4

I ask this because in virtually all the Romance languages, the respective descendants simply mean fire, yet when I come across the term in classical literature specifically, it usually meant 'hearth'. Has it ever been attested to just mean fire or was that a later change? The classical word for that definition is, ignis. On a different point, Did ignis fall of favor at some point?

1
  • 1
    According to Georges, yes, it could be used metonically for “fire.” To write a proper answer, I feel I should look up at least a few of these locos, which I cannot do now, but here's what he writes (none of the reassuring “oft bei Cic. u.a.” I'm afraid): Prop. 4, 9, 10 u. 11, 52. Vulc. Gall. Avid. Cass. 4, 3. Oribas. fr. 1, 35 H.: focum facere, Schol. Iuven. 3, 214; 7, 24: sine foco coxerunt, Marc. Emp. 21. Vgl. Haase Greg. Tur. de curs. stell. 31. p. 39. Apr 23, 2022 at 11:13

0

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.