§1.5.24sed id saepius in Graecis nominibus accidit, ut Atreus, quem nobis iuvenibus doctissimi senes acuta prima dicere solebant, ut necessario secunda gravis esset, item Nerei Tereique.
But this occurs more frequently in Greek nouns, such as Atreus, which very learned old men when we were young used to pronounce with an acute on the first syllable, so that the second was used as necessarily grave, and likewise Nerei and Tereique.
haec de accentibus tradita.
These are the things handed down concerning accents.
§1.5.25ceterum scio iam quosdam eruditos, nonnullos etiam grammaticos sic docere ac loqui, ut propter quaedam vocum discrimina verbum interim acuto sono finiant, §1.5.26ut in illis quae circum littora, circum piscosos scopulos, ne, si gravem posuerint secundam, circus dici videatur non circuitus.
For the rest, I know that certain learned men, and even some grammarians, now teach and speak in such a way that, for the sake of certain distinctions between words, they sometimes end a word with an acute sound, as in those expressions "circum litora" and "circum piscosos scopulos", lest, if they place a grave on the second syllable, "circus" should seem to be spoken and not "circuitus".
itemque cum quale interrogantes gravi, comparantes acuto tenore concludunt; quod tamen in adverbiis fere solis ac pronominibus vindicant, in ceteris veterem legem sequuntur.
And likewise, when asking "qualis", they close with a grave, but when comparing, with an acute pitch; which, however, they claim almost in adverbs alone and pronouns, while in the rest they follow the ancient law.
§1.5.27mihi videtur condicionem mutare, quod his locis verba coniungimus.
It seems to me that the fact that we join words in these places changes the condition.
nam cum dico circum litora, tanquam unum enuntio dissimulata distinctione, itaque tanquam in una voce una est acuta, quod idem accidit in illo Troiae qui primus ab oris.
For when I say "circum litora", I pronounce it as one word, with the division concealed, and so, just as in a single word, there is only one acute; which same thing occurs in that passage "Troiae qui primus ab oris".
§1.5.28evenit, ut metri quoque condicio mutet accentum, ut pecudes pictaeque volucres; nam volucres media acuta legam, quia, etsi natura brevis, tamen positione longa est, ne faciat iambum, quem non recipit versus herous.
It happens that the condition of the meter also changes the accent, as "pecudes pictaeque volucres"; for I shall read "volucres" with the middle syllable acute because, although short by nature, it is yet long by position, lest it should make an iambus, which the heroic verse does not receive.
§1.5.29separata vero haec a praecepto non recedent, aut si consuetudo vicerit, vetus lex sermonis abolebitur; cuius difficilior apud Graecos observatio est, quia plura illis loquendi genera, quas διαλέκτους vocant, et quod alia vitiosum interim alia rectum est; apud nos vero brevissima ratio.
But these, if separated, will not depart from the rule, or if usage wins, the ancient law of language will be abolished; the observation of which is more difficult among the Greeks, because they have more kinds of speaking, which they call dialects, and because what is sometimes faulty in one is correct in another; but among us, the rule is very brief.
§1.5.30namque in omni voce acuta intra numerum trium syllabarum continetur, sive eae sunt in verbo sole sive ultimae, et in iis aut proxima extremae aut ab ea tertia.
For in every word, the acute accent is contained within the number of three syllables, whether those are alone in the word or are the last, and in these, it is either on the one next to the last or the third from it.
trium porro, de quibus loquor, media longa aut acuta aut flexa erit; eodem loco brevis utique gravem habebit sonum, ideoque positam ante se id est ab ultima tertiam acuet.
Furthermore, of the three of which I speak, the middle one, if long, will have either an acute or a circumflex; in the same place, if short, it will certainly have a grave sound, and therefore will make acute the syllable placed before it, that is, the third from the last.
§1.5.31est autem in omni voce utique acuta sed nunquam plus una nec unquam ultima ideoque in disyllabis prior.
Moreover, in every word there is certainly an acute, but never more than one, nor ever on the last, and therefore in disyllables, on the prior.
praeterea nunquam in eadem flexa et acuta, quoniam est in flexa et acuta, itaque neutra claudet vocem Latinam.
Furthermore, never in the same word are there both a circumflex and an acute, since there is an acute in the circumflex, and so neither will close a Latin word.
ea vero, quae sunt syllabae unius, erunt acuta aut flexa, ne sit aliqua vox sine acuta.
But those which consist of a single syllable will be either acute or circumflex, lest there be any word without an acute.
§1.5.32et illa per sonos accidunt, quae demonstrari scripto non possunt, vitia oris et linguae: ἰωτακισμοὺς et λαμβδακισμοὺς et ἰσχνότητας et πλατειασμοὺς feliciores fingendis nominibus Graeci vocant, sicut κοιλοστομίαν, cum vox quasi in recessu oris auditor.
And those things occur through sounds which cannot be demonstrated in writing, vices of the mouth and tongue: the Greeks, more fortunate in coining names, call them iotacisms, lambdacisms, thinness, and broadness of voice, just as they call "koilostomia" that in which the voice is heard as if in the recess of the mouth.
§1.5.33sunt etiam proprii quidam et inenarrabiles soni, quibus nonnunquam nationes reprehendimus.
There are also certain peculiar and inexpressible sounds, for which we sometimes find fault with nations.
remotis igitur omnibus, de quibus supra dixi, vitiis erit illa quae vocatur ὀρθοέπεια, id est emendata cum suavitate vocum explanatio: nam sic accipi potest recta.
Therefore, when all the vices of which I spoke above are removed, there will be that which is called orthoepeia, that is, a correct explanation with sweetness of words: for in this way it can be accepted as correct speech.
§1.5.34cetera vitia omnia ex pluribus vocibus sunt, quorum est soloecismus, quanquam circa hoc quoque disputatum est. nam etiam qui complexu orationis accidere eum confitentur, quia tamen unius emendatione verbi corrigi possit, in verbo esse vitium non in sermone contendunt;
All other vices consist of more than one word, among which is the solecism, although there has been dispute about this as well.
§1.5.35cum, sive amarae corticis seu medio cortice per genus facit soloecismum (quorum neutrum quidem reprehendo, cum sit utriusque Vergilius auctor; sed fingamus utrumlibet non recte dictum), mutatio vocis alterius, in qua vitium erat, rectam loquendi rationem sit redditura, ut amari corticis fiat vel media cortice.
For even those who confess that it occurs in the combination of speech contend that, because it can be corrected by the amendment of a single word, the vice is in the word and not in the speech; as when one commits a solecism in gender by "amarae corticis" or "medio cortice" (neither of which indeed do I find fault with, since Vergil is the author of both; but let us pretend that whichever of them was not spoken correctly), the change of the other word, in which the vice was, is going to restore the correct rule of speaking, so that it becomes "amari corticis" or "media cortice".
quod manifestae calumniae est; neutrum enim vitiosum est separatum, sed compositione peccatur, quae iam sermonis est.
Which is a matter of manifest sophistry; for neither is faulty when separated, but the offense is committed in the combination, which already belongs to speech.