amaśilu: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
|gender=masc. | |gender=masc. | ||
|language=Celtic | |language=Celtic | ||
|analysis_morphemic={{m| | |analysis_morphemic={{m|ambi-}}?{{m|-il(l)-|-il(l)}}{{m|-ū}} (?) | ||
|analysis_phonemic={{p|a}}{{p|m}}{{p|a}}{{p| | |analysis_phonemic=/{{p|a}}{{p|m}}({{p|mm|m}}){{p|a}}?{{p|i}}{{p|l}}({{p|ll|l}}){{p|ū}}/ | ||
|meaning='Amaśilu' | |meaning='Amaśilu' | ||
|checklevel= | |checklevel=1 | ||
|problem={{bib|Stüber 1998}}: 108, David bat- | |||
}} | }} | ||
== Commentary == | == Commentary == | ||
See the inscription page on the context of the form – ''amaśilu'' is either a separate name or part of a bipartite name formula. In the former case, it is a simple ''on''-stem individual name; in the latter case, the same is possible, though it may be a patronym/appositive in -''u''. See [[The Cisalpine Celtic Languages]] on theories about the origin of such a formation, and cf. {{w||oletu}}. | See the inscription page on the context of the form – ''amaśilu'' is either a separate name or part of a bipartite name formula. In the former case, it is a simple ''on''-stem individual name; in the latter case, the same is possible, though it may be a patronym/appositive in -''u''. See [[The Cisalpine Celtic Languages]] on theories about the origin of such a formation, and cf. {{w||oletu}}. | ||
The name is derived with the hypocoristic suffix {{m||-il(l)-}} from a base whose analysis is uncertain. | The name is derived with the hypocoristic suffix {{m||-il(l)-}} from a base whose analysis is uncertain. {{bib|Tibiletti Bruno 1965c}}: 101 f., {{bib|Morandi 2004}}: 549 and {{bib|Lejeune 1971}}: 63, n. 198, compare names in ''amas''- (listed in {{bib|AcS}} I: 113), the latter suggesting a base ''am''(''m'')- ('love' ?) plus suffix -''asso''- ({{bib|AcS}} III: 595 f., 710), but two consecutive onomastic suffixes are hardly feasible. The function of the second element in {{bib|Delamarre 2007}}: 18 ''ama-stilon''- is not clear to me. A preverb – {{m||ambi-}} with syncopated vowel or possibly {{m||an-}} with the dental assimilated to initial ''b'' in the second element (but see below) – is probably involved (cf. the structurally similar {{w||anteśilu}}). The uncertain sound value of san – a tau gallicum cluster as in {{w||anteśilu}}, a palatalised dental or /{{p||d}}/ (see [[Ś]]) – complicates the identification of the putative second element. Possible analyses include:<br> | ||
1. {{m||ambi-|amb(i)-}}{{m||ađ-}}. The sibilant element in the base {{m||ađ-|assu-}} is assumed to be a reflex of tau gallicum, but the only preverb with which it is attested is {{m||dī-}}; since its meaning is unclear, the semantics of a formation with {{m||ambi-}} cannot be evaluated. Though this is not obligatory, the suffix variant would here be expected to be {{m||-ul(l)-}} rather than {{m||-il(l)-}}.<br> | |||
2. {{m||ambi-|amb(i)-}}{{m||ag-|agt}}{{m||-(i)i̯-|-i̯}}-. The Gaulish word *''ambaχto''- 'servant' (lit. 'who walks around, messenger'), loaned into Latin (''ambactus''), is attested as a personal name, e.g. {{bib|RIG}} M-19, M-45 {{tr|lat|ambact(us)}}, probably also {{bib|CIL}} XIII 6463 {{tr|lat|ambaxius}}, and maybe instances of ''ambat''(''i'')''us'' with simplified cluster (see {{bib|AcS}} I: 113–115, {{bib|KGP}}: 122, {{bib|GPN}}: 135 f., {{bib|Irslinger 2002}}: 245, {{bib|DLG}}: 40 f., {{bib|Delamarre 2007}}: 18, {{bib|NIL}}: 269, 276, n. 62, {{bib|Meid 2005}}: 162 f., {{bib|Matasović 2009}}: 32). This comparison, first floated, but rejected by {{bib|Lejeune 1971}}: 63, n. 198, assumes that san represents a palatalised cluster *''χti̯'', and must contend with two problems. Firstly, the palatal suffix should, both etymologically and phonetically following a heavy syllable, be {{m||-(i)i̯-|-ii̯o-}} rather than {{m||-(i)i̯-|-i̯o-}}, and would thus not palatalise the dental. Secondly, even if the suffix was irregularly {{m||-(i)i̯-|-i̯o-}}, we would have to assume that the present form was derived not from the lexeme, but from the {{m||-(i)i̯-|-ii̯o-}}-derivation, and that the latter's palatalised dental was phonemicised to be retained in the present form, whose suffix {{m||-il(l)-}} has no palatalisation effect. Cf. {{bib|Stifter 2010}}: 371, {{bib|Uhlich 2007}}: 385 f. with n. 21.<br> | |||
3. Whether the preverb can be {{m||an-}} is uncertain, as {{w||anokopokios}} at [[Briona]] (and less likely {{w||koplutus}}) indicates that /{{p||m}}/ + /{{p||b}}/ across a morpheme border was not assimilated or in any case reflected by simple mu (as should be expected from */{{p||n}}{{p||d}}/ spelled with nu), but pi (see {{bib|Uhlich 2007}}: 385 f.). Further analyses with {{m||an-}} are not convincing in any case – {{m||an-}}''bad''- 'not fair' (with ''bad''- as in ''ba''(''d'')''i̯ocasses'', s. {{bib|DLG}}: 63, and san for /{{p||d}}/), has no comparanda, while {{m||an-}}''bat''- 'not dead', which may underlie (some of) the abovementioned Gaulish names in ''ambat''-, is afflicted by the same problems concerning the necessary palatalisation as ''ambaχt''-. | |||
<p style="text-align:right;>[[User:David Stifter|David Stifter]], [[User:Corinna Salomon|Corinna Salomon]]</p> | |||
{{bibliography}} | {{bibliography}} | ||
Latest revision as of 19:42, 19 August 2024
| Attestation: | VB·2 (oletuamaśilu) (1) |
|---|---|
| Language: | Celtic |
| Word Type: | proper noun |
|
| |
| Grammatical Categories: | nom. sg. masc. |
| Stem Class: | on |
|
| |
| Morphemic Analysis: | ambi-?-il(l)-ū (?) |
| Phonemic Analysis: | /am(m)a?il(l)ū/ |
| Meaning: | 'Amaśilu' |
Commentary
See the inscription page on the context of the form – amaśilu is either a separate name or part of a bipartite name formula. In the former case, it is a simple on-stem individual name; in the latter case, the same is possible, though it may be a patronym/appositive in -u. See The Cisalpine Celtic Languages on theories about the origin of such a formation, and cf. oletu.
The name is derived with the hypocoristic suffix -il(l)- from a base whose analysis is uncertain. Tibiletti Bruno 1965c: 101 f., Morandi 2004: 549 and Lejeune 1971: 63, n. 198, compare names in amas- (listed in AcS I: 113), the latter suggesting a base am(m)- ('love' ?) plus suffix -asso- (AcS III: 595 f., 710), but two consecutive onomastic suffixes are hardly feasible. The function of the second element in Delamarre 2007: 18 ama-stilon- is not clear to me. A preverb – ambi- with syncopated vowel or possibly an- with the dental assimilated to initial b in the second element (but see below) – is probably involved (cf. the structurally similar anteśilu). The uncertain sound value of san – a tau gallicum cluster as in anteśilu, a palatalised dental or /d/ (see Ś) – complicates the identification of the putative second element. Possible analyses include:
1. amb(i)-ađ-. The sibilant element in the base assu- is assumed to be a reflex of tau gallicum, but the only preverb with which it is attested is dī-; since its meaning is unclear, the semantics of a formation with ambi- cannot be evaluated. Though this is not obligatory, the suffix variant would here be expected to be -ul(l)- rather than -il(l)-.
2. amb(i)-agt-i̯-. The Gaulish word *ambaχto- 'servant' (lit. 'who walks around, messenger'), loaned into Latin (ambactus), is attested as a personal name, e.g. RIG M-19, M-45 ambact(us), probably also CIL XIII 6463 ambaxius, and maybe instances of ambat(i)us with simplified cluster (see AcS I: 113–115, KGP: 122, GPN: 135 f., Irslinger 2002: 245, DLG: 40 f., Delamarre 2007: 18, NIL: 269, 276, n. 62, Meid 2005: 162 f., Matasović 2009: 32). This comparison, first floated, but rejected by Lejeune 1971: 63, n. 198, assumes that san represents a palatalised cluster *χti̯, and must contend with two problems. Firstly, the palatal suffix should, both etymologically and phonetically following a heavy syllable, be -ii̯o- rather than -i̯o-, and would thus not palatalise the dental. Secondly, even if the suffix was irregularly -i̯o-, we would have to assume that the present form was derived not from the lexeme, but from the -ii̯o--derivation, and that the latter's palatalised dental was phonemicised to be retained in the present form, whose suffix -il(l)- has no palatalisation effect. Cf. Stifter 2010: 371, Uhlich 2007: 385 f. with n. 21.
3. Whether the preverb can be an- is uncertain, as anokopokios at Briona (and less likely koplutus) indicates that /m/ + /b/ across a morpheme border was not assimilated or in any case reflected by simple mu (as should be expected from */nd/ spelled with nu), but pi (see Uhlich 2007: 385 f.). Further analyses with an- are not convincing in any case – an-bad- 'not fair' (with bad- as in ba(d)i̯ocasses, s. DLG: 63, and san for /d/), has no comparanda, while an-bat- 'not dead', which may underlie (some of) the abovementioned Gaulish names in ambat-, is afflicted by the same problems concerning the necessary palatalisation as ambaχt-.
David Stifter, Corinna Salomon
Bibliography
| AcS | Alfred Holder, Alt-celtischer Sprachschatz, Leipzig: Teubner 1896–1907. |
|---|---|
| CIL | Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. (17 volumes, various supplements) |
| 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. |
