Pantagathus Posted January 4, 2007 Report Share Posted January 4, 2007 :notworthy: This is also my way of saying that I didn't understand what you wrote. Basically I said that a long, long, long, long, long time before there was such thing as 'Semitic' people in the Near East, the ancestors of the Etruscans who probably lived in Anatolia were closely related genetically with the people who would eventually become Semitic people in the Levant.... But the genetic mutation (break) dividing out the J2e & J2f from the main J2 occured ~ 9,000 years ago... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rameses the Great Posted January 4, 2007 Report Share Posted January 4, 2007 (edited) Pantagathus, were not the first kings of Rome Etruscan? I know they were not Latin. If the Etruscans Edited January 4, 2007 by Rameses the Great Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spittle Posted January 4, 2007 Report Share Posted January 4, 2007 Sorry to side track. I have Cornell's early History of Rome and Forsythes Critical History of Early Rome but they are too advanced and scholarly for my limited knowledge/infantile concentration span. Could anyone recommend a narrative history on the Etruscan/Beginnings of Rome? I have found this discussion fascinating but notice the contradictory theories voiced by Ramses (Etruscan occupation and Monarchy0 and Pentagathus (Etruscan Mythology), Please direct me to further reading. Ramses, I don't think Latin derived from Ancient Greek to any serious degree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rameses the Great Posted January 4, 2007 Report Share Posted January 4, 2007 Ramses, I don't think Latin derived from Ancient Greek to any serious degree. Agreed, but you can't underestimate the factor of Greek language in European language groups. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Octavius Posted January 5, 2007 Report Share Posted January 5, 2007 Latin and Greek are cognate languages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docoflove1974 Posted January 5, 2007 Report Share Posted January 5, 2007 Latin and Greek are cognate languages. More appropriately, they are sister languages, both direct descendants of Proto-Indo-European. In no way, shape or form did Latin evolve from Greek, nor Etruscan. Yes there were borrowed terms into Latin from both languages, as well as from many others, but that is all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pantagathus Posted January 5, 2007 Report Share Posted January 5, 2007 Pantagathus, were not the first kings of Rome Etruscan? I know they were not Latin. How do you know Rameses? Even the experts are not quite sure how much veracity to assign to the 'historical' accounts of Rome's kings. But to answer your question, some of the later kings were supposedly Etruscan but for one, the second supposedly was Sabine. Why don't you at least read Primus Pilus' article Kings of Rome here at UNRV before trying to discuss any more erroneous information. Then, if your ever up to it, read the Cornell and Forsythe books that Spittle referred to. If I'm not mistaken it was derived from Greek and Etruscan even in its primitive stage. -AND- Agreed, but you can't underestimate the factor of Greek language in European language groups. You are indeed mistaken, please see the Docoflove's response. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caesar CXXXVII Posted January 5, 2007 Report Share Posted January 5, 2007 (edited) Even the experts are not quite sure how much veracity to assign to the 'historical' accounts of Rome's kings. 100 % right ! some of the later kings were supposedly Etruscan but for one, the second supposedly was Sabine. Can you provide some details for the Sabine in "the later kings" ? Edit : You meant the second in the full traditional list ? Edited January 5, 2007 by Caesar CXXXVII Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pantagathus Posted January 5, 2007 Report Share Posted January 5, 2007 Edit : You meant the second in the full traditional list ? Yeah, sorry I didn't wordsmith that correctly. I was indeed talking about Numa Pompilius, 2nd king after Romulus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.