On The Semantic Field ‘Put-Throw’ in Latin*

J. N. Adams

doi:10.1017/S0009838800030330

On The Semantic Field ‘Put-Throw’ in Latin*

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009

J. N. Adams

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

It is well known that mitto comes to mean ‘put’ in late Latin and that it shows reflexes with this sense in the Romance languages (e.g. It. mettere, Fr. mettre, Sp. meter). But the nature of this semantic change has not been fully explained, nor has the relationship of the word with other placing-terms in Latin. E. Löfstedt has stated simply that it ‘takes over the meaning ot ponere’.2 But as pono itself remains common in all types of Latin, the question arises whether the two words did really come into conflict. It is the purpose of the first two sections of this article to show that for a considerable period pono and mitto occupied complementary places in a lexical system. This system exhibits a definite structure which remains unaltered from early Latin to at least the sixth century A.D., though its component terms undergo some changes. In section I pono and the words which in earlier Latin performed the functions later assumed by mitto will be discussed. In section I I we shall move on to mitto itself. It will be necessary to consider the nature and motivation of the transition ‘throwput’ as it appears in Latin.

Type: Research Article
Information: The Classical Quarterly , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , May 1974 , pp. 142 - 160

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009838800030330 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © The Classical Association 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{page 142 note 1} Meyer-Lübke, W., Romanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch³ (Heidelberg, 1935),Google Scholar 5616. Cf. e.g. J. B. Hofmann, I.F. xliii (1926), 119 f.; Svennung, J., Untersuchungen zu Palladius und zur lateinischen Fach- und Volkssprache (Lund, 1935),Google Scholar 589; Löfstedt, E., Syntactica, Studien und Beiträge zur historischen Syntax des Lateins, ii (Lund, 1933), 379 f.Google Scholar

^{page 142 note 2} Late Latin (Oslo, 1959), 32.

^{page 142 note 3} C. D. Buck, A Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the Principal Indo-European Languages (Chicago, 1949), 831

^{page 142 note 4} On shifts, see e.g. S. Ullmann, The Principles of Semantics² (Oxford, 1957), 114 ff.; R. A. Waldron, Sense and Sense Development (London, 1967), 142 ff.

^{page 143 note 1} Buck, op. cit. 831.

^{page 143 note 2} In origin ‘put’ meant ‘push’ (cf. ‘pui the shot’).

^{page 143 note 3} In this article I shall be concernec almost exclusively with the literal uses of putting-terms.

^{page 143 note 4} See T.L.L. vii. 651. 48 ff. There are some exceptions not mentioned by the T.L.L.article (but see 651. 41 ff.), but these are very rare indeed.

^{page 143 note 5} T.L.L. vii. I. 650. 57 ff.

^{page 144 note 1} Cf. 66. 1, 88. I, 88. 2 (3 times), 105. 2, 116, 154.

^{page 144 note 2} Cf. 7. 4, 76. 3, 76. 4, 112. 2, 113. I, 130, 151. 2, 162. 1.

^{page 144 note 3} 79, 81.

^{page 144 note 4} 28. 2, 45. 3, 46. I, 49. 2, 52. 2.

^{page 144 note 5} 47. Clearly this example does not really fall within the three categories of actions listed above, but it does not violate the general rule which has been stated.

^{page 144 note 6} 18. 5 (twice), 48. 2, 76. 4, 77, 104, 108. 1, 112. I, 157. 3 (3 times).

^{page 144 note 7} 76. 2.

^{page 144 note 8} For pono (referring usually to containers set down or medicaments applied to the body), see 37, 45, 97, 163, 208, 225. Impono (usually in reference to actions of the latter kind, but also 3 times of the setting down of containers) is more frequent: 11, 44, 56 (twice), 80 (twice), 120, 122, 130 (twice), 131 (twice), 132 (twice), 173 (twice), 174, 179, 228 (twice).

^{page 144 note 9} There is a complete index verborum in Milligan, E., A. Corn. Celsi Medicine ² (Edinburgh, 1831). Impono is very frequent, and is used in much the same way as by Scribonius. The example of pono at 7. 29 may be an exception to the rule.Google Scholar

^{page 144 note 10} See below, II.

^{page 144 note 11} Pono is used 15 times literally in this work, always in sense (s). Impono is very common indeed, and almost without exception abides by the rules stated above (but see 82).

^{page 144 note 12} Impono is used incessantly by Marcellus; it appears never to violate our rules. Its sense is well illustrated by its tendency to alternate with superpono (e.g. 4. 13/4. 14; 8. 134/8. 159). Pono is used 39 times in chaps. 1–21, almost always in sense (I). For a few isolated cases which may bear senses (2) or (3), see 8. 127, 14. 19, 14. 21, 14. 54.

^{page 144 note 13} Impono is used 77 times, never in violation of the rules. Pono has sense (3) at 2. 79. 18, but is otherwise restricted to (1).

^{page 144 note 14} For the text see Onnerfors, A., Plinii Secundi Iunioris qui feruntur de Medicina libri tres (Berlin, 1964). It contains some 206 literal examples of pono and impono, all but 3 of which have sense (I) (3. 36. 2, 3. 37. 5, 3. 37. 13).Google Scholar

^{page 145 note 1} Ernout, A. and Meillet, A., Dictionnaire Erymologique de la Langue Latine ⁴ (Paris, 1959),Google Scholar 518. The same prefix is found in porceo (po+ arceo): ibid. 43.

^{page 145 note 2} So in Plautus 8 of the literal instances of the word can be interpreted as equivalent to depono (G. Lodge, Lexicon Plautinum, 340 a, 2).

^{page 145 note 3} Quotations (with page and line numbers) are given from H. Stadler's text of the second book, in Rom. Forsch. x (1899), 181 ff.

^{page 145 note 4} Just as the meaning of the general term ‘put’ may be said to include that of the slightly more specific pono, so the meaning of a word expressing action (2) or (3) might include that of certain more specific words. The phenomenon of inclusion is sometimes called hyponomy (see Lyons, J., Structural Semantics (Oxford, 1963), 69 ff.). A writer with a desire for precision might, for example, alternate between infundo and instillo instead of using a more general word with sense (2) which included both actions. I am concerned here only with the general level of expression.Google Scholar

^{page 145 note 5} See T.L.L. vii. 1213. 54 ff. Insero, I (see T.L.L. vii. 1869) can also be used in sense (3), but in earlier Latin it is rare (e.g. it is absent from Cato, Plautus, Varro, Vitruvius, and Scribonius Largus; Celsus, however, uses it a few times), and in later Latin it is constantly confused with insero, II (=‘graft on, plant’), a confusion which leaves its mark in the Romance languages (see Ernout and Meillet, op. cit. 618; on the confusion see T.L.L. vii. I. 1869. 38 ff.). Its rarity in the writers listed above was probably due to the homonymic clash. In this article I shall deal only with the more common alternatives.

^{page 145 note 6} 5. 8, 29, 33. 3, 48. 2.

^{page 145 note 7} Cato often employs indo of the first ingredients put in a container, and addo of the later ingredients: e.g. 87 ‘in alveum indat, eo addat aquam’ (cf. 23. 2, 23. 4, 24, 75, 76. I, 86, 8g, 104. I–2, 151. 4).

^{page 146 note 1} See T.L.L. vii. 1. 1215. 37 ff.

^{page 146 note 2} de Inv. 2. 149 (text doubtful).

^{page 146 note 3} Note that the archaizer Tacitus has it no fewer than 22 times, always in the historical works.

^{page 146 note 4} It is remarkable that Marcellus Empiricus does not employ the word at all in chaps. 1–8, but in 9 has it 9 times. It may well have been suggested to him by a work which he had read.

^{page 146 note 5} On the two distinct roots, see Ernout and Meillet, op. cit. 178 ff.

^{page 146 note 6} On the importance of considering words not as isolated units but as interdependent elements sometimes forming systems, see S. Ullmann, Semantics, an Introduction to the Science of Meaning (Oxford, 1962), 236 ff. A semantic change in any one word may be part of a chain-reaction of events affecting a number of associated words. See especially p. 242 on the motivation of the shift ‘hip>thigh’ seen in coxa> Fr. cuisse.

^{page 147 note 1} See Ullmann, op. cit. 116 ff.

^{page 147 note 2} Note that Celsus here has the word in a context in which Cato uses indo (Agr. 102).

^{page 147 note 3} A selection of examples can be found at T.L.L. iv. 310, but no attempt has been made to distinguish the various senses.

^{page 148 note 1} e.g. (2) Mul. 325, 561, 589, 837, 863, Marc. Emp. 8. 125, 8. 199, 14. 5; (3) Mul. 530, 557, 584, 772, Marc. Emp. to. 28, 10. 65.

^{page 148 note 2} Philologischer Kommentar zur Peregrinatio Aetheriae (Uppsala, 191I), 265.

^{page 148 note 3} See O.L.D. s.v. for a good elucidation of the various senses of this word.

^{page 148 note 4} In Scribonius the two words complement each other: conicio has only sense (2), and inicio mainly sense (3) (about 7 times out of 9). The situation is almost identical in Marcellus. Vegetius, who has dropped conicio, employs inicio 18 times, 17 times in sense (3).

^{page 148 note 5} Ed. Rose, V., Sorani Gynaeciorum, Vetus Translatio Latina (Leipzig, 1882).Google Scholar

^{page 148 note 6} Ed. Rose, V., Theodori Prisciani Euporiston libri III (Leipzig, 1894).Google Scholar

^{page 148 note 7} Two further compounds of iacio are used of insertions of specific types: subicio (‘insert from beneath’) and traicio (‘push through’). See, e.g. Varro Rust. I. 14. 2, Mul. Chir. 59, 60, 502, 107, 218, 228, 402, 723, 881, Veg. Mul. I. 51, 2. 82. 3. Note too obicio at Mul. Chir. 763 ‘manum siccam in verginali obicies’ (cf. 772 ‘coicies in virginalem’).

^{page 148 note 8} As too does adkio, but only very rarely: e.g. C.I.L. ix. 4822 ‘quisque heres meus corpus meu(m) in hoc sarcofago non adiecerit’ (quoted by O.L.D. s.v.); cf. Vet. Lat. Luke 12: 31 ‘haec omnia adicientur vobis’ (= adponetur r¹).

^{page 149 note 1} Cf. e.g. Mul. Chir. 170, 239, 244, 276, 316, 368, 372, 376, 429, 442, 445.

^{page 149 note 2} Ed. B. Krusch, M.G.H., Script. Rer. Merov. II.

^{page 150 note 1} Text in V. Rose's edition of Theodorus Priscianus, 363 ff. (see above, p. 148 n. 6).

^{page 150 note 2} In the medical work ascribed to Pliny (see above, p. 144 n. 14), conicio is still preferred to mitto (10:4). This fact would tend to suggest a date for the work somewhat earlier than that of the Mul. Chit. Önnerfors dates it on various grounds to the fourth century (p. viii).

^{page 150 note 3} While the general pattern of transition from indo to conicio/inicio to mitto is certain enough, it would be wrong to assume that each stage in the development was completely clear-cut. Overlapping of the old with the new is inevitable in the process of linguistic change. Though writers such as Varro and Celsus almost always use conicio/inicio where Cato would have used indo, Marcellus Empiricus (among others) presents a more confused picture. He employs the new term mitto, it is true, far more often than any other word in senses (2) and (3), but even indo has not been dropped completely; indeed, it is as common as conicio (4: 13 in chaps. 1–21), though inicio (10 times, usually in sense (3)) and conicio together outnumber it. Marcellus was probably influenced both by the current language and by early writings in the genre.

^{page 150 note 4} It occurs so constantly with this sense that it would be pointless to list examples.

^{page 151 note 1} Cf. 2. I. 7.

^{page 151 note 2} Cf. 4. 2. 18, 4. 2. 24, 6. 9. II, 8. 6. Compono is also common in reference to the arrangement of food on a dish before cooking or serving (e.g. 4. 2. to, 4. 2. II, 4. 2. 21, 4. 2. 22, 4. 2. 23, 4. 2. 24).

^{page 151 note 3} 4. 2. 4, 4. 2. 5, 4. 2. 9, 4. 4. 1, 6. 2. 1 8. 8. 9.

^{page 151 note 4} impono predominates: usually the refer ence is to external treatment.

^{page 151 note 5} 9, 64, 83.

^{page 151 note 6} 42, 53, 54, 62, 67, 68, 69.

^{page 151 note 7} Cf. e.g. Veg. Mul. 2. 88. 15, Vit. Patr 5. 4. 7, 5. 4. 10 (twice), 5. 4. 70, Isid. Etym 11. 1. 49, 16. 9. 4 (cf. T.L.L. viii. 170. 45).

^{page 151 note 8} Eupor. Faen. 9, 15 (twice), 38, 79, 84, (twice), Gyn. 19.

^{page 151 note 9} e.g. Eupor. Faen. 27, 60, 65, 79, 84.

^{page 151 note 10} For the most part with sense (2). But see e.g. 207. 7 ‘cum miseris digitu, citius ascendit’.

^{page 151 note 11} This use of mitto, though scarcely mentioned by T.L.L., is found often in later Latin: e.g. Vulg. Matth. 13: 42, 13: 50, Apic. 8. 6. 10, 8. 7. 1, 8. 7. 8, ps.-Plin. Med. 2. 6. 5, ps.-Theod. Prisc. p. 287, Pass. Matth. 14, Vit. Patr. 5. 14. 18, Oribas. Lat. Syn. 3. 13 (transl. ), Marc. Emp. 8. 88, 8. 199, 13. 6.

^{page 151 note 12} When it is not used as in the final example, impono usually has its common medical sense.

^{page 151 note 13} The text is that of Molinier, Euvres d' Oribase, vols. v and vi (Paris, 1873 and 1876).

^{page 152 note 1} Text in V. Rose's edition of Theodorus Priscianus, 26I ff. (see above, p. 148 n. 6).

^{page 152 note 2} For this sense, which has not been illustrated to any extent above, see I. 46. 2 (twice), I. 49, I. 50, I. 52. 1, 1. 61. 2, 2. 70. I, 2. 79. 3, 2. 79. 21, 2. 88. 7.

^{page 152 note 3} e.g. 2. 121. 2.

^{page 152 note 4} e.g. 230, 231, 232, 236, 418, 685.

^{page 152 note 5} The case at 674, for instance (‘iumentum… in machinam mittito’) is apparently applied to a pushing action (cf. 584 ‘in machinam coicito eum’).

^{page 152 note 6} e.g. instigo, insufflo, imprimo, intorqueo, instillo, immergo.

^{page 152 note 7} It is sometimes interesting to observe the extent to which an author makes use of hyponyms of mitto etc., whether in sense (2) or (3). Apicius, for example, employs numerous specific alternatives to mitto in recipes (e.g. mergo, aspergo, instillo, misceo and compounds, fundo and compounds), an indication that precision was important for him in a sphere which did not greatly concern Marcellus, whose focus of attention lay elsewhere. However, another medical writer, Scribonius Largus, is no less precise than Apicius in recipes: he seems to use hyponyms of inicio and conicio more often than the general terms. At the other extreme stands the vulgar Latin of Anthimus, whose almost unvarying use of mitto in sense (2) may reflect a limitation of vocabulary. (For examples see the index of E. Leichtenhan, Anthimi de observation ciborum ad Thteodoricum regem Francorum epistula, p. 71, where, however, mitto is erroneously interpreted as equivalent to pono.)

^{page 153 note 1} 18, 36, 46.

^{page 153 note 2} 35.

^{page 153 note 3} See T.L.L. viii. 1169. 8 ff., 1168. 82 ff.

^{page 153 note 4} The examples of mitto at 7 and 12 (twice), which are interpreted at Corp. Christianorum clxxvi, Index p. 775 as = pono, are more likely to mean ‘send’, and that at 24 I have taken as = ‘throw’.

^{page 153 note 5} 4. 10. 5, II. I. 49, 15. 8. 17, 16. 3. 7, 16. 9. 4, 16. 22. 1, 17. 3. 5, 17. 7. 17, 17. 7. 21, 17. 9. 79, 19. 25. 3, 20. 9. 7, 20. 9. 7. At 16. 25. 54 the word has shifted further towards pono (cf. pono at 16. 25. 15).

^{page 153 note 6} Ed. R. A. Lipsius (Leipzig, 1891–1903). See Pass. Apost. Petri et Pauli 2, Pass. Andreae 14, Pass. Barthol. 3, 6, Mart. Matth. 14, 20, 24. The example at Pass. Apost. Petri et Pauli 2 may = pono: ‘in quo lampada ardens missa est’ (cf. Vit. Pair. 3. 18 ‘lucernam posuit’).

^{page 154 note 1} It is possible to quote a few apparent cases of mitto = pono from a remarkably early period. The example found at Ovid, Fasti 2. 634 (‘nutriat incinctos missa patella Lares’, = adposita, ‘served’; cf. 6. 310) probably resulted not from a series of shifts of the kind that we have dealt with but from the hyperbolic use of a throwing-term in sense (I). It is of course in poetry that we should expect such hyperbole. The apparent example at Celsus 5. 27. 13 (‘isque, si febre vacat, in calidum balneum mittendus’) should probably be taken in the sense ‘send’, for Celsus nowhere uses mitto in senses (2) or (3).

^{page 154 note 2} For pono used of the placing down of large or breakable objects see, e.g., 3. II, 3. 18, 3. 47, 3. 98, 5. 4. 52, 5. 5. 29, 5. 5. 39, 5. 6. 9, 5. 8. 8, 5. 8. 15, 5. 10. 85, 5. 10. 113. For some typical examples of mitto, see 3. 51 (twice), 5. 4. 7, 5. 4. 10 (three times), 5. 4. 59, 5. 4. 70, 5. 14. 3, 5. 15. 17, 5. 17. 17.

^{page 154 note 3} 3. 19, 5. 15. 66.

^{page 154 note 4} See P. Wessner, Scholia in Iuvenalem vetustiora (B. T.), Index, p. 317 (where mitto is taken as being equivalent to pono).

^{page 154 note 5} For the use of mitto expressing insertions into the fabric of something (as in these passages), cf. Vopisc. Aurel. 46.; cf. T.L.L. viii. 1570. 36 ff.

^{page 154 note 6} e.g. Pass. Barthol. 3.

^{page 154 note 7} e.g. at Soran. p. 24. 18, and often in Vegetius, Mul. and the Mul. Chir.

^{page 154 note 8} For the V.L. of Genesis, see Fischer, B., Vetus Latina, die Reste der altlateinische Bibel (Freiburg, 1951–4).Google Scholar

^{page 154 note 9} See e.g. Vit. Caes. Arel. I. 47 (comparing pono at 2. 2).

^{page 155 note 1} Hence it could be used to translate ‘put’ in all three of the sentences quoted at the outset. So in contexts such as ‘mettre l'assiette sur la table’ and ‘mettre de la pommade sur tine blessure’, pono and impont would have been preferred to mitto in the late Latin of our period.

^{page 155 note 2} The specialized usage occasionally makes an appearance in literature: Col. 8. 2. 12 ‘cum pauca ova posuerunt’: Isid, Etym. 12. 6. 64 ‘aliae ponunt ova’. Compare the analogous usage at ps.-Theod. Prisc. p. 349 ‘muliere quae integrum partum non ponit’.

^{page 155 note 3} On which see E. Benveniste, Le Vocabulaire des Institutions Indo-Européennes (Paris, 1969), i. 158 f.

^{page 155 note 4} In the B. Afr., however, loco is used 3 times.

^{page 155 note 5} See Meyer-Lübke, op. cit. 2052.

^{page 155 note 6} See e.g. Meillet, A., Linguistique Historique et Linguistique Générale² (Paris, 1926), i. 244. f.; S. Ullmann, Semantics, an Introduction to the Science of Meaning, 161 f., 228 f.Google Scholar

^{page 156 note 1} See above, p. 144 n. 9, on an index verborum to Gelsus. Cf. O.L.D. s.v. (6) for some examples.

^{page 156 note 2} Some clear cases can be found in the Latin translation of Herm. Past.: e.g. Similit. 9. 12 (Cod. a) ‘lapides illos… in structuram turris collocatos’; 9. 15(a) ‘(lapides) qui in fundamentis collocati sunt’; cf. 9. 30(a).

^{page 156 note 3} pp. 21. 18, 22. I, 22. 3, 22. 10, 42. I, 56. 16, 59. 22, 67. 12, 83. 7, 83. 22, 84. 3, 84. 5, 110. 2.

^{page 156 note 4} 1. 56. 21, 2. 12. 3, 2. 17. 2, 2. 69. 2, 2. 109. 1. Cf. the sole example of loco at 2. 47. 2.

^{page 156 note 5} 481, 598.

^{page 156 note 6} Caelius also uses loco in the same sense. See Acut. 2. 149, 3. 58, 3. 198, 3. 222, Chron. 1. 5, 1. 9, 2. 17, 2. 67, 2. 73, 2. 183.

^{page 156 note 7} See O.L.D. s.v. (6) for references.

^{page 156 note 8} Luke 2: 7 (Cod. a). For some other non-medical examples of the usage see e.g. Vita Genovefae 5, Jul. Val. 1. 4, Vit. Patr. 5. 13. II, Pallad. Hist. Mon. I. 2 p. 258, Fredegar p. 167. 29, Herm. Past. Similit. 9. 11(a).

^{page 156 note 9} The verb constantly occurs in the vicinity of locus, an indication that the connection between the two words continued to be felt.

^{page 156 note 10} Pono need not be accompanied by a locative expression.

^{page 156 note 11} Loc. cit.

^{page 157 note 1} It is apparently a Greek borrowing, modelled on the aorist of (cf. campsare, malaxare, catapsare): Ernout and Meillet, op. cit. 490. The date of its introduction into Latin is obscure, though Ernout and Meillet assert (loc. cit.) that it is ‘sans doute ancien dans la langue parlée’. (At Plaut. Trin. 187 read )

^{page 157 note 2} Cf. e.g. Ves. Vit. p. 266, Hippocr. Progn. 24 (ed. G. Kaibel and C. Robert [Berlin, 1890]), Oribas. Lat. Syn. 3. 187, 5. 45 Ab, 7. 23 Aa.

^{page 157 note 3} Note that Vegetius in the equivalent context substitutes requiesco: 1. 43. 2 ‘et iacens videtur quasi pusillum requiescere.’ See E. Lommatzsch, A.L.L. xii (1902), 554.

^{page 157 note 4} This latter usage, usually with the accompanying expression in pace, is particularly common in sepulchral inscriptions. For examples see Diehl, E., Inscriptiones Latinae Christianae Veteres (Berlin, 1925–31), iii, Index vii, p. 377. For further examples of pauso = ‘cease’, cf. Benedict. Reg. 22. 3, Vit. Patr. 5. 4. 64, Oribas. Lat. Syn. 5. 37 La, Vita Caesar. Arel. 2. 31. See also p. 381. 18 in the Excerpta Monac. of ps.-Quint. Decl. Major., where the word occurs in a context in which the original declamation (p. 25423) had not used it. In an old Latin version of Matth. 25: 5 pauso means not ‘rest’ but ‘become sleepy’ (, dormito): see H. Rönsch, Semasiologische Beiträge iii (Leipzig, 1889), 62.Google Scholar

^{page 157 note 5} e.g. Vita Caesar. Arel. 2. II, Vit. Patr. 5. 10. 97, Actus Petri cum Simone 22.

^{page 157 note 6} On the transitivizing of intransitive verbs in Latin, see Hofmann, J. B. and Szantyr, A., Lateinische Syntax and Stilistik (Munich, 1965), 31 f.; Svennung, op. cit. (see p. 142 n. I), 445.Google Scholar

^{page 157 note 7} See Anon. Med. 200 (ed. Piechotta, J., in jahresbericht des königlichen katholischen Gymnasiums zur Leobschutz, 1886–7); Philum. 54. I.Google Scholar

^{page 158 note 1} See A. Reifferscheid, C.S.E.L. iv, Index p. 336.

^{page 158 note 2} Quoted at A.L.M.A. xxi (1951), 219.

^{page 158 note 3} On ambiguous contexts as a factor in producing semantic change, see Ullmann, op. cit. 195. If a word is used constantly in contexts in which it might equally well be taken in two different senses, some confusion might arise concerning its meaning.

^{page 158 note 4} For the use of pono in reference to burial, see e.g. Vulg. Luke 23: 53, John 19: 41, Ian. Ant. Plac. 18, 29.

^{page 158 note 5} For such a misinterpretation to be possible we would have to assume that pauso occurred frequently as a transitive verb in burial contexts. Such an assumption is plausible, in view of the constant connection of the intransitive use of the word with burial.

^{page 158 note 6} Cf. Vita Radegundis 2. 24 ‘ut subtus turrem repausaretur feretrum’.

^{page 158 note 7} According to A. V. Billen, The Old Latin Texts of the Heptateuch (Cambridge, 1927), 194, iacio as well as mitto is widely used for in the old Latin versions, but this assertion is not borne out by the evidence as it appears in the latest and most reliable editions of the V.L. In Mark, Luke, and John (for which see A. Jülicher, Itala, das neue Testament in altlateinischer Überlieferung [Berlin, 1938]) there are some 26 places where mitto is the term used in all extant codices, including the Afra (Mark 6: 17, 9: 22, 9: 42, 9: 45, 12: 42, 12: 43, 12: 44, 15: 24, Luke 3: 9, 4: 9, 5: 6 (Cod. d, Afro), 12: 5, 12: 28, 12: 58, 13: 8, 13: 19, 21: 1, 21: 2, 21: 3, 23 34, John 5: 7, 12: 6, 15: 6, 19: 24, 21: 6 [twice]). In these Gospels iacio is attested in only 3 places, and there only in a minority of codices (Mark 4: 26 1; cf. mitto a b cf ff² Afra; iacto q ir¹; John 8: 7 c; cf. mitto d aur; iacto ff²; John 8: 59 c; cf. mitto b d l r¹Afra; iacto aur ff ²q).

^{page 159 note 1} See e.g. Ullmann, The Principles of Semantics, 122 f.

^{page 159 note 2} On the confusion between iacio and iaceo in manuscripts, see T.L.L. vii. 1. 53 ff. See further T.L.L. vii. 1. 33. 30 ff. on the declining frequency of iacio. It was, however, retained by certain learned authors (see e.g. Isid. Etym. 12. 6. 7, 14. 5. 7, 17. 2. 3, 17. 6. 1, 18. 10. 2, 18. 21, 20. 2. 26, 20. 4. 9; cf. also the figures quoted above from the O.T.).

^{page 159 note 3} e.g. Enn. Scaen. 82, Ann. 74, Lucil. 776, Plaut. Cure. 359, Rud. 373, Cic. Har. Resp. 39, Caes. Gall. 7. 47. 5; B. Hisp. 12. 4. See T.L.L. vii. I. 49. 10 ff., 35 ff.; 50. 26 ff.

^{page 159 note 4} Roughly equivalent to agito, = huc illuc moveo: T.L.L. vii. I. 51. 43 ff. (lit.), 54. 52 ff., 56.; 42 ff (met.). In a metaphorical sense it is particularly common of verbal utterances (cf. dictito).

^{page 159 note 5} See e.g. Ernout, A., Aspects du Vocabulaire Latin (Paris, 1954); 162.Google Scholar

^{page 159 note 6} e.g. Mark I: 16 (ff² c), 4: 26 (see above, p. 158 n. 7), 11:23 (a), 12: 41 (b q r¹ l), Luke 4:35 (f), 14:35 (Afra), 19:35 35 (aur s), John 8: 7 (see above, p. 158 n. 7), 8. 59 (see above, p. 158 n. 7).

^{page 160 note 1} lacto: 3. 67, 5. 5. 39, 5. 7. 12, 5. II. 48 (3 times), 5. 14. 8 (twice), 5. 14. 17, 5. 14. 18, 5. 15. 86, 7. 2. 1; mitto: 3. 118, 5. 5. 4, 5. 7. 18, 7. 12. 7.

^{page 160 note 2} lacto: 8, 10, 19, 31, 37; mitto: 24, 36.

^{page 160 note 3} Edict. Rothari 34, 330, 379.

^{page 160 note 4} Edict. Rothari 9 (‘crimen mittat’; cf. ibid. ‘crimen iniectum’), 164, 198, 213 (twice).

^{page 160 note 5} For pono used of burial, see above, p. 158. The present example anticipates mettre.

^{page 160 note 6} 41. 2 ‘si vero eum in puteum aut sub aqua miserit’ (cf. iacto at 41. 12 ‘Si quis hominem ingenuum in puteum iactaverit’), 41. 6.

^{page 160 note 7} For an example denoting burial, see p. 33. 7 (cf. pono at 32. 22).

^{page 160 note 8} See Löfstedt, Philologischer Kommentar zur Peregrinatio Aetheriae, 163 f.

^{page 160 note 9} T.L.L. V. 2. 304. 10 ff. Cf. Eng. ‘cast a foal’.

Article contents

On The Semantic Field ‘Put-Throw’ in Latin*

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests