amaśilu: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
|analysis_phonemic={{p|a}}{{p|m}}{{p|a}}{{p|ts|t<sup>s</sup>}}{{p|i}}{{p|l}}{{p|ū}} | |analysis_phonemic={{p|a}}{{p|m}}{{p|a}}{{p|ts|t<sup>s</sup>}}{{p|i}}{{p|l}}{{p|ū}} | ||
|meaning='Amaśilu' | |meaning='Amaśilu' | ||
|checklevel= | |checklevel=3 | ||
|problem={{bib|Tibiletti Bruno 1969}}: 1008, n. 43 zu oletu, David, Literatur ({{bib|Stüber 1998}}: 108), phonemic + morphemic analysis | |||
}} | }} | ||
== 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 -''assu''-, 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 – is probably involved (cf. the formally 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-|am(bi)-}}{{m||ass-}}. The lexical base {{m||ass-|assu-}}, whose sibilant element is assumed to be a reflex of tau gallicum, is only attested with preverb {{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> | |||
1 | 2. {{m||ambi-|am(bi)-}}{{m||ag-|ag}}''t-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 ''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 (''χ'')''ti̯'', though, since in the present attestation the palatal suffix is replaced with {{m||-il(l)-}}, we would have to assume that the palatalisation was phonemicised? Cf. {{w||aśouni}} and {{bib|Stifter 2010}}: 371, {{bib|Uhlich 2007}}: 385 f. with n. 21, '''{{bib|Sims-Williams 2003}}: 53, 178'''. | ||
{{bibliography}} | {{bibliography}} | ||
Revision as of 17:47, 16 August 2024
| Attestation: | VB·2 (oletuamaśilu) (1) |
|---|---|
| Language: | Celtic |
| Word Type: | proper noun |
|
| |
| Grammatical Categories: | nom. sg. masc. |
| Stem Class: | on |
|
| |
| Morphemic Analysis: | amatsil-ū |
| Phonemic Analysis: | amatsilū |
| 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 -assu-, 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 – is probably involved (cf. the formally 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. am(bi)-ass-. The lexical base assu-, whose sibilant element is assumed to be a reflex of tau gallicum, is only attested with preverb 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. am(bi)-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 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 (χ)ti̯, though, since in the present attestation the palatal suffix is replaced with -il(l)-, we would have to assume that the palatalisation was phonemicised? Cf. aśouni and Stifter 2010: 371, Uhlich 2007: 385 f. with n. 21, Sims-Williams 2003: 53, 178.
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. |
