Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages

Edited by: Michiel de Vaan

Latin is one of the major ancient Indo-European languages and one of the cornerstones of Indo-European studies. Since the last comprehensive etymological dictionary of Latin appeared in 1959, enormous progress has been made in the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European, and many etymologies have been revised. This new etymological dictionary covers the entire Latin lexicon of Indo-European origin. It consists of nearly 1900 entries, which altogether discuss about 8000 Latin lemmata. All words attested before Cicero are included, together with their first date of attestation in Latin. The dictionary also includes all the inherited words found in the other ancient Italic languages, such as Oscan, Umbrian and South Picene; thus, it also serves as an etymological dictionary of Italic.

See for more information on print edition.

Purchase Access
Abbreviations and Symbols
Michiel de Vaan (Ph.D. 2002) teaches comparative Indo-European linguistics, historical linguistics and dialectology at Leiden University. He has published extensively on Germanic, lbanian, and Indo-Iranian linguistics and philology, including The Avestan Vowels (2003) and Germanic Tone Accents (ed., 2006).


1. Aim of this dictionary

This book is not a complete etymological dictionary of Latin. Its main aim ­­is to describe which roots and stems of the vocabulary of Latin and the other Italic languages are likely to have been inherited from Proto‑Indo‑European. In addition, two sources of loanwords in Latin have been taken into consideration: possible loanwords from Sabellic (cf. Rix 2005: 566‑572), and probable loanwords from unidentifiable, but possibly old (Mediterranean) donor languages (cf. Cuny 1910, Biville 1990 II: 501‑504).

This approach implies the exclusion of those Latin words which are certainly or probably loanwords from known, non‑Italic languages, such as Celtic, Etruscan, Germanic, Greek, and Semitic. The loanwords from Celtic are discussed by Porzio Gernia (1981: 97‑122), who gives a full list of certain or probable loanwords from Celtic. The Etruscan loanwords are more difficult to establish; see Breyer 1993, Whatmough 1997, and Briquel 1999. The number of Greek loanwords in Latin is very high, the Greek influence lasting from before the earliest Latin inscriptions until after the end of the Roman Empire. See Saalfeld 1884 for a full (though antiquated) collection, and Biville 1990 for a linguistic study of Greek loanwords. Many of the Semitic loanwords have entered Latin through Greek; a study of the Semitic loanwords in Greek is Masson 1967.

I also exclude from the discussion all onomastic material of Latin and Sabellic, with a few exceptions.

2. Definition of Italic

I distinguish the following three branches of Italic: Sabellic, Latino‑Faliscan, and Venetic. It is disputed whether Venetic is in fact an Italic language or stems from a different Indo‑European branch which happens to be attested close to the other Italic languages (Untermann 1980: 315f., Prosdocimi 1988: 418‑420). The number of interpretable Venetic forms is small, but they allow a connection with Latin and Sabellic (van der Staaij 1995: 193‑210); in order to facilitate further research in this direction, I therefore include Venetic. Following Weiss (fthc.a), I give the following overview of the Italic languages known at present:

  1. Sabellic (from the 7th c. BC)
  2. 1. Oscan (5th – 1st c. BC)

       Oscan tribes:  Samnites (Samnium, Campania)

                                Paelignians, Vestinians, Marrucinians (North‑Oscan)

                                Frentanians, inhabitants of Larinum and Teanum Apulum



                                Siculians (Eastern Sicily)

    2. Umbrian (7th – 1st c. BC): Umbria, northern Latium

       2a. Palaeo‑Umbrian, Volscian, Marsian, Aequian

       2b. Iguvine Tables (3rd – 1st c. BC)

    3. South‑Picene (6th – 4th c. BC): central Adriatic coast

    4. Pre‑Samnite (6th – 5th c. BC): Campania, Bruttium, Lucania

  3. Latino‑Faliscan

    1. Latin (from the 6th c. BC): Latium

    2. Faliscan (7th – 2nd c. BC): the town of Falerii, 50 km north of Rome

  4. Venetic (ca. 550‑100 BC): northeastern Italy

For the purpose of this book, Messapic (southeastern Italy) is not counted as an Italic language, and its vocabulary has been excluded from the dictionary. The interpretation of the extant Messapic inscriptions is too unclear to warrant the inclusion of Messapic in any Indo‑European subfamily. There are obvious onomastic links with other Italic languages and possible lexical ties with Albanian (see Matzinger 2005), but Messapic offers no independent evidence for words of PIE origin.

3. Research method

It is a cliché that every word has at least ten etymologies. Due to the long time span between Proto‑Indo‑European and Latin (2500 years for the oldest inscriptions, nearly 3000 years for the main body of literature), and the phonetic changes which took place in that period, we cannot be sure about the exact trajectory which even the most common Indo‑European words have taken. Rather than right or wrong, the etymologies in this book must be regarded as points on a scale: some might approach relative certainty and have no competing etymologies beside them, whereas others represent just one among a number of etymologies that 3000 years of formal and semantic change render theoretically possible. For instance, it will be agreed upon by virtually all specialists that Latin negating in‑ ‘un‑’ directly continues PIE *n‑ in compounds (even if it would be hard to agree on a single complete lexical correspondence shared by Latin and at least two other branches of IE). The verb videō, to mention another example, will probably be derived from the PIE root *uid‑, which also surfaces as *ueid‑ and *uoid‑, by all Indo‑Europeanists. But details of their reconstructions may differ: some colleagues would write *wid‑, and some reconstruct the root‑final stop as *[ˀt]. Discussion of the present suffix Latin ‑ē‑ and the form of the perfect vīdī would bring to the surface still more differences between specialists. Many words have a much less certain etymology, for instance cōleī ‘testicles’: it could be derived from cōlum ‘sieve’, which would be formally satisfactory but semantically not immediately convincing, or from culleus ‘bag’, which suffers the reverse handicap: semantically evident, but formally not so. In a case like cōleī, more than with in‑ or videō, the assumptions and convictions of the individual researcher play a decisive role. In all cases, the reader must take into account that I adopt a certain systematic conception of Proto‑Indo‑European and the subsequent linguistic stages leading on to Latin (see below for their justification), which naturally influence the etymological solutions I eventually prefer.

An important article on the method of etymological research in general, and on Latin etymology in particular, was written by Eichner 1992. Here follow his main recommendations and a justification of my approach to them.

1. An etymological discussion should preferably give access to “die volle Fachdiskussion” (p. 61).

The scope of the present book and the limited amount of time that was available made full compliance with this requirement impossible. Complete reference to earlier scholarship would have taken many more years, and the printed version of this dictionary would have become far too heavy and too expensive. Earlier etymological research on Latin has been evaluated by Forssman 1983, while Forssman 2002 has discussed etymology in the TLL. The two main works of references for Latin etymology since the 1960s have been the dictionaries of Walde & Hoffmann (1930‑1954) on the one hand, and of Ernout & Meillet (1959, with some corrections in the 1967 edition) on the other. Other etymological dictionaries that preceded WH and EM are Vaniček (1881), Regnaud (1908), Muller (1926), Tucker (1931), Juret (1942). Of these, I have only consulted Muller’s study occasionally.

For the purpose of the present dictionary I have consistently made use of WH and EM, who normally summarize the pre‑1960 scholarship. Therefore, I usually refrain from quoting literature from before 1960. Each of the two dictionaries mentioned has its advantages and its drawbacks. WH provide a reliable indication of the first attestation of a Latin word in the Latin literature. Subsequently, they present an exhaustive and well‑referenced overview of earlier proposals, usually including a long list of cognate forms in other IE languages. Unfortunately, their own opinion on the etymology of a word is usually stated without any explanation, and must be searched in a thicket of words. The dictionary of EM often gives a useful account of the inner‑Latin word history. They evaluate the semantic shifts which a word underwent, and how it relates to other Latin lexemes. Their etymological discussion, however, is disappointingly short and very often remains agnostic even in cases where their contemporaries held clear views.

For Sabellic, I have relied on Untermann 2000 for the meaning and etymology of words. Since Untermann provides full references to earlier literature, I do not indicate the authorship of different etymologies for Sabellic words, unless their discussion contributes to specific issues. Untermann’s dictionary displays a great deal of skepticism towards the possibility of knowing the meaning and etymology of many Sabellic words. I have often adopted his agnosticism about the precise meaning of a word, while at the same time retaining the etymological explanation given for it by other contemporary specialists of the Sabellic languages, if a communis opinio could be discerned in the literature.

2. On a synchronic level, etymologies should take into account the phonological system of Latin, and, in our case, the other Italic languages.

Since this principle now forms part of every linguist’s toolkit, there is little point in elaborating on it here.

3. A reliable etymological discussion must refer to the relative chronology of sound changes between Proto‑Indo‑European and Latin (termed “Glass‑box‑Verfahren” by Eichner, p. 72).

While this principle is equally uncontroversial, the number of studies elaborating on the relative chronology of more than a few Latin sound changes is small. I have tried to summarize my main guiding principles in the following section.

4. From Proto‑Indo‑European to Latin

4.1 Reconstructable stages

The term ProtoIndoEuropean refers to the last reconstructible common stage from which all known Indo‑European languages have evolved. For the period between PIE and Latin, we can reconstruct several intermediate stages through which the language must have passed. If the IE language family is represented as a traditional genealogical tree of descent, we can regard PIE as the trunk, and Latin as one of the branches; the intermediate stages are nodes between the trunk and the Latin branch. We can distinguish at least the following nodes:


Proto‑Indo‑European (also known as Indo‑Hittite): Evidence has recently been accumulated showing that the Anatolian branch was the first of the known IE language to split off PIE; see Rieken 1999, Kloekhorst 2008: 7‑11. In fact, this had already been argued by many scholars, e.g. Sturtevant in the 1920s, Pedersen in 1938, Cowgill in 1974; compare Adrados 2007. Accordingly, it must be decided for every reconstructed feature of ‘traditional’ PIE whether it was present before Anatolian split off, or developed afterwards. Subsequently, we should agree on a common terminology for both stages. Such work has yet to begin on a wider scale, and cannot be done here.


(Late) Proto‑Indo‑European: Since only the earliest node in the tree may properly be called PIE, any posterior common stage must be called differently. Thus, the common stage from which all other IE languages except the Anatolian ones descended could be called Late PIE. Nevertheless, in view of the absence of agreement on this matter so far, and in order not to introduce novel and confusing terms, I will in practice use the term PIE to refer to “Late PIE” too.

Proto‑Italic‑Celtic: I acknowledge a separate Italo‑Celtic stage, to which a number of phonetic and morphological developments common to the Italic and Celtic languages can be ascribed. The most recent defense of Italo‑Celtic is by Schrijver 2006: 48‑53 (against Meiser 2003: 36, among others). Here is an eclectic list of the morphological innovations that can be dated to the Italo‑Celtic stage, as given by Schrijver 2006 and Kortlandt 2007: 151‑157:

-          the rise of a superlative suffix *‑ism̥o‑

-          the introduction of *‑ī in the o‑stems (while maintaining *‑osio)

-          the substitution of *‑mus and *‑ios by the ending *‑bhos (while maintaining *‑bhi)

-          the introduction of gen. *‑strom in the 1st and 2nd plural pronouns

-          the spread of *s‑ to the whole paradigm of the *so‑/*to‑pronoun

-          (maybe:) the generalization of *‑(e)d in all declensions

-          the pr. of ‘to be’ is thematic *es‑e/o‑ directly after focussed elements, athematic *es‑ elsewhere (Schrijver 2006: 58)

-          the rise of an injunctive (Kortlandt 2007: 153) or preterite (Schrijver 2006: 60‑62) morpheme *‑ā

-          the rise of sigmatic futures with i‑reduplication (Kortlandt 2007: 152)

-          the spread of the morpheme *‑ro from the 3pl. to other middle endings

Proto‑Italic: The concept of Proto‑Italic has been challenged at various occasions, but agreement seems to be increasing on the view that there was indeed such a common prestage. Recent discussions of this topic, including enumerations of PIt. phonological and morphological innovations, are Rix 1994b, van der Staaij 1995: 193‑210, Heidermanns 2002: 186‑189, Meiser 2003: 27‑36 and Schrijver 2006: 48‑53.

Proto‑Latino‑Sabellic: Most scholars assume that Venetic was the first language to branch off Proto‑Italic, which implies that the other Italic languages, which belong to the Sabellic branch and to the Latino‑Faliscan branch, must have continued for a certain amount of time as a single language. In view of the very small amount of Venetic material available, however, the Proto‑Latino‑Sabellic stage will hardly play a practical role in our discussions.

Proto‑Latino‑Faliscan: Most of the remaining Italic languages belong to the Sabellic branch, the main characteristic of which is the development of labiovelar stops to labials. The only two languages which are not Sabellic are Latin and Faliscan, which were spoken close to each other and differ from the Sabellic languages by a few common innovations (Baldi 1999: 172‑174). Hence, we can reconstruct a common prestage.

4.2 The phonology of Proto‑Indo‑European, Proto‑Italic and Latin

I will use the following reconstruction of the PIE phonological system, based on Beekes 1995: 124. As noted above, at least some of the features reconstructed here might actually belong to the LPIE stage; but since we will be dealing with Italic mainly, this does not affect the discussion to any significant degree.

stops                             p          t           ḱ           k           kw

                                    b          d          ǵ           g          gw

                                    bh        dh        ǵh              gh         gwh

fricatives                                  s

laryngeals                                             h1         h2         h3  

liquids                                       l


nasals                           m        n

semivowels                   i           u

vowels                         e           o

                                   ē           ō

For ProtoItalic, I assume the following phonological system (van der Staaij 1995: 66):

stops                           p          t           k           kw

                                   b          d          g          gw

fricatives                     f           þ           χ           χw


laryngeals                                             (H)

glides                            w          j

liquids                                       l


nasals                           m         n

vowels                         i     ī                                           u    ū

                                                e    ē                  o    ō

                                                                a   ā

diphthongs                  ei                                               oi         ou

                                                               ai         au

Note 1: The series of PIE stops traditionally termed ‘voiced aspirate’ yields voiceless fricatives in word‑initial position in Latin and Sabellic, voiced fricatives word‑internally in Sabellic, and voiced stops (merging with the old voiced stops) word‑internally in Latin. The Latin stops probably go back to voiced fricatives, as is shown by the variant forms of Lat. ab‑ (see s.v.). This points to a complementary distribution of Proto‑Italic voiceless word‑initial fricatives vs. voiced word‑internal ones. In other words, there was one fricative phoneme with two allophones (see Stuart‑Smith 2004: 196‑198, and the critique of her phonemic interpretation by Kortlandt 2007: 150). I will note voiceless fricatives in my PIt. reconstructions, but it seems likely that they were voiced word‑internally. After nasals and sibilants, the PIE voiced aspirates probably did not change into fricatives, but remained stops.

Note 2: Most Italic phonetic developments conditioned by the presence of laryngeals can be dated to the Italo‑Celtic period, or before. The argument given by Schrijver 1991: 454 for the retention of *h3eu‑ as distinct from *ou‑ in PIt. on account of bovem, is and ovis, has been rendered irrelevant by the novel interpretation in Vine 2006a. The different vocalization of PIE sequences *HNC‑ according to which PIE laryngeal these sequences contained (Schrijver 1991: 56‑65) suggests the survival of three different laryngeals until after the Italo‑Celtic period; the vocalization may be an early PIt. development. Another phenomenon ascribed to the presence of consonantal laryngeals in PIt. by Schrijver 1991: 473f. is the preservation of mo‑ in open syllable in mora (I am less convinced about monīle), escaping the unrounding to ma‑. Mora, however, has beside it the verb morāre, in which ‑o might have been restored in PIt. as a characteristic of iterative verbs. As a result, laryngeals will play no role in my PIt. reconstructions. That is not to say that they had all indeed disappeared by the Proto‑Italic period; but I find no certain traces.

Note 3: The main argument against assuming a PIt. shift *eu > *ou is the form Leucesie in the Carmen Saliare (cf. Leumann 1977: 70f., Meiser 1998: 59). This name with its unclear etymology cannot outweigh the remaining evidence in favour of *eu > *ou. In Venetic, some words are attested with <eu> and with <ou>, whereby the older inscriptions only have <ou>. Van der Staaij (1995: 197f.) cautiously suggests that there may have been an inner‑Venetic development ou > eu.

For the sake of reference, I give the following list of the most salient phonological changes which I assume to have taken place between PIE and (the last stage of) Proto‑Italic (van der Staaij 1995: 48‑66, Schrijver 2006). The first number of each section indicates the order in the relative chronology of sound changes, whereas the second digit stakes no such claim.

A. Before Proto‑Italo‑Celtic split up:

1.1 PIE *h1e > *e, *h2e > *a, *h3e > *o

1.2 PIE *eh1 > *ē, PIE *eh2 > *ā, PIE *eh3,*oH > *ō before a consonant

1.3 PIE *iH, *uH > ī, ū before a consonant

1.4 PIE *Tt > *tst (and *‑ddh > *dzd‑?)

2.1 Pretonic shortening of long vowel before resonant (Lat. vir, ferus)

2.2 *uHijV > *wiHjV (pius‑rule)

2.3 *CHC > *CaC

2.4 *CRHC > *CRāC

2.5 *CRHTC > *CRaTC (Italic), *CRHT/s > *CRaT/s (Celtic)

2.6 *RHT/s‑ > *RaT/s‑ (Italo‑Celtic)

2.7 *R̥DC > RaDC (Lat. magnus)

2.8 *CCCC > *CaCCC

B. Before Proto‑Italic split up:

3.1 *tst > *ss

3.2 *CLHV > CaLV‑ (e.g. calēre, valēre, palma)

3.3 *CNHV > [CəNV‑] (e.g. similis, sine, tenuis)

3.4 *HLC‑ > aLC‑ (argentum)

3.5 *h1/2/3NC‑ > e/a/oNC‑ (umbilīcus, ambi)

3.6 *p_(R)kw‑ > *kw_(R)kw‑ (coquō, quīnque)

4.1 *bh, *dh, *gh, *gwh > *b, *d, *g, *gw after *s and *N

4.2 *gh > *g before *l, *r (Lat. glaber, grāmen, trāgula)

4.3 *bh, *dh, *gh, *gwh > *f, *þ, *χ, *χw

4.4 PIE *ouV > *awV in pretonic position (Thurneysen‑Havet‑Vine’s law)

(Lat. lavō etc.)

5.1 *þ‑ > *f‑ (Fal. filea, Lat. filius)

6.1 *fw‑ > *f‑ (Lat. forum, fores)

6.2 *‑gw,χw > *‑w‑ /V_V (Lat. voveo, nūdus)

6.3 *mj > *nj

7.1 *o > a /b, l, m, w, kw_CV (Lat. badius, canem, lacus, lanius, manus, mare)

8.1 *ew > *ow (Lat. novus, moveo)

8.2 *r̥, *l̥ > *or, *ol (Lat. morior etc.)

According to van der Staaij 1995, there is positive evidence that Venetic shared in the following developments: fricativization of PIE ‘voiced aspirates’, *þ‑ > *f‑ (Ven. vhagsto), *ew > *ow and *r̥, *l̥ > *or, *ol. Hence, Venetic did not split off before stage 8.

The phonological developments between Proto-Italic and Old Latin are too numerous to discuss here. For details, I refer to the main handbooks in the field: Sommer 1914, Leumann 1977, Sommer / Pfister 1977, Schrijver 1991, Sihler 1995, Meiser 1998, Baldi 1999, Weiss fthc.a, to name only the best-known English and German works. Also, the relative chronology of the post-PIt. sound changes has not yet been clarified in all details, and would justify a separate study. Hopefully, the present dictionary may contribute to that aim.

For Old Latin, I assume the following phonological system (van der Staaij 1995: 37, Meiser 1998: 52):

stops                             p          t           k           kw

                                     b          d          g          gw

fricatives                        f           s           h

glides                            w          j

liquids                                       l


nasals                           m        n

vowels                          i     ī                                           u    ū

                                                e    ē                 o    ō

                                                               a    ā

diphthongs                                                                                              ui

                                      ei      eu                                  oi         ou

                                                               ai         au

As to accentuation, we can posit the following three phases of accent placement (van der Staaij 1995: 65, Meiser 1998: 53):

1. Mobile stress inherited from PIE. The presence of the inherited PIE accentuation in (early) Proto‑Italic is required for Vine’s reformulation (2006) of Thurneysen‑Havet’s Law *ou > *au, which would in his account have taken place in pretonic position. This sound law can be assigned to an early period in the relative chronology of PIt. changes.

2. Word‑initial stress. Word‑initial stress is assumed to have applied in Etruscan and in Latin, Faliscan, and the Sabellic languages. The main Sabellic clues to initial stress are the occurrence of syncope of short vowels in front of word‑final *‑s (Meiser 1986: 59‑62), which may date to the Proto‑Sabellic period, and syncope of word‑internal short vowels in front of single consonants and *‑sC‑ in the different Sabellic languages individually (Benediktsson 1960, Meiser 1986: 131f.). In VOLat., we find syncope of short vowels in final *‑tos, *‑tis, *‑ros, *‑ris, and maybe in final *‑li and *‑ri (Meiser 1998: 73f.). In internal syllables of VOLat., the effects of initial stress are syncope of short vowels in open medial syllable, and weakening (merger) of short vowels and diphthongs in non‑initial syllable. For the Sabellic languages, syncope is dated between 500 and 400 BC by Meiser (1986: 132), and the same period probably saw the start of syncope and weakening in Latin.

3. Penultimate / antepenultimate stress as in CLat. From about 300 BC (thus Radke 1981: 30 on the basis of elephantus and Italia, and in‑ ‘in’), vowel weakening ceased to work in Latin, and we may assume that the accentual system known from CLat. had been established: accent on the penultimate syllable if it was metrically long, otherwise, accent on the antepenultimate syllable.

5. The entries

5.1 Selection of entries

The entries were selected by means of a comparison between the two major etymological dictionaries WH and EM, the comprehensive Indo‑European dictionaries IEW and LIV, and the Oxford Latin Dictionary. I have not done an additional exhaustive search for words attested only in glosses. Since such words are not normally included in the OLD, this implies that only those have been taken into account which are discussed in WH and EM, or in other etymological discussions. Personal names, place names and other toponyms are not included into the present dictionary. A few exceptions are made for names which are widely agreed to be Indo‑European (e.g., Monēta, Nerō), or names for which an alleged Indo‑European etymology must be dismissed (Abella).

5.2 The entries

The entry usually represents the derivationally most opaque member of a Latin word family: a present stem (quoted in the first person singular active), a noun or adjective (in the nominative singular or plural), an adverb or a cardinal numeral. I provide the English meaning of the word as given by the Oxford Latin Dictionary. Since the aim is merely to identify the word in question, not the whole range of meanings of a word is given. I provide the gender and stem type (o, ā, i, u, ē, or a consonant) of nouns, the conjugation (I, II, III, IV) of verbs, or another word type label. I also add deviant forms which do not conform to CLat. morphology of the inflectional or conjugational type given for the entry.

Latin entries are given in bold without a preceding abbreviation. The small number of inherited Venetic and Sabellic entries without cognate forms in Latin is preceded by the abbreviation of the respective language.

5.3 Dating

Between brackets, I indicate in which author or text the word given in the entry is first attested in Latin. A plus (+) after a given author means that the word can be found also in one or more later authors.

The main lexicographical sources for dating the age of a Latin word have been OLD and TLL; yet by means of random comparisons, I found that neither of these sources is exhaustive, and that quite often an older attestation can be found than would appear from TLL and OLD. In most cases, in fact, it turns out that WH are far more reliable. I have therefore turned to concordances of the older inscriptions, Livius Andronicus, Gnaeus Naevius (self‑made) and Plautus (Lexicon Plautinum) in order to ascertain the first date of attestation of a given word. For the remaining words (appearing in Ennius, Cato, Terence or later), I have relied on the data provided by the OLD.

5.4 Derivatives

The section ‘Derivatives’ provides derivatives of the head entry, and other closely related Latin forms. Since the dictionary only has about 1850 Latin entries, the section ‘derivatives’ contains many more Latin lexemes than the section ‘entry’. Any reader familiar with Latin derivation will easily find most of the derivatives under their head entry. In addition, words can be retrieved via the Latin index at the end of the book.

The list of derivatives is restricted to words which make their first appearance before Cicero; in most cases, the last author to precede Cicero is Varro or Lucretius. In this way, the dictionary also provides information about the productivity and semantics of certain suffixes and preverbs in pre‑Ciceronian times. From Cicero onwards, several suffixes become hugely productive while their inclusion into the dictionary would add nothing to our knowledge of OLat. or earlier stages. Only a few words which appear to contain an unproductive suffix, have no synchronic derivational basis, or appear to go back to OLat. for other reasons, are listed even if they first appear in or after Cicero. Some examples are adūlor (Cic.+), bēs (Cic.+), sūbula (Sen.+), taxāre (Sen.+).

      Additional morphological information is given between square brackets, but only when needed to disambiguate two or more categories. The following endings are used as shorthand for their respective categories:

a               f. noun, ‑ae

ae    noun, ‑ārum

āx             adj., k‑stem, ‑ācis

‑ēdō           f. noun, n‑stem, ‑ēdinis

ēs              f. noun, ē‑stem, ‑ēī

              f. noun, n‑stem, ‑iōnis

is               noun, i‑stem, ‑is

is               adj., i‑stem, f. ‑is, n. ‑e

or              m. noun, r‑stem, ‑ōris    

tās            f. noun, t‑stem, ‑tātis

‑tūdō         f. noun, n‑stem, ‑tūdinis

tūs            f. noun, t‑stem, ‑tūtis

um            n. noun, o‑stem, ‑ī

us              m. noun, o‑stem, ‑ī

us              adj., o/ā‑stem, f. ‑a, n. ‑um

Some words which are listed as separate lexemes in OLD have been excluded because they belong to categories listed otherwise:

-        n. nouns in ‑um or ‑e derived from attested adjectives or ppp.: to the adjective in ‑us or ‑is, or the ppp. in ‑us

-        adverbs in ‑(i)ter: to the adj. they are based on

-        adverbs in ‑ē: to the adj. in ‑us or ‑is

-        nominal compounds with a noun or an adj. as the first member: to the respective noun or adj.

5.5 Proto‑Italic

If possible, I provide a Proto‑Italic reconstruction of the stem of the Latin entry, and occasionally of other Latin or Italic words which may plausibly go back to Proto‑Italic. See section 1.4 for the phonological system of Proto‑Italic.

5.6 Italic cognates

This section exhaustively lists all Faliscan, Sabellic and Venetic word forms which are or may be cognate with the Latin entry. All Sabellic forms are cited from Untermann 2000; I have usually adopting his rendering of the meaning and his morphological interpretation of the forms. Alternative interpretations of the meaning and etymology of Sabellic words are not usually discussed; instead, the reader is referred to the relevant section in Untermann. The Faliscan forms are cited according to Giacomelli 1963, and the Venetic forms according to Lejeune 1974, with additions as per Marinetti 1999, 2004 (to the exclusion of the Tavola da Este, which requires more detailed linguistic study). I have refrained from citing any Sicel forms, since their interpretation still seems too uncertain to me; the only exception is πιβε ‘drink!’.

5.7 Proto‑Indo‑European

I reconstruct the form of the stem from which the Latin entry can be directly or indirectly derived. In some cases, there is more than one theoretical possibility.


5.8 Indo‑European cognates

This section provides the main cognates of the Latin entry in the main languages used for reconstructing Proto‑Indo‑European. Since the details of the formation type often differ from language to language, non‑specialists in Indo‑European reconstruction may want to concentrate mainly on the identity of the root. Cognates from Celtic (Continental Celtic, Irish, Welsh, Cornish, Breton) are adduced first because of their relevance for the reconstruction of a Proto‑Italo‑Celtic stage. Subsequently, I provide the cognates from Anatolian (Hittite, Palaic, Luwian, Lydian, Lycian) because this branch first split off PIE. The remaining branches of IE are adduced in the following order: Indic (Sanskrit) – Iranian (Avestan, Old Persian, etc.) – Greek – Phrygian – Armenian – Albanian – Baltic (Old Prussian, Lithuanian, Latvian) – Slavic – Germanic (Gothic, North Gm., West Gm.) – Tocharian. For the collection and interpretation of the cognate words, I have relied heavily on the work of colleagues in the IEED project: Kloekhorst 2008 for Anatolian, Alexander Lubotsky’s Indo‑Iranian database, Robert Beekes fthc. for Greek, Derksen 2008 for Slavic and Derksen fthc. for Baltic. Obviously, the responsibility for the selection and analysis of the forms as given here is entirely mine.

5.9 Etymology

If the etymology is undisputed and requires no further explanation – that is, if it can be understood applying the usual sound changes from PIE to Latin –, I refrain from a discussion. The etymology should then be clear from the reconstructed Proto‑Italic and Proto‑Indo‑European forms. In the case of an uncertain, disputed or disputable Indo‑European etymology, I discuss some of the options which must be rejected and/or those which seem likely to me. If some of the Latin derivatives are unproductive formations, I shortly discuss their linguistic history.

The main handbooks consulted for reference are IEW (1959), Leumann (1977), Schrijver (1991), Sihler (1995), Meiser (1998, 2003), Untermann (2000), LIV (2001). Other secondary literature is only mentioned where it adds extra arguments or information to the discussion. As stated in 1.3 above, the discussion is not exhaustive. In the case of etymological proposals which seem wholly unconvincing to me, or which have been discussed and refuted by one of the handbooks cited in the entry’s bibliography, I generally refrain from mentioning them. This might have the unfortunate effect that this dictionary will not prevent future scholars from repeating proven errors of the past, but the alternative would have been a dictionary several times as thick, loaded with obsolete theories. It may be remarked that WH, who very often mention and reject former proposals, generally give short qualifications, such as “falsch”, without stating their reasons; this I try to avoid.

If a word has not been given an IE etymology yet, or if the available etymological proposals all seem implausible to me, and I have no better solution to add myself, I usually state “Etymology unknown” or words of similar meaning.


5.10 Bibliography

I refer in all cases to page numbers in IEW, WH and EM, and to the PIE entry in LIV. In many instances, I refer to the page in Leumann (1977), Schrijver (1991), Sihler (1995) and Meiser (1998, 2003) on which the entry or its derivatives are discussed. I also provide the reference to the source of the Sabellic (Untermann 2000), Faliscan (Giacomelli 1963) and Venetic (Lejeune 1974) forms. Other secondary literature is only mentioned when it plays a role in the etymological discussion.


6. Periodization of Latin

Following Weiss (fthc.a), I adopt the following periodization of Latin:

6th century – 240 BC                                             Very Old Latin (VOLat.)

240 – 50 BC                                                         Old Latin (OLat.)

50 BC – 3rd/4th c.                                                 Classical Latin (CLat.)

3rd/4th c. – 5th/6th c.                                             Late Latin (LLat.)

Although the term ‘Very Old Latin’ has a clumsy ring to it, it avoids the ambiguity which would follow from using ‘Early Latin’ versus ‘Old Latin’, or ‘Archaic Latin’ versus ‘Old Latin’. There is no natural chronological distinction between ‘early’ and ‘old’, while ‘archaic’ is also used for indicating the relative age of linguistic forms with respect to each other.

For the purpose of determining the first attestation of a Latin word, I use the following relative chronology of texts:

I. Very Old Latin

In view of the different provenance of the inscriptions, and the uncertain dates of many of them, the order in which the texts appear is not intended as a relative chronology.

Older inscriptions: Lapis Niger (Forum Inscription), Lapis Satricanus, Duenos inscription, Corcolle Altar, Garigliano Bowl, the Tibur Base, the Madonnetta inscription (all 6th or 5th c.). The Praenestine Fibula is excluded since it is probably a forgery (cf. Baldi 1999: 125).

Several shorter inscriptions from Rome and outside (4th – 3nd c.); Elogium L. Cornelii Cn. f. Scipionis (CIL I2 6+7, ca. 260 BC), Elogium L. Cornelii L. f. Scipionis (CIL I2 8+9, ca. 230 BC).

Texts preserved (usually fragmentarily) in later sources: Lex Regiae, Law of the Twelve Tables, Carmen Saliare, Carmen Arvale.

Single words or phrases preserved by lexicographers: Nonius, Festus, Paulus Diaconus.

II. Old Latin

The order in which the authors appear here is intended as a relative chronology:

Livius Andronicus (±284 – 204)

Naevius (±270 – 201)                       

Plautus (died 184)                              

Ennius (239 – 169)                            

M. Porcius Cato (234 – 149)

Terence (±195 – 159)

Pacuvius (220 – ±130)

Caecilius Statius (died 168)

C. Lucilius (±180 – 102)

Accius (170 – ±85)

Sempronius Gracchus (trib. pl. 123, 122)

Afranius (born ±150)

Cassius Hemina (mid 2nd c.)

Cn. Gellius hist. (late 2nd c.)

Sextus Turpilius (died 103)

Titinius (2nd c.)

L. Pomponius com. (2nd – 1st c.)

Sempronius Asellio (2nd – 1st c.)

Laevius (early 1st c.)

Helvius Mancia (early 1st c.)

Novius (early 1st c.)

Quadrigarius (early 1st c.)

Rhetorica ad Herennium (early 1st c.)

Sisenna (praetor 78)

M. Terentius Varro (116 – 27)

Laberius (±115 – 43)

Lucretius (±94 – 55)

Catullus (± 84 – 54)


Senatus Consultum de Bacchanalibus

CIL 364+365 from Falerii

Lex Sacra from Spoletium

other inscriptions from the 2nd and 1st c. BC.

Many Latin words make their first appearance in the comedies of Plautus. Steinbauer (1989: 39‑40) regards the language of Plautus as older than that of Ennius for the following three reasons:

1. The plays of Plautus (maybe an Umbrian) were staged from at least 200 (but maybe earlier) until his death in 184. We know that Ennius (a Messapian) came to Rome in 204, and worked there till his death in 169. Thus, Ennius lived 15 years longer, and did not come to Rome earlier than Plautus.

2. The metre which Ennius uses (dactylic hexameter) excludes about 10% of the Latin vocabulary from occurring in it (according to Skutsch 1985), whereas no such restrictions seem to be imposed by Plautus’ metre.

3. The genre of comedy allows for the use of a much broader spectre of the vocabulary.

III. Classical Latin

Cicero (106 – 43)

Caesar (100 – 44)

Sallust (86 – ±34 BC)

Cornelius Nepos (±99 – 24 BC)

Virgil (70 – 19 BC)

Horace (65 – 8 BC)

Ovid (43 BC – ±17 AD)

L. Annaeus Seneca (±5 BC – 65 AD)

Columella (mid 1st c. AD)


I place the caesura between OLat. and CLat. before Cicero. This arbitrary division has a practical background: whereas Varro (who died later than Cicero) shows an explicit interest in archaic language, we find that many formations increase greatly in productivity from Cicero onwards, especially u‑stem nouns and nouns in ‑tiō and ‑tās. The inclusion of words attested in but not before Cicero would imply the enumeration of a lot of new, predictable Latin formations which do not add to our knowledge of pre‑Latin stages.



Acc.AcciusNon.Nonius Marcellus
Afran.AfraniusNov.Novius (comm.)
Alb.AlbanianNPhryg.New Phrygian
Andr.Livius AndronicusO.Oscan
Apul.ApuleiusOAlb.Old Albanian
Ar.AristophanesOAv.Old Avestan
Arc.ArcadianOBret.Old Breton
Arm.Classical ArmenianOCo.Old Cornish
Att.AtticOCSOld Church Slavonic
Aug.AugustineOCz.Old Czech
Av.AvestanOEOld English
AVAtharvaveda /  icOFr.Old Frisian
Bac.BactrianOHGOld High German
Bal.BalochiOIc.Old Icelandic
Bel.BelorussianOIr.Old Irish
Boeot.BoeotianOLat.Old Latin
Br.Brāhmaṇa /  icOLFr.Old Low Franconian
BrCl.British CelticOLGOld Low German
Bret.BretonOLith.Old Lithuanian
BSl.Balto SlavicONorw.Old Norwegian
Bulg.BulgarianOPOld Persian
Caecil.Caecilius StatiusOPhryg.Old Phrygian
Caes.CaesarOPo.Old Polish
Cat.CatullusOPr.Old Prussian
Cels.A. Cornelius CelsusORu.Old Russian
Celtib.CeltiberianOSOld Saxon
CLat.Classical LatinOSwe.Old Swedish
CLuw.Cuneiform LuwianOv.Ovid
Co.CornishOWOld Welsh
CSChurch SlavicPal.Palaic
Cz.CzechPAlb.Proto Albanian
Dan.DanishPalU.Palaeo Umbrian
Elog.Scip.Elogia ScipionumPAnat.Proto Anatolian
EMEtymologicum Magnum (after Greek words)Parth.Parthian
EMoBr.Early Modern BretonPaul. ex F.Paulus Diaconus ex Festo
EMoIr.Early Modern IrishPBr.Proto British
Enn.EnniusPCl.Proto Celtic
Etr.EtruscanPGm.Proto Germanic
Fest.Sextus Pompeius FestusPi.Pindar
Galat.GalatianPIEProto Indo European
Gaul.GaulishPIr.Proto Iranian
Gell.Cn. GelliusPIt.Proto Italic glossesPkt.Prakrit
Go.GothicPlin.Pliny the Elder Naturalis Historia
Gracch.C. Sempronius GracchusPo.Polish
H.HomerPompon.L. Pomponius
Hdt.HerodotusPresam.Pre Samnite
Hem.Cassius HeminaPrisc.Priscian
Hern.HernicanPRom.Proto Romance
HLuw.Hieroglyphic LuwianPSab.Proto Sabellic
Hor.HoracePSl.Proto Slavic
Hp.HipponaxPTo.Proto Tocharian
IEIndo EuropeanQuint.Quintilianus
IIr.Indo IranianRhet.Her.Rhetorica ad Herennium
Ir.IrishRuCSRussian Church Slavic
It.ItalicRVRigveda / Rigvedic
Khwar.KhwarezmianSCAsc.Senatus Consultum de Asclepiade (CIL I 588)
Lab.LaberiusSCBac.Senatus Consultum de Bacchanalibus
Lac.LaconianSCr.Serbo Croatian
Laev.LaeviusSeCSSerbian Church Slavic
Larg.Scribonius LargusSen.Seneca
Lat.LatinServ.Servius Maurus Honoratus
LCo.Late CornishSkt.Sanskrit
Lex Reg.Lex RegiaeSogd.Sogdian
Lex XIILex Duodecim TabularumSPic.South Picene
LGLow GermanSwe.Swedish
LLat.Late LatinŚBr.Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa
LPBr.Late Proto BritishŚrSū.Śrauta Sūtra
Luw.LuwianToATocharian A
Lyc.LycianToABTocharian A and B
Lyd.LydianToBTocharian B
Mars.MarsianTurp.Sextus Turpilius
MBret.Middle BretonUkr.Ukranian
MCo.Middle CornishUlp.Ulpian
MDu.Middle DutchUSorb.Upper Sorbian
MEMiddle EnglishVell.C. Velleius Paterculus
MHGMiddle High GermanVen.Venetic
MIr.Middle IrishVerg.Virgil
MLGMiddle Low GermanVest.Vestinian
MoDu.Modern DutchVitr.Vitruvius
MoEModern EnglishVLat.Vulgar Latin
MoIr.Modern IrishVMax.Valerius Maximus
MoPModern PersianVOLat.Very Old Latin
MPMiddle PersianVol.Volscian
MWMiddle WelshW.Welsh
Myc.MycenaeanWGm.West Germanic
Naev.Gnaius NaeviusX.Xenophon
Nem. Cyn.M. Aurelius Olympius Nemesianus, CynegeticaYAv.Young Avestan
NHGNew High GermanŽem.Žemaitian


acc. toaccording toipv.IIfuture imperative
ADanno dominilit.literally
BCbefore Christneg.negative
colloq.colloquialp.c.personal communication
cp1first member of a compoundPNpersonal name
cp2second member of a compoundpostpos.postposition perfect participle
denom.denominativeppp.passive past particple
dial.(in) dialectspref.prefix
e.g.for examplepron.pronoun
fut.futurered.reduplicated,  tion
fut.IIfuture perfectrel.relative
Hany PIE laryngealsup.superlative
h1/2h1 or h2s.v.sub voce

1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th conjugation

indecl.indeclinablevel sim.or similarly
inj.injunctiveviz.namely, to wit
inscr.inscription(s)1s.first person singular
int.intensive1p.first person plural
interr.interrogative1x, 2x, etc.once, twice, etc.


becomes by regular phonological development
reflects by regular phonological development
>> is replaced by way of analogy
<< replaces by way of analogy
see also the entries
(?)meaning uncertain or appurtenance uncertain
*Xa reconstructed item of a proto‑stage

a non‑attested but certain form of an attested language

<X>spelled with the symbol X
/X/the phoneme X
[X]phonetically pronounced as X

X is cp1

˚XX is cp2


CGLCorpus Glossariorum Latinorum
CILCorpus Inscriptionum Latinarum
EIECMallory, James and Douglas Q. Adams (eds.) 1997Encyclopedia of Indo-European culture. London -- Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn.
EMErnout, Alfred and Antoine Meillet 1979Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine, 4me edition. Troisième tirage, par Jacques André. Paris: Klincksieck.
EWAiaMayrhofer, Manfred 1986-2002Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen. 3 volumes. Heidelberg: Winter.
IEWPokorny, Julius 1959Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Bern: Francke.
LEIALexique Étymologique du Vieil-Irlandais
LIVLexikon der indogermanischen Verben2. Die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstammbildungen. Unter Leitung von H. Rix ... bearbeitet von M. Kümmel, Th. Zehnder, R. Lipp, B. Schirmer, 2. Auflage. Wiesbaden: Reichert. 2001.
OLDOxford Latin Dictionary
Paul. ex F.Paulus DiaconusExcerpta ex libris Pompeii Festi de significatione verborum
TLLThesaurus Linguae Latinae
WHWalde, Alois and Johann Baptist Hoffmann 1930, 1954Lateinisches etymologisches Wörterbuch I + II. Heidelberg: Winter.
ABÄGAmsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik.
AJPhAmerican Journal of Philology.
BSLBulletin de la Société de Linguistique.
ECIECEast Coast Indo-European Conference.
HSHistorische Sprachforschung.
HSCPHarvard Studies in Classical Philology.
IBSInnsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft.
IFIndogermanische Forschungen.
IJDLLRInternational Journal of Diachronic Linguistics and Linguistic Reconstruction.
JIESJournal of Indo-European Studies.
MSSMünchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft.
NOWELENorth-Western European Language Evolution.
NTSNorsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap.
TPSTransactions of the Philological Society.
ZVSZeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung.
Adams 1985aAdams, Douglas Q. 1985aSanskrit púmān, Latin pūbēs, and related words. Die Sprache 31, 1-16.
Adams 1985bAdams, Douglas Q. 1985bLatin mas and masturbari. Glotta 63, 241-247.
Adams 1997Adams, Douglas Q. 1997A Dictionary of Tocharian B. Amsterdam – Atlanta: Rodopi.
Adams 1992Adams, J.N. 1992The origin and meaning of Lat. veterinus, veterinarius. IF 97, 70-95.
Adiego Lajara 2001Adiego Lajara, Ignacio-Javier 2001Osco TRÍBUF PLÍFRÍKS. Glotta 77, 1-6.
Adrados 2007Adrados, Francisco 2007Must we again postulate a unitary and uniform Indo-European? IF 112, 1-25.
André 1984André, Jacques 1984Lat. vēsīca. Revue de Philologie, de Littérature et d’Histoire Anciennes 58, 175-179.
Bader 1962Bader, Françoise 1962La formation des composés nominaux du latin. Paris: Belles Lettres.
Bader 1983Bader, Françoise 1983De l’ “auscultation” à la “célébrité” en latin: formes de la racine *kel-. In: Hommages à Jean Cousin: rencontres avec l’Antiquité classique, ed. L. Lerat, Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 27-60.
Baldi 1999Baldi, Philip 1999The foundations of Latin. Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Balles 1999Balles, Irene 1999Lateinisch sanguis ‘Blut’. In: Eichner--Luschützky 1999, 3-17.
Bammesberger 1980Bammesberger, Alfred 1980Zur Bildungsweise des indogermanischen Kausativs. ZVS 94, 4-9.
Bammesberger 1990Bammesberger, Alfred 1990Lateinisch fīnis und urgermanisch *baina-. HS 103, 264-268.
Bammesberger 2003Bammesberger, Alfred 2003Review of: Hill 2003. HS 116, 314-317.
Bartalucci 1963Bartalucci, Aldo 1963I desiderativi in -esso. Rendiconti Accademia dei Lincei. Scienze morali, storiche e filologiche 18, 345-372.
Bartholomae 1904Bartholomae, Christian 1904Altiranisches Wörterbuch. Strassburg: Trübner.
Barton 1987Barton, Charles 1987Greek ΕIΡΩ, Latin serō, Armenian yeṙum. AJPh 108, 672-674.
Beckwith 2005Beckwith, Miles 2005Volscian sistiatiens and the Oscan -tt- perfect. HS 118, 145-159.
Beekes 1969Beekes, Robert 1969The development of the Proto-Indo-European laryngeals in Greek. The Hague – Paris: Mouton.
Beekes 1972Beekes, Robert 1972H2o. Die Sprache 18, 117-131.
Beekes 1975Beekes, Robert 1975Two notes on PIE stems in dentals. In: Flexion und Wortbildung: Akten der Fachtagung der indogermanischen Gesellschaft Regensburg, 9-14 September 1973, ed. H. Rix, Wiesbaden: Reichert, 9-14.
Beekes 1976Beekes, Robert 1976Uncle and Nephew. JIES 4, 43-63.
Beekes 1984Beekes, Robert 1984PIE ‘sun’. MSS, 43 5-8.
Beekes 1987aBeekes, Robert 1987aThe PIE words for ‘name’ and ‘me’. Die Sprache 33, 1-6.
Beekes 1987bBeekes, Robert 1987bOn Indo-European ‘wine’. MSS 48, 21-26.
Beekes 1989Beekes, Robert 1989Review of: Nussbaum 1986. Kratylos 34, 55-59.
Beekes 1990Beekes, Robert 1990Bloem en blad. In: 100 jaar etymologisch woordenboek van het Nederlands. ’s-Gravenhage, 1990, eds. A. Moerdijk, W. Pijnenburg and P. van Sterkenburg, 375-382.
Beekes 1992Beekes, Robert 1992Widow. HS 105, 171-187.
Beekes 1994Beekes, Robert 1994‘Right’, ‘left’ and ‘naked’ in Proto-Indo-European. Orbis 37, 87-96.
Beekes 1995Beekes, Robert 1995Comparative Indo-European Linguistics. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Beekes 1996Beekes, Robert 1996Ancient European loanwords. HS 109, 215-236.
Beekes 1998Beekes, Robert 1998The origin of Lat. aqua, and of *teutā ‘people’. JIES 26, 459-466.
Beekes 1999Beekes, Robert 1999The Greek word for ‘lead’. MSS 59, 7-14.
Beekes 2003Beekes, Robert 2003Historical Phonology of Classical Armenian. In: Kortlandt 2003, 133-211.
Beekes 2004Beekes, Robert 2004Armenian gišer and the Indo-European word for ‘evening’. In: Hyllested et al. 2004, 59-62.
Beekes 2010Beekes, Robert 2010A Greek etymological dictionary. Leiden: Brill.
Benedetti 1988Benedetti, Marina 1988I composti radicali latini. Esame storico e comparativo. Pisa: Giardini.
Benediktsson 1960Benediktsson, Hreinn 1960The vowel syncope in Oscan-Umbrian. NTS 19, 157-295.
Benveniste 1931Benveniste, Emile 1931Trois étymologies latines. BSL 32, 68-85.
Benveniste 1951Benveniste, Emile 1951Sur l’histoire du mot latin negotium. Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa. Lettere, storia e filosofia, Serie II – Vol. 20, 21-25.
Benveniste 1962Benveniste, Emile 1962Hittite et indo-européen: études comparatives. Paris: Maisonneuve.
Benveniste 1969Benveniste, Emile 1969Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-européennes. Two volumes. Paris: Les éditions de minuit.
Berenguer Sánchez--Luján Martínez 2004Berenguer Sánchez, José and Eugenio Luján Martínez 2004La nueva inscripción falisca de Cavios Frenaios. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 149, 213-226.
Bettini 2000Bettini, Maurizio 2000The origin of Latin mustela. Glotta 76, 1-19.
Biville 1990Biville, Frederique 1990Les emprunts du latin au grec. Approche phonétique. Tome I: Introduction et consonantisme, Tome II: Vocalisme et conclusions. Louvain – Paris: Peeters.
Boutkan--Siebinga 2005Boutkan, Dirk and Sjoerd Siebinga 2005Old Frisian etymological dictionary. Leiden: Brill.
Boutkan--Kossmann 1999Boutkan, Dirk and Maarten Kossmann 1999Some Berber parallels of European substratum words. JIES 27, 87-100.
Bracchi 1999Bracchi, Remo 1999Turdus e i suoi corrispondenti: l’uccello “che cova nel fango inaridito”. Athenaeum 87, 79-92.
Brachet 1999Brachet, Jean-Paul 1999Latin proelium: poétique et étymologie. HS 112, 286-298.
Bréal 1894Bréal, Maurice 1894Étymologies latines et grecques. Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 8, 45-52 [8. La préposition ab devenue af et a, p. 48-49]
Breyer 1993Breyer, Gertraud 1993Etruskisches Sprachgut im Lateinischen unter Ausschluss des spezifisch onomastischen Bereichs = Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 53. Leuven : Peeters.
Briquel 1999Briquel, Dominique 1999Les emprunts du latin à l’étrusque: l’approche de la question chez les auteurs anciens. Studi Etruschi 63, 291-313.
Campanile 1969Campanile, Enrico 1969Note sulle glosse sicule e sui rapporti linguistici fra siculo e latino. In: Studia classica et orientalia Antonino Pagliaro oblata, vol. I, eds. V. Abaev et al., 293-322.
Chanut 1980Chanut, Pierre-Yves 1980Les “tesca” du capitole. Revue de Philologie 54, 295-304.
Cheung 2002Cheung, J. 2002Studies in the historical development of the Ossetic vocalism. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Cheung 2007Cheung, J. 2007Etymological dictionary of the Iranian verb. Leiden: Brill.
Cohen 2004Cohen, Paul S. 2004A new etymology for Latin aquila. In: Indo-European word formation: proceedings of the conference held at the University of Copenhagen October 20th – 22nd 2000, eds. James Clackson and Birgit Anette Olsen, Copenhagen: Museum Tusculaneum Press, 25-35.
Coleman 1992Coleman, Robert 1992Italic. In: Indo-European Numerals, ed. J. Gvozdanović, Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 389-445.
Cotticelli Kuras 1993Cotticelli Kuras, Paola 1993Latino sonticus: una nota tra filologia e linguistica. Athenaeum 81, 622-631.
Cowgill 1970Cowgill, Warren 1970Italic and Celtic superlatives and the dialects of Indo-European. In: Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans, ed. G. Cardona e.a., Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 113-153.
Cowgill 1973Cowgill, Warren 1973The source of Latin stāre. JIES 1, 271-303.
Cowgill 1974Cowgill, Warren 1974More evidence for Indo-Hittite: the tense-aspect systems. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Congress of Linguists. Ed. L. Heilmann, Bologna, 557-570.
Cowgill 1978Cowgill, Warren 1978The source of Latin vīs ‘thou wilt’. Die Sprache 24, 25-44.
Cowgill 1985Cowgill, Warren 1985PIE *duu̯o ‘2’ in Germanic and Celtic, and the nom.-acc. dual of non-neuter o-stems. MSS 46, 13-28.
Cuesta Pastor 1996Cuesta Pastor, José Manuel 1996Gr. γαλέη ‘comadreja’ y la glosa γάλις ∙ γαλαός. Emerita 64, 325-331.
Cuny 1910Cuny, Albert 1910Les mots du fonds préhellénique en grec, latin, et sémitique occidental. Revue des Études Anciennes 12, 154-164.
Demiraj 1997Demiraj, Bardhyl 1997Albanische Etymologien. Amsterdam – Atlanta: Rodopi.
Derksen 1996Derksen, Rick 1996Metatony in Baltic. Amsterdam – Atlanta: Rodopi.
Derksen 2008Derksen, Rick 2008Etymological dictionary of the Slavic inherited lexicon. Leiden: Brill.
Derksen fthc.Derksen, Rick fthc.: Etymological dictionary of the Baltic inherited lexicon.
Devoto 1967Devoto, Giacomo 1967Lat. imago. In: Beiträge zur Indogermanistik und Keltologie: Julius Pokorny zum 80. Geburtstag gewidmet, ed. W. Meid, Innsbruck: Universität Innsbruck, 25-28.
Diehl 1964Diehl, Ernst 1964Altlateinische Inschriften. Fünfte Auflage. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Driessen 2001Driessen, Michiel 2001On the etymology of Lat. urbs. JIES 29, 41-67.
Driessen 2003aDriessen, Michiel 2003aEvidence for *ǵhelh2-, a new Indo-European root. JIES 31, 279-305.
Driessen 2003bDriessen, Michiel 2003b*h2é-h2us-o-, the Proto-Indo-European term for ‘gold’. JIES 31, 347-362.
Driessen 2004Driessen, Michiel 2004Indo-European ‘felt’. JIES 32, 25-42.
Driessen 2005Driessen, Michiel 2005On the etymology of Lat. fulvus. In: Sprachkontakt und Sprachwandel. Akten der XI. Fachtagung der IndogermanischenGesellschaft, eds. G. Meiser and O. Hackstein. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 39-64.
Duhoux 1973Duhoux, Yves 1973Indo-européen *el-eu-dh / l-eu-dh-, *l-eu-dh-; grec ἐλεύϑερος, latin līber. Folia Linguistica 6, 146-151.
Dunkel 1979Dunkel, George 1979reciprocus und Verwandtes. IF 84, 184-195.
Dunkel 1980Dunkel, George 1980Ennian atque atque; prope. Glotta 58.
Dunkel 1987Dunkel, George 1987hērēs, χηρωσταί: Indogermanische Richtersprache. In: Festschrift for Henry Hoenigswald: on the occasion of his seventieth birthday, eds. G. Cardona and N. Zide, Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 91-100.
Dunkel 1997Dunkel, George 1997Latin iubar and fās: sound-law and analogy. In: Lubotsky 1997, 27-36.
Dunkel 1998Dunkel, George 1998On the ħThematisationɦ of Latin sum, volo, eo and edo and the system of endings in the IE subjunctive active. In: Jasanoff--Melchert --Oliver 1998, 83-100.
Dunkel 2000aDunkel, George 2000aLatin verbs in -igāre and -īgāre. In: Festband 125 Jahre Indogermanistik in Graz. Arbeiten aus der Abteilung "Vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft Graz", eds. M. Ofitsch and C. Zinko, Graz: Leykam, 87-99.
Dunkel 2000bDunkel, George 2000bThe common origin of conjunctive *-ke and of adverbial *-s. In: Anusantatyai. Festschrift für Johanna Narten zum 70. Geburtstag, eds. A. Hintze and E. Tichy, Dettelbach: Röll, 11-29.
Dunkel 2005Dunkel, George 2005Latin -pte, -pe, -per, -pse; IE Limiting *--te, *-pe-r, and *póti ‘master’. In: Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference. Los Angeles, November 5-6, 2004, eds. K. Jones-Bley e.a., Washington DC: Institute for the Study of Man (= JIES Monograph Series 50), 173-189.
Ebbinghaus 1979Ebbinghaus, Ernst 1979Gotica XVI. General Linguistics 19, 188-192.
Edgeworth 1985Edgeworth, Robert 1985Luteus: Pink or Yellow? Glotta 63, 212-220.
Eichner 1978Eichner, Heiner 1978Die urindogermanische Wurzel *H2reu ‘hell machen’. Die Sprache 24, 144-162.
Eichner 1982Eichner, Heiner 1982Zur hethitischen Etymologie. In: Investigationes philologicae et comparativae: Gedenkschrift für Heinz Kronasser, ed. E. Neu, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 16-28.
Eichner 1992Eichner, Heiner 1992Indogermanisches Phonemsystem und lateinische Lautgeschichte. In: Panagl--Krisch 1992, 55-79.
Eichner 1993aEichner, Heiner 1993aReklameiamben aus Roms Königszeit. Die Sprache 34 [1991], 207-238.
Eichner 1993bEichner, Heiner 1993b1919 oder 1991? Zur Entwicklung der oskisch-umbrischen Studien nebst einer neuen Interpretation des Textes von Fonte Romito (Vetter Nr. 147). In: Oskisch-Umbrisch: Texte und Grammatik. Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft und der Società Italiana di Glottologia vom 25. bis 28. September 1991 in Freiburg, ed. H. Rix, Wiesbaden: Reichert, 46-95.
Eichner 1995Eichner, Heiner 1995Zu frühlateinischen Wortformen auf dem Forumscippus CIL I2,1. In: Studia onomastica et indogermanica. Festschrift für Fritz Lochner von Hüttenbach zum 65. Geburtstag, eds. M. Ofitsch and C. Zinko, Graz: Leykam, 65-73.
Eichner 2002Eichner, Heiner 2002Lateinisch hostia, hostus, hostīre und die stellvertretende Tiertötung der Hethiter. In: Fritz--Zeilfelder 2002, 101-156.
Eichner--Luschützky 1999Eichner, Heiner and Hans Christian Luschützky (eds.) 1999Compositiones Indogermanicae in memoriam Jochem Schindler. Praha: Enigma Corporation.
Ernout 1937Ernout, Alfred 1937avtvmare. Latomus 1, 75-79.
Fischer 1982Fischer, Helmut 1982Lateinisch gravis “schwer”. MSS 41, 33-34.
Fischer 1991Fischer, Helmut 1991Nachtrag zu ‘Lateinisch gravis’ (MSS 41,1982, 33f.). MSS 52, 7.
Fischer--Ritter 1991Fischer, Helmut and Ralf-Peter Ritter 1991Zu Bartholomaes (jungavest.) aēta- “das gebührende Teil”. MSS 52, 9-13.
Flobert 1975Flobert, Pierre 1975Les verbes déponents latins des origines à Charlemagne. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
Forbes 1958Forbes, Kathleen 1958The relations of the particle ἀ/ν with κε(ν) κα καν. Glotta 37, 179-182.
Forssman 1965Forssman, Bernhard 1965Gr. πρύμνη, ai. nimná- und Verwandtes. ZVS 79, 11-18.
Forssman 1972Forssman, Bernhard 1972Review of: X. Mignot, Les verbes dénominatifs latins. Paris 1969. Gnomon 44, 666-672.
Forssman 1983Forssman, Bernhard 1983Etymologische Nachschlagewerke zum antiken Latein: Stand und Aufgaben. In: Das etymologische Wörterbuch. Fragen der Konzeption und Gestaltung, ed. A. Bammesberger, Regensburg: Pustet, 49-73.
Forssman 1992Forssman, Bernhard 1992Die etymologische Erforschung des Lateinischen. In: Panagl--Krisch 1992, 295-310.
Forssman 1993Forssman, Bernhard 1993Lateinisch ieiunus und ieientare. In: Meiser et al. 1993, 95-105.
Forssman 1998Forssman, Bernhard 1998Vedisch átithipati-, lateinisch hospes. In: Jasanoff-- Melchert--Oliver 1998, 115-126.
Forssman 1999Forssman, Bernhard 1999Lateinisch permitiēs und perniciēs. In: Eichner--Luschützky 1999, 69-76.
Forssman 2002Forssman, Bernhard 2002Etymologie im Thesaurus Linguae Latinae. Museum Helveticum 59, 172-187.
Forssman 2004Forssman, Bernhard 2004Lateinisch proprius, propriare. In: Hyllested et al. 2004, 131-138.
Fortson 2002Fortson, Benjamin 2002Linguistic and cultural notes on Latin Iūnius and related topics. In: Indo-European Perspectives, ed. M. Southern, Washington DC: Institute for the Study of Man, 61-77.
Fraenkel 1948Fraenkel, Eduard 1948Zur griechischen und lateinischen Grammatik und Wortforschung. Philologus 97, 161-176.
Fraenkel 1955-1965Fraenkel, Eduard 1955-1965Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Two vols. Heidelberg: Winter.
Fritz 1996Fritz, Matthias 1996Das uridg. Wort für ‘Nase’ und das grundsprachliche Lautgesetz *RHV > *RV. HS 109, 1-20.
Fritz--Zeilfelder 2002Fritz, Matthias and Susanne Zeilfelder (eds.) 2002Novalis Indogermanica. Festschrift für Günther Neumann zum 80. Geburtstag. Graz: Leykam
Fruyt 1986Fruyt, Michèle 1986Problèmes méthodologiques de dérivation à propos des suffixes latins en ...cus. Paris: Klincksieck.
García-Ramón 1993aGarcía-Ramón, José-Luis 1993aLatin ciēre, citus, IE *kei-/ki- ‘ponerse en movimiento’ y Causat. *koi-éie-ti. In: Heidermanns--Rix--Seebold 1993, 125-139.
García-Ramón 1993bGarcía-Ramón, José-Luis 1993bLat. censēre, got. hazjan und das idg. Präsens *ḱéns-e-ti (und *ḱn̥s-éi̯e-ti?) ‘verkündigt, schätzt’, Stativ *ḱn̥s-eh1- ‘verkündigt, geschätzt sein / werden’. In: Meiser et al. 1993, 106-130.
García-Ramón 1996García-Ramón, José-Luis 1996Lat. auēre, (ad)iuuāre and IE *h2euh1. In: Akten des VIII. Internationalen Kolloquiums zur lateinischen Linguistik, eds. A. Bammesberger and F. Heberlein, Heidelberg: Winter, 32-49.
García-Ramón 1997García-Ramón, José-Luis 1997Lat. prae, gr. παραί, παρά und Verwandtes: idg. *pr̥h2- und *pr̥- ‘vorn daneben, vor’ gegenüber *pro(h1) ‘vor(n), vorwärts’. In: Lubotsky 1997, 47-62.
García-Ramón 2006García-Ramón, José-Luis 2006Homme comme force, force d’homme: un motif onomastique et l’étymologie du vieil irlandais gus. In: La langue poétique indo-européenne, eds. G.-J. Pinault and D. Petit, Leuven: Peeters, 79-93.
Garnier 2004Garnier, Romain 2004L’apophonie radicale dans le verbe latin. Étude synchronique et diachronique. Doctoral diss. EPHÉ, Paris.
Gavoille 2001Gavoille, Laurent 2001Orare signifie-t-il “parler”? In : De lingva latina novae qvaestiones. Actes du Xè Colloque International de Linguistique Latine, ed. C. Moussy, Louvain: Peeters, 787-800.
Georgiev 1962Georgiev, Vladimir 1962Lateinisch crūs and clūnis : Reste eines r/n-Stammes. Die Sprache 8, 1-3.
Gerow 1973Gerow, Edwin 1973‘Frost’ in the Ṛgveda. JIES 1, 224-231.
Gerschner 2002Gerschner, Robert 2002Die Deklination der Nomina bei Plautus. Heidelberg: Winter.
Giacomelli 1963Giacomelli, Gabriella 1963La lingua falisca. Firenze: Olschki.
Giacomelli 1994Giacomelli, Roberto 1994Lingua quotidiana e grecismo nel lessico culinario latino. ACME (Annali di lettere e filosofia dell’Università degli Studi di Milano) 47, 2, 29-49.
Goto 1985Gotō, Toshifumi 1985Altindisch rándhra- und uridg. *lendh-. MSS 44, 77-91.
Guasparri 2000Guasparri, Andrea 2000Acipenser. Glotta 76, 50-52.
Guiraud 1975Guiraud, Charles 1975Les mots latins a préfixe -. Revue des études anciennes 77, 80-87.
Gusmani 2002Gusmani, Roberto 2002Althochdeutsch (hari)sliz, lateinisch (st)līs. HS 115, 111-116.
Hackstein 1993Hackstein, Olav 1993Eine weitere griechisch-tocharische Gleichung: Griechisch πτῆξαι und tocharisch B pyāktsi. Glotta 70, 136-165.
Hackstein 1995Hackstein, Olav 1995Untersuchungen zu den sigmatischen Präsensstammbildungen des Tocharischen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Hackstein 1997Hackstein, Olav 1997Probleme der homerischen Formenlehre I. MSS 57, 19-46.
Hackstein 2002aHackstein, Olav 2002aUridg. *CH.CC > *C.CC. HS 115, 1-22.
Hackstein 2002bHackstein, Olav 2002bDie Sprachform der homerischen Epen. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Hamp 1960-61Hamp, Eric 1960-61Notulae. Études Celtiques 9, 139-140.
Hamp 1972Hamp, Eric 1972Latin dacrima, lacruma and Indo-European ‘tear’. Glotta 50, 291-299.
Hamp 1973Hamp, Eric 1973Another lesson from ‘frost’. JIES 1, 215-223.
Hamp 1974Hamp, Eric 1974Palat[al]ized *l in Umbrian. Glotta 52, 231-233.
Hamp 1977Hamp, Eric 1977Some Italic and Celtic correspondences. ZVS 77, 240-245.
Hamp 1978Hamp, Eric 1978Sound change and the etymological lexicon. In: Papers from the ‘Parasession on the lexicon’, Chicago Linguistic Society, 184-195.
Hamp 1980Hamp, Eric 1980Latin volup(e). ZVS 94, 158.
Hamp 1981aHamp, Eric 1981aIE *(He)op-. MSS 40, 39-60.
Hamp 1981bHamp, Eric 1981bRefining Indo-European lexical entries. ZVS 95, 81-83.
Hamp 1982Hamp, Eric 1982Dulcis. Folia Linguistica Historica 3, 133-134.
Hamp 1982-1983aHamp, Eric 1982-1983aSome Italic and Celtic Correspondences. ZVS 96, 95-100.
Hamp 1982-1983bHamp, Eric 1982-1983bIndo-European substantives in *-mo- and *-ma-. ZVS 96, 170-177.
Hamp 1983Hamp, Eric 1983Further on Latin Capillus and Pullus and Lautgesetze. Folia Linguistica Historica 4, 133-135.
Hamp 1984aHamp, Eric 1984aOn the Meaning of Latin uoltus and IE ‘face’. In: Papers from the Regional Meetings, Chicago Linguistic Society 20, 149-153.
Hamp 1984bHamp, Eric 1984bSome Italic and Celtic correspondences. ZVS 97, 265-266.
Hamp 1985aHamp, Eric 1985aLatin callum, callis, Indic kiṇa-. ZVS 98, 59.
Hamp 1985bHamp, Eric 1985bIndo-European *bhetti-, Latin foedus, and Balto-Slavic. IF 90, 66-69.
Hamp 1988Hamp, Eric 1988Miscellanea. IF 93, 121-123.
Hamp 1990Hamp, Eric 1990aestumō. Glotta 68, 119.
Hamp 1992Hamp, Eric 1992focus. Glotta 70, 82.
Hamp 1993Hamp, Eric 1993The text of CIL I29 (son of Barbatus). In: Heidermanns--Rix--Seebold 1993, 157-163.
Hamp 1997Hamp, Eric 1997Intensive and perfective prō̆- in Latin. In: Studies in Honor of Jaan Puhvel. Part one: Ancient languages and philology, eds. D. Disterheft, M. Huld and J. Greppin, Washington DC: Institue for the Study of Man, 123-130.
Hamp 1999Hamp, Eric 1999fidēs and the Latin 5th declension. Glotta 74, 54-56.
Harðarson 1994Harðarson, Jón Axel 1994Der Verlust zweier wichtiger Flexionskategorien im Uranatolischen. HS 107, 30-41.
Haug 2004Haug, Dag 2004Lateinisch concinnus und concinnare. Glotta 80, 24-45.
Heidermanns 1993Heidermanns, Frank 1993bonus, beātus und ein altes Präverb des Lateinischen. In: Heidermanns / Rix / Seebold 1993, 165-173.
Heidermanns 2002Heidermanns, Frank 2002Nominal composition in Sabellic and Proto-Italic. TPS 100, 185-202.
Heidermanns--Rix--Seebold 1993Heidermanns, Frank, Helmut Rix and Elmar Seebold 1993Sprachen und Schriften des antiken Mittelmeerraums. Festschrift für Jürgen Untermann zum 65. Geburtstag, Innsbruck: IBS.
Heiermeier 1980Heiermeier, A. 1980Die indogermanische orientierte ursprachliche Konzeption *kuendhro- / *kuondhro- / *kuondhnā. Dublin University Press.
Hill 2003Hill, Eugen 2003Untersuchungen zum inneren Sandhi des Indogermanischen. Der Zusammenstoß von Dentalplosiven im Indoiranischen, Germanischen, Italischen und Keltischen. Bremen: Hempen.
Hill 2006Hill, Eugen 2006Lateinisch crēscō ‘wachsen’ etymologisch: urslavisch *krějǫ ‘genesen’, litauisch šeriù ‘futtern’ oder armenisch serem ‘erzeugen’? IJDLLR 3, 187-209.
Hilmarsson 1993Hilmarsson, Jörundur 1993The fate of TTR/RTT in Indo-European. In: Meiser et al. 1993, 209-222.
Hiltbrunner 1958Hiltbrunner, Otto 1958Latina Graeca. Bern: Francke.
Hirt 1916-17Hirt, Hermann 1916-17Etymologien. IF 37, 227-236.
Hyllested et al. 2004Hyllested, Adam, Anders Jørgensen, Jenny Larsson and Thomas Olander (eds.) 2004Per Aspera ad Asteriscos. Studia indogermanica in honorem Jens Elmegård Rasmussen sexagenarii Idibus Martiis anno MMIV. Innsbruck: IBS.
Isebaert 1988Isebaert, Lambert 1988La formation de latin domāre. In: A Linguistic Happening in Memory of Ben Schwartz: Studies in Anatolian, Italic, and Other Indo-European Languages, ed. Y. Arbeitman, Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters, 349-359.
Isebaert 1992Isebaert, Lambert 1992Spuren akrostatischer Präsensflexion im Lateinischen. In: Panagl--Krisch 1992, 193-205.
Isebaert 1995Isebaert, Lambert 1995Lat. crepāre. MSS 55, 41-43.
Isebaert--Seldeslachts 1994Isebaert, Lambert and Herman Seldeslachts 1994Tokharisch *twānkā- ‘einzwängen’ und Verwandtes. HS 107, 172-177.
Janda 1998Janda, Michael 1998Die hohle und geschlossene Hand im Urindogermanischen. Die Sprache 40, 1-25.
Janda 1999Janda, Michael 1999Ένοσίχϑων ‘Erderschütterer’. In: Eichner--Luschützky 1999, 183-203.
Janda 2000Janda, Michael 2000Eleusis. Das indogermanische Erbe der Mysterien. Innsbruck: IBS.
Jasanoff 1976Jasanoff, Jay 1976Gr. ἄμφω, lat. ambō et le mot indo-européen pour ‘l’un et l’autre’. BSL 71, 123-131.
Jasanoff 1988-1990Jasanoff, Jay 1988-1990The origin of the Celtic comparative type OIr. tressa, MW trech ‘stronger’. Die Sprache 34, 171-189.
Jasanoff 2004Jasanoff, Jay 2004Plus ça change...: Lachmann’s Law in Latin. In: Penney 2004, 405-416.
Jasanoff--Melchert--Oliver 1998Jasanoff, Jay, H. Craig Melchert and Lisi Oliver (eds.) 1998Mír Curad. Studies in honor of Calvert Watkins. Innsbruck: IBS.
Jiménez Zamudio 1989Jiménez Zamudio, Rafael 1989La forma pronominal latina ipse: Su origen. Emerita 57, 119-127.
Job 1999Job, Michael 1999Zur Etymologie von lat. invitāre. In: Studia Celtica et Indogermanica. Festschrift für Wolfgang Meid zum 70. Geburtstag, eds. P. Anreiter and E. Jerem, Budapest: Archaeolingua Alapítvány, 151-155.
Joseph 1986Joseph, Lionel 1986A survival from the Italo-Celtic legal vocabulary. Ériu 37, 119-125.
Joseph--Wallace 1987Joseph, Brian and Rex Wallace 1987Latin sum / Oscan súm, sim, esum. AJPh 108, 675-693.
Juret 1942Juret, A. 1942Dictionnaire étymologique grec et latin. Maçon: Protat.
Kallio 2004Kallio, Petri 2004Tocharian loanwords in Samoyed? In: Etymologie, Entlehnungen und Entwicklungen: Festschrift für Jorma Koivulehto zum 70. Geburtstag, eds. I. Hyvärinen, P. Kallio and J. Korhonen, Helsinki: Société Néophilologique, 129-137.
Katz 1998aKatz, Joshua 1998aTestimonia Ritus Italici. HSCP 98, 183-217.
Katz 1998bKatz, Joshua 1998bHow to be a dragon in Indo-European. In: Jasanoff / Melchert / Oliver 1998, 317-334.
Katz 2006Katz, Joshua 2006The “Urbi et Orbi-Rule” Revisited. JIES 34, 319-361.
Keller 1980Keller, Madeleine 1980Latin expergiscor. BSL 75, 309-324.
Keller 1982Keller, Madeleine 1982Latin vescor. Revue de philologie, de littérature et d’ histoire anciennes 56, 81-93.
Keller 1992Keller, Madeleine 1992Les verbes latins à infectum en -sc-, étude morphologique. Bruxelles: Latomus.
Klingenschmitt 1972Klingenschmitt, Gert 1972Die mittelpersischen Pronomina ͑ yn und h ͗ n, neupersisch īn und ān. MSS 30, 93-102.
Klingenschmitt 1978Klingenschmitt, Gert 1978Zum Ablaut des indogermanischen Kausativs. ZVS 92, 1-13.
Klingenschmitt 1980Klingenschmitt, Gert 1980Zur Etymologie des Lateinischen. In: Lautgeschichte und Etymologie: Akten der VI. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Wien, 24.-29. September 1978, eds. M. Mayrhofer, M. Peters and O. Pfeiffer, Wiesbaden: Reichert, 208-222.
Klingenschmitt 1982Klingenschmitt, Gert 1982Das altarmenische Verbum. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Klingenschmitt 1987Klingenschmitt, Gert 1987Erbe und Neuerung beim germanischen Demonstrativpronomen. Althochdeutsch. Band I: Grammatik, Glossen und Texte, eds. R. Bergmann, H. Tiefenbach and L. Voetz, Heidelberg: Winter, 169-189.
Klingenschmitt 1989Klingenschmitt, Gert 1989Altlateinisch exprētus (Plaut. Bacch. 446). In: Indogermanica Europaea: Festschrift für Wolfgang Meid zum 60. Geburtstag am 12.11.1989, eds. K. Heller, O. Panagl and J. Tischler, Graz: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft, 79-100.
Klingenschmitt 1992Klingenschmitt, Gert 1992Die lateinische Nominalflexion. In: Panagl--Krisch 1992, 89-135.
Klingenschmitt 2004Klingenschmitt, Gert 2004Zur Etymologie der klassischen Sprachen. In: Artes et Scientia: Festschrift für Ralf-Peter Ritter zum 65. Geburtstag, eds. P. Anreiter, M. Haslinger and H.D. Pohl, Wien: Praesens, 239-252.
Klingenschmitt 2005Klingenschmitt, Gert 2005Aufsätze zur Indogermanistik. Eds. M. Janda, R. Lühr, J. Matzinger and S. Schaffner. Hamburg: Dr. Kovač.
Kloekhorst 2006aKloekhorst, Alwin 2006aHittite pai-/pi- ‘to give’. IF 111, 110-119.
Kloekhorst 2006bKloekhorst, Alwin 2006bInitial laryngeals in Anatolian. HS 119, 77-108.
Kloekhorst 2008Kloekhorst, Alwin 2008Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon. Leiden: Brill.
Kluge--Seebold 1999Kluge, Friedrich and Elmar Seebold 1999Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. 23., erweiterte Auflage. Berlin – New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Knobloch 1973Knobloch, Johann 1973Lat. helluo, -onis m. ‘ Prasser’. Die Sprache 19, 63.
Knobloch 1977Knobloch, Johann 1977Lat. fēnus, pignus und die Viehverstellung. Rheinisches Museum 120, 92-93.
Knobloch 1978Knobloch, Johann 1978Untersuchungen zur umbrischen Wortkunde. Rheinisches Museum 121, 161-163.
Kölligan 2005Kölligan, Daniel 2005Lat. lugēre ‘trauern’. IJDLLR 2, 169-175.
Kortlandt 1980aKortlandt, Frederik 1980aMore evidence for Italo-Celtic. Ériu 32, 1-22.
Kortlandt 1980bKortlandt, Frederik 1980bH2o and oH2. Lingua Posnaniensis 23, 127-128.
Kortlandt 1983aKortlandt, Frederik 1983aGreek numerals and PIE glottalic consonants. MSS 42, 97-104.
Kortlandt 1983bKortlandt, Frederik 1983bDemonstrative pronouns in Balto-Slavic, Armenian and Tocharian. Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 3, 311-322.
Kortlandt 1983cKortlandt, Frederik 1983cNotes on Armenian historical phonology III: h-. Studia Caucasica 5, 9-16.
Kortlandt 1985aKortlandt, Frederik 1985aLong vowels in Balto-Slavic. Baltistica 21/2, 112-124.
Kortlandt 1985bKortlandt, Frederik 1985bArm. artawsr ‘tear’. Annual of Armenian Linguistics 6, 59-61.
Kortlandt 1986Kortlandt, Frederik 1986Posttonic *w in Old Irish. Ériu 37, 89-92.
Kortlandt 1989Kortlandt, Frederik 1989Lachmann’s Law. In: The new sound of Indo-European: Essays in phonological reconstruction, ed. T. Vennemann, Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 103-105.
Kortlandt 1992Kortlandt, Frederik 1992The Germanic fifth class of strong verbs. NOWELE 19, 101-107.
Kortlandt 1993Kortlandt, Frederik 1993Proto-Armenian numerals. In: In honorem Holger Pedersen: Kolloquium der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 26. bis 28. März 1993 in Kopenhagen, ed. J.E. Rasmussen, Wiesbaden: Reichert, 253-257.
Kortlandt 1996Kortlandt, Frederik 1996Old irish ol ‘inquit’. Études celtiques 32, 143-145.
Kortlandt 1997aKortlandt, Frederik 1997aArm. nēr ‘sister-in-law’. Annual of Armenian Linguistics 18, 7-9.
Kortlandt 1997bKortlandt, Frederik 1997bBaltic ē- and ī/jā-stems. Baltistica 32, 157-163.
Kortlandt 1999Kortlandt, Frederik 1999Lachmann’s law again. In: Language change and typological variation: in honor of Winfred P. Lehmann on the occasion of 83rd birthday. Vol. I: Language change and phonology, ed. E. Polomé and C. Justus, Washington DC: Institute for the Study of Man, 246-248.
Kortlandt 2000Kortlandt, Frederik 2000Old Norse taka, Gothic tekan, Greek τεταγών. NOWELE 36, 59-65.
Kortlandt 2003Kortlandt, Frederik 2003Armeniaca: comparative notes. With an appendix on the historical phonology of Classical Armenian by Robert S.P. Beekes. Ann Arbor: Caravan.
Kortlandt 2005Kortlandt, Frederik 2005Lithuanian tekėti and related formations. Baltistica 40, 167-170.
Kortlandt 2007Kortlandt, Frederik 2007Italo-Celtic origins and prehistoric development of the Irish language. Amsterdam – New York: Rodopi.
Kroonen 2006Kroonen, Guus 2006Gemination and allomorphy in the Proto-Germanic mn-stems: bottom and rime. ABÄG 61, 17-25.
Kuiper 1995Kuiper, Franciscus 1995Gothic bagms and Old Icelandic ylgr. NOWELE 25, 63-88.
Kümmel 2000Kümmel, Martin 2000Das Perfekt im Indoiranischen. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Kümmel 2004aKümmel, Martin 2004aDas Wort für ‘Biber’ und einige Probleme der altgermanischen Phonologie. In: Historisch-vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft und germanische Sprachen. Akten der 4. Neulandtagung der Historisch-Vergleichenden Sprachwissenschaft in Potsdam 2001, eds. M. Fritz and I. Wischer, Innsbruck: IBS, 105-117.
Kümmel 2004bKümmel, Martin 2004bZu einigen seltenen Wörtern in der Cistellaria. In: Studien zu Plautus’ Cistellaria, eds. R. Hartkamp and F. Hurka, Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 347-362.
Kümmel 2005Kümmel, Martin 2005Ved. tand- und ein neues indoiranisches Lautgesetz. In: Indogermanica. Festschrift für Gert Klingenschmitt, ed. G. Schweiger, Taimering, 321-332.
de Lamberterie 1990de Lamberterie, Charles 1990Les adjectifs grecs en -υς: sémantique et comparaison. Two vols. Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters.
de Lamberterie 1994de Lamberterie, Charles 1994L’adverbe grec ὑπέρφευ. In: Mélanges François Kerlouégan, eds. D. Conso, N. Fick and B. Poulle. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 321-340
de Lamberterie 1996de Lamberterie, Charles 1996Latin pignus et la théorie glottalique. In: Aspects of Latin: papers from the seventh International Colloquium on Latin linguistics, Jerusalem, April 1993, ed. H. Rosén, Innsbruck: IBS, 135-152.
Lazzarini--Poccetti 2001Lazzarini, Maria Letizia and Paolo Poccetti 2001Il mondo enotrio tra VI e V secolo a.C. Atti dei seminari napoletani (1996-1998). L’iscrizione paleoitalica da Tortora. Napoli: Lofredo.
Ledo-Lemos 2002Ledo-Lemos, Francisco Jose 2002The etymology of Latin uirgo and the Latin evolution of the consonantal group *-rgw-. IF 107, 219-239.
Lee 1967Lee, D.J.N. 1967The modal particles ἄν, κε(ν), κα. AJPh 88, 45-56.
Lejeune 1974Lejeune, Michel 1974Manuel de la langue vénète. Heidelberg: Winter.
Lejeune 1990Lejeune, Michel 1990Notes de linguistique italique XL. Revue des études latines 68, 28-30.
Leumann 1940Leumann, Manu 1940Literaturbericht für das Jahr 1937. Glotta 28, 1-21.
Leumann 1959Leumann, Manu 1959Kleine Schriften. Zürich – Stuttgart: Artemis.
Leumann 1960Leumann, Manu 1960Zwei lateinischen Wortbedeutungen: Lucina und bubō. Die Sprache 6, 156-161.
Leumann 1977Leumann, Manu 1977Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre. München: C.H. Beck.
Levin 1983Levin, Saul 1983Hebrew pi(y)lɛgɛš, Greek παλλακή, Latin paelex: the origin of intermarriage among the Early Indo-Europeans and Semites. General Linguistics 23, 191-197.
Lindeman 1965Lindeman, Frederik Otto 1965La loi de Sievers et le début du mot en indo-européen. NTS 20, 38-108.
Lindner 2002Lindner, Thomas 2002Lateinische Komposita. Morphologische, historische und lexikalische Studien. Innsbruck: IBS.
Livingston 2004Livingston, Ivy 2004A linguistic commentary of Livius Andronicus. New York – London: Routledge.
Lloyd--Springer 1988Lloyd, Albert and Otto Springer 1988Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Althochdeutschen. Bd. I: a–bezzisto. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Lockwood 1990Lockwood, William B. 1990Latin columba, palumbes, Greek κόλυμβος. HS 103, 261-263.
Lockwood 2001Lockwood, William B. 2001On the origin of Lat. hirundo and Gr. χελιδών. Glotta 77, 217-218.
Lubotsky 1981Lubotsky, Alexander 1981Gr. πήγνυμι : Skt. pajrá- and loss of laryngeals before mediae in Indo-Iranian. MSS 40, 133-138.
Lubotsky 1985Lubotsky, Alexander 1985The PIE word for ‘dry’. ZVS 98, 1-10.
Lubotsky 1988Lubotsky, Alexander 1988The system of nominal accentuation in Sanskrit and Proto-Indo-European. Leiden etc.: Brill.
Lubotsky 1989Lubotsky, Alexander 1989Against a Proto-Indo-European phoneme *a. In: The new sound of Indo-European: Essays in phonological reconstruction, ed. T. Vennemann, Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 53-66.
Lubotsky 1990Lubotsky, Alexander 1990La loi de Brugmann et *H3e-. La reconstruction des laryngales, ed. Liège –Paris, 129-136.
Lubotsky 1994Lubotsky, Alexander 1994RV. ávidhat. In: Früh-, Mittel- und Spätindogermanisch: Akten der IX. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 5. bis 9. Oktober 1992 in Zürich, eds. G. Dunkel, G. Meyer, S. Scarlata and C. Seidl, Wiesbaden: Reichert, 201-206.
Lubotsky 1995Lubotsky, Alexander 1995Reflexes of intervocalic laryngeals in Sanskrit. In: Kuryɫowicz Memorial Volume, Part One, ed. W. Smoczyński, Cracow: Universitas, 213-233.
Lubotsky 1997Lubotsky, Alexander 1997(ed.) Sound Law and Analogy : papers in honor of Robert S.P. Beekes on the occasion of his 60th birthday. Amsterdam – Atlanta: Rodopi.
Lubotsky 2000Lubotsky, Alexander 2000The Vedic root vṛ- ‘to cover’ and its present. In: Indoarisch, Iranisch und die Indogermanistik, eds. B. Forssman and R. Plath, Wiesbaden: Reichert, 315-325.
Lubotsky 2001Lubotsky, Alexander 2001Reflexes of PIE *sk in Indo-Iranian. Incontri Linguistici 24, 25-57.
Lubotsky 2004Lubotsky, Alexander 2004Avestan siiazd-, Sanskrit sedh-, Latin cēdere. In: Hyllested et al. 2004, 323-332.
Lubotsky 2006Lubotsky, Alexander 2006Indo-European ‘heel’. In: Studi linguistici in onore di Roberto Gusmani, eds. R. Bombi, G. Cifoletti, F. Fusco, L. Innocente and V. Orioles. Alessandria: ed. dell’Orso, 1005-1010.
Lubotsky 2008Lubotsky, Alexander 2008: The Indo-Iranian root *stig-. In: Indologica. T. Ya. Elizarenkova Memorial Volume, Book 1, Kulikov, L. & Rusanov, M. (eds.). Moscow: RGGU, 305-313.
Lühr 2000Lühr, Rosemarie 2000Die Gedichte des Skalden Egill. Dettelbach: J.H. Röll.
Manessy-Guitton 1964Manessy-Guitton, Jacqueline 1964facinus et les substantifs neutres latins en –nus. Revue de philologie, 3me série 38, 48-58.
Marinetti 1999Marinetti, Anna 1999Venetico 1976-1996. Acquisizione e prospettive. In: Protostoria e storia del ‘Venetorum Angulus’, ed. A. Maggiani, Pisa – Roma: Istituti editoriali e poligrafici internazionali, 391-436.
Marinetti 2004Marinetti, Anna 2004Venetico: rassegna di nuove iscrizioni (Este, Altino, Auronzo, S. Vito, Asolo). Studi Etruschi 70, 389-408.
Martzloff 2006Martzloff, Vincent 2006Les thèmes de présent en yod dans l’épigraphie italique et en latin archaïque. Thèse doctorale, Univ. Lumière – Lyon II.
Masson 1967Masson, Émilia 1967Recherches sur les plus anciens emprunts sémitiques en grec. Paris: Klincksieck.
Mastrelli 1979Mastrelli, Carlo Alberto 1979Una nota su lat. rēnēs e gr. ράχις. Incontri Linguistici 5, 37-42.
Mastrelli 1980Mastrelli, Carlo Alberto 1980Un falso arcaismo: lat-fal. uxor, pel. ụsur. Archivio glottologico italiano 65, 14-18.
Matasovic´ 2004Matasović, Ranko 2004Gender in Indo-European. Heidelberg: Winter.
Matzinger 2003Matzinger, Joachim 2003Albanisch kam ‘ich habe’. Studia Etymologica Cracoviensia 8, 111-118.
Matzinger 2005Matzinger, Joachim 2005Messapisch und Albanisch. IJDLLR 2, 29-54.
McCone 1991McCone, Kim 1991The Indo-European origins of the Old Irish nasal presents, subjunctives and futures. Innsbruck: IBS.
McCone 1992aMcCone, Kim 1992aOIr. torc, Av. ϑβərəsō < PIE *tworḱos ‘(cutter,) boar’. MSS 53, 99-100.
McCone 1992bMcCone, Kim 1992bOIr. aub ‘river’ and amnair ‘maternal uncle’. MSS 53, 101-111.
Meid 1956-57Meid, Wolfgang 1956-57Zur Dehnung praesuffixaler Vokale in sekundären Nominalableitungen. IF 62, 260-295 and IF 63, 1-28.
Meid 1957Meid, Wolfgang 1957Das Suffix -no- in Götternamen. Beiträge zur Namenforschung 8, 72-108, 113-126.
Meid 1958Meid, Wolfgang 1958Zur Bedeutung und Bildung von altindisch dámūnas-. IF 63, 151-162.
Meier-Brügger 1977Meier-Brügger, Michael 1977Lateinisch humī und domī. ZVS 91, 159-165.
Meier-Brügger 1979Meier-Brügger, Michael 1979Lateinisch sōspes, Sōspita und vedisch svastí-. ZVS 93, 100-102.
Meier-Brügger 1980Meier-Brügger, Michael 1980Lateinisch audīre/oboedīre: Etymologie und Lautgeschichte. In: Lautgeschichte und Etymologie: Akten der VI. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Wien, 24.-29. September 1978, eds. M. Mayrhofer, M. Peters and O. Pfeiffer, Wiesbaden: Reichert, 287-292.
Meier-Brügger 1990Meier-Brügger, Michael 1990Griechisch (επι)λίγδην und λιχανός, lateinisch pollex und pollingere. Glotta 68, 1-3.
Meier-Brügger 1992Meier-Brügger, Michael 1992Zu lateinisch ōmen. Glotta 70, 248-249.
Meier-Brügger 2004Meier-Brügger, Michael 2004On the Proto-Indo-European secondary root *swedh(h1)- /*swedh(h1). In: Indo-European word formation: Proceedings of the conference held at the University of Copenhagen, October 20th-22nd, 2000, eds. J. Clackson and B.A. Olsen, Copenhagen: Museum Tusculaneum, 183-188.
Meillet 1918Meillet, Antoine 1918À propos de latin formīca. Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 20, 115.
Meiser 1986Meiser, Gerhard 1986Lautgeschichte der umbrischen Sprache. Innsbruck: IBS.
Meiser 1993Meiser, Gerhard 1993Das Gerundivum im Spiegel der italischen Onomastik. In: Heidermanns / Rix / Seebold 1993, 255-268.
Meiser 1998Meiser, Gerhard 1998Historische Laut- und Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Meiser 2003Meiser, Gerhard 2003Veni Vidi Vici. Die Vorgeschichte der lateinischen Perfektsystems. München: Beck.
Meiser 1993Meiser, Gerhard et al. 1993Indogermanica et Italica: Festschrift für Helmut Rix zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. G. Meiser in cooperation with J. Bendahman, J.A. Harðarson and C. Schaefer. Innsbruck: IBS.
Melchert 1985Melchert, H. Craig 1985Hittite imma and Latin immo. ZVS 98, 184-205.
Melchert 1994Melchert, H. Craig 1994Anatolian Historical Phonology. Amsterdam – Atlanta: Rodopi.
Melchert 1998Melchert, H. Craig 1998Hittite arku- “chant, intone” vs. arkuwā(i)- “make a plea”. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 50, 45-51.
Melchert 1999Melchert, H. Craig 1999Hittite tuk(kan)zi- “cultivation, breeding”. Ktema 24, 17-23.
Melchert 2002Melchert, H. Craig 2002Hieroglyphic Luvian REL-ipa ‘indeed, certainly’. In: Indo-European Perspectives, ed. M. Southern, Washington DC: Institute for the Study of Man, 223-232.
Melchert 2005Melchert, H. Craig 2005Latin īnsolēscō, Hittite šulle(šš)- and PIE statives in -ē-. In: Hr̥dā́ Mánasā. Sbornik statej k 70-letiju so dnja poždenija professora Leonarda Georgieviča Gercenberga. Sankt-Peterburg: Nauka, 90-98.
Melchert 2007aMelchert, H. Craig 2007aPIE *h2esp- ‘to cut’. In: Nussbaum 2007c, 253-258.
Melchert 2007bMelchert, H. Craig 2007bLuvian Evidence for PIE *h3eit- ‘take along, fetch’. Indo-European Studies Bulletin UCLA.
Mignot 1969Mignot, Xavier 1969Les verbes dénominatifs latins. Paris: Klincksieck.
Morani 1984Morani, M. 1984Augurium augur augustus: una questione di metodo. Glotta 62, 65-71.
Moussy 1980Moussy, Claude 1980Une étymologie de lat. uxor. BSL 75, 325-346.
Muller 1926Muller, F.M. Jzn. 1926Altitalisches Wörterbuch. Göttingen.
Nepokupnyj 2002Nepokupnyj, Anatolij 2002The Prussian taboo: mosuco [Elbing Dictionary, 662] ‘weasel’ as a diminutive of moazo [Elbing Dictionary, 178] ‘aunt’. Baltistica 37, 35-43.
Neri 2007Neri, Sergio 2007Cadere e abbattere in Indoeuropeo. Sull’ etimologia di tedesco fallen, latino aboleo e greco ἀπόλλυμι. Innsbruck: IBS.
Niedermann 1899Niedermann, Max 1899Studien zur Geschichte der lateinischen Wortbildung. IF 10, 221-258.
Niedermann 1945Niedermann, Max 1945Phonétique historique du latin. Paris: Klincksieck.
Nieto 1988Nieto, Emilio 1988Veia: Apud Oscos Dicebatur Plaustrum (P.F., 506,3). Emerita 56, 37-41.
Nowicki 1978Nowicki, Helmut 1978Zur Stammbildung von lat. custōs. ZVS 92, 184-194.
Nowicki 2002Nowicki, Helmut##2002Lateinisch -īna als Motionssuffix. In: Fritz--Zeilfelder 2002, 333-341.
Nussbaum 1973Nussbaum, Alan 1973benuso, couortuso, and the archetype of Tab. Ig. I and VI-VIIa. JIES 1, 356-369.
Nussbaum 1976Nussbaum, Alan 1976Umbrian pisher. Glotta 54, 241-253.
Nussbaum 1986Nussbaum, Alan 1986Head and horn in Indo-European. Berlin – New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Nussbaum 1994Nussbaum, Alan 1994Five Latin verbs from a root *leik-. HSCP 96, 161-190.
Nussbaum 1996Nussbaum, Alan 1996“Decasuative” derivatives (Latin acētum, aurītus, acūtus, avītus: four of a kind?). Handout, ECIEC 15, June 1996.
Nussbaum 1997Nussbaum, Alan 1997The “Saussure Effect” in Latin and Italic. In: Lubotsky 1997, 181-203.
Nussbaum 1998aNussbaum, Alan 1998aTwo studies in Greek and Homeric Linguistics. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Nussbaum 1998bNussbaum, Alan 1998bSevere Problems. In: Jasanoff / Melchert / Oliver 1998, 521-538.
Nussbaum 1998cNussbaum, Alan 1998cMore on “Decasuative” nominal stems in IE. Handout, ECIEC 17, May 1998.
Nussbaum 1999aNussbaum, Alan 1999a*Jocidus: An account of the Latin adjectives in -idus. In: Eichner--Luschützky 1999, 377-419.
Nussbaum 1999bNussbaum, Alan 1999bSome old stories and a “new” adjective in Latin. Handout, ECIEC 19, May 1999.
Nussbaum 2003Nussbaum, Alan 2003A benign interpretation. Handout, ECIEC 22, June 2003.
Nussbaum 2004aNussbaum, Alan 2004aCool *-ēd-: The Latin frīgēdō and Gr. ἀλγηδών, τηκεδών, and ῥῑγεδανός types. Handout ECIEC 2004.
Nussbaum 2004bNussbaum, Alan 2004bA -t- Party: Various IE nominal stems in *-(o/e)t-. Handout, West Coast Indo-European Conference, November 2004.
Nussbaum 2007aNussbaum, Alan 2007aWhat does *h2ner do? Well... Handout, ECIEC 2007.
Nussbaum 2007bNussbaum, Alan 2007bLatin present stems in --: A possibly not so minor type. Handout, Kyoto, September 2007.
Nussbaum 2007cNussbaum, Alan 2007c(ed.) Verba Docenti. Studies in historical and Indo-European linguistics presented to Jay H. Jasanoff by students, colleagues, and friends. Ann Arbor – New York: Beech Stave Press.
Nyman 1982Nyman, Martti 1982Positing a Lautgesetz: Latin capillus, pullus and kindred issues. Folia Linguistica Historica 3, 87-108.
Nyman 1987Nyman, Martti 1987Semantic selection properties and etymology: Latin mīca. Glotta 65, 221-239.
Nyman 1990Nyman, Martti 1990Hits and misses: Lat. considerare and desiderare. HS 103, 51-68.
Oettinger 1976Oettinger, Norbert 1976Die militärischen Eide der Hethiter. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Oettinger 1979Oettinger, Norbert 1979Die Stammbildung des Hethitischen Verbums. Nachdruck [2002] mit einer kurzen Revision der hethitischen Verbalklassen. Dresden: TU.
Oettinger 1998Oettinger, Norbert 1998Wiesel und Schwägerin. Zu einem semantischen Problem. In: Man and the animal world. Studies ... in memoriam Sándor Bökönyi, eds. P. Anreiter et al., Budapest: Archaeolingua Alapítvány, 649-654.
Oettinger 2003Oettinger, Norbert 2003Zum Ablaut von n-Stämmen im Anatolischen und der Brechung ē > ya. In: Derivation, Flexion und Ablaut. Akten der Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft. Freiburg, 19. bis 22. Sept. 2001, eds. E. Tichy, D. Wodtko, B. Irslinger, Bremen: Hempen, 141-152.
Oettinger 2007Oettinger, Norbert 2007Hieroglyphen-luwisch latara/i- ‘erweitern’, ai. rándhra- und nhd. Lende, Land. In: Nussbaum 2007c, 259-262.
Oleson 1976Oleson, J.P. 1976A possible physiological basis for the term urinator ‘diver’. AJPh 97, 22-29.
Oniga 1999Oniga, Renato 1999Etimologia e struttura morgologica di acipenser. In: De lingva latina novae qvaestiones. Actes du Xè Colloque International de Linguistique Latine, ed. C. Moussy, Louvain: Peeters, 133-141.
Panagl 1991Panagl, Oswald 1991Die Etymologie von lat. (ir)rigare. HS 104, 199-204.
Panagl--Krisch 1992Panagl, Oswald and Thomas Krisch 1992Latein und Indogermanisch. Akten des Kolloquiums der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Salzburg, 23.-26. September 1986. Innsbruck: IBS.
Panagl--Lindner 1995Panagl, Oswald and Thomas Lindner 1995Etyma Latina. In: Studia onomastica et indogermanica. Festschrift für Fritz Lochner von Hüttenbach zum 65. Geburtstag, eds. M. Ofitsch and C. Zinko, Graz: Leykam, 167-174.
Pariente 1975Pariente, Angel 1975Necesse. Emerita 43, 25-39.
Parker 1988Parker, Holt N. 1988Latin *sisō > serō and related rules. Glotta 66, 221-241.
Parker 2000Parker, Holt N. 2000Flaccus. Classical Quarterly 50, 455-62.
Parlangèli 1960Parlangèli, Oronzo 1960Studi Messapici. Milano: Istituto Lombardo di Scienze e Lettere.
Patri 2001Patri, Sylvain 2001Une correspondence irano-slave en novgorodien. HS 114, 290-306.
Penney 2004Penney, John (ed.) 2004Indo-European perspectives: studies in honour of Anna Morpurgo Davies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Peruzzi 1969Peruzzi, Emilio 1969Velum. Athenaeum 47 (nuova serie) / 57 (della rivista), 256-265.
Peruzzi 1992Peruzzi, Emilio 1992Umbro kletra e latino clitellae. La parola del passato 47, 343-362.
Peters 1980Peters, Martin 1980Untersuchungen zur Vertretung der indogermanischen Laryngale im Griechischen. Wien: Akademie der Wissenschaften [= Phil.-Hist. Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, 377. Band].
Petit 2004Petit, Daniel 2004On the Hittite verb ark-. Die Sprache 44, 1-25.
Pike 2007Pike, Moss 2007Latin salūs ‘health’. Handout ECIEC 26, June 2007, Yale Univ.
Pinault 1987Pinault, Georges-Jean 1987Bellum : La guerre et la beauté. In: De Virgile à Jacob Balde. Hommage à Mme Andrée Thill, ed. G. Freyburger, Mulhouse: Université de Haute Alsace, 151-156.
Pinault 1997Pinault, Georges-Jean 1997Terminologie du petit bétail en tokharien. Studia etymologica cracoviensia 2, 175-219.
Pinault 1998Pinault, Georges-Jean 1998Analyse de latin caesaries. In: Moussyllanea. Mélanges de linguistique et de littérature anciennes offerts à Claude Moussy, eds. B. Bureau and C. Nicolas, Louvain – Paris: Peeters, 15-30.
Pinault 1999Pinault, Georges-Jean 1999Tokharien A kapśañi, B kektseñe. In: Eichner--Luschützky 1999, 457-478.
Pinault 2000Pinault, Georges-Jean 2000Védique dámūnas-, latin dominus et l’origine du suffixe de Hoffmann. BSL 95, 61-118.
Pinault 2001Pinault, Georges-Jean 2001Le type latin uorāgo: un reflet d’un suffixe indo-européen. Glotta 77, 85-109.
Pinault 2006aPinault, Georges-Jean 2006aL’indo-iranien et les nouvelles langues apparues en asie centrale dans le travail d’Antoine Meillet. In: Meillet aujourd’hui, eds. G. Bergounioux and C. de Lamberterie, Louvain – Paris: Peeters, 191-243.
Pinault 2006bPinault, Georges-Jean 2006bSur l’évolution phonétique tsk > tk en tokharien commun. MSS 62 [2002], 103-156.
Pinault 2007Pinault, Georges-Jean 2007A star is born: a “new” PIE *-ter- suffix. In: Nussbaum 2007c, 271-279.
Pisani 1979Pisani, Vittore 1979Feber, februm, februārius e le continuazioni latini di sr. Archivio Glottologica Italiano 65, 102-106.
von Planta 1892von Planta, Robert 1892Grammatik der oskisch-umbrischen Dialekte. Erster Band: Einleitung und Lautlehre. Strassburg: Trübner.
Porzio Gernia 1981Porzio Gernia, Maria Luisa 1981Gli elementi celtici del latino. In: I Celti d’Italia, ed. E. Campanile, Pisa: Giardini, 97-122.
Postgate 1899Postgate, J. 1899Operatus and operari. The Journal of Philology 26, 314-320.
Praust 1998Praust, Karl 1998Armenisch əmpem ‘trinke’. Die Sprache 38, 184-200.
Praust 2004Praust, Karl 2004Zur historischen Beurteilung von griech. κλῑ́νω, äol. κλίννω, der altindischen 9. Präsensklasse und zur Frage grundsprachlicher “ni-Präsentien”. In: Artes et Scientia: Festschrift für Ralf-Peter Ritter zum 65. Geburtstag, eds. P. Anreiter, M. Haslinger and H.D. Pohl, Wien: Praesens, 369-390.
Praust 2005Praust, Karl 2005What Greek can tell us about the prehistory of English ‘to fall’. Paper at the conference Greek and Latin from an Indo-European Perspective, Cambridge, UK, July 2005.
Prosdocimi 1988Prosdocimi, Aldo 1988La lingua. In: I Veneti Antichi. Lingua e cultura, eds. G. Fogolari and A. Prosdocimi, 223-440.
Puhvel 1992Puhvel, Jaan 1992Shaft-shedding Artemis and mind-voiding Ate: Hittite determinants of Greek etyma. HS 105, 4-8.
Puhvel 1998Puhvel, Jaan 1998Latin furor: help from Hittite. In: Jasanoff / Melchert / Oliver 1998, 607-609.
Puhvel 2006Puhvel, Jaan 2006Latin merē and Hittite marri. Glotta 81, 184-186.
Pulgram 1976Pulgram, Ernst 1976Venetic .e.kupeϑari.s. In: Studies in Greek, Italic and Indo-European linguistics. Offered to Leonard L. Palmer on the occasion of his seventieth birthday, eds. A. Morpurgo Davies and W. Meid, Innsbruck: IBS, 299-304.
Radke 1981Radke, Gerhard 1981Archaisches Latein. Historische und sprachgeschichtliche Untersuchungen. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Rasmussen 1984Rasmussen, Jens Elmegård 1984Miscellaneous morphological problems in Indo-European languages III. Arbejdspapirer udsendt af Institut for Lingvistik, Københavns Universitet 4, 135-149 (= Rasmussen 1999 I: 146-156).
Rasmussen 1989Rasmussen, Jens Elmegård 1989Studien zur Morphophonemik der indogermanischen Grundsprache. Innsbruck: IBS.
Rasmussen 1993Rasmussen, Jens Elmegård 1993Review of Schrijver 1991. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 26, 175-205.
Rasmussen 1999Rasmussen, Jens Elmegård 1999Selected Papers on Indo-European Linguistics. 2 volumes. University of Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum.
Regnaud 1908Regnaud, Paul 1908Dictionnaire étymologique du latin et du grec dans ses rapports avec le latin. Lyon – Paris.
Rieken 1999Rieken, Elisabeth 1999Untersuchungen zur nominalen Stammbildung des Hethitischen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Rieken 2003Rieken, Elisabeth 2003Hieroglyphen-luwisch +ra/i-la-mi-i (“SCALPRUM.ARGENTUM”) su-ha-pa-na-ti: ein Kompositum und eine neue luwisch-lateinische Isoglosse. HS 116, 35-53.
Risch 1954Risch, Ernst 1954Der Typus parturire im Lateinischen. IF 61, 187-195.
Risch 1979Risch, Ernst 1979Zur altlateinischen Gebetsprache. Incontri Linguistici 5, 43-53.
Risch 1984Risch, Ernst 1984Gerundivum und Gerundium. Gebruach im klassischen und älteren Latein. Entstehung und Vorgeschichte. Berlin – New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Risch 1985Risch, Ernst 1985Gab es im Latein ein Neutrum Singular nundinum? In: Sprachwissenschaftliche Forschungen. Festschrift für Johann Knobloch, eds. H. Ölberg and G. Schmidt, Innsbruck: AMŒ, 329-338.
Risch 2004Risch, Ernst 2004Zur Etymologie von lat. lignum. In: Hyllested et al. 2004, 487-490.
Rix 1965Rix, Helmut 1965Lat. iecur, iocineris. MSS 18, 79-92.
Rix 1966Rix, Helmut 1966Die lateinische Synkope als historisches und phonologisches Problem. Kratylos 11, 156-165.
Rix 1976Rix, Helmut 1976Die umbrischen Infinitive auf -fi und die urindogermanische Infinitivendung -dhi̯ōi̯. In: Studies in Greek, Italic and Indo-European linguistics. Offered to Leonard L. Palmer on the occasion of his seventieth birthday, eds. A. Morpurgo Davies and W. Meid, Innsbruck: IBS, 319-331.
Rix 1978Rix, Helmut 1978Die Altersangabe in der oskischen Inschrift Ve. 70 und osk.-umbr. akno- ‘Jahr’. MSS 37, 149-163.
Rix 1981Rix, Helmut 1981Rapporti onomastici fra il panteon etrusco e quello romano. In: Gli Etruschi e Roma, ed. G. Colonna, Roma: Bretschneider, 104-126 (= Kleine Schriften, 2001, 272-294).
Rix 1985aRix, Helmut 1985asūdor und sīdus. In: Sprachwissenschaftliche Forschungen. Festschrift für Johann Knobloch, eds. H. Ölberg and G. Schmidt, Innsbruck: AMŒ, 339-350.
Rix 1985bRix, Helmut 1985bThe last word of the Duenos inscription. MSS 46, 193-220.
Rix 1992Rix, Helmut 1992Zur Entstehung des lateinischen Perfektparadigmas. In: Panagl / Krisch 1992, 221-240.
Rix 1993Rix, Helmut 1993osk. úpsannam – uupsens und Zugehöriges. In: Heidermanns / Rix / Seebold 1993, 329-348.
Rix 1994aRix, Helmut 1994aDie Termini der Unfreiheit in den Sprachen Altitaliens. Stuttgart: Steiner.
Rix 1994bRix, Helmut 1994bLateinisch und sabellisch. Stammbaum und/ oder Sprachbund? Incontri Linguistici 17, 13-29.
Rix 1995aRix, Helmut 1995aEinige lateinische Präsensstammbildungen zu Seṭ-Wurzeln. In: Kuryɫowicz Memorial Volume, Part One, ed. W. Smoczyński, Cracow: Universitas, 399-408.
Rix 1995bRix, Helmut 1995bOskisch bravús, oskisch uruvú, lateinisch urvum und ‘europäisch’ bravo. HS 108, 84-92.
Rix 1996Rix, Helmut 1996Review of Schrijver 1991. Kratylos 41, 153-163.
Rix 1998Rix, Helmut 1998Bemerkungen zu den lateinischen Verbformen des Typs faxo faxim. In: Jasanoff / Melchert / Oliver 1998, 619-634.
Rix 1999Rix, Helmut 1999Schwach charakterisierte lateinische Präsensstämme zu Set-Wurzeln mit Vollstufe I. In: Eichner-- Luschützky 1999, 515-535.
Rix 2001Rix, Helmut 2001Kleine Schriften. Ed. G. Meiser. Bremen: Ute Hempen.
Rix 2002aRix, Helmut 2002aSabellische Texte. Die Texte des Oskischen, Umbrischen und Südpikenischen. Heidelberg: Winter.
Rix 2002bRix, Helmut 2002bOskisch niir kulupu. In: Fritz--Zeilfelder 2002, 417-430.
Rix 2004Rix, Helmut 2004Ein neuer oskisch-griechischer Göttername in Pompei. In: Hyllested et al. 2004, 491-505.
Rix 2005Rix, Helmut 2005Lehnbeziehungen zwischen den Sprachen Altitaliens. In: Sprachkontakt und Sprachwandel. Akten der XI. Fachtagung der Inodgermanischen Gesellschaft, eds. G. Meiser and O. Hackstein, Wiesbaden: Reichert, 559-572.
Rosén 1992Rosén, Haiim B. 1992Die Komposita mit co(n)- in funktioneller und vergleichender Sicht. In: Panagl / Krisch 1992, 357-367.
Rosén 1994Rosén, Haiim B. 1994Lat. sacēna, Heb. śakkīn and the Mediterranean substrate. JIES 22, 165-175.
Rosén 1995Rosén, Haiim B. 1995Lat. rete. IF 100, 210-212.
Russell 1988Russell, Paul 1988Preverbs, prepositions and adverbs: sigmatic and asigmatic. TPS 86, 144-172.
Saalfeld 1884Saalfeld, Günther 1884Tensaurus italograecus: ausführliches historisch-kritisches Wörterbuch der griechischen Lehn- und Fremdwörter im Lateinischen. Wien.
Schaffner 1996Schaffner, Stefan 1996Altenglisch nihol, nīowol und lateinisch procul. MSS 56, 131-171.
Schaffner 2001Schaffner, Stefan 2001Das Vernersche Gesetz und der innerparadigmatische grammatische Wechsel des Urgermanischen im Nominalbereich. Innsbruck: IBS.
Schaffner 2006aSchaffner, Stefan 2006aLateinisch mūstella, mūstēla ‘Wiesel; Quappe’ und der Wortbildungstyp vedisch aśvatará-. IJDLLR 3, 1-50.
Schaffner 2006bSchaffner, Stefan 2006bAltenglisch umbor ‘Kind’. IJDLLR 3, 147-185.
Schindler 1966Schindler, Jochem 1966Bemerkungen zum idg. Wort für “Schlaf”. Die Sprache 12, 67-76.
Schindler 1969Schindler, Jochem 1969Die idg. Wörter für “Vogel” und “Ei”. Die Sprache 15, 144-167.
Schindler 1973Schindler, Jochem 1973Bemerkungen zur Herkunft der idg. Diphthongstämme und zu den Eigentümlichkeiten ihrer Kasusformen. Die Sprache 19, 148-157.
Schindler 1977Schindler, Jochem 1977Notizen zum Sieversschen Gesetz. Die Sprache 23, 56-65.
Schrijver 1990Schrijver, Peter 1990Latin festīnāre, Welsh brys. MSS 51, 243-247.
Schrijver 1991Schrijver, Peter 1991The reflexes of the PIE laryngeals in Latin. Amsterdam – Atlanta: Rodopi.
Schrijver 1995Schrijver, Peter 1995Studies in British Celtic historical phonology. Amsterdam – Atlanta: Rodopi.
Schrijver 1997aSchrijver, Peter 1997aSome western European substratum words. In: Lubotsky 1997, 293-316.
Schrijver 1997bSchrijver, Peter 1997bStudies in the history of Celtic pronouns and particles. Maynooth: Maynooth Studies in Celtic Linguistics II.
Schrijver 1998Schrijver, Peter 1998The British word for ‘fox’ and its Indo-European origin. JIES 26, 421-434.
Schrijver 1999Schrijver, Peter 1999On henbane and early European narcotics. Zeitschrift für celtische Philologie 51, 17-45.
Schrijver 2001Schrijver, Peter 2001Lost languages in Northern Europe. In: Early contacts between Uralic and Indo-European: Linguistic and archaeological considerations, eds. C. Carpelan, A. Parpola and P. Koskikallio, Helsinki: Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne, 417-425.
Schrijver 2003Schrijver, Peter 2003Athematic i-presents: the Italic and Celtic evidence. Incontri Linguistici 26, 59-86.
Schrijver 2004Schrijver, Peter 2004Indo-European *(s)mer- in Greek and Celtic. In: Penney 2004, 292-299.
Schrijver 2006Schrijver, Peter 2006Review of Meiser 2003. Kratylos 51, 46-64.
Schumacher 2004Schumacher, Stefan 2004Die keltischen Primärverben. Innsbruck: IBS.
Schwyzer 1929Schwyzer, Eduard 1929Prognatus. Ein Beitrag zur lateinischen Verbalbildung. ZVS 56, 10-22.
Seldeslachts 2001Seldeslachts, Herman 2001Études de morphologie historique du verbe latin et indo-européen. Leuven: Peeters.
Seldeslachts--Swiggers 1995Seldeslachts, Herman and Pierre Swiggers 1995Remarks on Baltic, Slavic and Latin tool names. Linguistica Baltica 4, 23-33.
Serbat 1975Serbat, Guy 1975Les dérivés nominaux latins à suffixe médiatif. Paris: Sorbonne.
Sihler 1995Sihler, Andrew 1995New comparative grammar of Latin and Greek. New York – Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sims-Williams 1997Sims-Williams, Nicholas 1997The denominal suffix -ant- and the formation of the Khotanese transitive perfect. In: Lubotsky 1997, 317-325.
Skutsch 1892Skutsch, Franz 1892Iaientare, iaiunus. Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik 7, 527-528.
Skutsch 1985Skutsch, Otto 1985The Annals of Quintus Ennius. Oxford: Clarendon.
Solta 1967Solta, Georg 1967Lat. limpidus und seine Verwandten. In: Beiträge zur Indogermanistik und Keltologie: Julius Pokorny zum 80. Geburtstag gewidmet, ed. W. Meid, Innsbruck: Universität Innsbruck, 93-97.
Sommer 1914Sommer, Ferdinand 1914Handbuch der lateinischen Laut- und Formenlehre. 2. und 3. Auflage. Heidelberg: Winter.
Sommer--Pfister 1977Sommer, Ferdinand and Raimund Pfister 1977Handbuch der lateinischen Laut- und Formenlehre. Vierte, neubearb. Auflage, Band I: Einleitung und Lautlehre. Heidelberg: Winter.
Southern 2000Southern, Mark 2000Tabula rāsa. The “tablet” word in Italic, and its Indo-European relatives. MSS 60, 89-133.
van der Staaij 1995van der Staaij, Robert 1995A Reconstruction of Proto-Italic. PhD dissertation, Leiden University.
Steinbauer 1989Steinbauer, Dieter 1989Untersuchungen zu den bei Plautus belegten Verben der lateinischen ersten Konjugation. Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Denominative. Dissertation Regensburg. Altendorf b. Bamberg: Druckerei Gräbner.
Strunk 1993Strunk, Klaus 1993Lateinisch naucum (-i, o) und Fragen einer Alternanz -au-/-u-. In: Meiser et al. 1993, 424-435.
Strunk 1994Strunk, Klaus 1994Lateinisch sacerdos und damit verglichene Komposita. Glotta 72 [1995], 222-234.
Stuart-Smith 2004Stuart-Smith, Jane 2004Phonetics and philology. Sound change in Italic. Oxford University Press.
Stüber 1997Stüber, Karin 1997Urindogermanisch *h1nómn̥ ‘Name’, *h2óng ‘Salbe’ und der Ablaut der neutralen n-Stämme. Die Sprache 39, 74-88.
Stüber 1998Stüber, Karin 1998The historical morphology of n-stems in Celtic. Maynooth.
Stüber 2002Stüber, Karin 2002Die primären s-Stämme des Indogermanischen. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Stüber 2006Stüber, Karin 2006Die indogermanischen Ausdrücke für ‘rechts’ und ‘links’. IJDLLR 3, 61-72.
Szemerényi 1960aSzemerényi, Oswald 1960aLatin hībernus and Greek χειμερινός. Glotta 38, 107-125.
Szemerényi 1960bSzemerényi, Oswald 1960bEtyma Latina I. (1-6). Glotta 38, 216-251.
Szemerényi 1989Szemerényi, Oswald 1989An den Quellen des lateinischen Wortschatzes. Innsbruck: IBS.
Szemerényi 1992Szemerényi, Oswald 1992Quellen des lateinischen Wortschatzes mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Bedeutungslehnwörter. In: Panagl / Krisch 1992, 311-326.
Szemerényi 1995Szemerényi, Oswald 1995Etyma Latina VII, 38-44. In: Kuryɫowicz Memorial Volume, Part One, ed. W. Smoczyński, Cracow: Universitas, 409-416.
Thieme 1963Thieme, Paul 1963‘Jungfrauengatte’: Sanskrit kaumarah patih – Homer. κουρίδιος πόσις – Lat. marītus. ZVS 88, 161-248.
Thurneysen 1907Thurneysen, Rudolf 1907Etymologisches und Grammatisches. IF 21, 175-180.
Thurneysen 1946Thurneysen, Rudolf 1946A grammar of Old Irish. Revised and enlarged edition. Translated from the German by D.A. Binchy and Osborn Bergin. Dublin: School of Celtic Studies.
Tichy 1983Tichy, Eva 1983Onomatopoetische Verbalbildungen des Griechischen. Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Tichy 2002Tichy, Eva 2002Gr. οἴσειv, Lat. ūtī. Glotta 78, 179-202.
de Tollenaere 1983de Tollenaere, F. 1983Notizen zu germanischen Etymologien: 1. Gotisch gaits, altenglisch gāt, 2. Altenglisch lēag, altisländisch laug. ZVS 96, 141-145.
Torzi 1991Torzi, Ilaria 1991Volup e volupe nella tradizione manoscritta di autori latini arcaici e tardoantichi. Maia: Rivista di Letterature Classiche 43, 89-102.
Tremblay 1998Tremblay, Xavier 1998Jungawestisch sanat̰; Exkurs: Die Herkunft der Intensiva des Typus στρωφάω. Die Sprache 38, 14-30.
Tremblay 2004Tremblay, Xavier 2004Die Ablautstufe des Lokativs der akrostatischen Nomina. Apophonica III. In: Hyllested et al. 2004, 573-589.
Tucker 1990Tucker, Elizabeth Fawcett 1990The creation of morphological regularity: early Greek verbs in –éō, -áō, -óō, -úō and –íō. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Tucker 1931Tucker, Thomas George 1931A concise etymological dictionary of Latin. Halle a/d Saale [reprint 1973 Hildesheim].
Unceta Gomez 2002Unceta Gomez, Luis 2002The semasiological evolution of the Indo-European root *pet- ‘to fly’ and its rich polysemy in Latin. Cuadernos de Filología Clásica: Estudios Latinos 22, 309-331.
Untermann 1980Untermann, Jürgen 1980Die venetische Sprache. Glotta 58, 281-317.
Untermann 1992Untermann, Jürgen 1992Wurzelnomina im Lateinischen. In: Panagl / Krisch 1992, 137-153.
Untermann 1993Untermann, Jürgen 1993Gr. ἔϑηκα = lat. feci, gr. ἡ̂κα = lat. ieci? In: Meiser et al. 1993, 461-468.
Untermann 2000Untermann, Jürgen 2000Wörterbuch des Oskisch-Umbrischen. Heidelberg: Winter.
Untermann 2002Untermann, Jürgen 2002Das Perfekt der Sekundärverben im Oskisch-Umbrischen. In: Fritz--Zeilfelder 2002, 489-495.
Vaahtera 1993Vaahtera, Jyri 1993The origin of Latin suffrāgium. Glotta 71, 66-80.
de Vaan 1999de Vaan, Michiel 1999The etymology of English shower. Die Sprache 41, 39-49.
de Vaan 2000de Vaan, Michiel 2000The Indo-Iranian animal suffix *-āćá-. Indo-Iranian Journal 43, 279-293.
de Vaan 2001de Vaan, Michiel 2001Reconsidering Dutch rups, German Raupe ‘caterpillar’. ABÄG 54, 151-174.
de Vaan 2003de Vaan, Michiel 2003The Avestan Vowels. Amsterdam – Atlanta: Rodopi.
de Vaan 2004ade Vaan, Michiel 2004a‘Narten’ roots from the Avestan point of view. In: Hyllested et al. 2004, 591-599.
de Vaan 2004bde Vaan, Michiel 2004bPIE *e in Albanian. Die Sprache 44, 70-85.
de Vaan 2007de Vaan, Michiel 2007The etymology of Latin adūlāre. In: Greek and Latin from an Indo-European Perspective, eds. C. George, M. McCullagh, B. Nielsen, A. Ruppel, and O. Tribulato, Cambridge: Philological Society, 140-144.
de Vaan 2003-2004de Vaan, Michiel 2003-2004Latin au- ’away’, an allomorph of ab-. Anuari de Filologia 25-26 [2003-2004]. D: Studia graeca et latina. Anuari de Filologia 25-26 [2003-2004]. Secció D: Studia graeca et latina. Número 12, 141–147.
Vanicek 1881Vaniček, Alois 1881Etymologisches Wörterbuch der lateinischen Sprache, 2. Auflage. Leipzig: Teubner.
Vasmer 1950-1958Vasmer, Max 1950-1958Russisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg: Winter.
Vendryes 1920Vendryes, Joseph 1920Sur quelques formations de mots latins. Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 22, 97-106.
Vendryes 1929Vendryes, Joseph 1929Lat. polīre et interpolāre. In: Donum Natalicium Schrijnen, eds. St. Teeuwen et al., Nijmegen: Dekker & van de Vegt, 702-704.
Vennemann 1998aVennemann, Theo 1998aGermania Semitica: Biene und Imme: Mit einem Anhang zu lat. apis. Sprachwissenschaft 23, 471-487.
Vennemann 1998bVennemann, Theo 1998bEtymology and phonotactics: Latin grandis vs. Basque handi ‘big’ and similar problems. JIES 26, 345-390.
Vine 1986Vine, Brent 1986An Umbrian-Latin correspondence. HSCP 90, 111-127.
Vine 1993Vine, Brent 1993Studies in archaic Latin inscriptions. Innsbruck: IBS.
Vine 1998aVine, Brent 1998aAeolic ὀ/ρπετον and Deverbative *-etó- in Greek and Indo-European. Innsbruck: IBS.
Vine 1998bVine, Brent 1998bRemarks on the Archaic Latin “Garigliano Bowl” inscription. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 121, 257-262.
Vine 1999aVine, Brent 1999aLatin *opiō and optāre. In: Poètika, Istorija literatury, Lingvistika. Sbornik k 70-letiju Vjačeslava Vsevolodoviča Ivanova. (= Essays in Poetics, literary history and Linguistics. FS V.V. Ivanov), eds. A. Vigasin et al., Moskva: OGI, 520-526.
Vine 1999bVine, Brent 1999bGreek ῥίζα ‘root’ and “Schwa Secundum”. UCLA Indo-European Studies 1, 5-29.
Vine 1999cVine, Brent 1999cLatin -īnāre/-īnārī. UCLA Indo-European Studies 1, 71-83.
Vine 1999dVine, Brent 1999dA note on the Duenos inscription. UCLA Indo-European Studies 1, 293-305.
Vine 2002Vine, Brent 2002On full grade *-ro-formations in Greek and Indo-European. In: Indo-European Perspectives, ed. M. Southern, Washington DC: Institute for the Study of Man, 329-347.
Vine 2004Vine, Brent 2004New thoughts on an old curse. In: Hyllested et al. 2004, 615-626.
Vine 2006aVine, Brent 2006aOn ‘Thurneysen-Havet’s Law’ in Latin and Italic. HS 119, 211-249.
Vine 2006bVine, Brent 2006bAn alleged case of “inflectional contamination”: on the i-stem inflection of Latin civis. Incontri Linguistici 29, 139-158.
Vine 2007Vine, Brent 2007Latin gemō ‘groan’, Greek γέγωνε ‘cry out’, and Tocharian A ken- ‘call’. In: Nussbaum 2007c, 343-358.
Viredaz 2002Viredaz, Rémy 2002Le nom du ‘gendre’ en indo-européen et en balto-slave. IF 107, 152-180.
Wachter 2004Wachter, Rudolf 2004Sprachwissenschaftlicher Cocktail zur Cistellaria. In: Studien zu Plautus’ Cistellaria, eds. R. Hartkamp and F. Hurka, Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 371-383.
Wachter 2006Wachter, Rudolf 2006Review of Lexikon des frühgriechischen Epos, 19. und 20. Lieferung. Kratylos 51, 136-144.
Wallace 2005Wallace, Rex 2005A Faliscan inscription in the Steinhardt Collection. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 153, 175-182.
Watkins 1957Watkins, Calvert 1957marītus. In: Studies presented to Joshua Whatmough on his sixtieth birthday, ed. E. Pulgram, ‘s-Gravenhage: Mouton, 277-281.
Watkins 1962Watkins, Calvert 1962Indo-European Origins of the Celtic verb. I. The sigmatic aorist. Dublin: The Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies.
Watkins 1969Watkins, Calvert 1969A Latin-Hittite etymology. Language 45, 235-242.
Watkins 1973aWatkins, Calvert 1973aAn Indo-European agricultural term: Latin ador, Hittite hat-. HSCP 77, 187-193.
Watkins 1973bWatkins, Calvert 1973bEtyma Enniana. HSCP 77, 195-206.
Watkins 1985Watkins, Calvert 1985The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Watkins 1990Watkins, Calvert 1990A Celtic-Latin-Hittite etymology. In: Lingering over words: Studies in ancient Near Eastern literature in honor of William L. Moran, ed. T. Abusch, J. Huehnergard and P. Steinkeller, Atlanta (GA): Scholars Press, 451-453.
Watkins 1995Watkins, Calvert 1995How to kill a dragon: aspects of Indo-European poetics. Oxford University Press.
Watmough 1997Watmough, Margaret 1997Studies in the Etruscan loanwords in Latin. Firenze: Olschki.
Weiss 1993Weiss, Michael 1993Studies in Italic nominal morphology. Cornell: PhD dissertation.
Weiss 1994Weiss, Michael 1994On the non-verbal origin of the Greek verb νήφειν ‘to be sober’. HS 107, 91-98.
Weiss 1995Weiss, Michael 1995Life Everlasting: Latin iūgis ‘everflowing’, Greek ὑγιής ‘healthy’, Gothic ajukduþs ‘eternity’ and Avestan yauuaējī- ‘living forever’. MSS 55, 131-156.
Weiss 1996aWeiss, Michael 1996aGreek μυρίος ‘countless’, Hittite mūri- ‘bunch (of fruit)’. HS 109, 199-214.
Weiss 1996bWeiss, Michael 1996bAn Oscanism in Catullus 53. Classical Philology 91, 353-359.
Weiss 2002Weiss, Michael 2002Observations on the South Picene Inscription TE 1 (S. Omero). In: Indo-European Perspectives, ed. M. Southern, Washington DC: Institute for the Study of Man, 351-366.
Weiss 2006Weiss, Michael 2006Latin orbis and its cognates. HS 119, 250-272.
Weiss 2007aWeiss, Michael 2007aCui Bono? The beneficiary phrases of the Third Iguvine Table. In: Nussbaum 2007c, 365-378.
Weiss 2007bWeiss, Michael 2007bWhat’s it all about, alfir? Handout at ECIEC 26, June 2007, Yale Univ.
Weiss 2009Weiss, Michael 2009Outline of the Comparative Grammar of Latin. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave.
Weiss 2010Weiss, Michael 2010Language and Ritual in Sabellic Italy: The Ritual Complex of the Third and Fourth Tabulae Iguvinae. Leiden: Brill.
Willi 2004Willi, Andreas 2004Flowing Riches. In: Penney 2004, 323-337.
van Windekens 1984van Windekens, Albert 1984Encore lat. uxor et i.-e. *ukson-. ZVS 97, 96-98.
Wyatt 1984Wyatt, W.S. 1984Two fragments of the Elder Cato. Glotta 62, 248-250.
Zimmer 1985Zimmer, Stefan 1985Zur Etymologie und zu den altesten Belegen von lat. totus. Glotta 63, 221-225.