No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 October 2009
page 467 note 1 Bourciez's admirable Précis de Phonétique Française (New Edn. 1900) gives many valuable points, within a very small compass.
page 467 note 2 Gröber writes ‘as late as’ (‘belegt die Existenz einer Wortform bis nach 100 n. Chr.’). As Dr. Mohl's French phrase (‘jusqu'à’) is ambiguous, I have expressed what seems to me the more important aspect of the date.
page 468 note 1 The italics are mine. The phrase recurs on p. 246; Dr. Mohl avows rather frankly the weak joints in his armour.
page 468 note 2 Mohl hesitates to recognise non-Latin Nominatives in Samnis, Arpinas, etc. (Brugmann, Grundr. i. 1 p. 551). But Brugmann seems to me certainly right, though he has removed the remark from his second edition. The whole formation in -ti- is non-Latin, as I hope to show in a forthcoming paper on the Eethniea of Italy.
page 468 note 3 They were so frequent that, with a few similar documents, they seemed to call for a special numeration, see the ‘Notes’ (i–xliii) passim.
page 468 note 4 But not the Latin of the Duenos-inse., as to which Dr. Mohl seems under some strange delusion (pp. 304–5). The sign o (i.e. c in retrograde script) appears only in uirco, cosmis, pacari, feced; and it probable in feced, possible in pacari that we should read k instead of c; k occurs nowhere else. What could be further from the facts than to say that we have here a distinction of ‘ k velaire, c palatal’?
page 469 note 1 I do not think Dr. Mohl quotes the very important remark of Suetonius (c. 88) about Augustus' bad spelling.
page 469 note 2 Mohl does not explicitly mention the point which seems to me to place this explanation almost beyond doubt, namely that this Inf. is especially regular in quasi-public documents, street-warnings and the like; where the legal Impf. Subj. in Latin (e.g. in Senatus Consults) was regular.
page 469 note 3 I do not wish to be understood as accepting more than the general principle of this theory. For example (p. 311) the spelling Iiovina is the merest freak of priestly etymology, as I hare shown in Ital. Dial. p. 405 footn.
page 469 note 4 The title is perfectly sound, in spite of the curious (and suggestive) juxtaposition.
page 469 note 5 So Mohl. On the precise date see Bury, in his Edition of Gibbon, II. 157, footn. 65.