In Cic. Arat. 70 nec vi signorum cedunt we find a nearly sure example, which has gone so far totally unnoticed and is not recorded by dictionaries and grammars, of the singular dative of the normally defective noun vis. This form, whose only other literary occurrence is found in the Bellum Africum, is likely to be understood as a morphological archaism. Its use by Cicero can also corroborate an old conjecture of Timpanaro on a problematic passage of Lucretius’ De rerum natura (1, 453, aquae vi for aquai).
Una nota sul dativo di vis (a proposito di Cic. Arat. 70)
emanuele berti
2021
Abstract
In Cic. Arat. 70 nec vi signorum cedunt we find a nearly sure example, which has gone so far totally unnoticed and is not recorded by dictionaries and grammars, of the singular dative of the normally defective noun vis. This form, whose only other literary occurrence is found in the Bellum Africum, is likely to be understood as a morphological archaism. Its use by Cicero can also corroborate an old conjecture of Timpanaro on a problematic passage of Lucretius’ De rerum natura (1, 453, aquae vi for aquai).File in questo prodotto:
File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
Estratto RFIC 149.pdf
Accesso chiuso
Tipologia:
Published version
Licenza:
Non pubblico
Dimensione
231.63 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
231.63 kB | Adobe PDF | Richiedi una copia |
Cic. Aratea 70.pdf
accesso aperto
Tipologia:
Submitted version (pre-print)
Licenza:
Solo Lettura
Dimensione
175.16 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
175.16 kB | Adobe PDF |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.