^{page 104 note 1} By the semantic development here in question we might derive Lat. cinnus ‘mixture’ from ^*cingnos: cingit, but see Cl.Quart, iv. 89.

^{page 104 note 2} Note Av. yaoz ‘feruere’ (of water) extended from νυ

^{page 105 note 1} Likewise yυ(with the dative)=‘verschaffen,’ i.e. ‘donare’; and so does yuj (P.W.² s.v. II)‘ Jmd. (acc.) mit etwas (instr.) verbinden, beschenken mit: Av. yaog (4) ' theilhaftig machen (dat.).’ Perhaps the root dō ‘dare’ (δίδωμι) is but a specialization of dē(y) ‘uincire’ (διδημι). Cf. Skr. dāiman-‘donum;uinculum.’

^{page 105 note 2} Persson, Perhaps P., who seems to fear that his root determinants are threatened by Bloom field's blended congeneric roots. There is no conflict between the theories, properly balance and correlated.Google Scholar

^{page 106 note 1} Diez' derivation of Fr.ьιé from Lat. ablatum is rejected by Meyer-Lübke for no good semantic reason. Historical evidence such as we have for getreide=‘getragenes’ is lacking, but not Ennius, S. 48, auenam lolium … selegit secernit aufert; Pliny, Pan. 29, periturae in horreis messes auferuntur (cf. stolonibus ablatis, Pliny, N.H. 17 95); Augustine, Ciu. 4, 8, cum runcantur ,id est a terra auferuntur (cf. Cicero, Verr. II. 3, 97, frumentum omne in decuma auferre iusserit): surely these examples afford some warrant for the derivation of blé from ‘ablatum’ (siue ex agro siue in horreum);cf.(uin-)demia. As for Lat. secάle, ‘a sort of grain,’ Walde had been alive to the metrical facts behind the word tόrάl (Varro, ap. Non. 11, 16) and torāle (ib. L.L. V. 167), he would not so arbitrarily have rejected derivation from secāre.The ē of the Romance primate ^*sēcάle may be due to Campanian secula ‘sickle’ (cf. Varro L.L. V, 137), which may be diminutive to sīca, and originally have had ē (ae), cf. spēca/spica (also rustic). Observe Skr. pānīya-m ‘bibendum,’=‘drink, water’; and Lith. κiāstinas,defined by Kurschat as ‘was zu hauen ist’ z. B. das getreide.

^{page 106 note 2} The newly grown up rubric for denominatives, viz. ‘privative,’ is perfectly futile. The denominative verb indicates the use to which its noun primate is put. noun primate is put. Thus Eng.straps=uincit, plēctit (flogs); acuit (!). Or it indicates what its primate enters into or suffers. Thus a skin t note usually suffers removal, and to skin generally means ‘to remove a skin,’ but it may mean ‘to cover with skin’ (Horace's oues pcllitae). Or th primate furnishes a note of resemblance, as in ‘the bullet mushrooms.’

^{page 106 note 3} There is another form I accept (after Uhlen-beck) in Zέφυρος ‘fecundans’ (as producer of the flowers; or as ‘amorum copulator’): Skr.yabh ‘copulare’ (sexual sense),parallel with yam ‘uin-cire’ (cf. upa yam ‘to marry’ and also ‘inire feminam’), and shifted under the influence of t root webh- ‘to weave.’ In ξόφς I see the ‘locus uinctionis’ (prison, confinement), in Yama's world, to wit Hades. In the Slavic tongues the root yebh may have meant ‘angreifen ’ (so Brug be mann, IF. XXXII. 324), cf. yem ‘ergreifen,’ I would again start from the sense ‘copulare,’ whence, with hostile sense rather than the more lso usual sexual connotation, ‘to quarrel with, abu se’ (cf. Lat.'cottv, ap. Thes. L.L. III. 1417, 63, in con trast with ib. 1418, 7). There was no I.E. root s oyebh ‘futuere,’ nor do I look on οιφω as a com pound of ό +y(e)bh- (so Brugmann, I.c. 326), bu rather as an extension of ei ‘ire,’ cf. O. Lat. oitor (see on its sexual sense the lexica, and cf. Cl. Quart, vii. 203, ' 9).

^{page 107 note 1} Skr. ādyūna-s ‘gefrassig’ is haplologicall shortened from ^*adyāyūnas ’ to food devoted,’ cf. ādyá-m ‘food’ (Lat. inēdia); and yūna- (Sūtra word) ‘uinculum.’ For the sense observe uino te dtuincis (Plautus, Ps. 221) ‘thou art devoted to (addicted to) wine.’ Latin jājūnus | jējūnus are reduplicated forms, i.e. ^*jaijūnus (cf. παι-øάσσω and παι-πάλλω), whence jājūnus (cf. Sāturnus, older Satturnus) and jējūnus (with ē, dialectal and late, from the original ae). The primate (d)yai(d)yuno-s will have meant ‘gebunden,’ with the connotation of ‘fasting, abstaining from,’ cf. the second root yu ‘fernhalten,’ a ‘disjoin’ that originated with separative prefixes (see TAPA. XLI. 49, observing Germ, aufgebunden= ‘iunctus, disiunctus ’) but pervaded the (reduplicated) simplex, cf. Skr. yāvana-m ‘fernhalten,’ but also ayāvana-m ‘nicht-mischung.’ The jen of Lat. jajcn-taculum will contain I.E. (d)yem ‘binden,’ and -taculum might belong with τάκων quasi ‘tomaculum,’ the whole like ‘fast-bite,’ say; unless ^*jajtnto-, participle of (d)yem-, has been assimilated to tomaculum.

^{page 108 note 1} It would be interesting to know whether άyāνα/άyāη ‘month’ (TS.) began as a desig nation of the dark half of the month.

^{page 108 note 2} So Marstrander, Ériu V. 160. EDD. C. Q.

^{page 109 note 1} The separation of Gothic hazjan ‘laudare from Skr, çasya–m’ ‘laudandus,’ çásya–m’ laus,'entirely inadmissible; and after Varro's testimony to Casmenae Camenae (quare e Casm Carmena carmina carmen, R extrito Camena factum, L.L. VII. 27–28) we cannot refuse to admit as ‘laudare’ into Latin (cf. Fest.Paul 38, 12, Lindsay, Camenae… quod canu antiquorum laudes), as the sort of word–element we call a root. Nor can we lightly putaside Varro's feeling of kinship between carmen and Casmenae. True, we now know how to mediate between Skr. çásman ‘laus’ and carmen (Casmena), as Varro did not, viz. by assuming doublet asimen– / asmen (like Lat.tegimen /teg men; Sanskrit examples in Macdonnell, Ved. Gram., 165), and from these primates to bring Varro's report of facts into accord with the a strictest phonetics. No predilection for ^*canmen (‘dissimilated’ to carmen), nor for the grouping of carmen with kνρνξ (a derivation Varro was as capable of suggesting as any modern), can justify t itself against Varro's combination of Ca(s)menae with carmen (‘elogium, laus’ in sepulchral in scriptions, v. Thes. L.L. III. 465, 74; cf. Skruktha–ças– ‘uersus–recitans’). The root as– may well Skr. ças (: Lat. castrat), and have started as ‘cut,’ applied to engraved sepulchral pictures (pictorial writing), serving as notes and text for a recurring laudatio or elogium.

^{page 110 note 1} In KZ. XLV. 115, I have shown that imin in imitor and Irish imh-aes ‘coaeuus’ is best taken as a pronominal adverb=‘item’; while imago ‘wax-bust’ is cognate with κ-αχμα

^{page 111 note 1} This is the et of apposition or definition v. exx. in Class. Phil. VIII. 305

^{page 111 note 2} Note Lat. genus (denied genuine antiquity b Brugmann, Gr. II. 1, § 408) for gonu,–unless-us is from-os (see AJPh. XXXIV., p. 20, § 51).

^{page 111 note 3} The postulates for this cognation stand apar by phonetically, and violate all probability.