Différences

Cette page vous donne les différences entre la révision choisie et la version actuelle de la page.

dictionnaire:the_morphology_of_classical_latin3 [2015/10/28 17:36]
ollivier
dictionnaire:the_morphology_of_classical_latin3 [2016/01/27 17:59] (Version actuelle)
ollivier
Ligne 72: Ligne 72:
  
  
-Generally, first declension nouns borrowed from Greek are entirely Latinized. But some of them keep traces of their Greek origin and have case-forms of Greek only in the singular. Thus the proper name of //Electra// shows also in the nominative //Electrā// and in the accusative //Electrān//, like Greek Elektra and Elektran; and so, //musica// “art of music” has besides the normal Latin declension a Greek declension with a nominative //musicē//, a genitive //musicēs//, an accusative //musicēn//, and an ablative //musicē//. When these nouns are in plural, they have regular Latin case-forms, like //cometae, -ārum// “comets”.+Generally, first declension nouns borrowed from Greek are entirely Latinized. But some of them keep traces of their Greek origin and have case-forms of Greek only in the singular. Thus the proper name of //Electra// shows also in the nominative //Electrā// and in the accusative //Electrān//, like Greek Elektra///‘Hλεκτρα// and Elektran///‘Hλεκτραn//; and so, //musica// “art of music” has besides the normal Latin declension a Greek declension with a nominative //musicē//, a genitive //musicēs//, an accusative //musicēn//, and an ablative //musicē//. When these nouns are in plural, they have regular Latin case-forms, like //cometae, -ārum// “comets”.
  
    
Ligne 134: Ligne 134:
  
  
-Does it mean that the proper name //Pompēius// has two allomorphs /pompe:i/ and /pompe:/? When we carefully examine the question, we note that the lexeme has the form //Pompei-// except before the casus-form in //-ī// of Genitive, Vocative and Nominative Plural, which could be a problem not of morphology, but phonology. Actually, if we suppose that the signifier is always the same: /pompei/, we know that according to the phonological rule  +Does it mean that the proper name //Pompēius// has two allomorphs /pompe:i/ and /pompe:/? When we carefully examine the question, we note that the lexeme has the form //Pompei-// except before the casus-form in //-ī// of Genitive, Vocative and Nominative Plural, which could be a problem not of morphology, but phonology. Actually, if we suppose that the signifier is always the same: /pompei/, we know that according to the phonological rule 
-/i/  →  [jj] / V [- closed] — V+ 
 +  
 +    * /i/  →  [jj] / V [- closed] — V
  
  
Ligne 261: Ligne 263:
  
  
- __________________________________________+---- 
 + 
 If we want at all costs to use these false concepts, we can only say that the unparasyllabic lexemes ending with two consonants have always //-ium// as a plural Genitive (cf. //urb-s//, gen. pl. //urb-ium//; //nox, noct-is// (f.) “night”, gen. pl. //noct-ium//; //ar-s, art-is// (f.) “art”, gen. pl. //art-ium//; etc.), and the other unparasyllabic lexemes have normally //-um// as a plural Genitive (cf. //dux, duc-is//, gen. pl. //duc-um//; //plēb-s, plēb-is// “common people”, gen. pl. //plēb-um//; //imperātor, imperātōr-is// (m.) “commanding officer”, gen. pl. //imperātōr-um//; //consul, consul-is// (m.) “consul”, gen. pl. //consul-um//; //fulgur, fulgur-is//, gen. pl. //fulgur-um//; //ratiō, ratiōn-is// (f.) “calculation”, gen. pl. //ratiōn-um//; //tempus, tempor-is// (n.) “time”, gen. pl. //temporum//; and /patr-Ø/, //patr-is// (m) “father”, gen. pl. //patr-um//; /ma:tr-Ø/, //mātr-is// (f.) “mother”, gen. pl. //mātr-um//; etc. And so, the lexemes ending with a dental (like: //aestā-s, aestāt-is// (f.) “summer”, gen. pl. //aestāt-um//; //custō-s, custōd-is// (m) “guardian”, gen. pl. //custōd-um//), apart from //dō-s, dōt-is// (f.) “dowry”, //cīuitā-s, cīuitāt-is// (f.) “city”, //Penāt-ēs// “tutelary gods”, //optimāt-ēs// (m.) “nobility” and //Quirīt-ēs// (m.) “citizens of Rome”, which have both forms, respectively //dōt-um// and //dōt-ium//, //cīuitāt-um// and //cīuitāt-ium//, //Penāt-um// and //Penāt-ium//, //optimāt-um// and //optimāt-ium//, //Quirīt-um// and //Quirīt-ium//; and //līs, līt-is// (f.) “lawsuit”, whose plural Genitive is only //līt-ium//. If we want at all costs to use these false concepts, we can only say that the unparasyllabic lexemes ending with two consonants have always //-ium// as a plural Genitive (cf. //urb-s//, gen. pl. //urb-ium//; //nox, noct-is// (f.) “night”, gen. pl. //noct-ium//; //ar-s, art-is// (f.) “art”, gen. pl. //art-ium//; etc.), and the other unparasyllabic lexemes have normally //-um// as a plural Genitive (cf. //dux, duc-is//, gen. pl. //duc-um//; //plēb-s, plēb-is// “common people”, gen. pl. //plēb-um//; //imperātor, imperātōr-is// (m.) “commanding officer”, gen. pl. //imperātōr-um//; //consul, consul-is// (m.) “consul”, gen. pl. //consul-um//; //fulgur, fulgur-is//, gen. pl. //fulgur-um//; //ratiō, ratiōn-is// (f.) “calculation”, gen. pl. //ratiōn-um//; //tempus, tempor-is// (n.) “time”, gen. pl. //temporum//; and /patr-Ø/, //patr-is// (m) “father”, gen. pl. //patr-um//; /ma:tr-Ø/, //mātr-is// (f.) “mother”, gen. pl. //mātr-um//; etc. And so, the lexemes ending with a dental (like: //aestā-s, aestāt-is// (f.) “summer”, gen. pl. //aestāt-um//; //custō-s, custōd-is// (m) “guardian”, gen. pl. //custōd-um//), apart from //dō-s, dōt-is// (f.) “dowry”, //cīuitā-s, cīuitāt-is// (f.) “city”, //Penāt-ēs// “tutelary gods”, //optimāt-ēs// (m.) “nobility” and //Quirīt-ēs// (m.) “citizens of Rome”, which have both forms, respectively //dōt-um// and //dōt-ium//, //cīuitāt-um// and //cīuitāt-ium//, //Penāt-um// and //Penāt-ium//, //optimāt-um// and //optimāt-ium//, //Quirīt-um// and //Quirīt-ium//; and //līs, līt-is// (f.) “lawsuit”, whose plural Genitive is only //līt-ium//.
  
Ligne 407: Ligne 411:
  
  
-^ ^ ^ + PLURAL | | + PLURAL | +^ ^ ^ + PLURAL ^  ^ + PLURAL | 
 ^NOM. |exercit-us | exercit-ūs | corn-ū | corn-ua| ^NOM. |exercit-us | exercit-ūs | corn-ū | corn-ua|
 ^VOC. |exercit-us | exercit-ūs | corn-ū | corn-ua| ^VOC. |exercit-us | exercit-ūs | corn-ū | corn-ua|
Ligne 435: Ligne 439:
  
  
-^ ^ ^+ Pl.| | + Pl.|+^ ^ ^+ Pl. ^  ^+ Pl.|
 ^NOM.| rē-s | rē-s | diē-s | diē-s| ^NOM.| rē-s | rē-s | diē-s | diē-s|
 ^GEN. | re-ī | rē-s | die-ī | diē-s| ^GEN. | re-ī | rē-s | die-ī | diē-s|
Ligne 464: Ligne 468:
   But according to Ernout,   But according to Ernout,
      
-    * Ernout, 1953((Cf. Touratier, //Système des consonnes//, 2005, 118-119. Alvarez Heurta, // Neutralisation consonantique en latin// , 2005, 146-147. )), p. 69 : //early, as in the first declension, the segment //ī// replaced the //-s//, which gave //"diēī"// and //"faciēī"// + 
 +    * Ernout, 1953((Cf. Touratier, //Système des consonnes//, 2005, 118-119. Alvarez Heurta, // Neutralisation consonantique en latin// , 2005, 146-147. )), p. 69 : //early, as in the first declension, the segment //ī// replaced the //-s//, which gave //"diēī"// and //"faciēī"// 
 + 
    
 (cf. Vergil //Aen.//, 9,156: //nunc adeo, melior quoniām pārs/āctă dĭ/ēī//, and Plautus //Mil.// 103: //māgnā/ĭ rē/ī pūb/lĭcā/ī grā/tĭā//). Then, the vowel //ē// becomes short before another vowel, and according to Niedermann,  (cf. Vergil //Aen.//, 9,156: //nunc adeo, melior quoniām pārs/āctă dĭ/ēī//, and Plautus //Mil.// 103: //māgnā/ĭ rē/ī pūb/lĭcā/ī grā/tĭā//). Then, the vowel //ē// becomes short before another vowel, and according to Niedermann, 
Ligne 472: Ligne 478:
  Gellius note that this evolution is attested by Vergil   Gellius note that this evolution is attested by Vergil 
  
-    * Vergil //Aen.// 1,636: //munera laetitiamque dii \\  “the gifts and the delight of the day”.  +    * Vergil //Aen.// 1,636: //munera laetitiamque dii//  \\  “the gifts and the delight of the day”.  
  
  
Ligne 499: Ligne 505:
  
  
-    * Jugurtha (Sall., Iug. 97: uix decima parte die relicua “while only the tenth part of the day still remained”). There were therefore four forms of Genitive, at least for the word diē-s: an archaic form diē-s, the usual form diē-ī or die-ī, and some perhaps progressive forms diī and die.           +    * Sallustus //Iug.// 97: //uix decima parte die relicua// \\  “while only the tenth part of the day still remained”.  
-The Dative of the fifth declension, which is in -ei or -ē, is rare, because in prose and spoken language, the usual dative (and genitive) of the type māteriē-s was materi-ae. And according to Gellius, “in the dative, the purists didn’t say faciei¸ but facie” (IX, 14,21). Unlike the genitive, the final -ei seems always monosyllabic in the ancient poets  except Lucrecius, who alone uses a dissyllabic dative rēī like the genitive (cf. Lucr. 1,688 and 2,236).      +  
-The Nominative Plural is very rare, except for diē-s and rē-s; there are only some examples of faciē-s, spēciē-s and spē-s, among which, beside the expected nominative plural spē-s (Plaut., Rud. 1145), we find the nominative spēr-ēs , which was treated as if it was from the third declension, and was thus analyzed like /spēs-ēs/, which became, because of the rhotacismus, spērēs. +  
-In genitive plural and dative-ablative plural, we found actually only diē-rum rē-rum and diē-bus rē-bus. Priscianus quotes a genitive faciē-rum (Gr. lat. II, 368 K) which was said to have been used by Cato, but Cicero says that if specierum and speciebus could exist in Latin, he himself could not use them, because they have no declension (Top. 2,30); and Quintilianus did not know “what spes will do in plural” (1,6,26).+There were therefore four forms of Genitive, at least for the word //diē-s//: an archaic form //diē-s//, the usual form //diē-ī// or //die-ī//, and some perhaps progressive forms //diī// and //die//. 
 + 
 +           
 +The Dative of the fifth declension, which is in //-ei// or ////, is rare, because in prose and spoken language, the usual dative (and genitive) of the type //māteriē-s// was //materi-ae//. And according to Gellius,  
 + 
 + 
 +    * Gellius, IX, 14,21 : //qui purissime locuti sunt, non "faciei", uti nunc dicitur, sed "facie" dixerunt.//  \\ “in the dative, the purists didn’t say faciei¸ but facie” .  
 +  
 +  
 +Unlike the genitive, the final //-ei// seems always monosyllabic in the ancient poets((Cf. Plaut., //Amph.// 276: //die//; 674: //re// elided; //Merc.// 300: //rei// monsyllabic; //Trin.// 757: //rei// monosyllabic; //Pers.// 193: //fide// elided; //Poen.// 890; //Trin.// 117 and 142.))   except Lucrecius, who alone uses a dissyllabic dative //rēī// like the genitive (cf. Lucr. 1,688 and 2,236). 
 + 
 +      
 +The Nominative Plural is very rare, except for //diē-s// and //rē-s//; there are only some examples of //faciē-s, spēciē-s// and //spē-s//, among which, beside the expected nominative plural //spē-s// (Plaut., Rud. 1145), we find the nominative //spēr-ēs//((Cf. Ennius, //ann.// 128 and 429.)) , which was treated as if it was from the third declension, and was thus analyzed like /spēs-ēs/, which became, because of the rhotacismus, //spērēs//. 
 + 
 + 
 +In genitive plural and dative-ablative plural, we found actually only //diē-rum rē-rum// and //diē-bus rē-bus//. Priscianus quotes a genitive //faciē-rum// (//Gr. lat.// II, 368 K) which was said to have been used by Cato, but Cicero says that if specierum and speciebus could exist in Latin, he himself could not use them, because they have no declension (//Top.// 2,30); and Quintilianus did not know “what spes will do in plural” (1,6,26). 
 + 
 + 
 +\\  
 +\\  
 +\\  
 +  
 + 
 +\\ 
 +[[:encyclopédie_linguistique:notions_linguistiques:morphologie:The morphology_of_classical Latin|Retour au plan]] ou  
 +[[:dictionnaire: The morphology of classical latin4|Aller au § 4.]]