On the Latin Language

Therefore, even at 8, 10 sq., we have included an explanation that is certainly foreign, even if the origin is uncertain. Furthermore, having mostly considered others before, we have thought about interpolation with more or less confidence in these passages: 23, 15; 60, 10; 85, 10 (see annotations); 138, 2; 139, 5; 153, 29; 154, 30; 158, 6; 162, 1 sq.; 166, 5. 28; 168, 1 and 18 (see annotations); 178, 16 sq.; 179, 7 and 19; 182, 21 and 29; 190, 6. With these you may compare the annotations to 6, 3; 15, 4; 54, 21; 55, 14; 63, 7; 82, 6 sq.; 105, 6 sq.; 147, 7; 183, 11 ff.

Finally, we arrive at the simplest errors of single letters: where certain things that relate to pronunciation have been touched upon before and will be added soon. Others are linked to abbreviations1), such as the fact that forms, both active and passive (-t and -t̃ or -ṫ) as well as singular and plural (because of the ~ added or omitted), have been exchanged with one another: and this error too we sometimes find corrected already by the scribe (cf. 8, 6; 26, 13; 137, 6; 138, 23; 155, 17; 162, 28; 186, 15); but much more often it was to be corrected only by later hands, as in the same verse 186, 15 he did not correct the other form, and likewise 12, 4; 21, 16; 28, 20; 29, 11; 36, 17; 42, 18; 44, 14; 55, 6; 76, 7; 90, 13; 92, 9; 94, 4; 95, 6; 101, 17; 113, 5; 122, 2 sq. (?); 126, 19; 127, 6; 133, 6; 141, 1 and 11 and 14 and 18; 147, 11; 149, 6 and 21; 150, 24; 151, 6; 153, 10 and 23; 154, 29; 156, 10; 162, 7; 166, 10; 170, 11 and 15; 171, 10; 176, 6 and 15; 179, 12; 181, 5 and 6 and 31; 185, 18; 188, 3. In the great frequency of this error, you will not be surprised that it has sometimes been considered in error (cf. annotation to 101, 14; 177, 15, and others). The interchange of endings in s and m pertains to the same; which the corrections of the scribes also illustrate (such as 6, 3; 12, 12; 120, 2; cf. also at 83, 21 and annotation to 37, 11). Now i and y, as e and ae (ę), since they are confused by pronunciation rather than by letters, the interchange of the vowels e and i is so frequent that we can go back to both; so that we wonder that Spengel in his preface2 p. VIII already touted eam her/that (fem.) 136, 13 as an archaism, especially since the words themselves, not the vowels, are changed in this example; for the rest, we appeal for many examples to the corrections 153, 5 = 156, 7 = 157, 12. The same applies to o and u (cf. corrections 28, 20; 30, 13 and besides 13, 2 pecodum of the cattle [but soon v. 15 sulcos furrows instead of sulcus furrow because of the preceding sustulit he/she/it took up/removed]; 19, 21 homori, and others) and likewise to c and g (cf. correction

1) It is linked to the abbreviation, not the pronunciation, that we read -phendere to grasp for the most part (re-, com-), which clearly does not apply to -praehendere, since it is nowhere displayed fully that way, but as -prehendere (such as 93, 5 rephendas you grasp next to 93, 10 reprehendendū to be grasped). Furthermore, there is no reason for us to say that this book also vacillates entirely in distinguishing the letters and sounds e and ę (ae, oe). It writes grec- Greek- almost constantly (except 107, 14 grci).