Book contents
- The Cambridge Critical Guide to Latin Literature
- The Cambridge Critical Guide to Latin Literature
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures and Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Abbreviations
- Chapter 1 Introduction
- Chapter 2 Canons
- Chapter 3 Periodisations
- Chapter 4 Author and Identity
- Chapter 5 Intertextuality
- Chapter 6 Mediaeval Latin
- Chapter 7 Neo-Latin
- Chapter 8 Reception
- Chapter 9 National Traditions
- Chapter 10 Editing
- Chapter 11 Latin Literature and Linguistics
- Chapter 12 Latin Literature and Material Culture
- Chapter 13 Philosophy
- Chapter 14 Political Thought
- Chapter 15 Latin Literature and Roman History
- Chapter 16 Latin Literature and Greek
- Envoi
- Index Locorum
- General Index
- References
Chapter 11 - Latin Literature and Linguistics
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 January 2024
Book contents
- The Cambridge Critical Guide to Latin Literature
- The Cambridge Critical Guide to Latin Literature
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures and Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Abbreviations
- Chapter 1 Introduction
- Chapter 2 Canons
- Chapter 3 Periodisations
- Chapter 4 Author and Identity
- Chapter 5 Intertextuality
- Chapter 6 Mediaeval Latin
- Chapter 7 Neo-Latin
- Chapter 8 Reception
- Chapter 9 National Traditions
- Chapter 10 Editing
- Chapter 11 Latin Literature and Linguistics
- Chapter 12 Latin Literature and Material Culture
- Chapter 13 Philosophy
- Chapter 14 Political Thought
- Chapter 15 Latin Literature and Roman History
- Chapter 16 Latin Literature and Greek
- Envoi
- Index Locorum
- General Index
- References
Summary
This chapter explores the intersections between work by literary scholars with that done in synchronic and diachronic Latin linguistics. As an example of the different approaches and different toolkits employed by the linguist and the literary scholar, I discuss the way linguists have explained the phrase Veneres Cupidinesque in Catullus 3.1, contrasted with interpretations given in commentaries on Catullus and in Latin dictionaries. In the linguists’ account, the phrase is an archaism which continues an earlier Indo-European pattern used to refer to pairs, finding its closest parallels in Sanskrit texts. I then compare literary Latin to other registers and dialects, and discuss the difficulties involved in the term ‘Vulgar Latin’. The chapter also examines other areas in which linguistic scholarship might be usefully consulted by readers of Latin literature: word accent, vowel-length and metre; etymology, semantics and the lexicography; grammars and monographs on morphology, syntax and discourse analysis, including in particular recent approaches using sociolinguistics. Passages from Catullus are discussed throughout.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Critical Guide to Latin Literature , pp. 563 - 612Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2024
References
Adams, J. N. (1999) ‘The poets of Bu Njem: language, culture and the centurionate’, JRS 89: 109–34.Google Scholar
Adams, J. N. (2003b) ‘Petronius and new non-literary Latin’, in Herman, J. and Rosén, H., eds., Petroniana: Gedenkschrift für Hubert Petersmann (Heidelberg), 11–23.Google Scholar
Adams, J. N. and Meyer, R. G., eds. (1999) Aspects of the Language of Latin Poetry, Oxford.Google Scholar
Adams, J. N. and Vincent, N., eds. (2016) Early and Late Latin: Continuity and Change, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, W. S. (1973) Accent and Rhythm: Prosodic Features of Latin and Greek: a Study in Theory and Reconstruction, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Allen, W. S. (1978) Vox Latina: A Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Latin, 2nd edn, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ash, R. (2002) ‘Between Scylla and Charybdis? Historiographical commentaries on Latin historians’, in Gibson and Kraus 2002, 269–94.Google Scholar
Bamman, D. and Crane, G. (2006) ‘The design and use of a Latin dependency treebank’, in Hajič, J. and Nivre, J., eds., Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Treebanks and Linguistic Theories (TLT 2006) (Prague), 67–78.Google Scholar
Bamman, D. and Crane, G. (2008) ‘Building a dynamic lexicon from a digital library’, in Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE–CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL 2008), Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
Barnes, T. (2016) ‘Veneres Cupidinesque’, unpublished handout from paper delivered at the 35th East Coast Indo-European Conference, Athens, GA, 6–8 June 2016.Google Scholar
Boldrini, S. (1999) Prosodie und Metrik der Römer (trans. from Italian original by Bruno W. Häuptli), Stuttgart and Leipzig.Google Scholar
Boyce, B. (1991) The Language of the Freedmen in Petronius’ Cena Trimalchionis, Leiden.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breed, B. W., Wallace, R. and Keitel, E., eds. (2018) Lucilius and Satire in Second-Century bc Rome, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butrica, J. L. (2007) ‘History and transmission of the text’, in Skinner, M. B., ed., A Companion to Catullus (Malden, MA), 13–34.Google Scholar
Calboli, G. (2009) ‘Latin syntax and Greek’, in Baldi, P. and Cuzzolin, P., eds., New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax. 1: Syntax of the Sentence (Berlin), 65–193.Google Scholar
Chadwick, J. (1996) Lexicographica Graeca: Contributions to the Lexicography of Ancient Greek, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Chahoud, A. (2016) ‘Varro’s Latin and Varro on Latin’, in Ferri, R. and Zago, A., eds., The Latin of the Grammarians: Reflections about Language in the Roman World (Turnhout), 15–31.Google Scholar
Chahoud, A. (2019) ‘Lucilius on Latin spelling, grammar, and usage’, in Pezzini and Taylor 2019, 46–78.Google Scholar
Chi, J., Herschman, R. and Lapatin, K. D. S. (2017) Restoring the Minoans: Elizabeth Price and Sir Arthur Evans, Princeton and Oxford.Google Scholar
Clackson, J. (2015b) ‘Subgrouping in the Sabellian branch of Indo-European’, TPhS 113: 4−37.Google Scholar
Clackson, J. (2016) ‘The language of a Pompeian tavern: submerged Latin?’, in Adams and Vincent 2016, 69–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clackson, J. and Horrocks, G. (2007) The Blackwell History of the Latin Language, Malden, MA.Google Scholar
Clarke, M. J. (2010) ‘Semantics and vocabulary’, in Bakker, E. J., ed., A Companion to the Ancient Greek Language (Oxford), 119–33.Google Scholar
Clarke, M. J. (2019) ‘Looking for unity in a dictionary entry: a perspective from prototype theory’, in Stray, C., Clarke, M. and Katz, J. T., eds., Liddell and Scott: The History, Methodology, and Languages of the World’s Leading Lexicon of Ancient Greek (Oxford), 247–67.Google Scholar
Coleman, R. G. G. (1999) ‘Poetic diction, poetic discourse and the poetic register’, in Adams and Meyer 1999, 21–93.Google Scholar
Corbeill, A. (2015) Sexing the World: Grammatical Gender and Biological Sex in Ancient Rome, Princeton and Oxford.Google Scholar
Cornish, F. W., Postgate, J. P., Mackail, J. W. and Goold, G. P. (1988) Catullus, Tibullus, Pervigilium Veneris, 2nd edn, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Devine, A. M. and Stephens, L. D. (2006) Latin Word Order: Structured Meaning and Information, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devine, A. M. and Stephens, L. D. (2019) Pragmatics for Latin: From Syntax to Information Structure, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickey, E. (2012a) ‘The rules of politeness and Latin request formulae’, in Probert, P. and Willi, A., eds., Laws and Rules in Indo-European (Oxford), 313–28.Google Scholar
Dickey, E. (2012c) The Colloquia of the Hermeneumata Pseudositheana. Vol. 1, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ernout, A. and Meillet, A. (1959) Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine. Histoire des mots, 4th edn, Paris.Google Scholar
Ferri, R. (2011) ‘The language of Latin epic and lyric poetry’, in Clackson 2011b, 344–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, J. (2014) The Annals of Quintus Ennius and the Italic Tradition, Baltimore.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortson, B. (2008) Language and Rhythm in Plautus: Synchronic and Diachronic Studies, Berlin and New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortson, B. (2017) ‘The dialectology of Italic’, in Klein, J. S., Joseph, B. D., Fritz, M. and Wenthe, M., eds., Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics. Vol. 2 (Berlin and Boston), 836–58.Google Scholar
Gibson, R. (2015) ‘Fifty shades of orange: Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries’, in Kraus and Stray 2015b, 346–75.Google Scholar
Gibson, R. and Kraus, C. S., eds. (2002) The Classical Commentary: History, Practices, Theory, Leiden.Google Scholar
Gildersleeve, B. L. and Lodge, G. (1895) Gildersleeve’s Latin Grammar, 3rd edn, London.Google Scholar
Greenough, J. B., Kittredge, G. L., Howard, A. A. and D’Ooge, B. L. (1903) Allen and Greenough’s New Latin Grammar for Schools and Colleges, revised edn, Boston and London.Google Scholar
Haug, D. T. T. and Jøndal, M. L. (2008) ‘Creating a parallel treebank of the old Indo-European Bible translations’, in Proceedings of Language Technologies for Cultural Heritage Workshop (LREC 2008) (Marrakech), 27–34.Google Scholar
Heidermans, F. (2002) ‘Nominal composition in Sabellic and Proto-Italic’, TPhS 100: 185–202.Google Scholar
Henderson, J. (2010) ‘A1-ZYTHUM: DOMIMINA NUSTIO ILLUMEA, or out with the OLD’, in Stray 2010, 139–76.Google Scholar
Hinds, S. (1998) Allusion and Intertext: Dynamics of Appropriation in Roman Poetry, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hock, H. H. (1991) Principles of Historical Linguistics, 2nd edn, Berlin and New York.Google Scholar
Hofmann, J. B. and Szantyr, A. (1965) Lateinische Grammatik Bd. 2. Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik, Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft: Abt. 2, T. 2, Bd. 2, 3rd edn, Munich.Google Scholar
Jocelyn, H. D. (1999) ‘The arrangement and the language of Catullus’ so-called polymetra with special reference to the sequence 10–11–12’, in Adams and Meyer 1999, 335–75.Google Scholar
Joseph, J. E. (1987) Eloquence and Power: The Rise of Language Standards and Standard Languages, London.Google Scholar
Katz, J. T. (2010) ‘Nonne lexica etymologica multiplicanda sunt?’, in Stray 2010, 25–48.Google Scholar
Kraus, C. S. (2002) ‘Introduction: reading commentaries/commentaries as reading’, in Gibson and Kraus 2002, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraus, C. S. and Stray, C. (2015a) ‘Form and content’, in Kraus and Stray 2015b, 1–18.Google Scholar
Kraus, C. S. and Stray, C., eds. (2015b) Classical Commentaries: Explorations in a Scholarly Genre, Oxford.Google Scholar
Kroon, C. (1995) Discourse Particles in Latin: A Study of nam, enim, autem, vero and at, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Krostenko, B. A. (2001) Cicero, Catullus, and the Language of Social Performance, London and Chicago.Google Scholar
Kühner, R., and Holzweissig, F. W. (1912) Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache. Bd. 1. Elementar-, Formen- und Wortlehre, Hannover.Google Scholar
Kühner, R., Stegmann, C. and Thierfelder, A. (1966) Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache. Teil 2. Satzlehre, 4th edn, Hannover.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972) ‘Some principles of linguistic methodology’, Language in Society 1: 97–120.Google Scholar
Leaf, W. (1902) The Iliad. Edited with Apparatus Criticus, Prolegomena, Notes, and Appendices. Vol. ii: Books xxiii–xxiv, 2nd edn, London.Google Scholar
Leiwo, M. (2010) ‘Petronius’ linguistic resources’, in Dickey, E. and Chahoud, A., eds., Colloquial and Literary Latin (Cambridge), 281–90.Google Scholar
Leonhardt, J. (2013) Latin: Story of a World Language (trans. K. Kronenberg), Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Leppänen, V. and Alho, T. (2018) ‘On the mergers of Latin close‐mid vowels’, TPhS 116: 460–83.Google Scholar
Lewis, C. T. and Short, C. (1879) A Latin Dictionary: Founded on Andrews’ Edition of Freund’s Latin Dictionary, Oxford.Google Scholar
Löfstedt, E. (1956) Syntactica. Studien und Beiträge zur historischen Syntax des Lateins. i. Über einige Grundfragen der lateinischen Nominalsyntax. ii. Syntaktisch-stilistische Gesichtspunkte und Probleme, 2nd edn, 2 vols., Lund.Google Scholar
McDonald, K. (2015) Oscan in Southern Italy and Sicily: Evaluating Language Contact in a Fragmentary Corpus, Cambridge.Google Scholar
McGillivray, B. and Kilgarriff, A. (2013) ‘Tools for historical corpus research, and a corpus of Latin’, in Bennett, P., Durrell, M., Scheible, S. and Whitt, R. J., eds., New Methods in Historical Corpus Linguistics, Tübingen.Google Scholar
Mancini, M. (2019) ‘The use of the past to explain the past: Roman grammarians and the collapse of quantity’, in Cennamo, M. and Fabrizio, C., eds., Historical Linguistics 2015: Selected Papers from the 22nd International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Naples, 27–31 July 2015 (Amsterdam), 28–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martzloff, V. (2016) ‘Les quantificateurs latins omnis et omnes: origine et grammaticalisation’, in Poccetti 2016, 378–94.Google Scholar
Meineck, P., Short, W. M. and Devereaux, J., eds. (2019) The Routledge Handbook of Classics and Cognitive Theory, Abingdon and New York.Google Scholar
Meiser, G. (2003) Veni Vidi Vici. Die Vorgeschichte des lateinischen Perfektsystems, Munich.Google Scholar
Mercado, A. O. (2012) Italic Verse: A Study of the Poetic Remains of Old Latin, Faliscan and Sabellic, Innsbruck.Google Scholar
Mercado, A. O. (2018) ‘From Proto-Indo-European to Italic meter’, in Gunkel, D. and Hackstein, O., eds., Language and Meter (Leiden), 253–66.Google Scholar
Müller, R. (2001) Sprachbewußtsein und Sprachvariation im lateinischen Schrifttum der Antike, Munich.Google Scholar
Neu, C. F. and Wagener, C. (1892–1905) Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache, 4 vols., Berlin and Leipzig.Google Scholar
Oniga, R. (2014) Latin: A Linguistic Introduction (trans. from Italian original by N. Schifano), Oxford.Google Scholar
Parsons, J. (1999) ‘A new approach to the Saturnian verse and its relation to Latin prosody’, TAPhA 129: 117–37.Google Scholar
Passarotti, M. (2007) ‘Verso il lessico Tomistico biculturale. La treebank dell’Index Thomisticus’, in Petrilli, R. and Femia, D., eds., Il filo del discorso. Intrecci testuali, articolazioni linguistiche, composizioni logiche. Atti del xiii Congresso Nazionale della Società di Filosofia del Linguaggio (Viterbo), 187–205.Google Scholar
Passarotti, M. and Cantaluppi, G. (2016) ‘A statistical investigation into the corpus of Seneca’, in Poccetti 2016, 684–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pezzini, G. (2016) ‘Comic lexicon: searching for submerged Latin from Plautus to Erasmus’, in Adams and Vincent 2016, 14–46.Google Scholar
Pezzini, G. (2017) ‘Caesar the linguist: the debate about the Latin language’, in Grillo, L. and Krebs, C. B., eds., The Cambridge Companion to the Writings of Julius Caesar (Cambridge), 173–92.Google Scholar
Pezzini, G. (2018) ‘Lucilius and the language of the Roman palliata’, in Breed, Wallace and Keitel 2018, 162–83.Google Scholar
Pezzini, G. and Taylor, B., eds. (2019) Language and Nature in the Classical Roman World, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinkster, H. (2015) The Oxford Latin Syntax. Vol. 1: The Simple Clause, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poccetti, P. (2008) ‘Notes de linguistique italique. Nouvelle serie. 5. Une nouvelle inscription osque et le nom de Venus’, REL 86: 24–36.Google Scholar
Poccetti, P. (2018) ‘Another image of literary Latin: language variation and the aims of Lucilius’ Satires’, in Breed, Wallace and Keitel 2018, 81–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poccetti, P., ed. (2016) Latinitatis rationes: Descriptive and Historical Accounts for the Latin Language, Berlin and Boston.Google Scholar
Probert, P. (2019) Latin Grammarians on the Latin Accent: The Transformation of Greek Grammatical Thought, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Risselada, R. (1993) Imperatives and Other Directive Expressions in Latin: A Study in the Pragmatics of a Dead Language, Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rix, H. (2002) Sabellische Texte. Die Texte des Oskischen, Umbrischen und Südpikenischen, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Rosch, E. (1978) ‘Principles of categorization’, in Rosch, E. and Lloyd, B. B., eds., Cognition and Categorization (Hillsdale, NJ), 27–48.Google Scholar
Sampson, G. and Babarczy, A. (2013) Grammar without Grammaticality: Growth and Limits of Grammatical Precision, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Saussure, F. et al. (1985 [1916]) Cours de linguistique générale, critical edition by de Mauro, T., Paris.Google Scholar
Schulze, K. P. (1882) ‘Zu Catullus’, Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie und Pädagogik (Jahrbücher für classische Philologie) 125: 205–14.Google Scholar
Schwyzer, E. (1903) ‘Varia zur griechischen und lateinischen Grammatik 3. Veneres Cupidinesque’, IF 14: 28–31.Google Scholar
Short, W. et al., eds. (2016) Embodiment in Latin Semantics, Amsterdam and Philadelphia.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spevak, O. (2014) The Noun Phrase in Classical Latin Prose, Leiden and Boston.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stray, C. (2012) ‘The Oxford Latin Dictionary: a historical introduction’, in Glare 2012, x–xvii.Google Scholar
Stroh, W. (1990) ‘Arsis und Thesis, oder: Wie hat man lateinische Verse gesprochen?’, in Albrecht, M. von und Schubert, W., eds., Musik und Dichtung: Neue Forschungsbeiträge, Viktor Pöschl zum 80. Geburtstag gewidmet (Frankfurt), 87–116.Google Scholar
Thompson, R. J. E. and Zair, N. (2019) ‘Irrational lengthening in Vergil’, Mnemosyne 74: 577–608.Google Scholar
Thomson, D. F. S. (1997) Catullus, Edited with a Textual and Interpretative Commentary, London.Google Scholar
Wackernagel, J. (1877) ‘Zum homerischen Dual’, Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der Indogermanischen Sprachen 23: 302–10. Reprinted in J. Wackernagel, Kleine Schriften 1 (Göttingen, 1953), 538–46.Google Scholar
Weiss, M. (2009) Outline of the Historical and Comparative Grammar of Latin, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
Weiss, M. (2017) ‘An Italo-Celtic divinity and a common Sabellic sound change’, ClAnt 36: 370–89.Google Scholar
Whitehead, B. N. (2011) ‘The alleged Greek influence on Latin compounding: theoretical and applied perspectives in comparative grammar’, in Oniga, R., Iovino, R. and Giusti, G., eds., Formal Linguistics and the Teaching of Latin, Newcastle, 215–25.Google Scholar
Willcock, M. M. (1984) The Iliad of Homer. Edited with Introduction and Commentary. Vol. ii: Books xiii–xxxiv, Bristol.Google Scholar
Williams, G. (2015) ‘Style and form in Seneca’s writing’, in Bartsch, S. and Schiesaro, A., eds., The Cambridge Companion to Seneca (Cambridge), 135–49.Google Scholar
Zair, N. (in press) ‘Old-fashioned spelling in the Roman Empire’, in V. Belfiore, E. Dupraz and T. Roth, eds., Writing Conventions and Pragmatic Perspectives.Google Scholar
Zeleny, K. (2008) Itali Modi. Akzentrhythmen in der lateinische Dichtung der augusteischen Zeit, Wiener Studien Beiheft 32, Vienna.Google Scholar
Zetzel, J. E. G. (2018) Critics, Compilers and Commentators: An Introduction to Roman Philology, 200 bce–800 ce, Oxford.Google Scholar
Zetzel, J. E. G. (2019) ‘Natural law and natural language in the first century BCE’, in Pezzini and Taylor 2019, 191–211.Google Scholar