§1.4.11quaeret hoc etiam, quomodo duabus demum vocalibus in se ipsas coeundi natura sit, cum consonantium nulla nisi alteram frangat.
He will also inquire into this, how it is that only two vowels have the nature of coalescing with themselves, whereas none of the consonants does so unless it softens (or modifies) another.
atqui littera I sibi insidit, coniicit enim est ab illo iacit, et V, quomodo nunc scribitur uulgus et seruus.
And yet the letter I impinges on itself, for `coniicit` is derived from that word `iacit`, and V also, in the way `uulgus` and `seruus` are now written.
sciat etiam Ciceroni placuisse aiio Maiiamque geminata I scribere; quod si est, etiam iungetur ut consonans.
Let him also know that it pleased Cicero to write `aiio` and `Maiiam` with a double I; and if this is so, it will also be joined as a consonant.
§1.4.12quare discat puer, quid in litteris proprium, quid commune, quae cum quibus cognatio; nec miretur, cur ex scamno fiat scabillum aut a pinno (quod est acutum) securis utrinque habens aciem bipennis; ne illorum sequatur errorem, qui, quia a pennis duabus hoc esse nomen existimant, pennas avium dici volunt.
Therefore, let the boy learn what is peculiar to letters, what is common, and what relationship exists between which of them; nor let him wonder why `scabillum` is made from `scamnum`, or why from `pinnus` (which means sharp) comes `bipennis`, an axe having an edge on both sides; lest he should follow the error of those who, because they think this name is derived from two feathers, want it to mean the feathers of birds.
§1.4.13neque has modo noverit mutationes, quas adferunt declinatio aut praepositio, ut secat secuit, cadit excidit, caedit excidit, calcat exculcat (et fit a lavando lotus et inde rursus inlutus et mille talia), sed quae rectis quoque casibus aetate transierunt.
Nor should he know only those changes which declension or prepositions bring about, as `secat` makes `secuit`, `cadit` makes `excidit`, `caedit` makes `excidit`, `calcat` makes `exculcat` (and from `lavando` comes `lotus` and thence again `inlutus`, and a thousand such things), but also those changes which have passed over even into nominative cases through time.
nam ut Valesii Fusii in Valerios Furiosque venerunt: ita arbos, labos, vapos etiam et clamos ac lases fuerunt.
For as `Valesii` and `Fusii` turned into `Valerii` and `Furii`, so there were once `arbos`, `labos`, `vapos`, and even `clamos` and `lases`.
§1.4.14atque haec ipsa S littera ab his nominibus exclusa in quibusdam ipsa alteri successit, nam mertare atque pultare dicebant, quin fordeum faedosque pro aspiratione F velut simili littera utentes; nam contra Graeci aspirare F ut φ solent, ut pro Fundanio Cicero testem, qui primam eius litteram dicere non possit, irridet.
And this very letter S, excluded from these nouns, in some words itself succeeded another letter, for they used to say `mertare` and `pultare`, and indeed they used `fordeum` and `faedos`, employing a similar letter instead of F for the aspiration; whereas, on the contrary, the Greeks are accustomed to aspirate F like φ, so that Cicero ridicules a witness appearing for Fundanius who cannot pronounce its first letter.
§1.4.15sed B quoque in locum aliarum dedimus aliquando, unde Burrus et Bruges et balaena.
But we have also sometimes put B in the place of other letters, whence came `Burrus`, `Bruges`, and `balaena`.
nec non eadem fecit ex duello bellum, unde Duellios quidam dicere Bellios ausi.
Moreover, the same letter made `bellum` out of `duellum`, whence some have dared to call the `Duellii` by the name of `Bellii`.
§1.4.16quid stlocum stlitesque? quid T litterae cum D quaedam cognatio? quare minus mirum, si in vetustis operibus urbis nostrae et celebribus templis legantur Alexanter et Cassantra.
What of `stlocum` and `stlites`? What of a certain relationship of the letter T with D? Wherefore it is less surprising if in the ancient works of our city and in famous temples we read `Alexanter` and `Cassantra`.
quid O atque V permutatae invicem, ut Hecoba et nutrix Culchidis et Pulixena scriberentur, ac, ne in Graecis id tantum notetur, dederont ac probaveront? sic Ὀδυσσεύς, quem Ὀλισσέα fecerant Aeolis, ad Ulixem deductus est.
What of O and V interchanged, so that `Hecoba`, the nurse of Colchis, and `Pulixena` were written, and, lest this be noted only in Greek words, `dederont` and `probaveront`? Thus `Ὀδυσσεύς`, whom the Aeolians had made `Ὀλισσεύς`, was brought down to `Ulixes`.
§1.4.17quid? non E quoque I loco fuit? Μenerva et leber et magester et Diiove Victore non Diiovi Victori? sed mihi locum signare satis est, non enim doceo, sed admoneo docturos.
What? Was not E also in the place of I? `Menerva`, `leber`, `magester`, and `Diiove Victore` instead of `Diiovi Victori`? But it is enough for me to mark the place, for I am not teaching, but reminding those who are to teach.
inde in syllabas cura transibit, de quibus in orthographia pauca adnotabo.
Thence the attention will pass to syllables, concerning which I shall note a few things under orthography.
tum videbit, ad quem hoc pertinet, quot et quae partes orationis; quanquam de numero parum convenit.
Then he whom this concerns will see how many and what are the parts of speech; although there is little agreement about the number.
§1.4.18veteres enim, quorum fuerunt Aristoteles quoque atque Theodectes, verba modo et nomina et convinctiones tradiderunt; videlicet quod in verbis vim sermonis, in nominibus materiam (quia alterum est quod loquimur, alterum de quo loquimur), in convinctionibus autem complexus eorum esse iudicaverunt: quas coniunctiones a plerisque dici scio, sed haec videtur ex συνδέσμῳ magis propria translatio.
For the ancients, among whom were also Aristotle and Theodectes, handed down only verbs, nouns, and convinctiones; because they judged that in verbs lies the force of speech, in nouns the matter (since one is what we speak, the other is that about which we speak), and in convinctiones the connection of them: which I know are called conjunctions by most people, but this seems a more proper translation from `σύνδεσμος`.
§1.4.19paulatim a philosophis ac maxime Stoicis auctus est numerus, ac primum convinctionibus articuli adiecti, post praepositiones, nominibus appellatio, deinde pronomen, deinde mixtum verbo participium, ipsis verbis adverbia.
Gradually the number was increased by philosophers, and especially by the Stoics, and first articles were added to convinctiones, afterwards prepositions, to nouns appellation, then the pronoun, then the participle mixed with the verb, and adverbs to the verbs themselves.
noster sermo articulos non desiderat, ideoque in alias partes orationis sparguntur, sed accedit superioribus interiectio.
Our language does not require articles, and therefore they are scattered among other parts of speech, but the interjection is added to the former.