A Practical Grammar of the Latin Language

Front matter

"Atque hōc modō inter empericam et ratiōnālem facultātem (quārum mōrōsa et inauspicāta dīvortia et repudia omnia in hūmānā familiā turbāvēre) conjugium vērum et lēgitimum in perpetuum nōs firmāsse existimāmus"

"Iter autem ..... per experientiae et rērum particulārium silvās perpetuō faciendum est"

Franciscus De Verulamio, Instaur. Magn. Praef.

Lesson II.—Pensum Alterum.

Of the First Declension.

A. The first declension comprises all substantives and adjectives which form their genitive in ae. The nominative of such of these words as are of purely Roman origin ends in a, that of a few Greek words in ē, ēs, and ās. Those in ā and ē are mostly feminine, the rest are masculine. The singular of a noun in a in connection with mea, "my", and tua, "thy" or "your" is thus inflected:—

Nom. | my paper | mea charta

Gen. | of my paper | meae chartae

Dat. | to or for my paper | meae chartae

Acc. | my paper | meam chartam

Voc. | O my paper | mea charta

Abl. | with, from, or by my paper | meā chartā

Nom. | your table | tua mēnsa

Gen. | of your table | tuae mēnsae

Dat. | to or for your table | tuae mēnsae

Acc. | your table | tuam mēnsam

Voc. | O your table | tua mēnsa

Abl. | with, from, or by your table | tuā mēnsā

So decline taenia, fascia, hōra, penna

Remark.—The a of the ablative of the first declension is always long, and sometimes printed â. - But in all other cases of words declined, the final a is generally short, as charta (Nom.); candēlābra, candlesticks; templa, temples.

N.B.—In the vocabularies of the Grammar the quantity of every Latin word will be given, and the paradigms of the inflection will show the the quantity of the different case-terminations. From these data the student will accent according to the Rules of Lesson I., page 6. Examples of the application of these principles of accentuation are furnished in the phrases of each Lesson.

Have you? | Habēsne?return11 Num habēs? Estne tibi? An habēs?

Yes, Sir, I have. | Ita estreturn22, domine, habeō Sane quidem, domine, est.

Have you the hat? | Habēsne (tū) pilleum?return33 Estne tibi pilleus?

Yes, Sir, I have the hat. | Sīc est, domine, habeō pilleum. Etiam, domine, est mihi pilleum.

B. Obs. The verb habeō, being transitive, is followed by the accusative of the object, and the neuter verb est by the nominative.

The pen. | *Penna, ae, f.

The ribbon. | Taenia, ae, f.; fascia, ae, f.

The table. | Mēnsa, ae, f.

The paper. | *Charta, ae, f.

The hat. | *Pilleus, ī, m., Acc. pilleum, or

Pilleum, ī, n. (Nom. & Acc.)

The sugar. | Saccharum, ī, n. (Nom. & Acc.)

The salt. | Sāl,return44 gen. sălis, m., acc. sălem.

Sāl, gen. sălis, n., acc. sāl.

C. Obs. Words of the neuter gender have the nominative, accusative, and vocative, singular and plural always alike.

Masc. | Fem. | Neut.

My. | Nom. | meus | mea | meum

Acc. | meum | meam | meum

Thy (your). | Nom. | tuus | tua | tuum

Acc. | tuum | tuam | tuum

D. Rule. Adjectives and adjective pronouns agree with their substantives in gender, number, and case. Thus:—

My sugar. | Nom. & Acc. | Meum saccharum.

My hat. | Nom. | pilleus meus (m.), pilleum meum (n.).

Acc. | pilleum meum, or meum pilleum.

My pen. | Nom. | mea penna, or penna mea.

Acc. | meam pennam, or pennam meam.

Your salt. | Nom. | sāl tuum (or m. tuus).

Acc. | sāl tuum, or tuum sālem.

Have you my hat? | Habēsne meum pilleum?

Yes, Sir, I have your hat. | Vērō, domine, pilleum tuum habeō.

Have you my ribbon? | Habēsne taeniam meam?

I have your ribbon. | Habeō tuam taeniam.

Have you the pen? | Estne tibi penna?

Habēsne pennam?

I have the pen. | Est mihi penna.

Habeō pennam.

Exercise 1.

See the answers here.

Have you the table?—Yes, Sir, I have the table.

Have you my table?—I have your table.

Have you your pen?—I have my pen.

Have you the sugar?—I have the sugar.

Have you my sugar?—I have your sugar.

Have you the paper?—I have the paper.

Have you your paper?—I have my paper.

Have you the salt?—I have the salt.

Have you my salt?—I have your salt.

Footnotes.

footnote11 In asking questions, the Romans usually employed certain signs of interrogation, of which the most common are the enclitic ne (always affixed either to the verb or to some other word of the sentence), the particles num, an, ecquid, numquid, utrum, nōnne, &c.—The enclitic ne and ecquid can be used in questions of every description, whether the expected answer be affirmative or negative; num and numquid, only when it is expected to be "no"; nōnne, only when it is to be "yes"; an and utrum chiefly in double questions. footnote22 The most current Latin adverbs corresponding to our English "yes" are: etiam (= even, even so), vērō (indeed), rēctē (you are right), certē (certainly), ita, ita est, sīc, sīc est (it is so), sānē or sānē quidem (indeed, surely), immō or immō vērō (yes, yes). But the Romans frequently reply by a simple repetition of the verb or of the emphatic word of the inquiry, e.g. here with a simple Habeō and Est.—The ceremonious use of a word like our "Sir" was unknown to the ancients. To domine, however, the vocative of dominus (master, lord), there can be no objection. footnote33 The Romans have no article. Its place is in certain cases supplied by demonstrative pronoun, by ūnus, aliquis, some one, &c. But ordinarily the distinctions expressed by our articles must be mentally supplied from the context.—The learner will also notice the omission of the pronouns ego, tū which the Latin language employs only for the sake of emphasis or contrast. footnote44 The substantives pīleus and sāl have two forms, i.e. the masculine and neuter, without any difference of signification.

Abbreviations

Cf.—confer, compare.

Compos.—compositum, compound, or composita, compounds.

e.g.—exempli gratia, for example.

i.e.—id est, that is to say.

The asterisk (*) before a word shows it to be of modern origin, or applied to a modern object.

Message from the Editors

In transcribing Adler's Grammar to this modern medium, we have taken upon ourselves to emend errata, whether typographical or conventional, as well as to add data that is often absent in the original work (such as macrons, &c.)

When an alteration consists of more than the rectification of a typographical error, such as consistently changing the spelling of a word throughout the work (e.g. pīleus to pilleus, coelum to caelum), we will note the change at the first instance.

There is to be found in the material some information which may be misleading, and then some which is false. This will be noted as it occurs, and counterpoints will be given as we see fit.

Emendations

Preface

The preparation of a text-book for the study of the Latin, similar to that edited by me, some twelve years ago, on the German, has since that time been repeatedly suggested to me by various persons interested in the progress of education. Years however elapsed before I could even think of entering on such a task, partly on account of other time-absorbing occupations, partly because I felt, in common with many others, some hesitation to undertake the somewhat delicate part of treating a so-called dead language like a living organism, yet in vogue as an element of national existence. It was not until after I had completed what I considered myself bound to render, as professor of a modern language in the city of New York, that I could give the question a serious consideration; and in the winter of 1854, after my secession from the University of that city, some of my leisure hours were devoted to the collection and construction of exercises similar to those contained in my edition of Ollendorff's German Method.

These tentatives, which were commenced for recreation merely, and without any direct reference to publication, were some months after again suspended and postponed indefinitely. I had, however, proceeded far enough to convince myself perfectly of the feasibility of the plan, and felt assured, that, if the student in this practical pursuit of a new language would find a pleasure at all commensurate with the satisfaction I myself experienced in my attempts to explore and point out the road to him, my task would prove a promising and successful one.

It was under this conviction, that, in the spring of 1856, I again took up my papers, and resolved to begin the work in earnest. I accordingly revised and enlarged upon what I had already collected, until my materials amounted to ten fascicles of phrases and exercises, of about the extent of those contained in my edition of Ollendorff's German Method. Soon after, I concluded an arrangement for the publication of a complete practical Grammar of the Latin upon the basis of these preliminary studies, and after many months of new researches both into the theory and practice of the language, the final result has been the volume now offered to the inspection of the public.

But although it was intended that the book should upon the whole pursue the course indicated by the methods on modern languages now almost exclusively in vogue, and to make constant repetition and the perpetual construction of connected sentences and phrases from English into the language to be acquired the chief exercise of the student, yet I could not make up my mind to surrender system to mere empirical practice to the extent to which this is done by Mr. Ollendorff. My aim was rather to sacrifice nothing of the theory, to leave no point of grammar unexplained or unconnected, but to make the student advance with equal pace from practice to theory, and from theory to practice, until he makes himself the master and conscious possessor of the entire structure of the language, as far at least as this can be effected by a Grammar.

I have therefore commenced with the simplest elements, and with exercises which a child even could comprehend and learn from repetition or dictation. As the course advances, and the rules of construction come gradually more and more into requisition, the syntax commences, of which I have prefixed connected portions to each lesson, to be committed either entirely or in part, as the student progresses with his exercises. I have thus succeeded in incorporating by degrees a complete syntax of the language, to the rules of which perpetual reference is made in subsequent parts of the book, and with which the student must become familiar before he can reach the end of the volume. In regard to the etymology, I have naturally treated the declension of substantives, adjectives, and pronouns in the first lessons. These, with the practice given, are soon completely in the power of the learner. But the doctrine of the gender of substantives, the declension of Greek nouns, the derivation of adjectives and adverbs, &c., which would only have embarrassed and retarded the student in the beginning, are deferred until nearly the close of the book. With the verbs I have proceeded in a similar manner. I first give only the present tense active, then in another lesson the passive, and in a third the present of deponent verbs. A general outline of the formation of tenses follows, in Lesson XXVIII., from which the student is referred to the paradigms of conjugation on pages 664–665, which may be read and committed, as in ordinary Grammars; but in the regular order of the book, he learns and applies only one tense at a time, on which he practises until he is fit for another, and so on to the end.

I have retained the division into Lessons, as the most suitable arrangement for a book of this description. A strict separation of the etymology and syntax, and a connected scientific treatment of the principles of grammar, however desirable in themselves, would have destroyed the characteristic feature of the method, which begins with sentences instead of isolated vocables, and thus applies the simpler principles of construction at the very outset. It is however by no means intended that those divisions called Lessons should be the task invariably assigned to the student. The judgment of the teacher must in all cases determine the proper pensum of the learner, according to the capacity or proficiency of the latter, and that may sometimes be more, and perhaps oftener less, than the pensum of the book, which is not unfrequently considerably longer than the average lessons in similar manuals on modern languages.

In the use of the book care should be taken to keep the main design steadily in view, which is the writing and memorizing of the exercises appended to each lesson. In these the student applies directly the principles already acquired, and undergoes as it were a daily self-examination on what has gone before. Hence it is much more important that he should properly attend to those, than that he should be kept too long upon the mere mechanical committing of barren lists of words, or of rules which, without application, always remain a dead letter in the memory.

Much benefit can be derived from the guidance of the instructor, whose aid in reading over the advance lesson, in explaining and removing difficulties, in separating the essential points from those of minor importance, will not fail to contribute greatly to the encouragement and rapid progress of his studiosi. As in many lessons of the book the principles advanced are far from being exhausted in the exercises at the end, the teacher or scholar can easily expand them by adding others similar to those given,—a practice which cannot be too strongly recommended.

To insure a correct pronunciation, I give directions at the very beginning for the accentuation of Latin words, and in the examples preceding the exercises, as well as in those given under the principal rules, the use of the accent is practically exhibited. To enable the student to accent according to the rules set forth in the first lesson, the quantity of all the words given in the vocabularies, as well as of those declined or conjugated, is indicated with almost lexicographical minuteness. In this respect I have rendered what I think is found in no other Grammar of the Latin, and am persuaded that this system, without which we can scarcely conceive of a correct pronunciation, will commend itself to the approbation of all competent to judge upon the subject.

As many of the exercises relate to the familiar talk of daily inters course, it has sometimes become necessary to designate objects either entirely unknown to the Ancients, or known under a different form. The words employed for this purpose are either modern, as coffea, tabacum, bibliopegus (bookbinder), or else genuine Latin terms, but employed in a sense somewhat different from that in which they occur in classical Latinity, as, for example, calceus for our "shoe," pileus for our "hat," speculum for our "looking-glass," &c. To prevent misunderstanding or confusion on this subject, all the words of this description are marked, as modern or applied to objects of modern life, with an asterisk before them; e. g. *coffea, *pileus, &c.

I have one word to add with reference to the syntax. This important part of grammar has been treated much more comprehensively than one might suppose from its somewhat disjointed appearance. The subject of agreement, the syntax of the oblique cases, the use of the infinitive, the somewhat complicated doctrine of the subjunctive, and other equally important topics, are developed as fully as in many Grammars of larger size or greater pretensions, and it is hoped that on this point nothing of any moment will be found omitted. All the rules and remarks are illustrated by numerous examples carefully selected from the classical authors of antiquity. The examples under the rules are separated from the rest of the book by a different arrangement, the Latin on the right and the English on the left, while in the general oral exercises this order is inverted. The book is thus expected to carry its own authority in itself, and to justify the imitative combinations and constructions adopted in the exercises. The doctrine of questions is fully developed and elucidated in Lesson LXXXV.; the order or arrangement of words and sentences, in Lesson XCVII. Both these lessons the teacher will do well to consult before he sets his students to work.

In the elaboration of this volume, I have availed myself of the best authorities which a long acquaintance with the philology of modern Germany had made familiar to me. On the etymology I have freely used Zumpt; on the syntax, the somewhat larger and completer manuals of Ramshorn and Krüger. On the orthography of words, and on the subject of quantity, I am chiefly indebted to the last edition of Dr. Georges' Lateinisch-Deutsches Hand-Wörterbuch (Leipsic, 1855). On the use of the particles I have, besides the authorities already mentioned, examined a number of other sources, especially the original treatise of Tursellinus. For correct Latin equivalents for the English terms and constructions employed in the book, I have diligently consulted the German-Latin Lexicons of Scheller, Kraft, and especially the more recent work of Georges. On doubtful or difficult points I have also had an opportunity to consult the more comprehensive works of Freund, Facciolati and Forcellini, and several others. From these authorities I have, however, adopted nothing but what I could justify by classical examples and analogies, and I have given no Latin equivalents for English terms or phrases, without testing them by comparing all the connections in which they are recorded as occurring in the classical writers. The subject of questions and answers I myself examined by a careful reading of the comedies of Terence, from which I had made numerous extracts before I was in possession of the sources from which I afterwards derived what I have advanced upon this point in Lesson LXXXV.

I have thus had rather a redundancy than a lack of materials on the majority of topics connected with the theory of grammar, while on the practical application of many principles, I was more than once forced to the reading of my Terence or my Cicero in order to obtain the desired light.—In this connection I have publicly to express my obligations to several gentlemen of Cambridge for their politeness in extending to me the privileges of their valuable University Library, to which I am indebted for several of my authorities.

I submit now the result of my somewhat protracted and by no means trivial labors to the candor and enlightened judgment of the classical scholars of America. As to the plan I have pursued, although it aims at nothing short of a radical change in the teaching of the language, I scarcely feel as if it needed an apology. The plan of learning a language by writing it, is not only the surest, but the only, road to its complete acquisition. Methods analogous to this, though unrecorded, must have been employed by those who have used, and who to some extent still use, the Latin as a medium of written communication, and not unfrequently with an elegance that reminds us of the Ancients. Let the reader think of an Erasmus, of Ficinus, of the learned family Stephanus, of Calvin, and other luminaries of the age of the revival of letters and of the Reformation, of others who have since reflected light and strength from the manly literature of ancient Rome. I think experience will prove, that the labor of acquisition, if not easier, will at any rate be more attractive and remunerative, with the method here proposed, which makes the student assist as it were in the production of his Latin, instead of forcing him to lay up barren lists of words or unproductive rules.

I have in conclusion to add, however, that the course here pointed out does not by any means pretend to be the ultimate goal of the journey to be pursued. No method in the shape of grammar, or manual of any kind, can teach completely any language, ancient or modern. It can only be acquired by familiarity with those written monuments, which are at once the flowers and conservatories of the idioms, in which they breathe a life immortal. Of these the Romans have left us many of imperishable excellence, to which we must ever point as the most perfect exponents of their language, as the armories of the Roman mind. And these are yet to add wholesome vigor to the intellect of youth, and consolation to the failing strength of age.

G. J. Adler

Boston, February, 1858.

Lesson I.—Pēnsum Prīmum.

Introduction.

A. Latin Grammar, considered as a science, has for its object the investigation of laws which govern the forms and the construction of the language. When destined for the practical purposes of instruction, it becomes the art of learning to read, write, and speak the Latin language with correctness.

Of the Alphabet.

B. The letters of the Latin alphabet are twenty-five:—A, a; B, b; C, c; D, d; E, e; F, f; G, g; H, h; I, i; J, j; K, k; L, l; M, m; N, n; O, o; P, p; Q, q; R, r; S, s; T, t; U, u; V, v; X, x; Y, y; Z, z.

Letters are divided into vowels (litterae vocales) and consonants (litterae consonates).

The sound of vowels is complete in itself, whereas that of consonants becomes distinct only in conjunction with a vowel.

Of Vowels and Diphthongs.

C. The simple vowels of the Latin alphabet are six: a, e, i, o, u, y. To these may be added the double vowels or diphthongs ae (æ), ai, au, ei, eu, oe (œ), oi, and ui.

The vowel y (ypsilon) is only found in words adopted from the Greek, as Cyrus, tyrannus, syngraphus.

The diphthongs ei, oi, and ui occur only in a few interjections, such as hei, eia, viei, hui, and in dein, proin, huic, and eui, when these words are contracted into one syllable.

The diphthong eu is found in words originally Greek, and in the Latin ceu, seu, heu, heus, neu, and neuter.

Respecting the proper sounds of these vowels, there is at present no uniformity of usage, the common custom in vogue among the different nations of Europe being that of following the analogy of their respective vernacular idioms. This has given rise to a diversity of pronunciations, among which the English and the Continental are the most conspicuous. The following table exhibits the difference between the English and the German sounds of the vowels, both long ( ¯ ) and short ( ˘ ): &mdash

English sound. | German sound.

a | māter, mannăreturn11 | ā always āh, ă as in am.

e | dēlĕo, fessus | ē like a in fate, ĕ as in fre.

i, y | fīnis, mīrābǐlǐs | ī like ee in keen, ĭ as in fin.

o | corōnă, dŏmĭnus | ō as in bōne, ŏ as in shone.

u | ūsŭs, dŭumvir | ū like oo in moon, ŭ the same sound short.

ae | Caesar, caestusreturn22 | like ā in fate.

ai | Māǐa,return33 āiō | broader, with the sound of both vowels.

au | aurum, causa | like ou in house.

ei | eia, omneis | like i in shine

eu | Orpheus,return44 neuter | nearly like oi in foil.

oe | poena, foedus | like the French eu in feu.

ui | huic, cuireturn55 | like ooi rapidly sounded.

Remark.—In the above examples, the learner is expected to sound the vowels as he would under similar circumstances in English words.

Of the Consonants.

D. The consonants are divided into liquids, mutes, and double consonants.

The liquids are l, m, n, r.

The mutes comprise the remaining simple consonants of the alphabet, with the exception of the sibilant s.

The mutes are again subdivided, with reference to the organ by which they are pronounced, into labials (v, b, p, f), gutturals (g, c, k, qu), and linguals (d, t).

The double consonants are x and z (called zeta). The former combines the sounds cs, the latter ds.

E. The power of these consonants is upon the whole the same as that of the corresponding English letters. Nor are there as many international discrepancies of pronunciation as in the vowels. The following remarks will illustrate their force more particularly:—

Ch has the force of k, as pulcher, machina.

H is a mere aspiration, and not regarded as a consonant. In some words it is either expressed or omitted, e.g. hāvē or āvē, ahēnum or aēnum, mihi or mī.

The ancient Romans made no distinction of form between the consonants j, v and the vowels i, u but the same characters I and V had sometimes the power of vowels and sometimes of consonants.

K has now become a superfluous letter, and is only used in certain abbreviations, as K. for Kaesō; Kal. for Calendae.

M at the beginning or in the middle of a word is sounded as in English. But m final, when preceded by a vowel, was not so distinctly pronounced by the Ancients. Hence, when the following word commenced with a vowel, the m final was either entirely silent (in poetry always so) or regarded as a mere connecting link between vowels.

Q occurs only in connection with u followed by another vowel, as quum, quī, coquus.

S has upon the whole the same power as in English. Among the older Latin writers, however, it seems to have had the stronger sound of ss, as they wrote cāssus, caussa, accūssō, &c., instead of the later cāsus, causa, accūsō.

Ti and ci short, when followed by another vowel, are generally sounded like shee, as in Horatius, nuntius, iustitia; Fabricius, novicius, &c. But ti retains its proper sound, a) when the i is long, as in istīus, tōtīus; b) when the t is preceded by an s, x, or another t, as in ostium, mixtiō, Bruttiī; c) in words originally Greek, as Militiadēs, Aegyptius; d) before the er of the infinitive passive, as nītīer, flectīer, &c. e) at the beginning of a word, as in tiāra.

Of the Hiātus.

Of Syllables.

G. A syllable may consist of either a single vowel or diphthong, or of the union of a vowel or diphthong with one or more consonants, e.g. ō-vum, du-ō, i-ste, cōn-stāns.

The Latin language generally tolerates no more than two consonants at the end of a syllable or word; when there are three, the last is always an s, as in stirps.

Nor does a syllable commonly commence with more than two consonants, except where at the beginning of the word sc, sp, and st are followed by an r, or where in the middle of a word one of the letters c, p, or s is followed by a mute and liquid, as scri-ptor, sprē-tus, stri-ctim; do-ctrīna, clau-strum, i-sthmus, magi-strī, corru-ptrix.

The division of words into syllables may be regulated by the following laws:—

a) A consonant between two vowels belongs to the last, as e-go, pa-ter, so-ror.

b) The consonants which may begin a Greek or Latin word (according to Remark 2) belong together in the division of a word into its component syllables, as pa-tris, i-gnis, a-ctus, o-mnis, i-psī, pa-stor, po-scō, fau-stus, sce-ptrum, ca-strum, &c.

c) Combinations of consonants which never occur at the beginning of a word are treated according to the analogy of the rest, e.g., Da-phnē, rhy-thmus, smara-gdus, &c.

d) Compounds are usually divided according to the parts of which they are composed, as ab-est, abs-condō, inter-sum, ob-tulī, red-eō, &c. But where the composition is uncertain or obscure, or when the first component has lost a part of its original termination, the division is effected as in simple words, e.g. am-bāges, ani-madvertō (contracted for animum advertō), long-aevus, po-tes (for potis + es), &c.

Words consisting of one syllable are called monosyllables; those of two, dissyllables; and those of more than two, polysyllables.

Of the Quantity of Syllables.

H. The quantity of a syllable is the relative time occupied in its pronunciation. It is upon this principle that the entire fabric of Latin versification depends.

Every syllable is either long ( ¯ ), or short ( ˘ ),return99 or common ( ), i.e. sometimes long and sometimes short, as amāvī, lĕgĕrĕ, volucris.

A syllable is long by nature, when its vowel is naturally long, as causa, concīdō; it is long by position, when its vowel is followed by two consonants or a double consonant, as stirpis, sermō, discessit.

All diphthongs and such simple vowels as have originated in a contraction are by nature long, as caedō, proelium, audāx; cōgō (from coăgo), bōbus (for bovĭbus).

A vowel before another vowel is commonly short, as mĕus, dĕa, pĭus, tonĭtrus.

A vowel before a mute and liquid is common, as lucrum, tenebra, tonitrus.

The quantity of the simple vowels under other circumstances can only be determined by the authority of the poets, and is commonly given in the Lexicon. The rules respecting the quantity of final syllables, &c. belong to Prosody.

Of the Accent.

I. Accent is the peculiar tone or emphasis with which a particular syllable of a word is uttered.

Every Latin word has one principal or leading accent, and only one.

The leading accent is either the circumflex ( ˆ ) or the acute ( ´ ).

There is also a subordinate accent called the grave ( ` ). But this denotes rather the absence of the principal accent, and is scarcely used. In words of several syllables, the last syllable but one is called the penult or penultima (sc. syllaba), and the last but two, the antepenult or antepenultima.

The place of the accent is determined by the following laws:—