|
|
| Line 10: |
Line 10: |
| * the arrow-shape {{c||Þ3}} a variant of [[index::T|Tau]]? | | * 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}} | | * 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}} |
a variant of Tau?
(Magré) as characters for a dental affricate: the evidence of þinake
