Omission of Final ‐S In Latin Inscriptions: Time and Space

Abstract

The paper focuses on the omission of final -s in Latin inscriptions found in the corpus CLaSSES (Corpus for Latin Sociolinguistic Studies on Epigraphic textS, http://classeslatin-linguistics.fileli.unipi.it) from 350 BC till 50 AD.The distribution of final -s has been examined in the endings of the second declension with respect to several variables, such as the dating and the place of provenance of the inscription.The results show that the restoration of the grapheme spread from Rome starting from the mid-third century BC, when the city was the political and economic centre of the conquered territories. Therefore, the Latin of Rome was perceived as prestigious by Roman citizens. The process of -s restoration was completed by the mid-first century BC and appears to be strictly related with the raising o > u in final syllable.Therefore, the omissions of final -s found in inscriptions outside Rome in the second and first century BC can be considered to be residuals of the ancient pronunciation in areas not yet completely reached by the innovation, whereas in Rome they can be considered as forms of a low sociolinguistic level. THE OMISSION OF FINAL -S: IAM SUBRUSTICUM VIDETURThe problem associated with the omission of final -s in Early Latin and its later restoration is still highly debated within the scientific community. The analysis of the literary and nonliterary sources concerning this topic has led scholars to propose different hypotheses.The most problematic piece of evidence is the well-known comment by Cicero (Orat. 161), which defines the omission of final -s before a consonant as subrusticum: Quin etiam, quod iam subrusticum videtur, olim autem politius, eorum verborum, quorum eaedem erant postremae duae litterae quae sunt in optimus, postremam litteram detrahebant, nisi vocalis insequebatur. Ita non erat ea offensio in versibus quam nunc fugiunt poetae novi. Sic enim loquebamur: qui est / o mnı b u' pr ı nc e ps/, non omnibus princeps et: vita illa /d ı gn u' lŏc oqu e /, non dignus. Quodsi indocta consuetudo tam est artifex suavitatis, quid ab ipsa tandem arte et doctrina postulari putamus?Furthermore, though it now seems somewhat countryfied, it was once considered refined to drop the last letter, if the word ended in the same two letters as optimus, unless a vowel followed. Consequently this was not thought objectionable in verse; now it is avoided by the 'new' poets. So we used to say: qui est omnibu' princeps, not omnibus princeps, and: vita illa dignu' locoque, not dignus. If custom, untaught, is such an artificer of sweet sounds, what have we a right to expect from art and study? (Translated by Hendrickson and Hubbell Loeb Classical Library 342).