(i.) became _r_ between vowels between 450 and 350 B.C. (for the date
see R. S. Conway, _Verner's Law in Italy_, pp. 61-64), as _ara_,
beside O. Lat. _asa_, _generis_ from *_geneses_, Gr. [Greek: geneos];
_eram_, _ero_ for *_esam_, *_eso_, and so in the verbal endings
-_eram_, -_ero_, -_erim_. But a considerable number of words came into
Latin, partly from neighbouring dialects, with -_s_- between vowels,
after 350 B.C., when the change ceased, and so show -_s_-, as _rosa_
(probably from S. Oscan for *_rod^ia_ "rose-bush" cf. Gr. [Greek:
rhodon]), _caseus_, "cheese," _miser_, a term of abuse, beside Gr.
[Greek: mysaros] (probably also borrowed from south Italy), and many
more, especially the participles in -_sus_ (_fusus_), where the -_s_-
was -_ss_- at the time of the change of -_s_- to -_r_- (so in _causa_,
see above). All attempts to explain the retention of the -_s_-
otherwise must be said to have failed (e.g. the theory of accentual
difference in _Verner's Law in Italy_, or that of dissimilation, given
by Brugmann, _Kurze vergl. Gram._ p. 242).
(ii.) _sr_ became _þr_ (= Eng. _thr_ in _throw_) in pro-ethnic Italic,
and this became initially _fr_- as in _frigus_, Gr. [Greek: rhigos]
(Ind.-Eur. *_srigos_), but medially -_br_-, as in _funebris_, from
_funus_, stem _funes_-.
(iii.) -_rs_-, _ls_- became -_rr_-, -_ll_-, as in _ferre_, _velle_,
for *_fer-se_, *_vel-se_ (cf. _es-se_).
(iv.) Before _m_, _n_, _l_, and _v_, -_s_- vanished, having previously
caused the loss of any preceding plosive or -_n_-, and the preceding
vowel, if short, was lengthened as in
_primus_ from *_prismos_, Paelig. _prismu_, "prima," beside
_pris-cus_.
_iumentum_ from O. Lat. _iouxmentum_, older *_ieugsmentom_; cf. Gr.
[Greek: zeugma, zygon], Lat. _iugum_, _iungo_.
_luna_ from *_leucsna_-, Praenest, _losna_, Zend _rao[chi]sna_-; cf.
Gr. [Greek: leukos], "white-ness" neut. e.g. [Greek: leukos],
"white," Lat. _luceo_.
_telum_ from *_tens-lom_ or *_tends-lom_, _tranare_ from
*_trans-nare_.
_seviri_ from *_sex-viri_, _eveho_ from *_ex-veho_, and so
_e-mitto_, _e-lido_, _e-numero_, and from these forms arose the
proposition _e_ instead of _ex_.
(v.) Similarly -_sd_- became -_d_-, as in _idem_ from _is-dem_.
(vi.) Before _n_-, _m_-, _l_-, initially _s_- disappeared, as in
_nubo_ beside Old Church Slavonic _snubiti_, "to love, pay court to";
_miror_ beside Sans, _smáyate_, "laughs," Eng. _smi-le_; _lubricus_
beside Goth, _sliupan_, Eng. _slip_.
(b) Latin -_ss_- arose from an original -_t_ + _t_-, -_d_ + _t_-,
-_dh_ + _t_- (except before -_r_), as in _missus_, earlier *_mit-tos_;
_tonsus_, earlier *_tond-tos_, but _tonstrix_ from *_tond-trix_. After
long vowels this -_ss_- became a single -_s_- some time before Cicero
(who wrote _caussa_ [see above], _divissio_, &c., but probably only
pronounced them with -_s_-, since the -_ss_- came to be written single
directly after his time).
26. Of the Indo-European velars the breathed _q_ was usually preserved
in Latin with a labial addition of -_u_- (as in _sequor_, Gr. [Greek:
epomai], Goth, _saihvan_, Eng. _see_; _quod_, Gr. [Greek: pod-(apos)],
Eng. _what_); but the voiced [g]^u remained (as -_gu_-) only after
-_n_- (_unguo_ beside Ir. _imb_, "butter") and (as _g_) before _r_,
_l_, and _u_ (as in _gravis_, Gr. [Greek: barys]; _glans_, Gr. [Greek:
balanos]; _legumen_, Gr. [Greek: lobos, lebinthos]). Elsewhere it
became _v_, as in _venio_ (see § 23, ii.), _nudus_ from *_novedos_,
Eng. _naked_. Hence _bos_ (Sans. _gaus_, Eng. _cow_) must be regarded
as a farmer's word borrowed from one of the country dialects (e.g.
Sabine); the pure Latin would be *_vos_, and its oblique cases, e.g.
acc. *_vovem_, would be inconveniently close in sound to the word for
sheep _ovem_.
27. The treatment of the Indo-European voiced aspirates (_bh_, _dh_,
_gh_, _[g]h_) in Latin is one of the most marked characteristics of the
language, which separates it from all the other Italic dialects, since
the fricative sounds, which represented the Indo-European aspirates in
pro-ethnic Italic, remained fricatives medially if they remained at
all in that position in Oscan and Umbrian, whereas in Latin they were
nearly always changed into voiced explosives. Thus--
Ind.-Eur. _bh_: initially Lat. _f_- (_fero_; Gr. [Greek: pherô]).
medially Lat. -_b_- (_tibi_; Umb. _tefe_; Sans, _tubhy_-(_am_), "to
thee"; the same suffix in Gr. [Greek: biê-phi], &c.).
Ind.-Eur. _dh_: initially Lat. _f_- (_fa-c-ere_, _fe-c-i_; Gr. [Greek:
thetos] (instead of *[Greek: thatos]), [Greek: ethê-ka]).
medially -_d_- (_medius_; Osc. _mefio_-; Gr. [Greek: messos, mesos]
from *[Greek: methios); except after _u_ (_iubere_ beside _iussus_
for *_iudh-tos_; Sans. _yodhati_, "rouses to battle"); before _l_
(_stabulum_, but Umb. _staflo_-, with the suffix of Gr. [Greek:
otergêthron], &c.); before or after _r_ (_verbum_: Umb. _verfale_:
Eng. _word_. Lat. _glaber_ [v. inf].: Ger. _glatt_: Eng. _glad_).
Ind.-Eur. _gh_: initially _h_- (_humi_: Gr. [Greek: chamai]); except
before -_u_- (_fundo_: Gr. [Greek: che(w)ô, chutra]).
medially -_h_- (_veho_: Gr. [Greek: echô, öchos]; cf. Eng. _wagon_);
except after -_n_- (_fingere_: Osc. _feiho_-, "wall": Gr. [Greek:
thinganô]: Ind.-Eur. _dhei^gh_-, _dhin^gh_-); and before _l_
(_fig(u)lus_, from the same root).
Ind.-Eur _guh_: initially _f_- (_formus_ and _furnus_, "oven", Gr.
[Greek: thermos, thermê], cf. Ligurian _Bormio_, "a place with hot
springs," _Bormanus_, "a god of hot springs"; _fendo_: Gr. [Greek:
theino, phonos, pros-phatos]).
medially _v_, -_gu_- or -_g_- just as Ind.-Eur. [g]u (_ninguere_,
_nivem_ beside Gr. [Greek: nipha, neiphei]; _fragrare_ beside Gr.
[Greek: osphpainomai os]- for _ods_-, cf. Lat. _odor_], a
reduplicated verb from a root _[g]uhra_-).
For the "non-labializing velars" (H_ostis_, _con_G_ius_, G_laber_)
reference must be made to the fuller accounts in the handbooks.
28. AUTHORITIES.--This summary account of the chief points in Latin
phonology may serve as an introduction to its principles, and give
some insight into the phonetic character of the language. For
systematic study reference must be made to the standard books, Karl
Brugmann, _Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der
Indo-Germanischen Sprachen_ (vol. i., _Lautlehre_, 2nd ed. Strassburg,
1897; Eng. trans. of ed. 1 by Joseph Wright, Strassburg, 1888) and his
_Kurze vergleichende Grammatik_ (Strassburg, 1902); these contain
still by far the best accounts of Latin; Max Niederman, _Précis de
phonétique du Latin_ (Paris, 1906), a very convenient handbook,
excellently planned; F. Sommer, _Lateinische Laut- und Flexionslehre_
(Heidelberg, 1902), containing many new conjectures; W. M. Lindsay,
_The Latin Language_ (Oxford, 1894), translated into German (with
corrections) by Nohl (Leipzig, 1897), a most valuable collection of
material, especially from the ancient grammarians, but not always
accurate in phonology; F. Stolz, vol. i. of a joint _Historische
Grammatik d. lat. Sprache_ by Blase, Landgraf, Stolz and others
(Leipzig, 1894); Neue-Wagener, _Formenlehre d. lat. Sprache_ (3 vols.,
3rd ed. Leipzig, 1888, foll.); H. J. Roby's _Latin Grammar_ (from
Plautus to Suetonius; London, 7th ed., 1896) contains a masterly
collection of material, especially in morphology, which is still of
great value. W. G. Hale and C. D. Buck's _Latin Grammar_ (Boston,
1903), though on a smaller scale, is of very great importance, as it
contains the fruit of much independent research on the part of both
authors; in the difficult questions of orthography it was, as late as
1907, the only safe guide.