The Sabellic accusative plural endingsand the outcome of the Indo-European sibilants in Italic

As regards the outcome of Sabellic *-nVs# and *-rVs# after final vowel syncope, the first sequence yields Oscan and Umbrian -ns, also in the secondary 3^rd pl. ending (in all likelihood remodeled after the1^stpl. ending*-mes >-ms),and the second-Vr(nom. pl.-erin O.*neer,

U. frater). Venetic -rVs undergoes syncope at least in trisyllabic forms, as in *teuteros>te.u.te.r.s. (Padua, cf. Prosper 2018c) Interestingly, the Etruscan divine name Fufluns, in all likelihood an inherited adjective in *-ono- of Sabellic origin (cf. Meiser 1986: 215) is occasionally attested as Fuflunz, reflecting a pronunciation [nts]..

f) This change a fortiori never affected IE *-Vn.s-, nor *-Vr.s-. The often repeated assumption that IE *-Vn.sV- becomes Proto-Sabellic *-Vn^tsV- has no basis, and for all we know it may have passed to -VsV- early on. As we have just seen, *-Vr.s- is preserved in Umbrian (possibly with voicing of the sibilant, which at any rate never underwent rhotacism), but yielded -Vr- in Oscan and -Vrr- in Latin. Again, this places our major dialects at three different stages of the evolution *-VrsV- (Umbrian) >*-VrzV->*-VrhV-> *-VrrV- (Latin) > *-VrV- (Oscan), which may have started independently or may have spread as an areal feature.

Observations on the Pre-Samnite vase of Niumsis Tanunis

The recently uncovered «Opic» or «Pre-Samnite» vase of Niumsis Tanunis dates from the end of the 5^th or beginnings of the 4^th C. BC, hails from somewhere in Campania and is conducted in the Oscan national alphabet (see Agostiniani et al. 2012). Face A reads: Niumsies Tanunies est (`(it) belongs to Niumsis Tanunis'). Face B reads: ?paplamtensatriiam fufuhud niumsis tanunis eises ulsu dunum dedum (conducted in scriptio continua).

Martzloff (2017) has recently offered several alternative analyses of <paplamtensatriiam>at the beginning of face B (in fact the only sequence of controversial segmentation). He pays heed to the possibility, suggested by the editors, that the right division is <paplam tens atriiam>, meaning `close to papla atria' or `for papla atria'. In turn, `papla atria' is to be explained either as the recipient of the vase `for Papla Atria' (in which tens goes back to a preposition *tenos, cf. L. tenus) or as the vase itself (papla) that is a present for a woman called Atria Triantafillis (2014) has contributed a new interpretation of paplam as `teat-shaped vase', which is retained as correct in the following lines. Her own translation `has poured a substance (atria) into the papla', however, has no parallels and her analysis of fufuhud as a perfect form of the root *g^heu- (with f- for h-) is unwarranted, as observed by Martzloff..

Martzloff alternatively reckons with a more convincing segmentation <paplam tensatriiam>. This provides a DO for the following ^Vfufuhud ^SNiumsis Tanunis `Niumsis Tanunis has made', which has been topicalised and attracted to the beginning of the sentence. Martzloff offers no compelling account of the word formation. In my view, however, it paves the way for a connection with U. tenzitim/TESEDI (acc. sg., Um 1 Ib 6; VIb 46), a hitherto uninterpreted form designating something one has to bring out at some moment of the ritual, and, in view of the voiced segment <D>, perhaps going back to *tenes-nt-iio- or *tenes-e-nt-iio-. If these forms are related at all and designate something in the sphere of pots or vessels, they must contain a stem *ten-Vs-.

The first cognate that comes to mind is L. tenor `course', tenus `snare' and compounds like Gk. Siaxevqg `stretching itself', which ultimately continue an -es-stem derivative of the root *ten- `stretch'. If we start from a denominative stem *tenesa-, the «Opic» form can reflect an adjective *tenesa-tr-iio-, derived from an instrument noun in -a-tro- (cf. the similar derivational history oforaculum). The meaning is not clear, but `preserver' or simply `container, tray' (L. tenere, con-tinere, U. tenitu `let him hold' belong to the same root) are conceivable. It could also mean `portable' in view of the description given by the editors, who explain the holes in the grips as designed so that the skyphos could be held and carried by a temporarily fitted handle. Its formation is thus roughly comparable to that of L. tenaculum `holder' > `tongs'.

Neither tensatriiam nor Niumsis (in all likelihood an Oscan name) show post-syncope epenthesis, at least not in writing. From a slightly different angle, the denominative verb could be derived from the past participle of L. tendo `stretch', U. ustetu/OSTENDV (3^rd p. sg. fut. impv.,

Um 1 passim) `prepare, show, exhibit?', like L. *tensare, not directly attested but preserved in most Romance dialects. L. tensa is a kind of chariot for the exhibition of the exuviae deorum, a still unclear ritual performance. Apparently, instrument nouns built to different enlarged variants of the root *ten- gained considerable productivity in Italic. While this must remain merely speculative, if we accept that paplam refers to the vase itself, it could be argued that it literally means "instrument/container of nurture”, and that it goes back to a collective form *peh.2-d<sup>h</sup>leh.2, which would have regularly given *pafla and then *papla by sporadic assimilation of labials or a scribal perseverative error. In turn, this error could be favoured by the fact that several words in this text contain the same consonant in consecutive syllables and still more understandable if the scribe was actually copying from a written model. This form could then be ultimately identical to L. pabulum`sustenance'.

The interpretation of the verb form and the various syntactic possibilities compatible with it are problematic, too. In view of their superficial resemblance, fufuhud has been taken to be identical to fufuFoS (Tortora), with <h> marking the hiatus, a device attested in Oscan, and to mean `has/have been' (Agostiniani et al. 2012: 138). This idea looks formally attractive but is at odds with a number of facts. Firstly, it is not certain that /h/ was no longer realised at that time, and that the letter used for the aspiration could now be put to service in this way or to mark vowel length, as in the rest of Sabellic. Secondly, this is not exactly like other hiatuses: it must have contained a transitional [u] that would probably be represented in a different manner, as in Tortora If Willi (2010) is right and Italic inherited a perfect *b<sup>h</sup>u-b<sup>h</sup>u-e(-i)>*fufiuei, which somewhere down the line became opaque and was dialectally recharacterised by a new reduplication, the underlying approximant would hardly be expected to be spelt <h>. On the other hand, SP. suhuh<*souod (TE 1, S. Omero) does not qualify as a counterexample. According to Weiss (2002: 356-357), [u] was lost in this context and <h> notes the subsequent rais-ing of the first /o/.. Thirdly, the preceding accusative paplam tensatriiam requires a transitive verb. Finally, if we interpreted tens as a preposition, as Agostiniani et al. (2012) have done, we would hardly expect it to govern an accusative of direction with the verb `to be'. Martzloff (2017: 140) tentatively reconstructs *d^he-d^hoig^h- `has fashioned, modeled'. A sound change /oi/ > /u:/ would be underpinned by South-Picene persukant, if from *soik- (as per Meiser 1986: 88). Note, however, that this attractive etymology is exclusively based on Umbrian forms of the same root: the 3<sup>rd</sup> pers. pl. fut. perf. prusikurent `confirm, declare', traced back to *seik-, and, crucially, the fut. impv. sukatu, which Meiser traces back to a denominative verb *soika (in turn the only instance of the alleged sound change /oi/ > /u:/ in Umbrian). All these forms, however, are generally traced back to *sek^u- `say' (LIV:526). Cf. WOU: 712, Weiss (2010: 187, fn. 164). The change /oi/ > /u:/ is borne out by a single form but is proposed for two languages, whose testimonies underpin each other. Consequently, the hypothesis, however seductive at first sight, incurs circularity and remains unproven. There is, in addition, a minor problem of pragmatic redundancy: it is somewhat outlandish that Face A states that the object belongs to Niumsis Tanunis (Niumsies Tanunies est) and Face B that he is the artisan who has actually created it.

The possible objections against the assumed shift and the reconstruction of two different Sabellic preterites may be bypassed by the alternative postulation of a perfect *d^he-d^hug^h- `has produced, made ready' (LIV: 148-149 *d<sup>h</sup>eug<sup>h</sup>- `treffen'), directly comparable to Gk. xexeux« `have produced', and possibly Mycenaean n. pl. te-tu-ko-wo-a `prepared, set up', xexeux^g `wrought', which can be taken to mean that this perfect was originally stative. Crucially, this verb would have merged in Italic in a number of forms with the outcome of *b<sup>h</sup>eug-, as in L. fungor, which may have favoured its eventual disappearance. Under these premises, the reduplication vowel /u/ is straightforwardly accounted for, as in Vedic dudoha `has milked'. In addition, this sets the stage for an alternative syntactic analysis: tensatriiam could be not the de- terminans of paplam, but a predicative complement. A very tentative translation would then run: `Niumsis Tanunis has made the papla as / to serve as, play the role of [--]'⁹⁰.

Additionally, we have an interesting sequence eises ulsu in the same text, immediately following fufuhud Niumsis Tanunis. In line with former interpretations, I translate `eius iussu', `by his will', vel sim. The first form is in all likelihood the gen. sg. masc. of an anaphoric pronoun, and the second is an ablative or instrumental singular and has been given a number of etymological interpretations without foothold in Italic itself (see Martzloff 2017, with references). As observed by Agostiniani et al. (2012: 136), the actual form may actually have been ulsud, with the habitual omission of the final consonant when the next word begins by the same one.

I trace ulsu(d) to a thematic derivative ⁹⁰ Under a still more daring assumption, which is little more than a guess, one could ascribe to the rootd^heug^h- an ancient meaning `to milk' which is hitherto only known from Indo-Arian. Since paplam has been associ-ated to L. papilla and taken to mean `breast vase', which must be a metaphorical designation in view of the shape

of the vase (see Triantafillis 2014; Martzloff 2017) this could be a cheerful way of celebrating Niumsis' main hobby:

`has milked the breast ...' would simply be a humorous allusion to drinking wine.

⁹¹ This form has been traced back to *ulti- by Lejeune himself (cf. LV: 341).

⁹² Cf. the Italic personal names VOLSO, VOLSONI attested in Dalmatia and Venetia et Histria; VOLSA in Samnium and Picenum, VOLSARIA in Venetia et Histria, and, for the latter coalescence, BANSAE for +BANTIAE (Lu 1, 100 BC). Bear in mind that LECIONIBVS MARTSES (CIL I: 5, Luco dei Marsi, from *martiio-) is already attested in the 4^th C. BC.

⁹³ The root-final laryngeal was in my view lost in this position early in Italic, as shown by all the extant cog-nates of this root (cf. Prosper 2017).

⁹⁴ Needless to say, this sets the stage for the possibility of tracing tensatriiam to *ten-ti-a-tro-, with palatalisa-tion of the cluster *-ti-. Cf. Skr. tanti-, tantu- `thread', Gk. xacig `lengthening', OIr. tet, and, of course, the base of Latin compounds like con-tentio.u}Hti-d(d) of the action noun *u}Hti- `power; will'. Its base is thus equatable to OIr. flaith `sovereignty' and the first member of the Venetic personal names vo.l.tigno.s., voltigenei (LV: 63, 56, Este). Interestingly, Euganean Venetic is characterised by a similar formula closing a number of inscription: o.p. vo.l.tiio leno `by free/sovereign will/power' (LV: 12A, Este, translated in 12B as [d]o[nom] dedit libens merito). Thus, ulsu(d) and vo.l.tiio<sup>91</sup> are identical forms that occurred exactly in the same context: ulsu(d) is immediately followed by the formula dunum dedum `I gave as a gift', which closes the text. Palatalisation, subsequent affrication and perhaps eventual fricativisation of -ti- were probably only possible at such an early date for a Proto-Italic sequence *-tiV-, not *-tiiV-, and the actual phonetic realisation may have been closer to [ts]⁹². We would consequently expect +uolsu. The spelling ul- can be due to assimilation *uu- > *uu- and ensuing reduction or simply graphic omission of /u/⁹³. Either ulsu(d) was substantivised or the expression was reproduced in abbreviated form, but at any rate eises ulsu(d) looks like a very old formula⁹⁴. The destinatary of the vase might have been a person, a divinity or a group of them, which would have been left unmentioned; face B could mean something like `the vase ?... made Niumsis Tanunis; in fulfilment of his will, I gave it as a gift'. The subject of the enunciation and of the sentence `I gave' is the person who, ex hypothesi, fulfilled the vow of the deceased Niumsis Tanunis or placed it in his tomb to ensure him a safe journey to the underworld.

References

1. Adams, James Noel. 2013. Social Variation and the Latin Language.Cambridge University Press.

2. Agostiniani, Luciano, Giulio M. Facchetti. 2012. Il vaso di Niumsis Tanunis. Studi Etruschi 75: 123-146.

3. Akamatsu, Tsutomu. 2011. Epenthetic plosives in English: phonetic and phonological aspects. Moenia 17: 87-124.

4. Alonso Dйniz, Alcorac. 2011. El supuesto alargamiento compensatorio *nЈVO|ja >пєїст|аа 'amarre, cuerda' en griego antiguoy otras cuestiones relacionadas. Die Sprache49: 217-253.

5. Bader, Franзoise.1962. La formation des composйs nominaux du latin. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.

6. Beekes, Robert S. P. 1982. GAv. ma.The PIE Word for Month, Moon and the Perfect Participle.The Journal of Indo- European Studies 10: 53-63.

7. Beekes, Robert S. P. 2010. Etymological Dictionary of Greek.Vols. 1-2. Leiden / Boston: Brill.

8. Beltran Lloris, Francisco, Jьrgen Untermann, Javier De Hoz. 1996. El tercer bronce de Botorrita (Contrebia Belaisca). Zaragoza: Institution Fernando el Catolico.

9. Benediktsson, Hreinn. 1960. The Vowel Syncope in Oscan-Umbrian. Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprokvidenskap 19: 157-295.

10. Bonfante, Giuliano. 1988. Venиtico, itаlico, latino. In: P. Kosta, G. Lerch, P. Olivier (eds.): Festgabe Werner Thomas zum 65. Geburtstag:9-12. Munich: Segner.

11. Bottiglioni, Gino. 1954. Manuale dei dialetti italici: osco, umbro e dialetti minori. Bologna: STEB.

12. Buck, Carl D. 1904. A Grammar of Oscan and Umbrian.With a Collection of Inscriptions and a Glossary. Boston: Ginn and Co.

13. Burroni, Francesco. 2016. A Tale of two Roots: PIE *kerh1/3-,PIE *(s)ker-, and the Umbrian Month Name зersiв-. Talk given at the 28th Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference, November 11th and 12th, 2016. Available online at: https://pies.ucla.edu/IEConference/IECabstracts/burroni_f_2016.pdf.

14. Chabaneau, Camille. 1879. T non-йtymologique en Langue d'Oc. Romania8: 110-114.

15. Clackson, James. 2013. Subgrouping in the Sabellian Branch of Indo-European.Transactions of the Philological Society 111: 4-37.

16. Coseriu, Eugenio. 1966. Tomo y me voy. Ein Problem vergleichender europдischer Syntax. Vox Romanica 25: 13-55.

17. Cowgill, Warren. 1980. The Etymology of Ir. guidid and the Outcome of IE *gwh in Celtic. In: M. Mayrhofer, M. Peters, O. Pfeiffer (eds.). Lautgeschichte und Etymologie. Akten der VI Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft: 49-78. Wiesbaden: Reichert.

18. Cser, Andras. 2012. The Role of Sonority in the Phonology of Latin. In: S. Parker (ed.). The Sonority Controversy: 3953. Berlin: De Gruyter.

19. Derksen, Rick. 2007. Etymological Dictionary of the Slavic Inherited Lexicon. Leiden: Brill.

20. DTB = Adams, Douglas Q. 1999. A dictionary of Tocharian B. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

21. Dupraz, Emmanuel. 2012. Sabellian Demonstratives: Forms and Functions. Leiden: Brill.

22. EDHIL = Kloekhorst, Alwin. 2008. Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon. Leiden: Brill.

23. EDLIL = De Vaan, Michiel. 2008. Etymological dictionary of Latin and the other Italic languages. Leiden: Brill.

24. Fisher, Jay. 2014. The Annals of Quintus Ennius and the Italic Tradition. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

25. Forssman, Manfred. 1964. пер' LyvЬCTL hy. Merc.152'. Zeitschrift fьr Vergleichende Sprachforschung 79: 28-31.

26. Fortson, Benjamin W. 2017. The Dialectology of Italic. In: J. Klein, B. Joseph, M. Fritz (eds.). Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics II: 835-857. Berlin / Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.

27. Fortson, Benjamin W., Michael Weiss. 2019. Oscan kыnsоf deоvыtsand the Dп Consentes. Classical Philology 114: 637-645.

28. Fourakis, Marios, Robert Port. 1986, Stop Epenthesis in English. Journal of Phonetics 14: 197-221.

29. Garcia-Ramon, Josй Luis. 1985. Griego прєстрид y variantes dialectales. Emerita 53: 51-80.

30. Gualtieri, Maurizio, Paolo Poccetti. 2001. Frammento di tabula bronzea con iscrizione osca dal pianoro centrale. In: M. Gualtieri, H. Fracchia (eds.). Roccagloriosa II. L'oppidum lucano e il territorio: 187-274. Naples: Centre Jean Bйrard.

31. Hamp, Eric P. 1972. On Medial s in Italic.Glotta 50: 290-291.

32. Hansen, Peter A. (ed.). 2005. Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon. VolumenIII. П-Е. Berlin / New York: Walter de Gruyter.

33. Hill, Eugen. 2003. Untersuchungen zum inneren Sandhi des Indogermanischen: der Zusammenstoss von Dentalplosiven im Indoiranischen, Germanishen, Italischen und Keltischen. Bremen: Hempen Verlag.

34. Hцfler, Stefan. 2017. Observations on the palma-Rule. Pallas 103: 15-23.

35. Hцfler, Stefan. 2018. A Look over L. umerus 'Shoulder'. In: D. M. Goldstein, S. W. Jamison, B. Vine (eds.). Proceedings of the 29th Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference: 129-146. Bremen: Hempen Verlag.

36. IItal. = Crawford, Michael H. et al. (ed.). 2011. Imagines Italicae: A Corpus of Italic Inscriptions I-III. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies Supplement 110.University of London.

37. Kavitskaya, Darya. 2002. Compensatory Lengthening. Phonetics, Phonology, Diachrony. London / New York: Routledge.

38. Klingenschmitt, Gert. 1992. Die lateinische Nominalflexion. In: O. Panagl, Th. Krisch (eds.). Latein und Indogermanisch: Akten des Kolloquiums der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Salzburg, 23-26 September 1986: 89-135. Innsbruck: IBS.

39. Koch, Christoph. 1990. Das morphologische System des altkirchenslavischen Verbums I-II. Munich: W. Fink.

40. Koch, John T. 1992. Gallo-Brittonic Tasc(i)ouanos «Badger-slayer» and the Reflex of Indo-European gwh'. Journal of Celtic Linguistics 1: 101-118.

41. La Regina, Adriano. 2017. Tegola con iscrizione osca. In: A. G. Pezzi, M. C. Rossi (eds.). San Giovanni in Venere.Storia, arte e archeologia di una abbazia benedittina. 109-110. Pescara: Carsa.

42. Lazzarini, Maria L., Paolo Poccetti. 2001. Ilmondo enotrio tra VI e V secolo a. C. Atti dei seminari napoletani (19961998), L'iscrizione paleoitalica da Tortora. Naples: Loffredo.

43. Lejeune, Michel. 1970. Phonologie osque et graphie grecque. Revue des Йtudes Anciennes 72: 271-316.

44. LIV = Rix, Helmut, Martin Kьmmel et al. 2001. Lexicon der indogermanischen Verben. Die Wurzeln und ihre Primдrstammbildungen. Wiesbaden: Reichert.

45. LV = Lejeune, Michel. 1974. Manuel de la langue venиte.Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitдtsverlag.

46. Marinetti, Anna. 1985. Le iscrizioni sudpicene. I. Testi.Florence: Leo Olschki Editore.

47. Marinetti, Anna, Aldo L. Prosdocimi. 1994. Nuovi ciottoloni venetici iscritti da Padova paleoveneta. In: B. M. Scarfi (ed.). Studi di archeologia della X regio in ricordo di Michele Tombolani: 171-192. Rome: L'Erma di Bretschneider.

48. Martzloff, Vincent. 2017. A propos des formes opiques paplam, dedum, fufuhud(inscription de Niumsis Tanunis). Wekwos 3: 117-148.

49. McDonald, Katherine, Nicholas Zair. 2012. Oscan Foupouox and the Roccagloriosa Law Tablet. Incontri Linguistici 35: 31-45.

50. Meiser, Gerhard. 1986. Lautgeschichte der umbrischen Sprache. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beitrдge zur Sprachwissenschaft.

51. Meiser, Gerhard. 1987. Pдlignisch, Latein und Sьdpikenisch. Glotta 65: 104-125.

52. Mйndez Dosuna, Julian V. 1994. Contactos silabicos y procesos de geminaciцn en griego antiguo. A propцsito de las variantes dialectales oppoз (at. фpoз) y Koppa (at. KЦpq). Die Sprache36: 103-127.

53. Mйndez Dosuna, Julian V. 1996. Can Weakening Processes Start in Initial Position? The Case of Aspiration of /s/ and /f/. In: B. Hurch, R. A. Rhodes (eds.).,Natural Phonology. The State of the Art: 97-106. Berlin / New York: De Gruyter.

54. Mйndez Dosuna, Julian V. 2007. Ex praesente lux. In: I. Hajnal (ed.). Die altgriechischen Dialekte,Wesen und Werden: 355-384. Innsbruck: IBS.

55. Mihaylova, Biliana. 2016. The Pre-Greek Substratum Revisited. In: B. Simmelkjжr, S. Hansen, B. Nielsen Whitehead, Th. Olander, B. A. Olsen (eds.). Etymology and the European Lexicon. Proceedings of the 14th Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft: 307-317. Wiesbaden: Reichert.

56. Mommsen, Theodor. 1846. I. Bronzo di Rapino. Annali dell'instituto di Corrispondenza Archeologica: 82-98.

57. Moutsos, Demetrios. 1976. Some Observations on a Phonological Problem of Middle and Modern Greek. Zeitschrift fьr vergleichende Sprachforschung 89: 235-264.

58. Naпm, Samia. 2016. On Interaction between External and Internal Markers in Expressing Aspect in Arabic Dialect Varieties. In:Z. Guentchйva (ed.). Aspectuality and Temporality. Descriptive and Theoretical Analyses: 325-354. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

59. Neri, Sergio. 2012. Zum indogermanischen Wort fьr 'hand'. In: A. Cooper, J. Rau, M. Weiss (eds.). Multi Nominis Grammaticus. Studies in Classical and Indo-European Linguistics in Honor of Alan J. Nussbaum on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday: 185-205. Ann Arbor / New York: Beech Stave Press.

60. Neri, Sergio. 2019. Riflessi delle laringali indoeuropee in germanico. In: R. Roselli (ed.). Dall' indoeuropeo al ger- manico: Problemi di Linguistica storica: 41-66. Alessandria: Edizioni dell'Orso.

61. Nussbaum, Alan J. 1986. Head and Horn in Indo-European. Berlin / New York: De Gruyter.

62. Ohala, John J. 1974. Experimental Historical Phonology. In: J. M. Anderson, Ch. Jones (eds.). Historical Linguistics, II: Theory and Description in Phonology: 353-389. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

63. Ohala, John J. 1997. Emergent Stops: Diachronic and Phonetic Data. Proceedings of Seoul International Conference on Linguistics: 307-317. Seoul: Linguistic Society of Korea.

64. Ohala, John J., M. Grazia Busа. 1995. Nasal Loss before Voiceless Fricatives: a Perceptually-based Sound Change. Rivista di Linguistica 7: 125-144.

65. Peters, Martin. 1980. Untersuchungen zur Vertretung der indogermanischen Laryngale im Griechischen. Wien: Цsterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.

66. Pisani, Vittore. 1953. Le lingue dell'Italia antica oltre il Latino. Torino: Rosenberg &Sellier.

67. Poccetti, Paolo. 2006. Notes de linguistique italique 3. L'attestation osque du nom pour «consul» et le traitement de [ns] avec ses reflets latins et romans. Revue des Йtudes Latines 84: 27-36.

68. Poccetti, Paolo. 2009. Problemi antichi e dati nuovi: Coincidenze di teonimi e di antroponimi nell'italia antica. In: P. Poccetti (ed.). L'onomastica dell'ltalia antica. Aspetti linguistici, storici, culturali, tipologici e classificatori: 219248. Rome: Йcole Franзaise de Rome.

69. Poccetti, Paolo. 2013. Eine neue kalendarische Angabe im Oskischen mit einem Exkurs ьber den Vornamen Minis. Linguarum Varietas 2: 207-222.

70. Poccetti, Paolo. 2013b. Notes de linguistique italique: 13. De nouveaux thйonymes osques et leur relation avec les divinitйs romaines. Revue des Йtudes Latines 91: 27-46.

71. Poccetti, Paolo. 2016. The Italic Words for «Moon/Month» and «Sun». New Evidence from the Sabellian Languages. In: B. Simmelkjжr, S. Hansen, B. Nielsen Whitehead, Th. Olander, B. A. Olsen (eds.). Etymology and the European Lexicon. Proceedings of the 14th Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft: 353-363. Wiesbaden: Reichert.

72. Prosdocimi, Aldo L. 1996. La Tavola di Agnone. Una interpretazione. In: L. Del Tutto Palma (ed.). La Tavola di Agnone nel Contesto Italico: 435-630. Firenze: Cosmo Iannone.

73. Prosper, Blanca Maria. 2017. Proto-Italic Laryngeals in the Context ClHC- and New Italic and Celtic Etymological Connections. Rivista Italiana di Linguistica e Dialettologia 19: 1-24.

74. Prosper, Blanca Maria. 2018a. The Indo-European Personal Names of Pannonia, Noricum and Northern Italy: Comparative and Superlative Forms in Celtic, Venetic, and South-Picene. Voprosy Onomastiki 15: 108-138.

75. Prosper, Blanca Maria. 2018b. The Venetic Agent Nouns in -tцr-Revisited. In: J. M. Vallejo, I. Igartua, C. G. Casti- llero (eds.). Studia Philologica et Diachronica in Honorem Joaquin Gorrochategui: 453-471. Vitoria: Publicaciones de la Universidad del Pais Vasco.

76. Prosper, Blanca Maria. 2018c. The Venetic Inscription from Monte Manicola and threetermini publicifrom Padua: A Reappraisal. The Journal of Indo-European Studies 46: 1-61.

77. Prosper, Blanca Maria. 2019a. Celtic and Venetic in Contact: The Dialectal Attribution of the Personal Names in the Venetic Record. Zeitschrift fьr Celtische Philologie66: 7-52.

78. Prosper, Blanca Maria. 2019b. Language Change at the Crossroads: what Celtic, what Venetic, and what else in the Personal Names of Emona? Voprosy Onomastiki 16: 33-73.

79. Prosper, Blanca Maria. 2020. Mars Veneticus and the Palma Rule. Ms. (to appear in a Festschrift).

80. Rasmussen, Jensgard E. 1994. Ablaut zwischen Konsonanten: Die Quellen von Idg. /s/. In: G. Dunkel et al. (eds.). Frьh-, Mittel-, Spдtindogermanisch. Akten der IX Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft: 325-336. Wiesbaden: Reichert.

81. Recasens, Daniel. 2012. The Phonetic Implementation of Underlying and Epenthetic Stops in Word Final Clusters in Valencian Catalan. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 42: 65-90.

82. Recasens, Daniel. 2018. The Production of Consonant Clusters. Implications for Phonology and Sound-change. Berlin / New York: Mouton-De Gruyter.

83. Repetti, Lori. 2002. Non-homorganic Nasal Clusters in Northern Italian Dialects. In: T. Satterfield, Ch. Tortora, D. Cresti (eds.). Current Issues in Romance Languages, Selected papers from the 29th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Ann Arbor, 8-11 April 1999: 271-285. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: Benjamins.

84. Rix, Helmut. 1986. Die Endung des Akkusativ Plural Commune im Oskischen. In: A. Etter (ed.). O-o-pe-ro-si.Festschrift fьr Ernst Risch zum 75.Geburtstag:583-597. Berlin / New York: De Gruyter.

85. Rix, Helmut. 1993. Osk. upsannam - uupsensund Zugehцriges. In: F. Heidermanns, H. Rix, E. Seebold (eds.). Sprachen und Schriften des antiken Mittelmeerraums: Festschrift fьr Jьrgen Untermann: 329-348. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beitrдge zur Sprachwissenschaft.

86. Rix, Helmut. 1994. Latein und Sabellisch. Stammbaum oder Sprachbund? Incontri Linguistici 17: 13-29.

87. Rix, Helmut. 1998. Eine neue frьhsabellische Inschrift und der altitalische Prдventiv. Historische Sprachforschung 111: 247-269.

88. Rocca, Giovanna. 1996. Ancora sul dossieritalico di Cerere. In: L. Del Tutto Palma (ed.). La Tavola di Agnone nel Contesto Italico: 645-660. Firenze: Cosmo Iannone.

89. Rohlfs, Gerhard. 1968. Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti. Turin: Einaudi.

90. Ruijgh, Cornelis J. 1967. Йtudes sur la grammaire et le vocabulaire du grec mycйnien. Amsterdam: Hakkert.

91. Schumacher, Stefan. 2004. Die keltischen Primдrverben. Ein vergleichendes, etymologisches und morphologisches Lexikon. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beitrдge zur Sprachwissenschaft.

92. Schumacher, Stefan, Joachim Matzinger. 2013. Die Verben des Altalbanischen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

93. Segenni, Simonetta. 2007. Mesene Flusare. Nota sulla provenienza vestina (e non sabina) dell iscrizione Vetter 22 7. Epigraphica 69: 389-395.

94. Simon, Zsolt. 2020. The Anatolian Stop-system and the Indo-Hittite Hypothesis -- Revisited. In: M. Serangeli, Th. Olander (eds.). Dispersals and Diversification: Linguistic and Archaeological Perspectives on the Early Stages of Indo-European: 236-250. Leiden / Boston: Brill.

95. Solmsen, Felix. 1907. Weiteres zum Suffix -dotov. Rheinisches Museum fьr Philologie, Neue Folge 62: 636-638.

96. ST = Rix, Helmut. 2002. Sabellische Texte. Die Texte des Oskischen, Umbrischen und Sьdpikenischen. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitдtsverlag.

97. Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2000. The English GO-(PRT)-AND-VERB Construction. In: Lisa J. Conathan (ed.). Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session and Parasession on Aspect: 259-270. Berkeley Linguistics Society.

98. Stuart-Smith, Jane. 2004. Phonetics and Philology. Sound Change in Italic.Oxford University Press.

99. Tikkanen, Karin W. 2011. A Sabellian case grammar. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitдtsverlag.

100. Tocco, Giuliana. 2000. Frammento di legge in lingua osca su tavola bronzea. In: A. La Regina (ed.). Studi sull' Italia dei Sanniti: 224-229. Milan: Electa.

101. Triantafillis, Elena. 2014. Osservazioni sull'iscrizione italica di Niumsis Tanunis: tra ermeneutica e linguistica. Padua Working Papers in Linguistics 6: 3-44.

102. Untermann, Jьrgen. 1968. Merkmale der Wortgrenze in den Altitalischen Sprachen.Word 24: 479-490.

103. Vaux, Bert. 1998. The Laryngeal Specifications of Fricatives. Linguistic Inquiry 29: 497-511.

104. Vetter, Emil. 1953. Handbuch der italischen Dialekte, I. Band. Texte mit Erklдrung, Glossen, Wцrterverzeichnis.Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitдtsverlag.

105. Vine, Brent. 1993. Studies in Archaic Latin Inscriptions.Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beitrдge zur Sprachwissenschaft.

106. Vine, Brent. 2016. Latin crassus, grossus, classis. Indogermanische Forschungen 121: 131-158.

107. Wagner, Max L. 1955. Expletive Verbalformen in den Sprachen des Mittelmeers.Romanische Forschungen 67: 1-8.

108. Wallace, Rex. 1985. Volscian sistiatiens. Glotta 63: 93-101.

109. Warner, Natasha, Andrea Weber. 2001. Perception of Epenthetic Stops. Journal of Phonetics 29: 53-87.

110. Weiss, Michael. 1998. On Some Problems of Final Syllables in South-Picene. In: J. Jasanoff, H. C. Melchert, L. Oliver (eds.). Mir Curad. Studies in Honour of Calvert Watkins: 703-715. Innsbruck: Institut fьr Sprachwissenschaft der Universitдt Innsbruck.

111. Weiss, Michael. 2009. An Outline of the Historical and Comparative Grammar of Latin. Ann Arbor / New York: Beech Stave Press.

112. Weiss, Michael. 2010. Language and Ritual in Sabellic Italy. The Ritual Complex of the Third and Fourth Tabulae Eugubi- nae, Leiden: Brill.

113. Weiss, Michael. 2017. An Italo-Celtic Divinity and a Common Sabellic Sound Change. Classical Antiquity 36: 270-289.

114. Weiss, Michael. Forthc. Pig, Cake and Sun: Observations on the iuvila Inscriptions. (To appear in a Festschrift).

115. Willi, Andreas. 2010. To be or not to be: the Latin Perfect in -v-. Historische Sprachforschung122: 228-247.

116. WOU = Untermann, Jьrgen. 2000. Wцrterbuch des Oskisch-Umbrischen. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitдtsverlag.

117. Zair, Nicholas. 2012. The Reflexes of the Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals in Celtic.Leiden: Brill.

Размещено на Allbest.ru