Talk:Cippus Perusinus

Move from Cippus perusinus to Cippus Perusinus
Perusinus needed to be capitalized because Cippus Perusinus is a title of a religious text and because Perusinus is a translation of Perugia, a city in Itlay. Thus capital letter. Redletternight (talk) 13:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

In the second row: there is - "ešt-la Afuna-s, spel eθ car-u tezan, " should be - "ešt-la Afuna-s, sleleθ car-u tezan, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.219.130.244 (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

wrong reading
"EULAT TANNALAREZU? AMEVAKHR LAUTN VELTINAŠ E ŠTLAAPFUNAŠ SLELETHCARU TEZAN PHUŠLERI TESNŠTEIŠ RAŠNEŠIPAAMAHENNAPER KHIVELTHNATHURAŠARAŠPE RAŠCEMULMIESCULZUCIEN ESCIEPLTULARU..."

It is letter L and not R in "eurat". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.198.32.219 (talk) 05:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, the cippus is damaged there, but based on the bottom of the letter, it can't be an L.Johundhar (talk) 03:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cippus Perusinus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100613161433/http://ancientstudies.fas.nyu.edu/docs/CP/963/EtruscanNews05.pdf to http://ancientstudies.fas.nyu.edu/docs/CP/963/EtruscanNews05.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050330053810/http://etp.classics.umass.edu/ to http://etp.classics.umass.edu/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Original text
I am not comfortable hosting the original text here. Elizium23 (talk) 17:11, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) We are not Wikisource; we're not supposed to be hosting original texts of anything here.
 * 2) The text is not in a Latin script and its scratches are really subject to interpretation and various transcription techniques that may never be reproduced accurately here
 * 3) The article should chiefly be based on analysis and commentary provided by secondary sources, rather than us trying to painstakingly repro its text.


 * It is a very short but important text. The source is given, no one here is trying to 'repro' the text, painstakingly or otherwise. If you want to include other (cited) scholarly interpretations of the text, please feel free.Johundhar (talk) 03:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)