Editing Classical Latin (section)

=== Language changes and descriptivism-prescriptivism debate ===
Owing to the long history of Latin, even Latin in the classical period has already experienced changes compared to [[Old Latin|pre-classical]] era. Just like nowadays Latin is used for a symbol of education and high status, Romans considered that archaic Latin had conveyed a sense of authority and majesty, which encouraged them to use obsolete words like "''topper''" (rapidly) or "''antigerio''" (very much).<ref name=":3" /> Varro mentioned in ''De lingua latina'', “Not every word that has been applied, still exists, because lapse of time has blotted out some. Not every word that is in use, has been applied without inaccuracy of some kind, nor does every word which has been applied correctly remain as it originally was.”<ref name=":4" /> He claimed that he could examine the etymology easily as he was able to trace the changes such as the loss and addition of syllables and letters. He gave the example of ''“hostis”'' which underwent a [[Semantic change|semantic shift]] from “foreigner” to “enemy”.<ref name=":4" /> Beside vocabulary, Quintilianus also documented certain [[phonological change]]s were also already developed in Classical Latin era, such as:

* Mehe to Me<ref name=":2" />
* Valesii to Valerii
* Mertare to Mersare
* Duellum to Bellum<ref name=":1" />

During the classical period, despite the existence of [[Standard language|standardized]] Latin, variation still existed in orthography. For example, the -unt verb ending for third-person plural was occasionally written as -ont (e.g. probaveront),<ref name=":1" /> while “s” was sometimes [[Gemination|geminated]] between long vowels (caussæ, cassus). ''“Ceruum”'' was also sometimes written as “''ceruom''” lest the same letters be confounded in the same sound.<ref name=":0" /> In fact, even Varro, a linguist writing a book about the language, used some non-standard spellings in his book.<ref name=":4" /> These variations could be both geographical and social, for example, in the countryside “h” was often dropped, while “e” was used for words spelled with “æ” in the city, as reflected in Varro's work.<ref name=":4" />

Various types of “mistakes” were documented by the ancient Romans under the name “[[Barbarism (linguistics)|barbarism]]” (orthographical) or “[[solecism]]” (grammatical). Donatus defined “barbarism” as “a defective part of speech in common speech” and classified it as letters’, syllables’, tenses’, tones’ and [[Aspirated consonant|aspirations]]’ addition, subtraction, immutation, and transmutation, e.g. ''*abiise(abise), *infantibu(infantibus), *Evandre(Evander), *displicina(disciplina), *salmentum(salsamentum).''<ref>{{Cite web |title=De barbarismo: text - IntraText CT |url=https://www.intratext.com/IXT/LAT0361/_P1.HTM |access-date=2025-03-29 |website=www.intratext.com}}</ref> According to him, “a solecism has word'''s''' that are inconsistent in '''themselves''', while a barbarism is made in individual words”.<ref name=":6">{{Cite web |title=De solecismo: text - IntraText CT |url=https://www.intratext.com/IXT/LAT0364/_P1.HTM |access-date=2025-03-29 |website=www.intratext.com}}</ref> Meanwhile, Quintilianus argued that solecism can in reality appear within individual words, supporting himself with examples like saying ''venite'' to one person (number dis[[Agreement (linguistics)|agreement]]) or answering ''‘quem vides”'' with ''“ego”'' (case disagreement), but the word by itself is never faulty of solecism. He divided solecism as addition, e.g. ''*nam enim''; retrenchment, e,g, ''*ambulo viam'' instead of ''ambulo in via''; and transposition, e.g. *''quoque ego'' instead of ''ego quoque''.<ref name=":2" />

Other examples of solecism include:

* ''*hanc virum'' instead of ''hunc'' (gender)
* ''*Torvumque repente clamat'' instead of ''torveque'' (word class)
* Misuse of prepositions and adverbs, e.g. ''foris'' vs ''foras, intro'' vs ''intus''<ref name=":6" />

Besides solecism and barbarism, Donatus also mentioned other vices such as [[Tautology (language)|tautology]], faulty repetition of the same word; eclipse, defect of certain necessary words; [[cacosyntheton]], faulty combination of words; and amphibolia, ambiguity in speech.<ref>{{Cite web |title=De ceteriis vitiis: text - IntraText CT |url=https://www.intratext.com/IXT/LAT0366/_P1.HTM |access-date=2025-03-29 |website=www.intratext.com}}</ref>

It is obvious that as language is constantly changing, debates regarding foreign influence and varieties existed already in Roman times. While some modern [[Linguistic prescription|prescriptivist]] may attempt to maintain or revert their language to a more classical era with a “correct” standard, some ancients Romans had been doing the same thing to Latin, one of the languages considered the most classical. The conflict between [[Linguistic description|descriptivism]] and prescriptivism is not a modern phenomenon, but was already a significant matter of debate in the classical era. The descriptivists were called “anomalists” for supporting anomalies and irregularities based on popular usage, meanwhile the prescriptivists were called “analogists” for deriving the correct grammar rule based on analogy with other word forms. Varro preferred to adopt a middle ground between the two.<ref name=":4" /> Quintilianus on one hand said, “Since analogy was not sent down from heaven… but was discovered after men had begun to speak… it is not therefore founded on reason, but on example. Nor is it a law for speaking, but the mere result of observation, so that nothing but custom has been the origin of analogy.”<ref name=":3" /> On the other hand, he considered it dangerous to both the language and to life itself, that customs be defined as anything the majority did. Therefore, he also adopted a middle ground, advocating to pursue the agreement only of the educated as the custom of the language.<ref name=":3" />