Poccetti Orlandini - I And-Osio Genitives

Journal of Latin Linguistics 2013; 12(1): 101121
DOI 10.1515/joll-2013-0006
Anna Orlandini and Paolo Poccetti
-i and -osio genitives in archaic Latin:

different markers for different possession
types?
Abstract: This contribution offers a concrete, textually based account of the functional possibilities for the expression of different types of possession (exclusive
and inalienable 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 insights concerning the
semantic-functional structures that encode different possession relations and we
propose an explanatory path for the generalization of the - versus -osio genitives
(cf. Bolkestein 1983, 2001; Maurel 1989).
Keywords: case markers; genitive; types of possession
Anna Orlandini: Universit de Toulouse 2 Le Mirail (Professor of Latin Linguistics).

E-mail: orlandinianna@libero.it
Paolo Poccetti: Universit di Roma 2 Tor Vergata (Professor of Comparative Philology).
E-mail: paolopoccetti@tiscali.it
1Introduction
Four letters engraved on a vase discovered in a burial site in ancient Falerii (Celle
site) and dating back to the late 7th century BC form the sequence titi.1 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: 42ff.) also in its female counterpart Tita (Hartmann 2005: 28ff.;
Giacomelli 1963: 44ff.; Bakkum: 2009: II, 409ff.). As for the -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
1Cf. Biella (2009: 273) especially as concerns the vase shape and its archeological context.
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Angemeldet | 212.87.45.97
Heruntergeladen am | 25.11.13 15:14
102
Latin (not earlier than the 4th century BC). Both the context of the inscription and
the lack of any syntactic structure are convergent on the use of this morpheme for
denoting the objects belonging, which is the normal function of the genitive case
in inflectional languages.
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
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 Faliscan 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 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 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, according to the chronology of their respective documentation, the -osio ending has been considered
older than the -i genitive. This view, commonly accepted2, 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 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 this purpose one needs
to take into account the earliest vase inscriptions referring to possession in the
Faliscan language, which can be summarized in Table 1.
2From 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
2For a different view: Lucchesi & Magni 2004.

103
-i and -osio genitives in archaic Latin
Table 1: Personal names referring to possession in Faliscan inscriptions dating from 630 to
570BC
Date
Vase typology
Text
630
600
600
570
570
oinochoe
high foot cup
low foot cup
low foot cup
low foot cup
1.eco quto *e Uotenosio Titias [...] 3

2.Titi
3.eko Kaisiosio / eko Lartos 4
4.aimiosio eqo 5
5.Qunoz / Iatinoz 6
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:
1. 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.
2. Chronologically the vase with the Titi inscription belongs to the same pe
riodas 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
backto the fifty years ranging from late 7th century and early 6th century.
Inparticular, 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 pra
medumon pramod propramod pramodumo[m].7 Instead two low-foot cups
displaying -osio genitives, namely the inscription eko Kaisiosio / eko Lartos
3Giacomelli (1963: 4446 no. 2b), Bakkum (2009: 3). The oinochoe has been recognized as a
local product (cf. Biella 2012: 40, 45, fig. 5a,b).
4Giacomelli (1963: 4849 no. 4), Bakkum (2009: 5).
5Lejeune (1952: 120126, fr. V, 350, pls. XVXVI), 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.
6Published in the volume edited by Santoro (2008).
7Whether the two inscriptions were ascribable to different authors and were written at different
times is not at issue here (cf. Mancini 2004: 207).

104
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,8 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
verydifferent 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
8Santoro (2008), Roncalli (2008), Poccetti (2008). Instead, Colonna (2010: 290292) suggests
the Funoz reading and the dating of the inscription around the second half of the 6th century.

105
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 2: The ego formulas in archaic Latin and archaic Faliscan
Archaic Latin
Archaic Faliscan (see Table 1)
1.Eco C. Antonios9
2.Eco Kanaios (or Kaviaios or Kavidios)10
3.M. Adicios (or Madicios) eco11
4.eqo Fulfios12
1.Eco quto *e Uotenosio Titias

2.eko Kaisiosio / eko Lartos
3.aimiosio eqo
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 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 3: Belonging expression in archaic and recent Latin
Archaic Latin (see Table 2)
Recent Latin
1.Eco C. Antonios
2.Eco Kanaios (or Kaviaios or Kavidios)
3.M. Adicios (or Madicios) eco
4.eqo Fulfios
1.Ne atigas. Non sum tua. Marci sum13

2.Sotae sum. Noli me tangere14
3.Noli me tollere. Helvetii sum15
4.L. Canolei sum16
5.Sum Valeri17
9CIL I2 462.
10CIL I2 474: for different readings see Solin (2003). Moreover, Hartmann (2005: 172).
11See Hartmann (2005: 172).
12CIL I2 479.
13CIL I2 499.
14CIL I2 501.
15CIL I2 2736.
16CIL I2 2489.
17CIL I2 1192.

106
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
orto an occasional holder or to the manufacturer of the object. In other words
theabsolute nominative in itself is ambiguous to some extent. A means for dis
tinguishing 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 craftsman 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 4: Signatures of craftsmen in archaic Latin and Faliscan
Chronology
Latin
Faliscan
7th6th
century BC
Manios med fefaked Numasioi18

Duenos med feced en manom meinom duenoi19
Mamar[cos m]ed vhe[....20
Nouios Plautios med Romai fecid23:
Med Loucilios feced 24
Vibis Pilipus cailauit 25
C.Ouio Ouf. fec<i>t 26
Mama Zextos med fifiqod 21

--]med fifiked22
4th2nd
century BC
Cauios Frenaios faced 27

Oufilio Clipeaio letei met
facet28
18CIL I2 3. Concerning the proved authenticity of the inscription on the so-called golden fibula
Praenestina, cf. Franchi de Bellis (2007, 2011).
19CIL I2 4.
20Hartmann (2005: 28).
21Bakkum (2009: 395).
22Bakkum (2009: 415).
23CIL I2 561.
24CIL I2 2437.
25CIL I2 552.
26CIL I2 545.
27Bakkum (2009: 580).
28Bakkum (2009: 579).

107
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,
inthree 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 .
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
canbe represented along a scalar gradient continuum. Seilers gradient ranges
from simple noun juxtaposition (NN) to express the most inherent form of pos
session, 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 nounnoun relation (NN), the genitive could be the

108
nmarked case to express possession; that is, the relation with the highest degree
u
of polysemy. The phrase Carlos 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
theother 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
isfeatured 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 Seilers (1983: 4; 2001):
Linguistic possession consists of the representation of a relationship between
asubstance and another substance. Substance A, called the possessor, is pro
totypically [+animate], more specifically [+human], and still more specifically
[+ego] 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 ego, 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 - 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

109
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.
3- 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 dis
covered,the problem of the -osio genitive in relationship with the 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
andWallace 2001; Prosdocimi 2002, 2009). More recently an extraordinary con
tribution to this topic has come particularly from Lepontic and Venetic documentation, which provides evidence for an -oiso ending for the singular genitive,
namely plioiso, osioioso and -]Tioiso found in Lepontic area and Kaialoiso from
Oderzo in Venetic area.29 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: 6973; 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 ItalicCeltic unitary branch among IndoEuropeanlanguages, given that the main argument in favor of this view was the -
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
29For documentary sources, see Eska and Wallace (2001: 82), Bakkum (2009: 135).

110
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 - 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 - morpheme, which is to be compared with Latin -, was used synchronically in competition with -osio. We know this because the epigraphic evidence for both - and -osio are chronologically simultaneous. These facts, on the
one hand, point out that - 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 - ending took place in
Latin earlier and independently.
As far as Faliscan is concerned, J. Untermann (1964: 178179; Bakkum 2009:
136) has drawn attention on the fact that the -osio genitive occurs particularly in
a specific text type, called Besitzerinschriften, i.e., inscriptions bearing the name
of the objects possessor. Hence Untermann concluded that the actual genitive
morpheme was -, 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
ofthe dative to fulfill the role of predication of established possession in Latin.
Untermanns view was later supported by C. De Simone (1980: 83) referring to the
Satricum inscription, although both text types, quite different from a Besitzerinschrift and the noun phrase suodales Popliosio Valesiosio, gave him the evidence
to argue against it.
Even if we face a unique witness for the - 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 - genitive
(Titi) point to a particular type of possession, i.e., ownership, signaled by this
morpheme.

111
4From 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, - 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.30 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: 281285; 2000: 175179; 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 Ofetios Kaios Uelos Amanos salueto salues seite.31
30Bakkum (2009: 409). The word quto(n) borrowing from Greek , maybe of
Etruscan influence (Mancini 2004: 208), refers to the vase terminology.
31See Prosdocimi (1990: 302312), correcting the text reading by Peruzzi (1967).

112
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
iscentral 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 PartWhole 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: 297307) align with this interpretation. Habeo
isa 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, gehren). 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.

113
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 esse as copula and, on the other, with esse as an existential predicate (e.g.,
eius est factum versus eius est vestimentum). Hence, habeo tends to become the
main verb: e.g., habeo factum 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-genitive; (ii) the mention of a single individual; (iii) the placement of writingon 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 drinkingvase, 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,32
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,
32Bally (1926: 33) states that the notion of inalienability can include objects and beings
associated with a person in an habitual, intimate or organic way.

114
enerally classified as possession indications within a larger frame of expresg

sions used for formulating a possession relation.
A quite varied terminological set is often 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 neces
sarilycoincide 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 esse 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 esse copula and esse
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-

115
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 semantic, 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
nolonger 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
todisplay 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
ofthe 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 - 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 - 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 shifts 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

116
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 sphre 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
theobject, 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 - 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
notrare. Other languages, within attributive possession, make use of differ-

117
entgenitival constructions, also outside the alienableinalienable 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
of-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 themerheme or topiccomment 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. locativepossessive and the havebelong 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 gift. It is worth remembering
that the gift 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 gift inscriptions in the
course of earliest Etruscan epigraphy: if we consider 630 BC as a demarcation
line, the percentage of gift inscriptions increases by 20 to 65% with a parallel
decrease of possession inscriptions by 80 to 35% (our translation).33
Admittedly any text recording an act of presenting a gift entails an implicit
statement of possession. Yet a text recording a gift, 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 gift texts in the earliest Etruscan, Faliscan, and Latin epigraphy.
The second implication, somewhat related to the first, concerns the rela
tionship between ego+-osio genitive formulas, found in Faliscan, and ego+
33More extensively, as for gift texts in early Etruscan epigraphy, see Cristofani (1975).

118
nominative patterns, found in Latin and in the Capena area (see Table 2).34
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 - 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 - 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.
5Conclusion
Our analysis of archaic Faliscan texts, based on combining both textual and contextual data, leads to outlining a complementary distribution of the - 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 - in more recent
ones. The current thought is that an older -osio was replaced by a later - morpheme. The same morphological replacement appears to have developed in Latin
more or less contemporarily with Faliscan.
As an innovative contribution, our view shifts the focus from diachrony to
synchrony, given that both morphemes appear to be synchronically attested in
34On ego+nominative formulas, see the different conclusions drawn by Agostiniani (1982:
240) and Colonna (1983: 55).

119
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 -.
A comparison of the contexts synchronically, showing both morphemes
in relationship with different notions of possession, demonstrates that -
occurs for an inherent possession, whereas -osio is used for an established and
conventional possession. These different notions of possession code an op
position between unmarked and marked functions, respectively. In this perspective -osio is the morphologically marked term in opposition to - as unmarked
term. This markedness principle may account for the fact that -osio was replaced
by - 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 - genitive in literary Latin.
Acknowledgments: We are indebted to Philip Baldi for correcting the English
version.
References
Agostiniani, L. 1982. Le iscrizioni parlanti dellItalia 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), 928 (rist. in Scritti Scelti, AIN 26,
2004, 567586).
Bakkum, G. C. L. M. 2009. The Latin dialect of the Ager Faliscus. 150 years of scholarship.
Amsterdam: University Press.
Bally, C. 1926. Lexpression des ides de sphre personnelle et de solidarit dans les langues
indo-europennes. In F. Fankhauser & J. Jud (eds.), Festschrift Louis Gauchat, 6878.
Arau:Sauerlnder.
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)), 239322. Berlin &
NewYork: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bartning, I. 1993. La prposition de et les interprtations possibles des syntagmes nominaux
complexes. Essai dapproche cognitive. In A.-M. Berthonneau & P. Cadiot (eds.), Les
prpositions: Mthodes danalyse (Lexique 11). 163191. Lille: Presses Universitaires
deLille.
Bartoloni, G. 2003. Le societ dellItalia primitiva. Lo studio delle necropoli e la nascita delle
aristocrazie. Roma & Bari: Laterza.

120
Benveniste, . 1966a. Pour lanalyse des fonctions casuelles: Le gnitif latin. In Problmes de
linguistique gnrale, 140148. Paris: Gallimard.
Benveniste, . 1966b. Etre et avoir dans leurs fonctions linguistiques. In Problmes de
linguistique gnrale, 176186. 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. Zeitschrift fr Papyrologie und Epigraphik 168. 273277.
Biella, M. C. 2012. Oggetti iscritti e tradizioni artigianali nellorientalizzante in Agro Falisco.
Convivenze etniche e contatti di culture, Aristonothos 4. 3757.
Bolkestein, A. M. 1983. Genitive and dative possessor in Latin. In S. C. Dik (ed.), Advances
infunctional grammar, 5591. Dordrecht: Foris.
Bolkestein, A. M. 2001. Possessors and experiencers in Classical Latin. In I. Baron, M. Herslund
& F. Srensen (eds.), Dimensions of possession. Typological studies in language 47,
269284. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Camporeale, G. 1986. Vita Privata. In G. Pugliese Carratelli (ed.), Rasenna. Storia e civilt degli
Etruschi, 241308. Milano: Libri Scheiwiller.
Camporeale, G. 2000. Gli Etruschi. Storia e civilt. Torino: UTET.
Colonna, G. 1983. Identit come appartenenza nelle iscrizioni di possesso dellItalia
preromana. Epigraphica 45. 4964.
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. 275303.
Cristofani, M. 1975. Il dono nellEtruria arcaica. La Parola del Passato XXX. 132152.
Cristofani, M. 1984. Iscrizioni e beni santuari. C. Ampolo, G. Bartoloni & A. Rathje (eds.),
Aspettidelle aristocrazie fra VIII e VII secolo a.C., OPUS III. 319324.
De Simone C. 1980. Laspetto 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), 7194. SGravenhage:
Staatsuitgeverij.
Eska, J. F. & R. E. Wallace. 2001. Remarks on the thematic genitive singular in ancient Italy and
related matter. Incontri Linguistici 24. 7797.
Eska, J. F. & R. E. Wallace. 2002. Venetic consonant-stem dative singulars in -i? Studi Etruschi
6568. 261273.
Franchi de Bellis, A. 2007. La fibula di Numasio e la coppa dei Veturii. Quaderni dellIstituto di
Linguistica dellUniversit di Urbino 12. 65142.
Franchi de Bellis, A. 2011. La fibula prenestina. Margherita Guarducci e Wolfgang Helbig,
presunto falsario. In S. rm & K. Sandberg (eds.), Wolfgang Helbig e la scienza
dellantichit del suo tempo, Atti del convegno internaz. (Roma 2.2.2009) (Acta Instituti
Romani Finlandiae 37), 181215. Roma: Institutum Romanum Finlandiae.
Giacomelli, G. 1963. La lingua Falisca. Firenze: Leo S. Olschki.
Hartmann, M. 2005. Die frhlateinischen Inschriften 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. Srensen (eds.),
Dimensions of possession (Typological Studies in Language 47), 126. Amsterdam &
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

121
Kent, R. 1953. Old Persian. Grammar, texts, lexicon. New Haven, CT: American Oriental
Studies.
Lejeune, M. 1952. Notes de Linguistique italique: VVII. Les inscriptions de la collection
Froehner. Revue des Etudes Latines 30. 87126.
Lejeune, M. 1989. Notes de Linguistique Italique. XXXIX. Gnitifs en - et gnitifs en -osio.
Revue des Etudes Latines 67. 6377.
Lucchesi, E. & Magni, E. 2004. Vecchie e nuove (in)certezze sul Lapis Satricanus, Pisa, ETS
editrice.
Lyons, J. 1970. Linguistique gnrale. Paris: Larousse.
Mancini, M. 2004. Uno scioglilingua da Falerii Veteres e letimologia di fal. Umom. Archivio
Glottologico Italiano 89. 200211.
Maurel, J.-P. 1989. Le syntagme nominal en latin. Les emplois du gnitif chez Plaute et Trence.
Thse de Doctorat dEtat soutenue sous la direction dH.Fugier, Universit 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. Srensen (eds.), Dimensions of possession.
(Typological Studies in Language 47), 285310. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Napolitano, F. 2000. Alcune osservazioni su un calice di bucchero da Falerii. AION ArchStAnt
n.s. 7. 181186.
Nuti, A. 2005. Possessive sentences in Early Latin. Dative vs. genitive constructions. Archivio
Peruzzi, E. 1967. Liscrizione falisca delle sociai. La Parola del Passato 22. 113133.
Poccetti, P. 2008. Il vaso iscritto dalla necropoli di Magliano Sabina. Contributi ai rapporti tra
lambiente falisco e quello sabino arcaico. In Santoro (ed.), Una nuova iscrizione da
Magliano Sabina. Scrittura e cultura nella Valle del Tevere (Civilt arcaica dei Sabini nella
Valle del Tevere 2), Mediterranea suppl. 3, 2942. 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. 75124.
Prosdocimi, A. L. 1990. Vetter 243 e limperativo latino tra (con)testo e paradigma. In La civilt
dei Falisci (atti del XV Convegno dellIstituto Nazionale di Studi Etruschi ed Italici, Civita
Castellana 1987), 291326. Firenze: Leo S. Olschki.
Prosdocimi, A. L. 2002. Il genitivo dei temi in -o nelle variet italiche (osco, sannita, umbro,
sudpiceno, etc.). Incontri Linguistici 25. 6576.
Prosdocimi, A. L. 2009. Sul genitivo dei temi in -o in alcune lingue indoeuropee. Archivio
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 (Civilt arcaica dei Sabini nella
Valle del Tevere 2), Mediterranea suppl. 3, 4352. Roma: Fabrizio Serra.
Salomies, O. 1987. Die rmischen 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 (Civilt arcaica dei Sabini nella Valle del Tevere 2), Mediterranea suppl. 3. Roma:
Fabrizio Serra.
Seiler, H. 1983. Possession as an operational dimension of language. Tbingen: Gunter
Narr.

122
Seiler, H. 2001. The operational basis of possession. A dimensional approach revisited. In

I.Baron, M. Herslund & F. Srensen (eds.), Dimensions of possession (Typological Studies
in Language 47), 2740. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Small, J. P. 1971. The banquet frieze from Poggio Civitate. Studi Etruschi 39. 2561.
Solin, H. 2003. Gavidus. In S. Marchesini & P. Poccetti (eds.), Linguistica storia
Sprachwissenschaft ist Geschichte. Scritti in onore di C. De Simone, 167170. Pisa:
Giardini.
Untermann, J. 1964. Rec. a Giacomelli 1963. Gttingische Gelehrte Anzeiger 216. 171182.


Poccetti Orlandini - I And-Osio Genitives

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Poccetti Orlandini - I And-Osio Genitives

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Journal of Latin Linguistics 2013; 12(1): 101121

Anna Orlandini and Paolo Poccetti

-i and -osio genitives in archaic Latin:

Anna Orlandini: Universit de Toulouse 2 Le Mirail (Professor of Latin Linguistics).

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Anna Orlandini and Paolo Poccetti

2From context to text

2For a different view: Lucchesi & Magni 2004.

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

-i and -osio genitives in archaic Latin

1.eco quto *e Uotenosio Titias [...] 3

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Anna Orlandini and Paolo Poccetti

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

-i and -osio genitives in archaic Latin

possession-related meaning in this context is unquestionable. By contrast, all

Archaic Faliscan (see Table 1)

1.Eco quto *e Uotenosio Titias

1.Ne atigas. Non sum tua. Marci sum13

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Anna Orlandini and Paolo Poccetti

A further strategy to code possession is simply to place the personal name in

Manios med fefaked Numasioi18

Mama Zextos med fifiqod 21

Cauios Frenaios faced 27

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

-i and -osio genitives in archaic Latin

When considering only archaic Faliscan evidence for belonging expressions,

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Anna Orlandini and Paolo Poccetti

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

-i and -osio genitives in archaic Latin

history of Faliscan, probably paralleled by Latin. Notoriously, every evolutionary

3- versus -osio genitive: a brief summary

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Anna Orlandini and Paolo Poccetti

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

-i and -osio genitives in archaic Latin

4From diachrony to synchrony: semanticfunctional variation in Faliscan and Archaic

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Anna Orlandini and Paolo Poccetti

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

-i and -osio genitives in archaic Latin

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Anna Orlandini and Paolo Poccetti

enerally classified as possession indications within a larger frame of expresg

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

-i and -osio genitives in archaic Latin

In other languages, the polysemy of possession converges into a single case,

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Anna Orlandini and Paolo Poccetti

pattern is functionally similar to the syntactic structure of the Latin construction

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

-i and -osio genitives in archaic Latin

entgenitival constructions, also outside the alienableinalienable distinction.

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Anna Orlandini and Paolo Poccetti

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

-i and -osio genitives in archaic Latin

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Anna Orlandini and Paolo Poccetti

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

-i and -osio genitives in archaic Latin

1.eco quto *e Uotenosio Titias [...] 3

1.Eco quto *e Uotenosio Titias

1.Ne atigas. Non sum tua. Marci sum13

3- versus -osio genitive: a brief summary

4From diachrony to synchrony: semanticfunctional variation in Faliscan and Archaic