Monday, February 6, 2012


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.


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.