Differenze

Queste sono le differenze tra la revisione selezionata e la versione attuale della pagina.

--- eventi:2024conference_abstract [2024/05/19 16:58]
amministratore
+++ eventi:2024conference_abstract [2024/05/24 20:04] (versione attuale)
amministratore
@@ Linea 1: / Linea 1: @@
-===== Convegno finale: abstract =====
+====== Convegno finale: abstract ======
 ☞ [[eventi:2024conference|programma del convegno]]
@@ Linea 23: / Linea 23: @@
 This lecture, after a brief historical overview, will focus on the Tripolitanian Latino-Punic corpus, with some reference to neo-Punic. Although in the past, both neo- and Latino-Punic were seen as the last throes of a dying language (or even mistakenly as Berber), here we in reality see a Semitic language continuing to thrive into early Late Antique Roman North Africa, reinvigorated in a sense through contact with Latin. While we see Latin influence in textual genres, formulae, onomasticon, and occasionally syntax, above all the usage of the Latin alphabet sheds important light on diachronic morphophonological questions. We will furthermore explain how the Latin alphabet was adapted to render Punic. While Latino-Punic had but a limited geographical spread and was only used for a relatively brief period, this is counterbalanced by its importance for diachronic Semitic linguistics.
+====Marco Mancini====
+**//I σήματα e il modello greco dell’evoluzione della scrittura //**
+This paper aims to review the many accounts, often reduced to a mere onomastic citation, provided by Greek (and partly Roman) historians, antiquarians, grammarians and glossographers on the origin of writing. Pre-Christian classical historiography often identified a unilinear trajectory from a given archetype to the Greek alphabetic script. The archetype, from time to time, corresponds to Phoenician, Egyptian, Assyrian, and Aramaic (Chaldaic) scripts and, in not a few cases, refers back to an entirely Greek genesis. Reconstructions are not lacking between history and mythology, in which the different //phyla//, so to speak, converge with each other. However, a close examination of some scattered evidence, already highlighted in the previous scholarly literature, allows us to identify the co-existence of a plurilinear and not merely unilinear reconstructive pattern of the history of Greek writing. A couple of passages from Plutarch and Diodorus Siculus suggest how in some Greek circles, the idea of two historical segments in the creation of writing had been progressively consolidated: the former was very ancient, predating the Trojan War and the Flood; the latter, leading from the archetype to the Greek alphabetical script, was more recent and represented by several πρῶτοι εὑρεταί (Cadmus, Palamedes, Hermes, Theyth etc.). The former had no historical continuation known to the Greeks except in faint and remote memories; since Hecataeus and Herodotus, the latter was the commonly accepted one. The existence of a plurilinear model paradigm is reflected in some interesting explanations of the famous passage in the //Iliad// (6, 166-180) devoted to Bellerophon's σήματα λυγρά “baneful signs”. Part of the tradition of the Homeric glosses (the //scholia// VKM, D, partly dating back to Aristarchus) makes use of this paradigm by contrasting, as occurs in Eustatius and some passages of Plutarch, the very ancient and antediluvian σήματα “the signs” with the γράμματα, the "alphabetical letters." This demonstrates the remarkable sensitivity of some Greek circles in interpreting a crucial event in Hellenic cultural history.
 ====Daniele F. Maras====
@@ Linea 63: / Linea 68: @@
 The speech is addressed to some issues in nominal and pronominal morphology, observed in the languages of the Nile Valley: synchronic data are compared with historical considerations. The availability of a long-range historical perspective is allowed by the presence in this region of one the oldest linguistic traditions, the Egyptian one, which diffused its graphical models along the Nile Valley, until the middle course of the river, where languages genetically unrelated to the Afro-Asiatic group are diffused.\\
-The first part of the speech deals with Coptic. This language exhibits a group of typologically interesting phenomena of agreement which can be easily recognized as such by comparing Coptic translations with their Greek models. For instance, in //te-khora tēr-s n-t-ioudaia// (Mark 1.5), which translates //pâsa ē ioudaía khṓra//, the complex element //tēr-s// corresponds to //pâsa//; in //rō-ou n-ne-htōōr// (Jas 3.3), which translates //tôn híppōn…tà stómata//, //rō-ou// corresponds to //stómata//; in //harat-f m-p-toou// (Mark 5.11), which translates //pròs tôi órei//, //harat-f// corresponds to //pròs//. The second components of these complex elements are pronominal suffixes in their origin. However, as the comparisons above show, from a synchronic point of view, such items must be considered as agreement markers. Coptic thus exhibits cases of 1) adnominal modifiers that agree in gender, number and – remarkably – person with their governing noun; 2) possessed nouns that agree with their possessor; 3) adpositions that agree with their dependent noun.\\
+The first part of the speech deals with Coptic. This language exhibits a group of typologically interesting phenomena of agreement which can be easily recognized as such by comparing Coptic translations with their Greek models. For instance, in //te-khora tēr-s n-t-ioudaia// (Mark 1.5), which translates //pâsa hē ioudaía khṓra//, the complex element //tēr-s// corresponds to //pâsa//; in //rō-ou n-ne-htōōr// (Jas 3.3), which translates //tôn híppōn…tà stómata//, //rō-ou// corresponds to //stómata//; in //harat-f m-p-toou// (Mark 5.11), which translates //pròs tôi órei//, //harat-f// corresponds to //pròs//. The second components of these complex elements are pronominal suffixes in their origin. However, as the comparisons above show, from a synchronic point of view, such items must be considered as agreement markers. Coptic thus exhibits cases of 1) adnominal modifiers that agree in gender, number and – remarkably – person with their governing noun; 2) possessed nouns that agree with their possessor; 3) adpositions that agree with their dependent noun.\\
 The second part of the contribution is dedicated to some issues of nominal morphology of the North-Eastern Sudanic languages (following the classification of Claude Rilly), attested in eastern and western territories of the middle course of Nile Valley: in particular, the suffix of nominal plural and, in the inflection of the personal pronouns, the distinction between inclusive and exclusive first plural. Both phenomena will be observed in Nara, a language belonging to the group, diffused in present-day North-Western Eritrea: the observations are partially based on new data collected during a fieldwork in January 2024. It will be argued that the knowledge of Old Nubian, a language genetically linked to the North-Eastern Sudanic group, historically attested through the spread of the Coptic alphabet along the Nile valley to the Christian kingdoms of Nubia, allows the reconstruction of a historical path for the nominal and pronominal inflection of Nara.

CHANGE PRIN Progetto di ricerca di Rilevante Interesse Nazionale Contact and History in Ancient Grammar of Europe

Strumenti Utente

Strumenti Sito

Differenze

Strumenti Pagina