Clan and Clann the Etruscan and Gaelic Word

[gıulıoımpa]

There is no such thing as Etruscans nor such a thing as an Etruscan language. Etruria was a geographical term used to describe a region populated by dozen of unrelated tribes who spoke different languages. The Romans and historians do not refer to any entities called "Etruscan".

how ? etruscan was even a koinè language in the central northern portion of the peninsula at the height of their expansion. it has a few inscription in stone to prove it. Roman scholars even learnt Etruscan in their studies. Imperator Claudius was one of the last people who knew how to speak etruscan. Unfortunately his works got lost in time.

[Percivalle]

how ? etruscan was even a koinè language in the central northern portion of the peninsula at the height of their expansion. it has a few inscription in stone to prove it. Roman scholars even learnt Etruscan in their studies. Imperator Claudius was one of the last people who knew how to speak etruscan. Unfortunately his works got lost in time.

ma lascia perdere. entri nella terra di nessuno se ci inizi a discutere.

[Mens-Sarda]

ma lascia perdere. entri nella terra di nessuno se ci inizi a discutere.

HIC SVNT LEONES

[Proto-Shaman]

There is a curious coincidence in both languages.

Etruscans used theese words:

Clan (plural: clen-a-r) = Son (plural Sons)
clanti/clante = Adopted Son
claruχie- = Heir

While we know that the English word Clan is of Gaelic origin: Clann

In modern Italian we use too the word Clan but it has acquired the meaning of Criminal Family.

Looking on dictionaries it says we took that word from English, but it s very not clear since etruscans had that word too

Turkic oglan (boy, male child)

related to Turkic oğul (son).

se also "Macc, Cailín and Céile - an Altaic Element in Celtic"

[Percivalle]

HIC SVNT COIONES

[gıulıoımpa]

still on a more "speculative" note…

[wvwvw]

how ? etruscan was even a koinè language in the central northern portion of the peninsula at the height of their expansion. it has a few inscription in stone to prove it. Roman scholars even learnt Etruscan in their studies. Imperator Claudius was one of the last people who knew how to speak etruscan. Unfortunately his works got lost in time.

There is no such thing as an Etruscan language. In fact those inscriptions you refer to has been shown to comprise of elements of all of the languages that were spoken in Etruria but mainly Greek and Latin so it can't be attributed to any individual tribe.

There was no tribe called Etruscan. Just read what the Latin and Greek text actual call these people of Etruria and stop mixing them up. The Romans used Tuscum to refer to the Tuscans and Tyrrhenum to refer to the Tyrhennians. If you claim that Etruscorum is not geographical then the Etruscans must be a completely different race from the Tuscans and Tyrrhenians and nothing to do with either. Find an account of Etruscans eponymous ancestor or else shut up.

The Roman never used the term Etruscans as a collective term for the tribes of Etruria. They never used the term to refer to other tribes except the Rasena or Tyrrsenoi.

The Etruscans are not named or described as such in any texts you refer to as being of the Etruscan language (which of course doesn't exist). So-called Etruscii didn't call themselves Etruscii. They called themselves Rasenna or originally Tyrsennoi which is preserved fully in the Greek but not in the Latin.

The fact that half the Latin texts on the subject have been translated incorrectly so that Tusci who are
a completely different people are falsely portrayed as Etruscans in English renders the term Etruscans inadmissible in any kind of historical discussion.

The Tuscans which is the people Roman historians actually refer to, have no relation to the Tyrrhenians who are Maeonians related to the Lydians, or the Pelasgians (Mycenwan Greejs)who conquered the Tyrrhenians of Etruria. For example, Aristoxenus was a Pelasgian who lived in Tyrrhenia. He was not related to
the Tyrsenoi anymore than an African American is of English or Germanic decent like most other Americans. Tyrrhenian is also being used as a geographic term and is in the wrong historical context, as the Pelasgians who settled in Italy were later called Tyrrhenians.

The Tusci are a completely different tribe from the Rasena/Tyrrsenoi or the Pelasgians or any other Etrurian tribes. So no Etruscan language has been deciphered. What we have are a few inscriptions that appear to be a mix of IE and non-IE words which makes sense when you consider the diversity of tribes that were inhabiting Etruria. Etruscans is a made up English word and nothing more than a geographical term.

It's time to read the historians text referring to them in the original Latin, and throw the accounts of modern historians in the bin since they don't have a clue what the Latin actually says because they stanslated Tuscaus as Etruscans willy nilly.

So we see Northern Italy was inhabited by a collection of tribes, you had the Tyrsenoi who had migrated there from Lydia, you had the Tuscans, you had Trojan Greeks, you had the Sabine's but who were descended from Sabinah son of Tubal whose brother Eubalda had colonised Spain. There were also the Samothians and the Ianisculans, who ruled over Etruria before the Tyrrhenians, Tuscans or Pelasgians.

Having read the stuff which has been deciphered it is blatantly obvious that the so-called Etruscan languages is nothing more than barbarised Indo-European and ”Semitic”.

Look at a map and where is did the northern Italian tribes including the Tyrrsenoi, Tusci, Ligurians and Raetians alive? Round about where Switzerland is now. And what do we know about the Swiss? The speak 4
different languages including German, French and Italian. Now add to that the fact that the Greek Pelasgians also lived in the same region, who Dionysus of Halicarnassus clearly states did not speak the same language as the so-called Etruscans, and also include the Phoenicians-Carthsgians who lived in Sicily, Sardinia and also parts of northern Italy and you have the answer.

First look at the so-called Etruscan numbers

θu - one
zal - two
ci - three
huθ - four
maχ - five
śa - six
semφ - seven
cezp - eight
nurφ - nine
śar - ten
zaθrum - 20
cealχ - 30

At first sight they might not look indo-European to you, but take into account that the inscriptons were probably being written down by a scribe that spoke either Greek or Latin or even Phoenician, and the people
recording these numbers were writing them down phonetically as they sound. The population of northern Italy were essentially a mixture of barbarians who had people who spoke Greek, Latin, Lydian/Lewian, German, French, Phoenician and even Colchian or Georgian living amongst them and what the numbers sound like is how they would have been pronounced by a foreigner.

"Thu" is the best the scribe could write when he hear the sound "wun", ie. French "un" but with a now lost digamma which is still preserved in English. Digamma was corrupted by the Romans into an "F" and in all likelihood it was corrupted into a "Th" or theta by the Barbarian tribes of Etruria. Hence wun becomes thun. After this the "n" is lost and the Barbarian which is what I will now refer to so-called Etruscan as, for the number one is "thu". Also in Hebrew the number "one" is ehad, and it is likely that the Semitic and Indo-European number for one had a common root.

Next we come to the number "two" which is "dhio" in Greek. The Barbarians take the Greek word "dhio" and delta becomes "t", "t" then becomes "s" in the same way that ancient Greek "t" becomes "s" from thalatta to thalassa, and then "s" becomes "z". No if two was also originally pronounced with a digamma as is preserved in the English spelling of the word which also has undergone the transition from delta to t then it is possible that the "l" at the end of the Barbarian "zal" is a trace of the original digamma.

Now we come to "three" which the Barbarians pronounced "ci". Well in Italian "c" is pronounced "chi" so it is obvious that the sound "th" of three, and yes these Barbarians seem to be following the pattern of English corruption of Indo-European, becomes "ch". "R" then becomes silent because the Barbarians, to whom neither Greek, Latin, or German were their native language, were too lazy to pronounce it. In Hebrew the number three is shlosha, so the Barbarian "ci" or "chi" for three may be evidence of a common Indo-European-Semitic root.

Next we come to "four" which in Barbaian is "huth". This word probably evolved from the Greek "tesera" where "t" changes to "th" and is written "t" "h" in some earlier variant of the script then the "t" is lost leaving "h". "S" undergoes a transition to "th" and the rest of the word tesera is lost which leaves "huth" as the number four in Barbarian.

Five is "mah". Well it's blatantly obvious that this is a corruption of the Hebrew word for the number five which is "hamisha" or "hamesh".

Six is "sa" and its common Indo-European and Semitic origin is obvious since six in Hebrew is "shisha".

Seven is "semf". Again this is obvious Barbarisation of the Latin "sept" and it has a common Semitic root since Hebrew for seven is "shiva". Digamma is obviously corrupted into "mf" in Barbaian and "p" in Latin which may have originally been a "b" sound which in modern Geeek might be written "mp". The
Barbarians probably did something similar to the modern Greeks with "semf".

Eight in Barbarian is "cezp" but in Greek it is written "ochto". So using that as a root, "t" becomes "s" as explained earlier but it doesn't quite make it so it becomes "st" instead and "t" then is corrupted to "p". These are Barbarians remember. They are not native Indo-European speakers so normal rules of IE shifts don't apply.

Nine is "nurf" in Barbarian which is clearly the same as the French so no problem there.

Ten is "sar" which follows the same parrten of corruption of ten into the German for number "zein". "T" chances into "z" is with the Barbatian number two in the manner explained earlier and "r" could be a remnent of "n", but it is more likely it is evidence of a common root with the Hebrew "esser" which is also ten.

"Halh" is also used to mean ten in 30, 40, 50 etc. up to 90 therefore it probably originally derived from the Semitic "essar" where r and l were interchanged and "ss" or "sh" became "h".

Now look at the only passage of the Barbarian languages which has been deciphered due to a parallel Phoenician inscription beside it, which is also proof that Phoenicians lived in northern Italy and which also mentions the worship of Astarte.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrgi_Tablets

Most of the words are obviously Indo-European.

"am" - to be. It's the same as the English.
"avil" - year. It's Barbaric a corruption of "annum".
"ca" - this. It's a corruption of the Greek "ekino".
"en" - to last, endure. It's a contraction of the first syllable of endure.
The Barbarian language is know to have been written using lots of
contractions of works and missed syllables.
"ila" - idol. Contraction of the Greek "eidola"
"muni" - burial, plot of land. It the Greek "mouni" or English "mound"
"sel" - hand. It's a corruption of the Greek "heir" meaning hand where "r"
has been made into "l" and "h" has become "s" as in the Cypriot "sheri".
"ta" - that. Another contraction.
"tuler" - to encircle. It's obviously the same word as the Greek "tholos"
which was a circular building.
"tur" - to give". Corruption of Greek "doro"
"them" - to build. Obviously shares the same root as the Greek "themelia" or
foundations.
"vat" - to dedicate. Same as the Latin "vot-" to vow.
"zilah" - chife.

Obvious barbarisation sheik which is also barabrised to chief indicating a common Indo-European and ’Semitic’ origin.

Northern Italy was populated by Barbarians, a host of unrelated tribes some of which no one had a clue o]f where they originated such as the Ligurians and the Umbrians and even the Aboriginals.

The ”Etruscan” language is clearly Barbarian, not Etruscan, not Greek, not Latin, not Phoenician but
Barbarian. It's a corrupted mispronounced form of Indo-European and Semitic, but mostly Greek. It's origin is blatantly obvious. Greeks, Tyrrhenians, Latins, Spaniards, French, Germans, Colchians and Phoenicians moved into the region and the Barbarians that lived there mispronounced their languages in the same way that Inspector Cleusaux mispronounces French or Indians mispronounced English but worse.

There aren't any extant texts from the area dating before 600 BC or after 100 AD and what there does exist is not even enough to show that they are even the same languages let alone how they developed. Since the language is Barbarian it does not have to follow any regular laws. Egyptian and Assyrian names
corrupted into Greek and Hebrew don't follow any regular laws either. They are Barbarised.

There is not one shred of evidence that the writing in question was Etruscan. The fact that people refer to it as such is down to PURE IGNORANCE! The languages is an unidentified language from an unidentified people. The only thing we can reasonably call it is Barbaric.

[wvwvw]

Btw, Proto-Indo-European isn't a real language. It's completely laughed at as a primitive joke by professors of linguistics in Greece. Anyone can make any language the root of any other or invent non-existent common roots for any word they choose. The real historical facts show that 90% of the words in all other Indo-European languages are directly derived from words introduced from Greek and Latin. Where do you think words like television, telephone, history, archaeology, astronomy come from?

We don't need any of fictitious roots. Modern linguists for Greek and Italy and Spain and other non-Germanic an non-Slavic countries do not consider the PIE theory as being scientifically credibly. Anyone can invent fictitious common roots for any word they care to think of. What we do know from actual scientific evidence is that 90% of all Indo-European languages are composed of words originating from either Latin or Greek or from foreign languages. These words do not follow PIE rules of change and change at random due to barbarisation, but we know from which languages they came from because it is all recorded in writing.

Look at how the number 1 was barbarise to "wun" by the English who are a mixture of Greeks, Trojans, Romans, Franks, Germans, Vikings and Celts. If one load of barbarians can barbarise "un", "uno", "ena", "ekas" or "ein" to "wun" then there is no reason why other barbarians could not have done that too, especially since according to Dionysus of Halicarnassus the ancient Greeks who lived in Italy original pronounced every word which started with a vowel with a digamma at the start therefore "ENA" would have been written "FENA" or "wena" in English.

The languages has NEVER been identified as Etruscan because Etruscan is a fictitious unknown languages. The only way the extant inscriptions can be describe is as an unknown Barbarian language, and it is clear that these Barbarians were using a variant of a Greek script.

The people writing the language were not necessarily the people that lived there. What is a Phoenician inscription doing in northern Italy. From Diodorus of Halicarnassus we know that Greek script was introduced into Italy by Evander 60 years before the Trojan War, ie. in about 1250 BC.

All these people are not Etruscans. They are a mixture of barbarians. Second of all the scribe of the only translated inscription was obviously Phoenician. Thirdly a Barbarian scribe would have written a barbarise pronunciation of Greek or Italian or German as that barbarised pronunciation sounded, ie. Barbarised. Someone writing English phonetically would write down 1 as "wun", Engliah as "Inglish", phonetically as "foneticlee", "would" as "woud", write as "rait" and down as "daoun". Just look at Elizabethan English where there isn't any consistent spelling at all, not even in the same publication. Spelling was done phonetically and English has the most variations because the entire population is a mixture of different barbaric tribes who invaded and settled in England.

So there was no language, only barbarised Latin, Greek and whatever other languages the people of northern Italy spoke. The Tyrsennoi would have spoken Lydian or Lewian but Dionysus of Halicarnassus says that the language spoken in Tyrhennia did not sounded Lydian or any other language and certainly not Pelasgian. Therefore the only credible explanations is that the Tyrsennoi lost their original languages, tried to speak either Greek or Latin from the Pelasgains and Italians that surrounded them or even German or Colchian or Phoenicians and barbarised every word. From Hellenistic times Etruria was used as a geographic term to describe various unrelated tribes that lived in northern Italy in the region that was once occupied by the Tyrrsenoi.

[GiCa]

Here we have toponims that foreigner Italians from Others regions pronounce them wrongly.. While we accentuate them the right way.. It seems in an etruscan true acentuation

[GiCa]

Btw.. More on topic:

The etruscan Clan refers only to male sons

For daughters they used another word

And here some declinations of the etruscan Clan:

(/clan/) plural Clen-ar (/cle’na’r/), gentive Clen-sh (/klen’∫/)