Latine loqui: Trends and Directions in the Crystallization of Classical Latin (review)
Ernst Pulgram
Reviewed by: Latine loqui: Trends and directions in the crystallization of Classical Latin by Hannah Rosén Ernst Pulgram Latin. By Rosén. München: Fink, 1999. Pp. 224. Few current philologists-linguists—certainly no latter-day omphaloscopic theorist—could have written such a book. Rosen’s competence derives (one may safely surmise) from thorough schooling traditional classical philology, which includes complete familiarity with literary grammatical works together relevant ancient modern scholarship. (See bibliography, 199–213, over 300 titles, among them 17 R—unhelpfully split into five pieces reflecting main sections book.) The adverb title refers to ‘good’ (CL) exemplified Cicero authors his class. There exist course records, albeit far voluminous, other kinds spread many centuries: ‘The different dichotomies applicable Latin—whether one prefers speak terms registers or layers (Gebrauchssprache expression, oral written, rural urban, provincial metropolitan, special languages general ones, etc.) aggregate for Latin, as we know it, around two poles familiar, non-artistic (or colloquial-vulgar) formal, elaborate-literary discourse’ (15). I had found it instructive name basic types discourse (R’s poles) Written (WL), full-fledged prevailing about century, period Golden Latinity, Spoken (SL), is really Latins view undoubtedly existing though sparsely attested local social dialects. 1950, reprinted 1986, 131–40). Of course, these major do occasionally interpenetrate another, except CL, whose purity was deemed inviolable. Rather than ‘poles’, WL SL are stretches distinguished their stylistic properties. My SL, represented graphically slanted line running upper left lower right page, encompasses collectively all non-WL speeches, beginning earliest records concluding Romance dialects (if regards, surely may, Modern Latin) classifiable diasystems, some evolving turn respective standard through processes comparable R’s crystallization. on my sketch emerges during third century BC horizontal direction that symbolizes essentially deliberately static nature idiom, particularity shares Schriftsprachen. R quotes Wolfgang Schmid’s Nachwort Hofmann-Szantyr grammar (1965:132) defines CL an artfully constructed grammatically arrested branch (N.B.) diverging continually changing Latin—a phrasing verbally accords graphic designed—to [End Page 353] work history language cannot devote more space does historically much significant Vulgärlatein i.e. (198). regrets this seeming neglect historical grammars, chiding particular Stolz, Debrunner, Schmid (1966:82) arguing presentation Schriftsprache, both its poetic prosaic employ, belongs chiefly spheres stylistics rhetoric It seems me, however, pace R, judgment basically correct. In any event, not engage description such, whether worth telling, but rather deals manner establishment; result true investigation goes well beyond rhetoric. Certainly WL, especially undergo development matching liveliness significance SL. fact, owing decline education population post-Augustan empire gradual loss native speakers, just peters out centuries, even occasion resuscitated (almost) glory (the so-called Carolingian renaissance Charlemagne’s reign, overseen ecclesiastic Alcuin York, comes mind) continued serve efficiently international philosophers scientists throughout the...
Language