--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> I'll just let Weiss speak:
I. > "But it should be clearly noted that Seneca's discussion of the
meaning
> of <salaputium> does not have the value of an independent witness.
He
> cites no other text in support of the meaning he gives to
<salaputium>,
> and the argument procedes from the fact of Calvus' shortness to the
> meaning of <salaputium> and not from the meaning of <salaputium> to
> Calvus' shortness.
Based on this, this Weiss asserts, more or less, that Seneca Sr.
cannot understand well the Latin vocabulary with all its Slang
nuances; so Seneca Sr. would need to invoke an independant witness or
to quote an additional text in order to convince Weiss that he well
understand his own native language
I told you that "Herodotus syndrom" (you remember: "that guy that
told us some false stories" based on some scholars) is very spread in
our days, everywhere...
II.
> That the real meaning of <salaputium>, which,
> whatever its ultimate explanation, was undoubtedly a somewhat
> slangy word of limited occurrence, should have been lost to Seneca,
> born as he was in Corduba thirty years after Catullus, seems to me
probable.
To resume, for you all, what this 'clever' Weiss tried to tell us
here:
=> Seneca, a native Latin speaker, cannot understand well
Latin, 'because he was born in Corduba, 30 years, after that slang
Latin words were said in Rome ...
=> BUT of course, on the other hand, the 'clever' Weiss
(that by the way, is not a native Latin speaker, and was borned 2000
years after Catullus, in a place that for sure is placed much much
faraway than Corduba is placed, in relation with Rome...
=> CAN (of course, isn't it!) better understand, what Seneca Sr.
couldn't, in his own native Language,
=> AND in addition, Weiss will well explain for all of us here what
Seneca Sr. Wrongly did
(you can see the hint here : we are dealing with 'the magnificent'
Weiss versus 'salaputium' Seneca)
To apply, lets say for me, in order not to offend anybody here, what
this Weiss tried to tell us:
I, for example, as a native Romanian speaker, I would need an
independant wittness or to indicate an additional quotation in order
that this Weiss (that isn't a native Romanian speaker) will give me
his Ok, or more than this: will tell me what I wrongly understood, in
relation with what I understood from some Romanian Slang vocabulary
used 30 years before my birthday, in Bucharest, not at Turda (where I
was born)
Unbelievable, isn't it?
But Weiss still continue in the same note ....till the end of this
quotation
> The
> extremely evanescent nature of hip language is well-known and
readers
> may verify this for themselves if they only think about the many
> "in-words" of their own high school days that are now
incomprehensible
> to their students. Seneca then is merely the first in a long line
of
> interpreters of Catullus 53. Possibly, he arrived at his
interpretation
> by combining the apparently well-known facts about Calvus' height
> deficit with a folk-etymological connection between <salaputium>
and
> <putus> 'boy'. Since Seneca's day some commentators have been more
or
> less content to follow Seneca's lead, making explicit the
connection
> with <putus>."
NOW ON THE OTHER HAND: Let's Seneca's Sr. to speak too:
I think that you know now, based on Weiss, who 'this Seneca' is,
isn't it:
"Is that guy that cannot well understand the 'old' Slang language of
the Capital, because he's a guy from Corduba that just arrived in
Rome"
Clear enough, for all of you, here?
So from now on: no credibility on what Seneca Sr. told us 2000 years
before:
"
[6] LATRO dixit pro matre summisse et leniter agendum. non enim,
inquit, vindictam sed misericordiam quaerit et cum eo adulescente
consistit in quo ita exigit pietatem, ut impediat. aiebat itaque
verbis [quo] horridioribus abstinendum, quotiens talis materia
incidisset; ipsam orationem ad habitum eius, quem movere volumus,
adfectus molliendam. in epilogis nos de industria vocem quoque
infringere et vultum deicere et dare operam, ne dissimilis orationi
sit orator. compositionem quoque illis mitiorem convenire.
CALVVS, qui diu cum Cicerone iniquissimam litem de principatu
eloquentiae habuit, usque eo violentus actor et concitatus fuit ut in
media eius actione surgeret Vatinius reus et exclamaret: 'rogo vos,
iudices: non, si iste disertus est, ideo me damnari oportet.'
[7] idem postea, cum videret a clientibus Catonis, rei sui, Pollionem
Asinium circumventum in foro cae(di), imponi se supra cippum iussit
erat enim parvolus statura, propter quod etiam Catullus in
hendecasyllabis vocat illum 'salaputium disertum' et iuravit, si
quam iniuriam Cato Pollioni Asinio accusatori suo fecisset, se in eum
iuraturum calumniam. nec umquam postea Pollio a Catone advocatisque
eius aut re aut verbo violatus est. solebat praeterea excedere
subsellia sua et impetu latus usque in adversariorum partem
transcurrere. et carmina quoque eius, quamvis iocosa sint, plena sunt
ingentis animi. dicit de Pompeio:
digito caput uno
scalpit, quid credas hunc sibi velle virum.
"
Marius