)iunθanaχa: Difference between revisions

From Lexicon Leponticum
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
 
Line 16: Line 16:
Option 1) Etruscan analysis according to {{bib|Gambari & Colonna 1988}}: 140 f., n. 96: Colonna reads an Etruscan masculine name formula in the nominative, with an auslaut -''χa'' which appears in the Etruscan demon name ''tuχulχa'' ({{bib|ET²}} Ta 7.73) and the nomen ''velχa'', and suggests two possible segmentations. In ]''i unθanaχa'', the first word could be Etr. ''mi'' 'I', but ''unθanaχa'' finds no good comparanda; in ]''iun θanaχa'', numerous names in ''θana''- can be compared, but -''iun'' could only be IE -''i̯ōn'' in mythological names loaned from Greek. To this can be added that -''χa'' also occurs as auslaut (formans?) of Etruscan nouns (''aliχa'' 'gift', ''ceχa'' 'contract'), and that another possible segmentation is ]''iunθana-χa'' with enclitic -''ca'' 'and' (misspelled, as occasionally attested, see {{bib|Steinbauer 1999}}: 402 and cf. maybe {{bib|ET²}} Ta 7.13 ''festiχvaχa''), which would leave a nomen ]''iunθana'' formed with the patronymic suffix -''na''. Since exact equations are lacking, none of the above analyses is convincing.
Option 1) Etruscan analysis according to {{bib|Gambari & Colonna 1988}}: 140 f., n. 96: Colonna reads an Etruscan masculine name formula in the nominative, with an auslaut -''χa'' which appears in the Etruscan demon name ''tuχulχa'' ({{bib|ET²}} Ta 7.73) and the nomen ''velχa'', and suggests two possible segmentations. In ]''i unθanaχa'', the first word could be Etr. ''mi'' 'I', but ''unθanaχa'' finds no good comparanda; in ]''iun θanaχa'', numerous names in ''θana''- can be compared, but -''iun'' could only be IE -''i̯ōn'' in mythological names loaned from Greek. To this can be added that -''χa'' also occurs as auslaut (formans?) of Etruscan nouns (''aliχa'' 'gift', ''ceχa'' 'contract'), and that another possible segmentation is ]''iunθana-χa'' with enclitic -''ca'' 'and' (misspelled, as occasionally attested, see {{bib|Steinbauer 1999}}: 402 and cf. maybe {{bib|ET²}} Ta 7.13 ''festiχvaχa''), which would leave a nomen ]''iunθana'' formed with the patronymic suffix -''na''. Since exact equations are lacking, none of the above analyses is convincing.


Option 2) Celtic analysis according to {{bib|Morandi 1999}}: 156–158, no. 2 (also {{bib|Morandi 2004|2004}}: 572, no. 77, {{bib|Morandi 2004b|2004b}}: 82, no. 1, {{bib|Morandi 2017|2017}}: 367 f., no. 2, as well as {{bib|Prosdocimi 1991}}: 149, {{bib|Prosdocimi 1992|1992}}: 470 f.): Morandi reads a Celtic ''ā''-stem name, segmenting ''iun''-''ta''-''naga'' (transcription according to his observation that theta = /t/ and chi = /g/). For the first element, he compares names like ''iunna'', ''iunanus'', ''iunantus'' listed in {{bib|AcS}} II: 88 f. and repeats Holder's identification of ''iun''- as a word for 'wish, desire' following Ernault. The Brittonic root *''i̯un''- in Ernault's analyses of names such as OBrit. ''adiune'', OBret. ''ediunet'' (cf. {{bib|Fleuriot 1964b}}: 346), as well as W ''eiđuned'' 'to wish' (cf. {{bib|Schumacher 2000}}: 147, n. 121) < PC *''i̯ou̯n''- or *''i̯oi̯n''- cannot be equivalent to a Continental Celtic element ''iun''-, which is barely attested in Latin inscriptions from Gaul (see {{bib|Delamarre 2007}}: 113). For -''naga'' (?), Morandi compares the chimera ''naca'' on a "Veliocassian" coin in {{bib|AcS}} II: 617 (in fact {{bib|RIG}} M-162 EPADUMNACA) as well as CIL III 12012.114 ''nacinus'' "de lectione dubitans" from Ptuj, which does by no means have to be Celtic. {{bib|Morandi 1999}}: 157 compares {{w||)iuka(}} for an (uncertain) auslaut ''-ka''. -''ta''- remains unaccounted for. An alternative Celtic analysis is proposed by {{bib|Colonna 1998}}: 266, n. 20, who, having accepted the Celticity of the document, interprets the form as an "aggettivo femminile riferito al nome di vaso" derived with the Celtic adjectival suffix {{m||-āk-}} from a base ''iuntana''-, which he in turn analyses as a personal name ''iuntu'' plus suffix -''no''- (also {{bib|Sassatelli 2000}}: 54). ({{bib|Gambari 1999}}: 395, n. 45 translates "(vaso) di ''Iuntu''" without further elaboration – a misinterpretation of Colonna's proposal?). If the form is compared with Celtic feminine names in -''aka'' formed with the suffix {{m||-āk-}}, a more promising segmentation may be &#93;''iun θanaχa'', with ''θanaχa'' from the base {{m||dann-}} (C. Salomon), but &#93;''iun'' (or &#93;''ion'', if Etruscan orthography), again, remains unexplained.
Option 2) Celtic analysis according to {{bib|Morandi 1999}}: 156–158, no. 2 (also {{bib|Morandi 2004|2004}}: 572, no. 77, {{bib|Morandi 2004b|2004b}}: 82, no. 1, {{bib|Morandi 2017|2017}}: 367 f., no. 2, as well as {{bib|Prosdocimi 1991}}: 149, {{bib|Prosdocimi 1992|1992}}: 470 f.): Morandi reads a Celtic ''ā''-stem name, segmenting ''iun''-''ta''-''naga'' (transcription according to his observation that theta = /t/ and chi = /g/). For the first element, he compares names like ''iunna'', ''iunanus'', ''iunantus'' listed in {{bib|AcS}} II: 88 f. and repeats Holder's identification of ''iun''- as a word for 'wish, desire' following Ernault. The Brittonic root *''i̯un''- in Ernault's analyses of names such as OBrit. ''adiune'', OBret. ''ediunet'' (cf. {{bib|Fleuriot 1964b}}: 346), as well as W ''eiđuned'' 'to wish' (cf. {{bib|Schumacher 2000}}: 147, n. 121) < PC *''i̯ou̯n''- or *''i̯oi̯n''- cannot be equivalent to a Continental Celtic element ''iun''-, which is barely attested in Latin inscriptions from Gaul (see {{bib|Delamarre 2007}}: 113). For -''naga'' (?), Morandi compares the chimera ''naca'' on a "Veliocassian" coin in {{bib|AcS}} II: 617 (in fact {{bib|RIG}} M-162 <span class="tr_lat">epadumnaca</span>) as well as {{bib|CIL}} III 12012.114 <span class="tr_lat">nacinus</span> "de lectione dubitans" from Ptuj, which does by no means have to be Celtic. {{bib|Morandi 1999}}: 157 compares {{w||)iuka(}} for an (uncertain) auslaut ''-ka''. -''ta''- remains unaccounted for. An alternative Celtic analysis is proposed by {{bib|Colonna 1998}}: 266, n. 20, who, having accepted the Celticity of the document, interprets the form as an "aggettivo femminile riferito al nome di vaso" derived with the Celtic adjectival suffix {{m||-āk-}} from a base ''iuntana''-, which he in turn analyses as a personal name ''iuntu'' plus suffix -''no''- (also {{bib|Sassatelli 2000}}: 54). ({{bib|Gambari 1999}}: 395, n. 45 translates "(vaso) di ''Iuntu''" without further elaboration – a misinterpretation of Colonna's proposal?). If the form is compared with Celtic feminine names in -''aka'' formed with the suffix {{m||-āk-}}, a more promising segmentation may be &#93;''iun θanaχa'', with ''θanaχa'' from the base {{m||dann-}} (C. Salomon), but &#93;''iun'' (or &#93;''ion'', if Etruscan orthography), again, remains unexplained.
<p style="text-align:right;>[[User:David Stifter|David Stifter]], [[User:Corinna Salomon|Corinna Salomon]]</p>
<p style="text-align:right;>[[User:David Stifter|David Stifter]], [[User:Corinna Salomon|Corinna Salomon]]</p>
{{bibliography}}
{{bibliography}}

Revision as of 15:57, 13 August 2023


Attestation: VA·3 (]ịunθanaχa) (1)
Language: unknown
Word Type: prob. proper noun
Semantic Field: prob. personal name

Grammatical Categories: nom. sg.

Morphemic Analysis: unknown
Phonemic Analysis: unknown
Meaning: unknown

Commentary

Possibly a personal name, but linguistic ascription and analysis uncertain.

Option 1) Etruscan analysis according to Gambari & Colonna 1988: 140 f., n. 96: Colonna reads an Etruscan masculine name formula in the nominative, with an auslaut -χa which appears in the Etruscan demon name tuχulχa (ET² Ta 7.73) and the nomen velχa, and suggests two possible segmentations. In ]i unθanaχa, the first word could be Etr. mi 'I', but unθanaχa finds no good comparanda; in ]iun θanaχa, numerous names in θana- can be compared, but -iun could only be IE -i̯ōn in mythological names loaned from Greek. To this can be added that -χa also occurs as auslaut (formans?) of Etruscan nouns (aliχa 'gift', ceχa 'contract'), and that another possible segmentation is ]iunθana-χa with enclitic -ca 'and' (misspelled, as occasionally attested, see Steinbauer 1999: 402 and cf. maybe ET² Ta 7.13 festiχvaχa), which would leave a nomen ]iunθana formed with the patronymic suffix -na. Since exact equations are lacking, none of the above analyses is convincing.

Option 2) Celtic analysis according to Morandi 1999: 156–158, no. 2 (also 2004: 572, no. 77, 2004b: 82, no. 1, 2017: 367 f., no. 2, as well as Prosdocimi 1991: 149, 1992: 470 f.): Morandi reads a Celtic ā-stem name, segmenting iun-ta-naga (transcription according to his observation that theta = /t/ and chi = /g/). For the first element, he compares names like iunna, iunanus, iunantus listed in AcS II: 88 f. and repeats Holder's identification of iun- as a word for 'wish, desire' following Ernault. The Brittonic root *i̯un- in Ernault's analyses of names such as OBrit. adiune, OBret. ediunet (cf. Fleuriot 1964b: 346), as well as W eiđuned 'to wish' (cf. Schumacher 2000: 147, n. 121) < PC *i̯ou̯n- or *i̯oi̯n- cannot be equivalent to a Continental Celtic element iun-, which is barely attested in Latin inscriptions from Gaul (see Delamarre 2007: 113). For -naga (?), Morandi compares the chimera naca on a "Veliocassian" coin in AcS II: 617 (in fact RIG M-162 epadumnaca) as well as CIL III 12012.114 nacinus "de lectione dubitans" from Ptuj, which does by no means have to be Celtic. Morandi 1999: 157 compares )iuka( for an (uncertain) auslaut -ka. -ta- remains unaccounted for. An alternative Celtic analysis is proposed by Colonna 1998: 266, n. 20, who, having accepted the Celticity of the document, interprets the form as an "aggettivo femminile riferito al nome di vaso" derived with the Celtic adjectival suffix -āk- from a base iuntana-, which he in turn analyses as a personal name iuntu plus suffix -no- (also Sassatelli 2000: 54). (Gambari 1999: 395, n. 45 translates "(vaso) di Iuntu" without further elaboration – a misinterpretation of Colonna's proposal?). If the form is compared with Celtic feminine names in -aka formed with the suffix -āk-, a more promising segmentation may be ]iun θanaχa, with θanaχa from the base dann- (C. Salomon), but ]iun (or ]ion, if Etruscan orthography), again, remains unexplained.

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)
Colonna 1998 Giovanni Colonna, "Etruschi sulla via delle Alpi occidentali", in: Liliana Mercando, Marica Venturino Gambari (eds), Archeologia in Piemonte. Volume I: La preistoria, Torino: Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici del Piemonte 1998, 261–266.
Delamarre 2007 Xavier Delamarre, Noms de personnes celtiques dans l'épigraphie classique. Nomina Celtica Antiqua Selecta Inscriptionum, Paris: Errance 2007.
ET² Gerhard Meiser, Etruskische Texte. Editio minor, 2nd, revised edition, Hamburg: Baar 2014.
Fleuriot 1964b Léon Fleuriot, Le vieux Breton. Éléments d'une grammaire [= Collection Linguistique publiée par la Société de Linguistique de Paris 63], Paris: Klincksieck 1964.
Gambari & Colonna 1988 Filippo Maria Gambari, Giovanni Colonna, "Il bicchiere con iscrizione arcaica da Castelletto Ticino e l'adozione della scrittura nell'Italia nord-occidentale", Studi Etruschi 54 (1986 [1988]), 119–164.
Gambari 1999 Filippo Maria Gambari, "Le iscrizioni vascolari della necropoli", in: Giuseppina Spagnolo Garzoli (ed.), Conubia gentium. La necropoli di Oleggio e la romanizzazione dei Vertamocori. Catalogo della mostra Oleggio, Palazzo Bellini 23 gennaio - 30 aprile 1999, Torino: Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologica del Piemonte 1999, 387–395.