0
Very good. Do you know any sites with ancient Celtic and Venetic inscriptions. Regarding the Venetic language, I found this:Originally Posted by Vesuvian Sky
The most interestig part:The Venetic dative plural of ŏ-stems in (o)bos (e.g. lo.u.derobo.s, Este 26 ‘to/with (the) chil- dren’), for which Latin has īs (or eis in castreis), Oscan has ois and Umbrian has es, er (e.g. vesicles ‘vasculis’), has direct parallels in Celtiberian aŕecoŕaticuboś (Luzaga inscription), Le- pontic uvltiauiopos (Prestino) and Gaulish atrebo aganntobo (Plumergat), as already mentioned by Euler (1993: 100f.).
Also, the Venetic genitive singular of ŏ-stems in i (i.e. ī) has direct correspondences in Celtic (cf. Euler 1993: 104), e.g. Gaulish Segomari, Dannotali (PN) as well as in Early Irish MAQI (Old Irish maic ‘filii’).
The Venetic accusative singular of the 1st person pronoun mego was patterned on the nom.sg. ego with parallels outside Italic (cf. Gothic ik, mik, Hittite uk, ammuk etc.), whereas Italic presumably preserved the old forms (cf. Lat. mē, tē, sē). Also, the reflexive form SSEL- BOISSELBOI has a parallel in Old High German selbselbo in Notker’s translation of psalms (77,54 and 4,9), whereas Lat. ipse has Italic correspondences in Oscan es(s)uf and Umbrian esuf ‘ipse’. Both of the innovations in Venetic are justifiable on language-internal grounds as natu- ral processes, and parallels with Germanic may, but need not, point to contacts.
In the realm of the verb, similarities with Celtic are quite significant in the s-preterite (e.g. Ven. vha.g.s.to ‘made’, dona.s.to ‘gave’, usually in the formula dona.s.to.dono.m. ‘gave (the) gift’), which has a correlate in the Celtic s-aorist (e.g. Old Irish 3rd sg. car (< *ā-s-t), 3rd pl. carsat (< *ā-s-nt), Ven. kara.n.mn.s. (cf. Lejeune 1974: 168), found also in Slavic. The occurrence of the s-preterite also with ā-conjugation verbs connects Venetic with Celtic, whereas Latin and Oscan have here s-perfects (e.g. Lat. dōnāvit, Oscan (d)uunated (cf. Euler 1993: 102).
For the Venetic medio-passive voice in r (e.g.. Ven. tole.r dono.m ‘brought a gift’), the clos- est parallel is probably the Celtic deponent in Vr. Concerning the Venetic use as either depo- nent or active forms, signalized by Untermann (1980: 292f.), there are also Celtic parallels, since, e.g., the Old Irish deponent flexion fell together with the active flexion in the imperfect indicative, past subjunctive and secondary future, in the 2nd person plural of all tenses and moods, and in the 3rd person singular imperative (cf. Thurneysen 1946: 328).6
According to Euler (1993: 105), it is morphology which gives the clearest answers con- cerning relations among languages. Our analysis presented above leads to the conclusion that Venetic is not only relatively archaic, but, on the basis of morphology, significantly similar to Celtic. On the phonological side, Venetic occupies an intermediate position, but the similarities with Italic may well have arisen as areal phenomena.
The question of Celtic and Venetic was raised by Eska & Wallace (1999) in connection with the Venetic inscription *Oderzo 7. Oderzo was a Venetic locality east of Padua; the inscription was found on a monument written in the Venetic alphabet. It consists of three names, the first two in the nominative, the third probably a genitive (relatively unusual for Venetic funerary inscriptions). The Oderzo 7 inscription runs as follows:
padros . pompeteguaios kaialoiso
By virtue of the absence of syllabic punctuation, this funerary inscription from the Venetic area was dated by Lejeune (1989: 71) as being not later than the middle of the fifth ct. BC. Eska & Wallace (1999) show that padros is in all likelihood a Gallicized borrowed name from Latin (possibly connected with the root for ‘4’, because of kw- > p and medial dr). Pompeteguaios is taken to be a fully Celtic epithet in the meaning of ‘quinquelingual’. Kaialoiso was analysed on the basis of the Lepontic suffix alo, employed in the formation of anthroponymic adjectives, and the ending iso as a Lepontic genitive of ŏ-stems. Thus padros betrays a Cisalpine Celtic sound substitution, pompeteguaios is broadly Celtic, kaialoiso is a Lepontic genitive, and the en- tire onomastic formula fits a well-known Celtic pattern (cf. Eska & Wallace 1999: 133).7
There were apparently areal contact phenomena between Latin and Celtic, and this in- scription, identified as Celtic, was found in the traditionally Venetic area, written in the Venetic script
Reply With Quote
).
Srbija
Bookmarks