title: On the Confusion of the Terms dualis and communis in Cledonius
metadata.name: dc.contributor.author
metadata.value: Chernysheva, Vlada A.
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.accessioned
metadata.value: 2021-12-03T17:13:30Z
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.available
metadata.value: 2021-12-03T17:13:30Z
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.issued
metadata.value: 2021-03
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.identifier.citation
metadata.value: Chernysheva V. On the Confusion of the Terms dualis and communis in Cledonius. Philologia Classica 2021, 16 (1), 100–105.
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.identifier.other
metadata.value: https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu20.2021.109
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.identifier.uri
metadata.value: http://hdl.handle.net/11701/33760
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.description.abstract
metadata.value: This article attempts to provide an interpretation of a passage on the noun number written by
  the 5th-century grammarian Cledonius who composed a lemmatised commentary on Donatus’
  Ars minor and Ars maior. The passage discussed here is a part of the explanation regarding
  the noun categories in Ars minor: Numerus, qui unum et plures demonstrat: et communis est
  numerus, qui et dualis dicitur apud Graecos, ut species facies res. (GL V 10. 19–20). Cledonius’
  text confuses two terms dualis and communis, which normally signify different linguistic phenomena.
  Tim Denecker, whose article covers the history of the term dualis in Latin grammatical
  treatises, argues that dualis in this passage is indicating a pair and is equated to communis.
  The aim of the present work is to explain why these two terms have been confused. When
  comparing Greek and Latin, the Roman grammarians Charisius, Diomedes, Priscian, and
  Macrobius highlighted the absence of the dual number from Latin, whereas Donatus added it
  to the singular and plural exemplifying it with two nomina — duo and ambo. Having analysed
  all of Cledonius’ passages on dualis and communis and compared them with the original text
  of Donatus, one may notice that Cledonius did not make comments on Donatus’ observations
  concerning the dual number of duo and ambo. In the author’s view, the grammarian may have
  opined that the Latin language had no dual number at all, so that in his commentary Latin
  communis is juxtaposed to Greek dualis and both are opposed to singular and plural.
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.language.iso
metadata.value: en
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.publisher
metadata.value: St Petersburg State University
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.relation.ispartofseries
metadata.value: Philologia Classica;Volume 16; Issue 1
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: category of number
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: dual number
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: Latin linguistics
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: Roman grammarians
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: history of linguistics
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: Cledonius
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.title
metadata.value: On the Confusion of the Terms dualis and communis in Cledonius
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.type
metadata.value: Article
metadata.lang: en_GB
resources.filename: 100-105.pdf
resources.url: https://dspace.spbu.ru/bitstream/11701/33760/1/100-105.pdf
resources.format: Adobe PDF
resources.size: 658,72 kB