siteś: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
Recognised as an accusative plural object and compared (for the ending) with {{w||artuaś}} at Todi and (for the base) with Lat. ''sēdēs'' 'seats' already by {{bib|Tibiletti Bruno 1966b}}: 303–305. {{bib|Prosdocimi 1967}}: 214 f. further compared the OIr. ''s''-stem ''síd'' 'fairy mound', suggesting that this specific meaning could indicate that of the Lepontic form in the inscription ("sede divina"), but took the form for a singular (with san denoting */{{p||s}}/). {{bib|Lejeune 1971}}: 104 f. analyses the form as the acc.pl. of a root noun *''sēdn̥s'', taking *''n̥'' > ''en'' rather than ''an'' as a feature of Lepontic (106–110, see [[The Cisalpine Celtic Languages]]). Lejeune's analysis is supported by {{bib|Eska 1998b}}: 120, n. 17, and {{bib|Uhlich 1999}}: 293–298, who – having discussed the matter by letter – assume that the ending had epenthetic /{{p||t}}/ (san = [ts] or [t<sup>s</sup>], with /{{p||n}}/ weakened, lost or not spelled before /{{p||t}}/, cf. Lejeune's analysis of {{w||artuaś}}). Uhlich explains /{{p||e}}/ instead of /{{p||a}}/ through analogy, but concludes that epenthetic /{{p||t}}/ is a distinguishing feature of Lepontic; see further {{bib|Griffith 2006}}: 52–54, 61–63. | Recognised as an accusative plural object and compared (for the ending) with {{w||artuaś}} at Todi and (for the base) with Lat. ''sēdēs'' 'seats' already by {{bib|Tibiletti Bruno 1966b}}: 303–305. {{bib|Prosdocimi 1967}}: 214 f. further compared the OIr. ''s''-stem ''síd'' 'fairy mound', suggesting that this specific meaning could indicate that of the Lepontic form in the inscription ("sede divina"), but took the form for a singular (with san denoting */{{p||s}}/). {{bib|Lejeune 1971}}: 104 f. analyses the form as the acc.pl. of a root noun *''sēdn̥s'', taking *''n̥'' > ''en'' rather than ''an'' as a feature of Lepontic (106–110, see [[The Cisalpine Celtic Languages]]). Lejeune's analysis is supported by {{bib|Eska 1998b}}: 120, n. 17, and {{bib|Uhlich 1999}}: 293–298, who – having discussed the matter by letter – assume that the ending had epenthetic /{{p||t}}/ (san = [ts] or [t<sup>s</sup>], with /{{p||n}}/ weakened, lost or not spelled before /{{p||t}}/, cf. Lejeune's analysis of {{w||artuaś}}). Uhlich explains /{{p||e}}/ instead of /{{p||a}}/ through analogy, but concludes that epenthetic /{{p||t}}/ is a distinguishing feature of Lepontic; see further {{bib|Griffith 2006}}: 52–54, 61–63. | ||
See also {{bib|Campanile 1968}}: 208, 212, {{bib|Tibiletti Bruno 1978}}: 142, 188, {{bib|Schmidt 1980}}: 184, n. 35, {{bib|Tibiletti Bruno 1981}}: 180, {{bib|Schmidt 1983}}: 75, {{bib|Prosdocimi 1986}}: 245, {{bib|Solinas 1995}}: 344 f., '''{{bib|Tremblay 1996}}: 60, n. 101''', {{bib|Eska 1998c}}: 67, {{bib|Markey & Mees 2003}}: 154–157, {{bib|NIL}}: 590–593 with n. 1, {{bib|Uhlich 2007}}: 382–384, {{bib|Matasović 2009}}: 326, {{bib|Stifter 2010}}: 370, 372. | See also {{bib|Campanile 1968}}: 208, 212, {{bib|Tibiletti Bruno 1978}}: 142, 188, {{bib|Schmidt 1980}}: 184, n. 35, {{bib|Tibiletti Bruno 1981}}: 180, {{bib|Schmidt 1983}}: 75, {{bib|Prosdocimi 1986}}: 245, {{bib|Solinas 1995}}: 344 f., '''{{bib|Tremblay 1996}}: 60, n. 101''', {{bib|Eska 1998c}}: 67, {{bib|Motta 2000}}: 197, {{bib|Markey & Mees 2003}}: 154–157, {{bib|NIL}}: 590–593 with n. 1, {{bib|Uhlich 2007}}: 382–384, {{bib|Matasović 2009}}: 326, {{bib|Stifter 2010}}: 370, 372. | ||
<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 14:06, 10 February 2025
| Attestation: | CO·48 (uvamokozis:plialeθu:uvltiauiopos:ariuonepos:siteś:tetu) (1) |
|---|---|
| Language: | Celtic |
| Word Type: | noun |
|
| |
| Grammatical Categories: | acc. pl. |
| Stem Class: | root noun |
|
| |
| Morphemic Analysis: | sīd-ents |
| Phonemic Analysis: | /sīdents/ (?) |
| Meaning: | 'seats' uel sim. |
Commentary
Recognised as an accusative plural object and compared (for the ending) with artuaś at Todi and (for the base) with Lat. sēdēs 'seats' already by Tibiletti Bruno 1966b: 303–305. Prosdocimi 1967: 214 f. further compared the OIr. s-stem síd 'fairy mound', suggesting that this specific meaning could indicate that of the Lepontic form in the inscription ("sede divina"), but took the form for a singular (with san denoting */s/). Lejeune 1971: 104 f. analyses the form as the acc.pl. of a root noun *sēdn̥s, taking *n̥ > en rather than an as a feature of Lepontic (106–110, see The Cisalpine Celtic Languages). Lejeune's analysis is supported by Eska 1998b: 120, n. 17, and Uhlich 1999: 293–298, who – having discussed the matter by letter – assume that the ending had epenthetic /t/ (san = [ts] or [ts], with /n/ weakened, lost or not spelled before /t/, cf. Lejeune's analysis of artuaś). Uhlich explains /e/ instead of /a/ through analogy, but concludes that epenthetic /t/ is a distinguishing feature of Lepontic; see further Griffith 2006: 52–54, 61–63.
See also Campanile 1968: 208, 212, Tibiletti Bruno 1978: 142, 188, Schmidt 1980: 184, n. 35, Tibiletti Bruno 1981: 180, Schmidt 1983: 75, Prosdocimi 1986: 245, Solinas 1995: 344 f., Tremblay 1996: 60, n. 101, Eska 1998c: 67, Motta 2000: 197, Markey & Mees 2003: 154–157, NIL: 590–593 with n. 1, Uhlich 2007: 382–384, Matasović 2009: 326, Stifter 2010: 370, 372.
Bibliography
| Campanile 1968 | Enrico Campanile, "Su due interpretazioni della iscrizione di Prestino", Studi e Saggi Linguistici 8 (1968), 207–213. |
|---|---|
| Eska 1998b | Joseph Francis Eska, "Tau Gallicum", Studia Celtica 32 (1998), 115-127. |
| Eska 1998c | Josef Francis Eska, "PIE *p (doesn't become) Ø in proto Celtic", Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 58 (1998), 63-80. |
