OHCGL Addenda and Corrigenda

Addendum

2012-01-25T06:57:00.000-08:00

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!

2012-01-17T16:41:00.000-08:00

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

Another ghost word

2012-01-04T10:16:00.000-08:00

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

2011-11-16T11:48:00.001-08:00

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.

2011-11-12T18:08:00.001-08:00

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.

Reviews?

2011-10-02T16:31:00.000-07:00

Dear Readers,

If any reader knows of reviews of OHCGL forthcoming or in print I'd be very grateful if he/she would let me know about them. So far I have read James Clackson's review in BMCR and I know of forthcoming reviews in Graeco-Latina Pragensia, which Professor Pultrová has kindly sent to me, and in Das Altertum, which is still in preparation by Harald Bichlmeier. If you are writing a review or know of someone who has, please send it along to me so that I can correct any small mistakes before the second printing.

Thanks,

Michael

Sold out!

2011-08-18T17:39:00.000-07:00

The first printing of OHCGL will soon be sold out. This means I will get to do a corrected reprint. So if you notice any small errors I haven't corrected yet, now is the time to let me know.

Bibliographical Addenda

2011-07-22T07:42:00.000-07:00

To the basic bibliography for Germanic given on pg. 11, fn. 5 add:

For Old Saxon: Tieffenbach 2010

For Old Frisian: Hofmann and Popkema 2008

For Old Netherlandic: http://gtb.inl.nl/?owner=ONW

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

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

New Companion to the Latin Language

2011-07-22T07:28:00.000-07:00

I see that Google Books now has significant sections of the soon to be released A Companion to the Latin Language edited by James Clackson. It's a little difficult to tell the complete contents from what is available there, but I can see the following: Rex Wallace has a chapter on "The Latin alphabet and Orthography"; James Clackson has written on "Latin Inscriptions and Documents" and "Inflectional Morphology". Matthew McCullaugh wrote the chapter "The Sound of Latin: Phonology". Ben Fortson contributed "Latin Prosody and Metrics". I look forward to reading the whole thing, which undoubtedly will be a valuable addition to the literature. Clackson 2011 should be added to the resources listed on pg. 15 fn. 34

Correction pg. 365

2011-07-08T11:59:00.000-07:00

On pg. 365 change the gloss of simul from 'once', which in the meaning 'as soon as' is rarely attested for simul, to 'in company with, at the same time'.

Typo pg. 364, fn. 4

2011-07-08T11:53:00.000-07:00

On pg. 364, fn. 4 the last name of the great Celticist should be not Green, but (David) Greene.

Correction pg. 138

2011-07-08T11:40:00.000-07:00

On pg. 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 < *weglis) 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 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').

Correction pg. 417

2011-07-05T12:49:00.000-07:00

On pg. 417 the 1st sg. optative active of Ved. bhar- should be bhareyam not bhareya, which is the 1st sg. middle.

Clarification on Lat. ā in Early Loanwords into Celtic

2011-06-23T07:52:00.000-07:00

On pg. 508, fn. 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 fn. 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 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. NYC guy has inspired me to replace the bean picture with a true old world variety, fava beans.

Romance Addenda

2011-06-22T12:16:00.000-07:00

Two new Romance resources to add to pg. 503:

(1) Oxford Online Database of Romance Verb Morphology

I haven't used it yet but it looks valuable.

(2) The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages. Vol. 1: Structures, edited by Martin 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.

More Verification of Fibula Praenestina

2011-06-11T06:29:00.000-07:00

Through the kindness of Professor de Simone:

Missing Reference

2011-06-10T04:54:00.000-07:00

Professor Angelo Mercado of Grinnell College alerts me to a missing bibliographical item. On pg. 479 n. 6 I quote Leumann 1968 which is not to be found in the references. The corresponding datum is:

Leumann, Manu. 1968. "Die Eingliederung entlehnter griechischer Verben ins Latein." Studii Clasice 10:7-12.

Thanks, Angelo!

Goth. aleina

2011-05-25T14:56:00.000-07:00

On pg. 169 fn. 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.

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.

Addenda to Bibliography:

2011-05-22T18:10:00.000-07:00

To pg. 12 fn. 7 add to the general bibliography for Celtic Ball and Muller 2009 which refers to the second edition of Ball, Martin and Nicole Muller (eds.), The Celtic Languages. Routledge: New York. This edition is a significant improvement over the first in that it has essays covering the Medieval stages of the Celtic languages by David Stifter (Early Irish) and David Willis (Old and Middle Welsh). Joe Eska discusses "The Emergence of the Celtic Languages" and (together with D. Ellis Evans) "Continental Celtic."

Another second edition which should be added is Horrocks 2010 (Geoffrey C. Horrocks, Greek: A History of the Language and Its Speakers. Chichester/Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell) replacing Horrocks 1997 on pg. 18, fn. 53. See the review at BMCR.

My Cliched Cover Image!

2011-05-16T18:22:00.000-07:00

All I can say is "oy!" Strangely, I happen to know to varying degrees the authors of these other books with Poussin on the cover. Peter Bing was my first Greek teacher and Mario Erasmo was a grad student at Yale when I taught there, though I never taught him. I had no idea that these covers were out there. I guess the image is just too good to pass up. Sorry, guys! I should have gone with David's Oath of the Horatii.

Corrigenda

2011-04-19T07:06:00.000-07:00

An email from Malte Liesner alerts me to an imprecise formulation. On pg. 58 in 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.

Also on pg. 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

Addenda to Bibliography: Update

2011-01-18T12:07:00.000-08:00

On pg. 10 replace Meier-Brügger 2003 with Meier-Brügger 2010, which is the 9th revised and expanded edition of Indogermanische Sprachwisenschaft. The bibliography is outstanding and from it I learn that Gerhard Meiser's Historische Laut- und Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache had a 2nd edition in 2006 (apparently unchanged) and is now available in a 3rd edition (2010).

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

Update: Professor Meiser informs me that the 3rd edition is in fact a reprint.

Corrigenda

2011-01-14T16:23:00.000-08:00

Will Sullivan alerts me to the following mistakes:

On pg. 24 fn. 8 change "Herman 1997:114" to "Herman 2000:114".

On pg. 228 the quantities are wrong: the words pilus 'a hair' and pila 'ball' have short vowels as correctly given for pila on pg. 64 (oh the shame!!).

On pg. 110 change the gloss of nostrās from 'our countrymen' to 'born in our country'.

Thank you, Will.

Date of final -os to -us

2011-01-05T07:37:00.000-08:00

On pg. 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 suggest that the date of the change of o to u at least before -s has to be pushed back at least 50 years or so. Similarly on pg. 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)."

Hungarian Linguists Sing "We are the World"

2010-12-13T20:00:00.000-08:00

In honor of the 20th anniversary of theoretical linguistics at Eötvös Loránd University. I believe the dark-haired, bearded fellow who sings second is noted Latin linguist András Cser. Congratulations!

Addendum

2010-12-03T14:58:00.000-08:00

To the bibliography for Old Frisian given on pg. 11, fn. 5 add Bremmer 2009.

Rolf H. Bremmer. 2009. An introduction to Old Frisian. History, grammar, reader, glossary. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Addendum and Corrigendum: the non-present stem of iterative-causatives

2010-11-28T09:17:00.000-08:00

On pg. 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, (fn. 55) the following analogy took place:

*kap-ye- : *kap-to- :: *moneye- : X, X = *mone-to-.

In other words, the suffix *-eye- was reanalyzed as stem in e- plus suffix *-ye-. In the formation of the verbal adjective in *-to- the suffix *-ye- was truncated.

In fn. 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-w-ai, e.g. monuī < *mone-wai. 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 partake of 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- < *-logeye-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 a significant but under-appreciated common innovation of Italo-Celtic. See Schulze-Thulin 2001:86-9 with earlier literature.

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

Rasenna Blog

2010-11-20T04:48:00.000-08:00

I want to call your attention to the new Rasenna Blog just launched by my esteemed colleague and fellow Beech Stavite, Rex Wallace. The blog about Etruscan language and inscriptions promises to be fascinating.

Don't buy my book!

2010-11-17T18:21:00.000-08:00

from here. The Book Depository (I hope not located in Dallas) is selling my book for $152.15. I don't know why you'd buy it from them and pay double what you could pay if you bought it from Beech Stave directly unless you just do whatever Amazon tells you to do.

Typo

2010-11-09T11:40:00.000-08:00

Kevin Muse of the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee alerts me to this mistake on p. 68 3. b "For this statement..." should read "From this statement..." Kevin has also compiled a page-consecutive file of the corrections and additions to OHCGL made thus far which I intend to post soon—only the serious ones are included, not the silly ones. This way you will be able to print it out and keep it with your hard copy. Thanks, Kevin!

Ligurrio etc.

2010-11-05T12:54:00.000-07:00

On pg. 79 fn. 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 above is scanned from Sesto Preste, 1970. Il codice di Terenzio vaticano latino 3226. Vatican City: Biblioteca apostolica vaticana.

A surprising mismatch

2010-11-04T14:26:00.000-07:00

On pg. 467 I mention the word ōvum 'egg' which seems not to have been affected by whatever rule changed *oktōwos 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.

A New Lemnian Inscription

2010-11-04T09:41:00.000-07:00

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, Carlo. 2009. La nuova iscrizione tirsenica di Efestia. In Aglaia Archontidou, Carlo de Simone, and Emanuele Greco (eds.) Gli scavi di Efestia e lanuova iscrizione ‘tirsenica’. Athens: Scuola Archeologica Italiana di Atene.

Bibliographical Addendum

2010-10-24T05:33:00.000-07:00

To the basic bibliography for Romance given on pg. 503 add the new book by my Cornell colleagues Ti Alkire and Carol Rosen:

Alkire, Ti, and Carol G. Rosen. 2010. Romance languages: a historical introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Linguistics Professor/Movie Star

2010-10-22T12:13:00.000-07:00

How many professors of historical linguistics have also been the lead actor in a major motion picture? To my knowledge only one: Carlo Battisti (1882-1977), the co-author of Battisti and Alessio 1950–7 Dizionario etimologico italiano and a professor of glottologia at Florence, was also the star of the Vittorio De Sica's Umberto D, a neorealist classic about an old man (Umberto D.) and his dog (named strangely Flaik). Battisti plays the part marvelously.

pons, pontis

2010-10-12T08:05:00.000-07:00

Filip De Decker alerts me to a confusing formulation on pg. 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-).

inserinuntur and solinunt

2010-10-05T06:13:00.000-07:00

Michiel de Vaan points out that on pg. 386 fn. 39 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. 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.

Response to Comments

2010-09-27T19:00:00.000-07:00

Dear Commentors,

Somehow I've failed to see a few comments posted long ago until today! I'm afraid I appeared ungracious. Thanks especially to Zsolt Simon, Bulbul, and Docente for their helpful comments. Of course, I am delighted if anyone reads this blog and takes the time to comment.

Michael

Bibliographical Addendum

2010-09-26T06:53:00.000-07:00

To the general bibliography for Germanic given on p. 11, n. 5. add

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

More on More on Root Aorists

2010-09-23T05:44:00.000-07:00

Apropos of fūdī, Alan Nussbaum reminds me that the root is *gh'ew- 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- : wi:k- = fundo/e- : X.

The Scansion of dat. sg. ei in Classical Latin

2010-09-21T08:06:00.000-07:00

In his review James Clackson points out correctly that it is misleading to say, as I do on pg. 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.

Meader, Clarence Linton. 1901. The Latin pronouns: is, hic, iste, ipse. A semasiological study. London: Macmillan.

-ĕrunt is Not Absent from Classical Poetry

2010-09-20T12:35:00.000-07:00

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.

See D. Pye. 1963. Latin 3rd plural perf. ind. act. endings in verse usage. TPhS:1-27.

Osc. pui

2010-09-20T11:18:00.000-07:00

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.

Meddíks

2010-09-20T10:38:00.000-07:00

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.

More Root Aorists in Latin

2010-09-20T10:20:00.000-07:00

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 said on pg. 412 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.

The True Cost

2010-09-20T04:06:00.000-07:00

The BMCR review gives the cost of OHCGL as $110, but that is the "list price". If you purchase the book directly from Beech Stave Press (the best way to get it) the cost is $75. Not cheap, I know.

The First Review is In

2010-09-19T16:52:00.000-07:00

A nice review of OHCGL at Bryn Mawr Classical Review by James Clackson of Cambridge.
http://www.bmcreview.org/2010/09/20100935.html
Professor Clackson has found some more things for me to correct. I will post those here in the next few days. Thanks!

Ex Anatolia Lux!

2010-09-18T14:33:00.000-07:00

I'd like to take the opportunity to announce the publication of Ex Anatolia Lux: Anatolian and Indo-European studies in honor of H. Craig Melchert. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave Press of which I was one of the four editors (the others being my esteemed colleagues Ron Kim, Elisabeth Rieken, and Norbert Oettinger). The volume was presented at the recent UCLA meeting of the Indogermanische Fachtagung on the Indo-European Verb. I'm happy to say that the volume was (apparently) a complete surprise to the honorand! Most articles are naturally Anatolo-centric, but Olav Hackstein's "Latenisch omnis" (pp. 75–84) takes the etymology of omnis from *opnis <— op- 'abundance' (mentioned in passing at OHCGL, p. 140) from possible to very probable. Incidentally, a cognate of omnis appears in the Venetic Tavola da Este in the phrase to ommni opedon. I also have an article about an Italic subject: "Two Sabellic Praenomina" (pp. 363–374).

Spepondi

2010-09-04T11:37:00.000-07:00

On pg. 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, J. N. 1990. The Latinity of C. Novius Eunus. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 82:227–247.

Umbrian-inspired jewelry

2010-08-29T06:57:00.000-07:00

Haven't found any new mistakes or missing refs. recently so I thought I'd post this beautiful piece of Umbrian-inspired jewelry made by Paula Ardis Weiss of Peoria, Arizona, AKA my sister. I see a few real words in the last line and the bird must be a peica mersta!

Addendum

2010-08-12T05:19:00.000-07:00

An invaluable resource for the study of the language of Latin inscriptions from Rome (De Gruyter 2006):

CIL VI. Inscriptiones urbis Romae Latinae. pars VI, fasc. III. Grammatica quaedam erroresque quadratarii et alias rationes scribendi notabiliores. Composuit A. E. GORDON† adiutante J. S. GORDON†. Auxerunt et edenda curaverunt U. JANSEN et H. KRUMMREY.

Two Addenda from Solin

2010-08-04T10:32:00.000-07:00

On pg. 202 fn. 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 XI 6721.13).

On pg. 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, pg. 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.

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 31:135–147.

Etruscan o

2010-07-28T12:06:00.000-07:00

ᛟᛟᛟᛟᛟᛟᛟᛟᛟᛟᛟᛟᛟᛟᛟᛟᛟᛟᛟᛟᛟᛟᛟᛟᛟᛟᛟᛟᛟᛟᛟᛟᛟᛟᛟᛟᛟᛟᛟᛟᛟᛟᛟᛟᛟOn pg. 27 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/ 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 an 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 shows 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, D. F. 2009. Note in margine al CIE II, 1, 5. Studi etruschi 74:237–47.

Addendum and Corrigenda

2010-07-21T08:21:00.000-07:00

To the basic bibliography for Tocharian given on pg. 21 fn. 79 add Malzahn, Melanie. 2010. The Tocharian Verbal System. Leiden: Brill. This book will be an invaluable resource for years to come. It provides an overview and synchronic and diachronic analysis of the categories of the Tocharian verb and a lexicon of the attested Averbo of each Tocharian verbal root. Checking my index against Malzahn I uncovered a few imprecise statements and errors on my part.

On pg. 82 as a cognate of luō I cite the TA present stem lunā- with the gloss 'release' ('send' would have been better). According to Malzahn p. 854 the present stem is not actually attested in TA although it was restored as lun(āmäs) in one fragment by Sieg and Siegling. The TB present is the Class III form lyewetär, which I should have cited instead.

On pg. 407 as the cognate of Lat. escit I cite a non-existent TB ske. The 3rd pl. of the copula is indeed skente < *h1s-sk'onto, but the singular is ste which may come from *h1s-sk'e-to. See Pinault 2008:642 for more details.

On pg. 408 fn. 31 I discuss whether Lat. cūdō and TB kaut- 'split' can be reconciled via *kewh2dhe-, 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-.

On pg. 413 fn. 13 following others I compared Lat. lēgī to TB lyāka 'I saw' but see Malzahn p. 838–9 for some of the difficulties involved in that comparison.

Addendum

2010-07-17T09:13:00.000-07:00

Apologies for failure to blog for last three weeks. I was co-teaching (with Jeremy Rau) a two-week seminar in Greek comparative grammar and Greek dialects. In the course of preparing for that class I got my first good look at the volume A History of Ancient Greek: From the Beginnings to Late Antiquity, edited by A.-F. Christidis with the assistance of Maria Arapoloulou and Maria Chriti. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. This book was first published in Greek in 2001 and translated by various hands in 2007. Overall, the book is similar in conception to the Bakker volume, but more extensive (the first subsection on "the language phenomenon" seems out of place to me). I have read only a fraction of the work, but some standout chapters are the ones by Claude Brixhe (History of the alphabet: Some guidelines for avoiding oversimplifications) and Julian Mendez Dosuna (on Doric and Aeolic). Particularly relevant for Latin are the chapters on Greek and Latin contact by Robert Coleman and on evidence for Vulgar Latin from modern Greek dialects by N. Katsanis.

Addendum

2010-06-24T10:49:00.000-07:00

On pg. 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. Thanks to Michiel De Vaan for useful comments.

Addendum

2010-06-17T08:34:00.000-07:00

To the bibliography for "semi-direct" sources of Vulgar Latin given on pg. 504 add Hanciaux 1989-95 (Hanciaux, René. 1989-95. Graphies latines vulgaires et variantes orthographiques tirees des manuscrits. Mons: Atelier Offset de l'Université de l'Etat à Mons.) 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.

Now with More Sound Changes!

2010-06-15T18:03:00.000-07:00

Multiple Corrigenda in One Sentence

2010-06-09T16:57:00.000-07:00

On pg. 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, of all 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. Other 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. This mistake rivals the worst mistake discovered yet for pure and total confusion!

Addendum

2010-06-08T12:12:00.000-07:00

To the bibliography for Italian given on pg. 503 add Michel 1997. This is a very interesting account of the historical grammar of Old Italian with a good selection of commented texts in a variety of dialects. From this book I learn that the historical interpretation of the Italian masc. sg. article il that I give in the book (p. 522) , i.e. < *illī is probably not correct. Instead il is prothetic from form earlier (')l as in dove 'l sol tace (Dante Inf. 1.60) < *ubi illum sole tacet. Another form found in Tuscan until the 16th century is el, which perhaps is from illum with apocope, although this too is not certain.

Michel, Andreas, 1997. Einführung in das Altitaliensche. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.

Addendum to Bibliography

2010-06-04T20:21:00.000-07:00

To the basic bibliography for Greek add Bakker 2010. I wrote the chapter on morphology and word formation, which I think is a pretty good sketch of the overall system, although the section on word formation is ridiculously short. Other chapters worth mentioning as especially relevant to the Latin book are Phoinikeia Grammatika (Roger Woodard) Greek and Indo-European (Jeremy Rau), Phonology (Philomen Probert), Greek and Latin Bilingualism (Bruno Rochette). I will take the opportunity to correct one inaccuracy in my chapter. In explaining the concept of analogy I write "the past tense of the verb strive in many forms of present-day English is strove, not strived, which continues the Old English form." Of course, strive is a loanword from Old French estriver and does not go back beyond the 13th century in English. Ultimately, OF estriver is thought to be of Germanic origin, but there is no Old English ancestor of strive. Furthermore, as a loanword we would expect strive to join the productive paradigm, i.e. the weak verbs, and strived in found from the 14th century on, but the first attested past tense is indeed strove. So in the case of strive the adoption of the strong verb pattern on the model of drive : drove vel sim. was pretty much instantaneous as soon as the word got into the Middle English lexicon.

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

Typo in Bibliography

2010-05-30T19:13:00.000-07:00

Dariusz Piwowarczyk calls my attention to this error in the bibliography. In the entry for Matasović, Ranko. 1997 change latinskogo to latinskoga.

A False Quantity in the OLD

2010-05-28T18:28:00.000-07:00

The OLD gives the verb sariō (sometimes written sarriō) 'I hoe' with long a. As far as I can tell, this is wrong. The verb apparently only occurs in verse one time at Plautus Captivi 663. The line is transmitted as nam semper occant prius quam sarriunt rustici, but sar- cannot be a heavy syllable and Nonius, who quotes the line, preserves the form sariunt and in fact this must be correct since the line only scans (ia6):

nam semper occant prius quam sariunt rustici
A B c D A b b C d d A B c D

Why the spelling with a geminate r is so common and how it arises is another question, but there is no evidence for the macron of the OLD.

pesnas

2010-05-27T14:06:00.000-07:00

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 pg. 168 fn. 3.

Lesser-known Historical Grammars of Latin XV

2010-05-25T07:47:00.000-07:00

Here is a work I have not been able to get my hands on: Σκάσσης, Ερρίκος Α., vol 1, 1969; vol. 2 1977. Ιστορικη γραμματικη της Λατινικης γλωσσης: μετα διαγραμματος της ιστοριας των Λατινικων γραμματικων ερευνων. Athens.

This work is available apparently only at the Library of Congress and the University of Sydney. The author, whom I have never heard of otherwise, was a Greek classicist who wrote, among other works, De Macrobii placitis philosophicis eorumque fontibus, and Observationes criticae in quosdam locos primi Ciceronis libri qui est de divinatione, both published in 1915. According to the Modern Greek Virtual Prosopography Skasses was born in 1884 at Ερμούπολη on the island of Syros and died in 1977 at Athens. This work appears to be the only treatment of Latin historical grammar in Greek. Has anyone ever seen this book? I intend to take a look at it when I am in Washington, next month.

Too good to be true

2010-05-17T11:26:00.000-07:00

A 2000 article by Pensabene et al. publishes a collection of inscribed archaic and Republican ceramic fragments discovered during excavations on the southwest of the Palatine. Mainly they are one or two letters long and not very interesting, except for the history of the alphabet, but one (p. 198) reads [---]IEVS + [---]. Could this be restored as DIEVS? i.e. the old nominative of the name for the sky(-god) which we know Latin inherited (e.g. nudius tertius).

Pensabene, Patrizio, et al. 2000. Ceramica graffita di età arcaica e repubblicana dall'area sud ovest del Palatino. Scienze dell'antichità. 10:162–247.

More on Zeta

2010-05-16T08:06:00.000-07:00

On pg. 29, fn. 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 VIIth 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.

Colonna, Giovanni, 1980. L'aspetto epigrafico del Lapis Satricanus, in Lapis Satricanus (Archeologische Studien van he Nederlands Institut te Rome, Scripta Minora V) 's Gravenhage 41–69.

Bibliographical Addendum

2010-05-13T11:44:00.000-07:00

To the bibliography for Sabellic quoted on pg. 13 fn. 23 and pg. 14 fn. 28 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.

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

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

A Curious Coincidence

2010-05-13T06:41:00.000-07:00

In fn. 20 pg. 264 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 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.

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

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

Bibliographical Addendum

2010-05-04T16:41:00.000-07:00

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

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

Pro(s)thesis

2010-05-03T11:52:00.000-07:00

Add the following to fn. 48 on pg. 511:

For a detail treatment of prothesis before #sC as well as other later protheses see Sampson 2009.

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

Geminate Consonants

2010-05-03T10:19:00.000-07:00

On pg. 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.

Loretum et Codeta

2010-04-26T17:29:00.000-07:00

On pg. 473 fn. 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 fn. 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, Vittorio, 1940. Storia d'un dialettismo nel latino dell'urbe. Rivista di filologia e d'istruzione classica. 18:22–33.

More on Final -d

2010-04-23T11:07:00.000-07:00

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

Will the typos never cease II?

2010-04-21T11:55:00.000-07:00

More corrections from Gregory Mellen:

On pg. 521 in the chart for 2nd person singular pronouns V. A. 2, the Italian reflex of Latin te, used as the stressed form of the pronoun, should be te, not ti.

On pg. 525–7 I have been inconsistent in my treatment of the stage of Italian represented in the tables. On pg. 525 I give under the label OITAL. the Old Italian forms of canto with reference to the modern standard forms in the alphabetical footnotes to the table. But on pg. 526 I give the modern standard Italian forms under the label OITAL. with reference to Old Italian forms in the footnotes. The simplest correction would be to simply relabel this column as Italian.

On pg. 522 fn. 35, discussing the distribution of the lo form of the masculine definite article I say it occurs—among other places—before ʃC, but that is wrong. lo occurs before ʃ, as in lo sciopero, and ʃ does not combine with any other consonant in Italian.

On pg. 546 in the Bibliography, under Guastella, read "La voce delle dita" for "La voce della dita".

Thanks, Gregory. Keep, dear readers, the corrections coming!

Will the typos never cease?

2010-04-21T11:07:00.000-07:00

Gregory Mellen, who attended the class I taught last summer at the Leiden IE Summer School and is now studying at Oxford, alerts me to the following typos/mistakes:

On pg. 246 fn. 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 instance 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).

On pg. 474 B. 2 for praetor read pretor.

The point of the 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.

More corrections to come in a subsequent post.

The genitive of 5th declension nouns in Cicero

2010-04-19T10:18:00.000-07:00

On pg. 255 fn. 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.

Missing gloss

2010-04-17T10:08:00.000-07:00

On pg. 169 at the top the form gnīxus > nīxus should have been identified as the synchronic past participle of the verb nītor 'I kneel, lean'.

Meters to be named later

2010-04-17T10:00:00.000-07:00

On pg. 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).

Numasioi Vindicated? Maybe not.

2010-04-15T09:10:00.000-07:00

In a previous post I mentioned the discovery of an Etruscan form numasianas which seems to match the Praenestine Fibula's from NVMASIOI. I further argued that "the form numasianas supports Numasios and makes it certain that Numasios is unconnected with numerus," but an email from Michiel Driessen, the author of the best etymology of urbs (JIES 29, 2001, p. 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 points to 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 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 *nomesiyo-.

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.

Bibliographical Addendum

2010-04-14T12:29:00.000-07:00

Add Bock 2008 to the bibliography for the prehistory of the 3rd conjugation on pg. 404—5.

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

News from Satricum

2010-04-14T09:51:00.000-07:00

To the brief list of Very Old Latin inscriptions on pg. 22 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 a forthcoming article by Béla Adamik, brought to my attention by Brent Vine, and mentioned here with the author's permission, has offered the first plausible interpretation of the fragmentary text. There are two fragmentary texts. Text A written boustrophedon reads:

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

and Text B reads

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

Adamik 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.

Adamik, Béla, forthcoming. Zu den archaischen lateinischen Inschriftfragmenten auf Bruchstücken eines Tonfasses von Satricum. Proceedings of the International Colloquium of Latin Linguistics, Innsbruck.

A Hungarian version of the Adamik paper is available:
Adamik, Béla, 2009. Új archaikus latin felirat Satricumból. Antik Tanulmányok 53:239–52.

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

More on som

2010-04-14T06:56:00.000-07:00

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.

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.

Galego-Portuguese 1st singular of the verb 'to be'

2010-04-11T18:02:00.000-07:00

On pg. 427 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.

Thank you, Rip!

Intereā etc.

2010-04-10T11:07:00.000-07:00

On pg. 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 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.

García Ramón, José Luis, 1997. Adverbios de dirección e instrumental indoeuropeo. In E. Crespo and J. L.García Ramón eds., Berthold Delbrück y la sintaxis indoeuropea hoy, Madrid/Wiesbaden:Reichert, 113-141.

Corrigendum

2010-04-10T07:05:00.000-07:00

Professor Michael Johnson of Vanderbilt, a former student of mine at UNC, points out this error:

on pg 484 A.1.c. for "with any value" read "without any value".

Thanks, Michael! He also passes along a number of corrigenda corrigendorum, which I have silently fixed.

Monosyllabic Lengthening

2010-04-09T11:48:00.000-07:00

In regard to the discussion of monosyllabic lengthening on pg. 41, fn. 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 pg. 325, n. 1.

VIne Corrigenda

2010-04-09T10:16:00.000-07:00

Professor Brent Vine of UCLA has been kind enough to send along his list of typos, corrigenda, and addenda. I will post all the simple typos here and post the more complicated issues in separate postings. Thanks, Brent!

• pg. 26, n. 13, l. 6: read “to indicate” for “to indicated”
• pg. 38 C 5: read “sonorant consonants” for “sonorants consonants”
• pg. 40, n. 46, ad fin.: read “pp. 158–9” for “pp. 158”
• pg. 121 mid., middle of A.1.: read gifroran for giforan
• pg. 127, n. 16, mid.: read “into the Classical period” for “into Classical period”

• pg. 133, n. 52: read “forms” for “form”
• pg. 134, Cat. 85.1: missing macrons in quārē
• pg. 143, n. 47: read “may be dialectal” for “may dialectal”
• pg. 160, B.1.: Read "-" for “e” + superscript dot and tilde in *ap-weriō
• pg. 163, n. 18: The cross-ref. should be pg. 156, not pg. 163
• pg. 177, n. 9: read “called” for “call”
• pg. 198 n. 25, 1st word of last sent.: read “Others” for “Other”
• pg. 334, n. 25: read “a reduction” for “an reduction”
•pg. 360, c.ii., 3rd line fr. bot. of page: For “superlative” read “comparative”
• pg. 368, n. 17, 2nd line: missing “close [single] quote” at the end of the gloss of *tri-sth2o/i-
• pg. 549, Jasanoff 2009: Wrong order of editors; should be “Kazuhiko Yoshida and Brent Vine”

Lesser-known Historical Grammars of Latin XIV

2010-04-07T09:36:00.000-07:00

Emilia Ndiaye, De L'indo-européen au latin et au grec. Initiation à la grammaire comparée du latin et du grec, avec excercices corrigés, tableaux synthétiques et lexiques was published in 2009 (Brussels: Éditions Safran). The level is very introductory, and there are mistakes, but the book has abundant exercises, which look well designed, and it also has a convenient list of Greek and Latin cognates arranged alphabetically according to the Latin reflex. In the top right of the picture you can see a drawing of the text of TI V.

Tocharian B Love Poetry

2010-04-07T06:35:00.000-07:00

On pg. 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 20083:32 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').

The genitive plural of mare

2010-04-05T10:47:00.000-07:00

On pg. 242 I give a complete paradigm of mare as an exemplum for the neuter i-stems, but Erica Bexley of Cornell 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 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.

It's unbelievable that I could have lived 45 years and written a book on Latin historical grammar without knowing this!

Final -a

2010-03-31T12:08:00.000-07:00

On pg. 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. 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. seem 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.

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

Missing Reference

2010-03-27T18:50:00.000-07:00

Matthew Scarborough points out to me that the reference on pg. 52 fn. 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.

Thank you, Matthew!

Melchert Corrigenda XIII

2010-03-26T06:58:00.000-07:00

The Hieroglyphic Luvian form that I quote as tamari 'builds' should be "quoted as as tammari* (AEDIFICARE+MI-ri+i). It is never spelled out, and by “Cop’s Law” the -mm- surely is geminate." This concludes the series of Melchert Corrigenda. Thanks very much, Craig, for your help!

Corrigendum

2010-03-26T06:55:00.000-07:00

On pg. 429 in discussing the paradigm of eō 'I go' I wrote "the 1st and 3rd singular have been thematized." Of course, this should read "the 1st singular and 3rd plural have been thematized." and in c.i on that page change 'expect' to 'except'.

Addendum

2010-03-26T06:49:00.000-07:00

To the discussion of adverbs in -im with ablatival force add a reference to Goedegebuure 2007 who has demonstrated that Hieroglyphic Luvian had an ablatival suffix -in < -im in zin and apin from the pronominal stems za/i- 'this' and apa/i- 'that'.

Goedegebuure, P. 2007. The Hieroglyphic-Luwian Demonstrative Ablative-Instrumentals zin and apin. Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 49:319–34.

Melchert Corrigenda XII

2010-03-26T06:40:00.000-07:00

The explanation of the suffix -*sy- of the feminine oblique demonstratives from *-smy- needs to be reevaluated in light of the fact that a stem *syo- 'one' is required for Hittite and Tocharian. See Pinault 2006.

Pinault, G-J. 2006. Retour sur le numéral 'un' en Tokharien. Indogermanische Forschungen 110 71–97.

Melchert Corrigenda XI

2010-03-26T06:33:00.000-07:00

On pg. 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-."

Melchert Corrigenda X

2010-03-26T06:23:00.000-07:00

On pg. 326 the Lydian form e~mi- (tilde over e) is wrongly cited as the accusative of the 1st person singular pronoun. It is in fact the possessive adjective. The real nominative and accusative is amu.

Melchert Corrigenda IX

2010-03-26T06:16:00.000-07:00

On pg. 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.