Date of u to i between l and a labial

On pg. 141 in discussing the change of u to i between l and a labial I failed to mention what appears to be the earliest example of the change: LIBES for libens (ILLRP 93 a, Southern Ager Capenas near Scorano) from some time before 211 BCE when the Lucus Feroniae was destroyed by Hannibal.  Of course, the old spelling is retained for a long time afterwards.
(Photo of Lucus Feroniae by jmlwinder) 

From Latin to Romanian

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

Sala, Marius. 2005. From Latin to Romanian The historical development of Romanian in a comparative Romance context. University, Mississippi: Romance Monographs.

The title of this work, a translation of De la latină la română. Bucharest: Univers enciclopedic. 1998, is a little bit misleading to the English speaekr in that it makes one immediately think of Williams's From Latin to Portuguese or Pope's From Latin to Modern French, but the scope and organization of this book is quite different. Most of the book is devoted to a study of the Romanian lexicon and its various strata. Morphology, syntax, and especially phonology, take a backseat.

Lesser-known Historical Grammars of Latin VIII

The work at left, Istoricheskaja grammatika latinskogo jazyka by Josif Moissejevich Tronskij was first published in 1960.  A second edition by a team led by N. N. Kazanskij was issued in 2001.  It covers the usual things in the usual ways with rich epigraphical citation (always a good thing). The 2001 edition includes an essay by Kazanskij and Solopov discussing some relatively recent developments in IE linguistics.

The most remarkable fact about Tronskij, which I had heard from a number of reliable Russian sources, and which the introductory essay in this book confirms, is that his surname was originally Trotsky.  He changed his name in 1938, because you just couldn't have that name in the U.S.S.R. at that time. The famous Trotsky was originally named Bronshtein. He first used Trotksy in a falsified passport of 1902.  Supposedly, Trotsky was the name of one of his prison guards in Odessa.  Was this Trotsky a relative of Tronskij who was born and raised in Odessa?

Dialectal ē for *ei

On pg.  101 in discussing the outcome of *ei, I failed to mention some additional evidence that bears on the question. The mid-stage between *ei and ī is thought to have been a high mid [e:].  This stage is attested in forms from some archaic non-Roman inscriptions like VECUS (ILLRP 267, Castelluccio di Lecce), VECOS (ILLRP 286, Trasacco), VECI (ILLRP 303,  ad Lacum Fucinum), VEQO (ILLRP 1217, Cales). But Varro mentions two instances where the rustic pronunciation still in his day substituted an e for and urban Latin ī.

Varro R.R. 1.2.14: 

A quo rustici etiam nunc quoque viam veham appellant propter vecturas et vellam, non villam, quo vehunt et unde vehunt.

And for this reason even now they rustics call the road veham because of the acts of conveyances  and the farmhouse vellam, because they convey things to and from there.

Varro R.R. 1.48.2: 

Spica autem, quam rustici, ut acceperunt antiquitus, vocant specam, a spe videtur nominata.

Buts spica which the country people continuing an ancient tradition call speca is so-called because of spes 'hope'.

These two forms speca and vella are generally thought to reflect the pronunciation of dialects where the diphthong *ei merged with ē rather than merging ultimately with ī as happened at Rome. In the case of vīlla/vēlla, there is no doubt that the immediate preform was *weilla, but in the case of spēca this is not quite so certain. The root of Lat. spīca is connected with that of spīna 'thorn'.  The latter word is apparently cognate with Umb. spin(i)a 'obelisk' vel. sim.  The consistent spelling with i in Umbrian (II a 33, 36, 37, 38) points to an ī, which cannot be the result of the monophthongization of *ei.  If so, this suggests the root in question is *sp(e)ihx-, which would not have had given a form *speikā. 

The Romance evidence sometimes seems to continue a non-urban monophthongization as in Sp. Port.  Cat. esteva, OFr. estoive, Ital. stev-ola/steg-ola which continue a non-urban *stēva not stīva 'shaft of a plough-handle'.

On the other hand AMECIS (CIL 4.3152a, cf. Paul. ex Festo p. 15L: ab antiquis... ameci et amecae per e litteram efferebantur) may reflect a hyper-non-urban pronunciation since the suffix -īko- is usually thought to continue an original long vowel. 

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

More Exceptional Stress Assignment

On pg. 112 I mention how speakers of Latin sometimes interpreted the Greek accent in Greek loanword as Latin stress, which brought about exceptional stress assignments like Phílippus. I should also have mentioned that Quintilian (Inst. 1.5.22) implies that  Camillus and Cethēgus could be stressed on the antepenult:

Cum acuta et gravis alia pro alia ponuntur, ut in hoc "Camillus", si acuitur prima, aut gravis pro flexa, ut "Cethegus".

When acute and grave are switched as in the case of Camillus, if the first syllable is given an acute, or when a grave is substituted for a circumflex as in the case of Cethegus.

These exceptional stress patterns are probably reproducing the original Etruscan initial-syllable stress pattern since both forms are thought to be borrowed from Etruscan.

Lesser-known Historical Grammars of Latin VII

Mariano Bassols de Climent was a professor of Latin at Barcelona, best known for his two volume Sintaxis latina (1956).  The work pictured at left is not quite as ambitious. It's a mid-sized review of the standard subjects.  It is thorough and accurate as far as Latin goes (forms from Sanskrit are often incorrect or missing diacritics). Fonetica latina was first published in 1962 and included an appendix on "fonematica latina", i.e. a structuralist sketch of the sound system by Sebastian Mariner Bigorra.

The 8th edition (1992) has 4 pages of addenda, mostly devoted to the laryngeal theory—the non-standard model of Rodriguez Adrados gets an endorsement.  It is interesting to compare this work and Faria's work, both published about the same time with the same scope.  Personally, I find Faria a more thought-provoking  book.  But that is not a knock on Bassols de Climent's book, which serves its purpose and audience well.


Bassols de Climent, Mariano, 1992. Fonetica latina, 8th ed. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas.