BMCR 2009.02.03, Samantha Schad, A Lexicon of Latin Grammatical

Samantha Schad, A Lexicon of Latin Grammatical Terminology. Studia
Erudita, 6.  Pisa/Rome:  Fabrizio Serra Editore, 2007.  Pp. xxiv, 453;
tbls 5.  ISBN 978-88-6227-003-8.  EUR 150.00.

Reviewed by Pierre Swiggers, K.U. Leuven
([email protected])
Word count:  2976 words
-------------------------------
To read a print-formatted version of this review, see
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2009/2009-02-03.html
To comment on this review, see
http://www.bmcreview.org/2009/02/20090203.html
-------------------------------

This work fills a major gap in the scholarly literature on Latin
grammar by providing a comprehensive and largely reliable dictionary of
Latin grammatical terminology. It represents the fruits of a
painstaking lexicographical documentation and description,  and will be
a valuable tool for students of Latin grammatical literature. However,
it could be improved in a number of respects. The reviewer hopes that
the following critique and detailed corrections will be of assistance
to serious users of this work.

This review opens with an overall presentation of the work analysed
here (1.). The next paragraphs focus on: the domain covered (2.);
lexicographical aspects, i.e., micro-organization of the lexicon (3.)
and translation of the source-terms (4.); philological aspects (5.);
integration of (modern) literature (6.). Then follow a list of (minor)
corrections (7.) and a conclusion (8.)

1. The author of the work under review presents it in the following
terms: 'The subject of the present study is the terminology of the
Latin grammarians. This represents a variety of technical language
created and developed for the purposes of grammatical description and
analysis' (p. XVIII). As such, this Lexicon fills a real gap in the
historiography of ancient linguistics and in the lexicography of
grammatical terminology. While for Greek grammatical terminology we
have V. Be/cares Botas's Diccionario de terminologyi/a gramatical
griega (Salamanca, 1985; primarily based on the texts in G. Uhlig's
Grammatici Graeci and basically intended as a 'glossing dictionary'),
for Latin we had only the (Latin) dissertation by L. Job, De
grammaticis vocabulis apud Latinos (Paris, 1893), which was not
conceived as a lexicographical work, and which, in addition to covering
only a selection of grammatical terms, is outdated in its documentation
and by its historiographical information; fortunately, since 1990 we
have also had the useful Index grammaticus of Lomanto and
Marinone,[[1]] which renders excellent services as a concordance.

Schad's Lexicon consists, apart from the 'Acknowledgements' (p. XIII)
and a list of 'Abbreviations' (pp. XV-XVI), of a rather substantial
'Introduction' (pp. XVII-XXIV) and 'The Lexicon' (pp. 1-430), followed
by a list of 'References' (pp. 431-438) and three indices:
'English-Latin' (pp. 439-446), 'Greek-Latin' (pp. 447-452) and a list
of 'Prefixed Verbs' (p. 453). Within the Lexicon five extremely useful
tables are included: 'Aptotus and the formae casuales' (p. 39), 'Gerund
and Supine' (p. 188), 'Impersonalia' (p. 203), 'Neuter/neutralis' (p.
263), 'Intransitive verbs' (p. 264). The Lexicon itself has about 1430
entries. The entries are given in the nominative singular when they are
nouns, in the nominative masculine singular in the case of adjectives,
and in the first person singular of the present indicative in the case
of verbs.

2. Schad has titled her work a 'lexicon' of 'Latin grammatical
terminology'. Each of these constituents deserves a careful explanation
and justification; Schad's introduction is rather implicit on this
matter.

(1) First, the work is more than a lexicon in the sense of 'lexical
inventory'; it is intended as a (systematic) dictionary and, to some
extent, as a reference-list (if not a concordance) of attestations,
with rather extensive quotations, which allow the reader to check how a
particular term is used in a particular context (or in a variety of
contexts). As a specialised dictionary, Schad's lexicographical product
could have benefited to a larger extent from the state-of-the-art in
lexicography and metalexicography;[[2]] I will limit myself to pointing
out, very briefly, some issues that could have deserved more reflection
(and could have been straightforwardly implemented in the dictionary):

(a) the need to distinguish between straightforward gloss, explanatory
gloss, transposition into modern terminology, and definition; compare
the difference between the four following examples:
descisco 'defect from' (p. 125), (straightforward) gloss
detractio/detrectio 'removal', of letters (p. 127), explanatory gloss
dignitas 'intransitive construction' (p. 130), transposition into
modern terminology
diastole 'mark of punctuation, indicating separation' (p. 128),
definition

(b) the clear marking of the difference between conceptual meaning (or:
the rendering of a term by a gloss or by a definition) on the one hand,
and applicational range on the other;

(c) the making explicit of the principles used for lemmatization (see
below, section 3).

(2) One would also have liked to find some further explanations as to
how the term 'Latin' and the syntagm 'grammatical terminology' have to
be interpreted. The implication seems to be that 'grammatical
terminology' stands here for a type of 'sublanguage',[[3]] and more
specifically for the technical (meta)language of (ancient [Latin])
grammar (cf. the passage quoted at the beginning of this review,
section 1). It remains unclear, however, how Schad defines and delimits
(what) a grammatical term (is), and to some users of the Lexicon it may
not be clear on what grounds Schad excludes rhetorical terms, but
includes terms referring to poetry, to prose, and to style in
general[[4]] (see also section 3 concerning the inclusion of particular
terms), and why she does not take into account the commentaries of
grammarians on literary authors.

As to the adjective 'Latin' in the title, this should be understood as
referring to (grammatical terminology used in) texts written in Latin
(or, in Latin and Greek, since some of the artes grammaticae are (to
some extent) bilingual texts). Several terms in the Lexicon are in fact
Greek terms taken over in their morphological shape by Latin authors
(and sometimes conserved in their Greek graphical shape within the
textual tradition).[[5]]

Finally, 'Latin grammatical terminology' refers to the terminology of
authors (writing in Latin) from Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. On
practical grounds, such a restriction is fully justified (otherwise the
Latin/Latinate terminology of writers in Modern Times should have to be
included also), but while Schad seems to set the end of the 7th century
as the terminus usque quem,[[6]] one misses important texts of the 6th
and 7th century, such as Isidorus' Etymologiae, the Ars Ambrosiana, or
the Expossitio Latinitatis of the Anonymus ad Cuimnanum.

3. As to the micro-organization of the Lexicon, the overall (and
maximal) structure of the entries is as follows:
term (or lemma) [in bold]
English translation, definition or explanation [in italics]
references and citations from Latin authors, with information organized
according to the following relevant domains: classification,
definition, subdivision/characteristics, etymology/explanation of the
term, (early/earliest) attestation of term with a technical-grammatical
meaning, collocations, possible points of interest
corresponding Greek term
synonyms, antonyms, and related terms
secondary literature
non-grammatical signification/use of the term

As an illustrative example, the following entry (p. 425) may be
quoted:[[7]]

univocus
'homonymous'
Prisc. part. 3.511.12 Turnus quae pars orationis est? nomen . . . cuius
est speciei? -ae: significat enim nomen proprium regis Rutulorum et
appellativum piscis palustris (498.17).
neut. as noun (sc. nomen) 'homonym'
Prisc. part. 3.462.3 'arma'  . . . cum  . . . sit homonymon, quod
quidam -um dicunt, et varias res significet. 482.22 est  . . .
<greek>O(MW/NUMON</greek> vel -um (497.18).
attestation: only Prisc. (index).
Prisc. uses both the Gk. term homonymon and the Latin equivalent
univocum which is found in no other grammarian and appears to be
Prisc.'s own creation. Amongst the grammatical terms created by the
Latin grammarians, compounds such as this are less common than suffixal
formations.
Gk.: <greek>O(MW/NUMON</greek>, Arist. categ. I a I; DT 36.1.
See homonymum.

This is a very informative and efficiently consultable entry. But both
the gloss and the commentary could have been more elaborate:

(a) in fact, univocus/homonymon (homonymum) is used for what is
predicated univocally of several 'things' belonging to the same genus;
what is important, is that we have one and the same 'denomination' used
for several (and this without there being involved metaphorical uses,
nor homophonous forms);

(b) as accurately inventorized in Be/cares Botas' Diccionario,[[9]]
there were many Latin translations, in the grammatical and
philosophical literature, of the Greek term <greek>O(MW/NUMOS</greek>:
univocus; idem nomen habens; aequivocus; uninomynus.

The nomenclature of Schad's Lexicon is characterized by two features:
(a) the loose (or 'liberal') conception of 'grammatical term', and (b)
an analytical description. Users may feel that some entries could
probably be deleted, and, in fact, some of the (sub)lemmas should be
removed because they are based on an erroneous reading or on an error
made in the compilation of the textual documentation.[[10]] On several
other occasions, one can have doubts about the 'grammatical' nature of
the term.[[11]]

I readily admit that there are cases where one can only be grateful for
the inclusion of a term that does not really have a technical
grammatical meaning,[[12]] but it seems to me that (a) a dictionary of
grammatical terminology should not include terms used with their
common, 'everyday' semantic load (e.g., coepi, necessitas, praeloco);
(b) good reasons should be given for the inclusion of lemmas that,
although they are learne\d words, cannot be properly said to be
grammatical terms (e.g., adiectamentum [p. 18], breviloquium [p. 52],
multifidus [p. 254]). On the other hand, if one is willing to follow
Schad in her non-restrictive 'technico-lexicographical' approach, one
should ask why the Lexicon has poetice 'the poetic art, poetry' and
poeticus 'poetic' as entries (p. 304), but not rhetorice and
rhetoricus, or why excepto 'with the exception of' (p. 154) is an
entry, but not puta.[[13]] It is also unclear to me why some pairs of
verbs and deverbal nouns are listed as entries, whereas others are
not.[[14]]

The 'analytical' treatment of the material has the advantage of
convenient and targeted "item-search and consultability", but presents
two disadvantages: (1) the reader has to reconstruct classificatory
labels that were equivalent for Latin grammarians: e.g. adverbia
separandi/separantis/separationis (a single semantic species of adverbs
to be 'recomposed' out of three entries [p. 357]:[[15]] separandi;
separantis; separatio);[[16]] (2) the same commentary is repeated under
two different entries.[[17]]

Also, the 'analytical' organization of the nomenclature raises the
question of lemmatization. On this matter, Schad's Lexicon could have
profited from the vast literature that exists on lemmatization, with
application to both dictionaries and concordances. Two important
methodological points should be mentioned here:

(a) The structural reorganization of lemmas: e.g., the entry cognitio
as it now stands would better be reorganized as either a double entry
(cognitio prima; cognitio secunda) or as a single entry given in the
form of a binomial: cognitio prima /cognitio secunda. On the other
hand, the entry patiendo 'passive' (p. 292) can be deleted: the
attestation given there can be grouped with those under the preceding
entry patiendi (sub-meaning 2: 'passive').

(b) The alphabetical positioning of lemmas: in Schad's Lexicon we have
on the one hand, under G, gens 'race, nation, people' (p. 123; in fact
this refers to a semantic category, and it should have been placed
under significans/significare gentem),[[18]] and on the other hand,
under P, per obtinentiam (better to be placed under O). Expressions
restricted by quasi are classified, correctly in my view, under Q:
quasi ad aliquid dictum (p. 337), quasi diminutio (p. 337), quasi
diminutivus (p. 337).

4. Scholars interested in the history of ancient grammar, and students
of Latin grammar in particular, will appreciate Schad's systematic
efforts in offering a translation of the Latin grammatical terms. As
already pointed out above, the translations of the entries cover a wide
range of 'correspondences between a source-language and a
target-language':[[19]] one finds glosses next to transpositions into
modern terminology, and definitions, or paraphrasing descriptions
offering some kind of 'essential characterization'.[[20]]

The difference between these types (and lexicographical strategies) is
not formally (e.g., typographically) marked, nor is this
metalexicographical issue discussed in the introduction. The appeal to
a particular strategy is often conditioned by the very nature of the
term (e.g., glossing dignitas and idioma as 'dignity' or 'idiom' would
be hardly helpful, and indeed misleading).

For scholars interested in linguistic (and philological) terminology,
as attested and reflected in Latin texts, it might have been
interesting to refer to those dictionaries of linguistic
terminology[[21]] that pay specific attention to 'classical'
terminology; one can think here of Springhetti's (Latin!)
terminological dictionary,[[22]] of Marouzeau's linguistic-philological
dictionary,[[23]] and of the very encyclopedic Sprachwissenschaftliches
Woerterbuch.[[24]]

Schad's translations are very useful, and very often the reader can
find additional information and further terminological clarification in
the commentary given within an entry. I have noted a number of cases
where I would propose another (or an additional) translation[[25]] for
a term, and a number of cases where I hesitate to adopt Schad's
translation.[[26]]

5. As to the philological foundations of Schad's Lexicon, the author is
quite explicit: 'The textual foundation for the present study is the
corpus of the Latin grammarians edited in seven volumes by the
nineteenth century German scholar Heinrich Keil. This comprises
grammatical treatises of the 1st to 8th centuries, in general following
a common tradition and composed along broadly similar lines. (. . .) A
more exact list of the works considered in this lexicon can be obtained
from the list of grammatical works printed by Lomanto and Marinone
(1990: vi-vii) at the beginning of their index (vol. I). This includes
all the grammarians in Keil together with a reference to the more
recent editions when these are available. The same index (vol. I, p.
ix) gives a list of the topics treated by the grammarians. The present
lexicon is based on the authors listed in the index with some
exclusions' (p. XIX); 'As indicated above, the recent editions of
grammatical works, when available, are listed in the Index of Lomanto
and Marinone. In this work references are regularly to Keil's edition
(volume, page and line) for those works which it contains. The
exceptions to this rule are the works of Charisius and Donatus for
which reference is made by page and line to the editions of Barwick
(1964)[[27]] and Holtz (1981)[[28]] respectively' (p. XX).

Five (relatively) recent editions of Latin grammatical texts should
have been integrated, since they offer a trustworthy philological
foundation:
(a) De Nonno's edition of the Anonymus Bobiensis
(b) Rosellini's edition of the Regulae of Pseudo-Remmius Palaemon
(c) Schenkeveld's edition of Iulius Romanus' fragments on the adverb
in Charisius
(d) Stock's edition of Sergius' commentary on Donatus
(e) Bonnet's edition of Dositheus.[[29]]

As to Schad's quotations from the extant editions, these are as a
general rule very accurate apart from the occasional error and
inconsistency in punctuation. A more serious case of inconsistency
occurs with Schad's use of a passage in Quintilian concerning the
conjunctions. Under coniunctio, Schad quotes Quintilian's text of
Institutio oratoria 1.4.18 as follows (Lexicon, p. 86): [coniunction]es
a plerisque dici scio, sed haec videtur ex 'syndesmo' magis propria
tralatio.[[30]]  But under the entry translatio (Lexicon, p. 408), and
more precisely under the sub-meaning 2 'translation' (Gk. into Latin),
Quintilian's text is quoted as follows: Quint. 1.4.18 haec (sc.
coniunctio) videtur ex <greek>SUNDESMW=|</greek> magis propria
-o.[[31]]

6. Any translation and/or commentary of grammatical terminology is
indebted to the extant scholarly research on terms. Schad's Lexicon
contains a useful bibliography of secondary literature (pp. 431-438).
These studies have been integrated within the lexicographical
description and commentary of entries, but Schad has taken care not to
overload the contents of the entries with references to secondary
literature. In a number of cases, she should, in my view, have inserted
a more explicit reference: e.g., for terms relating to syntax and to
(various types of) conjunctions, Baratin's 1989 study[[32]] could have
figured more prominently, and under declinatio (as well as under
naturalis and voluntarius), Taylor's 1975 study[[33]] should have been
explicitly referred to. Both studies are in Schad's bibliography.

General works, such as Pauly(-Wissowa)'s Realencyclopaedie der
classischen Altertumswissenschaft[[34]] could have been included in the
bibliography (for some entries, the Realencyclopaedie could have been
referred to); and Schulze's work[[35]] on Latin proper names could have
been mentioned in the bibliography (and listed in the literature s.v.
agnomen, cognomen, nomen, praenomen). In the bibliography I also miss a
number of (more or less recent) monograph studies or collections of
articles on the history of ancient grammar.[[36]]

There are also a number of specific bibliographical additions to be
mentioned:

(a) The classification and the commentary under the entry adverbium
should now be revised and rewritten in view of the contributions to the
thematic issue of Histoire, E/piste/mologie, Langage on Priscian's
treatment of the adverb,[[37]] and of three detailed studies that are
included in the recently published thematic issue "Das Adverb in der
Grammatikographie (Teil I)" of Beitraege zur Geschichte der
Sprachwissenschaft (vol. 17/1-2, 2007).[[38]] (b) Problems in the
description/classification of other parts of speech in Latin
grammaticography have been dealt with in a variety of studies.[[39]]
(c) Various collective volumes dealing with problems of
terminology/terminography have recently appeared.[[40]] (d) For general
background, the reader of Schad's Lexicon will find useful information
in two recently published reference works.[[41]]

7. Schad's Lexicon has been carefully elaborated, printed and
proofread. I have only a limited number of (minor) corrections, apart
from those already pointed out.[[42]]

8. The present review has focused on corrections, additions and
refinements to Schad's Lexicon. As a consequence, the merits of the
work have not been properly put into perspective. Therefore I would
like, in conclusion, to lay emphasis on the wealth of information
gathered by Schad, who has provided us with a reference tool that is
both indispensable to historians of ancient grammar and extremely
valuable for scholars interested in the history of linguistic concepts
and terms. Schad's commentaries, though relatively succinct, will be of
great help to readers looking for information concerning the origin,
the development and the semantic(-referential) range of grammatical
terms or to those in search of information on grammatical
classifications and subcategorizations, at various levels of
description. Schad also deserves our thanks for the inclusion of
synoptic tables within a number of entries. [[43]] It is to be hoped
that someday the Lexicon will be made available online, with a web
address for improvements, additions, revisions, philological
corrections, etc. (all these to be eventually screened and implemented
by a webmaster). As such, Samantha Schad's Lexicon will become a
dynamically growing reference and working tool for the next
generations.


------------------
Notes:


1.   V. Lomanto - N. Marinone, Index grammaticus. An index to Latin
grammar texts, Hildesheim, Olms - Weidmann, 1990.

2.   For a short presentation of the field of metalexicography, with
bibliographical guidelines, see G. Petrequin - P. Swiggers, "La
me/talexicographie. Contours et perspectives d'une (sous-) discipline",
L'Information grammaticale 114 (2007), pp. 7-10. For a systematic
presentation of basic notions of (meta)lexicography, see J. Rey-Debove,
E/tude linguistique et se/miotique des dictionnaires franc,ais
contemporains, The Hague - Paris, Mouton, 1971 and Le me/talangage.
E/tude linguistique du discours sur le langage, Paris, Colin, 1978.

3.   On this notion, see Z.S. Harris, Language and Information, New
York, Columbia University Press, 1988.

4.   Cf. entries such as poetice (noun) [=poetice^], poetice (adverb),
poeticus, prosa, prosa oratio, suavitas, etc.

5.   This is the case of, e.g.: ametabolus (p. 31), analogos (p. 33;
the attestation cited is Varro 8.55: <greek>A)NA\ LO/GON</greek> si
essent vocabula), antisigma (p. 35), apostrophos (p. 36), barytonus (p.
51; perhaps better: barytonos/barytonus), dasia (p. 107), diastole (p.
122; I would have preferred a lemmatization as diastole^), diathesis
(p. 122), dichronus (p. 128; better: dichronos/dichronus), dionyma (p.
132; I would have preferred dionymon; compare: eponymon (p. 152),
feronymon (p. 165), synonymon (p. 392)), epectasis (p. 151), historice
(p. 196; I would have preferred historice^, especially since there is
also an entry historice, adverb of historicus), horisticos (p. 196),
hygros (p. 197), hypocorisma (p. 198), hypocorismos (p. 198),
hypodigmaticus (p. 198), lexis (p. 236), monadicos (p. 251), monoclitos
(p. 251), monophonos (p. 251), pandectes (p. 285; I would have
preferred a lemmatization as pandecte^s/pandekte^s), paracimenus (p.
286; better: paracimenos/paracimenus), paragogus (p. 286; better:
paragogos/paragogus), parasynthetos (p. 286), parataticon (p. 287),
paronymos (p. 287; this should in my view have been lemmatized as
paranonymon), perilepticus (p. 297), poetice [as a noun] (p. 304;
better: poetice^), polyonymon (p. 305), psile (p. 333; better: psile^),
syncategorema (p. 392), synonymia (p. 392), synonymon (p. 393),
tetraonyma (p. 401; better: tetraonymon), trionyma (p. 401; better:
trionymon).

6.   'A self-imposed chronological limit of the end of the seventh
century has also led to the exclusion of Bede, the eighth-century
author' (p. XIX).

7.   Occurrences of the lemma in quotations are not given in full, but
indicated by - (followed by an ending, if the case applies): note that
the reader has to supply sometimes the correct morphophonological shape
of the lemma within an occurrence (e.g.: coniunctio:  -es
<coniunctiones>).

8.   The entry homonymum can be found on p. 196; there the reference to
the entry univocus should read 'See univocus' (instead of 'See
univocum').

9.   V. Be/cares Botas, Diccionario de terminologi/a gramatical griega,
Salamanca, Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca, 1985, p. 274.

10.   aequalis (sub-meaning 1 'similar, sharing a common form', p. 27:
the quotation from Dositheus 7.408.15 (sunt -ia nomina (participiis),
quae nominativo casu participiis similia videntur, ut 'cultus passus
visus', quorum discretio declinatione detegitur) should be read: sunt
aeque alia nomina, quae . . .( See G. Bonnet (ed.), Dosithe/e.
Grammaire latine, Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 2005, p. 67). Likewise,
simplicus (p. 371: 'occurring singly, absolutely' exc. Bob. 1.562.6
deponentia autem -a verba): the exc. Bob. have, however, simplicia
(this is also the text printed by Keil, Grammatici Latini, vol. 1, p.
562, which is the edition used by Schad).

11.   This is, e.g. the case of: antecresco (p. 34 'to increase in
front, acquire an addition at the beginning'), antefero (p. 34 'to
place in front'), circumloquor (p. 62 'to paraphrase'), coepi (p. 63:
'to begin [with a certain letter]'), custodio (p. 105 'to keep'),
defendo (p. 114 'to keep'), dico (p. 128 'to say or use a certain word;
to call something by a certain name; to create a word'[the latter gloss
being in my view a contextualized rendering]), emendatio (p. 149
'emendation, correction'), excepto (p. 154), exiguitas (p. 157
'smallness' [said of diminutive forms]), graeculus (p. 190 'Greek' [of
a type of syllable]), habere (pp. 193-195; the verb has its normal
meaning 'to have' viz. to have such or such letter/to have such or such
ending/to have an accent, etc.), intaminatus (p. 220 'unchanged,
uncorrupted'), intemeratus (p. 222 'unchanged, uncorrupted'),
internuntius (p. 233 'intermediary'), mere (p. 34 'purely'), necessitas
(p. 261 'necessity'),[ Schad comments, quite correctly: 'In both Prisc.
and Macr. exc. [= excerpta] a distinction is made between two types of
necessity operating in language: semantic or logical and phonetic or
practical', but the fact remains that for both authors necessitas has
its general meaning of 'necessity; necessary conditioning'.] nitor (p.
266 'lean on'), pereo (p. 295 'to be lost' [The subject can be littera
(or the name of a letter/sound), vis or Latinitas]), praeloco (p. 311
'to place in front'), sum (p. 387[Schad translates 'have regular
comparison' [of adjectives], but the two attestations quoted correspond
to the normal use of esse ('to be, to exist'); see e.g. the second
attestation: sunt quae ex positivi imagine per omnes gradus formantur,
ut 'fortis fortior fortissimus' (Diom. 1.324.26)]). Note also Schad's
commentary on the entry rigidus 'rigid, stiff' [of voiced stops and the
letter q, as they receive no aspiration] (p. 351): "This was not
created as a grammatical term but taken over from the ordinary
vocabulary."

12.   This holds, e.g., for entries such as ius, lex, mos, variatio,
which offer interesting information on the sociolinguistic and
(socio)stylistic views of Latin authors.

13.   Also, fortis is an entry (p. 178), but not vividus, although both
adjectives occur as qualifying the noun syllaba in the passage of
Terentianus Maurus quoted s.v. fortis. [In the list of 'Abbreviations',
p. XVI, correct 'Terenianus' into 'Terentianus'.]

14.   Cf. corrumpo and corruptio; deduco and deductio; demo and
demptio; derivo and derivatio; detraho and detractio; enuntio and
enuntiatio; figuro and figuratio; inclino and inclinatio; muto and
mutatio; but the entries dubitandi and dubitatio are not flanked by an
entry dubito; and we have perfectio, but not perficio; positio, but not
pono.

15.   The term separativus is not used in collocation with adverbium.

16.   See also other semantic classes of adverbs: s.v.
demonstrandi/demonstrantis/demonstratio/demonstrativus (pp. 117-118);
s.v. hortandi/hortantis/hortatio/hortativus (p. 197); s.v.
negandi/negantis/negatio/negativus (p. 261-262); s.v.
prohibendi/prohibentis/prohibitio (p. 325); s.v.
respondendi/respondentis/responsio/responsivus (p. 350).

17.   Just two examples: the commentary (11 lines) s.v. pronomen (p.
327) starting with 'Var[ro] divided words with case inflection' is
identical with the one on p. 333 s.v. provocabulum; the commentary (7
lines) s.v. demonstrativus is almost identical with the commentary (p.
347) s.v. relativus.

18.   In any event, it seems to me that the entry should contain the
term 'significare' (even when the concept of 'meaning' is only
implied); compare the entry sensum significans (p. 355: Prisc. 3.277.13
verba sensum significantia  . . . accusativa  . . . adiunguntur, ut
'amo' et 'desidero, ardeo').

19.   On translation(al problems) of ancient grammatical terminology,
see P. Swiggers - A. Wouters, "Content and Context in (Translating)
Ancient Grammar", in: P. Swiggers -A. Wouters (eds.), Ancient Grammar:
Content and Context, Louvain, Peeters, 1996, pp. 123-161; and
"Translating Ancient Grammatical Texts", in: D. Cram et al. (eds.),
History of Linguistics 1996, vol. I, Amsterdam, J. Benjamins, 1999, pp.
3-11.

20.   For a good example of the latter, see the entry idioma (p. 199):
'distinctive property'.

21.   For a bibliographical and methodological survey, see P. Swiggers,
"Pour une syste/matique de la terminologie linguistique:
conside/rations historiographiques, me/thodologiques et
e/piste/mologiques", in: Me/moires de la Socie/te/ de Linguistique de
Paris, n.s. vol. 6: La terminologie linguistique, 1999, pp. 11-49.

22.   Aem. Springhetti, Lexicon linguisticae et philologiae, Romae,
Apud Pontificiam Universitatem Gregorianam, 1962.

23.   J. Marouzeau, Lexique de la terminologie linguistique: franc,ais,
allemand, anglais, italien, Paris, P. Geuthner, 1933 [several
reeditions and reprints]; also useful is F. La/zaro Carreter,
Diccionario de te/rminos filolo/gicos, Madrid, Gredos, 1953 [several
re-editions].

24.   J. Knobloch (ed.), Sprachwissenschaftliches Woerterbuch,
Heidelberg, Winter, 1961- (13 fascicles published).

25.   I will not comment on Index II: Greek - Latin (pp. 447-451); this
index can now be supplemented with the 'Index contrastif grec-latin' in
L. Basset et al. (eds.), Bilinguisme et terminologie grammaticale
gre/co-latine, Louvain, Peeters, 2007, pp. 443-446.

26.   The following is a selective list. accidens (p. 8-9): should this
really be translated as 'adjective'?; character (p. 61 'character, form
of a letter'): perhaps better 'shape'; congregatio (p. 83 'joint
occurrence'): I would translate as 'joining'; contextus (p. 96
'coherent structure'): I would translate as 'declensional/inflectional
frame' or as 'frame, context, setting'; designatio (p. 126 'designating
force'): rather 'reference'; dignitas (p. 130 'intransitive
construction'): I would propose 'subject-predicate construction'
(corresponding to Greek <greek>A)CI/WMA</greek>); discretio (p. 134
'separation, distinction, being singled out', of pronouns): rather
'separation, distinction, singling out [by means of a pronoun]';
formula (p. 178, under 2 'form'): add 'scheme'; impositio (p. 206,
under 1 'arbitrary imposition of names on objects'): perhaps better
'imposition of names on objects by a decision'; inclinamentum (p. 210
'derivative suffix'): I would prefer a less specific translation, such
as 'attachment'; notatio (p. 270 'the explanation (of a term) according
to its derivation, etymology'): in the passages from Cicero quoted
here, I would render notatio as 'representation'; nuncupo (p. 273
'name'): better 'to designate with a name'; orthographus (p. 283
'concerning orthography'): a more accurate translation would be 'author
of an orthographical text/of a work on orthography'; pars (p. 287,
under 2 'subdivision'): also 'type'; per obtinentiam (p. 298
'indicating possession'): rather 'according to/through acquisition';
psile (p. 333 'absence of h/aspiration'): given that dasia (p. 107) is
glossed as 'rough', I would propose here 'simple/unaffected'; for
reciprocus (p. 342) applied to participles in Priscian, Schad proposes
'able to be used predicatively and attributively', but Priscian merely
wants to point out the interchangeability (or reciprocal conversion)
between (some) nouns and participles, e.g., lector and legens, cursor
and currens (See now P. Swiggers - A. Wouters, "Le participe, unite/
"concre\te", (e/tymologiquement) vraie et proble/matique", Incontri
Linguistici 31 (2008), pp. 101-110 (esp. p. 107 note 3). See also A.
Garcea - A. Giavatto, "Reciprocus - Antanaklastos. Pronomi e participi
tra grammatici e filosofi", Voces 15 (2004), pp. 43-58.); significantia
(p. 361 'meaning, sense'): also 'meaningfulness, significance'.

27.   K. Barwick (ed.), Charisii artis grammaticae libri V (with add.
by F. Kuehnert), Lipsiae, B.G. Teubner, 1964.

28.   L. Holtz, Donat et la tradition de l'enseignement grammatical:
e/tude sur l'Ars Donati et sa diffusion (IVe - IXe sie\cle) et e/dition
critique, Paris, CNRS E/ditions, 1981.

29.   M. De Nonno (ed.), La grammatica dell' <<Anonymus Bobiensis>> (GL
I 533-565 Keil). Con'un appendice carisiana, Roma, Ed. di Storia e
Letteratura, 1982. M. Rosellini (ed.), Ps. Remmii Palaemonis Regulae.
Introduzione, testo critico e commento, Hildesheim, Olms, 2001. D.M.
Schenkeveld (ed.), A Rhetorical Grammar: C. Iulius Romanus.
Introduction to the Liber de adverbio as incorporated in Charisius' Ars
grammatica II.13. Edition with introduction, translation and
commentary, Leiden, Brill, 2004. Ch. Stock (ed.), Commentarium de
oratione et de octo partibus orationis artis secundae Donati.
Ueberlieferung, Text und Kommentar, Muenchen - Leipzig, Saur, 2005.  G.
Bonnet (ed.), Dosithe/e. Grammaire latine, Paris, Les Belles Lettres,
2005.

30.   The entry convinctio (Lexicon, p. 98) reads as follows:

'conjunction'. Quint. 1.4.18 Aristoteles quoque atque Theodectes verba
modo et nomina et -es (P, coniunctiones AB) tradiderunt . . .in -bus
autem complexus eorum esse iudicaverunt: quas coniunctiones a plerisque
dici scio, sed haec videtur ex syndesmo magis propria tralatio . . .a
philosophis primum -bus articuli adiecti, post praepositiones. Gk.:
"suvndesmo", see s.v. coniunctio.
In the list of 'Abbreviations', on p. XV, one should correct 'Quint.:
Quintilian, institutiones orationis unless otherwise specified' into:
'Quint.: Quintilian, institutio oratoria unless  . . ." [or:
institutionis oratoriae libri XII].

31.   Several remarks should be made here:
(a)  it would have been recommendable to quote the same text uniformly;
Radermacher's critical edition (M. Fabi Quintiliani Institutionis
oratoriae libri XII. Edidit Ludwig Radermacher, Lipsiae, in aedibus
B.G. Teubneri, 1965) gives the text as follows: [ . . . quorum fuerunt]
Aristoteles quoque atque Theodectes, verba modo et nomina et
convinctiones tradiderunt, [videlicet quod in verbis vim sermonis, in
nominibus materiam (quia alterum est quod loquimur, alterum de quo
loquimur),] in convinctionibus autem complexus eorum esse iudicaverunt:
quas coniunctiones a plerisque dici scio, sed haec videtur ex
sundevsmw/ magis propria translatio.(M. Fabi Quintiliani Institutionis
oratoriae libri XII, o.c., vol. I, p. 25.)
(b)  the variant form tralatio is attested in the Bern (B) manuscript,
but translatio is the form adopted in the critical edition, and the one
that should have been given in quotation; by internal inconsistency,
Schad's Lexicon does not include an entry tralatio, but this is to the
benefit of the work.
(c) the Greek part within the quotation should have been given, in
Greek characters and correctly, as in Radermacher's edition.
(d)  in the entry translatio the parenthetical addition within the
quotation should have been '(sc. convinctio)', since Quintilian
justifies his literal rendering of the Greek term.

32.   M. Baratin, La naissance de la syntaxe a\ Rome, Paris, E/ditions
de Minuit, 1989.

33.   D.J. Taylor, Declinatio: A Study of the Linguistic Theory of
Marcus Terentius Varro, Amsterdam, Benjamins, 1975.

34.   And now the online 'New Pauly' (Der Neue Pauly).

35.   W. Schulze, Zur Geschichte lateinischer Eigennamen (Berlin,
Weidmann, 1904; reprint, with additions: 1991).

36.   Ax, W. 2000. Lexis und Logos. Studien zur antiken Grammatik und
Rhetorik. Stuttgart: Steiner. Dammer, R. 2001. Diomedes grammaticus.
Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag. Desbordes, F. 1990. Ide/es romaines
sur l'e/criture. Lille: Presses universitaires.  Matthaios, S. 1999.
Untersuchungen zur Grammatik Aristarchs: Texte und Interpretation zur
Wortartenlehre. Goettingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Each of these works
could have been put to use within various entries of the Lexicon.

37.   M. Baratin - A. Garcea (eds), "Autour du De adverbio de
Priscien", in: Histoire, E/piste/mologie, Langage 27/2 (2005).

38.   The issue editors are Aino Kaernae and Stephanos Matthaios. S.
Matthaios, "Das Adverb in der Grammatikographie der griechischen
Antike" (pp. 13-58); A. Wouters - P. Swiggers, "L'adverbe chez les
grammairiens latins de l'Antiquite/ tardive" (pp. 75-118); L. Visser,
"The Description of the Adverb in the Early Middle Ages" (pp. 119-158).
The second part, also edited by Kaernae and Matthaios, does not include
contributions on Antiquity; it was published as volume 18/1-2 of the
Beitraege.

39.   On the interjection: F. Biville, "La syntaxe aux confins de la
se/mantique et de la phonologie: les interjections vues par les
grammairiens latins", in: P. Swiggers - A. Wouters (eds.), Syntax in
Antiquity, Louvain - Paris, Peeters, 2003, pp. 227-239; G. Graffi,
"L'interiezione tra i grammatici greci e i grammatici latini", Incontri
Linguistici 19 (1996), pp. 11-18. On the pronoun: S. Carraro,
"Osservazioni sulla definizione di pronome nelle Artes Grammaticae",
Aevum 73 (1999), pp. 81-91; M. Lenoble - P. Swiggers - A. Wouters, "La
structure des artes grammaticae latines. L'exemple du pronom", in: S.
Auroux (ed.), History of Linguistics 1999, Amsterdam, Benjamins, 2003,
pp. 1-18; P. Swiggers - A. Wouters, "L'analyse du pronom comme
cate/gorie morpho-se/mantique", to appear in a volume on Priscian
(edited by M. Baratin, B. Colombat, L. Holtz and I. Rosier). On the
adjective noun:  B. Colombat, "L'adjectif dans la tradition latine:
vers l'autonomisation d'une classe", Histoire, E/piste/mologie, Langage
14/1 (1992), pp. 101-122; M. Negri, "Adiectiuum ed epitheton nella
terminologia della grammatica e dell'esegesi letteraria latina. I
problemi di un <<doppione>>", in: L. Basset et al. (eds.), Bilinguisme
et terminologie grammaticale gre/co-latine, Louvain - Paris - Dudley,
Peeters, 2007, pp. 285-302. On the noun: M. Lenoble - P. Swiggers - A.
Wouters, "E/tude comparative des de/nominations de cate/gories
grammaticales dans les textes artigraphiques latins de l'Antiquite/",
in: B. Colombat - M. Savelli (eds.), Me/talangage et terminologie
linguistique, Louvain, Peeters, 2001, vol. I, pp. 275-291. On the
proper 'noun': S. Matthaios, "<greek>KU/RION O)/NOMA</greek>. Zur
Geschichte eines grammatischen Terminus", in: P. Swiggers - A. Wouters
(eds.), Ancient Grammar: Content and Context, Louvain, Peeters, 1996,
pp. 55-77.

40.   Among those of direct relevance for the contents of this Lexicon
I would mention: Basset, L. et al. (eds.) 2007. Bilinguisme et
terminologie grammaticale gre/co-latine. Louvain: Peeters. Colombat, B.
- Savelli, M. (eds.) 2001. Me/talangage et terminologie linguistique.
Louvain: Peeters. (2 vols.) Foegen, Th. (ed.) 2005. Antike Fachtexte.
Ancient Technical Texts. Berlin: W. de Gruyter. Swiggers, P. - Wouters,
A. (eds.) 2002. Grammatical Theory and Philosophy of Language in
Antiquity. Louvain: Peeters.  Swiggers, P. - Wouters, A. (eds.) 2004.
Syntax in Antiquity. Louvain: Peeters.

41.   Auroux, S. - Koerner, E.F.K. - Niederehe, H.-J. - Versteegh, K.
(eds.) 2000. History of the Language Sciences. An international
Handbook on the Evolution of the Study of Language from the Beginnings
to the Present, vol. I. Berlin: Mouton, de Gruyter. Colombat, B. (ed.)
1998. Corpus repre/sentatif des grammaires et des traditions
linguistiques, t. I. Paris: SHESL (Histoire, E/piste/mologie, Langage,
hors-se/rie 2).

42.   On p. 244 s.v. loquel(l)a, the commentary should read:
'Prepositional prefixes joined onto other words (loquellae) are
distinguished from prepositions which collocate with case forms
(casus)'. In the 'References' section, there are a number of errors:
sub Alvar Ezquerra, correct: Garci/a Ferna/ndez  . . . Linguei/stica;
sub Alvarez Huerta, correct: A/lvarez Huerta  . . . Garci/a Ferna/ndez;
sub Andre/ 1952, correct: Revue; sub Charpin 1965, correct: Revue; sub
Charpin 1977, read: Diffusion H. Champion; sub Cousin 1943, correct:
spe/ciales; sub Di Benedetto 1958 and 1959, correct: Dionisio il Trace;
sub Flobert 1981, correct: Revue; sub Kaster 1978, correct: Servius
and; sub Lambert 1908, correct: selon les grammairiens; sub Lejeune
1950, correct: Revue  . . . Grecques; sub Malkiel 1941, read: -ivu with
a long -i; sub Marache 1952, correct: archai+ques; sub Panagel,
correct: Panagl; sub Robins 1986, correct: Van Hoecke; sub Schuchardt
1866, read: 1866-1868, Der Vokalismus des Vulgaerlateins (3 volumes);
sub Serbat, correct: me/diatif; sub Vendrye\s, correct: Vendryes; sub
Wouters 1994, correct: <greek>MET'O)LI/GON</greek>. It might also have
been better to give 1959-1960 as the publication date of the fourth
edition of Ernout and Meillet's Dictionnaire e/tymologique de la langue
latine (of this fourth edition there are many reprints, such as the
1979 one listed in Schad's bibliography).

43.   Personally, I would also have liked to see synoptic tables for
the (sub)classification of the various parts of speech, as well as a
comprehensive survey of the accidentia. Later editions of the Lexicon
could be easily extended with a number of such tables; at the same
time, they would make it possible to incorporate more attestations and,
in some cases, a reorganization of the structure of some entries.