TI·38: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
|workmanship=carved | |workmanship=carved | ||
|condition=fragmentary | |condition=fragmentary | ||
|culture_archaeological=Golasecca III A, La Tène B, La Tène C | |||
|sortdate=-325 | |||
|date=5<sup>th</sup>–mid-2<sup>nd</sup> c. BC | |||
|date_derivation=typology | |||
|type_inscription=prob. funerary | |type_inscription=prob. funerary | ||
|language=Celtic | |language=Celtic | ||
| Line 31: | Line 35: | ||
Images in {{bib|Morandi 2004}}: 707, fig. 33 (photo and drawing). | Images in {{bib|Morandi 2004}}: 707, fig. 33 (photo and drawing). | ||
The fragment preserves | The fragment preserves part of an inscription between frame lines. The letters are damaged, but reasonably well legible; the letter to the right of the separator in the photo above is a slightly wiggly line which could be iota, but is more likely to be intended as four-bar sigma, considering that the other sigma, also with four bars, is also quite flat. According to {{bib|Piana Agostinetti 2004}}: 162, the frame lines widen at the end of upsilon; interpreting this section as the stylised feet, she considers this the lower end and beginning of the inscription. It seems to us, however, that the widening could as well represent the beginning of the head, in which case this would be the inscription's end. In terms of letter forms, both options are feasible, as the writing direction is ambiguous. Morandi's reading assumes dextroverse writing: ]''uisou:ṣo''?[ (or indeed ''uisou:ṣo''?[, if this is the inscription's beginning), which yields a linguistically unattractive ending °''ou'' (cf. {{w||uerkou}}, {{w||prikou}}, {{w||anatikou}}). In a sinistroverse reading ]?''os:uosiu'' (the end of the inscription), °''os'' makes for a more plausible ending, but °''iu'' is, if anything, even worse. | ||
If the fragment shows the frame's head, the frame can be classified as type B, if it shows the feet, as type C according to the system of {{bib|De Marinis & Motta 1991}}: 206; hence the non-committal dating above. | |||
Already mentioned (without readings) in {{bib|Tatarinoff 1924}}: 125, {{bib|PID}} ''Add.'': 629, {{bib|Lejeune 1971}}: 5, no. 10. | Already mentioned (without readings) in {{bib|Tatarinoff 1924}}: 125, {{bib|PID}} ''Add.'': 629, {{bib|Lejeune 1971}}: 5, no. 10. | ||
<p style="text-align:right;>[[User:Corinna Salomon|Corinna Salomon]]</p> | <p style="text-align:right;>[[User:Corinna Salomon|Corinna Salomon]]</p> | ||
{{bibliography}} | {{bibliography}} | ||
Revision as of 19:58, 14 October 2023
| Inscription | |
|---|---|
| Reading in transliteration: | ]uisou : sọ?[ |
| Reading in original script: | ]      ?[
|
|
| |
| Object: | TI·38 Pregassona (stela) |
| Position: | front |
| Frame: | ? ? (left: unknown, middle: top and bottom, right: unknown)
|
| Direction of writing: | ambiguous |
| Script: | North Italic script (Lepontic alphabet) |
| Number of letters: | 8 |
| Number of words: | 2 |
| Number of lines: | 1 |
| Workmanship: | carved |
| Condition: | fragmentary |
|
| |
| Archaeological culture: | Golasecca III A, La Tène B, La Tène C |
| Date of inscription: | 5th–mid-2nd c. BC |
|
| |
| Type: | prob. funerary |
| Language: | prob. Celtic |
| Meaning: | unknown |
|
| |
| Alternative sigla: | Morandi 2004: 279 |
|
| |
| Sources: | Morandi 2004: 706-707 |
Images
 Inscription TI·38 from Morandi
|
 Stela TI·38 Pregassona with inscription TI·38 from Morandi
|
 Stela TI·38 Pregassona with inscription TI·38
|
Commentary
First published in Morandi 2004: 706 f., no. 279.
Images in Morandi 2004: 707, fig. 33 (photo and drawing).
The fragment preserves part of an inscription between frame lines. The letters are damaged, but reasonably well legible; the letter to the right of the separator in the photo above is a slightly wiggly line which could be iota, but is more likely to be intended as four-bar sigma, considering that the other sigma, also with four bars, is also quite flat. According to Piana Agostinetti 2004: 162, the frame lines widen at the end of upsilon; interpreting this section as the stylised feet, she considers this the lower end and beginning of the inscription. It seems to us, however, that the widening could as well represent the beginning of the head, in which case this would be the inscription's end. In terms of letter forms, both options are feasible, as the writing direction is ambiguous. Morandi's reading assumes dextroverse writing: ]uisou:ṣo?[ (or indeed uisou:ṣo?[, if this is the inscription's beginning), which yields a linguistically unattractive ending °ou (cf. uerkou, prikou, anatikou). In a sinistroverse reading ]?os:uosiu (the end of the inscription), °os makes for a more plausible ending, but °iu is, if anything, even worse.
If the fragment shows the frame's head, the frame can be classified as type B, if it shows the feet, as type C according to the system of De Marinis & Motta 1991: 206; hence the non-committal dating above.
Already mentioned (without readings) in Tatarinoff 1924: 125, PID Add.: 629, Lejeune 1971: 5, no. 10.
Bibliography
| Dell’Era 2020 | Romeo Dell'Era, "uisou o uosiu[i]? Cambiando senso, il senso cambia. Nuova lettura di un'iscrizione celtica da Pregassona (Lugano)", in: Michel Aberson, Francesca Dell'Oro, Michiel de Vaan, Antoine Viredaz (eds), [vøːrtər]. Mélanges de linguistique, de philologie et d'histoire ancienne offerts à Rudolf Wachter [= Cahiers de l'ILSL 60], Lausanne: 2020, 215–220. |
|---|---|
| De Marinis & Motta 1991 | Raffaele C. De Marinis, Filippo Motta, "Una nuova iscrizione lepontica su pietra da Mezzovico (Lugano)", Sibrium 21 (1990–1991), 201–225. |
