Re: Ancient writing systems

On May 29, 10:09 am, António Marques wrote:
Douglas G. Kilday wrote:
Aeneid 1:101
SCVTA VIRVM GALEASQVE ET FORTIA CORPORA VOLVIT

De Rerum Natura 5:1347
SED FACERE ID NON TAM VINCENDI SPE VOLVERVNT

The first requires [wolwit] 3sg. 'rolled'; the second requires
[wolue:runt] 3pl. 'wished', from which we can see that the 3sg.
'wished' is [woluit],

We can?

Yes. We have other examples showing the metrical equivalence of the
perfect stem with different personal endings. E.g.:

Aeneid 1:12
VRBS ANTIQVA FVIT TYRII TENVERE COLONI

Ib. 11:275
HAEC ADEO EX ILLO MIHI IAM SPERANDA FVERVNT

The perfect stem fu- can only be short.

Ib. 2:1
CONTICVERE OMNES INTENTIQVE ORA TENEBANT

Ib. 3:718
CONTICVIT TANDEM FACTOQVE HIC FINE QVIEVIT

The perfect stem conticu- can only be dactylic (long-short-short).

contrasting with [wolwit].

Not necessarily.

Counterexamples, please?

Aeneid 1:24
PRIMA QVOD AD TROIAM PRO CARIS GESSERAT ARGIS

Ib. 1:249
TROIA NUNC PLACIDA COMPOSTVS PACE QVIESCIT

Here the first requires [tro:jam] acc. sg. 'Troy'; the second requires
[tro:ia] neut. acc. pl. 'Trojan (arms)', contrasting with the nom. sg. [tro:ja] 'Troy'.

But does an acc [iam] enforce a nom [ia]?

All this is extremely flimsy, at best.

If you have a more robust analysis, I'm all ears.

.