§1.5.12nam duos in uno nomine faciebat barbarismos Tinga Placentinus (si reprehendenti Hortensio credimus) preculam pro pergula dicens, et immutatione cum c pro g uteretur, et transmutatione cum r praeponeret e antecedenti.
For Tinga of Placentia (if we believe Hortensius when he finds fault) committed two barbarisms in one noun by saying "precula" instead of "pergula", using "c" instead of "g" by alteration, and placing "r" before the preceding "e" by transposition.
at in eiusdem vitii geminatione Mettoeoque Fufetioeo dicens Ennius poetico iure defenditur.
But in the doubling of the same vice, Ennius is defended by poetic license when he says "Mettoeoque Fufetioeo".
§1.5.13sed in prosa quoque est quaedam iam recepta immutatio.
But in prose too there is a certain alteration that is already accepted.
nam Cicero Canopitarum exercitum dicit, ipsi Canobon vocant; et Trasumennum pro Tarsumenno multi auctores, etiamsi est in eo transmutatio, vindicaverunt.
For Cicero says "the army of the Canopitae", whereas the inhabitants themselves call it "Canobos"; and many authors have claimed "Trasumennus" instead of "Tarsumennus", even though there is a transposition in it.
similiter alia; nam sive est adsentior, Sisenna dixit adsentio multique et hunc et analogian secuti, sive illud verum est, haec quoque pars consensu defenditur.
Similarly with other things; for whether "adsentior" is correct, Sisenna said "adsentio" and many followed both him and analogy, or whether the latter is correct, this part too is defended by consensus.
§1.5.14at ille pexus pinguisque doctor aut illic detractionem aut hic adiectionem putabit.
But that well-groomed and sleek teacher will think either a subtraction in the former or an addition in the latter.
quid quod quaedam, quae singula procul dubio vitiosa sunt, iuncta sine reprehensione dicuntur?
What of the fact that certain things, which are undoubtedly faulty when single, are spoken without blame when combined?
§1.5.15nam et dua et tre diversorum generum sunt barbarismi; at duapondo et trepondo usque ad nostram aetatem ab omnibus dictum est, et recte dici Messala confirmat.
For both "dua" and "tre" are barbarisms of different kinds; yet "duapondo" and "trepondo" have been spoken by everyone down to our age, and Messala confirms that they are spoken correctly.
§1.5.16absurdum forsitan videatur dicere, barbarismum, quod est unius verbi vitium, fieri per numeros aut genera sicut soloecismum: scala tamen et scopa contraque hordea et mulsa, licet litterarum mutationem, detractionem, adiectionem habeant, non alio vitiosa sunt, quam quod pluralia singulariter et singularia pluraliter efferuntur; et gladia qui dixerunt, genere exciderunt.
It may perhaps seem absurd to say that barbarism, which is a vice of a single word, occurs through numbers or genders like solecism: yet "scala" and "scopa", and on the contrary "hordea" and "mulsa", although they have alteration, subtraction, or addition of letters, are not faulty for any other reason than that plurals are pronounced singularly and singulars plurally; and those who said "gladia" failed in gender.
§1.5.17sed hoc quoque notare contentus sum, ne arti culpa quorundam pervicacium perplexae videar et ipse quaestionem addidisse.
But I am content to note this too, lest I myself should seem to have added a question to an art already made complex by the fault of certain obstinate people.
plus exigunt subtilitatis quae accidunt in dicendo vitia, quia exempla eorum tradi scripto non possunt, nisi cum in versus inciderunt, ut divisio Europaï Asiaï et ei contrarium vitium, quod συναίρεσιν et συναλοιφὴν Graeci vocant, nos complexionem dicamus, qualis est apud P. Varronem tum te flagrant deiectum fulmine Phaethon.
Those vices which occur in speaking require more subtlety, because examples of them cannot be handed down in writing, except when they fall into verses, like the division "Europaï" and "Asiaï", and the contrary vice to it, which the Greeks call "synaeresis" and "synaloepha", and we call "complexio" (combination), such as occurs in Publius Varro: "then Phaethon, they [burn] you, cast down by the blazing lightning".
§1.5.18nam si esset prosa oratio, easdem litteras enuntiare veris syllabis licebat.
For if it were prose speech, it was permitted to pronounce the same letters with their true syllables.
praeterea quae fiunt spatio, sive cum syllaba correpta producitur, ut Italiam fato profugus, seu longa corripitur, ut unius ob noxam et furias, extra carmen non deprehendas; sed nec in carmine vitia dicenda sunt.
Furthermore, those things which occur by quantity, whether when a short syllable is lengthened, as "Italiam fato profugus", or a long one is shortened, as "unius ob noxam et furias", you would not detect outside a poem; but not even in a poem are they to be called vices.
§1.5.19illa vero non nisi aure exiguntur, quae fiunt per sonos; quanquam per aspirationem, sive adiicitur vitiose sive detrahitur, apud nos potest quaeri an in scripto sit vitium, si h littera est, non nota.
But those things which occur through sounds are required by nothing but the ear; although regarding aspiration, whether it is faultily added or subtracted, it can be asked among us whether there is a vice in writing, if "h" is a letter and not a mark.
cuius quidem ratio mutata cum temporibus est saepius.
Indeed, the rule of this has changed quite often with the times.
§1.5.20parcissime ea veteres usi etiam in vocalibus, cum aedos ircosque dicebant; diu deinde servatum, ne consonantibus aspirarent, ut in Graccis et in triumpis; erupit brevi tempore nimius usus, ut choronae, chenturiones, praechones adhuc quibusdam in inscriptionibus maneant, qua de re Catulli nobile epigramma est.
The ancients used it very sparingly even with vowels, when they said "aedi" and "irci"; then it was long observed not to aspirate consonants, as in "Gracci" and "triumpis"; in a short time an excessive use broke out, so that "choronae", "chenturiones", and "praechones" still remain in certain inscriptions, concerning which there is a famous epigram by Catullus.
§1.5.21inde durat ad nos usque vehementer et comprehendere et mihi, nam mehe quoque pro me apud antiquos tragoediarum praecipue scriptores in veteribus libris invenimus.
From there, both "vehementer" and "comprehendere" and "mihi" endure strongly down to us, for we even find "mehe" instead of "me" among ancient writers, especially of tragedies, in old books.
§1.5.22adhuc difficilior observatio est per tenores (quos quidem ab antiquis dictos tonores comperi videlicet declinato a Graecis verbo, qui τόνους dicunt), vel adcentus, quas Graeci προσῳδίας vocant, cum acuta et gravis alia pro alia ponuntur, ut in hoc Camillus, si acuitur prima: §1.5.23aut gravis pro flexa, ut Cethegus, et hic prima acuta (nam sic media mutatur); aut flexa pro gravi, ut Appi circumducta sequenti, quam ex duabus syllabis in unam cogentes et deinde flectentes dupliciter peccant.
The observation is still more difficult in the case of pitch (which I have found indeed to be called "tonores" by the ancients, obviously with the word derived from the Greeks, who say "tonoi"), or accents, which the Greeks call "prosodiai", when the acute and grave are put one in place of the other, as in this "Camillus", if the first syllable is made acute: or a grave instead of a circumflex, as "Cethegus", and here too the first syllable is made acute (for thus the middle one is changed); or a circumflex instead of a grave, as "Appi", with the following syllable circumflexed, which they double-fault by forcing from two syllables into one and then circumflexing.