OLD LATIN, also known as EARLY LATIN or ARCHAIC LATIN, refers to the Latin language in the period before 75 BC: before the age of Classical Latin . In New and Contemporary Latin , it is called _PRISCA LATINITAS_ ("ancient Latin") rather than _vetus Latina_ ("old Latin"), as _vetus Latina_ is used to refer to a set of Biblical texts .
The use of "old", "early" and "archaic" has been standard in publications of Old Latin writings since at least the 18th century. The definition is not arbitrary, but the terms refer to writings with spelling conventions and word forms not generally found in works written under the Roman Empire . This article presents some of the major differences.
The earliest known specimen of the Latin language is from the Praeneste fibula . A new analysis performed in 2011 declared it to be genuine "beyond any reasonable doubt" and dating from the Orientalizing period , in the first half of the seventh century BC.
* 1 Philological constructs
* 1.1 The old-time language * 1.2 The four Latins of Isidore * 1.3 Old Latin
* 2 Corpus
* 2.1 Fragments and inscriptions * 2.2 Works of literature
* 3 Script * 4 Orthography
* 5 Phonology
* 5.1 Stress * 5.2 Vowels and diphthongs * 5.3 Consonants
* 6 Morphology
* 6.1 Nouns
* 6.1.1 First declension (a) * 6.1.2 Second declension (o) * 6.1.3 Third declension (consonant/i) * 6.1.4 Fourth declension (u) * 6.1.5 Fifth declension (e)
* 6.2 Personal pronouns * 6.3 Relative pronoun
* 6.4 Verbs
* 6.4.1 Old present and perfects
* 7 See also * 8 References * 9 Bibliography * 10 External links
THE OLD-TIME LANGUAGE
The concept of Old Latin (_Prisca Latinitas_) is as old as the concept of Classical Latin, both dating to at least as early as the late Roman Republic . In that time period Cicero , along with others, noted that the language he used every day, presumably the upper-class city Latin, included lexical items and phrases that were heirlooms from a previous time, which he called _verborum vetustas prisca_, translated as "the old age/time of language."
During the classical period, _Prisca Latinitas_, _Prisca Latina_ and other idioms using the adjective always meant these remnants of a previous language, which, in the Roman philology, was taken to be much older in fact than it really was. _Viri prisci_, "old-time men," were the population of Latium before the founding of Rome .
THE FOUR LATINS OF ISIDORE
In the Late Latin period, when Classical Latin was behind them, the Latin- and Greek-speaking grammarians were faced with multiple phases, or styles, within the language. Isidore of Seville reports a classification scheme that had come into existence in or before his time: "the four Latins" (_"Latinas autem linguas quatuor esse quidam dixerunt"_). They were _Prisca_, spoken before the founding of Rome, when Janus and Saturn ruled Latium , to which he dated the _Carmen Saliare _; _Latina_, dated from the time of king Latinus , in which period he placed the laws of the Twelve Tables ; _Romana_, essentially equal to Classical Latin; and _Mixta_, "mixed" Classical Latin and Vulgar Latin , which is known today as Late Latin . The scheme persisted with little change for some thousand years after Isidore.
In 1874, John Wordsworth used this definition: "By Early Latin I understand Latin of the whole period of the Republic, which is separated very strikingly, both in tone and in outward form, from that of the Empire."
Although the differences are striking and can be easily identified by Latin readers, they are not such as to cause a language barrier. Latin speakers of the empire had no reported trouble understanding Old Latin, except for the few texts that must date from the time of the kings , mainly songs. Thus, the laws of the Twelve Tables from the early Republic were comprehensible, but the _ Carmen Saliare _, probably written under Numa Pompilius , was not entirely (and still remains unclear).
An opinion concerning Old Latin, of a Roman man of letters in the middle Republic, survives: the historian, Polybius , read "the first treaty between Rome and Carthage", which he says "dates from the consulship of Lucius Junius Brutus and Marcus Horatius, the first consuls after the expulsion of the kings." Knowledge of the early consuls is somewhat obscure, but Polybius also states that the treaty was formulated 28 years after Xerxes I crossed into Greece; that is, in 452 BC, about the time of the Decemviri , when the constitution of the Roman Republic was being defined. Polybius says of the language of the treaty "the ancient Roman language differs so much from the modern that it can only be partially made out, and that after much application by the most intelligent men".
There is no sharp distinction between Old Latin, as it was spoken for most of the Republic, and Classical Latin, but the earlier grades into the later. The end of the republic was too late a termination for compilers after Wordsworth; Charles Edwin Bennett said, "'Early Latin' is necessarily a somewhat vague term ... Bell, _De locativi in prisca Latinitate vi et usu_, Breslau, 1889, sets the later limit at 75 BC. A definite date is really impossible, since archaic Latin does not terminate abruptly, but continues even down to imperial times." Bennett's own date of 100 BC did not prevail but rather Bell's 75 BC became the standard as expressed in the four-volume Loeb Library and other major compendia. Over the 377 years from 452 to 75 BC, Old Latin evolved from being partially comprehensible by classicists with study to being easily read by scholars.
The Praeneste Fibula, the earliest known specimen of the Latin language and date from the first half of the seventh century BC. The Forum inscription, one of the oldest known Latin inscriptions. It is written boustrophedon , albeit irregularly. From a rubbing by Domenico Comparetti .
Old Latin authored works began in the 3rd century BC. These are complete or nearly complete works under their own name surviving as manuscripts copied from other manuscripts in whatever script was current at the time. In addition are fragments of works quoted in other authors.
Numerous inscriptions placed by various methods (painting, engraving, embossing) on their original media survive just as they were except for the ravages of time. Some of these were copied from other inscriptions. No inscription can be earlier than the introduction of the Greek alphabet into Italy but none survive from that early date. The imprecision of archaeological dating makes it impossible to assign a year to any one inscription, but the earliest survivals are probably from the 6th century BC. Some texts, however, that survive as fragments in the works of classical authors, had to have been composed earlier than the republic, in the time of the monarchy . These are listed below.
FRAGMENTS AND INSCRIPTIONS
Notable Old Latin fragments with estimated dates include:
* The Carmen Saliare (chant put forward in classical times as having been sung by the Salian brotherhood formed by Numa Pompilius , approximate date 700 BC) * The Praeneste fibula (date from first half of the seventh century BC.) * The Forum inscription (_illustration, right_ c. 550 BC under the monarchy) * The Duenos inscription (c. 500 BC) * The Castor-Pollux dedication (c. 500 BC) * The Garigliano Bowl (c. 500 BC) * The Lapis Satricanus (early 5th century BC) * The preserved fragments of the laws of the Twelve Tables (traditionally, 449 BC, attested much later) * The Tibur pedestal (c. 400 BC)
* The Scipionum Elogia
* Epitaph of Lucius Cornelius Scipio Barbatus (c. 280 BC) * Epitaph of Lucius Cornelius Scipio (consul 259 BC) * Epitaph of Publius Cornelius Scipio P.f. P.n. Africanus (died about 170 BC)
WORKS OF LITERATURE
The authors are as follows:
* Lucius Livius Andronicus (c. 280/260 BC — c. 200 BC), translator, founder of Roman drama * Gnaeus Naevius (c. 264 — 201 BC), dramatist, epic poet * Titus Maccius Plautus (c. 254 — 184 BC), dramatist, composer of comedies * Quintus Ennius (239 — c. 169 BC), poet * Marcus Pacuvius (c. 220 — 130 BC), tragic dramatist, poet * Statius Caecilius (220 — 168/166 BC), comic dramatist * Publius Terentius Afer (195/185 — 159 BC), comic dramatist * Quintus Fabius Pictor (3rd century BC), historian * Lucius Cincius Alimentus (3rd century BC), military historian * Marcius Porcius Cato (234 — 149 BC), generalist, topical writer * Gaius Acilius (2nd century BC), historian * Lucius Accius (170 — c. 86 BC), tragic dramatist, philologist * Gaius Lucilius (c. 160s — 103/102 BC), satirist * Quintus Lutatius Catulus (2nd century BC), public officer, epigrammatist * Aulus Furius Antias (2nd century BC), poet * Gaius Julius Caesar Strabo Vopiscus (130 BC — 87 BC), public officer, tragic dramatist * Lucius Pomponius Bononiensis (2nd century BC), comic dramatist, satirist * Lucius Cassius Hemina (2nd century BC), historian * Lucius Calpurnius Piso Frugi (2nd century BC), historian * Manius Manilius (2nd century BC), public officer, jurist * Lucius Coelius Antipater (2nd century BC), jurist, historian * Publius Sempronius Asellio (158 BC — after 91 BC), military officer, historian * Gaius Sempronius Tuditanus (2nd century BC), jurist * Lucius Afranius (2nd pronunciation is thought to be essentially as in classical Latin:
* Single for double consonants: _Marcelus_ for _Marcellus_ * Double vowels for long vowels: _aara_ for _āra_ * q for c before u: _pequnia_ for _pecunia_ * c for g: _Caius_ for _Gaius_
These differences did not necessarily run concurrently with each other and were not universal; that is, c was used for both c and g.
Old Latin had a strong stress on the first syllable of a word until about 250 BC. All syllables other than the first were unstressed and were subjected to greater amounts of phonological weakening. Starting around that year, the Classical Latin stress system began to develop. It passed through at least one intermediate stage, found in Plautus , in which the stress occurred on the fourth last syllable in four-syllable words with all short syllables.
VOWELS AND DIPHTHONGS
Most original PIE diphthongs were preserved in stressed syllables, including /ai/ (later _ae_); /ei/ (later _ī_); /oi/ (later _ū_, or sometimes _oe_); /ou/ (from PIE /eu/ and /ou/; later _ū_).
The Old Latin diphthong _ei_ evolves in stages: _ei_ > _ẹ̄_ > _ī_. The intermediate sound _ẹ̄_ was simply written _e_ but must have been distinct from the normal long vowel _ē_ because _ẹ̄_ subsequently merged with _ī_ while _ē_ did not. It is generally thought that _ẹ̄_ was a higher sound than _e_ (e.g. perhaps vs. during the time when both sounds existed). Even after the original vowel /ei/ had merged with _ī_, the old spelling _ei_ continued to be used for a while, with the result that _ei_ came to stand for _ī_ and began to be used in the spelling of original occurrences of _ī_ that did not evolve from _ei_ (e.g. in the genitive singular _-ī_, which is always spelled _-i_ in the oldest inscriptions but later on can be spelled either _-i_ or _-ei_).
In unstressed syllables, *oi and *ai had already merged into _ei_ by historic times (except for one possible occurrence of _poploe_ for _populī_ "people" in a late manuscript of one of the early songs). This eventually evolved to _ī_ according to the process described above.
Old Latin often had different short vowels than Classical Latin, reflecting sound changes that had not yet taken place. For example, the very early Duenos inscription has the form _duenos_ "good", later found as _duonos_ and still later _bonus_. A countervailing change _wo_ > _we_ occurred around 150 BC in certain contexts, and many earlier forms are found (e.g. earlier _votō, voster, vorsus_ vs. later _vetō, vester, versus_).
Old Latin frequently preserves original PIE (Proto-Indo-European ) thematic case endings _-os _ and _-om _ (later _-us_ and _-um_).
Intervocalic /s/ (pronounced ) was preserved up through 350 BC or so, at which point it changed into /r/ (called rhotacism ). This rhotacism had implications for declension: early classical Latin, _honos_, _honoris_ (from _honos_, _honoses_); later Classical (by analogy ) _honor_, _honoris_ ("honor"). Some Old Latin texts preserve /s/ in this position, such as the Carmen Arvale 's _lases_ for _lares _. Later instances of single /s/ between vowels are mostly due either to reduction of early /ss/ after long vowels or diphthongs; borrowings; or late reconstructions.
There are many unreduced clusters, e.g. _iouxmentom_ (later _iūmentum_, "beast of burden"); _losna_ (later _lūna_, "moon") < *_lousna_ < */leuksnā/; _cosmis_ (later _cōmis_, "courteous"); _stlocum_, acc. (later _locum_, "place").
Early _du_ /dw/ becomes later _b_: _duenos_ > _duonos_ > _bonus_ "good"; _duis_ > _bis_ "twice"; _duellom_ > _bellum_ "war".
Final /d/ occurred in ablatives (later lost) and in third-person secondary verbs (later _t_).
Latin nouns are distinguished by grammatical case , with a termination, or suffix, determining its use in the sentence: subject, predicate, etc. A case for a given word is formed by suffixing a case ending to a part of the word common to all its cases called a stem . Stems are classified by their last letters as vowel or consonant. Vowel stems are formed by adding a suffix to a shorter and more ancient segment called a root . Consonant stems are the root (roots end in consonants). The combination of the last letter of the stem and the case ending often results in an ending also called a case ending or termination. For example, the stem _puella-_ receives a case ending _-m_ to form the accusative case _puellam_ in which the termination _-am_ is evident.
In Classical Latin textbooks the declensions are named from the letter ending the stem or First, Second, etc. to Fifth. A declension may be illustrated by a paradigm , or listing of all the cases of a typical word. This method is less frequently applied to Old Latin, and with less validity. In contrast to Classical Latin, Old Latin reflects the evolution of the language from an unknown hypothetical ancestor spoken in Latium . The endings are multiple. Their use depends on time and locality. Any paradigm selected would be subject to these constraints and if applied to the language universally would result in false constructs, hypothetical words not attested in the Old Latin corpus. Nevertheless, the endings are illustrated below by quasi-classical paradigms. Alternative endings from different stages of development are given, but they may not be attested for the word of the paradigm. For example, in the Second Declension, *_campoe_ "fields" is unattested, but _poploe_ "peoples" is attested.
First Declension (a)
The 'A-Stem' declension. The stems of nouns of this declension usually end in –ā and are typically feminine.
_ This article may REQUIRE CLEANUP to meet's quality standards . The specific problem is: TABLE AND TEXT ARE CONTRADICTING.
* Table: "Genitive: puell-ās/-āī/-ais" - Text: "late inscriptional -aes" -- Is the genitive form -ais_ or _-aes_ or did both exist? * Table: "Nominative: puell-ā" - Text: "the shortened a of the nominative" -- Is the nominative _-ā_ or _-a_ or did both exist (at different times)? PLEASE HELP IMPROVE THIS ARTICLE IF YOU CAN. _(JUNE 2017)_ _(LEARN HOW AND WHEN TO REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE MESSAGE )_
puellā, –ās _girl, maiden_ f.
NOMINATIVE puell-ā puell-āī
VOCATIVE puell-a puell-ai
ACCUSATIVE puell-am puell-ās
GENITIVE puell-ās/-āī/-ais puell-om/-āsōm
DATIVE puell-āi puell-eis/-abos
ABLATIVE puell-ād puell-eis/-abos
LOCATIVE Rom-ai Syracus-eis
A nominative case ending of –s in a few masculines indicates the nominative singular case ending may have been originally –s: _paricidas_ for later _paricida_, but the –s tended to get lost. In the nominative plural, -ī replaced original -s as in the genitive singular.
In the genitive singular, the –s was replaced with –ī from the second declension, the resulting diphthong shortening to –ai subsequently becoming –ae. In a few cases the replacement did not take place: _pater familiās_. Explanations of the late inscriptional -aes are speculative. In the genitive plural, the regular ending is –āsōm (classical –ārum by rhotacism and shortening of final o) but some nouns borrow –om (classical –um) from the second declension.
In the dative singular the final i is either long or short. The ending becomes –ae, –a (Feronia) or –e (Fortune).
In the accusative singular, Latin regularly shortens a vowel before final m.
In the ablative singular, –d was regularly lost after a long vowel. In the dative and ablative plural, the –abos descending from Indo-European *–ābhos is used for feminines only (_deabus_). *–ais > –eis > īs is adapted from –ois of the o-declension.
In the vocative singular, an original short a merged with the shortened a of the nominative.
The locative case would not apply to such a meaning as _puella_, so Roma, which is singular, and Syracusae, which is plural, have been substituted. The locative plural has already merged with the –eis form of the ablative.
Second Declension (o)
campos, –ī _field, plain_ m. saxom, –ī _rock, stone_ n.
SINGULAR PLURAL SINGULAR PLURAL
NOMINATIVE camp-os camp-ei < -oi sax-om sax-ā/-ă
VOCATIVE camp-e camp-ei < -oi sax-om sax-ă
ACCUSATIVE camp-om camp-ōs sax-om sax-ā/-ă
GENITIVE camp-ī camp-ōm sax-ī sax-ōm
DATIVE camp-ō camp-eis < -ois sax-ō sax-eis < -ois
ABLATIVE camp-ōd camp-eis < -ois sax-ōd sax-eis < -ois
LOCATIVE camp-ei camp-eis < -ois sax-ei sax-eis < -ois
The stems of the nouns of the o-declension end in ŏ deriving from the o-grade of Indo-European ablaut . Classical Latin evidences the development ŏ > ŭ. Nouns of this declension are either masculine or neuter.
Many alternative spellings occur:
* As mentioned above, the sound change -ei > -ẹ̄ > -ī leads to numerous variations, including the reverse spelling _ei_ for _ī_. This spelling eventually appears in the genitive singular as well, although _-ī_ is earliest and the true ending; cf. _populi Romanei_, "of the Roman people." , which both spellings in the same inscription. * Likewise, the sound change -os > -us and -ōm > -om > -um affect the nominative and accusative singular, and the genitive plural. * One very early text has genitive _-osio_ (the Proto-Indo-European ending) rather than _-ī_ (an ending appearing only in Italo-Celtic ).. This form also appears in the closely related Faliscan language . * In the genitive plural, _-um_ (from Indo-European _*-ōm_) survived in classical Latin "words for coins and measures"; otherwise it was eventually replaced by _-ōrum_ by analogy with 1st declension _-ārum_. * The nominative/vocative plural masculine _-ei_ comes from the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) pronominal ending _*-oi_. The original ending _-oi_ appears in a late spelling in the word _poploe_ (i.e. "poploi" = _populī_ "people") in Sextus Pompeius Festus . * The dative/ablative/locative plural _-eis_ comes from earlier _-ois_, a merger of PIE instrumental plural _*-ōis_ and locative plural _*-oisu_. The form _-ois_ appears in Sextus Pompeius Festus and a few early inscriptions. * The Praeneste Fibula has dative singular _Numasioi_, representing Proto-Indo-European *-ōi. * A number of "provincial texts" have nominative plural _-eis_ (later _-īs_ from 190 BC on ), with an added _s_, by some sort of analogy with other declensions. Sihler (1995) notes that this form appears in literature only in pronouns and suggests that inscriptional examples added to nouns may be artificial (i.e. not reflecting actual pronunciation). * In the vocative singular, some nouns lose the _-e_ (i.e. have a zero ending) but not necessarily the same as in classical Latin. The _-e_ alternates regularly with _-us_. * The locative was a separate case in Old Latin but gradually became reduced in function, and the locative singular form eventually merged with the genitive singular by regular sound change. In the plural, the locative was captured by the ablative case in all Italic languages before Old Latin.
Third Declension (consonant/i)
The 'Consonant-Stem' and 'I-Stem' declension. This declension contains nouns that are masculine, feminine, and neuter. The stem ends in the root consonant, except in the special case where it ends in -i (i-stem declension). The i-stem, which is a vowel-stem, partially fused with the consonant-stem in the pre- Latin period and went further in Old Latin. I/y and u/w can be treated either as consonants or as vowels; hence their classification as semi-vowels . Mixed-stem declensions are partly like consonant-stem and partly like i-stem. Consonant-stem declensions vary slightly depending on which consonant is root-final: stop-, r-, n-, s-, etc. The paradigms below include a stop-stem (reg-) and an i-stem (igni-).
Rēgs –es _king_ m. Ignis -is _fire_ m.
SINGULAR PLURAL SINGULAR PLURAL
NOMINATIVE rēg/-s rēg-eīs/-īs/-ēs/-ĕs ign-is/-es ign-eīs/-ēs/-īs/-ĕs
VOCATIVE rēg/-s rēg-eīs/-īs/-ēs/-ĕs ign-is/-es ign-eīs/-ēs/-īs/-ĕs
ACCUSATIVE rēgem rēg-eīs/-īs/-ēs ignim ign-eīs/-ēs/-īs
GENITIVE rēg-es/-is/-os/-us rēg-om/-um/-erum ignis ign-iom/-ium
DATIVE rēg-ei/-ī/-ē/-ě rēg-ebus/-ebūs /-ibos/-ibus ign-i/-eī/-ē ign-ibus/-ibos
ABLATIVE rēg-īd/-ĭd/-ī/-ē/-ĕ rēg-ebus/-ebūs /-ibos/-ibus ign-īd/-ĭd /-ī/-ē/-ĕ ign-ebus/-ebūs /-ibos/-ibus
LOCATIVE rēgī rēgebos ignī ignibos
For the consonant declension, in the nominative singular, the -s was affixed directly to the stem consonant, but the combination of the two consonants produced modified nominatives over the Old Latin period. The case appears in different stages of modification in different words diachronically. The Latin neuter form (not shown) is the Indo-European nominative without stem ending; for example, cor < *cord "heart."
The genitive singular endings include _-is < -es_ and _-us < *-os_. In the genitive plural, some forms appear to affix the case ending to the genitive singular rather than the stem: _regerum_ < *_reg-is-um_.
In the dative singular, -ī succeeded -eī and -ē after 200 BC.
In the accusative singular, -em < *-ṃ after a consonant.
In the ablative singular, the -d was lost after 200 BC. In the dative and ablative plural, the early poets sometimes used -būs.
In the locative singular, the earliest form is like the dative but over the period assimilated to the ablative.
Fourth Declension (u)
The 'U-Stem' declension. The stems of the nouns of the u-declension end in ŭ and are masculine, feminine and neuter. In addition there is a ū-stem declension, which contains only a few "isolated" words, such as _sūs_, "pig", and is not presented here.
senātus, –uos _senate_ m.
NOMINATIVE senātus senātūs
VOCATIVE senātus senātūs
ACCUSATIVE senātum senātūs
GENITIVE senāt-uos/-uis/-ī/-ous/-ūs senāt-uom/-um
DATIVE senātuī senāt-ubus/-ibus
ABLATIVE senāt-ūd/-ud senāt-ubus/-ibus
Fifth Declension (e)
The 'E-Stem' declension. The fifth declension in Old Latin is almost morphologically identical to the one of Classical Latin.
rēs, reis _thing_ f.
NOMINATIVE rēs, reis rēs
VOCATIVE rēs rēs
ACCUSATIVE rem rēs
GENITIVE rēis, rēs rēsom
DATIVE reī rēbos
ABLATIVE rēd rēbos
While the commonest ending in the nominative in both the singular and plural forms is '-ēs' (i.e. 'rēs, rĕī'), there have been recorded a few instances of either a shortened 'e' with the addition of a consonantal 'i', as in 'reis', or the abandonment of the nature of the 'e-stem' declension (i.e. 'res, rei').
The genitive in the singular functions as the second declension: 'rĕī' (the breve above the 'e' is the result of an approximant 'r' preceding a mid-open vowel). The genitive plural, in a like manner to the second declension, is formed primarily by '-ēsōm'
The dative is generally formed with an '-ei' in the singular, and an '-ēbos' in the plural.
The accusative, like all the other declensions, retains the labial 'm', shortening the quantity of the theme vowel.
The ablative singular is a predictable '-ēd.' The plural is like the dative.
The locative functions exactly in the singular as it does in the plural, with a short '-eis' as the 1st although there are no singular-based city names in the singular besides the occasional 'Athenseis'.
Personal pronouns are among the most common thing found in Old Latin inscriptions. In all three persons, the ablative singular ending is identical to the accusative singular.
EGO, _I_ TU, _YOU_ SUī, _HIMSELF, HERSELF, ETC._
NOMINATIVE ego tu -
ACCUSATIVE mēd tēd sēd
GENITIVE mis tis sei
DATIVE mihei, mehei tibei sibei
ABLATIVE mēd tēd sēd
NOMINATIVE nōs vōs -
ACCUSATIVE nōs vōs sēd
GENITIVE nostrōm, -ōrum, -i vostrōm, -ōrum, -i sei
DATIVE nōbeis, nis vōbeis sibei
ABLATIVE nōbeis, nis vōbeis sēd
In Old Latin, the relative pronoun is also another common concept, especially in inscriptions. The forms are quite inconsistent and leave much to be reconstructed by scholars.
QUEī, QUAī, QUOD _WHO, WHAT_
MASCULINE FEMININE NEUTER
NOMINATIVE queī quaī quod
ACCUSATIVE quem quam quod
GENITIVE quoius, quoios, -a, -um/om _(according to gender of whatever is owned)_
DATIVE quoī, queī, quoieī, queī
ABLATIVE quī, quōd quād quōd
NOMINATIVE ques, queis quaī qua
ACCUSATIVE quōs quās qua
GENITIVE quōm, quōrom quōm, quārom quōm, quōrom
DATIVE queis, quīs
ABLATIVE queis, quīs
Old Present And Perfects
There is little evidence of the inflection of Old Latin verb forms and the few surviving inscriptions hold many inconsistencies between forms. Therefore, the forms below are ones that are both proved by scholars through Old Latin inscriptions, and recreated by scholars based on other early Indo-European languages such as Greek and Italic dialects such as Oscan and Umbrian .
INDICATIVE PRESENT: SUM INDICATIVE PRESENT: FACIO
OLD CLASSICAL OLD CLASSICAL
SINGULAR PLURAL SINGULAR PLURAL SINGULAR PLURAL SINGULAR PLURAL
FIRST PERSON (e)som somos, sumos sum sumus fac(e/ī)ō fac(e)imos faciō facimus
SECOND PERSON es esteīs es estis fac(e/ī)s fac(e/ī)teis facis facitis
THIRD PERSON est sont est sunt fac(e/ī)d/-(e/i)t fac(e/ī)ont facit faciunt
INDICATIVE PERFECT: SUM INDICATIVE PERFECT: FACIO
OLD CLASSICAL OLD CLASSICAL
SINGULAR PLURAL SINGULAR PLURAL SINGULAR PLURAL SINGULAR PLURAL
FIRST PERSON fuei fuemos fuī fuimus (fe)fecei (fe)fecemos fēcī fēcimus
SECOND PERSON fuistei fuisteīs fuistī fuistis (fe)fecistei (fe)fecisteis fēcistī fēcistis
THIRD PERSON fued/fuit fueront/-erom fuit fuērunt (fe)feced/-et (fe)feceront/-erom fēcit fēcērunt/-ēre
* ^ Hammarström, Harald; Forkel, Robert; Haspelmath, Martin; Bank, Sebastian, eds. (2016). "Old Latin". _ Glottolog 2.7 _. Jena: Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History. * ^ "Archaic Latin". _The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition_. * ^ Maras, Daniele F. (Winter 2012). "Scientists declare the Fibula Praenestina and its inscription to be genuine "beyond any reasonable doubt" (PDF). _Etruscan News_. 14. * ^ http://www.academia.edu/1290713/Scientists_declare_the_Fibula_Prenestina_and_its_inscription_to_be_genuine_beyond_any_reasonable_doubt_ * ^ _De Oratoribus_, I.193. * ^ Book IX.1.6. * ^ Wordsworth 1874 , p. v. * ^ _Histories_ III.22. * ^ Bell, Andreas (1889). _De Locativi in prisca latinitate vi et usu, dissertatio inauguralis philologica_. Breslau: typis Grassi, Barthi et soc (W. Friedrich). * ^ Bennett, 1910 & iii . * ^ De Forest Allen (1897). p. 8. There were no such names as _Caius_, _Cnaius_ Missing or empty title= (help ) * ^ Allen (1897), p.6 * ^ Bennett, Charles Edwin (1915) . _A Latin grammar_. Boston, Chicago: Allyn and Bacon. p. 12. * ^ Buck (1933), pp. 174–175. * ^ Wordsworth (1874), p.45. * ^ _A_ _B_ Buck (1933), p. 177. * ^ Buck (1933), pp. 175–176. * ^ _A_ _B_ Wordsworth (1874), p. 48. * ^ _A_ _B_ _C_ _D_ Buck (1933), p. 176. * ^ Buck (1933), p. 172. * ^ Palmer (1988), p. 242. * ^ Buck (1933), p. 173. * ^ Buck (1933), pp. 99–100. * ^ Lindsay (1894), p. 383. * ^ Buck (1933), p. 182. * ^ _A_ _B_ Sihler (1995), _A New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin_. * ^ Wordsworth (1874), p.56. * ^ Buck (1933), p.181. * ^ Grandgent, Charles Hall (1908) . _An introduction to vulgar Latin_. Heath's modern language series. Boston: D.C. Heath & Co. p. 89. * ^ Buck, Carl Darling (2005) . _A Grammar Of Oscan And Umbrian: With A Collection Of Inscriptions And A Glossary_. Languages of classical antiquity, vol. 5. Bristol, Pa.: Evolution Publishing. p. 204. * ^ Buck (1933), p. 197. * ^ Buck (1933), pp. 185–193. * ^ Wordsworth (1874), pp. 67–73. * ^ Buck (1933), p. 185. * ^ _A_ _B_ Bennett (1895), p. 117. * ^ Roby (1872), p. 162. * ^ _A_ _B_ Allen (1897), p. 9. * ^ Gildersleeve (1900), p. 18. * ^ Buck (1933), pp. 198–201.
* Allen, Frederic de Forest (1897). _Remnants of Early Latin_. Ginn.
* Bennett, Charles Edwin (1895). _A Latin Grammar: With Appendix for Teachers and Advanced Students_. Allyn and Bacon. * Bennett, Charles Edwin (1907). _The Latin Language: A Historical Outline of Its Sounds, Inflections, and Syntax_. Allyn and Bacon. * Bennett, Charles Edwin (1910). _Syntax of Early Latin_. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. * Buck, Carl Darling (1933). _Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin_. Chicago: University of Chicago. * Gildersleeve, Basil Lanneau ; Lodge, Gonzalez (1900). _Gildersleeve's Latin grammar_ (3rd ed.). New York, Boston, New Orleans, London: University Publishing Company. * Lindsay, Wallace Martin (1894). _The Latin language: an historical account of Latin sounds, stems and flexions_. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
* Palmer, Leonard Robert (1988) . _The Latin language_. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. * Roby, Henry John (1872). _A grammar of the Latin language from Plautus to Suetonius_. Volume I (2nd ed.). London: MacMillan and Co. * Wordsworth, John (1874). _Fragments and specimens of early Latin, with Introduction and Notes_. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
* Gippert, Jost (1994–2001). "Old Latin Inscriptions" (in German and English). Titus Didactica. Retrieved 29 October 2009.
* v * t * e
Ages of Latin
_until 75 BC_ Old Latin
_75 BC – 200 AD_ Classical Latin
_200–900_ Late Latin
_900–1300_ Medieval Latin
_1300–1500_ Renaissance Latin