DOI 10.

1515/joll-2013-0006    Journal of Latin Linguistics 2013; 12(1): 101 – 121

Anna Orlandini and Paolo Poccetti

-i and -osio genitives in archaic Latin:
different markers for different possession
types?
Abstract: This contribution offers a concrete, textually based account of the func-
tional possibilities for the expression of different types of possession (exclusive
and inalienable “ownership” versus “accidental belonging,” established by con-
vention or on an occasional event) in Archaic Latin. This account is based on the
competition between the genitive-marking morphemes -i and -osio in archaic
Faliscan inscriptions, which has been documented synchronically and for which
we suggest a parallelism with the diachronic development of these two mor-
phemes in Archaic Latin. We also confirm the theoretical insights concerning the
semantic-functional structures that encode different possession relations and we
propose an explanatory path for the generalization of the -ī versus -osio genitives
(cf. Bolkestein 1983, 2001; Maurel 1989).

Keywords: case markers; genitive; types of possession

Anna Orlandini: Université de Toulouse 2 ‘Le Mirail’ (Professor of Latin Linguistics).

E-mail: orlandinianna@libero.it
Paolo Poccetti: Università di Roma 2 ‘Tor Vergata’ (Professor of Comparative Philology).
E-mail: paolopoccetti@tiscali.it

1 Introduction
Four letters engraved on a vase discovered in a burial site in ancient Falerii (Celle
site) and dating back to the late 7th century BC form the sequence titi.1 Here the
personal name Titos marked by the -i morpheme can be easily recognized. This
name is well-known in archaic Latin, Faliscan, and Sabellian anthroponymy
(cf. Salomies 1987: 42ff.) also in its female counterpart Tita (Hartmann 2005: 28ff.;
Giacomelli 1963: 44ff.; Bakkum: 2009: II, 409ff.). As for the -i morpheme, no other
solution can be envisaged, but that it represents the common singular genitive
ending of -o stems, which is attested in a later period in both Faliscan and literary

1 Cf. Biella (2009: 273) especially as concerns the vase shape and its archeological context.

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Angemeldet | 212.87.45.97
Heruntergeladen am | 25.11.13 15:14
102    Anna Orlandini and Paolo Poccetti

Latin (not earlier than the 4th century BC). Both the context of the inscription and
the lack of any syntactic structure are convergent on the use of this morpheme for
denoting the object’s belonging, which is the normal function of the genitive case
in inflectional languages.
Consequently, Titi represents the oldest documentation of an -i genitive (of
an o-stem), as far as identified not only in Faliscan, but also in all the languages
concerned by this morpheme, including of course standard Latin. This fact high-
lights the importance of this attestation, inasmuch as the origin and development
of genitive morphemes of o-stems have been enormously debated, particularly
with respect to the history of noun declension in both Faliscan and Latin. Notori-
ously, the earliest evidence for the genitive morpheme in both Faliscan and Latin,
at least before 4th century BC, uniquely consists in the -osio morpheme. There-
fore the evidence for the i-genitive provided by the new inscription, assigned to
the late 7th century BC by its archaeological context, is of most prominent impor-
tance, in that it revolutionizes our knowledge of both diachronic and synchronic
occurrences of this morpheme.
Moreover, the new document implicitly points out that in this chronological
stage both morphemes for genitive functions, namely -i and -osio, already coex-
isted. This implication, which is valid for Faliscan, may be presumably paralleled
in archaic Latin, for which until now only -osio ending is known up to this point.
It should be to be remembered that the -i and -osio morphemes have been
believed to be diachronically distinguished. More exactly, according to the chro-
nology of their respective documentation, the -osio ending has been considered
older than the -i genitive. This view, commonly accepted2, was based on the fact
that occurrences of -osio seemed to precede those of -i, which gave the impression
that the latter would have replaced the former by about the late 5th century BC.
Now the new inscription brings invaluable evidence not only for the simulta-
neous use of the -i and -osio morphemes, but also for their complementary distri-
bution, that helps to focus their respective functions. For this purpose one needs
to take into account the earliest vase inscriptions referring to possession in the
Faliscan language, which can be summarized in Table 1.

2 From context to text

Prior to an evaluation of the most striking data of the Faliscan documents, i.e.,
the early evidence for an -i genitive ending in comparison with the synchronic

2 For a different view: Lucchesi & Magni 2004.

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Angemeldet | 212.87.45.97
Heruntergeladen am | 25.11.13 15:14
 -i and -osio genitives in archaic Latin    103

Table 1: Personal names referring to possession in Faliscan inscriptions dating from 630 to
570 BC

Date Vase typology Text

±630 oinochoe 1. eco quto *e Uotenosio Titias [. . .] 3

±600 high foot cup 2. Titi
±600 low foot cup 3. eko Kaisiosio / eko Lartos 4
±570 low foot cup 4. aimiosio eqo 5
±570 low foot cup 5. Qunoz / Iatinoz 6

occurrences of the -osio ending, a few essential aspects of text interpretation need
to be highlighted in order to outline the functional role of the -i morpheme with-
out any syntactic structure:
1. The archaeological context, where the vase with the Titi inscription was
found, is typical of Faliscan culture. This fact demonstrates that the vase was
locally commissioned and manufactured. Its owner (or the first individual
being buried in the site) was a member of a local gens. The inscription is thus
to be assigned to the native community, thus ruling out any possible cases of
borrowing or external influence.
2. Chronologically the vase with the Titi inscription belongs to the same pe­
riod as other Faliscan inscriptions of similar functions and contents, show-
ing  that various types of inscriptions referring to ownership did coexist
­synchronically in Faliscan tableware. More specifically, drinking vases in-
scribed with -osio genitives and the Titi vase inscription are to be traced
back to the fifty years ranging from late 7th century and early 6th century.
In particular, Titos’ vase appears to be almost fully contemporary with the
Faliscan oinochoe featured by the long inscription eco quto *e Uotenosio
­Titias with the “tongue-twister” propramon pramed [u]mon pramod pra­
medumon pramod propramod pramodumo[m].7 Instead two low-foot cups
­displaying -osio genitives, ­namely the inscription eko Kaisiosio / eko Lartos

3 Giacomelli (1963: 44−46 no. 2b), Bakkum (2009: 3). The oinochoe has been recognized as a
­local product (cf. Biella 2012: 40, 45, fig. 5a,b).
4 Giacomelli (1963: 48−49 no. 4), Bakkum (2009: 5).
5 Lejeune (1952: 120−126, fr. V, 350, pls. XV−XVI), Giacomelli (1963: 66 no. 56), Bakkum (2009:
467*). The second and third letters of the personal name are variously read. Also the assignment
of this text either to Faliscan or to the Capena language is questioned.
6 Published in the volume edited by Santoro (2008).
7 Whether the two inscriptions were ascribable to different authors and were written at different
times is not at issue here (cf. Mancini 2004: 207).

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Angemeldet | 212.87.45.97
Heruntergeladen am | 25.11.13 15:14
104    Anna Orlandini and Paolo Poccetti

and amiosio eqo, respectively, seems to be slightly later (about the second
decade of the 6th century). The vase from Magliano Sabina, discovered in
Sabine territory but bearing an inscription in Faliscan, dates back to the same
time. This inscription consisting of two personal names in the nominative
case (Qunoz / Iatinoz) can be compared to the inscription eko Kaisiosio / eko
Lartos, engraved in the Faliscan vase just mentioned,8 with respect to the
functional value of the text.

Within the frame of a unitary chronology of this set of Faliscan archaic texts, the
new inscription bearing the name Titos with the genitive -i ending differs from
other ones with respect to a prominent detail: the placement of the writing. The
inscription Titi is placed on the external side of the bottom, unlike other inscrip-
tions engraved around the external body of the pottery. These different positions
imply a different visibility of the writing and therefore entail distinct ways of read-
ing depending on the concrete use of the drinking vase.
The inscription on the external foot is clearly visible to whoever is sitting
in  front of the drinker or whenever the vase is upturned to be used as a lid. A
very different way of reading is implied by both Faliscan vases, where each name
of the respective inscriptions eko Kaisiosio / eko Lartos and Qunoz / Iatinoz are
reciprocally turned upward around the vase body. The inverted writing of each
personal name in the body of the vase has been convincingly explained in rela-
tionship with a “toasting” occasion, in which participants exchange glasses of
wine at a banquet (Napolitano 2000; Roncalli 2008; Poccetti 2008). Such an ex-
planation is consistent with the very context of wine drinking at banquets, where
the most important archaic Faliscan inscriptions originate.
The different practices of reading implied by the orientation of text on similar
objects, conceived for the same purpose, is of considerable importance as it con-
cerns the meaning and function of the texts. Significantly, the orientation of writ-
ing and its subsequent accessibility for reading combine with different morpho-
syntactic structures of the texts: all of this cannot be without consequence for the
meanings of the respective texts.
These facts are the starting point for our reflections, which will concentrate
on the functional distribution of the -i and -osio morphemes within texts which
are homogeneous from both the synchronic and contextual perspective.
As noted above, the -i genitive ending in the Titi inscription manifests no syn-
tactic dependency. In other words, it appears as an “absolute case,” although its

8 Santoro (2008), Roncalli (2008), Poccetti (2008). Instead, Colonna (2010: 290−292) suggests
the Funoz reading and the dating of the inscription around the second half of the 6th century.

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Angemeldet | 212.87.45.97
Heruntergeladen am | 25.11.13 15:14
 -i and -osio genitives in archaic Latin   105

possession-related meaning in this context is unquestionable. By contrast, all

­attestations of -osio genitives in Faliscan inscriptions co-occur with a phrase
­containing the formula typical of so-called “talking objects.” Specifically, the for-
mula here consists of the personal pronoun ego (in its three archaic graphic vari-
ants eco, eko, eqo) which functions as head of the phrase itself. The formula
“Ego + personal name” patterns are part of a belonging expression, in the -osio
genitive which is also common to archaic Latin. But differently from archaic ­Latin,
where the case inflection of the personal name accompanied by ego is nomina-
tive, in Faliscan the genitive is found (see Table 2).

Table 2: The ego formulas in archaic Latin and archaic Faliscan

Archaic Latin Archaic Faliscan (see Table 1)

1. Eco C. Antonios9 1. Eco quto *e Uotenosio Titias

2. Eco Kanaios (or Kaviaios or Kavidios)10 2. eko Kaisiosio / eko Lartos
3. M. Adicios (or Madicios) eco11 3. aimiosio eqo
4. eqo Fulfios12

Later on in Latin the ego formula is replaced by the “sum verb formula per-
sonal name in genitive,” that imitates more closely the Greek pattern “εἰμί verb + 
name in the genitive.” These different expressions of possession distinguishing
more archaic and more recent Latin epigraphy can be compared in Table 3.

Table 3: Belonging expression in archaic and recent Latin

Archaic Latin (see Table 2) Recent Latin

1. Eco C. Antonios 1. Ne atigas. Non sum tua. Marci sum13

2. Eco Kanaios (or Kaviaios or Kavidios) 2. Sotae sum. Noli me tangere14
3. M. Adicios (or Madicios) eco 3. Noli me tollere. Helvetii sum15
4. eqo Fulfios 4. L. Canolei sum16
5. Sum Valeri 17

9 CIL I2 462.
10 CIL I2 474: for different readings see Solin (2003). Moreover, Hartmann (2005: 172).
11 See Hartmann (2005: 172).
12 CIL I2 479.
13 CIL I2 499.
14 CIL I2 501.
15 CIL I2 2736.
16 CIL I2 2489.
17 CIL I2 1192.

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Angemeldet | 212.87.45.97
Heruntergeladen am | 25.11.13 15:14
106    Anna Orlandini and Paolo Poccetti

A further strategy to code possession is simply to place the personal name in

the nominative case without any syntactic structure, a practice which was widely
common from the archaic into the late period. When used as an absolute case,
i.e., as a free-standing and syntactically independent unit, the nominative, as the
unmarked case, can replace any utterance type. Two archaic examples are found
both in Latin (the vase inscription bearing the single name Karkavaios) and in
Faliscan (the pair of single names Qunoz / Iatinoz in the vase inscription already
mentioned) (Poccetti 2008). Admittedly a syntactically independent nominative
case may work for multiple information, in that it can refer either to an owner
or to an occasional holder or to the manufacturer of the object. In other words
the absolute nominative in itself is ambiguous to some extent. A means for dis­
tinguishing ownership from other functions probably was the formula ego + 
nominative in archaic Latin and ego + -osio genitive in archaic Faliscan. By con-
trast the signature of the craftsman responsible for manufacturing the item is
usually signaled by the verb to make in both languages in more or less archaic
inscriptions (see Table 4).

Table 4: Signatures of craftsmen in archaic Latin and Faliscan

Chronology Latin Faliscan

7th−6th Manios med fefaked Numasioi 18 Mama Zextos med fifiqod 21

century BC Duenos med feced en manom meinom duenoi 19 --]med fifiked22
Mamar[cos m]ed vhe[. . . .20
4th−2nd Nouios Plautios med Romai fecid 23: Cauios Frenaios faced 27
century BC Med Loucilios feced 24 Oufilio Clipeaio letei met
Vibis Pilipus cailauit 25 facet28
C.Ouio Ouf. fec<i>t 26

18 CIL I2 3. Concerning the proved authenticity of the inscription on the so-called golden “fibula
Praenestina,” cf. Franchi de Bellis (2007, 2011).
19 CIL I2 4.
20 Hartmann (2005: 28).
21 Bakkum (2009: 395).
22 Bakkum (2009: 415).
23 CIL I2 561.
24 CIL I2 2437.
25 CIL I2 552.
26 CIL I2 545.
27 Bakkum (2009: 580).
28 Bakkum (2009: 579).

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Angemeldet | 212.87.45.97
Heruntergeladen am | 25.11.13 15:14
   107
-i and -osio genitives in archaic Latin 

When considering only archaic Faliscan evidence for belonging expressions,

more restricted in both synchronic and contextual perspective, we may outline
three different morpho-syntactic patterns:
a. ego + personal name in -osio genitive.
b. Personal name alone in the nominative case.
c. Personal name alone in -i genitive.

As far as the location of the writing, the formulas of the types in (a) and (b) are
located on the external surface of the vase (numbers 1, 3, 4, 5 of Table 1), whereas
the formula in (c) is found on the external foot (number 2 of Table 1). Moreover,
in three cases out of four, the (a) and (b) formulas mention a pair of reciprocally
related individuals (respectively Kaisiosio / Lartos; Qunoz / Iatinoz; Uotenosio /
Titias). Instead, the formula of type (c) refers to a single individual.
In this scenario, formula (c) which pertains to the new inscription referring to
Titi sounds totally different.
Now one may wonder whether these different expressions may be related to
different categories of possession; in other words, what type of possession each
formula can be referred to. For both linguistic and non-linguistic reasons already
mentioned, evidently the types exemplified by types (a) and (b) are to be prelimi-
narily distinguished from type (c).
An initial, fundamental taxonomy of possession relations dates back to É.
Benveniste (1966a), who distinguished between “predicative” relations (where
the relation between Possessor and Possessee is coded on the verb) and “attribu-
tive” relations (adnominal constructions where the possession relation is presup-
posed and noun modifiers such as possessive pronouns and adjectives and pos-
sessive genitives are found).
Along this line, H. Seiler (1983) identified “inherent possession,” a mainly
determinative relation that roughly corresponds to the attributive relation, and
“established possession,” which shares many features with the predicative rela-
tion. The distinction between the two possession types is not categorial and
can be represented along a “scalar gradient” continuum. Seiler’s gradient ranges
from simple noun juxtaposition (NN) to express the most inherent form of pos­
session, to the NVN construction, which codes established possession and the
highest degree of predicativity. The transition from mostly adnominal relations
(inherent possession) to primarily adverbial ones (established relations) is mani-
fest in “case marking” structure (NcaseN). Case assignment thus appears to dis-
criminate between two types of possession relations. Following Havers (1911),
Seiler believes that the dative prevails with first- and second-person pronouns,
whereas the genitive seems to be a mainly adnominal case. Since the basic
­possession relation is a noun–noun relation (NN), the genitive could be the

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Angemeldet | 212.87.45.97
Heruntergeladen am | 25.11.13 15:14
108    Anna Orlandini and Paolo Poccetti

­ nmarked case to express possession; that is, the relation with the highest degree
u
of polysemy. The phrase “Carlo’s house” can refer to the house where Carlo lives,
the house Carlo has inherited, or the house Carlo has built or designed, and so on.
The very same polysemy emerges when a possessive is used: “his” house. On
the other hand, the dative case is more typically linked to a verb. Due to its pe-
ripheral nature with respect to predication, the dative can express both inherent
and established possession. Hence, as an instance, the “dativus sympatheticus,”
being formed with first- and second-person pronouns, body-part names, or kin-
ship names, which typically represent inherent possession, becomes established
as a marked use of the dative.
As nominal versus verbal structures, the three morpho-syntactic patterns
shown by archaic Faliscan inscriptions on tableware seemingly would express an
attributive relation of inalienable possession. However, as a consequence of the
differentiation mentioned above, namely (a) and (b) from (c), this is not exactly
the case for all patterns. That is why the analysis requires some refinement.
Among the three patterns, only one, type (c), where an -i genitive is found,
appears to be closer to the structure used to express the “prototypical case of pos-
session.” According to Heine (1997: 39ff.), the “prototypical case of possession”
is featured by “human possessor, concrete possessee, possessor having the right
to use the possessee, spatial proximity between the two, no temporal limit on
the  possessive relation.” This property is also close to Seiler’s (1983: 4; 2001):
“Linguistic possession consists of the representation of a relationship between
a substance and another substance. Substance A, called the possessor, is pro­
totypically [+animate], more specifically [+human], and still more specifically
[+ego] or close to the speaker.”
The peculiarity of these contexts is to be found especially in pattern (a),
where it is the Possessee and not the Possessor to be animate and indexed with
the pronoun marker ego, contrary to what happens most commonly. In these
terms, the Possessee expresses a self-oriented relation (talking subject). All that
forms the category of so-called “talking objects,” which is well known in the
­archaic epigraphy of Greek as well as the languages of ancient Italy.
Our hypothesis is that even with the genitive, which prototypically marks
­inherent possession, two different morpho-syntactic outcomes (the -ī versus -osio
genitives) which co-occur synchronically (as documented by the Faliscan inscrip-
tions) can signal different relations of possession and display different marked-
ness gradients. The genitive morpheme -i is the closest to an inherent possession
relation, which is basic to the genitive, and is thus the unmarked element. In-
stead, the -osio morpheme expresses an established possession relation and is
marked in contrast to -i. The marked condition of the -osio morpheme might ac-
count for the overwhelming success of the -i genitive at the cost of -osio loss in the

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Angemeldet | 212.87.45.97
Heruntergeladen am | 25.11.13 15:14
 -i and -osio genitives in archaic Latin   109

history of Faliscan, probably paralleled by Latin. Notoriously, every evolutionary

change among items in reciprocal opposition originates from the unmarked ele-
ment that takes the place of the marked one and is preserved diachronically.

3 -ī versus -osio genitive: a brief summary

of a complex issue
As already emphasized elsewhere (Biella 2009), the importance of the Titi in-
scription arises from the fact that it is the most archaic attestation of the ‑i geni-
tive ending not only in Faliscan, but also in other languages displaying this
­morpheme, first of all literary and standard Latin.
Throughout the last decades, more precisely starting from early 1980s, when
the Latin inscription from Satricum recording Popliosio Valesiosio was dis­
covered, the problem of the -osio genitive in relationship with the ‑ī genitive has
been thoroughly and widely debated. This debate has included comparison with
other languages that share the same morphemes. Further data provided by other
languages of ancient Italy have put in question the treatment of the genitive
­morphemes of -o stems in various languages of pre-Roman Italy ranging from
northern Lepontic to southern Messapian and Sicel (cf. Lejeune 1989; Eska
and Wallace 2001; Prosdocimi 2002, 2009). More recently an extraordinary con­
tribution to this topic has come particularly from Lepontic and Venetic documen-
tation, which provides evidence for an -oiso ending for the singular genitive,
namely plioiso, χosioioso and -]Tioiso found in Lepontic area and Kaialoiso from
Oderzo in Venetic area.29 This -oiso ending is probably (even if not necessarily)
connected with Faliscan and Latin -osio. All documents presenting -oiso ending
in both Lepontic and Venetic area are quite archaic, in that they date back before
the mid-5th century (Lejeune 1989: 69−73; Eska and Wallace 2001: 80). Such a
chronology stresses the importance of the -oiso ending, which is prior to the evi-
dence of an -i ending in each of these languages.
Moreover, the Lepontic documentation for -i genitive definitively contributed
to the dismantling of the idea of an Italic–Celtic unitary branch among Indo-
European­languages, given that the main argument in favor of this view was the -ī
genitive for -o stems (cf. Lejeune 1989: 63, 74). However, the early attestation of
the -oiso genitive in Lepontic, an archaic language of the Celtic family, demon-
strates that the diffusion of -i genitive results from a more recent innovation that

29 For documentary sources, see Eska and Wallace (2001: 82), Bakkum (2009: 135).

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Angemeldet | 212.87.45.97
Heruntergeladen am | 25.11.13 15:14
110    Anna Orlandini and Paolo Poccetti

ousted other genitive morphemes in parallel to the Faliscan, Latin, and Venetic
languages.
To sum up, various languages of ancient Italy converge in adopting an -ī end-
ing as a regular morpheme for the singular genitive of -o stems starting from 4th
century BC at the earliest. Before this period an -osio or -oiso ending is widely
­attested: more precisely, -osio in Faliscan and Latin and -oiso in Lepontic and
Venetic. The new Faliscan inscription with Titi shows that, at least in this lan-
guage, the -ī morpheme, which is to be compared with Latin -ī, was used syn-
chronically in competition with -osio. We know this because the epigraphic evi-
dence for both -ī and -osio are chronologically simultaneous. These facts, on the
one hand, point out that -ī and -osio originated as synchronic variants, even if
functionally distinguished, and, on the other hand, they show that the current
tenet of a replacement of -osio in late Faliscan due to Latin influence is now un-
tenable. Admittedly, however, the ousting of -osio by the -ī ending took place in
Latin earlier and independently.
As far as Faliscan is concerned, J. Untermann (1964: 178−179; Bakkum 2009:
136) has drawn attention on the fact that the -osio genitive occurs particularly in
a specific text type, called Besitzerinschriften, i.e., inscriptions bearing the name
of the object’s possessor. Hence Untermann concluded that the actual genitive
morpheme was -ī, whereas -osio was just a morpheme used to generically denote
possession (in our view, established and not inherent possession). Actually, such
a condition was sentencing the morpheme to death, since it constituted a marked
function within the genitive values, and more generally because it is the task
of the dative to fulfill the role of predication of established possession in Latin.
Untermann’s view was later supported by C. De Simone (1980: 83) referring to the
Satricum inscription, although both text types, quite different from a Besitzerin-
schrift and the noun phrase suodales Popliosio Valesiosio, gave him the evidence
to argue against it.
Even if we face a unique witness for the -ī genitive with respect to the chronol-
ogy, the Titi inscription on the Faliscan vase brings us to reconsider the entire
matter, and in particular invites us to focus on the semantics of the -osio and -i
morphemes. The distinction of the formulas (a) and (b) from the (c) type probably
refers to different aspects or types of possession. Both the placement of writ-
ing  and the absolute construction of the personal name marked by -ī genitive
(Titi) point to a particular type of possession, i.e., ownership, signaled by this
morpheme.

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Angemeldet | 212.87.45.97
Heruntergeladen am | 25.11.13 15:14
   111
-i and -osio genitives in archaic Latin 

4 From diachrony to synchrony: semantic-

functional variation in Faliscan and Archaic
Latin vase inscriptions
It is not our concern here to deal with the origin and development of the two
genitive morphemes for o-stems, -ī and -osio, in the languages that display them.
It is much more important to focus on archaic Faliscan texts which will help us to
outline the functional and semantic values of these morphemes. Its outcome will
form an essential base for further reflection on their origin. As already stressed,
the convergence of a syntactic structure, linked to a specific morphological
choice, and the orientation of the writing, observed on a unitary set of objects
conceived for wine drinking at archaic banquets, are highly significant.
The starting point for our analysis is the twofold inscription eko Kaisiosio /
eko Lartos reciprocally upturned on the Faliscan vase (no. 3, Table 1). Whatever
the role of the two named individuals (i.e., whether they are two successive
­owners of the object [Giacomelli 1963: 49; Agostiniani 1982: 151, 240] or, as is more
likely, whether they are related through the ritual of sharing and exchanging wine
at a banquet, which involves two “actants” simultaneously), there is evidence for
both non-absolute and non-exclusive possession. This implies two holders, in
one instance, synchronically, in the other, diachronically. Comparison with the
twofold inscription Qunoz / Iatinoz (no. 5, Table 1) also featured by upturned writ-
ing and with the inscription eco quto *e Uotenosio Titias (no. 1, Table 1) argues in
favor of the synchronic relevance to two distinct persons of the act of exchanging
wine at a banquet.30 Each of the three documents states that it simultaneously
belongs to pairs of distinct individuals, namely Kaisio- and Lart(h), Kuno- and
Iatino-, Uoteno- and Titia-. The Uoteno- and Titia- inscription point to an ex-
change of wine between two people of different sex, as confirmed by Etruscan
iconography from the 6th century on and by Hellenic historic and literary sources
from the 4th century BC (cf. Camporeale 1986: 281–285; 2000: 175–179; Bartoloni
2003: 132). This custom is made even more explicit in the Faliscan context by
the  archaic inscription found on a similar table container (the so-called sociai
inscription) (Giacomelli 1963: 46; Bakkum 2009: II, 411). This text records an ex-
change of greetings between individuals of different sex: Rufia Kaleptia ues sal-
uete sociai Ofetios Kaios Uelos Amanos salueto salues seite.31

30 Bakkum (2009: 409). The word quto(n) borrowing from Greek κώθων ο κώθον, maybe of
Etruscan influence (Mancini 2004: 208), refers to the vase terminology.
31 See Prosdocimi (1990: 302–312), correcting the text reading by Peruzzi (1967).

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Angemeldet | 212.87.45.97
Heruntergeladen am | 25.11.13 15:14
112    Anna Orlandini and Paolo Poccetti

In spite of the different expressions used, all texts referring to pairs of people,
just noted, clearly do not signal established and strictly personal “possession”
with respect to a referentially identified possessor. Rather, they indicate occa-
sional, shared, and interchangeable belonging. In other words, these texts point
to the availability of usage of each drinking vase for two distinct individuals, in-
dicated by pairs of personal names, which are inscribed onto each pottery item,
i.e., eko Kaisiosio / eko Lartos, Qunoz / Iatinoz, and Uoteno- e Titia-, respectively.
Furthermore, the Faliscan sociai inscription points to the availability of the drink-
ing vase for a larger number of people.
Independently from the different expressions, the use of the -osio genitive,
occurring in both pairs of personal names (nos. 1 and 3, Table 1) and in a single
personal name (no. 4, Table 1), appears to signal an accidental and temporarily
shared belonging, related to the exchange of drinking vases. Consequently, this
morphological marker identifies an “established” possession, very close to the
functional condition of “availability.” By contrast, the use of -i genitive (no. 2,
Table 1) appears to signal the “ownership” typical of “belong constructions.” Ac-
cording to Bartning (1993: 78ff.) and Heine (1997: 39): “the ownership relation
is central and even prototypical because ownership – of course a very culture-
dependent notion – is the most salient representative of the possessive relation,
i.e. a basically locative relation between two distinct entities enriched with ‘some-
thing more’, this ‘more’ being of an institutionalised or legal sense. Ownership
constitutes thus a central point on the semantic scale stretching from inalienable
possession, or the Part–Whole relation, to mere availability” (quotation from
­Herslund & Baron 2001: 11, figure 3).
In Latin a clear example of an established predicative relation is the habeo
construction. We may wonder whether the constructions mihi est domus (posses-
sive dative) and habeo domum are but variants of the same construction. Ben-
veniste (1966b) and Lyons (1970: 297–307) align with this interpretation. Habeo
is a non-specific and polyfunctional predicate, like the genitive in the NP. Ben-
veniste analyzes habeo as a stative verb, originating from the transitive perfect
through a diachronic process: tanti habeo emptas results from tanti sunt mihi
emptae. According to Seiler, the habeo construction, differentiated with respect to
person, shows “object government” and is used to emphasize established posses-
sion. Yet, even for this relation, a scalar gradient and different levels of marked-
ness can be observed. For example, different cases of constrained selection are
found among possession verbs in German (haben, besitzen, gehören). Similarly,
Latin habeo shows fewer instances of constrained selection on the object as com-
pared, for example, to possideo. An expression such as *possideo patrem is gener-
ally ruled out. Habeo would thus be placed along the continuum of predicative
possession (coded on the verb), equivalent to the genitive in the noun phrase.

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Angemeldet | 212.87.45.97
Heruntergeladen am | 25.11.13 15:14
   113
-i and -osio genitives in archaic Latin 

Both signal the unmarked case in the possessive relation (established with habeo
and inherent with the genitive). Similarly the genitive occurs, on the one hand,
with esse as copula and, on the other, with esse as an existential predicate (e.g.,
eius est factum versus eius est vestimentum). Hence, habeo tends to become the
main verb: e.g., habeo factum versus habeo vestimentum. Ph. Baldi and A. Nuti
(2010: 320) note “the relatively rare occurrence of Marci est x in comparison with
other possessive constructions (mihi est x, habeo x).” The genitive construction
would thus be marked with respect to the possessive dative, and the possessive
dative would be marked with respect to habeo.
Therefore the habeo construction reaches the highest level of unmarkedness:
this fact accounts for its diachronic success at the cost of the possessive dative,
whose disappearance in the Romance languages, except French, was also con-
nected to the breakdown of the Latin inflectional system.
In this perspective, the Titi inscription represents a completely different
type.  Its most relevant features are: (i) the syntactically absolute construction
of -ī genitive; (ii) the mention of a single individual; (iii) the placement of writ-
ing on the external foot of the vase. All these facts converge to signal an estab-
lished possession, namely a legitimate, direct, and exclusive relationship be-
tween the object (“Possessee”) and its owner (“Possessor”). The fact that the
inscription can only be read when the object is upside down stresses that the ar-
tifact is strictly related to its owner and gives the impression of preventing others
from accessing it.
This “ownership” relation perfectly matches the probability that the drink-
ing vase, found in a burial, was among the personal belongings of the deceased.
The deceased would have most likely been the owner or the first individual to be
buried in the tomb, from which the object comes. Being part of grave goods, the
“Possessee” is thus considered as an exclusive and legally guaranteed property.
Such ownership cannot be separated from the personal sphere of the “Possessor,”32
inasmuch as it is appointed to accompany him beyond death. In other words it
appears to be an “inseparable” or “inalienable” property.
This conclusion gets its documentary strength from the analysis combining
contextual data, epigraphic aspects, and morpho-syntactic structures of the text
in contrast with similar documents, chronologically, culturally, and functionally
homogeneous.
Moreover, these insights into archaic Faliscan “possession” formulas pave
the way for a more general reflection on the quantity of archaic inscriptions,

32 Bally (1926: 33) states that the notion of “inalienability” “can include objects and beings
­associated with a person in an habitual, intimate or organic way.”

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Angemeldet | 212.87.45.97
Heruntergeladen am | 25.11.13 15:14
114    Anna Orlandini and Paolo Poccetti

­ enerally classified as “possession indications” within a larger frame of expres-

g
sions used for formulating a “possession” relation.
A quite varied terminological set is often used in referring to texts of this type,
which form an important category within the archaic epigraphy of ancient Italy,
namely “possession,” “ownership,” and “accidental belonging/availability.”
In  fact these concepts correspond to different relations and denote different
­factual and circumstantial conditions, as well as to different mental attitudes to-
ward an  object. It is universally recognized that “possession” does not neces­
sarily coincide with legal and personal “ownership” of an object. Consequently, a
belonging or availability relation is linked with a set of co-variables depending on
the context of enunciation, individual attitudes, and the purposes of enunciation
itself. All these facts are commonly based on a general requirement, namely the
identification of the “possessed” object and the “possessor.” Every expression for
a “possession” relation may focus on either both details (i.e., “possessor” and
“possessee”) or just a single one (either “possessor” or “possessee”).
In general, both ancient and modern languages follow different pathways to
comply with all such variables, depending on the functional purposes of focusing
on information appropriate for each context.
In this perspective, the distinction between “have-constructions” and
­“belong-constructions” is crucially important (Mithun 2001). This distinction
­corresponds to the different meanings of the “sum + genitive” construction (e.g.,
Marci est hic liber) and the “sum + dative” pattern (e.g., Marco est hic liber),
­respectively, applied in literary and standard Latin. Evidently the functional
­status of the esse verb differentiates each syntactic structure from the other: it is
a copula together with the genitive, whereas it works as an existential verb if
­accompanied by the dative. As far as the noun inflected in genitive or in dative
is  concerned, M. Bolkestein (1983, 2001) considers the genitive as a “derivative
predicate,” whereas the dative would function as an argument (Experiencer)
of  an existential predication. The distinction between esse ‘copula’ and esse
­‘existential verb’ is clearly made in Old Irish, where a lexical differentiation be-
tween copula and existential verb is applied for expressing two different notions
of possession.
Concretely, as for Latin, “the Marci est X construction is typically employed
when the need to identify the specific and exclusive Possessor of a [+given] Pos-
sessed co-occurs with the expression of an inherent relation” (Nuti 2005: 168).
The two constructions are distinguished from each other by informational con-
tents. The genitive in the belonging predication focuses the informational core of
the sentence, whereas the dative in the possession predication constitutes the
“theme” or logical subject of the predication (Maurel 1989). The pragmatic func-
tions are thus different. The main function of the genitive construction is to iden-

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Angemeldet | 212.87.45.97
Heruntergeladen am | 25.11.13 15:14
 -i and -osio genitives in archaic Latin    115

tify the possessor, whereas in the dative constructions as well as in the habeo
constructions the informational focus is on the possessum. According to Baldi
and Nuti (2010),

Marci est x / meus est x construction . . . depends on the co-occurrence of a cluster of seman-
tic, syntactic, and pragmatic constraints: the almost invariably [+def] and [+given] pos-
sessor and possessum and, correspondingly, a copular status of the verb sum; a rhematic
focus on the possessor, and a relation where the possessor is an intrinsic attribute of the
possessum. (Baldi and Nuti 2010: 319)

In other languages, the polysemy of possession converges into a single case,

­either the genitive or the dative. In Ancient Persian, for example, the dative is
no longer in use (Kent 1953: 57) and the genitive is polyfunctional, being applied
to functions commonly fulfilled by the dative, such as those of beneficiary or “ex-
ternal Possessor” (Pompeo and Benvenuto 2011). Conversely, Venetic appears
to display a merger of genitive and dative in favor of the latter, parallel to what
happens in the languages of the Balkan ‘Sprachbund’ (Agostiniani 1995: 15), to
express inherent and inalienable possession: this is clearly the case of someone
deceased, described as “possessor” of a burial site. This fact is related with the
origin of the -i marker as a dative in Venetic, explained as the result of “a syncre-
tism in fieri whereby inherited loc.sing. *-i was gradually adopting the function
of the dat.sg. -ei, a development which is also attested in Lepontic, Transalpine
Gaulish, Old Irish, Greek and the Germanic languages” (Eska and Wallace 2001:
85; 2002). Possibly the synchronic inflectional system of Venetic diachronically
underwent a potential interference with the Latin genitival -ī morpheme (Eska
and Wallace 2001: 84).
Now we may wonder what place the different Faliscan formulas occupy
among the expressions of “possession” just outlined. The basic fact for our analy-
sis is the complementary distribution of the syntactically independent -ī genitive
(i.e., Titi) with the “ego + -osio genitive” pattern (e.g., eko Kaisiosio). The com-
parison of the two formulas highlights their difference in relationship with the
notion of “possession.” In Titi inscription the name of the “possessor” is the only
one to be focused on, as a syntactically free-standing element and as inherent
and exclusive property of a single individual, whereas in the ego pattern it is the
object, i.e., the vase, that introduces itself in the first person and acts as gram-
matical subject. This latter formula shifts the focus on the “possessee,” and the
personal pronoun ego, used in deictic function, serves to define the text as a pre-
sentational utterance.
In this case, the “possessor” becomes a circumstantial element, about which
a relation with the object is asserted. Nevertheless the text does not necessarily
denote any inherent “ownership.” From this perspective, the “ego + -osio ­genitive”

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Angemeldet | 212.87.45.97
Heruntergeladen am | 25.11.13 15:14
116    Anna Orlandini and Paolo Poccetti

pattern is functionally similar to the syntactic structure of the Latin construction

“sum + dative,” which is “quite loose and polyfunctional: it predicates a condi-
tion or, more exactly, a state of a certain entity [. . .] that is somehow related to
another, usually human, participant by a relation that is not necessarily ­strictly
possessive, as it can range among the vast domain of the so-called sphère person-
nelle” (Nuti 2005: 166).
The semantic properties featuring the “ego + -osio genitive” pattern seem to
be perfectly consistent with the semiotic entailment resulting from the place-
ment  of writing on the bottom of the vase. In other words, it is the contrastive
comparison of both linguistic and non-linguistic data of the Titi type and the
eko  Kaisiosio / eko Lartos type that highlights their different functional values
with respect to the “possession” idea. The latter formula marked by the -osio
­genitive points to an artifact belonging to the “personal sphere” of two distinct
individuals, but does not mark “possession” as inherent ownership. What is
­relevant in the eko Kaisiosio / eko Lartos text is the indication of a condition of
the “object,” which is alternatively owned by and exchanged between two indi-
viduals for functional reasons within a specific context. Then again, in parallel to
other texts the principle that “the semantic interpretation of the predication rests
heavily on the context” (Nuti 2005: 167) is absolutely valid also for “possession”
indications.
We pass now to some general implications of our analysis.
Firstly, archaic Faliscan documents, as they pertain to a chronologically and
semantically homogeneous class of texts, provide evidence for a functional dis-
tinction between two morphemes. These morphemes, which operate synchronic-
ally within the same noun class (-o stems), can be ascribed to “genitive” functions
to the extent to which both signal a relation of possession. The -i ending, occur-
ring as an “absolute,” free-standing case, seems to denote a relation of closer
“possession” or inherent ownership of the object. The syntactically absolute con-
struction of the personal name (not attested for the -osio morpheme), focuses the
role of the possessor. Archaic Faliscan thus appears synchronically to use two
morphemes in complementary distribution with respect to different possession
relation. For the moment we ignore to what extent the two morphemes were part
of the Faliscan inflectional paradigm at the time. Consequently, it is more appro-
priate to label them in terms of functionally homogeneous value than as morpho-
logical variants of an inflectional category. What is certain is that the functional
distinction of -ī and -osio in a synchronic stage of the Faliscan language has a
diachronic counterpart, in that in more recent stages of this language the former
replaces the latter.
Nevertheless the use of two distinct markers for indicating possession is
not rare. Other languages, within “attributive possession,” “make use of differ-

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Angemeldet | 212.87.45.97
Heruntergeladen am | 25.11.13 15:14
 -i and -osio genitives in archaic Latin    117

ent genitival constructions, also outside the alienable−inalienable distinction”.

According to M. Herslund and I. Baron (2001):

The best known example of this is English with its “Saxon” s-genitive and its “Norman”
­of-genitive. Also in Danish there is a distinction between the pre-posed genitive and differ-
ent post-posed prepositional constructions. Such alternations are however far from ran-
dom, but subject to systematic choices along the theme−rheme or topic−comment dimen-
sion. The most interesting aspect of such distinctions is however that languages with two
genitives thus reproduce within the noun phrase the basic existential-possessive vs. locative-
possessive and the “have”–“belong” distinctions, they distinguish a construction with the
Possessor as theme-topic, from a construction with the Possessum as theme-topic, just like
the predicative constructions do. (Herslund and Baron 2001: 14)

Inversely, other languages, such as Old Persian, have but a single morpheme,
which is polyfunctional for denoting different types of possession: it works in a
way similar to both the genitive and the dative in Latin. In this case, the distinc-
tion between different notions of possession is morphologically neutralized.
From a historical perspective, the archaic Faliscan inscriptions, distinguish-
ing different types of “possession” by means of morphological markers, cannot
be separated from the largest quantity of documentation related with other as-
pects of possession found in contemporary epigraphy in Etruscan and Latin. The
most important among those aspects, signaled by archaic inscriptions, is the way
of acquiring ownership brought about by receiving a gift. It is worth remembering
that the “gift” inscriptions form a really prominent part of archaic Etruscan and
Latin inscriptions. Significantly, M. Cristofani (1984: 319) observed an interesting
statistical distribution of mere “possession” texts and “gift” inscriptions in the
course of earliest Etruscan epigraphy: “if we consider 630 BC as a demarcation
line, the percentage of ‘gift’ inscriptions increases by 20 to 65% with a parallel
decrease of possession inscriptions by 80 to 35%” (our translation).33
Admittedly any text recording an act of presenting a “gift” entails an implicit
statement of “possession.” Yet a text recording a “gift,” on the one hand, de-
scribes the “possessor” as beneficiary or final possessor and, on the other hand,
generally focuses the role and the figure of the “giver,” which is named in most
of  the documentation. In this case, possession is presented as the process of
transmission and acquisition of a good, whose enacting links the new owner to
the giver, who was the previous owner. Such information is ultimately the main
function of the “gift” texts in the earliest Etruscan, Faliscan, and Latin epigraphy.
The second implication, somewhat related to the first, concerns the rela­
tionship between “ego + -osio genitive” formulas, found in Faliscan, and “ego + 

33 More extensively, as for “gift” texts in early Etruscan epigraphy, see Cristofani (1975).

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Angemeldet | 212.87.45.97
Heruntergeladen am | 25.11.13 15:14
118    Anna Orlandini and Paolo Poccetti

nominative” patterns, found in Latin and in the Capena area (see Table 2).34
G. Colonna (1983) explained the use of the nominative as the presentation of an
object embodied by its owner: in other words the “ego + nominative” formula
would manifest a relation of identity between the possessed object and its owner.
The object identified with its “possessor,” formally marked as its predicate, is
very likely to denote a closer and more inherent ownership relation than the
“ego + -osio genitive” pattern.
Unfortunately, unlike in Faliscan, nothing else except the “ego + nominative”
formula occurs in early Latin for indicating possession. Concretely the lack of
evidence for both “ego + -osio genitive” and -ī genitive patterns in Archaic Latin
prevents us from making any prediction on their functional distribution. Since,
however, the “ego + nominative” formula serves to denote an inherent posses-
sion, this morpho-syntactic structure was likely in potential opposition to the
“ego + genitive” (probably with -osio ending). If so, the “ego + nominative” and
“ego + -osio genitive” formulas might have coexisted: their functional distribu-
tion could match the purpose of distinguishing different types of “possession.” If
so, we may assume that the Latin formula “ego + nominative” functionally works
like the -ī morpheme in the Titi inscription from the Faliscan-speaking area. How-
ever, the fact that an -i morpheme is not yet attested in early Latin inscriptions
(much fewer than Faliscan ones) cannot exclude its use for a special type of pos-
session, parallel to Faliscan. In fact, it is only on a unique document, the Titi
­inscription, that we have formulated our ideas in this paper.

5 Conclusion
Our analysis of archaic Faliscan texts, based on combining both textual and con-
textual data, leads to outlining a complementary distribution of the -ī and -osio
morphemes in o-stem inflection to express different functions of possession. Both
morphemes were already known in distinct diachronic stages of the Faliscan lan-
guage: -osio seemed to occur in earliest documents, whereas -ī in more recent
ones. The current thought is that an older -osio was replaced by a later -ī mor-
pheme. The same morphological replacement appears to have developed in Latin
more or less contemporarily with Faliscan.
As an innovative contribution, our view shifts the focus from diachrony to
synchrony, given that both morphemes appear to be synchronically attested in

34 On “ego + nominative” formulas, see the different conclusions drawn by Agostiniani (1982:
240) and Colonna (1983: 55).

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Angemeldet | 212.87.45.97
Heruntergeladen am | 25.11.13 15:14
 -i and -osio genitives in archaic Latin    119

very archaic Faliscan documents. These synchronic facts have important implica-
tions for the diachronic evolution, in that they may contribute to the disappear-
ance of -osio in favor of -ī.
A comparison of the contexts synchronically, showing both morphemes
in  relationship with different notions of “possession,” demonstrates that -ī
occurs for an inherent possession, whereas -osio is used for an established and
con­ventional possession. These different notions of “possession” code an op­
position between unmarked and marked functions, respectively. In this perspec-
tive -osio is the morphologically marked term in opposition to -ī as unmarked
term. This markedness principle may account for the fact that -osio was replaced
by -ī in the history of the Faliscan language, given that the unmarked item nor-
mally assumes the functions of the marked one and leads to its diachronic
­replacement.
A similar pathway, established for Faliscan, is likely to be paralleled by Latin,
considering that both languages share the same diachronic outcome: early Latin
-osio ending was completely replaced by the -ī genitive in literary Latin.

Acknowledgments: We are indebted to Philip Baldi for correcting the English

­version.

References
Agostiniani, L. 1982. Le “iscrizioni parlanti” dell’Italia antica. Firenze: Leo S. Olschki.
Agostiniani, L. 1995. Relazione di possesso e marcatura di caso in venetico. Studi Orientali e
Linguistici 6 (Miscellanea in memoria di L. Rosiello), 9−28 (rist. in Scritti Scelti, AIΩN 26,
2004, 567−586).
Bakkum, G. C. L. M. 2009. The Latin dialect of the Ager Faliscus. 150 years of scholarship.
Amsterdam: University Press.
Bally, C. 1926. L’expression des idées de sphère personnelle et de solidarité dans les langues
indo-européennes. In F. Fankhauser & J. Jud (eds.), Festschrift Louis Gauchat, 68–78.
Arau: Sauerländer.
Baldi Ph. & A. Nuti. 2010. Possession. In Philip Baldi & P. L. Cuzzolin (eds.), New perspectives
on historical Latin syntax 3. Constituent syntax: Quantification, numerals, possession,
anaphora (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 180(3)), 239−322. Berlin &
New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bartning, I. 1993. La préposition de et les interprétations possibles des syntagmes nominaux
complexes. Essai d’approche cognitive. In A.-M. Berthonneau & P. Cadiot (eds.), Les
prépositions: Méthodes d’analyse (Lexique 11). 163–191. Lille: Presses Universitaires
de Lille.
Bartoloni, G. 2003. Le società dell’Italia primitiva. Lo studio delle necropoli e la nascita delle
aristocrazie. Roma & Bari: Laterza.

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Angemeldet | 212.87.45.97
Heruntergeladen am | 25.11.13 15:14
120    Anna Orlandini and Paolo Poccetti

Benveniste, É. 1966a. Pour l’analyse des fonctions casuelles: Le génitif latin. In Problèmes de
linguistique générale, 140−148. Paris: Gallimard.
Benveniste, É. 1966b. « Etre » et « avoir » dans leurs fonctions linguistiques. In Problèmes de
linguistique générale, 176–186. Paris: Gallimard.
Biella, M. C. 2009. Una nuova iscrizione falisca di VII sec. a.C. Un sostantivo con tema in -o e
genitivo in -i. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 168. 273−277.
Biella, M. C. 2012. Oggetti iscritti e tradizioni artigianali nell’orientalizzante in Agro Falisco.
Convivenze etniche e contatti di culture, Aristonothos 4. 37−57.
Bolkestein, A. M. 1983. Genitive and dative possessor in Latin. In S. C. Dik (ed.), Advances
in functional grammar, 55–91. Dordrecht: Foris.
Bolkestein, A. M. 2001. Possessors and experiencers in Classical Latin. In I. Baron, M. Herslund
& F. Sørensen (eds.), Dimensions of possession. Typological studies in language 47,
269−284. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Camporeale, G. 1986. Vita Privata. In G. Pugliese Carratelli (ed.), Rasenna. Storia e civiltà degli
Etruschi, 241−308. Milano: Libri Scheiwiller.
Camporeale, G. 2000. Gli Etruschi. Storia e civiltà. Torino: UTET.
Colonna, G. 1983. Identità come appartenenza nelle iscrizioni di possesso dell’Italia
preromana. Epigraphica 45. 49−64.
Colonna, G. 2010. A proposito del primo trattato romano-cartaginese (e della donazione
pyrgense ad Astarte). In G. M. Della Fina (ed.), La grande Roma dei Tarquini, Atti XVII conv.
int. Orvieto 2009. AnnFaina XVII. 275−303.
Cristofani, M. 1975. Il dono nell’Etruria arcaica. La Parola del Passato XXX. 132−152.
Cristofani, M. 1984. Iscrizioni e beni santuari. C. Ampolo, G. Bartoloni & A. Rathje (eds.),
Aspetti delle aristocrazie fra VIII e VII secolo a.C., OPUS III. 319−324.
De Simone C. 1980. L’aspetto linguistico. In Lapis Satricanus. Archaeological, epigraphical,
linguistic and historical aspects of the new inscription from Satricum. Archeologische
Studien van het Nederlands Instituut te Rome (Scripta Minora 5), 71−94. S’Gravenhage:
Staatsuitgeverij.
Eska, J. F. & R. E. Wallace. 2001. Remarks on the thematic genitive singular in ancient Italy and
related matter. Incontri Linguistici 24. 77−97.
Eska, J. F. & R. E. Wallace. 2002. Venetic consonant-stem dative singulars in -i? Studi Etruschi
65−68. 261−273.
Franchi de Bellis, A. 2007. La fibula di Numasio e la coppa dei Veturii. Quaderni dell’Istituto di
Linguistica dell’Università di Urbino 12. 65−142.
Franchi de Bellis, A. 2011. La fibula prenestina. Margherita Guarducci e Wolfgang Helbig,
presunto falsario. In S. Örmä & K. Sandberg (eds.), Wolfgang Helbig e la scienza
dell’antichità del suo tempo, Atti del convegno internaz. (Roma 2.2.2009) (Acta Instituti
Romani Finlandiae 37), 181−215. Roma: Institutum Romanum Finlandiae.
Giacomelli, G. 1963. La lingua Falisca. Firenze: Leo S. Olschki.
Hartmann, M. 2005. Die frühlateinischen Inschriften und ihre Datierung. Bremen: Hempen.
Havers, W. 1911. Untersuchungen zur Kasussyntax der indogermanischen Sprachen. Strassburg:
Truebner.
Heine, B. 1997. Possession: Cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Herslund, M. & Baron I. 2001. Introduction. In I. Baron, M. Herslund & F. Sørensen (eds.),
Dimensions of possession (Typological Studies in Language 47), 1–26. Amsterdam &
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Angemeldet | 212.87.45.97
Heruntergeladen am | 25.11.13 15:14
 -i and -osio genitives in archaic Latin    121

Kent, R. 1953. Old Persian. Grammar, texts, lexicon. New Haven, CT: American Oriental
Studies.
Lejeune, M. 1952. Notes de Linguistique italique: V–VII. Les inscriptions de la collection
Froehner. Revue des Etudes Latines 30. 87–126.
Lejeune, M. 1989. Notes de Linguistique Italique. XXXIX. Génitifs en -ī et génitifs en -osio.
Revue des Etudes Latines 67. 63–77.
Lucchesi, E. & Magni, E. 2004. Vecchie e nuove (in)certezze sul Lapis Satricanus, Pisa, ETS
editrice.
Lyons, J. 1970. Linguistique générale. Paris: Larousse.
Mancini, M. 2004. Uno scioglilingua da Falerii Veteres e l’etimologia di fal. Umom. Archivio
Glottologico Italiano 89. 200–211.
Maurel, J.-P. 1989. Le syntagme nominal en latin. Les emplois du génitif chez Plaute et Térence.
Thèse de Doctorat d’Etat soutenue sous la direction d’H.Fugier, Université de Strasbourg
II, Strassburg.
Mithun, M. 2001. The difference a category makes in the expression of possession and
inalienability. In I. Baron, M. Herslund & F. Sørensen (eds.), Dimensions of possession.
(Typological Studies in Language 47), 285–310. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Napolitano, F. 2000. Alcune osservazioni su un calice di bucchero da Falerii. AION ArchStAnt
n. s. 7. 181–186.
Nuti, A. 2005. Possessive sentences in Early Latin. Dative vs. genitive constructions. Archivio
Glottologico Italiano 90. 145–173.
Peruzzi, E. 1967. L’iscrizione falisca delle ‘sociai’. La Parola del Passato 22. 113–133.
Poccetti, P. 2008. Il vaso iscritto dalla necropoli di Magliano Sabina. Contributi ai rapporti tra
l’ambiente falisco e quello sabino arcaico. In Santoro (ed.), Una nuova iscrizione da
Magliano Sabina. Scrittura e cultura nella Valle del Tevere (Civiltà arcaica dei Sabini nella
Valle del Tevere 2), Mediterranea suppl. 3, 29–42. Roma: Fabrizio Serra.
Pompeo, F. & M. C. Benvenuto. 2011. Il genitivo in persiano antico. Un caso esemplare di
categoria polisemica. Studi e Saggi Linguistici 49. 75–124.
Prosdocimi, A. L. 1990. Vetter 243 e l’imperativo latino tra (con)testo e paradigma. In La civiltà
dei Falisci (atti del XV Convegno dell’Istituto Nazionale di Studi Etruschi ed Italici, Civita
Castellana 1987), 291–326. Firenze: Leo S. Olschki.
Prosdocimi, A. L. 2002. Il genitivo dei temi in -o nelle varietà italiche (osco, sannita, umbro,
sudpiceno, etc.). Incontri Linguistici 25. 65–76.
Prosdocimi, A. L. 2009. Sul genitivo dei temi in -o in alcune lingue indoeuropee. Archivio
Glottologico Italiano 94. 50–78.
Rizzo, M. A. (ed.). 1989. Pittura etrusca al Museo di Villa Giulia. Roma: cat. mostra Roma.
Roncalli, F. 2008. Il ‘brindisi’ tra Iatinoz e Qunoz. In Santoro (ed.), Una nuova iscrizione da
Magliano Sabina. Scrittura e cultura nella Valle del Tevere (Civiltà arcaica dei Sabini nella
Valle del Tevere 2), Mediterranea suppl. 3, 43−52. Roma: Fabrizio Serra.
Salomies, O. 1987. Die römischen Vornamen (Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 82).
Helsinki: Societas scientiarum Fennica.
Santoro, P. (ed.). 2008. Una nuova iscrizione da Magliano Sabina. Scrittura e cultura nella Valle
del Tevere (Civiltà arcaica dei Sabini nella Valle del Tevere 2), Mediterranea suppl. 3. Roma:
Fabrizio Serra.
Seiler, H. 1983. Possession as an operational dimension of language. Tübingen: Gunter
Narr.

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Angemeldet | 212.87.45.97
Heruntergeladen am | 25.11.13 15:14
122    Anna Orlandini and Paolo Poccetti

Seiler, H. 2001. The operational basis of possession. A dimensional approach revisited. In

I. Baron, M. Herslund & F. Sørensen (eds.), Dimensions of possession (Typological Studies
in Language 47), 27–40. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Small, J. P. 1971. The banquet frieze from Poggio Civitate. Studi Etruschi 39. 25–61.
Solin, H. 2003. Gavidus. In S. Marchesini & P. Poccetti (eds.), Linguistica è storia –
Sprachwissenschaft ist Geschichte. Scritti in onore di C. De Simone, 167–170. Pisa:
Giardini.
Untermann, J. 1964. Rec. a Giacomelli 1963. Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeiger 216. 171–182.

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Angemeldet | 212.87.45.97
Heruntergeladen am | 25.11.13 15:14