Abstract
Abstract The aim of this article is to discuss two Old Latin aberrant genitive plural forms in -erum, namely bouerum «bouum» (Cato, Agr. 62) or Iouerum «Iouum» (Varro, Ling. VIII 74), on the basis of the morphological and semantic considerations. It is hard to imagine how the regular third declension forms bouum and Iouum could be changed into bouerum and Iouerum. In his commented edition of Varro’s De lingua Latina (2019) Wolfgang de Melo, following Roland Kent, explains them as «analogical formations», influenced by iu – ge˘ rum n. «an acre; jugerum (of land)» (→ bo˘ ue˘ rum) and gen. pl. Ve˘ne˘ rum «of statues of Venus» (→ Io˘ ue˘ rum). This explanation should be rejected for at least two reasons: semantic and morphological. The innovative genitive plural in -e–rum, I will argue, was based on old nominative and accusative dual forms with additional plural morphology: cf. *boue– nom.-acc. du. «two oxen», gen. pl. boue–rum «of oxen» (originally «of two oxen»), *Ioue– «two Jupiters» (here in elliptic use: «Jupiter and Juno»), gen. pl. Ioue–rum «of Jupiters» (originally «of two Jupiters; i.e., Jupiter and Juno»).
Publisher
Led Edizioni Universitarie
Subject
Literature and Literary Theory,Linguistics and Language,History,Language and Linguistics,Classics
Reference44 articles.
1. D.Q. Adams, The Dual in Indo-European and Tocharian, Tocharian and Indo-European Studies 5 (1991), 11-44.
2. F.R. Adrados, Diccionario griego-español, IV, Madrid 1994.
3. R.S.P. Beekes, Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: An Introduction, Amsterdam - Philadephia 2011.
4. J. Briscoe, The Language and Style of the Fragmentary Roman Republican Historians, in T. Reinhardt - M. Lapidge - J.N. Adams (eds.), Aspects of the Language of Latin Prose, Oxford 2005, 53-72.
5. C.D. Buck, Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin, Chicago 1959.