Quick question over second declinsion vocative

is largely informed by the surviving palliatae and other literature in varying degrees of fragmentedness

I don't think I agree with this. The Palliata authors are certainly important, but I don't think one can fairly say that the picture of OL is "largely" informed by literary text. This may have been true at one time, but my impression is that major scholarship on archaic Latin has moved towards a more comprehensive and sociolinguistically sensitive view of how Latin developed. I know that Classics scholars often categorize Plautus as being paradigmatically archaic, but this is usually the result of a certain ignorance (or outright chauvinism), as he is just as often innovative and fundamentally non-archaic in how he uses language. This is true of all the OL textual fragments (e.g., relevant to this thread, Ennius' notorious fīlie), and even of some of the inscriptional evidence, which in combination with the untrustworthiness of the textual traditions involved makes judgements about archaism very difficult. However, many Classicists insist on reading pre-Augustan text as though Horace's judgements about the same are somehow absolute. I think that the trend in scholarship is to embrace this variation and acknowledge that linguistic usage at the time was much more vibrant and varied than is often acknowledged. (Not that you were arguing something different, just putting my own thoughts out there.)

/r/latin Thread Parent