DOI ��.����/joll ��.����/joll-����-���� -����-����
Journal of Latin Linguistics ����; ��(�): ���–���
Anna Orlandini and Paolo Poccetti -i and and-osio genitives in archaic Latin:
different markers for different possession types? Abstract: Abstrac t: This contribution offers a concrete, textually based account of the func-
tional possibilities for the expression of different types of possession (exclusive and inalienable “ownership” “ownership” versus “accidental belonging,” established by convention or on an occasional event) in Archaic Latin. This account is based on the competition between the genitive-marking morphemes -i and -osio in archaic Faliscan inscriptions, which has been documented synchronically and for which we suggest a parallelism with the diachronic development of these two morphemes in Archaic Latin. We also confirm the theoretical t heoretical insights concerning the semantic-functional structures that encode different possession relations and we propose an explanatory path for the generalization of the -ī versus versus -osio genitives (cf. Bolkestein 1983, 2001; Maurel 1989). Keywords: case markers; genitive; types of possession
Mirail’ (Professor of Latin Linguistics). Anna Orlandini: Université de Toulouse 2 ‘Le Mirail’ E-mail:
[email protected] Vergata’ (Professor of Comparative Philology). Paolo Poccetti: Università di Roma 2 ‘Tor Vergata’ E-mail:
[email protected]
� Introduction Four letters engraved on a vase discovered in a burial b urial site in ancient Falerii (Celle site) and dating back to the late 7th century BC form the sequence titi.� Here the personal name Titos marked by the -i morpheme can be easily recognized. This name is well-known in archaic Latin, Faliscan, and Sabellian anthroponymy (cf. Salomies 1987: 1987: 42ff.) also in its female counterpart Tita (Hartmann 2005: 28ff.; Giacomelli 1963: 1963: 44ff.; Bakkum: 2009: II, 409ff.). As for the t he -i morpheme, no other solution can be envisaged, but that it represents the common singular genitive ending of -o stems, which is attested in a later period in both Faliscan and literary �
Cf. Biella (2009: (2 009: 273) especially as concerns the vase shape and its archeological context.
���
Anna Orlandini and Paolo Poccetti
Latin (not earlier than the 4th century BC). Both the context of the inscription and the lack of any syntactic structure are convergent convergent on the use of this morpheme for denoting the object’s belonging, which is the normal function of the genitive case in inflectional languag languages. es. Consequently, Titi represents the oldest documentation of an -i genitive (of an o-stem), as far as identified not only in Faliscan, but also in all the languages concerned by this morpheme, including of course standard Latin. This fact highlights the importance of this attestation, inasmuch as the origin and development d evelopment of genitive morphemes of o-stems have been enormously debated, particularly with respect to the history of noun declension in both Faliscan and Latin. Notoriously,, the earliest evidence for the genitive morpheme in both Fali ously Faliscan scan and Latin, at least before 4th century BC, uniquely consists in the -osio morpheme. Therefore the evidence for the i-genitive provided by the new inscription, assigned to the late 7th century BC by its archaeological context, is of most prominent importance, in that it revolutionizes our knowledge knowledge of both diachronic and synchronic occurrences of this morpheme. Moreover, the new document implicitly points out that in this chronological stage both morphemes for genitive functions, namely -i and -osio, already coexisted. This implication, which is valid for Faliscan, may be presumably presumably paralleled in archaic Latin, for which until now only -osio ending is known up to this point. It should be to be remembered that the -i and -osio morphemes have been believed to be diachronically distinguished. More exactly, exactly, according to the t he chronology of their respective documentation, the -osio ending has been considered older than the -i genitive. This view, commonly accepted�, was based on the fact that occurrences of -osio seemed to precede those of -i, which gave the impression that the latter would have replaced the former by about the late 5th century BC. Now the new inscription brings invaluable invaluable evidence not only for the simultaneous use of the -i and -osio morphemes, but also for their complementary distribution, that helps to focus their respective functions. For For this purpose one needs to take into account the earliest vase inscriptions referring to possession in the Faliscan Fali scan language, which can be summarized in Table 1.
� From context to text Prior to an evaluation of the most striking data of the Faliscan documents, i.e., the early evidence for an -i genitive ending in comparison with the synchronic
�
For a different view: Lucchesi & Magni 2004.
-i and -osio genitives in archaic Latin
���
Table �: Personal names referring to possession in Faliscan inscriptions dating from 630 to
570 BC Date
Vase typology
Text
±��� ±��� ±��� ±��� ±���
oinochoe
�. eco quto *e Uotenosio Titias [. . .] � �. Titi �. eko Kaisiosio / eko Lartos � �. aimiosio eqo � �. Qunoz / Iatinoz �
high foot cup low foot cup low foot cup low foot cup
occurrences of the -osio ending, a few essential aspects of text interpretation need to be highlighted in order to outline the functional role of the -i morpheme without any syntactic structure: �. The archaeological context, where the vase with the Titi inscription was found, is typical of Faliscan culture. This fact demonstrates that the vase was locally commissioned and manufactured. Its owner (or the first individual being buried in the site) was a member of a local gens. The inscription is thus to be assigned to the native community, thus ruling out any possible cases of borrowing or external influence. �. Chronologically the vase with the Titi inscription belongs to the same period as other Faliscan inscriptions of similar functions and contents, showing that various types of inscriptions referring to ownership did coexist synchronically in Faliscan tableware. More specifically, drinking vases inscribed with -osio genitives and the Titi vase inscription are to be traced back to the fiy years ranging from late 7th century and early 6th century. In particular, Titos’ vase appears to be almost fully contemporary with the Faliscan oinochoe featured by the long inscription eco quto *e Uotenosio Titias with the “tongue-twister” propramon pramed [u]mon pramod pramedumon pramod propramod pramodumo[m].� Instead two low-foot cups displaying -osio genitives, namely the inscription eko Kaisiosio / eko Lartos Giacomelli (1963: 44−46 no. 2b), Bakkum (2009: 3). The oinochoe has been recognized as a local product (cf. Biella 2012: 40, 45, fig. 5a,b). � Giacomelli (1963: 48−49 no. 4), Bakkum (2009: 5). � Lejeune (1952: 120−126, fr. V, 350, pls. XV−XVI), Giacomelli (1963: 66 no. 56), Bakkum (2009: 467*). The second and third letters of the personal name are variously read. Also the assignment of this text either to Faliscan or to the Capena language is questioned. � Published in the volume edited by Santoro (2008). � Whether the two inscriptions were ascribable to different authors and were written at different times is not at issue here (cf. Mancini 2004: 207). �
���
Anna Orlandini and Paolo Poccetti
and amiosio eqo, respectively, seems to be slightly later (about the second decade of the 6th century). The vase from Magliano Sabina, discovered in Sabine territory but bearing an inscription in Faliscan, dates back to the same time. This inscription consisting of two personal names in the nominative case (Qunoz / Iatinoz ) can be compared to the inscription eko Kaisiosio / eko Lartos, engraved in the Faliscan vase just mentioned,� with respect to the functional value of the text. Within the frame of a unitary chronology of this set of Faliscan archaic texts, the new inscription bearing the name Titos with the genitive -i ending differs from other ones with respect to a prominent detail: the placement of the writing. The inscription Titi is placed on the external side of the bottom, unlike other inscriptions engraved around the external body of the pottery. These different positions imply a different visibility of the writing and therefore entail distinct ways of reading depending on the concrete use of the drinking vase. The inscription on the external foot is clearly visible to whoever is sitting in front of the drinker or whenever the vase is upturned to be used as a lid. A very different way of reading is implied by both Faliscan vases, where each name of the respective inscriptions eko Kaisiosio / eko Lartos and Qunoz / Iatinoz are reciprocally turned upward around the vase body. The inverted writing of each personal name in the body of the vase has been convincingly explained in relationship with a “toasting” occasion, in which participants exchange glasses of wine at a banquet (Napolitano 2000; Roncalli 2008; Poccetti 2008). Such an explanation is consistent with the very context of wine drinking at banquets, where the most important archaic Faliscan inscriptions originate. The different practices of reading implied by the orientation of text on similar objects, conceived for the same purpose, is of considerable importance as it concerns the meaning and function of the texts. Significantly, the orientation of writing and its subsequent accessibility for reading combine with different morphosyntactic structures of the texts: all of this cannot be without consequence for the meanings of the respective texts. These facts are the starting point for our reflections, which will concentrate on the functional distribution of the -i and -osio morphemes within texts which are homogeneous from both the synchronic and contextual perspective. As noted above, the -i genitive ending in the Titi inscription manifests no syntactic dependency. In other words, it appears as an “absolute case,” although its
Santoro (2008), Roncalli (2008), Poccetti (2008). Instead, Colonna (2010: 290−292) suggests the Funoz reading and the dating of the inscription around the second half of the 6th century. �
-i and -osio genitives in archaic Latin
���
possession-related meaning in this context is unquestionable. By contrast, all attestations of -osio genitives in Faliscan inscriptions co-occur with a phrase containing the formula typical of so-called “talking objects.” Specifically, the formula here consists of the personal pronoun ego (in its three archaic graphic variants eco, eko, eqo) which functions as head of the phrase itself. The formula “ Ego + personal name” patterns are part of a belonging expression, in the -osio genitive which is also common to archaic Latin. But differently from archaic Latin, where the case inflection of the personal name accompanied by ego is nominative, in Faliscan the genitive is found (see Table 2). Table �: The ego formulas in archaic Latin and archaic Faliscan Archaic Latin
�. �. �. �.
Archaic Faliscan (see Table �)
�. Eco quto *e Uotenosio Titias �. eko Kaisiosio / eko Lartos �. aimiosio eqo
Eco C. Antonios� Eco Kanaios (or Kaviaios or Kavidios )�� M. Adicios (or Madicios ) eco�� eqo Fulfios��
Later on in Latin the ego formula is replaced by the “sum verb formula personal name in genitive,” that imitates more closely the Greek pattern “εἰμί verb + name in the genitive.” These different expressions of possession distinguishing more archaic and more recent Latin epigraphy can be compared in Table 3. Table �: Belonging expression in archaic and recent Latin Archaic Latin (see Table �)
�. �. �. �.
Eco C. Antonios Eco Kanaios (or Kaviaios or Kavidios ) M. Adicios (or Madicios ) eco eqo Fulfios
Recent Latin
�. �. �. �. �.
Ne atigas. Non sum tua. Marci sum �� Sotae sum. Noli me tangere �� Noli me tollere. Helvetii sum �� L. Canolei sum�� Sum Valeri��
CIL I2 462. �� CIL I2 474: for different readings see Solin (2003). Moreover, Hartmann (2005: 172). �� See Hartmann (2005: 172). �� CIL I2 479. �� CIL I2 499. �� CIL I2 501. �� CIL I2 2736. �� CIL I2 2489. �� CIL I2 1192. �
���
Anna Orlandini and Paolo Poccetti
A further strategy to code possession is simply to place the personal name in the nominative case without any syntactic structure, a practice which was widely common from the archaic into the late period. When used as an absolute case, i.e., as a free-standing and syntactically independent unit, the nominative, as the unmarked case, can replace any utterance type. Two archaic examples are found both in Latin (the vase inscription bearing the single name Karkavaios) and in Faliscan (the pair of single names Qunoz / Iatinoz in the vase inscription already mentioned) (Poccetti 2008). Admittedly a syntactically independent nominative case may work for multiple information, in that it can refer either to an owner or to an occasional holder or to the manufacturer of the object. In other words the absolute nominative in itself is ambiguous to some extent. A means for distinguishing ownership from other functions probably was the formula ego + nominative in archaic Latin and ego + -osio genitive in archaic Faliscan. By contrast the signature of the crasman responsible for manufacturing the item is usually signaled by the verb to make in both languages in more or less archaic inscriptions (see Table 4). Table �: Signatures of crasmen in archaic Latin and Faliscan Chronology
Latin
Faliscan
�th−�th century BC
Manios med fefaked Numasioi �� Duenos med feced en manom meinom duenoi �� Mamar [cos m]ed vhe[. . . . �� Nouios Plautios med Romai fecid ��: Med Loucilios feced �� Vibis Pilipus cailauit �� C.Ouio Ouf. fect ��
Mama Zextos med fifiqod �� --]med fifiked ��
�th−�nd century BC
Cauios Frenaios faced �� Oufilio Clipeaio letei met facet ��
CIL I2 3. Concerning the proved authenticity of the inscription on the so-called golden “fibula Praenestina,” cf. Franchi de Bellis (2007, 2011). �� CIL I2 4. �� Hartmann (2005: 28). �� Bakkum (2009: 395). �� Bakkum (2009: 415). �� CIL I2 561. �� CIL I2 2437. �� CIL I2 552. �� CIL I2 545. �� Bakkum (2009: 580). �� Bakkum (2009: 579). ��
-i and -osio genitives in archaic Latin
���
When considering only archaic Faliscan evidence for belonging expressions, more restricted in both synchronic and contextual perspective, we may outline three different morpho-syntactic patterns: a. ego + personal name in -osio genitive. b. Personal name alone in the nominative case. c. Personal name alone in -i genitive. As far as the location of the writing, the formulas of the types in (a) and (b) are located on the external surface of the vase (numbers 1, 3, 4, 5 of Table 1), whereas the formula in (c) is found on the external foot (number 2 of Table 1). Moreover, in three cases out of four, the (a) and (b) formulas mention a pair of reciprocally related individuals (respectively Kaisiosio / Lartos; Qunoz / Iatinoz; Uotenosio / Titias). Instead, the formula of type (c) refers to a single individual. In this scenario, formula (c) which pertains to the new inscription referring to Titi sounds totally different. Now one may wonder whether these different expressions may be related to different categories of possession; in other words, what type of possession each formula can be referred to. For both linguistic and non-linguistic reasons already mentioned, evidently the types exemplified by types (a) and (b) are to be preliminarily distinguished from type (c). An initial, fundamental taxonomy of possession relations dates back to É. Benveniste (1966a), who distinguished between “predicative” relations (where the relation between Possessor and Possessee is coded on the verb) and “attributive” relations (adnominal constructions where the possession relation is presupposed and noun modifiers such as possessive pronouns and adjectives and possessive genitives are found). Along this line, H. Seiler (1983) identified “inherent possession,” a mainly determinative relation that roughly corresponds to the attributive relation, and “established possession,” which shares many features with the predicative relation. The distinction between the two possession types is not categorial and can be represented along a “scalar gradient” continuum. Seiler’s gradient ranges from simple noun juxtaposition (NN) to express the most inherent form of possession, to the NVN construction, which codes established possession and the highest degree of predicativity. The transition from mostly adnominal relations (inherent possession) to primarily adverbial ones (established relations) is manifest in “case marking” structure (NcaseN). Case assignment thus appears to discriminate between two types of possession relations. Following Havers (1911), Seiler believes that the dative prevails with first- and second-person pronouns, whereas the genitive seems to be a mainly adnominal case. Since the basic possession relation is a noun–noun relation (NN), the genitive could be the
���
Anna Orlandini and Paolo Poccetti
unmarked case to express possession; that is, the relation with the highest degree of polysemy. The phrase “Carlo’s house” can refer to the house where Carlo lives, the house Carlo has inherited, or the house Carlo has built or designed, and so on. The very same polysemy emerges when a possessive is used: “his” house. On the other hand, the dative case is more typically linked to a verb. Due to its peripheral nature with respect to predication, the dative can express both inherent and established possession. Hence, as an instance, the “ dativus sympatheticus,” being formed with first- and second-person pronouns, body-part names, or kinship names, which typically represent inherent possession, becomes established as a marked use of the dative. As nominal versus verbal structures, the three morpho-syntactic patterns shown by archaic Faliscan inscriptions on tableware seemingly would express an attributive relation of inalienable possession. However, as a consequence of the differentiation mentioned above, namely (a) and (b) from (c), this is not exactly the case for all patterns. That is why the analysis requires some refinement. Among the three patterns, only one, type (c), where an -i genitive is found, appears to be closer to the structure used to express the “prototypical case of possession.” According to Heine (1997: 39ff.), the “prototypical case of possession” is featured by “human possessor, concrete possessee, possessor having the right to use the possessee, spatial proximity between the two, no temporal limit on the possessive relation.” This property is also close to Seiler’s (1983: 4; 2001): “Linguistic ���������� consists of the representation of a relationship between a substance and another substance. Substance A, called the ���������, is prototypically [+animate], more specifically [+human], and still more specifically [+���] or close to the speaker.” The peculiarity of these contexts is to be found especially in pattern (a), where it is the Possessee and not the Possessor to be animate and indexed with the pronoun marker ���, contrary to what happens most commonly. In these terms, the Possessee expresses a self-oriented relation (talking subject). All that forms the category of so-called “talking objects,” which is well known in the archaic epigraphy of Greek as well as the languages of ancient Italy. Our hypothesis is that even with the genitive, which prototypically marks inherent possession, two different morpho-syntactic outcomes (the - ī versus -osio genitives) which co-occur synchronically (as documented by the Faliscan inscriptions) can signal different relations of possession and display different markedness gradients. The genitive morpheme -i is the closest to an inherent possession relation, which is basic to the genitive, and is thus the unmarked element. Instead, the -osio morpheme expresses an established possession relation and is marked in contrast to -i. The marked condition of the -osio morpheme might account for the overwhelming success of the -i genitive at the cost of -osio loss in the
-i and -osio genitives in archaic Latin
���
history of Faliscan, probably paralleled by Latin. Notoriously, every evolutionary change among items in reciprocal opposition originates from the unmarked element that takes the place of the marked one and is preserved diachronically.
�
-ī versus-osio genitive: a brief summary
of a complex issue As already emphasized elsewhere (Biella 2009), the importance of the Titi inscription arises from the fact that it is the most archaic attestation of the - i genitive ending not only in Faliscan, but also in other languages displaying this morpheme, first of all literary and standard Latin. Throughout the last decades, more precisely starting from early 1980s, when the Latin inscription from Satricum recording Popliosio Valesiosio was discovered, the problem of the -osio genitive in relationship with the -ī genitive has been thoroughly and widely debated. This debate has included comparison with other languages that share the same morphemes. Further data provided by other languages of ancient Italy have put in question the treatment of the genitive morphemes of -o stems in various languages of pre-Roman Italy ranging from northern Lepontic to southern Messapian and Sicel (cf. Lejeune 1989; Eska and Wallace 2001; Prosdocimi 2002, 2009). More recently an extraordinary contribution to this topic has come particularly from Lepontic and Venetic documentation, which provides evidence for an -oiso ending for the singular genitive, namely plioiso, χ osioioso and -]Tioiso found in Lepontic area and Kaialoiso from Oderzo in Venetic area. �� This -oiso ending is probably (even if not necessarily) connected with Faliscan and Latin -osio. All documents presenting -oiso ending in both Lepontic and Venetic area are quite archaic, in that they date back before the mid-5th century (Lejeune 1989: 69−73; Eska and Wallace 2001: 80). Such a chronology stresses the importance of the -oiso ending, which is prior to the evidence of an -i ending in each of these languages. Moreover, the Lepontic documentation for -i genitive definitively contributed to the dismantling of the idea of an Italic–Celtic unitary branch among IndoEuropean languages, given that the main argument in favor of this view was the -ī genitive for -o stems (cf. Lejeune 1989: 63, 74). However, the early attestation of the -oiso genitive in Lepontic, an archaic language of the Celtic family, demonstrates that the diffusion of -i genitive results from a more recent innovation that
��
For documentary sources, see Eska and Wallace (2001: 82), Bakkum (2009: 135).
���
Anna Orlandini and Paolo Poccetti
ousted other genitive morphemes in parallel to the Faliscan, Latin, and Venetic languages. To sum up, various languages of ancient Italy converge in adopting an -ī ending as a regular morpheme for the singular genitive of -o stems starting from 4th century BC at the earliest. Before this period an -osio or -oiso ending is widely attested: more precisely, -osio in Faliscan and Latin and -oiso in Lepontic and Venetic. The new Faliscan inscription with Titi shows that, at least in this language, the -ī morpheme, which is to be compared with Latin - ī , was used synchronically in competition with -osio. We know this because the epigraphic evidence for both -ī and -osio are chronologically simultaneous. These facts, on the one hand, point out that -ī and -osio originated as synchronic variants, even if functionally distinguished, and, on the other hand, they show that the current tenet of a replacement of -osio in late Faliscan due to Latin influence is now untenable. Admittedly, however, the ousting of -osio by the -ī ending took place in Latin earlier and independently. As far as Faliscan is concerned, J. Untermann (1964: 178−179; Bakkum 2009: 136) has drawn attention on the fact that the -osio genitive occurs particularly in a specific text type, called Besitzerinschrifen, i.e., inscriptions bearing the name of the object’s possessor. Hence Untermann concluded that the actual genitive morpheme was -ī , whereas -osio was just a morpheme used to generically denote possession (in our view, established and not inherent possession). Actually, such a condition was sentencing the morpheme to death, since it constituted a marked function within the genitive values, and more generally because it is the task of the dative to fulfill the role of predication of established possession in Latin. Untermann’s view was later supported by C. De Simone (1980: 83) referring to the Satricum inscription, although both text types, quite different from a Besitzerinschrif and the noun phrase suodales Popliosio Valesiosio, gave him the evidence to argue against it. Even if we face a unique witness for the -ī genitive with respect to the chronology, the Titi inscription on the Faliscan vase brings us to reconsider the entire matter, and in particular invites us to focus on the semantics of the -osio and -i morphemes. The distinction of the formulas (a) and (b) from the (c) type probably refers to different aspects or types of possession. Both the placement of writing and the absolute construction of the personal name marked by -ī genitive (Titi) point to a particular type of possession, i.e., ownership, signaled by this morpheme.
-i and -osio genitives in archaic Latin
���
� From diachrony to synchrony: semanticfunctional variation in Faliscan and Archaic Latin vase inscriptions It is not our concern here to deal with the origin and development of the two genitive morphemes for o-stems, -ī and -osio, in the languages that display them. It is much more important to focus on archaic Faliscan texts which will help us to outline the functional and semantic values of these morphemes. Its outcome will form an essential base for further reflection on their origin. As already stressed, the convergence of a syntactic structure, linked to a specific morphological choice, and the orientation of the writing, observed on a unitary set of objects conceived for wine drinking at archaic banquets, are highly significant. The starting point for our analysis is the twofold inscription eko Kaisiosio / eko Lartos reciprocally upturned on the Faliscan vase (no. 3, Table 1). Whatever the role of the two named individuals (i.e., whether they are two successive owners of the object [Giacomelli 1963: 49; Agostiniani 1982: 151, 240] or, as is more likely, whether they are related through the ritual of sharing and exchanging wine at a banquet, which involves two “actants” simultaneously), there is evidence for both non-absolute and non-exclusive possession. This implies two holders, in one instance, synchronically, in the other, diachronically. Comparison with the twofold inscription Qunoz / Iatinoz (no. 5, Table 1) also featured by upturned writing and with the inscription eco quto *e Uotenosio Titias (no. 1, Table 1) argues in favor of the synchronic relevance to two distinct persons of the act of exchanging wine at a banquet.�� Each of the three documents states that it simultaneously belongs to pairs of distinct individuals, namely Kaisio- and Lart (h), Kuno- and Iatino-, Uoteno- and Titia-. The Uoteno- and Titia- inscription point to an exchange of wine between two people of different sex, as confirmed by Etruscan iconography from the 6th century on and by Hellenic historic and literary sources from the 4th century BC (cf. Camporeale 1986: 281–285; 2000: 175–179; Bartoloni 2003: 132). This custom is made even more explicit in the Faliscan context by the archaic inscription found on a similar table container (the so-called sociai inscription) (Giacomelli 1963: 46; Bakkum 2009: II, 411). This text records an exchange of greetings between individuals of different sex: Rufia Kaleptia ues saluete sociai Oetios Kaios Uelos Amanos salueto salues seite.��
Bakkum (2009: 409). The word quto(n) borrowing from Greek κώθων ο κώθον, maybe of Etruscan influence (Mancini 2004: 208), refers to the vase terminology. �� See Prosdocimi (1990: 302–312), correcting the text reading by Peruzzi (1967). ��
���
Anna Orlandini and Paolo Poccetti
In spite of the different expressions used, all texts referring to pairs of people, just noted, clearly do not signal established and strictly personal “possession” with respect to a referentially identified possessor. Rather, they indicate occasional, shared, and interchangeable belonging. In other words, these texts point to the availability of usage of each drinking vase for two distinct individuals, indicated by pairs of personal names, which are inscribed onto each pottery item, i.e., eko Kaisiosio / eko Lartos, Qunoz / Iatinoz, and Uoteno- e Titia-, respectively. Furthermore, the Faliscan sociai inscription points to the availability of the drinking vase for a larger number of people. Independently from the different expressions, the use of the -osio genitive, occurring in both pairs of personal names (nos. 1 and 3, Table 1) and in a single personal name (no. 4, Table 1), appears to signal an accidental and temporarily shared belonging, related to the exchange of drinking vases. Consequently, this morphological marker identifies an “established” possession, very close to the functional condition of “availability.” By contrast, the use of -i genitive (no. 2, Table 1) appears to signal the “ownership” typical of “belong constructions.” According to Bartning (1993: 78ff.) and Heine (1997: 39): “the ownership relation is central and even prototypical because ownership – of course a very culturedependent notion – is the most salient representative of the possessive relation, i.e. a basically locative relation between two distinct entities enriched with ‘something more’, this ‘more’ being of an institutionalised or legal sense. Ownership constitutes thus a central point on the semantic scale stretching from inalienable possession, or the Part–Whole relation, to mere availability” (quotation from Herslund & Baron 2001: 11, figure 3). In Latin a clear example of an established predicative relation is the habeo construction. We may wonder whether the constructions mihi est domus (possessive dative) and habeo domum are but variants of the same construction. Benveniste (1966b) and Lyons (1970: 297–307) align with this interpretation. Habeo is a non-specific and polyfunctional predicate, like the genitive in the NP. Benveniste analyzes habeo as a stative verb, originating from the transitive perfect through a diachronic process: tanti habeo emptas results from tanti sunt mihi emptae. According to Seiler, the habeo construction, differentiated with respect to person, shows “object government” and is used to emphasize established possession. Yet, even for this relation, a scalar gradient and different levels of markedness can be observed. For example, different cases of constrained selection are found among possession verbs in German ( haben, besitzen, gehören). Similarly, Latin habeo shows fewer instances of constrained selection on the object as compared, for example, to possideo. An expression such as *possideo patrem is generally ruled out. Habeo would thus be placed along the continuum of predicative possession (coded on the verb), equivalent to the genitive in the noun phrase.
-i and -osio genitives in archaic Latin
���
Both signal the unmarked case in the possessive relation (established with habeo and inherent with the genitive). Similarly the genitive occurs, on the one hand, with ���� as copula and, on the other, with ���� as an existential predicate (e.g., eius est actum versus eius est vestimentum). Hence, habeo tends to become the main verb: e.g., habeo actum versus habeo vestimentum. Ph. Baldi and A. Nuti (2010: 320) note “the relatively rare occurrence of Marci est x in comparison with other possessive constructions (mihi est x, habeo x ).” The genitive construction would thus be marked with respect to the possessive dative, and the possessive dative would be marked with respect to habeo. Therefore the habeo construction reaches the highest level of unmarkedness: this fact accounts for its diachronic success at the cost of the possessive dative, whose disappearance in the Romance languages, except French, was also connected to the breakdown of the Latin inflectional system. In this perspective, the Titi inscription represents a completely different type. Its most relevant features are: (i) the syntactically absolute construction of -ī genitive; (ii) the mention of a single individual; (iii) the placement of writing on the external foot of the vase. All these facts converge to signal an established possession, namely a legitimate, direct, and exclusive relationship between the object (“Possessee”) and its owner (“Possessor”). The fact that the inscription can only be read when the object is upside down stresses that the artifact is strictly related to its owner and gives the impression of preventing others from accessing it. This “ownership” relation perfectly matches the probability that the drinking vase, found in a burial, was among the personal belongings of the deceased. The deceased would have most likely been the owner or the first individual to be buried in the tomb, from which the object comes. Being part of grave goods, the “Possessee” is thus considered as an exclusive and legally guaranteed property. Such ownership cannot be separated from the personal sphere of the “Possessor,”�� inasmuch as it is appointed to accompany him beyond death. In other words it appears to be an “inseparable” or “inalienable” property. This conclusion gets its documentary strength from the analysis combining contextual data, epigraphic aspects, and morpho-syntactic structures of the text in contrast with similar documents, chronologically, culturally, and functionally homogeneous. Moreover, these insights into archaic Faliscan “possession” formulas pave the way for a more general reflection on the quantity of archaic inscriptions,
Bally (1926: 33) states that the notion of “inalienability” “can include objects and beings associated with a person in an habitual, intimate or organic way.” ��
���
Anna Orlandini and Paolo Poccetti
generally classified as “possession indications” within a larger frame of expressions used for formulating a “possession” relation. A quite varied terminological set is oen used in referring to texts of this type, which form an important category within the archaic epigraphy of ancient Italy, namely “possession,” “ownership,” and “accidental belonging/availability.” In fact these concepts correspond to different relations and denote different factual and circumstantial conditions, as well as to different mental attitudes toward an object. It is universally recognized that “possession” does not necessarily coincide with legal and personal “ownership” of an object. Consequently, a belonging or availability relation is linked with a set of co-variables depending on the context of enunciation, individual attitudes, and the purposes of enunciation itself. All these facts are commonly based on a general requirement, namely the identification of the “possessed” object and the “possessor.” Every expression for a “possession” relation may focus on either both details (i.e., “possessor” and “possessee”) or just a single one (either “possessor” or “possessee”). In general, both ancient and modern languages follow different pathways to comply with all such variables, depending on the functional purposes of focusing on information appropriate for each context. In this perspective, the distinction between “have-constructions” and “belong -constructions” is crucially important (Mithun 2001). This distinction corresponds to the different meanings of the “ sum + genitive” construction (e.g., Marci est hic liber ) and the “sum + dative” pattern (e.g., Marco est hic liber ), respectively, applied in literary and standard Latin. Evidently the functional status of the ���� verb differentiates each syntactic structure from the other: it is a copula together with the genitive, whereas it works as an existential verb if accompanied by the dative. As far as the noun inflected in genitive or in dative is concerned, M. Bolkestein (1983, 2001) considers the genitive as a “derivative predicate,” whereas the dative would function as an argument (Experiencer) of an existential predication. The distinction between ���� ‘copula’ and ���� ‘existential verb’ is clearly made in Old Irish, where a lexical differentiation between copula and existential verb is applied for expressing two different notions of possession. Concretely, as for Latin, “the Marci est X construction is typically employed when the need to identify the specific and exclusive Possessor of a [+given] Possessed co-occurs with the expression of an inherent relation” (Nuti 2005: 168). The two constructions are distinguished from each other by informational contents. The genitive in the belonging predication focuses the informational core of the sentence, whereas the dative in the possession predication constitutes the “theme” or logical subject of the predication (Maurel 1989). The pragmatic functions are thus different. The main function of the genitive construction is to iden-
-i and -osio genitives in archaic Latin
���
tify the possessor, whereas in the dative constructions as well as in the habeo constructions the informational focus is on the possessum. According to Baldi and Nuti (2010), Marci est x / meus est x construction . . . depends on the co-occurrence of a cluster of seman-
tic, syntactic, and pragmatic constraints: the almost invariably [+def] and [+given] possessor and possessum and, correspondingly, a copular status of the verb sum; a rhematic focus on the possessor, and a relation where the possessor is an intrinsic attribute of the possessum. (Baldi and Nuti 2010: 319)
In other languages, the polysemy of possession converges into a single case, either the genitive or the dative. In Ancient Persian, for example, the dative is no longer in use (Kent 1953: 57) and the genitive is polyfunctional, being applied to functions commonly fulfilled by the dative, such as those of beneficiary or “external Possessor” (Pompeo and Benvenuto 2011). Conversely, Venetic appears to display a merger of genitive and dative in favor of the latter, parallel to what happens in the languages of the Balkan ‘Sprachbund’ (Agostiniani 1995: 15), to express inherent and inalienable possession: this is clearly the case of someone deceased, described as “possessor” of a burial site. This fact is related with the origin of the -i marker as a dative in Venetic, explained as the result of “a syncretism in fieri whereby inherited loc.sing. *-i was gradually adopting the function of the dat.sg. -ei, a development which is also attested in Lepontic, Transalpine Gaulish, Old Irish, Greek and the Germanic languages” (Eska and Wallace 2001: 85; 2002). Possibly the synchronic inflectional system of Venetic diachronically underwent a potential interference with the Latin genitival -ī morpheme (Eska and Wallace 2001: 84). Now we may wonder what place the different Faliscan formulas occupy among the expressions of “possession” just outlined. The basic fact for our analysis is the complementary distribution of the syntactically independent -ī genitive (i.e., Titi) with the “ego + -osio genitive” pattern (e.g., eko Kaisiosio). The comparison of the two formulas highlights their difference in relationship with the notion of “possession.” In Titi inscription the name of the “possessor” is the only one to be focused on, as a syntactically free-standing element and as inherent and exclusive property of a single individual, whereas in the ego pattern it is the object, i.e., the vase, that introduces itself in the first person and acts as grammatical subject. This latter formula shis the focus on the “possessee,” and the personal pronoun ego, used in deictic function, serves to define the text as a presentational utterance. In this case, the “possessor” becomes a circumstantial element, about which a relation with the object is asserted. Nevertheless the text does not necessarily denote any inherent “ownership.” From this perspective, the “ego + -osio genitive”
���
Anna Orlandini and Paolo Poccetti
pattern is functionally similar to the syntactic structure of the Latin construction “sum + dative,” which is “quite loose and polyfunctional: it predicates a condition or, more exactly, a state of a certain entity [. . .] that is somehow related to another, usually human, participant by a relation that is not necessarily strictly possessive, as it can range among the vast domain of the so-called sphère personnelle” (Nuti 2005: 166). The semantic properties featuring the “ ego + -osio genitive” pattern seem to be perfectly consistent with the semiotic entailment resulting from the placement of writing on the bottom of the vase. In other words, it is the contrastive comparison of both linguistic and non-linguistic data of the Titi type and the eko Kaisiosio / eko Lartos type that highlights their different functional values with respect to the “possession” idea. The latter formula marked by the -osio genitive points to an artifact belonging to the “personal sphere” of two distinct individuals, but does not mark “possession” as inherent ownership. What is relevant in the eko Kaisiosio / eko Lartos text is the indication of a condition of the “object,” which is alternatively owned by and exchanged between two individuals for functional reasons within a specific context. Then again, in parallel to other texts the principle that “the semantic interpretation of the predication rests heavily on the context” (Nuti 2005: 167) is absolutely valid also for “possession” indications. We pass now to some general implications of our analysis. Firstly, archaic Faliscan documents, as they pertain to a chronologically and semantically homogeneous class of texts, provide evidence for a functional distinction between two morphemes. These morphemes, which operate synchronically within the same noun class (-o stems), can be ascribed to “genitive” functions to the extent to which both signal a relation of possession. The -i ending, occurring as an “absolute,” free-standing case, seems to denote a relation of closer “possession” or inherent ownership of the object. The syntactically absolute construction of the personal name (not attested for the -osio morpheme), focuses the role of the possessor. Archaic Faliscan thus appears synchronically to use two morphemes in complementary distribution with respect to different possession relation. For the moment we ignore to what extent the two morphemes were part of the Faliscan inflectional paradigm at the time. Consequently, it is more appropriate to label them in terms of functionally homogeneous value than as morphological variants of an inflectional category. What is certain is that the functional distinction of -ī and -osio in a synchronic stage of the Faliscan language has a diachronic counterpart, in that in more recent stages of this language the former replaces the latter. Nevertheless the use of two distinct markers for indicating possession is not rare. Other languages, within “attributive possession,” “make use of differ-
-i and -osio genitives in archaic Latin
���
ent genitival constructions, also outside the alienable−inalienable distinction”. According to M. Herslund and I. Baron (2001): The best known example of this is English with its “Saxon” s-genitive and its “Norman” o -genitive. Also in Danish there is a distinction between the pre-posed genitive and different post-posed prepositional constructions. Such alternations are however far from random, but subject to systematic choices along the theme−rheme or topic−comment dimension. The most interesting aspect of such distinctions is however that languages with two genitives thus reproduce within the noun phrase the basic existential-possessive vs. locative possessive and the “have”–“belong” distinctions, they distinguish a construction with the Possessor as theme-topic, from a construction with the Possessum as theme-topic, just like the predicative constructions do. (Herslund and Baron 2001: 14)
Inversely, other languages, such as Old Persian, have but a single morpheme, which is polyfunctional for denoting different types of possession: it works in a way similar to both the genitive and the dative in Latin. In this case, the distinction between different notions of possession is morphologically neutralized. From a historical perspective, the archaic Faliscan inscriptions, distinguishing different types of “possession” by means of morphological markers, cannot be separated from the largest quantity of documentation related with other aspects of possession found in contemporary epigraphy in Etruscan and Latin. The most important among those aspects, signaled by archaic inscriptions, is the way of acquiring ownership brought about by receiving a gi. It is worth remembering that the “gi” inscriptions form a really prominent part of archaic Etruscan and Latin inscriptions. Significantly, M. Cristofani (1984: 319) observed an interesting statistical distribution of mere “possession” texts and “gi” inscriptions in the course of earliest Etruscan epigraphy: “if we consider 630 BC as a demarcation line, the percentage of ‘gi’ inscriptions increases by 20 to 65% with a parallel decrease of possession inscriptions by 80 to 35%” (our translation). �� Admittedly any text recording an act of presenting a “gi” entails an implicit statement of “possession.” Yet a text recording a “gi,” on the one hand, describes the “possessor” as beneficiary or final possessor and, on the other hand, generally focuses the role and the figure of the “giver,” which is named in most of the documentation. In this case, possession is presented as the process of transmission and acquisition of a good, whose enacting links the new owner to the giver, who was the previous owner. Such information is ultimately the main function of the “gi” texts in the earliest Etruscan, Faliscan, and Latin epigraphy. The second implication, somewhat related to the first, concerns the relationship between “ego + -osio genitive” formulas, found in Faliscan, and “ ego + ��
More extensively, as for “gi” texts in early Etruscan epigraphy, see Cristofani (1975).
���
Anna Orlandini and Paolo Poccetti
nominative” patterns, found in Latin and in the Capena area (see Table 2). �� G. Colonna (1983) explained the use of the nominative as the presentation of an object embodied by its owner: in other words the “ego + nominative” formula would manifest a relation of identity between the possessed object and its owner. The object identified with its “possessor,” formally marked as its predicate, is very likely to denote a closer and more inherent ownership relation than the “ego + -osio genitive” pattern. Unfortunately, unlike in Faliscan, nothing else except the “ego + nominative” formula occurs in early Latin for indicating possession. Concretely the lack of evidence for both “ego + -osio genitive” and -ī genitive patterns in Archaic Latin prevents us from making any prediction on their functional distribution. Since, however, the “ego + nominative” formula serves to denote an inherent possession, this morpho-syntactic structure was likely in potential opposition to the “ego + genitive” (probably with -osio ending). If so, the “ ego + nominative” and “ego + -osio genitive” formulas might have coexisted: their functional distribution could match the purpose of distinguishing different types of “possession.” If so, we may assume that the Latin formula “ego + nominative” functionally works like the -ī morpheme in the Titi inscription from the Faliscan-speaking area. However, the fact that an -i morpheme is not yet attested in early Latin inscriptions (much fewer than Faliscan ones) cannot exclude its use for a special type of possession, parallel to Faliscan. In fact, it is only on a unique document, the Titi inscription, that we have formulated our ideas in this paper.
� Conclusion Our analysis of archaic Faliscan texts, based on combining both textual and contextual data, leads to outlining a complementary distribution of the -ī and -osio morphemes in o-stem inflection to express different functions of possession. Both morphemes were already known in distinct diachronic stages of the Faliscan language: -osio seemed to occur in earliest documents, whereas -ī in more recent ones. The current thought is that an older -osio was replaced by a later -ī morpheme. The same morphological replacement appears to have developed in Latin more or less contemporarily with Faliscan. As an innovative contribution, our view shis the focus from diachrony to synchrony, given that both morphemes appear to be synchronically attested in
On “ ego + nominative” formulas, see the different conclusions drawn by Agostiniani (1982: 240) and Colonna (1983: 55). ��
-i and -osio genitives in archaic Latin
���
very archaic Faliscan documents. These synchronic facts have important implications for the diachronic evolution, in that they may contribute to the disappearance of -osio in favor of -ī. A comparison of the contexts synchronically, showing both morphemes in relationship with different notions of “possession,” demonstrates that -ī occurs for an inherent possession, whereas -osio is used for an established and conventional possession. These different notions of “possession” code an opposition between unmarked and marked functions, respectively. In this perspective -osio is the morphologically marked term in opposition to -ī as unmarked term. This markedness principle may account for the fact that -osio was replaced by -ī in the history of the Faliscan language, given that the unmarked item normally assumes the functions of the marked one and leads to its diachronic replacement. A similar pathway, established for Faliscan, is likely to be paralleled by Latin, considering that both languages share the same diachronic outcome: early Latin -osio ending was completely replaced by the -ī genitive in literary Latin. Acknowledgments: We are indebted to Philip Baldi for correcting the English
version.
References Agostiniani, L. 1982. Le “iscrizioni parlanti” dell’Italia antica. Firenze: Leo S. Olschki. Agostiniani, L. 1995. Relazione di possesso e marcatura di caso in venetico. Studi Orientali e Linguistici 6 (Miscellanea in memoria di L. Rosiello), 9−28 (rist. in Scritti Scelti , AIΩN 26, 2004, 567−586). Bakkum, G. C. L. M. 2009. The Latin dialect of the Ager Faliscus. 150 years of scholarship . Amsterdam: University Press. Bally, C. 1926. L’expression des idées de sphère personnelle et de solidarité dans les langues indo-européennes. In F. Fankhauser & J. Jud (eds.), Festschri Louis Gauchat , 68–78. Arau: Sauerländer. Baldi Ph. & A. Nuti. 2010. Possession. In Philip Baldi & P. L. Cuzzolin (eds.), New perspectives on historical Latin syntax 3. Constituent syntax: Quantification, numerals, possession, anaphora (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 180(3)), 239−322. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Bartning, I. 1993. La préposition de et les interprétations possibles des syntagmes nominaux complexes. Essai d’approche cognitive. In A.-M. Berthonneau & P. Cadiot (eds.), Les prépositions: Méthodes d’analyse (Lexique 11). 163–191. Lille: Presses Universitaires de Lille. Bartoloni, G. 2003. Le società dell’Italia primitiva. Lo studio delle necropoli e la nascita delle aristocrazie. Roma & Bari: Laterza.
���
Anna Orlandini and Paolo Poccetti
Benveniste, É. 1966a. Pour l’analyse des fonctions casuelles: Le génitif latin. In Problèmes de linguistique générale, 140−148. Paris: Gallimard. Benveniste, É. 1966b. « Etre » et « avoir » dans leurs fonctions linguistiques. In Problèmes de linguistique générale, 176–186. Paris: Gallimard. Biella, M. C. 2009. Una nuova iscrizione falisca di VII sec. a.C. Un sostantivo con tema in -o e genitivo in -i. Zeitschri für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 168. 273−277. Biella, M. C. 2012. Oggetti iscritti e tradizioni artigianali nell’orientalizzante in Agro Falisco. Convivenze etniche e contatti di culture , Aristonothos 4. 37−57. Bolkestein, A. M. 1983. Genitive and dative possessor in Latin. In S. C. Dik (ed.), Advances in functional grammar , 55–91. Dordrecht: Foris. Bolkestein, A. M. 2001. Possessors and experiencers in Classical Latin. In I. Baron, M. Herslund & F. Sørensen (eds.), Dimensions of possession. Typological studies in language 47, 269−284. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Camporeale, G. 1986. Vita Privata. In G. Pugliese Carratelli (ed.), Rasenna. Storia e civiltà degli Etruschi , 241−308. Milano: Libri Scheiwiller. Camporeale, G. 2000. Gli Etruschi. Storia e civiltà. Torino: UTET. Colonna, G. 1983. Identità come appartenenza nelle iscrizioni di possesso dell’Italia preromana. Epigraphica 45. 49−64. Colonna, G. 2010. A proposito del primo trattato romano-cartaginese (e della donazione pyrgense ad Astarte). In G. M. Della Fina (ed.), La grande Roma dei Tarquini , Atti XVII conv. int. Orvieto 2009. AnnFaina XVII. 275−303. Cristofani, M. 1975. Il dono nell’Etruria arcaica. La Parola del Passato XXX. 132−152. Cristofani, M. 1984. Iscrizioni e beni santuari. C. Ampolo, G. Bartoloni & A. Rathje (eds.), Aspetti delle aristocrazie fra VIII e VII secolo a.C. , OPUS III. 319−324. De Simone C. 1980. L’aspetto linguistico. In Lapis Satricanus. Archaeological, epigraphical, linguistic and historical aspects of the new inscription from Satricum . Archeologische Studien van het Nederlands Instituut te Rome (Scripta Minora 5), 71−94. S’Gravenhage: Staatsuitgeverij. Eska, J. F. & R. E. Wallace. 2001. Remarks on the thematic genitive singular in ancient Italy and related matter. Incontri Linguistici 24. 77−97. Eska, J. F. & R. E. Wallace. 2002. Venetic consonant-stem dative singulars in -i ? Studi Etruschi 65−68. 261−273. Franchi de Bellis, A. 2007. La fibula di Numasio e la coppa dei Veturii. Quaderni dell’Istituto di Linguistica dell’Università di Urbino 12. 65−142. Franchi de Bellis, A. 2011. La fibula prenestina. Margherita Guarducci e Wolfgang Helbig, presunto falsario. In S. Örmä & K. Sandberg (eds.), Wolfgang Helbig e la scienza dell’antichità del suo tempo , Atti del convegno internaz. (Roma 2.2.2009) (Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae 37), 181−215. Roma: Institutum Romanum Finlandiae. Giacomelli, G. 1963. La lingua Falisca. Firenze: Leo S. Olschki. Hartmann, M. 2005. Die frühlateinischen Inschrien und ihre Datierung. Bremen: Hempen. Havers, W. 1911. Untersuchungen zur Kasussyntax der indogermanischen Sprachen. Strassburg: Truebner. Heine, B. 1997. Possession: Cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Herslund, M. & Baron I. 2001. Introduction. In I. Baron, M. Herslund & F. Sørensen (eds.), Dimensions of possession (Typological Studies in Language 47), 1–26. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
-i and -osio genitives in archaic Latin
���
Kent, R. 1953. Old Persian. Grammar, texts, lexicon . New Haven, CT: American Oriental Studies. Lejeune, M. 1952. Notes de Linguistique italique: V–VII. Les inscriptions de la collection Froehner. Revue des Etudes Latines 30. 87–126. Lejeune, M. 1989. Notes de Linguistique Italique. XXXIX. Génitifs en - ī et génitifs en -osio. Revue des Etudes Latines 67. 63–77. Lucchesi, E. & Magni, E. 2004. Vecchie e nuove (in)certezze sul Lapis Satricanus, Pisa, ETS editrice. Lyons, J. 1970. Linguistique générale. Paris: Larousse. Mancini, M. 2004. Uno scioglilingua da Falerii Veteres e l’etimologia di fal. Umom. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 89. 200–211. Maurel, J.-P. 1989. Le syntagme nominal en latin. Les emplois du génitif chez Plaute et Térence . Thèse de Doctorat d’Etat soutenue sous la direction d’H.Fugier, Université de Strasbourg II, Strassburg. Mithun, M. 2001. The difference a category makes in the expression of possession and inalienability. In I. Baron, M. Herslund & F. Sørensen (eds.), Dimensions of possession. (Typological Studies in Language 47), 285–310. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Napolitano, F. 2000. Alcune osservazioni su un calice di bucchero da Falerii. AION ArchStAnt n. s. 7. 181–186. Nuti, A. 2005. Possessive sentences in Early Latin. Dative vs. genitive constructions. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 90. 145–173. Peruzzi, E. 1967. L’iscrizione falisca delle ‘sociai’. La Parola del Passato 22. 113–133. Poccetti, P. 2008. Il vaso iscritto dalla necropoli di Magliano Sabina. Contributi ai rapporti tra l’ambiente falisco e quello sabino arcaico. In Santoro (ed.), Una nuova iscrizione da Magliano Sabina. Scrittura e cultura nella Valle del Tevere (Civiltà arcaica dei Sabini nella Valle del Tevere 2), Mediterranea suppl. 3, 29–42. Roma: Fabrizio Serra. Pompeo, F. & M. C. Benvenuto. 2011. Il genitivo in persiano antico. Un caso esemplare di categoria polisemica. Studi e Saggi Linguistici 49. 75–124. Prosdocimi, A. L. 1990. Vetter 243 e l’imperativo latino tra (con)testo e paradigma. In La civiltà dei Falisci (atti del XV Convegno dell’Istituto Nazionale di Studi Etruschi ed Italici, Civita Castellana 1987), 291–326. Firenze: Leo S. Olschki. Prosdocimi, A. L. 2002. Il genitivo dei temi in -o nelle varietà italiche (osco, sannita, umbro, sudpiceno, etc.). Incontri Linguistici 25. 65–76. Prosdocimi, A. L. 2009. Sul genitivo dei temi in -o in alcune lingue indoeuropee. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 94. 50–78. Rizzo, M. A. (ed.). 1989. Pittura etrusca al Museo di Villa Giulia. Roma: cat. mostra Roma. Roncalli, F. 2008. Il ‘brindisi’ tra Iatinoz e Qunoz. In Santoro (ed.), Una nuova iscrizione da Magliano Sabina. Scrittura e cultura nella Valle del Tevere (Civiltà arcaica dei Sabini nella Valle del Tevere 2), Mediterranea suppl. 3, 43−52. Roma: Fabrizio Serra. Salomies, O. 1987. Die römischen Vornamen (Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 82). Helsinki: Societas scientiarum Fennica. Santoro, P. (ed.). 2008. Una nuova iscrizione da Magliano Sabina. Scrittura e cultura nella Valle del Tevere (Civiltà arcaica dei Sabini nella Valle del Tevere 2), Mediterranea suppl. 3. Roma: Fabrizio Serra. Seiler, H. 1983. Possession as an operational dimension of language . Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
���
Anna Orlandini and Paolo Poccetti
Seiler, H. 2001. The operational basis of possession. A dimensional approach revisited. In I. Baron, M. Herslund & F. Sørensen (eds.), Dimensions of possession (Typological Studies in Language 47), 27–40. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Small, J. P. 1971. The banquet frieze from Poggio Civitate. Studi Etruschi 39. 25–61. Solin, H. 2003. Gavidus. In S. Marchesini & P. Poccetti (eds.), Linguistica è storia – Sprachwissenscha ist Geschichte. Scritti in onore di C. De Simone, 167–170. Pisa: Giardini. Untermann, J. 1964. Rec. a Giacomelli 1963. Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeiger 216. 171–182.
