Etruscan’s genealogical linguistic relationship with Nakh-Daghestanian

[eblashko]

If that's the yDna they carried, they were a very small group, because there's very little of it in Tuscany, and thus their autosomal impact would have been minor.

Let's not forget, also, that this y Dna is present at similar levels in the Balkans and Greece as well. It has been speculated that its presence in the latter is because it is a Yamnaya lineage. Why does a lineage that is Yamnaya in Greece and the Balkans suddenly become a late arrival from Anatolia in the late Bronze/Iron Age when the subject is Italy? I've never understood that.

The few Italian R1b-L277 found so far aren't Tuscan but they are from other parts of Italy. So what do the Etruscans have to do with it? There are also Dutch and Swiss who are R1b-L277. And in any case the presence of L277.1 is so extremely low and it's an unwarranted gamble to try to link it to an old civilization. Also because the few found so far could all have arrived in more recent times.

You're both quite right that L584 has a more widespread distribution around Europe, but L277 is a different story. North of the Caucasus, it is found pretty much only in Italy and in Ashkenazim (plus one Dutchman and one Swissman which I will address below). It is not, as you claim, found in the Balkans, so I doubt that it arrived with the proto-Italics.

I am aware that L277 is found in a VERY small percentage of Italians, but if you look at yfull and Malyshev's charts, the variation for L277 in Italy is almost as high as it is in Armenia, which to me means it has probably been there for a long time. So I doubt L277 could have arrived to Italy in recent times as you claim. And in any case, L277 is also found at a small frequency of modern Armenians too. I'd assume that if L277 did arrive with the Etruscans, it was also found in a small minority of their supposed Hurrian/Caucasian source population as well - which could easily explain the small number today. I'd imagine that if the Etruscans are indeed from the region of the Caucasus, that they'd actually be a majority J2 population - and coincidentally, Italy also has a very high amount of J2 when compared with the rest of Europe (though I acknowkedge that J2 could also have come as a minor lineage with the proto-Italics from Yamnaya).

And as to the presence of Italian L277 outside of Tuscany and in the Netherlands and Switzerland, it is known that, firstly, a large portion of the Alps, including the region where the ONE known Swiss L277 family is from, was actually populated by a people who spoke a language closely related to Etruscan (see Raetic langauge). And it known that there was widespread cultural contact between Etruscans and early Germanic tribes. In fact, it is thought that the early Runic alphabet actually developed from the Raetic alphabet directly rather than through the Latin alphabet (see Harigast's helmet), so that could theoretically also account for the ONE known Dutch L277. And as to the presence of L277 elsewhere in Italy, I think that due to the cosmopolitan nature of the Italian peninsula, there was probably a lot of internal migration over the past 2500 years which would easily explain that.

Sure, I may be wrong, but that's what these forums are for, just to discuss ideas and bounce them off each other to see how they stand against the reasoning of other people.

This thread was originally about Etruscan/Trysenian linguistic origins. I don't presume to be 100% certain about the exact origin of the language, or of the Estruscan people, or of L277. But I merely observe that the relatively higher frequency and variation of L277 in Italy and Armenia compared to the rest of the continent could lend itself to a potential link between the Etruscans and the Caucasus. It could also be due to other reasons too - Sea Peoples, Phoenicians, Trojan refugees, etc. I read the paper originally posted by IronSide. I'm no linguist, but it did seem pretty convincing to me. I was simply looking for some genetic compliment to the linguistic theory.

Any chance those who don't agree could post some sources pointing away from a Caucasian origin of Etruscan?

 

[Azzurro]

You're both quite right that L584 has a more widespread distribution around Europe, but L277 is a different story. North of the Caucasus, it is found pretty much only in Italy and in Ashkenazim (plus one Dutchman and one Swissman which I will address below). It is not, as you claim, found in the Balkans, so I doubt that it arrived with the proto-Italics.

I am aware that L277 is found in a VERY small percentage of Italians, but if you look at yfull and Malyshev's charts, the variation for L277 in Italy is almost as high as it is in Armenia, which to me means it has probably been there for a long time. So I doubt L277 could have arrived to Italy in recent times as you claim. And in any case, L277 is also found at a small frequency of modern Armenians too. I'd assume that if L277 did arrive with the Etruscans, it was also found in a small minority of their supposed Hurrian/Caucasian source population as well - which could easily explain the small number today. I'd imagine that if the Etruscans are indeed from the region of the Caucasus, that they'd actually be a majority J2 population - and coincidentally, Italy also has a very high amount of J2 when compared with the rest of Europe (though I acknowkedge that J2 could also have come as a minor lineage with the proto-Italics from Yamnaya).

And as to the presence of Italian L277 outside of Tuscany and in the Netherlands and Switzerland, it is known that, firstly, a large portion of the Alps, including the region where the ONE known Swiss L277 family is from, was actually populated by a people who spoke a language closely related to Etruscan (see Raetic langauge). And it known that there was widespread cultural contact between Etruscans and early Germanic tribes. In fact, it is thought that the early Runic alphabet actually developed from the Raetic alphabet directly rather than through the Latin alphabet (see Harigast's helmet), so that could theoretically also account for the ONE known Dutch L277. And as to the presence of L277 elsewhere in Italy, I think that due to the cosmopolitan nature of the Italian peninsula, there was probably a lot of internal migration over the past 2500 years which would easily explain that.

Sure, I may be wrong, but that's what these forums are for, just to discuss ideas and bounce them off each other to see how they stand against the reasoning of other people.

This thread was originally about Etruscan/Trysenian linguistic origins. I don't presume to be 100% certain about the exact origin of the language, or of the Estruscan people, or of L277. But I merely observe that the relatively higher frequency and variation of L277 in Italy and Armenia compared to the rest of the continent could lend itself to a potential link between the Etruscans and the Caucasus. It could also be due to other reasons too - Sea Peoples, Phoenicians, Trojan refugees, etc. I read the paper originally posted by IronSide. I'm no linguist, but it did seem pretty convincing to me. I was simply looking for some genetic compliment to the linguistic theory.

Any chance those who don't agree could post some sources pointing away from a Caucasian origin of Etruscan?

Very excellent post and I agree with many of your observations, I am a huge supporter of the Etruscan link with the Caucasus or the Alarodian theory which connects the Tyrrhenian languages with Hurro-Urartian and Nakh speakers, I have written about this both here and at Anthrogenica. To add some points to the theory are the following, first off the article which Ironside posted was helpful, and other linguistic clues a good example is the Etruscan word for grandmother which is Teta and Teta happens to be the exact same word Lebanese use for grandmother as well. Religious example would have to be the use of the Haruspex which is the reading of animal livers this is a crucial point because it was first observed being used in Sumerians then by the Assyrians then the Hurrians and Hittites and is not a religious element until the Etruscans much later, skipping Greece (except potentially Lemnos and Imbros) and the Balkans completely (in my opinion a very strong point), genetically too there is more than just R-L277 for Y dna many Middle Eastern lineages are found in along the Alps, in the TSI samples and Germany and were talking TMRCA's of the middle Bronze Age, if you add all the evidence the Tyrrhenian language family group was originally living somewhere that was central to all these civilizations that used the Haruspex in religious customs, it would cover the religious, linguistic and genetic origins of the Etruscans.

 

[Angela]

^^Sorry, I don't see anything here but conjecture and speculation.

Sure, the Etruscans may carry some form of J2. Doesn't mean it came from the Caucasus only to Italy early in the Iron Age. J2 was already in the Balkans in the late Neolithic.

When we get some ydna from them, it will be interesting to see if it shows up elsewhere in Europe.

No problem with this if it is correct, but I'm allergic to theories based on personal preferences sometimes tied to one's own uniparental markers or on some sort of identification. It hampers objectivity.

Anyway, why not just wait until we have results instead of investing emotionally in one theory over another? Who cares if some of the ancestors of the Etruscans had some more CHG like material than the Anatolia like ancestry that was already all over Europe by the end of the Neolithic? What's the big whoops here? As I've said ad nauseam, it seems to me pretty clear that more CHG/Iran Chl like alleles entered Europe around the Bronze Age through a sort of pincer movement into Europe; one north of the Caucasus through the steppes, and one by migrations south of the Caucasus. Again, it's still CHG or Iran CHL like whichever route they took and whether it was mostly female or male mediated.

Obviously, there was some movement of J2 into the Balkans and Greece too, and maybe these migrants carried more Caucasus. Maybe it was a related group of peoples who entered a lot of southern Europe. Who knows? The ancient dna will tell us.

Anyway, the most important thing about the Etruscans is their wonderful culture and accomplishments, not if they carried a certain y haplogroup or whether their male ancestors arrived in the late Neo/Early Bronze or Late Bronze/Early Iron Age or from what direction they migrated. I mean, it will be interesting to know, but who cares, really, other than as a matter of intellectual curiosity?

Oh, btw, if this particular sub-group, according to Pax, isn't even found in Toscana, then the whole thing falls apart.

 

[Azzurro]

^^Sorry, I don't see anything here but conjecture and speculation.

Sure, the Etruscans may carry some form of J2. Doesn't mean it came from the Caucasus only to Italy early in the Iron Age. J2 was already in the Balkans in the late Neolithic.

When we get some ydna from them, it will be interesting to see if it shows up elsewhere in Europe.

No problem with this if it is correct, but I'm allergic to theories based on personal preferences sometimes tied to one's own uniparental markers or on some sort of identification. It hampers objectivity.

Anyway, why not just wait until we have results instead of investing emotionally in one theory over another? Who cares if some of the ancestors of the Etruscans had some more CHG like material than the Anatolia like ancestry that was already all over Europe by the end of the Neolithic? What's the big whoops here? As I've said ad nauseam, it seems to me pretty clear that more CHG/Iran Chl like alleles entered Europe around the Bronze Age through a sort of pincer movement into Europe; one north of the Caucasus through the steppes, and one by migrations south of the Caucasus. Again, it's still CHG or Iran CHL like whichever route they took and whether it was mostly female or male mediated.

Obviously, there was some movement of J2 into the Balkans and Greece too, and maybe these migrants carried more Caucasus. Maybe it was a related group of peoples who entered a lot of southern Europe. Who knows? The ancient dna will tell us.

Anyway, the most important thing about the Etruscans is their wonderful culture and accomplishments, not if they carried a certain y haplogroup or whether their male ancestors arrived in the late Neo/Early Bronze or Late Bronze/Early Iron Age or from what direction they migrated. I mean, it will be interesting to know, but who cares, really, other than as a matter of intellectual curiosity?

Oh, btw, if this particular sub-group, according to Pax, isn't even found in Toscana, then the whole thing falls apart.

Well it is a working theory,

The J2 found in Sopot and Lengyl Culture so far have turned out to be J2a-Z6055 and from autosomal that is almost entirely Neolithic Farmer like, also its TMRCA and dispersal is Neolithic Farmer. For sure some if can be found in the area like Otzi's G-L91. For the main lineages of J2a in discussion are branches of J2a-PF5116 (Z6065, M67, M319, etc..) and J2a-PF5160 (L70, F3133, PF5191, etc...).

I agree completely we need samples not only from the Etruscans but from other groups in Europe and the Middle East to see the relation.

The Etruscans' origins have been a mystery since Herodotus, it will really be interesting to see where they came from whether they were mostly indigenous or came from Anatolia, in my opinion what I see is stronger evidence for the connection with the South Caucasus/Fertile Crescent and I don't think they were vastly only J2a, if this turns out to be the case they will have carried also lineages of G-M406, G-L293, some J1, T-P77 and some E-M123 lineages (maybe some branches of E-M84 and E-L791) with some R1b.

I also think that as well, maybe the Etruscans will be related to the people who brought the Minyan Ware to Greece, I think most of the Iran Neo/Chalco and Southern Caucasus came in during the Early/Middle Bronze Age and perhaps the Tyrrhenian language family group was a surviving remanent of this.

I am very fond of the Etruscans, they are my favourite ancient Italian civilization.

Not sure about that, because maybe the lineage could have died out in Toscana, and survives in other areas like Northern Viterbo, also we would need ancient dna from not only the Etruscans but also the Rhaetians.

 

[Angela]

I suppose I have a distrust of too much emphasis on the Iron Age migration of Lydians from Anatolia specifically into central Italy because of the fact, that, one, this is part of a process which affected all of southern Europe and particularly southeastern Europe, and yet this is never part of the conversation.

The other problem with it is that in the past it was insisted upon by people who used this kind of ancestry to deny European identity to those who carried it, which genetically and historically is absolutely absurd. The only people who could think that are people who haven't read or at least understood the genetics papers of the last five or so years.

The only thing different about migrants from Anatolia in the Bronze Age versus migrants from Anatolia in the Neolithic is a higher percentage of CHG/Iran Chl like ancestry (not Iran Neo) in the former. It's also the same ancestry which accounts for 40% of the ancestry of the Indo-Europeans for anyone who still hasn't absorbed the genetic discoveries of the last five years or so.

Like I said, it was a pincer like movement into Europe. In one case it was mixed with EHG, in the other case with more Anatolian like farmer ancestry.

What difference does it make?

Oh, Otzi already had 22% CHG/Caucasus like ancestry in the Copper Age, as I've also been saying for five years or more, but which some people seem to have realized only recently.

It could have been dribbling in for hundreds upon hundreds of years.

The whole debate is rather nonsensical in my view, and occupies way too much space in the mind of the usual suspects.

 

[alexfritz]

I suppose I have a distrust of too much emphasis on the Iron Age migration of Lydians from Anatolia specifically into central Italy because of the fact, that, one, this is part of a process which affected all of southern Europe and particularly southeastern Europe, and yet this is never part of the conversation.

The other problem with it is that in the past it was insisted upon by people who used this kind of ancestry to deny European identity to those who carried it, which genetically and historically is absolutely absurd. The only people who could think that are people who haven't read or at least understood the genetics papers of the last five or so years.

The only thing different about migrants from Anatolia in the Bronze Age versus migrants from Anatolia in the Neolithic is a higher percentage of CHG/Iran Chl like ancestry (not Iran Neo) in the former. It's also the same ancestry which accounts for 40% of the ancestry of the Indo-Europeans for anyone who still hasn't absorbed the genetic discoveries of the last five years or so.

Like I said, it was a pincer like movement into Europe. In one case it was mixed with EHG, in the other case with more Anatolian like farmer ancestry.

What difference does it make?

Oh, Otzi already had 22% CHG/Caucasus like ancestry in the Copper Age, as I've also been saying for five years or more, but which some people seem to have realized only recently.

It could have been dribbling in for hundreds upon hundreds of years.

The whole debate is rather nonsensical in my view, and occupies way too much space in the mind of the usual suspects.

fully agree with that, and in this case specific the stigmatizing CHG as something alien is truly completely off as you correctly pointed out that the steppe-related ancestry itself is largely derived from it Yamnaya_Samara 4.1.2:EHG49,7 CHG50,3 / 4.1.3:WHG2,8 EHG47 CHG50,1 (mathieosn et al qpAdm);

the way i understand tyrrhenians and an LBA/EIA(iron age) migration is that there was an archaeological attested change/break during the 10th bc in the north lazio south tuscany area with a structural change in settlements(>proto-urbanisation) and gearing towards the coast as well as the emergence of a new metal (iron) and its innovations along with a change in burial rite from cremation>inhumation at latIIb; all these fundamental changes could mark the arrival of a 'new' people (though old route) with the tyrrhenians historically ascribed to anatolia/lemnos-imbros and linguistic ties truly attested on lemnos; in the light of anatolia_ba (2800-1800bc isparta) such type people could be the source of further CHG(pos also levant_n) in modern north/central italians the areas of settlement in addition to ötzi/remedello and hungary_ba(steppe-related) types; settlements changes in southern etruria LBA/EIA
https://www.researchgate.net/public...om_the_Early_Bronze_Age_to_the_Early_Iron_Age
http://fawlty.uab.cat/SSC2014/SPUHH/socialsimulation2014_123.pdf
spread of iron acc to k.kristiansen(2000)

 

[Angela]

fully agree with that, and in this case specific the stigmatizing CHG as something alien is truly completely off as you correctly pointed out that the steppe-related ancestry itself is largely derived from it Yamnaya_Samara 4.1.2:EHG49,7 CHG50,3 / 4.1.3:WHG2,8 EHG47 CHG50,1 (mathieosn et al qpAdm);

the way i understand tyrrhenians and an LBA/EIA(iron age) migration is that there was an archaeological attested change/break during the 10th bc in the north lazio south tuscany area with a structural change in settlements(>proto-urbanisation) and gearing towards the coast as well as the emergence of a new metal (iron) and its innovations along with a change in burial rite from cremation>inhumation at latIIb; all these fundamental changes could mark the arrival of a 'new' people (though old route) with the tyrrhenians historically ascribed to anatolia/lemnos-imbros and linguistic ties truly attested on lemnos; in the light of anatolia_ba (2800-1800bc isparta) such type people could be the source of further CHG(pos also levant_n) in modern north/central italians the areas of settlement in addition to ötzi/remedello and hungary_ba(steppe-related) types; settlements changes in southern etruria LBA/EIA
https://www.researchgate.net/public...om_the_Early_Bronze_Age_to_the_Early_Iron_Age
http://fawlty.uab.cat/SSC2014/SPUHH/socialsimulation2014_123.pdf
spread of iron acc to k.kristiansen(2000)

Maybe, and maybe not.

The steppe populations learned copper technology with very limited intrusion of genes from Old Europe. (We know the technology came from there because the first attempts were copies of styles from there and used copper sourced from there.)

Remedello had so many hallmarks of "Indo-European" culture that most people were convinced it would show high percentages of "steppe" ancestry. It wasn't the case.

Gimbutas and almost everyone after her thought that Baden was a steppe intrusion genetically as well as in other ways. Again, wrong.

Our blog expert on the Indo-Europeans par excellence, at least according to him, was absolutely convinced up until the week before the paper came out that the Mycenaeans, the model of Indo-European culture, were going to be blonde cowboys from the steppes, or at least extremely Corded Ware like. Not. I will grant they had some steppe in them, but not very much at all.

Globular Amphora were "Tuscan like".

That's been enough for me to conclude that technological change, even societal wide change, can occur absent any migration at all, or very small amounts indeed, even in very ancient times. All those debates I used to have with Jean Manco have been resolved in my favor. The post war European archaeologists who wanted to deny migration at all were incorrect, but so were those who harkened back to the Indo-Europeans flooded all of Europe cadre from before the war. The reality is more complicated.

Not too long ago an entire book of essays on the Etruscans came out. I read practically all of it. I could see no mention of anything that would indicate conflict at that time...no burned settlements, nothing like what can be documented in parts of southeastern Europe from the arrival of the Indo-Europeans. I do see a lot of trade with Sardinia, which was in contact with the Eastern Mediterranean, and experienced a lot of cultural change, but apparently extremely little genetic change. At a certain point, the Orientalizing phase, I see a lot of copying of Greek culture.

Now, perhaps it wasn't cultural diffusion. Perhaps it was actual gene flow. Fine with me. However, the only thing that will tell us if there was gene flow and how much is autosomal dna and yDna not only from "Etruscans", but from locals before the cultural change. Otherwise we won't know if the genetic change was "older" than the change in culture. Like I said, even if we assume that the Etruscans carried J2, it could have been filtering into Italy as into the Balkans and Greece and even into Spain since the beginning of the Bronze Age.

That's why I'm an agnostic about the Etruscans and Herodotus' specific account, as well as the one PCA we have for them, although I grant you it doesn't inspire confidence that the paper wasn't published.

 

[Angela]

The book on the Etruscans to which I was referring...

https://books.google.com/books?id=n5g3h5G16EkC

 

[alexfritz]

fully agree with that and in fact never saw it otherwise, it truly might or might not be the case; judging by the dynamics of the networks throughout the metallurgical ages based on actual archaeology and so far known aDNA there are some hints already for italy yet only extensive aDNA will tell;

that PCA is as i understand it, based on three ETR/etruscans from the 6th?/5th? and when twisted and turned for the better detailed view more akin to bronze age samples like hungary_ba/balkan_ba and several central_european bronze agers as well; guess the inhumation burials of latIIb(9th) will be more informative yet great to see how iron-age italians plotted like (imagining albanians and north_italians even better)

 

[Ygorcs]

I do not think the connection between Etruscan and Nakh or even Hurro-Urartian languages has to be related to an Iron Age migration, not even a Bronze Age one. If the connections are proved true, then it still definitely requires more than 3,000 years of totally separate divergence, otherwise those language families would be a lot more similar than they were/are. If there is, and my informed "intuition" tells me there is, the time they were speaking closely related languages was certainly deep into the Neolithic or Chalcolithic periods. I think it is theoreticall more likely that the Tyrrhenian languages were among the last layer of Anatolian/Near Eastern languages coming into Europe with much more CHG instead of the earlier ENF-dominant waves. I also happen to think that Minoan was no Early Neolithic, Anatolian Farmer language, but rather one brought by a mixed CHG+EEF people.

 

[Pax Augusta]

and other linguistic clues a good example is the Etruscan word for grandmother which is Teta and Teta happens to be the exact same word Lebanese use for grandmother as well.

It also happens that the ancient Greek τήθη (tḗthē>tethe) means grandmother, from proto-Indo-European *dʰeh₁- (“to suck”).

the original text (Cass. D. 59.3) has the word τήθη, grandmother instead of τιθήνη, a nurse (Sergei Mariev, Ioannis Antiocheni fragmenta quae supersunt omnia, p. 187, 2008.)

Now there was a daughter of Nannion named Corone who acquired the name Tethe (Grandmother) because of her triple prostitution (ek triporneias, 587b),

Not by chance in the ear of an Italian the word teta reminds immediately of the Italian word "tetta" (in Canada and USA I suppose it's tit, titty, boob, French tette or teton).

In Slavic languages teta means aunt, someone related by blood.

In Proto-Germanic is *titta (English tit, Dutch tiet, German Zitze) .

ETYMOLOGICAL. AUNTS. Most European languages use a one or twosyllable word that appears to have derived from the ancient Greek tethis or the Latin amita and tata. The latter—a word meaning “rearer”—could be assigned to a father or a wet nurse as well as an aunt. Czech, Croatian: teta French, Dutch, German: tante Finnish: tati Italian: zia, Russian: tetya, Spanish and Portuguese: tia, Turkish: teyze

 

[Johane Derite]

It also happens that the ancient Greek τήθη (tḗthē>tethe) means grandmother, from proto-Indo-European *dʰeh₁- (“to suck”).





Not by chance in the ear of an Italian the word teta reminds immediately of the Italian word "tetta" (in Canada and USA I suppose it's tit, titty, boob, French tette or teton).

In Slavic languages teta means aunt, someone related by blood.

In Proto-Germanic is *titta (English tit, Dutch tiet, German Zitze) .

In Albanian the word for Aunt from the mothers side is "Teze / tezja" (the J is pronounced like Y in Yellow)

The word for suck in albanian is "Thith" (the i is pronounced like "ee" in teeth)

 

[Sile]

I wonder if a Superiority Complex is part of Your “Alpine Mediterranean” background.

The problem is that nobody has sought to get only an alpine genetic admixture , they give them to the Germans, Italians, French etc

 

[Pax Augusta]

In Albanian the word for Aunt from the mothers side is "Teze / tezja" (the J is pronounced like Y in Yellow)

The word for suck in albanian is "Thith" (the i is pronounced like "ee" in teeth)

All these words come from the same IE roots.

 

[Johane Derite]

All these words come from the same IE roots.

Yep. Wasn't stating otherwise

 

[Angela]

All I know is that you have to be careful how you pronounce tette and its "false friend", tetti.

A foreign guest at a party, while looking across the roofs of Rome, said, "What beautiful "tette", instead of what beautiful "tetti", so he was really saying, "What beautiful breasts instead of what beautiful roofs!" All the women looked down to see if they were hanging out. Got to get the "e" sound separate from the "i" sound, people.

Sorry, was that terrible to say on Christmas Eve?

 

[Pax Augusta]

All I know is that you have to be careful how you pronounce tette and its "false friend", tetti.

Of course tette and tetti are not even etymologically related. Tetti is plural, singular is tetto, the meaning is roof from Latin tectum, from Proto-Italic *tegō, from Proto-Indo-European *(s)teg- (“to cover with a roof”); Celtic: *tegos (“house”).

I'm confident enough to state that an Italian would never mistake a tetta for a tetto, and vice versa.

 

[Angela]

Of course tette and tetti are not even etymologically related. Tetti is plural, singular is tetto, the meaning is roof from Latin tectum, from Proto-Italic *tegō, from Proto-Indo-European *(s)teg- (“to cover with a roof”); Celtic: *tegos (“house”).

I'm confident enough to state that an Italian would never mistake a tetta for a tetto, and vice versa.

Indeed. Foreigners, alas, have problems with pronunciation.

Maybe you had to be there. It was pretty funny when he said it and men started laughing and women started adjusting their dresses and tops. He had no clue what he said until someone explained it. He was mortified.

 

[davef]

All I know is that you have to be careful how you pronounce tette and its "false friend", tetti.

A foreign guest at a party, while looking across the roofs of Rome, said, "What beautiful "tette", instead of what beautiful "tetti", so he was really saying, "What beautiful breasts instead of what beautiful roofs!" All the women looked down to see if they were hanging out. Got to get the "e" sound separate from the "i" sound, people.

Sorry, was that terrible to say on Christmas Eve?

Naaaaah, its all good !!! Trust me on that! Btw hilarious post!