the Latin languages

latin, e [latɛ̃, in]

1. adjective

2. masculine noun

( = langue) Latin

* * *

latine latɛ̃, in adjectif

1) [auteurs, textes] Latin

2) ( méditerranéen) [tempérament] Latin; [culture] Mediterranean

3) Linguistique

nom masculin Linguistique Latin

••

* * *

* * *

latin, latine

A adj

1 Antiq [auteurs, textes] Latin;

2 ( méditerranéen) [tempérament] Latin; [culture] Mediterranean;

3 Ling langues latines Romance languages;

4 Relig [église, croix, rite] Latin.

B ⇒ Les langues nm Ling Latin; latin de cuisine péj dog Latin; latin populaire or vulgaire Vulgar Latin; bas latin low Latin.

c'est à y perdre son latin one can't make head or tail of it.

( féminin latine) [latɛ̃, in] adjectif

1. ANTIQUITÉ Latin

2. LINGUISTIQUE [appartenant au latin] Latin

[issu du latin] Romance (modificateur)

3. SOCIOLOGIE Latin

4. RELIGION Latin

5. [à Paris]

Latin, Latine nom masculin, nom féminin

latin nom masculin

latin de cuisine dog Latin

Classical Latin.

* * *

(n.) = Classical Latin

Ex. Between Classical Latin and the Romance languages came Vulgar Latin, the Latin that was spoken and changed faster than the literary language.

* * *

Vulgar Latin.

* * *

(n.) = Vulgar Latin

Ex. Between Classical Latin and the Romance languages came Vulgar Latin, the Latin that was spoken and changed faster than the literary language.

* * *

1. Romance, pertaining to the countries in which the Romance languages are spoken. 2. hist. (a) Latin (native of ancient Latium). - alfabesi Latin alphabet, Roman alphabet. - harfleri Latin characters, Roman characters. - yelkeni naut. lateen sail.

1) General subject: Romanic, the Latin languages

2) Linguistics: Romance (languages)

the Romance ou Latin languages

A, a, indecl. n. (sometimes joined with littera), the first letter of the Latin alphabet, corresponding to the a, a of the other Indo-. European languages:

A primum est: hinc incipiam, et quae nomina ab hoc sunt, Lucil. ap. Terent. Scaur. p. 2255 P.: sus rostro si humi A litteram impresserit,

Cic. Div. 1, 13, 23:

ne in A quidem atque S litteras exire temere masculina Graeca nomina recto casu patiebantur,

Quint. 1, 5, 61.

The sound of the A is short or long in every part of the word; as, ăb, păter, ită; ā, māter, frustrā. During a short period (between about 620 and 670 A. U. C. = from 134 to 84 B.C.) long a was written aa, probably first by the poet L. Attius, in the manner of the Oscan language; so we find in Latin inscriptions: AA. CETEREIS (i.e.a ceteris), CALAASI, FAATO, HAACE, MAARCIVM, PAAPVS, PAASTORES, VAARVS; and in Greek writing, MAAPKOPs PsIOS MAAPKEAAOS, KOINTON MAAPKION (like Osc. aasas = Lat. āra, Osc. Paapi = Lat. Pāpius, Osc. Paakul = Lat. Pāculus, Pācullus, Pācuvius, etc.), v. Ritschl, Monum. Epigr. p. 28 sq., and cf. Mommsen, Unterital. Dialekte, p. 210 sq. (The Umbrian language has gone a step farther, and written long a by aha, as Aharna, Naharcom, trahaf, etc.; cf. Aufrecht and Kirchhoff, Umbrische Sprachdenkm. p. 76 sq.) Vid. also the letters E and U.

In etymological and grammatical formation of words, short a very often (sometimes also long a) is changed into other vowels.

Short a is changed,

, into long a —

In consequence of the suppression of the following consonants at the end or in the middle of the word: ŭb, ā; vădis, vūs; ăg-, ăg-men, exāmen; tăg-, contūmino; căd-, cāsus. Hence also in the abl. sing. of the first decl., and in the particles derived from it. in consequence of the suppression of the original ablat. end. - d: PRAEDAD (Col. Rostr.), praedā; SENTENTIAD (S. C. de Bacch.), sententiā; EXTBAD (ib.), extrā; SVPRAD (ib.), suprā. —Hence,

In perfect forms: scăb-o, scābi; căveo, cūvi; făv-eo, fāvi; păv-eo, pāvi (for scăbui, căvui, făvui, păvui).

In other forms: ăgo, ambūges; păc-, păc-iscor, pâcis (pâx); săg-ax, sūgus, sāga; măc-er, mâcero; făg- (phagein), fūgus. (Contrary to analogy, ă remains short in dănunt, from dă-in-unt, V. Ritschl, l.l.p. 17.)

Short a is changed into é or ē—

Into é.

Most frequently in the second part of compounds, particularly before two consonants: facio, confectus; jacio, conjectus; rapio, dereptus; dăm-, damno, condemno; fāl-, fallo, fefelli; măn-, mando, commendo; scando, ascendo; ăp-, aptus, ineptus; ăr-, ars, iners, sollers; ăn-, annus, perennis; căpio, auceps; căput, triceps; ăgo, remex; jăcio, objex. And thus in Plautus, according to the best MSS., dispenno, dispessus from pando, compectus from compăciscor, anteceptus from capio (on the other hand, in Vergil, according to the best MS., aspurgo, attractare, deiractare, kept their a unchanged).

Sometimes ă is changed into ĕ also before one consonant (but in this case it is usually changed into ĭ; v. infra, 3. a. a.): grădior, ingrĕdior; pătior, perpĕtior; părio, repĕrio; păro, vitupĕro; ăp-, coepi (i. e. co-ŭpi); căno, tubicĕn, tibicĕn; in the reduplicated carcĕr (from carcar) farfŏrus (written also farfārus); and so, according to the better MSS., aequipĕro from păro, and defĕtigo from fătigo.

In words taken from the Greek: talanton, talŏntum; phalara, phalŏrae; sisaron, sisŏr (but, according to the best MSS., cumŭra from kamara, not camŏra).

Short a is changed to ē in some perfect forms: ăgo, ēgi; fūcio, féci; jăci, jĕci; frag-, frango, frēgi; căpio, cēpi, and păg-, pango, pēgi (together with pepĭgi and panxi, v. pango).

Short a is changed to ĭ, a (most frequently in the second part of compounds)

before one consonant: ăgo, abĭgo; făcio, confĭcio; cădo, concĭdo; sălio, assĭlio; răpio, abrĭpio; păter, Juppĭter (in Umbrian lang. unchanged, Jupater), Marspĭter; Diespĭter, Opĭter; rătus, irrĭtus; ămicus, inìmicus (but ŭ remains unchanged in adŭmo, impătiens, and in some compounds of a later period of Roman literature, as praejacio, calefacio, etc.). —

Sometimes also before two consonants (where it is usually changed into ĕ; v. supra, 2. a. b.): tăg-, tango, contingo; păg-, pango, compingo (unchanged in some compounds, as peragro, desacro, depango, obcanto, etc.).

ă is changed into ĭ in the reduplicated perfect forms: cădo, cecĭdi; căno, cecĭni; tăg-, tango, tetĭgi; păg-, pango, pepĭgi.

Likewise in some roots which have ă: păg-, pignus; străg- (strangulo, strangô), stringo.

In words taken from the Greek: mêchanê, machĭna; patanê, patĭna; bukanê, bucĭna; trutanê, trutĭna; balaneion, balĭneum; Katana, Catĭna (written also Catana); Akragas, Agrĭgentum.

Short a is changed into short or long o.

Into ŏ: scăbo, scobs; păr, pars, portio; dăm-, dŏmo; Fabii, Fŏvii (v. Paul. ex Fest. p. 87); marmaron, marmŏr; Mars, redupl. Marmar, Marmor (Carm. Fratr. Arv.).

Into ō: dă-, dōnum, dōs; ăc-, ăcuo, ōcior (v. this art.).

Short a is changed into ŭ —

In the second part of compounds, particularly before l, p, and b: calco, inculco; salsus, insulsus; salto, exsulto; capio, occŭpo; răpio, surrupio and surruptus (also written surripio and surreptus); tăberna, contŭbernium; —before other consonants: quătio, conoŭtio; as, decussis; Mars, Mamŭrius, Mamŭralia; and once also condumnari (Tab. Bant. lin. 8, immediately followed by condemnatus, v. Klenze, Philol. Abhandl. tab. I., and Mommsen, Unterital. Dial. p. 149).

In words of Greek origin: Hekabê, Hecŭba; skutalê, scutŭla; kraipalê, crapŭla; passalos, pessŭlus; aphlaston, aplustre; thriambos, triumphus.

ă is perhaps changed into ŭ in ulciscor, compared with alc-, ulexô (arc-, arceo).

Long a is sometimes changed into ē or ō.

Into é: hālo, anhélo; fās-, féstus, profēstus; nām, némpe.

Into ō: gnā-, gnārus, ignārus, ignōro. (But in general long a remains unchanged in composition: lābor, delūbor; gnàvus, ignūnus; fàma, infūmis.)

Contrary to the mode of changing Greek a into Latin e, i, o, u (v. supra), Latin a has sometimes taken the place of other Greek vowels in words borrowed from the Greek, as: lonchê, lancea; kulix, călix; Ganumêoês, Caiāmitus.

The repugnance of the Latin Language to the Greek combined vowels ao has caused the translocation of them in Alumento for Daomeoôn (Paul. ex Fest. p. 18 Müll.).— Greek a is suppressed in Hercules from Hêraklês (probably in consequence of the inserted u; in late Latin we find Heracla and Heracula, cf. Ritschl, in Rhein. Mus. Neue Folge, vol. 12, p. 108).

Latin ă was early combined with the vowels i and u, forming the diphthongs ai and au; by changing the i into e, the diphthong ai soon became ae. So we find in the oldest inscriptions: AIDE, AIDLLIS, AIQVOM, GNAIVOD, HAICE, DVELONAI, TABELAI, DATAI, etc., which soon gave place to aedem, aedilis, aequom, Gnaeo, haec, Bellonae, tabellae, datae, etc. (the Col. Rostr. has PRAESENTE, PRAEDAD, and the S. C. de Bacch. AEDEM. The triphthong aei, found in CONQVAEISIVEI (?), is very rare; Miliar. Popil. lin. 11, v. Ritschl, l. l. p. 21). In some poets the old gen. sing. of the first decl. (- ai) is preserved, but is dissyllabic, āī. So in Ennius: Albūī Longūī, terrūī frugiferāī, frondosāī, lunāī, viāī; in Vergil: aulāī, aurāī, aquāī, pictāī; in Ausonius: herāī.

ue as well as au are changed into other vowels.

The sound of ae, e, and oe being very similar, these vowels are often interchanged in the best MSS., So we find caerimonia and cerimonia, caepa and cēpa, saeoulum and séculum; scaena and scēna; caelum and coelum, haedus and hoedus, macstus and moestus; cena, coena, and caena, etc.

In composition and reduplications ae becomes í: aequus, iníquus; quaero, inquíro; laedo, illído; taedet, pertisum (noticed by Cic.); aestumo, exístumo; cuedo, cecídi, concído, homicida.

ae is also changed into í in a Latinized word of Greek origin: Achaios (AchaiWos), Achíous.

The diphthong au is often changed to ó and ú (the latter particularly in compounds): caudex, códex; Claudius, Clodius; lautus, lotus; plaustrum, plōstrum; plaudo, plōdo, explōdo; paululum, pōlulum; faux, suffōco; si audes (acc. to Cic. or acc. to others, si audies), sódes, etc.; claudo, inclūdo; causa, accūso. Hence in some words a regular gradation of au, o, u is found: claudo, clōdicare, clúdo; raudus, ródus, rúdus; caupo, cópa, cūpa; naugae, nōgae (both forms in the MSS. of Plautus), nūgae; fraustra, frode, frude (in MSS. of Vergil); cf. Ritschl, in Wintercatalog 1854-55, and O. Ribbeck, in Jahn's Neue Jahrb. vol. 77, p. 181 sq.—The change of au into oē and ō appears only in audio, (oboedio) obēdio.

Au sometimes takes the place of av-: faveo, fautum, favitor, fautor; navis, navita, nauta; avis, auceps, auspex. So Latin aut corresponds to Sanscr. avo. (whence - vā, Lat. - ve), Osc. avti, Umbr. ute, ote; and so the Lat. preposition ab, through av, becomes au in the words aufero and aufugio (prop. av-fero, av-fugio, for ab-fero, ab-fugio). Vid. the art. ab init.

In primitive roots, which have their kindred forms in the sister-languages of the Latin, the original a, still found in the Sanscrit, is in Latin either preserved or more frequently changed into other vowels.

Original a preserved: Sanscr. mātri, Lat. màter; S. bhrātri, L. fràter; S. nāsā, L. nàsus and nàris; S. ap, L. aqua; S. apa, L. ab; S. nāma, L. năm; S. ćatur, [p. 2] L. quattuor (in Greek changed: thettares); S. capūla, L. căput (in Greek changed: kephalê, etc.).

Original a is changed into other Latin vowels—

Into e: S. ad, L. ed (ĕdo); S. as, L. es (esse); S. pat, L. pet (peto); S. pād, L. pĕd (pès); S. dant, L. dent (dens); S. ǵan, L. gen (gigno); S. mā, L. mè-tior; S. saptan, L. septem; S. daśan, L. decem; S. śata, L. centum; S. aham, L. ŏgo; S. pāra, L. per; S. paśu, L. pŏcus; S. asva, L. ŏquus, etc.

Into i: S. an-, a- (neg. part.), L. in-: S. ana (prep.), L. in; S. antar, L. inter; S. sama, L. similis; S. agni, L. ignis; S. abhra, L. imber; S. panéa, L. quinque, etc.

Into o: S. avi, L. ŏvi (ovis); S. vać, L. vōc (voco); S. pra, L. pro; S. pā, L. po (pŏtum); S. nāma, L. nōmen; S. api, L. ŏb; S. navan, L. nŏvem; S. nava, L. nŏvus, etc.

Into u: S. marmara, L. murmur.

Into ai, ae: S. prati, L. (prai) prae; S. śaśpa, L. caespes.

Into different vowels in the different derivatives: S. mā, L. mê-tior, mŏdus; S. praó, L. prŏcor, prŏcus; S. vah, L. vĕho, via.

Sometimes the Latin has preserved the original a, while even the Sanscrit has changed it: Lat. pa-, pater, Sanscr. pd, pitri.

As an abbreviation A. usually denotes the praenomen Aulus; A. A. = Auli duo, Inscr. Orell. 1530 (but A. A. = Aquae Aponi, the modern Abano, ib. 1643 sq.; 2620; 3011). The three directors of the mint were designated by III. VIRI A. A. A. F. F. (i. e. auro, argento, aeri flando, feriundo), ib. 569; 2242; 2379; 3134 al.;

so also A. A. A.,

ib. 3441 (cf. Cic. Fam. 7, 13 fin., and v. the art. Triumviri); A. D. A. agris dandis adsignandis, and A. I. A. agris judicandis adsignandis; A. O. amico optimo; A. P. a populo or aediliciae potestatis; A. P. R. aerario populi Romani. —Upon the voting tablets in judicial trials A. denoted absoluo; hence A. is called littera salutaris, Cic. Mil. 6, 15; v. littera. In the Roman Comitia A. (= antiquo) denoted the rejection of the point in question; v. antiquo. In Cicero's Tusculan Disputations the A. designated one of the disputants = adulescens or auditor, opp. to M. for magister or Marcus (Cicero); but it is to be remarked that the letters A and M do not occur in the best MSS. of this treatise; cf. edd. ad Cic. Tusc. 1, 5, 9.—In dates A. D. = ante diem; v. ante; A. U. C. = anno urbis conditae; A. P. R. C. anno post Romam conditam.

a, prep.=ab, v. ab.

ā, interj.=ah, v. ah.

A, a, indecl. n. (sometimes joined with littera), the first letter of the Latin alphabet, corresponding to the a, a of the other Indo-. European languages:

A primum est: hinc incipiam, et quae nomina ab hoc sunt, Lucil. ap. Terent. Scaur. p. 2255 P.: sus rostro si humi A litteram impresserit,

Cic. Div. 1, 13, 23:

ne in A quidem atque S litteras exire temere masculina Graeca nomina recto casu patiebantur,

Quint. 1, 5, 61.

The sound of the A is short or long in every part of the word; as, ăb, păter, ită; ā, māter, frustrā. During a short period (between about 620 and 670 A. U. C. = from 134 to 84 B.C.) long a was written aa, probably first by the poet L. Attius, in the manner of the Oscan language; so we find in Latin inscriptions: AA. CETEREIS (i.e.a ceteris), CALAASI, FAATO, HAACE, MAARCIVM, PAAPVS, PAASTORES, VAARVS; and in Greek writing, MAAPKOPs PsIOS MAAPKEAAOS, KOINTON MAAPKION (like Osc. aasas = Lat. āra, Osc. Paapi = Lat. Pāpius, Osc. Paakul = Lat. Pāculus, Pācullus, Pācuvius, etc.), v. Ritschl, Monum. Epigr. p. 28 sq., and cf. Mommsen, Unterital. Dialekte, p. 210 sq. (The Umbrian language has gone a step farther, and written long a by aha, as Aharna, Naharcom, trahaf, etc.; cf. Aufrecht and Kirchhoff, Umbrische Sprachdenkm. p. 76 sq.) Vid. also the letters E and U.

In etymological and grammatical formation of words, short a very often (sometimes also long a) is changed into other vowels.

Short a is changed,

, into long a —

In consequence of the suppression of the following consonants at the end or in the middle of the word: ŭb, ā; vădis, vūs; ăg-, ăg-men, exāmen; tăg-, contūmino; căd-, cāsus. Hence also in the abl. sing. of the first decl., and in the particles derived from it. in consequence of the suppression of the original ablat. end. - d: PRAEDAD (Col. Rostr.), praedā; SENTENTIAD (S. C. de Bacch.), sententiā; EXTBAD (ib.), extrā; SVPRAD (ib.), suprā. —Hence,

In perfect forms: scăb-o, scābi; căveo, cūvi; făv-eo, fāvi; păv-eo, pāvi (for scăbui, căvui, făvui, păvui).

In other forms: ăgo, ambūges; păc-, păc-iscor, pâcis (pâx); săg-ax, sūgus, sāga; măc-er, mâcero; făg- (phagein), fūgus. (Contrary to analogy, ă remains short in dănunt, from dă-in-unt, V. Ritschl, l.l.p. 17.)

Short a is changed into é or ē—

Into é.

Most frequently in the second part of compounds, particularly before two consonants: facio, confectus; jacio, conjectus; rapio, dereptus; dăm-, damno, condemno; fāl-, fallo, fefelli; măn-, mando, commendo; scando, ascendo; ăp-, aptus, ineptus; ăr-, ars, iners, sollers; ăn-, annus, perennis; căpio, auceps; căput, triceps; ăgo, remex; jăcio, objex. And thus in Plautus, according to the best MSS., dispenno, dispessus from pando, compectus from compăciscor, anteceptus from capio (on the other hand, in Vergil, according to the best MS., aspurgo, attractare, deiractare, kept their a unchanged).

Sometimes ă is changed into ĕ also before one consonant (but in this case it is usually changed into ĭ; v. infra, 3. a. a.): grădior, ingrĕdior; pătior, perpĕtior; părio, repĕrio; păro, vitupĕro; ăp-, coepi (i. e. co-ŭpi); căno, tubicĕn, tibicĕn; in the reduplicated carcĕr (from carcar) farfŏrus (written also farfārus); and so, according to the better MSS., aequipĕro from păro, and defĕtigo from fătigo.

In words taken from the Greek: talanton, talŏntum; phalara, phalŏrae; sisaron, sisŏr (but, according to the best MSS., cumŭra from kamara, not camŏra).

Short a is changed to ē in some perfect forms: ăgo, ēgi; fūcio, féci; jăci, jĕci; frag-, frango, frēgi; căpio, cēpi, and păg-, pango, pēgi (together with pepĭgi and panxi, v. pango).

Short a is changed to ĭ, a (most frequently in the second part of compounds)

before one consonant: ăgo, abĭgo; făcio, confĭcio; cădo, concĭdo; sălio, assĭlio; răpio, abrĭpio; păter, Juppĭter (in Umbrian lang. unchanged, Jupater), Marspĭter; Diespĭter, Opĭter; rătus, irrĭtus; ămicus, inìmicus (but ŭ remains unchanged in adŭmo, impătiens, and in some compounds of a later period of Roman literature, as praejacio, calefacio, etc.). —

Sometimes also before two consonants (where it is usually changed into ĕ; v. supra, 2. a. b.): tăg-, tango, contingo; păg-, pango, compingo (unchanged in some compounds, as peragro, desacro, depango, obcanto, etc.).

ă is changed into ĭ in the reduplicated perfect forms: cădo, cecĭdi; căno, cecĭni; tăg-, tango, tetĭgi; păg-, pango, pepĭgi.

Likewise in some roots which have ă: păg-, pignus; străg- (strangulo, strangô), stringo.

In words taken from the Greek: mêchanê, machĭna; patanê, patĭna; bukanê, bucĭna; trutanê, trutĭna; balaneion, balĭneum; Katana, Catĭna (written also Catana); Akragas, Agrĭgentum.

Short a is changed into short or long o.

Into ŏ: scăbo, scobs; păr, pars, portio; dăm-, dŏmo; Fabii, Fŏvii (v. Paul. ex Fest. p. 87); marmaron, marmŏr; Mars, redupl. Marmar, Marmor (Carm. Fratr. Arv.).

Into ō: dă-, dōnum, dōs; ăc-, ăcuo, ōcior (v. this art.).

Short a is changed into ŭ —

In the second part of compounds, particularly before l, p, and b: calco, inculco; salsus, insulsus; salto, exsulto; capio, occŭpo; răpio, surrupio and surruptus (also written surripio and surreptus); tăberna, contŭbernium; —before other consonants: quătio, conoŭtio; as, decussis; Mars, Mamŭrius, Mamŭralia; and once also condumnari (Tab. Bant. lin. 8, immediately followed by condemnatus, v. Klenze, Philol. Abhandl. tab. I., and Mommsen, Unterital. Dial. p. 149).

In words of Greek origin: Hekabê, Hecŭba; skutalê, scutŭla; kraipalê, crapŭla; passalos, pessŭlus; aphlaston, aplustre; thriambos, triumphus.

ă is perhaps changed into ŭ in ulciscor, compared with alc-, ulexô (arc-, arceo).

Long a is sometimes changed into ē or ō.

Into é: hālo, anhélo; fās-, féstus, profēstus; nām, némpe.

Into ō: gnā-, gnārus, ignārus, ignōro. (But in general long a remains unchanged in composition: lābor, delūbor; gnàvus, ignūnus; fàma, infūmis.)

Contrary to the mode of changing Greek a into Latin e, i, o, u (v. supra), Latin a has sometimes taken the place of other Greek vowels in words borrowed from the Greek, as: lonchê, lancea; kulix, călix; Ganumêoês, Caiāmitus.

The repugnance of the Latin Language to the Greek combined vowels ao has caused the translocation of them in Alumento for Daomeoôn (Paul. ex Fest. p. 18 Müll.).— Greek a is suppressed in Hercules from Hêraklês (probably in consequence of the inserted u; in late Latin we find Heracla and Heracula, cf. Ritschl, in Rhein. Mus. Neue Folge, vol. 12, p. 108).

Latin ă was early combined with the vowels i and u, forming the diphthongs ai and au; by changing the i into e, the diphthong ai soon became ae. So we find in the oldest inscriptions: AIDE, AIDLLIS, AIQVOM, GNAIVOD, HAICE, DVELONAI, TABELAI, DATAI, etc., which soon gave place to aedem, aedilis, aequom, Gnaeo, haec, Bellonae, tabellae, datae, etc. (the Col. Rostr. has PRAESENTE, PRAEDAD, and the S. C. de Bacch. AEDEM. The triphthong aei, found in CONQVAEISIVEI (?), is very rare; Miliar. Popil. lin. 11, v. Ritschl, l. l. p. 21). In some poets the old gen. sing. of the first decl. (- ai) is preserved, but is dissyllabic, āī. So in Ennius: Albūī Longūī, terrūī frugiferāī, frondosāī, lunāī, viāī; in Vergil: aulāī, aurāī, aquāī, pictāī; in Ausonius: herāī.

ue as well as au are changed into other vowels.

The sound of ae, e, and oe being very similar, these vowels are often interchanged in the best MSS., So we find caerimonia and cerimonia, caepa and cēpa, saeoulum and séculum; scaena and scēna; caelum and coelum, haedus and hoedus, macstus and moestus; cena, coena, and caena, etc.

In composition and reduplications ae becomes í: aequus, iníquus; quaero, inquíro; laedo, illído; taedet, pertisum (noticed by Cic.); aestumo, exístumo; cuedo, cecídi, concído, homicida.

ae is also changed into í in a Latinized word of Greek origin: Achaios (AchaiWos), Achíous.

The diphthong au is often changed to ó and ú (the latter particularly in compounds): caudex, códex; Claudius, Clodius; lautus, lotus; plaustrum, plōstrum; plaudo, plōdo, explōdo; paululum, pōlulum; faux, suffōco; si audes (acc. to Cic. or acc. to others, si audies), sódes, etc.; claudo, inclūdo; causa, accūso. Hence in some words a regular gradation of au, o, u is found: claudo, clōdicare, clúdo; raudus, ródus, rúdus; caupo, cópa, cūpa; naugae, nōgae (both forms in the MSS. of Plautus), nūgae; fraustra, frode, frude (in MSS. of Vergil); cf. Ritschl, in Wintercatalog 1854-55, and O. Ribbeck, in Jahn's Neue Jahrb. vol. 77, p. 181 sq.—The change of au into oē and ō appears only in audio, (oboedio) obēdio.

Au sometimes takes the place of av-: faveo, fautum, favitor, fautor; navis, navita, nauta; avis, auceps, auspex. So Latin aut corresponds to Sanscr. avo. (whence - vā, Lat. - ve), Osc. avti, Umbr. ute, ote; and so the Lat. preposition ab, through av, becomes au in the words aufero and aufugio (prop. av-fero, av-fugio, for ab-fero, ab-fugio). Vid. the art. ab init.

In primitive roots, which have their kindred forms in the sister-languages of the Latin, the original a, still found in the Sanscrit, is in Latin either preserved or more frequently changed into other vowels.

Original a preserved: Sanscr. mātri, Lat. màter; S. bhrātri, L. fràter; S. nāsā, L. nàsus and nàris; S. ap, L. aqua; S. apa, L. ab; S. nāma, L. năm; S. ćatur, [p. 2] L. quattuor (in Greek changed: thettares); S. capūla, L. căput (in Greek changed: kephalê, etc.).

Original a is changed into other Latin vowels—

Into e: S. ad, L. ed (ĕdo); S. as, L. es (esse); S. pat, L. pet (peto); S. pād, L. pĕd (pès); S. dant, L. dent (dens); S. ǵan, L. gen (gigno); S. mā, L. mè-tior; S. saptan, L. septem; S. daśan, L. decem; S. śata, L. centum; S. aham, L. ŏgo; S. pāra, L. per; S. paśu, L. pŏcus; S. asva, L. ŏquus, etc.

Into i: S. an-, a- (neg. part.), L. in-: S. ana (prep.), L. in; S. antar, L. inter; S. sama, L. similis; S. agni, L. ignis; S. abhra, L. imber; S. panéa, L. quinque, etc.

Into o: S. avi, L. ŏvi (ovis); S. vać, L. vōc (voco); S. pra, L. pro; S. pā, L. po (pŏtum); S. nāma, L. nōmen; S. api, L. ŏb; S. navan, L. nŏvem; S. nava, L. nŏvus, etc.

Into u: S. marmara, L. murmur.

Into ai, ae: S. prati, L. (prai) prae; S. śaśpa, L. caespes.

Into different vowels in the different derivatives: S. mā, L. mê-tior, mŏdus; S. praó, L. prŏcor, prŏcus; S. vah, L. vĕho, via.

Sometimes the Latin has preserved the original a, while even the Sanscrit has changed it: Lat. pa-, pater, Sanscr. pd, pitri.

As an abbreviation A. usually denotes the praenomen Aulus; A. A. = Auli duo, Inscr. Orell. 1530 (but A. A. = Aquae Aponi, the modern Abano, ib. 1643 sq.; 2620; 3011). The three directors of the mint were designated by III. VIRI A. A. A. F. F. (i. e. auro, argento, aeri flando, feriundo), ib. 569; 2242; 2379; 3134 al.;

so also A. A. A.,

ib. 3441 (cf. Cic. Fam. 7, 13 fin., and v. the art. Triumviri); A. D. A. agris dandis adsignandis, and A. I. A. agris judicandis adsignandis; A. O. amico optimo; A. P. a populo or aediliciae potestatis; A. P. R. aerario populi Romani. —Upon the voting tablets in judicial trials A. denoted absoluo; hence A. is called littera salutaris, Cic. Mil. 6, 15; v. littera. In the Roman Comitia A. (= antiquo) denoted the rejection of the point in question; v. antiquo. In Cicero's Tusculan Disputations the A. designated one of the disputants = adulescens or auditor, opp. to M. for magister or Marcus (Cicero); but it is to be remarked that the letters A and M do not occur in the best MSS. of this treatise; cf. edd. ad Cic. Tusc. 1, 5, 9.—In dates A. D. = ante diem; v. ante; A. U. C. = anno urbis conditae; A. P. R. C. anno post Romam conditam.

a, prep.=ab, v. ab.

ā, interj.=ah, v. ah.

Adj. LING. etc. Romance languages etc.; Volk, Land: Latin; Kunst: Romanesque

* * *

(Sprache) Romanesque

* * *

* * *

1. LING, GEOG Romance

die \romanischen Sprachen the Romance languages

die \romanischen Länder the Romance countries

2. HIST Romanesque spec

3. SCHWEIZ (rätoromanisch) Rhaetian spec, Rhaeto-Romanic spec

* * *

1) Romance <language, literature>; Latin <people, country, charm>

2) (der Romanik) Romanesque

* * *

romanisch adj LING etc Romance languages etc; Volk, Land: Latin; KUNST Romanesque

* * *

1) Romance <language, literature>; Latin <people, country, charm>

2) (der Romanik) Romanesque

n. (heathen) god.

* * *

n. pl. [all the Teutonic languages have this word in common; Ulf. guþa, n. pl., Gal. iv. 8; guda, id., John x. 34, 35; and Guþ, m.; A. S. godu, n. pl., and God, m.; O. H. G. Cot: in mod. languages masc.; Engl. God; Germ. Gott; Dan.-Swed. Gud].

A. HISTORICAL REMARKS.—In heathen times this word was neuter, and was used almost exclusively in plur., as were also other words denoting Godhead, e. g. regin or rögn = numina, q. v.; and bönd, höpt, prop. = bonds, and metaph. gods:—this plur. usage seems not to refer to a plurality of gods, but rather, as the Hebrew אלהים, to the majesty and mystery of the Godhead; it points to an earlier and purer faith than that which was current in the later ages of the Scandinavian heathendom; thus the old religious poem Völuspá distinguishes a twofold order of gods,—the heavenly powers (regin or ginn-heilög goð) who had no special names or attributes, and who ruled the world, like the Μοιρα or Αισα of Gr. mythology;—and the common gods who were divided into two tribes, Æsir ( Ases) and Vanir, whose conflict and league are recorded in Vsp. 27, 28, and Edda 47.

II. after the introduction of Christianity, the masculine gender (as in Greek and Latin) superseded the neuter in all Teutonic languages, first in Gothic, then in Old High German and Anglo-Saxon, and lastly in the Scandinavian languages; but neither in Gothic nor in Icel. did the word ever take the masc. inflexive r or s, so that it remains almost unique in form.

2. in Scandinavian the root vowel was altered from o to u (goð to guð), [Swed.-Dan. gud], yet in old poems of the Christian age it is still made to rhyme with o, Goðs, boðnum; Goð, roðnar, Sighvat; as also in the oldest MSS. of the 12th century; sometimes however it is written ḡþ, in which case the root vowel cannot be discerned.

3. in Icel. the pronunciation also underwent a change, and the g in Guð ( God) is now pronounced gw (Gwuð), both in the single word and in those proper names which have become Christian, e. g. Guðmundr pronounced Gwuðmundr, whence the abbreviated form Gvendr or Gvöndr. The old form with o is still retained in obsolete words, as goði, goðorð, vide below, and in local names from the heathen age, as Goð-dalir; so also Gormr (q. v.), which is contracted from Goð-ormr not Guð-ormr. On the other hand, the Saxon and German have kept the root vowel o.

III. in old poems of heathen times it was almost always used without the article; gremdu eigi goð at þér, Ls.; áðr vér heilög goð blótim, Fas. i. (in a verse); ginnheilög Goð, Vsp. passim; goðum ek þat þakka, Am. 53; með goðum, Alm.; in prose, en goð hefna eigi alls þegar, Nj. 132.

2. with the article goð-in, Vsp. 27: freq. in prose, um hvat reiddusk goðin þá er hér brann hraunit er nú stöndu vér á, Bs. i. (Kr. S.) 22; eigi eru undr at goðin reiðisk tölum slíkum, id.; Hallfreðr lastaði eigi goðin, þó aðrir menn hallmælti þeim, Fms. ii. 52; allmikin hug leggr þú á goðin, Fs. 94; eigi munu goðin þessu valda, Nj. 132, passim.

3. very seldom in sing., and only if applied to a single goddess or the like, as Öndor-goðs (gen.), Haustl. 7; Vana-goð, of Freyja, Edda; enu skírleita goði, of the Sun, Gm. 39.

IV. after the introduction of Christianity, the neut. was only used of false gods in sing. as well as in pl., Sólar-goð = Apollo, Orrostu-goð = Mars, Drauma-goð = Morpheus, Bret. (Verel.); and was held up for execration by the missionaries; gör þik eigi svá djarfa, at þú kallir goð hinn hæsta konung er ek trúi á, Fb. i. 371. Yet so strongly did the neut. gender cleave to the popular mind that it remains (Grág. Kb. i. 192) in the oath formula, goð gramt = Goð gramr; and Icel. still say, í Guðanna (pl.) bænum.

2. guðír, masc. pl., as in A. S. gudas, is freq. in eccl. writers, but borrowed from the eccl. Lat.

B. IN COMPDS:

I. with nouns, goða-blót, n. sacrifice to the gods, Fb. i. 35. goða-gremi, f. a term in the heathen oath, wrath of the gods, Eg. 352. goða-heill, f. favour of the gods, Þorst. Síðu H. 9. goða-hús, n. a house of gods, temple, Dropl. 11, Nj. 131, Fb. i. 337. goða-stallar, m. pl. the altar in temples, Fas. i. 454. goða-stúka, u, f. the sanctuary in heathen temples, answering to the choir or sanctuary in churches, Landn. 335 (App.) goða-tala, u, f. in the phrase, í goðatölu, in the tale ( list) of gods, 625. 41. goð-borinn, part. διογενής, god-born, Hkv. 1. 29. goð-brúðr, f. bride of the gods (the goddess Skaði), Edda (in a verse). Goð-dalir, m. pl. a local name, hence Goð-dælir, m. pl. a family, Landn. goð-gá, f. blasphemy against the gods, Nj. 163, Ld. 180. goð-heimr, m. the home of the gods, Stor. 20, cp. Ýt. goð-konungr, m. (cp. Gr. διογενής βασιλεύς), a king,—kings being deemed the offspring of gods, Ýt. goð-kunnigr and goð-kyndr, adj. of the kith of gods, Edda 6, 11, 13. goð-lauss, adj. godless, a nickname, Landn. goð-lax, m. a kind of salmon, Edda (Gl.) goð-leiðr, adj. loathed by the gods, Korm. goð-máligr, adj. skilled in the lore of the gods, Hým. 38. goð-mögn, n. pl. divine powers, deities, Edda 1; biðja til þinna goðmagna, Bret. (Verel.) goð-reið, f. ‘a ride of gods’ through the air, a meteor, thought to forebode great events, Glúm. (in a verse), cp. the Swed. åska. goð-rifi, n. scorn of the gods, Sks. 435. goð-rækr, adj. ‘god-forsaken,’ wicked, 623. 30. goðum-leiðr, adj. = goðleiðr, Landn. (in a verse). goð-vargr, m. a ‘god-worrier,’ sacrilegus, ‘lupus in sanctis,’ Bs. i. 13 (in a verse). goð-vefr, vide guðvefr. goð-vegr, m. the way of the gods, the heaven, the sky, Hdl. 5. Goð-þjóð, f. the abode of the gods, Vsp.:—but Goth. Gut-þjuda = the land of the Goths, by assimilation Goð-þjóð, passim in old poems and the Sagas.

II. with pr. names, originally Goð-, later and mod. Guð-; of men, Guð-brandr, Guð-laugr, Guð-leifr, Guð-mundr, Guð-röðr, Guð-ormr or Gutt-ormr, etc.; of women, Guð-björg, Guð-finna, Guð-laug, Guð-leif, Guð-ný, Guð-ríðr, Guð-rún, etc.; cp. the interesting statement in Eb. (App.) 126 new Ed. (from the Hauks-bók), that men of the olden time used to call their sons and daughters after the gods (Goð-, Þór-, Frey-, Ás-); and it was thought that a double (i. e. a compound) name gave luck and long life, esp. those compounded with the names of gods; menn höfðu mjök þá tvau nöfn, þótti þat likast til langlífis ok heilla, þótt nokkurir fyrirmælti þeim við goðin, þá mundi þat ekki saka, ef þeir ætti eitt nafn, though any one cursed them by the gods it would not hurt if they had ‘one’ name, i. e. if they were the namesakes of the gods, Eb. l. c.;—we read ‘eitt nafn’ for ‘eitt annat nafn’ of the Ed. and MS. In Fb. i. 23, the mythical king Raum is said to have had three sons, Alf, Björn, and Brand; the first was reared by the Finns, and called Finn-Alf; Björn by his mother (a giantess), and called Jötun-Björn; and Brand was given to the gods, and called Goð-Brand (Guð-brandr, whence Guðbrands-dalir, a county in Norway); cp. also Eb. ch. 7.

☞ For the Christian sense of God and its compds vide s. v. Guð.

language.

* * *

► nombre masculino

1 language

■ es imprescindible saber idiomas it's essential to have languages

* * *

* * *

SM language

* * *

masculino language

* * *

= language.

Nota: Sistema de símbolos para la comunicación que consta normalmente de vocabulario y reglas.

Ex. A paraphrase is an interpretation of the concepts featured in a document, written in the language of the writer of the paraphrase.

----

* idioma de intercambio = exchange language.

* idioma nacional = national language.

* laboratorio de idiomas = language lab, language laboratory.

* programa para el aprendizaje de idiomas = language-learning sofware.

* software para el aprendizaje de idiomas = language-learning sofware.

* * *

masculino language

* * *

= language.

Nota: Sistema de símbolos para la comunicación que consta normalmente de vocabulario y reglas.

* * *

language

habla varios idiomas she speaks several languages

está claro que no hablamos el mismo idioma we obviously don't speak the same language o aren't on the same wavelength

modern language

world language, universal language

* * *

* * *

idioma nm

language

* * *

m language

* * *

idioma nm

: language

el idioma inglés: the English language

* * *

idioma n language

Grammatical information: n.

Meaning: `name' (Il.), gramm. `word' (Att.), as part of speech = nomen (Pl., Arist.; beside ῥῆμα = verbum).

Other forms: ep. (also Hdt.) οὔνομα (metr. length.), Aeol. Dor. ὄνυμα; Dor. also ἔνυμα in Ένυμα-κρατίδας, Ένυμαντιάδας (Lac.)?

Compounds: Compp., e.g. ὀνομά-κλυτος `with a famous name' (Χ 51; Schwyzer 440), ἐξ-ονομα-κλήδην, s. v.; ὀνοματο-ποιέω `to give a name, to name' (Arist.), after other compp. with - ποιέω ( ὀνοματο-ποιός Ath., Zos. Alch., - ποιία Str.; cf. Schwyzer 726); ἀν-ώνυμος (θ 552; comp. length.), ν-ώνυμ(ν)ος (ep.; s. below) `nameless'.

Derivatives: A. Nouns: 1. Dimin. ὀνομάτιον (Arr., Longin.); 2. Adj. ὀνοματ-ώδης `of the nature of a name, concerning the name' (Arist.), - ικός `belonging to the ὄνομα' (D. H.). B. Verbs: 1. ὀνο-μαίνω, almost only aor. ὀνομῆναι, also w. ἐξ-, (mostly ep. Il.), fut. ο(ὑ)νομανέω (Hdt.), pres. (Dor.) ὀνυμαίνω (Gortyn, Ti. Locr.) `to call, to proclaim'. 2. ὀνομάζω, Dor. Aeol. ὀνυμάζω, aor. ὀνομάσαι, ὀνυμάξαι, often w. prefix, e.g. ἐξ-, ἐπ-, κατ-, παρ-, μετ-, `to call (by the name), to name, to enunciate' (cf. Jacobsohn KZ 62, 132 ff.) with ὀνομασία f. `name, expression' (Hippias Soph., Pl., Arist.), ὀνομαστής m. = Lat. nominator (pap. III <sup>p</sup>), ὀνομ-αστί (- εί) `namely, by name' (IA.; Schwyzer 623), - αστικός `serving for, belonging to naming' (Pl.; Chantraine Études 132), ἡ -ικη(πτῶσις) `casus nominativus' (Str., gramm.). 3. ὀνοματίζω 'dispute about names' (Gal.), - ισμός m. `list of names' (inscr. Thess.).

Origin: IE [Indo-European] [321] *h₃neh₃m-n̥, * h₃nh₃m-n- `name'

Etymology: Old word for `name', with Arm. anun \< * onomn- \< * anomn- (with o \> u before m) to be immediately compared; anun can be both * h₃nh₃mn and * h₃neh₃mn; the Greek word must have zero grade, * h₃nh₃mn. Also Phrygian ονομαν may have ο- from * h₃- (Kortlandt SCauc. 7(1987)63). The e elsewhere has diff. origin; Alb. emër (Geg.), êmën (Tosc.) may be a loan from Latin nōmen; for OPr. emmens m. see below on Slavic; the Greek ἐ- is not well explained, but it may be due to dissim. against the following o \< h₃; cf. below on Tocharian; the Greek u-vowel, also in ὄνυμα, ἀνώνυ-μος a.o., is due to assimilation (cf. Schwyzer 352 with several hypotheses). The other languages have one of the two ablaut-grades: Lat. nōmen = Skt. nā́ma, IE *h₃neh₃mn̥, Germ., e.g. Goth. namo n., IE * nh₃mōn-; OFr. nōmia, MHG be-nuomen, Dutch be-noemen (which is an every-day word) have * h₃neh₃m- again (Beekes, Sprache 33 (1987) 1ff. Diff. again Slav., e.g. OCS imę (\< *h₃n̥h₃m-), Celt., e.g. OIr. ainm (from * anmen- \< *h₃n̥m-), Toch. B ñem, A ñom (from *nēm-with h₁ from dissim. of the second h₃?; s. v. Windekens Orbis 11,607 w. lit.). Most complicated is Anatolian: Hitt. lāman- n. (\< * h₃neh₃m- like Latin), with l- from dissim. and loss of the h₃-; lamnii̯a- `name' from * h₃nh₃m-; but Hier. Luw. adama(n)-za with a- from h₃. With ὀνομαίνω agree in formation Germ., e.g. Goth. namnjan `name', Hitt. lamnii̯a- `id.' (cf. also Schwyzer Mél. Pedersen 65 on ὀνομ-αίνω, - άζω). The orig. n-stem still clearly seen in νώνυμν-ος \< *n̥-h₃nh₃mn-; younger is ἀνὼνυμος. -- Details from several languages w. lit. in WP. 1, 132, Pok. 321, W.-Hofmann and Ernout-Meillet s. nōmen, Mayrhofer s. nā́ma, Vasmer s. ímja etc. Cf. on ὄνομαι.

Page in Frisk: 2,396-397

Castilian.

1 Spanish language, Castilian, Spanish, standard form of the Spanish language as spoken in Spain.

2 Castilian, native or inhabitant of Castile.

* * *

► adjetivo

1 Castilian

► nombre masculino,nombre femenino

1 (persona) Castilian

► nombre masculino castellano

1 (idioma) Castilian, Spanish

► nombre masculino

1 (idioma) Castilian, Spanish

* * *

ADJ (Pol) Castilian; (Ling) Spanish

SM / F Castilian

SM (Ling) Castilian, Spanish

* * *

- na adjetivo ( de Castilla) Castilian; ( español) Spanish

- na masculino, femenino

1) ( persona) Castilian

2) castellano masculino ( idioma - de Castilla) Castilian; (- español) Spanish

* * *

- na adjetivo ( de Castilla) Castilian; ( español) Spanish

- na masculino, femenino

1) ( persona) Castilian

2) castellano masculino ( idioma - de Castilla) Castilian; (- español) Spanish

* * *

castellano¹ -na castellano (↑ castellano a1)

(de Castilla) Castilian; (español) Spanish

1 (persona) Castilian

castellano masculine (idioma — de Castilla) Castilian; (— español) Spanish

castellano (↑ castellano a1)

In Spain the term castellano, rather than español, refers to the Spanish language as opposed to Catalan, Basque etc. The choice of word has political overtones: castellano has separatist connotations and español is considered centralist. In Latin America castellano is the usual term for Spanish.

* * *

◊ -na adjetivo ( de Castilla) Castilian;

* * *

♦ adj

Castilian

♦ nm,f

♦ nm

las variedades del castellano habladas en América the varieties of Spanish spoken in Latin America

Castellano (Castilian) is the official term for Spanish used in the Spanish Constitution of 1978, but “español” (Spanish) and “lengua española” (Spanish language) are often used when referring to Spanish as opposed to French, Italian or German, and also in linguistic or academic contexts. Elsewhere, the term “español” is often avoided because of its associations either with the former colonizing country (in the case of Latin America) or (in Spain) with the domination of Spanish over the other languages spoken in Spain (principally Catalan, Basque and Galician), especially as practised during the Bourbon monarchy in the 18th and 19th centuries and under Franco's dictatorship (1939-75).

* * *

I adj Castilian

II m (Castilian) Spanish

III m, castellana f Castilian

* * *

castellano, -na adj & n

: Castilian

castellano nm

español: Spanish, Castilian (language)

* * *

castellano¹ adj Castilian

castellano² n

1. (persona) Castilian

2. (idioma) Castilian / Spanish

D, d (n. indecl., sometimes f. sc. littera), the flat dental mute, corresponding in character and sound to the English d and the Greek D, was the fourth letter of the Latin alphabet, and was called de: Ter. Maur. p. 2385 P., Auson. Idyll. 12, de Litt. Monos. 14. But at the end of a syllable, or after another consonant, its sound was sharpened, so that the grammarians often discuss the question whether d or t should be written, especially in conjunctions and prepositions. Illa quoque servata est a multis differentia, ut ad cum esset praepositio, d litteram, cum autem conjunctio, t acciperet (Quint. 1, 7, 5; cf. id. 1, 4, 16). Hence we may infer that some disputed this distinction, and that the sounds of ad and at must at least have been very similar (cf. also Terent. Scaur. p. 2250, Vel. Long. p. 2230 sq., Cassiod. p. 2287, 2291). Thus also aput, it, quit, quot, aliut, set, haut are found for apud, id, quid, quod, aliud, sed, haud. It would appear from the remarks of these authors that the last two words in particular, having a proclitic character, while they distinctly retained the d sound before an initial vowel in the following word, were pronounced before a consonant almost as set, haut (Mar. Vict. p. 2462 P., Vel. Long. l. l. v. Corss. Ausspr. 1, 191 sq.). The use of t for d in the middle of a word, as Alexenter for Alexander, atnato for adnato, is very rare (cf. Wordsworth, Fragm. p. 486 sq.). On the other hand, the use of d for t, which sometimes appears in MSS. and inscrr., as ed, capud, essed, inquid (all of which occur in the Cod. palimps. of Cic. Rep.), adque, quodannis, sicud, etc., fecid, reliquid, etc. (all in inscriptions after the Augustan period), is to be ascribed to a later phonetic softening (cf. Corss. Ausspr. 1, 191 sq.).

As an initial, the letter d, in pure Latin words, suffers only a vowel after it; the single consonantal compound dr being found only in borrowed words, such as drama, Drusus, Druidae, etc., and in the two onomatopees drenso and drindio. Accordingly, the d of the initial dv, from du, was rejected, and the remaining v either retained unaltered (as in v iginti for du iginti; cf. triginta) or changed into b (as in b ellum, b is, b onus, for du ellum, du is, du onus; v. those words and the letter B). So too in and after the 4th century A.D., di before vowels was pronounced like j (cf. J ovis for Dj ovis, and J anus for Di anus); and hence, as the Greek di ( di) passed into dz, i. e. z (as in z a for d ia, and z eta for di aeta), we sometimes find the same name written in two or three ways, as Diabolenus, Jabolenus, Zabolenus; Jadera, Diadora, Zara. In many Greek words, however, which originally began with a y sound, d was prefixed by an instinctive effort to avoid a disagreeable utterance, just as in English the initial j has regularly assumed the sound of dj: thus Gr. zugon, i. e. diugon = L. jugum; and in such cases the d sound has been prefixed in Greek, not lost in Latin and other languages (v. Curt. Griech. Etym. p. 608 sq.).b. As a medial, d before most consonants undergoes assimilation; v. ad, no. II.; assum, init., and cf. iccirco, quippiam, quicquam, for idcirco, quidpiam, quidquam; and in contractions like cette from cedite, pelluviae from pediluviae, sella from sedela. In contractions, however, the d is sometimes dropped and a compensation effected by lengthening the preceding vowel, as scāla for scand-la. D before endings which begin with s was suppressed, as pes from ped-s, lapis from lapid-s, frons from frond-s, rasi from radsi, risi from rid-si, lusi from lud-si, clausi from claud-si; but in the second and third roots of cedo, and in the third roots of some other verbs, d is assimilated, as cessi, cessum, fossum, etc. D is also omitted before s in composition when another consonant follows the s, as ascendo, aspicio, asto, astringo, and so also before the nasal gn in agnatus, agnitus, and agnosco, from gnatus, etc.: but in other combinations it is assimilated, as assentio, acclamo, accresco; affligo, affrico; agglomero, aggrego; applico, approbo, etc. In tentum, from tendo, d is dropped to avoid the combination ndt or ntt, since euphony forbids a consonant to be doubled after another.g. Final d stood only in ad, apud, sed, and in the neuter pronouns quid, quod, illud, istud, and aliud, anciently alid. Otherwise, the ending d was considered barbarous, Prisc. p. 686 P.

The letter d represents regularly an original Indo-Germanic d, in Greek d, but which in German becomes z, in Gothic t, and in Anglo-Saxon t: cf. Gr. hêdomai, Sanscr. svad, Germ. süss, Angl.-Sax. svēte (sweet), with Lat. suadeo; domare with Gr. damaô, Germ. zähmen, Eng. tame; domus with demô, timber, O. H. Germ. zimber; duo with duô, zwei, two. But it is also interchanged with other sounds, and thus sometimes represents—

An original t: mendax from mentior; quadraginta, quadra, etc., from quatuor.—

An original r: ar and ad; apur or apor and apud; meridies and medidies, audio and auris; cf. arbiter, from ad-beto; arcesso for ad-cesso.—

An original l: adeps, Gr. aleipha; dacrima and lacrima, dingua and lingua; cf. on the contrary, olere for odere, consilium and considere, Ulixes from Odusseus (v. Corss. Ausspr. 1, 223).—

An original s: Claudius, from the Sabine Clausus, medius and misos; and, on the contrary, rosa and rhodon. —

A Greek th: fides, pistis; gaudere, gêtheô; vad-i-monium (from va-d-s, vadis), aethlon.

In the oldest period of the language d was the ending of the ablat. sing. and of the adverbs which were originally ablatives (cf. Ritschl, Neue Plaut. Excur. I.; Brix ad Plaut. Trin. Prol. 10): pu CNANDO, MARID, DICTATORED, IN ALTOD MARID, NAVALED PRAEDAD on the Col. Rostr.; DE SENATVOS SENTENTIAD (thrice) IN OQVOLTOD, IN POPLICOD, IN PREIVATOD, IN COVENTIONID, and the adverbs SVPRAD SCRIPTVM EST (thrice), EXSTRAD QVAM SEI, and even EXSTRAD VRBEM, in S. C. de Bacch. So intra-d, ultra-d, citra-d, contra-d, infra-d, supra-d; contro-d, intro-d, etc.; and probably interea-d, postea-d. Here too belongs, no doubt, the adverb FACILVMED, found in the last-mentioned inscription. But this use of the d became antiquated during the 3d century B.C., and is not found at all in any inscription after 186 B. C. Plautus seems to have used or omitted it at will (Ritschl, Neue Plaut. Excurs. p. 18: Corss. Ausspr. 1, 197; 2, 1008).

D final was also anciently found—

In the accus. sing. of the personal pronouns med, ted, sed: INTER SED CONIOVRASE and INTER SED DEDISE, for inter se conjuravisse and inter se dedisse, in the S. C. de Bacch. This usage was retained, at least as a license of verse, when the next word began with a vowel, even in the time of Plautus. But in the classic period this d no longer appears. —

In the imperative mood;

as estod,

Fest. p. 230. The Oscan language retained this ending (v. Corss. Ausspr. 1, 206).—

In the preposition se-, originally identical with the conjunction sed (it is retained in the compound seditio); also in red-, prod-, antid-, postid-, etc. ( redire, prodire, etc.); and in these words, too, it is a remnant of the ancient characteristic of the ablative (v. Corss. Ausspr. 1, 200 sq.; Roby, Lat. Gr. 1, 49).

As an abbreviation, D usually stands for the praenomen Decimus; also for Deus, Divus, Dominus, Decurio, etc.; over epitaphs, D. M. = Diis Manibus; over temple inscriptions, D. O. M. = Deo Optimo Maxumo; in the titles of the later emperors, D. N. = Dominus Noster, and DD. NN. = Domini Nostri. Before dates of letters, D signified dabam, and also dies; hence, a. d. = ante diem; in offerings to the gods, D. D. = dono or donum dedit; D. D. D. = dat, dicat, dedicat, etc. Cf. Orell. Inscr. II. p. 457 sq.

D, d (n. indecl., sometimes f. sc. littera), the flat dental mute, corresponding in character and sound to the English d and the Greek D, was the fourth letter of the Latin alphabet, and was called de: Ter. Maur. p. 2385 P., Auson. Idyll. 12, de Litt. Monos. 14. But at the end of a syllable, or after another consonant, its sound was sharpened, so that the grammarians often discuss the question whether d or t should be written, especially in conjunctions and prepositions. Illa quoque servata est a multis differentia, ut ad cum esset praepositio, d litteram, cum autem conjunctio, t acciperet (Quint. 1, 7, 5; cf. id. 1, 4, 16). Hence we may infer that some disputed this distinction, and that the sounds of ad and at must at least have been very similar (cf. also Terent. Scaur. p. 2250, Vel. Long. p. 2230 sq., Cassiod. p. 2287, 2291). Thus also aput, it, quit, quot, aliut, set, haut are found for apud, id, quid, quod, aliud, sed, haud. It would appear from the remarks of these authors that the last two words in particular, having a proclitic character, while they distinctly retained the d sound before an initial vowel in the following word, were pronounced before a consonant almost as set, haut (Mar. Vict. p. 2462 P., Vel. Long. l. l. v. Corss. Ausspr. 1, 191 sq.). The use of t for d in the middle of a word, as Alexenter for Alexander, atnato for adnato, is very rare (cf. Wordsworth, Fragm. p. 486 sq.). On the other hand, the use of d for t, which sometimes appears in MSS. and inscrr., as ed, capud, essed, inquid (all of which occur in the Cod. palimps. of Cic. Rep.), adque, quodannis, sicud, etc., fecid, reliquid, etc. (all in inscriptions after the Augustan period), is to be ascribed to a later phonetic softening (cf. Corss. Ausspr. 1, 191 sq.).

As an initial, the letter d, in pure Latin words, suffers only a vowel after it; the single consonantal compound dr being found only in borrowed words, such as drama, Drusus, Druidae, etc., and in the two onomatopees drenso and drindio. Accordingly, the d of the initial dv, from du, was rejected, and the remaining v either retained unaltered (as in v iginti for du iginti; cf. triginta) or changed into b (as in b ellum, b is, b onus, for du ellum, du is, du onus; v. those words and the letter B). So too in and after the 4th century A.D., di before vowels was pronounced like j (cf. J ovis for Dj ovis, and J anus for Di anus); and hence, as the Greek di ( di) passed into dz, i. e. z (as in z a for d ia, and z eta for di aeta), we sometimes find the same name written in two or three ways, as Diabolenus, Jabolenus, Zabolenus; Jadera, Diadora, Zara. In many Greek words, however, which originally began with a y sound, d was prefixed by an instinctive effort to avoid a disagreeable utterance, just as in English the initial j has regularly assumed the sound of dj: thus Gr. zugon, i. e. diugon = L. jugum; and in such cases the d sound has been prefixed in Greek, not lost in Latin and other languages (v. Curt. Griech. Etym. p. 608 sq.).b. As a medial, d before most consonants undergoes assimilation; v. ad, no. II.; assum, init., and cf. iccirco, quippiam, quicquam, for idcirco, quidpiam, quidquam; and in contractions like cette from cedite, pelluviae from pediluviae, sella from sedela. In contractions, however, the d is sometimes dropped and a compensation effected by lengthening the preceding vowel, as scāla for scand-la. D before endings which begin with s was suppressed, as pes from ped-s, lapis from lapid-s, frons from frond-s, rasi from radsi, risi from rid-si, lusi from lud-si, clausi from claud-si; but in the second and third roots of cedo, and in the third roots of some other verbs, d is assimilated, as cessi, cessum, fossum, etc. D is also omitted before s in composition when another consonant follows the s, as ascendo, aspicio, asto, astringo, and so also before the nasal gn in agnatus, agnitus, and agnosco, from gnatus, etc.: but in other combinations it is assimilated, as assentio, acclamo, accresco; affligo, affrico; agglomero, aggrego; applico, approbo, etc. In tentum, from tendo, d is dropped to avoid the combination ndt or ntt, since euphony forbids a consonant to be doubled after another.g. Final d stood only in ad, apud, sed, and in the neuter pronouns quid, quod, illud, istud, and aliud, anciently alid. Otherwise, the ending d was considered barbarous, Prisc. p. 686 P.

The letter d represents regularly an original Indo-Germanic d, in Greek d, but which in German becomes z, in Gothic t, and in Anglo-Saxon t: cf. Gr. hêdomai, Sanscr. svad, Germ. süss, Angl.-Sax. svēte (sweet), with Lat. suadeo; domare with Gr. damaô, Germ. zähmen, Eng. tame; domus with demô, timber, O. H. Germ. zimber; duo with duô, zwei, two. But it is also interchanged with other sounds, and thus sometimes represents—

An original t: mendax from mentior; quadraginta, quadra, etc., from quatuor.—

An original r: ar and ad; apur or apor and apud; meridies and medidies, audio and auris; cf. arbiter, from ad-beto; arcesso for ad-cesso.—

An original l: adeps, Gr. aleipha; dacrima and lacrima, dingua and lingua; cf. on the contrary, olere for odere, consilium and considere, Ulixes from Odusseus (v. Corss. Ausspr. 1, 223).—

An original s: Claudius, from the Sabine Clausus, medius and misos; and, on the contrary, rosa and rhodon. —

A Greek th: fides, pistis; gaudere, gêtheô; vad-i-monium (from va-d-s, vadis), aethlon.

In the oldest period of the language d was the ending of the ablat. sing. and of the adverbs which were originally ablatives (cf. Ritschl, Neue Plaut. Excur. I.; Brix ad Plaut. Trin. Prol. 10): pu CNANDO, MARID, DICTATORED, IN ALTOD MARID, NAVALED PRAEDAD on the Col. Rostr.; DE SENATVOS SENTENTIAD (thrice) IN OQVOLTOD, IN POPLICOD, IN PREIVATOD, IN COVENTIONID, and the adverbs SVPRAD SCRIPTVM EST (thrice), EXSTRAD QVAM SEI, and even EXSTRAD VRBEM, in S. C. de Bacch. So intra-d, ultra-d, citra-d, contra-d, infra-d, supra-d; contro-d, intro-d, etc.; and probably interea-d, postea-d. Here too belongs, no doubt, the adverb FACILVMED, found in the last-mentioned inscription. But this use of the d became antiquated during the 3d century B.C., and is not found at all in any inscription after 186 B. C. Plautus seems to have used or omitted it at will (Ritschl, Neue Plaut. Excurs. p. 18: Corss. Ausspr. 1, 197; 2, 1008).

D final was also anciently found—

In the accus. sing. of the personal pronouns med, ted, sed: INTER SED CONIOVRASE and INTER SED DEDISE, for inter se conjuravisse and inter se dedisse, in the S. C. de Bacch. This usage was retained, at least as a license of verse, when the next word began with a vowel, even in the time of Plautus. But in the classic period this d no longer appears. —

In the imperative mood;

as estod,

Fest. p. 230. The Oscan language retained this ending (v. Corss. Ausspr. 1, 206).—

In the preposition se-, originally identical with the conjunction sed (it is retained in the compound seditio); also in red-, prod-, antid-, postid-, etc. ( redire, prodire, etc.); and in these words, too, it is a remnant of the ancient characteristic of the ablative (v. Corss. Ausspr. 1, 200 sq.; Roby, Lat. Gr. 1, 49).

As an abbreviation, D usually stands for the praenomen Decimus; also for Deus, Divus, Dominus, Decurio, etc.; over epitaphs, D. M. = Diis Manibus; over temple inscriptions, D. O. M. = Deo Optimo Maxumo; in the titles of the later emperors, D. N. = Dominus Noster, and DD. NN. = Domini Nostri. Before dates of letters, D signified dabam, and also dies; hence, a. d. = ante diem; in offerings to the gods, D. D. = dono or donum dedit; D. D. D. = dat, dicat, dedicat, etc. Cf. Orell. Inscr. II. p. 457 sq.

   By 2009, the Portuguese language was spoken by more than 210 million people and the number of Portuguese-speakers exceeded the number of French-speakers in the world. Seven countries have Portuguese as the official language, Portugal, Brazil, Cape Verde Islands, Guinea- Bissau, São Tomé and Príncipe Islands, Angola, and Mozambique. Overseas Portuguese, who number 4 million, reside in another two dozen countries and continue to speak Portuguese. There are distinct differences between Brazilian and Continental (Portugal) Portuguese in spelling, pronunciation, syntax, and grammar, but both versions comprise the same language.

   Next to Rumanian, Portuguese is the closest of the Romance languages to old Latin. Like Gallician, to which it is intimately linked as a colanguage, Portuguese is an outgrowth of Latin as spoken in ancient Hispanica. It began to appear as a distinct language separate from Latin and Castilian in the ninth century, and historic Portuguese made its full appearance during the 12th and 13th centuries. Major changes in the language came under the influence of Castilian in the ninth and 16th centuries, and there was a Castilianization of Portuguese culture during the 1580-1640 era of Spanish rule of Portugal and its empire.

   The cultural aspects of Portugal reasserting her sovereignty and restoring national independence was a reaction against Castile and Castilianization. In language, this meant that Portugal opened itself to foreign, but non-Hispanic influences. In the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, French culture and French language became major influences enriching the Portuguese language. In international politics, there continued the impact of the Anglo- Portuguese Alliance, a connection that has been less cultural than political and economic. For all the centuries of English influence in Portugal since the late 14th century, it is interesting how little cultural influence occurred, at least until recently, and how relatively few words from English have entered the language. With the globalization of English, this began to change in the late 20th century, but there remain many more loan words from Arabic, French, and Italian.

 ■ Aitchison, J. (1987). Noam Chomsky: Consensus and controversy. New York: Falmer Press.

 ■ Anderson, J. R. (1980). Cognitive psychology and its implications. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

 ■ Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

 ■ Anderson, J. R. (1995). Cognitive psychology and its implications (4th ed.). New York: W. H. Freeman.

 ■ Archilochus (1971). In M. L. West (Ed.), Iambi et elegi graeci (Vol. 1). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 ■ Armstrong, D. M. (1990). The causal theory of the mind. In W. G. Lycan (Ed.), Mind and cognition: A reader (pp. 37-47). Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell. (Originally published in 1981 in The nature of mind and other essays, Ithaca, NY: University Press).

 ■ Atkins, P. W. (1992). Creation revisited. Oxford: W. H. Freeman & Company.

 ■ Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

 ■ Bacon, F. (1878). Of the proficience and advancement of learning divine and human. In The works of Francis Bacon (Vol. 1). Cambridge, MA: Hurd & Houghton.

 ■ Bacon, R. (1928). Opus majus (Vol. 2). R. B. Burke (Trans.). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

 ■ Bar-Hillel, Y. (1960). The present status of automatic translation of languages. In F. L. Alt (Ed.), Advances in computers (Vol. 1). New York: Academic Press.

 ■ Barr, A., & E. A. Feigenbaum (Eds.) (1981). The handbook of artificial intelligence (Vol. 1). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

 ■ Barr, A., & E. A. Feigenbaum (Eds.) (1982). The handbook of artificial intelligence (Vol. 2). Los Altos, CA: William Kaufman.

 ■ Barron, F. X. (1963). The needs for order and for disorder as motives in creative activity. In C. W. Taylor & F. X. Barron (Eds.), Scientific creativity: Its rec ognition and development (pp. 153-160). New York: Wiley.

 ■ Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 ■ Bartley, S. H. (1969). Principles of perception. London: Harper & Row.

 ■ Barzun, J. (1959). The house of intellect. New York: Harper & Row.

 ■ Beach, F. A., D. O. Hebb, C. T. Morgan & H. W. Nissen (Eds.) (1960). The neu ropsychology of Lashley. New York: McGraw-Hill.

 ■ Berkeley, G. (1996). Principles of human knowledge: Three Dialogues. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Originally published in 1710.)

 ■ Berlin, I. (1953). The hedgehog and the fox: An essay on Tolstoy's view of history. NY: Simon & Schuster.

 ■ Bierwisch, J. (1970). Semantics. In J. Lyons (Ed.), New horizons in linguistics. Baltimore: Penguin Books.

 ■ Black, H. C. (1951). Black's law dictionary. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.

 ■ Bloom, A. (1981). The linguistic shaping of thought: A study in the impact of language on thinking in China and the West. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

 ■ Bobrow, D. G., & D. A. Norman (1975). Some principles of memory schemata. In D. G. Bobrow & A. Collins (Eds.), Representation and understanding: Stud ies in Cognitive Science (pp. 131-149). New York: Academic Press.

 ■ Boden, M. A. (1977). Artificial intelligence and natural man. New York: Basic Books.

 ■ Boden, M. A. (1981). Minds and mechanisms. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

 ■ Boden, M. A. (1990a). The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms. London: Cardinal.

 ■ Boden, M. A. (1990b). The philosophy of artificial intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 ■ Boden, M. A. (1994). Precis of The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms. Behavioral and brain sciences 17, 519-570.

 ■ Boden, M. (1996). Creativity. In M. Boden (Ed.), Artificial Intelligence (2nd ed.). San Diego: Academic Press.

 ■ Bolter, J. D. (1984). Turing's man: Western culture in the computer age. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

 ■ Bolton, N. (1972). The psychology of thinking. London: Methuen.

 ■ Bourne, L. E. (1973). Some forms of cognition: A critical analysis of several papers. In R. Solso (Ed.), Contemporary issues in cognitive psychology (pp. 313324). Loyola Symposium on Cognitive Psychology (Chicago 1972). Washington, DC: Winston.

 ■ Bransford, J. D., N. S. McCarrell, J. J. Franks & K. E. Nitsch (1977). Toward unexplaining memory. In R. Shaw & J. D. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing (pp. 431-466). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

 ■ Breger, L. (1981). Freud's unfinished journey. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

 ■ Brehmer, B. (1986). In one word: Not from experience. In H. R. Arkes & K. Hammond (Eds.), Judgment and decision making: An interdisciplinary reader (pp. 705-719). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 ■ Bresnan, J. (1978). A realistic transformational grammar. In M. Halle, J. Bresnan & G. A. Miller (Eds.), Linguistic theory and psychological reality (pp. 1-59). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

 ■ Brislin, R. W., W. J. Lonner & R. M. Thorndike (Eds.) (1973). Cross- cultural research methods. New York: Wiley.

 ■ Bronowski, J. (1977). A sense of the future: Essays in natural philosophy. P. E. Ariotti with R. Bronowski (Eds.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

 ■ Bronowski, J. (1978). The origins of knowledge and imagination. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

 ■ Brown, R. O. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

 ■ Brown, T. (1970). Lectures on the philosophy of the human mind. In R. Brown (Ed.), Between Hume and Mill: An anthology of British philosophy- 1749- 1843 (pp. 330-387). New York: Random House/Modern Library.

 ■ Bruner, J. S., J. Goodnow & G. Austin (1956). A study of thinking. New York: Wiley.

 ■ Calvin, W. H. (1990). The cerebral symphony: Seashore reflections on the structure of consciousness. New York: Bantam.

 ■ Campbell, J. (1982). Grammatical man: Information, entropy, language, and life. New York: Simon & Schuster.

 ■ Campbell, J. (1989). The improbable machine. New York: Simon & Schuster.

 ■ Carlyle, T. (1966). On heroes, hero- worship and the heroic in history. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. (Originally published in 1841.)

 ■ Carnap, R. (1959). The elimination of metaphysics through logical analysis of language [Ueberwindung der Metaphysik durch logische Analyse der Sprache]. In A. J. Ayer (Ed.), Logical positivism (pp. 60-81) A. Pap (Trans). New York: Free Press. (Originally published in 1932.)

 ■ Cassirer, E. (1946). Language and myth. New York: Harper and Brothers. Reprinted. New York: Dover Publications, 1953.

 ■ Cattell, R. B., & H. J. Butcher (1970). Creativity and personality. In P. E. Vernon (Ed.), Creativity. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books.

 ■ Caudill, M., & C. Butler (1990). Naturally intelligent systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.

 ■ Chandrasekaran, B. (1990). What kind of information processing is intelligence? A perspective on AI paradigms and a proposal. In D. Partridge & R. Wilks (Eds.), The foundations of artificial intelligence: A sourcebook (pp. 14-46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 ■ Charniak, E., & McDermott, D. (1985). Introduction to artificial intelligence. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

 ■ Chase, W. G., & H. A. Simon (1988). The mind's eye in chess. In A. Collins & E. E. Smith (Eds.), Readings in cognitive science: A perspective from psychology and artificial intelligence (pp. 461-493). San Mateo, CA: Kaufmann.

 ■ Cheney, D. L., & R. M. Seyfarth (1990). How monkeys see the world: Inside the mind of another species. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

 ■ Chi, M.T.H., R. Glaser & E. Rees (1982). Expertise in problem solving. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (pp. 7-73). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

 ■ Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton. Janua Linguarum.

 ■ Chomsky, N. (1964). A transformational approach to syntax. In J. A. Fodor & J. J. Katz (Eds.), The structure of language: Readings in the philosophy of lan guage (pp. 211-245). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

 ■ Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

 ■ Chomsky, N. (1972). Language and mind (enlarged ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

 ■ Chomsky, N. (1979). Language and responsibility. New York: Pantheon.

 ■ Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin and use. New York: Praeger Special Studies.

 ■ Churchland, P. (1979). Scientific realism and the plasticity of mind. New York: Cambridge University Press.

 ■ Churchland, P. M. (1989). A neurocomputational perspective: The nature of mind and the structure of science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

 ■ Churchland, P. S. (1986). Neurophilosophy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.

 ■ Clark, A. (1996). Philosophical Foundations. In M. A. Boden (Ed.), Artificial in telligence (2nd ed.). San Diego: Academic Press.

 ■ Clark, H. H., & T. B. Carlson (1981). Context for comprehension. In J. Long & A. Baddeley (Eds.), Attention and performance (Vol. 9, pp. 313-330). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

 ■ Clarke, A. C. (1984). Profiles of the future: An inquiry into the limits of the possible. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

 ■ Claxton, G. (1980). Cognitive psychology: A suitable case for what sort of treatment? In G. Claxton (Ed.), Cognitive psychology: New directions (pp. 1-25). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

 ■ Code, M. (1985). Order and organism. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

 ■ Collingwood, R. G. (1972). The idea of history. New York: Oxford University Press.

 ■ Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of self- esteem. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

 ■ Copland, A. (1952). Music and imagination. London: Oxford University Press.

 ■ Coren, S. (1994). The intelligence of dogs. New York: Bantam Books.

 ■ Cottingham, J. (Ed.) (1996). Western philosophy: An anthology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

 ■ Cox, C. (1926). The early mental traits of three hundred geniuses. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

 ■ Craik, K.J.W. (1943). The nature of explanation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 ■ Cronbach, L. J. (1990). Essentials of psychological testing (5th ed.). New York: HarperCollins.

 ■ Cronbach, L. J., & R. E. Snow (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods. New York: Irvington. Paperback edition, 1981.

 ■ Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1993). The evolving self. New York: Harper Perennial.

 ■ Culler, J. (1976). Ferdinand de Saussure. New York: Penguin Books.

 ■ Curtius, E. R. (1973). European literature and the Latin Middle Ages. W. R. Trask (Trans.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

 ■ D'Alembert, J.L.R. (1963). Preliminary discourse to the encyclopedia of Diderot. R. N. Schwab (Trans.). Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.

 ■ Damasio, A. (1994). Descartes' error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York: Avon.

 ■ Dampier, W. C. (1966). A history of modern science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 ■ Darwin, C. (1911). The life and letters of Charles Darwin (Vol. 1). Francis Darwin (Ed.). New York: Appleton.

 ■ Davidson, D. (1970) Mental events. In L. Foster & J. W. Swanson (Eds.), Experience and theory (pp. 79-101). Amherst: University of Massachussetts Press.

 ■ Davies, P. (1995). About time: Einstein's unfinished revolution. New York: Simon & Schuster/Touchstone.

 ■ Davis, R., & J. J. King (1977). An overview of production systems. In E. Elcock & D. Michie (Eds.), Machine intelligence 8. Chichester, England: Ellis Horwood.

 ■ Davis, R., & D. B. Lenat (1982). Knowledge- based systems in artificial intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.

 ■ Dawkins, R. (1982). The extended phenotype: The gene as the unit of selection. Oxford: W. H. Freeman.

 ■ deKleer, J., & J. S. Brown (1983). Assumptions and ambiguities in mechanistic mental models (1983). In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental modes (pp. 155-190). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

 ■ Dennett, D. C. (1978a). Brainstorms: Philosophical essays on mind and psychology. Montgomery, VT: Bradford Books.

 ■ Dennett, D. C. (1978b). Toward a cognitive theory of consciousness. In D. C. Dennett, Brainstorms: Philosophical Essays on Mind and Psychology. Montgomery, VT: Bradford Books.

 ■ Dennett, D. C. (1995). Darwin's dangerous idea: Evolution and the meanings of life. New York: Simon & Schuster/Touchstone.

 ■ Descartes, R. (1897-1910). Traite de l'homme. In Oeuvres de Descartes (Vol. 11, pp. 119-215). Paris: Charles Adam & Paul Tannery. (Originally published in 1634.)

 ■ Descartes, R. (1950). Discourse on method. L. J. Lafleur (Trans.). New York: Liberal Arts Press. (Originally published in 1637.)

 ■ Descartes, R. (1951). Meditation on first philosophy. L. J. Lafleur (Trans.). New York: Liberal Arts Press. (Originally published in 1641.)

 ■ Descartes, R. (1955). The philosophical works of Descartes. E. S. Haldane and G.R.T. Ross (Trans.). New York: Dover. (Originally published in 1911 by Cambridge University Press.)

 ■ Descartes, R. (1967). Discourse on method (Pt. V). In E. S. Haldane and G.R.T. Ross (Eds.), The philosophical works of Descartes (Vol. 1, pp. 106-118). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Originally published in 1637.)

 ■ Descartes, R. (1970a). Discourse on method. In E. S. Haldane & G.R.T. Ross (Eds.), The philosophical works of Descartes (Vol. 1, pp. 181-200). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Originally published in 1637.)

 ■ Descartes, R. (1970b). Principles of philosophy. In E. S. Haldane & G.R.T. Ross (Eds.), The philosophical works of Descartes (Vol. 1, pp. 178-291). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Originally published in 1644.)

 ■ Descartes, R. (1984). Meditations on first philosophy. In J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff & D. Murduch (Trans.), The philosophical works of Descartes (Vol. 2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Originally published in 1641.)

 ■ Descartes, R. (1986). Meditations on first philosophy. J. Cottingham (Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Originally published in 1641 as Med itationes de prima philosophia.)

 ■ deWulf, M. (1956). An introduction to scholastic philosophy. Mineola, NY: Dover Books.

 ■ Dixon, N. F. (1981). Preconscious processing. London: Wiley.

 ■ Doyle, A. C. (1986). The Boscombe Valley mystery. In Sherlock Holmes: The com plete novels and stories (Vol. 1). New York: Bantam.

 ■ Dreyfus, H., & S. Dreyfus (1986). Mind over machine. New York: Free Press.

 ■ Dreyfus, H. L. (1972). What computers can't do: The limits of artificial intelligence (revised ed.). New York: Harper & Row.

 ■ Dreyfus, H. L., & S. E. Dreyfus (1986). Mind over machine: The power of human intuition and expertise in the era of the computer. New York: Free Press.

 ■ Edelman, G. M. (1992). Bright air, brilliant fire: On the matter of the mind. New York: Basic Books.

 ■ Ehrenzweig, A. (1967). The hidden order of art. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

 ■ Einstein, A., & L. Infeld (1938). The evolution of physics. New York: Simon & Schuster.

 ■ Eisenstein, S. (1947). Film sense. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.

 ■ Everdell, W. R. (1997). The first moderns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

 ■ Eysenck, M. W. (1977). Human memory: Theory, research and individual difference. Oxford: Pergamon.

 ■ Eysenck, M. W. (1982). Attention and arousal: Cognition and performance. Berlin: Springer.

 ■ Eysenck, M. W. (1984). A handbook of cognitive psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

 ■ Fancher, R. E. (1979). Pioneers of psychology. New York: W. W. Norton.

 ■ Farrell, B. A. (1981). The standing of psychoanalysis. New York: Oxford University Press.

 ■ Feldman, D. H. (1980). Beyond universals in cognitive development. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

 ■ Fetzer, J. H. (1996). Philosophy and cognitive science (2nd ed.). New York: Paragon House.

 ■ Finke, R. A. (1990). Creative imagery: Discoveries and inventions in visualization. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

 ■ Flanagan, O. (1991). The science of the mind. Cambridge MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.

 ■ Fodor, J. (1983). The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.

 ■ Frege, G. (1972). Conceptual notation. T. W. Bynum (Trans.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. (Originally published in 1879.)

 ■ Frege, G. (1979). Logic. In H. Hermes, F. Kambartel & F. Kaulbach (Eds.), Gottlob Frege: Posthumous writings. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Originally published in 1879-1891.)

 ■ Freud, S. (1959). Creative writers and day-dreaming. In J. Strachey (Ed.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 9, pp. 143-153). London: Hogarth Press.

 ■ Freud, S. (1966). Project for a scientific psychology. In J. Strachey (Ed.), The stan dard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 1, pp. 295-398). London: Hogarth Press. (Originally published in 1950 as Aus den AnfaЁngen der Psychoanalyse, in London by Imago Publishing.)

 ■ Freud, S. (1976). Lecture 18-Fixation to traumas-the unconscious. In J. Strachey (Ed.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 16, p. 285). London: Hogarth Press.

 ■ Galileo, G. (1990). Il saggiatore [The assayer]. In S. Drake (Ed.), Discoveries and opinions of Galileo. New York: Anchor Books. (Originally published in 1623.)

 ■ Gassendi, P. (1970). Letter to Descartes. In "Objections and replies." In E. S. Haldane & G.R.T. Ross (Eds.), The philosophical works of Descartes (Vol. 2, pp. 179-240). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Originally published in 1641.)

 ■ Gazzaniga, M. S. (1988). Mind matters: How mind and brain interact to create our conscious lives. Boston: Houghton Mifflin in association with MIT Press/Bradford Books.

 ■ Genesereth, M. R., & N. J. Nilsson (1987). Logical foundations of artificial intelligence. Palo Alto, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

 ■ Ghiselin, B. (1952). The creative process. New York: Mentor.

 ■ Ghiselin, B. (1985). The creative process. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. (Originally published in 1952.)

 ■ Gilhooly, K. J. (1996). Thinking: Directed, undirected and creative (3rd ed.). London: Academic Press.

 ■ Glass, A. L., K. J. Holyoak & J. L. Santa (1979). Cognition. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley.

 ■ Goody, J. (1977). The domestication of the savage mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 ■ Gruber, H. E. (1980). Darwin on man: A psychological study of scientific creativity (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

 ■ Gruber, H. E., & S. Davis (1988). Inching our way up Mount Olympus: The evolving systems approach to creative thinking. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 ■ Guthrie, E. R. (1972). The psychology of learning. New York: Harper. (Originally published in 1935.)

 ■ Habermas, J. (1972). Knowledge and human interests. Boston: Beacon Press.

 ■ Hadamard, J. (1945). The psychology of invention in the mathematical field. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

 ■ Hand, D. J. (1985). Artificial intelligence and psychiatry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 ■ Harris, M. (1981). The language myth. London: Duckworth.

 ■ Haugeland, J. (Ed.) (1981). Mind design: Philosophy, psychology, artificial intelligence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.

 ■ Haugeland, J. (1981a). The nature and plausibility of cognitivism. In J. Haugeland (Ed.), Mind design: Philosophy, psychology, artificial intelligence (pp. 243-281). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

 ■ Haugeland, J. (1981b). Semantic engines: An introduction to mind design. In J. Haugeland (Ed.), Mind design: Philosophy, psychology, artificial intelligence (pp. 1-34). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.

 ■ Haugeland, J. (1985). Artificial intelligence: The very idea. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

 ■ Hawkes, T. (1977). Structuralism and semiotics. Berkeley: University of California Press.

 ■ Hebb, D. O. (1949). The organisation of behaviour. New York: Wiley.

 ■ Hebb, D. O. (1958). A textbook of psychology. Philadelphia: Saunders.

 ■ Hegel, G.W.F. (1910). The phenomenology of mind. J. B. Baille (Trans.). London: Sonnenschein. (Originally published as Phaenomenologie des Geistes, 1807.)

 ■ Heisenberg, W. (1958). Physics and philosophy. New York: Harper & Row.

 ■ Hempel, C. G. (1966). Philosophy of natural science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.

 ■ Herman, A. (1997). The idea of decline in Western history. New York: Free Press.

 ■ Herrnstein, R. J., & E. G. Boring (Eds.) (1965). A source book in the history of psy chology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

 ■ Herzmann, E. (1964). Mozart's creative process. In P. H. Lang (Ed.), The creative world of Mozart (pp. 17-30). London: Oldbourne Press.

 ■ Hilgard, E. R. (1957). Introduction to psychology. London: Methuen.

 ■ Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan. London: Crooke.

 ■ Hofstadter, D. R. (1979). Goedel, Escher, Bach: An eternal golden braid. New York: Basic Books.

 ■ Holliday, S. G., & M. J. Chandler (1986). Wisdom: Explorations in adult competence. Basel, Switzerland: Karger.

 ■ Horn, J. L. (1986). In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (Vol. 3). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

 ■ Hull, C. (1943). Principles of behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

 ■ Hume, D. (1955). An inquiry concerning human understanding. New York: Liberal Arts Press. (Originally published in 1748.)

 ■ Hume, D. (1975). An enquiry concerning human understanding. In L. A. SelbyBigge (Ed.), Hume's enquiries (3rd. ed., revised P. H. Nidditch). Oxford: Clarendon. (Spelling and punctuation revised.) (Originally published in 1748.)

 ■ Hume, D. (1978). A treatise of human nature. L. A. Selby-Bigge (Ed.), Hume's enquiries (3rd. ed., revised P. H. Nidditch). Oxford: Clarendon. (With some modifications of spelling and punctuation.) (Originally published in 1690.)

 ■ Hunt, E. (1973). The memory we must have. In R. C. Schank & K. M. Colby (Eds.), Computer models of thought and language. (pp. 343-371) San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

 ■ Husserl, E. (1960). Cartesian meditations. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

 ■ Inhelder, B., & J. Piaget (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence. New York: Basic Books. (Originally published in 1955 as De la logique de l'enfant a` la logique de l'adolescent. [Paris: Presses Universitaire de France])

 ■ James, W. (1890a). The principles of psychology (Vol. 1). New York: Dover Books.

 ■ James, W. (1890b). The principles of psychology. New York: Henry Holt.

 ■ Jevons, W. S. (1900). The principles of science (2nd ed.). London: Macmillan.

 ■ Johnson, G. (1986). Machinery of the mind: Inside the new science of artificial intelli gence. New York: Random House.

 ■ Johnson, M. L. (1988). Mind, language, machine. New York: St. Martin's Press.

 ■ Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Toward a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

 ■ Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1988). The computer and the mind: An introduction to cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

 ■ Jones, E. (1961). The life and work of Sigmund Freud. L. Trilling & S. Marcus (Eds.). London: Hogarth.

 ■ Jones, R. V. (1985). Complementarity as a way of life. In A. P. French & P. J. Kennedy (Eds.), Niels Bohr: A centenary volume. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

 ■ Kant, I. (1933). Critique of Pure Reason (2nd ed.). N. K. Smith (Trans.). London: Macmillan. (Originally published in 1781 as Kritik der reinen Vernunft.)

 ■ Kant, I. (1891). Solution of the general problems of the Prolegomena. In E. Belfort (Trans.), Kant's Prolegomena. London: Bell. (With minor modifications.) (Originally published in 1783.)

 ■ Katona, G. (1940). Organizing and memorizing: Studies in the psychology of learning and teaching. New York: Columbia University Press.

 ■ Kaufman, A. S. (1979). Intelligent testing with the WISC-R. New York: Wiley.

 ■ Koestler, A. (1964). The act of creation. New York: Arkana (Penguin).

 ■ Kohlberg, L. (1971). From is to ought. In T. Mischel (Ed.), Cognitive development and epistemology. (pp. 151-235) New York: Academic Press.

 ■ KoЁhler, W. (1925). The mentality of apes. New York: Liveright.

 ■ KoЁhler, W. (1927). The mentality of apes (2nd ed.). Ella Winter (Trans.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

 ■ KoЁhler, W. (1930). Gestalt psychology. London: G. Bell.

 ■ KoЁhler, W. (1947). Gestalt psychology. New York: Liveright.

 ■ KoЁhler, W. (1969). The task of Gestalt psychology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

 ■ Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

 ■ Langer, E. J. (1989). Mindfulness. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

 ■ Langer, S. (1962). Philosophical sketches. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

 ■ Langley, P., H. A. Simon, G. L. Bradshaw & J. M. Zytkow (1987). Scientific dis covery: Computational explorations of the creative process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

 ■ Lashley, K. S. (1951). The problem of serial order in behavior. In L. A. Jeffress (Ed.), Cerebral mechanisms in behavior, the Hixon Symposium (pp. 112-146) New York: Wiley.

 ■ LeDoux, J. E., & W. Hirst (1986). Mind and brain: Dialogues in cognitive neuroscience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 ■ Lehnert, W. (1978). The process of question answering. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

 ■ Leiber, J. (1991). Invitation to cognitive science. Oxford: Blackwell.

 ■ Lenat, D. B., & G. Harris (1978). Designing a rule system that searches for scientific discoveries. In D. A. Waterman & F. Hayes-Roth (Eds.), Pattern directed inference systems (pp. 25-52) New York: Academic Press.

 ■ Levenson, T. (1995). Measure for measure: A musical history of science. New York: Touchstone. (Originally published in 1994.)

 ■ Leґvi-Strauss, C. (1963). Structural anthropology. C. Jacobson & B. Grundfest Schoepf (Trans.). New York: Basic Books. (Originally published in 1958.)

 ■ Levine, M. W., & J. M. Schefner (1981). Fundamentals of sensation and perception. London: Addison-Wesley.

 ■ Lewis, C. I. (1946). An analysis of knowledge and valuation. LaSalle, IL: Open Court.

 ■ Lighthill, J. (1972). A report on artificial intelligence. Unpublished manuscript, Science Research Council.

 ■ Lipman, M., A. M. Sharp & F. S. Oscanyan (1980). Philosophy in the classroom. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

 ■ Lippmann, W. (1965). Public opinion. New York: Free Press. (Originally published in 1922.)

 ■ Locke, J. (1956). An essay concerning human understanding. Chicago: Henry Regnery Co. (Originally published in 1690.)

 ■ Locke, J. (1975). An essay concerning human understanding. P. H. Nidditch (Ed.). Oxford: Clarendon. (Originally published in 1690.) (With spelling and punctuation modernized and some minor modifications of phrasing.)

 ■ Lopate, P. (1994). The art of the personal essay. New York: Doubleday/Anchor Books.

 ■ Lorimer, F. (1929). The growth of reason. London: Kegan Paul. Machlup, F., & U. Mansfield (Eds.) (1983). The study of information. New York: Wiley.

 ■ Manguel, A. (1996). A history of reading. New York: Viking.

 ■ Margolis, H. (1987). Patterns, thinking, and cognition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

 ■ Markey, J. F. (1928). The symbolic process. London: Kegan Paul.

 ■ Martin, R. M. (1969). On Ziff's "Natural and formal languages." In S. Hook (Ed.), Language and philosophy: A symposium (pp. 249-263). New York: New York University Press.

 ■ Mazlish, B. (1993). The fourth discontinuity: the co- evolution of humans and machines. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

 ■ McCarthy, J., & P. J. Hayes (1969). Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. In B. Meltzer & D. Michie (Eds.), Machine intelligence 4. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

 ■ McClelland, J. L., D. E. Rumelhart & G. E. Hinton (1986). The appeal of parallel distributed processing. In D. E. Rumelhart, J. L. McClelland & the PDP Research Group (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the mi crostructure of cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 3-40). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/ Bradford Books.

 ■ McCorduck, P. (1979). Machines who think. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

 ■ McLaughlin, T. (1970). Music and communication. London: Faber & Faber.

 ■ Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review 69, 431-436.

 ■ Meehl, P. E., & C. J. Golden (1982). Taxometric methods. In Kendall, P. C., & Butcher, J. N. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in clinical psychology (pp. 127-182). New York: Wiley.

 ■ Mehler, J., E.C.T. Walker & M. Garrett (Eds.) (1982). Perspectives on mental rep resentation: Experimental and theoretical studies of cognitive processes and ca pacities. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

 ■ Mill, J. S. (1900). A system of logic, ratiocinative and inductive: Being a connected view of the principles of evidence and the methods of scientific investigation. London: Longmans, Green.

 ■ Miller, G. A. (1979, June). A very personal history. Talk to the Cognitive Science Workshop, Cambridge, MA.

 ■ Miller, J. (1983). States of mind. New York: Pantheon Books.

 ■ Minsky, M. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. In P. H. Winston (Ed.), The psychology of computer vision (pp. 211-277). New York: McGrawHill.

 ■ Minsky, M., & S. Papert (1973). Artificial intelligence. Condon Lectures, Oregon State System of Higher Education, Eugene, Oregon.

 ■ Minsky, M. L. (1986). The society of mind. New York: Simon & Schuster.

 ■ Mischel, T. (1976). Psychological explanations and their vicissitudes. In J. K. Cole & W. J. Arnold (Eds.), Nebraska Symposium on motivation (Vol. 23). Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska Press.

 ■ Morford, M.P.O., & R. J. Lenardon (1995). Classical mythology (5th ed.). New York: Longman.

 ■ Murdoch, I. (1954). Under the net. New York: Penguin.

 ■ Nagel, E. (1959). Methodological issues in psychoanalytic theory. In S. Hook (Ed.), Psychoanalysis, scientific method, and philosophy: A symposium. New York: New York University Press.

 ■ Nagel, T. (1979). Mortal questions. London: Cambridge University Press.

 ■ Nagel, T. (1986). The view from nowhere. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 ■ Neisser, U. (1967). Cognitive psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

 ■ Neisser, U. (1972). Changing conceptions of imagery. In P. W. Sheehan (Ed.), The function and nature of imagery (pp. 233-251). London: Academic Press.

 ■ Neisser, U. (1976). Cognition and reality. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

 ■ Neisser, U. (1978). Memory: What are the important questions? In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris & R. N. Sykes (Eds.), Practical aspects of memory (pp. 3-24). London: Academic Press.

 ■ Neisser, U. (1979). The concept of intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg & D. K. Detterman (Eds.), Human intelligence: Perspectives on its theory and measurement (pp. 179-190). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

 ■ Nersessian, N. (1992). How do scientists think? Capturing the dynamics of conceptual change in science. In R. N. Giere (Ed.), Cognitive models of science (pp. 3-44). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

 ■ Newell, A. (1973a). Artificial intelligence and the concept of mind. In R. C. Schank & K. M. Colby (Eds.), Computer models of thought and language (pp. 1-60). San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

 ■ Newell, A. (1973b). You can't play 20 questions with nature and win. In W. G. Chase (Ed.), Visual information processing (pp. 283-310). New York: Academic Press.

 ■ Newell, A., & H. A. Simon (1963). GPS: A program that simulates human thought. In E. A. Feigenbaum & J. Feldman (Eds.), Computers and thought (pp. 279-293). New York & McGraw-Hill.

 ■ Newell, A., & H. A. Simon (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

 ■ Nietzsche, F. (1966). Beyond good and evil. W. Kaufmann (Trans.). New York: Vintage. (Originally published in 1885.)

 ■ Nilsson, N. J. (1971). Problem- solving methods in artificial intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.

 ■ Nussbaum, M. C. (1978). Aristotle's Princeton University Press. De Motu Anamalium. Princeton, NJ:

 ■ Oersted, H. C. (1920). Thermo-electricity. In Kirstine Meyer (Ed.), H. C. Oersted, Natuurvidenskabelige Skrifter (Vol. 2). Copenhagen: n.p. (Originally published in 1830 in The Edinburgh encyclopaedia.)

 ■ Ong, W. J. (1982). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London: Methuen.

 ■ Onians, R. B. (1954). The origins of European thought. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

 ■ Osgood, C. E. (1960). Method and theory in experimental psychology. New York: Oxford University Press. (Originally published in 1953.)

 ■ Osgood, C. E. (1966). Language universals and psycholinguistics. In J. H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of language (2nd ed., pp. 299-322). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

 ■ Palmer, R. E. (1969). Hermeneutics. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

 ■ Peirce, C. S. (1934). Some consequences of four incapacities-Man, a sign. In C. Hartsborne & P. Weiss (Eds.), Collected papers of Charles Saunders Peirce (Vol. 5, pp. 185-189). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

 ■ Penfield, W. (1959). In W. Penfield & L. Roberts, Speech and brain mechanisms. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

 ■ Penrose, R. (1994). Shadows of the mind: A search for the missing science of conscious ness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 ■ Perkins, D. N. (1981). The mind's best work. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

 ■ Peterfreund, E. (1986). The heuristic approach to psychoanalytic therapy. In

 ■ J. Reppen (Ed.), Analysts at work, (pp. 127-144). Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press.

 ■ Piaget, J. (1952). The origin of intelligence in children. New York: International Universities Press. (Originally published in 1936.)

 ■ Piaget, J. (1954). Le langage et les opeґrations intellectuelles. Proble` mes de psycho linguistique. Symposium de l'Association de Psychologie Scientifique de Langue Francёaise. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

 ■ Piaget, J. (1977). Problems of equilibration. In H. E. Gruber & J. J. Voneche (Eds.), The essential Piaget (pp. 838-841). London: Routlege & Kegan Paul. (Originally published in 1975 as L'eґquilibration des structures cognitives [Paris: Presses Universitaires de France].)

 ■ Piaget, J., & B. Inhelder. (1973). Memory and intelligence. New York: Basic Books.

 ■ Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct. New York: Morrow.

 ■ Pinker, S. (1996). Facts about human language relevant to its evolution. In J.-P. Changeux & J. Chavaillon (Eds.), Origins of the human brain. A symposium of the Fyssen foundation (pp. 262-283). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Planck, M. (1949). Scientific autobiography and other papers. F. Gaynor (Trans.). New York: Philosophical Library.

 ■ Planck, M. (1990). Wissenschaftliche Selbstbiographie. W. Berg (Ed.). Halle, Germany: Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina.

 ■ Plato (1892). Meno. In The Dialogues of Plato (B. Jowett, Trans.; Vol. 2). New York: Clarendon. (Originally published circa 380 B.C.)

 ■ Poincareґ, H. (1913). Mathematical creation. In The foundations of science. G. B. Halsted (Trans.). New York: Science Press.

 ■ Poincareґ, H. (1921). The foundations of science: Science and hypothesis, the value of science, science and method. G. B. Halstead (Trans.). New York: Science Press.

 ■ Poincareґ, H. (1929). The foundations of science: Science and hypothesis, the value of science, science and method. New York: Science Press.

 ■ Poincareґ, H. (1952). Science and method. F. Maitland (Trans.) New York: Dover.

 ■ Polya, G. (1945). How to solve it. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

 ■ Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

 ■ Popper, K. (1968). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. New York: Harper & Row/Basic Books.

 ■ Popper, K., & J. Eccles (1977). The self and its brain. New York: Springer-Verlag.

 ■ Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.

 ■ Putnam, H. (1975). Mind, language and reality: Philosophical papers (Vol. 2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 ■ Putnam, H. (1987). The faces of realism. LaSalle, IL: Open Court.

 ■ Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1981). The imagery debate: Analog media versus tacit knowledge. In N. Block (Ed.), Imagery (pp. 151-206). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

 ■ Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1984). Computation and cognition: Towards a foundation for cog nitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.

 ■ Quillian, M. R. (1968). Semantic memory. In M. Minsky (Ed.), Semantic information processing (pp. 216-260). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

 ■ Quine, W.V.O. (1960). Word and object. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

 ■ Rabbitt, P.M.A., & S. Dornic (Eds.). Attention and performance (Vol. 5). London: Academic Press.

 ■ Rawlins, G.J.E. (1997). Slaves of the Machine: The quickening of computer technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.

 ■ Reid, T. (1970). An inquiry into the human mind on the principles of common sense. In R. Brown (Ed.), Between Hume and Mill: An anthology of British philosophy- 1749- 1843 (pp. 151-178). New York: Random House/Modern Library.

 ■ Reitman, W. (1970). What does it take to remember? In D. A. Norman (Ed.), Models of human memory (pp. 470-510). London: Academic Press.

 ■ Ricoeur, P. (1974). Structure and hermeneutics. In D. I. Ihde (Ed.), The conflict of interpretations: Essays in hermeneutics (pp. 27-61). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

 ■ Robinson, D. N. (1986). An intellectual history of psychology. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

 ■ Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

 ■ Rosch, E. (1977). Human categorization. In N. Warren (Ed.), Studies in cross cultural psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 1-49) London: Academic Press.

 ■ Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27-48). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

 ■ Rosch, E., & B. B. Lloyd (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

 ■ Rose, S. (1970). The chemistry of life. Baltimore: Penguin Books.

 ■ Rose, S. (1976). The conscious brain (updated ed.). New York: Random House.

 ■ Rose, S. (1993). The making of memory: From molecules to mind. New York: Anchor Books. (Originally published in 1992)

 ■ Roszak, T. (1994). The cult of information: A neo- Luddite treatise on high- tech, artificial intelligence, and the true art of thinking (2nd ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press.

 ■ Royce, J. R., & W. W. Rozeboom (Eds.) (1972). The psychology of knowing. New York: Gordon & Breach.

 ■ Rumelhart, D. E. (1977). Introduction to human information processing. New York: Wiley.

 ■ Rumelhart, D. E. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R. J. Spiro, B. Bruce & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

 ■ Rumelhart, D. E., & J. L. McClelland (1986). On learning the past tenses of English verbs. In J. L. McClelland & D. E. Rumelhart (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition (Vol. 2). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

 ■ Rumelhart, D. E., P. Smolensky, J. L. McClelland & G. E. Hinton (1986). Schemata and sequential thought processes in PDP models. In J. L. McClelland, D. E. Rumelhart & the PDP Research Group (Eds.), Parallel Distributed Processing (Vol. 2, pp. 7-57). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

 ■ Russell, B. (1927). An outline of philosophy. London: G. Allen & Unwin.

 ■ Russell, B. (1961). History of Western philosophy. London: George Allen & Unwin.

 ■ Russell, B. (1965). How I write. In Portraits from memory and other essays. London: Allen & Unwin.

 ■ Russell, B. (1992). In N. Griffin (Ed.), The selected letters of Bertrand Russell (Vol. 1), The private years, 1884- 1914. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Ryecroft, C. (1966). Psychoanalysis observed. London: Constable.

 ■ Sagan, C. (1978). The dragons of Eden: Speculations on the evolution of human intel ligence. New York: Ballantine Books.

 ■ Salthouse, T. A. (1992). Expertise as the circumvention of human processing limitations. In K. A. Ericsson & J. Smith (Eds.), Toward a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limits (pp. 172-194). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 ■ Sanford, A. J. (1987). The mind of man: Models of human understanding. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

 ■ Sapir, E. (1921). Language. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World.

 ■ Sapir, E. (1964). Culture, language, and personality. Berkeley: University of California Press. (Originally published in 1941.)

 ■ Sapir, E. (1985). The status of linguistics as a science. In D. G. Mandelbaum (Ed.), Selected writings of Edward Sapir in language, culture and personality (pp. 160166). Berkeley: University of California Press. (Originally published in 1929).

 ■ Scardmalia, M., & C. Bereiter (1992). Literate expertise. In K. A. Ericsson & J. Smith (Eds.), Toward a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limits (pp. 172-194). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 ■ Schafer, R. (1954). Psychoanalytic interpretation in Rorschach testing. New York: Grune & Stratten.

 ■ Schank, R. C. (1973). Identification of conceptualizations underlying natural language. In R. C. Schank & K. M. Colby (Eds.), Computer models of thought and language (pp. 187-248). San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

 ■ Schank, R. C. (1976). The role of memory in language processing. In C. N. Cofer (Ed.), The structure of human memory. (pp. 162-189) San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

 ■ Schank, R. C. (1986). Explanation patterns: Understanding mechanically and creatively. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

 ■ Schank, R. C., & R. P. Abelson (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

 ■ SchroЁdinger, E. (1951). Science and humanism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 ■ Searle, J. R. (1981a). Minds, brains, and programs. In J. Haugeland (Ed.), Mind design: Philosophy, psychology, artificial intelligence (pp. 282-306). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

 ■ Searle, J. R. (1981b). Minds, brains and programs. In D. Hofstadter & D. Dennett (Eds.), The mind's I (pp. 353-373). New York: Basic Books.

 ■ Searle, J. R. (1983). Intentionality. New York: Cambridge University Press.

 ■ Serres, M. (1982). The origin of language: Biology, information theory, and thermodynamics. M. Anderson (Trans.). In J. V. Harari & D. F. Bell (Eds.), Hermes: Literature, science, philosophy (pp. 71-83). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

 ■ Simon, H. A. (1966). Scientific discovery and the psychology of problem solving. In R. G. Colodny (Ed.), Mind and cosmos: Essays in contemporary science and philosophy (pp. 22-40). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

 ■ Simon, H. A. (1979). Models of thought. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

 ■ Simon, H. A. (1989). The scientist as a problem solver. In D. Klahr & K. Kotovsky (Eds.), Complex information processing: The impact of Herbert Simon. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

 ■ Simon, H. A., & C. Kaplan (1989). Foundations of cognitive science. In M. Posner (Ed.), Foundations of cognitive science (pp. 1-47). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

 ■ Simonton, D. K. (1988). Creativity, leadership and chance. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 ■ Skinner, B. F. (1974). About behaviorism. New York: Knopf.

 ■ Smith, E. E. (1988). Concepts and thought. In J. Sternberg & E. E. Smith (Eds.), The psychology of human thought (pp. 19-49). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 ■ Smith, E. E. (1990). Thinking: Introduction. In D. N. Osherson & E. E. Smith (Eds.), Thinking. An invitation to cognitive science. (Vol. 3, pp. 1-2). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

 ■ Socrates. (1958). Meno. In E. H. Warmington & P. O. Rouse (Eds.), Great dialogues of Plato W.H.D. Rouse (Trans.). New York: New American Library. (Original publication date unknown.)

 ■ Solso, R. L. (1974). Theories of retrieval. In R. L. Solso (Ed.), Theories in cognitive psychology. Potomac, MD: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

 ■ Spencer, H. (1896). The principles of psychology. New York: Appleton-CenturyCrofts.

 ■ Steiner, G. (1975). After Babel: Aspects of language and translation. New York: Oxford University Press.

 ■ Sternberg, R. J. (1977). Intelligence, information processing, and analogical reasoning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

 ■ Sternberg, R. J. (1994). Intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg, Thinking and problem solving. San Diego: Academic Press.

 ■ Sternberg, R. J., & J. E. Davidson (1985). Cognitive development in gifted and talented. In F. D. Horowitz & M. O'Brien (Eds.), The gifted and talented (pp. 103-135). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

 ■ Storr, A. (1993). The dynamics of creation. New York: Ballantine Books. (Originally published in 1972.)

 ■ Stumpf, S. E. (1994). Philosophy: History and problems (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

 ■ Sulloway, F. J. (1996). Born to rebel: Birth order, family dynamics, and creative lives. New York: Random House/Vintage Books.

 ■ Thorndike, E. L. (1906). Principles of teaching. New York: A. G. Seiler.

 ■ Thorndike, E. L. (1970). Animal intelligence: Experimental studies. Darien, CT: Hafner Publishing Co. (Originally published in 1911.)

 ■ Titchener, E. B. (1910). A textbook of psychology. New York: Macmillan.

 ■ Titchener, E. B. (1914). A primer of psychology. New York: Macmillan.

 ■ Toulmin, S. (1957). The philosophy of science. London: Hutchinson.

 ■ Tulving, E. (1972). Episodic and semantic memory. In E. Tulving & W. Donaldson (Eds.), Organisation of memory. London: Academic Press.

 ■ Turing, A. (1946). In B. E. Carpenter & R. W. Doran (Eds.), ACE reports of 1946 and other papers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

 ■ Turkle, S. (1984). Computers and the second self: Computers and the human spirit. New York: Simon & Schuster.

 ■ Tyler, S. A. (1978). The said and the unsaid: Mind, meaning, and culture. New York: Academic Press.

 ■ van Heijenoort (Ed.) (1967). From Frege to Goedel. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

 ■ Varela, F. J. (1984). The creative circle: Sketches on the natural history of circularity. In P. Watzlawick (Ed.), The invented reality (pp. 309-324). New York: W. W. Norton.

 ■ Voltaire (1961). On the Penseґs of M. Pascal. In Philosophical letters (pp. 119-146). E. Dilworth (Trans.). Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.

 ■ Wagman, M. (1991a). Artificial intelligence and human cognition: A theoretical inter comparison of two realms of intellect. Westport, CT: Praeger.

 ■ Wagman, M. (1991b). Cognitive science and concepts of mind: Toward a general theory of human and artificial intelligence. Westport, CT: Praeger.

 ■ Wagman, M. (1993). Cognitive psychology and artificial intelligence: Theory and re search in cognitive science. Westport, CT: Praeger.

 ■ Wagman, M. (1995). The sciences of cognition: Theory and research in psychology and artificial intelligence. Westport, CT: Praeger.

 ■ Wagman, M. (1996). Human intellect and cognitive science: Toward a general unified theory of intelligence. Westport, CT: Praeger.

 ■ Wagman, M. (1997a). Cognitive science and the symbolic operations of human and artificial intelligence: Theory and research into the intellective processes. Westport, CT: Praeger.

 ■ Wagman, M. (1997b). The general unified theory of intelligence: Central conceptions and specific application to domains of cognitive science. Westport, CT: Praeger.

 ■ Wagman, M. (1998a). Cognitive science and the mind- body problem: From philosophy to psychology to artificial intelligence to imaging of the brain. Westport, CT: Praeger.

 ■ Wagman, M. (1998b). Language and thought in humans and computers: Theory and research in psychology, artificial intelligence, and neural science. Westport, CT: Praeger.

 ■ Wagman, M. (1998c). The ultimate objectives of artificial intelligence: Theoretical and research foundations, philosophical and psychological implications. Westport, CT: Praeger.

 ■ Wagman, M. (1999). The human mind according to artificial intelligence: Theory, re search, and implications. Westport, CT: Praeger.

 ■ Wagman, M. (2000). Scientific discovery processes in humans and computers: Theory and research in psychology and artificial intelligence. Westport, CT: Praeger.

 ■ Wall, R. (1972). Introduction to mathematical linguistics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

 ■ Wallas, G. (1926). The Art of Thought. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co.

 ■ Wason, P. (1977). Self contradictions. In P. Johnson-Laird & P. Wason (Eds.), Thinking: Readings in cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 ■ Wason, P. C., & P. N. Johnson-Laird. (1972). Psychology of reasoning: Structure and content. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

 ■ Watson, J. (1930). Behaviorism. New York: W. W. Norton.

 ■ Watzlawick, P. (1984). Epilogue. In P. Watzlawick (Ed.), The invented reality. New York: W. W. Norton, 1984.

 ■ Weinberg, S. (1977). The first three minutes: A modern view of the origin of the uni verse. New York: Basic Books.

 ■ Weisberg, R. W. (1986). Creativity: Genius and other myths. New York: W. H. Freeman.

 ■ Weizenbaum, J. (1976). Computer power and human reason: From judgment to cal culation. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

 ■ Wertheimer, M. (1945). Productive thinking. New York: Harper & Bros.

 ■ Whitehead, A. N. (1925). Science and the modern world. New York: Macmillan.

 ■ Whorf, B. L. (1956). In J. B. Carroll (Ed.), Language, thought and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

 ■ Whyte, L. L. (1962). The unconscious before Freud. New York: Anchor Books.

 ■ Wiener, N. (1954). The human use of human beings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

 ■ Wiener, N. (1964). God & Golem, Inc.: A comment on certain points where cybernetics impinges on religion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

 ■ Winograd, T. (1972). Understanding natural language. New York: Academic Press.

 ■ Winston, P. H. (1987). Artificial intelligence: A perspective. In E. L. Grimson & R. S. Patil (Eds.), AI in the 1980s and beyond (pp. 1-12). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

 ■ Winston, P. H. (Ed.) (1975). The psychology of computer vision. New York: McGrawHill.

 ■ Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

 ■ Wittgenstein, L. (1958). The blue and brown books. New York: Harper Colophon.

 ■ Woods, W. A. (1975). What's in a link: Foundations for semantic networks. In D. G. Bobrow & A. Collins (Eds.), Representations and understanding: Studies in cognitive science (pp. 35-84). New York: Academic Press.

 ■ Woodworth, R. S. (1938). Experimental psychology. New York: Holt; London: Methuen (1939).

 ■ Wundt, W. (1904). Principles of physiological psychology (Vol. 1). E. B. Titchener (Trans.). New York: Macmillan.

 ■ Wundt, W. (1907). Lectures on human and animal psychology. J. E. Creighton & E. B. Titchener (Trans.). New York: Macmillan.

 ■ Young, J. Z. (1978). Programs of the brain. New York: Oxford University Press.

 ■ Ziman, J. (1978). Reliable knowledge: An exploration of the grounds for belief in science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

(pl. -ir), f. thousand.

* * *

f.; sérhverja þúsund, Stj. 298; á þúsund (dat.), Sks. 705; tvær, þrjár … þúsundir, 623. 53: in mod. usage it is mostly neut. (influenced by Latin?), but also fem. It is spelt þús-hund, Barl. 53; þús-hundum, Fms. vi. 409 (v. l.), Geisli 49; another form þús-hundrað (q. v.) is freq., esp. in Stj., Barl.; this double form -hund and -hundrað answers to the equally double form of ‘hundred,’ see p. 292, and is a proof that þúsund is a compound word, the latter part of which is ‘hund’ or ‘hundred;’ the etymology of the former part ‘þús’ is less certain; it is, we believe, akin to þysja, þyss, þaus-nir (a lost strong verb þúsa, þaus, þusu); þúsund would thus literally mean a swarm of hundreds: [in Goth. the gender varies, þûsundi, pl. þusundjos = χίλιοι, or þusundja, neut.; A. S. þûsend; Engl. thousand; O. H. G. dusunta; Germ. tausend, qs. dausend; Swed. tusende and tusen; Dan. tusinde; Dutch tuysend: this word is also common to the Slavon. languages: again, the Lapp, duhat and Finn. tuhat are no doubt borrowed from the Slavon. or Scandin.; the Gr., Lat., and Sansk. use other words]—a thousand.

B. There is little doubt that with the ancient heathen Scandinavians (and perhaps all Teutons), before their contact with the civilised southern people, the notion of numbers was limited, and that their thousand was not a definite number, but a vague term, denoting a swarm, crowd, host (cp. the Gr. μυρίοι): in ancient lays it occurs thrice (Hkv., Em., Fas. i. 502), but indefinitely; hvat þrym er þar sem þúsund bifisk eðr mengi til mikit, what a din is there as if a thousand were shaking, or an over-mickle multitude, Em. 2; sjau þúsundir, Hkv. 1. 49, literally = seven thousands, but in fact meaning seven hosts of men.

2. the dat. pl. þúsundum is, like huudruðum, used adverbially = by thousands, in countless numbers, Fms. vi. 409 (in a verse), Geisli 49.

3. in the ancient popular literature, uninfluenced by southern writers, ‘þúsund,’ as a definite number, occurs, we think, not half-a-dozen times. As the multiple of ten duodecimal hundreds, ere the decimal hundred was adopted, ‘þnsund’ would mean twelve decimal hundreds; and such is its use in the Sverris Saga, Fms. viii. 40, where one vellum says ‘tvær þúsundir,’ whilst the others, by a more idiomatic phrase, call it ‘twenty hundreds.’

II. in ecclesiastical writers, and in annals influenced by the Latin and the like, it is frequent enough; tíu þúsundir, fjórtán þúsundir, Fms. i. 107, 108 (annalistic records); fimm þúsundir, xi. 386, Al. 111; tíu þúsundum, Sks. 705; tíu þúsundum sinna hundrað þúsunda, Hom.; þúsund þúsunda, a thousand of thousands, i. e. a million, (mod.); hundrað þúsundir rasta ok átta tigir þúsunda, … hundrað þúsund mílna, Fb. i. 31 (in the legend of Eric the Far-traveller and Paradise, taken from some church-legend); fjórar þúsundir, Þiðr. 234: or of the years of the world, sex þúsundir vetra, Fs. 197; sjau þúsundir vetra, Landn. 34.

C. REMARKS.—The popular way of counting high numbers was not by thousands, but by tens (decades) and duodecimal hundreds as factors; thus ten … twenty hundreds, and then going on three, four, five, six … tens of hundreds (a ‘ten of hundreds’ being = 1200). The following references may illustrate this—tíu hundruð, ellefu hundruð, tólf hundruð, þrettán hundruð, fimtán hundruð …, Íb. 17, Ó. H. 119, 201, Fms. vii. 295, xi. 383, 385. From twenty and upwards—tuttugu hundrað manna, twenty hundreds of men, Fms. vii. 324, viii. 40; hálfr þriðitugr hundraða skipa, two tens and a half hundreds of ships, i. e. twenty-five hundreds, Fas. i. 378; þrjá tigu hundraða manna, three tens of hundreds of men, Fms. viii. 311; var skorat manntal, hafði hann meirr enn þrjá tigu hundraða manna, vii. 204; þrír tigir hundraða, D. N. v. 18; user fjorir tigir hundraða manna, nearly four tens of hundreds of men, Fms. vii. 275; á fimta tigi hundraða, on the fifth ten of hundreds, i. e. from four to five tens of hundreds, viii. 321; sex tigir hundraða, six tens of hundreds, 311, xi. 390; sex tigu hundraða manna, Fb. ii. 518, D. I. i. 350,—all odd amounts being neglected. The highest number recorded as actually reckoned in this way is ‘six tens of hundreds’ (fimtán tigir hundraða, fifteen tens of hundreds, Fms. viii. 321, v. l., is a scribe’s error): it is probable that no reckoning exceeded twelve tens of hundreds. All high multiples were unintelligible to the ancients; the number of the Einherjar in Walhalla is in the old lay Gm. thus expressed,—there are ‘five hundred doors in Walhalla, and five tens beside (the ‘five tens’ are, by the way, merely added for alliteration’s sake), and eight hundred Einherjar will walk out of each door when they go out to fight the Wolf’ (on the Day of final Doom). There seems to have been some dim exaggerated notion of a definite thousand in an ancient lay, only preserved in a half alliterative prose paraphrase, Fas. i. 502, where a mythical host is given thus,—there were thirty-three phalanxes, each of five ‘thousand,’ each thousand of thirteen hundreds, each hundred four times counted. The armies in the battle of Brawalla, the greatest of the mythical age, are given, not in numbers, but by the space the ranks occupied, Skjöld. S. ch. 8. This resembles the story in Ó. H. ch. 59, of the two young brothers, king’s sons: when asked what they would like to have most of, the one said: ‘Cows.’ ‘And how many?’ ‘As many,’ said he, ‘as could stand packed in a row round the lake (Mjösen in Norway) and drink.’ ‘But you?’ they asked the other boy: ‘House-carles’ (soldiers), said he. ‘And how many?’ ‘As many,’ said he, ‘as would in one meal eat up all my brother’s cows.’ Add also the tale of the King and the Giant, and the number of the giant’s house-carles, Maurer’s Volksagen 306. No less elementary was the rule for division and fractions, of which a remarkable instance is preserved in an ancient Icelandic deed, called Spákonu-arfr, published in D. I. i. 305. See also the words tigr, hundrað, skor, skora, and the remarks in Gramm. p. xix. The Homeric numeration, as set forth in Mr. Gladstone’s Homeric Studies, vol. iii, p. 425 sqq., is highly interesting, and bears a striking resemblance to that of the ancient Scandinavians. We may notice that in Iceland land and property are still divided into hundreds (hundreds of ells = 120), see hundrað B; in this case a thousand is never used, but units and hundreds of hundreds as factors, thus, sex tögu hundraða, in Reykh. Máld, (a deed of the 12th century), and so still in mod. usage; a wealthy man of the 15th century is said to have bequeathed to his daughters in land, ‘tólf hundruð hundraða ok ellefu-tíu og tvau hundruð betr, en í lausafé fimm hundruð hundraða,’ i. e. twelve hundreds of hundreds and ‘eleventy’ and two hundreds, and in movables five hundreds of hundreds, Feðga-æfi 16 (by the learned Bogi Benidiktsson of Staðarfell in Iceland, A. D. 1771–1849); sjau hundruð hundraða og þrjátigi hundruð betr, 21; hann eptir-lét börnum sínum fjármuni upp á níu hundruð hundraða, 22,—a proof that in very remote times, when this valuation of land first took place, ‘thousand’ was still unknown as a definite number.