The Second Line of the DVENOS Inscription Again

INNSBRUCKER BEITRÄGE ZUR SPRACHWISSENSCHAFT herausgegeben von WOLFGANG MEID Band 166 STUDIES IN GENERAL AND HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS Offered to JÓN AXEL HARĐARSON On the Occasion of his 65th Birthday Edited by MATTEO TARSI INNSBRUCK 2021 Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Bibliothek Die Deutsche Bibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.ddb.de abrufbar ISBN 978-3-85124-753-4 2021 INNSBRUCKER BEITRÄGE ZUR SPRACHWISSENSCHAFT Herausgeber: Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Meid Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck Herstellung der Druckvorlage: Matteo Tarsi Bandredaktion: Archaeolingua Budapest Druck: PrimeRate, Budapest Bestell- und Auslieferungsadresse: A-6020 Innsbruck, Innrain 52 Telefax (+43)-(0)-512-507-2837 E-Mail: wolfgang.meid@uibk.ac.at vii Contents Preface v Bibliography of Jón Axel Harðarson ix Spēs Exploration Alan J. Nussbaum (Cornell) The form of laughter interjections in Polish Alexander Andrason (Stellenbosch) Zur Genus- und Sexusproblematik in einer Sprache ohne grammatisches Genus Bela Brogyanyi (Freiburg) Tocharian B yerkwantala* Douglas Q. Adams (Idaho) and Václav Blažek (Brno) Verb agreement patterns of neuter plural subjects in Homeric Greek Eystein Dahl (Frankfurt) Hvernig of jafngilti, eða breyttist í, um Helgi Skúli Kjartansson (Reykjavík) Tvær, þrjár athugasemdir um tveim(ur) og þrem(ur) Katrín Axelsdóttir (Reykjavík) Hugleiðing um tilurð nýrra beygingardæma í íslensku: ákveðni og miðmynd Kristján Árnason (Reykjavík) Runeninschriften von der Wesermündung: Sprache und Geschichte Ludwig Rübekeil (Zürich) Zum Verhältnis von avestisch nāf° und nabā- ‘Nabel’ Martin Kümmel (Jena) Bemerkungen zu altgriechisch εὖνις Michael Meier-Brügger (FU Berlin) The Second Line of the DVENOS Inscription Again Michael Weiss (Cornell) 1 29 aa aa 51 81 89 109 131 aa aa 149 175 191 203 207 viii Contents Heth. wannummiya- ‚ohne Familienvorstand‘, und idg. *uenNorbert Oettinger (Erlangen-Nürnberg) wannup(p)astal(l)a- aa aa 215 aa Lat. negō* ‚not me; ich nicht‘, ‚I deny; ich verneine‘: Lexikalisierung aa von Echo-Antworten und delokutive Ableitung 223 Olav Hackstein (Münich) aa On the fourfold root of the verbum substantivum in English (and aa Germanic) 237 Patrick V. Stiles (London) MUL The medial syllable syncope in the South Picene inscriptions 269 Reiner Lipp (Prague) aa Best and Better – Shared Ranking of Social Values in Indo-European aa Poetry 329 Reyes Bertolín Cebrián (Calgary) Wortfeld und Wortfamilie 347 Rosemarie Lühr (HU Berlin) Zur Wortbildung von lat. germānus ‚leiblich; echt‘ 365 Sergio Neri (Münich) c aa Armenisch ark ay ‘König’, griechisch ἄρχω ‘beginne, herrsche’ und aa indoiranisch *ará- ‘Herr; Arier’ 387 Stefan Schaffner (Erlangen-Nürnberg) MICHAEL WEISS The Second Line of the DVENOS Inscription Again Abstract The second line of the VOL DVENOS inscription contains a negative protasis introduced by AST. The negative is NOI(N), the posited ancestor of CL nōn, and the subject of this clause is the feminine nominative singular pronoun SI (cf. OIr. sí, Goth. si). The clause ASTEDNOISIOPET should be translated “But if she doesn’t choose you.” 1. Jón Axel Harðarson is widely known for his magisterial contributions to Germanic linguistics and Indo-European verbal morphology. But in this paper I would like to pay him tribute by reacting to his article (Jón Axel Harðarson 2011) on the second line of the DVENOS inscription, an article that has been of capital importance in the subsequent discourse and in shaping my own views. 2. The second line of the inscription, which reads in scriptio continua as ASTEDNOISIOPETOITESIAIPACARIVOIS, is by far the most obscure. In this paper I want to argue for a new segmentation, which, to my knowledge, has not been proposed before. There is little doubt that a new colon begins with the sequence AST… As pointed out by Jordan (1882: 7) there is a gap after the last letter of the first line, which is not caused by any external necessity and which must be intended to mark a boundary of some sort. The sequence at the beginning of the second line has been read by most scholars in recent years as AST (T)ED1 following a suggestion first made by Bréal (1882: 157) and adopted most famously by Thurneysen (1899: 197).2 Bréal simply treated AST as a variant of at,3 as indeed it is in Classical Latin, and translated it as ‘mais’, but Thurneysen introduced a crucial detail. He noted that in Old Latin ast is not just a variant of at but has a very specific function viz. introducing a second conditional clause. 1 2 3 The single writing of geminate t in the combination ast + 2nd sg. pronoun finds a curiously exact parallel in the spelling ASTV for ast tu in the Acts of the Arval Brethren (CIL 6.2068.19, etc.). In the same year as Bréal’s article (1882) Jordan suggested reading ASTED as an archaic variant of ast. The alternative division, which takes ASTED as the subjunctive of astāre and which goes back to the first interpretation of Dressel and Buecheler (1880, listed as Dressel 1880 in the references), though formally unobjectionable, has never made a lot of sense. Since for graphic reasons ASTED is unlikely to belong to the preceding colon, it must be construed with the colon it begins and this colon already has a superfluity of potentially verbal forms. Etymology of ast: Ernout and Meillet (1985: s.v. ast): “at doit se cacher sous ast, mais on ne sait pas comment.” de Vaan (2008: s.v. ast) suggests *atst < *at-est ‘but is’. Walde and Hofmann (1938: s.v. ast) prefer *at-s-ti (but Lindsay 1894: 600 *ad-s-ti). Cf. the -s of Osc. az ‘ad’ and the *-ti of post < *posti. Walde and Hofmann’s etymon is more likely to have produced ast by the time of the 6th century. Finally, Dunkel (2014: 87) (reviving Ceci 1895: 633) suggests *at-dhe closely matching IndoIranian *adzdh ‘certainly’ (Ved. addh OAv. and OP azdā). 208 Michael Weiss The examples of this construction are well known and predominant in Very Old and Old Latin.4 For example: Lex Regia, Font. iur. p. 14, Fest. p. 260L: si parentem puer uerberit, ast olle plorassit, puer diuis parentum sacer esto “If a child strikes a parent and if that one complains, let the child be sacred to the ancestral gods.” Plautus, Capt. 683–684: si ego hic peribo, ast ille, ut dixit, non redit, at erit mi hoc factum mortuo memorabile “If I die here, and if he, as he said, doesn’t return, at least I’ll have accomplished this deed which will be remembered when I am dead.” Since, by almost all accounts, the preceding clause of the DVENOS inscription is a negative conditional (NEI TED ENDO COSMIS VIRCO SIED “if the girl should not be friendly towards you,”) and the end of the second line includes an imperative in an apparent apodosis, it is attractive to see the AST here in its well established VOL function—introducing a second protasis. This interpretation, as plausible as it is, creates problems of its own. If AST introduces the second protasis, then what is the role of NOISI, widely thought to be a VOL equivalent of CL nisi ‘if not’? If we examine the instances of ast in its 2nd-protasis-introducing function we see that it never combines with another conditional particle within its clause. Compare from the Twelve Tables: (XII, 5.7) Si furiosus escit, ast ei custos nec escit, adgnatum gentiliumque in eo pecuniaque eius potestas esto “If there is a madman, and if he has no guardian, the authority over him and his property goes to his agnate relatives or to the members of his gens.”5 (XII, 10.9) cui auro dentes iuncti escunt, ast im cum illo sepeliet uretue, se fraude esto “If someone’s teeth are bound with gold, and if they bury or cremate him with that, it shall be with impunity.” and from the Lex Ursoniensis (CIL 1.594, 44 BCE): 4 5 See Lindsay (1900: 276–277). Jordan (1879: 290–295) probably goes too far in trying to entirely eliminate ast in the sense ‘but’ from Old Latin, but the only secure example, in my view, is Plaut. Merc. 246 ast non habere quoi commendarem capram. “but I seemed not to have anyone to whom I could entrust the goat.” This example is somewhat constructed because Cic. de inv. 2.50 and ad Herenn. 1.13.23 give just si furiosus escit, adgnatum gentiliumque in eo pecuniaque eius potestas esto. The clause ast ei custos nec escit is preserved by Festus p. 158L in the discussion of nec as a simple negative. It was combined with the si furiosus quote by Schoell (1866: 109). The Second Line of the DVENOS Inscription Again 209 SI QVIS IN EO VIM FACIET, AST EIVS VINCITVR, DVPLI DAMNAS ESTO “If anyone does violence against him (the one leading him off), and if he is convicted of the same, he shall be liable to double the amount claimed.” and extracting the formulaic elements from the oath for the well-being of the emperor and his household in the Acta Arvalium (CIL 6. 32363, 32341, 32444, etc.): IVPPITER, SI IMPERATOR VIVET EVMQVE SERVAVERIS, AST TV EA ITA FAXIS, TVM TIBI BOVE AVRATO VOVEMUS FVTVRVM “Jupiter, if the emperor lives and you will have kept him safe, and if you do these things in this way, then we vow that we will sacrifice a gilded ox to you.” From this very precise—and evidently old—function ast has developed in two ways. On the one hand, it has become a simple alternative for at that was especially useful to the poets because it was metrically distinct.6 On the other hand, ast has become freed from its original locus and can be used in the sense “but if”, even when not preceded by another conditional clause. In order to save the interpretation of the second line as combining AST and NOISI (= CL nisi) one could suppose that ast was being used here in the meaning ‘but’ and combined with the complementizer noisi. This could be explained as an archaism if the original meaning of ast was merely adversative.7 To assume, however, that ast means just ‘but’ in the context of the DVENOS inscription would be to lose much of the original attraction of the analysis. AST happens to occur introducing a second protasis in the fashion we know was typical for VOL, but AST does not have its typical meaning and syntactic position. Instead it must have the simple meaning ‘but’. It is also worth noting that, although the DVENOS text is not generically similar to the Twelve Tables, the initial sentence has introduced the legal notion of ‘swearing’ (IOVESAT DEIVOS) and the segment we are dealing with is the content of that oath. Thus a similarity between formal legal discourse and this context is in place, if perhaps only as parody. We may further observe that the view that NOISI is nisi requires positing a rather striking word order. Ast, as a sentence conjoiner is always first in its sentence. TED looks like it is in Wackernagel’s position, i.e. superficially it is 2nd in the linear order. But, in fact, a clitic pronoun should appear after the comple6 7 See Norden (1927 ad Aen. VI.316) who notes that ast is, with one exception, always used in prevocalic position by Vergil. To my knowledge ast in the meaning ‘but’ is not found combined with a complementizer before Horace (Sat. 1.6.125) and never with the conditional complementizer. Cicero’s archaizing usage of ast in De Legibus 3.9 is not an early example of ast plus a complementizer because quando does not mean ‘when’ but ‘at some time’: Ast quando duellum grauius, discordiae ciuium escunt “If at some time a serious war or civic discord arises.” Ast quando consules magisterue populi nec escunt “If at some time there are no consuls or master of the people”. On Cicero’s use of ast in De Legibus see Powell (2005: 136–137). 210 Michael Weiss mentizer of the clause it is in. For example Hor. S. 1.6.125, with ast here in its later use as a metrical variant of at ‘but’: But in the DVENOS text, on the analysis being contemplated here, we apparently have the pronoun above the complementizer. This suggests that the pronoun is not a clitic but stressed—Latin has no observable phonological difference between stressed and clitic personal pronouns—and from this order we may infer that the pronoun has been topicalized for pragmatic reasons, perhaps contrastive focus. But is contrastive focus really expected here? (If the girl is not well disposed to you and if she doesn’t choose you). To me it seems a little odd that there should be a contrastive focus on the second discourse reference to the same 2nd person, but such an argument cannot be pushed too far given our limited understanding of VOL pragmatics. 3. Let us now turn to the sequence NOISI. The communis opinio is that noisi means ‘if not’ and this view goes back all the way to the first interpreters, Dressel and Buecheler (1880: 180). But the vocalisms of both the first and second syllable of this putative preform or potential byform of nisi are problematic. The Second Line of the DVENOS Inscription Again 211 For noi, the usual—and only—comparandum is Umb. nosue ‘if not’ (VI b 54). The o of this form in the Latin alphabet could continue *o8 and therefore support an o-grade variant of the negative particle. But o-grade forms of the negative particle are surprisingly hard to come by.9 It would be much less radical to suppose that nosue is a regular development of pre-Umbrian *nesa (cf. Osc. nei suae CA l. 28). One would predict *nesa would regularly become *nɛːsuɛː. But complementizers are known to undergo low-stress developments.10 Thus we may suppose that the first syllable *nɛːsɛː was shortened to *nɛ and that the vowel ɛ was rounded to ɔ before the labial of the following syllable yielding the attested nosue. We have a close parallel to these developments in Umb. sopir ‘if anyone’ (VI b 54) < *sɛpis < *sɛːpis < *sai-pis.11 The second syllable of NOISI, if equated with sī, is also problematic. There is no good evidence for a zero-grade variant of *se in the meaning ‘if’.12 Latin sī from OL sei (SEI ILLRP 504, Spoleto, 1st half of 3rd cent. BCE) is generally and I think, correctly, taken as the locative of the pronominal stem *so- and meant original “in this (case, way, etc.)”.13 The locative of a pronominal stem is a common source for conditional complementizers. Cf. Sabel. *sai (Osc. svaí, Umb. sue), Attic-Ionic Grk. εἰ, Dor. αἰ, Lith. jeĩ ~ jéi). It does not seem possible to explain a form *si as a locative or any case form of a stem *so- or even *si-.14 4. The interpretation of NOISI as an ancestor or relative of nisi seems to be a dead end and most of the alternatives proposed so far are worse.15 A better so8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 But it also might continue a short o or the diphthongs *o or *e. Despite Dunkel (2014: 530), Hitt. natta does natta continue an o-grade. See Melchert (2008: 371– 372). Cf. Proto-Romance *koːmo (Rom. cum, OFr. com, OSp. cuemo, Port. como etc.) by an irregular shortening from CL quōmodo. See Meiser (1986: 279) and Untermann (2000: 722). Despite the valiant and learned efforts of our honorandus (2011: 157). See also Eichner (1988: 213, 233). A meaning preserved in the idiom si dis placet (Plaut. Capt. 454, Ter. Eun. 919 etc.) ‘can you believe it!’ lit. ‘so it is pleasing to the gods’. -See Martzloff (2017: 236) for further discussion. Perhaps *si could be the root of the pronominal/numeral *si- (Hitt. šia- ‘one’, OH 1-iš), but there is no evidence for such a form functioning as a conditional particle. Other ideas on the NOISI sequence (I only mention the first occurrence of each suggestion; many have been proposed independently multiple times): Bréal (1882: 157) first introduced the second most widely followed view that NOIS means nōbīs, the ancestor of nis pro nobis (Paul. Fest. p. 41L). Bréal segmented the i as the beginning of the next word. But a 1st person plural is not in place in the discourse which already has a 3rd person speaker (QOI MED MITAT), a 2nd person addressee (TED), and a 3rd person topic (VIRCO). Further, the form nīs is suspect of being a Grammatikererfindung. Maurenbrecher (1895: 627) “improved” Breal’s idea by dividing as noisi ‘nōbīs’, and comparing -oisi with the Greek loc. pl. -οισι. But (1) there is no reason to suspect Latin shared the Greek innovation of *-osi for PIE *-osu. (2) some final -i’s have already been deleted by the time of this incription (IOVESAT, probably AST). Kretschmer (1906: 500) suggested ternoisi ‘threefold’ (an inaccurate reading). Fay (1909: 122) read ednoisi ‘food’ (same issues as for noisi). Heinzel apud Meringer (1907: 307) a dual 1st pl. noi; Meringer himself proposed nois si “for us. If” (problems of nois plus of si, not expected sei). Tichy (2002: 198) n’ oisi < *ne oitsi ‘not to take with’ (on which see Jón Axel Harðarson 2011: 156). Stefanelli (2012: 214–215) nois-ī ‘at our house’ or noisi, loc. pl. from the zero- 212 Michael Weiss lution would solve the problem of the vocalism of both syllables of NOISI and would eliminate the presence of two conditional particles AST and SI. A solution to all three issues may be reached if we segment NOI SI, with NOI functioning here as a simple negative, and SI as the fem. nom. sg. pronoun *si exactly matching OIr. sí and Gothic and OHG sī/sĭ. This division solves the two conditionals problem and gives good sense: And if (ast) she (si) doesn’t (noi) choose (opet)16 you (ted). This proposal raises several questions. First let us address some syntactic matters. Can a subject pronoun intercede between a negative and a verb? This order is possible to judge from the parallel of Cato Orat. 11 fr. 11 ap. Fest. p. 198L: Quid mihi fieret, si non ego stipendia omnia ordinarius meruissem semper? “What would happen to me if I had not always earned all my stipends as an ordinary soldier?” AST TED si COMP non ego NEG SUBJPRO COMP CL NOI NEG SI SUBJPRO... stipendia ordinarius O PRED OPET V meruissem V semper ADV Second, can two successive protases have different moods as here (SIED subj. and OPET indic.)? I have not been able to find a precise parallel for two protases, one in the subjunctive and one in the indicative, but note that the si… ast examples above do not always show perfect tense concord (SI QVIS IN EO VIM FACIET, AST EIVS VINCITUR; si ego hic peribo, ast ille, ut dixit, non redit) and, in any case, this modal discord is not a issue for my analysis only but for all analyses which recognize an indicative OPET as the verb of the AST clause.17 5. The NOI problem. The idea that NOI is the simple negator was first suggested, to my knowledge, by Edgar Shumway (1902).18 As noted above, there is no reliable evidence for an o-grade of the negative particle so it is not plausible to simply posit a *no < *no + i. But Latin does have an attested negative with the diphthong oe < *o. The standard view of Latin nōn is that it continues a preform *n(e)-oino- ‘not one’.19 In support of this idea is the existence of the OL forms noenum (Plaut. Aul. 67, Var. ap. Non. p. 141M), and noenu (Lucil. 987, Lucr. 3.199, 4.710) which indeed can be derived from *n(e)-oinos. Thus, on the 16 17 18 19 grade of the pronominal stem *eno- ‘at their house’. See Eichner (1988: 233) for further discussion of the alternatives. Following Jón Axel Harðarson’s (2011: 158, but first proposed in 1994; LIV2: 299) identification of this verb with Umb. upetu. See Jon Axel Harðarson (2011: 158–159) on this issue. In the New York Latin Leaflet, a rather out of the way locus for a DVENOS publication! See Solmsen (1911: 206–207) for one idea (*neoino- > *nōno- > nōn). Alan Nussbaum suggests (p.c.) *neono- > *noono- > *nōno- > nōn. The Second Line of the DVENOS Inscription Again 213 standard view of nōn its 6th century ancestor should have been *noin(o-) and the DVENOS inscription’s NOI may simply stand for noi(n) with the omission of word-final n.20 The apocope of the final syllable is undatable and could well be ancient. The omission of syllable final nasal before s is partly paralleled by COSMIS < *kon-smis. 6. For si there are no phonological or morphological problems to explain. The meaning is quite straightforward. The inclusion of the nominative pronoun may be contrastive: you have chosen her, but she doesn’t choose you. Of course, positing the survival of *si, otherwise unattested in Italic, is bold, but this must have been the Western PIE nom. sg. f. of the *is pronoun because it is there in Germanic and Celtic (OIr. sí, Goth. si) and, given the evidence of Greek ἳ (Soph. fr. 471), must be even older.21 The replacement of *si by ea and Osc. íú(k) may result from a generalization of an originally adjectival *h1eeh2 at the expense of the pronominal form *si.22 If such a hoary archaism were to be found anywhere in Latinity, it would be in the DVENOS inscription.23 References Bréal, M. 1882. L’inscription de Duenos. Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire 2. 147– 167. Ceci, L. 1895. Sui continuatori latini dell’indg. -dh-. Rendiconti della reale accademia dei lincei. Scienze morali, storiche e filologiche Series 5/4. 618–636. Dressel, E. [Heinrich]. 1880. Di una antichissima iscrizione latina graffita sopra un vaso votivo rinvenuto a Roma. Annali dell' Istituto di Corrispondenza Archeologica 52. 158–195. Dunkel, G. 2014. Lexikon der indogermanischen Partikeln und Pronominalstämme, vol. 2. Heidelberg: Winter. Eichner, H. 1988 [1990]. Reklameiamben aus Roms Königszeit. Die Sprache 34. 207– 238. Ernout, A. and A. Meillet. 1985. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine: histoire des mots. Revised 4th edn. Paris: Klincksieck. Jón Axel Harðarson. 2011. The 2nd line of the Duenos Inscription. In G. Rocca (ed.), Atti del convegno internazionale Lingue dell’Italia antica: iscrizioni, testi, grammatica, 153–163. ᾿Αλεξάνδρεια Alessandria 5. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso. Jordan, H. 1879. Kritische Beiträge zur Geschichte der lateinischen Sprache. Berlin: Weidmann. 20 21 22 23 Personally I am a bit dubious about the standard view of nōn, and I hope to return to the question alibi. But there is no doubt that Latin did have a form *nono-. The evidence of Greek (where Apollonius Dyscolus, On Pronouns, p. 71, specifically say the iota is short: ἡ μετὰ δασέος βραχεῖα ἐκφορὰ τοῦ ι), and Gothic (si not †sei) do not support a long vowel and Old Irish is consistent with a short vowel lengthened in absolute final position (sí vs. reduplicated sissi, Trip. 90.5). I hope to justify the theory in more detail elsewhere. -Compare—si parua licet componere magnis—Helmut Rix’s (Jón Axel Harðarson’s teacher) demonstration (1985) that the PIE verb *teh2- ‘steal’ survived uniquely in the last line of this text. 214 Michael Weiss Jordan, H. 1882. Vindiciae sermonis Latini antiquissimi. Königsburg: Hartung. Kretschmer, P. 1906. Die sogenannte Duenos-Inschrift. Zeitschrift für die österreichischen Gymnasien 57. 495–501. Lindsay, W. M. 1894. The Latin Language. Oxford: Clarendon. Lindsay, W. M. 1900. The Captivi of Plautus. Cambridge: W. Heffer & Sons. LIV2 = Rix, H. (ed.). 2001. Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. Die Wurzeln und Ihre Primärstammbidlungen. 2nd edn by M. Kümmel and H. Rix. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Martzloff, V. 2017. Métrique italique archaïque. Poésie sud-picénienne et inscription latine de Duenos. In O. Hackstein and D. Gunkel (eds.), Language and Meter, 222– 252. Leiden: Brill. Maurenbrecher, B. 1895. Die altlateinische Duenosinschrift. Philologus 54. 620–635. Meiser, G. 1986. Lautgeschichte der umbrischen Sprache. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 51. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft. Melchert, H. C. 2008. Problems in Hittite Pronominal Inflection. In A. Lubotsky, J. Schaeken and J. Wiedenhof (eds.), Evidence and Counterevidence: Essays in Honour of Frederik Kortlandt, vol. 1, 367–375. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Meringer, R. 1907. Zur Duenos-Inschrift. Indogermanishe Forschungen 21. 307–308. Norden, E. 1927. P. Vergilius Maro Aeneis Buch VI. 3rd edn. Stuttgart: Teubner. Powell, J. G. F. 2005. Cicero’s Adaptation of Legal Latin in the De legibus. In T. Reinhardt, M. Lapidge and J. N. Adams (eds.), Aspects of the Language of Latin Prose, 117–150. Oxford: OUP. Rix, H. 1985. Das letzte Wort der Duenos-Inschrift. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 46. 193–220. Schoell, R. 1866. Legis duodecim tabularum reliquiae. Leipzig: Teubner. Solmsen, F. 1911. Zur Geschichte des Dativs in den indogermanischen Sprachen. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 44. 161–223. Shumway, E. 1902. Noisi of the Duenos Inscription. The New York Latin Leaflet 3, 58. 2. Stefanelli, R. 2012. L’iscrizione di Duenos (CIL I2 4): Una proposta di lettura per la seconda sezione del testo. Archivio glottologico italiano 97. 205–235. Thurneysen, R. 1898. Inschriftliches. 1. Die Duenos-inschrift. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 35. 193–212. Tichy, E. 2004. Gr. οἴσειν, lat. ūtī und die Mittelzeile der Duenos-Inschrift. Glotta 78. 179–202. Untermann, J. 2001. Wörterbuch des Oskisch-Umbrischen. Heidelberg: Winter. de Vaan, M. 2008. Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the Other Italic Languages. Leiden: Brill. Walde, A. and J. B. Hofmann. 1938. Lateinisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, vol. 1, 3rd edn. Heidelberg: Winter. Michael Weiss Cornell University Ithaca (NY), U.S.A. mlw36@cornell.edu