TI·38: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|reading_lepontic=]{{c|U|U7}}{{c|I}}{{c|S|S2}}{{c|O|O2}}{{c|U|U7}}{{c|separator|separator3}}{{c|I}}??[ | |reading_lepontic=]{{c|U|U7}}{{c|I}}{{c|S|S2}}{{c|O|O2}}{{c|U|U7}}{{c|separator|separator3}}{{c|I}}??[ | ||
|direction=ambiguous | |direction=ambiguous | ||
|letter_height_min= | |letter_height_min=7.5 cm | ||
|letter_height_max=9 cm | |||
|letter_number_min=8 | |letter_number_min=8 | ||
|word_number=2 | |word_number=2 | ||
Line 18: | Line 19: | ||
|workmanship=carved | |workmanship=carved | ||
|condition=fragmentary | |condition=fragmentary | ||
|type_inscription=prob. funerary | |type_inscription=prob. funerary | ||
|language=Celtic | |language=Celtic | ||
|linguistic_ascription=prob. | |linguistic_ascription=prob. | ||
|meaning='for ... Uosios' (?) | |meaning='for ... Uosios' (?) | ||
|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 | |||
|morandi=279 | |morandi=279 | ||
|source_detail=Morandi 2004: 706 | |source_detail=Morandi 2004: 706 f. no. 279 | ||
|checklevel= | |checklevel=1 | ||
|problem= | |problem=Zeichnung Romeo | ||
}} | }} | ||
==Commentary== | ==Commentary== | ||
First published in {{bib|Morandi 2004}}: 706 f., no. 279. | First published in {{bib|Morandi 2004}}: 706 f., no. 279. Examined for LexLep on 16<sup>th</sup> October 2023. | ||
Images in {{bib|Morandi 2004}}: 707, fig. 33 (photo and drawing), {{bib| | Images in {{bib|Morandi 2004}}: 707, fig. 33 (photo and drawing), {{bib|Dell’Era 2020}}: 217, fig. 1 (photo and drawing). | ||
The fragment preserves part of an inscription between frame lines; the letters are | The fragment preserves part of an inscription (length of remains 41.f cm) between frame lines (frame width 10 cm); the surface is damaged and the letters are badly legible. The letter to the right of the separator in the photo above is a slightly wiggly line which could be iota ({{bib|Dell’Era 2020}}: 218, Crivelli via ibid.) or four-bar sigma (Morandi), the other sigma, also with four bars, being also quite flat. The letter next to it is read as rho by Crivelli (via ibid.), as omicron by Morandi, and considered illegible by Dell'Era. Between this and the breaking edge, a space of ca. 5 cm appears to be free of any traces of letters, but in the lower area a notch on the edge may indicate a bar (lambda {{c||L}}?). | ||
One of the frame lines (the lower one in the photo above, on the left side) appears to curve outward just before the breaking edge, though the damage is too heavy to be sure that this is an intentional line. {{bib|Piana Agostinetti 2004}}: 162, interpreting it as a stylised foot, considers this the lower end and beginning of the inscription. Morandi's reading accordingly assumes dextroverse writing: ]''uisou:ṣo''?[ (or indeed ''uisou:ṣo''?[), which yields a linguistically unattractive (''on''-stem nominative?) ending °''ou'' (cf. {{w||uerkou}}, {{w||prikou}}, {{w||anatikou}}). As pointed out by {{bib|Dell’Era 2020}}: 218, the curve could as well represent the beginning of the head, in which case this would be the inscription's end. The writing direction being ambiguous in terms of letter forms, he suggests a sinistroverse reading ]??''i:uosiu''[ (the end of the inscription), with {{w||)i}} a likely dative ending and another dative in emended {{w||uosiu(|uosiui}}. This would agree better with our expectations regarding the text formula of a Ticino gravestone (binominal formula in the dative); irregularities are constituted by the absence of the formula word {{w||pala}} and the formation of the assumed second name {{w||uosiu(}} without {{m||-al-}} (cf. [dubious] [[TI·43]] {{w||kuimitrui}}). | |||
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. | 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. |
Latest revision as of 17:42, 26 July 2024
Inscription | |
---|---|
Reading in transliteration: | ]??i : uosiu[ |
Reading in original script: | ]??[ |
| |
Object: | TI·38 Pregassona (stela) |
Position: | front |
Orientation: | 270° |
Frame: | ?? (left: unknown, middle: top and bottom, right: unknown) |
Direction of writing: | ambiguous |
Script: | North Italic script (Lepontic alphabet) |
Letter height: | 7.5–9 cm2.953 in <br />3.543 in <br /> |
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: | 'for ... Uosios' (?) |
| |
Alternative sigla: | Morandi 2004: 279 |
| |
Sources: | Morandi 2004: 706 f. no. 279 |
Images
Commentary
First published in Morandi 2004: 706 f., no. 279. Examined for LexLep on 16th October 2023.
Images in Morandi 2004: 707, fig. 33 (photo and drawing), Dell’Era 2020: 217, fig. 1 (photo and drawing).
The fragment preserves part of an inscription (length of remains 41.f cm) between frame lines (frame width 10 cm); the surface is damaged and the letters are badly legible. The letter to the right of the separator in the photo above is a slightly wiggly line which could be iota (Dell’Era 2020: 218, Crivelli via ibid.) or four-bar sigma (Morandi), the other sigma, also with four bars, being also quite flat. The letter next to it is read as rho by Crivelli (via ibid.), as omicron by Morandi, and considered illegible by Dell'Era. Between this and the breaking edge, a space of ca. 5 cm appears to be free of any traces of letters, but in the lower area a notch on the edge may indicate a bar (lambda ?).
One of the frame lines (the lower one in the photo above, on the left side) appears to curve outward just before the breaking edge, though the damage is too heavy to be sure that this is an intentional line. Piana Agostinetti 2004: 162, interpreting it as a stylised foot, considers this the lower end and beginning of the inscription. Morandi's reading accordingly assumes dextroverse writing: ]uisou:ṣo?[ (or indeed uisou:ṣo?[), which yields a linguistically unattractive (on-stem nominative?) ending °ou (cf. uerkou, prikou, anatikou). As pointed out by Dell’Era 2020: 218, the curve could as well represent the beginning of the head, in which case this would be the inscription's end. The writing direction being ambiguous in terms of letter forms, he suggests a sinistroverse reading ]??i:uosiu[ (the end of the inscription), with )i a likely dative ending and another dative in emended uosiui. This would agree better with our expectations regarding the text formula of a Ticino gravestone (binominal formula in the dative); irregularities are constituted by the absence of the formula word pala and the formation of the assumed second name uosiu( without -al- (cf. [dubious] TI·43 kuimitrui).
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. |