natom: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
|meaning=unknown | |meaning=unknown | ||
|checklevel=5 | |checklevel=5 | ||
|problem= | |problem=morpheme pages | ||
}} | }} | ||
==Commentary== | ==Commentary== | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
Two analyses have been proposed for the form.<br> | Two analyses have been proposed for the form.<br> | ||
1. {{bib|Tibiletti Bruno 1978}}: 145: '' | 1. {{bib|Tibiletti Bruno 1978}}: 145 (also {{bib|Tibiletti Bruno 1981|1981}}: 163 f.) suggests that it is ''gnāto''- < *''g̑n̥h₁-to''- 'born' with simplified initial cluster as in {{bib|RIG}} L-112, L-121 ''nata uimpi'' and in Enderlicher's glossary ''nate'' gl. ''fili'' (see '''{{bib|Lambert 1994}}: 203, no. 12'''). As observed by herself, the Gallo-Latin spindle whorl inscriptions are late (2<sup>nd</sup> c. AD?) and heavily influenced by Latin; whether ''nātā'' may be Latinised (or simply Latin) is discussed by Lambert in {{bib|RIG}}: 334. Linguistically Latin influence is of course also possible in the Cisalpine Celtic inscription, also considering the first part of the phrase {{w||uinom}}, but cf. {{w||ateknati}} with intact cluster in a later inscription. Tibiletti Bruno's interpretation of the form as a noun 'son' (with her reading a plural 'sons') is problematic, as the noun would be expected to stand before the adjective.<br> | ||
2. {{bib|Morandi 2004}}: 551 hypothesises that, if {{w||uinom}} is 'fair' as per Tibiletti Bruno, ''natom'' may refer to the vessel, but this solution faces the same problem as Tibiletti's 'son'. As implied by Morandi's notation "''na''(''n'')''tom''", the underlying form may be (*)''nantom'' with the nasal not spelled before the voiceless stop.<br> | |||
Cf. {{bib|DLG}}: 181, {{bib|GPN}}: 207, {{bib|Delamarre 2007}}: 222. | Cf. {{bib|DLG}}: 181, {{bib|GPN}}: 207, {{bib|Delamarre 2007}}: 222. | ||
{{bibliography}} | {{bibliography}} | ||
Revision as of 13:05, 29 October 2024
| Attestation: | VB·3.1 (latumarui:sapsutai:pe:uinom:natom) (1) |
|---|---|
| Status: | probable |
| Language: | Celtic |
| Word Type: | nominal |
|
| |
| Grammatical Categories: | nom., acc. sg. masc., neut. |
| Stem Class: | o |
|
| |
| Morphemic Analysis: | nat-om (n.) or nat-om |
| Phonemic Analysis: | /natom/ |
| Meaning: | unknown |
Commentary
See the inscription page on the reading.
Two analyses have been proposed for the form.
1. Tibiletti Bruno 1978: 145 (also 1981: 163 f.) suggests that it is gnāto- < *g̑n̥h₁-to- 'born' with simplified initial cluster as in RIG L-112, L-121 nata uimpi and in Enderlicher's glossary nate gl. fili (see Lambert 1994: 203, no. 12). As observed by herself, the Gallo-Latin spindle whorl inscriptions are late (2nd c. AD?) and heavily influenced by Latin; whether nātā may be Latinised (or simply Latin) is discussed by Lambert in RIG: 334. Linguistically Latin influence is of course also possible in the Cisalpine Celtic inscription, also considering the first part of the phrase uinom, but cf. ateknati with intact cluster in a later inscription. Tibiletti Bruno's interpretation of the form as a noun 'son' (with her reading a plural 'sons') is problematic, as the noun would be expected to stand before the adjective.
2. Morandi 2004: 551 hypothesises that, if uinom is 'fair' as per Tibiletti Bruno, natom may refer to the vessel, but this solution faces the same problem as Tibiletti's 'son'. As implied by Morandi's notation "na(n)tom", the underlying form may be (*)nantom with the nasal not spelled before the voiceless stop.
Cf. DLG: 181, GPN: 207, Delamarre 2007: 222.
Bibliography
| Delamarre 2007 | Xavier Delamarre, Noms de personnes celtiques dans l'épigraphie classique. Nomina Celtica Antiqua Selecta Inscriptionum, Paris: Errance 2007. |
|---|---|
| DLG | Xavier Delamarre, Dictionnaire de la langue gauloise. Une approche linguistique du vieux-celtique continental, 2nd, revised edition, Paris: Errance 2003. |
