CHANGE PRIN Progetto di ricerca di Rilevante Interesse Nazionale Contact and History in Ancient Grammar of Europe
Strumenti Utente
eventi:2024conference_abstract
Differenze
Queste sono le differenze tra la revisione selezionata e la versione attuale della pagina.
| Entrambe le parti precedenti la revisione Revisione precedente | |||
|
eventi:2024conference_abstract [2024/05/20 18:22] amministratore [Paolo Milizia e Giancarlo Schirru] |
eventi:2024conference_abstract [2024/05/24 20:04] (versione attuale) amministratore |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| 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. | 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==== | ====Daniele F. Maras==== | ||
eventi/2024conference_abstract.1716222136.txt.gz · Ultima modifica: 2024/05/20 18:22 da amministratore
Strumenti Pagina
A eccezione di dove è diversamente indicato, il contenuto di questo wiki è soggetto alla seguente licenza: CC Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International
Responsabile tecnico del sito: P. Milizia (paolo.milizia.0@gmail.com)