Etruscan really is …
Simply stated, I do not what Etruscan’s affiliation, as far as language, is; and, also I am without any solid clue as to its decipherment. For the last twenty years I have had an unwavering interest in Etruscan and its riddle. Many proposals have been suggested, from the plausible to the improbable. The theories are almost as intriguing as the mystery of the Etruscan language.
From the ongoing studies, it seems (personal opinion) that Etruscan may have some affinity with the Indo-European languages. The Etruscans most likely were an autochthonous people inhabiting contemporary Tuscany and some areas in the Po Rivers valley. Their civilization fell under Roman hegemony by circa 200 BC when the Etruscan speaking populace came under Roman control in toto. The language probably continued for several hundred years as a spoken language among the general population, in Etruria; while at a later stage it appears to have functioned as some sort of priestly language among the Haruspicini who employed as late the fifth century.
There thousands of inscriptions, most very short, with a few existing longer ones. The material is too scant to ‘reconstruct’ a comprehensive outline of the language; although, the phonology has been delineated (?). The Etruscans used various variations of the Chalicidian (Greek) alphabet.
My hypothesis is that maybe the Etruscan solution lies closer to Rome, since Latium, was inhabited by numerous language groups, Italic, Hellenic, and Etruscan. Maybe Latin itself owes a greater debt to Etruscan in its development due to its contact to this advanced culture. Perhaps there is a much larger substratum of Etruscan glosses embedded in Latin, e.g. the non Italic words lacking affinity that are unattested in Etruscan inscriptions, which could be Etruscan in origin. This does not necessarily make the language Indo-European, but the Etruscans long association with Italic peoples invariably worked in both directions.
Maybe all roads lead to Rome (no pun intended).

