63 Colloquial and Li.. - Ganino.com

Colloquial language in literary studies 49
of terms of endearment to non-erotic contexts; polite attenuation
of statements (e.g. fortasse; weakened utique).
(c) Euphemism: substitution of taboo terms, suggestive periphrases,
negative expressions (e.g. minus = non); litotes and irony.
(iii) Vividness and concreteness 19
(a) Concrete words and phrases: substitution of sensory imagery for
intellectual terms (e.g. mordere instead of sollicitare).
(b) Metaphorical identifications (e.g. Petr. 42.4 utres inflati ambulamus).
(c) Colloquial use of adjectives; extended use of possessive adjectives
(e.g. erilis, puerilis).
(d) Substantival infinitives instead of abstract nouns.
(e) Innovative use of conjunctions and prepositions (e.g. substitution
of quomodo for ‘overworked’ and phonetically weak ut).
(f) Conflation of phrases (e.g. Pl. Poen. 659 tu...agere tuam rem
occasiost).
(iv) Simplification and economy 20
Colloquial language exhibits a tendency to use generic words for specific
things – e.g. extended use of esse, facere, dare instead of more
precise terms; esse modified by adverbs (e.g. temere est quod)orprepositions
(e.g. ad me fuit) – and to produce various forms of ellipsis (of
nouns and verbs).
Hofmann’s concept of colloquial Latin, as far as one can extrapolate it
from comments repeated throughout his description of features, may be
summarised as follows:
(i) Colloquial language is not controlled by intellectual processes of elaboration:
emotiveness disrupts the logical order of the sentence, disjointing
all its members and bringing subjectively climactic element(s)
to initial or otherwise emphatic position. 21
(ii) Colloquial language is controlled by the need to interact with an
interlocutor.
(iii) Colloquial language displays various degrees of speakers’ inadequacy
to rise to a level of complete abstraction. 22
19 ‘Der sinnlich-anschauliche Zug der Umgangssprache: Hofmann 1951: 153–64 = Hofmann–Ricottilli
315–33.
20 ‘Der triviale und sparsame Zug der Umgangssprache’: Hofmann 1951: 165–72 = Hofmann–Ricottilli
335–47.
21 See in particular Hofmann 1951: 102–3 = Hofmann–Ricottilli 243–5; Hofmann 1951: 109 =
Hofmann–Ricottilli 269.
22 Cf. Hofmann 1951: 157 = Hofmann–Ricottilli 322.