Thesis (Ph. D.)--Catholic University of America, 1938. / Includes bibliographical references (p. xv-xvii).

The period 100 BC – AD 100 is often seen by scholars as the time when the 'standard' form of educated Latin was established. Standardisation, according to some, was the defining process for the fixing of written language and written norms. Once established, these written norms, we are led to believe, remained unchanged for the rest of the Antiquity. This study addresses this alleged standardisation of Latin in 100 BC – AD 100 by studying variations in spelling and morphology. Elimination of variation is a central part of establishing a standard language, while continuing variation characterises lack of standardisation. By studying variation in a diachronic perspective, therefore, we are able to assess the evidence for standardisation or lack thereof. Complete standardisation can be achieved mainly in spelling: therefore, the study of spelling is central for determining the existence of any standardisation movement. The first part of the thesis is dedicated to studying spelling variation in high-register formal inscriptions, where standardisation ought to be most evident. We discuss variation of the type maximus/maxumus, variant spellings ei and i for /ī/ and variation between assimilated and non-assimilated spelling of prefixes. A separate chapter addresses the spelling reform of Claudius. The second part of the thesis focuses on cases of morphological variation in literary and non-literary texts (variation between quis and quibus in the dat./abl. pl. and variation between active and deponent forms of verbs). The study of these cases of variation should add to our knowledge of language development in this period and provide a basis on which to begin a reassessment of standardisation in Latin. Language attitudes of literary authors and authors of nonliterary texts, which are relevant for the question of standardisation, will also be considered. My overall conclusion is that it is easy to exaggerate the importance of any standardising, and that it is important not to mix up uncontrolled linguistic change, which is a phenomenon of any language, and change, or fixing, that is the result of the conscious and deliberate efforts of language purists.

No description available.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Chicago. / Printed also in the Kansas University Quarterly, v.7, no. 4. Also available on the Internet.

Proefschrift--Utrecht. / Also available in print.

Inaug.-diss.--Leipzig. / Cover title. Lebenslauf.

Inaug.--diss.--Munich. / Lebenslauf. "Verzeichnis der benützten hilfsmittel": p. vii-xiii.

Inaug.-Diss.--Amsterdam. / "Litteratuurlijst": p. 168-171.

Inaug.-Diss.--Halle-Wittenberg. / Vita.

This is a study of the substantival medical terminology of Aulus Cornelius Celsus (early 1st c.) and Cassius Felix (mid 5th c.), in the fields of Anatomy and Physiology; Pathology; and Therapeutics. Two broad questions are considered: (1) What were the possible and the preferred means of extending the Latin vocabulary in these technical areas in the first and the fifth century A.D.? (2) May any linguistic features be identified as proper or peculiar to Latin medical - or, more generally, technical - terminology? Chapter 1 presents a general characterisation, based on examples of medical language, of modern technical terminology. Certain features of the structure and composition of the modern terminology are observed also in our Latin authors, especially in Cassius Felix. Chapters 2-5 focus each on one linguistic means of term-formation in Celsus and Cassius Felix. These are (Ch.2:) the use of Greek medical terms within the Latin terminology; (Ch.3:) the use of semantic extension, that is the deployment of established Latin words with new, medical reference (sutura 'stitching' → 'cranial suture'); (Ch.4:) the minimal use of compounding (dentifricium 'tooth-rub'), and the use as single terminological units of lexicalised Noun Phrases, Noun + Adjective (ignis sacer a type of skin-disease) or Noun + Genitive (difficultas urinae 'dysury'), here called "Phrasal Terms"; (Ch.5:) the favouring of certain suffixes in deriving Nouns (and some Adjectives) and the striking correlation between suffix and the lexical-semantic field of the derivative (-or and clinical signs and symptoms: dolor, rubor). Chapter 6 presents comparative figures for the two authors and a general working hypothesis that emerges: namely that divergences between Cassius Felix and Celsus may be interpreted as symptoms of the development of a Latin technical medical terminology (notably the integration of Greek and Latin terminology; reduction in the use of non-metaphorical polysemy; increased use of Phrasal Terms in fixed word order; extended use of suffixation to signal the semantic organisation of the terminology and, additionally, to form nominalisations as part of the development of a heavily-nominal style). A programme is adumbrated for testing this hypothesis. Volume II contains brief historical introductions to Celsus and Cassius Felix, the authors and their works; a Glossary of their medical terminology in three parts (ANATOMY and PHYSIOLOGY; PATHOLOGY; THERAPEUTICS); and full word indexes to both authors listed on microfiche.