![]() Later on -ii became usual for substantives as well, although -i was still used in some proper nouns (p. Sturtevant starts out by summarizing the genitive singular forms: he says that in early Latin, substantives always used contracted genitive singular forms in -i, while adjectives used -ii. Sturtevant's dissertation " Contraction in the case forms of the Latin io- and ia stems, and of deus, is, and idem" (1902) seems to have some relevant info, although I don't know if more has been discovered since then. For instance, I searched LASLA for Gr.Cat: Noun, Gr.Sub.Cat: 2nd decl., Case: Genitive, Number: Singular and it returned 16438 results - which I have to analyze manually now.Įdgar H. I will add results of my corpus research later. 1, 31, 14 usw.) ist auf die handschriftliche Überlieferung kein Verlass” - basically, we don't really know which form they used (at least, with poetry there is metrical evidence). Interestingly, re: auxilii - and the reliability of Latin corpora brought up here in some comments, Leumann remarks that ![]() Obviously, there was no decree making all Latin writers use the -iī after Augustus death. The point is that all these changes did not happen overnight. So, there was a lot of variation.Įven in Augustus' Res Gestae (1: 22) we can find "magister conlegii" etc. Augustan) and Persius (post-Augustan) don't use the -iī genitive singular. ![]() Tronskii 1960 adds that the -ī form was still used in the so called post-Augustan Latin (Silver Latin) he argues that Horace (i.e. Leumann also mentions that "Das scheinbar regelmäßige -iī bei io-Stämmen, das schon Varro empfiehlt" and Varro lived in 116-27 BC. fluviī), Propertius (imperiī, ingeniī) etc. Leumann “In späterer Zeit aber gilt –iī als die richtiger Form” though). Later, due to analogical leveling, it was restored, first in adjectives and later in nouns so, in Classical Latin (1st century BCE- 3rd/4th centuries CE), it was –iī as well as -i (cf. Penny 2011 writes that "the Latin evidence does not allow more than speculation about the original function and distribution of the two endings". Also, in masculine nouns the contraction did not affect stress position, thus gen.sg. This contracted form can be found, for instance, in Plautus (e.g. Leumann “im Altlatein nur –ī, nicht –iī”). In Old Latin (3rd-2nd centuries BCE), the genitive singular ending was only –ī, from *-ih x (cf. In Very Old Latin (6th-3rd centuries BCE), the genitive singular ending was –osio (VALESIOSIO in Lapis Satricanus and perhaps TITOIO, see chapter 4 in Bakkum 2009 for a more detailed discussion). Weiss has a beautiful quote from Wright 2003, "All periodizations are, of course, administrative fantasies." For the sake of simplicity and consistency, in my answer I use the periodization of Latin as used in Weiss (which is different from, for instance, Clackson and Horrocks or Meiser). Here’s a summary of what most authoritative Latin grammars say on the genitive singular ending of –io stems (Weiss 2009/2011: 222-223 Leumann 1977: 424-425 Sihler ).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |