Part 2

7. _Indo-Iranian and Italo-Celtic._--Only a brief reference can here be made to the striking list of resemblances between the Indo-Iranian and Italo-Celtic groups, especially in vocabulary, which Kretschmer has collected (ibid. pp. 126-144). The most striking of these are _rex_, O. Ir. _rig_-, Sans. _raj_-, and the political meaning of the same root in the corresponding verb in both languages (contrast _regere_ with the merely physical meaning of Gr. [Greek: oregnymi]); Lat. _flamen_ (for *_flag-men_) exactly = Sans. _brahman_- (neuter), meaning probably "sacrificing," "worshipping," and then "priesthood," "priest," from the Ind.-Eur. root *_bhelgh_-, "blaze," "make to blaze"; _res_, _rem_ exactly = Sans. _ras_, _ram_ in declension and especially in meaning; and _Ario_-, "noble," in Gallic _Ariomanus_, &c., = Sans. _arya_-, "noble" (whence "Aryan"). So _argentum_ exactly = Sans. _rajata_-, Zend _erezata_-; contrast the different (though morphologically kindred) suffix in Gr. [Greek: argyros]. Some forty-two other Latin or Celtic words (among them _credere_, _caesaries_, _probus_, _castus_ (cf. Osc. _kasit_, Lat. _caret_, Sans. _sista_-), _Volcanus_, _Neptunus_, _ensis_, _erus_, _pruina_, _rus_, _novacula_) have precise Sanskrit or Iranian equivalents, and none so near in any other of the eight groups of languages. Finally the use of an -_r_ suffix in the third plural is common to both Italo-Celtic (see above) and Indo-Iranian. These things clearly point to a fairly close, and probably in part political, intercourse between the two communities of speakers at some early epoch. A shorter, but interesting, list of correspondences in vocabulary with Balto-Slavonic (e.g. the words _mentiri_, _ros_, _ignis_ have close equivalents in Balto-Slavonic) suggests that at the same period the precursor of this dialect too was a not remote neighbour.

8. _Date of the Separation of the Italic Group._--The date at which the Italic group of languages began to have (so far as it had at all) a separate development of its own is at present only a matter of conjecture. But the combination of archaeological and linguistic research which has already begun can have no more interesting object than the approximate determination of this date (or group of dates); for it will give us a point of cardinal importance in the early history of Europe. The only consideration which can here be offered as a starting-point for the inquiry is the chronological relation of the Etruscan invasion, which is probably referable to the 12th century B.C. (see ETRURIA), to the two strata of Indo-European population--the -CO- folk (_Falisci_, _Marruci_, _Volsci_, _Hernici_ and others), to whom the Tuscan invaders owe the names _Etrusci_ and _Tusci_, and the -NO- folk, who, on the West coast, in the centre and south of Italy, appear at a distinctly later epoch, in some places (as in the Bruttian peninsula, see BRUTTII) only at the beginning of our historical record. If the view of Latin as mainly the tongue of the -CO- folk prove to be correct (see ROME: _History_; ITALY: _Ancient Languages and Peoples_; SABINI; VOLSCI) we must regard it (a) as the southern or earlier half of the Italic group, firmly rooted in Italy in the 12th century B.C., but (b) by no means yet isolated from contact with the northern or later half; such is at least the suggestion of the striking peculiarities in morphology which it shares with not merely Oscan and Umbrian, but also, as we have seen, with Celtic. The progress in time of this isolation ought before long to be traced with some approach to certainty.

THE HISTORY OF LATIN

9. We may now proceed to notice the chief changes that arose in Latin after the (more or less) complete separation of the Italic group whenever it came about. The contrasted features of Oscan and Umbrian, to some of which, for special reasons, occasional reference will be here made, are fully described under OSCA LINGUA and IGUVIUM respectively.

It is rarely possible to fix with any precision the date at which a

## particular change began or was completed, and the most serviceable form

for this conspectus of the development will be to present, under the heads of Phonology, Morphology and Syntax, the chief characteristics of Ciceronian Latin which we know to have been developed after Latin became a separate language. Which of these changes, if any, can be assigned to a particular period will be seen as we proceed. But it should be remembered that an enormous increase of exact knowledge has accrued from the scientific methods of research introduced by A. Leskien and K. Brugmann in 1879, and finally established by Brugmann's great _Grundriss_ in 1886, and that only a brief enumeration can be here attempted. For adequate study reference must be made to the fuller treatises quoted, and especially to the sections bearing on Latin in K. Brugmann's _Kurze vergleichende Grammatik_ (1902).

I. PHONOLOGY

10. _The Latin Accent._--It will be convenient to begin with some account of the most important discovery made since the application of scientific method to the study of Latin, for, though it is not strictly a part of phonology, it is wrapped up with much of the development both of the sounds and, by consequence, of the inflexions. It has long been observed (as we have seen § 4, iv. above) that the restriction of the word-accent in Latin to the last three syllables of the word, and its attachment to a long syllable in the penult, were certainly not its earliest traceable condition; between this, the classical system, and the comparative freedom with which the word-accent was placed in pro-ethnic Indo-European, there had intervened a period of first-syllable accentuation to which were due many of the characteristic contractions of Oscan and Umbrian, and in Latin the degradation of the vowels in such forms as _accentus_ from _ad_ + _cantus_ or _praecipitem_ from _prae_ + _caput_- (§ 19 below). R. von Planta (_Osk.-Umbr. Grammatik_, 1893, i. p. 594) pointed out that in Oscan also, by the 3rd century B.C., this first-syllable-accent had probably given way to a system which limited the word-accent in some such way as in classical Latin. But it remained for C. Exon, in a brilliant article (_Hermathena_ (1906), xiv. 117, seq.), to deduce from the more precise stages of the change (which had been gradually noted, see e.g. F. Skutsch in Kroll's _Altertumswissenschaft im letzten Vierteljahrhundert_, 1905) their actual effect on the language.

11. _Accent in Time of Plautus._--The rules which have been established for the position of the accent in the time of Plautus are these:

(i.) The quantity of the final syllable had no effect on accent.

(ii.) If the penult was long, it bore the accent (_amabamus_).

(iii.) If the penult was short, then

(a) if the ante-penult was long, it bore the accent (_amabimus_);

(b) if the ante-penult was short, then

(i.) if the ante-ante-penult was long, the accent was on the ante-penult (_amicítia_); but

(ii.) if the ante-ante-penult was also short, it bore the accent (_cólumine, puéritia_).

_Exon's Laws of Syncope._--With these facts are now linked what may be called Exon's Laws, viz:--

_In pre-Plautine Latin_ in all words or word-groups of four or more syllables whose chief accent is on one long syllable, a short unaccented medial vowel was syncopated; thus *_quínquedecem_ became *_quínqdecem_ and thence _quíndecim_ (for the -_im_ see § 19), *_súps-emere_ became *_súpsmere_ and that _sumere_ (on -_psm- v. inf._) *_súrregere_, *_surregémus_, and the like became _surgere_, _surgémus_, and the rest of the paradigm followed; so probably _validé bonus_ became _valdé bonus_, _exterá viam_ became _extrá viam_; so *_supo-téndo_ became _subtendo_ (pronounced _sup-tendo_), *_aridére_, *_avidére_ (from _aridus_, _avidus_) became _ardére_, _audére_. But the influence of cognate forms often interfered; _posterí-die_ became _postrídie_, but in _posterórum_, _posterárum_ the short syllable was restored by the influence of the trisyllabic cases, _pósterus_, _pósteri_, &c., to which the law did not apply. Conversely, the nom. *_áridor_ (more correctly at this period *_aridos_), which would not have been contracted, followed the form of _ardórem_ (from *_aridórem_), _ardére_, &c.

The same change produced the monosyllabic forms _nec_, _ac_, _neu_, _seu_, from _neque_, &c., before consonants, since they had no accent of their own, but were always pronounced in one breath with the following word, _neque tántum_ becoming _nec tantum_, and the like. So in Plautus (and probably always in spoken Latin) the words _nemp(e)_, _ind(e)_, _quipp(e)_, _ill(e)_, are regularly monosyllables.

12. _Syncope of Final Syllables._--It is possible that the frequent but far from universal syncope of final syllables in Latin (especially before -_s_, as in _mens_, which represents both Gr. [Greek: menos] and Sans. matís = Ind.-Eur. _mntís_, Eng. _mind_) is due also to this law operating on such combinations as _bona mens_ and the like, but this has not yet been clearly shown. In any case the effects of any such phonetic change have been very greatly modified by analogical changes. The Oscan and Umbrian syncope of short vowels before final _s_ seems to be an independent change, at all events in its detailed working. The outbreak of the unconscious affection of slurring final syllables may have been contemporaneous.

13. _In post-Plautine Latin_ words accented on the ante-antepenult:--

(i.) suffered syncope in the short syllable following the accented syllable (_bálineae_ became _bálneae_, _puéritia_ became _puértia_ (Horace), _cólumine_, _tégimine_, &c., became _cúlmine_, _tégmine_, &c., beside the trisyllabic _cólumen_, _tégimen_) unless

(ii.) that short vowel was _e_ or _i_, followed by another vowel (as in _párietem_, _múlierem_, _Púteoli_), when, instead of contraction, the accent shifted to the penult, which at a later stage of the language became lengthened, _pariétem_ giving Ital. _paréete_, Fr. _paroi_, _Puteóli_ giving Ital. _Pozzuoli_.

The restriction of the accent to the last three syllables was completed by these changes, which did away with all the cases in which it had stood on the fourth syllable.

14. _The Law of the Brevis Brevians._--Next must be mentioned another great phonetic change, also dependent upon accent, which had come about before the time of Plautus, the law long known to students as the _Brevis Brevians_, which may be stated as follows (Exon, _Hermathena_ (1903), xii. 491, following Skutsch in, e.g., Vollmöller's _Jahresbericht für romanische Sprachwissenschaft_, i. 33): a syllable long by nature or position, and preceded by a short syllable, was itself shortened if the word-accent fell immediately before or immediately after it--that is, on the preceding short syllable or on the next following syllable. The sequence of syllables need not be in the same word, but must be as closely connected in utterance as if it were. Thus _modo_ became _módo_, _voluptatem_ became _volu(p)tatem_, _quid est?_ became _quid est?_ either the _s_ or the _t_ or both being but faintly pronounced.

It is clear that a great number of flexional syllables so shortened would have their quantity immediately restored by the analogy of the same inflexion occurring in words not of this particular shape; thus, for instance, the long vowel of _ama_ and the like is due to that in other verbs (_pulsa_, _agita_) not of iambic shape. So ablatives like _modö_, _sono_ get back their -_o_, while in particles like _modo_, "only," _quomodo_, "how," the shortened form remains. Conversely, the shortening of the final -_a_ in the nom. sing. fem. of the _a_-declension (contrast _luna_ with Gr. [Greek: chôrã]) was probably

## partly due to the influence of common forms like _ea_, _bona_, _mala_,

which had come under the law.

15. _Effect on Verb Inflexion._--These processes had far-reaching effects on Latin inflexion. The chief of these was the creation of the type of conjugation known as the _capio_-class. All these verbs were originally inflected like _audio_, but the accident of their short root-syllable, (in such early forms as *_fúgis_, *_fugiturus_, *_fugisetis_, &c., becoming later _fúgis_, _fugiturus_, _fugeretis_) brought great parts of their paradigm under this law, and the rest followed suit; but true forms like _fugire_, _cupire_, _moriri_, never altogether died out of the spoken language. St Augustine, for instance, confessed in 387 A.D. (_Epist._ iii. 5, quoted by Exon, _Hermathena_ (1901), xi. 383,) that he does not know whether _cupi_ or _cupiri_ is the pass. inf. of _cupio_. Hence we have Ital. _fuggire_, _morire_, Fr. _fuir_, _mourir_. (See further on this conjugation, C. Exon, _l.c._, and F. Skutsch, _Archiv für lat. Lexicographie_, xii. 210, two papers which were written independently.)

16. The question has been raised how far the true phonetic shortening appears in Plautus, produced not by word-accent but by metrical ictus--e.g. whether the reading is to be trusted in such lines as _Amph._ 761, which gives us _dedisse_ as the first foot (tribrach) of a trochaic line "because the metrical ictus fell on the syllable _ded_-"--but this remarkable theory cannot be discussed here. See the articles cited and also F. Skutsch, _Forschungen zu Latein. Grammatik und Metrik_, i. (1892); C. Exon, _Hermathena_ (1903) xii. p. 492, W. M. Lindsay, _Captivi_ (1900), appendix.

In the history of the vowels and diphthongs in Latin we must distinguish the changes which came about independently of accent and those produced by the preponderance of accent in another syllable.

17. _Vowel Changes independent of Accent._--In the former category the following are those of chief importance:--

(i.) _i_ became _e_ (a) when final, as in _ant-e_ beside Gr. [Greek: anti], _triste_ besides _tristi-s_, contrasted with e.g., the Greek neuter [Greek: idri] (the final -_e_ of the infinitive--_regere_, &c.--is the -_i_ of the locative, just as in the so-called ablatives _genere_, &c.); (b) before -_r_- which has arisen from -_s_-, as in _cineris_ beside _cinis_, _cinisculus_; _sero_ beside Gr. [Greek: i(s)êmi] (Ind.-Eur. *_si-semi_, a reduplicated non-thematic present).

(ii.) Final _o_ became _e_; imperative _sequere_ = Gr. [Greek: epe(s)o]; Lat. _ille_ may contain the old pronoun *_so_, "he," Gr. [Greek: ho], Sans. _sa_ (otherwise Skutsch, _Glotta_, i. Hefte 2-3).

(iii.) _el_ became _ol_ when followed by any sound save _e_, _i_ or _l_, as in _volo_, _volt_ beside _velle_; _colo_ beside Gr. [Greek: tellomai, polein], Att. [Greek: telos]; _colonus_ for *_quelonus_, beside _inquilinus_ for *_en-quelenus_.

(iv.) _e_ became _i_ (i.) before a nasal followed by a palatal or velar consonant (_tingo_, Gr. [Greek: teggô]; _in-cipio_ from *_en-capio_); (ii.) under certain conditions not yet precisely defined, one of which was _i_ in a following syllable (_nihil_, _nisi_, _initium_). From these forms _in_- spread and banished _en_-, the earlier form.

(v.) The "neutral vowel" ("schwa Indo-Germanicum") which arose in pro-ethnic Indo-European from the reduction of long _a_, _e_ or _o_ in unaccented syllables (as in the -_tós_ participles of such roots as _sta_-, _dhe_-, _do_-, *_st[schwa]tós_, *_dh[schwa]tós_, *_d[schwa]tós_) became _a_ in Latin (_status con-ditus_ [from *_con-dhatos_], _datus_), and it is the same sound which is represented by _a_ in most of the forms of _do_ (_damus_, _dabo_, &c.).

(vi.) When a long vowel came to stand before another vowel in the same word through loss of _^i_ or _^u_, it was always shortened; thus the -_eo_ of intransitive verbs like _candeo_, _caleo_ is for -_e^io_ (where the _e_ is identical with the [eta] in Gr. [Greek: ephanên, emanên]) and was thus confused with the causative -_eio_ (as in _moneo_, "I make to think," &c.), where the short _e_ is original. So _audiui_ became _audii_ and thence _audii_ (the form audivi would have disappeared altogether but for being restored from _audiveram_, &c.; conversely _audieram_ is formed from _audii_). In certain cases the vowels contracted, as in _tres_, _partes_, &c. with -_es_ from _e^ies_, *_amo_ from _ama(^i)o_.

18. _Of the Diphthongs._

Changes of the diphthongs independent of accent.

(vii.) _eu_ became _ou_ in pro-ethnic Italic, Lat. _novus_: Gr. [Greek: neos], Lat. _novem_, Umb. _nuviper_ (i.e. _noviper_), "usque ad noviens": Gr. [Greek: (en-)nea]; in unaccented syllables this -_ov_- sank to -_u(v)_- as in _denuo_ from _de novo_, _suus_ (which is rarely anything but an enclitic word), Old Lat. _sovos_: Gr. [Greek: he(w)os].

(viii.) _ou_, whether original or from _eu_, when in one syllable became -_u_-, probably about 200 B.C., as in _duco_, Old Lat. _douco_, Goth, _tiuhan_, Eng. _tow_, Ind.-Eur. *_de^uco_.

(ix.) _ei_ became _i_ (as in _dico_, Old Lat. _deico_: Gr. [Greek: deik-nymi], _fido_: Gr. [Greek: peithomai], Ind.-Eur. *_bheidho_) just before the time of Lucilius, who prescribes the spellings _puerei_ (nom. plur.) but _pueri_ (gen. sing.), which indicates that the two forms were pronounced alike in his time, but that the traditional distinction in spelling had been more or less preserved. But after his time, since the sound of _ei_ was merely that of _i_, _ei_ is continually used merely to denote a long _i_, even where, as in _faxeis_ for faxis, there never had been any diphthongal sound at all.

(x.) In rustic Latin (Volscian and Sabine) _au_ became _o_ as in the vulgar terms _explodere_, _plostrum_. Hence arose interesting doublets of meaning;--_lautus_ (the Roman form), "elegant," but _lotus_, "washed"; _haustus_, "draught," but _hostus_ (Cato), "the season's yield of fruit."

(xi.) _oi_ became _oe_ and thence _u_ some time after Plautus, as in _unus_, Old Lat. _oenus_: Gr. [Greek: oinê] "ace." In Plautus the forms have nearly all been modernized, save in special cases, e.g. in _Trin._ i. 1, 2, _immoene facinus_, "a thankless task," has not been changed to _immune_ because that meaning had died out of the adjective so that _immune facinus_ would have made nonsense; but at the end of the same line _utile_ has replaced _oetile_. Similarly in a small group of words the old form was preserved through their frequent use in legal or religious documents where tradition was strictly preserved--_poena_, _foedus_ (neut.), _foedus_ (adj.), "ill-omened." So the archaic and poetical _moenia_, "ramparts," beside the true classical form _munia_, "duties"; the historic _Poeni_ beside the living and frequently used _Punicum_ (_bellum_)--an example which demonstrates conclusively (_pace_ Sommer) that the variation between _u_ and _oe_ is not due to any difference in the surrounding sounds.

(xii.) _ai_ became _ae_ and this in rustic and later Latin (2nd or 3rd century A.D.) simple _e_, though of an open quality--Gr. [Greek: aithos, aithô], Lat. _aedes_ (originally "the place for the fire"); the country forms of _haedus_, _praetor_ were _edus_, _pretor_ (Varro, _Ling. Lat._ v. 97, Lindsay, _Lat. Lang._ p. 44).

19. _Vowels and Diphthongs in unaccented Syllables._--The changes of the short vowels and of the diphthongs in unaccented syllables are too numerous and complex to be set forth here. Some took place under the first-syllable system of accent, some later (§§ 9, 10). Typical examples are _pep_E_rci_ from *_péparcai_ and _ónustus_ from *_ónostos_ (before two consonants); _concIno_ from *_cóncano_ and _hosp_I_t_I_s_ from *_hóstipotes_, _legImus_ beside Gr. [Greek: legomen] (before one consonant); _Sic_U_li_ from *_Siceloi_ (before a thick _l_, see § 17, 3); _dil_I_g_I_t_ from *_dísleget_ (contrast, however, the preservation of the second _e_ in _negl_E_g_I_t_); _occ_U_pat_ from *_opcapat_ (contrast _accipit_ with _i_ in the following syllable); the varying spelling in _monumentum_ and _monimentum_, _maxumus_ and _maximus_, points to an intermediate sound (_ü_) between _u_ and _i_ (cf. Quint. i. 4. 8, reading _optumum_ and _optimum_ [not _opimum_] with W. M. Lindsay, _Latin Language_ §§ 14, 16, seq.), which could not be correctly represented in spelling; this difference may, however, be due merely to the effect of differences in the neighbouring sounds, an effect greatly obscured by analogical influences.

Inscriptions of the 4th or 3rd century, B.C. which show original -_es_ and -_os_ in final syllables (e.g. _Veneres_, gen. sing., _navebos_ abl. pl.) compared with the usual forms in -_is_, -_us_ a century later, give us roughly the date of these changes. But final -_os_, -_om_, remained after -_u_- (and _v_) down to 50 B.C. as in _servos_.

20. Special mention should be made of the change of -_ri_- and -_ro_- to -_er_- (_incertus_ from *_encritos_; _ager_, _acer_ from *_agros_, *_acris_; the feminine _acris_ was restored in Latin (though not in North Oscan) by the analogy of other adjectives, like _tristis_, while the masculine _acer_ was protected by the parallel masculine forms of the -_o_- declension, like _tener_, _niger_ [from *_teneros_, *_nigros_]).

21. Long vowels generally remained unchanged, as in _compago_, _condono_.

22. Of the diphthongs, _ai_ and _oi_ both sank to _ei_, and with original _ei_ further to _i_, in unaccented syllables, as in _Achivi_ from Gr. [Greek: Achaiwoi], _oliivom_, earlier *_oleivom_ (borrowed into Gothic and there becoming _alev_) from Gr. [Greek: elaiwon]. This gives us interesting chronological data, since the _el_- must have changed to _ol_- (§ 16. 3) before the change of -_ai_- to -_ei_-, and that before the change of the accent from the first syllable to the penultimate (§ 9); and the borrowing took place after -_ai_- had become -_ei_-, but before -_eivom_ had become -_eum_, as it regularly did before the time of Plautus.

But cases of _ai_, _ae_, which arose later than the change to _ei_, _i_, were unaffected by it; thus the nom. plur. of the first declension originally ended in -_as_ (as in Oscan), but was changed at some period before Plautus to -_ae_ by the influence of the pronominal nom. plur. ending -_ae_ in _quae?_ _hae_, &c., which was accented in these monosyllables and had therefore been preserved. The history of the -_ae_ of the dative, genitive and locative is hardly yet clear (see Exon, _Hermathena_ (1905), xiii. 555; K. Brugmann, _Grundriss_, 1st ed. ii. 571, 601).

The diphthongs _au_, _ou_ in unaccented syllables sank to -_u_-, as in _includo_ beside _claudo_; the form _cludo_, taken from the compounds, superseded _claudo_ altogether after Cicero's time. So _cudo_, taken from _incudo_, _excudo_, banished the older *_caudo_, "I cut, strike," with which is probably connected _cauda_, "the striking member, tail," and from which comes _caussa_, "a cutting, decision, legal case," whose -_ss_- shows that it is derived from a root ending in a dental (see §25 (b) below and Conway, _Verner's Law in Italy_, p. 72).

_Consonants._--Passing now to the chief changes of the consonants we may notice the following points:--

23. Consonant _i_ (wrongly written _j_; there is no _g_-sound in the letter), conveniently written _^i_ by phoneticians,

(i.) was lost between vowels, as in _tres_ for *_tre^ies_, &c. (§ 17. 6);

(ii.) in combination: -_m^i_- became -_ni_-, as in _veniö_, from Ind.-Eur. *[g]^u _m^io_, "I come," Sans. _gam_-, Eng. _come_; -_n^i_- probably (under certain conditions at least) became -_nd_-, as in _tendo_ beside Gr. [Greek: teinô], _fendo_ = Gr. [Greek: theinô], and in the gerundive stem -_endus_, -_undus_, probably for -_en^ios_, -_on^ios_; cf. the Sanskrit gerundive in -_an-iya-s_; -_g^i_-, -_d^i_- became -_^i_- as in _maior_ from *_mag-ior_, _peior_ from *_ped-ior_;

(iii.) otherwise -_^i_- after a consonant became generally syllabic (-_i^i_-), as in _capio_ (trisyllabic) beside Goth. _hafya_.

24. Consonant _u_ (formerly represented by English _v_), conveniently written _^u_,

(i.) was lost between similar vowels when the first was accented, as in _audiui_, which became _audii_ (§ 17 [6]), but not in _amaui_, nor in _avarus_.

(ii.) in combination: _d^u_ became _b_, as in _bonus_, _bellum_, O. Lat. _d^uonus_, *_d^uellum_ (though the poets finding this written form in old literary sources treated it as trisyllabic); _p^u_-, _f^u_-, _b^u_-, lost the _^u_, as in _ap-erio_, _op-erio_ beside Lith. -_veriu_, "I open," Osc. _veru_, "gate," and in the verbal endings -_bam_, -_bo_, from -_bh^u-am_, -_bh^uo_ (with the root of Lat. _fui_), and _fio_, _du-bius_, _super-bus_, _vasta-bundus_, &c., from the same; -_s^u_- between vowels (at least when the second was accented) disappeared (see below § 25 (a), iv.), as in _pruina_ for _prusuina_, cf. Eng. _fros-t_, Sans, _prusva_, "hoar-frost." Contrast _Minérva_ from an earlier *_menes-^ua_, _s^ue_-, _s^uo_-, both became so-, as in _soroor_(_em_) beside Sans. _svasar-am_, Ger. _schwes-t-er_, Eng. _sister_, _sordes_, beside O. Ger. _swart-s_, mod. _schwarz_. -_^uo_- in final syllables became -_u_-, as in _cum_ from _quom_, _parum_ from _par^uom_; but in the declensional forms -_^uu_- was commonly restored by the analogy of the other cases, thus (a) _ser^uos_, _ser^uom_, _ser^ui_ became (b) *_serus_, *_serum_, *_ser^ui_, but finally (c) _ser^uus_, _ser^uum_, _ser^ui_.

(iii.) In the 2nd century A.D., Lat. _v_ (i.e. _^u_) had become a voiced labio-dental fricative, like Eng. _v_; and the voiced labial plosive _b_ had broken down (at least in certain positions) into the same sound; hence they are frequently confused as in spellings like _vene_ for _bene_, _Bictorinus_ for _Victorinus_.

25. (a) Latin _s_