posed about 200 years before the birth of Christ,* and in the sixth century after Christ, Latin, as a spoken language, died entirely away. It had then become quite corrupted through the influence of the foreign nations which had settled in the Roman dominions, and it became so mixed up with the languages of the invaders that a number of new languages (Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese) were gradually formed out of it. All persons who wrote Latin in later times had learned it as a dead language.

During the long period in which the Latin language was spoken, it underwent various changes, not only in the number of its words and their meanings, in their forms and combinations, but, to some extent, in its pronunciation also. We shall in this Grammar describe the language, though not exclusively, such as it was spoken and written during the most important period of Roman literature, that is, about the time of Julius Cæsar and Cicero, till shortly after the birth of Christ. That period is commonly called the golden age, and the subsequent one, till about A.D. 120, the silver age of the Latin language.

The Latin language, in its origin, is nearest akin to the Greek, and at the time when the Romans became acquainted with the literature, arts, and institutions of Greece, they adopted a great many single words, as well as constructions, from the Greek. Both languages, moreover, belong to the same family from which the English, German, northern, and many other languages have sprung.‡

*[Vid. Appendix VI. Remains of early Latin.]—Am. Ed.

t[That the Latin is an older language than the Greek all sound philolo. gists now readily admit. Consult Donaldson's New Cratylus, p. 89.]—Am. Ed.

[On the general question of Linguistic affinity, consult Bopp, Vergleich. Gramm.; Donaldson's New Cratylus, ch. iv.; Id., Varronianus, p. 40. The authorities having reference to earlier and erroneous views respecting the origin of the Latin tongue may be found in Baehr, Geschichte der Röm. Lit vol. i., p. 3, &c.]-Am. Ed.

LATIN GRAMMAR.

ELEMENTARY PART.

CHAPTER I.

OF THE VOWELS AND CONSONANTS.

[§ 1.] 1. THE Vowels of the Latin language are, A, a; E, e; I, i; 0, o; U, u (Y, y): and the diphthongs, AE, ae; OE, oe; AU, au, and EU, eu. Their ancient pronunciation did not differ in any essential point from that of the modern Italian or German; but the modern pronunciation varies in the different countries of Europe, though the length and shortness of the vowels are and ought to be observed everywhere. The Latin language has no signs to distinguish a long from a short vowel, such as we find in the Greek language, at least in the case of two vowels. The names of the vowels are mere imitations of their sounds, and not specific words, like the Greek alpha, iota, &c.

Note.-The vowel y (called y psilon) occurs only in words which were introduced into the Latin language from or through the Greek, at a time when it was already developed, such as, syllaba, pyramis, Pyrrhus, Cyrus ;* whereas other words, the Greek origin of which leads us back to more ancient times, or has been obscured by changes of sound, have lost their original y such as mus (from the Greek μuç,) silva (from 2n), and lacrima (from dúkovov.)t The word stilus, too, is better written with i, since practice did not acknowledge its identity with the Greek orvos. The diph thong eu, if we except Greek words, occurs only in heus, heu, and eheu, in ceu, seu, and neu, and in neuter and neutiquam. The diphthongs containing

* [As the Romans already possessed in their V the representative of the Greek letter, it may be asked how it was that they subsequently adopted the Y. It has been supposed, in answer to this, that the Greek character had changed its power from the original sound of oo, such as is still represented by the Italian u, to a sound probably like that of the French u, or even to a weak i. (Key on the Alphabet, p. iii.)]—Am. Ed.

+ [It would be more correct, perhaps, to say, that in many words rather connected with the Greek than derived from it, the v is represented by i, as in cliens, in-clitus (кλów), clipeus (кρúñтw), silva (v2Fn), &c., while in others the v has become e, as in socer (ékvpós), remulco (¿vμovλkéw), polenta (Taλvvτý), &c. (Donaldson, Varronianus, p. 222. Compare Billroth, Lat. Gr., p. 3, not.)]—Am. Ed.

A

an i, viz., ei, oi, and ui, have not been mentioned in our text as Latin diph thongs, because they occur only in a few interjections, such as hei, eia, Diei, and hui, and in cases where dein, proin, huic, or cui are contracted into one syllable, which is commonly done in poetry.

The ancients, in pronouncing a diphthong, uttered the two vowels of which it consists more distinctly than we do. The word neuter, in particular, was pronounced in such a manner that the two vowels in eu, thougn united, were yet distinctly heard.* In this manner we may reconcile the assertion of the grammarian Consentius, that it is a barbarism to pro nounce neutrum as a word of two syllables, with those passages in Latin poetry which necessarily demand the diphthong. Neutiquam, in the comic poets, has its first syllable always short, as if it were nutiquam, from which we may infer that it was not so much the long diphthong as the two short vowels that were heard. In like manner the diphthongs ae and oe were pronounced, and hence we find that in the early times ai and oi were pronounced and written in their stead, and that the Latins expressed the Greek at and ot by ae and oe; for, if these diphthongs are pronounced in the manner above described, it will be perceived that the difference between the sounds of e and i is but slight. The Greek & must likewise have been pronounced in such a manner that the two vowels were distinctly heard; for the Latins, in whose language this diphthong does not occur, use in its place sometimes e, and sometimes i, or either of them indiscriminately. Before consonants we always find i, e. g., eclipsis, Nilus, Clitus, Heraclidae; and in Latin we must accordingly pronounce and write Polyclitus, and not Polycletus (see my remark on Cic., in Verr., iv., 3) ; Hilotes or Hilotae (Ilotae, for the Greek is Elλwres or Ellwrai), and not Helotes. Before vowels, on the other hand, the Greek & is sometimes changed into e, and sometimes into i; the e appears, for example, in Aeneas and Medea, and the i in Iphigenia and elegia, whereas Alexandrea and Alerandria, Thucydideus and Thucydidius are used indiscriminately. In Cicero, the forms Ariopagus and Ariopagitae are better established than Areopagus and Areopagitae, and the like, which we commonly find in our editions, whereas the form Dareus is much more authentic, according to the MSS. of Latin authors, than Darius. This fact is now generally

* [On this pronunciation of the diphthongs by the ancients, both Greeks and Romans, compare the remarks of Liskovius (Ueber die Aussprache des Griechischen, &c., p. 14), who advocates the same in opposition to the Reuchlinian system of pronunciation. The passage of Choroboscus, however, in Bekker's Anecd. Græc., p. 1214, and his three modes of pronouncing diphthongs, would seem to militate against this view of the subject. Compare Theodos., Gramm., p. 34, ed. Goettl., and Moschopul. Op. Gram., ed. Titze, p. 24.]—Am. Ed.

t [We must not suppose, however, that in the earlier Latinity ai was alone and exclusively used instead of ae. Examples of the latter likewise occur. Thus, on the Columna Rostrata, we have praeda and aes; in the S. C. de Bacchan., the form aedem occurs; and in one of the inscriptions from the tomb of the Scipios, we find aetate. Still, however, ai was much more commonly employed, as in aidilis, quaistor, quairatis, aiternus, aire, &c. (Gruter, Ind. Gramm., s. v. ai pro ae.) The same remark will apply to o for oe, the former being the more common, but the latter occurring on the Col. Rostr., "claseis Poenicas," and elsewhere. In later Latinity, the form oi appears to have been retained only in the interjection oieï, or eoieï, of the comic writers. (Schneider, Elementarlehre, &c., vol. i., p. 81; Bentley, ad Ter. Eun., 4, 4, 47, &c.)]—Am. Ed.

[The i sound here meant is the continental one, namely, that of the long English e in mete.]—Am. Ed.

[This change of a into e or i appears to have arisen from a variety in dialectic pronunciation, some dialects sounding the &, and others the more strongly. Compare Liskov., p. 13.]—Am. Ed.

acknowledged, and does not require here to be supported by authori ties.*

[ 2.] It was, however, only by degrees that the pronunciation and orthography became fixed, and this was mainly the work of the grammarians during the first centuries after Christ. Previously, there existed many peculiarities in the pronunciation, which were also adopted in the written language, and some of these are still retained in the texts of a few of the early writers, such as Plautus, Terence, and Sallust, for historical reasons, or, so to speak, from diplomatic fidelity. But such peculiarities should not be imitated by us, for they were gradually given up by the ancients themselves. With regard to pronunciation and orthography, we must necessarily adhere to the rules which were laid down by the ancient grammarians, who certainly did not derive them from the vulgar idiom of the people, but from the uncorrupt and pure language of the educated classes. In the earliest times, the broad pronunciation of the long i was commonly indicated by ei, but without its being pronounced as a diphthong ei, which is foreign to the Latin language: for example, heic for hic, queis for quis (quibus), eidus for idus, and in the accusative plural of the third declension when it terminates in is (see ◊ 68), such as omneis, arteis, for omnis and artis, which termination of the accusative was subsequently changed into es. A middle sound between the two short vowels u and i was preserved, in some words, down to a still later time; and many persons pronounced and wrote lubet, existumo, clupeus, inclutus, satura, for libet, existimo, clipeus, &c.; the adjective termination umus for imus, as finitumus for finitimus, and the superlatives optumus, maxumus, and pulcherrumus, for optimus, maximus, &c. Julius Cæsar declared himself in favor of i, which was afterward adopted generally, although the Emperor Claudius wanted to introduce a new letter for the indefinite vowel in those words. We must farther observe that in early times o was used instead of u, after the letter v, e. g., volt, volnus, avom, and even in the nominative avos instead of avus: in some words o took the place of e; for example, vorto and its derivatives for verto, voster for vester. U instead of e occurs in the termination of the participle undus for endus, and was retained in some cases in later times also. (See § 167.) Lastly, we have to mention that the vulgar pronunciation of au was ō; e. g., Claudius was pronounced as Clodius, plaustrum as plostrum, and plaudo as plodo; but in some words this pronunciation, which in general was considered faulty, became established by custom, as in plostellum, a little carriage, a diminutive form of plaustrum. This was the case more especially when the common mode of pronouncing served to indicate a difference in meaning, as in lotus, washed, and lautus, splendid or elegant; and coder, a tablet for writing (or a book), and cauder, a block of wood. In the compounds of plaudo the form plodo thus became prevalent.

[§ 3.] 2. The consonants are, B,b; C, c; D, d; F, f; G, g; H, h; (K, k); L, l; M, m; N, n; P, p; Q, q; R, r; S, s; T,t; X, x; (Z, z). With regard

* [Still it may not be amiss to cite the following: Drakenb. ad Liv., xxxvi., 14, extr.; Interpp. ad Vel. Pat., 11, 69, 2: 11, 87, init.; Oudend. ad Sueton. Claud., 42.]—Âm. Ed.

† [The whole subject is fully discussed by Schneider, Element., p. 18, seqq.-Am. Ed.

[The employment of o in early Latin, where at a later day u was used, appears to have been much more common than is stated in the text. We find, for example, such forms as consol, primos, captom, exfociont, &c., for consul, primus, captum, effugiunt, &c. The employment, on the other hand, of u for o is much more rare. Priscian cites huminem, funtes, and frundes Cassiodorus (p. 2259) has præstu.]—Am. Ed

to their classification, it is only necessary here to observe that l, m, n, r are called liquids (liquida), and the rest mutes (muta), with the exception of s, which, being a sibilant (littera sibilans), is of a peculiar nature. The

mutes may again be classified, with reference to the or gan by which they are pronounced, into labials (v, b, p,ƒ), palatals (g, c, k, qu), and linguals (d, t). X and ≈ (called zeta) are double consonants, x being a combination of c and 8, and z of d and s.

Note. It will be observed that there are some letters in our own alphabet which do not occur in this list: j and v were expressed by the Latins by the same signs as the vowels i and u, viz., I and V; but in pronunciation they were distinguished; whence we hear of an i or v consonans; and, like ordinary consonants, they make position when preceded by another consonant, and do not form an hiatus when preceded by a vowel. It is only in consequence of poetical licenses which are rendered necessary by the metre (which, however, at the same time, show the kindred nature existing between the sounds of the vowel and consonant), that the v is at one time softened down into u; as, for example, when the words solvit and silva are made to form three syllables, (comp. § 184); and at others, the vowels i and u are hardened into the consonants j and v, which is very often the case with i; by this means the preceding short syllable is lengthened, as in the words abies, aries, consilium, fluvius, tenuis, and some others. Virgil, for example, uses fluvjorum rex Eridanus; Ovid, at the close of an hexameter verse, custos erat arjetis aurei, for ărietis; Lucretius, copia tenvis and neque tenvius extat, for tenuis, tenuius. In cases where the preceding syllable is already long, the poet may at least get rid of a syllable which does not suit the verse, as in Juvenal, comitata est Hippia Ludjum and nuper consule Junjo; and (iv., 37) Quum jam sēmjanimum laceraret Flavius orbem. We may therefore, in writing Latin, make use of the signs j and v, which are employed in modern languages, for the purpose of distinguishing the pronunciation before a vowel at the beginning of a syllable, and we need not retain the defective mode of writing of the Romans, since they viewed these letters just as we do, and would willingly have adopted so convenient a means of distinction if they had known it, or if their better knowledge had not been obliged to give way to habit. But this rule cannot be applied to Greek words, since and v with the Greeks had only the nature of vowels. We therefore read Iocaste, iambus, Iones, Laïus, Agaue, euoe; and the i at the beginning of these words is treated as a vowel in their connexion with prepositions, as in ab Iona, ex Ionia. Some Greek proper names, however, are justly written and pronounced in Latin with a j, as Grajus, Ajax, Maja, Troja, Achaja.*

[4] H is only an aspiration; it is not considered as a vowel, and therefore, when joined with a consonant, it does not lengthen the preceding syllable. The ancients themselves (see Quintil., i., 5, § 21) were in doubt, with regard to several words, as to which was the more correct, to pronounce it or not; for example, as to whether they should pronounce have

[This is not correct. All these forms should be written with an i. If the author mean to give the j its German sound, which is that of our y before a vowel, this may do well enough to express the pronunciation of the words in question, but certainly not their orthography. Key thinks that the English sound of the j was not unknown to the ancient inhabitants of Italy. This, however, is very doubtful; and if known at all, it must have been a mere provincialism, and not adopted by the educated classes.]-Am. Ed.