Part 3

(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.

II. MORPHOLOGY

In morphology the following are the most characteristic Latin innovations:--

29. _In nouns._

(i.) The complete loss of the dual number, save for a survival in the dialect of Praeneste (_C.I.L._ xiv. 2891, = Conway, _Ital. Dial._ p. 285, where _Q. k. Cestio Q. f._ seems to be nom. dual); so _C.I.L._ xi. 6706_5, T. C. Vomanio, see W. Schulze, _Lat. Eigennamen_, p. 117.

(ii.) The introduction of new forms in the gen. sing, of the -_o_- stems (_domini_), of the -_a_- stems (_mensae_) and in the nom. plural of the same two declensions; innovations mostly derived from the pronominal declension.

(iii.) The development of an adverbial formation out of what was either an instrumental or a locative of the -_o_- stems, as in _longe_. And here may be added the other adverbial developments, in -_m_ (_palam_, _sensim_) probably accusative, and -_iter_, which is simply the accusative of _iter_, "way," crystallized, as is shown especially by the fact that though in the end it attached itself

## particularly to adjectives of the third declension (_molliter_), it

appears also from adjectives of the second declension whose meaning made their combination with _iter_ especially natural, such as _longiter_, _firmiter_, _largiter_ (cf. English _straightway_, _longways_). The only objections to this derivation which had any real weight (see F. Skutsch, _De nominibus no- suffixi ope formatis_, 1890, pp. 4-7) have been removed by Exon's Law (§ 11), which supplies a clear reason why the contracted type _constanter_ arose in and was felt to be proper to Participial adverbs, while _firmiter_ and the like set the type for those formed from adjectives.

(iv.) The development of the so-called fifth declension by a re-adjustment of the declension of the nouns formed with the suffix -_ie_-: _ia_- (which appears, for instance, in all the Greek feminine

## participles, and in a more abstract sense in words like _materies_) to

match the inflexion of two old root-nouns _res_ and _dies_, the stems of which were originally _rei_- (Sans. _ras_, _rayas_, cf. Lat. _reor_) and _dieu_-.

(v.) The disuse of the -_ti_- suffix in an abstract sense. The great number of nouns which Latin inherited formed with this suffix were either (1) marked as abstract by the addition of the further suffix -_on_- (as in _natio_ beside the Gr. [Greek: gnêsi-os], &c.) or else (2) confined to a concrete sense; thus _vectis_, properly "a carrying, lifting," came to mean "pole, lever"; _ratis_, properly a "reckoning, devising," came to mean "an (improvised) raft" (contrast _ratio_); _postis_, a "placing," came to mean "post."

(vi.) The confusion of the consonantal stems with stems ending in -_i_-. This was probably due very largely to the forms assumed through phonetic changes by the gen. sing. and the nom. and acc. plural. Thus at say 300 B.C. the inflexions probably were:

conson. stem -_i_- stem Nom. plur. *_reg-es_ _host-es_ Acc. plur. _reg-es_ _host-is_

The confusing difference of signification of the long -_es_ ending led to a levelling of these and other forms in the two paradigms.

(vii.) The disuse of the _u_ declension (Gr. [Greek: hêdys, stachys]) in adjectives; this group in Latin, thanks to its feminine form (Sans. fem. _svadvi_, "sweet"), was transferred to the _i_ declension (_suavis_, _gravis_, _levis_, _dulcis_).

30. _In verbs._

(i.) The disuse of the distinction between the personal endings of primary and secondary tenses, the -_t_ and -_nt_, for instance, being used for the third person singular and plural respectively in all tenses and moods of the active. This change was completed after the archaic period, since we find in the oldest inscriptions -_d_ regularly used in the third person singular of past tenses, e.g. _deded_, _feced_ in place of the later _dedit_, _fecit_; and since in Oscan the distinction was preserved to the end, both in singular and plural, e.g. _faamat_ (perhaps meaning "auctionatur"), but _deded_ ("dedit"). It is commonly assumed from the evidence of Greek and Sanskrit (Gr. [Greek: hesti], Sans. _asti_ beside Lat. est) that the primary endings in Latin have lost a final -_i_, partly or wholly by some phonetic change.

(ii.) The non-thematic conjugation is almost wholly lost, surviving only in a few forms of very common use, _est_, "is"; _est_, "eats"; _volt_, "wills," &c.

(iii.) The complete fusion of the aorist and perfect forms, and in the same tense the fusion of active and middle endings; thus _tutudi_, earlier *_tutudai_, is a true middle perfect; _dixi_ is an _s_ aorist with the same ending attached; _dixit_ is an aorist active; _tutudisti_ is a conflation of perfect and aorist with a middle personal ending.

(iv.) The development of perfects in -_ui_ and -_vi_, derived partly from true perfects of roots ending in _v_ or _u_, e.g. _movi rui_. For the origin of _monui_ see Exon, _Hermathena_ (1901), xi. 396 sq.

(v.) The complete fusion of conjunctive and optative into a single mood, the subjunctive; _regam_, &c., are conjunctive forms, whereas _rexerim_, _rexissem_ are certainly and _regerem_ most probably optative; the origin of _amem_ and the like is still doubtful. Notice, however, that true conjunctive forms were often used as futures, _reges_, _reget_, &c., and also the simple thematic conjunctive in forms like _ero_, _rexero_, &c.

(vi.) The development of the future in -_bo_ and imperfect in -_bam_ by compounding some form of the verb, possibly the Present Participle with forms from the root of _fui_, *_amans-fuo_ becoming _amabo_, *_amans-fuam_ becoming _amabam_ at a very early period of Latin; see F. Skutsch, _Atti d. Congresso Storico Intern._ (1903), vol. ii. p. 191.

(vii.) We have already noticed the rise of the passive in -_r_ (§ 5 (d)). Observe, however, that several middle forms have been pressed into the service, partly because the -_r_- in them which had come from -_s_- seemed to give them a passive colour (_legere_ = Gr. [Greek: lege(s)o], Attic [Greek: legou]). The interesting forms in -_mini_ are a confusion of two distinct inflexions, namely, an old infinitive in -_menai_, used for the imperative, and the participial -_menoi_, masculine, -_menai_, feminine, used with the verb "to be" in place of the ordinary inflexions. Since these forms had all come to have the same shape, through phonetic change, their meanings were fused; the imperative forms being restricted to the plural, and the participial forms being restricted to the second person.

31. _Past Participle Passive._--Next should be mentioned the great development in the use of the participle in -_tos_ (_factus_, _fusus_, &c.). This participle was taken with _sum_ to form the perfect tenses of the passive, in which, thanks partly to the fusion of perfect and aorist active, a past aorist sense was also evolved. This reacted on the participle itself giving it a prevailingly past colour, but its originally timeless use survives in many places, e.g. in the

## participle _ratus_, which has as a rule no past sense, and more

definitely still in such passages as Vergil, _Georg._ i. 206 (_vectis_), _Aen._ vi. 22 (_ductis_), both of which passages demand a present sense. It is to be noticed also that in the earliest Latin, as in Greek and Sanskrit, the _passive_ meaning, though the commonest, is not universal. Many traces of this survive in classical Latin, of which the chief are

1. The active meaning of deponent participles, in spite of the fact that some of them (e.g. _adeptus_, _emensus_, _expertus_) have also a passive sense, and

2. The familiar use of these participles by the Augustan poets with an accusative attached (_galeam indutus_, _traiectus lora_). Here no doubt the use of the Greek middle influenced the Latin poets, but no doubt they thought also that they were reviving an old Latin idiom.

32. _Future Participle._--Finally may be mentioned together (a) the development of the future participle active (in -_urus_, never so freely used as the other participles, being rare in the ablative absolute even in Tacitus) from an old infinitive in -_urum_ ("scio inimicos meos hoc dicturum," C. Gracchus (and others) _apud_ Gell. 1. 7, and Priscian ix. 864 (p. 475 Keil), which arose from combining the dative or locative of the verbal noun in -_tu_ with an old infinitive _esom_ "esse" which survives in Oscan, *_dictu esom_ becoming _dicturum_. This was discovered by J. P. Postgate (_Class. Review_, v. 301, and _Idg. Forschungen_ iv. 252). (b) From the same infinitival accusative with the post-position -_do_, meaning "to," "for," "in" (cf. _quando_ for *_quam-do_, and Eng. _to_, Germ, _zu_) was formed the so-called gerund _agen-do_, "for doing," "in doing," which was taken for a Case, and so gave rise to the accusative and genitive in -_dum_ and -_di_. The form in -do still lives in Italian as an indeclinable present participle. The modal and purposive meanings of -_do_ appear in the uses of the gerund.

The authorities giving a fuller account of Latin morphology are the same as those cited in § 28 above, save that the reader must consult the second volume of Brugmann's _Grundriss_, which in the English translation (by Conway and Rouse, Strassburg, 1890-1896) is divided into volumes ii, iii. and iv.; and that Niedermann does not deal with morphology.

III. SYNTAX

The chief innovations of syntax developed in Latin may now be briefly noted.

33. _In nouns._

(i.) Latin restricted the various Cases to more sharply defined uses than either Greek or Sanskrit; the free use of the internal accusative in Greek (e.g. [Greek: habron bainein tuphlos ta ôta]) is strange to Latin, save in poetical imitations of Greek; and so is the freedom of the Sanskrit instrumental, which often covers meanings expressed in Latin by _cum_, _ab_, _inter_.

(ii.) The syncretism of the so-called ablative case, which combines the uses of (a) the true ablative which ended in -_d_ (O. Lat. _praidad_); (b) the instrumental sociative (plural forms like _dominis_, the ending being that of Sans. _çivais_); and (c) the locative (_noct-e_, "at night"; _itiner-e_, "on the road," with the ending of Greek [Greek: elpid-i]). The so-called absolute construction is mainly derived from the second of these, since it is regularly attached fairly closely to the subject of the clause in which it stands, and when accompanied by a passive participle most commonly denotes an action performed by that subject. But the other two sources cannot be altogether excluded (_orto sole_, "starting from sunrise"; _campo patente_, "on, in sight of, the open plain").

34. _In verbs._

(i.) The rich development and fine discrimination of the uses of the subjunctive mood, especially (a) in indirect questions (based on direct deliberative questions and not fully developed by the time of Plautus, who constantly writes such phrases as _dic quis es_ for the Ciceronian _dic quis sis_); (b) after the relative of essential definition (_non is sum qui negem_) and the circumstantial _cum_ ("at such a time as that"). The two uses (a) and (b) with (c) the common Purpose and Consequence-clauses spring from the "prospective" or "anticipatory" meaning of the mood. (d) Observe further its use in subordinate oblique clauses (_irascitur quod abierim_, "he is angry because, _as he asserts_, I went away"). This and all the uses of the mood in oratio obliqua are derived partly from (a) and (b) and partly from the (e) Unreal Jussive of past time (_Non illi argentum redderem? Non redderes_, "Ought I not to have returned the money to him?" "You certainly ought not to have," or, more literally, "You were not to").

On this interesting chapter of Latin syntax see W. G. Hale's "Cum-constructions" (_Cornell University Studies in Classical Philology_, No. 1, 1887-1889), and _The Anticipatory Subjunctive_ (Chicago, 1894).

(ii.) The complex system of oratio obliqua with the sequence of tenses (on the growth of the latter see Conway, _Livy II._, Appendix ii., Cambridge, 1901).

(iii.) The curious construction of the gerundive (_ad capiendam urbem_), originally a present (and future?) passive participle, but restricted in its use by being linked with the so-called gerund (see § 32, b). The use, but probably not the restriction, appears in Oscan and Umbrian.

(iv.) The favourite use of the impersonal passive has already been mentioned (§ 5, iv.).

35. The chief authorities for the study of Latin syntax are: Brugmann's _Kurze vergl. Grammatik_, vol. ii. (see § 28); Landgraf's _Historische lat. Syntax_ (vol. ii. of the joint _Hist. Gram._, see § 28); Hale and Buck's _Latin Grammar_ (see § 28); Draeger's _Historische lat. Syntax_, 2 vols. (2nd ed., Leipzig, 1878-1881), useful but not always trustworthy; the Latin sections in Delbrück's _Vergleichende Syntax_, being the third volume of Brugmann's _Grundriss_ (§ 28).

IV. IMPORTATION OF GREEK WORDS

36. It is convenient, before proceeding to describe the development of the language in its various epochs, to notice briefly the debt of its vocabulary to Greek, since it affords an indication of the steadily increasing influence of Greek life and literature upon the growth of the younger idiom. Corssen (_Lat. Aussprache_, ii. 814) pointed out four different stages in the process, and though they are by no means sharply divided in time, they do correspond to different degrees and kinds of intercourse.

(a) The first represents the period of the early intercourse of Rome with the Greek states, especially with the colonies in the south of Italy and Sicily. To this stage belong many names of nations, countries and towns, as _Siculi_, _Tarentum_, _Graeci_, _Achivi_, _Poenus_; and also names of weights and measures, articles of industry and terms connected with navigation, as _mina_, _talentum_, _purpura_, _patina_, _ancora_, _aplustre_, _nausea_. Words like _amurca_, _scutula_, _pessulus_, _balineum_, _tarpessita_ represent familiarity with Greek customs and bear equally the mark of naturalization. To these may be added names of gods or heroes, like _Apollo_, _Pollux_ and perhaps _Hercules_. These all became naturalized Latin words and were modified by the phonetic changes which took place in the Latin language after they had come into it (cf. §§ 9-27 _supra_). (b) The second stage was probably the result of the closer intercourse resulting from the conquest of southern Italy, and the wars in Sicily, and of the contemporary introduction of imitations of Greek literature into Rome, with its numerous references to Greek life and culture. It is marked by the free use of hybrid forms, whether made by the addition of Latin suffixes to Greek stems as _ballistarius_, _hepatarius_, _subbasilicanus_, _sycophantiosus_, _comissari_ or of Greek suffixes to Latin stems as _plagipatidas_, _pernonides_; or by derivation, as _thermopotare_, _supparasitari_; or by composition as _ineuscheme_, _thyrsigerae_, _flagritribae_, _scrophipasci_. The character of many of these words shows that the comic poets who coined them must have been able to calculate upon a fair knowledge of colloquial Greek on the part of a considerable portion of their audience. The most remarkable instance of this is supplied by the burlesque lines in Plautus (_Pers._ 702 seq.), where Sagaristio describes himself as

Vaniloquidorus, Virginisvendonides, Nugipiloquides, Argentumexterebronides, Tedigniloquides, Nummosexpalponides, Quodsemelarripides, Nunquameripides.

During this period Greek words are still generally inflected according to the Latin usage.

(c) But with Accius (see below) begins a third stage, in which the Greek inflexion is frequently preserved, e.g. _Hectora_, _Oresten_, _Cithaeron_; and from this time forward the practice wavers. Cicero generally prefers the Latin case-endings, defending, e.g., _Piraeeum_ as against _Piraeea_ (_ad Att._ vii. 3, 7), but not without some fluctuation, while Varro takes the opposite side, and prefers _poëmasin_ to the Ciceronian _poëmatis_. By this time also _y_ and _z_ were introduced, and the representation of the Greek aspirates by _th_, _ph_, _ch_, so that words newly borrowed from the Greek could be more faithfully reproduced. This is equally true whatever was the precise nature of the sound which at that period the Greek aspirates had reached in their secular process of change from pure aspirates (as in Eng. _ant-hill_, &c.) to fricatives (like Eng. _th_ in _thin_). (See Arnold and Conway, _The Restored Pronunciation of Greek and Latin_, 4th ed., Cambridge, 1908, p. 21.)

(d) A fourth stage is marked by the practice of the Augustan poets, who, especially when writing in imitation of Greek originals, freely use the Greek inflexions, such as _Arcades_, _Tethy_, _Aegida_, _Echus_, &c. Horace probably always used the Latin form in his _Satires_ and _Epistles_, the Greek in his Odes. Later prose writers for the most part followed the example of his _Odes_. It must be added, however, in regard to these literary borrowings that it is not quite clear whether in this fourth class, and even in the unmodified forms in the preceding class, the words had really any living use in spoken Latin.

V. PRONUNCIATION

This appears the proper place for a rapid survey of the pronunciation[1] of the Latin language, as spoken in its best days.