-l(a): Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
|checklevel=0 | |checklevel=0 | ||
}} | }} | ||
== Commentary == | |||
The attestations of the Raetic equivalent of the Etruscan genitive II ({{bib|Rix 1985}}: 126 f., {{bib|Wallace 2008}}: 46) are somewhat dubious. The existence of a genitive in {{p||l}} would be expected because of the use of the pertinentive II {{m||-le}} for which it historically provided the base. The genitive II poses some difficulties even in Etruscan. In Archaic Etruscan inscriptions, the ending appears as -{{p||a}} (examples in Wallace). Seeing as -{{p||l}} must be historical, being part of the pertinentive and ablative endings, and also appearing in Neo-Etruscan, its interim disappearance remains to be explained. Most probably, {{p||l}} was lost in this position (indicating a velar allophone), and restituted by comparison with the ablative and pertinentive endings. The second irregularity of the genitive II is its allomorph ''-al'' (with stems not originally ending in -{{p||a}}) in Neo-Etruscan. The context of this allomorph appears to be determined both phonotactically (stems in -{{p||l}}) and semantically (names); Rix (p. 126) assumes that {{p||a}} is a generalised stem vowel. Cp. the contexts of {{m||-le}} vs. ''-ale'' of the pertinentive II. The pre-apocope auslaut {{m||a}} can, like {{m||i}} in the genitive I {{m||-s(i)}}, be inferred from the form of the secondary endings of the pertinentive and ablative. | |||
While the genitive I {{m||-s(i)}} is very well documented in Raetic, no instances of the genitive II – in any form – can be securely identified. The Archaic Etruscan form -{{p||a}} can essentially be argued for any word ending in -{{p||a}} – this is in most cases reflected in TIR to simplify reviewing the cases. The only possible case of a genitive in ''-(a)l'' is {{w||kaial}} on [[index::PA-1]], somewhat modified by the word {{w||aχvil}} (with stem-final {{p||l}}) appearing in the same inscription. | |||
On the possibility of genitives originally being adjectives of possession, enabling them to serve as bases for cases (pertinentive, ablative), see {{bib|Rix 1985}}: 127. | |||
{{bibliography}} | {{bibliography}} | ||
Revision as of 15:04, 11 February 2017
| Morpheme | |
|---|---|
| Language: | Raetic |
| Type: | inflectional |
| Meaning: | 'of/for' |
| Function: | genitive |
|
| |
| Attestation: | none
|
Commentary
The attestations of the Raetic equivalent of the Etruscan genitive II (Rix 1985: 126 f., Wallace 2008: 46) are somewhat dubious. The existence of a genitive in l would be expected because of the use of the pertinentive II -le for which it historically provided the base. The genitive II poses some difficulties even in Etruscan. In Archaic Etruscan inscriptions, the ending appears as -a (examples in Wallace). Seeing as -l must be historical, being part of the pertinentive and ablative endings, and also appearing in Neo-Etruscan, its interim disappearance remains to be explained. Most probably, l was lost in this position (indicating a velar allophone), and restituted by comparison with the ablative and pertinentive endings. The second irregularity of the genitive II is its allomorph -al (with stems not originally ending in -a) in Neo-Etruscan. The context of this allomorph appears to be determined both phonotactically (stems in -l) and semantically (names); Rix (p. 126) assumes that a is a generalised stem vowel. Cp. the contexts of -le vs. -ale of the pertinentive II. The pre-apocope auslaut a can, like i in the genitive I -s(i), be inferred from the form of the secondary endings of the pertinentive and ablative.
While the genitive I -s(i) is very well documented in Raetic, no instances of the genitive II – in any form – can be securely identified. The Archaic Etruscan form -a can essentially be argued for any word ending in -a – this is in most cases reflected in TIR to simplify reviewing the cases. The only possible case of a genitive in -(a)l is kaial on PA-1, somewhat modified by the word aχvil (with stem-final l) appearing in the same inscription.
On the possibility of genitives originally being adjectives of possession, enabling them to serve as bases for cases (pertinentive, ablative), see Rix 1985: 127.
