natom: Difference between revisions

From Lexicon Leponticum
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{word
{{word
|status=dubious
|status=probable
|type_word=nominal
|type_word=nominal
|stem_class=o
|stem_class=o
|number=sg., pl.
|number=sg.
|case=gen., acc.
|case=nom., acc.
|language=Lepontic
|gender=masc., neut.
|analysis_morphemic={{m|nat-}}{{m|-om|om}}
|language=Celtic
|analysis_morphemic={{m|nant-|nant}}{{m|-om (n.)}} or {{m|gnāt-|gnāt}}{{m|-om}}
|analysis_phonemic=/{{p|n}}{{p|a}}{{p|t}}{{p|o}}{{p|m}}/
|analysis_phonemic=/{{p|n}}{{p|a}}{{p|t}}{{p|o}}{{p|m}}/
|meaning='of the sons' (?)
|meaning=unknown
|checklevel=1
|checklevel=5
|problem=signs in free text do not show up correctly
|problem=Matasovic 2009 natu- poem
}}
}}
==Commentary==
==Commentary==
1) natom = "of the sons"? cf. {{bib|DLG}}: 181, {{bib|GPN}}: 207, {{bib|Delamarre 2007}}: 222
See the inscription page on the reading.


2) nad-tom: {{bib|Birkhan 2005}}
Two analyses have been proposed for the form.<br>
 
1. {{bib|Tibiletti Bruno 1978}}: 145 (also {{bib|Tibiletti Bruno 1981|1981}}: 163 f.) suggests that it is {{m||gnāt-|gnāto-}} 'born' with simplified initial cluster as in {{bib|RIG}} L-112, L-121 ''nata uimpi'' and in Enderlicher's glossary ''nate'' gl. ''fili'' ({{bib|Lambert 1994}}: 203). 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'' 'girl' 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 plural 'sons') is problematic, as the noun would be expected to stand before the adjective.<br>
Helmut Birkhan 2005 has proposed a new interpretation of NAŚOM, not as /naksom/ (uel sim.) ‘Naxian (wine)’, the widely preferred analysis, but as /natsom/ (uel sim.) < *ned-tom or *ned-som, a past participle of the root *ned ‘to bind, tie’ (recte /natsom/ < *Hd-tom, past participle of the root *neHd found in OIr. nascaid, MBret. nasca; cf. Schumacher 2004a: 489). For Birkhan, the delicacy contained in the vessel for the buried couple Latumaros and Sapsuta is not ‘wine from Naxos’, but ‘wine (from vines) tied up (in contrast to vines spreading on the ground)’. While Birkhan’s analysis is unimpeachable on morphological, phonological and factual grounds, I do think that the wide-spread translation ‘Naxian’ can be defended on palaeographic grounds. Birkhan assails the phonetic interpretation of the letter Ś ‘san’ as /ks/ and demands that it be strictly considered as representing a Proto-Celtic combination of dentals and/or sibilants, i.e. tau Gallicum (like in ANAREUIŚEOS < *ande-are-id-tios [San Bernardino di Briona, S 140] and IŚOS < *is-tos [Vergiate, S 119]). But he overlooks the fact that the letter rendered as Ś in the transcription is actually a variant that is found merely in two inscriptions (see Lejeune 1971: 374). This particular variant consists of a body shaped like an X, the two lower ends of which are connected by an understroke. In the only other inscription purported to contain it [Nosate, S 105], traditionally read as PEŚU, the photograph reveals that the understroke has been added accidentally and does not belong to the letter (see Studi Etruschi 60 (1994), tavv. LXVII b and LXIX a). The name in S 105 has rather to be read as PETU, perhaps a short name based on the numeral *petores ‘4’. Consequently, S 128 remains the sole instance for this particular shape of the letter. This raises the question if the letter should be read as ‘san’ at all, whereas in other inscriptions from the late Lepontic period for ‘san’ the so-called ‘butterfly-sign’ is used [San Pietro di Stabio, S 21; Carcegna, S 122; Levo, S 126]. My tentative suggestion is that the letter in the inscription from Ornavasso is not ‘san’, but a loan grapheme Latin X = /ks/, to which has been added an understroke as a diacritic in order to distinguish it from isomorphous native Lepontic X = /t, d/. The letter M in S 128, which has not the inherited flag-like shape, betrays Latin graphematic influence, too. The word can thus be read overtly as /naksom/. The // of the supposedly underlying o-adjective /naksom/ must be assumed to have been ‘absorbed’ into the preceding /ks/, or could the diacritic understroke actually represent the I?
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. In that case, a connection with {{m||nant-|nanto-}} 'valley' may be considered.<br>
 
Cf. {{bib|DLG}}: 181, {{bib|GPN}}: 207, {{bib|Delamarre 2007}}: 222.
natoś {{bib|Tibiletti Bruno 1981}}
{{bibliography}}
{{bibliography}}

Latest revision as of 17:48, 29 October 2024

edit with form
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: nant-om (n.) or gnāt-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- 'born' with simplified initial cluster as in RIG L-112, L-121 nata uimpi and in Enderlicher's glossary nate gl. fili (Lambert 1994: 203). As observed by herself, the Gallo-Latin spindle whorl inscriptions are late (2nd c. AD?) and heavily influenced by Latin; whether nātā 'girl' 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 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. In that case, a connection with nanto- 'valley' may be considered.
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.
Retrieved from "https://lexlep.univie.ac.at/index.php?title=natom&oldid=30563"