-l(a): Difference between revisions

From Thesaurus Inscriptionum Raeticarum
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
Line 8: Line 8:
}}
}}
== Commentary ==
== Commentary ==
The attestations of the Raetic equivalent of the Etruscan genitive II ({{bib|Rix 1985}}: 126 f., {{bib|Wallace 2008}}: 46) are somewhat dubious. The existence of a genitive in {{p||l}} would be expected because of the use of the pertinentive II {{m||-le}} for which it historically provided the base. The genitive II poses some difficulties even in Etruscan. In Archaic Etruscan inscriptions, the ending appears as -{{p||a}} (examples in Wallace). Seeing as -{{p||l}} must be historical, being part of the pertinentive and ablative endings, and also appearing in Neo-Etruscan, its interim disappearance remains to be explained. Most probably, {{p||l}} was lost in this position (indicating a velar allophone), and restituted by comparison with the ablative and pertinentive endings. The second irregularity of the genitive II is its allomorph ''-al'' (with stems not originally ending in -{{p||a}}) in Neo-Etruscan. The context of this allomorph appears to be determined both phonotactically (stems in -{{p||l}}) and semantically (names); Rix (p. 126) assumes that {{p||a}} is a generalised stem vowel. Cp. the contexts of {{m||-le}} vs. ''-ale'' of the pertinentive II. The pre-apocope auslaut {{m||a}} can, like {{m||i}} in the genitive I {{m||-s(i)}}, be inferred from the form of the secondary endings of the pertinentive and ablative.
It is unclear what exactly is the Raetic equivalent of the Etruscan genitive II ({{bib|Rix 1985}}: 126 f., {{bib|Wallace 2008}}: 46). The existence of a genitive in *-{{p||l(a)}} would be expected because this must be the historical basis of the pertinentive II {{m||-le}}. The genitive II poses some difficulties even in Etruscan. In Archaic Etruscan inscriptions, the ending appears as -{{p||a}} (examples in Wallace). Since -{{p||l}} must be historical – after all, it is part of the pertinentive and ablative endings, and also appears in Neo-Etruscan its lack in Archaic Etruscan remains to be explained. Most probably, -{{p||l}} was lost in this position (which indicates a velar allophone), and then reintroduced in a form of paradigmatic levelling under the influence of the ablative and pertinentive endings. The second irregularity of the genitive II is its allomorph ''-al'' (with stems not originally ending in *-{{p||a}}) in Neo-Etruscan. The context of this allomorph appears to be determined both phonotactically (stems in -{{p||l}}) and semantically (names); Rix (p. 126) assumes that {{p||a}} is a generalised stem vowel. Cp. the contexts of {{m||-le}} vs. ''-ale'' of the pertinentive II. The pre-apocope auslaut *{{m||a}} can, like *{{m||i}} in the genitive I *{{m||-s(i)}}, be inferred from the form of its derivatives, the endings of the pertinentive and ablative.


While the genitive I {{m||-s(i)}} is very well documented in Raetic, no instances of the genitive II – in any form – can be securely identified. The Archaic Etruscan form -{{p||a}} can essentially be argued for any word ending in -{{p||a}} – this is in most cases reflected in TIR to simplify reviewing the cases. The only possible case of a genitive in ''-(a)l'' is {{w||kaial}} on [[index::PA-1]], somewhat modified by the word {{w||aχvil}} (with stem-final {{p||l}}) appearing in the same inscription.
While the genitive I *{{m||-s(i)}} is very well documented in Raetic, no instances of the genitive II – in any form – can be securely identified. The Archaic Etruscan form -{{p||a}} can essentially be argued for any word ending in -{{p||a}} – this is in most cases reflected in TIR to simplify reviewing the cases. The only possible case of a genitive in ''-(a)l'' is {{w||kaial}} on [[index::PA-1]], somewhat modified by the word {{w||aχvil}} (with stem-final {{p||l}}) appearing in the same inscription.


On the possibility of genitives originally being adjectives of possession, enabling them to serve as bases for cases (pertinentive, ablative), see  {{bib|Rix 1985}}: 127.
It is possible that genitives originally were adjectives of possession, which enabled them to serve as bases for cases (pertinentive, ablative), see  {{bib|Rix 1985}}: 127.
{{bibliography}}
{{bibliography}}

Latest revision as of 12:00, 18 September 2018

Morpheme
Language: Raetic, Etruscan
Type: inflectional
Meaning: 'of/for'
Function: genitive

Attestation: none


Commentary

It is unclear what exactly is the Raetic equivalent of the Etruscan genitive II (Rix 1985: 126 f., Wallace 2008: 46). The existence of a genitive in *-l(a) would be expected because this must be the historical basis of the pertinentive II -le. The genitive II poses some difficulties even in Etruscan. In Archaic Etruscan inscriptions, the ending appears as -a (examples in Wallace). Since -l must be historical – after all, it is part of the pertinentive and ablative endings, and also appears in Neo-Etruscan – its lack in Archaic Etruscan remains to be explained. Most probably, -l was lost in this position (which indicates a velar allophone), and then reintroduced in a form of paradigmatic levelling under the influence of the ablative and pertinentive endings. The second irregularity of the genitive II is its allomorph -al (with stems not originally ending in *-a) in Neo-Etruscan. The context of this allomorph appears to be determined both phonotactically (stems in -l) and semantically (names); Rix (p. 126) assumes that a is a generalised stem vowel. Cp. the contexts of -le vs. -ale of the pertinentive II. The pre-apocope auslaut *a can, like *i in the genitive I *-s(i), be inferred from the form of its derivatives, the endings of the pertinentive and ablative.

While the genitive I *-s(i) is very well documented in Raetic, no instances of the genitive II – in any form – can be securely identified. The Archaic Etruscan form -a can essentially be argued for any word ending in -a – this is in most cases reflected in TIR to simplify reviewing the cases. The only possible case of a genitive in -(a)l is kaial on PA-1, somewhat modified by the word aχvil (with stem-final l) appearing in the same inscription.

It is possible that genitives originally were adjectives of possession, which enabled them to serve as bases for cases (pertinentive, ablative), see Rix 1985: 127.

Bibliography