In conversing in Latin over the years, a number of choices have become necessary, especially with the use of “-que” and stress placement.
I have seen sources through the years claim that “-que” and other enclitics might accentuate the previous syllable — but do those sources mean pitch accent or full, volumetric stress? I’d be delighted to be referred to the commentary therewith.
Others have shown that with words like “ítaque,” that the stress falls on the antepenult, which makes sense according to Latin’s standard stress rules, along with “Rómaque urbs est,” “puer puéllaque,” and other logical conclusions that treat the word+enclitic as a single word, and I have applied this strategy in speaking. The trouble comes with “filii filiaque” — following standard stress rules, that makes “filíaque,” which apparently was impossible. And I had read that the default for such words would be “fíliaque,” obviously defying Latin stress rules by putting the stress on the fourth-to-last syllable.
But! what if it were “fíljaque,” just like “Lavínjaque” in the first lines of the Aeneid: “Lavinjaque venit litora” ? Being able to alter the short vowel “i” into “j” is attested elsewhere I believe as well, and I have on occasion allowed this pronunciation variant to wander into my own speaking.
What about when the antepenult isn’t conveniently a “i” but another vowel? What are some examples with “-que”? I’m blanking right now.
How can anyone respond to that, unless you cite your sources, when there has been such debate over time about pitch versus volume in Latin stress? His de rebus, tot disputationibus per saeculos eventis, quomodò tibi respondamus, nisi fontes das?
I have to say I’m surprised at this (“might”), because the rule has always been taught in schools according to Priscian: with enclitics -que, -ne, -ve -cum wordstress transfers as an acute accent to the penultimate syllable of the compound (the ultimate syllable of the first word), even if short! Meâ parte, attonitus sum, quià semper in scholis regula secundùm Priscianum docebatur: “plerúsque pleráque plerúmque femininum enim, quamvis paenultima brevis sit, accentum tamen in eâ habuit acutum, sicut masculinum et neutrum” (Kiel, Priscian, V, 63)
On this see, for example, Haike Jacobs (1997) "Latin Enclitic Stress Revisited ", Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 28, No. 4 (Autumn, 1997), pp. 648-661 (MIT Press)
I’m not denying there is a debate, but I’m saying that the orthodox position is to stress immediately before the enclitic. His de rebus disputationem esse intellego, sed est regula Prisciani quae a plero accipitur: trahit encliticum accentum.
Ergô, non “Lavínaque venit litora” sed “Lavináque venit litora”.
Heh, you seem to quick to jump on me! I thought it was clear I was citing references from my memory only, and that, “I’d be delighted to be referred to the commentary therewith.”
[quote=“Lucus”]
enclitics might accentuate the previous syllable
[/quote]
I have to say I’m surprised at this ("> might> "), because the rule has always been taught in schools according to Priscian: with enclitics > -que, -ne, -ve -cum > wordstress transfers as an acute accent to the penultimate syllable of the compound (the ultimate syllable of the first word), even if short! Meâ parte, attonitus sum, quià semper in scholis regula secundùm Priscianum docebatur: “plerúsque pleráque plerúmque femininum enim, quamvis paenultima brevis sit, accentum tamen in eâ habuit acutum, sicut masculinum et neutrum” (Kiel, Priscian, V, 63)
Adriane amice, Priscian is 500 AD. His word can hardly be gospel on the Classical pronunciation, though he does have much to offer us.
Nevertheless, given Priscian’s assertion, keep in mind that pitch accent and stress are not the same; while there might be an acute accent immediately before the enclitic, it does not mean the stress has moved to the same place. This is what I am suggesting as a possibility to allow both cases to be right.
Ergô, non “Lavínaque venit litora” sed “Lavináque venit litora”.[/i]
Actually, my friend, I believe you have clarified the situation quite clearly for me, and proven in the same stroke that Vergil, at least, did not pronounce words-with-enclitics with the stress/accent immediately before the enclitic!
For Vergil made good use of the mixing of stressed/accented syllables with metrical feet. For example:
Observe the coincision and alternative placement of accent/stress with the first syllable of every dactylic foot in the beginning of the first Eclogue (the first syllable will be underlined):
Títyre, tu pátulae récubans sub tégmine fági silvéstrem ténui Músam meditáris avéna; nos pátriae fínis et dúlcia línquimus árva. nos pátriam fúgimus; tu, Títyre, léntus in úmbra formósam resonáre dóces Amarýllida sílvas.
Notice a pattern? You can see that Vergil, not only here but in virtually all his hexametre, will deliberately order his verses so that the first half of a line will have stressed syllables not the same as the first syllable in the foot, while for the second half of the line the stress/accent and the foot’s initial syllable will coincide beautifully. This was quite deliberate, and gives a very full, exquisitely pleasing quality to Vergil’s poetry.
In a cursory scan of a few books of the Aeneid and the Eclogues, I could only find that line 65 in the first book, “Aeole, namque tibi divom pater atque hóminum rex,” seemed to defy this rule. I welcome findings to the contrary! In 99% of the cases or more, the second half of every line of Vergil will have coinciding stress/accent and initial syllable of foot.
And the beginning of the Aeneid:
Árma virúmque cáno, Tróiae qui prímus ab óris Itáliam, fáto prófugus, Lavínjaque vénit lítora, multum ílle et térris jactátus et álto vi súperum sáevae mémorem Junónis ob íram; múlta quóque et béllo pássus, dum cónderet úrbem, inferrétque déos Látio, génus únde Latínum, Albaníque pátres, atque áltae móenia Rómae.
If it were Itáliam, fáto prófugus, Lavin_já_que vénit, it would totally defy the entire structure of the verse. Therefore, it is unlikely that Vergil (or his contemporaries by association) would have stressed/accented the syllable before an enclitic if that preceding syllable were short.
I think we must take that into consideration as we pronounce our modern Latin, according to the Restored Pronunciation drawn from the Classical paradigm, and not from the post-Classical tradition.
Were it not rather late, your endorsement of Priscian would otherwise be reassuring to those who have spoken Latin in the 1500 years since his passing and following the same rule. Although, it’s not just Priscian who said it. In fact, it’s hard to find a grammarian who disagrees. Additionally, by repeating what Pharr and others have said about Virgil’s verse, what you say makes sense, but when you go further to insist it proves Virgil pronounced “Lavínaque” you do so with a confidence lacked by more cautious commentators (although you do indeed follow Pharr on enclitics). Si non serior tua Prisciani aestimatio, confirmati ei qui Latinè dicebant super illos millia quingentos annos qui mortem grammatici consecuti sunt, et secundùm eandem regulam. Certé, plus quàm Priscianus qui regulam proposuere. Difficile quidem quem grammaticum negantem reperire. Virgilii de arte, addo, sententias Pharr et aliorum in repetendo sobriè cordatéque dicis, sed cum poetam “Lavínaque” sonavisse clamas, nimis porrigis, ampliùs verò quàm commentatores circumspectiores.
Post scriptum: Lucus is AD 2008. His word, by the same reasoning, is further removed from the gospel of Classical pronunciation, though he does have much to offer us. Secundi millennii est Lucus, ideo is ulterior etiam ab evangelio sermonis Romanorum classicorum, etsi multum quidem habet quod nobis deferat.
Just my two cents, but what Lucus has said makes sense to me, and the example of ‘itaque’ I think is well worth noting. Isn’t ‘itaque’ simply ‘ita’ + ‘-que’ which was used so commonly it became it’s own word? The short ‘a’ is not accented though, just as one would expect according to the normal accentuation rules. ‘Qu’ is considered a single consonant, so why would the normal stress pattern be changed with enclitics? As far as the point you brought up, Lucus, about ‘filiaque’, I have wondered the same thing with ‘u’ when it precedes a vowel. For instance in ‘monuimus’, following the normal rules we would accent ‘u’, which seems to feel a little awkward to me. Perhaps the ‘u’ becomes more ‘v’ (as the usual perfect marker is) and we have ‘monvimus’ which is accented on the first syllable? Just my thoughts.
I greatly appreciate what you say, that Latin is a language that has been spoken perhaps by more people after the fall of the Roman Empire than under Rome herself — is that statistically so? I don’t know where to begin to quantify it.
And for that reason, as I emphasize to my students, Latin is a language continuously spoken, written, and enjoyed for nearly three thousand years. Post-classical Latin is not to be derided, rather we should appreciate it as part of our heritage.
That aside, the modern pronunciation of Latin has been put together through the consensus of choosing a non-national pronunciation of the language; that is, going back far enough to before there were significant versions like “German Latin,” “Ecclesiastical Latin,” etc. As a part of this modern Latin movement, we are bound to understand the Classical pronunciation as best we can, and recommend its international use to speakers today, are we not?
Post scriptum> : Lucus is AD 2008. His word, by the same reasoning, is further removed from the gospel of Classical pronunciation, though he does have much to offer us. Secundi millennii est Lucus, ideo is ulterior etiam ab evangelio sermonis Romanorum classicorum, etsi multum quidem habet quod nobis deferat.
You are a funny man, Adriane.
That is an interesting idea, Calvinist. Well, it is certain that even in the times of Terence and Plautus (v. Vox Latina) that stress would still at times fall on the fourth-to-last syllable. And that in ancient Latin stress fell on the first syllable of every word, like in Finnish, for example. This changed, of course. So at some point, it certainly was “mónuimus.”
Still, I think that it must have been “monúimus,” just as it is also “filíola,” etc. (though I can’t back that up with much more than instinct, which I will elaborate on). My impression is that the fourth-to-last business was just for enclitics where the normal stress of “fília” would be oddly disrupted in “filíaque” — though I personally do not have a problem with this pronunciation! I’ve just seen evidence (“Lavínjaque”) and gathered from other sources whose origin I cannot recall that the fourth-to-last-becoming-third-to-last-with-i-vowel-becoming-j/i-consonant was preferable.
That would mean also that ‘u’, as you suggest, could become ‘v’/u-consonant in analogous examples to “fíljaque” : “cornuaque” would become “córnvaque,” and “genuaque” “génvaque.”
Salve Calviniste
What Lucus says makes sense, and I haven’t said he’s wrong ( I suspect he’s read pieces like Charles Newcomer, “The Effect of Enclitics on the Accent of Words in Latin”, The Classical Journal, Vol. 3, No. 4 (Feb., 1908), pp. 150-153, or lots of places—see quote below), but he hasn’t set out the debate accurately by giving enough significance to the traditional viewpoint. The debate has gone on since the nineteenth century covering this ground. Strange, if the evidence is so clear!
As for “itaque”, later grammarians list it as an exception (ítaque) along with déinde, dénique, úndique, útique.
Nota benè quoquè: “ítaque” = “therefore” et “itáque” = “and so” vel “and thus”, secundùm scriptores quosdam.
Bonis de causis dicit Lucus quod dicit, et repetit quod his annis dicunt multi (ut Newcomer, cuius verbos infrà cito). Parùm autem opiniones grammaticorum et saeclorum multorum describit, quod non justum est, meâ sententiâ. Quod contraversia tam longè perseveraret etsi argumenta tam clara esse, monstri simile mihi videtur!
Ut exceptio, “ítaque” a grammaticis citatur, secus itá: “déinde, dénique, úndique, útique”
In Vox Latina, Allen mentions the possibility that the older grammarians may have based their rules regarding enclitics and accenting more on Greek rules than on the Roman poetic tradition. I know I’ve mentioned this before on this forum and what’s usually mentioned in rebuttal is that the grammarians are the only sources we have. Also, the fact that they’re closer in time to the Classical tradition than we are should favor their insights as opposed to ours.
However, Lucus brings up an excellent point in the fact that Priscian is half a millennium removed from the accent we’re trying to reproduce. Stating that Priscian is better able to remark on Classical pronunciation because he’s closer than we are is akin to saying that Winston Churchill would have known how Chaucer pronounced his English better than any modern scholar. The argument can also be made that we have 1,500 years more of linguistic scholarship than Priscian. Priscian’s proximity in time really is meaningless in the argument unless he had a tape-recording of Cicero at his disposal. In fact, Priscian’s shorter proximity (in regards to our own) is more of a detriment to his argument due to the increase in scholarship since his times.
Perhaps this is a silly point to make, but look at the different accents and ways of pronunciation that exist within a language concurrently. Often times, modern grammarians point out rules for pronunciations which have little bearing outside their local sphere of existence, unless it’s to make comparative judgments. Vespasian’s accent was apparently noticeably different from others, and he’s closer in time to Cicero than Priscian. Ennius’ poetry demonstrates an occasional elision of -s, a possible way of speaking which I’ve never heard suggested as a Classical rule, and he’s closer to Cicero than Priscian was by half.
Also, the argument that it’s difficult to find a Roman grammarian who disagrees with Priscian’s sentiment in no way bolsters Priscian’s conclusion. The fact that the preservation of ancient texts is both a process of selection and chance does not mean there were not grammarians aplenty who argued the opposite.
Here’s a link to a nice paper. http://www.ling-phil.ox.ac.uk/download/working_papers_list.pdf
I don’t agree about one of the points (“Priscian states that the preposition sine has grave accents on both syllables when preposed but an acute on the first syllable when postposed”,—I read differently) but this a is a good, careful and balanced picture of the debate, I think. Eccum nexum ad Philomenae Probert capitulum scitum ( “On the Prosody of Latin Enclitics”, Oxford University Working Papers in Linguistics, Philology & Phonetics, vol.7, May 2002, pp.181-206), quod ab omnibus legetur. De accentum adverborum postpositorum secundùm Priscianum, cum illâ convenire non possum (aliter lego), sed nihil refert. Notandum est quàm sedulò argumenta et sua et aliorum ponit.
Not at all. I am not joking when I suggest that the statement “Priscian is 500 AD” is not an argument. If it were, then later points of view must have even less value! Hence the reference to “AD 2008.” There is no excuse for not considering what Priscian is talking about and why he is talking about it. And he had access to, and read, many ancient works that are lost to us forever. Minimè. Sententiam “Priscian is 500 AD” argumentum non esse seriò dixi. Si aliter, ii qui grammaticum succedunt minùs audiendi sunt. Quod ille vir scripsit est legendum approbatumque. Et ad manus habuit plerum operum quae nos ignoramus quià perdita.
That’s not what I said, Chris. Out of the grammarians who have written about this, they mostly say the same. Incidentally, concerning the point “[it] does not mean there were not grammarians aplenty who argued the opposite”, an uncheckable hypothesis of disappeared counter evidence doesn’t stand up in court, even if it might be true. Id, Christophore, non dixi. Ex omnibus qui hac de re scripsere, pauci solùm qui dissentiunt. Tuo de argumento obiter: “[it] does not mean there were not grammarians aplenty who argued the opposite”, non licet in judicio hypothesem dare quae indicia disparita esse postulat, si ea verificari non potest (etsi vera sit).
I think that’s a very proper point to make. Consistency and homogeneity in pronunciation even within a period, never mind between periods, is so unimaginable that assertions to have found it are very suspicious. Rectus aptusque quod dicis. Futile est in aevi sermone,—vel inter quidem aevos,—loquendi modorum aequalitatem atque constantiam quaerere. Et de ille haec invenisse clamante suspiciosus esto.
Ennius’ poetry demonstrates an occasional elision of -s, a possible way of speaking which I’ve never heard suggested as a Classical rule, and he’s closer to Cicero than Priscian was by half.
Yes! and you can even see this in Plautus. It appears to be a very common colloquial aspect of Latin stretching from the early Classical Latin of Plautus through the times and Cicero and beyond.
Cicero, in a letter to Brutus, complains about the habits of speech of the common people: one of these is that they say amicu’ for amicus and omnibu for omnibus, etc. And the same properties of ‘s’-elision were apparent in Plautus. Really remarkable stuff!
Here’s the link, M. Tullius Cicero Orator ad M. Brutum:
This letter has a lot of great stuff, for example:
XLVIII. [159] Quid in verbis iunctis? Quam scite insipientem non insapientem, iniquum non inaequum, tricipitem non tricapitem, concisum non concaesum! Ex quo quidam pertisum etiam volunt, quod eadem consuetudo non probavit. Quid vero hoc elegantius, quod non fit natura, sed quodam instituto? Indoctus dicimus brevi prima littera, insatius producta, inhumanus brevi, infelix longa.
So, he remarks that ‘ae’ becomes ‘i’ in compounds, and that the fricative ‘f’ (like ‘s’) makes the preceding ‘n’ into a nasalization of the preceding vowel, in this case ‘i’, which is thus long.
In the following passage he complains of the added aspiration ‘h’ in words out of Greek imitation:
[160] Quin ego ipse, cum scirem ita maiores locutos esse, ut nusquam nisi in vocali aspiratione uterentur, loquebar sic, ut pulcros, Cetegos, triumpos, Cartaginem dicerem; aliquando, idque sero, convicio aurium cum extorta mihi veritas esset, usum loquendi populo concessi, scientiam mihi reservavi. Orcivios tamen et Matones, Otones, Caepiones, sepulcra, coronas, lacrimas dicimus, quia per aurium iudicium licet. Burrum semper Ennius, numquam Pyrrhum;
vi patefecerunt Bruges,
non Phryges, ipsius antiqui declarant libri. Nec enim Graecam litteram adhibebant, nunc autem etiam duas, et cum Phrygum et Phrygibus dicendum esset, absurdum erat aut etiam in barbaris casibus Graecam litteram adhibere aut recto casu solum Graece loqui; tamen et Phryges, et Pyrrhum aurium causa dicimus.
And here, he talks about the dropping of the ‘s’:
[161] Quin etiam, quod iam subrusticum videtur, olim autem politius, eorum verborum, quorum eaedem erant postremae duae litterae, quae sunt in optimus, postremam litteram detrahebant, nisi vocalis insequebatur. Ita non erat ea offensio in versibus quam nunc fugiunt poetae novi. Sic enim loquebamur:
qui est omnibu’ princeps
non omnibus princeps, et:
vita illa dignu’ locoque
non dignus. Quod si indocta consuetudo tam est artifex suavitatis, quid ab ipsa tandem arte et doctrina postulari putamus? [162] Haec dixi brevius quam si haec de re una disputarem—est enim locus hic late patens de natura usuque verborum—longius autem quam instituta ratio postulabat.
He actually refers to it as both “subrusticum” sounding, as well as “olim autem politius,” at one time having been polished sounding. But, ‘new poets flee’ it, although ‘it was not an offense in verse’ long ago.
We can also see this elision in “patruust meus,” “he’s my uncle,” and others.
My “uncheckable hypothesis of disappeared counter evidence” is not meant to disprove your thesis. Simply because there are so many ancient works lost beyond recovery does not prove Priscian or anyone else wrong. However, it does do much to weaken the validity of Priscian’s conclusions, especially in light of other textual evidence which does exist as a possible counter-argument, such as Vergil who often does throw a word + enclitic combination into the 5th foot of his hexametric verses. Furthermore, in suggesting that Priscian “had access to, and read, many ancient works that are lost to us forever,” aren’t you supplying us with “an uncheckable hypothesis of disappeared” supporting evidence which also wouldn’t stand up in court?
Sorry, I don’t mean to be sarcastic…but seriously, I do understand that the orthodox position here, at least in surviving grammatical works and past scholarship, is to accent the penultimate syllable of a word with an enclitic (not counting the list of assorted exceptions). But I think the argument for antepenultimate accentuation is strong and not without merit. However, aside from having a brief chit-chat with Cicero, I don’t think the argument will ever be worked out with 100% certainty. I think of it as a positive. In any host of languages, you have so many different accents and dialects which only add to the richness of a language. I’m sure everyone can agree that in the Imperium Romanum, Latin sounded differently on the Iberian Peninsula than in Dacia or Aegyptus. It only makes sense that there should be some variety today, and not just between Church pronunciation and Classical pronunciation.
Also, Lucus, neat references…if I’m not mistaken, didn’t Marcus’ magister in LL give him a good thrashing because he kept forgetting his H’s? I guess that makes Marcus “subrusticum” as well as “piger.”
Not really, Chris. The contents of some more ancient books we know of only through Priscian (according to the arguments of some scholars). And it is legitimate for a witness to give first-hand knowledge of disappeared evidence, although the credibility of the witness may then be a subject for examination. That’s different from hypothesizing that there may be counter evidence that we are unaware of. We can judge what is available to us; we can’t judge what isn’t. Judgements, however, can never be certainties precisely because of what you say. All I’m saying is to treat Priscian seriously, and then reject him if you want.
Minimè, Christophe. Ut ab auctoribus honestis dicitur, libri quidam fuerunt qui tunc perditi sunt cuius elementa vel partes vel excerpta his diebus cognoscimus solùm secundùm Priscianum inter alios. Et in judicio licet ut dicet testis oculatus auritusve illas res (etsi nunc perditas) quas vidit vel legit vel audivit, etiamsi ob eam causam probitatem quidem illius circumspici sit. Id dicendi hypotheticâ ratione indicia fuisse tunc excidisse non simile est. Quod habemus judicemus; judicare quod non habemus non possumus. Numquam autem, et tuis de causis adeó, habebimus certitudinem. Inquam, modò, te attentè opinionem Priciani videre, ante eam rejicere, si id necessarium esse putes.
Here are examples of enclitic + short vowel and lines with clashes between ictus and accent in the fifth foot of Book 1 of the Aeneid out of a total of 804 lines. Fifth foot emboldened. Maybe Virgil did pronounce a word plus an enclitic as just a normal word, but I say this evidence is not clearcut. We can, however, say that there is evidence that word accent does not always coincide with ictus in the fifth foot of Virgil’s hexameters.
Primo de Aeneidos libro, ecce et exempla enclitici brevem ad vocalem adjuncti et omnia anomalia (ut credo) inter ictum et accentum quae quinto in pede occurrunt. Emphasin illi pedi do. Non clara haec indicia, meâ sententiâ. Dicamus autem in pede quinto hexametrorum Virgilii ictum et accentum admodùm sed non semper concordare.
I.2 Italiam, fato profugus, Lavináque venit (but maybe he does say Lavínaque)
I.16 posthabita coluisse Samo; hic illíus arma (maybe not for Virgil who says the second i in illius is short, but he also then says later I.251 navibus (infandum!) amissis, uníus ob iram with a long i in unius)
I.65 Aeole, namque tibi divom pater atque hóminum rex
I.105 dat latus; insequitur cumulo praerúptus áquae mons.
I.127 rospiciens, summa placidum caput extúlit unda. (extulit said to have exceptional accenting as the u is short, but maybe not for Virgil)
I.151 tum, pietate gravem ac meritis si forte vírum quem
I.177 Tum Cererem corruptam undis Cerealiáque arma (but maybe he does say Cerebáliaque)
I.248 Teucrorum, et genti nomen dedit, armáque fixit (but maybe he does say ármaque)
I.273 gente sub Hectorea, donec regína sácerdos (but sacérdos OK)
I.368 taurino quantum possent circumdáre tergo (Virgil has a short a in circumdare here so he says circúmdare)
I.472 ardentisque avertit equos in cástra, príus quam (although I say “priùs quam”)
I.498 Qualis in Eurotae ripis aut per júga Cynthi
I.568 Seu vos Hesperiam magnam Saturniáque arva (but maybe he does say Satúrniaque)
I.593 argentum Pariusve lapis circumdátur auro (here V. likes a short a, so “circúmdatur”)
I.640 ingens argentum mensis, caelatáque in auro (but maybe he does say Caelátaque)
I.719 insidat quantus miserae deus; at mémor ille
I.734 Adsit laetitiae Bacchus dator, et bóna Juno;
Doesn’t count. Contraversial evidence not admissible. Oh, and it’s “Lavinia” — make sure you put that ‘i/j’ in there.
I.16 posthabita coluisse Samo; hi> c illíu> s arma (maybe not for Virgil who says the second i in illius is short, but he also then says later I.251 navibus (infandum!) amissis, uníus ob iram with a long i in unius)
The -ī- in “illīus,” “ūnīus,” “sōlīus,” etc. was regularly shortened to “illĭus,” “ūnĭus,” “sōlĭus” as a spoken option — much like the English contraction “isn’t” for “is not” ; or comparable with “fuēre” for “fuērunt” in Latin. There is no clash here.
I.65 Aeole, namque tibi divom pate> r atque hómi> num rex
I was looking at this one previously — I believe the elision into “átqueminum,” as it is pronounced, mitigates this “clash.”
I.127 prospiciens, summa placidum capu> t extúli> t unda. (extulit said to have exceptional accenting as the u is short, but maybe not for Virgil)
“Exceptional ending” ?! What on earth are you talking about? It is always, always has been since Sallust, éxtulit, without debate.
I.177 Tum Cererem corruptam undis Cere> aliá> que arma (but maybe he does say > Cerebáliaque> )
Doesn’t count.
I.248 Teucrorum, et genti nomen dedi> t, armáque > fixit (but maybe he does say > ármaque> )
Doesn’t count.
I.273 gente sub Hectorea, donec re> gína sá> cerdos (but sacérdos OK)
Here come the red flag exclaming question marks again: ?!? It has always been sacérdos — who has told to you otherwise?
I.368 taurino quantum possent cir> cumdáre > tergo (Virgil has a short a in circumdare here so he says circúmdare)
And again: ?!? It is not that Vergil has a short ‘a’ in “circumdare,” but that Latin has a short ‘a’ in “circumdare.” dărĕ has a thematically short ‘a’, always. Where have you heard otherwise?
I.472 ardentisque avertit equos in > cástra, prí> us quam (although I say “priùs quam”)
In this case “priúsquam” is one word, not two.
I.568 Seu vos Hesperiam magnam Sa> turniá> que arva (but maybe he does say > Satúrniaque> )
Doesn’t count.
I.593 argentum Pariusve lapis cir> cumdátu> r auro (here V. likes a short a, so “circúmdatur”)
It has always been “circúmdătur” — Vergil doesn’t “like” it any more than he likes that “rŏsă” has a short ‘a’ : it is merely an exsistential fact of the language.
I.640 ingens argentum mensis, cae> latáque i> n auro (but maybe he does say > Caelátaque> )
Doesn’t count.
These, however, are the exceptions:
I.105 dat latus; insequitur cumulo prae> rúptus á> quae mons.
I.151 tum, pietate gravem ac meritis si > forte ví> rum quem
I.498 Qualis in Eurotae ripis aut > per júga > Cynthi
I.719 insidat quantus miserae deu> s; at mémo> r ille
I.734 Adsit laetitiae Bacchus dato> r, et bóna > Juno;
However, these five exceptions in some 756 lines of Liber I Aeneidis may not be exceptions at all, if you take into account the concept of sandhi and the natural joining of words:
praerúptusaquae mons
fórtevirum quem
pérjuga Cýnthi
átmemor ílle
étbona Júno
Here, the word accent of the encliticized word is made minor, and I would tend to read these lines without stress on the encliticized words at all — unless I felt that Vergil were using these rare exceptions to emphasize something.
Now you have 100% consistency in ictus and accent in the 5th foot of Virgil (at least in the first book) and left me no foot to stand on! That’s certainly bolder than anyone I’ve read on this. Even
“átqueminum,” as it is pronounced
! How anyone might make sense of that collection of sounds surprises me; personally, I hear “atqu’hóminum”. But if you say that’s how it’s pronounced, you must have good reason, no?
Nunc in quinto pedibus non ullam anomalia inter ictum et accentum habes (primo in libro saltem), nec quem pedem in quo stem mihi restat! Super hac rem, audacior es quàm ullus alius. Quomodò “átqueminum” ad aurem intellegatur, id non scio. Ego “atqu’hóminum” audio. Sed num hac collocationem sic sonari dicavisses sinè perbonâ ratione?
With sincere respect to you and your arguments, I must still beg to differ. How can the credibility of any witness be a subject for examination if said witnesses’ testimony is no longer extant? It almost sounds as if you’re suggesting that his sources should have the credibility of some form of “dying declaration” which we’re prevented from besmirching.
I fail to see why the supposition of contradictory yet non-extant evidence is any different than your credibility towards Priscian’s supporting, non-extant evidence. Pulling a sole, surviving book from a burning library does not effect its statement one way or another. However, one could legitimately question its validity since any other book that may have supported or detracted from its premises is now lost forever. To state that the author of such a book was privy to the information inside the library before it burned does not add to the book’s credibility, as we have no way to accurately judge the veracity of the author or the author’s sources in a vacuum, either positively or negatively.
Be assured, that’s not what I said. This might help. It just happened. The fairies in the garden speak latin in a certain way and left me a note explaining. But, being a fairy note, it disappeared after a few seconds. Do you want to know how fairies speak latin? Will you believe me?
Crede mihi, id non dixi. Fortassè hoc te juvabit. Modò evenit. Lamiae in horto adnotationem mihi dederunt, quae modum latinè loquendi suum descripsit. Infeliciter autem, quià res lamiarum, post pauca secunda adnotatio disparuit. Velisne scire quomodò lamiae latinè loquuntur? Credesne mihi?
Indeed, Alatius. It takes time, but I have faith that Lucus will soften and start to believe in alternatives. Humbly and ironically, also though, I have to retract about “circumdo” because what I thought of as alternatives are not, and so it’s just as Lucus says there.
Ita est, Alati. Tempore credo Lucum minùs certum plùs apertum ad alternationem facturum esse. Humiliter ironicéque quidem etiam, quod de “circumdare” verbo dixi, retracto, quià non sunt alternata, ut credi, “circúmdare” et “circumdáre”. Sicut dicit Lucus, forma “circúmdare” sola exstat.
I thought it was clear I was citing references from my memory only, and that, “I’d be delighted to be referred to the commentary therewith.”
