Talk:Duenos Inscription
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article has had a peer review which has now been archived. It may contain ideas that you can use to improve this article. |
Contents |
[edit] Authority?
Whose reading or translation is this? I myself am aware of quite a different one which makes some sense actually as well:
A: io uei sat deiuos qoi med mitat nei ted endo cosmis uirco sied
"May the Gods, Jove, Vejove, and Saturn (grant) that Proserpine to whom they suffer this vase to be despatched, show thee no favor"
B: asted noisi ope toitesiai pacari uois
"unless thou art indeed willing to make thy peace with Ops Toitesia".
C: duenos med feced en manom einom duenoi ne med malo statod
"Duenos made me (as a curse) against Manus and let no evil fall to Duenos from me".
It is found in an old article by R. Seymour Conway in AJPh 10 (1889), 445-459. I know my Latin and my training in comparative linguistics does not lag far behind either, but I am no expert to tell really on matters of inscriptions; Conway's scholarship as presented does not seem flawed to me at least. Does the version presented here refute Conway's, does it update it, does it take at all into account? Also I would like to point out that "Duenos" cannot be "bene" (an adverb) it could at best be taken as "Benus", which is meaningless in Classical Latin Lucius Domitius 02:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- Wow, that 1889 reading seems terribly speculative to me... and a little, um, overcreative. Also, my understanding is that Duenos is ancestral to Bonus, but don't beat me if I'm wrong; the Archaic Latin is ouside my expertise. On second thought, the 1889 reading seems no less speculative than the one in the article, if perhaps too florid. I mean, really, "(grant) that Proserpine to whom they suffer this vase to be despatched" for qoi med mitat.... uirco? That's pushing it. Ddama 09:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- Well, yes the "to whom they suffer etc" part is rather florid and overcreative (it is more commentary than translation", but I find no fault in the rest. I will check a few other articles and get back to it, though I would really prefer that this be done by an expert on inscriptions. Lucius Domitius 12:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
"Jove, Vejove, and Saturn" is definitely a fabrication. It's unfortunate that the Romans had that habit of abbreviating nearly every word they wrote-- you can basically read anything into the inscription. Ashibaka tock 03:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Second line
There's no translation at all, however speculative, of the second line in the main article. Anyone? Benet Allen 19:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] When (and how and by whom) was it found on the Quirinal Hill?
Two weeks after it was written? Last week? Michael Hardy 21:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- It was found in 1880; looking for more information on the other two questions, but my guess is that Heinrich Dressel found it during an archaeological dig. —Charles P._(Mirv) 21:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- confirmation for the first guess. can't find anything for the second, but since Dressel was a well-known archaeologist and published his account of the inscription in an Italian journal of archaeology, it seems reasonable to guess that he found it during a dig. —Charles P._(Mirv) 22:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Confusing sentence
...and the Romans inscriptions were used to be abbreviated, no one can be certain exactly what it says.'
What is trying to be conveyed by this sentence? Are the Romans "used to" writing in an abbreviated fashion? If that's the case, that sentence needs cleaning up. I would edit it, but I'd like to know what's being said. Joemaza 23:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
