Etymological Dictionary of Etruscan Words: Updated Version

LANGUAGE ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS OF GRAMMATICAL TERMS

OTHER ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS*

* In the transcription of inscriptions, the underlined letters indicate that they belong to ligatures.

ABBREVIATIONS OF ETRUSCAN TEXTS

ABBREVIATIONS OF SOURCES QUOTED IN THE TEXT

CIE = Corpus inscriptionum Etruscarum, Leipzig 1893 ­ Firenze > Roma 2017. CII = Fabretti Ariodante (ed.), 1867, Corpus inscriptionum Italicarum, Torino. CIL = Corpus inscriptionum Latinarum, Berlin, 1863­

CSE = Corpus speculorum Etruscarum (various volumes from different countries).

ES = Gerhard Eduard, Etruskische Spiegel, I­IV, 1840­67.

ES V = Klügmann A., Körte G., Etruskische Spiegel V, Berlin 1884­97.

ET = Rix Helmut (Ed.) 1991, Etruskische Texte. Editio minor. Bd. II. Texte. Tübingen.

ET² = Meiser Gerhard (Ed.) 2014, Etruskische Texte. Editio minor. Bd. II. Texte. Hamburg.

Furt. = A. Furtwängler, Die antiken Gemmen I­III, Leipzig­Berlin, 1900.

NRIE = Buffa Mario 1935, Nuova raccolta di iscrizioni etrusche. Firenze.

NSA = Notizie degli Scavi di Antichità [f.e.: NSA­1919­100]

LFal. = Giacomelli Gabriella 1963, La lingua falisca, Firenze

REE = Rivista di epigrafia etrusca in Studi etruschi.

Sc.Ant. = Scienze dell’Antichità (review).

Schum. = Schumacher Stefan, 2004, Die rätischen Inschriften. Geschichte und heutiger Stand der Forschung. Innsbruck.

ScrE = Scrivere etrusco catalogo della mostra a cura di Roncalli Francesco, Milano 1985.

SE = Studi etruschi (review).

TLE = Pallottino Massimo 1968, Testimonia Linguae Etruscae, Firenze (2nd edition).

Zazoff = Zazoff Peter 1968, Etruskische Skarabäen, Mainz.

INTRODUCTION

1. Only the comparative method can produce certain or reliable interpretations.

I began to study the Etruscan texts and related literature assiduously in 1980. Thanks to my ignorance, I was free from the prejudices assimilated by the academic Etruscologists towards anything that could appear as an etymological or comparative method, which they deemed inapplicable to Etruscan, given the failed results of those who had attempted to interpret Etruscan words and short sequences with this method. However, it seemed impossible to me that the Etruscans had not acquired many roots or lexemes from the Indo­European languages of the peoples they lived with before settling in Italy and then from the Italic ones. Since archeology documented their contacts and active trades, which went as far as Germany and France as well as Greece, I thought that somehow they must have communicated with the people who surrounded them or with whom they lived together in some territories and therefore inevitably absorbed word stems by adapting them to their phonemes.

Etruscan onomastics includes many names of Italic origin, but also other names which, although I was very ignorant and lacking the necessary tools to evaluate, seemed to me to derive from Germanic lexemes: see e.g. Crampe, Craufa, Craupania, Cretlu, Crunsle (> Crusle, Crusel) Cnepni, Malavisχ, etc. Now I am even more convinced of this Germanic stratum, having noticed that also the very numerous Ligurian inscriptions of Liguria, Lunigiana and the Tuscan­Emilian Apennine contain a fair number of words comparable with those of Proto­Germanic, although Ligurian is structurally and lexically an Indo­European language of the Italic type (Zavaroni 2011a, 2021). Moreover, some Ligurian stems have immediate correspondences in Etruscan.

I doubt the affirmation of Livy (5, 33. 9­11) according to which the Etruscans, before the dominion of Rome, after having founded cities in the southern regions of the Tuscan­Emilian Apennine, would then have deduced colonies north of the Apennines and beyond the Po to the foot of the Alps, except the corner of the Veneti, who are settled around the gulf of the Adriatic Sea. Without a doubt — Livy affirms — this is also the origin of the Alpine peoples, especially of the Rhaeti; but the very nature of the places has barbarized them to such an extent that of the ancient identity they retain only the pronunciation, and that too is altered.

In my view it is more probable that the kinship of Rhaetian and also Camunian with Etruscan dates back to an era more ancient than that of the foundation of Etruscan cities in central and southern Italy and that Rhaetians and Etruscans were heirs of nomadic populations which around the 12th CBC, began to arrive in Italy from the valleys of the eastern Alps, where they settled giving rise to the Proto­Villanovan and then to the Villanovan culture. Probably some of these nomadic populations, due to their continuous movements, spoke a sort of lingua franca or pidgin with a vocabulary acquired here and there and very simplified morphology and syntax especially in relation to the conjugation of verbs. But before coming to Italy, for a long time they were in close contact with Germanic populations from which they acquired numerous terms that show a consonant shift similar to that of Proto­Germanic and are traceable back to Germanic lexemes. Probably the most ancient Indo­European stratum absorbed by the Etruscans was the Germanic one.

Referring to the mainstream division into voiceless stops, voiced stops and voiced aspirated, in general it may be said that the PIE voiced stops shifted into Etr. voiceless and PIE voiceless into aspirated voiceless. Since there were no voiced stops, Etruscan /h/, /f/, /θ/ could also match PIE /gh/, /ph/, /dh/. The absence of voiced stops raises further questions not only on the origin of the Etruscan language, but also on the stop inventory of Proto­Indo­European and on the existence of ejective or glottalized stops. But my ignorance does not allow me even to touch on such a subject.

In the Orientalizing period, when the Etruscans had settled in Italy since some centuries, the shift PIE voiceless > Etr. aspirated voiceless did not occur in various Italic personal names such as Petru, Pumpu, Klavtie < Claudius, etc. The equivalent gentilicia Cupsna, Cupslna ‘Lying’ coexisted with hupnina ‘couch, bed’, although they had the same root, the lexeme *tenof tenu (same root as Lat. teneō) was not subjected to aspiration and not even the pof *pet­, while in other terms derived from PIE *pet(it can be demonstrated) the aspiration affected the dental (*peθ­). In more recently acquired terms, the aspiration was more tenuous than that of the Proto­Etruscan and over the centuries tended to disappear especially in the consonant that closes the root: e.g. χuliχna (< Gr. κύλιξ) is dated to the 6th and culiχna to the 5th century (both in Campania), while the archaic θafna regressed to more recent θapna (tafina in Ager Faliscus), θefarie changed into θepri and preχu to precu. In particular χvestna changed into χestna > cestna with the reduction from labiovelar to aspirated velar also noticeable in χiś (< *ku̯ei̯s­­) and χim(θ). Therefore the constant linguistic contact with Italic peoples caused a regression of the aspiration especially within the word. Obviously the aforementioned framework concerns a part of the Etruscan lexicon and, as will be seen, does not help to solve particular problems.

The numerals, names such as seχ ‘daughter’ and ruva ‘brother’, various morphological and syntactic forms show that originally Etruscan was not an Indo­European language; but this, in my opinion, should not have exempted scholars from trying to find out if other words had been acquired from Indo­European languages, in addition to some vase names or technical terms borrowed from the Greeks. Etruscologists reject the etymological method, but they do not shy away from attributing a meaning to this or that Etruscan term. E.g. it may happen that the word tamera is interpreted as ‘title (of official, operator?)’ (Pallottino), ‘title of magistrate’ (G. and L. Bonfante), ‘cell’ (Belfiore), ‘tomb, funeral chamber’ (Morandi). The last two interpretations are close to the truth which could be reached with greater expectations of reliability if one kept in mind that tamera can be traced back to the root *dem­/domof Lat. domus, since it was subjected to the shifts /d/ > /t/ and /o/ > /a/ characterizing Proto­Germanic. It seems clear to me that as for any other ancient language even for Etruscan only the comparative method allows us to try to verify if the interpretation of a word is reliable in all the contexts in which it is attested. The stems that can be interpreted with certainty thanks to the so­called combinatory method are just over a dozen, but for at least half of them (e.g. apa, svalce, lupu, avil, husiur = huśur, śuθi, in my opinion also ati ‘mother’) the meaning is verifi­ able with etymological research. For some words, an interpretation based on assonance has been attempted: for example, many etruscologists have assumed that Etr. spurta corresponded to Lat. sporta ‘wicker basket’ and Etr. cletra to Umbrian kletra (whose meaning is disputed), but the first comparison is completely wrong, while Etr. cletra and U. kletra can be traced back to the same root, but their meaning is not exactly the one generally assumed (‘basket, cart, stretcher, pack­saddle; also ‘litter’ was supposed): U. kletra can be translated as ‘cohaerens, connector’ > ‘leash’ and Etr. cletra as ‘connection, conjuncture’ (see s.v.). The fact is that etruscologists are far from reliably translating even short sequences of long texts and even recurring formulas in short votive or gift inscriptions. The comparative method also offers the advantage that the meanings deemed reliable are used to proceed with the interpretation of the other words of the text and thus consolidate or abandon previous interpretations.

By applying the interpretations proposed in the present work, I could obtain a complete, sensible and logical translation of the Liber linteus (LLZ), the Tabula Capuana (TCap), the Tabula Cortonensis (TCo), the Golden Plates of Pyrgi (LPy), the Lamella of Heba or Magliano (HebaL), most of the text on the Cippus of Perugia (CiPer), vascular and funerary inscriptions, captions of figures in frescoes and mirrors and, not least, the interpretation of many family names associated with cognomina semantically related to them.

2. The importance of recognizing the sibilants /s/ and /ss/.

The application of the comparative method leads to the interpretation of the aforementioned texts if one abandons the thesis, still accepted by Etruscologists, that Etruscan had two sibilants: one postdental (/s/) and the other palatal (/š/). As Marcello Durante had already argued in 1969, in northern and southern Etruscan writing there are two letters denoting a sibilant because one of them marks /s/ and the other marks an emphatic or intensive sound /ss/, and not because their place of articulation is different. Unfortunately Durante’s indications received no consideration, because an opposite thesis, supported in the same year by the influential Helmut Rix and Carlo de Simone, quickly spread: according to them the other sibilant was palatal (/š/). Such a theory is still the cause of many interpretative impasses in which today's Etruscologists end up. In 2001, after a brief exchange of letters, the Indo­Europeanist Roberto Gusmani found reasonable the arguments, including the epigraphic ones, that I proposed hoping to give new breath to the thesis of the emphatic sibilant /ss/: he published in the journal Incontri Linguistici 25 (2002), directed by him, my article Sulla presunta sibilante palatale in etrusco. My theses were rejected (in passing) by Luciano Agostiniani (Studi Etruschi 72 [2007]: 179­180) who reaffirmed that Etruscan had two sibilants: one postdental (e.g. Italian sera) and the other palatal (Italian scena). He added:

… ce lo dice non solo la distribuzione, in area settentrionale, della s interpretata come palatale, che compare, appunto, in contesti tipicamente palatalizzanti, quali la presenza di glide palatale, o anche di vocale palatale alta; ma anche, dirimente, la costante tipologica per cui, se una lingua ha due sibilanti, una è la s postdentale, l’altra la š palatale.

[= … not only we can infer this from the distribution, in the northern area, of the s interpreted as palatal, which appears, in fact, in typically palatalizing contexts, such as the presence of a palatal glide, or even a high palatal vowel, tells us this; but also, decisively, from the typological constant for which, if a language has two sibilants, one is the postdental s, the other the palatal š].

That Etruscan had two different sibilants is an a priori assumption established since 1969 by

Etruscologists of undoubted importance. As proof that s is palatal in northern writing Rix (1984: 221) adduced the existence of sianś­l and sanś /šans{l}/, name of divinity and of husiur = southern huśur ‘boys’. But in my view sianś (< *stīhanos) is a name indicating a public charge (‘inspector’ or ‘viator, messenger’) and sanś (from PIE *stān‘to establish’) is the second member of the compound theonym Tecsanś (TLE 624) = Tece:sanś (TLE 651) ‘the one who decides the sentence’. As for husiur (North) = huśur (South) ‘sons’ (not ‘boys’), the presence of i in husiur can have causes other than signaling the palatization of s: cf. Gr. υἱóς = ὑóς ‘son’. However, it should be noted that in husiur = huśur the sound expressed by s (North) and ś (South) is not an emphatic /ss/ as in most cases, but the sonorous spirant /z/ as in Italian fuso, fusione, which derived from the same root as husiur = huśur, i.e. from PIE *ĝheu‘to pour, shed’. Indeed, as will be seen several times, since there was no sign denoting the voiced sibilant /z/, generally the letter used to mark /z/ was the one denoting /ss/ rather than the other denoting /s/. Analogously, in the Pyrgi plates and in Caere inscriptions, s̓( ) could mark both the emphatic voiceless sibilant /ss/ and the voiced sibilant /z/.

It should be noted that proponents of the existence of a palatal sibilant — beyond examples similar to those mentioned above — never attempted to explain why in Etruscan a fair number of the attested words would begin with a palatal sibilant followed by any vowel or diphthong. They see a confirmation of their thesis in the fact that sometimes the letter which in their opinion denotes /š/ is in positions judged palatalizing and they deduce from this position that the spirant is palatal. If, on the contrary, it is assumed that an Etruscan word begins with an emphatic sibilant /ss/, the explanation is very simple: /ss/ is the result of a shift from PIE /st/ > /sþ/ > /sts/ > /ss /. It occurred before a long vowel or a diphthong: e.g. śuθi (southern writing) = suθi (northern writing) /ssūþi/ ‘house, resting place > sepulchre’ reflects a PIE *stōt­i‘room, guarded place, resting place’: cf. ON stōð ‘id.’, OE stōd ‘house, city’, OFris. stōd ‘place, site’.

The change from /st/ to /ss/ in Etruscan continued to occur even when certain gentilicia of Latin or Italic origin (e.g. Statie, Statlanes, Stepre, Stultnei, etc.) were acquired without this change. In particular, it occurred in late Etruscan in the patronyms and gamonyms in ­sa or ­śa (/­ssa/) in which /­ssa/ was the result of /­s/+/tā/, due to the affixion of the deictic ta ‘that’ (for any gender) to the genitive of the name of the father or husband to allude to the son, daughter or wife. The composition should be evident from the following examples:

There is unanimous agreement on the interpretations limurces̓ta pruχum ‘of Limurce this (is) the oinochoe’ and maiflnasta mi ‘I (am) that (patera) of Maiflna’: ta is notoriously a deictic added to the name of the owner in the genitive case¹. Since caisieśa mi is structured as maiflnasta mi, it must be assumed that caisieśa contains a deictic. The only attested Etruscan deictics are e/ita, e/ica, ta and ca (nom. case). Of these, only ta can yield the shift ­s+ta > ­śa (in Southern writing).

The existence of a deictic /(i)ša/ used only for ‘articulated’ forms and almost exclusively in the genitive of personal names is simply a Rix's find (1984: 230) and it was immediately accepted due to his fame as a linguist. According to Rix, in the forms in ­aliσa and ­aliσla the ­iprobably represents the sound of transition from the velar [ł] to the palatal [š], as well as ­vin larθialiσvle, a in larθialiσala, ­vain ]σvala (all three [attested] only once) is the transition sound from [š] to the following [ł]. Rix adds: Before ­(i)σa the final a of the suffix ­l(a) has disappeared (­la­iσa could have given **­leσa). But there is no reason to believe that the a disappeared, given that in fact ­aishould have given ­eas it normally did in Etruscan and in some cases (not concerning the afore­ mentioned ­i­) the monophthongization ai > ei > ī took place over time. Generally larθ(i)alisa denotes ‘the one (son or daughter) of Larth’. For example, in θana : arinei : perisaliśa (Dolciano, Ager Clusinus; 2nd CBC; CIE 1159), Perisaliśa clearly means ‘that (wife) of Peris’ (Peris is a cognomen of the gentilicium Pulfna). In CIE 1179, 1180, 1211, etc. Ateinalisa, Velθritialisa, Larcnalisa, etc. instead are matronymics: ‘the one (son) of an Ateinei (woman)’, etc.

If we assume that *Perisalis, *Larθ(i)aliś, *Ateinaliś, *Velθritialiś, *Larcnaliś, etc. are adjectival forms in /­ālis/ used in personal names in confidential language (on the other hand some scholars assumed that even the genitives in ­al were originally adjectives), we can see that, as usual, the deictic ­ta was affixed to the adjectival form: larθ(i)alisa < *larθ(i)aliś+ta means ‘the Larthialis, that of Laris’. The gen. larθ(i)alisla < *larθ(i)aliśtla was used when it was related to a PN in genitive cf. ravnθu velχai velθuruśa seχ larθialiśla ‘Ravinthu daughter of Velthur, that (son) of Larth’ (CIE 5402). In arnθaliśala (CIE 5739) the syncope of a in the ending ­iśala < ­is+tala did not occur. This thesis of the adjectival forms in /­alis/ can be considered equally questionable as the one assumed by Rix, since its use would be limited as well as that of the conjectured pronoun ­(i)σa, but at least it can be placed in the broader framework relating to the use of the postponed deictic ­ta. On the other hand it recalls the use of the Latin adjectives in ­alis and in particular of those such as Martialis, Quirinalis, Portunalis, etc. referring to deities.

Rix (1984: 220­221) mentions the aforementioned Durante's thesis based on the orthography of forms such as northern Causlinissa, opposite Cauślinisa (normal rendering), and HANNOSSA opposite hanusa; but he thinks that the gemination of s in these cases, limited to the morpheme of the «articulated» genitive, was born in particular morphological conditions, and therefore is not typical of the phoneme. According to Rix, in gamonymics or patronymics such as Tutnasa or Aneśa the ­s of the genitive is assimilated to the /š/ of the «article»: the geminate /šš/ is recorded only exceptionally in the writing (Causlinissa). I don't understand if he believed that also the latinized PABASSA, HANNOSSA, GARGOSSA (and consequently the Latin terms Cassius, fessus, ossua, esse, etc.) were pronounced with /šš/ or /ss/. However, I am sure that with the thesis that the Etruscans pronounced a palatal sibilant, no word containing such a sibilant in initial position will ever be interpreted correctly.

According to Agostiniani (quoted above) southern writing is characterized by a first phase of graphic under­differentiation, in the sense that the sigma was used for both postdental and palatal sibilant. I don't know which first phase he is referring to; but in the Tabula of Capua the sigma (= s) is used instead of the sade ( = ś) in only one case: we have isvane instead of *iśvane. Perhaps according to the scribe the current pronunciation was no longer /issvane/ (< */istvane/), although he still correctly spelled iśveitule (/issveitule/ < /istu̯eitule/) which has the same root. It is possible that ś was also used for the voiced sibilant /z/ which Agostiniani does not mention, but which was certainly already pronounced both in the North and in the South Etruria and which, not being codified, theoretically left the scribe the faculty of choosing between sigma and sade. This is the case, in the TCap, of lunaśie, pacusnaśie versus savlasie and of fulinuśnaiθ versus natinusnal: there was probably no common practice in the pronunciation of s followed by n.

To conclude, the comparison between the possession formula of the type limurces̓ta, cupesta, maiflnasta and that of the type limrceśa, caisieśa, velieśa in my view clearly indicates that ­śa is the result of ­s+tā and therefore I cannot believe that ­śa was pronounced /­ša/.

3. Initial PIE /st-/ > Etr. /ts-/ before a short vowel and /str-/ > /sr-/.

Another fundamental change that must be kept in mind when looking for the etymology of an Etruscan word is that from PIE /st­/ to Etr. /ts/denoted by the letter z. It occurred before any short vowel. The same shift occurred in the Camunian divine names zeko²lau, zeriau, zerau, zupeu (in my opinion the Camunian language, like the Rhaetic one, was strongly related to Etruscan) and also in the Gaulish theonym Sirona, Thirona, Đirona /tsirona/ which corresponds to Etr. Zirna (from *h2ster‘star; to shine’). On the other hand various Irish and Welsh words also show the develop­ ment /st­/ > /*ts­/ > /s­/.

T he PIE group /str­/ in initial position changed into Etr. /sr­/: before r, /st/ changed into /s/ instead of /ts/. For example, the family name Sraplunia (f.) derived from the root *streb(h)­ ‘to turn, twist, crook’ which is also the root of Gr. στρεβλóς ‘turned, twisted, crooked, cunning’, στρóβoς ‘whirl’, στραβóς ‘squinting’ (> Lat. strabus, strabō, strambus), στρέφω ‘to twist, turn’, etc. Therefore the latinized gent.+cogn. TITIVS SRABLIO (CIE 1297­98) — in which TITIVS keeps the sense of Tite ‘Good’ from which it derives — means ‘Good Bend, Good Turn’ and alludes to good luck like other compounds containing synonyms of Tite and *Sraplu.

The contexts of śran, sren, srenχve show that they are referable to the root *strengh‘to draw, drag; tie, attach’ of MIr. srengim ‘to draw, drag’, ON strengja ‘to bind together’, OE strengan ‘to attach’, E string (out) ‘to tie with threads or ropes, thread, line up’. Probably the gent. Srupinas derived from the o­grade of *streb(h)­ ‘to turn’, but there is no context that allows verification. Śrutznei is also devoid of context and moreover the etymological research is complicated by the fact that it could be traced back to at least two different roots one of which is *sreu‘to flow’ (without t) and the other could be *stred­/strod‘to jut out’ (on both see Kroonen 2013: 485, 486).

4. Verbs (LLZ, TCap, TCo, CiPer, LPy).

I list here the verbs in my opinion present in the five major Etruscan texts. It is useless to explain here the reasons for my disagreement with many of the proposals made by Wylin (2000) and other scholars in their works on Etruscan verbs. Of course my disagreement does not concern the forms in ­cu, ­ce, ­(e)ri, ­u already known to previous scholars. I’m just saying that I find it difficult to understand how one can recognize categories like the durative or the aspect in a verb without knowing whether the meaning attributed to it is correct or without interpreting the other terms of its context². In the current state of Etruscan studies, it seems to me that it is convenient to speak simply of the present as opposed to the forms of preterite, leaving aside categories such as jussive, injunctive, durative, prospective, annexive. Moreover, I don’t see how one can remain in doubt whether raχθ, trinθ, nunθenθ, caveθ, acilθ, heχśθ of the LLZ are imperatives or participles: the comparison between various passages of the text should clarify that these are imperatives. Besides, the choice between the two options is not favoured by attributing to those terms meanings based on momentary inspiration. In the above­mentioned verbs the morpheme ­θ probably corresponds to the Umbrian and Lat. ­to of the imperative II, but there are other forms that act both as an imperative and as a present indicative.

Etruscologists generally do not suppose that the forms in ­ne can be singular present participles in a direct case³. I assumed this thesis in 1996 and in subsequent studies I have always found confirmation in my attempts to interpret various texts. Of these present participles/gerunds a temporal form in ­ni (< *­ne+i, probably from ­ne+in) and a plural direct case form in ­n(e)­θi > ­n(e)­ti also exist. The plural participles/gerunds in ­n(e)­θi are generally mistaken for a locative. In fact the locative of a noun in ­na can have the same ending: e.g. hupnineθi, huzrneθi, reuχzineti are in the locative case (­na + genitival ­i + loc. suffix ­θi); but spelaneθi (< spelane+θi) and reneθi (CiPer) are plural gerunds/participles. In the LLZ repinθi (< *repineθi) is certainly the plural of repine ‘inclined, propitious’ which is attested in another passage.

In snuiaφ ‘it will flow, run’ (LPy) the ending ­aφ seems to correspond to Lat. ­abof the future indicative of 1st conjugation. In fact, the context requires a future.

Below I list the verbs that in my opinion are attested in LPy (6th CBC), TCap (5th CBC), LLZ (2nd CBC), TCo and CiPer (3rd­2nd CBC).

necessitative in ­eri and ­ri.

TCap: faniri, sacri, nunθeri, zizri, acasri, θanurari, picasri.

LLZ: θezeri, ścunueri, meleri, sveleri, caperi, huteri, pruθseri, θaχśeri, ampileri (or amplieri), eθri, spetri, χaśri, śucri.

CiPer: fuśleri.

present indicative, imperative, exhortative ending in a vowel

LPy: aca.

TCap: 3sg. perpri (not necessitative!) zusle, ei, ara, ratu, teθu, śuri, faca, saca, tule, χei, cli; 3pl.

scuvse, vaci, χra, riza.

LLZ: θezi (imp.; θezin is a pres.indic.), celi, heci, hecia, θuni, eśi, usi, luri, turi, carsi, zati, faci (3pl.), face (sg.), sese, zuśle, faśei > faśe, θucte, mene, mele (> mel), ale (> al), ara (> ar), une > un (3pl.: unum), cla (also 3pl.), snua, trau, χuru, hia, caθra (sg.), caθre (3pl.), zarve (if it is not a noun predicate without the verb ‘to be’).

TCo (only pres. ind.) 3sg.: tèrsna, tènθa, sera; 3pl.: nuθe, male, cenu (probably pres.).

CiPer 3sg.: cape, hare, mena, zia, masu; 3pl.: cla, zuci; perhaps cenu and helu are preterites or both pres. and pret. forms.

present indicative, imperative, exhortative ending in ­n:

LLZ: θezin, θesnin, θaχśin hanθin, hinθθin, mutin, vaθinum (3pl. denoted by ­um), petsin, ceśasin

= cesasin, ścanin, favin, firin, trin (3pl.: trinum), nuθin, lecin, tutin, śin, hetrn, ceren, nunθen, matan, slapiχun.

TCo: śran (3sg.).

CiPer: hen (3sg.), śran (3sg.?)

present indicative, imperative, exhortative ending in ­(u)m:

LLZ: ceśum, mucum, seθum, ratum (3pl.), hetum.

TCo: ratm (3sg.).

present indicative, imperative, exhortative ending in /­s/

TCap: acas, picas (3sg.).

LLZ: aruś, s[e]raś.

TCo: èpruś (3pl.).

present indicative, imperative, exhortative ending in other consonants.

TCap: 3sg.: nunθ, huχ, esχaθ, śver, seril, nisc, es, ar, θuθ̣; 3pl.: halχ, trav; 3sg./pl.: vacil.

LLZ: mac, zec, θec, anc, inc, raχ, θar, zaχ, mur, svel, tul, tut, mel (< mele), ar (< ara), ep (< epa), al (< ale), un (< une), acil, citz > ciz, muθ, truθ > trut (3pl.: truθum), puθs = puts, θunt, tunt, θenθ, heχz, vaχr.

TCo: 3sg. θic, tiur, zic; 3pl. cnl, śum (not s(u)­+ ­(u)m).

CiPer: 3sg. vaχr, clel, cnl.

imperative II ending in ­θ:

LLZ: raχθ, trinθ, nunθenθ, caveθ, acilθ, cus < *cuśθ, heχśθ.

active preterite in ­ta:

CiPer: śpelθuta ‘he had spoken’ (deponent?)

active preterite in ­ce and ­ve:

LPy: heramve, θamuce, turuce, s̓elace. TCap: ziχunce. LLZ: reuśce, murce. TCo: usvè.

preterite passive in ­χe (> ­ce), ­θe and past passive participle in ­ce < ­χe (direct case):

LPy: vatieχe ; amuce.

TCap: esχaθce;

TCo: ziχuχe; fratuce.

CiPer: θunχulθe, gen. θunχulθl, ziχuχe.

LLZ: θezince, mutince, ścanince, utince (substantivized ppp.), śuθce (substantivized ppp.)

preterite passive expressed by articulated passive past participle (copula is omitted):

LPy: tes̓iameitale (pl.)

articulated passive past participle in direct and oblique cases:

LPy: munistas. TCap: riθnaita.

passive past participle in constructions similar to the Latin ablative absolute:

LPy: seleitala. LLZ: śantiśtś, θapneśtś, huslneśtś, celists.

active preterite in ­u:

LLZ: hinθu (also present?).

CiPer.: cenu (also present?).

present participle/gerund in ­ne (direct case):

TCap: zuχne, isvane, aturạne, cisasine, śiiane, scuvune.

LLZ: θezine, nunθene, θesane, ziχne, śetirune, cerine = ce[r]ene, firiθvene, nuzlχne.

TCo: celtinè.

CiPer: acilune, turune, spelaneθi (pl.), reneθi (pl.).

present participle/gerund in ­ni < ­ne+i(n) (temporal locative ablative):

LLZ: peθereni, capeni. CiPer: θuruni.

preterite gerund in ­as(a) and ­θas(a):

LPy: θemiasa.

LLZ: tiaθaśa, trinθaśa, priθaś, ścanin[θ]aś, trutanaśa, śaθaś, araś.

CiPer: falaś.

5. The locative and plural nominative ending -θi (> -ti).

With reference to the divine names of the Bronze Liver, Colonna (1994: 130) wrote: Strangely, as in the case of tinsθ, no one has really posed the problem of justifying the presence of an inflected form in the locative, which is unquestionably meθlumθ. Colonna, like the previous commentators, fails to observe that, if we read tinsθ, the suffix ­θ is placed after the obliquity morpheme ­s⁴, while in meθlumθ there is no obliquity morpheme before ­θ. Sixteen years after, Belfiore (2010: 88­90) interprets luθti raχ of the LLZ (column VI 18) as ‘altar [raχ] in the consecrated area [luθti]’. I could cite even more recent examples. Etruscologists tend to see locatives in all words ending in ­θ(i) or t(i). I am amazed how in front of the endings ­ia­θi (cfr. uniiaθi: ­iadenoting dative and genitive), ­(a)l­θ(i) (cf. vels(e)nalθi, velcnlθi, unialθ, etc.), ­(a)­i­θi (cf. hamaiθi, etc.) talented scholars have never proposed the possibility that the locative postposition ­θ/t(i) was affixed to an oblique case as happened in Greek with the identical locative suffix ­θi and in Osco­Umbrian with the postposition ­e(n). Buck (1928: 115) had already noted that in Umbrian the postposition ­e(n) was affixed to the dative­ablative and cited the example of fesner­e (< *fesnais­en with rhotacism) ‘in fano’.

I translate here⁵ what I wrote on the locative in my first work on Etruscan (1996: 31­32), when my ignorance on historical linguistics was much greater than now, but on Etruscan morphology I set out some theses that I still consider valid.

Like those of agentive role, also the morphemes of state in place have the advantage of being identifiable quite easily: only in some cases can there be uncertainty (reuχzineti, lauχumneti), due to the fact that ­ti, ­θi (but not ­t, ­θ) are also zero­case endings of plurals, although scholars have generally mistaken them for locatives.

Yet there is a fundamental difference between locatives and plurals: the locative suffix is applied to a noun or pronoun in the genitive case, which in many cases is immediately evident: see tarχn­al­θi ‘in Tarquinia’, vels(e)nalθi ‘in Bolsena’, velclθi ‘in Vulci’, where ­al ( > ­l with usual elision of a) is a genitive termination. In the LLZ we have the locatives uni­al­ti ‘in the temple of Uni’ (= uniiaθi of CIE 6312, uniia being an archaic genitive) and θac­l­θ(i) ‘in silence’, streteθ < *streta­i­θ, zarfneθ < *zarfna­i­θ, ramueθ < *ramue­i­θ. Hupnineθi < *hupninaiθi ‘in the bed’ is formed in a similar way. The presence of the morpheme ­i is best seen in hamaiθi, pavinaiθ (Capua tile). [...] I consider plural locatives munisuleθ (< *munis­ule­i­θ)= municleθ/t (< *munic­le­i­θ . [...] Probably the necessity of the genitive morpheme before the locative enclitic was not clearly observed [by Etruscologists] due to the form suθiθ, where ­θ seems to be affixed to the zero case suθi. But since in the two formulas clθi suθiθ (TLE 159) = calti suθiti (TLE 135) the demonstrative [also has the morpheme of] the genitive, it cannot be excluded that in suθiθ a locative morpheme ­i merged with the final ­i of suθi (suθiθ < *suθi­i­θ). Nor can it be excluded that the genitive mark in the deictic was sufficient to denote the locative of the noun as well.

In truth the final clause is inappropriate, since the forms suθiθi (REE 71 n.88), śuθiti (CIE 5407) and perhaps sutiθ are attested without the demonstrative. The most plausible hypothesis is that the locative of s/śuθi was s/śuθiθ(i) by assimilation to locatives of terms ending in a vowel where ­θ(i) was added to a locative (or oblique case?) in ­i: ramueθ < *ramue­i­θ, hupnineθi < *hupninaiθi, huzrneθi < *huzrnaiθi, etc.).

Locatives without the suffix ­θ(i), ­t(i) are also attested. The best known is capue < *capua+i ‘in Capua’ (similar to Lat. Capuae). The contexts lead me to consider such also śerφue < *śerφua+i ‘in the tortuousness < winding’ (LLZ) and a few other terms (see below). Nowadays, etruscologists — perhaps not to appear to be addicted to the deprecated etymological method — rarely point out that the locative suffix ­θi is identical in Greek and that the loc. morpheme ­i is present in Latin (Romae < *Romai, Corinthi, domi militiaeque, ruri, vesperi), in Hittite and in Greek (χαμαί ‘on earth’, οἴκοι ‘at home’, ἐκεῖ ‘here’ etc.), although it merged with the dative before the use of writing. In short, the locatives of place and time can be divided into the following categories:

A) with the suffix ­θ(i) or ­t(i) added after the oblique case morpheme ­i to nouns with the nominative ending ­a or ­e: ramueθ < *ramue­i­θ, zarfneθ < *zarfna­i­θ, streteθ < *streta­i­θ; lauχumneti < *lauχumna­i­ti, etc.

B) with the suffix ­θ(i) or ­t(i) added after the oblique case morpheme ­(a)l or ­ś: uni­al­ti, θacl­θ(i), acalas < *acala­ś­θ, lans < *lan­ś­θ, atis < *ati­ś­θ and perhaps crapśti (< *crap­ś­ti) ‘in the (liver) fissure’ and probcres (< *cre­ś­θ) ‘in sifting (> evaluating)’, if cres is not an imperative meaning ‘sieve, evaluate!’.

C) marked only by the morpheme ­i (as in Latin) on a nominative in ­a (as in Etr. capue < *capuai ‘in Capua’) and more generally in a vowel: śerφue (< *śerφuai), hectai (< *hecta+i), ipei < *ipe+i ‘in doubt’, tei < *ta­i (locative of deictic with with adverb and conjunction value: it is possible that also ei, θui were originally locatives in ­i of the Indo­European demonstratives *eand *to­). Uncertain cases are ilucve and acale, for which we can hypothesize a different formation than ilucve < *ilucva­i and acale < *acala­i (see D).

D) In apirase, tulerase, als̓ase, after the ­smarking the genitive of a month name, the final ­e is the outcome of an archaic ­en: the drop of n in the postposition ­en also occurred in Umbrian and Paelinian. The same formation is visible in racuśe < *racu­ś­en ‘in the exta’ (LLZ), fanuśe < fanus­en ‘in the apparition’ (LLZ) and in eθrse of the formula eθrse tinśi tiurim avilś (LLZ). In eθrse t he stem *eθrcorresponds to Umbrian *etr< PIE *e­tero‘other’, but instead of the expected ś there is s before the final e. I suppose that here, as in some other cases (e.g. ursmnal, carsi, farsi), the contact with the liquid r made it indifferent whether to mark the sibilant with ś or s, since the pronunciation anyway could be /rs/ or /rz/. Etr. eθrse tinśi corresponds to the formula alio die pronounced by a Roman augur when the first indications advised to adjourn the divinatory consultation.

In tinśi ‘in a day’ we have ­i < ­in instead of ­e < en. Presumably the nominative is tin ‘day’, homograph of the theonym Tin ‘Jupiter’. In tiurim there are probably two suffixes ­iand ­m, the latter of whom is the copula ­m equivalent to Lat ­que. As for tiur­i, instead of the expected *tiurs­i (the obl. case is attested in the form tivrs), it is not clear why the oblique case morpheme ­ś is not present as in tinśi. One could assume that in tiur­i­ the postposition ­i(n) governs the direct case because it denotes the duration within which an event can occur (in Latin expressed by in + accusative). Interpreting tiurim as ‘and within the month’, the meaning of eθrse tinśi tiurim avilś would be ‘in a another day and within the month of the year’. Probably we have to understand that the augurium could be postponed to another day of the same month.

There is no obliquity morpheme before ­i also in zilci of formulas like zilci : vel[u]s[i] : hulχniesi ‘during the government of Vel Hulchnie’. In these cases we certainly have a complement denoting duration; therefore in zilci the final ­i reflects an older postposition in affixed to the direct case (here corresponding to the acc.) zilc < zilχ, while the PN of the zilaθ ‘governor, praetor’ in charge could be considered an abl. in ­si as in the inscriptions mi venelusi haθilnasi mulu (CIE 11129), mi venelusi aχesi mulu (REE 57 n44), etc., but to my mind the posp. ­i < ­in was added to the genitive of the PN. We can deduce this from two data: 1) in TCo zilci is followed by PNs in the genitive; 2) in spureθi apasi svalas ‘having lived in his father's city’ (CIE 5819) spureθi < *spura­i­θi is the loc. of *spura ‘città’ and apasi can only be formed by adding the posp. ­i < ­in to the genitive apas. Hence, the locative posp. ­i could optionally be applied to the genitive as if this were an adjectival form.

In acale of the LLZ sequence eslem zaθrumiś acale ‘on the 18th of (< in) June’ it is uncertain whether the suffix affixed to *acala is ­ī (like in Latin) or ­e(n). Similarly ilucve = ilacve ‘in the month’ could derive from *ilu/acva+e(n) or *ilucva+ī. In the locatives hamaiθi, fulinuśnaiθ, pavinaiθ of the TCap the ­ipreceding ­θ(i) is a morpheme of gen.dat. rather than a locative morpheme preceding a second locative morph. ­θ(i).

I n the tomb of the Tite Petruni (Perugia) tusurθi (TLE 586) and tusurθir (TLE 587) follow the names of the two spouses who occupy a double sarcophagus. In a cippus (Perugia) we have tusurθii after the fragmentary but very probable citation of two people. In TLE 630 (sepulchre lintel) one reads tuśθi θui hupnineθi arnt mefanates veliak hapisnei ‘here in the bed tuśθi Arnt Mefanate and Velia Hapisnei’. I believe that tuśθi is equivalent to tuśurθi and that both refer to a dual having the ending of a plural. The formula tusti θui also appears alone twice: on a sepulchral wall (TLE 631) and on the lid of an ossuary (NRIE 277). Tuśurθi cannot be a locative, since it lacks the obliquity morpheme. In tuśurθir and tuśurθii the presence of the further ­r and ­i added to tuśurθi cannot be explained in a convincing way, but this does not invalidate the argumentation proposed below. As for tuśurθi, I suppose it is a plural determined twice by the plural morphemes ­ur and ­θi. In tuśti = tuśθi (where ś denotes /s/) only the plural ending ­θi is present. The term was formed to a PIE *du̯ is­ ‘in two’ like OLat. du̯ is> bis, ON tvis­var, tys­var ‘twice’, etc. Lat. bīni (< *du̯ is­n­) ‘two at a time; a set of two’ is generally plural and therefore it is possible that in some Etruscan regions tuśθi was formed with the pl. ending ­θi and in some other *tuśur was formed with the plural ending ­ur. But *tuśur was then transformed into *tuśurθi in environments where the plural in ­θi was used more frequently. In conclusion, I suppose that tuśti = tuśθi and tuśurθi(i) are plurals and mean ‘two at a time’ > ‘coupled’ and it could be used for burials containing two bodies.

That the thesis of the existence of plurals in ­θi = ­ti is correct is proved by the sequence θansur haθrθi repinθic which alternates with θans haθe(c) repinec in some passages of the LLZ. Since θansur is certainly the pl. of θans and in haθrθi repinθic there are no obliquity morphemes preceding the suffix ­θi = ­ti when it is locative, the only solution is that the sequence θansur haθrθi repinθic is the plural of θans haθe(c) repinec (­c corresponding to Lat. ­que). In haθrθi < *haθurθi the pl. is determined by two endings as in tusurθi, while repinθi is formally a plural present participle.

The terms of the LLZ I consider plural of nouns and adjectives in the direct case with the ending ­θi = ­ti are the following:

1. nouns: cilθcveti, useti, lanti, mutti (< *mutǐti), eterti, etrinθi.

2. adjectives: luθti, napti, θesviti, faviti, hamφeθi, laeti, repinθi, haθrθi.

In the TCap the only term I consider a plural in ­θi is papaθi (sg. papa ‘swelling, bubble’) which must be distinguished from papui pl. ‘godly ministers, priests’.

6. Plurals ending in -le.

I list here other terms of the LLZ that I consider plurals of nouns and adjectives:

plurals in ­le: θumitle, esvitle, sulsle, śacnicle.

plurals in ­ur, ­er: θanśur, masnur, θunχerś < *θunχeraś (obl.).

plurals in ­e < ­ei < ­ai: velθe maθcve, zuśleve, ture, mlaχe, halχze, hilarθune, naχve (probable), salχei.

plurals in ­ua, ­va: renχzua, śuciva, zuθeva, [f]aceva, vanva (probable), catrua (probable).

Acc. to Rix (1984: 229­230) the terms ending in ­tale (tes̓iameitale; LPy) and ­tule (apertule, iśveitule, celutule, husilitule, ma(c)vilutule; TCap) are forms of pertinentive II originally contain­ ing the deictic ita (in a few other terms replaced by ica). In them the iof the deictic is directly distinguished only in the archaic age when it follows ­a or ­e endings of the word to which it is joined: riθna­ita, smucinθiuna­itula, iśve­itule. Later the group ­a­i­ would become ­e(cf. sanχuneta) and ­e­iwould become ­i(aθumica, esvitle). Again according to Rix, after liquid or nasal and after u the initial iof the deictic would have already fallen in the archaic period. He assumed that the terms in ­ca, ­ta, ­cn, ­tn, ­tla, ­cla and ­tule = ­tale, ­tle contained the deictic (i)ta or (i)ca postponed and declined (Rix 1984: 230 and 1981a: 90­93). Such a formation is indisputable only when ­iprecedes ­ta or ­ca or it is clear the presence of the deictic as in aθemeis̓cas̓, genitive of *aθemeica, where anyway the deictic is ca (not ica) and it is declined together with *aθemei. Theoretically sanχuneta could be the outcome of *sanχunaita, but I don’t think it is (see further). As for apertule (pl. in ­le) its meaning ‘futura, future events’ leads me to exclude that it is an articulated form. Rix’s analysis of forms without ­i­, such as celutule and celucn, apertule, etc. seems forced to me. In my view words like *aθemeica, riθnaita, etc. in origin were passive past participles and, given the lack of the verb ‘to be’ (which is not ame, amce!) also served as passive preterites (this is the case of tes̓iameitale), as if ­ita, ­ica, ­ta, ­ca replaced (and perhaps were considered equivalent to) the PIE ending ­to(> PGer. ­da­) of the past participle. These passive past participles could be substantivized as were the Latin past participles transformed into neuters of the 2nd declension or nouns of the 4th declension.

Cristofani (1995: 91) assumed that iśveitule means in the day of the ides and translated the sequence iśveitule ilucve apirase in this way: at the festive ides [< in the feast] in the (month) apira. Probably he wanted to apply Rix's thesis according to which in ­(i)tu­le and ­(i)ta­le the final ­le would be the result of (genitival) ­la + (locative) ­i. In my view, on the contrary, the terms in tule, ­tale (tes̓iameitale, apertule, iśveitule, celutule, etc.) and ­tle, ­cle (θumitle, sacnitle, esvitle, lautnescle, etc.) are plurals in a direct case. Munsle and sulsle seem to be outcomes of ancient plurals in ­tle: munsle would reflect *munstle < *munistale (plural of *munista whose genitive munistas is attested in a Pyrgian plate) and sulsle would be the result of *sulVstle.

I consider tes̓iameitale as a plural ppp. in the direct case (see above) and seleitala, riθnaitul(a), smucinθiunaitula as oblique ppp. that can also serve as nouns. On the other hand, in my view racuneta (adjective of Lasa) and sanχuneta (adjective of Selvans) have an active function, being the deictic ­ta added to a present participle in ­ne: racuneta can mean ‘the one who regulates, judges, avenges’ (*racu­ < PIE *h3reĝ­) and sanχuneta ‘the one who ratifies, sanctions’ (< PIE *sh2­n­kof Lat. sanciō).

Iśveitule serves as a plural noun in the zero case: the singular would be *iśveitu, whose termination recalls that of the Latin nouns of the fourth declension in ­tus such as auctŭs, ­ūs, ductus, ­ūs, sonitus, ­ūs, etc. Cristofani (1995: 84) hypothesized that iśveitule was the loc. sg. of an adj.*iśveita, celutule the loc. sg. of *celuta, etc., but the term celutu is clearly legible in one of the sequences emerging from the lacunae that have erased most of the final section of the Tabula Capuana. So it seems obvious to me to suppose that celutule belongs to the declension of celutu rather than *celuta.

Contexts indicate that nouns in ­tule > ­tle are plurals in a direct case.

7. The morpheme -m < -ma of aim, conformity, direction.

Already many years ago (Zavaroni 1996: 35) I realized that some terms of the LLZ have a morpheme ­m of aim, conformity, direction that etruscologists have often mistaken for the enclitic conjunction ­(u)m. In the LLZ the terms containing the morpheme ­m are the following: laetim = laivetim, cletram, cntnam, cntram, painiem, caitim, matam, ranem, marem, celθim, acnesem, plutim, putnam, calatnam, suntnam, θunχulem, ceχam.

In truth the morpheme ­m is the result of an older ­ma attested in the Tabula Capuana in ricima, iśuma (also iśum) and maybe itṛịụma (my reading at the end of line 52). The morpheme ­ma could also be present in an inscriptio continua (7th CBC; kyathos from Caere) which, unlike Pallottino (TLE 56) and Rix (ET Cr 0.1), I spell this way:

mi niceθuma mi maθuma ramliśiaiθi pure naieθe eraiśce epana //

mi neθunaśta vhelequ.

I consider 1. niceθuma and maθuma terms with the morpheme of aim ­ma; 2. ramliśiaiθi a locative in ­θi; 3. neθunaśta a name + deictic ta like limurces̓ta, maiflnasta, cupesta.

To my mind, the later apocopate form ­m is also present in itanim (LPy), χiem (CiPer), lescem (HebaL), letem (TLE 387), ranem (TLE 893), manim (TLE 169, 170; REE 70 n.54), maniim (TLE 887).

8. The morpheme -n of the accusative for some adjectives.

For the interpretation of the texts it is also useful to bear in mind that when an adjective ends in ­c, ­χ, ­θ, ­t, probably it is (or appears to the scribe as) the outcome of an ancient past participle formed with the suffixation of a deictic (i)ca or (i)ta. Since the accusative of these deictics appears in the forms ikan, cn, itan, itun, tn (θn in TLE 504), we have to assume that aθumitn and the older aθemeican are the accusative of aθumica = *aθumita < *aθume­it/ca. In the LLZ we have: celucn, śacnitn = śacnicn, aθumitn, teśamitn, puruθn and the substantivized aclχn. In puruθn, aclχn, it is not clear why ­θ and ­χ replace ­t and ­c.

9. Compound family names and semantic relationship between family name and cognomen.

Etruscologists have not yet realized the existence of compound family names (or gentilicia) in Etruscan onomastic formulas and even less the existence of a semantic relationship between family names and cognomina. And yet, both of them are a very important source of information: both are very useful for researching the meanings of names and their etymology. In my first wretched work (Zavaroni 1996) I dedicated the third chapter to the Ricerca dei significati nell’onomastica bilingue and the fourth chapter to L’utilità dei cognomi nella ricerca lessicale. Unfortunately my linguistic unpreparedness was the cause of many erroneous interpretations. I returned to the subject (Zavaroni 2003a) reaffirming that analysis of Etruscan onomastics shows that in the gentilicium + cognomen combinations the Etruscan cognomen is often semantically correlated with the gentilicium: either it is its synonym [e.g. Ahsi Aruseri ‘Cutting Pointed’] or specifies a quality or condition [e.g. Sinu Cicu, f. Sinunia Cicunia ‘Tie Open; Purni Curce ‘Coat Saffron­coloured’] or forms a compound such as Mühlestein, Scharf­Stab, Pietra­piatta etc. [e.g. Tite Velśu ‘Happy Turn’]. I underlined that in analyzing Etruscan onomastics we should not, however, exempt from looking for Indo­European roots, whatever the direction of the hypothetical loan (e.g. Etruscan > Italic or vice versa). I had already noticed that the high number of cognomina semantically related with their gentilicia and the existence of compound gentilicia made possible the interpretation of many nominal and verbal stems and this interpretation was also useful for longer inscriptions. I also added the following (I omit the footnotes):

However, it is necessary to adopt an analytical perspective and therefore a different terminology from those assumed by H. Rix who, due to his firm opposition to all that might seem fallacious Indo­European etymology, limits himself to a purely historical­social interpretation of the compound gentilicia and various gentilicium + cognomen formulas. The lack of recognition of the semantic relationship between gentilicium and cognomen led Rix to formulate the illusory thesis of the ‘zweite Familiennamen’, concerning names such as tite marcna, cae asate, vipi varna: according to Rix they consist of Vornamengentilizia and echte Gentilizia in der Funktion von Cognomina. Rix's thesis would lead to a conclusion similar to that of those who would argue that the Italian surnames Bonfiglioli [‘Goodson’] and Bonocore [‘Goodheart’] were assigned to (or adopted by) families called Boni who became vassals or servants of the Figlioli or the Core. At least as a working hypothesis, even those who consider it very doubtful or improbable that Etruscan names, if they are not borrowed, have Indo­European roots, should consider the possibility of compound family names and person names, given that they are found in all languages.

Today, etruscologists no longer use Rix's categories, but they do not seem very interested in finding the meaning of family names and praenomina. The aforementioned article (Zavaroni 2003a) also contained the etymological examination of numerous cognomina of the fam.n. Anei (and derivatives) and An(n)e with results that today I would consider sufficient for many of them (although my linguistic preparation was still scanty), but I do not think that any Etruscologist has attempted to test my hypotheses.

I’m trying again now with more knowledge and with a greater wealth of material examined. The consultation of a greater number of dictionaries and in particular of the Etymological Dictionaries of the Leiden Indo­European Etymological Dictionary Series has allowed me to reach certainty on the meaning of nouns and adjectives that are part of numerous compound family names and onomastic formulas with a cognomen: see Tite ‘Good, Joyful, Happy’ (but Tita, Titaie, Titei have a different meaning: ‘Link, Bond’ > ‘Mate, Consort’), Ane ‘Ring, Link, Chain link’ (but there is also Ane 2, Anne ‘year’ or ‘yearly’), Vete ‘Binding, Tie, Bond’ (but Vetus, from Latin, means ‘Old’), Vipe, Vipi ‘the one who vibrates, shakes, agitates’, etc. This is of great help for the interpretation of related family names and cognomina.

Final clarification: I preferred to use the term ‘family name’ rather than ‘gentilicium’ (which I used to a lesser extent without a specific intent) because ‘gentilicium’ could lead someone to suppose that the person in question was of noble origins and his nomen had some relationship with such origins, while in the vast majority of cases the social class of the deceased cannot be defined and on the other hand many family names, alluding to ties, bonds or trades, suggest that the person so called had a servile condition.

10. Names of characters echoing Greek divine and mythological names.

Among etruscologists is in force and operative the thesis that most names assigned to divinities and characters depicted on mirrors, scarabs and some Etruscan vases are mere Greek borrowings. The evident deformations of many names echoing those of Greek mythology still lead Etruscologists to wonder from which Greek dialect a name was borrowed rather than to wonder if the Greek name was deliberately deformed so that it had an Etruscan meaning for the Etruscan user of the object containing the depiction of the characters.

I confess my amazement at the fact that no Etruscologist manifests any doubt on the thesis that the names Alcsentre, Aleχsantre, Elaχ/csantre, Elaχsntre, Elχ­s(e)ntre, Elcsntre, Elχsuntre > Elsntre have the same meaning and represent the Greek hero Ἀλέξανδρoς. Evidently either no one has raised such a problem or everyone thinks like Carlo de Simone (1968­70 II: 10­11) who began his reasoning with the following correct premise:

Der Wechsel Al/El(a)im Etruskischen braucht auf keinen Fall auf die dunkle ägäische Vorzeit der Etrusker zurückzugehen [Eva Fiesel’s thesis] — im Gegenteil, er läßt sich als inner­etruskischer Erscheinung erklären. [ To explain the alternation Al/El(a)­ in Etruscan there is no need to go back to the obscure Aegean past of the Etruscans: on the contrary, it can be explained as an internal Etruscan phenomenon].

After having stated that the forms starting with Ela­ are not immediately clear, de Simone, instead of trying to explain why in Elaχ/csantre and variants the initial letter is e although various Etruscan terms beginning with al­ are attested, in a footnote writes: Es ist kaum notwendig, die Existenz einer form *Ἐλέξανδρoς im Griechischen voraus­zusetzen [= It is hardly necessary to assume the existence of a form *Ἐλέξανδρoς in Greek]. Perhaps does he take for granted and normal that Gr. al­ could be changed into Etr. el­? In any case, de Simone seems more concerned with the change from e to a in the second syllable (Ale> Ela­) for which he hypothesizes that it can here be probably connected with the abolition of the phonological opposition a‒e which took place during the fifth century (age to which the mirror with the inscription Elaχsantre is dated). Then he adds:

Ob den verschiedenen Formen eine ursprüngliche dialektische Verteilung oder unabhängige Entlehnungen zugrunde liegen, kann nicht ausgemacht werden, da zudem die meisten Belege unbekannten Fundortes sind. Die chronologische Tabelle zeigt deutlich für das 3­2 Jh. das Vorherrschen der Form mit Elim Anlaut (1 Al: 8 El­), die deshalb als die typisch jungetruskische zu gelten hat. [= Whether the various forms are based on an original dialectal distribution or independent borrowings cannot be determined, since we do not know the place where most of the specimens come from. The chronological table clearly shows for the 3rd­2nd century the predominance of the form with the initial El(1 Al­: 8 El­), which must therefore be regarded as the typical one in late Etruscan.]

It seems to me that the explanation on the change Al/El(a)in the variants with initial eprovided by de Simone has the same value as that of Eva Fiesel who hypothesized a kleinasiatische origin, although — as de Simone pointed out — in Lydian and Hittite the name corresponding to Ἀλέξανδρoς appears with the initial a.

In my view Etr. Elaχsntre means ‘he who thinks evil’ (see s.v.) and analysis of the scenes engraved in the mirrors and of the names of the characters depicted in them prove it, as soon as one looks at the scenes from the perspective that the names have an Etruscan meaning and the engraver wanted to represent an allegory instead of a mythological episode. In fact, even the female figure named Elina, Elinai, Elinei and evoking the mythical Greek ῾Ελένη has an Etruscan name denoting ‘evil, malice’, but this can be discovered if one first asks himself why the name does not begin with the initial h which corresponds to the harsh spirit of the Greek name. The question is even more necessary if we take into account that many Etruscan terms begin with hand that his preserved in the Latin transcription Helena/e. On the other hand h is present in two other names evoking the mythical ῾Ελένη: Helenaia and Helene. It is demonstrable, looking carefully at the depicted scenes, that the Etruscan meaning of Helenaia (see s.v.) is different from that of Elina, Elinai.

If we put ourselves in the perspective that the names echo those of Greek mythological characters, but have an Etruscan meaning and we wonder if the difference of just one letter could cause a different meaning, we can arrive at the conclusion that Memrun and Memnun — which acc. to Etruscologists correspond to Gr. Mέμνων — are different characters and that the meaning of Uθuze, Uθste, Uθusθe ‘Striker, Hitter, Stabber’ is practically opposite to that of Utste, Utuze, Utuśe ‘Fa­ vourable, Benevolent’, although both allude to the Greek Ὀδυσσεύς.

In a number of mirrors the names, thanks to the Etruscan meanings, form allegorical scenes in which the characters personify now contrasting and now convergent qualities. In some of these scenes a character has to choose or judge who embodies these qualities.

If we place ourselves in this perspective, not only will the knowledge of the Etruscan lexicon be enriched, but also the knowledge of Etruscan art, religion and culture in general. For example, Hercle will no longer appear as a Greek hero, but as an Etruscan god who cyclically dies like the gods of archaic Europe; it will become clear that Lasa and Maris indicate deities of destiny and fortune, that Talmiθe evokes Ταλαμήδης, but impersonates ‘the one who thinks about evaluation, reckoning with, tells stories’ the character called