1. The Italian peninsula, in the earliest period of history, was occupied by various peoples speaking a variety of languages and dialects.

     The Ligurians in the northwest have usually been regarded as relics of an aboriginal, pre-Indo-European, population, but are now thought by some to be Indo-European.1 The linguistic remains, consisting largely of geographical names, are too meagre to be decisive.

     The Etruscans (Latin Etrūscī or Tuscī, the latter from *Turscī; cf. Umbrian Turskum, Greek Τυρσηνοί, Τυρρηνοί) occupied Etruria, and, previous to the Celtic invasions, much of the central part of northern Italy, in the valley of the Po. They were also masters of Campania from the eighth century B.C. The Etruscan inscriptions² number over six thousand, but only a few hundred contain anything more than proper names, and less than a dozen of these are of any considerable length. The interpretation is wholly uncertain and nothing positive can be affirmed as to the affinities of the language. But it is reasonably clear that it is not Indo-European. The riddle will probably remain unsolved until the discovery of a bilingual inscription of some length.

     The Veneti, at the head of the Adriatic, and the Messapians and Iapygians in Calabria have commonly been grouped together as of Illyrian origin. There are several hundred short Venetian inscriptions,³ and the Messapian is also represented by some hundred and sixty short inscriptions.⁴ From these remains it appears that the two languages, though Indo-European, do not belong to the same group, and it is uncertain whether the Venetian, or the Messapian with the modern Albanian, should be classified as Illyrian.⁵

     Greek colonies occupied nearly the entire southern portion of Italy, many of them dating from a period earlier than the beginnings of Roman history and retaining their Greek character for several centuries after Christ.

     Celtic tribes which poured in from the north, and in the early part of the fourth century B.C. sacked Rome, maintained themselves for some time in the central plains of northern Italy.

     The rest of Italy was occupied by tribes speaking dialects akin to the Latin and with it constituting the Italic branch of the Indo-European family.

     2. The Italic Dialects fall into two groups, the Latin-Faliscan and the Oscan-Umbrian.

     The Latin-Faliscan comprises the Latin, of which there were local variations in the different towns of Latium, and the Faliscan, spoken in the Faliscan plain in the southeastern part of Etruria. The few short inscriptions6 are sufficient to show that Faliscan differed slightly from Latin.

     The Oscan-Umbrian group is so named from its two most important members, the Oscan and the Umbrian, but includes also the dialects of most of the minor tribes of central Italy, which may be conveniently designated as Sabellian.⁷ The best known of these is the Paelignian, which shows a very close resemblance to Oscan. Much the same are the dialects of the neighboring Marrucinians and Vestinians, of which there are some scanty remains. Volscian, known only from an inscription of four lines from Velitrae, is more strongly differentiated and in several particulars resembles Umbrian more than Oscan; but there is no sufficient reason for grouping it otherwise than among the Sabellian dialects. The Marsians, Aequians, and Sabines are connected historically with the other Sabellian tribes, and their dialects doubtless belong properly to the same group. But they were subjected to Latin influence from a very early period, and the meagre remains that we have give no satisfactory picture of their characteristics.

     3. Oscan inscriptions have been found in Samnium (inclusive of the territory of the Frentani and Hirpini), Campania, northern Apulia, Lucania, and Bruttium, and in the Sicilian city of Messana from the period after its occupation by the Campanian Mamertines. These are precisely the regions which we know were occupied by Samnite tribes. In calling the language Oscan rather than Samnite we are following the usage of the Latin authors, as when Livy (10, 20) relates how in one of the Samnite wars the Roman consul sent out spies who were acquainted with the Oscan language. Now the Oscans (Lat. Oscī, earlier Opscī, Grk. ’Οπικοί) were a Campanian tribe, and it has been held by some that Oscan was not the original language of the Samnites, but was adopted by them after their invasion of Campania. But this is altogether improbable. We must, rather, assume that the Oscans were simply a detached branch of the Samnites, speaking essentially the same language; and the principal reason why this language was called Oscan rather than Samnitic is that it was among the Oscans that the Greeks and Romans first came in contact with it. The Samnites entered into the field of history as a politically distinct people from the Oscans; but their language, being the same, was called by the name already established. Moreover it was among the Oscans, by reason of their early contact with Greek and Etruscan civilization, that the language was first reduced to writing, so that while they did not give the Samnites a new language, they did give them its written form, and to a certain extent, probably, a sort of normalized standard of speech. This last supposition would help account for the fact that local variations of Oscan, outside of Campania, are far less marked than one would expect, considering the extent of territory in which the language was spoken.

     4. The Oscan inscriptions number over two hundred, but more than half of these contain only proper names or fragments of words. About three quarters of them come from Campania, where Pompeii, and in recent years Capua, have furnished the greatest number.

     The period of time covered is nearly five centuries, the earliest remains being some coin-legends from the end of the fifth or first half of the fourth century B.C., while the latest are some of the graffiti of Pompeii, which there is reason to believe were scratched on the walls after the first earthquake in 63 A.D. But by far the greater part of the material falls between 300 B.C. and the Social War in 90-89 B.C. After the Social War Oscan ceased to be used in official documents, but continued to exist as a local patois for some time,—how long we cannot tell. If at Pompeii it was still spoken, to some extent at least, in the first century A.D., it very likely lingered on for several centuris in the remoter districts of Samnium.

     Most of the inscriptions are written in the native Oscan alphabet, which is derived, through the medium of the Etruscan, from the Greek of the Chalcidian type. But a few from Lucania, including the longest Oscan inscription known, the Tabula Bantina, are in the Latin alphabet, and some from Sicily and various parts of southern Italy are in the Greek alphabet.

     5. As regards contents, many well-known classes of inscriptions are represented. The Tabula Bantina, the longest inscription, itself only a fragment of the original, contains a series of municipal regulations. The next longest, the Cippus Abellanus, is an agreement between the cities of Nola and Abella touching certain temple property held in common. From Agnone in Samnium comes an inventory of statues and altars in a sacred grove. The Curse of Vibia, from Capua, together with a few shorter curses, belongs to the class of devotiones of which there are many examples among Greek and Latin inscriptions. There are several inscriptions on public works from Pompeii and elsewhere; also dedications, including a peculiar series of iovilae-dedications, mostly from Capua, the nature of which is not fully understood. Certain inscriptions painted on house-fronts near some of the street-corners in Pompeii seem to be guides for the allied troops occupying the city in the Social War. There are numerous inscribed coins from various towns, some of them older than any of the inscriptions on stone; also several from the time of the Social War, bearing the legend Víteliú ‘Italia’, and the names of the leaders of the allies. There are a few epitaphs, many bricks inscribed with names, and probably one of the well-known inscribed missles; also some illegible electioneering notices, not to mention various other insignificant scrawls, on walls in Pompeii.

     6. Besides the inscriptions, there are some secondary sources, such as the Oscan glosses, mostly in Varro and Festus, and the geographical and personal names from Oscan territory. But they contribute relatively little to our knowledge of the dialect.

     7. Oscan was not a mere patois, nor was it so regarded by the earlier Roman writers. Ennius, in boasting of having three souls because he could speak Greek, Oscan, and Latin, gave to Oscan a position which he had no thought of giving to the local vernacular of his home, the Messapian. For a long time, while Latin was still confined to Latium and its immediate borders, Oscan was spoken over a vastly wider territory. It was the language of the people which gave the Romans the hardest fight for the hegemony of Italy. In the early centuries the Oscans of Campania, under the Etruscan rule, and close to the Greek colonies of Cumae, Naples, etc., stood on fully as high a plane of civilization as the Romans of the same period. Eminent scholars like Mommsen have expressed the conviction that there once existed an Oscan literature, and certainly the conditions for the rise of a native literature were as favorable as at Rome. But nothing has come down to us, not even a reference to anything more pretentious than the puppet-shows introduced in Rome from Campania under the name of fabulae Atellanae or ludi Osci. At Rome, of course, these were no longer given in Oscan, but in rustic Latin.

     8. Aside from a few short inscriptions from various towns of Umbria, the Umbrian remains consist of the Iguvinian Tables, discovered at Gubbio, the ancient Iguvium, in the fifteenth century. These are seven small bronze tablets (originally nine, but two were lost soon after the discovery), most of them inscribed on both sides, and containing together between four and five thousand words. This makes a far more extensive document than any representing any other dialect except Latin.

     9. Some of the tables are written in the native Umbrian alphabet, which like the Oscan is derived from the Greek through the Etruscan, others in the Latin alphabet. These two divisions of the material are conveniently distinguished as Old Umbrian and New Umbrian, but the differences are in part merely orthographic, and, at most, far less marked than those which are usually associated with the terms Old and New in such a connection. The New Umbrian tables may date from the early part of the first century B.C. How much earlier the Old Umbrian tables are it is impossible to say; different parts were inscribed at different times, and even the relative order is not fully determined. See the Commentary on the Iguvinian Tables.

     10. The contents of the Tables consist of the acts of a certain corporation of priests known as the Atiedian Brothers, and in their general character resemble the Roman Acta Arvalium. They contain directions for various ceremonies, such as the Purification of the Sacred Mount and the Lustration of the People, as well as the more private functions of the brotherhood, with minute prescriptions as to the taking of auspices, manner of sacrificing victims, etc.; also statements as to the duties of certain officials, perquisites of the priests, contributions to be made to the brotherhood by certain gentes, etc. Some of the older tables contain matter which is repeated in an expanded form in the later tables.

     11. The most striking characteristics, as regards phonology, are:

     Change of the labiovelars q and g, which appear in Latin as qu and v (gu after n), to the labials p and b; e.g. O. pis ‘quis’, U. pisi, Volsc. pis, Marruc. nipis;—O. bivus ‘vivi’;—U. benust ‘venerit’;—U. umen (from *umben) ‘unguen’.

     Extensive syncope of short vowels in non-initial syllables; e.g. O. actud ‘agito’;—U. fiktu ‘figito’;—O. húrz ‘hortus’;—U. Ikuvins ‘Iguvinus’;—O. akkatus ‘advocati’.

     Assimilations of nd to nn; e.g. O. úpsannam ‘operandam’;—U. pihaner ‘piandi’ (n for nn, 26).

     Retention of s before nasals and liquids, where it is lost in Latin; e.g. O. físnam ‘fanum’, U. fesnaf-e, Pael. fesn.;—O. kersnu ‘cena’, U. s̀esna;—Pael. prismu ‘prima’.

     Retention of a in medial syllables, where it is weakened in Latin to e or i; e.g. O. Anterstataí ‘*Interstitae’;—U. antakres ‘integris’;—U. procanurent ‘*procinuerint’.

     Representation of original bh and dh by f, not only initially as in Latin, but also medially, where Latin has b or d; e.g. O. tfei, U. tefe ‘tibi’;—O. mefiaí ‘in media’;—U. rufru ‘rubros’.

     Change of final ā, which in Latin is shortened, in the direction of ō; e.g. O. molto, U. mutu, muta ‘multa’.

     Change of kt to ht, and of pt to ft (Umbrian, further, to ht); e.g. O. Úhtavis ‘Octavius’;—U. rehte ‘recte’;—O. scriftas ‘scriptae’, U. screhto.

     Assimilation of ks to ss, s; e.g. O. destrst ‘dextra est’, U. destram-e.

     Change of ns to f, though under different conditions in Oscan and Umbrian; e.g. O. úítiuf ‘usus’ from *otiōn-s;— U. Acc. Pl. eaf ‘eas’ (also Marruc. iaf-c) from *eans (but O. víass).

     12. DECLENSION. The types of noun-declension are sufficiently like the Latin to fall naturally into the same grouping of Five Declensions. But the Fifth Declension is represented by only a few forms, and in the Third Declension the consonant-stems and i-stems are kept distinct in a greater number of case-forms than in Latin. The Cases are the same as in Latin, except that, in the Singular, the Locative exists as a distinct form with full syntactical functions. The important differences in case-formation are as follows (for examples, see the paradigms):

     First Declension. The Gen. Sg. has the original ending -ās, which is preserved in Latin only in phrases like pater familiās; the Nom. Pl. has the original ending -ās, which is lost in Latin.

      Second Declension. The Gen. Sg. has the ending -eis, from i-stems; the Dat. Sg. has the ending -oi, which occurs in Latin only in Numasioi of the Praenestine brooch; the Nom. Pl. has the original noun-ending -ō for both nouns and pronouns, while the Latin has -ī, from -oi, the pronominal ending; the Gen. Pl. has only the original -ōm (L. -um), there being nothing to correspond to L. -ōrum, which is a specifically Latin development.

     Third Declension. The Gen. Sg. always has -eis, the ending of i-stems, while Latin -is is the proper ending of consonant-stems; the Acc. Sg. of consonant-stems has -om, from o-stems; in the Nom. Pl. the consonant-stems and i-stems are kept distinct, the former having the original ending -es with syncope of the e, the latter -ēs as in Latin (O. humuns ‘homines’, but trís ‘tres’).

     13. CONJUGATION. The conjugation-types are the same as in Latin, the material grouping itself under the Four Conjugations, leaving the relics of unthematic inflection as “Irregular Verbs.” But the type represented by Latin capiō is, in origin, more closely connected with the Fourth Conjugation than with the Third, and in Oscan-Umbrian is better grouped with the Fourth.

     The Moods are the same. As in Latin, the Subjunctive is a fusion of original Subjunctive and Optative forms, and the distribution of the forms is the same as in Latin, except in the Perfect Subjunctive (see below).

     The Tenses are the same, except that, perhaps accidentally, there is no example of a Pluperfect.

     The Voices are the same, but of the Passive there are only forms of the Third Singular and Third Plural.

     Of the non-finite forms there are found a Present Active Participle, Perfect Passive Participle, Gerundive, Present Active Infinitive, Perfect Passive Infinitive, and Supine. The Gerund, Perfect Infinitive Active, Future Infinitives, Present Infinitive Passive, and Future Active Participle are lacking. The absence of examples of some of these forms is possibly a mere accident, but it is probable that most of them are specifically Latin formations.

     The important differences in formation are as follows:

     The Pres. Infin. Act. ends in -om; e.g. O. ezum, U. erom ‘esse’.

     The Future is an s-formation, in origin a short-vowel Subjunctive of an s-Aorist; e.g. O. deiuast ‘iurabit’, U. ferest ‘feret’.

     The Fut. Perf. is an us-formation, probably based on an old Perf. Act. Partic. in -us combined with a short-vowel Subjunctive of the verb ‘to be’; e.g. O. dicust ‘dixerit’, U. benust ‘venerit’.

     Among the different formations making up the Perfect System, the f-Perfect is characteristic of Oscan-Umbrian; e.g. O. aíkdafed ‘decrevit’, U. andirsafust ‘circumtulerit’. (Oscan-Sabellian has also a tt-Perfect, and Umbrian an l-Perfect and an nki-Perfect.) The Latin vī- and s-Perfects are lacking.

     The Perf. Subj. is a real Subjunctive form with the mood-sign ē, not an Optative with mood-sign ī as in Latin; e.g. O. tríbarakattíns ‘aedificaverint’, U. combifians̀i ‘nuntiaverit’.

     In the Third Singular and Third Plural there is a distinction between primary endings, which are -t, -nt, and secondary endings, which are -d (lost in Umbrian), -ns; e.g. O. faamat ‘habitat’, but fakiiad ‘faciat’;—O. stahínt ‘stant’, U. furfant ‘purgant’, but O. deicans ‘dicant’, U. dirsans ‘dent’. Latin shows -d in some of the earliest inscriptions, but nothing corresponding to -ns.

     The unthematic form of the Third Plural, -ent, which in Latin is always replaced by the thematic form -ont, -unt, is preserved, and even extended to thematic formations; e.g. O. set, U. sent ‘sunt’, O. censazet ‘censebunt’.

     The Third Singular and Third Plural of the Passive have an ending -ter, unknown in Latin, while the Latin -tur appears only in Umbrian secondary tenses; e.g. O. vincter ‘convincitur’, karanter ‘vescuntur’, U. herter ‘oportet’; U. emantur ‘accipiantur’.

     The Third Singular Passive has also a peculiar set of forms in which the ending is neither -ter nor -tur, but simply -r; e.g. U. ferar ‘feratur’, O. sakrafír (Perf. Subj.) ‘sacrato’.

     14. The Syntax shows a remarkably close resemblance to the Latin. There are no uses of the moods and tenses which cannot be paralleled in the Latin, the agreement being closest, in some respects, with early Latin prose. The Passive forms include both genuine Passives and Deponents, as in Latin, but the frequent impersonal use is characteristic of Oscan-Umbrian. In the use of the cases there are many interesting constructions, of which the following are the most noteworthy. The Locative, being preserved as a distinct case-form, is used where the Latin requires in with the Ablative, e.g. O. eíeí tereí ‘in eo territorio’. The Partitive Genitive has a wider scope than in Latin, e.g. U. iuenga peracrio tursituto ‘iuvencas ex opimis fuganto’. A Genitive of Time is seen in O. zicolom XXX nesimum ‘in diebus XXX proximis’. The Genitive is used more freely than in Latin to denote the matter involved; e.g. O. eizazunc egmazum ‘in these matters’, U. pusi ocrer pihaner ‘as in the case of the purification of the mount’. The prepositions corresponding to Latin inter and trāns are used with both Accusative and Locative; those corresponding to ob and post are used with the Ablative.

1. her- ‘velle’. O. herest ‘volet’, heriam ‘arbitrium, vim’, Herentateís ‘Veneris’ (Pael. Herentas); U. heri ‘vult’, heriest ‘volet’, etc., herter ‘oportet’, heris ‘vel’, pis-her ‘quilibet’. Cf. L. horior, hortor, Grk. χαίρω, Skt. háryāmi ‘be gratified, delight in’, Goth. -gairns ‘eager’, Eng. yearn. This root completely displaces uel- (L. volō) in the meaning ‘wish’, the latter appearing only in a specialized meaning; e.g. U. veltu ‘deligito’ ehueltu ‘iubeto’.
   
   

2. toutā- ‘civitas, urbs, populus.’ O. τωϜτο Μαμερτινο; ‘civitas Mamertina’, toutad praesentid ‘populo praesente’, touticom ‘publicum’, etc.; U. totam Iiouinam ‘civitatem Iguvinam’, tuderor totcor ‘fines urbici’, etc.; Marruc. toutai Maroucai ‘civitati Marrucinae’; Volsc. toticu ‘publico’. Cf. Lith. tauta ‘people’, O.Pruss. tauto ‘country’, O.Ir. tuath ‘people’, Goth. þiuda ‘people’, O.Eng. þéod ‘people, nation’, etc.
   
   

3. ais- ‘sacer, divinus’. O. aisusis ‘sacrificiis’; U. esona ‘sacras’, esono ‘sacrificium’; Marruc. aisos ‘dis’ (?); Mars. esos ‘dis’ (?); Volsc. esaristrom ‘sacrificium’; αἰσοί · θεοὶ ὑπὸ Τυρρηνῶν (Hesychius), aesar Etrusca lingua deus (Suetonius). Perhaps related to Germ. Ehre (Goth. *aiza), and to Goth. aistan ‘revere’, L. aestimō, from aiz-d-.
   
   

4. komno- ‘comitium’. O. comono ‘comitia’; U. super kumne ‘super comitio’, kumnahkle ‘in conventu’. From kom ‘cum’ + suffix -no- (cf. L. prō-nus, trāns-trum).
   
   

5. hontro- ‘inferus’. O. hu[n]truis ‘inferis’; U. hondra ‘infra’, Superl. hondomu ‘infimo’. From hom-, related to L. humus, Grk. χαμαί, χθών, etc. For meaning cf. L. humilis, Grk. χθαμαλός, Lith. żẽmas ‘low’, żemỹn ‘down’, from żẽmė ‘earth’.
   
   

6. medes- ‘ius’. U. meřs, mers ‘ius’, mersto ‘iustum’, mersuva ‘iusta’; O. meddíss ‘meddix’, official title (cf. Festus “meddix apud Oscos nomen magistratus est”; Livy 26, 6, 13 “medix tuticus [O. meddíss túvtíks; see above, 2] qui summus magistratus apud Campanos est”; cpd. like L. iūdex from *iūs-dik-), medicim ‘magistracy’, meddikiai ‘in the meddixship’; medicatinom ‘iudicationem’, medicatud ‘iudicato’; Pael., Volsc., medix (Nom. Pl.); Mars. medis. Cf. L. modus, modes-tus, Grk. μέδομαι, etc.
   
   

7. ner- ‘vir, princeps’, title of rank. O. nerum (Gen. Pl.), niir (Nom. Sg.); U. nerf (Acc. Pl.), nerus (Dat. Pl.). For related Sabine forms cf. Suetonius Tib. 1 “inter cognomina autem et Neronis adsumpsit, quo significatur lingua Sabina fortis ac strenuus”; Aul. Gell. 13, 23 “id autem, sive Nerio sive Nerienes est, Sabinum verbum est, eoque significatur virtus et fortitudo”; Lydus de Mens. 4, 42 “νερίκη γὰρ ἡ ἀνδρία ἐστὶ καὶ νήρωνας τοὺς ἀνδρείους οἱ Σαβῖνοι καλοῦσιν”. Cf. Grk. ἀνήρ, Skt. nar- ‘man’, O.Ir. nert strength’.
   
   

8. nessimo- ‘proximus’. O. nessimas (Nom. Pl.), nesimum (Gen. Pl.), nesimois (Abl. Pl.); U. nesimei ‘proxime’ (adv.). Cf. O.Ir. nessam ‘nearest’, etc. Cf. also O. nistrus ‘propinquos’.
   
   

9. pert ‘trans’. O. pert víam ‘trans viam’, am-pert ‘not more than, dumtaxat’; U. pert spiniam ‘trans columnam’ (?). An extension of per. Umbrian also uses traf = L. trāns.
   
   

10. postin ‘according to’. O. pústin slagím ‘according to the territory’; U. pusti kastruvuf ‘per capita’ (?) etc. An extension of *posti (early Latin poste).
    
    

11. pur- ‘ignis’. U. pir ‘ignis’, pure-to ‘ab igne’; O. purasiaí ‘in igniaria’. Cf. Grk. πῦρ, πυρός, O.H.G. fuir, fiur, Eng. fire, etc.
    
    

12. sēuo- ‘totus’. O. siuom ‘omnino’; U. seuom ‘totum’, sev-akne ‘sollemne’. Cf. L. sō-lus, Goth. sē-ls (?).
    
    

13. tefro- ‘burnt-offering’. O. saahtúm tefúrúm ‘sacred burnt-offering’; U. tefra ‘carnes cremandas’, tefru-to ‘ex rogo’. Probably from *tepsro-, related to L. tepor, Skt. tápas, etc.
    
    

14. treb- ‘habitare’. U. trebeit ‘versatur’, tremnu ‘tabernaculo’; O. trííbúm ‘domum’, tríbarakkiuf ‘aedificium’, tríbarakavúm ‘aedificare’, etc. Cf. O.Ir. treb ‘dwelling-place’, Lith. trobà ‘building’, Goth. Þaúrp ‘field’, Germ. Dorf, etc.
    
    

15. uero- ‘porta’. O. veru ‘portam’; U. uerof-e ‘in portam’, etc. Cf. Skt. vṛ- ‘enclose’, Goth. warjan ‘ward off’, Lith. veriù ‘open, shut’, var̃tai ‘gate’, L. aperiō, operiō.

     For other examples, see, in the Glossary, O. akeneí, U. acnu; O. aíkdafed, U. eitipes; O. eehiianasúm, U. ehiato; O. eizo-, U. ero-; O. púmperiaís, U. pumpeřias.

     16. Of the many words which are peculiar to Oscan (or Oscan-Sabellian) or to Umbrian, the following may be mentioned here.

A. OSCAN.

1. aeteis ‘partis’, a]íttíúm ‘partium’. Cf. Gk. αἶσα from αἰτ-ια.
   
   

2. amnúd ‘circuitu’, amnud ‘causa’ (prepos.). From am- ‘amb-’ + suffix -no-. (Cf. kom-no-, 15, 4.) Perhaps contained in L. soll-emnis.
   
   

3. comparascuster ‘consulta erit’, kú]mparakineís ‘consilii’. From the same root as L. poscō, precor, but with the meaning which it has more commonly in other languages of ‘ask, question’ (Skt. pṛcchā́mi ‘ask’, sam-pṛcchā́mi ‘consult’, Germ. forschen, etc.).
   
   

4. deiuā- ‘iurare’ (deiuatud ‘iurato’, etc.). Denominative from *deiuo- ‘god’. Cf. Lettic dwat-s ‘swear’, from dws ‘god’.
   
   

5. egmo ‘res’, egmazum ‘rerum’, etc. Etym. uncertain (L. egeō?).
   
   

6. eituam, eítiuvam ‘pecuniam’, eituas ‘pecuniae’, etc. Also Marruc. eituam ‘pecuniam’. Etym. uncertain.
   
   

7. feíhúss ‘muros’, feíhúís ‘muris’. Cf. Grk. τεῖχος, Skt. dehī́ ‘heap, wall’, etc. From the same root as L. fingō, figūra, etc.
   
   

8. íním, inim ‘et’. Also Pael. inim and inom ‘et’. Related to L. enim, U. enom ‘tum’.
   
   

9. loufir ‘vel’. In form a 3d Sg. Pres. Pass. from the same root as L. libet. Cf. L. vel from volō, and U. heris ‘vel’ (15, 1).
   
   

10. puklum ‘puerum, filium’. Also Pael. puclois ‘pueris’. Cf. Skt. putrá- ‘son’, and, from the same root, L. puer, Grk. παίς.
    
    

11. tanginom ‘sententiam’, Abl. Sg. tanginúd, etc. Cf. Festus “tongere nosse est, nam Praenestini tongitionem dicunt notionem. Ennius ‘Alii rhetorica tongent’”. Cf. Goth. Þagkjan, Eng. think.

12. anglaf, ancla ‘oscines’. Cpd. of klā- (L. clāmō), as L. oscinēs from canō.
    
    

13. anouihimu ‘induitor’. From *an-ouiō (Conj. IV); cf. L. ind-uō from *ind-ouō, Lith. aviù ‘wear (shoes)’.
    
    

14. ape, appei ‘cum, ubi’ (always temporal). Probably from ad + pe (L. -que), and so in form like L. adque, atque.
    
    

15. arsmor ‘ritus’, arsmatiam ‘ritualem’, arsmahamo ‘ordamini’, etc. Etym. uncertain.
    
    

16. combifiā- ‘nuntiare, mandare’ (combifiatu, kupifiaia, etc.). Probably from fif-, the same root as in L. fīdō, Grk. πείθω, or possibly from fuf-, the same as in Grk. πυνθάνομαι.
    
    

17. gomia ‘gravidas’. Cf. L. gemō, and, for meaning especially, Grk. γέμω.
    
    

18. nertru ‘sinistro’. Cf. Grk. νέρτερος ‘lower, nether’. According to Italic ideas īmus = sinister.
    
    

19. purdouitu ‘porricito’, purditom ‘porrectum’, etc. From *por-douiō, with the root seen in L. duim, duam.
    
    

20. tuder ‘finem’, tuderus ‘finibus’, tuderato ‘finitum’, eturstahmu ‘exterminato’, etc. Etym. uncertain.
    
    

21. uend- ‘vertere’ in ahauendu ‘avertito’, preuendu ‘advertito’. Cf. Germ. wenden (Eng. wind).

     For other examples, too numerous to mention, see the Glossary. Many of them are technical terms, often of obscure meaning.

     17. Several words are used in a sense which is either unknown or nearly obsolete in Latin.

1. O. kasit (L. caret) means ‘decet’ or ‘oportet’, e.g. fakiiad kasit ‘faciat decet’. Cf. Eng. “it wants to be done”, that is “it needs to be done”.
   
   

2. O. castrous, U. castruo (L. castrum), mean either ‘fundus, landed property’, or, more probably, ‘head’.
   
   

3. O. carneis, U. karu (L. carō), have the general meaning ‘part, portion’ (cf. also U. kartu ‘distribuito’), e.g. maimas carneis senateis tanginud ‘maximae partis senatus sententia’, U. mestru karu fratru ‘maior pars fratrum’. But Umbrian shows also the specialized meaning ‘piece of flesh’, e.g. aseçeta karne ‘non secta carne’.
   
   

4. The forms corresponding to L. operor are used in the sense of ‘make, construct’, where Latin would employ faciō; e.g. O. ekass víass uupsens ‘has vias fecerunt’, trííbúm ekak úpsannam deded ‘domum hanc faciendam dedit’; U. capirse perso osatu ‘capidi fossam facito’; Pael. Herec. fesn. upsaseter coisatens ‘Herculi fanum fieret curaverunt’.
   
   

5. O. ant (L. ante) means ‘usque ad’, e.g. ant púnttram ‘usque ad pontem’.
   
   

6. U. com (L. cum), when postpositive, has developed a locative meaning, e.g. ueris-co ‘at the gate’, asa-ku ‘at the altar’.
   
   

7. O. op, úp (L. ob), means ‘apud’, e.g. úp sakaraklúd ‘apud templum’, op toutad ‘apud populum’.
   
   

8. prō- (L. prō-) sometimes has a temporal meaning ‘before’, for which in Latin prae-, or oftener ante-, is used; e.g. U. prupehast ‘ante piabit’, O. prupukid ‘ex antepacto, by previous agreement’.
   
   

9. U. emantur (L. emō) ‘accipiantur’ shows the original meaning ‘take’ seen in Latin compounds and in the particle em. Cf. also Festus “emere, quod nunc est mercari, antiqui accipiebant pro sumere”. The specialized meaning ‘buy’ is found in emps on one of the short inscriptions, where it is perhaps due to Latin influence.
   
   

10. U. prever (L. prīvus) means ‘singulis’, e.g. numer prever ‘nummis singulis’. Cf. Festus “privos privasque antiqui dicebant pro singulis”. So also O. preiuatud means ‘reo, defendant’ (as rarely in Latin, e.g. Livy 26, 3, 8, etc.),—the single man among the many making up the assembly.
    
    

11. U. orto (L. ortus) is sometimes used in the literal sense of ‘rising, standing up’, e.g. urtes puntis ‘the pentads rising’. Cf. Velius Longus (Keil, Gram. Lat. VII, 74) “oriri apud antiquos surgere frequenter significat, ut apparet ex eo quod dicitur: oriens consul magistrum populi dicat, quod est surgens”; Livy 8, 23, 15 “consul oriens”.
    
    

12. U. tursituto, tursiandu (L. terreō), have the meaning ‘drive off’, which in Latin is only poetical; e.g. ponne iuengar tursiandu ‘cum iuvencae fugentur’. But also tursitu ‘terreto’.
    
    

13. U. couertu (L. convertō) always means ‘return’, with the intransitive meaning which is rare in Latin; e.g. enom traha Sahatam couertu ‘tum trans Sanctam revertito’.
    
    

14. U. vurtus (L. vertō) has the meaning ‘take a turn, change’, which is rare in Latin (verterat fortuna, Liv. 5, 49, 5); e.g. pune naraklum vurtus ‘cum nuntiatio mutaverit’.
    
    

15. U. ostendu (L. ostendō) has more nearly its etymological meaning than in Latin. It is used of ‘stretching out’, that is ‘offering’, fruits of the field or vessels; once of ‘putting forward’, that is ‘choosing’, an official.
    
    

16. O. urust (L. ōrō; see 21) is used in the technical sense of ‘plead, argue’; e.g. com preiuatud actud, —, in pon posmom con preiuatud urust ‘cum reo agito, —, et cum postremum cum reo oraverit’. Cf. Festus “orare antiquos dixisse pro agere”; Cic. Brut. 12, 47 “oravisse capitis causam”; Livy 39, 40, 6 “si causa oranda esset”, etc.
    
    

17. U. comohota (L. commōtus) means ‘brought, offered’, in Di Grabouie, tio comohota tribrisine buo, —, tiom subocau ‘Iuppiter Grabovi, te commoto ternione boum, —, te invoco’. Cf. Cato, De Agric. 144 “Iane pater, te hac strue commovenda (MSS. also ommovenda) bonas preces precor”.

     18. The differences between Oscan-Umbrian and Latin are considerable. They are far greater, for example, than those between the Greek dialects, especially in the inflectional forms. But the resemblances with Latin, as compared with any other Indo-European language, are also notable, leaving no doubt that we have to do with two closely-related divisions of the same branch, sharing in many important characteristics which distinguish this among the various branches of the great family. This again is most marked in the inflectional system, so that we can maintain that the Latin inflectional system as a whole is also the Italic. The simplest proof of this lies in the fact that the general classifications which have been found most suitable for the treatment of Latin forms apply also to Oscan-Umbrian. For such classifications, as, for example, that of the verb-forms into the Four Conjugations with scattering Irregular Verbs, are not mere arbitrary devices, for which others equally good might be substituted, but actually reflect the distribution of the linguistic material in a given language.

     A few specific examples of these resemblances are: merging of the Instrumental with the Ablative; extension of the Ablative in -d from the o-stems to the other declensions; partial fusion of i-stems and consonant stems; use of the Interrogative and Indefinite Pronoun as a Relative; fusion of Aorist and Perfect; formation of the Imperfect Indicative; formation of the Imperfect Subjunctive.

     19. Oscan is the Gothic of the Italic dialects. In the conservatism and transparency of its vowel-system it is rivaled only by Greek of all the Indo-European languages.

     Diphthongs are preserved intact in all positions; e.g. Dat.-Abl. Pl. -ais and -ois: L. -īs; — Loc. Sg. -ei: L. -ī; — Gen. Sg. of u-stems in -ous: L. -ūs; — deicum: L. dīcō; — múíníkeí: L. (com-)mūnis. So also Paelignian and Marrucinian.

     The finer nuances of pronunciation are expressed by a highly-developed orthographical system. The qualitative differences between the long and short vowels (except the a-vowels), which is known to have existed in Latin, is more marked in the letter e, but long e has become so close in pronunciation as to be denoted by an i-character (in the Oscan alphabet by í, the sign of the relatively open i); e.g. estud: L. estō, but ligud, lígatúís: L. lēx, lēgātus. Note also pod, púd: L. quod, but estud, estud: L. estō; also (in the Oscan alphabet) píd: L. quid, but Abl. Sg. -id: L. -īd.

     An original s between vowels, which becomes r in Umbrian as in Latin, remains a sibilant (also Paelignian); e.g. Gen. Pl. -azum: L. -ārum. Final d after long vowels is preserved, as in early Latin, while in Umbrian it is lost even after short vowels (20).

     A specifically Oscan (also Paelignian) process is the development of an anaptyctic vowel between liquids or nasals and mutes; e.g. aragetud ‘argento’; — perek(aís) ‘perticis’: U. percam. Among other secondary changes are the doubling of consonants before certain sounds, and the change of u after a dental; e.g. kúmbennieís ‘conventus’, alttram ‘alteram’, tiurrí ‘turrim’.

     See also under 20.

     20. Umbrian, as compared with Oscan, is characterized mainly by a number of secondary phonetic changes, of which the most important are:

     Monophthongization of the original diphthongs in all positions; e.g. Dat.-Abl. Pl. -es, -ir, -er: O. -ois, L. -īs; — ote: O. aut, L. aut; — pre: O. prai, L. prae. So also Volscian.

     Rhotacism, as in Latin, where Oscan preserves the sibilant; e.g. Gen. Pl. -arum: O. -azum.

     Loss of final d; e.g. -po in suepo ‘sive’: O. pod, L. quod; — façia ‘faciat’: O. fakiiad. So also Volscian.

     Loss of l before t; e.g. muta: O. molta, L. multa.

     Assibilation of k before front vowels, as in late Latin and Romance; e.g. façia: O. fakiiad, L. faciat. So also Volscian.

     Change of gutturals before t to i; e.g. aitu: O. actud, L. agitō (cf. French fait from L. factum).

     Change of intervocalic d to a sound written rs (ř in Umbrian alphabet); e.g. persi, peři: L. pede.

     Change of ft (in part from pt) to ht; e.g. screhto ‘scriptum’: O. scriftas, L. scrīptus.

     Assimilation of secondary ps; e.g. osatu ‘facito’: O. úpsannam, L. operor.

     Change of initial l to u; e.g. vutu: L. lavitō.


     Among other Umbrian peculiarities are:

     Development of original final -ns to -f, for which Oscan has -ss; e.g. U. eaf ‘eas’: O. víass ‘vias’. So also Marrucinian.

     Retention of intervocalic rs: e.g. tursitu ‘terreto’.

     Ending of Abl. Sg. of consonant-stems in -e, as in Latin, while Oscan has -ōd after o-stems; e.g. natine ‘natione’: O. tanginud ‘sententia’.

     Ending of Dat.-Abl. Pl. of consonant-stems in -us, after u-stems, where Oscan has -íss, -is, after i-stems; e.g. fratrus ‘fratribus’ (as if L. *fratrubus): O. ligis ‘legibus’.

     Presence of pronominal forms with sm; e.g. pusme ‘cui’, esmei ‘huic’: Skt. kásmāi, ásmāi, etc.

     Imperative futu, contrasted with O. estud, L. estō (also Volsc. estu).

     Perfect in l and nki, contrasted with O. tt-Perfect (13).

     Passive endings both -ter and -tur, Oscan having only -ter (13).

     Use of et as the usual connective, as in Latin, for which Oscan has inim (16, 8).

     Arrangement of the proper name, which is praenomen, father’s name, gentile, while in Oscan it is the same as in Latin.

     21. The borrowed words consist mainly of Greek words in Oscan, introduced from the neighboring Greek colonies. These are mostly names or epithets of divinities, such as Appelluneís (Dor. ’Απέλλων); — Evklúí (probably Εὔκολος, an epithet of Hermes in Magna Graecia); — Herekleís (‘Ηρακλῆς, with syncope of the α and shortening of the vowel before r + consonant, whence, with anaptyctic vowel in different positions, come both the Oscan and Latin forms; the Oscan form, in contrast to the Latin, is an o-stem, Dat. Sg. Hereklúí; cf. also Vest. Herclo); — Piístíaí (Πίστιος; cf. Ζεὺς Πίστιος for Iuppiter Fidius in Dionys. Hal. 4, 58; the ií of the Oscan is perhaps due to contamination with some such form as Piíhiúí); — Herukinaí (’Ερυκίνη; Herentateí Herukinaí corresponds to the Sicilian ’Αφροδίτη ’Ερυκίνη, the worship of whom as Venus Erycina was also introduced among the Romans in the second Punic war; cf. Livy 22, 9, 10); — Meeílíkiieís (Μειλίχιος; eeí is merely the result of an attempted correction of ee to eí); — Arentika[i (Hesych. ’Αράντισιν· ’Ερινύσι, Μακεδόνες).

     But there are also a few common nouns of the same class as those introduced into Latin at the same period, such as thesavrúm (θησαυρός; the Oscan form is neuter), kúíníks (χοῖνιξ), passtata (παστάς), tiurrí, with L. turris (τύρρις); limu ‘famem’ is also suspicious, since cognates of Grk. λῑμός are otherwise unknown in Italic.

     Latin influence shows itself in some official titles, as O. aídil ‘aedilis’ (the d of L. aedēs comes from dh, which would be f in Oscan); — O. kenzsur (cf. also Kenssurineís) beside the regular keenzstur, censtur ‘censor’ (see 244, 1, a); — probably O. kvaísstur, U. kvestur ‘quaestor’, though there is a possibility that the initial was not q, but u, and that this gives O.-U. ku, not p (141, a).

     O. urust is best taken as a borrowed legal term (see 17, 16), since we should expect *uzust (see 112) as a cognate of L. ōrō according to what is still the most probable derivation of the latter, namely from ōs.

     Some proper names show Latin or half-Oscanized Latin forms, as Niumeriis ‘Numerius’, for which the genuine Oscan form would be *Niumsiis (cf. the praenomen Ni]umsis).

     O. Mener, if, as is probable, an abbreviation of a form corresponding to L. Minervium, shows that the Oscan, like the Etruscan, name of the divinity was borrowed, together with the cult, from a dialect in which rhotacism took place (*Menes-uā). Though the cult of Minerva may have originated among the Faliscans, as many suppose, it probably reached the Oscans through the medium of the Romans, but at a time when the Latin form was still Menerva (CIL. V 703, 799, VI 523, etc.). Pael. Minerua is likewise borrowed.

     U. vinu ‘vinum’ (and O. Viínikiís ‘Vinicius’, if related) must be borrowed from vīnum, if the latter is from *ueino-, earlier *uoino- (οἶνος). For the change of uoi to uei is probably Latin only (U. uocu: Grk. Ϝοῖκος?), and even if it were Italic, we should expect then U. *venu (65).

     A possible example of borrowing from one of the minor dialects is U. felsva. See 149, b.