macron in the first syllable of māiālis 249, since the syllables are really mai-jā-, of which the prior contains a diphthong and not a long vowel. I note the same wrong marking in āio 9, māior 250, pēiĕro 220, cf. especially 250.2; this seems rather a curious interpretation. The captions for deponent verbs are all put in the active form, cf. 266 and 297, though the deponent type is recognized as an early one in Italic, tending later toward extinction. The marking of the labio-velars is not uniform, being sometimes with q and a special form of g, sometimes with and g with superior y. There are many developments of e to Latin i, of o to u, which do not seem to me to be of the recognized types. Finally, one should be more cautious in admitting to Indo-European kinship practically the whole Italic vocabulary: there must be many words which come from earlier populations.

Չ

Now some special remarks, located by page or by page and line; I identify the articles by the Latin word rather than by the reconstructed caption, which when used is not accompanied by the asterisk. Summaries of Muller's views are to be distinguished from my own remarks by my own comment (good, dubious, or the like, normally following); otherwise there is no ambiguity. 17 alēsco: good article. 27 amptruo: good. 30.37 angiportus: the reduction of a hypothetical *angosto-portus to angiportus could hardly be called haplology. 31 annōna: rather a mere adjectival derivative to anno, substantivized by ellipsis of messis or the like; the early meaning is not 'Jahrespreis', but 'year's crop', which fits the Plautine passages (in which cara means 'expensive'). 32 annus: I doubt a dialectal change of -tn- to -kn-; cf. TAPA 57.53, where an interpretation is given for the Oscan and Umbrian cognates. 33.10 antideā: the final element is not accusative plural, but ablative singular, cf. antidhāc (in Plautus) and antehac. 35 apis as a back-formation from apicula seems dubious. 36 amnis: good. 37 apud: good. 38 abdōmen: as apo+douk-men 'Abfuhr, Abzugskanal' seems good; in comparison with the by-form abdūmen, the ō indicates not hyperurbanism, but country speech. 39 abscindo: the Sanskrit, Greek, and Gothic show the same combination of elements, but no two of them have the same present formation; it is the Sanskrit alone which agrees with the Latin in formation. 44 argentum: the phonetic variations of the cognates, in the initial syllable, make one suspect borrowing of the word from some non-IE source.

51, last line: The dissimilation here mentioned is impossible; the conditions for it are not the same as in the example given as warrant. 52 autumnus: good. 53 avena: not clear; see rather Walde. 61 favus:

not from root webh with metathesis, but from bheu- (Walde). 62 cachinnus: the penultimate i from e is not explained. 64 caelebs: good. 65 calendae: participle of first conjugation, with vowel weakened because of separation in meaning from the verb; good. 65-66 calamitas: good; but why not then u in the second syllable of incolumis? Muller makes no suggestion; but perhaps felt to be a compound of a root with radical col-. 75 cassus: not to careo, despite both Muller and Walde, but to cado; cf. the idiom cassa nux. The first nuts that fall are mostly wormeaten and empty. 82 cella: good. 85 cēra: good. 93 glōria: akin to Greek Kéos; g- by association with gnōtus, gnōbilis: good. 95 caerulus: hardly from koidělos; the old derivation from caelum still appeals to me as the most likely.

102 convicium: see rather Hendrickson, CP 21.114-9. 102 consulo, cōnsilium, cōnsul: l-formations to the root of censeo; good. But perhaps the o of the first syllable is not an old ablaut difference, but induced by a popular confusion with the prefixal con-. 107 caelum: from koyilom and hence directly equatable with Greek koλov; good, but the -a- of caelum must be explained as having followed after cavus from *kouos (108), when the association of the words was still felt. 108 curia and Quirites: both to co-uir-; good, though Walde denies the association of Quirītēs with cūria. 110 crēdo: good; the phonetic difficulties in the second consonant group are to be overcome only by the persistence of a feeling that the second part was a familiar verb seen in other compounds. That this was so, appears by the perfect credidi. Otherwise the word would have become *cresto. 112 certus: from *kritos, with vowel development taken over from compound where the accent was on the preceding syllable (e.g., incertus); good. But this principle should be applied also to cerno itself, from *krinō. That -ri- in accented syllables became vowel r is quite unthinkable; see on ter (493). 117 vapor: poor; I have never been able to believe in a difference of development in Italic, of IE ky and k". 122 habeo: Muller accepts a variation b/bh in the final of the root; this is unnecessary for the Italic, cf. TAPA 57.51-2. The Umbrian requires an original voiced non-aspirate, though this is at variance with the remoter cognates. 124 anser: the -er does not appear to me to be original, cf. LANG. 2.185-6. 124.32: the o of Umb. hostatu 'hastatos', if not an ablaut difference from hasta, can hardly be due to its position 'in stark geschlossener Silbe'; it might possibly be due to the influence of hostis, the equivalent of which doubtless was present in the dialect. 126.2 hūmānus: unconvincing. 129.12: That nom. hic is for *hi-ce does not appeal to me; there is no neut.

*hid, and the old nom. masc. hec CIL I2.9 points rather to an unaccented pre-form *ho-ce. 130 heri: good; but Muller seems still to believe in the 'thorn-consonants', cf. on sitis 115, and in these I cannot believe. 131 lēns lībum, and other words elsewhere: Muller accepts Walde's Law of Dissimilation of Aspirates for the Italic, but this seems to me insufficiently established. 131 hodie: good. 136 frons frondis: that the vowel length extended in Latin from the nominative throughout the paradigm, is quite unthinkable, despite the testimony of Romanic. 140.38 OSc. púkkapíd: cf. Brugmann 1F 34.405-8. 141.37 Osc. deketasiúí: cf. Whatmough LANG. 3.105-8, also LANG. 3.187. 145 dēnsus: the reason for -ss- in the hypothetical dēnssos does not appear in the article. It is to account for the failure of the single s in Greek Saous to disappear between the vowels; but why then did the -npersist in Latin before a doubled s, when there was no analogy to support it? 147 lacrima: the best explanation of this word and of its semantic equivalent in other languages, was given by Sapir Spiegel Memorial Volume 156-9, that two adjectives, *dakru 'biting' and *akrom 'sharp', with ellipsis of the word for 'water', give all the forms directly or by contaminations. 128 dulcis: the pre-form is unduly complicated; the Armenian word, for whose benefit the complication is accepted, may get in its pre-form the y after the initial d, by assimilation to that of the second syllable.

153 benignus: Muller accepts length before gn, after Priscian; but in this word, in malignus, prīvignus, and some others the Romance points to a short vowel. Priscian's statement ought to be taken with reserves; the etymology of these words certainly gives no hint of length. 154 viginti: Muller's explanation of the g as from dk in this and other numerals seems most unlikely, although I have no alternative to offer. 155 bīduum: that this starts as a dual, which accounts for the long vowel, is attractive. 156 bīnī: good, especially on range of occurrence of -nodistributives. 156-7 duo: that a form with the short o was primitive or even common IF, seems to me unlikely. 159.5 ex-ilis: from eks-eg-s-li-, yes; but the quality of the vowel comes from exiguus, a derivative of the same elements. 159 ebrius: from eks+bhr-ios, cf. ēlātus for meaning; good. 161 ed 'thither': an old dative, after Meillet MSL 20.90; no, rather an ablative in a changed use, when ibi and inde had taken their functions as the other two local adverbs. 161 Osc. eítuns: 'argentarius', to eituam 'pecuniam', after Skutsch Gl. 1.104; no, for the newest such inscription indicates that the word is a plural, cf. Buck, CP 17.111–8. 162.21: How Osc. Anafríss could indicate IE m rather than em is not

clear to me. 163.3: That ecce is from em (e)+ke is very attractive, but phonetically not convincing. 164.2: Osc. -en with the ablative may rather be identical with Latin inde, cf. Brugmann IF 24.75-9. 165 ingēns: I am inclined to equate approximately with Eng. uncouth, separating it from magnus; cf. Conway CR 26.255, also Mackail ib. 251-4. 166 īgnis: *egnis, varying with *ognis, would explain all the forms; on the length of the vowel, see my remark to 153. 170.35 Osc. faamat: see rather the new inscription, cf. Buck CP 17.111-8. 172 farferum: Muller fails to call attention to its dialectal quality. 188 fremo: Muller derives from bhr-, rather than from the usual mr-; I see no gain therein. 194 gelu: the irregular e before velar l is overlooked by Muller; it is dialectal or by influence of gelidus. 196 gemini: *genomenoi, with haplology; very unlikely.

201.17: That Umbrian naratu and other forms of the word have only one r, is not significant, since doubled consonants are rarely written, cf. von Planta, Gram. 1.54. 209 gravis: the transposition of sounds from *garuis is more easily explained as after levis, brevis. 213 Umb. -uomu: that this word, with initial y, is equatable with Greek ßwuós must be based on borrowing from Latin; but the word is not found in Latin. Muller's suggestion of error in writing or special phonetic development is weak. 216 iēiūnus: Muller's explanation is weak phonetically. 219 imus: from infimus, with syncope; possible, despite Walde's objection. Muller fails to credit Stowasser, Wb., with the suggestion of this etymology. 221 ipse: on this, as well as on ille 218 and iste 222, I cannot agree with Muller in all details. 224 iubeo: the old ioubeatis SCDB should be recognized as the original vocalization of the present, and not treated as an error or analogical to the old perfect. 225 iuvencus: the retention of e before palatal n needs an explanation, given in Walde. 232 lectus: the caption lextos shows a curious consonant-group, which could not have persisted in just that form. 237 Umb. veskla: rather than separate this from uasor, I should attribute the vowel to the influence of vestikatu 'libato'. 238 ligula: the last three lines of the article are not clear to me. 238 līmen: this caption should have -ei-, unless the caption is to be Latin and not old Italic; the same applies to the caption of limes 239. 239 Osc. limu 'hunger': I cannot see why Muller objects to borrowing from Greek λiuós. Eng. face comes from Latin through French, and has no surviving synonym from AngloSaxon. With such a word as hunger, taboo might easily cause the suppression of the native word.

250.23: I am inclined, despite Muller, to think that Osc. mais etc. are

based on Ital. mag-. 251 magnus: given by Muller without mark of length, despite maximus 250.19; but cf. my note on 153. 252 mālus 'mast': for d by influence of pālus, rather than by Sabine influence; good. 253 mamma 'breast': see rather Walde. 266 medulla: see rather Walde. 268 mille: quite unsatisfactory; cf. TAPA 42.69 ff. 270.36 pōmērium: for the e, see rather Walde. 273 mulier: a better interpretation in Sturtevant, PAPA 50. xiv, as a borrowing from a Mediterranean language. 277 mundus 'world': from *mouendos; good. The short vowel evidenced by Ital. and French can be a later development. 288 numquam: Muller's ně+oinom-quam would produce u; possible, but I incline rather to Walde's view, s.v. unquam (this word not in Muller). 291 nummus: Muller's nomzos appears to me phonetically impossible; I prefer borrowing from (not cognation with) Greek vópos. 293.6: the reading noine 'noni' on the Duenos Inscr. has been discarded by virtually all scholars for thirty years, and should no longer be mentioned even with a 'vielleicht'. 295 occa: from *oketā, with metathesis; hard to believe, despite testimony of cognates. 295 octāvus: a change of ōy to ay if the (initial) accent precedes, does not explain the a in flāvus, adduced among the parallels; also perhaps rāvus and nāvus. 299 omnis: better to ops, with Brugmann (see lit. in Walde, who however does not approve this view).

301 umbra: better in Walde. 302 opinor: here the opeinod of CIL I2 547 must be explained away, on account of the diphthong; I follow Kretschmer, Zts. f. öst. Gymn. 57.497, who explains op einod 'on account of this'. It is therefore not opinor, with d by graphic assimilation to the following devincam ted. 305.36: Osc. urust may, despite Muller, be borrowed from Latin ōro, after rhotacism had taken place; then ōro is denominative to ōs. 307: that urbs and orbis are doublets from the same original, orbis being a non-phonetic Verjüngung, is hardly conceivable. 309 os 'bone': most easily explained as from *ost-s-, zero grade of suffix -es-, cf. Johansson BB 18.24. 313 pālus: the caption pak(s) los> pallos gives a wrong development; the k was lost first, then the s. 313 paelex: good. 316 palla: see rather Walde. 317.21 vespertilio: not in index; for history, see rather Walde. 327 pessimus: the superlative -timus comes into Italic not as -tomos, but as -temos from a reduced vowel, cf. Sommer Hdb.2 457. 329 pello: pultāre should be cited as evidence for the original participle. 331 quinque: the long vowel is not marked, nor is any mention made of the peculiarity, either by Muller or by Walde; but the length is well established by the evidence.

355 possum: to derive potui from *pot[i]fui needs some added explana