The article attempts, firstly, to critically analyze the traditional order of cases in Latin, secondly, to discover an internal mechanism that brings the elements of a paradigm together, and thirdly, to present a new model of the nominal and pronominal case paradigms in Latin. The authors develop the idea that the crucial role in structuring a case paradigm belongs to morphemic syncretism. The syncretism is treated as a systemic phenomenon of morpheme neutralization rather than a result of phonetic reduction. In the paradigm built on this principle, the cases marked with the same endings necessarily take adjacent positions. There is a certain correlation between the morphemic syncretism and the semantics of cases extensively exemplified in the Latin literature. Taking this as reference point, the authors establish a formally motivated paradigmatic order of cases and single out a set of semantic features that shape the case paradigm. This method enables authors to find the non-contradictory paradigmatic positions for both the core and the “marginal” cases (vocative and locative). Applied to the pronominal cases, however, it reveals the significant discrepancy between the nominal and pronominal paradigms concerning two cases — nominative and genitive. The pronominal nominative’s special status is determined by its pragmatic rather than syntactic functions, which is typical for pro-drop languages. The genitive case appears in three different forms that originate from the possessive pronouns and correspond to the three basic functions of the genitive — possessive, objective, and partitive ones. Such transparadigmatic syncretism brings together the paradigms of personal and possessive pronouns, which are related by nature. The ORBIS ROMANUS approach suggested in this study makes it possible to present in a new way the nominal and pronominal case paradigms, to demonstrate in what points they differ from each other, and to highlight some functional and semantic features of the particular cases
В статье исследуются восточнославянские (русские и украинские) переводы фрагментов из поэм Гомера, входивших в исторические и политические сочинения М. Стрыйковского, А. Ф. Моджевского, Юста Липсия и др., переводившихся в Киеве, Москве и Санкт-Петербурге с начала XVII до середины XVIII вв. Особый интерес представляют переводы, выполнявшиеся в той или иной стихотворной форме. Выбор переводчиками именно стихотворной формы для перевода позволяет лучше понять пути адаптации русской культурой относительно новой для нее стихотворной формы. Тщательное изучение контекста появления стихотворных переводов из Гомера в составе обширных прозаических трудов позволяет увидеть мотивы, руководившие переводчиками (Гомер предстает автором древнейших свидетельств по истории славян; учителем политической риторики, моделью интеллектуала в конструируемых отношениях интеллектуала и государства). Восточнославянские культуры имели опыт стихотворной передачи текстов Гомера и филологического интереса к ним (во всяком случае — интереса, требующего обращения к альтернативным изданиям и греческому тексту) задолго до того, как фрагментарный стихотворный перевод из Гомера, выполненный М. В. Ломоносовым, был в 1748 г. опубликован в Петербурге. Впервые публикуются стихотворные переводы из Гомера, содержащиеся в московском переводе Хроники Мацея Стрыйковского (1660-1670-е) и «Увещаниях и прикладах политических» (Monita et exempla politica) Юста Липсия, переведенных в Киеве, Петербурге и Москве в 1712-1722 гг. Публикация текста сопровождается существенными уточнениями истории текста памятников.
The article examines an unpublished inscription conserved in the Nerantzia Castle of Kos (Greece). It consists of four elegiac couplets that Coan scholar Stamatios K. Pantelidis (Παντελίδης) composed some time before 1879. It was supposed to be located in the facade of the school founded the year indicated in the inscription. Seemingly, after the earthquake which devastated Kos in the year 1933, it was relocated in the warehouse of the Nerantzia Castle in northern Kos along with many other inscriptions. On the one hand, it provides the possibility of knowing how stonegravers work, to what extent Greeks knew their very own language in its ancient form and the way they dealt when it came to use (then and now) unusual forms of the language. On the other hand, the inscription is relevant to the cultural history of Greece in the last years of Ottoman rule and in the years after it, as Kos was part of the Ottoman Empire until 1912, date in which it passed under Italian rule until 1947, when the isle was incorporated into the Hellenic Republic. Therefore the purpose is to clarify the historical and real circumstances of the inscription, as well as to analyze the compositional process of this dedicatory epigram from the metrical point of view (it contains many deviations from to the classical precepts), style and classical tradition. The inscription has not been previously studied due to its peculiar characteristics. Indeed, it is an epigram written in modern times but in an archaizing Greek (i. e. roughly respecting the rules of classical grammar), so it is not studied by neohellenists given the ancient character of its language, nor by classicists because it was composed in recent times
This paper concerns the issue of the length of vowel e in the final -eus of the Latin medical terminological adjectives of coccygeus type. These adjectives are not associated with ancient Latin nouns and do not have a digraphic combination in the Greek prototype at the junction of the noun base and the adjective suffix: anconeus, coccygeus, laryngeus, phalangeus, pharyngeus. The lexemes were created by anatomists between the 16th and 18th centuries, mostly by Jean Riolan the Younger, James Douglas, William Cheselden, Christian H. T. Schreger. The spelling of these words with the final -æus in the work by Douglas in 1707 was a failed (and faulty) attempt to unify the spelling of Latin medical adjectives with a final -eus. The next try belonged to Cheselden (1713): he writes these lexemes with the final -eus. The artificial origin, the presence of two variants of the spelling (-æus and -eus) and of an identical in spelling Latin morpheme (-ĕus), and the simplification of spelling of Latin medical terms are the reasons why different variants of the appearance of the Latin adjectives of coccygeus type exist: with finals -aeus, -ēus, -ĕus. At the same time, an original Latinized Greek adjective existed — coccygius (from κοκκύγιος, used by Pausanias). The author suggests changing the nomenclature spelling of the adjectives of coccygeus type, bringing them in line with the historical “living” appearance: anconius, coccygius, laryngius, phalangius, and pharyngius. Until this change is carried out, it is recommended to consider ⟨e⟩ in the final -eus as a short vowel stressing the antepenultimate syllable
This paper offers a comprehensive and critical review of the most significant studies on the possible alternation between two specific encodings that can express, in a generic sense, the Manner in which a verbal process is developed: adverbial expressions (ADV) and Secondary Predicates (SP). The main types of SP/ADV to be addressed here are those which are Subject and/or event oriented. Both general and typological works will be taken into account, as well as others more focused on the Latin language; the central criterion of the study will essentially be to distinguish and analyse approaches which are more or less favourable to seeing the two types of constituents as equivalent. A section devoted to the work of one of the Latinists who has contributed most specifically and notably to the issue under discussion (H. Pinkster) will also be included. Following a critical review of the criteria which have the greatest explanatory potential for explaining the issue, some analytical approaches will be proposed which are as objective as possible for a subsequent corpus study; these criteria include parameters pertaining to different linguistic levels: syntax, lexical-semantics, pragmatics, etc.: their application — here only tentatively discussed — will provide clear and measurable results on the problem and on those questions arising from the critical review itself.