§1.6.1est etiam sua loquentibus observatio, sua scribentibus.
Speakers have their own rule to observe, and writers have theirs.
sermo constat ratione vel vetustate, auctoritate, consuetudine.
Language consists of reason, antiquity, authority, and custom.
rationem praestat praecipue analogia, nonnunquam et etymologia.
Reason is provided chiefly by analogy, and sometimes also by etymology.
vetera maiestas quaedam et, ut sic dixerim, religio commendat.
A certain majesty and, so to speak, sanctity recommend ancient words.
§1.6.2auctoritas ab oratoribus vel historicis peti solet; nam poetas metri necessitas excusat, nisi si quando nihil impediente in utroque modulatione pedum alterum malunt, qualia sunt, imo de stirpe recisum, et aëriae quo congessere palumbes et silice in nuda et similia; cum summorum in eloquentia virorum iudicium pro ratione, et velut error honestus est magnos duces sequentibus.
Authority is usually sought from orators or historians; for the necessity of meter excuses poets, unless when, with nothing preventing in either case in the modulation of the feet, they prefer one over the other, such as 'imo de stirpe recisum', and 'aëriae quo congessere palumbes', and 'silice in nuda', and the like; since the judgment of the greatest men in eloquence is as reason, and a error, as it were, is honorable for those who follow great leaders.
§1.6.3consuetudo vero certissima loquendi magistra, utendumque plane sermone ut nummo, cui publica forma est.
But custom is the most certain mistress of speaking, and we must clearly use language like money, which has a public stamp.
omnia tamen haec exigunt acre iudicium, analogia praecipue, quam proxime ex Graeco transferentes in Latinum proportionem vocaverunt.
Yet all these require sharp judgment, especially analogy, which those who translated it directly from Greek into Latin called 'proportion'.
§1.6.4eius haec vis est, ut id quod dubium est ad aliquid simile, de quo non quaeritur, referat et incerta certis probet.
Its power is this: to refer what is doubtful to something similar about which there is no question, and to prove uncertain things by certain ones.
quod efficitur duplici via: comparatione similium in extremis maxime syllabis, propter quod ea quae sunt e singulis negantur debere rationem, et deminutione.
This is accomplished in a two-fold way: by the comparison of similar things, especially in their final syllables (on account of which those words which consist of single syllables are said not to owe any reason), and by diminution.
§1.6.5comparatio in nominibus aut genus deprehendit aut declinationem; genus, ut si quaeratur, funis masculinum sit an femininum, simile illi sit panis; declinationem, ut si veniat in dubium, hac domu dicendum sit an hac domo et domuum an domorum: §1.6.6similia sint anus, manus.
Comparison in nouns detects either gender or declination; gender, as if it should be asked whether 'funis' is masculine or feminine, 'panis' would be similar to it; declination, as if it should come into doubt whether we ought to say 'hac domu' or 'hac domo', and 'domuum' or 'domorum': similar words would be 'anus', 'manus'.
deminutio genus modo detegit, et, ne ab eodem exemplo recedam, funem masculinum esse funiculus ostendit.
Diminution detects gender only, and, not to depart from the same example, 'funiculus' shows that 'funis' is masculine.
§1.6.7eadem in verbis quoque ratio comparationis, ut, si quis antiques secutus fervere brevi media syllaba dicat, deprehendatur vitiose loqui, quod omnia, quae e et o litteris fatendi modo terminantur, eadem, si infinitis e litteram media syllaba acceperunt, utique productam habent: prandeo pendeo spondeo, prandere pendere spondere.
The same is the rule of comparison in verbs also, so that if anyone, following the ancients, should say 'fervere' with a short middle syllable, he would be found to speak defectively, because all verbs which end in the letters 'e' and 'o' in the indicative mood, if they have received the letter 'e' in the middle syllable in their infinitives, certainly have it long: 'prandeo', 'pendeo', 'spondeo', 'prandere', 'pendere', 'spondere'.
§1.6.8at quae o solam habent, dummodo per eandem litteram in infinito exeant, brevia fiunt: lego dico curro, legere dicere currere; etiamsi est apud Lucilium fervit aqua et fervet, fervit nunc, fervet ad annum.
But those which have 'o' alone, provided they end in the infinitive with the same letter, become short: 'lego', 'dico', 'curro', 'legere', 'dicere', 'currere'; although we find in Lucilius: 'fervit aqua et fervet, fervit nunc, fervet ad annum'.
§1.6.9sed pace dicere hominis eruditissimi liceat, si fervit putat illi simile currit et legit, fervo dicetur ut lego et curro, quod nobis inauditum est.
But, by leave of that most learned man, if he thinks 'fervit' is similar to 'currit' and 'legit', 'fervo' will be said like 'lego' and 'curro', which is unheard of by us.
sed non est haec vera comparatio; nam fervit est illi simile servit, quam proportionem sequenti dicere necesse est fervire ut servire.
But this is not a true comparison; for 'fervit' is similar to 'servit', following which proportion one must say 'fervire' like 'servire'.
§1.6.10prima quoque aliquando positio ex obliquis invenitur, ut memoria repeto convictos a me, qui reprehenderant, quod hoc verbo usus essem, pepigi; nam id quidem dixisse summos auctores confitebantur, rationem tamen negabant permittere, quia prima positio paciscor, cum haberet naturam patiendi, faceret tempore praeterito pactus sum.
The first position also is sometimes found from the oblique cases, as I recall in memory that those who had criticized me because I had used this word, 'pepigi', were convinced by me; for they confessed indeed that the greatest authors had said it, but they denied that reason permitted it, because the first position, 'paciscor', since it had a passive nature, would make in the past tense 'pactus sum'.
§1.6.11nos praeter auctoritatem oratorum atque historicorum analogia quoque dictum hoc tuebamur.
We, besides the authority of orators and historians, defended this expression by analogy also.
nam cum legeremus in XII tabulis ni ita pagunt, inveniebamus simile huic cadunt, inde prima positio, etiamsi vetustate exoleverat, apparebat paco ut cado, unde non erat dubium sic pepigi nos dicere ut cecidi.
For when we read in the Twelve Tables 'ni ita pagunt', we found 'cadunt' similar to this, whence the first position, even if it had become obsolete through antiquity, appeared as 'paco' like 'cado', whence there was no doubt that we say 'pepigi' as we say 'cecidi'.
§1.6.12sed meminerimus non per omnia duci analogiae posse rationem, cum et sibi ipsa plurimis in locis repugnet.
But let us remember that the rule of analogy cannot be applied through all things, since it even contradicts itself in very many places.
quaedam sine dubio conantur eruditi defendere, ut, cum deprehensum est, lepus et lupus similia positione quantum casibus numerisque dissentiant: ista respondent non esse paria, quia lepus epicoenon sit, lupus masculinum; quanquam Varro in eo libro, quo initia Romanae urbis enarrat, lupum feminam dicit Ennium Pictoremque Fabium secutus.
Scholars indeed attempt to defend certain things, as, when it is pointed out how much 'lepus' and 'lupus', similar in their nominative form, differ in their cases and numbers, they reply that these are not equal because 'lepus' is epicene and 'lupus' masculine; although Varro, in that book in which he relates the origins of the Roman city, calls 'lupus' feminine, following Ennius and Fabius Pictor.