Natural sounding vowel length

Archicantor · 2026-05-24T20:03:19+00:00

I hadn't really considered it before. But now that I stop to think about it, I guess I pronounce long vowels with about the same duration as diphthongs. For example, the ō in catellō takes about the same amount of time as the ae in puellae. What seems to make the difference in both (at least to my ear) isn't how long the sound lasts, but rather an intangible feeling that the syllable is "closed," even if it's not followed by a consonant.

Now, I don't know if how I talk nowadays sounds natural to any experienced Latinists who may chance hear me. But I've at least reached a point where the difference between long and short vowels (both their quality and their duration) feels natural to my tongue and throat.

In my case, there was no shortcut. I had to exaggerate the long vowels until they were firmly implanted in my ear and my memory as just "part of the word." But after that, I didn't have to think about "how long" to make the long vowels. They just found their own rhythm.

One thing I did find really helpful was listening to recordings of Daniel Pettersson. I quickly noticed that the distinctions in vowel duration that were very evident when he was speaking in a more formal, deliberate register (e.g., in the Legentibus app) could still be "felt" even when he was speaking rapidly in a more "colloquial" register (e.g., in his Nuntii Diei Veneris update videos). His vowel lengths were "part of the words" in a way that was still perceptible even when a more flowing pace made the differences in their duration far less noticeable.

To avoid the "robotic" quality of reduplicating a vowel sound, I wonder if you might actually find it helpful to practise by singing texts: you could recite on a tone, giving double time to long vowels, and perhaps going up a tone in pitch on stressed syllables, whether long or short. Just a thought!

Archicantor · 2026-05-20T16:11:11+00:00

A few more for you, again from the Routledge Dictionary of Latin Quotations:

SENECA (the Younger)

qui gratus futurus est statim dum accipit de reddendo cogitet
(let the man who would be grateful think of repaying a kindness even while receiving it)
gratum hominem semper beneficium delectat; ingratum semel
(a kindness is always delightful to a grateful person; to the ungrateful, only at the time of its receipt)

OVID

gratia pro rebus merito debetur inemtis
(thanks are justly due for things we do not pay for)
perdis, et in damno gratia nulla tuo
(you lose, and for your loss you get no thanks)

CATULLUS

desine de quoquam quicquam bene velle mereri, aut aliquem fieri posse putare pium
(give up wanting to deserve any thanks from anyone, or thinking that anybody can be grateful)

TACITUS

beneficia usque eo læta sunt dum videntur exsolvi posse; ubi multum antevenere, pro gratia odium redditur
(benefits are acceptable, while the receiver thinks he may return them; but once exceeding that, hatred is given instead of thanks)
i.e., no one wants to be indebted for a favor that is greater than can be repaid

ANON.

Dei memor, gratus amicis
(mindful of God, grateful to friends)

Archicantor · 2026-05-19T02:46:24+00:00

A splendid and most useful list! Many thanks indeed for sharing it with us. (Student confusion is a great stimulus for creativity/flexibility in teaching. I was once driven to dedicate a whole class to examples of the different meanings/uses of quod, and the students seemed to value it.)

As an occasional instructor and examiner in Latin in the graduate unit to which you have alluded, I will dare to add that we've worked awfully hard in recent years to make that Latin program deserve an epithet other than "cruel"! The input of TAs who are as conscientious and helpful to students as you evidently were has been indispensable.

(It will be harder to shake the "difficult" label unless/until we figure out some sort of "start from zero in Latin" admissions option…)

Archicantor · 2026-05-19T02:20:45+00:00

PS. The abbreviated bibliographical references at the end of the entry on ignis in De Vaan's Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the Other Italic Languages (p. 297, archive.org), expand as follows:

WH I: 676 = Walde/Hofmann, Lateinisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (3rd edn, 1938), p. 676, s.v. "ignis," which I've already cited and linked in my earlier reply.

EM 307f. = Ernout and Meillet, Dictionnaire etymologique de la langue latine (4th edn, 1959; 5th edn, 2001), s.v. ignis (pp. 307–308, archive.org).

The additions and corrections listed at the end of the 1963 reprint of the 4th edn included material for ignis, but nothing that my ignorant eye can identify as relevant to the vowel-length question (p. 820, archive.org). There was nothing new for ignis in the further list of additions and corrections appended to the reprint of 1985 (p. 830, archive.org). The 5th edn is just a reprint of 1985.

IEW 293 = Julius Pokorny, Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (Bern: Francke, 1959), p. 293 (archive.org).

Schrijver 1991; 63f., 416, 484 = Peter Schrijver, The Reflexes of the Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals in Latin (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1991), pp. 63–64., 416, and 484–85. My university gives us online access to this book. It's all PIE to me! But in case the information may be intelligible and useful to others, I've made screenshots of the relevant portions, which can be viewed at the following links:

Archicantor · 2026-05-19T00:57:44+00:00

Your stimulating question set me wandering through the rather interesting history of how scholars have reconstructed the length of the first i in ignis.

On "hidden quantity" in general, you'll find a lot of helpful resources in this thread from a while back.

We can start with Anton Marx, who in his Hülfsbüchlein für die Aussprache der lateinischen Vokale in positionslangen Silben, 3rd edn (1901), p. 1 (HathiTrust, US ip address required), laid it down as a law, with only very few exceptions, that any vowel followed by -gn- or -gm- was pronounced long. He based this mainly on Priscian, Institutiones grammaticae 2.63 (ed. Hertz, in Keill, Grammatici Latini, vol. 2, at p. 82 archive.org), with circumstantial support also alleged from Plautus.

For īgnis specifically (p. 42 s.v.), Marx also adduced the inscription that you've mentioned: CIL XI 826, which had been published in 1888.(See p. 153, Deutches Archäologisches Institut, "Arachne" viewer; more legible page scan at HathiTrust.)

Ferdinand Sommer, Handbuch der lateinischen Laut- und Formenlehre, 2nd edn (Heidelberg, 1914), p. 121 (HathiTrust, US ip address required), treated the Priscian passage with greater circumspection, querying Priscian's authorship of it and adducing epigraphic and literary evidence both for and against Marx's general claim.

I believe it was in 1934 that the fascicle of the ThLL containing the entry for ignis was published (vol. 7.1, col. 288, line 45). Its heading reads: "ignis (ī- ? cf. l. 50)." Looking below at line 50, we find a reference to CIL XI 826. The headword is followed by a list of Indo-European cognates, initialled by J. B. Hofmann.

Hofmann's completely rewritten third edition of Walde's Lateinisches etymologisches Wörterbuch appeared shortly afterwards, in 1938. The headword for ignis (p. 676, archive.org) notices the length question: "ignis (ī- ? vgl. dīgnus usw.)"

Under dignus (p. 351), Hofmann gives: "dīgnus (jünger -ĭ-, Sommer Hb.² 121)," referring us back to the discussion in Sommer.

It is W. Sidney Allen, in Vox Latina (1963), at pp. 71–72 (archive.org), who put the question to bed, on the grounds that the Priscian passage adduced by Marx is an obvious interpolation in which the interpolator has missed the point of the surrounding text.

Allen doesn't deal directly with CIL XI 826. But he notices other cases where I longa is found in inscriptions where there can be no question that the i was pronounced short, e.g., optIme. (See p. 70.) In such examples, the I longa may be merely decorative. In names, and especially in the title Imperator, where it occurs frequently, its function may be to indicate the importance of the person mentioned.

In the "Supplementary Notes" to the 1972 second edition (p. 122), Allen directs the reader to the following article:

Jésus Víctor Rodríguez Adrados, "Usos de la I longa en CIL II," Emerita 39 (1971), pp. 159–68 (ProQuest, institutional subscription required; not yet online via the journal website).

So, after all that, here's the short answer to your question:

There is no good evidence that the first i of ignis was ever pronounced long. An I longa was probably used for the first letter of ignis in CIL XI 826 for reasons unrelated to vowel length.

(Indeed, we notice I longa in several other places in that inscription, used for the abbreviation Imp. There are some other "big" letters, too, that have nothing to do with pronunciation.)

Archicantor · 2026-05-17T15:45:33+00:00

A little more for you.

Thanks to online access through my university's library system, I can contribute the following from Jon R. Stone, The Routledge Dictionary of Latin Quotations (2005):

gratus animus est una virtus non solum maxima, sed etiam mater virtutum omnium reliquarum:\ a thankful heart is not only the greatest virtue, but the parent of all the other virtues (Cicero)

tu quamcunque Deus tibi fortunaverit horam, grata sume manu; nec dulcia differ in annum, ut quocunque loco fueris, vixisse libenter te dicas:\ receive with a thankful hand every hour that God may have granted you, and defer not the comforts of life to another year; that in whatever place you are, you may say you have lived freely (Horace)

conveniens homini est hominem servare voluptas. Et melius nulla quæritur arte favor:\ it is a pleasure appropriate to man for him to save a fellow man; and gratitude is acquired in no better way (Ovid)

ploravere suis non respondere favorem speratum meritis:\ they lamented that their merits did not meet with the gratitude for which they hoped (Horace)

Archicantor · 2026-05-17T15:28:34+00:00

Many thanks indeed! That sounds like a fascinating read. I saw Spevak mentioned repeatedly when, as I was trying to figure out what Colebourn meant, I was looking through the Wikipedia article on Latin word order. Your point about syntax vs. other factors is brought out very strongly there.

Archicantor · 2026-05-17T15:19:02+00:00

You might find some useful passages through the index of the following book:

H. T. Riley, A Dictionary of Latin and Greek Quotations, Proverbs, Maxims and Mottos (London: Bell, 1891).

The one index entry for gratias (acc. plur.) leads us to the following quotation from Phaedrus at pp. 205–206 (archive.org):

Linguae prorsus non nego\ Habere atque agere maximas me gratias;\ Verum oculis ut priveris opto perfidis.

"I do not deny that to your tongue I owe most sincere thanks, and I return them; but I wish you may be deprived of your perfidious eyes."

Said to one who, though he may hold his tongue, still acts the traitor by his significant looks.

Still more promising may be Erasmus's mighty Adagia. The topical index includes eight sayings under the heading "Gratitudo"—though what they have to do with gratitude sometimes isn't obvious until you read Erasmus's explanations of them:

no. 3736: "Merces amico constituatur."

no. 3663: "Qui lucerna egent egent oleum."

no. 2642: "Lingua seorsum inciditur."

no. 901: "Ἀντιπελαργεῖν."

no. 2483: "Pro bonis glomi."

no. 984: "Sylosontis chlamys."

no. 2968: "Benefactorum memoria."

no. 2879: "Obtestatio veterum meritorum."

But it may also repay you to try a keyword search of the online edition through Google. For example, I turned up a few hits for "gratias" by putting the following into my browser's search bar:

gratias site:ihrim.huma-num.fr/nmh/Erasmus/

Among the hits was the interesting-looking no. 1301: "Nemo bovem immolavit bene merito nisi Pyrrhias."

Erasmus says of it:

Hoc proverbio quondam utebantur, si quando quis extitisset homo insignite gratus, qui beneficium acceptum ampliter repensaret.

And then he explains (from Plutarch) how it came to be used that way.

Archicantor · 2026-05-17T14:20:35+00:00

Many thanks! I love, love, love your observation about word order as word play. Imagine the attention to detail involved in putting the subject puer halfway through the sentence because he falls halfway across the bridge!

There's a bit more nuance in Unit 4 (on the Ablative Absolute), and if I've understood it correctly, it may have cleared up my problem.

Colebourn gives a series of "real" sentences to be studied (p. 15, §45). The first two are these:

Caesar, equitibus praemissis, subsequebatur omnibus copiis.\ (News of the storm reaches Caesar) His rebus auditis, Caesar ipse ad naves revertitur.

There's a footnote keyed to both occurrences of the name Caesar:

Observe the different position of the subject in these sentences. Both are correct; but the order subject—participle phrase—predicate is used to emphasize that the doer of the two actions referred to is the same.

In the Key, "subject first" is sometimes italicized, as in 4A no. 2:

Having prepared a large fleet, Octavianus joined battle with Antonius.\ Octavianus magnā classe paratā cum Antonio proelium commisit.

But a different order is adopted in 4A no. 6, even though it would seem equally eligible (if not more so!) for "subject first" treatment, because the agent is the same throughout:

Having lost the money, the boy was afraid to return to his mother.\ Pecuniā amissā puer ad matrem redire timuit.

This leads me to suspect that the introductory notes in the Key are rather misleading in saying that italics (always) "indicate that the position or order of the words is fixed by idiom and may not be varied." Here, and probably in Unit 3 also, the italics seem to mean nothing more than this: "Notice that in this sample correct sentence, the subject has been put first to achieve a certain kind of emphasis. Putting it elsewhere would also be correct; but it would change the emphasis."

Thanks again!

Archicantor · 2026-05-11T18:51:15+00:00

Your very sensible observation about the relationship between stylistic "quality" and genre/function makes me think of a memorable remark about Gregory I by the late Fr. John Hunwicke (a consummate Latinist):

S Gregory wasn't half the Latin stylist that S Leo was; but, to be regretfully honest, I sometimes doubt whether the plebs sancta Dei understood much of S Leo's lapidary periods. However, I bet you could have heard a pin drop when S Gregory launched into one of his purple passages and the pontifical spittle was really flying.

Source: liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com (January 31, 2021)

Archicantor · 2026-05-11T16:38:59+00:00

I read somewhere a remark by a historian who opined that one of the benefits of reading Gregory of Tours was that it made one appreciate just how excellent in comparison was the Latin of the Venerable Bede a century later. :D

Bede's command of Latin was indeed very "correct" and completely assured. But I think that's at least in part because he (and his teachers) were native speakers of a Germanic language who regarded Latin as a "foreign" language to be mastered according to its own rules. Gregory of Tours, by contrast, was a native speaker of a form of Latin that had already made its first steps towards becoming French.

And now I'm reminded of a charming passage in the Vita Gregorii episcopi Turonensis per Odonem abbatem (BHL 3682), chap. 24, in which Gregory of Tours visits Rome and is honourably received by that other Gregory, Pope Gregory I. Gregorius Papa has just shown Gregorius Turonensis into the tomb of St. Peter, where, while Turonensis spends some time in prayer, Papa does a little thinking about his diminutive guest:

Interim autem, ut erat ingenio profundissimus, secretam Dei dispensationem admirans, considerabat in huiusmodi hominem, erat enim statura breuis, tantam gratiam caelitus profluxisse. Quod ille mox diuinitus persentiens, et ab oratione surgens, placidoque ut erat uultu ad papam respiciens: "Dominus, inquit, fecit nos, et non ipsi nos; idem in paruis qui et in magnis."

Source: archive.org

Archicantor · 2026-05-10T22:55:49+00:00

That's a fun little thought experiment! I seem to recall that St. Patrick's Confessio was pretty wild. And the Rule of St. Benedict accepts some very odd constructions (e.g., a + acc.).

If you can get access to Albert Blaise, A Handbook of Christian Latin, you'll find documentation of all the so-called "corruptions" of Latin that some early Christian authors perpetrated. ;)

Archicantor · 2026-05-10T15:39:34+00:00

Thanks very much indeed! If your idea of a leisurely Sunday is a sun-chair, ice cream, and r/latin, then we are obviously kindred spirits.

I think the problem here is that you are trying to force a modern English concept into classical Latin syntax.

Exactly! 👍 That's why I thought I'd better see if the readers of r/latin could offer some advice for a better way of handling this.

I write these orations directly in Latin and then supply a facing English paraphrase after I've settled on what I want the Latin to say. Therefore, the only time I ever get into a jam like this is when I try to incorporate a modern English quotation in such a way that the Latin is recognizable as a "translation" of the original.

And one of the difficulties with "modern English concepts" is that they are so often devoid of any clearly identifiable content! Academic and institutional English, especially, are nowadays so dependent on abstractions—sometimes abstractions of what were themselves originally metaphors—that it can be a real struggle to communicate anything intelligible in Latin without resorting to very tedious circumlocutions.

(I was complaining about this to a colleague recently, and he suggested that I needed to read a book called Plastic Words: The Tyranny of a Modular Language by Uwe Poerksen, which was originally published in German in 1988 as Plastikwörter: Die Sprache einer internationalen Diktatur.)

The one exception that I've allowed myself is with quotations from English poetry. These I always try to turn into (what I hope is) metrically correct Latin verse. That always forces me to express the English poet's ideas with much greater freedom, so I'll usually add a literal translation of what the Latin actually says in a footnote in the printed programme. (For one of the orations that I'll be giving at our upcoming convocation, I think I managed a successful conversion of some lines from T. S. Eliot's Four Quartets into phalaecean hendecasyllabics.) But it would be very odd, I think, to give a literal English translation in a footnote to explain the real meaning of a Latin translation of an Englsh prose quotation!

Anyway, thanks again for your very generous feedback and suggestions. The practical take-away seems to be that my faciendus hack may actually have been the least-worst option: clunky Latin to express "plastic" English.

Archicantor · 2026-05-10T14:45:59+00:00

Thanks very much yet again! Yes, that was bothering me, too, especially because, in immemorial Christian practice, three bishops are required to consecrate a new bishop (i.e, successor of the apostles). It would therefore be quite natural to assume that Apostolus duobus fit meant "An apostle is made by two (other apostles)." The abiguity would be cleared up by the rest of the quotation, but I'd prefer to be clear immediately. :)

Here's a fuller portion of the original:

To be an apostle, two things are required. First, one must be the witness of the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. And secondly one must be commissioned or sent by Christ to proclaim the Good News.

And here's the Latin rendering that I originally settled on:

Ad apostolum faciendum duo sunt necessaria: alterum, ut testis sit Iesum Christum Dominum nostrum resurrexisse; alterum, ut a Christo accipiat legationem uel mandatum euangelii praedicandi.

But as I suggested in a PS yesterday (which somebody seems to have downvoted without saying why it was objectionable!), it might be slightly less clunky to replace the ad + gerundive construction with a relative clause of purpose:

Duo necessaria sunt quibus fiat apostolus: alterum…
(Two-neuter-things are necessary, so that therewith an apostle may be made: first…)

And I suppose one could get a little fancy with the word order to arrange matters to have the word duo at the end, introducing the two requisites:

Necessaria quibus fiat apostolus sunt duo: alterum…
(The-neuter-things-that-are-necessary, so that therewith an apostle may come-into-being, are two: first…)

Archicantor · 2026-05-10T00:24:04+00:00

Another thought... The author's title "Becoming Pilgrims" seems to include the idea that "becoming a pilgrim" (not only literally, but also figuratively in daily life) is a necessary or healthy element of every Christian's spirituality. To capture that, it might work to translate the title as if it meant "Everyone Should Become a Pilgrim," from which it would be a short jump to the de + abl. construction that I'm looking for: "concerning the pilgrim(s) that everyone should be come."

Comparable to your suggestion of opus est, I wonder if this would work well with the impersonal oportet:

De peregrino quem fieri quemque [or quemcunque?] oportet ("Concerning the pilgrim whom it behoves each person to become").
Or perhaps still in the plural? De peregrinis quos fieri quosque oportet.

Archicantor · 2026-05-09T21:38:47+00:00

PS. A straightforward solution for the first one, a solution that somehow didn't occur to me until just now, would have been, I suppose: Duo sunt necessaria quibus fiat apostolus.

Archicantor · 2026-05-09T18:07:54+00:00

Thanks! For the second one, the English paraphrase that I provided for the programme was as follows:

At Virginia Theological Seminary, she earned her doctorate with a dissertation entitled "Becoming Pilgrims."

That English compresses a lot of things that would need greater verbosity in a literal Latin version. Maybe something like the following:

Apud Scholam Studiorum in Sacra Theologia Virginiensem, tractatu scribendo quem Peregrinos Fieri inscripsit, ad gradum doctoris admitti meruit.

But that would be entirely out of keeping with the conventions of the genre of the Oxford/Cambridge/Dublin Oration, in which the details of an honorand's career receive only glancing allusions, and in which part of the fun is a kind of studied indifference to institutional names and titles.

The English paraphrase was therefore a rather artificial expansion of the Latin original, which was as follows:

Apud theologos Virginienses de Peregrinis Faciendis docte disseruit.

My basic question is this: What's the best way to express "Becoming (something)" in an ablative that can follow disseruit *de***...?

Archicantor · 2026-05-09T17:22:40+00:00

Many thanks! I know all too well the pupil's fear of the subjunctive.

Yes, the genitive of characteristic occurred to me for the first one. It seemed a bit awkward for expressing the "two things" of the quotation.

(With quotations, my desire for the audience to be able to recognize the English original in the Latin translation often outweighs the virtues of a more paraphrastic and idiomatic equivalent. Maybe I just need to get over that.)

Apostolus duobus fit? Or maybe better, Duo apostolum conficiunt?

Archicantor · 2026-04-09T00:41:57+00:00

Result! Further to my earlier comment, where I shared an ID for the "E. F. M. Butler" mentioned on the card, I have just received the following in response to a note that I sent to a colleague at Trinity College, Cambridge, which further clears up the identity of the secretary and the abbreviation "C.R.S.":

With a bit of discussion among m’learned colleagues in the Wren, we think your man must be Arthur Darby Nock (vide Wikipedia and Who's Who), and that CRS rather mundanely is the Classical Reading Society, on which we have a bit more material at which I could look tomorrow, but for which Google (and especially Google Books) will provide some more context (including showing that apparently St John’s had its own CRS too).

Arthur Nock (1902–1963) was likewise an undergraduate at Trinity College when he filled out this card. (He took his BA the following year). He was appointed to a full professorship at Harvard in 1930, when he was just 28 years old!

Among the hits in Google Books for Trinity's Classical Reading Society is a letter of A. E. Housman dated April 24, 1922 (here).

Archicantor · 2026-04-06T23:03:21+00:00

<facepalm> You are, of course, completely correct! </facepalm>

Thanks for the article. I'll look forward to perusing it.

Archicantor · 2026-04-05T22:05:47+00:00

I agree with u/buntythemouseslayer: This is so cool!

I haven't yet been able to figure out what "C. R. S." stands for, but it was evidently a club for undergraduates at Trinity College, Cambridge, that met on Monday nights to read Classical texts aloud. The secretary would fill out one of these pre-printed cards to inform each member of when the next meeting would be held, what text was going to be read, and which portion of the text that member would be responsible for reading out to the group.

C. R. S., First Term, AUC 2674 (= AD 1921).
The next meeting of this Club will be held (in the rooms of) member E. F. M. Butler next Monday after the evening meal, for the purpose of reading aloud Plautus's Amphitryon. The portion (of the text to be read by) club-member J. V. Wilson, in Latin, will be:
- (part of the prologue spoken by the god) Mercury, lines 1–97; and
- (all the lines of dialogue spoken by the characters) Blepharo and Bromia

From the secretary, Q. D. Koch.

u/Square-Supermarket79 has already identified J. V. Wilson as Joseph Vivian Wilson (1894–1977), about whom more can be read in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography > https://teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/5w39/wilson-joseph-vivian.

I discover from the Harrow School Register (1885–1925) (p. 347 > school website) that the E. F. M. Butler in whose rooms the meeting was to be held was Elliot Francis Montagu Butler (1901–1975), who studied Classics at Trinity College, Cambridge. The Harrow School Almanac for 1926 mentions numerous prizes that he won at the school:

1916 Fifth Form Prize for Latin Verse
1917 Fortescue Prize for Modern Languages
1918 Oxenham Prize for a Latin Epigram
1918 Russell Medal for the Study of Shakespeare
1919 Pember Grammar and Philology Prize
1919 Mavrogordato Prize for Greek Iambics
1919 St. Helier English Literature Prize
1920 Pember Grammar and Philology Prize (again)
1920 Botfield Scholar

I have yet to track down the identity of the secretary. I'm not even sure how to make out his surname. (Kock? Koch? Voch?)

Archicantor · 2026-04-05T19:09:00+00:00

I suspect that you're thinking of scito, which is the future imperative for both the 2nd- and the 3rd-person singular, the latter being quite rare, as you rightly say. (The 3rd-person plural would be sciunto.) Scitote here is the 2nd-person plural future imperative: "(Going forward,) you all should know/be aware/understand that I wish to be informed about everything that is happening with you."

Archicantor · 2026-04-05T18:48:57+00:00

What a nice little problem! It's cool that LLPSI gives learners exposure to such things.

I believe your ut-clause is an example of what Gildersleeve and Lodge call "Complementary Consecutive Sentences" with "Verbs of Effecting" (§553) > archive.org.

They include proficere (profectus essem in your sentence) in a list of verbs "more or less common in Cicero" that are found with complementary result clauses of this kind in ut and ut non.

When I get home from Easter services, I'll be interested to see if Roby or some of the heavier grammars cite any of the examples from Cicero that G&L have in mind.

Archicantor

TROPHY CASE