Institutio Oratoria

Personally I think that in such phrases as these the circumstances are almost entirely altered by the fact that we join two words together. For when I say circum litora I pronounce the phrase as one word, concealing the fact that it is composed of two, consequently it contains but one acute accent, as though it were a single word. The same thing occurs in the phrase Troiae qui primus ab oris. [*](Aen. i. l: qui coalesces with primus, ab with oris. )

It sometimes happens that the accent is altered by the metre as in pecudes pictaeque volucres [*](Georg. iii. 243. ) ; for I shall read volucres with the acute on the middle syllable, because, although that syllable is short by nature, it is long by position: else the last two syllables would form an iambus, which its position in the hexameter does not allow.

But these same words, if separated, will form no exception to the rule: or if the custom under discussion prevails, the old law

For in every word the acute accent is restricted to three syllables, whether these be the only syllables in the word or the three last, and will fall either on the penultimate or the antepenultimate. The middle of the three syllables of which I speak will be acute or circumflexed, if long, while if it be short, it will have a grave accent and the acute will be thrown back to the preceding syllable, that is to say the antepenultimate.

Every word has an acute accent, but never more than one. Further the acute never falls on the last syllable and therefore in dissyllabic words marks the first syllable. Moreover the acute accent and the circumflex are never found in one and the same word, since the circumflex itself contains an acute accent. Neither the circumflex nor the acute, therefore, will ever be found in the last syllable of a Latin word, with this exception, that monosyllables must either be acute or circumflexed; otherwise we should find words without an acute accent at all.

There are also faults of sound, which we cannot reproduce in writing, as they spring from defects of the voice and tongue. The Greeks who are happier in inventing names than we are call them iotacisms, lambdacisms, [*]( Iotacism = doubling the i sound, e.g. Troiia for Troia; lambdacism = doubling the l. ) ἰσχνότητες (attenuations) and πλατειασμοί (broadenings); they also use the term κοιλοστομία, when the voice seems to proceed from the depths of the mouth.

There are also certain peculiar and indescribable sounds for which we sometimes take whole nations to fault. To sum up then, if all the faults of which we have just spoken be avoided,

All other faults in speaking are concerned with more words than one; among this class of faults is the solecism, although there have been controversies about this as well. For even those who acknowledge that it occurs in connected speech, argue that, since it can be corrected by the alteration of one word, the fault lies in the word and not in the phrase or sentence.

For example whether amarae corticis [*](Ecl. vi. 62. ) or medio cortice [*](Georg. ii. 74. ) contains a solecism in gender (and personally I object to neither, as Vergil is the author of both; however, for the sake of argument let us assume that one of the two is incorrect), still whichever phrase is incorrect, it can be set right by the alteration of the word in which the fault lies: that is to say we can emend either to amari corticis or media cortice. But it is obvious that these critics misrepresent the case. For neither word is faulty in itself; the error arises from its association with another word. The fault therefore lies in the phrase.

Those who raise the question as to whether a solecism can arise in a single word show greater intelligence. Is it for instance a solecism if a man when calling a single person to him says uenite, or in dismissing several persons says abi or discede? Or again if the answer does not correspond to the question: suppose, for example, when someone said to you

Whom do I see?

I.

I do not entirely concur with this view nor yet do I

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

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.