maeśilalui: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
|case=dat. | |case=dat. | ||
|gender=masc. | |gender=masc. | ||
|language= | |language=Celtic | ||
|analysis_morphemic={{m| | |analysis_morphemic=maeś{{m|-il(l)-|-il(l)}}{{m|-al-|-al}}{{m|-ūi̯}} | ||
|analysis_phonemic=/{{p|m}}{{p| | |analysis_phonemic=/{{p|m}}??{{p|i}}{{p|l}}({{p|ll|l}}){{p|a}}{{p|l}}{{p|ūi̯}}/ | ||
|meaning='for the son of | |meaning='for the son of Maeśilos' | ||
|field_semantic=patronymic | |field_semantic=patronymic | ||
|checklevel= | |checklevel=0 | ||
}} | }} | ||
==Commentary== | ==Commentary== | ||
The sequence | Dative patronym/appositive in {{m||-al-|-alo-}} from a personal name ''maeśil''(''l'')''os''. The latter is derived with the suffix {{m||-il(l)-|-il(l)o-}}, but the analysis of the base spelled ⟨maeś⟩ is unclear. San could spell the reflex of a tau gallicum cluster or */{{p||d}}/. The sequence ⟨ae⟩ is very rare in the Lepontic alphabet, the only other possible occurrence being [[VA·28.3]] {{w||aesia}}; the Celtic diphthongs /{{p||ai̯}}/ and /{{p||āi̯}}/ are spelled ⟨ai⟩. {{bib|Lejeune 1971}}: 25 f., 64, n. 209, being unaware of forms with /{{p||ai̯}}/ in first syllables (e.g. {{w||kaio}}), assumed that /{{p||ai̯}}/ > /{{p||ae}}/ in that position, but offered no comparanda for *''maiś''-. ⟨ae⟩ could be due to influence from Latin orthography (cf. the form of mu in the [[NO·18|inscription]]); thus {{bib|Rhŷs 1913}}: 57 f., who suggested that ⟨ae⟩ is written for /{{p||e}}/ and compared names in {{m||međ-|međi-}}/''messi''-, where derivations with an ''l''-suffix are very common (e.g. {{bib|CIL}} V 4536 {{tr|lat|messili}} [gen., Brescia]). While this could motivate the use of san, ⟨ae⟩ for short /{{p||e}}/ is not plausible. {{bib|Tibiletti Bruno 1978}}: 149 compared Oscan ''maisios'' 'May' and the derived Oscan/Latin PN ''maesius'' (cf. also {{bib|Tibiletti Bruno 1981}}: 175, {{bib|Morandi 2004}}: 582, {{bib|Gambari 2019b}}: 98), which seems unnecessarily far-reaching (cf. {{w||metelui}}) and does not explain the use of san. {{bib|Stifter 2010}}: 370, {{bib|Stifter 2024|2024}}: '''?''' tentatively suggests that the form could go back to PC *''magestu''- 'plain, field' ({{bib|LEIA}} M-8) with ⟨ae⟩ reflecting the hiatus sequence [{{p||a}}.{{p||e}}], but notes that there is no clear evidence for loss of intervocalic /{{p||g}}/ or weakening to [ɣ] in Cisalpine Celtic otherwise (cf. maybe {{w||maeloni}}). He alternatively points to {{bib|Schrijver 2015}}: 199, who analyses the base as *''mai̯d''- as in OIr. ''moídid'' 'to boast' (though this etymology leaves the /{{p||a}}/ unexplained). With the two variables, an authoritative analysis of the base is not possible at this point. | ||
'' | |||
{{bibliography}} | {{bibliography}} | ||
Latest revision as of 18:51, 30 January 2025
| Attestation: | NO·18 (metelui:maeśilalui:uenia:metelikna:aśmina:krasanikna) (1) |
|---|---|
| Language: | Celtic |
| Word Type: | proper noun |
| Semantic Field: | patronymic |
|
| |
| Grammatical Categories: | dat. sg. masc. |
| Stem Class: | o |
|
| |
| Morphemic Analysis: | maeś-il(l)-al-ūi̯ |
| Phonemic Analysis: | /m??il(l)alūi̯/ |
| Meaning: | 'for the son of Maeśilos' |
Commentary
Dative patronym/appositive in -alo- from a personal name maeśil(l)os. The latter is derived with the suffix -il(l)o-, but the analysis of the base spelled ⟨maeś⟩ is unclear. San could spell the reflex of a tau gallicum cluster or */d/. The sequence ⟨ae⟩ is very rare in the Lepontic alphabet, the only other possible occurrence being VA·28.3 aesia; the Celtic diphthongs /ai̯/ and /āi̯/ are spelled ⟨ai⟩. Lejeune 1971: 25 f., 64, n. 209, being unaware of forms with /ai̯/ in first syllables (e.g. kaio), assumed that /ai̯/ > /ae/ in that position, but offered no comparanda for *maiś-. ⟨ae⟩ could be due to influence from Latin orthography (cf. the form of mu in the inscription); thus Rhŷs 1913: 57 f., who suggested that ⟨ae⟩ is written for /e/ and compared names in međi-/messi-, where derivations with an l-suffix are very common (e.g. CIL V 4536 messili [gen., Brescia]). While this could motivate the use of san, ⟨ae⟩ for short /e/ is not plausible. Tibiletti Bruno 1978: 149 compared Oscan maisios 'May' and the derived Oscan/Latin PN maesius (cf. also Tibiletti Bruno 1981: 175, Morandi 2004: 582, Gambari 2019b: 98), which seems unnecessarily far-reaching (cf. metelui) and does not explain the use of san. Stifter 2010: 370, 2024: ? tentatively suggests that the form could go back to PC *magestu- 'plain, field' (LEIA M-8) with ⟨ae⟩ reflecting the hiatus sequence [a.e], but notes that there is no clear evidence for loss of intervocalic /g/ or weakening to [ɣ] in Cisalpine Celtic otherwise (cf. maybe maeloni). He alternatively points to Schrijver 2015: 199, who analyses the base as *mai̯d- as in OIr. moídid 'to boast' (though this etymology leaves the /a/ unexplained). With the two variables, an authoritative analysis of the base is not possible at this point.
Bibliography
| CIL | Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. (17 volumes, various supplements) |
|---|
