Author: A. S. Kassian, M. A. Zhivlov, G. S. Starostin M. S. Kassian (The Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences; The Institute of Oriental and Classical Studies, Russian State University for the Humanities The Institute of Oriental and Classical Studies, Russian State University for the Humanities)

Keywords\n Indo-European languages, Uralic languages, Indo-Uralic hypothesis, Nostratic theory, long-range comparison, lexicostatistics, linguistic reconstruction, permutation test Horace’s Odes Horatii Od. I, 38, Callimachus

Pages\n 409–418

Summary\n: In this paper we discuss the results of an automated comparison between two 50-item groups of the most generally stable elements on the so-called Swadesh wordlist as reconstructed for Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Uralic. Two forms are counted as potentially related if their first two consonantal units, transcribed in simplified consonantal class notation (a rough variant of the Levenshtein distance method), match up with each other. Next to all previous attempts at such a task (Ringe 1998, Oswalt 1998, Kessler & Lehtonen 2006, Kessler 2007), our automated algorithm comes much closer to emulating the traditional procedure of cognate search as employed in historical linguistics. “Swadesh slots” for protolanguagesare filled in strict accordance with such principles of internal reconstruction as topology (taking into consideration the structure of the genealogical tree), morphological transparency, typology of semantic shifts, and areal distribution of particular items. Altogether we have counted 7 pairs where Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Uralic share the same biconsonantal skeleton (the exact same pairs have been traditionally regarded as cognates in most hypotheses of Indo- Uralic relationship) To verify the probability of arriving at such a result by chance we have applied the permutation test, which yielded a positive result: the probability of 7 matched pairs is equal to 1.4% or 0.3%, depending on the constituency of the consonantal classes, which is lower than the standard 5% threshold of statistic significance or even lower than the strong 1% level. Standard methodology suggests that we reject the null hypothesis (accidental resemblance) and offer a more plausible explanation to the observed similarities. Since the known typology of language contacts does not speak in favor of explaining the observed Indo-Uralic matches as old lexical borrowings, the optimal explanation is seen in the hypothesis of Indo- Uralic genetic relationship, with the 7 matching pairs in question representing archaic retentions, left over from the original Indo-Uralic protolanguage. This paper aims to demonstrate that Horace’s Od. I, 38 (Persicos odi...) is not so simple as it seems, and that it is a poem strategically placed. We try to show with additional arguments (metrical, and lexical – coronamotive) that it’s place in whole structure of the first book of Odes, as well as in the whole collection is legitimate. The allusive parallels between it and the program-epigramma of Callimachus (Anth. Pal. XII. 43) may confirm it too.

References\n

Anthologia Graeca (Anth. Pal.)–po baze TLG (2nd. ed. Heimeran, Munich, vol. 1-2, 1965; vol. 3-4, 1968)
Barchiesi A. Carmina: Odes and Carmen Saeculare. Harrison S.J. (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to Horace. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007, pp. 144-161.
Belling H. Studien über die Liederbücher des Horatius. Berlin, 1903.
Clay J. St. Horace and Lesbian Lyric. A Companion to Horace. Davis G. (ed.). Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2010, pp. 128-146.
Collinge N.E. The Structure of Horace's Odes. London: Oxford University Press, 1961.
Davis G. Wine and the Symposium. The Cambridge Companion to Horace. Harrison S.J. (ed.). Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007, pp. 207-220.
Davis G. A Companion to Horace. Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2010.
Davis G. Defining a Lyric Ethos: Archilochus lyricus and Horatian melos. A Companion to Horace. Davis G. (ed.). Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2010, pp. 105-127.
Fraenkel E. Horace. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957.
Harrison S.J. The Cambridge Companion to Horace. Cambridge, 2007.
Hendrickson G.L. An Epigram of Philodemus and Two Latin Congeners. The American Journal of Philology, 1918, vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 27-43.
Hunter R. The Shadow of Callimachus. Studies in the reception of Hellenistic poetry at Rome. Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Lee M.O. Horace, Odes, I, 38: Thirst for Life. The American Journal of Philology, 1965, vol. 86, No. 3, pp. 278-281.
Mankin D. The Epodes: Genre, Themes, and Arrangement. A Companion to Horace. Davis G. (ed.). Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2010, pp. 93-104.
Nisbet R.G. M., Hubbard M. A Commentary on Horace: Odes Book I. Oxford, 1970.
Vollmer A. Uberlieferungsgeschichte des Horaz. Philol. Supplementband X, 1905.