- chapter 22: The Etruscan language –
(20) TCo II.1:
cên zic ziχuχe sparzêśtiś śazleiś in θuχti Cusuθuraś suθiu
this writing was written from the table śazle that in the house of the Cusu (is) lying
or of agent:
(21) Vc 1.64:
Larθ Tutes anc farθnaχe Veluis Tuteis Θanχviluis-c Turials-c
Larth Tutes who was generated by Vel Tutes and by Thanchvil Turi
It is apparent that both the pertinentive and the ablative are complex cases, derived from
the genitive through the addition of phonetic segments. Despite the presence of a case
system, the direct object is not marked morphologically, and for this the absolute case is
used: except for the category of pronouns, which in the objective function have a marker
/ n /, which expresses the defi niteness (mi “I”: mi-ni, in “that thing which” [inanimate]:
in-ni, ika, ita “this”: ika-n, ita-n).
The fact that there is a variety of endings in the case infl exion and in the formation of
the plural does not agree^27 with the agglutinative character of the language, and would
seem to indicate – as do other features of the language – that Etruscan is an originally
agglutinating language that is evolving toward a different type. The allomorphy may be
explained by natural evolutionary facts, such as the loss of morphological categories – for
example, the category of the collective next to the plural, or the syncretism between the
genitive and another case, perhaps a sort of partitive.^28
Among pronouns^29 and personal pronouns, demonstratives and relatives are attested.
We have already given some examples: mi “I,” ica, ita “this,” an, in “which,” “what thing.”
The demonstratives are also found – in Late Etruscan in phonetically reduced form – in the
enclitic position, for example, in the Tabula Cortonensis, II: pes pêtrus-ta scevaś “the house, that
of Petru Scevas.” The segment / -ša / accompanying forms of the genitive, in the type Velu[š]a
< Vel-us+/ša/, is to be considered a mark of the possessive rather than an enclitic pronoun.^30
Our knowledge of the morphology of Etruscan verbs^31 is even more fragmentary than
that of the morphology of nouns and pronouns. We mention some of the most obvious
and well-established features. An opposition between active and passive is documented
by two forms of the preterite, / -ke / vs. / khe /:^32 see above, zilaθ amce “he was zilath” (17),
itun turuce “he dedicated this” (15), avil svalce LXIIII “lived 64 years;” but cên zic ziχuχe,
“this writing was written” (20),...anc farθnaχe...“who was generated/born.” Participial
forms^33 are to be identifi ed in the type of acnanas (18), and in the forms ending in -u of
the type mulu “given” (14), cenu “?” (3), lupu “dead,” and so on. For mood, apart from the
predictable use of the verb stem for the imperative (as in suθ “place” or trin “talk” in the
Liber Linteus), we detect the existence of a necessitative form: for example, śucri “must
be offered,” or acasri “must be sacrifi ced.”^34 Beyond that, not much can be said, except
for the negative fact of the absence of the copula: it is no accident that the “speaking
inscriptions” use the pronoun mi in contrast to the Greek model ει̉μί (“I am”). And if amce
is to be read as “was” in phrases like zilaθ amce, “was zilath,” the situation is comparable
to that attested in a language like Russian: the verb only has the function to mark the
past tense.
In terms of the syntax we note three important points. The fi rst concerns the reciprocal
position, within a construction, of the element that determines and the element that