For the sake of anyone new reading this, I'll reiterate what I said when this came up earlier in the thread: claims that Etruscan (or indeed Sumerian or [insert famous language isolate here]) are Turkic are at best fringe linguistic theories, at worst complete pseudo-linguistics.
As Rob alludes to, Alinei's theories around PIE and connections between Turkic, Hungarian, and Etruscan have been classed as fringe theories.
Macro-language families, e.g. like Nostratic or Eurasiatic, are fun to imagine but they have never been proven and are likely unable to be proved. This is why they are fringe theories. Any original common ancestor language would date back so long ago that we cannot find meaningful and systemic commonalities in descendant languages that are distinguishable from random coincidence. The languages would have changed far too much in that time. Moreover, the Etruscan written corpus is limited and dates millennia after any hypothetical split, and we don't see any Turkic writings recognized until at least a millennia after that, and they are limited too.
On the genetic studies (which in this case do not help us with identifying the language family), there have been far more recent ones, including a couple that found little difference between Etruscans and their Latin contemporaries. How odd this wasn't mentioned. As a side note, in the context of Etruscan origin, it's pretty important not to read "Anatolian" as synonymous with "Turkic", given that this usually refers to Anatolia about two millennia before Turkic peoples arrived there.
As Rob alludes to, Alinei's theories around PIE and connections between Turkic, Hungarian, and Etruscan have been classed as fringe theories.
Macro-language families, e.g. like Nostratic or Eurasiatic, are fun to imagine but they have never been proven and are likely unable to be proved. This is why they are fringe theories. Any original common ancestor language would date back so long ago that we cannot find meaningful and systemic commonalities in descendant languages that are distinguishable from random coincidence. The languages would have changed far too much in that time. Moreover, the Etruscan written corpus is limited and dates millennia after any hypothetical split, and we don't see any Turkic writings recognized until at least a millennia after that, and they are limited too.
On the genetic studies (which in this case do not help us with identifying the language family), there have been far more recent ones, including a couple that found little difference between Etruscans and their Latin contemporaries. How odd this wasn't mentioned. As a side note, in the context of Etruscan origin, it's pretty important not to read "Anatolian" as synonymous with "Turkic", given that this usually refers to Anatolia about two millennia before Turkic peoples arrived there.
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)