58. Wherefore in the names of those things in which there is no likeness of nature or of use as the basis, a relation of this sort ought not to be sought. Accordingly, as a surdus ‘deaf’ man is a current term, and a surda woman, so also is a surdum theatre, because all three things are equally intended for the act of hearing. On the other hand, nobody says a surdum sleeping-room, because it is intended for silence and not for hearing; but if it has no window, it is called caecum ‘blind,’ as a man is called caecus and a woman caeca, because not all sleeping-rooms have the light which they ought to have.
59. The male and the female have by nature a certain association with each other; but the neuters have no association with them, because they are different from them in kind, and even of these neuters there are very few which have any elements in common with other neuters. As for the fact that the names of a god and of a slave do not vary like our free names, there is the same reason, namely that the variation is connected with use, and had to be established with reference to free persons, but as to the rest had no consequence, because among slaves the clan quality has no foundation in practice, but it is necessary in the names of us who are in Latium and are free. Therefore in that class Regularity makes its appearance, and we say Terentius for a man, Terentia for a woman, and Terentium for the genus ‘stock.’
60. In first names the situation is not the same, because these were in practice established as individual names, by which the clan names might be differentiated; from the numerals came Secunda, Tertia, Quarta for women, Quintus, Sextus, Decimus for men, and similarly other names from other things. When there were two or more persons of the name Terentius, then that they might have something individual to distinguish them they marked them perhaps in this way, that he should be Manius who was said to have been born mane ‘in the morning,’ and he who has been born luci ‘at dawn’ should be Lucius, and he who was born post ‘after’ his father’s death should be Postumus.
61. When any of these things happened to females as well, they derived the first names of women regularly in this manner — that is, in former times — and called them by them, for example, Mania, Lucia, Postuma: for we see that the mother of the Lares is called Mania, that Lucia Volumnia is addressed in the Hymns of the Salians, and that even now many give the name Postuma to a daughter born after the death of her father.
62. Therefore as far as the nature and the use of a word have jointly advanced, so far has Regularity been extended in like manner by a corresponding relationship, since of the words in which there are voluntary inflections of male and female and neuter, those which are voluntary in inflection ought not to be inflected in similar manner, but in those in which there are natural inflections there are those regular inflections which are actually found to exist. Therefore in the matter of the three genders they are unfair in setting aside the Regularities.
63. Moreover those who find fault with the Regularities, because some words are singulars only, like cicer ‘chickpea,’ and others are plural only, like scalae ‘stairs,’ although all ought to have the two forms, like equus ‘horse’ and equi ‘horses,’ forget that the foundation of Regularity is nature and use taken in combination. That is singular which by nature denotes one thing, like equus ‘horse,’ or which denotes things that by use are joined together in some way, like bigae ‘two-horse team.’ Therefore just as we say una Musa ‘one Muse,’ we say unae bigae ‘one two-horse team.’
64. Plural words are of two sorts, the one indefinite, like Musae ‘Muses,’ the other definite, like duae ‘two,’ tres ‘three,’ quattuor ‘four’; for as we say Musae in the plural, so also we say unae bigae ‘one two-horse team,’ and binae ‘two’ and trinae bigae ‘three two-horse teams,’ and so on. Wherefore unae and the masc. uni and the neut. una are in a certain manner as much singulars as unus and una and unum: the word changes in this way because the one set of forms is said of individual things, the other of things joined together in sets; and just as duo and tria are plurals, so also are bina and trina.
65. There is also a third class which is singular though expressed by a plural form, namely uter ‘which of two,’ in which the plural form is for example utrei: uter poeta ‘which of two poets’ in the singular, utri poetae ‘which of two sets of poets’ in the plural. Now that the nature of this has been explained it is clear that plural nouns are not all under obligations to have a like singular form; for all the numerals from two upwards are plural, and no one of them can have a singular to match it. Therefore it is quite wrongly that they demand that all singulars that there are, must have a corresponding plural form.
66. Likewise those who find fault because there are no plurals aceta and gara to acetum ‘vinegar’ and garum ‘fish-sauce’ like unguenta to unguentum ‘perfume’ and vina to vinum ‘wine,’ act ignorantly; they are looking for a plural name in connexion with things which come under the categories of quantity and weight rather than under that of number. For in plumbum ‘lead’ and argentum ‘silver,’ when there has been added an increase, we say multum ‘much’: thus multum plumbum or argentum, not plumba ‘leads’ and argenta ‘silvers,’ since articles made of these we call plumbea and argentea (silver is something else when it is argenteum, for that is what it is when it has now become a utensil; thus argenteum if it is a small cup or the like), because in this case we speak of many argentea ‘silver’ cups, and not of much argentum ‘silver.’
67. But if those things which have by nature the idea of quantity rather than that of number, exist in several kinds and these kinds have come into use, then from the plurality of kinds they are spoken of in the plural, as for example vina ‘wines’ and unguenta ‘perfumes.’ For there is wine of one kind, which comes from Chios, another wine which is from Lesbos, and so on from other localities. Likewise unguenta ‘perfumes’ themselves are now properly spoken of in the plural, for of perfume there are now a number of kinds. If in like fashion there were great differences in olive-oil and vinegar and the other articles of this sort, in common use, then we should employ the plurals olea and aceta, like vina. Therefore in both these matters their attempt to destroy the Regularities is unfair, since they expect that the words will be alike though their uses are different, and since they think that articles which we measure and objects which we count should be spoken of in the same way.
68. Likewise they find fault with the Regularities, because public baths are spoken of as balneae, with the form in the plural, and not as balnea, in the singular; and on the other hand they speak of one balneum of a private individual, though they do not use the plural balnea. To them answer can be made, that fault ought not to be found because scalae ‘stairs’ and aquae caldae ‘hot springs,’ mostly with good reason, have been called by plural names and the corresponding singulars have not come into use: and vice versa. The first balneum ‘bath-room’ (the name is Greek), when it was brought into the city of Rome, was as a public establishment set in a place where two connected buildings might be used for the bathing, in one of which the men should bathe and in the other the women. From the same logical reasoning each person called the place in his own house where baths were taken, a balneum; and they were not accustomed to speak of balnea in the plural, because they did not have two in one house — though our forbears were accustomed to call this not a balneum, but a lavatrina ‘wash-room.’
69. So also, the hot springs, on account of the locality and the water which gushed out there, came to be frequented for our use, since some of the springs were beneficial to one disease and others to another; and because those which they used were several in number, as at Puteoli and in Etruria, they called them by a plural word rather than by a singular. So also with the scalae ‘stairs’; because they are named from scandere ‘to mount’ and there were separate steps to be mounted, it would be a more difficult problem to answer if they had called them scala, in the singular, inasmuch as the origin of the name shows their plural nature.
70. Likewise they find fault about the cases, because some nouns have nomi
native forms only, and others have only oblique forms: whereupon they say that all words ought to have both the nominative and the oblique forms. To them the same answer can be given, that there is no Regularity in those instances which lack a relationship in use or in nature....
71. But they should not look for complete Regularity even in these names which are derived by passage from one nominative form to another. Still, such words do not in general depart from the path of logic without valid reason, such as there is for those gladiators who are called Faustini; for though most gladiators are spoken of in such a way that they have the last three syllables alike, Cascelliani, Caeciliani, Aquiliani, let them take note that the names from which these come, Cascellius, Caecilius, Aquilius on the one hand, and Faustus on the other, are unlike: if the name were Faustius, they would be right in saying Faustiani. In the same way, from Scipio some make the bad formation Scipionini; it is properly Scipionarii. But, as I have said, since appellations are rarely derived from surnames of this kind and they are not fully at home in use, some such formations fluctuate in form.
72. Likewise they say, that although stultus ‘stupid’ and luscus ‘one-eyed’ are like words, and stultus is compared with stultior and stultissimus, the forms luscior and luscissimus are not used with luscus, and similarly with many words of this class. To which I say that this happens for the reason that by nature no one is more one-eyed than a one-eyed man, whereas he may seem to become more stupid.
73. To their question why we do not say mane ‘in the morning,’ comparative manius, superlative manissime, with a similar question about vesperi ‘in the evening,’ I reply that in matters of time there is properly no ‘more’ and ‘less,’ but there can be before and after. Therefore the first hour is earlier than the second, but not ‘more hour.’ But nevertheless to rise magis mane ‘more in the morning’ is an expression in use; he who rises in the first part of the morning rises magis mane ‘more in the morning’ than he who does not rise in that first part. For as the day cannot be said to be more than day, so mane cannot be said to be more than mane. Therefore that very magis ‘more’ which is commonly said is not consistent with itself, because magis mane means the first part of the mane, and magis vespere the last part of the evening.
74. Similarly, Regularity is found fault with on account of unlikenesses of this sort, that although anus ‘old woman’ and cadus ‘cask’ are like words, and from anus there are the diminutives anicula and anicilla, the other two are not formed from cadus, nor from piscina ‘fish-pond’ are piscinula and piscinilla made. To this I answer that words of this kind have the Regularities, as I have said, only when the size must be noted in each separate stage, and this is in common use, as is cista ‘box,’ cistula, cistella, and canis ‘dog,’ catulus ‘puppy,’ catellus ‘little puppy’; this is not indicated in the usage connected with flocks. Therefore the usage is more often that things be divided into two sets, as larger and smaller, like lectus ‘couch’ and lectulus, arca ‘strong-box’ and arcula, and other such words.
75. As to their saying that some words lack the nominative and others lack the oblique cases, and that therefore the Regularities do not exist, this is an error. For they say that the nominative is lacking in such words as frugis frugi frugem ‘fruit of the earth’ and colem colis cole ‘plantstalk,’ and the oblique cases are lacking in such as Diespiter ‘Jupiter,’ dat. Diespitri, acc. Diespitrem, and Maspiter ‘Mars,’ Maspitri, Maspitrem.
76. To this I answer that the former have nominatives and the latter have oblique case-forms. For the nominative of frugi is by nature frux, but by usage we say frugis, like avis ‘bird’ and ovis ‘sheep’; so also, the nominative of the other word is by nature cols and by usage colis. Both of these agree with the principle of Regularity, because it is perfectly clear of what sort that form ought to be which is not in use, and in that which is now in use in the nominative there is the same kind of Regularity as most words have that are hard to pronounce when they pass from the plural to the singular. So when the passage was made from the spoken plural oves, the form which was pronounced was not ovs without I, but an I was added and the word became ambiguous as to whether the case was nominative or genitive. Like the nominative ovis is also the nominative avis.
77. Thus I do not see why they say that in the oblique cases Diespitri and Diespitrem are lacking, except because they are less common in use than Diespiter. But the argument amounts to nothing; for the case-form which is uncommon is just as much a case-form as that which is common. But let us grant that in the list of case-forms some words lack the nominative and others lack some one of the oblique cases; for this charge will not for that reason be able in any way to destroy the existence of a logical relationship among the forms.
78. For as some statues lack the head or some other part without destroying the Regularities in their other limbs, so in words certain losses of cases can take place, with as little result. Besides, what is lacking can be remade and put back into its place, where nature and usage permit; which we sometimes find done by the poets, as in this verse of Naevius, in the Clastidium:
With life unburied, glad, to fatherland restored.
79. Likewise they find fault with the nominatives strues ‘heap,’ Hercules, homo ‘man’; for if Regularity actually existed, they say, these forms should have been strus, Hercul, homen. These nouns do not show that Regularity is non-existent, but that the oblique cases do not have a head or starting-point according to their type of Regularity. Is it not a fact that, if you should put a head of Philip on a statue of Alexander and the limbs should be proportionately symmetrical, then the head which does correspond to the statue of Alexander’s limbs would likewise be symmetrical? And it is not a fact that if one should in practice sew together a tunic in such a way that one breadth of the cloth has narrow border-stripes and the other has broad stripes, each part lacks regular conformity within its own class.
80. Likewise they say that the Regularities do not exist, because some say cupressus ‘cypress-trees’ in the plural and others say cupressi, and similarly with fig-trees, plane-trees, and most other trees, to which some give the ending US and others give EI. This is wrong; for the tree-names ought to be spoken with E and I, fici like nummi ‘sesterces,’ because the ablative is ficis like nummis, and the genitive is ficorum like nummorum. If the plural were ficus, then it would be like manus ‘hand’; we should say ablative ficibus like manibus, and genitive ficuum like manuum, and we should not say accusative ficos, but ficus, just as we do not say accusative manos but manus; nor would usage speak the oblique cases of the singular genitive fici and ablative fico, just as it does not say genitive mani but manus, nor ablative mano but manu.
81. Moreover, they think that there is proof of the non-existence of Regularity, in the fact that Lucilius writes:
Priced a ten-as, or else we may say at ten-asses.
They are in error, because Lucilius should not have been uncertain as to the form, since both are right. For in copper money, from the as to the hundred-as, the number adds to itself the meaning of the copper coin, and all its case-forms are limited by its numerical value, starting from the dupondius ‘two-as piece,’ which is used by many in two ways, masculine dupondius and neuter dupondium, like gladius and gladium. From tressis ‘three-as’ there is a masculine plural, tresses in the nominative and tressibus in the ablative, as in “I trust in these three asses,” singular tressis as in “I have this three-as” and “I trust in this three-as.” The same usage is followed all the way to centussis ‘hundred-as.’ From here on, the numeral does not denote money any more than other things.
82. The numerals which do not signify money, from quattuor ‘four’ to centum ‘hundred,’ have forms of triple function, because quattuor is masculine, feminine, and neuter. When mille ‘thousand’ is reached, it takes on a fourth function, that of a singular neuter, because the expression in use is mille ‘thousand’ of denarii, from which is made a plural, milia ‘thousands’ of denarii.
83. Si
nce therefore so far as concerns the Regularities it is not essential that all words that are spoken should be alike in their systems, but only that they should be inflected alike each in its own class, those persons are stupid who ask why as and dupondius and tressis are not spoken according to a regular scheme; for the as is a single unit, the dupondius is a compound term indicating that it pendebat ‘weighed’ duo ‘two’ asses, and the tressis is so called because it is composed of tres ‘three’ units of aes ‘copper.’ Instead of asses, the ancients used sometimes to say aes; a usage which survives when we hold an as in the hand and say “with this aes ‘copper piece’ and aenea libra ‘pound of copper,’” and also in the legal formula “to have bequeathed a thousand (asses) of aes ‘copper.’”
84. Therefore, because the numerals from tressis to centussis are compounded of parts of the same kind, they have a likeness of the same kind; but the word dupondius, because it is different in formation, has a different system of declension, as it should have. So also the as, because it is a single unit and is the beginning, means one and has its own indefinite plural, for we say asses; but when we limit them numerically, we say dupondius and tressis and so on.
85. Thus it seems to me that since the definite and the indefinite have an inherent difference, the two ought not to be spoken in the same fashion, the more so because in the words themselves, when they are attached to a definite number in the thousands, a form is used which is not the same as that used in other expressions. For they speak thus: mille denarium ‘thousand of denarii,’ not denariorum, and two milia denarium ‘thousands of denarii,’ not denariorum. If it were denarii in the nominative and it denoted an indefinite quantity, then it ought to be denariorum in the genitive; and the same distinction must be preserved, it seems to me, not only in denarii, victoriati, drachmae, and nummi, but also in viri, when we say that there has been a decision of the triumvirs, the decemvirs, the centumvirs, all of which have the genitive virum and not virorum.
Delphi Complete Works of Varro Page 57