16-04-2022, 08:14 PM
(16-04-2022, 01:57 PM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(16-04-2022, 12:49 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Stick to the facts.
The 1970 statement is outdated and not true.
Erkruskers are Europeans. More precisely, they are northern Italians.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
I am beginning to suspect that you are trying to justify your theory about the history of 4000 years and by scraping together words from all over the Near East.
There is no connection between VM and Turkish, and yes, the Europeans came from the East 40,000 years ago. But that's probably not it.
I think you've got yourself into something too, and you're stuck.
[I agree with you on your general point about where this is all going (and where it's coming from), but since the other thread on this issue included a lengthy diatribe that we Europeans are going around "claiming" languages, I just wanted to flag that the Etruscan language is unlikely to be Indo-European.
Very little is known about Etruscan's origin. We can read its words aloud because it uses an earlier version of the alphabet. We even know the meaning of a small range of words thanks to comparative texts. While the range is very small due to paucity of Etruscan texts, the words show enough differences with the various branches of Indo-European for the general consensus amongst linguists to be that Etruscan is probably not an Indo-European language.
But the range is also too small for any respectable theory connecting it to another big language family. There are no grounds for saying Etruscan is Turkic or indeed part of any big language family. It is doubtful that we will ever know what family it belonged to. There simply isn't enough linguistic material to do a proper comparison. Any such theories are just fringe theories.
In terms of the Etruscan people (worth noting that language origin doesn't always correlate with genetic origin, even if it seems likely), there have been theories about where they came from for millennia. The standard two alternatives seem to be that they had been indigenous to the area for a long time, or they migrated from the Near East, which was not Turkic at the time. It seems every few years there's a new DNA analysis of corpses or cattle arguing one or the other.]
Dear Tavie,
We already know that there were those who linked the Etruscan scripts to the Indo-European language family with a few anagrams of fictitious reading. We should also say that all the Etruscan texts unearthed correspond to the Turkic language or are read in Turkish. In my comment above, I referenced the names and work of some of the scientists who made these readings. So if you don't see a difference between reading a few words anagrams and reading all the texts, that's your opinion.
In fact, readings in Voynich texts had progressed almost in a similar way. If you want it to be one of the European languages, if you give name the transcription like "European Voynich Alphabet" ( which means you are allowing a pre-created direction to control your perceptions) and if you do not take into account the language of the Turks, (who lived closest to Europe) in your "scientific studies", you will either not get results or you will make claims by reading 10 words as anagrams. This is pretty clear to me.
There is no such thing as opposing genetic outcomes in this issue. There are cases where the genetic results are skewed in the articles written. For example, you can write that there are mixed peoples in the geography you see R1b. Or, instead of saying Turks & Turkish, you can say, "It can overlap with the examples taken from many different ethnic groups living in Anatolia, including the Armenian, Greek and Kurdish (minorities)." We also clearly see this kind of biased writing style. It can be seen in Western pseudo-scientific articles coming from academic base usually. It is no different between deviating from reality were using such paths with an ostrich sticking its head in the sand to avoid seeing the truth.
If you are happy with what you can see and what is in your head, of course, do not disturb your comfort at all. Happiness is good and we don't want to miss it with our articles.
Kind regards