4/16/2023 0 Comments Grammarian pro 2![]() This treatment of ui and ua as diphthongs is not otherwise attested in known grammatical treatises and would have a possible parallel only in a statement of Charisius and Dositheus that ua was regarded as a diphthong in earlier times. This explanation was based on an emendation of the very first isolated grammatical element, the letter x (line 2) into an u, in order to reconstruct an argument about the combination of u and i, yielding ui, as well as u and a to form ua. Dunlap published the editio princeps of the Michigan fragment, he expressed no doubt that the discussion was focussed on diphthongs. Since orthography precedes the parts of speech in surviving Artes grammaticae, it was assumed that it preceded the London fragment. It was said to concern the formation of diphthongs. Until recently a different explanation of the contents of the Cairo fragment has conditioned a series of hypotheses concerning both its structure and its authorship or, at least, its typology. Footnote 6 The second fragment (the Cairo fragment), which preserves a later portion of the treatise, discusses, first, syllable formations of double consonants and semivowels/semiconsonants, then the equivalence of the diphthongs ae and ai, and finally the possibility that the latter diphthong contains two different syllables as a result of metaplasm. The first fragment (the London fragment) contains definitions of dictio and oratio, followed by a list of the eight parts of speech, each of which must have been analysed, although only the lines concerning the noun survive. ![]() Nevertheless, the text of the Karanis fragmentary roll certainly makes an undeniable contribution to the knowledge we have of fragmentary grammars and grammarians. Whether it is an Ars grammatica or a treatise De orthographia, the name of Varro has been reasonably excluded, Footnote 4 and the evident characteristics of a grammatical treatise make the hypothesis of Pliny the Elder's authorship implausible, because his Dubius sermo is a treatise De Latinitate. The present contribution emphasizes the links of the treatise with the renowned Augustan Verrius Flaccus or with the Alexandrian model lying behind his work. It has been previously suggested that the author could be Remmius Palaemon. Footnote 2 It may even be the most ancient Ars surviving through direct transmission. Footnote 1 This meagre roll from Karanis (Kôm Aushîm, in the Fayoum) is the most ancient direct witness to a grammatical treatise, which is otherwise unknown through manuscript transmission. Since the publication of two papyrus fragments, both of which belong to the same original roll, the grammatical text they transmit has attracted attention because of its uniqueness, and several famous grammarians have been named as possible auctores. But it can happen that, behind crystallized theoretical argumentation and apparently canonical formulas, interstices can be explored that lead to unforeseen possibilities, more exciting-and even more suitable-than those that have already emerged. When dealing with a unique grammatical text, such a hypothesis becomes even more delicate because of the standardization of ancient grammar. Definitive proof is impossible at the end there can only be a hypothesis. When dealing with manuscripts transmitting otherwise unknown ancient texts and without a subscriptio, the work of a philologist and literary critic becomes both more difficult and more engrossing.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |