Katherine McDonald



Introduction to Venetic1. Writing system1.1 Basic summaryVenetic is written in its own alphabet(s) and, later, in the Latin alphabetThe Venetic alphabet is written right-to-left, and is adapted from the Etruscan alphabet, with the reintroduction of Greek letters in some instancesThe some letters of the alphabet vary between the different cities where Venetic was used, but most of the letter shapes are similar.For most of its history, Venetic uses syllabic punctuation (see 1.3).Venetic writing can be divided into four main stages:Archaic Venetic (c. 550-475 BC; no punctuation)Old Venetic (c. 475-300 BC; uses syllabic punctuation and h1)New Venetic (c. 300-150 BC; uses syllabic punctuation and h2-4)Veneto-Latin (c. 150-100; uses the Latin alphabet)These correspond loosely to the archaeological phases Este-III (500-350 BC), Este-IV (350-175 BC) and the Roman period (175 BC onwards).3295650197485001.2. Letters of the alphabet(order from the Atestine abecedary)<A> = a <E> = e<F> = v<Z> = d (sometimes transcribed as z)<H> = h<θ> = θ (dead letter in some varieties)<I> = i<K> = k<L> = l<M> = m<N> = n<Π> = p<M> = ?<D> = r<S> = s<X> or <θ> = t<Λ> = u<Φ> = b (sometimes transcribed as φ)<Ψ> = g (sometimes transcribed as χ)<O> = o1.2.1. Digraphsvh = /f/ (sometimes hv or h)ii or ij or jj = /y/1.2.2. Local variationThe most marked variation is in the letters t and dNotation of /t/Notation of /d/EsteX (t1)Z (d1)VicenzaX (t1)T (d3)Paduaθ (t2/3)X (d4)Lagole and Monte PoreX (t1)Z (d2)Valle di CadoreX (t1)Y (d5)CarinthiaX (t1)D FriuliT ?CarsoX (t1)?1.2.3. The Latin alphabetWhen written in the Latin alphabet, /k/ is mostly written as <C>, sometimes <K>. The cluster /kt/ is normally written as –gt- in Venetic but <CT> in the Latin alphabet.The digraph ij for yod is written <I> in the Latin alphabet.Otherwise the correspondences are straightforward.1.3. Syllabic punctuationThe most distinctive aspect of the Venetic alphabet is its system of syllabic punctuationThe general principle is that any letter which contravenes the CV syllable structure is markedLetters which are “marked” usually have a dot or short line either side of themThings which ARE marked:a vowel at the beginning of a syllablea consonant at the end of a syllable (i.e. all closed syllables are marked)the second element of a diphthongThere are some exceptions where consonant clusters are allowed without being markedClusters where the first element is a fricative, stop or /m/ and the second element is /r/, /n/ or /l/./kv/ is also not markedNB: The letter h and .i. look often look identical in “New Venetic”. In some cases, we are not sure which is meant. For example, ?a.i.nate.i. vs. ?ahnate.i. (cf. Latin sa?nus) and re.i.tia.i. vs. rehtia.i. (cf. Latin rectus) – in each of these examples, the first variant is now the more common transcription, but lacks a good etymology.2. Phonology2.1. Vowels2.1.1. Venetic appears to have a five-vowel system as follows:/i??//u??//e??//o??//a??/Long vowels are not marked.We have no evidence of a difference in quality between long and short vowels (e.g. little to no confusion of /i?/ and /e?/).In general we do not know if there were any changes to the length of inherited vowels (e.g. we do not know if there was compensatory lengthening when consonants were lost, loss of length in non-initial syllables, and so on).2.1.2. VowelsThe letter <a> denotes a vowel from inherited *a?, *a? and *H. Also, *n? /an/.Examples of a?: *ghau- ho.s.tihavo.s.; *alk- alkomno; *ans- .an.?ore.s.; *anti- a(n)tisteitExamples of a?: *bhra?t-ter- vhratere.i.; *do?na?- dona.s.to, donasan.Examples of h1: *dhh1-(k-) vha.g.s.to (c.f. Latin facio, Oscan fakiiad).Examples of h2: *ph2ter- pater; *sth2-ti- stati.Examples of h3: not attestedExamples of n? > an: *-s-n?t (3rd plural ending) donasan; *antra? .a.(n)tra The letter <e> denotes a vowel from inherited *e? and *e?. It is possible that *r? sometimes > /er/.Examples of e?: *ter-mon- te.r.mon.io.s.; *ekwo- .e.kvo.n.; suffix *-ter- vhratere.i.; conjunction –kveExamples of e?: *wle?-no- leno; *ph2te?r paterExample of r? /er/?: vo.l.te.r.kon (from adjective in –iko- from noun *wel-tro-)The letter <i> denotes a vowel from inherited *i?, *-yo?- and *i?. There are occasional examples of the closure of /e?/ to /i?/.Examples of i?: *tri- tribus.iiate.i.; *ghosti- ho.s.tihavo.s.; *anti a(n)tisteit; *wl?-ti- vo.l.ti-Examples of i?: *gwi?wo- vivoi; *bhwi?- filiaThe letter <o> denotes a vowel from inherited *o? or *o?. Also, *l? > /ol/. There is at least one example of the velarisation of /e?/ to /o?/.Examples of o?: *ost- ostinobos; *ghosti- ho.s.ti-; also in verb and noun endings.Examples of o?: *do?- doto, dono.m., dona.s.to; *ego? .e.goExamples of l? > ol: *wl?-ti- vo.l.ti-; *pl?-to- poltosVelarisation: *weltro- *woltro- vo.l.te.r.konThe letter <u> denotes a vowel from inherited *u?, *-wo?- or *u?. There is one example of *r? > /ur/. There is late development of /ou/ > /u?/. One inscription from Lagole substitutes <u> for <o>.Examples of u?: fourth declension nouns; probably in the name klutiiari.s. ( *klu?to-); probably *bheug(h)-/*bhug(h)- vhug-Examples of u?: maybe in the preposition .u. from *u?d-/*u?d-, as in Latin u?squeExample of r? > ur?: *mr?-to- murtuvoi. This could also be a change *r? > /or/ > /ur/.2.1.3. DiphthongsVenetic has /ei/, /ai/, /oi/ and /eu/, /au/, /ou/The second element is always spelled with a vowel and punctuated, e.g. a.u.Venetic seems to preserve inherited diphthongs. Some additional diphthongs are created by the gemination of intervocalic yod and w./eu/ is not lost but seems to be in the process of becoming /ou/ (especially at Este and Valle di Cadore; this change is less advanced or the writing is more archaising in Padua and Lagole)2.1.4. Syncope of short vowelsFull details at Lejeune (1974: 111-125)Prehistorically, apocope of -i? in 3rd singular ending *-ti?Apocope of demonstrative enclitic *-ke in .e..i.k. cf. Latin hi?c, Oscan eizeic, exeic.Apocope of the final vowels in the preposition *opi .o.p Prehistorically, syncope affects final consonant + yod + o?s, so that *yo?s -isDuring Este-IV or the Roman period, affects final –u?s and -i?s. E.g. .e.kupetari.s. becomes ecupetarisHistorically, syncope affects the second open syllable in words of three or more syllables. E.g. .e.kvopet- .e.kupet- .e.p.pet- .e.pet- and .u.posed- upsed- used-2.2 Consonants2.2.1. At the end of the sixth century when Venetic first starts being written, its consonant phonology looks something like this:LabialDental/AlveolarPalatalVelarGlottalplainlabialisedPlosivevoicedbdgvoicelessptkkwaspiratedAffricatevoiceless?FricativevoicedvoicelessfshNasalmnRhoticrApproximantwljA number of changes then take place:During the period Este-III, there is a change of /h/ zeroDuring the period Este-IV, /w/ /v/ and /kw/ /k/ + /v/ (Lejeune 1974, based on the consonant clusters where these appear – may not be conclusiveAt some point late in Venetic, /?/ (transliterated ?) merges with /s/2.2.2. Key sound changes from PIEMany consonant phonemes continue without change from PIEPIE *gw /w/ /v/PIE *bh, *dh, *gh /b, d, g/ in non-initial syllablesPIE initial * bh and *dh /f/ (spelled vh)PIE initial *gh /h/The Venetic /?/, spelled ?, derived from a number of sourcesFinal postvocalic *-ts ?Final postvocalic *-ns ?Dissimilation of final –s when the syllable begins with /s/, e.g. vesos veso?During Este-IV, sporadic palatalization of –ty- > -t?-–st- -ts- ?. E.g. .an.?ore.s. *ans-tor-es–ps- ?. E.g. .u.posed- upsed- u?ed-Intial examples of ? are not well-understood, but at least one derives from sw-Some other origins of /?/ are not well understood2.2.3. Other important sound changes and notesWord-internal consonants are susceptible to gemination, especially “expressive gemination” in namesThe difference between /m/ and /n/ seems to be neutralised before consonants and finally /g/ is devoiced before /s/ and /t/, so that vhu.g.siia can also be found as vhu.k.siiaWe have no attested examples of the outcome of /gw/There are sporadic examples of assimilation of d…t… t…t…Final stops are lost prehistorically; the remaining stops are secondary as a result of apocope and other changes/h/ and /f/ are not found word-internally apart from in compoundsMore detail in Lejeune (1974:125ff)3. Morphology3.1 Nouns3.1.1 Notes on nounsThe ablative, locative and vocative are not attestedThree numbers (singular, dual and plural) and three genders (masculine, feminine and neuter)Only attested forms are given in the tables below3.1.2. a-stem nouns (first declension)?SingularDualPluralanimate nom.-a??animate acc.-a.n. (-a.m.)??dative-a.i.??instrumental-a??3.1.3. o-stem nouns (second declension)?SingularDualPluralanimate nom.-o.s.-o?animate acc.-o.n.?-o.s.neuter nom./acc.-o.n. (-o.m.)??genitive-i??dative-o.i.?-obo.s.instrumental-o?-obo.s.instrumental adverbial-e??3.1.4. Post-consonantal -yo- nouns?SingularDualPluralanimate nom.-i.s. > .s.??animate acc.??-iio.s.genitive-i??dative-iio.i.??instrumental-iio??3.1.5. Post-vocalic -(y)yo- nouns (e.g. -e(y)yo-)?SingularDualPluralanimate nom.-e.i.iio.s.??genitive-e.i.??dative-e.i.iio.i.??3.1.6. Post-consonantal -wo- nouns?SingularDualPluralanimate nom.-vo.s.??animate acc.??-vo.s.genitive-vi??dative-vo.i.??3.1.7. Post-vocalic -(w)wo- nouns?SingularDualPluralanimate nom.-vo.s.??animate acc.??-vo.s.genitive-vi??dative-vo.i.??3.1.8. i-stem nouns?SingularDualPluralanimate nom.-i.s. > -.s.??animate acc.-i.n.??neuter nom./acc.-(zero)??dative-e.i.??instrumental-i??3.1.9. u-stem nouns?SingularDualPluralanimate acc.-u.n.?-u.?. / -u.s.3.1.10. Nouns in *-ter-, *-tor-, -on-, -t-, -nt-?SingularDualPluralanimate nom.-te.r.-o-e.?.-.n.t.s.-.n.te-tore.s.genitive-no.s.??dative-tere.i.-tore.i.-one.i.-ete.i.-.n.te.i.??3.2. Verbs3.2.1. Attested verb formsatisteit “adstat”. 3rd singular. Only example with a preverb. Intransitive, with a dative complement. [d]ido.r. “dat”. Reading uncertain. With object dono.m.donasan “donauerunt”. With accusative object.dona.s.to “donauit”. 44 examples. Sometimes also found as tona.s.to. With accusative object.doto “dedit”. 20 examples. With accusative object.vha.g.s.to and hva.g.sto “fecit”, but with a meaning of “made a dedication”. Found at Padua, with accusative object.la.g.[s.to], found at Este coordinating with dona.s.to, with accusative object and dative theonym at the end of the text. Perhaps a connection with Latin lacio?tola.r. verb of dedicating, with accusative object.tole.r. verb of dedicating, with or without accusative object.]tera.r. – may be a fragment of a verb te.u.te.r.s. may be a verb meaning something like “made public”, though morphology is unclearva.g.sont[ may be third-person plural verb, but the meaning is unknown3.2.2. Known verb endings-eit *-eiti, (with hypercharacterisation adding *-ti to *-ei, with later apocope), 3rd singular of the thematic present active. -an *n?t. 3rd plural of the sigmatic past active. -to 3rd singular of the past active, both in root pasts and sigmatic pasts-r 3rd singular, found in both a reduplicated present ([d]ido.r.) and in other verbs whose form is unclear (tola.r./tole.r.). Comparitively, this ending should be medio-passive, but these verbs appear to be active in meaning and take a direct object. Could this also be behind te.u.te.r.s.?perhaps –nti for va.g.sont[ ?3.2.3. Known verbal stems*do?- *deh3- “give”, found in donasan, dona.s.to, doto and (reduplicated) [d]ido.r.*sta?- *steh2- “stand”, found in ati-steit*tel- “carry”, found in tola.r. and tole.r.*fak- *dheh1-k- “make”, found in vha.g.sto*alke/o- found in alkomno*pel- found in a verbal adjective poltos *pl?-to- Maybe *gher- in horvionte or hor<e>ionteMaybe teut-, “make public, from *teuta- “people”Maybe *wag- or *wak-, found in va.g.sont[. Connection with Latin uagari? 3.2.4. Other attested formsActive participle in –nt-, found in horvionteMedio-passive participle in –mno-, found in alkomnoVerbal adjective in –to-, found in poltos4. SyntaxCurrently there is little to say about syntax.Most inscriptions are short and many feature only personal names.Most of the phrases we can say something about appear to be formulaic.4.1. Dedicatory formulaeDedicatory inscriptions make up the bulk of the Venetic corpusThey can include the following elements:subject in the nominativeverb in 3rd person object in the accusativerecipient in the dativerecipient in the accusativebeneficiary in dative (“for/on behalf of X”)circumstances/motivation of dedication, usually a prepositional phraseabbreviated formulaeThough the elements can appear in different orders and combinations, the following rules and tendencies exist:where a verb is used, it always has a stated subjectthe verb is never the first word of the sentencethe accusative pronoun mego is usually at the beginning of the sentenceprepositional phrases are placed at the end of the sentenceconstituent parts of personal names normally appear together, but can occasionally be separated by other words (may be due to a misengraving?)4.2. Funerary formulaeThese inscriptions can include the following elements:(always) the name of the deceased in the nominative or dativethe name of the person putting up the inscription in the nominative or genitivethe nominative pronoun .e.go, referring to the tomb or monumenta word denoting the tombTombs are sometimes to multiple people, such as a married couple or three sisters; in this case the names are joined by ke or –kveText 75 ter also includes a further sentence, which seems to say that the affection (karis) of the person setting up the monument stays with (atisteit) the dead person in death as it did in life (vivoi oliialekve murtuvoi)4.3. Coordination and asyndetonCoordination can be marked either by the proclitic conjunction ke or the enclitic conjunctive –kve. ke is found joining: two verbs, two nouns, and two letters of the alphabet (in the magical formula a ke o)-kve is found joining: adjectives, three nouns (attached to the final one)We also find asyndeton in pairs or lists of personal namesThere are a couple of conjunctions in the Tavola d’Este, such as kude “where”, kvan “when”4.4. NumberVenetic has three numbers: singular, dual and pluralA patronymic adjective applying to three people can appear in the singular, in agreement with the closest idionym only (text 63 and 123)We can see that the dual may have been decreasing in use because of the use of a plural verb with two subjects (which are described by participles in the dual) in the Archaic Venetic text 1234.5. CaseUses of the nominativename of deceased on a gravestonename of person setting up a gravestone, in the formula “X for Y”name of the tomb, in the formula “tomb for X”nominative pronoun in the formula “I am for X”name of dedicator on a dedicationother subjects of verbs on dedications, e.g. te.u.talists of personal names, e.g. text 149Uses of the accusativethe object of all verbs of givingwith the preposition per.with the preposition .u.probably with the preposition .e..s.Uses of the genitiveproperty inscriptions reading “of X” i.e. “this belongs to X”name of person setting up a gravestone, in the formula “tomb of X, for Y”, where Y is the name of the deceasedsometimes to show the name of a woman’s husbandostinobos frivi “for the bones of F.” (possessive genitive)vineti karis “the affection of V.” (subjective genitive)with the preposition *entosUses of the dativename of the divinity to whom a dedication is madename of the person to whom a present is givenname of the deceased for whom a tomb has been builtname of the person on whose behalf a dedication has been madewith the verb adsteitUses of the instrumentalwith the preposition .o.p “because of”The ablative, locative and vocative are not attested.5. The Position of VeneticOriginally thought to be related to Illyrian and/or Messapic.In 1940s, connection to Italic was put forward.If the main criterion for inclusion in “Italic” is the treatment of the voiced aspirates, then Venetic does seem to be Italic (and perhaps closer to Latin than to Oscan-Umbrian). However, this is essentially arbritrary. We should also keep in mind that many of the similarities between Latin-Faliscan and Oscan-Umbrian are probably the result of later convergence rather than shared innovations.List of all isoglosses and possible isoglosses in Lejeune (1974: 165ff)5.1 Phonetic isoglosses*o? remains distinct from *a?, unlike in Messapic and Germanic*o? remains distinct from *a?, unlike in Messapic, Germanic and (in initial syllables) in Celtic*e? is preserved, as in Latin and Faliscan, and unlike the raising seen in Umbrian, Oscan and Celtic and the lowering in Messapic*ai is preserved, as in Oscan, in contrast to the monophthongisation in Latin, Faliscan, Umbrian, Gaulish, Lepontic and Celtiberian*l? /ol/, as in the Italic languages and unlike Germanic and Celtic*n? /an/, as in Oscan-Umbrian (in initial syllables) and in Gaulish and Celtiberian, but unlike Oscan-Umbrian (in non-initial syllables), Latin, Lepontic, Gaelic, Messapic and GermanicConservation of intervocalic *-s-, as in Oscan, Continental Celtic and GermanicConservation of *p, in contrast to CelticInitial *bh *dh *gh do not merge with *b *d *g, with similar treatment to Latin and Oscan-UmbrianMedial *bh and *dh become /b/ and /d/, as in LatinLabiovelars *kw /kv-/ and *gw /v-/, as in Latin, in contrast to the preservation of the labiovelars in Celtiberian and Germanic and the labialisation in Oscan-Umbrian, Lepontic and Gaulish.Assimilation *p…kw… *kw…kw…, as in Latin and Gaelic, and probably also in Oscan-Umbrian and GaulishInitial *gwh /f/, as in Latin and maybe also Oscan-UmbrianNon-assimilation of –nd-, as in Latin, Ligurian, Gaulish, Celtiberian, Gaelic, and in contrast with Oscan-Umrian, Lepontic and BrittonicPreservation of –st-, as in Latin, Oscan-Umbria, Ligurian, Celtiberian, Brittonic and GermanicPresevation of –kt-, as in Latin and Germanic, but in contrast to Oscan-Umbrian, Gaulish, Celtiberian, GaelicPreservation of inherited internal *-tl- as in Gaulish and Brittonic, against dissimilation in Latin and Oscan-Umbrian5.2 Morphological isoglossesGenitive singular in -i? in the second declension, as in Latin, Faliscan, Lepontic, Gaulish and GaelicDative plural in –bo.s. ( *bhos), as in Messapic (-bas), Oscan-Umbrian, Latin, Lepontic, Celtiberian, but not GermanicInstrumental plural identical to dative plural in second declension, unlike Latin and Oscan-UmbrianSurvival of the dual, found in Umbrian as an archaismAccusative pronoun mego, remodelled to match .e.go, as in GermanicSigmatic past tense, found in Latin in a few verbs and more extensively in Celtic, but not found in Oscan-Umbrian or GermanicMedio-passive in –r, found in Latin, Oscan, Umbrian, Gaulish, Brittonic and Gaelic, but not found in Germanic, Slavic and GreekPreservation of a passive participle in *-mno-, unlike almost everyone else5.3 Lexical isoglosses*aisu- “god”, found in Oscan-Umbrian, Gaulish (and Etruscan)*ans- also found in Germanic*aug- in religious vocab, also found in Latin*bhwi?lyo- “son”, as in Latin, Faliscan, Umbrian?, Messapic and Albanian*do?no- “gift”, as in Hindi, Latin, Oscan, Umbrian and Celtic; the formation of a verb in -a?- is found in the Italic languages*dhh1k- “make”, in Venetic “make a dedication”, found in Latin and Oscan-Umbrian, but not Celtic and Germanic*entos is also found in Latin and Greekghei(-ke) “here” is also found in Latin and Faliscanghosti- is found in Latin, Lepontic, Ligurian, German and Slavic; it is not found in Insular Celtic; its absence from Oscan-Umbrian may be due to chance*ka?ro- “dear” is found in Latin, Germanic and Baltic*leudhero- in the plural means “children” only in Venetic and Latin*mg- is used as a term of offering only in Venetic (magetlo.n.) and Latin (mactus)miles is found in both Latin and VeneticThe refashioning of *mr?to- “dead” into *mr?two- to match *gw?wo- is found independently in Slavic (mru?tvu?) and Latin (mortuus). May be significant that this is also found in Venetic murtuvoi.The pronoun sselboisselboi “for himself” shows similarity with the Germanic pronouns of the type Gothic silba, from *s(w)e-The noun *teuta?- for “people” is found in Messapic, Oscan-Umbrian, Venetic, Gaulish, Celtiberian, Brittonic, Gaelic, Germanic and Baltic, but not Latin.*u??d(s) functions as a preposition in Venetic, Germanic, Baltic and Slavic; in Latin it is only an adverb (usque).The preverb *upo in Venetic does not show the prefix s- found in Latin, Oscan and Umbrian.The Latin uescor, which lacks a clear etymology, appears to correspond to Venetic ve.s.ke.?.6. Personal namesAbout half of the Venetic material consists of personal namesBoth male and female names are attested, though most of the female names are of a relatively recent dateA list of the attested personal names is included in the “Venetic vocabulary” handout.6.1. Men’s namesUsually an idionym (ID) which may be followed optionally by a patronymic adjective derived from the father’s name (PA)IDIDs can be compound names, in the manner of Greek and Celtic names, e.g. ho.s.tihavo.s.Most are not compounds but derived from stems using a number of different suffixes.PAThe PA is most commonly an adjective in –yo- or in –ko-. A few PAs seem to be compounds with the second element –gno- or –k(e)no-, maybe from *gen- and meaning “born of X”.Patronymic adjectives can sometimes become “degraded” and are used as idionyms. This can cause some ambiguity, especially in damaged inscriptions.names can include more than one PA, usually indicating the grandfather or the adopted father in addition to the father6.2. Women’s namesSome women’s names are ID + PA, just like men’s names – maybe unmarried women?Other women’s names are ID + GA, where GA is a gamonymique adjective in -na? derived from their husband’s name, e.g. vhugia .u.r.kle.i.naThe GA is not attested very early, and may be a relatively late innovation (around the end of Este-III?).Like PAs, GAs can come to be used as idionyms.One woman can have both a PA and a GA.6.3. Filiationterms defining family relationships are not required as part of personal namesfamilial relationships appear occasionally as extra information, particularly in later inscriptions and those in the Latin alphabetnamed relationships include:filia “daughter”pater “father”ve.s.ke.?. “adopted child”lo.u.dera.i. kane.i. “dear child”ResourcesCorpora, collections of new inscriptions and descriptions of the languageC. Pauli (1891) Die Veneter. [Approach with caution]R.S. Conway (1933) The Prae-Italic dialects of Italy, vol. 1, London. [Approach with caution]M.S. Beeler (1949) The Venetic Language, Berkeley.G.B. Pellegrini and A.L. Prosdocimi (1967) La lingua venetica, Padova. [First corpus with pictures]M. Lejeune (1974) Manuel de la langue Vénète, Heidelberg.G. Fogolari and A.L. Prosdocimi (1988) I Veneti antichi. Lingua e cultura, Padova.A. Marinetti (1999) Iscrizioni venetiche. Aggiornamento 1988-1998.?In Studi Etruschi LXIII: 461-476.A. Marinetti (2004) Venetico: rassegna di nuove iscrizioni. In Studi Etruschi LXX: 389-408.Other key worksE. Vetter (1936) Zur Lesung einiger venetischen Inschriften. In Glotta 24: 114-133. [First to refute connection with Illyrian]J. Untermann (1961) Die venetischen Personennamen. Wiesbaden.M. Lejeune (1978) Ateste à l'heure de la romanisation. Etude anthroponymique. Florence.A. Marinetti(1998) Il venetico: bilancio e prospettive. In A. Marinetti, M.T. Vigolo and A. Zamboni (eds.) Varietà e continuità nella storia linguisitca del Veneto. Padua/Venice: 49-98. [For the Tavola d’Este]A. Marinetti (2008) Lo stato attuale dell’epigrafia venetica. In Quaderni di Archeologia del Veneto 24: 189-193.A. Marinetti (2003) Il ??signore del cavallo?? e i riflessi istituzionali dei dati di lingua. Venetica ekupetaris. In G. Cresci Marrone and M. Tirelli (eds.) Produzioni, merci e commerci in Altino preromana e romana. Rome: 143-160. [For the word ekupetaris]Michael Weiss (2013 handout) Introduction to Venetic (Leiden Summer School in IE Linguistics 2013).academia.edu/7894586/Introduction_to_Venetic_Leiden_Summer_School_in_IE_Linguistics_2013_[with fuller bibliography, by subject] ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download