昆提连,第1,5,40章,论太阳神症和阿波罗尼乌斯

IF 0.2 0 CLASSICS Journal of Latin Linguistics Pub Date : 2018-11-30 DOI:10.1515/joll-2018-0009
Manuela Callipo
{"title":"昆提连,第1,5,40章,论太阳神症和阿波罗尼乌斯","authors":"Manuela Callipo","doi":"10.1515/joll-2018-0009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Throughout the history of the Latin grammatical tradition barbarism is regularly described according to the system of the four categories of change known as quadripertita ratio, whereas the description of solecism is more controversial. In the grammatical chapters of his first book, Quintilian attests to the application of the fourfold system to solecism in his age, but he also knows a second tradition, which ends up becoming the predominant theory in Latin grammar and regards solecism as the fault by substitution (inmutatio). Quintilian attributes this tradition to some anonymous grammarians (quidam) who have not been identified yet. After considering Quintilian’s testimony in light of the Greek sources and especially Apollonius Dyscolus’ Syntax, we have concluded that Quintilian and Apollonius may rely on a common source, probably of Alexandrine descent, which separated solecism from the first three categories of change of the fourfold system (addition, subtraction and inversion of the regular word order).","PeriodicalId":29862,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Latin Linguistics","volume":"17 1","pages":"147 - 175"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/joll-2018-0009","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quintilian, Inst. 1, 5, 40 on solecism and Apollonius Dyscolus\",\"authors\":\"Manuela Callipo\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/joll-2018-0009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Throughout the history of the Latin grammatical tradition barbarism is regularly described according to the system of the four categories of change known as quadripertita ratio, whereas the description of solecism is more controversial. In the grammatical chapters of his first book, Quintilian attests to the application of the fourfold system to solecism in his age, but he also knows a second tradition, which ends up becoming the predominant theory in Latin grammar and regards solecism as the fault by substitution (inmutatio). Quintilian attributes this tradition to some anonymous grammarians (quidam) who have not been identified yet. After considering Quintilian’s testimony in light of the Greek sources and especially Apollonius Dyscolus’ Syntax, we have concluded that Quintilian and Apollonius may rely on a common source, probably of Alexandrine descent, which separated solecism from the first three categories of change of the fourfold system (addition, subtraction and inversion of the regular word order).\",\"PeriodicalId\":29862,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Latin Linguistics\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"147 - 175\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-11-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/joll-2018-0009\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Latin Linguistics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/joll-2018-0009\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"CLASSICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Latin Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/joll-2018-0009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"CLASSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在整个拉丁语语法传统的历史中,人们经常根据四类变化的系统(称为quadripertita ratio)来描述野蛮状态,而对solecism的描述则更有争议。在他的第一本书的语法章节中,昆提连证明了四重体系在他那个时代对solecism的应用,但他也知道第二种传统,这种传统最终成为拉丁语法的主导理论,并将solecism视为替换(突变)的错误。昆提连将这一传统归因于一些尚未被确认的匿名语法学家(quidam)。根据希腊文献,特别是阿波罗尼乌斯·戴斯科洛斯的《句法》,考虑了昆提连的证词后,我们得出结论,昆提连和阿波罗尼乌斯可能依赖于一个共同的来源,可能是亚历山大的后裔,它将solecism与四重系统的前三类变化(规则词序的加法、减法和倒转)分开。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Quintilian, Inst. 1, 5, 40 on solecism and Apollonius Dyscolus
Abstract Throughout the history of the Latin grammatical tradition barbarism is regularly described according to the system of the four categories of change known as quadripertita ratio, whereas the description of solecism is more controversial. In the grammatical chapters of his first book, Quintilian attests to the application of the fourfold system to solecism in his age, but he also knows a second tradition, which ends up becoming the predominant theory in Latin grammar and regards solecism as the fault by substitution (inmutatio). Quintilian attributes this tradition to some anonymous grammarians (quidam) who have not been identified yet. After considering Quintilian’s testimony in light of the Greek sources and especially Apollonius Dyscolus’ Syntax, we have concluded that Quintilian and Apollonius may rely on a common source, probably of Alexandrine descent, which separated solecism from the first three categories of change of the fourfold system (addition, subtraction and inversion of the regular word order).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
50.00%
发文量
5
期刊最新文献
Future expressions in a sixth-century Latin translation of Josephus From deceit to pain: Late Latin dolus and the interplay between semantics and analogy Roman tablets as linguistic corpora: evidence for phonological variation in 2nd c. Latin Iterative or stative? New morphosemantic analyses of Latin lūgeō ‘mourn’ and doleō ‘feel pain’ Multiplication, addition, and subtraction in numerals: formal variation in Latin’s decads+ from an Indo-European perspective
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1