The paper describes how sociolinguistics, revealing the relationship between language and society independently of translation, provides scientifically well-founded descriptions of the relationship between the source language and source language society, and the target language and the target language society, and might thus contribute to exploring the objective rules behind the translators’ decisions.
. - Trucker, G. P. (eds): The Essential Readings . Oxford, Blackwell, pp. 30-47.
Kasper, G. (1997): Linguistic Etiquettes. In: Coulmas, Florian (ed.): The Handbook of Sociolinguis-tic. Oxford, Blackwell, pp. 374
The aim of this study is to examine a sentence from Petron's Satyricon
usually considered tobe problematic and
corrupted (48, 4): tres bybliothecas habeo, unam Graecam, alteram Latinam.
However, we demonstrate that the old conjecture proposed for healing
that sentence, i.e. duas for tres, is untenable and in fact
grammatically impossible and so the reading of the Codex Traguriensis is
correct. Afterwards we explain the meaning of this sentence in accordance with
those interpreters who explain Trimalchio's silence on his own third library
with a kind of inferiority complex in the given situation activated by the
sociolinguistic pressure motivated by the hegemonic Graeco-Latin bilingualism
in the Roman World.
Jupiter Dolichenus was a Roman god, a so-called ‘Oriental deity’ whose mystery cult gained popularity in the 2nd century AD, reached a peak under the Severi in the early 3rd century AD, and died out shortly after. As for Jupiter Dolichenus, he is sometimes referred to by scholars as ‘Baal of Doliche’ or ‘Dolichenian Baal’.1 The name Baal is derived from the term Ba’al, meaning ‘owner’ or ‘lord’, and the word must have been used as a title for gods in general. Over six hundreds monuments – mainly inscriptions – of the Dolichenian cult have come to light from the Eastern and Western parts of the Empire. The name Jupiter with the epithet Dolichenus – from the original name of Doliche – appears in inscriptions in many incorrect forms including Dolichenius, Dolychenus, Dolochenus, Dolicenus, Dolcenus, Dulcenus, Dolucens.
Which of the above epithets reflects the original Syrian form and tradition? Is it possible that Dulcenus is the original and correct form of the deity’s name, or is it just another vulgar change which appeared separately in time and space? This paper tries to prove the latter with the help of the LLDB. The Dolichenian cult is thought to have first been introduced by Syrian merchants and auxiliary soldiers, including troops from Commagene (the province that includes Doliche). In the light of the names of the priests of Jupiter Dolichenus, Speidel2 states that the Jupiter Dolichenian cult in the army was largely supported by Syrians and other Orientals.
The traces of socio-cultural interaction between the ethnic groups that are neighbours to each other but speak different languages are reflected in their languages. Common words and concepts appear in the languages of both ethnic groups. The Caucasus, which is the subject of our article, is a broad geographical region where a great many different ethnic groups live together and have been mixing ethnically with each other for hundreds of years. Our purpose is to study the vocabulary of different ethnic groups' languages to determine the cultural and linguistic interaction between them. It is possible to draw the conclusion from our study that there is widespread ethnic and cultural interaction among all the peoples of the Caucasus.
The aim of this paper is to bring into discussion some data concerning early Christian inscriptions from the Iberian Peninsula on the differentiation of Vulgar Latin, focusing on the several methods and procedures of collecting data (in corpora and databases), and the interpretation as regards Latin dialectology. The low number of specific dialectal traits in early Christian funerary epigraphy contrasts with specific local features that can be found when we put the epigraphic texts into their social and cultural context. We may conclude that Latin dialectal evidence in Late Antiquity should be evaluated according to its context. We can understand both common and specific traits of the written language from this perspective.