One group among the grammarians represented by the greatest Alexandrine philologist, Aristarch (220-142 B.C.) and his school, was convinced that the meaning or origin of many old words could be derived by postulating that they had been modified or declined similarly to words with which they were familiar. They therefore contended that language was ruled by analogy. This principle was supposed to rule nature (physis) and permit the establishment of natural laws. But because language had not yet acquired any degree of standardization, the claims of the analogists were not as solidly based as we might be led to suppose [18].
The analogists’ view was opposed by Krates, a philologist and grammarian, (came to Rome in 169 B.C.) and his school, who saw no lawfulness in language and, therefore, proclaimed its pervasion by anomaly (nomos). Anomaly was thought to be characteristic for everything made by man (nomos or thesis) [19]. Anomaly in language seemed to be confirmed by the observations which had already been made by Democritus (460-352 B.C.), that more than one name could apply to the same thing, that proper names could be changed and that analogy was frequently lacking. The standpoint of the anomalists was, in Steinthal’s opinion, the more solidly based in view of the paucity of grammatical rules. Yet at that time the argument could be used that language must be physis for otherwise neither blessing nor curse could have an effect [20].5 But neither the principle of analogy or of anomaly could provide, by itself, the basis for the establishment of a formal grammar which, of necessity, would have to be based on rules but would have to make allowances for exceptions as well.
The establishment of a formal grammar became a pressing need in Roman times. Unlike their Greek predecessors, who had become preoccupied with language studies in their attempt to understand the classics, Roman men of letters required rules in order to write a Latin literature. Moreover, the standardization of Latin usage was of vital importance for the political aims of uniting the Roman Empire. The contribution of the Roman grammarians were primarily of a utilitarian nature and represent the application in practice of some Greek principles of thought. In the field of grammatical theory, Marcus Terentius Varro (116-27 B.C.) resolved the antithesis of anomaly versus analogy by finding a place for both analogy and anomaly in grammar. For him language was a natural ability which had been subjected to cultural development [21].
Lucretius (91-51 B.C.) revived and elaborated the Epicurean ideas when he described language as a physiological function based on an inherent human need to name things [22]. With practical political and social goals as the impetus behind most of the extensive work on language done by the Romans—including the scholarly writings of Caesar and Cicero—the question of the biological basis or origin of language did not enter the discussion [23].
當Lucretius(西元前91-51年)根據人類命名事物的天生需求，而將語言描述為一種生理功能時，同時也復甦了Epicurus的想法[22]。由於大部分羅馬人對語言所完成的廣泛研究（包含了Caesar與Cicero博學的著作）背後的那一股政治及社會目的的刺激，使得語言的生物基礎或起源此問題並未進入討論中[23]。
A very serious shortcoming of most Roman writers on language was the limitation of their discussions to Latin and Greek, which Steinthal regarded as the chief factor for their failure to formulate a more general language theory. In the writings of Gaius Plinius Secundus (23-79 A.D.) and of Strabo (63 B.C.-24 A.D.) only Greek and Latin are given serious consideration. One of the few to include other languages as well was the Epicurean Diogenes of Oinoanda (2nd century A.D.) who wrote that men created language everywhere quite naturally; it was not a conscious invention or the result of convention. No single man or god could have created it [24].
大部分書寫語言議題的羅馬作家都有一個非常嚴重的缺點，就是受限於拉丁文和希臘文的討論，Steinthal將其視為他們無法將更加普遍的語言理論公式化的主因。在Gaius Plinius Secundus (西元23-79年)及Strabo (西元前63年-西元24年)的著作裡，只有希臘文和拉丁文有相關的重要論述。少數幾個將其他語言也包含進去的其中一個是Epicurean Diogenes of Oinoanda (西元二世紀)，他寫道人類自然而然地到處發明語言；這並非是有意識的發明或風俗傳統的結果[24]。
4. The Greek word gramma referred to the knowledge of language sounds and signs; a grammatikos was originally a schoolmaster who taught reading and writing. A differentiation between a Kritikos as literary critic and the Grammatikos or Grammarian was made only in Roman times. H. Steinthal, op. cit., pp. 375,436
希臘文的gramma意指關於語言聲音與符號的知識；而grammatikos原本指的是教授閱讀與寫作的教師。只有在羅馬時代才將Kritikos和Grammatikos分作文學評論家與文法家。H. Steinthal, op. cit., pp. 375,436
5. From the discussion it is clear that many of the arguments had arisen from the failure in defining the word language. First it had been used synonymously with naming, or it was referred to the Greek language. At other times, man's specking capacity or the correct use of language were implied when language was discussed.
從這裡的討論可以清楚地知道，許多論述的出現是來自定義「語言」一詞的失敗經驗。「語言」一開始用作「命名」的同義詞，或是意指希臘語。其他時期裡，當提及「語言」的時候，則暗示了人類的言語能力或是語言的正確使用。
[17] _____. Pp. 377, 436.
[18] _____. P. 493.
[19] Lersch, Laurenz, Die Sprachphilosophie der Alten. Koenig, Bonn, 1838, pp. 43 et seq.
Steinthal, H., op. cit., p. 489.
[20] Lersch, L. op. cit., p. 12, 45.
Steinthal, H., op. cit., p. 504.
[21] Borst, A., op. cit., p. 154.
Lerrsch, L., op. cit., pp. 118 et seq., 126, 133 et seq.
Steinthal, H., op. cit., p.504 et seq., 677.
[22] Titus, Lucretius, De rerum Natura, 1027, 1055, 1086.
Borst, A., op. cit., p. 156.
Steinthal, H., op. cit., p. 197.
[23] Borst, A., op. cit., p. 156.
Lersch, L., op. cit., pp. 93, 140, 150, 179.
[24] Borst, A., pp. 164, 178.
predecessors 前任;前輩 / (被取代的)原有事物 /【古】祖先
preoccupied全神貫注的;入神的[(+with)] / 被搶先佔有的
utilitarian a. 功利主義的 / 功利的;實利的 / n. 功利主義者;實利主義者
antithesis 對立面;對立;對照;對偶 / (修辭學中的)對語,對句
Lucretitus
impetus 推動,促進;推動力;刺激[U][S1][(+to)][+to-v] / 衝力[U]
