Bars
Chad by 2030 or execution
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2024
- Posts
- 1,440
- Reputation
- 2,129
Etruscans are Turks, or rather, I would say that their language goes back to an earlier proto-Turkic language. But it cannot be considered a regular proto-Turkic language, for none of the modern Turkic languages descend from it. It is a separate dead-end branch of Turkic languages. But Turkic languages are constant enough, so with their help it is possible to understand the meaning of Etruscan texts. For this purpose it is necessary to address not to any Etruscan text, but the text, the meaning of which is known, i.e. bilingua. The most convenient text is the bilingua from Pyrgus, its content is known from the Etruscans themselves from the Phoenician part.
Pyrgi Tablets - Wikipedia
Here is a transliteration of the Phoenician text:
lrbt l‘štrt ’šr qdš ’z ’š p‘l w’š ytn tbry’ wlnš mlk ‘l kyšry’ byrẖ zbẖ šmš bmtn ’ bbt wbm tw k‘štrt ’rš bdy lmlky šnt šlš III byrẖ krr bym qbr ‘lm wšnt l’mš ’lm bbty šnt km hkkbm ‘l
Translation of the Phoenician part:
To the Lady Astarte this sacred place, which Tefarius Veliana, king over Kaishri, erected and bestowed in the month of sacrifice to the Sun as a gift to the temple and (sacred) precincts thereof, because Astarte had chosen her servant to be king. Three years were fulfilled in the month of Hurvara, on the day of the burial of the deity. And the years of the statue of the deity in his house let them be very numerous, like the years of the stars above.
The Etruscan text consists of two texts:
TLE 874
ita · tmia · icac · heramasva · vatieχe · unialastrеs · θemiasa · meχ ·
θuta · θefariei · velianas · sal cluvenias · turuce · munistas · θuvas ·
tameresca · ilacve · tulerase · nac · ci · avil · χurvar · teśiameitale ·
ilacve · alśase · nac · atranes · zilacal · seleitala · acnaśvers · itanim ·
heramve · avil · eniaca · pulumχva
TLE 875
nac · θefarie · veliiunas · θamuce · cleva · etanal · masan · tiurunias ·
śelace · vacal · tmial · avilχval · amuce · pulumχvа · snuiа
By morphological parsing the content of this text can still be understood, although it is not so simple. We can discuss it.
I wonder how the ancient Turks got there?
It is very important what you understand by the term “Turks”. Usually this term is understood as a linguistic community. It should be understood that each of the modern Turkic peoples is a product of complex historical development. And it is not a fact that all these peoples are descendants of some hypothetical people called “ancient Turks”. It is quite possible that very ancient languages with a rather large common lexical stratum were once spread on the earth. In favor of it speaks the fact that at a part of languages of American Indians (for example, in language Sioux) we can meet Turkic words.
It is obvious that the Sioux language and modern Tatar language (one of the Turkic languages) must share a period of not one tens of thousands of years and these languages must originate from earlier languages. But it is impossible to say whether they are related or not.
It should be said that the modern classification of Turkic languages is a figment of imagination of linguists, it does not reflect the historical reality. This is understandable, linguists are not historians. Here is such an example.
Michael Syriac quotes a legend about the common origin of three brothers. Two of them are named - Bulgars and Khazars, but the name of the third is not named. These same peoples are mentioned in the letter of the king of Khazars Joseph among ten peoples of descendants of Noah, i.e. brothers. Obviously, the name of the third brother is Savir (Sabir, Suvar). It is the Savirs are constantly mentioned together with Bulgars and Khazars. Very often the name of one of these brothers is used to refer to the others. For example, al-Masudi writes that Turks Khazars called Sabirs. Later in the sources the Savirs are mentioned as a kind of Bulgars.
Modern linguists have no doubt that the modern Chuvash language (close to the Suvar language) goes back to an earlier branch of Turkic languages. And if it is so, then the languages of Bulgars and Khazars should go back to more ancient languages, as Savirs, Bulgars and Khazars have a common origin. Languages of Bulgars and Khazars do not belong to r-languages, as their descendants Kazan Tatars and Mishari Tatars speak common z-languages. Consequently, it is their languages go back to earlier Turkic languages, although of course they were influenced by other Turkic languages. Such is the logic of the historian.
The language of the Volga Tatars is the closest to the Etruscan language and I can show it.
Even Michael Nemeth pointed out that Proto-Turkic is of West Asian origin, and it is not logical to reduce the ancestral home of Proto-Turkic to Altai. Gerard Clauson directly stated that the glottochronological formula of Swadesh is good for inflective languages, but not for agglutinative languages, especially not for Turkic.
I will try to outline the course of my reasoning. Perhaps they will help you, because the Etruscan language is not an ordinary proto-Turkic language, but related to it.
The translation of the Phoenician part of the text allows us to understand what we are talking about. Although the researchers also have questions about it. For example, the literal translation of the last sentence “wšnt l’mš ’lm bbty šnt km hkkbm ‘l” may sound like “(let) the years of the deity in this sanctuary (be as numerous) like the stars above (us)”. Everything in brackets is missing in the text. Therefore, some scholars, after unsuccessful attempts to understand the Etruscan text from it, speak of quasi-bilingualism. We think that these are hasty conclusions. Rather, on the contrary, the Phoenician part suggests that the text was originally written in Etruscan, and then it was translated into Phoenician. Translation from one language to another, or rather an attempt of literal translation, is not always successful, still the Etruscan language is not related to Phoenician. I note that in the literature there are other variants of translation of the Phoenician part.
Let us return to the analysis of the Etruscan text.
First of all, from the Etruscan part we can single out a number of words, the meaning of which is known to scientists from combinatorial analysis of other texts and from comparison with the Phoenician part:
ci - the number three;
avil - year;
the name of the month χurvar, in the Phoenician part it is krr;
the name θefariei · velianas - Tefarius Velianas;
the name of the deity unialastrеs - Uni, in the Phoenician part it corresponds to ‘štrt. This name is mentioned twice in the text, the second time in the form of the word munistas. Other scholars have failed to identify the second mention. I will give my explanations below when parsing the names;
perhaps the last word avilχval is derived from the already known word avil. The meaning of this word is related to years.
Using the frequency method, let us try to find out the meaning of some words and affixes. Let's start with the simplest one.
In the Etruscan text, the word ilacve is used twice. And once, in the text after the mention of the goddess Astarte and before the expression three years - munistas · θuvas · tameresca · ilacve · tulerase · nac ·, the other, after the expression three years and very close to the name of the month - χurvar · teśiameitale · ilacve. Let us give translations of these sections from the Phoenician text, the first - “...Astarte chose her servant to be king”, the second - “...fulfilled in the month of χurvar, on the day of the burial of the deity”. In the first part the expression “to be king” does not fit the meaning, since there is no mention of kings in the second text, the expression “chose her servant” remains. In the second text there is a semantic part “...on the day of burial of the deity”, in some languages expressions like “died”, “burial”, etc. are taboo for religious reasons (for example, in Turkic languages) and therefore this idea is conveyed allegorically, such as “flew away”, “ascended”, “was called”, etc. It seems to us that this is also the case in our text. It is possible to say in place of “...on the day of the burial of the deity” allegorically “on the day when the goddess chose him”. We believe that the word ilacve means “chose him”. According to many scholars the Etruscan language is agglutinative, hence the word must consist of a base (root), a past tense suffix and a suffix that denotes the notion of his (case). These linguistic parts in agglutinative languages do not change and therefore they can be isolated.
At the beginning, let us try to isolate the suffix denoting the notion of “his”. For this purpose let us find its use in other places of the Phoenician text. For example, in the sentence “And the years of the statue of the deity in his house let them be very numerous, like the years of the stars above” there is the expression “in his house”. This expression, according to our assumption, corresponds to the word “heramve”, because it is the one that has the suffix “-ve”, which is also present in the word “ilacve”.
The linguistic part “heram-” from the word “heramve” translated as “his house” (here it should be said that it means not just a house, but the house of God) is present in another part of the Etruscan text «ita · tmia · icac · heramasva · vatieχe · unialastrеs · θemiasa · meχ · θuta ·θefariei · velianas» (in the word “heramasva”). This part speaks about the sacred place, which was built and granted by Tefarius Velianas to the goddess Astarte. If he built, it means that it is also about the construction of the goddess, i.e. about the god's house. This confirms our assumption.
Consequently, in Etruscan the suffix denoting the concept of “his” is the linguistic part “-ve”.
The remainder of our investigated word (without the affix “-ve”) “ilac” must contain the past tense suffix and the verb base. Let us turn once again to the Etruscan text in the part «…tulerase · nac · ci · avil · χurvar · teśiameitale · ilacve…» it corresponds to the translation of the Phoenician part “Three years were fulfilled in the month of Hurvara, on the day of the burial of the deity”. This part speaks of a past event (the verb “was fulfilled”), hence the corresponding Etruscan text must have an affix of the past tense, it can be the linguistic part “-ac” or “-s”, because it is present in the word “nac” and in our remnant of the word “ilac”.
Isn't the language of the Volga Tatars belonging to the Kipchak group? If the language of the Volga Tatars is mythically close to Etruscan, then the rest of the Kipchak languages will pull in a whole bunch.... wouldn't they?
Not quite so, I said above all this classification is an attempt to systematize the Turkic languages, a figment of the imagination of scholars, a kind of model of what they want to see. Other languages may not have what is in the successor of an earlier language. And the Tatar language goes back to the earlier Turkic languages Bulgar and Khazar, and partly to Suvar (Chuvash-like). Below I will give an example of a word which is not in other Turkic languages and consequently they cannot be used for understanding of Etruscan language. Though of course much on them will be clear.
You can read about bilingua from Pyrgus here: http://web.archive.org/web/20081222203327/http://users.tpg.com.au/etr/etrusk/po/pyrgi.html
In the text of the Etruscan bilingua, the first time the name of the goddess Uni, in the Phoenician part Astarte, occurs at the very beginning of the text, in the form of the word “unialastrеs”. The researcher of Tyrrhenian languages Yacemirsky S.A. writes that this is a double name, obtained by adding to the Etruscan name “uni” - Juno the known name “astr-” - Astarte. We cannot agree with this, firstly because the text says “astr” and not “astrt”, and secondly because this linguistic part is present in other words from other written testimonies of the Etruscan language, in which they are not connected with the name of the deity Uni (Juno). For example, on the Linen Book in the prayers dedicated to the ritual of Neptune there are such words “sacnicstres” and “spurestres”. Therefore, the word “unialastrеs” is not a double name.
For the second time in the bilingual text, the name of the goddess Uni occurs in the form “munistas”. At the end of this word there is a suffix “-as”, which is present in the name of Tefaria Veliana - θefariei · velianas, in some other words, and which, in our opinion, is present somewhat veiled in the name of the goddess Uni at the first mentioning, in the form “-es”. The latter circumstance may be explained by the neighborhood of the vowel sound from the preceding suffix in this word. In confirmation of this we may cite the words “sacnicleri” and “spureri”, where there is a suffix in the form “-ri”. Since in agglutinative languages each suffix has strictly only one function and is independent of other suffixes, the word “unialastrеs” can be written as “unialastri + as”. The suffix “-as” cannot be case, because in the Phoenician part of the text the first time the word denoting the goddess Uni (Astarte) is in the genitive case, and in the second time in the nominative case, and both have this suffix. The presence of it in the name Tefaria Veliana suggests that it may be a nominative suffix, as in Greek “-os”.
In Russian, usually such suffixes are better translated by words of the imperative form - скажи назови имя or simply by words - по имени, называют, зовут, etc.
If it is true that the “-as” part is a nominative suffix, then everything before it is an adjective, i.e. such-and-such (such-and-such) by name, such-and-such (such-and-such) call, etc. As such, the name suffix converts the adjective into a noun.
Therefore, we believe that in Etruscan the linguistic part “-as” is a nominative suffix.
Let us note that in Turkic languages suffixes are formed from words. Many such words have survived in the languages, for example, the plural suffix -lar < alar (they), the suffix of profession (activity) -chy < -tsy < -sy < yasy (does), the suffix of the accusative case -na < aңa (him), the suffix of the accusative case -ny < any (him), etc.
The same principle of affix formation underlies the Etruscan language. The question arises - what can denote the word from which the Etruscan suffix “-as” originated? Let's turn to the Mishar dialect of the Tatar language (heir to the language of the Khazars who adopted Judaism). Why exactly to it, yes, because in their language this word is preserved, and in no other Turkic language this word is not. This is also connected with the special origin of the Mishar Tatars. In the dialectical dictionary of the Tatar language it is written:
“We believe that the nominative suffix '-as' derives from the word 'as', to which in Tatar corresponds the word yash - say, call, etc. We should not be embarrassed by the fact that modern Turkic languages do not have a nominal suffix, because we are not studying a proto-Turkic language, but a related one. Although for fairness we will say that in the letter of the king of Khazars Joseph in the word in mshareit there is a nominative suffix -eit (say, name), this is the first mention of Muslims (Mishar) subject to Khazars. All this can only say that even in the Proto-Turkic language could be used nominative suffix.
The famous researcher of the Hittite language I. Friedrich cites the Hittite word for ear - ištamanaššan.
This word is borrowed from the language of the Sea Peoples, and the Etruscans are one of the Sea Peoples. The verb “aš” occurs in this word, which corresponds in the Etruscan text to the word “as”.
The word ištamanaššan in the Mishar dialect of the Tatar language sounds “ишетәм аңа яшсәң" (ishetәm aŋa yashsәŋ) - I will hear if you tell him. This is the ear. Where ishetәm - I will hear, aŋa - him, yash - tell, -sә suffix of conditional inflection is translated by the word if, suffix -ŋ - you.
The presence of the word “aš” in the compound word ištamanaššan fully confirms our proposed meaning of the word “as” in Etruscan.
Now I think it is clear why it is necessary to use the Tatar language to interpret Etruscan texts.
The word yash from the Proto-Turkic language, with an additional word-forming suffix -em forms the word Yashem - name (in the Mishar dialect of the Tatar language), now it is known as Arabism - isem.
At this stage of text analysis, we can mark the boundaries of some sentences. In the section of the text «…ilacve · tulerase · nac · ci · avil · χurvar · teśiameitale · ilacve · alśase…» we can distinguish the sentence «tulerase · nac · ci · avil · χurvar · teśiameitale · ilacve», where the first word «ilacve» - chose him, is the end of the previous sentence and refers to the translation of the text “...Astarte chose her servant to be king”. And the second word «ilacve» is most likely the end of the sentence, because the previous sentence also ends with the same word, and the following one has the suffix “-ase” in the word «alśase», which is also present in the first word «tulerase» of the sentence we are interested in. This is confirmed by the fact that the text “...on the day of the burial of the deity” can be rendered allegorically as “on the day when (the goddess) chose him”.
So, we can assert with great confidence that the sentence «tulerase · nac · ci · avil · χurvar · teśiameitale · ilacve» corresponds to the translation of the Phoenician part “three years were fulfilled in the month of Hurvar, on the day of the burial of the deity”. A distinctive feature of the sentence is that it ends with a compound verb of the imperative mood, the previous sentence also ends with this form of the verb. This may be a characteristic feature of the language. Compare it with the way it is in modern Turkic languages.
In our opinion, the discrepancy translation (literal) of the Etruscan sentence «tulerase · nac · ci · avil · χurvar · teśiameitale · ilacve» into Phoenician is not a consequence of a semantic discrepancy, but a consequence of differences in the languages of presentation. And even in this case the Etruscan sentence at least once must contain the temporal case, in Russian it is translated by the preposition “в”, in the Phoenician text it is applied twice «…в месяце хурваре, в день…». Let's try to deal with this question.
The fact that Tefarius Veliana dedicates a temple to the goddess Astarte, identified in the text with the Etruscan goddess Uni, speaks of close contacts between the Etruscans and Phoenicians, and even of common religious ideas. This can be expressed in linguistic borrowings. We think that it is not by chance that the Etruscan and Phoenician names of the month are similar, respectively “χurvar” and “krr”. It is quite possible that the differences are purely grammatical, and the Etruscan name itself contains the suffix of the temporal case.
The French researcher of Etruscan history Jean-Noel Robert in his book cites the form «avilχva» - aged, elderly. The meaning of the word can be doubted, since it is obtained by a combinatorial method, but here the meaning of the suffix “-va” corresponds to the temporal case. The word «avilχva», with an additional suffix, in the form «avilχval» is present in that part of the bilingua which is called by scholars a summary of the main text of the bilingua. Jean-Noël Robert himself, in another part of his book, says that the word “avilχval” may indicate an annual ceremony. And if we follow the semantic content of the bilingua, the word “avilχva” can be translated as “in every year, annually”. But still I think that a more accurate translation of the word «avilχva» is “on the anniversary”. After all, the text refers to the third anniversary of the reign of Tefarius Veliana. The suffix “-va” occurs more than once in the text, for example in the word «pulumχva» at the end of the main text «…heramve · avil · eniaca · pulumχva». The translation of the corresponding Phoenician part is “...in his house let them be very numerous as the years of the stars above”. Consequently, the suffix “-va” is not just temporal, but is locally temporal, it follows from the word “above”. Turkic languages have a similar suffix -ta/-da. In Russian, the local-temporal case is translated by the prepositions “в” and “на”.
Therefore we think that in the bilingual text the word «χurvar» is not the name of the month, but a word involving the name of the month. Based on the Phoenician name, the word «χurvar» can be translated as “in khurar”, or presumably as “in the month of khur”.
In the sentence «tulerase · nac · ci · avil · χurvar · teśiameitale · ilacve» - three years in the month of khur and the word «ilacve» - chose it. For comparison, let us give the corresponding translation of the Phoenician “three years were fulfilled in the month of khurvar, on the day of the burial of the deity.” And let us give our allegorical clarification of the last part “on the day when (the goddess) chose him”, maybe “when (the god) chose her”, or something similar. According to many scholars the concept of genus did not exist in the Etruscan language.
Obviously, the word «teśiameitale» corresponds to our allegorical statement “when (god)”. Let us try to understand the meaning of the suffix «-ale/–le», which is present at the end of the word «teśiameitale».
According to Lycophron, the ancestors of the Etruscans were Tarhona and Tyrsena, and he calls them “golden-brown wolves, offspring of Heracles' blood”. Lycophron sets forth the legend of the descent of Tarhona and Tyrsenes from Heracles' son Telephus. In the Etruscan language Heracles is «Horacle/Hercle». This word has the suffix “-le” at the end of it that interests us. In some Etruscan texts this affix is presented in the form “-ale”. The meaning of this affix can be understood if we look at the Etruscan depiction of Heracles himself and compare it with what Lycophron writes. The Etruscans depicted Heracles as a man with a tail.
Therefore, we think that in the name «Horacle/Hercle» the linguistic part "-le" is an affix of possession, as in the Lydian language. Then the root "Horac/Herc" is a tail. "Horacle/Hercle" - Heracles in translation - having a tail, tailed. That is why Lycophron writes that the Etruscans are "golden-brown wolves, offspring of Heracles' blood." The tail on the image of Hercules emphasizes his origin. The Etruscan word «Horacle/Hercle» corresponds to the Tatar word koyrykly.
Since the linguistic part «-ale/–le» in the word «teśiameitale» is a suffix of possession and is translated as an adjective, it is possible that the god is called by some epithet, for example, the one who takes away, in which case the meaning of the word «teśiameitale» is "when the one who takes away (any other epithet of the god, appearing, etc.)". Then the expression «teśiameitale · ilacve» will sound like this: "when the one who takes away chose him", "when the one who appears chose her" (there is no category of gender in the Etruscan language) or "when the Almighty chose her". The sentence may not have a reflexive action and therefore the russian particle -ся is inappropriate (in the word "являющийся"), the latter translation option is preferable. In order not to complicate the presentation, we will leave the conditional meaning "Almighty" for the word «teśiameitale», we will clarify its meaning later.
Now compare the Turkic and Etruscan suffixes of possession -le/-ly and “–le” respectively.
Isn't Heracles from Greek mythology?
Yes, but it seems that all this mythology (judging by the origin of the names) of the pre-Greek population - the Pelasgians. The Pelasgians and the Etruscans are related peoples. Their languages are very similar.
What other parallels can be given between the Turkics and the Etruscans?
All ahead, wait.
In order for us to advance further in the morphology of the Etruscan language, we need to pay attention to a number of features of their language. Very important information is provided by the historian Jean-Noel Robert, he writes: “The Etruscans often wrote without separating individual words. However, sometimes you can find texts where words are separated from each other by one, two, three, and even four dots. Sometimes dots appear in the middle of words, although there is no grammatical explanation for this.”
The Etruscans wrote without separating words, therefore, such a text did not lose its informative value.
This is possible if the suffixes in words carry the meaning of ordinary words and if they are no different from ordinary words. In this case, the main words will differ from the words denoting suffixes only by their location in the text. Such a text must be read from the very beginning each time, otherwise it will be impossible to distinguish the main words from the words denoting suffixes. When the inscriptions are short, this inconvenience can be tolerated, but as the length of the text increases, starting to read the entire text again becomes very inconvenient. The appearance of the word section eliminates this drawback. Now you can start reading from any word section. However, it remains possible to write some words in the text together, since this does not distort the meaning of the text. The word section can be indicated by a dot or another convenient sign.
For example, in the second part of the text: "etanal"- "etana al" (к богу возьми) (take to God), "vaca - al" (к отцу возьми) (take to the father), "tmiа - al" (святое место возьми) (take to the holy place), "avilχvа - al" (в годовщину возьми) (take on the anniversary). The text from Pyrgus talks about an offering.
All of the above suggests that Etruscan writing developed in stages: from continuous writing of texts to the use of signs to separate individual words.
The second part of the text from Pyrgus is a supplication (a prayer with wishes), and not a summary of the first part, as many researchers believe.
In the modern Tatar language, et (эт) means dog, but in ancient times this word could mean a she-wolf - the progenitor, mother and deity. For example, the Tatar mythological dragon Zilant is Z̦hylan et (Җылан эт), that is, a snake deity.
The Proto-Turkic peoples had an idea of a single god Tengri, who appears in different faces in the sky (according to the number of signs of the Zodiac). One of the faces of the god is a dragon - Zilant. This is a snake deity. Reconstruction of Zilant < Z̦hylan et (Җылан эт) gives meaning to the word et - deity.
The Etruscans believed that the souls of the dead find peace in the stars. The last word of the text from Pyrgus is pulumχva, where pul - bul(be), umχva - Tat. yomykta (where someone or something can be closed) meaning the afterlife - stars.
As far as I know, the ancient Turks had a progenitor named Umai?
A she-wolf is a nurse...
Umai is presented as the wife of Tengri, she is also Astarte, she is also the Etruscan goddess Uni. The fact is that in the Turkic languages there is no concept of gender, and much says that the god was one and appeared in different images, including in a female face, in the form of a spouse. In another text I read, the goddess (the female face of the god) is called abystai. In modern Tatar, the wife of a cleric. In this same text, in another place it is said that this was written by Umai's slaves.
I have reason to assert that this Proto-Turkic idea of monotheism passed into Judaism and then into all other religions. The Etruscan name for Tengri is Tin.
Abystai is a familiar word. I think there is such a word in Kazakh.
Abysyn - daughter-in-law (wife of an older brother or his close relative in relation to the wife of another brother or close relative)
abysyn tatu bolsa as kop, agaiyn tatu bolsa at kop (абысын тату болса ас көп, ағайын тату болса ат көп) → daughters-in-law are friendly - there is a lot of food, relatives are friendly - there are a lot of horses (to lend each other).
Abyz - a minister of the cult, a priest.
Tatar and Kazakh languages are quite similar, so many words of the Tatar language are in Kazakh, I will not comment on them. The differences are more clearly traced in morphology.
I have already written, first, that the Tatar language goes back to an earlier language, second, that the suffixes of the Turkic languages come from ordinary Turkic words. So these words in the Tatar language have not always had time to turn into suffixes and still act as auxiliary words.
Such a clear example, the formation of the participle - a part of speech that combines the features of the verb with the features of the adjective. In the Kazakh language, the participle is formed by adding the suffix - atyn to the base (the imperative verb of the 2nd person singular), in the Uzbek language the suffix - digan, in the Altai languages - atan, - itan. In the Tatar language, the participle is formed by adding the suffix -a and the auxiliary word torgan to the verb stem, i.e. by adding the construction "- a torgan". The verb stem and the suffix "- a" are the present tense form of the verb. The word torgan arose as an explanation at a certain stage of language development, as a clarification that you have a participle in front of you, and not a present tense verb. In the Proto-Turkic language, the present tense form of the verb coincided with the participle, they were distinguished only by the meaning of the previous text. We see that in many Turkic languages, the participle suffixes differ from each other, and this indicates one thing, that these suffixes arose independently in each language, at a later time in the development of languages.
Now about the Etruscan language and dots inside words in writing. Since the writing of these languages has gone through certain stages of development, we have the right to assume that the presence of dots inside words is a legacy of a certain stage of writing development. Indirectly, this is confirmed by the appearance of word-separating dots in a text without word division for the convenience of the reader.
Consequently, the appearance of dots inside words can also be an element simplifying the reading or writing of the text, most likely, this is a consequence of the omission of some sign of writing. For example, the omission of the second repeating vowel letter, or the omission of a short letter as in Semitic languages. The application of dots may not always be necessary, but only in the case when the word cannot be perceived correctly by the reader, i.e. it is necessary mainly for rarely used compound words.
To confirm the above, let us turn to another written monument, where there are dots in words. For example, let us take the text of the Lemnos stele, the inscription is written in a language close to the Etruscan language.
The text
Transliteration
One in the picture:
hολαιε:ζ:ναφοθ:ζιαζιμαραζ:μαFσιαλχFειζ:αFιζεFισθο:ζεροναιθζιFαιακερ:ταFαρζιοFαναλασιαλ:ζεροναι: μοριναιλ
In the plaque:hολαιεζι:φοκιασιαλε:ζεροναιθ:εFισθο:τοFεροναρομ:hαραλιο:ζιFαι:επτεζιο:αραι:τιζ:φοκεζιFαι:αFιζ:σιαλχFιζ:μαραζμ:αFιζ:αομαι
On the stele there is the word Fαναλασιαλ, inside the word there are dots Fα·να·λα·σιαλ. According to our assumption, this is a simplification of writing, we will write the restored word Fαανααλαασιαλ, in Etruscan letters Vaanaalaasial. In Latin borrowings, Etruscan words containing the letter V are transmitted by the sound . We will write with word divisions Va ana ala asi al, where the latter is the common Turkic verb al - take, the front part of the whole Va ana ala asi participle. The Tatar verb yasa - do, in the present tense it looks like yasy - does and corresponds to the Etruscan asi.
In Tatar, to understand this complex word, you need to add the auxiliary word torgan to the Va ana ala asi construction, you get Va ana ala doing (asi torgan - doing). Or you can consider the asi part as a common Turkic suffix of the profession yasy > - sy > - tsy > - chy and translate the suffix with the word doing.
I think the word ala is understandable to all Turks, it corresponds to the Tatar word ala - takes. The construction ala asi - taking away. The initial linguistic part Va ana consists of the words Va and ana, the second word in the Tatar language is aŋa (аңа) - to him. It can be considered as a suffix of the directional case -na.
Earlier, I cited it as part of the word ištamanaššan from the language of the peoples of the sea.
The first word ba - father (so in Tatar too), in ancient Turkic aba - father. In the Etruscan language ara is father (this word is given by J.-N. Robert), but we think that the Etruscans had another meaning: Va – ancestor. Therefore, the combination of Va and ana – to the ancestor, possibly to the father. The whole word Va ana ala asi al – taking to the ancestor, take. I think that here it is more appropriate to use the feminine gender, since usually the goddess Astarte takes, Astarte in the Tatar language Os tarta (torgan) "Өс тарта (торган)" – pulling upward.
In the Proto-Turkic language, the present tense verb coincided with the participle. In the Etruscan language as well.
A couple of examples with participles
In the text of the Lemnos stele, one word will be clear - "aker".
The same:
in Tatar: akyr - shout, there is a word with a common semantics - "call" - "chakyr";
in English: cry;
in Russian: кричи, крик, etc., all have a common root;
in Hebrew: the name of the third book of the Pentateuch - וַיִּקְרָא Va-yikra - And he called,
קָרָא - לִקרוֹא, קוֹרֵא, יִקרָא - kara - likro, kore, yikra = 1. to read 2. to call 3. to name, to give a name
In Turkic languages, the verb stem is the imperative form of the 2nd person singular - akyr (to shout). What is presented in dictionaries - akyr, is the form of the verb of action, it determines the course of the process itself, a form specifically for the dictionary. The present tense form is formed by adding the suffix -a to the stem, i.e. akyr (to shout). In proto-Turkic languages, it is also a participle - shouting, in the Tatar language, the participle is formed by adding the auxiliary verb torgan (with the meaning of lived, was). The participle in Kazakh should be the stem + atyn, whoever knows the Kazakh language will tell us for sure, it should be akyratin, something like that. In the language of the Siberian Tatars, similar suffixes are used - atkyn, -atyn, -atagan, -atygyn. Other examples:
Al - take, ala - takes, ala torgan - taker;
Bar - go, bara - goes, bara torgan - walking;
Sal - put, sala - puts down, sala torgan - presenter.
In the bilingual text there is an expression sal cluvenias (a simplification is used, the second consonant is omitted), here sal c - presented, put as a gift. In the Etruscan language the past tense suffix is c, in the Tatar language it is gan.
The Turks are descendants of the Huns and the local population. Huns in the ancient Turkic language un uk ten unions, ten tribes, previously they were known as the ten lost tribes of Israel.
As is known, the Chuvash (descendants of the Suvars) moved away from the pagan religion later than other peoples and therefore retained interesting customs and rituals.
"... in the 18th century, after the creation of the Russian Academy of Sciences, academician G. Miller, S. Gmelin, P. Pallas and other researchers noted the Jewish-Biblical nature of a number of Chuvash pagan customs and rituals. In 1838, professor of the Kazan University H.M. Fren considered the Chuvash as a "settled branch of the ancient Khazars", i.e. part of the Khazars who adopted Judaism.
Later, many researchers, such as K. Milkovich, V.A. Sboev, N.I. Zolotnitsky and especially E. Malov, who even wrote a scientific work “The Influence of Jewry on the Chuvashes,” studied this problem.” Historian A.G. Mukhamadiev, who deciphered the Hunnic script, claims that it goes back to the Aramaic alphabet, and he came to the conclusion that the ancient Turkic alphabet arose through the reform of this alphabet.
A.Mukhamadiev - Turanian Writing - TurkicWorld
Wow, the Turks have something to do with the Israelis?!
Probably, among the twelve tribes, only two tribes were Semites. I have already cited the opinion of the ancient Roman historian Tacitus, who reports that the Jews came from Crete.
Josephus Flavius also writes that "In some book we have found an indication that the Jews and Lacedaemonians are of the same origin and trace their lineage equally from Abraham."
The Lacedaemonians (Spartans) considered the Heraclides to be their ancestors, and they in turn were descendants of Heracles, i.e. they were from the lineage of the mother wolf, the lineage of God. The Etruscans also consisted of twelve peoples. The Etruscans are et (God's, wolf's) ru (descendants in the Tatar language) and the suffix -ski (the same suffix in the ethnonym Pelaski).
The ancestors of the Jews as part of the Sea Peoples were captured by Egypt and ten tribes of them are the proto-Turks - the Huns. Therefore, the Torah (Тöre, türe) is law, Turkism.
Pyrgi Tablets - Wikipedia
Here is a transliteration of the Phoenician text:
lrbt l‘štrt ’šr qdš ’z ’š p‘l w’š ytn tbry’ wlnš mlk ‘l kyšry’ byrẖ zbẖ šmš bmtn ’ bbt wbm tw k‘štrt ’rš bdy lmlky šnt šlš III byrẖ krr bym qbr ‘lm wšnt l’mš ’lm bbty šnt km hkkbm ‘l
Translation of the Phoenician part:
To the Lady Astarte this sacred place, which Tefarius Veliana, king over Kaishri, erected and bestowed in the month of sacrifice to the Sun as a gift to the temple and (sacred) precincts thereof, because Astarte had chosen her servant to be king. Three years were fulfilled in the month of Hurvara, on the day of the burial of the deity. And the years of the statue of the deity in his house let them be very numerous, like the years of the stars above.
The Etruscan text consists of two texts:
TLE 874
ita · tmia · icac · heramasva · vatieχe · unialastrеs · θemiasa · meχ ·
θuta · θefariei · velianas · sal cluvenias · turuce · munistas · θuvas ·
tameresca · ilacve · tulerase · nac · ci · avil · χurvar · teśiameitale ·
ilacve · alśase · nac · atranes · zilacal · seleitala · acnaśvers · itanim ·
heramve · avil · eniaca · pulumχva
TLE 875
nac · θefarie · veliiunas · θamuce · cleva · etanal · masan · tiurunias ·
śelace · vacal · tmial · avilχval · amuce · pulumχvа · snuiа
By morphological parsing the content of this text can still be understood, although it is not so simple. We can discuss it.
I wonder how the ancient Turks got there?
It is very important what you understand by the term “Turks”. Usually this term is understood as a linguistic community. It should be understood that each of the modern Turkic peoples is a product of complex historical development. And it is not a fact that all these peoples are descendants of some hypothetical people called “ancient Turks”. It is quite possible that very ancient languages with a rather large common lexical stratum were once spread on the earth. In favor of it speaks the fact that at a part of languages of American Indians (for example, in language Sioux) we can meet Turkic words.
It is obvious that the Sioux language and modern Tatar language (one of the Turkic languages) must share a period of not one tens of thousands of years and these languages must originate from earlier languages. But it is impossible to say whether they are related or not.
It should be said that the modern classification of Turkic languages is a figment of imagination of linguists, it does not reflect the historical reality. This is understandable, linguists are not historians. Here is such an example.
Michael Syriac quotes a legend about the common origin of three brothers. Two of them are named - Bulgars and Khazars, but the name of the third is not named. These same peoples are mentioned in the letter of the king of Khazars Joseph among ten peoples of descendants of Noah, i.e. brothers. Obviously, the name of the third brother is Savir (Sabir, Suvar). It is the Savirs are constantly mentioned together with Bulgars and Khazars. Very often the name of one of these brothers is used to refer to the others. For example, al-Masudi writes that Turks Khazars called Sabirs. Later in the sources the Savirs are mentioned as a kind of Bulgars.
Modern linguists have no doubt that the modern Chuvash language (close to the Suvar language) goes back to an earlier branch of Turkic languages. And if it is so, then the languages of Bulgars and Khazars should go back to more ancient languages, as Savirs, Bulgars and Khazars have a common origin. Languages of Bulgars and Khazars do not belong to r-languages, as their descendants Kazan Tatars and Mishari Tatars speak common z-languages. Consequently, it is their languages go back to earlier Turkic languages, although of course they were influenced by other Turkic languages. Such is the logic of the historian.
The language of the Volga Tatars is the closest to the Etruscan language and I can show it.
Even Michael Nemeth pointed out that Proto-Turkic is of West Asian origin, and it is not logical to reduce the ancestral home of Proto-Turkic to Altai. Gerard Clauson directly stated that the glottochronological formula of Swadesh is good for inflective languages, but not for agglutinative languages, especially not for Turkic.
I will try to outline the course of my reasoning. Perhaps they will help you, because the Etruscan language is not an ordinary proto-Turkic language, but related to it.
The translation of the Phoenician part of the text allows us to understand what we are talking about. Although the researchers also have questions about it. For example, the literal translation of the last sentence “wšnt l’mš ’lm bbty šnt km hkkbm ‘l” may sound like “(let) the years of the deity in this sanctuary (be as numerous) like the stars above (us)”. Everything in brackets is missing in the text. Therefore, some scholars, after unsuccessful attempts to understand the Etruscan text from it, speak of quasi-bilingualism. We think that these are hasty conclusions. Rather, on the contrary, the Phoenician part suggests that the text was originally written in Etruscan, and then it was translated into Phoenician. Translation from one language to another, or rather an attempt of literal translation, is not always successful, still the Etruscan language is not related to Phoenician. I note that in the literature there are other variants of translation of the Phoenician part.
Let us return to the analysis of the Etruscan text.
First of all, from the Etruscan part we can single out a number of words, the meaning of which is known to scientists from combinatorial analysis of other texts and from comparison with the Phoenician part:
ci - the number three;
avil - year;
the name of the month χurvar, in the Phoenician part it is krr;
the name θefariei · velianas - Tefarius Velianas;
the name of the deity unialastrеs - Uni, in the Phoenician part it corresponds to ‘štrt. This name is mentioned twice in the text, the second time in the form of the word munistas. Other scholars have failed to identify the second mention. I will give my explanations below when parsing the names;
perhaps the last word avilχval is derived from the already known word avil. The meaning of this word is related to years.
Using the frequency method, let us try to find out the meaning of some words and affixes. Let's start with the simplest one.
In the Etruscan text, the word ilacve is used twice. And once, in the text after the mention of the goddess Astarte and before the expression three years - munistas · θuvas · tameresca · ilacve · tulerase · nac ·, the other, after the expression three years and very close to the name of the month - χurvar · teśiameitale · ilacve. Let us give translations of these sections from the Phoenician text, the first - “...Astarte chose her servant to be king”, the second - “...fulfilled in the month of χurvar, on the day of the burial of the deity”. In the first part the expression “to be king” does not fit the meaning, since there is no mention of kings in the second text, the expression “chose her servant” remains. In the second text there is a semantic part “...on the day of burial of the deity”, in some languages expressions like “died”, “burial”, etc. are taboo for religious reasons (for example, in Turkic languages) and therefore this idea is conveyed allegorically, such as “flew away”, “ascended”, “was called”, etc. It seems to us that this is also the case in our text. It is possible to say in place of “...on the day of the burial of the deity” allegorically “on the day when the goddess chose him”. We believe that the word ilacve means “chose him”. According to many scholars the Etruscan language is agglutinative, hence the word must consist of a base (root), a past tense suffix and a suffix that denotes the notion of his (case). These linguistic parts in agglutinative languages do not change and therefore they can be isolated.
At the beginning, let us try to isolate the suffix denoting the notion of “his”. For this purpose let us find its use in other places of the Phoenician text. For example, in the sentence “And the years of the statue of the deity in his house let them be very numerous, like the years of the stars above” there is the expression “in his house”. This expression, according to our assumption, corresponds to the word “heramve”, because it is the one that has the suffix “-ve”, which is also present in the word “ilacve”.
The linguistic part “heram-” from the word “heramve” translated as “his house” (here it should be said that it means not just a house, but the house of God) is present in another part of the Etruscan text «ita · tmia · icac · heramasva · vatieχe · unialastrеs · θemiasa · meχ · θuta ·θefariei · velianas» (in the word “heramasva”). This part speaks about the sacred place, which was built and granted by Tefarius Velianas to the goddess Astarte. If he built, it means that it is also about the construction of the goddess, i.e. about the god's house. This confirms our assumption.
Consequently, in Etruscan the suffix denoting the concept of “his” is the linguistic part “-ve”.
The remainder of our investigated word (without the affix “-ve”) “ilac” must contain the past tense suffix and the verb base. Let us turn once again to the Etruscan text in the part «…tulerase · nac · ci · avil · χurvar · teśiameitale · ilacve…» it corresponds to the translation of the Phoenician part “Three years were fulfilled in the month of Hurvara, on the day of the burial of the deity”. This part speaks of a past event (the verb “was fulfilled”), hence the corresponding Etruscan text must have an affix of the past tense, it can be the linguistic part “-ac” or “-s”, because it is present in the word “nac” and in our remnant of the word “ilac”.
Isn't the language of the Volga Tatars belonging to the Kipchak group? If the language of the Volga Tatars is mythically close to Etruscan, then the rest of the Kipchak languages will pull in a whole bunch.... wouldn't they?
Not quite so, I said above all this classification is an attempt to systematize the Turkic languages, a figment of the imagination of scholars, a kind of model of what they want to see. Other languages may not have what is in the successor of an earlier language. And the Tatar language goes back to the earlier Turkic languages Bulgar and Khazar, and partly to Suvar (Chuvash-like). Below I will give an example of a word which is not in other Turkic languages and consequently they cannot be used for understanding of Etruscan language. Though of course much on them will be clear.
You can read about bilingua from Pyrgus here: http://web.archive.org/web/20081222203327/http://users.tpg.com.au/etr/etrusk/po/pyrgi.html
In the text of the Etruscan bilingua, the first time the name of the goddess Uni, in the Phoenician part Astarte, occurs at the very beginning of the text, in the form of the word “unialastrеs”. The researcher of Tyrrhenian languages Yacemirsky S.A. writes that this is a double name, obtained by adding to the Etruscan name “uni” - Juno the known name “astr-” - Astarte. We cannot agree with this, firstly because the text says “astr” and not “astrt”, and secondly because this linguistic part is present in other words from other written testimonies of the Etruscan language, in which they are not connected with the name of the deity Uni (Juno). For example, on the Linen Book in the prayers dedicated to the ritual of Neptune there are such words “sacnicstres” and “spurestres”. Therefore, the word “unialastrеs” is not a double name.
For the second time in the bilingual text, the name of the goddess Uni occurs in the form “munistas”. At the end of this word there is a suffix “-as”, which is present in the name of Tefaria Veliana - θefariei · velianas, in some other words, and which, in our opinion, is present somewhat veiled in the name of the goddess Uni at the first mentioning, in the form “-es”. The latter circumstance may be explained by the neighborhood of the vowel sound from the preceding suffix in this word. In confirmation of this we may cite the words “sacnicleri” and “spureri”, where there is a suffix in the form “-ri”. Since in agglutinative languages each suffix has strictly only one function and is independent of other suffixes, the word “unialastrеs” can be written as “unialastri + as”. The suffix “-as” cannot be case, because in the Phoenician part of the text the first time the word denoting the goddess Uni (Astarte) is in the genitive case, and in the second time in the nominative case, and both have this suffix. The presence of it in the name Tefaria Veliana suggests that it may be a nominative suffix, as in Greek “-os”.
In Russian, usually such suffixes are better translated by words of the imperative form - скажи назови имя or simply by words - по имени, называют, зовут, etc.
If it is true that the “-as” part is a nominative suffix, then everything before it is an adjective, i.e. such-and-such (such-and-such) by name, such-and-such (such-and-such) call, etc. As such, the name suffix converts the adjective into a noun.
Therefore, we believe that in Etruscan the linguistic part “-as” is a nominative suffix.
Let us note that in Turkic languages suffixes are formed from words. Many such words have survived in the languages, for example, the plural suffix -lar < alar (they), the suffix of profession (activity) -chy < -tsy < -sy < yasy (does), the suffix of the accusative case -na < aңa (him), the suffix of the accusative case -ny < any (him), etc.
The same principle of affix formation underlies the Etruscan language. The question arises - what can denote the word from which the Etruscan suffix “-as” originated? Let's turn to the Mishar dialect of the Tatar language (heir to the language of the Khazars who adopted Judaism). Why exactly to it, yes, because in their language this word is preserved, and in no other Turkic language this word is not. This is also connected with the special origin of the Mishar Tatars. In the dialectical dictionary of the Tatar language it is written:
“We believe that the nominative suffix '-as' derives from the word 'as', to which in Tatar corresponds the word yash - say, call, etc. We should not be embarrassed by the fact that modern Turkic languages do not have a nominal suffix, because we are not studying a proto-Turkic language, but a related one. Although for fairness we will say that in the letter of the king of Khazars Joseph in the word in mshareit there is a nominative suffix -eit (say, name), this is the first mention of Muslims (Mishar) subject to Khazars. All this can only say that even in the Proto-Turkic language could be used nominative suffix.
The famous researcher of the Hittite language I. Friedrich cites the Hittite word for ear - ištamanaššan.
This word is borrowed from the language of the Sea Peoples, and the Etruscans are one of the Sea Peoples. The verb “aš” occurs in this word, which corresponds in the Etruscan text to the word “as”.
The word ištamanaššan in the Mishar dialect of the Tatar language sounds “ишетәм аңа яшсәң" (ishetәm aŋa yashsәŋ) - I will hear if you tell him. This is the ear. Where ishetәm - I will hear, aŋa - him, yash - tell, -sә suffix of conditional inflection is translated by the word if, suffix -ŋ - you.
The presence of the word “aš” in the compound word ištamanaššan fully confirms our proposed meaning of the word “as” in Etruscan.
Now I think it is clear why it is necessary to use the Tatar language to interpret Etruscan texts.
The word yash from the Proto-Turkic language, with an additional word-forming suffix -em forms the word Yashem - name (in the Mishar dialect of the Tatar language), now it is known as Arabism - isem.
At this stage of text analysis, we can mark the boundaries of some sentences. In the section of the text «…ilacve · tulerase · nac · ci · avil · χurvar · teśiameitale · ilacve · alśase…» we can distinguish the sentence «tulerase · nac · ci · avil · χurvar · teśiameitale · ilacve», where the first word «ilacve» - chose him, is the end of the previous sentence and refers to the translation of the text “...Astarte chose her servant to be king”. And the second word «ilacve» is most likely the end of the sentence, because the previous sentence also ends with the same word, and the following one has the suffix “-ase” in the word «alśase», which is also present in the first word «tulerase» of the sentence we are interested in. This is confirmed by the fact that the text “...on the day of the burial of the deity” can be rendered allegorically as “on the day when (the goddess) chose him”.
So, we can assert with great confidence that the sentence «tulerase · nac · ci · avil · χurvar · teśiameitale · ilacve» corresponds to the translation of the Phoenician part “three years were fulfilled in the month of Hurvar, on the day of the burial of the deity”. A distinctive feature of the sentence is that it ends with a compound verb of the imperative mood, the previous sentence also ends with this form of the verb. This may be a characteristic feature of the language. Compare it with the way it is in modern Turkic languages.
In our opinion, the discrepancy translation (literal) of the Etruscan sentence «tulerase · nac · ci · avil · χurvar · teśiameitale · ilacve» into Phoenician is not a consequence of a semantic discrepancy, but a consequence of differences in the languages of presentation. And even in this case the Etruscan sentence at least once must contain the temporal case, in Russian it is translated by the preposition “в”, in the Phoenician text it is applied twice «…в месяце хурваре, в день…». Let's try to deal with this question.
The fact that Tefarius Veliana dedicates a temple to the goddess Astarte, identified in the text with the Etruscan goddess Uni, speaks of close contacts between the Etruscans and Phoenicians, and even of common religious ideas. This can be expressed in linguistic borrowings. We think that it is not by chance that the Etruscan and Phoenician names of the month are similar, respectively “χurvar” and “krr”. It is quite possible that the differences are purely grammatical, and the Etruscan name itself contains the suffix of the temporal case.
The French researcher of Etruscan history Jean-Noel Robert in his book cites the form «avilχva» - aged, elderly. The meaning of the word can be doubted, since it is obtained by a combinatorial method, but here the meaning of the suffix “-va” corresponds to the temporal case. The word «avilχva», with an additional suffix, in the form «avilχval» is present in that part of the bilingua which is called by scholars a summary of the main text of the bilingua. Jean-Noël Robert himself, in another part of his book, says that the word “avilχval” may indicate an annual ceremony. And if we follow the semantic content of the bilingua, the word “avilχva” can be translated as “in every year, annually”. But still I think that a more accurate translation of the word «avilχva» is “on the anniversary”. After all, the text refers to the third anniversary of the reign of Tefarius Veliana. The suffix “-va” occurs more than once in the text, for example in the word «pulumχva» at the end of the main text «…heramve · avil · eniaca · pulumχva». The translation of the corresponding Phoenician part is “...in his house let them be very numerous as the years of the stars above”. Consequently, the suffix “-va” is not just temporal, but is locally temporal, it follows from the word “above”. Turkic languages have a similar suffix -ta/-da. In Russian, the local-temporal case is translated by the prepositions “в” and “на”.
Therefore we think that in the bilingual text the word «χurvar» is not the name of the month, but a word involving the name of the month. Based on the Phoenician name, the word «χurvar» can be translated as “in khurar”, or presumably as “in the month of khur”.
In the sentence «tulerase · nac · ci · avil · χurvar · teśiameitale · ilacve» - three years in the month of khur and the word «ilacve» - chose it. For comparison, let us give the corresponding translation of the Phoenician “three years were fulfilled in the month of khurvar, on the day of the burial of the deity.” And let us give our allegorical clarification of the last part “on the day when (the goddess) chose him”, maybe “when (the god) chose her”, or something similar. According to many scholars the concept of genus did not exist in the Etruscan language.
Obviously, the word «teśiameitale» corresponds to our allegorical statement “when (god)”. Let us try to understand the meaning of the suffix «-ale/–le», which is present at the end of the word «teśiameitale».
According to Lycophron, the ancestors of the Etruscans were Tarhona and Tyrsena, and he calls them “golden-brown wolves, offspring of Heracles' blood”. Lycophron sets forth the legend of the descent of Tarhona and Tyrsenes from Heracles' son Telephus. In the Etruscan language Heracles is «Horacle/Hercle». This word has the suffix “-le” at the end of it that interests us. In some Etruscan texts this affix is presented in the form “-ale”. The meaning of this affix can be understood if we look at the Etruscan depiction of Heracles himself and compare it with what Lycophron writes. The Etruscans depicted Heracles as a man with a tail.
Therefore, we think that in the name «Horacle/Hercle» the linguistic part "-le" is an affix of possession, as in the Lydian language. Then the root "Horac/Herc" is a tail. "Horacle/Hercle" - Heracles in translation - having a tail, tailed. That is why Lycophron writes that the Etruscans are "golden-brown wolves, offspring of Heracles' blood." The tail on the image of Hercules emphasizes his origin. The Etruscan word «Horacle/Hercle» corresponds to the Tatar word koyrykly.
Since the linguistic part «-ale/–le» in the word «teśiameitale» is a suffix of possession and is translated as an adjective, it is possible that the god is called by some epithet, for example, the one who takes away, in which case the meaning of the word «teśiameitale» is "when the one who takes away (any other epithet of the god, appearing, etc.)". Then the expression «teśiameitale · ilacve» will sound like this: "when the one who takes away chose him", "when the one who appears chose her" (there is no category of gender in the Etruscan language) or "when the Almighty chose her". The sentence may not have a reflexive action and therefore the russian particle -ся is inappropriate (in the word "являющийся"), the latter translation option is preferable. In order not to complicate the presentation, we will leave the conditional meaning "Almighty" for the word «teśiameitale», we will clarify its meaning later.
Now compare the Turkic and Etruscan suffixes of possession -le/-ly and “–le” respectively.
Isn't Heracles from Greek mythology?
Yes, but it seems that all this mythology (judging by the origin of the names) of the pre-Greek population - the Pelasgians. The Pelasgians and the Etruscans are related peoples. Their languages are very similar.
What other parallels can be given between the Turkics and the Etruscans?
All ahead, wait.
In order for us to advance further in the morphology of the Etruscan language, we need to pay attention to a number of features of their language. Very important information is provided by the historian Jean-Noel Robert, he writes: “The Etruscans often wrote without separating individual words. However, sometimes you can find texts where words are separated from each other by one, two, three, and even four dots. Sometimes dots appear in the middle of words, although there is no grammatical explanation for this.”
The Etruscans wrote without separating words, therefore, such a text did not lose its informative value.
This is possible if the suffixes in words carry the meaning of ordinary words and if they are no different from ordinary words. In this case, the main words will differ from the words denoting suffixes only by their location in the text. Such a text must be read from the very beginning each time, otherwise it will be impossible to distinguish the main words from the words denoting suffixes. When the inscriptions are short, this inconvenience can be tolerated, but as the length of the text increases, starting to read the entire text again becomes very inconvenient. The appearance of the word section eliminates this drawback. Now you can start reading from any word section. However, it remains possible to write some words in the text together, since this does not distort the meaning of the text. The word section can be indicated by a dot or another convenient sign.
For example, in the second part of the text: "etanal"- "etana al" (к богу возьми) (take to God), "vaca - al" (к отцу возьми) (take to the father), "tmiа - al" (святое место возьми) (take to the holy place), "avilχvа - al" (в годовщину возьми) (take on the anniversary). The text from Pyrgus talks about an offering.
All of the above suggests that Etruscan writing developed in stages: from continuous writing of texts to the use of signs to separate individual words.
The second part of the text from Pyrgus is a supplication (a prayer with wishes), and not a summary of the first part, as many researchers believe.
In the modern Tatar language, et (эт) means dog, but in ancient times this word could mean a she-wolf - the progenitor, mother and deity. For example, the Tatar mythological dragon Zilant is Z̦hylan et (Җылан эт), that is, a snake deity.
The Proto-Turkic peoples had an idea of a single god Tengri, who appears in different faces in the sky (according to the number of signs of the Zodiac). One of the faces of the god is a dragon - Zilant. This is a snake deity. Reconstruction of Zilant < Z̦hylan et (Җылан эт) gives meaning to the word et - deity.
The Etruscans believed that the souls of the dead find peace in the stars. The last word of the text from Pyrgus is pulumχva, where pul - bul(be), umχva - Tat. yomykta (where someone or something can be closed) meaning the afterlife - stars.
As far as I know, the ancient Turks had a progenitor named Umai?
A she-wolf is a nurse...
Umai is presented as the wife of Tengri, she is also Astarte, she is also the Etruscan goddess Uni. The fact is that in the Turkic languages there is no concept of gender, and much says that the god was one and appeared in different images, including in a female face, in the form of a spouse. In another text I read, the goddess (the female face of the god) is called abystai. In modern Tatar, the wife of a cleric. In this same text, in another place it is said that this was written by Umai's slaves.
I have reason to assert that this Proto-Turkic idea of monotheism passed into Judaism and then into all other religions. The Etruscan name for Tengri is Tin.
Abystai is a familiar word. I think there is such a word in Kazakh.
Abysyn - daughter-in-law (wife of an older brother or his close relative in relation to the wife of another brother or close relative)
abysyn tatu bolsa as kop, agaiyn tatu bolsa at kop (абысын тату болса ас көп, ағайын тату болса ат көп) → daughters-in-law are friendly - there is a lot of food, relatives are friendly - there are a lot of horses (to lend each other).
Abyz - a minister of the cult, a priest.
Tatar and Kazakh languages are quite similar, so many words of the Tatar language are in Kazakh, I will not comment on them. The differences are more clearly traced in morphology.
I have already written, first, that the Tatar language goes back to an earlier language, second, that the suffixes of the Turkic languages come from ordinary Turkic words. So these words in the Tatar language have not always had time to turn into suffixes and still act as auxiliary words.
Such a clear example, the formation of the participle - a part of speech that combines the features of the verb with the features of the adjective. In the Kazakh language, the participle is formed by adding the suffix - atyn to the base (the imperative verb of the 2nd person singular), in the Uzbek language the suffix - digan, in the Altai languages - atan, - itan. In the Tatar language, the participle is formed by adding the suffix -a and the auxiliary word torgan to the verb stem, i.e. by adding the construction "- a torgan". The verb stem and the suffix "- a" are the present tense form of the verb. The word torgan arose as an explanation at a certain stage of language development, as a clarification that you have a participle in front of you, and not a present tense verb. In the Proto-Turkic language, the present tense form of the verb coincided with the participle, they were distinguished only by the meaning of the previous text. We see that in many Turkic languages, the participle suffixes differ from each other, and this indicates one thing, that these suffixes arose independently in each language, at a later time in the development of languages.
Now about the Etruscan language and dots inside words in writing. Since the writing of these languages has gone through certain stages of development, we have the right to assume that the presence of dots inside words is a legacy of a certain stage of writing development. Indirectly, this is confirmed by the appearance of word-separating dots in a text without word division for the convenience of the reader.
Consequently, the appearance of dots inside words can also be an element simplifying the reading or writing of the text, most likely, this is a consequence of the omission of some sign of writing. For example, the omission of the second repeating vowel letter, or the omission of a short letter as in Semitic languages. The application of dots may not always be necessary, but only in the case when the word cannot be perceived correctly by the reader, i.e. it is necessary mainly for rarely used compound words.
To confirm the above, let us turn to another written monument, where there are dots in words. For example, let us take the text of the Lemnos stele, the inscription is written in a language close to the Etruscan language.
The text
Transliteration
One in the picture:
hολαιε:ζ:ναφοθ:ζιαζιμαραζ:μαFσιαλχFειζ:αFιζεFισθο:ζεροναιθζιFαιακερ:ταFαρζιοFαναλασιαλ:ζεροναι: μοριναιλ
In the plaque:hολαιεζι:φοκιασιαλε:ζεροναιθ:εFισθο:τοFεροναρομ:hαραλιο:ζιFαι:επτεζιο:αραι:τιζ:φοκεζιFαι:αFιζ:σιαλχFιζ:μαραζμ:αFιζ:αομαι
On the stele there is the word Fαναλασιαλ, inside the word there are dots Fα·να·λα·σιαλ. According to our assumption, this is a simplification of writing, we will write the restored word Fαανααλαασιαλ, in Etruscan letters Vaanaalaasial. In Latin borrowings, Etruscan words containing the letter V are transmitted by the sound . We will write with word divisions Va ana ala asi al, where the latter is the common Turkic verb al - take, the front part of the whole Va ana ala asi participle. The Tatar verb yasa - do, in the present tense it looks like yasy - does and corresponds to the Etruscan asi.
In Tatar, to understand this complex word, you need to add the auxiliary word torgan to the Va ana ala asi construction, you get Va ana ala doing (asi torgan - doing). Or you can consider the asi part as a common Turkic suffix of the profession yasy > - sy > - tsy > - chy and translate the suffix with the word doing.
I think the word ala is understandable to all Turks, it corresponds to the Tatar word ala - takes. The construction ala asi - taking away. The initial linguistic part Va ana consists of the words Va and ana, the second word in the Tatar language is aŋa (аңа) - to him. It can be considered as a suffix of the directional case -na.
Earlier, I cited it as part of the word ištamanaššan from the language of the peoples of the sea.
The first word ba - father (so in Tatar too), in ancient Turkic aba - father. In the Etruscan language ara is father (this word is given by J.-N. Robert), but we think that the Etruscans had another meaning: Va – ancestor. Therefore, the combination of Va and ana – to the ancestor, possibly to the father. The whole word Va ana ala asi al – taking to the ancestor, take. I think that here it is more appropriate to use the feminine gender, since usually the goddess Astarte takes, Astarte in the Tatar language Os tarta (torgan) "Өс тарта (торган)" – pulling upward.
In the Proto-Turkic language, the present tense verb coincided with the participle. In the Etruscan language as well.
A couple of examples with participles
In the text of the Lemnos stele, one word will be clear - "aker".
The same:
in Tatar: akyr - shout, there is a word with a common semantics - "call" - "chakyr";
in English: cry;
in Russian: кричи, крик, etc., all have a common root;
in Hebrew: the name of the third book of the Pentateuch - וַיִּקְרָא Va-yikra - And he called,
קָרָא - לִקרוֹא, קוֹרֵא, יִקרָא - kara - likro, kore, yikra = 1. to read 2. to call 3. to name, to give a name
In Turkic languages, the verb stem is the imperative form of the 2nd person singular - akyr (to shout). What is presented in dictionaries - akyr, is the form of the verb of action, it determines the course of the process itself, a form specifically for the dictionary. The present tense form is formed by adding the suffix -a to the stem, i.e. akyr (to shout). In proto-Turkic languages, it is also a participle - shouting, in the Tatar language, the participle is formed by adding the auxiliary verb torgan (with the meaning of lived, was). The participle in Kazakh should be the stem + atyn, whoever knows the Kazakh language will tell us for sure, it should be akyratin, something like that. In the language of the Siberian Tatars, similar suffixes are used - atkyn, -atyn, -atagan, -atygyn. Other examples:
Al - take, ala - takes, ala torgan - taker;
Bar - go, bara - goes, bara torgan - walking;
Sal - put, sala - puts down, sala torgan - presenter.
In the bilingual text there is an expression sal cluvenias (a simplification is used, the second consonant is omitted), here sal c - presented, put as a gift. In the Etruscan language the past tense suffix is c, in the Tatar language it is gan.
The Turks are descendants of the Huns and the local population. Huns in the ancient Turkic language un uk ten unions, ten tribes, previously they were known as the ten lost tribes of Israel.
As is known, the Chuvash (descendants of the Suvars) moved away from the pagan religion later than other peoples and therefore retained interesting customs and rituals.
"... in the 18th century, after the creation of the Russian Academy of Sciences, academician G. Miller, S. Gmelin, P. Pallas and other researchers noted the Jewish-Biblical nature of a number of Chuvash pagan customs and rituals. In 1838, professor of the Kazan University H.M. Fren considered the Chuvash as a "settled branch of the ancient Khazars", i.e. part of the Khazars who adopted Judaism.
Later, many researchers, such as K. Milkovich, V.A. Sboev, N.I. Zolotnitsky and especially E. Malov, who even wrote a scientific work “The Influence of Jewry on the Chuvashes,” studied this problem.” Historian A.G. Mukhamadiev, who deciphered the Hunnic script, claims that it goes back to the Aramaic alphabet, and he came to the conclusion that the ancient Turkic alphabet arose through the reform of this alphabet.
A.Mukhamadiev - Turanian Writing - TurkicWorld
Wow, the Turks have something to do with the Israelis?!
Probably, among the twelve tribes, only two tribes were Semites. I have already cited the opinion of the ancient Roman historian Tacitus, who reports that the Jews came from Crete.
Josephus Flavius also writes that "In some book we have found an indication that the Jews and Lacedaemonians are of the same origin and trace their lineage equally from Abraham."
The Lacedaemonians (Spartans) considered the Heraclides to be their ancestors, and they in turn were descendants of Heracles, i.e. they were from the lineage of the mother wolf, the lineage of God. The Etruscans also consisted of twelve peoples. The Etruscans are et (God's, wolf's) ru (descendants in the Tatar language) and the suffix -ski (the same suffix in the ethnonym Pelaski).
The ancestors of the Jews as part of the Sea Peoples were captured by Egypt and ten tribes of them are the proto-Turks - the Huns. Therefore, the Torah (Тöre, türe) is law, Turkism.
Last edited:
