Excursus: - I-Lo - in Celtic Onomastics and in The Prehistory of Latin

34 I.
The names of the Celtic Cantabri
Excursus: *–i–lo– in Celtic onomastics and in the prehistory of Latin
The PN MAGILO, attested elsewhere in Hispania and also among the Cantabri
in MAGILONIS F(ILIO) (Reyero, León) and MAGILONIS F(ILIA) (Monte Cildá,
Palencia) is obviously related to the family of MAISONTINI, MAGANVS, etc. It goes
back to *»ǵ“–i–lo– and belongs to a group of deverbative formations suffixed
by agentive –lo– and often based on the present stem, represented in Hispania by
MAGILO, GABILVS, DOCILICO, AGOLIECA and SAGILVS. This evanescent category
may be deemed as inherited mostly in deverbal formations (agentive or not)
and also in diminutives, and in the first case it is only productive in a number of
languages, like Slavic, Armenian and Tocharian, where it has specialized in the
formation of participles and gerundives and is deeply entrenched in the verbal
system.
Forms suffixed by *–lo– are built both from verbal roots or present stems
(cf. Hackstein 2003). In fact, most inherited cases contain the sequences *–i–
lo– and *–ē–lo– and often have a passive sense.25 Contrary to some accounts,
deverbal forms in –lo– do not often undergo metanalysis in languages in which
this derivation failed to get or remain integrated in the verbal system, like Greek,
Latin or Celtic, and consequently the suffix only sporadically incorporates the
preceding vowels and/or spreads beyond its original limits. In other words, these
forms give a comparatively reliable clue to a more primitive stem no longer
available (as in ἀΐδηλος ‘invisible, destructive’, with a Russian cognate ne–vidal’
from *–Σidē–lo– vs. Lat. vidē–re). As we are going to see, many of these forms,
notably when they are exclusively preserved in onomastics, are not suggestive
of the creation of a secondary suffix –ilo– spreading across the board, but relics
of a lost system.
To begin with, MAGILO is particularly informative because it is apparently
identical to the form reconstructed by Bader (1999, 353–54) for Greek Ἀχιλεύς
root noun that forms the base of the present *potē–~o/e–. The use of –pte appended
to a personal pronoun is attested in Old Latin, as in Plautine me–pte. See a radically
different comparative approach in Dunkel (2005, with a vast number of references),
where he contends –pte goes back to –po–te, where the adverbial ending –te is an
extension of adversative *pó.
25
What the uniform pattern underlying –i–lo– means is unclear and is usually tiptoed
around as if this kind of marginal words were formed in an entirely haphazard manner.
But, as usual, they can give us some hints on former stages of the verb system: we
might toy with the possibility that athematic presents with an alternation –e~–/–i– gave
rise to very archaic derivatives in –i–lo– or –i–mo– before their thematicization or at
least before the reinterpretation of *R(o)–e~–o– as *R(o)–e–~o– (in Italic and Celtic)
and possibly also before that of *R(ø/e)–~–o– as *R(ø/e)–~o–.
4. Neglected participles in Continental Celtic onomastics 35
‘Achilles’. PGerm. *mekilaz in Goth. mikils ‘big’ and Gk. PN Μέγιλλος may
have been refashioned from a similar etymon, since the zero grade of the root
would distort it beyond recognition. Nikolaev’s caveats against this etymology
are not really grounded: He contends (2009, 162–63) that the expected result
would be **Ἀγīλός because laryngeal metathesis, by which *ChiC– yields
*CihC–, is expected to take place in Greek before aspiration by laryngeal. But
this account ignores the morphophonemic side; laryngeal metathesis usually
applies in the initial syllable; it is probably intended to avoid the pronunciation
of very complex initial clusters and basically operates root–internally, thus
essentially preserving the transparency of the word structure, or within a nominal
stem that has become derivationally opaque. To my knowledge it does not
work across synchronically identifiable morphemic boundaries. I consequently
believe *»ǵ“– is expected to preserve its structure when preceding a vocalic
verbal suffix. I disagree, however, with Bader in that I do not believe that there
has been an IE adjective *m(e)ǵ“–i–; she reconstructs it on the strength of Hitt.
mekki–, but the OHitt. paradigm is based on *mekk–, and accordingly identical
to Gk. μέγα and OI. máhi. The original present stem from which MAGILO is built
would be *»ǵ“–~e/o–, possibly from an older *»ǵ“–e~/i–, indirectly preserved
in OI. mahīya– ‘be great’ > ‘rejoice’ and long lost in the immediate ancestor of
Celtic. (As remarked above in fn. 17, the ultimate relationship of intransitives
or essives/statives in *–~e/o– and *–e±– is a matter of strong disagreement.)
Alternatively, MAGILO continues *–ē–lo–, showing the suffix reconstructed for a
number of Celtic presents, which is less attractive in comparative terms.
We may name some other deverbal formations in *–i–lo– (or alternatively
*–ī–lo– from *–ē–lo–) that only survived as PNs: Gaulish CABILVS, CABILO is the
Continental Celtic avatar of a stem *kap–i– (see Prósper forthc.–2) and is similar
to BToch. kapille ‘fever’ (*kap–~e–l~o– and Lat. capulus ‘handle’, if from *kapi–
lo–). *–i–lo– has been abstracted as a productive instrumental suffix in Germanic
(cf. *bautilaz ‘hammer’). If related, the Gaulish PN CABIRVS is another case of
secondary verbal *kabi–. For the Celtiberian forms see the second part of this
volume: GABILVS preserves original *ghabh–i–lo–. *Sagil–i~o– means ‘avid’ and
is a deverbative agent noun from *sag–i– (the CCelt. present stem is *sag–~e/o–);
cf. SAGILLIAE in Noricum, DEPROSAGILOS (La Graufesenque). The FN DOCILICO,
PN DOCILONIS (Barcelona) belongs to the IE root *deḱ– ‘take’ and is a derivative
of the causative stem found in Lat. doceō ‘teach’, Gk. δοκέω ‘seem’, from *doḱ–
e~e/o– ‘to have someone accept something’. DOCILICO probably derives from
*doki–lo–, like DOCILINVS (Gloucestershire).
Finally, the obscure adjective *ma~lo– ‘bald, shorn’ in Ogamic MAILAGNI,
OIr. mael, OW. mail can only be explained by resorting to a similar formation
36 I. The names of the Celtic Cantabri
*“me“–i–lo–. It is not attested in Gaulish, but a number of Hispanic formations

are compatible with it: a nasal stem MAELO is very common in Lusitania, but
it could be argued that it goes back to *magilos with regular loss of /g/ in the
neighbourhood of a palatal vowel. It is also attested in Gallia Narbonensis and
Germania, however, and a pseudo–gentilic Maelius points to this name having
been comparatively frequent in Europe. A precious testimony from Lusitania
may come to settle the question:
CAINONI / CABRVNI / F(ILIO) MONVM/ENTVM / STATVERVN/T AMICI S(VI?) /
MAELOTALI(S) / AMAIVS ANTO/NIVS COMALIVS / ARCONI F(ILIVS), Alpedrinha,
Fundão (Castelo Branco), cf. Ferreira (2004, 61–62, nr. 17, with a reading
COMANVS in l. 9)
The syntax of this inscription is not quite clear and I remain unconvinced
that the abbreviations posited by the editors are right. Although no photograph
is available in HEp on line, I would venture to answer the questions posed <S>
at the end of l. 6 and the unexplained genitive MAELOTALI in l. 7 by the single
expedient of reading a nom. sing. MAELOTALIS, whose ending –s the scribe,
margine urgente, consigned to the right margin of the previous line. This PN
would go back to a bahuvrihi compound *ma~lo–tal(u)–i– ‘bald–forehead’ (see
OIr. tul ‘protuberance’, etc.) and is not altogether certain to belong to the well
attested group of Gaulish compounds in –talo– (DLG 288), which are more likely
to be for the most part agent nouns with a second member *t‡“–ó– ‘bearing,
carrying’, at least when the first member is a noun: Cf. DANNOTALI ‘carrying
presents’ (DLG ‘au front du magistrat’), CASSITALVS ‘carrying weapons’ (DLG
‘front d’airain’), CARROTALVS ‘carrying a chariot’ (DLG ‘au front semblable à un
char’?), DRVTALVS ‘carrying trees/wood’ (DLG ‘au grand front’), ORBIOTALVS
‘coming into / possessing an inheritance’ (DLG ‘front d’héritier’?). In other
words, these compounds are equatable with the isolated Latin adjective opitulus
‘bringing help’. On the other hand, we have TALVSSA (as if from an agentive
compound *t‡“u–st“–ó– ‘standing in front of’), TALVPPIVS from *t‡“u–#kΣ–ó–
‘looking ahead’?, which suggest that the noun tended to be restricted to adverbial
uses in the first member of compounds and shows a zero grade because this is
their original locus, that is, tul, etc. may be decompositional to these formations.
The noun was acrostatic as shown by OPr. talus ‘floor’ < *tolHu–, etc. and it
gave rise to an adjectival derivative, attested in TALAVVS (Hispania) from
*t‡“–eΣ–o– or *tel2–Σ–o–.
In my view, *ma~lo– goes back to a root *“me“– ‘to shear, mow, reap’.
This root is attested in Gk. ἀμάω and OEng. māwan. The usual reconstruction
is *“me±– (LIV 279), which mainly attends to the Germanic phonetics and
is forced to assume laryngeal assimilation *“me±– > *“me“– in the Greek
form. But as we know, there are other problematic cases in which we would
expect PGerm. –ōw–, namely OEng. cnāwan ‘know’, PGerm. *blāwaz ‘blue’,
which contain /#/. In order to circumvent this difficulty, delabialization of /#/
in contact with –Σ– has been ingeniously posited by P. Schrijver (1991, 301
with previous references). I believe this account to be basically right and ascribe
the string –āw– in OEng. māwan, etc. to a context–bound neutralization of all
laryngeals in Germanic. The reconstructed form confronts us with the minor
inconvenience of containing two identical phonemes, which is not unparalleled,
however (see *“el“– ‘to wander’).
In contrast, *–lo– is arguably not so old as a deadjectival formant, and
uncontroversial denominative formations with a vague relational meaning are
difficult to find, except in Latin: The Paradebeispiel is Lat. nūbilus ‘cloudy’.
Needless to say, this is phonetically questionable, since a short vowel in a medial
open syllable is expected to yield /u/ when an ‘l pinguis’ follows. Some recent
accounts resort to the old hypothesis that inherited /i/ was immune to retraction
if followed by a velar /l/ (cf. Weiss 2009, 117). This falls short of explaining
why the diminutives of –i–stems are typically built by means of a more complex
suffix which preserves the structure of the derivational basis intact: Cf. apis →
apicula. And it flies in the face of the fact that the few cases of the simple suffix
seem to behave as expected: viridis ‘green’ → viridulus ‘tender’, assis ‘plank’
→ assula ‘splinter’, corbis ‘basket’ → corbula. More significantly, even if the
action of analogy and a favourable phonetic context can be invoked in defense of
this theory (Sen 2015, 22),26 the apparent restriction of the alleged denominative
suffix –lo– to –i–stems would be fatal to it from the morphological side.27
Conversely, the indirect deduction that *–i–lo–, a string attested in Germanic and
Celtic, can never be contained in deverbal, agentive or instrumental forms in –ulus
(which would necessarily undergo the regular change –ilo– > –ulo– disallowed
by the above hypothesis), simply begs the question. In the Latin deverbal forms
in –ulo–, pace Sen (2015, 131–32, etc.), it is far from proven that we are dealing
with a preform *–e/olo–, since *–i–lo– and *–lo– (beside *–tlo–) are possible in
most cases. Functional differences are sometimes brought to bear on this matter,
too: But the idea that the minimal pair rutilus vs. Rutulus served to distinguish an
26
We might as well mention the retention of the original vocalism in helvus ‘yellow’ that
some scholars put down to *ǵheli–Σo– (see EDLIL, s.u.), which, if right, bears witness
to –iΣ– > –uΣ– > –Σ– anyway.
27
The origin of the suffix –ālis, probably giving rise to the secondary denominative
type –ēlis, etc., is a different matter; it has become productive and has some parallels
in Oscan, and its ultimate origin in the pronoun tālis (containing *–“li–) cannot be
categorically disproved.
adjective from an ethnonym (see Poccetti 2012) is merely descriptive and lacks
explanatory power; it requires the previous existence of a phonemic distinction
in precisely that context, which is unjustified in the first place. Meiser (1998, 69)
speculates with a paradigm split from the regular genitive *rutilī, which fails
to account for the other instances of –ilus (whose corresponding forms in –ulus
retaining the phonetics of all the other cases are nowhere to be found). Analogical
levelling never operates when the phonetic conditioning still exists, as would be
required if this was an early split at all. Finally, the semantic outcome of split
usually draws on preexistent polysemy, whereas in this case an unmotivated split
is purportedly the source of secondary functional specialization.
As we are going to see in detail below, what virtually all the forms at issue
have in common besides being derived from –i–stems is a dental segment (and
normally an intervocalic one) immediately preceding –i–. This is why we should
consider the possibility that –lo– goes back to –ðo– and that –ilus is nothing
but an irregular, context–sensitive outcome of the well known suffix –idus.
Underpinning this are the facts that these suffixes are synonymous and that none
of the roots to be reviewed is known to have been suffixed both by –ilus and by
–idus. Accordingly these suffixes stand in complementary distribution, which does
not need further clarification if they go back to one single formant. Finally, –ilus
is so obviously unproductive that we may surmise that most if not all the extant
cases may be phonetically motivated, and the phenomenon can be systematically
identified in its original locus. In consequence, I contend that nūbilus goes back
to an adjective *snoΣði–ðo–, an adjectival form synchronically and historically
related to nūbēs, –is ‘cloud’ and obnūbere ‘cover’, which has undergone
dissimilation and thereupon possibly given rise to aquilus by analogy.28
28
See Nussbaum (1999, 400) for the actual formation of these adjectives as possessive
derivatives in –dho– from o/e acrostatic –i–stem abstracts in turn linked to thematic
adjectives; his ideas have been refined by Hackstein (2002) and Balles (2003), who
reconstruct primitive synthetic compounds with a second member *dh±ó– ‘putting
X’. If true, the process sketched here apparently speaks in favour of the two crucial
points inherent to Nussbaum’s theory: it does not falsify the existence of IE medial
–i– and confirms that the suffix contains a voiced aspirate. Bear in mind that the
Italic evidence is paltry; the best example so far is the PlN Callifae (Livy 8, 25).
Recently, Vine (2006–1, 502) has proposed to analyse SPic. qolofítúr ‘arises’ as a
deadjectival verb from *kolH–i–dh±o– ‘high’. Some authors stick to previous views
reconstructing *–Vdo–. Sometimes the alternative involves questionable evolutions,
however. Pultrovà (2007, 88) is partly right when she points out we cannot postulate
a PIE suffix on the basis of a single language branch. She proposes the following
derivation: «root qualitative abstract noun + *–“– + –tos», which in Proto–Latin
phonetic terms reduces to *–C“t– > *–Cth– > through anaptyxis *–Cith– > –C–
id–». I find this insufficiently motivated both from the morphological and phonetic
As will shortly become apparent, the rest of the forms in –ilus that I know of
can be explained in the same way. In most of the relevant examples, analogical
restoration of –i– from the living –i–stem from which the adjective is drawn
is excluded because such a stem is no longer available. Accordingly, this
phenomenon has to be described in phonetic or phonemic, not analogical terms.
Although systematic patterns hardly ever emerge from dissimilation processes,
which do not operate as pervasively and unexceptionally as sound change, a
number of them have been identified in Latin thus far. Specifically, the second
of two lateral segments in contiguous syllables is dissimilated into a vibrant in
the prehistory of Latin: *solālis > solāris, *l(H)u–tló– > *luklom > lucrum. Most
recently, Livingston (2004, 73–80), building on previous research, has traced
back the equally denominative suffix –u/olentus to the possessive IE suffix *–o–
Σent– by way of dissimilation caused by the respective roots containing labials
or labiovelars. The resulting segment bears a close phonetic resemblance to its
ancestor and typically coincides with a preexisting segment and does not alter
the preexisting system in any respect. In the apposite words of a recent handbook
(Ringe – Eska 2013, 112) «... these changes do not produce novel segments: the
phonological system that has already been learned might be acting as a kind of
filter to prohibit unfamiliar segments». This can cause some of these processes
to pass undetected, especially when the identification of the root etymologies has
been rendered difficult by subsequent changes or the lack of a synchronic lexical
field. In all the reviewed cases, the dissimilation operates inter–morphemically.
Note that this hypothesis would speak in favour of inherited –ð– and not –þ–
from /dh/ in Primitive Latin (cf. Stuart–Smith 2004).
Laterals and dentals, especially fricatives, share many traits and are prone
to confusion and to synchronic and dialectal variation, reflected for instance
in Latin lacruma from *daḱru– (see LG 155 for other instances and a general
account in Matisoff 2013).29 This tendency to dissimilation could have been
counteracted by the pervasiveness of the suffix –idus, were it not for the
existence of –ilis, –ālis, and diminutive and agentive/instrumental –ulus (or their
immediate antecedents). Furthermore, odor vs. olēre (no *odidus is attested) or
sedeō vs. solium bear witness to this tendency being occasionally unrestrained
by paradigm pressure. By contrast, dissimilation has been blocked in splendidus,
sordidus, paedidus, madidus and candidus, in which the original sequence was
point of view. She draws upon Olsen’s (1994) work on laryngeal metathesis, which
hypothesizes an evolution *–VH–to– > *–V–tho– > *–i–þo– > –idus.
29
The Latin phenomenon cannot be extrapolated to the (other) Italic languages: Oscan
has DIVMPAIS from *lumpā (see Prósper 2015, 42–47) and SPic. kduíú ‘I am called’
corresponds to Lat. clueō ‘to be known’ (cf. Rix 1994).
*–d–iðo– and there may have been an early tendency to pronounce *–d–ido– in
fast speech (supposing any of this formations is old enough, which is doubtful).
Still, there might be one exception, in which the devastating effect of syncope
rendered analogical restoration impossible: De Vaan (2007) has argued that
the verb adūlor ‘flatter’ derives from a compounded adjective *ad–aΣiþo– and
posits an evolution *ad–aΣiþo– > *ad–aΣdo– > *adūdo–. At one of these stages,
a dissimilation –d–d– > –d–l– took place. Needless to say, I do not find this
implausible in phonetic terms except that the second dental must still have been
a fricative by the time it became a lateral. Interestingly, the well known example
*meðe~–di~ē > merīdiē points to the same conclusion: if the second member was
easily recognizable, so was the first; still, it was the fricative that was dissimilated,
on this occasion into a vibrant. The gloss maredos for madidos mentioned in LG
155 probably bears testimony to a much later stage, in which the intervocalic
stops segments were fricative again. Finally, praestōlāre, –ārī ‘wait for’ could
conceivably go back to the passive form of *pra~stō–ðe/o– ‘become or make
oneself easy to reach’ with analogical transfer from the type condere to the first
class (see Livingston 2004, 61–66 for the history of the question).
What is more, most of the relevant cases I am going to review remain
unexplained in other regards as well: Taken at face value, the alternation of
sībilus ‘hissing (sound)’ vs. sūbulō ‘flute player’ (either unrelated to or perhaps
the source of the Etruscan name Suplu and not the other way round) is suggestive
of two parallel formations *soΣði–ðo– vs. agentive *soΣð–(V)lo–. These two
words are a minefield for etymological interpretation because, if related, they
pose too many questions whose answers are essentially contingent on the amount
of «expressive phonetics» one is ready to accept.30 For instance, EDLIL, s.u.,
arbitrarily assumes that sībilāre is older than sībilus only because the first is
attested in Plautus and the second in Pacuvius. We are left, in M. de Vaan’s own
words, with a segmentation sīb–, or sī– with an instrumental suffix –þlo–, and
the vocalism of sūbulō can be only accounted for by resorting to *so~– (which
is neither «expressive» nor expected in an instrumental formation, and does not
allow to derive both words from a single source without further arguments).
Leaving aside the vocalism, an instrumental would have given an unattested
**sī/ūbulum whose derivative would be **sī/ūbulāre. If the verb was derived
from *sīƀlo– at an early stage, that is before anaptyxis, this argument is equally
30
‘Sibilus non sifilus’ is the admonition imparted by Appendix Probi 179, and this
pronunciation found its way into the Romance languages, as in Fr. siffler. This is an
expressive variant and it may be late for all we know. Accordingly it played no part in
the speakers’ perception of the phonemic nature of –ð– and did not hinder the coronal
dissimilation.
flawed: it places the ancestor of these forms at an early enough date (probably
first half of the 3rd C. b.C. according to Sen 2015, 26) for the verb to have become
*sībulō, –āre anyway (cf. the possibly later Aesculāpius ‘Asclepius’).31 Again,
the crux lies in the impossibility of coming to terms with the medial –i–. Note that
the dissimilation –ðiðo– > ðilo– proposed above took place somewhere between
vowel reduction and anaptyxis (see below), and consequently once the phonemic
contrast between the high vowels had been reintroduced in –ul–/–il– it need not
have been affected by the natural tendency of the clusters –klo–, –ƀlo– to develop
a context–sensitive vowel (as in poculum vs. facilis). The abovementioned
variation of Rutilus vs. Rutulus is illustrative because it is not indicative of an
unmotivated device to distinguish adjectives from ENs after all; Rutulus probably
contained the same suffix as many other ENs from the beginning, and then it
either goes back to a diminutive *rut–elo–, or has secondarily been integrated in
this group but goes back to *rut–ro– (with dissimilation, cf. LG 171).
In any event, the required sequence *soΣð– that accounts for –ƀ– in sībilus
and at the same time is the driving factor behind the dissimilation is far from
obvious and must be justified. In my view, the underlying root is identical to
*pseΣ– or *kΣseΣ– ‘to blow’ attested in Gk. ψυχή ‘soul’, possibly ψεύδομαι ‘to
lie’, Slk. šudit’ ‘deceive’, and OI. ƒta–psu– ‘he whose breath is the R̥ta’.32 Given
there is a large number of verb forms containing a dental (a number of Greek
forms alternate θ/δ and the Slavic forms are compatible with both), one could toy
with the possibility that *pseΣdh– is a neo–root (see Hackstein 2002) ultimately
going back to a synthetic compound *pse/oΣ–dh±– ‘to blow’. Gk. ψίθυρος
‘whisperer’ is believed to be dissimilated from *ψυθυρος, but I consider it is just
as justified to posit a metathesis and reconstruct *ψυθι–ρος.33 This form might
ultimately contain an accumulation of Caland suffixes (with the same zero grade
as OI. rudhi–ra–) and its derivational basis looks rather similar to the primitive
noun *(p)soΣði– reconstructed here. While sūbulō can be regularly derived from
an agentive *(p)se/oΣð–(V)lo– (in which case the nasal stem has individualizing
31
Būbulāre or būbilāre is only attested once in a late poem (Elegia de Philomela) of
unknown date and may be artificial for all we know.
32
On the different variants, cf. EDG 1663 with former references; on the simplification
of the initial cluster, cf. *psa–bhlo– > sabulum ‘sand’ see Weiss (2009, 170).
33
While EDG vaguely puts down the alternation of θ/δ to pre–Greek origin, I believe Gk.
ψυδρός and Arm. sut ‘false’ from *psudó– to reflect a common innovation. There are
parallels of early deaspiration in both languages, as in –mbhr– > –mbr–. In some cases
we cannot rule out the influence of the less productive class of synthetic compounds
in *–de#– like Lat. sacerdōs from *sakro–dō–t– and especially Lat. calidus and Umb.
kaleřuf from *kalV–d#o– (see Kölligan 2014 for a far–reaching exploration of this
possibility).
value) or from an instrument noun *(p)se/oΣ–ðlo– (in which case the nasal stem
has possessive value), sībilō goes back to *(p)se/oΣði–ðo– and the outcome of the
original diphthong may be put down to a combination of factors: assimilation of
the root vowel to the following front vowel and consonants –ðið– was favoured
by the evoked hissing sound (cf. ψίθυρος above); but alternatively there may
have been a dissimilatory effect at the stage *psoΣƀ– which is reminiscent of that
in *łoΣƀ– > *ło~ƀ– > *łe~ƀ– > līber.
The same holds true for iūbilō ‘shout joyfully’ if not strictly onomatopoeic
(notwithstanding the confident account by EDLIL, s.u.) but ultimately related
to iubeō, and then going back to *~oΣðiðo–. A root *H~eΣdh– ‘stir, move’ has
warlike nuances in some languages and iubeō means ‘order’ (from a causative
‘cause to move/fight’ in OLat. IOVBEATIS),34 so that *~oΣðiðo– may have referred
to battle cries stating one’s superiority and its meaning depends on the derived
meaning of the Latin verb. While accounts of sībilus and iūbilus usually appeal
to metanalysis and spread of a suffix –bil– in one direction or another, it is quite
unclear how this came about: even if iūbilō went back to an IE interjection *~ū,
none of these verbs of sound is built from a synchronically recognizable structure
that could have triggered the spread of such a suffix, and beyond that there is no
self–evident inherited sequence from which it could have been resegmented to
begin with.
Pūmilus ‘dwarfish’ may go back to *poΣðiðo– > *poΣðilus > *poΣƀilus and
eventually > pūmilus; in that case it would originally mean something like ‘thing
which is still in the process of growing’ and would be derived from the –i–stem
pūbēs, –is ‘puberty, adult population, private parts’. It is said to continue an older
–ē–stem, but as far as I know this is only based on the authority of an abl. pūbē
in Plautus (Pseud. 126). It is different from the –s–stem pūbēs, –eris ‘grown
up’ which must have been abstracted from compounded adjectives like impūbēr
(see Schrijver 1991, 375). Pūbēs consequently goes back to *po“udh±–i– and
its make–up can probably be equated to that of nūbēs.35 The diphthong of the
–i–stem *poΣði– seems guaranteed by OLat. POVMILIONOM (only CIL 14, 4110,
Praeneste).36 In fact, apart from this inscription, pūmiliō is attested somewhat
34
The vocalism is usually taken to be analogical; Garnier (2010, 131) believes it to go
back to a different present form *H~udh–e±–, attested in Lith. (intr.) judėti ‘shakes,
moves’, but the derived meaning remains unclear.
35
See another view on pūbēs in Schrijver (1991, 375–76), who reckons with a similar
compound whose first member belongs to a root *peΣ– ‘man’.
36
The commonplace idea that this is a loanword from the Gk. PN Πυγμαλίων is not
very appealing at first sight for formal and semantic reasons, and leaves Praenestine
<POVM>– unexplained. Some scholars opt for a reading <POIM>–, e.g. the Epigraphic
earlier than pūmilus, which does not necessarily mean that pūmilus is a back
formation as often assumed.37 The diphthong is additionally supported by very
early attestations of the form POVBLICOM.38
This neatly integrates pūmilus in the derivational system proposed by
Nussbaum for the adjectives in –idus: We have the remains of a –i–stem with an
o–grade root (pūbēs, pūmilus, POVMILIONOM, POVBLICOM), which is related to an
Database Roma (http://www.edr–edr.it/); their photograph suggests <I> or <V> with

a weakly incised slanted line; the sequence <LI> looks like <LL>. This would speak
in favour of a prepalatalization of /m/ caused by the following /i/ (Vine 1993, 102),
where in any event the alternation of Latin –ū– vs. Praenestine –ōj– would speak in
favour of an original diphthong. The possibility that the diphthong was in fact /o~/
seems to lead nowhere.
37
If it were, the etymology would be equally obscure, although the problem posed
by the medial –i– would vanish. Still, for such a back formation –ilius or –ilis (or
conceivably –ulus) would have been far more reasonable options (given the models of
postiliō ‘sacrifice’: postulāre, singiliō ‘dress’ (collective): singulī; ōpiliō ‘herdsman’,
from a lost noun reflecting *“oΣ(i)–p2lo–, etc.). The derivation of nouns in –iō(n)– is
common in animal’s names (LG 365), which probably attracted pūmilus to this group
in view of its derogatory meaning; the resulting noun ‘small (living) thing’ is used as
‘dwarf’ in the Praenestine cista, as ‘small woman’ in Lucretius and as ‘small hen’ in
Pliny. Even if we dispense with pūmilus, there must anyway have been a form that
provided the derivational basis and should have surfaced as †pūmulus or †pūmilis; in
turn it presupposes a noun *poΣmo–, –ā, –i–. And we come full circle again, since the
only existing candidate is *poΣmi– from *poΣði–.
38
I shall not refrain from speculating about the survival of *poΣbilo– in the derivative
pūblicus. This word is traditionally held to be simply the product of contamination
of populus and pūbes (LG 117). POPLICOD is already attested in 186 b.C. (Senatus
Consultum). But we also find elsewhere an alternation POPLICEIS vs. PVBLICVM and
even such compromise forms as POBLICIS and PVPLICO (CIL I 583, 120 b.C.) which is
suggestive of two different etyma and not a mere substitution. Although the original
diphthong in the suggested preform *poΣbilo– is never attested in this text (where we
find IVDICIVM and IOVDICIVM in free variation, however), there are three much older
epigraphic examples of this form: POVBLICOM (CIL I 402), POVBLICVM (CIL I 403),
in Venusia (Apulia et Calabria), which date back to the 3rd C. b.C., and POVBLILIA
(CIL I 42, Latium et Campania, early 2nd C. b.C.). On balance, both adjectives may
have existed side by side, until *poΣbil–ico– (which probably borrowed its velar
suffix from *poplico– prior to syncope) eventually ousted it. Pace Sen (2015, 144–
45), it is unwarranted to see POVBLICOM as the product of hardly motivated voicing
and unparalleled ‘breaking’ in a chain of sound changes *popliko– > *pobliko– >
*poΣbliko– > *pūbliko–, and it is impossible to explain why POVBLICOM is the earliest
attested form, or the coexistence of four variants (of which none shows <OV> and the
‘right’ <PVBL>– is by far the commonest) in the same text as late as 120 b.C., unless
they are due to mere confusion.
adjectival –s–stem pūbēs, –eris and a fientive verb (pūbēscō). From a synthetic
compound *p(V)“u–dh±– a secondary root probably arose early on, so that the
process of forming compounds with a second member *dh±– at consecutive
stages may have had a limited recursivity, at least as an inner–Italic phenomenon.
If the original basis of this neo–root were a verbal root *p(e/o)“u– meaning
‘to grow’, this would account for the existence of a secondary root originated
in a compound *p(V)“u–dh±– meaning ‘ripen, bring to full development’ and
its nominal derivatives meaning ‘puberty; adolescent, young (male)’. Still,
given the structure of *pe“u– and the fact that this possibility would entail
an undesired homonymy with *pe“u– ‘to stop, end’, it is more likely to have
been a noun meaning ‘young living thing’, specifically an acrostatic derivative
*po“–u–/*pe“–u– of the same root as *p2–ter– ‘father’, which basically meant
‘to protect, feed’. Accordingly, its original meaning was ‘what is fed, caused
to grow’. Many nouns of this sort have the following traits in common: They
are primary, directly derived from a verbal root whose existence may even be
otherwise unknown. If the root makes transitive verbs, these nouns typically but
not necessarily refer to the patient of the action. And their meaning often departs
from that of the root and makes the actual etymology difficult to track down:
Cf. *±su– ‘being’ > ‘good’ (see an explanation and some new associations in
Nussbaum 2014). Epigraphic Gk. παῦς from *pe“u–, possibly Lat. pau–per
‘poor’ and the external derivatives Lat. puer ‘child’, parvus ‘small’ preserve the
weak stem as expected. This noun *pe“u– may have given rise to an adjective
*pe“–u–/*p“–eΣ– which in turn may explain some of the forms directly (e.g.
*p“–eΣ–o– > Goth. fawai ‘few’).39
In addition, the Vedic divinity Pūṣan– might belong here. His functions are
to protect and augment cattle and oversee all things. In addition to a long list of
previous ideas,40 I would say it may be analysed as *p“u–s(V)n–, a synthetic
compound consisting of the zero–grade variant of *po/e“u– that is typical of
39
Whether the probably innovative formation OI. pumāṃs– ‘man’ belongs here as
‘grown–up’ I am unable to say, but I see no way in which it can reconciled with
pūmilus by positing an idiosyncratic root *pum–, or what the notions of ‘man’ and
‘dwarfish’ have in common (see EDLIL s.u. pūmilus, with references).
40
See a state of the art in Olsen (2010, 124–25). I find her own reconstruction of a
‘Hoffmann’ bahuvrihi compound *p~“us–#on“– ‘who has the load of cattle’?
(where –s is a genitive ending of the noun preserved in Gk. πῶϋ) unconvincing, and
the Messapic name is incompatible with it. Although the assumption of a Hoffmann
suffix is attractive, the preceding hypotheses fail to come to terms with the medial
sequence –us– with any degree of plausibility. As may be inferred from the following
lines, other scholars ascribe the alternation *paΣ–/pū– to the morphology of the nasal
stem, while I believe it to be due to the morphology of the first member of a compound.
compounds (with laryngeal metathesis) and the root san–, sā– ‘to earn, win’
(< *sen“– ‘obtain’, cf. Gk. ἄνυμι), meaning ‘earner of young (cattle)’ and similar
to OI. go–ṣan–, paśu–ṣā–, Av. fšū–šō–. The Greek DN Πᾶν, often believed to
be related, would continue the full–grade stem *pe“u–s(V)n– (which must be
secondary, as in paśu– vs. fšū–). The Vedic and Greek names are a match of,
respectively, the Venetic PN Puso and Messapic Pauso (name of a mythical
king). The compound was in every case reinterpreted as a nasal stem. Lat. pauper
is a compound of a similar structure that has developed a negative meaning
‘obtaining (little things)’ > ‘needy’, but in view of Nussbaum’s interpretation
of the adverb perperam as belonging to *per–poro– ‘going wrong’ (2004, 10)
one could reconstruct *pe“u–poro– ‘going small > belittled’ with a secondarily
adverbial first member.
Variation of intervocalic b/m probably started when the original labial was
still a fricative, because both segments were identical except for nasality, and was
favoured not only by the adjacent labial but by the hypocoristic nuances attached
to precisely this derivative. This is not the only example of this variation: The
Appendix Probi warns the reader from pronouncing glomus instead of the correct
globus, and the loanword proboscis ‘snout’ is also attested as promuscis.41 In
contrast, original sequences of /p/ and /b/ have undergone assimilation to /b/:
*pibō > *bibō (vs. Faliscan PIPAFO), possibly *gΣoΣ–p“– ‘protecting cattle’ in
the DN Būb–ōna, bŭbulcus, etc.
It follows from the above arguments that the proposed dissimilation
–ð– > –l– cannot be very early: Vowel reduction must already have taken place,
and this would explain why medial –i– prevailed before a velar lateral sound. A
unified account would require placing the dissimilation before the conditioned
labialization of –ð– > –ƀ– when preceded (or followed) by –u– (since ex
hypothesi there was a dental fricative at the time) and a fortiori also before the
fortition of the word–medial fricatives.42 But in any event, the labialization
rule, which involves different contexts, is probably not a single change but
41
While many examples of sporadic /b/ > /m/ are caused by assimilation to an adjacent
nasal, in other cases the nearest consonant is a liquid and a nasal may or may not be
involved, so that we may perhaps talk of an assimilation of sonority, by which a labial
stop becomes a labial sonorant under the influence of a contiguous sonorant: beside
the Latin cases, cf. VSp. berenjena > merenjena ‘aubergine’, albóndiga > almóndiga
‘meatball’, terebinthina > trementina, Aragonese of Valencia verrionda > marionda
‘sow’, maldragas/baldragas ‘coward’, revancha > remancha ‘revenge’, possibly Lat.
verres >> Sp. marrano ‘pig’ and the converse change VSp. morcilla > borcilla ‘black
pudding’, merenda > Catalan berena ‘light afternoon meal’.
42
The first assertion would only be gainsaid by examples of –ð– failing to evolve into
–ƀ– when a following IE short vowel different from /u/ had become –u–, as in *–ðul–,
a series of them and may have operated gradually. In the particular case of
–u/rðiðo–, the sequence of dentals as well as the adjacent –i– may temporarily
have counteracted the natural tendency of –ð– to be perceived as a labial in
this context until dissimilation took place. As I have just said, all this entails
the assumption that the loss of the phonemic contrast between word–medial
voiced fricatives and stops was not abandoned so early as often presumed, and
not before vowel reduction anyway.43 Vowel reduction is not yet detectable in
Praeneste and other very archaic inscriptions. We have possible examples of a
pre–reduction stage until around 500 b.C. (see Nishimura 2014, 169).44 But, as
and conversely by examples of Lat. –bi/eC– going back to *–dhuC–. They would
involve suffixation and then paradigmatic pressure, however.
43
Cf. Weiss (2009, 192). See an enlightening account of the possible causes of
intervocalic fortition in Stuart–Smith (2004, 203–206) including the tendency to
fricativization of original voiced stops (which is slightly more uneconomical, since
it involves consecutive but contradictory changes). She is non–committal as to the
absolute chronology, however. A parallel case she adduces of this comparatively
unnatural change is that of the High German consonant shift; still, this is part of a
larger process of mutation in which the phonemic contrasts between West Germanic
–ð– > –d– and –d– > –t– are not completely lost in medial position as in Latin, which
is suggestive of the Latin change being comparatively late. The Garigliano bowl
(around 500 b.C.) might still bear testimony to the existence of medial fricatives if
Vine (1998c, 261–62) is right in reading TRIFOS ‘tribus’ (abl. pl. of ‘three’) at face
value and not as rendering [Σ]; anyway he admits the possibility of reading TRIBOS.
While he could be right that the fricative would be an archaizing trait, we have hardly
any very old instances of segments going back to aspirates, and at least dentals and
velars would pass undetected.
44
Some of them are arguably non–diagnostic for the present problem, for instance the
lack of reduction in final syllables as in Duenos FECED (–<ED>, –<ET>, –<E>, –<I>,
etc. are still found much later, see Kümmel 2006 for a diachronic account) or the DN
MAMARTEI in the comparatively recent Lapis Satricanus (500 b.C.), which is possibly
a loanword (Mamert– is mostly found in Oscan and then not a descendant of the
former). Finally, the new reading FHE:FHE:KED instead of FHE:FHA:KED in a first layer
of writing in the recently declared genuine fibula Praenestina has been interpreted by
Maras (2014) as a case of dittography for FHEKED, with interpuncts intended to warn
the reader that the enclosed sequence is to be extracted. If FHEKED was the original
form (it is in fact continued in later Latin), the correction can be suspected of being
dialectal and only intended to remedy the ex hypothesi inexistent FHEFHEKED. Just
for the sake of the argument, one could view FHEFHEKED as bearing testimony to
the beginning of reduction ([a] > [æ] > [ɛ]); in that case the correction was effected
on behalf of good orthography. For all we know, IOVESAT ‘iurat’ in Duenos could be
phonetically [~oΣɪzat] (or even [~oΣuzat] as per Rix 1966). The traditional writing may
have been inertially maintained long after the inherited phonemic contrast had ceased
to exist in so far as reduction compromised lexical and grammatical transparency; and
we know, epigraphic silence or, in other words, standard orthographic usage,

tells us nothing reliable about ongoing changes. Sen (2015, 80) dates the vowel
reduction back to «around the 6th–5th centuries».45 To recap, the ordering of the
phonetic rules would be 1. Reduction (at least in open syllables); 2. dissimilation
of –ðiðo– > –ðilo–; 3. conditioned phonetic change –u/rð– > –u/rƀ–; 4. fortition
of –ð– > –d–, –ƀ– > –b– and merger with the voiced series.
In that case, *sorbilus, an adjective presupposed by the adverb sorbilō ‘by
sips’ confronts us with an interesting problem. Garnier (2010, 434) reconstructs
an agentive *sorbh–i–ló– ‘qui avale à petites gorgées’, ‘sipping’, which he
apparently derives from an abstract *sorbh–í– ‘action of sipping’, and which is
further related to an iterative sorbeō. This brings us back to the original question:
Why is –i– preserved in this context? *sorbilus could be derived from a present
stem. In that case, it would be the only agentive form to preserve the sequence
–i–lo– that has survived unchanged in several Celtic names. Additionally,
the vocalism of all these forms is unexpected if it goes back to /o/; most of
their IE cognates go back to *sre/obh–, forcing us to assume Schwebeablaut
or zero grade in Latin. The ancient athematic present *se/orbh– assumed by
Garnier is not well established in comparative terms; a hypothetical present
*s(e/o)rbh–e~/i– would make a deverbative *sorbilus an extremely archaic
(Italo–Celtic?) form. Nussbaum (1999, 412–13, fn. 87) reconstructs a zero
grade *sƒbh– to circumvent the problem (and does the same with other similar
formations). One might toy with the possibility that a comparatively old adjective
*sorƀi–ðó– was built in Proto–Latin or Proto–Italic from an acrostatic noun linked
to *sorƀ–e~e/o–, in order to match other primitive adjectives of the same type.
In that case, the occurrence of –lo– in this word has the same origin as the forms
reviewed above. We must make allowances for some chronological overlapping.
Specifically, there must have been a time when *–u/rƀi–ðó– and original
*–u/rði–ðó– were acoustically difficult to distinguish but the first form had not
reduction could have been earlier in open syllables. It must additionally have operated
gradually: We may sketch an evolution [a] > [æ] > [ɛ] > [ɪ] > [i], and across–the–board
loss of phonemic contrast was only reached at the final stages.
45
Some of Sen’s arguments (2015, 90–91) look contrived to me: He appears to establish
a direct conditioned change ð > b, and places fortition before reduction, but his reasons
for this partly escape me; he seems to believe that the syllabification of clusters like
–sl– and that of any fricative + –l– necessarily follow a single pattern, and, since –zl–
is heterosyllabic, so must be –ðl– by extension. But, since cases like patibulum show
open syllable reduction, by that time –bl– must have already contained a stop and not
a fricative. In my view this is a non sequitur. Cf., mutatis mutandis, Sp. eslavo [es.
la.ƀo] vs. hablar [a.ƀlar]. That –ð– may have evolved into –ƀ– earlier in this particular
context if an onset –ðl– was dispreferred is a different matter.
yet imposed itself. It may be to this period of hesitation that the dissimilation
in *sorƀilus belongs if the speaker hypothesized that the underlying structure
was *sorði–ðó–, which was crucially made possible by the preceding vibrant.46
This tendency necessarily operated both ways: An additional explanation for the
lack of dissimilation in rūbidus beside its large lexical field may have lain in the
speaker’s belief that it must contain an underlying labial because the phonetically
irregular, possibly ‘Sabellic’ rūfus had one which could only be taken at face
value.47 But of course this word may have been borrowed at a later time and
Stuart–Smith (2004, 46) has an ingenious explanation for its phonetic realization
that starts from the general idea that the Sabellic languages too had voiced, not
voiceless fricatives, and that Sabellic [ƀ] could be adopted as [f] only after the
Latin fortition [ƀ] > [b].
In any event, all these forms contain an o–grade of the root, which means
they are comparatively old, and they are complementary to those in –idus (there
is no word with both suffixes).48 Finally, there is at least one uncontroversial
example of a similar loss of transparency caused by a phonetic change not
hindered or reversed by the synchronic connections of the root, as in acerbus (<
*akriðo– << *okri–ðo–, as if from *“oḱri–dh±o–) vs. putr–idus (cf. Nussbaum
1999, 392–93). True, the above instances of –ilo– are not synchronically related
to –os–stems or verbs in –ēscō as predicted by Nussbaum (although *poΣƀilo–
actually was before the change –ƀ– > –m–), but neither are acerbus or foedus, nor
probably nūdus, which count among the oldest formations containing –i–ðo–,
46
Note that this would be still more plausible if sorbeō had been built from the isolated
*sorƀi– and not the other way around. Morbidus, turbidus and herbidus show the
expected treatment since they are late and mechanically derived from morbus, turba
and herba long after the original suffix had been resegmented and spread as –idus.
In any event, there is not a single clue in favour of the idea that any of these roots
terminated in a dental aspirate (or in an aspirate, for that matter).
47
In other words, because there was some amount of free variation –f/ƀ– in a single
lexeme. Notably, this word combines Latin and non–Latin features (the outcome of
the diphthong is urban Latin) in an opposite fashion to the synonymous rōbus (see
Weiss 2009, fn. 55). This would mean that the first variant at least was used in Rome
before monophthongization had taken place (before 3rd b.C.?).
48
A diminutive equola ‘young mare’ (Plautus+) must be related to equila ‘mare’ in
Varro. But there is no way of deriving the latter word from equus unless it goes back to
*equida, a fossilized feminine of a late, lost adjective *equido– (bear in mind equidus
is only attested as a late formation, possibly meaning that it was formed twice). Equila
may have been remodelled on equola (not on aquila, pace LG 86) but on balance no
great significance can be attached to it. Aquila has resisted all attempts at explanation
thus far, and probably goes back to a longer compound. It is not excluded that this is
another case of unmotivated variation l/d.
but whose appurtenance to this type has been blurred by the action of phonetic
laws. This is a tentative synoptic view of the process of dissimilation of –ðiðo–:
*~oΣðiðo– > *~oΣðilo– > *~oΣƀilo– > *iūbilus

*snoΣðiðo– > *snoΣðilo– > *noΣƀilo– > nūbilus
*poΣðiðo– > *poΣðilo– > *poΣƀilo– > pūmilus (for expected *pūbilus, itself
preserved in pūblicus with unaltered labial in the cluster obtained by syncopation)
*psoΣðiðo– > *psoΣðilo– > *psoΣƀilo– > *pso~ƀilo– > *pse~ƀilo– (by
dissimilation and/or onomatopoeic effect) > sībilus
*sorƀiðo– (perceived as containing an underlying *sorðiðo–) > *sorðilo– >
*sorƀilo– > *sorbilus
The equally obscure adjectives mutilus, petilus ‘thin’ and especially rutilus49
are similar cases in that the root or derivational stem contains /t/ and has no
obvious cognates, and they are therefore disconnected from synchronic presents
in –e±– unlike many adjectives in –idus. If the process were regular at all, which
is not usually the case when dissimilation is involved, this would explain the
intact, undissimilated forms nitidus, putidus and foetidus.
In addition, the forms postilēna ‘crupper’ and antilēna ‘breast belt used for
horses’ are somehow derived from *posti > Lat. post and *anti > Lat. ante, but
the suffix is unexplained, and only paralleled by the equally enigmatic cantilēna
‘song’. Postilēna and antilēna may be integrated in an inherited system if we
accept that they belong to the well known scheme «preposition + –dh±o–» attested
in OCS. pozdŭ ‘late’ (< *pos–dh±o–), etc. (cf. postīcus < *posti–#kΣ–o–). The
strange pseudo–suffix –lēna militates in favour of the proposed dissimilation.
Analogical retention of –i– preceding –l– solves the phonetic problem but ignores
the suffix. The handbooks (e.g. LG 312) reckon with the previous existence of
two verbs *postilō and *cantilō (which appears rather unmotivated) to which a
suffix –ēlā is attached. Thereupon, the second lateral segment was dissimilated
(which is unwarranted and fails to motivate the proposed dissimilation, since we
would expect –lēra).
There is a more satisfactory account, additionally illuminating the
intriguing similarity of these three forms, which cannot have been made up of
such unproductive components by chance: By reconstructing compounds in
*–dhe±–ne“ we would arrive at the same result, and the extant parallels equally
contain prepositions: Cf. OCS. o–děnŭ ‘dressed’, Elean Gk. συνθεναι (nom. pl.)
49
Either original or modelled on rūbidus, itself linked to a larger lexical field which
prevented it from evolving into †rūbilus. Note that *rut–elo– (> rutulus) or its
derivative Rutilius/Rutelius may be attested in the Etruscan name Rutile Hipukrates in
a 7th C. oinochoe from Tarquinii and in the 6th C. PN Rutelna (cf. Poccetti 2012, 15).
‘contracts’. OI. abhi–dhānī (AV+), NAv. –aiβi–δāna– ‘(horse) halter’ are

structurally identical and even convey similar contents. The song designated by
canti–lēna, in view of OI. yātu–dhāna– ‘wizard’, may have been imbued with
magical or ritual associations no longer recoverable. I accordingly assume that
these three forms go back to compounds.50 They were very ancient relics, and
dissimilation worked across compound boundaries for that reason: They were
no longer perceived as such. Otherwise, the dental fricative would have yielded
/f/ in the immediate ancestor of Latin. To sum up, the evolution proposed here
is *posti–dhe±ne“ > *postiðēnā > postilēna, *kanti/u–dhe±ne“ > *kantiðēnā >
cantilēna. Bear in mind that, while Lat. cantiō was possibly built by appending the
productive suffix –tiō to the root, cantus may be inherited and may have formed
the base of cantilēna. If so, cantilēna would be instrumental in demonstrating
that vowel reduction preceded the contextual labialization of dental fricatives
and consequently the fortition of the fricative series: otherwise the attested form
would have been **cantu/ibēna.51
If –lēna, which must have been felt to be a suffix early on, had stepped beyond
its original limits, this would be one more case of determinative compounds
(those containing prefixes belong in my view to the archaic type pronepōs, Vedic
pranapat–) giving rise to regular derivation, as in Eng. –dom, –hood. Since the
Vedic and Avestan word is inherited from their immediate common ancestor
and the Latin words antilēna and postilēna are both unmotivated inside Italic
and designate equipment designed either for horseback riding or for harnessing
horses to chariots or ploughs, the comparison is not irrelevant to the archaeology
50
Pestilens ‘unhealthy’ could be the active participle of a verbal compound
*pesti–ðe/o– (as in perdō → perdens). Pestilentus probably does not exist and
pestilentia would be naturally derived from here under the influence of the adjectives
in –lentus, in which the suffix is usually preceded by –o/u–. Pestilens is often held to
be an innovation, in which case it would be immaterial to my argument. Vertilabundus
presupposes *uertilāre ‘tumble’, in turn derived from *uertilus sharing the same input
for dissimilation. As for uentilāre, its formational relation to uentus is obscure unless
it has been created to rhyme with sībilāre, etc.
51
I shall not delve here into the uncertainties of Latin syncope, but there are other
metrically similar trochaic words, like umbilīcus or ambulāre, in which syncopation
probably did not occur because the result was an undesired sequence and *postlēna
was therefore avoided. Or, if it did, the subsequent anaptyxis yielded –til– after the
phonemic contrast of –til– vs. –tul– had been created. Note that, if one insists on
understanding these forms as comparatively late derivatives, there is much more
left unexplained: The absence of the respective bases *postilō, etc. (themselves
unsyncopated), the lack of productivity of the resulting forms, and the extraordinary
coincidence of semantically unrelated forms hosting the same suffix and then
undergoing an otherwise unknown dissimilation of laterals.
5. Obscured Celtic compounds in Cantabrian names 51
of the Indo–Europeans and might go some way towards clinching the standing
controversy on the domestication of the horse. (This suggestion will predictably
fall victim to the killjoy argument that, even conceding that this may be an
inherited formation, the original meaning was broader and extended to cattle in
general. Abstraction always holds the field.)52
5. Obscured Celtic compounds in Cantabrian names
*ankΣaramo–:
MVNIMENTVM / CAELIONIS / AMPARAMI F(ILII) / VADINIESIS, Liegos, León,
IRL 274, ERL 368
DOVIDER/VS AM̂PA/RAM̂I F(ILIVS) PR/INCEP̂S CA/NT̂ABRORV/M HI(C) S(ITVS)
E(ST) DE/OBRIGI F(ILII?) P(OSVERVNT) / M(ONVMENTVM), Valmartino, León, 1st
C., Mangas – Martino (1997), ERL 374
AMPARAMO / BRIGETINO, Crémenes, León, IRL 263
AMPARAMVM / NEMAIECANVM, AMPARAMVS NEMAIOQ(VM), tabula
hospitalis found in Herrera de Pisuerga, Palencia, IRP 114
A conceivable ancestor of this form is an ancient compound *anku–aramo–
‘serene at death, facing death serenely’.53 The first member would be *anku– in
OIr. éc ‘death’, and the second member is *±(e)r1/3–mo–, attested in MW. araf
‘calm, quiet’ (see different opinions in Zair 2012, 44, EDPC 39). There are few
52
These words would also militate in favour of Giacomo Devoto and Vittore Pisani’s idea
(which of course suffers from other drawbacks and has long since been abandoned)
that some Latin and Sanskrit (mainly institutional) items of vocabulary bear a closer
resemblance than expected because these languages abandoned the Indo–European
continuum earlier than the rest.
53
The alternative is a compound *ambi–paramo–, repeated ad nauseam in the works of
amateurs and historians. This would require considering paramo– as a loanword if it
is related to Sp. páramo ‘moorland’ (originally ‘farthest’ or perhaps ‘highest, loftiest’)
and has no use for the prefix. *ande–paramo– is perhaps more promising, but meets
the same difficulties: The ‘very highest’ is strange, not to speak of the proliferation of
near synonymous Celtic superlatives like *uxsamo– which are not expected to have
been ousted by a loanword. That it actually was borrowed by Hispano–Celtic or a
branch thereof is mere speculation, since all we have is onomastics, as in Segontia
Paramica or Paramaeco. A hypothetical *amb–aramo– poses more problems than
it solves because hyper–correction, which ex hypothesi would have led to writing
‘incorrect’ <MP> in every extant case, is impossible, and it is not expected at all since
nasals hardly ever cause voicing of a following stop in this area.
References
ABASCAL PALAZÓN, J. M. (2010), ‘CIL II 4977 (Mondragón, Guipúzcoa).

Una inscripción romana enterrada por la Inquisición y conservada en
Segobriga’, Archivo Español de Arqueología 83, 127–131.
ABASCAL PALAZÓN, J. M. – ALFÖLDY, G. – CEBRIÁN FERNÁNDEZ, R. (2009),
‘Lápida funeraria de M. VALERIVS SPANTAMICVS en Segobriga’, Zeitschrift
für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 168, 179–82.
ABASCAL PALAZÓN, J. M. – GIMENO PASCUAL, H. (2000), Epigrafía hispánica,
Madrid, Real Academia de la Historia.
ABÁSOLO ÁLVAREZ, J. A. (1973), ‘El árula de Hontangas, la inscripción de
Cuevas de Amaya y la estela de Fresneda de la Sierra (Burgos)’, Boletín
del Seminario de Estudios de Arte y la Arqueología 39, 443–49.
— (1977), ‘Las estelas decoradas de la región de Lara de los Infantes: Estudio
iconográfico’, Boletín del Seminario de Estudios de Arte y Arqueología
43, 61–97.
— (1984), ‘Recientes hallazgos de lápidas romanas en la provincia de Burgos’,
Boletín del Seminario de Estudios de Arte y la Arqueología 50, 195–216.
— (1985), ‘Inscripciones romanas de las provincias de Segovia, Burgos y
Palencia’, Archivo Español de Arqueología 58, 159–75.
ABÁSOLO ÁLVAREZ, J. A. – ALCALDE CRESPO, G. (2004), ‘Altares funerarios en
Cildá. Epitafio de Turenia’, Publicaciones de la Institución Tello Téllez de
Meneses 74, 117–12.
ABÁSOLO ÁLVAREZ, J. A. – ALONSO, J. M. – SAINZ, F. (1982), ‘Nuevas
inscripciones romanas procedentes de Briongos y Monasterio de Rodilla’,
Boletín de la Institución Fernán González 198, 161–68.
ABÁSOLO ÁLVAREZ, J. A. – RUIZ VÉLEZ, I. – CAMPILLO CUEVA, J. – HERNANDO
ARCE, H. (2008), ‘El castro de La Polera en Ubierna y los yacimientos
arqueológicos del sur de Las Loras’, Boletín de la Institución Fernán
González 237, 293–333.
ADAMS, D. Q. (1999), A Dictionary of Tocharian B, Amsterdam – New York,
Rodopi.
ALBERTOS FIRMAT, M. L. (1972), ‘El conjunto epigráfico del Museo de Burgos y
los antropónimos hispánicos de Lara de los Infantes y sus proximidades’,
Homenaje a Antonio Tovar, Editorial Gredos (ed.), Madrid, 47–58.
— (1974), ‘A propósito de unas estelas de cántabros vadinienses de Remolina
(León)’, Durius 2, 82–84.
— (1977), ‘Más sobre Vurovius, divinidad de la Bureba’, Emerita 45, 61–64.
200 References
— (1979), ‘La onomástica de la Celtiberia’, Actas del II Coloquio sobre Lenguas

y Culturas Paleohispánicas, A. Tovar et alii (eds.), Salamanca, 131–67.
— (1987), ‘La onomástica personal indígena de la región septentrional’,
Studia Palaeohispanica. Actas del IV Coloquio sobre Lenguas y Culturas
Paleohispánicas, J. Gorrochategui et alii (eds.), Vitoria, 155–94.
ALFÖLDY, G. – ABASCAL, J. M. – MILLÁN, J. M. (2009), ‘Otro testimonio
meridional de las ‘organizaciones suprafamiliares’ indígenas de la Hispania
Citerior’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 168, 283–285.
ÂNGELO, M. J. – ENCARNAÇÃO, J. D’ (2008), ‘Epígrafes votivas da Torre dos
Namorados (Quintas da Torre, Vale Prazeres, Fundão)’, Conimbriga 47,
103–111.
ANREITER, P. (1997), Breonen, Genaunen und Fokunaten, Budapest,
Archaeolingua.
BADER, F. (1999), ‘Les grands de l’Iliade et les Achéménides’, Revue des Études
Grecques 112, 337–382.
BALLES, I. (2003), ‚Die lateinischen idus–Adjektive und das Calandsystem‘,
Indogermanisches Nomen. Derivation, Flexion und Ablaut. Akten der
Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, E. Tichy (ed.),
Bremen, 9–29.
BALLESTER, X. (2003), ‘Celtibérico SEKONZOS: ¿Secundus o Sekontios?’, Veleia
20, 351–54.
BAMMESBERGER, A. (1989), ‘L‘origine de vieil–irlandais bés’, Études Celtiques
26, 69–71.
BARBAS, R. – GAMO PAZOS, E. – GIMENO PASCUAL, H. (2011), ‘Nuevos
epígrafes latinos en el alto Tajo. Abánades, Ocentejo y Zaorejas’, Veleia
28, 161–73.
BB.III = F. BELTRÁN – J. DE HOZ – J. UNTERMANN (1996), El tercer Bronce de
Botorrita (Contrebia Belaisca), Saragossa, Diputación General de Aragón.
BÉJAR TARANCÓN, M. B. (1995), ‘Cuatro nuevas estelas de la provincia de
Burgos’, Boletín de la Sociedad de Amigos de la Arqueología 61, 197–207.
BELTRÁN LLORIS, F. – BIENES CALVO, J. J. – HERNÁNDEZ VERA, J. A. – JORDÁN
CÓLERA, C. (2013), ‘El bronce celtibérico en alfabeto latino de Novallas
(Zaragoza)’, Palaeohispanica 13, 615–35.
BERNARDO STEMPEL, P. DE (1991), ‚Die Sprache der altbritannischen
Münzlegenden‘, Zeitschrift für Celtische Philologie 44, 36–55.
— (1999), Nominale Wortbildung des älteren Irischen, Tübingen, Niemeyer.
BERTOCCI, D. (2012), ‘Survivings of the *–eH1– stative morphology in Umbrian
and Latin’, The Sound of Indo–European 2, R. Sukač et alii (eds.), Munich,
14–28.
References 201
BLEVINS J. – GRAWUNDER, S. (2009), ‘*KL > TL sound change in Germanic

and elsewhere: Descriptions, explanations, and implications’, Linguistic
Typology 13, 267–302.
CEB = O. V. REYES HERNANDO (2001), El conjunto epigráfico de Belorado,
Burgos, Valladolid.
CIRILO DE MELO, W. D. (2007), The archaic Latin verb system. Archaic forms in
Plautus, Terence and beyond, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
CIRPB = S. CRESPO ORTIZ DE ZÁRATE – Á. ALONSO ÁVILA (2000), Corpus
de inscripciones romanas de la provincia de Burgos: fuentes epigráficas
para la historia social de Hispania romana, Valladolid.
COLEMAN, R. (1992), ‘Italic’, Indo–European Numerals, J. Gvozdanović (ed.),
Berlin – New York, 389–446.
COWGILL, W. (1970), ‘Italic and Celtic Superlatives and the Dialects of Indo–
European’, Indo–European and Indo–Europeans, G. Cardona et alii (eds.),
Philadelphia, 113–53.
CURADO, F. P. (1984), ‘Ara a Dvangeius, de Penamacor’, Ficheiro Epigrafico 7,
nr. 26.
DELAMARRE, X. (2004), ‘Index of J. Whatmough: The dialects of Ancient Gaul’,
Veleia 21, 221–87.
— (2006–1), ‘Prasutagus’, Studia Celtica Fennica 3, 5–9.
— (2006–2), ‘Gallo–Brittonica: Suite (11–21)’, Zeitschrift für Celtische
Philologie 55, 29–41.
— (2007), Noms de personnes celtiques dans l’épigraphie classique, Paris,
Errance.
— (2009), ‘Iria (Īria) l’opulente, la fertile (Ligurie, Galice, Dalmatie)’, Veleia
26, 355–58.
— (2012–1) ‘Notes d’onomastique vieille–celtique’, Keltische Forschungen 5,
49–87.
— (2012–2), ‘Notes d’onomastique vieille–celtique’, Keltische Forschungen 5,
99–138.
DÍAZ SANZ, M. A. – JORDÁN CÓLERA, C. (2006), ‚Dos téseras de hospitalidad
procedentes de Fitero (Navarra)‘, Palaeohispanica 6, 257–262.
DLG = X. DELAMARRE (2003), Dictionnaire de la langue gauloise, Paris,
Errance.
DRIESSEN, C. M. (2003), ‘Evidence for *ĝhel“–, a new Indo–European root’,
Journal of Indo–European Studies 31, 279–305.
DRESSLER, W. U. (1975), ‘Approaches to fast speech rules’, Phonologica 1972,
W. U. Dressler – F. W. Mares (eds.), Munich, 219–34.
DUNKEL, G. (1990), ‚Vater Himmels Gattin‘, Die Sprache 34, 1–26.
202 References
— (2000), ‚Latin verbs in –ĭgāre and –īgāre’, 125 Jahre Indogermanistik in

Graz, M. Ofitsch et alii (eds.), Graz, 87–99.
— (2005), ‘Latin –pte, –pe, –per, –pse; IE limiting *–pó–te, *–pe–r, and
*póti– ‘master’’, Proceedings of the 16th Annual UCLA Indo–European
Conference, K. Jones–Bley et alii (eds.), Washington, 173–189.
EDCS = Epigraphische Datenbank Clauss–Slaby, on line: http://www.
manfredclauss.de.
EDG = R. S. P. BEEKES (2010), Etymological Dictionary of Greek, Leiden, Brill.
e–DIL = Electronic Dictionary of the Irish Language, Royal Irish Academy, on
line: http://www.dil.ie.
EDPC = R. MATASOVIĆ (2009), Etymological Dictionary of Proto–Celtic,
Leiden, Brill.
EDLIL = M. DE VAAN (2008), Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other
Italic Languages, Leiden, Brill.
EDPC–add = R. MATASOVIĆ (2011), ‘Addenda et corrigenda to Ranko
Matasović’s Etymological Dictionary of Proto–Celtic’, on line: http://
mudrac.ffzg.unizg.hr/~rmatasov.
EICHNER, H. (1982), Studien zu den indogermanischen Numeralia. Rekonstruktion
des urindogermanischen Formensystems und Dokumentation seiner
einzelsprachlichen Vertretung bei den niederen Kardinalia ‘zwei’ bis
‘fünf’, Unpublished Habilitationschrift, Regensburg. On line: http://
linguistik.univie.ac.at/institut/mitarbeiter–innen/emeriti/heiner–eichner/
monographien.
EICHNER H. – NEDOMA, R. (2009), ‚Neue vorrömische Inschriften aus
Westslowenien: epigraphische und linguistische Evidenz‘, Keltske študije.
II: Studies on Celtic Archaeology. Papers in Honour of Mistja Guštin, G.
Tiefengraben et alii (eds.), Atun, 65–76.
ENCARNAÇÃO, J. D’ (1986), ‘Inscrições romanas do Conventus Pacensis:
Aditamento’, Trabalhos de Arqueologia do Sul 1, 99–109.
ERAV = M. R. HERNANDO SOBRINO (2005), Epigrafía romana de Ávila (Petrae
Hispaniarum 3), Bordeaux – Madrid, Ausonius.
ERC = J. M. IGLESIAS GIL – A. RUIZ GUTIÉRREZ (1998), Epigrafía romana de
Cantabria, Bordeaux – Santander, Estvdio.
ERL = M. A. RABANAL ALONSO – S. M. GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ (2001), Epigrafía
romana de la provincia de León: revisión y actualización, León,
Universidad de León.
ERLara = J. A. ABÁSOLO ÁLVAREZ (1974), Epigrafía romana de la región de
Lara de los Infantes, Burgos, Diputación Provincial de Burgos.
References 203
ERNOUT, A. (1941), ‘Les noms en –ago, –igo, –ugo du latin’, Revue de philologie,
de littérature et d’histoire anciennes 15, 81–111.
ERR = U. ESPINOSA (1986), Epigrafía romana de la Rioja, Logroño, Instituto de
Estudios Riojanos.
ERS = J. SANTOS YANGUAS – Á. L. HOCES DE LA GUARDIA – J. DEL HOYO
(2005), Epigrafía romana de Segovia y su provincia, Segovia, Caja de
Ahorros y Monte de Piedad de Segovia.
ERSo = A. JIMENO MARTÍNEZ (1980), Epigrafía romana de la provincia de
Soria, Soria, Diputación Provincial de Soria.
ESKA, J. F. (1995), ‘Resyllabification and epenthesis in Hispano–Celtic’, Journal
of Celtic Linguistics 5, 71–89.
— (2008), ‘Remarks on the 3. Plural Preterite in –us in Continental Celtic’,
Sprache 47, 108–19.
ESTEBAN ORTEGA, J. (2007), Corpus de inscripciones latinas de Cáceres,
Cáceres, Ediciones Universidad de Extremadura.
— (2015), ‘Nueva estela de Valverde del Fresno, Cáceres’, Ficheiro Epigráfico
129, nr. 546.
EWAI II = M. MAYRHOFER (1996), Etymologisches Wörterbuch des
Altindoarischen. II, Heidelberg, Winter.
FALILEYEV, A. (2000), Etymological Glossary of Old Welsh, Tübingen, Niemeyer.
— (2007), Celtic Dacia. Personal Names, Place–Names and Ethnic Names of
Celtic Origin in Dacia and Scythia Minor, Aberystwyth, CMCS.
— (2013), Celtic Balkans, Aberystwyth, CMCS.
FAUST, M. (1979), ‘Tradición lingüística y estructura social: El caso de las
gentilidades’, Actas del II Coloquio sobre Lenguas y Culturas Prerromanas
de la Península Ibérica, A. Tovar et alii (eds.), Salamanca, 435–52.
FERNÁNDEZ–GALIANO, D. (2012), ‘Villas romanas de Soria: Una reciente
revisión’, Durii regione Romanitas. Homenaje a Javier Cortés, C.
Fernández Ibáñez et alii (eds.), Palencia – Santander, 351–358.
FERREIRA, A. P. R. (2004), Epigrafia funeraria romana da Beira interior:
Inovação ou continuidade?, Lisboa, Instituto Português de Arqueologia.
FLEURIOT, L. (1974), ‘Sur quelques textes gaulois’, Études Celtiques 14, 57–66.
FRÄNKEL, E. (1965), Litauisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. II, Heidelberg,
Winter.
GAMO PAZOS, E. (2012), ‘Inscripción funeraria romana de Saúca, Guadalajara’,
Ficheiro Epigrafico 95, nr. 425.
GARCÍA–RAMÓN, J. L. (2005), ‚Update on Die historischen Personennamen des
Mykenischen‘, Indo–European Studies Bulletin (UCLA) 11, 24‒33.
204 References
— (2006), ‚Homme comme force, force d‘homme: un motif onomastique

et l’étymologie du vieux–irlandais gus‘, La langue poétique indo–
européenne, G.–J. Pinault (ed.), Louvain, 79–93.
GARCÍA–TRABAZO, J. V. (forthc.), ‚Artemis, Kybele und die gehörnten Gottheiten
Anatoliens‘, Festschrift José Luis García–Ramón, D. Kölligan (ed.),
Cologne, 1–8.
GARNIER, R. (2010–1), Le verbe latin, Innsbruck, Innsbrucker Beiträge zur
Sprachwissenschaft.
— (2010–2), ‘Lat. baetere ‘aller’, uāde ‘va!’ et la racine *gΣe“– en italique’,
Latomus 69, 937–51.
GIL, J. (1977), ‚Notas a los bronces de Botorrita y de Luzaga‘, Habis 8, 161–74.
GIMENO PASCUAL, H. (1997), Historia de la investigación epigráfica en España
en los ss. XVI y XVII a la luz del recuperado manuscrito del Conde de
Guimerá, Saragossa, Institución Fernando el Católico.
— (2008), ‚¿Otro celtíbero en La Vettonia?‘, Sylloge Epigraphica Barcinonensis
6, 99–103.
GIMENO PASCUAL, H. – RAMÍREZ SÁNCHEZ, M. (2000–2001), ‚precisiones a
algunos epígrafes latinos de la provincia de Soria‘, Veleia 18–19, 305–307.
— (2002), ‘Dos inscripciones inéditas de la provincia de Soria (España)’,
Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 139, 273–78.
GIMENO PASCUAL, H. – URBINA ÁLVAREZ, A. (2004), ‘Dos estelas procedentes
de las localidades de Valdorros y Villangómez (Burgos) con mención del
antropónimo Paesicus’, Actas del VII Congreso Internacional de Estelas
Funerarias, Santander, 183–192.
GIMENO PASCUAL, H. – VELAZA, J. (1994), ‘Correcciones de lectura a algunas
inscripciones romanas de Navarra’, Sylloge epigraphica Barcinonensis 1,
189–200.
GONZÁLEZ ECHEGARAY, J. (1966), Los cántabros, Santander, Estvdio.
GONZÁLEZ RODRÍGUEZ, M. C. (1986), Las unidades organizativas del área
indoeuropea de Hispania, Vitoria, Universidad del País Vasco.
— (1997), Los astures y los cántabros vadinienses, Vitoria, Universidad del
País Vasco.
GONZÁLEZ RODRÍGUEZ, M. C. – GORROCHATEGUI, J. (2011), ‘Nuevas lecturas
de tres inscripciones de Clunia (Hispania Citerior) con repercusión sobre
la expresión de algunas agrupaciones familiares celtibéricas’, Veleia 28,
271–79.
— (2013), ‘Nueva estela vadiniense hallada en Riaño, León (Conventus
Cluniensis)’, Ficheiro Epigrafico 109, nr. 479.
References 205
GORROCHATEGUI, J. (2011), ‘Interferencias lingüísticas en el material epigráfico

hispano–celta’, A Greek man in the Iberian street. Papers in linguistics
and epigraphy in honour of Javier de Hoz, E. R. Luján et alii (eds.),
Innsbruck, 201–16.
GPN = D. E. EVANS (1967), Gaulish Personal Names, Oxford, Oxford University
Press.
GUERRA, A. (1992–93), ‘STATVA LANGARI: a propósito de uma inscrição latina
proveniente de Patalim (Montemor–o–Novo)’, Portugalia 13–14, 297–
303.
HACKSTEIN, O. (2002), ‘Uridg. *CH.CC > *C.CC‘, Historische Sprachforschung
115, 1–22.
— (2003), ‘Zur Entwicklung der Modalität in Verbaladjektiven’,
Indogermanisches Nomen: Derivation, Flexion und Ablaut, E. Tichy et
alii (eds.), Bremen, 51–66.
HAMP, E. P. (1976), ‘On some Gaulish names in –ant and Celtic verbal nouns’,
Ériu 27, 1–20.
— (1982), ‘Fer Diad’, Ériu 33, 178.
— (1989), ‘Traces of participial –do– in Celtic’, Études Celtiques 40, 113–17.
— (1990), ‘Brigetionem, Βεργιτίον’, Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 91, 59–62.
HARÐARSON, J. A. (1998), ‘Mit dem Suffix *–e±– bzw. *–(e)±–~o–
gebildete Verbalstämme im Indogermanischen‘, Sprache und Kultur
der Indogermanen. Akten der X. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen
Gesellschaft, W. Meid (ed.), Innsbruck, 323–339.
HELLEMANS, F. (2005), Étude phonétique et graphique du [j] (jod) en grec
mycénien, Unpublished Dissertation, Louvain, Catholic University of
Louvain. On line: https://lirias.kuleuven.be/bitstream/1979/33/1/.
HEp = Hispania Epigraphica. Revista del Archivo Epigráfico de Hispania.
Madrid, Universidad Complutense de Madrid. On line: http://eda–bea.es/.
HERAS FERNÁNDEZ, E. (1993), ‘Una inscripción funeraria procedente de Alcozar
(Soria)’, Ficheiro Epigrafico 44, 14–16.
HERNÁNDEZ GUERRA, L. – JIMÉNEZ DE FURUNDARENA, A. – MAÑANES PÉREZ,
T. (1998), ‘Inscripciones procedentes de Hinojosa de Duero, depositadas
en el Museo Arqueológico de Salamanca’, Minerva 12, 109–132.
HOCES DE LA GUARDIA BERMEJO, J. L. – SANTOS YANGUAS, J. – MARTÍNEZ
CABALLERO, S. (2009), ‘Notas de lectura: Revisión de dos epígrafes de
termestinos en la muralla de Ávila (España)’, Veleia 26, 373–80.
HOCK, H. H. (2006), ‘* + labial + palatal’, Actas del Seminario Julio de Urquijo
40, 437–448.
206 References
HOFENEDER, A. (2013), ‘Apollon Grannos – Überlegungen zu Cassius Dio 77,

15,5–7’, Théonymie celtique, cultes, interpretatio – Keltische Theonymie,
Kulte, interpretatio, X. Workshop F.E.R.C.AN., A. Hofeneder – P. De
Bernardo Stempel (eds.), Vienna, 101–11.
HOYO, J. DEL – RODRÍGUEZ CEBALLOS, M. (2015–1), ‘A tiro de piedra. Nuevos
epígrafes de Coruña del Conde en Clunia (Burgos)’, Habis 46, 105–126.
— (2015–2), ‘Dos nuevas inscripciones procedentes de Uxama (Soria)’,
Ficheiro Epigráfico 132, 555–556.
HOZ, J. DE (2014), ‘A Celtiberian Inscription from the Rainer Daehnhardt
Collection and the Problem of the Celtiberian Genitive Plural’, Continental
Celtic Word Formation. The Onomastic Data, J. L. García Alonso (ed.),
Salamanca, 50–62.
IEW = J. POKORNY (1959), Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch,
Bern, Francke.
IRCP = J. D’ENCARNAÇÃO (1984), Inscrições romanas do Conventus Pacensis,
Coimbra, Instituto de Arqueologia da Faculdade de Letras.
IRL = F. D. SANTOS (1986), Inscripciones Romanas de la Provincia de León,
León, Institución Fray Bernardino de Sahagún.
IRP = L. HERNÁNDEZ GUERRA (1994), Inscripciones romanas en la provincia de
Palencia, Valladolid, Ediciones Universidad de Valladolid.
IRSLINGER, B. S. (2002), Abstrakta mit Dentalsuffixen im Altirischen, Heidelberg,
Winter.
ISAAC, G. R. (2007), Studies in Celtic Sound Changes and their Chronology,
Innsbruck, Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft.
ISEBAERT, L. (1988), ‘La formation du latin domāre’, A Linguistic Happening in
Memory of Ben Schwartz, Y. Arbeitman (ed.), Louvain, 349–59.
IVANOV, V. V. (1999), ‘Old Novgorodian Nevide, Russian nevidal’: Greek
ἀΐδηλος’, UCLA Indo–European Studies, Vol. 1, V. V. Ivanov – B. Vine
(eds.), Los Angeles, 283–292.
JANDA, M. (2000), Eleusis. Das indogermanische Erbe der Mysterien, Innsbruck,
Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft.
JASANOFF, J. (1990), ‘The origin of the Celtic comparative type OIr. tressa, MW.
trech «stronger»’, Die Sprache 34, 171–89.
— (2003), ‘Stative –ē– revisited‘, Die Sprache 43, 127–70.
— (2009),‘The origin of the Latin gerund and gerundive: A new proposal‘, Rus´
Writ Large: Languages, Histories, Cultures. Essays Presented in Honor
of Michael S. Flier on his Sixty–Fifth Birthday, H. Goldblatt et alii (eds.),
Cambridge, MA., 195–208.
References 207
JIMÉNEZ DELGADO, J. M. (2010), ‘El instrumental de plural en los adjetivos

micénicos’, Habis 41, 43–55.
JORDÁN CÓLERA, C. (2005), ‘¿Sistema dual de escritura en celtibérico?’,
Palaeohispanica 5, 1013–30.
— (2006–2009), ‘Consideraciones paleo–epigráficas a propósito del Bronce
Res’, Kalathos 24–25, 475–86.
— (2010), ‘[K.14.1]: Una nota de epigrafía paleohispánica’, Zeitschrift für
Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 155–58.
— (2013), ‘The –anko– sequence in Celtiberian anthroponymy’, Continental
Celtic Word Formation. The Onomastic Evidence, J. L. García Alonso
(ed.), Salamanca, 165–73.
— (2014–1), ‘Sobre el verbo ‘dar’ en celtibérico’, Miscelánea de Estudios en
homenaje a Guillermo Fatás Cabeza, A. Duplá et alii (eds.), Saragossa,
429–434.
— (2014–2), ‘La forma verbal cabint del bronce celtibérico de Novallas
(Zaragoza)’, Emerita 82, 329–45.
— (2015), ‘AVDINTVM, una nueva forma verbal en celtibérico y sus posibles
relaciones paradigmáticas (auzeti, auzanto, auz, auzimei, auzares...)’,
Cuadernos de Filología Clásica (sección griega e indoeuropea) 25,
11–23.
KLOEKHORST, A. (2008), Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited
Lexicon, Leiden, Brill.
KOCH, J. (1995), ‘Further to Indo–European *gwh in Celtic’, Hispano–Gallo–
Brittonica. Essays in Honour of D. Ellis Evans, J. F. Eska et alii (eds.),
Cardiff, 79–95.
KÖLLIGAN, D. (2012), ‘Germanic personal names in Latin inscriptions: Names
of the Germani Cisrhenani and the Ubii’, Personal Names in the Western
Roman World, T. Meißner (ed.), Berlin, 199–219.
— (2014), ‘O sufixo latino –dō e grego –δών: Origem e desenvolvimento’,
Morfología Histórica, M. E. Viaro (ed.), São Paulo, 154–89.
KROONEN, G. (2013), Etymological Dictionary of Proto–Germanic, Leiden,
Brill.
KÜMMEL, M. (2007), ‘The third person endings of the Old Latin Perfect and the
fate of final –d in Latin’, Proceedings of the 18th annual UCLA Indo–
European Conference, K. Jones–Bley et alii (eds.), Washington, 89–101.
— (2014), Addenda und Corrigenda zu LIV². On line: http://www.
indogermanistik.uni–jena.de/dokumente/PDF/liv2add.pdf.
LAMBERT, P.–Y. – STIFTER, D. (2012), ‚Le texte gaulois de Rezé‘, Études
Celtiques 38, 160–87.
208 References
LG = M. LEUMANN – J. B. HOFMANN – A. SZANTYR (1977), Lateinische

Grammatik. I. Laut– und Formenlehre, Munich, Beck.
LEIA = J. VENDRYES – E. BACHELLERY – P.–Y. LAMBERT (1959–), Lexique
étymologique de l’irlandais ancien, Paris, Centre National de la Recherche
Scientifique.
LINDEMAN, F. O. (2007), ‘Celtic nāmant–’, Zeitschrift für Celtische Philologie
55, 18–24.
LIV = H. RIX et alii (20012), Lexicon der indogermanischen Verben. Die Wurzel
und ihre Primärstammbildungen, Wiesbaden, Reichert.
LIV2add = M. KÜMMEL (2015), ‚Addenda und Corrigenda zu LIV²‘. On line:
http://www.martinkuemmel.de/liv2add.html.
LIVINGSTON, I. (2004), A Linguistic Commentary on Livius Andronicus, London,
Routledge.
LOWE, J. J. (2011), ‘Negated participles in R̥gVedic Sanskrit and Indo–European’,
Indo–Iranian Journal 54, 19–38.
LRP = B. M. PRÓSPER (2002), Lenguas y religiones prerromanas del Occidente
de la Península Ibérica, Salamanca.
LUBOTSKY, A. (1981), ‘On the reduced grade a in Sanskrit’, Lingua 55 (1981),
75–95.
— (1994), ‘The original paradigm of the Tocharian word for king’, Tocharian
and Indo–European Studies, Suppl. 4, B. Schlerath (ed.), Reykjavík,
66–72.
MALZAHN, M. (2011), ‘Back to the fields and to the woods: Old Irish íath ‘land,
field’ and fíad ‘wild, deer; uncultivated land’ revisited’, Journal of Indo–
European Studies 39, 116–28.
MANGAS, J. – MARTINO, D. (1997), ‘Princeps Cantabrorum en una nueva
inscripción’, Gerión 15, 321–39.
MARAS, D. F. (2014), ‘La prima stesura dell’iscrizione di Manios e l’uso
epigrafico dell’interpunzione espuntiva’, Bullettino di Paletnologia
Italiana 99. La fibula prenestina, 113–22.
MARINETTI, A. (2014), ‘Culti nel Veneto preromano, tra autonomia e influssi
esterni: la prospettiva delle iscrizioni’, Sacrum facere. Atti del II Seminario
di Archeologia del Sacro. Contaminazioni: forme di contatto, traduzione e
mediazione nei sacra del mondo greco e romano, F. Fontana – E. Murgia
(eds.), Trieste, 33–54.
MARTINO GARCÍA, D. (2012), ‘Acerca de la cronología de la epigrafía vadiniense.
Revisión historiográfica y nuevas propuestas’, Espacio, tiempo y forma.
Historia Antigua 25, 305–26.
References 209
— (2014), ‘Nuevas aportaciones al corpus epigráfico vadiniense’, Veleia 31,

199–211.
MATASOVIĆ, R. (2009), ‘Sun and moon in Celtic and Indo–European’,
Proceedings of the Second International Colloquium of Societas Celto–
Slavica, Moscow, 154–162.
MATISOFF, J. A. (2013), ‘The dinguist’s dilemma: Regular and sporadic l/d
interchange in Sino–Tibetan and elsewhere’, Functional–Historical
Approaches to Explanation: In Honor of Scott DeLancey, T. Thornes et
alii (eds.), Amsterdam, 83–104.
MAYER I OLIVÉ, M. – ABÁSOLO ÁLVAREZ, J. A. (1997), ‘Inscripciones latinas’,
La Cueva de la Griega de Pedraza (Segovia), J. A. Abásolo (ed.), Zamora,
183–259.
MAYER I OLIVÉ, M. – GARCÍA, R. – ABÁSOLO ÁLVAREZ, J. A. – RODRÍGUEZ
ALMEIDA, E. (1998), ‘El bronce de Fuentes de Ropel (Zamora)’, Boletín
de la Sociedad de Amigos de la Arqueología 64, 161–74.
MCCONE, K. (1985), ‘Varia II.2. OIr. olc, luch and IE *w‡kwos, *lukwos ‘wolf’’,
Ériu 36, 171–76.
— (1992), ‘OIr. aub ‘river’ and amnair ‘maternal uncle’, Münchener Studien
zur Sprachwissenschaft 53, 101–111.
— (1996), Towards a Relative Chronology of Ancient and Medieval Celtic
Sound Change, Maynooth, National University of Ireland at Maynooth.
— (2006), ‘Greek Κελτός and Γαλάτης, Latin Gallus‘, Die Sprache 46, 94–111.
MEID, W. (1957), ‚Das Suffix –no– in Götternamen‘, Beiträge zur Namenforschung
8, 72–108, 113–26.
— (1980), Gallisch oder lateinisch? Soziolinguistische und andere Bemerkungen
zu populären gallo–lateinischen Inschriften, Innsbruck, Innsbrucker
Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft.
— (2002), ‚«Freundschaft» und «Liebe» in keltischen Sprachen‘, Donum
Grammaticum. Studies in Latin and Celtic Linguistics in Honour of
Hannah Rosén, L. Sawicki et alii (eds.), Louvain, 255–64.
— (2005), Keltische Personennamen in Pannonien, Budapest, Archaeolingua.
MEISER, G. (2003), Veni, Vidi, Vici. Die Vorgeschichte des lateinischen
Perfektsystems, Munich, C. H. Beck.
MEIßNER, T. (2006), S–stem Nouns and Adjectives in Greek and Proto–Indo–
European: A Diachronic Study in Word Formation, Oxford, Oxford
University Press.
— (2012), ‘Celtic and Germanic names and naming traditions’, Personal Names
in the Western Roman World, T. Meißner (ed.), Berlin, 179–98.
210 References
MELCHERT, H. C. (2012), ‘Luvo–Lycian dorsal stops revisited’, The Sound of

Indo–European 2, R. Sukač et alii (eds.), Munich, 206–18.
MEYER, M. G. – STORK, I. (2010), ‚Unter Steinen verborgen. Ein neuer römischer
Altar aus Walheim, Landkreis Ludwigsburg‘, Denkmalpflege in Baden–
Württemberg 39, 190–91.
MILLER, D. G. (2014), Ancient Greek Dialects and Early Authors. Introduction
to the Dialect Mixture in Homer, with Notes on Lyric and Herodotus,
Berlin – New York, De Gruyter.
MLH I = J. UNTERMANN (1975), Monumenta Linguarum Hispanicarum I. Die
Münzlegenden, Wiesbaden, Reichert.
MLH IV = J. UNTERMANN (1997), Monumenta Linguarum Hispanicarum IV,
Wiesbaden, Reichert.
NIKOLAEV, A. (2009), ‘The name of Achilles’, Greek and Latin from an Indo–
European Perspective, C. George et alii (eds.), Cambridge, 162–214.
NIL = D. S. WODTKO – B. IRSLINGER – C. SCHNEIDER (2008), Nomina im
Indogermanischen Lexikon, Heidelberg, Winter.
NISHIMURA, K. (2014), ‘On accent in the Italic languages: Nature, position, and
history’, Studia Linguistica Universitatis Jagellonicae Cracoviensis 131,
161–92.
NUSSBAUM, A. J. (1986), Head and Horn in Indo–European, Berlin – New York,
De Gruyter.
— (1999), ‘*Jocidus: An account of the Latin adjectives in –idus’, Compositiones
Indogermanicae. In Memoriam Jochem Schindler, H. Eichner et alii (eds.),
Prague, 377–419.
— (2003), ‚A benign interpretation: Latin benignus and the bonus–rule’, talk
held at the 23rd East Coast Indo–European Conference, Harvard, June
2003.
— (2004), ‘A –t– party: Various IE nominal stems in *–(o/e)t–’, talk held at the
16th Annual UCLA Indo–European Conference, november 2004, 1–11.
— (2010), ‘PIE –Cmn– and Greek τρᾱνής ‘clear’’, Ex Anatolia Lux. Anatolian
and Indo–European Studies in Honour of H. C. Melchert, R. Kim et alii
(eds.), Ann Arbor, 269–77.
— (2014), ‘The PIE proprietor and his goods’, Munus Amicitiae. Norbert
Oettinger a Collegis et Amicis Dicatum, H. C. Melchert et alii (eds.), Ann
Arbor, 228–54.
O‘BRIAIN, M. O. (1923), ‘Hibernica’, Zeitschrift für Celtische Philologie 14,
309–334.
References 211
OLCOZ YANGUAS, S. – MEDRANO MARQUÉS, M. M. (2008), ‚Revisión

paleográfica de las inscripciones celtibéricas en signario paleohispánico
alfabetizado‘, Espacio, Tiempo y Forma, Serie II, 105–122.
— (2015), ‚Revisión paleográfica de varias inscripciones celtibéricas de los
valles del Jiloca y Huerva‘, Kalathos 26–27, 367–98.
OLSEN, B. A. (1994), ‚The stages of Indo–European aspiration by laryngeal‘,
Früh–, Mittel–, Spätindogermanisch, Akten der IX Fachtagung der
indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Chr. Seidl (ed.), Zürich, 267–277.
(2010), Derivation and Composition. Two Studies in Indo–European Word
Formation, Innsbruck, Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft.
OREL, V. (1995), ‘Notes on the inscription of Botorrita’, Studia Celtica 29, 301–
304.
— (2003), A Handbook of Germanic Etymology, Leiden, Brill.
ORESHKO, R. (2013), ‘Hieroglyphic inscriptions of western Anatolia: Long arm
of the empire or vernacular tradition(s)?’, Luwian Identities. Culture,
Language and Religion between Anatolia and the Aegean, A. Mouton et
alii (eds.), Leiden, 345–420.
PETIT, D. (2010), Untersuchungen zu den baltischen Sprachen, Leiden, Brill.
PIKE, M. (2011), Latin –tās and Related Forms, Unpublished Dissertation,
University of California at Los Angeles. On line: https://www.academia.
edu/2216769/Latin_–tās_and_Related_Forms.
PINAULT, G. J. (1979), ‘Grec ἀγαθός‘, Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft
38, 165–70.
— (1985), ‘Emploi et analyse des adverbes comparatifs sanskrits en –vát‘,
Grammatische Kategorien: Funktion und Geschichte, B. Schlerath (ed.),
Wiesbaden, 340–69.
— (2003), ‚Sur les thèmes indo–européens en *–u–: dérivation et étymologie’,
Indogermanisches Nomen: Derivation, Flexion und Ablaut, E. Tichy (ed.),
Bremen, 153–88.
POCCETTI, P. (1997), ‘Note su Gr. Μαῖα, Μαῖη, μαῖα Lat., Maia, Maius
(mensis), osco (delle glosse) Maesius’, Scríbthair a ainm n–ogaim. Scritti
in memoria di Enrico Campanile, R. Ambrosini et alii (eds.), 771–86.
— (2007), ‘ Variazioni sul tema del numerale per ‘sei’ nelle lingue dell’Italia
antica’, AIΩN–L 28, 245–69.
— (2012), ‘Personal names and ethnic names in archaic Italy’, Personal Names
in the Western Roman World, T. Meißner (ed.), Berlin, 59–83.
PROBERT, PH. (2006), Ancient Greek Accentuation: Synchronic Patterns,
Frequency Effects, and Prehistory, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
212 References
PRÓSPER, B. M. (2004), ‘Varia Palaeohispanica Occidentalia. I. Lusitano TAVROM

IFADEM. II. Origen del topónimo galaico Glandomiron. III. Indoeuropeo
*kor–(y)o– ‘ejército’ en Hispania. IV. Un superlativo hispano–celta
*kintúsamos y una cuestión de acento’, Palaeohispanica 4, 1–25.
— (2007), Estudio lingüístico del plomo celtibérico de Iniesta, Salamanca,
Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca.
— (2008–1), ‘En los márgenes de la lingüística celta: Los etnónimos del
Noroeste de la Península Ibérica y una nueva ley fonética del hispano–
celta occidental’, Palaeohispanica 8, 35–54.
— (2008–2), El bronce celtibérico de Botorrita I, Rome – Pisa, Fabrizio Serra
Editore.
— (2011), ‘The instrumental case in the thematic noun inflection of Continental
Celtic’, Historische Sprachforschungen 124, 250–67.
— (2012), ‘The Hispano–Celtic divinity ILVRBEDA, gold mining in western
Hispania and the syntactic context of Celtiberian arkatobezom ‘silver
mine’’, Die Sprache 49,1, 153–83.
— (2013), ‘Sifting the evidence: New interpretations on Celtic and Non–Celtic
personal names of western Hispania in the light of phonetics, composition
and suffixation’, Continental Celtic Word Formation. The Onomastic
Evidence, J. L. García Alonso (ed.), Salamanca, 181–200.
— (2014–1), ‘Some notes on the structure and meaning of the bronze ‘Res’’,
Keltische Forschungen 6, 157–64.
— (2014–2), ‘Time for Celtiberian dialectology: Celtiberian syllabic structure
and the interpretation of the bronze tablet from Torrijo del Campo, Teruel
(Spain)’, Keltische Forschungen 6, 115–55.
— (2014–3), ‘Some considerations on metathesis and vowel epenthesis in
Hispano–Celtic’, Wekwos 1, 207–18.
— (2015), ‘Celtic and non–Celtic divinities from ancient Hispania: power,
daylight, fertility, water spirits and what they can tell us about Indo–
European morphology’, Journal of Indo–European Studies 43, 1/2, 1–56.
— (forthc.–1), ‘The Indo–European ordinal numerals ‘fourth’ and ‘fifth’ and
the reconstruction of the Celtic and Italic numeral systems’, Die Sprache
51, 1–50.
— (forthc.–2), ‘Linguistic observations on two divine names of the Celtic
Cantabri: ERVDINO, divinity of the yearly cycle. CABVNIAEGINO, the Celtic
fate of IE *kap– and the Gaulish spindle whorl from Saint–Révérien’,
Proceedings of the XIII F.E.R.C.A.N Colloquium, Lampeter 17–19 october
2014, 1–23.
References 213
— (forthc.–3), ‘Proto–Italic laryngeals in the context C‡HC– and new Italic

and Celtic etymological connections’, Rivista Italiana di Linguistica e
Dialettologia, 1–30.
— (forthc.–4), ‘El nombre de Kaiskata’, Faventia volumen extra 3, Homenaje a
Pepe Fortes, A. Alemany (ed.), 1–10.
PULTROVÁ, L. (2007), ‘The Latin adjectives with the suffix –idus’, Studia Minora
Facultatis Philosophicae Universitatis Brunensis 12, 87–95.
RAEPSAET–CHARLIER, M. TH. (2012), ‘«Decknamen», homophony, assonance:
An appraisal of consonance phenomena in onomastics of the Roman
empire’, Personal Names in the Western Roman World, T. Meißner (ed.),
Berlin, 11–23.
RAMÍREZ SÁDABA, J. L. – CAMPO LASTRA, R. (2010), ‘Cautela sobre los nombres
personales documentados una sola vez: El ara dedicada a Cabuniaegino’,
Palaeohispanica 10, 447–59.
REDENTOR, A. (2008), ‘Inscrições sobre guerreiros lusitano–galaicos: leituras e
interpretações’, Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia 11, 195–214.
REPANŠEK, L. (2014), ‘Two notes on Old Celtic morphology’, Acta Linguistica
Petropolitana 10, 239–54.
RIG = P.–Y. LAMBERT (2002), Recueil des inscriptions gauloises. II, 2. Textes
gallo–romains sur instrumentum, Paris, Centre Nationale de la Recherche
Scientifique.
RINGE, D. – ESKA, J. F. (2013), Historical Linguistics. Toward a Twenty–First
Century Reintegration, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
RIU = J. FITZ (1991), Die römischen Inschriften Ungarns. 5. Lieferung, Intercisa,
Bonn – Budapest, Rudolph Habelt – Kultura.
RIX, H. (1966), ‚Die lat. Synkope als historisches und phonologisches Problem‘,
Kratylos 11, 156–165.
— (19922), Historische Grammatik des Griechischen: Laut– und Formenlehre,
Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
— (1994), ‚Südpikenisch kduíú‘, Historische Sprachforschung 107, 105–122.
RODRÍGUEZ MORALES, J. – FERNÁNDEZ PALACIOS, F. (2011), ‚Una nueva tésera
celtibérica procedente de Ciadueña, Soria‘, Palaeohispanica 11, 197–215.
RUBIO ORECILLA, F. J. (1996), ‚Tensiones paradigmáticas en el verbo celtibérico:
auðeti, auðanto, auðares y otras formas emparentadas‘, Kalathos 15,
181–194.
SÁENZ DE BURUAGA, A. (1994), ‚Referencias al culto precristiano del monte
Bilibio (La Rioja)‘, Brocar 18, 87–118.
214 References
SANZ ARAGONÉS, A. – TABERNERO GALÁN, C. – BENITO BATANERO, J. P. – DE

BERNARDO STEMPEL, P. (2011), ‚Nueva divinidad céltica en un ara de
Cuevas de Soria‘, Madrider Mitteilungen 52, 440–456.
SASTRE PRATS, I. (2002), Onomástica y relaciones políticas en la epigrafía del
Conventus Asturum durante el alto imperio, Madrid, Consejo Superior de
Investigaciones Científicas.
SCHRIJVER, P. (1991), The Reflexes of the Proto–Indo–European Laryngeals in
Latin, Amsterdam, Rodopi.
— (1995), Studies in British Celtic Historical Phonology, Amsterdam, Rodopi.
— (2003), ‘Athematic i–presents: The Italic and Celtic evidence’, Incontri
Linguistici 26, 59–86.
— (2013), Language Contact and the Origins of the Germanic Languages,
London, Routledge.
SCHUMACHER, S. (2004), Die keltischen Primärverben. Ein vergleichendes,
etymologisches und morphologisches Lexikon, Innsbruck, Innsbrucker
SEN, R. (2015), Syllable and Segment in Latin, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
SIMÓN CORNAGO, I. (2007), ‚MUKO · KAIKO, relectura de K.9.1‘, Palaeohispanica
7, 223–236.
SIMS–WILLIAMS, P. (2003), The Celtic inscriptions of Britain: Phonology and
Chronology, c. 400–1200, Oxford, Blackwell.
SOLIN, H. – SALOMIES, O. (1994), Repertorium nominum gentilicium
et cognominum Latinorum. Editio noua addendis corrigendisque
augmentata, Hildesheim, Olms.
STIFTER, D. (1999–2002), ‘A contribution to Celtiberian etymology’, Die
Sprache 41, 56–72.
— (2006), ‘Contributions to Celtiberian etymology II’, Palaeohispanica 6,
237–45.
— (2011), Review of G. R. Isaac (2007), Studies in Celtic Sound Changes and
their Chronology. On line: http://www.univie.ac.at/lexlep/images/4/4b/
Stifter_Review_of_Isaac _2007.pdf.
STUART–SMITH, J. (2004), Phonetics and Philology. Sound Change in Italic,
Oxford, Oxford University Press.
STÜBER, K. (1998), The Historical Morphology of N–Stems in Celtic, Maynooth,
National University of Ireland at Maynooth.
SZEMERÉNYI, O. (1960), Studies in the Indo–European System of Numerals,
Heidelberg, Winter.
References 215
— (1962), ‘Principles of etymological research in the Indo–European languages’,

II. Fachtagung für indogermanische und allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft,
J. Knobloch (ed.), Innsbruck, 175–212.
TIR = UNIÓN ACADÉMICA INTERNACIONAL (1993), Tabula Imperii Romani.
Hoja K–30: Madrid. Caesaraugusta. Clunia, Madrid, Consejo Superior
de Investigaciones Científicas.
TOVAR, A. (1954), ‚Numerales indoeuropeos en Hispania‘, Zephyrus 5, 17–22.
— (1968), ‚Eine indogermanische Gottheit aus Spanien, Peremusta‘, Studien
zur Sprachwissenschaft und Kulturkunde. Gedenkschrift für Wilhelm
Brandenstein, M. Meier–Brügger et alii (eds.), Innsbruck, 101–103.
— (1989), Iberische Landeskunde. Die Völker und die Städte der antiken
Spanien. Vol. 3: Tarraconensis, Baden–Baden, Koerner.
TURNER, R. L. (1962–66), A Comparative Dictionary of Indo–Aryan Languages,
London, Routledge.
UNTERMANN, J. (1965), Elementos de un atlas antroponímico de la Hispania
antigua, Madrid, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas.
— (1980), ‘Namenkundliche Anmerkungen zu lateinischen Inschriften aus
Kantabrien’, Beiträge zur Namenforschung, Neue Folge 15, 367–92.
UNTERMANN, J. – VILLAR, F. (1999), ‘Las «téseras» de Gadir y Tarvodurum’,
Pueblos, Lenguas y Escrituras en la Hispania Prerromana, Actas del VII
Coloquio sobre Lenguas y Culturas Paleohispánicas, F. Villar – F. Beltrán
(eds.), Salamanca, 719–32.
VAAN, M. DE (2007), ‘The etymology of Latin adulare’, Greek and Latin from
an Indo–European Perspective, C. George et alii (eds.), Cambridge, 140–
144.
— (2009), ‘The derivational history of Greek ἵππος and ἱππεύς’, Journal of
Indo–European Studies 37, 198–213.
VELAZA, J. (2008), ‘La onomástica personal en la epigrafía romana de la Meseta
Meridional: una aproximación’, La romanización en el territorio de
Castilla–La Mancha, G. Carrasco Serrano (ed.), Ciudad Real, 367–383.
VENNEMANN, TH. (1988), Preference Laws for Syllable Structure and the
Explanation of Sound Change, Berlin – New York – Amsterdam, Mouton
– De Gruyter.
VERSNEL, H. S. (1977), ‘Roman religion: three problems of methodology’,
Talanta 8–9, 119–55.
VIJŪNAS, A. (2009), The Indo–European Primary T–Stems, Innsbruck,
Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft.
VILLANUEVA SVENSSON, M. (2014), ‘On the origin of the Greek type νωμάω’,
Die Sprache 50, 44–62.
216 References
VILLAR, F. (1993–95), ‘El instrumental en celtibérico’, Kalathos 13–14, 325–

338.
— (2003), ‘The Celtic language of the Iberian Peninsula’, Studies in Baltic and
Indo–European Linguistics. In Honor of W. R. Schmalstieg, Ph. Baldi –
P. U. Dini (eds.), Amsterdam, 243–74.
VINE, B. (1993), Studies in archaic Latin Inscriptions, Innsbruck, Innsbrucker
— (1998a), ‚The etymology of Greek κώμη and related problems’, Mír Curad:
Studies Presented to Calvert Watkins, J. Jasanoff et alii (eds.), Innsbruck,
685–702.
— (1998b), Aeolic ὄρπετον and Deverbative *–etó– in Greek and Indo–
European, Innsbruck, Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft.
— (1998c), ‘Remarks on the archaic Latin «Garigliano Bowl» inscription’,
Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 121, 257–62.
— (2006–1), ‚Autour de sud–picénien qolofítúr: étymologie et poétique‘, Actes
du Colloque de travail de la Société des Études Indo–Européennes, G.–J.
Pinault – D. Petit (eds.), Paris, 499–515.
— (2006–2), ‚South Picene ímih’, presented in Montreal at the 137th meeting of
the American Philology Association.
— (2009), ‘A yearly problem’, East and West. Papers in Indo–European Studies,
K. Yoshida – B. Vine (eds.), Bremen, 205–24.
— (2012), ‘PIE mobile accent in Italic: Further evidence’, The Sound of Indo–
European: Phonetics, Phonemics and Morphophonemics, B. Nielsen
Whitehead et alii (eds.), Copenhagen, 473–504.
WAANDERS, F. M. J. (1974), ‘The suffixes –to–/–ta– and –eto–/–eta– in Greek
action nouns: The structure of nouns of the type θάνατος, κάματος’,
Mnemosyne 27, 1–6.
WATKINS, C. (1962), Indo–European Origins of the Celtic Verb, Dublin, Institute
for *Advanced Studies.
— (1971), ‘Hittite and Indo–European studies: The denominative statives in
*–ē–’, Transactions of the Philological Society 70, 51–93.
WEISS, M. (2009), An Outline of the Historical and Comparative Grammar of
Latin, Ann Arbor – New York, Beech Stave Press.
WIDMER, P. (2004), Das Korn des weiten Feldes: Interne Derivation,
Derivationskette und Flexionsklassen–hierarchie. Aspekte der nominalen
Wortbildung im Urindogermanischen, Innsbruck, Innsbrucker Beiträge
zur Sprachwissenschaft.
References 217
(2008), ‚Drei griechische *ōu–Stämme‘, Chomolangma, Demawend und

Kasbek. Festschrift für Roland Bielmeier zum 65. Geburtstag, B. Huber et
alii (eds.), Halle (Saale), 615–630.
WOU = J. UNTERMANN (2000), Wörterbuch des Oskisch–Umbrischen,
Heidelberg, Winter.
YAKUBOVICH, I. (2013), ‘Reflexes of Indo–European ‘ē–statives’ in Old Indic’,
Transactions of the Philological Society, 1–23.
ZAIR, N. (2012), The Reflexes of the Proto–Indo–European Laryngeals in Celtic,
Leiden, Brill.
ZAMORA VICENTE, A. (1989), Dialectología española, Madrid, Gredos.
ZIEGLER, S. (1994), Die Sprache der Altirischen Ogaminschriften, Göttingen,
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
ZIMMER, S. (1995), ‘Griech. εὐ(–) usw.: Ablautstufe und Wortart’, Münchener
Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 55, 157–71.

Excursus: - I-Lo - in Celtic Onomastics and in The Prehistory of Latin

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Excursus: - I-Lo - in Celtic Onomastics and in The Prehistory of Latin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

34 I.

The names of the Celtic Cantabri

Excursus: *–i–lo– in Celtic onomastics and in the prehistory of Latin

*“me“–i–lo–. It is not attested in Gaulish, but a number of Hispanic formations

Database Roma (http://www.edr–edr.it/); their photograph suggests <I> or <V> with

we know, epigraphic silence or, in other words, standard orthographic usage,

*~oΣðiðo– > *~oΣðilo– > *~oΣƀilo– > *iūbilus

‘contracts’. OI. abhi–dhānī (AV+), NAv. –aiβi–δāna– ‘(horse) halter’ are

5. Obscured Celtic compounds in Cantabrian names

ABASCAL PALAZÓN, J. M. (2010), ‘CIL II 4977 (Mondragón, Guipúzcoa).

— (1979), ‘La onomástica de la Celtiberia’, Actas del II Coloquio sobre Lenguas

BLEVINS J. – GRAWUNDER, S. (2009), ‘*KL > TL sound change in Germanic

— (2000), ‚Latin verbs in –ĭgāre and –īgāre’, 125 Jahre Indogermanistik in

— (2006), ‚Homme comme force, force d‘homme: un motif onomastique

GORROCHATEGUI, J. (2011), ‘Interferencias lingüísticas en el material epigráfico

HOFENEDER, A. (2013), ‘Apollon Grannos – Überlegungen zu Cassius Dio 77,

JIMÉNEZ DELGADO, J. M. (2010), ‘El instrumental de plural en los adjetivos

LG = M. LEUMANN – J. B. HOFMANN – A. SZANTYR (1977), Lateinische

— (2014), ‘Nuevas aportaciones al corpus epigráfico vadiniense’, Veleia 31,

MELCHERT, H. C. (2012), ‘Luvo–Lycian dorsal stops revisited’, The Sound of

OLCOZ YANGUAS, S. – MEDRANO MARQUÉS, M. M. (2008), ‚Revisión

PRÓSPER, B. M. (2004), ‘Varia Palaeohispanica Occidentalia. I. Lusitano TAVROM

— (forthc.–3), ‘Proto–Italic laryngeals in the context C‡HC– and new Italic

SANZ ARAGONÉS, A. – TABERNERO GALÁN, C. – BENITO BATANERO, J. P. – DE

— (1962), ‘Principles of etymological research in the Indo–European languages’,

VILLAR, F. (1993–95), ‘El instrumental en celtibérico’, Kalathos 13–14, 325–

(2008), ‚Drei griechische *ōu–Stämme‘, Chomolangma, Demawend und

You might also like

~oΣðiðo– > ~oΣðilo– > ~oΣƀilo– > iūbilus