pirauiχeś: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
|gender=animate | |gender=animate | ||
|language=Celtic | |language=Celtic | ||
|analysis_morphemic={{m|bir(r)-|bir(r)}}{{m|-a-|-a}}{{m|u̯ik-|-u̯ik}}{{m|- | |analysis_morphemic={{m|bir(r)-|bir(r)}}{{m|-a-|-a}}{{m|u̯ik-|-u̯ik}}{{m|-et-|-et}}{{m|-s}} or {{m|bir(r)-|bir(r)}}{{m|-a-|-a}}{{m|u̯ik-|-u̯ik}}{{m|-nt-|-ent}}{{m|-s}} | ||
|analysis_phonemic=/{{p|b}}{{p|i}}{{p|r}}{{p| | |analysis_phonemic=/{{p|b}}{{p|i}}{{p|r}}{{p|a}}{{p|u̯}}{{p|i}}{{p|k}}{{p|e}}{{p|t}}{{p|s}}/ or /{{p|b}}{{p|i}}{{p|r}}{{p|a}}{{p|u̯}}{{p|i}}{{p|k}}{{p|e}}{{p|n|<sup>n</sup>}}{{p|t}}{{p|s}}/ | ||
|meaning='Pirauiχeś' | |meaning='Pirauiχeś' | ||
|field_semantic=personal name | |field_semantic=personal name | ||
|checklevel= | |checklevel=0 | ||
}} | }} | ||
==Commentary== | ==Commentary== | ||
See the inscription page on problems with the reading. | See the inscription page on problems with the reading. | ||
Probably a compound personal name formed with {{m||bir(r)-|pira-}} and {{m||u̯ik-}}, though /{{p||a}}/ in place of the expected stem vowel sheds some doubt on the segmentation (but cf. names in ''birak''-, s. {{w||pirakos}}). In an alternative segmentation ''pir-auiχeś'' (with ''au̯i''- 'desire'?), the latter part of the form -''iχeś'' would be difficult to explain. The ending ''-eś'' also occurs in {{w||siteś}}, where it is interpreted as an accusative plural. This is unlikely for the present form, in which we expect a personal name in the nominative, genitive or dative (cf. {{w||aśeś}}). Under this assumption, the form has been analysed as a participle in {{m||-nt-|-ent-}} ({{m||u̯ik-|-u̯ik}}{{m||-nt-|-ent}}{{m||-s}} 'fighting') by {{bib|Solinas 1995}}: 324, no. 10 (see also {{bib|Motta 2000}}: 213 f., no. 24; {{bib|Stifter 2010}}: 370). If this should be the case, the form would provide another instance of (analogical?) -''enC''- rather than -''anC''- for *-''n̥C''- in Cisalpine Celtic (see [[The Cisalpine Celtic Languages]]). We prefer to analyse ⟨eś⟩ as the agentive suffix {{m||-et-}} plus {{m||-s}} – a derivation {{m||u̯ik-|u̯ik}}{{m||-et-}} 'fighter' would parallel formations such as {{m||king-|king}}{{m||-et-}} 'attacker' (in PNN like ''vercingetorix'', maybe also {{w||kiketu}}), {{m||seg-|seg}}{{m||-et-}} 'victor' ({{bib|CIL}} XI 1711 {{tr|lat|segetius}}, {{w||sekezos}}, arguably also {{w||seχeθu}}) and {{m||org-|org}}{{m||-et-}} 'killer' (''orgetius'', ''orgetorix'' etc., s. {{bib|Delamarre 2007}}: 146), all with martial semantics. (The comparison is not perfect, as the abovementioned Gaulish nomina agentis in {{m||-et-}} have generalised ''e''-grade, not zero-grade of the root; see {{bib|Irslinger 2002}}: 57–68 on the formation of nomina actionis and agentis with ablauting ''t''-suffix in Irish.) For the use of the | Probably a compound personal name formed with {{m||bir(r)-|pira-}} and {{m||u̯ik-}}, though /{{p||a}}/ in place of the expected stem vowel sheds some doubt on the segmentation (but cf. names in ''birak''-, s. {{w||pirakos}}). In an alternative segmentation ''pir-auiχeś'' (with ''au̯i''- 'desire'?), the latter part of the form -''iχeś'' would be difficult to explain. The ending ''-eś'' also occurs in {{w||siteś}}, where it is interpreted as an accusative plural. This is unlikely for the present form, in which we expect a personal name in the nominative, genitive or dative (cf. {{w||aśeś}}). Under this assumption, the form has been analysed as a participle in {{m||-nt-|-ent-}} ({{m||u̯ik-|-u̯ik}}{{m||-nt-|-ent}}{{m||-s}} 'fighting') by {{bib|Solinas 1995}}: 324, no. 10 (see also {{bib|Motta 2000}}: 213 f., no. 24; {{bib|Stifter 2010}}: 370). If this should be the case, the form would provide another instance of (analogical?) -''enC''- rather than -''anC''- for *-''n̥C''- in Cisalpine Celtic (see [[The Cisalpine Celtic Languages]]). We prefer to analyse ⟨eś⟩ as the agentive suffix {{m||-et-}} plus {{m||-s}} (cf. {{bib|Salomon 2023}}: 26 f.) – a derivation {{m||u̯ik-|u̯ik}}{{m||-et-}} 'fighter' would parallel formations such as {{m||king-|king}}{{m||-et-}} 'attacker' (in PNN like ''vercingetorix'', maybe also {{w||kiketu}}), {{m||seg-|seg}}{{m||-et-}} 'victor' ({{bib|CIL}} XI 1711 {{tr|lat|segetius}}, {{w||sekezos}}, arguably also {{w||seχeθu}}) and {{m||org-|org}}{{m||-et-}} 'killer' (''orgetius'', ''orgetorix'' etc., s. {{bib|Delamarre 2007}}: 146), all with martial semantics. (The comparison is not perfect, as the abovementioned Gaulish nomina agentis in {{m||-et-}} have generalised ''e''-grade, not zero-grade of the root; see {{bib|Irslinger 2002}}: 57–68 on the formation of nomina actionis and agentis with ablauting ''t''-suffix in Irish.) For the use of the | ||
non-thematised nominative {{m||u̯ik-|u̯ik}}{{m||-et-|-et}}{{m||-s}} in a personal name cf. ''cinges'' = {{m||king-|king}}{{m||-et-|-et}}{{m||-s}} | non-thematised nominative {{m||u̯ik-|u̯ik}}{{m||-et-|-et}}{{m||-s}} in a personal name cf. ''cinges'' = {{m||king-|king}}{{m||-et-|-et}}{{m||-s}} | ||
({{bib|Delamarre 2007}}: 65, {{bib|Irslinger 2002}}: 58). | ({{bib|Delamarre 2007}}: 65, {{bib|Irslinger 2002}}: 58). | ||
<p style="text-align:right;>[[User:Corinna Salomon|Corinna Salomon]]</p> | <p style="text-align:right;>[[User:Corinna Salomon|Corinna Salomon]]</p> | ||
{{bibliography}} | {{bibliography}} | ||
Revision as of 21:35, 23 January 2024
| Attestation: | TI·13 (pirạụịχeś) (1) |
|---|---|
| Status: | probable |
| Language: | Celtic |
| Word Type: | proper noun |
| Semantic Field: | personal name |
|
| |
| Grammatical Categories: | nom. sg. animate |
| Stem Class: | t |
|
| |
| Morphemic Analysis: | bir(r)-a-u̯ik-et-s or bir(r)-a-u̯ik-ent-s |
| Phonemic Analysis: | /birau̯ikets/ or /birau̯ikents/ |
| Meaning: | 'Pirauiχeś' |
Commentary
See the inscription page on problems with the reading.
Probably a compound personal name formed with pira- and u̯ik-, though /a/ in place of the expected stem vowel sheds some doubt on the segmentation (but cf. names in birak-, s. pirakos). In an alternative segmentation pir-auiχeś (with au̯i- 'desire'?), the latter part of the form -iχeś would be difficult to explain. The ending -eś also occurs in siteś, where it is interpreted as an accusative plural. This is unlikely for the present form, in which we expect a personal name in the nominative, genitive or dative (cf. aśeś). Under this assumption, the form has been analysed as a participle in -ent- (-u̯ik-ent-s 'fighting') by Solinas 1995: 324, no. 10 (see also Motta 2000: 213 f., no. 24; Stifter 2010: 370). If this should be the case, the form would provide another instance of (analogical?) -enC- rather than -anC- for *-n̥C- in Cisalpine Celtic (see The Cisalpine Celtic Languages). We prefer to analyse ⟨eś⟩ as the agentive suffix -et- plus -s (cf. Salomon 2023: 26 f.) – a derivation u̯ik-et- 'fighter' would parallel formations such as king-et- 'attacker' (in PNN like vercingetorix, maybe also kiketu), seg-et- 'victor' (CIL XI 1711 segetius, sekezos, arguably also seχeθu) and org-et- 'killer' (orgetius, orgetorix etc., s. Delamarre 2007: 146), all with martial semantics. (The comparison is not perfect, as the abovementioned Gaulish nomina agentis in -et- have generalised e-grade, not zero-grade of the root; see Irslinger 2002: 57–68 on the formation of nomina actionis and agentis with ablauting t-suffix in Irish.) For the use of the non-thematised nominative u̯ik-et-s in a personal name cf. cinges = king-et-s (Delamarre 2007: 65, Irslinger 2002: 58).
Bibliography
| 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. |
