OHCGL Addenda and Corrigenda

I am very grateful to all the reviewers, readers, and friends who have helped me compile this list. Special thanks
go to Ron Kim for sending me his voluminous collection of typos and errors. MLW

Reviews: James Clackson. 2010. BMCR 09.35; Lucie Pultrová. 2012. Graecolatina Pragensia 23:153–5; H.
Bichlmeier. 2012. Das Altertum 57:221–223; Olav Hackstein. 2012. Kratylos 57:109–15; Alain Blanc.
2012. BSL 107.2; Maria Luisa Porzio Gernia. ftcm. Bolletino dell’atlante linguistico italiano, 36.

p. 1, l. 4 from bottom: “άφ᾽ > “ἀφ’” (first occurrence)

p. 1, n. 1: Here and in the bibliography replace Campbell 2004 with Campbell 2013, the 3rd edition.
Add Ringe and Eska 2013 after Hale 2007.

p. 3, l. 4: “This an” > “This is an”

p. 9, n. 27: Add Franklin 2011 to the bibliography on Sir William Jones.

p. 9, n. 28: “which included, Latin” > “which included Latin”

p. 10: Replace Meier-Brügger 2003 with Meier-Brügger 2010. Replace Beekes 1995 with Beekes 2011,
which is a revised second edition written together with M. de Vaan.

p. 11 C 1: Add Mayrhofer 2004 after Mayrhofer 1986.

p. 11 D 1: Add Wodtko, Irslinger, Schneider 2008 (NIL).

p. 11, n. 5: To the basic bibliography for Germanic add Muller 2007 and Ringe 2006. To the
bibliography for Old Frisian add Bremmer 2009 and Hofmann, Popkema, and Hofmann 2008. For Old
Netherlandic: http://gtb.inl.nl/?owner=ONW (Oudnederlands Woordenboek). For Old Saxon add
Tieffenbach 2010.

p. 12 n. 7: Add to the general bibliography for Celtic Ball and Muller 2009. For Brittonic add Ternes
2011.

p. 13 n. 23 and p. 14 n. 28 To the bibliography for Sabellic add Triantafillis 2008. This work, Le
iscrizioni italiche dal 1979: Testi, retrospettiva, prospettive, takes Poccetti’s 1979 collection as its starting
point for updating. It includes the major discoveries—really not that many truly qualify as major—in
Sabellic epigraphy with comparison of earlier editions and some epigraphical and linguistic commentary.

To the resources for the Sabellic languages add Crawford 2011, which refers to the epoch-making three
volume Imagines Italicae, a corpus of almost all the inscriptions in the Italic (i.e. what I call Sabellic)
languages—the Tabulae Iguvinae are not included. Most texts are illustrated with a photo and there are
many new readings based on autopsy. See my and Ben Fortson’s review at
http://www.bmcreview.org/2013/06/20130617.html

  1  
p. 15, n. 32: On the Saturnian replace Mercado 2006 with Mercado 2012.

p. 15, n. 34: Add a reference Clackson 2011 and Liesner 2012. Here and in the abbreviations replace
OLD with the 2nd edition of the Oxford Latin Dictionary released in 2012. This edition is now in two
volumes for easier handling and the layout and organization of the entries have been somewhat
rearranged. The corrigenda have been incorporated. A spot-check of the etymological information
reveals a disappointingly conservative approach. Nothing appears to have been updated.

p. 15, n. 34, l. 1: “Historical phonology” > “Historical Phonology”

p. 15, n. 34, l. 4: “Etymological dictionaries” >“Etymological Dictionaries”

p. 18, n. 53: Add Bakker 2010. Under Mycenaean add 2011 (vol. 2) to Duhoux and Morpurgo Davies
2008. Under Etymological Dictionaries add Beekes 2010b. Under Language Histories replace Horrocks
1997 with Horrocks 2010.

p. 19, n. 64: For Hittite: Rieken 2011 and van den Hout 2011. For Luvian: Payne 2010. For Lycian:
Neumann 2007. For Lydian: Gérard 2005.

p. 21, n. 79: To the basic bibliography for Tocharian add Malzahn 2010 and Carling et al. 2009.

p. 22: I quote the famous love poem (Krause and Thomas 1960–64:2.72) as a text sample of Tocharian
B:

[mā] ñ[i ci]sa noṣ śomo ñ[e]m [wno]lme [l]āre tāka,

mā ra postaṃ cisa lāre mäsketär-ñ

But the translation I offered there (No person was dearer to me than you previously, nor will any be
afterward) was not very precise. Pinault 2008:32 offers a more accurate rendering: ”D’être vivant portant
le nom d’humain, il n’en fut pas auparavant de plus cher pour moi que toi, et il n’en sera pas non plus
dans l’avenir de plus cher que toi pour moi.” śomo ñem wnolme literally means “a being (wnolme) the
name (ñem) human (śomo)” and is the Tocharian reflex of the construction familiar from Skt. (āsīd rājā
Nalo nāma) and elsewhere. Notice that Tocharian, like many languages, has no distinct comparative form
of the adjective but just uses the positive form plus the standard of comparison in the perlative (ci-sa
‘than you’).

p. 22: To the brief list of Very Old Latin inscriptions add a reference to the 6th century BCE inscription
on a fragment of a clay vessel found during excavations of the Acropolis of Satricum in 2002. The text
was first edited by Colonna and Gnade in 2003, but an article by Béla Adamik, brought to my attention
by Brent Vine, has offered the first plausible interpretation of the fragmentary text. There are two
fragmentary texts. Text A written boustrophedon reads:

  2  
[---]IAMAMARC|OMPLACIOM[ (boustrophedon)

and Text B reads

]LOUCIOSx[ (i.e. Loucios + trace of another letter)

Adamík suggest a number of possible restorations, e.g. [esom ser]ia Mamarcom Placiom[que..] but the
most important insight is that Mamarcom and Placiom are to be interpreted as genitive plurals of names,
or in the case of placiom possibly of an adjective. The overall structure of the text would be very similar
to Brent Vine’s reading of the Garigliano bowl as ESOM... AVDEOM DVOM. Text B might be the
remainder of a signature of the artist or commissioner, e.g. Loucios C.[ f. med feced] vel sim.

p. 22, n. 82: Add to the bibliography for Illyrian Eichner 2004. For Phrygian add Sowa 2008. For
Thracian add Brixhe 2006.

p. 23, n. 2: I mention Hartmann’s vindication of the genuineness of the Praenestine fibula and its
inscription. This famous inscription (MANIOS MED FHE:FHAKED NVMASIOI), if genuine, would be our
single oldest piece of Latin. Hartmann—to the extent that I am qualified to judge—seems to make a
good case that the scientific testing supposedly proving the falsity of the document was flawed or
inconclusive, but the form NVMASIOI still seemed a bit of a problem. Numasios would appear to be the
ancestor of praenomen Numerius, but Numerius if related to numerus ‘number’ should go back to
*numesios vel. sim. So either (1) Numasios is not the ancestor of Numerius, (2) Numerius has nothing to
do with numerus, or (3) the fibula is a fake. Possibilities (1) and (2) are perfectly plausible, so no strong
argument against the genuineness of the inscription can be drawn from the form NVMASIOI, but recent
developments have put to rest any doubts about this name. Through the kindness of Rex Wallace I’ve
been informed about a recently published archaic Etruscan inscription on an aryballos from the “area
ceretana” bearing the inscription (Poetto and Facchetti 2009:369):

mi mlac mlakas larθus elaivana araθia numasianas

‘io (sono) il buon/bel (vaso) oleario di Araθ Numasiana per il buon Larθu’.

The form numasianas supports Numasios and makes it certain that Numasios is unconnected with
numerus.

Update: an email from Michiel Driessen, the author of the best etymology of urbs (JIES 2001, 29:41-68),
has made me reconsider at least the second half of this claim. He points out that the medial a of the
Etruscan form may be the result of weakening and notes the parallel of the praenomen Avile <—
avil ’year’ which also appears as Avule, and—significantly from Caere—as Avale (Cr. 3.23, 5th cent.) The

  3  
aryballos in question dates to the second half of the 7th century, but weakening is found in the archaic
period, so we cannot exclude the possibility that the a is a weakening product. Note too that 7th century
forms of the NumVs- name are found with a medial e-vowel, e.g. Numesiesi (Ta 3.1). Further, since the
name numasiana- is a derivative in -na and since the base is well attested as ending in -sie, we would
expect the last three syllables to be -siena. Hence the second a of numasianas is a weakening product and
this strengthens the case for the first a being unoriginal. Thus there is no real objection to deriving the
Etruscan forms from an Italic, probably Sabellic, source *nomesii ̯o-.

So is numasianas totally uninformative in regard to NVMASIOI? I would say not, since it gives a possible
source for the always problematic a of the Praenestine form, i.e. a re-borrowing from a form with
Etruscan weakening.

p. 25: I write “A favorite locus for the alphabet transfer was one of the Greek trading posts like
Posidonios (El-Alalakh) in Syria.” This is wrong in a number of ways. First, the Greek city in Ancient
Syria mentioned by Herodotus (3.91) is called Posideion not Posidonios, which, of course, is the name of
the famous Hellenistic philosopher (155-51 BCE). Second, the site sometimes thought to be of possible
importance in the transfer of the alphabet is Al-Mina, a coastal site a little south of Samandağ, Turkey
not Alalakh, which is a Bronze-Age site some 50 kilometres inland. Third, it is not clear that the site of
Al-Mina is the Posideion mentioned by Herodotus. Others have suggested Ras Al-Bassit in the present-
day country of Syria. Finally, see the chapter by Roger Woodard in Bakker’s Companion to the Ancient
Greek Language for some doubts about the importance of Al Mina.

p. 24, II.A, l. 5: “sound value” > “sound values”

p. 25, C.2, l. 2: “Dark-Ages” > “Dark Ages”

p. 26: I mention that Etruscan abecedaria have a sign shaped like a four-paned window in the spot
typically reserved for ξ, i.e. between ν and ο. Until recently this sign was only known from Etruscan, or
possibly Etruscan contexts, but the publication of a fragmentary abecedarium from Eretria shows that
the sign in this shape and position was known in Euboea, and therefore is not a specifically Etruscan
creation, but was simply taken over from the donor alphabet. See Wachter 2005.

p. 26, n. 17: I give the Etruscan form transcribed kacriqu as an example of the K/C/Q rule, but the
attempt to illustrate the actual Etruscan alphabet is marred by the fact that the 4th letter (reading from
right to left) is mistakenly a digamma instead of an iota. You can see a correct rendering of the word in
question on p. 23 of Rex Wallace’s Zikh Rasna or online here http://tinyurl.com/9hpxkeg

p. 27, 5: I wrote “Since Etruscan did not have a contrast between /o/ and /u/ they eliminated the sign.”
This sentence needs some elaboration. First of all, archaic Etruscan alphabets do retain the letter as a
dead letter. See Wallace 2008:17–18. Second, while it is true that there was no contrast between /o/

  4  
and /u/ in Etruscan, it now seems pretty clear that the Etruscans did have a way of writing /o/. In
addition to the well-known case of the bilingual inscription from Pesaro, which has the form frontac (Um
1.7, 1st BCE), there is now also a form cnovies in a 5th century BCE inscription for Civita Castellana (CIE
II, 1, 5). The inscription reads cnovi{e}ies mi “I am of cnovie”. Given its location the
inscription is probably recording a Faliscan praenomen—hence the attempt to represent the
“exophoneme” /o/—but mi and the genitive ending -es show that the text was Etruscan. The shape of
the o in both these examples is like a vertical fish (see this image of the Pesaro bilingual here.) and this
is precisely the shape that o has in the (indirectly) Etruscan-derived Runic alphabet as illustrated above.
See Maras 2009.

p. 27, D1: I note that the Romans at first used the sign C in double duty to represent both /k/ and /g/. I
failed to mention any actually attested epigraphical examples of this practice aside from the survival of
the old way in the praenominal abbreviations C. and Cn. (p. 28). Here are a few cases: RECEI, i.e. rēgī
‘king’ dat. sg. (ILLRP 3), VIRCO, i.e. virgō ‘maiden’ (ILLRP 2) and CRATIA i.e. grātiā (ILLRP 101,
Praeneste). Interestingly, this last inscription from the 3rd century BCE also uses a backwards C in the
form PRIMOƆENIA, i.e. prīmogenia, probably to indicate a palatalized variant of the voiced velar. For a
longer list of epigraphical C for /g/ see Leumann 1977:10.

p. 27 n. 18: I mention that Q was used to spell /k/ before /u/ and the spelling PEQVNIA is the preferred
one in official documents up until the time of Cicero. I should also have noted that Q for /k/ and even
/g/ is found before /o/ in some archaic documents, e.g. LVQORCOS (ILLRP 767, Praeneste) =
Λυκοῦργος, EQO (ILLRP 739, 744) = ego. There are also instances of Q before syllabic u from as late as
the 1st century CE, e.g. CONTIQUERE (CIL 4.4191 etc., Pompeii, a citation of Verg. Aen. 2.1). This use of
Q before rounded vowels other than u presumably cannot be derived directly from Etruscan since
Etruscan only had /u/. The early Latin practice may have been an extrapolation from Etruscan or an
approximation to Greek practice where qoppa was used before back rounded vowels.

p. 27, bottom line: “position before U” > “position before V”

p. 28, n. 21: I note that the phonologically distinct use of <j> and <i> is found first in the earliest
Spanish printed books. According to Kukenheim 1932:32, 36 it was specifically the great Spanish
grammarian Antonio de Nebrija who was the first to suggest the distinction in his Gramática de la lengua
castellana in 1492:

La g tiene dos oficios: uno propio, y otro prestado. Eso mismo la i tiene otros dos: uno, cuando es vocal,
y otro, cuando es consonante, el cual concurre con la g, cuando después de ella se siguen e, i. Así que,
dejando la g, i, en sus propias fuerzas, con una figura que añadamos para representar lo que ahora
escribimos con g, i, cuando les damos ajeno oficio, queda hecho todo lo que buscamos, dándoles todavía
a las letras el son de su pronunciación. Ésta podría ser la y griega, sino que está en uso de ser

  5  
siempre vocal; mas sea la j luenga, porque no seamos autores de tanta novedad, y entonces
quedará sin oficio la y griega.

The distinct use of <u> and <v> was suggested by the Italian printer Trissino in a 1524 letter to Pope
Clement VII. See Kukenheim 1932 and Must 1965.

p. 29: I wrote “Geminate notation appears for the first time around 250 BCE (COTTAS, ILLRP 1277).”
Although this date is the one that Degrassi gave for this inscription from near Corleone in Sicily,
following the suggestion of Di Vita’s that the Cotta mentioned in this milestone was C. Aurelius Cotta,
the consul of 248 BCE, it seems more probable for a number of reasons that the Cotta involved was the
consul of 144, L. Aurelius Cotta. This means that the earliest graphically indicated gemination of
consonants is HINNAD, from 208 BCE (ILLRP 295). See Keiler 2011.

p. 29, n. 22: I mention that according to the testimony of Velius Longus the letter Z was not aliena
(Latino) sermoni and was used in the Carmen Saliare. Subsequently it was banished, perhaps by Appius
Claudius Caecus, yielding its place in the alphabet to G, only to be reintroduced at the end of the
alphabet in the 1st cent. BCE. In addition, I should have noted that there is one probable epigraphic
example of original Z from the Very Old Latin period. A bowl found on the Esquiline in the area of the
Villa Altieri in 1876 and dated not later than the 7th century BCE bears the inscription ZKA. If this text
is Latin—the null hypothesis for a inscription of this date and time— this would be, to my knowledge,
the sole epigraphical example of Z in its first run in the Latin alphabet. Colonna 1980 suggests that ZKA
stands for SKA with Z for S as in Faliscan.

p. 33 and n. 16: I cautiously mention the Malayo-Polynesian languages Kelabit and Madurese as
potential parallels (currently in the case of Kelabit, or formerly in the case of Madurese) to the three-way
laryngeal process contrast (voiceless, voiced, breathy) reconstructed for PIE. Since writing that, I have
looked into these languages a bit more and am more confident that they really are parallels to the PIE
system. My discussion can be found in the slides posted as The Cao Bang Theory (scroll down). But as
Eduard Fraenkel said somewhere, “the world is full of pseudo-parallels.”

p. 34, n. 22, table l. 2: “oːʂtha-” >“oːʂʈha-”

p. 35, n. 24 I see from Szemerényi’s Einführung that P. von Bradke introduced the centum
~ satəm terminology in 1890 (Methode und Ergebnisse der arischen (indogermanischen)
Altertumswissenschaft, p. 63, and 107) not 1888.

p. 35 I quote Craig Melchert’s famous 1987 article on the three-fold treatment of the voiceless velars in
Luvian, but this needs modification. Contrary to the claim of that article, there is no good evidence for
the affrication of the voiceless palatovelar before a back vowel. In particular, the supposed case of

  6  
 ̑ > Luv. -(i)zza- ~ Lyc. -(i)s(e)- does not stand up. The Luvian suffix -(i)zza- probably goes back
*-(i)ko-
to *-ti ̯eh2 and the Lycian suffix -(i)s(e)-, which makes abstracts and place names, continues *-sh2o-.
Instead it now seems likely that there was a conditioned fronting of the voiceless palatovelar before front
̑ ̯e/o-), w (azu(wa)- ‘horse’
vowels (Luv. ziyari ‘lies’ (C) ~ Lyc. sijẽni), yod (wazi- ‘request’ (H) < *u̯ek-i
̑ o-) and syllabic sonorants (zurnid- ‘horn’ (H) < *kȓ̥ ng-id-, zanta ‘down’ < *km̥
(H)< *h1éku̯ ̑ t-). Thus
Luvian and Lycian are like mirror images of Albanian with palatalization differential affecting the
palatovelars. We still have a ternary reflex, just not an unconditioned one. See Melchert 2012.

p. 36, 88, and 405: I quote the supposed Pamphylian Greek form ϝεχέτω ‘let one bring’. I should have
followed my normal practice and double-checked the original context. In fact, according to Claude
Brixhe, there is no such Pamphylian form. Brixhe reads the third letter as a “trident”, i.e. a letter
normally used in Pamphylian to represent the reflex of *-k(h)i-̯ . This makes it unlikely that this form has
anything to do with Lat. vehō, and certainly is not directly superimposable on the thematic present
reflected by Latin and Indo-Iranian. Still, true cognates of vehō are found in Greek, e.g. ὄχος ‘carriage’
and ὀχέοµαι ‘am carried, ride’. In the first two contexts (pp. 36 and 88) these forms can be substituted
since the question at hand is the Greek reflex of the root-final consonant. In the third context the
supposed ϝεχέτω is cited to support the e-grade simple thematic, but this it obviously cannot do. Greek
has no clear evidence to support that particular present-stem formation, which, of course, is abundantly
supported elsewhere—though some uses of ἔχω in Homer in the sense ‘guide’ have been alleged to reflect
the u̯-initial root. So ϝεχέτω joins the long list of forms that are just a little too good to be true.
On the Pamphylian trident letter see Brixhe 2005.

p. 38, C.5, l. 1: “the sononant consonants” >“sonorant consonants”

p. 40, C.2, l. 5: “‘sky(-god)’ Ved. d(i)yáu-” > “‘sky(-god)’ > Ved. d(i)yáu-”

p. 41, n. 48: In regard to the discussion of monosyllabic lengthening on p. 41, n. 48 Brent Vine draws
my attention to the recent Ph.D. dissertation by M. Kapović, Reconstruction of the Balto-Slavic Personal
Pronouns, Zagreb 2006, which has an extensive treatment of the subject (pp. 147–153). Reference to
Kapović’s work should also be added to the bibliography cited on p. 325, n.

p. 41, n. 52, l. 1: “< *kl ̥h2-tis” > “< *kl ̥h1-tis”

p. 42, 3.d, l. 7: “and a vocalism > “and a vocalism”

p. 46, l. 5: “examples” > “examples.”

p. 52, n. 20: Matthew Scarborough points out to me that the reference on p. 52, n. 20 to Mayrhofer
2005 does not correspond to anything in the bibliography. The intended reference is: Mayrhofer,
Manfred. 2005. Die Fortsetzung der indogermanischen Laryngale im Indo-Iranischen. Vienna: Verlag der
Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

  7  
p. 54 (and again on p. 402 for another purpose): I cite the supposed Hittite form tarḫ- ‘conquer’ as an
example of the preservation of a consonantal reflex of medial *h2 in Hittite, but Alwin Kloekhorst
2008:835–9 has shown that there is no such verb, but only a tarḫu-/taruḫ- reflecting a u-present *terh2u-.
Further, on p. 54 I state that medial *h3 was loss without exception in Anatolian, but the question of the
reflex of medial *h3 needs to be reconsidered. The meaning of CLuv. ta-tarḫ- as established by Kloekhorst
is ‘break’ not ‘conquer’ and therefore might be compared with the family of Grk. τιτρώσκω ᾽I wound’.
This suggests that *h3 had a consonantal reflex after a sononant.

p. 58: in discussing the pronunciation of as a voiceless velar stop, I might have mentioned this passage
from Quintilian (Inst. 1.7.10) where Quintilian asserts that the letter k should only be used in those
words which can be abbreviated by k alone (e.g. K for Kalendae, Kaeso, etc.): Hoc eo non omisi quod
quidam eam quotiens a sequatur necessariam credunt, cum sit c littera, quae ad omnis vocalis vim suam
perferat. “I mention the fact because some hold that k should be used whenever the next letter is an a,
despite the existence of the letter c which maintains its force in conjunction with all the vowels.”
[Translation H. E. Butler, Loeb edition] The clause [quae ad omnis vocalis vim suam perferat] might be
taken to mean that c had no significant allophones and therefore that c was still a voiceless velar stop
before a front vowel.

p. 58: An email from Malte Liesner alerts me to an imprecise formulation. On p. 58 in the discussion the
pronunciation of Latin /t/ I write “t was probably a true dental stop and not an alveolar as in English, to
judge from the evidence of the Romance languages.” In fact, the way I use dental vs. alveolar, although
traditional, is not quite correct. In Spanish, French, Italian and Romanian /t/ and /d/ are generally
produced as denti-alveolar laminals. The primary place of articulation is the alveolar ridge, but the
active articulator is the blade (lamina) of the tongue not the tip. Because the blade is used to make the
closure the tip of the tongue may be visible at the teeth. In English, in contrast, for most speakers the
tongue tip is used for /t/ and /d/ and hence these are alveolar apicals. Since the Romance languages
agree on this laminal articulation I assume that it was simply inherited from Latin.

  8  
Also on p. 55 I give the date of Sturtevant’s The Pronunciation of Greek and Latin as 1920, but that is the
first edition. In the bibliography I give the 1940 date of the second edition.
Image from http://sail.usc.edu/~lgoldste/General_Phonetics/Constriction_Location/index.html

p. 59, n. 47: (where I refer to the inscription as CIL I2.626), and p. 482 (where I refer to the inscription
as ILLRP 122) I use the forms ACHAIA and TRIVMPHANS from this famous inscription of Mummius
supposedly dating from 145 BCE or shortly thereafter as evidence for the first attested spelling of a Greek
aspirate with a stop plus h. (A picture of the inscription can be seen at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dandiffendale/2343690597/) In fact, there is reason to think that the
text we have is a copy, perhaps from as late as the the 1st century CE—the date suggested by Kruschwitz
2002:140. If this is correct, then obviously we don’t know if the letters H are from the original or the
result of conscious or unconscious modernization. If we set aside the Mummius inscription, then the
earliest examples of the stop-plus-h spelling are from the end of the 2nd century BCE, e.g.
CORINTHIORVM (CIL I2.585 l. 96, 111 BCE) and DELPHIVS (ILLRP 337, 106 BCE, a bilingual inscription
from Delphi). See Kruschwitz 2002.

p. 60: I touch upon the fact that final -s was sometimes omitted in Old Latin inscriptions and that it did
not make position in the thesis in non-dramatic verse. I didn’t say anything explicit about dramatic
verse except to make reference to Rex Wallace’s article that argues that non-observance of final -s is
more common in spoken verses than in the cantica.

  9  
The standard view, as canonized for example in Questa 2007:32–3, is that in dramatic verse s was
“reduced”, i.e. potentially did not make position, in polysyllables, following a short vowel before a
consonant initial word.

Here are some examples where s fails to make position:

Plaut. Bacch. 313: ibidem publicitus servant:: occidisti(s) me (ia6)

a a B C ddA B C D a B c D

But note that the final s of publicitus does make position.

Ter. Ad. 839: exporge frontem:: scilicet ita tempu(s) fert (ia6)
A B c D A BcDaa B c D

To which we can contrast:

Ter. Eun. 1048: an mei patris festivitatem et facilitatem? O Iuppiter!

A bb c D A BcD A bbcD A B c d+

where s does make position in patris.

This account raises at least three questions. First, how do we know that s was retained after a long
vowel since V:s and V:(s) are metrically equivalent? Second is there any pattern to the observance and
non-observance of s? Third what happened to final s prevocalically?

(1) I don’t think we can be sure that final -s had a different treatment after long vowels than after short
vowel. There can be no metrical evidence as far as I can see. Further non-notation of final -s after a long
vowel (see Vine 1993:22) is found in inscriptions at Rome, and not just dialectically—and incidentally
Latin inscriptions from the 3rd century are more commonly found outside of Rome.

(2) I don’t know if there is a pattern or not. It doesn’t seem that anyone has pointed to an obvious one in
the literature. Since there is a difference in non-dramatic verse between the strong and the weak
positions within the foot, it would be interesting to explore whether anything could be made of that for
iambo-trochaic verse. It will be important in this investigation to omit all pyrrhic/iambic sequences
from this investigation since Iambic Shortening is an alternative explanation in those cases.

(3) In Plautus and Terence, there do not seem to be any certain cases of loss of s in prevocalic position
with subsequent elision—mage rarely occurs prevocalically and elides, but we are not certain that mage is
phonologically derived from magis. This suggests that in the relevant idiolects final s resyllabified into

  10  
the onset of the following word. But there does appear to be evidence for an alternative pronunciation
where s was lost before a vowel. In Cicero’s Orator 153 we find the following sentence in the OCT
edition of Wilkins:

Sine vocalibus saepe brevitatis causa contrahebant, ut ita dicerent: multi’ modis, in vas’ argenteis, palmi’
crinibus, tecti’ fractis.

palmi’ Ribbeck; palmet A (Abrincensis = from Avranches pictured in the postcard above) : palma et L (=
consensus FOPM)

Here Cicero seems to be referring to reduced pronunciation and/or spellings in some way analogous to
elision. In the case of multi’modis Cicero may be referring to multimodīs, the adverb, which is a hypostasis
of multīs modīs. Here multi- stands form multīs but is a combining form, not a phonological
reduction. The second example, however, can only be explained through the omission of final s after a
long vowel followed by elision: vasīs argenteīs > vasī’ argenteīs > vas’argenteīs. The third example, where
the manuscript tradition clearly points to palm’et crinibus for palmis et crinibus, requires the same
explanation. The final form with no elision simply seems to refer to non-notation of final s. The loss of s
in vidēn et sim. seems to be a different phenomenon.

p. 60, n. 52: at the end of the note I wrote: “Quintilian (1.7.23) mentions that Servius Sulpicius,
presumably the consul of 53 BCE, was criticized for removing final s whenever the next word began with
a vowel.”

This sentence is embarrassingly full of errors. First, the passage where Quintilian discusses Servius
Sulpicius’ treatment of final -s is not 1.7.23 (that’s the famous one about dice and facie). It’s 9.4.38.
Second, what Quintilian reports there is as follows:

Quae fuit causa et Servio Sulpicio, ut dixit, subtrahendae s litterae quotiens ultima esset aliaque consonante
susciperetur, quod reprehendit Luranius, Messala defendit. Nam neque Lucilium putat uti eadem ultima, cum
dicit “Aeserninus fuit” et “dignus locoque”, et Cicero in Oratore plures antiquorum tradit sic locutos.
This was the reason (i.e. avoidance of stridor) why Servius, as he himself has observed, (or “as I said” if
ut dixi is read) dropped the final s, whenever the next word began with a consonant, a practice for which
Luranius takes him to task, while Messala defends him. For he thinks that Lucilius did not pronounce the
final s in phrases such as, Aeserninus fuit and dignus locoque, while Cicero in his Orator records that this
was the practice with many of the ancients. [Translation H. E. Butler, Loeb edition]

So Sulpicius is said to have eliminated s when the next word began with a consonant, presumably an
affectation modeled on old writers of the Republic, not before a vowel as I erroneously reported.

  11  
Third, Servius Sulpicius was consul in 51 BCE, not 53 BCE. Finally—this last one is not really an error
on my part—it is not certain that the Servius Suplicius referred to here is the consul of 51 BCE or his
son. Syme 1981 argued for the later.

So the sentence should be emended to:

Quintilian (9.4.38) mentions that Servius Sulpicius, either the consul of 51 BCE or more probably his son
(see Syme 1981), was criticized for removing final s whenever the next word began with consonant to
avoid a cacophonous effect. He was probably modeling this archaizing affectation on early Republican
authors.

p. 61, F.1.b, l. 3: “lead to” > “led to”

p. 66: I note that Latin had distinctive long or geminate consonants and give some minimal pairs, but I
should have added some significant restrictions:

First, the only geminates that occur morpheme-internally are the voiceless obstruents /p, t, k, s/ and the
sonorants /m, n, l, r, j/. Voiced geminate stops do occur, but only at a morpheme boundary (agger
‘earthwork’ < *ad-ger, ad-dō ‘I add’, ab-bibō ~ ad-bibō) and in loanwords (abbas ‘abbot’ post-classical
from Greek from Aramaic, addax (a type of gazelle), an African word according to Plin.
11.124). Geminate f has a similar limited distribution (of-ferō, suf(f)es ‘chief magistrate of Carthage’
from Punic), but there is offa ‘small lump’ whose origin is unknown.

Second, in Classical Latin geminates are limited to medial intervocalic position with the exception of the
neuter hocc < *hod-ke, which is always a heavy syllable in Latin poetry unless shortened by IS. Priscian
(Keil 1.592) claims et sic in antiquissimis codicibus inuenitur bis c scriptum, but Velius Longus explicitly
contradicts this (Keil 7.54: unum c scribimus et duo audimus). There don’t seem to be any certain
transmitted literary examples of this spelling in absolute final position but OCC is found on CIL 8.17938
from Thamugadas, present-day Timgad, Algeria. In any case hocc is at most a partial exception since it
formed a phonological phrase with the following word. In Old Latin there were more final geminates to
judge from Plautine scansions like miless, ess, corr, etc. See Questa 2007:20 for examples.

p. 66, l. 5: “[meʎo]” > “[meʎʎo]”

p. 67, n. 26: I say “There is no way to tell on metrical grounds whether the syllable division was
scul.ptus or sculp.tus since the first syllable would be closed either way. However, since pt does not occur
word-initially in Latin, it was probably not a possible onset. Hence sculp.tus is a more likely syllable
division. Similarly, one would divide sānctus ‘sacrosanct’ as sānc.tus, but spectrum ‘mirror’ and antrum
‘cave’ as spec.trum and an.trum.”

  12  
The idea that those consonant clusters not permitted in initial position must be treated heterosyllabically
in medial position goes back to antiquity. For example in An. Ox. IV 332 we read:

ὅσα σύµφωνα µὴ δύναται ἐν ἀρχῇ λέξεων ἐκφωνεῖσθαι, ταῦτα καὶ ἐν µέσῃ λέξει εὑρεθέντα χωρισθήσεται
ἀλλήλων. (attributed to Herodian’s Περὶ συντάξεως τῶν στοιχείων, Lentz (1870), p. 396, 1-2)
Such consonants as are unable to be pronounced at the beginning of a word are to be
separated from one another when they occur word-medially.

But, as a matter of fact, it’s not clear that a necessary inference about the behavior of medial clusters can
be drawn from the behavior or inventory of initial clusters. For example—as I learned from Adam
Cooper of Northeastern University—Klamath, a Native American language spoken in Southern Oregon,
has a wide variety of initial clusters but always splits medial CC clusters. But what about the other
situation? Is it possible for a language to allow a richer set of medial onsets than initial onsets? In other
words, does any language not permit e.g. initial kt but syllabify medial kt as an onset? This too is alleged
to occur, but I haven’t tracked down a case yet. In any event, the upshot is that we simply cannot be
certain about the syllable boundaries in cases like sanctus and scultpus.

p. 74, n. 11, l. 1: “the b of the other” > “the p of the other”

pp. 75 and 238: As James Clackson points out the form meddíks that I cite at pp. 75 and 238 (but not
at 159. n. 5 where I cite the Latinized form meddix as at Liv. 23.35.13) is a nominative plural
< *med(o)-dik-es with final syllable syncope of the old athematic nom. pl. ending *-es. The nom. sg. is
meddíss (Cm 10 etc.) with assimilation from *med(o)-dik-s.

p. 76, n. 29, l. 3: “became u̯ in” > “became u̯ in”

p. 79, n. 58: I cite the form ligūriō in connection with the development of medial *gh. However, the best
attested spelling for this verb and apparently for its close relatives scaturriō and scalpurriō is with two
r’s. Not surprisingly none of these verbs or their derivatives are attested in inscriptions, but the oldest
codex of Terence the 4th/5th century Codex Bembinus has geminate -rr- at lines 235 (ABLIGURRIERAT)
and 936 (LIGURRIUNT) of the Eunuchus. I don’t yet know what to make of these forms from the
historical point of view. Given my stated views on the littera rule, I’m not keen on deriving them from -
ūriō. The image of l. 235 below is scanned from Preste 1970

p. 81, n. 8: I noted an experiment by Joaquin Romero that showed that temporal reduction of an s was
enough to induce subjects to perceive the segment as rhotic. The late eminent phonetician J. C. Catford

  13  
also addressed the phonetics of rhotacism in a 2001 article. He claims that “it is generally assumed that
the fact that intervocalic -z- (< -s-) came to be reinterpreted as an r implies that the /r/ of the language
at that time must have been a fricative or approximant ɹ, or at least that such an r must have been an
acceptable pronunciation of /r/.” I’m not sure that I have ever run into this specific claim before, but, if
true, it would imply that the Classical Latin trill pronunciation was at least in part an innovation.
The most interesting part of the Catford article, however, deals not with Latin, but with the
phonetics of syllabic r in Sanskrit, which is described in the native tradition as jihvamūla ‘tongue-root’, i.e
velar. Catford argues that this refers to a “molar r” of the sort quite commonly found in American
English. The upshot of the article is the claim that the various sorts of rhotacism found in IE languages
are best explained if PIE *r was not, or not exclusively, a trill. Incidentally Catford suggests the
neologism paleophony for “the reconstruction and study of ancient pronunciation”.

p. 87, l. 2 below table in c: /kriðjə/: /kriðjə/ > /kriðjə/

p. 90, n. 39, l. 5: “presence of absence” > “presence or absence”

p. 96, B table: “GER.” > “GERM.”

p. 98 C, l. 2: “OCS. da-ti ‘to give’ >“OCS darŭ.”

p. 99, n. 23, l. 3: “synovjá” > “synov’já”

p. 102, n. 33, l. 2: “‘cūravērunt’” > “‘cūrāvērunt’”

p. 101: In discussing the outcome of *ei, I failed to mention some additional evidence that bears on the
question. The mid-stage between *ei and ī is thought to have been a high mid [e:]. This stage is attested
in forms from some archaic non-Roman inscriptions like VECUS (ILLRP 267, Castelluccio di Lecce),
VECOS (ILLRP 286, Trasacco), VECI (ILLRP 303, ad Lacum Fucinum), VEQO (ILLRP 1217, Cales). But
Varro mentions two instances where the rustic pronunciation still in his day substituted an e for and
urban Latin ī.

Varro R.R. 1.2.14:

A quo rustici etiam nunc quoque viam veham appellant propter vecturas et vellam, non villam, quo
vehunt et unde vehunt.
And for this reason even now they rustics call the road veham because of the acts of conveyances and the
farmhouse vellam, because they convey things to and from there.

Varro R.R. 1.48.2:

Spica autem, quam rustici, ut acceperunt antiquitus, vocant specam, a spe videtur nominata.

  14  
But spica, which the country people continuing an ancient tradition call speca, is so-called because of spes
‘hope’.

These two forms speca and vella are generally thought to reflect the pronunciation of dialects where the
diphthong *ei merged with ē rather than merging ultimately with ī as happened at Rome. In the case of
vīlla/vēlla, there is no doubt that the immediate preform was *u̯eilla, but in the case of spēca this is not
quite so certain. The root of Lat. spīca is connected with that of spīna ‘thorn’. The latter word is
apparently cognate with Umb. spin(i)a ‘obelisk’ vel. sim. The consistent spelling with i in Umbrian (II a
33, 36, 37, 38) points to an ī, which cannot be the result of the monophthongization of *ei. If so, this
suggests the root in question is *sp(e)ihx-, which would not have had given a form *speikā.

The Romance evidence sometimes seems to continue a non-urban monophthongization as in Sp.

Port. Cat. esteva, OFr. estoive, Ital. stev-ola/steg-ola which continue a non-urban *stēva not stīva ‘shaft of a
plough-handle’. On the other hand, AMECIS (CIL 4.3152a, cf. Paul. ex Festo p. 15L: ab antiquis... ameci et
amecae per e litteram efferebantur) may reflect a hyper-non-urban pronunciation since the suffix -īko- is
usually thought to continue an original long vowel.

p. 103: I say that the earliest example of the spelling AE for what previously had been written AI is
found on the SCdB (186 BCE), but a slightly earlier example is found on a pedestal set up by M. Fulvius
Nobilior, the consul of 189 BCE, and found at Tusculum (ILLRP 322 = CIL I2.616)) M. FVLVIVS M.
F. SER. N. COS. AETOLIA CEPIT

p. 111: in discussing clitic elements I simply define proclitics as elements that do not receive their own
stress, but form a prosodic unit with the following tonic word, but I didn’t give any Latin examples or
evidence. It is general thought that a preposition was proclitic on the noun it governed. There are a
number of pieces of evidence for this. First, Quintilian reports (1.5.27) cum dico circum litora, tamquam
unum enuntio dissimulata distinctione, itaque tamquam in una voce una est acuta. “For when I say circum
litora I pronounce the phrase as one word, concealing the fact that it is composed of two, consequently it
contains but one acute accent, as though it were a single word. [translation H. E. Barber, Loeb
edition]. Second, we often find prepositions written together with the noun they govern, or, in texts
which regularly use interpuncts to separate words, with omitted interpuncts. For example, APVRFINEM
(ILLRP 7, from Marsian territory), INFRONTE (CIL 12.1319) and with missing interpuncts from the letters
of Rustius Barbarus from the Ostraka of Wadi Fawâkhir, 1st or 2nd cent CE: 1.4f. ·per Popilium·, cf.
1.6 ·per Draconem·. Incidentally the term proclitic, unlike enclitic, does not have ancient roots and was
coined by Gottfried Hermann (pictured above) in De emendanda ratione Graecae Grammaticae. See Adams
1996.

  15  
p. 110: I give a few simple statements about calculating the position of the word stress in Latin and in n.
21 I quote a Cicero passage (Orat. 58) which is normally taken as explicit testimony for the antepenult
limitation—although it should be noted that it is not entirely clear that Cicero is talking specifically
about Latin, the context could suggest a reference to Greek. I should also have quoted statements of
other native speakers supporting the other parts of the system. Quintilian (Inst. 12.10.33) notes that
there are (with a few exceptions) no oxytones in Latin:

ultima syllaba nec acuta umquam excitatur nec flexa circumducitur.

“The last syllable is never accented either as an acute or a circumflex.”

Donatus (Keil 4.371) remarks that in bisyllabic words the penult is stressed no matter whether it is short
or long (the description is complicated by the grammarian’s theory that long vowels in the penult could
be either circumflex or acute as in Greek):

in disyllabis, quae priorem productam habuerint et posteriorem correptam, priorem |syllabam

circumflectemus, ut meta, Creta; ubi posterior syllaba producta fuerit, acuemus |priorem, siue illa
correpta fuerit siue producta, ut nepos, leges; ubi ambae breues fuerint, |acuemus priorem, ut bonus,
malus.
“In bisyllables which have a long first syllable and a short final syllable we give the first syllable a
circumflex, as in mêta and Crêta; When the second syllable is long, we give the first syllable an acute,
whether it is short or long, as in népōs and lḗgēs; when both syllables are short we give the first an acute
as in bónus and málus.”

Donatus also provides explicit testimony about the importance of the weight of the penult (Keil 4.371):

In trisyllabis et tetrasyllabis et deinceps, si paenultima correpta fuerit, acuemus |antepaenultimam, ut

Tullius Hostilius; si paenultima positione longa fuerit, ipsa acuetur |et antepaenultima graui accentu
pronuntiabitur.
“In three- and four-syllables and so on, if the penult is short we the give the antepenult an acute, as in
Túllius and Hostílius; if the penult is long by position, it gets an acute and the antepenult not accented.”

p. 112: I mention how speakers of Latin sometimes interpreted the Greek accent in Greek loanword as
Latin stress, which brought about exceptional stress assignments like Phílippus. I should also have
mentioned that Quintilian (Inst. 1.5.22) implies that Camillus and Cethēgus could be stressed on the
antepenult:

Cum acuta et gravis alia pro alia ponuntur, ut in hoc “Camillus”, si acuitur prima, aut gravis pro flexa, ut
“Cethegus”.

  16  
When acute and grave are switched as in the case of Camillus, if the first syllable is given an acute, or
when a grave is substituted for a circumflex as in the case of Cethegus.

These exceptional stress patterns are probably reproducing the original Etruscan initial-syllable stress
pattern since both forms are thought to be borrowed from Etruscan.

p. 112, n. 32, l. 1: “that the ancora” >“that ancora”

l. 5: “points to proto-form” > “points to a proto-form”

p. 113, B.2, l. 3: “*genh1- ‘be born’” >“*ĝenh1- ‘be born’”

p. 114, E.1, l. 4: “-ḫi < *h2e-i.” > “-ḫi < *-h2e-i.”

p. 115, l. 3: The vocative in short -o is preserved in all Slavic languages except Russian, Slovak, and
Slovene cf. in addition to the Macedonian form cited also SC Jovano, Pol. Iwono, Cz. Jano, etc.

p. 120, n. 14, l. 5 from end: “from *ob-bhoidiō” > “from *op-bhoidiō”

n. 19, l. 2: “as the examples >“as the example”

p. 121, A.1, l. 1: “lesan ‘to read’ and” > “lesan ‘to read’, and”

p. 123 E: I write “a short vowel following an r, l or n may be syncopated in an open syllable.” But the
last example *sakros > sakrs > *sakerr > sacer not conform to this formulation since the vowel
following r in sakros is in a closed syllable. Of course, in sandhi the s would sometimes have been
syllabified in the onset of the following word so r would potentially be in an open syllable, but that
seems a pis aller. Another possibility is that s was already “weak” in this position at the time of this the
syncope. Finally, are we absolutely certain that this syncope would not have applied in closed syllables?
What happens to the medial V in an original sequence *VCRVCCV? I haven’t come up with a certain
case of this sequence yet.

Another point: the sonorant consonant only develops to e/iR if it is “stranded” in the nucleus after
syncope. If the sonorant became a coda by syncope no epenthetic vowel develops, e.g. *porkelelos >
porcellus ‘piglet’.

p. 123, E, ll. 4-5: “*pōklelo-, *skabnelo-” > “*pōkl-elo-, *skabn-elo-”

p. 125, n. 2 and n. 50: I discuss the much-debated question of the length of vowels before final -m in
Classical Latin. The conclusion I reach there is that it is very difficult to determine anything about the
quantity of these vowels for the Classical period. However, there are two additional arguments bearing
on this question that I would like to mention. First, in favor of lenghthening of vowels before final -m

  17  
Safarewicz 1935 notes that metrical inscriptions sometimes require a long scansion for a vowel before
underlying final -m even when that m is omitted in the orthography, e.g. CIL 4.6892:

Quisquis amat nigra nigris carbonibus ardet;

nigra cum video mora libenter aedo.

Whoever loves a dark-skinned girl burns on dark coals.

When I see a dark-skinned girl, I gladly eat blackberries.

(at least that is one possible interpretation; see Varone 2002:57 for other suggestions)

In the pentameter nigra(m) must scan as a spondee and Safarewicz argues that this shows that it was the
vowel itself that was bimoraic. But I’m not sure this is conclusive especially since there are also metrical
inscriptions that treat the vowel with unindicated -m as short, e.g. CIL 6.1975:

quae tibi crescenti rapuit iuvenile figuram

where the e of iuvenile(m) is the first short of the 5th dactyl. See Fink 1969:448 for more examples.

In favor of a short scansion the always-incisive Enrico Campanile 1973 made two observations. First, in
Latin loanwords into Brittonic sequences of final -um do not behave like -ō or -ū in that they do not
trigger vowel affection of the preceding vowel. Second, it is a well-established fact that Latin hexametric
poets of the Classical period avoided elision of cretic sequences. The exceptions in Vergil involve final -ō
in 3rd declension n-stem nominative singulars (Ecl. 3.84 Pollio amat nostrum quamvis est rustica Musam)
and the 1st sg. ending -ō (Aen. 11.503 Audeo et Aeneadum promitto occurrere turmae). But these
exceptions are only apparent since it is very probable that these vowels were for Vergil synchronically
short as a result of so-called cretic shortening. When it comes to vowels before final -m in words whose
preceding two syllables form a trochee, Vergil has no compunction about eliding the final syllable, e.g.
Aen. 2.667 Alterum in alterius mactatos sanguine cernam; Aen. 4.387 Audiam et haec manis veniet mihi fama
sub imos. This suggests that these were not cretic sequences and therefore that the vowel was short. I am
inclined to agree with Campanile especially since this evidence agrees with Priscian’s statement, and the
fact that apices are never used on a vowel before final -m in inscriptions that use apices correctly.

p. 126, n. 14: “scans as a Pyrrhic” > “scans as a pyrrhic”

p. 127, n. 16: I mention that calēfacit was probably accented as if two words, i.e. cálē fácit, which
allowed the ē to undergo Iambic Shortening. In support of this I note the failure of the a of facit to
weaken and the occasional inversion and/or separation of the two parts. In addition I should have
mentioned the explicit testimony of Priscian (Keil 2:402):

si uero facio uerbo uel fio integris manentibus aliud uerbum infinitum ante ea componatur,
non solum significationes et coniugationes integras eis seruamus, sed etiam accentus, ut calefácio

  18  
calefácis calefácit, tepefácio tepefácis tepefácit. In secunda enim et tertia persona paenultimas acuimus,
quamuis sunt breues. similiter calefio calefís calefít, tepefio tepefís tepefít finales seruant accentus |in
secunda et tertia persona, quos habent in simplicibus.
If another non-finite verb form is compounded with facio or fio, which remain unweakened, these verbs
retain not only their meaning and conjugation type, but also their stresses, e.g. calefácio calefácis
calefácit, tepefácio tepefácis tapefácit. In the 2nd and 3rd person we stress the penult although they are
short. Similarly, calefio calefís calefít, tepefio tepefís tepefít preserve in the 2nd and 3rd person the oxytone
accent that they have in the simplex.

p. 128, n. 22: I wrote that the first instance of a shortened vowel before final -r appears in Lucilius, but
this is not correct. As Ben Fortson points out, Enn. Ann. 396 Sk has a case of shortened o before final -r in
the word sūdor. The line is transmitted as totum sudor habet corpus multumque laborat and the o must scan
as the first short of the weak half of the second foot. This shortened vowel is an outlier in Ennius who
otherwise preserves original long vowels before final -r, except when other processes (Iambic or Cretic
shortening) apply. For this reason Lindsay (Early Latin Verse 1922:125) wanted to transpose
sudor and corpus so that the line would read totum corpus habet sudor multumque laborat, but this does not
seem justified. So a more accurate statement would be that the first instance of shortening of a long
vowel before final -r occurs in Ennius, but that the shortened scansion becomes regular by Lucilius’ time.
Lucilius has a number of instances of short scansions and no certain instance of the long scansion.

p. 128, n. 22, l. 2 from end: “two instance” > “two instances”

p. 130, n. 35: “*mē(n)sale” > “*mē(n)sāle”

n. 39, l. 2: “maignus” > “malignus”

p. 133, n. 50, l. 2 from end: “retained consonant character” > “retained consonantal character”

p. 134, n. 55, l. 2: “ending in long vowel” > “ending in a long vowel”

p. 138, 140, 235: I refer to famous Cista Ficoroni (ILLRP 1197) and localize it at Praeneste. In the end,
this localization seems to be correct—the cista was discovered in 1738 or 1743 in Palestrina (Praeneste)
and is of a type that seems to have been a Praenestine specialty. But the picture is complicated some by
the text itself, which says NOVIOS PLAVTIOS MED ROMAI FECID. A possible solution would be to
interpret this sentence as “Novius Plautius commissioned me at Rome.” See Kruschwitz 2002:30.

p. 138: I write that an e becomes i ”in an open syllable before an i in a following syllable”. This
formulation works for the first two examples (cinis < *kenis and sine < *seni) but it doesn’t work for the
second two examples (similis < *semlis and vigilis < *u̯eglis) because these do not contain e in an open
syllable. It might be better to assume *semilis >similis, but one would then have explain the survival
of e in other forms in -ilis. This doesn’t seem to be too hard to do: senilis, which has a long medial i, can

  19  
be analogical to senex. Some, like Leumann, think this assimilation mainly operated over sonorants other
than r. Additional examples of this sort would be milium ’millet’ (cf. Gk. µελίνη) and tilia ‘lime-tree’ (cf.
Gk. πτελέα ‘elm-tree’).

p. 139, B.5, l. 4: fix indentation

p. 140: I write “An o in a final syllable before final -d, -s, -m, or -nt became u already by the middle of
the third century BCE” following the traditional dating of this change, but Kanehiro Nishimura in his
2008 UCLA Ph.D. dissertation, Vowel Reduction and Deletion in Italic: The Effects of Stress, calls attention
to the form L[ECIO]NIBVS (ILLRP 7) in the Caso Cantovius inscription from near the Fucine Lake which
dates to the end of the 4th century. This suggests that the date of the change ofo to u at least before -
s has to be pushed back at least 50 years or so. Similarly on p. 192 in the list of the absolute chronology
of sound changes change

“10. -oC > -uC (3rd century BCE)” to “10. -oC > -uC (ca. 300 BCE).”

p. 141, F.1: I catalogued the change of pretonic a to o after u̯ with the lone example vacīvos > vocīvos,
but I should also have mentioned vacātiō > vocātiō ‘exemption from duty’, a form which is attested a
number of times in inscriptions from the Republic (CIL I2.583 pa. 77, I2.593 pa. 93, CIL 5.4148, Brixia).

p. 141, F.2: Add Sp. ayuno ‘fast’ and the more familia des-ayuno ‘breakfast’

p. 141, G: In discussing the change of u to i between l and a labial I failed to mention what appears to be
the earliest example of the change: LIBES for libens (ILLRP 93 a, Southern Ager Capenas near Scorano)
from some time before 211 BCE when the Lucus Feroniae was destroyed by Hannibal. Of course, the old
spelling is retained for a long time afterwards.

n. 26: “Vine 2006” > “Vine 2006d”

p. 143, l. 4: “...needle’ cf. acus ‘needle’”> “...needle’ (cf. acus ‘needle’)”

p. 144: Following Benedetti 1996 I tried to limit the so-called littera or Iuppiter rule to high vowels of
diphthongal origin, but the facts are more complicated and interesting. I refer you to the handout of a
recent talk of mine.

p. 145, IV.A, l. 4: “...’tongue’ sunu...” > “...’tongue’, sunu...”

p. 148: I say that the fate of final -a (from any potential PIE origin, i.e. *-a, *-h2e or *-h2) is unclear. I
cite the case of ita, which, if equivalent to Ved. íti < *ith2, would show preservation of final -
a. However, I also note the possibility that it could come from *itā with Iambic Shortening. This
hesitancy is inconsistent with the view I endorse firmly elsewhere that the athematic neuter nom./acc.
pl. -a is from < *-h2 (e.g. p. 212). If the latter is true, then the outcome of final -a is definitively known.

  20  
But this last fact is not absolutely certain. In Sabellic it is clear that the thematic ending -ā < *-eh2 was
generalized to athematic forms as Umb. tudero ‘borders’ VI a 15 (where tudero might be standing for
/tuderof/, but the extension of the animate acc. pl. ending -f to the neuter presupposes a form tudero). If
this happened in Proto-Italic, independently, or by diffusion in the prehistory of Latin, and if there was a
phonological shortening of final -ā, then the athematic neuter nom./acc. pl. would not be informative
about the fate of final short -a. But since trīgintā etc. seems to show that there was no shortening of final
-ā, this scenario seems problematic.

In a recent article George Dunkel (2008) argues that final *-a became -e on the basis of the suffix -ne, as
in superne, supposedly from *-na, which seems to match Hitt. ištar-na, Neo-Phrygian ενσταρνα. In
addition the Umbrian form perne ‘in front’ is related to the adjective pernaio- and the most
straightforward way to do this is to start from a pre-Umbrian *pernai. This is an idea I have toyed with
myself, but I don’t feel confident that we can exclude a particle of the shape *-ne.

Dunkel also re-proposes an alternative etymology for nōn, i.e. by apocope from *nō-na, the *nō- of which
can be compared with Hitt. natta ‘not’ < *no-th2(-oh1). This is attractive since the traditional etymology
from *ne-oinom requires a lot of special pleading.

p. 151: In connection with the absolute chronology of Rhotacism I mention the well-known case of L.
Papirius Crassus who, according to Cicero, was the first of his gens no longer to write his name as
Papisius. I should have add a macron to the first i in this form. Not only is the length attested in verse
(Lucil. 1259 prima Papiria Tusculidarum#, here referring to the tribus Papiria), but if the i had been short
it would of course have been lowered to e in this environment (Weiss 2009:117).

p. 151, B.3, l. 2: “dissimilatory affects” >“dissimilatory effects”

In n. 15 on the same page I write: “According to Sextus Pomponius (Dig. 1.2.2.36), in 312 BCE Appius
Claudius updated the list of censors replacing Valesii with Valerii and Fusii with Furii.” This is not quite
correct and confusingly stated. What Pomponius actually says is:

Idem Appius Claudius... R litteram invenit, ut pro Valesiis Valerii essent, et pro Fusiis Furii.

Of course, there is no way that what Pomponius says can be literally correct—Appius Claudius didn’t
invent the letter R, which was one of the original 21 letters taken over from Etruscan. What this passage
is normally assumed to mean is that Appius Claudius introduced the use of the letter r for these names,
which previously had been spelled with s. Neither this passage nor any other explicitly states that this
spelling innovation took place in Appius Claudius’ censorship, but that is a plausible inference. See Ryan
1998. So the sentence in n. 15 should be emended to:

  21  
According to Sextus Pomponius (Dig. 1.2.2.36), Appius Claudius “invented the letter r” so that Valesii
became Valerii and Fusii became Furii.” This is normally interpreted to mean that in redacting the
senatorial roll in his capacity as censor in 312 BCE Claudius rewrote these nomina, formerly spelled with
s, with the letter r. See Ryan 1998:138.

p. 154, n. 32, l. 2 from end: “from < *reike” > “from *reike”

p. 155 VI b: my treatment of the loss of final -d in Latin is much too brief. I wrote there:

-V:d# > -V: in the third century BCE: abl. sg. -ād, -ōd, SENTENTIAD (ILLRP 511 +), POPLICOD (ILLRP
511) >> pūblicō, 36 MED (ILLRP 1197 +) > mē.

And n. 37 thereto adds:

Archaizing spellings with final -d continue to turn up until the last quarter of the second century BCE
especially in official texts.

First, a cross-reference to p. 222 E. 2 should be added where the earliest epigraphical evidence for loss of
-d (241 BCE) is mentioned. The very consistent use of final -d in the SCdB is obviously an archaizing
orthography. As many have noted, whereas the text of the SC consistently uses final -d, the concluding
paragraph about the placement of the actual document omits final -d (IN AGRO TEVRANO).

Second, it should be noted that forms with final -d after long vowels in polysyllabic ablatives are also
found in the literary transmission. For example, Naevius wrote (Blänsdorf 5): amborum uxores / noctu
Troiad exibant capitibus opertis where Vossius was the first to recognize Troiad in the transmitted Troiade.
In Plautus, final -d was not possible even as an archaism in polysyllabic nominal ablatives—there is no
trace of the Troiad type in Plautus.

And yet the monosyllabic accusative and ablative mēd and tēd— but interestingly not sēd—do occur. For
example, at Cas. 143 (Hic quidem pol certo nil ages sine med arbitro (ia6)) the manuscripts transmit and the
meter requires mēd. Similarly tēd, here the accusative, is read and required at Asin. 299: Le. quot pondo
ted esse censes nudum? Li. non edepol scio (tr7). The first line of the Curculio, Quo ted hoc noctis dicam
proficisci foras was quoted by Charisius (Barwick 1964²:143.24) and Diomedes (Keil 1.441.18) precisely
on account of its d-final form. The forms mēd and tēd do not occur in Terence and the only generally
accepted non-Plautine literary mēd seems to be Enn. frg. var. Epicharm. 45 nam videbar somniare med (ms.
me et) ego esse mortuum, but others suggested memet with excision of ego.

On the other hand, Plautus also clearly had vowel final allomorphs of the 1st and 2nd sg. pronouns since
these form undergo elision, e.g. Pseud. 375 si id non adfert, posse opinor facere me officium meum (tr 7) and
Asin. 44 Dono te ob istuc dictum, ut expers sis metu (ia6). This suggests that the loss of d was sensitive to

  22  
some prosodic factor, presumably the presence or absence of stress. Since d was always lost in
polysyllabic ablatives, which never bore the stress on the immediately preceding vowel, it must have
been after the unstressed variant that -d was lost.

In fact, it is not really clear that vowel length played a significant role in the loss of -d. A recent article
by Martin Kümmel has reopened this question. He notes that there are many epigraphical cases of the
omission of final -d in perfect 3rd sg. (IOVSI, ILLRP 129, 3rd cent. BCE, Lacus Albanus, etc.) and 3rd pl.
forms and argues that the true condition for loss of final -d was after unstressed vowels. Forms like illud,
istud, aliud can be explained as analogical to potentially tonic id and quid. The forms sed, ad, apud, and
haud might all be explained as proclitics and hence not true instance of word final -d. This account does
seem the best way to handle the dental-less 3rd sg. forms. For the plural forms in -e:ro(n) it is still
possible in my opinion that d was not lost but assimilated and then simplified. See Kümmel 2007.

p. 155, VII.A, l. 3: “Sp. arbol”, “Sp. marmol” > “Sp. árbol”, “Sp. mármol”

l. 4: “Ital. pelegrino” > “Ital. pellegrino”

p. 159: I give the preform of pessimus as *ped-tm̥ mos, but on p. 359 as *ped-ism̥ mos. So which is it? Both
reconstructions have been maintained and both can be made to work, but given the comparative
peiior < *ped-i ̯os- and given the fact that superlatives are almost always derivatives of the
comparative, *ped-ism̥ mos with *-is- the zero-grade of the comparative suffix is preferable. Sihler
1995:368 opts for *ped-tm̥ mo- on the grounds that the -tm̥ mo- superlatives typically come in antonymic
pairs and *ped-tm̥ mo- would form the antonym for optimusthat is otherwise missing, but it seems to me
that the comparative-superlative relationship is a strongly established universal (see J. Bobaljik
2012, Universals in Comparative Morphology) whereas the antonymic pattern is a Latin specific fact, and
thus I prefer to go with the reconstruction *ped-ism̥ mos.

p. 160, 4.d: “gremium ‘lap’. did not” > “gremium ‘lap’ did not”

5, l. 4: OIr. aile is not probative, since *Ci ̯ and *Cii ̯ fell together in Irish; cite MW eil

p. 161, 6.a, l. 1: “*ku̯- > kw” > “*ku̯- > kw-”

p. 163, n. 19: The cognomen Drusus quoted on p. 163, n. 19 and p. 190 as an example of initial dr-, a
cluster which is always of foreign origin in Latin, should be Drūsus. Cf. Verg. Aen. 6. 824: quin Decios
Drusosque procul saeuumque securi. Also “see below.” > “see below, p. 176.”

p. 164, n. 28 and p. 470: I cautiously mention the possibility that Etr. putlum-za ‘little vessel’ may be
borrowed from *pōtlom, the ancestor of Lat. pōc(u)lum. This view is now argued for by Hadas-Lebel
2009. The author also places the Etruscan oenochoe in the cultural context of the well-known Latin
pocula deorum.

  23  
p. 165 under 4: I quote two Plautine verses to illustrate the typical placement of “anaptycted” forms of
the suffix -clo- at verse end. I should have named the meters. Capt. 740 is an iambic senarius (ia6) and
Tri. 726 is a trochaic septenarius (tr7).

p. 167, last line: pōmeridiem > pōmerīdiem

p. 168, l. 2: “in the words in germen” > “in the words germen”

3.b, l. 2: “mercēnnarius” > “mercēnnārius”

p. 168, n. 3: The Latin word for ‘feather’ is penna, which is undoubtedly a derivative of the PIE root
*pet(h2)- ‘fly’. If we knew nothing else it would be assumed that penna was from *pet-na, but the picture
is complicated by the existence of the forms pesnis (Fest. p. 222L) and pesnas (Fest. p. 228 L). This has
led some scholars, e.g. Meiser 1998:118, to suppose that penna is from *petsna and that the outcome of *-
VtsnV- was not -V:nV-, as one might have expected, but -VnnV-. This is not totally impossible since pullus
< *putslo- (cf. pusillus) shows that at least one *-VtsRV- sequence could lead to -VRRV-. Szemerényi’s
idea, on the other hand, that penna is from *pēna by the Iuppiter rule is totally impossible. But I think the
Festus passage at 228 suggests a solution other than the one favored by Meiser. The passage reads in
Lindsay’s edition:

Pennas antiquos fertur appellasse †peenas† ex Graeco quod illi πετηνὰ quae sunt volucria, dicant. Item
easdem pesnas ut cesnas.

It is evident that what stands between the obels must be emended to pet(V)nas, as suggested by Mueller,
since only if the form had a t in it would the derivation from Greek πετηνὰ make sense. The second
sentence (item easdem pesnas ut cesnas) means that Festus’ source also knew an old form with s. Thus
there were two old forms floating around petna and pesna, just like *putslo- (Lat. pullus) beside *putlo-
(Osc. puklo-). Thus nothing stands in the way of deriving penna from *petna. Whether *petsna would
have given penna too or *pēna cannot be answered with certainty. The upshot is that I agree with what I
wrote on p. 168 n. 3.

p. 168, n. 6: “voiced to ð” > “voiced to ðl and ðm”

p. 169, 6.a, l. 2: “*knīksos” > “*knīksos ‘kneeling’”

p. 169, n. 11: I claim that Go. aleina ’ell’ which would normally be phonologized as /ali:na/ is a mistake
for *alina with a short medial syllable. This may indeed be correct but there is some evidence that might
support the reality of long i, viz. MW elin ’ellbow’ which points to a proto-form *oli:na:. I see there is an
article that I will have to read by Dirk Boutkan in Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik Vol. 41,
1995 that seek to justify *ali:na for all Germanic.

  24  
Update: Boutkan makes a good case that the Germanic forms can be derived from a Proto-Germanic
*ali:no:. He further argues that the word is a loan from Proto-Celtic *oli:na: which come from *ole:na: a
derivative of the hysterokinetic n-stem continued in Gk. ὠλήν (usually ὠλένη). I’m not sure if that is the
best way to handle these complicated data.

p. 171, l. 1: *-g/ĝs- > *-ĝ/gs-

p. 171, n. 15: I note that hiemps is a spelling attested in the 5th century Mediceus manuscript of Vergil. I
could also have noted that the spelling with p is attested epigraphically, e.g. in the so-called Menologium
Rusticum Colotianum (CIL I2.1 p. 281 col. 4 line. 9, Rome) and on the Index Nundinarius olim Fulvii Ursini
(CIL 6.32505). The grammarians opposed this spelling because p did not show up in the rest of the stem.
Terentius Scaurus wrote (Keil 7.21):

similiter (to sumtus, demptus, and comtus) hiems carere p littera debet, quia in ceteris casibus nusquam
p nec b propinqua eius respondet, sine quarum altera nusquam in Latinis ea nomina declinatur, quae in
ψ Graeca voce efferuntur, ut “princeps” et “caelebs” quia principis et caelibis scribitur.

Marius Victorinus (Keil 6.21) and Papirian. apud Cassiod. (Keil 7.161) make similar comments. In fact
spellings without p in line with the grammarians recommendations are attested for SVMSIT (CIL 4.1940.
ARACVSA PRVDENTE[R]/ SVMSIT SIBI CASTA MVTHVNIVM, 4.2067 line 10), SVMTVS (CIL 3.14607)
and DIREMSIT (CIL 9.5036).

For a discussion of the phonetics of epenthetic or “emergent” stops see Ohala 1995:162–3.

p. 172: I give the proto-form of īnferus as *h1/3ndheros, but CLuv. ānnan ‘under, below’ argues definitively
for *h1.

p. 173, 7, l. 3: fix indentation

p. 174, 1.c, l. 1: “*TK > KK” > “*-TK- > -KK-”

l. 3: *ad-kausā- >*ad-kaussā-

p. 178, l. 1: *smih2-g̑hzhlih2 > *smih2-g̑hzlih2

p. 178: In discussing the development of *-Vtsm- I give *retsmos as the pre-form for rēmus ‘oar’ and cite
the inscriptional form TRIRESMOS (ILLRP 319) in support of this. But both the reconstruction and the
evidential value of the form TRIRESMOS are highly dubious.

First, TRIRESMOS comes from the notorious Columna Rostrata inscription of Duilius. This inscription was
ostensibly composed by Gaius Duilius the consul of 260, but the actual physical monument certainly
does not date to the 3rd century BCE, but from some centuries later. The crucial question, however, is
whether the text as we have it is (1) a faithful copy of the original, (2) a flawed but honest attempted a

  25  
reproducing the original, or (3) an ancient falsification made up on the basis of what a scholarly Roman
of some centuries later would have thought Duilius should have written. If anything like the third
hypothesis is correct, then the S of TRIRESMOS is worthless since it could have been inserted on the
model of CL dūmus ‘thorn bush’ : VOL dusmos (preserved in Livius Andronicus’ 33 (31) dusmo in loco ‘in a
thorny place’) rēmus : X, X = resmos. The Columna Rostrata does have the form PRIMOS from <
*prīsmos, but that in itself does not prove that TRIRESMOS is a false archaism since one need only
assume that the modernization was carried through inconsistently or maybe even that *-Vsm- lost its s
before *-VCsm-. Nevertheless, this form in this inscription is a very thin reed to support any etymological
hypothesis about rēmus.

Second, the root in question is *h1erh1- ‘row’ (Ved. aritá: ‘rower’, Grk. ἐρέττω ‘I row’ < *h1erh1-t-i ̯oh2, etc.)
and nowhere but in Greek is there any evidence for a t-extension of the root—and the unextended from
of the root is still attested in Myc. e-re-e /erehen/ ‘to row’. The Latin form points to a schwebeablauting
e-grade pre-from *h1reh1-mos. A pre-form *h1reh1-smos would also be possible, as I mention in n. 20, but
given the dubious nature of TRIRESMOS there is no strong reason to favor it. See Vine 1993:126.

So are there any good cases of *-Vtsm-? There don’t seem to be any quoted by the usual suspects (Meiser,
Sihler, Leumann, Sommer, Meillet and Vendryes), but I’d be highly surprised if the outcome was
anything other than -V:m-. Could pōmum ‘tree-fruit’ be from *potsmo- ‘what falls’ or ‘what one seeks’? I
have selfish reasons for preferring this to the standard *po-emo- ‘what is taken away’. See Weiss
2010:229. But I wouldn’t insist on it.

p. 178 n. 15, l. 1: *mihīli > *mīhīli. The geminate ll on this analysis is supposed to indicate the palatal l,
which is unusual before the vowel e.

p. 186, ll. 10-11: “*-Vntzl-, *-Vtzn-” > “*-Vndzl-, *-Vdzn-”

p. 187, E, l. 1: “motivation” >“motivated”

p. 190: I write “Old Latin also permitted gn- as in gnārus [ŋnārus]. (Incidentally, I should have used a
point IPA colon to indicate length in a phonetic transcription). This is stated somewhat unclearly. It’s
true that OL had initial gn- clusters, whatever their exact realization, but all instances of initial gn- did
not end up with the same standard orthography in Classical Latin. There are seven native stems that
exhibit initial gn- in Old Latin. These are:

Gnaeus (a praenomen), cf. naevus ‘birthmark’ < gnaevus according to Inc. de praenom. 5)
gnārus ‘knowing’ (with the derivatives gnārigō ‘I make known’, gnāritās ‘knowledge’ (not actually OL, but
attested in Sal. Hist. 3.84), gnāruris ‘having knowledge’, and ultimately probably also narrō) gnātus ‘born’
or ‘son’, gnāvus ‘busy’, gnītor ‘I lean’ (Paul. Fest. p. 96 M), gnōscere ‘to know’

  26  
gnōbilis (Andr. Com. 3, Acc. Trag. 283). There is no doubt that Latin had a sound change ultimately
eliminating whatever preceded n-, but not all forms converge on that spelling in Classical Latin. nītor,
nōscere, nōbilis are the standard CL spellings, but in the case of Gnaeus and gnārus the spellings with gn
are almost exclusively used. A form Naeu(u)us is said to exist by Varro (gram. 330) and Varro also quotes
a form narus in an etymological discussion of narrāre (L. 6.51). In the case of gnātus, as discussed on p.
169, n. 9, there is a tendency to specialize the old spelling for ‘son’ and the new spelling for the
participle ‘born’. In the case of gnāvus the g-less spelling predominates: gnāvus is found in homo gnavus et
industrius (Cic. Verr. 2, 3, 53) and virum... gnavum (Vell. 2, 105, 2). It is probable that in the case of
gnārus and gnāvus the gn- spelling was supported by the negative compounds ignārus ‘ignorant’ and
ignāvus ‘lazy’ which both appear to be a lot more common than their antonyms. Gnaeus may have been
supported by the official abbreviation Cn. For an interesting attempt to explain the somewhat messy
behavior of originally gn- initial words when compounded see Cser 2011. Cser argues that at the mid-
stage n was preceded by a floating feature [+back], which was realized on the surface in a number of
different ways.

p. 193: “Monophthong” > “Monophthongization”

p. 194, n. 3: I mention that the case order nom., voc., acc., instr., dat., abl., gen., loc. originated with
the Sanskrit Grammarians and that’s still more or less correct (the vocative wasn’t treated as an
autonomous case per se). But the article by W. S. Allen and C. O. Brink 1980 provides some interesting
details. The Ancient grammatical tradition placed the genitive after the nominative and this is the order I
think most Americans learn or learned (I know I did). In England, on the other hand, the nom. acc. order
is or was predominant. Apparently, it was the great Dane Rasmus Rask who first introduced the nom.
acc. order, mainly on the basis of morphological arguments, but also partly under the influence of the
Sanskrit grammarians. Rask was followed by his countryman, J. N. Madvig, and Madvig’s order was
taken up by some influential British school grammars. America, possibly for reasons of Teutonophilia,
never made the switch.

p. 195, n. 6: Add Fritz 2011.

p. 195, n. 12: Add references to Hajnal 1994 and Rieken 2005 which have refuted the idea of i-mutation
as a reflex of a PIE feminine formation.

p. 199, 2.b: Ron Kim writes apropos of the idea that the Indo-Iranian treatment of the accusative plural
as a weak case is an archaism: I know this is the majority view, but have never understood it myself.
Given the merger of nom. *-es and acc. *-m̥ s, making the latter a weak case would seem to be an obvious
way to differentiate the two in e.g. Ved. āṕ -as vs. ap-ás or ad-ánt-as vs. ad-at-ás.

C.1.a, l. 2: “nix ‘snow’, <“ > C.1.a, l. 2: “nix ‘snow’ <“

p. 201, l. 6: Correct the Serbo-Croatian vocative of ‘woman’ from žȅna to žȅno.

  27  
p. 202, n. 33: I give a list of some Republican epigraphical examples of the alternate consonant-stem
gen. sg. ending -os or -us, but I didn’t know that according to Solin 1991:354 forms in -us are found as
late as the the Augustan period, e.g. AERVS (CIL 4.2440, 3 BCE), CAESARVS (i.e. Octavian, CIL 11.
6721.13).

p. 203, c.ii: I wrote “Hieroglyphic Luvian has -V-sa/i < -Vs(s)o as a thematic gen. sg. ending.” but this is
not quite accurate. HLuv. -Ca-si and Carian -ś reflect *-osi ̯o, but HLuv. -CV-sa is ambiguous since it might
continue *-o/eso or just *-os.

p. 203, c.iii: “*-o(n)s(i)̯ o” > “*-o(n)so” (Whatever the Tocharian endings continue, they show no reflex
of a glide.)

p. 206, C.2, l. 2: “Lith. šunìͅͅs” > “Lith. šunìs”

C.4, ll. 3-4: “is from *-ōns.” (see now Kim 2012)

n. 6, last line: “Boeotian, > -οις” “Boeotian, -οις”

p. 207, D.2, l. 1: “agníbhiḥ ‘with fires,’ “ > “agníbhiḥ ‘with fires’,”

D.5, l. 3: Vedic “devébhiḥ could be from *-o-i-bhis, as I say, but this is not necessary. It could be simply
remodeled on dat. abl. -ebhyaḥ. Iranian has not trace of *-o-i-bhis.

E.1.d, l. 2: “žverìms” > “žvėrìms”

p. 207, n. 7: I mention the idea that the PBS instr. pl. ending *-mīs might come from *-mins with an n
imported from the accusative. But this was never too likely. Melchert and Oettinger instead suggest that
*-mīs was modelled on an unattested but reconstructable *-bhīs < *-bhi-is.

p. 208, E.3, l. 2: “(-οισι <*-oisu” > “(-οισι << *-oisu”

p. 209, n. 18, l. 3: “noun phrase” > “noun phrases”

p. 210, C.3, l. 2: “*-ou” > “*-au”, “vlĭku” >“vlŭku”

III.D.1, l. 2: “watar, wedenaš” > “wātar, widenaš”

p. 211, l. 1: danatta > dannatta

p. 211: The content of note (l) about the origin of the Lith. instr. sg. -mìs should be moved to note (j)

p. 211, n. 24: For more examples of the neuter plural to animate singular—the locus ~ loca
phenomenon—in Hittite alluded to on p. 211 fn 24 see Melchert 2000:62–4.

p. 212: I compare the Hittite instrumental suffix -it with the Vedic adverbial suffix -it. But Melchert and
Oettinger argue that the underlying form of the suffix is -d as in the pronominal form ke-e-et ÍD-az /kēd

  28  
hābats/ ‘on this side of the river’ etc. and that the i is epenthetic. Hence there is no comparison between
Hittite and Vedic.

p. 212, B, l. 6: “žverìms” > “žvėrìms”

p. 213, B.1, l. 3: also the nom. and voc. pl. were the same in PIE.

p. 213–4: I discuss the replacement of the o-stem locative for place names by the ablative and note that
this replacement begins to turn up in the late 1st century BCE, however, I didn’t say anything about the
replacement of the a-stem ending -ae by -a. Löfstedt, Syntactica II, p. 76 claimed that the ending -ae hung
on tenaciously for many more centuries and dates the first certain cases of the locatival ablative for place
names to the 5th century. But Solin 1997:143 points out that epigraphical examples are known from at
least the 1st century CE, e.g. Q. VIBIVS P. F. QVI(RINA) KANIO TREBVLA, where some editors
erroneously emend to TREBVLAE. Whether Löfstedt’s point in modified form is still valid requires further
investigation.

p. 215, B.1.a, table: “feíhuss” > “feíhúss”

p. 217: “šiiaoθna-” > “ší iaoθna-” (and ší iaoθnəm, ší iaoθna in table)

Move maṣ̌iiə̄ṇg down one line to the accusative plural cell.

p. 218, 5, table: “antušḫan, antušḫi” > “antuḫšan, antuḫši”

p. 221: I mention that according to Nigidius Figulus (apud. Aul. Gell. 13.26.1) the vocative of Valerius
was Válerī, but the genitive was Valérī. Should we take this testimony seriously and if so how is it to be
interpreted?

First, it is interesting to note that Gellius himself clearly did not accent the vocative of Valerius in this
way since he says that anybody who pronounced the vocative as Válerī would be laughed at (Sed si quis
nunc Valerium appellans, in casu vocandi, secundum id praeceptum Nigidii, acuerit primam, non aberit quin
rideatur). Presumably this means that Gellius said Valérī for both the genitive and the vocative.

From the historical point of view, however, the vocative Válerī could make sense: since the change of *-
ije to -ī (the fīlī rule, Weiss 2009:122) was probably Proto-Italic, this word would have been a trisyllable
at the time of the emergence of the Classical Latin stress rules.

On the other hand, explaining the position of the stress in the genitive as phonologically regular is
difficult: if in the genitive *-ijī contracted to -ī before the emergence of the CL stress rules then we should
expect Válerī just like the vocative; on the other hand, if *-ijī contracted to -ī after the emergence of the
CL stress rules we would still expect Válerī since *Valerijī would have been stressed on the the first

  29  
syllable by the facilius rule still operative in Plautus’ day. Thus it seems that Valérī can only be the result
of a columnar accent.

This still leaves open the possibility that the vocative Válerī simply escaped the analogy until sometime
after Nigidius and before Gellius. But there is perhaps another possible explanation. Nigidius says: in casu
vocandi summo tonost prima, deinde gradatim descendunt. He seems to be describing a gradual (gradatim)
tonal downglide. Could Nigidius be describing the so-called vocative chant? In English and other
languages there is a special tonal contour for calling people or animals, e.g. to supper. In English this is
typically realized as a H(igh) tone associated with the primary stress of the word followed by a M(id)
tone on the following unstressed syllables. See Hammond 1999:156.

p. 223 n. 39, l. 1: “But The SCdB” > “But the SCdB”

p. 225, l. 1: “nominative accusative” > “nominative-accusative”

p. 226, n. 57, l. 2: “and o-stems” > “and o-stem”

p. 228, n. 1: In addition to the somewhat exotic example of Muna Ron Kim notes that the phenomenon
of inanimate plurals taking singular verb forms is also found in (Classical) Arabic, and modern Turkish
and is quite widespread in the world’s languages.

p. 234, 6.a, l. 2 from end: “must have writte” > must have written”

p. 234, n. 10: I mention that the form MORAI from a 4th century inscription from Signia or the Ager
Signinus (the place is called Signianot Signum as I write there and is modern Segni about 60 km southeast
of Rome) is the earliest example of gen. sg. -ī in any stem class. However, this is no longer true. Biella
2009 has published a 7th century Calix from Falerii with the inscription TITI. This form is most probably
a genitive of the common praenomen Titos and might be taken as more evidence that the original locus
of the -ī genitive was in names.

p. 236, 11, l. 3: “tāś am” >“tāś ām”

p. 238, l. 3 from end: “...’artisan,’”> “...’artisan’ < *arti-fak-s,”

p. 241 (cf. p. 242 ): I cite the Hittite form itar, itnaš as a cognate of Lat. iter, itineris, but this word does
not exist. Its one alleged occurrence (KUB 41.8 i 20) is now read as DUMU-tar ’offspring’. See Miller
2008. The Tocharian cognates remain safe...for now.

p. 241, l. 6: “ūber ‘rich’” > “ūber ‘udder’”

p. 242, A, table: acc. switch *-oi ̯-m̥ and *-ei ̯-m̥

  30  
comments “...’seer’ < *-ei ̯m̥ ” > “...’seer’ << *-ei ̯m̥ ”

p. 242, B1: I give a complete paradigm of mare as an exemplum for the neuter i-stems, but Erica Bexley
lately of Cornell, now of Terra Australis, has called my attention to the fact that the expected genitive
plural marium is never attested in all of Classical Latinity. I couldn’t believe it at first, but it is true. The
absence of the oblique plural forms of mare was noted by the Grammarians. The 4th-century CE
Charisius (p. 38.6 Barwick) wrote:

maria tamen quamvis dicantur pluraliter, attamen ne marium nec maribus dicemus.

(Followed by Ars Bobiensis (M. De Nonno 1982: 29, 22): quamuis maria dicitur nec marium nec maribus...
accipimus and [Augustinus] Regulae: mare maria: sed pluraliter tres casus habet tantum, nominatiuum
accusatiuum et uocatiuum, genitiuum datiuum et ablatiuum non habet: non enim dicimus in genitiuo horum
marium aut in datiuo his maribus aut in ablatiuo ab his maribus.)

Priscian (2.351 Keil) gave an actual example of the supposedly nonexistent ablative plural maribus from
Caesar and quote a line of Naevius with the genitive plural marum, not marium:

et sciendum tamen, quod rarissime haec, quae in solam i finiunt ablatiuum, syncopam patiuntur i per
genetiuum pluralem. inueni marum pro marium, qui tamen in rarost usu genetiuus, apud Naeuium in
carmine belli Punici (Blänsdorf 9):

senex fretus pietatei deum adlocutus

summi deum regis fratrem Neptunum
regnatorem marum

pro marium. eius ablatiuum Caesar in V belli Gallici (5.1) ponit: paulo latiores quam quibus in reliquis
utimur maribus.

Basically the word seems to have been defective in the plural. The form marum is surprising since we are
confident that this word has been an i-stem for a very long time having an exact morphological match in
Old Irish muir ‘sea’ < *mori. It must be analogical.

B, Plural table acc.: “animalia” > “animālia”

p. 244, l. 2: “labēs” > “lābēs”

p. 245, 6, l. 5 The i-stem abl. sg. -ī is best preserved in neuter nouns and also general in i-stem
adjectives adjective (cf. grav-ī, trīst-ī). In 3rd declension adjective the ending -ī has even spread to original
consonant-stem types. In addition to participles mentioned in the text -ī is also the normal form for all

  31  
third declension adjectives (e.g. duplīcī) except for caeles ‘heavenly’, compos ‘endowed with’, particeps
‘partaking’, prīnceps ‘first’ dēses ‘lazy’, pūbēs ‘full-grown’, impūbēs ‘not full-grown’, sōspes ‘safe’, caelebs
‘living alone’, superstes ‘surviving’, dīves ‘rich’ pauper ‘poor’, and vetus ‘old’. Comparatives also regularly
have an ablative in -e, e.g. MAIORE (CIL 1.583.65, 123-3 BCE); Ablativ comparative forms in -ī are first
attested in the early Empire (maiori pondere Luc. 7.162, leviori sumptu Juv. 7.77). These adjectives also
normally have gen. pl. forms in -um. Ablative in -e for normal -ī are found occasionally in Poetry. There
is much more to say here. I will have to cover all of this in more detail in a second edition, which will
have a chapter devoted to adjectives.

p. 246, n. 22: In the quote from Aul. Gell. 13.21, read insubidius for insupidius.

Incidentally, Aulus Gellius is almost our sole source for information on this adjective and its apparent
family. At 19.9.11 Antonius Iulianus quotes some erotic verses of a certain Valerius Aedituus:

Dicere cum conor curam tibi, Pamphila, cordis,

Quid mi aps te quaeram? verba labris abeunt,
Per pectus manat subito subido mihi sudor
Sic tacitus, subidus, dum pudeo, pereo.

When, Pamphila, I try to tell my love,

What shall I ask of you? Words fail my lips,
A sudden sweat o’erflows my ardent breast;
Thus fond and silent, I refrain and die.
[Translation John C. Rolfe, Loeb edition]

Aside from this passage with two instances of subidus, Aulus Gellius uses insubidus (also Aul. Gell. 7.1.2
(“nihil est prorsus istis,” inquit, “insubidius,”) 12.2.11 (inepti et insubidi hominis), 18.8.1 (quam sint insubida
et inertia), 19.9.9 (tamquam vastos quosdam et insubidos)) and its adverb insubide (Aul. Gel. 1.2.4
(intempestive atque insubide)) multiple times. The only other example I’ve been able to find outside of
Gellius is Lampridius Vit. Commod. 47 (= Scr. hist. Aug. 1.99.8) fuit vultu insubido ut ebriosi solent.

The adjective subidus is usually related to the verb subō, -āre ‘be in heat’, but I have to say that if subidus
means ‘horny’ it contrast rather oddly with the apparently restrained tone of the poem. But perhaps that
is the point. In any case the negated forms to judge from context mean ‘foolish’ or ‘lame’ (in the modern
metaphorical sense). The semantic are also odd ‘not-horny’ > ‘foolish’ and perhaps a partial semantic
contamination with the family of sapiō is responsible.

In that same footnote change Varro (L. 8.67) to Varro (L. 8.66).

p. 248, B.1, comments to table: for “See II B” read “See p. 253–4”

  32  
n. 36: “as noted above in II B” > “as noted on p. 253–4”

p. 249: In the chart of PIE endings for the u-stems beside the lengthened grade endingless locative in*-
ēu (or *-ēu̯ as I probably should have written it) add the ending-ful locative *-eu̯-i.

p. 250: Voltai, a form from ILLRP 192, which should by my practice be represented as VOLTAI, is
attributed to Faliscan, but this is problematic. True the text is from Falerii Novi—it’s from the famous
dedication of the Faliscan cooks, but there is really nothing distinctively Faliscan about the text of either
side of the inscription. All the other forms I cite from ILLRP 192 are not attributed to either Latin or
Faliscan in the text, although the index treats them as Faliscan. The name Volta itself is distinctively
Faliscan (see Bakkum 2009:253), but the gen. sg. ending is indistinguishable from Latin.

p. 252, C.7, l. 2: “dat sg.” > “dat. sg.”

D, last line: “aššū” > “āššū”

n. 11, last line: “Martinez” > “Martínez”

p. 253, G, l. 2: “< *su̯ekruh2s,” > “<< *su̯ekruh2s,”

p. 255, n. 22: I mention that Aulus Gellius (9.14) claims to have found 5th declension gen. sg. forms in -
es in the manuscripts of Cicero (he quotes Sest. 28 equites vero daturos illius dies poenas) and—to state it
more accurately than I did in the book—affirms his trust in those who claim that a manuscript in Vergil’s
own hand had dies as a gen. sg. at Georg. 1.208. At Sest. 28 the manuscript tradition does not apparently
preserve any trace of the readings Gellius preferred, but at Georg. 1.208, according to the ap. crit. in the
Hirtzel OCT, the manuscript known as π, the 9th century Codex Pragensis, is reported by Kvičala to
preserve the reading dies. There is at least one possible case of the 5th declension gen. sg. in -es found in
the transmission of Cicero. Brent Vine points out to me that at Cael. 80 the reading plenam spes is found
in B vs. the plenam spei of most mss. B is the name of the excerpts made by Bartolommeo Di
Montepulciano from the lost manuscript of Cluny lent him by Poggio Bracciolini, which often preserves
ancient readings.

p. 257, n. 13: Add Dieu 2011.

p. 260: The Hittite form duwān (parā) ‘long ago’ should be added to Gk. δ(ϝ)ήν as a reflex of the e-
grade*du̯eh2-m with Stang’s Law. See Melchert 2008.

p. 262, n. 14: Add Lindner 2011–12.

p. 264, n. 20: I mentioned that the form PRIMOɔENIA from Praeneste appears to use an inverted C to
indicate a segment resulting from the palatalization of a velar. In reading Alfred M. Tozzer’s, A Maya
Grammar, I learned that some early Spanish works represented the Mayan glottalized affricate /tsʔ/ with

  33  
inverted c, i.e. ɔ. In fact, this usage is found already in Juan Coronel’s Arte en lengua de
Maya (1620). Could this practice have been inspired by the conventional view that Claudius’ symbol for
/ps/was an antisigma, i.e. a reversed sigma? Coronel doesn’t discuss the alphabet he uses. According to
Oliver 1949:253, who incidentally—I take the liberty of saying on my blog—was a thoroughly
despicable person, the shape of this Claudian letter as transmitted in the manuscripts of Priscian was
approximately ɔc not ɔ, which was introduced by emendation of Buecheler. If this is correct then the
early Spanish padres could not have been directly inspired by Claudius’ practice. Oliver is certainly not
correct in attributing the interpretation of antisigma as ɔ to Buecheler. It goes back at least to A. L.
Schneider according to Fr. Osann, but how much beyond that I can’t say.

p. 272, n. 32: I translate qui aduncum bracchium habet as ‘someone who has a hooked hand’. Of course, it
should be ‘someone who has a hooked arm’.

p. 272, n. 34: “λευκός type” >“λευκός-type”

p. 273, n. 38, l. 1: “thematic derivative” > “thematic derivatives”

p. 278, 3.e, l. 1: “root” > “roots”

p. 279, n. 69: “aduluscēns” > “adulēscēns”

n. 73, ll. 3-4: “‘I was writing’” > “‘I (m.) was writing’”

p. 283, d.i, l. 2: “← from the perfect stem” > “← the perfect stem”

p. 283, n. 98: I mention the adverb lūdicrē which occurs in Ennius, but the Ennius passage preserved by
Nonius p. 195.1 L reads: pars ludicre saxa iactant, inter se licitantur which must be divided as Skutsch 69-
70 and others do after saxa:

pars ludicre saxa

iactant, inter se licitantur

This means, as Brent Vine pointed out to me, that the final e of ludicre is short and probably is to be
taken as the neuter of an adjective ludicris* which Priscian Keil 2.350 (ab hoc ludicri) attests. The OLD
gets this right s.v. ludicre.

p. 284, 6.b, l. 1: “sometime” > “sometimes”

l. 2: ‘light colored’ >“light-colored”

p. 285, l. 6: Replace apparently nonexistent TB wire ‘young’ with TA wir

p. 287, c.ii, l. 2: ‘fire-wood’ > ‘firewood’

  34  
n. 113 “replaced (Slavic)” > “largely replaced”

p. 291, l.2: “*di ̯eu-” > “*di ̯eu̯-”

n. 131, l. 2: “verbs -eō” > “verbs in -eō”

p. 297, l. 2: “lost it” >“lost its”

p. 299, ii, l. 7: “nominātīvus” > “nōminātīvus”

p. 300, III.A, l. 2: “‘ground-grain’” > “‘ground grain’”

n. 176: “takes it name” > “takes its name”

p. 303, 2.a, l. 5: ‘all conquering’ >‘all-conquering’

p. 306, 4.a, l. 2: ‘bed-bug’ >‘bedbug’

l. 9: dēfēnsōr > dēfēnsor

1.b, l. 4: “salīna ‘salt-works’,” > “salīna ‘salt works’,”

p. 309, n. 40, l. 4: “have borrowed some endings” >“have taken some of their endings”

p. 310, c, l. 1: “as -on in” > “as -on- in”

p. 310–1: I endorse the claim of Jasanoff that animate n-stems retained their n in the nominative
singular after ē in hysterokinetics but lost their final -n after ō, chiefly in amphikinetics. However, the
Hittite evidence does not support this view. If Hittite MUNUS-anza ‘woman’ is to be read
/kwanza/ reflecting a root noun *gwōns, that would suggest survival of n and recharacterization with
s. On the other hand, if Hitt. aliyaš ‘deer’ reflects an n-stem nominative *h1olē+s. Of course, these facts
do not settle the question of the true distribution of n-ful and n-less nominatives.

p. 314, 9, l. 1: “at least where” > “at least were”

̂
p. 315, a, last line: Add “...’jagged point’ ← *h2ek-ro- (Gr. ἄκρος) ← *h2ek-̂ ‘be sharp’.”and remove ocar
which according to my current thinking (Weiss 2013:349) does not exactly match Latin ocris, but OI
ochair ‘edge, border’.

p. 316: Filip De Decker alerts me to a confusing formulation on p. 316 where I identify a subclass of -ti-
stems with o-grade including frons, frontis; fons, fontis; mons, montis and pons, pontis. Synchronically this
is of course true, but in the case of pons the root is *pent- (cf. Gk. πόντ-ος ‘sea’ and PDE find) and hence
the morpheme boundary was originally after the t (pont-) and not before it (pon-t-).

pg. 317: The paragraph number must be revise from “4. -ni-”, on

  35  
4.a (= E.a), l. 3: “OCS ogn’ĭ”

**pp. 317-21: similarly, change 5-13 to F-N; a, b, c to 1, 2, 3; i, ii, iii to a, b, c**

p. 321, IV.A.1, l. 1: “Masculine” >“Masculines”

p. 322, B.4, l. 2: “consulātus” > “cōnsulātus”

ll. 10-1: put “Enclitic:...” on separate line?

p. 330, l. 1: “῾ᾱµιν” > “῾ᾱµίν”

D.4, l. 3: “Ved. dat. ásme” > “Ved. dat. asmé”? But one should also note that this form is mainly used as
the locative and it is hard to separate the m here from the m that shows up throughout the non-
nominative stem of the 1st plural pronoun.

D.5, l. 1: “PDE we, our, us, OE wē, ūre,...” > “PDE we, our, us < OE wē, ūre,...”

p. 331, l. 2 from end: “NHG ihr, euer, ihr, euch” > “NHG ihr, euer, euch”

p. 332, last line: “acc. du. *u̯oh1 vs. acc. pl. *u̯os.” > “acc. du. *u̯o-h1 vs. acc. pl. *u̯o-s.”

p. 333, VIII.A, l. 3: “mojĭ, and” > “mojĭ and”

p. 336 n. 1: Ron Kim notes that OE sē can also straightforwardly continue *siz, influenced by *hiz > OE
hē.

n. 2: According to Krahe and Meid 1969:63 the OE instrumental þȳ was influenced by hwȳ ‘why’ (cf. ON
því, which took over the v of hví too).” hwȳ occurs beside hwī which may continue and old locative *kwei ̯.
Krahe and Meid 1969:72 suggest that hwȳ somehow results from the contamination of hū ‘how’ and hwī.

Also PDE the in the the more the merrier actually continues OE þé (as in c897 K. ÆLFRED tr.
Gregory Pastoral Care xvii. 122 Oft sio wund bið ðæs þe wierse & ðy mare. “Often the wound becomes
the worse and the greater”) an old locative. OE þȳ survived into ME but died out around 1300.  

p. 335: I wrote “Hittite evidence has been taken to suggest that the *so-/*to- pronoun originates in the
combination of a sentence initial particle *su and a sentence-initial particle *to with an anaphoric
pronoun stem *(h1)o-.” But this is unlikely since, to quote a communication of Craig Melchert’s, “šu has
now been shown to correlate with past tense and ta with present-future. And the latter is with Rieken,
MSS 59 (1999) 85-86, likely to be *toh1, an instrumental to the anaphoric stem. In any case, the Luvian
“particle” *-sod attached to neuter nom.-acc. singulars shows that Anatolian had *so- as well as *to- as a
deictic/anaphoric stem. NB also dat. sg. enclitic *-soi. The peculiar suppletion in the *so-/to- paradigm is
likely to be very ancient. Anatolian shows no trace of it because it almostentirely eliminated that entire
pronoun in favor of *obho/i-.”

  36  
p. 337, B, table: sg. fem. acc. “*teh2m” > “*téh2m”

du. masc. nom./acc. “*tó-h1e” > “*tó-h1(e)”

pl. dat./abl. “*tóibhos, *téh2bhos, *tóibhos” >“*tóibh(i ̯)os, *téh2bh(i ̯)os, *tóibh(i ̯)os”

p. 338, 1.c: also OHG der, diu, daȥ

4, ll. 6-7: *česmu was remodeled on the inanimate gen. sg. česo to give OCS česomu. The development
was not phonological.

n. 6, l. 1: “*-smi ̯- to *-si ̯-” > “*-smi ̯- to *-si ̯-”

p. 340, 4, l. 1: The Mycenaean form of µιν written mi.

p. 342: In his review James Clackson points out correctly that it is misleading to say, as I do on p. 342,
that the monosyllabic scansion of dat. sg. ei is typical for Classical Latin. All forms of is, ea, id were less
common in Classical (Augustan) poetry than prose and the oblique forms were especially rare. See
Meader 1901 for some statistics. The dative singular is not used at all by Vergil or the Elegaic poets.
There are, however, a number of instances of ei in Late Republican and Imperial poetry:

At Catull. 82.3 (eripere ei noli, multo quod carius illi) ei must be a monosyllable, but at Ps.-Ov. Hal. 34
(semper ei similis quem contegit, atque ubi praedam) it must be an iamb. Similarly at Germanicus’ Arat. 333
(talis ei custos aderit canis ore timendo) and 457 (lactis ei color, et mediis via lucet in umbris). The form ei
also occurs in epigraphic poetry once as a long monosyllable at CIL 3.10501 (= Buecheler CLE 489,
Aquincum): vox ei grata fuit, pulsabat pollice cordas and once as an iamb at CIL 3.754 (Buecheler CLE
492:15, 3rd cent. CE, Nicopolis): intima nulla ei quae non mihi nota fuere, a poem which Buecheler says is
omni genere vitiorum deformatum. There are some other instances of ei in CLE but the scansions are
uncertain. Since the form was so rare it hardly makes sense to say that any scansion was typical.

p. 351: The Oscan form pui at Cp. 37.1, as Clackson points out, is not exactly attested. The sequence
actually reads according to Rix’s edition pụ[i: / pu]ị. The lithograph produced by Buecheler in RhM
1878 shows just the tail of something that could be an i. If the restoration is correct we have a virtual
pui, but a more important issue is whether pui is the nom. sg. as I interpreted it or the dat. sg. = Lat.
cui. (so Vetter p. 424). Looking at the context again (the so-called Curse of Vibia) it seems more
probable to me now that pui if correctly restored is a dat. sg. If that is the case it could not be an exact
morphological match for cui, but a simple remodeling of the inherited form on the basis of the thematic
dat. sg. So at p. 351 pui should simply be stricken and at p. 470 the Umb. form poi or the Osc. nom. sg.
fem. paí should be substituted.

  37  
p. 351: I site the form QVOIIVS from ILLRP 309, the Elogium of Cornelius Scipio Barbatus, but in fact,
the correct reading is QVOIVS. The spelling quoiius is attested a number of times in the mss. of Plautus,
e.g. Bacch. 1006, Most. 970.

p. 354 E: In discussing the adverbial forms in -ā like inter-eā ’meanwhile’ I suggest that these forms
are most probably old feminine instrumental ablatives, but I failed to mention another attractive
possibility proposed by J-L García Ramón 1997 that these forms are old feminine instrumentals < *-
eh2(e)h1. If that is correct then these would constitute an addition case of the retention of final -ā in
Latin.

p. 357: I give the proto-form of iuxtā as *iugistā. The zero-grade u with a short vowel goes against de
Vaan 2008:318 and Watkins 1975:530 who specifically notes “a ma connaissance aucune évidence ne
nous empêche de postuler un ū longe.” But the evidence of Old French, which has joste ‘next to’ and the
derived verb joster ‘put side by side, joust’ points clearly to a short vowel. See the Dictionnaire
étymologique de l’ancien français s.v. Forms with u in the various Romance languages are secondary. This
fact has interesting consequences for the morphological analysis of this form. It makes connection with
the neuter s-stem iūgera even more difficult, but it also doesn’t exactly favor Watkins’s deverbal
superlative analysis since those forms too tend to have full-grades.

In any case connection with the root of iungō is unavoidable and this means that the g of iug- has been
devoiced before a voiceless consonant without the operation of Lachmann’s Law. The absence of
lengthening—cf. fūsus from *fud-to- with LL—might be explained in a number of different ways. It might
be the case that LL didn’t apply to secondary sequences arising by syncope (hence maximus, despite its
lone apex, really doesn’t have a long vowel). Or it might be the case that it did apply to such sequences
but only if the voiced stop was temporarily reintroduced on the basis of related forms. In the case of
iuxtā the derivational connection with iungō was obscure enough that this didn’t happen.

p. 366 3, l. 1: “‘double natured’” > “‘double-natured’”

p. 367, 5.a: Romanian also retains masc. and fem. forms of ‘two’: doi m. and două f.

p. 372, O.3, ll. 2-3: In addition to Macedonian other Slavic languages show the irregular loss of d: SC
jedànaest, Pol. jedenaście, or Cz. jedenáct

6.a, l. 1: “*nōna(g)intā” > “*nōnā(g)intā”

p. 373, b, last line: “*cinquá(g)enta” > “*cinquáenta”

̂ -t” > “*dékm̥

P.1, l. 1: “*dekm̥ ̂ -t”

p. 374, II.A: A quantity problem that I puzzled over for a long time: was the a of prandium long or short?
In the book on p. 374 I indicate my uncertainty by putting a macron in parentheses over the vowel.

  38  
Since prandium is from *prāmo-ediom ‘what is eaten first’, there is little doubt that the a must originally
have been long. But since we also know that a long vowel that ends up before n plus a consonant by
syncope appears to have been shortened by a second round of Osthoff’s Law (p. 126), there would be
good reason to assume that the first vowel of prandium was short in Classic Latin. Since long and short a
are never distinguished in Romance, and the Celtic evidence which is sometimes useful for determine the
quantity of a, isn’t in this case (OIr. proinn, MW prain), we have no direct or indirect evidence for the
quantity of the first vowel.

If we compare other vowels before -nd- that are distinguished in the Romance reflexes we find
ambiguous evidence. On the one hand, the French and Spanish reflexes of undecim ‘eleven’ (Fr. onze, Sp.
once) suggest that the vowel was shortened. On the other hand, the reflexes of vendere ‘sell’ point to the
one-time presence of a long vowel:

Ital. vendere (with a close e), OFr. vendre, Sp. vender, Sicil. vinniri

Cf. the reflexes minta ‘mint’

Ital. menta (with a close e), OFr. mente Sp. menta, Sicil. minta

This pair shows that the first vowel of vendere had reflexes identical to those of i, and therefore must
have been a high mid-vowel reflecting a Classical Latin ē. I suspect the shortening before -nd- was
phonological and that vēndere had its length restored on the basis of vēneō, vēnīre ‘to be sold.’ So all in
all, prandium most likely did have a short a.

p. 374, D.1, l. 3: “(δέκατος” > “(Gk. δέκατος”

p. 375, n. 64, l.1: Correct letter of Pāṇini

p. 380, last line: “yuñkte” > “yuṅkte”

p. 381, n. 22, l. 2: “as the follower” > “as the followed”

p. 384, n. 28, l. 1: “central Proto-Indo-European” > “central Indo-European”

p. 385, 2.e, ll. 3-5: note also Cz., Slk., OR -me vs. SC, Ukr., Slov. older BR., Slovak dialects, Bulg. dial.,
Maced. dial., Russ. dial. -mo. On the ending -mo in Slavic see now Reinhart 2012 who points out that -mo
first appears in athematic verbs and may originally have been motivated by a desired to keep apart the
1st sg. and 1st pl. which after the loss of the jers would both have been just -m.

p. 386 n. 39: Michiel de Vaan points out that where I list the OL alternative 3rd plural forms in -nunt,
e.g. danunt, redīnunt, etc. I give the forms inserinuntur and solinunt with long i’s, but this is incorrect.

  39  
There is no positive evidence for a long vowel in either case and a long i in inserinuntur might adversely
affect the scansion of the Saturnian in which it occurs.

p. 387, 1.b: I should cite εἶπες rather than εἶπας in the text since it is general thought that the
reduplicated aorist was thematic in PIE. Both forms are attested from Homer on, but εἶπας is the more
commonly occurring form in Classical Attic.

1.f, l. 2: : : “*-n̥t > -αν” > “*-n̥t >> -αν”

p. 389, 3, ll. 5-6: Cf. also TA pret. mid. 1sg. -e (vs. TB -mai, with -m- from the pres./subj.).

p. 392–3: in discussing the archaic 3rd sg. perf. ending -eit I give the form FVEIT from ILLRP 918 ( =
CIL I2.1297). But, in fact, Degrassi prints FVVEIT. Unfortunately the inscription from Rome is now lost.
According to Degrassi only Marini, an 18th century scholar, read FVVEIT, while others have FVEIT.
Since FVVEIT is the lectio difficilior, it is probably what the inscription had. There are a number of other
inscriptional attestations of the perfect ending -eit, which should be mentioned: POSEDEIT (ILLRP 517,
Isoverde, probably composed at Rome, 117 BCE), PROBAVEIT (ILLRP 379, Rome, 62 BCE beside
COERAVIT). As a matter of fact, none of these is old enough to prove an original diphthong *ei. At most
they confirm the evidence of Plautine scansion that one variant of the 3rd singular perfect ending
inherited a bimoraic nucleus before the final consonant. Another set of inscriptional 3rd sg. perf. forms
with the spelling -EIT consists of cases where -EIT is preceded by I (mainly compounds of īre ‘to go’ like
REDIEIT (ILLRP 122, Rome, mid 2nd cent. BCE), VENIEIT (Lex Agraria, ll. 58, 65, 67, 75, 91, 111 BCE,
and OBIEIT (ILLRP 589, Ferentium, Modern Ferento, 67 BCE, according to the reading of A. Emiliozzi
1983:701; AE 1980:0371, Casa Biagi; CIL 10.1935, 14 BCE), but also POSIEIT ‘placed’ (AE 1987:0252,
Sulmo)). In these forms other factors may be involved, viz. the avoidance of graphic II and/or a
dissimilation of ii to ie (Kent 1912 and Weiss OHCGL:429). In any case, although Latin inscriptional
evidence does not strictly prove the diphthongal origin of the ending -EIT, there is no other plausible
source. The originator of the idea that -eit is from recharacterized -ei appears to be J. Vendryes, who
proposed this solution in 1937.

p. 393: I discuss the evidence for an Old Latin 3rd sg. perf. ending -īt, but I didn’t say anything about an
interesting phenomenon in Classical Latin poetry which has recently been studied by Marina del Castillo
Herrera 2009. In Ovid there are 42 examples of 3rd sg. perfects ending in -iit before a vowel which scan
as -iīt and no examples of the prevocalic scansion -iĭt. This contrasts with the treatment in Vergil where
20 examples of -iĭt and one (maybe two) of the scansion -iīt (Alcides subiit, haec illum regia cepit Aen.
8.363). The probable explanation is that the one example in Vergil is a metrical lengthening on the
Ennian and Homeric model whereas Ovid’s usage suggest a real (i.e. not metrically lengthened) long
vowel. The probable explanation for Ovid’s -iīt is that -iit contracted to -īt, a form attested already in
Plautus, and that -iīt is a conflation of the contracted and uncontracted forms.

  40  
p. 393, n. 60: I mention the phenomenon of syllabic notation whereby a consonantal letter is used to
represent the consonant itself and the vowel found in its name. For example DCVMIVS for Decumius
(ILLRP 70, Praeneste) and LVBS for lubē(n)s (ILLRP 82, 217). Interestingly, the Hadrianic grammarian Q.
Terentius Scaurus (7.15 Keil) mentions this practice in his work De orthographia: singulae pro syllaba
scribebantur, tamquam satis eam ipso nomine explerent: ut puta decimus, d per se deinde cimus; item
cera, c simplex et ra, et bene, b et ne. ita et quotiens kanus et karus scribendum erat, quia singulis litteris
primae syllabae notabantur, k prima ponebatur, quae suo nomine a continebat, quia, si c posuissent,
cenus et cerus futurum erat, non canus et carus. Scaurus was probably drawing on older sources here.
Incidentally a new edition and commentary of Scaurus’ De orthographia (Biddau 2008) was recently
published. See the review by Leofranc Holford-Strevens.

p. 394: -ĕrunt is not absent from classical poetry. As Clackson points out, I made a mistake in
representing the statistics for the 3rd plural perfect endings. I followed the presentation of Bauer 1933,
but Bauer lumped together -ērunt and -ĕrunt in his counts whereas I separated them. This creates the
misleading impression that -ĕrunt is not attested in Vergil or Horace, but that is wrong. According to Pye
1963 -erunt is attested at Verg. E. 4.61, G. 2.129, 3.283, Aen. 2.774, 3.48, 3.681, and 10.334. So the
figures for Vergil should be corrected to -ērunt 22 vs. -ĕrunt 7. In Horace according to Pye there are three
examples of -ĕrunt (Epod. 9.17, S. 1.10.45, Ep. 1.4.7). So the figures for the Satires should be corrected
to -ērunt 10 vs. -ĕrunt 1. The figures for Plautus, Terence, and Juvenal are correct.

p. 395, 1.b, l. 1: “*-esi ?,” > “*-esi (?),”

l. 2: “points to < *-éi.” >“points to *-éi.”

p. 397, F.2, 3pl.: “sequēbāntur” > “sequēbantur”

p. 400, II.A.1.c, l. 4: “*-ā-i ̯o- (3rd pl.).” > “*-ā-i ̯o- (1st pl., 3rd pl.).”

p. 403, n. 13, l. 1: “PGmc. *lig(j)a- < *leg(hi ̯)e/o-” >“PGmc. *ligja- < *leghi ̯e/o-”

p. 404, l. 7: “forms and would” > “forms would”

p. 404-5: Add Bock 2008 to the bibliography for the prehistory of the 3rd conjugation on p. 404—5.
p. 407: As the cognate of Lat. escit I cite a non-existent TB ske. The 3rd pl. of the copula is indeed skente
̑
< *h1s-skonto, but the singular is ste which may come from *h1s-sk’e-to. See Pinault 2008:642 and
Malzahn 2010:691 for more details.

p. 405, l. 5: add Ved. sácate

p. 407, 5.c.iii: “īrāscōr” > “īrāscor”

p. 408: In discussing the desideratives in -uriō, I mention that the short u of this suffix violates Latin
phonotactic constraints since the only short vowel normally permitted before an r in a medial syllable is

  41  
e. As I mention in the footnote there are of course obvious analogical cases like augur, auguris, but there
is perhaps another source for this sequence. Original u like all short vowels became e (*su̯ekurī ‘father-in-
law’ gen. sg. > socerī), presumably by general weakening to i and lowering before r, but if a labiovelar,
and presumably also the labiovelar glide, precedes the medial vowel the outcome is u, e.g. *per-kwatiō >
percutiō, iekwVna:num > iecunanum (glossed victimarium (Fest. p. 114 M) and derived from the old
oblique stem of iecur according to Alan Nussbaum p.c.). What would happen if a u of this sort were
followed by an r? There are no clear cases but it is possible that if the u arose after or as the result of
weakening, as is likely, it would be retained. A potential case might be decuria if from *deku̯iria (more
about that elsewhere). This idea doesn’t lead immediately to an immediate solution to the -uriō
question, but it does open some interesting vistas.

p. 408, 8.b, l. 3: “Gk. χέω, and Ved. juhóti.” >“Gk. χέω, Ved. juhóti.”

p. 408, n. 31: I discuss whether Lat. cūdō and TB kaut- ‘split’ can be reconciled via *keu̯h2dhe-, but
Malzahn prefers to analyze the Tocharian form as a denominative in which case the question is moot. In
the last sentence in that note change the possible proto-form of kaut- from *keh2dh- (a typo) to *keh2udh-.

n. 32: add the Polish surname Kowalski.

p. 410, n. 4: “p.p. 452–4” > “pp. 452–4”

p. 412: In his review James Clackson correctly points out that I underestimated the role of the root
aorist in the formation of the Latin perfect system. I wrote that “Latin does not continue any clear traces
of the root aorist”. In the footnote thereto I mentioned the possible explanation of the lengthened grade
of vēnī as generalized from 1st sg. *gwēm < *gwem-m and 2nd sg. *gwēn < *gwem-s. It’s true that no
personal ending of the perfect system can be directly traced to a root aorist, but there are a number of
perfect forms that I failed to mention that most plausibly continue root aorists. The best cases are:

1. OL fūī ‘ I was’ matches Ved. ábhūt.

2. fūgī ‘I fled’ is matched by the Greek thematic aorist ἔφυγον. The combination of full grade (fūg- <
*bheug-) and zero grade ἔ-φυγ-ον < *bhug- can most straightforwardly be combined in an athematic
ablauting root aorist.
3. līquī ‘I left’ matches Ved. 3rd sg. āraik <— *ā-rek ~ 2nd sg. mid. rik-thās and the Greek thematized
form ἔλιπον. The old nasal present reflected in Ved. riṇákti, Lat. linquō, OIr. -léici is also consistent with a
root aorist.

Also possible are the following two:

4. fūdī ‘I poured’ has no clear root aorist cognates but the patterning with the nasal infix present fundō
suggests the root aorist might be old.
5. rūpī ‘I broke’. The same story: no cognate aorists but an old nasal infix present rumpō.

  42  
Apropos of fūdī, Alan Nussbaum reminds me that the root is *gh’eu̯- and that the -do/e- (an extension also
seen in Goth. giutan ‘to pour’) of the Latin verb is in origin a present-forming suffix ( cf. pellō < *pel-dō
vs. perf. pepulī < *pe-pol-). But if *-do/e- was a present formant, then the perf. fūd- has its -d-
analogically from the present, and this favors an analogical explanation for fūdī, e.g. winko/e- : u̯i:k- =
fundo/e- : X.

On the other hand, vīcī ‘I conquered’ could be from a perfect *u̯iu̯ik-. Cf OIr. fích < *u̯iu̯ik- and vīdī
almost certainly continues < *u̯i-u̯id- since the thematic aorist of *u̯eid- is firmly established for PIE
(ἔϝιδε, Ved. ávidat, Arm. egit). This opens up the possibility that fūdī and rūpī could have been created in
Latin on the pattern of vincō : vīcī :: fundō : fūdī :: rumpō: rūpī.

Finally, fēcī and iēcī continue root aorists (Ved. ádhāt, Hitt. iezzi), which have been extended by the
particle -k-.

p. 410: I mention that Aulus Gellius (6.9) attests the form spepondī as an archaic but still classical variant
for the regular spopondī. I should also have noted that the e-reduplicated form is also attested
inscriptionally in the form SPEPODI in the wax tablets discovered in Moregine near Pompeii and
composed by C. Novius Eunus (1st cent. CE, 15.2.11, 16.3.3, 17.3.5, 18.3.7). Interestingly some of these
documents (15 and 18) exist in two versions, one by Eunus himself with many spelling “errors”, and one
by a professional scribe with correct spellings. In the case of this particular word the scribe uses the
standard form spopondi at 15.5.9, 18.5.16. See Adams 1990.

p. 413, n. 13: following others I compared Lat. lēgī to TB lyāka ‘I saw’ but see Malzahn 2010:838–9 for
some of the difficulties involved in that comparison.

p. 417, n. 3, l. 4: “vowel initial” > “vowel-initial”

p. 418, 2 l. 2: “to judge form” >“to judge from”

n. 10: In the Italian example quoted the modal imperfect arrivavi is for standard past subj. arrivassi. Cf.
the confusion of past subj. -se and pluperfect -ra in Spanish (e.g. habla-se vs. habla-ra), with
generalization of the former in standard Castilian, but of the latter in Latin America. (Ron Kim)

p. 418-9: I should have noted that in the opinion of many the original desiderative morpheme was *-h1s-
with deletion of the laryngeal after an obstruent. Thus the proto-forms should be A.2, ll. 3-4: *bhi-bhid-h1s-
e-ti, *ĝi-ĝneh3-h1se- 3, ll. 2-3: *di-dm̥ -h1s-e-ti, *gwhi-gwhedh-h1s-e-ti

4, l. 2: “the 3rd pl. < *-sinti” > “the 3rd pl. *-sinti”

B.2, l. 1: “there are also a set” > “there is also a set”

p. 420, 3.c, l. 1: “amāverim” > “amāv-er-im”

  43  
n. 18: “would be †-eront.” >“would be †-erunt.”

p. 422 n. 22, l. 1: “The from” > “The form”

p. 423, table, Latin athem. 2nd pl.: “ītōte” > “ītōte”

B.1.a, l. 5: “optionally).” > “optionally.)”

2, l. 3: “ī-te = ἴ-τε...” > “ī-te ~ ἴ-τε...”

p. 424: I hesitatingly try to explain the creation of distinctive future medio-passive imperative forms in
-tor and -ntor as the result of the following analogy:

agit : sequitur :: agitō : X, X = *sequitōur > sequitōr

But Ben Fortson (per litteras electronicas) notes:

The passive future imperatives in -(n)tor < -(n)tōr in Latin you give with a question mark as coming
from *-tōur with -ur from the non-imperative. But the Romans wouldn’t have been in a position to
abstract -ur as an ending until pretty late, after the change of -or > -ur in the 3rd cent. So wouldn’t it be
easier to say that -(n)tōr is simply -ntō + -or? Or, alternatively, what if what they really did was to
abstract -r and not -or, as must have been the case to explain 1sg. passives where -r replaced -m, and
which also presumably suggested itself for the 1st persons in -o(:)r where it looks synchronically like a
simple -r has been tacked on to the active -ō. Then -(n)tōr would just be -(n)tō + -r. That would be
preferable if you want to insist that the forms in -(n)tōr weren’t created until after the change of -or to -
ur because of the survival of “active” utito etc. into the time of Cato and Plautus. (But that doesn’t mean
the -tor forms were only created that late; the two could have coexisted for a time, of course.)

I think that Ben is correct that working with -ur is too late. So maybe:

agit : sequit-or : agit-ō, : X, X = sequit-ō-or > sequitōr

But a possible problem here might be that if we push back the innovation to before the change of -or to -
ur we might also be pushing it back before the loss of final -d after a long vowel, which also happened in
the 3rd century BCE (Weiss 2009:155).

So probably the second solution outlined by Ben is preferable, viz. the simple addition of passive -r to the
active form. As Ben notes, -r was extractable from 1st sg. act. -ō vs. 1st sg mid. -ō-r, and in fact -r was
interpreted as the distinctive medio-passive marker as 1st pl. mid. -mur vs. 1st pl act. -mus and the
alternate passive infinitive -ier (Weiss 2009:446) show.

  44  
p. 426, 8a: I mention that the archaic disyllabic forms siet, etc. are already archaisms in Plautus limited
to line-final position. But I should also note that siet does show up rarely in the classical period and
beyond. For example the formula quod melius siet populo Romano Quiritibus occurs several times in
the Commentarii of the Ludi Saeculares in the years 17 (CIL 6.877 in the Hymn to Moerae) and 204 (CIL
6.32329 in the Hymn to Juno) and in Hymn to Terra Mater (AE 1935:26). Since this clause is a recycled
prayer formula the survival of the archaism siet is not too surprising, but a recently discovered curse
tablet from Peñaflor dating to the second half of the 1st century BCE also has the form siet. See Stylow
2012.

p. 426, n. 4: To the very brief discussion of aphaerisized forms of esse add the reference Pezzini 2011,
which gives a very nice collection of evidence from the manuscripts and inscriptions.

p. 427, 12, table: ORom. 1st pl. “semŭ” > “sem”

In note b to the table listing the Romance reflexes of the paradigm of sum I write that Old Portuguese has
som or sõ. But this is not quite right. First, my usage is to refer to the language of the oldest texts not as
Old Portuguese but as Galego-Portuguese and second, my friend and esteemed teacher Rip Cohen
provides the following correction:

In thirteenth century manuscripts of Galego-Portuguese lyric (compositions spanning the period c. 1220
to c. 1300), the regular form of the first person persent indicative of the verb to be (seer < sedēre)
is sõo < *sono (cf. It. sono). The nasalization represented by the til on the õ is a vestige of the final -
m of sum. The form soon also appears, but less often, in those manuscripts, and it may represent a
different pronunciation, but at any rate it is still bisyllabic. The forms son and sõ, which appear in early
sixteenth century copies of thirteenth and fourteenth century poetry must nearly always be corrected
to sõo or soon on metrical grounds. And we sometimes find soo where the nasal must be added: sõo. To
my knowledge, the form sou does not appear until well after 1350.

The form som is apparently attested in Portuguese dialects. Leite de Vasconcellos 1970:116 says “Dans le
“districto” de Coïmbre, on conserve la forme archaïque são (et som) à la 1re pers. Dans l’Algarve: som,”
and Rip Cohen points to the following passage in Fernan de Oliveira, Grammatica da lingoagem
portuguesa, Lisbon, 1536, the first grammar of Portuguese:

& mais o verbo sustantivo o qual huns pronunicam em om como som & outros em ou como sou & outros
em ão como são e tambem outros que eu mais favoreço em o pequeno como so
“And also the verb to be, which some pronounce in –om, i.e. som, and other in –ou, i.e. sou, and others in
-ão, i.e. são, and yet others, whom I approve of, in short –o, i.e. so.”

I have not yet been able to track down an indisputable Galego-Portuguese, i.e. old, example.

  45  
p. 428, B, last line: “possiamo, possono” > “possiamo, potete, possono”

p. 430, D1: I give the PIE root for Lat. velle as *u̯el(hx)- ‘wish’. Olav Hackstein (per litt. elec.) points out
that “There are reasons to believe that its meaning was 'choose' (converted into durative ‘wish’ by the
Narten present's typical semantics/function), and to posit laryngeal one, as per Hardarson, Wurzelaorist
1993, p. 83, n. 103. The Gortynian forms suggest h1.” So the laryngeal should be specified as *h1 and the
meaning given as ‘choose’, but I will retain the parentheses since the Italic forms are not easy to derive
from a seṭ root.

p. 431, l. 1: “*magis volt” > *magis u̯olō

p. 434, 6, l. 2: “Latv. dúo-k” >“Lith. dúo-k” The particle -k is from earlier -ki. Cf. buki ‘may (your will)
be...’ (p.23, l. 9) Mažvydas Catechism (Ford 1971:30, 36)

p. 435, 8, l. 1: “Rom. ada” > “Rom. a da”

H: The present of fiō survives in Romance uniquely in the Romanian infinitive a fi ‘be’. For the future see
the addendum to p. 525.

p. 438, c.i.β: “dedī dătus” > “dedī, dătus”

p. 439: in discussing the origin of the p.p.p. in -itus < *-etos of 2nd conjugation verbs I wrote “At an
early date, probably in western dialectal Proto-Indo-European,(n. 55) the following analogy took place:
*kap-i ̯e- : *kap-to- :: *monei ̯e- : X, X = *mone-to-. In other words, the suffix *-ei ̯e- was reanalyzed as stem
in e- plus suffix *-i ̯e-. In the formation of the verbal adjective in *-to- the suffix *-i ̯e- was truncated.” In n.
55 thereto I wrote: The same analysis and analogy is evidently reflected in the Germanic past participles
of the first weak class, e.g. Goth. nasiÞs* ‘saved’ < *nosetos. This is not quite sufficient and not entirely
correct either. First, it was not just the p.p.p. that the stem in e- is found but also in the perfect active in
-uī from *e-u̯-ai, e.g. monuī < *mone-u̯ai. Second, the Gothic evidence is inconclusive since i can of
course reflect either *e or *i and in general the union vowel of p.p.p. copies the stem vowel of the
present. As a matter of fact, the isolated ON mettr ’full, satiated’ from the verb *matija- ‘to satiate’ with i-
umlaut points to a proto-form *matiđa- with an *i. So it seems that Germanic did not share this
innovation. Third, Celtic did partake in this innovation. This is clear from Old Irish W 2 a verbs (old
iterative-causatives) which contrast raising in the present stem, e.g. do luigi < *-log-ī- < *-logei ̯e-ti vs. no
raising in the s-preterite, e.g. do loig ’forgave’ < *-loge-st, and in the pret. pass. -logad < *-loge-to-, an old
verbal adjective. Identical facts are seen in Middle Welsh where ī-presents with o-grade roots have pret.
stems in -es. This seems to be a significant but under-appreciated common innovation of Italo-Celtic. See
Schulze-Thulin 2001:86-9 with earlier literature.

p. 441, i.β.d, l. 2: “inprevocalic” > “in prevocalic”

l. 3: “-k-T-” > “-kT-”

  46  
p. 444: I address the variation in the vowel before -nd- in gerunds and gerundives formed to 3rd and 4th
conjugation verbs. In addition to the observations recorded there I should also have mentioned the
discussion of Alfonso Traina in the 2nd edition of his book, Forma e suono. Da Plauto a Pascoli. Bologna:
Patron, 129–143. Based chiefly on an examination of the invariant cases of transmission in the
manuscripts of Terence, Traina establishes the following tendencies: After -u, -ṷ-, -qu- the form is always
-end- (vivendus). After a syllable containing o or u the form is predominantly -end- (ducendus). After i the
form is predominantly -und- (faciundus). Thus it seems likely that the choice of vowel was governed
largely by avoidance of two segments with identical values for roundness.

p. 444, l. 3: “← sequere ‘follow’;” > “← sequī ‘follow’;” :(

p. 445, D.1 (Ron Kim): BTW the Polish word for ‘infinitive’ is bezokolicznik, i.e. bez-o-kol-icz-nik ‘the one
without surrounding (information)’! The other Slavic languages seem content with infinitiv.

III.A: “Archaism” >“Archaisms”

p. 446. n. 81: Ben Fortson points out that I say that Gerhard Meiser in Veni Vidi Vici 2003:57 compares
the Latin passive infinitive in -ier with the Vedic gerundive in -ya, but this is not an accurate presentation
of Professor Meiser’s views. In fact, he prefers the idea that a form like *amā-đi ̯ēr, with the cognate of
Umbrian passive infinitive suffix -fi, Osc. -fír, was transformed into *amā-zi ̯ēr (> amārier) after the
active *amā-zi (> amāre). This idea is certainly worthy of serious consideration. Meiser did uphold the
comparison with the Vedic gerundive in 1998:225. See now Fortson 2012.

p. 448, n. 2: To the basic IE syntax bibliography add the translation of Wackernagel’s Vorlesungen
(Wackernagel 1928) by David Langslow (Wackernagel 2009). To the basic Latin syntax bibliography on
p. 448 n. 2 add Baldi and Cuzzolin 2009–11 This volume, the first of four projected volumes, covers a
number of topics including Greek and Semitic influence on Latin syntax (Calboli and Rubio respectively),
word order (Bauer), coordination (Torrego), coherence (Rosén), and questions (Brown, Joseph, Wallace).
The approach is non-generative. (The four volumes are now complete) Vol. II: Constituent Syntax:
Adverbial Phrases, Adverbs, Mood, Tense (2010); Vol. III: Constituent Syntax: Quantification, Numerals,
Possession, Anaphora (2010); Vol. IV: Complex Sentences, Grammaticalization, Typology (2011). For an
introduction to formal semantics from a Latin point of view see Devine and Stephens 2013.

p. 453, n. 20: One of my favorite topics, which I discuss in a number of different places in OHCGL, is
the semantics of the PIE resultative (“perfect”) and its reflexes in the daughter languages, especially
Latin. The most explicit discussion is on p. 453 n. 20 where I say: In a case like the ancestor of Lat. ōdī,
not enough of the verbal paradigm survives for us to say what the inherent Aktionsart of the root was,
but in the cases where we can judge, the root meaning is often telic, e.g. *men- ‘call to mind’. Therefore
it is the perfect morphology that provides the meaning of STATE. The combination of telic Aktionsart
and STATE-providing morphology virtually compels a resultative meaning. The very interesting 2004
article by Dag Haug makes some points that strengthen the case for an inherent relationship between the

  47  
“perfect” and telicity/perfectivity. Haug notes that the Greek perfect refers to a state obtaining from the
culmination of an action—culmination typically being expressed with the aorist. Haug writes: “This can
be seen readily with the verb thnēskein (to be dying, M.W.): in principle, the imperfective could be used
of a dying person who nevertheless survived. If the aorist is used, however, the person died irrevocably.
And the perfect, of course, refers to the state resulting from this culminated event expressed by the
aorist. It does not mean ‘having had a near-death experience.” Haug then goes on to discuss the semantic
contrast between the PDE perfect (refers to a so-called resultant state) and the Greek perfect (refers to a
so-called target state) and the way the perfect morphology interacts with atelic and stative VPs. Another
point in favor of the semantic connection between telicity/perfectivity and the “perfect” is the
observation made by Madhav Deshpande (1992) that when a Sanskrit verb has suppletive imperfective
and perfective stems the “perfect”, if it exists, is typically formed from the perfective allomorph. (But this
is not exceptionless as Roland Pooth comments)

p. 454, n. 21, l. 1: “present” (2x) > “présent” (2x)

p. 456, c, l. 4: “restrictions” >“restriction”

p. 458, l. 6 from bottom: change venire to habere

p. 460, 2.b.ii, l. 2: “besides a” > “beside a”

p. 461, B.2.a “dual”: not necessarily, if one follows Jay Jasanoff’s analysis of the originally adverbial
value of *-bhí in *h2(e)nt-bhí.

l. 4: “to be easily endured.”

p. 467: I mention the word ōvum ’egg’ which seems not to have been affected by whatever rule changed
*oktōu̯os into octāvus. This may have been due to the ō occurring in the initial, i.e. in the Proto-Italic
stressed syllable, as I said in the book, or, as Alexis Manaster Ramer suggests to me, due to the absolute
initial position of the ō. In any case AMR also calls my attention to the strange fact that the Romance
languages reflect Proto-Romance open o (Ital. uovo, Sp. huevo, Fr.oeuf), which normally is the reflex of a
Latin short o. There is no absolutely satisfactory explanation for this. Meyer-Lübke suggested
ōvum became ōum by regular loss of w before a back vowel and that became oum by pre-vocalic
shortening. The w was then restored from the genitive ōvī. Rohlfs also starts from ōum but since the
reflexes of long ō and short u would both have been a close o he suggest that the first of the two identical
vowels was dissimilated to an open o. This seems a bit more straightforward and has the parallel of
Ital. tuo < *tuoo, cf. the plural tuoi, reflecting an open and not the expected close o in the first
syllable. In any case the long vowel of Latin ōvum is very well established starting from Ennius’ Ova
parire solet genus pennis condecoratum.

p. 468, n. 19, l. 3: “concerned the” > “concerned with the”

p. 469, 3.b, l. 5: “point to the” > “points to the”

  48  
p. 473, n. 47: In my discussion of ō for au I point out that, although the monophthongized rendering of
this sound is typically regarded as “non-urban”, there are examples of ō for au from Roman inscriptions
of the Republican period, some of which are given in n. 48. In addition one could add that two old
Roman placenames show ō for au. These are Loretum ‘laurel grove’, a location on the Aventine (Plin.
Nat. 15.138: Loretum in Aventino vocatur ubi silva laurus fuit; CIL I 2, p. 240 IN LORETO) <— laurus and
Codeta, a part of the Campus Martius where horsetail grew (Paul. Fest. p. 58: ager trans Tiberim quod in eo
virgulta nascuntur ad caudarum equinarum similtudinem) <— cauda. These show that the monophthongal
pronunciation was quite well established in Rome itself. See Bertoldi 1940.

p. 474 B. 2: for praetor read pretor. The point of the Lucilius line is the monophthongization of the
diphthong ae in both the name of the office and the office-seeker. The complete line Cecilius pretor ne
rusticus fiat is put together from two quotations: one by the grammarian Diomedes (Keil 1.452.17–18)
omits the name Cecilius and specifically comments on the fact that the letter a was removed from the
word pretor (detracta littera a); the other from Varro L. 7.96 omits the word praetor but transmits the
name Cecilius in the ms. F (Codex Florentinus, 11th cent.) and here to0 the context is about the variation
between ae and e. All in all there is no doubt that the line should read Cecilius pretor ne rusticus fiat.

p. 474, C: Note also Augustus’s gen. domōs (p. 251)

p. 475–6: I mention some of the well known epigraphical examples of r for d before a labial, e.g. APVR
FINEM (ILLRP 7, from the territory of the Marsi, end of the 4th century BCE), but I neglected to mention
that there are also literary examples of the phenomenon and that it is commented upon by various
ancient grammarians. The manuscripts of Cato’s Agricultura give strong support to arvehant (138.1) and
arvectum (135.7) Priscian (Keil 2.35) wrote: antiquissimi uero pro ad frequentissime ar ponebant:
aruenas, aruentores, |aruocatos, arfines, aruolare, arfari dicentes pro aduenas, aduentores, aduocatos,
adfines, aduolare, adfari... Marius Victorinus noted (Keil 6.9): Nos nunc et adventum et apud per d
potius quam per r scribamus arventum et apur. Velius Longus (Keil 7.71) quotes the forms arvorsus and
arvorsarius. Paulus ex Festo (p. 24 L) has apor glossed apud. The so-called Glossary of Placidus (CGL
5.7.34 and 5.48.29) gives arveniet : adveniet. Finally, the form arferia glossed by Paulus ex Festo (p. 10 L)
as aqua, quae inferis libabatur, dicta a ferendo; sive vas vini quod sacris adhibebatur is almost certainly from
*adferia. Cf. the Umbrian name for priest ařfertur, although in this last instance the form *ad- may not
be identical to the adprep *ad.

p. 477, n. 1: Add ref. to Weinreich 1953 and Weinreich 2011.

p. 478: I mention that beside Greek Sicily was possibly home to Sicel and Elymian at the time of the
Roman conquest. I didn’t mention Sicanian or Punic. Sicanian, the language of the Sicani of central
Sicily, is known from graffiti from Montagna di Marzo (near Piazza Armerina, late 6th–5th cent. BCE)
and possibly Gela. It is impossible to say whether Sicanian survived until the 3rd century BCE. Punic, the
language of the Carthaginian colonists, was of course well established in Sicily—conflict between Rome
and Carthage over Sicily was at the heart of the First Punic War. We have about 40 texts from Motya

  49  
(present-day Mozia near Marsala) from between 600–400 BCE and so-called Neo-Punic inscriptions are
found from as late as the 1st cent. BCE (Favignana, Grotta Regina near Capo Gallo, Palermo).

For a nice sketch of the evidence for the non-Greek languages of pre-Roman Sicily see the appendix, “Die
vorgriechischen Sprachen Siziliens” (pp. 331–349) in Willi 2008. For Neo-Punic inscriptions see
Jongeling 2008. See also Tribulato 2012.

p. 478, n. 4, l. 2: “CE .” > “CE.”

p. 479, n. 7, l. 2: “integral” > “intégral”

p. 482, l. 2 from end: “weaking,” > “weakening,”

p. 490, n. 14: Add de Simone 2011.

p. 493: Through the kindness of Professor Carlo de Simone I’ve learned of a significant new inscription
in the “Tyrsenian” language of Lemnos. The inscription from the site of Efestia is on a rectangular stone
block once probably supporting a dedicated object. It reads

soromš : aslaš hktaonosi : heloke

The interpuncts actually have three points. The form heloke is almost certainly a preterite 3rd sg. verb
form and hktaonosi probably a pertinentive. soromš and aslaš are probably the subject phrase. See de
Simone 2009.

p. 493, n. 17: Add Eichner 2012.

p. 494, l. 2: ‘this >‘this’

p. 496, 2.b, l. 7: “śrenxva” > “śrenxva”

l. 3 from end: “‘sacred-the’ velθuruσ́a...” >“‘sacred-the’, velθuruσ́a...”

p. 497, C: “σa ‘4’ max ‘5’,...” >“σa ‘4’, max ‘5’,...”

p. 499, c.ii: Move the comment about the two forms of the relative pronouns to p. 501 where the form
an occurs.

p. 503: To the bibliographical tips offered in the chapter on Vulgar Latin and Proto-Romance (p. 503)
add Kramer 1976, which is a very useful collection of grammatical and literary passages touching on the
pronunciation of Vulgar Latin.

p. 503: To the basic bibliography for Romance given on p. 503 add the new book by my Cornell
colleagues Ti Alkire and Carol Rosen 2010: Also add Oxford Online Database of Romance Verb
Morphology and The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages. Vol. 1: Structures, edited by Martin

  50  
Maiden, John Charles Smith and Adam Ledgeway, Cambridge University Press. This book offers a pan-
Romance perspective on various phonological, morphological, syntactic, pragmatic and lexical processes
and patterns. There are essays by Michele Loporcaro (Syllable, Segment and Prosody, and Phonological
Processes), Arnulf Stefenelli (Lexical Stability), and Steven Dworkin (Lexical Change) among others.

p. 503. To the bibliography for Sardinian historical grammar given on p. 503 add Lupini 2000.
The beautiful designs on the cover reproduce the patterns of traditional Sardinian bread stamps. To the
bibliography for Romanian historical grammar add Sala 2005. The title of this work, a translation of De
la latină la română. Bucharest: Univers enciclopedic. 1998, is a little bit misleading to the English speaekr
in that it makes one immediately think of Williams’s From Latin to Portuguese or Pope’s From Latin to
Modern French, but the scope and organization of this book is quite different. Most of the book is devoted
to a study of the Romanian lexicon and its various strata. Morphology, syntax, and especially phonology,
take a backseat.

p. 504: To the bibliography for “semi-direct” sources of Vulgar Latin given on p. 504 add Hanciaux
1989-95. This work of which seven volumes have appeared to date is an alphabetical listing of
“incorrect” spellings found in the manuscripts of various classical and late antique authors. It is all very
undigested, but valuable if one is trying to find examples. For example, the spelling calligat ‘is dark’ for
cālīgat is attested in ms. H of Aetna 312. Ms. Helmstadtiensis 332 dates from the 15th century, but the
geminate l spelling is not worthless since we know that calligo for cālīgō was stigmatized in the Appendix
Probi and some Romance forms, e.g. Nuor. gaḍḍíndzu ‘the staggers’—a form of mad cow disease—
continue the geminate l.

p. 504, II.A.3, l. 1: “Gregory of Tours” > “Gregory of Tours’”

p. 505, 5.a, l. 4: “higado” > “hígado”

p. 506, C, l. 3: “on the northeast coast” > “on the northwest coast”

p. 508, n. 36: I mention the view of Kenneth Jackson that early Latin loanwords into Celtic accurately
reflect the distinction between Latin long and short a and in this regard would preserve evidence for a
distinction that the direct Romance tradition never maintains. But reading Loporcaro’s masterful essay in
the Cambridge History of the Romance Languages has made me realize that I did not cite the crucial
evidence and that even that is not very clear. Loporcaro argues convincingly that short vowels were
lengthened in stressed open syllables quite early in the proto-Romance period (which means that the rest
of n. 36 also needs some revision). Hence the cited pair MW caws, OIr. cáisse ’cheese’ from
Latin cāseus vs. OIr. clann ’family’ from Lat. planta is not conclusive evidence for the preservation—a fact
which Jackson was well aware of. What is needed to make the case would be instances of old loans with
accented short a in an open syllable represented with a Celtic short a and conversely loans with a
long a in a closed syllable represented with a Celtic long a. Off the top of my head I don’t know of any
examples of the latter sort, but Russell 1984 cited W ffa < faba and gradd < gradus as examples of the

  51  
former type. These, however, are far from sealing the deal. Note that Irish has grád (o, n. Wb. etc.) with
Open Syllable Lengthening and the fairly inexplicable seib for faba (s for f is normal in early loans but
the e, which Thurneysen derived from a British pl. *feib < *fabī, is problematic since the word is
feminine in British). More research required.

Update: Anders points out the case of Welsh mawrth ’March; Tuesday’ <— Lat. ma:rt-. So it is pretty
clear that long a in a closed syllables was still distinctive at the time of the Celtic borrowings. Irish has
márta ’March’ which the DIL suggest might be a reinterpreted genitive of an i-stem Máirt < Ma:rtius,
apparently not actually attested in the meaning March.

p. 510, 5.b, table: “sōlem ‘> soare” > “sōlem > soare”

p. 511, n. 48: Add the following: For a detail treatment of prothesis before #sC as well as other later
protheses see Sampson 2009.

p. 512, n. 50 ad fin.: In Italian Prothesis before sC and after the prepositions con, in, per and after non is
no longer taught in schools, and even in formal writing is no longer enforced.

p. 515, J.2, l. 4: figli(u)ólo (figliuolo is now old-fashioned, just like giuoco, spagnuolo for present-day
gioco, spagnolo)

l. 5: “CL linteolum” > “CL lintéolum”

p. 517, 3, l. 3: The alternantia are productive in Romanian.

n. 4, l. 1: “neuter form” > “neuter forms”

n. 7: “plurals in -e”; But note the unique archaism ou ‘egg’, pl. ouă < ovum, ova

p. 519, C, l. 2: “where doamne” > “where e.g. doamne” (since this is a regular pattern, e.g. casă,
gen./dat. case)

F.4, l. 1: add Romanian obl. pl. -lor

last line: “mas fuerte” > “más fuerte”

p. 520, C: after meliōrem, add “melius > Ital. meglio”

after peiiōrem, add “peiius > Ital. peggio, Fr. pis”

GP peor continues the accusative, like Ital. peggiore, Sp. peor and should be moved down one line.

p. 522, last two lines: delete first, change second to illum (patrem) > Ital. il padre, lo specchio,35 Port. o
pai

  52  
n. 35 Add: il or ‘l was originally use only after words ending in a vowel before a single consonant. The
form lo was possible in any environment. In sentence initial position only lo occurred. The vowel i in il
is probably prothetic. See Rohlfs 1968:100–1.

p. 523, 6: cf. Ital. sta-sera ‘this evening’, sta-mattina ‘this morning’, etc.

p. 524, VI.B, l. 1: “-am -ēs, -et” > “-am, -ēs, -et”

n. 42, l. 2: “‘charm’ dēlectāret.” > “‘charm’ for dēlectāret.”

n. 44, l. 4: “Obwald dialect of Engadine” > “Sursilvan”

l. 4: Change cînta to cânta Rom. voi cânta. This periphrasis is also found in some Northern Italian
dialects. The colloquial “Balkan” construction is o să cînt, with o reduced from an impersonal form of
volēre; cf. Bulg. šte (da) píša ‘I will write’, lit. ‘it will be that I write’.

l. 5: Change “θέλω να” to θέλει να ‘it will be that...’ (impersonal, source of modern θένα > θά)

p. 525: I say that erō is the only Latin future to survive into Romance in OFr. ier, OOc. er, and Sp. 2nd
sg. pres. eres, but this is not correct. The Latin future of fiō, fiam, fiēs etc. did survive into Old Italian,
and beyond as an archaism as an alternative future for essere ‘to be’. The expected forms should have had
an alternation between an a proper to the first singular and an e proper to all the other persons.
However, the a allomorph was generalized to the other persons pretty early. Here are some examples:

3rd sg. fie: (Albertan. cap. 22): dopo me avrò erede lo quale io non so s’egli fie savio ovvero stolto, e fie signore
del mio acquisto, e delli miei beni.

3rd sg. fia (Vita dei santi. padri. (S. Antonio, Abate, pag. 25): allora certo fia diritta l’anima nostra, quando
la naturale sua integritade non sia maculata da peccato.

3rd pl. fien(o) (Petr. Canz. 127.4): Quai fien ultime, lasso, e qua’ fien prime?

3rd pl. fian(o) (Tass. Ger. 20.16): Fian per lo piu senza vigor, senz’arte.

p. 525, B.3, l. 4: “chantereie(t)” > “chantereit” and “chantereiiez” > “chanteriiez”

p. 526, ll. 2-3: “from < -umus” >“from -umus”

e: “-iamo originates in siamo”. This statement is not correct. -iamo originates in the subjunctives of the
type -eāmus, -iāmus and siamo was not the first verb to import the subjunctive ending into the indicative.
The forms -amo and -imo are already quite rare in Old Tuscan, but -emo is better represented. The old
indicative forms are still found even in Tuscany, e.g. at Pisa, Lucca, etc. See Rohlfs 1968:250.

  53  
p. 527, D.2, table: delete line between 1st sg. and 2nd sg.

2nd pl. “cantabades” > “cantábades”

p. 528, E.1, first table: OSp. 2pl. “cantasteis” > “cantastes”

second table: OSp. “dormíste, dormímos, dormístes” > “dormiste, dormimos, dormistes”

comments, a: “-ivimus, -irun.” > “-ivimus, -istis, -irun.”

b: “Spanish continues” > “Spanish and GP continue”

p. 529, a, comments to table, b: why *vendeisti? I think the i-umlaut of *e here is regular, cf. hice <
fēcī, but you might want to check Penny’s history.

p. 530, l. 6: “posuī ‘p I laced’” >“posuī ‘I placed’”

p. 532, ii.: Change the gloss of impēgī to ‘I pushed’ and strike empès which is the Catalan p.p. of this
verb and not all that archaic at that.

pp. 532-3, 4: GP 2sg. foste; Rom. 2sg. fuşi, 2pl. furăţi

p. 534, l. 3: Plural “fətsearim, fətsearit, fətseare” >“fətseárim, fətseárit, fətseáre”

4, l. 3: “E melhor” > “É melhor”

p. 556, Nikolaev 2005: “Rixsa” > “Riksa”

p. 608: change Romanian “da” to “(a) da.

p. 633: under the heading pius ~ purus rule add 142 and change 198 to 191.

Bibliographical Addenda

Adamik, Béla. 2010. “Zu den archaischen lateinischen Inschriftfragmenten auf Bruchstücken eines
Tonfasses von Satricum.” In Latin Linguistics Today, ed. Peter Anreiter, and Manfred
Kienpointner, 17–30. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität
Innsbruck.=Adamik, Béla, 2009. “Új archaikus latin felirat Satricumból.” Antik Tanulmányok
53:239–52.

Adams, J. N. 1990. “The latinity of C. Novius Eunus.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 82:227–
47.

———. 1996. “Interpuncts as evidence for the enclitic character of personal pronouns in Latin.”
Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 111:208–10.

  54  
Alkire, Ti, and Carol G. Rosen. 2010. Romance Languages: A Historical Introduction. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Allen, W. S. and C. O. Brink. 1980. “The old order and the new: A case history.” Lingua. 50:61–100.

Bakker, Egbert, ed. 2010. A Companion to the Ancient Greek Language. Malden MA: Wiley- Blackwell.

Baldi, Philip and Pierluigi Cuzzolin, eds. 2009. New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax, 4 vols. New
York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Ball, Martin and Nicole Muller, eds. The Celtic Languages. 2nd ed. Routledge: New York.

Beekes, R. S. P. 2010. Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: An Introduction. 2nd ed. revised by Michiel
de Vaan. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Beekes, R. S. P. 2010b. Etymological Dictionary of Greek. Leiden: Brill.

Biella, Maria Cristina. 2009. “Una nuova iscrizione falisca di VII a.C.: Un sostantivo con tema in -o e
genitivo in -i.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 168:273–7.

Biddau, Federico, ed. 2008. Q. Terenti Scauri. De orthographia. Hildesheim: Weidmann.

Bertoldi, Vittorio, 1940. ”Storia d’un dialettismo nel latino dell’urbe.” Rivista di filologia e
d’istruzione classica 18:22–33.

Bobaljik, J. 2012. Universals in Comparative Morphology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bremmer, Rolf H. 2009. An Introduction to Old Frisian. History, Grammar, Reader, Glossary.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Brixhe, Claude. 2005. “Le psi et le “trident” dans l’alphabet grec de pamphylie.” In De Cyrène à
Catherine: Trois mille ans de Libyennes. Études grecques et latines offertes à Catherine Dobias-Lalou,
eds. F. Poli and G. Vottéro, 59–65. Paris: De Boccard.

———. 2006. “Zôné et Samothrace: Lueurs sur la langue Thrace et nouveau chapitre de la
grammaire comparée?” Comptes rendus de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres 121–46.

Bock, Bettina, 2008. Die einfach thematischen Präsentien in der dritten Konjugation des Lateinischen. Graz:
Leykam.

Boutkan, Dirk. 1995. “PGmc. *alīnō ‘ell’.” Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 41:9–11.

Campanile, Enrico. 1973. “Sulla quantità della vocale che precede -m in latino.” Italia dialettale 36:1–6.

Campbell, Lyle. 2013. Historical Linguistics: An Introduction. 3rd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT. Press.

  55  
Carling, Gerd, in collaboration with Georges-Jean Pinault, and Werner Winter. 2009. Dictionary and
Thesaurus of Tocharian A. Volume 1: A-J. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

del Castillo Herrera, Marina. 2009. “Las formas de perfecto de indicativo en -iit.” Cuadernos de filología
clásica: Estudios latinos 29.2:5–20.

Catford, J. C. 2001. “On Rs, rhotacism, and paleophony.” Journal of the International Phonetic
Association 31:171–85.

Clackson, James (ed.). 2011. A Companion to the Latin Language. Malden MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Colonna, Giovanni, 1980. “L’aspetto epigrafico del Lapis Satricanus.” In Lapis Satricanus. Archaeological,
Epigraphical, Linguistic, and Historical Aspects of the New Inscription from Satricum, ed. C.M. Stibbe
et al., 41–69. ‘s Gravenhage: Staatsuitgeverij.

Colonna, G. and M. Gnade, 2003. “Dolio con iscrizioni Latine archaiche da Satricum.” Archeologia classica
54:1—21.

Crawford, Michael H. 2011. A.U. Imagines italicae: A Corpus of Italic Inscriptions. London: Institute of
Classical Studies, University of London.

Cser, András. 2011.”The floating C-place node in Latin.” Journal of Linguistics 47:65–85.

Deshpande, Madhav. 1992. “Justification for verb-root suppletion in Sanskrit.” Historische

Sprachforschung 105:18–49.

Devine, A. M., and Laurence D. Stephens. 2013. Semantics for Latin: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Dieu, Éric. 2011. Le supplétisme dans les formes de gradation en grec ancien et dans les langues indo-
européennes. Geneva: Droz.

Dunkel, Georg. 2008. ”Chips from an aptotologist’s worshop II.” In Chomolangma, Demawend und
Kasbek. Festschrift für Roland Bielmeier zum 65. Geburtstag. Band II Demawend und Kasbek, eds.
Brigitte Huber, Marianne Volkart, and Paul Widmer, 403–12. Halle (Saale): International
Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies.

Eichner, Heiner. 2004. “Illyrisch – die unbekannte Sprache.” In Die Illyrer. Archäologische Funde des 1.
Vorchristlichen Jahrtausends aus Albanien, 92-117. Asparn a.d. Zaya: Museum für Urgeschichte.

———. 2012. “Neues zur Sprache der Stele von Lemnos (Erster Teil).” Journal of Language
Relationship/Вопросы языкового родства 7:9–32.

Emiliozzi, Adriana. 1983. “Sull’epitaffio del 67 a.c. nel sepolcro dei Salvii a Ferento.” Mélanges de l’École
française de Rome, Antiquité 95:701–17.

  56  
Fink, R. O. 1969. “A long vowel befor final -m in Latin?” American Journal of Philology 90:444–52.

Ford, G. 1971. The Old Lithuanian Catechism of Martynas Mažvydas (1547). Assen: Van Gorcum.

Fortson, Benjamin W. IV. 2012. “Latin -rier and its Indo-Iranian congeners.” Indogermanische Forschungen
117:75–118.

Franklin, Michael J. 2011. ‘Orientalist Jones’: Sir William Jones, Poet, Lawyer, and Linguist, 1746-1794.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fritz, Matthias. 2011. Der Dual im Indogermanischen: Genealogischer und typologischer Vergleich einer
grammatischen Kategorie im Wandel. Heidelberg: Winter.

García Ramón, José Luis, 1997. “Adverbios de dirección e instrumental indoeuropeo.” In

Berthold Delbrück y la sintaxis indoeuropea hoy, eds. E. Crespo and J. L. García Ramón, 113–41.
Wiesbaden: Reichert.

Gérard, Raphaël. 2005. Phonétique et morphologie de la langue lydienne. Louvain-La-Neuve: Peeters.

Hadas-Lebel, Jean. 2009. “L’œnochoé putlumza: un pocolom étrusque?” In Autour de Michel

Lejeune, eds. Frédérique Biville and Isabelle Boehm, 273–85. Paris: Boccard.

Hajnal, Ivo 1994. “Die lykischen a-Stämme: Zum Werdegang einer Nominalklasse.” In In honorem Holger
Pedersen, eds. J. E. Rasmussen and B. Nielsen, 135–71. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Hammond, Michael. 1999. The Phonology of English. A Prosodic Optimality-theoretic Approach. New York:
Oxford University Press.

Hanciaux, René. 1989-95. Graphies latines vulgaires et variantes orthographiques tirees des manuscrits.
Mons: Atelier Offset de l’Université de l’Etat à Mons.

Haug, Dag. 2004. “Aristotle’s kinesis/energeia-test and the semantics of the Greek perfect.” Linguistics
42:387–418.

Hofmann, Dietrich, Anne Tjerk Popkema, and Gisela Hofmann. 2008. Altfriesisches Handwörterbuch.
Heidelberg: Winter.

Horrocks, Geoffrey C. 2010. Greek: A History of the Language and Its Speakers. 2nd ed. Malden, MA:
Wiley-Blackwell.

Jongeling, Karel. 2008. Handbook of Neo-Punic Inscriptions. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

Keiler, Bernd. 2011. “Zwei Meilensteine des Konsuls Aurelius Cotta.” Epigraphica 73:109–16.

  57  
Kent, Roland. 1912. “Dissimilative Writings for ii and iii in Latin.” Transactions and Proceedings of the
American Philological Association 43:35–56.

Kim, Ronald. 2012. “The PIE thematic accusative plural revisited.” In Roman Sukač and Ondřej Šefčík
(eds.), The Sound of Indo-European 2. Papers on Indo-european Phonetics, Phonemics and
Morphophonemics, 144–58. Munich: Lincom Europa.

Kramer, Johannes. 1976. Literarische Quellen zur Aussprache des Vulgärlateins. Meisenheim am Glan:
Anton Hain.

Kruschwitz, Peter. 2002. Carmina saturnia epigraphica. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.

Kümmel, Martin J. 2007. “The third person endings of the Old Latin perfect and the fate of final -d in
Latin.” In Proceedings of the 18th Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference, eds. K. Jones-Bley et
al., 89–100. Washington D.C.: Institute for the Study of Man.

Kukenheim, L. 1932. Contributions à l’histoire de la grammaire italienne, espagnole et française à l’époque

de la renaissance. Amsterdam: Noord-hollandsche uitgevers-maatschappij.

Leite de Vasconcellos, J. 1970. Esquisse d’une dialectologie portugaise, 2nd ed. updated on the basis of
notes of Leite de Vasconcellos by Maria Adelaid Valle Cintra. Lisbon: Centro de estudos
filólogicos.

Liesner, Malte. 2012. Arbeitsbuch zur lateinischen historischen Phonologie. Wiesbaden: Reichert.

Lindner, Thomas. 2011–2. Pt. 1, Vol. 4 (Komposition) of Indogermanische Grammatik, founded by Jerzy
Kuryłowicz, continued bu Manfred Mayrhofer und Alfred Bammesberger, Heidelberg: Winter.

Lupinu, Giovanni. 2000. Latino epigrafico della Sardegna: Aspetti fonetici. Nuoro: Ilisso edizioni.

Malzahn, Melanie. 2010. The Tocharian Verbal System. Leiden: Brill.

Maras, D. F. 2009. “Note in margine al CIE II, 1, 5.” Studi etruschi 74:237–47.

Mayrhofer, Manfred. 2004. Die Hauptprobleme der indogermanischen Lautlehre seit Bechtel. Vienna: Verl.
der Österr. Akad. der Wiss.

Meader, Clarence Linton. 1901. The Latin Pronouns: is, hic, iste, ipse. A Semasiological Study. London:
Macmillan.

Meier-Brügger, Michael. 2010. Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft, 9th ed. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Melchert, H. Craig. 2000. “Tocharian plurals in -nt- and related phenomena.” Tocharian and Indo-
European Studies 9.53-75.

  58  
———. 2008. “Hittite duwān (parā).” In Morphology and Language History. In Honour of Harold Koch, eds.
Claire Bowern, Bethwyn Evans, and Luisa Miceli, 201–9. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Melchert, H. Craig. 2012. “Luvo-Lycian dorsal stops revisited.” In Roman Sukač and Ondřej Šefčík (eds.),
The Sound of Indo-European 2. Papers on Indo-european Phonetics, Phonemics and Morphophonemics,
206–18. Munich: Lincom Europa.

Mercado, Angelo. 2012. Italic Verse, A Study of the Poetic Remains of Old Latin, Faliscan, and Sabellic.
Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft.

Miller, Jared. 2008. “Ein Ritual zur Reinigung eines Hauswesens durch eine Beschwörung an die
Unterirdischen (CTH 446).” In Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments, N.F. vol. 4, eds. B. Janowski
and G. Wilhelm, p. 209, n. 97.

Müller, Stefan, 2007. Zum Germanischen aus laryngaltheoretischer Sicht. Mit einer Einführung in die
Grundlagen der Laryngaltheorie. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Must, Gustav. 1965. “The symbols for /i/ and /j/ in German orthography: An historical survey.” Modern
Language Notes 80:584–95.

Neumann, Günter. 2007. Glossar des Lykischen. Edited by Johann Tischler. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Ohala, John. 1995. “A probable case of clicks influencing the sound patterns of some European
languages.” Phonetica 52:160–70.

Oliver, Revilo P. 1949. “The Claudian letter Ⱶ.” American Journal of Archaeology 53:249–57.

Payne, Annick. 2010. Hieroglyphic Luwian: An Introduction with Original Texts. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz.

Pezzini, Giuseppe. 2011. “Contraction of est in Latin.” Transactions of the Philological Society 109:327–43.

Poccetti, Paolo, 1979. Nuovi documenti italici: a complemento del manuale di Emil Vetter. Pisa: Giardini.

Poetto, Massimo and Giulio Facchetti, 2009. ”L’aryballos di Araθ Numasiana.” Oebalus 4:365–84.

Preste, Sesto. 1970. Il codice di Terenzio vaticano latino 3226. Vatican City: Biblioteca apostolica
vaticana.

Pye, D. 1963. ”Latin 3rd plural perf. ind. act. endings in verse usage.” Transactions of the Philological
Society:1-27.

Reinhart, Johannes. 2012. “Inheritance or innovation in the Proto-Slavic verb: the ending -mo (1st
person plural).” In H. Craig Melchert (ed.), The Indo-European Verb, 289–94. Wiesbaden:
Reichert.

  59  
Rieken, Elisabeth, 2005. ”Neues zum Ursprung der anatolischen i-Mutation.” Historische Sprachforschung
118:48–75.

———. 2011. Einführung in die hethitische Sprache und Schrift. Unter Mitwirkung von Ute Gradmann und
Jürgen Lorenz. Münster: Ugarit Verlag.

Ringe, Donald A. 2006. A History of English. Volume 1. From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ringe, Donald A., and Joseph F. Eska. 2013. Historical Linguistics: Toward a Twenty-first century
Reintegration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ryan, F. X. 1998. Rank and Participation in the Republican Senate. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.

Safarewicz, Jan. 1935. “Les voyelles nasales en latin.” In Atti del III congresso internazionale dei linguisti
(Roma, 1933), 176–9. Florence.

Sala, Marius. 2005. From Latin to Romanian. The Historical Development of Romanian in a Comparative
Romance Context. University, Mississippi: Romance Monographs.

Sampson, Rodney. 2009. Vowel Prosthesis in Romance. A Diachronic Study. New York: Oxford
University Press.

Schulze-Thulin, Britta, 2001. Studien zu den urindogermanischen o-stufigen Kausativa, Iterativa und
Nasalpräsentien im Kymrischen. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft.

de Simone, Carlo. 2009. “La nuova iscrizione tirsenica di Efestia.” In Gli scavi di Efestia e la nuova
iscrizione ‘tirsenica’, eds. Aglaia Archontidou, Carlo de Simone, and Emanuele Greco, 3–58.
Athens: Scuola Archeologica Italiana di Atene.

———. 2011. “L’origine degli etruschi’ ancora: recenti teorie.” Studi etruschi 74:169–96.

Solin, H. 1991. “Analecta epigraphica. (CXLIII. Zu republikanischen Inschrfifen 146–54).” Arctos 25:139–
56.

———. 1997. “Analecta epigraphica. (CLXVIII. Ablativ statt lokativ in Städtnamen 142).” Arctos 31:135–
47.

Sowa, Wojciech. 2008. Studien zum Phrygischen. Göttingen: Cuvillier.

Stylow, A.U. 2012. “Stumm wie ein Frosch ohne Zunge! Eine neue Fluchtafel aus Celti (Peñaflor, Pro.
Sevilla)” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 181:149–55.

Syme, Ronald. 1981. “A great orator mislaid.” Classical Quarterly. 31.2:421–7.

  60  
Ternes, Elmar (ed.). 2011. Brythonic Celtic - Britannisches Keltisch: From Medieval British to Modern
Breton. Bremen: Hempen.

Tiefenbach, Heinrich. 2010. Altsachsisches Handworterbuch: A Concise Old Saxon Dictionary. Berlin: De
Gruyter.

Triantafillis, Elena. 2008. Le iscrizioni italiche dal 1979: Testi, retrospettiva, prospettive. Padua:
Unipress.

Tribulato, Olga (ed.). 2012. Language and Linguistic Contact in Ancient Sicily. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Tozzer, Alfred M. 1921. A Maya Grammar. Cambridge MA: Peabody Museum.

Traina, Alfonso. 1999. Forma e suono. Da Plauto a Pascoli. Bologna: Pàtron.

van den Hout, Theo. 2011. The Elements of Hittite. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Varone, Antonio, 2002. Erotica Pompeiana. Love Inscriptions on the Walls of Pompeii. Rome: Bretschneider.

Vendryes, J. 1937. “La 3e personne du singulier du perfectum latin.” Revue des étude indo-européennes
1:3–5. Reprinted in Vendryes, J. 1952. Choix d’études linguistiques et celtiques, 156–8. Paris:
Klincksieck.

Wachter, R. 2005. “Annex zu Fragment 3 der Graffiti von Eretria.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und
Epigraphik 151:84–6.

Wackernagel, Jacob. 2009. Lectures on Syntax with special reference to Greek, Latin, and Germanic. Edited
with notes and bibliography by David Langslow. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Weinreich, Uriel. 1953. Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems. With a preface by André Martinet.
New York: Publications of the Linguistic Circle of New York 1.

Weinreich, Uriel. 2011. Languages in Contact: French, German and Romansh in twentieth-century
Switzerland. Edited with introduction and notes by Ronald I. Kim and William Labov.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Weiss, Michael. 2013. “Interesting i-stems in Irish.” In A. Cooper et al. (eds.) Multi Nominis Grammaticus.
Studies in Classical and Indo-European linguistics in honor of Alan J. Nussbaum, 340–56. Ann Arbor:
Beech Stave.

Willi, Andreas. 2008. Sikelismos. Sprache, Literatur und Gesellschaft im Griechischen Sizilien (8.–5. Jh. v.
Chr.). Basel: Schwabe.

  61  
Wodtko, Dagmar S., Britta Irslinger, and Carolin Schneider 2008. Nomina im Indogermanischen Lexikon.
Heidelberg: Winter.

  62