Grice e Varrone – semiotica
filosofica – filosofia italiana – Luigi Speranza (Rieti). Filosofo italiano. Grice: “I count Varrone as the
first language philosopher. He woke up one day, and realised he was speaking
‘lingua latina,’ and dedicated 36 volumes to it!” --. Grice: “’Lingua latina’
has a nice Roman ring to it. In modern Italian, the ‘t’ has become an ‘z,’ as
in “Lazio, -- the calcio team from
Latium – or a ‘d’ as in ‘ladino.’” Grice: “I know his Loeb edition by heart!” – Grice:
“The Greeks never studied their lingo as Varro studied his! Of this Austin
always reminded me: ‘We should be like Varro, analysing our tongue as a ‘fluid’
semiotic system!’”. Academic, Roman polymath, author of essays on language,
agriculture, history and philosophy, as
well as satires, and principal conversationalist in CICERONE’s
"Academica.” Questore della repubblica
romana. Gens: Terentia. Questura in Illyricum. Pro-pretura in Spagna. Tu ci hai
fatto luce su ogni epoca della patria, sulle fasi della sua cronologia, sulle
norme dei suoi rituali, sulle sue cariche sacerdotali, sugli istituti civili e
militari, sulla dislocazione dei suoi quartieri e vari punti, su nomi, generi,
su doveri e cause dei nostri affari, sia divini che umani -- CICERONE,
Academica Posteriora. Detto reatino, attributo che lo distingue da “Varrone
Atacino,” vissuto nello stesso periodo. Nato da una famiglia di nobili origini,
ha rilevanti proprietà terriere in Sabina, dove e educato con disciplina e
severità dai familiari, integrate dall'acquisto di lussuose ville a Baia e
fondi terrieri a Tusculum e Cassino. A Roma compe studi avanzati presso i
migliori maestri del tempo. Lucio Elio Stilone PRECONINO (vedi) lo fa appassionare
anche agli studi etimologici ed oratoria. Studia la lingua italiana con Lucio ACCIO
(vedi), a cui dedica “De antiquitate litterarum.” Come molti romani, compe un grand
tour in Grecia, dove ascolta filosofi accademici come Filone di Larissa e
Antioco di Ascalona, da cui deduce una posizione filosofica di tipo
eclettico. A differenza di molti altri filosofi del tempo, non si ritira
dalla vita politica ma, anzi, vi prende parte attivamente accostandosi agl’optimates,
forse anche influenzato dall'estrazione sociale. Dopo aver, infatti, percorso
le prime tappe del cursus honorum – trium-viro capitale, questore, e legato -- e
vicino a POMPEO, per il quale ricopre incarichi di grande importanza. Legato e
pro-questore, combatte nella guerra contro i pirati difendendo la zona navale
tra la Sicilia e Delo. Allo scoppio della guerra civile e propretore. In
una guerra che vede i romani contro i romani, tenta un’incerta difesa del suo
territorio che si concluse in una resa che GIULIO (vedi) CESARE (vedi), nei
Commentarii de bello civili, define poco gloriosa. Dopo la disfatta dei
pompeiani, si avvicina, comunque, a GIULIO CESARE, che apprezza il reatino
soprattutto sul piano culturale, affidandogli la costituzione di una biblioteca.
Dopo l’assassinio di GIULIO CESARE, anzi, e inserito nelle liste di
proscrizione sia di MAR’ANTONIO che di OTTAVIANO -- interessati più alle sue
ricchezze che a punire i congiuranti -- da cui si salva grazie all'intervento
di Fufio CALENO (vedi) per poi avvicinarsi a OTTAVIANO a cui dedica il “De vita
populi Romani” volto alla divinizzazione della figura di GIULIO CESARE. Ha una
produzione di oltre 620 libri, suddivisi in circa settanta opere. Saggi: “De
re rustica” (Varrone) e “De lingua Latina”. La sua vasta produzione è suddivisa
da Girolamo in un catalogo. Le sue opere di sono verosimilmente 74, suddivise
in 620 volumi, sebbene stesso egli rifere di aver scritto 490 saggi. I suoi
saggi possono essere suddivise in vari
gruppi, dalle opere di erudizione, filologia (filosofia del linguaggio, o
semantica) e storia a quelle giuridiche e burocratiche, dalle opere di
filosofia (filosofia del linguaggio, semantica, semiotica) e agricoltura alle
opere di poesia, di linguistica e letteratura; di retorica e diritto, con ben
15 libri De iure civili; di filosofia. Di questa enorme produzione è
pervenuta quasi integra solo un'opera, il “De re rustica”. Del “De lingua
Latina” sono pervenuti solo 6 libri su 25. Probabilmente, causa del quasi
completo naufragio della immane varroniana è che, avendo compulsato tanta parte
della cultura romana precedente, divenne la fonte indispensabile per i filosofi
successivi, perdendosi, per così dire, per assimilazione. Della sua attività
filologica fa testimonianza il cosiddetto canone varroniano, elaborato a
partire da due opere, le “Quaestiones Plautinae” e il “De comoediis Plautinis”,
in cui riparte il corpus plautino, che include 130 fabulae. Di queste, 21
vengono definite autentiche, 19 di origine incerta (dette
"pseudo-varroniane”); le restanti, spurie.
Si occupa soprattutto di antiquaria, con i 41 libri di “Antiquitates”, il suo
capolavoro, divisi in 25 di “res humanae” e 16 di “res divinae”, fonte precipua
di AGOSTINO nel “De civitate Dei.” Proprio d’AGOSTINO si evidenzia l'attenzione
di V. sulla religione civile, con una compiuta disamina su culti e tradizioni,
pur con acute critiche alla teologia mitica dei poeti in nome di una theologia
naturalis. A questo gruppo appartiene anche l'opera, non pervenuta, “De
bibliothecis”, presumibilmente legata alle incombenze come bibliotecario
affidategli da GIULIO CESARE. Nell'ambito filosofico, notevoli dovevano
essere “I logistorici” -- dal greco “discorsi di storia” -- in 76 libri,
composta in forma di dialogo in prosa, di argomento morale e antiquario, in cui
ogni libro prende il nome di un personaggio storico e un tema di cui il
personaggio costituiva un modello, come il “Mario”, “de fortuna” o il “Cato”, “de
liberis educandis”. Questi dialoghi storico-filosofici sono tra i modelli
espositivi del “Lelio”; “de amicitia” e del “Catone maggiore”, “de senectute” di
CICERONE. Al suo interesse filosofico e divulgativo, probabilmente scritte
lungo tutto il corso della sua parabola culturale, riconducevano le “Saturae
Menippeae”, che prendeno come modello Menippo, esponente della filosofia cinica
-- da cui il nome. Le “Saturae Menippeae” si componevano di 150 libri, in prosa
e in versi, di cui però ci rimangono circa 600 frammenti e novanta titoli, di
argomento soprattutto filosofico, ma anche di critica dei costumi, morale, con
rimpianti sui tempi antichi in contrasto con la corruzione del presente.
Ciascuna satira reca un titolo, desunto da proverbi (“Cave canem” -- con
allusione alla mordacità dei filosofi cinici) o dalla mitologia (“Eumenide”
contro la tesi stoico-cinica per cui gl’uomini sono folli, “Trikàranos”, il
mostro a tre teste, con un mordace riferimento al primo triumvirate, ed era
caratterizzata da lessico popolaresco, polimetria e, come in Menippo, uno stile
tragi-comico. Valerio Massimo, Aulo Gellio. Ce ne parla lui stesso in “De
lingua latina”. Cicerone, Academica posteriora, Appiano, Guerre civili. Varrone,
De re rustica. Svetonio, Cesare, Appiano, Ausonio, Commemoratio professorum
Burdigalensium, Chronicon, ann. Aulo Gellio, Gellio, I cui frammenti sono editi
nell’edizione di Cardauns: “Antiquitates rerum divinarum” Cfr. Zucchelli, V.
logistoricus. Studio letterario e prosopografico, Parma, Cfr., ad esempio, il
Fr. XIX Riese: "Da ragazzo, avevo solo una tunica modesta e una toga,
calzature senza fascette, un cavallo non sellato; bagno giornaliero, niente e,
davvero di rado, una tinozza".
Horsfall, V., in Letteratura Latina (Milano, Mondadori). Cfr. Salanitro,
Le Menippee di V.: contributi esegetici e linguistici (Roma, Ateneo). Sulla
satira varroniana, cfr. Alfonsi, Le Menippee di V., in "ANRW". Atti
del Congresso di studi varroniani. Rieti, CENTRO DI STUDI VARRONIANI. Cenderelli,
“Varroniana” Istituti e terminologia giuridica nelle opere di V. (Milano,
Giuffrè); Dahlmann, “V. e la teoria della lingua” (Napoli, Loffredo), Corte, “V.,
il terzo gran lume romano” (Genova, Istituto universitario di Magistero); “De
vita populi Romani” Introduzione e commento, Pisa; Riposati, “V. De vita populi
Romani”. Fonti, esegesi, edizione critica dei frammenti (Milano, Vita e
pensiero), Riposati, “V.: l'uomo e il filosofo” (Roma Istituto di studi
romani); Traglia, Introduzione a V., “Opere” (Torino, POMBA), Zucchelli, “V.
logistoricus: prosopo-grafica”, Parma, Istituto di lingua e letteratura latina,
Satira menippea Biblioteche romane Antiquitates rerum humanarum et divinarum Treccani
Enciclopedie, Istituto dell'Enciclopedia Italiana. Enciclopedia Italiana,
Istituto dell'Enciclopedia Italiana, Dizionario di storia, Istituto
dell'Enciclopedia Italiana. V. “De lingua Latina libri qui supersunt: cum
fragmentis ejusdem” Biponti, ex typographia societatis. Biblioteca degli
scrittori latini con traduzione e note: “V. quae supersunt opera” Venetiis,
excudit Antonelli, “Grammaticae Romanae Fragmenta”, Gino Funaioli, Lipsiae, in
aedibus Teubneri. “M. Terenti
Varronis saturarum menippearum reliquiae” -- cur. Riese, Lipsiae, in aedibus
Teubneri. In passing from Rome to Rieti we enter a different world. One
rightly speaks of the Greco-Roman era as a period of unified civilisation
around the Mediterranean area, but the respective roles of the Italotes and the
Romns are dissimilar, if complementary. Without the other, the
contribution of either would have been less significant and less
productive. The Romans have for long enjoyed contact with Hellenic and
Etrurian material culture and intellectual ideas, and further through the Greek
settlements in the south of Italy: Sicily and Magna Grecia.The Romans learned to
write from the western Greeks. But the Hellenic world fell progressively
within the control of Rome, by now the mistress of the whole of Italia The
expansion of Roman rule becomes complete, and the Roman Empire, as it now is,
achieves a relatively permanent position, which, with fairly small-scale
changes in Britain and on the northern and eastern frontiers, remains free of
serious wars for years. The second half of this period earns Gibbon's
encomium, 'If a man were called to fix the period in the history of the
world during which the condition of the human race is most happy and
prosperous, he would, without hesitation, name that which elapsed from the
death of DOMIZIANO to the accession of COMMODO.' In taking over the Hellenic
world, the Romans bring within their sway whatever they find on the way.The intellectual
background of Etruria and the Hellenes and the polical unity and freedom of
intercourse provided by Roman stability are the conditions in which the Roman
Empire shines. To the Romans, Europe and much of the entire modern world owe
the origins of their intellectual, moral, political and religious civilisation. From
their earliest contacts, the Romans cheerfully acknowledge the superior
pompousness of the Greeks – by which they included the Etrurians. Linguistically,
this is reflected in the different languages of the eastern and the western
provinces. In the western half of the Roman empire, where no contact had
been made with a recognised civilization, Latin
-- which subsists in Italian – becomes he language of administration,
business, law, learning, and social advancement. Ultimately, Latin
displaces the former languages of most of the western provinces, and becomes in
the course of linguistic evolution the modern Romance, or Neo-Latin, languages
of contemporary Europe, notably French (Italian is no romance; Italian IS
Latin!). In the east, however, already largely under Hellenic administration
since the Hellenistic period, Greek retains the position it has already
reached. Roman officials often complain about having to learn and use Greek in
the course of their duties, and Hellenic philosophy was quite respected for its
eccentricity. Ultimately this linguistic division is politically recognized in
the splitting of the Roman Empire into the Western and the Eastern Empires,
with the new eastern capital at COSTANTINO’s Constantinople enduring as the
head of the Byzantine dominions through much trial and tribulation up to the
beginning of the western Renaissance. The accepted view of the relation
between Roman rule and Hellenic civilization is probably well represented in
Vergil's summary of Rome's place and duty: let others (i.e. the Greeks)
excel if they will in the arts, while Rome keeps the peace of the world. During
the years in which Rome rules the western civilised world, there must have been
contacts between speakers of Latin and speakers of other languages at all
levels and in all places. Interpreters must have been in great demand, and
the teaching and learning of Latin -- and, in the eastern provinces, of Greek
-- must have been a concern for all
manner of persons both in private households and in organized
schools. Translations are numerous. Greek literature is
systematically translated into Latin. So much did the prestige of Greek
writing prevail, that Latin poetry abandons its native metres and was composed
during the classical period and after in metres learned from the Greek
poets. This adaptation to Latin of Greek metres find its culmination in
the magnificent hexameters of VIRGILIO and the perfected elegiacs of OVIDIO. It
is surprising that we know so little of the details of all this linguistic
activity, and that so little writing on the various aspects of linguistic
contacts is either preserved for us or known to have existed. The Romans are
aware of multi-lingualism as an achievement. AULO GELLIO tells of the
remarkable king Mithridates of Ponto who was able to converse with any of his
subjects, who fell into more than twenty different speech communities. In
linguistic science, the Roman experience is no exception to the general
condition of their relations with Greek intellectual work. Roman
linguistics is largely the application of Greek philosophy, Greek
controversies, and Greek categories to the Latin language. The relatively
similar basic structures of the two languages, together with the unity of
civilization achieved in the Greco-Roman world, facilitate this meta-linguistic
transfer. The introduction of linguistic studies into Rome is credited to
one of those picturesque anecdotes that lighten the historian's
narrative. CRATES, a philosopher of the Porch and grammarian, comes to
Rome on a political delegation, and while sightseeing, falls on an open drain
and is detained in bed with a broken leg. CRATES passes the time while
recovering in giving lectures on literary themes to an appreciative
audience. It is probable that Crates as a philosopher of the PORCH
introduces mainly that doctrine in his teaching. But Greek philosophers and
Greek philosophy enter the Roman world increasingly in this period, and by the
time of V., both Alexandrian and Stoic opinions on language are known and
discussed. V. is the first serious Latin philosopher on linguistic
questions of whom we have any records. V. is a polymath, ranging in his
interests through agriculture, senatorial procedure, and Roman
antiquities. The number of his writings is celebrated by his
contemporaries, and his "De lingua Latina", wherein he expounds his
linguistic opinions, comprise XXV volumes, of which books V and VI and some
fragments of the others survive. One major feature of V.’s linguistic philosophy
is his lengthy exposition and formalization of the opposing views in the
analogy-anomaly controversy, and a good deal of his description and analysis of
Latin appears in his treatment of this problem. He is, in fact, one of the
main sources for its details, and it has been claimed that he misrepresents it
as a matter of permanent academic attack and counter-attack, rather than as the
more probable co-existence of opposite tendencies or attitudes. V.'s style
is criticised as unattractive, but on linguistic questions he is probably the
most original of all the Latin philosophers. V. is much influenced by the
philosophy of the Porch, including that of his own teacher STILONE. But V. is
equally familiar with Alexandrian doctrine, and a fragment purporting to
preserve his definition of grammar, 'the systematic knowledge of the usage of
the majority of poets, historians, and orators' looks very much like a direct
copy of Thrax's definition. On the other hand, V. appears to use his Greek
predecessors and contemporaries rather than merely apply them with the minimum
of change to Latin. His statements and conclusions are supported by argument
and exposition, and by the independent investigation of earlier stages of the
Latin language. V. is much admired and quoted by later philosophers,
though in the main stream of linguistic theory his treatment of Latin grammar does
not bring to bear the influence on the successors to antiquity that more
derivative scholars such as PRISCIANO does, who set themselves to describe
Latin within the framework already fixed for Greek by Thrax's Techne and the
syntactic works of Apollonius. In the evaluation of V.'s work on language
we are hampered by the fact that only two of the XXV books of the “De lingua
Latina” survive. We have his threefold division of linguistic studies,
into etymology, morphology, and syntax, and the material to judge the first and
second.V. envisages language developing from an original set of primal words,
imposed on things so as to refer to them, and acting productively as the source
of large numbers of other words through subsequent changes in letters, or in
phonetic form -- the two modes of description comes to the same thing for him.. These
changes take place in the course of years. An earlier forms, such as
"duellum" for classical "bellum", V. cites as an instance. At
the same time, a *meaning* may change, as, for example, the meaning of “hostis”,
once 'stranger', but in V.'s time, 'enemy.' These etymologico-semantic
statements are supported by scholarship. But a great deal of V.’s etymology
suffers from the same weakness and lack of comprehension that characterizes Hellenic
work in this field. "Anas", from "nare", to swim, “vitis,”
from “vis;” “cilra, “care, from “cor iirere,” are sadly typical both of V.’s
philosophy and of Latin etymological studies in general. A fundamental
ignorance of linguistic history is seen in V.'s references to Hellenism. A
similarity in a form bearing comparable meanings in Latin and Greek is obvious.
Take the first personal pronoun: 'ego.' Some similarities are the produ.ct of
historical loans at various periods once the two communities made indirect and
then direct contact. Other similarities are the joint descendants of an earlier
common Aryan forms whose existence may be inferred and whose shape may to some
extent be reconstructed by the methods of comparative and historical
linguistics. But of this, V., like the rest of antiquity, has no
conception. All such bunch is jointly regarded by him as a direct loan
from the conquered Greek, whose place in the immediate history of Latin is
misrepresented and exaggerated as a result of the Romans’ consciousness of their
cultural debt to Greece and mythological associations of Greek heroes -- and
their enemies, like Aeneas! -- in the story of the founding of Rome. In his
conception of vocabulary growing from alterations made to the forms of primal
words, V. unites two separate considerations: historical etymology and the
synchronic formation of derivations and inflexions. Certain canonical
members of paradigmatically associated word series are said to be primal -- all
the others resulting from “declinatio”, the formal process of change. A derivational
prefix is given particular attention. One must regret V.’s failure to
distinguish two linguistic dimensions, because, as with other linguistic
philosophers in antiquity, V.’s synchronic descriptive observations are much
more informative and perceptive than his attempts at historical
etymology. As an example of an apparent awareness of the distinction, one
may note V.’s statement that, within Latin, "equitiittis" and
"eques" -- stem "equit-" – may be associated with and
descriptively referred back to "equus". But that no further
explanation on the same lines is possible for "equus". Within Latin, ‘equus’
is primal. Any explanation of its form and its meaning involves a dia-chronic
research into an earlier stages of the Indo-European family and cognate forms
in languages other than Latin. In the field of word form variations from a
single root, both derivational and inflexional, V. rehearses the arguments for
and against analogy and anomaly, citing Latin examples of regularity and of
irregularity. Sensibly enough, V. concludes that both the principle of
analogy and the principle of anomaly must be recognized and accepted in the
word formations of a language and in the meanings associated with them. In
discussing the limits of strict regularity in the formation of words V. notices
the pragmatic nature of language, with its vocabulary more differentiated in
culturally important areas than in others. Thus "equus" and
"equa" have separate forms for the male and female animal, because
the sex difference is important to the Romans. But "corvus" does not,
because in them the difference is not important to Romans. Once this is true of
"columba" -- formerly all designated by the feminine noun. But since
"columbae" are domesticated, a separate, analogical, masculine form
"columbUS" is ‘coined.’ V. further recognises the possibilities open
to the individual, particularly in poetic diction, of variations or anomalies
beyond those sanctioned by majority usage or 'ordinary language', a conception
not remote from the Saussurean interpretation of langue and parole. One of
V.'s most penetrating observations in this context is the distinction between
derivational and inflexional formation, a distinction not commonly made in
antiquity. One of the characteristic features of inflexions is their very
great generality. Inflexional paradigms contain few omissions and are mostly
the same for all speakers of a single dialect or of an acknowledged standard
language. This part of morphology V. calls 'declinatio naturalis’,
because, given a word and its inflexional class, we can infer its other forms. By
contrast, synchronic derivations vary in use and acceptability from person to
person and from one word root to another. From "ovis" and
"sus" are formed "ovile" and "suile.” But
"bovile" is *not* acceptable to V. from "bos" -- although
rustic CATONE is said to have used the form as opposed to the more standard
"bubile.” The facultative and less ordered state of this part of
morphology, which gives a language much of its flexibility, is distinguished by
V. in what he dubs ‘declinatio VOLUNTARIA.’ V. shows himself likewise original
in his proposed morphological classification of Latin words. His use in
this of the morphological categories shows how V. understands and makes use of
Greek sources without deliberately copying their conclusions. V. recognises,
as the Greeks do, case and tense as the primary distinguishing categories of
inflected words, and sets up a quadripartite system of FOUR inflexionally
contrasting classes. Those with case inflexion. Those with tense inflexion. Those
with case and tense inflexion. Those with neither. Noun (including Adjective).
Verbs. Participle. Adverb. These IV classes are further categorised as a forms
which, respectively, names, makes a statement, joins (i.e. shared in the syntax
of nouns and verbs), and supports (constructed with verbs as their subordinate
members). In the passages dealing with these IV classes, the adverbial examples
are all morphologically derived forms -- like "docte" and
"lecte". V.’s definition would apply equally well to the un-derived
and mono-morphemic adverbs of Latin -- like "mox" and
"eras". But these are referred to elsewhere among the uninflected,
invariable or 'barren,’ sterile, words. A full classification of the
invariable words of Latin would require the distinction of syntactically
defined sub-classes such as Thrax used for Greek and the later Latin
grammarians took over for Latin. But, from his examples, it seems clear that
what was of prime interest to V. is the range of grammatically different words
that may be formed on a single common root -- e.g. "lego" (VERB –
CLASS II) , "lector" – NOUN, CLASS I --, "legens" –
PARTICIPLE, CLASS III -- and "lecte" – ADVERB – CLASS IV. In his
treatment of the verbal category of tense, Varro displays his sympathy with the
doctrine of the Porch, in which two semantic functions are distinguished within
the forms of the tense paradigms, time reference and ‘aspect.’ In his analysis
of the VI INDICATIVE indicative tenses, active and passive, the *aspectual* division,
incomplete-complete, is the more fundamental for V., as each aspect regularly
shares the same stem form, and, in the passive voice the *completive* aspect
tenses consists of *two* expressions, though V. claims that, erroneously, most
people only consider the time reference dimension. IS Active Time past present
future Aspect incomplete DISCIBAM I
was DISCO I learn DISCAM I shall learning learn complete DIDICERAM
I had DIDICI I have DIDICERII I shall learned learned have learned
Passive incomplete AMTIBAR I was AMOR I am AMITBOR I shall be loved loved loved complete AMTITUS
I had AMTITUS I have AMIITUS I
shall ERAM been sum been ERA have been loved loved loved The Latin future perfect
is in more common use than the corresponding Greek (Attic) future perfect. V.
puts the Latin perfect tense forms DIDICI, etc., in the present *completive*
place, corresponding to the place of the Greek perfect tense forms. In what we
have or know of his writings, V. does not appear to have allowed for one of the
major differences between the Greek and Latin tense paradigms -- viz. that, in
the Latin perfect tense, there is a syncretism of a simple past meaning ('I
did'), and a perfect meaning ('I have done') -- corresponding to the Greek
aorist and perfect respectively. The Latin perfect tense forms belong in *both*
completive and non-completive aspectual categories, a point clearly made later
by PRISCIANO in his exposition of a similar analysis of the Latin verbal
tenses. If the difference in use and meaning between the Greek and Latin
perfect tense forms seems to escape V.'s attention, the more obvious contrast
between the V-term case system of Greek and the *VI*-term system of Latin forces
itself on him, as it does on anyone else who learned both languages. Latin
formally distinguished an ABLATIVE CASE. 'By whom an action is performed' is
the gloss given by V.. THE ABLATIVE CASE shares a number of the meanings and
syntactic functions of both the Greek GENITIVE and DATIVE case forms. V. takes
the NOMINATIVE form not as a casus but as as the canonical word forms, from
which the oblique forms -- cases -- are developed. Like his Greek colleagues
across the pond, V. contents himself with fixing on one stereo-typical meaning
or relationship as definitive for each case. V., who was no Cicero – ‘he is a
Varro’ implicates ‘he is a know-it-all’ in Roman -- mistranslates ‘aitiatike
ptosis’ by ACCUSATIVUS rather than the more correct, CAUSATIVUS. V. is probably
the most independent and original philosopher on linguistic topics among the
Romans. After V. we can follow discussions of existing questions by several philosophers
with no great claim on our attention. Among others, GIULIO CESARE – the
well-known general assassinated by the senators -- is reported to have turned
his mind to the analogy-anomaly debate while crossing the Alps on a campaign. Thereafter,
the controversy gradually fades away. PRISCIANO uses ‘analogia’ to mean
the regular inflexion of an inflected word, without mentioning ‘anomalia’. ‘Anomalia’
appears occasionally among the late grammarians.V.'s ideas on the
classification of Latin words have been noticed. But the word class system that
is established in the Latin tradition enshrines in the ‘saggi’ of PRISCIANO and
the late Latin ‘philosophical’ grammarians – cf. CAMPANELLA, ‘Grammatica
filosofica’ -- is much closer to. the one given in Thrax's Techne. The
number of classes remains now at VIII, with one change. A class of words
corresponding to the Greek definite article ‘ho,’ ‘he,’ ‘to,’ does not exist
in Latin. The definite article of Italian
develops later from weakened forms of the demonstrative pronoun ‘ille’ (il) and
‘illa’ (la). The Greek *relative* pronoun is morphologically similar to the
article and classed with it by Thrax and Apollonius. In Latin, the
relative pronoun – ‘qui’, ‘quae’, and ‘quod’ -- is morphologically akin to the
interrogative pronoun – ‘quis’, ‘quid’ -- and both are classed together either
with the noun or the pronoun class. In place of the article, Latin
grammarians recognise the ‘interjection’ as a separate ‘pars orationis’,
instead of treating it as a subclass of adverbs as Thrax and Apollonius do. PRISCIAN
regards the separate status of the interjection as common practice among Latin
scholars. But the first philosopher who is known to have dealt with it in this
way is REMMIO PALEMONE, a grammatical and literary scholar who defines the
interjection as having no statable meaning but merely indicating – via natural
meaning, as H. P. Grice would have it – emotion, as in Aelfric he he versus ha
ha (Roman versus English laughter). PRISCIANO lays more stress on the syntactic
independence of the interjection in sentence structure. QUINTILIANO, a
Spaniard, not a Roma, is PALEMONE’s pupil. This Spaniard writes extensively on
education, and in his “Institutio aratoria”, wherein he expounds his opinions,
he dealt briefly with ‘GRAMMATICA’ – the first of the trivial arts -- ,
regarding it as a propaedeutic to the full and proper appreciation of
literature in a liberal education, in terms very similar to those used by Thrax
at the beginning of the Techne. In a matter of detail, QUINTILIANO discusses
the analysis of the Latin case system, a topic always prominent in the minds of
Latin scholars who knew Greek by default (Who didn’t have a Greek slave?). QUINTILIANO
suggests isolating the instrumental use of the ABLATIVE -- "gladiii"
-- as case VII, since, as he notes, this instrumental use of the ablative case has
nothing in common semantically with the other meanings of the ablative. A separate
‘instrumental’ case forms is found (but a Spaniard wouldn’t know) in Sanskrit,
and may be inferred for unitary Indo-european, though the Greeks and Romans
knew nothing of this. It was and is common practice to name the cases by
reference to one of their meanings – DATIVUS, 'giving', ABLATIVUS, 'taking away', etc. -- but
their formal identity as members of a VI-term paradigm rests on their meaning,
or more generally, their meanings, and their syntactic functions being
associated with a morphologically distinct form in at least some of the members
of the case inflected word classes. PRISCIAN and DONATO see this, and in
view of the absence of any morphological feature distinguishing an alleged instrumental
use of the ablative case forms from their other uses, PRISCIANO explicitly
reproves of such an addition to the descriptive grammar of Latin as redundant –
or “supervacuum,” as he said for ‘otiose.’ The work of V., QUINTILIANO, shows
the process of absorption of Greek linguistic theory, controversies, and
categories, in their application to the Latin language. But Latin
linguistic scholarship is best known for the formalization of descriptive Latin
grammar, to become the basis of all education in later antiquity and the
traditional schooling of the modern world. The Latin grammar of the
present day is the direct descendants of the compilations of the later Latin
grammarians, as the most cursory examination of PRISCIANO’s “Institutiones
grammaticae” will show. PRISCIANO’s grammar, comprising XVIII books and
running to nearly a thousand pages may be taken as representative of their
work. Quite a number of writers of Latin grammars, working in different
parts of the Roman Empire, are known to us. Of them DONATO and PRISCIANO are
the best known. Though they differ on several points of detail, on the
whole these philosopohical grammarians set out and follow the same basic system
of grammatical description. For the most part, Roman philosophical
grammarians show little originality, doing their best to apply the terminology
and categories of the Greek grammarians to the Latin language. The Greek
technical terms are given fixed translations with the nearest available Latin
word. ‘onoma’, ‘NOMEN’ ‘anto-nymia,’ ‘PRO-NOMEN’
‘syn-desmos,’ ‘CON-IUCTIO’ etc. In this procedure they had been encouraged by DIDIMO, a voluminous scholar, who states that every
feature of Greek grammar IS TO BE found in Latin. DIDIMO follows the word class
system of the PORCH, which included the article (absent in Latin) and the
personal pronouns in one class, so that the absence of a word form
corresponding to the Greek article does not upset him or his classification. Among
the Latin philosophical grammarians, MACROBIO gives an account of the
'differences and likenesses' of the Greek and the Latin verb, but it amounted
to little more than a parallel listing of the forms, without any penetrating
investigation of the verbal systems of the Latin language – his own, or Greek. The
succession of Latin philosophical grammarians through whom the accepted
grammatical description of the language is brought to completion and handed on
to the Middle Ages spanned the centuries until the foundation of Oxford. This
period covers the pax Romana and the unitary Greco-Roman civilization of the
Mediterranean that lasts during the first two centuries, the breaking of the
imperial peace in the third century, and the final shattering of the western
provinces, including Italy, by invasion from beyond the earlier frontiers of
the empire. Historically these centuries witness two events of permanent
significance in the life of the civilized world. In the first place,
Christianity – or the coming of the Galileans -- which, from a secular
standpoint, starts as the religion of a small deviant sect of Jewish zealots,
spread and extended its influence through the length and breadth of the empire,
until, in the fourth century, after surviving repeated persecutions and
attempts at its suppression, it is recognized as the official religion of the
state! (Except Giuliano). Its subsequent dominance of European thought (except
Luther) and of all branches of learning for the next thousand years is now
assured, and neither doctrinal schisms nor heresies, nor the lapse of an
emperor into apostasy could seriously check or halt its progress. As Christianity
gains the upper hand and attracts to itself men of learning, the scholarship of
the period shows the struggle between the old declining pagan standards of
classical antiquity and the rising generations of Christian apologists,
philosophers, and historians, interpreting and adapting the heritage of the
past in the light of their own conceptions and requirements. The second event is
a less gradual one, the splitting of the Roman world into two halves, east and
west. After a century of civil turmoil and barbarian pressure, Rome ceases
under DIOCLEZIANO to be the administrative capital of the empire, and his later
successor COSTANTINO transfers his government to a new city, built on the old
Byzantium and named Constantino-polis (literally: ‘my (kind of) town’). By the
end of the fourth century, the Roman empire is formally divided into an eastern
and a western realm, each governed by its own emperor (who often did not speak
to each other – and for whom there was no lingua franca to be found). This division
roughly corresponds to the separation of the old Hellenized area conquered by
Rome but remaining Greek in culture and language, and the provinces raised from
barbarism by Roman influence and Roman letters. Constantinople, assailed from
the west and from the east, continues for a thousand years as the head of the
Eastern Byzantine Empire, until it falls to the Turks. During and after the
break-up of the Western Empire, Rome endures as the capital city of the Roman
Church, while Christianity in the east gradually evolved in other directions to
become the Eastern Orthodox Church. Culturally one sees as the years pass on
from the so-called 'Silver Age' a decline in liberal attitudes, a gradual
exhaustion of older themes, and a loss of vigour in developing new ones. Save
only in the rising Christian communities, scholarship is backward-looking,
taking the form of erudition devoted to the acknowledged standards of the past.
This is an era of commentaries, epitomes, and dictionaries. The Latin
grammarians, whose oudook is similar to that of the Alexandrian Greek scholars,
like them directed their attention to the language of classical literature, for
the study of which grammar serves as the introduction and foundation. The
changes taking place in the spoken and the non-literary written Latin around
them arise VERY little interest – ‘the plebs use it!’ --; their works are
liberally exemplified with texts, all drawn from the prose and verse writers of
classical Latin and their ante-classical predecessors Plautus and Terence. How
different accepted written Latin is becoming may be seen by comparing the
grammar and style of GIROLAMO's fourth translation of the Bible (the Vulgate),
wherein several grammatical features of the Romance languages are anticipated,
with the Latin preserved and described by the grammarians, one of whom, DONATO,
second only to PRISCIANO in reputation, was in fact GIROLAMO’s teacher – and
learned from him that God could be allowed a solecism or two! The nature and
the achievement of the Latin philosophical grammarians can best be appreciated
through a consideration of the work of their greatest representative, PRISCIANO,
who teaches Latin grammar in Constantino-polis. Though PRISCIANO draws much
from his Latin predecessors, his aim, like theirs, is to transfer as far as he
could the grammatical system of Thrax's Techne and of Apollonius's writings to
Latin. PRISCIANO’s admiration for Greek linguistic scholarship and his
dependence on Apollonius and his son ERODIANO, in particular, 'the greatest
authorities on grammar', are made clear in his introductory paragraphs and
throughout his grammar. PRISCIANO works systematically through his subject, the
description of the language of classical Latin literature. Pronunciation and
syllable structure are covered by a description of the “littera’, defined as
the smallest part of articulate speech, of which the properties are “nomen”,
the name of the letter, “figura”, its written shape, and “potestas,” its
phonetic value. All this had already been set out for Greek, and the phonetic
descriptions of the letters as pronounced segments and of the syllable
structures carry little of linguistic interest except for their partial
evidence of the pronunciation of the Latin language. From phonetics PRISCIANO
passes to morphology, defining the “dictio” and the “oratio” in the same terms
that Thrax uses, as the minimum unit of sentence structure and the expression
of a complete thought, respectively. As with the rest of western antiquity, PRISCIANO’s
grammatical model is word and paradigm, and he expressly denies any linguistic
significance to a division, in what would now be called morphemic analysis, *below*
the word. On one of his rare entries into this field, PRISCIANO misrepresents
the morphemic composition of words containing the negative prefix “in-“ -- “indoctus”
-- by identifying it with the preposition “in.” These two morphemes, “in-“,
negative, and “in-”, the prefixal use of the preposition, are in contrast in “invisus”,
which may negate or strengthen the stem that follows (two words with two
meanings, not a polysemous expression). After a review of earlier theories of
Greek linguists, PRISCIANO sets out the classical system of VIII word classes
laid down by Thrax and Apollonius, with the omission of the article but the
separate recognition of the interjection. Each class of words is defined, and
described by reference to its relevant formal category and “accidentia,” whence
the later accidence for the morphology of a language, and all are copiously
illustrated with examples from classical texts. All this takes up XVI of the XVIII
books, the last II being devoted to syntax. PRISCIANO addresses himself (OBVIOUSLY)
to readers already knowing Greek, as Greek examples are widely used and
comparisons with Greek are drawn at various points, and the last hundred pages
are wholly taken up with the comparison of different constructions in the two
languages. Though Constantinopolis was a Greek-speaking city in a
Greek-speaking area, Latin is decreed the official language when the new city
was founded as the capital of the Eastern Empire. Great numbers of speakers of
Greek as a first language needed Latin teaching from then on. The VIII parts of
speech, or word classes, in PRISCIANO’s grammar may be compared with those in
Dionysius Thrax's Techne. Reference to extant definitions in Apollonius and PRISCIANO’s
expressed reliance on him allow us to infer that PRISICIANO’s definitions are
substantially those of Apollonius, as is his statement that each separate class
is known by its semantic content. “Nomen,” including adjectives. The property
of the noun is to indicate a substance and a quality, and it assigns a common
or a particular quality to every body or thing. The property of the VERBUM is
to indicate an action or a being acted on; it has tense and mood forms, but is
not case inflected. The PARTICIPIUM is a class of words always derivationally
referable to a VERBUM, sharing the categories of verbs and a NOMEN (tenses and
cases) -- and therefore distinct from both. This definition is in line with the
Greek treatment of these words. The property of the PRONOMEN is its
substitutability for a proper nouns and its specifiability as to person -- first,
second, or third. The limitation to proper nouns, at least as far as third
person pronouns are concerned, contradicts the facts of Latin. Elsewhere, PRISCIANO
repeats Apollonius's statement that a specific property of the PRONOMEN is to
indicate substance *without* quality, as a way of interpreting the lack of lexical
restriction on the NOMEN which may be referred to anaphorically by a PRONOMEN.
The property of the ADVERBIUM is to be used in construction with a VERBUM, to
which it is syntactically and semantically subordinate. The property of the PRAE-POSITIO
is to be used as a separate word before case inflected words and in composition
before both case-inflected and non-case-inflected words. PRISCIANO, like Thrax,
identifies the first part of words like “PRO-consul” and “INTER-currere”, as PRAE-POSITIO.
INTER-IECTIO is a class of words syntactically independent of a VERBUM, and
indicating a feeling or a state of mind. The property of the CON-IUCTIO is to
join syntactically two or more members of any other word class, indicating a
relationship between them. In reviewing PRISCIANO' s work as a whole, one
notices that in the context in which he is writing and in the form in which he
casts his description of Latin, no definition of grammar itself is found
necessary. Where other late Latin grammarians do define the term, they do no
more than abbreviate the definition given at the beginning of Thrax's Techne.
It is clear that the place of grammar, and of linguistic studies in general, in
education is the same as is precisely and deliberately set out by Thrax and
summarily repeated by QUINTILIANO. PRISCIANO's omission is an indication of the
long continuity of the conditions and objectives taken for granted during these
centuries. PRISCIANO organises the morphological description of the forms of
nouns and verbs, and of the other inflected words, by setting up canonical or
basic forms, in nouns the nominative singular and in verbs the first person
singular present indicative active. From these he proceeds to the other forms
by a series of letter changes, the letter being for him, as for the rest of
western antiquity, both the minimal graphic unit and the minimal phonological
unit. The steps involved in these changes bear no relation to morphemic
analysis, and are of the type that finds no favour at all in recent descriptive
linguistics, though under the influence of the generative grammarians somewhat
similar process terminologies are being suggested. The accidents or categories
in which PRISCIANO classes the formally different word shapes of the inflected
or variable words include both derivational and inflexional sets, PRISCIANO following
the practice of the Greeks in not distinguishing between them. V.’s important
insight is totally disregarded! But PRISCIANO is clearly informed on the theory
of the establishment of categories and of the use of semantic labels to
identify them. Verbs are defined by reference to action or being acted on. But
PRISCIANO points out that on a deeper consideration – SI QUIS ALTIUS CONSIDERET
-- such a definition would require
considerable qualification; and case names are taken, for the most part, from
just one relatively frequent use among a number of uses applicable to the
particular case named. This is probably more prudent, if less exciting, than
the insistent search for a common or basic meaning uniting all the semantic
functions associated with each single set of morphologically identified case
forms. The status of the VI cases of Latin nouns is shown to rest, not on the
actually different case forms of any one noun or one declension of nouns, but
on semantic and syntactic functions systematically correlated with differences
in morphological shape at some point in the declensional paradigms of the noun
class as a whole. The many-one relations found in Latin between forms and uses
and between uses and forms are properly allowed for in the analysis. In
describing the morphology of the Latin verb, PRISCIANO adopts the system set
out by Thrax for the Greek verb, distinguishing present, past, and future, with
a fourfold semantic division of the past into imperfect, perfect, plain past – aorist
-- and pluperfect, and recognizing the syncretism (as V. does not) of perfect
and aorist meanings in the Latin perfect tense forms. Except for the recognition
of the full grammatical status of the Latin perfect tense forms, PRISCIANO’s
analysis, based on that given in the Techne, is manifestly inferior to the one
set out by V. under the influence of THE PORCH. The distinction between
incomplete and complete aspect, correlating with differences in stem form, on
which V. lays great stress, is concealed, although PRISCIANO recognises the
morphological difference between the two stem forms underlying the VI tenses. Strangely,
PRISCIANO seems to have misunderstood the use and meaning of the Latin future
perfect, calling it the ‘future subjunctive’, though the first person singular
form by which he cited it – “scripsero” -- is precisely the form which
differentiates its paradigm from the perfect subjunctive paradigm – “scripserim”
-- and, indeed, from any subjunctive verb form, none of which show a first
person termination in -im. This seems all the more surprising because the
corresponding forms in Greek -- “tetypsomai”
-- are correctly identified. Possibly his reason was that his Greek
predecessors had excluded the future perfect from their schematization of the
tenses, in that this tense was not much used in Greek, and was felt to be an atticism.
A like dependence on the Greek categorial framework probably leads Priscian to
recognize both a subjunctive mood (subordinating) and an OPTATIVE mood
(independent, expressing a wish) in the Latin verb, although Latin -- unlike
Greek -- nowhere distinguishes these two mood forms morphologically, as PRISCIAN
in fact admits, thus confounding his earlier explicit recognition of the status
of a formal grammatical category. Despite such apparent misrepresentations, due
primarily to an excessive trust in a point for point applicability of Thrax's
and Apollonius's systematization of Greek to the Latin language, Priscian's
morphology is detailed, orderly, and in most places definitive. His treatment
of syntax in the last two books is much less so, and a number of the organizing
features that we find in modern grammars of Latin are lacking in his account.
They are added by later scholars on to the foundation of Priscianic morphology.
Confidence in PRISCIANO’s syntactic theory is hardly increased by reading his
assertion that the word order, most common in Latin, nominative case noun or
pronoun (subject) followed by verb is the NATURAL one, because the substance
(“homo”) is PRIOR to the action it performs (“currit”). Such are the dangers of
philosophising on an inadequate basis of empirical fact. In the syntactic
description of Latin, PRISCIANO classifies verbs on the same lines as had been
worked out for Greek by the Greek grammarians, into active (transitive),
passive, and neutral (intransitive), with due notice of the deponent verbs,
passive in morphological form but active or intransitive in meaning and syntax
and without corresponding passive tenses. Transitive verbs are those
colligating with an oblique case -- “laudo te”, “noceo tibi,” “ego miserantis”
-- and the absence of concord between oblique case forms and finite verbs is
noted. But the terms subject and object were not in use in PRISCIANO’s time as
grammatical terms, though the use of “subiectum” to designate the logical
subject of a proposition is common. PRISCIANO makes mention of the ablative
absolute construction, though the actual name of this construction is a later
invention. PRISCIANO gives an account and examples of exactly this use of the
ablative case -- me vidente puerum cecidisti -- and -- Augusto imperiitiire
Alexandria provincia facta est. Of the systematic analysis of Latin syntactic
structures PRISCIANO has little to say. The relation of subordination is
recognized as the primary syntactic function of the relative pronoun -- qui,
quae, quod -- and of similar words used to downgrade or relate a. verb or a
whole clause to another, main, verb or clause. The concept of subordination is
employed in distinguishing nouns (and pronouns used in their place) and verbs
from all other words, in that these latter were generally used only in
syntactically subordinate relations to nouns or verbs, these two classes of
word being able by themselves to constitute complete sentences of the
favourite, productive, type in Latin. But in the subclassification of the Latin
conjunctions, the primary grammatical distinction between subordinating and
coordinating conjunctions is left unmentioned, the co-ordinating “TAMEN”, being
classed with the sub-ordinating “QUAMQUAM” and “QUAMSI”. – cf. Grice on ‘if’ as
subordinating. Once again it must be said that it is all too easy to exercise
hindsight and to point out the errors and omissions of one's predecessors. It
is both more fair and more profitable to realise the extent of PRISCIANO’s
achievement in compiling his extensive, detailed, and comprehensive description
of the Latin language of the classical authors, which is to serve as the basis
of grammatical theory for centuries and as the foundation of Latin teaching up
to the present day. Such additions and corrections, particularly in the field
of syntax, as later generations need to make could lie incorporated in the
frame of reference that Priscian employs and expounds. Any division of
linguistics (or of any other science) into sharply differentiated periods is a
misrepresentation of the gradual passage of discoveries, theories, and
attitudes that characterizes the greater part of man's intellectual history.
But it is reasonable to close an account of Roman linguistic scholarship with PRISCIANO.
In his detailed -- if in places misguided -- fitting of Greek theory and
analysis to the Latin language he represents the culmination of the expressed
intentions of most Roman scholars once Greek linguistic work had come to their
notice. And this was wholly consonant with the general Roman attitude in
intellectual and artistic fields towards 'captive Greece' who 'made captive her
uncivilized captor and taught rustic Latium the finer arts. PRISCIANO’s work is
more than the end of an era. It is also the bridge between antiquity and the
Middle Ages in linguistic scholarship. By far the most widely used grammar, PRISCIANO’s
“Institutiones grammaticae” runs to no fewer than one thousand manuscripts, and
forms the basis of mediaeval Latin grammar and the foundation of mediaeval
linguistic philosophy – i modisti or philosophical grammarians. PRISCIANO’s grammar
is the fruit of a long period of Greco-Roman unity. This unity had already been
broken by the time he writes, and in the centuries following, the Latin west is
to be shattered beyond recognition. In the confusion of these times, the
philosophical grammarians, their studies and their teaching, have been
identified as one of the main defences of the classical heritage in the
darkness of the Dark Ages. ARENS, Sprachwissenschaft: der Gang ihrer
Entwicklung von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart, Freiburg. Bolgar, The classical
heritage and its beneficiaries, Cambridge. J. Collart, V. grammairien latin,
Paris. FEHLING, 'V. und die grammatische Lehre von der Analogie und der
Flexion', Glotta, LERSCH, Die Sprachphilosophie der Alten, Bonn, H. NETTLESHIP,
The study of grammar among the Romans, Journal of philology, ROBINS, Ancient
and mediaeval grammatical theory in Europe, London, JSANDYS, History of classical
scholarship, Cambridge, STEINTHAL, Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft bei den
Griechen und Romern, Berlin. GIBBON, The decline and fall of the Roman Empire
(ed. BURY), London, VERGIL, Aeneid 6, Ssi-3:
Tu regere imperio populos, Romane, memento (hae tibi erunt artes), pacisque
imponere morem, parcere subiectis et debellare superbos. Noctes Atticae GEHMAN, The
interpreters of foreign languages among the ancients, Lancaster, Pa., FEHLING,
FUNAIOLI, Grammaticorum Romanorum fragmenta, Leipzig. Ars grammatica scientia est eorum quae a poetis
historicis oratoribusque dicuntur ex parte maiore. De lingua Latina CHARisrus,
Ars grammaticae I (KEIL, Grammatici, Leipzig). On Varro's linguistic theory in relation to modern
linguistics, cp. D. LANGENDOEN, 'A note on the linguistic "theory of V.',
Foundations of language 2, SUETONIUS, Caesar, GELLIUS, Noctes Atticae PRISCIANO, Institutio de nomine pronomine et
verbo 38, Institutiones grammaticae PROBUS, Instituta artium (H. KEIL,
Grammatici Latini), DIONYSIUS-THRAX, Techne BEKKER, Anecdota Graeca, Berlin,
APOLLONIUS DYSCOLUS, Syntax As noun, PRISCIAN as pronoun,- PROBUS, Instituta
(KEIL, Grammatici APOLLONIUS, De adverbio, BEKKER, Anecdota Graeca , CHARISIUS,
Ars grammaticae KEIL, Grammatici -- Nihil docibile habent, significant tamen
adfectum animi. QUINTILIAN, Institutio aratoria Their works are published in
KEIL, Grammatici Latini, Leipzig, PRISCIAN De figuris numerorum PRISCIAN De differentiis et societatibus
Graeci Latinique verbi, KEIL, Grammatici 5, Leipzig, Artis grammaticae maximi
auctores', dedicatory preface Dictio est pars minima orationis constructae;
Oratio est ordinatio dictionum congrua, sententiam perfectam demonstrans.
Proprium est nominis substantiam et qualitatem significare; Nomen est pars
orationis, quae unicuique subiectorum corporum seu rerum communem vel propriam
qualitatem distribuit. Proprium est verbi actionem sive passionem significate;
Verbum est pars orationis cum temporibus et modis, sine casu, agendi vel
patiendi significativum. Participium iure separatur a verbo, quod et casus
habet, quibus caret verbum, et genera ad similitudinem nominum, nee modos
habet, quos continet verbum; Participium est pars orationis, quae pro verba
accipitur, ex quo et derivatur naturaliter, genus et casum habens ad
similitudinem nominis et accidentia verba absque discretione personarum et
modorum. The problems arising from the peculiar position of the participle
among the word classes, under the classification system prevailing in
antiquity, are discussed there. Proprium
est pronominis pro ali quo nomine proprio poni et certas significare personas; Pronomen
est pars orationis, quae pro nomine proprio uniuscuiusque accipitur personasque
finitas recipit. Substantiam significat sine aliqua certa qualitate. Proprium
est adverbii cum verbo poni nee s·ine eo perfectam significationem posse
habere; Adverbium est pars orationis indeclinabilis, cuius.significatio verbis
adicitur. Praepositionis proprium est separatim quidem per appositionem
casualibus praeponi coniun~tim vero per compositionem tam cum hahentibus casus
quam cum non habentibus; Est praepositio pars orationis indeclinabilis, quae
praeponitur aliis partibus vel appositione vel compositione. 48. IS-7·40:
Videtur affectum habere in se Yerbi et plenam motus animi significationem,
etiamsi non addatur verbum, demonstrare. Proprium est coniunctionis diversa
nomina vel quascumque dictiones casuales vel diversa verba vel adverbia
coniungere; Coniunctio est pars orationis indeclinabilis, coniunctiva aliarum
partium orationis, quibus consignificat, vim vel ordinationem demons trans. so.
cp. MATTHEWS, 'The
inflectional component of a word-and-paradigm grammar', :Journal of linguistics
HORACE, Epistles 2.1.156-7: Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit et artes Intulit
agresti Latio. .LOT, La fin du monde antique et le debut
du moyen age, Paris. Marco Terenzio
Varrone. He led an active
and sometimes risky political life. Although he backed the wrong side in the
civil war, he survived. He was a pupil of Posidonio at Rome. He was influenced
by Antioco d’Ascalon. He wrote hundreds of works, most of which have since been
lost. Amongst them was an extended series of fictional philosophical dialgoues,
the Logistorici, in wich assorted Romans debated a variety of toipics,
illustrating the arguments with examples from history. Tertulliano calls him
the Roman Cynargo, perhaps because of some satires he wrote but it is highly
unlikely that he was a Cinargo. Better attested is his interest in
Pythagoreanism, whose cult he followed to the letter. Marco
Terenzio Varrone. Varrone. Keywords: centro di studi varroniani, idioma, idiom,
lingua latina, lingua anglica, Lazio, Lazini, la lingua del Lazio, Varrone,
Prisciano, Donato, Girolamo, Giulio Cesare – Refs.: The H. P. Grice Papers,
Bancroft, MS – Luigi Speranza, “Grice e Varrone: semiotica filosofica” – The
Swimming-Pool Library, Villa Speranza, Liguria.
No comments:
Post a Comment