Part 1

# Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Latin Language" to "Lefebvre, François-Joseph": Volume 16, Slice 3 ### By Various

---

Transcriber's notes:

(1) Numbers following letters (without space) like C2 were originally printed in subscript. Letter subscripts are preceded by an underscore, like C_n.

(2) Characters following a carat (^) were printed in superscript.

(3) Side-notes were relocated to function as titles of their respective paragraphs.

(4) Macrons and breves above letters and dots below letters were not inserted.

(5) [root] stands for the root symbol; [alpha], [beta], etc. for greek letters.

(6) The following typographical errors have been corrected:

ARTICLE LATIN LANGUAGE: "... this is the most convenient place in which to state briefly the very little that can be said as yet to have been ascertained as to the general relations of Italic to its sister groups." 'that' amended from 'than'.

ARTICLE LATIN LANGUAGE: "... (which had been gradually noted, see e.g. F. Skutsch in Kroll's Altertumswissenschaft im letzten Vierteljahrhundert, 1905) their actual effect on the language." 'im' amended from 'in'.

ARTICLE LATIN LITERATURE: "... from the name of its greatest literary representative, whose activity as a speaker and writer was unremitting during nearly the whole period." 'speaker' amended from 'peaker'.

ARTICLE LATIUM: "See G. A. Colini in Bullettino di paletnologia Italiana, xxxi. (1905)." 'paletnologia' amended from 'palentologia'.

ARTICLE LA TOUR D'AUVERGNE, THÉOPHILE MALO: "In 1784 he was promoted captain, and in 1791 he received the cross of St Louis." '1784' amended from '1748'.

ARTICLE LAVOISIER, ANTOINE LAURENT: "... his collaborators in the reformed system of chemical terminology set forth in 1787 in the Méthode de nomenclature chimique, were among the earliest French converts ..." 'nomenclature' amended from 'momenclature'.

ARTICLE LAVOISIER, ANTOINE LAURENT: "Under the head of 'oxidable or acidifiable' substances, the combination of which with oxygen yielded acids, were placed sulphur, phosphorus, carbon, and the muriatic, fluoric and boracic radicals." 'radicals' amended from 'radicles'.

ARTICLE LEATHER: "... and thickly split, the poorer hides being utilized for chamois; they are now re-split at the fatty strata so that all fat may be easily removed, and while the grains are dressed as skivers ..." 'utilized' amended from 'ultilized'.

ARTICLE LEAVENWORTH: "The fort, from which the city took its name, was built in 1827, in the Indian country, by Colonel Henry Leavenworth (1783-1834) of the 3rd Infantry, for the protection of traders plying between the Missouri river and Santa Fé." 'Santa' amended from 'Sante'.

ARTICLE LECTOURE: "In 1473 Cardinal Jean de Jouffroy besieged the town on behalf of Louis XI. and after its fall put the whole population to the sword." 'population' amended from 'pupulation'.

ARTICLE LEEUWENHOEK, ANTHONY VAN: "... and a selection from them was translated by S. Hoole and published in English (London, 1781-1798)." '1781-1798' amended from '1798-1781'.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA

A DICTIONARY OF ARTS, SCIENCES, LITERATURE AND GENERAL INFORMATION

ELEVENTH EDITION

VOLUME XVI, SLICE III

Latin Language to Lefebvre, François-Joseph

ARTICLES IN THIS SLICE:

LATIN LANGUAGE LAZARITES LATIN LITERATURE LAZARUS (New Testament) LATINUS LAZARUS, EMMA LATITUDE LAZARUS, HENRY LATIUM LAZARUS, MORITZ LATONA LAZARUS, ST, ORDER OF LATOUCHE, HYACINTHE JOSEPH DE LEA, HENRY CHARLES LA TOUR, MAURICE QUENTIN DE LEAD (South Dakota, U.S.A.) LA TOUR D'AUVERGNE, MALO LEAD (chemical element) LATREILLE, PIERRE ANDRÉ LEADER, BENJAMIN WILLIAMS LA TRÉMOILLE LEADHILLITE LATROBE, CHARLES JOSEPH LEADHILLS LATTEN LEAD POISONING LATTICE LEAF PLANT LEADVILLE LATUDE, JEAN HENRI LEAF LATUKA LEAF-INSECT LAUBAN LEAGUE LAUBE, HEINRICH LEAKE, WILLIAM MARTIN L'AUBESPINE LEAMINGTON LAUCHSTÄDT LÉANDRE, CHARLES LUCIEN LAUD, WILLIAM LEAP-YEAR LAUD LEAR, EDWARD LAUDANUM LEASE LAUDER, SIR THOMAS DICK LEATHER LAUDER, WILLIAM LEATHER, ARTIFICIAL LAUDER (burgh of Scotland) LEATHERHEAD LAUDERDALE, JOHN MAITLAND LEATHES, STANLEY LAUENBURG LEAVEN LAUFF, JOSEF LEAVENWORTH LAUGHTER LEBANON (middle east) LAUMONT, FRANÇOIS GILLET DE LEBANON (Illinois, U.S.A.) LAUNCESTON (Cornwall, England) LEBANON (Pennsylvania, U.S.A.) LAUNCESTON (Tasmania) LE BARGY, CHARLES GUSTAVE AUGUSTE LAUNCH LE BEAU, CHARLES LAUNDRY LEBEAU, JOSEPH LA UNION (Salvador) LEBEL, JEAN LA UNION (Spain) LEBER, JEAN MICHEL CONSTANT LAURAHÜTTE LEBEUF, JEAN LAUREATE LE BLANC, NICOLAS LAUREL LE BLANC LAURENS, HENRY LEBOEUF, EDMOND LAURENT, FRANÇOIS LE BON, JOSEPH LAURENTINA, VIA LEBRIJA LAURENTIUS, PAUL LE BRUN, CHARLES LAURIA ROGER DE LEBRUN, CHARLES FRANÇOIS LAURIA (Italy) LEBRUN, PIERRE ANTOINE LAURIER, SIR WILFRID LEBRUN, PONCE DENIS ÉCOUCHARD LAURISTON, JACQUES BERNARD LAW LE CARON, HENRI LAURIUM (Greece) LE CATEAU LAURIUM (Michigan, U.S.A.) LECCE LAURUSTINUS LECCO LAURVIK LECH LAUSANNE LE CHAMBON LAUTREC, ODET DE FOIX LE CHAPELIER, ISAAC RENÉ GUY LAUZUN, ANTONIN NOMPAR DE CAUMONT LECHLER, GOTTHARD VICTOR LAVA LECKY, WILLIAM EDWARD HARTPOLE LAVABO LE CLERC, JEAN LAVAGNA LECOCQ, ALEXANDRE CHARLES LAVAL, ANDRÉ DE, DE LOHÉAC LECOINTE-PUYRAVEAU, MICHEL MATHIEU LAVAL (France) LE CONTE, JOSEPH LA VALLIÈRE, LOUISE FRANÇOISE DE LECONTE DE LISLE, CHARLES MARIE RENÉ LAVATER, JOHANN KASPAR LE COQ, ROBERT LAVAUR LECOUVREUR, ADRIENNE LAVEDAN, HENRI LÉON ÉMILE LE CREUSOT LAVELEYE, ÉMILE LOUIS VICTOR DE LECTERN LAVENDER LECTION, LECTIONARY LAVERDY, CLÉMENT FRANÇOIS DE LECTISTERNIUM LAVERNA LECTOR LAVERY, JOHN LECTOURE LAVIGERIE, CHARLES ALLEMAND LEDA LA VILLEMARQUÉ, CLAUDE HENRI LE DAIM, OLIVIER LAVINIUM LEDBURY LAVISSE, ERNEST LEDGER LAVOISIER, ANTOINE LAURENT LEDOCHOWSKI, MIECISLAUS JOHANN LA VOISIN LEDRU-ROLLIN, ALEXANDRE AUGUSTE LAW, JOHN LEDYARD, JOHN LAW, WILLIAM LEE, ANN LAW LEE, ARTHUR LAWES, HENRY LEE, FITZHUGH LAWES, SIR JOHN BENNET LEE, GEORGE ALEXANDER LAW MERCHANT LEE, HENRY LAWN LEE, JAMES PRINCE LAWN-TENNIS LEE, NATHANIEL LAWRENCE, ST LEE, RICHARD HENRY LAWRENCE, AMOS (American merchant) LEE, ROBERT EDWARD LAWRENCE, AMOS ADAMS (junior) LEE ROWLAND LAWRENCE, GEORGE ALFRED LEE, SIDNEY LAWRENCE, SIR HENRY MONTGOMERY LEE, SOPHIA LAWRENCE, JOHN LAIRD LAWRENCE LEE, STEPHEN DILL LAWRENCE, STRINGER LEE (Massachusetts, U.S.A.) LAWRENCE, SIR THOMAS LEE (shelter or sediment) LAWRENCE (Kansas, U.S.A.) LEECH, JOHN LAWRENCE (Massachusetts, U.S.A.) LEECH (Chaetopod worms) LAWRENCEBURG LEEDS, THOMAS OSBORNE LAWSON, CECIL GORDON LEEDS (England) LAWSON, SIR JOHN LEEK (English town) LAWSON, SIR WILFRID LEEK (plant) LAY LEER LAYA, JEAN LOUIS LEEUWARDEN LAYAMON LEEUWENHOEK, ANTHONY VAN LAYARD, SIR AUSTEN HENRY LEEWARD ISLANDS LAYMEN, HOUSES OF LE FANU, JOSEPH SHERIDAN LAYNEZ, DIEGO LEFEBVRE, PIERRE FRANÇOIS JOSEPH LAZAR

LATIN LANGUAGE. 1. _Earliest Records of its Area._--Latin was the language spoken in Rome and in the plain of Latium in the 6th or 7th century B.C.--the earliest period from which we have any contemporary record of its existence. But it is as yet impossible to determine either, on the one hand, whether the archaic inscription of Praeneste (see below), which is assigned with great probability to that epoch, represents exactly the language then spoken in Rome; or, on the other, over how much larger an area of the Italian peninsula, or even of the lands to the north and west, the same language may at that date have extended. In the 5th century B.C. we find its limits within the peninsula fixed on the north-west and south-west by Etruscan (see ETRURIA: _Language_); on the east, south-east, and probably north and north-east, by Safine (Sabine) dialects (of the Marsi, Paeligni, Samnites, Sabini and Picenum, qq.v.); but on the north we have no direct record of Sabine speech, nor of any non-Latinian tongue nearer than Tuder and Asculum or earlier than the 4th century B.C. (see UMBRIA, IGUVIUM, PICENUM). We know however, both from tradition and from the archaeological data, that the Safine tribes were in the 5th century B.C. migrating, or at least sending off swarms of their younger folk, farther and farther southward into the peninsula. Of the languages they were then displacing we have no explicit record save in the case of Etruscan in Campania, but it may be reasonably inferred from the evidence of place-names and tribal names, combined with that of the Faliscan inscriptions, that before the Safine invasion some idiom, not remote from Latin, was spoken by the pre-Etruscan tribes down the length of the west coast (see FALISCI; VOLSCI; also ROME: _History_; LIGURIA; SICULI).

2. _Earliest Roman Inscriptions._--At Rome, at all events, it is clear from the unwavering voice of tradition that Latin was spoken from the beginning of the city. Of the earliest Latin inscriptions found in Rome which were known in 1909, the oldest, the so-called "Forum inscription," can hardly be referred with confidence to an earlier century than the 5th; the later, the well-known _Duenos_ (= later Latin _bonus_) inscription, certainly belongs to the 4th; both of these are briefly described below (§§ 40, 41). At this date we have probably the period of the narrowest extension of Latin; non-Latin idioms were spoken in Etruria, Umbria, Picenum and in the Marsian and Volscian hills. But almost directly the area begins to expand again, and after the war with Pyrrhus the Roman arms had planted the language of Rome in her military colonies throughout the peninsula. When we come to the 3rd century B.C. the Latin inscriptions begin to be more numerous, and in them (e.g. the oldest epitaphs of the Scipio family) the language is very little removed from what it was in the time of Plautus.

3. _The Italic Group of Languages._--For the characteristics and affinities of the dialects that have just been mentioned, see the article ITALY: _Ancient Languages and Peoples_, and to the separate articles on the tribes. Here it is well to point out that the only one of these languages which is not akin to Latin is Etruscan; on the other hand, the only one very closely resembling Latin is Faliscan, which with it forms what we may call the Latinian dialect of the Italic group of the Indo-European family of languages. Since, however, we have a far more complete knowledge of Latin than of any other member of the Italic group, this is the most convenient place in which to state briefly the very little that can be said as yet to have been ascertained as to the general relations of Italic to its sister groups. Here, as in many kindred questions, the work of Paul Kretschmer of Vienna (_Einleitung in die Geschichte der griechischen Sprache_, Göttingen, 1896) marked an important epoch in the historical aspects of linguistic study, as the first scientific attempt to interpret critically the different kinds of evidence which the Indo-European languages give us, not in vocabulary merely, but in phonology, morphology, and especially in their mutual borrowings, and to combine it with the non-linguistic data of tradition and archaeology. A certain number of the results so obtained have met with general acceptance and may be briefly treated here. It is, however, extremely dangerous to draw merely from linguistic kinship deductions as to racial identity, or even as to an original contiguity of habitation. Close resemblances in any two languages, especially those in their inner structure (morphology), may be due to identity of race, or to long neighbourhood in the earliest period of their development; but they may also be caused by temporary neighbourhood (for a longer or shorter period), brought about by migrations at a later epoch (or epochs). A

## particular change in sound or usage may spread over a whole chain of

dialects and be in the end exhibited alike by them all, although the time at which it first began was long after their special and distinctive characteristics had become clearly marked. For example, the limitation of the word-accent to the last three syllables of a word in Latin and Oscan (see below)--a phenomenon which has left deep marks on all the Romance languages--demonstrably grew up between the 5th and 2nd centuries B.C.; and it is a permissible conjecture that it started from the influence of the Greek colonies in Italy (especially Cumae and Naples), in whose language the same limitation (although with an accent whose actual character was probably more largely musical) had been established some centuries sooner.

4. _Position of the Italic Group._--The Italic group, then, when compared with the other seven main "families" of Indo-European speech, in respect of their most significant differences, ranges itself thus:

(i.) _Back-palatal and Velar Sounds._--In point of its treatment of the Indo-European back-palatal and velar sounds, it belongs to the western or _centum_ group, the name of which is, of course, taken from Latin; that is to say, like German, Celtic and Greek, it did not sibilate original _k_ and _g_, which in Indo-Iranian, Armenian, Slavonic and Albanian have been converted into various types of sibilants (Ind.-Eur.* _kmtom_ = Lat. _centum_, Gr. _[Greek: (he)-katon]_, Welsh _cant_, Eng. _hund_-(_red_), but Sans. _satam_, Zend _sat[schwa]m_); but, on the other hand, in company with just the same three western groups, and in contrast to the eastern, the Italic languages labialized the original velars (Ind.-Eur. * _qod_ = Lat. _quod_, Osc. _pod_, Gr. _[Greek: pod-(apos)]_, Welsh _pwy_, Eng. _what_, but Sans. _kás_, "who?").

(ii.) _Indo-European Aspirates._--Like Greek and Sanskrit, but in contrast to all the other groups (even to Zend and Armenian), the Italic group largely preserves a distinction between the Indo-European _mediae aspiratae_ and _mediae_ (e.g. between Ind.-Eur. _dh_ and _d_, the former when initial becoming initially regularly Lat. _f_ as in Lat. _fec-i_ [cf. Umb. _feia_, "_faciat_"], beside Gr. [Greek: he-thêk-a] [cf. Sans. _da-dha-ti_, "he places"], the latter simply _d_ as in _domus_, Gr. [Greek: domos]). But the _aspiratae_, even where thus distinctly treated in Italic, became fricatives, not pure aspirates, a character which they only retained in Greek and Sanskrit.

(iii.) _Indo-European o._--With Greek and Celtic, Latin preserved the Indo-European _o_, which in the more northerly groups (Germanic, Balto-Slavonic), and also in Indo-Iranian, and, curiously, in Messapian, was confused with _a_. The name for olive-oil, which spread with the use of this commodity from Greek ([Greek: elaiwon]) to Italic speakers and thence to the north, becoming by regular changes (see below) in Latin first *_ólaivom_, then *_óleivom_, and then taken into Gothic and becoming _alev_, leaving its parent form to change further (not later than 100 B.C.) in Latin to _oleum_, is a particularly important example, because (a) of the chronological limits which are implied, however roughly, in the process just described, and (b) of the close association in time of the change of _o_ to _a_ with the earlier stages of the "sound-shifting" (of the Indo-European plosives and aspirates) in German; see Kretschmer, _Einleit_. p. 116, and the authorities he cites.

(iv.) _Accentuation._--One marked innovation common to the western groups as compared with what Greek and Sanskrit show to have been an earlier feature of the Indo-European parent speech was the development of a strong expiratory (sometimes called stress) accent upon the first syllable of all words. This appears early in the history of Italic, Celtic, Lettish (probably, and at a still later period) in Germanic, though at a period later than the beginning of the "sound-shifting." This extinguished the complex system of Indo-European accentuation, which is directly reflected in Sanskrit, and was itself replaced in Latin and Oscan by another system already mentioned, but not in Latin till it had produced marked effects upon the language (e.g. the degradation of the vowels in compounds as in _conficio_ from _cón-facio_, _includo_ from _ín-claudo_). This curious wave of accentual change (first pointed out by Dieterich, _Kuhn's Zeitschrift_, i., and later by Thurneysen, _Revue celtique_, vi. 312, _Rheinisches Museum_, xliii. 349) needs and deserves to be more closely investigated from a chronological standpoint. At present it is not clear how far it was a really connected process in all the languages. (See further Kretschmer, _op. cit._ p. 115, K. Brugmann, _Kurze vergleichende Grammatik_ (1902-1904), p. 57, and their citations, especially Meyer-Lübke, _Die Betonung im Gallischen_ (1901).)

To these larger affinities may be added some important points in which the Italic group shows marked resemblances to other groups.

5. _Italic and Celtic._--It is now universally admitted that the Celtic languages stand in a much closer relation than any other group to the Italic. It may even be doubted whether there was any real frontier-line at all between the two groups before the Etruscan invasion of Italy (see ETRURIA: _Language_; LIGURIA). The number of morphological innovations on the Indo-European system which the two groups share, and which are almost if not wholly peculiar to them, is particularly striking. Of these the chief are the following.

(i.) Extension of the abstract-noun stems in -_ti_- (like Greek [Greek: phatis] with Attic [Greek: basis], &c.) by an -_n_- suffix, as in Lat. _mentio_ (stem _mention_-) = Ir. (_er_-)_mitiu_ (stem _miti-n_-), contrasted with the same word without the _n_-suffix in Sans. _mati_-, Lat. _mens_, Ind.-Eur. *_mn-ti_-. A similar extension (shared also by Gothic) appears in Lat. _iuventu-t_-, O. Ir. _óitiu_ (stem _oiliut_-) beside the simple -_tu_- in nouns like _senatus_.

(ii.) Superlative formation in -_is-mmo_- as in Lat. _aegerrimus_ for *_aegr-ismmos_, Gallic [Greek: Ouxisamê] the name of a town meaning "the highest."

(iii.) Genitive singular of the _o_-stems (second declension) in -_i_ Lat. _agri_, O. Ir. (Ogam inscriptions) _magi_, "of a son."

(iv.) Passive and deponent formation in -_r_, Lat. _sequitur_ = Ir. _sechedar_, "he follows." The originally active meaning of this curious -_r_ suffix was first pointed out by Zimmer (_Kuhn's Zeitschrift_, 1888, xxx. 224), who thus explained the use of the accusative pronouns with these "passive" forms in Celtic; Ir. -_m-berar_, "I am carried," literally "folk carry me"; Umb. _pir ferar_, literally _ignem feratur_, though as _pir_ is a neuter word (= Gr. [Greek: pyr]) this example was not so convincing. But within a twelvemonth of the appearance of Zimmer's article, an Oscan inscription (Conway, _Camb. Philol. Society's Proceedings_, 1890, p. 16, and _Italic Dialects_, p. 113) was discovered containing the phrase _ultiumam_ (_iuvilam_) _sakrafir_, "ultimam (imaginem) consecraverint" (or "ultima consecretur") which demonstrated the nature of the suffix in Italic also. This originally active meaning of the -_r_ form (in the third person singular passive) is the cause of the remarkable fondness for the "impersonal" use of the passive in Latin (e.g., _itur in antiquam silvam_, instead of _eunt_), which was naturally extended to all tenses of the passive (_ventum est_, &c.), so soon as its origin was forgotten. Fuller details of the development will be found in Conway, _op. cit._ p. 561, and the authorities there cited (very little is added by K. Brugmann, _Kurze vergl. Gramm._ 1904, p. 596).

(v.) Formation of the perfect passive from the -_to_- past participle, Lat. _monitus_ (_est_), &c., Ir. _léic-the_, "he was left," _ro-léiced_, "he has been left." In Latin the participle maintains its distinct adjectival character; in Irish (J. Strachan, _Old Irish Paradigms_, 1905, p. 50) it has sunk into a purely verbal form, just as the perfect participles in -_us_ in Umbrian have been absorbed into the future perfect in -_ust_ (_entelust_, "intenderit"; _benust_, "venerit") with its impersonal passive or third plural active -_us_(_s_)_so_ (probably standing for -_ussor_) as in _benuso_, "ventum erit" (or "venerint").

To these must be further added some striking peculiarities in phonology.

(vi.) Assimilation of _p_ to a _q^u_ in a following syllable as in Lat. _quinque_ = Ir. _cóic_, compared with Sans. _pánca_, Gr. [Greek: pente], Eng. _five_, Ind.-Eur. *_penqe_.

(vii.) Finally--and perhaps this parallelism is the most important of all from the historical standpoint--both Italic and Celtic are divided into two sub-families which differ, and differ in the same way, in their treatment of the Ind.-Eur. velar tenuis _q_. In both halves of each group it was labialized to some extent; in one half of each group it was labialized so far as to become _p_. This is the great line of cleavage (i.) between Latinian (Lat. _quod_, _quando_, _quinque_; Falisc. _cuando_) and Osco-Umbrian, better called Safine (Osc. _pod_, Umb. _panu_- [for *_pando_], Osc.-Umb. _pompe_-, "five," in Osc. _pumperias_ "nonae," Umb. _pumpedia_-, "fifth day of the month"); and (ii.) between Goidelic (Gaelic) (O. Ir. _cóic_, "five," _maq_, "son"; modern Irish and Scotch _Mac_ as in _MacPherson_) and Brythonic (Britannic) (Welsh _pump_, "five," _Ap_ for map, as in _Powel_ for _Ap Howel_).

The same distinction appears elsewhere; Germanic belongs, broadly described, to the _q_-group, and Greek, broadly described, to the _p_-group. The ethnological bearing of the distinction within Italy is considered in the articles SABINI and VOLSCI; but the wider questions which the facts suggest have as yet been only scantily discussed; see the references for the "Sequanian" dialect of Gallic (in the inscription of Coligny, whose language preserves _q_) in the article CELTS: _Language_.

From these primitive affinities we must clearly distinguish the numerous words taken into Latin from the Celts of north Italy within the historic period; for these see especially an interesting study by J. Zwicker, _De vocabulis et rebus Gallicis sive Transpadanis apud Vergilium_ (Leipzig dissertation, 1905).

6. _Greek and Italic._--We have seen above (§ 4, i., ii., iii.) certain broad characteristics which the Greek and the Italic groups of language have in common. The old question of the degree of their affinity may be briefly noticed. There are deep-seated differences in morphology, phonology and vocabulary between the two languages--such as (a) the loss of the forms of the ablative in Greek and of the middle voice in Latin; (b) the decay of the fricatives (_s_, _v_, _^i_) in Greek and the cavalier treatment of the aspirates in Latin; and (c) the almost total discrepancy of the vocabularies of law and religion in the two languages--which altogether forbid the assumption that the two groups can ever have been completely identical after their first dialectic separation from the parent language. On the other hand, in the first early periods of that dialectic development in the Indo-European family, the precursors of Greek and Italic cannot have been separated by any very wide boundary. To this primitive neighbourhood may be referred such peculiarities as (a) the genitive plural feminine ending in -_asom_ (Gr. [Greek: -aôn], later in various dialects [Greek: -eôn, -ôn, -an]; cf. Osc. _egmazum_ "rerum"; Lat. _mensarum_, with -_r_- from -_s_-), (b) the feminine gender of many nouns of the -_o_- declension, cf. Gr. [Greek: hê hodos], Lat. _haec fagus_; and some important and ancient syntactical features, especially in the uses of the cases (e.g. (c) the genitive of price) of the (d) infinitive and of the (e) participles passive (though in each case the forms differ widely in the two groups), and perhaps (f) of the dependent moods (though here again the forms have been vigorously reshaped in Italic). These syntactic parallels, which are hardly noticed by Kretschmer in his otherwise careful discussion (_Einleit._ p. 155 seq.), serve to confirm his general conclusion which has been here adopted; because syntactic peculiarities have a long life and may survive not merely complete revolutions in morphology, but even a complete change in the speaker's language, e.g. such Celticisms in Irish-English as "What are you after doing?" for "What have you done?" or in Welsh-English as "whatever" for "anyhow." A few isolated correspondences in vocabulary, as in _remus_ from *_ret-s-mo_-, with [Greek: eretmos] and in a few plant-names (e.g. [Greek: prason] and _porrum_), cannot disturb the general conclusion, though no doubt they have some historical significance, if it could be determined.