Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros103La phonologie et la morphologieThe o-stem genitive singular: Con...

La phonologie et la morphologie

The o-stem genitive singular: Considerations from the perspective of the Latin dialects

The o-stem genitive singular: Considerations from the perspective of the Latin dialects
Luca Rigobianco

Résumés

L’article traite de la question du génitif singulier des thèmes en -o- à partir des données fournies par les dialectes latins dans un cadre qui prend en compte la comparaison des données et des réflexions générales sur le génitif. Je montre, en particulier, que -osio (dialecte de Satricum), -oio (ardéatin) et -oeo (romain) seraient, tout comme d’autres désinences documentées dans d’autres langues indo-européennes, des formations qui peuvent être ramenées à deux matrices abstraites : *-o/es- ± -jo et *-o/e-(i)- ± -so/jo. Ensuite je formule quelques observations sur la différence sémantique et/ou syntaxique originelle entre ces désinences et < *-j(e/o)H2.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

1. Introduction1

  • 1 Material for this article is taken from a broader study on the genitive (Rigobianco, in prep.) wher (...)
  • 2 On the linguistic position of Faliscan, see Bakkum, 2009, p. 341-360.
  • 3 See, e.g., the inscription Bakkum 470.
  • 4 The most recent expression of this hypothesis, as far as I am aware, is in Mańczak, 2002.

1The question of the o-stem genitive singular (henceforth GS) is broad and complex, involving key issues such as the genesis of the endings documented in the various IE languages, the relationship between them – within each language and in broader comparison – and, beyond that, the very definition of genitive. From the historiographical point of view, there is a gradual increase in the documentation, depending on the area and time period. This increase has on occasion led to the consideration of the question from perspectives affected each time by the new acquisitions, which have generally, et pour cause, tended to incorporate the new data in a predetermined framework. Giving the enormity of the subject, I will focus on Latin dialects, within which I also include Faliscan,2 in a framework which takes account of the comparative data from other IE languages as well as more general reflections on the morphosyntactical/ - semantic functions of the genitive. The initial spark for this focus was the publication in 2009 of a presumed Faliscan inscription dating from the 7th c. BC which has a form titi (Biella, 2009) analysable as the GS in -i [ī] of a o(/e)-stem tito-. In line with a general principle, of particular relevance in the context of Restsprachen, the novum insists on a review or a refounding of the notum: in keeping with this principle, my intention was to take up the issue of the o-stem GS taking into account the new inscription. Recently Praust (2015) has shown the identification of titi to be the result of a misunderstanding: the inscription reads 44, identification number, according to Pasqui’s catalogue, of the tomb where the piece was found, scratched on after the discovery in the modern age. The exclusion of titi from the dossier does not change the overall picture. The hypothesis of an origin of -i, first noted in the 4th c. BC,3 from -osio,4 attested in the early stages of writing (7th-6th c. BC; see below), must be excluded on other grounds, in primis 68

  • 5 See, e.g., Leumann, 1977, p. 413. Mańczak 2002’s is an ad hoc hypothesis (“développement phonétique (...)

2for comparative reasons based on the o-stem GS ending -i in Celtic, secondarily because of the implausibility of the phonetic evolution involved.5 Beyond this, despite the temporal distance between the occurrences of -i and of -osio respectively, there is still the evidence of the coexistence of the two endings within the same linguistic tradition, the terms of which are to be clarified (see below). Although I have rejected the form titi, I have nonetheless maintained the focus on the Latin dialects, as it fits in with a particular reconstructive approach (see Prosdocimi, 1978).

2. The o-stem GS in the Latin dialects: data

3The Latin dialects provide numerous forms which can be analysed with varying degrees of certainty as o-stem GS endings. Apart from -i, found in Roman, Faliscan and Praenestine, we also find:

  • 6 For a possible attestation of -osio in Roman, see the article by Burroni and Brezigia (this volume)
  • 7 Bakkum 3. I do not consider here the various reading and segmentation possibilities of the first pa (...)
  • 8 Bakkum 7.
  • 9 Bakkum 467. On the Faliscan character of the inscription, see Bakkum, 2009, p. 577-578.
  • 10 Bakkum 197. The integration cauioṣị[o] (CIE 8286) is considered implausible by Bakkum, 2009, p. 48 (...)
  • 11 The editio princeps of the lapis Satricanus is in Stibbe et al. 1980. The linguistic attribution of (...)
  • 12 Franchi De Bellis, 2005, p. 78-83.
  • 13 Bakkum 40.
  • 14 Lejeune, 1989, p. 66.
  • 15 Bakkum 483.
  • 16 See Bakkum, 2009, p. 586-587.
  • 17 Quint. Inst. 1, 5, 12 (Enn. Ann. 126).
  • 18 Lucil. 25.
  • 19 Quint. Inst. 8, 6, 33 (attributed by Quintilian to Ovid).

-osio6

(?)uotenosio7

7th/6th c. BC

Faliscan

kaisiosio8

6th c. BC

Faliscan

aịmiosiọ9

6th c. BC

Faliscan (?)

cauios*[---]̣ (?)10

4th c. BC (?)

Faliscan

popliosio valesiosio11

6th/5th c. BC

Satrican (?)

-io

taseio12

5th/4th c. BC

Praenestine

-oi

cicoi13

4th c. BC14

Faliscan

-oio

titoio15

3rd c. BC

Ardeatine (?)16

-oeo

Me(t)tioeo Fufetioeo17

Early 2nd c. BC

Roman

alochoeo18

2nd c. BC

Roman

vinoeo bonoeo19

late 1st c. BC/early 1st c. AD

Roman

4Even if some of these forms were to be removed from the dossier, there would be still a considerable polymorphy: this is a factum and, as such, the reasons need to be researched, maybe in the evolution of the o-stem GS between forms and functions.

5I take as my starting point the Praenestine form taseio, occurring in an inscription placed next to a figure on a mirror:

  • 20 The alternative reading tasei.filios seems contrary to the evidence: see Franchi De Bellis, 2005, p (...)

6 taseos luqorcos pilonicos . taseiofilios20

  • 21 Except that in the Sabellic name of the Dioscuri (Vetter 202 iouiois.puclois; Vetter 204 [i]ouies.p (...)

7Prosdocimi (2011, p. 345) has suggested the strong probability of taseio being a GS in -io, primarily on account of the appositional filios ‘son’, which normally goes with the genitive;21 furthermore, the preservation of -s in final position in the inscriptions on the mirror makes it improbable that it is cancelled out in taseio and consequently the analysis of taseio as a patronymic adjective in -io-*taseios. taseio would be the GS of taseos: the phonetic interpretation of the written form taseos and its corresponding morphological analysis are not obvious (see Prosdocimi, 2011, p. 337-40), however the juxtaposition of taseos and taseio makes it clear that taseio, if GS, is a GS in -io from a stem taseo-, with -io replacing -o-, which, therefore, should be taken as a “thematic” -o-.

  • 22 See the references in Bakkum, 2009, p. 587, to be integrated with Bolelli, 1943, p. 56; Campanile, (...)

8The recognition of a GS morpheme -io, in this case on the basis of stand-alone evidence, does have parallels. A bowl from Ardea bears the inscription titoio: the form has been analysed as a GS in -oio < -osio or in -io, or as a nominative (titoio(s) < Etruscan tituie; adjective in -jo- titoio(s/m)).22 The Praenestine form taseio would appear to support the hypothesis of an analysis of titoio as a GS in -io: the anomalous behaviour of the morpheme -io, which in *tase-Ø-io replaces the “thematic” vowel, in *tit-o-io is added to it, remains to be explained. This is probably a dissimilarity based on different and conflicting structural principles: this may be compared to that between the Faliscan forms cicoi (Bakkum 40) almost certainly a GS (<*cic-o-i, Bakkum, 2009, p. 131-2) and letei (<*lete-Ø-ī, Bakkum 470), though the chronological and systemic levels involved are at all different; specifically, cicoi is probably an analogical formation in the historical period (Bakkum, 2009, p. 131-2).

  • 23 See Devine, 1970, p. 12-14. For my part, I point out that Colson, 1924, p. 55 acknowledges that “th (...)

9GS -oio has a probable parallel in the GS ending -oeo presumably occurring in Roman. The recognition of this ending is based on the forms Met(t)tioeo Fufetioeo, vinoeo bonoeo and alochoeo; nonetheless, Met(t)tioeo Fufetioeo and vinoeo bonoeo are uncertain readings as well as citations removed from their original context, so the existence of an ending -oeo and its identification as a GS have been questioned. I will leave to one side the ecdotic issue23 and will here simply note that the recognition of a Grecism – evident in the case of (Ixiones) alochoeo < (’Ἰξιονίης) ἀλόχοιο (Hom. Il. 317) – does not exclude the hypothesis of a Latin form as well: the retention of a Grecism -oeo in a Roman text could imply a degree, however minimal, of compatibility within the system of the target language, because of a residual pre-existing form (see Prosdocimi, 2011, p. 343-4).

  • 24 See, e.g., Leumann, 1977, p. 477 and Meiser, 1998, p. 117.
  • 25 Roman -ĭo- for -jo- is a matter of syllabicity (lex Lindeman and lex Sievers; see Prosdocimi, 1987)
  • 26 See Leumann, 1977, p. 126, and Meiser, 1998, p. 91.
  • 27 I thank professor Adamik for this remark.

10The recurring hypothesis that -oio/-oeo is the phonetic outcome of -osio24 is not convincing. The reconstruction of a change -s > Ø / V_V is based entirely on an attempt at etymology for the forms quoius > cuius, huius, eius starting from -osio(-), which, with obvious circularity, presupposes the same phenomenon, as shown definitively by Untermann (2003). That said, the ending -oio, if it is to be interpreted phonetically as [ojo]/[oĭo],25 poses a morphonological problem: indeed, the Latin dialects have been shown to exhibit a prehistoric loss of intervocalic [j].26 On that basis, a form titoio may be justified on these hypotheses: that the [j] of -io is kept through a morphological caesura which inhibits the phonetic development; that -io is from *-ijo (*tito-i-jo), where -i- could be the same morpheme appearing in the Lepontic GS ending -oiso <*-o-i-so (rather than phonetically derived from *osjo; see below). In this case, the preservation of the diphthong -oi- in the 3rd c. BC would be unexpected,27 unless we postulate a resyllabification on a prosodic basis (“maximal onset principle”) and/or paradigmatic ti.toi.o> ti.to.jo.

11On the basis of the possibilities offered by a purely formal comparison, we may postulate that the GS morpheme -io in titoio is the same -io which occurs in the GS ending -osio: thus, the two endings would share the “thematic” vowel and the morpheme -io. On the other hand, taseio < *tase-Ø-io stands out as the only form distinguished by the absence of “thematic” -o- alongside the forms in -i (leaving aside any secondary forms such as cicoi). This could indicate a distinct status in terms of formation in relation to the evolution of the system, to which I shall return later.

3. Latin -osio, -oio/-oeo < *-o/es- ± -jo, *-o/e-(i)- ± -so/-jo

12The data exhibited by the Latin dialects may be interpreted as indicative of a re-structuring which might and did have a number of different outcomes but in accordance with the same structural principles and the same morphological “material”, both hereditary. I believe this observation is supported by the data manifested in other IE languages, apodictically noted below, even in cases where I depart from the mainstream interpretation, deferring discussion of the individual forms to the book in preparation (Rigobianco, in prep.):

131.

  • 28 The Celtiberian GS in -o has been interpreted as an outcome of *-ōd or *-os, or even as an outcome (...)
  • 29 Mycenaean shows a GS ending -o alternative to -o-jo: for the status quaestionis and updated referen (...)
  • 30 The derivation of -ου from a pronominal ending *-oso (Brugmann, 1911, p. 161-3) instead of from *-o (...)
  • 31 According to the common view, -is is the outcome of a pronominal ending *-eso (Brugmann, 1911, p. 1 (...)
  • 32 I follow Prosdocimi’s 2002 hypothesis, according to which -es and -eis are concurrent GS endings de (...)
  • 33 Gambari and Colonna, 1988. GS -oiso also occurs in an inscription from Oderzo of uncertain linguist (...)
  • 34 Greek -οιο, commonly connected to *-osjo (Brugmann, 1911, p. 161-3), could theoretically be the ref (...)
  • 35 See lastly Ciceri, 2012-2013, and, conversely, De Simone, 2013, p. 57-63.
  • 36 This ending, a homophone of the nominative ending of the same stems, has been explained on the basi (...)

*-o

Celtiberian -o;28 Mycenaean -o29 (?)

*-o

-so

Greek -ου30

*-e-

-so

Germanic -is;31 Sabellic -es32 (?)

*-o-

-i-

-so

Lepontic -oiso;33 Greek -οιο34 (?); Messapian -aihi35 (?)

*-e-

-i-

-so (?)

Sabellic -eis (?)

*-o-

(-i-)

-jo

Latin -oio/-oeo

2.

*-os

Hittite -as;36 Mycenaean -o (?)

*-os

-jo

Sanskrit -asya;37 Latin -osio; Messapian -aihi (?); etc.

14The data being examined would appear to derive from two matrices, which are to be understood not as reconstructions of original morphemes but rather abstractions starting from the very data:

15Keeping to the forms, the restructuring of the o-stem GS appears essentially based on the “pure” stem (*-o) or on a flexed form in *-os, in both cases with the possible conglutination of *-so and *-jo. The various forms documented in the different IE languages would be the result of the interference of such possibilities of morphological expression of the GS with the “apophony” (-o-/-e-) plus the “thematicity” (-o/e- ~ -oi/ei-, with -i- juxtaposed to -o/e- as a phenomenon which, for whatever reason, has left traces in a number of IE languages, see Wackernagel, 1930, p. 89-90). Within a perspective which considers the evolution of IE and IE languages over time, space and society, polymorphism dissolves, as previously stated, in the fulfilment of potentialities founded on shared morphological “material” and structural principles.

  • 37 In this regard we should note, among others, Rix 1998’s suggestion to analyse *-jo in *-osjo and *- (...)
  • 38 See, among the others, Beekes, 1985, p. 172-95, and Villar, 1995, p. 215-50.

16The outline given here leaves many questions unanswered, which, although distinct, should nonetheless be placed in a unitary framework. These questions include: the status of Celtiberian (and Mycenaean?) *-o#; the origin of GS *-os and its possible relationship with *-os of nominative singular of the same stems and *-os of GS of consonant stems;37 function(s) of *-so/*-jo and the reason for their conglutination.38

  • 39 On the identification of the GS ending in other traditions (Venetic, Tocharian, and Albanian), s (...)

17The situation is complicated by , attested as an o-stem GS morpheme (and originally only in these stems), in the Latin and Celtic linguistic traditions.39

4. versus -osio, -oio/-oeo: Latin data and reconstruction

  • 40 See Thurneysen, 1909, p. 174 and Lambert, 1994, p. 51.
  • 41 According to some only of the vr̥ kī-Flexion: see Pairotti, 2014, p. 75-9, for the bibliography.
  • 42 On *j(e/o)H2 and its outcomes see Prosdocimi, 2008. On the derivation of GS from instrumental *- (...)
  • 43 On the hypothesis of a functional difference between and -osio in Latin, see Untermann, 1964, De (...)
  • 44 On genitive and adjective see, among the others, Wackernagel, 1908, Benveniste, 1960 and, in a synt (...)
  • 45R express some contextually determined relation” (Higginbotham, 1983, p. 397-8).

18GS in the declension of o-stems in Latin and Celtic40 is manifestly extra-paradigmatic and, therefore, at least as ancient as the “thematic” GS forms. This ending could be brought back to a derivational morpheme *-j(e/o)H2, which would generate, among other forms, -ī- in the derivation from o-stems in Latin and -i(-) of feminine in Sanskrit41 and Celtic; based on that data, a basic semantic notion of “inherence” could be reconstructed for *-j(e/o)H2.42 The evidence of the coexistence of with -osio, -oio/-oeo within the Latin linguistic tradition and with -oiso, -o in Celtic raises the questions of the relationship between these endings and the possible extension of one ending to the detriment of the other. These issues are likely to be framed within the assumption that and the “thematic” forms had features which were originally distinct but with the potential for interference.43 The process would be comparable, mutatis mutandis, with the one generating the expansion of the morphology of the ablative singular to the detriment of that of the GS in the declension of the o-stems in Balto-Slavic, likely deriving from the expression of semantic functions for which there is interference between “genitive” and “ablative”. In the competition between and the “thematic” forms, semantic and/ or syntactic factors could be included. More precisely, it is conceivable that such competition was influenced by the adjectival nature44 and/or the semantics of “inherence” of in contrast to the status of the “thematic” forms as case morphemes for adnominality, namely the relationship of syntactic dependence between two nouns, secondarily interpretable in terms of semantics (“relation R”).45 On the other hand, an original different categorial status of -i and the “thematic” GS apparently crystallized in the known rule of the standard Roman which opposes nihil boni to the unacceptability of **nihil dulcis (Hofmann-Szantyr, 1965, p. 57). This original categorial status, different but with the potential for interference, would have raised the possibility of (re) functionalisations within the different varieties in time, space and society.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Bader, F., 1991, Problématique du génitif thématique sigmatique. I. Substituts sigmatiques en *-sy(o), *-so, BSL 86, p. 89-157.

Bader, F., 1992, Problématique du génitif thématique. II. Substituts non sigmatiques (Type lat. ), BSL 87, p. 71-119.

Bakkum, G., 2009, The Latin Dialect of the Ager Faliscus, Amsterdam.

Beekes, R., 1985, The Origins of the Indo-European Nominal Inflection, Innsbruck.

Benveniste, E., 1960, Génitif et adjectif en latin, StudClas 2, p. 65-67.

Biella, M. C., 2009, Una nuova iscrizione falisca di vii sec. a.C.: un sostantivo con tema in -o e genitivo in -i, ZPE 168, p. 273-277.

Bolelli, T., 1943, Considerazioni sul genitivo latino della seconda declinazione, RAL 4, p. 49-60.

Brugmann, K., 1911, Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen, II, 2, Strasbourg (2nd edition).

Campanile, E., 1961, Elementi dialettali nella fonetica e nella morfologia del latino, SSL 1, p. 1-21.

Ciceri, M., 2012-2013, Il genitivo messapico in -ihi, Acme 65, p. 71-102.

Colson, F. H., 1924, M. Fabii Quintiliani Institutionis Oratoriae liber I, Cambridge.

Devine, A. M., 1970, The Latin Thematic Genitive Singular, Oxford.

De Simone, C., 2013, Jürgen Untermann gewidmet. 46 Jahre nach dem Erscheinen des Beitrages “Die messapischen Personennamen” (1964), in J. L. García Ramon, D. Kölligan, and P. Poccetti (eds.), Sprachkontakt und Kulturkontakt im Alten Italien, Pisa/Rome, p. 53-64.

Eska, J. F., 1995, Observation on the thematic genitive singular in Lepontic and HispanoCeltic, in J. F. Eska, R. G. Gruffyd, and N. Jacobs (eds.), Hispano-Gallo-Brittonica, Cardiff, p. 33-46.

Eska, J. F. and Wallace, R. E., 1999, The linguistic milieu of *Oderzo 7, HSF 112, p. 122-136.

Franchi De Bellis, A., 2005, Iscrizioni prenestine su specchi e ciste, Alessandria.

Gambari, F. M. and Colonna, G., 1988, Il bicchiere con iscrizione arcaica da Castelletto Ticino, SE 54, p. 119-164.

Giorgi, A. and Longobardi, G., 1991, The Syntax of Noun Phrases, Cambridge.

Higginbotham, J., 1983, Logical form, binding, and nominals, Linguistic Inquiry 14, p. 395-420.

Hofmann, J. and Szantyr, A., 1965, Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik, Munich.

Kozlovski, I., 1887, Sur l’origine du génitif singulier, Internationale Zeitschrift für allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft 3, 1887, p. 286.

Lambert, P.-Y., 1994, La langue gauloise, Paris.

Lejeune, M., 1989, Notes de linguistique italique. XXXIX. Génitifs en -osio et génitifs en , REL 67, p. 63-77.

Leumann, M., 1977 Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre, Munich.

Lucchesi, E. and Magni, E., 2002, Vecchie e nuove (in)certezze sul Lapis Satricanus, Pisa. Mańczak, W., 2002, Génitif singulier des thèmes en -o en indo-européen, HSF 115, p. 186-189.

Meiser, G., 1998, Historische Laut- und Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache, Darmstadt.

Must, G., 1953, The genitive singular of o-stems in Germanic, Language 29, p. 218-221.

Orlandini, A. and Poccetti, P., 2014, -i and -osio genitives in archaic Latin: Different markers for different possession types?, Journal of Latin linguistics 12, p. 101-121.

Pairotti, G., 2014, Il genitivo tematico latino in : problemi comparativi e ricostruttivi, SSL 52, p. 67-100.

Pedersen, H., 1933, Études lituaniennes, Copenhagen.

Pierini, R., 2011, Ricerche sulla desinenza del genitivo singolare tematico in Lineare B, Bologna.

Planta, R., 1892-1897, Grammatik der oskisch-umbrischen Dialekte, Strassbourg.

Praust, K., 2015, Archaic Faliscan TITI – An obituary notice, ZPE 194, p 302-306. Prosdocimi, A. L., 1978, Diacronia: ricostruzione. Genera proxima e differentia specifica, L&S 13, p. 335-371.

Prosdocimi, A. L., 1984, Sull’iscrizione di Satricum, GIF 15, p. 183-230.

Prosdocimi, A. L., 1987, Syllabicity as a genus, Sievers’ Law as a species, in A. Giacalone Ramat, O. Carruba and G. Bernini (eds.), Papers from the 7th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, p. 483-505.

Prosdocimi, A. L., 2002, Il genitivo singolare dei temi in -o- nelle varietà italiche (osco, sannita, umbro, sudpiceno, etc.), ILing 25, p. 65-76.

Prosdocimi, A. L., 2008, Latino (e) italico e altre varietà indoeuropee, Padova.

Prosdocimi, A. L., 2009, Sul genitivo singolare dei temi in -o- in alcune lingue indeuropee, AGI 94, p. 50-78.

Prosdocimi, A. L., 2011, Genitivo in -io a Preneste?, in G. Borghello and V. Orioles (eds.), Per Roberto Gusmani. Linguistica storica e teorica, 2, 1, Udine, p. 335-354.

Rigobianco, L., in prep., Il genitivo singolare dei temi in -o-: riflessioni angolate dalle varietà di latino.

Rix, H., 1976, Historische Grammatik des Griechischen, Darmstadt.

Rix, H., 1988, The Proto-Indo-European Middle: Content, forms and origin, Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaf 49, p. 101-119.

Rocca, G., 2009, Tracce di sabinità nel Lapis Satricanus?, Alessandria 3, p. 67-83.

Sihler, A. L., 1995, New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin, New York / Oxford. Stibbe, C. M., Colonna, G., De Simone, C. and Versnel, H. S., 1980, Lapis Satricanus, The Hague.

Sturtevant, E. H., 1933, A Comparative Grammar of the Hittite Language, Philadelphia.

Thurneysen, R., 1909, Handbuch des Alt-Irischen, I, Heidelberg.

Untermann, J., 1964, review of G. Giacomelli, 1963, in GGA 216, p. 171-182.

Untermann, J., 1999, La terminación del genitivo singular de los temas en -o en el celtibérico, Estudio de lenguas y epigrafía antiguas 3, p. 125-142.

Untermann, J., 2003, Quoius und valesiosio: zum pronominalen Genitiv im Lateinischen, in

S. Marchesini and P. Poccetti (eds.), Linguistica è storia – Sprachwissenschaft ist Geschichte, Pisa, p. 179-183.

Villar, F., 1995, Indo-European o-stems and feminine stems in , in F. Plank (ed.), Double Case. Agreement by Suffixaufnahme, New York / Oxford, p. 243-264.

Wackernagel, J., 1908, Genitiv und Adjektiv, in Melanges de linguistique offerts à M. Ferdinand de Saussure, Paris, p. 125-152.

Wackernagel, J., 1930, Altindische Grammatik, Göttingen.

Watkins, C., 1999, A Celtic miscellany, in K. Jones-Bley, M. E. Huld, A. Della Volpe, and M. R. Dexter (eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference, Washington, p. 3-25.

Widmer, P., 2005, Der altindische vr̥ kī́-Typus und hethitisch nakkī̆-: der indogermanische Instrumental zwischen Syntax und Morphologie, Die Sprache 45, p. 190-208.

Haut de page

Notes

1 Material for this article is taken from a broader study on the genitive (Rigobianco, in prep.) wherein will be found further clarification and detail as well as a fuller bibliography.

2 On the linguistic position of Faliscan, see Bakkum, 2009, p. 341-360.

3 See, e.g., the inscription Bakkum 470.

4 The most recent expression of this hypothesis, as far as I am aware, is in Mańczak, 2002.

5 See, e.g., Leumann, 1977, p. 413. Mańczak 2002’s is an ad hoc hypothesis (“développement phonétique irregulier dû à la haute fréquence”) which fails to take due account of the Celtic data.

6 For a possible attestation of -osio in Roman, see the article by Burroni and Brezigia (this volume).

7 Bakkum 3. I do not consider here the various reading and segmentation possibilities of the first part of the inscription (ecoqutoṇeuotenosio).

8 Bakkum 7.

9 Bakkum 467. On the Faliscan character of the inscription, see Bakkum, 2009, p. 577-578.

10 Bakkum 197. The integration cauioṣị[o] (CIE 8286) is considered implausible by Bakkum, 2009, p. 487 because of the relatively recent dating of the inscription.

11 The editio princeps of the lapis Satricanus is in Stibbe et al. 1980. The linguistic attribution of the inscription is sub judice, apart from an almost universally shared attribution to a generic Latinity: see the considerations in Prosdocimi, 1984, p. 204; on this topic, see also Lucchesi e Magni, 2002; Rocca, 2009.

12 Franchi De Bellis, 2005, p. 78-83.

13 Bakkum 40.

14 Lejeune, 1989, p. 66.

15 Bakkum 483.

16 See Bakkum, 2009, p. 586-587.

17 Quint. Inst. 1, 5, 12 (Enn. Ann. 126).

18 Lucil. 25.

19 Quint. Inst. 8, 6, 33 (attributed by Quintilian to Ovid).

20 The alternative reading tasei.filios seems contrary to the evidence: see Franchi De Bellis, 2005, p. 78-9; 81.

21 Except that in the Sabellic name of the Dioscuri (Vetter 202 iouiois.puclois; Vetter 204 [i]ouies.puclẹ[s]).

22 See the references in Bakkum, 2009, p. 587, to be integrated with Bolelli, 1943, p. 56; Campanile, 1961, p. 20; Bader, 1992, p. 82; Meiser, 1998, p. 117; 133.

23 See Devine, 1970, p. 12-14. For my part, I point out that Colson, 1924, p. 55 acknowledges that “the MSS. are fairly persistent in exhibiting ‘-oeo’ in the second word”, even if he reads Meteio Fufetteio.

24 See, e.g., Leumann, 1977, p. 477 and Meiser, 1998, p. 117.

25 Roman -ĭo- for -jo- is a matter of syllabicity (lex Lindeman and lex Sievers; see Prosdocimi, 1987).

26 See Leumann, 1977, p. 126, and Meiser, 1998, p. 91.

27 I thank professor Adamik for this remark.

28 The Celtiberian GS in -o has been interpreted as an outcome of *-ōd or *-os, or even as an outcome of an analogical readjustment (see the references in Eska, 1995, to be integrated with Untermann, 1999, p. 139-40 and Watkins, 1999, p. 7-8). The plausibility of -o standing for [ŏ] would mean interpreting the forms in question as forms of GS coinciding with the “pure” stem: I will return to the issue in Rigobianco (in prep.).

29 Mycenaean shows a GS ending -o alternative to -o-jo: for the status quaestionis and updated references, see Pierini, 2011.

30 The derivation of -ου from a pronominal ending *-oso (Brugmann, 1911, p. 161-3) instead of from *-osjo, reported as “zweifelhaft” already by Brugmann, has been repeatedly questioned or refused (see, e.g., Sihler, 1995, p. 259-60); see however Rix, 1976, p. 139.

31 According to the common view, -is is the outcome of a pronominal ending *-eso (Brugmann, 1911, p. 161-3): this derivation has been sometimes questioned on the basis of formal considerations (see, e.g., Must, 1953).

32 I follow Prosdocimi’s 2002 hypothesis, according to which -es and -eis are concurrent GS endings deriving from *-eso and *-eiso respectively, as against the standard hypothesis of an extension of the i-stem endings (Planta, 1892-1897, p. 105-9).

33 Gambari and Colonna, 1988. GS -oiso also occurs in an inscription from Oderzo of uncertain linguistic attribution between Venetic and Celtic (see lastly Eska and Wallace, 1999). This ending has also been explained phonetically starting from IE *osjo, assuming a process of metathesis, whereas Bader (1991, p. 109-12; 1992, p. 81-2), Eska (1995, p. 41-2) and Prosdocimi (2009, p. 65-72) have proposed a morphological explanation.

34 Greek -οιο, commonly connected to *-osjo (Brugmann, 1911, p. 161-3), could theoretically be the reflex of an original *-oiso (on -isV-̯ > -ii̯ ̯V-, see Rix, 1976, p. 80).

35 See lastly Ciceri, 2012-2013, and, conversely, De Simone, 2013, p. 57-63.

36 This ending, a homophone of the nominative ending of the same stems, has been explained on the basis of an adjustment with the GS of consonant stems (see Sturtevant, 1933, p. 170), whereas Pedersen in 1933 put forward the hypothesis that the identity between the forms of nominative singular and GS in Hittite is due to the preservation of an original feature which disappeared in other IE languages. 37 Brugmann, 1911, p. 161-3.

37 In this regard we should note, among others, Rix 1998’s suggestion to analyse *-jo in *-osjo and *-o in *-oso as anaphoric relatives (this interpretation of *-jo in *-osjo has been proposed at least since Kozlovski, 1887). Personally, I believe that, if this is the right line to pursue, an analysis of *-oso as *-oso would be preferable, as it could also take account of Celtiberian (and possibly of Mycenaean) data: as to the qualification of *-jo as anaphoric being extended to *-so, this is a matter for further research.

38 See, among the others, Beekes, 1985, p. 172-95, and Villar, 1995, p. 215-50.

39 On the identification of the GS ending in other traditions (Venetic, Tocharian, and Albanian), see the references in Pairotti, 2014, p. 75-9.

40 See Thurneysen, 1909, p. 174 and Lambert, 1994, p. 51.

41 According to some only of the vr̥ kī-Flexion: see Pairotti, 2014, p. 75-9, for the bibliography.

42 On *j(e/o)H2 and its outcomes see Prosdocimi, 2008. On the derivation of GS from instrumental *-i-H1, see Widmer, 2005.

43 On the hypothesis of a functional difference between and -osio in Latin, see Untermann, 1964, De Simone in Stibbe et al., 1980, p. 82-3, and Orlandini and Poccetti, 2014.

44 On genitive and adjective see, among the others, Wackernagel, 1908, Benveniste, 1960 and, in a syntactic perspective, the annotations in Giorgi and Longobardi, 1991.

45R express some contextually determined relation” (Higginbotham, 1983, p. 397-8).

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

URL http://journals.openedition.org/pallas/docannexe/image/4275/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 43k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Luca Rigobianco, « The o-stem genitive singular: Considerations from the perspective of the Latin dialects »Pallas [En ligne], 103 | 2017, mis en ligne le 30 mai 2018, consulté le 11 avril 2021. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/pallas/4275 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/pallas.4275

Haut de page

Auteur

Luca Rigobianco

Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia
Postdoctoral Fellow
Ca’ Foscari University of Venice luca.rigobianco@unive.it

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

Licence Creative Commons
Pallas – Revue d'études antiques est mis à disposition selon les termes de la licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International.

Haut de page
  • Logo Presses universitaires du Midi
  • OpenEdition Journals
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search