{"product_id":"2940148205364","title":"A Latin Grammar for Schools and Colleges","description":"George Martin Lane died on the thirtieth of June, 1897. His Latin Grammar, in the preparation of which he had been engaged, during the intervals of teaching in Harvard University, for nearly thirty years, was at that time approaching completion. The first two hundred and ninety-one pages had been stereotyped; the pages immediately following, on the Relative Sentence and the Conjunctive Particle Sentence through quod and quia (pages 292-302), together with the chapter on the Infinitive (pages 374-386), were ready for stereotyping; of the remainder of the book, pages 303-373 and 387-436 were in the form of a first draught; finally, he had received a few weeks before his death, but had never examined, the manuscript of the chapter on Versification (pages 442-485), written at his invitation by his former pupil, Dr. Herman W. Hayley, now of Wesleyan University.\u003cbr\u003eIt was found that my dear and honoured master had left a written request that his work should be completed by me, in consultation with his colleagues, Professors Frederic De Forest Allen and Clement Lawrence Smith. A month had scarcely passed when scholars everywhere had another heavy loss to mourn in the sudden death of Professor Allen. Almost immediately afterwards, Professor Smith left this country, to take charge for a year of the American School of Classical Studies in Rome, but not before we had agreed that circumstances required the early publication of the book, notwithstanding his absence. I was thus deprived of two eminent counsellors, whose knowledge and experience would have been of inestimable assistance.\u003cbr\u003eAbout one hundred and twenty pages (303-373 and 387-436), exclusive of Versification, were yet to receive their final form. Professor Lane had determined the order in which the topics contained in these pages should be treated, and no change has been made in that order. Most of the main principles of syntax, vi too, have been left exactly as they were expressed in his draught. This draught was written some years ago, and, although he had corrected and annotated it from time to time, there is no doubt that in writing it out afresh he would have made many alterations and improvements which are not indicated in his notes. Consequently, he is not to be held responsible for errors and omissions in the pages which had not received his final approval. Yet I conceived it my duty to preserve, so far as possible, the very language of his corrected draught; and this, in the statement of almost all the main principles, I have been able to do. Some modifications and some radical alterations were inevitable; in particular, the treatment of quamvis, quando, quin, the Supine, and Numerals seemed to call for much amplification and rearrangement. I have also deemed it necessary to add some seventy sections* under various heads, and Dr. Hayley has been good enough to write sections 2458-2510, which precede his chapter on Versification. But, in general, my principal function has been: first, to provide additional Latin examples of the principles which Professor Lane had formulated; secondly, to enter, under the various principles, historical statements regarding the usage in the Latin writers, drawn from the best authorities at my disposal.\u003cbr\u003eProfessor Lane’s own method was far from that of a compiler. He took nothing for granted without thorough investigation, however well established it might seem, and he followed the dictum of no man, however widely accepted as an authority. For example, his many pupils and correspondents will remember how untiring he was in his efforts to arrive at accuracy in even the minutest points of inflection. Thus, for the List of Verbs (§§ 922-1022), he made entirely new collections, and admitted no form among the ‘principal parts’ unless actually found represented in the authors. In the details of syntax, he was equally indefatigable; the sections on the Locative Proper (1331-1341), for instance, contain the result of an immense amount of painful vii research. He devoted much anxious thought to the definitions and the titles of the various constructions: thus, the distinction between the Present of Vivid Narration (1590) and the Annalistic Present (1591) seems obvious now that it is stated; but to reach it many pages of examples were collected and compared. He held that examples printed in the grammar to illustrate syntactical principles should never be manufactured; they should be accurately quoted from the authors, without other alteration than the omission of words by which the construction under illustration was not affected. He was careful, also, not to use an example in which there was any serious doubt as to the text in that part which covered the principle illustrated by the example. To ‘Hidden Quantity’ he had given much attention, and many of the results of his studies in this subject were published, in 1889, in the School Dictionary by his friend Dr. Lewis.","brand":"Lost Leaf Publications","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":47078970327280,"sku":"2940148205364","price":0.99,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":true}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0737\/7593\/9824\/files\/2940148205364_p0.jpg?v=1763699341","url":"https:\/\/shop-qa.barnesandnoble.com\/products\/2940148205364","provider":"Barnes \u0026 Noble (DEV)","version":"1.0","type":"link"}