The gloss ueia found in Paul the Deacon’s Epitome opens several interesting questions of philology, orthography, phonetics and sociolinguistics. The word ueia is said to belong to the Oscan language. It is explained as the equivalent of plaustrum “wagon, cart”. The substantive ueia is to be derived ultimately from the root that underlies the verb uehere “to convey” and may be reconstructed as *weĝʰ-iyā or *weĝʰ-yā. There is no etymological connection between ueia and the Latin word uia “road, path”. The numerous Sabellian forms related to uia demonstrate beyond all reasonable doubt that the Latin word uia does not contain the root *weĝʰ- of the verb uehere (in spite of what has been claimed by some scholars). Therefore, the sequences of letters read as or (Archaic Latin Garigliano bowl inscription) are probably not cognate with the Latin theonym Triuia. Moreover, the reading of some letters is uncertain (should the digamma be interpreted as f or v?) and the division of the scriptio continua in the text remains difficult. The forms ueham (meaning uiam) and uellam are not related to the Latin verb uehere (despite Varro). Among the Sabellian words that may contain the root *weĝʰ- of uehere, one may adduce Umbrian uef (if not connected to Lat. libra) and perhaps the enigmatic form couehriu (Velitrae), which is an o-stem (not an ā-stem) and thus cannot be equated with the Latin word cūria (in spite of the communis opinio). The vessel name uegeiia (mosaic floor with the catalogue of ships at Althiburus, Tunisia) may contain the root *weĝʰ- found in the Latin verb uehere, but this is uncertain and the term uegeiia is probably not an Italic word. The word plaustrum may contain the same root as ueia and may be traced back to *pro-weĝʰ-stro-m (*ow > *aw according to Thurneysen-Havet’s law). The regressive dissimilation *r...r > l...r is attested in pulcher < *porkros < *prk’-ro-s, with the root *prek’- of poscere “to ask, demand” (for the morphology and meaning, compare the Sabellian adjective *kup-ro-s “good, beautiful” related to cupere “to wish, to long, to be eager for”). One has to assume that the form plaustrum is older than plōstrum: plaustrum should not be explained as the result of a “hyperurbanism”. The remarkable fact about the gloss ueia apud Oscos dicebatur plaustrum is that the explanandum and the explanans are etymologically cognate, but neither Verrius Flaccus, nor Festus, nor Paul the Deacon could be aware of the linguistic relationship.