§1.7.18ae syllabam, cuius secundam nunc e litteram ponimus, varie per a et i efferebant; quidam semper ut Graeci, quidam singulariter tantum, cum in datiuum vel genitivum casum incidissent, unde pictai vestis et aquai Vergilius amantissimus vetustatis carminibus inseruit.
The syllable ae, of which we now place the letter e as the second, they used to pronounce in various ways with a and i; some always like the Greeks, some only in the singular when they fell into the dative or genitive case, whence Virgil, a great lover of antiquity, inserted pictai vestis and aquai into his poems.
§1.7.19in iisdem plurali numero e utebantur, hi Syllae, Galbae.
In the same cases in the plural they used e, as hi Syllae, Galbae.
est in hac quoque parte Lucilii praeceptum, quod quia pluribus explicatur versibus, si quis parum credet, apud ipsum in nono requirat.
There is also in this part a precept of Lucilius, which because it is explained in many verses, if anyone does not believe it enough, let him look for it in the author himself in the ninth book.
§1.7.20quid quod Ciceronis temporibus paulumque infra, fere quotiens s littera media vocalium longarum vel subiecta longis esset, geminabatur, ut caussae, cassus, divissiones? quomodo et ipsum et Vergilium quoque scripsisse manus eorum docent.
What of the fact that in Cicero's times and a little below, almost as often as the letter s was in the middle of long vowels or placed after long ones, it was doubled, as caussae, cassus, divissiones? As their hands show that both he himself and Virgil also wrote.
§1.7.21atqui paulum superiores etiam illud, quod nos gemina dicimus iussi, una dixerunt.
And yet those a little earlier even pronounced with one s that which we say with a double one, iussi.
iam optimus maximus, ut media i litteram, quae veteribus u fuerat, acciperent, Gai primum Caesaris inscriptione traditur factum.
Now, that optimus and maximus should receive the letter i in the middle, which had been u to the ancients, is said to have been done first in an inscription of Gaius Caesar.
§1.7.22here nunc e littera terminamus, at veterum comicorum adhuc libris invenio heri ad me venit; quod idem in epistolis Augusti, quas sua manu scripsit aut emendavit, deprehenditur.
We now end here with the letter e, but in the books of the ancient comic writers I still find heri ad me venit; which same thing is detected in the letters of Augustus, which he wrote or corrected with his own hand.
§1.7.23quid? non Cato Censorius dicam et faciam dicem et faciem scripsit, eundemque in ceteris, quae similiter cadunt, modum tenuit, quod et ex veteribus eius libris manifestum est et a Messala in libro de s littera positum?
What? Did not Cato the Censor write dicem and faciem for dicam and faciam, and held the same manner in the rest which fall similarly, which is both manifest from his ancient books and set down by Messala in his book on the letter s?
§1.7.24sibe et quase scriptum in multorum libris est, sed an hoc voluerint auctores, nescio; T. Livium ita his usum ex Pediano comperi, qui et ipse eum sequebatur; §1.7.25haec nos i littera finimus.
sibe and quase are written in the books of many, but whether the authors wished this, I do not know; I have found from Pedianus, who himself also followed him, that Titus Livius used these thus; these we end with the letter i.
quid dicam vortices et vorsus ceteraque ad eundem modum, quae primus Scipio Africanus in e litteram secundam vertisse dicitur?
What shall I say of vortices and vorsus and other things in the same manner, which Scipio Africanus is said to have been the first to turn into the second letter e?
§1.7.26nostri praeceptores seruum ceruumque u et o litteris scripserunt, quia subiecta sibi vocalis in unum sonum coalescere et confundi nequiret; nunc u gemina scribuntur ea ratione, quam reddidi; neutro sane modo vox, quam sentimus, efficitur.
Our teachers wrote seruom and ceruom with the letters u and o, because a vowel placed after itself could not coalesce and be confused into one sound; now they are written with a double u for that reason which I have given; in neither way, indeed, is the sound which we perceive produced.
nec inutiliter Claudius Aeolicam illam ad hos usus litteram adiecerat.
Nor did Claudius uselessly add that Aeolic letter for these purposes.
§1.7.27illud nunc melius, quod cui tribus, quas praeposui, litteris enotamus; in quo pueris nobis ad pinguem sane sonum qu et oi utebantur, tantum ut ab illo qui distingueretur.
That is now better, which we write down as cui with the three letters which I have placed before; in which, when we were boys, they used qu and oi for a thick sound indeed, only so that it might be distinguished from that qui.
§1.7.28quid? quae scribuntur aliter quam enuntiantur? nam et Gaius C littera significatur, quae inversa mulierem declarat; quia tam Gaias esse vocitatas quam Gaios etiam ex nuptialibus sacris apparet.
What? Those which are written otherwise than they are pronounced? For both Gaius is signified by the letter C, which inverted declares a woman; since it appears even from nuptial rites that they were called Gaias as well as Gaios.
§1.7.29nec Gnaeus eam litteram in praenominis nota accipit, quae sonat; et columnam et consules exempta n littera legimus; et Subura, cum tribus litteris notatur, c tertiam ostendit.
Nor does Gnaeus receive that letter in the note of his praenomen which sounds; and we read columnam and consules with the letter n removed; and Subura, when it is noted with three letters, shows c as the third.
multa sunt generis huius; sed haec quoque vereor ne modum tam parvae quaestionis excesserint.
There are many things of this kind; but I fear lest these also have exceeded the limit of so small a question.
§1.7.30iudicium autem suum grammaticus interponat his omnibus; nam hoc valere plurimum debet.
But let the grammarian interpose his own judgment in all these; for this ought to have the greatest weight.
ego (nisi quod consuetudo obtinuerit) sic scribendum quidque iudico, quomodo sonat.
I myself (except where custom has prevailed) judge that everything should be written as it sounds.
§1.7.31hic enim est usus litterarum, ut custodiant voces et velut depositum reddant legentibus, itaque id exprimere debent quod dicturi sumus.
For this is the use of letters, that they should guard voices and return them to readers as a deposit, and therefore they ought to express that which we are about to say.
§1.7.32hae fere sunt emendate loquendi scribendique partes; duas reliquas significanter ornateque dicendi non equidem grammaticis aufero, sed cum mihi officia rhetoris supersint, maiori operi reservo.
These are almost the parts of speaking and writing correctly; the two remaining of speaking significantly and ornately indeed I do not take away from grammarians, but since the duties of the rhetorician remain to me, I reserve them for a greater work.
§1.7.33redit autem illa cogitatio, quosdam fore, qui haec quae diximus parva nimium et impedimenta quoque maius aliquid agentibus putent.
But that thought returns, that there will be some who think these things which we have said are too small and also impediments to those who are doing something greater.
nec ipse ad extremam usque anxietatem et ineptas cavillationes descendendum atque iis ingenia concidi et comminui credo.
Nor do I myself believe that one must descend to extreme anxiety and foolish cavils, and that intellects should be cut up and diminished by them.
§1.7.34sed nihil ex grammatice nocuerit, nisi quod supervacuum est.
But nothing from grammar will have done harm, except what is superfluous.
an ideo minor est M. Tullius orator, quod idem artis huius diligentissimus fuit et in filio (ut epistolis apparet) recte loquendi asper quoque exactor? aut vim C. Caesaris fregerunt editi de analogia libri?
Is Marcus Tullius a lesser orator because he himself was most diligent in this art and (as appears from his letters) a harsh exactor of correct speech in his son? Or did the published books on analogy break the force of Gaius Caesar?
§1.7.35aut ideo minus Messala nitidus, quia quosdam totos libellos non verbis modo singulis sed etiam litteris dedit? non obstant hae disciplinae per illas euntibus sed circa illas haerentibus.
Or is Messala less elegant for this reason, because he devoted some whole booklets not only to single words but even to letters? These disciplines do not obstruct those who go through them, but those who stick around them.