SZ-14: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{inscription | {{inscription | ||
|reading=φelturiesi!φelituriesi eluku sletile / karataśna!kạṛataśna | |reading=φelturiesi!φelituriesi eluku sletile / karataśna!kạṛataśna | ||
|reading_original={{c|E}}{{c|L|L2}}{{c|I}}{{c|T|T3}}{{c|E}}{{c|L|L2}}{{c|S||d}}{{c|U|U2}}{{c|K}}{{c|U|U2}}{{c|L|L2}}{{c|E}}{{c|I}}{{c|S||d}}{{c|E}}{{c|I}}{{c|R}}{{c|U|U2}}{{c|T|T3}}{{c|I}}{{c|L|L2}}{{c|E}}{{c|Φ|Φ2}}<br>{{c|A}}{{c|N}}{{c|Ś}}{{c|A}}{{c|T|T3}}{{c|A}}{{c|R}}{{c|A}}{{c|K}} | |reading_original={{c|E}}{{c|L|L2}}{{c|I}}{{c|T|T3}}{{c|E}}{{c|L|L2}}{{c|S||d}}{{c|U|U2}}{{c|K}}{{c|U|U2}}{{c|L|L2}}{{c|E}}{{c|I}}{{c|S||d}}{{c|E}}{{c|I}}{{c|R}}{{c|U|U2}}{{c|T|T3}}{{c|I}}{{c|L|L2}}{{c|E}}{{c|Φ|Φ2}}<br>{{c|A||d}}{{c|N}}{{c|Ś}}{{c|A||d}}{{c|T|T3}}{{c|A||d}}{{c|R}}{{c|A||d}}{{c|K}} | ||
|reading_variant=φelituriesielukusletile / {{w|kara|kạṛa}}{{w|taśna}} | |reading_variant=φelituriesielukusletile / {{w|kara|kạṛa}}{{w|taśna}} | ||
|direction=sinistroverse | |direction=sinistroverse | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
|letter_number_min=22 | |letter_number_min=22 | ||
|letter_number_max=23 | |letter_number_max=23 | ||
|line_number=2 | |line_number=2 | ||
|script=North Italic script | |script=North Italic script | ||
| Line 29: | Line 28: | ||
Inscribed on the lower side (line 1) and on the upper side (line 2) of the bronze's base, to be read from the front; length 6.4 cm and 4.3 cm resp. The letters are well visible. The two sequences are highly likely to belong together as one inscription; our arrangement of the lines is based on the interpretation (see below); see {{bib|Schumacher 1998}}: 109. | Inscribed on the lower side (line 1) and on the upper side (line 2) of the bronze's base, to be read from the front; length 6.4 cm and 4.3 cm resp. The letters are well visible. The two sequences are highly likely to belong together as one inscription; our arrangement of the lines is based on the interpretation (see below); see {{bib|Schumacher 1998}}: 109. | ||
The reading of line 1 is unambiguous. The writer started out with slender and rather densely packed characters, then began to space them out more after {{c||E}} in {{w||eluku}} – maybe after deciding that the whole inscription couldn't be fit on the lower side anyway. In line 2, initial {{c||K}} is clear. Then, apparently a writer's mistake: two strokes, slightly inclined to the left, and another one inclined to the right, which has been struck before the second one, followed by a straight hasta considered to belong to the next letter {{c||R}}. The group between {{c||K}} and {{c||R}} can be and is usually interpreted as an {{c||A}} which had to be squeezed in, maybe after the hasta of {{c||R}} was struck prematurely. After {{c||R}}, {{c||A}}, then a comparatively broad gap (the letters tend to overlap, where that is possible ({{c||A}}{{c||R}}, {{c||A}}{{c||N}}), but do not in this instance), but an intentional space is unlikely in regard to line 1. {{c||A}}{{c||T3}}{{c||A}} are clear; then, four strokes which can be read {{c||Ś}} {{p||ś}} as well as {{c||I}}{{c||N}} {{p||n}}{{p||i}}, as the inscription displays both very small gaps between letters on the one hand and gaps of pretty much equal breadth between lines of one letter (tips of {{c||R}}, secure {{c||N}}) on the other hand. Final {{c||A}}{{c||N}} is unambiguous. After the last letter, two broad indentations on top and bottom of the line, filling the line between it and the horse's foreleg. | The reading of line 1 is unambiguous. The writer started out with slender and rather densely packed characters, then began to space them out more after {{c||E}} in {{w||eluku}} – maybe after deciding that the whole inscription couldn't be fit on the lower side anyway. In line 2, initial {{c||K}} is clear. Then, apparently a writer's mistake: two strokes, slightly inclined to the left, and another one inclined to the right, which has been struck before the second one, followed by a straight hasta considered to belong to the next letter {{c||R}}. The group between {{c||K}} and {{c||R}} can be and is usually interpreted as an {{c||A|d}} which had to be squeezed in, maybe after the hasta of {{c||R}} was struck prematurely. After {{c||R}}, {{c||A|d}}, then a comparatively broad gap (the letters tend to overlap, where that is possible ({{c||A|d}}{{c||R}}, {{c||A|d}}{{c||N}}), but do not in this instance), but an intentional space is unlikely in regard to line 1. {{c||A|d}}{{c||T3}}{{c||A|d}} are clear; then, four strokes which can be read {{c||Ś}} {{p||ś}} as well as {{c||I}}{{c||N}} {{p||n}}{{p||i}}, as the inscription displays both very small gaps between letters on the one hand and gaps of pretty much equal breadth between lines of one letter (tips of {{c||R}}, secure {{c||N}}) on the other hand. Final {{c||A|d}}{{c||N}} is unambiguous. After the last letter, two broad indentations on top and bottom of the line, filling the line between it and the horse's foreleg. | ||
Line 1 can be segmented {{w||φelturiesi|φelituriesi}} {{w||eluku}} {{w||sletile}}, i.e. two individual names in the pertinentive separated by a {{m||-ku|ku}}-form. The {{p||i}} in {{w||φelturiesi|φelituriesi}} is probably epenthetic (see the word page). Despite the lack of case correlation, the sequence in line 2 is best interpreted as the patronymic in {{m||-na}} on which the individual names in line 1 depend; so {{bib|Schumacher 1998}}: 109 f., cp. also 112 and [[index::SZ-9.1]] with (possibly) only the individual name appearing in the pertinentive. Note that the patronymic appears with {{m||-na}}, which – if {{bib|Schumacher 2004|Schumacher}}'s assumption that {{m||-nu}} is employed in patronymics for mixed couples (p. 296) is correct – contradicts the evidence of [[index::NO-3]], where the patronymic formed with {{m||-nu}} would determine {{w||φelturiesi|φel(i)turie}} to be a male name. Alternatively, on might separate an individual name {{w||kara}} from the associated patronymic {{w||taśna}}. The names in line 1 might then be without patronymic. A less likely alternative for line 2 is reading the second dubious point as {{p||n}}{{p||i}}, which results in a sequence {{w||tanina}}, which might be compared with {{w||taniun|tani(u)n}}. While this word is associated with the votive sphere, it does not occur on the Sanzeno bronzes except once on the atypical [[index::SZ-16 statuette|warrior statuette]]; also, what to do with final {{p||a}} – a genitive? | Line 1 can be segmented {{w||φelturiesi|φelituriesi}} {{w||eluku}} {{w||sletile}}, i.e. two individual names in the pertinentive separated by a {{m||-ku|ku}}-form. The {{p||i}} in {{w||φelturiesi|φelituriesi}} is probably epenthetic (see the word page). Despite the lack of case correlation, the sequence in line 2 is best interpreted as the patronymic in {{m||-na}} on which the individual names in line 1 depend; so {{bib|Schumacher 1998}}: 109 f., cp. also 112 and [[index::SZ-9.1]] with (possibly) only the individual name appearing in the pertinentive. Note that the patronymic appears with {{m||-na}}, which – if {{bib|Schumacher 2004|Schumacher}}'s assumption that {{m||-nu}} is employed in patronymics for mixed couples (p. 296) is correct – contradicts the evidence of [[index::NO-3]], where the patronymic formed with {{m||-nu}} would determine {{w||φelturiesi|φel(i)turie}} to be a male name. Alternatively, on might separate an individual name {{w||kara}} from the associated patronymic {{w||taśna}}. The names in line 1 might then be without patronymic. A less likely alternative for line 2 is reading the second dubious point as {{p||n}}{{p||i}}, which results in a sequence {{w||tanina}}, which might be compared with {{w||taniun|tani(u)n}}. While this word is associated with the votive sphere, it does not occur on the Sanzeno bronzes except once on the atypical [[index::SZ-16 statuette|warrior statuette]]; also, what to do with final {{p||a}} – a genitive? | ||
Revision as of 15:46, 11 May 2016
| Inscription | |
|---|---|
| Transliteration: | φelituriesielukusletile / kạṛataśna |
| Original script: |            
|
| Variant Reading: | φelituriesielukusletile / kạṛataśna |
|
| |
| Object: | SZ-14 bronze (bronze) |
| Position: | top, bottom, foot |
| Script: | North Italic script (Sanzeno alphabet) |
| Direction of writing: | sinistroverse |
| Letter height: | 0.9 cm |
| Number of letters: | 22 – 23 |
| Number of lines: | 2 |
| Craftsmanship: | embossed |
| Current condition: | complete |
| Date of inscription: | 4th–3rd centuries BC [from object] |
| Date derived from: | typology [from object] |
|
| |
| Language: | Raetic |
| Meaning: | 'of/by Φeliturie X-ed (and) Sleti, son(s)/daughter(s) of Karataś*' |
|
| |
| Alternative sigla: | IR 27 LIR SA-8 |
| Sources: | Schumacher 2004: 135 |
Images
 Object SZ-14 bronze with inscription SZ-14.
|
 Inscription SZ-14 - line 1.
|
 Inscription SZ-14 - line 2.
|
Commentary
First published in Pellegrini 1951: 315 (no. 14). Autopsied by TIR in October 2014.
Images in Pellegrini 1951: no. 14a (photo) and 131 (14a and b) (drawings), Ciurletti 1992: 30 (drawings), LIR (photos and drawings = IR).
Inscribed on the lower side (line 1) and on the upper side (line 2) of the bronze's base, to be read from the front; length 6.4 cm and 4.3 cm resp. The letters are well visible. The two sequences are highly likely to belong together as one inscription; our arrangement of the lines is based on the interpretation (see below); see Schumacher 1998: 109.
The reading of line 1 is unambiguous. The writer started out with slender and rather densely packed characters, then began to space them out more after in eluku – maybe after deciding that the whole inscription couldn't be fit on the lower side anyway. In line 2, initial is clear. Then, apparently a writer's mistake: two strokes, slightly inclined to the left, and another one inclined to the right, which has been struck before the second one, followed by a straight hasta considered to belong to the next letter . The group between and can be and is usually interpreted as an which had to be squeezed in, maybe after the hasta of was struck prematurely. After , , then a comparatively broad gap (the letters tend to overlap, where that is possible (, ), but do not in this instance), but an intentional space is unlikely in regard to line 1. are clear; then, four strokes which can be read ś as well as ni, as the inscription displays both very small gaps between letters on the one hand and gaps of pretty much equal breadth between lines of one letter (tips of , secure ) on the other hand. Final is unambiguous. After the last letter, two broad indentations on top and bottom of the line, filling the line between it and the horse's foreleg.
Line 1 can be segmented φelituriesi eluku sletile, i.e. two individual names in the pertinentive separated by a ku-form. The i in φelituriesi is probably epenthetic (see the word page). Despite the lack of case correlation, the sequence in line 2 is best interpreted as the patronymic in -na on which the individual names in line 1 depend; so Schumacher 1998: 109 f., cp. also 112 and SZ-9.1 with (possibly) only the individual name appearing in the pertinentive. Note that the patronymic appears with -na, which – if Schumacher's assumption that -nu is employed in patronymics for mixed couples (p. 296) is correct – contradicts the evidence of NO-3, where the patronymic formed with -nu would determine φel(i)turie to be a male name. Alternatively, on might separate an individual name kara from the associated patronymic taśna. The names in line 1 might then be without patronymic. A less likely alternative for line 2 is reading the second dubious point as ni, which results in a sequence tanina, which might be compared with tani(u)n. While this word is associated with the votive sphere, it does not occur on the Sanzeno bronzes except once on the atypical warrior statuette; also, what to do with final a – a genitive?
Further references: Pellegrini 1951: 325 ff., Mayr 1952: 176 (no. 14), Vetter 1954: 72 (no. 14), Tibiletti Bruno 1978: 224, Ciurletti 1992.
Bibliography
| Ciurletti 1992 | Gianni Ciurletti, "Omaggio al cavaliere di Sanzeno", in: Ingrid R. Metzger, Paul Gleirscher, Die Räter / I Reti [= Schriftenreihe der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Alpenländer, Neue Folge 4], Bozen: Athesia 1992, 27–39. |
|---|---|
| IR | Alberto Mancini, "Iscrizioni retiche", Studi Etruschi 43 (1975), 249–306. |
| 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) |
| Mayr 1952 | Karl M. Mayr, "Zu den Inschriften der Votive von Sanzeno", Der Schlern 26 (1952), 175–177. |
