cipośis: Difference between revisions
From Lexicon Leponticum
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
See the inscription page on the uncertain reading. | See the inscription page on the uncertain reading. | ||
The form, being a patronymic genitive followed by ''f.'' in an alphabetically Latin inscription, could only be a consonant stem ''cipośs'', i.e. ''cipods'' (hardly with san for a tau gallicum cluster). The convenient comparandum ''cipodi'' cited by {{bib|Rhŷs 1913}}: 56 and repeated by {{bib|Tibiletti Bruno 1981}}: 173 is, however, a chimera: line 2 of {{bib|CIL}} V 8934 (Suno) reads {{tr|lat|secuddi}} (recte ''secundi''). We are left with a linguistically highly implausible form (cf. {{bib|Stifter 2024b}}: 137). | The form, being a patronymic genitive followed by ''f.'' in an alphabetically Latin inscription, could only be a consonant stem ''cipośs'', i.e. ''cipods'' (hardly with san for a tau gallicum cluster). The convenient comparandum ''cipodi'' cited by {{bib|Rhŷs 1913}}: 56 and repeated by {{bib|Tibiletti Bruno 1978}}: 154, {{bib|Tibiletti Bruno 1981|1981}}: 173 is, however, a chimera: line 2 of {{bib|CIL}} V 8934 (Suno) reads {{tr|lat|secuddi}} (recte ''secundi''). We are left with a linguistically highly implausible form (cf. {{bib|Morandi 2004}}: 569, {{bib|Stifter 2024b}}: 137). | ||
<p style="text-align:right;>[[User:Corinna Salomon|Corinna Salomon]]</p> | <p style="text-align:right;>[[User:Corinna Salomon|Corinna Salomon]]</p> | ||
{{bibliography}} | {{bibliography}} | ||
Latest revision as of 17:40, 11 November 2024
| Attestation: | VB·30 (surica/ciponis/f) (1) |
|---|---|
| Status: | unlikely |
| Language: | unknown |
| adapted to: | Latin |
| Word Type: | proper noun |
| Semantic Field: | personal name |
|
| |
| Grammatical Categories: | gen. sg. masc. |
| Stem Class: | i |
|
| |
| Morphemic Analysis: | cipoś-is |
| Phonemic Analysis: | unknown |
| Meaning: | 'of Cipoś' |
Commentary
See the inscription page on the uncertain reading.
The form, being a patronymic genitive followed by f. in an alphabetically Latin inscription, could only be a consonant stem cipośs, i.e. cipods (hardly with san for a tau gallicum cluster). The convenient comparandum cipodi cited by Rhŷs 1913: 56 and repeated by Tibiletti Bruno 1978: 154, 1981: 173 is, however, a chimera: line 2 of CIL V 8934 (Suno) reads secuddi (recte secundi). We are left with a linguistically highly implausible form (cf. Morandi 2004: 569, Stifter 2024b: 137).
Bibliography
| CIL | Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. (17 volumes, various supplements) |
|---|
