T H E CENTRAL ITALIC LANGUAGES

IN T H E PERIOD OF ROMAN EXPANSION

COLEMAN
By ROBERT
1.1 It is generally agreed that the Ancient Italic languages divide
into three groups: one comprising Latin (La) and Faliscan (Fa);
the second Oscan (0s) and Umbrian (Um); the third - sometimes
called Sabellian2 - comprising the languages of the Sabini (Sa),
Aequi (Ae) and Volsci ( V O ) , ~all adjacent to the Latini (La),
beyond this group those of the Marsi (Ma) and Paeligni (Pa), and
away on the east coast those of the Vestini (Ve) and Marrucini
(Mr). It is with this third Sabellian group that the following study
is chiefly concerned: in particular with questions of affinity
between individual languages in the group and others either inside
or outside the group. The geographical distribution of the relevant
languages is indicated approximately on the map (Fig. 1).
1.2 Widely differing answers have been given to these questions,
as a glance at the table below (Fig. 2)4 indicates:
Buck and Pisan? apparently found insufficient evidence for
subdividing the group, which they labelled respectively as Sabellian and Dialetti Minori. Conway, Poultney, Maniet and Durante
all differ not only in their subdivision of the group but also in
assigning external connections for the various subgroups. Conways Latinian subgroup, for instance, included also Praenestine,
which most scholars would regard as an idiosyncratic dialect of
Latin, while the assignment of the Pa-Mr-Ve trio to Oscan, as in
Conways, Maniets and Durantes classifications, places them in a
continuum with the Oscan dialects of the Frentani or of Bantia or
Capua.

1.3 Mention of the Frentani raises a further question. The seven

linguistic units in Central Italic are defined by the tribal divisions
recognized by the Romans, but there is no guarantee that these
corresponded. The language used at Antinum, for instance, well
inside Marsian territory, is often taken to be a dialect of Voscian

COLEMAN - THE CENTRAL ITALIC LANGUAGES

101

Aurunci ( A
Carnpani ( C A j
Samnitc\ (SM)

Mor\r ( M A )

llcrnici (111:)
A rqur ( A t )

Sahrrir(SA)
Piccni (PI)
Vc,.>~rnt( V E )
f'aulfgrir ( P A )

Marnrc I P I I ( M K j

I1

I0

?(I

ill
I

JII
I

50
J

kin

Frentani ( F R j

Figure I

rather than of Marsian (see 85.6). Moreover some of the tribal

regions covered large areas and it is by no means certain how far
the evidence of, say, a single inscription from one place like
Velitrae can be justly taken to represent the language of a population as widespread as the Volsci. In practice I have eschewed
extremes of scepticism on these matters and have adopted only
one self-denying principle, namely to reject all data that are either
epigraphically ambiguous or have no generally agreed linguistic
interpretation.

102

TRANSACTIONS OF THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY

I Poultney

Conway [Vetter

IManiet

1986
Durante
Oscan

Sa
Ae
Sabellian

Ma

Umbrian

Umbric

vo

Volscian

Volscian

Pa
Mr

Oscan

North
Oscan

Ve

OscanOscan
Sabellian
I

Oscan

Figure 2

2.1 The Paeligni inhabited an area east of the Fucine Lake. They
were allied to Rome at the end of C4 and remained loyal until the
Allied Rebellion of 91-87 B.c., when their principal town Corfinium was the rebel capital. Unlike their western neighbours the
Aequi, who had received large Latin colonies at the end of C48
and were therefore in all probability Latinized relatively early, the
Paeligni retained their language epigraphically until C1.9 Of the
surviving inscriptions most are from Corfinium (V 21 1-215,
Po 209), Sulmo (V 202-210, Po 211-14) and Superaequom
(V 216,217). The earliest (V 210b) may be as old as C3, the latest
(V 209) is from c.50 B . C . Nearly all are short: the longest (V 213),
from early C1, has thirty-six words.

2.2 [1]12 A number of Pa lexemes have parallels in Oscan and

Umbrian but not in Latin; thus aisis to the gods (originally
Etruscan: Suet. Aug. 97); cf. 0 s AISUSIS (abl.) sacrifices, Um
ESUNES (abl.) rites. cusnar old man, medix magistrate and
solois to all were all specified as Oscan in Antiquity.I3 ecuc this
(fem.nom.) has the stem of 0 s EKAK (< *ekrI.m-ke)rather than 0 s
exa-c, Um esu (< *ek-srI.d).ip there = 0 s fp, Ma (ce-)ip,herentus
Desire (V 213) and puclois to the children show lexemes
attested elsewhere only in Oscan. fume1 slave is cognate with La
famulus, which is said to be Oscan in origin but may have been

COLEMAN

T H E CENTRAL ITALIC LANGUAGES

103

pan-Italic, as was the denominative verb *opes-& reflected in

upsaseter, the sense of which, to make, however, agrees with
Oscan and Umbrian (cf. #2.4[12] and 4.2). A few words are found
in Umbrian, not Oscan, but these also occur in other languages;
e.g. bium fresh spring (?) = Urn bia, Mr bea; et and (V204) =
Um and La et as against 0 s i ~ ipacris
~ ; propitiatory = Um pacer,
Mr pacris. The accidents of survival make firm inference hazardous, but it is remarkable that in so small a lexical corpus a
positive Oscan connection should be so discernible.
2.3 Paelignian phonology shares a number of items with Oscan
and Umbrian, e.g. the treatment of original labio-velars in p a m
and bratom (= La quam, gratum) and of the voiced dental aspirate
in loufir free (cf.n. 2 5 ) , the backing and raising of *cl and *d in
prismu, ptruna (= La prima, Petrbnia) and the syncope exhibited
in graex (= La Graecus: Po 208) and ponties, popdis, with *-ilos
> -iis > -ies; cf. 0 s P ~ N T I I S ,f e o n q , Um TETEIES.
[2] The reduction of consonant clusters shows a less tidy pattern of comparison. Medial * k s is reduced, as regularly in
Umbrian and sometimes in Oscan. Thus usur women < *uksores;
cf. 0 s USURS (acc.:) but La uxores. In final position both original
and secondary ks remain: sacaracirix priestess (= La *sacratrix)
and graex. Oscan and Umbrian tended to reduce both; e.g. 0 s
MEDD~SS (< *-iks), Urn uas (<*wkos)., but paradigmatic analogy
seems to have operated in 0 s T U V T ~ K S ,Um FRATREKS (< *-ikos)
and there may have been dialectal variation in Oscan, e.g. M E D D ~ S S
(< *-ikes V 115 Nola)I6 but ~ E ~ G E L(VE 196 Messina), though
these could represent diachronic rather than diatopic variation.
Paelignian in any event is more conservative than either language.
Medial * k t shows the same pattern of comparison as medial *ks:in
sat0 revered beside 0 s S A A H T ~ J M , Urn SAHTA (acc.fem.) <
*sa(n)kt-; cf. La sanctus. uicturei in the phrase Herclei uicturei
(V 217), like 0 s V ~ K T U R R Ato
~ Victoria (Po 16, Bovianum Vetus).
is recent enough to be a Latinism.
[3] Palatalization is attested in petiedu, uibdu (V 213 = La
Petiedia, Vibidia), where the local letter 43 is generally intepreted
as [dz] or [d3] from *[dj], and rnusesa (V 204 = La Mussedia)
where -sa represents the further shift of [dz] to [z]. popdis (V 212
= La Popidius), musedi (Po 216 = La Mussedi(us)) reflect the [di]

104

TRANSACTIONS OF T H E PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY

1086

variant -dios with syncope of *o. It seems that initial [dj] > [j], as
in Latin and Marrucinian; e.g. iouiois (dat.) belonging to Jove,
cf. Mr ioues, La Iouis (also late 0 s 1irv~ifor earlier DtljvEi). The
palatalization *[nja] > [pa] is seen in petruna (V 215 = La Petronia) and perhaps anaes (V 214), if this is the same name as aniaes
(V 215). There is, however, no trace of any change of articulation
in the velar stops; e.g. ecic (< *&id-ke), Loucies.
By contrast Umbrian has palatalization of * k before e, i and
;+vowel, e.g. Sesna, TICIT (= Lat cena, decet) and P u R r I N c u s you
will have offered (< *pordink&.s-s) and of n before ;+vowel in
SPINA, SPINIA COlUmll and RUPINAM, RUPINIE (Cf. La Rubinia); but
no trace of it in dental stops before [j]. The only Italic parallels
for the latter in this period are in Marsian martses (<*Mar@eis;cf.
OS MAMERTTlAfS with -=Ifor [tj]), Sabine C f U u S u S (< *Claudios)
and one dialect area of Oscan. At Bantia (mod. Banzi) we find
bansae in Bantia, and in initial position zicolom day (<*diekol o m ) and at nearby Rossano di Vaglio LoFqt (<*dl:ouei to
Jove) beside GtwFyc (Po 169, 167). Bantia also has famelo and
herest (<*famefja and herjest, attested in Umbrian), which presumably indicate palatalization of [l] and [r] before [j]; in which case
the absence of any examples of [p] from [nj] would be merely
accidental. Bantian meddixud (<*medodik@d) is comparable to
Umbrian, but contrasts with Paelignian treatment of ki+vowel.
The pattern of Paelignian palatalization is thus closer to Marsian and Sabine - so far as the meagre evidence from these
languages goes - and especially Bantian Oscan than it is to
Umbrian. But the parallel is far from complete and there is no
justification for regarding Paelignian as the epicentre for South
Italic palatalization.* In any event the intervening Samnite dialects of Oscan show no sign of palatalization, and the phenomena
discussed above are better treated as independent developments,
whether due to substrate or other causes.
[4] The loss of final d after long vowels and of final m , frequent
in Umbrian but almost unknown in Oscan, occurs sporadically in
Paelignian. Thus oisu (abl.) < *oissad (cf. La Gsu) and on V 213
dida may she give < *didad beside fertlid fertilely. -m is consistently written in V 203 (e.g. p a m , inom) but omitted in V 204:
sato < *sa(n)ctom.V 213 again shows variation between pracom,

COLEMAN

THE CENTRAL ITAI.IC LANGUAGES

I05

cerfum and deti <: deiueti(o)m; also praicime < praidiciome n , with loss of - n , as often in Umbriari but never in Oscan. It is
clear that the same causes that brought about the loss of these
consonants in Umbrian and Latin operated here also, but there is
no necessity to assume either a diffusion specifically from Umbrian
or - for the retention of -m - the dominant influence of Latin
orthography.
Phonological parallels specifically with Oscan include [5] the
retention of diphthongs, though there are a few apparent exceptions, notably in the treatment of ei and oi.
(i) ei: sefei to himself, eite go. If des and deli (V 213, 214) are
cognate with La diues rich, then they attest at least for
Corfinium a monophthongization2 comparable to that of
Umbrian and Faliscan.
(ii) oi: oisa (abl.) having been used, empratois (dat.abl.)
ordered. But uisis and lifar are problematic. In view of Mr
aisos and Ma esos (norn.pl.), aisis is unlikely to be a consonant- or i-stem dative (< ~ i s i f s ) .The
~ ~ inscription seems
to belong to the last part of C2, when the La thematic dat. pl.
was already monophthongized to -is; but in what is otherwise
a very un-Latinized text (V 204) the assumption of a Latinism
is implausible. So better take -is here as parallel to La -is and
Um -ir (< -cr < -eis < -ois) in uerir, etc. lifur (V 213) can
hardly be a Latin l ~ a n w o r d , but
~ it might just be a contamination of a native loufur (cf. 0 s LOVFRE~S of Liber) or
leifar by the La Liber.2s To take it as an impersonal subjunctive let it be pleasing (< *lubh-u-r)2h presupposes Latin
interference, since the change of ir to i here cannot be
assumed for any other Italic l a n g ~ a g e . ~More

probably
(assuming the form is not an epigraphic error) it reflects like
aisis the monophthongization of ei followed by raising, the
older form being preserved in des alongside it. Parallels are
regular in Latin (Iiber etc.) but rare in this position in
Umbrian; e.g. irer but erer, for which cf. 0 s E~SEIS.
(iii) ai: aisis and yraicime. aetatu life-time, which occurs with
pruicime on V 213, and anaes Annaeus represent the same
shift in the diphthong as La ae and 0 s ~ i ue.*
,
For iii see [7]
below.

106

TRANSACTIONS OF THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY

1986

(iv) au: pfauties (= La Plautius).

(v) ou: loujir and foucies (= La Lficius). Uranias 'of Urania' on
V 213 is sufficiently recent to be a Latinism.
[6] Anaptyxis, which is a familiar Oscan characteristic, is well
attested in Paelignian. unacetu (V 214) 'to Angitia' beside anacta
(V 207) and anceta (V 211), all < *ungeta- (cf. 0 s ANAGTIAI <
*ungetia-and for the anaptyctic vocalism generally 0 s ARAGETUD <
*argent6d); salauatur (V 215) < *salucit6r. V 213 offers two
notable instances: pristafalucirix < *prist@itrix 'assistant priestess'; cf. 0 s STAFLATAS (fem.nom.pl. 'set up'); and sacaracirix <
sacracrix,2y attested in Marrucinian, < *sacrcitrix. For the initial
syllables cf. 0 s S A K A R A K L ~ M < *sacratlorn and for the final syllables 0 s A A D I R I ~ <
S *Atrius, zicolom < * d i C k l ~ m . ~ "
[7] Divergent from both Oscan and Umbrian is the ci reflex of
* -at-.31
in dat.sg. minerua, anacefa, cerria. Most of the examples are
from Sulmo, all are relatively recent. Although it is found in the
Latin of S.E. Latium and of other areas, where it contrasts with
the forms current in the local languages, there is no ground for
assuming Latin influence, and the change, which must postdate the
raising and backing of older 1I in pvisrnu, etc., may have been
widespread in the Central languages.32
Another divergence from Oscan and Umbrian, shared with
Marrucinian (cf. [6]), is [8] the change *tr > *cr reflected in
sacaracirix. The [k] here could have been by assimilation to the
preceding [k] before (or after) anaptyxis,33 but this is less likely.
2.4 In Paelignian morphology, beside features shared with both
Oscan and Umbrian, like nom.pl. puus 'who' < *kW6s,3 pl. -ns in
coisutens, there are a few that are divisive.
[9] Abl.sg. aetate (V 214) agrees with the Um KAPIRE and La
cupide, lege against 0 s ligud. The inscription is recent enough to
permit the assumption of Latin influence, but there are no other
obvious Latinisms in the remaining eleven words. uetutu (V 213) is
either abl. (cf. 0 s ligud) or more likely acc. (cf. 0 s tunginom, Um
A B R U N U ) . aerate seems to point to an Umbrian affinity, but 0 s -ud
looks like a recent innovation and may have replaced the cognate
of aetute, viz. * A ~ T A T ( ~ )so
; the divergence from Oscan is not quite
conclusive.

COLEMAN - THE CENTRAL ITALIC LANGUAGES

107

[lo] The i-stem nom.pl. pucris, formed by analogy with nom.

-as and -6s,is paralleled in Mr pacris, 0 s A ~ D I L I S(Pompeii, Samnium) from -is as against T R ~ S(Capua) from *-&, which is also
reflected in La trds, Um pacrer.
[ll] A dental formant appears in the perfects locatinfs) they
put out to contract and coisatens they made arrangements for.
Parallels occur probably in Vo sistiatiens, certainly in Mr urnatens,
0 s DIUUNATED and PRUFAITENS. All the forms belong to the %stem
paradigm and have no parallel in Umbrian or Latin.
[12] The impf.subj.pass. upsaseter < *opescIseter (cf. La operaretur) indicates that Paelignian like Oscan and Latin did not
distinguish primary and secondary inflections (cf. 0 s SAKARATER
(indic.), S A K A < R A > H ~ T E R (subj.) with Lasacrdtur, sacrttur but Um
indic. HERTER, subj. EMANTUR).

2.5 Paelignian thus shows agreement with Oscan in some of its

phonology, [5] and 161, as well as in its lexicon, [l], and a strong
agreement in its morphology, [lo], [ 111 and [ 121. Of the remaining
items [2] is equivocal, [3] is shared with one area of Oscan, [7] with
other Central languages and dialects, [4] and [9] with these and
also Umbrian.
3.1 The Marrucini, settled in the region between the Adriatic
and the eastern slopes of the Apennines, were already allied to
Rome before 300 B.C. but like their kinsmen the Vestini and
Paeligni joined in the Allied Rebellion of 90 B.C. There is one
substantial inscription (V 218), dated c . 2 5 0 B.c., from Rapino near
the border with the Oscan-speaking Frentani. T o the brief V 219
can be added Po 204-206. The remains are meagre, some of the
data are obscure or equivocal, but a few characteristic features
emerge.
3.2 In the lexicon [ l ] some items have cognates in Oscan and
Umbrian, e.g. aisos gods (cf. 2.1), esuc of these (gen.) or thus
(abl.), reflecting either *eiso-( 0 s EISUN-K, Urn ERU) or *ekso- ( 0 s
exuc, Um
toutai to the people. !SpecificallyOscan connections are exemplified in agine on account of (cf. 0 s acc. pl.
AGINSS actions), eiruarn money and on Po 206 ecan this (fern.
acc.sg.). Specifically Umbrian are beu fresh spring (Po 206),

108

TRANSACTIONS OF THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY

1986

pacris propitious, also attested in Paelignian, ocres of the mountain andpedi anything (cf. Um PIRE but 0 s P ~ D U M ) .There is thus
much less of a bias towards Oscan here than in Paelignian.
3.3 A number of phonological items are shared with both Oscan
and Umbrian, e.g. the palatalization of *n before *! in k i n a
(Po 205); the syncope of *-iios in dies other (see 02.2); and the
treatment of original labio-velars in pedi (< *kid-i),which also
shows the hesitation between e and i resulting from the raising of
*[e.]seen in ni, Iixs. The raising itself is paralleled in 0 s ni, Iigud
and the graphic indecision in Urn screhto, screihtor (< *skri-; cf.
0 s s c r i f t ~ s )Here
. ~ ~ original [i.] remains, as in pacris, uenalinam.
Parallel with Oscan is [2] the anaptyxis and syncope in salaus
(Po 205) and with further syncope salas (Po 204); cf. 0 s salaus <
*salauos < *saluos. However, sacracrix (Po 204, 205), unlike Pa
sacaracirix, salauatur ($2.3[6]), 0 s S A K A R A K L ~ M ,is not affected;
nor is asignas cut portion^'^' (< *ad- or amf- + sek-na-),for which
cf. 0 s oeyovo (Po 175), S E G A N A ~ E D(Po 21), A K E N E ~but Um
acnu, etc. So the connection with Oscan here is only partial. It is
worth adding that the change [el > [i] in asignas recalls the raising
before [g] in Um cringatro and especially La signum (see 35.3151).
More clearly Oscan is [3] the conservation of final -m and -s in
eituam, ioues etc.
Against these can be set [4] the Umbrian treatment of final -t:
pacrsi < *pacrisit, ta[g]a < *tagut;cf. Urn si, FACIA. However final
*-nt loses the nasal, as in Oscan: thusferet they receive; cf. 0 s SET
and SENT, Um only sent.37
Some items do not match neatly with either Oscan or Umbrian.
Thus [5] the variation in the treatment of diphthongs. On V 218
beside eituam we find ioues, patres, ocres reflecting the gen.sg.
*-eis (cf. Um matrer but 0 s MAATRE~S),unless these represent PIt
*-es, which is reflected in Latin and Faliscan. On the same inscription we find toutai, maroucai beside totai. The remarkable graphic
variation in a single text suggests that ei and ou had already been
monophthongized, but - in contrast to Umbrian - recently enough
for the digraphs to be retained as an archaism. While the retention
of the diphthongs in the neighbouring Frentanian dialect of Oscan
(e.g. MAATRE~S, K A ~ L ( I S ) , L I ~ V F R E ~ Smay
)
have affected spelling

COLEMAN

- THE

CENTRAL ITALIC LANGUAGES

109

convention, there is no close source of influence for the monophthongal forms.

The situation with ui is even more obscure. aisos is clear enough,
but the forms of the a-stem dative pose a problem. V 218 has not
only toutai, peai, rnaroucai but also iouia and - on the usual
interpretation - cerie. -ai, -a and -e cannot of course belong to the
same diachrony. If -ai = [ail, then -e will represent its monophthongal reflex (cf. Um GERFIE against 0 s K E R R ~ A ~and
) , iouia must
either be meant for iouiai, with -i omitted at the edge of the
bronze, or less likely be an intrusive form (from Paelignian?). If
on the other hand -ai here = [a.i], then -a could be its normal
reflex and cerie either an intruder (from Umbrian?) or more
likely a locative, reflecting *-ai or *-ei. In view of the -6 dative in
Paelignian (2.3[7]), it is certainly tempting to take the second
option, but the question must be left open. For the possibility that
*oi also > 0 see n. 41.
[6] iafc these (fem.acc.pl. < *e&ins-ke) nicely illustrates the
phonological ambivalence of Marrucinian. For it has the raised
initial vowel of 0 s ionc, ~ A K etc.
,
but the Umbrian reflex of -ns; cf.
Um eaf, E A F with os ASS.^^
A few phonological items are not paralleled at all in either
Oscan or Umbrian. Thus [7] cibat (Po 205) < cubat, if it is not an
inscribers error, recalls nothing geographically closer3 than La
fiber < lubet and may similarly have taken place first in compounds. [8] rnedix (Po 206)40 shows retention of final [ks], as in
Latin and Paelignian (2.3[2]). [9] The change of *tr to cr in
sacracrix (Po 204, 205) is paralleled only in Paelignian (2.3[8]).
3.4[10] There are a few morphological items that are shared with
both Oscan and Umbrian: nom.pl. -6sin aisos41 and -6s in asignas;
-er in 3 sg.pres.pass. ferenter. patres also belongs here, if it reflects
+is, but divides Marrucinian from both Oscan and Umbrian if it
reflects -es (cf. [5] above). 1111 The cons. stem abl. agine provides
a connection with Umbrian, but also with Latin and Paelignian
(92.4191). On the other hand two items associate Marrucinian with
Oscan: [12] nom.pl. pacris and [13] the dental formant in 3 pl.pf.
amatens they decided, both also found in Paelignian (2.4[10],
[Ill).

110

TRANSACTIONS OF THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY

1986

3.5 Of the decisive phenomena considered above, [2] and [3]

show agreement with Oscan in phonology, [12] and [13] in morphology, but only [4] and [ll]respectively agree with Umbrian. It
is interesting that Paelignian shares four of these - [2], [ll],[12]
and [13] - together with two of the three phonological features (81 and [9] - that are not found in either Oscan or Umbrian. The
only exclusively Marrucinian item, [7], is of uncertain status, and
the remainder show agreements in both directions, as epitomized
in iafc.
4.1 From the Vestini the material is very meagre indeed: three
short inscriptions, V 220, 22742 and Po 207,43 all dating from the
period 250-100 B.C.
4.2 A number of Vestinian items agree with both Oscan and
Umbrian: the denominative verb *opes-& to make in &ens
(Po 207) they made (cf. 0 s UUPSENS, Um osatu let him make,
La operari to be busy); the change of *-iios to ils in Ebdies
(Po 207) < * E p i d i o ~the
; ~ raising
~
of 6 to zi in dun0 < diinorn gift
(cf. 0 s D ~ N ~ M
Urn
, flus a flu sure < *flos%ri(cf. 0 s FLUUSAf);
the reflex of [g] in brat thanks (cf. 0 s brateis, La gratus); the
reduplicated pres. didet he gives45 (cf. Um subj. dirsa, 0 s fut.
didest). All these are shared with Paelignian also (see 032.2, 2.3
init.). Iffifeltares is the correct reading on a Latin inscription from
Furfo (58 B.c.), then the intervocalic f points to a non-Latin
origin46 and the word can reasonably be attributed to Vestinian.
4.3 The only secure item that is shared with Oscan against
Umbrian is [ l ] the retention of -s- in flusare. On the other hand a
number of items agree with Umbrian. Thus [2] the reduction of p s
resulting from syncope in oSens < *Gpesenns; cf. 0 s UPSED, Um
osatu; [3] the change Vns > Vs in mesene; cf. Ma nouesede <
*nozynsedc?s, Um UZE, aseriatu beside onse, ANZERIATU and
MENZNE. The use of the same suffix -en- in the Vestinian and
Umbrian forms of this word is inconclusive without Oscan evidence. But if locatival functions had already been taken over by
the intrusive *-dd in Oscan consonant stems (with figud replacing
loc. *Zig from *Zi?gi),just as the ablatival functions had been by the
loc. sg. in Latin and Umbrian (cf. pede, PERI), then [4] rnesene does
indeed align Vestinian with Umbrian rather than O ~ c a n . ~ ~

COLEMAN -- THE CENTRAL ITALIC L.ANGUAGES

111

The presence of the diphthong in poimunien in the sanctuary of

Pomonus/a does not exclude an Umbrian connection, since the
word derives like Um PUEMUNES of Pomonus from *pouim-. No
data are available for the wider treatment of diphthongs in Vestinian. flusare could be either cons. stem abl. (< *loc. -i;cf. [4]) or istem loc. (< -*ei; cf. Um UKRE beside abl. U K R I < -*id).
4.4 Two items appear to distinguish Vestinian from both Oscan
and Umbrian. [5] Final *-s has been lost in data, assuming that
brat. data < *brcitcs *datcis (nom.) thanks given; cf. Ma nouesede
but Pa dutas, 0 s scriftas, Um U R T A S . ~[6]
~ herclo to Hercules
has the thematic declension, as in 0 s H E R E K L I ~ , Paelignian La
hercolo. This is not in itself conclusive since we have no comparable forms in Umbrian. But the dat.sg. -6,4y also attested in iouio.
is probably derived like La -6 direct from PIt -6i,possibly from its
Oscan reflex -oi,as in HrjRTrif (cf. La [oil > [Q-] (> [u.]) in curare
etc.), but certainly not from its Umbrian reflex -e, as in p ~ p l e . ~
4.5 Of the five items enumerated only [l]points towards Oscan,
and even this could be interpreted as reflecting an original
Umbrian dialect that diverged before rhotacism occurred in that
language. [6], which like [5] is an independent development that
could have started equally well from either Oscan or Umbrian,
also implies an early date for divergence, depending as it does on
the presence of -oi in the parent language. Items [2], [3] and
especially [4] agree with Umbrian; [3] and [S] with Marsian.
5.1 For the Marsi also the data are very meagre: two short
inscriptions, V 225 and Po 222, dating from 300-150 B.c., and
seven dialect Latin inscriptions included in V 228 and Po 219-224,
ranging in date from c.280 (V 228a) to 150 B.C. V 223, whose
attribution is disputed, is treated in 45.6.
5.2 In the Marsian lexicon esos gods has exact cognates in Pa
aisis, Mr aisos, and the root is represented in Oscan and Umbrian
(see 2.2[1]). Umbrian cognates are extant for pacre propiatory
or propitious (cf. Um pacer, Pa and Mrpacris); pesco offering <
*perk- (cf. Um PEKSKLUM, 0 s P E S T L ~ ~ M
temple). pucle[s to the
sons (Po 222) is paralleled in 0 s PUKLIJI, Pa puclois. nouesede of
the nine seats turns up also in Sabine and Latin (see 47.3[5]). If

112 TRANSACTIONS OF THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY 1986

ceip = here on the Latin V 228a, then it will be a Marsian compound of ce-, as in La ce-do give me, 0 s cebnust he will have
come here, and the reflex of *ikwe,as in 0 s ip there, Pa ip. It is
striking in so small a lexical sample how many items are shared
with one or more of the other Central languages as well as with
Oscan and/or Umbrian.
5.3 Turning to the phonology of Marsian, (11 martses (< *marriais abl.pl) on V 228a shows palatalization comparable to that of
Paelignian, Sabine and the Oscan of Bantia (cf. 2.3[3]). No test
forms occur in Marsian itself and the other Latin inscriptions show
no palatalization - Vetius,Atiedius (V 228) and Cisiedio (Po 218);
but La Marsus Marsian beside Martius of Mars suggests that the
palatalization is genuinely Marsian.
[2] Dat. sg. herclo, from an o-stem form, as in Oscan, Paelignian and Vestinian, is a direct reflex of PIt. -0ior less likely of the
-oi attested in Oscan. It cannot be in diachrony with Um -e (see
64.4). On the other hand, the treatment of *ei and *ai recalls
Umbrian. Thus [3] ioue to Jove, iouies pucle[s; cf. Um IUVE,
VERES gates (dat.pl.); [4]esos < * a h - ; cf. Um ESUNES, Ae state
but 0 s AISUSIS,
Pa aisis, Mr aisos. Both monophthongal reflexes
occur in the Latin inscriptions also, e.g. uecos (nom.sg.), iue (<
*iouei) and probably queistores with ei for [e.] from [ail.
[ 5 ] seino and seinq. (for seing.) statue, on two late C3 Latin
inscriptions (Po 223,220), < *sek-nom.La signum is derived thus:
[segno] > *[seqno] > [seqnu] a.013 [siqnu]; cf. seignurn (CIL I 42
Nemi) with ei for [el, singnijer (VI 3637), dgnurn (I2 2096a,
S. Umbria) with I for [i].52seing(no) would fit easily into this
diachrony; seino would do so only on the hypothesis of a dialectal
reduction of the cluster [qn] to [n.], for which cf. sinnu (CIL IX
2893, coastal Frentani). Reduction of the relevant clusters seems
to have occurred in Umbrian: *ko(n)-gnigatos> KUNIKAZ kneeling; cf. *nigrom > niru black with [nigro] > [niyro] > [ni-ru].
So seino may reflect a Marsian treatment of vowelSgn cluster that
is at least partially comparable to both Umbrian and Latin. 171 the
change of Vns to Vs in nouesede links Marsian with Vestinian and
Umbrian against Oscan (see 4.3[3]).

5.5 In the absence of criteria1 morphological items the affinities

of Marsian must remain obscure. Apart from [ 5 ] all the items listed

COLEMAN - TIIE CENTRAL ITALIC L A N G U A G F S

113

above are shared with one or more of the Central languages, [ 11

with an Oscan dialect as well, [2], [3], [4] with Umbrian.s4

5.6 It is appropriate now to look at the disputed V 223. This

inscription, dated c. 150 BC., is from Antinum, which lies towards
the north end of the Liris valley, down which the Volscians probably came in their C4 migration southwards. Though separated by
a mountain range from the chief area of Marsian settlement and
3-4 hours journey from Lucus (Luco), it was well within the
borders of what the Romans regarded as Marsian territory.s6 By
this date it is most unlikely that any earlier Volscian settlement
that may have survived there would have retained its language, but
substrate o r interlingual effects on the Marsian spoken there must
be allowed for.
The inscription shares with Volscian (V 222), Aequian (V 226)
and possibly Marsian (V 224a) the Umbrian onomastic formula,
personal + paternal + gentile names. [ l ] The form of cetur
censor, if it reflects *kens-tor (cf. 0 s KEENZSTUR)
with [e.nst] >
[e.nt] > [e.t], is paralleled for the last stage by 0 s AKAGETUD, Um
USTETU and Volscian La lubetes (I2 1531). All the other data in
V 223 have parallels elsewhere. Thus for [2] -ijs from *-izos in
pucuies Pacuuius cf. Ae pomposiies, Vo tufunies; for [3] medis
with [s-] from *[ks] cf. A e meddiss, 0 s M E D D ~ S S .
as in
Dat.sg. uesune shows [4] the monophthongization of
Ma esos, Vo declune. The same word together with dunom and
cetur shows [5] raising of earlier *6,59as in Vo declune, estu but
apparently not in Marsian, if esos in V 225 is nom. or voc.pl. Two
possible explanations are to hand. The first is that the variation is
dialectal; with uesune etc. at Antinum perhaps due to Volscian
influence or common substrate. Alternatively, since esos is
unusual among the neighbouring languages, all of which raised
original *6, esos nouesede (V 224) might be dat.pl., with -0s <
4 s . However, nouesede < *-iss < *-iJy is hard to accept,60 unless
the final sibilant has been omitted at the edge of the plaque.
Of these five items [4] agrees with both Marsian and Volscian,
[3] with Ma against Vo, [5] with Vo but probably not Ma, [2]
with Vo but without a comparable item in Ma, and [l]cannot be
tested against either. The linguistic criteria, as far as they
go, cannot resolve the dilemma, and if V 223 is to be assigned to

1 14

TRANSACTIONS OF THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY

1986

a (Volscianized) dialect of Marsian, it must be mainly for

geographical reasons.
6.1 The Aequi, who had in early C5 been as far East as the Alban
hills in Latium, received Latin colonies in Carseoli (Carsoli) and
Alba Fucens (Avezzano) at the end of C4 and were quickly
Latinized.61 Only one Aequian inscription survives, V 226,62
dating from C2, and there are two dialect Latin texts, CIL I2 1831
(late C3) from the area of Cliternia near the border with the Sabini
and V 228h from Alba somewhat later.

6.2 The Oscan magistral title meddiss is recorded but there is

nothing else to indicate Oscan connections. The unrhotacized -sof pomposiies, in the Umbrian onomastic formula po. ca. pomposiies Pontus Pomposius son of Gaius is inconclusive in view of
Um asa and esono. Reminiscent of both Oscan and Umbrian are
the reduction of *-ks to -ss in meddiss and the syncopated form
-iies for *-iios; cf. Pa ponties (2.3). Umbrian monophthongization
is paralleled in state to Stata (< *-riz), and in the dialect Laplostru
cart (standard Laplaustrum); cf. Um TUTE (< *-cli), toru (< tau-,
cf. La tauros). Aequian Latin has priuata, itur and dat.sg. albsi
(abbrev. for albensi) p ~ t r e showing
, ~ ~ both i and P from ei, as in
Umbrian and in the Roman Latin of this period.
6.3 There is a predominantly Umbrian flavour to this list but,
since most of the items are phonological, this does not entirely rule
out the possibility of Oscan a f f i l i a t i ~ n . ~ ~

7.1 The Sabini were believed in Antiquity to be of Umbrian

origin,65 but it was also from their territory in Central Italy that the
Samnites were said to have begun their southward migration.66
The Samnites called their new country SAFINIM (V 149,200 G 2),(j7
which like G k Saunitai < *saPn < *sabhn-; cf. La Samnium,
Samnit2s of the same origin. Sabini is the Latinization of the
Sabines name for themselves, *saPin6s (< *sabh-).68The link
with both Umbrians and Samnites invites the hypothesis that
Sabine was an important linguistic bridge between Umbrian and
Oscan, the language of the Sabelli (see n. 2).
7.2 Unfortunately the linguistic evidence is again meagre. There
are no Sabine inscriptions; V 227, classed as Sabine by Vetter, is

COLEMAN

- THE

CENTRAL ITALIC LANGUAGES

11s

probably Vestinian, V 512 Tiburtine Latin. The few pre-imperial

Latin inscriptions from the region (CIL I2 385, 1847, 1848, 1861)
yield very little. Thus [l] dat. feronia (< *-ui) may be non-Roman
Latin rather than an intrusion from the local language (see
2.3[7]). [2] que (nom.) and nuges (abl.) show the 2 reflex of *ei,
also found in Umbrian, Marsian, Volscian and Faliscan.6 It is
possible that in the last three of these the monophthong was
subsequently raised, as in Latin, to [i.], but the substitution of 2 for
lcertainly seems to have been a Latin dialect phenomenon in Cl.7
[3] heicei here < *hei-ce and suauei (< *sufiui(s))reveal [el as
an allophone of /e/ in final position, for which there is no exact
parallel .71
7.3 Loanwords and glosses72 yield a few certain data. Thus 141
nerio glossed by Gellius 13.23.7 as uirtus, contains a root attested
in 0 s N I I R magistrate, Um nerf (acc.) leaders but not in Latin.
The phonological shape of some of these words is instructive.
Thus [5] nouensiles of the nine seats or newly installed (see
n. 51) turns up as Ma nouesede and La nouensides. It was regarded
in Antiquity as a Sabine loanword in Latin. The Ild variation in
initial as well as intervocalic position (e.g. solium, lacrurna) is
generally accepted as Sabine in origin. There is no exact parallel
for the change [d) > [I], but cf. Urn ZEKEF, serse < *seden~.~
[6]
La dirus dreadful is recorded (Serv. ad Aen. 2.235) as coming
from the Sabini et Umbri. The cognates Av. dva2&i, Gk deidb etc.
indicate an original dueiros, which would yield La *bir- but Um
*dir-; cf. purdito < *por-duitorn offered beside pres. purdouitu
he is to offer.74
If, as seems likely, we are to infer from Var. L . 5.68 that [7] sbl
sun was of Sabine origin, then the otherwise puzzling fact that
*sduel (cf. Gk dtlios etc.) 3 La *saul or * s d is accounted for, since
Sabine like Umbrian, Aequian and Faliscan had 6 for original au;
cf. the pronunciation plostrum for plaustrurn used by the emperor
Vespasian, a Sabine from Reate (Suet. Vesp. 22.1).
Varro, who was himself probably from Reate, reports ( L . 5.97)
[8] Sa fedus for La haedus. The monophthongization of original ai
was in this period common to Umbrian, Faliscan, Marsian and
Volscian and is also found in the Latin dialects of these areas. 191
The derivation of fedus from *ghaidos is supported by Goth guits.

116

TRANSACTIONS OF THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY

1986

PIE *gh- > h- everywhere else in Italic save Faliscan; e.g. foied
today < *ghddigd. Whereas the change ai > e is recent, the
complex sequence of changes affecting the inherited voiced aspirates began in PIt. and the agreement of Faliscan and Sabine in this
item must therefore be more ancient, whether due to an earlier
period of unity or to prolonged c ~ n t i g u i t y . ~ ~
[lo] Safircus for La hircus goat is also cited by Varro, ibid.
The relation between this word and hirpus, which is variously
r e p ~ r t e d as
~ the Sabine or the Samnite word for wolf, is very
unclear. Either both fircus and (h)irpus are Sabine, reflecting
different roots, or fircus is Sabine and (h)irpus Samnite Oscan.
The two words would then be either cognates, derived from PIE
*gherk - which would imply that Sabine was dissociated from the
p-languages of the Osco-Umbrian group - or reflexes of different
roots, whether I E or not. [ l l ] -irc- here, if it does reflect -erk-,
recalls 0 s crniricatud, Praenestine La rnirqurios.
One final instance of Sa f - = La h-77 is fasena for harena sand
(Varro up. Vel.Long. 7.69), which also shows [12] retention of
intervocalic s as in Oscan. Festuss report that the Sabines nusum
dicebant (P.Fest. 8L) must refer to a period before the change of
au to 0,and if this was mid C4 or earlier, then the testimony is
inconclusive, since Latin and other rhotacizing languages, including perhaps even Umbrian, could still have had -s-then.78
In P.Fest. 456L: scensas (v.1. sensas) Sabini cenas dicebant [13]
the Sabine word cited looks like a garbled version of something
like Um Sesna. Within Italic only Umbrian and Volscian show
palatalization of the velar stop before the sequence front vowel
consonant. Finally the Roman Claudii traced their descent to a
Sabine Attius Clausus, as Livy (2.16.4) apparently called him. At
the date of his migration to Rome, 504 B.c., his name must have
been written Klaudios, whence its Latin form; but (141 Clausus is
attested in a Sabine Latin inscription of 150-50 B.C. (1nscr.It.
13.65). This palatalization of *[djJ (< [di]) recalls Paelignian, Marsian and the Oscan of Bantia. In contrast to [12] it does not
correspond to Umbrian palatalization.

7.4 These data present a complex picture. Only [l]and [2] have
any Latin connections, and these are with dialect Latin, in which

COLEMAN

TIIE CENTRAI, ITAI.IC LANGUAGES

117

the possibility of Sabine and other substrate or bilingual interference undermines their independent testimony. While [ 141 links
Sabine with Paelignian and the Oscan of Bantia, a large number of
the items dissociate Sabine from both. Of these [2] and [5]-[8] are
shared with two or more of the quartet Umbrian, Faliscan, Marsian and Volscian. [ I31 associates Sabine exclusively with Umbrian
and Volscian; [9] and perhaps [lo] with Faliscan. On the other
hand [11] agrees with both Marsian and Oscan against Umbrian
and Faliscan. So the picture is complex as well as fragmentary.

8.1 The Volsci occupied a large and never very unified area, and
the consequent tendency to dialectal variation must have been
enhanced by the numerous Latin colonies, including Cora (503
B.c.), Velitrae (494 B . C . ) ~ and Norba (492 B.c.). Velitrae provides
the only certainly Volscian inscription, V 222, a substantial but
obscure text of early C3. Two further inscriptions have sometimes been claimed as Volscian: V 221 from Tarracina on the
Volscian coast and V 223 from Antinum. Both are rejected here
(see 555.6 and 8.6), but another possible recruit to the minute
corpus is proposed in $8.7. Finally there are a few Latin inscriptions with dialectal features that may relate to the local language:
CIL I2 359,360 from C2 Norba, I 1531 from mid-C2 Sora, I2 151 1
from early C1 Cora. V 222 must provide the basis for any significant view of Volscian. The data that follow are all from this
inscription, unless otherwise indicated.
8.2 In the lexicon the meaning and therefore the etymology of
some items are still disputed. There is general agreement, however, that [ l ] esaristrom expiation contains the Etruscan root azswidely attested in Italic (see $2.2[1]); that uesclis is cognate with
Um VESKLES (abl.) vessels;81and that sepu is abl. of the participle
cognate with 0 s sipus knowing (< *sFp-; cf. La supere). Finally
medix (nom.pl.) attests the Oscan magistral title and toticu (probably abl.) the Oscan and Umbrian root tout- community. These
all exclude Latins2 without pointing towards a distinctively Oscan
or Umbrian connection.
8.3 A number of phonological items are secure. Some of these
are shared with both Oscan and Umbrian. Thus [2] the syncope of

1 18

TRANSACTIONS OF THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY

1986

*-ilos in tafanies and of [3] *-kes in nom.pl. medix, with retention

of the resulting cluster (see 82.3 init. and 121); [4] the raising of *6
in declune to Declona and estu let it be. These are also found in
other Central languages, especially Paelignian (see 82.3 init.).
A near parallel to [5]the fronting of U in bim cow is found in
Umbrian, which, though it has bum, also has sim (< *s@ < *sUm
pig).
[6] The monophthongization of diphthongs is very reminiscent
of Umbrian. Thus ai and *ei both > e: e.g. deue to the godd e s ~ cf.
; ~Urn
~ deueia (adj.) but 0 s D E ~ Vsepis
A ~ ; if anyone, where
se < *seior *mi;
cf. Lasei quis, Um SVEPIS, 0 s S V A ~ P ~ Dfrom*suai-.
,
*ou > o in toticu public; cf. Um todcom-e (< *toutico-)but 0 s
toutico. locina like iunone on CIL I2 359 (cf. loucina, iunonei on
360) seems late enough to be significant dialectally. The emperor
Augustus, who was brought up near Velitrae, is reported as still
using dombs for domUs (< *domous) of home (see Suet. Aug.
1.6, 87.2).
In line once again with both Oscan and Umbrian are [7] the
labial reflex of *k in sepis and [8] intervocalic f in tafanies where
*bh or *dh would be reflected by La 6 , d . However, [9] the
retention of final m in statom, bim is more an Oscan characteristic,
while [lo] the loss of final d after long vowels, in toticu, estu (<
*-bd)a n d f q i a (< *-ad)let him sacrifice recalls Umbrian; cf. Um
poplu, FACIA but 0 s dolud, FAKIIAD. Although the precise interpretation of arpatitu is uncertain, it is generally taken as an imperative
with [11] ar- from ad-, which recalls Um ARPELTU (< *adpeldetGd;
cf. La adpellitb) but also La arfuise and perhaps arbiter. In the
obscure [21] asif it is clear that -f < *-as, a distinctively OscanUmbrian change, even if the morphology cannot be more closely
specified.
The most striking item of phonology is [13] the palatalization
apparently represented by the 3 that is transcribed as E in f a ~ i a .
If this reflects *[kja-1, then parallels can be cited in Um FACU
beside FACIU to make, Bantian 0 s meddixud (< *-kjdd). If it
reflects *[kia-1, then only Um FACIA and TICIT are relevant. Either
way the palatalization follows a different pattern from Paelignian
(Q2.3[3]). The shortage of data prevents more detailed comparison, but it looks once again as if the phenomenon was independent
in the different languages.

COLEMAN - THE CENTRAL ITALIC LANGUAGES

11)

8.4 In morphology [14] rnedix reflects the nom.pl. *-es that is

common to Oscan, Umbrian and the Central languages, while [lS]
the infinitive ferom has the regular Oscan-Umbrian form; cf. Um
AFERUM. On the otl-ier hand [16] estu let it be agrees with 0 s escud
against Um futu.
More difficult is [15] sistiatiens they have set up or decreed.
This is usually taken as an inscribers error for sistuttens, a dental
perfect like Pa coisatens, 0 s P R ~ F A T T E N S , formed from a present
sistii- (cf. Gk histiimi etc.), with the reduplicative vowel generalized to replace *sest-, stest- or whatever in the perfect; cf. La
didici < *dedecei : *didcsc6. The confusion of ti and tt is more
plausible, given that V 222 follows Latin writing conventions,
since at this date geminates were not noted in Latin. But the first ti
cannot be so explained, and would be easier to account for - by
graphic anticipation - if the second ti were genuine. Analysis as a
denominative from *stati- (cf. 0 s STAT~F)would give a nice parallel
to La statuere : status; but reduplication is improbable in a denominative and there is no other perfect-marker in the
Emendation to statiattens would meet both these objections but would
presuppose even more drastic miscopying. It has also been suggested that ti could itself be a perfect formant, but this is unlikely
to have been reflected by 0 s f t , since prevocalic *[ti] > *[tj] > [ttj]
generally in Oscan; cf. MAMERTTIA~S.~We are left then with the
assumption of a double inscribers error as the least unsatisfactory
analysis.X6
8.5 Many of the items listed agree with both Oscan and
Umbrian: [l] in lexicon, [2]-[4] in phonology, [7], [8], [12], [14]
and [lS] in morphology. Agreement specifically with Umbrian is
shown in [ 5 ] ,[ 6 ] ,[lo], [ l l ] and especially [13], all phonological
and together with the Umbrian onomastic order8 responsible for
the distinctly Umbrian appearance of V 222.88O n the other hand
item [9] and the morphological [16] and [17] agree with Oscan and
are important enough just to tip the balance in favour of Oscan
affinity. But the closeness of the verdict makes Volscian a typical
member of the Central group.

8.6 Turning now to the disputed text V 221: the gentile name
Cloif(is)shows retention of the diphthong as in Oscan. Although it
is possible that oi survived in Volscian of this period, the general

120

TRANSACTIONS OF THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY

1986

picture of monophthongization revealed by [6] above makes this

unlikely and the use of the Oscan onomastic formula here, in
contrast to V 222, favours an Oscan attribution.8
8.7 The Lapis Satricanus, found in the 1977 excavations on the
site of the temple of Mater Matuta at Satricum, contains an
inscription dating from 525-475 B.C. which runs Iteisteterai pop[iosioualesiolsiosuodales mamertei. This has generally been taken as
Latin but the attribution is improbable. Satricum itself lies
between Velitrae to the North and Antium to the West, both of
them for long periods Volscian towns. It seems to have changed
hands between Volscians, Latins and Romans many times before
it was finally destroyed by the Romans in 347 B . C . ~
The first eleven letters have been variously divided.* For
instance aid]e iste terai a temple (acc.) in or for that land; en aid]e
iste terai in the temple here of Terra; eiste terai this (neut.acc.) in
the land. None of these is acceptable. en aid] requires more space
than appears to be available. Moreover in Latin of this date we
should not expect (i) the loss of -m in aidem or of -d in *eistid,
assuming that a cognate of Um este ever existed at all in Latin
alongside istod;(ii) tera- rather than *tersa- (> La terra-, 0 s tsra-);
(iii) the gen.sg. -as already replaced by -at especially in a
religious dedication; (iv) monophthongization in *istei or *istai. It
seems better therefore in spite of the unusual sentence-initial
position to take steterai as a verb they have set up preceded by
h]ei in this place or something of the sort.y3The form cannot of
course be reflected in La stetsre, which perhaps < -2ri (cf. dederi
on I2 37), but could itself be in origin a middle *-2rai (cf. Ved.
tasthire beside act. tasthzir), as 1 sg. steti is, at least o n the most
likely hypothesis (< *stestai;cf. Ved. tastht). There is of course no
parallel 3 pl. formation anywhere else in Italic.
Even more unLatin than steterai is popliosio ualesiosio of Publius Valerius, a form of the thematic gen.sg. that is reflected in Gk
-oio, Ved. -asya and most closely in Fa kaisiosio of Caesius.
Reflexes of -osio have sometimes been sought in the La pronominal US.^^ But *kwmio(cf. Ved. krisya) +s would normally have
given La *curius, not cui(i)us, since dissimilatory loss of the first
s, though possible, is somewhat ad hoc, and the change *-os!:os >

COLEMAN

THE CENTRAL ITALIC LANGUAGES

121

*-oiLos cannot be justified by *magicis > mai(i)or, *pedi6s >

pei(i)or. In fact -ius can be connected with -osio only on the
assumption of drastic and unparalleled reshaping.9s
It is remarkable that within a radius of 100 km. from Rome no
less than three separate forms of the thematic gen. sg. are attested:
-osio in Faliscan; -t in Latin Barbati, etc., for which cf. Gaul
Segomari, and Ven louki (beside uoltiio < *-esto); and the borrowed i-stem -eis in 0 s G A A V I E ~ Sof Gaius, Um uoiszener of
Volsienus. Now the thematic declension was relatively conservative in Italic: it alone retained a distinct voc.sg. and provided the
base for the retention of a distinct abl.sg. in other noun paradigms,
as well as exporting its own acc.sg. -om to consonant stems in
Oscan and Umbrian. That there should be such divergence in one
case alone is therefore all the more surprising. We can only
surmise that both -i and -mi0 reflect PIt forms distributed, say,
between nouns and pronouns, rather as La -i and -ius came to
be.
But even if we can believe that Latin of around 500 B.C. had a
nominal gen. -osio, which disappeared without traceq7 within the
next 250 years, whence came the -5 that replaced it? Certainly not
from the pronouns, which are unlikely to have had -I at this date
and then replaced it by -ius, especially if this was remodelled from
-osio itself. Moreover the reason for such a substitution is hard to
The only known language in which popliosio ualesiosio
would be at home is Faliscan.
suodales companions by contrast could well be Latin, the
earlier form of La sodales in fact, whether we derive it from
*swedh- (cf. Ved. svadhu, Gk Cthos) or *swed- (cf. Boeot. Gk
whedibtus) .99 The corresponding forms in Oscan and Umbrian
would have been respectively *suefal- or *sued& and *sofaror *sodal-.
Mamerfeei to Mars has exact parallels in 0 s pap&et&i
(Po 177)00 and Mamers, reported by Festus 150L, and in Sa
Marners (Var.L. 5.73). La Mamor, which occurs with the variants
Marma, Marmor, Marmar on the hopelessly corrupt Carmen
Arvale (I2 2 ) , is less likely to reflect Mumer than *Mauor or some
such archaic vocative of Mauors.
It is not easy to see how an inscription consisting of one obscure

122

TRANSACTIONS OF THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY

1986

word whose morphology is apparently unparalleled and three

others that would have been at home respectively in Faliscan,
Latin and Oscan adds up to a Latin text of around 500 B . C . or any
other period. A contemporary Latin version would have looked
more like hei steteri poplii ualesii suedales mauortei. There is,
however, nothing incompatible with a Volscian attribution: ei could
well have been monophthongized later, the form of suodales,
if it really is Latin and not Volscian, can be accounted for if
Poplios Valesios was a Roman visitor,"" and mid. steterai and act.
sistattens could well be from doublet forms of *st&, whether or not
they were distinguished semantically (cf. the Latin doublets sistere
and trans. -stare and the variation between active and middle in La
suspicere, suspicare, suspicari). Since the inscription is not in
Latin, there is a strong geographical probability that it is Volscian.
If so, then the complexity of Volscian's relationships is further
enhanced by the -osio gen.sg. and its quintessentially Central
status (Q8.6)confirmed.
9.1 Even on the very limited evidence that we have surveyed
here it is clear that the seven languages do not form anything like a
monolithic block. '02 There is in the first place the broad division
into Oscanic and Umbrianic. Defined in purely synchronic terms
as sharing certain of their distinctive characteristics with Oscan
and Umbrian respectively, these labels are capable of two separate
but not mutually exclusive diachronic interpretations. They may
imply that the languages so classified derive from dialects of Oscan
or Umbrian that have become detached from their original languages and de-/eloped independently. Alternatively their shared
characteristics may result from common substrate - as, say,
between Umbrian and Umbrianic - or prolonged bilingual contacts or population mixtures: all of them realistic possibilities in a
relatively small geographical area with considerable population
movements in the period 800-400 B . c . , followed by prolonged and
relatively stable settlement. Given these last three possibilities, we
may also envisage an earlier single Central Italic language, derived
from a third dialect in proto-Oscan-Umbrian and therefore sharing
characteristics from the start with both Oscan and Umbrian. This
language would be reflected to a greater or lesser extent in all
seven of the extant central languages.

COLEMAN - THE CENTRAL ITALIC LANGUAGES

123

9.2 Paelignian (52.5) is clearly the most Oscanic of the group. I t

is, however, distinct from the neighbouring dialects of Oscan
attested among the Frentani and the Samnites. If it is not by origin
a Central language that has undergone Oscan influence, then it
must be derived from an Oscan dialect that became detached from
the language and thereafter developed independently over a relatively long period. ' 0 3
Marrucinian ($3.5), though still within the Oscanic half of the
spectrum, shows more affinities than Paelignian with Umbrian and
the Umbrianic languages of the central group. As such it represents descriptively something approaching the norm for the group
as a whole, but the characteristics that it shares specifically with
Paelignian point to a common origin or prolonged bilingual
contact.
Volscian ($23.5) also belongs in the Oscanic half on morphological grounds - most notably the presence of the dental perfect,
which it shares with Paelignian and Marrucinian. It may be derived
from an Oscan dialect that has separated from the rest of Oscan at
an early date and been subject thereafter to Umbrianic influences
or it may with Marrucinian represent the last traces of a third
linguistic group that was from the start distinct from both Oscan
and Umbrian. If the Volscian attribution of the Lapis Satricanus is
correct, then Faliscan as well as Umbrian connections must also
come into the reckoning."'4
Starting from the Umbrian end: Sabine (67.4) shares much more
of its phonology with Umbrian than with Oscan, and a number of
these items are also found in Marsian and Volscian within the
Central group and Faliscan outside it. The loose unity of these four
languages, based as it is on phonological criteria alone, may be due
merely to geographical contiguity. The absence of morphological
evidence of the kind that enabled us to separate Volscian from the
Umbrianic subgroup counsels caution. Hut at least we can say on
the evidence available that Sabine is not to be placed in some
'Latinian' subgroup but towards the Umbrian end of the Central
spectrum.
If Aequian ($6.3) was originally a dialect of Oscan, it must have
been subject to considerable Umbrianic influences. It is better
therefore to place it within the actual Llmbrianic group from the
start. But this and the alternative hypothesis that Aequian

124

TRANSACTIONS OF THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY

1986

together with Volscian, Marsian and Marrucinian derives from

a third dialect of proto-Oscan-Umbrian distinct from both Oscan
and Umbrian can only be tested if more substantial material
including some criteria1 morphology is found. In any event the
Latinian label is again unjustified.
Similarly with Marsian (45.5): conclusions based on phonology
must be tentative but they point not to a Latinian but to an
Umbrianic affinity.
Finally there is Vestinian ( $ 4 . 9 ,which on the phonological and
very slender morphological evidence available appears to be
within the Umbrianic half of the spectrum. The alternative
hypothesis is that it is derived from an Oscan dialect that has
undergone Umbrianic influences. The parallels with the non-contiguous Marsian may well be relevant to the earlier history of
the two languages.

9.3 These c!assifications differ in a number of ways from those

set out in Fig. 2 (41.2). Sabine, Aequian and Marsian are still
grouped together but Vestinian is now added to them to form an
Umbrianic quartet. Volscian joins Paelignian and Marrucinian in
the Oscanic subgroup. These conclusions are summarized in
Fig. 3.
The relative geographical positions of the languages are indicated
by common boundary lines: thus Marsian is adjacent to Volscian,

Figure 3

COLEMAN

T H E CENTRAL ITALIC LANGUAGES

125

Aequian and Paelignian, etc. The spectrum of affinity runs from

the top to the bottom, with the thick line marking - more emphatically no doubt than the evidence warrants - the division between
the Umbrianic and Oscanic subgroups. The vertical ordering of
the languages indicates the spread from most Umbrianic at the top
to most Oscanic at the bottom: viz. Sabine; Aequian, Marsian and
Vestinian; Volscian and Marrucinian; Paelignian.
The tentative nature of the conclusions must be stressed. The
picture could be changed quite radically by any one of three
events: (i) a revaluation of the specific data from which the affinities are inferred; (ii) new and generally accepted insights on the
numerous controversial items that have been deliberately omitted
from consideration here; (iii) the discovery of a single substantial
inscription or a handful of small ones containing some criteria1
morphology from any of the seven languages but especially from
Sabine, Marsian and Volscian. An advance in any one of these
areas might help us to resolve the most important question of all:
whether, as implied in Fig. 3 , the Central group really does divide
more or less neatly into two or we should instead posit a third
language over against Oscan and Umbrian but sharing characteristics with both, out of which eventually came a central core
comprising, say, Volscian, Marsian, Vestinian and Marrucinian,
with the rest of the seven in various relationships with this core and
with Oscan and Umbrian. What is most unlikely is that new
information would actually reduce the diversification that we can
already see among the Central Iralic languages.

Emmanuel College,
Cambridge
NOTES
1. The earliest colonies outside Latium (Velitrae and Norba in Volscian territory) date from the early C5 and Rome controlled the whole of Italy south of thc
Arno by the mid-C3. T h e epigraphic data on which this paper is based belong with
few exceptions to the period 3Os-50 u.c..
2. Sabdli, etymologically connected with Sahini (see P7.1), was used in Antiquity of Oscan-speakers gcnerally. The first recurded occurrence of the name is
relatively late: Varro ap. Philarg. ad. Vg. Aen. 2.167. See Dcvoto 103-4, Durante
817.

126

TRANSACTIONS O F THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY

1986

3. The Hernici have left nothing and are assumed to have been illiterate until
their language was replaced by Latin.
4. cf. Conway 1897.l.xvi-xviii and 233-369; Vetter 140kh4; Poultney 1959.9;
Maniet 524; Durante 792-813.
5. Buck 3; Pisani 112-25. Pulgram 134 similarly leaves the group undivided,
cautiously opining that they are perhaps . . . more closely related to Oscan than to
Umbrian, but with an important proviso (see n. 38).
6 . The status of Praenestine within the range of Latin dialectal differentiation
will be treated in a subsequent paper elsewhere.
7. Liv. 9.45, 10.3; Diod. 20.101. For their origins see Devoto 110.
8. At Alba Fucens in 304 B . c . , Carseoli in 302 or 298 (Liv. 10.1.2, 3.3).
9. The linguistic relevance of the repatriation of Paeligni in 177 B.C. from the
Latin colony at Fregellae in Volscian territory (Liv. 41.8.8, 8.12, 9.9) is impossible
to assess.
10. References to Poccettis collection (Po) are always indicated, those to Vetter
(V) only where specification is important.
11. V 202 and 203 survive only in MS. copies.
12. The principal items discussed in each language are enumerated in square
brackets.
13. Var. L.7.29, P.Fest. 41 L; P.Fest. 110 L, Liv. 23.35.13, the title occurring
also in Ae and Vo; Fest. 372 L, 384 L.
14. P.Fest. 77 L. fumulus is re-formed fromfumul (Enn. A . 313). Um F A M E ~ I A S
(= La familiue nom.pl.) suggests that the absence of fume/ from Urn may he
accidental.
15. As also Aequian and probably Marsian (516.2, 5 . 6 [ 3 ] ) .
16. On V 153 (Bovianum Vetus) T ~ V [ T ~ K ] or
S T 6 V [ T k ] S is possible.
17. It is hard to make anything of the apparent contrast between cerfum (V 213),
with which cf. Um FERFE (see Poultney 1959.277). and cerriu (V 206), with which
cf. 0 s K ~ K R always
~ ,
assuming that they both directly reflect a form with *-rs-.
18. From just outside Italic there is Venetic IIUVANTSAI beside IUVANTIIOI
(Lejeune 1974 nos. 58 and 9, etc.).
19. Which may or may not include medial [j] > [dg], depending upon the
analysis of af ded. See Maniet 558.
20. Pisani 1954.117-19.
21. Porzio-Gernia 153-5.
22. Assuming that diues < *deivet-.The supposed etymological connection with
diuus (Var. L.5.92) does not take us far.
23. Umbrian unlike Oscan and Latin kept the two stems distinct: cf. FRATRUS,
sacris with 0 s TEREMN~SS,SAKRISS and La fratribus, sacribus (beside o-stem sacris).
24. Vetter 149.
.25. The relation of the theonym to * a , leudhero- free, *lubh-desire and */eibpour is notoriously obscure, as is the derivation of La liber free. Neither leiberei
(CIL I* 614), where the diphthong is probably authentic, nor loebesum (P. Fest.
108 L), where it probably is not, provides a normal reflex of p.It. *leu&-, for which
cf. loufir below.
26. Pisani 1964.116.
27. The vocalism of 0 s NFSSIMAS, Um nesimei, though relevant, is not corroborative.
28. N o need therefore to follow Poccetti (Po 208) in taking Gruex as a Latin
import.

COLEMAN - THE CENTRAL ITALIC LANGUAGES

127

29. For the view that this is the true Pa form and sacuracirix a false archaism see
Lazzeroni 1976.391-2.
30. La examples include pdculurn < *potlorn, gubernaculurn < *-&/om. La
*sacratlorn > *sacruculum, not sacellurn (< *sacra-lorn the diminutive), with which
the 0 s word is often equated.
31. O n which see Lazzeroni 1964.
32. For Marrucinian see 93.3[5], for Vestinian n. 49.The evidence in both is
tenuous.
33. T h e change *rl :
, kl reflected in Um P I H A K L U , La piaculurn is not relevant
since the motivation here is the velar articulation of 1. It is not certain that Oscan
shared in this change: the k i n SAKARAKLUMmight just he due to the preceding k and
PE.:ESSL.I~M(Aufidena) appears to be derived directly from PESTLUM (Bovianum
Vetus) without an intervening stage *-skl-;contrast Um pesclrr, perscler, if these
reflect *perk-sdo, not perksk-lo-. For tr cf. 0 s FKAPKUM, Urn FKATKU. etc.
34. For derivation from gen. *eis6rn-ke see Vetter 154; from abl. *ekscid-ke
Pisani 1964.120,
35. Thc possibility olgraphic confusion between I1 = e and I = i must always be
reckoned with at any rate o n V 218. regenfail, usually taken to mean for the
queen, could then represent riginai (i
*rc?gindi).But the meaning is uncertain, and
the word could be a gerundive (< regendui),with perfectly normal vocalism.
36. This word must have had wider currency, since it is recorded for Latin:
mignae xeia pEetl;opEva portions of meat (CGL 2.24.6).
37. There is no certain evidence for o r against intervocalic rhotacism. The
derivation of esuc is uncertain (see [I]); asurn < *assom a coin or *arsurn to burn
(supine); the Umbrian cognates of aisos have -s-;e.g. ESUNU divine (fem.nom.1,
esono rite (neut.nom.).
38. Pulgram 134 and 147 notes this important exception t o his cautious generalization on the Central group (see n . 5 ) .
39. For the change * U > i in Umbrian see Poultney 1959.37. It is not clear that
0 s castrid is relevant; see Buck 41.
40. Although perronr with -6-not-u- may he a Latinism. and perhaps even fec
also (Po 206; cf.Os fefirc-), it seems unlikely that the Latin form of a distinctly
Oscan official title would have been used in this region.
41. Assuming that aims pacris is not dative: < *aisois *pacrifs. If (oil > (0.1. a
connection with Oscan i s possible since 0 s ui could represent a midway stage [oil;
but Umbrian is excluded, since e - the Urn reflex of (oil. cannot be derived by way
of [Q.](cf. 84.4[6]).
42. From Scoppito: assigned by Conway (1.2.59) t o the Vestini, by Buck and
Vetter to the Sabini. Pisani (1964.121) is non-committal. For V 221 see 98.6.
43. aidiles. with d n o t f f r o m * d h , is Latin hut the rest of the text shows no sign of
La influence; cf. 0 s K v a i s s r u K , Um KvEsrRETiE in contexts that are otherwise
unLatinized.
44. The final of uerio Vettius (V 220) is too uncertain graphically to provide a
counterargument.
45. Pisani (1964.121) interprets as perfect with di- for de- from the present; but
we should then expect either *dided or *dide.
46. CII. I* 756. The most plausible analysis (Ribezzo 1923) gives a cognate to La
*fid&litaresthose pledged. Other probable Vestinian influences can be seen in the
inscription; e.g. a/& for alius,flusare (cf. [I] below) and perhaps the uncertainty in
distinguishing qu and c in hoiusque.

128

TRANSACTIONS OF THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY

1986

47. cf. Pa aetate in 12.4[9].

48. If the phrase were acc., which is less likely, then an Oscan connection would
be excluded (cf. 0 s *brafiss* d a m s ) ; but not necessarily an Umbrian one; cf. Um
*brati(f) *data(f).
49. Although dat.sg. -u is widespread in dialect Latin, Feronia in CIL I 1848
(Aquila) could perhaps reflect the native Vestinian form. For the Paelignian
evidence see 62.3[7].
50. The different reflexes of *oi exhibited in pople and K U K A T U . parallel to La
populi (nom.pl. < < -ei < -oi) and curaturn, correlate with original word-accent
position.
51. < *noyen-sed- referring to the augural fernpla. See Letta-DAmato 45-6.
The alternative analysis noy-ensed- newly installed, while it suits the Latin
contrast between di indigifes native gods and di nouensides, is harder to accept in a
Sabine or Marsian context.
52. Allen 71-3 interprets the tall i as [ I ] , but this makes the Romance developments (see n. 53) harder to explain.
53. There is no need t o assume palatalization of g here or in seino. much less
palatalization of n in the latter, though this is a possibility in dialectal La sinnu,
given the subsequent general shift of La [ignu] to [igu] reflected in It segno, Spseria,
etc. See Poultney 65, Poccetti 165-6, Marchese 215.
54. esos does not exclude intervocalic rhotacism, since Umbrian, which is notably rhotacizing, has E S U N U , etc.
55. See Conway 1.269, Kerlouegan, Pisani 124, Radke 797f., Letta 1972.33-4.
56. Kerlouegan 288 notes that Antino still belongs to the Marsica, the border of
which is in fact half way between Antino and Sora.
57. If pe.ui.p[] = Pettius P[ ] son of Vibius.
58. Marsian La inscriptions have dat.sg. -e, as in Vo, Ae, Um, and -a, as in Pa;
e.g. angitie (Po 221) but actia (V 228a, if this is the right reading); hence it is
impossible to decide whether *-ui > Ma -a or > (*-ai >) -e.
59. Marsian La inscriptions all have o: dono, Aplone (= Roman donurn, Apollini) - except 1 392 (Ortona), which has uesune.
60. The derivation from *-sedois (Ribezzo 1930.77) is implausible in the absence
of other Italic evidence for a thematic derivative from the verbal root sed-.
61. Livy 9.45, 10.19.
62. Conway 2.532 and earlier editors were sceptical about its authenticity.
63. For the variation within a concogdant phrase cf. iunone seispitei rnatri (CIL I*
1430) from Lanuvium in Latium.
64. Ogilvie 130 regarded the Aequi as a branch of the Oscans but without
referring to linguistic evidence for the assertion.
65. Dion.Hal. A.R. 2.49, citing Zenodotus.
66. Var. L. 7.28, 29, Gell. 11.1.5, Strabo 5.4.12.
S on three CS inscriptions from South Picenum; see Marinetti
67. cf. S A F I N ~ ~etc.
1985.
68. It is assumed that Sabine had the fricative reflex of -hh- rather than, as in
Latin, the occlusive one; but the evidence is admittedly not substantial, e.g. the
equation of the Sabine river name Farfarus with La Fabaris (Serv ad A m . 7.715).
69. cf. La priui, hic, diui with Urn P K E V E , Fa hec, Vo deue.
70. See Cic. de O r . 3.48; Var. R. 1.2.14, 48.2, citing ueha, uella, speca for uia,
uilla, spica.

COLEMAN

THE CENTRAL ITALIC 1,ANGUAGES

129

71. L:t here, sihe, qume for heri, sihi, quasi (Quint. 1.4.8 and 7.22) show a
reverse phenomenon: li] > [el.
72. For detailed lists see Vetter 362-78 and Bruno. Many of the words, e.g. cafus
and crepusculurn, contribute nothing to the present investigation.
73. For nouensiles itself see the ancient tcstimonia cited by Conway 1.357. On dil
doublets in Latin sec Leumann 128.
74. Not all the 0 s and Um examples cited are conclusive. Urn difue for * h i bhuiom folded double could he due to dissimilatory loss of u . Similarly 0 s
A K K A T U S for *ad-uok&os advocates could he due either to loss of u followed
by syncope of o or to a succession of syncopes: *-duok- > *-duk- > *-dk.
75. Fa he here ( V 332) beside J? (V 339a), if it is not a Latinism. must be a
dialectal variant - the sites are 8 o r Y km apart and this would he relevant to the
contiguity explanation.
76. See respectively Serv. ud A m . 11.785; P.Fest. 93L; Irpini.
77. It is difficult, as usual. to know who precisely the anriqui were in Festuss
fueduni untiqui dicehunt p r o huedo, folus pro holere. fosrim pro hoste, forlium pro
hosria (74L). The etymology o f liostiu is unknown; infolus andfostis initialf- < PIE
*gh-.as in fordrum for hordeurn, also attributed to nritiqui (by Quintilian. 1.4.14).
A Sabine origin for these f-doublets seems probable.
78. Ernout 73 1. claimed Sabine as the source for at least some Latin words that
preserved intervocalic .s; c,g. nasus.
79. Both said to have been Latin towns at an earlier date: Plin. N a f . 3.63, Catofr
58P and Dio 45.1, Dion. Hal. A . R. 6.42, Liv. 2.30.14.
80. For the fullest discussions since Vetter sce Untermann 1956 and Radke
779-96.
81. cf. Urn VESTIKAII! let him pour a libation. The vocalism resists connection
with La uasculurri vessel.
82. couehriu may reflect *ko-uir-io-gathering of men, parallel to La cciriu <
*ko-uir-iri-; but derivation from *ko-ueghe-sio- bringing together is phonologically easier.
83. Which indicates that the La dat.sg. loucina on CIL I 360 (Norba) cannot be
due to Vo influence.
84. So Wallace 96 against Radke.
85. See Untermann 125, whose preferred derivation of 0 s [tt] from *[tw]
encounters the same difficulty; cf. D F K R V I A K ~ M< *dekuiariorn. It is moreover
unlikely that a finite tense formant could have been created from a verbal noun
suffix like -fi- o r -at-, since even in periphrastic use with auxiliaries such nouns
would hardly have acquired specifically perfective aspect.
86. The relcvance of the obscure sesf.a.plens set up from a lost Parlignian
inscription V 202 is uncertain.
87. mu.ca.faJunie.~Maracus Tafanius son of Ciaius.
88. Hence Poultney 113-14 scts Volscian apart from the other Central languages
as being more akin to Umbrian than to Oscan.
89. Vctter inexplicably assigns it to Vestinian., Conway 1.269 more plausibly t o
Volscian. With the Oscan formula sfuris cloil.~.Statius Cloelius son of C. cf. thc
Umbrian one in n. 87.
90. For a detailed analysis of the text see De Simone.
91. Liv. 7.27.5-9. Diod. 14.102.4. See Ogilvie 332.
92. See, beside D e S h o n e , Peruzzi 348, Prosdocimi 189, etc.
~

130

TRANSACTIONS OF THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY

1986

93. cf. De Simone 74 f .

94. See Leumann 289, Giacomelli 142 f.
95. The derivation -osio > *-oiio > *-oii > -i (Pisani 1964.3445) is of course
preposterous.
96. The possibility of a similar distribution in Faliscan is doubtful so long as the
existence of Fa (as distinct from Faliscan La) -iis questionable. This objection also
applies to the argument (Untermann 178 f., De Simone 83), that Faliscan had gen.
-i, possessive -osio, which is further weakened by the absence of any relevant
parallel for such a functional distinction. For further discussion see Bonfante.
97. Unless it is reflected in Mettoeo Fufetioeo or whatever the correct restoration
is of the corrupt Ennian phrase cited at Quint. 1.5.12. It might not have been
beyond the experimental audacity of Ennius to import something like Mettostoque Fufetiosio or an Homerized version of it, Mettoioque Fufetioio, to characterize the dictator of Alba, whose name anyway is distinctly unLatin; cf. *Fudetius or
Hubetius.
98. The suggestion (Peruzzi 346) that after rhotacism *-orio would be insufficiently distinct in ordinary speech from adjectival -6rios is unconvincing in itself
and entails an improbably recent date for the replacement.
99. The first, accepted by Walde-Hofmann, is doubted by Mayrhofer (s.v.
.rvadha); the second is favoured by Benveniste 1.328 f.
100. From Rossano di Vaglio; see Lejeune 1972.403. MAMERTTIA~S was already
attested at Capua (V 84) etc.
101. Most historians seem content to identify him with P.Valerius Publicola,
suffect consul in 509 B . C .
102. On the diversified continuum represented by the seven see Wallace 99.
103. cf. Von Planta 1.20, Lazzeroni 1976.389. The latters earlier suggestion
(1964.73 f . , followed at least in general terms by Campanile 10.5 f., 117), that apart
from the archaizing V 213 Paelignian was Latinized at an early date, is not
convincing. Of the data cited both palatalization and anaptyxis are found outside
V 213 (see S2.3[3] and [6]), there are no a-stem datsg. forms in V 213 to set beside
-u elsewhere (02.3[7]), and cerfum and uetute are inconclusive (see n. 17 and
S2.4[9]).
104. The status of Faliscan vis-d-vis Latin, Umbrian and the Central languages
will be the subject of a later paper elsewhere.
105. For the grouping of Aequi, Marsi and Volsci see Letta 1972.35.

REFERENCES
(Abbreviations as in LAnnte Philologique)
ALLEN,W. S . , 197g2. Vox Lurina: A Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Latin,
Cambridge.
BENVENISTE,
E.. 1969. Le Vocubuluire des Institutions Indo-Europkenes, Paris.
G . , 1978. La nuova iscrizione di Satricum e il genitivo in -osio, R A L
BONFANTE,
33, 269-72.
BRUNO,
M. G., 1961-1962. I Sabini e la loro lingua, RIL 95,501-44; 96, 413-42,
565-640.
BUCK,C . D . , 1929. A Grammar of Oscan and Umbrian, Boston.
CAMPANILE,
E . 1978. La diaspora italica, in La Culturu Iralica (= Orientamenti
Linguistici 5 ) , Pisa.

COLEMAN - THE CENTRAL ITALIC LANGUAGES

131

CONWAY,
R. S., 1897. The Italic Dialects. Cambridge.
DE S i M o N E , C.. 1980. Laspetto linguistico, in C. M. Stibbe and others, Lapis
Satricanus, s-Gravenhage, 7 1-94,
DEVOTO,
G.. 1967. Gli Antichi Italici, Firenze.
DIIRANTE.,
M . , 1978. I Dialetti Medio-Italici, in A. L. Prosdocimi (ed.), Lingue e
Dialetti (= Popoli e Civilta dellItalia Antica, vol. 6), Rome, 789-824.
ERNOUT,
A , , 1909. Les Eliments Dialectaux du Vocabulaire Latin, Paris.
GIACOMELLI.
G., 1963. La Lingua Falisca, Firenze.
K ~ R L O U ~ GF.,
AN
, Le parler dAntinum: Marse ou Volsque?R E A 60.280-9.
1958.
LAZ.ZERONI,
R., 1964. 11 dativo sabellico in -a, SSL 4, 65-86.
LAZZERONI,
R . , 1976. Differenze linguistiche nel territorio dellAbruzzo e del
Molise in epoca Italica, in Scritti in onore di Giuliano Bonfante, Brescia.
1.389-99.
LPJEUNE.
M., 1972. Inscriptions de Rossano di Vaglio 1972, R A L 8.27, 399-414.
LEJEUNE.
M., 1974. Manuel de la Langue Vbnete. Heidelberg.
LF.TTA,C . , 1972. I Mursi e il Fucino nellAntichita. Milano.
LEVA, C . , 1976. Dialetti italici minori: Marso, SE 44, 275-81.
LETTA,C . and DAMAI-0,S., 1975. Epigrafia della Regione dei Marsi, Milano.
LEUMANN,
M., 1963. Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre (= Leumann-HofmannSzantyr. Lateinische Grammatik I), Miinchen.
MANIET, A, , 1972. La linguistique italique, in Aufstieg und Niedergang der
rdmischen Welt (ed. I H . Temporini), 1.2, 522-92.
MARCHESE,
M. P., 1978. Marso seino = latino signum, SE 46, 213-21.
M A R I N E T T I , A., 1985. 1,e iscrizioni sudpicene, I : Testi, Florence.
OGI LVI E,
R. M.. 1970. A Commentary on Livy Books I-5, Oxford.
PERUZZI,
E., 1978. On the Satricum inscription, PP 33, 34650.
PISANI,
V., 1954. Palatalizzazioni osche et latine, A G I 39, 112-19.
PISANI,
V., 1064. Le Lingue dellltalia Antica olrre il Latino (= Manuale Storico
della Lingua Latina vol. 4), Torino.
Nuovi Documenti Italici (= Orientamenti Linguistici 8 ) , Pisa.
P o c c ~ ~P.,
~ r1979.
,
PORZIO( ~ E R N IMARIA
A,
L., 1974. Contributi metodologici alio studio del latino
arcaico. La sorte di M e D finale, M A L 17.4.
POULTNFY,
J . W., 1951. Volscians and Umbrians, AJP 72, 11-3-27.
P O U L T N ~J.YW
, . , 1959. The Bronze Tables of Iguvium, Baltimore.
PROSDOCIMI,
A. L., 1979. Studi sul Latino arcaico, SE 47, 173-221.
PULGKAM,
E . , 1978. Itulic, Latin, Italian, Heidelberg.
RADKE,G . , 1961. Volsci, Real-Encyclopadie 9A1, 773-827.
RIBEZZO.
F., 1923. FIFELTARES, RICZ 7, 180.
RIBEZZO,
F.. 1930. Roma delle origini, Sabini e Sabelli, RIG1 14, 59-99.
UNTERMANN,
J . , 1956. Die Bronzetafel von Velletri, I F 62, 12S35.
U N I t K M A N N , J . , rev. GIACOMELLI,
1964. La Lingua Falisca, GCA 216, 171-82.
VETEK, E., 1953. Handbuch der italischen Dialekte, Heidelberg.
V O N PLANTA. R., 1892-97.
Grammatik der oskisch-umhrischen Dialekte,
Strasshurg.
WALLACE,
R . , 1985. Volscian sistiatiens, G1 63. 93-101.