Indo-Tyrrhenian: Difference between revisions
WeepingElf (talk | contribs) (Created page with "'''Indo-Tyrrhenian''' is the name of a hypothetical language family consisting of the Indo-European and Tyrrhenian language families (the latte...") |
WeepingElf (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Indo-Tyrrhenian''' is the name of a hypothetical [[language family]] consisting of the [[Indo-European languages|Indo-European]] and Tyrrhenian language families (the latter is the family consisting of the extinct Etruscan, Lemnian and Rhaetian languages). Most scholars, however, consider the evidence insufficient. | '''Indo-Tyrrhenian''' is the name of a hypothetical [[language family]] consisting of the [[Indo-European languages|Indo-European]] and Tyrrhenian language families (the latter is the family consisting of the extinct Etruscan, Lemnian and Rhaetian languages). Most scholars, however, consider the evidence insufficient as Etruscan resembles an Indo-European language even less than [[Uralic]] languages such as Finnish or Hungarian. Of course, some scholars opine that the latter may be [[Indo-Uralic|related]], but even if that was the case, the relationship between Indo-European and Tyrrhenian, if real at all, would be still more distant. | ||
The notion that Tyrrhenian forms a ''branch'' of Indo-European, perhaps part of the Anatolian branch, is sometimes proposed, but this is very unlikely (Etruscan does not look like an Indo-European language), and rejected by most scholars. | The notion that Tyrrhenian forms a ''branch'' of Indo-European, perhaps part of the Anatolian branch, is sometimes proposed, but this is very unlikely (Etruscan does not look like an Indo-European language), and rejected by most scholars. | ||
Latest revision as of 12:54, 2 July 2017
Indo-Tyrrhenian is the name of a hypothetical language family consisting of the Indo-European and Tyrrhenian language families (the latter is the family consisting of the extinct Etruscan, Lemnian and Rhaetian languages). Most scholars, however, consider the evidence insufficient as Etruscan resembles an Indo-European language even less than Uralic languages such as Finnish or Hungarian. Of course, some scholars opine that the latter may be related, but even if that was the case, the relationship between Indo-European and Tyrrhenian, if real at all, would be still more distant.
The notion that Tyrrhenian forms a branch of Indo-European, perhaps part of the Anatolian branch, is sometimes proposed, but this is very unlikely (Etruscan does not look like an Indo-European language), and rejected by most scholars.
