§1.6.13illi autem iidem, cum interrogantur, cur aper apri et pater patris faciat, illud nomen positum, hoc ad aliquid esse contendunt.
But these same people, when they are asked why 'aper' makes 'apri' and 'pater' 'patris', contend that the former is an absolute noun, and the latter relative to something.
praeterea quoniam utrumque a Graeco ductum sit, ad eam rationem recurrunt, ut πατρός patris,
Moreover, since both are derived from Greek, they recur to that rule, so that 'πατρός' makes 'patris', and 'κάπρου' makes 'apri'.
§1.6.14κάπρου apri faciat. illa tamen quomodo effugient, ut, nomina quamvis feminina singulari nominativo us litteris finita nunquam genitivo casu ris syllaba terminentur, faciat tamen Venus Veneris? item cum es litteris finita per varios exeant genitivos, nunquam tamen eadem ris syllaba terminatos, Ceres cogat dici Cereris?
Yet how will they escape this, that, although feminine nouns ending in the letters 'us' in the nominative singular never end in the syllable 'ris' in the genitive case, yet 'Venus' makes 'Veneris'? Likewise, when nouns ending in the letters 'es' end in various genitives, but never ended in the same syllable 'ris', yet 'Ceres' forces us to say 'Cereris'?
§1.6.15quid vero? quod tota positionis eiusdem in diversos flexus eunt? cum alba faciat Albanos et Albensis, volo volui et volavi.
What indeed? What when whole classes of the same nominative form go into different inflections? Since 'alba' makes 'Albanos' and 'Albensis', and 'volo' makes 'volui' and 'volavi'.
nam praeterito quidem tempore varie formari verba prima persona o littera terminata, ipsa analogia confiteatur; siquidem facit cado cecidi, spondeo spopondi, pingo pinxi, lego legi, pono posui, frango fregi, laudo laudavi.
For indeed that verbs whose first person ends in the letter 'o' are variously formed in the past tense, analogy itself would confess; since it makes 'cado' 'cecidi', 'spondeo' 'spopondi', 'pingo' 'pinxi', 'lego' 'legi', 'pono' 'posui', 'frango' 'fregi', 'laudo' 'laudavi'.
non enim, cum primum fingerentur homines, analogia demissa caelo formam loquendi dedit, sed inventa est postquam loquebantur, et notatum in sermone quid quomodo caderet.
For analogy did not, when men were first created, descend from heaven and give the form of speaking, but it was discovered after they spoke, and it was noted in language what fell in what manner.
itaque non ratione nititur sed exemplo, nec lex est loquendi sed observatio, ut ipsam analogiam nulla res alia fecerit quam consuetudo.
Therefore, it is not based on reason but on example, nor is it a law of speaking but an observation, so that nothing else made analogy itself but custom.
§1.6.17inhaerent tamen ei quidam molestissima diligentiae perversitate, ut audaciter potius dicant quam audacter, licet omnes oratores aliud sequantur, et emicavit non emicuit et conire non coire.
Yet some people cling to it with a most troublesome perversity of diligence, so that they say 'audaciter' rather than 'audacter' (although all orators follow the latter), and 'emicavit' not 'emicuit', and 'conire' not 'coire'.
his permittamus et audivisse et sciuisse et tribunale et faciliter dicere; frugalis quoque sit apud illos non fugi, nam quo alio modo fiet frugalitas?
Let us permit them to say 'audivisse' and 'scivisse' and 'tribunale' and 'faciliter'; let 'frugalis' also be used by them instead of 'frugi', for in what other way will 'frugalitas' be made?
§1.6.18iidem centum milia nummum et fidem Deum ostendant duplices quoque soloecismos esse, quando et casum mutant et numerum; nesciebamus enim ac non consuetudini et decori serviebamus, sicut in plurimis, quae M. Tullius in Oratore divine ut omnia exequitur.
These same people would point out that 'centum milia nummum' and 'fidem Deum' are double solecisms, since they change both case and number; for we did not know this, forsooth, and were not serving custom and decorum, as in very many cases, which Marcus Tullius executes divinely, as he does everything, in his Orator.
§1.6.19sed Augustus quoque in epistulis ad C. Caesarem scriptis emendat, quod is calidum dicere quam caldum malit, non quia id non sit Latinum sed quia sit odiosum et, ut ipse Graeco verbo significavit, §1.6.20περίεργον.
But Augustus also, in the letters written to Gaius Caesar, corrects him because he prefers to say 'calidum' rather than 'caldum', not because that is not Latin, but because it is odious and, as he himself expressed by a Greek word, 'περίεργον'.
atqui hanc quidam ὀρθοέπειαν solam putant, quam ego minime excludo.
And yet some people think this 'ὀρθοέπειαν' is the only correct way, which I by no means exclude.
quid enim tam necessarium quam recta locutio? immo inhaerendum ei iudico, quoad licet, diu etiam mutantibus repugnandum; sed abolita atque abrogata retinere insolentiae cuiusdam est et frivolae in parvis iactantiae.
For what is so necessary as correct speech? Indeed, I judge that we should cling to it as far as is permitted, and resist those who change it for a long time; but to retain obsolete and abolished words belongs to a certain insolence and frivolous boasting in small matters.
§1.6.21multum enim litteratus, qui sine aspiratione et producta secunda syllaba salutarit (avere est enim) et calefacere dixerit potius, quam quod dicimus, et conservauisse, his adiiciat face et dice et similia.
For he would be highly literate who should salute without aspiration and with a long second syllable (for 'avere' is the word) and should say 'calefacere' rather than what we say, and 'conservavisse', and should add to these 'face' and 'dice' and the like.
recta est haec via;
This way is correct; who denies it?
§1.6.22quis negat? sed adiacet et mollior et magis trita.
But there lies adjacent to it a softer and more trodden way.
ego tamen non alio magis angor, quam quod obliquis casibus ducti etiam primas sibi positiones non invenire sed mutare permittunt: ut cum ebur et robur, ita dicta ac scripta summis auctoribus, in o litteram secundae syllabae transferunt, quia sit roboris et eboris, sulpur autem et guttur u litteram in genitivo servent; ideoque iecur etiam et femur controversiam fecerunt.
Yet I am vexed by nothing more than that, led by oblique cases, they permit themselves not to find but to change even the first positions: as when they transfer 'ebur' and 'robur', so spoken and written by the greatest authors, into the letter 'o' of the second syllable, because there are 'roboris' and 'eboris', while 'sulpur' and 'guttur' keep the letter 'u' in the genitive; and therefore 'iecur' also and 'femur' have caused controversy.
§1.6.23quod non minus est licentiosum, quam si sulpuri et gutturi subiicerent in genitivo litteram o mediam, quia esset eboris et roboris; sicut Antonius Gnipho, qui robur quidem et ebur atque etiam marmur fatetur esse, verum fieri vult ex his robura, ebura, marmura.
Which is not less licentious than if they should substitute a middle letter 'o' in the genitive for 'sulpur' and 'guttur' because of 'eboris' and 'roboris'; like Antonius Gnipho, who indeed confesses that 'robur', 'ebur', and even 'marmur' exist, but wishes that 'robura', 'ebura', 'marmura' be made from them.