<GetPassage xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns="http://chs.harvard.edu/xmlns/cts">
            <request>
                <requestName>GetPassage</requestName>
                <requestUrn>urn:cts:latinLit:phi1002.phi001.perseus-eng2:1.5.53-1.5.72</requestUrn>
            </request>
            <reply>
                <urn>urn:cts:latinLit:phi1002.phi001.perseus-eng2:1.5.53-1.5.72</urn>
                <passage>
                    <TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0"><text xml:lang="eng"><body><div n="urn:cts:latinLit:phi1002.phi001.perseus-eng2" type="translation" xml:lang="eng"><div n="1" type="textpart" subtype="book"><div n="5" type="textpart" subtype="chapter"><div n="53" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> Figures however will generally have some justification, as I shall show
                            in a later portion of this work, which I promised you a little while
                            back. <note anchored="true" place="unspecified">I. iv. 24. The promise
                                is fulfilled in Book IX.</note> I must however point out that a
                            figure, if used unwittingly, will be a <hi rend="italic">solecism.</hi>
                     </p></div><div n="54" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> In the same class, though they cannot be called figures, come errors
                            such as the use of masculine names with a female termination and
                            feminine names with a neuter termination. I have said enough about <hi rend="italic">solecisms;</hi> for I did not set out to write a
                            treatise on grammar, but was unwilling to slight the science by passing
                            it by without salutation, when it met me in the course of my journey.
                        </p></div><div n="55" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> I therefore resume the path which I prescribed for myself and point out
                            that words are either <pb n="v1-3 p.105"/> native or foreign. Foreign
                            words, like our population and our institutions, have come to us from
                            practically every nation upon earth. </p></div><div n="56" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> I pass by words of Tuscan, Sabine and Praenestine origin; for though
                            Lucilius attacks Vettius for using them, and Pollio reproves Livy for
                            his lapses into the dialect of Padua, I may be allowed to regard all
                            such words as of native origin. Many Gallic words have become current
                            coin, </p></div><div n="57" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> such as <hi rend="italic">raeda</hi> (chariot) and <hi rend="italic">petorritim</hi> (four-wheeled wagon) of which Cicero uses the
                            former and Horace the latter. <hi rend="italic">Mappa</hi> (napkin)
                            again, a word familiar in connexion with the circus, is claimed by the
                            Carthaginians, while I have heard that <hi rend="italic">gurdus,</hi>
                            which is colloquially used in the sense of <quote>stupid,</quote> is
                            derived from Spain. </p></div><div n="58" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> But this distinction between native and foreign words has reference
                            chiefly to Greek. For Latin is largely derived from that language, and
                            we use words which are admittedly Greek to express things for which we
                            have no Latin equivalent. Similiarly they at tines borrow words from us.
                            In this connexion the problem arises whether foreign words should be
                            declined according to their language or our own. </p></div><div n="59" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> If you come across an archaistic grammarian, he will insist on absolute
                            conformity to Latin practice, because, since we have an ablative and the
                            Greeks have not, it would be absurd in declining a word to use five
                            Greek cases and one Latin. </p></div><div n="60" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> He will also praise the patriotism of those who aimed at strengthening
                            the Latin language and asserted that we had no need of foreign
                            practices. They, therefore, pronounced <hi rend="italic">Castorem</hi>
                            with the second syllable long to bring it into conformity with all those
                            Latin nouns which have the same termination in the nominative as <pb n="v1-3 p.107"/>
                        <hi rend="italic">Castor.</hi> They also insisted on
                            the forms <hi rend="italic">Palaemo, Telamo,</hi> and <hi rend="italic">Plato</hi> (the last being adopted by Cicero), because they could
                            not find any Latin nouns ending in <hi rend="italic">-on.</hi>
                     </p></div><div n="61" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> They were reluctant even to permit masculine Greek nouns to end in <hi rend="italic">-as</hi> in the nominative case, and consequently in
                            Caelius we find <hi rend="italic">Pelia cincinnatus</hi> and in Messala
                                <hi rend="italic">bene fecit Euthia,</hi> and in Cicero <hi rend="italic">Hermagora.</hi>
                        <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"> This form does not actually occur in Cicero,
                                MSS. evidently wrongly giving <hi rend="italic">Hermagaras.</hi>
                        </note> So we need not be surprised that the
                            majority of early writers said <hi rend="italic">Aenea</hi> and <hi rend="italic">Anchisa.</hi>
                     </p></div><div n="62" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> For, it was urged, if such words are spelt like <hi rend="italic">Maecenas, Sufenas</hi> and <hi rend="italic">Asprenas,</hi> the
                            genitive should terminate in <hi rend="italic">-is</hi> not in <hi rend="italic">-e.</hi> On the same principle they placed an acute
                            accent on the middle syllable of <hi rend="italic">Olympus</hi> and <hi rend="italic">tyrannus,</hi> because Latin does not allow an acute
                            accent on the first syllable if it is short and is followed by two long
                            syllables. </p></div><div n="63" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> So too we get the Latinised genitives <hi rend="italic">Ulixi</hi> and
                                <hi rend="italic">Achilli</hi> together with many other analogous
                            forms. More recent scholars have instituted the practice of giving Greek
                            nouns their Greek declension, although this is not always possible.
                            Personally I prefer to follow the Latin method, so far as grace of
                            diction will permit. For I should not like to say <hi rend="italic">Calypsonem</hi> on the analogy of <hi rend="italic">Iunonem,</hi>
                            although Gaius Caesar in deference to antiquity does adopt this way of
                            declining it. Current practice has however prevailed over his authority.
                        </p></div><div n="64" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> In other words which can be declined in either way without impropriety,
                            those who prefer it can employ the Greek form: they will not be speaking
                            Latin, but will not on the other hand deserve censure. Simple words are
                            what they are in the nominative, that is, their essential nature. </p></div><div n="65" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> Compound <pb n="v1-3 p.109"/> words are formed by the prefix of a
                            preposition as in <hi rend="italic">innocens,</hi> though care must be
                            taken that two conflicting prepositions are not prefixed as in <hi rend="italic">imperterritus:</hi>
                        <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"> Quintilian regards the negative <hi rend="italic">in</hi> as a preposition. His objection to <hi rend="italic">imperterritus</hi> (which is used by Vergil) seems
                                to lie in the fact that while <hi rend="italic">interritus</hi> is a
                                natural way of expressing <quote>unterrified,</quote> it is
                                unreasonable to negative <hi rend="italic">perterritus,</hi> which
                                means <quote>thoroughly terrified.</quote> The presence of the
                                intensifying <hi rend="italic">per</hi> conflicts with the force of
                                the negative <hi rend="italic">in.</hi>
                        </note> if this be avoided
                            they may in certain cases have a double prefix as in <hi rend="italic">incompositus</hi> or <hi rend="italic">reconditus</hi> or the
                            Ciceronian <hi rend="italic">subabsurdtim.</hi> They may also be formed
                            by what I might term the combination of two independent units, as in <hi rend="italic">maleficus.</hi>
                     </p></div><div n="66" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> For I will not admit that the combination of three is possible at any
                            rate in Latin, although Cicero asserts that <hi rend="italic">capsis</hi>
                        <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"><hi rend="italic">Orat.</hi> xlv. 154. </note> is compounded of <hi rend="italic">cape si vis,</hi> and there are to be found scholars
                            who contend that <hi rend="italic">Lupercalia</hi> likewise is a
                            compound of three parts of speech, namely <hi rend="italic">luere per
                                caprum.</hi>
                     </p></div><div n="67" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> As for <hi rend="italic">Solitaurilia</hi> it is by now universally
                            believed to stand for <hi rend="italic">Suovelaurilia,</hi> a derivation
                            which corresponds to the actual sacrifice, which has its counterpart in
                            Homer <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"> As in <hi rend="italic">Od.</hi> xi. 130. The word means sacrifices of a pig, sheep and
                                bull. </note> as well. But these compounds are formed not so much
                            from three words as from the fragments of three. On the other hand
                            Pacuvius seems to have formed compounds of a preposition and two
                            vocables ( <hi rend="italic">i.e.</hi> nouns) as in <quote rend="blockquote"><l part="N">Nerei repandirostrum incurvticervicum
                                    pecs:</l></quote>
                        <quote rend="blockquote"><l part="N">The
                                    flock</l><l part="N">Of Nereus snout-uplifted,
                                neck-inarched</l></quote> the effect is unpleasing. </p></div><div n="68" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> Compounds are however formed from two complete Latin words, as for
                            instance <hi rend="italic">supefui</hi> and <hi rend="italic">subterfui;</hi> though in this case there is some question as to
                            whether the words from which they are formed are complete. <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"><hi rend="italic">i.e.</hi> if
                                both elements are complete in themselves is the word a true
                                compound? </note> They may also be formed of one complete and one
                            incomplete <pb n="v1-3 p.111"/> word, as in the case of <hi rend="italic">malevolus,</hi> or of one incomplete and one complete,
                            such as <hi rend="italic">noctivagus,</hi> or of two incomplete words as
                            in <hi rend="italic">pedisecus</hi> (footman), or from one Latin and one
                            foreign word as in <hi rend="italic">biclinium</hi> (a dining-couch for
                            two), or in the reverse order as in <hi rend="italic">epitogium</hi> (an
                            upper garment) or <hi rend="italic">Anticato,</hi> and sometimes even
                            from two foreign words as in <hi rend="italic">epiraedium</hi> (a thong
                            attaching the horse to the raeda). For in this last case the preposition
                            is Greek, while <hi rend="italic">raeda</hi> is Gallic, while the
                            compound is employed neither by Greek nor Gaul, but has been
                            appropriated by Rome from the two foreign tongues. </p></div><div n="69" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> In the case of prepositions they are frequently changed by the act of
                            compounding: as a result we get <hi rend="italic">abstulit, aufugit,
                                amisit,</hi> though the preposition is <hi rend="italic">ab,</hi>
                            and <hi rend="italic">coil,</hi> though the preposition is <hi rend="italic">con.</hi> The same is true of <hi rend="italic">ignauus</hi> and <hi rend="italic">erepublica.</hi>
                        <note anchored="true" place="unspecified">Sometimes written as one
                                word.</note> But compounds are better suited to Greek than to Latin,
                        </p></div><div n="70" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> though I do not think that this is due to the nature of our language:
                            the reason rather is that we have a preference for foreign goods, and
                            therefore receive <foreign xml:lang="grc">κυρταύχην</foreign> with
                            applause, whereas we can scarce defend <hi rend="italic">incurvicervicus</hi> from derisive laughter. Words are <hi rend="italic">proper</hi> when they bear their original meaning;
                        </p></div><div n="71" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p><hi rend="italic">metaphorical,</hi> when they are used in a sense
                            different from their natural meaning. <hi rend="italic">Current</hi>
                            words are safest to use: there is a spice of danger in coining <hi rend="italic">new.</hi> For if they are adopted, our style wins but
                            small glory from them; while if they are rejected, they become a subject
                            for jest. </p></div><div n="72" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> Still we must make the venture; for as Cicero <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"><hi rend="italic">de Nat. deorum,</hi> I. xxxiv.
                                95. </note> says, use softens even these words which at first seemed
                            harsh. On the other hand the <hi rend="italic">power of
                                onomatopoeia</hi> is denied us. Who would tolerate an attempt to
                            imitate <pb n="v1-3 p.113"/> phrases like the much praised <foreign xml:lang="grc">λίγξε βιός,</foreign>
                        <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"> Homer, <hi rend="italic">Il.</hi> iv. 125.
                                </note>
                        <quote>the bow twanged,</quote> and <foreign xml:lang="grc">σῖζεν ὀφθαλμός</foreign>
                        <note anchored="true" place="unspecified">
                                2 <hi rend="italic">Od. ix.</hi> 394. </note>
                        <quote>the eye
                                hissed</quote> ? We should even feel some qualms about using <hi rend="italic">balare</hi>
                        <quote>to baa,</quote> and <hi rend="italic">hinntre,</hi>
                        <quote>to whinny,</quote> if we had not
                            the sanction of antiquity to support us. </p></div></div></div></div></body></text></TEI>
                </passage>
            </reply>
            </GetPassage>