=5. FORTVNAQVE.= The sense of the word is difficult. It seems, as Professor R. J. Tarrant notes, to combine the idea of 'condition, state' (compare for example _Aen_ II 350 'quae sit rebus _fortuna_ uidetis') with that of 'unfortunate circumstances', giving the general sense 'the fact that you have the bad luck to possess a metrically impossible name'. Three lines before, Ovid used _nominis ... condicione tui_; and in the present line he seems to have been influenced by the common phrase _condicio et fortuna_, 'allotted circumstances of life', for which compare Cic _Off_ I 41 'est autem infima _condicio et fortuna_ seruorum', _Mil_ 92 'in infimi generis hominum _condicione atque fortuna_'. At _II Verr_ I 81 Cicero similarly adapts the expression to suit his context: 'Lampsacenis ... populi Romani _condicione_ sociis, _fortuna_ seruis, uoluntate supplicibus'. =7. NOMEN SCINDERE.= That is, split the name so that the hexameter (_uersus prior_) would end in _TUti-_ and the following pentameter (_uersus minor_) begin with _-cAnus_. Such word-divisions are not permissible in Augustan verse; from earlier poetry Professor C. P. Jones cites Ennius _Ann_ 609 Vahlen3 'saxo _cere_ comminuit _brum_'. =8. HOC= = _nomine tuo_. =9-14.= Ovid lists the three possible ways of scanning the name so as to remove the cretic: _TUticanus_, _TuticAnus_, and _TUtIcAnus_. =9. MORATVR= = _longa est_. The _TLL_ cites Velius Longus VII 55 5 Keil 'hanc ... naturam esse quarundam litterarum, ut _morentur_ et enuntiatione sonum detineant'. =11. ET= _BCHIacLT_ NON _M_ NEC _FIpc_. _Nec_, printed by some editors, cannot by itself be correct, for there is no negative with the corresponding _producatur_ in the following distich. A negative is implicitly supplied for _potes ... uenire_ and _producatur_ by 15-16 'his ego si uitiis ...', but Professor R. J. Tarrant is possibly right to suggest that _nec_ should be read both here and (replacing _aut_) at the beginning of 13. W. A. Camps (_CQ_ n.s. IV [1954] 206-7) has pointed out that it is somewhat odd that 'The first two possibilities are introduced, in lines 7 and 9, in terms that disclaim them at once' and that 'the third and fourth possibilities are added without disclaimer ... in terms that would be quite appropriate to serious suggestions'. He suggests reading _at_, so that 11-12 represent an imaginary rejoinder to Ovid's rejection of the possibilities already suggested; Ovid's rejoinder is given at 15 'his ego si uitiis ...'. But _at potes_ is difficult: Ovid could have written 'at, puto, potes', speaking in his own person to raise an objection he would then counter, or he could have represented Tuticanus as saying 'at ... possum'; but it is hard to see how he could have written 'at potes'.