'malignus interpres' redux

I have just put up an updated version of my paper on Martial's malignus interpres. The Scribd introduction below:

This paper undertakes an investigation of the oft-neglected 'malignus interpres' who inhabits the preface to Martial's first book of epigrams. The study attempts first to resolve the textual problem (inscribat/scribat) that plagues the line, and moves on to explore the 'interpres' using both diachronic and comparative synchronic methods. It ultimately attempts to formulate an answer to the question--Who is the interpres?--with regard to both identity and function.

I urge you lovers of Latin poetry--the majority of my readers for sure--to go check it out.

On an encomiastic note, Scribd is incredible! It offers free access to excellent, useful (and expensive!) books like J.N. Adams's Bilingualism and the Latin Language. Classicists take note--the future is here!

hoc adfigere cunctabam...

I have been delaying posting this...for fear of it being adopted as a focal point in the ever-eloquent conservative argument against government stimulus.

The Fed's recent announcement (link with explanation by Krugman) of its new, nontraditional expansionary policy of "quantitative easing"--the functional equivalent of printing money--is an attempt to expand the monetary base with interest rates already hovering at the zero bound. Certainly conservatives have been less opposed to this measure than fiscal efforts (more often than not, on spurious grounds--the reemergence of the misguided 19th century British "Treasury View" has been the recent scourge of Brad DeLong among others); nevertheless, I though it prudent not to add ammunition, particularly as ludicrous arguments seem to dominate the discourse--even beyond Fox News.

The fact, however, illustrates an important lesson about etymology: historical context is important, at times to the extent that it is the only way of understanding a word's roots. The English words "money" and "mint" are derived from the Latin verb monere "to warn, to admonish"...

Hold the head-shaking.

"Money," in this case Roman coin, was originally "minted" at the temple of Iuno Moneta--Juno the Admonisher. The term is a transference by metonymy.

Let us hope, for the sake of an already pedantic national discourse, that I have not gravely erred.

Quis est Martialis 'malignus interpres'?

Who is Martial's 'malignus interpres'?

The mysterious malignus interpres has been received as an unwelcome intruder to Martial’s preface; he occupies vital space—the traditional domain of a declaration of poetic program—but his presence has, thus far, served only to obscure a line that is autonomously problematic. Since the early 17th century conjecture of Heinsius, critical editions of Martial have failed to reach a consensus whether to read the standard scribat or, with Heinsius, inscribat. The identity of the malignus interpres has been subsumed by this controversy and, consequently, an investigation of the enigmatic interpres has been unjustly neglected. He is hapax legomenon in Martial, and his prominent position in the preface suggests semantic marking—which necessarily implies the question: Why interpres? It is a failure of scholarship that an answer has not yet been provided...

Until now.

in nomine Patris et Filii et...huh?

In the name of the Father, the Son, and the...huh?

XKCD (via Brad DeLong)

quaestio publica

A public poll.

If someone came up to you in the street and said "Isn't it paradoxical that the Catullan Martial is not a neoteric Martial?" would you know what he/she meant?

Well...would you?

Quid est in nomine bestiarum?

What is in the name of animals?

Language Log has an interesting post concerning the formation of scientific nomenclatures which are named in honor of those who discovered them. Sally Thomason wonders why female scientists receive attribution with only the feminine genitive suffix -ae but males with -i or -ii.

The gist: non-Latin names of these biologists has been notoriously problematic, and different methods of Latinization have led to two different surface forms of the masculine genitive suffix. So while evidence of it is slim, there is no reason why femine suffixes in -iae and -ia should not be present.

However, contributions by Ben Fortson and Don Cameron are always worth reading.

Fortson:

So the reason all this is relevant is that let's say you want to Latinize a non-Latin family name. A non-Latin family name kind of corresponds to the gentilicium but also kind of corresponds to the cognomen; there's no exact equivalent either way. So one could defensibly tack on either -ius or -us to the non-Latin name to do the trick. Falling into the former camp are Latinized names like Gronovius (originally Gronov), Lipsius (-us or -ius and usually the correct one was used. This can extend to German names of ultimately Latin origin, e.g. Camerarius being the rendering of Camerer (chamberlain).

Mutatis mutandis the same issues obtain with women's last names. The names of Roman women were just feminizations of male names (Julia Greyia instead of Greya (to form the genitive greyae in Bathylagus greyae).

and Cameron:

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (4th edition, Sec. 31.1.2) specifies one -i, but under 31.1.3, about preservation of the original spelling, both cuveri and cuverii are admissible. The trouble comes from different conventions of Latinizing modern proper names. Originally in Latin names like Marcus have genitive Marci and names like Livius have genitive Livii. So do you want to Latinize my name as Cameronus or Cameronius? You have a choice. Then the genitives would be Cameroni or Cameronii. Modern custom following the Code is to use one -i.

Check out the rest of the post here.

saevus...Boreas?

Savage...Boreas?

Yesterday, the ferocious winds that laid waste to the greater East Brunswick area led to calamity for AlmostWorthKnowing's Abe Tran. As he documents here, his car suffered the unfortunate wrong-place, wrong-time fall of a hefty tree branch on its windshield and upper hood. Our condolences go out to him and his automobile.

He attributes this unlucky turn of fate to Boreas--in Greek mythology, God of the North Wind. However, after closely consulting the modern day weather augurs, I would say that the blame more accurately belongs to Zephyrοs--the West Wind--and it suggest that Mr. Tran ought direct future propitiations to this fickle Deity.