Etruscans (was: minimal pairs)

[Douglas G Kilday]

Miguel Carrasquer Vidal (26 Jan 2001) wrote:

>One further thought: if we link the words <toverona[rom]> and
><tavarsio> on the stele to Etruscan <tevarath> "referee, judge", a
>plausible hypothesis would be that the deceased's function (performed
>"for Holaie the Phokaian", whose "naphoth" he was, in a place called
>"Serona") would have something to do with the administration of
>justice (despite the spear and shield(?) with which he is depicted).
>Now <(h)isto:r> (*wid-tor-) is (Homeric) Greek for "judge", but I
>wonder if there is an attestation in Ancient Greek of a magistrature
>*<eu-(h)isto:r>, as this would fit very well with Lemnian <evistho>
>(the -r may have been weak in the Greek source dialect, or dispensed
>with in Lemnian if the plural suffix in that language was -r, as it is
>in Etruscan).

Interesting. I would hesitate to assign Lemn. <tavar-> and <tover-> to the
same stem, even though the inscriptions on the face and side of the stele
appear to be the work of different persons. This amount of orthographic
oscillation in the same place and time is unlikely. However, Lemn.
<tavars'io> might well be connected with Arch. Etr. <tevarath> 'judge,
arbiter' (and with Rec. Etr. <teurat> if we accept Eva Fiesel's restoration
of the first word on the Cippus Perusinus). In this case, if Lemn. /a/
corresponds to Arch. Etr. /e/ in initial open syllables, Lemn. <vanalasial>
could be connected with the common Arch. Etr. praenomen Venel.

My problem now is that <vanalasial> appears to be the genitive of Vanalasi
'one from Vanala' corresponding in form to <phokiasiale> dat. of Phokiasi
'one from Phocaea' which is in apposition with <holaies'i> dat. of Holaie, a
masculine name (Gk. Hulaios). Hence <vanalasial>, whether or not related to
Venel, cannot be simply assumed feminine, and if in fact not feminine, it is
not a metronymic, and my argument of Lemnian derivation from Italy doesn't
have a leg to stand on. Well, better to eat a little crow now than a lot
later.

If Lemn. <evistho> represents Gk. *eu(h)isto:r, it is probably an epithet
'well-knowing' = 'wise (man)' (cf. <poluisto:r> 'much-knowing'), not an
official title. It would be crassly self-serving for magistrates to
incorporate "good" or "well" into their titles. They are expected to do a
"good" job anyway, or else suffer judgment themselves. BTW Liddell and Scott
cite <euistos> 'of good knowledge', but this would yield Lemn. *evist(h)e,
not -tho, given the treatment of Hulaios here and the typical reduction of
2nd-decl. -os/us to -e in Etruscan.

DGK