NO-6: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
Sindy Kluge (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
|sigla_pid=213 | |sigla_pid=213 | ||
|sigla_mancini=ME-4 | |sigla_mancini=ME-4 | ||
|sigla_mlr=36 | |||
|source=Schumacher 2004: 151 | |source=Schumacher 2004: 151 | ||
|checklevel=3 | |checklevel=3 | ||
| Line 27: | Line 28: | ||
First published in '''{{bib|Campi 1905}}: 90 ff.''' Autopsied by TIR in October 2014. | First published in '''{{bib|Campi 1905}}: 90 ff.''' Autopsied by TIR in October 2014. | ||
Image in {{bib|LIR}} (drawing). | Image in {{bib|LIR}} (drawing), {{bib|MLR}} (photo). | ||
Length of the remains 4 cm. Inscribed on top of the rolled-up rim of a vessel, upright when looked at from the outside. Well legible, some of the hastae made up of two strokes. ]{{w||amuriri}}[ is unambiguous. The first letter, damaged by the break, is most probably neither {{c||Θ}} or {{c||T|d}} as read by {{bib|PID|Conway}} and {{bib|Schumacher 2004|Schumacher}} respectively, but {{c||Χ}}: The breaking edge follows the hasta, then the right bar. The tiny line extending leftward from the hasta is unintentional. The two short oblique strokes after the second {{c||I}} are usually interpreted as a punctuation mark. The faint scratch between them, leading {{bib|LIR|Mancini}} to read {{c||S|d}}, can be verified, but seeing as the other lines are uniformly pronounced and clearly visible, it is unlikely to be relevant. Should {{m||-s}} be the correct reading, we are probably concerned with a genitive ending; no other interpretation can be offered. | Length of the remains 4 cm. Inscribed on top of the rolled-up rim of a vessel, upright when looked at from the outside. Well legible, some of the hastae made up of two strokes. ]{{w||amuriri}}[ is unambiguous. The first letter, damaged by the break, is most probably neither {{c||Θ}} or {{c||T|d}} as read by {{bib|PID|Conway}} and {{bib|Schumacher 2004|Schumacher}} respectively, but {{c||Χ}}: The breaking edge follows the hasta, then the right bar. The tiny line extending leftward from the hasta is unintentional. The two short oblique strokes after the second {{c||I}} are usually interpreted as a punctuation mark. The faint scratch between them, leading {{bib|LIR|Mancini}} to read {{c||S|d}}, can be verified, but seeing as the other lines are uniformly pronounced and clearly visible, it is unlikely to be relevant. Should {{m||-s}} be the correct reading, we are probably concerned with a genitive ending; no other interpretation can be offered. | ||
Revision as of 05:56, 16 July 2015
| Inscription | |
|---|---|
| Transliteration: | ]χ̣amuriri : |
| Original script: |       
|
| Variant Reading: | ]χ̣amuririṣ
|
|
| |
| Object: | NO-6 fragment (bronze) |
| Position: | rim |
| Script: | North Italic script (Sanzeno alphabet) |
| Direction of writing: | sinistroverse |
| Letter height: | 0.7 cm |
| Number of letters: | 8 – 9 |
| Number of characters: | 9 |
| Number of lines: | 1 |
| Craftsmanship: | embossed |
| Current condition: | fragmentary |
| Date of inscription: | |
| Date derived from: | |
|
| |
| Language: | unknown |
| Meaning: | unknown |
|
| |
| Alternative sigla: | PID 213 LIR ME-4 MLR 36 |
| Sources: | Schumacher 2004: 151 |
Images
 Object NO-6 fragment with inscription NO-6.
|
Commentary
First published in Campi 1905: 90 ff. Autopsied by TIR in October 2014.
Image in LIR (drawing), MLR (photo).
Length of the remains 4 cm. Inscribed on top of the rolled-up rim of a vessel, upright when looked at from the outside. Well legible, some of the hastae made up of two strokes. ]amuriri[ is unambiguous. The first letter, damaged by the break, is most probably neither 
or 
as read by Conway and Schumacher respectively, but : The breaking edge follows the hasta, then the right bar. The tiny line extending leftward from the hasta is unintentional. The two short oblique strokes after the second are usually interpreted as a punctuation mark. The faint scratch between them, leading Mancini to read , can be verified, but seeing as the other lines are uniformly pronounced and clearly visible, it is unlikely to be relevant. Should -s be the correct reading, we are probably concerned with a genitive ending; no other interpretation can be offered.
Further references: NRIE 111, Battisti 1936b: 598, Battisti 1944: 234, Tibiletti Bruno 1978: 221.
Bibliography
| Battisti 1936b | Carlo Battisti, "Rassegna critica degli studi linguistici sull'Alto Adige nel quinquennio 1931-36", Archivio per l'Alto Adige 31/2 (1936), 561–611. |
|---|---|
| Battisti 1944 | Carlo Battisti, "Osservazioni sulla lingua delle iscrizioni nell'alfabeto etrusco settentrionale di Bolzano", Studi Etruschi 18 (1944), 199–236. |
| Campi 1905 | Luigi Campi, "Rinvenimenti di antichità nella Naunia", Archivio Trentino XX (1905), 89–92. |
| LIR | Alberto Mancini, Le Iscrizioni Retiche [= Quaderni del dipartimento di linguistica, Università degli studi di Firenze Studi 8–9], Padova: Unipress 2009–10. (2 volumes) |
