To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Latin grammarians.
Journal articles on the topic 'Latin grammarians'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the top 50 journal articles for your research on the topic 'Latin grammarians.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.
1
Zago, Anna. "Mytacism in Latin grammarians." Journal of Latin Linguistics 17, no. 1 (June 26, 2018): 23–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/joll-2018-0002.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract This paper focuses on the different definitions of the so-called mytacism in Latin grammarians (from the early imperial period to twelth-century treatises), starting from an assessment of the textual basis of their statements. Mytacism is a vitium orationis which affects the phonetic realization of the final group vowel + [m] when followed by another vowel; mytacism also raises various phonetic and rhetorical issues such as weakening of the sound [m], nasalization of the preceding vowel, elision and hiatus. Two competing theories in modern scholarship (weak nasal consonant versus nasalized vowel) try to explain the pronunciation of the final group vowel+[m] followed by another vowel; however, ancient grammar does not possess a theoretical and terminological framework stringent enough to give an accurate phonetic description of this sound. Finally, the paper argues that mytacism is a linguistic mistake associated with the ancient perception of word boundary; its varying definitions allow us to recognize at least an elementary “phonological awareness” in ancient grammatical doctrines.
2
Pultrová, Lucie. "Ancient Latin grammarians on suppletion." Journal of Latin Linguistics 20, no. 1 (June 4, 2021): 109–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/joll-2021-2018.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract The term “suppletion”, introduced by Osthoff (1899. Vom Suppletivwesen der indogermanischen Sprachen. Heidelberg: Universitätsbuchdruckerei Hörning), was traditionally used to refer to an inflectional paradigm containing forms based on two or more etymologically different stems. In the last decades, however, it has been argued that etymology does not contribute to our understanding of the phenomenon, and it should be strictly defined on synchronic terms: simply as the peak point on the formal irregularity scale, regardless of the actual origin of the irregularity. Under this approach, all forms reported by speakers as two potentially different lexical items are considered to be suppletive. To be able to determine what users of a living language consider to be a case of suppletion, it is possible to analyze data collected from speakers. The situation is considerably more difficult for dead languages, which however have played an important role in the debate and provided many of the canonical examples. As a closest equivalent to eliciting the required information from a native speaker, the informed but from the present-day perspective naïve expressions of linguistic introspection in the works of Late Latin Grammarians, namely their use of specific terms (defectivum, anomalum, inaequale) to refer to different degrees and lexical examples of irregularity, are highly valuable, as it also may reflect the difficulties confronted by non-native learners.
3
Walvoort, Hendrik Christiaan. "Declension of the Latin present participle in connection with its syntactico-semantic use." Journal of Latin Linguistics 17, no. 1 (June 26, 2018): 1–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/joll-2018-0001.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThis paper deals with the declension of the Latin present active participle (ppa), which shows several inconsistencies: the ablative singular for instance may end in -eor in -i(sapiente, sapienti) and the genitive plural may end in -umor -ium(sapientum, sapientium). Some grammarians, notably modern ones, assume that there are syntactico-semantic considerations or circumstances, leading to ablative -eending when verbal force is intended (such as in the ablative absolute) or substantival force, and to -iending when there is nominal, notably adjectival force. I have investigated whether ancient, medieval and modern grammarians treat such a phenomenon. In addition, I looked for inconsistencies in the grammarian’s own ppa declension from this syntactico-semantic point of view. It turns out that ancient and medieval grammarians do not formulate declension of the ppa according to its syntactico-semantic function, with the exception of the anonymous author of theArs Ambrosiana, nor do they decline their own ppa’s according to a conventional rule of this kind. This calls for other explanations regarding the declensional inconsistencies observed. Some of the ppa forms may reflect a temporary phenomenon which would have disappeared in due course through diachronic evolution and paradigm leveling. Some forms may have persisted because of their frequency and idiomatic force or because of the compelling analogy with other words and phrases. But these ppa declensional variations do not appear to conform to a syntactico-semantic rule.
4
Jones, Christopher P. "Grammarians and Emperors." Mnemosyne 75, no. 1 (January 7, 2022): 58–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1568525x-bja10136.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract The Greek γραµµατικός combined several functions: as editor and expounder of texts, linguist, librarian, lecturer, courtier and sometimes as ambassador for his monarch or city. In due course Latin-speaking grammatici applied philological skills developed at Alexandria to their own literature, and served as librarians in the great libraries of the imperial period. The present paper studies some Greek γραµµατικοί active in Rome, particularly Alexander of Cotiaeon, appointed by Antoninus Pius as tutor to the princes Marcus and Lucius, and also the teacher of Aelius Aristides. As Aristides’ tribute to him shows, Alexander was not only a notable critic and influential teacher, but acted as a benefactor (εὐεργέτης) of his native city, in this respect comparable to the sophists who were his contemporaries.
5
Kaster, Robert A. "The Insular Latin Grammarians. By Vivien Law." Historiographia Linguistica 12, no. 3 (January 1, 1985): 433–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/hl.12.3.10kas.
Full text
6
Chernysheva, Vlada A. "The Concept of Inchoativity in Works of Latin Grammarians." Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, no. 466 (2021): 47–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.17223/15617793/466/5.
Full textAbstract:
This article touches upon the idea of inchoativity in the works of Roman grammarians. It aims to observe the development of the usage of the term inchoativus in the Roman grammatical tradition. The study is based on Latin grammatical treatises dating back to the 3rd-7th centuries A.D., the most part of which was published by Heinrich Keil in the second half of the 19th century. Besides Keil's edition, the article refers to recent editions of grammatical treatises. The study was conducted using three digital textual databases including Corpora Corporum, Digital Library of Latin Texts, and PHI Latin Texts. The Latin adjective inchoativus (or inco-hativus, а less common spelling), which literally means ‘inceptive, initial', is attested in three meanings and is used in collocations concerning verbal tense, verbal inflection, and conjunctions respectively. The first two usages were widespread and refer to verbal categories, while the last one is attested only once. The article is divided into two parts. The first one discusses collocations with types of verbal tense such as gradus ‘grade, degree', distantia ‘distance', differentia ‘difference', discertio ‘difference', species ‘aspect' and tempus ‘tense' itself. The second part deals with Roman grammatical categories including forma ‘form', qualitas ‘quality', species ‘aspect', genus ‘voice', figura ‘figure'. The study draws a conclusion that the adjective inchoativus/incohativus is used with categories of tense and aspect only in the works of early grammarians including Probus, Sacerdos, Diomedes, Charisius, and PseudoProbus. However, these grammarians also mention this term with regard to verb forms ending in -sco. Mostly, inchoativity is bound with the Roman verbal category of forma, which can be observed in the works by Dositheus, Phocas, Eutyches, Audax, Pseudo-Victorinus, Donatus and his commentators Sergius, Servius, Pompeius, Cledonius, and Julian of Toledo, and species (Macrobius, Priscian), which is not to be confused with the species of tense mentioned above. Pseudo-Asper is the only Roman grammarian who exceptionally puts inchoativity into the category of figura and spells inchoativus as incohativus. If the category of forma is absent, inchoativity is reckoned to be a verbal quality (Diomedes). Inchoativity is included into the category of voice in case voice is regarded as a subcategory of quality (Sacerdos, Pseudo-Probus, and Cledonius). In respect to forms ending in -sco, inchoativity is a manifestation of the so-called grammatical category of quality.
7
Oniga, Renato, and Alessandro Re. "L’analyse synchronique des composés nominaux du latin hier et aujourd’hui." L'antiquité classique 86, no. 1 (2017): 39–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/antiq.2017.3907.
Full textAbstract:
Synchronical Analysis of the Nominal Compounds in Latin : Yesterday and Today – The study of nominal compounds in classical antiquity shows some similarities with contemporary linguistics, especially generative grammar. Ancient grammarians wished to develop a synchronic typology based on the inflectional features of the two members of the compound and the presence of the derivation. The introduction of syntactic criteria and the identification of the special characteristics of bahuvrīhi compounds are the main achievements of the Indian grammarians. Starting from a fundamentally Sanskrit typology, Latin linguistics in the 19th and 20th century attempted to develop new theories.
8
Poppe, Erich. "Latin grammatical categories in the vernacular." Historiographia Linguistica 18, no. 2-3 (January 1, 1991): 269–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/hl.18.2-3.02pop.
Full textAbstract:
Summary The grammatical category ‘declension’ cannot be applied to Welsh substantive nouns since they have one form only for the singular and the plural respectively. But some Welsh grammarians of the 16th and 17th centuries tried to use this category to classify substantive nouns by proposing new definitions, based on the system of plural formation (Robert 1567) or on the system of initial mutations (Rhys 1592; Salesbury 1593). The latter approach formed a short-lived ‘paradigm’ in Welsh grammaticography with a dynamism of its own. It became divorced from the classification of nouns only and was applied to all words which undergo initial mutations (Davies 1621). The history of the definitions of declension in Welsh grammaticography is thus an instructive example of the changes grammatical categories can undergo when applied to a specific vernacular and of the creativity of the vernacular grammarians.
9
Hovdhaugen, Even. "Genera verborum quot sunt?" Historiographia Linguistica 13, no. 2-3 (January 1, 1986): 307–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/hl.13.2-3.10hov.
Full textAbstract:
Summary This article is a study of how Roman grammarians treated a specific grammatical problem, viz., the description and classification of verbal gender in Latin. The results show that various theories were put forward and various possibilities for systematizing and explaining the data were proposed in the works of the grammarians of the 3rd and 4th centuries. Out of the discussion of these grammarians there emerged in the works of the grammarians of the 5th and 6th centuries (notably Phocas, Pompeius, and Priscian) a rather adequate description. While morphological and semantic criteria were intermingled in the earlier period, later grammarians kept them apart. We also find a tendency towards a more theoretical and less data-oriented linguistics. The picture emerging from this in scope rather limited study deviates to some extent from the theories proposed by Bar-wick (1922) concerning the history of Roman linguistics.
10
Mari, Tommaso. "The Grammarian Consentius on Errors Concerning the Accent in Spoken Latin." Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 59, no. 1-4 (September 25, 2020): 623–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1556/068.2019.59.1-4.54.
Full textAbstract:
Summary:The 5th-century Gaulish grammarian Consentius wrote an extensive treatise on errors in spoken Latin. In the Roman grammatical tradition, errors in single words are deemed to arise by means of the improper addition, removal, substitution, and misplacement of one of the constitutive elements of the word (letter, syllable, quantity, accent, and aspiration). Late grammarians assumed that the four catego- ries of change applied to accents too, but only Consentius provided an example for each of these cases. However, his discussion poses some problems. The examples of removal, substitution and misplacement of an accent all concern the word orator and present oddities such as a circumflex accent on the antepe- nultimate syllable; they were clearly made up for the sake of completeness and have no bearing on our understanding of Vulgar Latin. On the other hand, the example of addition of an accent is tríginta, with retraction of the accent on the antepenultimate syllable; this must be genuine and fits in well with current reconstructions of most Romance continuations of Latin triginta (Italian trenta, French trente, etc.) and other vigesimals (uiginti, quadraginta, etc.).
11
Chernysheva, Vlada A. "On the Confusion of the Terms dualis and communis in Cledonius." Philologia Classica 16, no. 1 (2021): 100–105. http://dx.doi.org/10.21638/spbu20.2021.109.
Full textAbstract:
This article attempts to provide an interpretation of a passage on the noun number written by the 5th-century grammarian Cledonius who composed a lemmatised commentary on Donatus’ Ars minor and Ars maior. The passage discussed here is a part of the explanation regarding the noun categories in Ars minor: Numerus, qui unum et plures demonstrat: et communis est numerus, qui et dualis dicitur apud Graecos, ut species facies res. (GL V 10. 19–20). Cledonius’ text confuses two terms dualis and communis, which normally signify different linguistic phenomena. Tim Denecker, whose article covers the history of the term dualis in Latin grammatical treatises, argues that dualis in this passage is indicating a pair and is equated to communis. The aim of the present work is to explain why these two terms have been confused. When comparing Greek and Latin, the Roman grammarians Charisius, Diomedes, Priscian, and Macrobius highlighted the absence of the dual number from Latin, whereas Donatus added it to the singular and plural exemplifying it with two nomina — duo and ambo. Having analysed all of Cledonius’ passages on dualis and communis and compared them with the original text of Donatus, one may notice that Cledonius did not make comments on Donatus’ observations concerning the dual number of duo and ambo. In the author’s view, the grammarian may have opined that the Latin language had no dual number at all, so that in his commentary Latin communis is juxtaposed to Greek dualis and both are opposed to singular and plural.
12
Dickey, Eleanor. "O egregie grammatice: the vocative problems of Latin words ending in -ius." Classical Quarterly 50, no. 2 (December 2000): 548–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cq/50.2.548.
Full textAbstract:
A long-lasting and sometimes acrimonious debate over the correct vocative form of second-declension Latin words in -ius began more than 800 years ago. For the past century most classicists have considered the matter to be settled, and little discussion on the subject has taken place. Yet the century-old conclusions we now so unthinkingly accept are based on very little evidence and are internally inconsistent in some of their details. The past hundred years have provided us not only with more Latin to work with, better tools for search and analysis, and a more complete knowledge of the history of the Latin language, but also with a new understanding and respect for the ancient grammarians and their views on the structure of their language. It is time to re-examine the ancient and modern views on the vocative of -ius words, to see whether any viable conclusions can be drawn and whether the ancient grammarians may have more to contribute than our predecessors believed.
13
David, A. P. "Vindicating Quintilian. Latin Has A Pitch Accent!" Dramaturgias, no. 20 (September 24, 2022): 730–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.26512/dramaturgias20.45180.
Full textAbstract:
Latin grammarians borrowed terms from Greek ones to describe their native prosody; so did Latin poets use Greek metres. This is not only because they admired or fetishised the ancient Greeks. The main reason they borrowed the Greek accentual descriptors and metres is because they worked for Latin. The nature of the prosody of Latin and Greek was almost identical: a recessive contonation of changing pitch. It is false to claim that classical Latin had a stress accent, except as a byproduct of pitch contours married to quantities.
14
Kaster, Robert A. "Islands in the stream." Historiographia Linguistica 13, no. 2-3 (January 1, 1986): 323–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/hl.13.2-3.11kas.
Full textAbstract:
Summary The Latin grammarians of late antiquity seem to personify the cultural stagnation and decline that have commonly been thought to typify the age. Resting upon conceptual foundations that had been laid centuries earlier and repeating the same doctrine from generation to generation, their texts appear by and large to be wholly untouched by originality. This paper addresses the question: why was this so? To suggest one answer to this question, the argument begins from the premise that the tradition remained as stable as it did because it continued to satisfy certain needs; the paper then goes on to consider these needs and their interaction. First, there are the needs of the grammarians themselves. From the beginnings of the profession’s history in the first century B.C. and first century A.D., when the grammarians’ schools first emerged as distinct institutions at Rome, the grammarians’ doctrine, with its emphasis on the rational analysis of the language’s ‘nature’, provided them with the authority they needed to prescribe correct speech for the social and cultural elite that they served. Once this exercise of reason had made a place for the grammarians as relative newcomers to the world of liberal letters, the doctrine was something to be prized and defended: the vivid instruction of the late antique grammarian Pompeius shows us a man fortified and buoyed up by his profession’s tradition, eager to assert its soundness or to add an improving touch here or there – and without the least wish or incentive to attempt some fundamental innovation; for to do so would be to tamper with the honorable social position that the profession provided. At the same time, the mainstream of the educated elite – the second group whose needs must be considered – would themselves have had little reason to encourage innovation: since a liberal education, based of course on grammar, had come to be one of the most important marks of social – and even moral – status, the honorable position of the elite was as much tied as the grammarians’ to the maintenance of the traditional doctrine. As a result, when the interests of the grammarians and the educated elite met in the institution of patronage, on which all teachers depended, the stability of the tradition was reinforced: for patrons did not seek innovative brilliance in their dependents, nor did they even look primarily for technical competence; they rather looked first for traditionally valued personal qualities like modesty and diligence, and other such qualities that would tend to preserve the status quo.
15
Chernysheva, Vlada A. "Modus concessivus, species concessiva and species affirmativa in the Works of Roman Grammarians." Philologia Classica 18, no. 2 (2023): 260–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.21638/spbu20.2023.209.
Full textAbstract:
The article aims to analyze the use of the term concessivus/concessiva ‘concessive’ in Latin grammatical texts which make up Corpus Grammaticorum Latinorum and Digital Library of late antique Latin texts, and to consider the concessive meaning as a grammatical category. A number of grammatical sources (Probus, Ars of Diomedes, Victorini sive Palaemoni Ars, Ars of Cledonius, Explanationes) place the category of concessivity among the verbal categories, namely modus ‘mood’, while in others this term is not mentioned. The text of Diomedes is also notable for the fact that concessivity is included in the concept of species, a term that includes heterogeneous grammatical phenomena among Roman grammarians. At the same time, the grammarian identifies not one meaning of concession, but two, which are defined by the terms — species concessiva (describes situations that are undesirable for the speaker in the present and future) and species affirmativa (describes situations that did not actually happen). All the three terms in the title of this paper correspond to coniunctivus concessivus and indicate the same grammatical form — perfect subjunctive, e. g. feceris ‘even if you did’. In modern linguistics, the meaning of concession is expressed not only by the perfect subjunctive, but also by the present subjunctive, and, thus, does not have a unique formal expression, as in ancient linguistics. I suppose that concession in the Latin language falls under the scope of covert grammatical category, whereas concession, as it was presented in Roman grammars, can be treated as an overt one.
16
Ahačič, Kozma. "The Treatment of ‘Nomen’ in the First Slovenian Grammar (Bohorič 1584)." Historiographia Linguistica 35, no. 3 (August 4, 2008): 275–304. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/hl.35.3.02aha.
Full textAbstract:
Summary The article focuses on the treatment of the noun (nomen) in the grammar published in 1584 by the first Slovenian grammarian, Adam Bohorič (c.1520–1598), under the title Arcticae horulae succisivae de Latinocarniolana literatura (“Spare winter hours on Latin-Carniolan grammar”). The chapter on the noun is examined in the larger context of European grammar-writing, revealing the Bohorič grammar to be a fully-fledged humanist text. In addition, the article explains certain aspects of the work which have sometimes been criticised as weaknesses, provides graphic representations of its structure, and describes Bohorič’s debt to Philipp Melanchthon (1497–1560), the similarities between his work and the German grammar by Johannes Clajus (1535–1592), and the parallels with other grammarians. Moreover, some new findings are presented concerning the glossaries accompanying the paradigms.
17
Gaspar, Catarina. "Orthography as Described in Latin Grammars and Spelling in Latin Epigraphic Texts." Acta Classica Universitatis Scientiarum Debreceniensis 56 (September 1, 2020): 61–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.22315/acd/2020/4.
Full textAbstract:
This paper examines writing and orthography in the work of Latin grammarians and spelling variants in epigraphic texts. It focuses on the uses of the letter H and the spelling of the word sepulchrum. The word’s spelling seems to be connected to the spelling of other words through the adjective pulcher, pulchra, pulchrum. The analysis indicates that the teaching and learning of orthography had a limited influence on epigraphic texts, but there is evidence of the consistently high frequency of the spelling sepulcrum. The paper also shows how data on Latin orthography can help in understanding the chronology of the evolution of spelling in epigraphic texts.
18
DE MELO, WOLFGANG D. C. "A TYPOLOGY OF ERRORS IN VARRO AND HIS EDITORS: A CLOSE LOOK AT SELECTED PASSAGES IN THE DE LINGUA LATINA." Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 60, no. 2 (December 1, 2017): 108–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/2041-5370.12060.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract: Varro's De lingua Latina, our first grammatical treatise of any length written in Latin, is a problematic text: Varro's linguistic theory and practice are often at odds with what later grammarians do, and the text has come down to us in a very poor state. This article examines how modern scholars have often approached the transmitted text with preconceived notions, and how this has influenced editorial choices and subsequent interpretations. The piece also looks at Varro's own linguistic practices and predilections, and how he sometimes reaches conclusions that are logically inconsistent and indefensible.
19
Pultrová, Lucie. "Periphrastic comparison in Latin." Journal of Latin Linguistics 17, no. 1 (June 26, 2018): 93–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/joll-2018-0004.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract Comparison of adjectives (and adverbs) is a grammatical category that has passed practically unremarked upon by generations of Latin linguists. Latin grammar books (with few exceptions, cf. Kühner and Stegmann, 1955: 565–566The Oxford Latin syntax. Volume I: The simple clause, 47. Oxford: Oxford University Press) omit entirely the question of which adjectives can be compared and which cannot. Nevertheless, the data from modern languages show that the category of comparison of adjectives (and adverbs) is actually highly limited, making it essential to address this question for Latin, too. One of the issues comprehended within the extremely complex area of (non-)gradability of adjectives is periphrastic comparison. Latin grammar books explain, based on the assertions of ancient Latin grammarians, that it applies to adjectives ending in -eus, -ius and -uus, implying, or even explicitly stating, that the reason for this type of comparison is phonetic incompatibility of the word-formative suffix with the comparative suffix. However, two facts call for reinterpretation of the matter: (i) periphrastic comparison also occurs in other adjectives for which there is no phonetic incompatibility; (ii) by contrast, some adjectives in -eus, -ius and -uus actually do have simple forms. In the light of these facts, this paper aims to map the real situation of periphrastic comparison in Latin. The employed corpus comprises all the words marked as adjectives in the Oxford Latin Dictionary (more than 10,000 items) and all their occurrences throughout the database Bibliotheca Teubneriana Latina III.
20
Grondeux, Anne. "Mass or Count Noun: Latin Considerations of the Use of sanguis in the Plural." Religions 13, no. 9 (September 14, 2022): 855. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/rel13090855.
Full textAbstract:
Educated by generations of grammarians who state that the term sanguis (blood) is used only in the singular, Fathers of the Church, exegetes, and commentators were confronted with about twenty scriptural, essentially veterotestimentary tokens where sanguis is used in the plural. Justifications for this particular use appear throughout the commentaries. My study will attempt to answer a series of questions. Which passages interested the commentators the most and why? Which grammarians were involved and in what respect? What kind of justifications were provided? Was their interest purely hermeneutic or did the exegetes aim to preserve a state inherited from scrupulous translations? Were the passages treated in isolation or set in resonance? Does this assessment of the commentaries allow us to identity filiations? It will also be seen that this matter is another piece of the puzzle in the relationship between grammar and faith.
21
Oniga, Renato, and Alessandro Re. "Consonant epenthesis in Latin." Journal of Latin Linguistics 21, no. 2 (October 1, 2022): 225–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/joll-2022-2015.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract This paper intends to focus on two aspects: how the Latin grammarians developed the concept of epenthesis, and how we can now give an explanation to this phenomenon. After having gathered the phonological evidence from the tradition of Latin philology, we propose that, in prehistoric Latin, the epenthesis of -t- in the -s.r- cluster, and the epenthesis of -p- in the -m.l- cluster, aimed at solving some problems in syllabification, that is avoiding an illicit syllable onset and an illicit coda-onset sequence, respectively. We then observe that, in classical Latin, the only productive process is the epenthesis of -p- in the -m.s- and -m.t- clusters, which has the function of fulfilling the faithfulness constraint on the inflection of the -m- stems, blocking the m > n assimilation process that later took place in the evolution from Latin to Italian.
22
Adams, James. "Was Classical (Late Republican) Latin A ‘Standard Language’?*." Transactions of the Philological Society 122, no. 3 (November 2024): 366–462. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-968x.12302.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThis article considers the applicability of the term ‘standard language' to classical Latin. The primary topic is spelling. An extensive sample of primary documents in the last two centuries BC and into the early Empire is examined to assess whether there was a genuinely standardised official variety. The paper also deals with morphological (including gender) standardisation, and considers the views of different grammarians and ancient commentators. Finally, the question of linguistic ‘purity' is addressed with reference to the avoidance or elimination of Greek loanwords.
23
Dibbets, Geert R. W. "Dutch philology in the 16th and 17th century." Historiographia Linguistica 15, no. 1-2 (January 1, 1988): 39–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/hl.15.1-2.04dib.
Full textAbstract:
Summary Within a hundred years the first Dutch vernacular orthographies and grammars were published in the Netherlands, as contributions to the cultivation of the language. In a number of these books the authors assumed the independence of the several Dutch dialects; in other publications we find the tendency towards a cultivated language, or we see that the authors started from the existence of a Refined Standard Dutch. However that may be the orthographists and grammarians aimed at the cultivation of written and spoken Dutch. Generally the grammarians did not pay much attention to two traditional areas of the grammar: orthographia and prosodia, but the etymologia was stressed: the theory of the parts of speech, and – to a lesser degree – the syntaxis. The influence of Latin grammar on Dutch was enormous, but could not prevent particularly van Heule (1633) and Leupenius (1653) from following their own course, for the most part within the traditional framework. In doing so the grammarians based themselves on the language usage, in which the nature of the language was given a concrete form.
24
Chernysheva, Vlada A. "Latin Impersonal Passive and the Category of Pluractionality." Philologia Classica 17, no. 2 (2022): 285–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.21638/spbu20.2022.208.
Full textAbstract:
This article aims to put Latin impersonal passive into the context of covert categories, specificallypluractionality. I try to reanalyse six passages from the Roman grammatical texts, mostly compiled in Heinrich Keil’s Grammatici Latini, in which the meaning of Latin impersonal passives is considered. There are two groups of evidence. The first one (passages from Diomedes, Priscian, and frg. Bobiense de verbo) presents the impersonal passive as a linguistic strategy that shifts focus from an agent to a situation, while the second one (Diomedes and two excerpts of Servius’ commentaries on Virgil) concentrates upon the number of agents. In the last case, a verbal action is considered to be a collective one involving many people, and therefore, in my opinion, falls into the category of pluractionality. Being a diverse phenomenon, the term pluractionality includes participant plurality, which is realised either in a subject or in an object depending on whether the verb is intransitive or transitive. Intransitivity of the Latin impersonal passive forms, as it seems, may imply agent plurality rather than subject plurality, since impersonal passive constructions are subjectless. Furthermore, in my opinion, the evidence provided by Latin grammarians demonstrates a contraposition of the 1st personsingular, 1st person plural and 3rd person singular passive forms.
25
Burghini, Julia. "Los patronímicos en los grammatici Latini. La adaptación de una categoría importada." Journal of Latin Linguistics 20, no. 1 (June 28, 2021): 21–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/joll-2021-2017.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract Este artículo analiza la doctrina de los nombres patronímicos (nomina patronyma) en los grammatici Latini, doctrina adaptada de la gramática griega. Las considerables diferencias entre el sistema onomástico latino y el griego ocasionaron, en palabras de Denecker y Swiggers (Denecker, Tim y Pierre Swiggers. 2018. The articulus according to Latin grammarians up to the early Middle Ages: The complex interplay of tradition and innovation in grammatical doctrine. Glotta 94. p. 130), “situaciones de negociación” al momento de trasladar el sistema de una lengua a la otra – por ejemplo, los sufijos – y de ofrecer latinos para ilustrar fenómenos originalmente griegos. Los diferentes grammatici no lidiaron del mismo modo con estas situaciones, y, como resultado, hay una clara diferencia entre la doctrina de los patronímicos de las artes grammaticae “occidentales” y de las “orientales” – i.e., las elaboradas en la parte occidental y oriental del Imperio respectivamente –. A través de un recorrido de la doctrina gramatical de los patronímicos – de Dionisio Tracio a Prisciano –, este artículo analizará cómo los grammatici adaptaron, según su origen, tradiciones y destinatarios, esta categoría a la lengua latina.
26
Maillard, Michel, and Elisete Almeida. "Faut-il continuer à parler d’attribut et d’épithète dans l’Europe d’aujourd’hui?" Travaux neuchâtelois de linguistique, no. 31 (December 1, 1999): 109–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.26034/ne.tranel.19776.
Full textAbstract:
In the past, European Grammar was partly modelled on Latin grammar. Of course this Latin-based model often obscured the real nature of our modern languages, which are fundamentally different from Latin, but the descriptive approach was relatively homogeneous. Now, more especially since the 1950s, grammarians and linguists have largely rejected the old model in favour of a great variety of descriptive approaches which differ from a country to another. In the last fifty years, the most obvious development in grammar is that the subject itself has divided and divided again. Grammar today is, in effect, several grammars, that is a great number of grammatical theories and terminologies, some of which contradict others. One of the main aims of our paper is to clarify this confusion and find the base of a mutual agreement beetween Europeans on some important points of discord, such as grammatical concepts of attribute, predicate, epithet, object and object complement. Can we bear any longer that English grammars respectively call attribute and object complement what French grammars call épithète et attribut de l’objet? Why is the German Prädikat so limited – the verb seen as a syntactic component and nothing more – when the English one is usually so large (including objects and adverbial phrases)? Why does a Portuguese grammarian include adjectives in the category of nouns when a French makes two different categories of them? Finally this paper not only asks questions, it also answers some of them and brings proposals with a view of making the thing easier for European children of the next millenium.
27
Maillard, Michel, and Elisete Almeida. "Faut-il continuer à parler d’attribut et d’épithète dans l’Europe d’aujourd’hui?" Travaux neuchâtelois de linguistique, no. 31 (December 1, 1999): 109–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.26034/tranel.1999.2671.
Full textAbstract:
In the past, European Grammar was partly modelled on Latin grammar. Of course this Latin-based model often obscured the real nature of our modern languages, which are fundamentally different from Latin, but the descriptive approach was relatively homogeneous. Now, more especially since the 1950s, grammarians and linguists have largely rejected the old model in favour of a great variety of descriptive approaches which differ from a country to another. In the last fifty years, the most obvious development in grammar is that the subject itself has divided and divided again. Grammar today is, in effect, several grammars, that is a great number of grammatical theories and terminologies, some of which contradict others. One of the main aims of our paper is to clarify this confusion and find the base of a mutual agreement beetween Europeans on some important points of discord, such as grammatical concepts of attribute, predicate, epithet, object and object complement. Can we bear any longer that English grammars respectively call attribute and object complement what French grammars call épithète et attribut de l’objet? Why is the German Prädikat so limited – the verb seen as a syntactic component and nothing more – when the English one is usually so large (including objects and adverbial phrases)? Why does a Portuguese grammarian include adjectives in the category of nouns when a French makes two different categories of them? Finally this paper not only asks questions, it also answers some of them and brings proposals with a view of making the thing easier for European children of the next millenium.
28
Uría, Javier. "The Pronunciation of Syllable Coda m in Classical Latin: A Reassessment of Some Evidence from Latin Grammarians." American Journal of Philology 140, no. 3 (2019): 439–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/ajp.2019.0027.
Full text
29
Sánchez Salor, Eustaquio. "Reformas del Arte de Nebrija en la segunda mitad del siglo XVI. El caso de Martín Segura de Alcalá." Fortunatae. Revista Canaria de Filología, Cultura y Humanidades Clásicas, no. 32 (2020): 709–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.25145/j.fortunat.2020.32.46.
Full textAbstract:
In the second half of the 16th century, a good number of Institutions for the Grammar appeared. Compared to the Introducciones de Nebrija, which was the official Grammar and which had become a long and difficult manual for students, the aforementioned Institutions for the Grammar tried to present themselves as a shorter and more rational Grammar than Antonio's. This is the case of the Institutions of Segura in Alcalá, first published in 1580 and reprinted in 1586 and 1589. The edition of 1580 is presented as brief and rational, but also as an instrument to teach Latin language, for which it incorporates many Latin phrases into the grammatical text. Segura must have been indeed criticized for it. In the 1589 reprint, among other changes, it suppresses a good number of Latin phrases. He gave in somewhat to the pressure of rationalist Grammarians who argued that Latin should not be spoken
30
Spangenberg Yanes, Elena. "Latin Grammarians as Lexicographers: The Treatment of Nouns with Uncertain Gender." Trends in Classics 15, no. 1 (July 1, 2023): 101–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/tc-2023-0006.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract Several late antique Latin grammatical works encompass material drawn from the ancient erudite linguistic speculation De Latinitate and De dubio sermone, ultimately dating back to Pliny the Elder. The most prominent formal feature of the concerned texts is their lexicographical structure, i.e. the presence of a series of highlighted lemmata accompanied by examples and explanations. Furthermore, most of the works concerned show traces of the alphabetical arrangement of their common source. This paper presents the results of a preliminary survey of the texts dealing with nominal gender: particular attention is paid to the ways in which each late antique grammarian adapts the common source according to his specific interests. This inquiry comes out of a larger research project, which aims at producing a digital critical collection (thesaurus) of grammatical passages dealing with the dubius sermo. This repertory is intended to overcome the limits of the traditional printed collections of grammatical fragments.
31
Percival, W. Keith. "Reflections on the history of dependency notions in linguistics." Historiographia Linguistica 17, no. 1-2 (January 1, 1990): 29–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/hl.17.1-2.05per.
Full textAbstract:
Summary This paper outlines the history of dependency notions from Antiquity to the present century. Although the notion of syntactic dependency was unknown in Antiquity, the idea of semantic dependency was foreshadowed in early definitions of the minor parts of speech, i.e., parts of speech other than the noun and the verb. In part, this happened because logicians had originally posited only the two major parts of speech, and grammarians then formulated their definitions of the minor parts of speech in relation to those of the noun and the verb. The adverb, for instance, was defined as augmenting or diminishing the meaning of the verb. The first writer who used (if not coined) a special term to refer to the notion that some words specify or ‘determine’ the meanings of the subject noun and the verbal predicate was Boethius (ca. 500 A.D.), and in this way the notion of ‘determination’ was launched. As a result of the subsequent popularity of Boethius’s logical works, ‘determination’ was adopted and extensively utilized by Latin grammarians from the 12th century on. In the 13th century, it was complemented by the term ‘dependency’, which was the logical converse of ‘determination’. Grammarians claimed that a dependency relation exists between the members of all constructions. The vogue of ‘dependency’ declined even before the advent of Renaissance humanism, while ‘determination’ survived. In the early modern period, the terminological repertory expanded. Thus, in the 18th century, French grammarians coined the terms ‘modification’ (Buffier) and ‘complement’ (Du Marsais). The 20th century has been marked by a further increase of new terms. Inspired by Tesnière’s posthumous Elèments de syntaxe structurale (1959), some linguists have also proposed formalized dependency theories as alternatives to phrase-structure grammar.
32
Tintemann, Ute. "The Traditions of Grammar Writing in Karl Philipp Moritz’s (1756–1793) Grammars of English (1784) and Italian (1791)." Historiographia Linguistica 42, no. 1 (May 26, 2015): 39–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/hl.42.1.03tin.
Full textAbstract:
Summary Until the late 18th century, authors of vernacular grammars often adopted the categories of Latin grammar to describe these languages. However, by adapting the Latin system to English, German or Italian, grammarians could succeed only in part, because these languages work in different ways. In the present paper, the author discusses the solutions that Karl Philipp Moritz (1756–1793) proposes in his Englische and Italiänische Sprachlehre für die Deutschen, textbooks for German learners. The author analyses to what extent Moritz’s grammar descriptions were influenced by the Latin model as well as by the traditions of English and Italian grammar writing that he encountered in his sources. It will be demonstrated that he translated extensively from the works of other authors: For his English textbook (Moritz 1784), he mainly used James Greenwood’s (1683?–1737) The Royal English Grammar (1737), and for Italian (Moritz 1791), he profited especially from Benedetto Rogacci’s (1646–1719) Pratica, e compendiosa istruzione circa l’uso emendato, ed elegante della Lingua Italiana (1711).
33
McDonald, Edward. "The challenge of a “lacking” language." Chinese Language and Discourse 8, no. 2 (December 31, 2017): 244–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/cld.00005.mcd.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract In the eyes of early modern European scholars, Chinese was commonly regarded as a “lacking” language: lacking its own grammatical tradition or “grammatics”; lacking the complex morphology of the classical European languages; even lacking its own “parts of speech” or word classes. In the late 19th century Ma Jianzhong created a grammatics for Chinese by adapting the categories of Latin grammar - and with a good understanding of the similarities and differences between the two languages - but the Chinese grammarians who followed him have struggled with the question of what might be common to all languages and what might be distinctive to Chinese. Ma saw a Chinese grammatics as a way to fill a gap in the country's literacy education, and this applied focus has been shared by most Chinese grammarians since, something which has tended to put restrictions on their description and theorising. A historical perspective is thus absolutely essential for understanding the practical and ideological problems Chinese grammatics continues to face, and can also throw light on the general challenge of extending “European grammar” to non-European languages.
34
Matton, Sylvain. "An Irradiation of Latin Grammarians, or The De radiis is not by al-Kindī." Magic, Ritual, and Witchcraft 17, no. 3 (January 2023): 437–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/mrw.2023.0005.
Full text
35
Bohacsek, Dóra. "Az afrikai latinság és a vetus Afra." Antik Tanulmányok 66, no. 1 (May 10, 2022): 25–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1556/092.2022.00002.
Full textAbstract:
Az észak-afrikai latin szerzők sajátos írásmódjára vonatkozó megjegyzéseket már késő ókori grammatikusoknál is olvashatunk, az afrikai latinság kérdése pedig hosszú múltra és változatos tudománytörténetre tekinthet vissza. Sokszor maguk a szerzők - így Apuleius, Szent Ágoston - térnek ki afrikai származásukra, többnyelvűségükre, sok esetben mentegetőzve az őket ért vádak miatt, melyek az általuk használt latin sajátosságaira vonatkoztak. Élt tehát egyfajta elképzelés a köztudatban az ókortól kezdve, miszerint az észak-afrikai területeken beszélt és használt latin nyelv bizonyos sajátosságokkal rendelkezik. Természetesen a kiejtés és a beszéd tekintetében nincsenek ellenőrző eszközeink, azonban ezek lenyomatain, az afrikai területekről származó szövegeken tetten érhetjük és vizsgálatuk révén közelebb kerülhetünk az afrikai latin nyelv esetleges jellegzetességeihez. A korai keresztény szövegek egyik legfontosabb emléke az úgynevezett Codex Bobbiensisben hagyományozódott, amely amellett, hogy a legrégebbi fennmaradt, a Kr. u. IV. századból származó latin evangéliumfordítás, a Vetus Latina szöveghagyomány afrikai (vetus Afra) tradíciójának fő képviselője is egyben. Jelen tanulmányban annak megállapítására teszek kísérletet, hogy a kódex szövegében esetleg kimutathatók-e olyan (nyelvi) jelenségek, amelyek az eddig - elsősorban az afrikai feliratos anyag elemzéséből - kirajzolódott nyelvi képünk, elképzelésünk alapján valóban afrikai sajátosságnak, africanismusnak tekinthetők.Comments on the unique writing style of the North-African Latin writers can already be found in the ancient grammarians’ texts. The question of the African Latin language has been around for long and it also has a diverse scientific history. It was often the authors themselves - Apuleius or St. Augustine - who commented on their African ancestry, their multilingualism, and their own use of Latin. They often tried to excuse themselves for the accusations, which their (incorrect?) language use attracted. There was - already in Antiquity - a notion, that both the written and the spoken Latin of North Africa had some unique features, which set them apart from the language used in Rome. Obviously, we do not have any instruments to experience pronunciation and spoken language in antiquity, but through the study of texts written in the region, we can get a closer look on the specific features of Latin used in the region. One of the most important early Christian texts, which has been preserved in the so-called Codex Bob- biensis is a fourth century Latin translation of the gospel. This text is also the main representative of the african (vetus Afra) version of the Vetus Latina. In this article I am trying to investigate this text, to see if there are any linguistic features, which can be (based on the already existing notions we have of the language from studying the inscriptions of the region) called specifically african features („africanismus”).
36
Shirshikova, Alisa A. "Linguistic Terminology in German-Language School Grammars of the Second Half of the 18th Century." Университетский научный журнал, no. 78 (February 16, 2024): 164–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.25807/22225064_2024_78_164.
Full textAbstract:
The article deals with the peculiarities of the use of linguistic terminology in German grammatical discourse of the second half of the 18th century. The material of the study are school grammars “Kern der Deutschen Sprachkunst” (1753) by J. Ch. Gottsched, “Auszug aus der Deutschen Sprachlehre für Schulen” (1781) by J. Ch. Adelung and “Russische Sprachlehre, zum Besten der deutschen Jugend eingerichtet” (1773) by J. M. Rodde. Despite the desire of Enlightenment grammarians to create a unifi ed German linguistic terminology, Latin continues to retain its position as the language of science in the school environment.
37
Dombrovskiy, Roman, and Nadiya Revak. "THE TERMS OF VERBAL TENSES IN THE WORKS OF ANCIENT GREEK, LATIN AND UKRAINIAN GRAMMARIANS." Inozenma Philologia, no. 129 (October 15, 2016): 183–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.30970/fpl.2016.129.612.
Full text
38
Callipo, Manuela. "Quintilian, Inst. 1, 5, 40 on solecism and Apollonius Dyscolus." Journal of Latin Linguistics 17, no. 2 (November 30, 2018): 147–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/joll-2018-0009.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract Throughout the history of the Latin grammatical tradition barbarism is regularly described according to the system of the four categories of change known as quadripertita ratio, whereas the description of solecism is more controversial. In the grammatical chapters of his first book, Quintilian attests to the application of the fourfold system to solecism in his age, but he also knows a second tradition, which ends up becoming the predominant theory in Latin grammar and regards solecism as the fault by substitution (inmutatio). Quintilian attributes this tradition to some anonymous grammarians (quidam) who have not been identified yet. After considering Quintilian’s testimony in light of the Greek sources and especially Apollonius Dyscolus’ Syntax, we have concluded that Quintilian and Apollonius may rely on a common source, probably of Alexandrine descent, which separated solecism from the first three categories of change of the fourfold system (addition, subtraction and inversion of the regular word order).
39
Sarullo, Giulia. "(H)ariuga/(h)aruiga: an etymological research." Journal of Latin Linguistics 23, no. 1-2 (May 1, 2024): 167–96. https://doi.org/10.1515/joll-2024-2002.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract The term (h)ariuga/(h)aruiga is exclusively attested as a gloss for a sacrificial animal in Latin grammarians. However, inconsistencies in the textual transmission of the term – with fluctuations in the presence or absence of the initial h- and a different sequence of the (semi-)vocalic elements of the central syllable – necessitate a critical examination of the manuscript tradition of primary sources like Varro and Festus. A subsequent morphological analysis aims to determine the word’s structure. This study reviews previous etymological proposals, ultimately rejecting those deemed untenable and ranking the remaining possibilities. By comparing Latin and Greek data, we dismiss the notion of a simple term, prevalent until the 19th century. While most contemporary scholars favor a compound structure, their reconstructions often face semantic challenges. Our research re-examines the hypothesis of a derivative with the prefix ad- and introduces novel explanations to enhance the semantic plausibility of the term.
40
Bonilla Carvajal, Camilo Andrés. "The syntax of the Latin presentative adverb ecce: Relation to focus phrase." Journal of Latin Linguistics 19, no. 1 (September 8, 2020): 27–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/joll-2020-0001.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThis paper provides an analysis of the variables that determine the syntactic distribution of ecce, a presentative adverb in Latin. Traditionally, grammarians have simply regarded ecce as an adverb (similar to here) or an interjection (similar to hey!) but this lexicographic view misses important syntactic phenomena. For example, adverbs in Latin can follow subjects, but ecce cannot. Interjections can be used as single words to express surprise, but ecce, as a presentative, is never used in the absence of a following determiner phrase (DP). Two corpora of almost seven million Latin words ranging from ∼200 BCE to 1800 CE were analyzed for instances of ecce. Adopting a cartographic approach, results suggest that ecce, as a presentative, is base-generated in the head of a Focus phrase (FocP) projection in the matrix clause. This is confirmed through its consistent precedence of subjects, scope over left-dislocated constituents in [Spec, FocP], and its ungrammaticality in the embedded domain. This study brings to light several theoretical implications for the under-studied category of presentatives by showing how discourse and hierarchical properties license the use of ecce and restrict its contexts of use.
41
Schenkeveld, D. M. "The Philosopher Aquila." Classical Quarterly 41, no. 2 (December 1991): 490–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0009838800004626.
Full textAbstract:
In his Ars grammatica Fl. Sosipater Charisius quotes long portions of text which he has taken over from books of other grammarians. One of these quotations starts at 246.18 (‘C. Iulius Romanus ita refert de adverbio sub titulo ϕορμν’) and continues up to 289.17. At 246.19–252.31 we find a long argument in which Romanus offers a sort of introduction to the theory of the adverb. This introduction is a surprise to modern readers because it is written in a very rhetorical manner. I mention this because otherwise one cannot understand why at 251.22ff. the author of a Latin treatise on grammar should quote from a Greek work on Aristotle's Categories by a certain Aquila.
42
Clausen, Wendell. "Three Notes on Lucretius." Classical Quarterly 41, no. 2 (December 1991): 544–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0009838800004742.
Full textAbstract:
To Munro's conjecture, which has been accepted by Diels (1923), S. B. Smith (1942), Bailey (1947), Büchner (1956), Martin (1959), and M. F. Smith (1982), there is a serious, possibly a fatal, objection: the genitive plural of hiems is a grammarians' figment and never occurs in classical Latin (TLL s.v. 2773.84); while Lachmann's conjecture is palaeographically improbable. Read ad gelidas rigidasque pruinas; rigidas was omitted by haplography, a fecund source of corruption, and hiemis then supplied from the context to repair the metre. Cf. 2.431 denique iam calidos ignis gelidamque pruinam, 2.521 hinc flammis Mine rigidis infesta pruinis, and, for the collocation of the two adjectives, 2.858 nec frigus neque item calidum tepidumque uaporem.
43
Katalin, Dér. "Vidularia: Outlines Of A Reconstruction." Classical Quarterly 37, no. 2 (December 1987): 432–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0009838800030627.
Full textAbstract:
The last play of the Varronian canon, Vidularia, is transmitted to us through two different channels. Some pages of it survive in the Codex Ambrosianus, containing the prologue and a couple of scenes from the beginning of the play. On the other hand grammarians quote fragments of a few lines out of context, as examples of idiosyncratic Latin syntax and morphology. From the combination of these two disparate sources classical scholars have reconstructed a Vidularia that is parallel to Rudens on all major points. The plot is not very different, and on the whole the consensus philologorum is correctly summed up by the Terentian sentence of Leo: qui utramve recte novit, ambas noverit (p. 10).
44
McLelland, Nicola. "Albertus (1573) and Ölinger (1574)." Historiographia Linguistica 28, no. 1-2 (September 7, 2001): 7–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/hl.28.1.04mcl.
Full textAbstract:
Summary This article adapts Linn’s ‘stylistics of standardization’ concept, which Linn (1998) has used to compare Norwegian and Faroese grammarians, to look at grammaticization processes in the first two grammars of German (Albertus 1573, Ölinger 1574). While both are clearly indebted to traditional Latin grammar and humanist ideals, these two grammars differ interestingly in the picture of the language that emerges from their metalanguage and structural principles. In his reflection on the language, his structuring and naming of linguistic phenomena and his attitudes to variation, Ölinger is the practical pedagogue, who imposes systematicity and aims for a one-to-one form-function relationship. Albertus on the other hand, though he too envisages his grammar being used for learning German, has a more cultural patriotic motivation, celebrating the richness and variety of German, worthy to be ranked alongside Latin, Greek and Hebrew. Albertus and Ölinger thus come up with quite different versions of the (as yet arguably non-existent) High German language. Each grammar yields a different subset of possible forms, reminding us that grammar-writing is always a task of creative construction.
45
Rademaker, Cornelis S. M. "Gerardus Joannes Vossius (1577–1649) and the study of Latin grammar." Historiographia Linguistica 15, no. 1-2 (January 1, 1988): 109–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/hl.15.1-2.07rad.
Full textAbstract:
Summary Gerardus Joannes Vossius (1577–1649) published his De arte grammatica libri septem in 1635. From the second edition in 1662 the work became known as Vossius’s Aristarchus. This important Latin grammar of Vossius, and also his other publications devoted to Latin, have their particular place in the evolution of grammatical studies in the 17th century. Vossius’s works were used in the first place because in them he had given a complete survey and systematization of all the scholarly information concerning Latin existing up to his own days. Neoscholastic Aristotelism was the philosophical basis of his treatment with Latin language and grammar. However, we find at the same time in Vossius’s work sometimes hints at a new approach to the study of Latin grammar. He followed in many respects the new directions pointed out by men like Scaliger and Sanctius. Thus, on the one hand, Vossius stood in the Humanist tradition of his day while, on the other, his work could be used profitably also by the Port-Royal grammarians and other philologist of the late 17th and 18th centuries. Following an appraisal of Vossius’s place in the Humanist tradition and of the contribution he made in his Aristarchus, the paper deals at some length with the analogy principle as used by Vossius and his successors. It concludes with sections on the evolution of grammatical ideas in the 17th and early 18th centuries marked especially by the tradition associated with the works of Sanctius, Vossius, and Port-Royal.
46
Klifman, Harm. "Dutch language study and the trivium." Historiographia Linguistica 15, no. 1-2 (January 1, 1988): 63–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/hl.15.1-2.05kli.
Full textAbstract:
Summary In the history of European linguistics the 16th century is known as the century in which the vernacular languages of the countries above the Alps and the Pyrenees were discovered as objects of language study. The first grammars of the Dutch language appeared in this period. The study of grammar of the Dutch language took place within the context of a continuation of the Latin trivium tradition in the vernacular. As a consequence the historiographer must take into account this context and the traditional relation of grammar to dialectic and to rhetoric respectively. The first complete trivium in Dutch appeared during 1584–87, the last one in 1648–49. In the period in between, several reprints and editions in the separate disciplines, appeared. The reason for continuation of the Latin trivium tradition in the vernacular should be explained from various circumstances. First, it was the only intellectual tradition on which the contributors to the Dutch trivium could draw. This explains for instance that the structure of the Dutch grammars is based on that of the Latin grammars. Second, Latin grammar was taken to fulfill a heuristic function in the exploration of the vernacular. Not only is the formal context of the Latin trivium model important, but also the historical pedagogical triad of ars, natura and exercitatio played an important role, especially with respect to the criteria of grammaticalness in the Dutch language. The history of the trivium was always strongly connected with the history of education. For this reason it is not surprising to see that the contributors to the Dutch trivium hoped that their work would replace the Latin school curriculum. This did not happen, however. Nevertheless, their work laid the foundations for the study of the Dutch language on which the 18th century grammarians were to build their monumental studies.
47
ANDERWALD, LIESELOTTE. "Norm vs variation in British English irregular verbs: the case of past tense sang vs sung." English Language and Linguistics 15, no. 1 (February 7, 2011): 85–112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1360674310000298.
Full textAbstract:
In this article I discuss the persistence of non-standard past tense forms in traditional and modern dialect data in the face of strong prescriptive norms against such non-standard forms. Past tense forms like she drunk or they sung are still encountered frequently, although prescriptive grammars have militated against such usage for over a century, as a detailed investigation of nineteenth-century grammar books can show. I will argue that an increasing insistence especially by British nineteenth-century grammarians on distinct paradigm forms like drink – drank – drunk is based on a (mistaken) Latin ideal and that it has not carried much weight with the ‘average’ speaker for functional reasons: non-standard forms in <u> can be functionally motivated and are more ‘natural’ past tense forms in the sense of Wurzel (1984).
48
Stefanchikov, Igor Vyacheslavovich. "Comparisons with Greek as a Tool for Asserting the Prestige of the Castilian Language in Golden Age Spain." Litera, no. 10 (October 2022): 17–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.25136/2409-8698.2022.10.39009.
Full textAbstract:
The article addresses the subject of the use of Greek in the apologiae for Castilian (Spanish) language, drawing upon the key Spanish scientific treatises, and literary texts of the Spanish Golden Age (end of the 15th — first half of the 17th centuries), which mention Greek in an attempt to assert the prestige of Castilian. Particular attention is paid to the judgments about Greek and native languages expressed in the works of A. de Nebrija, J. de Valdés, C. de Villalón, F. de Medina, A. de Morales, F. de Quevedo, G. Correas and other writers and thinkers. Most studies in the field have always been primarily focused on the comparisons of Romance languages with their “mother”, Latin, while the use of Greek in the apologiae for Castilian has been a less frequent topic of study. The author comes to a conclusion that Greek invariably acts as the highest reference point for the Spanish grammarians, philologists and thinkers (and as an arbitrator or, sometimes, an "ally" of Castilian), while the attitudes towards Latin evolve over the course of the 15th–17th centuries.
49
Marsico, Clementina. "Radical reform, inevitable debts." Latin Grammars in Transition, 1200 - 1600 44, no. 2-3 (December 31, 2017): 391–411. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/hl.00009.mar.
Full textAbstract:
Summary In a letter to his friend Joan Serra, Lorenzo Valla (1407–1457) shows his contempt for medieval grammars, describing Alexander de Villa-Dei, Evrard de Béthune, Giovanni Balbi, and others as faex hominum. Many traces of Valla’s polemics against medieval authors are woven into his linguistic works, in primis in his Elegantie lingue latine. The Elegantie represent a monumental attempt to restore Latin to its original splendour after the so-called barbarities of the Middle Ages. Starting from its structure, this work adopts a completely different form compared with the systematic grammatical syntheses of the previous period. It functions as a series of thematic chapters united in the goal of denouncing earlier grammatical, lexical, syntactic, and interpretive usage and decisions. The chapters are built entirely on an expertly assembled collection of quotations. For Valla, only through consulting the best authors can a scholar reach the latine loqui. In practical terms, however, is Valla truly able to reach this goal and break from the medieval tradition? Beginning with this question, this paper focuses on Valla’s linguistic works, showing both their innovative and traditional facets. The most significant changes Valla proposes in his linguistic analysis – often presented by the author as a strong attack on medieval grammarians – are illustrated. Also, the paper clarifies the humanist’s inevitable debt to the tradition he scorns, particularly evident when considering his use of grammatical terminology.
50
Lliteras Poncel, Margarita. "Sobre la formación del corpus de autoridades en la Gramática Española." Historiographia Linguistica 24, no. 1-2 (January 1, 1997): 57–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/hl.24.1-2.06lli.
Full textAbstract:
Summary In the Spanish tradition, descriptive grammars based both factually and methodologically on a corpus gleaned from identified contemporary sources, mostly taken from literature, do not appear until the several editions (11831–81847) of the grammar of Vicente Salvâ (1786–1849), and later in that of Andrés Bello (11847–1860). A small part of Salvá’s corpus does come from medieval and renaissance authors, but these are used only to illustrate diachronic change in Spanish. Salvá’s empirical and descriptive approach, and that of other 19th-century Spanish and Spanish American grammarians that follow him, leads to specialization within the wider field of grammar and, as is shown here, syntax is the area that profits the most, both in depth and in size or extension. There is no precedent for this grammaticographical tradition in the Renaissance, when a literary corpus is used only for those parts of the texts that traditionally dealt with metrics and versification. Renaissance grammarians derived the authority of their texts from the transfer of the rules of Latin grammar into Spanish, not from the language of the literary canon. During the 18th-century Enlightenment grammars based on a literary corpus begin to appear, but the authors from whose works the corpus is taken are those of a previous (non-contemporary) period. As shown in this article, it is in the 18th century that descriptivism results in an increase in the importance of syntax, although that increment in size is minor by comparison with that which takes place during the 19th century beginning with the works of Salvá.