Adamik, B. (2015), ‘The periodization of Latin: an old question revisited’, in Haverling, G. (ed.), Latin Linguistics in the Early 21st Century: Acts of the 16th International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, Uppsala, June 6th – 11th, 2011. (Studia Latina Upsaliensia 35) (Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis), 640–52.Google Scholar

Adams, J. N. (1977), The Vulgar Latin of the Letters of Claudius Terentianus (P. Mich. VIII, 467–72) (Manchester: Manchester University Press).Google Scholar

Adams, J. N. (1990), ‘The Latinity of C. Novius Eunus’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 82, 227–47.Google Scholar

Adams, J. N. (1994), ‘Latin and Punic in contact? The case of the bu Njem ostraca’, Journal of Roman Studies 84, 87–112.Google Scholar

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

Adams, J. N. (1995b), ‘The language of the Vindolanda writing tablets: an interim report’, Journal of Roman Studies 85, 86–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

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

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

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

Adams, J. N. (2011), ‘Late Latin’, in Clackson, (2011b), 257–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Adams, J. N. (2013), Social Variation and the Latin Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar

Adams, J. N. (2016), An Anthology of Informal Latin 200 BC– AD 900: Fifty Texts with Translations and Linguistic Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

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

Aerts, W. J. (1965), Periphrastica: An Investigation into the Use of εἶναι and ἔχειν as Auxiliaries or Pseudo-Auxiliaries in Greek from Homer up to the Present Day (Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert).Google Scholar

Allen, W. S. (1978), Vox Latina: A Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Latin, 2nd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar

Alsina, A. (1996), The Role of Argument Structure in Grammar: Evidence from Romance (Stanford, CA: CSLI).Google Scholar

Álvarez Huerta, O. (2002), ‘Algunas consideraciones sobre el modo subjunctivo en Plauto’, in Calboli, G. (ed.) Papers on Grammar VIII (Rome: Herder), 1–24.Google Scholar

Amenta, L. and Strudsholm, E. (2002), ‘“Andare a + infinito” in italiano: parametri di variazione sincronici e diacronici’, Cuadernos de Filología Italiana 9, 11–29.Google Scholar

Anderson, A. R. (1913), ‘Repudiative questions in Greek drama, and in Plautus and Terence’, Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 44, 43–64.Google Scholar

André, J. (ed.) (1974), Apicius, L’art culinaire (De re coquinaria) (Paris: Les Belles Lettres).Google Scholar

Arena, R. (1998), Iscrizioni greche arcaiche di Sicilia e Magna Grecia V: Iscrizioni di Taranto, Locri Epizefiri, Velia e Siracusa (Alessandria: Edizioni dell’ Orso).Google Scholar

Austin, R. G. (1935), ‘Roman board games II’, Greece and Rome 4, 76–82.Google Scholar

Austin, R. G. (1955), P. Vergili Maronis Aeneidos liber quartus (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Google Scholar

Austin, R. G. (1971), P. Vergili Maronis Aeneidos liber primus (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Google Scholar

Axelson, B. (1945), Unpoetische Wörter: Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der lateinischen Dichtersprache (Lund: Gleerup).Google Scholar

Bach, J. (1888), De attractione quae dicitur inversa apud scriptores latinos. (Programmm des Bischöflichen Gymnasiums an St. Stephan zu Straßburg 6: Schuljahr 1887/88) (Strasbourg: Buchdruckerei von G. Bauer), 3–36.Google Scholar

Baldi, A. (1982), Iscrizioni pompeiane (Cava de’ Tirreni: Militia).Google Scholar

Baldi, P. (2002), The Foundations of Latin, 2nd edn (Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter).Google Scholar

Baldi, P. and Cuzzolin, P. (eds) (2009–11), New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax, 4 vols. (Berlin and New York: De Gruyter).Google Scholar

Baldi, P. and Nuti, A. (2010), ‘Possession’, in Baldi, and Cuzzolin, (2009–11), vol. III, 239–387.Google Scholar

Bally, C. (1932), Linguistique générale et linguistique française (Bern: Francke).Google Scholar

Banniard, M. (1992), Viva voce: Communication écrite et communication orale du IV^e au IX^e siècle en Occident latin (Paris: Institut des Études Augustiniennes).Google Scholar

Banniard, M. (2013), ‘The transition from Latin to the Romance languages’, in Maiden, , Smith and Ledgeway (eds), vol. II, 57–106.Google Scholar

Baños, J. M. (1996), ‘Litteras Neroni/ad Neronem mittere: Alternancia dativo/ad + acus.?’, in Agud, A., Fernández Delgado, J. A., Guerreira, A. Ramos (eds), Las lenguas de corpus y sus problemas linguísticas (Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas), 217–35.Google Scholar

Baños Baños, J. M. (2000), ʻVulgarismos sintácticos en Plauto (II): Quae ad patrem uis nuntiari (Cap. 360)ʼ, in García Hernández, (2000), 1–15.Google Scholar

Barley, M. and Hanson, R. (eds) (1968), Christianity in Britain, 300–700 (Leicester: Leicester University Press).Google Scholar

Bassols de Climent, M. (1948), ‘Origen de la construcción impersonal del verbo habere’, Revista de estudios clásicos 3, 215–25.Google Scholar

Bastardas Parera, J. (1953), Particularidades sintácticas del latín medieval (cartularios españoles de los siglos VIII al XI) (Barcelona: Instituto Antonio de Nebrija – Escuela de Filologia).Google Scholar

Battaglia, S. (1961–2002), Grande Dizionario della lingua italiana, 21 vols. (Turin: UTET).Google Scholar

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

Bauer, B. (1999), ‘Impersonal habet constructions in Latin: at the cross-roads of Indo-European innovation’, in Justus, and Polomé, (1999), 590–612.Google Scholar

Bauer, B. (2000), Archaic Syntax in Indo-European: The Spread of Transitivity in Latin and French (Trends in Linguistics 125) (Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter).Google Scholar

Bauer, B. (2003), ‘The adverbial formation in -mente in Vulgar and Late Latin: a problem in grammaticalization’, in Solin, H et al. (2003), 439–57.Google Scholar

Bauer, B. (2006), ‘“Synthetic” vs. “analytic” in Romance: the importance of varieties’ in Gess, R. and Arteaga, D. (eds) Historical Romance Linguistics: Retrospective and Perspectives (Amsterdam: Benjamins), 287–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bauer, B. (2009), ‘Word order’, in Baldi, and Cuzzolin, (2009–11), vol. 1, 241–316.Google Scholar

Bauer, B. (2010), ‘Fore-runners of Romance -mente adverbs in Latin prose and poetry’, in Dickey, and Chahoud, (2010), 339–53.Google Scholar

Bauer, B. (2012), ‘Chronologie et rythme du changement linguistique: syntaxe vs. morphologie’, in Spevak, and Christol, (2012), 45–65.Google Scholar

Bauer, B. (Forthcoming), Nominal Apposition in Indo-European. Form, Function, and its Development in Latin/Romance.Google Scholar

Bauer, W. (1988), Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Literatur, 6th edn ed. Aland, K. (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter).Google Scholar

Bauer, W., Arndt, W. F. and Gingrich, F. W. (1957), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press).Google Scholar

Bekker, I. (1824), Scholia in Platonem (London: Valpy).Google Scholar

Bell, R. C. (1979), Board and Table Games from Many Civilizations (London: Constable).Google Scholar

Belletti, A. (1991), ‘Le frasi comparative’, in Renzi, and Salvi, (1991), 832–53.Google Scholar

Bennett, C. E. (1910–14), Syntax of Early Latin, 2 vols. (Boston: Allyn & Bacon).Google Scholar

Bentley, D. and Ciconte, F. M. (2016), ‘Copular and existential constructions’, in Ledgeway, and Maiden, (2016).Google Scholar

Benveniste, E. (1948), Noms d’agent et noms d’action en indo-européen (Paris: Maisonneuve).Google Scholar

Bernhard, M. (1927), Der Stil des Apuleius von Madaura (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer).Google Scholar

Bertelsmann, K. (1885), Über die verschiedenen Formen der Correlation in der Structur der Relativsätze des ältern Latein (Inaugural-Dissertation der philosophischen Fakultät zu Jena) (Jena: Druck von A. Neuenhahn).Google Scholar

Bertocchi, A. (1989), ‘The role of antecedents of Latin anaphors’, in Calboli, (1989), 441–61.Google Scholar

Bertschinger, J. A. (1921), Volkstümliche Elemente in der Sprache des Phaedrus (Bern: Läderach & Kästli).Google Scholar

Bieler, L. (1952a), Libri epistolarum sancti Patricii episcopi, 2 vols. (Dublin: Stationery Office).Google Scholar

Bieler, L. (1952b), ‘The place of Saint Patrick in Latin language and literature’, Vigiliae Christianae 6, 65–98.Google Scholar

Birnbaum, H. (1958), Untersuchungen zu den Zukunftsumschreibungen mit dem Infinitiv im Altkirchenslavischen (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell).Google Scholar

Bischoff, B. (1984), ‘Die älteste europäische Falkenmedizin (Mitte des zehnten Jahrhunderts)’, in Bischoff, B (ed.), Anecdota nouissima: Texte des vierten bis sechzehnten Jahrhunderts (Stuttgart: Hiersemann), 171–82.Google Scholar

Biville, F. (1995a), Les emprunts du latin au grec: approche phonétique 2: Vocalisme et conclusions (Louvain and Paris: Peeters).Google Scholar

Biville, F. (1995b), ‘Énoncés factitifs latin: syntaxe et sémantique’, in Longrée, D. (ed.), De usu: Études de syntaxe latine offertes en hommage à Marius Lavency (Bibliothèque des Cahiers de l’Institut de Linguistique de Louvain 70) (Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters), 31–44.Google Scholar

Biville, F. (2014), ‘Description du latin et métalangue au VIe siècle: Priscien, Martyrius, Cassiodore’, in Mollinelli, , Cuzzolin and Fedriani (2014), 679–712.Google Scholar

Biville, F., Lhommé, M.-K. and Vallat, D. (eds) (2012), Latin vulgaire, latin tardif IX: Actes du IXe Colloque international sur le latin vulgaire et tardif (Lyon: Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée).Google Scholar

Blaise, A (1955), Manuel du latin chrétien (Strasbourg: Le latin chrétien).Google Scholar

Blase, H. (1903), ‘Tempora und modi; genera verbi’, in Landgraf, (1903), 99–132.Google Scholar

Blass, F. and Debrunner, A. (1961), Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 9th edn tr. Funk, R. W. (Cambridge: University Press and Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar

Blass, F., Debrunner, A. and Rehkopf, F. (1976), Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, 14th edn (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).Google Scholar

Blass, F., Debrunner, A. and Rehkopf, F. (2001), Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, 18th edn (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).Google Scholar

Blatt, F. (1957), ‘Latin influence on European syntax’, Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague 11, 33–69.Google Scholar

Bolkestein, A. M. (1976), ‘A.c.i. and ut clauses with verba dicendi in Latin. Part I: A.c.i.-clauses versus object + complement patterns’, Glotta 54, 263–91.Google Scholar

Bonfante, L. (ed.) (1999), Giuliano Bonfante, The Origin of the Romance Languages: Stages in the Development of Latin (Heidelberg: C. Winter).Google Scholar

Bonnet, M. (1968 (1890)), Le latin de Grégoire de Tours (Hildesheim: Olms).Google Scholar

Bortolussi, B. and Sznajder, L. (2014), ‘Topicalization versus left-dislocation in biblical Latin’, Journal of Latin Linguistics 13(2), 163–95.Google Scholar

Boucherie, A. (1871), ‘La vie de Sainte Euphrosyne’, Revue des langues romanes 2, 23–62, 109–17.Google Scholar

Bourciez, E. (1886), De praepositione ad causali in latinitate aevi merovingici (Paris: Klincksieck; Bordeaux: Cadoret).Google Scholar

Bourgain, P. (2005), Le latin médiévale (avec la collaboration de Marie-Clotilde Hubert) (Turnhout: Brepols).Google Scholar

Bragatini, I. (1994), ‘Caupona di Salvius’, in Pugliese Carratelli, (1994), 366–71.Google Scholar

Brakman, C. (1924), ‘Observationes grammaticae et criticae in Salvianum accedit appendix de Gennadii capite LXVIII’, Mnemosyne 52, 113–85.Google Scholar

Bremmer, J. N. and Formisano, M. (2012), ‘Perpetua’s passions: a brief introduction’, in Bremmer, and Formisano, (eds), Perpetua’s Passions: Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Passio Perpetuae et Felicitatis (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 1–13.Google Scholar

Briscoe, J. (2010), ‘The fragments of Cato’s Origines’, in Dickey, and Chahoud, (2010), 154–60.Google Scholar

Brix, J. (1901), Ausgewählte Komödien des T. Maccius Plautus 4: Miles Gloriosus, 3rd edn revised by Niemeyer, M. (Leipzig: Teubner).Google Scholar

Brookes, J. (2014), Probabilistic and Multivariate Modelling in Latin Grammar: The Participle-Auxiliary Alternation as a Case Study. Unpublished Ph.D. diss., University of Manchester.Google Scholar

Brown, H. P., Joseph, B. D., and Wallace, R. (2009), ‘Questions and answers’, in Baldi, and Cuzzolin, (2009–11), 1, 489–530.Google Scholar

Brunet, E. and Mellet, S. (n.d.), Hyperbase, version 5.5: textes latins (companion to CD-ROM) (Nice: Université de Nice Sophia-Antipolis).Google Scholar

Bruno, Carla, (2012), ‘On Latin–Greek diachronic convergence: the perfects with Latin habeo/ Greek échō and a participle’, in Chamoreau, Claudine and Léglise, Isabelle (eds), Dynamics of Contact-Induced Language Change (Berlin and Boston: Walter de Gruyter), 359–75.Google Scholar

Buchanan, E. S. (1907), The Four Gospels from the Codex Corbeiensis (ff. [or ff2]) now Lat. 17225 in the National Library, Paris: With Fragments of the Catholic Epistles, Acts and Apocalypse from the Fleury palimpsest (h) now Lat. 6400 G in Same Library; for the First Time Edited with Aid of Printed Text of Berger ‘Le palimpseste de Fleury’ (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Google Scholar

Buchanan, E. S. (1911), The Four Gospels from the Codex Veronensis (b): First Complete Edition of the Evangelarium Purpureum in the Cathedral Library, Verona (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Google Scholar

Buchi, E. and Schweickard, W. (2011), ‘Sept malentendus dans la perception du DÉRom par Alberto Varvaro’, Revue de linguistique romane 75, 305–12.Google Scholar

Buck, C. D. (1904), A Grammar of Oscan and Umbrian (Boston: Ginn & Co).Google Scholar

Bulhart, V. (1957), Eusebii Vercellensis episcopi quae supersunt edidit Vincentius Bulhart (Turnhout: Brepols).Google Scholar

Bulhart, V. (ed.) (1967), Gregorii Iliberritani Episcopi Quae Supersunt (Turnhout: Brepols).Google Scholar

Buridant, C. (2000), Grammaire nouvelle de l’ancien français (Paris: SEDES).Google Scholar

Burton, P. H. (2000), The Old Latin Gospels: A Study of their Texts and Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar

Burton, P. H. (2007), Language in the Confessions of Augustine (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar

Burton, P. H. (2009), ‘“Itali dicunt ozie”: describing non-standard and low-register speech in Latin’, in Caruso, C. and Laird, A. (eds), Italy and the Classical Tradition: Language, Thought and Poetry 1300–1600 (London: Bloomsbury), 41–61.Google Scholar

Burton, P. H. (2011), ‘Christian Latin’, in Clackson, (2011b), 485–501.Google Scholar

Burton, P. H. (2012), ‘Augustine and language’, in Vessey, (2012), 113–24.Google Scholar

Burton, P. H. (2013), ‘The Latin version of the New Testament’, in Ehrman, B. D., and Holmes, M. W., The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis, 2nd edn (Leiden: Brill), 167–200.Google Scholar

Burton, P. H. et al. eds (2010), Vetus Latina Iohannes: The Verbum Project http://www.iohannes.org/vetuslatina/index.htmlGoogle Scholar

Burton, P. H. (2011–13), Evangelium secundum Iohannem (Vetus Latina 19) (Freiburg: Herder).Google Scholar

Butrica, J. L. (2006), ‘The fabella of Sulpicia (Epigrammata Bobiensia 37)’, Phoenix 60, 70–121Google Scholar

Butt, M. and Lahiri, A. (2013), ‘Diachronic pertinacity of light verbs’, Lingua 135, 7–29.Google Scholar

Bybee, J. L., Perkins, R. and Pagliuca, W. (1994), The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World (Chicago, IL/London: University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar

Cabrillana, C. (2011), ‘Purpose and result clauses’, in Baldi, and Cuzzolin, , (2009–11), 4,19–92.Google Scholar

Calboli, G. Calboli, G. (1987), ‘Die Syntax der ältesten lateinischen Prosa’, in Giacalone Ramat, A., Carruba, O. and Bernini, G. (eds), Papers from the 7th International Conference on Historical Linguistics (Amsterdam: Benjamins), 137–50.Google Scholar

Calboli, G. (ed.) (1989), Subordination and Other Topics in Latin: Proceedings of the Third International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics (Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins).Google Scholar

Calboli, G. (1993), Rhetorica ad C. Herennium: Introduzione, testo critico, commento (Bologna: Pàtron).Google Scholar

Calboli, G. (2009), ‘Latin syntax and Greek’, in Baldi, and Cuzzolin, (2009–11), 1, 65–193.Google Scholar

Cambi, V. (2007), Tempo e aspetto in ittito con particolare riferimento al suffisso -ske/a- (Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso).Google Scholar

Cameron, A. (2004), Greek Mythography in the Roman World (New York: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar

Caplan, H. (tr.) (1964), Ad C. Herennium de ratione dicendi (Rhetorica ad Herennium) (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar

Cazier, P. (1998), Isidorus Hispalensis: Sententiae (Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina 111). (Turnhout: Brepols).Google Scholar

Cennamo, M. (2011), ‘Impersonal constructions and accusative subjects in late Latin’, in Malchukov, and Siewierska, (2011), 169–88.Google Scholar

Chahoud, A. (2007), ‘Alterità linguistica, latinitas e ideologia tra Lucilio e Cicerone’, in Oniga, R. and Vatteroni, S. (eds), Plurilinguismo letterario (Catanzaro: Rubbettino), 41–58.Google Scholar

Chamberlain, Jeffrey T. (1986), Latin Antecedents of French Causative faire. (New York and Berne: Peter Lang).Google Scholar

Champion, J. J. (1978), The Periphrastic Futures Formed by the Romance Reflexes of vado (ad) Plus Infinitive. (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina).Google Scholar

Cinque, G. (2009), ‘Five notes on correlatives’, in Mohanty, R. and Menon, M. (eds), Proceedings of GLOW in ASIA VII 2009 (Hyderabad: EFL University Press), 1–20. (Repr. G. Cinque, Typological Studies: Word Order and relative clauses. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2013, 208–17.)Google Scholar

Clackson, J. (2000), ‘A Greek papyrus in Armenian script’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 129, 223–58.Google Scholar

Clackson, J. (2011a), ‘Classical Latin’, in Clackson, (2011b), 236–56.Google Scholar

Clackson, J. (ed.) (2011b), A Companion to the Latin Language (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell).Google Scholar

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

Clark, G. (1922), The Case-Construction after the Comparison in Pliny’s Letters (Smith College Classical Studies 3) (Menasha, WI: Banta).Google Scholar

Clarke, J. R. (1998), ‘Look who’s laughing: humour in tavern painting as index of class and acculturation’, Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 43, 27–48.Google Scholar

Clarke, J. R. (2003a), Art in the Lives of Ordinary Romans: Visual Representation and Non-Elite Viewers in Italy 100 B.C.–A.D. 315 (Berkeley, CA and Los Angeles: University of California Press).Google Scholar

Clarke, J. R. (2003b), Roman Sex 100 bc–ad 100 (New York: Harry N. Abrams).Google Scholar

Clarke, J. R. (2007), Looking at Laughter: Humor, Power, and Transgression in Roman Visual Culture 100 B.C.–A.D. 250 (Berkeley, CA and Los Angeles: University of California Press).Google Scholar

Coleman, R. G. G. (1975), ‘Greek influence on Latin syntax’, Transactions of the Philological Society 74, 101–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Colin, J. (1951), ‘Nouveaux graffites de Pompéi: à propos de la publication d’un supplément des inscriptions pariétales: C.I.L. IV, Suppl III’, L’Antiquité Classique 20, 129–42.Google Scholar

Comrie, B. (1975), ‘Causatives and universal grammar’, Transactions of the Philological Society (1974): 1–32.Google Scholar

Conington, J. (1884), The Works of Virgil, 2, 4th edn revised by Nettleship, H. (London: Whittaker & Co. and G. Bell & Sons).Google Scholar

Cordin, P. (1997), ‘Tense, mood and aspect in the verb’, in Maiden, and Parry, (1997), 87–98.Google Scholar

Cornell, T. (ed.) (2013), The Fragments of the Roman Historians (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar

Cotton, H. M. and Geiger, J., with a contribution by Thomas, J. D. (1989), Masada II: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965, Final Reports: The Latin and Greek Documents (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society/Hebrew University of Jerusalem).Google Scholar

Courtney, E. (1980), A Commentary on the Satires of Juvenal (London: Athlone Press).Google Scholar

Courtney, E. (1993), The Fragmentary Latin Poets (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Google Scholar

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

Coussé, E. (2008), Motivaties voor volgordevariatie: een diachrone studie van werkwoordwoordsvolgorde in het Nederlands. Unpublished Ph.D. diss., Ghent University.Google Scholar

Crawford, M. H. (ed.) (1996), Roman Statutes, 2 vols. (Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies Supplement 64) (London: Institute of Classical Studies, University of London).Google Scholar

Crespo, E. (2011), ‘Pour une définition des propositions relatives latines’, Les Études classiques 79, 21–34.Google Scholar

Cuzzolin, P. (1994), Sull’origine della costruzione dicere quod: aspetti sintattici e semantici (Florence: La Nuova Italia).Google Scholar

Danckaert, L. (2015a), ‘The genesis of Romance analytic be-passives: evidence from word order’ submitted to Mathieu, E. and Truswell, R. (eds) From Micro-Change to Macro-Change (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar

Danckaert, L. (2015b), ‘Changing patterns of clausal complementation in Latin: a parametric approach to “constructional” changes’. MS. University of Ghent.Google Scholar

Davies, M. E. (1995), ‘The evolution of the Spanish causative construction’, Hispanic Review 63, 57–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

De Melo, W. D. C. (2010), ‘Possessive pronouns in Plautus’, in Dickey, and Chahoud, (2010), 71–99.Google Scholar

De Melo, W. D. C. (tr.) (2011), Plautus II (Cambridge, MA, and London: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar

De Melo, W. D. C. (tr.) (2012a), Plautus IV (Cambridge, MA, and London: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar

De Melo, W. D. C. (2012b), ‘Kuryłowicz’s first “law of analogy” and the development of passive periphrases in Latin’, in Probert, P. and Willi, A. (eds), Laws and Rules in Indo-European (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 83–101.Google Scholar

De Nonno, M. (2010), ‘Et interrogavit Filocalus: pratiche dell’insegnamento “in aula” del grammatico’, in Del Corso, L. and Pecere, O., Libri di scuola e pratiche didattiche: Dall’Antichità al Rinascimento. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi (Cassino 7–10 maggio 2008) (Cassino: Università di Cassino), 1, 169–205.Google Scholar

de Sutter, G. (2005), Rood, groen, corpus! Een taalgebruiksgebaseerde analyse van woorvolgordevariatie in tweeledige werkwoordelijke eindgroepen. Unpublished Ph.D. diss., Catholic University of Leuven.Google Scholar

de Sutter, G. (2009), ‘Towards a multivariate model of grammar’, in Dufter, A., Fleischer, J., and Seiler, G. (eds), Describing and Modeling Variation in Grammar (Amsterdam: Benjamins), 225–54.Google Scholar

de Vaan, M. (2008), Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the Other Italic Languages (Leiden and Boston, MA: Brill).Google Scholar

Deane, J. P. (1890), ‘Deliberative questions, indicative and subjunctive, in Terence’, Transactions of the American Philological Association 21, xxxiii–xxxvi.Google Scholar

Debeauvais, L. (1938), ‘L’interrogation délibérative en latin’, Les Études Classiques 7, 249–50.Google Scholar

Della Corte, M. (1965), Case ed abitanti di Pompei, 3rd edn (Naples: Fausto Fiorentino).Google Scholar

Deroux, C. (2003), ‘L’Établissement du texte de Pétrone, Sat., 29,9’, Latomus 62, 680–2.Google Scholar

Deroux, C. (2004), ‘Notes sur l’emploi impersonnel de habet’, Latomus 63, 181–3.Google Scholar

Detges, U. (2004), ‘How cognitive is grammaticalization? The history of the Catalan perfet perifràstic’, in Fischer, , Norde and Perridon (2004), 211–27.Google Scholar

De Vogüé, A., and Antin, P. (1978–80), Grégoire le Grand: Dialogues, 3 vols. (Paris: Les éditions du cerf).Google Scholar

DeWitt Burton, E. (1900), Syntax of Mood and Tenses in New Testament Greek (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar

Dickey, E. (2000), ‘O egregie grammatice: the vocative problems of Latin words ending in -ius’, Classical Quarterly 50, 548–62.Google Scholar

Dickey, E. (2002), Latin Forms of Address from Plautus to Apuleius (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar

Dickey, E. (2012a), ‘The rules of politeness and Latin request formulae’, in Probert, and Willi, (2012), 313–28.Google Scholar

Dickey, E. (2012b), The Colloquia of the Hermeneumata Pseudodositheana 1: Colloquia Monacensia-Einsidlensia, Leidense-Stephani, and Stephani (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar

Dickey, E. (2015a), The Colloquia of the Hermeneumata Pseudodositheana II: Colloquium Harleianum, Colloquium Montepessulanum, Colloquium Celtis, and Fragments (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar

Dickey, E. (2015b), ‘How Coptic speakers learned Latin? A reconsideration of P. Berol. inv. 10582’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 193, 65–77Google Scholar

Dickey, E. and Chahoud, A. (eds) (2010), Colloquial and Literary Latin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar

Diehl, E. (1925–31), Inscriptiones Latinae christianae veteres, 3 vols. (Berlin: Weidmann).Google Scholar

Diercks, G. F. (2004), Sententiae episcoporum numero LXXXVII de haereticis baptizandis (Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina 3E) (Turnhout: Brepols).Google Scholar

Díez Itza, E. and Pérez Toral, M. (1991), Las formas verbales de ciertas expresiones temporales en las lenguas románicas: Un estudio de morfosintaxis histórica comparada (Universidad de Oviedo: Servicio de Publicaciones).Google Scholar

Dinkova-Bruun, G. (2011), ‘Medieval Latin’, in Clackson, (2011b), 284–302.Google Scholar

Dionisotti, C. and Grayson, C. (1965), Early Italian Texts. 2nd rev. edn (Oxford: Basil Blackwell).Google Scholar

Dokkum, Th. (1900), De constructionis analyticae vice accusativi cum infinitivo fungentis usu apud Augustinum (Snecae: J. F. Van Druten).Google Scholar

Drinka, B. (2003), ‘Areal factors in the development of the European periphrastic perfect’, Word 54, 1–38.Google Scholar

Drinka, B. (2007), ‘The development of the HAVE perfect: mutual influences of Greek and Latin’, in Aranovich, Raúl (ed.) Split Auxiliary Systems: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective (Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins), 101–21.Google Scholar

Drinka, B. (2013), ‘Sources of auxiliation in the perfects of Europe’, Studies in Language 37, 599–644.Google Scholar

Dubois, A. (1903), La latinité d’Ennodius: Contribution à l’étude du Latin littéraire à la fin de l’Empire Romain d’Occident (Paris: Klincksieck).Google Scholar

Durante, M. (1981), Dal latino all’italiano moderno (Bologna: Zanichelli).Google Scholar

Elcock, W. D. (1975), The Romance Languages, rev. by Green, J. N. (London: Faber & Faber).Google Scholar

Ernout, A. (1947), Recueil de textes latins archaiques (Paris: Klincksieck).Google Scholar

Ernout, A. and Meillet, A. (1985), Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine. Histoire des mots, 4th edn, rev. Jacques André (Paris: Klincksieck).Google Scholar

Ernout, A. and Thomas, F. (1953), Syntaxe latine, 2nd edn (Paris: Klincksieck).Google Scholar

Exon, C. (1926), ‘Latin questions of the types quid ago? and quid agam?’, Hermathena 20, 17–29.Google Scholar

Fedeli, P. (1980), Sesto Properzio: il primo libro delle elegie (Florence: Leo S. Olschki Editore).Google Scholar

Ferri, R. and Probert, Ph. (2010), ‘Roman authors on colloquial language’, in Dickey, and Chahoud, (2010), 12–41.Google Scholar

Fischer, B. (1977), Novae concordantiae Bibliorum sacrorum iuxta Vulgatam uersionem critice editam, 5 vols. (Stuttgart: Frommann-Holzboog).Google Scholar

Fischer, O., Norde, M. and Perridon, H. (eds) (2004), Up and Down the Cline: The Nature of Grammaticalization (Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins).Google Scholar

Fischer, O., Rosenbach, A. and Stein, D. (eds) (2000), Pathways of Change: Grammaticalization in English (Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins).Google Scholar

Fleischman, S. (1982), The Future in Thought and Language: Diachronic Evidence from Romance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar

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

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

Fraisse, A. (ed.) (2002), Cassius Felix, De la médicine (Paris: Les Belles Lettres).Google Scholar

Fröhlich, T. (1991), Lararien- und Fassadenbilder in den Vesuvstädten: Untersuchungen zur ‘volkstümlichen’ pompejanischen Malerei (Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaeologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung, Ergänzungsheft 32) (Mainz: von Zabern).Google Scholar

Fruyt, M. (1987), ‘Interprétation sémantico-référentielle du réfléchi latin’, Glotta 65, 204–21.Google Scholar

Fruyt, M. (2005), ‘La corrélation en latin: définition et description’, in de Carvalho, P. and Lambert, F. (eds), Structures parallèles et corrélatives en grec et en latin (Saint-Étienne: Université de Saint-Étienne), 17–44.Google Scholar

Fruyt, M. (2011), ‘Grammaticalization in Latin’, in Baldi, and Cuzzolin, (2009–11), 4, 661–864.Google Scholar

Gaertner, J. F. (2010), ‘The style of the Bellum Hispaniense’, in Dickey, and Chahoud, (2010), 243–54.Google Scholar

Gaertner, J. F. and Hausburg, B. (2013), Caesar and the Bellum Alexandrinum (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).Google Scholar

Galdi, G. (2014), ‘Some considerations on the apodotic uses of atque and et (2nd c. BC–2nd c. AD)’, Journal of Latin Linguistics 13, 63–91.Google Scholar

Garbugino, G. (2004), Enigmi della Historia Apollonii regis Tyri (Bologna: Pàtron).Google Scholar

García-Hernández, B. (1992), ‘Nuevos verbos impersonales en latín tardío e influencia griega’, in Iliescu, and Marxgut, (1992), 159–72.Google Scholar

García-Hernández, B. (ed.) (2000), Latín vulgar y tardío: Homenaje a Veikko Väänänen (1905–1997) (Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas).Google Scholar

García-Hernández, B. (2005), ‘Los impersonales capit et habet en latín tardío y su valor transitivo’, in Martínez del Castillo, (2005), 2, 143–61 [non vidi].Google Scholar

Gehrke, B. (2013), ‘Still puzzled by adjectival passives?’ in Folli, R., Sevdali, C. and Truswell, R. (eds), Syntax and its Limits (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 175–91.Google Scholar

Gehrke, B. (2015), ‘Adjectival participles, event kind modification and pseudo-incorporation’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 33, 897–938.Google Scholar

George, C. H. (2014), Expressions of Time in Ancient Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar

Georges, K. E. (1887), ‘Coepi mit Infinitiv’, Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift 8, 250–2.Google Scholar

Gerber, A. and Greef, A. (1877–90), Lexicon Taciteum, 2 vols. (Leipzig: Teubner).Google Scholar

Geyer, P. (1885), ‘Beiträge zur Kenntnis des gallischen Lateins’, Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik 2, 25–47.Google Scholar

Geyer, P. (1892), Kritische und sprachliche Erläuterungen zu Antonini Placentini itinerarium (Augsburg: P. J. Pfeiffer).Google Scholar

Geyer, P. (1898), Itineraria Hierosolymitana saeculi IIII–VIII (CSEL 39) (Prague Vienna and Leipzig: F. Tempsky; G. Freytag).Google Scholar

Gibson, D. (2002), ‘Periphrastic causatives with ποιέω in Ancient Greek prose’, Oxford University Working Papers in Linguistics, Philology and Phonetics 7, 27–39.Google Scholar

Gildersleeve, B. L. and Lodge, G. (1903), Latin Grammar (London: Macmillan).Google Scholar

Goelzer, H. J. E. (1884), Étude lexicographique et grammaticale de la latinité de saint Jérôme (Paris: Hachette).Google Scholar

Goodwin, W. W. (1889), Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb, 8th edn (Boston, MA: Ginn and Heath and London: Macmillan).Google Scholar

Gougenheim, G. (1971), Étude sur les périphrases verbales de la langue française (Paris: Nizet).Google Scholar

Goujard, R. (1975), Caton: De l’agriculture (Paris: Les Belles Lettres).Google Scholar

Grandgent, C. (1907), An Introduction to Vulgar Latin (Boston, MA: Heath).Google Scholar

Gray, C. (2015), Jerome, Vita Malchi (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar

Green, J. N. (1991), ‘The collapse and replacement of verbal inflection in Late Latin/Early Romance: how would one know?’ in Wright, (1991), 83–100.Google Scholar

Grevander, S. (1926), Untersuchungen zur Sprache der Mulomedicina Chironis (Lund and Leipzig: Gleerup).Google Scholar

Grosu, A. and Landman, F. (1998), ‘Strange relatives of the third kind’, Natural Language Semantics 6, 125–70.Google Scholar

Gryson, R. (1999), Altlateinische Handschriften – Manuscripts Vieux Latin: Repertoire descriptive I (MSS 1–275), 2 vols. (Freiburg: Herder).Google Scholar

Haag, O. (1898), Die Latinität Fredegars, Diss. Freiburg (Erlangen: Junge & Sohn).Google Scholar

Hahn, A. (1947), ‘The type calefacio’, Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 78, 301–35.Google Scholar

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

Harnack, A. (1903), ‘Einige Bemerkungen zum 5. Buch der Kirchengeschichte des Eusebius nach der neuen Ausgabe von Edward Schwartz’, Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 200–7.Google Scholar

Hartel, G. (1886), Luciferi Calaritani opuscula (CSEL 14) (Vienna: Carl Gerold).Google Scholar

Hartmann, M. (2005), Die Frühlateinischen Inschriften und Ihre Datierung (Bremen: Hempen Verlag).Google Scholar

Hatcher, A. G. (1947), Review of Norberg (1945), American Journal of Philology 68, 110–12.Google Scholar

Haug, D. (2004), ‘Aristotle’s kinesis/energeia-test and the semantics of the Greek perfect’, Linguistics 42, 387–418.Google Scholar

Haverling, G. (2000), On Sco-Verbs, Prefixes and Semantic Functions (Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis).Google Scholar

Haverling, G. V. M. (2010), ‘Actionality, tense, and viewpoint’, in Baldi, and Cuzzolin, (2009–11), 2, 277–523.Google Scholar

Havers, W. (1926), ‘Der sog. Nominativus pendens’, Indogermanische Forschungen 43, 207–57.Google Scholar

Havers, W. (1928), ‘Zur Syntax des Nominativs’, Glotta 16, 94–127.Google Scholar

Heberlein, F. (2011), ‘Temporal clauses’, in Baldi, and Cuzzolin, (2009–11), 4, 235–371.Google Scholar

Heffernan, T. J. (2012), The Passion of Perpetua and Felicity (New York: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar

Heine, B. (2003), ‘Grammaticalization’, in Joseph, J. B. D. and Janda, R. D., The Handbook of Historical Linguistics (Malden, Oxford and Carlton: Blackwell Publishing), 575–601.Google Scholar

Helbing, R. (1928), Die Kasussyntax der Verba bei den Septuaginta: Ein Beitrag zur Hebraismenfrage und zur Syntax der Κοινή (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).Google Scholar

Hendery, R. (2012), Relative Clauses in Time and Space (Amsterdam: Benjamins).Google Scholar

Henry, A. (1968), C’était il y a des lunes: Étude de syntaxe française (Paris: C. Klincksieck).Google Scholar

Henry, J. (1873), Aeneidea, 2 (Dublin: University Press).Google Scholar

Herman, J. (1967), Le latin vulgaire (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France).Google Scholar

Herman, J. (1991), ‘Spoken and written Latin in the last centuries of the Roman Empire: a contribution to the linguistic history of the western provinces’, in Wright, R. (ed.), Latin and the Romance Languages in the Middle Ages (London: Routledge), 29–43.Google Scholar

Herman, J. (1998), ‘La chronologie de la transition: un essai’, in Herman, J. (ed.), La transizione dal latino alle lingue romanze: Atti della tavola rotonda di linguistica storica, Università Ca’ Foscari di Venezia, 14–15 giugno 1996, (Tübingen: Niemeyer), 5–26.Google Scholar

Herman, J. (2002), ‘La disparition du passif synthétique latin: nouvel essai sur l’écrit et le parlé en latin mérovingien’, Estudis romànics 24, 31–46.Google Scholar

Hertzenberg, M. J. (2015), ‘Habere + pp and the origin of the periphrastic perfect’, Journal of Latin Linguistics 14, 33–63.Google Scholar

Heurgon, J. and Guiraud, C. (1978–97), Varron: Économie rurale (Paris: Les Belles Lettres).Google Scholar

Hewson, J. (1997), ‘From Latin to Modern Romance’, in Hewson, J. and Bubeník, V. (eds), Tense and Aspect in Indo-European Languages (Amsterdam: Benjamins), 314–30.Google Scholar

Hine, H. (2005), ‘Poetic Influence on Prose: The Case of the Younger Seneca’, in Lapidge, M., Reinhardt, T. and Adams, J. N. (eds), Aspects of the Language of Latin Prose (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 211–37.Google Scholar

Hoffmann, R. (2008), ‘Causative constructions in Late Latin biblical translations’, in Latin vulgaire – latin tardif VIII: Actes du VIIIe colloque international sur le latin vulgaire et tardif, Oxford, 6–9 septembre 2006, ed. Roger Wright (Hildesheim: Olms-Weidmann), 160–72.Google Scholar

Hofmann, J. B. (1926), ‘Beiträge zur Kenntnis des Vulgärlateins’, Indogermanische Forschungen 43, 80–122.Google Scholar

Hofmann, J. B. and Ricottilli, L. (2003), La lingua d’uso latina, ed. and augmented tr. of Lateinische Umgangssprache (1951), 3rd edn (Bologna: Pàtron).Google Scholar

Hofmann, J. B. and Szantyr, A (1963), Lateinische Grammatik, 2. Syntax und Stilistik, 1st edn (Munich: Beck).Google Scholar

Hofmann, J. B. and Szantyr, A. (1972), Lateinische Grammatik, 2. Syntax und Stylistik (Munich: Beck).Google Scholar

Hoppe, H. (1903), Syntax und Stil des Tertullian (Leipzig: Teubner).Google Scholar

Hopper, P. and Traugott, E. (1993), Grammaticalization (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar

Horrocks, G. (1997), Greek: A History of the Language and its Speakers (London and New York: Longman).Google Scholar

Horsfall, N. (2008), Virgil, Aeneid 2: A Commentary (Leiden: Brill).Google Scholar

Houghton, H. A. G. (2008), Augustine’s Text of John: Patristic Citations and Latin Gospel Manuscripts (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar

Howe, C. and Ranson, D. L. (2010), ‘The evolution of clausal temporal modifiers in Spanish and French’, Romance Philology 64, 45–55.Google Scholar

Humbert, J. (1930), La disparition du datif en grec (du Ier au Xe siècle) (Paris: Librairie Ancienne Honoré Champion, Éditeur).Google Scholar

Humbert, J. (1972), Syntaxe grecque, 3rd edn, rev. and augmented (Paris: Klincksieck).Google Scholar

Hunink, Vincent (2011), Glücklich ist dieser Ort!: 1000 Graffiti aus Pompeji: Lateinisch/Deutsch (Stuttgart: Reclam).Google Scholar

Hunter, R. (2008), ‘On coming after’. Inaugural Lecture at the University of Cambridge, 2001. Reprinted in R. Hunter, On Coming After: Studies in Post-Classical Greek Literature and its Reception (Berlin: De Gruyter), 8–26.Google Scholar

Iliescu, M. and Marxgut, W. (eds) (1992), Latin vulgaire – latin tardif III: Actes du IIIème Colloque international sur le latin vulgaire et tardif, Innsbruck, 2–5 septembre 1991 (Tübingen: Max Niemeyer).Google Scholar

Iordache, R. (1994), ‘La relative à sens conditionnel dans le latin archaïque, préclassique et classique’, Helmántica 45, 189–213.Google Scholar

Jamison, S. W., Melchert, C. and Vine, B. (eds) (2014), Proceedings of the 25th Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference (Bremen: Hempen).Google Scholar

Jannaris, A. N. (1897), An Historical Greek Grammar Chiefly of the Attic Dialect (London: Macmillan & Co.).Google Scholar

Jensen, F. (1994), Tuscan Poetry of the Duecento: An Anthology (London: Routledge).Google Scholar

Joffre, M.-D. (1986), ‘La signification temporelle et aspectuelle de adjectif en -*to’, Revue des Etudes latines 64, 211–22.Google Scholar

Jøhndal, M. (2012), ‘Non-finiteness in Latin.’ PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar

Joseph, B. D. (1983), The Synchrony and Diachrony of the Balkan Infinitive: A Study in Areal, General, and Historical Linguistics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar

Josephson, F. and Söhrman, I. (eds) (2013), Diachronic and Typological Perspectives on Verbs (Studies in Language Companion Series 134) (Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins).Google Scholar

Jülicher, A., Matzkow, W. and Aland, K. (1963), Itala: Das Neue Testament in altlateinischer Überlieferung 4: Johannes-Evangelium (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter).Google Scholar

Jülicher, A., Matzkow, W., and Aland, K. (1976), Itala: Das Neue Testament in altlateinischer Überlieferung 3: Lucas-Evangelium, 2nd edn (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter).Google Scholar

Justus, C. F. and Polomé, E. C. (eds) (1999), Language Change and Typological Variation: In Honor of Winfred P. Lehman on the Occasion of His 83rd Birthday, 2. Grammatical Universals and Typology (Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph 31) (Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man).Google Scholar

Kaster, R. A. (1988/1997), Guardians of Language: The Grammarian and Society in Late Antiquity (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press).Google Scholar

Kaulen, F. (1904), Sprachliches Handbuch zur biblischen Vulgata (Freiburg, repr. Hildesheim and New York: Georg Olms, 1973).Google Scholar

Kerlouégan, F. (1968), ‘Le latin du De excidio Britanniae de Gildas’, in Barley, and Hanson, (1968), 151–76.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, P. (1995), ‘Indo-European origins of Germanic syntax’, in Battye, A. and Roberts, I. (eds), Clause Structure and Language Change (New York: Oxford University Press), 140–69.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, P. (2014), ‘New perspectives in historical linguistics’, in Bowern, C. and Evans, B. (eds), The Routledge Handbook of Historical Linguistics (London: Routledge), 64–102.Google Scholar

Klebs, E. (1899), Die Erzählung von Apollonius aus Tyrus: Eine geschichtliche Untersuchung über ihre lateinische Urform und ihre späteren Bearbeitungen (Berlin: Georg Reimer).Google Scholar

Kortekaas, G. A. A. (1984), Historia Apollonii regis Tyri: Prolegomena, Text Edition of the Two Principal Recensions, Bibliography, Indices and Appendices (Groningen: Bouma’s Boekhuis).Google Scholar

Kortekaas, G. A. A. (2004), The Story of Apollonius King of Tyre: A Study of its Greek Origin and an Edition of the Two Oldest Latin Recensions (Mnemosyne Supplementum 253) (Leiden and Boston: Brill).Google Scholar

Kortekaas, G. A. A. (2007), Commentary on the Historia Apollonii regis Tyri (Leiden: Brill).Google Scholar

Kravar, M. (1966), ‘Sintaksa tvorbe -tus fui u latinskom [La syntaxe de la formation -tus fui en latin]’, Živa Antika 16, 223–32.Google Scholar

Krifka, M., Pelletier, F. J., Carlson, G. N., ter Meulen, A., Link, G. and Chierchia, G. (1995), ‘Genericity: an introduction’, in Carlson, G. N. and Pelletier, F. J. (eds), The Generic Book (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press), 1–124.Google Scholar

Kroch, A. (1989), ‘Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change’, Language Variation and Change 1, 199–244.Google Scholar

Kroll, W. (1910), ‘Der lateinische Relativsatz’, Glotta 3, 1–18.Google Scholar

Kroll, W. (1933), ‘Die Entwicklung der lateinischen Schriftsprache’, Glotta 22, 1–27.Google Scholar

Krostenko, B. (2001), Cicero, Catullus, and the Language of Social Performance (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar

Kühner, R. and Gerth, B. (1898–1904), Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache II: Satzlehre, 3rd edn, 2 vols. (Hannover and Leipzig: Hahnsche Buchhandlung).Google Scholar

Kühner, R., and Stegmann, C. (1955), Ausfürliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache. Satzlehre, 3rd edn, rev. A. Thierfelder (Leverkusen: Gottschalk).Google Scholar

Kulneff-Eriksson, K. (1999), On ‘Have’ in Ancient Greek: An Investigation on ἔχω and the Construction εἶναι with a Dative as Expressions for ‘Have’ (Lund: Lund University Press).Google Scholar

Kurzová, H. (1992), ‘Zum spät- und vulgärlateinischen Verb’, in Iliescu, and Marxgut, (1992), 213–23.Google Scholar

Labourt, J. (1949), Saint Jérôme: Lettres 1 (Paris: Les Belles Lettres).Google Scholar

Labourt, J. (1951), Saint Jérôme: Lettres 2 (Paris: Les Belles Lettres).Google Scholar

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

Lakoff, R. T. (1968), Abstract Syntax and Latin Complementation (Cambridge, MA, and London: MIT Press).Google Scholar

Lambrecht, K. (1994), Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar

Lamer, H. (1927), ‘Lusoria tabula’, Pauly-Wissowa Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, 13, 2, 1900–2030.Google Scholar

Landgraf, G. (ed.) (1903), Historische Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache, 3 vols. (Leipzig: Teubner).Google Scholar

Langacker, R. W. (1977), ‘Syntactic reanalysis’, in Li, Charles N. (ed.), Mechanisms of Syntactic Change (Austin, TX, and London: University of Texas Press), 57–139.Google Scholar

Langslow, D. R. (2000), Medical Latin in the Roman Empire (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar

Laughton, E. (1960), ‘Observations on the style of Varro’, Classical Quarterly 10, 1–28.Google Scholar

Laughton, E. (1964), The Participle in Cicero (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar

Laurence, R. (1994), Roman Pompeii: Space and Society (London: Routledge).Google Scholar

Lebek, W. D. (1970), Verba Prisca: De Anfädes Archaisierens in der lateinischen Beredsamkeit und Geschichtsschreibung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).Google Scholar

Ledgeway, A. and Maiden, M. (eds) (2016), The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar

Lehmann, C. (1979), ‘Der Relativsatz vom Indogermanischen bis zum Italienischen: eine Etüde in diachroner syntaktischer Typologie’, Die Sprache 25, 1–25.Google Scholar

Lehmann, C. (in press), ‘Latin causativization in typological perspective’, in Lenoble, M. and Longrée, D. (eds), Actes du 13ème Colloque International de Linguistique Latine. (Louvain and Paris: Peeters).Google Scholar

Lepschy, G. C. (1978), ‘Verbi causativi e percettivi seguiti da un infinito: competenza e esecuzione’, in Lepschy, G. C., Saggi di linguistica italiana, (Bologna: il Mulino), 41–54.Google Scholar

Lessing, K. (1901–6), Scriptorum historiae Augustae lexicon (Leipzig: Reisland).Google Scholar

Leumann, M. (1921), ‘Part. perf. pass. mit fui im späteren Latein’, Glotta 11, 192–4.Google Scholar

Leumann, M. and Hofmann, J. B. (1928), Stolz-Schmalz Lateinische Grammatik: Laut und Formenlehre, Syntax und Stilistik, 5th edn (Munich: Beck).Google Scholar

Leumann, M., Hofmann, J., and Szantyr, E. (1963–), Lateinische Grammatik. 3 vols. (Munich: Beck).Google Scholar

Levillain, L. (1912), ‘La formule “Quod ficit mensis N…” et ses variantes du VIe au IXe siècle’, Bibliothèque de l’école des chartes 73, 409–35.Google Scholar

Liechtenhan, E. (ed.) (1928), Anthimi De obseruatione ciborum (Leipzig: Teubner).Google Scholar

Lindsay, M. W. (1907), Syntax of Plautus (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Google Scholar

Lindskog, C. (1896), ‘Über die sogen. Attractio inuersa im Lateinischen’, Eranos 1, 48–56.Google Scholar

Littré, E. (1883), Dictionnaire de la langue française, 4 vols. (Paris: Hachette).Google Scholar

Lodge, G. (1924–33), Lexicon Plautinum, 2 vols. (Leipzig: Teubner).Google Scholar

Löfstedt, E. (1911), Philologischer Kommentar zur Peregrinatio Aetheriae (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell).Google Scholar

Löfstedt, E. (1956), Syntactica: Studien und Beiträge zur historischen Syntax des Lateins, 1. Über einige Grundfragen der lateinischen Nominalsyntax, 2nd edn (Lund: Gleerup).Google Scholar

Löfstedt, E. (1933/1956), Syntactica: Studien und Beiträge zur Historischen Syntax des Lateins. Zweiter Teil: Syntaktisch-Stilistische Gesichtspunkte und Probleme (Lund: Gleerup).Google Scholar

Löfstedt, E. (1956), ‘Ablativus comparationis’, Syntactica. Studien und Beiträge zur historischen Syntax des Lateins 1 (Lund: Gleerup), 304–30.Google Scholar

Löfstedt, E. (1959), Late Latin (Oslo: Aschehoug & Nygaard).Google Scholar

Löfstedt, E. and Pieroni, P. (2007), Commento filologico alla Peregrinatio Aetheriae: Ricerche sulla storia della lingua latina (Bologna: Pàtron).Google Scholar

Lommatzsch, E. (ed.) (1903), P. Vegeti Renati digestorum artis mulomedicinae libri (Leipzig: Teubner).Google Scholar

Loporcaro, M. (2002), ‘Il pronome loro nell’Italia centro-meridionale e la storia del sistema pronominale romanzo’, Vox Romanica 61, 48–116.Google Scholar

Los, B. (2000), ‘Onginnan/beginnan with bare and to-infinitive in Ælfric’, in Fischer, , Rosenbach and Stein (2000), 251–74.Google Scholar

Lundström, S. (1948), Studien zur lateinischen Irenäusübersetzung (Lund: Gleerup).Google Scholar

Lundström, S. (1961), Abhinc und ante: Studien zur Geschichte der lateinischen Zeitdifferenzbestimmungen (Lund: Gleerup).Google Scholar

Luque Moreno, J. (1978), ‘En torno al sintagma haber impersonal + sustantivo y sus orígenes latinos’, Revista española de lingüística 8, 125–47.Google Scholar

Lyons, J. (1977), Semantics, 2 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar

McGlynn, P. (1963–7), Lexicon Terentianum, 2 vols. (London and Glasgow: Blackie).Google Scholar

McWhorter, A. W. (1910), ‘A Study of the so-called deliberative type of question (τί ποιήσω;) as found in Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides’, Transactions of the American Philological Association 41, 157–67.Google Scholar

Madvig, J. (1842), ‘Discrimen formarum amatus sum et amatus fui a veteribus et bonis scriptoribus constantissime servatum’, in Opuscula academica altera (Copenhagen: Sumptibus Librariae Gyldendalianae), 218ff.Google Scholar

Magni, E. (2009), ‘Mood and modality’, in Baldi, and Cuzzolin, (2009–11), 2, 195–275.Google Scholar

Maiden, M. (1995), A Linguistic History of Italian (London: Longman).Google Scholar

Maiden, M. (2011), ‘Morphophonological innovation’, in Maiden, M., Smith, J. C. and Ledgeway, A. (eds), The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages, 1. Structures (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 216–67.Google Scholar

Maiden, M. and Parry, M. (eds) (1997), The Dialects of Italy (London: Routledge).Google Scholar

Malchukov, A. and Siewierska, A. (eds) (2011), Impersonal Constructions: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective (Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins).Google Scholar

Mańczak, W. (1977), Le latin classique, langue romane commune (Wrocław: Polska Akademia Nauk).Google Scholar

Mańczak, W. (2003), ‘Six attitudes envers le problème de l’origine des langues romanes’, in Solin, H., Leiwo, M. and Halla-aho, H. (eds), Latin vulgaire, latin tardif: Actes du VIème colloque international sur le latin vulgaire et tardif, Helsinki, 29 août–2 septembre 2000 (Hildesheim: Olms-Weidmann), 47–52.Google Scholar

Mańczak, W. (2006), ‘Latin vulgaire et latin archaïque’, in Arias Abellán, C. (ed.), Latin vulgaire, latin tardif: Actes du VIIème colloque international sur le latin vulgaire et tardif, Séville, 2–6 septembre 2003 (Seville: Universidad de Sevilla), 441–8.Google Scholar

Mandilaras, B. G. (1973), The Verb in the Greek Non-Literary Papyri (Athens: Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sciences).Google Scholar

Mannheimer, I. (1975), Sprachliche Beziehungen zwischen Alt- und Spätlatein (Zurich: Juris Druck Verlag).Google Scholar

Marouzeau, J. (1954), Traité de stylistique latine (Paris: Les Belles Lettres).Google Scholar

Marquardt, J. (1879–82), Das Privatleben der Römer, 2 vols. (Leipzig: Hirzel).Google Scholar

Marshall, I. H. (ed.) (2002), Moulton and Geden Concordance to the Greek New Testament, 6th edn (London and New York: T&T Clark).Google Scholar

Martin, R. (1976), Palladius: Traité d’agriculture, 1 (Paris: Les Belles Lettres).Google Scholar

Martin, R. H. (1959), Terence, Phormio (London: Duckworth).Google Scholar

Martin, R. H. (1976), Terence, Adelphoe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar

Martínez del Castillo, J. G. (ed.) (2005), Eugenio Coseriu in memoriam, 2 vols. (Granada: Método Ediciones).Google Scholar

Marx, F. (1909), ‘Die Beziehungen des Altlateins zum Spätlatein’, Neue Jahrbücher 23/24, 434–48.Google Scholar

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

Mayer, R. G. (1999), ‘Grecism’, in Adams, J. N. and Mayer, R. G. (eds), Aspects of the Language of Latin Prose (Proceedings of the British Academy 93) (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 157–82.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. (2005), ‘The impracticability of Latin “Kunstprosa”’, in Reinhardt, , Lapidge and Adams (2005), 195–210.Google Scholar

Mayser, E. (1933), Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemäerzeit, mit Einschluss der gleichzeitigen Ostraka und der in Ägypten verfassten Inschriften 2.2: Satzlehre: analytischer Teil (Berlin and Leipzig: De Gruyter).Google Scholar

Mazzarino, A. (1982), M. Porci Catonis De Agri Cultura, 2nd edn (Leipzig: Teubner).Google Scholar

Meiser, G. (2003), Veni, Vidi, Vici: Die Vorgeschichte des lateinischen Perfektsystems (Munich: Beck).Google Scholar

Menéndez Pidal, R (1929), Manual de gramática histórica española, 5th edn (Madrid: Suárez).Google Scholar

Meiser, G. (1944), Cantar de Mio Cid: texto, gramática y vocabulario. Primera parte: crítica de texto – grámatica (Madrid: Espasa-Calpe).Google Scholar

Menge, H. (2009), Lehrbuch der lateinischen Syntax und Semantik, 4th edn (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft).Google Scholar

Mengoni, E. (1980), ‘Facere con l’infinito nella Vulgata: appunti sulla lingua delle versioni bibliche dal greco’, Annali della Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia, Università di Macerata 13, 261–75.Google Scholar

Menoni, Viviana (1982), ‘Formazione e storia del gerundio composto nell’italiano antico’, Studi di grammatica italiana 11, 5–88.Google Scholar

Merguet, H. (1886), Lexikon zu den Schriften Cäsars und seine Fortsetzer (Jena: Verlag von Gustav Fischer).Google Scholar

Merk, A. (ed.) (1992), Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine (Rome: Istituto Pontificio).Google Scholar

Meulleman, M. C. (2012), Les localisateurs dans les constructions existentielles: approche comparée en espagnol, en français et en italien (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 369) (Berlin and Boston, MA: Walter de Gruyter).Google Scholar

Migliorini, B. (1962), Storia della lingua italiana (Florence: Sansoni).Google Scholar

Mihăescu, H. (1978), La langue latine dans le sud-est de l’Europe (Bucharest: Editura Academiei; and Paris: Les Belles Lettres).Google Scholar

Milani, C. (ed.) (1977), Itinerarium Antonini Placentini (Milan: Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore).Google Scholar

Milne, C. H. (1926), A Reconstruction of the Old-Latin Text or Texts of the Gospels Used by Saint Augustine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar

Milnor, K. (2014), Graffiti and the Literary Landscape in Roman Pompeii (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar

Mirto, I. (2003), ‘Che fare? Analisi di costrutti di un verbo critico in italiano’, in Marcellesi, M. G. and Rocchetti, A. (eds) (2003), Il verbo italiano: Studi diacronici, sincronici, contrastivi, didattici (Rome: Bulzoni), 277–91.Google Scholar

Mohrmann, C. (1933), ‘Die psychologischen Bedingungen der konstruktionslosen Nominativi im Lateinischen’, Glotta 21, 20–40.Google Scholar

Mohrmann, C. (1948), ‘Les elements vulgaires du Latin des Chrétiens’, Vigiliae Christianae, 163–84.Google Scholar

Mohrmann, C. (1958), ‘Saint Augustin écrivain’ Recherches Augustiniennes 1, 43–66.Google Scholar

Moignet, G. (ed.) (1969), La chanson de Roland (Paris: Bordas).Google Scholar

Molinelli, P., Cuzzolin, P. and Fedriani, C. (eds) (2014), Actes du Xe colloque international sur le latin vulgaire et tardif, Bergamo 5–9 Sept. 2012 (Bergamo: Sestante Edizioni).Google Scholar

Moll, F. de B. (1952), Gramática histórica catalana. (Madrid: Gredos).Google Scholar

Morales, E. (ed.) (2007), Vitae (Paris: Cerf).Google Scholar

Mørland, H. (1948), ‘Ablativ und Quam. Der indoeuropäische Komparationskasus’, Symbolae osloenses 26, 1–45.Google Scholar

Morris, E. P. (1889), ‘On the sentence-question in Plautus and Terence’, American Journal of Philology 10, 397–436; 11, 16–54, 145–81.Google Scholar

Morris, E. P. (1897), ‘The subjunctive in independent sentences in Plautus’, American Journal of Philology 18, 133–67, 275–301.Google Scholar

Mueller, K. (1995), Petronii Arbitri Satyricon Reliquiae, 4th edn (Stuttgart and Leipzig: Teubner).Google Scholar

Müller, H. (2012), ‘Preacher: Augustine and his congregation’, in Vessey, M. (ed.), A Companion to Augustine (Malden, MA, and Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell), 297–309.Google Scholar

Müller-Marquardt, F. (1912), Die Sprache der alten Vita Wandregiseli (Halle a. S.: Niemeyer).Google Scholar

Muller, H. F. (1912), Origine et histoire de la préposition à dans les locutions du type faire faire quelque chose à quelqu’un (Poitiers: A. Masson).Google Scholar

Muller, H. F. (1924), ‘The passive voice in Vulgar Latin’, Romanic Review 15, 68–93.Google Scholar

Munro, H. A. J. (1886), T. Lucreti Cari De rerum natura libri sex, 4th edn, 3 vols. (London: G. Bell & Sons).Google Scholar

Murelli, A. (2011), Relative Constructions in European Non-Standard Varieties (Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton).Google Scholar

Musurillo, H. (ed.) (1972), The Acts of the Christian Martyrs (Oxford: Clarendon).Google Scholar

Nestle, E. and Aland, E., , K., et al. (eds) (1993), Novum Testamentum Graece. 17th edn (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft).Google Scholar

Neue, F. (1902), Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache Band I: Das Substantivum, 3rd edn, rev. Wagener, C. (Leipzig: Reisland).Google Scholar

Neue, F. and Wagener, C. (1897), Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache , 3. Das Verbum (Leipzig: O. R. Reisland).Google Scholar

Neumann, G. (1977), ‘Die Normierung des Lateinischen’, Gymnasium 84, 199–212.Google Scholar

Neville, K. (1901), The Case-Construction after the Comparative in Latin (Cornell Studies in Classical Philology 15). (Ithaca, NY: Macmillan).Google Scholar

Norberg, D. (1943), Syntaktische Forschungen auf dem Gebiete des Spätlateins und des frühen Mittellateins (Uppsala Universiteits Årsskrift) (Uppsala and Leipzig: A.-B. Lundequistska Bokhandeln and Otto Harassowitz).Google Scholar

Norberg, D. (1945), ‘Faire faire quelque chose à quelqu’un: recherches sur l’origine latine de la construction romane’, Uppsala Universiteits Årsskrift 12, 65–106.Google Scholar

Önnerfors, A. (ed.) (1975), Physica Plinii Bambergensis (Hildesheim: Olms).Google Scholar

Orlandini, A. and Poccetti, P. (2010), ‘A propos des tournures exprimant une comparaison élative (<melle dulcior>)’, in Spevak, (2010), 183–98.)’,+in+Spevak,+(2010),+183–98.>Google Scholar

Ortoleva, V. (2012), ‘Palladio III, 30: un autentico caso di nominatiuus pendens?’, in Biville, , Lhommé and Vallat (2012), 235–52.Google Scholar

Packard, D. W. (1968), A Concordance to Livy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar

Palmer, F. R. (2001), Mood and Modality, 2nd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar

Panagl, O. and Krisch, Th. (eds) (1992), Latein und Indogermanisch: Akten des Kolloquiums der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Salzburg, 23.-26. September 1986 (Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft).Google Scholar

Panayotakis, St. (2012), The Story of Apollonius King of Tyre: A Commentary (Texte und Kommentare 38) (Berlin and Boston: Walter de Gruyter).Google Scholar

Pasoli, E. (1961), Saggi di grammatica latina (Bologna: Zanichelli).Google Scholar

Pearce, E. (1990), Parameters in Old French Syntax: Infinitival Complements. (Dordrecht: Kluwer).Google Scholar

Pease, A. S. (1935), P. Vergili Maronis Aeneidos Liber Quartus (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar

Pei, M. (1932), The Language of the Eighth-Century Texts in Northern France: A Study of the Original Documents in the Collection of Tardif and Other Sources (New York: Carranza).Google Scholar

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

Penney, J. H. W. (2011), ‘Archaic and Old Latin’, in Clackson, (2011b), 220–35.Google Scholar

Perutelli, A. (1979), ‘Registri narrativi e stile indiretto libero in Virgilio (a proposito di Aen. 4, 279 sgg.)’, Materiali e Discussioni 3, 69–82.Google Scholar

Petersmann, H. (1977), Petrons Urbane Prosa: Untersuchungen zu Sprache und Text (Syntax) (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften).Google Scholar

Pétré, H. (ed.) (1948), Ethérie, journal de voyage (Peregrinatio) (Paris: Cerf).Google Scholar

Pierluigi, S. (2005), ‘From Latin into Romance: a diachronic analysis of third-person possessives’, in CAMLING 2005: Proceedings of the University of Cambridge Third Postgraduate Conference in Language Research (Cambridge: Cambridge Institute of Language Research), 63–70.Google Scholar

Pierluigi, S. (2007), ‘Latin third-person possessives in a GB approach’, in Purnelle, and Denooz, (2007), 143–52.Google Scholar

Pietrandrea, P. (2005), Epistemic Modality: Functional Properties and the Italian System (Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins).Google Scholar

Pinkster, H. (1969), ‘A B and C-coordination in Latin’, Mnemosyne 22, 258–67.Google Scholar

Pinkster, H. (1990), Latin Syntax and Semantics (London and New York: Routledge).Google Scholar

Pinkster, H. (2012), ‘Relative clauses in Latin: some problems of description’, in da Cunha Corrêa, P. et al. (eds), Hyperboreans: Essays in Greek and Latin Poetry, Philosophy, Rhetoric and Linguistics (São Paulo: Humanitas CAPES), 377–92.Google Scholar

Pinkster, H. (2015), Oxford Latin Syntax. Part I: The Simple Clause (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar

Pintzuk, S. (2003), ‘Variationist approaches to syntactic change’, in Joseph, B. and Janda, R. (eds), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics (Oxford: Blackwell), 509–28.Google Scholar

Plater, W. E. and White, H. J. (1926), A Grammar of the Vulgate: Being an Introduction to the Study of the Latinity of the Vulgate Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar

Politzer, R. L. (1952), ‘On the Romance third person possessives’, Word 8, 65–71.Google Scholar

Pompei, A. (2010), ‘Les propositions relatives en latin entre restriction, apposition et maximalisation’, Studi italiani di linguistica teorica e applicata 39, 439–56.Google Scholar

Pompei, A. (2011a), ‘Relative clauses of the “third type” in Latin?’, in Oniga, R., Iovino, R. and Giusti, G. (eds), Formal Linguistics and the Teaching of Latin (Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing), 117–32.Google Scholar

Pompei, A. (2011b), ‘Typologie des constructions relatives en latin’, Les Études Classiques 79, 65–91.Google Scholar

Pompei, A. (2011c), ‘Relative clauses’, in Baldi and Cuzzolin (2009–11), 4, 427–547.Google Scholar

Porzio Gernia, M. L. (2013), Simul ante retroque prospiciens: Studi di linguistica storica, a cura di Mario Iodice (Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso).Google Scholar

Postgate, J. P. (1901), ‘The “deliberative” indicative’, Classical Review 15, 451–2.Google Scholar

Pountain, Christopher J. (2011), ‘Latin and the structure of written Romance’, in Maiden, M., Smith, J. C. and Ledgeway, A. (eds), The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 1, 606–59.Google Scholar

Powell, J. G. F. (2005), ‘Cicero’s adaptation of legal Latin in the De legibus’, in Reinhardt, , Lapidge and Adams (2005), 117–50.Google Scholar

Powell, J. G. F. (2011), ‘Legal Latin’, in Clackson, (2011b), 464–84.Google Scholar

Presuhn, E. (1882), Pompeji: Die neuesten Ausgrabungen von 1874 bis 1878, 2nd edn (Leipzig: Weigel).Google Scholar

Probert, P. and Ferri, R. (2010), ‘Roman authors on colloquial language’, in Dickey, and Chahoud, (2010), 12–41.Google Scholar

Probert, P. and Willi, A. (eds) (2012), Laws and Rules in Indo-European (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar

Probert, P. (2014), ‘Relative clauses, Indo-Hittite and Standard Average European’, in Jamison, S. W., Melchert, C. and Vine, B. (eds), Proceedings of the 25th Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference (Bremen: Hempen), 137–64.Google Scholar

Probert, P. (2015), Early Greek Relative Clauses (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar

Pugliese Carratelli, G. (ed.) (1994), Pompei: Pitture e mosaici V (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana).Google Scholar

Pulgram, E. (2001), Review of Rosén (1999), Language 77, 353–6.Google Scholar

Purnelle, G. and Denooz, J. (eds) (2007), Ordre et cohérence en latin: communications présentées au 13e Colloque international de Linguistique latine, Bruxelles-Liège, 4–9 avril 2005 (Liège: Bibl. Philosophie et Lettres).Google Scholar

Radatz, H.-I. (2003), ‘La perifrasis vado + infinitivo en castellano, francés y catalán: por la misma senda pero a paso distinto’, in Pusch, C. and Wesch, A. (eds), Verbalperiphrasen im Katalanischen und anderen romanischen Sprachen im Lichte aktueller Grammatiktheorien. (Hamburg: Buske), 61–75.Google Scholar

Rand, E. K. and Hey, O. (1906), ‘Eine Predigt über Christi Höllenfahrt’, Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik 14, 253–65.Google Scholar

Reichenkron, G. (ed.) (1957a), Syntactica und Stilistica: Festschrift für Ernst Gamillscheg zum 70. Geburtstag (Tübingen: Niemeyer).Google Scholar

Reichenkron, G. (1957b), ‘Die Umschreibung mit occipere, incipere und coepisse als analytische Ausdrucksweise eines ingressiven Aorists’, in Reichenkron, (1957a), 451–80.Google Scholar

Reinhardt, T., Lapidge, M. and Adams, J. N. (eds) (2005), Aspects of the Language of Latin Prose (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar

Renzi, L. and Salvi, G. (eds) (1991), Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione 2: I sintagmi verbale, aggettivale, avverbiale. La subordinazione (Bologna: Il Mulino).Google Scholar

Riemann, O. (1885), Etudes sur la langue et la grammaire de Tite-Live, 2nd edn (Paris: E. Thorin).Google Scholar

Riese, A. (1871), Historia Apollonii regis Tyri (Leipzig: Teubner).Google Scholar

Risselada, R. (1993), Imperatives and Other Directive Expressions in Latin: A Study in the Pragmatics of a Dead Language (Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben).Google Scholar

Risselada, R. (1996), ‘And now for something different? Temporal discourse markers: Latin nunc and English now’, in Risselada, R., Jong, J. R. and Bolkestein, A. M. (eds), On Latin: Linguistic and Literary Studies in Honour of Harm Pinkster (Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben), 105–25.Google Scholar

Rix, H. (2002), Sabellische Texte (Heidelberg: Winter).Google Scholar

Robustelli, C. (2000), Causativi in italiano antico e moderno (Modena: Edizioni il Fiorino).Google Scholar

Rochus, L. (1934), La latinité de Salvien (Brussels: Mémoires de l’Académie Royale de Belgique, Classe des Lettres).Google Scholar

Rodger, A. (2000), ‘Attractio inversa in the edict of Augustus from El Bierzo’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 133, 266–70.Google Scholar

Rodgers, R. H. (1975a), Palladii Rutilii Tauri Aemiliani viri inlustris Opus agriculturae, De veterinaria medicina, De insitione (Leipzig: Teubner).Google Scholar

Rodgers, R. H. (1975b), An Introduction to Palladius (Institute of Classical Studies Bulletin Supplement 35) (London: University of London).Google Scholar

Rohlfs, G. (1966–9), Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti, 3 vols. (Turin: Einaudi).Google Scholar

Rönsch, H. (1875), Itala und Vulgata: Das Sprachidiom der urchristlichen Itala und der katholischen Vulgata unter Berücksichtigung der römischen Volkssprache (Marburg: Elwert).Google Scholar

Rönsch, H. (1965 (1874)), Itala und Vulgata, 2nd edn (Munich: Hueber).Google Scholar

Rordorf, W. (1984), ‘Sainte Thècle dans la tradition hagiographique occidentale’, Augustinianum 24, 73–81.Google Scholar

Rosa, F. (1989), ‘La presenza di Terenzio in Sant’Agostino’, Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 33, 119–33.Google Scholar

Rose, H. J. (1933), Hygini fabulae (Leiden: A. W. Sijthoff).Google Scholar

Rose, V. (ed.) (1894), Theodori Prisciani Euporiston, 3 vols. (Leipzig: Teubner).Google Scholar

Rosen, C. (1997), ‘Auxiliation and serialization: on discerning the difference’, in Alsina, Alex, Bresnan, Joan and Sells, Peter (eds), Complex Predicates (Stanford, CA: CSLI), 175–202.Google Scholar

Rosén, Haiim (1970), ‘Uterum dolet und Verwandtes: Zu einigen übersehenen frühlateinischen Zeugnissen impersonaler oder intransitiver Verbalkonstruktion’, Folia Linguistica 4, 135–47 = Rosén (1982), 254–66.Google Scholar

Rosén, Haiim (1982), East and West: Selected Writings in Linguistics 1: General and Indo-European Linguistics (Munich: Wilhelm Fink).Google Scholar

Rosén, Haiim (1992), ‘“Having” in Petronius’, in Tournoy, and Sacré, (1992), 101–17.Google Scholar

Rosén, Hannah (1981), Studies in the Syntax of the Verbal Noun in Early Latin (Munich: Wilhelm Fink).Google Scholar

Rosén, Hannah (1989), ‘General subordinators and sentence complements’, in Calboli, (1989), 197–217.Google Scholar

Rosén, Hannah (1992), ‘Die Arten der Prolepse im Lateinischen in typologischer Sicht’, in Panagl, and Krisch, (1992), 243–62.Google Scholar

Rosén, Hannah (1999), Latine loqui: Trends and Directions in the Crystallization of Classical Latin (Munich: Wilhelm Fink).Google Scholar

Rosén, Hannah (2000), ‘Preclassical and Classical Latin precursors of Romance verb stem suppletion’, Indogermanische Forschungen 105, 270–83.Google Scholar

Rosén, Hannah (2012a), ‘Two phasal verbs: Lat. coepi and Gk. ἔβαλον/ἔβαλα, βάλλω/βάζω/βάνω’, Indogermanische Forschungen 117, 119–72.Google Scholar

Rosén, Hannah (2012b), ‘Coepi + infinitif dans une sélection de traductions en latin tardif’, in Biville, , Lhommé and Vallat (2012), 365–75.Google Scholar

Rubio, G. (2009), ‘Semitic influence in the history of Latin syntax’, in Baldi, and Cuzzolin, (2009), 195–239.Google Scholar

Russell, D. A. (1990), An Anthology of Latin Prose (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Google Scholar

Salonius, A. H. (1920), Vitae Patrum: Kritische Untersuchungen über Text, Syntax und Wortschatz der Spätlateinischen Vitae Patrum (B. III, V, VI, VII) (Lund: Gleerup).Google Scholar

Sansò, A. and Giacalone Ramat, A. (2015), ‘Deictic motion verbs as passive auxiliaries: the case of italian andare “go” (and venire “come”)’, Transactions of the Philological Society, doi: 10.1111/1467-968X.12059.Google Scholar

Schauer, M. (2012), Tragicorum romanorum fragmenta I (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).Google Scholar

Schenkl, C. (1897), Sancti Ambrosii opera, 2 (Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, 32/2) (Vienna: Tempsky), 3–122.Google Scholar

Schiaparelli, L. (1929–32), Codice diplomatico longobardo, 2 vols. (Rome: Tipografia del Senato).Google Scholar

Schmeling, G. (2011), A Commentary on the Satyrica of Petronius (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar

Schrijnen, J. and Mohrmann, Ch. (1937), Studien zur Syntax der Briefe des hl. Cyprian, 2 (Nijmegen: Dekker & van de Vegt).Google Scholar

Schwab, O. (1894), Historische Syntax der griechischen Comparation in der klassischen Litteratur (Würzburg: Stuber).Google Scholar

Schwyzer, E. (1950), Griechische Grammatik auf der Grundlage von Karl Brugmanns Griechischer Grammatik 2: Syntax und Syntaktische Stilistik, completed and edited by Debrunner, A., 4th edn (Munich: Beck).Google Scholar

Serbat, G. (1991), ‘Intégration à la phrase latine d’un groupe nominal sans fonction syntaxique (le “nominativus pendens”)’, Langages, 25e année, 104, 22–32.Google Scholar

Serianni, L. (1988), Grammatica italiana: Italiano commune e lingua letteraria (Turin: UTET).Google Scholar

Setaioli, A. (1981), ‘Elementi di sermo cotidianus nella lingua di Seneca prosatore, II’, Studi italiani di filologia classica 53, 5–49.Google Scholar

Shackleton Bailey, D. S. (1993), Martial Epigrams III: Books 11–14 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press Loeb Classical Library).Google Scholar

Sheehan, M. (2015), ‘Variation and change in the Romance faire-infinitif’. Paper presented at the Romance Linguistics Seminar, Trinity Hall, Cambridge, 5–6 Jan. 2015.Google Scholar

Sheehan, M. (2016), ‘Complex predicates’, in Ledgeway, A. and Maiden, M. (eds), The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 981–94.Google Scholar

Sihler, A. (1995), New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar

Sjögren, H. (1906), Zum Gebrauch des Futurums im Altlateinischen (Uppsala: Akademiska Bokhandeln).Google Scholar

Skahill, B. H. (1934), The Syntax of the Variae of Cassiodorus (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America).Google Scholar

Skutsch, O. (1985), The Annals of Quintus Ennius (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Google Scholar

Small, G. (1929), The Germanic Case of Comparison (Language Monographs 4) (Philadelphia: Linguistic Society of America).Google Scholar

Solin, H. (2003), Die griechischen Personennamen in Rom: ein Namenbuch, 2nd edn, 3 vols. (Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter).Google Scholar

Solin, H., Leiwo, M. and Halla-aho, H. (eds) (2003), Latin tardif et latin vulgaire VI (Hildesheim: Olms).Google Scholar

Song, J. J. (1996), Causatives and Causation: A Universal-Typological Perspective. (London: Longman).Google Scholar

Spevak, O. (ed.) (2010), Le syntagme nominal latin (Paris: L’Harmattan).Google Scholar

Spevak, O. and Christol, A. (eds) (2012), Les évolutions du latin (Paris: L’Harmattan).Google Scholar

Squartini, M. (2010), ‘Mood in Italian’, in Rothstein, B. and Thieroff, R (eds), Mood in the Languages of Europe (Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins), 237–50.Google Scholar

Stefenelli, A. (1962), Die Volkssprache im Werk des Petron im Hinblich auf die romanischen Sprachen (Stuttgart: Braumüller),Google Scholar

Stefenelli, A. (2011), ‘Lexical stability’, in Maiden, M., Smith, J. C. and Ledgeway, A. (eds), The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages, 1. Structures (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 564–84.Google Scholar

Stengaard, B. (2008), ‘A semantic study of habere in the Itinerarium Egeriae from a Romance perspective’, in Wright, (2008), 112–18.Google Scholar

Stengaard, B. (2013), ‘Subjects and objects with Latin habere and some of its Romance descendants’, in Josephson, and Söhrman, (2013), 211–21.Google Scholar

Stotz, P. (1998), Handbuch zur lateinischen Sprache des Mittelalters 4: Formenlehre, Syntax und Stilistik (Munich: Beck).Google Scholar

Stotz, P. (2000), Handbuch zur lateinischen Sprache des Mittelalters 1: Einleitung, Lexikologische Praxis, Wörter und Sachen, Lehnwortgut (Munich: Beck).Google Scholar

Svennung, J. (1935), Untersuchungen zu Palladius und zur lateinischen Fach- und Volkssprache (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell).Google Scholar

Sznajder, L. (1981), ‘Y a-t-il «un» réfléchi en latin? Étude sur les conditions d’emploi de se et suus’, L’Information Grammaticale 10, 17–22.Google Scholar