^{page 120 note 1} Leumann-Hofmann, p. 649.

^{page 120 note 2} s.v. num.

^{page 120 note 3} Glöckner, F., Archiv. f. Lot. Lex., 1899, p. 495.Google Scholar

^{page 120 note 4} Lindsay, , Lat. Language, p. 605.Google Scholar

^{page 120 note 5} Delbrück, , Vergl. Synt., p. 264.Google Scholar

^{page 120 note 6} Kuhner-Stegmann, , 11. ii, p. 512.Google Scholar

^{page 120 note 7} Dict, , étymologique de la langue latine (1939).Google Scholar

^{page 120 note 8} See Ribbeck, , Lat. Partik., p. 12;Google ScholarPersson, Per, Indo-Germ. Forsch., 1893, pp. 206 and 250;Google ScholarPrellwitz, W., Glotta, 1931, p. 114.Google Scholar

^{page 120 note 9} Cf. Liddell-Scott, 8th ed., ‘ is the Latin num.’. The remark is absent from the ninth edition.

^{page 121 note 1} Amer. Journ. Phil., xi, pp. 22 ff.Google Scholar See also Bennett, , Synt. of Early Lat. 1, p. 473.Google Scholar

^{page 121 note 2} Included by Morris among questions ‘clearly asked for information’!

^{page 121 note 3} The speaker's son is at sea.

^{page 122 note 1} Overlooked by Morris.

^{page 123 note 1} For further instances see Morris, , op. cit., pp. 23–25. His comment ‘it is hardly possible that num has here’ (i.e. in this challenging use) ‘any original negative effect, since a negative force would require an affirmative answer’ might as well or as ill be made of the num of ordinary usage or of .Google Scholar

^{page 123 note 2} In common with Morris (p. 27) I pass over a few passages as doubtful or conjectural. The negative sense can be understood without difficulty in all of those where he thinks it allowable but not necessary (p. 23) or where he hesitates (p. 25).

^{page 123 note 3} Grundr. Vergl. Gram. 11. iii ², p. 994.Google Scholar

^{page 123 note 4} See above, p. 120.

^{page 123 note 5} See above.

^{page 124 note 1} Gnomon, 1926, p. 254.Google Scholar

^{page 124 note 2} So, rightly, most editions. The MSS. preponderate for nunc and Ellis follows them.