# The Making of Latin/Preface

London: J. Murray, pages v–viii
PREFACE
The object of this little book is to explain as simply as possible the principles of the modern Science of Language, and to indicate the chief results of these principles in the study of Latin, with some of the consequences in that of English and the Romance languages.
This new knowledge has been current for some forty years, but it has been treated hitherto as a privilege suited only for students doing highly specialised work. For this restriction I can see no reason beyond the well-known unwillingness of the specialist to explain his subject to non-specialist readers. The truth is that few things add more interest even to the elements of a language than the good salt of a little etymology. But since it has become generally known that the derivations given in the current dictionaries and in many commentaries are based on pious theories framed long before the advent of scientific method, the best teachers are apt to be shy of etymology altogether.
This book is meant to be easily understood by anyone who has learnt enough to find his way about Latin authors with the help of a dictionary. The Greek examples given are every where translated, and are such, I venture to hope, as will be interesting even to beginners in Greek. The size, plan and method of the chapters and sections have been influenced by practical experience of teaching the subject to a variety of classes and pupils in Cambridge, Cardiff and Manchester. In choosing both matter and examples I have tried to keep before me the point of view ​of an intelligent set of boys and girls of about fifteen, as well as the needs of older students; so that the book might serve as the basis of a short series of lessons—between thirty and forty should suffice—in any Classical VI Form or in any class doing Latin work above what has come to be known as ‘Matriculation-standard.’
English-speaking students especially have much to gain from the study of Latin Etymology. Their own language is so largely based on Latin that their understanding of it is deepened and enlivened by knowing the history of Latin words and idioms; and all the time they are increasing their enjoyment, and consequently their profit, in reading Latin authors. To know, for instance, that English quick is close akin to Latin vivus (§ 1) and once meant ‘living’; that temere (§ 2) (whence English temerity) means ‘in the dark’; that purgare (from *pur-igāre § 89) means properly ‘to treat with fire,’ adds a picturesque element of interest to a multitude of passages in both English and Latin writers. One of the schoolboy’s first troubles in Vergil (Aeneid I. 8) may be made into a pleasure if it is explained to him that nūmen is a ‘portmanteau-word’ (p. 113 footn.) in which a simple derivative of nuere ‘to nod,’ meaning ‘a nod, assent, decision with authority,’ has been packed into one with the Latin equivalent of the Greek πνεῦμα ‘spirit’; so that nūmen means, in this passage and often, neither ‘decision’ nor ‘deity’ but a fusion of the two, ‘divine will, divine intention.’
But besides the help which etymology thus gives to interpreting Latin authors, there are many interesting questions which a student meets directly he begins to compare English with Latin, or indeed with any Romance language, but to which the answers have been only recently ​found, such as the nature of what is called ‘Gender’ (§§ 205–11), or of the Impersonal Passive (§§ 311–2). And many well-known stumbling-blocks in Latin usage become natural and interesting as soon as their history is understood; for example the poetical use of the Distributive Numerals (centēnus and the like, § 238); the earlier uses of the Gerundive (§§ 237–9); or the frequently Present meaning of the Participle in -tus (§ 233); or its Middle use with an Accusative (p. 127).
It is not to be expected or desired that such a book should contain much that can be called original. My debt on every page to my revered teacher Karl Brugmann, especially to his Grundriss der Vergleichenden Grammatik (Ed. 1, 1886–1892; Ed. 2, 1897–1916), and to his delightful shorter treatise (Kurze Vergleichende Grammatik 1903–4), and also, in Chapter VII, to Roby’s great Latin Grammar, will be plain to all specialists. But my endeavour has been everywhere to express clearly the results of my own study, indicating the evidence for each conclusion, and distinguishing points which are only probable from those which I count certain. For any discussion of unsettled questions the student must look elsewhere, especially to the books just mentioned. One of the difficulties which seem serious in beginning the subject but trivial afterwards is that to denote clearly the different sounds with whose history we are concerned, a certain number of new symbols have to be added to the Latin alphabet. Those used in this book are explained in the course of Chapters II and III. But it is well to state here that after careful consideration I have used the signs q (‘ku’) and ǥ (‘gu’) to denote the ‘Labialising Velars,’ without the rather laborious addition of $^{u̯}$ which the more advanced student will find necessary when he comes to discuss the relation of these sounds to the ‘Pure Velars.’ In this matter the doctrine ​to which I incline (§ 173) is simpler, if more agnostic, than the point of view from which Brugmann has surveyed the evidence; his classification is invaluable for purposes of enquiry, but it was not meant to be final.
For the schoolboy’s sake also I have retained the modern (XVI century) symbol v to denote the sound of consonantal u (Eng. w) in Latin.
I am deeply indebted to the kindness of my colleague Mr. G. EH. K. Braunholtz whose searching and patient criticism has removed a number of obscurities and one or two serious errors. For such as may remain I am of course alone responsible. The Indices, which I hope will add to the usefulness of the book, are mainly the work of Mr. G. S. Conway, B.A., of Rugby.
I shall be grateful for any criticism from readers of the book, sent to me directly, or through its publisher, especially from those who may have used it with a class.
R. S. C.
Manchester, August, 1922.
* ↑ 1 Of derivations which have a literary value other examples are suādēre (§ 149); iūimentum (§ 191); ratis (§ 216); polus from Gr. πόλος (§ 172); Εng. kirk (§ 12), thorpe (§ 60. 4). Examples of special historical interest are forms like Clōdius (§ 114), Sulla (§ 218); and I may add here the title Augustus, which means literally ‘huge, of superhuman stature, worshipful,’ being akin to Lat. augēre, Gr. αὔχειν ‘to increase,’ Sansk. ōjas ‘divine bigness, majesty.’
* ↑ An interesting collection of examples of this use by Dr. Clara M Knight will be found in Am. Journ. Philol., xxxix. (1918), p. 184. The history of the Participle was first clearly set forth by Brugmann in a monumental article in Indog. Forschungen V. (1895), p. 87.