This question concerning the pluralization of letter names has led me to ask a somewhat related question on the use of Greek to clarify indeclinable nouns in Latin.

The background to this question is that I possess a Hebrew Bible edited by Everardus Van der Hooght and printed in 1833, but which I think represents amendments to an earlier tradition. Van der Hooght provides a Latin preface, dated, I think, 1705 (I think that's what CIↃ IↃ CC V represents), in which he discussed various technical points of the Hebrew text. In particular, he sometimes uses Greek articles to clarify the use of indeclinable Hebrew terms. For example:

Præter hanc notam absentiæ τȣ* Dagesch, ...

This is the only place I've seen that usage, so I was wondering anyone has seen it used elsewhere in similar situations.

* that should be τοῦ with ου ligature and circumflex


I happen to have seen one in Marracci's Refutatio Alcorani (1698), Prodromus, Vita Mahumeti, Caput 24 (https://books.google.nl/books?id=HwY_AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA29):

... ne fortè ... per technas Imperium à se τῷ Aly destinatum præriperent.

Literally: "... lest perhaps ... they would by artifices snatch away the Empire destined by him for Ali."

Elsewhere he has no problem using an indeclinable 'Aly' as a genitive ("Ismael filius Aly"), dative ("præcepit patrueli suo Aly"), accusative ("in fratrem Aly filium Abutaleb") or ablative ("Auctore Aly filio Ebrahim").

I've also found one in a letter from a Vandevalus to a Craneveldt around 1520 (https://books.google.nl/books?id=101lb8v-bJcC&pg=PA47):

Nam τὸ "al" articulus est Araborum ...

I.e.: "For 'al' is the article of the Arabs ..."

IJsewijn et al. note:

The use of the Greek article in Latin to single out a word is a humanistic usage. Mediaeval Latin authors used either the demonstrative "hoc" or a newly coined article "li" or "ly".

By 'humanistic' they must mean 'neo-Latin'.

Here are some more, from Tanquerey's Synopsis theologiae dogmaticae (1921), Tomus II, p. 288 (https://archive.org/details/synopsistheologi02tanq/page/228):

Omne quod movetur, ab alio movetur. Hoc patet consideranti naturam motûs seu τοῦ fieri. Etenim : i) motus seu τὸ fieri est unio successiva diversorum; ...

"Everything that moves, is moved by something else. This is clear to someone who considers the nature of movement or (of) becoming. For: i) movement or becoming is the successive unity of diverse things; ..."

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.