Abstract A terracotta bowl in the collection of antiquities in the J. Paul Getty Museum is the latest entry to an assemblage of Etruscan ceramics known as the “Spurinas Group.” The interior of the bowl was painted with the name calprnies, the earliest known reference to a family whose Roman branch includes several distinguished members. The paper reports on the dipinto’s paleography, the morphology, and derivational history of the Etruscan name calprnies, and its connection to its Latin counterpart, Calpurnius.

This chapter contains sections titled: Introduction Arrival of the Alphabet in Italy Etruscan Origins Date of Borrowing and Other Considerations Innovations and Changes Old Latin Orthography Letterforms Direction of Writing and Punctuation Abbreviations Letter Names Diffusion of the Latin Alphabet Further Reading

Cippi inscribed in Etruscan and Latin from the Tarquinia Museum and their social context - JORMA KAIMIO, THE CIPPUS INSCRIPTIONS OF MUSEO NAZIONALE DI TARQUINIA (Materiali del Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Tarquinia XVIII; Archaeologica 154; Giorgio Bretschneider Editore, Roma2010). Pp. xii + 217, many figs. ISSN 0391-9293; ISBN 978-88-7689-242-4. EUR. 230. - Volume 24

Excavations at the Etruscan site of Poggio Civitate (Murlo) have uncovered a seventh-century B.C.E. building complex. Two of the buildings in the complex are securely identified: one is an aristocratic residence (OC1/Residence) and the other a multifunctional workshop (OC2/Workshop). The function of a third building in the complex, which has a tripartite floor plan (OC3/Tripartite Building), is uncertain. Excavators note that the internal structure of the building makes it tempting to interpret it as a religious structure. They are appropriately cautious in their assessment of the material remains recovered on the floor of the building, but they do not consider the muluvanice inscriptions on pieces of bucchero pottery found there. I argue that this evidence contributes to the debate about the function of the OC3/Tripartite Building, suggesting that it served as the public center of the site in its broadest conception.

show differences that make them hard to integrate into a single presentation. Most 5 significantly, questions can often be readily identified as such by various markers, 6 certainly so in Latin, but more generally in many languages; whereas answers for the 7 most part, again certainly for Latin, but also cross-linguistically, are not a formally 8 distinct sentence-type. 1 That is, for questions one typically finds special morphemes, 9 whether affixes or independent words, 2 which mark different question-types; and many 10 languages, perhaps including Latin, have a special question prosody. However, it is rarely 11 the case that there are overt markers or special intonational contours signaling an 12

Preview this article: Iscrizioni umbre minori. By Giovanna Rocca, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/dia.16.2.12wal-1.gif

Preview this article: Etruskische Texte: Editio minor. Ed. by Helmut Rix, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/dia.12.1.10wal-1.gif

Preview this article: Homer and the Origin of the Greek Alphabet. By Barry B. Powell, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/dia.11.2.10wal-1.gif

Preview this article: On the Development of PIE *gh/gh in Faliscan: A Response to Picard, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/dia.10.1.16wal-1.gif

Phonological and morphological variation in Classical Latin (e.g., diphthongs ae/au vs. monophthongs e/o, retention vs. loss of final consonants and initial h-, GEN SG -is vs. -us/-os, DAT SG in -ae vs. -a, etc.) has typically been treated as regional in nature. However, these seemingly “rural” features cannot be considered instances of purely geographically based variation, for they also occur both on inscriptions from within Rome and in Roman literary usage. Coleman (1990:14) hinted at “a social dimension” to this variation, but only for au versus o variation. We argue, however, that a distinctly social dimension must be recognized for much of this variation, based on: (a) instances of hypercorrection; (b) the observation that datives in -a occur only in private, primarily domestic, inscriptions and never in public or official inscriptions; (c) Augustus's use of “rural” domos for domus, in keeping with the populist image he cultivated upon his return to Rome. This dialectal/sociolectal situation can be best understood, we argue, in terms of the model of urbanization of Milroy (1980) and Bortoni-Ricardo (1985). The transformation of originally geographic variation into socially determined variation in an urban setting resulted from migrations into Rome and the expansion of Rome after the 4th century b.c.

SUMMARY Faliscan clearly shows affinities with Latin, but the exact nature of the relationship between the two languages has not met with complete acceptance. Some scholars treat Faliscan as nothing more than a 'rural dialect' of Latin, though the inexactness of the designation 'dialectal Latin' makes this characterization problematic.Moreover, it is demonstrated here that the various features that are claimed to link Faliscan and non-Roman Latin to the exclusion of the Latin of the city of Rome are all rather late in their appearance in Faliscan, while a few very early features are to be found that unite Faliscan with all of Latinity. At the same time, though, there are significant isoglosses separating Faliscan from all Latin dialects, Roman and non-Roman. The conclusion to be drawn is that Faliscan is a separate language from Latin and not a dialect of Latin, though it is closest sibling to Latin in the Italic family tree. RÉSUMÉ La question du rapport génétique entre le latin et le falisque est examinée ici à la lumière de la méthodologie comparative et au modèle dialectologique du 'Stammbaum'. Il est démontré que le falisque n'est pas un dialect rurale du latin, comme l'on a proposé encore tout récemment, à la base de trois faits: bien des characteristiques qui se retrouvent dans les deux langues n'apparaissent que très tard dans la tradition falisque; il y a aussi des vieilles innovations qui unifient les deux; et il y a des isoglosses qui séparent le falisque de tous les dialectes latins — ceux de Rome aussi bien que les autres. Le falisque est une langue liée au latin mais à la même fois il n'est pas equivalent à un vrais dialecte latin. ZUSAMMENFASSUNG In diesem Aufsatz wird das Verhaltnis des Lateinischen mit dem Falis-kischen untersucht. Die Autoren fiïhren den Beweis, daß das Faliskische keine lateinische Mundart, und zwar aus den folgenden drei Griinden: Ers tens erscheinen viele Eigenschaften, die sich in beiden Sprachen finden fassen, erst sehr spät im Faliskischen. Zweitens gibt es sehr alte Neuerungen, die beide Sprachen gemeinsam haben, und drittens gibt es einige Neuerungen im Faliskischen, die es von alien lateinischen Mundarten, sowohl solchen inner-halb als auch außerhalb Roms, trennen. Das Faliskische ist demnach eine Sprache, die einerseits mit dem Lateinischen verwandt, andererseits aber auch von ihm deutlich abgesetzt ist.

Previous articleNext article No AccessNotes and DiscussionsSum: Further ThoughtsRex E. Wallace and Brian D. JosephRex E. Wallace Search for more articles by this author and Brian D. Joseph Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmailPrint SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Classical Philology Volume 84, Number 4Oct., 1989 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/606074 Views: 2Total views on this site Copyright 1989 The University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

Preview this article: Des Steppes aux Océans: L'indo-européen et les "Indo-Européens". By André Martinet, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/dia.5.1-2.15wal-1.gif