{"slug":"tmp1188.tmp1188.opp-lat1","id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp1188.tmp1188.opp-lat1","title":"De Oratione Et De Octo Partibus Orationis [Attributum]","title_source":"De Oratione Et De Octo Partibus Orationis [Attributum]","author":"Cassiodorus Vivariensis Abbas","genre":"homily","date":"","tradition":"latin","coverage":"not-located","coverage_claim":{"status":"not-located","text":"No English translation could be identified: a language model asked twice could not name one, though it could not rule one out either. That is not proof that none exists — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed."},"publication":{"status":"machine-draft","reviewed_by":null,"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4.1-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","generated":"2026-11-15T19:12:25Z","cost_usd":0.006288},"source":{"registry_id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp1188.tmp1188.opp-lat1","work_id":"tmp1188.tmp1188.opp-lat1","edition":"ogl-pl","language":"","license":"Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/patrologia_latina-dev/blob/master/data/tmp1188/tmp1188/tmp1188.tmp1188.opp-lat1.xml"},"stats":{"passages":69,"english_words":15337,"coptic_letters":0,"source_letters":61751,"commentary_units":0,"commentary_kinds":0,"derived_notes":0,"ambiguities":0,"work_notes":0,"external_links":0,"timeline":0},"summary":{},"links":[{"kind":"source","label":"Open Greek and Latin Patrologia Latina","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/patrologia_latina-dev/blob/master/data/tmp1188/tmp1188/tmp1188.tmp1188.opp-lat1.xml"}],"checks":{"work":"tmp1188.tmp1188.opp-lat1","status":"pass","blocking":[],"warnings":[],"stats":{"passages":69,"translated":69,"commentary_passages":0,"commentary_units":0,"english_words":15337,"source_letters":61751,"commentary_kinds":0},"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4.1-flash:floor"},"work_notes":[],"derived_work_notes":[{"kind":"coverage","severity":"info","text":"No English translation could be identified: a language model asked twice could not name one, though it could not rule one out either. That is not proof that none exists — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed."},{"kind":"limit","severity":"caution","text":"The English is a machine draft produced passage by passage from the transcribed Latin; no human has verified it. The commentary is model-written and cites only keys the pipeline could resolve."},{"kind":"register","severity":"info","text":"Register: treatise in Latin; the English keeps the liturgical formulae and the vocatives rather than normalising them."},{"kind":"structure","severity":"info","text":"Passages: 69 narrative."},{"kind":"source","severity":"info","text":"Source edition: ogl-pl."},{"kind":"source","severity":"info","text":"Licence: Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License"}],"derived_structure":{"narrative":69},"term_index":[],"citations":{},"segments":[{"i":1,"ref":"p1","source":"COMMENTARIUM DE ORATIONE ET DE OCTO PARTIBUS ORATIONIS, M. AURELIO CASSIODORO ATTRIBUTUM\n\nOratio dicta est quasi oris ratio: cujus partes octo numerantur; de quibus duas primas partes jure dictas Aristotelici esse voluerunt, nomen, et verbum: caeterae vero velut appendices sunt, siquidem pronomen vice nominis fungitur; adverbium absque verbo non plenum est, participium de nomine verboque nascitur; conjunctio autem nomen conjungit, aut verbum; praepositio nomini praeponitur, aut verbo; interjectio locutioni nostrae interjectu profertur; quam elocutionem docuimus necessario ex nomine verboque constare. Deinde quod ex caeteris partibus orationis nequaquam plena est elocutio, ut si dicamus ante templum, et non jungamus ambulo, pendet oratio. Nam cum dicimus, Cicero scripsit, orator docuit, quod certe ex nomine et verbo per se plenum est","english":"A COMMENTARY ON SPEECH AND ON THE EIGHT PARTS OF SPEECH, ATTRIBUTED TO M. AURELIUS CASSIODORUS\n\nSpeech (oratio) is so called as it were the reasoning of the mouth (oris ratio): its parts are counted as eight; of these the Aristotelians wished the first two parts to be rightly called the noun and the verb; the rest are, as it were, appendages, since the pronoun serves in place of a noun; the adverb is not complete without a verb; the participle is born from the noun and the verb; the conjunction joins either a noun or a verb; the preposition is placed before a noun or a verb; the interjection is uttered by way of interjection into our speech; and this utterance (elocutio), as we have taught, necessarily consists of a noun and a verb. Then, because an utterance is by no means complete from the remaining parts of speech—as if we say \"before the temple\" and do not join \"I walk,\" the sentence hangs incomplete. For when we say \"Cicero wrote,\" \"the orator taught,\" this is certainly complete in itself from a noun and a verb.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":2,"ref":"p2","source":"Stoici vero quinque dicunt partes orationis, nomen, pronomen, verbum, adverbium, participium. Plures vero portes orationis dicunt esse qui articulum inter has numerant. Articulus sane, quem Graeci inter partes orationis enumerant, apud Latinos in pronomine est. Interjectio quam Latini inter partes orationis enumerant, apud Graecos in adverbio est.\n\nSciendum est autem quod quatuor partibus accidunt casus, nomini, pronomini, participio et praepositioni.\n\nTres sunt quae per casus declinantur, nomen, pronomen, participiumque; una per tempus, et per personas, ut verbum; una per tempus et casum, ut participium; quatuor nec per tempora, nec per casus declinantur, ut adverbium, conjunctio, praepositio, interjectio. Sed ne forte nos turbet, quod Virgilius mane adverbium cum genere posuerit dicendo: Cum mane illuxisset novum; quod utique genus habet casum, nullum autem genus absque casu est.","english":"The Stoics, however, say that there are five parts of speech: noun, pronoun, verb, adverb, participle. But there are those who say that there are more parts of speech, since they count the article among them. The article, indeed, which the Greeks enumerate among the parts of speech, is among the Latins in the pronoun. The interjection, which the Latins enumerate among the parts of speech, is among the Greeks in the adverb.\n\nIt must be known, moreover, that cases occur in four parts: noun, pronoun, participle, and preposition.\n\nThere are three which are declined through cases: noun, pronoun, and participle; one through tense and through persons, like the verb; one through tense and case, like the participle; four are declined neither through tenses nor through cases, like adverb, conjunction, preposition, interjection. But lest it perhaps trouble us that Vergil has placed the adverb *mane* with a gender, saying: *Cum mane illuxisset novum*; which indeed has a gender, and a case, and no gender is without a case.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":3,"ref":"p3","source":"Sciendum est quod nomen et adverbium quamdam inter se habent cognationem, alterum pro alterum positum significare aliud, sed tenere vim suam. Nam quemadmodum nomina, cum pro adverbiis posita fuerint, casus accipiunt; ni torvum repente clamat, horrendumque resonat, dulce sapit; dicitur enim hoc torvum hujus torvi, etc, et non tamen perdunt casus cum pro adverbiis ponuntur: ita econtrario adverbia cum pro nominibus posita fuerint sequente genere, quamvis significationem nominum subeant, tamen non perdunt legem adverbiorum, ut declinentur.\n\nQuaerunt nonnulli cur ita partes orationis Donatus ordinaverit. Sed nos dicimus quod nomen idcirco anteposuerit, quia ante nomen nihil potest esse; tolle enim vocabulum nominis, quemadmodum voces caeteras partes orationis, non habes. Pronomen ideo secundum obtinet locum, quod de nomine pendens, vice hujus fungitur. Verbum ideo tertio loco ponitur, quia simul (ut superius diximus) cum nomine principalis pars orationis reperitur; quod tamen secundum locum tenere potuisset, nisi pronomen impenderet ex nomine. Adverbium ideo quarto loco constituitur, quia sine verbo plenum significatum sui non explicat. Participium ideo quinto loco ponitur, quod obnixum sit jam verbo quam nomini. Conjunctio ideo sexto loco ponitur, quia nisi praecedant supradictae partes orationis, quod conjungat, non habet.","english":"It must be known that the noun and the adverb have a certain kinship with each other: the one, placed in the position of the other, signifies something else, yet keeps its own force. For just as nouns, when they have been placed in the position of adverbs, take cases—\"he shouts fiercely all at once, and resounds horribly, and tastes sweetly\"; for it is said \"this fierce one,\" \"of this fierce one,\" etc.—and yet they do not lose their cases when they are placed in the position of adverbs, so on the contrary adverbs, when they have been placed in the position of nouns with gender following, although they undergo the meaning of nouns, nevertheless do not lose the rule of adverbs, so as to be declined.\n\nSome ask why Donatus arranged the parts of speech in this order. But we say that he placed the noun first for this reason, because nothing can be before the noun; for take away the word of the noun, and you do not have the other parts of speech, just as you do not have the other words. The pronoun therefore holds the second place, because, depending on the noun, it performs the office of the noun. The verb is therefore placed in the third place, because together with the noun (as we said above) it is found to be the principal part of speech; yet it could have held the second place, had not the pronoun, coming from the noun, stood in the way. The adverb is therefore established in the fourth place, because without a verb it does not set forth its full meaning. The participle is therefore placed in the fifth place, because it leans now on the verb, now on the noun. The conjunction is therefore placed in the sixth place, because unless the aforesaid parts of speech precede it, it has nothing to join.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":4,"ref":"p4","source":"Praepositio ideo septimo loco ponitur, quia nisi praecedat nomen, pronomen, verbum, adverbium, participium, conjunctio, quibus praeponatur non habet, quibus etiam solis praeposita esse constat. Interjectio necessario remanet in ultimo, quod post nomen, non nisi pronomen; post pronomen, nonnisi verbum; post verbum, nonnisi adverbium; post adverbium, nonnisi participium; post participium, nonnisi conjunctio; post conjunctionem nonnisi praepositio esse debeat. Interjectio quasi interjecta inter octo partes orationis nonnisi octavo loco poni potuit.\n\nCAPUT PRIMUM.\n\nDe nomine.\n\nNomen dictam est quasi notamen, quod notam nobis unamquamque rem faciat. Nomen est pars orationis cum casu, corpus aut rem proprie communiterve significans. Separatur autem definitio nominis a caeteris partibus orationis hoc modo; nam cum dictum est cum casu, separat ab aliis quinque partibus orationis, quae non habent casum; id est, a verbo, ab adverbio, a conjunctione, a praepositione et ab interjectione. Ab aliis vero duabus casum habentibus pronomine scilicet et participio separat Donatus, cum dicit proprie aut communiter nomen aliquid significare; nullum autem pronomen, neque participium proprium invenitur.","english":"The preposition is therefore placed in the seventh position, because unless it precedes a noun, pronoun, verb, adverb, or participle, it has nothing to which it may be prefixed, and it is established that it is prefixed to these alone. The interjection necessarily remains in the last place, because after a noun it should be only a pronoun; after a pronoun, only a verb; after a verb, only an adverb; after an adverb, only a participle; after a participle, only a conjunction; after a conjunction, only a preposition. The interjection, as though interjected among the eight parts of speech, could be placed only in the eighth position.\n\nCHAPTER ONE.\n\nOn the Noun.\n\nThe noun (nomen) is so called as though it were a \"notamen,\" because it makes each thing known to us. A noun is a part of speech with case, signifying a body or a thing either properly or commonly. Now the definition of the noun is separated from the other parts of speech in this way: for when it is said \"with case,\" it is separated from the other five parts of speech, which do not have case—that is, from the verb, the adverb, the conjunction, the preposition, and the interjection. From the other two, however, which have case—namely the pronoun and the participle—Donatus separates it when he says that a noun signifies something properly or commonly; for no pronoun, nor any participle, is found to be proper.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":5,"ref":"p5","source":"Constat autem aut corpus, aut res, aut proprie, aut communiter, aut casus; sed non omne nomen necesse est, ut simul ista quinque contineat, sed semper tria Continet; ut homo habet casum, corporale est et appellativum; item habet casum pietas, incorporale est et appellativum. Necesse est autem omne nomen habere casum; ideo dixit Donatus partem orationis cum casu: non enim cum casibus dixit, sciens quod quaedam essent nomina quae non flecterentur per omnes casus; et quod nullum nomen esset quod usquequaque omnibus careret casibus. Inveniuntur enim nomina monoptota, ut sponte, tabo, natu; diptota, ut Jupiter; triptota, ut templum; tetraptota, ut ditionis, ditioni, ditionem, ditione; cujus nominativum et vocativum non proferunt, nisi adjecta consyllaba, ut conditio. Pentaptota ideo inveniri non possunt, quod ubi nominativus deest, necesse est ut vocativus non inveniatur. Exaptoton, ut doctus-magister.","english":"It is established, moreover, that a noun is either corporeal or a thing, either proper or common, or has case; but it is not necessary that every noun contain all five of these at once, yet it always contains three. For example, homo has case, is corporeal, and is appellative; likewise pietas has case, is incorporeal, and is appellative. But it is necessary that every noun have case; therefore Donatus said \"a part of speech with case,\" for he did not say \"with cases,\" knowing that there were certain nouns which are not inflected through all cases, and that there was no noun which was entirely lacking in all cases. For monoptotes are found, such as sponte, tabo, natu; diptotes, such as Jupiter; triptotes, such as templum; tetraptotes, such as ditionis, ditioni, ditionem, ditione, whose nominative and vocative they do not produce except with a syllable added, as conditio. Pentaptotes therefore cannot be found, because where the nominative is lacking, the vocative must necessarily not be found. An exaptoton, as doctus-magister.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":6,"ref":"p6","source":"Nominum qualitas in duas dividitur partes; aut propria, aut appellativa sunt nomina. Illud autem sciendum est, quod quando appellativa nomina in personas cadunt proprietatis, appellativa esse jam desinunt; ut si quis felix vocetur, quia quantum ad illum pertinet, unus est, ideo proprium invenitur. Propria appellativa esse non possunt; econtra sunt propria, exceptis montium fluminumque nominibus, quae ipsa interdum facimus appellativa, ut si aliquos Mercurios vocemus. Sed cum nos communia singulis personis opponimus, sic est ordinata proprietas. Nam si essent nomina specialiter propria, cum audiremus, Alexander hoc fecit, non interrogaremus ulterius, quis Alexander hoc fecit? Sed quia scimus Alexanros multos dici, sic dubitamus quis Alexander hoc fecit.\n\nSciamus autem hoc non recte dici, quod ad unum hominem pertinet, aut appellationem, aut vocabulum, sed nomen, ut Alexander; non iterum (quod rerum est) aut nomen, aut appellationem, sed vocabulum; sed modo pro appellationibus et pro vocabulis confusa nomina apponi scimus.","english":"The quality of nouns is divided into two parts: nouns are either proper or appellative. But it must be known that when appellative nouns fall upon persons by way of propriety, they cease to be appellative; for example, if someone is called Felix, because as far as he is concerned he is one, therefore it is found to be proper. Proper nouns cannot be appellative; on the contrary, they are proper, with the exception of the names of mountains and rivers, which we sometimes make appellative, as if we should call certain people Mercuries. But when we set common nouns against individual persons, propriety is ordered in this way. For if names were specially proper, when we heard \"Alexander did this,\" we would not ask further, \"Which Alexander did this?\" But because we know that many are called Alexander, we thus doubt which Alexander did this.\n\nBut let us know that it is not correctly said that what pertains to one man is either an appellation or a vocabulary, but a name, as Alexander; and again, what belongs to things is not either a name or an appellation, but a vocabulary; but we know that names are now applied confusedly in place of appellations and in place of vocabularies.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":7,"ref":"p7","source":"Propriorum nominum quatuor sunt species. Praenomen, quod idcirco dictum est, quia praecedit nomen, ut Publius Cornelius. Nomen, quod ex familia venit, ut Anicius. Cognomen, quod proprie nostrum est, ut Sylla, Catilina. Agnomen, quo aut er virtute, aut ex vitio aliquo utimur: ex virtute, ut Africanus, qui vicit Africam; ex vitio, ut Naso, quod grandem nasum habuit; unde dicitur Ovidius Naso; Sura, quod a sura grandi dicitur, ut Publius Lentulus Sura. Meminerimus autem non necesse esse ista quatuor propriorum generum nomina simul inveniri. Aliquando enim unum ex his invenimus, ut Romulus; aliquando duo, ut Anicius Marcus; aliquando tria, ut Lucius Cethegus Catilina; aliquando quatuor, ut Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanas.\n\nSit itaque ordo interrogandi, ut cum dicimus Africanus, quae pars est orationis? non statim respondeamus, agnomen est: sed, nomen est. Deinde, quale sit nomen? respondeamus proprium est. Postremo quae pars proprii? respondemus agnomen. Quemadmodum dicemus de nominibus appellativis; ut si interrogemus: homo, quae pars est orationis? dicimus nomen. Deinde, quae pars est nominis? dicimus, appellativum. Deinde, quae pars est appellationis? dicimus, specialis.","english":"There are four species of proper nouns. The praenomen, which is so called because it precedes the name, as Publius Cornelius. The nomen, which comes from the family, as Anicius. The cognomen, which is properly our own, as Sylla, Catilina. The agnomen, which we use either from virtue or from some fault: from virtue, as Africanus, who conquered Africa; from fault, as Naso, because he had a large nose; whence he is called Ovidius Naso; Sura, because he is called from a large calf, as Publius Lentulus Sura. But let us remember that it is not necessary for these four names of the proper kind to be found together. For sometimes we find one of them, as Romulus; sometimes two, as Anicius Marcus; sometimes three, as Lucius Cethegus Catilina; sometimes four, as Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus.\n\nSo let the order of questioning be such that when we say Africanus, what part of speech is it? we should not immediately answer, it is an agnomen: but, it is a noun. Then, what kind of noun is it? we answer, it is a proper noun. Finally, what part of a proper noun? we answer, an agnomen. In the same way we shall speak of appellative nouns; as if we ask: homo, what part of speech is it? we say, a noun. Then, what part of the noun is it? we say, appellative. Then, what part of the appellation? we say, special.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":8,"ref":"p8","source":"Scimus autem nomina, praenomina aut ternis constare litteris, ut Sex. Roscius; vel binis, ut Gn. Pompeius; vel singulis, ut C. Caius Verres.\n\nEt in quaestionem venit quare C. Caius ponimus, cum dicimus Gaius et non Caius? Quia antiqui G non habuerunt, sed ponentes C in quibusdam nominibus per sonos sensum discernebant. Scimus nos, quod quaedam sonare aliter deberent, ut puta comma cum per scriptum esset, dicebant gemma per g, quod deberent sic sonare per g.\n\nVerum solent haec ipsa praenomina fieri cognomina, ut si quis vocetur Lucius, vel Gaius; sed quando ad unumquemque pertinent, proprie vocantur cognomina; quando praeposita sunt cognominibus, hoc est nominibus propriis, vocantur praenomina, ut Lucius Sylla. Verum hoc praedictae rationi nullum debet praeferre judicium. Talis est et illa cavillatio recollecta, quare cum propria nomina pluralem numerum non admittant, legimus Curtos, magnosque Camillos Scipiadas. Sed sciendum est non ab eo quod est Curius unus, hi Curii, vel ab eo quod est hic Camillus, venire hi Camilli; sed a multitudine Curiorum vel Camillorum, Curius Camillosque dicimus. Non enim unus fuerat tantum Curius vel Camillus, sed si quis tres servos habeat qui vocentur Alexandri, necesse est ut vocet illos Alexandros; qui casus plures veniunt, non a singulari numero, qui est hic Alexander, sed a plurali, qui sunt Alexandri.","english":"We know, moreover, that names and praenomina consist either of three letters, as Sex. Roscius, or of two, as Gn. Pompeius, or of one, as C. Caius Verres.\n\nAnd the question arises why we write C. Caius, when we say Gaius and not Caius. Because the ancients did not have G, but by placing C in certain names they distinguished the meaning through the sounds. We know that certain things ought to sound otherwise; for example, when comma was written, they used to say gemma with g, which ought so to sound with g.\n\nBut these very praenomina are accustomed to become cognomina, as if someone be called Lucius or Gaius; but when they pertain to each individual, they are properly called cognomina; when they are placed before the cognomina, that is, before the proper names, they are called praenomina, as Lucius Sylla. But this ought to bring no judgment in preference to the reasoning stated above. Such also is that cavil that has been gathered, why, since proper names do not admit the plural number, do we read Curtos and magnosque Camillos Scipiadas? But it must be known that it is not from that which is Curius, one man, that hi Curii comes, nor from that which is hic Camillus that hi Camilli comes; but from a multitude of Curii or Camilli we say Curios and Camillos. For there was not only one Curius or Camillus, but if someone has three slaves who are called Alexandri, he must call them Alexandros; which cases come in the plural, not from the singular number, which is hic Alexander, but from the plural, which is Alexandri.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":9,"ref":"p9","source":"Appellativorum nominum sunt species: sunt enim corporalia, ut lignum, et marmor, sunt incorporalia, ut honor, medicina; sunt primae positionis, hoc est unde derivativa et diminutiva veniunt, ut schola, scholasticus, scholasticulus.\n\nSciamus autem tres gradus diminutionis esse secundum Donatum, per quos cum diminuuntur nomina, saepe crescit numerus syllabarum, ut scholasticulus, scholasticellus, scholasticellulus. Apud antiquos vero aliter dicebantur, agnus, agnulus, agnellus, agnicellus, agniculus, agnicellulus. Quam rem Donatus videns (ne in infinitum diminutio foede procederet), voluit diminutionis dicere tres tantum gradus esse. Saepe autem idcirco dixit augeri numerum syllabarum, quod inveniuntur quaedam nomina quorum numerus in diminutione non modo non crescit, sed etiam minus habet syllabarum gradus ulterior, ut homo, homuncio, homunculus, homulus.","english":"The species of appellative nouns are as follows: for some are corporeal, as wood and marble; some incorporeal, as honor and medicine; some of primary position, that is, from which derivatives and diminutives come, as schola, scholasticus, scholasticulus.\n\nLet us know, moreover, that according to Donatus there are three degrees of diminution, through which, when nouns are diminished, the number of syllables often increases, as scholasticulus, scholasticellus, scholasticellulus. Among the ancients, however, they were said otherwise: agnus, agnulus, agnellus, agnicellus, agniculus, agnicellulus. Donatus, seeing this (lest diminution proceed basely to infinity), wished to say that there are only three degrees of diminution. He said, moreover, that the number of syllables is often increased for this reason, because certain nouns are found whose number in diminution not only does not increase, but the further degree even has fewer syllables, as homo, homuncio, homunculus, homulus.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":10,"ref":"p10","source":"Sunt autem diminutiva specie, quae idcirco specie putata sunt diminutiva, quia quasi diminutivorum nominum speciem gerunt, ut fabula, macula, tabula, ferula; ideo autem non sunt jure diminutiva, fabula, macula, tabula, ferula, quia horum non invenitur prima positio. Sciendum est quod diminutivorum forma lectione potius quam arte colligitur.\n\nSunt ad integrum Graeca nomina, et per omnes casus Graece perveniunt declinatione, ut Euterpe, Melpomene. Sunt quaedam quae dum in Latinitatem cadunt, Graecitatis totum amittunt; nam cum dicit Graecus Latine dicitur Ulysses. Sunt quaedam quae in Latinum versa eloquium ex parte aliquam formam Graecitatis amittunt; quae etiam notha dici voluerunt; dicit enim Graecus Agamemnon, Latinus Agamemno Scimus quia omnia nomina apud Graecos in on syllaba terminata, cum in Latinum transferuntur perdere, et in o correptum mutare. Item omnia nomina apud Graecos per e exeuntia, cum in Latinum veniunt, ipsa e ine solent commutare, in nominativo scilicet singulari, ut Helene, Helena; sed quia de femininis nominibus diximus, ea nomina non patiuntur illud; quae autem aliter lecta sunt, aut quacunque ita transformantur, ut asperum resonare non possint, ut Agane, non facit per duritiam Agana.","english":"But there are diminutives in species, which are for that reason considered diminutives in species because they bear, as it were, the species of diminutive nouns, such as fabula, macula, tabula, ferula; yet fabula, macula, tabula, ferula are not diminutives by right, because their primary position is not found. It must be known that the form of diminutives is gathered rather by reading than by art.\n\nThere are names wholly Greek, and they come through all their cases in Greek by declension, such as Euterpe, Melpomene. There are certain names which, when they fall into Latinity, lose the whole of their Greekness; for when the Greek says thus, in Latin it is said Ulysses. There are certain names which, when turned into Latin speech, lose in part some form of their Greekness; these also they wished to be called notha; for the Greek says Agamemnon, the Latin Agamemno. We know that all names among the Greeks ending in the syllable on, when they are transferred into Latin, lose it and change it into a short o. Likewise all names among the Greeks ending in e, when they come into Latin, are accustomed to change that same e into e, namely in the nominative singular, as Helene, Helena; but because we have spoken of feminine names, those names do not undergo that; but those which have been read otherwise, or are in any way so transformed that they cannot resound harshly, as Agane, does not make Agana by hardness.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":11,"ref":"p11","source":"Sunt quae plurimis nominibus rem unam demonstram, quae Graeci synonyma vocant; ut si terrant velimus multis significare nominibus, et dicamus humus, tellus, solum, terra; sunt quae econtrario per unum nomen plura significant, quae Graeci vocant homonyma, ut si dicamus aciem, incertum est enim cujus rei dixerimus; nam dicitur et oculorum acies, hoc est intentio; et ferri, hoc est acumen; et exercitus, hoc est ordo. Sunt quae a patribus et matribus avisque descendunt, cum tamen significatione Graeca. Haec nomina patronymica vocantur, quorum patconymicorum masculina tres habent regulas, quibus terminantur; exeunt enim aut per des, aut per ius, aut per on, ut Atrides, Atrius, Atrion; sed in on terminata apud Latinos usum non habent.\n\nFeminina quoque tres formas habent; exeunt enim aut per eis, aut per ias, aut per ne, ut Atreis, Atrias, Atrine, ut apud Virgilium, Nerine Galatea. Sane considerandum est quia patronymica Graeca cujuscunque generis Graeca melius regula proferuntur.","english":"There are words that denote one thing by many names, which the Greeks call synonyms; for example, if we wish to signify land by many names and say humus, tellus, solum, terra. There are, by contrast, words that signify many things by one name, which the Greeks call homonyms; for example, if we say acies, for it is uncertain of what thing we have spoken, since acies means both of the eyes, that is, the gaze, and of iron, that is, the sharp edge, and of an army, that is, the order. There are words that descend from fathers and mothers and ancestors, though with a Greek signification. These names are called patronymics, of which the masculine patronymics have three rules by which they are terminated; for they end either in -des, or in -ius, or in -on, as Atrides, Atrius, Atrion; but those terminated in -on are not in use among the Latins.\n\nThe feminine also have three forms; for they end either in -eis, or in -ias, or in -ne, as Atreis, Atrias, Atrine, as in Virgil, Nerine Galatea. Indeed, it must be considered that Greek patronymics, of whatever gender, are better brought forth by the Greek rule.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":12,"ref":"p12","source":"Sunt alia Thetica, quae etiam possessiva dicuntur, quae de patronymicorum regula descendunt, et ad eorum similitudinem in tus terminantur, sed in hoc discernuntur, ut Evandrius Pallas, patronymicum est; quando dicimus Evandrius gladius, possessivum, hoc est, et hoc non est illud.\n\nSunt alia mediae significationis quae aliis adjecta nominibus alii epitheta esse voluerunt, ut magnus, fortis: quibus nisi adjungamus, aut vir, aut exercitus, plena esse non possunt. Sunt alia qualitatis, ut doctus, magnus, felix, pulcher; sunt alia quantitatis, ut longus, brevis, latus; sunt alia gentis, ut Graecus, Italus, Gallus; sunt ala patriae, ut Alexandrinus, Romanus; sum alia numeri, ut unus, duo; sum alia ordinis, ut primus, secundus. Sed constat quemadmodum dicimus de mullis alium, de duobus alterum: ita dicimus de multis alium, de duobus priorem. Sunt alia ad aliquid dicta, ut soror, frater; non enim dicitur soror cui nullus est frater; nec frater cui soror nulla est. Alia ad aliquid dicia qualiter se habentia, ut dies, lumen, nox, tenebrae, nigrum, album non enim dicerentur tenebrae nisi ad collationem luminis.","english":"There are other adjectives called \"thetic\" or also \"possessive,\" which derive from the rule of patronymics and, in imitation of them, end in -tus, but they are distinguished in this respect: Evandrius Pallas is a patronymic, whereas when we say Evandrius gladius, it is a possessive, that is, it is one thing and not the other.\n\nThere are others of intermediate signification which, when joined to other nouns, are meant to be epithets of those nouns, such as magnus, fortis; unless we add either vir or exercitus, they cannot be complete. There are others of quality, such as doctus, magnus, felix, pulcher; there are others of quantity, such as longus, brevis, latus; there are others of nation, such as Graecus, Italus, Gallus; there are others of country, such as Alexandrinus, Romanus; there are others of number, such as unus, duo; there are others of order, such as primus, secundus. But it is established that just as we say alius of many and alter of two, so we say alius of many and prior of two. There are others spoken in relation to something, such as soror, frater; for she is not called a sister who has no brother, nor is he called a brother who has no sister. Others are spoken in relation to something as things disposed toward one another, such as dies, lumen, nox, tenebrae, nigrum, album; for tenebrae would not be spoken of except in comparison with light.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":13,"ref":"p13","source":"Verum inter illa nomina quae dicuntur ad aliquid dicta, et ista quae dicuntur ad aliquid qualiter se habentia, hoc interest, quod illa sic usurpantur ut non sint inter se usquequaque contraria; in istis vero, quid tam contrarium est quam tenebris lumen, quam nocti dies, quam nigro album, quam sinistro dextrum; quorum nominum comparativus gradus in usu est, ut dexter dexterior, sinister sinisterior, niger nigrior.\n\nSunt alia generalia, ut ars, at reliqua; sunt alia specialia, ut medicina, rhetorica, grammatica; sunt alia verbalia, quae de verbis fiunt, ut dictor, procurator;et sciendum est quod ex verbis talia nomina hac lege descendunt, ut gerendi modi ultimi temporis ultimam litteram in or vertamus, ut dicendi, dicendo, dicendum, dictum dictu, et dicamus dictor, commutato scilicet u in o, et adjecto r. Item procurandi, procurando, procurandum, procuratum, procuratu, facit nomen procurator, et reliqua ad hanc rationem pertinentia, quae inventa sunt. Praeterea sunt nomina quae incertum est utrum verbialia sint, ut quae in quaestionem veniunt: quaeritur enim utrum cantor dicatur an cantator, quae utraque firmamus dici supradicta ratione; nam ab eo quod est canto, gerendi modus cantandi, do, dum, cantaturo, cantatu, inde cantator. Item ab eo quod est cano, gerendi modus canendi, do, dum, cantum, cantu, inde cantor.","english":"But between those nouns which are said to be spoken in relation to something and those which are said to be spoken in relation to something as having a certain condition, this is the difference: the former are used in such a way that they are not in every respect contrary to one another; in the latter, however, what is so contrary as light to darkness, day to night, white to black, right to left? Of these nouns the comparative degree is in use, as dexter, dexterior; sinister, sinisterior; niger, nigrior.\n\nThere are other general nouns, as ars, and the rest; there are other special nouns, as medicine, rhetoric, grammar; there are other verbal nouns, which are formed from verbs, as dictor, procurator; and it must be known that such nouns descend from verbs by this rule: that we turn the last letter of the gerund of the last time into or, as dicendi, dicendo, dicendum, dictum, dictu, and we say dictor, with u of course changed into o and r added. Likewise procurandi, procurando, procurandum, procuratum, procuratu makes the noun procurator, and the rest pertaining to this principle which have been devised. Moreover there are nouns where it is uncertain whether they are verbal, as those which come into question: for it is asked whether one says cantor or cantator, both of which we affirm to be said by the above-mentioned principle; for from that which is canto, the gerund cantandi, do, dum, cantaturo, cantatu, hence cantator. Likewise from that which is cano, the gerund canendi, do, dum, cantum, cantu, hence cantor.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":14,"ref":"p14","source":"Item quaeritur auctor utrum per se aut de verbo oriatur, sed sciendum est quod a se nascitur; non enim habet originem verbi. Nam illud quod est augeo, non nos seducat, quod inde veniat; aliud est enim augere, aliud auctorem esse. Omne enim verbum nomini ex se descendenti respondere debet, ut scriptor venit ab eo quod est scribo; omnis enim scriptor scribit, ut procurator venit ab eo quod est procuro; omnis enim procurator procurat. Deinde quae est alia regula quae hoc nomen ex verbo oriri prohibet: quia nomina verbialia aut in sor exeunt, ut praecursor; ant in tor, ut scriptor, lector; at quae in sor exeunt feminina in trix non mittunt: quae vero in tor, necesse est ut feminina in trix minant, ut procurator, procuratrix. Hoc si a verbo venerit in tor scilicet terminatum, necesse habuit femininum in trix mittere, et facere auctrix; sed quia non dicatur auctrix, Virgilius testatur dicens: Auctor ego sum videndi.","english":"Likewise it is asked whether the author [auctor] arises from himself or from a verb, but it must be known that he is born from himself; for he does not have his origin from a verb. For let not that word which is augeo mislead us into thinking that he comes from there; for it is one thing to increase, and another to be an author. For every verb ought to correspond to the noun descending from itself, as scriptor comes from that which is scribo; for every scriptor writes, as procurator comes from that which is procuro; for every procurator procures. Then there is another rule which forbids this noun to arise from a verb: because verbal nouns either end in -sor, as praecursor, or in -tor, as scriptor, lector; but those which end in -sor do not form their feminines in -trix; those however which end in -tor necessarily form their feminines in -trix, as procurator, procuratrix. If this [noun] had come from a verb, namely terminated in -tor, it would have had to form its feminine in -trix and make auctrix; but because auctrix is not said, Virgil bears witness, saying: I am the author of seeing.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":15,"ref":"p15","source":"Alia participii similia, ut sapiens, potens, demens, clemens, si comparationem recipiant, nomina sunt; participia vero, quando non recipiunt comparationem, ut lugens non facit lugentior; at econtra demens, or, mus, facit.\n\nSunt alia verbis similia, ut comedo; quae, cum casum habuerint nomina sunt; cum tempus habuerint, verba esse certissimum est; et est comedo, linea, si nomen; si verbum, prima persona est verbi activi, conjugationis tertiae.\n\nComparationis definitio haec est, elocutio alterum praeferens, quanquam aliter definiant alii. Alii quatuor dicunt gradus esse comparationis: positivum, qui est doctus; comparativum, qui est tam doctus; praelativum, qui est doctior; superlativum, qui est doctissimus, dicentes non posse illum dici comparativum, qui est doctior, quia non tam comparare quam praeferre videtur. Quod superius est sic definitum: Comparatio est elocutio quae ex alterius collatione alterum praefert. Videtur enim hic comparativus gradus, qui est tam doctus, non tam praeferre aliquos quam similes facere.","english":"Other [words] similar to a participle, such as sapiens, potens, demens, clemens, if they admit comparison, are nouns; but they are participles when they do not admit comparison, as lugens does not make lugentior; and on the contrary demens, or, mus does.\n\nThere are others similar to verbs, such as comedo; these, when they have a case, are nouns; when they have a tense, it is most certain that they are verbs; and comedo, linea, if it is a noun; if it is a verb, it is the first person of an active verb of the third conjugation.\n\nThe definition of comparison is this: an expression preferring one thing to another, although others define it differently. Others say there are four degrees of comparison: the positive, which is doctus; the comparative, which is tam doctus; the prepositive, which is doctior; the superlative, which is doctissimus, saying that the one which is doctior cannot be called comparative, because it seems not so much to compare as to prefer. What was defined above is as follows: Comparison is an expression which, from the collation of one thing, prefers another. For this comparative degree, which is tam doctus, seems not so much to prefer some things as to make them similar.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":16,"ref":"p16","source":"Quaeratur quare positivus gradus dicitur, cum reliqui soli gradus positivi comparationis proprietatem obtineant? Respondendum est quod non agnosceremus illos gradus, nisi esset alter gradus, qui comparationis situ careret?\n\nQuaeritur etiam et de nominativo casu singulari, quare dicitur casus? siquidem idcirco caeteri casus dicuntur, quia faciunt nomen cadere, ut doctus, docti, to, tum, te, io. Sed hac ipsa ratione, quod non diceretur aliquid cadere, nisi esset unde caderet, nec inflexum, nisi esset ante rectum; ergo quia hic cadere nomen per caeteros casus ostendat, dictus est casus.\n\nPositivus gradus mullas habet formas: aut enim in us exit, ut doctus; aut in a, ut docta; aut in um, ut doctum; aut in is correptam, ut fortis; aut in is productam, ut dis, ditior, ditissimus; aut in e, ut forte, aut in ens, ut sapiens; aut in ans, ut elegans; aut in ix ut felix; aut in er, ut pulcher; aut in es, ut dives divitior divitissimus, et reliqua si qua sunt quae invenire poterimus.","english":"Let it be asked why the positive degree is so called, when the remaining degrees alone obtain the property of comparison. It must be answered that we would not recognize those degrees unless there were another degree that lacked the position of comparison.\n\nIt is also asked about the nominative case in the singular, why it is called a case, since the other cases are so called for this reason, that they make the noun fall, as doctus, docti, docto, doctum, docte, doctius. But by this very reasoning, because something would not be said to fall unless there were that from which it falls, nor an inflected form unless there were first a straight form; therefore because it shows the noun falling through the other cases, it is called a case.\n\nThe positive degree has many forms: for it either ends in -us, as doctus; or in -a, as docta; or in -um, as doctum; or in short -is, as fortis; or in long -is, as dis, ditior, ditissimus; or in -e, as forte; or in -ens, as sapiens; or in -ans, as elegans; or in -ix, as felix; or in -er, as pulcher; or in -es, as dives, divitior, divitissimus, and the rest, if there are any that we can find.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":17,"ref":"p17","source":"Comparativus vero duas formulas tantum habet, aut enim in ior exit, ut doctior, melior, et genus facit commune, excepto uno senior, non enim senior mulier dici potest; aut in ius, ut doctius, melius; et est comparativus gradus generis neutri, ut doctius mancipium, melius templum. Est comparativus gradus adverbii; dicimus enim doctius scripsit, dicimus melius fecit; sed doctius quando ad nomen tendit, est generis neutri comparativus; quando tendit ad verbum, comparativus adverbii est.\n\nSuperlativus per tres formas exit, aut in us, ut doctissimus; vel in a, ut doctissima; vel in um, ut doctissimum. Illud sane praetermittendum esse non videtur, quod cum ab omni superlativo rimus, ver simus tollimus, positivus qualis sit invenitur; ut pulcherrimus; sublato enim a fine disyllabo, remanet pulcher positivus: unde fit ut ea nomina quae iu quaestionem veniunt, tunc possimus agnoscere.","english":"The comparative degree, however, has only two forms: for it either ends in -ior, as doctior, melior, and forms the common gender, with the single exception of senior—for a woman cannot be called senior—or it ends in -ius, as doctius, melius; and the comparative degree is of the neuter gender, as doctius mancipium, melius templum. There is also a comparative degree of the adverb; for we say doctius scripsit, and we say melius fecit; but when doctius tends toward a noun, it is a comparative of the neuter gender; when it tends toward a verb, it is a comparative of the adverb.\n\nThe superlative degree ends in three forms: either in -us, as doctissimus; or in -a, as doctissima; or in -um, as doctissimum. But that point certainly does not seem to be passed over, that when we remove -rimus, or -errimus, from every superlative, the positive degree is found to be of what kind it is; as pulcherrimus: for when the disyllabic ending is removed, pulcher remains, the positive. Hence it comes about that we can recognize those nouns which come into question.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":18,"ref":"p18","source":"Quaeritur enim utrum acris dicatur, an acer; constat autem hodie utrumque dici, de viro, ut in Virgilio: Humero Pelops insignis eburno acer. Acris vero de femina dicitur, ut apud Horatium: Solvitur acris hiems.\n\nComparantur autem nomina appellativa, et ea appellativa, quae aut a qualitate veniunt, in tres partes sunt divisa: in animum, ut prudens, honestus; in corpus, ut niger, pulcher; extrinsecus, ut fortunatus, felix; aut a quantitate, id est a mensura, quae a corpore tantum descendunt, ut longus, brevis. Sed non omnia nomina quae aut qualitatem aut quantitatem significant, comparantur; sed quae comparantur, qualitatis aut quantitatis sunt. Invenitur enim nomen qualitatis, et non comparatur, ut mediocris. Aliquando aut unus invenitor gradus, aut duo, aut tres; sed ubi comparativus non invenitur, adverbium sciamus ponendum ad positivum, ut vicem comparativi impleamus, ut in hoc nomine pius, quia non facit prior, sed magis pius.","english":"For it is asked whether the word is acris or acer; and it is established that today both are said of a man, as in Virgil: \"Pelops, distinguished by his ivory shoulder, acer.\" But acris is said of a woman, as in Horace: \"Acris winter is dissolved.\"\n\nNow appellative nouns are compared, and those appellative nouns which come either from quality are divided into three parts: into the soul, as prudens, honestus; into the body, as niger, pulcher; and externally, as fortunatus, felix; or from quantity, that is, from measure, which descend from the body alone, as longus, brevis. But not all nouns which signify either quality or quantity are compared; rather, those which are compared are of quality or quantity. For a noun of quality is found which is not compared, as mediocris. Sometimes either one degree is found, or two, or three; but where the comparative is not found, we should know that an adverb must be placed with the positive, so that we may fulfill the role of the comparative, as in the noun pius, because it does not form prior, but magis pius.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":19,"ref":"p19","source":"Meminerimus ita nos respondere cum interrogamur, qualis est ille vir? quia de qualitate sumus interrogati, unum aliquid ex illis trinus dicimus, aut doctus, aut pulcher est, aut mendicus; non dices a qualitate longus est, aut brevis. Quando enim interrogamur, quantus est? non possumus respondere nisi a mensura, aut longus, aut latus, ant brevis est. Nec nos terreat quod Virgilius dixit quantitatis nomen ad animam applicans: Magnanime AEnea; sed hic Graecum voluit imitari; non quia quantitas ab animo venerit, sed qualitatem animi per quantitatem laudare voluerit.\n\nNomina in comparatione anomala hoc signo probabimus, cura primam syllabam quam in positivo habuerint, in comparativo perdiderint: ut bonus facit melior, optimus; malus pejor, pessimus; magnus, major, maximus. Et haec tria tantum in comparatione defectiva esse certum est.","english":"Let us remember that when we are asked \"What sort of man is he?\" we answer in this way, because we have been asked about quality: we say one of those three things—either he is learned, or handsome, or a beggar. You will not say, by way of quality, \"he is tall\" or \"short.\" For when we are asked \"How great is he?\" we cannot answer except by measure—either he is tall, or broad, or short. Nor let Virgil trouble us, who applied a name of quantity to the soul: \"Great-souled Aeneas\"; but here he wished to imitate the Greek, not because quantity comes from the soul, but because he wished to praise a quality of the soul through quantity.\n\nWe shall prove irregular nouns in comparison by this sign: that they lose in the comparative the first syllable which they had in the positive, as bonus makes melior, optimus; malus, pejor, pessimus; magnus, major, maximus. And it is certain that these three alone are defective in comparison.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":20,"ref":"p20","source":"Positivus gradus perfectus et absolutus ideo dictus est, quia vis comparationis proprie in comparativo et superlativo gradu ponitur, et non in positivo. Saepe invenitur comparativus ita positus, ut pius significet a superlativo, ut si dicamus, Doctior ille est a quovis doctissimo. Saepe ita comparativus invenitur, ut minus significet a positivo; ut si vel mus dicere, Dulcius est mare Ponticum quam caetera; nullum enim mare non modo dulcius est, sed ne dulce quidem. Invenitur saepe ita comparativus, ut vim positivi suscipiat, ut apud Virgilium: Senior Charon, sed cruda Deo viridisque senectus fuit; sed senior pro eo quod est senex ponitur; non enim alter fuerat Charon, cujus comparatione hic senior vocetur.\n\nInveniuntur autem nomina sono diminutiva, intellectu comparativa, ut grandiusculus, majusculus, minusculus. Comparativo et superlativo quinque haec comparationis adverbia non ponimus, ut tam, minus, minime, magis, maxime, quae tamen soli positivo adjiciuntur. Verum haec ipsa adverbia inventa sunt propter ea nomina quae aut comparativum, aut superlativum habere non possunt, ut puta mediocris, quia mediocrior non facit, dicetur magis mediocris; item quia non facit mediocrissimus, dicetur maxime mediocris.","english":"The positive degree is called perfect and absolute for this reason, that the force of comparison is properly placed in the comparative and superlative degree, and not in the positive. The comparative is often found so used that it signifies more than the superlative, as if we say, \"He is more learned than any most learned man.\" The comparative is often found so used that it signifies less than the positive, as if one were to say, \"The Pontic Sea is sweeter than the rest\"; for no sea is merely sweeter, but not even sweet. The comparative is often found so used that it takes on the force of the positive, as in Virgil: \"Charon was senior, but the god's old age was fresh and green\"; but \"senior\" is put for what is \"senex\"; for Charon had not been another, in comparison with whom this one might be called senior.\n\nThere are also found nouns diminutive in sound but comparative in meaning, such as grandiusculus, majusculus, minusculus. We do not place these five adverbs of comparison with the comparative and superlative—tam, minus, minime, magis, maxime—which nevertheless are added only to the positive. But these very adverbs were invented on account of those nouns which cannot have either a comparative or a superlative, for instance mediocris, because it does not form mediocrior, so \"magis mediocris\" is said; likewise, because it does not form mediocrissimus, so \"maxime mediocris\" is said.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":21,"ref":"p21","source":"Nam superfluum est his nominibus adjungere haec quae sine nis comparativum et superlativum sumunt, ut si quis dicat magis doctus, cum possit dicere doctior; aut maxime doctus, cum sit superlativus doctissimus.\n\nGradus comparativus tribus casibus servit; nominativo scilicet interposita panicula quam, ut doctior hic quam ille; ablativo, doctior illo; septimo, ut doctior ab illo. Verum hic gradus tam singulari numero quam plurali servire dignoscitur; sed hodie per septimum casum comparativus melius esse proferendus censetur. Sed ne supervacue quis dicat forte non necessarium eum esse septimum casum, quia significat tantumdem quantum et ablativus; istos multum a se distare cognoscat. Aliud est enim cum dicimus, illo praesente suscipi; aliud, ab illo praesente suscipi; per septimum casum significat se accepisse aliquid, nescio quo praesente; per ablativum vero ab eo accepisse qui fuerat praesens.","english":"For it is superfluous to add to these nouns those which take the comparative and superlative without *nis*, as if someone should say *magis doctus* when he could say *doctior*, or *maxime doctus* when the superlative is *doctissimus*.\n\nThe comparative degree serves three cases: the nominative, of course, with the particle *quam* interposed, as *doctior hic quam ille*; the ablative, *doctior illo*; the seventh, as *doctior ab illo*. But this degree is recognized to serve both the singular and the plural number; yet today the comparative is judged to be better expressed through the seventh case. But lest someone say superfluously that perhaps the seventh case is not necessary, because it signifies as much as the ablative also does, let him know that these differ greatly from one another. For it is one thing when we say *illo praesente suscipi*, and another *ab illo praesente suscipi*; through the seventh case it signifies that he received something, I know not who was present; through the ablative, however, that he received it from him who had been present.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":22,"ref":"p22","source":"Sciendum est autem hoc, quia si per comparativum aliquem praeponere voluerimus, liceat nobis eum suo generi et extraneo posse praeponere et dicere, doctior orator oratoribus, et doctior orator grammaticis. Cum vero per superlativum praeferre voluerimus, qui certe servit genitivo tantum plurali, praeponere cum suo tantum generi debemus, et dicere: doctissimus orator oratorum, doctissimus grammaticus grammaticorum. Verum illud non nos turbet, quia legimus superlativum servire genitivo singulari, ut apud Virgilium, ditissimus agri, fortissimus gentis; sed haec quamvis sono singularia sint, tamen intellectu pluralia sunt. Nam cum dicimus ditissimus agri, fortissimus gentis, intelligendum est quia res ista ex pluribus constet. Invenitur hic superlativus significans idem ac positivus, et nulli comparatur; ut si dicamus Jupiter, Optimus, Maximus, non enim sunt alii Joves, quorum unus bonus, alter melior sit, unde hic posset dici Optimus et Maximus.","english":"But it must be known that if we wish to place someone before another by means of the comparative, it is permitted us to be able to place it before both its own kind and an alien kind, and to say *doctior orator oratoribus* and *doctior orator grammaticis*. But when we wish to set one before others by means of the superlative, which certainly serves only the plural genitive, we ought to place it before its own kind only, and to say *doctissimus orator oratorum*, *doctissimus grammaticus grammaticorum*. But let this not disturb us, that we read the superlative serving the singular genitive, as in Virgil, *ditissimus agri*, *fortissimus gentis*; but these, although they are singular in sound, are nevertheless plural in understanding. For when we say *ditissimus agri*, *fortissimus gentis*, it must be understood that this matter consists of several. Here the superlative is found signifying the same as the positive, and is compared to no one; as if we should say Jupiter, *Optimus*, *Maximus*—for there are not other Jupiters, of whom one is good and another better, whence this one could be called *Optimus* and *Maximus*.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":23,"ref":"p23","source":"Genera nominum sunt sex: masculinum, ut hic Cato; femininum, ut haec musa; neutrum, ut hoc monile; commune duorum generum, ut hic et haec sacerdos: trium generum, ut hic, et haec, et hoc felix; epicoenon, quod Latine promiscuum dicitur, ut passer, aquila. Verum inter commune et epicoenon hoc interest, quia in communi pro sexu articulum variamus; in epicoeno vero idem nomen est, et unus articulus. Ipsum vero epicoenon ita definitur: genus in quo facile non deprehenditur sexus, ut hic piscis; nam licet sint nautae qui arte colligunt femininam piscem, tamen quia non sexu discernitur, ideo non mutatur articulus, Verum sic talis incidat elocutio, ut si quis duos habens passeres dicat, verbi causa, meus masculus sit, et subjungat, femina autem tua sit, ne is quidem per genera soloecismum incurrit. Si enim dixerit femina tua, cum superius dixerit, masculus meus, facit commune de epicoeno, ut si dicat. hic et haec passer; sed sciamus ita oportere dici, masculus meus sit, femina tua hic passer.","english":"The genders of nouns are six: masculine, as *hic Cato*; feminine, as *haec musa*; neuter, as *hoc monile*; common of two genders, as *hic et haec sacerdos*; of three genders, as *hic et haec et hoc felix*; epicene, which in Latin is called promiscuous, as *passer*, *aquila*. But between common and epicene there is this difference: in the common gender we vary the article according to sex; in the epicene, however, the name is the same and the article is one. The epicene itself is defined thus: a gender in which the sex is not easily discerned, as *hic piscis*; for although there are sailors who by skill catch a female fish, yet because it is not distinguished by sex, the article is therefore not changed. But such an expression may indeed occur that if someone having two sparrows says, for example, mine is male, and adds, but yours is female, not even he incurs a solecism on account of gender. For if he says *femina tua*, when he had said above *masculus meus*, he makes a common gender out of an epicene, as if he were to say *hic et haec passer*; but let us know that it ought to be said thus: mine is male, yours is female, *hic passer*.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":24,"ref":"p24","source":"Verum ex generibus duo genera principalia reperimus, masculinum et femininum, ab his enim duobus generibus cuncta descendunt: nam neutrum est, quia nec masculinum nec femininum, ut si dicamus hoc scamnum; ideo quia quemadmodum sunt masculina sive feminina, aut non gignit, aut non creatur. Sed ne quis objiciat dicendo: quare paries cum nec creet, generis masculini sit? Sciendum est quia in nominibus hujusmodi lectio, vel ipsa Latinitas imponit articulum: vel quare cura mancipium sit aut masculini, aut feminini generis, neutri esse dicatur; sed cum dicimus mancipium sive masculinum, sive femininum, nisi statim subjunxerimus puerum pucllamve, tale est ac si nec masculinum sit, nec femininum, sed neutrum; commune est, quia sub uno nomino mutati sunt articuli, sive marem feminamve significet: omne, quia masculinum, et femininum, et neutrum significat; quia (ut supra diximus) non esse potuisset, nisi fuissent illa duo genera, unde hoc diceretur; nam et hoc et illud uno nomine comprehendit. Epicoenon, quia aut masculinum, aut femininum est utroque sexu.","english":"But of the genders we find two principal genders, masculine and feminine, for from these two genders all things descend: for the neuter is so called because it is neither masculine nor feminine, as when we say *hoc scamnum*; and for this reason, just as masculine and feminine things are, it either does not beget or is not begotten. But lest anyone object, saying: why is *paries*, since it does not beget, of the masculine gender? It must be known that in nouns of this kind the reading, or Latinity itself, imposes the article; or why, since a slave (*mancipium*) is either of the masculine or of the feminine gender, is it said to be of the neuter? But when we say *mancipium*, whether masculine or feminine, unless we immediately add *puerum* or *puellam*, it is as if it were neither masculine nor feminine but neuter; common, because under one noun the articles are changed, whether it signifies male or female; every, because it signifies masculine, feminine, and neuter; because (as we said above) it could not exist unless those two genders had existed, from which this is said; for it comprehends both this and that under one name. Epicene, because it is either masculine or feminine in either sex.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":25,"ref":"p25","source":"Sunt praeterea nomina quae masculina sonant, intelliguntur autem feminina, ut si dicamus Eunuchum comoediam. Sunt item contraria quae feminina sonant, sapiunt vero masculina, ut Sylla, Catilina. Sunt alia neutra sonantia, feminina quidem probantia, ut si dicamus Phronesium mulier, Glycerium meretrix. Sunt alia econtra sono feminina, intellectu neutra, ut poema, toreuma. Sunt alia quae masculinum quidem sonum, et intellectu neutra habent, ut vulgus, pelagus. Inveniuntur etiam nomina quae iri pluralitate ab eo genere dissentiunt, quod in singulari numero tenuerunt, ut hoc balneum, hae balneae; hic tartarus, et haec tartara; hoc coelum, hi coeli.\n\nSunt nomina incerti generis inter masculinum et femininum, ut finis, dies. Legimus enim: Quem das finem, rex magne, laborum? et alibi ut, haec finis Priami fatorum. De hac die dicit: venit summa dies; et alibi, ut hunc diem lactum tristis exspecta. Item alia sunt incerti generis inter masculinum et neutrum, ut vulgus, frenum, nam frenus et vulgus incerti generis sunt; legimus enim: stabulo frenos vidi sonantes; et: frena Peletronii Lapithae. Vulgus masculini generis; hinc, spargere voces in vulgum ambiguas, neutrum est, ignobile vulgus. Item inter femininum et neutrum, ut buxus, prunus, malus; legimus enim, tympana vos, buxusque vocat. Et alibi dicitur, tornatile buxum; caeteraque in lectione lata poterunt agnosci.","english":"There are besides nouns that sound masculine but are understood as feminine, as if we say *Eunuchum comoediam*. There are likewise the opposite kind, which sound feminine but are masculine in sense, as *Sylla*, *Catilina*. There are others that sound neuter but are approved as feminine, as if we say *Phronesium mulier*, *Glycerium meretrix*. There are others, on the contrary, feminine in sound but neuter in meaning, as *poema*, *toreuma*. There are others that have a masculine sound but are neuter in meaning, as *vulgus*, *pelagus*. There are also found nouns that in the plural disagree with the gender they kept in the singular number, as *hoc balneum*, *hae balneae*; *hic tartarus*, and *haec tartara*; *hoc coelum*, *hi coeli*.\n\nThere are nouns of uncertain gender between masculine and feminine, as *finis*, *dies*. For we read: *Quem das finem, rex magne, laborum?* and elsewhere: *haec finis Priami fatorum*. Of this day it says: *venit summa dies*; and elsewhere: *hunc diem laetum tristis exspecta*. Likewise there are others of uncertain gender between masculine and neuter, as *vulgus*, *frenum*, for *frenus* and *vulgus* are of uncertain gender; for we read: *stabulo frenos vidi sonantes*; and: *frena Peletronii Lapithae*. *Vulgus* is of the masculine gender; hence *spargere voces in vulgum ambiguas*; it is neuter in *ignobile vulgus*. Likewise between feminine and neuter, as *buxus*, *prunus*, *malus*; for we read: *tympana vos, buxusque vocat*. And elsewhere it is said: *tornatile buxum*; and the rest can be recognized in wide reading.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":26,"ref":"p26","source":"Verum haec ubi de fructibus loquimur, neutra sunt; cum vero de arboribus, feminina. Nonnunquam ita inveniuntur arborum nomina, ut masculina sint, ut oleaster; nam legimus, sacer oleaster.\n\nSunt etiam genera nominum fixa quae alterum genus ex se facere non possunt, ut pater, mater; non enim dici possunt patria et matra. Sunt mobilia, quae aut propria sunt, et duo tantum genera faciunt, ut Marcius, Marcia; aut appellativa, ut bonus, bona, bonum. Sunt alia quae ex aliqua parte in aliud genus transferuntur, ut gallus, gallina; draco, dracaena; rex, regina; et quia non dicimus gallus galla, draco draca, rex rega, ideo dicta sunt nec in lotum fixa, nec in totum mobilia. Ideo autem in totum fixa non sunt, quia faciunt gallus, gallina; draco, dracaena; rex, regina; ideo autem nec in totum mobilia, quia convertuntur in femininum, et primae syllabae similitudinem tenent.","english":"But when we speak of fruits, these are neuter; when of trees, feminine. Sometimes names of trees are found to be masculine, as *oleaster*; for we read *sacer oleaster*.\n\nThere are also fixed genders of nouns which cannot make another gender from themselves, as *pater*, *mater*; for *patria* and *matra* cannot be said. There are mobile nouns, which are either proper, and make only two genders, as *Marcius*, *Marcia*; or appellative, as *bonus*, *bona*, *bonum*. There are others which are transferred in some part to another gender, as *gallus*, *gallina*; *draco*, *dracaena*; *rex*, *regina*; and because we do not say *gallus galla*, *draco draca*, *rex rega*, therefore they are said to be neither wholly fixed nor wholly mobile. For they are not wholly fixed because they make *gallus*, *gallina*; *draco*, *dracaena*; *rex*, *regina*; and they are not wholly mobile because they are changed into the feminine and keep the likeness of the first syllable.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":27,"ref":"p27","source":"Inveniuntur etiam nomina primae positionis quae, dum ex se diminutiva faciunt, mutant genus, ut rana non facit ranuncula, sed ranunculus; pistrinum non facit pistrillum, sed pistrilla facit.\n\nInterdum inveniuntur nomina diminutiva quae plus significant a nominibus primae positionis, ut acus, acicula: acus enim dicitur a qua vestes sarciuntur, acicula, qua mulieres utuntur ad ornatum capitis.\n\nSunt in a terminata nomina aut masculina, ut Sylla; aut feminina, ut musca; aut neutra ut toreuma, quod Graecum est. Nullum enim Latinum nomen neutrum in a terminatur in nominativo singulari, excepto uno Thoria, quod nomen est fluminis, quodque apud Sallustium lectum est; aut communia, ut rana, advena.\n\nNomina in e vocalem exeuntia, aut feminina sunt, sed tamen Graeca, ut Agane; aut neutra sunt, sed Latina, ut monile: nam masculina in istam regulam non veniunt.","english":"There are also found nouns of the positive form which, when they make diminutives from themselves, change gender, as *rana* does not make *ranuncula*, but *ranunculus*; *pistrinum* does not make *pistrillum*, but makes *pistrilla*.\n\nSometimes diminutive nouns are found which signify more than the nouns of positive form, as *acus*, *acicula*: for *acus* is said of that with which garments are mended, *acicula*, which women use for the adorning of the head.\n\nThere are nouns ending in *a* that are either masculine, as *Sylla*; or feminine, as *musca*; or neuter, as *toreuma*, which is Greek. For no Latin neuter noun ends in *a* in the nominative singular, except one, *Thoria*, which is the name of a river, and which is read in Sallust; or common, as *rana*, *advena*.\n\nNouns ending in the vowel *e* are either feminine, but Greek, as *Agane*; or neuter, but Latin, as *monile*: for masculines do not come into this rule.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":28,"ref":"p28","source":"Nomina in I vocalem exeuntia peregrina duo sunt generis neutri, ut gummi, sinapi; anomala duo, ut frugi, nihili.\n\nNomina in o vocalem exeuntia in nominativo, aut masculina sunt, ut Cicero; aut feminina, ut imago·\n\nNomina in u vocalem exeuntia neutra tantum sunt. at cornu, gelu, tonitru, genu, veru. Haec nomina in consonantes desinentia multiplices habent regulas: de quibus Donatus idcirco tacuit, quia de eorum nominum ratione Probi plenior libellus existat.\n\nNumeri nominum duo Sunt, singularis et pluralis, usurpat etiam tertium dualis numerus, qui venit in duobus tantummodo nominibus, in duo et ambo. Nam neque unum significo cum dico, duo venerunt, neque plures; non enim de duobus loquens possum dicere, omnes venerunt.\n\nSunt eliam nomina quae nominativum singularem et pluralem similes habent, ut nubes, dies, quae propter hoc dicta sunt numero communia. Sunt etiam nomina non habentia numerum pluralem, masculina, ut pulvis; non enim dicuntur pulveres, quamvis apud Horatium legimus: Novennales dissipare pulveres. Sunt item generis masculini tantum pluralia, ut Quirites.; quamvis legerimus, hunc Quiritem, ut. quis te redonavit Quiritem? Sunt item generis feminini tantum singularia, ut pax, lux, quamvis legerimus has paces, has luces. Sunt item semper pluralia, ut calendae, nundinae. Sunt semper singularia generis neutri, ut pus, virus, aurum, ferrum.","english":"Nouns ending in the vowel i that are foreign are of the neuter gender, two of them, such as gummi, sinapi; two are anomalous, such as frugi, nihili.\n\nNouns ending in the vowel o in the nominative are either masculine, such as Cicero, or feminine, such as imago.\n\nNouns ending in the vowel u are only neuter, but cornu, gelu, tonitru, genu, veru. These nouns ending in consonants have multiple rules, about which Donatus was silent for this reason, because a fuller book of Probus exists on the account of these nouns.\n\nThe numbers of nouns are two, singular and plural; the third number, the dual, is also used, which occurs in only two nouns, in duo and ambo. For I do not signify one when I say, \"two have come,\" nor more than two; for speaking of two, I cannot say, \"all have come.\"\n\nThere are also nouns that have the singular and plural nominative alike, such as nubes, dies, which for this reason are called common in number. There are also nouns that do not have the plural number, masculine, such as pulvis; for pulveres is not said, although we read in Horace: \"to scatter the nine-year-old dusts.\" There are likewise masculine nouns that are plural only, such as Quirites; although we have read, \"this Quiritem,\" as \"who has restored you as a Quiritem?\" There are likewise feminine nouns that are singular only, such as pax, lux, although we have read \"these peaces,\" \"these lights.\" There are likewise nouns that are always plural, such as calendae, nundinae. There are nouns that are always singular of the neuter gender, such as pus, virus, aurum, ferrum.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":29,"ref":"p29","source":"Et sciendum est quod pene omnia quae mensurantur vel ponderantur, non admittant numerum pluralem, quamvis multa sibi jam vindicaverit consuetudo. velut dicimus, vina, mella, hordea.\n\nSunt item semper pluralia generis neutri, ut, haec arma, haec moenia, non facit armum vel moenium; Saturnalia non facit hoc Saturnale: sed si fuerit templum, sic declinatur per utrumque numerum, hoc saturnale templum, haec Saturnalia templa; si vero fuerit hoc nomen, ut, quasi diem festum significet, tantum numeri pluralis erit. Sane sciamus quod his nominibus qu e non admittunt numerum Singularem, apponimus masculinis uni, femininis unae, neutris una; dicimus enim uni cancelli, unae nuptiae, una moenia, ut apud Terentium, ex unis nuptiis geminas mihi facias; et apud Sallustium: hi postquam in una moenia convenere. Sciamus vero quod superflue loquimur, quando dicimus: homo unus advenit; siquidem jam praedictus homo unum significat.","english":"And it must be known that almost all things which are measured or weighed do not admit the plural number, although custom has already claimed many for itself, as when we say vina, mella, hordea.\n\nThere are likewise nouns always plural of the neuter gender, such as haec arma, haec moenia; it does not make armum or moenium. Saturnalia does not make hoc Saturnale; but if it is a temple, it is declined through both numbers thus: hoc saturnale templum, haec Saturnalia templa; but if it is this noun, as signifying a feast day, it will be of the plural number only. Indeed we should know that with these nouns which do not admit the singular number, we join uni to masculines, unae to feminines, una to neuters; for we say uni cancelli, unae nuptiae, una moenia, as in Terence: ex unis nuptiis geminas mihi facias; and in Sallust: hi postquam in una moenia convenere. But we should know that we speak superfluously when we say homo unus advenit, since the man already mentioned signifies one.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":30,"ref":"p30","source":"Inveniantur etiam nomina positione singularia, intellectu pluralia, ut populus, concio; nam cum dicimus populus currit, sic sonat quasi omnis currat, nec tamen pluralem significat numerum. Nonnullis videtur in his nominibus pluralis numerus esse superfluus, cum horum singularis pluralem numerum in se contineat, ut dicimus, hic populus singulariter, et hi populi pluraliter; sed quamvis populus pluralem numerum significet, tamen unius gentis est; populi vero gentium sunt diversarum. Sunt econtrario positione pluralia, intellectu singularia, ut Papiae, Puteoli: quae vero nomina non Ideo plurali numero proferuntur, quia multae Papiae aut multae Puteoli; sed quia horum singularis numerus nunquam lectus exstiterit.\n\nFigurae nominum quot sunt? duae, simplex et composita. Simplex nomen est, cum divisam nomen nihil dat Latinitatis, ut medicina; a cum dederit, non erit simile significationi unde descendit. Sic dividamus magister, magis, in adverbium comparationis, ter, in adverbium numeri; cum dicimus magister, figurae compositae non est; et quamvis divisum fuerit in duo adverbia, tamen dicitur figurae simplicis, quia nihil dedit simile principalitati, sed quid dissimile ad magistrum; magis adverbium tamen non est, quamvis dividatur. Semper enim littera cum in medio fuerit sermone, transit in principium sequentis syllabae; unde apud Graecos vocatur, hoc est inchoativum elementum.","english":"Nouns are also found that are singular in form but plural in meaning, such as populus and concio; for when we say populus currit, it sounds as if everyone is running, yet it does not signify a plural number. To some it seems that in these nouns the plural number is superfluous, since their singular contains a plural number within itself, as we say hic populus in the singular and hi populi in the plural; but although populus signifies a plural number, it is nevertheless of one people; whereas populi are of different peoples. Conversely, there are nouns plural in form but singular in meaning, such as Papiae and Puteoli: these nouns are not uttered in the plural number because there are many Papiae or many Puteoli, but because their singular number has never been found in reading.\n\nHow many figures of nouns are there? Two, simple and compound. A noun is simple when divided it yields nothing of Latinity, as medicina; but when it has yielded something, it will not be similar to the meaning from which it descends. Thus let us divide magister: magis, into an adverb of comparison; ter, into an adverb of number. When we say magister, it is not of the compound figure; and although it has been divided into two adverbs, it is nevertheless said to be of the simple figure, because it has yielded nothing similar to its principal meaning, but something dissimilar to magister; magis is nevertheless not an adverb, although it is divided. For the letter n, whenever it is in the middle of a word, passes to the beginning of the following syllable; whence among the Greeks it is called, that is, the inceptive element.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":31,"ref":"p31","source":"Composita est, quia cum divisum est nomen, dat aliquid Latinum, vel simile sui, ut indoctus: duo enim sunt integra consentientia significationi ejus nominis, unde separata sunt. Verum haec figura composita fit quatuor modis: quia aut duo invenimus integra, ut suburbanus; aut corrupta, ut municeps; aut ex integro et corrupto, ut insulsus; aut ex corrupto et integro, ut nugigerulus.\n\nQuaerunt nonnulli quare cum dicat Donatus componuntur nomina, subjecit ex duobus corruptis; ideo enim non potest esse compositum quid, nisi aut ex duobus integris, aut ex integro et corrupto, aut ex corrupto et integro. Sed sciendum est corruptum ita definire nomen, quod solutum potest integrum reverti; et revera non diceretur corruptum, nisi aliquando fuisset incolume, ut si dicamus municeps, est enim dictum munera capiens; sed postea sub unius nominis contractione corruptum est. Ergo non nos fallat, cnm interrogamus, municeps cujus figurae est? non dicamus, simplicis; putantes quod nihil sit municeps, quemadmodum paries; non enim est hoc verum, nam paries idcirco dicitur figurae simplicis, quia solutum (ut superius diximus) in integrum redire non potest. Ergo cum audierimus nomen esse figurae simplicis, ulterius non interrogamus ex quibus modis.","english":"It is composite because, when the noun is divided, it yields something Latin, or something similar to itself, as in indoctus; for there are two whole elements agreeing with the meaning of that noun, from which they are separated. But this composite figure comes about in four ways: for we find either two whole elements, as in suburbanus; or corrupted ones, as in municeps; or one whole and one corrupted, as in insulsus; or one corrupted and one whole, as in nugigerulus.\n\nSome ask why, when Donatus says that nouns are compounded, he added \"from two corrupted elements\"; for nothing can be composite unless it is from two whole elements, or from a whole and a corrupted one, or from a corrupted and a whole one. But it must be known that he defines a corrupted noun as one that, when dissolved, can return to being whole; and indeed it would not be called corrupted unless it had at some time been intact, as when we say municeps, for it is said as munera capiens; but afterward it was corrupted by the contraction of one noun. Therefore let it not deceive us, when we ask of what figure municeps is, that we say it is of the simple figure, thinking that municeps is nothing, just as paries is; for this is not true, for paries is said to be of the simple figure for the reason that, when dissolved (as we said above), it cannot return to its whole form. Therefore when we have heard that a noun is of the simple figure, we do not further ask from what modes it is formed.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":32,"ref":"p32","source":"Est verbum compositum ex aliquibus integris, ipsam divisionem accipiens, non eumdem accentum eumdemque pedem, quemadmodum habuerit nomen illud unde descendunt ista; ut puta si quis quaerat, Lucifer cujus figurae? et dicat hoc nomen esse figurae compositae ex integro et corrupto, ut sit quasi huic luci; et nesciat quod cum dicimus Lucifer, ci syllaba correpta sit, cum autem dicimus huic luci, modo esse productam.\n\nHis ita se habentibus, illud maxime nosse deoemus, quod in divisione figurae compositae, nullum alium casum nisi nominativum singularem quaerere debeamus. Meminisse etiam debemus, quod composita nomina ulterius non possint componi, ut impius: quamvis Donatus doceat ex pluribus posse componi nomina, ut inexpugnabilis, imperterritus. In duplicibus nominibus animadvertendum est, ut si fuerint duo nominativi, utramque partem declinemus, ut homo bonus; si nominativum sequitur quicunque casus, priorem declinemus partem, ut Dominus servorum; si priorem casum quemcunque inerit sequens nominativus, sequentem declinabimus partem, ut jurisperitos: quae tamen observanda sunt in quantovis nomine et numero, ut Jupiter, Optimus, Maximus, Capitolinus.","english":"A compound verb is one formed from certain whole elements, admitting of that same division, but not having the same accent and the same foot as the noun from which these descend had; for example, if someone asks, \"Lucifer, of what figure is it?\" and says that this noun is of composite figure, from a whole and a corrupted element, so that it is as if \"huic luci\"; and he does not know that when we say \"Lucifer,\" the syllable \"ci\" is short, whereas when we say \"huic luci,\" it is long.\n\nThese things being so, we ought especially to know that in the division of a composite figure, we should seek no other case than the nominative singular. We must also remember that compound nouns cannot be compounded further, as \"impius\"; although Donatus teaches that nouns can be compounded from several, as \"inexpugnabilis,\" \"imperterritus.\" In double nouns it must be observed that if there are two nominatives, we decline each part, as \"homo bonus\"; if a nominative is followed by any case, we decline the first part, as \"Dominus servorum\"; if any prior case is followed by a nominative, we decline the latter part, as \"jurisperitos.\" These things, however, are to be observed in any noun and number whatever, as \"Jupiter,\" \"Optimus,\" \"Maximus,\" \"Capitolinus.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":33,"ref":"p33","source":"Sciendum est propria nomina non posse componi; appellativa vero ea componi posse, quae aut lecta sunt composita; aut dum componuntur, placidum ad aures vocis sonum emittunt.\n\nDe casibus.\n\nCasus sunt sex, ex quibus nominativus quare dicatur casus, superius dictum est. Antiqui nominativum et vocativum similes habent; inde est quod etiam in Virgilio invenimus, Fluvius regnator aquarum: Duc, ait, et Rutulos equites Messapus in armis. Unde etiam Donatus hos rectos casus appellari commemorat, et reliquos obliquos. Ablativus non est apud Graecos, et ideo ab aliis Latinus, ab aliis vocatas est sextus. Assumunt quidam casum, quem septimum vocant, qui quantum differat ab ablativo, et quantam necessario sit inventus, praemissa ratione demonstravimus.\n\nSunt etiam formae casuales sex; ex quibus intelligimus per quot varietates nomina inflectantur, vel quot casus similes unumquodque nomen obtineat. Inveniuntur enim nomina quae per omnes casus quasi unum trahant declinationis colorem, ut si dicamus, nequam. Hic nequam, hujus nequam, huic nequam, nunc nequam, o nequam, ab hoc nequam. Sunt quae duas tenent varietates, ut est cornu, nam nominativus, et accusativus, et vocativus correptum u habent; genitivus, dativus et ablativus producti sunt. Sunt quae varietates habent tres, ut templum; nominativus enim, accusativus et vocativus unum faciunt colorem, ut hoc templum, hoc templum, o templum.","english":"It must be known that proper nouns cannot be compounded; appellative nouns, however, can be compounded—either those that are found already compounded, or those that, when compounded, emit a gentle sound of the voice to the ears.\n\nOn Cases.\n\nThere are six cases, of which why the nominative is called a case has been said above. The ancients held the nominative and vocative to be alike; hence it is that we find even in Virgil: \"Fluvius regnator aquarum\" [the river, ruler of the waters]: \"Duc,\" he says, \"et Rutulos equites Messapus in armis\" [and let Messapus lead the Rutulian horsemen in arms]. Hence also Donatus records that these are called straight cases, and the rest oblique. The ablative is not among the Greeks, and therefore by some it is called the Latin case, by others the sixth. Certain writers assume a case which they call the seventh; how far it differs from the ablative, and how necessarily it was invented, we have demonstrated in the preceding account.\n\nThere are also six case-forms, from which we understand through how many varieties nouns are inflected, or how many similar cases each noun obtains. For nouns are found which through all cases draw, as it were, one color of declension, as if we say nequam: hic nequam, huius nequam, huic nequam, hunc nequam, o nequam, ab hoc nequam. There are those which hold two varieties, as cornu; for the nominative, accusative, and vocative have a short u; the genitive, dative, and ablative are long. There are those which have three varieties, as templum; for the nominative, accusative, and vocative make one color: hoc templum, hoc templum, o templum.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":34,"ref":"p34","source":"Sunt quae quatuor habent varietates, ut species; nam nominativus et vocativus unum faciunt colorem, ut haec species, et o species; genitivus et dativus unum faciunt colorem, ut hujus speciei, huic speciei; accusativus unum, hanc speciem; ablativus unum, ab hac specie. Inveniuntur quae quinque varietates habent, ut hic doctus: nam solus nominativus unum facit colorem; genitivus unum, ut hujus docti; dativus et ablativus unum, ut huic docto et ab hoc docto; accusativus unum, ut hunc doctum; vocativus unum, ut o docte. Sunt quae sex varietates habent, ut est unus; per singulos enim casus variat.\n\nSunt praeterea nomina quae aptota dicuntur, non quod unum casum habeant, sed quod non flectantur. Quae etiam monoptota dicuntur, propterea quod similes casus per totam sui declinationem servant, nullum enim numerum privatum habent; nam cum dico frugi, incertum est, vel quem casum, vel quem numerum proferam.","english":"There are nouns that have four variations, as in the case of species; for the nominative and vocative make one form, as haec species and o species; the genitive and dative make one form, as hujus speciei and huic speciei; the accusative makes one, hanc speciem; the ablative makes one, ab hac specie. There are nouns found that have five variations, as hic doctus; for the nominative alone makes one form; the genitive makes one, as hujus docti; the dative and ablative make one, as huic docto and ab hoc docto; the accusative makes one, as hunc doctum; the vocative makes one, as o docte. There are nouns that have six variations, as est unus; for it varies through each individual case.\n\nThere are, moreover, nouns that are called aptota, not because they have one case, but because they are not inflected. These are also called monoptota, because they preserve similar cases throughout their entire declension; for they have no number of their own; for when I say frugi, it is uncertain which case or which number I am expressing.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":35,"ref":"p35","source":"Sciendum est etiam illud, quod ab uno usque ad tres declinemus; nam a quatuor usque ad centum declinatio non sequitur, a ducentis autem usque ad infinitum omnia declinantur, excepto mille, quod in singulari numero non declinatur; in plurali vero numero, cum tamen scriptum sit per unum l, sic declinatur. Sunt nomina quibus dum in elocutione utimur, alia genitivum casum ducunt, ut ignarus belli, sive bellorum; alia dativum tantum, ut amicus bono, quanquam Terentius in nominativo casu junxerit dicens: Amicus meos summus popularis Getha. Alia accusativum, sed per figuram, ut praescius futura, recte enim dicitur, ut praescius futurorum; alia ablativum, ut dignus munere, mactus virtute; alia septimum casum, ut secundus a primo, nam non possumus dicere secundus primo, aut secundus primi, vel secundus primorum, aut tale aliquid.\n\nDe declinationibus.","english":"It must also be known that we decline from one up to three; for from four up to a hundred no declension follows, but from two hundred up to infinity all things are declined, except mille, which is not declined in the singular number; in the plural number, however, since it is written with one l, it is declined thus. There are nouns which, when we use them in speech, some take the genitive case, as ignarus belli, or bellorum; others only the dative, as amicus bono, although Terence joined it in the nominative case, saying: Amicus meos summus popularis Getha. Others the accusative, but by a figure, as praescius futura, for it is correctly said as praescius futurorum; others the ablative, as dignus munere, mactus virtute; others the seventh case, as secundus a primo, for we cannot say secundus primo, or secundus primi, or secundus primorum, or anything of that sort.\n\nOn declensions.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":36,"ref":"p36","source":"Quinque genera declinationum sunt. Prima est quae genitivum singularem per oe diphthongum profert tam in masculino genere quam in feminino, ut hic AEneas, hujus AEneae; haec musa, hujus musae: in neutro vero genere aut non invenitur, aut ita invenitur, ut habeat communionem cum genere masculino vel feminino, ut advena. Haec prima declinatio nominativum terminat modis tribus; exit enim aut per a, aut per es, aut per as, ut musa, Anchises, AEneas. Verum ne quis nobis nominativum per es, genitivum per oe, ita praemittentibus, putet quia quaecunque nomina a, es, as, fuerint terminata, necesse est primae esse declinationis; sed quae sunt primae decimationis sciendum est, quod nominativum singularem nonnisi his litteris terminent.\n\nSecunda declinatio est quae genitivum singularem per i profert; et est generis masculini et feminini, et neutri, ut Virgilius Virgilii, fraxinus fraxini, prandium prandii. Sciendum plane est quod in hac declinatione omnia nomina genitivum singularem per unum i proferunt, exceptis his quae in ius fuerint terminata, facit enim Mercurius Mercurii; aut ium, ut convivium convivii.","english":"There are five kinds of declension. The first is the one that produces the singular genitive with the diphthong oe, as much in the masculine gender as in the feminine, as hic Aeneas, huius Aeneae; haec musa, huius musae; but in the neuter gender it is either not found, or it is found in such a way that it shares the masculine or feminine gender, as advena. This first declension ends the nominative in three ways; for it ends either in a, or in es, or in as, as musa, Anchises, Aeneas. But lest anyone, with us setting it out thus, think that the nominative in es and the genitive in oe mean that whatever nouns end in a, es, or as must belong to the first declension, it must be known that those which are of the first declension end their singular nominative in no letters other than these.\n\nThe second declension is the one that produces the singular genitive with i; and it is of the masculine and feminine gender, and of the neuter, as Virgilius Virgilii, fraxinus fraxini, prandium prandii. It must clearly be known that in this declension all nouns produce the singular genitive with a single i, except those which end in ius, for Mercurius makes Mercurii; or in ium, as convivium convivii.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":37,"ref":"p37","source":"Verum haec secunda declinatio nominativum singularem terminat modis quinque, exit enim aut per er, aut per ium, aut eus, aut per ir, aut per us, ut piger pigri, negotium negotii, Tydeus Tydei, vir viri, doctus docti: ita tamen ut non separemus, ut dicamus Tydeus Tydei, ut significet potius quintam quam secundam declinationem; sed sub una istius syllabae diphthongo concludamus dicentes Tydeus Tydei, et hoc Graeca nomina sortiuntur: in Latinis enim non invenitur haec diphthongus. Et de hac declinatione illud indicabimus, quod non quicunque nominativus singularis his quinque modis fuerit terminatus, necesse est ut sit secundae declinationis; sed quaecunque nomina secundae fuerint declinationis, necesse est ut nominativum his quinque modis terminent.\n\nTertia declinatio est quae genitivum singularem per is syllabam profert, est enim generis masculini, feminini, neutri, ut Cicero Ciceronis, Juno Junonis, marmor marmoris; est etiam communis, ut sacerdos sacerdotis, est etiam trium generum, ut demens hujus dementis.","english":"But this second declension ends the singular nominative in five ways, for it ends either in -er, or in -ium, or in -eus, or in -ir, or in -us, as piger pigri, negotium negotii, Tydeus Tydei, vir viri, doctus docti: yet in such a way that we do not separate them, so as to say Tydeus Tydei, meaning it belongs rather to the fifth than to the second declension; but let us include it under the single diphthong of that syllable, saying Tydeus Tydei, and Greek nouns obtain this; for in Latin this diphthong is not found. And concerning this declension we shall indicate this, that not every singular nominative that has ended in these five ways is necessarily of the second declension; but whatever nouns are of the second declension, they necessarily end the nominative in these five ways.\n\nThe third declension is the one that produces the singular genitive with the syllable -is, for it is of the masculine, feminine, and neuter gender, as Cicero Ciceronis, Juno Junonis, marmor marmoris; it is also common, as sacerdos sacerdotis; it is also of the three genders, as demens huius dementis.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":38,"ref":"p38","source":"Ista haec tertia declinatio nominativum singularem terminat modis quadraginta uno: in a, in e, in o, in c, in t, in al, in el correptum, in il correptum, il ol productum, in ul correptum, in an, in en correptum, in en productum, in on productum, in ar utrumque, in er correptum, in er productum, in or et in ur utrumque, in as et in es productum, in es correptum, in is utrumque, in os correptum, in os productum, in us productum, in us correptum, in ax et in ex correptum, in ex productum, in ix et in ox correptum, in ox productum, in ux correptum, in ux productum, in ans et in ens productum tantum, in ons correptum, et in ons productum, in uns productum. In a neutrum, ut toreuma toreumatis, dulce dulcis, ordo ordinis, lac lactis, caput capitis, tribunal tribunalis, fel fellis, pugil pugilis, sol solis, consul consulis, Titan Titanis, far faris, cadaver cadaveris, ver veris, marmor marmoris, ebur eboris, fur furis, libertas libertatis, miles militis, pes pedis, navis, lis litis, os ossis, os oris, vetus veteris, senectus senectutis, capax capacis, senex senis, lex legis, pix picis, nox noctis, vox vocis, crux crucis, lux lucis, infans infantis, sapiens sapientis, insons insontis, pons pontis aruns aruntis.","english":"That this third declension ends the singular nominative in forty-one ways: in -a, in -e, in -o, in -c, in -t, in -al, in -el short, in -il short, in -ol long, in -ul short, in -an, in -en short, in -en long, in -on long, in -ar of both quantities, in -er short, in -er long, in -or and in -ur of both quantities, in -as and in -es long, in -es short, in -is of both quantities, in -os short, in -os long, in -us long, in -us short, in -ax and in -ex short, in -ex long, in -ix and in -ox short, in -ox long, in -ux short, in -ux long, in -ans and in -ens long only, in -ons short, and in -ons long, in -uns long. In -a neuter, as toreuma toreumatis, dulce dulcis, ordo ordinis, lac lactis, caput capitis, tribunal tribunalis, fel fellis, pugil pugilis, sol solis, consul consulis, Titan Titanis, far faris, cadaver cadaveris, ver veris, marmor marmoris, ebur eboris, fur furis, libertas libertatis, miles militis, pes pedis, navis, lis litis, os ossis, os oris, vetus veteris, senectus senectutis, capax capacis, senex senis, lex legis, pix picis, nox noctis, vox vocis, crux crucis, lux lucis, infans infantis, sapiens sapientis, insons insontis, pons pontis, aruns aruntis.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":39,"ref":"p39","source":"Sciendum est autem quod omnia nomina in ons et in ens terminata per tis proferant genitivum, exceptis duobus nominibus, ut frons et lens: nam cum partem capitis significare volumus, dicimus frontis; cum vero folium, dicimus frondis; item si animal, lendis, si legumen, lentis. Verum ne quis putet hujus glandis dici, putans quod ita in Virgilio lectum est; sciat quod per nominativum dixerit. Sed hic lector agnoscat quod non quaecunque nomina ab his quadraginta et uno modis fuerint terminata, necesse est tertiae declinationis esse; sed quae sum tertiae declinationis, necesse est ut ab bis quadraginta et uno modis ducant nominativum.\n\nQuarta declinatio est quae genitivum singularem per us profert, vel per u; sed per us in genere masculino et feminino, ut hic versus, haec porticus, hujus versus, hujus porticus; per u vero in genere neutro tantum, ut hoc cornu, hujus cornu, hoc veru, hujus vero, hoc gelu, hujus gelu, etc. Verum haec quarta declinatio nominativum singularem terminat duobus modis, us et u: ut hic gradus, hujus gradus, hoc gelu, hujus gelu. Et hic intelligendum est quod non quaecunque nomina in us et u fuerint terminata, necesse est quartae esse declinationis; sed quae sunt quartae declinationis, necesse est ut habeant nominativum singularem in us vel u terminatum.","english":"But it must be known that all nouns ending in -ons and -ens form their genitive with -tis, with the exception of two nouns, namely frons and lens: for when we wish to signify a part of the head, we say frontis; but when a leaf, we say frondis; likewise if an animal, lendis, if a legume, lentis. But lest anyone think that this is said of glans, believing that it was so read in Virgil, let him know that he spoke by the nominative. But let the reader recognize here that not whatever nouns have been terminated by these forty-one modes must necessarily be of the third declension; but those which are of the third declension must necessarily derive their nominative from these forty-one modes.\n\nThe fourth declension is that which produces the singular genitive with -us, or with -u; but with -us in the masculine and feminine gender, as hic versus, haec porticus, hujus versus, hujus porticus; with -u however in the neuter gender only, as hoc cornu, hujus cornu, hoc veru, hujus veru, hoc gelu, hujus gelu, etc. But this fourth declension terminates the singular nominative in two modes, -us and -u: as hic gradus, hujus gradus, hoc gelu, hujus gelu. And here it must be understood that not whatever nouns have been terminated in -us and -u must necessarily be of the fourth declension; but those which are of the fourth declension must necessarily have their singular nominative terminated in -us or -u.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":40,"ref":"p40","source":"Quinta declinatio est quae genitivum singularem per e et i separatas syllabas profert, et est generis feminini tantum, excepto uno dies, qui est generis incerti; e autem quae est ante s, tunc in genitivo producta est, cum nominativus singularis i et es fuerit, ut series seriei; et tunc correpta est, cum aliquam ante se habuerit consonantem, ut fides fidei, res rei. Verum haec quinta declinatio nominativum terminat uno modo; exit enim in es, ut species speciei. Verum non quicunque nominativus genere feminino in es fuerit terminatus, necesse est ut quintae sit declinationis; sed nomen quod fuerit quintae declinationis, necesse est ut nominativum singularem in es habeat terminatum.\n\nOmnia nomina (exceptis aptotis quae interdum consonantibus terminantur, ut nequam) aut in a terminantur ablativo singulari, ut ab hac musa; aut e, ut ab hoc fonte; aut i, ut ab hac puppi; aut o, ut ab hoc docto; aut u, at ab hoc fluctu. Sed quae a terminantur, genitivum pluralem in rum, dativum et ablativum in is terminant, ut ab hac musa, harum musarum, his et ab his musis. Sed quaedam sunt nomina quibus discernendi sexus gratia corripimus regulam, ut a filia, filiarum, filiabus. Quod si voluerimus sequi Donatum, dicturi sumus, Romanabus, casabus.","english":"The fifth declension is the one that produces its genitive singular with e and i as separate syllables, and it is of the feminine gender only, with the exception of one noun, dies, which is of uncertain gender; moreover, the e that stands before s is long in the genitive when the nominative singular has been i and es, as series, seriei; and it is short when it has had some consonant before it, as fides, fidei, res, rei. But this fifth declension ends its nominative in one way only; for it ends in es, as species, speciei. Yet not every nominative that has ended in es in the feminine gender is necessarily of the fifth declension; but a noun that has been of the fifth declension necessarily has its nominative singular ending in es.\n\nAll nouns (except indeclinables, which are sometimes ended with consonants, as nequam) are ended in the ablative singular either in a, as ab hac musa; or in e, as ab hoc fonte; or in i, as ab hac puppi; or in o, as ab hoc docto; or in u, as ab hoc fluctu. But those that are ended in a end their genitive plural in rum, and their dative and ablative in is, as ab hac musa, harum musarum, his et ab his musis. But there are certain nouns for which, for the sake of distinguishing sex, we shorten the rule, as a filia, filiarum, filiabus. But if we wish to follow Donatus, we shall say Romanabus, casabus.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":41,"ref":"p41","source":"Sed cautum est ut in his hoc faciat, quae in testamentis faciunt quaestiones, ut si quis habeat utriusque sexus liberos, scribat: Dimitto hoc filiis meis, et incertum est utrum filios significaverit an filias. Sed in usu est ut dicamus equabus, mulabus, et fere hoc quatuor nominibus produxit jure loquela, equa, equarum, equabus; mula, mularum, mulabus; filia, filiarum, filiabus; dea, dearum, deabus; quae regula primae declinationis est.\n\nQuae vero in e correpta fuerint terminata, genitivum pluralem hac ratione faciunt, ut e perdant, et um accipiant, ut ab hoc pariete, horum parietum. Ideo enim ita cavemus ne quis nobis objiciat, quare dixit, quae in e producta terminata fuerint, in rum mittunt genitivum pluralem; inveniuntur enim quae in e correpta terminata in rum mittunt, ut ab hac muliere, harum mulierum; ab hoc munere, horum munerum; ab hoc funere, horum funerum. Sed hac illi ratione respondendum est, quod e excluso simul sonat in eadem syllaba quaecunque consonans fuerit inventa; quod si non excluso e junxeris rum, et dixeris, muliere, mulierum, merito quaestio videtur.","english":"But it has been provided that it does this in those nouns which raise questions in wills, as when someone has children of both sexes and writes: \"I bequeath this to my children,\" and it is uncertain whether he meant sons or daughters. But in usage we say equabus, mulabus, and in nearly these four nouns speech has rightly produced it: equa, equarum, equabus; mula, mularum, mulabus; filia, filiarum, filiabus; dea, dearum, deabus; which is the rule of the first declension.\n\nBut those which end in a short e make their plural genitive by this method, so that they lose the e and receive um, as from hic paries, horum parietum. For we take care in this way lest anyone object to us, asking why he said that those ending in a long e form their plural genitive in rum; for there are found nouns ending in a short e that form it in rum, as from haec mulier, harum mulierum; from hoc munus, horum munerum; from hoc funus, horum funerum. But to this one must answer by this reasoning, that when the e is excluded, whatever consonant is found sounds together in the same syllable; whereas if, without excluding the e, you join it to rum and say mulierum, the question rightly arises.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":42,"ref":"p42","source":"Tale est enim quod in his nominibus dubitet, quale est si quaerat, quare ab hoc pariete horum parietum, in tum non in um, nomine nominum, in num non in um, ut ab hoc codice codicum, in cum non in um mittat; sed tamen t, vel r, vel n, vel c, non sunt simul cum um appositae, sed sunt naturales, et per omnes casus fere decurrentes.\n\nVerum haec omnia idcirco quaestionem non pensius commoveant, quoniam non dixit artigraphus, illa in genitivo plurali in tum exeunt, illa in num, illa per rum, illa per cum; sed quia verbo non cautum est, ideo nasci videtur haec quaestio. Sane sciendum est quod contra hanc regulam unum nomen venit, ab hoc vase, vasorum, vasis: causa euphoniae ad secundam declinationem tres casus excepti sunt, casus genitivi pluralis, qui in rum abit, exire debuit in um, ut horum vasum; dativi et ablativi plurales, qui in is exeunt, in bus exire debuerunt, ut his et ab his vasibus; sed quia dictu asperum est, auditus expellit. Quae regula est tertiae declinationis; non quia omnia nomina tertiae declinationis per istam regulam declinentur, sed quae per istam regulam declinantur, tertiae sunt declinationis.","english":"For its doubt about these nouns is of the same kind as if one asked why, from this wall, we say horum parietum, with tum and not um; nomine nominum, with num and not um; ab hoc codice codicum, with cum and not um. But nevertheless the t, or r, or n, or c are not added together with the um, but are natural and run through nearly all the cases.\n\nBut all these things should for this reason not stir up the question too deeply, since the grammarian did not say that those nouns end in tum in the genitive plural, those in num, those in rum, those in cum; but because this was not guarded against in his wording, this question seems to arise. Indeed, it must be known that one noun comes against this rule: ab hoc vase, vasorum, vasis. For the sake of euphony, three cases have been excepted to the second declension: the genitive plural, which ends in rum, ought to have ended in um, as horum vasum; the dative and ablative plural, which end in is, ought to have ended in bus, as his and ab his vasibus; but because it is harsh to say, it is banished from hearing. This rule belongs to the third declension; not because all nouns of the third declension are declined by this rule, but those which are declined by this rule are of the third declension.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":43,"ref":"p43","source":"Quae vero in e producta terminantur, genitivum pluralem per rum, dativum et ablativum per bus proferunt, ut ab hac re, harum rerum, his rebus; quae regula femininorum nominum servit declinationi quintae, excepto uno dies, quod nomen feminini generis esse sic probatur, quod nullum nomen sit masculini generis, quod ablativo singulari in e producta terminetur; masculini vero generis ita esse monstratur, quod facit adverbium hodie, quasi enim est hoc die. Quae regula est quintae declinationis.\n\nQuae vero in i fuerint terminata, genitivum pluralem permanente i in ablativo casu, sed adjuncto um, in ium faciunt, dativum vero et ablativum in bus; genitivus vero qui per ium exit, tot habet formas; nam venit ab ablativo singulari in i terminato, qui ipse per i toties exit, cum nominativus singularis per is fuerit terminatus, genitivus singularis parem numerum syllabarum per is miserit, ut hic ignis, hujus ignis, ab hoc igni; quamvis Lucanus dixerit igne viam scandens: exceptis tribus nominibus, ut hic mensis, juvenis, canis. Aut cum nominativus singularis, in is terminatus,600 fuerit generis communis, ut hic et haec agilis; aut cum nominativus singularis in e correpta fuerit terminatus in genere neutro, et ablativum per i mittat; ideo ne faciat tetraptoton nomen, ut est hoc nubile, nominativus hoc nubile, accus, hoc nubile, voc. o nubile, abl.","english":"But those that end in a long e form the genitive plural in rum, and the dative and ablative in bus, as ab hac re, harum rerum, his rebus; and this rule serves the fifth declension of feminine nouns, with the single exception of dies, which is proved to be of feminine gender by the fact that no noun of masculine gender ends in the ablative singular in a long e; but it is shown to be of masculine gender by the fact that it forms the adverb hodie, for it is as if it were hoc die. And this is the rule of the fifth declension.\n\nBut those that end in i, with the i retained in the ablative case, make the genitive plural in ium by adding um, but the dative and ablative in bus; the genitive, however, which ends in ium, has as many forms; for it comes from the ablative singular ending in i, which itself ends in i as many times as the nominative singular has ended in is, and the genitive singular has sent forth an equal number of syllables in is, as hic ignis, huius ignis, ab hoc igni; although Lucan said igne viam scandens: with three nouns excepted, as hic mensis, iuvenis, canis. Or when the nominative singular, ending in is, has been of common gender, as hic et haec agilis; or when the nominative singular has ended in a short e in the neuter gender, and sends forth the ablative in i; therefore lest the noun make a tetraptote, as is hoc nubile, nominative hoc nubile, accusative hoc nubile, vocative o nubile, ablative.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":44,"ref":"p44","source":"ab hoc nubile; quod neutrorum nominum natura non patitur. Aut cum nominativus singularis in ens syllaba fuerit terminatus, sed in nomine; nam si participium fuerit, non ita erit, in e correptum mittit; ut ab hoc parente; si vero nomen, ablativus in i exit, ut dicas ab hoc parenti; quamvis antiqui tertiae declinationis nomina in ablativo singulari per e correptum proferre voluerant, ut hujus rationis, ab hac ratione.\n\nSed nonnulla nomina ab hac regula visa sunt aberrare; idcirco illorum non declinatur auctoritas; veniunt enim contra, vis, Tiberis; non enim potest dici ab hac vire, vel ab hoc Tibere. Aut exit genitivus supradictus pluralis in ium, ab ablativo in e correpto terminato veniens: qui et ipse ablativus venit aut a nominativo singulari in ons terminato, ut pons, ponte, pontium; vel a genere feminino, ut ab hac arte, artium, clade, cladium.","english":"from this nubile; which the nature of neuter nouns does not allow. Or when the nominative singular has ended in the syllable ens, but in a noun; for if it is a participle, it will not be so, it sends into a short e; as from this parent; but if it is a noun, the ablative ends in i, so that you say from this parent; although the ancients wished to pronounce nouns of the third declension in the ablative singular with a short e, as of this reason, from this reason.\n\nBut some nouns have seemed to stray from this rule; therefore their authority is not declined; for they come against it, vis, Tiberis; for it cannot be said from this vire, or from this Tibere. Or the aforementioned genitive plural ends in ium, coming from an ablative terminated in a short e: which ablative itself comes either from a nominative singular terminated in ons, as pons, ponte, pontium; or from the feminine gender, as from this arte, artium, clade, cladium.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":45,"ref":"p45","source":"Sciendum est autem quod non omnia nomina in ns terminata, vel omnia nomina generis feminini ablativo casu singulari in e correpto terminato, genitivum pluralem necesse est ut habeant per ium mittere; sed quae in e correpta terminantur ablativo singulari, et genitivum pluralem per ium mittunt, necesse est veniant a nominativo casu singulari in ns terminato, vel a genere feminino. Haec autem nomina quae accusativum casum singularem per proferebant, ut hanc navem, hanc puppem, hanc clavem, nos hodie dicimus hanc navim, hanc puppim, hanc clavim; sane accusativum pluralem nominum horum per eis, quae genitivum pluralem per ium mittunt, nominativum per es melius proferimus, ut dicamus has claveis per eis accusativum, per es nominativum pluralem hae claves. Et revera, ne in confusione veniat dubia elocutio, ut si quis dicat, puppes regunt, incertum enim est utrum puppes alios regant, an puppes alii regant: quae regula est tertiae declinationis.","english":"But it must be known that not all nouns ending in ns, nor all nouns of the feminine gender whose ablative singular ends in a short e, necessarily form their genitive plural with ium; rather, those which end in a short e in the ablative singular and form their genitive plural with ium necessarily come from a nominative singular ending in ns, or from the feminine gender. Moreover, these nouns which formerly formed the accusative singular with e, as hanc navem, hanc puppem, hanc clavem, we today call hanc navim, hanc puppim, hanc clavim; indeed, for the accusative plural of these nouns we better express it with eis, since they form the genitive plural with ium, and the nominative with es, so that we say has claveis with eis for the accusative, and hae claves with es for the nominative plural. And in truth, lest doubtful speech fall into confusion, as if someone should say puppes regunt, for it is uncertain whether puppes rule others, or puppes are ruled by others: which rule belongs to the third declension.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":46,"ref":"p46","source":"Quae vero in o fuerint terminati in ablativo casu singulari, ut ab hoc egregio, genitivum pluralem per rum proferunt, ut horum egregiorum, dativum et ablativum per is, his et ab his egregiis. Duo contraria contra hanc legem inventa esse monstrantur, ut ab hac domo, harum domorum, his et ab his domibus; item ab hoc jugero, horum jugerum, his et ab his jugeribus.\n\nSed sciendum est antiquos declinasse omnia haec nomina, quaestione sublata, ut dicerent quartam declinationem esse ab hac domu, harum domuum, his et ab his domibus; ab hoc jugere, horum jugerum, his et ab his jugeribus, ratione tertiae declinationis: ut esset nominativus hic juger, et careat secunda declinatione juger jugeris, ut tuber tuberis; sed in eo, domus, nomine, ideo corruptus est ablativus tantum, quod minus salva quartae declinationis ratione decurreret; et dum corruptus est ablativus singularis, necessario simul et genitivus; et in eo quod est hoc jugerum, hujus jugeri, et ab hoc jugero, corruptus est genitivus pluralis, qui cum facere debuisset jugerorum, fecit jugerum. Item dativus et ablativus pluralis, qui cum facere debuissent his et ab his jugeris, fecerunt his et ab his jugeribus. Verum in his nominibus non artis aliqua ratione, sed euphoniae dignitate hos casus excipimus, quae regula est secundae declinationis.","english":"But those which have ended in o in the ablative singular case, as from this egregio, form their genitive plural with rum, as of these egregiorum, and their dative and ablative with is, his and ab his egregiis. Two exceptions contrary to this rule are shown to have been found, as from this domo, of these domorum, his and ab his domibus; likewise from this jugero, of these jugerum, his and ab his jugeribus.\n\nBut it must be known that the ancients declined all these nouns with the question removed, so that they would say that it belongs to the fourth declension: ab hac domu, harum domuum, his et ab his domibus; ab hoc jugere, horum jugerum, his et ab his jugeribus, by the reasoning of the third declension: so that the nominative would be hic juger, and it would lack the second declension juger jugeris, like tuber tuberis; but in this noun, domus, therefore only the ablative has been corrupted, because it would run its course less soundly according to the reasoning of the fourth declension; and when the ablative singular has been corrupted, necessarily the genitive is corrupted at the same time; and in the case of hoc jugerum, hujus jugeri, and ab hoc jugero, the genitive plural has been corrupted, which, when it ought to have made jugerorum, made jugerum. Likewise the dative and ablative plural, which, when they ought to have made his et ab his jugeris, made his et ab his jugeribus. But in these nouns we admit these cases not by any reasoning of art, but by the worthiness of euphony, which is the rule of the second declension.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":47,"ref":"p47","source":"Quae vero in u fuerint terminata ablativo casu singulari, ut ab hoc genu, cornu, genitivum pluralem semper per uum proferunt, ut horum cornuum; dativum vero et ablativum per bus, his et ab his cornibus. Verum in dativo et ablativo plurali in penultima syllaba u litteram nomina illa servant, ne singula cum prolata fuerint, aliud significare videantur; ut si volentes significare artus, his et ab his artubus, ne confusionem faciamus inter artus et artes; simi liter dicendum est arces, arcibus; arcus, arcubus.\n\nSciendum est quod non cadunt in has quas supra diximus regulas nomina aptota, ideo quod in ablativo casu singulari aut per consonantes exeunt, quod certe ablativi natura non recipit, ut ab hoc nequam; aut si per vocales exeunt, non mittunt genitivum pluralem in ium, ut frugi non facit frugium, nihili non facit nihilium, quemadmodum puppi puppium facit. Inveniuntur nomina tamen singularia quae in genitivo plurali regula non potiuntur, ut hic pulvis, horum pulverum; inveniuntur tamen pluralia quae ablativum non habent singularem, quae aliter exeunt in genitivo plurali, ut Vulcanalia, utrum horum Vulcanaliorum, an horum Vulcanalium dicamus, incertum est.","english":"But those which have ended in u in the ablative singular case, as from this genu, cornu, always form their genitive plural with uum, as of these cornuum; but their dative and ablative with bus, his and ab his cornibus. Yet in the dative and ablative plural, those nouns keep the letter u in the penultimate syllable, lest when individual words are pronounced they seem to signify something else; as, if wishing to signify limbs, his and ab his artubus, lest we create confusion between artus and artes; likewise one must say arces, arcibus; arcus, arcubus.\n\nIt must be known that aptota nouns do not fall under these rules which we have stated above, for the reason that in the ablative singular case they either end in consonants, which the nature of the ablative certainly does not admit, as from this nequam; or if they end in vowels, they do not form the genitive plural in ium, as frugi does not make frugium, nihili does not make nihilium, in the way that puppi makes puppium. Singular nouns are found, however, which do not obtain the rule in the genitive plural, as hic pulvis, horum pulverum; plural nouns are found, however, which do not have an ablative singular, which end otherwise in the genitive plural, as Vulcanalia, whether we should say horum Vulcanaliorum or horum Vulcanalium is uncertain.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":48,"ref":"p48","source":"Sed hoc sciendum est, quod cum talia occurrunt nomina, ad alia nos his similia conferre debemus, quorum declinatione docti sumus, etiam ista simili ratione declinemus: ut puta, si nesciamus utrum horum Vulcanaliorum an Vulcanalium faciat, ponamus econtrario sedile nomen, quod habet in ablativo casu singulari sedili, et ad hanc collationem incipiamus declinare, ut haec sedilia, horum sedilium, haec Vulcanalia, horum Vulcanalium; quamvis contra hanc artem possit dici Vulcanaliorum, quomodo anciliorum, dicente Horatio: Anciliorum nominis et togae oblitus est.\n\nSciendum est quod neutra nomina in nominativo plurali in a terminata genitivum pluralem per ium, non per orum proferunt, ut agilia, agilium, fortia, fortium. Illud praeterea nosse debemus, quod ea nomina quae in numero singulari genere dissentiunt, genitivi pluralis et ablativi singularis legem non suscipiunt, quamvis illud habeant, ut hoc caepe, hae caepae; sed haec nomina tali arte, quali illa superius declinabimus, ut hae caepae, harum caeparum: tamen nomina numeri pluralis sunt. Quae vero singularis numeri genere dissentiunt a plurali, ac si essent tantum numeri pluralis, non veniunt ad supradictas regulas quas a Graecis sumpsimus, ut poema, thema, schema, ideo quod ablativum Graeci non habent, unde possint regulas ista nomina suscipere, quia invenimus haec ipsa apud antiquos feminino genere declinata.","english":"But this must be known, that when such nouns occur, we ought to compare them with other nouns similar to them, by whose declension we have been taught, and decline these too by a similar principle: for example, if we do not know whether it makes Vulcanaliorum or Vulcanalium, let us set against it the noun sedile, which has in the ablative singular case sedili, and by this comparison let us begin to decline, as haec sedilia, horum sedilium, haec Vulcanalia, horum Vulcanalium; although contrary to this art it can be said Vulcanaliorum, in the manner of anciliorum, as Horace says: He has forgotten the name of the Ancilia and the toga.\n\nIt must be known that neuter nouns ending in a in the nominative plural form their genitive plural with ium, not with orum, as agilia, agilium, fortia, fortium. We ought moreover to know this, that those nouns which differ in gender in the singular number do not receive the rule of the genitive plural and the ablative singular, although they have this, as hoc caepe, hae caepae; but we shall decline these nouns by the same principle as those above, as hae caepae, harum caeparum: yet they are nouns of the plural number. But those which differ in gender in the singular number from the plural, as if they were only of the plural number, do not come under the aforesaid rules which we have taken from the Greeks, as poema, thema, schema, for the reason that the Greeks do not have an ablative, whence these nouns could receive the rules, because we find these very nouns declined in the feminine gender among the ancients.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":49,"ref":"p49","source":"Analogia est rerum similium collatio, quae nos docet, cum nobis in aliis velut similium nominum objicitur declinatio, quid quaeramus et probemus, hujus comparationis an firma sit quaestio. Igitur in analogia ista requiruntur tria: accidentia nominum, exitus syllabarum, et penultimae consonantes; ut si quis nobis objiciat lupus, et lepus, dicens: Quare facit lupus lupi, et lepus leporis, currendum est ad analogiam, et scrutandum est si omnes praedictae partes inter se conveniant; nam si una pars harum titubaverit, jure vincitur contendentis objectio. Curramus ergo per singulas partes ita; Lepus appellativum nomen est, et illud appellativum; lupus non comparatur, nec lepus; lupus numeri singularis, et lepus similiter numeri singularis est; lupus figurae simplicis est, et lepus figurae simplicis; lupus casus nominativi, et lepus ejusdem; lupus per pus exit, et lepus per pus; sed quia in solo genere titubat analogia, declinatur illud per duo genera, et illud per unum. Illud praeterea nosse debemus, quod Graeca nomina a sua melius declinatione proferuntur, ut haec Dido, hujus Didos, huic Dido, hanc Didon, o Dido, ab hac Dido.","english":"Analogy is the comparison of similar things, which teaches us, when the declension of similar nouns is set before us in other instances, what we should seek and prove, and whether the inquiry of this comparison is sound. Therefore in this analogy three things are required: the accidents of nouns, the endings of syllables, and the penultimate consonants; so that if someone sets before us lupus and lepus, saying: Why does lupus make lupi, and lepus make leporis? we must have recourse to analogy, and examine whether all the aforesaid parts agree among themselves; for if one of these parts falters, the objection of the contender is rightly defeated. Let us therefore run through each part thus: lepus is an appellative noun, and so is lupus; lupus is not comparative, nor is lepus; lupus is of the singular number, and lepus likewise of the singular number; lupus is of simple figure, and lepus of simple figure; lupus is of the nominative case, and lepus of the same; lupus ends in pus, and lepus in pus; but because the analogy falters in gender alone, the one is declined through two genders, and the other through one. Moreover we ought to know this, that Greek nouns are better pronounced according to their own declension, as haec Dido, hujus Didos, huic Dido, hanc Didon, o Dido, ab hac Dido.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":50,"ref":"p50","source":"Nominativus in Latinis aut in a terminatur, ut musa; aut in e, ut sedile; aut in i, ut frugi; aut in o, ut Cicero; aut in u, ut cornu; aut in l, ut mel; aut in um, ut scamnum; aut in en, ut carmen; aut in r, ut puer; aut in s, ut doctus; aut in x, ut pix; aut in t, ut caput; aut in c, ut halec: cujus declinatio in dubitationem cecidit; incertum est enim utrum halec an halect dicatur, ideo quod nullum nomen in terminetur, nisi lac; quod et ipsum in majorem venit dubitationem. Lac enim dici non potest ideo, ne in genitivo faciat lacis, lactis enim non est; huic siquidem in nominativo nominis litteram non invenimus t, fact autem dici non potest, quia nullum nomen reperiri potuit duabus mutis terminatum, undo posset facere lactis apposita littera in nominativo singulari; lacte solum remansit, quod quasi ex arte diceretur, quod terminetur quasi nomina neutri generis, ut monile, sedile et extera hujusmodi nomina; et auctoritate Plauti, qui dixit: sicut lacte lactis simile est: sed quamvis non arte, sed ex auctoritate firmetur, tamen sciendum est quod hodie usu ita loqui debeamus, quomodo locutus est Virgilius:","english":"The nominative in Latin ends either in a, as musa; or in e, as sedile; or in i, as frugi; or in o, as Cicero; or in u, as cornu; or in l, as mel; or in um, as scamnum; or in en, as carmen; or in r, as puer; or in s, as doctus; or in x, as pix; or in t, as caput; or in c, as halec: the declension of this last has fallen into doubt, for it is uncertain whether one says halec or halect, because no noun ends in t except lac, and this very word has come into greater doubt. For lac cannot be said, lest it make lacis in the genitive, for it is not lactis; indeed, we do not find the letter t in the nominative of this noun, but fact cannot be said, because no noun could be found ending in two mute consonants, from which it could make lactis by adding the letter in the nominative singular; lacte alone remains, which is said, as it were, by rule, because it ends like nouns of the neuter gender, such as monile, sedile, and other names of this kind; and by the authority of Plautus, who said: sicut lacte lactis simile est. But although it is confirmed not by rule but by authority, yet it must be known that today we ought to speak by usage just as Virgil spoke:","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":51,"ref":"p51","source":"Lac mihi non aestate novum, non frigore defit.\n\nDe pronomine.\n\nPronomen est pars orationis; atque ideo dictum est pronomen quia cum pro nomine positum fuerit, pene idem quod et nomen significare videtur. Ideo autem dictum est pene, quia si dicatur tantumdem, pronomen pars videretur esse superflua. Sed constat quia nomen majorem sibi significationis vindicet partem. Vim enim suam tunc pronomen obtinet, quando praecesserit nomen; ut si dicamus, Cicero defendit Roscium; ipse eliam Syllam, ilic enim, ipse, sic est positum, tanquam si de novo repetissemus Cicero: sed pro illo nomine propter fastidium iterationis nominis pronomen videtur inventum.\n\nVerum ne quis hoc in quaestionem ducat, quare dicatur pronomen, et pro nomine sciat dictum esse sermonem; si vero pronomen non esset, nomen sub una conclusione collectum esset; sed non est pronomen, et nomen, quomodo curatorem non dicimus procuratorem. Separat autem eam partem Donatus a caeteris partibus orationis, cum dicit pronomen partem esse orationis quae fungitur vice nominis; nulla enim de illis tribus partibus orationis hoc sustentat officium.","english":"Milk is never lacking to me, either fresh in summer or in the cold.\n\nOn the pronoun.\n\nThe pronoun is a part of speech; and it is for this reason called a pronoun, because when it is put in place of a noun, it seems to signify almost the same thing as the noun. But the reason it is said to be \"almost\" is that if it were said to be exactly the same, the pronoun would seem to be a superfluous part of speech. But it is agreed that the noun claims the greater share of signification for itself. For the pronoun obtains its force then, when a noun has preceded it; as if we say, Cicero defended Roscius; he also defended Sulla—for \"he,\" placed thus, is as if we had repeated \"Cicero\" anew; but in place of that noun, on account of the weariness of repeating the noun, the pronoun seems to have been invented.\n\nBut lest anyone raise this as a question, why it is called a pronoun, let him know that it is said to stand in place of a noun; but if it were not a pronoun, the noun would have been gathered under one heading; but it is not a pronoun and a noun in the way that we do not call a caretaker a procurator. Donatus, moreover, separates this part from the other parts of speech, when he says that the pronoun is a part of speech that performs the function of a noun; for none of those three parts of speech sustains this office.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":52,"ref":"p52","source":"Verum haec ipsa particula personam suscipit certam in tribus, nec amplias pronominibus, ut ego, tu, ille. Accidunt pronomini sex, qualitas, genus, numerus, figura, persona, casus. Sed qualitas bifarie dividitur iu ea pronomina quae vocantur finita, quae idcirco finita dicuntur, quia suscipiunt personas; et in ea quae sunt infinita, quae ideo infinita dicta sunt, quod significationis certae non habeant finem; et sunt septem, quis, qualis, talis, quantus, tantus, quotus, totus.\n\nIn hac re Plinius Secundus grammaticos reprehendit, quare accidens commune dicunt, cum aliud sit accidens, et id cui accidit; hinc dicunt pronomina finita esse, quae sunt etiam personas. Nam cum quaeramus finitum pronomen, invenimus, ego; et cum primam personam, invenimus iterum, ego: itaque fiat, ut unum sit accidens, atque illud, cui accidit. Sed scire debemus quod hujusmodi definitores non tam in ratione quam in ordine erravere verborum; dicentes personas pronominibus accidere, cum dicere debuissent finita pronomina esse, et easdem personas, quia infinita non recipiunt personas; nunquam enim inveniuntur absque personis. Constat tamen finita pronomina non esse nisi duo, ego et tu; verum, ille, tunc finitum est, cum rem praesentem ostendimus; si autem de absente sit relatio, minus quam finitum erit, ut hic.","english":"But this same particle takes on a definite person in three, and no more, for pronouns, as I, you, he. Six things happen to a pronoun: quality, gender, number, figure, person, case. But quality is divided in two ways: into those pronouns which are called definite, which are for this reason called definite because they take on persons; and into those which are indefinite, which are for this reason called indefinite because they do not have a limit of definite signification; and there are seven of them: who, of what sort, such, how great, so great, how many, so many.\n\nIn this matter Pliny Secundus criticizes the grammarians for calling a common accident what is one thing, and that to which it happens another; hence they say that definite pronouns are those which are also persons. For when we seek a definite pronoun, we find I; and when we seek the first person, we find again I: and so it comes about that one thing is the accident, and another that to which it happens. But we ought to know that definers of this sort have erred not so much in the reason as in the order of words; saying that persons happen to pronouns, when they ought to have said that definite pronouns are also persons, because indefinite ones do not receive persons; for they are never found without persons. Yet it is agreed that there are only two definite pronouns, I and you; but he is then definite, when we point out a present thing; if however the reference is about an absent person, it will be less than definite, as here.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":53,"ref":"p53","source":"Minus quam finita pronomina dicta sunt, quia minus quam finita significant, ut sunt sex, is, idem, se, ipse, iste, hic. Etenim, ipse, non potest dici, nisi sicut de eo qui jam notus est, aut de eo de quo jam nominatio est facta sermonum. Nam cum audio, ipse venit, plus est quam finitum apertissime; licet jam cum non videam, de quo dicatur; minus autem a finito, quam ultro potest admittere in quaestionem, ut si quis dicat, ipse venit, sed ad hos qui ignorant, de quo audiunt.\n\nSunt etiam quinque possessiva, meus, tuus, suus, noster, vester; quae idcirco dicta sunt, quia per haec nos aliquid ostendimus possidere; nemo enim dicit, meus, nisi sit quod possideat.\n\nCAPUT II.\n\nDe verbo.\n\nVerbum dictum est, quia verberato aere faciat sonum; et ex illi causa ista pars sibi hoc nomen specialiter sumpsit, quod hac frequenter utimur in oratione. Nam frequenter in sermone composito duo verba invenimus, unum nomen, vel unum participium; ut puta, Virgilius habet recitare; ecce, habet et recitare duo verba sunt: illae sunt singulares partes.","english":"Pronouns are called less than definite because they signify less than definite things, as these six: is, idem, se, ipse, iste, hic. For ipse cannot be said except as of one who is already known, or of one about whom a mention has already been made in speech. For when I hear \"ipse venit\" [he himself has come], it is more than definite, most plainly; although I do not see him of whom it is said; but it is less than definite, since it can of itself be brought into question, as if someone says \"ipse venit,\" but to those who do not know of whom they hear.\n\nThere are also five possessives: meus, tuus, suus, noster, vester; which are so called because through these we show that we possess something; for no one says \"meus\" unless there is something he possesses.\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nOn the verb.\n\nThe verb (verbum) is so called because, when the air is struck (verberato aere), it makes a sound; and for that reason this part of speech has specially taken this name for itself, because we use it frequently in speech. For frequently in composed speech we find two verbs and one noun, or one participle; for example, \"Virgilius habet recitare\" [Virgil has [something] to recite]; behold, \"habet\" and \"recitare\" are two verbs: those are individual parts.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":54,"ref":"p54","source":"Verbum est pars orationis cum tempore et persona. Scire debemus quod verbum illud est maxime, quia habet personam simul et tempus; si enim aliter fuerit, non est verbum; nam si tempus solum habuerit, participium est; si personam solam, pronomen est; si utrumque simul fuerit, verbum est.\n\nVerbum aut agentis aut patientis habet significationem, ut scribo, scribor; scribo, agentis; scribor, patientis. Neutrale vero, et deponens, aut agentis, aut patientis, ut curro, vapulo, loquor, luctor. Commune, agentis et patientis, ut osculor te, et osculor a te.\n\nQualitas verborum in modis et in formis est. Donatus quidem praepostere posuit, ut prius de modis diceret, et sic de formis, de quibus hic prius tractare debemus; nam formae proprie sensum tenent vel genus. Scire autem debemus quia formae inde dictae sunt, quod nos in unamquamque rem informent: quia per eas ostendimus quid geramus. Quid enim significat verbum, per formas agnoscimus. Formae verborum sunt quae tenent sensum; modi autem sunt qui ad declinationem pertinent. Unde scio quid sit declinatio, nisi prius didicero quid sit sensus? Ideo dixit Donatus, quas formas alii verborum generibus, vel significationibus permiscent. Nam forma proprie sensum tenet, vel genus; ut puta, meditativa declinatio, quasi meditantis sensus est, id est, legere cupio. Nunc de singulis formis tractabimus.","english":"A verb is a part of speech with tense and person. We must know that this is most properly a verb, because it has both person and tense at once; for if it were otherwise, it is not a verb; for if it has tense only, it is a participle; if person only, it is a pronoun; if it has both at once, it is a verb.\n\nA verb has signification either of acting or of being acted upon, as scribo, scribor; scribo, of acting; scribor, of being acted upon. But the neuter and deponent have signification either of acting or of being acted upon, as curro, vapulo, loquor, luctor. The common has that of both acting and being acted upon, as osculor te, and osculor a te.\n\nThe quality of verbs lies in moods and in forms. Donatus indeed set this out in reverse order, so as to speak first of moods and then of forms, about which we ought here to treat first; for forms properly hold the sense or the kind. But we must know that forms are so called because they inform us as to each thing: because through them we show what we do. For what a verb signifies, we recognize through its forms. The forms of verbs are those which hold the sense; the moods are those which pertain to inflection. Whence do I know what inflection is, unless I have first learned what sense is? Therefore Donatus said that others confuse forms with the kinds or significations of verbs. For a form properly holds the sense or the kind; for example, the meditative inflection is, as it were, the sense of one meditating, that is, I desire to read. Now we shall treat of the individual forms.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":55,"ref":"p55","source":"Inchoativae formae sunt quinque regulae quae ostendunt formam inchoativam: si a neutrali verbo originem sumant; si in sco syllabam exeunt; si tertiae sint conjugationis correptae; si careant tempore praeterito perfecto et. plusquam perfecto (nam quod perfectum est inchoativum esse non potest); si careant participio futuro, ut fervesco, fervesciturus nemo dicit.\n\nFrequentativa verba tunc sunt primae conjugationis, quoties verba in to exeunt, ut lectito lectitas, cursito cursitas; quoties vero in so terminantur, in tertiam transeunt, ut facesso, lacesso. Consuesco, consuevi videtur non esse inchoativum, quia praeteritum perfectum habet; quidquid enim inchoatur, praeteritum non habet.\n\nSunt etiam frequentativa a nomine venientia. Hic Donatus erravit, nam patrizat, idem est ac patri similis est. Perfecta forma est, ut sorbeo, sugo, fit inde quasi diminutio, sorbillo, sugillo. Sunt sine origine perfectae formae, ut vacillo, pitisso, non enim facit pilo, vaco. Inchoativis sunt similia, ut compesco; sed quia compescui facit, non est inchoativum, quia nescii perfectionem inchoatio.","english":"There are five rules for inchoative forms, which show an inchoative form: if they take their origin from a neuter verb; if they end in the syllable -sco; if they belong to the third conjugation, short; if they lack the past perfect and pluperfect tenses (for what is perfect cannot be inchoative); if they lack the future participle, as fervesco, for no one says fervesciturus.\n\nFrequentative verbs are then of the first conjugation whenever verbs end in -to, as lectito lectitas, cursito cursitas; but whenever they end in -so, they pass into the third conjugation, as facesso, lacesso. Consuesco, consuevi seems not to be inchoative, because it has a past perfect; for whatever is inchoative does not have a past.\n\nThere are also frequentatives coming from a noun. Here Donatus erred, for patrizat is the same as \"is like the father.\" The perfect form is, as sorbeo, sugo, from which there comes, as it were, a diminutive, sorbillo, sugillo. There are perfect forms without origin, as vacillo, pitisso, for it does not make pilo, vaco. They are similar to inchoatives, as compesco; but because it makes compescui, it is not inchoative, because inchoation does not know perfection.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":56,"ref":"p56","source":"Inchoativa eunt in sco a perfecta forma, ut horreo perfecta est; nam horreo perfectum, horresco inchoativum est. Sunt quae originem non habent, ut consuesco, quiesco; et hic Donatos erravit, quia haec inchoativa verba dixit; nam praeteritum habent consuevi, quievi; ergo nec inchoativa sunt.\n\nNotandam est quia modi ipsi significationes suas habent; indicativus, ut lego, ex hoc dictus, quia per ipsum indico quid dicam vel faciam, et hoc de caeteris, ut legitur; permissivus modus excludi debet, quare? Quid enim prodest modum dicere, cum habeamus futurum tempus, ut legam? Infinitivus, ut legere, non accipit pronomina linita; nemo enim dicit, legere a me, a te, ab illo: ideo Donatus sic docuit. Impersonalis vero accipit, ut legitur a me, a te, ab illo, a nobis, a vobis, ab illis. Quidam hunc modum pro genere ac significatione accipiunt; nam sic impersonalis habet, quia omne verbum recipit Senus verbi; quomodo enim dico, ego lego, tu legis, le legit; sicut, legitur a me, a te, ab illo.","english":"Inchoatives end in -sco from a perfect form, as horreo is a perfect form; for horreo is perfect, horresco is inchoative. There are some that have no origin, such as consuesco, quiesco; and here Donatus erred, because he called these verbs inchoative; for they have the past consuevi, quievi; therefore they are not inchoative.\n\nIt must be noted that the moods themselves have their own meanings; the indicative, as lego, is so called from this, because through it I indicate what I say or do, and this applies to the rest, as legitur; the permissive mood ought to be excluded, why? For what does it profit to name a mood, when we have the future tense, as legam? The infinitive, as legere, does not take definite pronouns; for no one says legere a me, a te, ab illo: therefore Donatus taught thus. The impersonal, however, does take them, as legitur a me, a te, ab illo, a nobis, a vobis, ab illis. Some take this mood according to gender and meaning; for thus it is impersonal, because every verb receives the sense of the verb; for just as I say ego lego, tu legis, le legit; so legitur a me, a te, ab illo.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":57,"ref":"p57","source":"A se veniunt haec verba quae in et exeunt, ut pudet; nam pudeo nemo dicit. Alia aliunde veniunt, ut latet, nam lateo facit; ergo quasi aliunde suscipit declinationem. Scire autem debemus quod nullum participium ab eo in us exit.\n\nQuinque rebus intelligitur conjugatio, si temporis praesentis sit, si numeri singularis, si indicativi modi, si in activo habuerit ante litteram in secunda persona unam ex tribus, ut puta a, e, i; si in passivo ante ris, syllabas easdem habuerit. Prima et secunda conjugatio habent regulas simplices: de tertia scire debemus, quod si i correptam habuerit, futurum tempus in am tantum mittet, ut lego, legam; si productam, in am et in bo, ut nutrio, nutriam, nutribo facit. Scire autem debemus quia tunc est correpta, quando i secundae personae activi temporis praesentis transit in e in passivo, ut lego legis, legor legeris; quando permanet i et in activo et in passivo ante syllabam, producta est, ut audio audis, audior audiris. Odi, sum, possum, neutra defectiva sunt.","english":"These verbs come from themselves which end in -it and -it, such as pudet; for no one says pudeo. Others come from elsewhere, such as latet, for lateo makes it; therefore it takes its declension as if from elsewhere. But we should know that no participle from it ends in -us.\n\nConjugation is understood by five things: if it is of the present tense, if of the singular number, if of the indicative mood, if in the active it has had before the letter in the second person one of three, namely a, e, i; if in the passive before -ris it has had the same syllables. The first and second conjugation have simple rules: concerning the third we should know that if it has a short i, the future tense will send it out only in -am, as lego, legam; if a long one, in -am and in -bo, as nutrio makes nutriam, nutribo. But we should know that it is short when the i of the second person of the active present tense passes into e in the passive, as lego legis, legor legeris; when the i remains both in the active and in the passive before the syllable, it is long, as audio audis, audior audiris. Odi, sum, possum are neuter defectives.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":58,"ref":"p58","source":"Scire autem debes quod ipsa recta verba sunt, quae in declinatione servant species suas, ut puta, lego, legebam, legi, ete·, et sic in passivis. Gandeo vero, fio, soleo, quia mutant praeteritum, non sunt vera verba, sed neutra passiva dicenda sunt; quae ideo Donatus ita appellavit, quod inaequalia dicantur. Cedo, vel ave non declinantur, sed quemadmodum lecta sunt, dicimus. Incertae vero significationis verba sunt, quae pro arbitrio nostro dicimus, ut condio, condis, condior, etc. Adulor participia etiam recipit omnia; facit enim adulans, adulaturus, adulandus. In verbis quidam dualem numerum dicunt, id est communem, ut legere, sed falso; nemo enim dicit ego legere, nos legere.\n\nPraeteriti temporis differentiae sunt tres: imperfecta, quam statim dimittimus; perfecta, quam dudum dimisimus; plusquam perfecta, quam jam dudum dimisimus, legebam, legi, legeram. Donatus dicit non posse inveniri ante o in indicativo modo primam personam, praeter tres litteras vocales aut e aut i, aut u; etiam est o quarta, sed Graece, ut boo, boas, boat, unde est illud: Reboant silvaeque, et magnus Olympus. Ko non praeponitur, verum est, sed praeponitur, ut kalendae.","english":"But you should know that those are true verbs which keep their forms in declension, for example lego, legebam, legi, etc., and so in the passive. But gaudeo, fio, soleo, because they change the past, are not true verbs, but should be called neuter passives; which Donatus for that reason so called, because they are said to be unequal. Cedo and ave are not declined, but we say them just as they are read. Verbs of uncertain meaning are those which we say at our own discretion, such as condio, condis, condior, etc. Adulor also receives all participles; for it makes adulans, adulaturus, adulandus. In verbs some say there is a dual number, that is, a common one, as legere, but falsely; for no one says ego legere, nos legere.\n\nThe differences of past time are three: imperfect, which we set aside at once; perfect, which we set aside a while ago; pluperfect, which we set aside long ago: legebam, legi, legeram. Donatus says that before o in the indicative mood the first person cannot be found, except the three vowel letters either e or i or u; o is also a fourth, but in Greek, as boo, boas, boat, whence is that: Reboant silvaeque, et magnus Olympus. K is not placed before it, it is true, but it is placed before it, as kalendae.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":59,"ref":"p59","source":"Sunt verba defectiva, alia per modos, ut cedo, id est dic, non facit cedebam, quanquam lectum sit in plurali numero, cedite, id est, dicite; alia per formas, ut facesso, quod perfectum non habet, nam facio, factito facit; alia per conjugationes, ut adsum, ades; non potest colligi conjugatio, quia nec habet a ante ultimam litteram, nec e productam, sed correptam, nec i correptam, noc productam; alia per genera, ut gaudeo, gavisus sum; alia per numeros, ut faxo: faximus enim nemo dixit; alia per figuras, ut impleo; alia per tempora, ut ferveo, fervebo; nemo dicit, et ferviturus; ne nos turbet, quod eadem repetit.\n\nCAPUT III.\n\nDe adverbio.\n\nAdverbium est quod verbo accidit, ut puta, docte fecisti: docte, adverbium; fecisti, verbum. A nomine et verbo veniunt adverbia, ut pedetentim; nomen est pes, tento, verbum. Verum unam partem fecerunt orationis a participio veniens adverbium, ut indulgens, indulgenter. Hic erravit Donatus, nam indulgens non est participium, quia comparatur, facit enim indulgens, indulgentior. Aliqua in o productam exeunt, ut falso; nam adverbium esse potest; ut falso ad me relatum est; et falso locutus est. Item dativus et ablativus casus, huic et ab hoc falso. Facile et difficile nomina melius dicimus quam adverbia, licet pro adverbiis sint posita.","english":"There are defective verbs: some defective in moods, as cedo, that is, \"say,\" which does not form cedebam, although cedite, that is, \"say,\" is read in the plural; others defective in forms, as facesso, which has no perfect, for facio and factito do form one; others defective in conjugations, as adsum, ades, whose conjugation cannot be determined, because it has neither a before the last letter, nor e long, but e short, nor i short, nor i long; others defective in genders, as gaudeo, gavisus sum; others defective in numbers, as faxo, for no one has said faximus; others defective in figures, as impleo; others defective in tenses, as ferveo, fervebo, which no one says, and ferviturus; let it not disturb us that he repeats the same thing.\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nOn the adverb.\n\nAn adverb is that which attaches to a verb, for example, docte fecisti: docte is an adverb, fecisti is a verb. Adverbs come from a noun and a verb, as pedetentim: pes is a noun, tento a verb. But they have made one part of speech out of the adverb coming from a participle, as indulgens, indulgenter. Here Donatus erred, for indulgens is not a participle, since it is compared, for it forms indulgens, indulgentior. Some end in long o, as falso, for it can be an adverb, as falso ad me relatum est, and falso locutus est. Likewise the dative and ablative case, huic and ab hoc falso. We call facile and difficile nouns better than adverbs, although they are placed for adverbs.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":60,"ref":"p60","source":"Caeterum si essent adverbia, faciliter et difficiliter facerent; nam quaecunque nomina dativo singulari in i exeunt, adverbia in ter mittunt, ut huic sapienti, sapienter; sic et huic facili, faciliter.\n\nRegula adverbiorum talis est, ut nomen quod in dativo casu singulari in o fuerit terminatum, in e mittat, ut huic docto, docte; si in i, in ter mittit adverbium, ut huic sapienti, sapienter. Sed hanc infirmavit regulam auctoritas; nam dixit Virgilius, sanguinei lugubre rubent, pro lugubriter; et Terentius, parce ac duriter urgebat, pro dure. In dativo manent, ut falso, vel sedulo: sed faciunt adverbia false, sedule. Quaedam contra faciunt, ut a duro, duriter; sed in his potius ars dicenda est. Intus et foris, quoties ad locum significant, non habent praepositiones; nulli enim adverbio separatim additur praepositio; nemo dicit ad intus, ad foris.","english":"Moreover, if they were adverbs, they would form faciliter and difficiliter; for whatever nouns end in i in the dative singular, they send forth adverbs in ter, as huic sapienti, sapienter; so also huic facili, faciliter.\n\nThe rule of adverbs is such that a noun which has ended in o in the dative singular sends forth [its adverb] in e, as huic docto, docte; if in i, it sends forth the adverb in ter, as huic sapienti, sapienter. But authority has weakened this rule; for Virgil said, sanguinei lugubre rubent, for lugubriter; and Terence, parce ac duriter urgebat, for dure. They remain in the dative, as falso, or sedulo: but they form the adverbs false, sedule. Some do the contrary, as from duro, duriter; but in these it is rather art that must be spoken of. Intus and foris, whenever they signify to a place, do not have prepositions; for a preposition is added separately to no adverb; no one says ad intus, ad foris.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":61,"ref":"p61","source":"Comparantur etiam adverbia, ut docte, doctius, doctissime; sed non omnia adverbia per omnes gradus exeunt, ideo his ad augendam significationem jungimus magis, maxime, quae augentis sunt: ad minuendam vero significationem minus, minime, quae minuentis sunt; quemadmodum enim comparantur, ita diminuuntur. Aut a positivo veniunt, ut primum, primule longe, longule. Aut a comparativo, ut longius, longiuscule, melius, meliuscule. A superlativo gradu non inveniuntur talia adverbia, ideo dixit, rara vel nulla sunt.\n\nSunt item multae dictiones dubiae; nam adverbium in omnibus panibus invenitur societate conjunctum cum nomine, ut falso; huic et ab hoc falso, nomen est; at si dicamus falso locutus est, adverbium est. Item cura pronomine, ut si dicas, cui viro, pronomen est; si dicas, qui convenit, adverbium est. Cum verbo, ut pone, quod accentu discernimus; nam cum producimus ultimam, adverbium est; quando correpimus, verbum. Cum participio, ut profecto; nam adverbium est affirmantis, profecto, ut, profecto audit; quanto magis suspicor esse participium profecto, a verbo proficiscor? Cum conjunctione jungitur, ut, at audi; nam conjunctio ita est, ut, at illud contigit; id, nisi fallor, adverbium est, ut at at veni, hoc dictum est, id est, statim veni.","english":"Adverbs are also compared, as docte, doctius, doctissime; but not all adverbs go through all the degrees, and so to increase their meaning we join to them magis and maxime, which belong to increasing; but to diminish their meaning, minus and minime, which belong to diminishing; for just as they are compared, so are they diminished. Either they come from the positive, as primum, primule, longe, longule. Or from the comparative, as longius, longiuscule, melius, meliuscule. From the superlative degree such adverbs are not found, and so he said they are rare or none.\n\nThere are likewise many ambiguous words; for an adverb is found in all panibus, joined in association with a noun, as falso; to this and from this falso, it is a noun; but if we say falso locutus est, it is an adverb. Likewise with a pronoun, as if you say cui viro, it is a pronoun; if you say qui convenit, it is an adverb. With a verb, as pone, which we distinguish by accent; for when we lengthen the last syllable, it is an adverb; when we shorten it, a verb. With a participle, as profecto; for it is an adverb of affirming, profecto, as profecto audit; how much more do I suspect that profecto is a participle, from the verb proficiscor? It is joined with a conjunction, as at audi; for the conjunction is thus, as at illud contigit; that, unless I am mistaken, is an adverb, as at at veni, that is said, that is, statim veni.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":62,"ref":"p62","source":"Cum propositione jungitur, ut ante, vel propter: ut, ante omnes homines, praepositio est: ante fecit, adverbium; propter te hoc facio, praepositio est; ille propter erat, id est juxta, adverbium est. Cum interjectione jungitur, ut heu! nam si dicas, heu! quid contingit? interjectio est dolentis. Heu! etiam mensas consumimus, heu adverbium est.\n\nVerum est quod dicit Donatus, nominibus civitatum non addimus praepositiones, ut puta, Roma venio, et reliqua. Sed hoc confundit auctoritas; nam Sallustius dixit, cum Brutus a Roma abierat. Sed hanc regulam tenere debemus, ut, quoties nominativus in us syllaba fuerit terminatus, tunc secundum genitivum melius dicamus, ut puta Adrumetus, Adrumeti sum; quoties aliter, secundum dativum dicimus, ut Carthago, Carthagini sum. Sed etiam hoc confundit auctoritas; Sallustius, Narbone consilia Gallorum, pro Narboni; et Virgilius: Tyria Carthagine, quae nunc exspectat, pro Carthagini. De propositio adverbiis non applicatur. Caeterum soloecismus est, si dicamus de mane; mane adverbium est, de autem praepositio. Nec nobis praejudicant illa adverbia dehinc, desubito, si uno proferuntur accentu.","english":"It is joined with a preposition, as ante or propter: as in ante omnes homines, it is a preposition; ante fecit, it is an adverb; propter te hoc facio, it is a preposition; ille propter erat, that is, \"nearby,\" it is an adverb. It is joined with an interjection, as heu! For if you say, heu! quid contingit? it is the interjection of one who grieves. Heu! etiam mensas consumimus, heu is an adverb.\n\nWhat Donatus says is true, that we do not add prepositions to the names of cities, for example, Roma venio, and the rest. But authority confounds this; for Sallust said, cum Brutus a Roma abierat. But we ought to hold this rule, that whenever the nominative has ended in the syllable us, then we should speak according to the genitive, as for example Adrumetus, Adrumeti sum; whenever otherwise, we speak according to the dative, as Carthago, Carthagini sum. But authority also confounds this; Sallust, Narbone consilia Gallorum, for Narboni; and Virgil: Tyria Carthagine, quae nunc exspectat, for Carthagini. A preposition is not applied to adverbs. Otherwise it is a solecism, if we say de mane; mane is an adverb, de however a preposition. Nor do those adverbs dehinc, desubito prejudice us, if they are pronounced with a single accent.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":63,"ref":"p63","source":"CAPUT IV.\n\nDe participio.\n\nParticipium dictum est, quasi participium, quia duarum partium sibi vindicat leges; habet enim partes a nomine, et a verbo, ut hic amans; duo recipit a nomine, genus et casus; nam quando dico, hic amans, vel haec amans, genus est; casus vero facit, hic amans, hujus amantis, et reliqua: et a verbo duo tempora et significationes recipit; nam temporis est praesentis amans, aliud enim amans, aliud amaturus, aliud amatus. Significationem activam habet, ut docens et docturus; passivam, ut doctus docendus; ab utroque numerum et figuram accipit·\n\nNumeri nomini vel verbo accidunt, ut homo, homines; lego, legimus. Figura duplex, ut, felix, infelix: similiter verbo, ut scribo, describo; ergo ista participia recipiunt numerum singularem, ut hic legens; pluralem, ut hi legentes: figuram, quia simplicia sunt, ut legens; composita, ut negligens. Sane participia ab activo et neutro veniunt duo praesentis temporis scilicet et futuri, ut amans, amaturus; stans, staturus. Verum est: nam si sic declinatur neutrum, quomodo activum, rite ista tempora habet, quae activum verbum.","english":"CHAPTER IV.\n\nOn the participle.\n\nThe participle is so called as if it were a \"part-taker,\" because it claims for itself the rules of two parts of speech; for it has parts from the noun and from the verb, as in hic amans, \"this loving one\": it receives two things from the noun, gender and case; for when I say hic amans or haec amans, it is gender; but it makes case: hic amans, hujus amantis, and the rest. And from the verb it receives two things, tenses and significations; for amans is of the present tense, since amans is one thing, amaturus another, amatus another. It has active signification, as docens and docturus; passive, as doctus and docendus; from both it takes number and figure.\n\nNumber and figure belong to the noun or the verb, as homo, homines; lego, legimus. Figure is twofold, as felix, infelix; similarly to the verb, as scribo, describo; therefore these participles receive the singular number, as hic legens; the plural, as hi legentes; figure, because they are simple, as legens; compound, as negligens. Indeed participles come from the active and the neuter, namely of two tenses, the present and the future, as amans, amaturus; stans, staturus. This is true: for if the neuter is declined just as the active, it rightly has those tenses which the active verb has.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":64,"ref":"p64","source":"Inchoativa verba participia praesentis tantum temporis habent, ut horresco, horrescens, horresciturus nemo dicit, et reliqua. Defectiva verba unum interdum habent tempus, protentum scilicet, ut soleo, solitus. Memini, nullum tempus habet, quanquam defectivum sit. A non defectivo verbo participia defectiva sunt, ut studeo, studebam, studui, et reliqua; studens quippe non deficit, studiturus quippe nemo dicit. Ut breviter colligamus, habere quatuor res par ticipium dixit, aliquando praesentis temporis tantum, ut horrescens; interdum nullius, ut memini; interdum unius, ut solitus; interdum a non defectivo verbo participia defectiva sunt, ut a lavor, lotus; ab impersonalibus verbis non inveniuntur participia, nemo enim dicit poenitens. Tunicatus non est participium, quia non facit tunicor verbum, sed potius nomen est. Pransus, coenatus similia sunt, quemadmodum tunicatus, quae non solum dicimus nomina, sed etiam participia; nam licet prandeo, prandeor non faciat, tamen pransus nomen facit; tunica autem nullum verbum facit, sed dicamus participia sine verbi origine. Sunt velut participia, quae licet a verbo veniant, tamen quia tempus non habent, nomina sunt; ut puta furibundus, moribundus, nam facit morior, furio.","english":"Inceptive verbs have participles of the present tense only, as horresco, horrescens; no one says horresciturus, and so on. Defective verbs sometimes have one tense, namely the past, as soleo, solitus. Memini has no tense, although it is defective. From a non-defective verb there are defective participles, as studeo, studebam, studui, and the rest; for studens is not defective, since no one says studiturus. To gather it briefly, he said that a participle has four characteristics: sometimes it is of the present tense only, as horrescens; sometimes of no tense, as memini; sometimes of one, as solitus; sometimes from a non-defective verb the participles are defective, as from lavor, lotus; from impersonal verbs participles are not found, for no one says poenitens. Tunicatus is not a participle, because it does not make the verb tunicor, but is rather a noun. Pransus and coenatus are similar to tunicatus, which we call not only nouns but also participles; for although prandeo does not make prandeor, nevertheless pransus makes a noun; but tunica makes no verb, yet let us call them participles without the origin of a verb. There are things like participles which, although they come from a verb, nevertheless, because they do not have tense, are nouns; for example furibundus, moribundus, for morior makes moribundus, and furio makes furibundus.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":65,"ref":"p65","source":"Sed est alia ratio qua intelligis ista non esse participia: quia participia praesentis temporis litteram in dus vertunt, et faciunt futurum passivi, ut legens, legendus; et iterum si tollas dus de novissimo, et ponas praesentis temporis, participium facis, ut legendus, tolle inde dus et facis legens; pone moriens, moribundus non facit, sed moriendus; nam nemo dicit esse ab eo, quod est morior. Passus et usus, participia sunt et nomina; nomen est, usus mei pallii; participium est, usus malefacere.\n\nParticipium defectivum est, quod non potest ire per omnia tempora, ut coeptus, coepiendus nemo dicit. Sunt participia, quae accepta compositione fiunt nomina ut acceptus, incensus, incensior, acceptior, dum comparantur, nomina sunt· De participiis adverbia non fiunt, quod impugnavit Donatus, verum est; auctoritatem non de se dedit, cum dixit id a se fuisse lectum. Galerum nemo dicit videnter, legenter.","english":"But there is another argument by which you understand that these are not participles: because participles of the present tense change their letter into -dus and make the future passive, as legens, legendus; and again, if you remove -dus from the most recent form and put the present tense, you make a participle: as legendus, remove -dus from it and you make legens; put moriens, moribundus does not make it, but moriendus; for no one says that it comes from that which is morior. Passus and usus are both participles and nouns; it is a noun in usus mei pallii; it is a participle in usus malefacere.\n\nA defective participle is one that cannot run through all the tenses, as coeptus; no one says coepiendus. There are participles which, having received composition, become nouns, as acceptus, incensus, incensior, acceptior; when they are compared, they are nouns. Adverbs are not formed from participles, which Donatus attacked; it is true; he did not give authority from himself, when he said that it had been read by him. No one says galerum videnter, legenter.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":66,"ref":"p66","source":"CAPUT V.\n\nDe conjunctione.\n\nConjunctio dicta est, quia conjungit elocutiones. Hae sunt conjunctivae, ut ego et tu eamus. Disjunctivae sunt, quae quasi disjungunt res, vel personas, ego aut tu; nam quando dico ego aut tu, sensum quidem disjungo, verba vero conjuncta sunt; qui enim dicit, non dicit, faciam ego, et tu, sed unus e duobus. Expletivae sunt, ut si dicas: si hoc non vis, saltem illud lac, quasi explevit rem. Praepositiva conjunctio est, ut est, at pater Aneas; nemo dicit, pater at Aneas. Subjunctivae sunt, ut est, primusque Machaon; non, que primus Machaon. Communis est, ut, igitur, quia ubivis ponitur; igitur hoc facio, facio igitur hoc.\n\nSunt conjunctiones quae adverbia possunt esse: ut est, ante firmissimum virum accipio, adverbium est; item conjunctio est ut, An te malus abstulit error? Nam et si omnes partes possunt esse adverbia, rite conjunctioni hoc cadit. Conjunctiones pro significationibus suis poni debent: causales in causa, rationales in ratione; nam ante causa praecedit, et ite sic ratio sequitur; ut puta, occido illum, qui habet tunicam, causa est; itaque veneno illum occidi, non ferro, ne agnosci possit, ratio est: causalis, si illum occidero, habebo tunicam; rationalis, itaque veneno illum occidi, ne agnosci possit. Sed hanc rationem mutat auctoritas; nam et Virgilius conjunctionem pro alia posuit dicens: subjectisque urere flammis, pro ve.","english":"CHAPTER V.\n\nOn the conjunction.\n\nThe conjunction is so called because it joins utterances together. There are copulative conjunctions, as \"I and you let us go.\" Disjunctive conjunctions are those that, as it were, separate things or persons, as \"I or you\"; for when I say \"I or you,\" I indeed separate the sense, but the words are joined; for he who says this does not say \"I will do it, and you,\" but one of the two. Expletive conjunctions are, as if you were to say: \"If you do not want this, at least that,\" as though it completed the matter. A prepositional conjunction is, as it is, \"at father Aeneas\"; no one says \"father at Aeneas.\" Subjunctive conjunctions are, as it is, \"and first Machaon\"; not \"and first Machaon\" [with the conjunction placed differently]. A common conjunction is, as \"therefore,\" because it is placed anywhere: \"therefore I do this,\" \"I do this therefore.\"\n\nThere are conjunctions that can be adverbs: as it is, \"before the most steadfast man I receive\"—it is an adverb; likewise it is a conjunction, as \"Or did a wicked error carry you off?\" For even if all parts of speech can be adverbs, this properly falls to the conjunction. Conjunctions ought to be placed according to their meanings: causal ones in the cause, rational ones in the reason; for the cause comes first, and so the reason follows; for example, \"I kill him who has the tunic\"—it is the cause; \"and so I killed him with poison, not with iron, so that he could not be recognized\"—it is the reason: the causal is, \"If I kill him, I shall have the tunic\"; the rational is, \"and so I killed him with poison, so that he could not be recognized.\" But authority changes this reason; for Virgil too placed one conjunction for another, saying \"and to burn with flames applied beneath,\" for \"or.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":67,"ref":"p67","source":"CAPUT VI.\n\nDe praepositione.\n\nPraepositio est dicta, eo quod in loquendo praeponitur, ut puta, ante templum, non templum ante. Praepositio autem aut mutat aliquid in contrarium, ut felix, infelix; aut implet, ut fractus, infractus; aut minuit, ut validus, invalidus, et caetera quae Donatus posuit. Diximus, quod praepositio semper praeponitur; tamen invenitur postposita, ut mecum.\n\nPraepositiones aut casibus applicantur, et non conjunguntur, ut, apud amicum causatum est; apud praepositio non conjungitur, quia nemo dicit conjuncte apud amicum: aut loquelis serviunt, et conjunguntur, ut di, dis, re, se; nam facit diduco, distraho, recubo secubo. Ergo aut praepositiones loquelares sunt, et semper junguntur; aut separantur et conjunguntur, ut prae me, secum. In et con hanc habent regulam cum praecesserint, ut si eas vel vel litterae sequantur, superiorem naturaliter brevem faciant longam, ipsisque dent accentum, ut infula, consilium. Usque, praepositio non videtur, quia cum altera praepositione praefertur, praepositionique jungitur, ut si dicamus: usque ad forum vado, usque sola, praepositio non est. Praejudicet circumcirca, ibi jam una est sibi praeposita. Tenus quoque praepositio per soni dulcedinem subjungitur, ut puppe tenus, debuit enim dicere prae, tenus puppe.","english":"CHAPTER VI.\n\nOn the preposition.\n\nThe preposition is so called because in speaking it is placed before, as for example, \"before the temple,\" not \"the temple before.\" Now a preposition either changes something into its contrary, as \"happy, unhappy\"; or it fills out, as \"broken, unbroken\"; or it diminishes, as \"strong, weak,\" and the rest which Donatus set down. We have said that a preposition is always placed before; yet it is found placed after, as \"with me\" (mecum).\n\nPrepositions are either applied to cases, and are not joined, as \"a case has been pleaded before a friend\" (apud amicum causatum est); \"apud\" is a preposition and is not joined, because no one says joined together \"apud amicum\"; or they serve utterances, and are joined, as di, dis, re, se; for it makes diduco, distraho, recubo, secubo. Therefore prepositions are either utterance-forming, and are always joined; or they are separated and joined, as \"before me\" (prae me), \"with himself\" (secum). \"In\" and \"con\" have this rule, that when they have come before, if either the letter v or l follows them, they naturally make the preceding short syllable long, and give them the accent, as infula, consilium. \"Usque\" does not seem to be a preposition, because when it is put before another preposition it is joined to a preposition, as if we should say: \"I go even to the forum\" (usque ad forum vado); \"usque\" alone is not a preposition. Let it not be prejudged regarding \"circumcirca\": there it is now one [preposition] placed before itself. \"Tenus\" also is subjoined as a preposition through the sweetness of its sound, as \"up to the breast\" (puppe tenus); for it ought to have said \"prae, tenus puppe.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":68,"ref":"p68","source":"Caeterae vero super, subter, ablativo junguntur, et ad locum significant, velut super cathedra sedit; quando hoc dicimus soloecophanes, id est species soloecismi est. Super et subter accusativum regunt; sed super, quotiescunque designat aliquem, ablativum regit, ut puta: Multa super Priamo rogitans. In et sub variant; quemadmodum in accusativum regit: ut si dicamus, in adulterum, hoc est contra adulterum. Varia autem exempla istarum praepositionum, vel integra, vel composita sunt, quae subjecit Donatus.\n\nPraepositiones verba corrumpunt, ut conficio, nam ante fuit con et facio; aut ipsae corrumpuntur, ut suffero, nam ante fuit sub et fero; aut corrumpunt, et corrumpuntur, ut sufficio; nam ante fuit sub et facio; vel suscipio et suspicio, nam ante fuit sub et capio, et sub et aspicio.\n\nAntiqui praepositiones genitivo, accusativo et ablativo jungebant, ut crurum tenus, et longe post tempore. Scire autem nos debemus quia praepositio cum praeposita non fuerit, vel cum mutaverit casum, vel non habuerit, desinit esse propositio, et fit adverbium: ut longo post tempore, mutavit casum, post tempus enim dici debuit; deinde casum non habet, ut ante fecit. Separatae praepositiones separatis praepositionibus non cohaerent, ut si quis dicat ante juxta eum, in hoc jam, ante, adverbium non est.","english":"But the others, super and subter, are joined with the ablative and signify place, as \"he sat upon a chair\"; when we say this, it is a soloecophanes, that is, a species of solecism. Super and subter govern the accusative; but super, whenever it designates someone, governs the ablative, for example: \"asking many things about Priam.\" In and sub vary; just as in governs the accusative, as if we say \"in adulterum,\" that is, \"against the adulterer.\" But the various examples of these prepositions, whether simple or compound, are those which Donatus has set down.\n\nPrepositions corrupt verbs, as in conficio, for formerly it was con and facio; or they themselves are corrupted, as in suffero, for formerly it was sub and fero; or they both corrupt and are corrupted, as in sufficio, for formerly it was sub and facio; or suscipio and suspicio, for formerly it was sub and capio, and sub and aspicio.\n\nThe ancients joined prepositions with the genitive, accusative, and ablative, as in crurum tenus, and longe post tempore. But we ought to know that when a preposition has not been placed before, or when it has changed its case, or has not had one, it ceases to be a preposition and becomes an adverb: as in longo post tempore, it has changed its case, for it ought to have been said post tempus; then it has no case, as ante fecit. Separated prepositions do not cohere with separated prepositions, as if someone should say ante juxta eum; in this, ante is no longer a preposition but an adverb.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":69,"ref":"p69","source":"Dicunt etiam propositioni accidere figuram, ut abs, absque; et ordinem, et subjectivae sunt, ut puppetenus, mecum. Sed propter duas res non debemus frangere regulam: dicimus potius haec anomala esse, id est extra regulam.\n\nCAPUT VII.\n\nDe interjectione.\n\nInterjectio dicta est, quod interposita aliis panibus orationis varios animi affectus exprimat: nam aut exsultantis est, ut eia; aut optantis, ut, o mihi praetentos referat si Juppiter annos! aut increpantis est, ut, o qui res hominumque deumque; aut dolentis, ut heu! aut timentis, ut ah! ab! Hoc apud Graecos fit, ut interjectiones subjungant in adverbia: apud Latinos autem non fit; nemo dicit: Papae feci.","english":"They also say that figure applies to a preposition, as abs, absque; and order, and that they are subjectival, as puppetenus, mecum. But on account of two things we ought not to break the rule: rather we say that these are anomalous, that is, outside the rule.\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nOn the interjection.\n\nThe interjection is so called because, placed between the other parts of speech, it expresses various affections of the mind: for it is either the mark of one exulting, as eia; or of one wishing, as, O that Jupiter would bring back to me the years gone by! or of one rebuking, as, O you who rule the affairs of men and gods; or of one grieving, as heu! or of one fearing, as ah! ab! This happens among the Greeks, so that interjections are joined to adverbs: among the Latins, however, it does not happen; no one says: Papae feci.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]}]}