urbis
Latin
Pronunciation
- urbis: (Classical Latin) IPA(key): [ˈʊr.bɪs]
- urbis: (modern Italianate Ecclesiastical) IPA(key): [ˈur.bis]
- urbīs: (Classical Latin) IPA(key): [ˈʊr.biːs]
- urbīs: (modern Italianate Ecclesiastical) IPA(key): [ˈur.bis]
Noun
urbis
- genitive singular of urbs
Noun
urbīs
- nominative plural of urbs (archaic)
- 116 BCE – 27 BCE, Marcus Terentius Varro, On the Latin Language 5.143:
- Quare et oppida quae prius erant circumducta aratro ab orbe et urvo urb⟨e⟩s et ideo coloniae nostrae omnes in litteris antiquis scribuntur urbis, quod item conditae ut Roma, et ideo coloniae et urbes conduntur, quod intra pomerium ponuntur.
- 1938 translation by Roland G. Kent
- Therefore towns also which had earlier had the plough drawn around them, were termed urbes 'cities,' from orbis 'circle' and urvum 'curved'; therefore also all our colonies are mentioned as urbes in the old writings, because they had been founded in just the same way as Rome; therefore also colonies and cities conduntur 'are founded,' because they are placed inside the pomerium.
- 1938 translation by Roland G. Kent
- According to Kent, "orbe" and "urbes et" are editorial corrections of manuscript "urbe" and "urbs est", respectively.[1]
- Quare et oppida quae prius erant circumducta aratro ab orbe et urvo urb⟨e⟩s et ideo coloniae nostrae omnes in litteris antiquis scribuntur urbis, quod item conditae ut Roma, et ideo coloniae et urbes conduntur, quod intra pomerium ponuntur.
Usage notes
Nyman 1990 takes the manuscript nominative plural form "urbis" as a genuine form,[2] but some editors doubt that "urbis" (sometimes alternatively read as "urbeis") was used here by Varro, and normalize it to "urbes".[3]
References
- ^ Kent, Roland G. (1938) Varro, On the Latin Language, with an English Translation
- ^ Nyman, Martti (1990) “Latin -īs 'Nom. Pl.' as an Indo-European Reflex”, in Glotta, volume 68, page 219
- ^ Anderson, Andrew Runni (1914) “-EIS in the Accusative Plural of the Latin Third Declension”, in Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, volume 45, page 135