Re: a few questions about Messapic language

Douglas G. Kilday skreiv:

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

[...]

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.

I did think of that, actually. My idea was that if the lip rounding was lost from /kW-/, the former back allophone of /k/ could have become an independent phoneme /q/. But this instance alone can't support the claim. One would have to find it in other words as well.

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'.

*res-?

[...]

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'; [...] 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. [...]

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.

Another thought; since Messapic has /a/ < /o/, <vas-> could be from the O-grade of the root *wes- "be, dwell". Or perhaps a borrowing from some dialect of Greek. Among the reflexes of *wes- is Greek <astu> "town", borrowed into Latin as the stem of <astus> "craft, skill (as practiced in a town)". Could <vasti> mean "of the town(s)" and <vastima> be some derivation of "town" or "trade", say, "mayorate" or "auldermanship"?

--
Trond Engen
- was here
.