Linguistic Society of America

THE INSCRIPTION OF DVENOS
to propound, that the inscription is an execration. The argument just
presented is my reason for rejecting the theory that it is a love-charm,
to which will be added the arguments from the interpretation later
given; on the other hand, all association with the Novendial sacrifice
disappears when DVENOI NE is read in the third line, instead of DZE
NOINE = die noni.
One more point before we proceed to the interpetation of the text:
the fact that the three lines are separated by gaps capable of holding
several letters, gives a strong presumption that each line is reasonably
complete in itself; and this completeness may be expected to apply both
to sense and to syntax. The point is worth emphasizing, although most
editors have recognized it by implication, and Goldmann has applied it
rigidly.
To take up now the text of the inscription, the first line reads as
follows, with the word divisions which I adopt:
IO VEI SAT DEIVOS QOI MED MITAT NEI TED ENDO
COSMIS VIRCO SIED
After the abreviated names of the three gods, first recognized by
Deecke (as was mentioned above), there is a word which means 'god'
or 'gods', in some case or other, Morphologically, unless we are to
accept a form without parallel in Latin, it must be either nominative
singular or accusative plural; and the latter is required by the names of
the three gods, to which it is an obvious appositive. The abbreviations
therefore represent the accusative case.
QOI MED MITAT can hardly mean other than 'he who sends me'.
It is true that Q = qu is not otherwise known, but no conceivable variant
interpretation eliminates this peculiarity. MITAT offers difficulties,
since it seems to be subjunctive in form,=mittat; but the final letter of
the subjunctive should at this early date be d, the secondary ending,
and not t, which is primary; cf. SIED and FEKED in the inscription,
and the Oscan present subjunctives fakiiad, kahad, putiiad, where the
secondary d is obvious. The T has been explained as showing the be-
ginning of the extension of primary -t into the realm of the secondary
endings,'6 or as a plural with graphic omission of the n before the stop;17
but why should the clause have a subjunctive at all?
16 Bucheler, RhM 36. 243; and especially G. Hempl, Trans. Amer. Philol. Assn. 33.
153-4 [1902].
17 R. S. Conway, AJP 10. 452.
211