Hello everyone,
I’m macronizing a text and I found the verb “stringere”. Its supine is strictum. If I understand well Lachmann’s law, a vowel followed by -gt- should become long when the rest becomes -ct-, hence agere > āctum, jungere > jūnctum, and many others.
So, with stringere, I expect to have strīctum, but the dictionaries have strictum.
Just why? I guess I’m missing something.
Thanks
Despite the many problems that still bedevil Lachmann’s Law it does seem odd that not even the OLD (much superior to Lewis & Short) marks the long a of actus, which is firmly established. But dictionaries are rarely at their best when it comes to hidden quantities, and I must admit that I find it difficult to care, when it makes no prosodic difference.
Perhaps the long vowel is more common in poetry, but not necessarily so in prose? Many (but not all) editions of Gradus ad Parnassum (published in the UK, Germany, France and alike) did have the macron.
Cf. https://archive.org/details/gradusadparnassu00noel_0
The Gradus isn’t helpful here, because, I believe, it’s marking all vowels long by position or by natural length with a macron. That doesn’t shed light on which the -i- in strictus belongs to.
Yes the Gradus does not mark vowel length (or it would not mark tot as long!), only syllable weight, which is what matters in verse. It’s a common confusion (aggravated by the nonsensical notion of vowels “long by position”) but a very bad one.
I only took the face value from the Latin grammar:
- Sometimes a syllable varies in quantity, > viz> . when its > vowel is short > and is followed by a mute with > l > or > r> , > i.e. > by > pl, cl, tl; pr, cr, tr> , > etc> .; as, > ăgrī, volŭcris> . [8] Such syllables are called > common> . In prose they were regularly short, but in verse they might be treated as long at the option of the poet.
But in strictum, where the -i- is followed by -ct- (not a mute+liquid), the first syllable is heavy (aka long), regardless of the quantity of the -i- itself, and necessarily scans as a long.
The Gradus cites verses from Ovid and Vergil:
stringebant magnos vincula parva pedes.
atque animum patriae strinxit pietatis imago.
tot paribus streperet clipeis, tot stringeret enses.
litus ama et laevas stringat sine palmula cautes.
I use it still because it’s familiar, but whenever I taught Latin verse, I would clarify the difference. I see little harm in that.
Seems to me for pronunciation convenience, the i in stric-tum would be short under normal circumstances (i.e., in normal conversation, everyday speech, etc.), even when the first syllable is accented. Why was the letter n taken out of the supine, if this i is really meant to be a long vowel without doubt?
There are certain phonological behaviors that can be traced in the history of the language. Try looking up Lachmann’s Law. That said, yes what you call pronunciation convenience will have played some kind of role, but under normal circumstances would not have affected the quantity of a long vowel in the perfect passive.
For the dropping of the -n- of stringo in strictum cf. e.g. tactus from tango. It takes two, they say.
Allen, second edition, Vox Latina, discusses the case of stringō, strictum on page 69.
The original Lachmann’s Law would predict that the short i be lengthened. But Maniet’s tweak, 1956, restricts Lachmann’s to except short i from the rule.
According to Maniet, no lengthening of i happens with stringo/strictus, pingo/pictus, fingo/fictus, and mingo/mictum.
It is noted that i is the “least prominent of vowels” as a possible reason for the exception.