Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 April 2026
[Interpretation of the other inscriptions of CIL I2. 2. 560, and discussion of their linguistic peculiarities; esp. porod but recie, sane; and the writing of the final diphthong in cofeci and coepi.]
1 Presumably in the meaning ‘I have cut some others’, from cerno in its original meaning ‘separate’.
2 F. Sommer, Handbuch d. Lat. Laut- und Formenlehre 2 77 (1914), expresses doubt that the reading coenalia is correct.
3 Professor J. C. Rolfe, in about 1904, told me that some scholar (I do not know whom, nor if the view was ever published) read this legend backward as ait laneos ‘the butcher speaks’. Such a view involves reading reversible letters backward, runs the inscription toward and not from the mouth of the nearest man, and does not make it an utterance of the man, but a label; though the e of laneos (= Latin lanius) is justified by Praen. fileia and fileai, CIL I2. 2. 60 and 561.
4 Pages 303-4.
5 Despite Lommatzsch, 1. c.
6 Described in Mau-Kelsey, Pompeii, 394-6 (1899); cf. also the scenes of ordinary life in a private house, ib. 54-6.
7 I follow Miss Turnbull's interpretation of asom in the preceding article.
8 Ernout, Parler de Préneste 17 = MSL 13. 309.
9 CIL XI. 4766 = I2. 2. 366; the final word estod now lacks its last two letters.
10 Curiously, I find absolutely no mention of this in any of the handbooks or discussions. Yet cofeci, at least, is certain. Only Meillet, Esquisse d'une Histoire de la Langue Latine 98, remarks upon the -i of Praen. dedi, but does not hint at the forms in the cookery inscription.
11 Second declension forms with added -s; Sommer, op. cit. 346-7.
12 For these forms, cf. Ernout, Parler de Préneste 34-5 = MSL 13. 326-7.
13 CIL XIV. 2863 = I2. 2. 60, which contains also two genitives of the third declension in -os, nationu with weakened vowel and diovo with unweakened vowel.
14 CIL XIV. 4112 = I2. 2. 561, apparently of mixed Praenestine-Roman origin, has dedit and fecid.