Varro: On the Latin Language (De Lingua Latina)

words that should be removed. And so, at 8, 10 sq., we have enclosed an explanation that is certainly foreign, even if its origin is uncertain. Furthermore, having preceded others for the most part, we have thought more or less confidently about interpolation in these places: 23, 15; 60, 10; 85, 10 (see note); 138, 2; 139, 5; 153, 29; 154, 30; 158, 6; 162, 1 sq.; 166, 5. 28; 168, 1 and 18 (see note); 178, 16 sq.; 179, 7 and 19; 182, 21 and 29; 190, 6. With which you may compare the annotations at 6, 3; 15, 4; 54, 21; 55, 14; 63, 7; 82, 6 sq.; 105, 6 sq.; 147, 7; 183, 11 sqq.

Finally, we arrive at the simplest errors of single letters: where certain things that concern pronunciation we have touched upon previously and will add shortly. Others are connected with abbreviationsIt is connected with the abbreviation, not with pronunciation, that we read phendere? mostly (re- com-), which clearly shows it does not apply to -praehendere from the fact that it is nowhere shown fully like this, but rather -prehendere (such as 93, 5 rephendas alongside 93, 10 reprehendendũ). Furthermore, there is no reason to say that this book also vacillates entirely in distinguishing the letters and sounds e and ę (ae oe). It writes grec- almost constantly (except 107, 14 grci)., just as both active and passive forms (-t and -t̃ or -ṫ) as well as singular and plural forms (because of the tilde added or omitted) have been exchanged for one another so often: and we find this error also sometimes 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 had to be corrected by later hands, just as at that same verse 186, 15 he did not correct the other form, 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 fault, you will not be surprised that sometimes it has been thought of incorrectly (cf. note to 101, 14; 177, 15, etc.). The interchange of terminations in s and m pertains to the same thing: which scribe corrections also illustrate (such as 6, 3; 12, 12; 120, 2; cf. also at 83, 21 and the note at 37, 11). Now i and y, as e and ae (ę), since they are confused by pronunciation rather than by the letters, can lead back to both the interchange of the vowels e and i being so frequent that we are surprised that Spengel (preface² p. VIII) already touted 136, 13 eam as an archaism, especially since the words themselves, not the vowels, are swapped in this example; otherwise, for many things, we appeal to the corrections 153, 5 = 156, 7 = 157, 12. The same is valid for o and u (cf. corrections 28, 20; 30, 13 and furthermore 13, 2 pecodum [but shortly verse 15 sulcos instead of sulcus because of the preceding sustulit]; 19, 21 homori, etc.) and also for c and g (cf. correction