|
|
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{character | | {{character |
| |name=pi | | |name=pi |
| |script=North Italic Script
| |
| |sortform=20 | | |sortform=20 |
| |phoneme= | | |phoneme= |
| Line 7: |
Line 6: |
| |problem=Phonem | | |problem=Phonem |
| }} | | }} |
| == Commentary ==
| |
| Pi is one of the letters (together with [[index::L|Lambda]] and [[index::U|Upsilon]]) which serve as a basis for distinguishing the Magrè and Sanzeno alphabets (see [[index::Script]]): The variants {{c||P}}, {{c||P3}}, {{c||P4}}, {{c||P5}} with an angle (sometimes rounded), often termed "Venetoid" in the TIR, are attributed to the Magrè alphabet, while {{c||P2}} with a bar on top extending against writing direction is used in the Sanzeno alphabet.
| |
|
| |
|
| While the schibboleth letters mentioned above do usually appear in the expected forms and are grouped together appropriately in numerous inscriptions from both alphabetical contexts, the letter form ←{{c||L}} / {{c||L|d}}→ (commonly Magrè Lambda) does crop up in Sanzeno context, where it is not only incongruous, but in some cases must clearly be read /{{p||p}}/ instead of /{{p||l}}/. The identification of ←{{c||L}} / {{c||L|d}}→ is problematical in the following circumstances:
| | Pi is one of the letters (together with [[index::L|lambda]] and [[index::U|upsilon]]) which serve as a basis for distinguishing the Magrè and Sanzeno alphabets (see [[index::Property:alphabet]] and [[index::Script]]): the variants {{c||P}}, {{c||P5}}, {{c||P3}}, {{c||P4}}, {{c||P6}} with an angle (sometimes rounded) belong to the Magrè alphabet, while {{c||P2}} with a single bar is the form used in the Sanzeno alphabet. |
|
| |
|
| *Inscriptions in which ←{{c||L}} appears together not with Magrè Pi {{c||P5}}, but with Sanzeno Lambda {{c||L2}} and/or Sanzeno Pi ←{{c||P2}}.
| | The Magrè forms with the angle, often termed "Venetoid" in TIR, are similar to forms of the Venetic alphabets (though {{c||P}} with a completely closed angle is not attested in the Venetic alphabets, which prefer opened variants like {{c||addP1}}). The variants with a small angle {{c||P}}, {{c||P5}} are used in the south. Particularly at Magrè, {{c||P}} has been and is sometimes still misread as rho (e.g., {{bib|MLR}}, {{bib|Markey 2006}}). The variants with a large angle {{c||P3}}, {{c||P4}}, which are used in the north, are even easier to confuse with rho (e.g., [[index::ST-2]]; however, in at least two instances ([[index::IT-4]] and [[index::IT-8]]) a gap between the lower ends of the hasta and the angled or curved line which forms the pocket can be clearly seen. {{c||P6}} occurs once in the north. |
| *Inscriptions with isolated ←{{c||L}} (not accompanied by any other variant of Pi or Lambda), whose linguistic content (e.g. phonetical plausibility, but most prominently comparison with independently attested material) suggests a reading /p/.
| |
|
| |
|
| Both types of cases are so far only known from Sanzeno context, wherefore we may add a third, not purely epigraphically motivated condition:
| | Sanzeno pi {{c||P2}} is equivalent to the form prevalent in the Etruscan and Lepontic alphabets, and also sometimes used in Venetic. The letter occurs in more than thirty inscriptions and inscriptoids in alphabetic Sanzeno context. In ten certainly language-encoding inscriptions ([[index::CE-1.3]], [[index::SZ-15.1]], [[index::SZ-22.1]], [[index::SZ-30]], [[index::SZ-87]], [[index::SZ-98]], [[index::NO-11]], [[index::BZ-9]], [[index::BZ-10.1]], [[index::WE-3]]), thirteen tokens represent up to eight different types. Of these, two are attested in Magrè context with certain pi ({{w||piθam(n)e}} vel sim., {{w||piθie|pitie}} vel sim.). The letter can therefore be clearly identified as pi ({{bib|Salomon 2017}}: 245 f.). The letter {{c||P2|d}}, with the bar extending against writing direction, is still widely considered to be Sanzeno pi, but is better identified as a variant of tau (see [[index::T]]). On {{c||P2}} vs. {{c||P2|d}} in Sanzeno context, though with obsolete argumentation, see Salomon in {{bib|Kluge & Salomon 2015}}: 89–92. |
| | |
| *Inscriptions from (epigraphical or geographical) Sanzeno context with isolated ←{{c||L}} which cannot be definitely demonstrated to write /{{p||l}}/.
| |
| | |
| ←{{c||P2|d}} appears combined only with Sanzeno Lambda {{c||L2}} on [[index::CE-1.3]] (twice) and [[index::SZ-22.1]], and is consequently considered to represent Pi turned against writing direction in both cases. Both inscriptions duly have Sanzeno Upsilon {{c||U2}}, though the one from geographically intermediate [[index::Cembra]] also features word-internal punctuation. With the bar of Pi extending in writing direction, the distinction between Pi, Lambda and Upsilon is still sustained, and this system is actually the one in use in the Lugano alphabet. However, both inscriptions display clearly Raetic features in both writing (←{{c||A}}, ←{{c||S}}) and content.
| |
| | |
| It is not clear, how and why the non-Venetic characteristics of the Sanzeno alphabet arose, but a letter variant ←{{c||P2|d}} could easily be explained as an intermediate form between {{c||P5}} and {{c||P2}} which might reasonably be expected to crop up sporadically as a marginal archaism. However, in [[index::SZ-87]] ←{{c||P2|d}} appears combined with Sanzeno Pi {{c||P2}}. The two letters occur, separated by only one letter, within the same word {{c||S}}{{c||I}}{{c||P2}}{{c||I}}{{c||L}} {{w||?ipis}}, probably an individual name in the genitive. Here, ←{{c||P2|d}} would a priori be considered a case of alphabetical interference, Magrè Lambda in a Sanzeno inscription – maybe written by a person proficient in both alphabets. But a reading {{w||lipis}} precludes the comparison of the form with {{w||pipe}} on [[index::BZ-11]] (not autopsied). A reading {{w||pipis}} can be argued by grouping [[index::SZ-87]] with the three inscriptions which have the triple combination of ←{{c||P2|d}}, ←{{c||P2}} and ←{{c||L2}}, being one Sanzeno Lambda, one Sanzeno Pi, and one letter of doubtful ascription. These are [[index::WE-3]], [[index::SZ-15.1]] and [[index::SZ-30]]. In [[index::WE-3]], the dubious ←{{c||P2|d}} occurs in the name {{w||piθamnuale}}, which is attested several times – in Magrè context with clear Pi, but in one other instance in Sanzeno context also with ←{{c||P2|d}} (see [[index::BZ-9]] below). [[index::WE-3]] has three incontestably correct Sanzeno Lambdas, and one Sanzeno Pi in the name {{w||laspa}}, which is also attested on [[index::SZ-1.1]] and, incidentally, [[index::SZ-15.1]]. [[index::SZ-15.1]] has one Sanzeno Lambda in {{w||laspa}}, two Sanzeno Pis in {{w||laspa}} and {{w||pipie|?ipie}}, and two instances of ←{{c||P2|d}} in {{c||E}}{{c||I}}{{c||P2}}{{c||I}}{{c||P2|d}} {{w||pipie|?ipie}} and {{c||U4}}{{c||N}}{{c||U4}}{{c||Ś}}{{c||A5}}{{c||P2|d}}{{c||A5}}{{c||K}} {{w||kapaśunu|ka?aśunu}}. {{w||pipie|?ipie}} may be compared with {{w||pipis|?ipis}} in [[index::SZ-87]] (the corresponding nominative?); on the segmentation of and possible comparanda for {{w||kapaśunu|ka?aśunu}} see the inscription page. [[index::SZ-30]], the only dextroverse one of the inscriptions discussed here, has Sanzeno Lambda twice in well attested forms, Sanzeno Pi in the anlaut of an isolated name (?) {{w||pumis}}, and twice anlauting {{c||P2}}→ in obscure words.
| |
| | |
| Isolated ←{{c||P2|d}} is read Pi based on content-related arguments in the inscriptions [[index::BZ-9]] and possibly [[index::NO-13]]. On the name {{w||piθam(n)e|piθame}} in [[index::BZ-9]] see above ([[index::WE-3]]). For the question of whether ←{{c||P2|d}} is intended in [[index::NO-13]], see the inscription page; if it is the case, {{w||perisna}} is well attested also. ←{{c||P2|d}} also appears on its own in [[index::NO-11]], but without parallel attestation no decision can be made between the readings {{w||liri}} and {{w||piri}}.
| |
| | |
| Regarding solely its form, the letter ←{{c||P2|d}} might in Sanzeno context be considered either an influence from the Magrè alphabet (when alongside Sanzeno Pi; in [[index::SZ-87]]), or a remnant form of Pi (when alongside Sanzeno Lambda or isolated; in [[index::BZ-9]], [[index::CE-1.3]] and [[index::SZ-22.1]]). While it is not absurd to presume two different origins and consequently values of the form, neither of these explanations accounts for the cases where it appears alongside both regular Sanzeno letter forms. The postulation of simple writing mistakes is not advisable. For [[index::WE-3]], this explanation might pass, seeing as ←{{c||P2|d}} occurs only in the completely inverted second line as opposed to ←{{c||P2}} in the first, in combination with the fact that Sigma also appears turned in different directions. But Sigma is actually the very letter whose orientation is known to occasionally vary within one inscription – letters with bars are generally written with surprising uniformity. Writing ←{{c||P2|d}} instead of ←{{c||P2}}, which is the only letter with a bar extending "backwards" from a straight hasta, may seem an easy mistake to make, but there appears to have been no problem with the equally counterintuitive ←{{c||A}}. In [[index::SZ-15.1]], ←{{c||P2|d}} and {{c||P2}}→ occur almost successively; in [[index::SZ-30]], the writer would have switched from "wrong" to "correct" and back again, and that only in that part of the inscription which is left to us. Such crude mistakes stand in contrast to the noticably neat execution of the inscriptions discussed. While downright blunders are improbable, the redundantly distinctive retrograde bar of ←{{c||P2}} may have been considered not obligatory by some writers, making the form interchangeable with its archaic variant ←{{c||P2|d}}, though in this case a higher frequency of occurrence of ←{{c||P2|d}} should be expected.
| |
| | |
| Note that among twelve instances of ←{{c||P2|d}}, two words appear twice: the names {{w||piθam(n)e}} and {{w||pipie|?ipie}}. The former might etymologically belong with other individual names in ''piθ-'', one of which is {{w||piθiave}}; the second one of the forms in question on [[index::SZ-30]] might also belong with this group. Yet it is unlikely that ←{{c||P2|d}} vs. ←{{c||P2}} reflects a phonetic reality – while more than the usual number of characters for labial stops seem to have been used by the Raeti, and the problematic case of [[index::NO-13]] might connect ←{{c||P2|d}} with {{c||Φ5}}, the name {{w||piθam(n)e}} is attested with regular Magrè Pi in [[index::Serso]] (see [[index::Φ]]).
| |
| | |
| In light of the fact that in none of the cases discussed above, a reading /{{p||l}}/ is preferable to a reading /{{p||p}}/, ←{{c||P2|d}} in Sanzeno context is consistently defined as Pi in TIR and transliterated accordingly, unless there is a reason to do otherwise. This includes fragmentary inscriptions which have not been mentioned ([[index::VN-2]], [[index::VN-3]], [[index::SZ-32]]) and a great number of inscriptoids from [[index::Sanzeno]] (most prominently the {{w||upi}}-inscriptions). The only exception so far is the {{w||la}}-group, which appears to have {{c||L}} alternating with {{c||L2}}.
| |
|
| |
|
| {{bibliography}} | | {{bibliography}} |
Variants and attestation
Pi is one of the letters (together with lambda and upsilon) which serve as a basis for distinguishing the Magrè and Sanzeno alphabets (see Property:alphabet and Script): the variants 
, 
, 
, 
, 
with an angle (sometimes rounded) belong to the Magrè alphabet, while 
with a single bar is the form used in the Sanzeno alphabet.
The Magrè forms with the angle, often termed "Venetoid" in TIR, are similar to forms of the Venetic alphabets (though with a completely closed angle is not attested in the Venetic alphabets, which prefer opened variants like 
). The variants with a small angle , are used in the south. Particularly at Magrè, has been and is sometimes still misread as rho (e.g., MLR, Markey 2006). The variants with a large angle , , which are used in the north, are even easier to confuse with rho (e.g., ST-2; however, in at least two instances (IT-4 and IT-8) a gap between the lower ends of the hasta and the angled or curved line which forms the pocket can be clearly seen. occurs once in the north.
Sanzeno pi is equivalent to the form prevalent in the Etruscan and Lepontic alphabets, and also sometimes used in Venetic. The letter occurs in more than thirty inscriptions and inscriptoids in alphabetic Sanzeno context. In ten certainly language-encoding inscriptions (CE-1.3, SZ-15.1, SZ-22.1, SZ-30, SZ-87, SZ-98, NO-11, BZ-9, BZ-10.1, WE-3), thirteen tokens represent up to eight different types. Of these, two are attested in Magrè context with certain pi (piθam(n)e vel sim., pitie vel sim.). The letter can therefore be clearly identified as pi (Salomon 2017: 245 f.). The letter 
, with the bar extending against writing direction, is still widely considered to be Sanzeno pi, but is better identified as a variant of tau (see T). On vs. in Sanzeno context, though with obsolete argumentation, see Salomon in Kluge & Salomon 2015: 89–92.
| Kluge & Salomon 2015
|
Sindy Kluge, Corinna Salomon, "Ausgewählte Funde aus Dercolo im Kontext der rätischen Inschriften", Wissenschaftliches Jahrbuch der Tiroler Landesmuseen 8 (2015), 80–95.
|
| Markey 2006
|
Thomas L. Markey, "Early Celticity in Slovenia and at Rhaetic Magrè (Schio)", Linguistica 46 (2006), 145–171.
|
