EN The Oscan inscriptions of Lucania and Bruttium are written in the Greek (specifically Ionic) alphabet. However, the values of some letters are still disputed, since they seem to vary according to personal choice on the part of the scribal schools or to dialectal differences not always easy to track down. Oscan back vowels, which, for all we know, were only three, /o/, /u/ and /uː/, are not always consistently spelt, and this has made etymological speculation a hard task. While the choice of letters may occasionally depend on the individual carvers, the recognition of apparent inconsistencies often depends on objectionable etymologies. In this work I shall try to show that the spelling of the back vowels in South Oscan is certainly less arbitrary than assumed in previous accounts, that dialectal differences cannot be convincingly identified, and, crucially, that the precise, and in principle phonemic, value of individual letters or groups of letters can only be determined by comparing the use of other letters in the same texts or in texts presumably coming from the same workshops or the same areas. I shall distinguish a group of texts in which the vowels /o/ and /u/ are respectively rendered and (especially in Central Lucania) from another group in which they are rendered and (Southern Lucania and Bruttium). I shall conclude that two different regional alphabets, a “Lucanian” and a “Bruttian” one, can be identified. As regards new etymologies, the origin of the divine name διομανας, long believed to be the Sabellic cognate of L. domina, will be addressed. In the light of recent epigraphic discoveries, I shall additionally call attention to the existence of a hitherto overlooked Oscan magistracy, whose name goes back to Proto-Sabellic *puklīno- and is built from a collective noun *puklā ‘youth’, a possibility supported by a new look at the form prupukid in the cippus abellanus. An alternative reading of σκαλαπ(ονις) ολκϝηις as σκαλαπο(νις) πακϝηις in the new apograph of Anzi is proposed, which falls into line with occurrences of the same name in other Lucanian texts and reveals the importance of the gens Scalponia. The fact that this text forms part of a larger monument (ST Lu 39) underpins the hypothesis that was not introduced in Lucania before 200 BC.
Blanca María Prósper Pérez (Wed,) studied this question.