P

edit with form

Character
Customary name:	pi

Variants and attestation

Transliteration	Sinistroverse		Dextroverse
	Glyph	Number	Glyph	Number
P		8		9
P2		29		3
P3		1		0
P4		2		0
P5		1		0
P6		1		0

Commentary

Pi is one of the letters (together with Lambda and Upsilon) which serve as a basis for distinguishing the Magrè and Sanzeno alphabets (see Script): The variants , , , with an angle (sometimes rounded), often termed "Venetoid" in the TIR, are attributed to the Magrè alphabet, while 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 ← / → (commonly Magrè Lambda) does crop up in Sanzeno context, where it is not only incongruous, but in some cases must clearly be read p instead of l. We even have cases where all three forms ←, ←, ← (or turned the other way) appear together, being one clear (Sanzeno) Lambda, one clear (Sanzeno) Pi, and one letter of doubtful ascription.

←, isolated (not accompanied by any other variant of Pi or Lambda), is read Pi based on content-related arguments in the inscriptions BZ-9 and possibly NO-13. The name piθame in BZ-9 is securely attested with anlauting p in Serso and Magrè, but note another instance of the name written with ← in WE-3 (see below). For the question of whether ← is intended in NO-13, see the inscription page; if it is the case, perisna is well attested also. ← also appears on its own in NO-11, but without parallel attestation no decision can be made between the readings liri and piri.

← appears combined with Sanzeno Lambda on CE-1.3 (twice) and SZ-22.1, and is consequently considered to represent Pi turned against writing direction in both cases. Both inscriptions duly have Sanzeno alphabet , though the one from geographically intermediate Cembra also features word-internal punctuation. With the bar of Pi extending in writing direction, the distinction between the three schibboleth letters Pi, Lambda and Upsilon is still sustained, and this system is actually the one in use in the Lugano alphabet. However, both inscriptions display Raetic features (←, ←).

It is not clear, how and why the non-Venetic features of the Sanzeno alphabet arose, but a letter variant ← might reasonably be expected to have been an intermediate form between and . However, on SZ-87 ← appears combined with Sanzeno Pi . The two letters occur, separated by only one letter, within the same word , probably an individual name in the genitive. A reading Pi is nevertheless possible: The form might be compared with pipe on BZ-11 (not autopsied!); SZ-15.1, which also has , contains an individual name with identical letter forms.

Three inscriptions have the triple combination of ←, ←, ←: the abovementioned WE-3 and SZ-15.1, as well as SZ-30. WE-3 has three incontestably correct Sanzeno Lambdas, and one Sanzeno Pi in the name laspa, which is also attested on SZ-1.1 and, incidentally, SZ-15.1. The dubious ← occurs in the name piθamnuale, as in BZ-9 (above). SZ-15.1 has one Sanzeno Lambda in laspa, two Sanzeno Pis in laspa and , and two instances of ← in and (the latter sequence with a highly questionable parallel in SZ-14 (with ←)). 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 (?) pumis, and twice anlauting → in obscure words.

Regarding solely its form, the letter ← might in Sanzeno context be considered either an influence from the Magrè alphabet (Lambda, alongside Sanzeno Pi; in SZ-87), or a remnant form of Pi (alongside Sanzeno Lambda; in BZ-9, CE-1.3 and SZ-22.1). While it might not be absurd to postulate such a double origin of the form, neither of these explanations accounts for the cases where it appears alongside both regular Sanzeno letter forms. The postulation of writing mistakes is not advisable, seeing as there are three independent cases. In WE-3, ← occurs only in the second line as opposed to ← in the first, which might be used as an argument for a scribal error, but in SZ-15.1 they occur almost successively; in SZ-30, the writer has switched back and forth, and that only in that part of the inscription which is left to us. Writing ← instead of ←, 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 ←. Sigma is the only letter which is sometimes turned both ways in the same document (so in WE-3). All of the three inscriptions with the triple combination are noticably well and neatly executed specimens of some length.

Note that among twelve instances of ←, two words appear twice: the names piθam(n)e and pipie. The former might etymologically belong with other individual names in piθ-, one of which is piθiave; one of the forms in question on SZ-30 might also belong with this group. Yet it is unlikely that ← vs. reflects a phonetic reality – while a surprising number of characters for labial stops seem to have been used by the Raeti, and the problematic case of NO-13 might connect ← with Φ5, the name piθam(n)e is attested with regular Magrè Pi in Serso.

In TIR, ← in Sanzeno context is consistently defined as Pi and transliterated accordingly, unless there is a reason to do otherwise. This includes fragmentary inscriptions which have not been discussed above (VN-2, VN-3, SZ-32), and a great number of inscriptoids from Sanzeno (most prominently the upi-inscriptions). The only exception so far is the la-group, which appears to have alternating with .

Bibliography

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.