ebook ebooks e-book e-books downloaden bei MyEbooks.ch downloaden

Collapse and Reorganization of the Latin Nominal Flection as Reflected in Epigraphic Sources

:	Paul A. Gaeng
:	Collapse and Reorganization of the Latin Nominal Flection as Reflected in Epigraphic Sources
:	Digitalia
:	9780916379063
:	1
:	CHF 48.80
:

:	Allgemeine und Vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft
:	English

:	167
:	DRM
:	PC/MAC/eReader/Tablet
:	PDF

A study of changes in noun and adjective declensional patterns in late Latin inscriptions from the eastern part of the Roman Empire (Dalmatia and the Balkans).

“A valuable buttress to our theorizing concerning the stages in the collapse of the Latin declension.”-Douglas C. Walker, Language.“Une véritableétude definitive.”-Frank R. Hamlin, Critique.

“...It affords a good overview of the inscriptional evidence for the development of noun and adjective inflection in the Imperial period. ...[This study] can be warmly recommended.”-Robe t A. Hall, Romance Philology.

1.13 Dative (p. 13)

In the two areas under investigation, this case, spelled -ae or -e, was found to be quite well preserved. A few deviations were observed, however, as follows:

(a) -a for -ae (-e): On an otherwise garbled inscription from Pannonia Inferior, there is a hint of a dative in -a: Aul Quintillae . . . et Aul Quintina soror . . . hanc memoriam /erif(D3611adn.)

Stati (1961a:75) reports a few such datives in -a from an extensive area of the Balkans. In contrast to similar attestations on a few epitaphs from Southern Italy dating back to Republican times which he considers to be archaic or dialectal phenomena, he concludes that these dative forms in -a—just as the genitives in -a reported supra under 1.12 (c)—"sint rezultatul acjiunii legii reducerii flexiunii nominale si reprezinta forma de caz general."

(b) -aes for -ae (-e): Assuming that phrases like piscina Fl. Regulaes or Valeriaes are, indeed, dativi adnaminales (cf. supra, 1.12 [d]), the formal identity of genitive/dative in the first declension singular would account for this deviation.

(c) Periphrastic dative construction with `ad`: To quote Mihaescu (1978:244):"Afin d`exprimer le rapport resultant de 1`emploi du datif a cote de la forme synthetique, on avait recours aussi a la construction analytique avec la preposition ad, qui s`est conservee dans le roumain."

To illustrate his point, the Rumanian scholar cites a few examples from inscriptions and other Latin texts from all parts of the Roman Empire, none of them dated, unfortunately.

It is generally acknowledged that in its indirect object function the synthetic dative was encroached upon by an ad + accusative construction early in the history of Latin and that, except for Rumanian, it completely eliminated the Classical Latin dative probably by the eighth century of our era.

This periphrasis seems to be implicit on an epitaph from Pannonia Inferior which, in part, reads as follows: titulum posuit ad beatu Syneroti marture et infante filiam suam nomine Ursicina qui vix.it annis n. Ill (D 2182) From the phraseology it clearly emerges that the decedent little girl was laid to rest ad beatum Synerotem martyrem (i.e., close to the blessed martyr Syneros) but it is a matter of speculation whether the preposition ad is also to be understood in connection with the following infante(m) filiam suam.

A synthetic dative depending on titulum posuit would have required something like infanti filiae suae and even though infante could be interpreted as a dative form (the -e spelling for -i is not uncommon in epigraphic material), an apparent accusative substitution for the synthetic dative in -ae (-e) would not be very likely in view of the overwhelmingly correct occurrences of the Classical Latin ending.

We have good reason to believe, therefore, that the writer had, indeed, ad infante(m) suam filiam in mind, namely an analytic dative. However, this is a very isolated example of the replacement of the synthetic dative by an analytic construction and suggests that this phenomenon was far from widespread during the period covered by our inscriptional material.

	Contents	8
	Acknowledgments	12
	Symbols and Abbreviations	14
	Selected Bibliography	17
	Introduction	28
	Chapter I: First Declension	36
	1.1 Singular	36
	1.11 Nominative	36
	1.12 Genitive	36
	1.13 Dative	40
	1.14 Accusative	42
	1.15 Ablative	45
	1.2 Plural	46
	1.2 Nominative	46
	1.22 Genitive	49
	1.23 Dative	49
	1.24 Accusative	50
	1.25 Ablative	51
	1.3 Comparative Summary	52
	1.31 Singular	53
	1.32 Plural	58
	Chapter II: Second Declension	62
	2.1 Singular	62
	2.11 Nominative	62
	2.12 Genitive	66
	2.13 Dative	68
	2.14 Accusative	69
	2.15 Ablative	74
	2.2 Plural	76
	2.21 Nominative	76
	2.22 Genitive	77
	2.23 Dative	78
	2.24 Accusative	78
	2.25 Ablative	80
	2.3 Comparative Summary	83
	2.31 Singular	83
	2.32 Plural	90
	Chapter III: Third Declension	95
	3.1 Singular	95
	3.11 Nominative	95
	3.12 Genitive	97
	3.13 Dative	99
	3.14 Accusative	100
	3.15 Ablative	101
	3.2 Plural	102
	3.21 Nominative	102
	3.22 Genitive	107
	3.23 Dative	107
	3.24 Accusative	108
	3.25 Ablative	111
	3.3 Comparative Summary	113
	3.31 Singular	113
	3.32 Plural	116
	Chapter IV: Fourth and Fifth Declensions	122
	4.1 Fourth Declension	122
	4.11 Singular	122
	4.12 Plural	124
	4.2 Fifth Declension	125
	Chapter V: Concluding Summary	128
	5.1 First Declension	129
	5.11 Singular	129
	5.12 Plural	130
	5.2 Second Declension	131
	5.21 Singular	131
	5.22 Plural	133
	5.3 Third Declension	135
	5.31 Singular	135
	5.32 Plural	136
	Appendix A	140
	Appendix B	148
	Index Nominum Rerumque	162
	A	162
	B	162
	C	163
	D	163
	E	163
	F	163
	G	163
	H	163
	I	163
	L	163
	M	164
	N	164
	O	164
	P	164
	R	164
	S	165
	T	165
	U	165
	V	165
	W	165