Summa Grammatica

Not to be confused with the c. 1280 Summa Grammatica of John of Dacia
An artist's representation of Friar Bacon in his study.

The Summa Grammatica[n 1] (Latin for "Overview of Grammar"; c. AD 1240[2] or c. 1250)[3] was one of the earlier works on Latin grammar and Aristotelian logic by the medieval English philosopher Roger Bacon.[4] It is primarily noteworthy for its exposition of a kind of universal grammar.[2]

History

The work is apparently a series of lectures given by Bacon for the mandatory classes on Priscian's work On Construction (Books XVII & XVIII of his Institutes of Grammar) at the University of Paris,[5] where he taught in the 1230s and '40s. Much more than Bacon's later linguistic works, the Summa Grammatica lies in the mainstream of 13th-century analysis.[3] The first part borrows directly from Robert Kilwardby's commentary on Priscian.[6][7] More generally, the work reflects the speculative grammar taught at Oxford in such 13th-century works as the Logica cum Sit Nostra.[8] It is probable that the final draft of the work which Bacon mentions in his Communia Naturalium[9] was never completed.[10] His Greek and Hebrew Grammars and Compendium of Philosophy may have been considered as part of it.[10]

It survived in two manuscripts: P and W. P is a copy in book hand evidently intended for a personal library.[11] W is a students' copy written in the informal hand of the late 13th or early 14th century.[5][12]

Contents

The work describes figurative language, rhetorical devices, and irregular Latin grammar[13] using "sophisms" or illustrative examples.[14] It aims to complement Bacon's students' required readings of Priscian's work On Construction by presenting its important points in a more thorough and logical order.[14] It assumes a mastery of standard grammatical rules which the students would have already learnt as glomerelli.[15] It most frequently cites Priscian, but more often adopts the solutions of Peter Helias.[15]

The first section lays out rules regarding grammatical agreement and the rhetorical devices antithesis,[16][17] synthesis,[18][19] procatalepsis,[20][21][8] From the Arisotelian notion that "art imitates nature to the extent that it can"[22][23] and under the influence of Averroës's commentaries,[8] Bacon argues that nouns and pronouns can be distinguished from verbs and adverbs owing to the distinction between permanent and successive things.[8] Further, verbs constitute a kind of movement from the subject[n 2] to the object[24][n 3] which imposes obligations on the grammar.[8] For instance, owing to their origin from verbs, Bacon considers that participles and infinitives are too unstable to function properly as the object of a sentence, as "nothing which is in motion can come to rest in something in motion, no motion being able to complete itself in something in motion".[8]

The second section deals with non-figurative constructions including impersonals,[25][26] gerundives,[27][28] interjections,[29][30] and ablative absolutes.[31][32][8]

The third section[33] covers illustrative examples by topic in greater or less detail[8] and more or less at random.[34] The primary ones are Moris erat Persis ducibus tunc temporis omnem ducere in arma domum,[35] Vestes quas geritis sordida lana fuit,[36] Amatus sum vel fui,[37] Vado Romam que est pulcra civitas,[38] Video centum homines uno minus,[39] Lupus est in fabula,[40] In nostro magistro habet bonum hominem,[41] Margarita est pulcherrimus lapidum,[42] Quid nisi secrete leserunt Philide silve,[43] and Nominativo hic magister.[44] Most of these examples appear in other collections.[34]

The fourth section analyses short sentences, along with adverbial phrases and liturgical formulas[8] such as ite missa est[45] whose use of ellipsis presented certain problems.[34] It's divided into three sections on "On Some Cases in the Nominal Absolute",[46][47] "On Mediate Apposition",[48][49] and "On Some Difficulties in Speech".[50][51]

Intentionalism

Main article: Authorial intent

Bacon emphasizes that grammatical rules cannot be applied mechanistically but must be understood as a structure through which to attempt to understand the author's intent (intentio proferentis).[8] The desire to communicate some particular idea may require breaking some of the standard rules.[52] Such exceptions must, however, be linguistically justified.[8] In this he follows Kilwardby.[8] Although Bacon considered an understanding of logic to be important for clarity in philosophical and theological texts, he found his era's Modist analyses needed to be tempered by a contextual understanding of the linguistic ambiguity inevitable in the imposition of signs and from the shifts of meaning and emphasis over time.[8]

Universal grammar

Main article: Universal grammar

Bacon argues for a universal grammar underlying all human languages.[2] As more tersely stated in his later Greek Grammar:[2]

Grammar is one and the same in all languages, substantially, though it may vary, accidentally, in each of them.[53][n 4]

Hovdhaugen leaves open the possibility, however, that, unlike the Modists who followed Bacon, his own statements on the subject did not refer to a universal grammar but to a universal science to be employed in studying linguistics across languages.[56] This derives from an ambiguity in the Latin grammatica, which referred variously to the structure of language, to its description, and to the science underlying such descriptions.[56]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ In modern references, this standard spelling is typically used, but it is actually written as Summa Gramatica in the surviving texts.[1]
  2. ↑ Referenced in the work by the terms of art "first item" (principium) or "end from which" (terminus a quo).[8]
  3. ↑ Referenced in the work by the terms of art "end" (terminus) or "end to which" (terminus ad quem).[8]
  4. ↑ In Latin, Grammatica una et eadem est secundum substantiam in omnibus linguis, licet accidentaliter varietor.

References

Citations

  1. ↑ Nolan & al. (1902), p. v.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 Murphy (1974), p. 153.
  3. 1 2 Hovdhaugen (1990), p. 121.
  4. ↑ SEP (2013), §2.
  5. 1 2 Steele (1940), p. x.
  6. ↑ Kilwardby, Inst. Gram., Ch. xvii.
  7. ↑ Rosier-Catach (1994).
  8. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 SEP (2013), §3.1.
  9. ↑ Bacon, Com. Nat., Bk. I, p. 1.
  10. 1 2 Steele (1940), p. xii.
  11. ↑ Cambridge Peterhouse 191.
  12. ↑ Worcester Cathedral, MS Q13.
  13. ↑ Steele (1940), pp. x–xi.
  14. 1 2 Rosier-Catach (1997), p. 68
  15. 1 2 Steele (1940), p. xi.
  16. ↑ SG, "De Antithesi".
  17. ↑ Nolan & al. (1902), pp. 27 ff.
  18. ↑ SG, "De Sinthesi vel Apposicione".
  19. ↑ Nolan & al. (1902), pp. 43 ff.
  20. ↑ SG, "De Prolemptica Construccione".
  21. ↑ Nolan & al. (1902), pp. 71 ff.
  22. ↑ Aristotle, Phys., Bk. II, 219, 4a21.
  23. ↑ SG, §35.4.
  24. ↑ SG, §34.
  25. ↑ SG, "De Construccionibus Impersonibus".
  26. ↑ Nolan & al. (1902), pp. 74 ff.
  27. ↑ SG, "De Gerundio".
  28. ↑ Nolan & al. (1902), pp. 86 ff.
  29. ↑ SG, "De Interjeccione".
  30. ↑ Nolan & al. (1902), pp. 95 ff.
  31. ↑ SG, "De Ablativo Absoluto".
  32. ↑ Nolan & al. (1902), pp. 121 ff.
  33. ↑ SG, §119 ff.
  34. 1 2 3 Rosier-Catach (1997), p. 69.
  35. ↑ Nolan & al. (1902), pp. 129 ff.
  36. ↑ Nolan & al. (1902), pp. 135 ff.
  37. ↑ Nolan & al. (1902), pp. 145 ff.
  38. ↑ Nolan & al. (1902), pp. 150 ff.
  39. ↑ Nolan & al. (1902), pp. 159 ff.
  40. ↑ Nolan & al. (1902), p. 161.
  41. ↑ Nolan & al. (1902), p. 162.
  42. ↑ Nolan & al. (1902), p. 163.
  43. ↑ Nolan & al. (1902), p. 164.
  44. ↑ Nolan & al. (1902), p. 165.
  45. ↑ Nolan & al. (1902), p. 183.
  46. ↑ SG, "De Quibusdam Casibus Absolute Positis".
  47. ↑ Nolan & al. (1902), pp. 166 ff.
  48. ↑ SG, "De Apposicione Mediata".
  49. ↑ Nolan & al. (1902), pp. 167 ff.
  50. ↑ SG, "De Aliquibus Locucionibus Difficilibus".
  51. ↑ Nolan & al. (1902), pp. 180 ff.
  52. ↑ Rosier-Catach (1997), p. 73.
  53. ↑ Nolan,[54] cited in Murphy.[55]
  54. ↑ Nolan & al. (1902), p. 27.
  55. ↑ Murphy (1974), p. 154.
  56. 1 2 Hovdhaugen (1990), pp. 127–128.

Bibliography

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Tuesday, November 24, 2015. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.