Abbot, F. F. 1907. ‘The use of language as a means of characterization in Petronius’, CPh 2: 43–50.Google Scholar

Achard, G. (ed.) 1989. Rhétorique à Herennius. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.

Adams, J. N. 1971. ‘A type of hyperbaton in Latin prose’, PCPhS n.s. 17: 1–16.Google Scholar

Adams, J. N. 1972a. ‘On the authorship of the Historia Augusta’, CQ n.s. 22: 186–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Adams, J. N. 1972b. ‘The language of the later books of Tacitus’ Annals', CQ n.s. 22: 350–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Adams, J. N. 1972c. ‘Latin words for “woman” and “wife”’, Glotta 50: 234–55.Google Scholar

Adams, J. N. 1973a. ‘The substantival present participle in Latin’, Glotta 51: 116–36.Google Scholar

Adams, J. N. 1973b. ‘Two Latin words for “kill”’, Glotta 51: 280–92.Google Scholar

Adams, J. N. 1973c. ‘The vocabulary of the speeches in Tacitus' historical works’, BICS 20: 124–44.Google Scholar

Adams, J. N. 1974a. ‘On the semantic field “put – throw” in Latin’, CQ n.s. 24: 142–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Adams, J. N. 1974b. ‘The vocabulary of the later decades of Livy’, Antichthon 8: 54–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Adams, J. N. 1974c. ‘Were the later books of Tacitus' Annals revised?’, RhM 117: 323–33.Google Scholar

Adams, J. N. 1975. ‘The Latin of the Vindolanda writing tablets’, BICS 22: 20–4.Google Scholar

Adams, J. N. 1976a. The Text and Language of a Vulgar Latin Chronicle (Anonymus Valesianus II). London: Institute of Classical Studies.Google Scholar

Adams, J. N. 1976b. ‘A typological approach to Latin word order’, IF 81: 70–99.Google Scholar

Adams, J. N. 1977a. The Vulgar Latin of the Letters of Claudius Terentianus (P. Mich. viii, 467–72) (Publications of the Faculty of Arts of the University of Manchester 23). Manchester University Press.Google Scholar

Adams, J. N. 1977b. ‘The linguistic unity of the Historia Augusta’, Antichthon 11: 93–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Adams, J. N. 1977c. ‘The vocabulary of the Annales regni Francorum’, Glotta 55: 257–82.Google Scholar

Adams, J. N. 1978a. ‘Conventions of naming in Cicero’, CQ n.s. 28: 145–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Adams, J. N. 1978b. ‘Two unexplained misspellings in Claudius Terentianus: Greek interference in Egyptian Latin?’, ZPE 31: 135–7.Google Scholar

Adams, J. N. 1980. ‘Anatomical terminology in Latin epic’, BICS 27: 50–62.Google ScholarPubMed

Adams, J. N. 1981a. ‘A Type of Sexual Euphemism in Latin’, Phoenix 35: 120–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Adams, J. N. 1981b. ‘Ausonius, Cento nuptialis 101–131’, SIFC 53: 199–215.Google Scholar

Adams, J. N. 1982a. The Latin Sexual Vocabulary. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar

Adams, J. N. 1982b. ‘Anatomical terms transferred from animals to humans in Latin’, IF 87: 90–109.Google Scholar

Adams, J. N. 1982c. ‘Anatomical terms used pars pro toto in Latin’, Proceedings of the African Classical Association 16: 37–45.Google Scholar

Adams, J. N. 1983a. ‘An epigram of Ausonius (87, p. 344 Peiper)’, Latomus 42: 95–109.Google Scholar

Adams, J. N. 1983b. ‘Martial 2.83’, CPh 78: 311–15.Google Scholar

Adams, J. N. 1983c. ‘Words for “prostitute” in Latin’, RhM 126: 321–58.Google Scholar

Adams, J. N. 1983d. ‘Language’, in Bowman, A. K. & Thomas, J. D., Vindolanda: The Latin Writing Tablets (Britannia Monograph Series 4), London: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies, pp. 72–4.Google Scholar

Adams, J. N. 1984. ‘Female speech in Latin comedy’, Antichthon 18: 43–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Adams, J. N. 1989. ‘Medieval Latin and the Carolingian reforms’ (review article on R. Wright, Late Latin and Early Romance, Liverpool 1982), LCM 14: 14–16 and 34–48.Google Scholar

Adams, J. N. 1990a. ‘The Latinity of C. Novius Eunus’, ZPE 82: 227–47.Google Scholar

Adams, J. N. 1990b. ‘The uses of necoi’, Glotta 68: 230–55.Google Scholar

Adams, J. N. 1991a. ‘Some neglected evidence for Latin habeo with infinitive: the order of the constituents’, TPhS 89: 131–96.Google Scholar

Adams, J. N. 1991b. ‘The uses of necoii’, Glotta 69: 94–123.Google Scholar

Adams, J. N. 1992a. ‘British Latin: the text, interpretation and language of the Bath curse tablets’, Britannia 23: 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Adams, J. N. 1992b. ‘The origin and meaning of Lat. veterinus, veterinarius’, IF 97: 70–95.Google Scholar

Adams, J. N. 1993. ‘The generic use of mula and the status and employment of female mules in the Roman world’, RhM 136: 35–61.Google Scholar

Adams, J. N. 1994a. Wackernagel's Law and the Placement of the Copula esse in Classical Latin. Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society (Suppl. Vol. 18).Google Scholar

Adams, J. N. 1994b. ‘Wackernagel's Law and the position of unstressed personal pronouns in Classical Latin’, TPhS 92: 103–78.Google Scholar

Adams, J. N. 1994c. ‘Latin and Punic in contact? The case of the Bu Njem ostraca’, JRS 84: 87–112.Google Scholar

Adams, J. N. 1995a. Pelagonius and Latin Veterinary Terminology in the Roman Empire. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

Adams, J. N. 1995b. ‘The language of the Vindolanda writing tablets: an interim report’, JRS 85: 86–134.Google Scholar

Adams, J. N. 1996. ‘Interpuncts as evidence for the enclitic character of personal pronouns in Latin’, ZPE 111: 208–10.Google Scholar

Adams, J. N. 1999a. ‘Nominative personal pronouns and some patterns of speech in Republican and Augustan poetry’, in Adams and Mayer (1999a), pp. 97–133.

Adams, J. N. 1999b. ‘The poets of Bu Njem: language, culture and the centurionate’, JRS 89: 109–34.Google Scholar

Adams, J. N. 2003a. Bilingualism and the Latin Language. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Adams, J. N. 2003b. ‘The new Vindolanda writing-tablets’, CQ n.s. 53: 530–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Adams, J. N. 2003c. ‘Petronius and new non-literary Latin’, in Herman and Rosén (2003), pp. 11–23.

Adams, J. N. 2003d. ‘“Romanitas” and the Latin language’, CQ n.s. 53: 184–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Adams, J. N. 2005a. ‘Neglected evidence for female speech in Latin’, CQ n.s. 55: 582–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Adams, J. N. 2005b. ‘The Bellum Africum’, in Reinhardt, Lapidge and Adams (2005), pp. 73–96.

Adams, J. N. 2005c. ‘The accusative + infinitive and dependent quod-/quia-clauses: the evidence of non-literary Latin and Petronius’, in Kiss, S., Mondin, L. and Salvi, G. (edd.), Latin et langues romanes: études de linguistique offertes à József Herman à l'occasion de son 80ème anniversaire. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, pp. 195–206.Google Scholar

Adams, J. N. 2007. The Regional Diversification of Latin, 200 BC–AD 600. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Adams, J. N. forthcoming. Non-Standard Latin. Cambridge University Press.

Adams, J. N. and Brennan, P. M. 1990. ‘The text at Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum 44. 2 and some epigraphic evidence for Italian recruits’, ZPE 84: 183–6.Google Scholar

Adams, J. N. and Deegan, M. 1992. ‘Bald's Leechbook and the Physica Plinii’, Anglo-Saxon England 21: 87–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Adams, J. N., Janse, M., and Swain, S. (edd.) 2002. Bilingualism in Ancient Society: Language Contact and the Written Word. Oxford University Press.CrossRef

Adams, J. N., Lapidge, M., and Reinhardt, T. 2005. ‘Introduction’, in Reinhardt, Lapidge and Adams (2005), pp. 1–36.

Adams, J. N. and Mayer, R. G. (edd.) 1999a. Aspects of the Language of Latin Poetry (Proceedings of the British Academy 93). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Adams, J. N. 1999b. ‘Introduction’, in Adams and Mayer (1999a), pp. 1–18.

Adcock, F. E. 1956. Caesar as Man of Letters. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ahlberg, A. W. 1906. Durative Zeitbestimmungen im Lateinischen. Lund: Ohlsson.Google Scholar

Ahlberg, A. W. 1911. ‘De traiectionis figura ab antiquissimis prosae scriptoribus Latinis adhibita’, Eranos 11: 88–106.Google Scholar

Albrecht, M. 1964. Die Parenthese in Ovids Metamorphosen und ihre dichterische Funktion. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar

Albrecht, M. 1983. Meister römischer Prosa von Cato bis Apuleius. 2nd edn, Heidelberg: Lambert and Schneider.Google Scholar

Albrecht, M. 2003. Cicero's Style: A Synopsis Followed by Selected Analytic Studies (Mnemosyne Suppl. 245). Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anderson, W. B. 1927. Review of Hofmann (1926), CR 41: 90.

Astin, A. E. 1978. Cato the Censor. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Atherton, C. 2005. ‘Lucretius on what language is not’, in Frede and Inwood (2005), pp. 101–38.

Aurigemma, S. 1941. ‘Due epigrafi riminesi’, Epigraphica 3: 13–22.Google Scholar

Austin, P. and Bresnan, J. 1996. ‘Non-configurationality in Australian aboriginal languages’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14: 215–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Austin, R. G. 1960. P. Vergili Maronis Aeneidos liber quartus. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Austin, R. G. 1971. Aeneidos liber primus. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Axelson, B. 1945. Unpoetische Wörter: Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der lateinischen Dichtersprache. Lund: H. Ohlssons Boktryckeri.Google Scholar

Bagordo, A. 2001. Beobachtungen zur Sprache des Terenz: Mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der umgangssprachlichen Elemente. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bagordo, A. 2002. ‘Dichtung und Philologie bei Accius am Beispiel seiner Gräzismen und Calquen’, in Faller and Manuwald (2002), pp. 39–49.

Baier, Th. (ed.) 2004. Studien zu Plautus'Poenulus. Tübingen: Narr.

Bailey, C. 1947. Lucretius: De rerum natura libri sex. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Bain, D. 1976. Review of Fantham (1972), CPh 71: 367–8.

Bain, D. 2007. ‘Low words in high places: sex, bodily functions, and body parts in Homeric epic and other higher genres’, in Finglass, P. J., Collard, C. and Richardson, N. J. (edd.), Hesperos: Studies in Ancient Greek Poetry Presented to M. L. West on his Seventieth Birthday. Oxford University Press, pp. 40–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baldarelli, B. 2004. Accius und die vortrojanische Pelopidensage. Paderborn: Schöningh.Google Scholar

Banniard, M. 1992. Viva voce: communication écrite et communication orale du ive au ixe siècle en occident latin. Paris: Institut des Études Augustiniennes.Google Scholar

Barnwell, P. S. 1991. ‘Epistula Hieronimi de gradus Romanorum: an English school book’, Historical Research 64: 77–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barwick, K. 1964. Charisius: Ars grammatica. Stuttgart and Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar

Bauer, B. L. M. 1995. The Emergence and Development of SVO Patterning in Latin and French: Diachronic and Psycholinguistic Perspectives. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bauer, B. L. M. 2000. Archaic Syntax in Indo-European: The Spread of Transitivity in Latin and French. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bauer, B. L. M. 2001. ‘Syntactic innovation in Latin poetry? The origin of the Romance adverbial formation in -ment(e)’, in Orbán, A. P. and Poel, M. G. M. (edd.), Ad litteras: Latin Studies in Honour of J. H. Brouwers. Nijmegen University Press, pp. 29–43.Google Scholar

Bauer, B. L. M. 2003. ‘The adverbial formation in mente in Vulgar and Late Latin: a problem in grammaticalization’, in Solin et al. (2003), pp. 439–457.

Beall, S. M. 1999. ‘Aulus Gellius 17.8: composition and the gentleman scholar’, CPh 94: 55–64.Google Scholar

Beare, W. 1964. The Roman Stage. London: Methuen.Google Scholar

Becher, F. 1888. ‘Über den Sprachgebrauch des Caelius’, Jahresbericht über die Königliche Klosterschule zu Ilfeld von Ostern 1887 bis Ostern 1888 (Nordhausen: Kirchners Buchdruckerei): 1–41.Google Scholar

Beck, H. and Walter, U. 2001. Die frühen römischen Historikeri. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar

Beck, R. 1975. ‘Encolpius at the cena’, Phoenix 29: 270–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bennett, D. C. 1987. ‘Word-order change in progress: the case of Slovene and Serbo-Croat and its relevance for Germanic’, Journal of Linguistics 23: 269–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Benveniste, E. 1958. ‘Les verbes délocutifs’, in Hatcher, G. and Selig, K. L. (edd.), Studia philologica et litteraria in honorem L. Spitzer, Bern: Francke, pp. 57–63 (reprinted as Chapter 23 of Problèmes de linguistique générale, Paris 1966).

Bergmüller, L. 1903. Einige Bemerkungen zur Latinität des Iordanes. Augsburg: Pfeiffer.Google Scholar

Bertocchi, A. 1989. ‘The role of antecedents of Latin anaphors’, in Calboli, G. (ed.), Subordination and Other Topics in Latin. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 441–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bettini, M. 1982. ‘Vel Vibe di Veio e il re Amulio’, MD 6: 163–8.Google Scholar

Beyerle, F. 1952. ‘Das frühmittelalterliche Schulheft von Ämterwesen’, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, germanische Abteilung 69: 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, D. 1988. Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bischoff, B. 2004. Katalog der festländischen Handschriften des neunten Jahrhunderts ii. Laon – Paderborn. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz.Google Scholar

Bischoff, B. and Lapidge, M. (edd.) 1994. Biblical Commentaries from the Canterbury School of Theodore and Hadrian. Cambridge University Press.

Biville, F. 1999. ‘Niveaux et états de langue chez les grammairiens latins’, in Petersmann and Kettemann (1999), pp. 541–51.

Biville, F. 2003. ‘Familia vero – babae babae!…(Satyricon 37,9): exclamations et interjections chez Pétrone’, in Herman and Rosén (2003), pp. 37–57.

Blaise, A. 1954. Dictionnaire latin-français des auteurs chrétiens. Turnhout: Brepols.Google Scholar

Blank, D. 2005. ‘Varro's anti-analogist’, in Frede and Inwood (2005), pp. 210–38.

Blänsdorf, J. 1995. Fragmenta poetarum Latinorum. Stuttgart and Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar

Blänsdorf, J. 2000. ‘Livius Andronicus und die Anverwandlung des hellenistischen Dramas in Rom’, in Manuwald (2000), pp. 145–56.

Blase, H. 1896. ‘Amabo’, ALL 9: 485–7, with Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik. Leipzig: Teubner. 10 (1898): 137.Google Scholar

Bodel, J. P. 1984. ‘Freedmen in the Satyricon of Petronius’. Diss. Univ. of Michigan.

Böhm, R. G. 1979. ‘Caelius bei Cicero, ad Fam. VIII.14.2.4’, Quaderni di Storia 10: 273–83.Google Scholar

Boldt, H. 1884. De liberiore linguae Graecae et Latinae collocatione verborum capita selecta. Göttingen: Stephan Geibel & Co.Google Scholar

Bolkestein, A. M. 1998. ‘Between brackets: (some properties of) parenthetical clauses in Latin. An investigation of the language of Cicero's letters’, in Risselada, R. (ed.), Latin in Use: Amsterdam Studies in the Pragmatics of Latin (Amsterdam Studies in Classical Philology 8). Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, pp. 1–17.Google Scholar

Bolkestein, A. M. 2001. ‘Random scrambling? Constraints on discontinuity in Latin noun phrases,’ in Moussy (2001), pp. 245–58.

Bömer, A. 1897–9. Die lateinischen Schülergespräche der Humanisten. Berlin: J. Harrwitz Nachfolger.Google Scholar

Bömer, F. 1969–86. P. Ovidius Naso: Metamorphosen. Heidelberg: C. Winter.Google Scholar

Bonfante, G. 1936. ‘Los elementos populares en la lengua de Horacio’, Emerita 4: 209–47 (= Bonfante 1994, pp. 60–95).Google Scholar

Bonfante, G. 1937. ‘Los elementos populares en la lengua de Horacio’, Emerita 5: 17–88 (= Bonfante 1994, pp. 95–159).Google Scholar

Bonfante, G. 1994. La lingua parlata in Orazio. Venosa: Oanna.Google Scholar

Bonnet, M. 1890. Le latin de Grégoire de Tours. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar

Boucherie, A. 1867. Cinq formules rhythmées et assonancées du viie siècle. Montpellier and Paris: F. Seguin & Franck.Google Scholar

Bourciez, J. 1929. Le ‘sermo cotidianus’ dans les satires d'Horace. Bordeaux: Feret.Google Scholar

Bowman, A. K., Thomas, J. D. and Adams, J. N. 1990. ‘Two letters from Vindolanda’, Britannia 21: 33–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boyce, B. 1991. The Language of the Freedmen in Petronius' Cena Trimalchionis (Mnemosyne Suppl. 117). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

Boyle, A. J. 2006. An Introduction to Roman Tragedy. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Braun, F. 1988. Terms of Address. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Braune, W., Helm, K. and Ebbinghaus, E. A. 1969. Althochdeutsches Lesebuch. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar

Brink, C. O. 1963. Horace on Poetry i. Prolegomena to the Literary Epistles. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Brink, C. O. 1971. Horace on Poetry ii. The ‘Ars poetica’. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Briscoe, J. 1981. A Commentary on Livy: Books xxxiv–xxxvii. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Briscoe, J. 2005. ‘The language and style of the fragmentary Republican historians’, in Reinhardt, Lapidge and Adams (2005), pp. 53–72.

Briscoe, J. 2008. A Commentary on Livy: Books38–40. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Brown, P. M. 1993. Horace: Satires i. Warminster: Aris & Phillips.Google Scholar

Brown, R. D. 1987. Lucretius on Love and Sex: A Commentary on De rerum natura iv, 1030–1287 with Prolegomena, Text, and Translation. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

Brown, V. 1972. The Textual Transmission of Caesar's Civil War. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

Brown, W. 2002. ‘When documents are destroyed or lost: lay people and archives in the early Middle Ages’, Early Medieval Europe 11: 337–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brown, W. 2007. ‘Conflict, letters, and personal relationships in the Carolingian formulae collections’, Law and History Review 25: 323–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brugnoli, G. 1993. ‘Caesar grammaticus’, in Poli (1993) ii, pp. 585–97.

Brunhölzl, F. 1990. Histoire de la littérature latine du Moyen Âge. Louvain-La-Neuve: Brepols.Google Scholar

Brunot, F. 1933. Histoire de la langue française: des origines à 1900 vi. Paris: Colin.Google Scholar

Buonomo, L. M. 1997. ‘Introduzione alla lettura delle opere di Giordane’, in Silvestre, M. L. and Squillante, M. (edd.), Mutatio rerum:letteratura, filosofia, scienza tra tardo antico e altomedioevo: Atti del Convegno di studi, Napoli 25–26 novembre 1996. Naples: La Città del Sole, pp. 115–69.Google Scholar

Burg, F. 1888. De M. Caelii Rufi genere dicendi. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar

Butler, H. E. and Owen, A. S. (edd.) 1914. Apuleius: Apologia sive pro se de magia liber. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Cabisius, G. 1985. ‘Social metaphor and the atomic cycle in Lucretius’, CJ 80: 109–20.Google Scholar

Calboli, G. 1978. Marci Porci Catonis oratio pro Rhodiensibus. Bologna: Pàtron.

Calboli, G. 1986. ‘Nota di aggiornamento’, in Norden, E. (ed.), La prosa d'arte antica dal vi secolo a. C. all'età della rinascenza, trans. Campana, B. Heinemann. Rome: Salerno Editrice, pp. 971–1185.Google Scholar

Calboli, G. (ed.) 1993. Rhetorica ad Herennium. 2nd edn, Bologna: Pàtron.

Calboli, G. 1996. ‘The accusative as a default case’, in Rosén, H. (ed.), Aspects of Latin: Papers from the Seventh International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft, pp. 423–36.Google Scholar

Calboli Montefusco, L. 1972. ‘Sviluppo del valore funzionale e semantico di porro dalla fase arcaica a Lucrezio’, Maia 24: 247–60.Google Scholar

Callebat, L. 1968. Sermo cotidianus dans les Métamorphoses d'Apulée. Université de Caen.Google Scholar

Callebat, L. 1998. Langages du roman latin (Spudasmata 71). Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar

Campanile, E. 1976. ‘La latinizzazione dell'osco’, in Scritti in onore di G. Bonfante. Brescia: Paideia, pp. 109–20.Google Scholar

Canali, L. 1966. ‘Osservazioni sul corpus cesariano’, Maia 18: 115–37.Google Scholar

Cancik, H. 1978. ‘Die republikanische Tragödie’, in Lefèvre, E. (ed.), Das römische Drama. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, pp. 308–47.Google Scholar

Caplan, H. (ed.) 1954. [Cicero]: Ad C. Herennium de ratione dicendi (Rhetorica ad Herennium). London: Heinemann and Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Cardona, G. R. 1976. Introduzione all'etnolinguistica. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar

Cardona, G. R. 1987. Introduzione alla sociolinguistica. Turin: Loescher.Google Scholar

Casaceli, F. 1976. Lingua e stile in Accio. Palermo: Palumbo.Google Scholar

Castagna, L. 1992. ‘Lessico “dotto” in Pacuvio: alcuni possibili esempi’, in Aricò, G. (ed.), Atti del iv seminario di studi sulla tragedia romana (Palermo 23–26 marzo 1992) (Quaderni di cultura e di tradizione classica 10). Università di Palermo, pp. 73–88.Google Scholar

Catrein, C. 2003. Vertauschte Sinne – Untersuchungen zur Synästhesie in der römischen Dichtung. Munich: Saur.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cavarzere, A. 1983. Marcus Caelius Rufus: Lettere (Cic. Fam. l. viii). Brescia: Paideia.Google Scholar

Cavarzere, A. (ed.) 2007. Cicerone: Lettere ai familiari. Milano: Rizzoli.

Cavazza, F. 1985–. Aulo Gellio: Le notti attiche (Prosatori di Roma). Bologna: Zanichelli.Google Scholar

Cèbe, J.-P. 1972–99. Varron: Satires Ménippées. Édition, traduction et commentaire. 13 vols. Rome: École Française de Rome.Google Scholar

Cellarius, C. 1755. C. Iulii Caesaris Commentarii de bello Gallico et civili cum utriusque supplementis ab A. Hirtio vel Oppio adiectis. Leipzig: Weidmann.Google Scholar

Chafe, W. L. and Tannen, D. 1987. ‘The relation between written and spoken language’, Annual Review of Anthropology 16: 383–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Charpin, F. 1978–91. Lucilius: Satires. 3 vols. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar

Chassignet, M. 1986. Caton: Les Origines (fragments). Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar

Chaumartin, F.-R. 2002. Sénèque: tragédiesiii. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar

Christensen, A. S. 2002. Cassiodorus, Jordanes and the History of the Goths. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.Google Scholar

Citroni, M. 1975. M. Valerii Martialis Epigrammaton liber primus: Introduzione, testo, apparato critico e commento. Firenze: La Nuova Italia.Google Scholar

Clackson, J. and Horrocks, G. 2007. The Blackwell History of the Latin Language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Clark, H. H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clarke, S. 1753. C. Julii Caesaris quae extant accuratissime cum libris editis et MSS optimis collata, recognita et correcta. London: Tonson and Watts.Google Scholar

Clausen, W. V. 1994. A Commentary on Virgil: Eclogues. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Coleman, K. M. 1988. Statius: Siluae iv. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Coleman, K. M. 1999. ‘Mythological figures as spokespersons in Statius’ Siluae', in Angelis, F. and Muth, S. (edd.), Im Spiegel des Mythos: Bilderwelt und Lebenswelt – Lo specchio del mito: immaginario e realtà (Palilia 6). Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, pp. 67–80.Google Scholar

Coleman, K. M., Diggle, J., Hall, J. B. and Jocelyn, H. D. (edd.) 1992. F. R. D. Goodyear: Papers on Latin Literature. London: Gerald Duckworth & Co.

Coleman, R. 1971. ‘The origin and development of Latin habeo + infinitive’, CQ n.s. 21: 215–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Coleman, R. 1976. ‘Further observations on habeo + infinitive as an exponent of futurity’, CQ n.s. 26: 151–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Coleman, R. 1977. Vergil: Eclogues. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Coleman, R. 1991. ‘Latin prepositional syntax in Indo-European perspective’, in Coleman, R. (ed.), New Studies in Latin Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 323–38.Google Scholar

Coleman, R. 1999a. ‘Poetic diction, poetic discourse and the poetic register’, in Adams and Mayer (1999a), 21–93.

Coleman, R. 1999b. ‘Vulgarism and normalization in the Regula Sancti Benedicti’, in Petersmann and Kettemann (1999), pp. 345–56.

Colgrave, B. and Mynors, R. A. B. 1969. Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Collard, C. 1978. ‘Colloquial expressions in Euripides’ (review of Stevens 1976), CR n.s. 28: 224–6.Google Scholar

Collard, C. 2005. ‘Colloquial language in tragedy: a supplement to the work of P. T. Stevens’, CQ n.s. 55: 350–86 (with unpublished addendum kindly provided by author).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Collart, J. 1954. Varron grammairien latin. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar

Collinge, N. E. 1953. ‘The mental equation factor in “aberrant” syntax in Greek and Latin’, G&R 66: 130–9.Google Scholar

Colonna, G. 1980, ‘Graeco more bibere: l'iscrizione della Tomba 115 dell'Osteria dell'Osa’, in Archeologia Laziale 3: 51–55 (reprinted in Italia ante Romanum imperium: Scritti di antichità etrusche, italiche e romane (1958–1998), Pisa and Rome 2005, pp. 1827–33).Google Scholar

Comber, M. R. 1976. ‘Parenthesis in Tacitus’, RhM 119: 181–4.Google Scholar

Conington, J. and Nettleship, H. 1893. The Satires of A. Persius Flaccus. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Conrat, M. 1908. ‘Ein Traktat über romanisch-fränkisches Ämterwesen aus einer Vatikanischen Handschrift mitgeteilt’, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, germanische Abteilung 29: 239–60.Google Scholar

Conso, D. 1996. ‘L'oralité fictive des inscriptions funéraires latines’, in Les structures de l'oralité en latin (Colloque du Centre Alfred Ernout, Université de Paris iv, 2, 3, 4 juin 1994). Paris: Presses de l'Université de Paris-Sorbonne, pp. 291–304.Google Scholar

Constans, L.-A. 1936. Cicéron: correspondance III. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar

Corbett, P. B. 1962. ‘On two items of colloquial usage in the Bellum Hispaniense’, Eranos 60: 74–9.Google Scholar

Cordier, A. 1939. Études sur le vocabulaire épique dans L'Enéide. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar

Cortelazzo, M. and Zolli, P.1979–88. Dizionario etimologico della lingua italiana. Bologna: Zanichelli.

Coseriu, E. 1980. ‘“Historische Sprache” und “Dialekt”’, in Göschel, J., Ivić, P. and Kehr, K. (edd.), Dialekt und Dialektologie: Ergebnisse des internationalen Symposions ‘Zur Theorie des Dialekts’ Marburg/Lahn, 5.–10. September 1977. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, pp. 106–22.Google Scholar

Couilloud, M.-T. 1974. Les monuments funéraires de Rhénée (Exploration archélogique de Délos faite par l'École Française d'Athènes 30). Paris: Boccard.Google Scholar

Courtney, E. 1990. P. Papini Stati Silvae. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Courtney, E. 1993. The Fragmentary Latin Poets. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Courtney, E. 1999. Archaic Latin Prose. Atlanta: Scholars Press.Google Scholar

Courtney, E. 2001. A Companion to Petronius. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Croke, B. 1987. ‘Cassiodorus and the Getica of Jordanes’, CPh 82: 117–34.Google Scholar

Cucchiarelli, A. 2001. La satira e il poeta: Orazio tra Epodi e Sermones. Pisa: Giardini.Google Scholar

Cugusi, P. 1983. Evoluzione e forme dell'epistolografia latina. Rome: Herder.Google Scholar

Cugusi, P. 1998. ‘L'epistola ciceroniana: strumento di comunicazione quotidiana e modello letterario’, Ciceroniana 10: 163–89.Google Scholar

Daheim, J. and Blänsdorf, J. 2003. ‘Petron und die Inschriften’, in Herman and Rosén (2003), pp. 95–107.

Dahlén, E. 1964. Études syntaxiques sur les pronoms réfléchis pléonastiques en latin. Gothenburg: Almqvist & Wiksells.Google Scholar

Dahlmann, H. 1935. ‘Caesars Schrift über die Analogie’, RhM 84: 258–75.Google Scholar

Dahlstrom, A. 1987. ‘Discontinuous constituents in Fox’, in Kroeber and Moore (1987), pp. 53–73.

Dammer, R. 2001. Diomedes grammaticus. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.Google Scholar

Damon, C. 1997. The Mask of the Parasite: A Pathology of Roman Patronage. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar

Dangel, J. 1995. Accius: œuvres (fragments). Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar

Davisius, J. 1727. C. Julii Caesaris et Auli Hirtii quae extant omnia. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Degenhart, H. 1877. De auctoris Belli Hispaniensis elocutione et fide historica. Würzburg: Stuber.Google Scholar

Melo, W. D. C. 2007a. Review of Devine and Stephens (2006), Lingua 117: 1483–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Melo, W. D. C. 2007b. The Early Latin Verb System: Archaic Forms in Plautus, Terence, and Beyond. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sutter, M. 1986. ‘A theory of word order within the Latin noun phrase, based on Cato's De agri cultura’, in Deroux, C. (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman Historyiv. Brussels: Latomus, pp. 151–83.Google Scholar

Deufert, M. 1996. Pseudo-Lukrezisches im Lukrez: Die unechten Verse in Lukrezens De rerum natura. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Devine, A. M. and Stephens, L. D. 2006. Latin Word Order: Structured Meaning and Information. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Devoto, G. 1940. Storia della lingua di Roma. Bologna: Cappelli.Google Scholar

Dickey, E. 2002. Latin Forms of Address. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Diels, H. 1922. ‘Lukrezstudien v’, Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische Klasse: 46–59.

Diggle, J. 2005. ‘Tibullus 2.1.45–6 and “amplificatory pleonasm”’, CQ n.s. 55: 642–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dihle, A. 1957. ‘Analogie und Attizismus’, Hermes 85: 170–205.Google Scholar

Dionisotti, A. C. 1982. ‘From Ausonius’ schooldays? A schoolbook and its relatives', JRS 72: 83–125.Google Scholar

Diouron, N. 1999. Pseudo-César: Guerre d'Espagne. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar

Dover, K. J. 1960. Greek Word Order. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Drexler, H. 1935. ‘Parerga Caesariana’, Hermes 70: 203–34.Google Scholar

Druhan, D. R. 1938. The Syntax of Bede's Historia Ecclesiastica. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America.Google Scholar

Dubois, J. 1969. ‘Les évêques de Paris des origines à l'avènement de Hugues Capet’, Bulletin de la Société de l'Histoire de Paris et de l'Île-de-France 96: 33–97.Google Scholar

Dubois, J. 1995. ‘Importunus (2)’, in Baudrillart, A., Meyer, A. d. and Aubert, R. (edd.), Dictionnaire d'histoire et de géographie ecclésiastiquesxxv. Paris: Letouzey et Ané, p. 963.Google Scholar

Duby, G. and Ariès, P. 1987. A History of Private Life. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Duchesne, L. 1910. Fastes épiscopaux de l'ancienne Gaule ii. L'Aquitaine et les Lyonnaises. Paris: Fontemoing.Google Scholar

Eckhardt, K. A. 1969. Pactus Legis Salicae. Hanover: Hahn.Google Scholar

Eden, P. T. 1962. ‘Caesar's style: inheritance versus intelligence’, Glotta 40: 74–117.Google Scholar

Eden, P. T. 1984. Seneca: Apocolocyntosis. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Enßlin, W. 1949. Des Symmachus Historia Romana als Quelle für Jordanes (Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische Klasse, Jahrgang 1948, Heft 3). Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar

Erasmo, M. 2004. Roman Tragedy: Theatre to Theatricality. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

Erasmus, D. 1533. Familiarium colloquiorum opus, ab autore postremum diligenter recognitum, emendatum et locupletatum, adiectis novis aliquot colloquijs. Basle: J. Froben.Google Scholar

Erhardt, L. 1886. ‘Rezension zu Jordanis et Getica [Mommsen, 1882] und Jordanis de origine actibusque Getarum [Holder, 1882]’, GGA 17: 669–708.Google Scholar

Ernout, A. 1923. ‘Tempore puncto’, RPh 47: 152–63.Google Scholar

Ernout, A. 1954. Aspects du vocabulaire latin. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar

Ernout, A. 1957. ‘Le vocabulaire poétique’, in Ernout, A., Philologicaii. Paris: Klincksieck, pp. 66–86.Google Scholar

Faller, A. 1949. ‘Sprachliche Interpretation zum Bellum Hispaniense’. Diss. Freiburg.

Faller, S. and Manuwald, G. (edd.) 2002. Accius und seine Zeit (Identitäten und Alteritäten 13), Würzburg: Ergon-Verlag.

Fantham, E. 1972. Comparative Studies in Republican Imagery. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar

Ferri, R. 2008. ‘Il latino dei Colloquia scholica’, in Bellandi, F. and Ferri, R. (edd.), Aspetti della scuola nel mondo romano. Amsterdam: Hakkert, pp. 111–78.Google Scholar

Fiehler, R., Barden, B., Elstermann, M. and Kraft, B. 2004. Eigenschaften gesprochener Sprache. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar

Flobert, P. 1975. Les verbes déponents latins des origines à Charlemagne. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar

Fögen, T. 2000. Patrii sermonis egestas: Einstellungen lateinischer Autoren zu ihrer Muttersprache. Ein Beitrag zum Sprachbewusstsein in der römischen Antike. Munich and Leipzig: Saur.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Foucault, J. A. 1964. ‘L'hyperbate du verbe’, RPh 38: 59–69.Google Scholar

Fowler, D. 1989. ‘Lucretius and Politics’, in Barnes, J. and Griffin, M. (edd.), Philosophia togata. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 120–50.Google Scholar

Fowler, D. 1997. ‘Virgilian narrative: (a) story-telling’, in Martindale, C. (ed.), pp. 259–70.

Fowler, D. 2000. ‘The didactic plot’, in Depew, M. and Obbink, D. (edd.), Matrices of Genre. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, pp. 205–19.Google Scholar

Fowler, D. 2002. Lucretius on atomic motion: A Commentary on De rerum natura, Book Two, Lines 1–332. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Fowler, H. W. and Fowler, F. G. 1995. Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English. 9th edn rev. D. Thompson, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Fraenkel, E. 1928. Iktus und Akzent im lateinischen Sprechvers. Berlin: Weidmann.Google Scholar

Fraenkel, E. 1954. ‘Urbem quam statuo vestra est’, Glotta 33: 157–9.Google Scholar

Fraenkel, E. 1956. ‘Eine Form römischer Kriegsbulletins’, Eranos 54: 189–94.Google Scholar

Fraenkel, E. 1960. Elementi plautini in Plauto (augmented translation of Plautinisches in Plautus (Berlin 1922) by F. Munari). Florence: La Nuova Italia.Google Scholar

Fraenkel, E. 1964. Kleine Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie. Rome: Storia e Letteratura.Google Scholar

Fraenkel, E. 1968. Leseproben aus Reden Ciceros und Catos. Rome: Storia e Letteratura.Google Scholar

Fraenkel, E. 2007. Plautine Elements in Plautus (translation of Plautinisches im Plautus (Berlin 1922) by T. Drevikovsky and F. Muecke). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Frede, D. and Inwood, B. (edd.) 2005. Language and Learning: Philosophy of Language in the Hellenistic Age. Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Frede, M. 1978. ‘Principles of Stoic grammar’, in Rist, J. M. (ed.), The Stoics. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press, pp. 27–75.Google Scholar

Freudenburg, K. 1993. The Walking Muse: Horace on the Theory of Satire. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Frobenius, R. 1910. Die Syntax des Ennius. Nördlingen: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar

Fruyt, M. and Orlandini, A. 2008. ‘Some cases of linguistic evolution and grammaticalisation in the Latin verb’, in Wright (2008), pp. 230–7.

Funaioli, H. 1907. Grammaticae Romanae fragmenta. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar

Funck, A. 1893. ‘Die lateinischen Adverbia auf -im, ihre Bildung und ihre Geschichte’, Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik. Leipzig: Teubner. 8: 77–114.Google Scholar

Gaide, F. 2001. ‘A propos des intéractions verbales dans les théatre de Plaute’, in Moussy (2001), pp. 959–68.

Galdi, G. 2004. Grammatica delle iscrizioni latine dell'impero (province orientali): morfosintassi nominale. Rome: Herder.Google Scholar

Galdi, G. 2008. ‘Evidence for late usage of the moods in the works of Jordanes’, in Wright (2008), pp. 321–7.

Galdi, G. forthcoming. ‘Les indications locales chez Jordanes à la lumière d'une nouvelle approche méthodologique’, in Lenoble, M., Longrée, D. and Bodelot, C. (edd.), forthcoming. De linguae Latinae usu: Actes du 13e Colloque international de linguistique latine, Bruxelles et Liège, 4–9 avril 2005. Leuven and Paris: Peeters.

Garcea, A. 2002. ‘L'interaction épistolaire entre dialogue in absentia et in praesentia chez Cicéron’, in Bolkestein, A. M., Kroon, C., Pinkster, H., Remmelink, W. and Risselada, R. (edd.), Theory and Description in Latin Linguistics: Selected Papers from the Eleventh International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, Amsterdam June 24–29, 2001. Amsterdam: Gieben, pp. 123–38.Google Scholar

Garcea, A. (ed.) 2003a. Colloquia absentium: studi sulla comunicazione epistolare in Cicerone. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier.

Garcea, A. 2003b. ‘Rispondere con ordine alle lettere: una funzione di quod nell'epistolario di Cicerone’, in Garcea (2003a), pp. 73–99.

Garcea, A. 2005. Cicerone in esilio: l'epistolario e le passioni (Spudasmata 103). Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar

Garcea, A. and Lomanto, V. 2004. ‘Gellius and Fronto on loanwords and literary models: their evaluation of Laberius’, in Holford-Strevens, L. and Vardi, A. (edd.), The Worlds of Aulus Gellius. Oxford University Press, pp. 41–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Garmonsway, G. N. (ed.) 1939. Ælfric's Colloquy (2nd edn 1947). London: Methuen.

Geigenmüller, P. 1908. Quaestiones Dionysianae de vocabulis artis criticae. (Dissertatio inauguralis.) Leipzig: Typis Roberti Noske Bornensis.Google Scholar

Gibson, B. 2006. Statius: Silvae 5. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Gils, L. 2003. ‘Narrative techniques compared in discourse and correspondence’, in Garcea (2003a), pp. 47–72.

Giunta, F. and Grillone, A. 1991. Iordanis De origine actibusque Getarum (Fonti per la storia d'Italia 117). Rome: Istituto Palazzo Borromini.Google Scholar

Givón, T. 2001. Syntax. 2 vols. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Glück, J. J. and Maurach, G. 1972. ‘Punisch in Plautinischer Metrik,’ Semitics 2: 93–126.Google Scholar

Goduinus, J. 1678. C. Julii Caesaris quae extant. Paris: Petri le Petit.Google Scholar

Goetsch, P. 1985. ‘Fingierte Mündlichkeit in der Erzählkunst entwickelter Schriftkulturen’, Poetica 17: 202–18.Google Scholar

Goetz, G. (ed.). 1892. Corpus glossariorum Latinorum iii. Hermeneumata Pseudodositheana, accedunt hermeneumata medicobotanica vetustiora. Leipzig: Teubner.

Goetz, G. (ed.) 1923. Corpus glossariorum Latinorum i. De glossariorum Latinorum origine et fatis. Leipzig: Teubner.

Goldberg, S. M. 2000. ‘Cicero and the work of tragedy’, in Manuwald (2000), pp. 49–59.

Goodyear, F. R. D. 1969. ‘More notes on the Iohannis of Corippus’, BICS 16: 16–21, 27–8 (= K. M. Coleman et al. 1992, pp. 85–91).Google Scholar

Goodyear, F. R. D. 1982. ‘On the character and text of Justin's compilation of Trogus’, Proceedings of the African Classical Association 16: 1–24 (= K. Coleman et al. 1992, pp. 210–33).Google Scholar

Görler, W. 1982. ‘Beobachtungen zu Vergils Syntax’, Würzburger Jahrbücher für die Altertumswissenschaft 8: 69–81.Google Scholar

Görler, W. 1985. ‘Eneide: la lingua’, Enciclopedia Virgiliana 2: 262–78.Google Scholar

Görler, W. 1999. ‘Rowing strokes: tentative considerations on “shifting” objects in Virgil and elsewhere’, in Adams and Mayer (1999a), pp. 269–86.

Gow, A. S. F. 1932. ‘Diminutives in Augustan poetry’, CQ 26: 150–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gowers, E. 1993. ‘Horace, Satires 1. 5: an inconsequential journey’, PCPhS 39: 48–66.Google Scholar

Grandgent, C. H. 1907. An Introduction to Vulgar Latin. Boston: D. C. Heath & Co.Google Scholar

Grevisse, M. 1993. Le bon usage: grammaire française. 13th edn recast by A. Goosse. Paris: Duculot.Google Scholar

Grube, G. M. A. 1952. ‘Thrasymachus, Theophrastus, and Dionysius of Halicarnassus’, AJPh 73: 251–67.Google Scholar

Gruen, E. S. 1992. Culture and National Identity in Republican Rome. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Grünewald, C. 1912. Die Satzparenthese bei den zehn attischen Rednern (Beiträge zur historischen Syntax der griechischen Sprache 19). Würzburg: C. Kabitzsch.Google Scholar

Guarducci, M. 1995. Epigrafia greca. 4 vols. 2nd edn, Rome: Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato.Google Scholar

Gundlach, W. 1892. Epistolae aevi Merowingici (Monumenta Germaniae Historica Epistolae iii). Berlin: Weidmann.Google Scholar

Gwara, S. (ed.) 1996. Latin Colloquies from Pre-Conquest Britain. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies.

Gwara, S. (ed.) 2002. ‘The Hermeneumata pseudodositheana, Latin oral fluency, and the social function of the Cambro-Latin dialogues called De raris fabulis’, in Lanham, C. D. (ed.), Latin Grammar and Rhetoric: From Classical Theory to Medieval Practice. London and New York: Continuum, pp. 109–38.

Gwara, S. and Porter, D. W. (edd. and trans.) 1997. Anglo-Saxon Conversations: The Colloquies of Ælfric Bata. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press.

Haffter, H. 1934. Untersuchungen zur altlateinischen Dichtersprache. Berlin: Weidmann.Google Scholar

Hakamies, R. 1951. Étude sur l'origine et l'evolution du diminutif latin et sa survie dans les langues romanes (Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae 71.1). Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.Google Scholar

Håkanson, L. 1969. Statius' Silvae: Critical and Exegetical Remarks with Some Notes on theThebaid. Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup.Google Scholar

Hale, K. 1983. ‘Walpiri and the grammar of non-configurational languages’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1: 5–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hall, L. G. H. 1998. ‘Ratio and Romanitas in the Bellum Gallicum’, in Welch, K. and Powell, A. (edd.), Julius Caesar as Artful Reporter: The War Commentaries as Political Instruments. London: Duckworth, pp. 11–43.Google Scholar

Halla-aho, H. 2009. The Non-literary Latin Letters: A Study of their Syntax and Pragmatics (Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 124). Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica.Google Scholar

Halsall, G. 2003. Warfare and Society in the Barbarian West, 450–900. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Hannappel, H. and Melenk, H. 1984. Alltagssprache: Semantische Grundbegriffe und Analysebeispiele. Munich: Wilhelm Fink.Google Scholar

Hanssen, J. S. Th. 1951. Latin Diminutives: A Semantic Study. Bergen: John Grieg.Google Scholar

Happ, H. 1967. ‘Die lateinische Umgangssprache und die Kunstsprache des Plautus’, Glotta 45: 60–104.Google Scholar

Hardie, P. 1994. Virgil: Aeneid Book ix. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Harrison, S. J. (ed.) 1990. Oxford Readings in Vergil's Aeneid. Oxford University Press.

Harrison, S. J. 1991. A Commentary on Vergil: Aeneid 10. Oxford University Press.

Harrison, S. J. 2007. Generic Enrichment in Virgil and Horace. Oxford University Press.CrossRef

Hartmann, M. 2005. Die frühlateinischen Inschriften und ihre Datierung. Bremen: Hempen.Google Scholar

Harvey, R. A. 1981. A Commentary on Persius. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

Haugen, E. 1966. ‘Dialect, language, nation’, American Anthropologist 68: 922–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Havers, W. 1911. Untersuchungen zur Kasussyntax der indogermanischen Sprachen. Straßburg: Karl J. Trubner.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Havet, L. 1898. ‘Salveto’, Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik. Leipzig: Teubner. 10: 287–89.Google Scholar

Havet, L. 1905. ‘La mise en relief par disjonction’, in Mélanges Nicole. Geneva: Kündig & fils, pp. 225–32.Google Scholar

Heinze, R. 1897. T. Lucretius Carus: De rerum natura Buch iii. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar

Heinze, R. 1924. Review of Diels (1923), Deutsche Literaturzeitung für Kritik der internationalen Wissenschaft 45: 38–49.Google Scholar

Helttula, A. 1987. Studies on the Latin Accusative Absolute (Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 81). Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica.Google Scholar

Hendrickson, G. L. 1906. ‘The De analogia of Julius Caesar: its occasion, nature, and date, with additional fragments’, CPh 1: 97–120.Google Scholar

Heraeus, W. 1902. ‘Die römische Soldatensprache’, Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik. Leipzig: Teubner. 12: 255–80.Google Scholar

Heraeus, W. 1937. ‘Die Sprache des Petronius und die Glossen’, in Hofmann, J. B. (ed.), Kleine Schriften von Wilhelm Heraeus zum 75. Geburtstag am 4. Dezember 1937. Heidelberg: C. Winter, pp. 52–150.Google Scholar

Hering, W. 1963. Die Recensio der Caesarhandschriften. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar

Herman, J. 2000. Vulgar Latin, trans. Wright, R.. University Park, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar

Herman, J. 2003. ‘Notes syntaxiques sur la langue de Trimalcion et de ses invités’, in Herman, and Rosén, (edd.), pp. 139–46.

Herman, J. and Rosén, H. (edd.) 2003. Petroniana: Gedenkschrift für Hubert Petersmann. Heidelberg: C. Winter.

Herren, M. W. 1995. ‘Vergil the Grammarian: a Spanish Jew in Ireland?’, Peritia 9: 51–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Herren, M. W. 2004. ‘The “Cosmography” of Aethicus Ister: speculations about its date, provenance, and audience’, in Bihrer, A. and Stein, E. (edd.), Nova de veteribus: Mittel- und neulateinische Studien für Paul Gerhard Schmidt. Munich: Saur.Google Scholar

Heubner, C. 1916. De Belli Hispaniensis commentario quaestiones grammaticae. Berlin: Ebering.Google Scholar

Highet, G. 1998. ‘Petronius's dinner speakers’, in Ball, R. J.. (ed.), The Unpublished Lectures of Gilbert Highet. New York: Lang, pp. 119–34.Google Scholar

Hine, H. M. 2005. ‘Poetic influence on prose: the case of the younger Seneca’, in Reinhardt, Lapidge and Adams (2005), pp. 211–37.

Hofmann, J. B. 1926. Lateinische Umgangssprache. 1st edn, Heidelberg: C. Winter.Google Scholar

Hofmann, J. B. 1936. Lateinische Umgangssprache. 2nd edn, Heidelberg: C. Winter.Google Scholar

Hofmann, J. B. 1951. Lateinische Umgangssprache. 3rd edn, Heidelberg: C. Winter.Google Scholar

Holford-Strevens, L. 2003. Aulus Gellius: An Antonine Scholar and his Achievement. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Holmes, T. R. 1923. The Roman Republic. 3 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Holtze, W. 1868. Syntaxis Lucretianae Lineamenta. Leipzig: O. Holtze.Google Scholar

Hopkinson, N. 2000. Ovid: Metamorphoses, Book xiii. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Horsfall, N. M. 1995. A Companion to the Study of Virgil. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

Housman, A. E. 1919. ‘Notes on Martial’, CQ 13: 68–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Howell, P. 1980. A Commentary on Book One of the Epigrams of Martial. London: Athlone Press.Google Scholar

Hutchinson, G. O. 1998. Cicero's Correspondence: A Literary Study. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Hutchinson, G. O. 2006. Propertius: Elegies Book iv. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Innes, D. C. 1988. ‘Cicero on tropes’, Rhetorica 6: 307–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Iordache, R. 1973. ‘Elementos vulgares en la obra de Iordanes’, Helmantica 24: 117–34.Google Scholar

Iordache, R. 1983. ‘L'interrogative indirecte dans les œuvres de Jordanès’, Živa Antika 33: 149–64.Google Scholar

Iordache, R. 1986. ‘L'emploi des adverbes “quatenus”, “hactenus”, “protinus” et “tenus” dans les œuvres de Jordanes’, Atti dell'Accademia di Scienze, Lettere e Belle Arti di Palermo 5: 331–52.Google Scholar

Iordache, R. 1992. ‘Remarques sur la subordonnée temporelle à l’époque classique et à l'époque tardive, chez Jordanes', Linguistica 33: 31–60.Google Scholar

Jakobi, R. 1996. Die Kunst der Exegese im Terenzkommentar des Donat. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jocelyn, H. D. 1969. The Tragedies of Ennius: The Fragments Edited with an Introduction and Commentary (Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries 10). 2nd edn, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Jocelyn, H. D. 1972. ‘The poems of Quintus Ennius’, in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welti.2: 987–1026.CrossRef

Jocelyn, H. D. 1979. ‘Vergilius Cacozelus (Donatus Vita Vergilii 44)’, in Cairns, F. (ed.), Papers of the Liverpool Latin Seminarii (ARCA 3). Liverpool: F. Cairns, pp. 67–142.Google Scholar

Jones, J. C. 1906. ‘Simul, simulac und Synonyma’, Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik. Leipzig: Teubner. 14: 89–104.Google Scholar

Jong, M. 1998. ‘Imitatio morum: the cloister and clerical purity in the Carolingian world’, in Frassetto, M. (ed.), Medieval Purity and Piety: Essays on Medieval Clerical Celibacy and Religious Reform. New York: Garland, pp. 49–80.Google Scholar

Jonge, C. C. 2008. Between Grammar and Rhetoric: Dionysius of Halicarnassus on Language, Linguistics and Literature (Mnemosyne Suppl. 301). Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Joos, M. 1967. The Five Clocks (with an introduction by Albert H. Marckwardt). New York: Harcourt, Brace and World (original publication 1962 (Bloomington, Indiana): Publication 22 of the Indiana University Research Center in Anthropology, Folklore, and Linguistics).Google Scholar

Kaimio, J. 1979. The Romans and the Greek Language (Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 64). Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica.Google Scholar

Kalén, H. 1939. Studia in Iordanem Philologica. Uppsala: Lundequist.Google Scholar

Kalinka, E. 1929. Berichte überCäsars und seiner Fortsetzer Schriften(1898–1928) (Bursians Jahresberichte Suppl. 224). Leipzig: Reisland.Google Scholar

Kappelmacher, A. 1916. ‘Iordanis’, in Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, ed. G. Wissowa, W. Kroll et al., Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 1894–1972. IX: 1908–29.Google Scholar

Karlsson, K. 1981. Syntax and Affixation: The Evolution of MENTE in Latin and Romance. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Karsten, H. T. 1912–13. Commenti Donatiani ad Terenti fabulas scholia genuina et spuria. Leiden: Sijthoff.Google Scholar

Katz, J. T. 1998. ‘Testimonia ritus Italici: male genitalia, solemn declarations, and a new Latin sound law’, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 118: 183–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kenney, E. J. 1970. ‘In parenthesis’, CR n.s. 20: 291.Google Scholar

Kenney, E. J. 1971. Lucretius: De rerum natura Book iii. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kenyon, J. S. 1948. ‘Cultural levels and functional varieties of English’, College English 10.1: 31–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kindstrand, J. F. 1976. Bion of Borysthenes: A Collection of the Fragments with Introduction and Commentary. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar

Kircher-Durand, C. 2002. ‘Les dérivés en -nus, -na, -num’, in Kircher-Durand, C. (ed.), Création lexicale: la formation des noms par dérivation suffixale (= Grammaire fondamentale du latinix). Leuven and Paris: Peeters, pp. 125–84.Google Scholar

Kiss, K. É. (ed.) 1995. Discourse Configurational Languages. Oxford University Press.

Kiss, S. 2005. ‘Anaphore et coordination dans les textes latins tardifs’, in Calboli, G. (ed.), Papers on Grammar ix. Nemo te lacrimis decoret neque funera fletu faxit. Cur? Volitas viva per ora virum: Proceedings of the Twelfth International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics (Bologna 9–14 June 2003). Rome: Herder, pp. 571–6.Google Scholar

Kißel, W. 1990. Aulus Persius Flaccus: Satiren. Heidelberg: C. Winter.Google Scholar

Klotz, A. 1910. Cäsarstudien nebst einer Analyse der strabonischen Beschreibung von Gallien und Britannien. Leipzig and Berlin: Teubner.Google Scholar

Klotz, A. 1927a. C. Iuli Caesaris commentarii iii: Commentarii Belli Alexandrini, Belli Africi, Belli Hispaniensis. Accedunt C. Iuli Caesaris et A. Hirti fragmenta. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar

Klotz, A. 1927b. Kommentar zum Bellum Hispaniense. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar

Knobloch, J. (ed.) 1961–. Sprachwissenschaftliches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg: C. Winter.

Knox, P. E. 1986. ‘Adjectives in -osus in Latin poetic diction’, Glotta 64: 90–101.Google Scholar

Koehler, A. 1877. ‘De auctorum Belli Africani et Belli Hispaniensis Latinitate’, Acta Seminarii Philologici Erlangensis 1: 367–476.Google Scholar

Koenen, L. 1970. ‘Die “laudatio funebris” des Augustus für Agrippa auf einem neuen Papyrus (P.Colon. inv. nr. 4701; H. Volkmann gewidmet)’, ZPE 5: 217–83.Google Scholar

Kollmann, E. D. 1975. ‘The infinitive in Latin hexameter poetry’, Glotta 53: 281–91.Google Scholar

Konjetzny, W. 1907. ‘De idiotismis syntacticis in titulis latinis urbanis (C.I.L. Vol. VI.) conspicuis’, Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik. Leipzig: Teubner. 15: 297–351.Google Scholar

Krebs, J. P. and Schmalz, J. H. 1905–7. Antibarbarus der lateinischen Sprache: nebst einem kurzen Abriss der Geschichte der lateinischen Sprache und Vorbemerkungen über reine Latinität. 2 vols. 7th edn, Basle: Schwabe.Google Scholar

Krenkel, W. 1970. Lucilius: Satiren. 2 vols. Berlin: Akademie Verlag and Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

Kroeber, P. D., and Moore, R. E. (edd.) 1987. Native American Languages and Grammatical Typology. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Linguistics Club.

Kroll, W. (ed.) 1913. M. Tullii Ciceronis Orator. Berlin: Weidmann.

Kroll, W. 1927. ‘Die Sprache des Sallust’, Glotta 15: 280–305.

Krusch, B. 1888. Fredegarii et aliorum chronica. Vitae Sanctorum. Hanover: Hahn.Google Scholar

Krusch, B. 1910. ‘Der Staatsstreich des fränkischen Hausmeiers Grimoald I’, in Historische Aufsätze Karl Zeumer zum 60. Geburtstag als Festgabe dargebracht von Freunden und Schülern. Weimar: Böhlau, pp. 411–38.Google Scholar

Kruschwitz, P. and Halla-aho, H. 2007. ‘The Pompeian wall inscriptions and the Latin language: a critical reappraisal’, Arctos 41: 31–49.Google Scholar

Kühnast, L. 1872. Die Hauptpunkte der livianischen Syntax. Berlin: Weber.Google Scholar

Labov, W. 1966. The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar

Labov, W. 2001. Principles of Linguistic Change ii. Social Factors (Language in Society 29). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Laguna, G. 1992. Estacio: Silvas iii. Introducción, edición crítica, traducción y comentario. Madrid: Fundación Pastor de Estudios Clásicos.Google Scholar

Landfester, M. 1997. Einführung in die Stilistik der griechischen und lateinischen Literatursprachen. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar

Landgraf, G. 1878. De Ciceronis elocutione in orationibus Pro P. Quinctio et Pro Sex. Roscio Amerino conspicua. Diss. Würzburg: Stuber.Google Scholar

Landgraf, G. 1893. ‘Der Dativus commodi und der Dativus finalis mit ihren Abarten’, Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik. Leipzig: Teubner. 8: 39–76.Google Scholar

Landgraf, G. 1914. Kommentar zu Ciceros Rede Pro Sex. Roscio Amerino. 2nd edn, Leipzig and Berlin: Teubner.Google Scholar

Lapidge, M. 1984. ‘Gildas's education’, in Dumville, D. and Lapidge, M. (edd.), Gildas: New Approaches. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, pp. 27–50.Google Scholar

Lapidge, M. 1986. ‘Latin learning in Dark Age Wales: some prolegomena’, in Evans, D. E., Griffith, J. G. and Jope, E. M. (edd.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Celtic Studies. Oxford: Cranham Press, pp. 91–107.Google Scholar

Lapidge, M. 2006. The Anglo-Saxon Library. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Lapp, F. 1965. De Callimachi Cyrenaei tropis et figuris (Dissertatio inauguralis). Bonn: Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität.Google Scholar

Latham, R. E. (ed.) 1975. Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources, Fascicle 1. London: Oxford University Press for the British Academy.

Laurand, L. 1938. Études sur le style des discours de Cicéron. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar

Lausberg, H. 1998. Handbook of Literary Rhetoric. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

Lebek, W. D. 1970. Verba prisca: Die Anfänge des Archaisierens in der lateinischen Beredsamkeit und Geschichtsschreibung (Hypomnemata 25). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lebreton, J. 1901. Études sur la langue et la grammaire de Cicéron. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar

Leeman, A. D. 1963. Orationis ratio: The Stylistic Theories and Practice of the Roman Orators, Historians and Philosophers. Amsterdam: Hakkert.Google Scholar

Lehmann, C. 1991. ‘The Latin nominal group in a typological perspective’, in Coleman, R. (ed.), New Studies in Latin Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 203–32.Google Scholar

Lehmann, P. G. J. 1922. Die Parodie im Mittelalter. Munich: Drei Masken.Google Scholar

Leiwo, M. 2002. ‘From contact to mixture: bilingual inscriptions from Italy’, in Adams, J. N.et al. (2002), pp. 168–94.

Leiwo, M. 2009. ‘Imperatives and other directives in the letters from Mons Claudianus’, in Evans, T. and Obbink, D. (edd.), The Language of the Papyri. Oxford University Press, pp. 97–119.Google Scholar

Lennartz, K. 1994. Non verba sed vim: Kritisch-exegetische Untersuchungen zu den Fragmenten archaischer römischer Tragiker. Stuttgart and Leipzig: Teubner.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lennartz, K. 1995–6. ‘Zur ‘Wortabbildung’ in der archaischen römischen Tragödie’, Glotta 73: 168–207.Google Scholar

Lennartz, K. 2003. ‘Zu Sprachniveau und Stilbildung in der republikanischen Tragödie: unter besonderer Berücksichtigung sondersprachlicher und volkssprachlicher Elemente. Mit einem Anhang zu den Hiatstellen’, Glotta 79: 83–136.Google Scholar

Leo, F. 1913. Geschichte der römischen Literatur i. Die archaische Literatur. Berlin: Weidmann.Google Scholar

Letessier, P. 2000. ‘La salutatio chez Plaute: adaptation ludique d'un rituel social’, Lalies 20: 151–64.Google Scholar

Letta, C. 1996. ‘I culti di Vesuna e di Valetudo tra Umbria e Marsica’, in Bonamente, G. and Coarelli, F. (edd.), Assisi e gli Umbri nell'antichità: Atti del Convegno internazionale, Assisi 18–21 dicembre 1991. Assisi: Minerva, pp. 318–39.Google Scholar

Leumann, M. 1947. ‘Die lateinische Dichtersprache’, Museum Helveticum 4: 116–39 (reprinted in Kleine Schriften, Zürich and Stuttgart: Artemis Verlag 1959, pp. 131–56; Italian translation, with additional notes, in Lunelli (1980), pp. 131–78).Google Scholar

Leumann, M. 1977. Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre. Munich: Beck.Google Scholar

Lietzmann, H. 1905. Fünf Festpredigten Augustins in gereimter Prosa. Bonn: Marcus and Weber.Google Scholar

Lindsay, W. M. 1903. Nonii Marcelli De conpendiosa doctrina. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar

Lindsay, W. M. 1907. Syntax of Plautus. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Lindsay, W. M. 1929. M. Val. Martialis Epigrammata. 2nd edn, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Lipsius, J. 1611. Opera omnia quae ad criticam proprie spectant. Antwerp: Officina Plantiniana.Google Scholar

Lodge, G.1924–33. Lexicon Plautinum. 2 vols. Leipzig: Teubner.

Löfstedt, B. 1961. Studien über die Sprache der langobardischen Gesetze: Beiträge zur frühmittelalterlichen Latinität. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar

Löfstedt, B. 1965. Der hibernolateinische Grammatiker Malsachanus. Lund: Håkan Ohlsson.Google Scholar

Löfstedt, E. 1911. Philologischer Kommentar zur Peregrinatio Aetheriae: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der lateinischen Sprache. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar

Löfstedt, E. 1936. Vermischte Studien zur lateinischen Sprachkunde und Syntax. Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar

Löfstedt, E. 1950. Coniectanea: Untersuchungen auf dem Gebiet der antiken und mittelalterlichen Latinität. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells.Google Scholar

Löfstedt, E. 1956. Syntactica: Studien und Beiträge zur historischen Syntax des Lateins. 2 vols. 2nd edn, Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar

Löfstedt, L. 1966. Les expressions du commandement et de la défense en latin et leur survie dans les langues romanes. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar

Lomanto, V. 1993. ‘Due divergenti interpretazioni dell'analogia: la flessione dei temi in -u- secondo Varrone e secondo Cesare’, in Poli (1993) II, pp. 643–85.

Lomanto, V. 1994–5. ‘Cesare e la teoria dell'eloquenza’, Memorie della Accademia delle Scienze di Torino, Classe di Scienze Morali, Storiche e Filologiche 5th ser. 18–19: 3–127.

Lorenzo, J. L. 1976. El valor de los preverbios en Jordanes. Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca.Google Scholar

Luiselli, B. 1976. ‘Sul De summa temporum di Iordanes’, Romanobarbarica 1: 83–134.Google Scholar

Lundström, S. 1982. Ein textkritisches Problem in den Tusculanen. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar

Lunelli, A. (ed.) 1980. La lingua poetica latina. Bologna: Pàtron.

Lyne, R. O. A. M. 1987. Further Voices in Vergil's Aeneid. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Lyne, R. O. A. M. 1989. Words and the Poet. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

McCartney, E. S. 1920. ‘Fore-runners of the Romance adverbial suffix’, CPh 15: 213–29.Google Scholar

McGushin, C. 1977. C. Sallustius Crispus: Bellum Catilinae. A Commentary. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

Mack, D. 1937. Senatsreden und Volksreden bei Cicero. Würzburg: Triltsch.Google Scholar

Madvig, J. N. 1856. A Latin Grammar for the Use of Schools, trans. G. Woods. 3rd edn, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Madvig, J. N. 1873. Adversaria criticaii. Copenhagen: Gyldendal.Google Scholar

Malcovati, H. (ed.) 1967. Imperatoris Caesaris Augusti operum fragmenta. Turin: Paravia.

Malcovati, H. 1976. Oratorum Romanorum fragmenta liberae rei publicae. 2 vols. 4th edn, Turin: Paravia.Google Scholar

Maltby, R. 1979. ‘Linguistic characterisation of old men in Terence’, CPh 74: 136–47.Google Scholar

Maltby, R. 2007. ‘The distribution of imagery by plays and characters in Terence’, in Kruschwitz, P., Ehlers, W.-W. and Felgentreu, F. (edd.), Terentius poeta. Munich: Beck, pp. 143–65.Google Scholar

Mann, J. C. 1971. ‘Spoken Latin in Britain as evidenced in the inscriptions’, Britannia 2: 218–24.CrossRef

Mannheimer, I. 1975. Sprachliche Beziehungen zwischen Alt- and Spätlatein. Diss. Zürich: Juris Druck.Google Scholar

Mansfeld, J. 1995. ‘Insight by hindsight: intentional unclarity in presocratic proems’, BICS 42: 225–32.Google Scholar

Manuwald, G. (ed.) 2000. Identität und Alterität in der frührömischen Tragödie (Identitäten und Alteritäten 3). Würzburg: Ergon-Verlag.

Manuwald, G. 2001. Fabulae Praetextae: Spuren einer literarischen Gattung der Römer (Zetemata 108). Munich: Beck.Google Scholar

Manuwald, G. 2003. Pacuvius summus tragicus poeta: Zum dramatischen Profil seiner Tragödien. Munich and Leipzig: Saur.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mariotti, I. 1960. Studi luciliani. Florence: La Nuova Italia.Google Scholar

Marouzeau, J. 1921. ‘Pour mieux comprendre les textes latins (Essai sur la distinction des styles)’, RPh 2nd ser. 45: 149–93.Google Scholar

Marouzeau, J. 1922. L'ordre des mots dans la phrase latine i. Les groupes nominaux. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar

Marouzeau, J. 1938. L'ordre des mots dans la phrase latine ii. Le verbe. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar

Marouzeau, J. 1949. L'ordre des mots dans la phrase latine iii. Les articulations de l'énoncé. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar

Marouzeau, J. 1954. Traité de stylistique latine. 3rd edn, Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar

Martin, J. 1974. Antike Rhetorik: Technik und Methode (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft 2, 3). Munich: Beck.Google Scholar

Martindale, C. A. (ed.) 1997. The Cambridge Companion to Virgil. Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Martindale, J. R. 1992. The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire iii. AD 527–641. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Marx, F. (ed.) 1894. Incerti auctoris De ratione dicendi ad C. Herennium libri iv [M. Tulli Ciceronis Ad Herennium libri vi]. Leipzig: Teubner.

Marx, F. 1904–5. C. Lucilii carminum reliquiae. 2 vols. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar

Marx, F. 1909. ‘Die Beziehungen des Altlateins zum Spätlatein’, Neue Jahrbücher für das klassische Altertum 12: 434–48.Google Scholar

Marx, F. (ed.) 1923. Incerti auctoris De ratione dicendi ad C. Herennium libri iv (M. Tulli Ciceronis scripta quae manserunt omnia i). Leipzig: Teubner.

Mathisen, R. W. 1999. Ruricius of Limoges and Friends: A Collection of Letters from Visigothic Gaul. Liverpool University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Matthews, P. 2007. Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Maurach, G. 1995. Lateinische Dichtersprache. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. 1981. Lucan: Civil War viii. Warminster: Aris & Phillips.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. 2001. Tacitus: Dialogus de oratoribus. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Meisterfeld, R. 2000. ‘Die unbestimmte Bestimmung: zur Entstehung des unbestimmten Artikels in den romanischen Sprachen’, in Staib, B. (ed.), Linguistica Romanica et Indiana: Festschrift für Wolf Dietrich. Tübingen: Narr, pp. 303–33.Google Scholar

Melville, A. D. 1992. Statius: Thebaid. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Menge, H., Burkard, T. and Schauer, M. 2000. Lehrbuch der lateinischen Syntax und Semantik. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar

Menk, E. A. 1925. The Position of the Possessive Pronoun in Cicero's Orations. Diss. Univ. of Iowa, Grand Forks, ND: Normanden Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Mercier, J. 1614. Nonii Marcelli nova editio. Additus est libellus Fulgentii de prisco sermone et notae in Nonium et Fulgentium. Paris: Perier, and Sedan: Iannon (reprinted Leipzig: Teubner 1826).Google Scholar

Merrill, F. R. 1972. Plautus: Mostellaria. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Merrill, W. A. 1907. T. Lucreti Cari De rerum natura libri sex. New York: American Book Company.Google Scholar

Metzger, M.D. 1974. ‘Marius Victorinus and the substantive infinitive’, Eranos 72: 65–70.Google Scholar

Meusel, H.1887–93. Lexicon Caesarianum. Berlin: Weber.

Meyer, P. 1867. Review of Boucherie (1867), Revue Critique d'Histoire et de Littérature 2: 344–50.Google Scholar

Meyer, W. 1904. ‘Die Legende des h. Albanus des Protomartyr Angliae in Texten vor Beda’, Abhandlungen der königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, philosophisch-historische Klasse, n.s. 8: 3–81.

Mierow, C. C. 1915. Jordanes: The Origin and Deeds of the Goths. 2nd edn, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Mierow, C. C. 1922–3. ‘Some remarks on the literary technique of the Gothic historian Jordanes’, Classical Weekly 16: 140–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mignot, X. 1969. Les verbes dénominatifs latins. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar

Mignot, X. 1981. ‘Salutare en latin, “saluer” en français sont-ils bien des verbes délocutifs?’, BSL 76: 327–44.Google Scholar

Minyard, J. D. 1978. Mode and Value in De Rerum natura: A Study in Lucretius' Metrical Language(Hermes Einzelschriften 39). Stuttgart: Steiner.Google Scholar

Mitsis, P. 1994. ‘Committing philosophy to the reader: didactic coercion and reader autonomy in De rerum natura’, in Schiesaro, A., Mitsis, P. and Strauss, J. Clay (edd.), Mega nepios: il destinatario nell'epos didascalico (MD 31), pp. 111–28.

Möbius, A. 1830. C. Julii Caesaris Commentarii de bello civili. Accedunt libri de bello Alexandrino Africano et Hispaniensi. Hanover: Hahn.Google Scholar

Mohrmann, C. 1958. ‘Saint Augustin écrivain’, Recherches Augustiniennes 1: 43–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mommsen, T. 1882. Iordanis Romana et Getica (Monumenta Germaniae Historica v.1). Berlin: Weidmann.Google Scholar

Mommsen, T. 1893. ‘Zur Geschichte der Caesarischen Zeit’, Hermes 28: 599–618.Google Scholar

Morgan, L. 1997. ‘“Levi quidem de re…” Julius Caesar as tyrant and pedant’, JRS 87: 23–40.Google Scholar

Morus, S. F. N. 1780. C. Iulii Caesaris Commentarii de bello Gallico et civili. Accedunt libri De bello Alexandrino, Africano et Hispaniensi e recensione Francisci Oudendorpii. Leipzig: Weidmann.Google Scholar

Moussy, C. (ed.) 2001. De lingua Latina novae quaestiones: Actes du xe Colloque international de linguistique latine, Paris-Sèvres, 19–23 avril 1999. Leuven: Peeters.

Mras, K. 1953. ‘St Patricius als Lateiner’, Anzeiger der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische Klasse 90: 99–113.Google Scholar

Mueller, L. 1888. Noni Marcelli Compendiosa doctrina. Leipzig: Teubner.

Müller, R. 1997. Sprechen und Sprache: Dialoglinguistische Studien zu Terenz. Heidelberg: C. Winter.Google Scholar

Müller, R. 2001. Sprachbewußtsein und Sprachvariation im lateinischen Schrifttum der Antike (Zetemata 111). Munich: Beck.Google Scholar

Müller-Lancé, J. 1992. ‘Die Funktion vulgärlateinischer Elemente in den Satiren des Horaz am Beispiel von sat. 2,5’, in Iliescu, M. and Marxgut, W. (edd.), Latin vulgaire – latin tardif iii: Actes du iiième Colloque internationale sur le latin vulgaire et tardif. Innsbruck, 2–5 septembre 1991. Tübingen: M. Niemeyer, pp. 243–54.Google Scholar

Munro, H. A. J. 1928. T. Lucreti Cari De rerum natura libri sex II. Explanatory notes. 4th edn, London: George Bell & Sons.Google Scholar

Murray, J. A. H. 1888. A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles I. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Myers-Scotton, C. 2006. Multiple Voices: An Introduction to Bilingualism. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Mynors, R. A. B. 1990. Virgil: Georgics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Neilson, W. A. and Knott, T. A. (edd.) 1934. Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language. 2nd edn, Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster.

Nisbet, R. G. 1923. ‘Voluntas fati in Latin syntax’, AJPh 44: 27–43.Google Scholar

Nisbet, R. G. M. and Rudd, N. 2004. A Commentary on Horace: Odes Book iii. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Nodes, D. J. 2009. ‘The organization of Augustine's Psalmus contra partem Donati’, in Vigiliae Christianae 63: 390–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Norberg, D. 1943. Syntaktische Forschungen auf dem Gebiete des Spätlateins und des frühen Mittellateins. Uppsala: A.-B. Lundequistska Bokhandeln.Google Scholar

Norberg, D. 1944. Beiträge zur spätlateinischen Syntax. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells.Google Scholar

Norberg, D. 1964. ‘Quelques remarques sur les lettres de Frodebert et d'Importun’, RFIC 92: 295–303.Google Scholar

Norberg, D. 1968. Manuel pratique de latin médiéval. Paris: Picard.Google Scholar

Norden, E. 1899. Die antike Kunstprosa. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar

Nowottny, W. 1965. The Language Poets Use. London and Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Athlone.Google Scholar

Oberlinus, I. I. 1805. C. I. Caesaris De bello Gallico et civili. Accedunt libri De bello Alexandrino, Africano et Hispaniensi e recensione Francisci Oudendorpii. Leipzig: Weidmann.Google Scholar

Oberlinus, I. I. 1819. C. Iulii Caesaris Commentarii De bello Gallico et civili. Accedunt libri De bello Alexandrino, Africano et Hispaniensi e recensione Francisci Oudendorpii. Leipzig: Weidmann.Google Scholar

Ogilvie, R. M. 1965. A Commentary on Livy: Books 1–5. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

O'Hara, J. J. 1996. True Names: Vergil and the Alexandrian Tradition of Etymological Wordplay. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar

O'Hara, J. J. 1997. ‘Virgil's style’, in C. Martindale (1997), pp. 241–58.

Olcott, G. N. 1898. Studies in the Word Formation of the Latin Inscriptions. Rome: Sallustian Typography.Google Scholar

Oldfather, W. A. and Bloom, G. 1927. ‘Caesar's grammatical theories and his own practice’, CJ 22: 584–602.Google Scholar

Orinsky, K. 1923. ‘Die Wortstellung bei Gaius’, Glotta 12: 83–100.Google Scholar

Orlandini, A. 2003. ‘Valde bella est (Cic. Att. 4. 6. 4): étude sur un adverbe polysémique dans la correspondance de Cicéron’, in Garcea (2003a), pp. 140–56.

Otto, A. 1890. Die Sprichwörter und sprichwörtlichen Redensarten der Römer. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar

Oudendorp, F. 1737. C. Julii Caesaris De bellis Gallico et civili Pompejano nec non A. Hirtii, aliorumque De bellis Alexandrino, Africano, et Hispaniensi commentarii. 2 vols. Leiden: Luchtmans and Rotterdam: Beman.Google Scholar

Palmén, E. 1958. ‘Die lateinischen pronominalen Ortsadverbien in Kasusbedeutung’, Arctos n.s. 2: 104–42.Google Scholar

Palmer, F. R. 1994. Grammatical Roles and Relations. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Panciera, M. D. 2007. ‘Plautonic amabo: when men say “please” in Plautus’, http://www.apaclassics.org/AnnualMeeting/07mtg/abstracts/panciera.pdf (accessed 3 February 2008).

Panhuis, D. G. J. 1982. The Communicative Perspective in the Sentence: A Study of Latin Word Order. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Paschoud, F. and Wirz, C. 2007. ‘Emplois de l'ablatif absolu dans l’Histoire Auguste et Suétone', in Bonamente, G. and Brandt, H. (edd.), Historiae Augustae Colloquium Bambergense (Historiae Augustae Colloquia 10). Bari: Edipuglia, pp. 295–303.Google Scholar

Pascucci, G. 1950. ‘Lingua e stile dell'Hispaniense’, Studi Urbinati di Storia, Filosofia e Letteratura 24: 191–217.Google Scholar

Pascucci, G. 1965. Bellum Hispaniense: introduzione, testo critico e commento. Florence: Le Monnier.Google Scholar

Pascucci, G. 1973. ‘Interpretazione linguistica e stilistica del Cesare autentico’, in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welti.3: 488–522.Google Scholar

Pasquali, G. 1927. ‘Lingua latina dell'uso’, RFIC 5: 244–50 (reprinted in Pagine stravaganti, Florence: Sansoni 1968 ii, pp. 329–35).Google Scholar

Pearce, T. E. V. 1966. ‘The enclosing word order in the Latin hexameter’, CQ n.s. 16: 140–71, 298–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Peglau, M. 2000. ‘Virtutes und vitia in der älteren römischen Tragödie’, in Braun, M., Haltenhoff, A. and Mutschler, F.-H. (edd.), Moribus antiquis res stat Romana: Römische Werte und römische Literatur im 3. und 2. Jh. v. Chr. Munich and Leipzig: Saur, pp. 141–67.Google Scholar

Penney, J. H. W. 1999. ‘Archaism and innovation in Latin poetic syntax’, in Adams and Mayer (1999a), pp. 249–68.

Perpillou, L. 1996. Recherches lexicales en grec ancien. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar

Perrot, J. 1994. ‘Liberté et contrainte dans l'ordre des mots: la régulation syntaxique des variations en latin et en hongrois’, Techniques et Méthodologies Modernes Appliquées à l'Antiquité 1: 11–32.Google Scholar

Peter, H. 1914. Historicorum Romanorum reliquiae I. 2nd edn, Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar

Petersmann, H. 1977. Petrons urbane Prosa: Untersuchungen zu Sprache und Text. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar

Petersmann, H. 1999. ‘The language of early Roman satire: its function and characteristics’, in Adams and Mayer (1999a), pp. 289–310.

Petersmann, H. and Petersmann, A. 1991. Die römische Literatur in Text und Darstellung i: Republikanische Zeiti: Poesie. Stuttgart: Reclam.Google Scholar

Petersmann, H. and Kettemann, R. (edd.) 1999. Latin vulgaire – latin tardif v: Actes du ve Colloque international sur le latin vulgaire et tardif, Heidelberg 5–8 septembre 1997. Heidelberg: C. Winter.