Institutio Oratoria

About substitution, that is when one word is used instead of another, there is no dispute. It is an error which we may detect in connexion with all the parts of speech, but most frequently in the verb, because it has greater variety

states

qualities

now Latin has two numbers, singular and plural, while Greek possesses a third, namely the dual. There have however been some who have given us a dual as well in words such as scripsere and legere, in which as a matter of fact the final syllable has been softened to avoid harshness, just as in old writers we find male merere for male mereris. Consequently what they assert to be a dual is concerned solely with this one class of termination, whereas in Greek it is found throughout the whole structure of the verb and in nouns as well, though even then it is but rarely used.

But we find not a trace of such a usage in any Latin author. On the contrary phrases such as devenere locos, [*](Aen. i. 369: They came to the places. ) conticuere omnes [*](Aen. ii. l: All were silent. ) and consedere duces [*]( Ovid, Met. xiii. l: The chiefs sat them down. ) clearly prove that they have nothing to do with the dual. Moreover dixere, [*](Dixere,they have spoken, was said when the advocates had finished their pleading. ) although Antonius Rufus cites it as proof to the contrary, is often used by the usher in the courts to denote more than two advocates.

Again, does not Livy near the beginning of his first book write tenuere arcem Sabini [*]( Liv. I. xii.: The Sabines held the citadel. The Romans marched up the slope against them. ) and later in adversum Romani subiere? But I can produce still better authority. For Cicero in his Orator says,

I have no objection

v1-3 p.101

to the form scripsere, though I regard scripserunt as the more correct.

Similarly in vocables and nouns solecisms occur in connexion with gender, number and more especially case, by substitution of one for another. To these may be added solecisms in the use of comparatives and superlatives, or the employment of patronymics instead of possessives and vice versa.

As for solecisms connected with expressions of quantity, there are some who will regard phrases such as magnum peculiolum [*]( Lit. A great little fortune. ) as a solecism, because the diminutive is used instead of the ordinary noun, which implies no diminution. I think I should call it a misuse of the diminutive rather than a solecism; for it is an error of sense, whereas solecisms are not errors of sense, but rather faulty combinations of words.

As regards participles, solecisms occur in case and gender as with nouns, in tense as with verbs, and in number as in both. The pronoun admits of solecisms in gender, number and case.

Solecisms also occur with great frequency in connexion with parts of speech: but a bare statement on this point is not sufficient, as it may lead a boy to think that such error consists only in the substitution of one part of speech for another, as for instance if a verb is placed where we require a noun, or an adverb takes the place of a pronoun and so on.

For there are some nouns which are cognate, that is to say of the same genus, and he who uses the wrong species [*](e.g. intus for intro, the genus being adverbs of place. ) in connexion with one of these will be guilty of the same offence as if he were to change the genus. Thus an and aut are conjunctions, but it would be bad Latin to say in a question hic and ille sit [*]( For hic an ille sit? ) ;

ne and

Similar errors may be committed in connexion with the various kinds of pronouns, interjections and prepositions. It is also a solecism [*]( The meaning of this passage is uncertain, but the solecism in question is probably an anacoluthon. ) if there is a disagreement between what precedes and what follows within the limits of a single clause.

Some phrases have all the appearance of a solecism and yet cannot be called faulty; take for instance phrases such as tragoedia Thyestes or ludi Floralia and Megalensia [*]( Where strict grammar would require tragoedia Thyestis, ludi Florales, Megalenses. The normal usage would be simply to say Thyestes, Floralia, Megalensia. ) : although these are never found in later times, they are the rule in ancient writers. We will therefore style them figures and, though their use is more frequent in poets, will not deny their employment even to orators.

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. [*](I. iv. 24. The promise is fulfilled in Book IX.) I must however point out that a figure, if used unwittingly, will be a solecism.

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 solecisms; 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.

I therefore resume the path which I prescribed for myself and point out that words are either

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,

such as raeda (chariot) and petorritim (four-wheeled wagon) of which Cicero uses the former and Horace the latter. Mappa (napkin) again, a word familiar in connexion with the circus, is claimed by the Carthaginians, while I have heard that gurdus, which is colloquially used in the sense of

stupid,

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.

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.

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 Castorem with the second syllable long to bring it into conformity with all those Latin nouns which have the same termination in the nominative as