Gildersleeve's Latin grammar

1903·25 MB·English

by  Gildersleeve, Basil L. (Basil Lanneau), 1831-1924

GILDERSLEEVE'S
LATIN GBAMMAE

Vov
\
GILDERSLEEVE'S
GRAMMAR
LATIN
THIRD EDITION, REVISED AND ENLARGED
BY
GILDERSLEEVE
B. L.
PROFESSOR OP GREEK IN THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
AND
GONZALEZ LODGE
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OPLATIN IN BRYN MAWR COLLEGE
3Lont0n
MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED
1903

PREFACE.
THE first edition of this LATIN GRAMMAR appeared in
1867, the second in 1872; thethirdedition, carefullyrevised
andverymuchenlarged, is herewith presented to the public.
In the preparation of this third edition the office of the
senior collaborator has been chiefly advisory, except in the
Syntax. In the syntax nearly everything that pertains to
the history of usage has been brought together by Professor
LODGE but for all deviations from the theory of former
;
editions we bear a joint responsibility.
A manual that has held its place, however modest, for
more than a quarter of a century, hardly needs an elaborate
exposition of the methods followed; but as the new gram-
mar embraces a multitude of details that were not taken
up in the old grammar, it has been thought fit that Pro-
fessor LODGE should indicate the sources of the notes with
which he has enriched the original work.
B. L. GlLDERSLEEVE.
GONZALEZ LODGE.
August 1, 1895.
THE following supplementary note may serve to embodyapartial
bibliography of the more importantworks used in thisrevision, and
somenecessaryexplanationsof the method:
Fairly complete bibliographies of works on Latin Etymology
and Syntax may be found in REISIG'S Vorlesungen uber lateinische
Sprachwissenschaft (newedition, by HAGEN, SCHMALZ,andLANDGRAF,
1881-1888), and in theLateinische Grammatikof STOLZand SCHMALZ
(in MULLER'S Handbuch der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft; 3d
edition, 1890). Important also are the Grammars of KUHNER(1877,
1878)* and ROBY(1881, 1882); though manystatements in both, but
especially in the former, must becorrected in the light of more recent
study. Some indications of more modern theories maybe found in
*AnewHistoricalGrammar,bySTOLZ,SCHMALZ,LANDGRAF,andWAQENEK,was
announcedbyTKUBNEKin1891
IV PKEFACE.
the Erlduterungen zur lateinischen Grammatik of DEECKE (1893).
Many matters of importance both in Etymology and Syntax are
treatedin the Archiv furlateinische Lexicographie, and theconstruc-
tionswith individual words are oftenwell discussed in KEEBS' Anti-
barbarusderlateinischen Sprache (6thedition,bySCHMALZ, 1886).
For the accentuation and pronunciation of Latin we have also
CORSSEN'S Aussprache, Vocalismus und Betonung der lateinischen
Sprache(1868, 1870),andSEELMANN'SDieAussprachedesLatein(1885).
For the Etymologywe must refer to BUCHELER'S Grundriss der
lateinischen Declination (3d edition, by WINDEKILDE, 1879) and to
SCHWEIZER-SIDLER'S Lateinische Grammatik (1888) ; also to many
articlesin variousjournals, most ofwhichare given by STOLZ. Indis-
pensable isNEUE'SFormenlehrederlateinischenSprache, ofwhichthe
secondvolume ofthe thirdedition hasalreadyappeared(1892)and the
first parts of the third volume (1894), under the careful revision of
WAGENEE; also GEOEGES' Lexikonderlateinischen Wortformen(1890).
FortheFormationofWordsandtherelationofLatinformstothose
of therelated languageswehave HENRY'S Precisde Grammaire Com-
pareeand BRUGMANN'SGrundrissdervergleichenden Grammatik,both
nowaccessibleintranslations. Onthese,inconnectionwithSCHWEIZER-
SIDLEE, the chapterontheFormationofWordshasbeenbased.
Inthe historicaltreatmentofthe Syntax we muststill rely in large
measure on DRAEGER'S Historische Syntax der lateinischen Sprache
(2d edition, 1878, 1881), faulty and inaccurate though it often is:
manyof thefalse statementshavebeencorrectedon thebasisof more
recentindividual studiesbySCHMALZ ; buteven SCHMALZ is notalways
correct,and manystatementsofhistreatisehavebeensilentlyemended
inthepresent book. For the theoretical study of some problems of
LatinSyntaxHAASE'S VorlesungenuberlateinischeSprachwissenschaft
(1880) should not be overlooked. Sincethe appearance of the second
edition of SCHMALZ, in 1890, considerable progress has been made in
the various journals and other publications, as may be seen from
DEECKE'S summaryin BURSIAN'S Jahresberichtfor1893. Everyeffort
has been made to incorporate in this grammar the main results of
these studies as far as practicable. We may also draw attention to
the following important articles, among others, some of which are
mentionedinthebooksabovereferredto:
WOLFFLIN'S numerous articlesin theArchiv; THIELMANN'S articles
in the Archiv on habSrewith Perfect Participle Passive, and on the
Reciprocal Relation; LANDGRAF'Sarticlesonthe Figura Etymologica,
inthesecond volumeoftheActa Seminarii Erlangensis, and on the
FutureParticipleandtheFinalDative, intheArchiv; BALE'Streatise
onTheCumConstructions, attackingthetheoriesofHOFFMANN (Latein-
ische Zeitpartikeln, 1874) and LUBBERT (Die Syntaxvon Quom, 1869),