Earliest AE for AI

On pg. 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

Missing macron

The cognomen Drusus quoted on pg. 163, n. 19 and pg. 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

Missing accent

On pg. 422 read ἐλθέ for ἐλθε.

VOLTAI

On pg. 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.

QVOIVS

On pg. 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.

bracchium = arm

On pg. 272, fn. 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'.

Another form bites the dust

On pages 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)j-. This makes it unlikely that this form has anything to do with Latin 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 w-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, Claude. 2005. Le psi et le "trident" dans l'alphabet grec de pamphylie. In F. Poli and G. Vottéro (eds.), De Cyrène à Catherine: Trois mille ans de Libyennes. Études grecques et latines offertes à Catherine Dobias-Lalou. Paris: De Boccard, 59–65.