No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 January 2013
In the course of some inquiries into the affinity and structure of the Greek and Latin languages, I was led to analyse the superlative degree of both, and to trace, as I thought, some connection between it and the word Sublimis. While engaged in the investigation, I was naturally led to examine the common theories respecting the etymology of this remarkable word, and, in particular, the origin assigned to it by the late Dr Parr, and to weigh, with more attention than I had previously done, the arguments and proofs he had advanced in support of his opinions. All that I knew of them, till lately, was by verbal report, as I had not seen the abridged statement of them in an Appendix to the Notes of the 2d edition of Mr Stewart's Essays.
page 349 note * On this subject I shall probably, in a short time, submit to the Society a few observations.
page 356 note * I am quite aware that the preposition in was sometimes used in compound verbs with super; as, superinjicere, superimpono, &c But when these two prepositions are combined together, they imply a very different relation. Would Virgil, or any other Latin author, have used the expression — aut corpora saltu superinjiciunt equos? I believe neither he nor any other. When he says, Georg. iv. v. 46. “et raras superinjice frondes,” he shews that the relative situation of the person to the hives is just the reverse of the men to the horses' backs, in the preceding example. Thus, “and throw (from a higher situation) a few branches down upon them?.”
page 359 note * The venerable Dr Hunter of St Andrew's has also shewn, in some notes upon Virgil, that Dr Parr's derivation of sub from ὑπὲζ is incorrect. After giving several examples similar to those already quoted, he observes, “It may be further remarked, that sursum, upward, is not, as Dr Parr supposes, supervorsum, but subvorsum. Supervorsum would express, not in a direction from below or upward, but in a direction over.” The coincidence of opinion between Dr Hunter and myself, on several points in the present discussion, is to me the more gratifying, as his notes were wholly unknown to me, till communicated by our common friend the Rector of the High School of Edinburgh, after I had sent for his perusal the present examination.