English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Considerable advances have already been made in elucidating the text of the Latin Duenos inscription (6th century BCE). Nevertheless, many difficulties remain, and the ongoing discussion has given rise to several misconceptions that ought to be cleared away. First of all, it is not a votive inscription, in spite of what is sometimes asserted. The fact that the Duenos vase may have belonged to a votive deposit does not imply that the vase and its inscription (incised before baking) were intended for religious purposes. The inscription is not of dedicatory nature. It has been suggested that uirco represents some kind of divinity (Proserpina, Athena, or Fortūna), but there is no positive evidence for such an interpretation. It needs to be emphasized that the words deiuos “gods” and mitat (also attested in the Tibur Pedestal inscription) do not allow the conclusion that the vase was initially intended to be a votive offering. The presence of deiuos (accusative plural) is to be explained by the mention of an oath (iouesat “iūrat”). The verb mitat (“gives” uel sim. rather than “sends”) is better taken as referring to the aristocratic gift-exchange system. As for the function of the vessel, it has been interpreted as a  receptacle for cosmetics. Alternatively, this small piece of elegant design may have been purely decorative and not intended for concrete use, like the Poggio Sommavilla fiaschetta (ST Um 2, around 600 BCE). Several linguistic hypotheses have to be rejected. The alleged infinitives oitesiai (E. Sievers), oitesi (R. Godel), and oisi (E. Tichy) are excluded on morphological grounds. Since the long final /ī/ of amārī continues *ei, the sequence of six letters PACARI cannot be the ancestor of the Latin passive infinitive pācārī. The sequence UOIS cannot be the source of uīs “you want” because the [o] vocalism could not be accounted for. Since the Latin conjunction nisi is

graeco-latina brunensia

La deuxième ligne de l'inscription latine du duenos et l'interprétation du segment noisi (védique nédati, lituanien Niedà, lusitanien Langanidaeigui, Langanitaeco)