A Discussion on Solecism from Donatus

The medieval grammarians, among whom are Donatus (early fifth century) and Isidore (early eighth century), assume that there is a difference between barbarism and solecism, even though the difference is sometimes easier said than observed. In a nutshell, these grammarians believed that barbarism was a fault of morphology, or in the formation of a word, while solecism was a fault of syntax, or in the relation of words to each other. Isidore states it slightly differently: "A solecism (soloecismus in Latin; both solecism and soloecism are attested in English going back to the 16th century) is an unsuitable consturction made up of more than one word, just as a barbarism is the corruption of a single word," (I.33.1). This distinction goes back at least to Quintilian in the first century CE, but even he recognizes that the neatness of it is a bit too neat. For example, is inter nobis, when the proper Latin is inter nos, an expression of barbarism or solecism? In one sense only one word is affected, but since nobis/nos occurs with a preposition, it really is a syntactical problem.

Thus, the tradition in its early form recognized the artificiality of this distinction. What probably happened is that the Greek had two words, both introduced by Herodotus, that were used for centuries to designate bad speaking habits in general, but when the great systematizers took over and had these two words lying at hand, they had to come up with some way to distinguish the two or else they would lose a classic term. So, the distinction. But, if you consult the big Liddell Scott, you see that barbarizo means "to speak like a barbarian" in Herodotus and then, in Plato, to "speak broken Greek, to speak gibberish." Soloikizo, which also appears first in Herodotus, means "to speak badly." Soloi, as most dictionaries point out, was a Greek colony in Asia Minor where people spoke Greek poorly. By the first century BCE a leading writer, Philodemus, combined barbarizo and soloikizo in the same sentence, but, at least from what I can infer from the dicitonary, didn't distinguish the two. Thus, we can probably assume that the attempt to separate the two terms, in the way that is familar to medieval grammarians, took probably took place when the Latins/Romans "took over" the Greek language and wanted to "set things in order."

Solecism in Donatus

By the time we get to Donatus, however, not only are the two concepts separated, but the various types of solecism can be broken down into two larger categories: (a) solecisms through the part of speech; (b) solecisms that are characteristic of the part of speech (accidence). The following discussion seeks to make this distinction clear.

Solecisms through the part of speech are when a person, in speech or writing, uses the wrong part of speech. He gives the example from Aeneid 7.399:

"torvumque repente clamat,"

or "suddenly she fiercely shouts," when in fact the first word should be torve because it is used as an adverb rather than a noun. Torve, like repente, is an adverb while torvum is a noun. The sentence, to make sense, requires two adverbs. But this error can also happen when an erroneous part of speech isn't in view--but when the wrong preposition is used, such as:

"cui tantum de te licuit,"

which can be rendered, "who had the power to deal with you like that?" (Aeneid 6.502). But in te is the better usage.

Solecism by Accidence

Donatus gives several examples of solecism by accidence. I will spare you most of these, though I want to run through his categories so that you can see how seriously the grammarians took this "fault." Indeed, Isidore notes, and he wasn't the first to note this, the 1st century grammarian Lucilius spoke of 100 kinds of solecisms, all of which "anyone who is eager to obey the rules of speaking correctly ought to avoid rather than commit," I.33.5. Some of the categories he lists are: (1) through the qualities of the noun, as when a proper noun is used for an appellative; (2) through confusion of gender, as when "big rocks" is written validi silices, even though silex is a feminine noun in Virgil; (3) by comparison, as when the positive or comparative is used but the sense requires the superlative; (4) through the use of the wrong case, as when someone might say:

"urbem quam statuo vestra est,"

"the city I build is yours," (Aeneid 1.573), instead of urbs quam statuo. Interestingly, the English language equivalent of this kind of fault is the improper use of "whom." For example, the sentence, "I don't know whom will come to the party," is incorrect. The "whom" really ought to be in the subjective case, since they will or won't come, and the subjective case is "who." So, we change our examples but have the same kind of problem--but because Latin was a much more complex, because more frequently inflected, language than English, the problems of solecism are legion.

A few more examples of solecism are (5) by mood, such as when a person says, in the indicative, "ita, paratis arms quam primum, viri," or "go, prepare arms immediately," while the proper way to say it is with the imperative, "ite, parate." Then, there is (6) solecism by meanings, when the passive form of a deponent verb is used--confusing us whether the active or passive meaning of the verb is meant; (7) by tenses, as when an author either mixes his tenses or uses the perfect when the present is the right tense. Then, there is solecism by person, such as when the wrong person of the verb is used; or (8) by adverb, such as intus eo ("I go in") for intro, though as I think of it, this looks similar to the solecism by part of speech.

Conclusion

Donatus gives other examples of solecism, but I think you are getting his "drift." As with barbarism, solecism is manifest in what Dr. Burton calls the "four categories of change": addition, subtraction, substitution or transposition. Though I provided examples from ancient literature, the "fault" continues with us today, when people use the language incorrectly. But who uses it incorrectly? Well, we all do. None of us knows his/her native tongue. As Dryden said as long ago as 1672:

"Let any man...read diligently the words of Shakespeare and Fletcher, and I dare undertake, that he will find in every page either some solecism of speech, or some notorious flaw in sense."

Rather than discouraging us, this quotation from Dryden ought to embolden us--let us keep writing and speaking, aiming all the time, of course, for that clarity and power in communication that will make it a pleasure for others to hear us. But, don't be surprised if there are lots of errors in what remains. That is why we need editors--to introduce more errors into what we write..

Let's move on now to Donatus' two other categories: rhetorica devices and figures of speech.

3415