6 Jul 2009

Ashes to ashes


You're probably all tired of all this talk of eggs lately and the rotten stench of my stale ramblings are probably overwhelming at this point. Well, tant pis pour vous, mes camarades. Lol. This is my blog afterall and I've still got Etruscan eggs on the brain. There's a nagging passage in the Liber Linteus that I want to address now and this is in connection with my hypothesis that luθ could mean 'egg'.

Let's examine the three lines of LL 6.xvii, xviii and xix:

eslem . zaθrumiś . acale . tinś . in . śarle
luθti . raχ . ture . acil . caticaθ . luθ . celθim
χim . scuχie . acil . hupniś . painiem.

Since it seems that no linguists to date have conclusively cracked this portion of the ancient text yet, we're left to our own devices to decipher it ourselves. So I take liberty here, based on what I understand of Etruscan grammar at this point, to divvy up the punctuationless text above into clear sentences as follows:

Eslem zaθrumiś Acale, Tinś in śarle.
Luθ-ti raχ, ture acil.
Caticaθ luθ cel-θi-m.
Χi-m, scuχie acil hupniś.


Now, let's start with what we know. (Naturally!) We know that the opening phrase Eslem zaθrumiś Acale is a calendar date meaning "On the 18th (day of the month of) Acale". Acale is glossed as Aclus in Papias' Liber Glossarum and associated with the Roman month of Iunus (ie. June). Next, while tinś could also mean "of the day" and thus part of the previous phrase, it could also mean "for Tin", Tin being the deity to whom the rite to be yet described is devoted. While the verb in the following phrase is a hapax, we may reasonably conclude that in śarle means "it was śaril-ed".

In the second line, ture means "(they) gave" and is the simple preterite of tur 'to give', matching the verb tense of the previous sentence. So the second line seems to have a structure suggesting the interpretation "Raχ-ing in the luθ, they gave acil."

In the third line, only cel-θi-m can be understood without controversy as "then in the earth" since cel is earth, -θi is the inessive postclitic "in", and -m is a phrasal conjunctive meaning "and so" or "then". This sentence is without explicit verb, emphasized by the fact that the phrasal conjunctive marks a noun rather than a verb as it normally does.

In the last line, only hupniś can be read with some confidence, referring to something going "to the tomb chamber", if the Bonfantes' published translation is correct at all.

Evidently, as a whole, this inscription is talking about a funerary rite of some kind but what gets interesting is when this inscription is understood in the light of my idea that luθ means 'egg'. From my perspective, Tin, as sun god and head of the pantheon, is the recipient of devotion. Then we would read here that an offering is presented (ture) to the solar deity by placing something inside an egg (luθ-ti raχ). It could be a real egg, but more practically-speaking likelier to be a clay egg, as was used for burials and other rituals by both Greeks and by Egyptians. The next sentence, Caticaθ luθ cel-θi-m, may then mean something like "Then this very egg (is placed) in the earth." We get the impression that something must be buried because of the next funerary word, hupniś.

Egg burial?? Death of an egg? Hmmm, where have I seen this death/rebirth rite in Etruria before... Oh yes, the Pyrgi tablets, written in both Punic and Etruscan, which make it clear that Etruscans worshipped the death and rebirth of a deity at some point in the year. Smith in Origins of Biblical Monotheism (2001) on page 118 interestingly states: "Although this inscription suggests the death of some god, no one knows which god was involved. (The only deity mentioned by name in the inscription is the sun-god in line 5, and there is no need to connect him with the referent found in the dating formula.)" Perhaps there's more reason than Smith realizes...

Consider that your high-protein food for thought for today.

12 comments:

  1. Hello Glen.


    In many lists (not your dictionary)
    tins
    is mentioned as just another word for
    tin/tina/tinia,
    so not as a genitive/dative.
    Anyway, I never liked the set
    tins/tin/tina/tinia,
    even without the tins element.
    I do not know equivalents. This set seems to be an anomaly.

    IF tins here is a nominative, then:
    Tins (verb)ed it?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hans: IF tins here is a nominative, then: Tins (verb)ed it?"

    Yes, only if it were the case, but we can easily prove that it's not likely.

    Tinas cliniiaras (in TLE 156) is a direct translation of Greek Dioskouroi 'sons *of* Zeus'. Thus tinas (then tins on the Magliano Tablet) is a genitive, not nominative or accusative.

    The true nominative/accusative form, tin, is even attested twice on the Piacenza Liver. Tinia may be the plural meaning literally 'days', while tina is yet another case form (TLE 876 hutil-a tin-a 'on the 4th day').

    ReplyDelete
  3. Many seem to think tins can be a nomino/accusative.
    As a rule, the stranger a phenomenon is, the more proof you need.
    But this also goes for tinia as a plural.
    Is there any proof for this irregularity?

    A second question:
    When I saw tins, I thought maybe it was a "genitivus absolutus", something like:
    "In broad daylight".
    Does this exist in the Etruscan language?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hans: "Many seem to think tins can be a nomino/accusative."

    Yes but again, TLE 156 tinas cliniiaras is perfectly equivalent to Greek Dioskouroi in semantics, context and cult. Etruscan type-I nouns are regularly declined in the genitive with -s. These are the attested facts that need to be respected.

    Parroting what "they" say without evidence in favour of these views is a little irritating and certainly unconstructive to informed debate.

    Show me in what inscription tins can *only* be a nomino-accusative form, or forget about it, lest one stagnate in personal ambivalence while searching the global sea of meaningless noise made by a billion aimless voices called the internet.

    "But this also goes for tinia as a plural. Is there any proof for this irregularity?"

    Read Bonfante/Bonfante, The Etruscan Language (2002), p.99 where it is claimed that "adjectives expressing a collective idea" are marked by -cha, -cva, -cve), -va, or -ia.

    The first suffix listed, *-cha, is an editing error for -chva and the Bonfantes haven't understood that these suffixes mark plural inanimate nouns not "collective adjectives". Since -cve is locative of -cva, listing it as another allomorph is another mistake.

    A while ago, I already explained on my blog that -cva and -va are indeed allomorphs of -chva (cf. Paleoglot: The loss of mediofinal 'h' in Pre-Proto-Etruscan). Since it isn't adequately explained under what conditions -ia is yet a fourth allomorph of the same suffix, I consider it a distinct plural marker on its own.

    Thus the epithet Tinia under this model likely means "Days" (ie. Father Time, which is safely the domain of a typical sun god). All forms can now be explained with a single stem tin- consistently meaning 'sun; day' and ergo Occam's Razor is optimally obeyed.

    "When I saw tins, I thought maybe it was a 'genitivus absolutus', something like: 'In broad daylight'."

    I don't understand what you're trying to accomplish because if you concede that it is a genitive and it ends in -s like so many other attested genitives, there's no sense to the added complexity you force upon it. A most straightforward value 'of sun/day' suffices until you can demonstrate otherwise. The onus of proof is yours, not mine.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Parroting what "they" say without evidence in favour of these views is a little irritating and certainly unconstructive to informed debate.

    No debate needed or wanted. I was just curious: How could "they" possibly think tins is a nomino/accusative? As I said, I never liked this Fremdkörper.


    Since it isn't adequately explained under what conditions -ia is yet a fourth allomorph of the same suffix, I consider it a distinct plural marker on its own.

    I put this on my list for further study.


    The onus of proof is yours, not mine.

    And this one too. IF the genitivus absolutus exists in Etruscan, like in Greek and in Dutch, there must be more. Evidently you never saw one.

    -----

    By the way, "parroting" is the one thing I try to avoid.
    Too often I have seen, in Etruscology, that even majority opinions can be wrong (Like tins being a nomino-accusative).
    So I try to question just about everything.
    Also I will often ask questions about your translations (You would not like me just parroting you.). Inevitably this will sometimes be irritating.
    But I really mean well.

    I could ask at least 10 questions about these lines.
    I don't.
    First I will have to start to work methodically.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hans: "No debate needed or wanted. I was just curious: How could "they" possibly think tins is a nomino/accusative? [...] Inevitably this will sometimes be irritating. But I really mean well. "

    Apologies. Your intention wasn't clear. I admit that I tend to be impatient. I thought you had adopted this view and so I wanted your justification for it, particularly since I can't find reason in it myself.

    "I put this on my list for further study."

    Yes, this suffix -ia is curious. Without the expected plural *tinχva, tinia fills the gap and is based on the Bonfante's identification of this ending as a "collective". I'm not yet sure how I could verify this further though, nor do I know the origin of this suffix.

    "IF the genitivus absolutus exists in Etruscan, like in Greek and in Dutch, there must be more. Evidently you never saw one."

    No, I haven't noticed this. Even if I did, however, I would want to be very sure that this wasn't just a nomino-accusative form that I or others had mistranslated.

    An unmarked genitive would be an exception to the thoroughly attested rule that genitives receive either -s or -l based on noun type. Occam's Razor forbids me to adopt exceptions until there is unavoidable necessity. I see no necessity thus far.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I admit that I tend to be impatient.

    Like me (, especially when tired and not being able to focus).


    No, I haven't noticed this. Even if I did, however, I would want to be very sure that this wasn't just a nomino-accusative form that I or others had mistranslated.

    An unmarked genitive would be an exception to the thoroughly attested rule that genitives receive either -s or -l based on noun type. Occam's Razor forbids me to adopt exceptions until there is unavoidable necessity. I see no necessity thus far.


    I admit I don't know what you mean.
    We (= you and I) think
    tins
    must be a normal s-genitive/dative, always.
    Don't we?
    And you never saw an Etruscan genitivus absolutus, so there is no reason to suppose one here.

    (Furthermore, I think a genitivus absolutus in the Etruscan language is highly improbable as the genitive/dative has very important functions, that might interfere with the absolutus.)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hans: "We (= you and I) think
    tins must be a normal s-genitive/dative, always. Don't we?"


    I hope so. ;o) I'm just saying that an unmarked noun is consistently a nomino-accusative noun and a noun marked in -s or -l is consistently a genitive. In English, a genitivus absolutus of another language acts as though it's the subject of the action and translating the genitive literally is awkward. However in Etruscan, I've only seen unmarked subjects.

    If I wanted to say "While the sun rose, I was coming into the city" in Etruscan, perhaps I might translate it as Tin θes, mi spureθi fare with the verb θes unmarked for tense.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ah!
    In Dutch the genitivus absolutus is seen almost exclusively in:
    "Des morgens ..."
    meaning:
    "In the morning..." (but it still needs something like "tomorrow" or "next year every wednesday")


    In English, a genitivus absolutus of another language acts as though it's the subject of the action

    Just curious: can you give an example?


    If I wanted to say "While the sun rose, I was coming into the city" in Etruscan, perhaps I might translate it as Tin θes, mi spureθi fare with the verb θes unmarked for tense.

    1)Did you actually see verbs unmarked for tense, like this one?
    2)So -0i is not always a real inessive?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hans: "In Dutch the genitivus absolutus is seen almost exclusively in: 'Des morgens ...' [...]"

    Aaaah. We have a miscommunication. What I understood from "genitivus absolutus" was that the *subject* of a dependant clause is marked in the genitive case. It is that specific phenomenon, found in Koine, that I've never seen in Etruscan.

    However, Etruscan calendar dates, as found extensively in the Liber Linteus, are similar to "des morgens" in that they are marked in the genitive too, specifically for punctual events. However... this use of the genitive is natural because it's *not* marking a subject in that language.

    "Just curious: can you give an example?"

    I hate to refer people to Wikipedia, but clear examples in Greek are given of this feature under Genitive absolute. Further examples may be found when searching Google Books.

    "1)Did you actually see verbs unmarked for tense, like this one?"

    Yes, of course. Afterall it would be unusual for a language to lack unmarked verbs. It seems to me that they may be often translated into English as gerundives in -ing.

    While I have never seen unmarked *θes attested, there are many unmarked verbs on record: ar 'to rise up, rising up' [LL 7.xxi, MagT.A], tur 'to give, giving' [LL 11.iv], am 'to be, being' [MagT.A] (LL = Liber Linteus, MagT = Magliano Tablet).

    "2)So -0i is not always a real inessive?"

    No, it always is. In my example, I am going into the city (ie. within the city boundaries), hence spureθi. This form is attested in TLE 171 as well.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Aaaah. We have a miscommunication.

    Not for the first time!
    Must be my English.


    "2)So -0i is not always a real inessive?"

    No, it always is. In my example, I am going into the city (ie. within the city boundaries), hence spureθi. This form is attested in TLE 171 as well.

    So -0i can be:
    Latin "in + ablativus" (inessive)
    or
    Latin "in + accusativus" (showing direction)
    ?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Communication is a two-way street and in this case we both accomplished miscommunication together. Lol.

    "So -0i can be: Latin "in + ablativus" (inessive) or Latin "in + accusativus" (showing direction)"

    Now I see what you're saying.

    I suggest to understand the postfix -θi as literally meaning "in". Simple as that.

    From that basic meaning, a sense of illative (ie. going into something) rather than inessive (ie. being in something) may sometimes surface secondarily where verbs of motion are used, such as in my above example with far.

    This is exactly the same as in English where "in" is used both in "sitting in the house" as well as "going in the house" (equivalent to "going *into* the house").

    ReplyDelete