Which one? Just curious.
Scansion of Aeneid VI:13
- Thread starter Callaina
- Start date
Hm, for example the Greek accusative (accusative of respect in comparison with the native Latin ablative of respect): avēs perculsae sunt corda vs. avēs perculsae sunt cordibus = corda avium perculsa sunt
(the accusative used that way is incredibly rare in Latin, hence Greek
 Tongue.gif "(1) Tongue out :p")
) He uses it often, while in Virgil or Ovid there are just like 1 example per each..?Or his use of the -īs ending with the third declension i-stems for nominative plural (normally according to any rules / the prose it can be used just for accusative plural, but this can be explained just as an orthographical transgression in the case that the -īs and -ēs endings would, in fact, be pronounced with the same sound... I/we don't know, afaik). (Maybe he even used this for some non i-stems, but maybe I'm just making this one up now, I'm not sure
)And some other things...
Where is this from? I wanted to see the surrounding context but Google's not bringing anything up...
By the way, that's a pretty old thread where I would be much less knowledgeable about this grammatical phenomenon and also about Lucretius as a writer and I tried to explain it away with anything else that would make sense... I hate these old threads
LOL, but they're very helpful actually!By the way, that's a pretty old thread where I would be much less knowledgeable about this grammatical phenomenon and also about Lucretius as a writer and I tried to explain it away with anything else that would make sense... I hate these old threads
Believe me, I'm sure I'll feel ten times worse about my old threads in a year or two.
I really had just started Latin when I started posting here...
Haha... (well, just take with a grain of salt some things I might have written in that thread: I may have misinterpreted there how generally a case of respect (no matter which case: acc/abl or else...) works. It's much better understood from the single post I've just made in this thread: as a kind of tōtum prō parte (or maybe sometimes even pars prō tōtō): corda avium perculsa = avēs perculsae cordibus/a etc., where avis is used as a whole for only its part, the heart)
I started to post here after my first year of Latin and while I was quite "well trained" in some aspects of Latin (mainly morphology), I was tragically wrong about many others... (I started with Latin in September 2009).
I started to post here after my first year of Latin and while I was quite "well trained" in some aspects of Latin (mainly morphology), I was tragically wrong about many others... (I started with Latin in September 2009).
Vergil only seems lazy when he sometimes makes the vocal I a consonant, but I am sure that if he chose to do so he could get away with it without looking lazy.
About the neuter thing, I can only find it in places where it could be both a diphthong or two short syllables. Which doesn't mean anything, but is curious.
Edit: and he does that with other vowels too, it seems.
About the neuter thing, I can only find it in places where it could be both a diphthong or two short syllables. Which doesn't mean anything, but is curious.
Edit: and he does that with other vowels too, it seems.
One more question from this bit:
īnsuētum per iter gelidās ēnāvit ad arctōs
How is the first u pronounced in īnsuētum? Is it pronounced as a vowel and slurred together with the e somehow, or as a consonant (w sound in English) or...?
īnsuētum per iter gelidās ēnāvit ad arctōs
How is the first u pronounced in īnsuētum? Is it pronounced as a vowel and slurred together with the e somehow, or as a consonant (w sound in English) or...?
E
Etaoin Shrdlu
Guest
I'd say yes. In other words, to both, because I can't see how you can slur it together with the E without getting something that sounds very much like an English W.
Yes, "su" sometimes (not often, but in a few roots) creates one consonantal unit /sw/ or /sv/ (depends on the pronunciation model you use). There is suāvis, e and Suetōnius. Then in suescō itself it is disyllabled (so no there!), but again as /sw/ in insuētus and insuēscō...
How strange -- any idea how this came about?
But also there already existed alternative perfect and supine forms suēvī, suētum with /sw/ next to the s+vowel forms...
According to some sources of etymology the /sw/ was original, so the vowel in suēscō is what arose there for some time, contrary to its origin.
Well I guess then that "w" can sometimes change to the next nearest vowel sound articulation-wise... (w->u... and possibly also vice-versa u->w).
Edit: Callaina I've edited/rewrote this whole post...
And by the way: suāvis,e entails also another verbs derived from it also with the /sw/ pronunciation: suādeō, dissuādeō, persuādeō... (suādeō meant originally probably "to sweaten something [for somebody]" <- hence the dative usage with "to advise"; "per-" is then an intensifier or a prefix of a perfective lexical aspect: finish the sweatening / oversweaten / sweaten over = persuade)
Are you sure? OLD says insuescō (without macron on the I too
).Another word is suāvium. I wonder if with i/u/j/v writing system it would be more correct to write svavis... Perhaps I have seen it written that way in some occasion, maybe now I understand why.
Yes, it is the bare form suescō (without the in- prefix) that troubles us, but mainly based on the information from L&S... According to OLD that vowel in "su" is rare in prose though (I hadn't checked that before).
What comes to orthography of suavis: it is just one of those irregularities kept no matter the conventions of the current orthography. You would be "permitted" to write svavis just if you didn't use the lower case "u" at all... as it seems. Similar to -qu and -ngu (though here we think we know the phonetical reasons behind: that qu and gu are one sound in fact, not containing "w"(!)).
What comes to orthography of suavis: it is just one of those irregularities kept no matter the conventions of the current orthography. You would be "permitted" to write svavis just if you didn't use the lower case "u" at all... as it seems. Similar to -qu and -ngu (though here we think we know the phonetical reasons behind: that qu and gu are one sound in fact, not containing "w"(!)).
insuēscō is surely with /sw/...
as I stated in #35 the vowel after "s" ( /su/ ) in this particular form (suēscō, without the prefix) seems as a deviation (which is then also vindicated by OLD stating that in prose there would usually be /sw/ anyway even with suescō...), also the etymology, as I have stated, seem to favour /sw/ as the original sound for this verb and its forms.
About svavis: quite interesting, but it seems that this regularized orthography didn't take hold up to our times and things as qu/ngu/su (in some cases) remain irregular in most of used writing systems...
as I stated in #35 the vowel after "s" ( /su/ ) in this particular form (suēscō, without the prefix) seems as a deviation (which is then also vindicated by OLD stating that in prose there would usually be /sw/ anyway even with suescō...), also the etymology, as I have stated, seem to favour /sw/ as the original sound for this verb and its forms.
About svavis: quite interesting, but it seems that this regularized orthography didn't take hold up to our times and things as qu/ngu/su (in some cases) remain irregular in most of used writing systems...