Re: a few questions about Messapic language

Trond Engen wrote:
Douglas G. Kilday skreiv:
Trond Engen wrote:
Douglas G. Kilday skreiv:
Trond Engen wrote:
Douglas G. Kilday skreiv:

klohizis thotoria mar[z]a pidogas tei basta veinan [v]aran
in daranthoa vasti staboos khonedonas dakhtas sivaanetos
inthi tri[g]onokhoa staboos khonetthihi dazimaihi beil[l]ihi
inthi re[ll]orikhoa kazareihi khonetthihi [o]toeihithi dazohonnihi
inthi vastima dakhtas kratheheihi
inthi ardannoa po[ll]onnihiai marnaihi

[...]

Playing with my Latin dictionary, could <veinan> be "payment" or
"devotion" and <aran> be "soil" or "shrine"? Or some related verbs, of
course.

For the moment, I prefer to retain my interpretation of <veinan> as
acc. sg. 'sacred', from *weig-nam (yes, the *gn > *ñ > n is ad hoc)
and <varan> as acc. sg. 'enclosure', from *woram (the apograph makes a
simple <aran> very unlikely, though most scholars agree on it; I
consider that to be another forced reading).  Above all, 'sacred
enclosure' makes good sense in this type of inscription.

[...]

More along your lines, then:
"Hear ye! The-people of-the-land made here to-Basta for-devotion
shrine.
In Daranthoa ..."

Possibly.  If you can etymologize <veinan> without any ad-hoc
lenition, it might be preferable to my version.

I didn't have a better suggestion -- I merely reinterpreted the "sacred"
part as related to Lat. <Venus>. But it was wrong. The "worship" word
wouldn't give a diphtong.

I do see an odd chance, though. AFAIK, your *weig- is also known as
*weik- "dedicate, make sacred" (but I suppose you prefer *weig- for the
sake of the lenition). If this and the other roots *weik- ("clan",
"bind" and "conquer") are essentially the same extension of *wei- "turn,
twist", i.e. *wei-k- with a core meaning "bind" extended to "contend"
and "fence in", maybe Messapic used another extenson *wei-n- and
<veinan> is from *wein-am or something.

Pokorny has an alternating root, *weig-/*weik-, with *weig- required
in Italic to explain the Umbrian reflex, and *weik- in Germanic. As
you know, I do not like positing wishy-washy wanky-schwanky
consonantism in PIE roots. I prefer to regard *weig- as the original
root, with Germanic extracting a new form of the root from derivatives
of *weig-to-, *weig-tm.mo- and the like which underwent internal
sandhi to *weik-to, *weik-tm.mo- (Latin <victima>). The extraction
could have taken place before or after the consonant-shift (*weik- for
*weig-, or *weih- for *weik-).

I suppose *wei-n- as an extension of *wei- is possible, as is an
adjective *wei-no- formed directly from *wei-. Too many
possibilities, not enough context!

[...]
The word <vasti> is problematic.  The PID authors take it for a
neuter noun.  I would like to read it as a numeral adverb
(indicating which time in the consulship) but cannot justify that.

That the names are both a reference to the year of the inauguration
and a tribute to the principals? Or a simple list by rank? (Is there
any way you could get <rellorikhoa> to be "fourth ..."? Seems
far-fetched: If the supposed rho is a rare qoppa and the ligature
really is a double chi it would read <qekhkhorikhoa>, and I don't
dare thinking of the sound laws we'd have to postulate.)

Many scholars do read double chi here, but I don't see how it could
have arisen.  On the other hand only the second apparent double chi,
near the end of the insc., can be corrected into double lambda with
certainty, making the gen. <pollonnihi> of a surname with a
well-known Messapic onomastic element.  The word in section 4 could
be <rettorikhoa>, for all I know.  I wish I could etymologize the
darned thing.

I did offer you a far-fetched qoppa for rho to achieve <qe..orikhoa>
"four-something", following <tri[g]onokhoa> "three-something". For that
purpose, <tt> is good and would even make <qettorikhoa> look regular.
But that isn't enough to turn the <r> into a <q>.

The problem with qoppa is that we expect it to be used, if at all, to
denote the back allophone of /k/, as in archaic Greek and South
Etruscan alphabets, and not to precede /e/. Also, inherited /o/
should have become /a/, so it is very difficult to read 'four-
something' here.

Could <rettor> and <tr[g]on> be calques of -- or parallel formations to
-- the Roman titles <praetor> and <tribun>?

Possibly. I hadn't thought of the first one. Messapic does not, to
my knowledge, lose /p/, but that does not rule out an unrelated native
prefix, or perhaps a different word used to render 'one who goes
before'. In the second, Latin <tribus> 'tribe' and Umbrian <trifu>,
<trifo> acc., <trefi-per> abl. 'id.' require *tri-bhu-, which Messapic
should have inherited as *tribu-, like Latin. The apograph shows a
vertical line with a dot to its right about halfway up. The
transcription of 1558 has iota, neglecting the dot. The letter has
been taken as gamma (with uncertainty) apparently since Deecke. But
the dot might just as well be the remnant of beta as gamma, now that I
look again at the apograph. If so, we can read <tri[b]onokhoa> here,
and plausibly take it to be the dat. sg. of a word equivalent to Lat.
<tribu:na:tus>, formed either after *tribonas borrowed from Lat.
<tribu:nus>, or based on a native *tribos 'tribe' cognate with Lat.
<tribus>.

Or it might  be a verb, since Messapic verbal morphology is so
poorly understood.   I can't explain the relation of <vasti> to
<vastima> under either hypothesis.

If related to Latin <vastus>, <vasti> could simply be (a form of)
"great" and <vastima> "the biggest" (-> "the wider region"?).

I hadn't thought of that.  During the past week I mulled over
Deecke's connection of <vasti> to Latin <vas>, gen. <vadis> 'pledge';
if (as many scholars, including Whatmough, presume) <vasti> is a
neuter noun, the sense becomes 'pledge', 'guarantee', or the like.  
Now, in my current interpretation, <vasti> is best taken as the dat.
sg. of an adj. modifying <daranthoa>, a collective noun 'consulate'
or the like.  Two other rather mutilated inscc. also appear to
contain <daranthoa>.  We know that Basta was (and still is) a small
village, rating a brief mention by Pliny, too small to issue its own
coinage.  But the city of Uria, considered the capital of Messapia,
issued coinage marked in Messapic <Orra>.  Probably the magistrates
mentioned in the Vaste text were from Uria (or less likely, in my
opinion, from Uxentum).  Presumably their city acquired hegemony over
its neighbors as Rome did, by concluding treaties (foedera) with
other communities.  Thus a reasonable meaning for the /i/-stemmed
adj. *vastis, dat. sg. <vasti>, is 'federated', 'federal', or the
like, indicating that the daranthoa in question was the supreme
daranthoa of Messapia, its two officers being the highest magistrates
of the land.

Justifying the morphology is somewhat involved. [...]

On the semantic side, we find some West Germanic reflexes of *wadh-
moving naturally from 'pledge' to 'contract' or 'treaty' or the like,
Old English <weddian> 'to make a contract, promise, marry', Old
Frisian <wed> 'contract, promise, pledge'.  Thus it is not
unreasonable to suppose that PIE *wadh-sti- became in Messapic
*va(d)sti- 'standing in a contract, standing under a treaty,
pertaining to a federation, federal'.

Or "sworn", denoting the status of its holders.

Yes. So perhaps the dat. sg. <vasti> is to be assumed with the other
offices.

This adjective could also have been substantivized as 'federation'
itself, leading to the abstract noun <vastima>.

Or "being sworn" -- "swornness".

Possibly that noun originally meant 'leadership of the federation',
its holder ruling over Messapia (or part of it), but then deposed by
a Roman-style revolution which set up annual pairs of public
officials, keeping the <vastima> only for ceremonial purposes, as the
Romans kept the office of rex sacrificulus.

Or simply "service" or "term" for an office not known by a derived noun.
Perhaps as the generic term for office? Could that explain the different
form?

It must have been some _specific_ office. A non-violent alternative
to the revolutionary scenario above is that it was the magistracy
responsible for contract law, like the Etruscan <zilch cechaneri>.
But again there are too many possibilities and not enough context.

But again this is veering into idle speculation, as I have no
evidence for the history of Messapic political institutions.  At any
rate, the connection between <vasti> and <vastima> is no longer
inscrutable.

As for <daranthoa>, my guess is that it is the collective of some
derivative of the zero-grade of *dher- 'to hold firmly, support', but
I do not have the detailed morphology worked out, and other
explanations are possible.

Is Messapic rhotic? Could it be a compound of e.g *dhe:s- "divine, holy,
celebrated (or the like)", known from lat. <feria> etc.? The second
element could be made from *ant- "before". "Feast-leadership"?
"God-spokesmanship"? And in that case, does your <anthos> look like the
singular of the second part of this compound?

Kretschmer looked at place-names and determined that Messapic neither
rhotacized -s- to -r-, nor reduced it to -h-. If <anthos> is the
correct reading in that other inscription, I consider it likely
borrowed from Greek and not related to the -anth- in <daranthoa>,
which is possibly participial, reflecting *-n.t-. The personal name
[An]thidas is known from a Doric inscription, so an *Anthous is at
least possible.

For the other offices, so far I have nothing.  This is my revised
interpretation of the Vaste text:

klohizis thotoria mar[z]a pidogas tei basta veinan [v]aran
'Hear ye!  The citizenry of the land constructed here, to Basta, the
sacred enclosure

in daranthoa vasti staboos khonedonas dakhtas sivaanetos
in the federal consulate(?) of Staboas Khonedo (and) Dakhta Sivaanetas

in the sworn priesthood of ...

inthi tri[g]onokhoa staboos khonetthihi dazimaihi beil[l]ihi
and in the trigonokhate(?) of Staboas Khonetthes (and) Dazimas Beilles

and in the tribunate of ...

Yes. It works better with [b] not [g].

inthi re[ll]orikhoa kazareihi khonetthihi [o]toeihithi dazohonnihi
and in the rellorikhate(?) of Kazareas Khonetthes and Otoeas
Dazohonnes

and in the praetorate of ...

inthi vastima dakhtas kratheheihi
and in the federal presidency(?) of Dakhta Kratheheas

and in the term of ...

inthi ardannoa po[ll]onnihi aimarnaihi ...
and in the ardannate(?) of Pollonnes Aimarnas [and ...]'

and in the shrine-givership (?) of ...

Perhaps. What I need to do is look through Hesychius for peculiar
Tarentine and Heraclean words that could be Messapic loans. Someone
has probably done this already, but I would have to be very lucky to
find a reference to such work on-line.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: a few questions about Messapic language
    ... in daranthoa vasti staboos khonedonas dakhtas sivaanetos ... The word <vasti> is problematic. ... I can't explain the relation of to <vastima> under either hypothesis. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: a few questions about Messapic language
    ... in daranthoa vasti staboos khonedonas dakhtas sivaanetos ... inthi vastima dakhtas kratheheihi ... like, indicating that the daranthoa in question was the supreme daranthoa of Messapia, its two officers being the highest magistrates of the land. ... its holder ruling over Messapia, but then deposed by a Roman-style revolution which set up annual pairs of public officials, keeping the only for ceremonial purposes, as the Romans kept the office of rex sacrificulus. ...
    (sci.lang)
Quantcast