No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
From the paper in which the Interrogatives were treated, by an inadvertency an was omitted. As there was every reason to expect, an is found to shorten a sub-joined hoc, id, etc.
Ad. 337 an ŏc proferendum tibi uidetur usquam? Ge. Mi quidem non placet. (So the vulg. since Bentley; but A has usquam esse, and the Calliopians have esse usquam. Room could be found for both words by a transposition, thus: an hŏc tibi uidetur proferendum esse usquam? etc.)
page 165 note 1 I defer, or resign to anybody that will, the attempt to draw chronological inferences from the tabulation of stylo-metric facts which forms the stuff of these articles. A glimpse of possibilities appears here: in Hecyra never sed ĕccum but three times atque eccum. The former is perhaps a vulgarism. It occurs seven times in the mouth of slaves; Thraso has it once; Chaerea once; the rustic Chremes of Eunuchus once, and the rustic Demea of Adelphi four times.
page 170 note 1 Whether quod ămbo is possible Plautine, I dare not say: it is quite incredible in Terence; and even those for whom the blessed symbol IKG settles all doubts, have been driven here to accept Bentley's ‘mane, habeo aliud, si íste est métus, quod ámbo.…’ I suggest that QVODAMBO is merely DABOQVOD gone amiss: dabo = dicam is a favourite idiom: ‘Mane, habeo aliud, si istuc metuis: dabo quod confiteamini: dábo quòd is legitimated by the heavy pause (full stop or colon) before dabo.