𐌓𐌄𐌔𐌕𐌀𐌕𐌖

Disputed. Ultimately from the root Proto-Indo-European *steh₂-.

• Buck argues that the term likely derives from Proto-Italic *re-sistō, perhaps with a shift from third to first-conjugation. If this theory were true, the term would be directly cognate with Latin resistō. Poultney suggests that the participle forms may have derived from Proto-Italic *re-sistēns, perhaps with the loss of reduplication following the syncope of the vowel /i/. However, Poultney suggests that the imperative form of the word probably derives from an originally first-conjugation verb.
• Alternatively, Buck proposes that the long /ā/ vowel may have been preserved from Proto-Indo-European *stísteh₂ti, akin to Proto-Hellenic *hístāmi. The preservation of this vowel may also have occurred in Volscian sistiatiens. Poultney considers this idea unlikely, as there is the hypothetical equivalent Latin form *sistāre does not exist.
• Poultney suggests that the term may derive from re- +‎ an Umbrian equivalent of Latin stō, from Proto-Italic *staēō. According to Poultney, the shift from the intransitive meaning of Latin stō to the transitive meaning of the Umbrian term may be paralleled in Latin praestō, which also underwent a shift in transitivity when prefixed.
• Poultney, Buck, and De Vaan list the imperative form restatu and the participle forms restef and reste alongside each other as belonging to the same verb. However, Nishimura suggests that the imperative form likely belonged to a transitive verb that was separate from the possibly intransitive verb that may be represented by the participle forms. If these terms are interpreted as belonging to distinct verbs, they may have different etymologies.
  • Cowgill suggests that the term restatu may have originated as a denominative to a passive participle form *stat-.
  • Untermann suggests that the term may derive from *re-sist-ā-. However, it is unclear how the prefixation would affect the meaning of the term. For instance, Latin resistō has a significantly different meaning from Latin sistō.
  • Nishimura suggests that restatu may be more closely related to the third-conjugation verb Proto-Italic *statuō. The future imperative form *statuetōd may have evolved into the Umbrian future imperative ending *-statu via syncope, a development that occurred in other Umbrian future imperative forms. However, it is unclear how the sequence *-ue- would react to syncope in Umbrian. Furthermore, the prefixation of re- would move the sequence away from the second syllable, which—according to Nishimura—would normally be the optimal location for syncope. Nishimura overcomes these difficulties by suggesting that, regardless of any other Umbrian phonological rules, the term may have underwent remodeling in comparison with the other syncopated future imperatives. Another issue facing this hypothesis is that the syncopation of Proto-Italic *statuetōd should yield *-statu-tu- not *-statu. To remedy this problem, Nishimura proposes that the duplicate sequence *-tu-tu- was reduced via haplology, perhaps partially to avoid confusion between the future singular imperative form *statu-tu- and the future plural imperative form *statu-tu-to-. One final difficulty faced by this theory is that the /a/ may have undergone syncopation if the prefixation pushed it into the second syllable. Such a development may be compared to Latin restituō, from re- + statuō. However, Nishimura counters that the status of this syncopation in Umbrian is unclear and terms such as Umbrian amparitu may indicate that many Umbrian compound terms were remodeled after their simplex forms.

𐌓𐌄𐌔𐌕𐌀𐌕𐌖 • (restatu) (third-person singular imperative) (early Iguvine)

1. The meaning of this term is uncertain. Possibilities include:
   1. (transitive) to offer anew
   2. (intransitive) to start again

• The linguist Kanehiro Nishimura suggests that the meaning of to "offer anew" was likely an extension of an original meaning "to restore."

• Nishimura criticizes the accuracy of the translation by Poultney in the following quote:

• Iguvine Tablets Ib.8-9:

  𐌔𐌅𐌄𐌐𐌖 : 𐌄𐌔𐌖𐌌𐌄𐌊 : 𐌄𐌔𐌖𐌍𐌖 : 𐌀𐌍𐌕𐌄𐌓 : 𐌅𐌀𐌊𐌀𐌆𐌄𐌅𐌀𐌜𐌄𐌕𐌖𐌌𐌉𐌔𐌄𐌀𐌅𐌉𐌚 : 𐌀𐌆𐌄𐌓𐌉𐌀𐌕𐌖 : / 𐌅𐌄𐌓𐌖𐌚𐌄 : 𐌕𐌓𐌄𐌐𐌋𐌀𐌍𐌖 : 𐌊𐌖𐌅𐌄𐌓𐌕𐌖 : 𐌓𐌄𐌔𐌕𐌄𐌚 : 𐌄𐌔𐌖𐌍𐌖 : 𐌚𐌄𐌉𐌕𐌖

  svepu : esumek : esunu : anter : vakazevaçetumiseavif : azeriatu : / verufe : treplanu : kuvertu : restef : esunu : feitu

  • Translation by James Wilson Poultney

    If there is any interruption of these rites, they shall be invalid: take an observation of the birds, return to the Trebulan Gate, and perform the rite anew.

Poultney suggests that the term in this passage worked in tandem with the term Umbrian feitu, which functioned in an almost adverbial sense within this translation. However, Nishimura argues that this translation is incompatible with Umbrian grammar and the transitive meaning of the participles. According to Nishimura, the sequence "esunu feitu" could easily function as a verbal phrase in it of itself, as feitu may be interpreted as a transitive verb acting upon the direct object esunu. Nishimura suggests that restef may have actually had the intransitive meaning "starting again." Thus, Nishimura concludes that the term may have constituted the participle to an intransitive verb and therefore may have functioned to modify the transitive verb feitu.

• (present active participle nominative singular masculine) l.Ig. 𐌓𐌄𐌔𐌕𐌄𐌚 (restef)
• (present active participle nominative singular masculine) l.Ig. reste

• Buck, Carl Darling (1904), A Grammar of Oscan and Umbrian: With a Collection of Inscriptions and a Glossary
• Poultney, James Wilson (1959), The Bronze Tables of Iguvium‎^[1], Baltimore: American Philological Association
• De Vaan, Michiel (2008), Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series; 7), Leiden, Boston: Brill, →ISBN, page 567
• Nishimura, Kanehiro. (20 August 2017), “Umbrian restatu: A restitution”, in Indogermanische Forschungen‎^[2], volume 111, number 2006, →DOI, →ISSN