Sacred regulations (?)
created: Transcription from stone (CDL).
source date: Late fourth or early third century BC
language: ar; en; fr; de; grc; grc-Latn; el; he
availability: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 Deed Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. All citation, reuse or distribution of this work must contain a link back to DOI: https://doi.org/10.60760/unibo/igcyrgvcyr2 and the filename (IGCyr000000 or GVCyr000), as well as the year of consultation. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/)

[...], pp. 45-46, n. 12, whence [...], 57.2012; [...] 109400; [...], p. 56 (focus), pp. 274-275, number 19 (text);.

[...] [...]μη[...] [...] ἄλλη δὲ πο[...] [...] πρίασθαι βάβαλ[...]· αἰ δέ κα πωλῆι [...]ς ἐξ ἀλλοτρίων [...]α οἱ τένται ἀλλ [...]σω ατιμακ [...]ωρια.

πο[...][^a1] [...]α οἱ τένται[^a2] ατιμακ[^a3]

[^a1: πο[...] | πο | πο[...]]

[^a2: [...]α οἱ τένται | [...]λοι τένται]

[^a3: ατιμακ | ἄτιμα κ | ἁ τιμὰ κ | ἁ τιμὰ κ [also possible]]

[...] et ailleurs [...] acheter des objets profanes [...]; et si l'on vend [...], pris sur les biens d'autrui [...] si d'autres biens sont à lui [...] la valeur/sans valeur [...].

[...] and elsewhere [...] to buy secular objects [...]; and if one sells [...] from someone else's belongings [...] if other properties belong him [...] the value/valueless [...].

[...] e altrove [...] comprare oggetti profani [...]; e se uno vende [...] dai beni altrui [...] se altri beni sono sui [...] la valore/senza valore [...].

These poor rests clearly contain prescriptions implying the opposition between sacred and secular properties. A first discussion was developed by [...], giving way to IGCyr109400. [...] adds some interesting insights: A. At line 6, the verbe being at the singular, the subject should be either a masculine singular or a neuter plural. It is thus preceded by the personal pronoun at the dative. The subject was therefore very probably a neuter plural (as well as the adjective 'secular' at line 4). B. He prefers the reading ἁ τιμά, but does not interpret the following kappa, which might have a numeral value, as proposed earlier, rather than belong to a new word, with a very awkward cut in a non-stoichedon text. Therefore, we prefer to leave now the question open.