Dionysius thrax vs marcus varro

Daniel J. Taylor
Lawrence University
Summary

This article critically assesses how Dionysius and Varro differ with respect to particular matters of linguistic theory and practice. It emphasizes the absence of declensions in Dionysius’ Téchnē (and in subsequent Greek grammar), his inability to distinguish between derivation and inflection, and the confusion – both conceptual and descriptive – in his account of conjugation, all of which are topics that Varro addresses elegantly and with linguistic sophistication. Dionysius therefore compares unfavorably with Varro in these respects, and the author concludes, suggestively, that Varro is responsible for transforming the Alexandrian word-class system of grammar into the word-and-paradigm system that is the Roman ars grammatica.

Quick links
Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price. Direct PDF access to this article can be purchased through our e-platform.

References

Bekker, Immanuel
1821 Anecdota Graeca. Vol.III. Berlin: Reimer. (Repr., Graz: Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt 1965.)Google Scholar
Cavazza, Franco
1981 Studio su Varrone etimologo e grammatico: La lingua latina come modello di struttura linguistica. Firenze: La Nuova Italia.Google Scholar
Di Benedetto, Vincenzo
1958–59 “Dionisio Trace e la techne a lui attribuita”. Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, Ser.II, 27.169–210 and 28.87–118.Google Scholar
1973 “La techne spuria”. Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, Ser.III, 3.797–814.Google Scholar
Funaioli, Hyginus
ed. 1907 Grammaticae Romanae Fragmenta. Leipzig: Teubner. (Repr., Stuttgart: Teubner 1969.)Google Scholar
Hovdhaugen, Even
1982 Foundations of Western Linguistics: From the beginning to the end of the first millennium A.D. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Kaster, Robert A.
1988 Guardians of Language: The grammarian and society in late antiquity. (= The Transformation of the Classical Heritage, 11.) Berkeley: Univ. of California Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keil, Heinrich
ed. 1874 Grammatici Latini. Vol.VI. Leipzig: Teubner. (Repr., Hildesheim: Olms 1961 and 1981.)Google Scholar
Kemp, J. Alan
1987 “The Tekhnē Grammatikē of Dionysius Thrax: Translated into English”. The History of Linguistics in the Classical Period (= Taylor (1987b), 169–189. [=HL 13.343–363 (1986).] DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kent, Roland Grubb
1951 Varro: On the Latin Language. Vol.11. Rev. ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press; London: Heinemann. (Repr. 1958; first ed. 1938.)Google Scholar
Rawson, Elizabeth
1985 Intellectual Life in the Late Roman Republic. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Robins, Robert Henry
1967, 1968 A Short History of Linguistics. London: Longmans; Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana Univ. Press. (2nd. ed., Longman 1979.)Google Scholar
Taylor, Daniel J.
1974 Declinatio: A Study of the linguistic theory of Marcus Terentius Varro. (= Studies in the History of the Language Sciences, 2.) Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1977 “Two Notes on Varro”. American Journal of Philology 98.130–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1987a “Rethinking the History of Language Science in Classical Antiquity”. The History of Linguistics in the Classical Period (= Taylor 1987b), 1–16 [= HL 13.175–190 (1986).]Google Scholar
ed. 1987b The History of Linguistics in the Classical Period. Amsterdam: Benjamins. (= Studies in the History of the Language Sciences, 46.) [= HL13, nos.2/3 (1986) x + 175–468.] DOI logoGoogle Scholar