DOCSLIB.ORG

Why Do Teachers Hate Ain't? Eighteenth-Century Ideologies and Attitudes in Twenty-First-Century Classrooms

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Why Do Teachers Hate Ain't? Eighteenth-Century Ideologies and Attitudes in Twenty-First-Century Classrooms Illinois State University ISU ReD: Research and eData Theses and Dissertations 11-11-2013 Why do teachers hate ain't? Eighteenth-century ideologies and attitudes in twenty-first-century classrooms Robin Elise Halsey Illinois State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.library.illinoisstate.edu/etd Part of the Education Commons, and the Other Languages, Societies, and Cultures Commons Recommended Citation Halsey, Robin Elise, "Why do teachers hate ain't? Eighteenth-century ideologies and attitudes in twenty- first-century classrooms" (2013). Theses and Dissertations. 70. https://ir.library.illinoisstate.edu/etd/70 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by ISU ReD: Research and eData. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ISU ReD: Research and eData. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WHY DO TEACHERS HATE AIN’T ? EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY IDEOLOGIES AND ATTITUDES IN TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY CLASSROOMS Robin E. Cross Halsey 123 Pages December 2013 This thesis investigates the impact of various historical events on the development of the English language and its grammar. Specifically, this project highlights how the ideologies about language held by eighteenth-century grammar-writers have influenced the pedagogical approach of teachers of English, persisting into the twenty-first century. Further, the rationale behind these language ideologies is explored in order to gain important insights into the seemingly prescriptive nature of the majority of grammar texts produced in the eighteenth century and beyond. The origins of four particular points of grammar and usage that are commonly attacked by teachers, grammarians, and others are examined. The chapter on ain’t explores the mystery behind the word’s former respectability and its descent into the realm of unacceptability, which led to labels such as barbarism and vulgarism . The chapter on attitudes toward variant pronunciations of ask reveals the surprising etymology of the word while tracing the history of its popular usage over time. The chapters on multiple negation and preposition stranding relate the histories of two of many examples of prescriptive rules appearing in eighteenth-century normative grammars. Throughout the last three centuries, many theories about linguistics and grammar teaching have been advanced. Despite our current knowledge about the nature and function of language and the realities of language change and variation, however, debates over the teaching of grammar continue. Unsure about the best ways to present material that may appear on standardized tests, teachers may simply continue the cycle begun centuries earlier, and encourage students to memorize particular rules of English grammar. This thesis suggests that an appropriate alternative for today’s society may be a more historically and linguistically informed, comprehensive approach to teaching grammar and usage—a pedagogy that emphasizes clear communication instead of the rigid adherence to a set of rules. WHY DO TEACHERS HATE AIN’T ? EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY IDEOLOGIES AND ATTITUDES IN TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY CLASSROOMS ROBIN E. CROSS HALSEY A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of English ILLINOIS STATE UNIVERSITY 2013 © 2013 Robin E. Cross Halsey WHY DO TEACHERS HATE AIN’T ? EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY IDEOLOGIES AND ATTITUDES IN TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY CLASSROOMS ROBIN E. CROSS HALSEY COMMITTEE MEMBERS: K. Aaron Smith, Chair Susan M. Kim ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to thank her family and friends for the love and patience they have demonstrated during the many stages of this project. The writer also wishes to express her appreciation and gratitude to her thesis committee, Dr. K. Aaron Smith and Dr. Susan Kim, for their encouragement as well as their valuable comments and criticisms on the numerous drafts leading up to the finished work. Further, without the inspiration, leadership, and excellence in teaching provided by the faculty and staff of the Department of English and the English Language Institute at Illinois State University, this effort might never have been undertaken. A warm thank you goes to Dr. Jim Kalmbach, Dr. Hyun Sook Kang, Dr. Susan Burt, Dr. Lisya Seloni, Dr. Kasia Stadnik, Dr. Chris DeSantis, Diane Smith, Courtney Grose, the students at the English Language Institute, and the many fellow ISU students who have directly or indirectly contributed to the writer’s interest in this project. Finally, this thesis is dedicated to Mrs. Mourine Ehmcke, Mrs. Evelyn Kaufman, and Miss Edwina Patton, three women who made a difference in the world by teaching English. R.E.C.H. i CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS i CONTENTS ii TABLES iii CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION 1 Statement of the Problem 1 Hypothesis 3 Definition of Terms 4 Limitations of the Analysis 7 Methodological Design 8 II. GENERAL LITERATURE REVIEW 10 A Brief History of English Grammar 10 A Look at the Diachronic History of Grammar: Where Did the Idea of a Standard Come From? 10 III. IDEOLOGIES BEHIND ENGLISH GRAMMAR “RULES” 32 IV. THE PROBLEM WITH MULTIPLE NEGATION 53 V. THE MYSTERY OF AIN’T 66 VI. THE AKS ATTITUDE 77 VII. NEVER END A SENTENCE WITH A PREPOSITION? 91 VIII. SUMMARY AND PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS 106 REFERENCES 112 ii TABLES Table Page 1. Forms of Ask, 1366-1697 84 iii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Statement of the Problem In a half-century old book called Teaching English Grammar , I read that “English grammar has a useful part to play in the training of young people to use their language effectively” but that teachers “need help in determining exactly what is meant by the term [grammar], what content it does and does not include, for what purposes it is properly to be used, and what outcomes may be expected from its use” (Pooley 1957:vii). Teachers were confused fifty-odd years ago, and they appear to be even more confused today. Even the International Reading Association and the National Council of Teachers of English (IRA/NCTE 1996:6) recognize that “teachers often receive conflicting messages about what they should be doing” to meet the demands of educational reforms and mandates. Despite pressure to try new teaching strategies in hopes of raising student scores on achievement tests, teachers are “discouraged from making their instructional practices look too different from those of the past” (12). This conflict leads many teachers to stick with old-fashioned, “tried and true” teaching methods, often developing a hyper-vigilant focus on the rules of English grammar that they were taught, assuming that if the rules were good enough for them to learn, they must be good enough for the students of the 21 st century. 1 The problem is that as our society has changed, so have some of our ideologies about grammar. Like it or not, our language is constantly evolving (as living languages do), and some teachers have trouble recognizing (and dealing with pedagogically) the changes. Some teachers of English cling to their old grammar handbooks and try to ignore the fact that what is written in their standard textbook may not be applicable for today’s linguistic realities. Others wonder if they can accept nonstandard usages in speech while requiring the conventions of standard grammar in written work. My son Sam came home from middle school one day and announced that his English teacher kept yelling at everyone for saying “ain’t.” He quoted her as saying that they should not say “ain’t” because “ ain’t is not a word.” This may not be what Pooley had in mind back in 1957, but in the school systems of today this type of issue arises constantly. In my experience, both as a teacher in an urban high school, and as a parent of two former high school students and two students still in the middle and high school years, I have observed that some teachers of English seem to have in mind particular ideas about what constitutes acceptable English grammar, and what does not. These ideas are presented as hard and fast “rules” that must be understood, memorized, and put into practice in all forms of language use, whether in casual speech or formal writing. Students who disregard the “rules” are subject to oral correction by the teacher (sometimes with a less-than-favorable tone), or written commentary (in my day, these were scribbled in red ink, an unfortunate choice of color due to the obvious connotation). This thesis is designed to contribute to our knowledge of the complexities that make up the grammar of English in the United States today. Specifically, this project endeavors to investigate how some of the grammar ideologies that emerged during the 2 seventeenth and eighteenth centuries have influenced the attitudes (and teaching practices) of teachers of English (among other persons in society) in the twenty-first century. In addition, the following pages will offer insight into the origins of four particular points of grammar and usage that are commonly attacked by teachers, grammarians, and the like. Some implications of prescriptivist attitudes among teachers of English in U.S. classrooms will be discussed, and suggestions for a more historically and linguistically informed approach will be offered. Hypothesis The prescriptive attitude toward English grammar emerged during the decades immediately preceding the push for the reform of the English language, which began in the 17 th century but became a central concern during the 18th century. The desire to establish a codified written language was dominated by scholars and writers who, in their anxiety about the many social, political, and cultural changes they had observed over the previous few centuries, saw a standard language as an important step toward national unity and stability. The process of creating a “standard” of grammar was often based on or influenced by the rules of Latin, not on patterns of acceptable or “correct” usage of English, even when those patterns had demonstrated their acceptability or perceived correctness over time.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Use of Vulgar Language in Fiction for Young Adults Bachelor Thesis
    ŠIAULIAI UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES, HUMANITIES AND ART DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE STUDIES STUDY PROGRAMME ENGLISH PHILOLOGY THE USE OF VULGAR LANGUAGE IN FICTION FOR YOUNG ADULTS BACHELOR THESIS Research Adviser: Lect. dr. Karolina Butkuvienė Student: Ieva Biliūnaitė Šiauliai, 2017 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 3 1 THE UNDERSTANDING OF VULGAR LANGUAGE ....................................................... 5 1.1 Standard and Non-standard Language .............................................................................. 5 1.2 Definition of Vulgar Language......................................................................................... 6 1.3 Vulgar Language and Other Non-standard Varieties ....................................................... 7 1.4 Types of Vulgar Language ............................................................................................. 11 1.5 Functions of Vulgar Language ....................................................................................... 14 2 THE USE OF VULGAR LANGUAGE IN MELVIN BURGESS’S NOVEL “LADY: MY LIFE AS A BITCH” ................................................................................................................. 16 2.1 Methodology of the Research ......................................................................................... 16 2.2 Bodies and their Effluvia ...............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Poetic Diction, Poetic Discourse and the Poetic Register
    proceedings of the British Academy, 93.21-93 Poetic Diction, Poetic Discourse and the Poetic Register R. G. G. COLEMAN Summary. A number of distinctive characteristics can be iden- tified in the language used by Latin poets. To start with the lexicon, most of the words commonly cited as instances of poetic diction - ensis; fessus, meare, de, -que. -que etc. - are demonstrably archaic, having been displaced in the prose register. Archaic too are certain grammatical forms found in poetry - e.g. auldi, gen. pl. superum, agier, conticuere - and syntactic constructions like the use of simple cases for pre- I.positional phrases and of infinitives instead of the clausal structures of classical prose. Poets in all languages exploit the linguistic resources of past as well as present, but this facility is especially prominent where, as in Latin, the genre traditions positively encouraged imitatio. Some of the syntactic character- istics are influenced wholly or partly by Greek, as are other ingredients of the poetic register. The classical quantitative metres, derived from Greek, dictated the rhythmic pattern of the Latin words. Greek loan words and especially proper names - Chaoniae, Corydon, Pyrrha, Tempe, Theseus, Zephym etc. -brought exotic tones to the aural texture, often enhanced by Greek case forms. They also brought an allusive richness to their contexts. However, the most impressive charac- teristics after the metre were not dependent on foreign intrusion: the creation of imagery, often as an essential feature of a poetic argument, and the tropes of semantic transfer - metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche - were frequently deployed through common words. In fact no words were too prosaic to appear in even the highest poetic contexts, always assuming their metricality.
    [Show full text]
  • UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA Los Angeles Studies in Merovingian Latin Epigraphy and Documents a Dissertation Submitted in Partial Sa
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles Studies in Merovingian Latin Epigraphy and Documents A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Indo-European Studies by Éloïse Lemay 2017 c Copyright by Éloïse Lemay 2017 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION Studies in Merovingian Latin Epigraphy and Documents by Éloïse Lemay Doctor of Philosophy in Indo-European Studies University of California, Los Angeles, 2017 Professor Brent Harmon Vine, Chair This dissertation is a study of the subliterary Latin of Gaul from the 4th to the 8th centuries. The materials studied consist in epigraphic and documentary sources. The inscriptions of late antique and early medieval Trier and Clermont-Ferrand receive a statistical, philological and comparative analysis, which results in 1) fine-grained decade- by-decade mapping of phonological and morphosyntactic developments, 2) comparative discussion of forms of importance to the chronological and regional development of Vulgar Latin, and, 3) isolation of sociolectal characteristics. Particular attention is paid to the issue of inscription dating based upon linguistic grounds. This dissertation also approaches papyrus and parchment documents as material cul- ture artifacts. It studies the production, the use, and the characteristics of these docu- ments during the Merovingian period. This dissertation examines the reception that the Merovingian documents received in the later Middle Ages. This is tied to document destruction and survival, which I argue are the offshoot of two processes: deaccession and reuse. Reuse is tied to the later medieval practice of systematized forgery. Systematized forgeries, in turn, shed light upon the Merovingian originals, thanks to the very high level of systematic interplay between base (the Merovingian documents) and output documents (the forgeries).
    [Show full text]
  • THE CULEX VIRGILIAN RATHER THAN NON-VIRQ ILIAN by John
    The Culex; Virgilian rather than non-Virgilian Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic) Authors Weidenschilling, J. M. (John Martin), 1893- Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 24/09/2021 15:39:08 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/553096 THE CULEX VIRGILIAN RATHER THAN NON-VIRQ ILIAN By John Martin Weidonschilling Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in the College of Letters,Arts,and Sciences,of the University of Arizona 19)0 V U l d l 381V- n c v %AHT A3HT .nH I ir oar. b ' .^1+' n ' < , "dj '' o v*r!e: •> ar rti bejj-jpi a *- * dV ut lot eeonei a? bra* i ♦ ^;. e b*j* + UilJ ni "nocit/ 3v jjo oy.; r?:? 1. Introduction* The question of authorship of the Latin poem,the Culex, has elicited considerable attention and comment during the past twenty-five years,and the subject is of special interest in this bimillenial anniversary year(1950) of the birth of Virgil. Up to the middle of the last century the Culex had been generally accepted as Virgilian. But more recently the Virgilian authorship of the poem has been questioned and even rejected by scholars of renown. Others have tried to uphold the claim of tradition. Although the controversy has pro­ duced numerous monographs and articles in classical peri­ odicals,the question of authorship still remains unsettled.
    [Show full text]
  • Catullan Obscenity and Modern English Translation Tori Frances Lee Washington University in St
    Washington University in St. Louis Washington University Open Scholarship Arts & Sciences Electronic Theses and Dissertations Arts & Sciences Spring 5-2016 Catullan Obscenity and Modern English Translation Tori Frances Lee Washington University in St. Louis Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/art_sci_etds Part of the Classical Literature and Philology Commons, Other Classics Commons, and the Translation Studies Commons Recommended Citation Lee, Tori Frances, "Catullan Obscenity and Modern English Translation" (2016). Arts & Sciences Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 703. https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/art_sci_etds/703 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Arts & Sciences at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Arts & Sciences Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY IN ST. LOUIS Department of Classics Catullan Obscenity and Modern English Translation by Tori Frances Lee A thesis presented to the Graduate School of Arts & Sciences of Washington University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts May 2016 St. Louis, Missouri © 2016, Tori F. Lee Table of Contents Acknowledgments………………………………………………………………………………..iii Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………..1 Chapter 1: Os an culum? Obscenity and Circumlocution in Catullus…………………………...16 Chapter 2: Traduttore, traditore: English Adaptations of Catullan Profanity…………………...34 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………….64 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………………..80 Appendix: Catullan obscenities and their English translations………………………..…………85 ii Acknowledgments This thesis is the product of a year of brainstorming, refining, and re-imagining what I originally thought would be a simple paper on Catullan reception. I would like to express my gratitude and appreciation to Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • The Language of Early Roman Satire: Its Function and Characteristics
    proceedings of the British Academy, 93,289-310 The Language of Early Roman Satire: Its Function and Characteristics HUBERT PETERSMANN Albrecht Dihle septuagenario quinto votis optimis Summary. The topic of this paper is the satirical language of Ennius and Lucilius. After a brief account of the characteristic qualities of suturu, there is an analysis of the linguistic variety adopted by Ennius in the scanty remains of his satirical work. He appears to have avoided the use of Greek and of obscenity, and parodied the high style of the Annules. His linguistic register displays colloquial and elevated style and even a medley of these expressions within textual units. Ennius wrote for the educated social class and their requirements were kept in mind. He occasionally used language to mock ridiculous traits of human behaviour in general, but not for personal invective. Lucilius on the other hand, whilst continuing the strong par- odistic use of language, is more open to the use of Greek, but he always has some special point to make; it is not there for show or because he cannot find a Latin equivalent. In general he was conservative in his linguistic views. It was one of his main literary intentions to reproduce colloquial speech, subord- inating the various levels of language to his poetic intentions in his Suturue, because he experienced language as a social phenomenon. Lucilius is one of the greatest artists of the Latin language. BEFORESTARTING WITH the topic of my chapter some preliminary remarks might be necessary in order to avoid any misunderstandings: whenever in the following article we speak of ‘Satire’ - or use the Latin expression suturu - we do not mean the ancient stage performances which were 0 The British Academy 1999.
    [Show full text]
  • Short Historical Latin Grammar
    t44:9^ SHORT HISTORICAL LATIN GRAMMAR r/' W. M. LINDSAY, M.A. t » » FELLOW OF JESUS COLLEGE, OXFORD AT THE CLARENDON PRESS 1895 bonbon HENRY FROWDE Oxford University Press Warehouse Amen Corner, E.C. Qten? ^orft MACMILLA.N & CO., 66 FIFTH AVENUE PREFACE Teachers of Latin Grammar have for a long time felt the need of a book which will exhibit the his- torical development of Latin Accidence and explain the anomalies of Latin Declension and Conjugation^ which will explain, for example, how itineris became the Genitiv(J of iter, how volo, vis, vult differ from lego, legis, legit^ why the Comparative of magnijicus should be the circum should have magnificentior, why Preposition a by-form circa. In this 8hort Historical Latin Grammar, designed for the Universities and the Higher Forms of Schools, I have tried to present this information in an intelligible and, if possible, interesting form. While making full use of the discoveries of Comparative Philo- logy, which have in recent years added so much to our knowledge of Latin, I have avoided the technical vocabulary of that science, and in quoting parallels to Latin words have restricted myself to the Greek, to the exclusion of Sanscrit, Gothic, and the other Indo- European languages. It is true that each and every problem of the Latin language has not yet been solved, but for all that the stability of most of the results reached by the methods of Comparative Philology is beyond question; and every one who has studied the ^3 vi Preface. subject witli any minuteness knows which results are certain and which may have to be modified by subsequent research.
    [Show full text]
  • A Desk-Book of Errors in English, Including Notes on Colloquialisms
    ^^^S^SOSSmSBm THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY V83a 190.0 Return this book on or before the Latest Date stamped below. A charge is made on all overdue books. U. of I. Library ulC ii 194 m -2 \%i ^ u -8 ":M ;wpfK»^ M32 STANDARD DESK-BOOK SERIES A Desk-Book of Errors in English Including Notes on Colloquialisms and Slang to be Avoided in Conversation By Frank H. Vizetelly, Litt.D., LL.D. Managing Editor of "Funk & Wagnalls New Standard Dictionary of the English Language"; Author of "Essentials of English Speech and Literature," Etc. A REVISED EDITION FUNK & WAGNALLS COMPANY NEW YORK and LONDON Copyright, 1906 and 1920. by FUNK & WAGNALLS COMPANY [Printed in the United States 0/ America] Copyritfbt Under the Articles of the Copyright Convention of the Pan-American Republics and the United States. August 11. 1910 Published January 1. 1920 All Ritfhts Reserved — \ ?).3 \^1 "I PREFACE The fact that this little book has passed through J^ px many editions, and now enters on a new one in rl revised form, is ample answer to its writer's prayer ^ when, w4th the aid of his Publishers, he launched it on an uncertain voyage over the seas of time •* Go, little book, God send thee good passage. And specially let this be thy prayer: Unto them all that thee will read or hear. Where thou art wrong, after their help to call, Thee to correct in any part or all." {Chaucer.') It is with sincere gratitude to the Publishers that the results achieved to have . ^ the author acknowledges ^ been due wholly to their kindly interest and indefati- '^ gable efforts.
    [Show full text]
  • Vowel Length in Vulgar Latin: Transphonologization of Quantitative Into Qualitative Distinctions
    Vowel length in Vulgar Latin: transphonologization of quantitative into qualitative distinctions. Concepcion Fernandez Martinez L Since it sut-passes the limits -both of content and , basically, of chronology- imposed by the title of this paper, we shall postpone until a later occasion a discussion of the obscure and ever controversial problem of the historical La- till accent. We shall therefore not discuss the numerous hypotheses concerning its ins- crutahle nature ( whether it was tonal or one of intensity ) which are to found in the copious bihliographv on the subject; nor shall we even attempt to ana- lyse the apparent plausibility of the prehistoric initial stress accent proposed by Dietrich to explain phonetically the considerable changes which the Latin vowels in non-initial syllable underwent. 2. We thus take as our starting-point a presumably musical accent -without dis- carding , needless to say, a certain degree of hypothesis and conjecture- the phonological ( or phonemic ) aspect of which was to prove fundamental in the Vulgar Latin evolution with which we are concerned here. It must he borne in mind that in Classical Latin this tonal accent was regulated by both vowel length and syllabic structure , which makes it more than likely that the accent itself had no distinguishing function ( and it certainly had none in the period in (Iuestion). This non -phonological nature of the Classical accent -irrelevant with regard to semantic distinctions- was to undergo modification in Late Latin ( undoub- tedly, as suggested by Mariner (24, 271), from the second century A.D. on, if not earlier) as an immediate consequence of the dephonemicisation of length oppositions.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 2. Stylistic Lexicology
    LECTURE 2 STYLISTIC LEXICOLOGY Stylistic Classification of the English vocabulary 1. Stylistic classification of the English language vocabulary. The problem of taxonomy and classification criteria 2. Standard English vocabulary and its constituents. Neutral words, their aspect and etimology. 3. Specific literary vocabulary: its layers and their functions . Terms, poetic and archaic words, obsolete and obsolescent words, literary coinages and neologisms, foreignisms and barbarisms 4. Specific colloquial vocabulary , its layers and their functions. Professionalisms, jargon and slang, vulgarisms and nonce-words, dialectisms. 5. Development of the English Standard. Literature: Galperin – pp 70-119 Мороховский – сс.93-128 Арнольд – сс.105-131 Stylistic classification of the English language vocabulary. It is important to classify the English vocabulary from a stylistic point of view because some SDs are based on the interplay of different lexical components and aspects of a word. The word stock of any language may be presented as a system elements of which are interconnected, interrelated and yet interdependent. Lexicology suggests many ways of classifying any vocabulary but for the purpose of stylistic analysis we may represent the whole word stock of English language as the domain divided into two major layers: the literary layer, the neutral layer and the colloquial layer. The literary and the colloquial layer contain a number of subgroups, all of which have a certain property, characteristic of the layer on the whole, that is called an aspect. Thus we say ‘the aspect of the literary layer is its markedly bookish character, the aspect of the colloquial layer is its lively spoken character. Both peculiarities make the first layer more or less stable and the latter – unstable, fleeting.
    [Show full text]
  • Table Talk from the 'Satyricon'1
    7 Petronius (d. 66 A.D.) Table talk from the 'Satyricon' 1 'Nunc populus est domi leones, foras vulpes. quod ad me artinet, iam pannos meos comedi, et si perseverat haec annona, casu/as meas vendam. quid enim futurum est, si nee dii nee homines huius coloniae miserentur? ita meos fruniscar, ut ego puto omnia ilia a diibus fieri. nemo enim coelum coelum putat, nemo ieiunium servat, nemo Iovern pili facit, sed 0171nes opertis ocu/is bona sua computant. antea sto/atae ibant nudis pedibus in clivum, passis capil/is, mentibus puris, et Iovern aquam exorabant. itaque statim urceatim p/ovebat: aut tunc aut numquam: et omnes redibant udi tamquam mures. itaque dii pedes lanatos habent, quia nos religiosi non sumus. agri iacent -' 'oro te' inquit Echion centonarius 'me/ius loquere. "modo sic, modo sic" inquit rusticus; varium porcum perdiderat. quod hodie non est. eras erit: sic vita truditur. non mehercules patria melior dici potest, si homines haberet. sed /aboral hoc tempore, nee haec sola. non debemus delicati esse, ubique medius caelus est. tu si aliubifueris, dices hie porcos coctos ambulare. et ecce habituri sum us munus exce/lente in triduo die fest a; familia non /anisticia, sed plurimi Iiberti. et Titus noster magnum · animum habet et est caldicerebrius: aut hoc aut i/lud, erit quid utique. nom illi domesticus sum, non est mixcix. ferrum optimum daturus est, sine fuga, carnarium in medio, ut amphitheater videat. et habet unde: relictum est illi sestertium trecenties. decessit illius pater. male! ut quadringenta impendat. non sentiet patrimonium illius, et sempiterno nominabitur ... ' 1 ' Petron.
    [Show full text]
  • T.Iry on OVID, ÆORES Ii. 1-10, À Thesis Submitted for The
    A COMMEi;T.iRY ON OVID, Æ O R E S ii. 1-10, À thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the University of London hy JOAN BOOTH of BEDFORD COLLEGE ProQuest Number: 10098359 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest. ProQuest 10098359 Published by ProQuest LLC(2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 2 A Commentary on Ovid, Amores ii. 1-10. Joan Booth ABSTRACT This thesis attempts to provide for the first time an English commentary on poems from the second book of Ovid's Amores. Included is a text of poems 1-10, to which the present commentary is confined. No independent collation of the manuscripts has been attempted in view of the meticulous work already done in this area by modern scholars, and the text offered would not claim to be a new recension; the readings of the codex Hamiltonensis 471 (Y), however, a manuscript of only fairly recently recognized antiquity, have been taken into account and are documented along with those of P and the other antiquiores, in a select apparatus which is intended for use in conjunction with the critical notes in the commentary.
    [Show full text]