66. The second kind has to do with the sounds, in which the spoken words only are similar in a proportionate way — and not the things — as in biga and bigae, nuptia and nuptiae. For in these there is no underlying unit thing expressed by the singular when we say biga or quadriga, nor have the plural forms which are derived from these words any plural meaning. Yet all plurals which are derived from a unit singular, like merulae from merula ‘blackbird,’ do have such plural meaning; for they are of such a sort that there is subordination to a singular form: thus two merulae ‘blackbirds,’ three catulae ‘female puppies,’ four faculae ‘torches.’
67. Therefore since there cannot be the same subordinating relation because we do not say una biga, duae quadrigae, tres nuptiae, but instead unae bigae ‘one two-horse team,’ binae quadrigae ‘two teams of four horses,’ trinae nuptiae ‘three sets of nuptials,’ it is clear that bigae and quadrigae are not from biga and quadriga, but belong to another series: the usual series una, duae, tres, has una as its beginning, but in this second series unae, binae, trinae, the beginning is unae.
68. The third kind of Regularity is that which has two elements, which I mentioned, in which both the things and the spoken words are uttered with a similarity in a proportionate way, like bonus ‘good’ and malus ‘bad,’ plural boni and mali; Aristophanes and others have written about the Regularity in such words. And indeed this is a perfected Regularity in speech, but those two simple forms of Regularity are only incomplete beginnings; yet I shall speak of them separately, because we use them also in speaking.
69. But first I shall speak of the perfected Regularity, in which both the things and the spoken words are held together by a certain likeness; of this there are three kinds: one native, born here among us; the second coming from abroad; the third hybrid, born here of foreign paternity. The native type is such as sutor ‘cobbler’ and pistor ‘baker,’ dative sutori and pistori; the foreign type is such as Hectŏrĕs ‘men like Hector’ and Nestŏrĕs ‘men like Nestor,’ accusative Hectŏrăs and Nestŏrăs; that third type, the hybrid, consists of such words as Achilles and Peles.
70. Of these, many use the first type, not merely poets, but also almost all who speak in prose. At first they used to say Hectōrem and Nestōrem like quaestōrem and praetōrem; so Ennius says:
That Hector’s son be hurlèd from the Trojan wall. Accius in his tragedies began to take these words away from the early usage and rather to restore them to their Greek forms; hence Valerius says:
Accius would not use Hectōrem, but Hectŏra rather.
Because most of our foreign words are Greek, it has followed that the greatest number of the hybrid nouns which we have are also Greek in origin. Therefore, as in these types some words are Greek and others are Greek in origin, so also are the systems of Regularity.
71. Of the hybrid inflectional forms which are made from these materials in our country, some are early, like Bacchidēs and Chrysidēs, others are younger, like Chrysidĕs and Bacchidĕs, and still others are recent, like Chrysidăs and Bacchidăs; our fellow-countrymen use all three, but those who follow the middle forms in speaking give the least offence, because those of the first set seem insufficiently like the Greek forms from which they are taken, and those of the third seem insufficiently like our own forms.
72. The basis of all Regularity is a certain likeness, that, as I have said, which is wont to be in things and in spoken words and in both; we must see in which one of these sections each word should be entered, and of what sort it is. For, as I have said, neither the likeness of the things nor that of the spoken words is separately sufficient to express these double Regularities of the words, which we seek in speaking, because there must be a likeness in both respects. To introduce them into speech there must be also actual use; for the method by which you make a garment is quite different from that in which you wear it.
73. The categories of use appear to be three: one that of old usage, the second that of to-day’s usage, the third that of neither. Old words are such as cascus casci ‘old,’ surus suri ‘stake’; words of to-day’s usage, such as albus ‘white,’ caldus ‘hot,’ datives albo and caldo; words of neither usage, such as scala and acc. scalam ‘stair,’ phalera and phaleram ‘trapping.’ To these there can be added a fourth kind which does not belong exclusively to one category, like amicitia ‘friendship’ and inimicitia ‘enmity,’ accusatives amicitiam and inimicitiam. The first is that which the ancients used and we have abandoned; the second is that which we now use; the third is that which the poets use.
74. That Analogia or Regularity which is directed toward the nature of the words is not to be defined in the same way as that which is directed toward the actual use in speaking. For the former should be defined thus: Analogia is the like inflection of like words; and the latter thus: Analogia is the like inflection of like words, not inconsistent with common usage. But when to the end of these two there has been added “within a certain range,” then poetic Analogia will be defined. The first of these is that which the people ought to follow; the second is that which all the individuals in the people ought to follow; and the third is that which the poets ought to follow.
75. I think that these things have been said with more care than clarity, but not more obscurely than are the definitions of the same subject given by the grammarians, such as Aristeas, Aristodemus, Aristocles, and others, whose obscurities are the less to be found fault with, because most definitions, being on an unknown theme and being expressed with extreme brevity, are not easily understood unless they are expounded point by point.
76. Therefore the matter will be more apparent if there is a clear exposition of the parts one by one, as to what is meant by a word, what is meant by the likeness of the word, by inflection, by likeness of inflection not inconsistent with common usage, and by “within a certain range.”
77. By word I mean that part of spoken speech which is the smallest indivisible unit. If a word has natural inflection, then a word is like another word when it is similar to the other word in the thing which it denotes and in the spoken word by which it denotes the thing and in the form which it has after an inflectional change has taken place. Inflection is that which takes place when some change of the spoken word is made from word-form to word-form or to a new word-stem by derivation, in order to express a change of the thought. Likeness of inflection exists, when it passes from some form to another form in the same way in which that other word passes with which it is being compared.
78. There is the addition “not inconsistent with common usage,” because usage tolerates some words inflected contrary to the old practice, as it suffered Hortensius to say cervix ‘neck’ instead of the plural cervices, but does not tolerate certain others, as when you should say faux ‘throat’ instead of the plural fauces. When the addition “within a certain range” is made, it means that in the relevant words not all the forms are in use, as, for example, there is derived from amo ‘I love’ and vivo ‘I live’ the passive amor but not the passive vivor.
79. What Analogia or Regularity in speech is seen to be and what categories it has, and which of these seem essential to follow, I have set forth as briefly as I could. Now I shall speak of the categories in which it ought not to exist and yet it is usually looked for just as if it ought to be there; these are in general of four kinds. First, Regularity ought not to be looked for in such words as are not inflected, for example nequam ‘worthless,’ mox ‘soon,’ vix ‘hardly.’
80. Among these, a greater error is made in one word than in another. For they grant that mox and vix have no cases, but assert that nequam has, because we use it with nominative hic ‘this,’ with genitive huius, with dative huic. For when we say hic nequam and huius nequam, then we are uttering the cases of this man whom we wish to show as worthless, and before the word we then set hic to represent the name of him whose worthlessness we are considering.
81. This word is made like nolo ‘I do not wish’ from non ‘not’ and volo ‘I wish’; thus fro
m ne ‘not’ and quicquam ‘anything,’ with loss of the middle syllable, is likewise compounded nequam. So as him whom we think to be non hili ‘worth not a whit’ we call nihili, him in whom we think that there is ne quicquam ‘not anything’ we call nequam.
82. Second, Regularity is not to be looked for if the words have only one case in their spoken form, because they are not inflected, like all names of letters. Third, it is not to be looked for if the series of forms which the noun has is unique and has nothing with which it can be compared, as they consider true of caput ‘head,’ dat. capiti, gen. capitis, abl. capite. Fourth, it is not to be sought if those four noun-forms which are compared with one another fail to have the mutual relation which they should have, as in socer ‘father-in-law’ and socrus ‘mother-in-law,’ accusative plural soceros and socrus.
83. On the other hand, in words in which Regularity ought to be looked for, in general the same number of stages should be found in conjunction: first, the things should exist; second, the things should be in use; third, these things should have names; fourth, they should have natural inflection. As for the first stage, because the nature of plural and singular is basic, we say plural nom. asses, acc. asses, singular nom. as, acc. assem; on the other hand, because in definite plural numerals the singular nature does not exist, only plural forms are used, such as nominative duo ‘two’ and tres ‘three,’ dative duobus and tribus.
84. In the second stage, if the nature exists but there is no practice of making this kind of distinction, as happens in faba ‘bean’ and in that class of words which we use for one and for all collectively, without change of form: for there was no need, as in the matter of slaves...
FRAGMENTS
Fragments of Books II-IV
III
Fr. 1. Deus ‘god’ or dea ‘goddess’ is in fact a general name for all.... Varro, in the third book of the treatise addressed to Cicero, says: “So let them give answer why they say dei ‘gods,’ when in reference to all of them the old-time Romans used to say divi.”
Fr. 2. Figor ‘I am transfixed’ is by the old writers inflected in two ways in the perfect tense. For we find both fictus and fixus;... Varro in the third book of the treatise addressed to Cicero has “fixum.”
Fr. 3. Though the old writers say that the name leaena ‘lioness’ is not good Latin, still it has the force of authority. For they used to say leo ‘lion’ both as masculine and as feminine.... But lea ‘lioness’ Varro has, in the third book of the treatise addressed to Cicero: “Just as panthera ‘panther’ and lea ‘lioness’ are not.” IV
Fr. 4. Varro in the fourth book of the treatise On the Latin Language: “Prolubium and lubidoi ‘desire’ are derived from lubet ‘it is pleasing’; whence also the grove of Venus Lubentina gets its name.”
Fragment of Book VIII
Fr. 5. (5) The eighth book of Marcus Varro’s treatise On the Latin Language, addressed to Cicero, maintains that no regard is paid to Regularity, and points out that in almost all words usage rules. (6) “As when we decline,” says he, “lupus ‘wolf,’ gen. lupi, probus ‘honest,’ gen. probi, but lepus ‘hare,’ gen. leporis; again, paro ‘I prepare,’ perf. paravi, and lavo ‘I wash,’ perf. lavi, pungo ‘I prick,’ perf. pupugi, tundo ‘I pound,’ perf. tutudi, and pingo ‘I paint,’ perf. pinxi. (7) And although,” he continues, “from ceno ‘I dine’ and prandeo ‘I lunch’ and poto ‘I drink’ we form the perfects cenatus sum, pransus sum, and potus sum yet from destringor ‘I scrape myself’ and extergeor ‘I wipe myself dry’ and lavor ‘I bathe myself’ we make the perfects destrinxi ‘I am scraped’ and extersi ‘I am dried’ and lavi ‘I have had a bath.’
(8) “Furthermore, although from Oscus ‘Oscan, Tuscus ‘Etruscan,’ and Graecus ‘Greek’ we derive the adverbs Osce ‘in Oscan,’ Tusce ‘in Etruscan,’ and Graece ‘in Greek,’ yet from Gallus ‘Gaul’ and Maurus ‘Moor’ we have Gallice ‘in Gallic’ and Maurice ‘in Moorish’; also from probus ‘honest’ comes probe ‘honestly,’ from doctus ‘learned’ docte ‘learnedly,’ but from rarus ‘rare’ there is no adverb rare, but some say raro, others rarenter.”
(9) In the same book Varro goes on to say: “No one uses the passive sentior, and that form by itself is naught, but almost every one says adsentior ‘I agree.’ Sisenna alone used to say adsentio in the senate, and later many followed his example, yet could not prevail over usage.”
(10) But this same Varro in other books wrote a great deal in defence of Regularity.
Fragments of Books XI–XXIV
XI
Fr. 6. Where the authority of our ancestors has not shown you the gender of a word, what in this instance must be done? Varro wrote, in the treatise addressed to Cicero: “We men have the right and power to give genders to the names of those things which by nature have no gender.”
Fr. 7a. Now let us speak of genders. Varro says: “Genera ‘genders’ are named from generare ‘to generate.’ For whatever gignit ‘begets’ or gignitur ’is begotten,’ that can be called a genus and can produce a genus.” If this is true, then the genus that a thing has is not perfect unless it is masculine or feminine.
Fr. 7b. He treats of genders. Varro says: “Only those are genera ‘genders’ which generant ‘generate’; those are properly called genera.” But if we follow his authority, there will be only two genders, masculine and feminine. For no genders can procreate except these two.
Fr. 8. If ostrea ‘oyster’ is of the first declension, like Musa ‘Muse,’ it will be declined in the feminine gender, so that we refer the word to the living being; if we use it for the shell, then the word must be ostreum, inflected in the neuter and according to the second declension, so that it is genitive ostrei, dative ostreo: because Varro says: “No living creature has a name which is inflected in the neuter gender.”
Fr. 9. Plinius Secundus says, following Varro: “When we are in doubt about the gender of a main word, let us turn to the diminutive form, and from the diminutive we learn the gender of the main word. Suppose that I do not know the gender of arbor ‘tree’; form the diminutive arbuscula, and lo! from this you observe as well the gender of the word from which it comes. Again, if you say, What is the gender of columna ‘column’?, make from it the diminutive, that is, columella, and therefrom you understand that the word from which it comes is of the feminine gender.”
Fr. 10. “Diminutives always agree in gender with the words from which they come: a few differ, such as fem, rana ‘frog,’ diminutive masc. ranunculus ‘tadpole’; masc. unguis ‘nail (of finger or toe),’ fem. ungula ‘hoof, talon’; neut. glandium ‘kernel of pork’, fem, glandula ‘tonsil’; masc. panis ‘loaf of bread,’ masc. pastillus and neut. pastillum ‘roll,’” as Varro said; “fem, beta ‘beet,’ masc. betaceus ‘beet-root’; fem, malva ‘mallow,’ masc. malvaceus ‘mallow-like vegetable’; neut. pistrinum ‘pounding-mill,’ fem. pistrilla ‘small mill,’ as Terence says in The Brothers; masc. ensis ‘sword,’ fem. ensicula and masc. ensiculus ‘toy-sword’: so Plautus in The Rope.”
Fr. 11. Dies ‘day’ is of common gender. Those who thought that it must be used as a masculine, offered these reasons: that their authorities said dies festi ‘holidays,’ with the masculine adjective, not the fem. festae; that they said the fourth and the fifth day before the Kalends, with the masculine and not the feminine form of the adjective; and that when we say hodie ‘to-day,’ it is understood as hoc die ‘on this day,’ with the masculine article, and nothing else. On the other hand, those who regard dies as feminine, use the general argument, that in the ablative the word ends in a long E, never in a short E; and that its diminutive is the feminine diecula (not the masculine dieculus), as Terence has it:
That to you I give a daytime But Varro made the distinction, that in the masculine it means the course of one day, in the feminine a space of time: a distinction to which nobody has conformed in practice.
Fr. 12. Catinus ‘bowl’ is used in the masculine gender... and from it is made the diminutive catillus.... But Varro, in
the eleventh book of his treatise addressed to Cicero, sponsored the form catinuli, and not catilli.
Fr. 13. Naevus ‘mole, wart,’ is of the neuter gender; but Varro in the treatise addressed to Cicero uses it as a masculine.
Fr. 14a. Yet the oldest writers are found to have employed masculine gausapes ‘cloth,’ and feminine gausapa, and neuter gausape, and a neuter plural gausapa as if from a neuter nominative singular gausapum.... But Varro in his treatise On the Latin Language says: “Such words, when taken from Greek, pass from the masculine to the feminine, and end in the letter A: fem, cochlea ‘snail’ from masc. κοχλίας, fem. charta ‘paper’ from masc. χάρτης, fem. gausapa from masc. γαυσάπης.”
Fr. 14b. But Varro says: “Words taken from Greek, if they do not keep their own gender, pass from the masculine to the feminine in Latin and end in the letter A, like cochlea from κοχλίας, ‘pillarbust’ from ‘Ερμῆς, charta from χάρτης, therefore gausapa from γαυσάπης.”
Fr. 14c. Margarita ‘pearl’ is of the feminine gender, because Greek nouns ending in -ης change to A and become feminine, like fem. charta from masc. χάρτης, margarita from μαργαρίτης, or else they are of common gender, like athleta ‘athlete’ from ἀθλητής. Therefore to use margaritum as a neuter is wrong; and yet many have done so, like Valgius... and Varro in the eighth book of his Letters: “One margaritum, several margarita.” But Varro likewise often used margarita in the feminine, and so did many others; and in the genitive plural they never used any form except the feminine margaritarum.
Fr. 15. Nouns ending in VAS make the genitive in -SIS and -DIS: neuter nom. vas ‘vessel,’ gen. vasis. Varro mentions both in his tratise On the Latin Language, the other being masc. vas ‘bondsman,’ gen. vadis.
Fr. 16. Nouns ending in VIS are also of the third declension and make the genitive like the nominative: civis ‘citizen,’ gen. civis; nom. vis ‘force,’ gen. vis, and also nom. plural vis, used by Lucretius and Varro; for the plural vires is always inflected in the plural number.
Delphi Complete Works of Varro Page 61