![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Depending on your browser, you may or may not see Greek letters in this line
or this:
Maybe those could be useful in this article? Michael Hardy 15:53, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Several useful font sets can be downloaded from: http://users.teilar.gr/~g1951d/download.html 198.109.220.6 (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I know everybody loves unicode, but I have never seen a computer that has a glyph for every unicode character. Much of this page is unreadable to me, and I don't think it is reasonable to expect people to go hunting for special fonts just to read this one page. 130.167.236.153 (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Maybe it could be mentioned that, at least to one thory, this alphabet is the source for the runes.
Image:Latin-Etruscan_alphabet_table.png would be perfect for this article, but it needs to be redrawn. dab (ᛏ) 06:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
well yes, please do, explain what you mean. Xi doesn't survive in Etruscan anyway. So the Masiliana alphabet is close to a Western Greek alphabet. Still, if we say that San is directly from Tsade, I don't see why we shouldn't say that Xi is directly from Samek, what's the problem? dab (ᛏ) 15:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
No, Xi is (and i agree and never claimed otherwise) from the Phoenician Samek. And pretty much everything, on this site or related is correct. But the symbol that we are arguing about, is 1. Different in appearance than phoenician Samek (3 horizontal lines and one vertical that goes beyond the 3 horizontal lines) 2. Different in appearance than the Greek Xi,(3 horizontal lines) 3. Its a square with a cross in it. 4. One asumes its the greek Xi (that derives from the phoenician samek) because of the alphabetical order of the Masiliana Etruscan compared to western greek.
so the logical conclusion would be that its either an etruscan version of the greek Xi or an individual etruscan symbol. The greeks adopted the phoenician samek and made it greek Xi (pronunciation and writing) so either its directly linked to the greek Xi or individual. So therefor it would be more correct if Xi or nothing would stand as information.
I daresay the only evidence that the Masiliana alphabet is Greek, not Phoenician, is the presence of Υ Φ Χ Ψ (which is of course a rather strong hint). The remaining letters are exactly the Phoenician alphabet. Now our Western Greek alphabet article is not very strong, but if their Χ was [ks] and their Ψ was [kʰ], what was the value of their Ξ? We have no idea what the value of the Masiliana Ξ might have been. In shape it is not identical to either Samek or Ξ, having two vertical strikes too many for the former and three for the latter. We can remove reference to Samek, if you like, but we'd then need a fuller description of the letter inventory at Western Greek alphabet. dab (ᛏ) 16:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not too fond of the idea of using example images from different alphabets (Etruscan, Phoenician, Runes) to show what the alphabet looked like, the Raetic Sanzeno alphabet in particular looks quite messy and could surely need some uniformity in style, possibly by redrawing inscription examples in a clearer style. 惑乱 分からん 19:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
The article links the TITUS page, which is extremely interesting but unfortunately lacks a bibliography. I can also find this:
Ancient North Italic Inscriptions
Unfortunately, none of the inscriptions are a particularly close fit to the alphabet on the Titus page.
I found a few leads in Etruscan News (Newsletter Of The American Section Of The Institute For Etruscan And Italic Studies. Volume 2. Spring, 2003):
Several of the books and articles mentioned appear to be difficult to obtain. Does anyone have any further pointers? - emk
This page doesn't load correctly in Opera v9.10 or Safari 2.0.4. In Safari, the contents wind up under the image of the grave marker, and in Opera, they wind up displayed over the image. Also, this discussion page has no ToC... is that on purpose? Anyhow, just thought I'd let folks know. — gogobera (talk) 06:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion over this. Was the Cumaean alphabet an Old Italic alphabet? A western Greek aplhabet? Is Old Italic the same as Western Greek?... FilipeS (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Etruscan alphabet redirects here, yet the page has nothing to say about it. Why? FilipeS (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Not sure why there's not a mention of it... but the Etruscan alphabet is the same thing as Old Italic. This alphabet is also the same as the Phoenician script, aka Paleo Hebrew or Middle Hebrew. The Phoenicians were the seafaring masters of their day, they colonized much of Italy and became the Etruscans. I've been learning Paleo Hebrew and was astonished to see that its the same as Etruscan aka Old Italic aka Phoenician script, aka "Ancient Semitic." I mean, its the same bloody thing. This didn't come from the Greek, it came from Paleo Hebrew. Check it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.90.11.207 (talk) 05:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Image:Masiliana tablet.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 06:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Etruscan alphabet look like closely with Old Turkic alphabet. see Old Turkic script. and should be classify with non-Indo european languages, like Mongolian or Turkic.
the Etruscan alphabet is Old Turkish alphabet.Please search Kazım Mirşan —Preceding unsigned comment added by KubilayKağan (talk • contribs) 16:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Well you dont know that, it suggests the alphabet is related, but the same thing I said about phoenician and turkic alphabet. So most probably the ancient turks and etruscans and many more were once semitic tribes. It all fitts with the notion that the tower of babylon was struck down and the people migrated out of babylon. 77.250.189.211 (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Nothing linked to in the template helps people find a way they can view the misrepresented figures in their browser. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.71.95.31 (talk) 08:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Please stop this nonsense about Etruscan being related to old turkic! Orkhon runes look way different. Orkhon runes are an abjad script, Etruscan is an alphabet! Orkhon runes originate from Soghdian, which originates from Syriac, so there is a relation, but they are NOT the same. This is just Turkish nationalist's and fashist's talk, so that they can say, that Turks have always lived in Anatolia. So please: Wikipedia is a scientifical forum and we don't want any scientifical nonsense like that in here or else we can just begin to discuss other fashist nonsense like human race teachings! Einstein92 (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Etruscan alphabet - classical time: "... mostly written from left to right." JUST THE CONTRARY IS TRUE. - Cf. the image "Comparison of West Greek alphabet..." Nuremberg Sept. 17th BY: angel.garcia2001@googlemail.com 87.156.176.37 (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Unless the section is referencing a totally separate custom of Oscan writing from what is otherwise attested from different sources, it has some major errors. Í and Ú were not introduced as long variants; they were introduced as slight differences in vowel quality, both are phonetically lowered relative to the unmarked letters. Ú came to be used to represent Oscan /o/. U was used for /u/ and also historical long */oː/. The article gets this backwards. Jackwolfroven (talk) 03:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
This article could make sense if it described how the alphabets derived from or influenced each other. As it is now, it is just a pastiche of separate stub articles about writing systems of languages that had little in common except being on the Italian peninsula. This material should be more useful if moved to the articles on the respective languages. And there is already a separate article about the Old Italic (Unicode block). --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 03:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
The Etruscan Alphabet tables ("archaic" and "new") are copied from the Omniglot page. However, that page has two mappings for each glyph. One is apparently a proposed transliteration system, that does not seem to be the one used by Etruscologists ("𐌙" is transcribed as "χ", for example, not "Ψ"). The other is the presumed phonetic value of the glyph (which for "𐌙" is [kh], not [ps]).
The table in this article copied the first item, which is misleading, and omitted the second, which is the important one.
I will ty to fix that for Etruscan, but the other alphabets should be revised too. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 03:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Howard from NYC (talk) 04:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
either a flaw in the content or my browser fails to display... if it is browser related then perhaps providing a link to where to find troubleshooting tips would be useful... considering how many other such failures for displaying have been occurring as new devices and revised operating systems enter the marketplace... also considering the increasing numbers of legacy (manufacture discontinued by OEM) devices accumulating as impoverished folk take to extending operational usage of donated/scavenged/mashedup devices far past intended lifecycle... as example I am utilizing a twelve year old laptop because transferring over to a new laptop all these zillions of interface settings and keyboard macros and other customizations would take approximately 200 hours(!)