Corrigendum

Ben Fortson points out that on p. 446 n. 81 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-đyēr, with the  cognate of Umbrian passive infinitive suffix -fi, Osc. -fír, was transformed into *amā-zyēr (> 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.

Corrigendum

On pg. 283 fn. 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.

Addendum

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

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

Second Printing!

The second corrected printing is now available.  If your library doesn't have it yet, get them to order it.

Another ghost word

On pg. 241 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 Jared Miller 2008. "Ein Ritual zur Reinigung eines Hauswesens durch eine Beschwörung an die Unterirdischen (CTH 446)" in B. Janowski and G. Wilhelm (eds.) Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments, N.F. vol. 4, p. 209, fn. 97. The Tocharian cognates remain safe...for now.

Von Bradke 1890

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 as I said on pg. 35, fn. 24.  

A corrected second printing of OHCGL will soon be available (probably in January). I've been able to correct the minor typos and errors. This isn't a full second edition—I couldn't correct anything that required extensive rewriting.  Get your library to buy it if they don't have it yet.