in the dative, so
that the group eca fler becomes in the dative cen flereś (see infra: Svan nom.
eǯa -dat. eč+n).
In the same way, in Etruscan, on funeral inscriptions, the word designating the
year, avil, is always in the dative singular, with -s: XX avil-s lupu, ”he died at
the age of XX years“. The word avil (year), appearing on thousands of funerary
inscriptions, was one of the first to be interpreted with certitude; however, the
fact that it should take the termination -s of the dative has always puzzled
researchers. In Kartvelian, as we have seen, the dative case is the one used for
designations of time and duration. The identity of the termination of the dative,
-s, combined with its two special uses, for the designation of the direct object of
an active verb, and its temporal use, should exclude any explanation by chance.
-- man daswa igi mepe-d – he installed him as king (from mepe, king).
Let us now take the extremely frequent Etruscan term zilaθ, or zilat,
which has been known to designate the consul, or the Roman duumvir, and the
well identified numeral zal, ”two“, (z representing, as has already been
proposed, the affricate [ts], corresponding to the Kartvelian c and c‘). The
meaning of both terms, zal (two) and zilaθ (consul), has long been known, but
the relation between the two was never established.
On the other hand, the common root *zal, *zel, *zil is very well attested
in Kartvelian (cal-, cel-, cil-). In verbs, it indicates the splitting in two: Sv. licel,
to be broken in two (li- is the prefix of all Svan infinitives), transitive: li-cle,
to break in two; Ge. mo-cil-eba, separation from someone; cal-k'uli, separated.
The Kartvelian root cal- also designates the member of a couple of objects, or
simply the half: cal-tvala, one-eyed; cal-k'uza, with one hump, dromedary;
calrkiani, unicorn; cal-pexa, one-legged; cal-xela, with one arm. Starting from
here: mo-cile = enemy, the one who is in front of me. Through the adverbial
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
7
!Dumézil, G. La religion romaine archaïque : avec un appendice sur la religion des
Étrusques (Payot, 1987), pp. 593-594.
8
!D. Briquel, Les Etrusques : peuple de la différence. (A. Colin, Paris, 1993), p 106.!
! 11!
suffix -ad, *cal- produced also in Georgian calad, alone. Precisely, the
formation of calad is exactly parallel to the one of the Etruscan zilat, which
from this perspective appears clearly as the one whom the Romans were naming
a "duumvir", a member of a pair.
Kartv. opute-š-kel (towards the country), bozo-š-kal (with the girl), sum
tuta-š-kul (after three months), and Etr. tin-ś-cvil (to Jupiter) are built in exactly
the same way.
Typological cross-verifications
It has always been thought that menake and zinake (elsewhere menaχe and
zinaχe; the various spellings of the guttural is due to the difference in Etrruscan
regional conventions of spelling) represent different verbs, although, given the
profusion of other verb forms whose meaning has been tentatively rendered as
”to give“, or ”to offer“ one would be justified in trying to find an alternative
explanation.
unexplained), we can reorder it in : mi menaχe (I was given) titasi cver (in the
name of Tita). Cver in such a formula would clearly mean “name”/”in the name
of” (Sv. gwär, instr. gwärw, ”by the name of“, Georg. gvari, name). Tita is in
the genitive, tita-s-i, with the optional euphonic vowel -i appended very
frequently to some grammatical terminations, both in Etruscan and in
Kartvelian. titasi cver is thus simply ”in the name of Tita“ mi menaχe (I was
given).
Tite Cale gave (turce) this mirror (malstria) in the name of his mother (atial
cver, where ati-al, mother (ati) in the attributive genitive, is in apposition with
cver).
These sacnicleri that have to be blessed, coming down the ladder from
territory to city, and lower, can only be the fields, the arable fields.
The Kartvelian grammatical mechanism would offer an immediate
explanation for the formation of the word sacna, or sacnicla: qana or qona is
the ploughable field in Svan and the sister Kartv. languages. Kartvelian uses the
very frequent sa- prefix to form names of collectives, or entities; thus the
country of the Georgians, of the Kasrtvelians, is called in their own language
sa-kartvel-o, or brotherhood in Svan is said sa-mxub (from muxbe, brother), or
we can see that a word like house, sa-xl-i, is formed from an unknown root
*xel-. In Etruscan we would obtain sa-qna (in Svan, the root vowel also usually
disappears in composition, as in u-qna: unploughed) from qona, sa-qna thus
designating the totality of the fields.
! 14!
kmnna γmertman cay da kweq’anay / God (γmert) made the heaven and the
earth (kweq’ana). In the Etruscan zilχ ceχaneri (ruler of the land) we find the
perfect equivalent of the old Georgian kweq’ana.
But the Etruscan and Svan pronouns are also identical in their flexion.
Thus, in Svan, the dative of eǯa (Etruscan eca) is eč+n, while in Etruscan eca
becomes cen. All Etruscan demonstrative pronouns form the dative in the same
way, e.g. ita > itun, etc. (again, this case was wrongly considered until now as
an ”accusative“, a grammatical notion absent both in Etruscan and in
! 15!
Kartvelian). We have thus two identical personal pronouns out of three in the
singular.
Coming back to the Liber Linteus, we also find what could be the possessive
form of the Etruscan first person plural pronoun: ni - enaś = our,
present more than a dozen times at the end of the enumeration of those entities
for which prayers were offered: śacnicleri spureri meθlumeri enaś / ”(for) our
lands, city and country“. Enaś seems the possessive, or the genitive form, of a
first person plural pronoun ni, in the same way in which in Svan niš-ge is the
possessive of näy, we, (-ge is a mere suffix appended to all Svan possessive
pronouns). Correspondences between personal pronouns are a sure sign of
kinship between languages. As it is well established in linguistics, personal
pronouns are among the most resistant elements of any given language and they
are never subject to borrowings.
In the plural, we can thus acquire the certitude of identifying the Etruscan
pronoun for the first person, we: ni, which in Svan is na, nä, näy, according to
the dialect. Ni adorns a small series of votive objects found across Etruria and it
was considered until now to be an error of the engravers for the first person mi.
This is highly unlikely, especially in such a simple and usual word. Pallotino‘s
Testimonia Linguae Etruscae9 lists five instances of ni, and no other confusion
between an m and an n is known. The survival of votive objects carrying such
botched simple inscriptions is also unlikely, for obvious reasons of economic
and social prestige: nobody would have offered or put in a tomb such valueless
artefacts. Objects with inscriptions like ni larisa larecenas must have been part
of a set, a series, each one of them announcing: ”We belong to Lar Larce“...
When one reviews all the similitudes that we reveal here: the known
pronouns, identity of the casual system, perfect superposition of the use of the
various cases, down to the most improbable idiosyncrasies and lexical
similitudes, one is forced to admit that we are confronted with two identical
morpho-syntactic systems, a concordance which excludes the intervention of
chance. Still, one major objection can arise: the apparent absence of an ergative
(or narrative, as it is sometimes called) case in Etruscan. Languages built on the
model of the Kartvelian can only be of the ergative type. (The ergative is the
case of the subject of transitive verbs and sometimes of intransitive actives that
stand in a form of the aorist).
At first sight, there seems to be no place in the Etruscan casual system for
a possible ”ergative“ termination, but this is because until now linguists have
not thought of Etruscan as of a functioning system, but as of an accumulation of
isolated characteristics. When one tries to identify the missing ergative
termination, one realises that, given the nature of the surviving texts, this case
could only be appended to proper names (such and such has given, offered,
made, etc.). We then see that a great number of names of donors, offerers and
makers that appear in the inscriptions bear the termination -s, a circumstance
which again has never been explained. In fact, languages such as Svan and Laz
use very often the same dative in -s to mark the actant subject of a verb in the
past where in other languages we would expect a mark of the ergative.
Thus in Svan:
eǯi-s p‘lat‘uk xočo:na - he has rolled (it) up into a cloth,
where eǯi-s is one of the forms of dative of eǯa (he, she) in the function of the
subject of a transitive verb in the past.
bepšw xa:mne lezweb-s mäydär-s - the child gave bread to the hungry ones,
where child -the actant subject- is in the dative where we would expect an
ergative.
or in Laz :
nana-s ubirun skiri-ša - the mother (nana) sang to the child, with mother in the
dative: nana-s, in place of the expected ergative.
Kartvelian offers thus the only possible key for explaining the triple use
of the termination -s in dedications such as itun turuce venel atelinas tinas
! 17!
cliniiaras (”This was given by Venel Atelina to the sons of Tina/Jupiter, i.e. the
Dioscouroi), where we have atelina-s (dat.), itun (dat.) tina-s (gen.) and
cliniiara-s (dat.) exactly like we would have in Svan eǯi-s (xa:mne) lezweb-s
mäydär-s - he gave bread to the hungry ones.
Etr. -- atelina-s (turuce) itun tina-s cliniiara-s - Atelina gave to the sons of God
Sv. -- eǯi-s (xa:mne) lezweb-s mäydär-s - he gave bread to the hungry ones.
Trubetzkoy10 has also shown that in some languages it is the form of the
genitive that coincides with that of the ergative. We know that in Old Georgian,
the function of the genitive was more extended than today, and it was often
found before other endings, like those of the adverbial: Parnavaz-is-ad,
compared to the regular Parnavaz-ad. The ergative is also the only case that
presents no common, or coherent terminations across the spectrum of the
Kartvelian languages.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
10
N. S. Trubetzkoy, Studies in General Linguistics and Language Structure. (Duke
University Press, London, 2001), p. 80.
11
Г. А. Климов, Этимологический словарь картвельских языков. (Москва, 1964), p. 47.
! 18!
Daughter, Son - Etr. seχ (daughter) - Mg. skua, Laz ski-ri, Sv. sge, ske (son)
The divergence in meaning is secundary: Klimov12 has shown that all
Kartvelian terms come from the root *-šw-, to beget, to give birth.
To write, book - Etr. ziχ-, Georg. c‘ig-ni, to write, book, has been shown
supra.
The Kartvelian forms are: G. m-ze, Inguri dialect zej, Ming. b-ža, Laz –
m-žu-a, m-žo-ra, svan miž/m+ž. This is an example of the well-known use in
Etruscan of the same letters to represent the voiceless consonants, as well as the
voiced and ejective phonemes. The letter s (s) in usil was obviously rendering
the voiced spirant [z] (the Etruscan letter z (z) being used, as we have seen, for
the affricates corresponding to the Kartvelian c and c‘). Usil appears to be a
diminutive formed with the suffix –il. The root was *-z-, which we find in the
kartvelian ze-, b-ža, m-žu-a, m-iž (the correspondence between a Georgian z and
a Svan-Mg-Laz ž is a well attested fact in the history of Kartvelian languages).
Usil, the Etruscan name of the sun, is obviously a secondary formation,
proceeding either from the adjunction of the diminutival suffix, –il, thus us-il, or
with the help of the homophone suffix –il found in Georgian in words like dum-
il-i, silence, or by a circumfix u-il. One would thus obtain u-s-il, ”the shiny“,
from a root *-s- ([-z-]), to shine, in the same way in which in Georgian, from
the root -dg-, to stand, we have a-dg-il-i, place. (Klimov13 raises a similar
hypothesis as to the form of the Kartvelian root meaning ”sun“, ”to shine“,
which he tentatively reconstructs as *mze-, allowing that m- could also be just
an excrescence, or the first part of a circular affix m-e applied to a root *-z-
meaning ”to shine“). All things considered, everything points in the direction of
usil being a diminutive. The reason for which i in usil kept its phonetic value,
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
12
Г. А. Климов, op. cit. pp 139-140.
!
13
!Г. А. Климов, op. cit. p. 134.!
! 19!
expressing various adverbial notions, like direction (eo Roma-m) and time
(nocte-m) would unhesitatingly –and rightly so- be accepted as Indo-European,
even if most of its vocabulary would remain inaccessible and incomprehensible.
We wouldn’t be dealing with random lexical coincidences, but with the
repetition of one and the same complex and delicate morpho-syntactical system.
A similar assumption should be made about the relationship between Etruscan
and Kartvelian. Here also, we don’t only have a perfect concordance of the very
forms of all the attested (in the case of Etruscan) casual terminations, but also
an identity of their usage, which is so unusual and complex as to exclude any
explanation by coincidence.
The identical first person pronoun mi, the complex functions of the
overburdened dative case in -s, combined with the similarity of the termination
of the dative case with the termination of the genitive case show again that
coincidence should be totally excluded. To the similarities of the grammatical
systems we can add a series of lexical correspondences –usil (sun), tivr (moon),
husar (young), herma (sacred)-, and also the fact that the etymology of some
important words (zal - zilaθ, two - duumvir) becomes clear only from the
comparison of the two linguistic systems.
Klimov15 has already suggested that Svan separated from the other
Kartvelian languages at the beginning of the second millennium a. Ch. Etruscan
is attested in writing in central Italy starting from the 7th century a. Ch. The
lack of a marked dialectal dispersion in Etruria speaks, as Helmut Rix has
pointed out16, ”for a relatively late spread of the language from a limited area“.
An archaic inscription written in a language that is clearly what could be called
an ”Etruscan dialect“ has been discovered at the end of the 19th century on the
Greek island of Lemnos (cf. inter all. Bonfante17). The path is cleared.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
15
!G. A. Klimov, Die kaukasischen Sprachen. (Buske, Hamburg, 1969), pp. 45-46.
16
!H. Rix, Etruscan, in The Ancient Languages of Europe, R. Woodard, Ed. (Cambridge
University Press, 2008), p. 142.!
17
!G. Bonfante, L. Bonfante, The Etruscan language: an introduction. (Manchester Press;
New York, 2nd ed., 2002).
!