>it seems that the opinion of experts is now unanimous -- the inscription is
a forgery.
Alas, were scholars ever unanimous?
Meiser (1998) says: An der Echtheit der Inschr. bestehen Zweifel, Faelschung
ist jedoch nicht erwiesen.
("There are doubts about the genuineness of the inscription, but forgery is
not proven")
Likewise R Wachter (1987) Altlat. Inschriften
I have not had the chance to see the philological arguments for forgery.
Could someone explain them to me? The form fefaked as a reduplicated
perfect from facio seems fine to me - the medial f retained from the
present, as in fallo, fefelli, zero grade as expected, ending as attested
elsewhere. The spelling >VH< for /f/ is attested elsewhere - eg Venetic
VHA.XS.TO (actually theta - o) for faxsto. Wherein lies the philological
problem?
Peter