The second line of the Latin Duenos inscription and the interpretation of the sequence noisi (Vedic nédati, Lithuanian Niedà, Lusitanian Langanidaeigui, Langanitaeco)

Abstract

Considerable advances have already been made in elucidating the text of the Latin Duenos inscription (6th century BCE). Nevertheless, many difficulties remain, and the ongoing discussion has given rise to several misconceptions that ought to be cleared away. First of all, it is not a votive inscription, in spite of what is sometimes asserted. The fact that the Duenos vase may have belonged to a votive deposit does not imply that the vase and its inscription (incised before baking) were intended for religious purposes. The inscription is not of dedicatory nature. It has been suggested that uirco represents some kind of divinity (Proserpina, Athena, or Fortuna), but there is no positive evidence for such an interpretation. It needs to be emphasized that the words deiuos "gods" and mitat (also attested in the Tibur Pedestal inscription) do not allow the conclusion that the vase was initially intended to be a votive offering. The presence of deiuos (accusative plural) is to be explained by the mention of an oath (iouesat "iurat"). The verb mitat ("gives" uel sim. rather than "sends") is better taken as referring to the aristocratic gift-exchange system. As for the function of the vessel, it has been interpreted as a receptacle for cosmetics. Alternatively, this small piece of elegant design may have been purely decorative and not intended for concrete use, like the Poggio Sommavilla fiaschetta (ST Um 2, around 600 BCE). Several linguistic hypotheses have to be rejected. The alleged infinitives oitesiai (E. Sievers), oitesi (R. Godel), and oisi (E. Tichy) are excluded on morphological grounds. Since the long final /i/ of amari continues ∗ei, the sequence of six letters PACARI cannot be the ancestor of the Latin passive infinitive pacari. The sequence UOIS cannot be the source of uis "you want" because the [o] vocalism could not be accounted for. Since the Latin conjunction nisi is a shortened form of nisi (which in turn may derive from nisi < ∗neisei with a shortening similar to quasi < ∗n(e) au swai < ∗ne ayu(d) swai or ∗ne (h)ayu(d) swai, cf. the Latin ne-que haud (Plaut. Men. 371, Ter. Andr. 205; haud < ∗oyu < ∗konsm < ∗kom-sm (not ∗∗ko-smi-s) and also Lat. qetios [kweηtios] (cf. Quinctius, not Cottius), perhaps placiom (cf. Plancius), Etr. araz (Rome, S. Omobono, 580-540, cf. aranθ, Arruns). As expected, oites governs the ablative case (riuois). The fossilized adverbial locative iai may be equated with the first part of the Umbrian iepi < ast + ted similar to astu < ast + tu in the protocols of the Arval Brothers). The verb opet /noissos/ (as tussis"large quantity" > "wealth"). The use of the partitive genitive is further facilitated when such a meaning is assumed for noisi (cf. impleto aquae purae). The Duenos inscription thus contains a facetious advertisement with erotic overtones in which riuois (separated from its governing participle oites to create a punchline) is co-referential with noisi.