Þ: Difference between revisions

From Thesaurus Inscriptionum Raeticarum
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(18 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{character
{{character
|name=thorn
|name=thorn
|script=North Italic Script
|sortform=26
|sortform=26
|phoneme=
|phoneme={{p|z}}
|checklevel=5
|checklevel=0
}}
}}
There are two special characters ("Sonderzeichen") in the alphabets used for Raetic. The two characters do not seem to be related to each other; instead, it is more likely that  {{c||Þ}} (once {{c||Þ2}}) and {{c||Þ3}} were created independently in two different places in order to represent a sound for which the Venetic alphabets had no character. For the time being, the two characters have been defined as glyph variants of one character, which is probably not correct from a historical point of view and represents only a provisional solution. Both have been transliterated here with the letter ''þ'' (thorn), borrowed from Runic, to distinguish them from and to avoid confusion with characters for dentals going back to the Greek alphabet. (The theory that Runic {{c||addD3}} /þ/ might be derived from the Magrè-variant {{c||Þ}} is not particularly likely and did not suggest the choice.)
*In Magrè, and only there, the character {{c||Þ}} (once {{c||Þ2}}) occurs six times in six different inscriptions. Twice ([[index::MA-8]], [[index::MA-9]]) it is used in the anlaut of the verbal form {{w||þinaχe}}, which can be directly equated with the Etruscan verbal form ''zinace''. As a consequence of this equation, the phonetic value can be determined as a dental affricate. In [[index::MA-5]] and [[index::MA-23]], the letter seems to be part of an ending {{m||-(i)þu}}; in [[index::MA-10]], it is probably used mistakenly to write the dental of the individual name {{w||piθie}} (in the same inscription, {{w||þinake}} is written with [[index::P|Pi]] in the anlaut). The inscription [[index::MA-3]] is too much damaged to determine the context of {{c||Þ}}. The character shapes {{c||Þ}} and {{c||Þ2}} have a graphic parallel only in Camunic alphabetaria, where a character {{c||Þ2}} occupies the position of San (see [[index::Script]]), but this may be purely accidental.
*In the context of the Sanzeno alphabet, the character {{c||Þ3}} occurs twelve, possibly thirteen ([[index::SZ-19]]) times in as many inscriptions. The main reason for the assumption that this character denotes the same sound as  {{c||Þ}} is the inscription [[index::SZ-1.1]], where we find {{c|E}}{{c|Χ}}{{c|A|A5}}{{c|N}}{{c|I}}{{c|Þ|Þ3}}, which can be read as {{w||þinaχe}} and thus be identified with {{w||þinaχe}} in [[index::MA-8]] and [[index::MA-9]] (consequently, it can also be equated with Etruscan ''zinace''). Moreover, in  [[index::SZ-4.1]] we find {{w||þal}}, which can be equated with the Etruscan numeral {{w||zal}} "two". Four more attestations in certainly linguistic context are found in [[index::SZ-4.1]] and [[index::SZ-30]] (for the option of comparing the occurrence in the latter inscription with one of [[index::Z|Zeta]], see {{w||)auþile}}), on [[index::NO-15]] and [[index::BZ-10.1]]. The attestations on [[index::SZ-33]] and [[index::SZ-74]] are qualified by the fact that we are probably concerned with factory marks (but see {{w||þine}}); [[index::SZ-32]], [[index::SZ-34]] and [[index::SZ-94]] are unclear. Additionally, the letter occurs on one of the problematic Slovenian helmets, in an [[index::SL-2.1|inscription]] clearly written in the Sanzeno alphabet, and in an [[index::VR-6|inscription]] from the area of Verona, which displays both Magrè and Sanzeno features. The "arrow sign" is reminiscent of Tau, but Tau does not occur in this shape in Etruscan or regularly in any of the Transpadanian alphabets. The "arrow sign" does appear in two dubious inscriptions from the Gail valley (Gt 20, Gt 22, ascribed to the Venetic corpus), and on the Camunoid [http://www.univie.ac.at/lexlep/wiki/GR%C2%B73 Castaneda flagon] (here apparently Tau). Note also that /t/ is written {{c||Þ3}} in the Runic script.
Both the Magrè and the Sanzeno character seem to be creations from scratch, but a connection to some (marginal?) Camunic tradition cannot be excluded. For the question of why these characters were used/created, see [[index::Script]].


== Commentary ==
{{c||Þ}} / {{c||Þ2}} corresponds to '''' in {{bib|Schumacher 2004}}.
* the arrow-shape {{c||Þ3}} a variant of [[index::T|Tau]]?
* identification of {{c||Þ3}} (Sanzeno) and {{c||Þ}} (Magré) as characters for a dental affricate: the evidence of {{w||þinake}}
 
'''On the question of {{c||Þ4}} – labial or dental?'''
 
How the letter was identified by various scholars in the past: Marstrander, Mancini, Marinetti, Schumacher, Morandi
 
The letter variant {{c||Þ4}} is documented as of now in only three words: {{c||A}}{{c||N}}{{c||S}}{{c||I}}{{c||R}}{{c||E}}{{c||Þ4}} {{w||?erisna}}, {{c||U2}}{{c||K}}{{c||I}}{{c||Þ4}}{{c||U2}} {{w||u?iku}} and {{c||N}}({{c||U2}}){{c||I}}{{c||N}}{{c||A}}{{c||Þ4}} {{w||?ani(u)n}} (with standardised orthography). The only exception ([[index::VR-1]] {{w||?inesuna}}) is inconclusive. For a dicussion of the relevant forms in [[index::SL-2.3]], see there.
*{{w||?erisna}}: Attested with {{c||Þ4}} in [[index::SL-1]] ({{c||Þ5}}), [[index::SR-4]], [[index::SR-6]], possibly [[index::SR-9]], and problematically in [[index::NO-13]]. [[index::SR-9]] was used by {{bib|Schumacher 2004|Schumacher}} (p. 309) as an argument for a dental reading, identifying the two preceding letters in the inscription as {{c||Ś3}}{{c||Θ}} and arguing that {{p||θ}}{{p||ś}}{{p||i}}- was a way of writing a dental affricate (in this database transcribed {{p||þ}}) by a person who did not know the special character {{c||Þ4}} (possibly at a time before that character was introduced). While it is true that the hasta before {{c||E}} does not seem to bear any additional mark, and certainly no readily identifiable dot, the reading {{c||Ś3}}{{c||Θ}} is equally doubtful, and cannot be used for identifying the phonetic value of {{c||Þ4}}. The first letter of [[index::NO-13]] features both a dot and some intersecting bars, and was interpreted by {{bib|Schumacher 2004|Schumacher}} (p. 309 f.) as an effort of the writer to make a compromise between the characters {{c||Þ4}} and {{c||Þ3}}, thereby confirming the identification of the former as a dental. (For the reading of {{c||Þ3}} (Sanzeno) and {{c||Þ}} (Magré) as a dental affricate see '''above'''). Apart form the unconclusive [[index::SR-9]], the sequence {{w||?erisna}} is never attested with an anlauting dental, whereas it is in two instances attested with anlauting labial {{c||P2}} {{w||perisna}} ([[index::BZ-4]] and [[index::BZ-26]]). The first letter in [[index::NO-13]] might as well be considered a compromise between {{c||Þ4}} and {{c||P2|d}} (though the latter would be turned against writing direction). A further argument for an anlauting dental {{w||þerisna}} is furnished by Etruscan, see the word page. 
*{{w||u?iku}}: Attested three times with {{c||Þ4}}. In two cases ([[index::VR-3]], [[index::HU-7]]), the inscription also contains the word {{w||?anin}} written with the same character (see below). In [[index::VR-3]], the character appears as {{c||Þ5}}, and has generally been interpreted as Phi ('''references'''). In the third case ([[index::NO-3]]), however, the letter Phi in the form {{c||Φ3}} appears alongside {{c||Þ4}}. A verbal form {{w||upiku}} with a labial is amply attested: again [[index::BZ-4]], which also contains one attestation of {{w||perisna}}, [[index::BZ-3]], [[index::IT-5]] and [[index::NO-15]]. The latter is the most important document in this context, as it also contains the character {{c||Þ3}}, thereby excluding the two being variants of each other. A verbal form with a dental in the relevant position is attested twice: {{w||uθiku}} in [[index::PA-1]] (in which at least one writing mistake has been identified), and {{w||utiku}} in [[index::NO-17]], where a reading {{c||P2}} instead of {{c||T|d}} is not impossible ({{c||T|d}} is turned against writing direction), but neither probable.
*{{w||?ani(u)n}}: Attested twice with {{c||Þ4}}, in the abovementioned inscriptions [[index::VR-3]] and [[index::HU-7]]; in the former in what is probably an inflected form {{w||?anini}}. The word is in four instances attested with anlauting labial {{c||P2}} {{p||p}}: [[index::BZ-3]] (also containing {{w||upiku}}), [[index::NO-16]], [[index::SZ-16]] ({{w||panin}}) and [[index::NO-2]] (apparently unfinished).
 
To summarise: While parallel attestations of the words in question with labials predominate clearly, and the evidence of [[index::NO-15]] shows that {{c||Þ3}} and {{c||Þ4}} are not distributed complementarily, the two clear instances of {{w||u?iku}} with a dental are hard to reason away. The only way to get around this problem is to posit two separate verbal bases {{w||upi-}} and {{w||uti-}} / {{w||uθi-}}, which is of course not unthinkable, but not particularly elegant, considering the restricted vocabulary of the Raetic corpus.
 
As concerns the formal development of the character {{c||Þ4}}, the obvious option in case of its identification as a character for a labial is the interpretation as a variant of Phi – however, [[index::NO-3]] demonstrates that {{c||Þ4}} and {{c||Φ3}} are discrete units as well. It would have to be assumed that at the time of the inscriptions which have come down to us, {{c||Þ4}} was an independent character for a labial which was not identified with Phi by the writers. This leads to the question of inhowfar the use of different characters for stops in Raetic inscriptions (here Pi vs. Phi) reflects a phonetic reality, and if it does, what this reality is. Note that {{c||Þ4}} never co-occurs with {{c||P2}}. For a formal development of {{c||Þ4}} from a character for a dental, see {{bib|Marstrander 1927}}: 20 ff., who argues that {{c||Þ4}} is a variant of Zeta via the "dumbbell" form {{c||Þ6}} (found only in [[index::SL-2.3]]), citing similar forms in Sabellian inscriptions.
 
{{bibliography}}
{{bibliography}}

Latest revision as of 14:02, 24 November 2016

edit with form
Character
Customary name: thorn
Represents: z

Variants and attestation

Transliteration Sinistroverse Dextroverse
  Glyph Number Glyph Number
Þ Þ.png 3 Þd.png 2
Þ2 Þ2.png 0 Þ2d.png 1
Þ3 Þ3.png 12 Þ3d.png 2

There are two special characters ("Sonderzeichen") in the alphabets used for Raetic. The two characters do not seem to be related to each other; instead, it is more likely that Þ s (once Þ2 s) and Þ3 s were created independently in two different places in order to represent a sound for which the Venetic alphabets had no character. For the time being, the two characters have been defined as glyph variants of one character, which is probably not correct from a historical point of view and represents only a provisional solution. Both have been transliterated here with the letter þ (thorn), borrowed from Runic, to distinguish them from and to avoid confusion with characters for dentals going back to the Greek alphabet. (The theory that Runic addD3 s /þ/ might be derived from the Magrè-variant Þ s is not particularly likely and did not suggest the choice.)

  • In Magrè, and only there, the character Þ s (once Þ2 s) occurs six times in six different inscriptions. Twice (MA-8, MA-9) it is used in the anlaut of the verbal form þinaχe, which can be directly equated with the Etruscan verbal form zinace. As a consequence of this equation, the phonetic value can be determined as a dental affricate. In MA-5 and MA-23, the letter seems to be part of an ending -(i)þu; in MA-10, it is probably used mistakenly to write the dental of the individual name piθie (in the same inscription, þinake is written with Pi in the anlaut). The inscription MA-3 is too much damaged to determine the context of Þ s. The character shapes Þ s and Þ2 s have a graphic parallel only in Camunic alphabetaria, where a character Þ2 s occupies the position of San (see Script), but this may be purely accidental.
  • In the context of the Sanzeno alphabet, the character Þ3 s occurs twelve, possibly thirteen (SZ-19) times in as many inscriptions. The main reason for the assumption that this character denotes the same sound as Þ s is the inscription SZ-1.1, where we find E sΧ sA5 sN sI sÞ3 s, which can be read as þinaχe and thus be identified with þinaχe in MA-8 and MA-9 (consequently, it can also be equated with Etruscan zinace). Moreover, in SZ-4.1 we find þal, which can be equated with the Etruscan numeral zal "two". Four more attestations in certainly linguistic context are found in SZ-4.1 and SZ-30 (for the option of comparing the occurrence in the latter inscription with one of Zeta, see )auþile), on NO-15 and BZ-10.1. The attestations on SZ-33 and SZ-74 are qualified by the fact that we are probably concerned with factory marks (but see þine); SZ-32, SZ-34 and SZ-94 are unclear. Additionally, the letter occurs on one of the problematic Slovenian helmets, in an inscription clearly written in the Sanzeno alphabet, and in an inscription from the area of Verona, which displays both Magrè and Sanzeno features. The "arrow sign" is reminiscent of Tau, but Tau does not occur in this shape in Etruscan or regularly in any of the Transpadanian alphabets. The "arrow sign" does appear in two dubious inscriptions from the Gail valley (Gt 20, Gt 22, ascribed to the Venetic corpus), and on the Camunoid Castaneda flagon (here apparently Tau). Note also that /t/ is written Þ3 s in the Runic script.

Both the Magrè and the Sanzeno character seem to be creations from scratch, but a connection to some (marginal?) Camunic tradition cannot be excluded. For the question of why these characters were used/created, see Script.

Þ s / Þ2 s corresponds to in Schumacher 2004.

Bibliography

Retrieved from "https://tir.univie.ac.at/index.php?title=Þ&oldid=16912"