Editorial note — Part II. ON CURTIUS’ CHRONOLOGY OF THE INDO-GERMANIC LANGUAGES. (continued 3)
Reading edition
1. Note A, p. 227.
2. Note B, p. 230.
3. See M. M.’s Letter to Chevalier Bunsen, on the Turanian Languages, 1854, second chapter, second section, “Ethnology versus Phonology.”
4. Note C, p. 235.
5. “Judgment (crimen, κρίνειν), penance (pœna, ποινή), retribution (talio, ταλάω, τλῆναι, are Græco-Italic conceptions.” Mommsen, Röm. Geschichte, vol. i. p. 25.
6. See my article in Kuhn’s Zeitschrift, vol. xix. p. 46.
7. Lectures on the Science of Language, vol. ii. p. 467.
8. Rendiconti del Reale Instituto Lombardo, classe de lettre, iv. fasc. 6.
9. See Benfey, Über die Enstehung des Indo-germanischen Vocativs, Göttingen, 1872, p. 35.
10. The rule is that vocatives in ον from proper names in ων retract the accent, except Λακεδαῖμον, and those in φρον, as Λυκόφρον from Λυκόφρων.
11. Vocatives in ες from proper names in ης retract the accent, as Σώκρατες, except those in ωδες, ωλες, ωρες, ηρες, as Δειῶδες.
12. Benfey, l.c. p. 40.
13. See, also, M. M.’s Lectures on the Science of Language, vol. ii, p. 472.
14. See M. M.’s Introduction to the Science of Religion, p. 372, note.