5.12. For Tinga of Placentia, if we may believe Hortensius who takes him to task for it, committed two barbarisms in one word by saying precula for pergula: that is to say he substituted c for g, and transposed r and e. On the other hand when Ennius writes Mettocoque Fufetioeo, where the barbarism is twice repeated, he is defended on the plea of poetic licence.
5.12. duos in uno nomine faciebat barbarismos Tinga Placentinus (si reprehendenti Hortensio credimus) preculam pro pergula dicens, et immutatione cum c pro g uteretur, et transmutatione cum r praeponeret e antecedenti. in eiusdem vitii geminatione Mettoeoque Fufetioeo dicens Ennius poetico iure defenditur.
5.13. Substitution is however sometimes admitted even in prose, as for instance when Cicero speaks of the army of Canopus which is locally styled Canobus, while the number of authors who have been guilty of transposition in writing Trasumennus for Tarsumennus has succeeded in standardising the error. Similar instances may be quoted. If adsentior be regarded as the correct form, we must remember that Sisenna said adsentio, and that many have followed him on the ground of analogy: on the other hand, if adsentio is the correct form, we must remember that adsentior has the support of current usage.
5.13. in prosa quoque est quaedam iam recepta immutatio. Cicero Canopitarum exercitum dicit, ipsi Canobon vocant; et Trasumennum pro Tarsumenno multi auctores, etiamsi est in eo transmutatio, vindicaverunt. alia; nam sive est adsentior, Sisenna dixit adsentio multique et hunc et analogian secuti, sive illud verum est, haec quoque pars consensu defenditur.
5.14. And yet our fat fool, the fashionable schoolmaster, will regard one of these forms as an example of omission or the other as an instance of addition. Again there are words which when used separately are undoubtedly incorrect, but when used in conjunction excite no unfavourable comment.
5.14. ille pexus pinguisque doctor aut illic detractionem aut hic adiectionem putabit. quod quaedam, quae singula procul dubio vitiosa sunt, iuncta sine reprehensione dicuntur?
5.15. For instance dua and tre are barbarisms and differ in gender, but the words duapondo and trepondo have persisted in common parlance down to our own day, and Messala shows that the practice is correct.
5.15. et dua et tre [et pondo ] diversorum generum sunt barbarismi; at duapondo et trepondo usque ad nostram aetatem ab omnibus dictum est, et recte dici Messala confirmat.
5.16. It may perhaps seem absurd to say that a barbarism, which is an error in a single word, may be made, like a solecism, by errors in connexion with number or gender. But take on the one hand scala (stairs) and scopa (which literally means a twig, but is used in the sense of broom) and on the other hand hordea (barley) and mulsa (mead): here we have substitution, omission and addition of letters, but the blemish consists in the former case merely in the use of singular for plural, in the latter of plural for singular. Those on the other hand who have used the word gladia are guilty of a mistake in gender.
5.16. forsitan videatur dicere, barbarismum, quod est unius verbi vitium, fieri per numeros aut genera sicut soloecismum: scala tamen et scopa contraque hordea et mulsa, licet litterarum mutationem, detractionem, adiectionem habeant, non alio vitiosa sunt, quam quod pluralia singulariter et singularia pluraliter efferuntur; et gladia qui dixerunt, genere exciderunt.
5.17. I merely mention these as instances: I do not wish anyone to think that I have added a fresh problem to a subject into which the obstinacy of pedants has already introduced confusion. The faults which arise in the course of actual speaking require greater penetration on the part of the critic, since it is impossible to cite examples from writing, except in cases where they occur in poetry, as when the diphthong is divided into two syllables in Europai and Asiai; or when the opposite fault occurs, called synaeresis or synaloephe by the Greeks and complexio by ourselves: as an example I may quote the line of Publius Varro:turn te flagranti deiectum fulmine Plaethon.
5.17. hoc quoque notare contentus sum, ne arti culpa quorundam pervicacium perplexae videar et ipse quaestionem addidisse. exigunt subtilitatis quae accidunt in dicendo vitia, quia exempla eorum tradi scripto non possunt, nisi cum in versus inciderunt, ut divisio Europaï Asiaï et ei contrarium vitium, quod συναίρεσιν et συναλοιφὴν Graeci vocant, nos complexionem dicamus, qualis est apud P. Varronem tum te flagrant deiectum fulmine Phaethon.
5.18. If this were prose, it would be possible to give the letters their true syllabic value. I may mention as further anomalies peculiar to poetry the lengthening of a short syllable as in Italiam fato profugus, or the shortening of a long such as unĭius ob noxam et furias; but in poetry we cannot label these as actual faults.
5.18. si esset prosa oratio, easdem litteras enuntiare veris syllabis licebat. quae fiunt spatio, sive cum syllaba correpta producitur, ut Italiam fato profugus, seu longa corripitur, ut unius ob noxam et furias, extra carmen non deprehendas; sed nec in carmine vitia dicenda sunt.
5.19. Errors in sound on the other hand can be detected by the ear alone; although in Latin, as regards the addition or omission of the aspirate, the question may be raised whether this is an error when it occurs in writing; for there is some doubt whether h is a letter or merely a breathing, practice having frequently varied in different ages.
5.19. vero non nisi aure exiguntur, quae fiunt per sonos; quanquam per aspirationem, sive adiicitur vitiose sive detrahitur, apud nos potest quaeri an in scripto sit vitium, si h littera est, non nota. quidem ratio mutata cum temporibus est saepius.
5.20. Older authors used it but rarely even before vowels, saying aedus or ircus, while its conjunction with consonants was for a long time avoided, as in words such as Graccus or triumpus. Then for a short time it broke out into excessive use, witness such spelling as chorona, chenturia or praecho, which may still be read in certain inscriptions: the well-known epigram of Catullus will be remembered in this connexion.
5.20. ea veteres usi etiam in vocalibus, cum aedos ircosque dicebant; diu deinde servatum, ne consonantibus aspirarent, ut in Graccis et in triumpis; erupit brevi tempore nimius usus, ut choronae, chenturiones, praechones adhuc quibusdam in inscriptionibus maneant, qua de re Catulli nobile epigramma est.
5.21. The spellings vehementer, comprehendere and mihi have lasted to our own day: and among early writers, especially of tragedy, we actually find mehe for me in the older MSS.
5.21. durat ad nos usque vehementer et comprehendere et mihi, nam mehe quoque pro me apud antiquos tragoediarum praecipue scriptores in veteribus libris invenimus.
5.22. It is still more difficult to detect errors of tenor or tone (I note that old writers spell the word tonor, as derived from the Greek τόνος ), or of accent, styled prosody by the Greeks, such as the substitution of the acute accent for the grave or the grave for the acute: such an example would be the placing of the acute accent on the first syllable of Camillus, or the substitution of the grave for the circumflex in Cethegus, an error which results in the alteration of the quantity of the middle syllable, since it means making the first syllable acute; or again the substitution of the circumflex for the grave on the second syllable of Appi, where the contraction of two syllables into one circumflexed syllable involves a double error.
5.22. difficilior observatio est per tenores (quos quidem ab antiquis dictos tonores comperi videlicet declinato a Graecis verbo, qui τόνους dicunt), vel adcentus, quas Graeci προσῳδίας vocant, cum acuta et gravis alia pro alia ponuntur, ut in hoc Camillus, si acuitur prima: aut gravis pro flexa, ut Cethegus, et hic prima acuta (nam sic media mutatur); aut flexa pro gravi, ut Appi circumducta sequenti, quam ex duabus syllabis in unam cogentes et deinde flectentes dupliciter peccant.
5.24. This, however, occurs far more frequently in Greek words such as Atrei, which in our young days was pronounced by the most learned of our elders with an acute accent on the first syllable, necessitating a grave accent on the second; the same remark applies to Nerei and Terei. Such has been the tradition as regards accents.
5.24. id saepius in Graecis nominibus accidit, ut Atreus, quem nobis iuvenibus doctissimi senes acuta prima dicere solebant, ut necessario secunda gravis esset, item Nerei Tereique. de accentibus tradita.
5.25. Still I am well aware that certain learned men and some professed teachers of literature, to ensure that certain words may be kept distinct, sometimes place an acute accent on the last syllable, both when they are teaching and in ordinary speech: as, for instance, in the following passage:quae circus litora, circum piscosos scopulos, where they make the last syllable of circum acute on the ground that, if that syllable were given the grave accent, it might be thought that they meant circus not circuitus.
5.25. scio iam quosdam eruditos, nonnullos etiam grammaticos sic docere ac loqui, ut propter quaedam vocum discrimina verbum interim acuto sono finiant, ut in illis quae circum littora, circum piscosos scopulos, ne, si gravem posuerint secundam, circus dici videatur non circuitus.
5.26. Similarly when quale is interrogative, they give the final syllable a grave accent, but when using it in a comparison, make it acute. This practice, however, they restrict almost entirely to adverbs and pronouns; in other cases they follow the old usage.
5.26. cum quale interrogantes gravi, comparantes acuto tenore concludunt; quod tamen in adverbiis fere solis ac pronominibus vindicant, in ceteris veterem legem sequuntur.
5.27. 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.
5.27. videtur condicionem mutare, quod his locis verba coniungimus. cum dico circum litora, tanquam unum enuntio dissimulata distinctione, itaque tanquam in una voce una est acuta, quod idem accidit in illo Troiae qui primus ab oris.
5.28. It sometimes happens that the accent is altered by the metre as in pecudes pictaeque volucres; 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.
5.28. , ut metri quoque condicio mutet accentum, ut pictaeque volucres; nam volucres media acuta legam, quia, etsi natura brevis, tamen positione longa est, ne faciat iambum, quem non recipit versus herous.
5.29. But these same words, if separated, will form no exception to the rule: or if the custom under discussion prevails, the old law of the language will disappear. (This law is more difficult for the Greeks to observe, because they have several dialects, as they call them, and what is wrong in one may be right in another.) But with us the rule is simplicity itself.
5.29. vero haec a praecepto non recedent, aut si consuetudo vicerit, vetus lex sermonis abolebitur; cuius difficilior apud Graecos observatio est, quia plura illis loquendi genera, quas διαλέκτους vocant, et quod alia vitiosum interim alia rectum est; apud nos vero brevissima ratio.
5.30. 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.
5.30. in omni voce acuta intra numerum trium syllabarum continetur, sive eae sunt in verbo sole sive ultimae, et in iis aut proxima extremae aut ab ea tertia. porro, de quibus loquor, media longa aut acuta aut flexa erit; eodem loco brevis utique gravem habebit sonum, ideoque positam ante se id est ab ultima tertiam acuet.
5.31. 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.
5.31. autem in omni voce utique acuta sed nunquam plus una nec unquam ultima ideoque in disyllabis prior. nunquam in eadem flexa et acuta, quoniam est in flexa et acuta, itaque neutra claudet vocem Latinam. vero, quae sunt syllabae unius, erunt acuta aut flexa, ne sit aliqua vox sine acuta.
5.32. 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, ἰσχνότητες (attenuations) and πλατειασμοί (broadenings); they also use the term κοιλοστομία, when the voice seems to proceed from the depths of the mouth.
5.32. illa per sonos accidunt, quae demonstrari scripto non possunt, vitia oris et linguae: ἰωτακισμοὺς et λαμβδακισμοὺς et ἰσχνότητας et πλατειασμοὺς feliciores fingendis nominibus Graeci vocant, sicut κοιλοστομίαν, cum vox quasi in recessu oris auditor.
5.33. 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, we shall be in possession of the Greek ὀρθοέπεια, that is to say, an exact and pleasing articulation; for that is what we mean when we speak of correct pronunciation.
5.33. etiam proprii quidam et inenarrabiles soni, quibus nonnunquam nationes reprehendimus. igitur omnibus, de quibus supra dixi, vitiis erit illa quae vocatur ὀρθοέπεια, id est emendata cum suavitate vocum explanatio: nam sic accipi potest recta.
5.34. 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.
5.34. vitia omnia ex pluribus vocibus sunt, quorum est soloecismus, quanquam circa hoc quoque disputatum est. etiam qui complexu orationis accidere eum confitentur, quia tamen unius emendatione verbi corrigi possit, in verbo esse vitium non in sermone contendunt;
5.35. For example whether amarae corticis or medio cortice 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.
5.35. cum, sive amarae corticis seu medio cortice per genus facit soloecismum (quorum neutrum quidem reprehendo, cum sit utriusque Vergilius auctor; sed fingamus utrumlibet non recte dictum), mutatio vocis alterius, in qua vitium erat, rectam loquendi rationem sit redditura, ut amari corticis fiat vel media cortice. manifestae calumniae est; neutrum enim vitiosum est separatum, sed compositione peccatur, quae iam sermonis est.
5.36. 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?”, you were to reply “I.” Some too think it a solecism if the spoken word is contradicted by the motion of hand or head.
5.36. eruditius quaeritur, an in singulis quoque verbis possit fieri soloecismus, uti si unum quis ad se vocans dicat venite, aut si plures a se dimittens ita loquatur abi aut discede. non cum responsum ab interrogante dissentit, ut si dicenti video? ita occurras. gestu etiam nonnulli putant idem vitium inesse, cum aliud voce aliud nutu vel manu demonstratur.
5.37. 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.
5.37. opinioni neque omnino accedo neque plane dissentio. id fateor accidere voce una non tamen aliter, quam si sit aliquid, quod vim alterius vocis obtineat, ad quod vox illa referatur, ut soloecismus ex complexu fiat eorum, quibus res significantur et voluntas ostenditur.
5.38. 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;
5.38. ut omnem effugiam cavillationem, sit aliquando in uno verbo nunquam in solo verbo. quot autem et per quas accidat species, non satis convenit. plenissime, quadripertitam volunt esse rationem nec aliam quam barbarismi, ut fiat adiectione nam enim, de susum, in Alexandriam; detractione ambulo viam, Aegypto venio, ne hoc fecit;
5.39. 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. 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.
5.39. transmutatione, qua ordo turbatur, quoque ego, enim hoc voluit, autem non habuit. quo genere an sit igitur initio sermonis positum, dubitari potest, quia maximos auctores in diversa fuisse opinione video, cum apud alios sit etiam frequens, apud alios nunquam reperiatur.
5.40. 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.
5.40. tria genera quidam deducunt a soloecismo, et adiectionis vitium πλεονασμόν, detractionis ἔλλειψιν, inversionis ἀναστροφήν vocant, quae si in speciem soloecismi cadat, ὑπερβατόν quoque eodem appellari modo posse.
5.41. 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;
5.41. sine controversia est, cum aliud pro alio ponitur. per omnes orationis partes deprehendimus, frequentissime in verbo, quia plurima huic accidunt; ideoque in eo fiunt soloecismi per genera, tempora, personas, modos, sive cui status eos dici seu qualitates placet, vel sex vel, ut alii volunt, octo;—nam totidem vitiorum erunt formae, in quot species eorum quidque, de quibus supra dictum est, diviseris praeterea numeros, in quibus nos singularem ac pluralem habemus Graeci et δυϊκόν.
5.42. 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.
5.42. fuerunt, qui nobis quoque adiicerent dualem scripsere, legere; quod evitandae asperitatis gratia mollitum est, ut apud veteres pro male mereris, male merere. quod vocant dualem, in illo solo genere consistit, cum apud Graecos et in verbi tota fere ratione et in nominibus deprehendatur, et sic quoque rarissimus eius sit usus, apud nostrorum vero neminem haec observatio reperiatur, quin e contrario devenere locos et conticuere omnes et consedere duces aperte nos doceant, nihil horum ad duos pertinere;
5.43. But we find not a trace of such a usage in any Latin author. On the contrary phrases such as devenere locos, conticuere omnes and consedere duces clearly prove that they have nothing to do with the dual. Moreover dixere, 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.
5.43. dixere quoque, quamquam id Antonius Rufus ex diverso ponit exemplum, de pluribus patronis praeco pronuntiet.
5.44. Again, does not Livy near the beginning of his first book write tenuere arcem Sabini 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.”
5.44. ? non Livius circa initia statim primi libri,, inquit, arcem Sabini? et mox, in adversum Romani subiere? quem potius ego quam M. Tullium sequar? qui in Oratore, reprehendo, inquit, scripsere; scripserunt esse verius sentio.
5.45. 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.
5.45. in vocabulis et nominibus fit soloecismus genere, numero, proprie autem casibus, quidquid horum alteri succedet. parti subiungatur licet per comparationes et superlationes, itemque in quibus patrium pro possessivo dicitur vel contra.
5.46. As for solecisms connected with expressions of quantity, there are some who will regard phrases such as magnum peculiolum 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.
5.46. vitium, quod fit per quantitatem ut magnum peculiolum, erunt qui soloecismum putent quia pro nomine integro positum sit deminutum. dubito, an id improprium potius appellem, significatione enim deerrat; soloecismi porro uitium non est in sensu sed in complexu.
5.47. 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.
5.47. participio per genus et casum, ut in vocabulo, per tempora, ut in verbo, per numerum, ut in utroque, peccatur. quoque genus, numerum, casus habet, quae omnia recipiunt huiusmodi errorem.
5.48. 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.
5.48. soloecismi et quidem plurimi per partes orationis; sed id tradere satis non est, ne ita demum vitium esse credat puer, si pro alia ponatur alia, ut verbum, ubi nomen esse debuerit, vel adverbium, ubi pronomen, et similia.
5.49. For there are some nouns which are cognate, that is to say of the same genus, and he who uses the wrong species 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;
5.49. sunt quaedam cognata, ut dicunt, id est eiusdem generis, in quibus, qui alia specie quam oportet utetur, non minus quam ipso genere permutato deliquerit.
5.50. ne and non are adverbs: but he who says non feceris in lieu of ne feceris, is guilty of a similar mistake, since one negative denies, while the other forbids. Further intro and intus are adverbs of place, but eo intus and intro sum are solecisms.
5.50. et an et aut coniunctiones sunt, male tamen interroges, hic aut ille sit; et ne ac non adverbia; qui tamen dicat pro illo ne feceris non feceris, in idem incidat vitium, quia alterum negandi est alterum vetandi. amplius intro et intus loci adverbia, eo tamen intus et intro sum soloecismi sunt.
5.51. Similar errors may be committed in connexion with the various kinds of pronouns, interjections and prepositions. It is also a solecism if there is a disagreement between what precedes and what follows within the limits of a single clause.
5.51. in diversitate pronominum, interiectionum, praepositionum accident; est etiam soloecismus in oratione comprehensionis unius sequentium ac priorum inter se inconveniens position.
5.52. 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: 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.
5.52. tamen et faciem soloecismi habent et dici vitiosa non possunt, ut tragoedia Thyestes et ludi Floralia ac Megalensia, quanquam haec sequenti tempore interciderunt numquam aliter a veteribus dicta. igitur nominabuntur, frequentiora quidem apud poetas sed oratoribus quoque permissa.
5.53. 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 must however point out that a figure, if used unwittingly, will be a solecism.
5.53. schema fere habebit aliquam rationem, ut docebimus eo, quem paulo ante promisimus, loco. id quoque, quod schema vocatur, si ab aliquo per imprudentiam factum erit, soloecismi vitio non carebit.
5.54. 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.
5.54. eadem specie sunt sed schemate carent, ut supra dixi, nomina feminina, quibus mares utuntur, et neutralia, quibus feminae. de soloecismo. enim artem grammaticam componere aggressi sumus, sed cum in ordinem incurreret, inhonoratam transire noluimus.
5.55. I therefore resume the path which I prescribed for myself and point out that words are either native or foreign. Foreign words, like our population and our institutions, have come to us from practically every nation upon earth.
5.55. amplius, ut institutum ordinem sequar, verba aut Latina aut peregrina sunt. porro ex omnibus prope dixerim gentibus ut homines, ut instituta etiam multa venerunt.
5.56. 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.
5.56. de Tuscis et Sabinis et Praenestinis quoque; nam ut eorum sermone utentem Vettium Lucilius insectatur, quemadmodum Pollio reprehendit in Livio Patavinitatem, licet omnia Italica pro Romanis habeam.
5.57. 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,” is derived from Spain.
5.57. evaluerunt ut raeda ac petorritum, quorum altero tamen Cicero altero Horatius utitur. mappam circo quoque usitatum nomen Poeni sibi vindicant, et gurdos, quos pro stolidis accipit vulgus, ex Hispania duxisse originem audivi.
5.58. 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.
5.58. haec divisio mea ad Graecum sermonem praecipue pertinet, nam et maxima ex parte Romanus inde conversus est et confessis quoque Graecis utimur verbis, ubi nostra desunt, sicut illi a nobis nonnunquam mutuantur. illa quaestio exoritur, an eadem ratione per casus duci externa qua nostra conveniat.
5.59. 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.
5.59. si reperias grammaticum veterum amatorem, neget quidquam ex Latina ratione mutandum, quia, cum sit apud nos casus ablativus, quem illi non habent, parum conveniat uno casu nostro quinque Graecis uti;
5.60. 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 Castor. They also insisted on the forms Palaemo, Telamo, and Plato (the last being adopted by Cicero), because they could not find any Latin nouns ending in -on.
5.60. quin etiam laudet virtutem eorum, qui potentiorem facere linguam Latinam studebant, nec alienis egere institutis fatebantur. Castorem media syllaba producta pronuntiarunt, quia hoc omnibus nostris nominibus accidebat, quorum prima positio in easdem quas Castor litteras exit; et ut Palaemo ac Telamo et Plato (nam sic eum Cicero quoque appellat) dicerentur, retinuerunt, quia Latinum, quod o et n litteris finiretur, non reperiebant.
5.61. They were reluctant even to permit masculine Greek nouns to end in -as in the nominative case, and consequently in Caelius we find Pelia cincinnatus and in Messala bene fecit Euthia, and in Cicero Hermagora. So we need not be surprised that the majority of early writers said Aenea and Anchisa.
5.61. in a quidem atque s litteras exire temere masculina Graeca nomina recto casu patiebantur, ideoque et apud Caelium legimus Pelia cincinnatus et apud Messalam bene fecit Euthia et apud Ciceronem Hermagora, ne miremur, quod ab antiquorum plerisque Aenea ut Anchisa sit dictus.
5.62. For, it was urged, if such words are spelt like Maecenas, Sufenas and Asprenas, the genitive should terminate in -is not in -e. On the same principle they placed an acute accent on the middle syllable of Olympus and tyrannus, because Latin does not allow an acute accent on the first syllable if it is short and is followed by two long syllables.
5.62. si ut Maecenas, Sufenas, Asprenas dicerentur, genitivo casu non e littera, sed tis syllaba terminarentur. Olympo et tyranno acutam syllabam mediam dederunt, quia duabus longis insequentibus primam brevem acui noster sermo non patitur.
5.63. So too we get the Latinised genitives Ulixi and Achilli together with many other analogous forms. More recent scholars have instituted the practice of giving Greek nouns their Greek declension, although this is not always possible. Personally I prefer to follow the Latin method, so far as grace of diction will permit. For I should not like to say Calypsonem on the analogy of Iunonem, although Gaius Caesar in deference to antiquity does adopt this way of declining it. Current practice has however prevailed over his authority.
5.63. genitivus Ulixi et Achilli fecit, sic alia plurima. recentiores instituerunt Graecis nominibus Graecas declinationes potius dare, quod tamen ipsum non semper fieri potest. autem placet Latinam rationem sequi, quousque patitur decor. enim iam Calypsonem dixerim ut Iunonem, quanquam secutus antiquos, C. Caesar utitur hac ratione declinandi. auctoritatem consuetudo superavit.
5.64. In other words which can be declined in either way without impropriety, those who prefer it can employ the Greek form: they will not be speaking Latin, but will not on the other hand deserve censure. Simple words are what they are in the nominative, that is, their essential nature.
5.64. ceteris, quae poterunt utroque modo non indecenter efferri, qui Graecam figuram sequi malet, non Latine quidem sed tamen citra reprehensionem loquetur.
5.65. Compound words are formed by the prefix of a preposition as in innocens, though care must be taken that two conflicting prepositions are not prefixed as in imperterritus: if this be avoided they may in certain cases have a double prefix as in incompositus or reconditus or the Ciceronian subabsurdtim. They may also be formed by what I might term the combination of two independent units, as in maleficus.
5.65. voces prima positione id est natura sua constant, compositae aut praepositionibus subiunguntur ut innocens (dum ne pugnantibus inter se duabus, quale est inperterritus; alioqui possunt aliquando continuari duae ut incompositus, reconditus et quo Cicero utitur subabsurdum ), aut e duobus quasi corporibus coalescunt, ut maleficus.
5.66. For I will not admit that the combination of three is possible at any rate in Latin, although Cicero asserts that capsis is compounded of cape si vis, and there are to be found scholars who contend that Lupercalia likewise is a compound of three parts of speech, namely luere per caprum.
5.66. ex tribus nostrae utique linguae non concesserim; quamvis capsis Cicero dicat compositum esse ex cape si vis, et inveniantur qui Lupercalia aeque tres partes orationis esse contendant, quasi luere per caprum;
5.67. As for Solitaurilia it is by now universally believed to stand for Suovelaurilia, a derivation which corresponds to the actual sacrifice, which has its counterpart in Homer as well. But these compounds are formed not so much from three words as from the fragments of three. On the other hand Pacuvius seems to have formed compounds of a preposition and two vocables ( i.e. nouns) as inNerei repandirostrum incurvticervicum pecs:The flockOf Nereus snout-uplifted, neck-inarchedthe effect is unpleasing.
5.67. nam iam persuasum est esse, et sane ita se habet sacrum, quale apud Homerum quoque est. haec non tam ex tribus quam ex particulis trium coeunt. etiam ex praepositione et duobus vocabulis dure videtur struxisse Pacuvius Nerei repandirostrum, incuruiceruicum pecus.
5.68. Compounds are however formed from two complete Latin words, as for instance supefui and subterfui; though in this case there is some question as to whether the words from which they are formed are complete. They may also be formed of one complete and one incomplete word, as in the case of malevolus, or of one incomplete and one complete, such as noctivagus, or of two incomplete words as in pedisecus (footman), or from one Latin and one foreign word as in biclinium (a dining-couch for two), or in the reverse order as in epitogium (an upper garment) or Anticato, and sometimes even from two foreign words as in epiraedium (a thong attaching the horse to the raeda). For in this last case the preposition is Greek, while raeda is Gallic, while the compound is employed neither by Greek nor Gaul, but has been appropriated by Rome from the two foreign tongues.
5.68. autem aut ex duobus Latinis integris ut superfui, subterfugi (quanquam ex integris an composita sint quaeritur), aut ex integro et corrupto ut malevolus, aut ex corrupto et integro ut noctivagus, aut ex duobus corruptis ut pedisecus, aut ex nostro et peregrino ut biclinium, aut contra ut epitogium et Anticato, aliquando et ex duobus peregrinis ut epiraedium. cum sit praepositio Graeca, raeda Gallicum: neque Graecus tamen neque Gallus utitur composito; Romani suum ex alieno utroque fecerunt.
5.69. In the case of prepositions they are frequently changed by the act of compounding: as a result we get abstulit, aufugit, amisit, though the preposition is ab, and coil, though the preposition is con. The same is true of ignauus and erepublica. But compounds are better suited to Greek than to Latin, though I do not think that this is due to the nature of our language: the reason rather is that we have a preference for foreign goods, and therefore receive κυρταύχην with applause, whereas we can scarce defend incurvicervicus from derisive laughter.
5.69. autem praepositiones quoque compositio ista corrumpit: inde abstulit, aufugit, amisit, cum praepositio sit ab sola; et coit, cum sit praepositio con; sic ignaui et erepublica et similia.
5.70. Words are proper when they bear their original meaning; metaphorical, when they are used in a sense different from their natural meaning. Current words are safest to use: there is a spice of danger in coining new. For if they are adopted, our style wins but small glory from them; while if they are rejected, they become a subject for jest.
5.70. res tota magis Graecos decet, nobis minus succedit, nec id fieri natura puto, sed alienis favemus; ideoque cum κυρταύχενα mirati simus, incurvicervicum vix a risu defendimus. sunt verba, cum id significant, in quod primo denominata sunt; translata, cum alium natura intellectum alium loco praebent. tutius utimur, nova non sine quodam periculo fingimus. si recepta sunt, modicam laudem adferunt orationi, repudiata etiam in iocos exeunt.
5.72. Still we must make the venture; for as Cicero says, use softens even these words which at first seemed harsh. On the other hand the power of onomatopoeia is denied us. Who would tolerate an attempt to imitate phrases like the much praised λίγξε βιός, “the bow twanged,” and σῖζεν ὀφθαλμός “the eye hissed”? We should even feel some qualms about using balare “to baa,” and hinntre, “to whinny,” if we had not the sanction of antiquity to support us.
5.72. tamen; namque, ut Cicero ait, etiam quae primo dura visa sunt, usu molliuntur. minime nobis concessa est ὀνοματοποιία quis enim ferat, si quid simile illis merito laudatis λίγξε βιός et σίζ ὀφθαλμός fingere audeamus? ne balare quidem aut hinnire fortiter diceremus, nisi iudicio vetustatis niterentur.
6.1. There are special rules which must be observed both by speakers and writers. Language is based on reason, antiquity, authority and usage. Reason finds its chief support in analogy and sometimes in etymology. As for antiquity, it is commended to us by the possession of a certain majesty, I might almost say sanctity.
6.1. etiam sua loquentibus observatio, sua scribentibus. constat ratione vel vetustate, auctoritate, consuetudine. praestat praecipue analogia, nonnunquam et etymologia. maiestas quaedam et, ut sic dixerim, religio commendat.
6.2. Authority as a rule we derive from orators and historians. For poets, owing to the necessities of metre, are allowed a certain licence except in cases where they deliberately choose one of two expressions, when both are metrically possible, as for instance in imo de stirpe recisum and aeriae quo congessere palumbes or silice in nuda and the like. The judgment of a supreme orator is placed on the same level as reason, and even error brings no disgrace, if it result from treading in the footsteps of such distinguished guides.
6.2. ab oratoribus vel historicis peti solet; nam poetas metri necessitas excusat, nisi si quando nihil impediente in utroque modulatione pedum alterum malunt, qualia sunt, imo de stirpe recisum, et aëriae quo congessere palumbes et silice in nuda et similia; cum summorum in eloquentia virorum iudicium pro ratione, et velut error honestus est magnos duces sequentibus.
6.3. Usage however is the surest pilot in speaking, and we should treat language as currency minted with the public stamp. But in all these cases we have need of a critical judgment, especially as regards analogy (a Greek term for which a Latin equivalent has been found in proportion).
6.3. vero certissima loquendi magistra, utendumque plane sermone ut nummo, cui publica forma est. tamen haec exigunt acre iudicium, analogia praecipue, quam proxime ex Graeco transferentes in Latinum proportionem vocaverunt.
6.4. The essence of analogy is the testing of all subjects of doubt by the application of some standard of comparison about which there is no question, the proof that is to say of the uncertain by reference to the certain. This can be done in two different ways: by comparing similar words, paying special attention to their final syllables (hence monosyllables are asserted to lie outside the domain of analogy ) and by the study of diminutives.
6.4. haec vis est, ut id quod dubium est ad aliquid simile, de quo non quaeritur, referat et incerta certis probet. efficitur duplici via: comparatione similium in extremis maxime syllabis, propter quod ea quae sunt e singulis negantur debere rationem, et deminutione.
6.5. Comparison of nouns will reveal either their gender or their declension: in the first case, supposing the question is raised as to whether junis be masculine or feminine, panis will supply a standard of comparison: in the second case, supposing we are in doubt as to whether we should say hac domu or hac domo, domuum or domorum, the standard of comparison will be found in words such as anus or manus.
6.5. in nominibus aut genus deprehendit aut declinationem; genus, ut si quaeratur, funis masculinum sit an femininum, simile illi sit panis; declinationem, ut si veniat in dubium, hac domu dicendum sit an hac domo et domuum an domorum:
6.6. Diminutives merely reveal the gender: for instance, to return to a word previously used as an illustration, funiculus proves that funis is masculine.
6.6. similia sint [domus] anus, manus. genus modo detegit, et, ne ab eodem exemplo recedam, funem masculinum esse funiculus ostendit.
6.7. The same standard may be applied in the case of verbs. For instance if it should be asserted that the middle syllable of fervere is short, we can prove this to be an error, because all verbs which in the indicative terminate in -eo, make the middle syllable of the infinitive long, if that syllable contain an e: take as examples such verbs as prandeo, pendeo, spondeo with infinitives prandēre, pendēre, spondēre.
6.7. in verbis quoque ratio comparationis, ut, si quis antiques secutus fervere brevi media syllaba dicat, deprehendatur vitiose loqui, quod omnia, quae e et o litteris fatendi modo terminantur, eadem, si infinitis e litteram media syllaba acceperunt, utique productam habent: prandeo pendeo spondeo, prandere pendere spondere.
6.8. Those verbs, however, which terminate in -o alone, if they form the infinitive in e, have the e short; compare lego, dico, curro, with the infinitives, legĕre, dicĕre, currĕre. I admit that in Lucilius we find—fervit aqua et fervet: firvit nunc ferverit ad annum.“The water boils and boil it will; it boils and for a year will boil.” But with all due respect to so learned a man, if he regards fervit as on the same footing as currit and legit, we shall say fervo as we say lego and curro: but such a form has never yet come to my ears.
6.8. quae o solam habent, dummodo per eandem litteram in infinito exeant, brevia fiunt: lego dico curro, legere dicere currere; etiamsi est apud Lucilium aqua et fervet, fervit nunc, fervet ad annum.
6.9. But this is not a true comparison: for fervit resembles servit, and on this analogy we should say fervire like servire. It is also possible in certain cases to discover the present indicative of a verb from the study of its other tenses. I remember, for instance, refuting certain scholars who criticised me for using the word pepigi: for, although they admitted that it had been used by some of the best authors, they asserted that it was an irrational form because the present indicative paciscor, being passive in form, made pactus sum as its perfect.
6.9. pace dicere hominis eruditissimi liceat, si fervit putat illi simile currit et legit, fervo dicetur ut lego et curro, quod nobis inauditum est. non est haec vera comparatio; nam fervit est illi simile servit, quam proportionem sequenti dicere necesse est fervire ut servire. quoque aliquando positio ex obliquis invenitur, ut memoria repeto convictos a me, qui reprehenderant, quod hoc verbo usus essem, pepigi; nam id quidem dixisse summos auctores confitebantur, rationem tamen negabant permittere, quia prima positio paciscor, cum haberet naturam patiendi, faceret tempore praeterito pactus sum.
6.11. I in addition to quoting the authority of orators and historians maintained that I was also supported by analogy. For when I found ni ita pacunt in the Twelve Tables, I noted that cadunt provided a parallel: it was clear therefore that the present indicative, though now obsolete, was paco on the analogy of cado, and it was further obvious that we say pepigi for just the same reason that we say cecidi.
6.11. praeter auctoritatem oratorum atque historicorum analogia quoque dictum hoc tuebamur. cum legeremus in XII tabulis ni ita pagunt, inveniebamus simile huic cadunt, inde prima positio, etiamsi vetustate exoleverat, apparebat paco ut cado, unde non erat dubium sic pepigi nos dicere ut cecidi.
6.12. But we must remember that analogy cannot be universally applied, as it is often inconsistent with itself. It is true indeed that scholars have attempted to justify certain apparent anomalies: for example, when it is noted to what an extent lepus and lupus, which resemble each other closely in the nominative, differ in the plural and in the other cases, they reply that they are not true parallels, since lepus is epicene, while lupus is masculine, although Varro in the book in which he narrates the origins of Rome, writes lupus femina, following the precedent of Ennius and Fabius Pictor.
6.12. meminerimus non per omnia duci analogiae posse rationem, cum et sibi ipsa plurimis in locis repugnet. sine dubio conantur eruditi defendere, ut, cum deprehensum est, lepus et lupus similia positione quantum casibus numerisque dissentiant: ista respondent non esse paria, quia lepus epicoenon sit, lupus masculinum; quanquam Varro in eo libro, quo initia Romanae urbis enarrat, lupum feminam dicit Ennium Pictoremque Fabium secutus.
6.13. The same scholars, however, when asked why aper became apri in the genitive, but pater patris, asserted that aper was an absolute, pater a relative noun. Further since both words derive from the Greek, they took refuge in the fact that πατρός provides a parallel to patris and κάπρου to apri.
6.13. autem iidem, cum interrogantur, cur aper apri et pater patris faciat, illud nomen positum, hoc ad aliquid esse contendunt. quoniam utrumque a Graeco ductum sit, ad eam rationem recurrunt, ut πατρός patris, κάπρου apri faciat.
6.14. But how will they evade the difficulty that feminine nouns whose nominative singular ends in -us never make the genitive end in -ris, and yet the genitive of Venus is Veneris: again nouns ending in -es have various genitive terminations, but never end in -ris, but yet we have no choice but to make the genitive of Ceres Cereris?
6.14. tamen quomodo effugient, ut, nomina quamvis feminina singulari nominativo us litteris finita nunquam genitivo casu ris syllaba terminentur, faciat tamen Venus Veneris? item cum es litteris finita per varios exeant genitivos, nunquam tamen eadem ris syllaba terminatos, Ceres cogat dici Cereris?
6.15. Again what of those words which, although identical in the form of the nominative or present indicative, develop the utmost variety in their inflections. Thus from Alba we get both Albanus and Albensis, from volo both volui and volavi. Analogy itself admits that verbs whose present indicative ends in -o have a great variety of perfect formations, as for instance cado cecidi, spondeo spopondi, pingo pinxi, lego legi, pono posui, fiango fregi, laudo laudavi. For analogy was not sent down from heaven at the creation of mankind to frame the rules of language, but was discovered after they began to speak and to note the terminations of words used in speech. It is therefore based not on reason but on example, nor is it a law of language, but rather a practice which is observed, being in fact the offspring of usage.
6.15. vero? quod tota positionis eiusdem in diversos flexus eunt? cum faciat Albanos et Albensis, volo volui et volavi. praeterito quidem tempore varie formari verba prima persona o littera terminata, ipsa analogia confiteatur; siquidem facit cado cecidi, spondeo spopondi, pingo pinxi, lego legi, pono posui, frango fregi, laudo laudavi. enim, cum primum fingerentur homines, analogia demissa caelo formam loquendi dedit, sed inventa est postquam loquebantur, et notatum in sermone quid quomodo caderet. non ratione nititur sed exemplo, nec lex est loquendi sed observatio, ut ipsam analogiam nulla res alia fecerit quam consuetudo.
6.17. Some scholars, however, are so perverse and obstinate in their passion for analogy, that they say audaciter in preference to audacter, the form preferred by all orators, and emicavit for emicuit, and conire for coire. We may permit them to say audivisse, scivisse, tribunale and faciliter, nor will we deprive them of frugalis as an alternative for frugi:
6.17. tamen ei quidam molestissima diligentiae perversitate, ut audaciter potius dicant quam audacter, licet omnes oratores aliud sequantur, et emicavit non emicuit et conire non coire. permittamus et audivisse et sciuisse et tribunale et faciliter dicere; frugalis quoque sit apud illos non fugi, nam quo alio modo fiet frugalitas?
6.18. for from what else can frugalitas be formed? They may also be allowed to point out that phrases such as centum milia nummum and fidem deum involve a double solecism, since they change both case and number. Of course we were in blank ignorance of the fact and were not simply conforming to usage and the demands of elegance, as in the numerous cases, with which Cicero deals magnificently, as always, in his Orator.
6.18. centum milia nummum et fidem Deum ostendant duplices quoque soloecismos esse, quando et casum mutant et numerum; nesciebamus enim ac non consuetudini et decori serviebamus, sicut in plurimis, quae M. Tullius in Oratore divine ut omnia exequitur.
6.19. Augustus again in his letters to Gaius Caesar corrects him for preferring calidus to caldus, not on the ground that the former is not Latin, but because it is unpleasing and as he himself puts it in Greek περίεργον (affected).
6.19. Augustus quoque in epistulis ad C. Caesarem scriptis emendat, quod is calidum dicere quam caldum malit, non quia id non sit Latinum sed quia sit odiosum et, ut ipse Graeco verbo significavit, περίεργον.
6.20. Some hold that this is just a question of ὀρθοέπεια or correctness of speech, a subject to which I am far from being indifferent. For what can be more necessary than that we should speak correctly? Nay, I even think that, as far as possible, we should cling to correct forms and resist all tendencies to change. But to attempt to retain forms long obsolete and extinct is sheer impertinence and ostentatious pedantry.
6.20. hanc quidam ὀρθοέπειαν solam putant, quam ego minime excludo. enim tam necessarium quam recta locutio? inhaerendum ei iudico, quoad licet, diu etiam mutantibus repugnandum; sed abolita atque abrogata retinere insolentiae cuiusdam est et frivolae in parvis iactantiae.
6.21. I would suggest that the ripe scholar, who says “ave ” without the aspirate and with a long e (for it comes from avēre and uses calefacere and conservavisse in preference to the usual forms, should also add face, dice and the like to his vocabulary.
6.21. enim litteratus, qui sine aspiratione et producta secunda syllaba salutarit ( avere est enim) et calefacere dixerit potius, quam quod dicimus, et conservauisse, his adiiciat face et dice et similia. est haec via;
6.22. His way is the right way. Who doubts it? But there is an easier and more frequented path close by. There is, however, nothing which annoys me more than their habit not merely of inferring the nominative from the oblique cases, but of actually altering it. For instance in ebur and robur, the forms regularly used both in writing and speech by the best authors, these gentlemen change their second syllable to o, because their genitives are roboris and eboris, and because sulpur and guttur keep the u in the genitive. So too femur and iecur give rise to similar controversy.
6.22. quis negat? sed adiacet et mollior et magis trita. tamen non alio magis angor, quam quod obliquis casibus ducti etiam primas sibi positiones non invenire sed mutare permittunt: ut cum ebur et robur, ita dicta ac scripta summis auctoribus, in o litteram secundae syllabae transferunt, quia sit roboris et eboris, sulpur autem et guttur u litteram in genitivo servent; ideoque iecur etiam et femur controversiam fecerunt.
6.23. Their proceedings are just as arbitrary as if they were to substitute an o in the genitives of sulpur and guttur on the analogy of eboris and roboris. Thus Antonius Gnipho while admitting robur, ebur and even marmur to be correct, would have their plurals to be ebura, robura and marnura.
6.23. non minus est licentiosum, quam si sulpuri et gutturi subiicerent in genitivo litteram o mediam, quia esset eboris et roboris; sicut Antonius Gnipho, qui robur quidem et ebur atque etiam marmur fatetur esse, verum fieri vult ex his robura, ebura, marmura.
6.24. If they would only pay attention to the affinities existing between letters, they would realize that robur makes its genitive roboris in precisely the same way that limes, miles, iudex and uindex make their genitives militis, limitis, iudicis and uindicis, not to mention other words to which I have already referred.
6.24. animadverterent litterarum adfinitatem, scirent sic ab eo, quod est robur, roboris fieri, quomodo ab eo, quod est miles limes, militis limitis, index vindex, iudicis vindicis, et quae supra iam attigi.