Remerciez-le!

Remerciez @Admin pour avoir partagé cet document gratuitement, de la manière la plus simple, en partageant sur les réseaux sociaux.

Effects of Language Contact on Roman and Gaulish Personal Names Karin Stüber (U

Effects of Language Contact on Roman and Gaulish Personal Names Karin Stüber (University of Zurich) 1. Introduction The Roman conquest of what was to become the province of Gallia Narbo- nensis in the second and then of the whole of Transalpine Gaul in the first century B.C. led to the incorporation into the Roman empire of a large part of the territory in which Gaulish was then spoken.1 In consequence, the vernacular rapidly lost its footing at least in public life and was soon replaced by Latin, the language of the new masters, which enjoyed higher prestige (cf. e.g. Meid 1980: 7-8). On the other hand, Gaulish continued to be written for some three centuries and was probably used in speech even longer, especially in rural areas. We must therefore posit a prolonged period of bilingualism. The effects of this situation on the Latin spoken in the provinces of Gaul seem to have been rather limited. A number of lexical items, mostly from the field of everyday life, and some pho- netic characteristics are the sole testimonies of a Gaulish substratum in the vari- ety of Latin that was later to develop into the Romance dialects of France (cf. Meid 1980: 38, fn. 77). Given the political and social circumstances, it is to be expected that the im- pact of Latin onto Gaulish was considerably more significant. Unfortunately, due to the scantiness of written material in the vernacular, little is known about the exact mechanics of the Gaulish language’s decline and about the extent to which it was subjected to Latin influence before eventually disappearing. A few late Gaulish texts at least provide us with some clues. On the inscrip- tion on the plate of Lezoux (RIG I.2, L-66) for instance we read in line 8 vero, undoubtedly a loan from Latin vērō, either as an adverb meaning “really” or as a 1 Language contact between Gaulish and Latin had started earlier in the Gaulish speaking regions of Northern Italy known as Cisalpine Gaul. However, since there is very little text material written in the vernacular from that area, the following thoughts will confine them- selves to the situation in Transalpine Gaul. 82 Karin Stüber conjunction “but”. Further on in the same line another obvious loan occurs, the verbal form curri, to be interpreted as an imperative “run!” corresponding to Lat. curre (on the hypercorrect spelling -i instead of -e, see McCone 1996: 112). A veritable mixture of Gaulish and Latin can be found on inscriptions on spindle whorls (on which in detail Meid 1980). Thus, ave vimpi (RIG II.2, L- 122) combines the Latin greeting ave with a Gaulish term often found in this genre and meaning “pretty one, pretty girl, pretty woman” or the like (cf. Le- jeune 1977). Sometimes the texts seem to be Latin with Gaulish words rather than the other way round. Thus, in geneta vis cara (RIG II.2, L-114) “dear girl, do you want?”, only geneta “girl” is a Gaulish term, whereas the adjective cāra “dear” and the verbal form vis “you want” are Latin in origin. Similarly, nata vimpi pota vi(nu)m (RIG II.2, L-121) “girl, pretty one, drink wine” contains the Gaulish noun vimpi already mentioned next to the Latin accusative vinum and the Latin imperative pota “drink”. Significant in both examples is the Latin mor- phology: the 2nd singular vis and the accusative vinum can hardly be considered as Gaulish, and therefore the texts as a whole should rather be classified as ‘gau- licized’ Latin than as latinized Gaulish. An interesting question is the status of nata. This could be interpreted either as Latin (nāta “daughter”) or as Gaulish (earlier gnātā “daughter, girl”). The two words are not only homophones, but also share their etymology, both going back to IE *@h1tah2- fem. “born” (*@enh1 “to give birth, to beget”). As Meid (1980: 16-17) reminds us, this is one of the points in the lexical system where the two languages communicated naturally. The present paper deals with one specific area in which effects of language contact can be observed, the personal names. The changes to be noted in this field are of course not purely linguistic in nature, but are to a large extent cul- turally motivated. If parents give their child a Latin name this does not neces- sarily imply that they make no longer use of the Gaulish language. On the other hand, even after the transition from Gaulish to Latin had been completed some Gaulish personal names might have remained in use. They might then have to be interpreted as an ethnic rather than a linguistic mark (cf. Meid 1980: 8). Gaulish personal names have come to us mainly through three types of sources. Longest known have been names recorded by classical authors such as Caesar or Tacitus. However, they will not be taken into consideration here, since they are in general names of historically important and socially high ranked persons that can tell us little about the naming habits of the ordinary population. More promising in this regard are names on inscriptions, especially epitaphs. Two kinds of these have to be distinguished: those written in the vernacular and those written in Latin. The latter are on the whole more recent, and they adapt Gaulish names to Latin morphology, e.g. by replacing the Gaulish nominative singular -os of masculine o-stems by Latin -us. The names themselves, however, can be trusted to be recorded quite faithfully, since the documents are contem- porary. Effects of Language Contact on Roman and Gaulish Personal Names 83 The Gaulish inscriptions found in Transalpine Gaul fall themselves into two categories. During the early period, starting in the late 3rd century B.C., a variant of the Eastern Greek alphabet was used, which the Gauls had taken over from the Greek colonies on the Mediterranean coast and which then spread northward along the Rhone. After the Roman conquest, it is replaced by the Latin alphabet, which implies that Gaulish inscriptions in Latin script are in general later than those in Greek script. The following investigation will be divided into two sections, the first one look- ing at personal names attested on inscriptions written in the vernacular, the sec- ond one looking at those attested in Latin texts. 2. Personal Names on Gaulish Inscriptions It seems safe to assume that Gaulish inscriptions using the Greek alphabet in the main were written before the Roman conquests, and therefore their scrutiny must be considered our best chance of establishing the genuine Gaulish naming formula. Personal names are found in considerable number on epitaphs and votive inscriptions, and their testimony is unanimous: a person carries a single name, and filiation, if stated at all, is expressed by a patronymic adjective. A number of suffixes are used to form such adjectives, the most common being -ιος/ -ια (e.g. Ατεσθας Σμερτουρειγιος RIG I, G-3; Ουριττακος Ηλουσκονιος RIG I, G-68; dat. Εσκεγγαι Βλανδοουικουνιαι RIG I, G-146), -ιακος (e.g. πορειξ Ιουγιλλιακος RIG I, G-28; Καβιρος Ουινδιακος RIG I, G-118), -ικνος (e.g. Κασσιταλος Ουερσικνος RIG I, G-206) and -εος/-εα (e. g. Βιμμος Λιτουμαρεος RIG I, G-69; Κιντουμα Κασσικεα RIG I, G-211). The same formula is also found on the inscriptions in Latin script, examples being Boudilatis Lemisunia (RIG II.1, L-2) or Andecamulos Toutissicnos (RIG II.1, L-11). In this corpus, however, some instances occur in which filiation is expressed by the genitive of the father’s name rather than by a patronymic ad- jective. Thus, a potter’s signature from Toulon-sur-Allier reads Sacrillos Carati (RIG II.2, L-23.2), where Carati is to be interpreted as genitive of the masculine name *Karātos, amply attested in Latin inscriptions as Caratus (cf. OPEL II: 36). Similarly, the votive inscription on the handle of a pot offers Doiros Se- gomari as name of the donator (RIG II.2, L-133), again with the genitive of the father’s name (cf. nom. Σεγομαρος RIG I, G-153). There can hardly be any doubt that this phenomenon is due to Latin influence. Within the Roman naming formula, filiation is indicated by the genitive of the father’s praenomen, generally abbreviated and optionally followed by f(ilius) “son” or f(ilia) “daughter” respectively. This method was apparently adapted by the Gauls, though not precisely copied, since there is no instance of a word for “son” or “daughter” following the genitive. Confirmation that we are not dealing with an independent Gaulish develop- ment is provided by the fact that – with the exception of the two examples given 84 Karin Stüber above – those texts that do offer a genitive instead of a patronymic adjective also show some other kind of Latin influence. This is very evident in the case of an inscription on a finger ring reading Divixta Argentias Litta Celori ddllm (RIG II.2, L-130). The votive formula ddllm = dederunt libentes merito “they gave (it) willingly, deservedly” is clearly Latin, not Gaulish. In fact, the only form to be considered undoubtedly Gaulish is Argentias, ap- parently the genitive singular of an ā-stem *Argentā or possibly *Argentiā. This could be interpreted as the mother’s name,2 uploads/Litterature/ effects-of-lenguage-contact-on-roman-and-gaulish-personal-names-pdf.pdf