Hiemps

On pg. 171 fn. 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.

Ohala, John. 1995. A probable case of clicks influencing the sound patterns of some European languages. Phonetica 52:160–170.

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

Initial gn-

On pg. 190 I write "Old Latin also permitted gn- as in gnārus [ŋnārus]. (Incidentally, I should have use 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'

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 pg. 169 fn. 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 the pdf posted by András Cser. 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.

Phonology of Latin Inscriptions of Sardinia

To the bibliography for Sardinian historical grammar given on pg. 503 add:

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

The beautiful designs on the cover reproduce the patterns of traditional Sardinian bread stamps.

Lesser-known Historical Grammars of Latin V

The work pictured at left is of little linguistics interest. It is a small comparative grammar for beginners. Most of the information is derivative of Meillet and Vendryes and other sources. The most notable thing about this work is the aggressively condescending tone the author takes to his fellow classicists in the introduction:

"The subject [i.e. Comparative Philology] has a great intrinsic interest for a certain type of mind—the enquiring, scientific type. Many students of classics of course have not that type of mind: perhaps that is the reason why they choose the classics rather than science as their main subject; for them the only interest of Latin and Greek lies in the literature, and grammar is anathema to them. It is not for such that this book is written."

No wonder he couldn't get a job in England! But there are some interesting facts about the author. David S. Crawford was born in Yorkshire in 1904. He attended St. Catherine's College at Cambridge and emigrated to Egypt in 1934. He became a lecture in Classics at Fouad I University in Cairo (where this book was published) and edited the Fouad I Papyri, which had been collected by O. Gradenwitz. On January 25, 1952 British troops killed 50 Egyptian police officers in Ismailia. The next day, January 26, riots erupted in Egypt which targeted British citizens and interests. Two of the twenty or so Britons killed were David S. Crawford and his wife.

See E. G. Turner 1952. Obituary of David S. Crawford. Chronique d'Egypte 27.54, 414.

Future Middle Imperatives in -ntor

On pg. 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.

Lesser-known Historical Grammars of Latin IV

Prof. Dr. H(enricus) H(ubertus) Janssen (1910–1982) was a Professor of Latin at De Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen from 1938–1967. He was also involved in Dutch politics serving as Staatssecretaris van Onderwijs (1962–3) in the cabinet of Jan de Quay (Katholieke Volkspartij). He wrote mainly about Latin literature, especially Christian authors, but also produced a small edition of Oscan and Umbrian inscriptions with Latin translations. The work pictured on the left is the first of a two volume work (part II on morphology appeared in 1957). It is not nearly as rare as the other books I mentioned—it's available at 7 libraries in the U.S—but because it's written in Dutch it is probably not as well known as it should be. There are two notable features of this book: (1) The phonology-section is introduced by a discussion of classical structuralist terminology and a structuralist approach is evident throughout volume 1. Although this is a historical grammar, it is definitely not a comparative grammar. The IE background is not discussed at all. (2) There is a lengthy and well organized section on word formation. This book is still used in Nijmegen.