Stephen Carlson wrote:What's the audience of the expanded grammar? Is it Roman?
It depends on what you read. Different books say different things, though most of the ones I've read have been returned to the university library. I can't remember who says what. I have two books that deal with the history.
Francis Dinneen'
General linguistics, who summarizes most of the history of linguistics states that what we call Thrax's grammar is the culmination of the work of many scholars whose purpose was to summarize grammatical issues relevant for the interpretation Homeric and Classical texts. There are a few texts I've read that hold that view. There are also views about the text having pedagogical value following the Alexandrian dispersion of the Greek language throughout the region...though I can't cite anything for that off the top of my head.
Here are a some of the books I've read, if you want to do some investigations of your own...
Blank, David. “The Organization of Grammar in Ancient Greek.” Pages 400-417 in
History of the Language Sciences. Vol 1. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2000.
Di Benedetto, Vincenzo. “Dionysius Thrax and the Tékhnē Grammatikḗ.” Pages 394-400 in
History of the Language Sciences. Vol 1. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2000.
Matthews, P. H. “Greek and Latin Linguistics.” Pages 2-133 in
History of Linguistics: Classical and Medieval Linguistics. Ed. Guilio Lepschy. English Ed. 4 vols. New York: Longman, 1994.
Harris, Roy and Talbot Taylor,
Landmarks in Linguistic Thought: The Western Tradition from Socrates to Saussure. London: Routledge, 1997.
Robins, R. H.
A Short History of Linguistics. 3rd ed. London: Longman, 1997.
______.
The Byzantine Grammarians: Their Place in History. Berlin: Mouton de Gruypter, 1993.
Swiggers, Peter and Alfons Wouters. “Content and Context in (Translating) Ancient Grammar.” Pages 123-61 in
Ancient Grammar: Content and Context. Leuven: Peeters, 1996.