§1.5.36illud eruditius quaeritur, an in singulis quoque verbis possit fieri soloecismus, uti si unum quis ad se vocans dicat venite, aut si plures a se dimittens ita loquatur abi aut discede.
A more scholarly question is asked, whether a solecism can also occur in single words, as if someone, calling a single person to himself, should say 'venite', or if, dismissing several from himself, he should speak thus: 'abi' or 'discede'.
nec non cum responsum ab interrogante dissentit, ut si dicenti quem video? ita occurras ego.
And likewise when the answer dissents from the questioner, as if to one saying 'quem video?' you should thus respond: 'ego'.
in gestu etiam nonnulli putant idem vitium inesse, cum aliud voce aliud nutu vel manu demonstratur.
In gesture also, some think the same vice is present, when one thing is demonstrated by the voice and another by a nod or a hand.
§1.5.37huic opinioni neque omnino accedo neque plane dissentio.
To this opinion, I neither entirely assent nor completely dissent.
nam id fateor accidere voce una non tamen aliter, quam si sit aliquid, quod vim alterius vocis obtineat, ad quod vox illa referatur, ut soloecismus ex complexu fiat eorum, quibus res significantur et voluntas ostenditur.
For I confess that this happens in a single word, yet not otherwise than if there is something which obtains the force of another word, to which that word is referred, so that the solecism occurs from the combination of those things by which matters are signified and will is shown.
§1.5.38atque ut omnem effugiam cavillationem, sit aliquando in uno verbo nunquam in solo verbo.
And to escape all cavilling, let it be sometimes in one word, but never in a solitary word.
per quot autem et per quas accidat species, non satis convenit.
But through how many and through which species it occurs is not sufficiently agreed.
qui plenissime, quadripertitam volunt esse rationem nec aliam quam barbarismi, ut fiat adiectione nam enim, de susum, in Alexandriam; detractione ambulo viam, Aegypto venio, ne hoc fecit; §1.5.39transmutatione, qua ordo turbatur, quoque ego, enim hoc voluit, autem non habuit.
Those who treat it most fully wish the system to be fourfold, and no other than that of the barbarism, so that it occurs by addition, as 'nam enim', 'de susum', 'in Alexandriam'; by detraction, as 'ambulo viam', 'Aegypto venio', 'ne hoc fecit'; by transmutation, by which the order is disturbed, as 'quoque ego', 'enim hoc voluit', 'autem non habuit'.
ex quo genere an sit igitur initio sermonis positum, dubitari potest, quia maximos auctores in diversa fuisse opinione video, cum apud alios sit etiam frequens, apud alios nunquam reperiatur.
From which genus, whether 'igitur' placed at the beginning of a speech belongs to it may be doubted, because I see that the greatest authors have been of different opinions, since among some it is even frequent, while among others it is never found.
§1.5.40haec tria genera quidam deducunt a soloecismo, et adiectionis vitium πλεονασμόν, detractionis ἔλλειψιν, inversionis ἀναστροφήν vocant, quae si in speciem soloecismi cadat, ὑπερβατόν quoque eodem appellari modo posse.
Certain people remove these three genera from solecism, and call the vice of addition 'πλεονασμόν', of detraction 'ἔλλειψιν', of inversion 'ἀναστροφήν', which, if it falls under the species of solecism, they say can also be called 'ὑπερβατόν' in the same way.
§1.5.41immutatio sine controversia est, cum aliud pro alio ponitur.
Immutation is without controversy, when one thing is placed for another.
id per omnes orationis partes deprehendimus, frequentissime in verbo, quia plurima huic accidunt; ideoque in eo fiunt soloecismi per genera, tempora, personas, modos, sive cui status eos dici seu qualitates placet, vel sex vel, ut alii volunt, octo; —nam totidem vitiorum erunt formae, in quot species eorum quidque, de quibus supra dictum est, diviseris praeterea numeros, §1.5.42in quibus nos singularem ac pluralem habemus Graeci et δυϊκόν.
We detect this through all parts of speech, most frequently in the verb, because very many things happen to it; and therefore in it solecisms occur through genders, tenses, persons, moods—whether anyone pleases to call them 'states' or 'qualities', either six or, as others wish, eight; for there will be just as many forms of vices as the species into which you divide each of those things spoken of above; and besides, numbers, in which we have singular and plural, and the Greeks also the 'δυϊκόν'.
quanquam fuerunt, qui nobis quoque adiicerent dualem scripsere, legere; quod evitandae asperitatis gratia mollitum est, ut apud veteres pro male mereris, male merere.
Although there were those who added the dual to us as well, citing 'scripsere' and 'legere'; which was softened for the sake of avoiding harshness, as among the ancients 'male merere' was used for 'male mereris'.
ideoque quod vocant dualem, in illo solo genere consistit, cum apud Graecos et in verbi tota fere ratione et in nominibus deprehendatur, et sic quoque rarissimus eius sit usus, §1.5.43apud nostrorum vero neminem haec observatio reperiatur, quin e contrario devenere locos et conticuere omnes et consedere duces aperte nos doceant, nihil horum ad duos pertinere; dixere quoque, quamquam id Antonius Rufus ex diverso ponit exemplum, de pluribus patronis praeco pronuntiet.
And therefore what they call the dual consists only in that class, whereas among the Greeks it is detected both in almost the whole system of the verb and in nouns, and even so its use is extremely rare; but among none of our writers is this observation found, since on the contrary 'devenere locos' and 'conticuere omnes' and 'consedere duces' openly teach us that none of these pertains to two; and 'dixere' also, although Antonius Rufus sets it down as an example from a contrary view, is what the herald pronounces concerning several patrons.
§1.5.44quid? non Livius circa initia statim primi libri, tenuere, inquit, arcem Sabini? et mox, in adversum Romani subiere? sed quem potius ego quam M. Tullium sequar? qui in Oratore, non reprehendo, inquit, scripsere; scripserunt esse verius sentio. §1.5.45similiter in vocabulis et nominibus fit soloecismus genere, numero, proprie autem casibus, quidquid horum alteri succedet.
What? Does not Livy, immediately near the beginning of his first book, say: 'tenuere arcem Sabini'? And soon after: 'in adversum Romani subiere'? But whom should I follow rather than M. Tullius? Who in the 'Orator' says: 'I do not find fault with scripsere; I feel that scripserunt is more correct.' Similarly in nouns and names, a solecism occurs in gender, number, but properly in cases, whenever any of these succeeds in place of another.
huic parti subiungatur licet per comparationes et superlationes, itemque in quibus patrium pro possessivo dicitur vel contra.
To this part may be subjoined solecisms through comparatives and superlatives, and likewise those in which the genitive is used for the possessive or vice versa.
§1.5.46nam vitium, quod fit per quantitatem ut magnum peculiolum, erunt qui soloecismum putent quia pro nomine integro positum sit deminutum.
For as to the vice which occurs through quantity, as 'magnum peculiolum', there will be those who think it a solecism because a diminutive is placed for an entire noun.
ego dubito, an id improprium potius appellem, significatione enim deerrat; soloecismi porro uitium non est in sensu sed in complexu.
I doubt whether I should rather call it 'improper', for it errs in meaning; furthermore, the vice of solecism is not in the sense but in the combination.