« السابقةمتابعة »
convey the idea of motion terminated at the point which these adverbs describe, a conception wbich in Latin it seems the province of the accusative alone to express. Our object in the following remarks, accordingly, is to prove by such evidence as the case will admit, that these words were originally the accusatives of their respective roots. This opinion is not only counteDanced by the meaning of the several words, but derives powerful additional support from such forms of construction as the following: Quo tu te agis ? Quonam, nisi domum? Plaut. Trin. 4. 3.71. Quo te, Mori, pedes? an, quo via ducit, in urbem? Virg. Ecl. ix. 1. i. e. an in urbem, quem in locum via ducit ? Quonam hæc omnia, nisi ad suam perniciem pertinere? Cæs. B. Civ. i. 9. i, e. ad quidnam, nisi ad, &c.
At a period in the history of the Latin language contemporaneous with that in which we may suppose these words to have assumed their adverbial character, the elision of the final moccurs so frequently as to afford us, without violating any known principle whatever, at least a plausible solution of the difficulty. The rejection of this letter in verse, when it is the terminating .consonant before a word which begins with a vowel, and the well-known fact, that in the oldest inscriptions its absence as a final letter is almost universal, furnish rational grounds for believing that these adverbs may without any obvious impropriety be referred to the accusative case singular. At an early period, of which, however, distinct traces still remain, this case in words of the second declension, as the roots of all those adverbs manifestly are, terminated uniformly not in um, but in om or o. The extant proofs of this peculiarity are too numerous and too well authenticated to leave any room for imputing it to accident or the engraver's oversight. It is to this antiquated form of the - accusative then, and not to datives or ablatives singular, nor to accusatives plural, that we think the language indebted for such words as Quo, Eo, Eodem, &c.; and the ellipsis may, we conceive, in perfect accordance with existing constructions, and the actual meaning of the abbreviated or adverbial form, be thus supplied; Quom (in locom): Eom (in locom): Eomdem (in locom): &c.
It seems not improbable that the Romans imparted somewhat of a nasal enunciation to their m and n; and that it is from them that such of the continental languages as are the immediate descendants of the Latin have derived this marked peculiarity of utterance. Hence the Omnis of the Romans slides with facility into the Ogni of the modern Italians, and hence the ancient writers, as is remarked by Columna on Ennii Frag. Hesselii, p. 182. used advenies for adveniens, abses for absens, &c. It seems probable then that in ordinary conversation the pronunciation of the soft final m was scarcely perceptible, and in some words the existence of the letter was at last forgotten. But when the language became an object of more general study, when, in consequence of the progressive improvement of the people at large, it became more cultivated and refined, and its grammatical principles were more perfectly understood, its sounds were uttered with greater clearness and precision, and the indistinctness of the unlettered age which had passed away was succeeded by that fulness of articulation which every polished people is ambitious to employ. In a writing and a reading age, besides, the eye and the ear exert themselves conjunctly to se cure for each letter a distinct utterance; in the ages of ruder antiquity, when written documents are far from being familiar even to the best informed, the ear alone, whose decisions yield in accuracy to those of the eye, is the only guide to whose counsel and direction it is permitted to resort. Hence there seem to be grounds for concluding, that in an early state of society those letters that are uttered with a soft and somewhat inaudible sound are frequently lost, and, even when the introduction of writing begins to give stability to the external forms of the language, are not always resumed, though their absence is sometimes indicated by such marks as have been invented to announce an incomplete orthography. When, however, the superior cultivation of the people has rendered the perfection of their language an object of care and attention, the anomalies which originate in conversation gradually disappear, and the more full and perfect forms of the language are, partially at least, restored. It need not then surprise us inuch to observe the occurrence of words in the earliest remaining monuments of the Latin language deprived of certain essential letters, which in its more advanced state again resume their proper place; nor on the other hand ought it to be held wonderful, if, in many cases, letters that at one time formed primary constituents in the structure of certain words, when they were once dropped, were ever afterwards forgotten and neglected. Now if, agreeably to these doctrines, it can be shown, either from any peculiarity in the pronunciation of the final m in the most improved state of the language, or from the monuments and inscriptions of earlier times, that it was not sounded or but feebly articulated, and that in inscriptions it was of so little consequence as to be often entirely disregarded, we are certainly warranted to conclude, that no objection can be drawn from the circumstance that Eo, Quo, &c. want the final m, so powerful as to render it absolutely necessary to resort to any other case than the accusative for the solution of the apparent difficulty which their termination involves.
Of the facility with which the Romans, even in the most perfect state of their literature, dispensed with their finał im, pone can entertain any doubt who recals to mind the fact already alluded to, and familiar to the most ordinary scholar, its regular elision in every kind of verse, when the following word begins with a vowel. As this elision is universal, we cannot be persuaded to consider it as a poetical licence, nor an unauthorised innovation on the established pronunciation of Latium. The poet was taught it by the practice of his country, and merely adhered to a usage which he found he bad neither the right nor the power to alter.
Again, in regard to the final m of the accusative singular, genitive plural, &c. we may observe, that its obscure enunciation appears to have led to its exclusion from all inscriptions of very ancient date. Some contrivance, indeed, such as the apostrophe before s of the English genitive, may possibly in these cases have been employed to denote the absence of a letter, though none such, so far as I know, is mentioned by those who have examined, collected, and arranged the inscriptions that remain. Of the fact itself there cannot perhaps be adduced a stronger and more conclusive proof than that furnished by the inscription dug up about three centuries ago near the Porta Capena, commemorative of the reduction of Corsica and Aleria by L. Scipio, a son of Scipio Barbatus. It is thus exhibited by Sirmond and Aleander: and by Hobhouse, Illustrations, &c. p. 170. See also the preceding page of the same author, where he quotes another inscription equally illustrative of the opinion which we have advanced.
Honc oino ploirume. cosentiunt. R. Luonoro. optumo fuise. viro Lucio M. Scipione filios Barbati Consol. Censor. Aidilis. hic fuet. Hic cepit Corsica Aleriaque urbe. Dedet tempestatibus. Aide mereto. These words in the orthography of a later age are as follows: Hunc unum plurimi consentiunt Roma bonorum optunum fuisse virum Lucium M. Scipionem. Filius Barbati, Consul, Censor, Ædilis hic fuit. Hic cepit Corsicam Aleriamque urbem. Dedit tempestatibus ædem merito.' The
Sed et patet illud, quod dixi, ex antiquissima inscriptione L. Scipionis, ubi m in aliquot vocabulorum extremo omittitur, tanquam litera olim minus, at a posterioribus magis frequentata, vel certe adscititia, et ideo omission of the final m throughout this inscription cannot be accidental. The peculiarity which so strikingly attracts our attention, in contemplating this very ancient relique, gives a strong appearance of plausibility to the opinion which has been advanced; and when 'we consider that this explanation coincides perfectly with the siguification which the words referred to bear, whilst all others deviate from it more or less, the evidence in favor of the origin for which we contend seems to be as clear, full, and consistent, as the philologist can reasonably expect.
The termination om is well ascertained to be a more ancient form of the accusative than um in words of the second declension, nor can it for a moment create a doubt in the mind of any intelligent inquirer. On somewhat better grounds, however, it may be questioned how Quo can be a product of Quem; a position obviously assumed when we maintain that to all the words mentioned, in locum must be supplied to fill up the ellipsis in their construction.
Whatever be the rationale of the declensions—whether, as many grammarians think, their number may safely be restricted to three, or whether they may be divided into five, as is uniformly done by the practical teacher of the language, or whether they may with still greater propriety be reduced to one, appears on this occasion to be a question which it is of little consequence to investigate. That the same word assumes the garb sometimes of one declension, sometimes of another, is a fact of too ordinary occurrence to be denied; and the simple mention of this circumstance is sufficient to account for the apparent anomaly observable in attempting to derive Quo from Quem. Quo, qua, quo, in the ablative; quorum, quarum, quorum, and queis, in the genitive and dative plural, with other cases as analogically formed as these, clearly demonstrate the relation subsisting between Qui and words of the first and second declension; whilst Quibus, the obsolete nominative plural ques, quem, cui, &c. evince its affinity to the third. The forms cuimodi and cuicuimodi too, which are decidedly genitives, refer us at once to Quus, or Cuus, a, um, as their nominative, and prove the regular inflexion of this word in ancient times, either as an adjective of the first and second declensions, or of the third, at the pleasure of the writer. From this Quus then is formed in the accusative Quum, or Quom, or Cum, which grammarians denominate adverb, conjunction, or preposition, according to the place it holds, and the duty it performs, in a sentence.' There can be no doubt, then, that the accusative was anciently quom; and, if this is admitted, we have only to contend for the facility with which the elision of the final m is effected to establish a perfect coincidence between the form of the word and its appropriate and characteristic meaning. This correspondence between the origin and the meaning-a correspondence which ought to be the groundwork of every philological investigation-cannot, on any principle with which we are acquainted, be reconciled with the formation of these words from any other case than that to which we have referred them.
addi modo, modo omitti, solita. Denique colligitur id ex eo etiam, quod sola hæc consonans in metro, sequente vocali, eliditur. Perizon. in Sanct. Min. p. 487. Ed. Amstel. 1714.
If such be the origin of Quo, the other words mentioned are so obviously formed on the same principle as to need no farther illustration or comment,
A. R. C.
. DE QUANTITATE SYLLABARUM ANCIPITUM IN
Fortuitus, Gratuitus, Pituita.
“ Gratuitus sicut et fortuitus, auctoritate Horatii contra vulgum, penultima producta.” Chr. Becmani Bornensis Manuductio ad L. Li necnon de Origg. L. L., Hanoviæ 1629. p. 514.
“A forte est fortuitus ; ut a gratis, gratuitus. Fortuito non tam adverbium est, quam quasi adverbium. Nam intelligitur casu. Interdum tamen junctim legas, Casu et fortuito. Sed tum potius fortuitu scribendum, ut est in melioribus libris. ---Ex gratiis autem factum gratis xatd Ouyxorýv: a quo gratuitus ; ut a forte, fortuitus.” Jo. G. Vossii Etym. L. L.
“ Fortuitus, pænultima producitur ab Horatio Od. 2, 15, 17.
· The preposition, as it is called, seems to imply time, and intimates that some act or condition is contemporaneous with another mentioned. It is spelt quom in an inscription quoted by Lanzi, p. 154. Dr. Butler's derivation from our or 'öuou is not, we think, probable. See his Praxis, &c. But this subject would require a dissertation.