Institutio Oratoria

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.