tośokote: Difference between revisions
From Lexicon Leponticum
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
|tense=past | |tense=past | ||
|language=Cisalpine Gaulish | |language=Cisalpine Gaulish | ||
|analysis_morphemic={{m| | |analysis_morphemic={{m|to-|to}}{{m|-st-|-ts}}{{m|-om|-om}}{{m|-kon-|-kon}}{{m|-d}}{{m|-e}} | ||
| | |analysis_phonemic={{p|t}}{{p|o}}{{p|ts|t<sup>s</sup>}}{{p|o}}{{p|m}}{{p|k}}{{p|o}}{{p|n}}{{p|d}}{{p|e}} | ||
|meaning= | |meaning='has given it' | ||
|checklevel=4 | |checklevel=4 | ||
|problem= | |problem=Endung Infix, Kommentar nur oberflächlich, Morpheme | ||
}} | }} | ||
==Commentary== | ==Commentary== | ||
Corresponds to Lat. ''quem dedit'' in the only attestation. Analysis based on {{bib|Koch 1983}}: 187 f., who compares OIr. formations and segments the form into preverb {{m||to-}} + infixed pronoun + prefective preverb {{m||kon-}} + stem + ending. In the verbal stem {{m||ded-}}, the reduplicating syllable is suppressed following two preverbs ({{bib|Eska 1990}}: 88); on the form and function of the proleptic infixed pronoun {{m||-st-|-stom-}} in the accusative and with apheresis see {{bib|Eska 1990b}}: 193–195 and {{bib|Eska 2001}}, and cf. {{w||iśos}}. See also {{bib|Pisani 1979}}: 50 f., {{bib|DLG}}: 299, {{bib|Villar & Prósper 2005}}: 205, {{bib|Eska 2004}}: 869, {{bib|Eska 2007}}: 191 f., {{bib|Stifter 2010}}: 370, {{bib|Stifter 2014}}: 207, {{bib|Uhlich 2007}}: 388, n. 34. Alternative interpretations in {{bib|Meid 1989}}: 14–16. Already {{bib|Lejeune 1977}}: 600. | |||
{{bibliography}} | {{bibliography}} | ||
Latest revision as of 21:05, 9 March 2024
| Attestation: | VC·1.2 (akisios:arkatokok/materekos:toṣ́o/kote:aṭom:teuoχ/tom:koneu) (1) |
|---|---|
| Language: | Cisalpine Gaulish |
| Word Type: | verb |
|
| |
| Grammatical Categories: | 3rd sg. past |
|
| |
| Morphemic Analysis: | to-ts-om-kon-d-e |
| Phonemic Analysis: | totsomkonde |
| Meaning: | 'has given it' |
Commentary
Corresponds to Lat. quem dedit in the only attestation. Analysis based on Koch 1983: 187 f., who compares OIr. formations and segments the form into preverb to- + infixed pronoun + prefective preverb kon- + stem + ending. In the verbal stem ded-, the reduplicating syllable is suppressed following two preverbs (Eska 1990: 88); on the form and function of the proleptic infixed pronoun -stom- in the accusative and with apheresis see Eska 1990b: 193–195 and Eska 2001, and cf. iśos. See also Pisani 1979: 50 f., DLG: 299, Villar & Prósper 2005: 205, Eska 2004: 869, Eska 2007: 191 f., Stifter 2010: 370, Stifter 2014: 207, Uhlich 2007: 388, n. 34. Alternative interpretations in Meid 1989: 14–16. Already Lejeune 1977: 600.
Bibliography
| DLG | Xavier Delamarre, Dictionnaire de la langue gauloise. Une approche linguistique du vieux-celtique continental, 2nd, revised edition, Paris: Errance 2003. |
|---|---|
| Eska 1990 | Joseph F. Eska, "The so-called weak or dental preterite in Continental Celtic, Watkins' law, and related matters", Historische Sprachforschung 103 (1990), 81–91. |
| Eska 1990b | Joseph F. Eska, "Two notes on Continental Celtic", Études Celtiques 27 (1990), 191–195. |
| Eska 2001 | Joseph Francis Eska, "Further to Vercelli śo=", Zeitschrift für celtische Philologie 52 (2001), 134-136. |
| Eska 2004 | Joseph F. Eska, "Continental Celtic", in: Roger D. Woodard (ed.), The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages, Cambridge: CUP 2004, 847–880. |
