Minore(m) Pretium: Morphosyntactic Considerations for the Omission of Word- final -m in Non-elite Latin Texts A thesis submitted to Kent State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Brandon Conley March 2017 © Copyright by Brandon Conley All Rights Reserved Thesis Written by Brandon William Conley B.A., Missouri State University, 2012 M.A., Kent State University, 2017 Approved by Jennifer Larson________, Advisor Keiran Dunne_________, Chair, Department of Modern and Classical Language Studies James L. Blank________, Dean, College of Arts and Sciences Table of Contents Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………………….. i Acknowledgments………………………………………………………………………………. ii Phonetic and Textual Symbols and Formatting…………………………………………………. iii Abbreviations……………………………………………………………………………………. iv Section I: Introduction, History, and Linguistic Information…………………………………… 1 Introduction: What Can Inconsistent Spelling Reveal about a Linguistic Pattern?........... 1 Non-literary and Non-elite Latin: Terminology and Methodology…………………….... 3 Final /m/: History, Pronunciation, and Status of the Phoneme in Latin…………………..6 Orthographic Representation of Final -m………………………………………………. 14 Nominal and Pronominal Morphology in Non-Elite Latin……………………………... 17 Syntactic Considerations for Omission…………………………………………………. 22 Vowel Mergers and Diachronic Change………………………………………………... 24 Section II: Analysis of Non-Elite Texts………………………………………………………… 27 Preliminary Notes………………………………………………………………………. 27 The Tiberianus Archive………………………………………………………………… 27 The Contracts of Gaius Novius Eunus………………………………………………….. 35 A Tablet from Vindolanda Concerning a Slave……………………………………….... 38 CEL 156: A Letter of Receipt…………………………………………………………... 39 Graffiti of Pompeii and Herculaneum…………………………………………………... 41 Latin Influence: Instances of Omission in Pompeian Oscan…………………………… 47 Bu Njem Ostraka……………………………………………………………………….. 50 Defixiones and Spell Tablets…………………………………………………………… 55 Stone Inscriptions……………………………………………………………………….. 62 Conclusions……………………………………………………………………………... 74 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………. 78 iii Acknowledgments I would firstly like to thank Dr. Jennifer Larson for her guidance, advice, and encouragement. In addition, she has challenged me to approach such a technical topic without excluding the human element of the Latin language—something often neglected in more formal linguistic analyses. I would also like to thank Dr. Brian Harvey and Dr. Radd Ehrman, who have donated their time both reading my work and serving on my committee, and who have offered invaluable advice. iv Phonetic and Textual Symbols and Formatting The necessity to use both phonemic and orthographic scripts will require some explanation in format and style, as will the editorial marks used in the various texts. As is the standard in the written representation of narrow transcription, phonetic brackets (/ /) will be used, along with the standard IPA symbols. The most frequently appearing phonemes will be /a/ (for the Latin grapheme a), /e/ (for Latin e), and /u/ (for Latin u). Parentheses within the phonemic brackets will denote Latin long vowels (/a:/ for ā). Graphemes will be represented simply by the letters themselves, with dashes used to indicate initial (m-), medial (-m-), and final (-m) positions as necessary. A complete IPA chart is available at: https://www.internationalphoneticassociation.org/sites/default/files/IPA_Kiel_2015.pdf Editorial marks are used consistently throughout the Latin texts. The marks used are: … or […] : indicate missing or damaged text. Open brackets indicate damage on one side of the text, for example: ….]vius. ( ) : indicate the resolution of a missing word or letter. [ ] : indicate an addition by the editor of a word or letter. [[ ]] : indicate an erasure from the text. < > : indicate a spelling substitution for a non-standard or incorrect spelling. The capital letter is the letter which appears in the original text, and the lower-case letter is the emendation to the standard spelling. Ex: h<O=u>nc. {} : indicate letters or words which the editor feels should be removed. (!) : indicates a nonstandard or inexplicable spelling. ? : indicates a form about which an editor is unsure. .ׅ (under a letter) : indicates a letter which not entirely discernable v Abbreviations AE = l’Année Epigraphique. Paris, 1888-Present. CEL = Corpus Epistularum Latinarum. Firenze, 1992. CIL = Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum PIE = Proto-Indo-European vi Section I Introduction, History, and Linguistic Information Introduction: What Can Inconsistent Spelling Reveal about a Linguistic Pattern? The goal of this research is to demonstrate that what is often considered merely a non- standard spelling or inconsistent spelling, a mistake by an uneducated author, is more likely a pattern-based feature of the Latin language. When non-elite authors across the Roman empire were aware of a standard spelling, and still regularly neglected its usage in certain environments, the evidence suggests a pattern that cannot be attributed solely to the haphazard use of spelling conventions. Instead, as this paper proposes, authors often omitted the letter -m in final position when (a) the vowel preceding -m was acceptable in final position according to non-elite orthographic standards, and (b) when other components of a sentence, such as word order or the presence of another similar morpheme, rendered the letter redundant or unnecessary within a phrase. As a so-called corpus language, with a complete absence of native speakers, our understanding of Latin is based entirely on written evidence. The standards and features of literary Latin, particularly Classical Latin, are well attested by evidence and commentaries. For other usages of the language, including its features in different registers, dialects, and sociolects, evidence is considerably more scarce. Elite, literary authors and grammarians commented on the different styles and usages of the language in several works, often derisively. The primary 1 evidence for the variations in Latin, however, come from the thousands of extant texts produced for purposes which were not literary, or were not held to the standards of Rome’s educated elite. These texts offer insight into the features and patterns in Latin which were not present in Classical, literary texts: pronunciation, diachronic trends, morphosyntactic patterns, etc. In essence, the deviations from classical usages in texts are gifts for understanding the non-literary qualities of Latin, particularly in the absence of the observation of speakers. The misspellings and other ‘mistakes’ in non-literary texts are in many cases the only evidence available for the ways in which people used and understood Latin in everyday life.1 What can the simple omission of a single letter at the end of a word reveal about the Latin language, and the way that authors and speakers understood it? When a letter is omitted with great frequency in writing, and its omission is mentioned in literary texts as being a feature of speech, the phenomenon must be considered more than a simple misspelling. Furthermore, when authors are aware of the final -m grapheme, yet choose to omit it and include it in the same texts, one must consider whether the circumstances of such choices are pattern-based. This research will examine evidence for morphosyntactic patterns which potentially contribute to an author’s willingness to omit the final -m grapheme, specifically evidence related to an author’s understanding of word-final morphemes, and in what syntactic positions they are represented orthographically. The goal is to demonstrate how authors of non-elite Latin texts based their inclusion or omission of final -m upon their understanding of which word-final vowels were orthographically 1 Often, features of Latin are deemed mistakes when compared to prescriptive classical standards, but were regular features of language in various speech communities. 2 acceptable, and upon the presence of syntactic markers which permitted omission without corresponding morphosyntactic ambiguity. Non-Literary and Non-Elite Latin: Terminology and Methodology Until relatively recently in the study of Classics, the term “vulgar Latin” has dominated nearly every study of the Latin language which is concerned with non-literary texts. The term is based upon the Latin sermo vulgaris, in several examples used to describe a speech register not appropriate for use in official, public life.2 In the early 19th century, sermo vulgaris was adopted into academic literature on non-classical Latin and Romance linguistics, and it became ‘vulgar Latin’ in English, Vulgärlateins in German, and Latin vulgaire in French. Despite the pejorative connotations of ‘vulgar’, both in ancient and modern usages, these terms would be used to describe any speech register, dialect, and sociolect which did not adhere to classical standards or were not employed by the educated elite. Herman (2000), writing in the mid-20th century, admits that the term ‘vulgar Latin’ has its flaws and is often employed inconsistently, but that it is serviceable in the absence of a term which can be used so generally to describe so many common linguistic phenomena.3 More recently, the field of sociolinguistics has introduced less pejorative, and more accurate, terminology into the study of Latin. This change has only drawn more attention to the difficulties and inconsistencies with attempting to find a working definition of the term ‘vulgar 2 Rhetorica