Talk:Duenos inscription

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: The listed translation/interpretation is by H. Eichner.  An interesting article on it can be found here: http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/pies/pdfs/IESV/1/BV_Duenos.pdf (simple google search).  This may not be the best representation that could be offered to an individual interested in this topic if nothing further is offered regarding the translation.  A more complete translation would be more appropriate, especially considering that the historical community has not yet decided upon any specific translation (and likely never will...).Pheonix2og 11:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Authority?

message: 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)
replies: text: My German is not very good and the Babel/Google translations are horrible.  If someone speaks German, please read the German translation at the (German) link and reword what is in line two as this seems a poor translation (and I cannot find that Eichner, from whom the translation comes, actually offered any meaning for this second line).Pheonix2og 11:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second line 

message: Two weeks after it was written?  Last week? Michael Hardy 21:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: When (and how and by whom) was it found on the Quirinal Hill?

message: ...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)
replies: text: I've edited this (see newest addition -> "Cleanup / Edits").Pheonix2og 11:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing sentence

message: At the bottom of this article is a link to the Praenestine fibula, which in turn has a link to the Viminal vessel, which in turn leads back to this article of Duenos Inscription. Was this article originaly called Viminal vessel, or something like that, or is this possible just a hyperlink screwup? And if this was originaly called Viminal vessel, shouldn't something like that be in the article?
208.98.216.211 09:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A.D. Fraser, in 1932, describes the "vessel" as having been found between the Viminal and Quirinal Hills in Rome.  The actual object is three vases/bowls that are situated in a triangular form as portrayed in the image in the main article.  I presume someone did not know the proper name and simply referred to it as the Viminal vessel following some early historian/archeologist's naming scheme as the entire object is a vessel and not simply an inscription - the inscription seems to be the more important part of the discovery and "The Duenos Inscription" is the title of MANY articles detailing its inscription and importance.  Hope this helps.  It is probably best to change the listing on the Praenestine fibula page to "The Duenos Inscription."  I have, thus, changed it - and assuming some response is offered to my alterations/feedback, I will add info to the article regarding Viminal vessel/Hills nomenclature.Pheonix2og 11:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Hyperlink Error? 

message: The article should mention which alphabet is used? Etruscan alphabet? --84.20.17.84 12:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not 100% certain as to the alphabet used, but it appears to be classical Etruscan, and I believe I remember having read this in an article tonight...  Can anyone else elaborate?Pheonix2og 11:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alphabet 

message: I have made some grammatical changes and general clean up work to make this article more closely resemble the Wikipedia format - I admit that I'm not completely familiar with it, so please re-edit as necessary.  I made these changes, mostly, because I felt that this article was a little too familiar with the audience/reader and not so much an objective or encyclopedic entry.  Please revert if you feel I was wrong - or simply edit what I may have edited incorrectly.  
Beyond the grammatical/format entries, I did have a couple of questions:
Could someone elaborate on who proposed this translation - give some information or an argument at least as to why this is the translation currently accepted enough to be listed here?  Or should we include as many (all....?) translations that we can find?  I have several that I could include (this would eventually not be very viable as there are around 50 that I know of - some very similar), with working source links to articles stored on JSTOR.  Please give me some feedback on this, it would be greatly appreciated.
Next; One edit I made was to add "sections."  The "Notes" section (I could not derive a better title), seems like random bits of trivia that could better be incorporated into this article elsewhere.  I would gladly do this (as I do have some direction as provided by the research sources I've found on JSTOR) assuming those involved with the creation and maintenance of this page would be interested.  I realize that this is a completely community edited "encyclopedia," however, some people tend to get territorial about articles and cite changes or removals as vandalism.  Does anyone  else have anything further to add to this "Notes" section to expand it or should I incorporate it into another section or remove the "notes" altogether?
Lastly, I've offered several responses to many of the questions/problems posed here in this discussion, please note these and respond as necessary (most of my arguments are summarized in the above three paragraphs).
Again, any/all input would be greatly appreciated.  I won't make any further changes until I receive some feedback.  Thanks.Pheonix2og 11:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup / Edits 

message: Please see Category talk:Earliest known manuscripts by language. Enaidmawr (talk) 01:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct category? 

message: O. Sacchi wrote a detailed paper containing an overview of the interpretations and some additional remarks of his own, appeared on RIDA 2001. As there are problems in presenting the material in the context of the present article I shall refrain from editing directly.
However I shall present here the gist of the research done as presented by Sacchi.
E. Peruzzi was the first to identify the object as an ex-voto as it was found in a votive deposit of a temple.
G. Dumezil elaborated it should be a formula of matrimonial promise (obligation, monologic sponsio) on the grounds that the solemn opening words: "Iovesat deivos qoi med mitat..." "Swears for the gods he who gives me" do not allow the interpretation that was previously given by Peruzzi, Prat and Gjerstad as a love filter container or  as an erotic luring formula.
Coarelli linked it to the cult of the Fortuna Virgo i.e. the goddess who presides to the passage of girls into adulthood and matrimonial life. There were three temples of goddess Fortuna on the Quirinal hill: Coarelli speculates the votive deposit where the vase was found might belong to that of Fortuna Citerior (Nearer) who had a temple on the South slope of the Quirinal, i.e. more or less the location of the find.
Pennisi first and later Simon and Elboj proposed to read it as a marriage compact between two parties and the vase as a token of the betrothal pledge.
Peppe proposed a form of matrimonial obligation without manus, although religiously sanctioned.
Sacchi agrees with this last interpretation. His own additions: cosmis would not mean agreeable, well disposed, but with the hair combed/adorned for marriage (i.e. with the seni crines), synonymous of accepting to marry.
Duenos would not mean good, honest but formally and religiously correct, sanctioned.
His proposed meaning is:
Swears for the gods he who gives/sends me: if the girl shall not marry you 
it will be our legal liability (opetoitesiai= ops et tutela or ope tutoria) to give you satisfaction (pakari vois).
Somebody acting in a religiouly correct(consacrated) wise made me for a good end for an equally acting (consacrated) party, neither there shall be any fraud through/by me (the vase is speaking as every scholar agrees).Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overview 

message: I have finished editing. I hope to receive comments and suggestions.Aldrasto11 (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: How about posting your request to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome? Haploidavey (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments welcome 

message: Is that even a word in English?  (I'm only familiar with grapheme, which has a completely different meaning.)  That section seems to contain some strange English usage... AnonMoos (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, "graphem" seems to be German. I'm not at all sure what it means in that language; nor whence it came - possibly from a German Wikipedia source, which is linked as a pdf in this article's notes and references. Just to complicate matters, it might have been added by an editor whose first language is Italian; thus the somewhat unorthodox usage of English in places. Anyway, we could certainly be more reader-friendly; we might even simply call a line of text a "line of text". Haploidavey (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Isn't that rather a phraseme or perhaps syntagma or semantic unit? Graphem makes no sense in this context, and I've never seen the word used in this sense in any language. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: "graphem"?

message: There is somebody who has altered the translation in the first part of the article. Since I have not edited this part I will not correct it. However the translation now is clearly wrong.
The text says : "Iovesat deivos qoi med mitat nei ted endo virco cosmis sied...", now this can only be interpreted (as has been agreed about by everybody): "He who gives/delivers me swears by the gods: if the maiden shall not be nice to thee...", i.e. the vase is speaking.Aldrasto11 (talk) 12:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point; I've corrected the translation. I've simply deleted the "thee to" part, but why not supply your own translation, especially if you can provide a citation? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. In the first sentence the meaning is clear enough and agreed upon by everybody: see for instance Brent Vine's article at the beginning. The second is the most debated, my favourite interpretation is : "It shall be our obligation to give you satisfaction in force of our tutorial position". It is based on Dumezil's but overcomes its problems, discussed in the article. OR I am afraid.Aldrasto11 (talk) 11:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Duenos Inscription. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131219065428/http://linguistica.unicas.it/lorenzetti/LM_2009/Vine_duenos.pdf to http://linguistica.unicas.it/lorenzetti/LM_2009/Vine_duenos.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717205201/http://webuser.unicas.it/linguistica/lorenzetti/LM_2009/Gordon_duenos.pdf to http://webuser.unicas.it/linguistica/lorenzetti/LM_2009/Gordon_duenos.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Duenos Inscription. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120224195235/http://ancientstudies.fas.nyu.edu/docs/CP/963/EtruscanNewsVol14_2012_winter.pdf to http://ancientstudies.fas.nyu.edu/docs/CP/963/EtruscanNewsVol14_2012_winter.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified