<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-eng2:1.7.3-1.7.22</requestUrn>
            </request>
            <reply>
                <urn>urn:cts:latinLit:phi1002.phi001.perseus-eng2:1.7.3-1.7.22</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="7" type="textpart" subtype="chapter"><div n="3" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p><hi rend="italic">palus</hi> means a <quote>stake,</quote> if the first
                            syllable is long, a <quote>marsh,</quote> if it be short; again when the
                            same letter is short in the nominative and long in the ablative, we
                            generally require the circumflex to make it clear which quantity to
                            understand. </p></div><div n="4" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> Similarly it has been held that we should observe distinctions such as
                            the following: if the preposition <hi rend="italic">ex</hi> is
                            compounded with <hi rend="italic">specto,</hi> there will be an <hi rend="italic">s</hi> in the second syllable, while there will be no
                                <hi rend="italic">s</hi> if it is compounded with <hi rend="italic">pecto.</hi>
                     </p></div><div n="5" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> Again the following distinction has frequently been observed: <hi rend="italic">ad</hi> is spelt with a <hi rend="italic">d</hi> when
                            it is a preposition, but with a <hi rend="italic">t</hi> when it is a
                            conjunction, while <hi rend="italic">cum</hi> is spelt <hi rend="italic">quum</hi> when it denotes time, but <hi rend="italic">cum</hi> when
                            it denotes accompaniment. </p></div><div n="6" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> Still more pedantic are the practices of making the fourth letter of <hi rend="italic">quidquid</hi> a <hi rend="italic">c</hi> to avoid the
                            appearance of repeating a question, and of writing <pb n="v1-3 p.137"/>
                        <hi rend="italic">quotidie</hi> instead of <hi rend="italic">colidie</hi> to show that it stands for <hi rend="italic">quot
                                diebus.</hi> But such practices have disappeared into the limbo of
                            absurdities. </p></div><div n="7" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> It is often debated whether in our spelling of prepositions we should be
                            guided by their sound when compounded, or separate. For instance when I
                            say <hi rend="italic">optinuit,</hi> logic demands that the second
                            letter should be a <hi rend="italic">b,</hi> while to the ear the sound
                            is rather that of <hi rend="italic">p:</hi> or again take the case of
                                <hi rend="italic">immunis:</hi>
                     </p></div><div n="8" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> the letter <hi rend="italic">n,</hi> which is required by strict
                            adherence to fact, is forced by the sound of the <hi rend="italic">m.</hi> which follows to change into another <hi rend="italic">m.</hi>
                     </p></div><div n="9" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> We must also note when analysing compound words, whether the middle
                            consonant adheres to the preceding syllable or to that which follows.
                            For example since the latter part of <hi rend="italic">haruspex</hi> is
                            from <hi rend="italic">spectare,</hi> the <hi rend="italic">s</hi> must
                            be assigned to the third syllable. In <hi rend="italic">abstemius</hi>
                            on the other hand it will go with the first syllable since the word is
                            derived from <hi rend="italic">abstinentia temeti,</hi>
                        <quote>abstention
                                from wine.</quote>
                     </p></div><div n="10" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> As for <hi rend="italic">k</hi> my view is that it should not be used at
                            all except in such words as may be indicated by the letter standing
                            alone as an abbreviation. <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"><hi rend="italic">K</hi> may stand for <hi rend="italic">Kalendae,
                                    Kaeso, Karthago, Kalumnia, Kaput.</hi>
                        </note> I mention the fact
                            because some hold that <hi rend="italic">k</hi> should be used whenever
                            the next letter is an a, despite the existence of the letter c which
                            maintains its force in conjunction with all the vowels. <hi rend="italic">Orthography,</hi> however, </p></div><div n="11" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> is also the servant of usage and therefore undergoes frequent change. I
                            make no mention of the earliest times when our alphabet contained fewer
                            letters <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"> The original alphabet
                                consisted of twenty-one letters, and was increased to twenty-three
                                by the addition of <hi rend="italic">y</hi> and <hi rend="italic">z.</hi>
                        </note> and their shapes differed from those which we
                            now use, while their values also were different. For instance in Greek
                            the letter o was sometimes long and short, as it is with us, and again
                            was sometimes used to express the syllable <pb n="v1-3 p.139"/> which is
                            identical with its name. <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"><hi rend="italic">i.e.</hi> the interjection O! </note>
                     </p></div><div n="12" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> And in Latin ancient writers ended a number of words with <hi rend="italic">d,</hi> as may be seen on the column adorned with the
                            beaks of ships, which was set up in the forum in honour of Duilius.
                                <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"> The ablative originally
                                terminated in <hi rend="italic">d; e.g. pugnandod, marid, navaled,
                                    pracdad,</hi> etc., on the base of the column of Duilius.
                            </note> Sometimes again they gave words a final g, as we may still see
                            in the shrine of the Sun, close to the temple of Quirinus, where we find
                            the word <hi rend="italic">uesperug,</hi> which we write <hi rend="italic">uesperugo</hi> (evening star). </p></div><div n="13" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> I have already spoken of the interchange of letters <note anchored="true" place="unspecified">I. iv. 12–17.</note> and need
                            not repeat my remarks here: perhaps their pronunciation corresponded
                            with their spelling. </p></div><div n="14" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> For a long time the doubling of semivowels was avoided, <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"><hi rend="italic">e.g. iusi</hi>
                                was written for <hi rend="italic">iussi.</hi>
                        </note> while down to
                            the time of Accius and beyond, long syllables were indicated by
                            repetition of the vowel. </p></div><div n="15" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> The practice of joining <hi rend="italic">e</hi> and <hi rend="italic">i</hi> as in the Greek diphthong <foreign xml:lang="grc">ει</foreign> lasted longer: it served to distinguish cases and
                            numbers, for which we may compare the instructions of Lucilius: <quote rend="blockquote"><l part="N">The boys are come: why then, their
                                    names must end</l><l part="N"> With <hi rend="italic">e</hi> and
                                        <hi rend="italic">i</hi> to make them more than one; and
                                    later— </l></quote>
                        <quote rend="blockquote"><l part="N"> If to a
                                    thief and liar ( <hi rend="italic">mendaci furique</hi> ) you
                                    would give, </l><l part="N"> In <hi rend="italic">e</hi> and <hi rend="italic">i</hi> your thief must terminate. </l></quote>
                            But this addition of <hi rend="italic">e</hi> is quite superfluous,
                            since <hi rend="italic">t</hi> can be long no less than short: </p></div><div n="16" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> it is also at times inconvenient. For in those words which end in i and
                            have <hi rend="italic">e</hi> as their last letter but one, we shall on
                            this principle have to write e twice: I refer to words such as <hi rend="italic">aurei</hi> or <hi rend="italic">argentei</hi> and the
                            like. </p></div><div n="17" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> Now such a practice will be an actual hindrance to those who are
                            learning to read. This difficulty occurs in Greek as <pb n="v1-3 p.141"/> well in connexion with the addition of an <hi rend="italic">iota,</hi> which is employed not merely in the termination of the
                            dative, but is sometimes found in the middle of words as in <foreign xml:lang="grc">λῄστης,</foreign> for the reason that the analysis
                            applied by etymology shows the word to be a trisyllable <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"> The noun being formed from
                                    <foreign xml:lang="grc">ληίζω. ΛΗΙΣΤΗΙ</foreign> in the text is
                                dative after <hi rend="italic">in.</hi> The trisyllable to which Q.
                                refers is the nominative. </note> and requires the addition of that
                            letter. The diphthong <hi rend="italic">ae</hi> now written with an <hi rend="italic">e,</hi> was pronounced in old days as <hi rend="italic">ai;</hi>
                     </p></div><div n="18" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> some wrote <hi rend="italic">ai</hi> in all cases, as in Greek, others
                            confined its use to the dative and genitive singular; whence it comes
                            that Vergil, <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"><hi rend="italic">Aen.</hi> ix. 26 and vii. 464. </note> always a passionate
                            lover of antiquity, inserted <hi rend="italic">pictai uestis</hi> and
                                <hi rend="italic">aquai</hi> in his poems. </p></div><div n="19" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> But in the plural they used e and wrote <hi rend="italic">Syllae,
                                Galbae.</hi> Lucilius has given instructions on this point also; his
                            instructions occupy quite a number of verses, for which the incredulous
                            may consult his ninth book. </p></div><div n="20" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> Again in Cicero's days and a little later, it was the almost universal
                            practice to write a double <hi rend="italic">s</hi> , whenever that
                            letter occurred between two long vowels or after a long vowel, as for
                            example in <hi rend="italic">caussae, cassus, diuissiones.</hi> That he
                            and Vergil both used this spelling is shown by their own autograph
                            manuscripts. </p></div><div n="21" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> And yet at a slightly earlier date <hi rend="italic">iussi</hi> which we
                            write with a double <hi rend="italic">s</hi> was spelt with only one.
                            Further <hi rend="italic">optimnus maximus,</hi> which older writers
                            spelt with a <hi rend="italic">u,</hi> appear for the first time with an
                            i (such at any rate is the tradition) in an inscription of Gaius Caesar.
                                <note anchored="true" place="unspecified">Caligula, the first of the
                                Caesars to adopt this title.</note>
                     </p></div><div n="22" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> We now write <hi rend="italic">here,</hi> but I still find in
                            manuscripts of the old comic poets phrases such as <hi rend="italic">heri ad me uenit,</hi>
                        <note anchored="true" place="unspecified">
                                Ter. <hi rend="italic">Phorm.</hi> 36. </note> and the same spelling
                            is found in letters of Augustus written or corrected by his own hand.
                        </p></div></div></div></div></body></text></TEI>
                </passage>
            </reply>
            </GetPassage>