Grammar cannot be directly discovered. It is necessary to
include its discovery in the general pursuit of word stems, and
meaningful sentences that agree with the archeological context. It is
only during the discovery of sentences and maintaining a constancy in
word stems, that it is possible to look for the grammatical
endings that function in the same way in all the sentences. It is only
in the final stage that the gaps in terms of grammatical markers get
filled in and we have an organized description. That is the reason I
did not create this description of grammar until the very end.
See “THE VENETIC LANGUAGE An Ancient Language from a New Perspective: FINAL
” for the word stems and translations of the existing sentences on the archeological objects.
They say that the only way to prove that you have discovered a real
language is if you have identified sufficient word stems (lexicon) and
grammar that you can form new sentences that have not existed
before. I have achieved this, as will be clear in some examples
in this paper.
In general, the common public will think that anything to do with
language, including deciphering an unknown language, is a matter of the
science of linguistics; but nothing could be further from the truth.
Linguistics is the science that studies languages. If a language is
unknown or even no longer existing, there is nothing for linguistics to
study. An extinct language is just silence, and an unknown language is
simply noise patterns. Ancient Greeks called people who spoke in a way
they couldn't understand by the word "barbarian".
There is only one way to decipher an unknown language, and that is to
witness it in use. Linguists will try to find an 'informant' - a person
who speaks the unknown language and a known language that the linguist
knows as well. If Venetic had survived until today, then linguists
would have no problem deciphering it. But Venetic is extinct as a
spoken language. It only exists in short sentences written on
archeological objects dug up in northern Italy over the past centuries.
In the past, when unknown inscriptions have been found, scholars have
hoped to find translations of the unknown language in a known ancient
language like ancient Greek, Roman, Phoenician, etc, But none has
been found. Many Etruscan words have been deciphered from some parallel
texts. As for the ancient language of Crete, nobody has cracked that
one at all. As for Venetic, archeology has never found any inscription
with a parallel text in a known language like Latin. As the
region of the Veneti, in the northwest side of the Adriatic Sea became
Romanized, insriptions on cremation urns became slowly Romanized.
Traditional funerary keywords on urns continued to be used, sometimes
abbreviated. The mixture of Venetic and Latin conventions invited some
scholars to assume that Venetic was already a Latinlike language. And
so, the urn inscriptions of the Romanization period were projected into
the past. No matter how much self-deception there was to try to see
Venetic as a Latin-like language, there really was no parallel text in
understandable Latin to be found.
There is only one linguistic method for deciphering an unknown
language. If the unknown language is known to simply be related to a
known language, then the analysts can simply project the known language
onto the unknown. For example Venetic presents the word .e.go
at the beginnings of inscriptions on obelisques marking the location of tombs. It looks like Latin ego
'I' so IF YOU BELIEVE Venetic is an ancestral language to Latin, then you will project .Latin ego
onto Venetic .e.go.
The absurd result is that all the tomb markers have the deceased declaring their name 'I am [proper name assumed in the rest of the sentence]
' If you assume Venetic is Latin-like Venetic dona.s.to
looks like Latin donato
'give'. By coincidence the analyst can see a number of sentences that
look like offerings or gifts are being given to a deity named "Reitia".
If the number of sentences is large, then if the hypothesis is false it
will soon be apparent, and the pursuit of trying to project the Latin
onto the Venetic will come to an end, and replaced by another
hypothesis. This had already happened several times. A hypothesis
that Venetic was "Illyrian" preceded the hypothesis that Venetic was an
archaic Latin. (This stage was documented in LLV
in the 1960's - see Referemces at the end) Since that did not produce
enough results, some Slovenian academics began
to advance the hypothesis that Venetic was an ancient
Slovenian/Slavic. Meanwhile the formal academic world
that had pursued Venetic as an archaic Latin, finally
decided it was simply an unknown ancient Indo-European. (This is the
last stage and was documented in the 1980's in MLV
- see Refences)
In general, the practice of linguistically projecting an ASSUMED known
language onto the Venetic inscriptions, has produced inadequate
results. Sentences are often empty like personal names on tombstones,
or extremely poetic because the literal translation sound absurd.
When I tackled the deciphering problem, I went back to basic principles
and asked what would I do if I came upon a people with an unknown
language somewhere, and they did not know my language. The answer is
obvious: I would learn the language by observing how it was used in
everyday life, infer meanings, and try to join in and be corrected if I
spoke wrong. Could this methodology be applied if the language only
existed on archeological objects? It is possible if you reconstruct the
situations in which the objects were made and used. Today children
learn to read from books with sentences under pictures that describe
what is pictured. It happens that the Venetic archeological objects
include a number of relief images with texts around them that are
obviously captions to what the images show.
Thus the natural way we learn an unknown language is possible if the
analyst actually projects themself into the people and world that
archeology can reconstruct. We infer meanings of words and,
although there are no real speakers to correct us, we are able to
cross-reference out hypotheses with the circumstances surrounding the
same word or grammatical ending in another inscription on another
This methodology too improves the more examples of objects and
inscriptions there are, but it is surprising how far one can get in
this way. This is because after getting some very solid results from
inferring meanings from the archeological context, it is possible to
partially decipher some sentences, it is possible now to additionally
infer meanings for the unknown words, meanings that fill out the
sentences. Of course the inferred meanings have to undergo
cross-checking throughout all locations it appears. Back and
forth, working on the entire body of inscriptions at one, more an more
words are revealed in this way. Inferring meanings when we can produce
partial translations of course requires we have complete sentences so
that we can identify subjects, objects, etc. Because there were less
than 100 complete sentences, inevitably we would find words that became
a problem, but surprisingly, in the end there were only a handful of
sentences that did not get interpreted in some way.
It is possible to argue that Venetic could have been a Finnic language
because it was located at the southern terminus of amber routes,
mentioned already in ancient times, and confirmed by archeology in the
last century. But I did not EVER project any modern Finnic language
like Estonian or Finnish onto the Venetic. I determined it doesn't
really work. The Venetic was as different from Estonian or Finnish as,
say, Danish from Swedish. Some similarities could be detected but it
would certainly be impossible to compare Venetic with any language that
was 2000 years in its future.
However, once I had determined an approximate meaning for a word, the
Venetic word could then be projected into Estonian or Finnish. Since we
were projecting from Venetic into Estonian, the Venetic would be
identifying a true descendant word and all the rest of the thousands of
dictionary words would be invisible to it. Even so, the meaning
in the Venetic ruled, and finding descendant words in Estonian only
served to confirm the meaning, or to narrow down, or refine the
meaning. This helped improve results by maybe 10-20%.
Linguists say that languages do not change at the same rate throughout.
Frequently used words obtain an inertia and are passed down from
generation to generation. The language taught to children tends to
be the same language through a hundred generations. Common
grammar too - such as basic case endings, imperatives, simple present
and past tense - tends to endure longer. This can be seen when
comparing Estonian and Finnish: the basic grammatical endings are the
same, and only the rarer grammatical forms differ. For this reason
linguists look at grammatical structure similarity to find distant
genetic relationships. Theoretically, if Venetic, Estonian and Finnish
are related from having a common ancestor several millenia ago, then
their basic grammar should be similar. I therefore used, in my
description of grammar below, a comparison of Venetic grammar with
Estonian and Finnish grammar, in order to show the parallelism. The
grammar is somewhat limited though, because I only had less than 100
complete sentences to work with. Often used grammatical forms include
the third person imperative, infinitive, partitive, inessive,...You
will see below, that when the Venetic is compared to Estonian and
Finnish, there are gaps. Some of the gaps can be inferred from the
Estonian and Finnish forms.
The proof that the Venetic language has been discovered comes from
rationalizing the grammar to such an extent it is possible to create
new sentences, and from all the translations of the known Venetic
sentences being believable and suitable for the objects and
circumstances in which they were found.
See “THE VENETIC LANGUAGE An Ancient Language from a New Perspective: FINAL
” for a detailed description of the ideal methodology I used, and which eventually revealed the Venetic language was Finnic.
Because in the end, we found that the Venetic language looked
Finnic, I organized my description of Venetic in a form that makes
reference to Finnic languages. Since most readers will know very little
about Finnic language (the best known are Finnish and Estonian), here
is a basic summary of characteristics of Finnic languages in the Introduction..
Finnic languages are NON-Indo-European language, and therefore most
readers of this will be entering foreign territory. Most scholars know
absolutely nothing about Finnic languages, and that is and has been an
obstacle to proper investigation of the Venetic inscriptions. When
Venetic is regarded as Latin-like, or generally Indo-European, then a
million scholars can try to relate to it. But when Venetic is viewed as
NON-Indo-European, the number of scholars both educated and interested
in the subject drops to merely handfuls.
Thus in this section of describing the results of my determinations of
case endings, you have to think in a different way than when thinking
of Indo-European languages.
1. INTRODUCTION TO VENETIC GRAMMAR
1.1 Venetic as a Finnic Language Must Be Viewed Differently
Basically Finnic languages are strong in case endings, and case endings
can be added to case endings. This is a very old manner of constructing
sentences. The only more primitive language forms can be seen in either
ancient Sumerian, or today’s Inuit of arctic North America – where
ideas are formed by combining small syllabic elements. In the
course of the evolution of languages case endings became incorporated
into word stems, and the freedom to play with case endings decreased.
Also modifiers became separate words placed at the front.
There has been a steady conversion of humankind’s language from short
syllabic words freely combined, to today’s large number of independent
words. It can be compared to making soup from raw vegetables compared
to buying ready-made soup in a can. Modern words are the consequence of
the ‘canning and cooking of basic elements’. In Estonian and Finnish it
is possible to see the consituent elements in words. For example
the word Eestlane
, ‘Estonian’ or in Finnish Eestilainen
regarded as a word, but already adds two elements onto the stem Eesti
We have –la
meaning ‘place of’ (Eestla
= ‘Estonian place’) and
meaning ‘pertaining to, of the character of’
These are not recognized as case endings because they are not freely
added in actual usage, but poetic authors could do so. For example using puu
‘tree’, one can say
and could use it to
mean ‘animal of the tree’ such
as a squirrel or monkey or even a human who lives in a treehouse.
Today a large number of endings are not regarded as adding case endings
but as ‘derivational suffixes’ I think part of the problem was that
past Finnic linguists did not want to stray too far from the grammar
descriptions of Indo-European languages. There was an inferiority
complex. Estonians and Finns were even self-conscious of their culture
and language having aboriginal origins in the prehistoric canoe-using
Thus, using the above examples, Eestlane
are words in
themselves and to this we can add more case endings. We can thus have
from Eestlane – t – ele
‘to the Estonians’. But from
a more polysynthetic view, we have Eesti – la – ne – t –
A great deal of the Estonian and Finnish words already
contain many of the abovementioned ‘derivational suffixes’ which to a
great extent can be case endings too if an author wants to play with
It shows the progression – that as structures with case endings become
used so often they seem like words in themselves, the constituent case
endings become frozen into them. It is how all the words in all
languages evolved. All that has happened is that some languages
progressed slowly on this path, which other progressed slowly.
From a Finnic perspective, some Venetic words produce revealing results
when broken down into their elements. For example the goddess is
addressed with $a.i.na te.i. re.i.tiia.i.
I interpreted $a
as the basic stem meaning ‘lord, god’ -.i.
- is a pluralizer, and
is a case ending meaning ‘in the form, nature, of’ The
resulting meaning is to describe the goddess having ‘the character of
gods’. It resonates a bit with Etruscan eisna
‘divine’ and with
‘lord’ and we can form a parallel issa-i-na
The intent was to address the goddess in the praiseful way so that the
whole $a.i.na te.i. re.i.tiia.i.
means ‘joining with You,
Rhea, of the nature of the gods’ (‘of the nature of the gods’ can
be stated simply with ‘divine’.)
Words that were difficult to decipher from context, became easy when
broken apart into Finnic-type elements, but often resulted in abstract
ideas whose precise meaning needed some imagining of what went on in
the actual context. For example V.i.rema.i.stna.i.
and then v.i.rema - .i. - .s.t - na - .i.
is very abstract but because it was used in place of $a.i.na
has to be praisful, and so I decided it meant something like ‘uniting
with Rhea in the nature of arising from the land of life energy’.
Similar sentences in the same context plus the context of the sentence,
helped move towards the more precise meaning. Note that ancient
language was always spoken in context, so that the context would help
in making the meaning clearer.
1.2 Some Notes on reading and writing Venetic Inscriptions
Venetic writing was peculiar in that dots were added between
characters, whereas Etruscan and Latin used dots only to mark word
The convention is to write the Venetic text in small case Roman, introducing the dots in the correct places.
THE NATURE OF THE VENETIC WRITING.
CONTINUOUS TEXT AND DOTS (FOR MORE DETAIL SEE PART A):
The Venetic inscriptions do
not mark word boundaries. Instead the sentences are written
continuously, and dots are added before and after letters. This practice has puzzled traditional analysts
and had come to be regarded as a ‘syllabic punctuation’, but I
discovered this is incorrect. Venetic writing is pure phonetic writing
with the dots used to mark situations in which the pure sound of the
character is altered by actions of the tongue – mostly palatalization.
If a dot appears before and after a character, the sound of that
character is palatalized. The dots can be thought of as tiny
“I”s. These are phonetic and easy to understand. Writers simply
threw the dots into the script where there was palatalization or some
other effect from the tongue, such as trilling an R, and single dots
could also be used to signal pauses or added length. (A consonant
becomes a pause while a vowel gets added length)
The phonetic marking helps us understand how Venetic was spoken (One
can use highly palatalized Livonian – a Finnic language – as a model
for how to speak Venetic, but also the palatalization survives in
Danish, even though the original Suebic was replaced by Germanic.)
But as far as grammar is concerned, I think the palatalization was
a paralinguistic feature, and did not really have to be marked. If
Venetic had been written with dots or spaces separating words, it would
have been fine – except that our ability to understand how it sounded
would be lost. Therefore, the reader of this description of
grammar need not be concerned about the dots too much. Estonian has
weak paltalization which is not explicitly marked, whereas Livonian has
strong palatalization and it is marked. Venetic probably does not need
to mark the palatalization, and it exists only to reproduce the actual
sound when word boundaries are not shown. I show the dots anyway
order to remain true to the original Venetic writing.
For a detailed discussion of the dots, see the main document, or my
separate paper on the dots. (See references for "How Venetic Sounded")
NOTE : In
the following examples of Venetic texts, we represent the character
that looks like an M in the Venetic alphabet with the keyboard
character $ but we interpret the sound as "ISS" as in
English "hiss", whereas the s with the dots is palatalized and sounds like "sh"
1.3 Finnic Grammatical Features to Find in Venetic
The following presents the main characteristics of Finnic found in
Estonian and Finnish. We bear these in mind in order to be on the
lookout for these characteristics in Venetic.
MANY CASE ENDINGS/SUFFIXES, ADDED AGGLUTINATVELY.
Venetic as a Finnic language would be agglutinative.
That means case endings (or suffixes), can be added to case endings to
express complex thoughts. This is actually a degeneration of the
most primitive forms of language which have a relatively small number
of stems, and an abundance of suffixes, affixes and prefixes. Linguists
call a language that is extremely of this nature ‘polysynthetic’ .The
Inuit language is a good example. There are indications in some Inuit
words and grammar that it has the same ancestor as Finnic
languages. Finnic languages are best understood if they are seen
as having such a ‘polysynthetic’ foundation, and then being influenced
towards the form of language seen in Indo-European.
(It is important to note that the modern descriptions of Finnic
languages like Estonian and Finnish are somewhat contrived in that they
modeled themselves after grammatical description models similar to what
had already been done in other European languages. The reality is that
Estonian or Finnish case endings are merely selections of the most
common endings from a large array of possible suffixes. Thus even
though in the following pages we are oriented to specific formalized
case endings in Estonian and Finnish, there remains also suffixes that
could have been described as case endings if the linguist who developed the popular
grammatical descriptions had chosen to. The difference between
‘derivational suffixes’ and ‘case endings’ is merely in the latter
being commonly applied in the opinion of the linguists who described
PREPOSITIONS, PRE-MODIFIERS, CASE ENDINGS & SUFFIX MODIFIERS
It seems as if in the evolution of language, the ‘polysynthetic’
form degenerated in the direction of our familiar modern European
languages, where there are less and less case endings, and more and
more independent modifiers located in front. But Finnic languages are not
as ‘primitive’ as Inuit, and have developed through millennia of being
influenced from the languages of the farmers and civilizations - some
premodifiers, adjectives, prepositions and other features placed in
front. Venetic, like modern Finnic, present some instances of
prepositions and pre-modifiers, like va.n.t.-
but in general there are very few modifiers in front. It appears that
instead of adjectives, Venetic liked to create compound words, where
the first part – a pure stem without case endings – was somewhat
NO GENDER. NO GENDER MARKERS ON NOUNS
There is no gender in Finnic languages. There is no ‘la’ or ‘le’ in
front, nor any gender marker at the end. English too lacks gender in
nouns, so that will not be a problem for English readers here.
But there is only one pronoun in Finnic for ‘he,she, it’. In Venetic we
do not mistakenedly consider some repeated ending to be a gender
marker, but look for a case ending or suffix.
NO ARTICLES. USE PARTITIVE INSTEAD OF INDEFINITE ARTICLE
In English and many European Indo-European languages, there are
definite and indefinite articles. For example French has un or
une as the indefinite article and le or la as the definite article.
Finnic does not have it. Instead the indefinite sense as in ‘a’ or
‘some’ is expressed via the Partitive. The Partitive is a case
form that views something as being part of something larger. For
example “a” house among many houses. or “some” houses among many houses.
PLURAL MARKED BY T, D or FOR PLURAL STEMS I, J
Plural in Estonian and Finnish is marked by T,D or I,
J added to the stem according to phonetics requirements. Finnish only
uses the T in the Nominative and Accusative, and then uses I, or J to
form the plural stem. Estonian uses T for plural stem, and then
uses I or J if necessary where phonetics calls for it. Venetic
appears to have both plural markers too, but perhaps more like
Estonian. As we will see, there is more reason to attribute
Estonian conventions than Finnish conventions to Venetic. (There is
reason to believe that Estonian and Venetic/Suebic have the same
ancestral language – see later.)
CONSONANT AND VOWEL HARMONY, GRADATION
Venetic shows evidence of consonant gradation and vowel and consonant
harmony. For example if a suffix/ending is added to a stem with high
vowels or soft consonants, the sound of the suffix may be altered to
suit - with a lower vowel going higher, or a soft consonant going
harder. For example ekupetaris
has hard consonants P,T, hence the
K in eku
instead of G as in .e.g.e.s.t.s.
We can find
similar situations with vowels, unforunately the Venetic inscriptions
are phonetic and capture dialectic variations, and the number of
examples is very small.
COMPOUND WORDS –FIRST PART IS STEM, SECOND PART TAKES ENDINGS
A compound word occurs when a word stem is added to the front of
another word stem. The case endings then are added to the combined
word. We can detect them in Venetic when we see a naked word stem in
front of another word stem but the latter taking the case endings.
Generally all words develop in the following way, but this is less
noticable in the major languages today. Words began with very
short stems with broad, fluid, meanings. As humans evolved, they needed
to name things more specifically, and did so by combining them with
additional elements – suffixes, infixes and prefixes. As the new word
came into common use, the new word would become a stem in itself,
taking its own grammatical endings. Because of abbreviation and
other changes in the stem, the fact that the stem arose from a simpler
stem, becomes obscured. For example in Estonian we might create the
‘tree-place-pertainingto’ as a poetic word for an animal
who lives in trees. If this word were to come into common use,
such as describing a squirrel, we might have puulane
then over time might degenerate to pulan
is a stem for endings, such as pulanest
squirrel’. This is invented for illustration, but a real example might
be how the word vee
might have developed into the word for ‘boat’
as follows: vee
(‘water’) > vee-ne
(‘pertaining to water’)
(‘object pertaining to water’) > reducing to vene
(In our analysis of Venetic, we looked into the internal construction of words for insights)
2. VENETIC CASE ENDINGS
2.1 CASE ENDINGS IN GENERAL
2.1.1. Static vs Dynamic Interpretations of Some Case Endings
When one first looks at Venetic the first thing one notices are endings
of the form -a.i
. or -o.i.
Sometimes there is a double
in front, as in -iia.i.
A good example is re.i.tiia.i.
The context of the sentence, even when it was viewed from a Latin
perspective from imagining dona.s.to
was like Latin donato
that it was like a Dative – an offering was being given ‘to’ a
Goddess. This remains true when viewed in our new Finnic perspective -
something is brought ‘to’ Rhea
. But is it a Dative? I was fully
prepared to grant that ending, (vowel).i.
, a Dative label,
but the more I studied it wherever it occurred it seemed to most of the
time to have a meaning analogous to how in modern religious sermons, the
priest might say ‘to join God’ or ‘to unite with the holy’ and so on. I
eventually found this idea of 'uniting with' has to be correct because in
the prayers written to the goddess Rhea
at sanctuaries, written in
conjunction with burnt offerings, one is not giving the offering to
in the manner of a gift, but rather releasing and sending the spirit via the smoke which then joins or unites with
up in the clouds. Indeed
even in modern religions one does not 'give' something to our high
deity, but sends something to the deity, to be with the deity, to unite
with the deity.
But what was this case ending if it was not Dative? What case ending
would mean ‘uniting with’? But then I saw the ending from time to time
in a context where it seemed to be like a regular Partitive. If a
regular Partitive has a meaning ‘a thing’ or in plural ‘some things’ and can be
described as something ‘being part of’ a larger whole, then if it were
viewed in a dynamic way, would that not mean ‘becoming part of, to
unite with’? If this is the case, then we would have to discover
Venetic having a static vs dynamic interpretation in other case
Let us assume the Partitive has two forms – the normal
static form and a dynamic form (‘becoming part of, uniting with,
joining’) Let us investigate.
Overlooking similar endings for the Terminative -na.i.
for the infinitive use of (vowel).i.
, which we will discuss later, we can find the example.
lemeto.i. .u.r.kleiio.i. - [funerary urn - MLV-82, LLV-Es81]
‘Warm-feelings. To join the oracle’s eternity’
In this describing of Venetic grammar we will not explain the entire
laborious process of establishing the word stems. That information is
extensively discussed in the main document - “THE VENETIC
LANGUAGE An Ancient Language from a New Perspective: FINAL
Here the first word, a plural of leme
can only be a static Partitive –
‘Some warm-feelings’, while the second expresses a dynamic Partitive
conveying the sense of ‘towards’ in the sense of ‘joining’ (‘becoming
part of’) an infinite destination, the infinite future with which
the oracle deals with. One may wonder if the double I (-ii-
) is an
infix that makes it dynamic. (See later discussion of the -ii-
If it is possible for a language to allow a case ending to be
interpreted in both a dynamic and a static way, what more can we say
about it? What do I mean by dynamic vs static meanings of a case form?
It is not unusual for a word to have a different role in a
different sentence context. An example of dynamic vs static
interpretation can be seen in how English uses
‘in’. One can say “He went in
the house” and it would be clear
the meaning is he went ‘into
’ the house.
But if this variation in meaning depending on the whole sentence
meaning only occurs with the Partitive, then we may wonder if the
hypothesis is correct. But then I found that Venetic
appears to have both dynamic and static ways of interpreting ‘in
well. The Venetic Inessive (‘in
’) is marked by .s.
– often the meaning,
as a result of context, ‘into’ not ‘in’ as Inessive requires. The only
difference between the concept ‘in’ and the concept ‘into’ is whether
there is movement. Thus one case can be used for both static and
dynamic intepretations. The correct interpretation is determined from
the context. There is no need to create separate cases for when there
is no movement, vs movement, if it is easy to understand from the
context. It can be argued, then, that case endings originally did not
explicitly make the distinction - except if clarity was needed, an
adverb was added that explicitly meant, for example, 'into' (in
Estonian there is sisse 'into' so one can say 'he went in the house -
into' as in tema läks majas -sisse
' which evolved to tema läks majasse
Modern Finnic languages have developed explicit static vs dynamic
interpretations – perhaps from the development of literature which
promoted more precision. For example modern Finnic will have an
explicit ‘in’ case in the Inessive and an explicit ‘into’ case in
the Illative. But perhaps originally it was not that way. One
indication of it is the fact that, for example, the Estonian and
Finnish Inessive (‘in’) case endings are similar (Finn. -ssa
) and yet the Estonian and Finnish Illative (‘into’) case
endings are different . This suggests that the Illative case is a more
and they do not have a common parent. The common
parent would have had an Inessive case that could have a dynamic
meaning if the context required it. Then I think the use of the
language – probably about a thousand years ago - put pressure on
being more explicit and that lead to Finnish and Estonian developing an
Illative each in their own separate way. Finnish has an Illative case
(‘into’) that looks like it was developed out of stretching the Genitive (‘of’)
for example Finnish talo
- Genitive talon
, Illative taloon
Estonian has an Illative that looks like it was an enhancement from the
original Inessive in that –s
. Estonian (using talu
Inessive (‘in’) talus
, Illative (‘into’) talusse
In summary, it appears that the ancestral language of Estonian and
Finnish only had the Inessive, and that the Illative developed when
Estonian and Finnish had branched away from each other, and perhaps
only less than the last two millenia. In short, the Illatives
being very different, are not related, while Inessives are similar,
hence are related and must have been in the common ancestral language.
If Venetic only has the Inessive for both usages, then Venetic precedes
any development of an explicit Illative.
The development of the Illative described, indicates that they
developed from a lengthening of a static case. This lengthening is a
natural development when we wish to indicate movement. For example,
Estonian Illative -sse can easily arise from the speaker of an
original –s simply lengthening it to emphasize movement, as in talus
> talusse. What is peculiar is that the Finnish Illative was
developed by adding length to the Genitive! It is possible when you
consider that you can start with a Genitive (talon ‘of the house) and
exaggerate it to get the concept of ‘becoming of’ (taloon ‘becoming of
the house’ =‘into the house’) Thus, technically the Estonian Illative
and Finnish Illative have different underlining meanings!
This shows that if originally Finnic had static case endings that would
assume dynamic meanings (from movement) from context, the dynamic forms
could be spontaneously implied by the speaker simply lengthening
it. We take any static case and add into the meaning ‘becoming’
as for example ‘into’ = ‘becoming in’.
Thus if we accept that Venetic cases could be interpreted in both
static and dynamic ways, we have to allow all the static case endings
the possibility of having dynamic meanings.
Returning to the Venetic Partitive. Depending on the context, the
listener would interpret the Partitive ending either in a static way
‘part of a’ or a dynamic way ‘become part of a’ ideally
interpreted in English as ‘unite with, join with’ That is the
reason, I interpret re.i.tiia.i.
with ‘join with Rhea
’ instead of
simply ‘to Rhea’. I believe the intended meaning was that the item
brought to the sanctuary and sent skyward as a burnt offering was
intended to join Rhea, become part of Rhea
– the Partitive case
assuming a dynamic meaning here that had a more complex implication to
it – that of the offering travelling into the sky and joining, uniting
with, becoming part of Rhea
. As I said above, the idea is
reflected in modern religious ideas of ‘uniting with God’.
We have above now identified two Venetic case endings that can be
interpreted either statically or dynamically. (v means ‘vowel’)
can mean either ‘in’ or ‘becoming in’=’into’
can mean either ‘a (part of)’ or ‘becoming part of’ = ‘join, unite with’ and an added -ii-
may emphasize the latter.
I noticed that often the seeming dynamic interpretation of the
Partitive in Venetic is preceeded with the double ii
as in the
This insertion of the long ii
sound may be
an explicit development, analogous in the psychological effect of
lengthening, to how Finnish achieves the Illative meaning by
lengthening the last vowel (example taloon
). It can therefore be
interpreted with its psychological quality. The possibility exists that
the double ii
can serve as an explicit way of making the following
ending dynamic. That is to say perhaps –iia.i.
instead of just –a.i
emphasizes the fact there is movement. We will consider the –ii
The following sections describe case endings, in the order of presence
in the Venetic. The case endings names are inspired by Estonian and Finnish case
ending names. We will reveal examples in the Venetic inscriptions
and note them. However, case endings are really frequently-used
suffixes, and Venetic may have some additional suffixes which could be
considered additional case endings for Venetic. A summary of our
investigation of case endings and comparisons with Estonian and Finnish
case endings will follow this section in the table at the end of
2.1.2. Introduction to Est./Finn. Case Endings and the Presence of these Case Endings in Venetic.
Since we will structure our description of Venetic case endings in the
standard descriptions used for Estonian and Finnish, and since we will
make comparisons between Venetic and Estonian and Finnish case endings,
we should first summarize the common accepted case endings in Estonian and
The list is oriented to Estonian and the modern order in listing them.
This is by way of summary of the ones we have looked at, showing which
ones do and do not have resonances with Venetic. See also the chart
given in Table 2.
The following is an introductory overview of the possible case endings
based on Estonian and Finnish. This will be followed by more detailed
study of each, and how it is represented in Venetic.
-- identified by a finalizing
element that has to be softened when made into a stem. Even if the last
letter may be hardened over the stem, there is no formal suffix or case
‘of’ (Estonian) [stem]
, (Finnish) -n
identified by a softened ending able to take case endings Venetic
seems to have gone the direction of Estonian – ie Genitive given by stem
‘part of’ (Estonian) -t
Venetic appears to have evolved
to convert the –t
in the parental language of Estonian and
Venetic/Suebic into –j
‘in’ (Est.) -s
Appears in Veneti as
but Venetic uses it in both a static way to describe something and
a dynamic way with meaning of Illative ‘into’
(Finn)-v v n
NOT in Venetic, meaning the
explicit Illative may be a development since Venetic times, as I
described above. Venetic allows –.s.
to assume this dynamic meaning
according to context needs.
‘out of’ (Est.)-st
, (Finn) -sta
strong in Finnic languages
including Venetic but appearing mainly as a nominalizer and therefore
must be very old
‘at (location)’ (Est.)-l
Due to similarities between Est. and Finn. versions is another very old
ending, hence expected within Venetic (and is as -l
‘to (location)’ (Est. and Finn.)-lle
it is found in both Est. and Finn. also very old, and we found it in
Venetic as –le.i..
‘from (location) (Est.) -lt
Probably also in Venetic at least embedded in words like vo.l.tiio
‘transform into’ (Est.)-ks
Not identified yet in Venetic, but if it exists in
both Estonian and Finnish one might expect it does exist in Venetic
too. One watches for evidence.
‘as’ (same in all three languages)-na
This is one of the endings that must be very old to appear in all three.
‘up to, until’ (Est.)-ni
acknowledged in Finnish grammar) This seems it may exist in
Venetic as Essive plus dynamic Partitive -na.i.
‘without’ (Est.) -ta
Not noticed in the Venetic, but could be there somewhere.
‘with, along with’ (Est) -ga
definitely presented k’
in the meaning ‘and, also’ as in
. Unclear if it occurs as a suffix in Venetic.
The following go through the above in more detail:
2.1.3. Nominative Case
In Estonian the nominative has a hard ending as it lacks case
ending or suffix. If there is a case ending, there is a stem with a
softened ending since more will be added to it. Common in Estonian is
the softening of a consonant too. For example Nom. kond
, and stem
- Since we find in Venetic -gonta
as well as
etc this character of reducing the t to n may not exist in Venetic. I expected in
Venetic too the Nominative may show a harder or more final terminal
sound than when it becomes a stem for endings. It may depend on the
nature of the stem. But in the Venetic inscriptions I simply
looked for the stem without endings and that would then be the
It may seem strange, but the appearance of the Nominative in the
Venetic inscriptions is very rare – almost always there was some kind
of ending – because most of the sentences have the following as the
subject (The nominative occurs only as the subject)
however contains endings, as the primitive stem is do-
See discussion in section 1.2
Some other Nominatives (underlined)...(Spaces added to show word boundaries)
5.K) .a.tta ‘the end’ [urn- MLV-99, LLV-Es2]
7.A) ada.n dona.s.to re.i.tiia.i v.i.etiana .o.tnia
- [MLV-32 LLV-Es51]
Above we see the ending –ia
Such an ending is indicative of the
Nominative. It resembles the –ia
ending used in Latin, but did not come
from Latin since Venetic is older than Latin.
7.B) v.i.o.u.go.n.ta lemeto.r.na .e.b.
- “The collection of conveyances, as
ingratiation producers, remains
Above we see v.i.o.u.go.n.ta
which is unusual
since this word usually occurs with an ending like v.i.o.u.go.n.ta.i
and hence is usuallly not
In general, once you determine the word stem from scanning all words
for the common first portion, you can assume when that word stem occurs
without any such ending, it is Nominative. Later we will see something
similar when studying verbs. When a verb appears not to have any
endings, then we regard it as the common imperative. (See later section
on verbs) For verbs we determine the verb stem by removing the endings
(The present indicative, past participle, infinite, imperative...)
2.1.4. Partitive Case -v.i. ‘part of; becoming part of’
This is the case ending that earlier analysis from
Latin or Indo-European was thought to be “Dative” because by
coincidence the mistakened idea that dona.s.to
was related to Latin
, the prayers to the goddess seemed to speak of an offering being
given to the goddess. (In reality nothing was being given directly to
the goddess, but something was being burnt and its spirit was being
sent up to join with the goddess in the clouds, and that needed a
different kind of case ending than simply giving.)
Practically any static case ending could become a dynamic one which can
be interpreted broadly with ‘to’. A good example a Genetive
ending meaning ‘of, possessing’’ in a dynamic sentence with movement
can become ‘becoming possessed by’ as in ‘coming to be of, coming
to possess’ which in a general way can be interpreted as ‘to’ in the
sense that when something is given ‘to’ someone, it is becoming
possessed by them. Similarly giving something ‘to’ someone can also
mean ‘becoming part of’ (from Partitive) or ‘becoming inside’ (from
Inessive, turning into an Illative meaning) or ‘coming to the location
of’ (from Adessive, becoming Allative in meaning). As I said in
2.1.1, I believe that in actual real world use, the dynamic
interpretation was dictated by context. But with the arrival of
literature much context was lost and it was necessary to be more
explicit in terms of whether a meaning was static or dynamic. And
sometimes a meaning could shift. I believe that Finnish Illative ‘into’
developed from its Genetive – that the dynamic Genetive meaning
‘becoming of, becoming possessed by’ came to be used in the sense
of ‘becoming inside’.
Similarly a dynamic Partitive ‘becoming part of, uniting with’ could
shift its meaning towards the Dative idea of giving something ‘to’
The main reason for my regarding this case ending as a Partitive rather
than another case that will also reduce to a Dative-like ‘to’, is that
in some contexts in the inscriptions it appears in a regular Partitive
fashion much like in Estonian or Finnish. That means that the dynamic
meaning of the ‘to’-concept actually means ‘becoming part of’, or
‘uniting with’, etc.
Comparing with Estonian Partitive.
Here is more evidence that
this case ending in Venetic of the form -v.i.
Partitive: we can demonstrate that the Venetic Partitive can be
achieved if an Estonianlike Partitive (which may have existed a couple
millenia ago in the common language) was spoken in an intensely
palatalized manner. I explain it as follows:
The Partitive in general can be viewed as a plural treated in a
singular way (one item being part of many), and so the plural markers
come into play. The plural markers in Finnic are -T-,-D-, and -I-,-J-;
hence the replacement of T, D with J,I is already intrinsic to Finnic
languages. When speakers of the ancestor to Venetic – Suebic – began to
palatalize a great deal, they found the -J ending more comfortable than
Estonian marks the Partitive with a -T-,-D- and therefore it isn’t
surprising that you can get a Venetic Partitive by replacing the
-T-,-D- ending with -J-, as in talut
While it is possible in this way to arrive at the Venetic Partitive
ending from the Estonian one, one cannot do so from the Finnish
Partitive. This suggests that both the Estonian and Venetic/Suebic
languages had a common parent. Perhaps the Estonian Partitive came
first. Then, with strong palatalization, the Venetic/ Suebic Partitive,
converted the -T-,-D-, to -J (.i.)
This and observations of the Inessive as well, give us a family tree of
Finnic language descent which agrees with both archeological knowledge
and common sense. I have shown it below in a tree diagram.
In it I show how we can arrive at the Estonian Partitive and modern
Finnish Partitive from an ancient one, and then arrive at the
Suebic/Venetic Partitive from highly palatalized speaking of the
Estonian-like Finnic that was presumably the first language used among
the sea-traders across the northern seas.
Follow the Partitive in the tree chart. We begin with –TA which then loses
the T in the descendants going towards Finnish, and loses the A in the
descendants going towards Aestic and Suebic (as I call the two ancient
dialects of the east and west Baltic Sea). The common
Baltic-Finnic language then on the west side interracts with
“Corded-ware” Indo-European speaking farmers, and becomes a little
degenerated and spoken with a tight mouth that results in intensified
palatalization, rising vowels, and that the –T Partitive is softened to
a frontal H or J sound, which is what the Venetic Partitive ending
This chart also describes how the Estonian and Finnish Illatives must
be developments in historic times, as Venetic shows no presence of an
explicit Illative (‘into’) but uses the Inessive (‘in’) in a dynamic
context to express the Illative idea. I show above how the
Estonian Illative developed out of emphasis on the Inessive, while
Finnish derived it from emphasis on the vowel in the Genetive.
See later discussions of the Inessive case in Venetic.
Thus the Venetic Partitive could be interpreted in a static or dynamic way as follows:
Static interpretation (‘part of’)
: This is the normal use of the
Partitive - where something is part of something larger. It is
indefinite and is equivalent to using the indefinite article “a” in
English. The static Partitive appears a number of times in the body of
Venetic sentences, such as rako.i.
in pupone.i. e.go
but because so many of the
inscriptions are sending offerings to Rhea or a deceased person to
eternity, the following dynamic interpretation tends to dominate. In
other words the prevalence of the dynamic partitive interpretation in
the body of inscriptions is purely the result of archeology finding
mostly funerary inscriptions dealing with sending things to the goddess
or eternity and requiring the dynamic interpretation below.
Dynamic interpretation (‘becoming part of, joining with’):
dynamic interpretation was less in everyday use of Venetic, but very
few inscriptions show everyday sentences. If we gave the Partitive a
dynamic meaning, it would be ‘becoming part of many’. The best
concept is ‘to join with’ or ‘unite with’. For example giving an
offering to the Goddess in re.i.tiia.i
does not mean giving
in a give-recieve way, but rather for that offering is to unite
with her, become part of her. It resonates with modern Church
expressions of ‘uniting with God’.
From an Estonian point of view, one can understand how there can be a
dynamic interpretation because of the alternative Partitive and
Illative in Estonian , where, using the stem talu
, both the
alternative Illative (a dynamic case meaning ‘into’) and alternative
Partitive have the same form tal’lu
based on lengthening. This
suggests that the language from which this alternative form came must
have had a dynamic Partitive interpretation like we see in Venetic, and
its usage was so much like a newly created Illative that it was linked
to the Illative. In that case the so-called Estonian alternative
Illative is not an Illative at all, but a dynamic interpretation of the
Partitive. Sometimes the only indication of the alternative Partitive
in Estonian is emphasis or length. But this only underscores the fact
that explicit dynamic case endings can easily shift their meaning.
One of the sentences discussed in THE VENETIC LANGUAGE An Ancient Language from a New Perspective: FINAL
(a) .e..i.k. go.l.tan o.s.dot olo.u. dera.i. kane.i - [container - MLV- 242, LLV- Ca4]
Here we see dera.i. kane.i
‘a whole container’ in the static Partitive
interpretation. In Estonian the normal Partitive is to use -T-,-D-
instead of the J (.i.
) as in Est. tervet kannut
but it is also common
to say in Estonian terv’e kann’u
adding length. Considering that
Estonian was converged from various east Baltic dialects, in my opinion
this alternative Partitive form in Estonian comes from ancient Suebic
(the parent of Venetic) from the significant immigration from the west
Baltic to the east during the first centuries AD when there were major
refugee movements caused by the Gothic military campaigns up into the
Jutland Peninsula and southern Sweden. The Suebic grammatical forms
needed to converge with the indigenous Aestic grammatical forms, and so
an original tervej kannuj
(for example) evolved among these speakers
into terv’e kann’u
instead of reverting to the indigenous tervet kannut
(which would sound unusual to people used to tervej kannuj
The following sentence below shows the general form used in regards to
an offering being made to Rhea
. It shows the most frequent
context in which the dynamic interpretation is desired.
(b) mego dona.s.to vo.l.tiiomno.s. iiuva.n.t.s .a.riiun.s.
- [bronze sheet MLV- 10 LLV- Es25]
Our brought-item ((ie offering), skyward-going, in the infinite
direction, into the airy-realm[?], to (=unite with) you of the Gods, to
(=unite with) Rhea
When you think about it, the idea of uniting with or joining with a
deity, or eternity, is more involving than merely moving to that
location or giving something to it – which is the reason in religion
today, it is more satisfying to ‘unite with God’ . In the case of the
Venetic context it is the spirit, rising to the clouds via the smoke of
burning, that unites with the deity.
2.1.5. “Iiative” Infix -ii- ‘extremely (fast or far or large)’
As we saw in the example above (b) one of the Partitive endings, the
one inside re.i.tiia.i.
is preceeded by -ii
- It is possible to
regard the -ii
- as a separate infix giving motion, or the entire
as an explicit expression of the dynamic Partitive. It
could represent a way by which the speaker emphasized the dynamism.
However, the double -ii
- appears elsewhere too and the example shows it
twice as well. Note the double “I” under the underlined parts:
mego dona.s.to vo.l.tiiomno.s. iiuva.n.t.s .a.riiun.s. $a.i.nate.i. re.i.tiia.i.
While there may have developed some degree of an explicit dynamic
Partitive in -iiv.i.
the appearance of the double ii
situations, made me decide that this was a more widely applicable infix
that added a sense of extremeness and or motion. See our discussions
about the infinite as well in the lexicon (ie the meaning of .i.io.s.
In the above .a.riiun.s.
the stem is probably .a.riu-
elements are added: -ii-
We note that the
occurs also in a similar way vo.l.tiio
which describes movement to
the heavens overhead, where we see no other ending. Here it seems that
is intended to exaggerate the size of the realm above. As
funny as it may seem, it could have the same psychological basis as
when an Estonian says ‘hiiiiigla suur’
emphasizing the I’s in the
word meaning ‘gigaaaaaaantic’. Humans do this extension naturally, and
it is certainly possible that such inclinations could be formalized in
a language (ie systematically used, rather than purely on whim)
Note that in our determination that the dots were phonetic markers, we
determined that Venetic writing was highly phonetic – which means this
kind of doubling of the “I” could simply reflect the actual speech,
even if the sound in reality had no grammatical significance.
2.1.6. Inessive Case -v.s. ‘in; into’ (In dynamic meaning equivalent to Illative)
Static interpretation (‘in’):
In today’s Finnic, the Inessive and
Illative cases are considered different, but as we decribed in 2.1.1
above, it seems originally, in the parent language of Finnish,
Estonian, ancient Suebic (from which the inscriptions Venetic came)
there was only the Inessive, interpreted in both a static and dynamic
way. And then in recent millenia, it became necessary to
explicitly distinguish between the two. But Venetic, remaining an
ancient langauge does not show this distinguishing, and for Venetic we
determine whether it is the static ‘in’ or dynamic ‘into’ from the
context. Was the action simply happening, or was the action being done
towards something else? Was something merely ‘being’, or ‘acting on
something’? An object that simply was, and did nothing onto anything
else, would take the static meaning. I already mentioned how in modern
English, we can use in
and the context could suggest it means
‘into’. For example “He went in the water” is technically incorrect,
but from the context the listener knows the intent is “He went into
water”. This shows how easily the correct idea is understood from
context, and why in early language it wasn’t necessary to have two
different case endings. Also, in early language, all speaking was done
in the context of things going on around the speakers and listerners.
If language became separated from being used in real contexts – such as
when it was used in storytelling or song even before written literature
– it became more important to explicitly indicate the required meaning.
There was another usage for the static form – as a namer. Many Estonian
names of objects end in –s
seeming to be a nominalizer. For example we
could begin with vee
‘water’ form veene
‘in the nature of water’ and
then add the –s
to get veenes
‘an object associated with water’. This
could very well be the origin of vene ‘boat’ (same smaller boat
which acquired the name rus
as well in Scandianvia)
Venetic too appears to have such naming purposes for the static
Inessive. Because here, the –s creates a new word, the whole word is
now a stem, a nominative form. For example, the word .i.io.s.
sentence below) appears to be a word for ‘infinity’ formed from adding
and therefore we do not interpret it as ‘in the eternal’ but
If an additional Genitive is added, we arrive at a place name.
Modern maps of Estonia and Finland show a historic practice of creating
place names by adding either -se
which is like the Inessive and
Genitive, or –ste
which is like Elative plus Genitive, as for example
- ‘bridge’, giving town names Sillase
. I like to
view these respectively as a name based on the sense ‘in the bridge’
versus ‘arising from the bridge’. In other words, the choice depended
on what suited the situation. We could take the veenes
and adding a Genitive sense with veenese
, it becomes a name of a place
‘(place) associated with the boat’
This can be found in some Venetic place names too. In Venetic, the
Adige River was called on Roman references Atesis
and the market
was called Ateste
. AT- meant
‘terminus’ and therefore we can interpret Atesis
as ‘(The river)
in the terminus (of the trade route)’, and Ateste
as ‘(The market that
)arises at the terminus’. Another Venetic town was Tergeste
today’s Triest. This information comes from Roman texts, so we do not
know exactly how it was said in Venetic. How did the Roman form change
Dynamic Interpretation (‘into’ = Illative)
But if that object was
either entering or leaving that state, it would take the dynamic
meaning. We discussed the absence of an explicit Illative in Venetic in
2.1.1 This interpretation is common in the inscriptions,once
again perhaps because the abundant cemetary and sanctuary inscriptions
speak of the deceased or smoke travelling into the sky.
Note that the difference between ‘to’ in an Inessive situation, in the
sense of physical movement ‘into’, whereas ‘to’ in a Partitive
situation has a sense of uniting with, which is quite abstract. Thus
while English has the all-purpose ‘to’, in Venetic, that ‘to’ has
different meanings depending on the case ending. It makes the English
translation a little challenging. The Inessive case is underlined
in the following. Note I interpret it both with ‘in’ and ‘into’ as
mego dona.s.to vo.l.tiiomno.s. iiuva.n.t.s .a.riiun.s. $a.i.nate.i. re.i.tiia.i
Our brought-item ((ie offering), skyward-going, in the infinite
direction, into the airy-realm[?], to (=unite with) you of the Gods, to
(=unite with) Rhea
The following is a good example showing the Inessive in a prominent
role, and in this case it is borderline whether the interpretation
should be ‘in’ or ‘into’ (hence I translate with in(to)):
[MLV- 125, LLV- Vi2; image after LLV]
.i.io.s. dona.s.to .a.tra.e..s.
‘Hoping (alt. Out of being) the offering, would be disappeared, in(to) the eternity end, in(to) the sky-heaven terminus’
There seem to be two parallel word pairs (Finnic requires the same case
ending on connected words) .i.io.s.
.a.tra.e..s. and te.r.mon.io.s.
The two versions seem to be Venetic in the first pair
and loanwords from Indo-European in the second. This example shows how
the interpretation as ‘in’ or ‘into’ is not particularly crutial.
2.1.7. Elative Case - v.s.t ‘arising from; out of’
I include this next because we have already above discussed how –ste
can be used to name something. It is actually not so common in
the body of inscriptions.
Static Interpretation (‘arising from’)
This is similar to the
Inessive, in that the static form seems to have most often served the
role of naming. Today Estonian and Finnish tend to view the Elative
case in a dynamic way – something is physically coming out of after
being in something. Thus as the table of case endings (Table 2 at the
end of these case ending discussions) shows, it is the static form that
is less known and less used today, which logically comes from the idea
of something being derived from or arising from something else. This
static form is the one that names things. As mentioned under the
Inessive, where the static form also names things, a town with a bridge
could acquire a name two ways – with the static Inessive as a
, and with the static Elative with
Just as we referred to Atesis
for our example
with the Inessive, there was also the town, Ateste
at the end of
the amber route. In this case the meaning is ‘derived from, arising
from, the terminus (of the trade route)’. Another major Venetic city
which suggests ‘arising from the market (terg
Interestingly the market at the top of the amber route, in historic
times called Truso
was probably in Roman times called Turuse
) in that case using the static Inessive manner of
naming.) Of course, as mentioned under the Inessive, it was not just
used for place names, but to derive a name for something related to
something else. I gave the example earlier of vee >
veene > veenes
which could refer to a boat and eventually reduce to
vene. We could also have veenest but it would name something
arising from water (like maybe a fishing net?) The difference between
naming with –s(e)
and naming with –st(e)
is whether the item named is
integrated with the stem item, or arising out of the stem item and
separate from it.
In the Venetic sentences, there are nouns that were originally
developed from this static Elative ending. For example
is one. .e.g.e.s.t-
could be interpreted as
‘something arising from the continuing’ = ‘forever’. The common
could be interpreted as ‘something arising from bringing (do
or Est./Finn too/tuo
)’ Another is la.g.s.to
which I interpreted
as ‘gift’ but internally means ‘something arising from kindness’. (The
reader should review my interpretations of the –ST words in the lexicon
from this perspective – the stem word plus the concept of ‘arising
Dynamic Interpretation (‘out of’)
This is the common modern
usage in Estonian and Finnish and this is the meaning we will find in
their grammar describing case endings. The dynamic interpretation of
the Elative in the body of Venetic inscriptions depends on our
determining there is movement involved. The static meaning ‘arising
from’ is abstract and there is no movementm but the dynamic meaning
‘(moving) out of’ involves movement. Perhaps the .o.s.t..s.
the recent example sentence in the last section is one, as movement
occurs in that sentence.
In general the Elative is less common in the known inscriptions because
the concept of something travelling ‘out of’ or even ‘arsising from’
something else was not particularly applicable to offerings towards the
heavens or the Goddess whenin things are going ‘into’ not ‘out
Most often, whenever the -.s.t appears in Venetic, it appears to be the
static kind where there is no movement, and it produces a new noun stem
from the more basic stem.
2.1.8. Genitive Case –n OR [naked stem] ‘of, possessed by’
Static Interpretation (‘of’) vs Dynamic Interpretation (‘coming into possession of’)
Estonian today lacks the –n
Genitive which is standard in Finnish.
Estonian simply uses the naked stem. For that reason (considering also
the tree chart of Fig 2.1.3) we must investigate the inscriptions to
determine if Venetic had an –n
Geneitive, a naked stem, or both.
What I found in the Venetic sentences was that the idea of possession
seems often to be expressed by what seems to be the compound word
form. In a compound word, the first part is the stem and takes no
endings, while the second part takes the endings. But given that in
modern Estonian the Genitive is purely the naked stem, these first
parts of compound words are indistinguishable from Genitives. For
example Venetic kluta-viko-.s.
is a compound word, the first part
interpreted from context as ‘clutch’ (of flowers) and the second as
‘the bringing’. But the first element, kluta
, could very well be seen
to be in the Genitive. It may be exactly such overuse of compounding,
that developed the use of the naked stem as Genitive in Estonian, with
the consequential abandoning of the –n
at the end, while it endured in
Finnish which derives from the earlier ancestor language.
Nonetheless, the –n
does appear a number of times in a way that makes
it seem to be joining concepts. For example in iiuvant
- [MLV -138, LLV-Pa8
we see the –n
appearing in a way that makes it seem
Genitive (v.i.ve.s.tin iio.i.
seems like ‘the conveyance’s infinity’).
The same occurs in pilpote.i. k up. rikon .io.i.
- [MLV-139, LLV-Pa9;]
in which rikon .io.i.
seems like ‘nation’s infinity’.
We also see the –n
appearing in the example mego dona.s.to
vo.l.tiiomno.s. iiuva.n.t.s .a.riiun.s. $a.i.nate.i. re.i.tiia.i.
examples include kara.n.mnio.i and voltiio.n.mnio.i.
To summarize it seems more common to find in Venetic the bare stem in a
situation that looked like a compound word. It is possible that while
the n-Genitive was still in use in the inscriptions; however, the use
of the bare stem in a fashion almost like a Genitive was also in use.
The disappeance of the n-Genitive in Estonian may have occured in this
way, that is to say, from the latter becoming more and more
common. My conclusion is that Venetic had the –n Genetive, but
lazy speakers dropped it. (Linguistic change often arises from lazy
speech where endings are dropped.)
2.1.9. Essive -na ‘as, in the form of’; ‘becoming as.’
This ending is almost as common in the body of inscriptions as the
Partitive and Inessive. We will assume for the sake of argument that
this case ending too had both a static interpretation and a dynamic
one, depending on context. I propose this was the case for all the
Venetic case endings; but some case endings were more dramatic in the
difference between the static interpretation versus dynamic - for
example case endings about location. Here were are speaking of form,
appearance and the differentiation between static and dynamic meanings
is not significant in this case as it is a more abstract concept, and
abstract concepts are quite static by nature compared to concepts
involving actual physical movement or lack of movement.
: In the static interpretation this ending has the meaning
‘as, in the form of, in the guise of’ For example it appears in
is seen as ‘in the form of the gods’
It appears more commonly in the inscriptions with an additional
Partitive attached, giving -na.i
This added Partitive usually
results in a very dynamic meaning, which appears to be like Estonian
: I do not know if there is a clear example of this in
our body of inscriptions, except for the situation in which an
additional .i. is attached as mentioned above – as in -na.i.
dynamic interpretation would mean ‘assuming the form of’ It would
need to have a verb behind it, such as ‘he changed into....’ It
is purely a question of whether there is a motion towards. In any
event, I believe the speaker or listener understood what was intended
from the context
2.1.10. Terminative -na.i. -ne.i. ‘up to, until, as far as’
This ending appears often. It looks like a Partitive ending added to an
Essive ending and originally my interpretations tried to combine
the Essive meaning with Partitive and got confusing complex results
like ‘in the form of joining with’ and then one day I hit on the
simpler idea of the Terminative – ‘up to, until, as far as’ – which
exists in Estonian but not Finnish. Already we have evidence that
Estonian and Venetic/Suebic were related through a common parental
language, and so something found in Estonian could be represented in
Venetic, even if not represented in Finnish.(We have already seen for
example, that we cannot tranform a Finnish Partitive to Venetic, while
we can transform an Estonian Partitive to Venetic by changing the
–T,D ending to –J (.i.))
Without much rational justification I applied the Terminative meaning
everywhere it occurred and it fit better than my complicated combining
of Essive and Partitive concepts.
This case ending might also have static and dynamic interpretations. If
so, I would say that the static interpretation
is as in pupone.i.
– something (the duck rako
) is physically given to
, in the
example pupone.i .e.go rako.i.
e.kupetaris To(‘til) the elder remain a duck, Bon Voyage
static intepretation seems very much like a Dative.
Meanwhile the dynamic interpretation
would be to physically travel
which is how Estonian uses the Terminative. The
Estonian Terminative can be seen in Ta läks taluni
‘he went as far as
In Venetic, for example in a funerary urn inscription v.i.ugia.i.
‘to convey my dear (?) until down below
the word a.l.na.i.
appears to be in a context with physical
movement. (Hmm. Perhaps the static form is –ne.i.
and the dynamic form
?? There remains a question as to the signifance of using e
instead of a
2.1.11. Adessive -l ‘at (location of)’& Allative -le.i. ‘towards (location of)’
The Adessive in the meaning ‘at (location of)’ represents the
static interpretation. In this case it seems Venetic does
dynamic form which parallels what is in relation to Estonian
and Finnish called the Allative ‘towards (location of)’.
One may ask, why does Venetic have the explicit Allative, when it did
not have the explicit Illative? To understand what Venetic is
expected to have and what not, we can look at what is common in
Estonian and Finnish. If a case ending exists in both Estonian and
Finnish in a similar way then it is very old, and must
Venetic. Our tree chart of Fig 2.1.3 showed the descent of Inessive,
Partitive and Illative. If we were to add Adessive and Allative, we
would show both existing at the common ancestor of all three languages
– Estonian, Venetic/Suebic, and Finnish. These two separate forms could
have developed in an early stage of Finnic perhaps because in the lives
of early hunters of northern Europe, it was important to distinguish
with being at a location versus going towards a location. Too important
to clarify via context.
In Estonian Adessive is reperesented by -l,
Finnish by –lla
essentially the same (Est. has lost terminal a’s on case endings). And
the Allative, which is equivalent to a dynamic interpretation of the
Adessive, is found both in Estonian and Finnish as –le
Unfortunately in the body of inscriptions available to study, the
Venetic Adessive and Allative occur only a couple of times, so we do
not have many examples. The most significant sentence is the following.
It is written on one of the Padova round stones left at the bottom of
tombs, and on which most of them are telling the deceased spirit to fly
up out of the tomb. The first underlined ending I think is the Allative
and the second is Adessive.
(a) tivale.i. be.l. lene.i.
- [round stones- LLV Pa 26]
‘towards wing, on(at) top of, to fly! (
Est. tiivale peal lendama!)(=tiiva peale lendama!)
I propose that the ending -le.i.
is an Allative (‘to
location of’) while the -.l.
is the Adessive (‘at’).
Note that the stem of tivale.i.
, and its meaning is
confirmed by the handle-with-hook that has kalo-tiba
on it (=Est.
’ ‘wing for pouring’ ) The latter is in the Lagole dialect.
Here is another example with tiva in the inscription and here it
appears with the Adessive ending (-l) to which is added an iio.i. which
seems to mean ‘to infinity’)
(b) vhug-iio.i. tival-iio.i. a.n.tet-iio.i.
eku .e.kupetari.s .e.go
- [figure 8
design with text - image of Pa26]
‘Carry infinitely, upon wing to infinity, the givings to infinity, so-be-it happy journey, let it remain’
We can interpret tivaliio.i.
as tiva + l + iio.i.
2.1.12. Ablative -.l.t ‘out of (location of)’
The Ablative also exists in both Estonian and Finnish in a
similar way and therefore must exist in Venetic from its origins in the
The Ablative (-.l.t)
to Adessive (-l
)and Allative (-le.i.
), is similar
to the Elative (-.s.t)
in relation to the Inessive/Illative (-.s.
difference is that one deals with physical location, while the other
) deals with interiors.
Static Interpretation of the Ablative (‘derived from location
Similarly to the Elative (.s.t
) the Ablative
) probably was mostly used to create nouns, to name things, but
in this case related to a location - on top of it, not inside it.
An example in Venetic is the word vo.l.tiio
Could it have
originated with AVA ‘open space’? AVALT would then mean ‘derived from
the location of the open space’ This seems to accord with the
apparent meaning of vo.l.tiio
as ‘sky, heavens’. But like -.s.t
, it is not a free case ending, but now incorporated in the
Dynamic Interpretation of the Ablative (‘from the location of’)
the common usage in modern Estonian and Finnish – to physically move
away from a location. Ta läks talult eemale
‘he went away from
the farm’ Do any of the inscriptions indicate movement from one
location to another? We can presume Venetic/Suebic had it, but we have
not yet identified common use in the dynamic meaning in the body of
inscriptions, as opposed to the form being integated into a word stem,
But then the body of usable Venetic sentences is very small and
examples of less common case endings will be few if any. It is obvious
that if the number of sentences we can study is limited, we will tend
to see the most commonly used case endings.
2.1.13. Other Possible Case Endings, Suffixes Suggested from Estonian Derivational Suffixes
The above listing of Venetic case endings has compared Venetic case
endings to Estonian/Finnish as summarized in 2.1.2. This
comparison is absolutely necessary because linguisics has found that
grammar changes very slowly and that if Venetic is really Finnic, then
what we found in the interpreting of Venetic from first principle, MUST
show significant similarities to modern Finnic languages that were at
the top of the amber routes to the Adriatic Veneti. Even though
Estonian and Finnish is over 2000 years in the future or Venetic, the
similarities must be demonstrable. But this idea of grammar
having longevity is really part of the basic idea that commonly used
language tends to endure. The common everyday language tends to
endure because it is in constant use. That means not only is basic
grammar preserved from generation to generation, but also everyday
words. Linguists have always known that some words – words relating to
family relationships, for example – have great longevity. I have
pointed out how the Venetic word .e.go
and stem .e.
practically identical to Estonian jäägu
and stem jää-
this is understandable considering that even today the jää-
used all day. On the other hand, the Venetic word rako
for ‘duck’ has
no survival in Estonian or Finnish ‘duck’ is part
respectively. But how often is the word ‘duck’ used. Unless you keep a
flock of ducks, only a few times a year. When a concept is rarely
mentioned, alternative words can be used, at the whim of the speakers..
For example ‘duck’ could be expressed by a word meaning ‘water-bird’ or
‘wide-bill’. (Venetic rako
sounds like it came from the quacking sound,
and Finnish anka
, sounds like it actually originated with geese that go
“honk!” The origin of the Estonian part
is a mystery) So unless one
word is used often the word lacks stability. But the same applies to
grammar. The most common grammar – the grammar taught to babies – has
greatest longevity. Thus we will find similarities to the most common
grammatical features, and less so in rarely used grammatical features.
The point is that longevity is proportional to usage, and therefore if
someone compares a modern language with an ancient genetically related
one, the correctness is more probable if the comparison is with very
common words or grammar, and it helps if you learned the modern
language as a child, as then you will have an intuition about the core
language. Such wisdom is not available for those analysts who simply
look up words in a dictionary, because in a dictionary a very rarely
used word can be beside a commonly used one. There is no filter.
Although in this description of Venetic grammar follows the modern
model for describing Estonian and Finnish, there can be other ways of
constructing the descriptive model. As I have already mentioned, in
reality in Finnic, the concept of case endings is artitificial
selecting the most common of a large spectrum of endings. The original
primitive language might have been very much like modern Inuit of
arctic North America. Linguists have not handled Inuktitut
according to common ways of describing grammar, and they called it
‘polysynthetic’ (a system where the speaker simply combines short stems
with many suffixes, infixes, and prefixes).
The modern manner of describing Estonian and Finnish, is really a
selection by linguists developing a description, of the most common,
most universally used, suffixes
. But there are more. What they chose
was to a large degree influenced by how grammar had been described in
the most common Indo-European languages. This means that there are
other suffixes that could have been included with the stated “case
endings”. But these further suffixes are in modern Estonian and
Finnish, generally not identified in the grammar but rather
incorporated into the common word stems in which they appear and so the
suffix portions are not identified.
There are many such suffixes that are common enough that a
creative speaker could combine them and in effect revive some amount of
the original polysynthetic approach of speaking.
Many words with the suffixes built into them, are so common and so old,
that speakers of Estonian or Finnish no longer think of how they were
derived. For example the word kond, ‘community’ is one an Estonian
would not even think about in terms of its internal components. But
when you think of it, it is in fact a combination of KO plus the suffix
–ND, and the intrinsic meaning is ‘together’ + ‘something defined
from’. Thus what we have is not only recognizable suffixes
including “case endings”, but suffixes that have frozen onto the stem
and assumed a quite particular meaning. In Venetic there some we have
mentioned where the endings are incorporated into a new word stem
etc, etc ) With Venetic too, there is a
constant issue as to whether an apparent case ending is stuck onto a
stem, or whether a new word has been established, which of course can
add case endings itself.
I believe that in the evolution of language, the polysynthetic
constructions that were constantly used, became solidified from
constant use. And then with people using it often, from laziness, it
becomes contracted. Once contracted, the original construction is no
longer apparent. Starting with mere tens of basic syllabic elements,
evertually we end up with thousands of new stems that cannot be taken
The longer the language has followed this experience, the more new word
stems arise, and the grammatical elements become fewer and fewer.
If we wish to use modern Estonian or Finnish to detect further case
endings in Venetic, we can reverse the evolution of Estonian or Finnish
by noting still-detectable suffixes within words, and then see if
Venetic has repeated use of one of them.
So what kinds of suffixes are still apparent in modern Estonian
or Finnish that are still identifiable as suffixes and not disappeared
into new words stems? Today these suffixes are called ‘Derivational
Suffixes’. Poets are free to create new words with them, but they are
not recognized as case endings as they are not in regular use. But as
we go back in time, it is likely some of them were more commonly
applied and if linguists had described Estonian or Finnish a fewe
thousand years ago, they would have claimed more case ending. (The
Finno-Ugric language of Hungarian is an example of a language in an
older state, and so linguists have claimed many more case endings.)
There are about 50 suffixes enumerated in A Grammatical Survey of the
by Johannes Aavik, most readily found within
complied by Paul F. Saagpakk,
1982. It was and is important for us to be aware of these suffixes when
looking at Venetic, to find resonances, since the ‘case endings’
definitions arbitrarily selected by linguists, may have excluded
important suffixes that appear in Venetic
. For example, the
seems to be common enough in Venetic that maybe we ought to
put it into the case endings list.
However, what we have done here, is to use the well-established
descriptions of Estonian and Finnish as our template. Those who are
familiar with Estonian or Finnish can then process the Venetic grammar
more easily. Still it is possible that since Venetic is over 2000 years
old, it may contain more of the free-combinations of suffixes, infixes,
and prefixes. That is the reason in our analysis of the Venetic
inscriptions documented in THE VENETIC LANGUAGE An Ancient
Language from a New Perspective: FINAL
*, we were keen to look inside
word structure to help determine meanings. For example
seems like ‘carry’ + ‘community, grouping’, and
we have to determine what it really meant from the context in which it
was used. But if there was no kond in Estonian, we could still break
down further with ‘grouping’ from KO ‘together’ and ND
‘entity connected to’.
For our purposes in deciphering Venetic, there was nothing to be gained
by looking at more than a few Estonian derivational suffixes in the
list given by Aavik – those that we found worthy of consideration in
our analysis of the Venetic. They also allow us to look at the internal
makeup of a word, to determine in a general or abstract sense how the
word originated, to assist in narrowing down its meaning.
The following is a limited list of the Estonian derivational suffixes
that I considered in analyzing the Venetic. Some were very significant.-
(= Venetic –ma
?) Estonian 1st infinitive, is believed
to have originated in Estonian as a verbal noun in the Illative.
Something of this nature seems to be found in Venetic such as in
I believe it meant something like ‘in the state of v.i.re
?) where this appears in
Estonian words it appears to have a reflective sense. It is
psychological. It is a nominalizer too that may also produce the
idea of ‘state of’ as in –ma
above. Possibly it appears in the donom
Lagole inscriptions which obviously from how it is used means
‘something brought’, and a synonym for dona.s.to
suffix of agency, equivalent to English ending
as in buyer
. I did not find anything solid in Venetic in this
regard, perhaps because Venetic is likely to write it -.i.i
and how would one distinguish it from all the other uses of “I” within
Venetic! I believe that Venetic turned in another direction to express
the idea of agency – o.r.
see next. Estonian has it in the derivational
so it is not entirely foreign. The way languages from the
same origins evolve is that there may be two words or endings that mean
the same, and one branch popularizes one and the other branch
popularizes the other. Thus we can conclude that -ja
have been found in Venetic, but that –o.r.
Nonetheless, the ending –ur
is still recognized within Estonian.
(= Venetic -o.r.
) indicating a person or thing which has a
permanent activity or profession, equivalent to English –or
. Would appear in Venetic as –or
. I found this one very
useful as it perfectly explained a word like lemetorna
a stylus left as an offering ‘as a producer of warm-feelings
’ – ie the
object continues to be an expression from the giver after it is left
behind. An example:
v.i.o.u.go.n.ta lemeto.r.na .e.b.- [stylus- MLV-38bis, LLV-ES-58]
‘The collection-of-bringings, as ingratiation-producers, remains’
Note how lemeto.r.na
is composed of plural plus two suffixes leme - t - o.r. - na
Another simple example is a fibula (used to pin togas together)
with the word augar
on the back. This was appropriate if aug
’ (as in Est. auk) thus giving the Venetic word for a fibula as
’ (= ‘pin’) This word survive
elsewhere too as we can even find it surviving in English auger
) attached to nouns, verbs, and
participles to form derived nouns with meanings related to the stems of
words. In my view the best interpretation for this is ‘entity made
or ‘entity, something, defined from
’ and similar. The use of –ND,
NT is apparent in Venetic and seems widely used in ancient
pre-Indo-European substratum of Europe (as the Atlantis example
suggests ) For example it appears in va.n.t.s.
in the sentence
mego va.n.t.s .e.ge.s.t.s dona.s.to re.i.tia.i
‘Our bringing , in the direction of the everlasting, to
But as mentioned above, this ending was now incorporated
into the word. But let us take va.n.t.s.
appart. Then we get
(A)VA (‘open up’) NT (‘entity of’) S ( ‘in, into’) giving us
‘entity in the direction of the opening’ But this is very
abstract, and obviously its final meaning developed from usage. As I
say above with gonta
, the suffixes, from contant use, disappear into
the the brand new meaning.-
) ‘a group
of things or persons related to a certain place or area’.
This is an important component in the Venetic inscriptions. It appears
in Venetic often as v.i.ougo.n.ta,
but also elsewhere too.
(?)) a suffix that may
have ancient Roman influence behind it. This probably would not appear
until Roman times. It may be represented inside the –ko.s.
inscriptions which already have Latin elements mixed in. Estonian
certainly acquired it as a result of the Roman influences.
(Venetic - ?) is a suffix that has Partitive properties in
that the K sound suggests breaking off something from a whole. I
did not identify an example in the inscriptions other than the fact
that the conjunction ke employs the psychology of breaking off.
Possibly it occurs and I failed to see it.
– (Venetic –LA
) place or residence. I saw it in one place, the ending on ‘Crete’ in the Roman period urn inscription –
CRETEILA - M - ENNIO - GRAICI - F
- [urn- MLV-120-02, LLV-Es II]
would have served the same function as the Roman use of -ia at the
ends of place names, as in “Venetia
” Perhaps it is rare in
Venetic because Venetic had replaced it with –ia
As I said, Aavik presents about 50 ‘derivational suffixes’ in Estonian,
bound into words and not used as frequently as the formally set aside
‘case endings’. Since Venetic is 2000 years old and closer to the
common ancestor of Estonian and Venetic, it is more likely that
Estonian has LOST some forms that Venetic had . For example, we noted
earlier how an original wider use of endings on (A)VA had Venetic
which has vanished if it was in the common
ancestor, and somehow Estonian has only preserved va-stu
. We can
also propose that Estonian lost the use of bo- in a wider fashion
and it only survives today as poo-l
'half, to the side of'
(in effect POO in the Adessive case).
In Venetic we find bo-, along with va.n.t-
used as a preposition, but
Venetic also appears to use -bo- as an ending (example in SSELBOI,
) and I have included it in Table 2
Table 2 – Venetic Case Endings Compared to Est. and Finn.
|VENETIC CASE ENDING
|Same or close to stem. (see section 2.1.3)
| -t / -a
|‘becoming part of’ ‘uniting with’
| -t /-a
(dynamic meaning rare)
|-iiv.i. Explicit Dynamic Partitive?
| ‘becoming part of’‘ ‘uniting with’
|‘in’ -as used to describe or name
| -s / -ssa
|‘becoming in = into’
–sse / –v v n
|‘derived out of’ - used to describe or name
(static meaning ‘derived from’))
|‘out of, exit from’
|-st / -sta
|--n or [stem] Genitive
|-[stem] / -n
| ' becoming in possession of''
Illative -v v n
|-na / -na
|‘becoming of, like,as’
|-na / -na (dynamic meaning rare)
|-na.i Essive + Partitive
| 'like, as'' in Partitive sense
|suffix -ne (?)
| ‘till, up to’ (or similar)
| Est. "Terminative" -ni
|Like a Dative?
|‘till, up to’
|‘at location of’
| -l / -lla
|‘to location of’ use Allative
|‘to location of’
= use Allative
|‘to location of’
-le / -lle
|'arising from location of'
|-lt / -lta
(as a nominalizer)
|‘from location of’
|'extremely large, infinite'
| 'on side of'
|remnant in Est. word pool 'at side of' but not used as a suffix any longer
|'to side of''
| remnant in Est. word poole 'towards side of' but not used as a suffix any longer
2.2 POSTPOSITIONS, PREPOSITIONS, ADJECTIVAL MODIFIERS
2.2.1. Postpositions and Prepositions
GENERAL: EXAMPLES FROM ESTONIAN AND FINNISH
Postpositions in Estonian and Finnish can be viewed as the true
attached-element in the ancient tradition. Technically there is nothing
to distinguish between a postposition and a case ending or a suffix
other than that a space is placed between them and stem in the modern
convention, and that they are generally more than one syllable.
Thus, postpositions are in fact descendants of the ancestral manner of
attaching descriptive elements to the stem. For example in Estonian tee
‘by way of the road’, kaudu
, considered a postposition. But this
postposition could be easily viewed as a case ending if used often
enough. Frequent use would also cause its abbreviation. For example tee
could become for example “teekau
” which would mean‘by way
of the road’ This is an artificial example. A real example would
be the Estonian postposition kaasa
which is a suffix/postposition that
developed in Estonian into the Comitative case -ga
In Finnish no
such Comitative case has developed, and one can only use the
postposition (in this case the Finnish version is kanssa
) as in talon
‘with the house’ (Genitive plus postposition ). The
Estonian equivalent using the Comitative case would be taluga
farm’ (Note Estonian talu
actually means ‘farm’ but it is from the same
origins as the Finnish talo
‘house’) Estonian nonetheless also
for emphasis only - taluga kaasa.
There are other words
in Estonian that seem like ancestors of case endings, which are still
preserved for emphasis. For example talus
(Inessive) = talu sees
There are many many postpositions in both Estonian and Finnish,
demonstrating that the ancient tradition of attached modifiers in a
polysynthetic system is still active. A few of the modern
Estonian postpositions plus Finnish equivalents are given below (giving
the Estonian first and Finnish second). Some function as prepositions
too. Whether it comes before or after is a subtle matter. If before,
the word modified takes the Partitive, if after, the word modified is
in the Genitive. In the following examples, the first version before
slash (/) is Estonian, the second Finnish.
- by way of
-in the middle of
- close to
- on top of
In addition modern Estonian has many more that modern Finnish does not have, and vice versa.
POSTPOSITIONS AND PREPOSITIONS IN VENETIC
The grammatical element -bo- appears in Venetic in
several ways. We have already noted several instances in which it
is a suffix or second part of a compound word. For example
; vise iobo
; SSELBOI SSELBOI
; .... But
in the following it looks like a preposition or an independent word.
mego lemetore.i. v.i.ratere.i. dona.s.to bo.i. iio.s. vo.l.tiio.m.mno.i
It suggests it is a stand-alone word too, acting as a preposition
or postposition to another word. This usage is similar to that of
(below) Possibly the case endings on it should be the
same as the word it introduces. Estonian has an analogous word in
, as in talu poole
‘in the direction of the farm’ which makes it a
postposition. It resembles Venetic bo-
if it were in the Allative.
Earlier we saw Venetic Allative marked with –le.i.;
so the Allative of
- would be “bole.i.
This word does not have a suffix version, and seems to
behave like a typical postposition/preposition. It looks analogous to
‘against’, except the –st
ending, gives it a negative
meaning, while va.n.t-
conveys a positive concept. There are several
examples of its use as a postposition or preposition. For example
va.n.te.i v.i.o.u.go.n.tio.i. .e.go [urn – MLV-80, LLV-Es79]
Let remain, towards the collection of ( cremation -urns?)
in Partitive, appears to modify v.i.o.u.go.n.tio.i.
also in the Partitive.
Another example of many is mego dona.s.to va.n.t.s.
mo.l.don ke .o. kara.n.mn.s. re.i.tiia.i.
bringing (=offering), into the direction of ash/earth, also is
Carnic-mountains-going, to (=unite with) Rhea
This word simply adds a prefix iiu- meaning ‘eternally’ to va.n.t
is obviously a preposition as it appears in .o.p vo.l.tiio
‘up skyward fly’
in several inscriptions in this form and in one
of the round stone inscriptions written up.
There are no doubt other prepositions or postpositions which I have not
detected as such, due to limited numbers of examples. I recall
something of the form $a.i.
which might be similar to Est sisse
‘into’. Thus it is possible with more analysis we might be able to add
a few more prepositions or postpositions into our list above.
When most of the descriptive modifiers of a word are expressed in case
endings or suffixes, an independent adjective out front, like in
English, is expectedly rare in Finnic, and in early Finnic like Venetic
. The separate adjective, placed in
front, I believe is a new development in modern Finnic languages as a
result of influences from I-E languages. Putting an adjective to the
front is actually cumbersome in today’s Finnic in that it requires the
speaker repeat the case ending of the noun on the adjective in order to
connect the two. In analyzing Venetic, I very carefully looked for
parallelism in case endings, because that could mean that the first one
modified the second. The prepositions of va.n.t-
- take case
endings as they precede another word they seem to modify. Thus the
ancient preposition could therefore be the predecessor of the
adjective. Otherwise what we see mostly are compounded words - where
stem word without an ending assuming the first part of a compound word
where the second part took the case ending. For example v.i.ou-gonta
except that the second part can be viewed as an extended case ending.
This is true of -gonta
, and also the –iio.s.
frequently added to
When both words have the same case ending, does that represent the
beginnings of adjectives? All that would be necessary is for the lesser
of two connected ideas to lose its case endings.
A sentence that presented such problems is the following:
.o..s.t..s. katus.ia .i.io.s. dona.s.to .a.tra.e..s. te.r.mon.io.s. de.i.vo.s
- [MLV- 125, LLV- Vi2]
Discussed earlier in section 2.1.4, it offers two pairs of words in the
Inessive case - .i.io.s. .a.tra.e..s.
It isn’t necessary to assume there are
any adjectives here. It can simply be the same grammatical structure
repeated. In other words, these words could mean ‘into
infinity, into the end, into the terminus, into the sky’. The same is
true of the frequent address $a.i.nate.i. re.i.tiia.i
can be regarded as its own word, in parallel with
and not an adjective.
I am inclined to think that Venetic, frozen over 2000 years ago, might
not really have any true independent adjectives, and the closest form
to look like an independent adjective would be the prepositions
described in the last section. That is to say, instead of in the
one says in the large-farm
, or in Estonian suures
where creating the compound word excuses
one from putting the case ending –s
on both. Venetic, in other words is
strong in the latter, and made even more complicated because as we saw
above, Venetic Genitive too was like Estonian using a bare stem
(without endings). Thus the first part of a compound word might be a
Genetive expressing possession of the second.
In conclusion – for Venetic we do not need to identify ‘adjectives’.
The purpose of adjectives is achieved via compound words,
repeated words, and an array of case endings and suffixes.
Insofar as the Estonian and Finnish comparative
forms are similar, we can expect Venetic would have them. But are any
detectable in the small body of Venetic inscriptions?
Generally in Estonian and Finnish, the comparative is shown by
adding -em to the adjective, and superlative by adding -im
adjective. The comparison levels clearly seem to be marked by vowel
level - the higher the vowel level before the m, the more
extreme. I don't recall any Venetic ending in an -m
to indicate a comparison of state, except there is v.i.rema
its meaning could be ‘the more vital, energetic’ But if we
consider there to be a suffix ma
analogous to the Estonian –ma
(see earlier in section 2.1.12) we interpret it in a slightly other
way. The matter of whether there is a comparative anywhere
remains unresolved. There just aren’t enough Venetic examples to
clarify this matter.
Note: All discoveries made have been according to direct interpretation
of inscriptions from context analysis and internal comparisons.
Linguistic methodologies are impossible where a language is unknown and
the amount of language is limited. Therefore these ideas are not
deduced by any rigorous rationalization method, but inferred from
2.3.1. Personal Pronouns
The limited number of Venetic sentences
presents us with only two examples of pronouns mego and te.i.
which we interpret as first and second person plural, possibly used in
a formal singular way. The pronoun mego we assumed was in the Genitive
and te.i. in the (dynamic) Partitive. Accordingly, without
having direct evidence we can at least infer that the Partitive
of the first person plural was me.i. while the Genitive of the other
was tego It is possible to further guess other case forms,
but only the underlined actually appear in the body of inscriptions.
|1st pers pl (‘we’)
|2nd pers pl (‘you’)
By comparison the Estonian Nominative, Genitive and Paritive 1st
and 2nd person plurals are meie, meie, meid
and teie, teie,
However, Livonian, to the south of Estonian, and related to it,
but also highly palatalized like Venetic the 1st and 2nd person
plural nominatives are meg
– which shows that a linguistic
shift to mego
is possible under strong palatalization.
2.3.2. Possessive Pronoun Suffixes
Finnish adds pronoun suffixes to stems, to indicate
possession. This is very ancient as the adding of suffixes
was quite standard at the origins of Finnic languages.
Finnish Pronoun Suffixes
-si -nsa -mme -nne
Finnish today will add pronouns to the front as well sometimes, thus
creating some redundancy (for example minun taloni)
to the concept of emphasis - modifiers migrated to the front I believe
for emphasis. But note that once there was this
redundance, it was possible to drop one of the two. And that is what
happened with Estonian and Venetic, already occuring at the parental
I feel I did detect some possessive pronoun suffixes in Venetic.
An example of a regular pronoun is mego
‘our’ in mego
which I interpreted as 'our
brought-thing' The possessive pronoun approach seems to
ENONI . ONTEI . APPIOI . SSELBOI SSELBOI . ANDETIC OBOSECUPETARIS - [MLV 236, LLV B-1
which no matter how I analysed the sentence, seems to be
thirst' affirmed by resonance with Est, jäänu
'thirst' So far, I have only noticed the personal pronoun
suffix for ‘my’ –ni
, which I assumed is equivalent to the Finnish
We also see it I believe in the Roman alphabet urn
inscriptions in the term of endearment TITINI,
which from the context
very likely means ‘my Titi’. I believe, therefore, Venetic still
employed pronoun suffixes and that Estonian has lost them in the last
2000 years. Unfortuately, owing to the limited number of inscriptions,
we didn’t identify further examples. (Perhaps there may be some TI
endings and I misintepreted them. The reader is invited to look for
this possibility in the interpretations.)
Verbs are hard to distinguish from nouns. Sometimes endings on verbs
mimic those on nouns. I suspect that early language did not distinguish
between nouns and verbs, and, like the matter of static or dynamic case
endings, the nominal vs verbal quality was determined from the context
in which it was used . We have to bear in mind that original language
was always spoken, so that whether a concept was verbal or nominal
could simply depend on how forcefully it was spoken, and where the
length and stress was placed. It seems to me that people developed the
knowledge of what was normally to be taken as a verbal stem and what
was to be taken as a nominal stem simply from experience with the
language. But that is how it is today in English, for example. We learn
from use, what stems are verb stems and what are noun stems from
context and usage. Furthermore some words can be taken either
way, such as the English word run. Determining whether a Venetic word
was to be interpreted as a verb or noun was sometimes easy, sometimes
difficult. I wondered if the word dona.s.to
was verbal, and to prove it
was not, I had to find a verb in the same sentence. You cannot have two
verbs. Since I always found a verb idea in the sentences with
I concluded it was a noun in the meaning of
‘brought-thing’ (English has no better word, and the closest is
‘offering’) However doto
Finnic languages today have many supposed verb forms, that can
take case endings and instantly they become nominal. Here are some
examples taken from the stem jooks
- ‘run’ (verb - imperative)
- ‘to run’ (infinitive)
(infinitive takes endings for example:)
- ‘in run’ (infinitive plus Inessive case ending)
- ‘at running’ (infinitive plus Adessive case ending)
- ‘in the form of running’ (infinitive plus Essive case ending)
- ‘arising from running’ (infinitive plus Elative case ending)
And then there are other verbal forms too that take case endings and suffixes. For example the t-infinitive - but
- ‘to run’
- ‘ running’ (But wait, that forms the active present gerund!)
- ‘out of running’ ( That now looks like an Elative attached to the gerund)
etc etc etc
And then there are ways of making a complex noun back into a verb, or a complex verb back into a noun.
My opinion is that originally word stems were neither
nouns nor verbs,
but the way they were used made them verbal or nominal. It would be
analogous to usage for example of the English word run
. The same word
is both a noun (‘the run’), and an imperative (run!) which only goes to
show that nouns can be made verbal and vice versa depending on context,
and we do not really need to attach verb or noun markers since in
actual use, the verbal or nominal character is revealed from context. A
good example today is the word text
used on cellphones. There is
now a verb form as in text me a message
I think this transforming
of nouns into verbs is very natural to humans and that the same stem
served both nouns and verbs. And depending on whether we view a
grammatical ending on a verb or a noun, produces different
interpretations. For example from the noun point of view, the bare stem
is Genitive. If a verb, the base stem is the basic 2nd person
imperative. Furthermore, when an ending with v
is viewed as a
noun we have Venetic dynamic Partitive and an infinitive when viewed as
a verb. What is common to both is the idea of ‘to’. Another
example - a stem with .s.
on the end is the Inessive when viewed as a
noun, but becomes the active present gerund when viewed as a verb. This
suggests the concept of ‘in’ was closely related to the concept of
‘now’ (in the present moment?).
Without being able to identify verbs vs nouns from context and
grammatical structure, I would have had difficulty identifying verbs.
For example almost until the end, I thought what was a Partitive ending
on a noun was actually a marker for the infinitive on a verb. Once I
discovered this in a sentence that had no other candidate for a verb, I
found that there were about five words whose sentences were greatly
improved by translating them as infinitives.
The basic verb form is the imperative. It is easy to see why – the
first words in human languages were commands. “Come here!” “Run!”
“Catch it!” etc.
Note how in English we can only identify the basic imperative by adding the exclamation mark!!
We will only deal with imperatives that we found within the Venetic inscriptions:
2nd PERSON IMPERATIVE
An example of that is voto
‘water!’ as in voto klutiiari.s. vha.g.s.to
‘water the clutch (of flowers) well’
The most recognizable example in the body of inscriptions is the word leno
in o.p. voltiio leno
‘up skyward fly!
We also saw it in peuia!
3rd PERSON IMPERATIVE
A very noticable verb form in the body of inscriptions is the 3rd
person imperative in the word .e.go
, which means ‘let remain, let
endure, let continue
’ It just happens that in the funerary
inscriptions it is most needed, as it is something similar to the
common modern idea of ‘rest in peace’ Another 3rd person Imperative
found in the body of inscriptions is v.i.ugo
carry’. It indicates that –go
is the marker, and it is
analogous to Estonian marker –gu
as in jäägu
In general the 2nd Person Imperative is the most basic verb form, and
one can imagine it to be the first verb form in humanity, where a chief
uses it to command someone to action. That is why the 2nd Person
Imperative is a good indicator of the verb stem. For example if .e.go
is a 3rd Person Imperative, then its 2nd Person Imperative would be
, and that would also be its verb stem in general (It would
be analgous to Estonian jää!
Estonian has two forms of infinitive, the ta
-infinitive (also called
the 2nd infinitive – example jooksda
) and the ma
called the 1st infinitive – example jooksma
) The ma
-infinitive is a new
development probably intended to turn infinitives into nominal
forms. As Aavik writes – “the 1st infinitive was originally a
verbal noun in the Illative” Since it is new, it would not be
found in ancient Finnic, and if there is a use of –MA in Venetic, it
would be as a verbal noun in the Illative. I have interpreted it with
meaning ‘in state of..’ as it works. There are a couple of instances in
which maybe this was the case such as perhaps in v.i.rema
. But in
general, if we compare Estonian and Venetic on the matter of the
infinitive, we have to focus on the ta
-infinitive which has to be the
original infinitive (even though grammars call it the “2nd”
Finnish, on the other hand treats the naked verb stem/root as the infinitive. Neither the –ta
ending had developed.
What turned out to be infinitives in Venetic, I originally thought were
nouns with Partitive endings and the resulting interpretations didn’t
work too well. Then in one instance I thought “it should be an
infinitive” and went back through everything and found indeed that
if “to” + noun were changed to “to” + verb, the problematic
interpretations (about 5 of them) became straightforward and elegant as
infinitives. The conclusion was that infinitives in Venetic are defined
by the verb stem plus what resembles the Partitive ending -v.i.
This is not peculiar if Venetic already uses the Partitive in a dynamic
sense translatable with ‘to (join with)’. Insofar as English derived
from a Germanic language with Suebic/Venetic substratum, it explains
why in English the infinitive is expressed by “to” + verb.
This is one of the remarkable coincidences that further supports the
correctness of the entire thesis of Venetic origins in Suebic (at the
top of the amber route before the Roman era), and Suebic in turn
underlying later developments of Germanic languages in the north.
But is there resonance with Estonian too? If as we propose, Venetic and
Estonian shared a parent language, then how would that parent language
lead to both Estonian 2nd Infinitive, which is marked by -ta
and also to Venetic marked by a Partitive-like ending? Answer: We
already saw how the Venetic Partitive can be derived by changing the T
in the Estonian Partitive to J (.i.
) This desire to use J is no
doubt, as I already said, a consequence of the strong
palatalization. If we assume the parent language was closer to
Estonian, and convert the T in an Estonian ta-infinitive to a J
then for example (to use a clean example that illustrates well) põõrata
'to turn towards' becomes põõraja
. If we now drop the final
a then we have the Venetic infinitive! And in fact for this
example it appears in an inscription as infinitive pora.i
mego dona.s.to .e.b .v.i.aba.i.$a pora.i. .o.p iorobo.s. [bronze sheet MLV-8, LLV-Es23]
‘Our brought-thing (ie the offering) remains, into the free, to turn up into the infinite-way
Thus the relationship between Estonian and Venetic is described by the
following using the stem põõra
- as the example: põõrata >
põõrat > põõraj
This presents us with the way to form more infinitives, from verb
stems. For example perhaps the infinitive of .e.
‘remain’ would have
This is a guess since I did not identify it in the
inscriptions. (In Estonian jää >jääda
which according to the
transformation would become jääj
) But it may be there
somewhere, and I have misintepreted it.
Examples of infinitives appearing in the body of inscriptions
follow. Note how perfect it is to interpret them as verbs in the
infinitive form. To identify an infinitive we first have to generally
translate the sentence and identify the verbal idea and determine that
the infinitive meaning actually fits better and seems more natural than
to interpret it as a Partitive.
pora.i. 'to turn towards’
mego dona.s.to .e.b .v.i.aba.i.$a pora.i. .o.p
iorobo.s. [bronze sheet MLV-8, LLV-Es23]
brought-thing (ie the offering) remains, into the free, to
turn up into the infinite-way
mego dona.s.to ka.n.te.s. vo.t.te.i. iio.s. a.kut.s.
- [LLV Es64] Our
brought-thing (ie the offering) in carrying, to take, into eternity,
into the beginning
.e.go ka.n.ta.i. ta.i.vo.n.tna.i. [obelisque- MLV-67,
‘Let remain, to carry (=to bear) till sky’s-place
’ Note how there is no
other verb possible, since –na.i.
on the last word is a case
ending. In this case, ka.n.ta.i.
must be verbal and the infinitive
meaning is obvious.
.e.go vo.l.tiio-mno.i. iuva.n.t-iio.i
[obelisque- MLV-59 LLV-Es4] Let
remain, to skyward-go, in the infinite direction to join infinity
Here the absence of a case endings on vo.l.tiio
suggests they are the first part of compound words. The first one
seems like verb ‘go’ in an infinitive
) and the second iuva.n.t-iio.i
nominal with a
.e.go kata.i. ege.s.tna.i. [obelisque- MLV-66, LLV-Es11]
‘Let remain, to vanish, till the everlasting
.e.nogene.i. .e.netiio.i. .e.p.petari.s.
external context: image of a warrior on horseback
(?---?) Eneti (Shipper) to Alps-climb, Bon Voyage!
word is too uncertain to even guess. It appears nowhere else.)
There may be others in the body of known inscriptions.
2.4.4 Present Indicative
Due to the limited number of inscriptions there are few instances of
verbs in the Present Indicative. Fortunately there were enough to
at least identify endings for the singular first second and third
person. The following table summarizes these endings for the Present
Indicative, as revealed by Venetic sentences. We compare
them to Estonian. It is expected to be similar to Estonian, based on
the accumulated evidence that Venetic, derived from Suebic, is closest
to Estonian because ancient Estonian was a brother language to Suebic
while Finnish has roots in a more ancient ancestral Finnic.
2.4.5 Active and Passive Past Participle -na, -to
|1. -n (ie vedan)
2. -d (ie ostad)
3. -b (ie jääb)
|-n (ie vdan)
-d,-t (ie o.s.dot)
-b (ie .e.b)
|1. -me (ie vedame)
| -m (ie vdam)
-t (?- not enough data)
The Active Past Participle seemed to be marked by a -na
on the verb stem. This resonates with Est -nud.
The Passive `Past Participle seemed to be marked by a -to
on the verb stem. This resonates with Est -tud.
Note that conversion between Estonian and Venetic mainly involves the
way Venetic palatalizes everything and the secondary effects of it.
Thus the conversion between tud
is also the
consequence of Venetic speakers (and their Suebic source) softening
endings to the extreme
, in this case dropping the D.
Examples of Passive Past Participles among the inscriptions include doto
moloto .e..n.noniia [urn- MLV 91, LLV-Pa90]
‘buried (or made to ash) to unite with Venetia
meant ‘Venetia’ I accept that it might be something
slightly different, but based on the word for ‘Veneti’ or ‘Shipper’)
Active Past Participle form could also be the Essive case ending
(see earlier) The following example the Passive Past Participle doto
but also shows mo.l.dna which makes sense whether you treat it as an
Active Past Participle or Essive.
mego doto v.i.ogo.n.ta mo.l.dna .e.b.
[stylus - MLV-24B, LLV-Es43] Our brought group-of-carryings as ash remains
(A burnt offering made to
Our brought group-of-carryings ashed (become ashes) remains
This is a good example of how the same stem and endings have
similar meanings, except one has a static sense and the other a dynamic
sense. It indicates that originally languages did not separate words
into nouns and verbs or adjectives and adverbs, but simply shifted
meanings according to whether the context required a verbal/dynamic
interpretation or a nominal/static interpretation.
2.4.6 Present Participle(?)
The Present Participle is marked in Estonian and Finnish by
and since it is in both we might therefore expect to find it in
Venetic. However it is hard to identify. Perhaps one example is the
iiuvant v.i.ve.s.tin iio.i.
- [round stone- MLV -138, LLV-Pa8 ]
In the direction of infinity, would be(??) carrying to infinity.
It is obious that v.i.ve.s.tin
is a verb is obvious because
it cannot be the other two words, but the meaning of the –e.s.tin
hard to decipher.From context alone, it seemed it might be some complex
passive verb form.
Needless to say, we need to find more examples to confirm the Present Participle
There are more examples for the Active Present Gerund.
2.4.7 Active Present Gerund
There are enough examples for
this. This is marked by an .s.
on a verb stem. Examples: mno.s.
‘in going’ ; ka.n.te.s.
‘in bearing, carrying’
This has been determined from how it fits very well in the context of
the sentences, as well as resonance with Estonian/Finnish. (For example
Estonian minnes, kandes
) Note that this form can also be viewed
as Inessive where the verb stem is taken as a noun stem.
mego dona.s.to vo.l.tiiomno.s. iiuva.n.t.s .a.riiun.s. $a.i.nate.i.
re.i.tiia.i [bronze sheet MLV- 10 LLV-
Es25] Our brought-item ((ie offering), skyward-going, in the
infinite direction, into the airy-realm[?], to (=unite with) you of the
Gods, to (=unite with) Rhea
vda.n. vo.l.tiio.n.mno.s. dona.s.to ke la.g.s.to
$a.i.nate.i. re.i.tiia.i. o.p vo.l.tiio leno
[bronze sheet- MLV-12A, LLV-Es27] I convey, skyward-going, the
bringing(=offering) and gift to (=unite with) you of the Gods, to
(=unite with) Rhea; up skyward fly!.
mego dona.s.to ka.n.te.s. vo.t.te.i. iio.s. a.kut.s.
- [LLV Es64] Our
brought-thing (ie the offering) in carrying, to take, into eternity,
into the beginning.
2.4.8 Other Complex Verb Forms
Other complex verb forms occur in Venetic, since I came across some
that were difficult to figure out, even when consulting Estonian or
Finnish for ideas. I had to make intuitive guesses or leave it as a
(???). The problem is that Venetic was highly palatalized and it is
difficult to understand from one example what effect that would have in
reshaping the grammatical endings from the original common ancestor
of Venetic(=Suebic) and Estonian(=Aestic).
There are only a few, and there is no value in discussing them here as
any conclusions would be highly tentative. For example in
.o..s.t..s. katus.ia .i.io.s. dona.s.to .a.tra.e..s.
- [MLV- 125, LLV- Vi2]
would suggest something like ‘would disappear’ but we simply don’t
know. The form does not appear anywhere else for comparing.
2.5.1 Observations Regarding Finnic Evolution
In the first section on the Partitive, I presented a tree chart that
demonstrated that the Partitive and several other case endings
suggested that Finnish is descended from the original Finnic language
across northern language (which originated from the original
archeologically defined “Maglemose” boat-oriented hunter-gatherers.),
and that the ancestor of Estonian and Venetic, ie ancient Aestic and
ancient Suebic, was a daughter language of it probably developed among
professional traders in the Baltic and North Seas following the arrival
The above chart shows how the Inessive, Illative, and Partitive cases
developed first from ancient Finnish to a general Baltic-Finnic among
seagoing peoples, and then that language separating in two which I have
called Suebic and Aestic, using terms from the Roman era when they
(This chart also suggests that Estonian does not belong to the current
Baltic Finnic languages which include Finnish but rather to a different
Aestic-Finnic of the east Baltic oriented to the Aestii market at the
southeast Baltic. It also suggests yet another subdivision of
Finno-Ugric was the Suebic-Finnic family, which existed in the early
Roman Age, but disappeared as it was displaced by Germanic after the
Goth advances into the Jutland Peninsula during and after the Roman
We are here mainly interested in the dialectic separation of Aestic and
Suebic, insofar as Estonian developed to a great extent for Aestic and
Venetic developed from Suebic being taken south to northern Italy via
the amber trade.
In the course of the preceding description of grammar, we saw some
further examples confirming that Suebic/Venetic deviated from
Aestic/Estonian mainly in ways that arose from the highly palatalized
manner of speaking. For example we can now also add that the
Venetic infinitive arose from an earlier T-infinitive that survived in
Estonian but – like the Partitive – became a .i.-infinitive in Venetic
(ie T,D > .i. (“J”))
Other than that, we can see the evidence of vowel raising (such as Est. U appearing as O in Venetic).
For example Est. –tud
, is –to
in Venetic. I believe that linguists who
analyze what has been discovered in this project, will find a great
deal that proves that
a)The north Italic ancient Venetic came from the west Baltic dialect of
a Baltic Sea Finnic which we have decided to call “Suebic”.
b)This Baltic Sea Finnic (of about 100 generations ago) developed out
of the earlier hunter-gatherer Finnic, the latter evolving into Finnish
c)The west Baltic, Suebic/Venetic dialect became very palatalized and
tight mouthed around 2000-3000 years ago, probably from original
farming peoples who migrated northward into the Jutland Peninsula and
southern Sweden assimilating into the prevailing indigenous
Finnic and speaking it with the accent of their original Indo-European
language (of probably the “Corded-ware” culture)
2.5.2 Enough Grammar and Lexicon to Create Original Sentences
Past interpreting of the Venetic inscriptions has only arrived at
skeletal descriptions of grammar, which mostly comes from being
projected from an assumed related language, and finding proof in the
Venetic inscriptions themselves becomes difficult or impossible. In my
methodology, I focussed primarily on what I could determine directly
from the inscriptions, and did not bring Finnic references into play
until I had independently determined that Venetic appeared to be
Finnic. When done in that way, the results are true, and not forced. If
true, then everything falls into place without being forced.
In my methodology I used only complete sentences since grammar can only
be determined if we have complete sentences and then we can look for
the subject, object, modifiers etc. That cannot be done from fragments
of sentences. The unknowns get filled up from the imagination.
But there were less than 100 usable inscriptions. It follows that the
amount of words and grammar that can be discovered is limited.
Still, the final proof of having discovered the true Venetic lies in
the extent to which a lexicon and grammar can be discovered, especially
enough that it is possible to generate new sentences.
At the end of THE VENETIC LANGUAGE An Ancient Language from
a New Perspective: FINAL
* I showed some easy examples of how new
sentences could be created from the existing lexicon and grammar.
Here are some examples branching out from the actual sentence:
pupone.i. .e.go rako.i. .e.kupetaris
‘to the father/elder let remain a duck’
We can add a noun in the Partitive. Thus ‘Bring a duck!’ is
‘Bring a duck
or using the pueia
of the real example,
‘catch a duck
‘Let him/them bring a duck!’
‘Let a duck be brought!
‘To bring a duck
rakone.i. dogo voto.i.
‘to the duck let bring some water
votone.i. viougo rako.i.
‘to the water let carry a duck
pupotane.i. .e.go rakota.i.
‘to the fathers/elders let remain some ducks
pupoine.i. .e.go rakoi.i.
‘to the fathers/elders let remain some ducks
pupone.i. dob rako.i.
‘(he) brings a duck to the father/elder
. The Active Past Particple appears with our earlier examples as
pupone.i. dono rako.i.
‘ a duck (being) brought to the father/elder
The Passive Past Particple appears with our earlier examples as
pupone.i. doto rako.i.
‘ a duck (having been) brought to the father/elder
voto ob dono rako.i. pupone.i.
‘ the water has brought a duck to the father/elder
rakoto.i. .e.go pupo.i.
‘Some ducks , let remain, joining with the Father
pupone.i. .e.go rako.i.
‘Let remain the duck till the Father
pupol .e.go rako.i.
‘Let remain the duck with (at) the Father
Using the verb a.n.a
a.n.an rako.i. pupole.i.
‘I give the duck to the Father
Using the verb vo.t.te
vo.t.ten rako.i. pupo.l.t
‘I take the duck away from the Father
tivale.i. be.l. rako lenego
! ‘On wing, let the duck fly!
rako mneb voto.s.
‘The duck goes into the water
As the duck emerges from the water we use the Elative ‘out of’ as follows:
pupo vo.t.teb rako voto.s.t
‘The Father takes the duck out of the water’
AND SO ON... Sadly, because most of the inscriptions appeared in the
context of prayers to the goddess or funerary situations, we lack some
of the common everyday words in order to construct some common everyday
sentences - unless we find word stems from outside the realm of
the inscriptions on archeological objects. We might for example
obtain some words from Roman texts, such as using the place name
Tergeste (now Trieste) to propose that there was a word te.r.g meaning
These sentences are only examples to show how the existing Venetic
inscriptions can be used to expand the sentences into other forms, and
how words from other sentences can be introduced. A thousand new
sentences could be generated from the ones I deciphered. For more
detailed discussions of creating such sentences, see section 15.3 of
THE VENETIC LANGUAGE An Ancient Language from a New Perspective:
Critics may point to how today movies will hire a linguist to create a
language for a movie. That is easy. But what is the probability of
anyone being able to create an imaginary language that also
produce sentences that mirror actual
sentences in the Venetic
inscriptions, and the meanings of those sentences correspond well with
the contexts in which those sentences appear. For that to happen
by chance, and not be real, it would be easier to be hit by a comet.
Science in general is governed by the laws of probability and
statistics and the truth of ANY theory in science is evaluated by the
level of probability achieved in the experimental results. As the
person who struggled to find results, some of the results have so much
supportive information that the probability of being correct is 99%. At
worst the results can be 50% probability of being correct. By
interpreting only complete sentences, interpreting contexts, and adding
cross-references with Estonian or Finnish, there were only a handful of
sentences that were less than 50% probable and excluded from the study.
Because almost all the Venetic inscriptions were written in short
sentences on identifiable objects whose purpose and context was easy to
identify, some interpretations were possible, and usually there were
very few words that did not occur in other inscriptions that could be
used for cross-reference to ensure greater accuracy in meaning.
R e f e r e n c e s
More on A. Paabo Venetic investigations and papers: Follow links given at bottom, below
Andres Pääbo, 2002-2014, THE VENETIC LANGUAGE An Ancient Language from a New Perspective: FINAL
= G.B. Pellegrini & A.L. Prosdocimi, 1964 La Lingua Venetica,
= M. Lejeune, 1974. Manuel de la Langue Vénète,
r t h e r S t u d i e s
RELATED TO THIS DOCUMENT ON GRAMMAR IS :