The analogy of the Greek, and the form _paterfamilias_, would lead to the conclusion that the genitive of the first declension had been originally formed in _s_, next deprived of its final letter and becoming _aï_, and finally contracted into _æ_.[46] I have not observed in the sepulcral inscriptions any genitives of common nouns of this declension formed in _s_, but we find Faustines, Bellones, Midaes, as genitives of proper names, which, according to grammatical rule, would be formed in _æ_. The dative feminine in _abus_ is allowed by grammarians in cases where ambiguity of sex would arise from the use of _is_, as in deabus, filiabus, libertabus; but we find it used in inscriptions where no such ambiguity exists, as in nymphabus, fatabus, and even horabus. What is more remarkable is the extension of this formation of the dative to the second declension, in such words as diibus and amicibus. Some departures from ordinary usage may, no doubt, be accounted for by the circumstance that in Italy, as in England, the Muse of the cemetery was an "unlettered Muse." "Hic ja_cit_"[47] in a Latin inscription no more proves that there was no distinction between the neuter and the active verb, than "here lays" in an English churchyard. Nor can we argue from such constructions as "cum _quam_ bene vixi," "ab æd_em_," that _cum_ and _ab_ governed the accusative; or from such a concord as _hunc_ collegium, that nouns in _um_ were once masculine. But in many instances what seem at first only vulgar solecisms will be found to have a warrant in analogy. _Dua_ as a neuter for duo[48] is called a barbarism by Quinctilian (1, 5, 15); yet he acknowledges that every one said _duapondo_, and that Messala maintained it to be correct. Evento for eventui, spirito for spiritui, show that the double mode of declension was not confined to domus. Solo for soli has the authority of Cato, who used soli for solius, and of Terence, who used solæ for the same case.[49] "Fatus suus" on a monument might seem a blunder, but malus fatus occurs in Petronius Arbiter (p. 270). We find in an inscription[50] Diva, precor, Tellus alvo complectere sancta Ossua quorum in hoc nomina sunt lapide. and ossuarium, the vase which received the burnt bones, shows that _ossua_ was a legitimate form. The use of _carere_ with an accusative[51] ("Filios duos caruit:" "Dulcem carui lucem, cum te amisi ego conjunx") has a parallel in Plautus. The usual construction of _compos_ is with a genitive, but it is not a solecism, when L. Statius Diodorus inscribes a tablet to God, "Quod se precibus compotem fecisset;" for Livy (3, 35) uses it with an ablative. The use of susum for sursum explains the Latin _sus_ (in susque deque) and the Italian _su_. Meses for menses, senu for sinu, laguna for lacuna, longitia (lunghezza) for longitudo, _so_ for sum, all occurring in sepulcral inscriptions, show the inclination of the Latin language towards the Italian.