taniun: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{word | {{word | ||
|type_word= | |type_word=noun | ||
|case=nominative/accusative | |||
|language=Raetic | |language=Raetic | ||
|lemma= | |lemma=tani(u)n- | ||
|meaning=unknown | |meaning=unknown | ||
|checklevel=0 | |checklevel=0 | ||
}} | }} | ||
== Commentary == | == Commentary == | ||
The form – if it is a single one – appears in a number of variants, viz. ''tanin'' ([[HU-7]], [[SZ-16]], [[VR-3]] unless ''tanini''), ''taniun'' ([[BZ-3]], [[NO-16]]), and once incomplete or abbreviated ''tan'' ([[NO-2]]). The occurrence in similar contexts strongly suggests the attestations to be variants of the same word, but the variation remains to be explained. In [[VR-3]] ''tanini'', -''i'' could formally be a locative ending – the unusual set of endings in [[VR-3]] may allow for a different case here than in the other inscriptions, but neither locatival nor directival or instrumental semantics make a lot of sense for the assumed meaning. (Cf. {{w||aχvil|aχvili}}.) No chronological or geographical pattern allows for an explanation of ''taniun'' as an archaic or dialectal variant. | |||
The classification of the form as a noun in the ending-less casus rectus is uncertain and based on the following considerations: three attestations occur in inscriptions beside the verbal noun {{w||utiku}} ([[HU-7]], [[VR-3]], [[BZ-3]]), of which the latter two appear to name donors and recipients/beneficiaries, so that the only obvious actant left is the direct object. [[HU-7]] lacks a reference to the recipient/beneficiary, while [[SZ-16]] lacks the verbal noun and [[NO-16]] both the verbal noun and the donor. In the latter case, it may be justified to question the likelihood of the object being referred to instead of the donor, but in the other contexts, the word can hardly stand for anything else. If the classification is correct, the word may be a generic term referring to the 'gift' or 'sacrifice', since it appears on a variety of objects. Alternatively, an analysis as an adverb (meaning e.g. something along the lines of 'of free will') may be feasible. | |||
See also {{bib|Battisti 1944}}: 223, {{bib|Pisani 1935}}: 94. | |||
<p style="text-align:right;>[[User:Corinna Salomon|Corinna Salomon]]</p> | |||
{{bibliography}} | {{bibliography}} | ||
Latest revision as of 14:40, 18 October 2024
| Word | |
|---|---|
| Language: | Raetic |
| Word type: | noun |
|
| |
| Case: | nominative/accusative |
|
| |
| Meaning: | unknown |
|
| |
| Attestation: | BZ-3 (taniun:laśanuale/utiku:terunies:sχaistala), HU-7 (?ẹḳiesiuṭikutanin/metḷainile), NO-2 (tianusataṇ), NO-16 (tianusa/taniun), SZ-16 (laθurusitianusatanin), VR-3 (taniniutikuremieshiratasuvakhikvelisanes) (6) |
Commentary
The form – if it is a single one – appears in a number of variants, viz. tanin (HU-7, SZ-16, VR-3 unless tanini), taniun (BZ-3, NO-16), and once incomplete or abbreviated tan (NO-2). The occurrence in similar contexts strongly suggests the attestations to be variants of the same word, but the variation remains to be explained. In VR-3 tanini, -i could formally be a locative ending – the unusual set of endings in VR-3 may allow for a different case here than in the other inscriptions, but neither locatival nor directival or instrumental semantics make a lot of sense for the assumed meaning. (Cf. aχvili.) No chronological or geographical pattern allows for an explanation of taniun as an archaic or dialectal variant.
The classification of the form as a noun in the ending-less casus rectus is uncertain and based on the following considerations: three attestations occur in inscriptions beside the verbal noun utiku (HU-7, VR-3, BZ-3), of which the latter two appear to name donors and recipients/beneficiaries, so that the only obvious actant left is the direct object. HU-7 lacks a reference to the recipient/beneficiary, while SZ-16 lacks the verbal noun and NO-16 both the verbal noun and the donor. In the latter case, it may be justified to question the likelihood of the object being referred to instead of the donor, but in the other contexts, the word can hardly stand for anything else. If the classification is correct, the word may be a generic term referring to the 'gift' or 'sacrifice', since it appears on a variety of objects. Alternatively, an analysis as an adverb (meaning e.g. something along the lines of 'of free will') may be feasible.
See also Battisti 1944: 223, Pisani 1935: 94.
Bibliography
| Battisti 1944 | Carlo Battisti, "Osservazioni sulla lingua delle iscrizioni nell'alfabeto etrusco settentrionale di Bolzano", Studi Etruschi 18 (1944), 199–236. |
|---|
