I do not entirely concur with this view nor yet do I wholly dissent. I admit that a solecism may occur in a single word, but with this proviso: there must be something else equivalent to another word, to which the word, in which the error lies, can be referred, so that the solecism arises from the faulty connexion of those symbols by which facts are expressed and purpose indicated.

To avoid all suspicion of quibbling, I will say that a solecism may occur in one word, but never in a word in isolation. There is, however, some controversy as to the number and nature of the different kinds of solecism. Those who have dealt with the subject most fully make a fourfold division, identical with that which is made in the case of barbarisms: solecisms are brought about by addition, for instance in phrases such as nam enim, de susum, in Alexandriam;

by omission, in phrases such as ambulo viam, Aegypto venio, or ne hoc fecit: and by transposition as in quoque ego, enim hoc voluit, aulem non habuit. i.e. nam cannot he coupled with enim; de being a preposition cannot govern an adverb ( from above ); in is not required with Alexandriam, which is the name of a town. Quoque, enim and autem cannot come first in a sentence Ambulo per viam, ab Aegypto venio, ne hoc quidem fecit would be the correct Latin. Under this last head comes the question whether igitur can be placed first in a sentence: for I note that authors of the first rank disagree on this point, some of them frequently placing it in that position, others never.

Some distinguish these three classes of error from the solecism, styling addition a pleonasm, omission an ellipse, and transposition anastrophe: and they assert that if anastrophe is a solecism, hyperbaton might also be so called.

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 than any other: consequently in connexion with the verb we get solecisms of gender, tense, person and mood (or states or qualities if you prefer either of these terms), be these types of error six in number, as some assert, or eight as is insisted by others (for the number of the forms of solecism will depend on the number of subdivisions which you assign to the parts of speech of which we have just spoken). Further there are solecisms of number;

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 to the form scripsere, though I regard scripserunt as the more correct. Orat. xlvii. 157.

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.