Etruscan

[Daniel Newhouse]

Every language has two fundamental characteristics, the language and the alphabet. If a language has no historically known antecedent, in either language or alphabet, there is a question of whether or not it can be considered native. Aboriginal is consistent with the idea that we are all from the garden of Eden, in northern Iraq. A native language fundamentally implies settlers came straight from heaven. Aramaic and Hebrew appear to have no antecent. It may be true that Etruscan has no antecedent either. That's what I'm wondering about.

 

[Sabertooth]

You are not factoring in the Tower of Babel [Genesis 11:1-8]. That should have created multiple base languages on-the-spot.

 

[Daniel Newhouse]

Delhi, India. The Qutab Minar, which has a picture on the wikipedia, is the closest to what I remember of the Tower of Babel.

 

[JIMINZ]

You would also have to ascertain where the peoples that populated Tuscany originally came from, and were they the only peoples to migrate there.

 

[drjean]

I thought the Roman language was an antecedent for Etruscan.

 

[Radagast]

It may be true that Etruscan has no antecedent either. That's what I'm wondering about.

The origins of Etruscan are unclear. The writing, however, is adapted from Phoenician (like Hebrew, Latin, Greek, and every other alphabetic writing system).

 

[Radagast]

I thought the Roman language was an antecedent for Etruscan.

The Romans conquered the Etruscans.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I thought the Roman language was an antecedent for Etruscan.

The Romans have a close relationship to the Etruscans. The Etruscans were an older civilization, supposedly ultimately originating in Lydia in Anatolia, according to classic sources (this is backed up by genetic evidence that Tuscan cattle are closely related to cattle from the Anatolian highlands).

Rome early came under their tutelage. Their last 3 kings were perhaps Etruscan before becoming a Republic (Tarquinius Priscus and Tarquinius Superbus universally, Servius Tullius too according to Claudius). Some modern scholars think the first four kings are mythical and that Rome was in fact an Etruscan foundation.

The Romans adopted their Alphabet, slightly modified for Latin, as well as their numbers, from the Etruscans. A lot of the Roman gods and religious practices, like Haruspicy and the new Capitoline Triad, are of Etruscan origin. Many Etruscan words entered Latin early on, and some prominent Roman families, like the Claudii, are of Etruscan origin.

The Etruscans are essentially Rome's tutors (as Greece was to Macedon, say). They spoke a probably non-Indo European language, perhaps related to the native languages of Lemnos and Imbros in the Aegian. This is the Pelasgian hypothesis, that they represent an earlier strata of languages later displaced by Greek and Italic languages. This hypothetical family is called the Tyrsenian languages, after Tyrrhenians, another name for the Etruscans. They are all poorly attested, so it is a bit dodgy.

The Romans gradually conquered Etruria after driving out their last Etruscan monarch (with some reversals too), finally absorbing the Etruscans fully into the Roman body politic by 100 BC. The Etruscan language was completely replaced by Latin by the 2nd century AD.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

What do you mean by "antecedent" language? Any language isolate, like Sumerian, cannot be shown to descend from another language.
Hebrew and Aramaic are both West Semitic languages, so descent from a reconstructed common West-Semitic, then proto-Semitic, then a proto-Afroasiatic (Hamito-Semitic) languages has been reconstructed on linguistic grounds. They thus do have antecedents. What exactly are you trying to show or investigate here? Descent of language from heaven?

It reminds me of the debate in Mediaeval times that either Greek, Latin or Hebrew was the original language, as that was what was written on Christ's titulus on the cross. (Nevermind that that 'Hebrew' was likely Aramaic). Or Augustine arguing Hebrew was the original language, via Heber and his son Peleg, for the division following Babel.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The origins of Etruscan are unclear. The writing, however, is adapted from Phoenician (like Hebrew, Latin, Greek, and every other alphabetic writing system).

Etruscan is probably an adaptation from a variant of the Greek Alphabet. So Phoenician became Greek became Etruscan became the Latin Alphabet by direct descent. Etruscan did not derive directly from Phoenician.
Their numerical system is original though, probably based on notches cut in tally sticks. These later morphed or came to resemble the letters in the Latin Alphabet.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

You would also have to ascertain where the peoples that populated Tuscany originally came from, and were they the only peoples to migrate there.

Classically, the Etruscans were said to come from Lydia in modern Turkey. This is supported by genetic evidence of Tuscan cattle, the myth of Anchises being carried by Aeneas that is much loved by the Romans and Etruscans, and is the basis for the proposed Tyrsenian languages (along with some similarities noted in extinct Aegean tongues, but very poorly attested).

An alternate hypothesis is a relation to Rhaetic, that the Etruscans were an internal Italian development of the Villanovan culture. In this, it is perhaps even a distant relation of the Indo-European languages.

I find the first more convincing myself, but people nowadays always want to discount volkewanderung or large scale migration, in spite of the fact that we see such occuring in history and in real time. It might be though, that the similarity was noted, and both are islands of language left over from Indo-European invasions (similar to Aroromanian languages in Slavic lands today). Perhaps something like the Doric invasions replaced them with Proto-Greek, Proto-Albanian, etc?

 

[Radagast]

Etruscan did not derive directly from Phoenician.

Via archaic Greek, yes (not via the modern Greek alphabet).

 

[Daniel Newhouse]

What is the primogeniture (i think I'm using that word correctly) of the semetic family of languages? Semitism? Does that mean that the Semetic languages were derived from Hebrew? Is this a different path of development from "Indo-European" languages which is everything else in the world pretty much?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

What is the primogeniture (i think I'm using that word correctly) of the semetic family of languages? Semitism? Does that mean that the Semetic languages were derived from Hebrew? Is this a different path of development from "Indo-European" languages which is everything else in the world pretty much?

Semitic is a subgroup of the Afro-Asiatic (old name Hamito-Semitic) language family. It is debatable where it arose, but somewhere from Arabia to Anatolia. Hebrew is descended from Proto-Semitic, as are the other Semitic languages - they aren't descended from Hebrew (which has no descendants as far as I am aware). Aramaic was a separate Semitic language, a cousin to Hebrew cognatically, that replaced Hebrew as spoken tongue amongst the Jews, because it was the lingua franca of the Neo-Assyrian and Persian Empires. Modern Hebrew Alphabet is descended from the Imperial Aramaic Alphabet for instance.

Indo-European languages probably have an ancient homeland or 'urheimat' in the Russian steppe. There Proto-Indo European arose that sent out waves of different languages creating the various families - Italic, Greek, Albanian, Celtic, Germanic, Slavic into Europe; Hittite into Anatolia with Phrygian and Armenian entering later; Indo-Aryan to Iran and the North Indian languages; Exctinct Tocharian toward China.

The two large language families have no clear relation between them, but some hypothetise a Macro-family called Nostratic of which both Indo-European and Afro-Asiatic are subdivisions, but such macro-families are highly speculative.

 

[Radagast]

What is the primogeniture (i think I'm using that word correctly) of the semetic family of languages? Semitism? Does that mean that the Semetic languages were derived from Hebrew? Is this a different path of development from "Indo-European" languages which is everything else in the world pretty much?

No, Indo-European is just Europe, Persia, and North India.

Semitic languages (Arabic, Hebrew, etc.) are a branch of Afro-Asiatic. See picture at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hamito-Semitic_languages.jpg

Indo-European, Afro-Asiatic, and South Indian languages (plus a few others) form a super-family (possibly Nostratic, as stated by @Quid est Veritas?, but the super-family boundaries are debated).

Outside that super-family are African, Australian Asian, American, and Pacific languages.

 

[Rubiks]

Indo-European doesn't include every major language in Europe. Finnish, Hungarian, and Sami are part of the Uralic language family, whereas Basque is a language isolate (meaning not known to be related to any other language — hence why dumb conspiracy theories about Basque arise)