The Noun Phrase in Classical Latin Prose (Amsterdam Studies in Classical Philology, 21) (English and Latin Edition) [Bilingual ed.] 9004264426, 9789004264427

Citation preview

The Noun Phrase in Classical Latin Prose

Amsterdam Studies in Classical Philology Editorial Board

Albert Rijksbaron Irene J.F. de Jong Caroline Kroon VOLUME 21

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/ascp

The Noun Phrase in Classical Latin Prose By

Olga Spevak

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2014

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Spevak, Olga, author. The Noun phrase in classical Latin prose / by Olga Spevak. pages cm – (Amsterdam studies in classical philology ; volume 21) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-04-26442-7 (hardback : alk. paper) – ISBN 978-90-04-26568-4 (e-book) 1. Latin language–Noun phrase. I. Title. II. Series: Amsterdam studies in classical philology ; v. 21. PA2165.S67 2014 475'.54–dc23 2013042925

This publication has been typeset in the multilingual “Brill” typeface. With over 5,100 characters covering Latin, IPA, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the humanities. For more information, please see www.brill.com/brill-typeface. ISSN 1380-6068 ISBN 978-90-04-26442-7 (hardback) ISBN 978-90-04-26568-4 (e-book) Copyright 2014 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Global Oriental and Hotei Publishing. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper.

CONTENTS

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv 1

The Noun and Its Modifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 The Noun. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Parameters for a Description of Nouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Specific—Generic—Referential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 The Typology of Nouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1 First-Order Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.2 Second-Order Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.3 Third-Order Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Noun Valency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.1 Nouns Belonging to the First Order of Entities . . . . 2.4.2 Verbal Nouns Expressing Actions and States . . . . . . 2.4.3 Nouns Expressing the Result of an Action or a Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Modifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 The Types of Modifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 The Frequency of Modifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 The Typology of Modifiers and Hierarchic Levels . . . . . . . . 3.4 Determiners, Quantifiers, and Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.1 Combinability of Determiners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.2 Interrogative, Anaphoric, and Demonstrative Pronouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.3 Indefinite Pronouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.4 Quantifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 Adjectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.1 Semantic Properties of Adjectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.2 Syntactic Behaviour of Adjectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 Genitive Complements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6.1 Subjective and Objective Genitives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6.2 Possessive Genitives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6.3 Other Genitive Complements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7 Dative, Ablative, and Accusative Complements . . . . . . . . .

1 1 2 2 5 8 9 22 23 24 25 27 33 35 35 37 38 41 41 45 46 47 55 57 73 76 77 77 80 80

vi

contents

4 2

3.8 Prepositional Phrases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 3.9 Embedded Predications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

The Noun Phrase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 1.1 Pragmatic Functions of Noun Phrases and Their Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 1.2 Values of Modifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 1.2.1 Semantic Prominence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 1.2.2 Adjectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 1.2.3 Genitives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 1.3 The Referent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 1.3.1 Genitives: Specific vs. Generic Referent . . . . . . . . . . . 98 1.3.2 Noun Phrases: The Contextual Status of the Referent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 1.4 Special Arrangements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 1.5 The Placement of Modifiers: Problems of Analysis . . . . . . 101 1.5.1 A Brief Overview of the State of Research. . . . . . . . . . 102 1.5.2 The Aim and the Method Adopted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 1.5.3 Distribution of Nouns in a Specific Corpus . . . . . . . . 105 1.6 An Overview of the Nouns Examined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 2 Quantifying a Referent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 2.1 Count Nouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 2.1.1 Non-Numerical Quantifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 2.1.2 Omnis and totus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 2.1.3 Numerical Quantifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 2.1.4 Nominal Quantifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 2.2 Non-Count Nouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 2.2.1 Non-Numerical Quantifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 2.2.2 Nominal Quantifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 2.2.3 Adverbs and Neuters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 2.2.4 Omnis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 2.2.5 Religio and memoria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 3 Specifying a Referent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 3.1 Classifying Adjectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 3.1.1 Ager and pecunia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 3.1.2 Navis and dies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 3.1.3 Miles and bellum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 3.1.4 Other Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

contents 3.2

vii

Adjectives Derived from Proper Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 3.2.1 First-Order Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 3.2.2 Bellum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 4 Describing a Referent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 4.1 Inanimate Concrete Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 4.2 Animate Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 4.2.1 Vir and viros . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 4.2.2 Miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 4.2.3 Other Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 5 Evaluating a Referent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 5.1 Attribution of an Abstract Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 5.1.1 Vir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 5.1.2 Ablative and Genitive of Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 5.1.3 Second-Order Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 5.1.4 Third-Order Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 5.2 Evaluations of Extent or Importance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 6 Identifying a Referent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 6.1 Adjectives Expressing a Relative Position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 6.2 Ordinal Numerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 7 Expressions of Possession . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 7.1 Adjectives Derived from Proper Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 7.2 Possessive Genitives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 8 Valency Complements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 8.1 Subjective and Objective Genitives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 8.1.1 Animate Referents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 8.1.2 Inanimate Referents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 8.2 Possessive Pronouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 8.3 Prepositional Phrases with cum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 8.4 Prepositional Phrases with de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 8.5 Completive Clauses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 9 Other Complements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 9.1 Genitives with dies and liber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 9.2 Prepositional Phrases with de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 10 Complex Noun Phrases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 10.1 Framing of Noun Phrases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 10.2 Memoria and opinio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 11 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212

viii

contents

3

The Prepositional Phrase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 1 Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 2 Prepositional Phrases: The Ordering of Their Components . . . . 218 2.1 Integration of Modifiers and Framing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218 2.2 The Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 2.3 Quantifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 2.4 Adjectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 2.4.1 Classifying Adjectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 2.4.2 Descriptive Adjectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223 2.4.3 Evaluative Adjectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 2.4.4 Adjectives Expressing Space and Time . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 2.4.5 Adjectives Expressing a Relative Position . . . . . . . . . . 225 2.4.6 Adjectives Derived from Proper Names . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 2.5 Multiple Modifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 2.6 Genitive Complements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 2.6.1 Genitives Governed by Nouns without a Modifier 229 2.6.2 Genitives Governed by Nouns with a Modifier . . . . 234 2.6.3 Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 3 Adnominal Prepositional Phrases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236 3.1 Problems of Attachment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238 3.2 Nouns Governing Prepositional Phrases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 3.2.1 Types of Nouns Governing Adnominal Prepositional Phrases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241 3.2.2 The Placement of Prepositional Phrases . . . . . . . . . . . 246 3.2.3 Support Verb Constructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 3.3 Adjectives Governing Prepositional Phrases . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254 3.4 Partitive Expressions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259

4

Appositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261 2 Two Types of Apposition: Close Apposition and Free Apposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 2.1 First Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 2.2 Close Appositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266 2.3 Free Appositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 2.4 Problems with the Description of Appositions . . . . . . . . . . 268 2.5 Sp. Albinus consul vs. consul Albinus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271 2.6 Distribution of Appositions in a Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276 3 Close Appositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278

contents 3.1 3.2

4

5

6

7

ix

Appositions with consul and praetor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278 Appositions with urbs and oppidum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282 3.2.1 Urbs Roma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282 3.2.2 Appositions with oppidum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285 3.2.3 Oppidum with a Modifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290 3.2.4 Discontinuity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291 3.3 Appositions with flumen / fluvius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292 3.3.1 Flumen Arar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292 3.3.2 Garunna flumen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293 3.3.3 Flumen … Arar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295 3.4 Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295 Free Appositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296 4.1 General Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296 4.1.1 Identification of Free Appositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298 4.1.2 Multiple Appositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301 4.2 Free Appositions with Official Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302 4.3 Free Appositions with urbs, oppidum, and flumen . . . . . . . 303 4.4 Free Appositions with homo and familiaris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304 4.4.1 Appositions with homo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305 4.4.2 Appositions with familiaris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309 4.5 Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311 4.6 The Use of Prepositions in Free Appositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312 4.7 Discontinuity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313 Other Appositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315 5.1 Kinship Nouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315 5.2 Rex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317 5.3 Status and Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318 5.4 Two Common Nouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319 5.4.1 Free Appositions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319 5.4.2 Sentence Appositions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320 5.4.3 Close Appositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321 5.4.4 Pronouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323 5.4.5 Partitive Apposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323 5.5 Explicit Indicators of Appositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325 Right Dislocation (Tail Constituents) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326 6.1 Tail Constituents Related to a Noun or a Pronoun . . . . . . . 326 6.2 Right Dislocated Constituents Expressing Subjective Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329

x 5

contents Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331

Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343 Glossary of Linguistic Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359 Index locorum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363 Index rerum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 374

PREFACE

This book is devoted to the internal ordering of Latin noun phrases, which is very flexible in comparison with modern European languages. It is to some extent a continuation of my previous work on constituent ordering at the sentence level in Classical Latin prose (Spevak 2010a), using the same framework of Functional Grammar. Constituent order phenomena at the sentence level relate to problems such as sentence type, determining the information structure of a sentence, or semantic and syntactic properties of the verbs involved. For the noun phrase level pragmatic functions of Topic and Focus on the one hand, and pragmatic features of contrast and emphasis on the other hand are relevant as well, but pragmatic factors alone cannot entirely explain the variability of the internal ordering of Latin noun phrases: the semantic and syntactic properties of the individual nouns are also at work. This book aims to contribute to the much debated question of the placement of modifiers in Latin with an approach that combines pragmatic, semantic, and syntactic factors that are responsible for the internal ordering of noun phrases. Overall statistics concerning the internal structure of Latin noun phrases usually focus on the position occupied by the modifier without going into details of the semantic structure of the phrase as a whole. In my view, everyone who wants to interpret the placement of modifiers in Latin should first ask the question what type of nouns he/she is dealing with and what modifiers are likely to co-occur with them. Although no one would intuitively expect a complement clause with the noun navis ‘ship’ or, conversely, an adjective of material with opinio ‘opinion’, a systematic discussion of semantic and syntactic properties of nouns and modifiers is a necessary prerequisite for the question of the internal ordering of Latin noun phrases. Indeed, a concrete entity such as navis is likely to occur with descriptive adjectives but opinio typically combines with adjectives expressing an assessment. This aspect—which is after all self-evident—has consequences for the internal ordering of Latin noun phrases in that the placement of the two kinds of modifiers mentioned is not the same. This book has therefore a twofold objective: (i) to provide a systematic account of the general properties of nouns and modifiers in Latin and (ii) to examine the internal ordering of Latin noun phrases. It consists of five chapters. Chapter 1 provides an overview of the semantic and syntactic properties of nouns and modifiers. It attempts to present

xii

preface

a general survey of the aspects that are essential for a description of noun phrases. It also sets out a classification of nouns, which has an influence on their combinability with modifiers, and a classification of modifiers. Chapter 2 examines the internal ordering of noun phrases according to the type of modifiers involved (quantification, specification, description, evaluation, and identification of a noun) and also deals with other, non-adjectival modifiers, especially genitives, from the point of view of valency requirements. Two chapters are devoted to two topics related to noun phrases that have drawn little attention until now: chapter 3 discusses the internal ordering of prepositional phrases and the question of adnominal prepositional phrases and chapter 4 deals with appositions. Each larger section contains partial conclusions; general conclusions are formulated in chapter 5. A study of Latin necessarily involves a corpus-linguistic approach. For the examination of Latin noun phrases, I focus on three Classical authors: Cicero, Caesar, and Sallust. As each chapter has different objectives, I used several methods of collecting the material. Chapter 1 is based on instances attested in the Library of Latin Texts database for Classical authors, with the addition of Cato and, to a lesser extent, Varro. Chapter 2 is a case study of several nouns occurring with a modifier, the choice of which is explained in section 1.5.2. Supplementary tables resuming the data collected are presented in an appendix. In chapter 3, the material for my analysis has been collected from four texts (Cicero’s On Divination 2 and Against Verres 2.5.1–120, Caesar’s Civil War 3, and Sallust’s The Jugurthine War 1–80). Chapter 4 combines material collected from the same sample as chapter 3 and instances gathered from the Library of Latin Texts database for Classical authors. All the instances collected were examined in their context. Translations of the examples quoted were mainly taken from the Loeb editions or, alternatively, from more recent translations, when available, especially Zetzel (2009) and Berry (2009 and 2011). This book focuses on variation in the internal ordering of Latin noun phrases. However, certain phenomena have been left out of consideration. I do not systematically deal with determiners, indefinite pronouns, and identifiers (idem), which occur quite frequently but their ordering does not pose many problems. On the other hand, I disregard minor categories of modifiers such as participles and gerundives, which do not provide a sufficient number of attested instances. Hyperbaton or discontinuity of noun phrases is only dealt with in the margin of other phenomena. As several detailed studies have been devoted to relative clauses, this topic is not re-examined here. Discussions about configurationality (for which see Luraghi 2010a) are entirely left out of consideration.

preface

xiii

A glossary of linguistic terms with definitions of the terminology used is provided at the end of the book. I would like to express my deep gratitude to Harm Pinkster for his valuable criticism and comments on the first version of the manuscript. I am truly indebted and thankful to Philip Baldi and Roger Wright for their invaluable help with reading the manuscript and their pertinent remarks. I am grateful to the editors of Amsterdam Studies in Classical Philology for having accepted this book for publication and to the anonymous reviewer for helpful remarks and suggestions. All remaining errors are mine.

ABBREVIATIONS A P PP A1 A2 A3 x→y

anteposition postposition prepositional phrase first argument (agent) second argument (patient) third argument (recipient / addressee) y is derived from x

Abbreviations of Latin authors and their works follow the Oxford Latin Dictionary. Years referring to Roman history are all implicitly bc.

chapter one THE NOUN AND ITS MODIFIERS

1. Introduction Latin is a language without articles. In languages such as English and French, which have articles, the term “noun phrase” is used for combinations of articles and nouns, bare nouns representing special cases. A noun phrase in English, for example a horse, corresponds to a bare noun in Latin: equus. However, the term “noun phrase” is fully justified in Latin because of the existence of combinations of a noun and one or more modifiers: adjectives, determiners, quantifiers, identifiers, genitive complements, prepositional phrases, relative clauses, or appositions (Pinkster LSS § 6.2). The complements are often optional, but they can also be obligatory in the sense that they are required by the valency of the head noun (Pinkster LSS § 6). From the syntactic point of view, the Latin noun phrase represents a combination of elements that may function as a simple noun (1) (Touratier 1994: 432).1 (1)

equus currit ‘a/the horse is running’ hic equus currit ‘this horse is running’ equus albus currit ‘a/the white horse is running’ equus meus currit ‘my horse is running’

I will begin my study of Latin noun phrases with a survey of the semantic and syntactic properties of elements that build up a noun phrase: nouns and their modifiers. I will first discuss the parameters useful for their description, based on Lyons’ typology which has been recently worked out in Functional Discourse Grammar, especially by Hengeveld and Rijkhoff (section 2). The proposed criteria will then be applied to Latin (section 2.3), with one very important additional criterion, that of valency (section 2.4). The types of modifiers will be presented in section 3. This chapter does not pretend to draw up an exhaustive list of Latin nouns and modifiers; it aims to be a systematic examination of nouns and modifiers through which we will

1 For the integration of modifiers into a noun phrase, see chapter 3, p. 218. For more details about the presumable “appositive” status of modifiers in Latin, see Spevak (fc. a with further references).

2

chapter one

identify their characteristic properties; this point is useful for understanding the combinations of elements in a noun phrase and the places they occupy. The principles formulated in this introductory chapter will be useful for the examination of noun phrases in a corpus of texts, as presented in chapter 2. 2. The Noun 2.1. Parameters for a Description of Nouns As in other languages, Latin uses pronouns (ego ‘I’, nos ‘we’), proper names (Quintus), common nouns (vir ‘man’, equus ‘horse’), or noun phrases (vir bonus ‘good man’) to refer to entities. The noun is the means par excellence of denotation. In other words, the prototypical function of the noun is to denote entities whereas the prototypical function of the verb is to denote actions, events, and processes.2 From Antiquity onwards, three grammatical categories of nominals are distinguished: gender, number, and case. Modern linguistics goes into more detail in order to define characteristic features of the noun (“nouniness”) with respect to features characteristic of the verb (“verbiness”),3 which typically expresses person, tense, voice, and aspect. Nouns and verbs differ in their combinatorial syntactic properties:4 nouns combine with determiners, quantifiers, identifiers, adjectives, genitive complements, and possessive pronouns, and they can be governed by prepositions. By contrast, verbs accept complements that take the form of a noun (phrase), a pronoun, or a prepositional phrase, and this, according to their valency configuration, i.e. the number of complement positions that are required by their meaning.5 Various semantic functions (agent, patient, receptor/addressee, manner, instrument, etc.) are, in a flexional language such as Latin, marked by case endings (Pinkster LSS § 6.6). Additionally, adverbs are typically modifiers of a verb. The category of nouns is traditionally subdivided into appellative or common nouns, proper names, and collective nouns. Lyons (1977: 442–447) deserves the credit for having established a typology6 of entities on the basis

2

See Lyons (1977: 425 and 442); cf. Hopper & Thompson (1984: 705). For these notions, see Ross (1973) and Sasse (2001). 4 See Bolkestein (1989: 5). For verbal properties, cf. Simone & Pompei (2007). 5 For valency, see below, p. 24. 6 Other typologies have been proposed, for example, Givón (1979: 314–317) distinguishes between entities that exist in space (chair), entities that exist in time (activity), and entities that exist tout court (idea); he works, in particular, with the concept of the stability in 3

the noun and its modifiers

3

of the semantic nature of their referent related to space or to time.7 His typology has been expanded by Rijkhoff and Hengeveld, as we will see in section 2.3. Lyons typology is made up of three orders of entities:8 (i) Physical entities are first-order entities. This category comprises persons, animals, and objects that can be situated in space and in time. They are physically observable, relatively stable with respect to their perceptive properties, and one can evaluate their existence. First order entities are hierarchized: persons occupy a privileged position because they are more strongly individualized than animals, and animals are more strongly individualized than things, e.g. boy, cat, table. (ii) Events, processes, and states-of-affairs are second-order entities that can be located in time. They are said to occur or to take place, rather than to exist, and one can evaluate their reality. Second-order entities (as well as third-order entities) are complex rather than simple nouns, e.g. arrival, birth, amazement, house-keeping. (iii) Third-order entities are propositional contents that are unobservable and cannot be said to occur or to be located either in space or in time. These abstract entities, unlike second-order entities, cannot be evaluated for their reality but for their truth value. They can be asserted or denied, remembered or forgotten, for example beliefs, judgements, and expectations: reason, proposition, theorem, idea. References to both second-order entities and third-order entities is often made by means of nouns formed by the process of nominalization. Furthermore, there are zero-order entities: properties and relations that do not exist independently but are applied to other entities such as colours, sizes, and weights. One can evaluate whether they are used in a correct way. Nouns that denote first-order entities are regarded by Lyons (1977: 446) as the most typical nouns. Rijkhoff (2002: 19) has elaborated this point and has defined a “prototypical or standard noun” in order to establish a typology of time (permanent vs. temporal entities). Simone (Simone & Masini 2007) uses the notion of “referential force” in order to isolate “designative” nouns (cat) with the highest degree of reference, then classifiers (basket, bottle), quantifiers (quantity, pile), qualifiers (type, quality), and approximators ( form, kind). 7 It is worth remembering that the space/time distinction served as a criterion for Varro’s study (L. 5.11–12) of Latin etymologies. 8 Cf. Hopper & Thompson (1984: 705). Functional Grammar (Dik 1997 I: 136–137) contains also fourth order entities: speech acts that situate themselves in space and in time and can be evaluated according to their informativity.

4

chapter one

noun phrases in various modern languages. He considers as prototypical a noun phrase that is built up with a first-order noun, denoting a single, discrete entity. Other nouns belonging to the first order are “non-prototypical”: proper names, derived nouns, collective, and mass nouns. This distinction has been adopted by Hengeveld (2008: 46) who gives the following example of a prototypical noun phrase: (2)

The intelligent girl passed the exam.

Its head noun (girl) denotes a concrete first-order entity and does so by lexical means. Such a prototypical denotative and referential noun phrase (2) should be differentiated from instances that do not involve lexical items and/or are not denotative (Hengeveld 2008: 53).9 Firstly, proper names and pronouns have a referential use only, due to convention (3). Unlike denotative nouns, they do not designate properties of an entity that exists in the external world. This feature manifests itself in certain peculiarities of use, to which I will return in section 2.3.1.6 (p. 19). (3)

I saw John. / I saw him.

Secondly, nouns used in a non-referential way are also not prototypical. For example, a criminal in (4) is not being used in order to refer to an individual but to a quality, and this is signalled by the resumption involving the neuter pronoun that; by contrast, a criminal in (5), resumed by the personal pronoun he, is referential. (4)

This man is a criminal.—That’s what he is.

(5)

A criminal refused to hand in his gun.—That’s what he did.

Another non-standard type is made up of constructions that lack the head noun, such as nominal relative clauses: (6)

I will read what you read.

Nominalisations also belong to this category; for example, derivational expressions such as agent nouns (teacher). Finally, all nouns denoting entities other than those belonging to the first order are non-prototypical, for example general (individual), colour

9 Denotation is used in the sense of relationship that holds between a linguistic expression and the entities external to the language system to which that expression applies (Lyons 1977: 207); by reference is meant, in a pragmatic sense, the use a speaker makes of a linguistic expression to identify an entity for an addressee (Lyons 1977: 177).

the noun and its modifiers

5

Figure 1: Types of referents

(property), meeting (state-of-affairs), idea (propositional content), country (location) or week (time). To sum up, nouns are a heterogeneous group. The concept of three orders of entities—spatio-temporal and temporal entities, and propositional contents—makes it possible to describe characteristic properties of each category. A “prototypical” noun is a noun that denotes a single, discrete entity of the first order. The first order of entities also contains nouns that are not prototypical. Furthermore, concrete first order entities are hierarchized for humanness (human > non-human) and animacy (animate > inanimate). 2.2. Specific—Generic—Referential We have seen that a noun can be used in an utterance as referential or non-referential. Furthermore, the referent of a noun (phrase) can be specific, non-specific, or generic (Hawkins 1978: 203). The types of referents are shown in Figure 1. A noun (phrase) has a specific referent when it is used to denote a particular entity: in (2), the speaker has a concrete person in his/her mind, the intelligent girl. Specificity is not necessarily linked with definiteness. The referent in (7) is presented as unidentifiable for the addressee, as is signalled by the use of the indefinite article, but the speaker refers to a specific car. By contrast, when the speaker does not have any particular referent in mind, the referent is non-specific: any particular bicycle is meant in (8). Specific expressions can be referred to by an anaphoric pronoun in a present indicative clause (Haspelmath 1997: 38).

6

chapter one

(7)

I have bought a car.

It is black.

(8)

I want to buy a bicycle. *It is black.

Generic nouns or noun phrases denote a kind (9) or all relevant entities, such as in (10). (9)

The whale is a mammal.

(10) Whales are mammals.

Referential nouns or noun phrases are used to refer to a concrete entity, such as a criminal in (5), unlike non-referential ones (4) that apply to entities envisaged as a class. How do these notions manifest themselves in Latin, a language without articles? In Latin, it is common to express—when the speaker or writer judges it necessary—the relationship of an entity with the preceding context or with the situation of the discourse, in particular, by using anaphoric or demonstrative pronouns.10 On the other hand, a bare noun, without such a modifier, can apply to a specific, a non-specific, or a generic referent; it can also be non-referential. In (11), the anaphoric pronoun eam accompanies a noun mentioned in the preceding context; the referent is specific, as in (12), where the contextual giveness is not expressed by linguistic means. By contrast in (13), navem (not previously mentioned) does not refer to a particular object: its referent is non-specific. (11)

(navem vero cybaeam maximam … tibi donatamque esse dico …) Eam navem nuper egomet vidi Veliae, multique alii viderunt. ‘(I assert that an enormous ship … was given to you …) I saw this ship myself at Velia not long ago, and many others have seen it too.’ (Cic. Ver. 5.44)

(12) (onerariam navem … illam navem …) Verum haec omnia, si doces navem de tua pecunia aedificatam, remitto atque concedo. ‘(a cargo ship … that ship …) However, I withdraw and forgo all these points, if you say that the ship was built with your money.’ (Cic. Ver. 5.47) (13) At enim idcirco navem Mamertinis non imperasti, quod sunt foederati. ‘But you did not command the Mamertines to furnish a ship, because they are one of the federate cities. (Cic. Ver. 5.49)

Consul in (14) is referential, with a specific referent, because it denotes a particular person: Cicero; consul in (15) is non-referential since it only concerns the function carried out by Cethegus.

10

See Spevak (2010a: 32–35 and 56–91) with further references.

the noun and its modifiers

7

(14) Consul Lentulum … ipse manu tenens in senatum perducit. ‘The consul himself took Lentulus by the hand … and led him to the senate.’ (Sal. Cat. 46.5) (15) At hic Cethegus consul cum P. Tuditano fuit bello Punico secundo. ‘Now this Cethegus was consul with Publius Tuditanus in the Second Punic War.’ (Cic. Brut. 60)

Latin has lexical means for distinguishing between specific and non-specific referents: indefinite pronouns. Aliquis typically signals a non-specific referent,11 a referent that is not identified by the speaker: aliquis Siculus ‘any Sicilian’ (16), as well as amicus ‘a friend’ and hospes ‘a connection’, does not correspond to any particular person present in the mind of the speaker; any individual belonging to the group of Siculi ‘Sicilians’ is eligible. By contrast, the indefinite pronoun quidam accompanies a specific referent that is presented as unidentifiable to the addressee but the speaker identifies him very well,12 for example scriba quidam ‘a certain notary’ in (17). The speaker knows exactly who is concerned: Cn. Flavius;13 his complete name is expressed in the apposition. (16) Non amicus istius, non hospes, non denique aliquis Siculus, sed quaestor populi Romani praetorem appellat. ‘This appeal is made not by one of his friends, not by one of his hosts, not by a Sicilian at all, but by a quaestor of the Roman people to the praetor.’ (Cic. Ver. 4.146) (17) Inventus est scriba quidam, Cn. Flavius, qui … singulis diebus discendis fastos populo proposuerit … ‘But one scribe turned up, Gnaeus Flavius, who … by learning one day at a time gave the people a legal calendar …’ (Cic. Mur. 25)

11 I would classify aliquis in this way. This is what is stated in Orlandini (1983: 238); in a later study (Orlandini 1995: 19), she envisages for aliquis an “indefinite specific referent that is not identified by the speaker” (also in Bertocchi, Maraldi & Orlandini 2010: 29). Cf. Haspelmath (1997: 253). 12 See Orlandini (1995: 15). This distinctive feature of quidam compared to aliquis makes it possible to combine it with proper names (Orlandini 1995: 149 and Rosén 1998: 728). Furthermore, Haspelmath states (1997: 41) that specific pronouns are excluded from certain contexts, in particular, imperative and interrogative sentences. This would be actually expected for quidam; aliquis is not submitted to such restrictions. 13 He was a secretary of Appius Claudius Caecus. He stole juridical formulas, which had been concealed from the people until then, and published them in a volume entitled Ius Flavianum (see Cic. de Orat. 1.186). In 304, when he was a curule aedile, he posted a calendar and made public information about judicial days, so that people no longer needed to turn to pontiffs.

8

chapter one

Nouns with generic referents are not marked as such in Latin ((18) and (19)). However, they can be accompanied by omnis ‘all’ or quisque ‘every’ in the singular, or by omnes in the plural. (18) Rationale enim animal est homo. ‘For man is a reasoning animal.’ (Sen. Ep. 41.8) (19) ad cursum equum, ad arandum bovem, ad indagandum canem … esse natum ‘the horse is born for running, the ox for ploughing, and the dog for hunting’ (Cic. Fin. 2.40)

2.3. The Typology of Nouns The typology of nouns elaborated by Rijkhoff and Hengeveld, which amplifies the scheme of Lyons, presented above in section 2.1, has the advantage of systematizing the description of the category of “noun”. In the present section, I will apply this typology to Latin nouns and classify them according to their properties and behaviour. Such a classification is important for understanding the selection of modifiers that may accompany them. Furthermore, I will link Rijkhoff and Hengeveld’s typology to the ability of nouns to admit complements and will take valency as an additional criterion. From the traditional point of view, the noun as a word class comprises common nouns and proper names; the group of common nouns is subdivided into concrete and abstract nouns, mass and count nouns, individual and collective nouns, animate and inanimate nouns. For his description of noun phrases, which aims to set up a typology applicable to various modern languages, Rijkhoff (2002: 50) adopts two essential parameters: shape and homogeneity. The feature “shape” applies to discrete entities that can be numerated; the feature “homogeneity” applies to entities that are cumulative and dissective. According to the presence or the absence of these properties, three types of nouns can be distinguished; they are summarised in Table 1. Table 1: Properties of nouns (Rijkhoff 2002: 52) vir ‘man’ familia ‘family’ aqua ‘water’

singular object nouns collective nouns mass nouns

+ shape + shape – shape

– homogeneity + homogeneity + homogeneity

Referents of singular object nouns (vir ‘man’) and of collective nouns ( familia ‘family’) are discrete and can be counted. Additionally, collective nouns are also homogeneous or “agglomerative” (+ shape) in that the arrival of a

the noun and its modifiers

9

new member changes the number of individuals in a family but it is still a family. Mass nouns (aqua ‘water’) cannot be numerated (—shape); they are cumulative and divisible into portions. 2.3.1. First-Order Entities 2.3.1.1. Prototypical Nouns “Prototypical nouns” (Rijkhoff 2002: 19, Hengeveld 2008: 46) are underived nouns denoting a discrete, singular entity that is physically observable in space.14 They are zero-valent or “semantically closed” in that their semantic value does not require any complementation, e.g. vir ‘man’, mulier ‘woman’, equus ‘horse’, navis ‘ship’, liber ‘book’. They distinguish between singular and plural number and are countable, as had been stated by Varro (20). Count nouns are related to the question quot? ‘how many?’ (21). Multiplication of singular entities, which happens in the plural, consists in the addition of more or less similar individuals that form a heterogeneous class. (20) Ideo quod omnia multitudinis quae declinantur ab uno, ut a merula merulae, sunt eius modi, ut singulari subiungantur, sic merulae duae, catulae tres, faculae quattuor. ‘Yet all plurals which are derived from a singular unit, like merulae from merula ‘blackbird’ are of such a sort that they subjoin a single unit like this: two merulae ‘blackbirds’, three catulae ‘female puppies’, four faculae ‘torches’.’ (Var. L. 10.66)15 (21) Quot aratores adveniente te fuerunt agri Mutycensis? … # CLXXXVII. ‘How many cultivators were there of the district of Mutyca, when you arrived? … # 187.’ (Cic. Ver. 3.120)

Nouns in the singular as well as in the plural can have a generic referent, when any individual belonging to the group is concerned: (22) In torcularium quae opus sunt. ‘What is the necessary equipment for a pressing-room.’ (Cato Agr. 12) Oleae albae quem ad modum condiantur. ‘How to season green olives.’ (Cato Agr. 117)

14 I will not take into consideration any philosophical questions concerning this point: immortal gods are to be regarded as first-order entities, as well as the world, a city, a Republic, etc. 15 I use the emended text, Traglia’s 1974 edition.

10

chapter one

Concrete entities allow all sorts of modifiers concerning the quality, the quantity and the determination, including singularizing quantifiers such as singuli ‘every single’ or quisque ‘each’, except cunctus and universus ‘the whole’, which only apply to collective nouns.16 2.3.1.2. The pluralia tantum The group of first-order entities includes nouns that cannot be considered as prototypical, among them, the pluralia tantum which only appear in the plural form and do not have a singular counterpart.17 At the same time, their plural form does not mean plurality (Var. L. 10.66); it is just a morphological property of this type of nouns (Touratier 1994: 89). Furthermore, the Latin pluralia tantum such as castra ‘camp’, litterae ‘(one) letter’, quadrigae ‘a team of four horses’, arma ‘weapons’, distinguish themselves by their selection of quantifiers: they do not combine with cardinal numerals such as duo ‘two’, tres ‘three’ but with distributive numerals such as bini ‘a set of two’, trini ‘a set of three’ (bina castra ‘two camps’, binae quadrigae ‘two teams of four horses’),18 as Varro himself pointed out (23). His example concerns the fact that the pluralia tantum do not present opposition between the singular and the plural number (cf. example (20)).19 Other examples are given in (24). Among the pluralia tantum, there are nouns that are not counted, e.g. valvae ‘(double) door’, moenia ‘walls’, fides ‘lyre’, exta ‘entrails’, renes ‘kidneys’; their multiplication would necessitate a very particular context. The pluralia tantum are not exclusive to the first-order entities (see section 2.3.2, p. 22).

16

For omnis, see p. 50, note 102. *Castrum, for example, does not exist alongside castra. The pluralia tantum denote an object composed of parts forming a unit: fores ‘(double) door’ (cf. Quirk 1985: 301 on “summation plurals” in English), scalae ‘ladder, stairs’ consisting of several steps, litterae ‘letter’. The semantic feature of plurality may become imperceptible, for example for castra. In the case of tenebrae ‘darkness’, a second-order entity denoting a non-discrete and uncountable phenomenon, an idea of intensity can apply. 18 For the use of distributive numerals with the pluralia tantum, see K.&St. (I: 660), Löfstedt (1958: 100–117), and Menge (2000: 85); cf. ThLL, s. v. bini. The distributive numerals are not exclusive to the pluralia tantum but are also used for denoting pairs, for example: boves trinos (Cato Agr. 10.1) ‘three yoke of oxen’; in such cases, they can combine with cardinal numerals: binos ducentos Philippos iam intus ecferam ‘I’ll bring out two piles of two hundred Philippics’ (Pl. Bac. 1050). For distributive numerals, cf. also Ojeda (1997). 19 Cf. a fragment from Caesar’s On Analogy reported by Gel. 19.8. Also later grammarians report this property: Charisius (p. 34, ed. Barwick), and Ps. Caper, quoted p. 23 in (57), among others. 17

the noun and its modifiers

11

(23) Quare cum idem non possit subiungi, quod non dicimus biga una, quadrigae duae, nuptiae tres, sed pro eo unae bigae, binae quadrigae, trinae nuptiae, apparet non esse a biga et quadriga bigae et quadrigae. ‘Therefore since they cannot subjoin a single unit, because we do not say biga una, quadrigae duae, nuptiae tres, but instead unae bigae ‘one two-horse team’, binae quadrigae ‘two teams of four horses’, trinae nuptiae ‘three sets of nuptials’, it is clear that bigae and quadrigae are not from biga and quadriga.’ (Var. L. 10.67) (24) inter bina castra Pompei atque Caesaris ‘between the two camps of Pompey and Caesar’ (Caes. Civ. 3.19.1) Tullia … litteras reddidit trinas. ‘Tullia … gave me three letters.’ (Cic. Att. 11.17)

Touratier (1994: 88–89), in his discussion of pluralia tantum, distinguishes two types: (i) the nouns that refer to entities that are never single, such as decemviri ‘decemvirs’, Lares ‘household gods’, or Manes ‘spirits of the dead’, and (ii) the nouns that no longer correspond to plural entities, e.g. castra ‘camp’, nuptiae ‘wedding’, tenebrae ‘darkness’. This distinction is incorrect. In fact, the pluralia tantum, which lack the singular, should be differentiated from the nouns that appear “mainly” in the plural. Their behaviour is not the same.20 The frequent occurrence of the plural form is not a criterion for identification of a plurale tantum; the decisive criteria are the possibility of individuation of the constitutive elements and/or the choice of a distributive numeral. The plural morpheme has its full value and expresses plurality in the case of decemviri ‘decemvirs’, but it is not a plurale tantum because it is opposed to the singular number: decemvir (Cic. Agr. 2.16), a (one) member of the college of decemvirs. In the same way, Lares—even if this example belongs to the category of proper names that will be discussed in section 2.3.1.6 (p. 19)—is often used in the plural form but these deities, associated with the protection of home, can be individuated, especially as Lar familiaris ‘the god of the household’ (Pl. Aul. 2). The case of liberi ‘children’ (25) is of particular interest; unlike the pair nepos ‘grandson/granddaughter’— nepotes ‘grandchildren’, liberi does not have a singular form derived from the same base, *liber, but suppletive forms filius ‘son’ and filia ‘daughter’. Nevertheless, it is not a plurale tantum since the members of the group can be individuated and counted by means of the cardinal numeral sex ‘six’, and not by the distributive seni.21 20 The list provided by Kühner & Holzweissig (1912: 501–519) contains both true pluralia tantum and nouns with a “frequent” plural form. 21 Kühner & Holzweissig (1912: 502) list liberi within the category of pluralia tantum;

12

chapter one

(25) Q. Metellus Macedonicus, cum sex liberos relinqueret, XI nepotes reliquit, nurus vero generosque et omnes, qui se patris appellatione salutarent, XXVII. ‘Quintus Metellus Macedonicus, leaving six children, left eleven grand-children, but including daughters-in-law and sons-in-law the total of those who greeted him by the title of father was twenty seven.’ (Plin. Nat. 7.59)

In sum, caelites and superi ‘gods’, maiores ‘ancestors’, Penates ‘tutelary gods’, that can be individuated and counted, form a “group plural”. These nouns can be linked together with collective nouns, in that they present a plural form denoting groups of individuals. Unlike nouns in the “group plural”, the pluralia tantum select distributive numerals. On the other hand, there are instances for which it is difficult to determine the category they belong to, in the absence of any information about the choice of quantifiers. These are, for example, cancelli ‘grille’, codicilli ‘writing-tablets’, or rostra ‘platform for speakers’.22 2.3.1.3. Collective Nouns Collective nouns such as familia ‘family’, exercitus ‘army’, populus ‘people’, tribus ‘tribe’, collegium ‘college’ denote, by means of the singular number, a group of individuals envisaged as a unit.23 Their referent consists of members whose number can be variable; the arrival or departure of one member does not change the existence of a familia or gens (Rijkhoff 2002: 53). In this sense, they are homogeneous or cumulative. Collective nouns make a distinction between the singular and the plural and are countable (26). Unlike prototypical nouns which, in the plural, multiply the number of individuals of the similar type, plurality of collective nouns does not mean multiplication of individuals but of whole groups. According to this property, collective nouns can be evaluated not only for number (multitudo) but also for size (magnitudo) (27), i.e. for the small or large number of individuals that they contain. Collective nouns admit all sorts of quantifiers, including plures and plurimi ‘most’, multi ‘many’, nonnulli ‘a number of, some’, omnes ‘all’, toti ‘whole’ (28), and especially cunctus and universus ‘the whole’, which typically accompany collective nouns in the singular, for example, cuncta civitas ‘the whole city’ (Cic. Pis. 45).

Kühner & Stegmann (I: 660) point out the presence of the cardinal numeral with liberi, without establishing a difference between true pluralia tantum (that combine with distributive numerals) and nouns that often appear in the plural. 22 Additionally, a plurale tantum can change its status during the evolution of Latin. Further research of this question would be useful. 23 For the problems concerning the category of “collective nouns”, see Corbett (2000: 117), with discussion and further references.

the noun and its modifiers

13

(26) (vilicus) Duas aut tres familias habeat, unde utenda roget et quibus det. ‘(the overseer) He must have two or three households, from whom he borrows and to whom he lends.’ (Cato Agr. 5.3) (27) Cn. Pompeius … magnum exercitum ductabat. ‘Gnaeus Pompey … was at the head of a large army.’ (Sal. Cat. 17.7) (28) quo in oppido multas familias totas in perpetuum infamis tuis stupris flagitiisque fecisti ‘in their city you brought permanent disgrace on many entire families through your sexual assaults’ (Cic. Ver. 4.20)

Collective nouns can present particular features as regards agreement in number. A well-known example of notional agreement, with a verb in the plural (exirent) following the singular civitas, is given in (29).24 (29) (Orgetorix) civitati persuasit, ut de finibus suis cum omnibus copiis exirent. ‘(Orgetorix) persuaded the community to march out of their territories in full force.’ (Caes. Gal. 1.2.1)

2.3.1.4. Mass Nouns The referent of mass nouns does not consist of members, as does that of collective nouns, but of portions, which can be extracted. Mass nouns are of a cumulative nature: if we add some wine into an amphora, we still refer to it as vinum (Rijkhoff 2002: 52). They are uncountable and do not combine with cardinal numerals.25 Mass nouns, for which opposition between the singular and the plural number is non-existent, select particular quantifiers. Varro himself captures this property perfectly when he says that we do not use the plural number for quantifying these nouns but, for example, multus (30). (30) Nam in plumbo, argento, cum incrementum accessit, dicimus multum, sic multum plumbum, argentum; non plumba, argenta. ‘For in plumbum ‘lead’ and argentum ‘silver’, when there has been an increase of quantity, we say multum: thus multum plumbum ‘lot of lead’, multum argentum ‘lot of silver’, not plumba ‘leads’, argenta ‘silvers’.’ (Var. L. 9.66)

24 More examples (with familia and genus) are provided by Pinkster (fc., chapter 13). Agreement in the plural is mainly used with abstract nouns multitudo ‘quantity’ and pars ‘a part’ (cf. also Touratier 1994: 358–359); these nouns, in my view, are likely to be classified as nominal quantifiers (see below, p. 49), and not as collective nouns. 25 As in French, deux thés for ‘two cups of tea’, Latin mass nouns may be used metonymically (cf. K.&St. I: 74), for example cera ‘wax’ denoting ‘wax writing-tablets’: dum scribo, explevi totas ceras quattuor (Pl. Cur. 410) ‘while I was writing down that name, I filled four entire wax tablets with it’.

14

chapter one

Mass nouns partly cover what grammarians call the singularia tantum.26 They may be divided into three categories, which combine with specific modifiers: nouns expressing material (aqua ‘water’), units consisting of several items (pecunia ‘money’), and indivisible units (terra ‘earth’). The first one includes nouns denoting consumable items: aqua ‘water’, mel ‘honey’, caseus ‘cheese’, vinum ‘wine’, frumentum ‘corn’, and non-consumable substances: aurum ‘gold’, argentum ‘silver’, pulvis ‘dust’, sanguis ‘blood’. In Latin, nouns denoting single countable items are also used in the singular with a mass meaning, for example lapis ‘stone (pebbles)’, fagus ‘beech (timber)’, or vegetables such as faba ‘bean’, cicer ‘chick-pea’.27 Their quantity can be expressed with the help of nouns expressing measure or weight, as Varro rightly observed (31). The choice of a nominal quantifier depends on the liquid or dry nature of the item concerned: sextarius, amphora, modius, pondus ‘weight’, libra (pondo) ‘pound’, etc., see examples (32) and (33).28 As these expressions of measure are nouns, the construction required for the mass noun is the genitive of quantity.29 However, semantically, it is the mass noun that is determined by the measure noun, and not vice versa.30 The questionword used for quantity of mass nouns is quantum ‘how much’: quantum frumenti? ‘how much corn?’ However, mass nouns can also co-occur with nouns denoting containers such as dolium ‘jar (for storing liquids or grain)’ without implying quantity,31 for example, aula cineris (Pl. Am. frg. 4) ‘a pot of ashes’. Such genitives are more likely genitives of content. (31) (vinum, acetum … vocabula) quae sub mensuram ac pondera potius quam sub numerum succedunt ‘(‘wine’, ‘vinegar’… words) which come under the categories of quantity and weight rather than under that of number’ (Var. L. 9.66)

26

See e.g. Prisc. in GL V 176 and Kühner & Holzweissig (1912: 500–501). For the latter group, see Var. L. 8.48, 9.38, and Löfstedt (1928: 13). 28 The liquid measure sextarius corresponds to 540 ml; modius, a dry measure for grain and olives, to 8.76 litres; the liquid measure amphora, to 26.26 litres. Libra or pondo is a measure corresponding to 324 g. 29 The genitive of quantity is a subcategory of the genitive of the whole (Bennett 1914: 13– 16) and is sometimes called the “partitive genitive”. The term “genitive of quantity”, used by K.&St. (I: 429) and Ernout & Thomas (1954: 48), among others, is more exact because the semantic relationship is not that of division. As Pinkster (fc. chapter 11) rightly argues, sextarius aquae, for example, does not compete with a partitive construction such as *sextarius ex aqua. Cf. also Milner (1978: 119) on Fr. beaucoup de, which is not a partitive construction. 30 See Torrego in Baños Baños (2009: 167) and Ripoll (2010a: 309) with references to Milner (1978: 39) and Nøjgaard (1995 III: 89); cf. also Maurel (1985) and Serbat (1996: 343). 31 As Bennett (1914: 14) observed. 27

the noun and its modifiers

15

(32) aquae sextarius ‘a pint of water’ (Cic. Off. 2.56) quaternos denarios in singulas vini amphoras ‘fourteen denarii for every amphora of wine’ (Cic. Font. 19) CCCC amphoras mellis ‘four hundred jars of honey’ (Cic. Ver. 2.183) (33) Cives Romanos eius provinciae sibi ad rem publicam administrandam sestertium centies et octogies et argenti pondo XX milia, tritici modios CXX milia polliceri coegit. ‘He forced the Roman citizens of the province them to promise to contribute to the public account 18 million sesterces and 20,000 pounds of silver, and 120,000 bushels of wheat.’ (Caes. Civ. 2.18.4)

Less precise quantities, great or small, are expressed by means of quantifiers in the neuter form, such as plurimum ‘most of’, aliquid, aliquantum, paulum ‘a few’ (34), followed by a genitive of quantity, or by multus ‘an abundance of, much’ (but not plurimus), which agrees in gender and number with the governing noun (35). Also nominal quantifiers meaning ‘a quantity of’ are allowed, e.g. multitudo, magna vis and magnus numerus (36). The latter one conveys the idea of the ‘number’, but it can very well be applied to some non-count nouns. Mass nouns admit the universal quantifier omnis ‘all’ (37), but they do not combine with totus ‘whole’. (34) quam plurumum aquae ‘as much water as (they could carry)’ (Sal. Jug. 75.5) auri aliquantum ‘a quantity of gold’ (Cic. Div. 2.134) paulum frumenti ‘a little corn’ (Caes. Civ. 1.78.2) (35) aqua calida multa lavato ‘wash it with plenty of warm water’ (Cato Agr. 157.3) (vinea) vino multo ‘(a vineyard produces) wine bountifully’ (Cato Agr. 1.7) si multus erat in calceis pulvis ‘if there was much dust on his shoes’ (Cic. Inv. 1.47) (36) maximus vini numerus ‘an immense quantity of wine’ (Cic. Phil. 2.66) pulveris vim magnam ‘a vast cloud of dust’ (Sal. Jug. 53.1) aquae multitudine ‘by a great quantity of water’ (Cic. Sen. 71)

16

chapter one

(37) paene omne frumentum ‘nearly all the corn’ (Caes. Civ. 1.48.5)

Some mass nouns can appear in the plural; in which case they express the notion ‘various sorts of’ (38).32 Frumenta in the plural means ‘kinds of corn’ or ‘standing corn’ (39). Besides, panis, which can be measured by means of pondus as in Cato Agr. 56: panis pondo IIII ‘four pounds of bread’, is used in the plural in (40); loaves of bread (sailors’ biscuit) is certainly what is meant. (38) Vina ceteraque quae in Asia facillime comparantur … asportavit. ‘He carried off the wines and all the other things which are procured most easily in Asia …’ (Cic. Ver. 1.91) (39) Iamque frumenta maturescere incipiebant … ‘And now the crops were beginning to ripen …’ (Caes. Civ. 3.49.1) (40) Ego, dum panes et cetera in navem parantur, excurro in Pompeianum. ‘While the bread, etc. is being made for the ship, I am running over to my place at Pompei.’ (Cic. Att. 10.15.4)

The second category of mass nouns includes entities consisting of several, usually not individuated, elements: pecunia ‘money’, fenus ‘gain’, supellex ‘dishes, furniture’, praeda ‘booty’. Unlike collective nouns such as familia, they do not usually form a plural and do not combine with cardinal numerals. Compared to the nouns denoting material, these nouns are normally not divided but are envisaged as a unit. Whereas pecunia33 ‘money’ and praeda ‘spoils’ are measured for a large amount, magnitudo (pecuniae Cic. Inv. 2.168): magna pecunia ‘a lot of money’ (Sal. Jug. 97.1), nouns such as supellex ‘dishes’ are measured for the large number of items they include, multitudo: multa supellex in (41). Pecunia can be used in the plural in the sense of ‘possessions, wealth’ (Cic. Ver. 3.218). Praeda in the plural, for example praedas agere (Sal. Jug. 20.8), means ‘to drive off cattle as booty on various occasions’ (K.&St. I: 77). The nouns denoting a unit consisting of several

32 As had already been observed by Varro (L. 9.67): alii generis enim vinum quod Chio, aliud quod Lesbo, sic ex regionibus aliis ‘for there is wine of one kind, which comes from Chios, another wine which is from Lesbos, and so on from other localities’. The plural form is not common for all mass nouns: si item discrimina magna essent olei et aceti et sic ceterarum rerum eiusmodi in usu communi, dicerentur sic olea ut vina (Var. ibid.) ‘if in like fashion there were great differences in olive-oil and vinegar and the other articles of this sort, in common use, then we should employ the plurals olea and aceta, like vina’. 33 Recall that pecunia originally denotes wealth consisting of cattle: in pecore pecunia tum pastoribus consistebat ‘the herdsmen’s pecunia ‘wealth’ then lay in their pecus ‘flocks’’ (Var. L. 5.95).

the noun and its modifiers

17

objects (such as praeda) could be seen to be parallel with nouns that are only used in the plural, such as divitiae ‘wealth’, exuviae ‘spoils’, or manubiae ‘(share of) booty’, which are, presumably, pluralia tantum. The quantifiers plurimus, plures ‘most’, and aliquot ‘a certain number’, are excluded from use with these non-count nouns. But they can combine with omnis: omnis pecunia ‘all the money’ (Caes. Civ. 2.18.2), omnis supellex ‘all the dishes’ (Cic. Ver. 4.37), as well as totus: tota pecunia ‘the whole sum of money’ (Cic. Ver. 3.170). The following example (41), taken from Cicero, nicely shows the distribution of quantifiers and of measure nouns. Mass nouns co-occur with pondus ‘weight’ and nominal quantifiers magnus numerus and vis maxima ‘a great quantity’; count nouns (stragula and vasa) and (probably non-count) vestis with plurimus ‘very much’; the mass noun supellex with multus ‘much’. (41) Dico te maximum pondus auri, argenti, eboris, purpurae, plurimam vestem Melitensem, plurimam stragulam, multam Deliacam supellectilem, plurima vasa Corinthia, magnum numerum frumenti, vim mellis maximam Syracusis exportasse. ‘I say that you exported from Syracuse an immense weight of gold, of silver, of ivory, of purple; much cloth from Melita, much embroidered stuff, much furniture of Delos, many Corinthian vessels, a great quantity of corn, an immense load of honey.’ (Cic. Ver. 2.176)

Finally, the third sub-category of mass nouns comprises non-count nouns denoting indivisible units, such as caelum ‘sky’, terra ‘earth’, or rus ‘countryside’. The plural number is possible in the case of terra and means ‘points on the Earth, in the world’ or ‘different regions’ (42). These nouns can be conceived of in their “overallness”, marked by omnis ‘all’ in the singular, and their wholeness expressed by totus ‘whole’ (43). (42) Frumentum provinciae frumentariae … in alias terras … miserant. ‘As for corn, the countries which usually supply it … had sent it into other countries.’ (Cic. Dom. 11) (43) omne caelum totamque cum universo mari terram mente complexum ‘mentally embracing sky and earth and sea in their entirety’ (Cic. Fin. 2.112)34

34 This example is often quoted in order to illustrate confusions of the use of totus and omnis (cf. note 113, p. 54). In my view, mass nouns of the caelum type simply admit both of them (cf. omnis and totus mundus in Cic. Fin. 4.7). Truly incorrect (or non-classical) uses of toti instead of omnes are these with countable plural entities, as was stated by Bonnet (1890: 276), e.g. totos nepotes in Stat. Theb. 1.81 ‘all my grandchildren’.

18

chapter one

2.3.1.5. Other Non-Prototypical First-Order Nouns Several nouns denoting singular, concrete and animate entities of the first order cannot be considered as prototypical, due to their peculiarities: kinship terms, derived nouns, and proper names. Kinship nouns such as pater ‘father’, filius ‘son’, frater ‘brother’, mater ‘mother’ are relational35 in that they imply affiliation. They are monovalent, regardless of whether the related word is actually expressed, under the conditions that necessitate it, or is only understood from the context.36 Kinship terms can be used referentially, referring to a specific individual (44)–(45), or non-referentially; in this case, they express affiliation between two persons (46). Substantival adjectives, such as amicus ‘friend’, propinquus ‘relative’ or sodalis ‘fellow’ are also relational and belong to this category. (44) Pater nos duos fratres reliquit. ‘Our father left two of us, brothers.’ (Sal. Jug. 14.14) (45) Pater occisus nefarie. ‘The father (of Sextus Roscius) has been infamously murdered.’ (Cic. S. Rosc. 30) (46) Eo L. Caesar adulescens venit, cuius pater Caesaris erat legatus. ‘Young Lucius Caesar, whose father was an officer of Caesar’s, came there.’ (Caes. Civ. 1.8.2)

The category of derived nouns is represented, for example, by agent nouns such as orator ‘orator’, imperator ‘general’, iudex ‘judge’, whether used referentially or non-referentially. However, it is not only their character as derived nouns that makes it unattractive to label them as “standard” nouns: agent nouns are valency nouns, monovalent or bivalent. They can therefore be expanded by a genitive, a prepositional phrase, or another type of complement. (47) Quare non dubito quo animo iudex huius criminis esse debeas. ‘Therefore I have no doubt about the attitude you should have as a judge of this crime.’ (Cic. Ver. 4.70)

Proper names cannot be taken to be prototypical nouns either, due to their distinctive features; they deserve a special section.

35 I keep the term “relational” exclusively for kinship nouns that express inalienable possession. Certain linguists use it in a larger sense for “bivalent nouns” in contrast with “absolute” (i. e. zero-valent) nouns: see Seiler (1983: 11) and Lehmann (1983: 343 and 1985: 72). 36 For kinship terms as expressions of inalienable possession, see Baldi & Nuti (2010: 330) and section 3.6.2, p. 77.

the noun and its modifiers

19

2.3.1.6. Proper Names Proper names belong to the category of definite singular expressions (Lyons 1977: 179) that also includes personal pronouns (ego, tu). They refer to entities but, unlike common nouns, proper names do not have a meaning of their own (Lyons 1977: 219).37 The reference made to an individual by means of a proper name is based on the association of that entity with a proper name. As this association is arbitrary, proper names do not denote entities in the external world but have a conventionalized referential use only (Hengeveld 2008: 53). Proper names generally refer to unique entities38 and are used for naming persons, deities, people, geographical places, and other items (festivals, titles of books, etc.). The names of gods and persons have two main functions: a referential function for identifying an individual, and a vocative function for drawing the attention of the addressee (Lyons 1977: 216).39 Place names and other appellations have a referential function only. Proper nouns have a limited ability to admit qualifying adjectives. These restrictions are compensated for by other linguistic means, for example by appositions, which will be examined in chapter 4. The names of gods and persons can be simple or complex. Besides the simple name Iuppiter, there are various complex appellations such as Iuppiter Optimus Maximus, Iuppiter Stator, Iuppiter Tonans, with attributes corresponding to the status or to the specific power of the god. For naming individuals, Romans used a system of three names (tria nomina): praenomen, nomen, cognomen, and sometimes an agnomen, for example Marcus Tullius Cicero and Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus. The choice of one name or another in a concrete situation was submitted to conventions (Adams 1978). Names of Greek, Gallic, Punic, and other foreigners are most often simple: Aristoteles, Carneades, Hannibal, Ariovistus; a complex form contains an adjective indicating the origin, for example the name of a Sicilian Dexo Tyndaritanus ‘Dexo from Tyndaris’ or that of a philosopher Hecato Rhodius ‘Hecato from Rhodes’. Proper names have, admittedly, unique referents; but

37 See also Touratier (1994: 9). For a structural analysis of a proper name in relation to a noun phrase, see Touratier (2010). The type of the reference carried out by proper names and the nature itself of proper names have sparked off much discussions among philosophers as well as linguists, see for example Coates (2006). 38 Uniqueness of the referent does not imply identifiability of the referent: see chapter 4 on appositions. 39 For other functions, proper and improper, of personal names, see Uría (2006).

20

chapter one

this does not mean that two persons cannot share the same name. Proper names—or more properly persons carrying them—are countable (48). (48) Nam duo isti sunt Titi Roscii—quorum alteri Capitoni cognomen est, iste qui adest Magnus vocatur—homines eiusmodi. ‘For these two Roscii—one of whom is surnamed Capito; the one who is present here is called Magnus—are men of this sort.’ (Cic. S. Rosc. 17)

Personal names therefore admit the plural number (K.&St. I: 72): duo Gracchi (Cic. Agr. 2.81), Gnaeus et Publius Scipiones ‘Gnaeus and Publius Scipiones’ (Cic. Balb. 34), Ioves plures ‘several Jupiters’ (Cic. N.D. 3.42), Ioves tres ‘three Jupiters’ (Cic. N.D. 3.53). The plural number can concern the members of one gens (‘family’) as well (49). In addition, the plural is common in the cases such as (50), with an improper use of the proper name, in the sense of ‘people like Brutus’.40 (49) Omnes illo die Scauri, Metelli, Claudii, Catuli, Scaevolae, Crassi arma sumpserunt. ‘On that day, all the Scauri, Metelli, Claudii, Catuli, Scaevolae, and Crassi took arms.’ (Cic. Phil. 8.15) (50) Qua re imitemur nostros Brutos, Camillos, Ahalas, Decios …, innumerabiles alios qui hanc rem publicam stabiliverunt. ‘Accordingly let us imitate our Bruti, Camilli, Ahalae, Decii … and countless others, who firmly established this State.’ (Cic. Sest. 143)

Names of ethnic groups and of inhabitants frequently occur in the plural because they denote individuals who belong to the same nation, country, or city, and share the same status and privileges: Romani ‘Romans’, Graeci ‘Greek’, Poeni ‘Phoenicians’; Syracusani, Rhodii, Massilienses ‘inhabitants of Syracuse, Rhodes, Massilia’.41 Members of such groups or communities can be individuated and quantified (51). (51) Est quidam Graecus qui cum isto vivit. ‘There is a certain Greek who lives with him.’ (Cic. Pis. 68) quoniam Smyrnae duos Mysos insuisses in culleum ‘that you had sewn up two Mysians in a sack42 at Smyrna’ (Cic. Q. fr. 1.2.5)

40 For this function, see Uría (2006). In the same way, the singular, nove Hannibal ‘new Hannibal’ (Cic. Phil. 13.25) is an expressive synonym of imperator (Touratier 1994: 88). 41 These names of ethnic groups and inhabitants are substantival adjectives. They compete with expressions such as Graecus homo ‘that good-for-nothing Greek’ (Cic. Prov. 15), which have special (here pejorative) value. 42 In order to punish them for parricide.

the noun and its modifiers

21

quem ad modum aliquot Graeci locuti sunt ‘as several Greeks said’ (Cic. Q. fr. 2.12.4)

From this point of view, Quirites, the singular of which (Quiris) only appears in poetry, and is not attested in Classical Latin prose (Kühner & Holzweissig 1912: 500), represents a group plural and not a plurale tantum noun, as defined above in section 2.3.1.2 (p. 10). Furthermore, ethnic names can be used in the singular, especially in a military context, in the sense of ‘each individual belonging to the group’; common nouns such as miles ‘soldiers’ or eques ‘horsemen’ allow the same use. Grammarians talk about collective meaning (K.&St. I: 67) but Löfstedt (1928: 11) rightly interprets it as a generic use of the singular (52).43 (52) Romanus sedendo vincit. ‘The Roman wins by sitting still.’ (Var. R. 1.2.2) Gallus periculum veritus, ut erat praeceptum, tragulam mittit. ‘Fearing danger, the Gaul discharged the spear, as he had been instructed.’ (Caes. Gal. 5.48.7)

Place-names—names of towns, rivers, regions, provinces—refer to singular entities and are habitually not counted,44 e.g. Roma, Carthago, Tiberis, Rhodanus, Etruria, Campania, Sicilia, Gallia, or the names of Cicero’s villas: Tusculanum, Pompeianum. As for town names, it is worth remembering the plural names such as Syracusae, Cumae, Formiae, or Athenae; these are pluralia tantum that lack the singular number. The true plural appears for actually plural entities, such as Baleares (insulae) ‘Balearic islands’. Other appellations fall into this category, such as titles of books: Brutus ‘Brutus’, De gloria ‘On Glory’, Orator ‘The Orator’. Some of them can be used in the plural, for example ‘Tusculan Disputations’, to the number of five (53). (53) Totidem subsecuti libri Tusculanarum disputationum res ad beate vivendum maxime necessarias aperuerunt. ‘Next, and in the same number of volumes, came the Tusculan Disputations, which made plain the means most essential to a happy life.’ (Cic. Div. 2.2)

43 He distinguishes it from the “collective singular” such as δάκρυ χέων (Hom. Il. 1.357) ‘shedding tears’. 44 Counting is possible for homonymous entities. For example, Varro (L. 8.35) talks about two Albae, inhabitants of which have different names: cum duae sint Albae, ab una dicuntur Albani, ab altera Albenses ‘while there are two towns named Alba, the people of the one are called Albani and those of the other are called Albenses’. Alba Longa and Alba Fucens, respectively, are the towns concerned. For homonymous towns such as Alexandrea and occasional geographical differentiations (Alexandrea in Aegypto ‘Alexandrea in Egypt’), see ThLL, s. v. Alexander, 1534.84 f.

22

chapter one

I will finally mention temporal names that lack the singular: the names of days Kalendae ‘Kalends’, Nonae ‘Nones’, Idus ‘Ides’, and the names of festivals, which are substantival adjectives and probably also pluralia tantum, e.g. Saturnalia, Palilia. 2.3.2. Second-Order Entities Entities that occur in time but do not exist in space are second-order entities. Into this category, I would classify, firstly, count nouns denoting a period, such as annus ‘year’, or hora ‘hour’. Secondly, it comprises nouns of actions or processes, derived from verbs, e.g. oratio ‘action of speaking’, amor ‘love’, odium ‘hate’, adventus ‘arrival’, eventus ‘event’. They are valency nouns in that they require a complement: a genitive (54) or a prepositional phrase (55). These nouns are uncountable. In certain cases, for example contiones ‘speeches’, which are delimited in time and, in some way, materialized (verbally or in writing), they can be counted (duae orationes ‘two speeches’ Cic. Att. 2.7.1). However, such materialization turns them into the first-order entities. (54) illam Norbani seditionem ex luctu civium et ex Caepionis odio … neque reprimi potuisse ‘the outbreak of Norbanus, arising as it did from public mourning and indignation against Caepio … could not have been restrained’ (Cic. de Orat. 2.124) (55) Itaque nunc proxima contio eius (Clodii) exspectatur de pudicitia. ‘Therefore we are now expecting another speech from him (Clodius) on the subject of chastity.’ (Cic. Har. 9)

Finally, various expressions of feelings, mostly derived and uncountable, are also second-order entities: pietas ‘piety’ (56), dignitas ‘dignity’, iucunditas ‘joy’, dolor ‘pain’. Abstract nouns expressing feelings can be found in the plural; but in such cases, they refer to various kinds or aspects that occur in different situations or repeatedly (K.&St. I: 77). Thus, omnes avaritiae (Cic. Fin. 4.75) are every case of avarice, domesticae fortitudines (Cic. Off. 1.78), various manifestations of civic courage. (56) nam et praestans deorum natura hominum pietate coleretur ‘since the exalted nature of the gods would receive men’s pious worship’ (Cic. N.D. 1.45)

Among temporal second-order entities, there are several pluralia tantum: nouns denoting activities: insidiae ‘ambush’, ludi45 in the sense of ‘public 45

Ludus does exist in the singular, in the meaning of ‘play’.

the noun and its modifiers

23

games’ or nuptiae ‘marriage’—these two are countable, cf. (57) and (23)—, and non-count nouns such as argutiae ‘adroitness of expression’, deliciae ‘delights’, ineptiae ‘absurdities’, nugae ‘bagatelles’, expressing products or perceptions of the mind, or tenebrae ‘obscurity’ referring to a state-ofaffairs. (57) Bina ac trina dicenda sunt quae sunt semper pluralia, ut ‘binos ludos plerumque spectavimus uno die’; sic trinos circenses. ‘Bina and trina should be used for nouns that are always in the plural, for example: ‘we used to attend two presentations in one day’; or: ‘three games’.’ (Ps. Caper in GL VII 94)

2.3.3. Third-Order Entities Third-order entities are propositional contents that can be true or false, can be asserted or denied, remembered or forgotten (Rijkhoff 2002: 19; Lyons 1977: 442), e.g. opinio ‘opinion’, iudicium ‘judgement’, laus ‘praise’, memoria ‘memory’, suspicio ‘suspicion’. They are related to some mental or intellectual activity (iudico ‘to judge’, memini ‘to remember’). Certain nouns of this category can be pluralized and counted, for example (58) and (59); certain are uncountable, such as laus or memoria. (58) quae commemorata sunt ab accusatore duo iudicia, P. Popili et Ti. Guttae ‘two verdicts that were mentioned by the prosecutor, that of Publius Popilius and Titus Gutta’ (Cic. Clu. 98) (59) Mihi quidem eae verae videntur opiniones, quae honestae, quae laudabiles … ‘In my view those opinions are true which are honourable, praiseworthy …’ (Cic. Fin. 2.77)

Nouns belonging to the third-order entities are for the most part bivalent; they often take an objective genitive (60) but due to their semantic value, referring to contents, they also admit subordinate clauses such as gerunds (61) or indirect questions (62). (60) Ceterum ex aliis negotiis, quae ingenio exercentur, in primis magno usui est memoria rerum gestarum. ‘Among other employments which are pursued by the intellect, the recording of past events is of pre-eminent utility.’ (Sal. Jug. 4.1) (61) de consilio relinquendi Italiam ‘about my design of leaving Italy’ (Cic. Att. 10.4.6) (62) omnisque ille sermo ductus ⟨est⟩ a percontatione fili quid in senatu esset actum ‘and the whole dialogue took its start from his son’s asking what business the senate had transacted’ (Cic. Brut. 218)

24

chapter one

To sum up, the distinction of orders of entities is useful for a description of Latin noun phrases because it makes it possible to predict and to explain the choice of modifiers occurring with a given noun. On the other hand, there are several difficulties concerning the classification of nouns, as we will see in more detail in chapter 2, section 1.5.3 (p. 105). Here, I will only mention the fact that one noun can belong to several categories, and even go across all the three orders: lex ‘law’, for example, can function as a first-order noun when it is materialized and published as a bronze tablet, or as a third-order noun when its content is meant; in (63), law is used as temporal reference point: the prepositional phrase post legem Papiam refers to the presentation of a bill (i. q. post legem Papiam latam) and should be thus interpreted as a second-order entity in this context. (63) (ceteri) post legem Papiam aliquo modo in eorum municipiorum tabulas inrepserunt ‘(other men) even after the passage of the Papian law, somehow snuck into the records of these towns’ (Cic. Arch. 10)

2.4. Noun Valency As for verbs, a distinction is established between arguments (obligatory complements) and satellites (optional complements) and their properties are described in terms of “valency frames”,46 the same method is adopted for nouns and adjectives.47 The semantic relationship between a noun and its complement can be more or less narrow and some complements do indeed behave as arguments. Valency complements are indeed more closely related to their governing nouns than optional complements (Bolkestein 1989: 15). This explains the difference between caedes Clodi ‘the murder of Clodius’, where Clodi cannot be used predicatively (*caedes est Clodi), and the possessive genitive domus Clodi ‘Clodius’ house’, where Clodi can be predicated.48 It is worth pointing out that talking about an “obligatory complement” does not mean that the complement must actually be expressed. As in the case 46 For example, coquo ‘to cook’ is a bivalent verb that takes a second argument in the accusative (acc. A2); interdico ‘to prohibit’ is a trivalent verb with a third argument in the dative (acc. A2 dat. A3); rogo ‘to ask’ has its third argument in the accusative (acc. A2 acc. A3)—see Pinkster (fc., chapter 4) The concept of valency, i.e. semantic capacity for admitting complements, was applied to Latin in a systematic way by Happ (1976; for noun valency, 175–179). 47 See, especially, Panevová (fc) with further references. Specificity of her approach resides in the interaction between the theoretical framework (Functional Generative Description) and annotation of texts (Prague Dependency Treebank 2.0). 48 The genitive in domus est Clodi competes with the dative.

the noun and its modifiers

25

of verbs, which allow contextual ellipses of subjects or objects, arguments of nominals can also remain unexpressed when they are inferrable from the context. Furthermore, absolute uses are especially common with action nouns. In this book, I will use a tripartite distinction between zero-valent, monovalent, and bivalent nouns, according to the type of corresponding clausal expression. By zero-valent nouns, I mean those nouns that do not imply any other participant and are sufficient on their own from the semantic point of view; for example, liber ‘a book’ does not need any complement in order to be used in an utterance. Monovalent nouns are related to an action or a process of which they are typically agents, such as philosophus ‘philosopher’ or ambulator ‘walker’.49 Bivalent nouns imply two semantic roles, for example: dux Helvetiorum ‘the leader of Helvetians’ is analysable as an agent (dux) and a patient (Helvetiorum) of the action duco ‘to lead’. Valency is thus not to be understood as the number of complements that one noun or another allows but in the sense of the number of semantic roles that it implies. This point is specific to noun valency because unlike verbs, nouns can incorporate semantic roles. For example, agent nouns such as dux ‘leader’ incorporate the agent so that the agent does not appear as a genitive complement with this noun. 2.4.1. Nouns Belonging to the First Order of Entities Nouns belonging to the first order of entities are usually zero-valent or “semantically closed” in the sense that they do not require any complement, e.g. equus ‘horse’, domus ‘house’, epistula ‘letter’. From this point of view, a genitive complement such as in the phrase signum Minervae ‘a statue of Minerva’ is optional because it is not implied by the semantic value of signum (Pinkster LSS §6.6); the same holds true for a modifier such as pulcherrimum ‘very nice’. In a more general way, possessive genitives applied to the first-order entities represent satellites.50 The genitives

49 Nominal quantifiers such as numerus ‘number’, multitudo ‘great number’, pars ‘part’ and the like are also monovalent; I will not go into details here. 50 This statement is based on the fact that possessive genitives, for example domus patris ‘my father’s house’, correspond to the clausal expression domus patri/patris est ‘the house belongs to my father’. However, as Dressler (1970: 27) pointed out, the possessor would be the first argument (subject) if we rephrase the sentence with habeo or possideo, as Priscian suggested (GL III 213.9): Quid est enim Hector, filius Priami? Interpretantes dicimus: hoc est Hectorem filium Priamus possidet vel habet. ‘What does it mean, Hector, son of Priam? We interpret it to mean that Priam has or possesses Hector as a son.’

26

chapter one

used with products of human work or intelligence, such as signum ‘statue’, liber ‘book’, poema ‘poem’, aedificium ‘building’, that express the entity represented (signum Minervae), the content (liber legum ‘book of laws’) or the author (signa Praxiteli ‘Praxiteles’ statues’, i.e. made by him) are also of the optional type.51 Competing expressions, possessive pronouns (suus ‘his’) and adjectives derived from proper names, for example, fabulae Livianae ‘plays of Livius (Andronicus)’ (Cic. Brut. 71) receive the same interpretation. Genitives expressing material, origin, price, and other similar are not required either by the sense of their governing nouns. We have seen that among the first-order entities, kinship nouns (pater) and agent nouns (such as iudex ‘judge’) are monovalent or bivalent: the complements they take are required by their semantic value. In this section, I will use the following abbreviations: A1 for the first argument (the agent), and A2 for the second argument (mainly, the patient); Latin nouns, unlike verbs, are generally not found with a third argument (A3, mainly, the recipient/addressee). Kinship nouns are monovalent and encode their complements in the genitive that compete with possessive pronouns, for example, uxor Cleomeni Syracusani ‘the wife of Cleomenes the Syracusan’ (Cic. Ver. 5.82). Their valency frame can be determined as: uxor + POSSESSION gen. A1 / possessive pronoun.

Agent nouns mostly take genitive complements with the semantic function of patient. For example, the genitive factorum et scriptorum meorum in (64) corresponds to the clausal expression given in (64a) where this element functions as direct object. The peculiarity of agent nouns, semantically bivalent, is that they incorporate the semantic role of agent;52 so this one does not appear in the following valency frame:

51 Genitives of the author are treated in this way in the Annotation manual of The Prague Dependency Treebank 2.0 corpus (The PDT Manual, section 5.2.3.2.3.1 and Mikulová et al. 2008: 145). They express the agent, the person who created the object concerned; on the other hand, the nouns expressing products of human work or intellect can almost all be accompanied by a genitive of the author (this is an argument for interpreting it as optional) and, what is more, two expressions (a possessive genitive and an adjective derived from a proper name) may co-occur in one sentence, such as “Smetana’s opera (produced) by Sabina”. On such combinations in Latin, see p. 79, note 164. 52 Semantic role incorporation (or “role absorption”) means that the semantic value of an argument, which is a part of the valency frame of the base verb, is incorporated in the meaning of the derived noun. As a result, it does not appear as an expressed complement. I borrow this concept from Panevová (fc, section 6.1.2).

the noun and its modifiers

27

laudator + PATIENT gen. A1 / possessive pronoun

The agent can only appear in apposition: cf. tu in (64) and Aristoni cuidam, tragico actori ‘to one Aristo, a tragic actor’ (Liv. 24.24.2). Notice that instead of the genitive, a possessive pronoun may be used for encoding the patient: amator noster ‘an admirer of mine’ (Cic. Att. 1.20.7); this point has already been remarked on by Lebreton (1901: 98). (64) Tu ipse scilicet, laudator et factorum et scriptorum meorum. ‘You yourself of course, the encomiast of my doings and writings.’ (Cic. Att. 7.1.4) (64a) Atticus facta et scripta mea laudat. ‘Atticus praises my doings and writings.’

2.4.2. Verbal Nouns Expressing Actions and States Verbal nouns are usually regarded as nominalisations of verbal notions.53 Second- and third-order entities include a number of such nominalisations. To the category of bivalent verbal nouns belong nouns expressing actions or states, derived from verbs or associated with a verbal group.54 Among derived nouns, there are, for example: amor ‘love’ (amo), fides ‘faith’ ( fido), timor ‘fear’ (timeo), odium ‘hate’ (odi), existimatio ‘opinion’ (existimo), obtemperatio ‘obedience’ (obtempero), pudor ‘decency’ (pudeo), clamor ‘cry’ (clamo). Nouns related to bivalent verbs are expanded by arguments A1 and A2; nouns associated with monovalent verbs only encode A1. However, arguments of verbal nouns can remain unexpressed, maybe more frequently than in the case of verbal arguments.55 Nouns derived from movement verbs behave in a specific way, which will be presented below. Let me take as an example desperatio ‘despair’ (65) and amor ‘love’ (66), derived from the bivalent transitive verbs despero and amo. From the semantic point of view, their complements represent agents (omnium and L. Flacci)

53 See Benveniste (1966 [1962]: 146–147) and Kuryłowicz ([1949] 1960: 145). For verbal nouns in Early Latin and their constructions, see Rosén (1981: 81); for aspects of nominalisation in Latin and the evolution that it underwent, see an illuminating study by Rosén (1983). For references concerning Latin, see note 56, and Spevak (fc, b). 54 As Rosén (1983: 181) pointed out, among verbal nouns, it is worth distinguishing between nouns that have a nominalising function, for example notio ‘action of knowing’ (Pl. Truc. 623), and actually nominalise the process of nosco ‘to know’, and nouns that denote concepts and do not nominalise: notio ‘idea’ (Cic. Top. 31), which is equivalent to the Greek ἔννοια. Cf. section 2.4.3 below. 55 Cf. Kolářová (2006: 9): “they need not be expressed on the surface at all”. The actual ratio between expressed and unexpressed complements requires further investigation.

28

chapter one

and patients (salutis and in patriam), and correspond to the clausal expressions in (65a) and (66a) (cf. Pinkster LSS §6.6).56 The valency frames of these nouns are: desperatio + AGENT gen. A1; PATIENT gen. A2; amor + AGENT gen. A1; PATIENT gen. / in / erga A2.

Unlike agent nouns such as laudator ‘who praises’, these nouns do not incorporate the agent; it is thus expressed in the so-called subjective genitive. Besides, the obligatory character of the complements expanding verbal nouns such as desperatio and amor is proved by the fact that they cannot be used predicatively (Bolkestein 1989: 13) in the clausal expressions given in (66b). (65) in desperatione omnium salutis ‘in the despair of safety experienced by everybody’ (Caes. Civ. 1.5.3) (65a) Omnes salutem desperant. (66) posteaquam L. Flacci amor in patriam perspectus esset ‘after Lucius Flaccus’ love for our country has been clearly seen’ (Cic. Flac. 2) (66a) L. Flaccus patriam amat. (66b) ??? Desperatio omnium est.—??? Amor L. Flacci est.

The genitive is the nominal complement par excellence: it serves for encoding various arguments that at the sentence level take different forms and stand in the nominative, the accusative, the dative, or the ablative case, as has been pointed out by Pinkster (LSS §6.6). We have seen two verbal nouns and their treatment of the agent and the patient of the actions. Arguments in the dative used with verbs such as fido ‘to trust’, invideo ‘to envy’, servio ‘to serve’ are, at the noun phrase level, also encoded in the genitive: fides ‘faith’, invidia ‘envy’, servitus ‘servitude’ combine with genitive complements; in the same way, oblivio ‘oblivion’ (from obliviscor + gen.) and usus ‘use’ (from utor + abl.), see examples in (67) and (67a). Argument marking is thus simplified at the noun phrase level with respect to the sentence level where distinctions such as agent / patient / recipient are clearly distinct with the help of case endings. (67) fides huius defensionis ‘my good faith for his defence’ (Cic. Clu. 118) 56 For this point and the well-known passage in Gellius (9.12.13), who proposed the transformation of metus Pompei as Pompeius metuit / Pompeius metuitur, see Rosén (1981: 71; 1983) and Fugier (1983: 247). See also Dressler (1970: 28).

the noun and its modifiers

29

in oblivionem totius negotii ‘into oblivion of the whole affair’ (Cic. Ver. 4.79) usus navium ‘usage of ships’ (Caes. Gal. 3.14.7) (67)a huius defensioni fido / totius negotii obliviscuntur / navibus utuntur

Effacement of the agent / patient distinction at the noun phrase level can produce phrases, which grammarians qualify as “ambiguous”, built up with a head noun and two genitive complements, one subjective, the other objective genitive.57 Many instances are easy to interpret in the actual context without ambiguity. On the other hand, some nouns present, in their valency frames, the prepositional phrase in + acc., erga ‘towards’ and sometimes adversus ‘against’ instead of the common objective genitive.58 The use of such prepositional phrases makes it explicit who the action is oriented towards, and focuses on the person. (68) quae voluntas erga Caesarem totius provinciae ‘what was the feeling of the whole province towards Caesar’ (Caes. Civ. 2.17.1) (69) quaedam reverentia adversus homines, et optimi cuiusque et reliquorum ‘a respectfulness towards men, both towards the best of them and the rest’ (Cic. Off. 1.99)

Such an encoding of patients, which seem to compensate for the effacement of the formal distinction between agents and patients, is restricted to animate nouns or nouns that can be associated with animate entities, such as patria ‘fatherland’ or salus ‘safety’.59 Furthermore, it is only possible for nouns expressing emotions such as love, hatred, fear, praise (Torrego 1991). They are excluded when an action changes the state of a person and creates

57 They are listed in Latin grammars, see K.&St. (I: 416) and Menge (2000: 368); cf. also Devine & Stephens (2006: 316). According to Rosén (1981: 78), there are no sure instances of them in Early Latin. 58 For interchange of genitives with prepositional phrases, see Nutting (1932, esp. 268– 279). As for the subjective genitive, it is rare to encounter the alternative, i.e. the agent complement introduced by the preposition a(b) (satellite), for example: declaratio voluntatis ab universo populo Romano (Cic. Sest. 122) ‘the declaration of will (made) by the whole Roman people’, corresponding to: universus populus Romanus voluntatem declarat ‘the whole Roman people declare their will’. Following Jänicke (1886: 4), there are some twelve examples of this type in Cicero’s work. 59 See K.&St. (I: 416), Menge (2000: 368), and Torrego (1989). On the other hand, objective genitives occur with inanimate nouns, e.g. voluntas defensionis ‘disposition to continue the defence’ (Cic. Ver. 1.20), and with gerundives and gerunds, e.g. accusandi voluntas ‘will to prosecute’ (Cic. Div. Caec. 24).

30

chapter one

new situation: *caedes in Clodium *‘the murder towards Clodius’ (Bolkestein 1989: 16).60 Encoding of patients using prepositional phrases is peculiar to noun phrases. Expansions with in or erga of amor, for example, function as arguments at the noun phrase level and, what is more, they do not stem from the valency frame of the verb amo (*amo in, *amo erga); when such prepositional complements are found with other verbs, they function as satellites; this point must be stressed.61 Besides verbal nouns, which have been discussed, there are nouns denoting actions or states that do not have a verbal origin.62 To this category belong words such as spes ‘hope’ (→ spero ‘to hope’),63 cura ‘care’ (→ curo), iniuria ‘injustice’ (← in negative + ius ‘justice’, ‘law’; without any cognate verb), gratia ‘favour’ (← gratus ‘grateful’; without any cognate verb), metus ‘fear’ (of obscure origin, but metuo ‘to fear’ is a denominative verb), or ius iurandum ‘oath’ (ius ‘justice, law’ → iuro ‘to swear’). Valency frames of such verbs are various and sometimes very rich. It is tempting, obviously, to interpret the genitive expanding luctus + gen. (70) as an objective genitive, corresponding to the clausal expression in (70a), and the genitive used with ius iurandum + gen. (71), as a subjective genitive.64 (70) (Telamo furere) luctu filii ‘(Telamon maddened) by grief for his son’ (Cic. de Orat. 2.193)

60

For caedes in vos in Sal. Jug. 31.13, which is isolated, see chapter 3, p. 251, note 41. Erga aliquem ‘towards somebody’ seems to be an exclusively nominal complement, cf. ThLL, s. v. According to Devine & Stephens (2006: 331), this prepositional phrase usually accompanies nouns such as fides ‘faith’ or voluntas ‘will’. Prepositional phrases with in + acc. (‘in someone’s favour’ or ‘against somebody’) are found with verba dicendi (verbs of saying) as well as with other verbs (see ThLL, s. v. in, 747.25f.) but then they only function as satellites (cf. Pinkster fc., chapter 4), for example: carmen, quod in eum scripsisset ‘a lyric poem which he had composed in his honour’ (Cic. de Orat. 2.352). The case of prepositional phrases with adversus is more complex, because they can expand various verbs, especially verbs of fighting. As for bivalent transitive verbs (cf. ThLL, s. v. adversus, 852.56 et 857.3), which are dealt with in this section, see, for example, verba atque orationem adversus rem publicam habuissent ‘they might have spoken against the interest of the state’ (Caes. Civ. 2.18.5). For interchange between expressions of the beneficiary and prepositional phrases with in, contra, and adversus, cf. Baños Baños (2009: 306 and 309) and Torrego (1991: 287). 62 Nouns belonging to the first-order entities used in a metaphorical sense, e.g. manus ‘hand’ as ‘power’ can be included in this category, cf. neque mihi in manu fuit Iugurtha qualis foret ‘I had no power to form the character of Jugurtha’ (Sal. Jug. 14.4). 63 Arrows indicate the direction of the derivation: x → y means y is derived from x. 64 Cf. also the well-known instance of two genitives, one subjective, the other objective: pro veteribus Helvetiorum iniuriis populi Romani (Caes. Gal. 1.30.2) ‘for past outrages inflicted on the Roman people by the Helvetii’. 61

the noun and its modifiers

31

(70a) filius lugetur (71) (cum habeas) integerrimi municipi ius iurandum ‘(when you have) the oath of a town of the highest integrity’ (Cic. Arch. 8) (71a) integerrimum municipium iuravit / ius iurandum dedit

Such an analysis is fully justified. We can assume that these nouns, without having a verbal origin, have joined the category of verbal nouns due to analogy: spes enters the group of nouns and verbs expressing will (voluntas), ius iurandum, that of the nouns and the verbs expressing statements. Anyway, if a morphologically cognate verb exists, Latin speakers certainly did not apply any etymological reflexion about the primacy of spes over spero but simply regarded them as parallel to couples such as fides / fido. The lack of the cognate verb is sometimes compensated for by support verb constructions involving a semantically weak verb (see chapter 3, p. 250), such as ius iurandum do ‘to take the oath’ or iniuriam facio ‘to do an injustice’. If we admit that semantic analogies, which link underived nouns with semantically cognate verb groups, are at work, we can more easily understand the richness of valency frames of such nouns, for example those of spes (72),65 as well as the fact that a word like ius iurandum ‘oath’ can take a complement clause as expansion (73); d and e are support verb constructions. (72) spes + gen. A1 (Catilinae) / + gen. A2 (pacis); syntactic variants of A2: a. Accusative + infinitive: magna in spe sum mihi nihil temporis prorogatum iri ‘I am very hopeful that there will be no prorogation’ (Cic. Att. 6.2.6) b. Gerundive: spes libertatis recuperandae ‘hope of recovering your independence’ (Cic. Agr. 1.17) c. Prepositional phrase with de: meam de tua erga me benevolentia spem ‘my hope of your kindly dispositions towards me’ (Cic. Fam. 13.29.8) d. Prepositional phrase with in: in avaritia nobilitatis et pecunia sua spem habere ‘having hopes in the avarice of the nobility and in his own wealth’ (Sal. Jug. 13.5) e. Complement clause: Quae te ratio in istam spem induxit ut eos tibi fideles putares fore, quos pecunia corrupisses? ‘What reason led you to entertain the thought that men you had corrupted with money would be faithful to you?’ (Cic. Off. 2.53)

65

Cf. OLD and Hoffmann fc.

32

chapter one

(73) ius iurandum poscere, ut, quod esse ex usu Galliae intellexissent, communi consilio administrarent ‘to ask for their oath that they would by common consent execute whatever they judge to be for the advantage of Gaul’ (Caes. Gal. 5.6.6)

Trivalent verbs such as dono aliquid alicui ‘to give something to someone’, which usually present a great formal variety of arguments, constitute a category that is less easily subject to nominalisations.66 Subjective and objective genitives accompanying nouns such as donatio ‘donation’, responsum ‘answer’, absolutio ‘acquittal’, privatio ‘privation’, or rogatio ‘request’ can be found (74). There are also several examples of verbal nouns with the third argument alone, such as liberatio culpae ‘a release from all guilt’ (Cic. Lig. 1). However, it is exceptional to find instances of verbal nouns derived from trivalent verbs with more than one complement expressed together in one noun phrase.67 (74) responsum haruspicum ‘the answer of the soothsayers’ (Cic. Har. 9) de donatione regnorum ‘on the grants of foreign kingdoms’ (Cic. Fam. 1.9.7)

Furthermore, it is not usual to encode the recipient/addressee of an action as genitive at the noun phrase level (Pinkster LSS § 6.6). On the other hand, it also rarely appears in the dative or in a prepositional phrase, for example the ad-phrase with translatio in (75), derived from transfero ‘to transfer’. The expression of source (a-phrase) functions as a satellite. This noun phrase corresponds to the clausal expression given in (75a). (75) Quare L. Sullae C. Caesaris pecuniarum translatio a iustis dominis ad alienos non debet liberalis videri. ‘Consequently, the transference of money by Lucius Sulla and Gaius Caesar from its lawful owners to others ought not to be seen as liberal.’ (Cic. Off. 1.43) (75a) L. Sulla C. Caesar pecunias a iustis dominis ad alienos transtulerunt. ‘Lucius Sulla and Gaius Caesar transferred money from its lawful owners to others.’

Verbal nouns derived from movement verbs represent a special category. These are, for example: iter ‘journey’ (eo ‘to go’), profectio ‘departure’ (profi-

66

Cf. Pinkster (1985: 170–172) and fc. chapter 4 on ‘three place verbs’. My corpus offered only one example, quoted in chapter 2, as example (350): Mortis paternae de servis paternis quaestionem habere filio non licet! ‘The son is not allowed to put his father’s slaves to the question concerning his father’s death’ (Cic. S. Rosc. 78). 67

the noun and its modifiers

33

ciscor), reditus ‘return’ (redeo), aditus ‘access’ (adeo), or excessus ‘exit’ (excedo). Such nouns encode the first argument in the genitive (76) or in the nominative of a possessive pronoun (meus in (77)); the second argument, which expresses direction, usually retains the construction of the base verb and takes the form of a directional accusative, or that of a prepositional phrase with in or ad.68 Source expressions appear as prepositional phrases with a(b), ex or as simple ablatives. The first argument can remain unexpressed because the agent of the action is often inferrable from the context. (76) Quis de C. Cethego atque eius in Hispaniam profectione … cogitat? ‘Who even thinks of Gaius Cethegus and his expedition into Spain …?’ (Cic. Sul. 70) (77) Adventus meus atque introitus in urbem qui fuit? ‘What was the character of my arrival and entry into the city?’ (Cic. Dom. 75)

Whereas expressions of direction are arguments, expressions of source function as arguments only with nouns that semantically involve an idea of ‘departure’ or ‘return’, for example reditus; with other nouns, such as iter ‘journey’, source complements are satellites, as are path complements (iter per). 2.4.3. Nouns Expressing the Result of an Action or a Process Among verbal nouns, it is necessary to distinguish nouns expressing the result of an action or a process as a separate category.69 The peculiarity of these nouns consists in the fact that they can express both an (ongoing) action and the result of an action; compare the following examples with oratio, related to oro ‘to speak (as orator)’:70 (78) Sed nihil te interpellabo: continentem orationem audire malo. ‘But I shall not interrupt you: I wish to hear a continuous speech.’ (Cic. Tusc. 1.16)

68 For the construction of movement verbs, see Pinkster (fc., chapter 4 on two-place verbs with a space argument). Additionally, as Pinkster (LSS § 6.6, p. 93, n. 40) rightly observes, excessu vitae ‘in quitting life’ (Cic. Tusc. 1.27, quoted by K.&St. I: 415) is less common than excessus e vita (Cic. Fin. 3.60). 69 In The PDT Manual (section 5.2.3.2.4.2 and Mikulová et al.2008: 136–138). It is characterised as “transitory” between verbal nouns and nouns that do not imply verbal features any more. For description of this category of nouns in Czech and problems involved, see Kolářová (2006 and fc). 70 The verb oro is commonly used in the specialised sense as ‘to pray’; the couple oro / oratio has undergone a differentiation of the meaning.

34

chapter one

(79) Orationes autem me duas postulas. ‘You ask me for two speeches.’ (Cic. Att. 2.7.1)

Whereas oratio in (78) has a temporal meaning and denotes a speech as ‘an action of speaking’, oratio in (79) is the result of the action, a materialized speech, in our case, in writing.71 The difference between these two uses is that the first one encodes the agent of the action, unless it is inferrable from the context as in (78): oratio Ciceronis / eius ~ Cicero orat, and functions as an argument. In the second instance, the complement orationes meae / Ciceronis would be an expression of the author, which is a satellite. Furthermore, oratio as a materialized, countable object joins the first-order nouns such as liber ‘book’. To this category belong, for example: actio ‘action’ (ago), especially legal process and its materialization, ‘a plea’; consilium ‘deliberation’ (consulo) and its result, ‘a plan’; iudicium ‘legal proceedings’ (iudico) and ‘a decision, a verdict’; imperium ‘command’ (impero) and ‘dominion’; sumptus ‘spending (of money)’ (sumo) and ‘costs’; commeatus ‘passage’ (commeo) and ‘supplies’; rogatio ‘request’ (rogo) and ‘a bill’.72 A common feature of result nouns is that they often incorporate semantic roles: some of them integrate the agent, others the patient, for example, sumptus that implies money (pecunia). Consequently, the genitive aedilitatis in (80) is not the patient: the activity financed, i. q. in aedilitatem sumptum feci, functions as an optional complement expressing the goal. (80) Sane exiguus sumptus aedilitatis fuit. ‘The expenditure during my aedileship was paltry indeed.’ (Cic. Off. 2.59)

It is also worth mentioning that verbal nouns do not always keep the semantic value of their base verbs. They undergo semantic shifts, such as in the case of oratio ‘speech’ and oro ‘to pray’, or special developments, for example factio ‘faction’ and facio ‘to do’.73 The last category examined has shown that verbal features of nouns can undergo effacement. Furthermore, there are nouns stemming from verbs

71 Cf. Rosén (1983:179) on “concretized meaning” and Rosén (1981: 24). Cf. also Menge (2000: 8) on “the active and passive sense” of the nouns derived with the suffix -tio, for example: damnatio ‘condemnation’ and ‘punishment’. 72 For rogatio, derived from the trivalent verb rogo, cf. ut etiam Catonis rogationibus de Milone et Lentulo resistamus (Cic. Q. fr. 2.3.4) ‘to make a stand against Cato’s bills concerning Milo and Lentulus’; the construction rogatio + gen. + de-phrase is the same as that of liber: a genitive of the author and a prepositional phrase with de expressing the content. 73 More research is needed to determine these relationships.

the noun and its modifiers

35

that have completely lost any relationship with them and, consequently, any valency. These are, for example: remedium ‘medicine’ (re, medior ‘to heal’); a signum ‘mark; statue’ is the result of seco ‘to cut’; periculum ‘danger’ is what has been tested (*perior); auxilium ‘help’ is the effect of augeo ‘to increase’; or exercitus ‘army’ is what has been trained (exerceo). Consider also the case of consultum ‘a resolution’, the result of the action of consulo ‘to consult, to decide’; or senatus consultum ‘a resolution of the senate’ becomes a fixed expression but originally, it is the senate who takes a decision. To sum up the most important points discussed in this section: valency nouns, the semantic value of which requires complementation, fall into several categories: relational nouns, verbal nouns or nouns associated to states-of-affairs, and quantifying expressions. These categories distinguish themselves by specific semantic properties as well as by the way they encode their complements. At the same time, a valency noun does not necessarily mean a noun with complements expressed. In the case of nouns, arguments can remain unexpressed more frequently than in the case of verbs, especially when they are inferrable from the context (cf. Rosén 1983: 190). As has been observed by Helbig (1982: 43), obligatoriness of a complement is to be understood above all out of context, in isolated sentences; in a given context, noun complements can undergo contextual ellipses. 3. Modifiers 3.1. The Types of Modifiers I will turn now to modifiers that can accompany nouns, starting with a first account of their types. After a discussion of their frequency and their general properties, I will attempt a typology of Latin modifiers. Kühner & Stegmann (I: 206) list noun complements able to fulfil the function of attribute. They can take the following forms: – adjectives: rosa pulchra ‘a nice rose’, and determiners: haec rosa ‘this rose’; – nouns in the genitive: hortus regis ‘king’s garden’, or in the genitive / ablative of quality accompanied by an adjective: homo mitis ingenii / homo miti ingenio ‘a man of a gentle disposition’; – prepositional phrases: vulnera ex proeliis74 ‘wounds received in battles’;

74

I replace the example given by K.&St. (I: 206), otium cum dignitate ‘ease conjoined with

36

chapter one – adverbs: omnes circa populi ‘all surrounding nations’;75 – nouns in apposition: Romulus rex ‘king Romulus’.

To this typology can be added (cf. Lavency 1997: 119 and 1998): – relative clauses: Caesar eam complexus est causam quae esset senatui gratissima. ‘Caesar has embraced that cause which was most agreeable to the senate.’ (Cic. Phil. 5.44) As well as: – gerunds: facultas dicendi ‘the ability of speaking’, and – completive clauses of any form: perturbationes sintne eiusdem partes, quaestio est ‘it is a question whether disorders are subdivisions of the same class’. (Cic. Tusc. 4.29) The syntactic function of the attribute can be identified by the substitution test (Fr. commutation): all the types of noun complements mentioned can interchange in the sense that they belong to the same substitutional class and can enter into the same constructions (Lavency 1997: 15).76 Interchange of noun complements is shown in Table 2. Table 2: Interchange of noun complements Noun

Complement

rosa hortus homo vulnera Romulus causa facultas quaestio

pulchra / haec regis mitis ingenii / miti ingenio ex proeliis rex quae esset senatui gratissima dicendi perturbationes sintne eiusdem partes

duty’; in Cic. de Orat. 1.1, cum dignitate is predicative (see Leeman & Pinkster 1981: 28); in Sest. 98 and Fam. 1.9.21, it possibly represents an elliptical expression. 75 For noun phrases containing an adverb, which is not a typical noun complement, see Pinkster (1972: 59) and recently Ripoll (2010b). This topic will not be dealt with in more detail in this book. 76 For substitutions, see also Pinkster (fc., chapter 11, introduction) and Touratier (1994: lviii).

the noun and its modifiers

37

Figure 2: The frequency of noun complements

In other words, all these noun complements are equivalent at the syntactic level and function therefore as “attributes”. However, only some of them are noun complements par excellence: pronouns that determine or identify nouns, quantifiers that count and measure them, adjectives that express their properties or types, and genitive complements. These main categories of modifiers will be discussed in detail in next sections.77 3.2. The Frequency of Modifiers Before coming to the typology of modifiers, I will look at their frequency. The data indicated in Figure 2 are based on a sample of 500 noun phrases taken from Cicero’s philosophical treatise, Cicero’s speech, and Caesar’s and Sallust’s historical narratives.78

77 Except for relative clauses that will not be discussed in this book because of the abundant recent literature on this topic: see Touratier (1980), Lehmann (1984), Lavency (1998), and Pinkster (fc. chapter 17). 78 Figure 2 (for detailed data, see Table 1.1 in the Appendix) only concerns bare noun phrases; noun phrases belonging to prepositional phrases have not been taken into consideration. All modifiers have been counted, including possessive, demonstrative, relative pronouns, etc. Functional differences have not been distinguished here; thus, for example, regardless of its function, magnus ‘big’ figures among adjectives and multitudo ‘a great number’ is considered as a noun governing a genitive.

38

chapter one

Determiners (this label includes true determiners, identifiers, and quantifiers) are the most frequent among the noun complements (32 %); after them come, surprisingly, genitives (29%) and then adjectives (22 %). Complex noun phrases containing any combination of a determiner, an adjective, and/or a genitive make up all together 10 %. All other complements obtain a low ratio: prepositional phrases 5 %, and remaining ones—gerunds, gerundives, completive clauses—even less. It is remarkable that the distribution of noun complements in this corpus is practically the same (see Table 1.1 in the Appendix); we can only notice that Sallust utilises genitive complements more frequently than other authors and that Caesar has the highest number of prepositional phrases. However, the distribution of noun complements can vary according to literary genre and the topic dealt with. 3.3. The Typology of Modifiers and Hierarchic Levels A noun can be accompanied by one or more modifiers—the term “modifier” is used here as a hypernym including adjectives, determiners, identifiers, and quantifiers; together, they build up a noun phrase. Rijkhoff (2010) has established a distinction between five types of modifiers.79 The categories with Latin examples are the following: (i) Classifying modifiers further specify the kind of entity in question. They include classifying adjectives such as onerarius ‘cargo’, civilis ‘civil’, publicus ‘public’, as well as non-referential genitives: tribunus plebis ‘plebeian tribune’. They include categories such as purpose and function, status and rank, origin, and relate to any feature that may serve to classify entities into a system of smaller sets. Unlike qualifying adjectives, they do not admit intensifiers, comparison, or predicative position. (ii) Qualifying modifiers express qualities such as dimension, age, value, colour, physical properties, human qualities. Adjectives are the linguistic means par excellence for fulfilling this function, e.g. novus ‘new’, vetus ‘old’, niger ‘black’, longus ‘long’.

79 The category of classifying modifiers is not present in Rijkhoff (2001: 522 and 2002: 340); for application of these categories to Latin, cf. Tarriño in Baños Baños (2009: 253). For Marouzeau’s (1922 and 1953) twofold distinction between qualifying and determining adjectives, adopted by many scholars (cf. Touratier 1994: 434 and Kircher-Durand 1996: 229, among others), see p. 55, section 3.5.

the noun and its modifiers

39

(iii) Quantifying modifiers evaluate the referent as to their number, e.g. omnes ‘all’, multi ‘many’, nonnulli ‘some’, unus ‘one’, duo ‘two’, milia ‘thousands’. Quantifiers do not form a homogeneous morphological group but come from various word classes: pronouns (omnes ‘all’), adjectives (multus ‘numerous’, numerosus ‘many’), nouns (milia ‘thousand’, numerus ‘(great) number’, multitudo ‘quantity’), or adverbs (satis ‘enough’, nimis ‘too much’). (iv) Localising (locative) modifiers are used for localising referents (“where is the referent?”) and hence for identifying them (“who is the referent?”). Localisation is to be understood not only in a spatial sense but also in a temporal or cognitive sense (references made to shared knowledge, for example). Localising modifiers include demonstrative pronouns, possessive expressions, and restrictive relative clauses (Lehmann 1984: 402). Rijkhoff (2001: 527) gives as an example (81); Latin examples with a prepositional phrase, a possessive genitive, and a relative clause are quoted in (82–83). (81) I bought the house next to the Van Gogh museum / my father’s house / the house you wanted to buy last year. (82) cum domus in Palatio, villa in Tusculano, altera ad alterum consulem transferebatur ‘when my house on the Palatine hill, and my villa in the district of Tusculum, were transferred one a-piece to each of the consuls’ (Cic. Dom. 62)80 (83) domus M. Tulli Ciceronis ‘the house of Marcus Tullius Cicero’ (Cic. Dom. 102) Nam Milonis domum, eam quae ⟨est in⟩ Cermalo, pridie Idus Novembres expugnare et incendere ita conatus est ut … ‘On 12 November he tried to storm and burn Milo’s house, that in the Germalus, so that …’ (Cic. Att. 4.3.3)

(v) Referential modifiers are related to referential properties of a referent (“that is the referent”). In a language such as English, this function is fulfilled by articles that indicate whether or not a referent is identifiable and mark a noun for (in)definiteness, specificity, or genericity. In Latin, a language without articles, referential properties can be expressed by means of indefinite pronouns aliquis, quidam ‘a certain’, or by identifiers idem ‘the same’ and alius ‘another’, referring to identity and otherness. 80 After Cicero’s departure for his exile, the items found in his house were transported to Piso, the items from his villa, to Gabinius.

40

chapter one

Each noun imposes its own selection restrictions on various types of modifiers (Rijkhoff 2001: 523), for example, a modifier connected with the animate gender cannot be applied to an inanimate entity (*navis viva *‘a living ship’), and a numerical quantifier cannot accompany a non-count noun (*duo argenta *‘two silvers’), except in particular cases, such as metaphorical uses.81 Modifiers of a noun may function at different levels. In the framework of Functional Discourse Grammar, Hengeveld (2008: 47) illustrates this point using the following example: Dutch (84) de drie paar schoenen ‘the three pairs of shoes’

The definite article (de) marks identifiability of the referent by the addressee; the quantifier (drie) expresses the number the referent has in the external world, and the measure modifier (paar) further specifies the property of the referent (schoenen). The three modifiers function on different hierarchic levels in the sense that the definite article has the largest scope of all modifiers. Also adjectives may have different scope. Whereas classifying modifiers represent close modifications of a noun, qualifying adjective have a larger scope (85). (85) an expensive musical instrument

A difference of scope of modifiers, the so-called “nesting” is resumed in Figure 3 as a “layered” representation of the noun phrase in the framework of Functional Grammar. It is worth adding that some adjectives may express not only a property of a referent but also subjective attitude of the speaker.82 81 Already Varro (L. 9.58) says that we cannot combine concepts different in their nature and usage: Ergo dicitur ut surdus vir, surda mulier, sic surdum theatrum, quod omnes tres ad auditum sunt comparatae; contra nemo dicit cubiculum surdum, ad silentium, non ad auditum. ‘Accordingly, as a surdus ‘deaf’ man is a current term, and a surda woman, so also is a surdum theatre, because all three things are equally intended for the act of hearing. On the other hand, nobody says a surdum sleeping-room, because it is intended for silence and not for hearing.’ A surdum theatrum is a theatre in which it is difficult to hear or a theatre in which the audience is inattentive. 82 Furthermore, Hengeveld distinguishes reference modification, a concept that I will disregard here.

the noun and its modifiers

41

Figure 3: A layered representation of noun phrase structure (Rijkhoff 2010: 120)

(86) Had I run into the rarest of species, one most people would have thought was extinct in the western world: a poor doctor? (87) Oh my god, the poor doctor was going to just tell me the results!

In (86), poor indicates a property of the entity referred to: this doctor is poor (referent modification); in (87), poor expresses the speaker’s sympathy for the doctor (subjective attitude). Hengeveld (2008: 49) points out that poor behaves differently from rich specifying the opposite value, which can only be used for referent modification (86a). Furthermore, only adjectives expressing subjective evaluation are allowed in exclamations, such as in (87a). (86a) The doctor is poor.—The doctor is rich. (87a) Poor man!—*Rich man!

3.4. Determiners, Quantifiers, and Identifiers 3.4.1. Combinability of Determiners The first systematic description of Latin “determiners”83 was put forward by Fugier (1983; cf. also Fugier & Corbin 1977); she describes them as a closed class of words, in contrast with adjectives that represent an open class. She deserves merit for distinguishing several sub-categories of determiners

83 There is enormous fluctuation in the terminology used, the sub-categories distinguished, and their content in the literature, as we will see in this section. For convenience, I will use the term “determiner” for words that do not express properties: demonstrative and indefinite pronouns, numerals, identifiers, etc. in this section.

42

chapter one

based on their mutual combinability (Table 3).84 Combinability is an indicator of different semantic and syntactic properties. Table 3: Typology of determiners in Latin (Fugier 1983: 251) Descriptive

Quantitative

Denotative

is hic / iste / ille

unus, duo … alius / alter primus … idem multi, pauci singuli … omnis, cunctus …

quis? (ali)quis / quidam quisquam / nemo / nihil nonnulli ullus / nullus aliquot plerique

∅

alius

(unus)quisque

primus …

∅

uterque neuter alteruter

∅

∅

Unlike adjectives, determiners have specific syntactic behaviour: two or more determiners depending on one head noun are always juxtaposed, never coordinated. According to Fugier, determiners indicated in different columns can combine in the horizontal direction (is + unus + idem); combinations are excluded inside the columns in the vertical direction (*is + hic; *quis + quidam). Fugier (1983: 252) claims that the longest sequence possible contains three elements, but she illustrates it using a constructed example, illi tres eidem homines ‘these same three men’; in (88), I give an authentic example. (88) Sed idem hi tres pedes male concludunt. ‘But these same three feet (spondee, iambus, and tribrach) make a bad cadence.’ (Cic. Orat. 217)

84 Fugier (1983: 251) does not include the possessive pronoun meus in her typology, arguing that it is not a determiner.

the noun and its modifiers

43

Risselada (1984: 227–231) responded with several fully justified critical remarks. Firstly, she argues that aliquot ‘several’ is a quantifier, likewise plerique ‘most of’, and should therefore figure together with the numerals. The status of uterque ‘both’ is ambiguous: on the one hand, uterque can be used as a descriptive modifier, on the other hand, as a quantifier (see Risselada 1984: 229). Secondly, she suggests that the ordinal numeral primus ‘first’ should be classified as an open class modifier, i.e. as an adjective. The groups of determiners set up by Risselada are presented in Table 4. Table 4: Typology of Latin determiners (Risselada 1984: 230) Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

is hic, iste, ille (ali)quis, quidam quis? quisquam, nemo, nihil ullus, nullus (unus)quisque uter? neuter, alteruter uterque

unus, duo singuli aliquot, plerique nonnulli uterque multi, pauci omnis, totus, cunctus, universus

alius, alter idem

Table 4 lists the main groups of determiners; as in Table 3, their combinability is not indicated in an exact way. Determiners in the columns are mutually exclusive and do not combine, except for omnis ‘all’ which can accompany certain determiners belonging to the same group. From quis on, pronouns of group 1 do not combine with those in group 2 but they allow combinations with those in group 3. Furthermore, neither Table 3 nor Table 4 indicates the order in which determiners are linearised.85 I propose the combinability of Latin determiners used in a noun phrase as is summarised in Figure 4. Lines link groups that are mutually combinable; the double arrows indicate that the ordering of determiners is not fixed in one or the other direction. Determiners are envisaged in their adnominal use, i.e. in a noun phrase, or occasionally in their pronominal use (hi duo ‘these two’); any combination is excluded for determiners functioning as predicative. 85 For combinability of determiners, their order, and semantic and pragmatic implications of one or another ordering, see Spevak (2010a: 255–262). This complex question will not be dealt with here.

44

chapter one

Figure 4: Combinability of determiners, quantifiers, and identifiers Legend: bidirectional combinability: duo alii and alii duo unidirectional combinability: nemo alius but *alius nemo

However, this scheme does not claim to be exhaustive: only the most frequent determiners are indicated. Furthermore, it simplifies several facts: aliqui ‘some’, for example, in combination with a numeral does not express indefiniteness but approximation.86 Totus ‘the whole’ has a specific semantic

86 Aliqui can combine with cardinal numerals but in this case it expresses approximation (‘some’, or ‘other’): Contineo me ab exemplis. Graecis hoc modicum est: Leonidas, Epaminondas, tres aliqui aut quattuor. ‘I refrain from further instances. The Greeks have but a modest list:

the noun and its modifiers

45

value, as we will see in section 3.4.4.5 (p. 53) and is thus absent; it combines neither with alius nor with demonstrative pronouns, but may co-occur with numerals. Idem, also absent, can combine with demonstratives (see ThLL, s. v. 200.20) and with ipse. Other determiners with special distribution and with limited combinability have also not been included, such as uter(que) (‘both’), which does not seem to combine with alius / alter87 ‘other’, as well as singuli (‘every single’), which does not usually occur in combinations. Ordinal numerals (primus ‘first’) are absent because of their peculiarities (see section 3.5.1.6, p. 64); among other things, they can combine with duo ‘two’, tres ‘three’. On the other hand, I have added free-choice indefinite pronouns (quivis, quilibet, etc. ‘whoever’), absent from both Tables 3 and 4. In the following sections, I will concentrate on the principal categories and characteristic properties of words that determine, quantify, or identify a noun. From the traditional point of view, they belong to two word classes: pronouns (pronomina) and numerals (numeralia). They can be used adnominally, as the attribute in a noun phrase, or pronominally, when they are not associated with a noun. First, I will briefly examine interrogative, anaphoric and demonstrative pronouns, then in more detail indefinite pronouns and quantifiers, and finally other pronouns.88 3.4.2. Interrogative, Anaphoric, and Demonstrative Pronouns Interrogative pronouns used in a noun phrase usually do not combine with other determiners.89 They are often separated from their governing noun (89). (89) Quo cum Catilina venisset, quis eum senator appellavit, quis salutavit? ‘When Catiline came, what senator addressed him? who greeted him?’ (Cic. Catil. 2.12)

Latin has one anaphoric pronoun (is) and three demonstrative pronouns corresponding to three verb persons: hic ‘this (which I have)’, iste ‘that (which you have)’, and ille ‘that’.90 They mark the identifiability of a referent

Leonidas, Epaminondas, some three or four’ (Cic. Fin. 2.62). For more examples, see ThLL, s. v. aliquis, 1612.31 f. 87 But cf. the combination alteruter ‘one or the other of two’. 88 Relative pronouns used in a noun phrase represent a peculiar case; for the repetition of the antecedent in a relative clause, see K.&St. (II: 284) and Lavency (1998: 104). 89 In combination with alius, quis is usually the head, cf. quis alius ‘someone else’ (Cic. Fin. 2.104). 90 See, among many others, Fugier (1983: 255); recently Pieroni (2010).

46

chapter one

in a context or a situation: they have anaphoric function (cf. example (11)) or deictic function (90). They combine with other pronouns and numerals and apply to all nouns, including proper names.91 (90) Per dexteram istam te oro quam regi Deiotaro hospes hospiti porrexisti. ‘I ask it by the right hand of hospitality which you have extended to King Deiotarus.’ (Cic. Deiot. 8)

3.4.3. Indefinite Pronouns The distinctive property of indefinite pronouns is that they refer in a indeterminate way to a referent.92 The degree of vagueness as well as indefiniteness may vary: some pronouns refer to a completely unknown and unspecified person or thing (si qui ‘if someone’, aliqui ‘some’), others (quidam ‘certain’) to a specifiable referent. To these pronouns we can also add the phrase nescio qui ‘one or other’ (91), which is stylistically marked but functions as an indefinite pronoun (91).93 The indication of free choice is also a form of expressing indefiniteness (Haspelmath 1997: 48), and can be marked for example by quisquis, quilibet, quicumque ‘whoever, no matter who’. (91) Alter est designatus Insteius nescio qui, fortis, ut aiunt, latro. ‘The other tribune-elect is one Insteius, a bold brigand, they say.’ (Cic. Phil. 13.26)

From a pragmatic point of view, Latin indefinite pronouns can be classified according to the presumed existence of the referent:94 quisquam (92) and (num, si …) qui ‘anyone’, as well as quisnam and quispiam, used especially in negative, conditional and interrogative sentences, presume the actual existence of the referent in the weakest way: the referent need not exist at all. By contrast, aliquis ‘someone’ referring to an unspecified entity and quidam to a specific entity that is presented as unknown to the addressee presume the existence of the referent more strongly. This property makes it possible that quidam co-occurs with cardinal numerals (93) and proper names.95

91

See chapter 4 on appositions. The label “indefinite pronouns” (indefinita) is traditional and denotes words “that do not have definite person”, including interrogative and relative pronouns (cf. Prisc. in GL III 450.6–11). Some linguists treat them as quantifiers (Orlandini 1983 and Touratier 1994: 55, among others). 93 Cf. Haspelmath (1997: 130). 94 See Orlandini (1983); cf. Fugier (1983: 256) and recently, Bertocchi, Maraldi & Orlandini (2010: 23–27). 95 Cf. also Cic. Inv. 2.153 and de Orat. 2.353. For quidam + proper name, see example (17). 92

the noun and its modifiers

47

(92) Num aut in vilitate nummum arator quisquam dedit aut in caritate de aestimatione frumenti questus est? ‘Did any cultivator either give him money in the cheap season, or in the dear season complain of the valuation of his corn?’ (Cic. Ver. 3.216) (93) Cum duo quidam Arcades familiares iter una facerent … ‘When two friends from Arcadia were taking a journey together …’ (Cic. Div. 1.57)

Free-choice indefinite pronouns quivis, quicumque and quilibet ‘whoever’ do not presume the existence of an entity; they express the notion that every member of the set of quadrupeds is eligible (94). (94) Si bovem aut aliam quamvis quadrupedem serpens momorderit … ‘When a serpent has bitten an ox or any other quadruped …’ (Cato Agr. 102)

3.4.4. Quantifiers Quantifiers96 express the quantity or amount of individuals or things; the associated question is ‘how many/much?’97 Quantifiers are used for counting or measuring entities (Milner 1978: 17): countable entities are counted, e.g duo homines ‘two men’, uncountable entities are measured, e.g. duae amphorae mellis ‘two amphorae of honey’, paulum frumenti ‘a little corn’. There are also unquantifiable nouns, such as nouns expressing ‘the fact of being x’: orbitas ‘loss (of a child), childlessness’, or senectus ‘old age’; and nouns expressing actions, for example adventus ‘arrival’ (cf. Milner 1978: 35). The distribution of quantifiers depends on the type of nouns involved; consequently, there are restrictions on the use of quantifiers according to the types of entities (count, non-count, collective, mass, abstract nouns). Furthermore, quantifiers represent a semantic, not a morphological category (Gil 2001: 1281); this explains the fact that they do not form a homogeneous group and may belong to different word classes. They can be

96 It is worth pointing out that in Orlandini’s works (1983, 1995), cf. also Bertocchi, Maraldi & Orlandini (2010), “quantification” is understood in a logical sense. She takes as a point of departure the distinction between “existential quantifiers” and “universal quantifiers”, based on the presumption of the existence of the referent. The category of “existential quantifiers” thus includes what are traditionally called “indefinite pronouns” and “negative pronouns”, but the quantifiers expressing quantity, such as multi ‘many’, are absent. For the solution I propose to bring to this complex question, see Figure 5, p. 52. 97 As we will see in chapter 2, section 2. A detailed study on this topic remains to be done for Latin. As for English, the best overview is given by Quirk et al. (1985: 249–252 and 381–396). For quantifiers in a typological perspective, see Gil (2001).

48

chapter one

subdivided into numerical and non-numerical quantifiers: quantity can be expressed as an exact number of entities concerned or in a vague, indeterminate way. 3.4.4.1. Numerical Quantifiers This sub-category represents a word class of its own and includes several types of numerical quantifiers: cardinal (duo, tres ‘two, three’), distributive (bini, trini ‘a set of two, three’), and multiplicative numerals (bis, ter ‘two, three times’). Without entering into details about their use (see de la Villa 2010: 179), I will only say here that numerical quantifiers apply to countable entities for indicating their exact number. In a noun phrase, the cardinal numerals function as attributes (95); from the number milia ‘thousand’ on, the numeral is a noun requiring a genitive complement (96). Two examples of multiplicative and distributive numerals are given in (97). (95) elephanti triginta ‘thirty elephants’ (Sal. Jug. 29.6) (96) decem milia peditum ‘ten thousand infantry’ (Caes. Gal. 7.64.4) (97) Nasica ille prudens, bis consul ‘the wise statesman Nasica, twice consul’ (Cic. Tusc. 1.18) Deiectis … antemnis, cum singulas binae ac ternae naves circumsisterent … ‘The yards … being torn down, although each ship was surrounded by two or three …’ (Caes. Gal. 3.15.1)

Ordinal numerals such as secundus ‘second’, tertius ‘third’, traditionally classified as numerical quantifiers, indicate the position of the referent in a sequence (Rijkhoff 2001: 526). They will be briefly examined in section 3.5.1.6, p. 64. 3.4.4.2. Non-Numerical Quantifiers Non-numerical quantifiers indicate great or small quantity in an indeterminate way. They can be represented as forming a scale going from the zero quantity to the maximal quantity (see Figure 5, p. 52). Most non-numerical quantifiers occupy the middle of the scale:98 paucus ‘few’ is situated at the bottom; then come nonnulli ‘not a few, some’, aliquot ‘several’, complures ‘quite a number of’, multus ‘numerous’, and plerique ‘most of’; omnis ‘all’, cunctus ‘the whole of’, indicating the maximal quantity, figure at the top

98 They are called “mid-scalar quantifiers” by Haspelmath (1997:11); cf. also Bertocchi & Maraldi (2010).

the noun and its modifiers

49

of the scale. The category of non-numerical quantifiers is rather heterogeneous and its description should envisage the nature of the entity quantified as well as a distinction between the singular and the plural numbers. Firstly, multus ‘much’ in the singular99 applies to mass nouns and indicates their great quantity: multa carne ‘(with) a lot of meat’ (Cic. Pis. 67), lac multum ‘a lot of milk’ (Var. R. 2.3.2); the expression of a small quantity, its antonym, is paucus: pauca carne ‘(with) a little meat’ (Gel. 4.11.11).100 Secondly, in the plural, multi ‘many’ and pauci ‘few’, as well as nonnulli ‘some’, aliquot ‘several’, complures ‘quite a number of’ and plerique, plures ‘most of’ are used with countable entities (98). (98) equi multi ‘many horses’ (Sal. Jug. 29.6) pauci milites ‘a few soldiers’ (Caes. Civ. 2.44.1) aliquot fontes ‘several springs’ (Sal. Jug. 89.6) plures amici mei ‘more of my friends’ (Cic. Phil. 2.40) nonnulli centuriones ‘some centurions’ (Caes. Civ. 1.80.5)

3.4.4.3. Nominal Quantifiers In addition to these quantifiers that function as attributes, Latin has nouns expressing great or small quantity used with genitive complements, as has been observed by Fugier (1983: 261). These are, for example multitudo

99 Like the noun multitudo ‘quantity’ (cf. example (36), p. 15), multus is not restricted to countable entities (pace Fugier 1983: 262). For the application of multus, see Var. L. 9.66, quoted on p. 13 as example (30) and the nouns listed in ThLL, s. v., 1607.31; for example, concrete nouns: aurum ‘gold’, purpura ‘purple’, sanguis ‘blood’, supellex ‘dishes’, vestis ‘clothes’, etc., as well as abstract nouns: opera ‘task’, doctrina ‘doctrine’, sermo ‘speech’, dies ‘day’ (cf. multus sermo ad multum diem ‘much talk till late in the day’ in Cic. Att. 13.9.1). Multus in the singular can also be applied to individuals (‘verbose’) and be used as predicative: est enim multus in laudanda magnificentia ‘he is expansive in his praise of the personal provision of magnificent public events’ (Cic. Off. 2.56). It is worth adding that the neuter adjective multum + genitive does seem to be used in Classical Latin only with abstract entities: multum temporis, laudis, operae, studi, etc. ‘a lot of time, praise, attention, effort’ (see, respectively, Caes. Civ. 3.51.6, Cic. Deiot. 26, Brut. 105 and 240). Mass nouns take multus in agreement with the noun (in the sense of ‘abundant’). 100 For the means of quantifying mass nouns, see section 2.3.1.4, p. 13.

50

chapter one

‘quantity’, (magnus) numerus ‘great amount’, turba ‘a host’, grex ‘a troop’, caterva ‘crowd’, frequentia ‘crowd’. Their semantic properties allow us to consider them not as collective nouns (pace K.&St. I: 22) but as nominal quantifiers.101 To the same category also belong the quantity nouns expressing measure or weight mentioned in section 2.3.1.4 (pp. 14–15). (99) magnam turbam ignotorum deorum ‘an enormous mob of unknown gods’ (Cic. N.D. 1.39) cum grege praedonum ‘with a crew of robbers’ (Cic. Dom. 24) cum magna caterva togatorum ‘with a large band of citizens in togas’ (Cic. S. Rosc. 135)

3.4.4.4. Other Quantifiers The totality quantifiers omnis ‘all’, cunctus and universus ‘the whole’ have different semantic values and are used in different ways (Touratier 1994: 66– 70). Omnis in the singular refers to a unit constituted by a certain number of elements. It applies well to collective nouns such as exercitus ‘army’ (100), senatus ‘senate’ or Sicilia ‘Sicily’ (involving a quantity of inhabitants), or to abstract nouns; it is relatively rare to encounter it with concrete and discrete physical entities.102 In the plural, omnes expresses exhaustive totality: all entities belonging to the group referred to are envisaged (101). Even so, omnes may be modified by approximators such as paene or fere ‘almost’, signalling that totality is not exhaustive. (100) Nam omnis exercitus … in provincia hiemabat. ‘For the whole army … passed the winter in the province.’ (Sal. Jug. 39.4) (101) cum omnes milites naves conscendissent ‘when all the soldiers had embarked’ (Caes. Civ. 1.27.6)

Universus and cunctus have similar uses. Universus ‘entire’ refers to a unit that is diversified (102). Cunctus ‘the whole’ can be used in the singular

101 Further research is necessary for determining their applicability and the degree to which they are desemantised. For example, numerus does not only apply to count nouns (cf. example (36)); turba, originally ‘a dense or disorderly mass of people’ can be used about things in the sense of ‘a large number of’, cf. ingens turba prunorum ‘a vast crowd of plums’ (Plin. Nat. 15.41). 102 For entities modified by omnis in the singular, see ThLL, s. v. 619.26f. When omnis is applied to a concrete, countable first-order entity, omnis receives the distributive reading ‘each’ (unusquisque)—see ThLL, s. v. 612.82. A good example of an animate first-order entity is the following one: omnem avem tripudium facere posse ‘any bird may make a tripudium (= good auspice)’ (Cic. Div. 2.73).

the noun and its modifiers

51

with a collective noun ( familia ‘family’), with a noun implying plurality of constitutive elements (Italia), or with a noun in the plural (103). (102) Denique universus senatus … gratias agendas censuit civitatibus iis quae … ‘Lastly, the whole senate … voted that thanks should be given to all those cities by which …’ (Cic. Dom. 85) (103) cuncti Siculi ‘all the Sicilians’ (Cic. Ver. 5.115)

Among all these totality quantifiers, only omnis may combine with cardinal numerals higher than duo ‘two’ (104).103 (104) (domus) ac mea quidem his tribus omnibus iudiciis … liberata est. ‘(house) and mine … has been declared by all these three decisions to be free from all religious liability’. (Cic. Har. 30)

It is worth adding that, besides its uses as attribute in a noun phrase, omnis frequently appears as a predicative.104 These two functions, adnominal and predicative, are not always easy to identify: omnis is clearly adnominal in (104), because it is integrated into a noun phrase framed by a modifier (his) and the noun (iudiciis). When omnis comes before the noun (100), its interpretation as an attribute is also obvious. By contrast, omnis placed after the noun is a good candidate for predicative interpretation.105 The pronoun quisque ‘each’ expresses distributive and individualizing totality (105) in the sense that any individual, every one, belonging to the group is concerned. This property makes it possible for it to co-occur with ordinal numerals (106). (105) quisque imperator ‘any general’ (Cic. Agr. 1.13) (106) In Olynthia [quotannis] restibilia esse dicunt, sed ita ut tertio quoque anno uberiores ferant fructos. ‘In Olynthia, they say that the land is cropped every year, but in such a way that a richer crop is produced every third year.’ (Var. R. 1.44.3)

At the opposite end from the totality quantifiers are situated the zero quantifiers (alias “negative pronouns”), such as nullus and nemo106 ‘no one’

103

Totality is envisaged from three on; “two together” are referred to by means of ambo. See Pinkster (1983) and (LSS § 8, p. 143, n. 1). 105 See chapter 2, section 2.1.2, p. 113 for discussion. 106 Nemo is often used alone but it can occur in a noun phrase: nemo opifex (Cic. N.D. 2.81) ‘no craftsman’, nemo vir (Cic. Har. 37) ‘no one’, and also nemo homo (Pl. Per. 211) ‘no one’. I 104

52

chapter one

Figure 5: Quantitative scales

indicating that there is no such an entity available. After coordinators zero quantifiers, as well as other negative words, undergo substitutions.107 This brief overview shows that the distribution of quantifiers is rather complex in Latin. Furthermore, in order to explain their use in an appropriate way, it is important to dissociate two aspects: one quantitative— described up to this point—which I consider as primary; the other, “existential”. The quantitative aspect of quantifiers is summarised with the help of two quantitative scales (Figure 5) presenting combinations with count nouns (navis ‘ship’) and with mass nouns ( frumentum ‘corn’). These scales imply the underlying questions: quot naves? ‘how many ships?’ and quantum frumenti? ‘how much corn?’, and include zero quantifiers, numerical and non-numerical quantifiers, nominal quantifiers, and totality quantifiers. Indefinite pronouns such as aliquis and quidam ‘a certain’, as well as the pronoun totus ‘the whole’, do not enter into these scales. In the top figure omnes and omne, referring to the maximal quantity;108 zero quantity is expressed by nulla (or nullae naves) and by nullum or nihil + genitive.

would regard such cases as close appositions. For Kühner & Holzweissig (1912: 624), nemo is used as an attribute (“adjectivisch”). 107 For neque quisquam, see Touratier (1994: 63), among others. For the treatment of several negations, see Menge (2000: 202). 108 Expressions involving apposition such as omnes naves incendit, XXXV ‘he burnt all the ships, thirty-five in number’ (Caes. Civ. 3.101.1) provide evidence that omnis is a quantifier.

the noun and its modifiers

53

From another point of view, the existential one, the same modifiers can appear in answers to questions concerning the existence of a referent: ‘are there individuals involved?’, cf. the constructed example in (107), inspired by actually attested instances (108).109 Indefinite pronouns can be integrated into this existential scale. This point of view also helps us to understand why the indefinite pronoun quisquam functions as a substitute for nemo in a negative sentence containing the coordinator nec (neque) ‘and not’ (109). (107) Ecquis venit?—Omnes / pauci / aliqui / duo homines / nemo. ‘Did anybody come?—All / a few / some / two people / nobody.’ (108) Ecquis has aperit foris? Homo nemo hinc quidem foras exit. ‘Anyone going to open up? No one’s coming out from here.’ (Pl. Mos. 900–901) (109) Nemo venit. / Neque quisquam venit. ‘Nobody came. / And nobody came.’

3.4.4.5. Other Pronouns Totus ‘the whole of’ is usually classified together with omnis in the category of quantifiers, but it is likely that this approach is not correct: totus is not a quantifier.110 It is better to put it on the scale going from nihil ‘nothing’—pars ‘a part’—dimidium ‘a half’ to totus ‘the whole’.111 It also applies to concrete and discrete first-order entities: totus concerns a divisible unit envisaged as a whole (110).112 It is rare to encounter totus combined with numerals; however, the example given in (111) shows that totus refers to the content of the sextarii (liquid measure), mustum ‘must’, which should be mixed up completely and not only partially. Applied to abstract entities (e.g. doctrina ‘doctrine’, religio ‘religious observance’, opinio ‘opinion’), of which wholeness as well as “overallness” can be envisaged. In such cases, totus is close to

109 This example is quoted by Bertocchi, Maraldi & Orlandini (2010: 36) who approach quantification from this point of view. 110 Pace Touratier (1994: 70) and Bertocchi, Maraldi & Orlandini (2010: 115). Forcellini, s. v. omne, p. 408 (nota), has formulated the difference between them in this way: Omne differt a toto; nam omnis refertur ad quantitatem discretam, uti vocant; hoc est ad numerum, dum totus pertinet ad continuum et integrum corpus. Cf. Brøndal (1943: 29). For references to Ancient grammarians concerning the difference between omnis and totus, see ThLL, s. v. omnis, 610.80 ff. 111 Cf. Quirk et al. (1985: 250) on “fractional partition”. 112 Totus also applies to non-divisible first-order entities, such as individuals of which parts can be envisaged, cf. toti used predicatively in: (maiores nostri) brachia et crura cotidie abluebant …, ceterum toti nundinis lavabantur ‘(our ancestors) washed only their arms and legs daily … and bathed all over only once a week’ (Sen. Ep. 86.12).

54

chapter one

omnis:113 one can say tota religio ‘the whole religious observance’ as well as omnis religio ‘all religious observances’. (110) Totus enim ager Campanus colitur. ‘For the whole Campanian territory is cultivated.’ (Cic. Agr. 2.84) (111) (sextarios duos musti …) ubi toti duo sextarii cum pice coierint et quasi unitatem fecerint … ‘(two sextarii of must …) when the whole of the two sextarii have amalgamated with the pitch and formed, as it were, a single substance …’ (Col. 12.24.3)

Idem ‘the same’, traditionally classified among demonstrative pronouns, and alius ‘another’, often considered as an indefinite pronoun (Touratier 1994: 61), are to be considered together from the semantic point of view as identifiers. An opposition can be drawn between identity (idem ‘the same’) and absence of identity, difference or otherness (alius ‘another’) (cf. Hoffmann 1987: 139). The pronoun idem ‘the same’ marks identity. It can combine with demonstrative pronouns but not with the anaphoric pronoun is. It allows modification by adverbs such as semper ‘always’ and by the approximator fere ‘almost’. (112) Nam impediebantur, verum ea lege quam idem iste de Macedonia Syriaque tulerat. ‘And this was true; but it was that law which he himself had passed about giving them Macedonia and Syria.’ (Cic. Dom. 70) (113) (Milonis) Nolite …, si vultum semper eundem … videtis, hoc minus ei parcere. ‘If you see his expression always the same …, do not hold this again him.’ (Cic. Mil. 92)

113 Totus in the plural can modify the pluralia tantum but I would not ascribe this possibility to their “collective” sense, as do Bertocchi, Maraldi & Orlandini (2010: 118). As for concrete entities, totus in: omnes festinant intus totis aedibus ‘everybody’s rushing around inside through the entire house’ (Pl. Cas. 763) applies to a singular referent (i.q. tota domo), in contrast to omnis concerning the actual plurality (i.q. ex omnibus templis) in (illa) ex omnibus aedibus sacris abstulit Syracusis ‘(these things) he stole them from all the sacred edifices of Syracuse’ (Cic. Ver. 4.131). The difference between a singular and a plural referent could be expressed by means of distributive numerals unae aedes ‘one house’ and binae aedes ‘two houses’—cf. Varro L. 10.67, quoted p. 11 as (23). In addition, in Syracusas totas timet (Cic. Ver. 5.69) ‘he is afraid of the whole of Syracuse’, omnis is excluded because the referent is unique (a singular referent). With nouns involving a collective meaning (such as copiae ‘troops’) confusions of use between totus and omnis are expected (for these, see Wölfflin 1886, Hofmann 1948, and Bertocchi, Maraldi & Orlandini 2010: 119). For omnis and totus, see chapter 2, section 2.1.2, p. 113.

the noun and its modifiers

55

The pronoun alius ‘another’ is in complementary distribution with alter, concerning the other of two people (Fugier 1983: 263); additionally, alter cannot be used in negative sentences. Two examples showing combinations of modifiers are given in (114). (114) aliique complures adulescentes ‘several other young men’ (Caes. Civ. 1.23.2) Dies nondum decem intercesserant cum ille alter filius infans necatur. ‘Ten days had not elapsed when his other infant son is also murdered.’ (Cic. Clu. 28)

Idem and alius can be applied to a wide range of entities. Alius, in particular, when used with mass nouns refers to the “sort of”; with abstract nouns in the plural, to the diversity.114 Other pronouns belong to the category of identifiers, among them ceteri ‘the rest’ and reliquus/reliqui ‘the remaining’. These pronouns apply to countable entities that form a group and co-occur with omnes: ceteri eius omnes milites ‘all the remaining soldiers of his’ (Sal. Jug. 74.3). The pronoun of intensity ipse ‘self’ represents a category of its own. It is mostly used as a secondary predicate (115). It applies to persons (116), mainly in the sense of ‘self’, or to things expressing ‘exactly this one’ (116). Ipse combines with demonstrative pronouns (116). (115) Nec intellegebam fieri diutius posse ut mihi non liceret esse in ea re publica quam ipse servassem. ‘And I thought it inconceivable that it would any longer be illegal for me to exist in the republic which I myself have saved.’ (Cic. Dom. 64) (116) Nec tamen didici ex oratione tua, istam ipsam rem publicam quam laudas … quibus legibus constituere vel conservare possimus. ‘Nor did I learn from your speech by what … laws we can establish or preserve that very commonwealth which you praise.’ (Cic. Rep. 2.64)

3.5. Adjectives The typical characteristic of the adjective is to attribute a property to the referent of a noun. The objective of this section is to propose a typology of the Latin adjectives and to present their semantic and syntactic properties.

114

For mass nouns, cf. note 32, p. 16; for abstract nouns, see chapter 2, section 2.2.5, p. 129.

56

chapter one

First of all, it is worth remembering that the twofold distinction between the qualifying and the determining adjectives, established by Marouzeau (1922: 13–16) in order to explain the pre- or post-nominal placement of modifiers, is insufficient.115 In particular, it suffers from a lack of criteria for identifying the two categories, which are defined in a vague way. Fugier (1983: 237–242) has adopted a more rigorous approach based on the syntactic behaviour of the adjectives. She divides the adjectives into two groups: (i) the adjectives of type I: Romanus ‘Roman’, civilis ‘civil’, publicus ‘public’, etc., which do not allow any degree of comparison (*populus Romanior *‘more Roman people’, *populus Romanissimus *‘the most Roman people’) and cannot be used predicatively (*populus Romanus est *‘this people is Roman’);116 (ii) the adjectives of type II: novus ‘new’, niger ‘black’, ferox ‘wild’, etc. that, in principle, do form degrees of comparison (novior ‘newer’, novissimus ‘the newest’; nigrior ‘more black’, nigerrimus ‘the most black, very black’; ferocior ‘wilder’, ferocissimus ‘the wildest’) and may be used predicatively (equus ferox est ‘this horse is wild’). This distinction is basically justified but it needs to be refined on several points. Firstly, the question concerning the syntactic behaviour of the adjectives is more complex. Recent studies on modern languages have shown that certain adjectives can function as attributive as well as predicative; other adjectives are only used attributively and there are also adjectives that only function as predicatives. In several cases, the attributive use of an adjective may exhibit a different meaning from the predicative use.117 Furthermore, there is no strict correlation between the aptitude for functioning as predicative and forming degrees of comparison, for grading of adjectives is a semantic, not a syntactic, property. Secondly, a typology of adjectives cannot be restricted to a description of their syntactic behaviour, as Risselada (1984: 206) has rightly observed; it is also necessary to take into account semantic categories of adjectives and dissociate, in particular, the adjectives with an

115 For criticisms of Marouzeau’s approach, see de Neubourg (1977 and 1978), de Sutter (1986: 153–154.), and Spevak (2010a: 224), among others. 116 This has been shown for English by Bolinger (1972: 21): Describe your debate. # *It was parliamentary. 117 Cf. Quirk (1985: 428) on my friend is old (inherent property) vs. an old friend of mine (non-inherent property). For French examples, see Goes (1999: 119).

the noun and its modifiers

57

“objective” value from the adjectives expressing qualities applied in a subjective way. Finally, it is important to examine the valency of adjectives: many of them are monovalent but there are also bivalent adjectives that require a complement. All the points mentioned will serve for a description of the adjectives from both a semantic (3.5.1) and a syntactic (3.5.2) point of view. 3.5.1. Semantic Properties of Adjectives 3.5.1.1. Coordination of Adjectives In her 1984 article devoted to the complex noun phrases, Risselada examined semantic categories of adjectives developed by Hetzron (1978) and has applied the rules of coordination formulated by Pinkster (1972: 108–133; cf. 1990). Coordination indeed reveals semantic equivalence of adjectives belonging to the same hierarchical level. As a result, two adjectives expressing the same property are coordinated by et, -que, ac ‘and’ or by zero coordination (ruber nigerque ‘red and black’); two adjectives expressing different properties cannot be coordinated (*niger ferreusque *‘black and iron’) but are juxtaposed. For example in (117), the adjectives are not semantically equivalent and must be juxtaposed (*splendidus eques et Romanus). (117) splendidus eques Romanus ‘a distinguished Roman knight’ (Cic. N.D. 3.74)

The coordination of qualities belonging to the same semantic category mainly occurs in the case of evaluative adjectives (118) but is not restricted to them. It is worth noting that in (118) and (119), two qualities are applied to one referent, a singular and a plural one. (118) forsitan non nemo vir fortis et acris animi magnique dixerit: … ‘perhaps, some men of bold, and energetic, and magnanimous mind will say: …’ (Cic. Sest. 45) (119) In locis crassis et umectis ulmos, ficos, poma, oleas seri oportet. ‘Elms, figs, fruit trees, and olives should be planted in rich, humid ground.’ (Cato Agr. 40.1)

In the case of adjectives with more objective values that are mutually exclusive, the coordination of two properties belonging to the same semantic class may involve reduction of the second noun.118 For example in (120), two

118 Cf. Menge (2000: 337) and Cabredo Hofherr (2010: 20), namely the “split reading”. See Pinkster (fc., chapter 13).

58

chapter one

different laws are meant, Aelius’ and Fufius’ law; the second noun is omitted instead of: lex Aelia et lex Fufia.119 In (121), it is not a bicoloured ‘white and black’ species of myrtle which is referred to but rather two different species, ‘a white myrtle and a black myrtle’.120 When the governing noun is in the plural, coordinated adjectives may also concern different referents, as in (122).121 (120) cum … esset etiam tum in re publica lex Aelia et Fufia, quae leges saepe numero tribunicios furores debilitarunt et represserunt … ‘the Aelian and Fufian Laws still existed in the State, those laws which often checked and crippled revolutionary tribunes …’ (Cic. Vat. 18) (121) myrtum album et nigrum, nuces Abellanas … (eximi … oportebit) ‘white and black myrtle, Abellan nuts … (should be transplanted …)’ (Cato Agr. 133.2) (122) Harum figuras in vasis sacris ligneas ac fictiles antiquas etiam nunc videmus. ‘Their shapes (of cups) we even now see among the sacred vessels, oldfashioned shapes in wood and earthenware.’ (Var. L. 5.121)

3.5.1.2. The Hierarchical Scale of the Adjectives In his important article on behaviour of adjectives in modern languages, Hetzron (1978: 178) proposed a scale of thirteen semantic categories.122 It is reproduced in Figure 6, with the addition of Latin examples. Adjectives follow their head noun en bloc; when the block is prenominal, a mirror order should be understood. noun > classifying adjectives (onerarius) > substance (ligneus) > origin (Punicus) > colour (ruber) > physical defect (caecus) > shape (rotundus) > age (vetus) > human property ( felix) > utilitarian qualifications (carus) > physical property (crudus) > dimension (longus) > evaluation (bonus) Figure 6: Hierarchical scale of the adjectives (Hetzron 1978: 178)

119 Lex Aelia et Fufia were actually two distinct laws that prohibited the holding of a legislative assembly between the announcement and the holding of the elections. On the other hand, there are expressions such as ex lege Terentia et Cassia frumentaria (Cic. Ver. 3.163) that correspond to one law proposed by the two consuls together. 120 Cf. also omnis et demonstrativa et deliberativa et iudicialis causa (Cic. Inv. 2.12) ‘every speech whether epideictic, deliberative or forensic; rubrum et nigrum tofum (Vitr. 2.7.1) ‘red and black tufa’, or populus alba et nigra (Vitr. 2.9.9) ‘white and black poplar’. 121 The fact that coordinated adjectives may refer to different entities has been observed by Fugier & Corbin (1977: 259–270) and Risselada (1984: 211) but only for the plural nouns of the type (122). 122 For other accounts of semantic groups of adjectives, see Dixon (1982: 16) and Givón (2001 I: 82). For a typology of adjectives in Latin according to the property denoted, cf. Devine & Stephens (2006: 403). For more details concerning the interpretation of this scale, see Spevak (2010a: 231).

the noun and its modifiers

59

Adjectives denoting a typical feature of an entity (such as onerarius ‘cargo’) are supposed to appear close to the noun. They are followed by adjectives expressing substance (ligneus ‘wooden’), origin (Punicus ‘Punic’), colour (ruber ‘red’), physical defect (caecus ‘blind’), shape (rotundus ‘round’), and age (vetus ‘old’). These properties represent observable and objective qualities of a referent. The other qualifications are the result of subjective evaluations that one cannot falsify; one can only disagree with them. These are properties of human beings ( felix ‘happy, prosperous’), properties of inanimate entities (carus ‘expensive’), physical property (crudus ‘raw’), dimension (longus ‘long’), evaluation (bonus ‘good’) and affective expressions (splendidus ‘splendid’). The above-presented scale represents a theoretical model; noun phrases containing more than three adjectives are too complex and are avoided in Latin (Pinkster LSS § 6.4, p. 89) as well as in modern languages. These semantic categories present a twofold advantage for a description of the noun phrase in Latin: they make it possible to explain the coordination or the juxtaposition of several adjectives modifying one noun, as well as the relative order of several juxtaposed adjectives. In complex noun phrases, the adjectives expressing an inherent property such as substance or colour occur close to the noun, unlike the adjectives expressing subjective evaluation, which are more distant from the noun.123 For example, the adjective nobiles ‘famous’ (123), expressing estimation of the reputation of the object (eculeos refers to drinking-vessels in the shape of horses or horses’ heads) is more distant from the noun than the adjective argenteos ‘silver’ denoting the substance. In (124), the classifying adjective pedestrem ‘on foot’, occurs closer to the noun than the adjective aeneam ‘bronze’ expressing material.124 (123) Tum iste ab equite Romano … eculeos argenteos nobiles … aufert. ‘Next he robbed a Roman knight … of his fine silver horses.’ (Cic. Ver. 4.42) (124) (placere) statuam pedestrem aeneam in rostris … statui ‘(they decide that) a bronze statue on foot is erected …’ (Cic. Phil. 9.16)

123 Determiners, quantifiers, and identifiers have a larger scope than adjectives and are most distant from the noun. For the description of the internal structure of the Latin noun phrase, see Pinkster (LSS § 6.4). 124 For the ordering of multiple adjectives, cf. also: ducentos nummos aureos Philippos probos dabin? ‘will you give me two hundred genuine gold Philippics?’ (Pl. Bac. 882) and fiscinas olearias Campanicas duas ‘two Campanian olive baskets’ (Cato Agr. 153). For more combinations, see Risselada (1984: 207), Devine & Stephens (2006: 479–481), and Spevak (2010a: 233).

60

chapter one

Additionally, Hetzron (1978: 173) states that in several cases the order of the adjectives is interchangeable, in particular with adjectives denoting dimension, age and evaluation, for example in English: beautiful old paintings and old beautiful paintings (Quirk 1985: 1340 and Pinkster LSS § 6.4, p. 88). In Latin, the adjectives expressing evaluation, quantity, and dimension can be also coordinated.125 (125) Africa … quae plurima et acerbissima cum maioribus nostris bella gessit ‘Africa … which waged many bitter wars against our ancestors.’ (Cic. Scaur. 45)

For differences concerning behaviour of attributive adjectives and predicative adjectives, see section 3.5.2.2 (p. 74). 3.5.1.3. Extensional and Intensional Meaning Hetzron’s scale, presented above (Figure 6), has the advantage of systematizing the description of adjectives, which form a heterogeneous group. It can be represented as a continuum with two poles: one objective, the other, subjective (de Sutter 1986: 153). This view is conceptually close to another approach that takes as a point of departure the applicability of adjectives. The adjectives that can be applied to a great number of entities are considered as “extensional”, whereas the adjectives appropriate for a reduced number of entities are “intensional” (Seiler 1978; cf. Wilmet 1986: 41–42). For example, the adjective bonus ‘good’ can be used for a great number of animate or inanimate entities, abstract concepts as well as processes (cf. ThLL, s. v.). Each entity involved has a different substance and for each entity, the “goodness” consists of something different: vir bonus ‘excellent man’, equus bonus ‘fast and resistant horse’, ager bonus ‘fertile field’, panis bonus ‘tasty bread’, eventus bonus ‘lucky event’, navis bona ‘solid ship’,126 tempestas bona ‘favourable period’, fama bona ‘good reputation’. It is not that bonus changes its meaning but its meaning varies according to the entity to which it is applied. By contrast, an adjective such as onerarius is theoretically appropriate for physical, solid entities that transport a burden (onus); in practice, it is almost exclusively applied to navis: ‘cargo ship’.127 Among other differences between these two adjectives, we can point out that bonus, expression of subjective appreciation par excellence, is opposed to malus ‘bad’ but onerarius, highly objective, lacks an antonym.

125 126 127

See Pinkster (1995: 108), Risselada (1984: 210), and K.&St. (I: 241). For properties of navis bona, cf. Sen. Ep. 76.13. There is also one instance of oneraria iumenta (Liv. 41.4) ‘beasts of burden’ (ThLL, s. v.).

the noun and its modifiers

61

De Sutter (1986: 164) uses the concept of the extensional (subjective) meaning and intensional (objective) meaning to explain the use of the adjective malus in the phrase herbae malae ‘weeds’ as more intensional than usual: (126) herbasque malas omnes radicitus effodito. ‘and dig up all noxious weeds by the roots’ (Cato Agr. 50.1)

Without any opposition to bonus, it denotes, not a herba of bad quality but an ‘undesirable’ herba, a ‘weed’ (cf. ThLL s. v. 2619.64); its applicability is thus limited because malus cannot apply to triticum ‘wheat’, for example. On the other hand, the post-nominal adjective in herbae malae is not “determinative”, as Marouzeau (1922: 54) stated, because it does not denote a special species. Furthermore, this phrase is close to a fixed expression. In the same way, the concept of extensional and intensional meaning enables us to explain the difference between ferreus ‘iron’ in (127) and (128); both examples are quoted by de Sutter (1986: 158). (127) transtra … confixa clavis ferreis digiti pollicis crassitudine ‘the cross-pieces … fastened with iron nails as thick as a thumb’ (Caes. Gal. 3.13.4) (128) (Atilius) de quo Licinius: ‘ferreum scriptorem’, verum, opinor, scriptorem tamen, ut legendus sit. ‘‘An iron writer’, Licinius called him (Atilius); still, in my opinion, a writer all the same, and deserving to be read.’ (Cic. Fin. 1.5)128

Whereas the first ferreus denotes the material of clavis ‘nail’, the second one is a metaphorical expression applied to a writer. The use of the second ferreus is thus more extensional: the adjective gets closer to the evaluative adjectives129 and could even be graded with -ior, -issimus. Additionally, this explanation proposed by de Sutter is justified by the fact that ferreus as an evaluative adjective can appear in exclamatory accusatives (129) that represent judgements (see section 3.5.1.7, p. 66); the first ferreus is excluded from this construction. (129) O te ferreum qui illius periculis non moveris! ‘What a heart of flint you must have to be unmoved by his perils!’ (Cic. Att. 13.29.3)

128 Licinius (a person otherwise unknown) is the manuscript reading; some editors correct it to Lucilius (Schiche) or Licinus (Müller). 129 Cf. Quirk (1985: 429 and 435) for the distinction between an inherent property (a wooden cross which is actually made of wood) and a non-inherent property (a wooden actor ≠ a wooden man).

62

chapter one

For present purposes, i.e. understanding the extensional meaning of adjectives, it is also interesting to consider ancient evidence: it primarily concerns stylistic figures, but it may be taken as a judgement about the applicability of adjectives and the association of words. In a passage of the Rhetoric to Herennius (130), the author gives several examples of abusio (catachresis),130 i.e. an extension of the meaning of words, diverted from their proper meaning. (130) Abusio est, quae verbo simili et propinquo pro certo et proprio abutitur, hoc modo: ‘vires hominis breves sunt’, aut ‘parva statura’, aut ‘longum in homine consilium’, aut ‘oratio magna’, aut ‘uti pauco sermone’. Nam hic facile est intellectu finitima verba rerum dissimilium ratione abusionis esse traducta. ‘Catachresis is the inexact use of a like and kindred word in place of the precise and proper one, as follows: “the power of man is short”, or “small height”, or “the long wisdom of a man”, or “a mighty speech”, or “to engage in a slight conversation”. Here it is easy to understand that words of kindred, but not identical, meaning have been transferred on the principle of inexact use.’ (Rhet. Her. 4.45)

Usually, human strengths (vires) are, in a positive sense, integrae ‘unimpaired’ (Caes. Gal. 3.19.4); in a negative sense, vires desunt or deficiunt ‘the strengths are failing’ (cf. Caes. Gal. 3.5.1) or are adtenuatae ‘weakened’ (Liv. 22.8.2). Statura ‘stature’ is normally longa or brevis ‘tall or short’ (cf. Cels. 2.1.5, Quint. Inst. 2.3.8), not magna / parva ‘big / small’. A discourse (oratio) is said to be longa or brevis ‘long or short’ (Cic. Agr. 2.13, cf. ThLL, s. v. 885.74f.); I believe that oratio magna makes a reference here to the extension in time of a speech. Instead of pauco sermone,131 the usual expression is paucis verbis ‘with a few words’ (Cic. Clu. 58): words (verba) are small in number, not the speech itself (sermo). Longum consilium refers to wisdom of somebody with respect to his decisions; in this case, one would say magnum

130 For other examples, see the commentary by Calboli ad loc. (1969: 389), especially: (tamen non impudenter) cum grandem orationem pro longa, minutum animum pro parvo dicimus (Cic. de Orat. 3.169) ‘(nevertheless sometimes unobjectionable) when we say a ‘full-length’ speech instead of a ‘long’ speech, and ‘a pretty’ mind for a ‘small’ mind.’ 131 Szantyr (1972: 161) considers that this expression (pauco sermone) is incorrect, as opposed to neuter adjective + substantive in the genitive (i.e. paucum sermonis). In the same way, he regards Varro’s phrase multa lana (L. 5.133 and R. 2.2.3) ‘much wool’ as incorrect for multum lanae. He is wrong: we have seen above (note 99, p. 49) the construction of multus in Classical Latin. By contrast, multum + genitive with concrete entities appears in PostClassical Latin: cf. multum frumenti (Liv. 4.12.9) and Valerius Probus (GL IV 153): Adverbia quantitatis, quae plus minusve scilicet significant, haec genetivo casui respondere reperiuntur, ut puta ‘multum vini bibi’, ‘infinitum carnis accepi’, ‘satis rei habeo’. This point requires further investigation.

the noun and its modifiers

63

consilium ‘great wisdom’ (Cic. Phil. 3.13), where magnum refers to extent. Several expressions mentioned by the author of the Rhetoric are actually attested in Post-Classical and Late Latin.132 Two categories of adjectives deserve special attention: classifying adjectives and adjectives situating entities in space and time, which have not been considered by Hetzron. These will be discussed in detail in the following two sections. 3.5.1.4. The First Category: The Classifying Adjectives Instead of Hetzron’s term “purpose/destination” adjectives (for example ironing board in English), I prefer the term “classifying” for this category of adjectives, which is used by Rijkhoff (2010).133 It includes non-gradable adjectives, mostly derived from nouns, that do not admit intensifiers, degrees of comparison, or predicative use. This group, very frequent in Latin, includes not only adjectives expressing purpose or destination, for example adjectives denoting what is related to wine (vinarius), load (onerarius), or corn ( frumentarius), but also adjectives that concern an agent or a cause: militaris ‘military’, civilis ‘civil’, consularis ‘consular’, virilis (related to a man), agrestis (related to a field), and others (Risselada 1984: 218–219). These adjectives express the typical feature of an entity. It is worth emphasising that the classifying adjectives distinguish themselves by the fact that they do not form degrees of comparison and cannot be used predicatively. They should not be labelled as “derived” adjectives, because this term also covers adjectives belonging to other semantic groups. For example, adjectives expressing material, such as linteus (← linum) ‘made of linen’ are often derived, but unlike classifying adjectives, they may be predicated. In the same way, adjectives expressing physical properties, for example aquosus (← aqua) ‘abounding in water’, may function as predicative and admit degrees of comparison (131). (131) (loca) quae crassissima et aquosissima erunt, ea postremum arato ‘plough last the spots that are the heaviest and wettest’ (Cato Agr. 50.2)

132 Vires are qualified as breves by Sen. Nat. 6.7.2; parva statura is used in Gel. 19.13.2 and Macr. 2.3.4. Oratio magna is attested in a fragment of Sallust, Hist. 4, frgm. 44: magnam exorsus orationem. 133 They are also called “relational”, “denominal” (Quirk 1985: 432 and 1339–1340), or “nonpredicative” adjectives.

64

chapter one

3.5.1.5. Adjectives Situating Entities in Space and Time Adjectives expressing a relative position in space and time form a separate category due to their relational meaning. From this point of view, they are closer to determiners or, more properly, to identifiers, than to “true” adjectives, which express properties of entities. To the group of adjectives situating entities in space and in time belong deictic modifiers (hodiernus ‘today’s’), anaphoric modifiers (proximus ‘last/next’) and all words expressing a relative position, such as superior ‘upper’ or ultimus ‘the farthest’, including adjectives like summus ‘the highest’ and medius ‘in the middle’ that, additionally, admit a partitive meaning, for example: medio in foro ‘in the middle of the forum’ (Cic. Ver. 4.86) or in (132).134 (132) Non illum accuso qui est in summa Sacra via, cum ego ad Fabium fornicem impellor. ‘I do not find fault with that man who is on the very crown of the Via Sacra, when I am pushed up against the arch of Fabius.’ (Cic. Planc. 17)

For semantic reasons, I will classify ordinal numerals (primus ‘the first’) as modifiers situating entities in space and time, and not as quantifiers. They indicate the relative position of an entity with respect to other entities: tertia acies (Caes. Civ. 3.55.2) is ‘the third line’ that comes after two preceding lines and, occasionally, before other lines. 3.5.1.6. Adjectives with Spatial and Temporal Meanings Applicability of adjectives to various entities, discussed in the previous section, can be also presented from another perspective. In the framework of his typology of nouns (see section 2.3, p. 8) and the distinction between spatio-temporal (first-order) entities, temporal (second-order) entities and entities lacking the spatio-temporal dimension (third-order), Rijkhoff (2001: 523–524) envisages the same criteria for a typology of adjectives. The adjectives express either concrete and stable inherent qualities, or less stable temporal states; they can thus be subdivided into adjectives with a spatial meaning and adjectives with a temporal meaning. The first category covers, for example, size magnus ‘big’, parvus ‘small’, length: brevis ‘short’, longus ‘long’, exiguus ‘narrow’, colour: albus ‘white’, shape: rotundus ‘round’, rectus ‘straight’. These properties are observable in space. The category of adjectives with a temporal meaning comprises, e.g. the expressions of age:

134 See chapter 3, section 2.4.5, p. 225. For the partitive meaning of this type of adjectives, see Vaughan (1942) and cf. Romero (1996). For typological aspects of this phenomenon, the use of an adjective (summus) instead of a noun (the top), see Lehmann (1998).

the noun and its modifiers

65

novus ‘new’, vetus ‘old’, duration: aeternus ‘eternal’, and speed: velox ‘fast’. It is possible to combine various nouns and adjectives. For example, equus albus ‘white horse’ (Cic. N.D. 2.6) or statua aurea ‘gold statue’ (Cic. de Orat. 3.129) are combinations of two nouns with two adjectives of the spatial order; the phrase dolor diuturnus ‘long-lasting pain’ (Cic. Tusc. 2.44) brings together two words of the temporal order. Combinations of words belonging to different orders have relevance to the meaning of the phrase. An association of a first-order entity with a temporal adjective, e.g. novus Hannibal ‘new Hannibal’ (Cic. Phil. 13.25) receives a special, temporal interpretation: the reference is made not to the person but to his deeds, to events. In the same way, a combination such as recentiores litterae ‘the most recent letter’ (Cic. Att. 14.19.5) refers to the process of receiving a letter recently; citae quadrigae ‘fast chariots’ (Pl. Aul. 600) are chariots that run fast. A temporal interpretation also results from application of the adjective creber ‘dense’ (normally spatial) to litterae: litterae crebriores ‘frequent letters’ (Cic. Fam. 12.30.1) are letters written or sent in rapid succession. Combinations of a spatial adjective and a temporal noun have a temporal meaning. This is typically the case of longus ‘long, vast’ that denotes extension in time in aetas longa ‘long life’ (Cic. Sen. 66) or oratio brevis ‘brief oration’ (cf. Cic. Brut. 162). Entities of the higher order frequently combine with spatial adjectives, e.g. spes exigua ‘slender hope’ (Cic. Flac. 4), summa laus ‘the highest praise’ (Cic. Phil. 8.30), immensa cupiditas ‘boundless greed’ (Cic. Inv. 1.91), gravis auctoritas ‘great authority’ (Cic. Ver. 2.40). When examining the applicability of adjectives, one should pay special attention to magnus. This adjective, used with concrete and discrete firstorder entities refers to their size, for example, large dimensions of Jupiter’s temple or of benches (133).135 With animate nouns, it means ‘great in authority’ (134) or even ‘great of mind, bold’. With a mass noun such as aqua ‘water’, it denotes abundance; with pecunia ‘money’, great volume (amount). In the last case, which will be examined in detail suo loco (chapter 2, section 2.2, p. 122), I would regard magnus as a quantifier, as well as expressions like magnus numerus ‘a great number’ or magna pars ‘a large part’ in (135). This point can be verified with the help of underlying questions: whereas example (133) answers the question qualis? ‘how? (of what kind?)’, examples (134) and (135)

135 It has been stated several times that the adjective magnus is predominantly prenominal (de Jong 1986; Devine & Stephens 2006: 471; Kircher 2010: 49). However, in this very concrete meaning—which is less frequently attested than other uses—magnus is usually postnominal.

66

chapter one

are associated with the question quantus? ‘how great?’ and ‘how much?’, respectively. Applied to second-order entities, magnus refers to extension in time—long duration of mora ‘delay’ (136); with vox ‘voice’, intensity, loudness of a voice. With abstract entities such as miseria ‘misery’ or calamitas ‘disaster’, magna (137) concerns their extension, their seriousness. Although the uses of magnus are very well presented in Latin dictionaries (ThLL, OLD, Le Grand Gaffiot, s. v.), it is worth emphasising that application of magnus to one or another entity entails not only differences of meaning but also variation of the placement of magnus: it is postnominal when it indicates size but prenominal when it is used as quantifier or in an evaluative sense. (133) Contremuit templum magnum Iovis altitonantis. ‘Trembled the mighty temple of Jove who thunders in heaven.’ (Enn. Ann. 541 ap. Var. L. 7.7) scamna magna tres ‘three large benches’ (Cato Agr. 10.4) (134) Nemo igitur vir magnus sine aliquo adflatu divino umquam fuit. ‘Therefore no great man ever existed who did not enjoy some portion of divine inspiration.’ (Cic. N.D. 2.167) (135) magna pars militum ‘a great number of the soldiers’ (Caes. Gal. 5.30.1) (136) magna ad vadum fluminis mora interposita ‘the fording of the river had caused considerable delay’ (Caes. Civ. 1.64.7) (137) profecto magna clades atque calamitas rem publicam oppressisset ‘beyond a doubt great bloodshed and disaster would have fallen upon the State’ (Sal. Cat. 39.4)

3.5.1.7. Referent Modification and Subjective Evaluation Example (129) above, which concerns an exclamatory utterance, invites us to consider another aspect involved in an analysis of the use of adjectives, viz. the levels at which they occur (cf. section 3.3, p. 38). I have already mentioned the distinction made by Hengeveld (2008: 47) between referent modification and the expression of a subjective attitude. From this point of view, in clavis ferrea ‘iron nail’ (127), the adjective modifies the entity involved and expresses the material of which the nail is made; in contrast, scriptor ferreus ‘iron writer’ is a subjective judgement of the author concerning a person.136 136 A parallel can thus be drawn between adjectives and adverbs. As Pinkster (LSS §4.1.2) has shown, adverbs may, among other things, not only refer to modalities of processes but also express an attitude of the author, for example, male reprehendunt (Cic. Tusc. 3.34) ‘they are wrong in censuring’.

the noun and its modifiers

67

Evaluative adjectives, besides expressing referent modification, are also apt for rendering judgements, as in (138). A further example of this type is given in (139); (non) stultus ‘no fool’ does not express a property of the referent but a quality that the author attributes to him; in the similar way, valde sapiens ‘mighty wise’ is an assessment of Buculeius himself. Such an interpretation is supported by the adverbial expressions meo and suo iudicio ‘in my opinion, in his own’. (138) (Sortietur tribus idem Rullus.) Homo felix educet, quas volet tribus. ‘(The same Rullus will cast lots between the tribes.) He, happy man, will pick out the tribes which he prefers.’ (Cic. Agr. 2.21) (139) M. Buculeius, homo neque meo iudicio stultus et suo valde sapiens … nuper erravit. ‘Marcus Buculeius, no fool in my opinion, and mightily wise in his own … went wrong.’ (Cic. de Orat. 1.179)

Adjectives expressing subjective evaluation are quantifiable (by valde, multum ‘very much’), gradable (by degrees of comparison), and intensifiable (by tam, quam ‘so’). This type of adjective is the only one that can be used in the exclamatory accusative; adjectives other than evaluatives are not admitted in this construction.137 Thus, miserum atque acerbum ‘miserable and bitter’ (140) are not inherent properties of spectaculum ‘spectacle’: they represent judgements made by the author. (140) (Te praetore Siculi milites palmarum stirpibus, piratae Siculo frumento alebantur!) O spectaculum miserum atque acerbum! ‘(When you were praetor the Sicilian soldiers lived on palm stalks, the pirates on Sicilian grain.) What a miserable, sickening spectacle!’ (Cic. Ver. 5.100)

137 In the exclamatory accusatives that I have examined in Cicero’s letters to Atticus (69 instances), adjectives such as miser ‘poor’, difficilis ‘difficult’, mirus ‘astonishing’, nequam ‘worthless’, and incredibilis ‘incredible’ are used. Among adjectives belonging to another semantic category, apart from ferreus ‘iron’, quoted in (129), there is also volaticus ‘flying’, used in the extensional meaning ‘inconstant’ (o Academiam volaticam ‘a fickle creature Academe’ Cic. Att. 13.25.3). In my view, adjectives occurring in the exclamatory accusative express judgements (‘I say that the Academy is inconstant’). I would thus not subscribe to the analysis by Vairel-Carron (1975: 55–62): for her, the adjective functions as an attribute and the exclamatory accusative serves for “naming a reality”, in contrast with exclamatory nominatives. Traditionally, the exclamatory accusatives are regarded as constructions with a verbum dicendi (dico ‘to say’, iudico ‘to judge’) understood (K.&St. I: 272 and Ernout & Thomas 1953: 22–23). Given that there are restrictions on the type of adjectives allowed in the exclamatory accusatives, the traditional interpretation seems fully justified to me.

68

chapter one

Figure 7: Gradability of adjectives (Hoffmann 1987: 107)

3.5.1.8. Gradable Adjectives The gradability138 of an adjective is its semantic ability to express a greater or lesser degree of a property. It is not limited to the formation of degrees of comparison nor to expressions of superiority and inferiority; a gradable adjective also admits neuter adjectives or adverbs expressing a small or large quantity: multum ‘a lot of’, paulum/parum ‘a little/little’, valde ‘much’, minime ‘least’; intensity (admodum ‘enough’), or excess (nimium ‘too much’) (K.&St. II: 471). On Hetzron’s scale (see Figure 6, p. 58), gradable adjectives start from adjectives expressing colour (with the exception of physical defects). Gradability can be represented as a scale going from the weakest degree to the strongest or highest degree (Figure 7). Gradable adjectives mostly exist in antonymous pairs. According to Hoffmann (1987: 111), two main groups can be distinguished. Firstly, the pairs forming polar oppositions containing two gradable adjectives, e.g.: brevis longus (‘short long’), levis gravis (‘light heavy’), bonus malus (‘good bad’), laetus tristis (‘happy sad’).139 Secondly, there are antonymous pairs with only one gradable adjective. Examples of such one-sided gradable opposition are: memor immemor (‘mindful forgetful’) or gnarus ignarus (‘knowing ignorant’); the second adjective expressing a state (immemor and ignarus) is not subject to gradation.140 Furthermore, there are also oppositions that consist of two ungradable adjectives (Hoffmann 1987: 114): par impar (‘equal unequal’) or adjectival

138 Gradability is not a “prototypical” property of adjectives, firstly because other word classes are also gradable (nouns, verbs, and adverbs), and secondly because certain adjectives are not gradable (see Bolinger 1972: 15 and recently Cabredo Hofherr 2010: 4). 139 For polar oppositions, Hoffmann (ibid.) refers to Leech (1981: 101); Lyons (1977: 289) only deals with antonymous pairs. For Latin examples, see Cic. Fin. 2.36. 140 By contrast, the pair gratus ingratus (‘grateful ungrateful’) form a polar opposition because ingratus is gradable.

the noun and its modifiers

69

participles derived from terminative verbs such as vivus mortuus (‘alive dead’), aratus inaratus (‘ploughed unploughed’), which express permanent or temporary states. The ungradable adjectives situated at the beginning of Hetzron’s scale (Figure 6, p. 58) do not form antonymous pairs. They apply or not to an entity: an object is ligneus (‘wooden’) or it is not; one talks about a pomegranate (malum Punicum ‘Punic apple’) or about another apple. To this group belong classifying adjectives (onerarius ‘cargo’), adjectives expressing material (ligneus ‘wooden’), origin (Punicus ‘Punic’) and physical defects (caecus ‘blind’). A (without doubt) complete list of ungradable Latin adjectives is provided by Kühner & Holzweissig (1912: 565–569). It clearly shows that non-gradability is not a morphosyntactic restriction but a semantic one: among ungradable adjectives figure items that have an intensive or diminutive morpheme: permagnus ‘very large’, vetulus ‘elderly’, express an absolute property: omnipotens ‘almighty’, perfectus ‘perfect’, immortalis ‘immortal’, or an finite property: vacuus ‘empty’, furibundus ‘furious’. Gradability confirms the adjectival status of certain present and past participles: amans ‘fond’, cupiens ‘desirous’, egens ‘indigent’, accuratus ‘meticulous’, desperatus ‘hopeless’, etc. (Kühner & Holzweissig 1912: 553–555). Besides, former present participles functioning as adjectives are allowed in attribute as well as in predicative position (141).141 (141) Recentior enim memoria fili est et cum meis rebus gestis coniunctior. ‘The memory of the son is fresher, and more closely connected with my exploits.’ (Cic. Dom. 113)

3.5.1.9. Bivalent Adjectives Most of the adjectives mentioned until now are semantically “closed”, i.e. they do not necessitate any complementation, for example ligneus ‘wooden’, Punicus ‘Punic’, caecus ‘blind’. On the other hand, properties expressed by adjectives do not exist in an absolute way but are applied to entities. Therefore, I would label ligneus as a monovalent adjective that describes a property of signum, for example: signum ligneum ‘wooden statue’. As in other languages, there are in Latin bivalent adjectives that require expansion. Complements of adjectives can function as obligatory expansions (arguments) or as optional or omissible expansions (satellites).142 The 141 For attributive use of participles, see Laughton (1964: 52). The construction of sum and a predicative participle such as consul est laudans is proper to Late Latin (Eklund 1970: 65 et passim). 142 Pinkster (LSS § 6.3). For valency as the semantic feature for admitting complements, see p. 24, note 46.

70

chapter one

question about obligatoriness of complements seems to be more complicated in the case of adjectives than in the case of verbs or nouns, especially because criteria for deciding whether we have to do with an argument or a satellite are difficult to establish (Bodelot 2011). Another problem linked with adjective valency is the great variety of expansions attested. Kühner & Stegmann provide long lists of adjectives admitting complements in the dative (I: 314–317), the ablative (I: 371–374), and the genitive (I: 435–451), and also mention alternative constructions, including prepositional phrases. It is indeed not exceptional to encounter an adjective with multiple constructions. Bivalent adjectives often originate from a verb root, e.g. aptus ‘tied, convenient’, gratus ‘grateful’, gnarus ‘knowing’, memor ‘mindful’, dignus ‘worthy’, plenus ‘full’, docilis ‘apt to learn’, utilis ‘useful’, amicus ‘friendly’. However, it is not the morphological formation that is responsible for the bivalency of an adjective; the necessity of having a complement only results from the meaning of the derived adjective.143 Bivalent adjectives can also stem from various other roots, e.g. similis ‘similar’, par ‘equal’, alienus ‘belonging to others’, familiaris ‘familiar’, necessarius ‘necessary’, contrarius ‘contrary’, adversarius ‘opposed’; some of them are of unclear origin, such as idoneus ‘appropriate’ or proprius ‘proper’. In Kühner & Stegmann (loc. cit.), adjectives requiring a complement are divided into semantic groups analogous to verb classes, and as the grammarians state (I: 314), the form of the adjective complement often reproduces that of the semantically associated verb.144 Among possible expansions of bivalent adjectives—genitive, dative, or ablative complements, prepositional phrases, gerunds, and also complement clauses—genitives are the most likely to be considered as obligatory

143 Pultrová (2011: 38) establishes a group of verbal adjectives formed with the suffix -no-, which have a passive meaning and express a permanent property. Among the adjectives listed, we can observe that the meaning of bonus, originally (according to her) ‘worshipped’, or that of planus ‘flat’ is semantically closed but the meaning of plenus ‘filled up’ or that of dignus ‘worthy, welcome’ (geziert mit ‘affected by’ according to Walde-Hofmann, s. v.) requires complementation. In the same way, deverbal adjectives in -ilis expressing aptitude (Kircher-Durand 2002: 197 and Pultrová 2011: 61): utilis ‘useful, serviceable’ or docilis ‘apt to learn, teachable’ are semantically open, in contrast with fragilis ‘liable to break’ or agilis ‘that moves easily’. 144 Parallelism is evident for example for liber ‘free’—libero ‘to free’, or memor ‘mindful’— memini ‘to remember’ (Pinkster LSS § 5.2.5); it does not concern for example the adjective utilis ‘useful’, which combines with all sorts of complements—genitive, dative, prepositional phrase with ad, infinitive clause, gerund—except for the ablative, the case of its source verb (K.&St. I: 375). The variety of complements used with utilis is to be attributed to the semantic value of the combination root + suffix -ilis.

the noun and its modifiers

71

and non-omissible, for example refertus ‘full of’ in (142). In contrast, datives can be valency complements (with similis, for example, ‘similar to’) as well as optional complements (cf. Bodelot 2011: 9–11). Consider example (143) for difficulties of interpretation: out of context, I would regard the datives with the adjectives bonus and infecundus as satellites (dativi in/commodi): ‘good for’, ‘infertile for’. However, in the given context, owing to the contrast established between three entities mentioned, the complements can be considered as non-omissible arguments. (142) Nam et referta quondam Italia Pythagoreorum fuit. ‘For even of old Italy was crowded with Pythagoreans.’ (Cic. de Orat. 2.154) (143) Ager frugum fertilis, bonus pecori, arbori infecundus. ‘The soil is fertile in corn, and good for pasturage, but unproductive of trees.’ (Sal. Jug. 17.5)

The prepositional phrase with gratus in (144) and the dative depending on utilis in (145) can be also interpreted as obligatory complements, as well as the complement clause governed by digna in (146).145 Whereas the dative omnibus with idonea is optional, the gerund is obligatory in (147); this last example is taken from Bodelot (2011). (144) Tu quam gratus erga me fueris ipse existimare potes. ‘You can judge yourself how grateful you were towards me.’ (Cic. Fam. 5.5.2) (145) si lex utilis plebi Romanae mihi videretur ‘if the law appeared to me to be advantageous to the Roman people’ (Cic. Agr. 2.12) (146) tamen digna causa videretur cur inimicitias hominis improbissimi susciperem ‘I should still think I had plenty of reason to incur the enmity of a most worthless man’ (Cic. Ver. 2.117) (147) Neque eadem loca aestiva et hiberna idonea omnibus ad pascendum. ‘Again, the same localities are not equally suited in summer and winter to the pasturing of all species.’ (Var. R. 2.1.16)

Another problem connected with the question of bivalent adjectives is that they allow absolute use without complementation. Unlike verbs, valency positions in the case of adjectives present themselves more likely as potential in the sense that they may remain vacant. This point requires a detailed study but it seems likely that for a description of bivalent adjectives, it is

145 For accusative + infinitive clauses, cf. Lavency (2003: 124) who quotes the following example: certi sumus perisse omnia (Cic. Att. 2.19.5) ‘I am certain that everything is finished’.

72

chapter one

important to take into consideration the syntactic function fulfilled by the adjective. When they are used in an absolute way, without any complement, bivalent adjectives can function as attributes (148) in a noun phrase, as predicatives (149), or as secondary predicate (150). (148) Quod enim declarari vix verbo proprio potest … ‘What can scarcely be expressed by the proper term …’ (Cic. de Orat. 3.155) (149) Ut aptior sit oratio, ipsa verba compone. ‘To fit his language together more smoothly, rearrange his words.’ (Cic. Brut. 68) (150) Paratus igitur veniebat Crassus, exspectabatur, audiebatur. ‘Crassus then always came prepared, he was eagerly and listened to with attention.’ (Cic. Brut. 158)

The predicative use (149), with verbs such as sum ‘to be’, habeo ‘to take for’, or videor ‘to seem’, is preferred for bivalent adjectives occurring with complements because they form the predicate; cf. examples (142)–(147).146 It is of course possible to find noun phrases containing an attributive adjective with a complement, see example (151) and Pinkster (LSS § 6.3.3), but the predicative use is the preferred domain of adjectives with an expansion.147 Furthermore, it helps to avoid over complex noun phrases; the same service can be done by appositions, which also accept bivalent adjectives with an expansion. (151) Haec sunt propria Corneli merita in rem publicam nostram: labor, assiduitas, dimicatio, virtus digna summo imperatore. ‘These are Cornelius’ services to our Republic: toil, industry, hard fighting, valour such as a great general expects.’ (Cic. Balb. 6)

In addition to the adjectives that require a complement due to their semantic nature, it is likely that monovalent and gradable adjectives (sapiens ‘wise’, antiquus ‘ancient’, for example) become bivalent when they enter into comparative constructions,148 when a property of one entity is put into a relationship with another entity or several other entities. Comparison of the

146

The majority of examples quoted by Bodelot (fc.) contain predicative adjectives. For bivalent adjectives used predicatively, see Helbig (1982: 40). For attributive adjectives with a complement, see Pinkster (LSS § 6.3.3). Bivalent adjectives are analysed in more detail in chapter 3, section 3.3, p. 254. 148 According to Lavency (2000: 822), the complement in the ablative, for example, tota Asia disertissimus ‘the most eloquent in the whole of Asia’ is obligatory (Fr. “adjoint”). There are, of course, absolute uses of the degrees of comparison, but these do not represent comparative constructions. 147

the noun and its modifiers

73

degree of a property concerns, in particular, adjectives functioning predicatively (152); but the attributive use is possible as well (153). Most often, the complement takes the form of a genitive or ablative case, or it is introduced by quam (154). All the complements quoted below are to be interpreted as obligatory. (152) Socrates …, is qui esset omnium sapientissimus oraculo Apollinis iudicatus. ‘Socrates, whom the oracle of Apollo had pronounced the wisest of men.’ (Cic. Sen. 78) (153) Causam enim suscepisti antiquiorem memoria tua. ‘You have undertaken a case older than your memory.’ (Cic. Rab. Perd. 25) (154) Sic iste multo sceleratior et nequior quam ille Hadrianus, aliquanto etiam felicior fuit. ‘And so that fellow, far more wicked and infamous than even the notorious Hadrian, was a good deal more fortunate.’ (Cic. Ver. 1.70)

To sum up, the question of adjective valency is complex, and a systematic study remains to be done on this topic. It is necessary to establish criteria that make it possible to distinguish between obligatory and optional complements, and to examine in detail the expansions used and the complementation of individual adjectives. Furthermore, adjective valency may have undergone evolution during Latinity, as Bodelot (2011) suggests. It is also significant that the complementation of adjectives was “fashionable” in the Post-Classical period: the very long list provided by Kühner & Stegmann (I: 443–446) attests stylistic devices rather than linguistic facts. 3.5.2. Syntactic Behaviour of Adjectives 3.5.2.1. Syntactic Functions Modern studies on spoken languages pay attention not only to the semantic properties of the adjectives but also to their syntactic properties. In general, adjectives can fulfil two functions: an attributive function and a predicative function. The attributive adjective forms a noun phrase with the noun (155). The adjective in (156) is used predicatively with the verb sum ‘to be’; other verbs requiring a predicative adjective are, for example, videtur ‘to seem’ or appello ‘to call’. Such predicative complements are arguments. There are also predicative complements not required by the valency of the verb, termed secondary predicates alias “praedicativa”, functioning as satellites (157).149

149

For secondary predicates, see Pinkster (1983) and Touratier (1991).

74

chapter one

(155) si non metuis viros fortes egregiosque cives ‘But if you are not afraid of brave men and illustrious citizens’ (Cic. Phil. 2.116) (156) Senatus autem, mi Brute, fortis est et habet fortis duces. ‘The senate, my dear Brutus, is brave and has brave leaders.’ (Cic. Fam. 11.18.1) (157) (Ille litteras ad te mittat …?) Eas tu laetus proferas, recites … ‘(Is he to send you letters …?) Will you be glad to produce them? to read them?’ (Cic. Phil. 7.5)

3.5.2.2. Attributive Adjectives vs. Predicative Adjectives In Latin, there is no formal difference between adjectives functioning attributively or predicatively.150 As in other languages, many adjectives can fulfil both functions, while others are restricted to only one use. It is not easy for a Latinist to determine whether an adjective is excluded from the attributive use, not only because of the lack of native speakers but also because of the lack of any formal distinction between attributive and predicative adjectives. Word order does not always help either. However, we can assume that several adjectives only function as attributes: adjectives expressing purpose or destination (onerarius ‘cargo’) and origin (Romanus ‘Roman’), cannot be predicated. For example in (158), the anaphoric pronoun eum picks up ager: agrum frumentarium is a noun phrase that as a whole functions as predicative.151 In (159), the attributive consulares is preceded by the pronoun eae, which substitutes for leges ‘laws’; in the second half of this sentence, the verb est is existential and the noun phrase lex Licinia functions as subject.152 Civis Romanus in (160) is a noun phrase functioning as predicative.153

150 Unlike in German, for example, where the predicative adjectives are invariable: der Hund is klein ‘the dog is small’ in contrast with der kleine Hund ‘the small dog’. 151 Likewise, frumentarius is not predicated in: cella vinaria maior sit facienda in eo agro, ubi vineta sint, ampliora ut horrea, si frumentarius ager est ‘a larger wine cellar should be built on an estate where there is a wineyard, and larger granaries if it is a grain farm’ (Var. R. 1.11.2). Cf. also Fundum habet in agro Thurino M. Tullius paternum, reciperatores, quem … ‘Marcus Tullius has a farm, inherited from his father, in the territory of Thurium, judges, which …’ (Cic. Tul. 14); paternum is not a predicative argument of habet but forms a discontinuous noun phrase with fundum. 152 Cf. also Cic. Div. Caec. 18: Haec lex socialis est, hoc ius nationum exterarum est. ‘This is a law affecting the allies, this is a right of foreign nations’. 153 Cf. also Lucanus (7.540–543): Istis parce precor; vivant Galataeque Syrique, Cappadoces Gallique …; nam post civilia bella hic populus Romanus erit. ‘Let her spare the lives of these: Galatians and Syrians, Cappadocians and Gauls …; for after the civil war these will be the Roman people.’ The anaphoric pronoun hic, the subject of the sentence, picks up the nations mentioned and agrees with the predicate (as is usual in Latin) populus Romanus erit.

the noun and its modifiers

75

(158) (Agrum quibus locis conseras, sic observari oportet.) Vbi ager crassus et laetus est sine arboribus, eum agrum frumentarium esse oportet. ‘(This rule should be observed as to what you should plant in what places.) A heavy, rich, treeless soil should become soil for grain.’ (Cato Agr. 6.1) (159) Leges enim sunt veteres neque eae consulares …, sed tribuniciae …; Licinia est lex et altera Aebutia. ‘For there are old laws, and those too not laws made by consuls …, but made by tribunes …; there is the Licinian law, and the second Aebutian law.’ (Cic. Agr. 2.21) (160) Fecit quod Siculi non audebant; ille civis Romanus quod erat, inpunius id se facturum putavit. ‘He did what Sicilians did not dare do; because he was a Roman citizen, he thought he could get away with it.’ (Cic. Ver. 4.48)

There are several exceptions in which classifying adjectives fulfil the predicative function, for example censorius ‘of a censor’, an adjective derived from censor in (161); however, this use seems to be justified by the fact that censorius has a possessive value.154 Likewise, publica ‘public’ is predicated in a fragment of Decimus Laberius. This example is quoted by Rosén (1981: 65) and paraphrased by her as populi est laudare ‘praising belongs to the people’;155 I would interpret this use as: laus est res publica ‘praise is a public affair’. (161) Opus hoc censorium est. ‘This is a job for censor’s attention.’ (Cic. de Orat. 2.367) (162) Cecidi ego, cadet qui sequitur: laus est publica. ‘I fell down, my successor will do so; praise is a public affair.’ (Laber. com. 130 ap. Macr. Sat. 2.7.9)

On the other hand, certain adjectives—in particular, bivalent adjectives— strongly prefer a predicative use; paratus ‘prepared’ for example, does not seem to be used as an attribute at all. 154 These are also predicative: praeterea omnis ager Siciliae civitatum decumanus est ‘with these exceptions, all the lands of the Sicilian cities are subject to payment of tithe’ (Cic. Ver. 3.13), as well as: nam illum agrum publicum esse fatentur. ‘for they confess that it is part of the public domain’ (Cic. Agr. 2.57). See also (praedia) Sullana sunt ‘(lands) assigned by Sulla’ (Cic. Agr. 3.39), and hanc meam defensionem … consularem putetis ‘that you consider this defence of mine as the act of a consul’ (Cic. Rab. Post. 38). By contrast, maritimas in the following example cannot be interpreted as having a possessive value: Peloponnesias civitates omnes maritimas esse hominis non nequam sed etiam tuo iudicio probati, Dicaearchi, tabulis credidi. ‘I took the statement that all the Peloponnesian communities adjoin the sea from the accounts of Dicaearchus, no scamp but a man approved by your own judgement’ (Cic. Att. 6.2.3). 155 Laberius says that an author hardly climbs up the peak of the glory, the fall is faster than the ascent; after all, it is the audience who decides about his career.

76

chapter one

There is one syntactic feature that clearly separates the attributive and the predicative use of adjectives: multiple modifications. Adjectives expressing different properties have hierarchically different positions in the noun phrase, so-called nesting (163). Nesting is impossible for predicatives; adjectives used predicatively are always coordinated (164). (163) Contra haec Pompeius naves magnas onerarias quas in portu Brundisino deprehenderat adornabat. ‘In answer, Pompey fitted out large cargo ships which he had captured in the port of Brundisium.’ (Caes. Civ. 1.26.1) (164) (oleae) orchites ubi nigrae erunt et siccae ‘(olives) when the orcites are black and dry’ (Cato Agr. 7.4)

It is also worth mentioning that several coordinated attributive adjectives are not necessarily contiguous, for example antiquae and mortuae in (165). (165) Antiquae sunt istae leges et mortuae, …, quae vetant. ‘The laws which forbid this are old and “dead”…’ (Cic. Ver. 5.45)

In the following sections, I will briefly present other nominal expansions, which were listed in section 3.1 (p. 35): genitive, dative, ablative, and accusative complements, then prepositional phrases, and embedded predications. 3.6. Genitive Complements Among all the Latin case forms, the genitive is the case par excellence for marking noun complements (Pinkster LSS § 5.2.4, p. 57). At the same time, it fulfils a great number of functions; consequently, syntactic and semantic functions are much less marked at the noun phrase level than at the sentence level where the oppositions such as agent / patient / recipient / instrument, etc. are formally encoded with the help of case markings (Pinkster LSS §6.6). Traditional Latin grammars usually present a typology of genitive complements, mainly based on the semantic relationship that holds between two nouns. The categories distinguished are possessive genitives, subjective and objective genitives, genitives of the whole (including genitive of quantity), genitive of material, price, content, etc.156 New parameters for a description of genitive complements have been recently proposed, especially the concept of “anchored” relations (Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2003: 551) that permits identification of a referent, e.g. Peter’s child, as opposed to “nonanchored” relations, e.g. in the Lithuanian aukso žiedas ‘a golden ring’ (lit. 156

See K.&St. (I: 412–435), among others.

the noun and its modifiers

77

‘gold’s ring’), which do not serve to identify a referent but characterise it. However, the categories traditionally established for Latin still seem to me the most convenient and the most complete. 3.6.1. Subjective and Objective Genitives From the semantic point of view, genitive complements are more or less narrowly related to their governing noun. Subjective and objective genitives have a close semantic relationship with their noun and hence are valency complements.157 Totius urbis in (166) is an argument of perturbatio, corresponding to the first argument of the clausal expression urbs perturbata est ‘the city is perturbed’. (166) Quae perturbatio totius urbis! ‘What perturbation of the whole city!’ (Cic. Phil. 2.108)

3.6.2. Possessive Genitives The question of possessive genitives is more complex, especially because the term covers heterogeneous facts. Following Baldi & Nuti (2010: 330), three typical categories can be distinguished: (i) kinship expressions containing a relational noun such as pater ‘father’ or filia ‘daughter’. Their complements are obligatory, for example Caecilia Metelli ‘Caecilia, Metellus’ daughter’ (Cic. Div. 1.104). I would also include into this category relational nouns that express social relationship (cf. Seiler 1983: 13), e.g. amicus ‘friend’, magister ‘master’. Both the governing noun and the genitive have an animate, human referent. (ii) expressions involving body parts, for example eius dextram ‘his right hand’ (Caes. Gal. 1.20.5). The governing noun expresses a body part, the genitive encodes a human entity.158 When expressed,159 these complements are obligatory as well. 157

See section 2.4.2, p. 28, note 56. The genitive used with body parts may compete with a dative called “sympatheticus”, for example, the dative paedagogo in extemplo puer paedagogo tabula disrumpit caput ‘he immediately cracks the tutor’s head with his tablet’ (Pl. Bac. 441). These datives are satellites. König & Haspelmath (1997, cf. König 2001) talk about “constructions with an external possessor” because the datives, encoding the possessor, are “external” with respect to the noun (phrase) that expresses the body part. Traditionally, the dativus sympatheticus is regarded as an expressive construction, typical of the spoken language but Pruvost-Versteeg (2008 and fc) shows that it is in fact not linked with the spoken register at all. See Baldi & Nuti (2010: 351–355) for discussion. 159 This also holds true for kinship terms. The fact that the relationship between two 158

78

chapter one

(iii) expressions of ownership, which represent prototypical possession, for example domus Pomponii ‘Pomponius’ house’. The governing noun refers to an inanimate first-order entity (possessum), the genitive to a human entity (possessor). The prototypical possession distinguishes itself by the fact that the possessed object is a property to which the possessor has a legal right (Heine 1997: 34). In this case, the genitive is a satellite.160 The possession relationship in (i) and (ii) is of the inalienable type, that in (iii) of the alienable type; the linguistic means for expressing it are the same in Latin.161 The question then arises whether the term “alienable/inalienable possession” is useful at all when describing the expression of possession in Latin. I am not convinced that it is, firstly because the two concepts are not formally distinguished, and secondly because in Latin, a distinction between a closer and a more distant possession relationship manifests itself at another level, that of expression and non-expression of the possessor. Kinship terms, body parts, and also personal properties such as clothes, arms, instruments, animals,162 e.g. tunica ‘tunic’, gladius ‘sword’, lectus ‘bed’, equus ‘horse’—personal properties may in principle be alienated—are associated with somebody in a natural way and any explicit expression of the possessor entails emphatic or contrastive interpretation. Thus they fit better in the concept of the “sphère personnelle”, suggested by Bally (1926), than in that of alienable/inalienable possession. In general, conditions for expression or non-expression of the possessor in Latin can be resumed as follows: when the possession relationship is inferrable from the context, the possessor is not expressed, except for cases of contrast with another (potential) possessor.163 This is not the case in (167): the (non-contrastive) genitive

entities is often inferrable from the context should not be regarded as an argument against the obligatoriness of these complements. When expressed (or: when the conditions under which they are expressed are fulfilled), they are to be interpreted as obligatory. 160 See section 2.4.1, p. 25 and note 50. 161 For the absence of any formal difference between alienable and inalienable possession in Latin, see Baldi & Nuti (2010: 347). For languages that exhibit different encoding of them, see Chappell & McGregor (1996: 3–4), and Koptjevskaja-Tamm (2001: 965–966), among others. 162 Cf. Seiler (1983: 13) who considers “implements of material culture” (arrow, clothes, bed) as inalienable, inherently relational entities. For this type of nouns, possessive genitives compete with datives termed in/commodi, for example: cistella hic mihi … evolavit ‘a casket flew out of my hands here’ (Pl. Cist. 731). 163 This condition can be extended to the expression of possession in general in Latin, including possessive pronouns, on which see Lehmann (2005) and Spevak (2010a: 251). As

the noun and its modifiers

79

pronoun eius ‘his’, referring to Manius Aquilius, must be expressed because it prevents attribution of tunica to the subject of the sentence, Marcus Antonius, the referent of the pronoun ipse ‘himself’. (167) Ipse arripuit M’. Aquilium constituitque in conspectu omnium tunicamque eius a pectore abscidit, ut … ‘He placed Manius Aquilius in the sight of every one, and tore the tunic from his chest.’ (Cic. Ver. 5.3)

Possessive genitives compete with possessive pronouns: filia mea ‘my daughter’ (Cic. Dom. 59), and to some extent, with adjectives derived from personal names: domus Rabiriana ‘Rabirius house’ (Cic. Att. 1.6.1). However, possessive genitives with individualised referents are not interchangeable with the personal name adjectives in Latin.164 On the other hand, possessive pronouns do not always express possession, especially with verbal nouns, e.g. responsum meum ‘my answer’, defensio mea ‘my defence’. They compete with subjective genitives responsum haruspicum ‘answer of soothsayers’, coniuratio Catilinae ‘conspiracy of Catiline’ and are valency complements (see section 2.4.2, p. 27). It is also usual to talk about possessive genitives when the possessor is an inanimate entity (cf. K.&St. I: 412), for example, cacumina populorum ‘poplar cuttings’ (Cato Agr. 6.3). This approach is fully justified insofar as the human mind is capable of projecting relationships existing in the human world to the world of things.

for the non-expression of the possessor, Dahl & Koptjevskaja-Tamm (2001) talk about the “egocentric implicit anchor”; for example in caput dolet ‘I have a headache’, caput is to be linked to the speaker. Cf. also König (2001: 971) on the “implicit-possessor construction”. A detailed study on the expression and non-expression of the possession in Latin needs to be undertaken. 164 See Baldi & Nuti (2010: 356) and Bertagna (1999). The use of the genitive may be required because the personal name adjective is not available (see chapter 2, sections 7.2, p. 178 and 8.1.1.4, p. 190). Furthermore, the two expressions can also be combined and occur together in one noun phrase, for example, ex Anniana Milonis domo (Cic. Att. 4.3.3) ‘from Milo’s Anniana house’. The personal name adjective Anniana refers to a house belonging to the gens Annii that Milo inherited from his adoptive father; this house contrasts with Milo’s house in the Germalus, which has been mentioned previously (see Shackleton Bailey 1965, vol. 2, ad loc., letter nº 75). It is worth noticing that in Slavonic languages, the adjectives derived from personal names have a true possessive function and are in complementary distribution with possessive genitives formed from proper names (Corbett 1995). Cf. also p. 26, note 51.

80

chapter one

3.6.3. Other Genitive Complements The genitives of the whole used with nominal quantifiers such as pars militum (see section 3.4.4.3, p. 49) or sextarius aquae (section 2.3.1.4, p. 14) do not have any clausal counterpart as the subjective and the objective genitives do; nonetheless, they function as obligatory, non-omissible complements. The genitives—and the ablatives—of quality, competing with adjectives (Pinkster LSS §6.6), are optional (168). The genitives of material, content (169), measure (170) and other similar also function as satellites. My inventory of the types of genitive complements is not exhaustive. (168) vir magni ingenii summaque prudentia, L. Cotta ‘Lucius Cotta, a man of great talent and the highest wisdom’ (Cic. Leg. 3.45) (169) Gubernator aeque peccat, si palearum navem evertit et si auri. ‘A skipper commits an equal transgression if he loses his ship with a cargo of straw and if he does so when laden with gold.’ (Cic. Fin. 4.76) (170) Nervii vallo pedum X et fossa pedum XV hiberna cingunt. ‘The Nervii surround the winter-quarters with a rampart ten feet high, and a ditch fifteen feet wide.’ (Caes. Gal. 5.42.1)

3.7. Dative, Ablative, and Accusative Complements The Dative Datives may also function as noun complements, but only exceptionally so.165 Kühner & Stegmann (I: 317) suggest a parallelism with verb constructions, for example in the case of obtemperatio ‘obedience’ (171), responsio ‘answer’, or plausus ‘applause’. The datives used with such verbal nouns are to be regarded as obligatory. Other dative complements are optional (172). They compete, in particular, with prepositional phrases in ad (173). Notice that the construction of remedium in (172) cannot be put together with the construction of the verb medeor ‘to heal’ because this verb takes a dative object whereas the dative used with remedium expresses the goal; cf. the

165 For an overview of verbal nouns completed by a dative in Early Latin, see Rosén (1981: 96–100); cf. also Wistrand (1933: 68) for Vitruvius. Additionally, the beneficiary (dativus commodi) may appear as in a predicative construction, for example tune es adiutor nunc amanti filio? ‘are you now an accomplice of my son in his affair?’ (Pl. As. 57), or P. Scipionis, qui tum Romanis imperator erat ‘Publius Scipio, who then commanded the Romans’ (Sal. Jug. 7.4). Cf. also the expressions of the semantic agent: quid tibi hanc aditiost? (Pl. Truc. 622) ‘what meanest you by approaching her?’ or that of the patient: ego te volui castigare: tu mihi accusatrix ades ‘I wanted to scold you and now you’re here to accuse me!’ (Pl. As. 513). Such datives (cf. Boegel 1902: 82–84) do not belong to the valency frame of the nouns involved.

the noun and its modifiers

81

competing construction in (173). The use of dative complements indicating the recipient/addressee with nouns other than verbal does not seem to be usual in Latin, for example with litterae ‘letter (for)’;166 however, several instances can be found, for example pabulum bubus ‘forage for cattle’ (174). (171) Iustitia est obtemperatio scriptis legibus institutisque populorum. ‘Justice is conformity to written laws and national customs.’ (Cic. Leg. 1.42) (172) (in hac …) iudiciorum infamia, totius ordinis offensione cum hoc unum his tot incommodis remedium esse arbitrarer, ut … ‘(when) the law-courts are disgraced, and the whole senatorial order is detested: for all this evil state of things, there is, I have been feeling, only one possible remedy …’ (Cic. Div. Caec. 9) (173) Primum temporibus hibernis ad magnitudinem frigorum et ad tempestatum vim ac fluminum praeclarum hoc sibi remedium compararat. ‘First, to counteract the extreme cold in winter and the violence of the storms and swollen rivers, he devised for himself the perfect expedient.’ (Cic. Ver. 5.26) (174) Sementim facito, ocinum, viciam, foenum Graecum, fabam, ervum pabulum bubus. ‘Sow clover, vetch, fenugreek, beans, and bitter-vetch as forage for cattle.’ (Cato Agr. 27)

The Ablative The ablative object does not occur at the noun phrase level.167 As an argument, the ablative can only be used with verbal nouns of movement for expressing the source: Narbone reditus ‘return from Narbonne’ (Cic. Phil. 2.76). There are also several attestations of optional complements in the ablative for expressing instrument (175), time or manner (Wistrand 1933: 69– 70). (175) An exercitus nostri interitus ferro fame frigore pestilentia? ‘Or the destruction of our army by sword, starvation, cold, and disease?’ (Cic. Pis. 40)

166 Instead of the dative, prepositional phrases can be found, for example epistula C. Verris ad Neronem ‘letter of Gaius Verres to Nero’ (Cic. Ver. 1.83). In several cases, the ellipsis of the verb (missa ‘sent’) could be envisaged. This example is quoted by Baños Baños (1996: 233) in order to show the interchange between mihi and ad + accusative with the verb mitto ‘to send’. 167 The ablative is restricted to the expressions opus est ‘it is essential’ and usus est ‘there is need’, for example: ad eam rem usus est tua mihi opera ‘I need your services in this matter’ (Pl. Per. 328), signalled by OLD, s. v., nº 12 and 14, and viginti iam usust filio argenti minis ‘my son needs twenty silver minas at once’ (Pl. As. 89); this example is quoted by Boegel (1902: 87).

82

chapter one

On the other hand, the ablative of quality is a productive construction (176)–(177). It competes with the genitive of quality (178) and with prepositional phrases with cum.168 These three competing constructions are always realised, not as bare nouns but as noun phrases, because the presence of a modifier is required.169 The ablative of quality may express both physical properties and moral qualities, applied to concrete animate or inanimate nouns. As a semantically equivalent construction, it can be coordinated with a genitive of quality (168); however, the two constructions are not completely synonymous.170 (176) ad Silanum senem, statutum, ventriosum, tortis superciliis ‘an old Silenus, good-sized, with a big belly, with twisted eye-brows’ (Pl. Rud. 318) (177) amphoram defracto collo puram impleto aquae purae ‘break off the neck of a clean amphora, fill with clear water’ (Cato Agr. 88.1) (178) Qua re nihil est quod adventum nostrum extimescas: non multi cibi hospitem accipies, multi ioci. ‘So you don’t have to dread my arrival. You’ll receive a guest with a small appetite for food, but a large one for frolic.’ (Cic. Fam. 9.26.4)

The Accusative It is rare to encounter an accusative functioning as a noun complement for encoding patients (Pinkster LSS §5.2.5). In Classical Latin, only verbal nouns expressing movement can be constructed with an accusative, indicating direction. Their syntax is thus parallel to that of their cognate verbs;171 for example, reditus Romam in (179) corresponds to Romam rediisti ‘you returned to Rome’. Verbal nouns in -tio/-sio derived from action verbs, constructed with an accusative, are restricted to interrogative sentences with quid. They only appear in Early Latin in periphrastic construction with the verb sum.172 168

Cf. chapter 2, example (13) cum magna fide. See Pinkster (LSS § 6.6., p. 94, n. 42) and Lavency (2000). For the ablative and the genitive of quality, cf. also Edwards & Wölfflin (1898–1900), K.&St. (I: 454–456), Löfstedt (1928: 120–123), and Bennett (1914: 317–319). 170 See also Maurel (1989: 638). The distribution of the genitive and the ablative of quality varies in different periods of Latin (Szantyr 1972: 68–70). 171 See K.&St. (I: 216) and Menge (2000: 464). 172 See Landgraf (1896: 400), K.&St. (I: 260), and Rosén (1981: 81–91), e.g. Quid tibi ergo meam me invito tactiost? ‘Why did you touch what was mine without my agreement?’ (Pl. Aul. 744). For the construction of action nouns + accusative in other ancient languages, see Panagl (2006: 52). 169

the noun and its modifiers

83

(179) Qui vero inde reditus Romam! ‘But what a return was there then to Rome!’ (Cic. Phil. 2.108)

3.8. Prepositional Phrases Prepositional phrases functioning as noun complements are much less frequent than genitives; however, they are not insignificant (cf. Figure 2, p. 37). Unlike genitives, prepositional phrases make explicit the semantic relationship between two words. Kühner & Stegmann (I: 213) have suggested a parallel between verbal and nominal constructions in the sense that they can express similar notions. In certain cases, prepositional phrases can be interpreted as arguments, in particular with verbal nouns, e.g. aditus ad ‘approach to’ (180), profectio in ‘departure to’, nuntius de ‘message concerning something’ (181),173 or with nouns that imply the idea of sharing or interactivity, for example bellum cum Gallis ‘the war with the Gauls’ (see chapter 2, section 8.3, p. 198). (180) quo tumultu facilior aditus ad consulem ceterosque, quibus insidiae parabantur, fieret ‘that in the ensuing confusion, an easier access might be obtained to the consul and the others against whom their plots were directed’ (Sal. Cat. 43.2) (181) Nullus umquam de Sulla nuntius ad me, nullum indicium, nullae litterae pervenerunt. ‘No message about Sulla came ever to me, no information, no letters, no suspicion.’ (Cic. Sul. 14)

In contrast, prepositional phrases expressing location in space or time, manner, instrument, content, and other circumstantial relationships function as satellites. This is the character of the phrases denoting material (182), place (183), or content (184). This last example raises the question about contiguity of the governing noun and its complement: the prepositional phrase is indeed expected to occur close to its noun. Theoretically, ad Tenedum could belong either to pugnam, or to the participle commissam.174

173 I would not label all the examples quoted by Baños Baños (2009: 343–346) as valency complements; in particular, I would exclude from his list complements indicating the source and the agent. For verbal nouns used with prepositional phrases, cf. also Rosén (1981: 92–96). For competing constructions, not always fully interchangeable, of the type amor alicuius / in patriam / erga aliquem, see Torrego (1991: 287). 174 Menge (2000: 344) takes the noun phrases such as pugna or proelium ad / apud, with a prepositional phrase expressing location, as non-classical. In (183), I would not interpret ad

84

chapter one

However, the contiguity of a prepositional phrase and its noun does not seem to be required (184); so it cannot be taken as a criterion for the identification of this type of complements (cf. chapter 3, p. 246). (182) At in Lysandri statuae capite Delphis exstitit corona ex asperis herbis, et quidem subita. ‘But, at Delphi, on the head of Lysander’s statue, a crown of wild herbs has appeared, and this suddenly.’ (Cic. Div. 2.68) (183) Quid? Illam pugnam navalem ad Tenedum, cum …, mediocri certamine et parva dimicatione commissam arbitraris? ‘And what about the naval battle off Tenedos? Do you think that that battle was some mild contest with minor fighting?’ (Cic. Mur. 33) (184) cuius (Pompei) sententiam senatus omnis de salute mea, gravissimam et ornatissimam, secutus est ‘whose (Pompey’s) opinion respecting my welfare, delivered in the most dignified and most complimentary language, was supported by the entire senate.’ (Cic. Mil. 39)

3.9. Embedded Predications Verbal nouns derived from verbs (e.g. suspicio ‘suspicion’, voluntas ‘will’), nouns that are not derived but belong to a semantic field related to verbs (e.g. cupiditas ‘cupidity’, facultas ‘ability’), or nouns that are associated with verbs due to their semantic value (manus ‘power’) allow complements in the form of a clause. An embedded predication can exhibit a finite verb form— in the case of completive clauses175—or a non-finite verb form: gerund, gerundive, participle, or infinitive (Pinkster LSS § 6.2.4). Verbal nouns associated with verba dicendi, sentiendi, rogandi, or voluntatis, which are usually complemented by a clause, may govern a completive clause of any type: infinitive clause (185), clause introduced by a conjunction

Tenedum as belonging to commissam because of the great distance that separates them and because of the presence of a circumstantial clause; modern commentaries do not seem to do so either (cf. Adamietz 1989: 160). Cf. also Cic. Arch. 21: incredibilis apud Tenedum pugna illa navalis ‘that astonishing naval battle off Tenedos’ and Cic. Div. 2.54: ante Lacedaemoniorum malam pugnam in Leuctris ‘before the unfortunate battle of the Spartans at Leuctra’ which are noun phrases. According to ThLL, s. v. pugna, 1547.20, such examples are infrequent in Classical prose; the article concerning proelium, 1654.51, is not very informative on this point: two examples quoted are followed by “et saepe”. 175 Relative clauses, which are also embedded predications, may accompany any noun. They do not represent valency complements.

the noun and its modifiers

85

(186), or an indirect question.176 Completive clauses function as arguments (Bodelot 2010). (185) Hosce opinor Cibyrae cum in suspicionem venissent suis civibus fanum expilasse Apollinis. ‘These men, I believe, were suspected by the citizens of Cibyra of having looted the temple of Apollo.’ (Cic. Ver. 4.30) (186) (nisi) odoratus etiam et aspectus dubitationem adfert quin hominibus solis ea natura donaverit. ‘(unless) its scent and appearance lead us to doubt whether nature intended this gift for man alone.’ (Cic. N.D. 2.158)

Constructions with a gerund (gerundium), a gerundive (gerundivum), and that with a “dominant participle” (alias the “ab urbe condita” construction) differ from infinitive clauses and clauses introduced by a subordinator in that they consist of a noun phrase with case marking (Pinkster LSS § 6.2.4). For example, the gerundive expanding utilitatem in (187) is in the genitive, as well as the gerund in (188) depending on potestas and governing its own complement naves. Example (189) shows that a first-order noun, locus ‘place’, functions here as a third-order noun with the meaning of ‘right, privilege’; this explains the possibility of taking a gerundive clause as complement. While the use of the gerund and the gerundive conveys a virtual or potential content, the “dominant participle” (190) can only be used for expressing factual contents.177 (187) quam … ob rem tantam utilitatem per alios tractandae pecuniae neglexeris ‘why … you disregard the considerable advantage of having others take responsibility for the money’ (Cic. Ver. 5.61) (188) neque naves ad terram religandi potestas fiebat. ‘and there was no possibility of tying ships up to shore’ (Caes. Civ. 3.15.2) (189) antiquiorem in senatu sententiae dicendae locum ‘precedence in delivering my opinion in the senate’ (Cic. Ver. 5.36) (190) (Caesar) Metropolim venit sic ut nuntios expugnati oppidi famamque antecederet. ‘(Caesar) Caesar arrived to Metropolis so quickly as to outstrip all news and rumour of the storming of the town.’ (Caes. Civ. 3.80.7) 176 For completive infinitive clauses governed by a noun, see Lavency (2003: 120). For other types of completive clauses, see Bodelot (2010). See also Hoffmann (fc.) for the variety of complements and their distribution with verbal nouns. 177 See Pinkster (LSS § 6.2.4, p. 80) and Bolkestein (1980, 1981). For properties of the dominant participle construction, such as non-omissibility of the participle and the possibility of exchange with a verbal noun, see Bolkestein (1980) and Pinkster (LSS §7.4.7), and Spevak (fc b).

86

chapter one 4. Conclusions

This chapter has presented the principal parameters advanced by modern linguistic studies that should be taken into consideration for a systematic description of the Latin noun phrase. An examination of noun complements cannot be limited to adjectives and genitives. Various theoretical approaches which have been discussed, concerning both semantics and syntax, are perfectly applicable to Latin. In Latin, it is also essential to separate different orders of entities, because they behave in a different way. Distinguishing types of entities is useful for predicting the use of modifiers and, especially, that of quantifiers. On the other hand, the noun phrase as such is a very complex topic; therefore, the following chapters do not aim to be exhaustive. Specialised studies concerning particular points, such as quantification in Latin, or adjective and noun valency, remain to be done.

chapter two THE NOUN PHRASE

1. Introduction In Chapter 1, I presented an account of the semantic and syntactic properties of nouns and their modifiers. In Chapter 2, I deal with pragmatics and propose an analysis of various modifiers applied to different types of nouns. I have two objectives: firstly, to examine expansions that occur with nouns, and secondly, to look at the placement of the modifiers with respect to their governing nouns. The organisation of this chapter is as follows. In the introductory section 1, I present the concepts that will serve for an analysis of the ordering of the elements within noun phrases, namely factors that may affect the internal order of noun phrases: pragmatic aspects (section 1.1); values that adjectives or genitives can exhibit (1.2), and the contextual status of referents (1.3). In section 1.4 I deal with special arrangements, and in section 1.5, with a brief overview of the state of research, the objectives of the present chapter, and the method adopted. In section 1.6 I provide an overview of the nouns examined. The main study is divided into 9 sections, devoted to quantifying expressions (section 2), specification of a referent (section 3), description of a referent (section 4), evaluation of a referent (section 5), identification of a referent (section 6), expressions of possession (section 7), valency complements (section 8), optional complements (section 9), and complex noun phrases (section 10). General conclusions are formulated in section 11. A glossary of linguistic terms used is provided at the end of the book. 1.1. Pragmatic Functions of Noun Phrases and Their Components In general, a modifier—adjective, numeral, genitive, prepositional phrase— may either function together with the governing noun and form a pragmatic unit with it, or have a pragmatic value of its own.1 For example, when Cato talks about fitting out a new farm, he advises the property owner to sell 1 For more details concerning pragmatic functions and features, see Spevak (2010a: 39) with discussion and references. For question tests, ibid. pp. 35–36.

88

chapter two

useless items. Boves vetulos—as well as the other noun phrases—form a pragmatic unit in (1); this sentence does not inform us about the quality of the entity but about what should be sold. We can also say that the phrase boves vetulos has as its underlying question quem, quid? ‘who, what?’; lanam ‘wool’ without modifier answers the same implicit question (1a). These constituents are enumerated and function all as the (multiple) Focus of the sentence, i.e. they convey salient information. In contrast, the modifiers that are pragmatically significant can figure in answers concerning properties, for example in the passage from Plautus in (2). Answers are reduced to the adjectives elicited by quali genere, quid fide, and quid factis. If the answers were realised by noun phrases, which would be perfectly possible, the nouns would be contextually given and the adjectives on their own would convey salient information: genere bono, fide bona, factis neque malis neque improbis. Another good example of an adjective with the Focus function is given in (3). (1)

Boves vetulos, armenta delicula, oves deliculas, lanam, pelles, plostrum vetus, ferramenta vetera … et si quid aliud supersit, vendat. ‘Sell worn-out oxen, blemished cattle, blemished sheep, wool, hides, an old wagon, old tools … and whatever else is superfluous.’ (Cato Agr. 2.7)

(1a) Quem, quod vendat? # Boves vetulos, armenta delicula, lanam … (2)

Dic mihi, quali me arbitrare genere prognatum? # Bono. # Quid fide? # Bona. # Quid factis? # Neque malis neque improbis. ‘Tell me, what kind of family do you think I come from? # A good one. # What about my reputation? # It’s good. # What about my behaviour? # Neither bad nor disreputable.’ (Pl. Aul. 212–213)

(3)

‘Magnas vero agere gratias Thais mihi?’ Satis erat respondere magnas. Ingentes, inquit. ‘‘You say that Thais thanks me very much?’ It would have been enough to reply ‘Yes, very much.’ ‘Enormously,’ he says.’ (Cic. Amic. 98; cf. Ter. Eu. 391)

Like other sentence constituents, noun phrases may fulfil the pragmatic functions of Topic and Focus. In principle, every sentence is about something and is supposed to bring new information. Topic is the element about which a sentence gives information. The sentence in (4)—as well as the whole passage—is about a fundus suburbanus ‘a suburban farm’ and things it should have. Focus is the most informative part of a sentence. The status of a constituent can be verified with the help of a question associated to it. For example, torcularia bona ‘good presses’ answers the underlying question ‘what should the master have?’; Cato is talking about the equipment of a farm. In both cases, the adjectives in postposition are not pragmatically prominent; this point will be discussed in next section.

the noun phrase

89

(4)

Fundum suburbanum arbustum maxime convenit habere. ‘On a suburban farm, it is especially convenient to have a plantation.’ (Cato Agr. 7.1)

(5)

Torcularia bona habere oportet, ut opus bene effici possit. ‘He (the master) should have good presses, so that the work may be done thoroughly.’ (Cato Agr. 3.2)

Furthermore, constituents of a sentence may carry the pragmatic features of contrast or emphasis. These are to be distinguished from the pragmatic functions Topic and Focus because pragmatic features may accompany both of them; we can encounter a contrastive Topic as well as a contrastive Focus. By contrast, I mean explicit or implicit confrontation of one element with another. For example, when Cato gives instructions on how to build a lime kiln ( fornax calcaria), he puts in explicit contrast unum (praefurnium) ‘one’ (door of the kiln) and duo (praefurnia) ‘two’ (doors) (6). These numerical quantifiers, which are part of phrases with the function of Topic (uno praefurnio, duobus praefurniis), are to be interpreted as contrastive. Similarly, the adjectives depending on the noun aqua, marina ‘of sea’ and salsa ‘salted’, are contrasted in (7); both noun phrases—aquam marinam and aquam salsam—fulfil the function of Focus. Contrastive modifiers may stand in postposition as well as anteposition with respect to the governing noun. On the other hand, the modifiers in (8) are not contrastive: it is a simple enumeration of the types of leaves ( frons), with which the cattle can be fed. (6)

Si uno praefurnio coques … Si duobus praefurniis coques … ‘If you burn with only one door … If you burn with two doors …’ (Cato Agr. 38.1)

(7)

Deinde lavito in mari; si aquam marinam non habebis, facito aquam salsam. ‘Then wash them in the sea, or, if you have no sea-water, make a brine and wash them in it.’ (Cato Agr. 96)

(8)

Bubus frondem ulmeam, populneam, querneam, ficulnam, usque dum habebis, dato. ‘Feed the cattle elm, poplar, oak, and fig leaves as long as these last.’ (Cato Agr. 30)

I will use the term emphasis for the subjective evaluation of an entity made by the author.2 Certain adjectives are often, not necessarily always, used with emphasis, for example magnus ‘big’, talis ‘such’, praeclarus ‘famous’, or adjectives in the superlative. Emphasis is defined as a subjective evaluation,

2

See de Jong (1989: 528); for various uses of this term, see Spevak (2010a: 47).

90

chapter two

for which it is difficult to give objective criteria of identification. I propose to regard bonum (agricolam) and bonum (colonum) in (9) as emphatic, unlike (virum) bonum in the same example, and alienam in (10), which are not emphatic. When adjectives expressing subjective evaluation are separated from their governing noun, they too are good candidates for an emphatic interpretation.3 (9)

(Maiores nostri) Et virum bonum quom laudabant, ita laudabant: bonum agricolam bonumque colonum. ‘(Our ancestors) And when they would praise a worthy man their praise took this form: “good farmer and cultivator”.’ (Cato Agr. pr. 2)

(10) Caveto alienam disciplinam temere contemnas. ‘Be careful not rashly to refuse to learn from others.’ (Cato Agr. 1.4)

1.2. Values of Modifiers 1.2.1. Semantic Prominence In chapter 1, semantic properties of adjectives were discussed. We saw that adjectives may exhibit extensional or intensional meaning and that properties they express may be objective or subjective. Ideally, we would expect that adjectives with a highly objective meaning occur in postposition and adjectives of subjective evaluation in anteposition; remaining cases would be explained from a pragmatic point of view.4 However, the considerable amount of literature that has been published on the placement of Latin adjectives (see p. 102) suggests that the question is complicated and that it is not easy to draw clear tendencies. In the next two sections, I will argue that the semantic value of adjectives and genitives may be more or less “actualised”. I will attempt to demonstrate that adjectives and genitives in postposition have a semantically prominent value in the noun phrase they belong to. Modifiers in postposition can be more important than their governing noun in that they further specify the referent in a subset of other eligible entities. What I suggest is that postposition can be viewed as a kind of further specification of a noun: templum magnum ‘temple that is big’, lex Iulia ‘law that is of Iulius’; without, however, talking about any “appositional” status of modifiers.5 On the other hand, anteposition seems to signal that a modifier is not semantically prominent,

3 4 5

For discontinuity, see recently Powell (2010) and Spevak (2010a: 276). As for example in Polish, see Kłósek (1984); cf. Spevak (2010a: 223). They form a noun phrase with their noun, see Spevak (fc.) and chapter 3, p. 218.

the noun phrase

91

e.g. decumana porta ‘rear gate’, hominum memoria ‘human memory’. These modifiers do not specify the referent in a subset of other competing entities. Semantic non-prominence concerns the cases of referential units that will be presented in detail below (section 1.2.3, p. 97). Semantic prominence and its absence is apparent for other “mobile” modifiers, such as numerical quantifiers. (11)

Elephanti triginta, pecus atque equi multi … quaestori traduntur. ‘Thirty elephants and a large number of cattle and horses … were handed over to the quaestor.’ (Sal. Jug. 29.6)

(12) Ibi cognoscit LX naves, quae in Meldis factae erant, tempestate reiectas … ‘There he discovers that sixty ships, which had been built in the country of the Meldi, having been driven back by a storm …’ (Caes. Gal. 5.5.2)

Elephanti triginta (11) forms a pragmatic unit (‘what is handed over?’) but the quantifier in postposition, with a semantically prominent value, specifies the number of items (‘how many?’). As Marouzeau (1953: 26) suggested, this specifying value could be paraphrased as ‘elephants to the number of thirty’ but here again, one should avoid any “appositive” interpretation of the numeral. In the phrase LX naves (12), functioning as Topic of its clause, semantic prominence is not given to the numeral, with the underlying question ‘what?’ The numeral forms a unit with the noun. Ordinal numerals and identifiers such proximus ‘next’ can also be given prominence for specification of the referent, e.g. ex libro primo ‘from the first book’ (Cic. de Orat. 2.224), with the underlying question ‘which one?’, as we will see in section 6 (p. 171). 1.2.2. Adjectives The values carried by Latin adjectives are often described in terms of a “qualifying” and a “determinative” value.6 Marouzeau (1922: 13–16), as is well known, linked the qualifying value with anteposition and the determinative value with postposition. However, this two-fold distinction is too simple (cf. chapter 1, section 3.5, p. 55). In this section, I will propose a more detailed semantic classification.

6 See, among others, Lavency (1997: 119). For him, the determinative attribute has a discriminative value in that it reduces a whole to a subset (Lavency includes in this category noun phrases such as hic homo ‘this man’); the qualifying attribute has a descriptive value in that it expresses how the referent is. Cf. also the distinction between identifying, specifying, and descriptive modifiers (Lavency 1991).

92

chapter two

(a) Adjectives expressing properties such as dimension (longus ‘long’), age (vetus ‘old’), quality (bonus ‘good’), represent more or less objective qualifications of an entity. They describe a referent and tell how it is. The pronoun qualis, for example, is used for questions about qualities (13). Likewise eius modi in (14), with the underlying question cuius modi? ‘how’?, resumes properties mentioned before.7 The adjectives involved in (13)–(14) have a descriptive value. (13) Qualine amico mea commendavi bona? # Probo et fideli et fido et cum magna fide. ‘What sort of friend did I leave in charge of my property? # A sound one and trustworthy, one you can trust and trust implicitly.’ (Pl. Trin. 1095) (14) Dic quod te rogo, ecquem tu hic hominem crispum, incanum videris, malum, periurum, palpatorem? # Plurumos. Nam ego propter eius modi viros vivo miser. ‘Tell me what I ask of you, have you seen a fellow here, with gray, curly hair, a wrong doer, perjurer, con man? # A lot. It is because of such men that I live so wretchedly.’ (Pl. Rud. 125–126)

(b) There are adjectives that do not describe a referent but evaluate it in a subjective way. Such evaluations emanate from the speaker/author: they do not express how the referent is but how (qualis, cuius modi) the author regards him (15). To this category also belong adjectives that evaluate entities for “greatness” in the sense of seriousness, importance or influence, for example magnus ‘great’, with an extensional meaning, implying the question quantus? ‘how great?’ (16). (15) In quo primum incredibilem stupiditatem hominis cognoscite. ‘First, note the unbelievable stupidity of the man.’ (Cic. Phil. 2.80) (16) (Scipio) Itaque quantum adiit periculum! ‘(Scipio) To do so, he risked enormous dangers.’ (Cic. Fin. 2.56)

(c) Adjectives expressing typical features ( frumentarius ‘of corn’), origin (Punicus ‘Punic’), affiliation (Tullia ‘of Tullius’), to which we can also add adjectives of material (ligneus ‘wooden’), do not describe or evaluate the referent: they do not indicate how the referent is but what it is. Such adjectives concern the kind or the type (genus) of the referent (17). These adjectives allow questions with qui? ‘which, what?’, for example quas partes in (18). In the whole constituted by partes, there are two sub-categories represented

7 A detailed study on interrogative pronouns in Latin remains to be done. Cf. Pinkster (1972: 103) for question tests for identifying the value of an adverb.

the noun phrase

93

by infinita and definita; these adjectives indicate the type of the referent making part of a class. In such cases, I will talk about (further) specification of a referent. The adjective in postposition enables us, by its semantic value, to specify an entity that differs from another entity belonging to the same group.8 However, it must be emphasized that this classifying value of the adjective in postposition is not the same concept as contrast, which has been presented in (6)–(7) as opposed to (8). The classifying value is of a semantic nature: it constitutes a semantic contribution of an adjective to build up a referent of a noun phrase; contrast is a pragmatic feature. For example, there are several types of ships or different laws that are distinct each from other and can be listed (19)–(20). In the same way, lex Iulia ‘the Julian law’ in (21) does not contrast with other existing laws in pragmatic terms; the postposed adjective further specifies the referent in the sense that it makes it explicit in accordance with which law the colonists have been established in Capua.9 (17) Testimoniorum quae genera sunt? # Divinum et humanum. ‘What kinds of evidence are there? # Divine and human.’ (Cic. Part. 6) (18) Quaestio quasnam habet partes? # Infinitam, quam consultationem appello, et definitam, quam causam nomino. ‘What exactly are the divisions of the question? # One unlimited, which I call discussion, and the other limited, to which I give the name of a cause.’ (Cic. Part. 4) (19) navis oneraria / frumentaria / rostrata / longa … ‘cargo ship / ship transporting corn / having a beaked prow / warship …’ (20) (multa videmus ita sancta esse legibus) Cornelia, testamentaria, nummaria, ceterae conplures. ‘(many things are established by laws) The Cornelian law, the law about testaments, the law about money, and many others.’ (Cic. Ver. 1.108) (21) dilectumque colonorum qui lege Iulia Capuam deducti erant habere instituunt ‘and began a levy amongst the colonists who had been settled there by the Julian law’ (Caes. Civ. 1.14.4)

8 This concept is already found in Marouzeau, in particular in his synthesis from 1953, where he uses the term “discriminative value”: ‘(the determination brought by an adjective) can represent discrimination, i.e. express a distinctive character of an object, concerning its nature, function, location, physical condition, and often makes it possible to classify it in a certain category’ (Marouzeau 1953: 13). The term is also used by Lavency (1997: 119). 9 Lex Iulia is not inferrable from the preceding context. The fact that this agrarian law of 59 has been promulgated by Julius Caesar himself on behalf of Pompey’s veterans does not play any role here.

94

chapter two

1.2.3. Genitives Before attempting to determine values that genitive modifiers can exhibit, the question this section is mainly concerned with, I will start with another problem, closely related to it: the placement of genitives. Overall statistics do not show a clear preference for their placement: genitives stand either before or after their head noun, each in approximately 50 % of the cases.10 Furthermore, both orderings are found in fixed expressions, for example military or juridical ones (Table 1).11 Table 1: Placement of the genitives in fixed formulas Pre-nominal genitive

Post-nominal genitive

senatus consultum ‘decree of the senate’ iuris consultus ‘lawyer’ plebis scitum ‘decree of the commons’

magister equitum ‘Master of the Horse’ pater familias ‘father of family’ tribunus plebis ‘plebeian tribune’

Fixed Expressions Marouzeau (1922: 124 and 1953: 28) suggested a parallel between postposed genitives (second column) and “determinative adjectives”.12 Adams (1976: 75) adds, for example, tribunus militaris ‘military tribune’, patres conscripti ‘the conscript fathers (senators)’, and aediles curules ‘curule aediles’, and fully confirms this point. For Adams, whose aim was to explain the placement of Latin genitives from a typological perspective, the order {noun > genitive} represents a “stylistically marked” variant of the {genitive > noun} order, which was common in Early Latin. Therefore, he interprets, with Rosenkranz (1933: 139), the post-nominal genitives as involving an “implicit contrast” (Adams 1976: 76).

10 For Classical authors, see Panchón (1986) and Lisón (2001: 175), among others. See also Ledgeway (2012: 214). Cf. section 1.5.1, p. 102. 11 See, for example, K.&St. (II: 610). This fact makes it difficult to establish the “basic order” of the genitive. For typological aspects, see Adams (1976). I myself will not discuss typological aspects at all. 12 Wackernagel (1908: 137–146) draws a parallel between the possessive genitives and the adjectives derived from common nouns and proper names (claiming “primacy” for the adjectives): eri filius—erilis filius ‘master’s son’. Cf. also Wackernagel (1924: 75) for fabulae Aesopiae / Aesopi ‘Aesop’s fables’. Löfstedt (1928: 86–88) shed light on the distribution of both means: whereas genitives have a referential value (aedes Vestae ‘Vesta’s temple’), adjectives of proper names characterize the referent (virgo Vestalis ‘Vestal Virgin’—*Vestae *‘Vesta’s’). See also Fugier (1983: 245) and cf. Martínez Pastor (1974).

the noun phrase

95

On the other hand, formulas in the first column are regarded by Marouzeau (1953: 31) as expressions that end up as compound nouns (e.g. agricultura ‘agriculture’); as further examples, one could quote aquae ductus ‘aqueduct’ or terrae motus ‘earthquake’. I propose the following interpretation: the postposed genitives indicate the category to which the noun belongs, and we can make a series of comparable expressions (22); for example, there are leaders with various functions: magister equitum ‘Master of the Horse’, magister populi ‘master of the people (= dictator)’, magister sacrorum ‘chief officer of rites’, magister navis ‘ship’s captain’, etc. (cf. ThLL, s. v. magister), and there are several types of tribune, as Rosenkranz (1933: 139) rightly observed. However, in my view, the term “implicit contrast” should be avoided here. In a given context, for example tribunus plebis in (23), the function that Clodius finally managed to obtain,13 is not in contrast with another type of tribunate he might have been able to obtain, for example tribunus militum ‘military tribune’. I would interpret pater familias ‘the head of a family’ in the same way, although pater patriae ‘the father of the homeland’ is an honorific expression. Other phrases quoted by Marouzeau (1953: 28)14 are analogous: orbis terrae (terrarum)15 ‘the globe of the Earth (the world)’ is a special type of orbis as, for example, orbis caeli ‘the globe of heaven’ or another circle. Mos maiorum ‘the customs of the Ancestors’ denote the exemplary model of conduct, with respect to the conduct of contemporary people;16 ius gentium ‘the law of the nations’ refers to the law available to aliens as well as citizens, whereas ius civile ‘the civil law’ is the law of and for Roman citizens only, the Quirites. All these genitives in postposition further specify the noun and are not necessarily marked in the pragmatic sense. (22) magister equitum / populi / sacrorum / navis … tribunus plebis / militum pater familias / patriae

13 Clodius Pulcher was a patrician; he let himself be adopted into a plebeian family in order to hold a plebeian tribunate. 14 Cf. Menge (2000: 579) and Lisón (2001: 164–168). 15 The central land surface of the world, consisting of Europe, Asia, and Africa, was conceived by the Ancients as surrounded by Ocean. 16 In this case, one could also claim that the sequence mos maiorum “sounds” better than maiorum mos, for the order in idiomatic expressions may be based on euphony. In any case, this expression is mainly attested in the ablative, more maiorum. For monosyllabic words, cf. note 113, p. 163.

96

chapter two

(23) Fueris sane tribunus plebis tam iure atque lege quam fuit hic ipse ⟨P. Ser⟩vilius. ‘Suppose, however, that you were as rightly and legally a plebeian tribune as Publius Servilius himself, who is present.’ (Cic. Dom. 43)

The specifying value is evident in the case of templum or aedes ‘temple’ expanded by genitives formed by the names of gods.17 Like the adjectives that have been discussed in the previous section, deities make up a group (24a); the postposed genitive in (24) points out the referent, which is furthermore specific (‘whose temple?’), without carrying a special pragmatic feature. No contrast is involved here: Concordiae is not in opposition with another deity; its function is to restrict a referent among other extant referents (24a): “this one and no one else”. On the other hand, the pre-nominal genitive is used when an entity is known from the context; and, additionally, is contrastive in (25), with respect to other gods mentioned before.18 Another good example of explicitly contrastive genitives, as suggested by aut si forte, this time in postposition, is given in (26). (24) Concursus est ad templum Concordiae factus senatum illuc vocante Metello consule. ‘There was a rush towards the Temple of Concord, whither the consul Metellus was summoning the senate.’ (Cic. Dom. 11) (24a) templum Iovis Optimi Maximi / Minervae / Castoris / Libertatis / Concordiae (25) (Aedes Minervae est in insula …) Verres qui non Honori neque Virtuti quemadmodum ille, sed Veneri et Cupidini vota deberet, is Minervae templum spoliare conatus est. ‘(There is a temple of Minerva in the island …) Verres, who owed vows not to Honour and Virtue like Marcellus, but to Venus and Cupid, was the one to try to strip the temple of Minerva.’ (Cic. Ver. 4.123)

17 Adams (1976: 76) argues that these are formulaic expressions, already attested in old epigraphic evidence. However, the same tendency is apparent for other nouns such as religio ‘religion’ (see p. 184). 18 The case of templum is especially illuminating: according to LLT, in Classical prose writers (however, mostly in Cicero), templum in the singular has a name of a god in the genitive in postposition 28 times, in anteposition, 8 times. Lisón (2001: 169) claims a similar tendency for Livy. Anteposition is due to a contrast, for example: vides Virtutis templum, vides Honoris a M. Marcello renovatum (Cic. N.D. 2.61) ‘you see the temple of Virtue, restored as the temple of Honour by Marcus Marcellus’, or as a non-specifying value of the adjective, for example: non quae deleret Iovis Optimi Maximi templum, sed quae praeclarius magnificentiusque deposceret ‘not to destroy the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus but to insist on a temple more glorious and grand’. (Cic. Ver. 4.69; cf. ibid. 4.71). In the latter case, the temple is known from the context.

the noun phrase

97

(26) Restat ut in castra Sexti aut, si forte, Bruti nos conferamus. ‘The alternative is to betake ourselves to Sextus’ camp, or maybe Brutus’.’ (Cic. Att. 14.13.2)

Pre-nominal genitives in fixed expressions, presented above in Table 1, do not seem to indicate the category to which the noun belongs. Furthermore, they are not part of a series: senatus consultum ‘decree of the senate’ is unique; there is no *plebis consultum ‘decree of the people’. Likewise, consultus in the phrase iuris consultus ‘advised in law (lawyer)’ is not linked with another discipline. Plebis scitum ‘decree of the commons (resolution of the popular assembly)’ exists alongside populi scitum, used when people of foreign countries are concerned (Cic. Rep. 1.43), but we cannot talk about a list in this case. In the phrase solis occasus ‘sunset’, which does not form a virtual category with lunae occasus ‘setting of the moon’, the noun itself is more semantically relevant than the genitive: it is indeed more important to know whether we have to do with solis occasus ‘sunset’ or solis ortus ‘sunrise’.19 The genitive is not prominent in operae pretium ‘worth while (something that repays someone’s trouble)’, nor is it prominent in the formula pro deum (= deorum) atque hominum fidem ‘by the name of gods and men’, which exhausts the possibilities (i.e. of all beings); there is no alternative. In none of these phrases do the genitives have a specifying value. It is time to recall Menge’s considerations (196013: 358) concerning anteposed genitives. Apart from their contrastive uses (stärke Betonnung), for example in Atheniensium urbs ‘the city of Athenians’, he envisages the case of Gesamtbegriff, ‘complex noun’ where the genitive makes up a unit with its governing noun. As examples, he gives: terrae motus ‘Erdbeben’ (‘earthquake’), which is a fixed expression, belli fortuna ‘Kriegsglück’ (‘the fortunes of war’), or corporis voluptates ‘Sinnenlust’ (‘the pleasures of the body’), which are freely formed phrases. The concept of Gesamtbegriff is obviously inspired by the compound nouns in German, Menge’s mother tongue, but I believe that it is justified to use it for a description of the Latin noun phrases. A part of the anteposed genitives seems actually to form a unit with their governing nouns; I will call such cases referential units.20 Another example

19 The order is not fixed in this case. Caesar uses solis occasus (8 occ.) but Sallust has occasus solis (2 occ.); similar variation exists for solis ortus. 20 Note that the referential unit (Gesamtbegriff ) is not the same concept as pragmatic unit, explained above, section 1.1, p. 87. In my opinion, Gettert (1999: 32) goes too far when he claims presence of a ‘virtual article’ for phrases with anteposed genitives.

98

chapter two

of a non-specifying genitive that makes up a referential unit with the noun is given in (27), deorum honores ‘divine honours’.21 (27) Graeci homines deorum honores tribuunt iis viris qui tyrannos necaverunt. ‘The Greeks bestow divine honours of the gods on those who have killed tyrants.’ (Cic. Mil. 80)

To sum up, there are adjectives that describe a referent, evaluate it, or classify it by indicating its category. We will see in this chapter that adjectives with a descriptive and specifying value are found in postposition, and adjectives expressing subjective evaluation are commonly used in anteposition. Genitives can also further specify the noun and be semantically relevant or, conversely, they can be semantically less prominent than their governing nouns; this happens, for example, with entities known from the context. In this chapter, I will argue that in the first case, they favour postposition, in the second, anteposition. However, this semantic factor is not the only one that underlies the placement of modifiers. 1.3. The Referent 1.3.1. Genitives: Specific vs. Generic Referent While dealing with genitives, it is important to mention another point that should be taken into account: the generic or specific character of the referent. Viti (2010) recently presented an analysis of noun phrases in Caesar’s Gallic War based on a distinction between specific, non-specific, and generic referents. She claims that the genitives with a specific referent occur in anteposition22 and genitives with a generic or a non-specific referent occur in postposition. She argues that plural genitives, formed from nouns referring to concrete non-human entities (i.e. animals and objects) stand in 80 % of the cases in postposition, for example in (28). The category of non-specific referents, represented by the genitives of material, content, or quality, is also frequently in postposition (cf. Devine & Stephens 2006: 368–369). Without

21 The context makes it clear that there is no contrast between homines and deorum; homines could be omitted but it contributes to creating a nice sequence of the homoioteleuton: homines—honores. Cicero likens Clodius to a tyrant and reminds the judges that the Greeks honour murderers of tyrants. He aims to suggest that Milo, murderer of Clodius, should be honoured instead of punished. Besides, there is no opposition between deorum honores and hominum honores. 22 Relying on kinship terms (Viti 2010: 89) which, in my opinion, should be dealt with cautiously.

the noun phrase

99

contesting the fact that specificity or non-specificity of the referent can have an influence on the placement of genitives, I would rather regard the genitives of content or material as specifying genitives par excellence: cadus vini (29) ‘jar of wine’ (‘of what?’) and not, for example, cadus olei or cadus mellis ‘jar of oil or honey’. (28) ipso terrore equorum et strepitu rotarum ordines plerumque perturbant ‘they generally throw ranks into confusion by the mere terror that the horses inspire and by the noise of the wheels’ (Caes. Gal. 4.33.1) (29) Cadus erat vini: inde implevi hirneam. ‘There was a jar of wine; from there I filled a jug.’ (Pl. Am. 429)

The genitives formed from personal proper names in the singular have specific referents; however, there are additional complications linked with identification of individuals and differentiation of the individuals bearing the same name. The patronymic expressions such as Q. Metellus, Luci filius ‘Quintus Metellus, son of Lucius’ (Cic. Balb. 11) seem to be idiomatic and do not allow variation—this point is clear23—but other kinship nouns, e.g. uxor ‘spouse’, mater ‘mother’, socrus ‘mother-in-law’, exhibit both prenominal and post-nominal genitives (Devine & Stephens 2006: 355). I would consider patronymic expressions as a particular case. On the other hand, I will attempt to demonstrate that genitives with specific referents such as in templum Concordiae (24) are post-nominal whereas genitives with generic referents, for example in hominum memoria ‘human memory’ are often prenominal. Consequently, I will claim a certain tendency for postposition of the genitives with specific referents and anteposition of the genitives with generic referents. 1.3.2. Noun Phrases: The Contextual Status of the Referent We have seen that certain adjectives (lex Iulia) as well as certain genitives (templum Concordiae, cadus vini) are semantically prominent in that they specify the noun, and are therefore expected to be in postposition. However, this is not always the case: classifying adjectives are found in anteposition as well. We will see, for instance, the case of veterani milites ‘veteran soldiers’

23 See Adams (1976: 75) and Lisón (2001: 178), among others. They are often quoted for showing the “basic order”. However, I prefer Chambry’s (1897: 12) analysis; he interprets Miltiades, Cimonis filius ‘Miltiades, son of Cimon’ in the following way: “Cimonis serves for distinguishing the victor of Marathon from other persons named Miltiades.” The kinship terms are possibly, at least originally, contrastive.

100

chapter two

(section 3.1.3.1, p. 139) and that of decumana porta (chapter 3, section 2.4.1, p. 222) with the adjectives in anteposition. Likewise in (30), the genitive proelii and its adjective equestris both stand in anteposition. (30) (Toto hoc in genere pugnae … Equites autem …) Equestris autem proelii ratio et cedentibus et insequentibus par atque idem periculum inferebat. ‘(In the whole of this method of fighting … The cavalry …) But the system of cavalry engagement threatened us with exactly same danger in retirement or pursuit.’ (Caes. Gal. 5.16.3)

I would interpret it in the following way: the fact that one or another modifier is of the specifying type—the adjective equestris and the genitive equestris proelii because ratio ‘system’ may apply to many things—does not necessarily mean that it actually carries this value in the given context. In the section quoted in (30), Caesar is relating what happened during a cavalry engagement. The Focus of the sentence is on par atque idem periculum ‘the same danger’, and no contrast is drawn in equestris proelii ‘of cavalry engagement’. Anteposition of the genitive and its adjective reflects the status of the referent: it provides contextually given information.24 Furthermore, this noun phrase fulfils the function of Topic of the sentence. The contextual status of the referent is indeed a factor that can have an influence on the internal order of a noun phrase. From this, pragmatic point of view, a referent of a noun phrase can be new, not mentioned before, or, conversely, known from the previous context and thus representing a contextually given referent.25 The latter may exhibit anteposition of modifiers. Referents that are part of shared knowledge behave alike. Such cases are sometimes difficult to recognise, mainly because deciding what belongs to shared knowledge among Ancient Romans is not always easy for us. 1.4. Special Arrangements For the question concerning the placement of modifiers, it is worth adding special arrangements such as chiasmus in (31), where the modifiers of the noun genus are contrasted. (31) Ratione autem utentium duo genera ponunt deorum unum, alterum hominum. ‘There are two groups which use reason: gods and men.’ (Cic. Off. 2.11)

24 25

Cf. Devine & Stephens (2006: 318) on topical genitives. For more details about contextually given and new referents, see Spevak (2010a: 32).

the noun phrase

101

Another arrangement that should be mentioned is noun phrase framing (Spevak 2010a: 26, 268, 272) produced by the insertion of an adjective, a genitive or a prepositional phrase between a modifier with a high scope (a determiner, a quantifier, or an identifier) and the noun; for example in (32), where a frame is formed by tres and libellos. The strategy of framing signals that a noun phrase functions as a unit. However, it is an optional disposition, as we will see in chapter 3, section 2.1 (p. 218). (32) Tres patris Bruti de iure civili libellos tribus legendos dedit. ‘He (Crassus) assigned three men to read from the three books on the civil law written by Brutus’ father.’ (Cic. de Orat. 2.223)

Other special arrangements can be found, for example coordinated nouns with an adjective or a genitive modifier that belongs to both nouns. A genitive, for example, that modifies two coordinated nouns, can precede them, as Menge (196013: 358) stated: Caesaris fortitudo et prudentia ‘Caesar’s courage and sagacity’, but also follow them or be inserted in the middle: fortitudo et prudentia Caesaris, or fortitudo Caesaris et prudentia.26 To sum up, the aim of this section is to give an overview of factors that may have an influence on the placement of modifiers: pragmatic functions that the noun phrases may fulfil (Topic and Focus), pragmatic features that the modifiers can bear (contrast and emphasis), the semantic contribution of the adjectives and the genitives in postposition (specifying value), the generic and specific nature of referents in the case of genitives, and the contextual status of the referents of a noun (contextually given and new information). In general, we can encounter instances that are easy to interpret, but there are also difficult cases, the explanation of which is more complex and requires recourse to several factors that may be at work. 1.5. The Placement of Modifiers: Problems of Analysis The description of noun phrases in Latin, in particular the ordering of their components, is related to a certain number of other difficult problems. I will not go into details concerning the status quaestionis, which I presented on another occasion (Spevak 2010b); I will only briefly summarize the most important points.

26 In this book, I will pay no special attention to such phrases. For the placement of coordinated modifiers, see Pinkster (fc., chapter 18).

102

chapter two

1.5.1. A Brief Overview of the State of Research Determiners, Quantifiers, and Identifiers vs. Adjectives Recent studies make it clear that for a description of noun phrases in Latin, it is essential to separate determiners, quantifiers, and identifiers from adjectives. The “school” French or English terminology that, because of their morphological properties, calls anaphoric and demonstrative pronouns, numerical and non-numerical modifiers, indefinite and possessive pronouns used adnominally “adjectives”27 is likely to mislead. For these modifiers have functions which are different from adjectives: adjectives express properties and represent zero-order entities (see chapter 1, section 2.1, p. 3). Furthermore, modifiers such as ille ‘he’ or multi ‘many’ apply to a wide range of referents and have a larger scope than the adjectives such as publicus ‘public’ or iustus ‘just’ (Pinkster LSS §6.4). Every statistical account concerning the ordering of noun phrase components that does not separate determiners, quantifiers, and identifiers from adjectives provides biased figures. As a matter of fact, we can be sure that anaphoric and demonstrative pronouns usually stand in anteposition: in about 90 % of the cases.28 Likewise, anteposition is usual for indefinites (78% according to Lisón (2001: 120)) and for the non-numerical quantifiers: Lisón (2001: 112) reports 81 %, Spevak (2010b: 62), 87%.29 The placement of these modifiers does not pose any problem and can be easily explained. The situation is different for the numerical quantifiers that present some variation but prefer anteposition.30 It is evident that special factors are at work in this case. The question of the placement of adjectives is more complicated. Global statistics are unequal: for example, 60% of adjectives are anteposed in Cicero (Lisón 2001: 63) but only 10% in Cato.31 The conclusions drawn from 27 The use of the word “adjective”, which refers to a word class, in the sense of “attribute”, which is a syntactic function, should be banned for Latin. 28 See Lisón (2001: 115) and Spevak (2010b: 59). Marouzeau contradicts himself on this point; he had stated that anaphoric and demonstrative modifiers go in anteposition (Marouzeau 1922: 149) but he likened them to the group of “determining” adjectives that are in postposition (Marouzeau 1953: 17). 29 These results obtained for the indefinite pronouns and the non-numerical quantifiers confirm Marouzeau’s observations (1953: 19 and 22). 30 In Cicero 83% (Lisón 2001: 108), in Classical authors 64% (Spevak 2010b: 63) and 71% (de la Villa 2010: 208–209.). Marouzeau (1922: 189 and 1953: 24) is not clear on this point. He would probably like to see the numerals in postposition (1953: 14) but variations in the texts prevented him from claiming it (1953: 16). 31 See de Sutter (1986: 159, 164 and 167). Panchón’s (1986) statistics should be rejected because he mixes up determiners and adjectives. Snellman’s figure (1920: 7), 78% of anteposed adjectives in Caesar, also probably contains determiners.

the noun phrase

103

them go in various directions and are often contradictory with one another: Chambry (1895), while applying Bergaigne’s theory,32 claimed that adjectives in Latin are normally anteposed; Marouzeau (1922 and 1953) argued that qualifying adjectives are anteposed whereas determining adjectives occur in postposition; de Jong (1983) stated that postposition is the normal place of the Latin adjective. So diversified statistical data and their interpretations betray the great complexity of the question and, at the same time, the fact that multiple factors may be responsible for such a variation. For my part, however, I would stress the importance of the data concerning Cato’s treatise on Agriculture (de Sutter 1986). This text is mainly about concrete entities that are described, enumerated, and sometimes presented as a stock list. Its aim is not to convince the readership to adopt one or another argument, unlike Cicero’s speeches, for example. As a consequence of this, pragmatic features such as contrast or emphasis are relatively less present in Cato than in the texts from the Classical period. For this reason, I am inclined to claim, together with de Jong (1983), de Sutter (1986), and Pinkster (LSS §9.4), that Latin adjectives are normally in postposition, except for adjectives expressing subjective evaluation. Possessive Pronouns and Genitives Possessive pronouns and genitives represent the most difficult cases. From the statistical point of view, it is impossible to establish one clear tendency for their placement. Possessive pronouns are found both in anteposition and in postposition, each in about 50% of the cases (Lisón 2001: 124 and Spevak 2010b: 65). Such a ratio implies an influence of several factors that should be investigated at the pragmatic as well as the semantic level. A similar problem concerns genitives: here again, a practically equal ratio between anteposition and postposition has been reported several times.33 The only fact that we can be sure of is that many factors are at work, but, this time,

32 Chambry (1895) included the determiners in his figures concerning Cornelius Nepos. It is worth specifying that Bergaigne’s (1884) aim was to show that, besides the adjectives that follow the noun (res frumentaria), mentioned by Madvig (1878: §466a), there are also adjectives anteposed, which occur very frequently: adjectives expressing dimension or duration (magnus ‘big’, longus ‘long’), location in space or time (summus ‘the highest’, proximus ‘next’), and evaluation (bonus ‘good’). 33 See Panchón (1986: 223) and Lisón (2001: 160). For Caesar, see Snellman (1920: 8); according to him, 58 % of genitives are in postposition. Cf. also Viti (2010). Figures presented by Baldi & Nuti (2010: 369), concerning genitives in the diachrony of Latin, are more variable: post-nominal genitives make up 36 % in Plautus, 71 % (!) in Cato, and 56% in Caesar. Cf. also Bauer (2009: 265–267).

104

chapter two

with an additional complicating matter: unlike adjectives, genitives have autonomous referents of a specific, non-specific, or generic character. 1.5.2. The Aim and the Method Adopted Recent studies devoted to the placement of modifiers in Latin take the modifier as a point of departure: for example, de Sutter (1984), Lisón (2001), Kircher (2010) examine all the modifiers collected in a concrete text. Sometimes individual modifiers are the object of an analysis: magnus (de Jong 1986), vetus (Ott fc.), urbanus (Langslow 2012); or a series of various case studies is presented (Devine & Stephens 2006).34 They provide us, of course, with interesting results. I will adopt another perspective. My approach takes the noun as a point of departure; it consists in collecting and examining the modifiers that occur with one or another noun, and interpreting the place they occupy in a noun phrase. The collection of material has been made with the help of the database Library of Latin Texts (LLT). The nouns examined have been selected so that all orders of entities described in chapter 1 are represented. Among the first-order entities figure: vir ‘man’, miles ‘soldier’, navis ‘ship’, liber ‘book’, ager ‘field’, the collective noun familia ‘family’, the mass nouns pecunia ‘money’, frumentum ‘corn’, aqua ‘water’, vinum ‘wine’, and argentum ‘silver’. Second-order entities are represented by dies ‘day’, bellum ‘war’, and religio ‘religion’; third-order entities, by memoria ‘memory’, opinio ‘opinion’, and quaestio ‘investigation’. The choice of these words has been established with the aim of exemplifying each category of entities and of creating a sample that, I hope, is sufficiently representative. Naturally, one might like to see such or such word on the list; in any case, it is impossible to exhaust the entire Latin lexicon and examine every single word. My choice has also be conditioned by the number of attestations; animals, for example, do not present a sufficient number of instances in Classical Latin prose to obtain interesting results. Mass nouns pose a similar problem but they have been included owing to the importance of this category. This study will concentrate on quantifiers, adjectives, genitives, prepositional phrases, and completive clauses. I excluded from the analysis deter-

34 The chapters on the noun phrase in Devine & Stephens (2006: 314–377) are indeed concentrated on noun modifiers. Their aim is to examine various types of these: subjective and objective genitives, prepositional phrases with erga, “partitive” expressions, possessive pronouns, adjectives expressing the measure and the content, evaluative adjectives, etc.

the noun phrase

105

miners, indefinite pronouns, and identifiers, for two reasons: their ordering is not very problematic and they can apply to almost every noun. Possessive pronouns obey special distribution rules (Spevak 2010a: 250–254) and will be disregarded in general; only those functioning as valency complements were taken into consideration. For selected words, all noun phrases with one or several modifiers have been collected, counted, and classified. However, I have disregard isolated phenomena and will not report every single detail.35 I should also mention that sequences noun + modifier were not restricted to “genuine” noun phrases; also prepositional phrases have been counted. 1.5.3. Distribution of Nouns in a Specific Corpus This chapter is based on a series of case studies of nouns belonging to the types of entities described in chapter 1, section 2.3 (p. 8). However, the choice of nouns examined has been made on a theoretical basis. They are not necessarily the most common nouns in a corpus. In this section, I propose an analysis of the types of nouns that actually occur in two concrete texts in order to compensate for this discrepancy. The nouns used in a text are in a close relationship with the type of text, such as historical narrative, philosophical treatise, correspondence, or speeches, and with the topic being treated. In order to give an overview of the actual distribution of the types of nouns, I examined a sample of 500 noun phrases,36 i.e. nouns accompanied by one or several modifiers, in Cicero’s On Divination book 2 and in Caesar’s Civil War book 3 (Figure 1). Prior to beginning the analysis of the data, it is important to present details of the classification of the nouns involved. It is indeed not always easy to classify nouns into such and such category. Under the rubric “animate entities of the first-order”, I grouped the nouns denoting animate entities, e.g. vir ‘man’, deus ‘god’, vitulus ‘calf’, their professions or activities: imperator ‘imperator’, physicus ‘physicist’, haruspex ‘haruspex’, as well as collective nouns: populus ‘people’, classis ‘fleet’, copiae ‘troops’ denoting groups of human beings. Inanimate entities include concrete and physically observable or materialised inanimate articles such as statua ‘statue’, vestimentum ‘clothing’, lumen ‘light’, ignis ‘fire’, commeatus ‘supply’, versus ‘verse’;

35

Additionally, I disregard coordination of adjectives and bivalent adjectives. The choice of classifying the nouns that occur in noun phrases depends directly on the topic of this book; bare nouns and prepositional phrases could have been examined as well. Numerical data are indicated in Table 2.1 in the Appendix. 36

106

chapter two

Figure 1: The types of entities occurring in two texts: Cicero and Caesar Note: the occurrences of res (except for res publica), 25 in Cicero and 12 in Caesar, have not been calculated.

human creations and institutions: oppidum ‘city’, municipium ‘town’, res publica ‘republic’; countries and regions: provincia ‘province’, Italia ‘Italy’. Second-order entities comprise temporal units: hora ‘hour’, mensis ‘month’, nox ‘night’; states-of-affairs that occur in time: cantus ‘singing’, eventus ‘event’, motus ‘movement’, observatio ‘observation’, adventus ‘arrival’, oppugnatio ‘siege’; various qualities: virtus ‘virtue’, iracundia ‘crossness’, varietas ‘variety’; states and circumstances: initium ‘beginning’, meta ‘goal’, insidiae ‘trap’, silentium ‘silence’, morbus ‘illness’; dispositions: facultas ‘capacity’, consuetudo ‘habit’, opes ‘means’. Among third-order entities figure items that do not exist in space and time but are constructions of the human mind. These are, for example: products of deliberation: iudicium ‘judgment’, consilium ‘advice’, opinio ‘opinion’, mandata ‘instructions’, decretum ‘decision’, especially when they are not materialized (decretum can also be materialized as a ‘decree’). Sciences and savoir-faire that denote intellectual creations: philosophia ‘philosophy’, divinatio ‘divination’ as an art—as an action, divinatio falls into the secondorder entities—, disciplina ‘instruction’, ignoratio ‘ignorance’. Likewise, products of analytical thinking: causa ‘cause’, ratio ‘system, organization’, with which I included genus ‘kind’, used for classifying entities. I also consider the naming of things as third-order entities: definitio ‘definition’, nomen ‘name’, and any outcome of interpreting various phenomena: cognatio ‘kinship’, mos ‘custom’ (e.g. mos militaris ‘military custom’) or ius ‘law’. There are also abstract entities perceived and interpreted in a certain way by the human mind: fatum ‘destiny’, auspicium ‘auspices’, praesentio ‘premonition’ or indicium ‘sign’.

the noun phrase

107

It is worth pointing out that in several cases, words may belong to more than one order. A good example is that of signum: in its meaning of ‘signal’ given by the bugler or that of ‘military ensign’ (signum militare) it represents concrete first-order entities. By contrast, in the meaning of ‘omen’, it denotes interpretation of a natural phenomenon and joins third-order entities. Auxilium ‘help’ is a noun belonging to the second order but auxilia as ‘auxiliary troops’ is a first-order noun. Let me come back now to Figure 1 showing the distribution of entities in two texts, Cicero’s philosophical treatise and Caesar’s historical narrative. Both authors agree as regards the use of animate nouns, mostly referring to human beings in Caesar, and to both human beings and animals in Cicero; they represent 15% of all entities. Caesar uses concrete inanimate nouns more frequently than Cicero (34% vs. 25%), but Cicero has more third-order nouns than Caesar (24% vs. 8%). This difference is easy to explain owing to the text type and topics dealt with. The most interesting result from Figure 1 is that in Caesar concrete entities make up 49 % of all noun phrases, in Cicero 40%. In other words, the level of abstraction is relatively very high in both texts. Caesar’s historical narrative, in principle, recounts and analyses events concerning people but half of the noun phrases refer to abstract temporal or non-temporal entities. The ratio is even higher in Cicero’s philosophical treatise where second- and third-order entities together make up 60%. Such a high level of abstraction may result—and in my view actually does result—in a high number of temporal and evaluative adjectives applied to these entities. As these adjectives often appear in anteposition, it is not surprising that global statistics report a high number of pre-nominal adjectives (cf. section 1.5.1, p. 102). This brief presentation of the “content” of these two concrete texts is important for the question concerning the type of modifiers used. Whereas concrete entities can be described and counted, temporal entities of the second-order do not behave in the same way: for them we encounter expressions of the relationship they maintain with others, especially concrete entities, as well as various evaluations. With third-order entities we expect expressions of the entities involved and specification of content. In other words, the choice of modifiers closely depends on the type of entity to which they are applied.

108

chapter two 1.6. An Overview of the Nouns Examined

This section provides a brief account of the nouns that have been examined in detail. Concrete, animate, human, and countable first-order entities are represented by vir ‘man’ and miles ‘soldier’. As for the first one, only the nominative singular and the accusative plural, i.e. the forms vir and viros, have been collected. Given the great number of the instances attested, the quantifiers were disregarded in this case. Their selection is supposed to be the same as it is for miles. Vir is used with descriptive and evaluative adjectives, often in appositions. Additionally, only noun phrases with only one adjective have been selected for analysis of vir. On the other hand, the noun miles has been examined in all the forms it provides. Miles mainly appears in the plural and co-occurs with various adjectives and quantifiers in simple noun phrases; it seldom enters into more complex units. Navis ‘ship’, liber ‘book’, and ager ‘field’ represent inanimate, concrete and countable first-order entities. Navis ‘ship’ is found with various adjectives and quantifiers, often used in noun phrases containing several modifiers. Past participles such as onusta ‘loaded’ were disregarded. Liber denotes a book written for publication, a subdivision of a longer work, or any lengthy document. Liber co-occurs with quantifiers, various adjectives, genitives, and prepositional phrases, and often appears in complex units. Ager is a divisible entity denoting a piece of land, a field, or a territory. It is mainly found in noun phrases with one modifier. With the first-order entities have been included other nouns with a special selection of modifiers. Firstly, familia, which is a collective, countable first-order noun denoting all the members of a household, persons closely associated by blood. Familia can also denote ‘slaves’ or another group of men, such as a ‘school’ or a ‘sect (followers)’. This noun admits various modifiers expressing evaluation, type or size, and mostly occurs in simple noun phrases. Adjectives derived from proper names as well as possessive genitives have not been taken into consideration due to the insufficient number of instances. Secondly, pecunia ‘money, property’ is usually a non-count mass noun,37 consisting of elements that are not individualised. It co-occurs with adjectives expressing ownership or origin, modalities of payment, and amount, mainly in noun phrases with one modifier. Possessive genitives and adjectives derived from proper names, as well as past participles (accepta) and

37

For una pecunia, see p. 129, example (108).

the noun phrase

109

gerundives (cogenda), were disregarded. On the other hand, adjectival participles referring to aspects of pecunia, such as signata ‘coined’, have been included. Pecunia may also be used in the plural, especially with the meaning ‘sum of money’.38 Thirdly, other non-count mass nouns: (i) frumentum ‘corn’, which combines with quantifiers and appears once in the plural; (ii) aqua ‘water’ and vinum ‘wine’, denoting liquid matters, seldom occur with modifiers, but are important for determining the behaviour of this category of entities. The noun aqua allows the plural number, with the meaning of ‘flood’; the plural vina relates to different types of wines, e.g. vina Graeca ‘Greek wines’; (iii) argentum denoting the metal, ‘silver’, objects made of it, ‘silverware’, or currency, ‘silver coin’. Apart from quantifiers, adjectival participles such as caelatum ‘chased’ have been included in the examination. Second-order entities are represented by dies, bellum, and religio. Dies ‘day’ is a count noun, used with quantifiers, various adjectives, and genitives, mainly in simple noun phrases. Of this very frequently attested word only the form dies has been examined, which covers the nominative singular, and the nominative and accusative plural. In the case of bellum ‘war’, a countable noun, only the modifiers accompanying the forms bellum and bello have been analysed. Bellum mostly appear in noun phrases with one modifier and co-occurs with adjectives, genitives, and several prepositional phrases. Religio is a non-count verbal noun derived from relego ‘to pick up again, to gather’39 that allows the plural number. Religio expresses a religious scruple or conscience when applied to a person; it also denotes religious feeling and belief, a religious practice or a cult of a deity or a place. It is used with adjectives and genitives in simple noun phrases. Memoria ‘memory’, derived from the adjective memor ‘mindful’, is a noun that belongs to all three orders of entities. It denotes the human faculty of remembering (‘memory’), in which case it is a monovalent second-order

38 It occurs 17 times in my corpus with a modifier. As for the use of the plural number, it is stated in the ThLL (s.v.) that haud raro legitur apud Ciceronem. With the help of the database LASLA, the following ratio can be established: in Caesar, Sallust, and Cicero’s speeches, there are 749 instances of the singular pecunia and 179 (19 %) instances of pecuniae in the plural. 39 According to Walde-Hofmann, s. v. diligo and Le Grand Gaffiot, s. v. religio. For its etymology, see Cic. N.D. 2.72: Qui autem omnia quae ad cultum deorum pertinerent diligenter retractarent et tamquam relegerent, ⟨i⟩ sunt dicti religiosi ex relegendo. ‘Those who carefully reviewed and so to speak retraced all the lore of ritual were called “religious” from relegere (to retrace or re-read).’ Certain scholars relate religio to religo ‘to tie up’, see Ernout & Meillet, s. v.; they themselves consider the second element of re-ligio obscure.

110

chapter two

noun. It can mean the content of the memory, ‘recollection’; with this meaning memoria falls into the category of bivalent third-order nouns. Memoria also denotes a period covered by one’s recollection (‘period, tradition’, second-order), as well as tradition preserved in writing and materialised (‘annals, memoirs, records’, first-order). Memoria is a non-count noun, only used in the singular in my corpus.40 Apart from several adjectives, it cooccurs with genitives in simple as well as complex noun phrases. As nouns belonging to the third order of entities, that of propositional contents, I have selected opinio and quaestio. Opinio ‘opinion’ as a verbal noun derived from opinor ‘to hold as an opinion, to think’ denotes someone’s belief, or an opinion made by others of someone or something. It is a bivalent noun like its source verb (Happ 1976: 563). This count noun forms the plural number, combines with certain adjectives and quantifiers, admits genitive complements, and prepositional phrases with de as well as completive clauses. Quaestio, a verbal noun derived from the trivalent verb quaero ‘to search for’ (Happ 1976: 563), denotes the act of searching and means, according to its application, in a juridical context ‘investigation, inquiry’ (also accompanied by torture), in an intellectual context, ‘question’ or ‘subject of discussion’. Quaestio belongs to the third-order entities when it expresses a subject of dispute or a problem to be investigated; the act of searching itself falls into the second-order entities. Quaestio is a count noun forming the plural number; it co-occurs with adjectives, genitives, prepositional phrases with de and completive clauses. 2. Quantifying a Referent I will start the analysis of the results by looking at various means of quantifying a referent. This section is devoted to numerical, non-numerical, and nominal quantifiers that co-occur with different types of nouns. Count nouns will be examined first, and then uncountable nouns. 2.1. Count Nouns Vir, miles, navis, liber, ager, and the collective noun familia are concrete and discrete countable nouns because they co-occur with quot ‘how many?’, tot ‘so many’ and/or numerical quantifiers. The feature of countability is

40

In the ThLL, 670.80 and 681.62, several instances of the plural are reported.

the noun phrase

111

not restricted to the first-order nouns but also applies to the temporal second-order nouns dies and bellum, as well as to opinio and quaestio, which belong to the third order of entities. 2.1.1. Non-Numerical Quantifiers The nouns miles, navis, liber, and dies41 are found with a wide range of nonnumerical quantifiers: omnes ‘all’, multi ‘many’, aliquot, plerique, complures, nonnulli ‘several’ innumerabiles ‘countless’, which indicate a large quantity, pauci ‘few’, a small quantity, and nullus or ullus ‘no’, zero quantity.42 They stand exclusively in anteposition for navis (17 A = anteposition) and liber (12 A). In other cases, several instances of postposition are encountered (miles: 18 A vs. 6 P = postposition, dies: 60 A vs. 12 P). These nouns do not combine with omnis, universus, and cunctus in the singular. The question underlying the number of countable entities is quot ‘how many’ as in (33).43 Its correlative expression tot ‘so many’ is exemplified in (34). Quantum followed by a genitive seems to be used for a large quantity without a numerical specification, as in (35). (33) Cras autem et quot dies erimus in Tusculano, agamus haec. ‘Tomorrow, however, and all the days we shall be staying here at Tusculum let us pursue these matters.’ (Cic. Tusc. 1.119) (34) Ex libro tertio …—tot enim, ut audivi Scaevolam dicere, sunt veri Bruti libri. ‘From his third book …—for I have heard Scaevola say that this is the number of genuine books by Brutus.’ (Cic. de Orat. 2.224) (35) (Cleomenes) rogat ut … in sua quisque dicat navi se tantum habuisse nautarum, quantum oportuerit. ‘(Cleomenes) asks them to say that each had had in his ship as many sailors as he ought to have had.’ (Cic. Ver. 5.102)

Several examples of non-numerical quantifiers are given below. By using plures, Cicero does not specify the number, but he probably knows that

41 The behaviour of vir and bellum, the plural of which has not been counted, is presumably the same. 42 I also noted quicquid navium longarum habebat ‘such warships he had’ (Caes. Gal. 4.22.3); however, two groups of manuscripts are divided between quicquid and quod. 43 Due to the type of texts, which do not provide many dialogues, quot is infrequent in Classical Latin prose. Nevertheless, cf. the following instances: quot viri ‘how many men’ (Cic. de Orat. 1.9), quot nautas (Cic. Ver. 5.102), quot aves ‘how many birds’ (Cic. Div. 2.64), and quot bella (Cic. Ver. 5.149).

112

chapter two

Aristotle’s Topics are divided into eight books (36). The number can remain unspecified because it is unknown or irrelevant, as in (37)–(38). (36) Incidisti in Aristotelis Topica quaedam, quae sunt ab illo pluribus libris explicata. ‘You hit upon certain Topics of Aristotle which were expounded by him in several books.’ (Cic. Top. 1) (37) Ptolomaeus sanatus dicitur et multi milites qui erant eodem genere teli vulnerati. ‘Ptolemaeus is said to have been cured, and also many soldiers who had been wounded by the same kind of arrow.’ (Cic. Div. 2.135) (38) (Antonius) plerasque naves in Italiam remittit. ‘(Antony) sent most of the ships back to Italy.’ (Caes. Civ. 3.29.2)

Postposition of non-numerical quantifiers, especially pauci, nonnulli (39), nullus, and omnes, correlates with their specifying value, as happens with numerical quantifiers (cf. section 2.1.3). An illuminating case is that of complures ‘several’ applied to dies (8 A vs. 6 P). Examples (40) and (41) clearly show that whereas the first one functions together with the noun as a referential unit without insisting on the quantity (‘how much time?’), the second one indicates the quantity, even if it remains indefinite (‘how many days?’). (39) Vulnerantur tamen complures, in his Cornelius Balbus, M. Plotius, L. Tiburtius, centuriones militesque nonnulli. ‘However, several were wounded, amongst them Cornelius Balbus, Marcus Plotius, Lucius Tiburtius, and some centurions and ordinary soldiers.’ (Caes. Civ. 3.19.7) (40) Disputatio repetenda memoria est, quae mihi tibique quondam adulescentulo est a P. Rutilio Rufo, Smyrnae cum simul essemus complures dies, exposita … ‘I will recall the memory of a discussion, which was described to you and to me in our youth by Publius Rutilius Rufus when we were with him for several days at Smyrna …’ (Cic. Rep. 1.13) (41) Hae permanserunt aquae dies complures. ‘These floods lasted for several days.’ (Caes. Civ. 1.50.6)

Whereas non-numerical quantifiers are commonly used with the nouns mentioned, they appear seldom with ager,44 only co-occurring with multi, nonnulli, and nullus, and with familia, for which I only noted combinations with multae and nulla. 44 Furthermore, ager as a divisible entity admits the neuter aliquantum (aliquantum agri ‘some land’ Cic. Off. 1.33), and the interrogative pronoun quantum (quantum agri ‘how much land?’ Cic. Agr. 1.14).

the noun phrase

113

Two third-order countable nouns, quaestio and opinio, present a restricted selection of quantifiers. Quaestio ‘investigation’ may be multiplied (multae, plures, pleraeque), totalised (omnes, universae), and be conceived as non-existent (nulla, ulla); the same number of quaestiones is rendered by totidem. Opinio, which is a count noun,45 is different. In the plural opiniones refers to various beliefs and opinions that one can distinguish one from another and summarise with the help of omnes.46 A certain extent of belief can be rendered by nonnulla (42) or aliquid (Cic. Sul. 10); its non-existence is expressed by nulla. (42) Comitiorum nonnulla opinio est. ‘There is some idea of an election.’ (Cic. Att. 4.13.1)

2.1.2. Omnis and totus It is important to fully examine the distribution of omnis ‘all’ and totus ‘whole’, which is properly not a quantifier, with different entities. Before beginning the analysis, it is worth pointing out that the adnominal use of omnis is not always easy to distinguish from its use as secondary predicate. Omnes anteposed to the noun often forms a noun phrase with it (43). One can hesitate about its status, especially when omnis is in postposition. The sentence in (44) tells us either ‘he kept all the/his soldiers’ or ‘he kept them all within the rampart’; there is no explicit indication making it possible to decide. In any case, omnes is predicative in (45) because it can be related to the verb. Caesar is enumerating the losses of a battle and relates what happened to the cavalry (equites); then he moves to the soldiers (milites). This constituent functions as Topic and omnes ad unum concerns the process of killing (interficiuntur): the soldiers are killed, up to the very last one. (43) Hos certo signo revocare constituit cum omnes milites naves conscendissent … ‘These he arranged to recall by an agreed signal when all the soldiers had embarked …’ (Caes. Civ. 1.27.6) (44) Militesque omnes intra vallum castrorum continuit. ‘and kept all his soldiers inside the fortifications.’ (Caes. Civ. 3.76.1)

45 Cf. duae with ellipsis of opiniones: quae fuerint opiniones … nam fuerunt duae ‘(I will tell you) what were the opinions … for there were two opinions’ (Cic. Scaur. 7). 46 Cf. opinionum varietas ‘the variety of opinions’ (Cic. Leg. 1.47) and opiniones cum tam variae sint tamque inter se dissidentes ‘the views entertained are so various and so discrepant’ (Cic. N.D. 1.5).

114

chapter two

(45) (Equites …) Milites ad unum omnes interficiuntur. ‘(Cavalry …) The infantry were killed to a man.’ (Caes. Civ. 2.42.5)

Countable first- and second-order indivisible entities do not co-occur with omnis in the singular in my corpus;47 they combine with omnes in the plural, which refers to the total number of individuals involved: omnes milites in (43) concerns all the soldiers who participated in the operation. Totus, irrespective of the number, applies to first-order entities that can be envisaged in parts: navis,48 liber, and dies. Totos dies in (46) refers to whole days, from the morning until the evening. (46) Similiter totos dies in litore tabernaculo posito perpotabat. ‘Likewise, he spent whole days drinking in a tent pitched on the shore.’ (Cic. Ver. 5.87)

Ager as a divisible entity allows omnis in both numbers. In the plural, omnes concerns several territories that are considered together (47); omnis in the singular refers to one territory conceived in a global way (48). Such a meaning involving “overallness” can lead to a distributive interpretation as ‘every district’.49 Totus in the singular expresses the totality of the surface area of a divisible and divided territory (49). (47) Omnes denique agros decumanos per triennium populo Romano ex parte decuma, C. Verri ex omni reliquo vectigales fuisse. ‘In short, that all the lands subject to tithe have been for three years tributary to the Roman people, to the extent of one tenth, and to Gaius Verres to the extent of all the rest.’ (Cic. Ver. 3.103) (48) Hic ager omnis quoquo pretio coemptus erit, tamen ingenti pecunia nobis inducetur. ‘All this land, at whatever price it is bought, will be charged to our account at a huge price.’ (Cic. Agr. 2.70)50 (49) Totus enim ager Campanus colitur et possidetur a plebe. ‘For the whole Campanian territory is cultivated and possessed by the people.’ (Cic. Agr. 2.84)

The collective noun familia presents the same selection as ager: tota for expressing wholeness, omnis for overallness and omnes in the plural for the

47

Cf. chapter 1, section 3.4.4.4, p. 50, note 102. Cf. the following totus used as secondary predicate: naves totae factae ex robore ‘the ships were built wholly of oak’ (Caes. Gal. 3.13.3). 49 Cf. ex omni agro decumano ‘from every district liable to the payment of tenths’ in Cic. Ver. 3.100. 50 Sullanus ager is meant: cf. example (174), p. 149. 48

the noun phrase

115

total quantity. In (50), the apposition of the explicative type provides the exact number of persons covered by omnis familia. Furthermore, familia as a collective noun allows cuncta and universa for expressing that all members of it are concerned (51). (50) Die constituta causae dictionis Orgetorix ad iudicium omnem suam familiam, ad hominum milia decem, undique coegit. ‘On the day appointed for his trial Orgetorix gathered from every quarter to the court all his retainers, to the number of ten thousand persons.’ (Caes. Gal. 1.4.2) (51) Necesse putavit esse et in universam familiam iudicium dare. ‘He thought it necessary to allow an action against the whole household.’ (Cic. Tul. 10)

The two third-order nouns behave alike. All the beliefs or inquiries are omnes opiniones / quaestiones; omnis in the singular globalises the belief or inquiry; belief as a whole is tota opinio. Likewise, tota quaestio in (52). (52) Omnino dividunt nostri totam istam de dis immortalibus quaestionem in partis quattuor. ‘Our school divides the entire topic of the immortal gods into four parts.’ (Cic. N.D. 2.3)

2.1.3. Numerical Quantifiers The number of countable entities can be numerically specified by cardinal numerals, such as duo ‘two’, tres ‘three’, or by distributive numerals, such as singuli ‘every single’; the latter are infrequent in my corpus. They are common with dies, navis, liber, and miles; ager only co-occurs with unus, familia and quaestio with una and duae. The placement of cardinal numerals, on which I will concentrate, is variable. However, variability holds true only for part of the nouns examined: dies (27A vs. 34 P),51 naves (16 A vs. 15 P), and miles (4 A vs. 4 P). The noun liber has almost all the numerical modifiers in anteposition (29 A vs. 2 P). I will come back to this point later. In general, either the numerals form a unit with the noun, or their semantic value is pertinent. The noun phrase in (53) functions as a unit that conveys new information; the sentence answers the underlying question ‘what?’ (‘quid?’). By contrast, the question ‘how many ships?’ (‘quot naves?’)

51

These figures include distributive numerals: 1 A and 8 P.

116

chapter two

underlies the sentence in (54).52 The numeral provides the exact number of ships, which is important from the pragmatic point of view. Additionally, this noun phrase represents a Future Topic: Caesar is going to report what happened to eighteen ships conveying the cavalry as mentioned before (cf. example (57)). All the ships have been lost (nulla earum) but they finally reached the continent. (53) Ibi cognoscit LX naves, quae in Meldis factae erant, tempestate reiectas cursum tenere non potuisse. ‘There he discovers that sixty ships, which had been built in the country of the Meldi, having been driven back by a storm, had been unable to maintain their course.’ (Caes. Gal. 5.5.2) (54) Post diem quartum … naves XVIII, de quibus supra demonstratum est, …, ex superiore portu leni vento solverunt. Quae cum appropinquarent Britanniae … nulla earum … ‘Four days after … the eighteen ships, to which reference has been made above, …, set sail from the upper port with a gentle gale. When they were approaching Britain … none of them …’ (Caes. Gal. 4.28.1)

The same tendency holds true for milites: postposition of the numeral appears in enumerations for expressing ‘how many soldiers?’ (55). In such cases, the numeral specifies the number, unlike anteposed numerals (56),53 which form referential units with their nouns (‘who?’). (55) Ex Afranianis interficiuntur T. Caecilius, primi pili centurio, et praeter eum centuriones IIII, milites amplius CC. ‘On Afranius’ side the dead included killed Titus Caecilius, a first centurion, and besides him four centurions and more than 200 men.’ (Caes. Civ. 1.46.5) (56) Sed tantum navium repperit ut anguste XV milia legionariorum militum, D equites transportari possent. ‘But he found only as many ships as would permit the tightly packed transport of 15,000 legionaries and 500 cavalry.’ (Caes. Civ. 3.2.2)

Numerical quantifiers used in complex noun phrases behave alike. The one in (57) functions as a referential unit with the function of Focus; the adjective onerariae in anteposition is not contrastive. Caesar tells us what he did with his fleet: he had collected 80 cargo-ships and had allocated them to legates and prefects; another 18 ships were waiting in the harbour. By contrast, the quantifier in postposition specifies the number of lost ships

52 For this point, I join Marouzeau’s analysis (1922: 192 et 1953: 77) in the sense that “the numerical value of an entity is specified”. 53 Carter (1993: 143) corrects the number of XV milia in XX milia and D in DC.

the noun phrase

117

(58); furthermore, it is pragmatically relevant, and this is signalled by its separation from its head noun. In (59), the postposed numeral is contrastive with respect to paucis. (57) (Navibus circiter octoginta onerariis coactis …) Huc accedebant XVIII onerariae naves, quae … vento tenebantur … Has equitibus tribuit. ‘(Having collected together about 80 cargo ships …) There were in addition to these 18 cargo ships, which were prevented by winds … He distributed them among the cavalry.’ (Caes. Gal. 4.22.4) (58) Eo die naves Massiliensium cum his quae sunt captae intereunt VIIII. ‘The number of Massiliot ships which came to grief that day, including the captured, was nine.’ (Caes. Civ. 1.58.5) (59) (Caesar) navibus longis Rhodiis X et Asiaticis paucis Alexandriam pervenit. ‘(Caesar) reached Alexandria with ten warships from Rhodes, and a few from Asia.’ (Caes. Civ. 3.106.1)

Both naves and milites represent central entities in the historical narrative and their number is important from the pragmatic point of view. This aspect is likely to explain the mobility of their modifiers. The situation with liber is different: books do not play any main role in Classical prose; they are just accessory participants, the number of which is not subject to discussion. As a result, numerical quantifiers applied to liber are not submitted to variation but stand almost exclusively in anteposition. For example in (60),54 the numeral forms part of a noun phrase that is the most informative constituent of the sentence (note the discontinuity) but it does not as such bear any special value. Its anteposition is due to the fact that it forms a referential unit with the noun. Several instances, however, are that of a contrastive use in anteposition, as is sex in (61), with respect to in multis. (60) (Platon) … et reperiret et tueretur, alter (Aristoteles) autem de ipsa iustitia quattuor implevit sane grandes libros. ‘(Plato) … in order to find and defend it, but the other (Aristotle) filled four very large volumes with a treatise on justice itself.’ (Cic. Rep. 3.12) (61) Hoc in antiquis personis suaviter fit, ut et Heraclides in multis et nos in sex de re publica libris fecimus. ‘This is quite agreeable if the characters belong to history; Heraclides did it in many works, and I myself in my six books On the Republic.’ (Cic. Att. 13.19.4)

On the other hand, when Cicero talks about the revision of his Academics, previously planned to be in two books, the Catulus and the Lucullus, which 54 Cicero is thinking of Plato’s Republic, which is subtitled Περὶ δικαίου, and Aristotle’s dialogue Περὶ δικαιοσύνης, now lost; see the note by Bréguet (1991: 157).

118

chapter two

are now outlined to be in four books, he uses the numeral in postposition (62). The number is relevant here, unlike in (60). (62) Confeci et absolvi … Academicam omnem quaestionem libris quattuor. ‘I have composed this work and finished off the whole subject of Academic philosophy in four books …’ (Cic. Att. 13.19.3)

I turn now to the temporal entity dies, the number of which is often important. Consequently, it presents variable ordering of the numerals. Owing to its semantic value, the word dies is for the most part used in temporal expressions. The form dies appears in time complements answering the question ‘when?’ (63), especially in accusatives of duration (64). (63) Postulaturus eras. Quando? Post dies XXX. ‘You were about to ask him. When? Thirty days after.’ (Cic. Quinct. 82) (64) Ita dies circiter quindecim iter fecerunt … ‘They marched for about fifteen days in such a manner …’ (Caes. Gal. 1.15.5)

The great mobility of the cardinal numerals with dies is intriguing. Postposed numerals seem to relate to the underlying question ‘how many days?’, and to have a specifying function. Numerals that I propose to interpret in this way are given in (65) and (66). In the first one, note the presence of the adverb circiter that modifies the numeral and expresses approximation.55 In the second one, the time complement is preceded by the prepositional phrase ex eo die suggesting that the exact number of days is to be specified. From the same perspective, the numeral XXX in (63), quoted above, may be regarded as specifying the numerical value as opposed to e.g. post paucos dies ‘a few days later’ (Sal. Jug. 90.2), which does not provide such information. (65) Dein Sulla omnia pollicito …, circiter dies quadraginta ibidem opperiuntur. ‘When Sulla promised everything …, they waited there about forty days.’ (Sal. Jug. 103.7) (66) Ex eo die dies continuos quinque Caesar pro castris suas copias produxit. ‘For five successive days from that day, Caesar drew out his forces before the camp.’ (Caes. Gal. 1.48.3)

55 This has already been suggested by Marouzeau (1953: 25). In my corpus, circiter precedes the whole phrase or only the numeral (cf. ThLL, s. v. circiter, 1099.10f.). For other approximators that focus on the number: ad, circa, fere and supra, see de la Villa (2010: 181). The scalar approximators paene and vix can be added to them (Bertocchi & Maraldi fc.); for example, vixdum XXX dies ‘hardly 30 days’ (Cic. Fam.12.4.2), as well as aliquis (for which see chapter 1, p. 44, note 86).

the noun phrase

119

Noun and prepositional phrases containing a numeral in anteposition suggest that a period of a certain number of days is meant. I propose to interpret the numerical quantifiers in (67) and (68) in this way; they form a referential unit with their noun and answer the question ‘how much time?’ (67) Itaque illorum (haruspicum) responsis tum et ludi per decem dies facti sunt neque res ulla, quae ad placandos deos pertineret, praetermissa est. ‘Therefore, according to their answers, games were held for ten days, and nothing that could possibly serve to appease the gods was left undone.’ (Cic. Catil. 3.20)56 (68) Ipse interea XVII dies de me in Tiburtino Scipionis declamitavit, sitim quaerens. ‘(Antony) Meanwhile, he spent seventeen days declaiming about me in Scipio’s villa at Tibur, working up a thirst.’ (Cic. Phil. 5.19)57

Surprisingly, when Cicero draws up a report of his journey, he uses prenominal adjectives in an enumeration (notice the ellipsis of dies with decem). These anteposed numerals allow a contrastive interpretation. (69) (Laodiceae) Ibi morati biduum …; quod idem Apameae quinque dies morati et Synnadis triduum, Philomeli quinque dies, Iconi decem, fecimus. ‘(at Laodicea) There I spent two days …; I did the same at Apamea, where I spent five days, at Synnada three days, at Philomelium five days, at Iconium ten days.’ (Cic. Att. 5.20.1)

As for possible modifications of the numerals,58 it is worth mentioning solos ‘only’ in (70), which marks the contrastive value of centum et decem. The hundred and ten days that Cicero had asked for his investigation in Sicily represented a relatively short period. This number is contrasted with the hundred and eight days required by his adversary. The ellipsis of the word dies signals that the number is essential at the pragmatic level (Focus). (70) Interposuistis accusatorem, qui cum ego mihi centum et decem dies solos in Siciliam postulassem, centum et octo sibi in Achaiam postularet. ‘When I asked for a mere 110 days to go to Sicily, you put forward a prosecutor to thwart me by asking for 108 days for himself to go to Achaia.’ (Cic. Ver. 1.30)

56 In order to divert the omen signalled by the rain of stones, novemdiale sacrum was used; but games lasting ten days did not represent a common means of propitiation, see Dyck (2008: 195). If my analysis of this example is correct, the numeral anteposed in the phrase per decem dies could be compared with a compounded adjective such as novemdialis ‘lasting nine days’. 57 Antony was very much annoyed by the first Philippic and prepared his riposte at Tibur. 58 Cf. note 55 and ipse: decem ipsos dies ‘just ten days’ (Cic. Fam. 2.8.3).

120

chapter two

2.1.4. Nominal Quantifiers Non-numerical quantifiers such as multi are not the only means for expressing the quantity of count nouns; there are also nominal quantifiers that apply to some of them: miles et navis are quantified by means of magnus numerus ‘a great number’, pars ‘part’, paucitas ‘fewness’, multitudo ‘numerousness’, copia, inopia ‘scarcity’, and vis ‘large quantity’. In the case of miles, they are almost as frequent as non-numerical quantifiers (see Table 2.2 in the Appendix). Nominal quantifiers are nouns that require a genitive: magnus numerus navium ‘a great number of ships’. From the syntactic point of view, navium depends on the noun numerus, but from a semantic and pragmatic point of view, it is magnus numerus that modifies navium, and not vice versa.59 An additional argument for supporting this statement is that resumptions with a relative pronoun concern the noun in the genitive, not the numeral quantifier (see example (74) below). Nominal quantifiers are often accompanied by a modifier. Consequently, three patterns occur: the genitive stands in postposition, in anteposition, or is inserted between the nominal quantifier and its modifier. Postposition of the genitive clearly prevails (miles 21 P vs. 1 A, 3 framed; navis 9 P, 3 A, 3 framed). I will now examine the most frequent orderings. Numerus, when functioning as a nominal quantifier, is accompanied by a modifier in an obligatory way. It expresses the idea of a great number with magnus, maior, and maximus; with certus, it refers to a fixed number. The genitive militum, usually without any modifier,60 regularly follows its governing noun phrase.61 Postposition of militum (71) results from the fact that it specifies what entity is concerned (‘a great number of what?’).62 Numerus

59

See chapter 1, p. 14, note 30. It could have one, cf. Caes. Civ. 1.23.2: magnus numerus equitum Romanorum et decurionum ‘a great number of Roman knights and decurions’. 61 A complementary examination of the sequences {modifier (magnus, ingens, tantus …) + numerus + genitive} collected with the help of the LLT database, shows that in Classical Latin prose, the genitive stands most frequently in postposition with respect to the nominal quantifier (38 occ. out of 76, i.e. 50 %); it is inserted between the modifier and the noun 25 times (33 %); it precedes the nominal quantifier 13 times (17%). Genitive complements that expand {modifier + numerus} are: animate entities in the plural, e.g. hostium, nautarum, equorum ‘of enemies, seamen, horses’; inanimate entities, e.g. gladiorum, civitatum, versuum ‘of swords, cities, verses’, but also collective nouns such as levis armaturae, pecoris ‘of lightarmed troops, cattle’ and mass nouns: tritici, vini ‘of wheat, wine’, for which see p. 125. 62 Devine & Stephens (2006: 368–377) also discuss postposition of the genitive. However, they reason that anteposition in the case of pars is due to the definite value of the genitive and 60

the noun phrase

121

is mainly used for expressing great quantity; for the idea of small quantity, parvus numerus is not attested in Classical Latin prose; only minor numerus militum ‘reduced in number’ (Caes. Gal. 7.73.2) and other expressions.63 Furthermore, there are other means, such as multitudo ‘a great number’ (72) and paucitas ‘a small number’ (72). All the genitives quoted below have specific referents. (71) magnum numerum ab eo militum ad Afranium perfugisse ‘that a large number of his soldiers had deserted to Afranius’ (Caes. Civ. 2.18.3) (72) tirones enim multitudine navium perterriti ‘the recruits, terrified by the number of boats’ (Caes. Civ. 3.28.4) (73) Non illi paucitatem nostrorum militum, non iniquitatem loci … non posset causae fuisse cogitabant. ‘They did not recognise as causes either the small number of our men, or the difficult terrain …’ (Caes. Civ. 3.72.2)

The genitive navium with a non-specific referent stands between numerus and its modifier in (74). In such cases, it seems incorrect to me to talk about “pre-nominal genitives” because they are in fact inserted into the nominal quantifier. The true anteposed genitives come before the whole nominal quantifier. Such an ordering is due to the Topic function of the genitive, as with navium at the beginning of the sentence in (75). (74) Cotidie enim magnus undique navium numerus conveniebat quae commeatum supportarent. ‘Every day a great number of ships came in from every direction to bring supplies.’ (Caes. Civ. 3.47.3) (75) Navium magnam copiam ad transportandum exercitum pollicebantur. ‘They promised a large number of ships for transporting the army.’ (Caes. Gal. 4.16.8)

Unlike numerus and copia, the word pars ‘part’ can go without any modifier (76); in this example, militum, coming first, functions as a contrastive Topic with respect to centurions mentioned before.

that postposition in the case of magnus numerus correlates with the indefinite value of the genitive. In my opinion, definiteness and indefiniteness do not play any role in the ordering. 63 Cf. parvo numero navium ‘a small number of ships’ in Nep. Them. 5.3 and sagittarios quorum parvus numerus ‘a small contingent of archers’ in B. Afr. 12.2. For other expressions, there are: non magnus numerus calonum atque impedimentorum ‘no great quantity of servants and equipment’ (Caes. Civ. 1.51.6), and exiguus numerus oratorum ‘a slight number of orators’ (Cic. de Orat. 1.16).

122

chapter two

(76) (Centuriones …) Militum pars … praeter spem incolumis in castra pervenit, pars a barbaris circumventa periit. ‘(Centurions …) Part of the soldiers … arrived safe in camp contrary to their expectations; part were surrounded by the natives and perished.’ (Caes. Gal. 6.40.8)

2.2. Non-Count Nouns Uncountable nouns in my corpus are represented by five mass nouns, aqua ‘water’, vinum ‘wine’, frumentum ‘corn’, argentum ‘silver’, and pecunia ‘money’, as well as two other non-count nouns, religio and memoria. I will focus on the first category; religio and memoria will be briefly mentioned at the end of this section. Mass nouns co-occur with non-numerical quantifiers, nominal quantifiers, and adverbs. Expressions of quantity of liquid matter are linked with the question quantum vini / aquae? ‘how much wine / water?’ (77). Likewise, for the quantity of frumentum (78) or argentum. (77) tantum vini in Hippiae nuptiis exhauseras ut … ‘you drank such quantities of wine at Hippia’s wedding that …’ (Cic. Phil. 2.63) (78) Nonne plus lucri nomine eripitur quam quantum omnino frumenti exararant? ‘Is not more extorted, as a so-called bonus, than the whole amount of corn they harvest?’ (Cic. Ver. 3.86)

Pecunia is of a different nature. The question associated with its amount is quanta pecunia? (79); the exact sum of money in sesterces is provided in the answer. The construction of the neuter quantum followed by a genitive, pecuniae, ‘how much money’, is attested in Classical Latin prose, with a specific referent in (80), but it is an isolated example.64 (79) (Quid …) cum ipsa pecunia quae Staieno data est numero ac summa sua non modo quanta fuerit sed etiam ad quam rem fuerit ostendat? … ad Staienum sescenta quadraginta milia nummum esse delata. ‘(Why …) when the actual sum which was given to Staienus proves, by its figures and its sum total, not only how much it was but for what purpose it was given? … (I say that) 640,000 sesterces were paid to Staienus.’ (Cic. Clu. 87)

64 In (80), one could also envisage the interpretation of pecuniae as a genitive of the whole. Cf. also instances of tantum pecuniae ‘so much money’ (Cic. Ver. 3.173) and with a neuter such as aliquantum: aeris alieni ‘a considerable amount of debts’ (Cic. Quinct. 73).

the noun phrase

123

(80) diceret saltem quantum pecuniae Malleoli deportasset; a multis efflagitatus aliquando dixit sestertium deciens ‘at least to tell him how much money of Malleolus’ he had brought away; as many people have insisted, he finally said, a million sesterces’ (Cic. Ver. 1.92)

2.2.1. Non-Numerical Quantifiers Expressions of great quantity with the help of non-numerical quantifiers are hardly attested. Nevertheless, liquids seem to combine with multus: multum vinum, multa aqua ‘much wine, water’.65 To them, an instance of copiosum frumentum ‘abundant corn’ (Cic. Att. 5.18.2) can be added. Zero quantity is nulla aqua ‘no water’ (Cels. 3.23). Silver in great quantity is multum argentum ‘much silver’ (81).66 (81) Exponit suas copias omnes, multum argentum … ‘He set out everything he had, a lot of silver …’ (Cic. Ver. 4.62)

Pecunia takes magna ‘big’, which makes reference to the “volume” of the pecunia and hence to the idea of its large quantity or amount (cf. ThLL 941.31ff.). In Classical Latin, “much money” is therefore rendered as magna pecunia, and not *multa pecunia or *multum pecuniae.67 Example (82) with the adjective in the comparative degree, maior, nicely illustrates this point; it is argued that a father should prepare a dowry for his daughters.

65 See chapter 1, section 2.3.1.4, p. 13. Neither multum vini / aquae nor multum frumentum / frumenti are attested in Classical Latin. Whereas multum + genitive mainly appears with abstract nouns in Classical Latin, mass nouns may be used with an adverb, for example largiter: veteris vini largiter ‘lots of old wine’ (Pl. Truc. 903), quoted by Bennett (1914: 35), cf. Ripoll (2007: 216). For the nominal or adverbial nature of multum, see Ripoll (2010a); however, I would not subscribe to his analysis of the genitive as an argument of the verb: multum (habet laudis) = multum laudat because habeo does not take such complements. For expressions of small quantity, Defresne (2000: 966) confirms the combinability of parum and paulum with mass and abstract nouns, for example: paulum frumenti (Caes. Civ. 1.78.2) ‘a little corn’, parum auri ‘too little gold’ (Pl. Bac. 671) and paulum mellis ‘a little honey’ (Cels. 6.11). A systematic study of expressions of great and small quantity in Latin needs to be undertaken. 66 Prinz (ThLL, s. v. argentum 523.50) also reports an instance of multitudo argenti, attested in a fragment of Varro (Non. 465.20). 67 The only example offered by LLT is: pecuniae aurique et argenti haud sane multum fit ‘there was no great quantity of money, gold or silver’ (Liv. 32.16.17). Multum + genitive seems to be used from Post-Classical Latin onwards—see chapter 1, p. 62, note 131. On the other hand, multus in agreement with the noun may be applied to pecunia in the plural: Cic. Ver. 5.48 and Phil. 2.41.

124

chapter two

(82) Filiam quis habet, pecunia est opus; duas, maiore; plures, maiore etiam. ‘Has a man a daughter? he needs money. Two? more money. More than two? more money still.’ (Cic. Parad. 44)

Pecunia is thus evaluated in magnitudo ‘greatness’ (83). For expressing a large amount, it combines with adjectives such as magna or grandis. For a small quantity, parva ‘small’ and tenuis ‘thin’ are used. ‘No money’ is nulla pecunia. All these adjectives are very common and clearly prefer anteposition (67 A vs. 24 P). They are not necessarily emphatic when they stand in anteposition: in (84), magna pecunia resumes old information—Heraclius received an inheritance of three million sesterces—and functions as a pragmatic unit. On the other hand, the adjective in postposition seems to carry emphasis in (85). (83) Magnitudo pecuniae demonstratur. ‘The size of his fortune is pointed out.’ (Cic. S. Rosc. 20) (84) Erat in sermone res magnam pecuniam Heraclio relictam. ‘It was common talk that a great fortune had come to Heraclius.’ (Cic. Ver. 2.35) (85) Verres cognoscebat, Verres iudicabat; pecuniae maximae dabantur; qui dabant, causas obtinebant. ‘Verres heard the cause; Verres gave sentence; large sums were paid; the payers won the case.’ (Cic. Ver. 2.26)

The idea of a great quantity is sometimes intensified by the prefix per- (permagna, pergrandis ‘very large’), the superlative degree (maxima, amplissima ‘very large’) or negative expressions such as innumerabilis (86) or infinita ‘considerable’. Also here, anteposition need not correlate with emphasis: the noun phrase (86) behaves as a unit, unlike (87) where pecunia is contextually given information and permagnam stands with emphasis in postposition. (86) Qui maximo te aere alieno ad aedem Opis liberavisti; qui per easdem tabulas innumerabilem pecuniam dissipavisti. ‘You delivered yourself from a load of debt at the temple of Ops; you squandered innumerable money by means of the same documents.’ (Cic. Phil. 2.35) (87) Tibi datam pecuniam domi retines et praeterea pecuniam permagnam tuo nomine aufers. ‘The money received you keep, and besides that, you appropriate a very large sum in your own name.’ (Cic. Ver. 3.202)

2.2.2. Nominal Quantifiers Mass nouns allow nominal quantifiers such as magnus numerus ‘great quantity’. Although the word numerus suggests an idea of ‘number’ as a result of

the noun phrase

125

counting, it applies very well to—at least some—non-count nouns, especially frumentum.68 (88) magnus numerus frumenti ‘a great quantity of corn’ (Cic. Ver. 2.176)

Example (89) shows resumption of frumenti, which is semantically modified by the quantifier, by a relative pronoun. Here frumenti stands at the beginning of the sentence because it functions as a contrastive Topic with respect to naves longas and pecuniam. This special pragmatic arrangement occurs 9 times in my corpus with frumentum. (89) (naves longas … pecuniam …) Frumenti magnum numerum coegit quod Massiliensibus, item quod Afranio Petreioque mitteret. ‘(warships … money …) He requisitioned a large amount of grain to send to Massilia and likewise to Afranius and Petreius.’ (Caes. Civ. 2.18.1)

Apart from magnus numerus, nominal quantifiers applied to frumentum are: copia ‘abundance’, inopia ‘scarcity’, vis ‘large quantity’, decuma ‘a tenth part’, and quinquagessima ‘one-fiftieth’. Among them, numerus and vis are accompanied by a modifier such as magnus ‘great’, maximus ‘the greatest’, tantus ‘such’; the others are without a modifier. The genitive frumenti most often comes as the last word of the noun phrase (18 times). Postposition of the genitive frumenti seems to be linked with its specifying value (‘large quantity of what?’), rather than with specificity or non-specificity of the referent.69 Compare example (90) with (89). The alternative ordering is the insertion of frumenti between the quantifier and its modifier (91) (7 times). The whole expression is thus framed by the modifier and the noun, which is a signal that it functions as a unit. (90) militum vires inopia frumenti deminuerat ‘the soldiers had been weakened through lack of grain’ (Caes. Civ. 1.52.2) (91) Ex quo intellexistis innumerabilem frumenti numerum per triennium aversum a re publica esse ereptumque aratoribus. ‘From which you have seen that an enormous amount of corn has been for these three years diverted from the republic, and taken illegally from the farmers.’ (Cic. Ver. 3.163)

As a special case, granum ‘grain’, deserves mention. It is properly not a quantifier, but as the minimal element of which frumentum consists, it

68 This value is clearly indicated in the dictionaries: OLD (s. v., nº 7), Le Grand Gaffiot (s. v., nº 2). 69 Cf. Devine & Stephens (2006: 375); see section 2.1.4, p. 120.

126

chapter two

expresses zero quantity in (92) ‘no corn’.70 The genitive frumenti comes first because it represents known information. (92) Video frumenti granum Halaesinos quibus sexagena milia modium imperata erant nullum dedisse. ‘I found that Halaesa, which had been ordered to supply 60,000 pecks of corn, had not paid over one grain.’ (Cic. Ver. 3.171)

I turn now to liquids. Magnus numerus (93) may apply to vinum (but not to aqua), probably because wine was usually stored in containers, such as amphorae.71 Both vinum and aqua co-occur with magna vis ‘great quantity’. Supply of water can also be rendered by copia: summa aquae copia ‘an abundance of water’ (Caes. Civ. 3.49.5). (93) maximus vini numerus fuit ‘there was an immense quantity of wine’ (Cic. Phil. 2.66)

Aqua not only denotes liquid for drinking but also liquid that abundantly exists in nature; consequently, it allows assessments in multitudo ‘great quantity’ (94) as well as in magnitudo (95) or altitudo ‘height’ (Caes. Civ. 1.62.1), i.e. how far it reaches upwards. The expression magna vis concerns great quantity of water in (96). (94) cum aquae multitudine flammae vis opprimitur ‘as a strong flame is extinguished by a torrent’ (Cic. Sen. 71) (95) aquae magnitudine pons est interruptus ‘the bridge was broken by flood of water’ (Caes. Civ. 1.40.3) (96) Romae … mira proluvies … Magna vis aquae usque ad piscinam publicam. ‘In Rome … we are having extraordinarily heavy floods … The vast expanse of water stretches as far as the public fish pond.’ (Cic. Q. fr. 3.5.8)72

As for measurement of liquids, aqua and vinum are attested with nouns denoting receptacles, such as aquae sextarius ‘a pint of water’ (Cic. Off. 2.56) and amphora (97). In this example, Cicero is talking about taxes on wine coming from Italy.

70

Cf. Bennett (1914: 15) for similar expressions. Magnus numerus is commonly not used with pecunia, pace OLD (s. v. numerus, nº 7); the example quoted is isolated: tantus frumenti pecuniaeque numerus ‘a great quantity of corn and a large amount of money’ (Cic. Ver. 3.106), where pecuniae is coordinated with frumenti. 72 The Tiber rose in water level after the acquittal of Gabinius in 54, which was interpreted as a sign of divine wrath (see the note by Constans 1936 III: 224). 71

the noun phrase

127

(97) Titurium Tolosae quaternos denarios in singulas vini amphoras portorii nomine exegisse ‘that Titurius exacted at Tolosa four denarii on every amphora of wine under the heading of transit-duty’ (Cic. Font. 19)

The noun argentum co-occurs with the nominal quantifiers pondus and vis in my corpus.73 Pondus ‘weight, a great quantity’ (11 occ.) is used in two ways. Firstly, it is modified by parvum ‘small’, (per-)magnum, grande ‘big’, immensum or maximum ‘very big’, and denotes a large quantity. In this case, the noun phrase is either framed (98), or argenti, with a specifying value (‘of what’?), comes as its last word (99), like the quantifiers in the parallel phrases. Secondly, pondus as a unit of weight, ‘a libra’, is numerically specified as in (100), with a post-nominal numeral. The word vis ‘large quantity’ occurs four times, for example, maximam vim auri atque argenti ‘vast store of gold and silver’ in Cic. Man. 22. (98) Pecus atque equi multi cum parvo argenti pondere quaestori traduntur. ‘Cattle, many horses, and a small amount of silver were handed over to the quaestor.’ (Sal. Jug. 29.6) (99) (M. Fulcinius) uxori grande pondus argenti matrique partem maiorem bonorum legavit. ‘(Marcus Fulcinius) he bequeathed to his wife an immense sum of money, and to his mother the greater part of his landed property.’ (Cic. Caec. 12) (100) (Metellus) per legatos Iugurthae imperat argenti pondo ducenta milia, elephantos omnes, equorum et armorum aliquantum. ‘(Metellus) he demands of Jugurtha, through his ambassadors, two hundred thousand pounds by weight of silver, all his elephants, and a portion of his horses and arms.’ (Sal. Jug. 62.5)

2.2.3. Adverbs and Neuters Neuters and adverbs requiring a genitive complement are another means for expressing quantity. As in the case of nominal quantifiers, satis (101) is the head of the construction but it is frumenti which is in fact modified from the semantic point of view. (101) satis frumenti ‘sufficient corn’ (Cic. Ver. 3.43)

73 The expressions used by other authors are well reported by Prinz in the ThLL, s. v., 523.33 f.

128

chapter two

The genitive of quantity frumenti appears with adverbs and neuters such as quantum ‘how much’, tantum ‘so much’, quid ‘some’, satis ‘enough’, plus, amplius ‘more’, paulum ‘a little’, and nihil ‘no’ (102). It regularly follows them (13 occ.). It is found only twice in anteposition, with tantum and quantum as in (103). The word frumenti in the genitive is usually used without any modifier, but it may have one: quantum frumenti hornotini ‘how much corn of this season’ (Cic. Ver. 3.45). (102) Ageret videlicet causam arator, nihil sibi frumenti ab Apronio relictum … ‘The farmer, of course, might plead his cause by saying that no corn was left him by Apronius …’ (Cic. Ver. 3.31) (103) Nam vi malo plagis adductus est, ut frumenti daret non quantum deberet, sed quantum cogeretur. ‘For by force, by violence, and by blows, he was induced to give corn, not as much as he had, but as much as was demanded of him.’ (Cic. Ver. 3.56)

I noted several other expressions: nimium aquae ‘too much water’, quid argenti ‘some silver’, quicquid (104) and nihil argenti ‘no silver’. (104) Nam illud quidem statim curatur, ut quicquid caelati argenti fuit in illis bonis, ad istum, deferatur, quicquid Corinthiorum vasorum, stragulae vestis. ‘For one measure was taken: to carry whatever chased silverware there was in their property to Verres, as well as all Corinthian vessels and embroidered stuff.’ (Cic. Ver. 2.46)

2.2.4. Omnis The whole quantity of mass nouns is rendered by omnis (not totus): omne frumentum ‘all the corn’, omne vinum ‘all wine’, omnis aqua ‘all water’, omne argentum ‘all silverware’. Omnis can stand in anteposition as well as in postposition. Some instances of omnis postposed allow an interpretation as a secondary predicate. This is not the case in (105) where frumentum omne functions as a noun phrase. This interpretation is proved by the presence of the subordinate clause in praeter quod ‘except what’. (105) Reliqua privata aedificia incendunt, frumentum omne, praeter quod secum portaturi erant, comburunt, ut … ‘They set fire to all their towns; they burn up all the corn, except what they intend to carry with them.’ (Caes. Gal. 1.5.2)

Pecunia also combines with omnis, predominantly in anteposition (106). When pecunia is envisaged as divisible into parts (‘amount of money’), it can combine with the modifier tota for expressing the whole (107); this example

the noun phrase

129

is taken from the same paragraph as (106). The use of the numeral una74 with pecunia, otherwise a non-count noun, is explained from the same point of view: pecunia denotes ‘inherited property, inheritance’ that can be divided amongst several heirs (108). (106) Ex omni pecunia quam aratoribus solvere debuisti, certis nominibus deductiones fieri solebant. ‘Out of all the money that you should have paid to the farmers, deductions, under this heading or that, were regularly made.’ (Cic. Ver. 3.181) (107) Scribae nomine de tota pecunia binae quinquagesimae detrahebantur. ‘Two fiftieths were subtracted from the entire sum under the heading “clerk”.’ (Cic. Ver. 3.181) (108) Unius enim pecuniae plures dissimilibus de causis heredes esse non possunt. ‘There cannot be several heirs of one property for different reasons.’ (Cic. Inv. 2.63)

As pecunia admits uses in the plural number, which expresses various amounts of money, omnes pecuniae such as in (109) suggests that the plural denotes an indefinite set of properties belonging to various possessors. (109) Dubium nemini est quin omnes omnium pecuniae positae sint in eorum potestate qui iudicia dant et eorum qui iudicant. ‘No one doubts that every man’s whole fortune lies at the mercy of those who appoint and those who compose our courts.’ (Cic. Ver. 2.30)

2.2.5. Religio and memoria In this section, I will add several remarks on two other non-count nouns, memoria and religio. Memoria is only used with omnis, which globalises a recollection, and with nulla, which expresses its absence. Religio is a non-count noun that does not admit quantifiers but this restriction does not prevent it from forming the plural number and rendering the idea of diversity or variety of religious practices.75 The only expressions it co-occurs with are omnis, tota, and (n)ulla. Omnis in the plural concerns the sum of various religious practices (110). In the singular, it globalises

74

I do not have examples with numerals other than una. However, the plural religiones is not attested with adjectives such as diversae ‘different, opposed’ (except for the singular in Mela 1.64: cum religione plurima ‘with most veneration’); but cf. the following expressions: diversae voluntates ‘divergent aims’ (Cic. Marc. 30), plurimae turpitudines (Cic. Fin. 2.117) ‘a number of base qualities’, plurimae voluptates (Cic. Fin. 2.63) ‘an abundance of pleasures’, variae voluntates (Cic. Brut. 83) ‘varying likes and dislikes’. 75

130

chapter two

religio as such, a religious belief, a cult or a practice (111),76 as opposed to nulla religio, or nihil religionis in Cic. Leg. 2.57. With tota, religio is envisaged as a whole and not partly (112). (110) Omnes religiones atque auspiciorum publica iura neglexisti. ‘You neglected all religious feeling and the public observance due to the auspices.’ (Cic. Rab. Perd. 17) (111) (mea domus) quae, ut dixi, sola in hac urbe omni religione omnibus iudiciis liberata est ‘(my house) is the only one in this city which has been absolved from all sanctity by various judicial decisions’ (Cic. Har. 11) (112) Nihil te igitur neque maiores tui … neque sacerdotium ipsum, quo est haec tota religio constituta …, permovit … ‘Neither your ancestors …, nor the priesthood itself, by which all this religious practice was established …, did influence you to …’ (Cic. Har. 27)77

The use of nonnulla in the singular also deserves a mention (113). It expresses a certain amount of religio. Nonnulla seems to apply in particular to abstract entities (cf. OLD, s. v. and above, example (42), p. 113). (113) Apud omnes Graecos hic mos est ut honorem hominibus habitum in monumentis eiusmodi nonnulla religione deorum consecrari arbitrentur. ‘It is a custom among all the Greeks to think, in memorials of this kind, that the honour bestowed on men is hallowed with a measure of divine consecration.’ (Cic. Ver. 2.158)

Conclusions The aim of this section was to present an overview of quantifiers applying to count nouns and non-count nouns on the basis of the instances offered by my corpus. Whereas non-numerical quantifiers favour anteposition, numerical quantifiers are mobile. In postposition, they specify the numerical value; in anteposition, they form a referential unit with their governing noun. Special attention has been paid to nominal quantifiers (such as magnus numerus) requiring a genitive. The analysis revealed that the genitive usu-

76 When Clodius arranged the adoption of the law compelling Cicero to exile, he plundered his house and then dedicated its ground to Liberty. After his return, Cicero obtained restitution of his property and aimed to prove that the consecration of the place made by Clodius was invalid. In the end, the house was declared to be free from any religious character. 77 This example alludes to Clodius’ profanation of the ludi Megalenses, celebrated in honour of Magna Mater, and of the cult of Magna Mater itself.

the noun phrase

131

ally follows the nominal quantifier or is inserted into it; anteposition of the genitive is explained by pragmatic reasons, especially by the Topic function that the noun in the genitive fulfils. Several remarks have been also devoted to the use of omnis / omnes and totus with various entities. 3. Specifying a Referent This section is concerned with Latin classifying adjectives that express referent a type and hence specify the category to which the referent belongs.78 The section is divided into two parts. In the first one, I will discuss classifying adjectives as they are applied to various entities of my corpus (3.1). The second section (3.2) will be devoted to adjectives derived from proper names that do not express possession. 3.1. Classifying Adjectives Table 2 summarises the ordering of classifying adjectives applied to various entities. Table 2: Classifying adjectives Order miles navis liber ager familia pecunia + classifying adjective pecunia + adjectival participles frumentum argentum + adjectival participles dies bellum religio Total

Noun Adj.

Adj. Noun

14 26 2 25 6 31 17 6 9 16 24 3

15 18 9 2 2 3 21 7 8 10 30 6

179

131

78 I will also consider publicus ‘public’ and privatus ‘private’ as classifying adjectives; they suggests an idea of possession but in fact, there is no specific possessor involved.

132

chapter two

This table corroborates the statement that classifying adjectives show a tendency for postposition. However, what is more interesting to see is that the behaviour of individual entities is not the same: adjectives accompanying ager and classifying adjectives of pecunia stand in postposition, modifiers of navis and dies are mostly in postposition and those of miles and bellum have variable placement. In the following analysis, I will attempt an explanation of the placement of the adjectives, starting with ager and pecunia. Special attention will be paid to the question of why some entities have more mobile modifiers than others. 3.1.1. Ager and pecunia Classifying adjectives that accompany ager are, for example: publicus ‘(territory) belonging to the State’ (10 occ.), communis ‘common’, decumanus ‘subject to tax’, vectigalis ‘yielding taxes’, immunis ‘free from tax’, and suburbanus ‘situated close to the city (of Rome)’. These adjectives strongly favour postposition and often appear in noun phrases that do not have any special pragmatic function, as in (114): the relative clause concerns owners of public lands in general. In (115), the Focus is on the prepositional phrase as a whole. By contrast, in (116), in agris publicis functions as the Focus of its sentence and forms a pragmatic unit; the adjective indicates the type of the referent and the relative clause qui agri further specifies this salient constituent. (114) Ne ei quidem, qui agros publicos possident, decedent de possessione, nisi erunt deducti optima condicione et pecunia maxima. ‘Even those who possess public lands will not give up possession unless they are tempted by very advantageous terms and a large sum of money.’ (Cic. Agr. 2.68) (115) Heres eius, P. Quinctius, in Galliam ad te ipsum venit in agrum communem, eo denique ubi non modo res erat … ‘His heir, Publius Quinctius, comes into Gaul to you, to your joint estate, to that place where not only the property was …’ (Cic. Quinct. 38) (116) Venit enim mihi in mentem … Tiberium et Gaium Gracchos plebem in agris publicis constituisse, qui agri a privatis antea possidebantur. ‘I remember that … Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus settled plebeians in public lands, which were formerly possessed by private persons.’ (Cic. Agr. 2.10)

The rare anteposition of these adjectives is exemplified in (117). Publicos agros is a part of a Topic constituent, contrastive with respect to decumani and immunes: Cicero is talking about the duties of the Sicilian cities concerning corn supply and runs over different categories into which the individual cities may fall.

the noun phrase

133

(117) Qui publicos agros arant, certum est quid e lege censoria debeant … Decumani … Immunes … ‘What cultivators of public land are bound to supply, is stipulated in the censors’ law … The tithe-payers … Those who are exempt …’ (Cic. Ver. 5.53)

Pecunia is an interesting case for showing two situations. Firstly, accompanied by classifying adjectives, it provides a nice example of postposed adjectives that are rarely concerned with contrast or emphasis. Secondly, it presents variability of placement for adjectives expressing other inherent features such as modalities of payment, which are the object of discussion. Let me start with the first category. The adjectives involved are publica ‘public money’, vectigalis ‘revenues derived from taxes’, decemviralis ‘money collected by decemvirs’, patria ‘ancestral’, to which I also added adventicia ‘foreign’. However, the instances collected are above all those of pecunia publica ‘public money’ (28 P vs. 1 A). Pecunia publica79 in (118) functions as a pragmatic unit and represents the Focus of the sentence, as does ex pecunia vectigali in (119). In both cases, the underlying question is ‘with what sort of money?’, and the adjectives have a specifying value. The only instance of a pre-nominal adjective publica is in a contrastive context, with respect to Siculorum pecunia in (120). The other two adjectives in anteposition are also contrastive. (118) (domus) quae primum aedificatur ex auctoritate senatus pecunia publica. ‘(the house) in the first place it was built by the authority of the senate, with public money.’ (Cic. Har. 15) (119) Decem enim naves iussu L. Murenae populus Milesius ex pecunia vectigali populo Romano fecerat. ‘By the orders of Lucius Murena, the people of Miletus had built ten ships out of the taxes imposed by the Roman people.’ (Cic. Ver. 1.89) (120) Quid igitur est reliquum nisi uti fateare te Romam frumentum emptum Siculorum pecunia misisse, publicam pecuniam domum tuam convertisse? ‘What then is left for you but to confess that you sent to Rome corn purchased with the money of the Sicilians, and diverted public money into your own purse?’ (Cic. Ver. 3.176)

As for the second category, adjectival participles80 expressing external aspects of pecunia: signata ‘coined money’, obsignata ‘sealed (secured) money’; borrowing money: credita ‘loan’, debita ‘due money’, aliena ‘somebody else’s money’; or modalities concerning payment: numerata ‘money 79 I would not consider pecunia publica as a fixed formula (as does Rohde 1884: 6) because publica may be opposed to privata. 80 For participles in attributive use, see Laughton (1964: 62).

134

chapter two

paid down, cash’, extraordinaria ‘money not accounted for’, exacta ‘exact sum’, have a variable placement (21 A vs. 17 P), which is due to pragmatic reasons. Postposition is chosen when the noun phrase as a pragmatic unit conveys new information (121); anteposition appears when the adjective is pragmatically significant, for example contrastive in (122). Anteposition of the adjective in (123), applied to pecuniae in the plural, meaning various sums of money that have been borrowed, ‘debts’, seems to result from the fact that reference is made to shared knowledge. (121) Multi viri boni cum ex occulto intervenissent, pecunia obsignata, quae ob eam rem dabatur, in manibus Scamandri … deprehenditur. ‘When many virtuous men had secretly been made aware of it, the money sealed up, which was given for that purpose, is seized in the hands of Scamander …’ (Cic. Clu. 47) (122) Quaerebat cur in eius modi locum tam abditum, cur solus, cur cum obsignata pecunia venisset. ‘He asked why he (Scamander) came in such a lonely spot, and alone, with a sealed packet of money.’ (Cic. Clu. 53) (123) Legem promulgavit ut sexenni die sine usuris creditae pecuniae solvantur. ‘He promulgated a law, by which he allowed the debtors six years for the discharge of their debts.’ (Caes. Civ. 3.20.5)

A good example of a contrastive adjective is also that of numerata pecunia ‘cash’ in (124);81 in the Topica, devoted to the sources of arguments, Cicero discusses different kinds of pecunia and aims to define them (7 instances). Numerata pecunia is directly contrasted with pecunia signata. (124) Si pecunia signata argentum est, legata est mulieri … Si numerata pecunia non est legata, non est numerata pecunia argentum. ‘If the coined money is silver, it was bequeathed to the woman … If the cash was not bequeathed, the cash is not silver.’ (Cic. Top. 53)

3.1.2. Navis and dies Compared with ager, the classifying adjectives applied to navis and dies are more mobile. With these two items, anteposition is due to pragmatic reasons. Classifying adjectives applied to navis denote a type of ship: (navis) oneraria ‘cargo ship’, frumentaria ‘transporting corn’, triremis ‘having three rows of oars’, rostrata ‘having a beaked prow’, and actuaria ‘fast’,82 with which I 81 82

In this passage of the Topica, numerata pecunia is used five times. Some of these adjectives are also used substantively.

the noun phrase

135

also included longa ‘warship’ denoting an elongated type of ship without any opposition to brevis ‘short’. Noun phrases with a postposed classifying adjective are used for new entities, not mentioned in the previous context, that convey salient information. The adjective forms a pragmatic unit with its noun; for example, the sentence in (125) answers the underlying question ‘where did he embark?’ The same arrangement is found with more complex noun phrases with another modifier, such as in (126). In both cases, navis has a specific referent. (125) (Pompeius) ad mare pervenit navemque frumentariam conscendit. ‘(Pompey) reached the sea-side and embarked on a grain ship.’ (Caes. Civ. 3.96.4) (126) C. Heium iuratum dicere audistis isti navem onerariam maximam Messanae esse … aedificatam. ‘Gaius Heius stated on oath in your hearing that a large cargo ship was built for Verres at Messana …’ (Cic. Ver. 2.13)

Anteposition of a classifying adjective results from pragmatic salience of the adjective. In (127), rostrata implies contrast (at the same time, rostrata navis bears Focus function): a ship having a beaked prow is meant, to the exclusion of all other types of ships. The referent is non-specific in this case. Explicit contrast is established between two types of ships in (128): longae83 and onerariae; notice the reduction of the noun naves with the second adjective. However, the idea of contrast does not necessarily produce anteposition of the adjective: also postposed adjectives may be contrastive, as in (129). (127) Lex est apud Rhodios ut, si qua rostrata in portu navis deprehensa sit, publicetur. ‘There is a law at Rhodes that if any ship with a ram is caught in the harbour it is confiscated.’ (Cic. Inv. 2.98) (128) Ita uno tempore et longas naves, quibus Caesar exercitum transportandum curaverat …, aestus complebat, et onerarias, quae …, tempestas adflictabat. ‘Thus, at the same time, the tide began to fill the warships, which Caesar had provided to convey over his army …; the storm was buffeting the transports, which …’ (Caes. Gal. 4.29.2)

83 We have to reject, once and for all, Marouzeau’s claim that longa in anteposition has a different meaning (cf. Marouzeau 1922: 14). Longa navis does not signify ‘a long ship’; see ThLL, s. v. longus, 1634.27: locutiones technicae: navis longa vel longa navis. Cf., for example cum X longis navibus (Caes. Civ. 2.23.3) ‘with ten warships’ and cum longa nave (with the variant navi longa transmitted by the second group of the manuscripts, Caes. Gal. 4.21.1) ‘with one warship’.

136

chapter two

(129) Cato in Sicilia naves longas veteres reficiebat, novas civitatibus imperabat. ‘In Sicily, Cato was repairing old warships and ordering the communities to provide new ones.’ (Caes. Civ. 1.30.4)

When a noun phrase contains a classifying adjective and another modifier, both modifiers follow the noun en bloc in the majority of the cases (13 occ.); in general, they are arranged according to the semantic principle given in chapter 1, section 3.5.1.2 (p. 58). Less frequently, complex noun phrases display one anteposed and one postposed modifier (6 occ.); twice, the block of modifiers is in anteposition. Noun phrases with modifiers in postposition often function as the Focus, for example in (130). Anteposition of the modifiers in (131) seems to result from contrast with Rhodiorum aphractis ‘the Rhodian ships’.84 The “mixed” arrangement, with one anteposed and one postposed modifier, is illustrated in (132). The anteposition of onerariam results from an idea of implicit contrast;85 the referent is specific, known from the previous context. (130) … faucibusque portus navem onerariam submersam obiecit et huic alteram coniunxit. ‘… and sank a cargo ship to block the way into the port, with another fastened to it.’ (Caes. Civ. 3.39.2) (131) Nos Rhodiorum aphractis ceterisque longis navibus tranquillitates aucupaturi eramus. ‘We were waiting for calm spells to suit the Rhodian craft and the other warships.’ (Cic. Att. 6.8.4) (132) Negent isti onerariam navem maximam aedificatam esse Messanae? ‘Are they going to deny that a huge cargo ship was built at Messana?’ (Cic. Ver. 4.19)

With dies, classifying adjectives denote the type of day, e.g. aestivus ‘summer’, anniversarius ‘occurring every year’, comitialis ‘comitial’, festus ‘feastday’, legitimus ‘legal’, natalis ‘birthday’. The adjective festus ‘feast-day’, the most frequent one, is found in postposition as well as in anteposition (8 P vs. 7 A, where 4 are in complex phrases). Both arrangements are presented in (133); whereas dies festos indicates the category of days, the modifiers of the

84 Rhodiorum aphracti (aphractus is an undecked ship) have been mentioned in the previous context; they caused 20 days’ delay to Cicero. 85 Devine & Stephens (2006: 405) interpret this example in the same way. There is implicit contrast in the sense that a praetor could order for Sicilian cities the construction of warships but not the construction of cargo ships destined, furthermore, to transportation of items that Verres had stolen. On this point, see in particular Ver. 5.46 (the adjective oneraria is also in anteposition), and ibid. 59.

the noun phrase

137

second noun phrase are contrastive. This example appears in the following context: Verres had established his proper festival, the Verria, and had abolished the Marcellia, a festival in honour of Marcellus. Marcellus had taken Syracuse but he treated the city with moderation and respect, so that he was not regarded as a conqueror but celebrated as a benefactor. The adjective in (134) clearly specifies the noun (‘what days?’). Compitalicius dies in (135) is presented as a reminder of known facts in a clause introduced by quoniam.86 Cicero’s aim was to avoid coming to Pompey’s villa in Alba in order not to disturb the Compitalia, the festival in honour of the Lares of Crossroads, celebrated in the family. (133) eius autem familiae (Marcelli) dies festos tollerent per quam ceteros quoque festos dies recuperarant ‘they were to abolish the festival of the family that had given them back all their other festivals’ (Cic. Ver. 4.151) (134) Consecuti sunt dies comitiales, per quos senatus haberi non poterat. ‘Then followed the comitial days during which the senate could not meet.’ (Cic. Q. fr. 2.2.3) (135) Ego, quoniam IIII Non. Ian. Compitalicius dies est, nolo eo die in Albanum venire, ne molestus sim familiae. ‘2 January being Crossroads Day, I do not want to go to Alba that day in case of my arrival might be troublesome for the staff.’ (Cic. Att. 7.7.3)

3.1.3. Miles and bellum The classifying adjectives applied to miles and bellum exhibit variable ordering. This could be linked with the fact that, on the one hand, soldiers are protagonists of historical narratives, and on the other hand, wars are often topics of discussions. Both entities are thus in the centre of interest from a pragmatic point of view. After a global analysis of the results, special attention will be paid to milites veterani and bellum civile. Adjectives applied to miles are: veteranus ‘veteran’, gregarius ‘common (soldier)’, legionarius ‘legionary’, and paternus ‘father’s soldier’. They denote (except for paternus) types of soldiers.87 They are relatively often found in anteposition, which is quite surprising for classifying adjectives. They appear in pragmatically significant phrases: either they form a pragmatic unit with their noun that conveys new information, or they are salient

86 For quoniam, see Pinkster (2010: 85). For competing expressions with genitives, see section 9.1, p. 204. 87 Cf. ThLL, s. v. miles, 940.41 f. on militum genera.

138

chapter two

on their own because they carry contrast. The mobility of the adjectives seems to result from these pragmatic factors. For example in (136), the discontinuous noun phrase milites legionarios is the Focus of its sentence. This episode is about a ruse: the camp-followers (calones ‘soldiers’ servants’ are meant) pretend to be legionary soldiers. Contrast is present in (137): common soldiers, gregarii milites, became senators or rich men under Sulla. Likewise veterani milites in (138), with a pre-nominal adjective, contrasts with the idea of running away, which veteran soldiers are not supposed to do. In all these cases, the phrases containing milites have a generic reference. (136) Hi iam ante edocti, quae interrogati pronuntiarent, milites se esse legionarios dicunt. ‘These being previously instructed what to state when questioned, said that they were legionary soldiers.’ (Caes. Gal. 7.20.10) (137) Deinde multi memores Sullanae victoriae, quod ex gregariis militibus alios senatores videbant, alios ita divites, ut regio victu atque cultu aetatem agerent … ‘Finally, many who recalled Sulla’s victory, when they saw some raised from common soldiers into senators, and others so enriched as to live in regal luxury and pomp …’ (Sal. Cat. 37.6) (138) (Labienus) magna verborum contumelia interrogans solerentne veterani milites fugere, in omnium conspectu interfecit. ‘Labienus asked them in the most insulting fashion whether veteran soldiers usually ran away, and publicly put them to death.’ (Caes. Civ. 3.71.4)

Classifying adjectives applied to bellum are civile ‘civil’, then maritimum ‘fought on sea’, domesticum ‘internal’, piraticum ‘of pirates’, navale ‘naval’, and servile ‘of slaves’. Whereas the adjective civile goes both in anteposition and in postposition, as we will see below in section 3.1.3.2, the other adjectives are mainly found in anteposition (10 A vs. 5 P). Noun phrases containing these adjectives may have different functions. In (139), the referent is presented as indefinite: tibi refers to Cicero; bellum domesticum is Catiline’s conspiracy, repressed by Cicero in 63. The noun phrase functions as the Focus of the sentence. Domesticum bellum (140), with a specific referent, is contrastive with respect to external military conflicts. Servile bellum in (141) also has a specific referent that is not expressed in the previous context, in which case the adjective would be expected in postposition. However, this anteposition of servile seems to be linked with the fact that reference is made to shared knowledge.88 88 Cf. also gladiatoriae familiae in Sal. Cat. 30.7, quoted p. 145 in (160), and the commentary concerning this example.

the noun phrase

139

(139) Tibi App. Claudius augur consuli nuntiavit … bellum domesticum triste ac turbulentum fore. ‘To you as consul the augur Appius Claudius reported that … there would be a civil war, tragic and troublesome.’ (Cic. Div. 1.105) (140) Omnia sunt externa unius virtute terra marique pacata: domesticum bellum manet. ‘On land and sea, one man’s valour has brought universal peace. The internal war is all that remains.’ (Cic. Catil. 2.11) (141) Simul … alii portenta atque prodigia nuntiabant, alii conventus fieri, arma portari, Capuae atque in Apulia servile bellum moveri. ‘Others at the same time …, spread reports of omens and prodigies; others of meetings being held, of arms being transported, and of insurrections of the slaves at Capua and in Apulia.’ (Sal. Cat. 30.2)

3.1.3.1. Milites veterani It is time now to concentrate on the phrase milites veterani,89 which frequently appears in Cicero’s Philippics with an ante- or postposed adjective (5 A vs. 11 P) and is not always easy to explain. The adjective veterani is neither explicitly contrastive nor emphatic, except for example (142) where the pre-nominal adjective carries emphasis. (142) Nemo est praeter veteranos milites vir qui ad servitutem propulsandam ingenuo dolore excitetur! ‘There is no man but the veteran soldiers to be roused by a freeman’s indignation to ward off slavery!’ (Cic. Phil. 10.18)

Difficulties with interpretation of the placement of veterani seem to relate to the referent itself.90 I will briefly outline the context in which the following examples appear. Caesar’s veterans played an important role in the political conflicts that resulted from the death of their chief. In March 44, after his assassination, a great number of veterans were present in Rome; they threatened the senate and tried to seek revenge. Antony and Octavius

89 Additionally, this phrase, milites veterani, is reducible to the adjective with a substantival value: veterani ‘the veterans’, for example, in Cic. Phil. 11.12. Likewise, legionarii ‘the legionaries’ (Caes. Civ. 1.78.1 and Civ. 2.8.1). 90 The milites veterani, soldiers honourably discharged from the army, did not form any social group until the Late Republic. Discussions about rewards for the veterans became a political issue after Marius had enrolled poor citizens in his army. After the civil war in 82, Sulla was the first to distribute to veterans great amounts of land, confiscated in the regions that had resisted him. See Schneider’s article Veterans in Brill’s New Pauly. The term veterani (milites) is attested for the first time Caesar’s Civil War (Civ. 3.4.1), then in Cicero’s Philippics (Phil. 2.59) and in his letters from 44–43 (e.g. Att. 14.5.2). Sallust (Cat. 60.3) uses the expression milites veterani for Sulla’s soldiers (cf. ibid. 16.4, Sullani milites).

140

chapter two

(C. Caesar), then 19 years old (adulescens), fought for their favour. Whereas Antony had their support in general, Octavius managed to raise troops from the 7th and 8th legions of the veterans that Caesar had settled in Campania.91 The expression ex invicto genere veteranorum militum in (143), with a pre-nominal adjective which is neither contrastive nor emphatic, probably refers to shared knowledge; indeed, Cicero himself states afterwards that it is a known fact.92 (143) C. Caesar adulescens … firmissimum exercitum ex invicto genere veteranorum militum comparavit. ‘Gaius Caesar, a young man … raised a very powerful army of the invincible class of veterans.’ (Cic. Phil. 3.3)

Octavius formed an alliance not only with Caesar’s veterans but partly also with the veterans installed in colonies by Antony.93 Milites veteranos in (144) conveys the Focus and answers the underlying question ‘who?’; the adjective, without being contrastive, forms a pragmatic unit with the noun and specifies it. Cicero mentions here the people who courageously opposed Antony: duces (i.e. Octavius and Brutus) and the veterans. Example (145) shows something different; the author enumerates Octavius’ actions, including ‘convocation of veterans’, where veteranos milites seems to form a pragmatic unit with the verb convocavit. It is a reminder of well-known facts, and anteposition of the adjective may result from this. However, one can also envisage a parallel between this phrase and colonias patrias, in which case anteposition of veteranos would be due to the chiasmus. (144) Primum duces eos laudavistis qui …; deinde milites veteranos qui, cum ab Antonio in colonias essent deducti, illius beneficio libertatem populi Romani anteposuerunt. ‘First you commended those commanders who …; then the veteran soldiers who, after having been settled in colonies by Antonius, preferred the freedom of the Roman people to his benefactions.’ (Cic. Phil. 5.3) (145) C. Caesar … colonias patrias adiit, veteranos milites convocavit, paucis diebus exercitum fecit … ‘Gaius Caesar … visited his father’s colonies, called the veteran soldiers together, created an army within a few days …’ (Cic. Phil. 5.23)

91

See Manuwald (2007: 331). Atque ea quidem quae dixi de Caesare deque eius exercitu iam diu nota sunt nobis (Cic. Phil. 3.8) ‘and what I have just said of Caesar and of his army has long been known to us.’ 93 See Manuwald (2007: 560). The main reason why they went over to Octavius was probably a financial offer rather than their conscience as exemplary citizens, as Cicero alleges in (144). 92

the noun phrase

141

On the other hand, in the outline of a decree that Cicero suggested to the senators to adopt in the matter of Octavius’ army, the beginning of which is given in (146), only the order milites veterani is used several times for reference to the soldiers who had fought for Caesar and had been recruited by Octavius. The referent is known but the ordering with the adjective in postposition specifying the noun could correspond to a formal means of reference. (146) Senatui placere, militibus veteranis qui ⟨… libertatem populi Romani⟩ … defenderint atque defendant … militiae vacationem esse. ‘That it pleases the senate that the veteran soldiers who … have defended and are defending the freedom of the Roman people … be granted exemption from military service.’ (Cic. Phil. 5.53)

3.1.3.2. Bellum civile Bellum civile is another difficult instance. The adjective civile occurs in postposition as well as in anteposition (19 P vs. 20 A). Devine & Stephens (2006: 442–445) argue that postposition of this adjective correlates with the indefinite value of the noun phrase bellum civile whereas the definite value produces anteposition. In my view, it is not the definiteness that is responsible for the mobility of civile. Compare the two following examples. Example (147), with civile in postposition, comes from a passage where Cicero demonstrates that not knowing about future disasters is more useful than knowing about them. In (148), with civile in anteposition, the adjective bears emphasis: the civil war, various consequences of which are easy to imagine, is presented with a subjective or emotional charge in a letter Cicero addressed to Atticus in May 49. The referent is specific in both cases: bellum civile refers to the politico-military conflict between Caesar and Pompey (49–45). (147) Non isset ad arma Pompeius, non transisset Crassus Euphratem, non suscepisset bellum civile Caesar. ‘Pompey would not have taken up arms, nor Crassus crossed the Euphrates, nor Caesar engaged in the civil war.’ (Cic. Div. 2.24) (148) Melitae me velle esse, civili bello nolle interesse. ‘I want to settle in Malta and keep out of civil war.’ (Cic. Att. 10.8.10)

The placement of the adjective civile is an intriguing issue. It is important to point out the special nature of the referent. Bellum civile denotes a war opposing Roman citizens; it is something completely different from wars waged against an external enemy (bellum iustum ‘legitimate, regular war’), against slaves (bellum servile), or various struggles against allies. The first violent military conflict among Roman citizens was launched by Sulla’s

142

chapter two

march on Rome in 88, which resulted in subsequent fights between him and Marius. The first attestation of the term bellum civile is found in Cicero’s speech On the Manilian Law of 66 (Man. 28).94 In short, bellum civile is a relatively new concept and its referent can have special connotations. In a certain way, I would attribute the mobility of the adjective civile to this fact: the referent may have strong subjective charge for a Roman citizen like Cicero. I come now to the analysis of the instances I have collected. Bellum civile in (149) with a generic referent represents known information and does not bear any pragmatic value. The adjective anteposed in (150) is probably emphatic: the consul Sulla waged a civil war (specific referent) against his fellow-citizens and, in the absence of supplication, i.e. thanksgiving after his military victory, he has been declared a public enemy (hostis).95 (149) Quid est aliud omnia ad bellum civile hosti arma largiri, primum nervos belli, pecuniam infinitam …? ‘What does it mean but to present the enemy with all the weapons for civil war? First, the sinews of war, a limitless supply of money …’ (Cic. Phil. 5.5) (150) Civile bellum consul Sulla gessit, legionibus in urbem adductis quos voluit expulit, quos potuit occidit: supplicationis mentio nulla. ‘Sulla as consul waged a civil war; after having brought his legions into the city he expelled those whom he chose; those whom he could he slew; there was no mention of a thanksgiving.’ (Cic. Phil. 14.23)

In complex noun phrases, emphasis is often on the other adjective, which is mainly of the evaluative type. In (151), all the adjectives are framed by hoc and bellum; this pattern is used several times in my corpus (4 occ. out of 6). Example (152) shows an evaluative adjective (acerbissimum) directly postposed to bellum; civile comes afterwards. Such a special arrangement correlates with strong emphasis.

94 For bellum civile as a phenomenon of the Late-Republican period, see the article Civil War by Eder in Brill’s New Pauly. Previous internal conflicts between citizens were referred to as seditiones ‘discords, rebellions’. For attestations of the adjective civile, starting from Cicero, see ThLL, s. v. bellum, 1849.25f. In a letter dating from 23 January 49, Cicero characterises it in the following way (Att. 7.13.1): Quamquam genus belli quod sit vides: ita civile est ut non ex civium dissensione sed ex unius perditi civis audacia natum sit. ‘But you see what kind of war we are fighting. A civil war if you will, but one that has arisen not from a conflict in the civic body but from the recklessness of one unscrupulous Roman (Caesar).’ Cf. also the expressions dissensio civilis ‘civil dissension’ (Cic. Ver. 5.152), from the year 70, and discordia civilis used by Varro (attested in a fragment in Nonius (454.19)). 95 Cicero suggests that Antony should also be declared a public enemy and introduces examples of other commanders. Cf. p. 153, example (185) taken from the same section.

the noun phrase

143

(151) Secutum est hoc acerbissimum et calamitosissimum civile bellum; in quo quid faciendum Deiotaro … ‘There followed the most bitter and calamitous civil war, in which I need not say what Deiotarus should have done …’ (Cic. Phil. 11.34) (152) cumque eius (Lepidi) opera, virtute consilio singularique clementia et mansuetudine bellum acerbissimum civile sit restinctum ‘(Lepidus) whereas by his action, courage, judgement, notable clemency and mildness, a most bitter civil war has been extinguished’ (Cic. Phil. 5.40)96

3.1.4. Other Entities Classifying adjectives are found with other entities: liber, frumentum, familia, religio, and argentum, that will be briefly discussed in this section. To liber apply adjectives such as haruspicinus ‘of the haruspices’, oratorius ‘oratorical’, pontificius ‘of the pontifices’, rhetoricus ‘rhetorical’, denoting different types of works. They favour anteposition (9 A vs. 2 P), which can be explained by pragmatic or semantic reasons. Compare example (153), where the noun phrase with the classifying adjective augurali in postposition specifies the referent in a noun phrase conveying salient information, with example (154), where the adjective is anteposed and the noun phrase fulfils the Topic function. In both cases, reference is made to shared knowledge and both letters have the same addressee: Appius Pulcher, a man competent in the augural law (cf. Cic. Brut. 267). Anteposition also correlates with the idea of contrast, as in (155), pontificii with respect to augurales. (153) Quod egomet multis argumentis iam antea iudicaram maximeque illo libro augurali, quem ad me … misisti. ‘A fact which I had myself previously inferred from many clear proofs, but most of all from that book on Augural Law which you send me …’ (Cic. Fam. 3.4.1) (154) Nam augurales libros ad commune utriusque nostrum otium serva. ‘For pray put away the augural books until we are both at leisure.’ (Cic. Fam. 3.11.4) (155) Provocationem autem etiam a regibus fuisse declarant pontificii libri, significant nostri etiam augurales. ‘The pontifical books state, and our augural books indicate, that the right appeal also existed under the kings.’ (Cic. Rep. 2.54)

96 After the battle at Munda in 44, Lepidus negotiated with Pompey and obtained a compromise (see Manuwald 2007: 686).

144

chapter two

Frumentum is used with several adjectives, such as decumanum ‘subject to a tax of ten per cent’, publicum ‘public’, hornotinum ‘of this year’s growth’. Their placement is variable (6 P vs. 7 A). For example, publicum in (156) is used in a noun phrase functioning as a pragmatic unit; in (157), the pre-nominal adjective publico contrasts with meo. (156) Custos T. Aufidio praetore in frumento publico est positus. ‘(Hermippus) He, in the praetorship of Titus Aufidius, was appointed guardian of the public corn.’ (Cic. Flac. 45) (157) At enim istam rem in publico frumento Sicilia non ferret, hanc rem in meo frumento tulit. ‘But Sicily could not endure that in the case of the public corn; she did indeed bear it in the case of my own.’ (Cic. Ver. 3.203)

Familia co-occurs with patricia ‘patrician’ and consularis ‘consular’, expressing its kind or origin; urbana ‘connected with the city (Rome)’ and gladiatoria ‘(school) of gladiators’ (6 P vs. 2 A) apply to slaves. Whereas the adjective specifies the kind of families (158), implicit contrast is established between the servants of the estate of Arpinum and the staff working in Rome ( familia urbana) in (159). (158) Tu es e municipio antiquissimo Tusculano, ex quo plurimae sunt familiae consulares. ‘You are of that most ancient town of Tusculum, from which many of our consular families are derived.’ (Cic. Planc. 19) (159) Fundo Arpinati bene poteris uti cum familia urbana si annona carior fuerit. ‘You can conveniently occupy the farm at Arpinum with our town staff of servants, if the price of provisions has risen.’ (Cic. Fam. 14.7.3)

The two instances of classifying adjectives in anteposition are these of gladiatoriae familiae ‘schools of gladiators’.97 I would interpret anteposition in Sallust (160) as a result of the fact that reference is made to shared knowledge. However, the referent could also be regarded as inferrable from the previous context where servile bellum ‘insurrection of the slaves’ has been mentioned (Cat. 30.2); this example has been quoted above in (141).98

97 On the other hand, in: familiam gladiatoriam, credo, nactus est speciosam, nobilem, gloriosam ‘he got together, I believe, a company of gladiators, impressive, grand, magnificent’ (Cic. Sest. 134), the adjective in postposition specifies the referent. 98 Vretska (1976: 382) refers to Cic. Catil. 2.26, where Catiline’s intention to employ gladiators for his conspiracy is expressed explicitly. Catiline could indeed draw his inspiration from Spartacus’ revolt, which began with a breakout from a gladiatorial school. Vretska recalls that

the noun phrase

145

(160) Itemque decrevere, uti gladiatoriae familiae Capuam et in cetera municipia distribuerentur. (Sal. Cat. 30.7) ‘They further appointed that the schools of gladiators should be distributed in Capua and other towns.’

Classifying adjectives applied to religio refer to the practice of a cult: publica ‘public’, fetialis ‘fetial’, domestica ‘domestic’, or is concerned in it: divina ‘divine’ (6 A vs. 3 P). For example, domesticam in postposition specifies the referent, as do the modifiers in parallel phrases (161). This example concerns a beautiful statue of Apollo that Verres removed from Asclepius’ sanctuary; the statue was probably donated by Scipio Africanus on the occasion of the installation of a colony in 197.99 However, adjectives applied to religio are often used as contrastive; contrast may affect adjectives in anteposition as well as in postposition, as is shown in (162) and (163). Additionally, adjectives such as publicus or communis occur with opinio and quaestio. (161) Uno enim tempore Agrigentini beneficium Africani, religionem domesticam, ornamentum urbis, indicium victoriae, testimonium societatis requirebant. ‘For at the same time the people of Agrigentum were losing a present from Scipio, a domestic cult, an adornment of the city, a record of victory, and evidence of their alliance with us.’ (Cic. Ver. 4.93) (162) Sed haec oratio omnis fuit non auctoritatis meae, sed publicae religionis. ‘All this speech has not proceeded from my authority, but from my regard for the general religion.’ (Cic. Har. 61) (163) ut sine iis, qui sacris publice praesint, religioni privatae satis facere non possint. ‘that proper private worship should not be possible without people who are in charge of public rites.’ (Cic. Leg. 2.30)

Argentum represents a very interesting case. It is modified by several adjectival participles: caelatum ‘chased’, denoting silver that is worked ( factum), as opposed to argentum purum (‘pure’, ‘plain’, i.e. not worked),100 and signatum

well trained gladiators were sometimes hired as bodyguards; so did Milo who Caesar talks about in Civ. 3.21.4, the passage from which the second instance of gladiatoriae familiae is taken. 99 See Baldo (2004: 448). 100 For the distinction of these three types of argentum: infectum ‘plain, not worked’, factum ‘worked, engraved’ and signatum ‘coined’, reported by Serv. auct. Aen. 10.526 and Isid. Etym. 16.18.13, see Prinz’s excellent article in the ThLL, s. v. 521.56 f. and 525.82.

146

chapter two

‘coined’. They are found in postposition, except for caelatum, the placement of which is variable. Caelatum stands four times in postposition, and eight times, surprisingly, in anteposition. Argentum caelatum denotes extremely valuable objects and, for this reason, the adjective itself may be important from a pragmatic point of view. The semantic nature of the referent, generic in (164) or specific in (167), does not seem to play any role. As for the value of the silverware, consider example (164), concerning Heraclius, a wealthy Syracusian, and (165), concerning Chrysogonus, who became rich by proscriptions. In the first case, Heraclius’ carved silverware is qualified as ‘the best’, so it must be very expensive. In the second case, caelatum argentum forms part of an enumeration of several valuable objects that also exhibit adjectives in anteposition. (164) (Heraclii) plena domus caelati argenti optimi multaeque stragulae vestis … ‘(Heraclius’) house was full of silver plate exquisitely chased, of an abundance of embroidered robes …’ (Cic. Ver. 2.35) (165) (domus referta vasis Corinthiis et Deliacis …) Quid praeterea caelati argenti, quid stragulae vestis, quid pictarum tabularum … apud illum putatis esse? ‘(his house is crammed with Corinthian and Delian vessel …) What quantities of chased silver, of coverlets, pictures … can you imagine he possesses?’ (Cic. S. Rosc. 133)

Postposition of caelatum in (166) gives prominence to the type of silverware; in the parallel phrase, only Corinthiorum is expressed, the noun vasorum is understood from the context. An idea of contrast is present in (167) where cum argento puro is opposed to argentum caelatum, mentioned before: ornamentations of silver plate belonging to the people of Haluntium were snatched away. (166) Ei negotium dedit ut quicquid Halunti esset argenti caelati aut siquid etiam Corinthiorum, ut omne statim ad mare ex oppido deportaretur. ‘He instructed him that whatever chased silver or Corinthian vessels there were in Haluntium should all be brought down to the seashore from the town as soon as possible.’ (Cic. Ver. 4.51) (167) Sic Haluntini excussis deliciis cum argento puro domum revertuntur. ‘As all the ornaments had been snatched away, the people of Haluntium went home with their silver plain.’ (Cic. Ver. 4.52)

I will close this section with several special cases. Firstly, memoria takes the adjective publica when it is used as a first-order noun: the phrase memoria publica ‘public register’ (3 P) refers to ‘memory’ materialised in writing. Postposition of the adjective is not surprising because reference is made to the type of records (168).

the noun phrase

147

(168) (Sex. Cloelius) absolutus est … qui memoriam publicam suis manibus incendit. ‘(Sex. Cloelius) has been acquitted … who has burnt the census records with his own hands.’ (Cic. Cael. 78)101

Secondly, several classifying adjectives are used with an extensional meaning as evaluative adjectives, e.g. muliebres religiones ‘women’s superstition’ (Cic. Dom. 105), divina memoria ‘excellent memory’ (Cic. Brut. 265), and funesta applied to pecunia ‘ill-omened money’ (Cic. Phil. 2.93), because it represented the blood and the confiscated property of the Pompeians. They stand in anteposition. 3.2. Adjectives Derived from Proper Names I will turn now to adjectives derived from proper names; when applied to ager, liber, aqua, vinum, and bellum these do not express possession (for which see section 7, p. 175). They are used for specifying the referent by indicating the location of ager, the origin of liber, aqua, and vinum, and various circumstances of bellum, to which a special section will be devoted.102 3.2.1. First-Order Entities Ager provides many instances of adjectives derived from proper names, which predominantly stand in postposition (106 P vs. 17 A). This point has already been observed by Devine & Stephens (2006: 426). However, I would not attribute their frequent postposition to the fact that ager has a spatial reference, as they do. In my view, noun phrases containing adjectives derived from proper names denote specific pieces of land; the adjectives serve to distinguish one territory from another. The following adjectives are found with ager: Campanus, Leontinus, Picenus, Noricus, Syracusanus, Lucanus, Nolanus, and Sabinus. Noun phrases containing them express, on the one hand, someone’s destination or a place to stay—especially in historical narrative—, and on the other hand, they are subject to sale, division, or law, in particular in Cicero’s speeches On the Agrarian Law and Against Verres. Noun phrases with post-nominal adjectives function as pragmatic units; for example, the accusative of direction agrum Picenum, 101 National records of the censor’s registration are being referenced, which were kept in the temple of the Nymphs at the Campus Martius. Cicero attributes this crime to Clodius in Mil. 73 but Cloelius was without doubt his accomplice. For Sextus Cloelius, see Damon (1992). 102 Data are summarised in Table 2.4 in the Appendix.

148

chapter two

the Focus of the sentence in (169). Ager Campanus in (170) also represents a pragmatic unit which sets a new Topic: Cicero starts an extensive discussion of the ager Campanus in his second speech On the Agrarian Law with this sentence. The phrase in (171), with a postposed adjective, does not fulfil any special pragmatic function; it only summarises given information. (169) Auximo Caesar progressus omnem agrum Picenum percurrit. ‘Advancing from Auximum, Caesar overran the whole of Picenum.’ (Caes. Civ. 1.15.1) (170) At enim ager Campanus hac lege dividetur, orbi terrae pulcherrimus, et Capuam colonia deducetur, urbem amplissimam atque ornatissimam. ‘But the land of Campania, the most beautiful in the world, will be divided by this law, and a colony conducted to Capua, a very large and magnificent city.’ (Cic. Agr. 2.76) (171) Quodsi vestrum commodum spectat, veniat et coram mecum de agri Campani divisione disputet. ‘But if he (Rullus) has your interest in view, let him come and discuss with me the division of the territory of Campania in your presence.’ (Cic. Agr. 2.78)

Anteposition of adjectives derived from proper names is infrequent on the whole, and the case of ager makes it possible to understand this phenomenon better. One instance of ager is rarely contrasted with another one. Several pre-nominal adjectives concern the phrase Campanus ager (4 A vs. 32 P). The ager Campanus was a very fertile territory, a public domain (ager publicus) belonging to the Roman people since 211, an important source of taxes (vectigalia), and also a frequent topic of debates on agrarian laws. In his speeches On the Agrarian Law from 63, Cicero responds to Rullus’ proposal of a law that provided for the division of the ager Campanus and establishment of a colony at Capua. The decemvirs designated by virtue of this law could freely buy public domains and establish colonies wherever they wished. Cicero shows the dangers that adoption of this law would cause as well as Rullus’ private interests involved. Anteposition of the adjective Campanus in (172) results from the Focus function that the noun phrase fulfils: division of this territory was too ambitious and, at the same time, a malicious proposition. One could also regard the adjective Campanus as emphatic. Another adjective that is found more than once in anteposition is Leontinus (2 A vs. 13 P). In the third Verrine, this Sicilian territory is discussed together with ager Aetnensis: an explicit contrast is established between the two agri in (173). (172) Campanum agrum dividis; vos estis in possessione; non cedo. ‘You are dividing Campanian territory; you are in possession of it. I refuse to give it up.’ (Cic. Agr. 3.15)

the noun phrase

149

(173) Verum, uti dixi, ratio certa est Aetnensium … Meae diligentiae pensum magis in Leontino agro est exigendum … ‘But as I have said, the facts concerning Etna are certain … In dealing with the land of the Leontini, a larger measure of earnest care must be required of me …’ (Cic. Ver. 3.109)

Sullanus ager is a special case, with the adjective anteposed four times. Unlike other adjectives used with ager, Sullanus is derived from a personal proper name, Sulla. Special connotations could be responsible for the anteposition of the adjective.103 Nevertheless, example (174) more likely illustrates a contrastive Topic: the author separates two kinds of land (duo genera agrorum) concerned in purchases, provided by the law. The phrase Sullanus ager starts a discussion of the first category. (174) Eorum unum propter invidiam domini fugiunt, alterum propter vastitatem. Sullanus ager a certis hominibus latissime continuatus tantam habet invidiam … ‘One of them the owners avoid because of its unpopularity, the other because of its desolate condition. The Sullan land, extended as far as possible by certain persons, excites such indignation that …’ (Cic. Agr. 2.70)

Other first-order entities are not encountered as frequently with proper name adjectives. To liber apply expressions indicating origin or the language in which a book is written: Etruscus, Graecus, Latinus, and Punicus ‘Etruscan, Greek, Latin, Punic’; to them, libri Sibyllini ‘Sibylline Books’ can be added.104 Their placement is variable (6 A vs. 4 P). I will only give two examples as an illustration: in the first phrase (175), conveying new information, Punicis specifies the referent (‘from which books?’). The second phrase (176) is not pragmatically relevant; Etrusci libri are known from the previous context. In this speech of Cicero’s, Etruscan books, which haruspices consulted for the interpretation of wonders, are referred to several times. (175) Quamquam ab ea fama, quae plerosque obtinet, divorsum est, tamen, uti ex libris Punicis, qui regis Hiempsalis dicebantur, interpretatum nobis est. ‘Although my account differs from the prevailing tradition, I give it as it was translated for me from the Punic books attributed to king Hiempsal.’ (Sal. Jug. 17.7)

103 After his victory over Mithridates in 81, Lucius Sulla confiscated and dispossessed several territories in Italy in order to establish veterans’ colonies there. The occupants of Sullan lands would benefit from the agrarian reform, for they possessed very fertile lands (see Jonkers 1963: 109). 104 The adjectives Sibyllini and Etrusci compete with possessive genitives; see section 7.2, p. 178 for more details.

150

chapter two

(176) Habent Etrusci libri certa nomina quae in id genus civium cadere possint: deteriores, repulsos … hos appellant … ‘The Etruscan books have certain names which may fit some of that class of citizens: they call them “worthless men, rejected candidates”…’ (Cic. Har. 53)

A couple of adjectives derived from proper names are also found with aqua for indicating a location: aqua Crabra, Albana and Tusculana, all in postposition, and with vinum for expressing origin: vina Graeca ‘Greek’. Falerno vino in (177) deserves mention: it is a pragmatically salient, non-contrastive constituent with an adjective in anteposition. Cicero evokes Falernian wine as a matter of comparison and he further develops this idea. (177) Ut si quis Falerno vino delectetur, sed eo nec ita novo ut proximis consulibus natum velit, nec rursus ita vetere ut Opimium aut Anicium consulem quaerat. ‘It is as if a man were fond of Falernian wine, but did not want it so new as last year’s, nor again so old as to search out a cask from the vintages of Opimius or Anicius.’ (Cic. Brut. 287)

3.2.2. Bellum Various adjectives from proper names co-occur with bellum. They concern the people against whom a war is waged, e.g. Punicum, Sabinum, Gallicum, Italicum; the region where a war took place, such as Macedonicum, Africanum, Achaicum; the city: Numantinum, Carthaginiense, or the adversary chief commander, e.g. Mithridaticum, Sertorianum, Octavianum. In general, they are both in postposition and anteposition (45 P vs. 38 A). For the purpose of the analysis, it is important to separate the noun phrases used in the ablative without a preposition, such as bello Numantino, for which postposition clearly prevails (Table 3). Table 3: Bellum + adjectives derived from proper names Order Total with NP in the ablative

Noun Adj.

Adj. Noun

45 30

38 15

In the two following sections, I will first examine expressions in the ablative, and then other noun phrases containing adjectives derived from proper names. 3.2.2.1. Temporal Expressions in the Ablative Wars may serve as reference points in time because they usually belong to shared knowledge and are very easily identifiable. Noun phrases in the

the noun phrase

151

ablative represent temporal expressions answering the question ‘when?’ or more exactly, ‘during which war?’ They exhibit adjectives in postposition. Such noun phrases are used in two ways. Firstly, as temporal settings for related events; in this case, they stand at the beginning of the sentence. For example in (178), Sallust tells us what happened during the war of Numantia. Secondly, they function as time complements that specify the moment at which a process took place: in (179), Cicero tells when Cethegus was consul. All 30 noun phrases in the ablative with a post-nominal adjective from a proper name in my corpus can receive one or the other interpretation.105 (178) Igitur bello Numantino Micipsa sperans …, facile eum (Iugurtham) occasurum, praefecit Numidis, quos in Hispaniam mittebat. ‘Accordingly, during the Numantine War, Micipsa gave Jugurtha the command of the Numidians whom he was sending to Spain …, hoping that he would certainly perish.’ (Sal. Jug. 7.2) (179) At hic Cethegus consul cum P. Tuditano fuit bello Punico secundo. ‘Now this Cethegus was consul with Publius Tuditanus in the Second Punic War.’ (Cic. Brut. 60)

Whereas setting expressions placed at the beginning of a sentence of the type (178) are without difficulties of interpretation, specifications of a process (179) with post-nominal adjectives compete with noun phrases displaying adjectives in anteposition, of which I gathered 15 examples. Several of them function as temporal complements answering the question ‘when?’ (8 occ.). Unlike (179), the pre-nominal adjectives do not have any specifying value—such noun phrases do not inform us ‘during which war’ but simply situate a process in time. For example in (180), as the author states explicitly, an event belonging to shared knowledge is reported. Similarly, the adjective in (181) also forms a referential unit with the noun. Cicero relates an anecdote from the period of the Marsian War and then another one from the period of the war with Veii (182). The same arrangement with the adjectives anteposed is chosen for two stories reported successively, and the pre-nominal adjectives could be regarded as contrastive. This ordering is like that of temporal expressions with the meaning ‘when’; cf. section 2.1.3, p. 118.106

105 With one exception, bello Gallico in Cic. Font. 46, which has a generic referent ‘in a Gallic war’. For noun phrases with adjectives in postposition, which serve for dating events or specifying actions, cf. also: bello Gallico (Sal. Cat. 52.30), bello Cassiano (Caes. Gal. 1.13.2), bello Punico (Cic. Agr. 1.20), and bello Antiochino (Cic. Phil. 11.17), among others. 106 Other noun phrases with adjectives in anteposition that seem to simply provide a temporal indication are for example: Cretensi bello (Cic. ad Brut. 1.8.2), Italico bello (Agr.

152

chapter two

(180) Hic tu tabulas desideras Heracliensium publicas, quas Italico bello incenso tabulario interisse scimus omnes. ‘Are you now going to ask for the public records of Heraclea, which we all know were destroyed when their record office was burnt in the Social War?’ (Cic. Arch. 8) (181) Caeciliae, Q. filiae, somnio modo Marsico bello templum est a senatu Iunoni Sospitae restitutum. ‘Following a dream of Caecilia, daughter of Quintus, recently, during the Marsic War, the temple of Juno Sospita was restored by the senate.’ (Cic. Div. 1.99) (182) Quid? Quod in annalibus habemus Veienti bello, cum lacus Albanus praeter modum crevisset, Veientem quendam ad nos hominem nobilem perfugisse … ‘Further, we find in the annals that during the war with Veii, when the Alban Lake rose beyond its usual level, a certain noble Veientine came over to us …’ (Cic. Div. 1.100)107

The expressions in the ablative with adjectives in anteposition can also have a function other than that of situating events in time (7 occ.). In (183), Punico bello expresses the means by which Italy has been exhausted (defessa), without specifying secundo. This fact is inferrable from the mention of Hannibal. Cicero is talking about the adoption of the cult of Cybele in 205. (183) Quondam defessa Italia Punico bello atque ⟨ab⟩ Hannibale vexata sacra ista nostri maiores adscita ex Phrygia Romae conlocarunt. ‘When Italy was wearied by the Punic War and harassed by Hannibal, our ancestors imported these sacred rites from Phrygia and established them at Rome.’ (Cic. Har. 27)

3.2.2.2. Other Expressions Other noun phrases containing an adjective derived from a proper name— notably those in the accusative—exhibit variable placement. They fulfil various pragmatic functions. Bellum Gallicum in (184) is a non-contrastive 2.80), Mithridatico bello (Agr. 2.83), or Peloponnesiaco bello (Off. 1.84). On the other hand, primo Punico bello ‘in the First Punic War’ in Off. 1.39, followed by secundo Punico bello in 1.40 (however, considered as interpolation by many editors), is contrastive. The pre-nominal adjective in Octaviano bello (Cic. Div. 1.4) ‘Octavian War’ allows emphatic interpretation: this very dangerous war, which occurred in 87, was marked by extreme superstition of Cn. Octavius (see Pease 1963: 52). 107 The war against Veii took place between 482 and 396; the war against the Marsi represents an episode of the Social War of 90–88. The adverb modo ‘recently’ refers to a rather long interval (see Pease 1963: 275) since the composition of the On Divination goes back to 44 (for this vexed question, see ibid., p. 13).

the noun phrase

153

Topic. Cicero is going to talk about the Gallic War and to argue that Caesar is the right man who should be given permission by the senate to bring it to an end. The noun phrase in (185) conveys new information. In this section, Cicero demonstrates that decreeing thanksgivings implies the title of imperator, and their absence that of hostis ‘public enemy’; Antony (who is meant) and his actions deserve the second title (cf. example (150) p. 142). (184) Bellum Gallicum, patres conscripti, C. Caesare imperatore gestum est, antea tantummodo repulsum. ‘Under Gaius Caesar’s command, conscript fathers, we have fought a war in Gaul; before we merely repelled attacks.’ (Cic. Prov. 32) (185) Grave bellum Octavianum insecutum est; supplicatio nulla victori. ‘A serious war with Octavius followed; no thanksgiving was decreed to the victor.’ (Cic. Phil. 14.23)

Anteposition of adjectives derived from proper names results from the fact that reference is made to entities given by the context, for example ad Britannicum bellum in (186). Sometimes, pragmatic features such as contrast are involved, for example Sertorianum in (187). In this section, Cicero shows that the Roman people avoided entrusting war commands to private citizens. (186) tamen, ne aestatem in Treveris consumere cogeretur omnibus rebus ad Britannicum bellum comparatis ‘still, in order that he might not be compelled to waste the summer among the Treviri, while all things were prepared for the war with Britain’ (Caes. Gal. 5.4.1) (187) (Ita populus Romanus consuli potius Crasso quam privato Africano bellum gerendum dedit …) Nam Sertorianum bellum a senatu privato datum est, quia consules recusabant. ‘(Accordingly, the Roman people gave the conduct of the war to the consul Crassus rather than to Africanus, a private citizen …) For the war with Sertorius was assigned by the senate to a private person because the consuls refused it.’ (Cic. Phil. 11.18)

For bellum Punicum and the use of ordinal numerals, see section 6.2, p. 173. Conclusions Classifying adjectives usually stand in postposition with a specifying value that indicates the category to which the referent belongs. Anteposition correlates with pragmatic features of contrast and emphasis, or with contextual giveness of the referent. However, there are instances of anteposition that are at the first sight difficult to explain from pragmatic reasons. As such, I identified veterani milites and civile bellum. Their referent may

154

chapter two

be linked with special connotations that are responsible for the mobility of the adjectives. This section has also revealed that the behaviour of the nouns examined is not the same. Some entities do not really manifest mobility of their modifiers, whereas others show much variation. This point correlates with the pragmatic status that an entity has in the text, whether it is a central, often discussed entity or a marginal one. Bellum has a specific behaviour because in combination with an adjective derived from a proper name it serves as temporal expression with various functions. 4. Describing a Referent Adjectives that describe an entity do not indicate the type of the referent but express its permanent or temporary properties such as its substance, dimension, colour, age, or human qualities. While dealing with such qualifications, the question arises whether a property is attributed in an objective way, in which case the entity is described, or in a subjective way, for evaluating it. From this point of view, are qualifications such as vetus ‘old’, pulcher ‘nice’, or bonus ‘good’, objective or subjective? The problem is even more acute when adjectives are in the superlative, which implies a subjective assessment. Without aiming to resolve this problem here, I will present an overview of various expressions applied to entities under examination assuming that descriptions and evaluations may overlap and that an adjective such as bonus may be used in a descriptive way, not necessarily involving a subjective assessment. I will start this section with inanimate concrete entities, and then move to animate ones.108 4.1. Inanimate Concrete Entities The clearest case in my corpus is aqua, which is never a topic of discussions and does not appear in pragmatically marked situations. The adjectives applied to it express its physical properties, especially its temperature, taste, and colour, e.g. calida ‘warm’, gelida ‘ice-cold’, dulcis ‘soft’, naturalis ‘natural’, profluens ‘running’, nigra ‘turbid’. They describe the referent and all stand in postposition (12 occ.). The noun phrases containing them usually do not bear pragmatic salience (188) or, when they convey new

108

Data are summarised in Table 2.5 in the Appendix.

the noun phrase

155

information—aquam gelidam in (189) is the Focus of the sentence—they are used with neither emphasis, nor contrast, which are likely to result in anteposition. (188) In hac insula extrema est fons aquae dulcis, cui nomen Arethusa est, incredibili magnitudine … ‘At the end of the island is a spring of fresh water named Arethusa, of incredible size …’ (Cic. Ver. 4.118) (189) Ut saepe homines aegri morbo gravi cum aestu febrique iactantur, si aquam gelidam biberunt, primo relevari videntur. ‘As it often happens that men afflicted with a severe disease, when they are tortured with heat and fever, if they drink cold water, seem at first to be relieved.’ (Cic. Catil. 1.31)

With vinum, only one descriptive adjective co-occurs, leve. Its anteposition in (190) is due to its contrastive value, with respect to Stoicorum. (190) Tamquam levia quaedam vina nihil valent in aqua, sic Stoicorum ista magis gustata quam potata delectant. ‘As certain light wines lose their flavour in water, there is more delight in a sip than a draught of this Stoic vintage.’ (Cic. Tusc. 5.13)

Navis is used with adjectives referring to the physical size of a ship: magna ‘large’; its proper or suitable use: idonea ‘fit’; age: vetus ‘old’; condition: incolumis ‘undamaged’, infirma ‘fragile’; and the presence or absence of cargo: inanis ‘empty’, semiplena ‘half-filled’. They favour postposition (16 P vs. 6 A). An example with an adjective in postposition describing the referent is given in (191); I would interpret two instances of maxima in postposition quoted above (pp. 135–136) in (126) and (132) in the same way. Even if maxima is a superlative, in the case of a concrete object such as navis, it does not seem to carry any special evaluating value but simply to refer to a ship that is much larger than usual ships are. Idonea in (192) also has a descriptive value; the noun phrase forms part of an enumeration and fulfils the Focus function. On the other hand, the pre-nominal adjective in (193) carries implicit contrast: Caesar would undertake the voyage with solid ships. The referent is known from the context. (191) scaphas navium magnarum circiter LX cratibus pluteisque contexit ‘he protected with wickerwork and screens about sixty row-boats belonging to his large ships’ (Caes. Civ. 3.24.1) (192) Sin te confirmare vis, et comites et tempestates et navem idoneam ut habeas diligenter videbis. ‘But if you desire to establish your health, you must see to it very carefully that you get the fellow-passengers, the weather, and the ship that exactly suit you.’ (Cic. Fam. 16.1.2)

156

chapter two

(193) (Caesar) eosque (obsides) in continentem adduci iussit, quod … infirmis navibus hiemi navigationem subiciendam non existimabat. ‘(Caesar) ordered them (hostages) to be brought to the continent, because …; with a damaged flotilla he did not think it right to subject his crossing to the hazard of winter storms.’ (Caes. Gal. 4.36.1)

Ager is modified by adjectives referring to physical properties of a land, such as crassus ‘fertile’, pulcher ‘beautiful (country)’, or vacuus ‘empty’ (5 P vs. 7 A). Their postposition is due to the describing function of the adjective (194). In anteposition, the adjective presents an emphatic value, such as inanes agros in (195). The referent is generic in both cases. (194) An imitari agros fertiles qui multo plus efferunt quam acceperunt? ‘Shall we not imitate the fruitful fields, which return more than they receive?’ (Cic. Off. 1.48) (195) Cur igitur, Metelle, non ita magno vendidisti? Quia desertas arationes, inanes agros, provinciam miseram perditamque offendisti. ‘Why then, Metellus, did you not sell them for as much as Verres? Because you found the farms abandoned, the fields empty, the province ruined and miserable.’ (Cic. Ver. 3.124)

4.2. Animate Entities I will turn now to animate entities vir and miles, that are qualified for various human properties. They can be questioned with qualis?, cf. the relative pronoun in (196). (196) (C. Laelius) Si, cum sapiens et bonus vir, qualis ille fuit, suffragiis praeteritur … ‘(G. Laelius) If, when a wise and good man, as he was, is passed over at the election …’ (Cic. Tusc. 5.54)

4.2.1. Vir and viros Adjectives applied to vir and viros refer to physical properties: fortis ‘strong’, acer ‘energetic’; intellectual capacities: doctus ‘learned’, sapiens ‘wise’; social condition: nobilis ‘noble’; character or behaviour: bonus ‘good’, egregius ‘excellent’, honestus ‘honest’, innocens ‘innocent’, iustus ‘fair’; success or fame: clarus ‘well-known’, primarius ‘leading’. Only noun phrases with one modifier without any expansion have been calculated (Table 4). Noun phrases in appositions, and these heading an apposition, have been disregarded.

the noun phrase

157

Table 4: Descriptive adjectives applied to vir and viros Order

Noun Adj.

Adj. Noun

positive superlative

positive superlative

vir viros

38 21

5 2

13 24

10 12

total

59

7

37

22

This table shows two interesting points. Firstly, adjectives with vir strongly prefer postposition (38 P vs. 13 A); those applied to viros are more mobile (21 P vs. 24 A). Secondly, superlatives go most often in anteposition. The analysis that follows will show that the difference of behaviour of vir and viros correlates with the pragmatic contexts in which they appear: whereas vir occurs in pragmatically neutral situations, phrases with viros often carry the Focus function. In the sentences under examination—since all appositions have been eliminated—the noun phrases containing vir modified by one adjective function either as the subject or as the predicative. I am not aiming to suggest that the syntactic function as such is responsible for pre- or postnominal placement of the adjectives but such a distinction is helpful for understanding the pragmatic aspects at work. In (197), the noun phrase conveys new information; the adjective sapiens stands in postposition. Similarly in (198), the adjective forms a pragmatic unit with its governing noun. By contrast, the phrase bonus vir in (199), which also represents Focus of its sentence, contains an emphatic adjective in anteposition. This example concerns the behaviour of vir bonus ‘good man’, to which I will return later. These noun phrases used predicatively are non-referential. (197) Ti. Gracchus, P. f., qui bis consul et censor fuit, idemque et summus augur et vir sapiens civisque praestans … ‘Tiberius Gracchus, son of Publius, who was censor and consul twice; besides, he was a most competent augur, a wise man, and a preeminent citizen …’ (Cic. Div. 1.36) (198) (L. Aelius Stilo) Fuit is omnino vir egregius et eques Romanus cum primis honestus … ‘(L. Aelius Stilo) He was in all respects an uncommon man, a Roman knight of highest integrity …’ (Cic. Brut. 205) (199) Hoc qui non didicerit bonus vir esse non poterit. ‘Anyone who has not learnt this will not be able to be a good man.’ (Cic. Off. 3.76)

158

chapter two

Noun phrases functioning as subjects may have specific, non-specific, or generic reference. In (200), the referent is specific, mentioned in the previous context. The adjective egregius is likely to describe the person, Theramenes. In (201), the noun phrase with a specific referent, P. Servilius Isauricus, who proposed a motion at a meeting of the senate,109 shows an emphatic adjective, clarissimus, in anteposition. In both cases, the noun phrases do not have any special pragmatic function. (200) (Theramenes) Lusit vir egregius extremo spiritu. ‘This noble spirit jested with his breath.’ (Cic. Tusc. 1.96) (201) ‘De improbis’, inquit ‘et audacibus’. Nam sic eos appellat clarissimus vir. ‘He talks about ‘wicked and audacious men’. For that is what this most illustrious man calls them.’ (Cic. Phil. 14.7)

The noun phrases functioning as subjects with generic referents display adjectives in postposition, without emphasis and without contrast. They are not conveying new information. A lot of such instances are found in the third book of the treatise On Duties where Cicero examines the correct behaviour of the vir bonus, his decisions, and conscience. For example in (202), Cicero asks the question what a vir bonus will do: will he be honest, or will he take the advantage of the situation and sell grain at the highest price? The adjective in postposition has a descriptive value. (202) Si, exempli gratia, vir bonus Alexandrea Rhodum magnum frumenti numerum advexerit in Rhodiorum inopia et fame … ‘For example, suppose that a good man had brought a large quantity of corn from Alexandria to Rhodes in a time of shortage and famine …’ (Cic. Off. 3.50)

Noun phrases containing viros mainly function as direct objects, which are the strongest candidates for fulfilling the function of Focus.110 This is the case in (203), with a specific referent, and in (204) with a generic referent. Anteposition not only results from the emphatic character of the adjective (204), but also from the pragmatic salience of the whole phrase: mediocres viros in (205) is the Focus of the sentence. (203) Complecti vis amplissimos viros ad tuum et Gabini scelus. ‘You want to implicate men of high standing in your and Gabinius’ crime.’ (Cic. Pis. 75)

109 110

See Wuilleumier’s (1973: 256) note. See Spevak (2010a: 120) for discussion.

the noun phrase

159

(204) Non est tuum de re publica bene mereri; habet istius pulcherrimi facti clarissimos viros res publica auctores. ‘Service to the State is not your style. As authors of that magnificent exploit the State has illustrious men.’ (Cic. Phil. 2.36) (205) (terrebat eum) praeterea opportunitas suae liberorumque aetatis, quae etiam mediocres viros spe praedae transvorsos agit ‘(he dreaded) as well as the opportunity afforded by his own age and that of his sons, which through the hope of gain leads astray even men of moderate ambition’ (Sal. Jug. 6.3)

Noun phrases conveying new information may have adjectives in postposition as well. An example of a focal noun phrase is given in (206); the referent of viros optimos is generic. Viros acres in (206) forms a pragmatic unit with the verb in a sentence answering the question ‘what did Flaccus do?’ This constituent is not expressed in the previous context; it has a specific referent with an indefinite reading. (206) Sed ne id viros optimos diutius delectet, legant hanc eius contionem de qua loquor. ‘But, lest this should any longer please excellent men, let them just read this harangue of his (Clodius), of which I speak.’ (Cic. Har. 51) (207) Tum ex Anniana Milonis domo Q. Flaccus eduxit viros acres. ‘Thereupon Quintus Flaccus led out some stout warriors from Milo’s Anniana house.’ (Cic. Att. 4.3.3)

However, there are instances of phrases containing viros and an adjective in postposition that do not fulfil any special pragmatic function, in particular noun phrases with generic referents as in (208). (208) At nondum erat maturum, nondum res ipsa ad eius modi praesidia viros bonos compellebat. ‘But the time was not yet ripe; the situation itself was not yet obliging good citizens to resort to such measures of protection.’ (Cic. Sest. 84)

4.2.2. Miles Adjectives accompanying miles express physical capacities of soldiers: strenuus ‘energetic’, infirmiores ‘weaker’; length of their experience: veteres ‘old’, novi ‘new’; age: adulescentulus ‘very young’; qualities or attitudes: boni ‘good’, indignantes ‘indignant’. Unlike the case of vir, they are more often prenominal than post-nominal (15 A, including 5 superlatives, vs. 5 P). This can be due to pragmatically relevant contexts in which they appear. Noun phrases containing adjectives in anteposition often bear the Focus function and behave as pragmatic units, as in (209) with discontinuity. Adjectives in

160

chapter two

anteposition are sometimes emphatic (210). In (211) the postposed adjective has a describing value. (209) Hoc veteres non probant milites, quos sub vexillo una profectos docuimus. ‘This course was not approved by the veteran soldiers, who, as we have shown, marched out together under a flag.’ (Caes. Gal. 6.40.4) (210) Omnia mea sententia complectar vobis … ut et praestantissimis ducibus a nobis detur auctoritas et fortissimis militibus spes ostendatur praemiorum … ‘I shall embrace it all in my motion … that we grant authority to the eminent commanders, hold out hope of rewards to the very brave soldiers …’ (Cic. Phil. 3.14) (211) Nec parasitorum in comoediis adsentatio faceta nobis videretur, nisi essent milites gloriosi. ‘We would not think the flattery of parasites in comedies funny if there were no braggart soldiers.’ (Cic. Amic. 98)

4.2.3. Other Entities Other entities that co-occur with descriptive adjectives are familia and several abstract nouns. Adjectives that modify familia are, for example, honesta ‘honest’, pura ‘free of pollution’, florentissima ‘the most flourishing’, nobilissima or amplissima with the same meaning: ‘the most noble’. Such qualifications involve the question qualis familia? ‘what family?’ They are found in anteposition (12 A vs. 3 P); many of them are in the superlative and involve emphasis. Compare, for example, the placement of the adjective vetus expressing age in (212), which simply describes the referent, and antiquissima in (213), which stands with emphasis in anteposition. (212) (Murena) fortunatus videbatur quod primus in familiam veterem, primus in municipium antiquissimum consulatum attulisset. ‘(Murena) has seemed blessed by fortune because he was first to bring the consulship into an old family and an ancient town (i.e. Lanuvium).’ (Cic. Mur. 86) (213) alterum Cotum, antiquissima familia natum atque ipsum hominem summae potentiae et magnae cognationis ‘the other (was) Cotus, sprung from a most ancient family, and personally a man of very great influence and extensive connections’ (Caes. Gal. 7.32.4)

Descriptive adjectives used with abstract entities mainly have a temporal meaning. Religio co-occurs with adjectives related to age: antiqua, pristina ‘ancient’, sempiterna ‘everlasting’. With memoria ‘recollection’ adjectives are found expressing age: vetus ‘old’, praeterita ‘past’, duration: diuturna ‘long lasting’ or another property: acer ‘vivid’. They all stand in anteposition, for

the noun phrase

161

example in (214) with religio or in (215) with a contrastive adjective before memoria. (214) exemplar antiquae religionis, Fidiculanius Falcula ‘the model of ancient piety, Fidiculanius Falcula’ (Cic. Caec. 28) (215) Eis enim maiores nostri qui ob rem publicam mortem obierant pro brevi vita diuturnam memoriam reddiderunt. ‘For to those who had met their deaths in the service of the republic our ancestors gave long-lasting memory in return for a brief life.’ (Cic. Phil. 9.4)

Conclusions Adjectives expressing permanent and temporary properties applied to the inanimate concrete entities aqua and navis prefer postposition. The examples of noun phrases with vir and viros have demonstrated that the place occupied by the adjectives correlates with the pragmatic salience of the adjective itself or that of the whole noun phrase. The adjectives accompanying viros are indeed more frequently anteposed than the adjectives modifying vir. Such mobility is due to the fact that the noun phrases containing viros are more frequently relevant at the pragmatic level. Semantic properties of the noun phrases, i.e. the specific or generic character of the referent, do not have as such any decisive influence on the anteposition or postposition of the adjective in the case of vir. On the other hand, we can say that noun phrases with generic referents carry less frequently the function of Focus, or the pragmatic features of emphasis or contrast; this is why their adjectives are often post-nominal. Other entities present descriptive adjectives less frequently. Abstract nouns co-occur with adjectives with a temporal meaning in anteposition. 5. Evaluating a Referent A referent may be evaluated in two different ways. Either an abstract quality is applied to it, such as mirabilis ‘remarkable’, or it is evaluated as for its greatness, with summus ‘the highest’, for example; such assessments are more or less subjective and often appear in the superlative.111 The question underlying abstract qualities is cuius modi? or qualis? as in (216), the same as for descriptive adjectives. It covers expressions such

111 Data concerning evaluative adjectives applied to various entities are presented in Table 2.6 in the Appendix.

162

chapter two

as honestissimus and optimus, used afterwards in the same passage. The adjectives expressing the greatness, i.e. importance and influence, of a man, for example magnus ‘great’ or summus, imply the question quantus vir?, cf. example (217). (216) An non intellegis … quales viros mortuos summi sceleris arguas? … Quis de illis honestissimis viris atque optimis civibus … ‘Do you not realise … what kind of men you are accusing now that they are dead? … What shall we say of the most honourable men and best citizens …?’ (Cic. Rab. Perd. 26–27) (217) Xenophon Socraticus (qui vir et quantus!) … ‘Xenophon, the follower of Socrates (what a man he was!)’ (Cic. Div. 1.52)

Adjectives in the superlative deserve special attention. When using bonos in example (208), quoted above, the speaker or author tells us how a referent is. When the adjective appears in the superlative, the speaker or author does not only apply a property to a referent but also evaluates it in a subjective way. From this point of view, fortissimos viros and optimos cives in (218), with pre-nominal adjectives, are an evaluation rather than a description of the referent. This phrase has a specific referent: three hundred centurions and soldiers who Antony put to death before his wife Fulvia in order to suppress a revolt.112 (218) quippe qui in hospitis tectis Brundisi fortissimos viros optimosque cives iugulari iusserit ‘he, who ordered very brave men and exemplary citizens to be murdered under his host’s roof at Brundisium’ (Cic. Phil. 3.4)

Evaluative adjectives allow adverbs or expressions making it explicit that they convey the author’s personal judgment. The judgment often concerns the attribution of a very high degree of a quality expressed in the superlative, for example, haud sciam an in (219), vir mehercule optimus ‘an excellent fellow really’ in Cic. Att. 1.8.1, and vir mea sententia prudentissimus ‘a most prudent man in my opinion’ in Cic. Caec. 22. (219) Vir sapientissimus atque haud sciam an omnium praestantissimus peccatum suum, quod celari posset, confiteri maluit. ‘(Gracchus) A man of the greatest wisdom and perhaps the most excellent man chose to confess his fault, which he might have concealed.’ (Cic. N.D. 2.11)

112

For this execution, cf. Phil. 3.10; see Manuwald (2007: 334 and 358).

the noun phrase

163

5.1. Attribution of an Abstract Quality The first type of evaluation consists of the attribution of an abstract quality to a referent. In my corpus, it concerns vir and second- as well as third-order entities. 5.1.1. Vir Evaluative adjectives with vir often correlate with appositions: either the noun phrase with vir is followed by one or more appositions (220), or it represents on its own an apposition (221). In both cases, postposition of the adjectives prevails (59 P vs. 16 A). This can be explained by the fact that although evaluative, the adjectives are used in a descriptive way without emphasis. In other words, evaluation of a referent is presented as a statement. Example (222) with the alternative ordering optimus vir shows that postposition of the adjective is not required in appositions.113 A pre-nominal adjective mainly appears in sentences with only one apposition, not in those with a series of appositions. (220) An vero vir amplissumus, P. Scipio, pontifex maxumus, Ti. Gracchum … privatus interfecit? ‘Did not that most illustrious man, Publius Scipio, the Pontifex Maximus …, as a private citizen, killed Tiberius Gracchus …?’ (Cic. Catil. 1.3) (221) Pacis enim auctor eras, cum collega tuus, vir clarissimus, a foedissimis latronibus obsideretur. ‘For you were the advocate of peace, at a time when your colleague, a most distinguished man, was being blockaded by ruffian brigands.’ (Cic. Fam. 10.6.1)114 (222) cum … Cn. Oppius socer, optimus vir, ad pedes flens iaceret ‘when … his father-in-law Gnaeus Oppius, a most virtuous man, threw himself in tears at his feet’ (Cic. Red. Pop. 12)

However, appositions as such do not seem to be responsible for the postnominal placement of evaluative adjectives. In the noun phrases that are not involved in appositions, adjectives are also predominantly post-nominal

113 It is certainly not the shorteness of the word vir that requires postposition of an adjective of two or more syllables. In general, Latin grammars claim (K.&St. II: 605; cf. Albrecht 1890: 38) the order {monosyllabic noun > adjective} but the facts are more complex (see Pinkster LSS § 9.4, n. 37). Hoff (1995: 251) has calculated, on the basis of the data presented by Rohde (1884), that 29 % are exceptions. 114 Collega tuus refers to Decimus Brutus, consul-elect for 42 with L. Plancus; the latter was the addressee of Cicero’s letter.

164

chapter two

(for vir: 13 P vs. 1 A). Compare examples (223) and (224). In the first case, no idea of emphasis or contrast is involved; vir optimus has a specific referent, known from the preceding context.115 In the second one, mirabilis is used emphatically with Dicaearchus. (223) Negat me vir optimus inimiciorem Gabinio debere esse quam Caesari. ‘That excellent man says that I ought not to be more hostile to Gabinius than to Caesar.’ (Cic. Prov. 18) (224) Mihi crede (sed ego te hoc doceo?), mirabilis vir est. ‘Believe me (but am I telling you?), he is a wonderful man.’ (Cic. Att. 2.2.2)

Other first-order entities may be evaluated but such instances are isolated. I will only mention the adjective optimus ‘the best’, which can apply to many entities, and gratissimus in (225), used with a book of Brutus’. (225) Quamquam a te ipso id quidem facio provocatus gratissimo mihi libro, quem ad me de virtute misisti … ‘Still, you yourself challenged me to the venture, by dedicating to me your delightful essay On Virtue …’ (Cic. Fin. 1.8)

5.1.2. Ablative and Genitive of Quality The ablative and genitive of quality are a means of attributing a property to a referent;116 they may represent descriptions as well as evaluations. These expressions must contain a modifier and hence represent full noun phrases. They accompany vir in my corpus and usually follow their head noun (19 P, 7 A, 5 framed). Frequent postposition could be explained, either by their complexity, or—and I would prefer this solution—by the fact that they have a descriptive value as in (226). The complement may contain several coordinated elements, as in (227).117 (226) Erat Crastinus evocatus in exercitu Caesaris qui …, vir singulari virtute. ‘In Caesar’s army, there was Crastinus, a re-enlisted veteran, who …, a man of extraordinary courage.’ (Caes. Civ. 3.91.1)

115 L. Marcius Philippus, consul in 56; Cicero has just made a reference to him: illam interpellationem mei familiarissimi qua paulo ante interrupta est oratio mea ‘that interruption of my most intimate friend, who did a little while ago interrupt my speech’. 116 Lebreton (1901: 83) drew a parallel between the ablatives of quality and noun phrases containing the adjective praeditus, e.g. vir summo ingenio praeditus ‘a man endowed with a great talent’ (Cic. Pis. 62). However, these constructions are different on the syntactic level. 117 For the semantic equivalence of such mixed constructions, see Pinkster (LSS §6.6, p. 94).

the noun phrase

165

(227) Unum enim mihi restabat illud quod forsitan non nemo vir fortis et acris animi magnique dixerit: … ‘One thing, indeed, was left for me, which, perhaps, some men of bold, and energetic, and magnanimous mind will say: …’ (Cic. Sest. 45)

Anteposition of these complements is due to pragmatic reasons. It appears when the adjective is an emphatic word: tantus ‘such’, quantus ‘how great’, or summus ‘the greatest’, for example in (228). Emphasis on the adjective also yields a sequence with vir in the middle (229), framed by its complement. (228) Quotus quisque invenietur tanta virtute vir qui optimam quamque causam rei publicae amplectatur? ‘How many men will be found of such virtue as to embrace the justest cause of the republic?’ (Cic. Sest. 93) (229) Accessit acerrumo vir ingenio, Chrysippus. ‘Then came Chrysippus, a man of very sharp intellect.’ (Cic. Div. 1.6)

5.1.3. Second-Order Entities Among second-order entities, bellum is often modified by various evaluative adjectives, e.g. infinitum ‘endless’, aeternum ‘everlasting’, related to duration; repentinum ‘sudden’, instans ‘imminent’, to the instantaneous character of a war; durissimum ‘very hard’, foedissimum ‘very fearful’, miserum ‘grievous’, exitiosum ‘pernicious’, to consequences. They express more or less subjective evaluations concerning modalities or consequences of a war. Many adjectives applied to bellum denote the author’s personal judgement, for example nefarium ‘wicked’, (non) necessarium ‘(not) necessary’, and sacrilegum ‘impious’. The adjective iustum ‘(fully) legitimate, regular’ forms part of this category, but in this case, the judgement is shared by the community: bellum iustum denotes a war waged against an enemy nation conforming to the law. Anteposition is predominant (36 A vs. 22 P)118 for this semantic category but whatever the position they occupy is, they often carry emphasis. The pre-nominal formidolosissimo in (230) contrasts with respect to coronam illam auream. Crassus indeed hoped to obtain a triumph after his victory over Spartacus in 71.119 Bellum inexpiabile fulfils the Focus func-

118 Among them, 13 superlatives in anteposition and 6 in postposition. These figures include instances of adjectives evaluating extent, discussed below in section 5.2. 119 A triumph could not be accorded to him because the victory was not over an enemy people (bellum iustum) but over slaves. The senate awarded him an ovatio during which Crassus was permitted to bear a laurel crown instead of a myrtle one (see Grimal 1960: 181).

166

chapter two

tion (231) and stands in postposition; however, I would interpret it here as emphatic.120 (230) (Crasse …) Quid est quod confecto per te formidolosissimo bello coronam illam lauream tibi tanto opere decerni volueris a senatu? ‘(Crassus …) What was the reason that, after your completion of a terrifying war, did you want so much to have the senate decree that laurel crown for you?’ (Cic. Pis. 58) (231) Bellum inexpiabile infert quattuor consulibus unus omnium latronum taeterrimus. ‘The most savage of all brigands is carrying on an inexpiable war against four consuls.’ (Cic. Phil. 14.8)

Evaluative adjectives accompanying dies are infrequent, e.g. atrox ‘terrible’, calamitosus ‘unfortunate’, incredibilis ‘unbelievable’, laetissimus ‘very happy’. They are commonly found in anteposition, owing to their subjectively evaluative meaning, sometimes linked with emphasis. For example, the adjective calamitosus carries emphasis in (232), although it figures in a framed noun phrase. A reference is made to shared knowledge: the anniversary day of the capture of Syracuse by Marcellus in 212 was celebrated because Marcellus, impressed by its beautiful artworks, had refrained from plundering and spared the city. (232) idem diem festum Verris nomine agerent, cum iste a Syracusanis quae ille calamitosus dies reliquerat ademisset. ‘they treated the same day as a holiday in Verres’ name, when he had taken from the people of Syracuse all the things that day of calamity had left them.’ (Cic. Ver. 4.151)

Religio is evaluated as sancta (sanctissima) ‘sacred’, inexpiabilis ‘inexpiable’, impia ‘impious’, iusta ‘deserved’, and pura ‘pure’. Here again, their frequent anteposition is due to pragmatic reasons, especially emphasis (233). (233) Neque hoc solum in statuis ornamentisque publicis fecit, sed etiam delubra omnia sanctissimis religionibus consecrata depeculatus est. ‘And he did not do this only to the public statues and works of art: he also stole from all the temples, places sanctified by holy veneration.’ (Cic. Ver. 14)

Memoria as ‘faculty of remembering’ co-occurs with, e.g. singularis ‘unusual’, melior ‘better’ referring to the quality of the memory (3 A vs. 3 P). To them can be added the adjective divina ‘excellent’ (Cic. Brut. 265) with an evaluative meaning. In (234), the adjective in postposition describes the noun; this 120 Cf. Cic. Phil. 13.16. Antony waged a war against the consuls of the year and consuls-elect; as Cicero says afterwards, also against the senate and the Roman people.

the noun phrase

167

example alludes to Hortensius’ exquisite qualities. The adjective meliore is constrastive (235) and stands in anteposition. (234) Non enim ille mediocris orator vestrae quasi succrescit aetati, sed et ingenio peracri et studio flagranti et doctrina eximia et memoria singulari. ‘This is no ordinary orator who is, so to speak, growing up to succeed your generation. He is endowed with a very sharp intellect, burning enthusiasm, exceptional learning, and unique powers of memory.’ (Cic. de Orat. 3.230) (235) Tu si meliore memoria es, velim scire, ecquid de te recordere. ‘If you have a better memory I should like to know whether you remember anything about yourself.’ (Cic. Tusc. 1.13)

5.1.4. Third-Order Entities Third-order entities, opinio and quaestio in my corpus, a present specific selection of modifiers in that they allow evaluations for truthfulness and justification. With opinio co-occur adjectives such as vera ‘true’ (236), falsa ‘false’, dubia ‘dubious’, confirmata ‘confirmed’, prava ‘distorted’. With quaestio, evaluations often concern the just or justified character of an investigation: legitima ‘legitimate’, iniusta ‘unjust’ (237), ficta ‘made-up’. These adjectives are not exclusive to third-order nouns, bellum may also be evaluated for being legitimate or not, as we have seen above. (236) Beatum, cui etiam in senectute contigerit, ut sapientiam verasque opiniones assequi possit! ‘Happy the man who even in old age has the good fortune to be able to achieve wisdom and true opinions.’ (Cic. Fin. 5.58) (237) Pars eorum occidisse tribunos plebis, alii quaestiones iniustas … pro munimento habent. ‘Some of them safeguarded their position by murdering plebeian tribunes, others by unjust prosecutions.’ (Sal. Jug. 31.13)

Opinio also admits other adjectives, such as those expressing variety or newness: varia ‘different’, nova ‘new’; stability: firma, stabilis ‘firm’; or another property: vehemens ‘strong’, incommoda ‘troublesome’, iucunda ‘delightful’, or mala as in (238). These adjectives are found in anteposition in the majority of the cases. (238) An iste umquam de se bonam spem habuisset, nisi de vobis malam opinionem animo inbibisset? ‘Would Verres ever have cherished fair hopes for himself, had his mind not been saturated with this foul opinion of you?’ (Cic. Ver. 42)

To quaestio apply adjectives evaluating the difficulty of a question to be investigated: subdifficilis ‘rather difficult’, its clarity: obscura ‘obscure’, or

168

chapter two

another property: perpetua ‘permanent’, diffusa ‘extensive’. Also in this case, the adjectives stand in anteposition, for example obscura in (239) or nova,121 combined with nulla (ulla), nequa or numquae (240). (239) (mores) quam vim habeant, obscura quaestio est. ‘(morals) what value they have, is an awkward question’ (Cic. Fat. 1) (240) Numquae rogatio lata, numquae nova quaestio decreta est? ‘Was any new bill made? Was any special inquiry decreed?’ (Cic. Mil. 19)

5.2. Evaluations of Extent or Importance I will turn now to evaluations concerning extent. This category is to be distinguished from attribution of an abstract quality to a referent, dealt with in the previous section, because the underlying question is not the same. Whereas abstract qualities are questioned with the help of qualis? ‘how?’, extent and importance involve the question quantus? ‘how great?’ and its correlative tantus ‘so great’. Familia as a collective noun is a special case because, properly speaking, adjectives expressing size such as magna122 ‘big’ and maxima ‘very big’ applied to familia refer to the actually (great) number of individuals that constitute a family (241). (241) Familiam vero quantam … habeat, quid ego dicam? … Tot homines habet ut … ‘What can I say about his household, how vast it is? … He has so many slaves that …’ (Cic. S. Rosc. 133)

Adjectives of this type are not very numerous but they seem to favour postposition (5 P vs. 2 A). Two examples will suffice for illustration. Familiam magnam in (242) forms part of an enumeration and describes the noun; the referent is specific. The prenominal adjective in (243) occurs in a phrase with a generic referent and may be emphatic. (242) Grande pondus argenti, familiam magnam, multos artifices, multos formosos homines reliquit. ‘At his death he left a great quantity of silver plate, a large household of slaves, many workmen, many handsome men.’ (Cic. Ver. 1.91) (243) Sed ut in magna familia sunt alii lautiores, ut sibi videntur, servi, sed tamen servi. 121 The adjective nova, with an extensional meaning, is not necessarily in anteposition, cf. quaestione nova perterritus (Cic. Amic. 37) ‘being in fear of the special court of inquiry’. 122 It is worth remembering that magna applied to navis refers to its size. The underlying question is probably qualis?

the noun phrase

169

‘And as in a great family other slaves are (as they fancy themselves) of a higher class, but all the same they are slaves.’ (Cic. Parad. 36)

Applied to vir, the adjectives such as magnus ‘great’ or summus ‘the highest’ have an extensional meaning in that they refer to “greatness” in the sense of influence. Vir magnus is thus a ‘great’ or ‘famous man’. However, they appear in anteposition as well as in postposition. I would interpret the instance in (244) as magnus used in an evaluative way but that in (245) as simply descriptive. (244) Quamquam Antiochi magister Philo, magnus vir ut tu existimas ipse … ‘Although Philo, Antiochus’ master, a great man as you yourself judge him …’ (Cic. Ac. 1.13) (245) Nemo igitur vir magnus sine aliquo adflatu divino umquam fuit. ‘There never, therefore, was a great man without divine inspiration.’ (Cic. N.D. 1.120)

With second- and third order entities, adjectives of size or extent express importance. For example, maximum in postposition and separated from its governing noun, is applied to bellum in (246) to express the importance and difficulty of a war. It carries the Focus on its own. (246) (propter rationem Gallici belli …) Bellum in Gallia maximum gestum est; domitae sunt a Caesare maximae nationes … ‘(out of consideration for the Gallic War …) A most important war has been waged in Gaul; very mighty nations have been subdued by Caesar …’ (Cic. Prov. 19)

This type of adjective is quite frequent with religio. The extent—or degree— of religio can also be graduated to the highest degree (maxima, summa), compared (maiore religione; minore religione), or evaluated (nimia in (248)). These adjectives strongly prefer anteposition (18 A vs. 2 P). (247) Dedicatio magnam, inquit, habet religionem. ‘A dedication, says he, involves a strong sanctity.’ (Cic. Dom. 127) (248) itaque eius oratio nimia religione attenuata ‘thus his language attenuated through over-scrupulousness’ (Cic. Brut. 283)

In the majority of the cases, the examples concern cults and religious practices; in contrast, summa religio applies to persons for expressing their high conscience or scrupulousness. It occurs in ablatives of quality (249) and in complements of manner (250). (249) Cn. Tremellius, homo summa religione et diligentia ‘Gnaeus Tremellius, a particularly scrupulous and conscientious man’ (Cic. Ver. 30)

170

chapter two

(250) Sacra Cereris, iudices, summa maiores nostri religione confici caerimoniaque voluerunt. ‘It was the wish of our ancestors, judges, that the rites of Ceres should be performed with the strictest reverence and ceremonial.’ (Cic. Balb. 55)

Although less frequently, the same type of evaluation is found with opinio, quaestio, and memoria. The latter may be used both in the sense of the faculty of remembering (251) or the appreciation of a recollection (252). (251) Non quaero, quanta memoria Simonides fuisse dicatur … ‘I am not inquiring how great a memory Simonides may be said to have had …’ (Cic. Tusc. 1.59) (252) Magna est hominum opinio de te, magna commendatio liberalitatis, magna memoria consulatus tui. ‘Men think highly of you, highly commend your generosity, and highly appreciate the memory of your consulship.’ (Cic. Fam. 1.7.9)123

Conclusions On the basis of underlying questions, a distinction has been established between evaluation as the attribution of an abstract quality to a referent (qualis? ‘how?’), and evaluation of the extent or importance of a referent (quantus? ‘how great?’). The first category of evaluation is not easy to distinguish from the description of a referent, especially in the case of human entities. The situation is complicated by the use of superlatives that are linked with the idea of subjective evaluation. Be that as it may, evaluative adjectives manifest a tendency for anteposition because they are expressions of speaker’s assessment and are often related to emphasis. At the same time, an evaluative adjective may be applied to an entity with a descriptive value and thus stand in postposition. This happens in the case of vir. Furthermore, phrases with vir modified by an evaluative adjective often figure in appositions or they head an apposition. Evaluation of extent or importance concerns adjectives expressing greatness or importance (magnus) that apply to various entities. This type of evaluation involves adjectives in anteposition.

123

This letter, dating from July 56, was addressed to Lentulus.

the noun phrase

171

6. Identifying a Referent I will turn now to adjectives that serve to localise a referent in space or time by indicating its position in a set of other entities. Localising a referent is not the same thing as describing or evaluating it; the adjectives dealt with in this section instead enable identification of a referent. This makes them closer to identifiers such as idem ‘the same’ than to adjectives properly speaking, which express properties. Localising adjectives arrange entities in space or time. They include expressions of relative position such as proximus ‘next’ or extremus ‘the last’ and ordinal numerals indicating the place of a referent in a series (primus ‘the first’). In my corpus, these adjectives occur especially with the first-order entity liber and the second-order entities dies and bellum, to which I will pay special attention, but they are also found with miles, e.g. proximi milites ‘the next soldiers’ and navis. In (253), postrema navis ‘the last ship’, with a nonspecific referent, may apply to any ship that finds itself last in the fleet. (253) Tum ut quisque in fuga postremus, ita in periculo princeps erat; postremam enim quamque navem piratae primam adoriebantur. ‘Then as each was last in flight, he was first in danger; for the pirates always attacked the last ships first.’ (Cic. Ver. 5.90)

6.1. Adjectives Expressing a Relative Position I will start with the adjectives expressing a relative position in space and time. Table 5 presents figures for the entities examined. As expected, anteposition clearly prevails: these adjectives do not express properties of a referent but their attribution to an entity is the outcome of an intellectual operation. They result from a speaker or writer’s analysis of a situation for determining the order of the entities involved, which is a kind of assessment. Table 5: Adjectives expressing a relative position Order

Noun Adj.

Adj. Noun

liber dies bellum

2 0 3

7 8 5

Total

5

20

Adjectives applied to liber are superior ‘previous’ and extremus ‘the last’, which refer to a succession of several works. In combination with liber,

172

chapter two

both adjectives, primarily used for spatial location ‘upper’ and ‘uttermost’, respectively, exhibit an extensional temporal meaning in that they concern the composition or publication of a book. When they are postposed (‘in which book?’), they specify the referent, as in (254); the author talks about the first book of the On Duties in order to announce the outline of the second book. In anteposition, which is more frequent for this type of adjective, they form a referential unit with their nouns; the phrase in (255) answers the question ‘where?’ (254) Quemadmodum officia ducerentur ab honestate, Marce fili, … satis explicatum arbitror libro superiore. Sequitur ut … ‘Marcus my son, I think that in the preceding book I have explained well enough the way in which duties are based on what is honourable … Next I must pursue …’ (Cic. Off. 2.1) (255) Nam cum de divinatione Quintus frater ea disseruisset, quae superiore libro scripta sunt … ‘After my brother Quintus had delivered his views on divination, as set out in the preceding volume …’ (Cic. Div. 2.8)

Adjectives expressing a relative succession of days include, on the one hand, hodiernus ‘today’s’, hesternus ‘yesterday’s’, crastinus ‘tomorrow’s’; and on the other hand, extremus, supremus ‘the last’, superior ‘preceding’. Hesternus dies and similar phrases (256) function as deictic expressions denoting the position of days with respect to the moment of speaking. Adjectives such as extremus, which apply primarily to concrete spatial entities, arrange a referent in time. They can be used as deictic or anaphoric expressions, in which case they refer to a moment given by the discourse (Poccetti 2011). In my corpus, they exhibit this last use, e.g. superiore die ‘the day before’ or extremus dies in (257), concerning the last day of the games organised by Pompey in 55 that took place in mid-September. The adjectives with such a relative value all stand in anteposition. This tendency is confirmed in the whole Ciceronian corpus.124 (256) Sed ⟨debet⟩ aliquid crastinus dies ad cogitandum nobis dare. ‘But tomorrow ought to give us something to think about.’ (Cic. Att. 15.8.2)

124 For all declined forms of dies, the LLT offers 39 instances of hodiernus dies, 24 of hesternus dies and one of crastinus dies. The only instance of the adjective in postposition is die hesterno in Cic. Phil. 1.11; it is Halm’s conjecture on the basis of the remains of the manuscripts V; other editors adopt hesterno die (see Shackleton Bailey’s 1986 edition, p. 10). The same tendency is confirmed for superior and extremus dies, although these are not so frequent.

the noun phrase

173

(257) Extremus elephantorum dies fuit. ‘The last day was that of the elephants.’ (Cic. Fam. 7.1.3)

With bellum, the adjectives superius ‘previous’ and proximum ‘(the nearest), last or following’, infrequent on the whole, refer to the succession of wars. The noun phrases containing them have contextually given referents or belong to shared knowledge. Expressions in the ablative serve for dating events, for example in (258), with the underlying question ‘when?’ The ablative in (259) also expresses a temporal circumstance and answers the question ‘when?’ but it does not represent an expression of the date. The adjective superiore has a specifying value (‘during which war?’). The first war against Mithridates is meant as opposed to the second one which Cicero is talking about in this passage. (258) At enim nos M. Lepidus …, optime proximo civili bello de re publica meritus, ad pacem adhortatur. ‘But Marcus Lepidus … who in the last civil war deserved well of the State, exhorts us to peace.’ (Cic. Phil. 13.7) (259) Mithridates fugiens maximam vim auri atque argenti pulcherrimarumque rerum omnium quas … ipse bello superiore ex tota Asia direptas in suum regnum congesserat in Ponto omnem reliquit. ‘Mithridates in his flight left behind in Pontus his entire vast store of gold and silver and all sorts of beautiful things …, which he had plundered from all Asia and collected in his kingdom during the previous war.’ (Cic. Man. 22)

Adjectives expressing a relative location are also found with memoria in the meaning of the period covered by one’s recollection, for example, proxima ‘(more) recently’ or superior in the phrase superiore memoria ‘formerly’. Recentiore memoria in (260) concerns the year 168, when the Macedonian king Perses was defeated by Lucius Aemilius Paullus at Pydna; it is used with respect to more ancient events, a battle between Aulus Postumius and the Latins in 496, during which Castor and Pollux were seen. (260) (Castor et Pollux ex equis pugnare visi sunt,) et recentiore memoria idem Tyndaridae Persem victum nuntiaverunt. ‘(Castor and Pollux were seen fighting on horseback,) and in a more modern history likewise these sons of Tyndareus brought the news of the defeat of Perses.’ (Cic. N.D. 2.6)

6.2. Ordinal Numerals Ordinal numerals mostly occur with the same entities as the adjectives expressing relative position. Table 6 summarises the results: with liber and dies ordinal numerals occur in anteposition; with bellum, in postposition. This tendency correlates with the function fulfilled by the ordinal.

174

chapter two

Table 6: Ordinal numerals Order

Noun Num.

Num. Noun

liber dies bellum

8 2 10

25 5 2

Total

20

32

Ordinal numerals used with liber relate to the order of books which together make up a work. Postposition is due to the specifying value of the ordinal: it identifies one in a succession of books. For example in (261), postposition of the ordinal suggests the underlying question ‘in which book?’; Cicero presents here quotations taken from different parts of a work. The ordinal in anteposition forms a referential unit with the noun (262); this phrase answers the question ‘where?’, and not ‘in which book?’ (261) Ex libro primo: ‘Forte evenit ut in Privernati essemus’… Deinde ex libro secundo: … ‘From the first book: “We happened to be at the estate at Privernum”… Next, from the second book: …’ (Cic. de Orat. 2.224) (262) Continet enim totam hanc quaestionem ea ratio, quae est de natura deorum, quae a te secundo libro est explicata dilucide. ‘For this whole question is a part of the argument on the nature of the gods which you have set out clearly in your second book.’ (Cic. Div. 1.117)

Applied to dies, ordinal numerals refer to the relative position of a day with respect to other days. They also favour anteposition (263). When they stand in postposition, they specify the referent, as in the case of liber. (263) Quintus hic dies, Brute, finem faciet Tusculanarum disputationum. ‘This fifth day, Brutus, will bring the Tusculan discussions to an end.’ (Cic. Tusc. 5.1)

The situation is different with bellum. This word is used with ordinal numerals for the Punic wars, mentioned 21 times in the corpus of Classical Latin prose. The phrase repeatedly occurs in the ablative in the order {noun > adjective > ordinal numeral}, bello Punico secundo ‘in the Second Punic War’, with the modifiers in postposition, as in (264). This time the complement expresses when a process took place focusing on ‘in which war’. The mirror order, with the modifiers anteposed, is less frequent. The phrase in (265) functions as the temporal setting by denoting the period when the episode took place (cf. section 3.2.2, p. 150). The only example with another ordering is given in (266), where bellum tertium Punicum, of which Cato the Elder

the noun phrase

175

was an important instigator, does not provide any temporal setting but functions as the subject of the sentence. Cicero argues that wars are sometimes terminated or declared by the counsel of civilians. (264) At hic Cethegus consul cum P. Tuditano fuit bello Punico secundo. ‘Now this Cethegus was consul with Publius Tuditanus in the Second Punic War.’ (Cic. Brut. 60) (265) ut primo Punico bello Regulus captus a Poenis cum de captivis commutandis Romam missus esset iurassetque … ‘as in the First Punic War, when Regulus was taken prisoner by the Carthaginians, he was sent to Rome on parole to negotiate an exchange of prisoners …’ (Cic. Off. 1.39) (266) (bella sunt) nonnumquam etiam illata, ut M. Catonis bellum tertium Punicum in quo etiam mortui valuit auctoritas. ‘(a war is) sometimes also declared, as was the Third Punic War, through Marcus Cato’s counsel; his authority had effect even after his death.’ (Cic. Off. 1.79)

In this section, we have seen that ordinal numerals and the adjectives indicating a relative position express non-inherent properties of a referent and occur in anteposition, unless they have an specifying function. These two groups may also combine, for example, in extremo libro tertio (Cic. Off. 3.9). However, the first adjective receives a partitive reading in this case: ‘at the end of the third book’.125 Conclusions Adjectives expressing a relative position in a set (postremus) do not express a property; neither do ordinal numerals. Their application to an entity is the result of an intellectual operation and hence they reflect the speaker’s assessment. They commonly stand in anteposition. Postposition is used when it is necessary to distinguish one referent from another. Such a specification often concerns successions of wars. 7. Expressions of Possession This section gives an account of expressions of possession.126 Such expressions include, firstly, adjectives derived from proper names applied to miles

125 126

For the partitive reading of this type of adjectives, see chapter 3, 2.4.5 for more details. For data concerning expressions of possession, see Tables 2.7 and 2.8 in the Appendix.

176

chapter two

and navis, which compete with possessive pronouns such as noster or eius, and secondly, possessive genitives applied to miles, navis, ager, and liber. In the latter case, they represent genitives of the author. Both possessive genitives and genitives of the author represent optional complements.127 7.1. Adjectives Derived from Proper Names With miles, adjectives derived from proper names express the people or the region soldiers belong to, e.g. milites Romani, Siculi ‘Roman, Sicilian soldiers’; or the commander: Domitiani, Pompeiani, Iugurthini, Sertoriani ‘Domitianus’, Pompey’s, Jugurtha’s, Sertorius’’. They favour anteposition (16 A vs. 5 P). This correlates with the fact that they appear in contrastive contexts where adversary troops are confronted, for example, Caesar’s and Afranius’ troops in (267) or Marius’ and Jugurtha’s armies in (268).128 All these adjectives refer to entities known from the previous context (except for Sertoriani milites, see below). The noun phrases containing them often function as contrastive Topics and stand at the beginning of the sentence. In such a case, the adjectives are in anteposition (267)—I would envisage that these form a referential unit with the noun (‘who?’)—or in postposition (268) ‘whose soldiers?’, with a specifying value of the adjective. Example (269) is a special case. The noun phrase behaves as a referential unit and fulfils the Focus function. There is no contrast between soldiers coming from the regions mentioned (magnum numerum implies hominum) and Antony’s soldiers. The latter were not enrolled in order to increase manpower but their recruitment happened under special circumstances that Caesar passes over here.129 Antoniani milites has a specific referent, not expressed in the previous context; however, Caesar may be making an allusion to shared knowledge. (267) (Caesar …) Ac primo Afraniani milites visendi causa laeti ex castris procurrebant. ‘(Caesar …) At first, Afranius’ soldiers ran delightedly out of camp to enjoy the sight …’ (Caes. Civ. 1.69.1)

127

See chapter 1, section 2.4.1, p. 25 for discussion. Likewise, Iugurtha or Afranius, respectively, represent contrastive Topics; for example in Sal. Jug. 11.1 and Caes. Civ. 1.42.2. 129 However, cf. Civ. 3.10.5. C. Antonius, a brother of Caesar’s lieutenant M. Antonius, had been trapped by the Pompeians at the island of Curicta and had to surrender; some of these troops were enrolled in Pompey’s army (see Carter 1993: 145 for reports of this event). 128

the noun phrase

177

(268) (Marius …) Sed milites Iugurthini, paulisper ab rege sustentati, … profugi discedunt. ‘(Marius …) But the soldiers of Jugurtha, animated for a time by their king, …, betook themselves … to flight.’ (Sal. Jug. 56.6) (269) (Pompeius) Praeterea magnum numerum ex Thessalia, Boeotia, Achaia, Epiroque supplementi nomine in legiones distribuerat; his Antonianos milites admiscuerat. ‘In addition, Pompey had distributed amongst the legions, by way of reinforcement, a large number of men from Thessaly, Boeotia, Achaia, and Epirus; with these he had mixed Antony’s soldiers.’ (Caes. Civ. 3.4.2)

Concerning these examples, it is worth pointing out differences between my analysis and that of Devine & Stephens (2006: 430–432). In the section devoted to “Personal name adjectives in Caesar”, they only work with the concept of “contrastive Focus on the adjective”, which could actually be responsible for anteposition of the adjective in (267) but not in (269). Whereas all these adjectives referring to commanders involved in wars have referents given by the context (with the exception of (269)), one adjective derived from a personal proper name, Sertorianus, is used without any previous mention in Cicero’s fifth Verrine. The context is the following: Verres took into his own home pirates from a captured ship; instead of them, he threw some Roman citizens into prison. In order to justify himself, he pretended that they (or some of them, at least) were Sertorius’ soldiers. Sertorianos milites in (270) possibly makes a reference to shared knowledge.130 The same adjective is also anteposed in Ver. 5.146 and 153; the noun phrases containing it function as the Focus without being contrastive. (270) Quorum alios Sertorianos milites fuisse insimulabat et ex Hispania fugientes ad Siciliam adpulsos esse dicebat, alios … ‘(Verres) some of these, he claimed, were Sertorius’ soldiers who on their way from Spain had been driven on shore in Sicily; others …’ (Cic. Ver. 5.72)

The situation is similar for navis. Adjectives derived from proper names used with this entity refer to a people or a region to which the ships belong: Rhodiae, Aegyptiae, and Gallicae; to the city that provided them: Segestana, Centuripina, and Apolloniensis, or to their commander: Nasidianae and

130 Reference is being made to a recent event. Recall that Verres was praetor in Sicily from 73 to 71 and that the speeches Against Verres were written in 70. Sertorius, Marius’ supporter, who had established a true independent kingdom in Spain, resisted the Roman commanders for a long time. He formed an alliance with pirates and was in contact with rebelling slaves in Italy. After his assassination by Perpenna in 72, his soldiers took various directions and also arrived in Sicily.

178

chapter two

Laelianae. All these adjectives, mostly in anteposition (8 A vs. 3 P), make a reference to an entity known from the previous context. The phrase in (271) resumes given information and functions as the Sentence Topic. Anteposition may also be due to an idea of contrast (272). Example (273) illustrates a post-nominal adjective with a specifying value. (271) (Cleomenes in quadriremi Centuripina malum erigi … iussit …) Haec Centuripina navis erat incredibili celeritate velis. ‘(Cleomenes ordered the mast to be erected on a quadrireme from Centuripae …). This ship from Centuripae was astonishingly fast.’ (Cic. Ver. 5.88) (272) Ita prima Haluntinorum navis capitur, cui praeerat Haluntinus … Deinde Apolloniensis navis capitur et eius praefectus Anthropinus occiditur. ‘The first to be taken was the ship from Haluntium, commanded by a Haluntine … The second ship to be taken was the one from Apollonia; its captain Anthropinus was killed.’ (Cic. Ver. 5.90) (273) Itaque tempore commutato tempestas et nostros texit et naves Rhodias adflixit ita ut … ‘So when the conditions changed, the gale not only protected our side, but inflicted such damage on the Rhodian ships that …’ (Caes. Civ. 3.27.2)

7.2. Possessive Genitives With miles, adjectives derived from proper names compete with possessive genitives of personal proper names referring to commanders. However, the two means cannot freely interchange: whereas adjectives express the category to which the referent belongs, possessive genitives have a referent of their own.131 However, the regularity of their placement is the same. Anteposition of adjectives derived from proper names results from the fact that reference is being made to a person known from the previous context or belonging to shared knowledge, or to the idea of a contrast between two (or more) commanders. Noun phrases containing them display pre-nominal genitives (9 A vs. 1 P). They are often contrastive, for example Iugurthae with respect to Hiempsal in (274): Jugurtha asked his Numidian lictor to introduce the soldiers into his house where Hiempsal was staying.

131 See chapter 1, section 3.6.2, p. 77, and Baldi & Nuti (2010: 356). For interchanges between the genitive and personal name adjectives in Sallust, see Kroll (1927: 295) and Bertagna (1999: 74–76), who interprets the adjective as more expressive than the genitive.

the noun phrase

179

(274) Numida mandata brevi conficit atque, uti doctus erat, noctu Iugurthae milites introducit. ‘The Numidian speedily executed this commission and, as he had been instructed, admitted Jugurtha’s men in the night.’ (Sal. Jug. 12.4)

Genitives of proper names are very rare with navis. They refer to the commander or to inhabitants of the city that commanded the construction of the ship. They can stand in either anteposition or postposition (3 A vs. 2 P). Haluntinorum navis, quoted above in (272), has the same pragmatic value as Apolloniensis navis and fulfils the Focus function. The postposed genitive D. Bruti in (275) has a clear specifying value (‘whose ship?’). (275) Conspicataeque naves triremes duae navem D. Bruti quae ex insigni facile agnosci poterat duabus ex partibus sese in eam incitaverant. ‘Two triremes, spotting Decimus Brutus’ ship which was recognisable by its flag, raced from opposite directions towards it.’ (Caes. Civ. 2.6.4)

Possessive genitives in the plural are commonly applied to the noun ager (14 P vs. 3 A). They are formed from nouns referring to people who possess the territory, e.g. Sequanorum, Remorum, Rutulorum, or to the regions: Bithyniae, Siciliae. There are also several genitives of common nouns: sociorum, barbarorum, plebis Romanae ‘of allies, barbarians, Roman people’ as well as one personal proper name (Mithridatis). Although possessive genitives do not have the same function as adjectives derived from proper names, discussed in section 3.2.1 (p. 147)—the first category expresses the possessor but the second represents geographical names—postposition of the modifier is regular in both cases. Postposition in (276) signals that the genitive has a specifying value (‘whose territory?’). (276) Caesari renuntiatur Helvetiis esse in animo per agrum Sequanorum et Haeduorum iter in Santonum fines facere … ‘The news was brought back to Caesar that the Helvetii intended to march through the country of the Sequani and the Aedui into the borders of the Santones …’ (Caes. Gal. 1.10.1)

Only three genitives stand in anteposition. The genitive Assorinorum in (277) has a contextually given referent;132 the other two are explicitly contrastive: Vettonum agrum ‘territory of the Vettones’ in Caes. Civ. 1.38.1 and barbarorum agris ‘the land of the barbarians’ in Cic. Rep. 2.9.

132

Inhabitants of Assorum, a Sicilian city next to Enna.

180

chapter two

(277) Hanc virtutem Agrigentinorum imitati sunt Assorini postea … Chrysas est amnis qui per Assorinorum agros fluit. ‘The people of Assorum … later imitated the courage of the people of Agrigentum … The river Chrysas flows through the territory of Assorum.’ (Cic. Ver. 4.96)

In the case of liber, the genitives formed from a proper name denote a concrete individual, the author of a work, e.g. Platonis, Quinti fratris, Catonis, Xenophontis, except for two instances: Etruscorum and Graecorum. They occur in anteposition in the majority of the cases (30 A vs. 11 P) since authors of a work are often relevant at the pragmatic level. The phrase in (278) conveys new information, with contrastive Focus on the author.133 In (279), an idea of contrast is involved in Publi Muci (Scaevolae) because there was a mention of his brother, Quintus Mucius, in the previous context. Anteposition also concerns genitives referring to contextually given entities, as Xenophontis libri in Cic. Sen. 58, which announces a new Topic, as well as the genitives whose referents belong to shared knowledge. This is the case of Homeri libros, a noun phrase functioning as a referential unit in (280). (278) Num igitur, si cui fundus inspiciendus aut si mandandum aliquid procuratori de agri cultura …, Magonis Carthaginiensis sunt libri perdiscendi? An hac communi intellegentia contenti esse possumus? ‘If, therefore, any one of us has to inspect an estate, or has to give instructions to a manager … need he make a thorough study of the books of Mago the Carthaginian? Or may he be content to rely on our ordinary knowledge?’ (Cic. de Orat. 1.249) (279) ad auctores confugisse et id, quod ipse diceret, et in P. Muci, fratris sui, libris et in Sex. Aeli commentariis scriptum protulisse. ‘He took refuge in authorities, pointing out that his own pronouncement was also to be found in the books of his brother, Publius Mucius, and in the treatises of Sextus Aelius.’ (Cic. de Orat. 1.240) (280) (Pisistratus) Qui primus Homeri libros confusos antea sic disposuisse dicitur, ut nunc habemus. ‘Pisistratus is said to have been the first to arrange the books of Homer, which were previously in a state of confusion, into the order in which we have them today.’ (Cic. de Orat. 3.137)134

133 The Carthaginian Mago, from III-IIth century, wrote a highly evaluated treatise on agriculture in the Punic language. This work, consisting of 28 books, had been imported into Rome and translated into Latin by Decimus Silanus, after the destruction of Carthage in 149. A study of such an extensive work would require much effort and would be, in some sense, quite absurd in the given situation. 134 This is the earliest ancient reference attested concerning the Peisistratean edition of the Homeric epics. For details and interpretation of this passage, see Wisse et al. (2008: 144).

the noun phrase

181

Postposition is used for genitives that specify the noun; the phrase in (281) tells us ‘whose books?’, and functions as the Focus. Likewise in (282), where the author is significant at the pragmatic level: a further development on Antiochus is given afterwards. (281) Hoc nimirum est illud, quod de Socrate accepimus, quodque ab ipso in libris Socraticorum saepe dicitur … ‘Surely this is what we have heard about Socrates and what is often said by him in the works of his disciples …’ (Cic. Div. 1.122) (282) Si, inquit (Cotta), liber Antiochi nostri … vera loquitur, nihil est quod Pisonem familiarem tuum desideres; Antiocho enim … ‘Oh, rejoined Cotta, if what is said in the book of our master Antiochus … is true, you have no need to regret the absence of your friend Piso. Antiochus …’ (Cic. N.D. 1.16)135

However, there are two special instances of the genitives that are interchangeable with adjectives derived from proper names: libri Sibyllini ‘the Sibylline Books’ are found alongside Sibyllae libri, and libri Etrusci occur alongside libri Etruscorum ‘Etruscan books’. Such an alternation is made possible by the nature of the semantic relationship between the proper name and the book: it is indeed attribution rather than authorship of the books.136 Genitives formed from common nouns are less frequent but they are also for the most part anteposed (6 A vs. 2 P). The genitives concerned have generic referents in the plural, such as pontificum, vatum, philosophorum ‘of pontifices, prophets, philosophers’. For example, philosophorum libri in (283), which functions as a contrastive Topic with respect to the real and personal experience of the orator. The genitive iuris consultorum in (284) has a contextually given referent and does not play any pragmatic role. On one occasion, the referent of the genitive is specific, in the singular, patris ‘father’s’, and stands in postposition. (283) Philosophorum autem libros reservet sibi ad huiusce modi Tusculani requiem atque otium, ne … ‘As to the writings of the philosophers, let him reserve those for times of rest and relaxation in this Tusculan villa, so that …’ (Cic. de Orat. 1.224)

135

For problems with identification of the book, see Pease (1955: 166). The Sibylline Books represent a collection of oracular utterances composed in Greek hexameters. They were consulted for the State’s expiatory rites (see the article Sibyllini libri in Brill’s New Pauly for more details). The Etruscan books represent a corpus of Etruscan teachings concerning divination and various rites; they consisted of libri haruspicini, fulgurales et rituales, for which see Cic. Div. 1.72. 136

182

chapter two

(284) Hoc uno posito … innumerabilia nascuntur, quibus implentur iuris consultorum libri. ‘From this one principle … have sprung up countless regulations which fill the books of jurisconsults.’ (Cic. Leg. 2.48)

Conclusions Expressions of possession are found with first-order entities such as miles and navis. Adjectives and genitives formed from proper names referring to individuals, peoples, or cities are contrastive in the majority of the cases and stand in anteposition. Furthermore, reference is mostly made to a commander or another possessor known from the previous context. The situation is different in the case of ager: possessive genitives expressing the owners of a territory usually stand in postposition due to their specifying value. With liber, genitives referring to individuals, the authors of a work, favour anteposition because they are often contrasted. 8. Valency Complements The aim of this section is to examine obligatory expansions, i.e. those required by valency of second- and third-order nouns, especially subjective and objective genitives competing with possessive pronouns, prepositional phrases with cum applied to bellum, and prepositional phrases with de occurring with opinio and quaestio. The latter two nouns also take completive clauses as expansions, which will be discussed at the end of this section. 8.1. Subjective and Objective Genitives Subjective and objective genitives, encoding the agent and the patient, co-occur with verbal nouns or nouns associated with a verb. It is rare to encounter the two genitives, one subjective and one objective, together in one noun phrase as in (285). The objective genitive, coming last, is semantically prominent. (285) non nihil suspicantem propter aliquorum opinionem suae cupiditatis te ab se abalienatum ‘he was inclined to suspect an estrangement on your side due to the notion some people entertained about his own aspiration’ (Cic. Fam. 1.7.3)137

137

Pompey is meant; the letter was addressed to Lentulus.

the noun phrase

183

Subjective and objective genitives do not seem to compete with adjectives formed from proper names. The only instance for the verbal nouns religio, memoria, opinio, and quaestio I found is de Clodiana religione ‘in the matter of Clodius’ sacrilege’ (Cic. Att. 1.14.1). Solely possessive pronouns are in complementary distribution with these genitives. The case of bellum is a special one (see section 8.1.1.4). In my corpus, subjective and objective genitives accompany religio, memoria, opinio, quaestio, and bellum. Table 7 presents the data collected, with a distinction between animate entities and inanimate entities. Table 7: Subjective and objective genitives Order

Noun Gen.

Gen. Noun

animate inanimate

animate inanimate

religio memoria opinio quaestio bellum

15 16 38 5 16

12 47 28 4 0

14 52 30 1 8

16 50 13 15 0

Total

90

91

105

94

This first overview corroborates the findings of an almost equal ratio between pre- and post-nominal genitives. At the same time, it clearly shows that the entities examined do not behave alike. Genitives with religio are both pre- and post-nominal; these with memoria and quaestio prefer anteposition, genitives used with opinio and bellum, postposition. In traditional Latin grammars (e.g. K.&St. I: 421) it is usually stated that subjective genitives occur pre-nominally whereas objective genitives follow the governing noun. This could be the case when they occur together, as in (285), but such instances are infrequent. Devine & Stephens (2006: 314) questioned this statement,138 and my corpus confirms it: it is certainly not the “underlying syntactic function” that determines the placement of these genitives. On the one hand, the pre-nominal placement of subjective genitives should be actually observable in concrete instances, for example, with memoria; as we will see, this turns out not to be the case. On the other

138 However, in the case of memoria, Devine & Stephens (2006: 317) claim anteposition of the subjective genitive as the “neutral position”, and postposition for objective genitives; they do not provide statistics.

184

chapter two

hand, genitives with inanimate referents, which are necessarily objective genitives, should all figure in postposition, but they do not. Before beginning the analysis, it is worth pointing out that genitive complements are above all nouns. Therefore, for the interpretation of their placement, it is necessary to pay special attention to the specific or generic nature of their referents, their animacy, and, to a lesser extent, to their grammatical number. 8.1.1. Animate Referents 8.1.1.1. Religio Genitives with religio are found in both positions. However, genitives of proper names with an animate referent favour postposition (6 occ.). They specify the noun (‘whose religio?’), for example, with the deities venerated: religio Telluris, Iovis Capitolini, Larum ‘the cult of Tellus (the Earth), Jupiter Capitolinus, Lares’ with specific referents, or people who perform a rite: religio Graecorum, Larinatium ‘religious custom of Greeks, inhabitants of Larinum (in Samnium)’ with generic referents. At the same time, the semantic relationship the genitive has with its governing noun, i.e. whether it is an objective (286) or a subjective (287) genitive, does not seem to have an influence on the ordering. Postposition of both types correlates with the specifying value of the complement. (286) si sedem ipsam ac templum publici consili religione Concordiae devinxisset ‘if he bound the place itself and the temple of public counsel by the religious reverence due to the goddess Concord.’ (Cic. Dom. 131) (287) Videtis igitur consuetudinem religionemque Graecorum, quae monumenta hostium in bello ipso soleat defendere … ‘And now you see that the traditional reverence of the Greeks, which commonly protects the memorials of their enemies …’ (Cic. Ver. 2.159)

A recurring genitive is that of deorum immortalium ‘of the immortal gods’ (5 P vs. 3 A) and of deorum without an adjective (1 P vs. 3 A). It is difficult to draw any conclusion in this case, firstly because the complement is sometimes postposed, sometimes anteposed, and secondly because it refers to well-known entities and thus has an accessible referent. However, other nouns in the plural with a generic value are also found in anteposition, e.g. hominum, omnium gentium, iudicum ‘of men, all nations, judges’. When I add to them the collective noun populi Romani ‘of the Roman people’, I am tempted to say that generic referents favour anteposition in the case of religio. From this point of view, deorum immortalium religiones in (288) allows interpretation as a referential unit (‘what?’)—hominum iura also

the noun phrase

185

has a generic referent—, as opposed to religiones deorum immortalium (289), the genitive of which is semantically prominent (‘whose religiones?’). On the other hand, the pre-nominal genitive haruspicum in (290), also generic, refers to an entity known from the context and functions here as a contrastive Topic with respect to augures, who have been dealt with in the previous section. (288) Quibus in rebus non solum hominum iura, sed etiam deorum immortalium religiones omnes repudiavit. ‘By which acts he has not only trampled on the laws of men, but on all the religious reverence due to the immortal gods.’ (Cic. Ver. 2.126) (289) Qui religiones deorum immortalium retinere vult, ei qui fana spoliarit omnia …, inimicus non esse qui potest? ‘The man who wishes to pay due honours to the immortal gods, how can he fail to hate this universal plunderer of sanctuaries?’ (Cic. Ver. 3.6) (290) Iam de haruspicum religione, de expiationibus et procurationibus sat esset plane in ipsa lege dictum puto. ‘Concerning the religious role of the haruspices and about expiations and purifications, I think that the law itself is clear enough.’ (Cic. Leg. 2.34)

Genitives in the singular with a definite reading—and hence with specific referents—occur both in postposition and in anteposition. For example, in (291), the referent of the pre-nominal genitive is specific—it refers to Marcus Lucullus, already mentioned—, and figures in a noun phrase functioning as a referential unit, unlike in (292), where the genitive in postposition has a non-specific referent that is semantically relevant (‘whose?’). In the On Agrarian Law speech, for example, we find hominis ‘of this man’, as expected in anteposition (293) which correlates with reference to a contextually known individual (the proponent of the law, Servilius Rullus) and with prominence given to the head nouns.139 Cicero is going to explain what his diligence consisted of. In the same section, hominis (294) is used postnominally because ad religionem is a contrastive Focus with respect to the diligentia, which has already been discussed. Hominis does not specify the noun in this case; it is a simple reminder. (291) Est ridiculum … cum habeas amplissimi viri religionem, integerrimi municipi ius iurandum fidemque ea, quae depravari nullo modo possunt, repudiare. ‘It is absurd to … reject what that cannot possibly be tampered with, when you have the conscientious evidence of a highly distinguished man and the oath and good faith of a most respectable town.’ (Cic. Arch. 8) 139 Anteposition does not necessarily result from the coordination of religionem and diligentia. Cf. hominis diligentiam ‘the carefulness of the man’ in Cic. Agr. 2.23.

186

chapter two

(292) Si quis quod spopondit … id non facit, maturo iudicio sine ulla religione iudicis condemnatur. ‘He who does not perform what he promised to do, is promptly condemned without any scruple of the judge.’ (Cic. Caec. 7) (293) Sed videte hominis religionem et diligentiam! ‘But note the scrupulousness and the diligence of the man!’ (Cic. Agr. 2.28) (294) Verum hoc … relinquamus; ad religionem hominis revertamur. Videt … ‘But let us leave this …; let us return to the man’s punctiliousness. He sees …’ (Cic. Agr. 2.28)

8.1.1.2. Memoria I will turn now to the genitives used with memoria. First of all, it should be pointed out that participants in the process of remembering—the one who remembers as well as the object of remembering—are commonly encoded in the genitive. Memoria could theoretically be expanded by one subjective genitive and one objective genitive, but I have no examples of such instances. When memoria combines with an objective genitive, the agent of the process of remembering is either retrievable from the context, for example the judges in (297), or is generic (‘people’). Noun phrases containing memoria may have a simple genitive (Caesaris memoria ‘Caesar’s memory’) or a genitive with a modifier (virorum fortium memoria ‘the memory of brave men’). I will treat them separately and start with simple genitives which have an animate referent. It is apparent from Table 7 presented above that genitives with animate referents favour anteposition (52 A vs. 16 P). However, when we disregard the recurring phrase hominum memoria ‘human memory’, the difference between postposition and anteposition is less striking (27 A vs. 16 P). Examples (295) and (296) illustrate both orderings; they have both specific and identifiable referents, and they are both objective genitives. The difference between them consists, in my view, in the value attributed to the complement: in the first case, the genitive Caesaris is not semantically prominent (‘what do you respect?’) but in the second case, the complement specifies the referent (‘recollection of who?’).140 However, this is not the only interpretative pattern; for example in (297), memoria itself is pragmatically prominent and contrasts with ipsum. (295) Et tu in Caesaris memoria diligens, tu illum amas mortuum? ‘And are you looking after Caesar’s memory, do you love him in his grave?’ (Cic. Phil. 2.110)

140

Cf. also memoria patris in Cic. Ver. 1.151 and propter patris memoriam in Cic. Brut. 127.

the noun phrase

187

(296) Neque egere mihi commendatione videbatur, qui et in bello tecum fuisset et propter memoriam Crassi de tuis unus esset. ‘A man who had seen military service at your side and whom Crassus’ memory made one of your circle did not seem to me to need recommendation.’ (Cic. Fam. 13.16.3) (297) Vos, iudices, quo tandem eritis animo? Memoriam Milonis retinebitis, ipsum eicietis? ‘As for you, gentlemen, what will your attitude be? Will you cherish Milo’s memory but expel his person?’ (Cic. Mil. 101)

At the same time, singular and plural number do not favour one position either. The case of hominum memoria ‘in human memory’ (25 occ.) is illuminating, especially compared to the plural genitives with opinio that will be discussed in next section. This phrase containing a subjective genitive hominum with a generic referent functions as a temporal expression and forms a referential unit par excellence (298). Anteposition of hominum mainly results from the fact that the genitive is not semantically prominent, not (only) that it has a generic nature. However, whereas hominum memoria consistently presents anteposition of the genitive,141 patrum memoria (3 occ.), also with a generic referent, is found alongside memoria patrum (3 occ.). With the complement anteposed, patrum memoria functions—and this should be stressed—as a temporal expression with the meaning of ‘in the time of one’s fathers’, i.e. ‘in the past, a generation before’ (‘when?’) (299). On the other hand, the genitive in postposition is semantically prominent (‘whose memory?’) (300). (298) quod nemo umquam post hominum memoriam fecit ‘a thing which no one in the memory of men ever did before’ (Cic. Ver. 3.44)142 (299) (Parisii) Confines erant hi Senonibus civitatemque patrum memoria coniunxerant, sed ab hoc consilio afuisse existimabantur. ‘(The Parisii) These were next neighbours to the Senones, and in the previous generation had formed one state with them; but it was believed that they had held aloof from the present design.’ (Caes. Gal. 6.3.5) (300) atque hoc memoria patrum teste dicimus ‘and I base this on the evidence of our fathers’ (Cic. Brut. 104)

141 Hominum memoria might be an idiomatic expression. When memoria takes an adjective, the genitive hominum is also in anteposition, with one exception when it is inserted between the noun and its modifier, memoria hominum sempiterna ‘the eternal recollection of mankind’ (Cic. Rab. Post. 42). 142 This example concerns an infamous action of Verres: when he was still in Rome, before setting forth for his province, he sent a letter to Sicilian cities in which he exhorted them to plough and sow their lands—his intention was to collect the benefits upon his arrival.

188

chapter two

In complex noun phrases where the genitive is itself modified, both anteposition and postposition are found (6 P vs. 11 A, including 4 occ. of patrum nostrum memoria). Their referents are specific or non-specific, in the singular as well as in the plural. Example (301) shows an objective genitive with a non-specific referent in postposition. Genitives containing a demonstrative pronoun (302), referring to a well-known person, Verres, occur three times in anteposition.143 (301) En cui tuos liberos committas, en memoriam mortui sodalis, en metum vivorum existimationis! ‘Here is the man to whom to entrust your children, here is loyalty to the memory of a dead friend, and respect for the opinion of the living!’ (Cic. Ver. 1.93) (302) Dum istius hominis memoria maneret, senatus Syracusanus sine lacrimis et gemitu in curia esse non posset. ‘So long as their memory of the man lasted, the senators of Syracuse might be unable to sit in their senate-house without tears and groans.’ (Cic. Ver. 2.50)

It is also worth mentioning examples of coordination that especially concern the phrase patrum memoria. The genitive is coordinated with nostra ‘our’, vestra ‘your’ or maiorum ‘of ancestors’; either the whole sequence precedes the noun, or memoria stands in the middle, as is shown in (303). (303) Hinc Voconiae, hinc Atiniae leges; hinc multae sellae curules et patrum memoria et nostra. ‘From there came the Voconian and the Atinian laws; many curule chairs both in our fathers’ time and in our own.’ (Cic. Phil. 3.16)

8.1.1.3. Opinio The complements of the bivalent verbal noun opinio encode the person who believes as a subjective genitive, and the object of a belief as an objective genitive or a prepositional phrase with de. Genitives with animate referents are formed from common nouns in the plural: hominum, nationum, (omnium) civium, censorum ‘of men, nations, (all) citizens, censors’; among them, there are several substantival adjectives: maiorum ‘ancestors’, imperitorum ‘ignorant people’ and two proper names, Epicureorum ‘Epicureans’ and Siculorum ‘Sicilians’. In the singular, genitives of collective nouns are represented by: vulgi ‘common people’, populi (Romani) ‘(Roman) people’, and multitudinis ‘crowd’. There are also several nouns in the singular: auditoris, censoris and C. Vellei ‘of hearer, censor, 143 Furthermore, two others contain illius (referring to shared knowledge) and are, one in anteposition, the other in postposition.

the noun phrase

189

Gaius Velleius’, with specific referents. Genitives with animate referents can also be expressed by a pronoun such as aliquorum, nostrorum ‘of some, our’, or by singulorum ‘of every single individual’. All these are subjective genitives; there are only two objective genitives, deorum ‘of gods’ and the substantival participle pugnantium ‘of fighting soldiers’. In the case of opinio, there are recurring genitives with generic referents such as hominum and omnium that prefer postposition (hominum: 14 P vs. 7 A; omnium: 9 P vs. 4 A); hominum with memoria was predominantly anteposed (25 A).144 The following explanation is obvious: the person who remembers seems to be less prominent than the person who has an opinion. Postposition of the genitives applied to opinio can therefore be attributed to the specifying value of the complement (‘whose?’), for example (304), in comparison with (305), where the underlying question ‘against what?’ applies. The same holds true for other post-nominal subjective genitives with generic referents, for example in opinione Siculorum ‘in the opinion of the Sicilians’ (Cic. Ver. 4.114), known from the previous context but semantically prominent. By contrast, censorum opinioni (306) forms a referential unit—notice the parallel established between this constituent and suae religioni. Anteposition in this case could also result from the contrast between these two elements. Deorum in (307) is an objective genitive forming a referential unit with its noun. Furthermore, it has a contextually given referent, for gods are the central topic of this treatise of Cicero’s. (304) (Delos) Qua ex opinione hominum illa insula eorum deorum sacra putatur. ‘(Delos) From which belief of men that island is considered sacred to those gods.’ (Cic. Ver. 1.48) (305) Celeriter contraque omnium opinionem confecto itinere multos in agris inopinantes deprehendit. ‘He accomplished the march speedily, contrary to the general expectation, and caught many persons in the fields off their guard.’ (Caes. Gal. 6.30.1) (306) in compluribus iam reis quos …, suae potius religioni quam censorum opinioni paruerunt. ‘in the case of many defendants, whom …, they (senators) were guided by their own conscience rather than by the opinion of the censors.’ (Cic. Clu. 121) (307) Empedocles autem multa alia peccans in deorum opinione turpissume labitur. Quattuor enim naturas … divinas esse vult. ‘Empedocles, who erred in many things, is most grossly mistaken in his notion of the Gods. He lays down four natures as divine …’ (Cic. N.D. 1.29)

144 According to data collected by Devine & Stephens (2006: 320–331), spes and odium also present post-nominal genitives. In contrast, there is variation for metus.

190

chapter two

Genitives with quaestio expressing who or what is concerned by an investigation, both judiciary and intellectual, are infrequent but mainly appear in postposition, as is shown in (308), with an objective genitive. (308) Quaestiones nobis servorum accusator ac tormenta minitatur. ‘Our prosecutor threatens us with the examinations and torture of our slaves.’ (Cic. Sul. 78)

8.1.1.4. Bellum Genitives collected with bellum are formed from common nouns, e.g. praedonum, fugitivorum, sociorum ‘of brigands, fugitives, allies, slaves’—the last two compete with the adjectives sociale and servile—and from proper names denoting peoples, e.g. Allobrogum, Venetorum, Latinorum (competing with the adjectives Veneticum and Latinum), or persons, especially commanders against whom a war is waged: Ariovisti, Viriathi, Pyrrhi and Caesaris. In the case of personal proper names, the choice of the genitive is due to the absence of an available adjective.145 Genitives of personal proper names all stand in anteposition; their referents are specific, partly known from the previous context, e.g. Ariovisti bello in Caes. Gal. 5.55.2 and Caesaris bello in Cic. Marc. 15, and partly unknown. The latter case is illustrated in (309). It is a new piece of evidence that Cicero is introducing for his demonstration; the phrase Pyrrhi bello functions as a temporal setting without involving any specifying or contrastive value (‘when?’). It announces a new Topic because the story related afterwards is about Pyrrhus.146 (309) Quamquam id quidem cum saepe alias, tum Pyrrhi bello a C. Fabricio, consule iterum, et a senatu nostro iudicatum est. Cum enim rex Pyrrhus … ‘Such a judgement has indeed often been made; and in particular by Gaius Fabricius, a consul for the second time, and our senate, in the war against Pyrrhus. When king Pyrrhus …’ (Cic. Off. 3.86)

145 See already Marouzeau (19492: 218) concerning Pyrrhus, king of Epirus. For the use of the adjective Caesarianus, see ThLL, s. v. Caesar, 38.80 and 39.58; it appears twice in Cicero (Att. 6.8.2 and Att. 16.10.1 with a textual variant Caesarinus). It becomes more frequent in the Post-Classical period. Cf. also the coordination in Quint. Inst. 3.8.9: C. Sallustius in bello Iugurthino et Catilinae ‘Sallust in his Jugurthine War and his Catiline’s War’, and see ThLL, s. v. Catilina, 261.30 f. for the adjectives Catilinianus and Catilinarius. 146 Cf. also Pyrrhi bello (Cic. N.D. 2.165) ‘in the war with Pyrrhus’ and Viriathi bello (Brut. 84) ‘in the war against Viriathus’. The ordering is the same as with proper name adjectives, for which see section 3.2.2, p. 150.

the noun phrase

191

On the other hand, genitives of proper names denoting the people against whom a war is being waged are all found in postposition. They have specific referents known from the preceding context, but postposition correlates with semantic prominence of the genitives. For example, the phrase bellum Venetorum in (310) tells us ‘which war?’, as is suggested by the coordination with the genitive totius orae maritimae; additionally, it functions as the Focus. Another example of the same type is that in (311). (310) Quo proelio bellum Venetorum totiusque orae maritimae confectum est. ‘By this battle the war with the Veneti and the whole of the sea coast was finished.’ (Caes. Gal. 3.16.1) (311) Modo … C. Pomptinus, fortissimus vir, ortum repente bellum Allobrogum … proeliis fregit … ‘Recently … Gaius Pomptinus, that gallant man, broke up by his battles a war that was begun suddenly by the Allobroges …’ (Cic. Prov. 32)

Genitives of common nouns favour postposition (10 P vs. 4 A), in which case they further specify the nouns, although their referents are chiefly contextually given. They mainly occur in the fifth Verrine speech where Cicero refutes Verres’ affirmation that he has saved Sicily from the dangers of a revolt of slaves. He responds that no such war recently occurred in Sicily, since the last conflicts took place a long time ago. Compare example (312), concerning a specific war, with that in (313), where a war of the runaway slaves in general is meant. (312) Quid dicis? An bello fugitivorum Siciliam virtute tua liberatam? ‘What do you say? That Sicily was saved from the war with the fugitive slaves by your valour?’ (Cic. Ver. 5.5) (313) Nos enim post illud bellum quod M’. Aquilius confecit, sic accepimus, nullum in Sicilia fugitivorum bellum fuisse. At in Italia fuit. ‘For we have understood that since the war which Manius Aquilius finished, there has been no slave war in Sicily.’ (Cic. Ver. 5.5)

When dealing with genitives, it is worth quoting an example with a double complement: the first one refers to a land, Italiae, where the war took place, the second one, fugitivorum, expresses the adversary. (314) cum servitiorum animos in Sicilia suspensos propter bellum Italiae fugitivorum videret … ‘when he saw that the slaves in Sicily were restless because of the slave war in Italy …’ (Cic. Ver. 5.14)

192

chapter two

8.1.2. Inanimate Referents Genitives with inanimate referents represent objective genitives;147 the agent of the process involved is generic or is inferrable from the context. They seem to behave in the same way as genitives of animate nouns. With religio, there is variation of the placement for specific referents, as in (315) and (316). The first complement specifies the noun and the noun phrase as a whole functions as the Focus. The second one makes up a referential unit with the noun. With the sentence in (315), Cicero sets a new topic of his demonstration: the alleged sanctity of his house. The noun phrase in (316) refers to an entity known from the context and the genitive is not semantically prominent. Good examples for illustrating this point are also those with fani (317), with a specific referent, used with or without the anaphoric pronoun eius. It figures four times in anteposition because the referent is contextually given.148 (315) Sed primum expiabo religionem aedium mearum, si id facere vere … potero. ‘But first I will extricate my house of its alleged sanctity, if I am able to do so truly …’ (Cic. Har. 11) (316) Decrevistis ut de mearum aedium religione ad pontificum collegium referretur. ‘You decreed that the question of the sanctity of my house should be referred to the Pontifical College.’ (Cic. Har. 12) (317) Postridie cum fanum spoliatum viderent ii qui Delum incolebant, graviter ferebant; est enim tanta apud eos eius fani religio ut … ‘Next day, when the inhabitants of Delos saw their sanctuary plundered, they were much distressed; for that sanctuary is so much venerated by them that …’ (Cic. Ver. 1.46)

As for memoria, the genitives with inanimate referents go both in anteposition and in postposition (50 A vs. 47 P) unlike those with animate referents, which favour anteposition. I will look first at genitives without a modifier. Genitives with generic referents are found in postposition, e.g.: memoria vetustatis, amicitiae, aeternitatis ‘the memory of past time, friendship, eternity’, as well as specific referents: memoria consulatus, beneficii, facto-

147 Instances such as ex annalium memoria ‘(taken) from the annals’ (Cic. Q. fr. 1.1.7) are special cases; the annals do not represent an objective genitive but they convey memory. 148 Cf. the data examined by Gettert (1999: 175–177). Among 189 noun phrases containing a pre-nominal genitive collected in Cicero’s works, an anaphoric pronoun is present in 27% of the cases and comes first in the noun phrase.

the noun phrase

193

rum ‘memory of the consulship, the service, the deeds’ (318). Complements with specific referents stand in anteposition: honoris, belli, officiorum memoriam ‘memory of honour, the war, duties’, as well as non-specific or generic referents: immortalitatis (319) or libertatis ‘of liberty’. The placement of the genitives seems not to be linked with specificity but rather with the specifying value of the genitive or, conversely, its absence. Additionally, pragmatic features such as contrast and emphasis can produce anteposition. (318) Sustulisti ius imperii, condicionem sociorum, memoriam foederis. ‘You have destroyed the rights of our empire, the obligations of our allies, and the memory of our treaty.’ (Cic. Ver. 5.50) (319) Quae vero tam immemor posteritas, quae tam ingratae litterae reperientur, quae eorum gloriam non immortalitatis memoria prosequantur? ‘What future generation indeed shall be found so unmindful, what literature so ungrateful, as not to enshrine their glory in an immortal record?’ (Cic. Phil. 2.33)

The same holds true for noun phrases with genitives containing an expansion. In such cases, the referents are for the most part specific, for example, memoria perfuncti periculi ‘the memory of passed dangers’, veteris doloris ‘of ancient pain’ with the complements in postposition, as opposed to regalis nominis memoria ‘memory of the royal name’, praeteriti doloris ‘of past pain’, maximi beneficii ‘of great service’, with the complements in anteposition. Among generic referents, there are memoria saeculorum omnium ‘memory of all ages’, rerum innumerabilium ‘of countless facts’, as opposed to omnium saeculorum memoria and rerum omnium ‘memory of all things’. Specificity of the referent can be signalled by possessive pronouns (320) and (321); such complements favour postposition (14 P vs. 6 A). Noun phrases containing an anaphoric pronoun (three instances in total) stand in anteposition (322), as well as two complements with illius. This placement results from the contextual giveness of the referent. (320) Erat eodem tempore senatus in aede Concordiae, quod ipsum templum repraesentabat memoriam consulatus mei … ‘At the same time the senate had assembled in the Temple of Concord, the very temple that recalled the memory of my consulship …’ (Cic. Sest. 26) (321) (Caesar) Milites non longiore oratione est cohortatus, quam uti suae pristinae virtutis memoriam retinerent neu perturbarentur animo … ‘(Caesar) Having encouraged the soldiers with no further speech than that they should bear in mind their ancient valour and be free from alarm …’ (Caes. Gal. 2.21.2) (322) Qua ex re fieri, uti earum rerum memoria magnam sibi auctoritatem magnosque spiritus in re militari sumerent.

194

chapter two ‘And for this cause they relied on the remembrance of those events to assume great authority and great airs in military matters.’ (Caes. Gal. 2.4.3)

Although the ratio between anteposition and postposition is practically the same, the following examples serve as an illustration of the difference between semantic prominence given to the genitive and its absence. Whereas the phrase in (323) forms a referential unit (‘what?’), the phrase in (324) contains a genitive that is itself important (‘recollection of what?’). In the first case, the interpretation of rerum gestarum memoria as a referential unit is justified by the fact that it forms part of a multiple subject, together with exercitus and arma. (323) nec rerum gestarum memoria in reditu C. Mari, sed exercitus atque arma valuerunt ‘nor was it the recollection of his mighty deeds that prevailed to procure the return of Gaius Marius, but rather arms and the army’ (Cic. Red. Pop. 10) (324) Ceterum ex aliis negotiis, quae ingenio exercentur, in primis magno usui est memoria rerum gestarum. ‘Among other employments which are pursued by the intellect, the recording of past events is of pre-eminent utility.’ (Sal. Jug. 4.1)

Additionally, memoria with its complement can also appear in special pragmatic constellations, for example in (325), where a contrast is established between Salamini tropaei memoriam as a unit and ipsam (Salaminam). (325) Ante enim Salamina ipsam Neptunus obruet quam Salaminii tropaei memoriam. ‘For Neptune will overwhelm the island of Salamis sooner than the memory of the trophy of the victory at Salamis.’ (Cic. Tusc. 1.110)

As for opinio, genitives with inanimate referents are formed from abstract second-order nouns in the majority of the cases, e.g. mortis, erroris, honestatis, pecuniae ‘of death, error, honesty, money’. Several genitives are in the plural: bonorum ‘of good things’ and comitiorum ‘of comitia’. They clearly favour postposition. I would interpret this point as the result of their specifying value, although in (326) the idea of fear is contextually given information. In contrast, the genitive timoris (327) stands in anteposition. This case is illuminating: from the preceding context, we know that Labienus was not frightened at all; the enemy thought that he was. From this point of view, the noun opinionem is more semantically prominent than timoris. (326) Hac confirmata opinione timoris idoneum quendam hominem et callidum delegit Gallum ex iis, quos auxilii causa secum habebat. ‘When this impression of timidity had been confirmed, he chose a certain suitable and crafty Gaul, one of those who he had with him as auxiliaries.’ (Caes. Gal. 3.18.1)

the noun phrase

195

(327) Labienus suos intra munitiones continebat timorisque opinionem, quibuscumque poterat rebus, augebat. ‘Labienus kept his troops within the entrenchment, and sought by all means in his power to enhance the impression that he was afraid.’ (Caes. Gal. 5.57.4)

Postposed genitives often have one or more modifiers (13 occ.), for example in (328). Opinio mortis Sesti represents contextually given information—in the previous section, Cicero said that the Clodia family attempted the assassination of Sestius and believed for a while that he was actually dead—but the complement itself specifies the noun (‘opinion of what?’). A lot of such instances are taken from the third book of Cicero’s Tusculan Disputations (24–28) where he discusses opinions people have of good and evil. All of them have a specifying function, regardless of the complexity of the genitive (11 instances in total), e.g. ex opinione boni ‘the idea of good’, opinio magni mali praesentis ‘idea of a serious present evil’. On the other hand, contrastive genitives can appear in anteposition, for example divinationis in (329), with respect to ius augurum.149 (328) Si paulo longior opinio mortis Sesti fuisset, Gracchum150 illum suum transferendi in nos criminis causa occidere cogitarint. ‘If their belief in the death of Sestius had lasted a little longer, they would have been ready to think of putting that Gracchus of theirs to death and shifting the charge upon us.’ (Cic. Sest. 82) (329) existimoque ius augurum, etsi divinationis opinione principio constitutum sit, tamen postea rei publicae causa conservatum ac retentum. ‘I think that, although the augural law was first established from a belief in divination, yet later it was maintained and preserved for the sake of the State.’ (Cic. Div. 2.75)

With quaestio, genitives formed from inanimate nouns mostly have generic referents, for example testamentorum, officii, omnium peccatorum ‘of testaments, duty, all offences’. Example (330) illustrates a genitive in postposition. However, they stand in anteposition in the majority of the cases, due to pragmatic reasons. For example, coniurationis in (331) is emphatic; cognitionis in (332) functions as a contrastive Topic with respect to actionis ‘practical questions’ dealt with in the previous section. Example (333) nicely shows that not the genitive but the head noun is semantically relevant in an enumeration of several entities.

149 In this passage, ius augurum is sometimes corrected into ius augurium; cf. Div. 2.70 and Pease (1963: 472). 150 The manuscript reading is Gracchum; in Sest. 72 Skutsch conjectures Brocchum.

196

chapter two

(330) (optimum virum) tum verberibus ac tormentis quaestionem habuit pecuniae publicae, idque per biduum. ‘(that noblest of men) he then under the lash and the rack held an inquest as to public moneys, and that for two days.’ (Cic. Phil. 11.5) (331) Non debes tu quemquam in coniurationis quaestione defendere. ‘But you ought not to defend anyone who is being tried for conspiracy.’ (Cic. Sul. 48) (332) Cognitionis quaestiones tripertitae sunt; aut sitne aut quid sit aut quale sit quaeritur. ‘Theoretical questions fall into three groups; the question asked is either, does it exist? or what is it? or what is its character?’ (Cic. Top. 82) (333) Quid ego rerum capitalium quaestiones, reorum pactiones … proferam? ‘Why need I bring forward the trials on capital charges, the deals made with defendants …?’ (Cic. Pis. 87)

8.2. Possessive Pronouns With verbal nouns, possessive pronouns do not express possession but are arguments,151 and hence compete with genitives. They encode the agent of a process, with reference to the speaker (meus, noster) or to the addressee (tuus, vester). With them, expressions concerning the third person can also be included: the genitives eorum and eius, which are in complementary distribution with suus.152 Possessives referring to the speaker or to the addressee are used with opinio and religio. They often signal an explicit contrast between two persons, for example between Cicero and the tutor of his children, Dionysius (334). The pronoun might remain unexpressed, in which case the agent of opinio would be deducible from the context (note the phrase ad me). Furthermore, possessive pronouns allow coordination with genitives (335). As for the third person, the reflexive pronoun suus is also often contrastive (335), unlike eorum and eius, which are not used in such contexts. In anteposition, these have an anaphoric function, e.g. eius opinionis in Caes. Gal. 5.54.5; in postposition, they function as cataphoric for announcing a relative clause as ad opiniones eorum qui in Cic. Part. 90.153

151

See Pinkster (fc., chapter 11), and Gross (1993). See Spevak (2010a: 253) and Baldi & Nuti (2010: 324). 153 Furthermore, they can express the patient: opinionem eius ‘opinion about him (a divinity)’ (Cic. N.D. 1.29). 152

the noun phrase

197

(334) Dionysius cum ad me praeter opinionem meam venisset, locutus sum cum eo liberalissime. ‘Dionysius having come to me, contrary to my expectation, I spoke to him in the most liberal way.’ (Cic. Att. 8.10) (335) Simul denuntiavit … ne suam neu reliquorum opinionem fallerent ‘At the same time, he urged upon them that … they should not disappoint either his expectation or that of the rest’ (Caes. Civ. 3.86.5)

There are only a few possessive pronouns with quaestio; for example, oratio propria vestrae quaestionis ‘a speech which belongs to your trial’ (Cic. Mil. 7). The case of memoria is more complex because the function of possessive pronouns varies depending on the semantic value of memoria. Possessives used with memoria as a verbal noun in (336) are arguments expressing the agent, in particular in complex phrases which also contain an objective genitive (nostrae necessitudinis). (336) Significabas enim memoriam tuam nostrae necessitudinis. ‘For you implied thereby that you had not forgotten our close association.’ (Cic. Fam. 13.68.1)

Furthermore, there are combinations of genitives with possessive pronouns, for example, tua sui memoria ‘your remembrance of him’ (Cic. Att. 13.1.3); both are arguments because each expresses both the agent and the patient of remembering. Used with memoria in a temporal sense, ‘period covered by memory’ (337), the possessive pronoun, at least originally, refers to the agent, the person who remembers. It is in complementary distribution with subjective genitives containing a generic referent (cf. p. 187, (298)–(300)). Such expressions seem to be idiomatic in the sense that the idea of agent is, in great measure, no longer perceptible. This point is confirmed by the fact that possessive pronouns may compete with deictic pronouns, for example: huius memoriae ‘of the present age (of living memory)’ (Cic. Off. 3.5), referring to the moment of speech. (337) Nostra memoria senatores ne in suis quidem periculis mutare vestem solebant. ‘Within my recollection it was never customary with senators to change their garments even in their own perils.’ (Cic. Red. Sen. 31)

When memoria refers to the human faculty of remembering, the possessive pronoun expresses possession.154

154

For example, O miram memoriam, Pomponi, tuam! ‘What an amazing memory you have,

198

chapter two 8.3. Prepositional Phrases with cum

In the case of bellum, genitives compete with prepositional phrases with cum and contra, expressing who a war is waged with or against: the adversary. They represent obligatory complements because the semantic value of bellum implies an idea of interactivity.155 The question of prepositional phrases expanding bellum is closely related to that of constructions with support verbs, containing a verb with a weak semantic value such as gero ‘to bear’ and a verbal noun or a noun related to a verb, in our case, bellum (338).156 This form of complementation undoubtedly results from the association of the noun bellum with the verb pugno ‘to fight’ (339); it could not go back to gero, which does not take such complements (*gero cum). (338) Rhodii qui prope soli bellum illud superius cum Mithridate rege gesserint ‘The Rhodians who were almost the only ones who waged the previous war against Mithridates’ (Cic. Ver. 2.159) (339) cum hostibus erat pugnandum ‘(the troops) had to fight the enemy’ (Caes. Gal. 4.24.2)

Whereas the prepositional phrase in (338) expands a support verb construction, it is solely an expansion of the noun in (340); the verb administro ‘to assist’ is not a support verb. Additionally, prepositional phrases complements of bellum compete to some extent with adjectives such as Iugurthinum or Cimbricum. Prepositional phrases are also used when any corresponding adjective is not available at all, e.g. bellum cum re publica ‘war against the Republic’ in Cic. Phil. 5.32. (340) ut idem (Marius) cum Iugurtha, idem cum Cimbris, idem cum Teutonis bellum administraret ‘so that the same man (Marius) commanded the war against Jugurtha, against the Cimbri, and against the Teutoni’ (Cic. Man. 60)

Prepositional phrases with bellum occur more frequently in postposition than in anteposition (cum 12 P vs. 6 A, contra 6 P vs. 3 A). This is due to the semantic prominence of the prepositional phrase, as in (341). Anteposition

Atticus!’ (Cic. Leg. 2.45). In the third person, possessive pronouns are interchangeable with possessive genitives, cf. Cic. Fam. 13.29.6: novi hominis memoriam ‘I know what a memory he has’. 155 On obligatory complements of verbs such as certo, see Pinkster (fc., chapter 4). 156 For more details on support verb constructions, see chapter 3, section 3.2.3, p. 250.

the noun phrase

199

of the complement results from pragmatic prominence: cum sorore Cleopatra, expanding a support verb construction, is the Focus in (342). It is also used for enumerations such as in (340). (341) Bellum inexpiabile infert quattuor consulibus unus …; gerit idem bellum cum senatu populoque Romano. ‘One man (Antony) … is waging an irreconcilable war against four consuls. He is at the same time carrying on war against the senate and Roman people.’ (Cic. Phil. 14.8) (342) Ibi casu rex erat Ptolomaeus … magnis copiis cum sorore Cleopatra bellum gerens quam paucis ante mensibus … regno expulerat. ‘Here, by accident, was Ptolemy … warring with a great army against his sister Cleopatra; who, some months before, … he had expelled from the kingdom.’ (Caes. Civ. 3.103.2)

8.4. Prepositional Phrases with de Prepositional phrases with de expressing what an opinion is about represent obligatory complements of opinio; the verb opinor takes the same construction. They compete with objective genitives and may co-occur with subjective genitives in the same phrase (343). (343) Quae est opinio hominum de M. Antonio falsa. ‘What people believe about Marcus Antonius is incorrect.’ (Cic. Ver. 1.60)

Prepositional phrases with de precede their head noun opinio in the majority of the cases (11 A vs. 6 P). Anteposition of some complements (5 occ.) is due to the contextual status of the referent: the phrases such as de me, de vobis ‘about me, you’ refer to the entities given by the context. Furthermore, prepositional phrases containing a personal pronoun often contrast with another person, for example de vobis as opposed to de se in (344). Likewise, the presence of anaphoric pronouns (his, cuius) sometimes produces anteposition of the complement. On the other hand, complements containing a demonstrative pronoun may occur in postposition when they are semantically prominent (345). There are also three instances of noun phrases framed by a modifier and the noun (346). (344) An iste umquam de se bonam spem habuisset, nisi de vobis malam opinionem animo inbibisset? ‘Would that man ever have cherished fair hopes for himself, if he had not conceived in his mind a bad opinion of you?’ (Cic. Ver. 42) (345) Explicabo tibi, quae fuerint opiniones in Sardinia de istius mulieris morte— nam fuerunt duae … ‘I will tell you what were the opinions in Sardinia about that woman’s death— for there were two opinions.’ (Cic. Scaur. 7)

200

chapter two

(346) I qui dixerunt totam de dis immortalibus opinionem fictam esse ab hominibus sapientibus rei publicae causa …, nonne omnem religionem funditus sustulerunt? ‘Those who have asserted that the entire notion of the immortal gods is a fiction invented by wise men in the interest of the State … did not they entirely destroy the whole religion?’ (Cic. N.D. 1.118)

Prepositional phrases as obligatory complements of quaestio express what is concerned by an investigation. These occur mainly with de, in is found only twice. The ratio between anteposition and postposition is equal (19 P vs. 19 A), which renders interpretation of the instances difficult. The referents of the nouns involved are inanimate and specific in the majority of the cases; there are only three animate nouns in postposition and one in anteposition. The post-nominal complement in (347) specifies the noun; additionally, it governs the genitive Oppianici. Example (348), coming from the same speech by Cicero, is different. It exhibits a frame formed by the emphatic adjective infinitae coordinated with crudelissimae, and the head noun; the phrase as a whole is referred to by the relative pronoun quibus. The death of Oppianicus represents information known from the context (cf. Clu. 176) and is not semantically prominent here. The pre-nominal complement in anteposition (349) seems to carry emphasis; Cicero’s argument is that many a time he escaped from Clodius’ attacks. (347) An hoc dicitis armario expilato, pecunia ablata non omni reciperata, occisis hominibus institutam esse quaestionem de morte Oppianici? ‘Do you assert that after the robbery of the safe, the removal, and only a partial recovery of the money and the murder of the slaves, the inquiry was held to investigate the death of Oppianicus?’ (Cic. Clu. 181) (348) Hinc illae infinitae crudelissimaeque de morte Oppianici quaestiones, quibus finem … ‘Hence those repeated and cruel investigations into the death of Oppianicus; to which …’ (Cic. Clu. 191) (349) Ex quibus si me non vel mea vel rei publicae fortuna servasset, quis tandem de interitu meo quaestionem tulisset? ‘And had my own good fortune and that of the State not preserved me from them, who would have set up an inquiry into my death?’ (Cic. Mil. 20)

It is also worth quoting an example of quaestio containing two complements: an objective genitive (mortis paternae) and a prepositional phrase (de servis paternis) (350); these two means are usually in competition. Quaestio is used here in a support verb construction. (350) Mortis paternae de servis paternis quaestionem habere filio non licet!

the noun phrase

201

‘The son is not allowed to put his father’s slaves to the question concerning his father’s death.’ (Cic. S. Rosc. 78)

8.5. Completive Clauses The verbal nouns opinio and quaestio allow completive clauses as expansions. Opinio takes the accusative and infinitive construction or a clause introduced by ut or quod. This type of expansion is relatively frequent (26 occ.), especially the accusative and infinitive construction (21 occ.). In all the instances collected, the completive clause follows its head noun because the content is more informative than opinio itself.157 Opinio co-occurs with adjectives expressing the importance of an opinion (magna, gravis ‘important’) or its age (vetus ‘old’). The unexpressed agent of the process in (351) is inferrable as generic; Cicero starts his treatise On Divination with this sentence. In (352), the completive clause is announced by a cataphoric pronoun; the agent of opinio is deducible from the subject of the verb discessi. In (353), the agent is encoded in the subjective genitive. (351) Vetus opinio est iam usque ab heroicis ducta temporibus … versari quandam inter homines divinationem, quam Graeci μαντικήν appellant … ‘There is an ancient belief, which goes right back to heroic times … that there is a practiced among mortals a kind of divination, which the Greeks call mantike.’ (Cic. Div. 1.1) (352) Hac opinione discessi ut mihi tua salus dubia non esset. ‘When I took my leave, it was with the persuasion that there was no doubt about your reinstatement.’ (Cic. Fam. 6.14.2) (353) Anaximandri autem opinio est nativos esse deos longis intervallis orientes occidentesque … ‘The view of Anaximander is that the gods are not everlasting but are born and perish at long intervals of time …’ (Cic. N.D. 1.25)

Furthermore, opinio can form constructions with support verbs, in particular with the verb habeo: opinionem habeo (de) ‘to have a belief concerning somebody or something’ as in (354), where the completive clause specifies the content of eandem opinionem ‘the same belief’. Other expressions are found, e.g. opinionem adfero populo ‘to inspire in the people the belief that’ (Cic. Off. 2.46), followed by an accusative and infinitive construction.

157

Hoffmann (fc.) states the same tendency for spes ‘hope’.

202

chapter two

(354) De his eandem fere quam reliquae gentes habent opinionem: Apollinem morbos depellere … ‘Of these deities they have almost the same idea as all other nations: that Apollo drives away diseases …’ (Caes. Gal. 6.17.2)

Quaestio also often governs complements with the syntactic form of a subordinate clause: an indirect question (22 occ.) or an infinitive clause (1 occ.); the latter presents a factual propositional content (355). (355) Qui locus attingit hanc quaestionem nihil fieri quod non necesse fuerit. ‘This position is connected with the argument that nothing happens which was not necessary.’ (Cic. Fat. 17)

Indirect questions, some of which are provided by the treatise On Invention, concern non-factual contents that are subject to an inquiry. Quaestio, accompanied or not by an evaluative adjective such as magna ‘big’, obscura ‘obscure’, indefinita ‘indefinite’, often precedes (15 occ.) the indirect question it governs (356). Notice that the verb of the subordinate clause is in the subjunctive mood, which marks the syntactic integration of the subordinate clause into the main clause.158 Completive clauses are predominantly postposed to quaestio. Anteposition of the indirect question to quaestio (7 occ.) results from the fact that it is anchored into the context. The indirect question thus amplifies a point under discussion in that it brings an additional argument, for example in (357) where veri simillima follows on vera. In (358), the first constituent of the completive clause (in his primis) is linked to the previous context by means of the anaphora. (356) Quaestio est maiestatemne minuerit. ‘The question is whether he committed lese-majesty.’ (Cic. Inv. 2.52) (357) Harum sententiarum quae vera sit, deus aliqui viderit; quae veri simillima, magna quaestio est. ‘Which of these opinions is true some god must determine; which is most probable is a big question.’ (Cic. Tusc. 1.23) (358) In his primis naturalibus voluptas insit necne, magna quaestio est. ‘Whether these primary objects of desire include pleasure or not is a much debated question.’ (Cic. Fin. 2.34)

158 Unlike, for example: Simplex est, quae absolutam in se continet unam quaestionem, hoc modo: ‘Corinthiis bellum indicamus, an non?’ ‘A simple case is one which contains in itself one plain question, such as: “Shall we declare war on Corinth, or not?”’ (Cic. Inv. 1.17). In this case, the question announced by hoc modo is a direct one.

the noun phrase

203

It is also worth adding that memoria forms an idiomatic phrase with the verb teneo (“to hold in memory”) ‘to recall’, which combines with a completive clause in the accusative and infinitive (359). (359) Credo te memoria tenere me et coram P. Cuspio tecum locutum esse cum te prosequerer paludatum … ‘I believe it is within your recollection that I said something to you in the presence of P. Cuspius, as I was escorting you when in your official uniform …’ (Cic. Fam. 13.6.1)

Finally, it is interesting to report one completive clause governed by liber in (360). (360) Magnus Dicaearchi liber est nescire ea melius esse quam scire. ‘Yet Dicaearchus has written a large volume to prove that it is better not to know than to know the future.’ (Cic. Div. 2.105)

Conclusions Among the valency complements examined in this section, genitives deserve special attention. From a statistical point of view, they present the usual ratio of about 50% for anteposition and postposition. However, a more detailed analysis makes it possible to explain their placement at least to some extent. It seems to be the result of interplay of several semantic and pragmatic factors: genitives in the singular with specific referents prefer postposition, genitives in the plural with generic referents, anteposition. Furthermore, semantically prominent genitives occur in postposition whereas genitives forming a referential unit with their noun occur in anteposition; genitives with contextually given referents fall into the latter category. Additionally, genitives can carry contrast or emphasis. Individual entities do not operate with the same selection of modifiers. Whereas religio often exhibits genitives with specific referents in postposition, the complements of memoria are both generic and specific, pre- and post-nominal. With opinio, even genitives with generic referents stand in postposition because they are semantically prominent; on the other hand, they are pre-nominal and not semantically prominent with quaestio. Bellum provides excellent examples of mostly post-nominal genitives with a specifying value. As for other obligatory complements, prepositional phrases with de expanding opinio and quaestio present similar tendencies of placement to genitives. Completive clauses usually stand in postposition.

204

chapter two 9. Other Complements

This section will deal with several optional complements:159 genitives with dies, genitives of content with liber, and prepositional phrases with de applied to liber. As for other optional complements, prepositional phrases expanding ager deserve mention, even though they seldom occur (4 occ.).160 They contain a place name referring to a region (361) or a common noun: in ora maritima ‘on the sea coast’ in Cic. Agr. 2.58, and stand in postposition. (361) Iubent venire agros Attalensium atque Olympenorum …, deinde agros in Macedonia regios. ‘They order the lands of the inhabitants of Attalia and Olympus to be sold …; next, the royal territories in Macedonia …’ (Cic. Agr. 1.5)

9.1. Genitives with dies and liber Dies can combine with genitives specifying the activity that will take place: dies comitiorum ‘the day of the assembly (of the people)’, as opposed to dies comitiales ‘comitial days’ denoting days during which it was permitted to convene assemblies. The genitives used with dies are optional from the semantic point of view and occur in postposition as well as in anteposition (11 times for each arrangement). Such a ratio is inevitably linked with difficulties of interpretation of the material collected. The expression dies comitiorum is used four times and both orderings, anteposition and postposition, are encountered. Comitiorum dies appears in a passage where a mention of the comitia has already been made (362); dies comitiorum in (362) is not expressed in the previous context.161

159

Possessive genitives, dealt with in section 7.2, p. 178, are also optional. Such expressions of location are usually regarded as non-classical (Menge 2000: 344). See chapter 1, section 3.8, p. 83, note 174. 161 Comitiis habitis ‘when the elections had been held’ in Sal. Cat. 24.1 is related to the elections of the preceding year. Cf. also Cic. Phil. 2.80–82 where it is a question about the election of Dolabella; the day of the elections is known information: Multis ante mensibus in senatu dixit se Dolabellae comitia aut prohibiturum auspiciis aut id facturum esse quod fecit … Ecce Dolabellae comitiorum dies. ‘Many months before, he said in the senate he would by the auspices either forbid Dolabella’s election, or would do what in fact he did … Now comes the day of Dolabella’s election.’ On the other hand, the elections also have been previously mentioned in Cic. Mil. 42: (Milo) non dubitavit occidere, praesertim, iudices, cum honoris amplissimi contentio et dies comitiorum subesset … ‘(Milo) did not hesitate to kill him (Clodius) especially, gentlemen, when the day of contest for the greatest distinction of the 160

the noun phrase

205

(362) (Ipse profectus uti ante comitia, quod tempus haud longe aberat …, bellum conficeret …) Sed postquam dilapso tempore comitiorum dies adventabat, Albinus … Romam decessit. ‘(He himself set off in order to bring the war to an end before the forthcoming elections …) However, Albinus, when time passed on and the day of the comitia approached, … returned to Rome.’ (Sal. Jug. 36.1–4) (363) Catilina nihilo minus in proxumum annum consulatum petebat … Postquam dies comitiorum venit et Catilinae neque petitio neque insidiae … ‘Catiline still canvassed for the consulship for the following year … When the day of the comitia came, and neither Catiline’s efforts for the consulship, nor the plots …’ (Sal. Cat. 26.1–5)

The other instances allow the same explanation, for example in (364), where the day of departure is deducible from the context. On the other hand, although the idea of departure has been explicitly mentioned in the previous context in (365), Quinctius has to recall the exact day of his departure; this post-nominal genitive is semantically relevant. (364) (Nos etsi annuum tempus prope iam emeritum habebamus—dies enim XXXIII erant reliqui …) Et mihi decessionis dies λεληθότως obrepebat. ‘(I have now got my year’s service pretty well over—33 days remain …) And the day of my departure draws imperceptibly nearer.’ (Cic. Att. 6.5.3) (365) Discedens in memoriam redit Quinctius quo die Roma in Galliam profectus sit. Ad ephemeridem revertitur, invenitur dies profectionis pridie Kal. Februarias. ‘Quinctius, when departing, began to recollect on what day he left Rome for Gaul. He goes to his journal, he finds the day of his departure set down, the thirty-first of January.’ (Cic. Quinct. 57)

There are also cases where a date represents a genitive complement of dies, for example in (366). Such explicative genitives are postposed to the governing noun. (366) Postridie in senatu, qui fuit dies Nonarum Septembrium, senatui gratias egimus. ‘In the senate on the following day, the Nones of September, I made a speech of thanks to the senators.’ (Cic. Att. 4.1.5)162

Genitives of content with liber are not very frequent; however, they seem to favour postposition. The noun phrase in (367) functions as the Focus

state, and the day of the comitia, was at hand …’ It is likely that postposition of this genitive results from the specificity of the referent. 162 Cf. the extant speech In the Senate after His Return.

206

chapter two

and contains a genitive with a specifying value (the letter is addressed to Caecina). The anteposed genitive of content in (368) is contrastive, with respect to in Timaeo. (367) In Caesare haec sunt: mitis clemensque natura, qualis exprimitur praeclaro illo libro Querelarum tuarum. ‘What I find in Caesar is this: a mild and merciful nature, such as you have so strikingly portrayed in your brilliant work, the Remonstrances.’ (Cic. Fam. 6.6.8) (368) Iam de Platonis inconstantia longum est dicere, qui in Timaeo patrem huius mundi nominari neget posse, in Legum autem libris quid sit omnino deus anquiri oportere non censeat. ‘The inconsistencies of Plato are a long story. In the Timaeus he says that it is impossible to name the father of this universe; and in the Laws he deprecates all inquiry into the nature of the deity.’ (Cic. N.D. 1.30)

As for expressions of content, it is worth reporting one instance with navis: (369) auri navem evertat gubernator an paleae ‘whether a pilot wrecks a ship with cargo of gold or straw’ (Cic. Parad. 20)

9.2. Prepositional Phrases with de Liber can govern a prepositional phrase with de expressing the topic of a work. They mostly figure in complex noun phrases, containing a genitive of the author, a numerical quantifier, or another modifier. The de-phrases seemingly occur both in anteposition and in postposition (12 A vs. 14 P). However, the instances I have collected are almost all complex noun phrases. “Anteposition” of the complement properly corresponds to framed noun phrases. There are thus two main arrangements: either the prepositional phrase is inserted into another phrase163 (10 occ.) as in (370), or it comes as the last element in the sequence (371) (13 occ.). Both examples answer the same underlying question, ‘where?’, and have the same pragmatic value. However, whereas framing signals that the noun phrase is to be regarded as a unit (370), postposition of the prepositional phrase is linked with its specifying value (‘on what?’) (371). (370) Deque his rebus satis multa in nostris de re publica libris sunt dicta a Laelio. ‘The subject is fully discussed by Laelius in my volumes On the State.’ (Cic. Fin. 2.59)

163

For framed phrases, see chapter 3, sections 2.1, p. 218 and 3.2.2, p. 246.

the noun phrase

207

(371) Verius est igitur nimirum illud quod familiaris omnium nostrum Posidonius disseruit in libro quinto de natura deorum, nullos … ‘It is therefore truer to say, as the good friend of us all, Posidonius, argued in the fifth book of his On the Nature of the Gods, that …’ (Cic. N.D. 1.123)

Complex noun phrases which contain additionally a genitive of the author are less easy to interpret. In (372), Epicuri de voluptate liber, not mentioned in the previous context, forms a unit and functions as the Focus of the sentence, answering the question ‘what did mice gnaw?’, and not ‘which book?’, since the previous argument is not about books but about scuta ‘shields’ gnawed by mice. The prepositional phrase is framed by the genitive Epicuri and the head noun liber. Cicero gives this example in order to ridicule some interpretations of portents.164 However, one could also envisage a contrastive interpretation of Epicuri with respect to Platonis. On the other hand in (373), the title of Epicurus’ work, On Holiness, carries contrast and functions on its own as the Focus. The genitive specifies the referent here because in this passage Cicero discusses several books by Epicurus.165 Example (374) also deserves quotation. Information about Hecato and his works on duties is not completely new (cf. Off. 3.63). Nevertheless, this noun phrase sets a new Topic; Hecatonis is the most salient element of the phrase because the author becomes the subject of disputat afterwards. (372) Nam si ista sequimur, quod Platonis Politian nuper apud me mures corroserunt, de re publica debui pertimescere, aut, si Epicuri de voluptate liber rosus esset, putarem annonam in macello cariorem fore. ‘Hence, by the same token, the fact that, at my house, mice recently gnawed my Plato’s Republic should fill me with alarm for the Roman republic; or if they had gnawed Epicurus’ On Pleasure I should have expected a rise in the market price of food.’ (Cic. Div. 2.59) (373) At etiam liber est Epicuri De sanctitate. ‘But Epicurus actually wrote a treatise On Holiness.’ (Cic. N.D. 1.122) (374) Plenus est sextus liber de officiis Hecatonis talium quaestionum sitne boni viri in maxima caritate annonae familiam non alere. In utramque partem disputat … ‘The sixth of Hecato’s books On Duties is full of questions of this kind: would a man who is good fail to feed his slave household when corn is extremely dear? He argues on either side …’ (Cic. Off. 3.89)

164 The treatise On Pleasure, otherwise unknown (Pease 1955: 449), is assumed to increase the number of gourmands, and hence, the price of food. 165 For Epicurus’ book On Holiness and the use of etiam, see Pease (1955: 506 and 533).

208

chapter two

Additionally, liber may have another prepositional phrase as an expansion. My corpus offered one ad-phrase, referring to the addressee of the book in (375), and one contra-phrase, denoting the adversary: libros contra Catonem ‘books against Cato’ in Cic. Att. 13.50.1. (375) Ego interea admonitu tuo perfeci sane argutulos libros ad Varronem … ‘Meanwhile I have taken your hint and finished off some neat little volumes addressed to Varro.’ (Cic. Att. 13.18)

Conclusions This section provides several observations on genitives of content and prepositional phrases with de as optional complements of dies and liber. They are infrequent but their placement corresponds in their main lines to the tendencies formulated for obligatory complements. 10. Complex Noun Phrases This section will be devoted to noun phrases containing more than one modifier. The analysis presented so far has concerned simple noun phrases without paying attention to complexity. In general, only noun phrases with a single modifier have been taken into consideration for the statistics; with several entities, especially navis and liber, such a distinction was not possible because the instances collected would have been too few. 10.1. Framing of Noun Phrases Complexity is related to the question of the internal structure of noun phrases. For example, we have seen that quantifiers favour prenominal position. When a noun is expanded by a quantifier and an adjective, one could envisage that gregariis in (376), a classifying adjective which is likely to occur in postposition, is pushed into anteposition owing to the presence of the quantifier paucis (376). However, this pre-nominal adjective is better interpreted as contrastive with respect to the other troops mentioned in the same sentence. (376) Cohors una Ligurum cum duabus turmis Thracum et paucis gregariis militibus transiere ad regem. ‘One cohort of Ligurians with two squadrons of Thracians and a few common soldiers went over to the king.’ (Sal. Jug. 38.6)

Other instances are noun phrases containing an anaphoric or a demonstrative pronoun, which seem to produce anteposition of the other modifier

the noun phrase

209

(377). In this case, anteposition of the adjective is more likely to be due to a reference to shared knowledge: hac adventicia pecunia is money that would come from Pompey’s eastern conquests (the letter dates from 60). (377) (Unam rationem non reiciebam) ut ager hac adventicia pecunia emeretur quae ex novis vectigalibus per quinquennium reciperetur. ‘(One proposal I did not reject) that land should be purchased out of the additional funds accruing during a period of five years from the new tributary revenues.’ (Cic. Att. 1.19.4)

Some of the instances of anteposed adjectives with liber could also be attributed to the complexity of the noun phrase, opened by another modifier, such as a quantifier (378), and closed by the noun. (378) (Platon) Et reperiret et tueretur, alter (Aristoteles) autem de ipsa iustitia quattuor implevit sane grandes libros. ‘(Plato) should both discover and preserve, but the other (Aristotle) filled four very large volumes with a treatise on justice itself.’ (Cic. Rep. 3.12)

Complex noun phrases framed by a quantifier or a determiner do actually occur, but there does not seem to be any syntactic necessity at work responsible for the anteposition of the modifier that would be expected to be in postposition. The alternative ordering is found as well (379). Anteposition of the other modifier can often be explained by pragmatic reasons. This point will be examined in a systematic way in chapter 3, section 2.1, p. 218. (379) cum Caesar omnino XII naves longas praesidio duxisset ‘since Caesar had conveyed there twelve warships in all to protect the coast’ (Caes. Civ. 3.7.2)

10.2. Memoria and opinio Among the nouns examined, memoria and opinio offer a substantial number of complex phrases, consisting of a genitive and another modifier. Memoria + Adjective + Genitive The data collected for memoria present wide variation (Table 8). However, we can notice three competing patterns: the genitives are framed by memoria and its adjective (10+6 occ.), they come last (2 + 14 occ.) or first (6 +5 occ.) in the sequence. The adjectives used are: sempiterna ‘permanent’, recens/recentior ‘recent’, aeterna ‘everlasting’, and immortalis ‘immortal’.

210

chapter two

Table 8: Memoria + adjective + genitive Order

Occ.

memoria Gen. Adj. memoria Adj. Gen. Adj. Gen. memoria Adj. memoria Gen. Gen. memoria Adj. Gen. Adj. memoria

10 2 6 14 6 5

Total

43

The ordering with a genitive in postposition is illustrated in (380); anteposition of the adjective recens with a temporal value is common (cf. section 6.1, p. 171). This pattern is reproduced five times with the same adjective in my corpus. A genitive framed by memoria and an adjective is shown in (381); the adjective sempiterna closing the sequence carries emphasis. This pattern appears eight times. The genitives with generic referents such as hominum, posteri temporis, omnium gentium ‘of men, posterity, all peoples’, come first (382) or are framed; they are not used in postposition. They are not semantically prominent. (380) (Galba) C. Gali etiam filium flens commendabat, cuius orbitas et fletus mire miserabilis fuit propter recentem memoriam clarissimi patris. ‘(Galba) with tears in his eyes also commended to their protection the son of Gaius Gallus. This orphan and his weeping excited great compassion because of the memory still fresh of his illustrious father.’ (Cic. Brut. 90) (381) (integritas provincialis) cuius (Sesti) ego nuper in Macedonia vidi vestigia non pressa leviter ad exigui praedicationem temporis, sed fixa ad memoriam illius provinciae sempiternam. ‘(honesty which Sestius displayed in his province) of which I lately saw traces in Macedonia, not faintly impressed as the record of a brief space of time, but so fixed that that province might always remember it.’ (Cic. Sest. 13) (382) Qui ad dignitatem impellit, maiorum exempla … colliget, posteritatis immortalem memoriam augebit. ‘The one who urges us to follow the honourable will collect examples of our ancestors’ achievements … and will amplify the importance of being immortalized by posterity.’ (Cic. de Orat. 2.335)

Memoria + Determiner/Quantifier + Genitive Noun phrases with memoria accompanied by a determiner or a quantifier and a genitive show competition between two arrangements: framing and postposition of the genitive. The order {determiner > memoria >

the noun phrase

211

genitive} occurs 9 times, the order {determiner > genitive > memoria}, 7 times. The first pattern is shown in (383); notice the parallel between the genitive temporum praeteritorum with a generic referent and the other genitives with specific referents civitatis, praesentium, also in postposition with a specifying value. The postposed genitive in (384) has a specific referent. Framing of the complement by a modifier and memoria is illustrated in (385). This complex noun phrase contains the genitive beneficiorum, with a generic referent, governing populi Romani, its subjective genitive. (383) Tantum a vobis petimus ut omnia rei publicae subsidia, totum statum civitatis, omnem memoriam temporum praeteritorum, salutem praesentium … in vestra potestate … putetis. ‘I only ask you to consider that every buttress of the State, its whole constitution, all our recollection of times past, the safety of the present … depends upon your power.’ (Cic. Flac. 3) (384) Me manibus inpiis eripite …, si ulla apud vos memoria remanet avi mei Masinissae. ‘Deliver me from his inhuman hands …, if you still retain any memory of my grandfather Masinissa.’ (Sal. Jug. 24.10) (385) (Non enim ita gerimus nos hoc bello consulares ut …) partim e nobis ita timidi sint ut omnem populi Romani beneficiorum memoriam abiecerint, partim … ‘(For we consulars are not conducting ourselves in this war so that …) some of us are so fainthearted that they have cast away all recollection of the Roman people’s favours, others …’ (Cic. Phil. 8.32)

Opinio Complex noun phrases containing opinio, an adjective and a genitive are less numerous. In the majority of the cases, the genitive follows opinio and its adjective (11 occ.), as is shown in (386). The genitives are mainly formed from abstract nouns, such as temeritatis or probitatis ‘of recklessness, probity’; human referents are weakly represented, e.g. hominum, multitudinis ‘of men, crowd’. Another example with a post-nominal genitive that specifies the noun is given in (387); the adjective is emphatic and is separated from its governing noun. Several pre-nominal cases are more properly genitives framed by an adjective and the noun (388); this pattern occurs four times out of five instances in total. (386) Qui autem non natura, sed culpa vitiosi esse dicuntur, eorum vitia constant e falsis opinionibus rerum bonarum et malarum …

212

chapter two ‘However those who are said to be vicious, not by nature but by their own fault, their vices are due to erroneous ideas of good and bad …’ (Cic. Tusc. 4.81)

(387) Namque altera ex parte Bellovaci, quae civitas in Gallia maximam habet opinionem virtutis, instabant … ‘For the Bellovaci, the state which has the greatest reputation for courage in Gaul, were pressing upon him from one side …’ (Caes. Gal. 7.59.5) (388) Duces hostium LX milia ex omni numero deligunt earum civitatum, quae maximam virtutis opinionem habebant. ‘The commanders of the enemy select from the entire army 60,000 men, belonging to the states that had the greatest reputation for courage.’ (Caes. Gal. 7.83.5)

When the phrase contains another modifier such as tanta, illa, or nulla, the genitive either follows, for example tantam opinionem timoris ‘so strong an impression of cowardice’ (Caes. Gal. 3.17.5) or it figures in the middle: tantis hominum opinionibus ‘about such opinions of men’ (Cic. Q. fr. 1.1.31). Conclusions Complexity of a noun phrase is a factor that might have an influence on the ordering of the elements involved. The co-occurrence of a determiner and an adjective in the same noun phrase might produce anteposition of the latter. However, in the instances gathered, pre-nominal, framed adjectives often allow an interpretation as emphatic. Complex noun phrases containing a genitive and another modifier (determiner, quantifier, or adjective) show competition between post-nominal, semantically prominent genitives, genitives framed by the modifier and the head noun, and prenominal genitives. 11. Conclusions What conclusions can be drawn from the complex analysis presented in this chapter? The reader will find partial conclusions for individual categories distinguished at the end of each section. I will now attempt to formulate more general findings in five points. 1. General Tendencies The analysis of corpus material presented in this chapter shows that the general principle underlying the internal ordering of Latin noun phrases can

the noun phrase

213

be formulated as follows: modifiers expressing inherent properties are in postposition; modifiers expressing non-inherent properties are in anteposition. However, the facts are complicated by the intervention of various factors, pragmatic as well as semantic. Focus function and contextual newness of an entity correlate with postposition of adjectives and genitives. Topic function and contextual giveness are responsible for anteposition. In anteposition are also found emphatic and contrastive elements. However, pragmatic factors explain only a part of instances: sometimes, they do not apply at all. This is why I suggest considering semantic factors, especially the concept of “semantic prominence”. It concerns modifiers in postposition that are semantically more important than their head noun. Such postposed modifiers further specify the referent within a class of other available entities (ager Campanus ‘the territory of Campania’). By contrast, modifiers in anteposition do not have such a function. In some case, when there is no subset of competing entities, they form a referential unit with the head noun (hominum memoria ‘human memory’). 2. Variability of the Placement of the Adjectives Is Not the Same for All Words We have seen that certain words present great variability in the placement of adjectives—especially miles ‘soldier’, bellum ‘war’, and navis ‘ship’; there is some variation for dies ‘day’ but ager ‘land’ aqua ‘water’, and partially pecunia ‘money’, are practically not involved in any variation. This could be explained in the following way: miles, bellum and navis are in the centre of pragmatic concern: they are confronted, given properties, distinguished one from another. They are protagonists (miles, navis) or circumstances (bellum, dies) of prime importance. Ager, of which various types exist, is a topic of discussions about agrarian laws and might belong to the same group; however, it is not used in contrastive contexts. On the other hand, familia ‘family’, pecunia ‘money’, and aqua ‘water’ are not given such pragmatic prominence. These are entities that play a secondary role; consequently, their properties are less frequently discussed. A good example is also provided by vir ‘man’ in the singular, used for describing people with little variability of the placement of the adjectives, as compared to viros ‘men’ in the accusative plural that appears in pragmatically important contexts and actually exhibits mobility of the adjectives. Behaviour of the entities examined is in a close relationship with the type of the texts in which they occur (historical narrative, speeches, and philosophical treatises) and with the topics discussed. Another type of text, say a treatise on

214

chapter two

plants, would be expected to exhibit a different constellation of entities; for example, various natural elements would play a prominent pragmatic role. 3. There Are Cases That Are Difficult to Explain If we admit that Latin allows variable placement of modifiers, we should not be surprised that Latin authors use this possibility. Among the first-order entities, we have seen difficulties with the interpretation of phrases such as veterani milites ‘veteran soldiers’ and civile bellum ‘civil war’, for which postposition of the adjective would be expected. But is it mere chance that precisely milites veterani and bellum civile pose a problem? From a pragmatic point of view, we have to do with delicate questions of the Late-Republican period; the referents of these phrases may be linked with various subjective associations. Caelatum argentum ‘chased silverware’, referring to very valuable objects is another “difficult case”. Its adjective may stand in anteposition and we do not see evident reasons for this, such as contrast or emphasis. In sum, what I suggest is that a description of the internal order of the Latin noun phrase should envisage, at least to some extent, extra-linguistic facts that can have an influence on the choice of anteposition in a given context, even if some particular connotations are not easy for us to understand at first glance. Shared knowledge represents another complication. In this chapter, I noted several times that pre-nominal placement of modifiers possibly correlates not only with contextual giveness but also with reference to shared knowledge. This point is delicate: to what extent can we determine what is assumed to be an allusion to shared knowledge? A detailed examination of this point would be welcome. Among the difficulties, I cannot leave out genitives. In my corpus, it is relatively easy to understand the placement of the genitive complements of religio ‘religious conscience or cult’ and bellum ‘war’, mostly with specific referents and standing in postposition. In the case of liber ‘book’, we have to do with genitives of the author that are often contrasted and anteposed to the noun. As for memoria ‘memory’, opinio ‘opinion’, and quaestio ‘investigation’, we encounter opposite tendencies: whereas memoria and quaestio present their genitives in anteposition, opinio has its complements in postposition. I propose to interpret postposed genitives as carrying a specifying value, i.e. as semantically prominent (‘whose?’) as opposed to genitives in anteposition that form a referential unit with their noun. This point is understandable: the person who remembers is less prominent than the person who has an

the noun phrase

215

opinion. In the same way, the genitives of quaestio, for the most part formed from abstract nouns, are in anteposition because they are not semantically prominent. Explanation of the placement of genitives is complicated by pragmatic factors that may be at work. Firstly, the contextual status of the referent produces anteposition of the entities known from the context. Anteposition of modifiers can thus be envisaged in relationship with the phenomenon of anaphora.166 Secondly, the specific or generic character of the referent may have an influence in the sense that there is a tendency for postposition of specific referents and anteposition of generic referents. Thirdly, both factors—contextual giveness and specificity or genericity of the referent—may give way to the pragmatic features of contrast and emphasis. 4. But There Are Also Cases That Are Easy to Explain Entities that are not subject to great confrontations, do not appear in too much pragmatically marked situations, and are not charged with allusions to shared knowledge, present regularities in the placement of their adjectives or their genitives. They are easy to understand and to interpret; in my corpus, vir (sg.), ager, pecunia, frumentum, aqua, and religio. The adjectives that describe a referent favour postposition. This also holds true for adjectives occurring in appositions. Non-numerical quantifiers (multi ‘many’), nominal quantifiers (magna vis ‘great quantity’) or other expressions used for quantifying (multa pecunia ‘lot of money’) precede the entity quantified. The genitives of the whole (including genitives of quantity) are thus commonly postposed to the quantifier (magna vis aquae ‘great quantity of water’) or, in the case of nominal quantifiers with a modifier, they are framed (magnus frumenti numerus ‘great quantity of corn’). Other arrangements can be explained by pragmatic reasons without difficulty. Numerical quantifiers present variability of the placement but this does not seem to pose a big problem of interpretation: post-nominal numerals specify the number, pre-nominal numerals form a referential unit with their noun. Expressions indicating relative succession (ordinal numerals and adjectives such as superior ‘previous’) and certain temporal expressions (crastino die ‘tomorrow’) displaying pre-nominal modifiers are also easy to interpret. 166 Anaphoric pronouns come first in a noun phrase when reference is made to a contextually given entity (see Spevak 2010a: 239 with further references).

216

chapter two

In this case, anteposition is linked either with the phenomenon of anaphora or with subjectivity in that these expressions result from the author’s interpretation of the facts. Modifiers that figure in postposition have a specifying value (‘which one?’). Completive clauses occur in postposition, unless they are anchored in the context. 5. Other Aspects of the Behaviour of Latin Noun Phrases The distinction of three orders of entities makes it possible to better understand combinations of nouns and modifiers. It clearly shows that a concrete entity such as miles selects other types of modifiers than a verbal noun like opinio. Entities undergo restrictions as to the choice of quantifiers: count nouns and non-count nouns do not behave alike and do not select the same nonnumerical quantifiers. Although a systematic study of quantification needs to be undertaken, I aimed, among other things, to suggest that whereas some entities are evaluated for multitudo ‘numerousness’, which also applies to some mass nouns, other are evaluated for magnitudo ‘greatness’. Even if the evaluation of a referent is not easy to distinguish from the description of a referent, evaluative expressions favour anteposition, in the sense that they reflect the author’s assessment. Postposition is mainly used for expressions of more or less inherent properties.

chapter three THE PREPOSITIONAL PHRASE

1. Objective The purpose of this book is to examine Latin noun phrases. However, it is important to devote a separate chapter to prepositional phrases, for two reasons.1 One reason is that a prepositional phrase is formed with a noun (phrase) and a preposition.2 Prepositions are elements that open prepositional phrases, or we can also say that they delimit them at the left-hand side.3 Prepositional phrases might thus represent a case par excellence of framed phrases. This point is one of the research questions addressed in this chapter, namely: does the presence of a preposition, i.e. an element that evidently opens the phrase, entail anteposition of a modifier (when present) with respect to its governing noun? This pattern is shown in Table 1. Table 1: Framing of modifiers preposition

modifier (determiner, adjective, genitive complement, etc.)

noun

I will attempt to determine whether there is any notable difference between the ordering of modifiers in a noun phrase and in a prepositional phrase. It has indeed been suggested that pre-nominal placement of modifiers in prepositional phrases could be a kind of syntactic constraint (Kircher 2010: 53). This issue, the placement of quantifiers, adjectives, and genitive complements in prepositional phrases, will be examined in section 2, after some

1 Additionally, unlike prepositions themselves and adverbial phrases (see Luraghi 2010b with references and a good synthesis in Baños Baños 2009: 299–347), the internal structure of Latin prepositional phrases is a topic that has drawn relatively little attention. Adnominal prepositional phrases have been recently examined by Wharton (1996) and (2009). 2 Latin has several postpositions—especially causā and gratiā—but prepositions are the most common. 3 Except in the cases with anticipation of a modifier such as quam ob rem ‘for this’; see Marouzeau (1948: 307–311 and 1953: 64–65) and cf. Spevak (2010a: 20).

218

chapter three

more general remarks concerning the phenomenon of framing and integration of modifiers into a noun phrase (section 2.1). Prepositional phrases in Latin may fulfil various syntactic and semantic functions: arguments, satellites (time, place, cause, instrument, and other complements), and “disjuncts”, which relate to the content of a whole proposition.4 Whatever their function is, the preposition always makes explicit the semantic relationship between the phrase and the element that it modifies.5 In section 2, I will not dwell on syntactic functions assuming that as such they do not have any influence on the internal ordering of prepositional phrases. On the other hand, we will see that semantic functions, for example, those of place complements, can be reflected in the choice of modifiers: adjectives such as medius ‘middle’ and extremus ‘uttermost’ frequently occur in this kind of phrase. Another reason for devoting a special chapter to prepositional phrases relates to nouns and noun phrases in a direct way: prepositional phrases may function as adnominal complements (section 3). Additionally, I will look at problems closely linked with this topic, namely: 1. the question of the attachment of prepositional phrases to a noun or a verb, in order to see whether a prepositional phrase can truly be a noun complement, 2. the question of constructions with support verbs. 2. Prepositional Phrases: The Ordering of Their Components 2.1. Integration of Modifiers and Framing Generally speaking, modifiers anteposed to their governing noun are considered integrated into a noun phrase, while modifiers in postposition manifest a weaker degree of integration. For example, aeneus (1) in anteposition is more integrated into the noun phrase than alacer in postposition (2). However, postposition of modifiers as such, which is common in Latin, does not imply that they do not form noun phrases with the nouns.6 4 On prepositional phrases functioning as arguments, see Pinkster (fc., chapter 9); for satellites, Pinkster (fc., chapter 10). 5 Unlike case marking, see Pinkster (LSS § 5.3.2). 6 For the so-called non-configurational languages, in which modifiers are not integrated into the noun phrases but represent constituents on their own, see Rijkhoff (2002: 19). For weak integration of modifiers in Latin, see Lehmann (1991). For the status of postposed adjectives in Latin, see Spevak (fc. a).

the prepositional phrase

219

(1)

(Gyges) descendit in illum hiatum aeneumque equum … animadvertit ‘Gyges went down into the chasm and saw … a horse of bronze.’ (Cic. Off. 3.38)

(2)

(Dionysius) respexitque et equum alacrem laetus adspexit. ‘(Dionysius having lost his horse) looked back and, to his joy, saw his horse eagerly following.’ (Cic. Div. 1.73)

In languages such as Ancient Greek, which has articles, the anteposed adjective is in fact framed between the article and the noun: ὁ σοφὸς ἀνήρ ‘the wise man’.7 Latin has no such means. It is tempting to envisage similarities between articulated noun phrases in Ancient Greek and Latin noun phrases with anaphoric or demonstrative pronouns. However, the pattern exemplified in (3) is found alongside that in (4), with an adjective in postposition. Furthermore, as we have seen in chapter 2 (section 10.1, p. 208), anteposition of the modifier can often be explained by pragmatic reasons (e.g. contrast or emphasis), and not as a syntactic constraint. Anaphoric and demonstrative pronouns therefore do not seem to entail anteposition of the other modifiers. (3)

Sed si ille (Caesar) hac tam eximia fortuna propter utilitatem rei publicae frui non properat … ‘But if he (Caesar) is in no hurry to enjoy such brilliant fortune, simply for the advantage of the State …’ (Cic. Prov. 30)

(4)

Illa nostra lex consularis nunc modesta videtur. ‘The law we ex-consuls proposed is regarded now as quite moderate.’ (Cic. Att. 4.1.7)

Theoretically, prepositional phrases could also form a favourable condition for framing, i.e. formation of units delimited at the left-hand side by a preposition and at the right-hand side by the noun (see Table 1 above). A preposition is an element that is identifiable as the opening of a syntactic unit and the governing noun represents a means par excellence for closing it. In this connection, it is worth recalling that just like complex noun phrases and participial or infinitive clauses, prepositional phrases can build up syntactic units called cola.8 Segmentation of a sentence into such units is indicated in (3a) by slashes. Although it is not possible to subdivide every sentence into cola, such delimitation is obvious in many cases.

7 For the internal structure of noun phrases in Ancient Greek, see Bakker (2009). For framing, see Siewierska & Uhlířová (1998) and Spevak (2010a: 26). 8 For the concept of colon, see Fraenkel (19642 and 1965), Habinek (1986), and Spevak (2010a: 10).

220

chapter three

(3a) Sed si ille (Caesar) / hac tam eximia fortuna / propter utilitatem rei publicae / frui non properat …

2.2. The Method In this section, I will look at the placement of modifiers in prepositional phrases in order to determine whether they behave differently from modifiers in noun phrases. Phrases with only one modifier and more complex phrases containing two (or more) modifiers will be dealt with separately. Discussion is not focused on the types of governing nouns, as it was in chapter 2. The prepositional phrases are collected from four texts: Cicero’s On Divination 2 and Against Verres 2.5.1–120, Caesar’s Civil War 3 and Sallust’s The Jugurthine War 1–80; each text contains approximately 15,000 words.9 2.3. Quantifiers Non-numerical quantifiers such as multi, plerique, pauci, ullus, cunctus, plurimus, and omnis occurring in prepositional phrases are regularly found in anteposition (5).10 Omnes and multus can appear in postposition, for example in (6), with multo emphasizing the quantity. (5)

contionatusque apud cunctum exercitum suis agit gratias ‘addressing the whole army, he thanks to his own men’ (Caes. Civ. 3.82.1)

(6)

Itaque paucis diebus cum auro et argento multo Romam legatos mittit. ‘Accordingly, a few days later, he sent envoys to Rome, with a great quantity of gold and silver.’ (Sal. Jug. 13.6)

Numerical quantifiers are found in anteposition as well as in postposition (20 A vs. 6 P). They are anteposed when the noun phrase behaves as a unit (7). Postposition can be attributed to the specifying value of the modifier, for example in (8) ‘how many legions?’ (7)

cum esset inter bina castra campus circiter milium passuum III ‘although there were about three miles of level ground between the two camps’ (Caes. Civ. 3.37.2)

(8)

Caesar eo tempore cum legione una profectus ad recipiendas ulteriores civitates … ‘Caesar had at that point set out with one legion to recover the more distant communities …’ (Caes. Civ. 3.16.1)

9 The postpositions causā and gratiā do not offer a sufficient number of instances in my sample and will be neglected. I will also disregard prepositional phrases with gerundives. 10 See Table 3.1 in the Appendix. As in chapter 2, I will not pay attention to determiners and indefinite pronouns, which are mostly found in anteposition.

the prepositional phrase

221

It is worth mentioning that we can encounter anticipation of the quantifier before the preposition. This phenomenon appears 15 times in my corpus, which makes up 18% (out of 84 quantifiers in anteposition). Anteposition, or, better, anticipation of the quantifier, is used by all authors, including Sallust, and concerns especially multus and paucus (9), but is also found, for example, with the numeral duo. (9)

quae gens paucis ante mensibus ultro ad Caesarem legatos miserat ‘a few months before the people had of their own accord sent a envoys to Caesar’ (Caes. Civ. 3.80.1)

2.4. Adjectives Adjectives that occur in prepositional phrases with only one modifier are indicated in Table 2. If we take the global results of their placement, we would conclude that they favour anteposition (167 occ. out of 260, which makes 64%). However, a closer look at Table 2 makes it clear that the placement of adjectives correlates with the semantic categories to which they belong. Whereas classifying adjectives and adjectives derived from proper names commonly occur in postposition, adjectives expressing evaluation, location in space and time, and relative position are predominantly anteposed to their governing nouns. Descriptive adjectives occupy both positions. Table 2: Adjectives Order

Noun Adj.

Adj. Noun

classifying adjectives descriptive adjectives evaluative adjectives spatio-temporal adjectives relative position adjectives of proper names

35 21 5 2 7 23

20 18 64 23 30 12

total

93

167

The ordering {adjective > noun} also contains 14 instances (13%) of adjectives anticipated before the preposition, cf. example (19). This phenomenon is mainly encountered in Cicero and concerns the adjectives of extent (magnus ‘big’, tam longus ‘so long’, summus ‘the highest’) or of personal judgement (mirificus ‘amazing’, aequus ‘equal’) used with emphasis. Adjectives expressing a permanent or objective property such as hostilis ‘hostile’ are rarely anticipated.

222

chapter three

2.4.1. Classifying Adjectives I will start the analysis of the data with classifying adjectives, which favour postposition. Into this category fall adjectives such as militaris ‘military’, publicus ‘public’, censorius ‘censorial’, civilis ‘civil’, regius ‘royal’. However, the data indicated in Table 2 include nine instances of res publica ‘Republic’, four instances of di immortales ‘immortal gods’ as well as three instances of ora maritima ‘seashore’ and res militaris ‘military affairs’. Given that the order is practically fixed in these phrases, the difference between anteposition and postposition is less striking. Nevertheless, we can say, firstly, that the presence of the preposition as such does not entail anteposition of classifying adjectives; in (10) and (11), the internal ordering is the same as it would be in noun phrases. Secondly, the anteposed adjectives are, at least in the majority of the cases, significant from a pragmatic point of view: they either figure in phrases with the function of Topic (quid de fretis aut de marinis aestibus? ‘what about the seas and straits with their tides?’ Cic. Div. 2.34), or they are contrastive. For example, naturalem in (12) contrasts with the other types of divination—especially oracular (vaticinatio, oracula)—that Cicero is discussing in this section. The anteposed adjective patrio carries emphasis in (13). The only cases which are difficult to explain from a pragmatic point of view are decumana porta11 denoting the gate situated at the rear side of the camp (with respect to the enemy) (14), and praetoria porta ‘the principal gate’ (Caes. Civ. 3.94.5). However, these adjectives do not indicate the type of gates: anteposition is due to the fact that they express polar orientation points in space (rear / front), on which see section 2.4.4. (10) Igitur Iugurtha contra decus regium cultu quam maxume miserabili cum Cassio Romam venit. ‘Accordingly Jugurtha, discarding the pomp of a king, accompanied Cassius to Rome and in garb designed to arouse as much pity as possible.’ (Sal. Jug. 33.1) (11)

Qui publicos agros arant, certum est quid e lege censoria debeant. ‘What cultivators of public land are bound to supply, is stipulated by the censors’ law.’ (Cic. Ver. 5.53)

(12) Auspicia restant … de quibus tum dicemus, cum ad naturalem divinationem venerimus. ‘Auspices remain … I shall speak of them when I get to natural divination.’ (Cic. Div. 2.70)

11

LLT provides six instances of decumana porta in Caesar.

the prepositional phrase

223

(13) At ego infelix, in tanta mala praecipitatus ex patrio regno … ‘But I, luckless that I am, hurled from my father’s throne into an abyss of troubles …’ (Sal. Jug. 14.23) (14) Pompeiana legio celeris spe subsidii confirmata ab decumana porta resistere conabatur. ‘The Pompeian legion, heartened by the hope of swift relief, tried to resist from the rear gate of the camp.’ (Caes. Civ. 3.69.2)

2.4.2. Descriptive Adjectives The category of descriptive adjectives displays both postposition and anteposition (21 P vs. 18 A). Adjectives expressing properties of an entity, especially objective, such as colour (15),12 physical aspect, or intellectual disposition appear in postposition, e.g. in tauro opimo ‘in the sacrificial (“fatty”) bull’ (Cic. Div. 2.37), per tramites occultos ‘by obscure by-paths’ (Sal. Jug. 48.2), per homines callidos ‘through skilled agents’ (Sal. Jug. 38.3), ex castris stativis ‘from the permanent camps’ (Caes. Civ. 3.30.2), cum fascibus laureatis ‘with his laurelled fasces’ (Cic. Div. 2.136). These adjectives indicate how the referent is, its quality. Adjectives expressing permanent properties applied to concrete entities can occur in anteposition, for example altissimos and desertas in (16); the adjectives bear emphasis in this case. Another example with an emphatic adjective is given in (17), where perito is modified by the intensive adverb tam. Adjectives in anteposition sometimes form a referential unit with their noun, for example a libera mente ‘from a free mind’ (Cic. Div. 2.101) or in abditas regiones in (18), expressing ‘where?’ (15) Stetit soleatus praetor populi Romani cum pallio purpureo tunicaque talari muliercula nixus in litore. ‘The praetor of the Roman people stood on the shore, dressed in sandals, a purple cloak, and a long-skirted tunic, and leaning on a girl.’ (Cic. Ver. 5.86) (16) Quid enim proficit, cum in medium mare fulmen iecit? Quid, cum in altissimos montes, quod plerumque fit? Quid, cum in desertas solitudines? ‘Who benefits, indeed, from a flash hurled in the middle of the sea? or, as he (Jupiter) often does, on to the tops of lofty mountains? or in solitary deserts?’ (Cic. Div. 2.45) (17) quod de re tanta et a tam perito imperatore nihil frustra confirmari videbatur ‘because it did not seem likely that they should receive groundless encouragement on so important a matter and from so experienced a commander’ (Caes. Civ. 3.87.7)

12 Cf. Cic. Ver. 5.31, where the second member presents anteposition of the adjective due to chiasmus: cum pallio purpureo talarique tunica ‘in a purple cloak and a long-skirted tunic’.

224

chapter three

(18) Denique Aulum … perpulit, uti relicto Suthule in abditas regiones sese veluti cedentem insequeretur. ‘Finally …, he induced Aulus to leave Suthul and to follow his feigned retreat into remote regions.’ (Sal. Jug. 38.2)

2.4.3. Evaluative Adjectives Adjectives expressing assessment do not describe a referent but reflect an author’s personal evaluation. They are anteposed in the majority of the cases (64 A vs. 5 P), for example, ex mala conscientia ‘by a guilty conscience’ (Sal. Jug. 62.8), de nefario tyranno (Cic. Ver. 5.117) ‘of a foul tyrant’, some of them in the superlative: de acerbissima morte (Cic. Ver. 5.72) ‘of their most harsh death’. Adjectives such as secundus ‘favourable’, adversus ‘unfavourable’, aequus ‘equally balanced’, iniquus ‘unequal (unfavourable)’, applied to res ‘thing’ or locus ‘place’, reflect an author’s assessment, as well as adjectives such as consuetus ‘habitual’ or necessarius ‘necessary’. Additionally, the adjective may be emphatic (19), or contrastive (20). (19) Sed te mirificam in latebram coniecisti. ‘But you betook yourself to a strange place of refuge.’ (Cic. Div. 2.46) (20) Interim Romae gaudium ingens ortum cognitis Metelli rebus, ut … in advorso loco victor tamen virtute fuisset … ‘Meanwhile, great joy has arisen at Rome from the news of Metellus’ exploits: … how, in an unfavourable position, he had nevertheless gained a victory by his valour …’ (Sal. Jug. 55.1)

Adjectives such as magnus, maximus, minimus, and summus applied to a human or an abstract entity (29 A vs. 1 P) belong to this category.13 They evaluate importance or extent of a quality and therefore express an author’s assessment. Two examples are given in (21) and (22). The only instance of postposition is that of cum dignitate maxima (23), which may result from coordination with religione, also qualified by this adjective. (21) Omitte igitur lituum Romuli, quem in maximo incendio negas potuisse comburi. ‘Then dismiss Romulus’ augural staff, which you say the hottest of fires was powerless to burn.’ (Cic. Div. 2.80)

13 On the other hand, maior / minor / maximus applied to an inanimate first-order entity such as castra belong either to the descriptive group (‘larger’ / ‘smaller’), or have a special meaning: ex/a maximis castris ‘from the main camp’, e.g. Caes. Civ. 3.62.2.

the prepositional phrase

225

(22) (Vagenses) Rursum Iugurtham arbitrati cum magno gaudio obvii procedunt. ‘(The people of Vaga) imagined that it was Jugurtha and went out full of joy to meet him.’ (Sal. Jug. 69.1) (23) (ludos) mihi … cum dignitate maxima et religione Iovi Iunoni Minervaeque esse faciundos ‘that I must put on, with the greatest dignity and religious observance …, the games for Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva’ (Cic. Ver. 5.36)

2.4.4. Adjectives Expressing Space and Time The well-represented group of adjectives referring to space and time clearly favours anteposition (23 A vs. 2 P).14 It comprises adjectives with a temporal meaning, such as adjectives expressing duration: longus ‘long’, infinitus ‘lasting’ (24), and adjectives referring to a situation in time: ex pristina virtute ‘of their former bravery’ (Caes. Civ. 3.28.5), ad cotidiana opera ‘to their daily tasks’ (Caes. Civ. 3.49.4), a praesenti supplicio ‘from present punishment’ (Cic. Ver. 5.74), in nova deditione ‘in a recent surrender’ (Sal. Jug. 75.8). These are non-inherent properties of the entities involved. Postposition is rare, for example, in rebus futuris in (25); this adjective specifies the noun. (24) Quae potest igitur contagio ex infinito paene intervallo pertinere ad lunam vel potius ad terram? ‘Therefore, of these almost limitless distances, what influence can the planets exercise upon the moon, or rather, upon the earth?’ (Cic. Div. 2.92) (25) Ergo hoc inerat in rebus futuris et causas naturalis habebat? ‘Was this involved in future events, were there natural causes of it?’ (Cic. Div. 2.143)

A similar tendency for anteposition is evident for adjectives expressing orientation in space. Polar orientation points fall into this category, such as on the left / on the right or inside / outside, e.g. in dextro cornu ‘on the right wing’ (Caes. Civ. 3.88.3), in interiorem portum ‘to the inner harbour’ (Caes. Civ. 3.40.2). 2.4.5. Adjectives Expressing a Relative Position Another category is that of adjectives indicating a relative position in space and time, e.g. adjectives expressing location: superior ‘upper’, inferior ‘lower’; proximity: proximus ‘next’, finitimus ‘adjacent’; extremity: novissimus ‘the last’, summus ‘the highest’, extremus ‘uttermost’; middle: medius, to which

14

As has already been observed by Albrecht (1890: 70).

226

chapter three

ordinal numerals are to be added. Compared with the previous group of adjectives expressing space and time, the adjectives indicating a relative position serve to identify the noun. They can be used in two ways: with a full meaning or with a partitive meaning of the adjective.15 This point does not seem to have any influence on the placement of the adjectives that are, in both cases, predominantly anteposed to their nouns (30 A vs. 7 P).16 Two examples of adjectives expressing a relative position with a full meaning are given in (26) and (27): proximis is applied to space in the sense of ‘nearby’; extremum has a temporal meaning ‘last’. Then come the adjectives with a partitive meaning, i.e. applying to a part of the entity involved:17 ad extremum tumulum (28) is not ‘the last hill’ but ‘the extremity of the hill’, ‘the top of the hill’. Likewise, de media nocte ‘at about midnight’ (Caes. Civ. 3.62.2), or e medio supplicio in (29). Postposition of these adjectives is easy to explain as due to contrast or a semantically prominent specifying value (30). (26) Nam plura castella Pompeius pariter distinendae manus causa temptaverat ne ex proximis praesidiis succurri posset. ‘For Pompey had made attempts on several forts in order to stretch our manpower, so that that help would not be available from the nearest garrisons.’ (Caes. Civ. 3.52.1) (27) (Cives Romani) crebris confecti vulneribus ad extremum auxilium descenderunt. ‘(Roman citizens) enfeebled by many wounds adopted their last resort.’ (Caes. Civ. 3.9.3) (28) Caesar receptui suorum timens crates ad extremum tumulum contra hostem proferri … iussit. ‘Fearing for his men’s retreat, Caesar ordered hurdles to be carried to the furthest point of the hill.’ (Caes. Civ. 3.46.1) (29) ut statim e medio supplicio dimiserit ‘he released them immediately, when their punishment was already under way’ (Cic. Ver. 5.13)

15 For the partitive meaning of this type of adjectives, see the detailed study by Vaughan (1942); cf. Ernout & Thomas (1954: 166) and Romero (1996). 16 Vaughan (1942: 70) draws a similar conclusion from another point of view: the place of the adjective cannot be regarded as a decisive factor for partitive or non-partitive interpretation of the adjective. For anteposition of this type of adjectives, see also Albrecht (1890: 73). 17 In this connection, cf. the expression with pars: partem ultimam pontis ‘the farthest section of the bridge’ (Caes. Gal. 6.29.2) (ultimam in postposition is contrastive), and that with a genitive: ad summum montis ‘at the top of the mountain’ (Sal. Jug. 37.4), which is an instance of an adjective used substantively (see Koestermann 1971: 154 and 332).

the prepositional phrase

227

(30) (cohortes) Reliquas inter aciem mediam cornuaque interiecerat. ‘He had inserted the rest of the cohorts between the middle of the formation and the wings.’ (Caes. Civ. 3.88.4)

Ordinal numerals occur in anteposition or postposition, depending on the value they carry. Ordinal numerals that form a referential unit with their nouns are anteposed (31). When they are semantically prominent, they are in postposition (32) with an specifying value (‘which one?’). In this connection, it is worth remembering that whereas night watches present a pre-nominal ordinal in a systematic way (de quarta vigilia ‘at the fourth watch’ Caes. Civ. 3.75.2), hours and expressions of date have the ordinal in postposition (post horam nonam ‘after the ninth hour’ Caes. Civ. 3.80.7, ante diem quartum Kalendas ‘three days before Kalends’).18 In the latter two cases, the ordinal numerals have a prominent semantic value. (31) ab iis cohortibus quae contra equitatum in quarta acie conlocatae essent ‘with those cohorts which had been stationed in the fourth line opposite the cavalry’ (Caes. Civ. 3.94.3) (32) (Crastinus) qui superiore anno apud eum primum pilum in legione decima duxerat ‘(Crastinus) who in the previous year had served under him as leading centurion in the Tenth legion’ (Caes. Civ. 3.91.1)

2.4.6. Adjectives Derived from Proper Names The adjectives in this category are derived from personal names and place names. In postposition, which is the most frequent position for this type of adjectives (23 P vs. 12 A), are found adjectives applied to first-order nouns denoting a place, e.g. in campum Atinatem ‘to the plains of Atina’ (Cic. Div. 2.137), contra portum Brundisinum ‘against the port of Brundisium’ (Caes. Civ. 3.23.1), in curia Pompeia ‘in Pompey’s hall’ (Cic. Div. 2.23). They have a specifying function. There are also phrases containing another type of head noun, such as lex: per legem Mamiliam ‘by the Mamilian law’ (Sal. Jug. 65.5) or nomen: ab sociis et nomine Latino ‘from the allies and Latin peoples’ (Sal. Jug. 39.2), with which we can also include six instances of the fixed phrase populus Romanus ‘Roman people’. The majority of the phrases with adjectives in anteposition concern military troops (8 occ. out of 12): milites ‘soldiers’, classis ‘fleet’, quadriremis ‘quadrireme’, exercitus ‘army’. This ordering is not surprising insofar as we have seen in chapter 2 (section 7,

18

See Marouzeau (1953: 28) and Spevak (2010a: 249).

228

chapter three

p. 176) that in military contexts a contrast is often established between two commanders or two armies, as in (33). On the other hand, the postposed adjective Centuripina in (34) does not carry contrast but has a semantically prominent specifying value (‘in what ship?’).19 (33) (Cassius) conpletas onerarias naves taeda et pice et stuppa reliquisque rebus quae sunt ad incendia in Pomponianam classem immisit. ‘(Cassius) let cargo ships filled with resinous pine pitch, tow, and other inflammable material drift down on to Pomponius’ fleet.’ (Caes. Civ. 3.101.2) (34) Princeps Cleomenes in quadriremi Centuripina malum erigi, vela fieri … imperavit ‘The commander-in-chief Cleomenes ordered the mast to be erected in a quadrireme from Centuripae, the sails to be spread …’ (Cic. Ver. 5.88)

To sum up, the behaviour of the adjectives occurring in prepositional phrases is similar to that in noun phrases. The presence of a preposition does not seem to have any influence on the placement of adjectives and there is no evident tendency for anteposition to be the default case. The fact that adjectives used in prepositional phrases appear to favour anteposition correlates with the types of adjectives used: prepositional phrases very frequently contain adjectives expressing location in space and time, including several used in a relative way. At the same time, the choice of the adjectives—and the governing nouns—corresponds to the semantic functions the prepositional phrases fulfil: the prepositional phrases collected often express time and place complements. 2.5. Multiple Modifiers My corpus did not offer many instances of prepositional phrases with more than one modifier (18 in total);20 they mainly appear in Cicero. However, the examples gathered suggest that modifiers are not necessarily framed by the preposition and the governing noun (8 occ.); an adjective can follow the noun, e.g. in aliis quoque oraculis Delphicis ‘in other Delphic oracles’ (Cic. Div. 2.118) or in (35). The adjective parvus in postposition has a descriptive value: it refers to the size of light ships called myoparones, which served for pillaging coastal regions. The formation of framed phrases, i.e. units

19 On the other hand, in Centuripina quadriremi (Cic. Ver. 5.86) is contrastive with respect to other cities that have provided ships. 20 Prepositional phrases containing two or more coordinated adjectives are infrequent in my corpus and the instances collected do not permit drawing more general conclusions. They will not be given further consideration.

the prepositional phrase

229

opened by the preposition and closed by the noun, does not seem to be mechanical. On the contrary, anteposition of an adjective often results from contrast or emphasis; example (36) illustrates a case of emphasis carried by the adjective manifesto. Five times, framed phrases contain a demonstrative pronoun, hic or ille (37); but here again, we are more likely to be dealing with the anteposition of an emphatic adjective, or a reference to shared knowledge rather than with a syntactic constraint requiring insertion of the adjectives between the preposition and the noun. (35) Hic te praetore Heracleo pirata cum quattuor myoparonibus parvis ad arbitrium suum navigavit. ‘Here, while you were praetor, the pirate Heracleo sailed around in his four small ships, just as he pleased.’ (Cic. Ver. 5.97) (36) (Heraclius) Is tamen in eadem causa fuit, quasi esset in aliquo manifesto scelere deprehensus. ‘Nevertheless, Heraclius was treated exactly as if he had been caught committing a crime red-handed.’ (Cic. Ver. 5.111) (37) Curritur ad praetorium, quo istum ex illo praeclaro convivio reduxerant. ‘There was a rush to the governor’s residence, where he had been brought after this famous dinner-party.’ (Cic. Ver. 5.92)

2.6. Genitive Complements Nouns used in the prepositional phrases under examination very frequently co-occur with genitive complements. For the purpose of analysis, I will treat separately phrases containing head nouns without a modifier (section 2.6.1) and phrases containing head nouns with one or more modifiers (section 2.6.2). 2.6.1. Genitives Governed by Nouns without a Modifier Table 3 present the results. A distinction is made between genitives with animate referents and inanimate referents, and between singular and plural number. In the majority of the cases, genitive complements are used without a modifier; genitives with an expansion represent 38 instances. The genitives involved are formed from nouns; pronominal ones (e.g. eorum, omnium, aliorum) are infrequent (8 occ.) and appear, with one exception, in anteposition. Table 3 reveals that postposition of genitive complements is preferred (62% in total) for all the categories examined.21

21

Among them, there are several phrases with invariable ordering: de consili sententia ‘by

230

chapter three

Table 3: Genitive complements governed by head nouns without a modifier Order animate referents inanimate referents Total

Noun Gen.

Gen. Noun

sg.

pl.

sg.

pl.

58 55

41 17

31 34

34 8

113

58

65

42

2.6.1.1. Genitives with Animate and Inanimate Referents I will first consider animate referents. A well represented group comprises genitives formed from proper names, which predominantly stand in postposition (38 P vs. 19 A). They have specific referents, typically not expressed in the previous context, e.g. e fano Dianae ‘from the shrine of Diana’ (Caes. Civ. 3.33.1) or de capite Panisci in (38). When they are contextually given, they specify their head nouns: de monumento Mari ‘of Marius’ monument’ (Cic. Div. 2.140), ad castra Cassi ‘towards Cassius’ camp’ (Caes. Civ. 3.36.4). In historical narratives, genitives often refer to commanders and are found in both postposition and anteposition. We have already seen (section 2.4.6) that references to commanders and their armies represent special cases in that known entities are confronted with one another. These genitives occur in postposition (39) or in anteposition (40). An interesting case is that of the genitive Caesaris, which has a contextually given referent par excellence; however, in the Civil War, it is found 4 times in anteposition and 11 times in postposition. Anteposition results from its contextually given status (known information), postposition from contrast or the specifying value of the genitive (41) (‘whose arrival?’). (38) Idem Carneadem fingere dicis de capite Panisci. ‘You also say that Carneades imagined the same about the head of Pan.’ (Cic. Div. 2.48) (39) Qua re animadversa Caesar copias suas divisit partemque legionum in castris Pompei remanere iussit … ‘On observing this, Caesar split his forces and ordered a part of the legions to remain in Pompey’s camp …’ (Caes. Civ. 3.97.3)

the resolution of the council’ (7 occ., e.g. Cic. Ver. 5.54), ex senatus consulto ‘by the decree of the senate’ (3 occ., Cic. Ver. 5.52), and per orbem terrarum ‘throughout the world’ (2 occ., Caes. Civ. 3.43.3).

the prepositional phrase

231

(40) (M. Octavius) Ibi concitatis Dalmatis reliquisque barbaris Issam a Caesaris amicitia avertit. ‘(M. Octavius) There, he stirred up the Dalmatians and the other natives and detached Issa from its loyalty to Caesar.’ (Caes. Civ. 3.9.1) (41) Bibulus enim Corcyrae certior factus de adventu Caesaris, sperans … ‘For Bibulus hearing at Corcyra of Caesar’s arrival, in hopes of …’ (Caes. Civ. 3.8.3)

It is important to mention two instances of pragmatically relevant genitives in anteposition that fulfil the function of Focus; they are expanded by an apposition. In (42), the person, Gaius Trebonius, plays a role afterwards in the text. The other analogous example is in M. Anni, hominis splendidissimi, testimonio ‘in the testimony of Marcus Annius, a very distinguished man’ (Cic. Ver. 5.73). (42) Isdem temporibus M. Caelius Rufus praetor causa debitorum suscepta initio magistratus tribunal suum iuxta C. Treboni, praetoris urbani, sellam conlocavit. ‘During this period, the praetor Marcus Caelius Rufus took up the cause of the debtors; at the beginning of his magistracy he placed his tribunal close to the chair of Gaius Trebonius, the urban praetor.’ (Caes. Civ. 3.20.1)

In the plural, proper names of peoples and inhabitants, e.g. Etruscorum, Aegyptiorum, Romanorum, Numidarum are infrequent (10 occ.); genitives of common nouns are better represented. They stand in postposition when they have a specifying value such as in (43) with a contextually given referent, or in (44) with a referent not expressed in the previous context. Postposition of the latter nicely demonstrates the specifying value of a generic referent (deorum) (‘the nature of who?’). In all his works, Cicero uses the phrase de natura deorum ‘on the nature of the gods’ 19 times in total; the ordering de deorum natura appears only once, in a contrastive context.22 On the other hand, Leptitanorum in (45), given by the context, is not semantically prominent but forms a referential unit with its noun negotia. (43) Qui igitur convenit aegros a coniectore somniorum potius quam a medico petere medicinam? ‘What would be the sense in the sick seeking relief from an interpreter of dreams rather than from a physician?’ (Cic. Div. 2.123)

22 With respect to philosophorum, cf. Cic. N.D. 1.91: Etenim enumerasti … usque a Thale Milesio de deorum natura philosophorum sententias. ‘For you enumerated … the opinions of philosophers from Thales of Miletus onwards concerning the nature of the gods.’

232

chapter three

(44) Quod et in iis libris dictum est, qui sunt de natura deorum, et hac disputatione id maxume egimus. ‘I stated this in my treatise On the Nature of the Gods, and I tried to prove it in the present discussion.’ (Cic. Div. 2.148) (45) (Leptitani …) Sed quoniam in eas regiones per Leptitanorum negotia venimus … ‘(the people of Leptis) Now that the events at Leptis have taken us to this region …’ (Sal. Jug. 79.1)

Inanimate referents behave, in principle, in the same way. Specifying genitives occur in postposition, two examples of which are given in (46) and (47); foederis has a contextually given, specific referent; lapidum is generic, not expressed in the previous context. Genitives occur post-nominally when they provide specification of the noun, e.g. ad fauces portus ‘to the mouth of the harbour’ (Caes. Civ. 3.24.1), ad liniamenta oris (Cic. Div. 2.48) ‘to the lineaments of the face’, ante frontem castrorum ‘in front of his camp’ (Caes. Civ. 3.37.1). By contrast, pre-nominal genitives are used when the genitive resumes old information and forms a referential unit with its noun; in (48), the verb adfers makes an explicit reference to what has been said before.23 See also example (49). (46) quod iis navem contra pactionem foederis imperarint ‘because they required them to provide a ship in violation of the terms of the treaty’ (Cic. Ver. 5.49) (47) Multum autem ab ictu lapidum, quod unum nostris erat telum, viminea tegimenta galeis inposita defendebant. ‘But the osier coverings placed on their helmets protected them to a great extent from the blows of stones, which were the only weapon our men had.’ (Caes. Civ. 3.63.7) (48) Sed adfers in tauri opimi extis immolante Caesare cor non fuisse. ‘But you say that when Caesar was offering a sacrifice, there was no heart in the entrails of the sacrificial bull.’ (Cic. Div. 2.36) (49) (thesaurum inventum iri …) Quid habere mundus potest cum thesauri inventione coniunctum? ‘(the finding of a treasure) What connection can there be between the universe and the finding of a treasure?’ (Cic. Div. 2.33)

The placement of the genitive rerum, with a generic referent, which cooccurs with the noun natura in Cicero, is a delicate issue. In my corpus, it 23 The passage concerned is Div. 1.119 where Quintus has said: in extis bovis opimi cor non fuit ‘no heart was found in the vitals of the votive ox’. Notice that in this case the genitive is in postposition.

the prepositional phrase

233

stands three times in anteposition (50), two times in postposition (51). Here again, I would interpret the post-nominal genitive as semantically prominent, but the pre-nominal genitive as forming a referential unit with the governing noun. In Cicero’s works, both orderings are found, but anteposition of the genitive prevails: rerum natura (39 A vs. 19 P). (50) Necesse est eam (vim) aut cum rerum natura esse coniunctam aut conformari quodam modo numine deorum vique divina. ‘This force is necessarily in accord with the laws of nature, or is fashioned in some way by the will and power of the gods.’ (Cic. Div. 2.29) (51) Videsne Epicurum, quem hebetem et rudem dicere solent Stoici, quem ad modum, quod in natura rerum omne esse dicimus, id infinitum esse concluserit? ‘Do you see how Epicurus, whom you Stoics usually call stupid and rude, has concluded that what we term “the whole” in the nature, is infinite?’ (Cic. Div. 2.103)

2.6.1.2. Genitives with a Modifier Genitives expanding a noun are mostly without a modifier; only a small number of them have one (38 occ. in total). Complexity of the genitive complement as such does not seem to influence anteposition or postposition: genitives with a modifier are postposed 21 times, and anteposed 17 times. The pre-nominal position of the genitives can be attributed to the contextually given status of the referent, e.g. in earum cohortium virtute ‘on those cohorts’ courage’ (Caes. Civ. 3.89.4) or to the idea of a referential unit that they form with the governing noun (52). (52) Tu vates Boeotios credis Lebadiae vidisse ex gallorum gallinaceorum cantu victoriam esse Thebanorum, quia galli victi silere solerent, canere victores. ‘You believe that the Boeotian bards at Lebadia foretold victory for the Thebans from the crowing of cocks; for cocks are wont to be silent when defeated and to crow when victorious.’ (Cic. Div. 2.56)

My corpus also offered five instances of two genitive complements with distinct functions, for example in (53) where capite governs statuae and the latter governs Lysandri. They mostly occur in framed phrases but this may be by chance. (53) At in Lysandri statuae capite Delphis exstitit corona ex asperis herbis. ‘However, a crown of wild herbs suddenly appeared on the head of Lysander’s statue at Delphi.’ (Cic. Div. 2.68)

2.6.1.3. Measure Expressions Among the prepositional phrases gathered, there are cases for which the distinctions between animate and inanimate referents and between singular

234

chapter three

and plural number are not useful, namely measure expressions. The group of measure expressions (14 occ.) includes nominal quantifiers such as paucitas ‘small quantity’, multitudo, copia ‘great number’ and pars ‘part’, as well as nouns like longitudo ‘length’, summa ‘total number’, and altitudo (54). Magnitudo can be added to these, expressing extent, e.g. ad magnitudinem frigorum ‘against the severe cold’ (Cic. Ver. 5.26) or denoting greatness or importance, e.g. pro magnitudine imperi ‘for the majesty of your empire’ (Sal. Jug. 14.16). In all these cases, the genitives occur post-nominally. On the other hand, in the expressions ex … numero (55) ‘from the number of’ and in … numero ‘in the number of’, the genitive complement frequently comes before the noun, or more exactly, is inserted between the preposition and the noun (9 occ. out of 11). (54) … turres extruxit et in altitudinem pedum XV effectis operibus vineis eam partem castrorum obtexit. ‘… he constructed towers and having carried his works to a height of 15 feet, protected that part of his camp with mantlets.’ (Caes. Civ. 3.54.1) (55) Nam illud mirarer, si crederem, quod apud Homerum Calchantem dixisti ex passerum numero belli Troiani annos auguratum. ‘If I believed it, I should marvel at that famous story you got out of Homer about Calchas predicting the years of the Trojan War from the number of sparrows.’ (Cic. Div. 2.63)

2.6.2. Genitives Governed by Nouns with a Modifier I will turn now to prepositional phrases consisting of a head + genitive noun and another modifier. Their ordering is indicated in Table 4. Genitive complements are with or without a modifier. Table 4: Genitive complements governed by a noun with a modifier Order

Occurrences

Prep. > Det. > Noun > Gen. Prep. > Adj. > Noun > Gen. Prep. > Det. > Gen. > Noun Prep. > Adj. > Gen. > Noun Det. > Prep. > Noun > Gen. Adj. > Prep. > Noun > Gen. Other

22 14 12 6 3 1 5

Total

63

the prepositional phrase

235

The data show that the genitive complement quite often comes last in the sequence (22+14 occ.). It is thus common to find the genitive in postnominal position, e.g. ex prima admiratione hominum ‘from the first astonishment of men’ (Cic. Div. 2.42), where hominum contrasts with praepotentem Iovem, and this applies even if the noun (eam partem) is expanded by a relative clause, as in (56). On the other hand, a genitive with a contextually given referent can also occur between the modifier and the noun (57). Adjectives coming first in the sequence mainly express location (medius ‘in the middle’, infimus ‘lowest’, dexter ‘right-hand’), for which anteposition is usual, and also subjective evaluation, such as gravissimas in (58). (56) De media nocte cohortes LX … ad eam partem munitionum ducit quae pertinebat ad mare longissimeque a maximis castris Caesaris aberat. ‘At about midnight he led 60 cohorts … towards that part of the fortifications which adjoined the sea and was furthest away from Caesar’s main camp.’ (Caes. Civ. 3.62.2) (57) (Achillas) occupabat Alexandriam praeter eam oppidi partem quam Caesar cum militibus tenebat. ‘(Achillas) occupied Alexandria except for the part of the town which Caesar held with his soldiers.’ (Caes. Civ. 3.111.1) (58) Iam de sacerdotio Caesaris Domitius Scipio Spintherque Lentulus cotidianis contentionibus ad gravissimas verborum contumelias palam descenderunt. ‘Already Domitius, Scipio, and Lentulus Spinther, in daily rivalry for the priesthood of Caesar, publicly descended to the gravest insolence of speech.’ (Caes. Civ. 3.83.1)

2.6.3. Coordination Very complex prepositional phrases containing coordinated elements exhibit various orderings (Table 5). Table 5: Complexes phrases with coordinated elements Order

Occurrences

Prep. > Noun & Noun > Gen. Prep. > Noun > Gen. & Gen. Prep. > Gen. & Gen. > Noun Prep. > Gen. > Noun & Noun Other

19 6 4 3 11

Total

43

236

chapter three

Despite occurring in a multitude of arrangements, it is interesting to see, here again, that the genitive complement manifests a tendency for postposition. It usually expands two coordinated nouns, e.g. senatus in (59) and templi in (60).24 In my corpus, it is less common to find such a genitive in another position. Example (61) illustrates contrastive instances; Cicero is contrasting Verres’ qualities with those of famous Roman commanders. (59) At C. Memmius … inter dubitationem et moras senatus contionibus populum ad vindicandum hortari … ‘But while the senate hesitated and delayed, Gaius C. Memmius … excited the people by his harangues to take vengeance …’ (Sal. Jug. 30.3) (60) Pergamique in occultis ac reconditis templi, quo praeter sacerdotes adire fas non est, quae Graeci adyta appellant, tympana sonuerunt. ‘And at Pergamum drums sounded in the secret hidden parts of the sanctuary, which the Greeks call adyta, and where none but the priests may go.’ (Caes. Civ. 3.105.5) (61) neque ad Pauli rationem ac disciplinam neque ad Gai Mari vim atque virtutem ‘nor the method and discipline of Paulus, nor the vigour and valour of Gaius Marius’ (Cic. Ver. 5.25)

When two coordinated genitives depend on one noun, they are either both in postposition (62), or in anteposition (63). The first instance provides further specification, while the second noun phrase contains information belonging to shared knowledge. (62) Praeclara classis in speciem sed inops et infirma propter dimissionem propugnatorum atque remigum. ‘To all appearances a magnificent fleet, but weak and ineffective because of the exemptions given to sailors and oarsmen.’ (Cic. Ver. 5.86) (63) (occiso Ti. Graccho …;) post C. Gracchi et C. Fulvi caedem item vostri ordinis multi mortales in carcere necati sunt. ‘(after the assassination of Tiberius Gracchus …;) after the murders of Gaius Gracchus and Marcus Fulvius, many of your order were executed in prison.’ (Sal. Jug. 31.7)

3. Adnominal Prepositional Phrases Relatively few studies have been devoted to prepositional phrases which depend on a noun. After the work of Jänicke (1886), who provides a col-

24 This is the sole example in Caesar of the neuter plural of an adjective followed by a genitive, see Carter (1993: 225).

the prepositional phrase

237

lection of adnominal prepositional phrases in Cicero’s works (several of his examples are not correct), this question has been taken up again by Wharton (1996 and 2009). Latin grammars mention adnominal prepositional phrases on several occasions. The first are verbal nouns which present constructions parallel to verbs and hence accept the same syntactic type of complements (K.&St. I: 213–217). Secondly, it is sometimes claimed that nouns other than verbal nouns must be accompanied by a modifier (such as an adjective, determiner, or possessive genitive) in order to admit a prepositional phrase as expansion (Menge 2000: 343 and Szantyr 1972: 428). This results in framed constructions, which grammarians often call a “closed” order, with the complement enclosed by the modifier and the governing noun as in (64).25 However, Wharton (1996: 169) argues that insertion of the complement occurs in only about 42% of the cases, with great variation in individual authors.26 (64) tria cum Carthaginiensibus bella ‘three wars against Carthaginians’

It has been argued that prepositional phrases manifest a tendency for postposition with respect to their governing nouns (K.&St. I: 213). This observation is confirmed by Wharton’s (1996: 167) study. Another question which arises is that of the frequency of adnominal prepositional phrases. According to Wharton (1996), prepositional phrases functioning as noun complements make up 10% of all prepositional phrases gathered in his corpus.27 From the point of view of noun complements, we have seen (chapter 1, section 3.2, p. 37) that only about 5 % of noun complements take the syntactic form of a prepositional phrase.28 In sum, prepositional phrases are atypical noun complements in Latin. This section will be devoted to prepositional phrases governed by a noun, an adjective, and a quantifier. After several remarks concerning problems of attachment (3.1), I will focus on the types of nouns that take an adnominal prepositional phrase (section 3.2), and on the internal ordering of these

25

See K.&St. (I: 217) and Szantyr (1972: 428); cf. Gettert (1999: 33). Cf. also Hoff’s study (1995) on complex sequences {adjective + noun + genitive}, concerning noun and prepositional phrases. In his corpus, 40 % of the phrases are framed. 27 It is worth remembering that my data presented in the previous section only concern prepositional phrases in which the nouns have a modifier; for the purposes of this section, all prepositional phrases functioning as noun complements have been collected. Data from my sections 2 and 3 cannot thus be compared. 28 Wharton (2009: 191–194) also evaluates the frequency of adnominal prepositional phrases in Latin with respect to other languages. Their frequency is two times greater in Ancient Greek and ten times or even more in modern languages, such as French or English. 26

238

chapter three

constructions. Section 3.3 will deal with adjectives expanded by a prepositional phrase, and section 3.4, with partitive constructions. Unlike Wharton (1996 and 2009), I will pay attention to the type of nouns involved, and to an explanation of the placement of the prepositional phrases, contiguity, and support verb constructions. Instances have been collected from the same corpus as in section 2. Unlike section 2 where only prepositional phrases with a noun accompanied by a modifier (preposition + noun + modifier) were examined, in this section all adnominal prepositional phrases have been collected, simple ones (preposition + noun) as well as complex ones (preposition + modifier + noun). Before coming to an analysis, I will first evaluate the distribution of adnominal prepositional phrases in individual authors and will formulate some more general observations. Table 6 presents the numbers of prepositional phrases governed by a noun and by an adjective. Caesar uses them most frequently but they are also found in Sallust’s highly stylistically elaborated historical narrative.29 Table 6: Adnominal prepositional phrases

Noun Adjective

Cic. Div.

Cic. Ver.

Caes.

Sal.

Total

43 8

38 19

83 28

30 9

194 64

As for prepositions involved, in, de, ex, and cum are the most frequent. In broad outline, the distribution of individual preposition in my corpus agrees with the figures presented by Wharton (2009: 202), and I will not go into more details on this topic. 3.1. Problems of Attachment My examination of the corpus makes it clear that it is not always easy to recognise the relationship that holds between constituents.30 Place complements especially pose a problem. Formal criteria such as framing or adjacency of the prepositional phrase to its governing noun cannot serve, in my opinion, as reliable criteria for the identification of adnominal prepo-

29 Szantyr (1972: 428) states that adnominal prepositional phrases are typical of colloquial Latin and elliptical expressions. This is unlikely. 30 Wharton (2009: 189–191) also mentions difficulties with the interpretation. I use the same method as he does: prepositional phrases that can be associated with a verb or a participle are regarded not adnominal.

the prepositional phrase

239

sitional phrases. For a good interpretation, it is necessary to have recourse to semantics. For example, one would be tempted to interpret the segment nullum … bellum in (65) as a framed phrase, but at the semantic level, in Sicilia is a place complement that should be associated with the verb and not with bellum. Accordingly, nullum … bellum is a discontinuous noun phrase with the intervention of alien elements in the middle, and nullum stands with emphasis at the beginning of the colon. In (66), the proximity of castra and in Thessalia does not necessarily entail an interpretation as a noun phrase; here again, we have a place complement (which would be expected, as the setting, at the beginning of the sentence). Another example of unreliable proximity is that in (67); sine corde is not a complement of victuma but expresses the modalities of the process vivo ‘to live’. (65) Nos enim post illud bellum quod M’. Aquilius confecit, sic accepimus, nullum in Sicilia fugitivorum bellum fuisse. At in Italia fuit. ‘For we have understood that since the war which Marcus Aquilius finished, there has been no slave war in Sicily. But there was one in Italy.’ (Cic. Ver. 5.5) (66) Castra enim in Thessalia castris conlata audiebamus. ‘For news was coming to us that the both camps were facing each other in Thessaly.’ (Cic. Div. 2.114) (67) Id quia non potuerit accidere, ut sine corde victuma illa viveret, iudicandum esse tum interisse cor, cum immolaretur. ‘Since it would have been in impossible for the victim to live without a heart, the heart must have disappeared at the moment of immolation.’ (Cic. Div. 2.36)

Before we start the analysis of nouns governing a prepositional phrase, it is also important to point out that a language has various competing means available for expressing an idea. I will give one example for illustration: with a verb of saying, the prepositional phrase with de expresses what we talk about (68). Verba as a product of the action of speaking can receive the same construction, especially with the support verb facio ‘to make’ in (69). As a consequence of the ellipsis of the word verba—which seem to be only allowed in the case of verbs with a full meaning (dico ‘to say’, addo ‘to add’, loquor / dico ‘to talk’, dissero ‘to expound’), not with support verbs—the prepositional phrase falls under the dependency of addit pauca in (70). (68) Nondum de mea sententia dico, impudentiae primum respondebo tuae. ‘I am not yet speaking of my opinion; I will first of all reply to your impudence.’ (Cic. Dom. 4) (69) cum … multa de collegi iudicio verba fecissent ‘when … they had discussed the judgment of the College at some length’ (Cic. Har. 13)

240

chapter three

(70) Huc addit pauca de causa et de copiis auxiliisque suis. ‘To this he adds a few words about the cause and about his own forces and auxiliaries.’ (Caes. Civ. 3.16.5)

3.2. Nouns Governing Prepositional Phrases My corpus offered a great number of nouns governing prepositional phrases (194 in total). First of all, I will give a global evaluation of the results. We have already seen that Latin grammars usually argue that with nouns other than verbal nouns, prepositional phrases are not allowed unless they depend on a complex noun, i.e. a noun with a modifier.31 In my corpus, there are 117 instances of nouns without any modifiers and 77 instances of nouns with a modifier. As the number of head nouns without a modifier is higher than the number of verbal nouns (Table 7), the phenomenon of adnominal prepositional phrases is not conditioned by the presence of a modifier accompanying the governing noun. The types of nouns occurring in my corpus are summarised in Table 7. Table 7: Types of the nouns governing a prepositional phrase Noun concrete inanimate concrete animate verbal abstract Total

Occurrences 43 24 99 28 194

It is interesting to see that verbal nouns (99 occ.), to which six instances of agent nouns included in the category of “concrete animate nouns” can be added, roughly represent a half of all the nouns that take a prepositional phrase as expansion. Here, I should specify that, as “verbal nouns”, I classified nouns derived from verbs (pactio ‘treaty’) and nouns associated with an action (spes ‘hope’); by contrast, among “abstract nouns” there figure temporal entities (autumnus ‘autumn’), properties (crudelitas ‘cruelty’) and results of actions (poena ‘punishment’). The facts are more complex (cf. chapter 1,

31 Cf. Menge (2000: 343) and Szantyr (1972: 428). Wharton (2009: 185) claims that the presence of a modifier of the governing noun is not required, without discussing this point in detail. However, when the governing noun is in a prepositional phrase, framing is only possible for nouns with a modifier; sequences such as *in de re publica libris are not acceptable.

the prepositional phrase

241

section 2.4.2, p. 27) and complicated, especially because of the presence of support verb constructions (47 occ.) that I will examine in detail in section 3.2.3.32 In the next section, I will discuss the individual categories separately. 3.2.1. Types of Nouns Governing Adnominal Prepositional Phrases 3.2.1.1. Concrete Inanimate Nouns The first category is represented by concrete inanimate nouns (43 occ.) mostly denoting first-order entities. It includes zero-valent nouns the complement of which is optional, e.g. liber de ‘book on’, exemplum de ‘example of’, corona ex ‘crown made of’, vulnus ex ‘wound from’, pugna in ‘fight in’,33 lacrimae de ‘tears because of’, flamma ex ‘flame coming from’. Nouns expressing results of a process also belong to this category, such as remedium ad ‘medicine for’ or mandata ad ‘instructions for’34 (one could consider the complement of the latter one as required by valency). Other examples are given in (71)–(73). The prepositional phrases involved express, respectively, content (de), material (ex), source (ex) (72), goal or purpose (ad), location (in, contra (73), iuxta), or various modalities (sine in (71)). These optional complements are for the most part postposed (25 P, 12 A and 6 framed) because they specify the noun. They refer to entities not expressed in the previous context. Variability of position mainly concerns prepositional phrases expressing content (de).35 Example (74) clearly shows that anteposition of the prepositional phrase sine capite results from the contrast established with cum capite.36 (71) oppida temere munita aut sine praesidio capit ‘he captures towns that were ill fortified or undefended’ (Sal. Jug. 54.6) (72) Audiebantur prius se cortice ex arboribus victuros quam Pompeium e manibus dimissuros. ‘(The soldiers) were heard to say that they would rather live off bark from the trees than let Pompey slip out of their hands.’ (Caes. Civ. 3.49.1)

32 Nouns entering into support verb constructions figure among the “verbal nouns” in Table 7. 33 I classify pugna as a first-order entity because it denotes a concrete confrontation in space and time. On the other hand, bellum is rather a second-order entity involving more abstraction because it comprises a series of conflicts. 34 Two times in the third book of Caesar’s Civil War (e.g. 3.57.5): haec ad eum (Scipionem) mandata Clodius refert ‘Clodius reported this commission to Scipio’. 35 For expressions of content, cf. chapter 2, p. 206 on liber de. 36 The head of a liver is its superior part, ‘the lobe’; for its description and importance for divination, see Pease (1963: 95).

242

chapter three

(73) Erat eo loco fossa pedum XV et vallum contra hostem in altitudinem pedum X. ‘There was in that place a ditch 15 feet wide and a rampart facing the enemy 10 feet high.’ (Caes. Civ. 3.63.1) (74) An censes, eundem vitulum si alius delegerit, sine capite iecur inventurum? Si alius, cum capite? ‘Do you believe that the same bullock, if chosen by one man, will have a liver without a head, and if chosen by another will have a liver with a head?’ (Cic. Div. 2.36)

Frequent postposition of this type of complements also correlates with the fact that they expand single nouns without a modifier. When the governing noun has one—I will come back to this point later (section 3.2.2.2, p. 248)— the prepositional phrase may be framed between the noun and its modifier. Two examples of such a framing are given in (75), with contrastive Graecis at the beginning of the sequence, and in (76), where the phrase is opened by the indefinite pronoun quidam and closed by versus. Anteposition of the complement also sometimes correlates with the fact that it resumes old information, such as in (77). (75) Magnificum illud etiam Romanisque hominibus gloriosum, ut Graecis de philosophia litteris non egeant. ‘Furthermore, it would redound to the fame and glory of the Roman people to be made independent of Greek writers in the study of philosophy.’ (Cic. Div. 2.5) (76) Est quidam Graecus vulgaris in hanc sententiam versus. ‘There is a much-quoted Greek verse to this effect.’ (Cic. Div. 2.12; cf. 25) (77) Iamque de Caesaris adventu fama ad civitates perferebatur. ‘And already a rumour about Caesar’s arrival was going round the cities.’ (Caes. Civ. 3.102.8)

3.2.1.2. Animate Nouns The animate nouns (24 occ.) are in majority bivalent nouns and the prepositional phrases they govern are optional, e.g. dux ad ‘guide to’, interpres in ‘interpreter in terms of’, socius in ‘associate in’. Several nouns are accompanied by a prepositional phrase expressing source: legati ex ‘legates taken among’, or remex de in (80). Such complements are both anteposed and postposed (A 12, P 11, 1 framed). This variation seems to be linked with the functions of the prepositional phrases involved. The ordering in (78) is due to the idea of contrast (with respect to victoriae Pompei comitem); socius has one valency complement (Caesaris) and one optional complement (in rebus adversis). A part taken from a whole (79) often goes together with the contextual giveness of the referent (ex amicis). By contrast, in (80) the postposed prepositional phrase specifies the category to which it belongs.

the prepositional phrase

243

(78) Itaque Androsthenes, praetor Thessaliae, cum se victoriae Pompei comitem esse mallet quam socium Caesaris in rebus adversis … ‘So Androsthenes, the praetor of Thessaly, preferring to associate himself with Pompey in victory than to be Caesar’s ally in adversity …’ (Caes. Civ. 3.80.3) (79) Igitur, quamquam in priore actione ex amicis quinquaginta vades dederat … ‘Therefore, although in the first hearing of the case he had given fifty of his friends as sureties …’ (Sal. Jug. 35.9) (80) Quid?, inquies, remex ille de classe Coponi nonne ea praedixit quae facta sunt? ‘What, you will say, did not that oarsman in Coponius’ fleet truly foretell what afterwards came to pass?’ (Cic. Div. 2.114)

A special case is that of legati de ‘delegates with a mission or a message about’. The prepositional phrase, which depends on the noun, seems to result from analogy with verbs of saying that admit complements with de ‘(to talk, to negotiate) about’.37 Anteposition of such phrases probably correlates with the fact that they convey contextually given information. (81) Postremo de omnibus rebus legatos Romam brevi missurum. ‘In conclusion, (he promised that) he would shortly be sending envoys to Rome to explain the whole affair.’ (Sal. Jug. 22.4)

3.2.1.3. Abstract Nouns This category comprises various second- and third-order entities (28 occ.). They are zero-valent and monovalent nouns with optional complements: scelus in ‘crime against’, inimitiae cum ‘enmity towards’, periculum ab ‘danger coming from’. Other examples are quoted below: crudelitas (82) has an optional complement expressing direction (towards who it is oriented), autumnus (83) an optional complement of place. (82) Facile ostendam tua crudelitate in alios omnes tibi aditus misericordiae iudicum iam pridem esse praeclusos. ‘I might easily show how your own treatment of other men has altogether debarred this court from showing any mercy to yourself’ (Cic. Ver. 5.21) (83) Gravis autumnus in Apulia circumque Brundisium ex saluberrimis Galliae et Hispaniae regionibus omnem exercitum valetudine temptaverat. ‘The oppressive autumn in Apulia and around Brundisium, coming after the healthiness of the countries of Gaul and Spain, had spread sickness throughout the whole army.’ (Caes. Civ. 3.2.3)

37 A prepositional phrase with de can also accompany the verb mitto ‘to send’ itself, cf. ThLL, s. v. mitto, 1185.75 f.

244

chapter three

Optional place and time complements prefer postposition (18 P, 6 A, 6 framed), which is understandable from the point of view of their semantic prominence. This also holds true for purpose prepositional phrases with ad (84). In anteposition, the phrase seems to form a referential unit with its noun or, at least, to be less informative than the head noun, as in (85); this prepositional phrase presents contextually given information. (84) Neque vero Pompeius cognito consilio eius moram ullam ad insequendum intulit. ‘When he realised Caesar’s plan, Pompey did not allow any delay in pursuit.’ (Caes. Civ. 3.75.3) (85) (Haruspices) Ab aqua aut ab igni pericula monent; tum hereditates, tum damna denuntiant. ‘(Soothsayers) They warn us of dangers by fire and flood, and sometimes they prophesy the inheritance, sometimes, the loss, of money.’ (Cic. Div. 2.32)

3.2.1.4. Verbal Nouns Verbal nouns and nouns associated with states-of-affairs (68 occ.) other than verbal nouns of movement (see next section) take obligatory complements: spes in ‘hope in’, voluntas ad ‘wish to’, invidia in ‘jealousy towards’, iudicium de ‘judgment about’; further examples are in (86)–(87). Some words from this group figure in support verb constructions, e.g. spes ‘hope’ (89), pactio ‘treaty’, coniectura ‘conjecture’. The placement of their prepositional phrases is variable (36 A, 23 P, 9 framed). However, frequent anteposition does not seem to be linked with obligatoriness of expansions; it especially occurs in support verb constructions (see below). An example with a postposed complement is given in (88), one with an anteposed complement in (89). (86) Aut tanta inter eos dissensio … ut Apollinis exta bona sint, Dianae non bona? ‘Or is there such discord among the gods … that the entrails are favourable when offered to Apollo and when offered to Diana, unfavourable?’ (Cic. Div. 2.38) (87) Reperta est eadem istius hominis avarissimi ratio in praesidiis quae in classibus. ‘It appeared that this grasping man treated the troops and the fleet in the same way.’ (Cic. Ver. 5.87) (88) in ea querimonia quam sum habiturus de istius crudelitate et de civium Romanorum indignissuma morte ‘in the complaint that I will make of this man’s cruelty and of the scandalous murder of the Roman citizens’ (Cic. Ver. 5.72) (89) (reputans) timere populum Romanum neque advorsus iram eius usquam nisi in avaritia nobilitatis et pecunia sua spem habere

the prepositional phrase

245

‘He began to be afraid of the Roman people against whose resentment he had no hopes of security but in the avarice of the nobility and in his own wealth.’ (Sal. Jug. 13.5)

Verbal nouns also take optional complements: auguratio ex ‘divination from’ (90), laus ex ‘praise of’, or responsum de ‘answer to’. Place complements with the nouns such as dilectus in ‘levies in’ (91) and admurmuratio in ‘murmur during’ are optional. This type of prepositional phrase is most frequently postposed to its noun (9 out of 13). (90) Quae tandem ista auguratio est ex passeribus annorum potius quam aut mensuum aut dierum? ‘But by what principle of augury does he deduce years rather than months or days from the number of sparrows?’ (Cic. Div. 2.65) (91) Hae copiae quas videtis ex dilectibus horum annorum in citeriore Gallia sunt refectae. ‘These forces you see have been reconstituted from the levies of recent years in Cisalpine Gaul.’ (Caes. Civ. 3.87.4)

3.2.1.5. Verbal Nouns of Movement Nouns derived from verbs of movement (31 occ.) form a special category of verbal nouns. They admit a set of prepositional phrases expressing destination, source, or path, according to their meaning, e.g. adventus ex ‘arrival from’, aditus ad ‘access to’, introitus in ‘entrance to’, iter ex / in / ad / per ‘march from, to, towards, through’. Sometimes they present a double complement. Such prepositional phrases, which can be partly regarded as valency complements, have variable placement (17 P vs. 14 A). Complements in postposition specify the place or destination and hence they are more semantically prominent than their governing nouns ((92)–(93)). (92) theatrum … quod arcis tenebat locum aditusque habebat ad portum et ad regia navalia. ‘a theatre which served as a citadel and had access to the harbour and the royal dockyards.’ (Caes. Civ. 3.112.8) (93) Pompeius erat eo tempore in Candavia iterque ex Macedonia in hiberna Apolloniam Dyrrachiumque habebat. ‘Pompey was at that time in Candavia and was on his way from Macedonia to winter quarters in Apollonia and Dyrrachium.’ (Caes. Civ. 3.11.2)

Complements expressing known information are typically found in anteposition (94). This is often the case with the support verb construction impetum facio ‘to make an attack’, for example in nostros, in hostes, in Pompei equites ‘on our (soldiers), the enemies, the Pompeian cavalry’ (5 A vs. 2 P). In Caesar, place complements in anteposition (96) compete with complements

246

chapter three

in postposition (93), which is not easy to explain. From a pragmatic point of view, they form a pragmatic unit with the verbal group.38 Nouns derived from verbs of movement enter into support verb constructions, e.g. iter facio ‘to make one’s way’ and impetum facio in ‘to make an attack on’; they are chiefly used by Caesar. (94) Cum praetor quaereretur et constaret neminem ei nuntiasse, fit ad domum eius cum clamore concursus atque impetus. ‘When it was impossible to find the praetor and it became clear that no one had reported the news to him, the crowd with loud cries made a rush to his house.’ (Cic. Ver. 5.93) (95) impetuque facto in Cassianam classem quinqueremes duas in quarum altera erat Cassius ceperunt … ‘and making an attack on the Cassian fleet, they captured two quinqueremes, in one of which was Cassius himself …’ (Caes. Civ. 3.101.6) (96) quique erant ex vulneribus aegri depositis per Epirum atque Athamaniam iter facere coepit. ‘and after leaving the wounded, began to make his way through Epirus and Athamania.’ (Caes. Civ. 3.78.4)

After this presentation of the instances I have gathered, I will concentrate on the internal structure of the phrases containing a noun and a prepositional phrase (3.2.2) and the question of support verbs (3.2.3). 3.2.2. The Placement of Prepositional Phrases In order to describe the placement of the adnominal prepositional phrases, it is important to separate the discussions of governing nouns with and without a modifier. 3.2.2.1. Nouns without a Modifier The placement of the noun and its prepositional phrase is presented in Table 8. A distinction is established between contiguous phrases, i.e. phrases where the complement is adjacent to the governing noun, and non-contiguous phrases that present elements intervening in the middle. Table 8: Single noun + prepositional phrase Order Total

38

Noun PP contiguous non-contiguous 48

10

PP Noun contiguous non-contiguous 44

15

The underlying question is ‘what does he do next?’, see Spevak (2010a: 38).

the prepositional phrase

247

Global results show a practically equal ratio between postposition and anteposition (58 P vs. 59 A). According to my data, prepositional phrases that precede the governing noun are not “rare”, as Wharton (2009: 194) claims. As for contiguity, we can notice that in general, the noun and its complement occur next one to another; they are separated by alien elements in 25 cases (21%). Among intervening elements, there are especially verbs (97), various satellites, and relative clauses (98). However, some of the noncontiguous sequences involve support verb constructions (99). (97) at Scipionem properantem sequi litterae sunt consecutae a M. Favonio, Domitium cum legionibus adesse ‘Scipio preparing to follow him, received letters from M. Favonius, that Domitius was coming up with his legions’ (Caes. Civ. 3.36.6) (98) Sed eo fama iam praecurrerat, quam supra docuimus, de proelio Dyrrachino quod multis auxerat partibus. ‘But he was preceded there by the rumour we have mentioned above about the battle of Dyrrachium, which it had grossly exaggerated.’ (Caes. Civ. 3.80.2) (99) Deinde Iugurtha postero die cum Aulo in conloquio verba facit. ‘The next day Jugurtha had a conference with Aulus.’ (Sal. Jug. 38.9)

The 25 non-contiguous instances only concern the intervention of elements that do not belong to the phrase; for example, the genitive Libonis,39 standing between the governing noun and the prepositional phrase, marks the agent of discessu and is thus part of the phrase. This example belongs to the contiguous group. (100) Discessu Libonis ex Illyrico M. Octavius cum iis quas habebat navibus Salonas pervenit. ‘After Libo’s departure from Illyricum, Marcus Octavius reached Salonae with the ships he had with him.’ (Caes. Civ. 3.9.1)

In this section, I will summarise principal tendencies of the placement of prepositional phrases with respect to their governing nouns with references to the examples already quoted. Neither the semantic character of obligatory and optional complements nor the length of the prepositional phrase determines their placement: complements required or not by valency, as well as short and long complements may precede or follow the governing noun. Their placement seems to depend rather on pragmatic principles,

39 The manuscript reading is Liburnarum ‘the Liburnian (galleys)’; Carter (1993: 32 and 151) adopts this conjecture by Paul because, he explains, “discessus is elsewhere used by Caesar only of persons or bodies constituted of persons (armies, cavalry)”.

248

chapter three

and/or the semantic functions that they fulfil. We have seen that prepositional phrases expressing material or source (ex, de), location (contra, iuxta), or direction (in, ad) often refer to entities not inferable from the previous context and are semantically prominent (cf. above, for example (71) and (83)). Sometimes, they carry on their own the function of Focus (cf. (88) and (92)). In contrast, anteposition concerns phrases referring to entities known from the context or deducible from it (cf. (81) and (112)). This is the case of prepositional phrases with apud, indicating a person (often mentioned in the previous context), and those with de expressing what is concerned. They have a pragmatic role (function of Topic) or simply resume a known fact. Consider the following example. As de eius adventu (101), containing an anaphoric pronoun that explicitly signals contextual giveness, de Caesaris adventu in (77) simply resumes old information and forms a referential unit with the noun. (101) quod prius ad continentem visus est Caesar quam de eius adventu fama omnino in eas regiones perferretur ‘because Caesar was sighted at the mainland before any report of his arrival could reach the area’ (Caes. Civ. 3.7.2)

Prepositional phrases in anteposition can be contrastive (74) or carry the function of Focus: I suggest interpreting example (89) in this way. 3.2.2.2. Nouns with a Modifier The ordering of elements in complex phrases containing a noun with a modifier is presented in Table 9. Table 9: Noun with a modifier + prepositional phrase Ordering

Occurrences

Det. > PP > Noun Adj. > PP > Noun Adj. > Noun > PP Det. > Noun > PP Noun > Det. > PP Gen. > PP > Noun PP > Det. > Noun Other

14 10 9 16 7 4 7 10

Total

77

Table 9 shows, as in the case of genitive complements (section 2.6.2, p. 234), that there is competition between framed phrases, opened by a modifier and closed by the noun (14+10 occ., to which also four phrases opened by

the prepositional phrase

249

a genitive can be added), and phrases with the complement coming last in the sequence (9+16+7 occ.); the latter pattern is the most frequent one. I will start with framed phrases that are delimited as units. However, it is important to specify that this strategy is mainly found in Cicero; I have noted 9 instances in Caesar and none in Sallust. The prepositional phrase in the middle is not necessarily an argument (cf. (75)–(76)) but it may be (102). Sometimes, other elements, alien to the phrase, intervene in the sequence, as Caesar in (102) and in consilio fuit in (103). The adjectives that open the phrase are also often significant from the pragmatic point of view; magnus appearing at the head of the sequence is emphatic (103); Graecis in (75) is contrastive. Framed phrases sometimes contain prepositional phrases resuming information given by the context. Example (104) shows that the phrase opened by magnam and closed by auctoritatem forms a referential unit and carries pragmatic saliency. (102) ut si forte Pompeius vacuam existimans Italiam eo traiecisset exercitum …, aliquam Caesar ad insequendum facultatem haberet ‘that if Pompey, thinking Italy to be empty of troops, should cross over there with his army …, Caesar would have some means of pursuing him’ (Caes. Civ. 3.29.3) (103) magnaque inter eos in consilio fuit controversia oporteretne Lucili Hirri … proximis comitiis praetoriis absentis rationem haberi ‘They also had a great dispute in council about whether Lucilius Hirrus … should be permitted to be a candidate in absentia at the next praetorian elections.’ (Caes. Civ. 3.82.3) (104) (rex) A quo missi Dioscorides et Serapion, qui ambo legati Romae fuerant magnamque apud patrem Ptolomaeum auctoritatem habuerant, ad Achillan pervenerunt. ‘(the king) He sent Dioscorides and Serapion, who had both been at Rome as ambassadors and had possessed great influence with his father Ptolemy. They reached Achillas.’ (Caes. Civ. 3.109.4)

Sequences with prepositional phrases coming last represent the most frequent pattern. A possible explanation for this ordering is that the prepositional phrase is semantically relevant, and not necessarily that it is “heavy”, i.e. lengthy. Example (105) illustrates the most common arrangement. The modifier nullas in (106) is emphatic. The prepositional phrases involved sometimes contain a modifier, for example a genitive as in (107). (105) ut illud Uticense exemplum de Hadriano transferretur Syracusas ‘to transfer to Syracuse the precedent set with Hadrianus at Utica’ (Cic. Ver. 5.94)

250

chapter three

(106) Et non, si significant futura, nullas dant vias nobis ad significationum scientiam. ‘And it is not true, if they (gods) give us signs (of the future), that they give us no means of understanding those signs.’ (Cic. Div. 2.102) (107) nisi eo ipso tempore quidam nuntii de Caesaris victoria per dispositos equites essent adlati … ‘and if not some news of Caesar’s victory had not been brought at this very moment by relays of horsemen …’ (Caes. Civ. 3.101.3)

It is interesting to note that in the case of non-framed phrases, modifiers follow the governing noun several times (8 occ.), especially indefinite pronouns (quidam, aliquis) and negative pronouns (nullus, ullus), as is shown in (108). Adjectives coming first are mainly evaluative (gravis, longus, maximus) but not necessarily; annuum in (109) is a descriptive adjective in anteposition with emphasis. (108) Medici signa quaedam habent ex venis et ex spiritu aegroti multisque ex aliis futura praesentiunt. ‘Physicians obtain certain indications from the condition of the pulse and breath of the sick man and they foretell the future from many other symptoms.’ (Cic. Div. 2.145) (109) Pompeius annuum spatium ad conparandas copias nactus quod vacuum a bello atque ab hoste otiosum fuerat … ‘Pompey, who had gained the space of a year free from war to gather forces undisturbed by any enemy …’ (Caes. Civ. 3.3.1)

3.2.3. Support Verb Constructions Support verb constructions contain semantically “light” verbs such as facio ‘to make’, habeo ‘to have’, ago ‘to do’, gero ‘to bear’ and a verbal noun, or a noun related to a verb.40 The noun is the bearer of the meaning and, furthermore, it imposes the syntactic form of the expansion, for example, the prepositional phrase with cum in (110). The verb actualises the process. This point is proved by the fact that the constructions with support verbs allow conversion into a relative clause: bellum quod gessit (111); as well as

40 For the theoretical framework addressing support verbs, see Gross (1993) and Gross and de Pontonx (2004); for constructions with support verbs in Latin, see Pinkster (fc., chapter 4), Flobert (1996), Hoffmann (1996), Roesch (2001) and Rosén (1981: 130–159 and 190) for Early Latin. They are used in all periods of Latin (cf. Löfstedt 1911: 162–165) and cannot be attributed to the popular register of the language: see Pinkster (ibid.) and Hoffmann (1996: 203), pace Szantyr (1972: 754–756).

the prepositional phrase

251

the deletion of the verb in a noun phrase: bellum cum Iugurtha ‘war with Jugurtha’. (110) Rhodii qui prope soli bellum illud superius cum Mithridate rege gesserint ‘The Rhodians who, almost single-handed, carried on the first war against Mithridates’ (Cic. Ver. 2.159) (111) Bellum scripturus sum, quod populus Romanus cum Iugurtha, rege Numidarum, gessit. ‘I propose to write of the war which the Romans fought with Jugurtha, king of the Numidians.’ (Sal. Jug. 5.1)

3.2.3.1. The Syntactic Form of the Expansion Support verb constructions (47 occ. in total) collected are indicated below. They are used by all three authors in my corpus, including Sallust. Support verb constructions aditum habeo ad ‘to have access to’ bellum gero cum ‘to wage war with’ cognationem habeo cum ‘to have affinity with’ concursus fit ad ‘there is rush to’ consilium capio ad ‘to take counsel, deliberate about’ facultatem habeo ad ‘to be able to’ impetum facio in ‘to make an attack on’ iter habeo, facio ex / in / per ‘to march from / to / through’ pactionem facio cum + de ‘to arrange a compact with + about’ querimoniam habeo de ‘to have complaint about’ sententiam fero de ‘to give judgement about’ societatem facio cum ‘to make an alliance with’ triumphum ago de ‘to celebrate a triumph for’ auctoritatem habeo apud ‘to have influence with’ (caedem facio in ‘to massacre somebody’)41 colloquia habeo inter ‘to have discourse among’ coniecturam facio de ‘to make a conjecture about’ contionem habeo apud ‘to deliver a speech before’ fuga fit ad ‘there is flight to’ iter conficio ab / ad ‘to achieve march from / to’

41 I will disregard caedem in vos fecisse ‘they massacred you’ (lit. “they undertook massacre against you”) in Sal. Jug. 31.13. Caedes ‘slaughter’ is a verbal noun, derived from caedo ‘to slay’, but the prepositional phrase with in, expressing the patient of the action in the meaning of ‘against’, seems to be peculiar to Sallust, who was followed by Livy (22.24.7). Cicero uses the phrase with in only in a locative meaning: caedem in foro fecisti ‘you caused a massacre in the forum’ (Cic. Parad. 4.30). Koestermann (1971: 133) states in his commentary that this expression is close to everyday speech, probably in connection with other expressions with the verb facio, already considered as “colloquial” by Kroll (1927: 302).

252

chapter three iudicium fit de ‘there is judgment on’ quaestiones habeo in ‘to make enquiries on’ responsum do de ‘to give answer about’ sermones habeo de ‘to have a conversation about’ spem habeo in ‘to put hope in’ verba habeo, facio cum ‘to talk with’

The formation of such periphrastic constructions results, on the one hand, from the fact that these combinations of a verbal noun and a verb with a weak semantic value make it possible to express aspectual nuances explicitly (cf. Flobert 1996): iter facio ‘to make a march’ marks the accomplishment of iter; impetum facio ‘to make an attack’, the execution of impetus. The corresponding verbs could not render this meaning (eo ‘to go’, and impeto ‘to assail’, the latter is only used by poets, see ThLL, s. v.). On the other hand, the formation of a support verb construction sometimes compensates for the absence of the verb as such: this is the case with cognationem habeo ‘to have affinity’ and auctoritatem habeo ‘to have influence with’, for which we could only find valeo ‘to be powerful’ as a matching expression in the verbal domain. Several studies have already been devoted to support verb constructions in Latin (see note 40). They have described their variety and pointed out their syntactic and semantic properties. However, a question that does not seem to have been asked yet is that concerning the syntactic form of the expansions they take. We have seen (chapter 1, section 2.4.2, p. 31) that verbal nouns—and verbal nouns are the best candidates for entering into support verb constructions—generally encode their complements in the genitive to express the agent or the patient; prepositional complements often retain the syntactic construction of the source verb. This rule hold true for several instances in my corpus: pactio cum ‘a compact with’ and paciscor cum ‘to arrange an agreement with’; coniectura de ‘a conjecture about’ and conicio de ‘to conjecture about’, quaestio de ‘an enquiry about’ and quaero de ‘to enquire about’42 and sententia de ‘a judgment about’ (with a special meaning) and sentio ‘to think, to judge about’. Verbal nouns derived from verbs of movement such as iter from eo ‘to go’, receive the same type of complements as the related verbs: direction (in, ad), source (a, ex), or path (per).

42 The couple coniectura—conicio illustrates the fact that verbal nouns present, in general, reduced semantic value with respect to their source verbs. The meaning of ‘conjecture’ is only one among multiple meaning of conicio ‘to throw together, to put, to dispatch’. In contrast, quaestio is a semantically rich verbal noun, but still less so than its verb quaero.

the prepositional phrase

253

However, there are verbal nouns that do not “copy” a verbal construction. Firstly, verbum43 ‘word, discourse’ and bellum ‘war’ are not deverbal nouns and, furthermore, do not have morphologically cognate verbs. The question to be asked is, where the syntactic form of their complements comes from, since it cannot be modelled on the verbal construction like paciscor / pactio cum. The construction verba facio cum seems to be explained as analogous to loquor cum ‘to talk with’ and bellum gero cum with pugno cum ‘to fight with’. Secondly, auctoritas ‘authority, influence’ (derived from auctor) has no morphologically related verb.44 The syntactic form of their complements results from analogy with semantically associated verbs. For auctoritas apud ‘influence with’ we could envisage, for example, the influence of valeo apud ‘to have influence on somebody’ (e.g. Cic. Brut. 193, Ver. 5.112). As for the complement of contio (< co, ventio ‘meeting’) ‘speech before an assembly’, which provides the verb contionor ‘to deliver a speech’, apud can come from analogous expressions indicating who listens to a speech and, at the same time, is the addressee of it. It is analogous with verbs of speaking.45 The de-phrase accompanying triumphus ‘triumph’, from which the verb triumpho is derived, is also due to analogy. Finally, the word spes ‘hope’ represents on its own a very interesting case. Spes, which provides the denominative verb spero ‘to hope’, is constructed in various ways (cf. OLD, Le Grand Gaffiot): apart from the genitive, the adnominal case par excellence, spes allows expansions by a gerund, an accusative and infinitive clause, and prepositional phrases with in, de and ad (see chapter 1, 2.4.2, example (72)). The verb spero is not attested with in; it can only take prepositional phrases with ex and ab expressing source. Spem habeo in seems to stem from expressions where the prepositional phrase has a locative value: spes (sita) est in: in Publio spes est (Cic. Att. 2.15.2) ‘our hope is in Publius’ and spes ponere in: omnem spem salutis in virtute ponerent (Caes. Gal. 3.5.3) ‘to place in their valour all their hope of safety’.

43 Rosén (1983: 192) considers verbum as a case of suppletism of dico ‘to say’ but this does not make it possible to explain the construction verba cum because there is no *dico cum; it could stem from loquor cum aliquod de aliqua re ‘to speak to sb about st’. 44 For the association auctor—auctoritas ‘who authorises—authority’ (Pl. Poen. 146–147), see Rosén (1983: 185). For auctoritas in the meaning of ‘authority, influence’, which the expression auctoritatem habeo presents, an autonomous and independent evolution with respect to auctor is highly probable. 45 Cf. mihi apud vos de meis maioribus dicendi facultas non datur ‘as for myself, I have no opportunity of speaking of my ancestors before you’ (Cic. Agr. 2.1) or neque apud vos ante feci mentionem ‘I have avoided mentioning to you before’ (Cic. Agr. 3.4).

254

chapter three

The examples quoted suffice to conclude that verbal nouns are by no means slaves of their verbs. They often pursue their own path and insert themselves into already established, semantically related groups from which they also borrow the syntactic form of their expansions.46 3.2.3.2. The Placement of Prepositional Phrases In my corpus, nouns used in support verb constructions have their prepositional phrases in anteposition and postposition (32 A vs. 15 P). Especially, the expansions of spes stand in anteposition (89). This ordering is difficult to explain. Sometimes, the prepositional phrase refers to a contextually given entity (112) but not always (113). In some cases, the complements are pragmatically relevant: de passerculis in (114) functions as Topic. By contrast, the complement in postposition specifies the noun—that of spes in (115) or with a verbal noun of a movement verb, such as aditus in (92). (112) (Caesar) eundemque (Vibullium Rufum) apud Cn. Pompeium auctoritatem habere intellegebat. ‘(Caesar) and he understood that Vibullius Rufus carried weight with Pompey.’ (Caes. Civ. 3.10.2) (113) item qui de pace aut bello cum hostibus pactiones fecissent ‘and those who had struck agreements with the enemy concerning peace and war’ (Sal. Jug. 40.1) (114) Cur autem de passerculis coniecturam facit, in quibus nullum erat monstrum, de dracone silet … ‘Why does he base his prophecy on little sparrows, which are not abnormal sights, but he says nothing about the dragon …’ (Cic. Div. 2.65) (115) Iugurtham … spem salutis in solitudine aut fuga coegisset habere ‘he had forced Jugurtha … to rest his hopes of safety on the desert or on flight’ (Sal. Jug. 55.1)

3.3. Adjectives Governing Prepositional Phrases I will now come back to adjectives governing prepositional phrases, presented in Table 6 (p. 238). The majority of them are bivalent adjectives (39 out of 64 occ.) which, by their semantic value, require a complement. To this category belong adjectives and adjectival participles, e.g. paratus ad ‘ready for’, tutus ab ‘safe from’, meritus de ‘deserving of’, idoneus ad ‘convenient for’, difficilis ad ‘difficult for’, insolitus ad ‘unaccustomed to’, par cum ‘equal with’, 46 A detailed study is necessary to determine the semantic relationship between the verbal noun and the related verb (because reductions and specialisations of the meaning are expected) as well as the syntactic form of the complement.

the prepositional phrase

255

coniunctus cum ‘associated with’. Three examples are given in (116)–(118). Some of these adjectives can also take another preposition. This does not have any influence on the interpretation as argument in the case of paratus, for example, animo parati in posterum ‘mentally ready for the next day’ (Caes. Civ. 3.86.5), but in other cases, we are dealing with optional complements, e.g. tutum ad custodiam ‘safe for guarding (of prisoners)’ (Cic. Ver. 5.68), meritos in proeliis ‘(who had) distinguished themselves in the battles’ (Sal. Jug. 54.1) and pro suis beneficiis idoneum, applied to a person, ‘suitable on account of the favour he had done him’ (Caes. Civ. 3.10.2). (116) locum se aequum ad dimicandum dedisse ‘he had given them a favourable situation for fighting’ (Caes. Civ. 3.73.5) (117) Difficilis augurii locus ad contra dicendum. ‘To argue against auspices is a hard thing for an augur to do.’ (Cic. Div. 2.70) (118) Quem Caesar ut erat de se meritus et de re publica donatum milibus CC. ‘To him Caesar gave 200,000 sesterces for his services to himself and to the State.’ (Caes. Civ. 3.53.5)

About twenty adjectives are monovalent with optional prepositional phrases. Into this group fall: alacer ad ‘quick for’, firmus contra ‘solid against’, crudelis in (aliquem) ‘cruel to’, vehemens in ‘energetic in’, sapiens in ‘wise in’. Other examples are quoted in (119)–(121). (119) Nihil tam clausum ad exitum … cogitari potest. ‘Nothing can be imagined so closed against all escape …’ (Cic. Ver. 2.68) (120) relictis quique erant ex vulneribus aegri depositis ‘and deposition of those who were suffering from wounds’ (Caes. Civ. 3.78.4) (121) complures novi atque nobiles …, factiosi domi, potentes apud socios ‘many new men and nobles …, active in party intrigues at home and influential with our allies’ (Sal. Jug. 8.1)

Adjectives with a prepositional phrase as expansion, whether required by valency or not, are used in two ways: predicatively or attributively in a noun phrase. These functions are summarised in Table 10. Table 10: Functions of adjectives with a prepositional phrase Function

Occurrences

predicative attributive in a noun phrase other

43 12 9

Total

64

256

chapter three

Table 10 shows that bivalent and monovalent adjectives expanded by a prepositional phrase do not frequently occur in noun phrases (19%); they are used predicatively in the majority of the cases (66 %), with verbs such as sum ‘to be’, fio ‘to become’, puto, arbitror ‘to think’, iudico ‘to judge’, facio ‘to make’, habeo ‘to have’. The “other” function covers four instances in appositions, one secondary predicate, and four adjectives used substantively. The examples of expanded adjectives used attributively in noun phrases are therefore not very numerous. This fact could be explained by a tendency to avoid overly complex noun phrases. Nevertheless, their components exhibit two orderings: either the sequence is opened by the noun and closed by the adjective, as is shown in (122) (4 occ.), or the prepositional phrase comes last (123) (3 occ.). The remaining phrases show different arrangements. (122) Totidem subsecuti libri Tusculanarum disputationum res ad beate vivendum maxime necessarias aperuerunt. ‘Next, and in the same number of volumes, came the Tusculan Disputations, which made plain the means most essential to a happy life.’ (Cic. Div. 2.2) (123) quinqueremes aptae instructaeque omnibus rebus ad nauigandum ‘quinqueremes fitted and equipped with everything necessary for navigation’ (Caes. Civ. 3.111.3)

Bivalent and monovalent adjectives with a prepositional phrase as their complement are typically used predicatively (Helbig 1982: 40). The placement of the prepositional phrase is not easy to explain. The criterion of valency, i.e. the obligatory or optional character of the complement, does not seem to play any role here: prepositional phrases follow or precede their governing adjectives in both cases with equal frequency. The criterion of lightness or heaviness, i.e. short or long phrases, does not, a priori, have any influence either. However, three times prepositional phrases containing a personal or reflexive pronoun are anteposed (124) and four times with an anaphoric or demonstrative pronoun47 (125). These elements refer to contextually or situationally given entities. (124) Sic enim Caesar existimabat eo proelio excellentissimam virtutem Crastini fuisse optimeque eum de se meritum iudicabat. ‘For Caesar was of the opinion that Crastinus’ courage in the battle had been outstanding and judged that he had rendered him a great service.’ (Caes. Civ. 3.99.3)

47

With one exception: minumus ex illis (Sal. Jug. 11.3).

the prepositional phrase

257

(125) si ulla in Sicilia praesidia ad illorum adventum opposita putarentur ‘if it had been supposed that there were forces stationed in Sicily to oppose them (slaves) upon their arrival’ (Cic. Ver. 5.5)

After an examination of these occurrences, I propose, here again, to interpret the prepositional phrases in postposition as semantically prominent. For example, prepositional phrases with ad (10 P vs. 11 A) convey the idea of finality or goal and follow the adjective (cf. also above, examples (116), (117) and (119)). The complements in anteposition can be interpreted either as being pragmatically relevant or as forming a referential unit with the adjective (cf. (120)). In anteposition are found, for example, ad beate vivendum (127), which is the central point discussed in the fifth book of Cicero’s Tusculan Disputations—see example (122) for the immediately preceding context—, functioning as Topic, and ad omnem laborem in (128), which is carrying emphasis. In addition, the adjective itself can be semantically prominent: this is the case of tutam in (129), which follows its prepositional phrase. (126) (cives Romani) cum essent infirmi ad resistendum propter paucitatem hominum … ad extremum auxilium descenderunt ‘(the Roman citizens) since their resistance was weak because of their lack of numbers … they adopted their last resort’ (Caes. Civ. 3.9.3) (127) Docet enim ad beate vivendum virtutem se ipsa esse contentam. ‘(The book) teaches that virtue is sufficient of itself for the attainment of happiness.’ (Cic. Div. 2.2) (128) Qui etsi magno aestu fatigati …, tamen ad omnem laborem animo parati imperio paruerunt. ‘And though fatigued by the great heat …, they nevertheless obeyed his command, with a spirit ready for every toil.’ (Caes. Civ. 3.95.2) (129) Ita enim causa constituitur provinciam Siciliam virtute istius … a fugitivis atque a belli periculis tutam esse servatam. ‘The argument now being built up is this, that … the province of Sicily has been safely defended against the revolted slaves and the perils of war by the courage of this man.’ (Cic. Ver. 5.1)

3.4. Partitive Expressions This section will deal with prepositional phrases with de and ex expanding a non-numerical quantifier (omnes ‘all’, plerique ‘most’, multi ‘many’, nihil ‘nothing’) or a numerical quantifier (unus ‘one’, duo ‘two’). The phrases with de and ex have a partitive value and, as is well known, they can interchange with the partitive genitive (K.&St. I: 426). However, it is worth recalling (Pinkster LSS §5.3.2, p. 69) that whereas the function of

258

chapter three

the genitive is to mark the syntactic relationship between two elements, e.g. plerique and nostrorum oratorum (130), the preposition makes explicit the semantic relationship that holds between them (131). (130) plerique nostrorum oratorum ‘most of our orators’ (Cic. Orat. 143) (131) plerisque ex factione eius conruptis ‘when most members of his party had already been corrupted’ (Sal. Jug. 29.2)

In my corpus, partitive expressions follow the governing word in the majority of the cases (17 P vs. 8 A).48 The most frequent arrangement, which is not surprising if we admit that the prepositional phrase is more semantically prominent than the quantifier, is presented in (132). Postposition is also justified in the case of further expanded nouns, such as in (133): ex eo numero, containing a cataphoric pronoun, is specified by a relative clause. (132) Huic (legioni) sic adiunxit octavam ut paene unam ex duabus efficeret. ‘To this legion he added the Eight, so that he almost made a single legion out of the two.’ (Caes. Civ. 3.89.1) (133) Igitur unus ex eo numero, qui ad caedem parati erant, paulo inconsultius Massivam adgreditur. ‘One of the men who were hired for killing him, sprung rather incautiously upon Massiva.’ (Sal. Jug. 35.6)

Eight prepositional phrases in anteposition are easy to explain by pragmatic reasons. Firstly, anteposition concerns contextually given elements: ex omni multitudine in (134) is deducible from the context and we can observe that non amplius quadraginta, specifying the number, is more informative than the prepositional phrase governed by it. The phrases with contextually given referents sometimes contain anaphoric pronouns, e.g. ex illo numero reliqui ‘the remaining from this group’ (Cic. Ver. 5.101), or connecting relatives, e.g. ex quibus plerique ‘very many of them’ (Caes. Civ. 3.110.2), for which anteposition is required. Secondly, contrastive elements are found in anteposition: the origin of money, ex aerario, depending on nil in (135), contrasts with the idea of private money.

48 Wharton (1996: 168) argues that prepositional phrases with in and cum show a certain tendency for postposition in contrast to those with ex, which are often in anteposition. I myself did not notice different behaviour of the prepositional phrases with ex.

the prepositional phrase

259

(134) Ceterum ex omni multitudine non amplius quadraginta memores nominis Romani grege facto locum cepere … editiorem … ‘Out of the entire number no more than forty men, mindful of the honour of Rome, gathered together and took a position a little higher up …’ (Sal. Jug. 58.3) (135) Primum video potuisse fieri ut ex aerario nil darent. ‘Firstly, I observe that possibly no money was taken out of the city treasury.’ (Cic. Ver. 5.48)

The examples introduced concern prepositional phrases governed by a quantifier; in addition, there are four partitive expressions depending on noun phrases. On two occasions, the prepositional phrase is framed by the modifier and the head noun (136); this phrase functions as a referential unit conveying contextually given information. (136) (aliae Punicae urbes …) Igitur bello Iugurthino pleraque ex Punicis oppida et finis Carthaginiensium … populus Romanus per magistratus administrabat. ‘(other Punic towns …) At the time of the war with Jugurtha most of the Punic towns, as well as the territory held by Carthage … were administered by Roman officials.’ (Sal. Jug. 19.7)

Additionally, my corpus offered four prepositional phrases with praeter ‘except’ which express exclusion of an entity from a certain unit. Their number is negligible but the case of praeter gives us the opportunity of mentioning that from a pragmatic point of view, the entity excluded is focused (Torrego 1998). The phrase thus comes after omnes, because of its pragmatic saliency. (137) Eos omnes praeter Turpilium inter epulas obtruncant. ‘They butchered them all except Turpilius.’ (Sal. Jug. 66.3)

4. Conclusions It is time to sum up the main findings of this chapter in two points that, together, provide answers to the research questions formulated in the introductory section. Firstly, the internal ordering of prepositional phrases does not differ from that of noun phrases. The preposition that opens a prepositional phrase does not have any influence on the placement of the modifier(s) of the noun. In other words, there are no syntactic constraints such as insertion of the modifier between the preposition and the noun (this conclusion accords with Wharton 1996). On the other hand, prepositional phrases often contain adjectives with a relative meaning referring to space or time, which occur in anteposition. This correlates with the semantic

260

chapter three

functions the prepositional phrases fulfil because they often function as place or time complements. The placement of modifiers is roughly the same as in noun phrases: determiners, indefinite pronouns, quantifiers, and identifiers are usually in anteposition. Adjectives with a relative meaning (superior, proximus …) and subjectively evaluative adjectives are frequently anteposed; the others prefer postposition. Postposition of the adjectives and genitive complements signal their semantic prominence. Anteposition is used for pragmatically relevant modifiers (contrastive, emphatic, or carrying the function of Topic) and, especially in the case of the genitives, for complements the referents of which are known from the preceding context. Secondly, prepositional phrases are atypical adnominal complements. They do not necessarily expand a noun with a modifier and their governing nouns are not necessarily verbal nouns, as is traditionally claimed. The placement of adnominal prepositional phrases is variable: they may follow as well as precede their governing nouns. However, the length of the prepositional phrases does not seem to be the decisive criterion responsible for ante- or postposition. Postposition of such phrases is better explained by semantic reasons, i.e. semantic prominence; anteposition is due to pragmatic reasons: emphasis, contrast, function of Topic, to which I would also add contextual giveness. Adnominal prepositional phrases are in a strong or weak relationship with their nouns and, accordingly, represent obligatory and optional expansions. Although this semantic distinction between complements required and not required by valency does not manifest itself at the formal level, it is important for the interpretation of concrete instances. Adjectives with prepositional phrases as expansions are mostly used predicatively and the majority of them are bivalent adjectives. The placement of the prepositional phrase is difficult to explain, but in general, it seems to correspond to the same tendencies that have been formulated for prepositional phrases which expand nouns.

chapter four APPOSITIONS

1. Introduction In traditional Latin grammars, the term “apposition” is used for noun complements that have the form of a noun; the complements with the usual form of an adjective are called “attributes”.1 In this study, Cicero consul ‘Cicero the consul’ and Cicero, consul designatus ‘Cicero, the consul-elect’ will be termed “appositional constructions”. They consist of two elements: the first element, the head of the construction (Cicero), is specified by the second element, a close apposition (consul) or a free apposition (consul designatus). On the surface, the apposition looks like an unproblematic—and maybe also an unattractive—topic that has not drawn much attention from Latin scholars.2 As we will see in this chapter, there are a number of questions that it raises and problems it implies. The main issues addressed in this chapter will be the identification of close and free appositions, a description of their properties, and a survey of their functions. The best, and also the most comprehensive, typology of appositions is the one presented by Quirk et al. (1985: 1300–1321) for English. The authors define apposition as a combination of two or more noun phrases that function at the same level and are identical in reference. They establish a distinction between a “full apposition” and a “partial apposition”. A full apposition requires three conditions: (i) each of the elements can be separately omitted without affecting the acceptability of the sentence; (ii) each element fulfils the same syntactic function; (iii) both elements are co-referential. In (1), both a neighbour and Fred Brick are omissible; they both function as the subject of the sentence and are co-referential.

1 See K.&St. (I: 243) and Szantyr (1972: 427). I will not take into consideration the presumed “appositional constructions” mentioned by Ernout & Thomas (1953: 127) and Szantyr (1972: 439), such as subjects apposed to the verb, etc. 2 Several articles have been devoted to it: Fugier (1973), Longrée (1990), and Heberlein (1996). By contrast, Marouzeau (1922 and 1953) and Devine & Stephens (2006) do not discuss appositions at all.

262 (1)

chapter four A neighbour, Fred Brick, is on the telephone. A neighbour is on the telephone. Fred Brick is on the telephone.

Partial apposition concerns the situations when at least one of these three conditions is not satisfied. For example in (2), omission of the first element would result in an unsatisfactory sentence. (2)

An unusual present was given to him for his birthday, a book on ethics. An unusual present was given to him for his birthday. *Was given to him for his birthday, a book on ethics.

Full appositions can be further subdivided into restrictive and nonrestrictive appositions. Whereas restrictive appositions form an information unit, non-restrictive appositions represent two separate information units. This fact manifests itself by an intonation pause orally and by punctuation in writing. The restrictive apposition in (3a) implies a virtual class to which Mr Campbell might belong (the lawyer, the poet, the critic …) and the apposition serves to identify the correct Mr Campbell. The non-restrictive apposition (3b) conveys additional information about the person. (3a) Mr Campbell the lawyer was here last night. (3b) Mr Campbell, the lawyer, was here last night.

Furthermore, a language such as English has explicit indicators of appositions, e. g. that is to say, namely, as follows, especially, that express the semantic relationship between the two elements.3 This brief overview of the types of appositions in English will serve as a general frame for my description of Latin appositions. In this chapter, I will focus on full appositions and their two main forms, the “restrictive” apposition—which will be called close apposition—and the “non-restrictive” apposition, for which I will keep the traditional term of free apposition. This chapter has two objectives: firstly, to examine the internal ordering of appositional constructions, and secondly, to look at distribution of various types of appositions. Consequently, I will use data taken from two corpora: the LLT and a sample of texts. Section 2 will deal with these two types and their general properties. Sections 3 and 4 will present detailed studies of them and deal with the principal types of close and free appositions that occur in a concrete sample of texts. Section 5 will be devoted to remaining appositional constructions and their peculiarities. “Partial” apposition will

3

Especially equivalence, inclusion, and attribution (see Quirk et al. 1985: 1308).

appositions

263

be examined in the last section; this concept covers the so-called partitive apposition (in the traditional sense) as well as the phenomenon of right dislocation. 2. Two Types of Apposition: Close Apposition and Free Apposition 2.1. First Overview Appositions pose a certain number of problems related to their syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic properties. They will be discussed in this section in a detailed fashion. Criteria for identifying close appositions (4) and free appositions (5)4 in Latin have been proposed by Longrée (1990: 8).5 According to him, they exhibit the following properties: – the two elements agree in case (and, if need be, in gender and number); – the second element in apposition belongs to the morphosyntactic category of nouns;6 – the two elements are identical in reference. (4)

… rex Ancus coloniam deduxit. ‘… king Ancus founded a colony.’ (Cic. Rep. 2.5)

(5)

Dionysius, servus meus, qui meam bibliothecen multorum nummorum tractavit, …, aufugit. ‘Dionysius, my slave, who had the charge of my very costly library, …, has absconded.’ (Cic. Fam. 13.77.3)

Ancus and servus meus (second elements) present the same case—and also the same gender and number—as rex and Dionysius (first elements). They are nouns and they refer to the same entity as rex and Dionysius do. On the other hand, they have distinct functions: whereas the apposition in (5) can interchange with a parenthetical clause ‘this is’ (5a), such substitution is excluded for (4a). (4a) *rex—is est Ancus—coloniam deduxit

4

For relative clauses, expansions of appositions, see section 4.1, p. 298. Both examples are borrowed from Longrée (1990: 8). 6 However, according to Lavency (1986/87: 377), it is not the morphosyntactic class of nouns, but the semantic relationship of referential identity and the syntactic function that are decisive. 5

264

chapter four

(5a) Dionysius—is est servus meus—aufugit

As a consequence of this, servus meus is more loosely related to Dionysius than Ancus to rex, a looseness which manifests itself by a pause in spoken languages. Although this feature is not directly observable for Latin, we can nevertheless postulate that in (4), no intonation break intervenes between rex and Ancus but in (5), servus meus is preceded and followed by a pause (Longrée 1990: 11) and by a comma in writing.7 At the semantic level, the close apposition functions as specification of the first element by the other one. By contrast, the free apposition comprises two sub-categories: Lavency (1997: 120) talks about determining and qualifying appositions. In Dionysius, servus meus (5), the apposition helps to determine the proper name, by giving information about the identity of the person. The apposition of the qualifying type assigns a property to the referent (6). (6)

Balventius, vir fortis ‘Balventius, a brave man’ (cf. Caes. Gal. 5.35.6)

In both cases, the free appositions (5) and (6) expand nouns whose the reference is complete, “saturated” (Lavency 1997: 120). Unlike attributive modifiers, which classify or qualify a noun, free appositions only provide complementary information that sometimes serves as a reminder of known facts. This characteristic property makes free appositions in principle omissible.8 Besides, a free apposition competes with a relative clause, called “explicative” or “non-restrictive”, which can also be left out (7). (7)

Hi rem ad virum primarium, summo officio ac virtute praeditum, M. Marcellum, qui erat pupilli tutor, deferunt. ‘They report the matter to that eminent man, endowed with the greatest benevolence and virtue, Marcus Marcellus, who was a guardian of the minor.’ (Cic. Ver. 1.135)

Unlike the close apposition, the free apposition—although it is without a finite verb form—represents a kind of autonomous predication at the syntactic level, as has been observed by Lavency (1997: 120) and Touratier

7 This point is uncontroversial for modern languages: two elements of constructions with a close apposition form one intonation unit (Keizer 2007: 25). For prosodic properties of both types of appositions in English, see Keizer (2005: 393) and Hannay & Keizer (2005: 160). 8 For this reason, the term “non-restrictive apposition” is commonly used in English literature, cf. Quirk et al. (1985: 1308), quoted above, and Hannay & Keizer (2005). For Latin, this terminology, “restrictive apposition” and “non-restrictive apposition”, is retained by Pinkster (LSS § 6.8 and n. 49a, as well as fc., chapter 11).

appositions

265

(1994: 442). Recently, Hannay & Keizer (2005: 165) have identified several properties supporting this idea for free appositions in English, which can be applied to Latin as well. Free appositions admit adverbs situating events in time (such as olim ‘once’, nuper ‘recently’),9 which indicate a temporal circumstance (8), and adverbs modifying a sentence, for example adverbs and epistemic expressions such as fortasse ‘perhaps’ in (9),10 or modifying a speech act as in (10). Furthermore, free appositions do not fall under the scope of questions: the property expressed in the apposition is not questioned but is asserted in (11). (8)

ille Gallus, olim testis in Pisonem ‘that Gallus, who once upon a time gave evidence against Piso’ (Cic. de Orat. 2.265)

(9)

Quin etiam parens tuus, Torquate, consul reo de pecuniis repetundis Catilinae fuit advocatus, improbo homini, at supplici, fortasse audaci, at aliquando amico. ‘Furthermore, even your own father, Torquatus, when consul, was the advocate of Catiline prosecuted on a charge of extortion; rogue he may have been, but he was a suppliant; reckless perhaps, but he had once been a friend.’ (Cic. Sul. 81)

(10) Labienus, vir mea sententia magnus, Teanum venit a. d. VIIII Kal. ‘Labienus, a great man in my opinion, arrived at Teanum on the 22nd.’ (Cic. Att. 7.13a.3) (11)

An M. Anni, gravissimi atque honestissimi viri, summa auctoritas paulo diligentiorem timidioremque fecerat? ‘Had the great influence of Marcus Annius, a most respectable and most honourable man, made you a little more cautious and circumspect?’ (Cic. Ver. 5.156)

However, Hannay & Keizer (2005) criticise the traditional definition of the free apposition, which I presented above (example (1)), especially the points concerning co-reference and omissibility. Firstly, the criterion of referential

9 For expressions situating events in the past, cf. also, for example, Heraclius …, homo ante hunc praetorem vel pecuniosissimus Syracusanorum, nunc … pauperrimus ‘Heraclius …, one of the most wealthy of the Syracusans before Verres came as praetor, now a very poor man’ (Cic. Ver. 2.35). Furius …, homo quamdiu vixit, non domi suae solum, post mortem tota Sicilia clarus et nobilis ‘Furius …, a man, as long as he lived, illustrious in his own city, and after his death celebrated over all Sicily’ (Cic. Ver. 5.112). 10 Cf. also, e.g. homo sane levis ‘a person certainly of little resolution’ (Cic. Tusc. 2.60); Chrysippus … homo sine dubio versutus et callidus ‘Chrysippus …, undoubtedly an adroit and clever man’ (Cic. N.D. 3.25); Matius …, homo mehercule … temperatus ‘Matius …, a man of moderation indeed’ (Cic. Att. 9.11.1).

266

chapter four

identity presupposes that both elements are referential. Servus meus in (5), which classifies Dionysius, is indeed referential, but vir fortis in (6), which only assigns a property to Balventius, is not. Consequently, free appositions can be either referential or non-referential. Secondly, Hannay & Keizer refine the idea of the omissibility of free appositions. Omissibility must solely be understood as a theoretical possibility at the syntactic level. From the pragmatic point of view, deletion of either element would affect the cohesion of the discourse. Finally, according to Hannay & Keizer (2005: 160), one typical characteristic property of free appositions is to be added: they represent an independent unit that does not have the form of a clause but fulfils a function in the discourse. Its autonomy manifests itself orally by intonation, and by punctuation in writing. The distinctive features of free appositions can be resumed as follows: – the second element (the free apposition) is referential (in which case it is co-referential with the first element) or non-referential; – both elements fulfil the same syntactic function and are, in theory, omissible; however, omission of either element would affect the coherence of the discourse; – free appositions are independent units of information that have a function in the discourse. 2.2. Close Appositions Keizer (1995 and 2005) and Hannay & Keizer (2005) provide a detailed analysis of the functions of close and free appositions. I will start with the first category.11 Keizer (1995 and 2005) distinguishes three main functions depending on the nature of the first element to which a close apposition is added: descriptive, introductory, and contrastive functions. The descriptive function (descriptionally-identifying use) is exemplified in (12). (12) A friend of mine Andy will be able to help you.

The descriptive element (a friend of mine) provides information that helps the addressee to anchor the referent in the discourse, to situate it in his mind. A friend of mine has an inferrable status in that people usually have

11 Their typology takes as its point of departure Declerck’s (1988) description of predicative sentences.

appositions

267

friends; the proper name—with which the addressee may not be familiar— is expressed to make future reference to this person easier: the speaker considers it useful to give his name. The descriptive type of apposition could alternate with (12a) but not with (12b) because the proper name alone is not sufficient to identify the referent in the given context. (12a) A friend of mine will be able to help you. (12b) *Andy will be able to help you.

The first element can have an introductory function when the common noun is not anchored in the discourse. In (13), the descriptive element (the author) is new as well as the proper name; it provides background information that facilitates identification of the person. This introductory type is irreducible; omission of either element would result in a pragmatically unacceptable sentence. (13) The author Roald Dahl has died. (13a) *The author has died.

Which one?

(13b) *Roald Dahl has died.

Who is he?

Finally, a common noun used with a close apposition has a contrastive function when it serves to distinguish one referent from another one. In (14) a contrast is established between two persons with the same name (Paul Jones); the descriptive elements (the critic, the author) are indispensable for differentiating them. (14) Who are you referring to? The critic Paul Jones or the author Paul Jones?

2.3. Free Appositions As for free appositions, Hannay & Keizer (2005) define three main categories: identification, justification, and labelling; each of them is further subdivided. I will only present the most important types. Identification This category of apposition helps the addressee to identify the referent (“who is X?”, “which one is X?”) by specifying it or by describing it. Constructions that specify a referent contain a descriptive element indicating the role of the referent, and a proper name in apposition. This type allows paraphrases by that is to say, or namely (15). (15) The winners will be … and the deputy prime minister, John Prescott.

268

chapter four

The descriptive type is the reverse of the former: the proper name is the first element, the common noun stands in apposition. This appositional construction serves to provide a description of the referent (“who is X?”). The element in apposition can be preceded by that is to say but not namely (16). (16) A service conducted by Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Justification The second category of free apposition is represented by justifying constructions. They serve to assign a property to a referent, a property that is important from the point of view of the context. Whereas identifying constructions are oriented towards the referent, justifying ones are oriented towards the discourse. They indicate the relevance of a particular aspect in the context (17). Intelligence and ambition are, of course, John’s properties, but the function of this apposition is not merely to describe the referent: it justifies the speaker’s statement (to be the ideal candidate) by providing the motive for which it is made. (17) I consider John, an intelligent an ambitious young man, to be the ideal candidate.

Introduction The third category of apposition, labelling, concerns the introduction of a proper name (18). This type does not identify the referent and does not appeal to the knowledge of the addressee, as is the case for specifying or descriptive appositions. I will not use the term “labelling”; I will talk about appositions with an introductory function instead. (18) The performance … culminated in a speech to the congregation by the group’s leader and full-time organiser, Matt O’Connor, 37, dressed in a costume …

Keizer’s (1995 and 2005) and Hannay & Keizer’s (2005) typology will serve as a general framework for my description of appositions. However, I will not apply it in a direct way but only use these concepts in order to explain how appositions function in Latin. 2.4. Problems with the Description of Appositions As we will see in section 2.6, constructions with close appositions in Classical Latin prose typically consist of two elements, one of which is a common noun and the other is a proper name: Cicero consul ‘Cicero the consul’,

appositions

269

oppidum Gadis ‘the town of Gadis’, flumen Garunna ‘the river Garunna’.12 These elements are linked together without any explicit syntactic means.13 There are several problems with the description of close appositions, and in this section, I will first focus on the crucial question that is often discussed in connection with modern languages: which element functions as the head of the construction and which element is in apposition? Grevisse (1993: 516–517), for example, when defining the relationship between the apposition and the attribute, establishes equivalence between appositions and subject complements. According to him, the element that stands in the predicate (capitale de la France) in the following transformation (19) is to be interpreted as an apposition. (19) Paris, capitale de la France, est divisée en vingt arrondissements. → Paris est la capitale de la France.

This transformation is used not only for free appositions (19) but also for close appositions (20): the element le poète, making part of the predicate, functions as an apposition. (20) le poète Hugo ← J’ai rencontré Hugo; Hugo est un poète.

However, Grevisse admits himself that “many grammarians regard the second element (Hugo) as a (close) apposition”. This situation would correspond to the following paraphrase (21). (21) le poète Hugo ← J’ai rencontré un poète; ce poète était Hugo.

Similar hesitations are found in studies of English. In the poet Burns, some linguists identify the second element as the head and the first one as the apposition (Haugen 1953: 166) because it figures in the predicate (22).14 (22) the poet Burns ← Burns is a poet.

Quirk et al. (1985: 1305) admit that the question is difficult to resolve: “It may not be clear which of the appositives is the defining one.” In contrast, Keizer (2005: 382) considers the first element as the head.15

12 In technical or didactic treatises, the proportion between constructions consisting of proper name + common noun and common noun + common noun is expected to be different. 13 Unlike, for example, constructions with an explicative genitive; cf. below, note 17. 14 For other transformations, see Burton-Roberts (1975). For Latin, see Fugier (1983: 224); she suggests paraphrasing urbs Roma in the following way: (haec) urbs Roma est ‘this city is Rome’. 15 Heberlein (1996: 353) also identifies the first element as the head of the construction in

270

chapter four

Another problem, closely linked with the previous one, concerns the nature of the relationship that holds between the two elements. Scholars generally talk about dependency. For Grevisse (1993: 516), the apposition “is a nominal element put under dependency of another nominal element”; for Haugen (1953: 170), “the poet Burns is a modifier-head construction”. Keizer (2007: 58), in her recent study on the English noun phrase, interprets the poet Burns—as well as Burns the poet—as a “head-modifier construction”.16 The same question has also been asked by Latinists. Longrée (1990: 9) has applied substitution tests to close appositions, especially substitution by the anaphoric pronoun is (23). (23) rex Ancus—is rex / *is Ancus urbs Roma—ea urbs / *ea Roma

Longrée identifies Ancus and Roma as attributes, as well as the adjective Romana, the explicative genitive Romae (24),17 and the possessive genitive Armeniorum (25). Lavency (1997: 119) calls Roma and Ancus “nominal attributes”. (24) urbs Roma / urbs Romana / urbs Romae (25) rex Ancus / rex Armeniorum

In his article devoted to close appositions, Heberlein (1996: 352–354) formulates several points of criticism and suggests regarding the relationship between the two elements not as a case of dependency, but as Soziation, “solidarity”, inspired by Lavency’s observations.18 For Heberlein, the construction consists of two referentially autonomous nominal elements that are equivalent as regards their distribution. The internal relationship they have is that of juxtaposition, and not that of dependency.

Latin. For more details concerning discussions about the internal structure of close appositions in English, see Keizer (2005: 382 and 2007: 24). In English and French, the presence and the scope of the article is an additional complication. 16 Cf. below, note 23. 17 For competition between urbs Roma and urbs Romae, cf. Hahn (1953: 97); for urbs Roma / urbs Romae / urbs Romana, Fugier (1983: 245). The explicative genitive is not attested in the case of urbs Roma but in that of other cities, e.g. ex oppido Thysdrae (B. Afr. 36.2), in oppido Antiochiae ‘the town of Antioch’ (Cic. Att. 5.18.1), with textual problems, and urbem Patavi (Verg. A. 1.247). 18 “Two units are ‘in solidarity’ when they cannot function one without the other; in the unit AB, there is no A without B, no B without A” (Lavency 1997: 10). As an example, he gives discipulus optimae spei ‘a pupil of such brilliant promise’ where both elements optimae and spei are ‘in solidarity’ because they cannot be dissociated (neither *discipulus optimae nor *discipulus spei) and, together, can be interchanged with fortis. Cf. also Lehmann (1983: 341).

appositions

271

Furthermore, Heberlein (1996: 350) addresses an issue that has not been discussed before. He disagrees with Longrée’s (1990: 9) rejection of is rex and ea urbs in (23) arguing that a close apposition may be interpreted in two ways (26)–(27). (26) Plato philosophus there is one philosopher and several Platos (philosophus, comicus, etc.) philosophus is restrictive → is Plato (27) Plato philosophus there is one Plato and several philosophers (Socrates, Chrysippus, etc.) Plato is restrictive → is philosophus

This observation, which shows that either element may be restrictive, will serve as a point of departure for my demonstration in next section, which will examine the ordering of the elements that form an appositional construction. Unlike Heberlein, I will attempt to show that the second case (27), with Plato restrictive, corresponds to the order philosophus Plato. 2.5. Sp. Albinus consul vs. consul Albinus Before starting the analysis, I must emphasize that close appositions are not to be regarded as one homogeneous group. In particular, it is necessary to separate instances referring to persons from those referring to localities and other entities (cf. Heberlein’s typology, 1996: 345), because of the semantic properties of the nouns involved. Constructions with personal proper names refer to individuals, animate and agentive entities. They may bear the same or similar name and be in charge, not necessarily simultaneously, with various official functions; as is well known, Roman public functions were shared by colleagues. In other words, compared with inanimate entities such as cities, combinations of proper names with administrative functions are significant. On the basis of the examination of a particular corpus (see section 2.6, p. 276), I propose to establish a difference19 between: (28) Sp. Albinus consul (cf. Sal. Jug. 35.2)20 ‘which Sp. Albinus?’

is Sp. Albinus

(29) consul Albinus (Sal. Jug. 39.2)

is consul

‘which consul?’

19 Typological considerations, evoked for example by Hackstein (2003) and Bauer (2008: 42) cannot, in my view, explain this point. 20 In this example, I replaced the relative explicative clause qui … consulatum gerebat, which figures in the given passage, by Sp. Albinus consul, see example (37). Such a substitution is justified by the existence of analogous instances as in (38).

272

chapter four

In (28), we have a personal proper name (Spurius Albinus) followed by the title consul that serves to indicate the category to which Sp. Albinus belongs. This construction implies the underlying question ‘which Sp. Albinus?, who is Sp. Albinus?’ It is indeed Sp. Albinus consul and not praetor, for example. In (29), consul Albinus corresponds to the question ‘which consul?’: consul Albinus and not Metellus. In the first case, consul modifies Sp. Albinus by specifying his function; in the second case, Albinus specifies which consul is meant.21 What I suggest is that the order of the elements involved is relevant: the first one is specified by the second one. At the same time, the two elements function together and form a noun phrase: the relative qui in (30) resumes P. Mucius consul as a unit, and not only consul. By contrast, a construction with ille22 such as in (31) functions as a free apposition. (30) P. Mucius consul, qui in gerenda re [publica] putabatur fuisse segnior ‘Publius Mucius the consul, who was considered to have been somewhat remiss in pursuing the action’ (Cic. Dom. 91) (31) Si Q. Scaevola, ille augur, cum de iure praediatorio consuleretur … ‘If Quintus Scaevola, that famous augur, on being consulted about the law of mortgaged properties …’ (Cic. Balb. 45)

From these observations, the following conclusion becomes obvious: the construction of close apposition is a combination of two nominal elements; each of them may function as the head or the modifier and, consequently, stand as the first or the second element.23 The ability to function sometimes as head, and sometimes as modifier allows both elements to appear in the subject position as well as in the predicate when the construction is transformed into a predicative sentence. I assume that from such ambivalence arise hesitations over the interpretation of these constructions (examples

21 We will see below that example (28) is the first mention of Sp. Albinus, with the indication of his full name and function; consul Albinus is a reminder of which consul is meant. 22 For these combinations, see ThLL, s. v. ille, 361.50f. By contrast, ille with a cognomen, agnomen or a name indicating origin can form a noun phrase with the head, for example: ut noster Scaevola Septumuleio illi Anagnino, cui … ‘as our friend Scaevola observed to the notorious Septumuleius of Anagnina to whom …’ (Cic. de Orat. 2.269). The whole phrase is resumed by the relative pronoun cui. 23 In modern languages such as English, French, or German, inversion of the order is possible to some extent: the poet Burns—Burns the poet. For the reversibility of the order of the two elements, see Keizer (2007: 37). For her, Burns the poet is not an inversion of the poet Burns; these constructions do not have the same internal structure because of the scope of the article.

appositions

273

(19)–(22)). My Latin examples (28) and (29) correspond to the following paraphrases: (28a) Sp. Albinus consul est. ‘Spurius Albinus is consul.’ (29a) (Hic) consul Albinus est. ‘This/the consul is Albinus.’

The elements in apposition, specifying the first elements, enter into following virtual classes: (32) Sp. Albinus consul / tribunus plebis / tribunus militum / praetor / legatus, etc. (33) consul Albinus / Baebius / Metellus / Marius, etc.

The close apposition in (32) describes the referent by indicating his function. As we will see below, this ordering {name > title} is typically, but not exclusively, used for the first mention of a protagonist, which often corresponds to the introduction of a new entity into the discourse. It is noteworthy that the full name, the praenomen, the nomen, and often also the cognomen, is commonly used in this ordering: the person is named in the formal way.24 In contrast in (33), a consul known from the preceding context is meant; the proper name, usually the nomen, specifies him or reminds us of his identity. Both strategies, description (32) and specification (33), help the addressee to identify the referent. I will come back later to the question of their distribution in my corpus—in fact, they are not limited to the first mention and to reference to a known protagonist, as we will see in section 3.1, p. 280—only mentioning here that they are not equivalent in a given context, from the point of view of omissibility.25 The ordering {name > title} corresponds to a relative appositive clause (34). Lucius Cassius is the first reference to the person. In the given context, both L. Cassius and praetor must be expressed because they are needed for the identification of the referent. Omission of either element would cause difficulties for the coherence of the text and would raise questions such as ‘who is L. Cassius?; what function enables him to act in such a way?’ (35). Likewise, ‘which praetor?; who is this praetor?’ in (36). However, the second solution would be acceptable, given that there was a praetor anyway; only the author would have considered it unnecessary to provide his name.

24 Cf. Adams (1978: 145–147) on conventions of naming in Cicero; the full name corresponds to formal contexts. 25 This is what Hannay & Keizer (2005: 164) claim for free appositions: their omission would affect the coherence of the discourse.

274

chapter four

(34) Memmius populo persuadet, uti L. Cassius, qui tum praetor erat, ad Iugurtham mitteretur … ‘Memmius persuaded the people to send Lucius Cassius, who was then praetor, to Jugurtha …’ (Sal. Jug. 32.1) (35) ? Memmius populo persuadet, uti L. Cassius ad Iugurtham mitteretur … (36) Memmius populo persuadet, uti praetor ad Iugurtham mitteretur …

In contrast, when a protagonist is already established in the discourse, further references to him can be made with the help of consul Albinus (and also Albinus consul),26 consul, or Albinus (37); anaphoric pronouns such as ille can also be used. Either element, consul or Albinus, is omissible. Another example, taken from Caesar, is given in (38). (37) Huic Sp. Albinus, qui proxumo anno post Bestiam cum Q. Minucio Rufo consulatum gerebat, persuadet … Avidus consul belli gerundi … Interim Albinus renovato bello … Ob ea consul Albinus … ‘Spurius Albinus, who was consul with Quintus Minucius Rufus the year after Bestia, persuaded him … The consul, being eager for the conduct of a war … Meanwhile Albinus, when the war was renewed … Therefore the consul Albinus …’ (Sal. Jug. 35.2–36.1; 39.1) (38) Pollicetur L. Piso censor sese iturum ad Caesarem, item L. Roscius praetor, qui de his rebus eum doceant … Eadem fere atque eisdem verbis praetor Roscius agit cum Caesare. ‘Lucius Piso the censor, and also Lucius Roscius the praetor, promised to go to Caesar to inform him of these developments … Praetor Roscius discussed almost the same things with Caesar in the same terms.’ (Caes. Civ. 1.3.6 and 8.4)

Another alternative to Sp. Albinus consul is the appositive construction with is qui in (39). (39) Nam et A. Albinus, is qui Graece scripsit historiam, qui consul cum L. Lucullo fuit, et litteratus et disertus fuit. ‘Thus Aulus Albinus, the writer of a history in Greek, consul with Lucius Lucullus, was not only a man of letters but a good speaker as well.’ (Cic. Brut. 81)

At the syntactic level, the pronoun is does not form a noun phrase with A. Albinus: it marks the relative clause as definite.27 This example confirms

26 But not with the full name consul Sp. Albinus—unless the function of a person is given prominence, cf. example (50). 27 See Pinkster (fc., chapter 17); the other relative clause in the same sentence (qui consul) is not marked as such.

appositions

275

the substitutions proposed in (23). On the other hand, I think—with Heberlein (1996: 350)—that Longrée (1990: 9) is wrong in rejecting the phrase is Ancus. Admittedly, personal proper names combine only exceptionally with is (cf. ThLL, s. v.) but they do co-occur with hic and ille.28 Two examples are given in (40) and (41) as an illustration. The use of such determiners is explained by the existence of several people bearing the same name who have to be identified and distinguished one from another. (40) Istic est is Iupiter quem dico, quem Graeci vocant Aerem … ‘That one is the Jupiter of whom I speak, who Grecians call Air …’ (Enn. var. 54 ap. Var. L. 5.65) (41) Quis in tabulis scriptus est? C. Claudius, C. f., Palatina. Non quaero quis hic sit Claudius. ‘Whose name is written in the records? Gaius Claudius, son of Gaius, of the Palatine tribe. I do not ask who this Claudius is.’ (Cic. Ver. 2.107)

The type consul Albinus competes with constructions containing nomine (42) or an explicit indicator of appositions, such as hoc est in (43). Apart from references to a person known from the context (cf. (37)–(38)), this pattern is also used for specifying a referent by providing his name, as we will see below (example (55)). (42) Erat in procuratione regni propter aetatem pueri nutricius eius, eunuchus nomine Pothinus. ‘On account of the boy’s age, his guardian, a eunuch called Pothinus, was in charge of the kingdom.’ (Caes. Civ. 3.108.1) (43) Iubet lex ea … iudicem quaestionis, hoc est Q. Voconium, … quaerere de veneno. ‘The law prescribes … the president of the court, that is, Quintus Voconius, … to try cases of poisoning.’ (Cic. Clu. 148)

The difference between Sp. Albinus consul and consul Albinus, which I have been explaining, is best observable in narrative texts: in Caesar’s and Sallust’s historical narrative and in narrative passages in Cicero.29 The fact that the type consul Albinus is statistically much less frequent seems to be due to the omissibility of either element.

28 For ille, cf., for example: ille Q. Papirius qui (Cic. Dom. 127) or P. ille Scipio (Cic. Har. 6). Cf. also: Quem tu mihi, inquit Mucius, Staseam … narras? ‘What Staseas … are you talking to me about?, said Mucius’ (Cic. de Orat. 1.105). 29 Cf. below, Table 3 (p. 280) and Table 6 (p. 302). In Livy, e.g. consul Servilius (2.26.2), consul Appius (2.56.11), alter consul Aemilius (2.62.2), consul Postumius (3.5.3) are references to persons established in the discourse.

276

chapter four 2.6. Distribution of Appositions in a Sample

This section presents an overall evaluation of appositions occurring in a sample of texts. This consists of: Cicero’s On Divination 2 and Against Verres 2.5.1–120, Caesar’s Civil War 3, and Sallust’s The Jugurthine War 1–80. Each text contains about 15,000 words. Table 1 provides an overview of the appositional constructions collected on the basis of the types of the nouns used.30 Proper names entering into appositional constructions, without a distinction between close and free appositions, may appear in the first or in the second position; the other element is a common noun. Table 1: Types of nouns entering into appositional constructions (sample) Construction containing n personal simple names complex

Cic. Div. Cic. Ver. Caes. Civ. Sal. Jug. Total 26 21

22 20

42 13

116 59

inhabitants, people

0

5

4

1

10

cities, countries

1

3

2

8

14

rivers, mountains

3

0

9

1

13

Common noun + common noun

1

5

1

5

12

Pronoun + common noun

1

1

0

8

10

37

61

58

78

234

1 2

3 7

2 5

2 11

8 25

Proper names

26 5

Total

Where: Discontinuous constructions Multiple appositions

It is apparent from this table that constructions with close and free appositions mainly concern individuals (116+59 occ., 75%); less frequently, inhabitants, people, or places such as cities, regions, rivers. Constructions involving two common nouns are relatively rare (12 occ., 5 %), as well as those with a pronoun and a common noun (10 occ., 4%). Discontinuous constructions are infrequent (8 occ.), but they do occur. Multiple appositions are sometimes found (25 occ.), especially in Sallust, as Fugier (1973: 98) has already noticed. 30 There are also several instances of partitive appositions, not included in this table. They will be discussed in section 5.4.2, p. 320.

appositions

277

As appositional constructions typically consist of a proper name in combination with a common noun, I will look now at the types of common nouns that are associated with proper names. Regardless of the type of appositions, the common nouns used fall into several semantic groups: – kinship nouns, e.g. pater ‘father’, mater ‘mother’, frater ‘brother’, filius ‘son’; – nouns denoting a function in the administration of the State: consul, praetor, tribunus plebis ‘plebeian tribune’, or in the army: dux ‘commander’, princeps ‘leader’, praefectus equitum ‘cavalry commander’; – the noun rex ‘king’;31 – nouns denoting another function, status, or activity in the society: Stoicus ‘Stoic’, libertus ‘freedman’, meretrix ‘courtesan’, pirata ‘pirate’, ianitor carceris ‘porter of the prison’. – common nouns such as homo and vir ‘man’ that serve as supports for properties assigned to an individual. Nouns with a more specific meaning also belong in this category, denoting for example an activity; unlike the next group, they occur with adjectives expressing a quality, e.g. locupletissimi auctores ‘the most respectable authors’, summi astrologi ‘the greatest astronomers’. – relational nouns other than kinship nouns, e.g. familiaris ‘relative’, amicus ‘friend’, expressing relationships between individuals. These data are summarised in Table 2: nouns expressing official functions are the most frequent; then come kinship nouns and appositions with homo accompanied by an evaluative adjective. Table 2: Common nouns used in appositional constructions (sample) Occ. Official function Homo (nobilis) Kinship nouns Rex Familiaris (meus) Other function or occupation Total

%

63 35 36 15 14 12

36% 20% 20% 9% 8% 7%

175

100%

31 The noun rex is treated as a separate category because it differs from official functions in some respects; see section 5.2, p. 317 for more details.

278

chapter four

This account will serve as a general basis for further investigation. I will firstly discuss close appositions concerning individuals and localities (sections 3.2 and 3.3), then free appositions (section 4). For the purpose of this demonstration, I will use material provided by the sample mentioned and, additionally, material obtained from LLT in order to gather more examples, making it possible to deduce more general tendencies. Remaining appositions with kinship nouns, rex, and other functions will be discussed in section 5. 3. Close Appositions The aim of this section is to examine semantic and pragmatic properties as well as the internal ordering of appositional constructions with common nouns expressing functions (consul and praetor) and geographical localities (urbs, oppidum, and flumen). The other element is a proper name. Proper names, as we have seen in chapter 1, section 2.3.1.6 (p. 19), refer, in principle, to unique entities. In principle, because we can encounter, especially with personal proper names, cases in which two persons bear the same (or nearly the same) name. However, uniqueness of the referent does not imply that the referent is also accessible—or identifiable—for the addressee or the reader: Arar, for example, could refer to a mountain, a river, a lake, a slave. In addition, accessibility of the referents varies: some belong to common knowledge, others are expected to be little known or entirely unknown. The latter must be inserted into the addressee’s knowledge by linguistic means, for example, “Arar is a river in Gaul”, in order to enable the addressee to classify them and to identify them in later references. 3.1. Appositions with consul and praetor This section will be devoted to two words, consul and praetor, used in close appositions. First of all, I will dwell on two difficulties concerning the identification of a construction as a close apposition. The first problem is that of expansions. Whereas the form of the personal proper name, simple (Tullius) or complex (Marcus Tullius Cicero), does not play any role, that of the common noun is significant. The presence of a modifier with the common noun: an adjective (consul designatus ‘consulelect’, praetor urbanus ‘urban praetor’) or an adverb (bis ‘for the second time’, iterum ‘again’) excludes interpreting it as a close apposition when it stands as the second element (44). When the common noun comes first, the interpretation of the second element (T. Manlio Mancino) as a close apposition

appositions

279

is still plausible (45), because this sequence is still pronounceable as one intonational unit.32 The second element, however, could be realised as a free apposition, after a pause. (44) ut Q. Hortensius, consul designatus, domum reducebatur e campo ‘as Hortensius, the consul-elect, was being escorted home from the Campus Martius’ (Cic. Ver. 18) (45) et postea populus a tribuno plebis T. Manlio Mancino rogatus ‘and afterwards, when the people were asked by the plebeian tribune Manilius Mancinus’ (Sal. Jug. 73.7)

The second difficulty is linked with the fact that both nouns under examination refer to functions entrusted to an individual for a certain period. This point makes it sometimes difficult to decide whether consul and praetor figure in a construction with a close apposition (“the consul Caesar”) or they function as secondary predicates with a circumstantial value (“Caesar as a consul”).33 The distinction is not easy to establish. Nevertheless, I will rely on the semantic value of the sentence: for activities that fall under the duties of a consul, interpretation as a secondary predicate is often obvious. For example, Caesar presides over the meeting of the senate “as a consul” (46) but consul in (47) is simply a title of M. Tullius, and not necessarily a secondary predicate. In any case, accomplishing an action concerning private interests (48) does not represent duty of a consul. (46) cum sermo esset institutus senatu misso, quem senatum Caesar consul habuisset, reprendit eas res, quas … ‘while the conversation began after a session of the senate which Caesar had convoked as a consul, he proceeds to censure the acts that …’ (Cic. Brut. 218) (47) Tum M. Tullius consul … orationem habuit luculentam atque utilem rei publicae, quam postea scriptam edidit. ‘It was then that Marcus Tullius the consul … delivered that splendid speech, so beneficial to the republic, which he afterwards wrote and published.’ (Sal. Cat. 31.6)34 (48) P. Lentulus consul, optime de me ac de re publica meritus ‘the consul Publius Lentulus, who has done signal service to myself and to the State’ (Cic. Dom. 7)

32 This is of course a hypothesis; but recall that distinction between close and free appositions is without difficulties for modern languages (see note 7, p. 264). 33 On secondary predicates, see Pinkster (1983) and (LSS §8.5.2) and Touratier (1991). 34 A Catilinarian speech is meant. Vretzka (1976: 388) qualifies the expression of full name and title as auffallend, ‘noteworthy’.

280

chapter four

Table 3 presents data gathered with the help of LLT, for constructions with a close apposition containing the words consul and praetor, referred to as the “function”, in combination with a proper name, single (X: Tullius) or complex (XX: M. Tullius). Only instances in the nominative singular have been considered for consul. Evident uses as secondary predicate have been eliminated. Appositional constructions with consul and praetor did not provide any instance of discontinuity.35 Table 3: Close appositions with consul (nom. sg.) and praetor (LLT) Close apposition

Cicero

Caesar

Sallust

Total

X function XX function function X function XX

9 40 5 2

5 8 1 0

2 3 1 1

16 51 7 3

Total

56

14

7

77

In the majority of the cases, appositional constructions exhibit the ordering {proper name > title}, and the proper name is mostly complex. This pattern appears for the first mentions of new protagonists who will play an important role afterwards in the narrative. It serves to introduce a person into the discourse (cf. p. 274, examples (37)–(38)). The full name followed by the title is also used when a person unknown from the preceding context is simply mentioned once, without persisting in the discourse, such as in (49). (49) Hoc Decimus Silanus consul in hoc ordine, hoc meus etiam collega dicebat. ‘That is what Decimus Silanus the consul said in this body; that is what my colleague also said.’ (Cic. Pis. 56)

The full name followed by the title in a close apposition can also be used when the author reminds us of the official title of a person known from the preceding context in order to focus on his duties (50).36 (50) Is ab inimicis suis apud C. Sacerdotem praetorem rei capitalis cum accusatus esset, facile eo iudicio est liberatus. ‘Having been accused by his enemies on a capital charge before the praetor Gaius Sacerdos, he was easily acquitted.’ (Cic. Ver. 2.68) 35 The following instance: ut a Scaevola est praetore salutatus Athenis Albucius (Cic. Fin. 1.8) has been eliminated because of textual problems. Manuscripts are unanimous as for praetor but this function had been performed by Scaevola, and not by Albucius; this is why Manutius emended the text. 36 Apud praetorem ‘before the praetor’ is a juridical formula, cf. ThLL, s. v. apud 341.42f.

appositions

281

The ordering {proper name > title} with a simple name is found in Caesar’s and Sallust’s historical narrative for references to persons already established in the discourse. However, three times (for consul), interpretation as a secondary predicate cannot be excluded (51);37 one reliable example of a close apposition is given in (52). In this case, the expression of consul gives prominence to the function performed by Servilius. (51) (legiones) duas ex Asia quas Lentulus consul conscribendas curaverat ‘(legions) two from Asia, levied by the care of the consul Lentulus’ (Caes. Civ. 3.4.1) (52) cum resisteret Servilius consul reliquique magistratus ‘as the consul Servilius and the rest of the magistrates opposed this’ (Caes. Civ. 3.21.1)

Cicero chiefly uses this pattern in his letters for references to individuals known to his addressees. The fact that he gives only the family name may be ascribed to the type of text, which is less formal, or to references to shared knowledge (53).38 (53) Id cum Sulpicius consul passurum se negaret, multa nos quidem questi sumus. ‘When the consul Sulpicius declared that he would not allow it, we protested, it is true, on many grounds.’ (Cic. Fam. 3.3.1)

The number of the instances of the ordering {title > proper name} is relatively low. This pattern is used for further reference to an already known person39 and is linked with the underlying question ‘which praetor?’ (54). (54) Ut ille Siculus, cui praetor Scipio patronum causae dabat hospitem suum … ‘So that Sicilian to whom the praetor Scipio was assigning as counsel in a law-suit his host …’ (Cic. de Orat. 2.280)

The same arrangement also appears for persons unknown from the preceding context, in which case the proper name is given in its full form. The performer of a function is thus specified by indication of his name. The name could have remained unexpressed but in these cases the author thought it best to provide it. In (55), apud praetorem Cn. Domitium does not anticipate any further information about this person but simply specifies the praetor who was at this moment Cn. Domitius.

37

The other two are Caes. Civ. 1.14.1 and 3.21.3. Cf. also, e.g. Cato et Servilius praetores ‘the praetors Cato and Servilius’ (Att. 4.18.4 and Q. fr. 3.4.6); Tubulum praetorem (Att. 12.5b). 39 Cf. example (38). Outside historical narrative, cf. e.g. Cic. Phil. 2.84. 38

282

chapter four

(55) A. d. III Id. Febr. dixi pro Bestia de ambitu apud praetorem Cn. Domitium in foro medio maximo conventu. ‘On 11 February I defended Bestia on a bribery charge before praetor Gnaeus Domitius in mid forum; there was a large crowd.’ (Cic. Q. fr. 2.3.6)

The ordering {title > proper name} also appears in another, contrastive, context. The title of consul in (56) contrasts with Sulla’s action (a consul is supposed to devote himself to his fatherland and not to ruin it in a civil war).40 Example (57), with two full proper names, illustrates a contrast between two persons sharing the same office who are given different tasks (57). (56) Civile bellum consul Sulla gessit, legionibus in urbem adductis quos voluit expulit … ‘The consul Sulla waged a civil war; he marched his legions into Rome, banished whom he chose …’ (Cic. Phil. 14.23) (57) Sed praetores Q. Pompeius Rufus Capuam, Q. Metellus Celer in agrum Picenum (missi) ‘But the praetors Quintus Pompeius Rufus and Quintus Metellus Celer were sent off, the one to Capua, the other to Picenum.’ (Sal. Cat. 30.3)

3.2. Appositions with urbs and oppidum 3.2.1. Urbs Roma I will turn now to inanimate entities, starting with cities. The phrase urbs Roma is quoted in many works to illustrate a close apposition (Fugier 1983: 242 and Bauer 2008, among others). Urbs Roma has, of course, the same syntactic properties as oppidum Gadis but, as I will try to show, it cannot be regarded as a “prototypical” case from the pragmatic point of view, for two reasons. The first is that this phrase is seldom attested in Classical authors: in Cicero, there are 638 instances of Roma alone and only 2 instances of urbs Roma (see Table 4.1 in the Appendix).41 This point leads naturally to the second reason why urbs Roma is atypical for explaining the use of close appositions containing a place name: the semantic properties of the proper name involved. Roma is indeed referentially self-sufficient and does not require the presence of a common noun 40 However, it is impossible to exclude the interpretation as secondary predicate (‘when consul’). In the passage cited, Cicero relates incidents in the civil wars of 88–82 between Sulla (consul in 88) and Marius (consul in 86) with Cinna, who held the consulship from 87–84. 41 In Livy, there are 30 instances of urbs Roma vs. 885 of Roma. This number, higher than in Classical authors, is easy to explain, not by any diachronic considerations, but by the fact that Livy was writing a history of Rome. In all these cases, Roma is postposed to urbs.

appositions

283

that would help to classify the referent: it was available to every Roman citizen, and also to the inhabitants of the provinces. There is, of course, referential identity between urbs and Roma, and examples such as (58) and (59) make it clear that they function at the same syntactic level and may interchange (urbs ‘the city’ is a part of the personal sphère of the speaker and is identifiable by the addressee). (58) A. d. III Non. Ian. ad urbem cogito. ‘I am thinking of going to town on the 3rd of January.’ (Cic. Att. 7.4.3) (59) Inde cogito … Romam ad Kal. Iun. ‘Then I am thinking of reaching Rome on the 1st of June.’ (Cic. Att. 2.8.2)

However, in the same context, Cicero would not use ad urbem Romam cogito, as an English speaker would not say I am thinking of going to the city of London. The phrase urbs Roma functions as an official appellation of the city, an appellation that is especially convenient for solemn or formal circumstances, as in Catiline’s speech before the senators (60).42 The choice of urbs Roma, instead of urbs or Roma, can also result from the idea of contrast, for example in (61) between urbs and civitates that were situated in the provincia.43 (60) Catilina … postulare a patribus coepit, … ne existumarent sibi, patricio homini … perdita re publica opus esse, quom eam servaret M. Tullius, inquilinus civis urbis Romae. ‘Catiline … entreated the senators not to suppose that he, a patrician … should want to ruin the State, when Marcus Tullius, a mere adopted citizen of Rome, was eager to preserve it.’ (Sal. Cat. 31.7) (61) (Verres) qui ab urbe Roma … cum sibi in provinciam proficiscendum putaret, litteras ad Siciliae civitates miserit … ‘(Verres) from the city of Rome … when he was thinking to set forth for his province, he sent a letter to the Sicilian communities …’ (Cic. Ver. 3.44)

The use of close appositions is inseparable from the question of identifiability or accessibility of the referent. The speaker has a choice between a proper name (Roma), a common noun (urbs), or the combination of both. We have seen what reasons determine the choice of the close apposition in the case of urbs Roma; I will look now at other cities.

42 It is an offensive allusion to Cicero’s origin. However Arpinum, his hometown, had obtained civil rights sine suffragio in 303 and full civil rights in 188 (see Vretzka 1976: 391). 43 This example concerns a scandalous action: before setting off for Sicily, Verres sent a letter to the Sicilians exhorting them to plough and sow, so that he could start collecting taxes upon his arrival.

284

chapter four

In Cicero, according to the database LLT, the names of cities such as Athenae, Alexandria, Sparta, or Carthago are not used in close appositions; that of Syracusae three times attests the construction urbs Syracusae, which is infrequent with respect to Syracusae alone.44 All these cities belong to the common knowledge shared by a linguistic and cultural community and there is no need to specify the category which the referent is to be classified in. The three instances deserve quotation because the choice of a close apposition is fully justified. In (62), Cicero recalls the credit due to Marcus Marcellus who, after having captured Syracuse, did not deliver it for pillaging but preserved its treasures and master works. Urbs serves here as support for the adjective pulcherrimam.45 Example (63) is taken from the beginning of the famous description of Syracuse; urbem Syracusas functions as the Topic.46 Urbem Syracusas in (64) enters into implicit contrast with hiberna (castra); Cicero describes Verres as a commander who, instead of enduring toil and cold, spent the winter period in a city with urban provisions and mild weather, occupied with feasts and debauchery. (62) (M. Marcellus) urbem pulcherrimam Syracusas … non solum incolumem passus est esse, sed ita reliquit ornatam, ut … ‘(Marcus Marcellus) not only allowed the beautiful city of Syracuse to remain unharmed, but he left it so richly adorned that …’ (Cic. Ver. 2.4) (63) Urbem Syracusas maximam esse Graecarum, pulcherrimam omnium saepe audistis. ‘The city of Syracuse is, as you have often heard, the largest of the Greek cities and the most beautiful of all cities.’ (Cic. Ver. 4.117) (64) Primum temporibus hibernis ad magnitudinem frigorum et ad tempestatum vim ac fluminum praeclarum hoc sibi remedium compararat. Urbem Syracusas elegerat … ‘First, to counteract the extreme cold in winter and the violence of the storms and swollen rivers, he devised for himself the perfect expedient. He chose the city of Syracuse …’ (Cic. Ver. 5.26)

In Classical authors, appositions with urbs are rather rare (10 occ. in my data). A possible explanation for this is the topics of their works,47 as we

44

Out of 114 instances; there is also one free apposition. For qualification of proper names, cf. section 4.1, p. 297. 46 In this case, we can hesitate whether urbem Syracusas forms a phrase or urbem is predicative. This example is usually quoted as a close apposition. 47 In contrast, in Livy, in the first ten books concerning the beginnings of the Roman republic, the capture of Veii and the conquest of Italy, close appositions with urbs are frequent because cities in Italy are discussed, cf. urbem Antium (Liv. 2.63.6), in urbem Fidenas (4.22.2), 45

appositions

285

will see in the next section. Another instance occurs in a passage where Cicero mentions administrative centres of the province Gallia, where Marcus Fonteius was praetor. Urbs Massilia (65) is (re-)introduced into the discourse. (65) (in eadem provincia) Est item urbs Massilia, de qua ante dixi, fortissimorum fidelissimorumque sociorum, qui … ‘(in this same province) There is also the city of Massilia, which I have mentioned, inhabited by brave and faithful allies, who …’ (Cic. Font. 13)

3.2.2. Appositions with oppidum Unlike urbs, oppidum is commonly used in appositional constructions by Classical authors. They principally appear in narrative texts that take place outside Italy:48 Sallust’s Jugurthine War in North Africa, Caesar’s Gallic War in Gaul, Civil War in Spain, Greece, and Africa, and Cicero’s Verrines in Sicily.49 Data are presented in Table 4. X stands for a proper name, … for intervening elements. Table 4: Close appositions with oppidum (LLT) Close apposition

Cicero

Caesar

Sallust

Total

oppidum X oppidum … X X oppidum

11 4 0

14 2 1

9 1 2

34 7 3

Total

15

17

12

44

ad urbem Allifas (9.42.6), also in the “inverted” order, e.g.: Satricum urbem (6.33.4), Thurias urbem (10.2.1). In the latter two cases, the phrases are pragmatically salient; see note 59, p. 288. 48 The distinction is not only geographical. Oppidum is a fortress, a colonised small town, especially in the mountains, with natural protection, in the Celtic or another civilisation. Urbs is a large town, founded according to a ritual ceremony and provided with ramparts, representing a religious and political centre. This term is convenient for ancient Greek colonies as well as Mediterranean cities. See Bedon (1994). Cf. also Volkmann’s article on oppidum in Brill’s New Pauly. 49 Caesar and Cicero knew personally the places they described. Sallust, who had been living in Africa for some period—he was governor of the province Africa Nova established by Caesar (Syme 1964: 37, 151–153)—did not manage to, or did not aim to benefit from his stay for collecting evidence for geographic descriptions. For the imprecision of the geographical setting of the Jugurthine War, see Syme (1964: 147–149), Tiffou (1974), and Koestermann’s commentary (1971). In his 1974 article, Desanges quotes Picard’s pertinent observation (p. 143): “Sallust wrote in Rome for people who had never been to Africa and did not have maps. He did not care much about exactness and only wanted to please with a picturesque narrative from which one could draw political and moral conclusions.”

286

chapter four

It is apparent from table 4 that constructions containing close appositions with oppidum predominantly occur in the order {oppidum > proper name}; seven times, the elements are not contiguous. There are only three instances of the pattern {proper name > oppidum}.50 The order {oppidum > proper name} appears in various contexts. Firstly, it is chosen when the author mentions a place for the first time, especially to introduce it into the discourse as a new setting.51 The common noun indicates the category, the proper name specifies which entity belonging to the group is involved. Sallust uses this strategy four times, Caesar ten times, and Cicero four times. The following examples concern towns that have not been mentioned in the preceding context. (66) et magno itinere ad oppidum Noviodunum contendit. Id ex itinere oppugnare conatus … ‘and making a forced march, he hastens to the town of Noviodunum. Having attempted to assault it direct from the march …’ (Caes. Gal. 2.12.1–2) (67) Sed Hiempsal in oppido Thirmida forte eius domo utebatur, qui … ‘It happened that Hiempsal was lodging in the town of Thirmida at the house of …’ (Sal. Jug. 12.3)

Neither the Numidian town Thirmida, nor the town of the Haedui Noviodunum belong to shared knowledge. The constructions with close appositions (or another alternative) are essential in the given context because the use of the proper names alone, Thirmida and Noviodunum, would require more specification and the expression ad oppidum / in oppido would remain incomplete. These constructions are irreducible in that they can interchange neither with the common noun alone, nor with the proper noun alone. This type of construction competes with other syntactic means: a free apposition (68), a determinative relative clause (69), a phrase containing nomine (70), or an independent sentence (71).52 These constructions are also used to introduce a new entity into the discourse that will serve as the spatial setting afterwards. 50 These tendencies of placement are confirmed by data gathered from my sample involving oppidum, fluvius and also other nouns referring to spatial entities such as provincia, colonia, campus, lacus: 19 times (out of 23), the common noun precedes the proper name in the case of close appositions. 51 Especially but not necessarily: the town of Thirmida in (67) does not play any role in the subsequent context. 52 There also other possibilities, cf. nos in Cappadocia ad Taurum cum exercitu ad Cybistra ‘I am in Cappadocia near the Taurus mountain with my army close to Cybistra’ (Cic. Att. 5.18.1), where the town of Cybistra is identifiable by the mention of the province (in Capadocia), followed by the more specific ad Taurum.

appositions

287

(68) Dein Thalam pervenit, in oppidum magnum atque opulentum, … Inter Thalam … ‘Then he reached Thala, a large and wealthy town, … Between Thala …’ (Sal. Jug. 75.1) (69) Coniuncto exercitu Caesar Gomphos pervenit, quod est oppidum primum Thessaliae venientibus ab Epiro. Quae gens … ‘With his forces united, Caesar went on to Gomphi, which is the first town in Thessaly as you come from Epirus. The people …’ (Caes. Civ. 3.80.1) (70) Ab his castris oppidum Remorum nomine Bibrax aberat milia passuum octo. Id … ‘From this camp a town of the Remi called Bibrax was eight miles distant. This town …’ (Caes. Gal. 2.6.1) (71) Labienus … cum IIII legionibus Luteciam proficiscitur. Id est oppidum Parisiorum positum in insula fluminis Sequanae. ‘Labienus … marches with four legions to Lutetia. It is a town of the Parisii, situated on an island on the river Sequana.’ (Caes. Gal. 7.57.1)

Examples (68)–(71) show different strategies which serve to make a referent that does not belong to shared knowledge accessible for the addressee. Once the entity is established in the discourse, it can be further referred to by oppidum (with a definite reading), a proper name alone (72) or, occasionally, a construction with a close apposition {oppidum > proper name}, where the common noun reminds us of the category to which the proper name belongs.53 In other words, when the referent is already identifiable, the construction with a close apposition is reducible to either element. (72) (legiones) Sex ipse in Arvernos ad oppidum Gergoviam secundum flumen Elaver duxit … Gergoviam pervenit …; castris prope oppidum positis … ‘He led in person six legions into the country of the Arverni, towards the town of Gergovia, along the river Elaver … He reached Gergovia …; after having pitched camp near the town …’ (Caes. Gal. 7.34.1; 36.1–2)

However, I noted three instances where the pattern {proper name > oppidum} is used for entities not yet established in the discourse.54 All of them pose problems. Cirta oppidum in (73), the first mention of this town, is difficult to explain.55 This ordering could be related to its pragmatic saliency

53

Cf. p. 193, example (82) with flumen. The instance Bidis oppidum est tenue sane non longe a Syracusis ‘Bidis is a quite small town not far from Syracuse’ (Cic. Ver. 2.53) is likely to be interpreted as a predicative construction. 55 Cirta (modern Constantine) was the capital of the kingdom of Numidia. If Cirta belonged to common knowledge (I consider it unlikely), the word oppidum would not be 54

288

chapter four

in that Cirta will represent the setting of further events; likewise, ad Cirtam oppidum in Jug. 81.2 (a text with a lacuna), where the town is reintroduced into the discourse.56 (73) Interim haud longe a mari prope Cirtam oppidum utriusque exercitus consedit et, quia diei extremum erat, proelium non inceptum. ‘Meanwhile both armies encamped not far from the sea near the town of Cirta; because it was late in the day, they did not join battle.’ (Sal. Jug. 21.2)

The third instance of the ordering {proper name > oppidum} is found in Caesar. However, the sequence ad Buthrotum oppidum is not guaranteed because of the presence of Corcyrae; insertion of oppositum is plausible on the basis of geographical facts.57 This example could indeed be segmented ad Buthrotum, oppidum ⟨oppositum⟩ Corcyrae as well. Furthermore, there is reason to believe that Buthrotum, a holiday resort on the coast of Epirus, belonged to shared knowledge and, consequently, could be used without oppidum.58 (74) Caesar eo tempore cum legione una profectus ad recipiendas ulteriores civitates … erat ad Buthrotum oppidum ⟨oppositum⟩ Corcyrae. Ibi … ‘Caesar had at that point set out with one legion to win over the more distant communities … and he was at the town of Buthrotum opposite Corcyra. There …’ (Caes. Civ. 3.16.1)

It is worth adding that the variation in the ordering with oppidum does not involve the difference that I envisaged for Sp. Albinus consul and consul Albinus.59 In the case of place names, the proper name specifies the common

expressed. On the other hand, Sallust himself does not seem to have a precise idea about its location, saying haud longe a mari: Cirta was situated at 65km from the sea (correctly Mela 1.30: Cirta procul a mari), on a 200 m high hill (see Koestermann 1971: 100); cf. also Syme (1964: 152). Cf. note 49, p. 285. 56 Apart from the first mention ( Jug. 21.2), and the reintroduction of Cirta into the discourse ( Jug. 81.2) with the help of the close appositions already mentioned (Cirta oppidum), Sallust uses references with the proper name alone (Cirta). Afterwards, he continues with oppidum Cirta, three times, very close one to another ( Jug. 88.3, 101.1, 102.1). 57 The manuscript readings are Butrotum and Brutotum (bur totum). I adopt Carter’s (1993: 40) reading; other editors add ⟨quod est oppositum⟩. 58 Cf. Cic. Att. 4.8.1: hoc scito, Antium Buthrotum esse Romae ut Corcyrae illud tuum. ‘Let me tell you that Antium is the Buthrotum of Rome, as your Buthrotum is of Corcyra.’ 59 However, cf. Heberlein (1996: 354). He considers that the ordering urbs Satricum ‘builds up the referent’ (referenz bildend) but Satricum urbs ‘clarifies it’ (referenz klärend). I would interpret this example from Livy in a different way. In (rabies Latinorum) eo erupit, ut Satricum urbem, quae receptaculum primum eis adversae pugnae fuerat, igni concremarent ‘the rage of the Latins rose to such a pitch that they set fire to Satricum, the town which had been their first place of refuge after their defeat’ (Liv. 6.33.4), the ordering Satricum urbs (Satricum, a

appositions

289

noun. The descriptive type would be expected for homonymous names such as Thirmida oppidum—Thirmida flumen; however, my corpus did not offer instances of this type. The examples introduced in the sections devoted to place names have shown two extreme situations: on the one hand, commonly known cities (Roma, Syracusae, Massilia), on the other hand, towns in Gaul, Sicily, or Africa that are expected to be unknown (Gergovia, Lampsacum, Thala). In the latter case, the common noun could not be used alone without the proper name and the proper name alone would not be referentially self-sufficient. The choice of a construction with a close apposition—or another linguistic means providing the same service—that puts together a common noun and a proper name is justified for pragmatic reasons. At the same time, it presupposes a judgment on the availability of the referent to the addressee. For us, it is not always easy to recognise the degree of identifiability of such or such a place. In any case, it is likely that in Caesar’s Civil War, cities as Ilerda, Oricum, Apollonia, or Dyrrachium are expected to be known or identifiable because during their first appearances, they occur without the support of a common noun.60 In addition, it must be pointed out that the choice between a close apposition and a proper name alone depends on the aims of the discourse. The localities to which the authors refer with the help of appositional constructions often serve as spatial settings for the events that will be related, as we have seen in the case of Gergovia (72) in the Gallic War. By contrast, in the Civil War Caesar says, in a speech exhorting his soldiers before a decisive battle: (75) ut detrimentum in bonum verteret, uti ad Gergoviam accidisset ‘that their loss would turn to profit, as had happened at Gergovia’ (Caes. Civ. 3.73.5)

In this passage, Gergovia is considered identifiable to the soldiers present: it is a reminder of a memorable battle (in the year 52), in which Caesar

city in Latium, is known from the context) may result from the fact that it is a pragmatically salient constituent. However, this instance poses the same problem of segmentation as ad Buthrotum oppidum in (74): Satricum, urbem quae receptaculum is plausible as well. 60 For Ilerda, a town in the northeast of Spain, cf. Civ. 1.38.4 (with a previous mention of Hispania) and 41.2; the fact that this proper name co-occurs with oppidum afterwards (1.43.1) can be attributed to Caesar’s aim to be as precise as possible. For Oricum, see 3.7.1; Apollonia, 3.5.2, and Dyrrachium (Epidamnos) 1.25.2; these were ancient Greek colonies in Illyria. However, due to mentions of crossing the sea and of Brundisium, the chief point of embarkation for Greece, it is more or less possible to infer from the context where they are situated.

290

chapter four

suffered a serious reverse, and not a beginning of a description of this town. Its geographic situation and the type of the referent do not matter in such a context. In Table 4 we have seen that the common noun is not always contiguous with the proper name (7 occ.). Two different situations belong to this category: (i) the presence of a modifier expanding oppidum and (ii) disjunction caused by an intervening alien element. 3.2.3. Oppidum with a Modifier When oppidum has a modifier, the first element of the construction becomes complex, which could have relevance for the interpretation of the construction: is the second element still a close apposition or is it now a free apposition? When the modifier is an adjective (as devium), attributing a property to the noun, there is no difficulty in interpreting the second element as close apposition (76). In contrast, a genitive complement, which expresses the people or the person to whom the town belongs, specifies the word oppidum (77) in some way. In such cases, we can hesitate over the type of the construction. Intonation would make it possible to decide whether Vellaunodunum stands in close apposition with respect to the first element or whether there is a pause after Senonum, in which case we would have a free apposition. Instead, we must rely on the context. In (77), the town of Vellaunodunum is mentioned for the first time; the Senones have already been referred to before.61 In principle, there is no reason to reject the interpretation of the second element as a close apposition. It is very possible that oppidum has a double specification, one provided by the possessive genitive, and the other by a proper name. (76) Cum concursum plorantium ac tempestatem querellarum ferre non posses, in oppidum devium Beroam profugisti. ‘When you could not endure the throng of people weeping and storm of complaints, you fled to Beroa, a town off the beaten track.’ (Cic. Pis. 89) (77) Altero die cum ad oppidum Senonum Vellaunodunum venisset … ‘On the second day, when he came to Vellaunodunum, a town of the Senones, …’ (Caes. Gal. 7.11.1)

61 The expression of Senonum is necessary. Caesar indeed must specify that a town of the Senones is meant because otherwise the town would be related to the Boii mentioned in the immediately preceding context.

appositions

291

3.2.4. Discontinuity Constructions with close appositions allow discontinuity (pace Fugier 1973: 99), although this is exceptional.62 My corpus offers two examples of discontinuity for oppidum + proper name. (78) (ad oppidum Ilerdam) … et sub montem in quo erat oppidum positum Ilerda succedunt. Hinc … ‘(to the town Ilerda) … and came up beneath the hill on which the town of Ilerda stood. From there …’ (Caes. Civ. 1.45.2) (79) Oppidum est in Hellesponto Lampsacum, iudices, in primis Asiae provinciae clarum et nobile. ‘On the Hellespont, there is a town called Lampsacum, members of the jury, among the best of the provinces of Asia, famous and renowned.’ (Cic. Ver. 1.63, transl. Gildenhard)

The first one (78) poses a problem: the expression ad oppidum Ilerdam figures in the immediately preceding sentence and two “full” references occurring close to one another are surprising.63 Furthermore, oppidum Ilerda is not a pragmatically salient constituent; sub montem is more informative; the explicative relative clause recalls known facts. The second example (79) may be interpreted in two ways: oppidum with an indefinite reading: ‘on the Hellespont, there is a town, Lampsacum’,64 or forming a phrase with the proper name (‘the town of Lampsacum’). Cicero uses this sentences for “opening the case” of Lampsacum in his Verrine speech (the events of Lampsacum occupy sections 63–86). For this reason, I would reject the indefinite reading of oppidum. The author does not want to inform us about the existence of a town on the Hellespont; it is more likely that he is aiming to introduce oppidum Lampsacum into the discourse and, at the same time, to situate it (in Hellesponto).65 The separation of the two elements is justified by pragmatic saliency of the phrase that conveys new information.

62

Note also discontinuity with flumen (section 3.3.3, p. 195). Meusel (the editor) suggested deletion of the second Ilerda. 64 For presentational sentences, see Rosén (1998: 734). 65 Cf. the following translation in French: ‘Sur les bords de l’Hellespont s’élève la ville de Lampsaque, une des plus renommées et des plus célèbres de l’Asie’ (Œuvres complètes de Cicéron, dir. M. Nisard, Paris 1840, http://agoraclass.fltr.ucl.ac.be/concordances/cicero _verres21/lecture/5.htm). 63

292

chapter four 3.3. Appositions with flumen / fluvius

In Table 5 I present data for constructions with close appositions containing flumen and fluvius ‘river’.66 These are very often used in Caesar’s historical narrative, where they usually serve to demarcate territories. Table 5: Close apposition with flumen / fluvius (LLT) Close apposition flumen X flumen … X X flumen Total

Cicero

Caesar

Sallust

Total

9 0 4

41 2 5

4 0 0

54 2 9

13

48

4

65

The ordering { flumen > proper name} is the most common (54 occ.); discontinuity is rare, the ordering {proper name > flumen} is infrequent. Rivers that enter into constructions with close appositions do not belong to shared knowledge, unlike Tiberis, for example, which does not co-occur with flumen.67 Rhenus68 also usually goes without the common noun; in Caesar, Rhenus alone appears 55 times, flumen Rhenus only 8 times.69 3.3.1. Flumen Arar The ordering flumen Arar can be regarded as the usual expression. It is chosen for the first mentions of rivers, especially when a new spatial setting is being introduced into the discourse (80). This ordering is also used for references to an already established river, as in (81). This ordering concerns pragmatically salient constituents, as in (80), but also constituents that do not have any special pragmatic function, as in (81).

66

The word fluvius is not used by Sallust and Caesar. In Cicero, the name Tiberis alone occurs 12 times. Livy has 67 instances of Tiberis, one of which occurs with the common noun (prope Tiberim fluvium in 1.7.4, pragmatically salient); there is also Tiberi amne in 4.32.8. 68 Classical authors do not frequently mention rivers such as Nilus or Indus, for which I would not expect co-occurrence with a common noun. Cicero, in his philosophical treatises and letters, has 13 references to Euphrates with the proper name alone; Sallust (Hist. 4, frg. 59) mentions it once as ad flumen Euphraten. 69 The first mention of Rhenus is made using the proper name alone (Gal. 1.1.3). The case of Rhodanus is less clear: Caesar has 9 instances of the proper name and 5 of flumen Rhodanus. 67

appositions

293

(80) Flumen Axonam, quod est in extremis Remorum finibus, exercitum traducere maturavit atque ibi castra posuit. ‘He hastened to lead his army across the river Axona, which is upon the outermost borders of the Remi, and there pitched his camp.’ (Caes. Gal. 2.5.4) (81) Qui cum ad flumen Ligerim venissent, quod Bituriges ab Haeduis dividit, paucos dies ibi morati … ‘When they came to the river Loire, which separates the Bituriges from the Aedui, they delayed a few days there …’ (Caes. Gal. 7.5.4)

References to an entity established in the discourse can be made by various linguistic means. The well-known passage in (82) contains strong and weak forms of anaphora: the pronoun (id), the common noun ( flumen), also accompanied by an anaphoric pronoun (id flumen), a proper name referring to a known entity (Arar), and a close apposition (circa flumen Ararim). Only constructions with a simply anaphoric value are reducible to one or the other element. For the first discontinuous instance ( flumen … Arar), see below, example (89). (82) Flumen est Arar, quod … influit … Id Helvetii ratibus ac lintribus iunctis transibant … tres iam partes copiarum Helvetios id flumen traduxisse, quartam vero partem citra flumen Ararim reliquam esse … ad eam partem pervenit, quae nondum flumen transierat … pontem in Arari faciendum curat. ‘There is a river Arar, which flows through … This the Helvetii were crossing by rafts and boats fastened together … that three-quarters of the Helvetian forces had actually crossed, but that the fourth part was left behind on this side of the river Arar … came up came up with that division, which had not yet crossed the river … he procures a bridge to be made across the Arar.’ (Caes. Gal. 1.12.1–13.1)

3.3.2. Garunna flumen Table 5 shows that the ordering {proper name > flumen} is in the minority (9 occ.). Almost all the instances I gathered can be given an explanation involving pragmatic reasons. In (83), Garunna flumen70 is a pragmatically significant constituent; a contrast is established between the rivers separating the Gauls from the Aquitani and the Belgae: Garunna from one side, Matrona and Sequana from the other. Two other instances of Garunna flumen are also contrastive (Caes. Gal. 1.1.5 and 7). 70 This example from the beginning of the Gallic War is quoted in Latin grammars (K.&St. II: 604, among others). It cannot be taken as an illustration of the presumable “basic order”; for this point, cf. Hackstein (2003: 138) who considers Hypanis fluvius (Plin. Nat. 11.120) as an archaism, a “residuary case” of the basic order {proper name > common noun} in Latin; see, however, the next note.

294

chapter four

(83) Gallos ab Aquitanis Garunna flumen, a Belgis Matrona et Sequana dividit. ‘The river Garunna separates the Gauls from the Aquitani; the Matrona and the Sequana separate them from the Belgae.’ (Caes. Gal. 1.1.2)

An idea of contrast between two or more entities indeed produces “inversion” of the order, or, more exactly, a special disposition of the internal order of the phrase, as may happen with other pragmatically significant constituents. In (84), Sabim flumen is the Focus of its sentence conveying salient information. In (85), in Sicori flumine functions as a New Topic, set up without any special introduction (it is the first mention). It will play the role of the spatial setting in the subsequent context. (84) Cum per eorum fines triduo iter fecisset, inveniebat ex captivis Sabim flumen a castris suis non amplius milibus passuum X abesse; trans id flumen omnes Nervios consedisse. ‘After a three days’ march through their territories, Caesar found out from prisoners that the river Sabis was not more than ten miles from his camp; that all the Nervii had been stationed across the river.’ (Caes. Gal. 2.16.1–2) (85) In Sicori flumine pontes effecerat duos distantes inter se milia passuum IIII. ‘He had laid two bridges over the Sicoris, four miles distant from each other.’ (Caes. Civ. 1.40.1)

Apart from five instances of the ordering {proper name > flumen} already mentioned, which occur in the historical narrative, there are additional four in Cicero. However, their analysis is more difficult because they appear in texts that do not follow a direct narrative line. In any case, I would interpret example (86) as an expression of the spatial setting, analogous to (85).71 (86) Apud Hypanim fluvium, qui ab Europae parte in Pontum influit, Aristoteles ait bestiolas quasdam nasci, quae unum diem vivant. ‘By the river Hypanis, which flows into the Pontus from a part of Europe, Aristotle says that a kind of small animal is born, which lives for a single day.’ (Cic. Tusc. 1.94)

71 However, Cicero is dealing with the same topic as Pliny (mentioned in the preceding note): the may-flies. Their source is Aristotle, History of Animals 552b: περὶ δὲ τὸν Ὕπανιν ποταμὸν τὸν περὶ Βόσπορον τὸν Κιμμέριον, etc. It is therefore likely that both authors imitate the order used by Aristotle. In Ancient Greek, the sequence article + proper name + ποταμός is used of “fairly well-known rivers” (Gildersleeve 1900: 249), as opposed to proper names with the article (ὁ Νεῖλος), referring to well-known rivers, and proper names with ποταμός (Βρόγγος ποταμός or ποταμὸς Βρόγγος) referring to unknown rivers. This explains the appositional construction used by Aristotle and the further specification of the place where this river flows (Hypanis, the name of two rivers flowing into the Black sea, was hardly accessible). Both Roman authors also further specify it: Cicero adds a relative clause, Pliny, a prepositional phrase: Hypanis fluvius in Ponto making it possible to situate the river.

appositions

295

A comparison of parallel passages in the two books of Cicero’s On Divination reveals that the constituent Atratum fluvium in (87) is salient and exhibits a special disposition of its elements.72 Its focal nature is supported by the additive particle etiam ‘also’. In the first book of the On Divination (88), the common order fluvius Atratus is used (the focus is on sanguine fluxit). (87) Sanguine pluisse senatui nuntiatum est, Atratum etiam fluvium fluxisse sanguine, deorum sudasse simulacra. ‘It was announced to the senate that it had rained blood, that the river Atratus flowed with blood, and that the statues of the gods dripped with sweat.’ (Cic. Div. 2.58) (88) Cum fluvius Atratus sanguine fluxit? ‘When did the river Atratus run with blood?’ (Cic. Div. 1.98)

3.3.3. Flumen … Arar I noted two instances of discontinuity with flumen. The first one is the well-known flumen … Arar, quoted above in (82). It figures in an existential sentence: ‘there is a river (called) the Arar’; an interpretation as a predicative sentence ‘the Arar is a river that …’ is not convenient in the given context. Caesar is introducing a New Topic into the discourse that becomes the spatial setting afterwards; discontinuity is justified by the fact that flumen Arar conveys salient information. Discontinuity in (89) can also be ascribed to the pragmatic saliency of flumen Apsus.73 (89) Inter bina castra Pompei atque Caesaris unum flumen tantum intererat Apsus crebraque inter se conloquia milites habebant … ‘Between the two camps of Pompey and Caesar there was only the single stream of the river Apsus; the soldiers frequently talked to each other …’ (Caes. Civ. 3.19.1)

3.4. Agreement Latin grammars (K.&St. I: 42–44; cf. Heberlein 1996: 348) state that in constructions with a close apposition, agreement is usually made with the common noun; for example maximam agrees with urbem in (63) and circumductum (90) with flumen (Dubis is a masculine noun).

72 Cf. apud Haletem fluvium ‘on the river Hales’ (Cic. Att. 16.7.5), which is also focal. By contrast, a Lusio flumine in N.D. 3.57 is not pragmatically significant. 73 However, this passage in Caesar (Civ. 3.19.1) has been emended in various ways: the editor Ciacconius suppressed unum, Kraner tantum. Furthermore, Apsus is a conjecture: manuscripts are unanimous in presenting Thapsus.

296

chapter four

(90) propterea quod flumen Dubis ut circino circumductum paene totum oppidum cingit ‘inasmuch as the river Dubis almost surrounds the whole town, as though it were traced by compasses’ (Caes. Gal. 1.38.4)

Agreement with the proper name is exceptional: flumen Axona quod (Caes. Gal. 2.5.4) alongside flumen Rhenus qui in (91). Considerations of gender, especially in the case of foreign proper names, play an important role, as has been pointed out by Kühner & Stegmann themselves (ibid.). Whereas Rhenus is clearly a masculine noun (91), there are proper names the gender of which is not obvious. A common noun such as flumen makes a convenient support for inserting them into the syntactic structure of a sentence. (91) (Helvetii continentur) una ex parte flumine Rheno, latissimo atque altissimo, qui agrum Helvetium a Germanis dividit ‘(the Helvetii are confined) on one side by the river Rhine, very broad and deep, which separates the Helvetian territory from the Germans’ (Caes. Gal. 1.2.3)

Conclusions The examination of constructions with close appositions has confirmed the necessity of separating the instances concerning human entities from geographical names. Appositions related to persons present two orderings: Sp. Albinus consul, where the second element describes the referent by indicating the function he performs, and consul Albinus, where the second element specifies the identity of the person by indicating his name. Constructions concerning geographical entities usually appear in the order oppidum Gadis / flumen Arar; the common noun is thus specified by the proper name. Inversion of the order is linked with the pragmatic saliency of the phrase. 4. Free Appositions The purpose of this section is to survey the general properties of free apposition and to briefly examine constructions with nouns expressing official functions. Special attention will be paid to appositions containing homo and familiaris. 4.1. General Properties Free appositions are expansions of a noun with which they do not constitute a noun phrase. Free appositions typically have a complex form, a noun

appositions

297

phrase. They indicate the category to which the referent belongs (92) or they express a quality of the referent (93). As in the case of constructions with close appositions, the first or the second element usually contains a proper name. (92) L. Cotta, homo censorius, in senatu iuratus dixit … ‘Lucius Cotta, an ex-censor, declared under oath in the senate …’ (Cic. Dom. 84) (93) Pericles Ephesius, homo nobilissimus, Romam evocatus est. ‘Pericles the Ephesian, a most noble man, was summoned to Rome.’ (Cic. Ver. 1.85)

Free appositions that describe a referent compete with close appositions (94), a genitive complement (Lutetia Parisiorum), or other similar constructions. (94) Occisus est cum liberis M. Fulvius consularis. ‘Marcus Fulvius, an ex-consul, was killed together with his children.’ (Cic. Catil. 1.4)

For the topic at hand, it is important to remember that except in special circumstances proper names cannot be combined with adjectives. Instances such as those in (95) and (96) represent, respectively, a poetic and a familiar expression.74 Indeed, for assigning a property to an entity referred to by a proper name, free appositions with a common noun such as homo or urbs, which serve as support for it, are more usual.75 (95) Quintus frater ad me scripsit se, quoniam Ciceronem suavissimum tecum haberes, ad te Non. Mai. venturum. ‘My brother Quintus has written that he will pay you a visit on the 7th of May since you have this dear child Cicero with you.’ (Cic. Att. 4.9.2) (96) ‘Patria est clarae mihi’, dixit, ‘Athenae.’ ‘I came from far-famed Athens.’ (Ov. Met. 5.652)

74 Cf. also Roma quadrata (Enn. frg. Ann. 3.157 apud Fest., p. 312 ed. Lindsay) ‘square Rome’, denoting Ancient Rome constructed in square form, or otiosa Neapolis ‘idle Naples’ (Hor. Epod. 5.43); for other examples, see K.&St. (I: 479). For personal proper names, cf. also expressions such as Terentianus Chremes (Cic. Fin. 1.3) ‘Chremes in Terence’s play’; see K.&St. (I: 227 and II: 211). 75 See Lebreton (1901: 82) and Juret (1933: 304). Ille may fulfil this function as well, as is stated by K.&St. (II: 226), for example in Gellius (6.2.10): Hannibal, ille audentissimus atque fortissimus.

298

chapter four

Among syntactic properties of free appositions, co-occurrence of several appositions deserves mention. A proper name accompanied by a close apposition may function as a free apposition; see A. Hirtius consul in (97). Likewise, a free apposition may modify a construction with a close apposition, as in (98). These properties confirm Fugier’s (1973) claim that close appositions are more narrowly related to the noun than free appositions and that the two constructions belong to distinct hierarchic levels. (97) Quid igitur profectus est vir fortissimus, meus conlega et familiaris, A. Hirtius consul? ‘Why then has that very brave man, my colleague and friend, Aulus Hirtius, the consul set out?’ (Cic. Phil. 7.12) (98) Sed quaero a vobis num istam legem ex isto senatus consulto L. Lucullus consul, homo sapientissimus, tulerit. ‘But I ask you, did this so-called decree of the senate result in the proposal of this law by the consul Lucius Lucullus, one of the most learned men?’ (Cic. Clu. 137)

Free appositions may also contain a relative clause (99) or govern one (100). (99) C. Annaeus Brocchus senator, homo eo splendore, ea virtute qua omnes existimatis ‘Gaius Annaeus Brocchus, a senator, a man of a reputation, and of a virtue with which you are all acquainted’ (Cic. Ver. 3.93) (100) Repente ad me venit Heraclius, is qui tum magistratum Syracusis habebat, homo nobilis qui sacerdos Iovis fuisset. ‘On a sudden Heraclius came to me; he was then a magistrate in Syracuse, a noble who had been priest of Jupiter.’ (Cic. Ver. 4.137)

4.1.1. Identification of Free Appositions It is sometimes difficult to decide whether we have to do with a free apposition or a close apposition. For an interpretation of specific instances, it is necessary to differentiate between two orderings, {proper name > common noun} and {common noun > proper name}. In general, constructions with the ordering {proper name > common noun} do not pose problems of identification because the complexity of the common noun phrase as such produces a free apposition. Common nouns with one or more adjectives, genitive complements, or other complex expressions in the second element are therefore to be interpreted as free appositions, e.g. consul designatus ‘consul-elect’, tribunus plebis ‘plebeian tribune’, praetor Thessaliae ‘praetor of Thessaly’, vir honestissimus ‘a most virtuous man’. Multiple adjectives occurring in free appositions are always

appositions

299

coordinated, by et or zero, never juxtaposed: homo nobilis, impiger, factiosus ‘a noble, energetic, and factious man’. In addition, when a common noun, which usually functions as a close apposition (e.g. consul), is coordinated with another noun (101), it forms a free apposition.76 (101) At vero meam domum P. Lentulus, consul et pontifex (liberavit). ‘But my house (has been absolved from all sanctity) by Publius Lentulus, consul and pontiff.’ (Cic. Har. 12)

When a complex common noun phrase has a proper name in apposition, we may hesitate about the status of the latter. Interpretation depends on the complexity of the common noun: a single expansion such as the genitive Iugurthae in (102) does not exclude the interpretation of Vagam as a close apposition. Likewise, familiaris accompanied by one modifier (noster) followed by a complex proper name can still be analysed as a construction with a close apposition (103). This interpretation is supported by the presence of a free apposition (homo … sapiens) that modifies the noun phrase as a whole. (102) … mittitur a consule Sextius quaestor in oppidum Iugurthae Vagam. ‘… the consul sent his quaestor Sextius to one of Jugurtha’s towns, Vaga.’ (Sal. Jug. 29.4) (103) Quo quidem in genere familiaris noster M. Buculeius, homo neque meo iudicio stultus et suo valde sapiens …, nuper erravit. ‘In that kind of action too our friend Marcus Buculeius, no fool in my opinion, and mightily wise in his own … went wrong later on.’ (Cic. de Orat. 1.179)

When the expansion is more complex, two interpretations can sometimes be imagined: (104) Quid de L. Mummio, qui urbem pulcherrimam atque ornatissimam Corinthum, plenissimam rerum omnium, sustulit? ‘(Why should I speak) of Lucius Mummius, who took the most beautiful and elegant city of Corinth, full of all sorts of art treasures?’ (Cic. Ver. 1.55)

The two coordinated adjectives that expand urbem favour an interpretation of Corinthum as a free apposition, in which case, there should be a pause (and a comma) before this proper name. On the other hand, the element urbem pulcherrimam atque ornatissimam Corinthum could still be pronounced as one intonation unit, without a pause before Corinthum. I

76 From this point of view, a free apposition that describes a noun can present a succession of functions (pace Fugier 1973: 99) assigned to an individual.

300

chapter four

would opt for the second solution, because of the presence of a free apposition, plenissimam rerum omnium, that refers to the whole phrase urbem … Corinthum. By contrast, example (105), where both elements are complex, is more likely a case with the proper name in free apposition. (105) Dissensit cum Mario, clarissimo cive, consul nobilissimus et fortissimus, L. Sulla. ‘A most noble and gallant consul, Lucius Sulla, quarrelled with Marius, a renowned citizen.’ (Cic. Har. 54)

When the noun phrase in the first element is modified by a relative clause (106), a numerical quantifier (cf. (117)), an indefinite pronoun such as quidam (107), and similar expressions, the interpretation of the second element as a close apposition is excluded. The reference of meus amicus (with an indefinite reading) in (106) being saturated, the proper name in apposition represents additional specification, providing the name of the person. The referent in (107) is delimited by quidam; the proper names Tlepolemus et Hiero function as a free apposition specifying the persons. In this latter case, new protagonists are introduced into the discourse. (106) Quid est quod aut Sex. Pompeius … aut meus amicus, qui cum Panaetio vixit, M. Vigellius, de virtute hominum Stoici possint dicere …? ‘What Stoics such as Sextus Pompeius or … a friend of mine, who lived with Panaetius, Marcus Vigellius, can say about men’s virtue …?’ (Cic. de Orat. 3.78) (107) Cibyratae sunt fratres quidam, Tlepolemus et Hiero, quorum alterum fingere opinor e cera solitum esse, alterum esse pictorem. ‘There are two brothers from Cibyra, Tlepolemus and Hiero, one of whom, I believe, was a modeller in wax, the other was a painter.’ (Cic. Ver. 4.30)

Consider also two illuminating examples taken from Caesar. In (108), we have a close apposition (the river is mentioned here for the first time), in (109), a free apposition. The relative clause with a determining value modifies the whole phrase ad flumen Haliacmonem in (108) but only ad flumen in (109). The river being well defined and its reference saturated, Haliacmonem in (109) cannot be interpreted as a close apposition. The proper name serves as a reminder and brings additional information. (108) M. Favonium ad flumen Haliacmonem, quod Macedoniam a Thessalia dividit, cum cohortibus VIII praesidio impedimentis legionum reliquit. ‘He left Marcus Favonius at the river Haliacmon, which divides Macedonia from Thessaly, with eight cohorts to guard the legions’ baggage.’ (Caes. Civ. 3.36.3) (109) Scipio biduum castris stativis moratus ad flumen, quod inter eum et Domiti castra fluebat, Haliacmonem; tertio die …

appositions

301

‘For two days Scipio stayed in his fixed camp by the river, the Haliacmon, which flowed between him and Domitius. On the third day …’ (Caes. Civ. 3.37.1)

4.1.2. Multiple Appositions Free appositions can contain multiple constituents. Series of free appositions are organised in a hierarchy, as Fugier (1973: 103) has observed, in the sense that a more inherent property or a permanent function is given priority over a subjectively assigned property or a temporary function. Several examples are given below. (110) Cn. Pompeius, Sexti filius, consul, …, cum P. Vettio Scatone, duce Marsorum, … conlocutus est. ‘The consul Gnaeus Pompeius, son of Sextus, …, conferred with Publius Vettius Scato, the Marsian leader …’ (Cic. Phil. 12.27) (111) Venit ad Chelidonem C. Mustius, eques Romanus, publicanus, homo cum primis honestus. ‘Gaius Mustius, a Roman knight, a collector of revenue, as honourable a man as lives, came to Chelidon.’ (Cic. Ver. 1.137) (112) P. Lentulus consul, parens, deus, salus nostrae vitae, fortunae … nihil humanarum rerum sibi prius quam de me agendum iudicavit. ‘Publius Lentulus, the consul, the parent, the god, the restorer of my life, my fortune … thought that all other human measures should be postponed to one dealing with myself.’ (Cic. Red. Pop. 11)

Expressions such as kinship affiliation (Sexti filius (110)) have an absolute priority; the function (consul) comes after it. In (111), the expression of social rank (eques Romanus) stands before the official function that the person performs (publicanus ‘tax collector’). In (112), several free appositions follow a noun phrase consisting of a proper name and a close apposition (consul), and are serialised in the order going from the most objective item (parens) towards the most subjective one (salus). Multiple free appositions admit correlative expressions such as et … et, cum … tum, or adversative constructions such as non … sed, for example: (113) Aeserninus, non spurcus homo, sed acer et doctus ‘Aeserninus, not a nasty fellow, but bold and clever’ (Cic. Opt. Gen. 17)

302

chapter four 4.2. Free Appositions with Official Functions

In this section, I will present data collected from my sample of Classical texts, starting with animate entities. Table 6 illustrates a comparison between the use of close (X consul) and free appositions (X, tribunus plebis). Table 6: Proper name + official function (sample) Type

Cic. Div.

Cic. Ver.

Caes. Civ.

Sal. Jug.

Total

X consul consul X X, tribunus plebis tribunus plebis X

3 0 3 2

0 3 6 2

12 1 9 2

9 1 8 2

24 5 26 8

Total

8

11

24

20

63

Both types are almost equally represented and in both cases, the ordering {proper name > function} prevails. We have seen above that complexity of the second element represented by a common noun entails a free apposition, e.g. praefectus equitum ‘master of the horse’, praetor in Sicilia ‘praetor in Sicily’, eques Romanus ‘Roman knight’. The second element in apposition describes the head noun. Such an indication of the official function of an individual is important for the cohesion of the text because it justifies the authority which enables him to act (114). A free apposition can also remind us of known facts as in (115); Vibullius Rufus as Pompey’s prefect had appeared in the first book of the Civil War (e.g. 1.15). (114) Post Auli foedus exercitusque nostri foedam fugam Metellus et Silanus, consules designati, provincias inter se partiverant. ‘After Aulus’ treaty and the shameful flight of our army, Metellus and Silanus, the consuls-elect, had shared the provinces between them.’ (Sal. Jug. 43.1) (115) Demonstravimus L. Vibullium Rufum, Pompei praefectum, bis in potestatem pervenisse Caesaris. ‘We have explained that Lucius Vibullius Rufus, an officer of Pompey’s, twice fell into Caesar’s hands.’ (Caes. Civ. 3.10.1)

The ordering {function > proper name}, infrequent as it is in the case of close appositions (cf. Table 3, p. 280), is used for providing the name of the person. A good example to illustrate this ordering is found in (116). The first element is contextually given: ipsum praefectum oppidi is deducible from the fact that the town of Vaga, in which this episode takes place, had a prefect. His name might remain unexpressed but its mention is useful for the further reference.

appositions

303

(116) Centuriones tribunosque militares et ipsum praefectum oppidi, T. Turpilium Silanum, alius alium domos suas invitant. Eos omnes praeter Turpilium inter epulas obtruncant. ‘They invited the centurions, military tribunes, and even the prefect of the town himself, Titus Turpilius Silanus, to their various homes. They butchered them all except Turpilius.’ (Sal. Jug. 66.3)

4.3. Free Appositions with urbs, oppidum, and flumen For an examination of free appositions with common nouns referring to localities, I will only use the LLT corpus because my sample of texts does not offer many instances of it. Data are presented in Table 7. Table 7: Free appositions with urbs, oppidum, and flumen / fluvius (LLT) Free apposition

Sallust

Caesar

Cicero

Total

X, urbs urbs, X X, oppidum oppidum, X flumen, X

0 0 1 0 0

0 0 2 0 2

6 2 2 1 0

6 2 5 1 2

Total

1

4

11

16

Proper names commonly form the first element. In comparison with close appositions (= CA) (Tables 5–6), free appositions (= FA) are less represented, except for urbs where the difference is not so striking (urbs: 10 CA vs. 8 FA; oppidum: 43 CA vs. 6 FA; flumen: 65 CA vs. 2 FA). The low number of free appositions might be explained by the fact that competing constructions are used instead. As several examples with nouns referring to inanimate entities have been introduced above (section 4.1.1, p. 299), in connection with the identification of free appositions, I will add two additional examples that illustrate true free appositions (117)–(118). The referent of flumina duo as well as that of duas urbes is saturated; in the latter case, there is another modifier (infestissimas huic imperio). The function of these appositions is to provide additional information. As reminders of known facts, they do not represent partitive appositions (on which see p. 323, section 5.4.5). (117) Castra enim … cum essent inter flumina duo, Sicorim et Cingam, spatio milium XXX neutrum horum transiri poterat … ‘Since his camp … lay between two rivers, the Sicoris and the Cinca, it was impossible to cross either for thirty miles …’ (Caes. Civ. 1.48.3)

304

chapter four

(118) Ornetur alter eximia laude Africanus, qui duas urbes huic imperio infestissimas, Carthaginem Numantiamque, delevit. ‘Let the second Africanus be extolled with conspicuous praise for destroying the two cities most hostile to this empire, Carthage and Numantia.’ (Cic. Catil. 4.21)

The first element and its free apposition are usually contiguous. Intervention of alien elements between them is rare but possible, for example in (119) and (120).77 (119) Dein Thalam pervenit, in oppidum magnum atque opulentum, ubi … ‘Then he reached Thala, a large and wealthy town, where …’ (Sal. Jug. 75.1) (120) Capuam colonia deducetur, urbem amplissimam atque ornatissimam. ‘A colony will be conducted to Capua, a very large and magnificent city.’ (Cic. Agr. 2.76)

4.4. Free Appositions with homo and familiaris I will now turn to common nouns such as homo and familiaris, which typically form free appositions because they are always accompanied by a modifier. They represent about a third of all the appositional constructions gathered from my sample (see Table 2, p. 277). However, the instances with homo are mainly found in Cicero’s speech Against Verres (19 occ. out of 35). Appositions referred to as “with homo” in Table 2 cover constructions containing a common noun and an adjective expressing a quality: not only common nouns such as vir ‘man’ but also nouns with a more precise semantic value, e.g. adulescens ‘young man’ (121) and auctor ‘authority’ (122), which also serve as support for properties. (121) Petraeus, summae nobilitatis adulescens ‘Petraeus, a young man of the highest birth’ (Caes. Civ. 3.35.2) (122) Iam Pythagoras et Plato, locupletissimi auctores, quo in somnis certiora videamus, praeparatos quodam cultu atque victu proficisci ad dormiendum iubent. ‘Then Pythagoras and Plato, the most respectable authorities, invite us to go to bed prepared by a certain lifestyle and food in order to have trustworthy dreams.’ (Cic. Div. 2.119)

The appositions of the familiaris type, which describe the referent by indicating his or her relationship with other individuals, include expressions such as necessarius noster ‘our friend’, hospes meus ‘my guest’, amicus meus

77 For the use of prepositions in free appositions expanding accusatives of direction, see, section 4.6, p. 312.

appositions

305

‘my friend’, or comes in (123); eius refers to Jugurtha. These are anchoring expressions, available to the addressee, which make it possible to classify the referent. (123) Bomilcar, comes eius ‘Bomilcar, his companion’ (Sal. Jug. 35.7)

I will focus now on two frequently attested words, homo and familiaris, in order to better capture the functions the appositions containing them fulfil. Data were collected from Cicero’s works with the help of LLT. 4.4.1. Appositions with homo Table 8 presents data for homo ‘man’ (only nominative sg.). Three points mark the presence of alien elements, “appos.”, the intervention of another apposition. Table 8: Free appositions with homo (nom. sg.) in Cicero (LLT) Construction

Single name

Full name

Total

name, homo name …, homo name, appos., homo name, appos., …, homo name …, appos., homo homo fortis, name

28 9 0 1 0 5

45 8 10 2 2 14

73 17 10 3 2 19

Total

43

81

124

The results from this table confirm that the ordering {proper name > homo} is the most common. Both elements are contiguous in general (73 occ.) but they may be separated by an alien element (17 occ.), by another apposition (10 occ.), or by a combination of both (5 occ.). It is without doubt significant that appositions containing homo very often accompany a full name (praenomen, nomen, and cognomen); a single name is used in about one third of the cases. Appositions with homo generally express how the referent is: the common noun plays the role of support for a quality because, as we have seen above, it is not usual to qualify proper names directly with the help of an attributive adjective. The properties involved are for the most part subjective evaluations, e.g. honestus ‘honest’, illustris ‘famous’, locuples ‘rich’, insanus ‘mad’, loquax ‘loquacious’. When more properties are assigned to a person, the adjectives expressing them are coordinated (124). Other

306

chapter four

expressions equivalent at the syntactic level can be used instead, such as ablatives or genitives of quality.78 Less frequently, appositions with homo indicate the category to which the referent belongs, for example homo censorius ‘ex-censor’ and homo consularis ‘ex-consul’ (three times in my corpus); see above, (92) and (111). (124) Diodorus, homo frugi ac diligens ‘Diodorus, a honest and careful man’ (Cic. Ver. 4.39)

What functions free appositions fulfil, in our case, those with homo? The following typology is in accordance with the functions identified by Hannay & Keizer (2005).79 Firstly, they have a descriptive function: they serve to describe a referent, especially a new entity that has been introduced into the discourse. In the Verrines, Cicero often accompanies the names of Sicilians by a quidam (nine times in my corpus) for signalling that the person is unknown to the addressee but identifiable by himself.80 Descriptions of new protagonists are usually complex and appositions are presented in series (125). Descriptive appositions with the ordering {proper name > homo nobilis} make it possible to identify the referent (‘what is X?’). (125) Erat eius honoris cupidus Artemo quidam, Climachias cognomine, homo sane locuples et domi nobilis. Sed is … ‘This position was coveted by one Artemo, surnamed Climachias, admittedly a man of wealth and of high rank in his town. However, he …’ (Cic. Ver. 2.128)

Appositions with the ordering {homo > proper name} serve to specify a referent by providing his name. In (126), Cicero introduces the testimony of a man from a good family whose name was Archonidas. This person is mentioned for the first time and he does not become a Topic afterwards. His name is indicated but it might have remained unexpressed, since there are no further references to him. Example (127) is of the same type. (126) Tyracinum, principem civitatis, eadem ratione mortem oppetisse dixit apud vos homo nobilissimus, Archonidas Helorinus, cum audisset …

78 Cf., for example: vir magni ingenii summaque prudentia, L. Cotta ‘a man of great talent and the highest wisdom, Lucius Cotta’ (Cic. Leg. 3.45) or Metello, acri viro et … fama tamen aequabili et inviolata (Sal. Jug. 43.1), quoted in (147). For the equivalence of these constructions, see Pinkster (LSS § 6.6, p. 94). 79 For the functions of free appositions, cf. section 2.3, p. 267. 80 See chapter 1, section 2.2, p. 7.

appositions

307

‘A man of high birth, Archonidas of Helorus, stated in your hearing that Tyracinus, the chief man in his town, killed himself in the same way on learning that …’ (Cic. Ver. 3.129) (127) … homo non acerrimus nec fortissimus, C. Norbanus, in summo otio fuit. ‘… a man neither very active nor very valiant, Gaius Norbanus, was at perfect ease.’ (Cic. Ver. 5.8)

Another function that free appositions may fulfil is that of justification. The apposition in (128) attributes a property to a person, Scipio, but not in order to describe him. The quality is important from the point of view of the context because the apposition provides an interpretative setting for the argument: although most educated and cultivated, Scipio did not recognise valuable objects. In Cicero’s ironic utterance, there is, of course, a contrast established between Scipio’s qualities and Verres’ ignorance.81 In (129), Balbus’ judgment is reliable because of his experience and knowledge. In free appositions with a justifying function, competence, authority, or another excellent aspect of a person are provided as guarantees of this or that fact or action. (128) Haec Scipio ille non intellegebat, homo doctissimus atque humanissimus, tu sine ulla bona arte, sine humanitate, sine ingenio, sine litteris, intellegis et iudicas! ‘What the great Scipio, a most educated and cultivated man, could not understand, you, who have no skills and no culture, no brains and no education, can understand and appreciate!’ (Cic. Ver. 4.98) (129) Si vero illud quoque accedit ut praetor in ea verba iudicium det, ut vel L. Octavius Balbus iudex, homo et iuris et officii peritissimus, non possit aliter iudicare … ‘And if in addition to this the praetor states the issue in such a form of words that even Lucius Octavius Balbus, the judge, a man so well versed in the law and the duty, could not decide otherwise …’ (Cic. Ver. 2.31)

Whereas appositions with homo occurring in the order {proper name > homo} describe a referent, the appositions {homo > proper name} further specifies the referent. The following example illustrates this difference very well. (130) Ornate et copiose L. Crassus, homo longe eloquentissimus, … iudicio centumvirali hanc sententiam defendit et facile, cum contra eum prudentissimus homo, Q. Mucius, diceret, probavit omnibus M’. Curium …

81 For the antithesis between Scipio’s intellectual qualities (humanitas) and his Greek παιδεία and their absence in Verres, see Baldo’s commentary (2004: 460).

308

chapter four ‘This opinion was supported by Lucius Crassus, by far the most eloquent of all men, in an elegant and ample speech before the centumviral court … and although that very sagacious man, Quintus Mucius, was against him, he proved to everyone, with ease, that Manius Curius …’ (Cic. Caec. 53)

In this passage, two orators, Lucius Crassus and Quintus Mucius, are mentioned for the first time. The apposition that follows the first proper name indicates how the referent is, his quality. The situation is different for the other orator: Cicero says that L. Crassus had an adversary, a very sagacious man, and then he specifies who it was: Q. Mucius.82 The mention of the proper name is additional: it could have remained unexpressed. Furthermore, the given section is about L. Crassus: he is the Topic (and the subject of probavit), and not Q. Mucius. When homo serves as the head of an apposition containing a proper name, it usually has an indefinite reading (130). A definite reading is possible as well, but such a construction fulfils a different function (131). (131) Silanionis opus tam perfectum … quisquam non modo privatus, sed populus potius haberet quam homo elegantissimus atque eruditissimus, Verres? ‘That work of Silanion, so exquisite … nobody, either a private person or a nation, should have it rather than this man of great elegance and learning, Verres?’ (Cic. Ver. 4.126)

The referent of homo elegantissimus atque eruditissimus belongs to shared knowledge, for we know how Cicero enjoys being ironic about Verres. The proper name added at the end of the sentence functions as a reminder or an additional specification of what is already known. This example illustrates not a “regular” apposition but a constituent dislocated to the right-hand side of the sentence. This specific pragmatic function (Tail constituent) will be examined in section 6 (p. 326). As homo always occurs with one or more modifiers (coordinated adjectives, adjectives modified by adverbs, ablatives of quality)—a construction such as Verres homo would lack any meaning or, at least, would require a very special context—, none of the examples with the ordering {proper name > homo} offered by my corpus allow the interpretation as a close apposition. With the ordering {homo > proper name}, one might hesitate about the status of the second element, as in (132), when deciding whether homo clarissimus is likely to form an intonation unit with Cn. Domitius, or not. In

82 Quintus Mucius Scaevola, the Pontifex Maximus, consul in 117, was Cicero’s and Atticus’ teacher.

appositions

309

my view, this example may still be regarded as a close apposition, because there is only one expansion of homo and its reference is not saturated, as would be the case of quidam homo, for example. (132) Fecit etiam nuper homo clarissimus Cn. Domitius qui M. Silanum, consularem hominem, accusavit … ‘Lately, too, that most eminent man Gnaeus Domitius did so, who accused Marcus Silanus, an ex-consul, for …’ (Cic. Ver. 2.118)

The two elements of appositional constructions may be separated by various intervening items. One example is given in (133). However, discontinuity is to be differentiated from cases such as that in (134), where the apposition at the end of the sentence represents an accessory addition, an afterthought. (133) Multa Sosippus Agrigentinus apud Cn. Pompeium consulem nuper, homo disertissimus et omni doctrina atque virtute ornatissimus, pro tota Sicilia … dixisse. ‘Not so long ago, Sosippus of Agrigentum, a most eloquent man, adorned with every sort of learning and with every virtue, is said to have spoken before the consul Gnaeus Pompeius, on behalf of all Sicily …’ (Cic. Ver. 3.204) (134) Nam cum hanc paginam tenerem, L. Flavius, praetor designatus, ad me venit, homo mihi valde familiaris. ‘As I was on this page, I received a visit of Lucius Flavius, the praetor-elect, a close friend of mine.’ (Cic. Q. fr. 1.2.10)

4.4.2. Appositions with familiaris This section will be devoted to free appositions with familiaris ‘friend, relative’ in Cicero’s works. The data are resumed in Table 9. Table 9: Free appositions with familiaris in Cicero (LLT) Construction

Single name

Full name

Total

name, familiaris meus name …, familiaris meus name, appos., familiaris meus familiaris meus, name familiaris meus …, name

35 3 10 10 3

32 2 8 12 2

67 5 18 22 5

Total

61

56

117

As in the case of homo, appositions with the order {proper name > familiaris} prevail. However, the ordering { familiaris > proper name} makes up 24 % of the instances, more than {homo > proper name} (Table 8), which only reaches 15 %. The first element is usually contiguous with the second

310

chapter four

element but separation by intervening material (5 + 5 cases) is possible, sometimes by another apposition (18 occ.). Unlike appositions with homo, the proper names involved are more often simple than complex. The substantival adjective familiaris is bivalent; it co-occurs with a possessive pronoun ( familiaris meus, eius) or a possessive genitive ( familiaris T. Rosci). It does not serve as support for a quality as homo does; appositions containing it indicate the category to which the referent belongs. As a relational noun, it is likely for rendering the relationship between persons, one identifiable: familiaris and its complement, the other, unidentifiable: the proper name. This semantic capacity makes it possible that familiaris, when it figures in the first element, has an inferrable status (Keizer 1995 and 2005): people usually have relatives and friends but their name need not be always available to the addressee. Constructions with the order {proper name > familiaris} can have a descriptive function and express ‘who is X’ as regards alliance or friendship (135). This function is used for new entities introduced into the discourse or for protagonists mentioned for the first time who will play an important role further on in the narrative. (135) Occiso Sex. Roscio primus Ameriam nuntiat Mallius Glaucia quidam, homo tenuis, libertinus, cliens et familiaris istius T. Rosci. ‘After Sextus Roscius had been killed, the first to bring the news to Ameria was a certain Mallius Glaucia, an impoverished freedman, and a dependant and friend of Titus Roscius here.’ (Cic. S. Rosc. 19)

Appositions with familiaris can also express a circumstance that is important for the argumentation, namely, justifying the motive why someone acts in such or such way. For example, Socrates confides in Criton because of the friendship that holds between them; he would probably not have announced his approaching death to anyone else. Likewise, the apposition in (137) relates Scylax of Halicarnassus with Panaetius, a Stoic philosopher with whom the reader is already familiar. Notice that Scylax is the Topic of the sentence. (136) Est apud Platonem Socrates … dicens Critoni, suo familiari, sibi post tertium diem esse moriendum. ‘In Plato, Socrates … said to Crito, his friend, that he was to die in three days.’ (Cic. Div. 1.52) (137) Scylax Halicarnassius, familiaris Panaeti, excellens in astrologia … totum hoc Chaldaeicum praedicendi genus repudiavit. ‘Scylax of Halicarnassus, an intimate friend of Panaetius, and an eminent astronomer, … utterly repudiated the Chaldean method of foretelling the future.’ (Cic. Div. 2.88)

appositions

311

Appositions presenting the order { familiaris > proper name} provide the name of a referent unspecified until now. The first element containing the common noun familiaris prepares us, so to speak, for the mention of the proper name. For example, ad optimum virum, familiarem nostrum in (138) anticipates the mention of Cratippus, the person who becomes the Topic of the subsequent passage. A convincing example is that in (139) where the author informs us about the fact that Antiochus was present in Alexandria; this point serves as an anchor for the mention of Antiochus’ friend, Heraclitus, who becomes the Topic afterward. However, in the latter case, it is difficult to decide whether the apposition is close or free; interpretation as a free apposition is more likely because of the indefinite reading of familiaris.83 (138) Veniamus nunc ad optumum virum, familiarem nostrum, Cratippum. ‘Si sine oculis’, inquit … ‘Now let us come to the argument of that most worthy gentleman, our intimate friend, Cratippus. “Though without eyes”, he says …’ (Cic. Div. 2.107) (139) At ille ‘Cum Alexandriae pro quaestore’ inquit ‘essem, fuit Antiochus mecum, et erat iam antea Alexandriae familiaris Antiochi, Heraclitus Tyrius, qui …’ ‘He said: “When I was deputy-quaestor at Alexandria, Antiochus was in my company, and a friend of Antiochus’, Heraclitus of Tyr, was at Alexandria already; he …”’ (Cic. Ac. 2.11)

4.5. Agreement In the case of constructions with free appositions, agreement in gender and number is commonly made with the first element. However, there are instances where this rule is not observed (K.&St. I: 42); for example the participle extinctum in (140) agrees with the immediately preceding element, lumen, and not with Corinthum, the head of the construction, which is a feminine noun. Agreement with the animate entities in (141) is naturally preferred to agreement with the inanimate, metaphorically used noun propugnacula. (140) Corinthum patres vestri, totius Graeciae lumen, extinctum esse voluerunt. ‘Your forefathers decided to snuff out Corinth, the brightest light of all Greece.’ (Cic. Man. 11)

83 This apposition is not included in Table 9. There is another similar apposition with familiaris in my corpus, Cic. N.D. 2.88.

312

chapter four

(141) Quid? Duo propugnacula belli Punici, Cn. et P. Scipiones, qui Carthaginiensium adventum corporibus suis intercludendum putaverunt, quid? ‘Or of the two bulwarks of the Punic War, Gnaeus and Publius Scipio, who deemed it their duty to bar with their own bodies the onset of the Carthaginians?’ (Cic. Parad. 12)

The example in (142) cannot be regarded as an instance illustrating the absence of agreement in number, a point which is envisaged in Latin grammars. In fact, genus is a collective noun that, though formally in the singular number, applies to the idea of plurality. (142) Iugurtha … pervenit ad Gaetulos, genus hominum ferum incultumque et eo tempore ignarum nominis Romani. ‘Jugurtha … reached the Getulians, a savage and barbarous people who at that time were unaware of the name of Rome.’ (Sal. Jug. 80.1)

4.6. The Use of Prepositions in Free Appositions Free appositions fulfil the same syntactic function in the sentence as their head. If the latter is a prepositional phrase, the preposition is not repeated before the apposition (*a Lentulo, a familiari meo). My corpus (examined in section 4) offers 18 instances of the type indicated in (143).84 This rule of reduction of the preposition (a sort of “conjunction reduction”) also concerns place names used with a preposition (144). (143) A Lentulo autem, familiari meo, qui … honoris causa nominatur. ‘But from Lentulus, my friend, whom I name in all honour …’ (Cic. Clu. 118) (144) A Bibracte, oppido Haeduorum longe maximo et copiosissimo, non amplius milibus passuum XVIII aberat. ‘He was not more than eighteen miles from Bibracte, by far the largest and best-provided town of the Aedui.’ (Caes. Gal. 1.23.1)

The case of the names of towns (and small islands) in the accusative of direction, the locative, and the ablative of source is more complicated.85 84 K.&St. (I: 582), when mentioning repetition of the preposition, only give examples of partitive appositions, for which see section 5.4.5, p. 323. 85 If we accept the distinction between close and free appositions established in this chapter, close appositions do not pose this problem. As the common noun usually comes first, a preposition is used before it: pervenit in oppidum Cirtam ‘he reached the town of Cirta’ (Sal. Jug. 102.1). I know of no examples such as pervenit in Cirtam oppidum (where a simple, non-prepositional accusative should be used for the place name) but I would reject the ordering *pervenit Cirtam in oppidum in close apposition. With prepositions that are used with names of towns, such as ad, the place name may come first: ad Cirtam oppidum iter constituunt ‘they decided to march on the town of Cirta’ (Sal. Jug. 81.2). Cf. examples quoted in section 3.2.2, p. 288.

appositions

313

Latin grammars (K.&St. I: 480–481) state that the preposition is usually expressed before the common noun in apposition as in (145); absence of the preposition is less common (146). (145) Sed Neapoli, in celeberrimo oppido, + maeciappella +86 saepe videri chlamydatum illum L. Sullam imperatorem. ‘But at Naples, in a much-frequented town, we have even seen the great general Lucius Sulla wearing a cloak.’ (Cic. Rab. Post. 27) (146) (Catoni) Certe licuit Tusculi se in otio delectare, salubri et propinquo loco. ‘Cato could have remained at Tusculum, a healthy spot and not far off, enjoying peace and quiet.’ (Cic. Rep. 1.1)

In order to explain this variation, Traina (1951/1952) distinguishes between “completive” apposition (with a preposition) and “determinative” apposition (without a preposition). In the first case, the preposition emphasises the content or signals a contrast; in the second, the apposition provides additional information in the same way as a non-restrictive relative clause or a parenthesis. The question has recently been re-examined by Rosén (2002); in her corpus of Latin authors from the first century bc, there are 96 instances of free appositions, where 55 (57%) appear without a preposition, and 41 (43%) with a preposition (Rosén 2002: 213). Rosén deserves credit for having demonstrated that the presence or absence of the preposition depends neither on the length of the apposition, nor on the distance between the apposition and the head noun. She argues (Rosén 2002: 223) that the difference between the two constructions lies in the value of the content expressed: whereas appositions without a preposition are objective judgments (“having valid truth value”), appositions with a preposition are subjective (“empirical ones which need validation by experience”).87 4.7. Discontinuity Table 1 (p. 276) contains eight instances (4%) of discontinuous appositions because of the intervention of one or more alien elements. Although discontinuity is infrequent, it is important to point out that the two elements of close and free appositions allow separation. Several instances have been introduced in sections 3 and 4; in this section, I will quote additional examples.

86

The textual problem with this word does not have any consequences for the apposition

used. 87 I confess that I am not entirely convinced by either Traina’s or Rosén’s explanation, but I do not have an alternative solution. My corpus only provides five examples of such constructions; only one of them is with a preposition.

314

chapter four

In general, discontinuity affects constituents that are significant at the pragmatic level. Metello in (147) is pragmatically salient and, for this reason, occupies the first position in the sentence; intervening elements (Numidia evenerat) separate it from its free apposition. Example (148) illustrates discontinuity of a close apposition with respect to the noun by the verb erat. Here again, rex Ptolomaeus is the most informative constituent of the sentence. (147) Metelloque Numidia evenerat, acri viro et, quamquam advorso populi partium, fama tamen aequabili et inviolata. ‘Numidia had fallen to Metellus, a man of action, and, though an opponent of the popular party, yet of consistent and unblemished reputation.’ (Sal. Jug. 43.1) (148) Ibi casu rex erat Ptolomaeus, puer aetate, magnis copiis cum sorore Cleopatra bellum gerens … ‘There by chance was king Ptolomaeus, a boy in years, waging war with large forces against his sister Cleopatra …’ (Caes. Civ. 3.103.2)

On the other hand, example (149) is not an instance of discontinuity but of an apposition providing additional information, an afterthought.88 Such an interpretation is obvious because of the intervention of a determinative relative clause.89 (149) Erat Crastinus evocatus in exercitu Caesaris, qui superiore anno apud eum primum pilum in legione X duxerat, vir singulari virtute. Hic signo dato … ‘In Caesar’s army, there was Crastinus, a re-enlisted veteran, who in the previous year had served under him as leading centurion in the Tenth legion, a man of extraordinary courage. On the given signal …’ (Caes. Civ. 3.91.1)

In addition, free appositions themselves may be separated, by a parenthetical clause90 for example, as in (150). (150) ut cum C. Fabricio P. Cornelius, homo, ut existimabatur, avarus et furax, sed egregie fortis et bonus imperator, gratias ageret … ‘as when Publius Cornelius, regarded as a covetous and dishonest man, but conspicuously brave and a competent commander, thanked Gaius Fabricius …’ (Cic. de Orat. 2.268)

88 The same phenomenon is found with participial clauses, especially absolute ablatives in historical narrative (see Longrée 1991 and 1996). 89 The hierarchical ordering mentioned above (section 4.1.2, p. 301), does not apply to syntactically different constructions such as relative clauses and appositions. If the apposition were not an afterthought here, the sentence would run as: Erat Crastinus evocatus in exercitu Caesaris, vir singulari virtute, qui superiore anno … 90 For parentheses preceding a pragmatically salient element, see Bolkestein (1998).

appositions

315

Conclusions Free appositions are typically expansions of proper names. Their function is to assign a property to a referent or to indicate the class to which it belongs. A common noun, such as homo, standing in apposition, functions as a support for a quality; apart from special situations, proper names do not take adjectives directly. The adjectives used are of the evaluative type and figure in postposition with respect to homo. Appositions with a relational noun such as familiaris indicate relationships between individuals and make it possible to classify a referent. The ordering of the elements in constructions with free appositions is significant. When the proper name stands in the first element, the second one, containing a common noun, serves to describe the referent. It may also convey information that justifies an argument or an action. In contrast, the ordering {common noun > proper name} functions as a specification of the referent by providing his name. In principle, appositions concerning inanimate entities (e.g. cities, rivers) fulfil the same functions. 5. Other Appositions This section will deal with other noteworthy appositional constructions gathered from my sample, presented in Table 2 (p. 277), especially with kinship nouns, the noun rex, and nouns expressing an activity. 5.1. Kinship Nouns I will start with constructions containing kinship nouns. Their ordering is indicated in Table 10. X stands for a proper name. Table 10: Proper name + kinship noun (sample) Type

Total

X kinship noun kinship noun X X, gen. + kinship noun X, kinship noun + possessive kinship noun + possessive X

19 5 7 3 2

Total

36

For this type of nouns, the pattern {proper name > kinship noun} prevails, with the kinship noun in close apposition (19 occ.). It usually serves to

316

chapter four

describe the referent by indicating the category to which it belongs (151). The close apposition makes it possible to distinguish, in a family, individuals bearing the same name: Cn. Pompeius filius ‘Gnaeus Pompeius the son’ with respect to Cn. Pompeius pater (= Magnus) ‘Gnaeus Pompeius the father’.91 (151) Pompeius filius ‘Pompeius the younger’ (Caes. Civ. 3.4.4) L. Torquatus pater ‘Lucius Torquatus the elder’ (Cic. Pis. 77)

Kinship expressions can be realised as free appositions, in the standard affiliation formula: Cn. Pompeius, Sexti filius92 ‘Gnaeus Pompeius, son of Sextus’ (Cic. Phil. 12.27), or in freer expressions, such as Sex. Roscius, pater huiusce ‘Sextus Roscius, my client’s father’ (Cic. S. Rosc. 15). However, appositions containing a kinship noun do not always have such a distinctive function. For example, the close apposition frater in (152) reminds us of the kinship relation between two individuals and rather has the value of a title (cf. Svennung 1958: 153).93 The free apposition in (153) is a reminder of affiliation, possibly used with personal emphasis; the Numidian king Micipsa was an ally of the Romans and his identity must have been known to the senators who Adherbal addresses in his speech. (152) cum de divinatione Quintus frater ea disseruisset quae … ‘after my brother Quintus had delivered his views on divination as …’ (Cic. Div. 2.8) (153) Micipsa, pater meus, moriens mihi praecepit, uti … ‘Micipsa, my father, advised me on his death-bed to …’ (Sal. Jug. 14.1)

Appositions formed with a kinship noun also appear in apostrophes, e.g. Quinte frater ‘brother Quintus’ (Cic. Div. 2.150), and in invocations of ancestors (154) or gods, e.g. Mars pater ‘father Mars’ (Cato Agr. 141.2), Vesta mater ‘Vesta our mother’ (Cic. Dom. 144), often quoted for demonstrating the putative basic order of appositions in Latin.94 However, these kinship nouns

91 For the necessity of distinguishing people in order to avoid confusion, cf. an Ti. Gracchus —patrem dico, cuius …—tantam laudem est adeptus … ‘did Tiberius Gracchus (I am speaking of the father, whose …) gain such great glory …’ (Cic. Prov. 18). 92 In this formula, Sexti filius, the genitive precedes the noun. On the fixed order of the genitive, see Adams (1976a: 75) and Lisón (2001: 178), among others. For name + filius and other relational nouns, cf. Devine & Stephens (2006: 352–361). 93 For the form of address to his brother Quintus used by Cicero, cf. Dickey (2002: 257–261). 94 See for example, Hackstein (2003: 138) and Bauer (2008: 42). However, already Schwyzer (1947: 12) interprets πάτερ in the apostrophe Ζεῦ πάτερ as “Titulatur”.

appositions

317

do not describe the referent as in (151) but function as honorific epithets applied to gods (cf. Schwyzer 1947: 12). (154) Hucine, Micipsa pater, beneficia tua evasere … ‘Is this, my father Micipsa, the result of your kindness …?’ (Sal. Jug. 14.9)

The ordering with the proper name in apposition is sometimes found, at least with pater and mater.95 In (155) and (156), the referents are not distinguished one from another as in (151) but are specified by the indication of their name: mater—her name was Olympias—and a pater (note its indefinite reading)—whose name was Dexo. The kinship nouns come first because they are inferrable in the sense that people usually have fathers and mothers; their names may but need not be specified. (155) Tum secundum quietem visus ei (= Alexandro) dicitur draco is, quem mater Olympias alebat. ‘Then, in his slumber, he is said to have seen the serpent that his mother Olympias cherished.’ (Cic. Div. 2.135) (156) Pater aderat Dexo Tyndaritanus, homo nobilissimus, hospes tuus. Cuius … ‘There was a father, Dexo of Tyndaris, a man of the highest rank, your host. His …’ (Cic. Ver. 5.108)

5.2. Rex Compared with constructions expressing official functions (Table 6, p. 302), those containing rex ‘king’ frequently present the ordering {rex X} with the proper name in apposition (Table 11). A possible explanation may lie in the semantic properties of rex ‘king’. Unlike functions such as consul or tribunus plebis, performed by an individual for a certain period, rex is a definitive title attributed to a unique individual for life. In the texts of my sample, it applies to foreign governors. Table 11: Proper name + rex (sample) Type rex X X rex X, rex + gen. Total

Total 9 2 4 15

95 As for frater, Cicero always uses the order Quintus frater (93 occ. in the whole Ciceronian corpus), never frater Quintus. Such an ordering would be expected for distinguishing between several brothers; Cicero had only one.

318

chapter four

The most frequent ordering is exemplified in (157); it is the first mention of king Bocchus in the Jugurthine War. (157) Mauris omnibus rex Bocchus imperitabat, praeter nomen cetera ignarus populi Romani … ‘All the Moors were ruled by king Bocchus who knew nothing of the Roman people apart from their name …’ (Sal. Jug. 19.7)

The proper name in apposition provides the name of the king who ruled in Mauretania; rex, coming first, is in a sense inferrable. It can be assumed that Mauretania and Numidia were identified as kingdoms by Sallust’s readers, and kingdoms are usually ruled by kings. Bocchus thus represents a specification of the common noun by naming the referent. In this passage, king Bocchus is only mentioned; he will play a greater role later on in the narrative (especially starting from section 80). In contrast, when Sallust introduces king Masinissa, Jugurtha’s grandfather and the founder of the kingdom of Numidia,96 he uses a free apposition with rex accompanied by a possessive genitive (158). The first construction with a close apposition, dux Carthaginiensium (deducible from the context) Hannibal, provides the name of the commander of Carthaginians (even if it is well known); the free apposition Masinissa, rex Numidarum, makes the status of the person referred to by the proper name explicit.97 (158) Bello Punico secundo, quo dux Carthaginiensium Hannibal … Italiae opes maxime attriverat, Masinissa, rex Numidarum, … multa et praeclara rei militaris facinora fecerat. ‘During the Second Punic War, in which Hannibal, the leader of the Carthaginians … had dealt Italy’s resources the severest blow, Masinissa, king of the Numidians, … had performed many brilliant feats of arms.’ (Sal. Jug. 5.4)

5.3. Status and Activity In this section, I will briefly mention various constructions consisting of a proper name and a common noun denoting a status or an activity of an individual, e.g. adherence to a philosophical school: Diogenes Stoicus ‘Diogenes the Stoic’ (Cic. Div. 2.90); belonging to a nation: Poenus Hamilcar ‘Hamilcar the Carthaginian’ (Cic. Div. 2.136) and Allobroges perfugae ‘the Allobrogan deserters’ (Caes. Civ. 3.63.3); social status: libertus Timarchides

96

For more details, see Sal. Jug. 5. The two appositions form a chiasmus, it is true, but the status of the two people is different. The first one, dux Carthaginiensium Hannibal, is reducible to either element. 97

appositions

319

‘the freedman Timarchides’ (Cic. Ver. 5.81). As they are infrequent in my corpus, I will only give two examples. The first one (159) shows the proper name of a person unknown from the preceding context, described by a free apposition. The pronoun ille98 makes a reference to shared knowledge, so the apposition is presented as a reminder of a known fact. The second example (160) concerns the introduction of a new entity into the discourse: Sextius. The author starts with elements given in the preceding context: ianitor carceris and carnifex praetoris; the third element (mors … Romanorum) is author’s personal comment (cf. below, section 5.4.2). Lictor is also in some way anchored in the context; his name is provided afterwards. (159) Si aufugisset, si vincla rupisset ita ut Nico,99 ille nobilissimus pirata, fecit, quem … ‘If he had escaped, if he had broken his chains as Nico, that famous pirate, did, who …’ (Cic. Ver. 5.79) (160) (in lautumiis … ad ostium carceris …) Aderat ianitor carceris, carnifex praetoris, mors terrorque sociorum et civium Romanorum, lictor Sextius, cui ex omni gemitu doloreque certa merces comparabatur. ‘(in quarries … at the prison entrance …) The prison warder stood by, the praetor’s executioner, the bringer of death and terror to allies and Roman citizens—the lictor Sextius, to whom every shriek and cry of pain was worth a specific sum of money.’ (Cic. Ver. 5.118)

5.4. Two Common Nouns Appositions with two common nouns, both free and close appositions, are infrequent in my sample (12 occ., 5%). However it is important to mention them. 5.4.1. Free Appositions Free appositions with a common noun usually complete a noun with a definite reading. For example, duo imperatores in (161) refer to Metellus and Jugurtha, protagonists well known from the preceding context. The head noun is sometimes accompanied by an anaphoric or demonstrative pronoun, e.g. iste homo, adulescens nobilissimus ‘that man, a most noble youth’ (Cic. Ver. 5.105), or a quantifier, such as omnes (162); this apposition

98 99

For ille, see Pinkster (2005). Nico is a conjecture; the manuscript reading is in eo.

320

chapter four

justifies the process expressed in the main clause. The referent is generic in (163). (161) Eo modo inter se duo imperatores, summi viri, certabant. ‘Thus did these two commanders, eminent men, struggle with each other.’ (Sal. Jug. 52.1) (162) statuit … navarchos omnes, testes sui sceleris, vita esse privandos. ‘he decided that … all the captains, witnesses of his guilt, must be put to death.’ (Cic. Ver. 5.103) (163) decere illos relicuom laborem aequo animo pati, dum pro civibus suis, viris fortissumis atque miserrumis, poenas caperent. ‘that they ought to endure without complaint the toil that remained, for the sake of avenging their fellow-citizens, the bravest and most unfortunate of men.’ (Sal. Jug. 68.3)

I noted several free appositions that resume the referent by paraphrasing it in a subjective way: cupidine atque ira as pessumis consultoribus in (164). Such glosses provide the author’s personal comment. Evaluative resumption concerns here only one constituent; sentence appositions (see next section) resume a larger portion of a text. (164) (Marius) Ita cupidine atque ira, pessumis consultoribus, grassari. ‘Marius was driven by desire and anger, the worst of counsellors.’ (Sal. Jug. 64.5)

My sample did not offer examples illustrating agreement. Nevertheless, in the case of constructions with two common nouns, agreement in gender and number is usually made with the first element (K.&St. I: 42). The participle incensa thus agrees with classis, and not with praesidium. (165) An quod … paucorum adventu myoparonum classis pulcherrima, Siciliae praesidium propugnaculumque provinciae, piratarum manibus incensa est? ‘Was it because … that beautiful fleet, the bulwark of Sicily and the defence of the province, was set on fire by the pirates arrived in a few schooners?’ (Cic. Ver. 3.186)

5.4.2. Sentence Appositions A peculiar case of an appositional construction involving common nouns is that of “sentence appositions” (cf. also section 6.2, p. 328). They do not modify a constituent, as “regular” free appositions do, but resume a more complex idea that has been expressed. For example, praeclara classis resumes the preceding content; it involves the common noun classis ‘fleet’, hypernym encompassing quadriremis and navis (166), which appeared in the harbour.

appositions

321

Such resumptions express the author’s personal evaluation or comment on the situation related. (166) Egreditur in Centuripina quadriremi Cleomenes e portu; sequitur Segestana navis, Tyndaritana Herbitensis Heracliensis Apolloniensis Haluntina—praeclara classis in speciem sed inops et infirma propter dimissionem propugnatorum atque remigum. ‘Cleomenes leaves the harbour in a quadrireme from Centuripae, followed by ships from Segesta, Tyndaris, Herbita, Heraclia, Apollonia, and Haluntium— to all appearances a magnificent fleet, but weak and ineffective because of the exemptions given to sailors and oarsmen.’ (Cic. Ver. 5.86)

5.4.3. Close Appositions Constructions with two common nouns the second of which forms a close apposition, can be divided into several categories on the basis of the functions they fulfil. The first group involves an agent noun, e.g. contemptor animus (Sal. Jug. 64.1) ‘arrogant spirit’, exercitus victor ‘victorious army’ (Sal. Jug. 58.5), to which tirones milites ‘recruits’ (Cic. Phil. 11.39) and servi homines ‘slaves’ (Cic. Ver. 3.91) can be added. According to Kühner & Stegmann (I: 232), the agent nouns are used adjectivally. This interpretation is plausible.100 Indeed, such expressions compensate for the lack of an adjective formed from contemptor and victor, or contain an old substantival adjective (servus). However, not all these constructions function in the same way. A good example for illustration is homo histrio in (167): the expression of homo is justified by a contrast established between the persona ‘mask’ and the actor, the animate being who bore it (histrio).101 (167) ex persona mihi ardere oculi hominis histrionis viderentur ‘the actor-man’s eyes seemed to me to be blazing behind his mask’ (Cic. de Orat. 2.193)

Additionally, instances such as puer Midas ‘the infant Midas’ (Cic. Div. 2.66) and Iuppiter puer ‘the infant Jupiter’ (Cic. Div. 2.85), referring to age, also seem to represent nouns used adjectivally. 100 These constructions are traditionally considered as archaic, see Kroll (1927: 303). On the other hand, it does not seem necessary to evoke vague borderlines between nouns and adjectives and the hypothesis that many adjectives originated from nouns in Indo-European (cf. Brugmann & Delbrück 1911 II: 652). To explain them, I would not introduce either Homeric examples such as βουκόλοι ἄνδρες ‘herdsmen’ (Hom. Il. 13.571), or expressions with ἀνήρ ‘man in the sacral sphere’, discussed by Schwyzer (1947: 4). 101 Cf. Leeman & Pinkster (1989: 149). For combinations of homo + noun, see ThLL, s. v. homo, 2885.60.

322

chapter four

The second category is represented by the words mas ‘male’ and femina ‘female’ which accompany nouns denoting animals: they make it possible to distinguish the gender of epicene nouns. They have a distinctive function. In my sample, femina anguis and mas anguis ‘female, male snake’ occur (Cic. Div. 2.62) but here, the ordering of the two elements results from an idea of contrast. Other instances presenting the “reverse” order seem to be more common: porcus femina ‘female pig’ (Cic. Leg. 2.57), and boves feminae ‘female oxen’ (Var. R. 2.1.17). There also other types, absent from my sample. Constructions such as arbor alnus ‘alder tree’ (Var. R. 1.7.7), arbor olea ‘olive tree’ (Var. R. 3.16.24), avis psittacus ‘bird (called) parrot’ (Plin. Nat. 6.184), herba plantago ‘plant (called) plantain’ (Plin. Nat. 25.80), lapides silices ‘hard stones’ (Cato Agr. 18.3) are formed with a common noun and a noun denoting a species.102 In some cases, competing constructions with an explicative genitive are attested.103 Finally, the type “nomen Marcus” deserves mention; in Latin, it is habitually not realised as a close apposition but as a construction with an explicative genitive, e.g. (168) and (169).104 (168) (Cato) propterea quasi cognomen iam habebat in senectute Sapientis. ‘(Cato) therefore, in his old age, he bore the title of the Wise as a sort of cognomen.’ (Cic. Amic. 6) (169) O nomen dulce libertatis! ‘The sweet name of liberty!’ (Cic. Ver. 5.163)

In other languages, appositive constructions are common in such cases, for example in English: (170) I really hate the word background paintings.

102

See K.&St. (II: 232) and Szantyr (1972: 63). For example, arbor olivae ‘olive tree’ and arbor fici ‘fig tree’ (Col. 5.11.13–14). However, in this case, the tree might be distinguished from its fruit (oliva / olea denotes ‘olive tree’ as well as ‘olive’, ficus ‘fig tree’ and ‘fig’). Cf. also piperis arbor ‘pepper tree’ (Plin. Nat. 12.29 and 16.136). For the explicative genitive, see K.&St. (I: 419). Furthermore, it is often claimed that this explicative genitive, which is regarded as secondary, has developed from an appositive construction, and a parallel is established with oppidum Thysdrae (B. Afr. 36.2); see Hahn (1953: 97) and Szantyr (1972: 63), among others. Further research should be undertaken in order to investigate these constructions in detail. 104 Hahn (1953: 97) states that “nomen Marcus became nomen Marci” without giving examples. Some are quoted by K.&St. (I: 421), for example nomenque Danuvium habet (Sal. Hist. 3.79). 103

appositions

323

This example is discussed by Keizer (2005: 403). According to her, the descriptive term, the word, indicates that the following expression is not used in its habitual function. Indeed, the omission of the word would lead to interpret background paintings as referring to objects; however, the speaker does not affirm that he does not like this type of paintings but that he dislikes the word. This analysis applies very well to my Latin examples: Sapientis and libertatis are not used as referential but only as names. 5.4.4. Pronouns Appositional constructions containing a personal pronoun (10 occ., 4 %) are mainly used by Sallust in my sample. The personal pronoun forming the first element of the construction is followed by a close or a free apposition. The element in apposition specifies the status or the function of the individual referred to. Nos augures (182) can serve as an example of a close apposition, which is a noun phrase functioning as the subject; augures is not the predicative. Another example is vos amici ‘you, our friends’ in Sal. Jug. 14.10. (171) Huic simile est, quod nos augures praecipimus … ‘His method is of a kind with the advice which we augurs give …’ (Cic. Div. 2.77)

In free apposition—because of the expansion of the noun in the second element—there is, for example vos, patres conscripti ‘you, conscript fathers’ (Sal. Jug. 14.6 and 51.26), a usual form of address to the senators, or the ironic qualification of Verres in (172). (172) Sed tamen tu, sancte homo ac religiose, cur Tauromenitanis item foederatis navem imperasti? ‘But still you, pious and scrupulous man, why did you require a ship from the people of Tauromenium, a federate city?’ (Cic. Ver. 5.49)

5.4.5. Partitive Apposition This section will be devoted to “partitive appositions”, constructions consisting of a noun denoting the whole and a noun denoting one or more parts extracted from it (K.&St. I: 249). At the syntactic level, the partitive apposition is always realised as a free apposition expanding a noun (phrase) expressing plurality. In the literature, the term of “partitive apposition” is used for heterogeneous phenomena. However, if we accept the definition of the appositional constructions as the juxtaposition of two nominal elements without any syntactic link (section 1, p. 261), constructions such as genitives of content

324

chapter four

or accusatives of relation should not be labelled as “partitive appositions”.105 Likewise, subjects expressed alongside verbs (173) and constructions syntactically realised as clauses (174) are not partitive appositions. (173) Errastis, Rulle, vehementer et tu et nonnulli collegae tui, qui sperastis … ‘You made a great mistake, Rullus, you and some of your colleagues, in hoping that …’ (Cic. Agr. 1.23) (174) In occupandis praesidiis magna vi uterque nitebatur, Caesar ut quam angustissime Pompeium contineret, Pompeius ut quam plurimos colles … occuparet. ‘In seizing strongpoints both sides expended great efforts: Caesar, to hem Pompey in as much as he could, Pompey, to occupy as many hills as possible.’ (Caes. Civ. 3.45.1)

True constructions with partitive appositions exhibit, in the first element, personal pronouns in the plural, non-numerical quantifiers such as omnes, cuncti ‘all’, multi ‘many’, numerical quantifiers (175), nouns in the plural (176), or nouns with a collective meaning. The second element in apposition specifies the content of the first element, and this, by enumerating it entirely or partially.106 Partitive appositions do not represent reminders of known facts but bring something new, more specific. In (177), the referent of classes is specified by an apposition of the distributive type, alteram … alteram (cf. also pars … alii in Sal. Jug. 74.1). (175) ut de ceteris divinandi generibus dubitares, ista duo, furoris et somnii, quae …, probares. ‘while you doubt about all other kinds of divination, you approve of these two, divination by frenzy and divination by dreams, which …’ (Cic. Div. 2.101) (176) Verbera atque ignes et illa extrema ad supplicium damnatorum, metum ceterorum, cruciatus et crux. ‘The lash, the fire, and those ultimate measures which serve to punish convicted and deter the rest—torture and the cross.’ (Cic. Ver. 5.14) (177) Si enim fatum fuit classes populi Romani bello Punico primo, alteram naufragio, alteram a Poenis depressam interire … ‘For, if it was the will of Fate that the Roman fleets in the First Punic War should perish, the one by shipwreck and the other at the hands of the Carthaginians …’ (Cic. Div. 2.20)

105 For such a “large” semantic conception of partitive appositions, cf. Hofmann (1924), Hahn (1953), and Szantyr (1972: 428), among others. 106 Cf. the partitive appositions in Plautus listed by Bennett (1914: 6–7).

appositions

325

Unlike in the case of free appositions (cf. section 4.6, p. 312), prepositions are repeated in the second element of partitive appositions, as in (178).107 (178) Duxisti autem divinationem omnem a tribus rebus: a deo, a fato, a natura. ‘You derived every form of divination from three sources: God, Fate, and Nature.’ (Cic. Div. 2.27)

5.5. Explicit Indicators of Appositions Free appositions can be explicitly marked as such, for example by hoc est ‘that is’ in (179). The second element in apposition paraphrases the content of the first element, latronum. (179) Sed de latronum, hoc est de comitum suorum sententia condemnat omnes. ‘He condemns them all on the advice of robbers—that is, on the advice of his suite.’ (Cic. Ver. 5.114)

Adverbs such as scilicet ‘of course, I mean’, are used as explicit indicators of appositions introducing a qualification assumed to be obvious, or the explanatory videlicet ‘that is to say, namely’,108 for example in (180) and (181). These markers introduce a further specification of a phrase that has just been expressed. (180) At te, videlicet inventorem rerum optimarum ac principem, imitabuntur omnes. ‘But, no doubt, all men will imitate you, the investor and first parent of such excellent methods.’ (Cic. Ver. 3.41) (181) Similiter nunc de oratore, vestro impulsu, loquor, summo scilicet. ‘The same applies now when at your instigation I am talking about the orator, the ideal orator, I assume.’ (Cic. de Orat. 3.84)

The verb dico ‘I mean’ (ThLL, s. v. 980.83f.) may fulfil a similar function, for example in (182). The author uses this parenthetical clause to restrict the noun phrase sanctissimas leges, by specifying which laws he means exactly (Aelia et Fufia).

107 See K.&St. (I: 582) and cf. Cic. de Orat. 2.78 or Inv. 2.112. Klussmann (1877) makes the same statement about appositions announced by id est or hoc est that explain or paraphrase the first element, for example: ad nobilitatem, hoc est ad suos, transisse ‘passed over to the nobility, that is, to his own party’ (Cic. Ver. 1.35) or ut in Capitolio, hoc est in terrestri domicilio Iovis, poneret ‘to put it on the Capitol, the earthly home of Jupiter’ (Cic. Ver. 4.129). Cf. the next section. 108 For a description of scilicet and videlicet, see Schrickx (2011).

326

chapter four

(182) Deinde sanctissimas leges, Aeliam et Fufiam dico, quae in Gracchorum ferocitate … vixerunt. ‘Then those most holy laws, I mean the Aelian and Fufian laws, which subsisted through the furious times of the Gracchi.’ (Cic. Vat. 23)

The examples quoted in this section have some affinity with Tail constituents, to which the next section is devoted. Unlike them, they are contiguous with the phrase specified. 6. Right Dislocation (Tail Constituents) This section deals with constituents dislocated to the right-hand side of a sentence; if they are mentioned in traditional grammars, they fall into the category of appositions. The phenomenon of right dislocation, typical of spontaneous language, has drawn the attention of modern linguists.109 Right dislocation represents some kind of afterthought, an addition that specifies, clarifies, or corrects something that has been said (183). It is a strategy of “reparation” (Geluykens 1987): the speaker provides more explicit information about a word uttered in order to avoid a sentence that lacks clarity. Right dislocated constituents, called “Tail constituents” in Functional Grammar, represent a matching case for left dislocated constituents, termed “Theme constituents” (184).110 (183) I didn’t like it very much, that book of yours. (184) That book of yours, I didn’t like it very much.

The two following sections will present right dislocated constituents related to noun phrases or pronouns (6.1) and right dislocated constituents resuming and evaluating a previous content (6.2). 6.1. Tail Constituents Related to a Noun or a Pronoun Classical Latin prose, with which this book is mainly concerned, does not consist of literary genres that would favour the use of right dislocation;111 however, Tail constituents do appear, even if seldom. Right dislocated con-

109

See Geluykens (1987) and Dik (1997 II: 401–405), among others. For more details about these pragmatic functions as well as further references, see Spevak (2010a: 107 and 111–114). 111 For a detailed discussion of this phenomenon in Plautus, Cicero’s letters, and Petronius, see Spevak (2013). 110

appositions

327

stituents are defined from a pragmatic point of view: they complete a previously uttered phrase (cf. Cabrillana in Baños Baños 2009: 120). A good example is given in (185):112 the right dislocated constituent (tuos servos) specifies the content of homo, which is co-referential with it. Likewise in (186), sex voltures indicates what augurium consisted of.113 (185) Em, istic homo te articulatim concidit, senex, / tuos servos. ‘Well, old man, the fellow has cut you to pieces limb by limb, that servant of yours.’ (Pl. Epid. 488–489) (186) Priori Remo augurium venisse fertur, sex vultures, … ‘Remus is said to have been the first to receive the augury, six vultures, …’ (Liv. 1.7.1)

In both cases, the first noun is generic with a definite reading (homo, augurium); the right dislocated constituent is a noun with a more specific meaning (servus, vultures). In (187), mater is specified by luxuries.114 (187) Avaritiam si tollere voltis, mater eius est tollenda, luxuries. ‘If you would abolish covetousness, you must abolish its mother, profusion.’ (Cic. de Orat. 2.171)

Right dislocated constituents are typically a posteriori specifications of an element uttered, the reference of which is saturated, in the direction going from the generic to the specific. It is less easy to exemplify the case of coreference with an anaphoric pronoun, as in the English example in (183).115 The instance in (188) can be taken for certain:116 illam manum refers to shared knowledge between Cicero and Atticus; the constituent Pompei, nostri amici functions as an a posteriori specification.

112 See also Panhuis (1982: 85) and his example taken from Plautus (Ps. 1222–1223), with argentum, specified by viginti minae. 113 This example is quoted by Cabrillana in Baños Baños (2009: 120). She claims that unlike “regular” apposition, agreement in gender and number (cf. section 3.4, p. 295) is not required for right dislocated constituents. 114 Cf. also example (131), p. 308. 115 It is worth pointing out that an example of this type is in Scipio’s funeral inscription: (L. Cornelio L.F. Scipio …) Honc oino ploirvme cosentiont R⟨omai⟩ dvonoro optvmo fvise viro, Lvciom Scipione (CIL I2 9). ‘Romans for the most part agree that this man, Lucius Scipio, was one of the best of good men.’ However, see Adams (2013: 217) for another segmentation. 116 This example is quoted by Amacker (2001: 195). However, many other examples quoted in his article pose a problem (see Spevak 2013 for discussion): neither the instances containing cataphoric pronouns, nor subjects standing at the end of the sentence, illustrate the phenomenon of right dislocation.

328

chapter four

(188) Illam manum tu mihi cura ut praestes, quoniam propius abes, Pompei, nostri amici. ‘You must answer for the other phalanx, since you are not so far away, I mean our friend Pompey’s.’ (Cic. Att. 1.1.3)

Identification of right dislocated constituents is made easier by the presence of particles such as et quidem, videlicet, scilicet and other similar ones with the meaning ‘that is, I mean’. Also additions articulated by et or other means, labelled by Rosén (1990, 2008: and 2009: 413) “epitaxis” or “asymetric coordination”, fall into this group. In such cases, an additional element is applied to a phrase that is complete from a semantic point of view, as in (189); the appending clause forms a parenthesis here. An element that is specified a posteriori can be a noun with a wide reference: in Asiam in (190) or a pronoun: permulti alii in (191). The specifying element has a narrow meaning: maxime Cyzicum and omnes Lanuvini. Another example of the same type is given in (192);117 the Tail constituent is introduced by id est (Atticus is speaking). (189) Super terga gladii et scuta, verum ea Numidica ex coriis, ponderis gratia simul et offensa quo levius streperent. ‘On their backs, they carried their swords and shields, namely Numidian shields made of leather, because they were lighter and would make less noise when struck.’ (Sal. Jug. 94.1) (190) Nobis iter est in Asiam, maxime Cyzicum. ‘I am starting for Asia, for Cyzicus in particular.’ (Cic. Att. 3.6) (191) Sed erant permulti alii ex quibus id facillime scire posset, omnes scilicet Lanuvini. ‘But there were many others from whom he could easily have found this out, all people of Lanuvium, for instance.’ (Cic. Mil. 46) (192) Sed illud tamen quale est, quod paulo ante dixisti, hunc locum, id est, ut ego te accipio dicere, Arpinum, germanam patriam esse vestram? ‘But what did you really mean by what you said a while ago, that this place— by which I take it you mean Arpinum—is your own fatherland?’ (Cic. Leg. 2.5)

6.2. Right Dislocated Constituents Expressing Subjective Evaluation For the phenomenon I am dealing with, it is worth recalling that Szantyr (1972: 28) reports the use of “the nominative in the manner of an exclamation”, without agreement in gender and number:

117

Id est is Mueller’s plausible conjecture for the idem offered by the manuscripts.

appositions

329

(193) Sequebatur raeda cum lenonibus, comites nequissimi. ‘There followed a carriage full of pimps, a most iniquitous retinue.’ (Cic. Phil. 2.58)

Comites nequissimi refers to raeda cum lenonibus but unlike the type described in the preceding section, where right dislocated constituents relate to a noun (phrase), in this case, specification is not the striking property of such constructions. Comites nequissimi resumes the preceding phrase and, at the same time, expresses the author’s subjective judgment of the situation: he qualifies the carriage full of pimps as a most iniquitous retinue. Instances of “sentence appositions”118 which Kühner & Stegmann (I: 248) have explicitly interpreted as “explanations” or “judgments” (194) also belong to this category. (194) Hoc enim identidem dicitis non intellegere nos quam dicatis voluptatem. Rem videlicet difficilem et obscuram. ‘For you are always repeating that we do not understand what you mean by the word pleasure. No doubt it is a very difficult and obscure matter.’ (Cic. Fin. 2.75)

The phrase rem difficilem et obscuram, formed with a common noun and two evaluative adjectives, resumes the content of the preceding sentence. The resumption expresses the author’s personal opinion and represents a sort of gloss on the situation. 7. Conclusions The aim of this chapter was to describe two types of appositions, close appositions and free appositions, and the functions they fulfil. On the basis of examples gathered, it becomes clear that in Classical Latin prose, in the literary genres it encompasses (historical narrative, speeches, philosophical and rhetoric treatises, letters), appositions apply to human beings and involve proper names in the overwhelming majority of the cases. This point correlates with the functions that appositions have, especially the description and specification of the referent. In addition, the use of appositions is closely related to the accessibility of referents. Little known or entirely unknown entities, referred to by proper names, must be inserted into the

118 For sentence appositions, see also Ernout & Thomas (1953: 24) and Szantyr (1972: 429). For Touratier (1994: 445), such constructions are a kind of “secondary predication”. Cf. example (166), p. 321.

330

chapter four

addressee’s knowledge by linguistic means, in order to enable the addressee to classify them and to identify them during further references. Appositions, with other constructions such as relative clauses or predicative sentences, are linguistic means par excellence for assuming this role. I hope to have demonstrated that the ordering of two elements forming an appositional construction is significant: the first element functions as the head, the second element as its modifier. The boundary between close apposition and free apposition is sometimes difficult to establish; but there are several clues making it possible, in particular: expansion of the second element (except for full proper names) leads to its interpretation as a free apposition; likewise referential saturation of the first element excludes an interpretation of the second element as close apposition. Right dislocated constituents (Tail constituents), traditionally treated as appositions, have a specific pragmatic function. The syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic properties described in this chapter have revealed differences between close and free appositions. Although we cannot rely on intonation to distinguish them, we do have several criteria of identification. This point leads me to close this chapter with an appeal to editors of texts—and also to translators: there are close and free appositions in Latin, so please punctuate them properly!

chapter five CONCLUSIONS

The aim of this book is to provide a systematic description of the Latin noun phrase, the types of modifiers, the types of nouns as well as the ordering of the noun and its modifier(s). In this section, I will resume the general conclusions of the book; each chapter (and also each main subsection) contains conclusions concerning individual research questions. Chapter 1 deals with the typology of nouns and the typology of modifiers, which are useful for explaining the internal structure of Latin noun phrases. It provides a classification of nouns into three categories (“orders”) and a discussion of properties of their subcategories: “prototypical” or concrete nouns (navis ‘ship’), pluralia tantum (castra ‘camp’), collective nouns ( familia ‘family’), mass nouns (aqua ‘water’), proper names (Iuppiter), verbal nouns ( fides ‘faith’), and abstract nouns (dignitas ‘dignity’). A typology of modifiers goes through various types of modifiers focusing on quantifiers, semantic and syntactic properties of adjectives, genitive complements, and remaining noun complements. Lyon’s (1977) distinction between three orders of entities: spatio-temporal (first-order), temporal (second-order), and non-spatial and non-temporal (third-order) entities makes it possible to better understand and describe the facts of Latin. In the category of first-order entities we encounter traditional labels such as mass nouns and collective nouns, recently described by Rijkhoff (2002) from a typological perspective, which are essential for understanding, among other things, the use of quantifiers in Latin. Additionally, the parameter of countability, which is at home in English grammars, is also pertinent to Latin and should be included in a description of Latin nouns. Lyon’s distinction between second- and third-order entities is useful for a better classification of what are traditionally called “abstract nouns”. There are indeed differences between nouns such as iucunditas ‘joy’, adventus ‘arrival’, and spes ‘hope’, especially in the types of modifiers they allow. Furthermore, I suggest linking Lyon’s model with valency. It then becomes clear that whereas first-order nouns are typically zero-valent (except several specific categories, e.g. relational nouns such as filius ‘son’), second-order nouns are partly zero-valent (nouns denoting temporal entities such as dies

332

chapter five

‘day’), partly valency nouns (verbal nouns such as amor ‘love’ and nouns denoting feelings such as pietas ‘piety’) requiring complements. There are no zero-valent nouns among third-order entities: these are for the most part bivalent and typically select modifiers such as objective or subjective genitives and completive clauses. Furthermore, certain nouns can belong to several orders of entities. Although this typology requires more detailed discussion, focusing especially on conditions of omissibility of valency complements, it makes it possible to better understand the behaviour of different types of nouns. Additionally, further research should establish criteria for distinguishing between the temporal and spatial use of nouns such as oratio ‘action of speaking’ and ‘a speech’ as a product of speaking. Noun modifiers also deserve special attention, in particular because Marouzeau’s twofold distinction between “qualifying” and “determining adjectives” is insufficient. In main lines, I adopted Rijkhoff’s (2010) typology distinguishing between: (i) classifying modifiers that further specify the kind of an entity (onerarius ‘of transport’); (ii) qualifying modifiers expressing qualities such as dimension, age, colour, physical properties, human qualities (novus ‘new’, longus ‘long’); (iii) quantifying modifiers that evaluate the referents as to their number; this group is subdivided into non-numerical quantifiers (omnes ‘all’, multi ‘many’), numerical quantifiers (duo ‘two’), and nominal quantifiers (magnus numerus ‘great number’, multitudo ‘quantity’); (iv) localising modifiers used for localising referents, and hence for identifying them; they include demonstrative pronouns, possessive expressions, adjectives expressing a relative position (proximus ‘next’), and ordinal numerals (secundus ‘second’); (v) referential modifiers related to referential properties of a noun, which are typically represented by articles but also by indefinite pronouns, are not dealt with in this book. This distinction is essential, on the one hand, for a description of combinability of modifiers, and on the other hand, for the internal ordering of noun phrases. Classifying modifiers, which specify the kind of an entity in an objective way differ from qualifying modifiers that can express permanent properties (descriptive adjectives) as well as more or less subjective assessments (evaluative adjectives). Quantifiers represent a category of their own and should not be grouped together with adjectives. Localising modifiers that do not express inherent properties deserve special attention because they may be subjective.

conclusions

333

Chapter 2 has a twofold objective: it presents, on the one hand, what modifiers are used with a given noun, and, on the other hand, the positions they occupy with respect to the head noun. It is based on a series of casestudies examining the modifiers applied to several nouns belonging to different orders of entities. The material is divided into the following categories: quantification of a referent, further specification of the kind of referent (function typically performed by classifying modifiers), description, evaluation, and identification of a referent. Expressions of possession, valency complements, optional complements, and complex noun phrases are treated in separated sections. The variable internal ordering of Latin noun phrases depends on various pragmatic and semantic factors. Focus (the most informative part of a sentence) and contextual newness of an entity correlate with postposition of adjectives and genitives. Topic (the element about which a sentence provides information) and contextual giveness are responsible for anteposition. In anteposition are also found emphatic and contrastive elements. However, pragmatic factors explain only a part of instances: sometimes, they do not apply at all. This is why I suggest considering semantic factors, especially the concept of “semantic prominence”. It concerns modifiers in postposition that are semantically more important than their head noun. Such postposed modifiers further specify the referent within a class of other available entities, e.g. templum Concordiae ‘the temple of Concord’ points out to one particular referent in a set of similar entities (‘there are several temples in Rome and that of Concord is the one I mean’). By contrast, modifiers in anteposition do not have such a function: they are semantically non-prominent. In some case, when there is no subset of competing entities, they form a referential unit with the head noun (hominum memoria ‘human memory’). The general principle underlying the internal ordering of Latin noun phrases can be formulated as follows: what belongs to the entity itself comes after the noun; what emanates from the author comes before the noun. In other words, whereas properties typical of or related to the entity itself are expressed in postposition, author’s assessments or evaluations of any kind are in anteposition. However, the facts are complicated by the intervention of various factors and the semantic contribution of individual modifiers. The type of modifier used and its value are indeed essential for understanding the internal structure of noun phrases. The outcome of the investigation presented in chapter 2 can be briefly resumed as follows. Non-numerical quantifiers (multi ‘many’) typically stand in anteposition; after all, they are not inherent to an entity but come from the author as assessments

334

chapter five

concerning a certain number. Numerical quantifiers (duo ‘two’) may be semantically prominent and specify the exact numerical value (in postposition), or form a referential unit with their governing noun without being semantically prominent (in anteposition). Nominal quantifiers (multitudo ‘great number’) are not semantically prominent unlike the genitives they govern; these stand therefore in postposition unless they function as the Topic of the sentence. Classifying (onerarius ‘of transport’) and descriptive (crassus ‘thick’) adjectives prefer postposition, evaluative adjectives (optimus ‘the best’) expressing the speaker or writer’s assessment occur in anteposition. Adjectives indicating a relative position in space or time (extremus ‘the last’, hodiernus ‘today’s’) do not express inherent properties but are attributed to an entity as a result of speaker or writer’s analysis of a situation, which is also a kind of assessment. Unless they are semantically prominent, they occur in anteposition. For the complicated issue of the placement of genitive complements, several parameters have already been recognised as responsible for their mobility, among them, pragmatic functions (Topic and Focus) and pragmatic features (especially contrast). More recently, the specific or generic character of the referent has been suggested as relevant for the internal ordering of Latin noun phrases. This is systematically considered in my analysis. Additionally, I use the idea of semantic prominence of the genitives in postposition (liber Antiochi nostri ‘the book of our master Antiochus’), which further specify the referent, as opposed to genitives in anteposition that are not semantically prominent (Homeri libri ‘books of Homer’ in Cic. de Orat. 3.137). Semantic prominence is not the same thing as contrast, which is of pragmatic nature (‘this one, not that one’). The placement of genitive complements should likely be regarded as a complex phenomenon where several factors can be at work. Postposition is typical for focal genitives or genitives belonging to noun phrases with Focus function. Genitives with the function of Topic or those used in a noun phrase with Topic function occur in anteposition. Furthermore, anteposition of genitive complements can depend on their being present in the preceding context (a sort of anaphora) and references to shared knowledge. However, these general tendencies compete with other factors: specificity of the referent seems to correlate with postposition and genericity with anteposition on the one hand; on the other hand are pragmatic features of contrast, which can produce anteposition or postposition of a genitive complements. In sum, the placement of the modifiers mentioned—quantifiers, adjectives, and genitives—turns out to be a result of the interplay of various factors. These factors are summarised in Table 1. Emphasis as well as particular

conclusions

335

connotations (civile bellum ‘the civil war’), which produce anteposition, are especially relevant for adjectives. Lines at the left-hand side and the righthand side do not necessarily correspond with each other. Table 1: Factors involved in the placement of modifiers Anteposition

Postposition

author’s assessment author’s evaluation particular connotation contextually given shared knowledge genericity emphasis contrast

semantic prominence description of the referent specification of the referent contextually new specificity contrast

Examination of the placement of modifiers, presented in chapter 2, has also revealed the fact that variability of the internal ordering of Latin noun phrases is not the same for all the nouns examined. In a text there are protagonists (miles, navis) or circumstances (bellum, dies) of prime importance, which are discussed and distinguished from one another; these entities exhibit the most variable ordering of modifiers. On the other hand, “attendants” ( familia, pecunia, aqua) are not subject of such a variation. The behaviour of the entities examined is in close relationship with the type of texts in which they occur in Classical Latin prose (historical narrative, speeches, or philosophical treatises) and with the topics discussed. It would be useful to examine another type of text, for example, a technical treatise, from this point of view. Chapter 3 deals with prepositional phrases. Although prepositional phrases represent units usually delimited at the left-hand side by the preposition, their internal ordering does not seem to differ substantially from the ordering of noun phrases. In a similar way, noun phrases containing several modifiers, among them a modifier with a high scope (a determiner such as hic) do not manifest a tendency for framing, i.e. enclosing other modifiers between the determiner and the noun. Prepositional phrases confirm conclusions formulated for noun phrases: postposition of the adjectives and genitive complements signal their semantic prominence; anteposition is used for pragmatically relevant modifiers (contrastive, emphatic, or carrying the function of Topic) and, especially in the case of the genitives, complements whose referents are known from the preceding context.

336

chapter five

Adnominal prepositional phrases do occur in Classical Latin prose. Unlike what some grammars tell us they need not be enclosed between the noun and another modifier. They can function as arguments of nouns or as optional complements. The placement of adnominal prepositional phrases with respect to their governing nouns roughly obeys the same principles as the placement of genitive complements. They show a tendency for postposition as a result of their semantic prominence. On the other hand, prepositional phrases involved in support verb constructions (auctoritatem habeo apud ‘to have influence with’) are more frequently found in anteposition, which, apart from pragmatic factors, may be due to the fact that they form a referential unit with their governing noun. A question that arises concerns the type of syntactic expansion of verbal nouns. Whereas many of them “copy” the construction of their source verbs, there are verbal nouns with a particular construction due to analogy. This point invites a further investigation of the relationships between verbal nouns and their cognate verbs, such as syntactic construction, different evolution of meaning, etc. This question is relevant mostly to verbal nouns that form support verb constructions, a topic that in itself deserves more detailed examination for Classical Latin. Chapter 4 is devoted to appositions and the functions they fulfil. In Classical Latin prose, appositions apply to human beings and involve proper names in the majority of the cases. This point correlates with the functions that appositions have, especially the description and specification of the referent. Appositional constructions involve two elements: Cicero consul ‘Cicero the consul’ (close apposition) and Cicero, consul designatus ‘Cicero, the consul-elect’ (free apposition). The proper name can figure in either element (consul Cicero and consul designatus, Cicero). Whatever the ordering is, I suggest that the first element is the head, the second element apposition. Appositions further specify the first element by distinguishing it from another entity, by describing it, by providing justification, etc. In a more general way, further specification, which we encounter in appositions, could be linked with the concept of “semantic prominence” of adjectives and genitives in postposition, dealt with in chapter 2. The boundary between close (or “restrictive”) apposition and free (or “non-restrictive”) apposition is sometimes difficult to establish but there are several clues making it possible, in particular: expansion of the second element (except for full proper names) leads to interpretation as free apposition; likewise, referential saturation of the first element blocks interpretation of the second element as close apposition.

conclusions

337

The issue of appositions is closely related to that of proper names, which, except in special cases, do not admit attributive adjectives. Personal proper names and place names refer to unique entities but this does not imply that the entities referred to are identifiable or accessible for the addressee. This point raises the question of shared knowledge: what is supposed to be known and what is assumed as not accessible information calling for more specification. Further investigation devoted to this topic of shared knowledge in Latin would be useful not only for the question of word order but also for that of organisation of the discourse in general. The internal ordering of Latin noun phrases and its variability is a very complicated topic. This book by no means pretends to explain everything, every single variation in ordering. Although there are instances that remain unclear, I hope to have put forward factors that are responsible for the specific placement of modifiers and are helpful for understanding the ordering within Latin noun phrases.

APPENDIX

This appendix presents synoptic tables with data that were used for analyses in chapters 1–4. Table 1.1: The frequency of noun complements Modifier

Cic. Div.

Cic. Ver.

Caes. Civ.

Sal. Jug.

160 105 146 21 10 29 15 10 4

154 99 146 24 19 28 16 11 3

160 117 128 33 17 17 19 7 2

156 120 166 16 11 13 13 5 0

determiner adjective genitive prepos. phrase det. + adj. det. + gen. adj. + gen. gerund/gerundive compl. clause

Total occ. % 630 441 586 94 57 87 63 33 9

Table 2.1: The types of entities occurring in two texts: Cicero and Caesar Type of entities

Cic. Div.

Total occ.

%

2nd order 3rd order

69 120 172 114

73 168 209 38

142 288 381 152

15% 30% 39% 16%

Total

475

488

963

100%

1st order

n

animate inanimate

Caes. Civ.

Table 2.2: Quantifiers with count nouns Non-numerical quantifiers miles navis liber dies familia Total

Quant. Noun

Noun Quant.

18 17 12 60 6

6 0 0 12 2

113

20

31% 22% 29% 5% 3% 4% 3% 2% 1%

340

appendix

Table 2.2: Quantifiers with count nouns Numerical quantifiers

Quant. Noun

Noun Quant.

miles navis liber dies

4 16 29 27

4 15 2 34

Total

76

55

Nominal quantifiers

Quant. Noun

Noun Quant.

Framed

miles navis

21 9

1 3

3 3

Total

30

4

6

Table 2.3: Quantifiers with non-count nouns Non-numerical quantifiers

Quant. Noun

Noun Quant.

67 13

24 0

pecunia frumentum Nominal quantifiers

Quant. Noun

Noun Quant.

Framed

9 8

18 3

7 4

17

21

11

frumentum argentum Total

Table 2.4: Adjectives derived from proper names with a classifying value Entity / order ager liber bellum

Noun Adj.

Adj. Noun

106 4 45

17 6 38

Table 2.5: Descriptive adjectives Entity / order aqua navis ager vir miles familia memoria

Noun Adj.

Adj. Noun

12 16 5 66 5 3 0

0 6 7 59 15 12 10

appendix

341

Table 2.6: Evaluative adjectives Entity / order

Noun Adj.

Adj. Noun

59 22 0 3 3 1 7 6 5 2

16 36 6 17 3 7 15 30 2 18

vir bellum dies religio (quality) memoria liber opinio quaestio familia (size) religio (extent)

Table 2.7: Adjectives derived from proper names expressing possession Entity / order

Noun Adj.

Adj. Noun

5 3

16 5

miles navis

Table 2.8: Possessive genitives Entity / order

Noun Adj.

Adj. Noun

1 2 14 13

9 3 3 36

miles navis ager liber

Table 3.1: The placement of quantifiers in prepositional phrases Order

Noun Quant.

Quant. Noun

1 1 6

31 33 20

Non-numerical quantifiers Omnis Numerical quantifiers

Table 3.2: Complexity of the nouns governing a prepositional phrase Governing noun Without a modifier With a modifier Total

Occurrences 119 78 197

342

appendix

Table 4.1: Urbs Roma vs. Roma (LLT) Author

urbs Roma

Roma

Cicero Caesar Sallust

2 0 3

638 12 67

REFERENCES

Abbreviations GL

Keil, Henricus (1855–1880), Grammatici Latini, 8 vol. Leipzig: Teubner. K.&St. Kühner, Raphael and Carl Stegmann (1912–1914), Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache, vol. II, Satzlehre, 1–2. Hannover: Hahn. LASLA database of the Laboratoire d’Analyse Statistique des Langues Anciennes (www.cipl.ulg.ac.be/Lasla) LLT Library of Latin Texts, Series A, www.brepolis.net. OLD Oxford Latin Dictionary (1968–1982), P.G.W. Glare (ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Pinkster LSS Pinkster, Harm (1990/1995), Latin Syntax and Semantics. London: Routledge, and its revised and enhanced edition Sintaxis y semántica del latín. Madrid: Ed. Clásicas. http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/ philologic/navigate.pl?NewPerseusMonographs.19 ThLL Thesaurus Linguae Latinae (1900–), Leipzig: Teubner. Adamietz, Joachim (1989), Pro Murena, Marcus Tullius Cicero, mit einem Kommentar. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Adams, James Noel (1976), ‘A typological approach to Latin word order’, Indogermanische Forschungen 81, 70–100. ——— (1978), ‘Conventions of naming in Cicero’, The Classical Quarterly 28, 145– 166. ——— (2013), Social Variation and the Latin Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Albrecht, Ernest (1890), De adjectivi attributi in lingua Latina collocatione specimen. Dissertation, Marburg. Amacker, René (2001), ‘Indices de thématisation segmentée non initiale chez Cicéron’, in: C. Moussy (ed.), De lingua Latina novae quaestiones. Actes du Xe Colloque international de linguistique latine, Paris-Sèvres, 19–23 avril 1999. Louvain/Paris: Peeters, 185–200. Bakker Stéphanie J. (2009), The Noun Phrase in Ancient Greek: A Functional Analysis of the Order and Articulation of NP Constituents in Herodotus. Leiden: Brill. Baldi, Philip and Andrea Nuti (2010), ‘Possession’, in: Ph. Baldi and P. Cuzzolin (eds), New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax, vol. 3: Constituent Syntax: Quantification, Numerals, Possession, Anaphora. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton, 239–387. Baldo, Gianluigi (2004), M. Tulli Ciceronis In C. Verrem actionis secundae liber quartus (De signis). Florence: F. Le Monnier. Bally, Charles (1926), ‘L’expression des idées de sphère personnelle et de solidarité

344

references

dans les langues indo-européennes’, in: F. Fankhauser and J. Jud (eds), Festschrift Louis Gauchat. Aarau: H.R. Sauerländer, 68–78 [translated in English ‘The expression of concepts of the personal domain and indivisibility in Indo-European languages’, in: H. Chappell and W. McGregor (eds), The Grammar of Inalienability: A Typological Perspective on Body Part Terms and the Part-whole Relation. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter, 1996, 31–61]. Baños Baños, José Miguel (coord.) (2009), Sintaxis del latín clásico. Madrid: Liceus. Baños Baños, José Miguel (1996), ‘Litteras Neroni / ad Neronem mittere: ¿alternancia Dativo / ad-Acusativo?’, in: A. Agud et al. (eds), Las lenguas de corpus y sus problemas lingüísticos. Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas, 217–235. Bauer, Brigitte (2008), ‘Nominal apposition in Vulgar and Late Latin. At the crossroads of major language changes’, in: R. Wright (ed.), Latin vulgaire latin tardif VIII. Hildesheim: Olms-Weidmann, 42–50. ——— (2009), ‘Word order’, in: Ph. Baldi and P. Cuzzolin (eds), New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax, vol. 1: Syntax of the sentence. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 241–316. Bedon, Robert (1994), ‘L’emploi du mot urbs dans le Bellum Gallicum de César. À propos d’ Alesia, d’ Avaricum et de Gergovia’, in: R. Bedon and P.M. Martin (eds), Mélanges Raymond Chevallier, vol. 2: Histoire et archéologie. Tours: Centre de recherche A. Piganiol, 66–79. Bennett, Charles E. (1914), Syntax of Early Latin, vol. 2: The Cases. Leipzig/Boston: Theodor Stauffer, Allyn and Bacon. Benveniste, Émile (1966 [1962]), ‘Pour l’analyse des fonctions casuelles: le génitif latin’, in: Problèmes de linguistique générale, vol. 1. Paris: Gallimard, 140–148. Bergaigne, Abel (1884), ‘Place de l’adjectif épithète en vieux français et en latin’, in: Mélanges Graux. Recueil de travaux d’érudition classique, dédié à la mémoire de Charles Graux. Paris: E. Thorin, 533–543. Berry, Dominic H. (2009), Defence Speeches / Cicero, translated with introduction and notes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ——— (2011), Political Speeches / Cicero, translated with introduction and notes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bertagna, Maria Isabella (1999), ‘Genitivo possessivo e aggettivo desostantivale: Da Erodoto a Sallustio’, Studi classici e orientali 47(1), 53–76. Bertocchi, Alessandra and Mirka Maraldi (2010), ‘Mid-scalar quantifiers in Latin’, in: P. Anreiter and M. Kienpointner (eds), Latin Linguistics Today. Akten des 15. Internationalen Kolloquiums zur Lateinischen Linguistik, Innsbruck, 4.-9. April 2009. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, 194–206. ——— (forthcoming), ‘Scalar approximators’, in: G. Haverling (ed.), 16th International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, Uppsala 6th–11th June 2011. Bertocchi, Alessandra, Maraldi, Mirka and Anna Orlandini (2010), ‘Quantification’, in: Ph. Baldi and P. Cuzzolin (eds), New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax, vol. 3: Constituent Syntax: Quantification, Numerals, Possession, Anaphora. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton, 19–173. Bodelot, Colette (2010), ‘Propositions complétives entrant en séquence avec un nom ou un syntagme nominal. Étude morpho-syntaxique et sémantique’, in: O. Spevak (ed.), Le syntagme nominal en latin. Paris: l’Harmattan, 163–182.

references

345

——— (2011), ‘Sur la complémentation de l’adjectif en latin: questions de valence, d’incidence, de rection’, Revue de philologie 85(1), 7–23. Boegel, Theodorus (1902), De nomine verbali Latino quaestiones grammaticae. Leipzig: Teubner [extracted from Jahrbücher für classische Philologie, Suppl.-Bd. 28, 59–90]. Bolinger, Dwight (1972), Degree Words. Paris/The Hague: Mouton. Bolkestein, A. Machtelt (1980), ‘De ab urbe condita-konstructie in het Latijn’ [The ab urbe condita construction in Latin], Lampas 13, 80–98. ——— (1981), ‘Factitivity as a condition for an optional expression rule in Latin: The ‘ab urbe condita’ construction and its underlying representation’, in: M. Bolkestein et al. (eds), Predication and Expression in Functional Grammar. London/New York: Academic Press, 206–233. ——— (1989), ‘Parameters in the expression of embedded predications in Latin’, in: G. Calboli (ed.), Subordination and Other Topics in Latin. Proceedings of the Third Colloquium on Latin Linguistics (Bologna, 1–5 April 1985). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: J. Benjamins, 3–35. ——— (1998), ‘Between brackets: (some properties of) parenthetical clauses in Latin. An investigation of the language of Cicero’s letters’, in: R. Risselada (ed.), Latin in Use. Amsterdam Studies in the Pragmatics of Latin. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben, 1–17. Bonnet, Max (1890), Le latin de Grégoire de Tours. Paris: Hachette. Bréguet, Esther (1991), La république, Cicéron, texte établi et traduit, vol. II, livres II–VI. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Brill’s New Pauly (2005–), Hubert Cancik, Helmuth Schneider and Manfred Landfester (eds). Leiden: Brill. Brøndal, Viggo (1943), Essais de linguistique générale. Copenhagen: E. Munksgaard. Brugmann, Karl and Berthold Delbrück (19112), Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen, vol. II. Wortbildungslehre. Strasbourg: Trübner. Burton-Roberts, Noel (1975), ‘Nominal apposition’, Foundations of Language 13, 391– 419. Cabredo Hofherr, Patricia (2010), ‘Adjectives’, in: P. Cabredo Hofherr and O. Matushansky (eds), Adjectives: Formal Analyses in Syntax and Semantics. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, 1–26. Cabrillana Leal, Concepción (2009), ‘Nominativo y Vocativo’, in: J.M. Baños Baños (coord.), Sintaxis del latín clásico. Madrid: Liceus, 111–130. Calboli, Gualtiero (1969), Cornifici Rhetorica ad C. Herennium; introd., testo crit., comm. Bologna: Riccardo Pàtron. Carter, John M. (1993), The Civil War Book III, Julius Caesar, edition with an introduction, translation and commentary. Warminster: Aris & Phillips. Chambry, Émile (1895), ‘Place de l’adjectif épithète dans Cornelius Nepos’, Revue des Universités du Midi 1, 278–288. ——— (1897), ‘Place de l’adjectif déterminatif et du génitif dans Cornelius Nepos’, Revue des Universités du Midi 3, 5–18. Chappell, Hilary and William McGregor (1996), ‘Prolegomena to a theory of inalienability’, in: H. Chappell and W. McGregor (eds), The Grammar of Inalienability: A

346

references

Typological Perspective on Body Part Terms and the Part-whole Relation. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter, 3–30. Coates, Richard (2006), ‘Properhood’, Language 82(2), 356–382. Constans, Léopold-Albert (1936), Correspondance, Cicéron, vol. 3. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Corbett, Greville G. (1995), ‘Slavonic’s closest approach to Suffixaufnahme: The possessive adjective’, in: F. Plank (ed.), Double Case: Agreement by Suffixaufnahme. New York: Oxford University Press, 265–282. ——— (2000), Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dahl, Östen and Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (2001), ‘Kinship in grammar’, in: I. Baron, M. Herslund, and F. Sørensen (eds), Dimensions of Possession. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: J. Benjamins, 201–225. Damon, Cynthia (1992), ‘Sex. Cloelius, Scriba’, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 94, 227–250. Declerck, Renaat (1988), Studies on Copular Sentences, Clefts and Pseudo-Clefts. Leuven: University Press. Defresne, Michèle (2000), L’expression de la faible quantité en latin: parvum, paulum, pauci, dans le cadre de la théorie de l’argumentation dans la langue d’O. Ducrot. Dissertation, Université de Paris IV-Sorbonne. Desanges, Jehan (1974), ‘Utica, Tucca et la Cirta de Salluste’, in: R. Chevalier (ed.), Littérature gréco-romaine et géographie historique. Mélanges offerts à Roger Dion. Paris: Picard, 143–150. Devine, Andrew M. and Laurence D. Stephens (2006), Latin Word Order. Structured Meaning and Information. New York: Oxford University Press. Dickey, Eleanor (2002), Latin Forms of Address: From Plautus to Apuleius. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dik, Simon C. (19972), The Theory of Functional Grammar, 1–2, Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Dixon, Robert M.W. (1982 [1970]), Where Have All the Adjectives Gone? And Other Essays in Semantics and Syntax. Berlin: Mouton. Dressler, Wolfgang (1970), ‘Comment décrire la syntaxe des cas en latin?’, Revue de philologie 44, 25–36. Dyck, Andrew R. (2008), Catilinarians. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Edwards, George and Eduard Wölfflin (1898–1900), ‘Von dem sogen. Genetivus und Ablativus qualitatis’, Archiv für lateinische Lexicographie und Grammatik 11, 197– 211 and 468–490. Eklund, Sten (1970), The Periphrastic, Completive and Finite Use of the Present Participle in Latin: With Special Regard to Translations of Christian Texts in Greek up to 600 A.D. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. Ernout, Alfred and François Thomas (1953), Syntaxe latine. Paris: Klincksieck. Ernout, Alfred and Antoine Meillet (19854), Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine. Paris: Klincksieck. Flobert, Pierre (1996), ‘Les verbes supports en latin’, in: A. Bammesberger and F. Heberlein (eds), Acten des VIII. internationalen Kolloquiums zur lateinischen Linguistik. Heidelberg: C. Winter, 193–199. Forcellini, Egidio (1857–1887), Totius Latinitatis lexicon, edition revised by Vincent De-Vit. Prati: typis Aldinianis.

references

347

Fraenkel, Eduard (19642 [1933]), ‘Kolon und Satz. Beobachtungen zur Gliederung des antiken Satz’, in: Kleine Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie 2. Rome: Edizioni di storia e letteratura, 93–130. ——— (1965), Noch einmal Kolon und Satz. Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Fugier, Huguette (1973), ‘L’apposition en latin. Pour une étude des relations à l’intérieur du syntagme nominal’, La linguistique 9(1), 97–113. ——— (1983), ‘Le syntagme nominal en latin classique’, in: W. Haase (ed.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt 2, 29, 1. Berlin/New York: W. de Gruyter, 212–269. Fugier, Huguette and Jean-Marie Corbin (1977), ‘Coordination et classes fonctionnelles dans le système nominal latin’, Bulletin de la Société de linguistique 72, 245–273. Geluykens, Ronald (1987), ‘Tails (right-dislocation) as a repair mechanism in English conversation’, in: J. Nuyts and G. de Schutter (eds), Getting One’s Words into Line. Dordrecht: Foris, 119–129. Gettert, Hans (1999), Konstituenz und lateinische Syntax. Aachen: Shaker. Gil, David (2001), ‘Quantifiers’, in: M. Haspelmath et al. (eds), Language Typology and Linguistics Universals: An International Handbook. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1275–1294. Gildenhard, Ingo (2011), Cicero, Against Verres, 2.1.53–86. Cambridge: Open Book. Gildersleeve, Basil L. (1900), Syntax of Classical Greek. From Homer to Demosthenes. New York: American Book Company. Givón, Talmy (1979), On Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic press. ——— (20012), Syntax: An Introduction. 2 vol. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins. Goes, Jan (1999), L’adjectif: entre nom et verbe. Brussels/Paris: Duculot. Grevisse, Maurice (199313), Le Bon usage: grammaire française. Paris/Louvain-laNeuve: Duculot. Grimal, Pierre (1960), Cicéron, Contre C. Pison. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Gross, Gaston (1993), ‘Trois applications de la notion de verbe support’, Information grammaticale 59, 16–22. Gross, Gaston and Sophie de Pontonx (eds) (2004), Verbes supports: nouvel état des lieux. Special issue of Lingvisticae Investigationes 27(2). Habinek, Thomas. N. (1986), The Colometry of Latin Prose. Berkeley/Los Angeles/ London: University of California press. Hackstein, Olav (2003), ‘Apposition and word-order typology in Indo-European’, in: B. Bauer and G.-J. Pinault (eds), Language in Time and Space. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 131–152. Hahn, E. Adelaide (1953), ‘Vestiges of partitive apposition in Latin syntax’, Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 84, 92–123. Hannay, Mike and Evelien Keizer (2005), ‘A Discourse treatment of English nonrestrictive nominal appositions in Functional Discourse Grammar’, in: J.L. Mackenzie and M. Gómez-González (eds), Studies in Functional Discourse Grammar. Bern: P. Lang, 159–194. Happ, Heinz (1976), Grundfragen einer Dependenz-Grammatik des Lateinischen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. Haspelmath, Martin (1997), Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

348

references

Haugen, Einar (1953), ‘On resolving the close apposition’, American Speech 28(3), 165–170. Hawkins, John A. (1978), Definiteness and Indefiniteness: A Study in Reference and Grammaticality Prediction. London: Croom Helm. Heberlein, Friedrich (1996), ‘Über ‘enge’ Appositionen’, in: H. Rosén (ed.), Aspects of Latin. Papers from the Seventh International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, Jerusalem, April 1993. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, 343–359. Heine, Bernd (1997), Possession: Cognitive Sources, Forces, and Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Helbig, Gerhard (1982), Valenz, Satzglieder, semantische Kasus, Satzmodelle. Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie. Hengeveld, Kees (2008), ‘Prototypical and non-prototypical noun phrases in Functional Discourse Grammar’, in: D. Garcia Velasco and J. Rijkhoff (eds), The Noun Phrase in Functional Discourse Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 43– 62. Hetzron, Robert (1978), ‘On the relative order of adjectives’, in: H. Seiler (ed.), Language Universals. Papers from the conference held at Gummersbach near Cologne, Germany, October 3–8, 1976. Tübingen: G. Narr, 165–184. Hoff, François (1995), ‘L’ordre des mots chez César. Les groupements adjectif-nomgénitif rares’, Lalies 15, 245–257. Hoffmann, Maria E. (1987), Negatio contrarii: A Study of Latin Litotes. Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorkum. Hoffmann, Roland (1996), ‘Funktionsverbgefüge im Lateinischen’, in: A. Bammesberger and F. Heberlein (eds), Acten des VIII. internationalen Kolloquiums zur lateinischen Linguistik. Heidelberg: C. Winter, 200–212. ——— (forthcoming), ‘Sentential complements of Latin function verb constructions’, in: G. Haverling (ed.), 16th International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, Uppsala 6th–11th June 2011. Hofmann, Johann Baptist (1924), ‘Syntaktische Gliederungsverschiebungen im Lateinischen infolge Erstarrung ursprünlich appositioneller Verhältnisse’, Indogermanische Forschungen 42, 75–87. ——— (1948), ‘Die lateinischen Totalitätsausdrücke’, in: Mélanges de philologie, de littérature et d’histoire anciennes offerts à J. Marouzeau par ses collègues et élèves étrangers. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 283–290. Hopper, Paul J. and Sandra A. Thompson (1984), ‘The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal grammar’, Language 60(4), 703–753 [reprint: Bas Aarts et al. (eds), Fuzzy Grammar: A Reader. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2004, 247–291]. Jahn, Otto (1845), review of F. Raspe (1844), ‘Die Wortstellung der lateinischen Sprache’, Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie und Paedagogik 45, 41–59. Jänicke, Christian (1886), ‘Die Verbindung der Substantiva durch Präpositionen bei Cicero’, Siebzehnter Jahrsbericht des K.K. Staatsgymnasiums im III. Bezirke in Wien für das Schuljahr 1885/86, Vienna. Jong, Jan R. de (1983), ‘Word order within Latin noun phrases’, in: H. Pinkster (ed.), Latin Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: J. Benjamins, 131–144.

references

349

——— (1986), ‘Hyperbaton en informatiestructuur [Hyperbaton and information structure]’, Lampas 19, 323–331. ——— (1989), ‘The position of the Latin subject’, in: G. Calboli (ed.), Subordination and Other Topics in Latin. Proceedings of the Third Colloquium on Latin Linguistics (Bologna, 1–5 April 1985). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: J. Benjamins, 521– 540. Jonkers, Engbert Jan (1963), Social and Economic Commentary on Cicero’s De Lege Agraria Orationes Tres. Leiden: Brill. Juret, A.C. (19332), Système de la syntaxe latine. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Keil, Henricus (1855–1880), Grammatici Latini, 8 vol. Leipzig: Teubner. Keizer, Evelien (1995), ‘The discourse function of close appositions’, Neophilologus 89, 447–467. ——— (2005), ‘Close appositions’, in: C. de Groot and K. Hengeveld (eds), Morphosyntactic Expression in Functional Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 381–417. ——— (2007), The English Noun Phrase: The Nature of Linguistic Categorization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kircher-Durand, Chantal (1996), ‘L’adjectif en latin: aspects flexionnels, syntaxiques, énonciatifs et lexicaux’, in: H. Rosén (ed.), Aspects of Latin. Papers from the Seventh International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, Jerusalem, 19–23 avril 1993. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, 221–229. ——— (ed.) (2002), Création lexicale: la formation des noms par dérivation suffixale. Grammaire fondamentale du latin, vol. 9. Louvain: Peeters. ——— (2010), ‘L’ordre des mots dans quelques syntagmes nominaux de la Guerre civile de César’, in: O. Spevak (ed.), Le syntagme nominal en latin. Paris: l’Harmattan, 41–55. Kłósek, Izabela (1984), Place de l’adjectif épithète dans le groupe nominal en français et en polonais. Poznań: University Press. Klussmann, Rudolf (1877), Tulliana. Berlin: Mayer and Mueller. Koestermann, Erich (1971), Bellum Jugurthinum, C. Sallustius Crispus. Heidelberg: C. Winter. Kolářová, Veronika (2006), ‘Valency of deverbal nouns in Czech’, The Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics 86, 1–19; http://ufal.mff.cuni.cz/pbml-81-90.html ——— (forthcoming), ‘Specific valency behaviour of Czech deverbal nouns’, in: O. Spevak (ed.), Noun Valency. König, Ekkehard (2001), ‘Internal and external possesors’, in: M. Haspelmath et al. (eds), Language Typology and Language Universals, vol. 2. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 970–978. König, Ekkehard and Martin Haspelmath (1997), ‘Les constructions à possesseur externe dans les langues de l’Europe’, in: J. Feuillet (ed.), Actance et valence dans les langues de l’Europe. Berlin: Mouton, 525–606. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria (2001), ‘Adnominal possession’, in M. Haspelmath et al. (eds), Language Typology and Language Universals, vol. 2. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 960–970. ——— (2003), ‘A woman of sin, a man of duty and a hell of a mess: Non-determiner genitives in Swedish’, in: F. Plank (ed.), Noun Phrase Structure in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 515–558. Kroll, Wilhelm (1927), ‘Die Sprache des Sallust’, Glotta 15, 280–305.

350

references

Kühner, Raphael and Friedrich Holzweissig (1912), Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache, 1, Elementar-, Formen- und Wortlehre. Hannover: Hahn. Kuryłowicz, Jerzy (1960 [1949]), ‘Le problème du classement des cas’, in: Esquisses linguistiques. Wrocław: Akademia nauk, 131–150. Landgraf, Gustav (1896), ‘Der Accusativ der Richtung’, Archiv für lateinische Lexicographie und Grammatik 10, 391–402. Langslow, David (2012), ‘Praetor urbanus—urbanus praetor: Some aspects of attributive adjective placement in Latin’, in: Philomen Probert and Andreas Willi (eds), Laws and Rules in Indo-European. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 279–312. Laughton, Eric (1964), The Participle in Cicero. London: Oxford University Press. Lavency, Marius (1986/87), ‘Pour définir une fonction d’apposé en latin classique’, Cuadernos de filología clásica 20, 375–383. ——— (1991), ‘The three modifiers of the latin NP’, in: R. Coleman (ed.), New Studies in Latin Linguistics. Selected Papers from the 4th International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, Cambridge, April 1987. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, 269–280. ——— (19972), VSVS. Grammaire latine. Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters. ——— (1998), La proposition relative. Grammaire fondamentale du latin, vol 5.2. Louvain: Peeters. ——— (2000), ‘Syntagmes à l’ablatif en latin classique: conditionnement et valeurs’, Latomus 54(4), 819–841. ——— (2003), ‘La proposition infinitive’, in: C. Bodelot (ed.), Les propositions complétives en latin. Grammaire fondamentale du latin, vol. 10. Louvain: Peeters, 97–192. Lebreton, Jules (1901), Études sur la langue et la grammaire de Cicéron. Paris: Hachette [repr. Hildesheim/New York: G. Olms, 1979]. Ledgeway, Adam (2012), From Latin to Romance: Morphosyntactic Typology and Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lee, Donald W. (1952), ‘Close apposition: An unresolved pattern’, American Speech 27(4), 268–275. Leech, Geoffrey (19812), Semantics. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Leeman, Anton D. and Harm Pinkster (1981), M. Tullius Cicero, De oratore libri III: Kommentar, vol. 1, Buch I, 1–165. Heidelberg: Winter. ——— (1989), M. Tullius Cicero, De oratore libri III: Kommentar, vol. 3, Buch II, 99–290. Heidelberg: Winter. Le Grand Gaffiot: Dictionnaire latin-français (2000), nouvelle édition revue et augmentée sous la direction de Pierre Flobert. Paris: Hachette. Lehmann, Christian (1983), ‘Rektion und syntaktische Relationen’, Folia linguistica 17, 339–378. ——— (1984), Der Relativsatz: Typologie seiner Strukturen, Theorie seiner Funktionen, Kompendium seiner Grammatik. Tübingen: Narr. ——— (1985), ‘On grammatical relationality’, Folia linguistica 19, 67–109. ——— (1991), ‘The Latin nominal group in typological perspective’, in: R. Coleman (ed.), New Studies in Latin Linguistics. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, 203–232. ——— (1998), ‘Regiones espaciales en perspectiva tipológica’, in: B. GarcíaHernández (ed.), Estudios de lingüística latina. Actas del IX coloquio internacional de lingüística latina, Universidad autónoma de Madrid, 14–18 de abril de 1997. Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas, 455–465. ——— (2005), ‘Sur l’évolution du pronom possessif’, in: S. Kiss, L. Mondin and

references

351

G. Salvi (eds), Latin et langues romanes. Études de linguistique offertes à József Herman à l’occasion de son 80ème anniversaire. Tübingen: M. Niemeyer, 37–46. Lisón Huguet, Nicolás (2001), El orden de palabras en los grupos nominales en latín. Zaragoza: University Press. Löfstedt, Bengt (1958), ‘Zum Gebrauch der lateinischen distributiven Zahlwörter’, Eranos 56, 71–117. Löfstedt, Einar (1911), Philologischer Kommentar zur Peregrinatio Aetheriae: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der lateinischen Sprache. Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksell. ——— (1928), ‘Syntactica’, in: Studien und Beiträge zur historischen Syntax des Lateins, vol. 1. Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup. Longrée, Dominique (1990), ‘À propos du concept d’‘apposition’: les constructions rex Ancus et urbs Roma’, Information grammaticale 45, 8–13. ——— (1991), ‘La phrase à rallonge chez Tacite’, in: W. Haase (ed.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt 2, 33, 4. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2539–2580. ——— (1996), ‘La concurrence entre ‘rallonge’ et ‘parataxe’ dans l’œuvre de Tacite: conditionnements linguistiques, choix stylistiques’, in: H. Rosén (ed.), Aspects of Latin. Papers from the Seventh International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, Jerusalem, 19–23 avril 1993. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, 483–496. Luraghi, Silvia (2010a), ‘The rise (and possible downfall) of configurationality’, in: S. Luraghi and V. Bubenik (eds), Continuum Companion to Historical Linguistics. London/New York: Continuum, 212–229. ——— (2010b), ‘Adverbial phrases’, in: Ph. Baldi and P. Cuzzolin (eds), New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax, vol. 2: Constituent Syntax: Adverbial Phrases, Adverbs, Mood, Tense. Berlin: De Gruyter/Mouton, 19–107. Lyons, John (1977), Semantics, 2 vol. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Madvig, Johan Nikolai (1878 [1841]), A Latin Grammar for the Use of Schools, transl. by George Woods, Oxford: James Parker. Manuwald, Gesine (2007), Cicero, Philippics 3–9, ed. with introduction, translation and commentary. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Marouzeau, Jules (1922), L’ordre des mots dans la phrase latine, vol. I. Les groupes nominaux. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. ——— (1948), ‘Place de la préposition’, Revue des Études latines 25, 298–327. ——— (1949), Quelques aspects de la formation du latin littéraire. Paris: Klincksieck. ——— (1953), L’ordre des mots en latin. Volume complémentaire. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. ——— (19624), Traité de stylistique latine. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Martínez Pastor, Marcelo (1974), ‘Adjetivo y genitivo adnominal en latín. Discussion y aportaciones’, Durius 2(4), 221–257. Maurel, Jean-Pierre (1985), ‘Génitif et quantification’, in: Ch. Touratier (ed.), Syntaxe et Latin. Actes du IIe Congrès international de linguistique latine (Aix-en-Provence, 28–31 mars 1983). Aix-en-Provence: Presses universitaires, 121–137. ——— (1989), Le Syntagme nominal en latin: syntaxe et sémantique (les emplois du génitif chez Plaute et Térence). Dissertation, University of Strasbourg. Menge, Hermann (196013), Repetitorium der lateinischen Syntax und Stilistik. München: Max Hueber.

352

references

——— (2000), Lehrbuch der lateinischen Syntax und Semantik, revised by Th. Burkard, M. Schauer and F. Maier. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Mikulová, Marie et al. (2008), Annotations on the Tectogrammatical Level in the Prague Dependency Treebank, Annotation manual, Part 1: Chapters 1–6. Prague: Universitas Carolina Pragensis. Milner, Jean-Claude (1978), De la syntaxe à l’interprétation: quantités, insultes, exclamations. Paris: Éditions du Seuil. Neubourg, Leo de (1977), ‘Sur le caractère analogique de la place de l’adjectif en latin’, Orbis 26(2), 395–403. ——— (1978), ‘Arguments supplémentaires en faveur de l’analogie dans l’ordre des mots’, Orbis 27(2), 352–372. Nøjgaard, Morten (1995), Les adverbes français: essai de description fonctionnelle, vol. 3 Adverbiaux modaux et quantificatifs. Copenhagen: Munksgaard. Nutting, Herbert C. (1932), ‘On the adnominal genitive in Latin’, University of California Publications in Classical Philology 10, 245–308. Ojeda, Almerindo E. (1997), ‘A semantics for the counting numerals in Latin’, Journal of Semantics 14, 143–171. Orlandini, Anna (1983), ‘Une analyse sémantique et pragmatique des pronoms indéfinis en latin’, in: H. Pinkster (ed.), Latin Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Proceedings of the 1st International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, Amsterdam 1981. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, 229–240. ——— (1995), Il riferimento del nome: Un’analisi semantico-pragmatica del nome latino. Bologna: CLUEB. Ott, Rebekka (forthcoming), ‘Rules anc constraints: Shedding new light on the placement of attributive adjectives in Latin’, in: G. Haverling (ed.), 16th International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, Uppsala 6th–11th June 2011. Panagl, Oswald (2006), ‘Zur verbalen Konstruktion deverbativer Nomina’, in: E. Crespo et al. (eds), Word Classes and Related Topics in Ancient Greek. Louvain-LaNeuve: Peeters, 91–104. Panchón Cabañeros, Federico (1986), ‘Orden de palabras en latín (César, BG, Cic. Pro Milone)’, Studia Zamorensia 7, 213–229. Panevová, Jarmila (forthcoming), ‘Contribution of valency to the analysis of language’, in: O. Spevak (ed.), Noun Valency. Panhuis, Dirk G.J. (1982), The Communicative Perspective in the Sentence. A Study of Latin Word Order. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins. PDT Manual: Anotace na tektogramatické rovině Pražského závislostního korpusu. Referenční příručka [Annotations on the Tectogrammatical Level in the Prague Dependency Treebank], The Prague Dependency Treebank 2.0, http://ufal.mff .cuni.cz/pdt2.0/doc/manuals/cz/t-layer/html/index.html Pease, Arthur Stanley (1955–1958), M. Tulli Ciceronis De natura deorum, 2 vol. Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press. ——— (1963 [1920–1923]), M. Tulli Ciceronis De divinatione libri duo. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Pieroni, Silvia (2010), ‘Deixis and anaphora’, in: Ph. Baldi and P. Cuzzolin (eds), New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax, vol. 3: Constituent Syntax: Quantification, Numerals, Possession, Anaphora. Berlin: De Gruyter/Mouton, 389–501.

references

353

Pinkster, Harm (1972), On Latin Adverbs. Amsterdam: North-Holland. ——— (1983), ‘Praedicativum. Quantifying adjectives and adjectives denoting physical or mental state’, in: H. Pinkster (ed.), Latin Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, 199–217. ——— (1985), ‘Latin cases and valency grammar. Some problems’, in: Ch. Touratier (ed.), Syntaxe et Latin. Actes du IIe Congrès international de linguistique latine (Aix-en-Provence, 28–31 mars 1983). Aix-en-Provence: Presses universitaires, 163– 189. ——— (1990), ‘La coordination’, L’information grammaticale 46, 8–13. ——— (2005), ‘The use of is and ille in Seneca Rhetor’, in: S. Kiss, L. Mondin and G. Salvi (eds), Latin et langues romanes. Études de linguistique offertes à József Herman à l’occasion de son 80ème anniversaire. Tübingen: M. Niemeyer, 57–64. ——— (2010), ‘The use of quia and quoniam in Cicero, Seneca, and Tertullian’, in: B.R. Page and A.D. Rubin (eds), Studies in Classical Linguistics in Honor of Philip Baldi. Leiden: Brill, 81–96. ——— (forthcoming) The Oxford Latin Syntax. Poccetti, Paolo (2011), ‘Vltimus et proximus entre fonctions anaphoriques et fonctions déictiques du latin et des langues sabelliques aux développements romans’, in: M. Fruyt and O. Spevak (eds), La quantification en latin. Paris: l’Harmattan, 273–290. Powell, Jonathan G.F. (2010) ‘Hyperbaton and register in Cicero’, in: E. Dickey and A. Chahoud (eds), Colloquial and Literary Latin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 163–185. Pruvost-Versteeg, Géraldine (2008), Une approche du latin parlé: le datif chez Plaute, Caton, Cicéron (Correspondance) et Pétrone. Dissertation, Université de Paris IV-Sorbonne. ——— (forthcoming), ‘Dativus sympatheticus et tour possessif chez Plaute: concurrence ou complémentarité?’, in: G. Haverling (ed.), 16th International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, Uppsala 6th–11th June 2011. Pultrová, Lucie (2011), The Latin Deverbative Nouns and Adjectives. Prague: Karolinum Press. Quirk, Randolph et al. (1985), A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman. Rijkhoff, Jan (2001), ‘Dimensions of adnominal modification’, in: M. Haspelmath et al. (eds), Language Typology and Linguistics Universals, vol 1. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 522–533. ——— (2002), The Noun Phrase. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ——— (2008), ‘Descriptive and discourse-referential modifiers in a layered model of the noun phrase’, Linguistics 46(4), 789–820. ——— (2010), ‘Functional categories in the noun phrase: On jacks-of-all-trades and one-trick-ponies in Danish, Dutch and German’, Deutsche Sprache 38(3), 97–123. Ripoll, Arthur (2007), Les emplois des formations adverbiales sur thèmes d’adjectifs en latin. Dissertation, Université de Paris X—Nanterre. ——— (2010a), ‘À propos de la quantification en latin: de la nature de multum’, in: P. Anreiter and M. Kienpointner (eds), Latin Linguistics Today. Akten des 15. Internationalen Kolloquiums zur Lateinischen Linguistik, Innsbruck, 4.-9. April 2009. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, 305–316.

354

references

——— (2010b), ‘Le syntagme nominal composé d’un substantif et d’un adverbe en latin’, in: O. Spevak (ed.), Le syntagme nominal en latin. Paris: l’Harmattan, 139–162. Risselada, Rodie (1984), ‘Coordination and juxtaposition of adjectives in the Latin NP’, Glotta 62, 202–231. Roesch, Sophie (2001), ‘Les emplois de verbum et sermo dans les expressions à verbe support verba facere, verba habere et sermonem habere’, in: C. Moussy (ed.), De lingua Latina novae quaestiones. Actes du Xe colloque international de linguistique latine, Paris-Sèvres, 19–23 avril 1999. Louvain: Peeters, 859– 874. Rohde, Johann Dietrich (1884), Adiectivum quo ordine apud Caesarem et in Ciceronis orationibus coniunctum sit cum substantivo. Hamburg: Meissner. Romero, Maria Isabel (1996), ‘The partitive reading of summus mons’, in: H. Rosén (ed.), Aspects of Latin. Papers from the Seventh International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, Jerusalem, April 1993. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, 361–376. Rosén, Hannah (1981), Studies in the Syntax of the Verbal Noun in Early Latin. München: Fink. ——— (1983), ‘The mechanisms of Latin nominalization and conceptualization in historical view’, in: W. Haase (ed.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt 2, 29, 1. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 179–211. ——— (1990), ‘La coordination asymétrique comme critère de fonction syntaxique en latin’, Information grammaticale 46, 34–37. ——— (1998), ‘Latin presentative sentences’, in: B. García-Hernández (ed.), Estudios de lingüística latina. Actas del IX coloquio internacional de lingüística latina, Universidad autónoma de Madrid, 14–18 de abril de 1997. Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas, 723–742. ——— (2002), ‘Equating and comparing. Remarks on apposition, adjective gradation, and equation sentences in Latin’, in: G. Calboli (ed.), Papers on Grammar vol. 8. Rome: Herder, 209–228. ——— (2008), ‘Latin epitaxis in historical and typological view’, in: G. Calboli (ed.), Papers on Grammar vol. 10. Rome: Herder, 205–242. ——— (2009), ‘Coherence, sentence modification, and sentence-part modification—the contribution of particles’, in: Ph. Baldi and P. Cuzzolin (eds), New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax, vol. 1: Syntax of the Sentence. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 317–441. Rosenkranz, Bernhard (1933), ‘Die Stellung des attributiven Genetivs im Italischen’, Indogermanische Forschungen 51, 131–139. Ross, John Robert (1973), ‘Nouniness’, in: O. Fujimura (ed.), Three Dimensions of Linguistic Theory, Tokyo: TEC Company, 137–257 [reprint: B. Aarts et al. (eds), Fuzzy grammar: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004, 351–422]. Sasse, Hans-Jürgen (2001), ‘Scales between nouniness and verbiness’, in: M. Haspelmath et al. (eds), Language Typology and Linguistics Universals, vol. 1. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 495–509. Schrickx, Josine (2011), Lateinische Modalpartikeln: nempe, quippe, scilicet, videlicet und nimirum. Leiden: Brill. Schwyzer, Edouard (1947), ‘Zur Apposition’, in: Abhandlungen der Deutschen Akade-

references

355

mie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Jahrg. 1945/46, Philosophisch-historische Klasse 3, 1–16. Seiler, Hansjakob (1978), ‘Determination: A functional dimension for interlanguage comparison’, in: H. Seiler (ed.), Language Universals. Papers from the conference held at Gummersbach near Cologne, Germany, October 3–8, 1976. Tübingen: G. Narr, 301–328. ——— (1983), Possession as an Operational Dimension of Language. Tübingen: G. Narr. Serbat, Guy (1996), Nominatif, vocatif, accusatif, génitif, datif. Grammaire fondamentale du latin, vol. 1. Louvain: Peeters. Shackleton Bailey, David R. (1965), Cicero’s Letters to Atticus. 2, 58–54B.C. 46–93 (Books III and IV). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ——— (1986), Philippics, Cicero, edited and translated. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press. Siewierska, Anna and Ludmila Uhlířová (1998), ‘An overview of word order in Slavic languages’, in: Anna Siewierska (ed.), Constituent Order in the Languages of Europe, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 105–149. Simone, Raffaele and Francesca Masini (2007), ‘Support nouns and verbal features. A case study from Italian’, Verbum 29(1–2), 143–172. Simone, Raffaele and Anna Pompei (2007), ‘Traits verbaux dans les noms et les formes nominalisées du verbe’, in: R. Mir-Samii (ed.), Nominalisations. Faits de langues 30, 43–58. Snellman, Walter J. (1920), Die bei Caesar gebräuchlichen Stellungsformen eines adjektivischen Attributs und attributiven Genetivs als nähere Bestimmungen desselben Substantivs. Helsinki: Suomalainen tiedeakatemia. Spevak, Olga (2010a), Constituent Order in Classical Latin Prose. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins. ——— (2010b), ‘Le syntagme nominal en latin: les travaux des trente dernières années’, in: O. Spevak (ed.), Le syntagme nominal en latin: nouvelles contributions. Paris: l’Harmattan, 23–40. ——— (2013), ‘La dislocation à droite en latin’, Glotta 89, 195–221. ——— (forthcoming a), ‘Appositional construction or noun phrase? On the status of postnominal modifiers in Latin and Ancient Greek’. ——— (forthcoming b), ‘Noun valency in Latin’, in: O. Spevak (ed.), Noun Valency. Sutter, Marc de (1986), ‘A theory of word order within the Latin noun phrase, based on Cato’s De agri cultura’, in: C. Deroux (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History 4. Brussels: Latomus, 151–183. Svennung, Josef (1958), Anredeformen, vergleichende Forschungen zur indirekten Anrede in der dritten Person und zum Nominativ für den Vokativ. Uppsala: Almqvist-Wiksells. Syme, Ronald (1964), Sallust. Berkeley: University of California Press. Szantyr, Anton (19722), Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik mit dem allgemeinen Teil der lateinischen Grammatik. München: C.K. Beck. Tiffou, Étienne (1974), ‘Salluste et la géographie’, in R. Chevalier (ed.), Littérature gréco-romaine et géographie historique. Mélanges offerts à Roger Dion. Paris: Picard, 151–160. Torrego, M. Esperanza (1989), ‘Caracterización funcional de los sintagmas preposi-

356

references

cionales en latín: pro + abl., contra, adversus, in + ac.’, Actas del VII congreso español de estudios clásicos. Madrid: Universidad Complutense, 609–616. ——— (1991), ‘The genitive with verbal nouns in Latin: A functional analysis’, in: R. Coleman (ed.), New Studies in Latin Linguistics. Selected Papers from the 4th International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, Cambridge, April 1987. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, 281–294. ——— (1998), ‘Praeter + acusativo: descripción funcional y semántica’, in: M.E. Torrego (ed.), Nombres y funciones: estudios de sintaxis griega y latina. Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas, 111–145. Touratier, Christian (1980), La Relative: essai de théorie syntaxique, à partir de faits latins, français, allemands, anglais, grecs, hébreux, etc. Paris: C. Klincksieck. ——— (ed.) (1991), ‘Compléments prédicatifs et attributs du complément d’objet en latin’, Langues et langage 1. Aix-en-Provence: Presses universitaires. ——— (1994), Syntaxe latine. Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters. ——— (2010), ‘Qu’est-ce qu’un syntagme nominal dans une langue sans article comme le latin?’, in: O. Spevak (ed.), Le syntagme nominal en latin. Paris: l’Harmattan, 121–137. Traglia, Antonio (1974), Opere di Marco Terenzio Varrone. Torino: Unione tip. ed. torinese. Traina, Alfonso (1951/52), ‘L’apposizione epitetica dei nomi propri di città nei determinativi di luogo, in latino’, Atti dell’Istituto Veneto di scienze, lettere ed arti 110, 57–78. Uría, Javier (2006), ‘Personnal names and invective in Cicero’, in: J. Booth (ed.), What’s in a Name? The Significance of Proper Names in Classical Latin Literature. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales, 13–31. Vairel-Carron, Hélène (1975). Exclamation, ordre et défense: analyse de deux systèmes syntaxiques en latin. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Vaughan, Alden Gibson (1942), Latin adjectives with partitive meaning in Republican literature. Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Baltimore: Linguistic society of America. Villa, Jesús de la (2010), ‘Numerals’, in: Ph. Baldi and P. Cuzzolin (eds), New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax, vol. 3: Constituent Syntax: Quantification, Numerals, Possession, Anaphora. Berlin: De Gruyter/Mouton, 175–238. Viti, Carlotta (2010), ‘Observations on genitive word order in Latin’, in: O. Spevak (ed.), Le syntagme nominal en latin. Paris: l’Harmattan, 77–96. Vretska, Karl (1976), C. Sallustius Crispus: De Catilinae coniuratione, 2 vol. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Wackernagel, Jacob (1908), ‘Genetiv und Adjektiv’, in: Mélanges de linguistique offerts à M. Ferdinand de Saussure. Paris: H. Champion, 123–152 [Kleine Schriften, vol. II, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1969, 1346–1373]. ——— (1920–1924), Vorlesungen über Syntax mit besonderer Berücksichtigung von Griechisch, Lateinisch und Deutsch, 2 vol. Basel: E. Birkhäuser [Jacob Wackernagel, Lectures on Syntax: With Special Reference to Greek, Latin, and Germanic, edited with notes and bibliography by David Langslow. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009]. Walde, Alois and Johann Baptist Hofmann (1938–1956), Lateinisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, 3 vol. Heidelberg: C. Winter.

references

357

Wharton, David (1996), ‘Attributive prepositional phrases in Latin prose’, in: A. Bammesberger and F. Heberlein (eds), Acten des VIII. internationalen Kolloquiums zur lateinischen Linguistik. Heidelberg: C. Winter, 165–175. ——— (2009), ‘On the distribution of adnominal prepositional phrases in Latin prose’, Classical Philology 104, 184–207. Wilmet, Marc (1986), La détermination nominale: quantification et caractérisation. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Wisse, Jakob et al. (2008), M. Tullius Cicero, De oratore libri III, vol. 5: A Commentary on Book III, 96–230. Heidelberg: Winter. Wistrand, Erik (1933), Vitruviusstudier. Göteborg: Eranos’ förlag. Wölfflin, Eduard (1886), ‘Toti = omnes’, Archiv für lateinische Lexicographie und Grammatik 3, 470. Wuilleumier, Pierre (1973), Philippiques V à XIV / Cicéron, texte établi et traduit. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Zetzel, James E.G. (2009), Ten Speeches / Marcus Tullius Cicero, translated, with notes and introduction. Indianapolis: Hackett publishing.

GLOSSARY OF LINGUISTIC TERMS

Adjective a lexical category (word class) that attributes a property to a referent. It can be used attributively or predicatively (with a copular verb). It is subject to agreement and has comparative and superlative forms. There are syntactic and semantic restrictions applying to some categories of adjectives. Adjectives expressing a relative position adjectives that do not express a property of a referent but situate it in space and time. These localising modifiers, which serve for identifying a referent, include deictic modifiers (hodiernus ‘today’s’), anaphoric modifiers (proximus ‘last/next’), and words such as summus ‘the highest’ or medius ‘in the middle’, which sometimes allow a partitive reading: medio in foro ‘in the middle of the marketplace’. Ordinal numerals (primus ‘the first’) also belong to this category. Apposition a nominal constituent added to a noun (phrase) that fulfills the same syntactic function as the noun (phrase) modified by it. Appositions provide further information about the referent. Omission of either does not affect acceptability of the sentence from a syntactic point of view. Two types of apposition are distinguished: close (or “restrictive”) appositions: Cicero consul ‘Cicero the consul’, and free (or “nonrestrictive”) appositions: Dionysius, servus meus ‘Dionysius, my slave’. Argument (obligatory complement) a complement that is required by valency of a verb, noun or adjective. For example the verb laudo in Atticus scripta mea laudat ‘Atticus praises my writings’ has two arguments (the agent: the first argument and the patient: the second argument); the noun responsum in responsum haruspicum ‘the answer of the soothsayers’ has one argument expressed (the subjective genitive expressing the agent); the adjective utilis in utilis plebi Romanae ‘advantageous to the Roman people’ has one argument (the recipient). Classifying adjectives adjectives that further specify the kind of an entity. They relate to any feature that may serve to classify entities into a system of smaller sets (purpose and function, status and rank, origin, etc.), e.g. onerarius ‘of transport’, civilis ‘civil’, or publicus ‘public’. They are sometimes called “denominal” or “relational” adjectives. Contrast explicit or implicit confrontation of one element with another; e.g. si aquam marinam non habebis, facito aquam salsam ‘if you have no sea-water, make a brine’.

360

glossary of linguistic terms

Discontinuous noun phrase a noun phrase whose components are not adjacent but are separated by various elements, e.g. hoc veteres non probant milites ‘veteran soldiers do not approve this’. Emphasis subjective evaluation of an entity made by the author, e.g. mihi crede, mirabilis vir est ‘believe me, he is a wonderful man’. Certain adjectives such as magnus ‘big’, talis ‘such’, praeclarus ‘famous’, or adjectives in the superlative are often used with emphasis. Focus the most informative part of a sentence, e.g. focal modifier: ‘magnas vero agere gratias Thais mihi?’ ‘you say that Thais thanks me very much?’. Focal noun phrase: boves vetulos … vendat ‘he should sell wornout oxen …’. Framed noun phrase a noun phrase opened by a determiner or another modifier with a high scope and closed by the head noun, e.g. his tribus omnibus iudiciis ‘by all these three decisions’, totam de dis inmortalibus opinionem ‘the entire notion of the immortal gods’. Generic noun phrase a noun phrase that refers to a class of entities. Given information information already supplied by the previous context. Identifier a modifier that is related to referential properties of a noun. In Latin, idem ‘the same’ and alius ‘another’, referring to identity and otherness belong to this category. Inferrable information information that can be deduced from the previous context, the speech situation, or shared knowledge. Information status the degree of availability (new / given information) of a constituent to the addressee. Modifier any expansion of a noun. Modifier is used as a generic expression covering determiners (demonstratives), quantifiers, possessives, adjectives, prepositional phrases, and embedded predications (relative clauses, complement clauses, gerunds, etc.) that expand a noun. New information information that is not (yet) available to the addressee either by means of the speech situation or by the previous context and shared knowledge. Nominal quantifier a non-numerical quantifier that takes the form of a noun (phrase), e.g. multitudo ‘quantity’, magnus numerus ‘great number’. Non-referential noun (phrase) a noun (phrase) that does not refer to a concrete entity in the external world; it attributes a property to another noun (phrase), i.e. describes it. Orders of entities semantic classification of nouns into three orders that distinguishes between spatio-temporal entities (first-order entities):

glossary of linguistic terms

361

equus ‘horse’, temporal entities (second-order entities): dies ‘day’, and non-spatial and non-temporal propositional contents (third-order entities): opinio ‘opinion’. Pronoun a word class that functions as a substitute of the noun. It can be used adnominally (ille homo) in a noun phrase or pronominally (ille). Pronouns form a heterogeneous group that shares the property of deixis (reference to the speech situation) or anaphora (reference to the context). They comprise: demonstrative, indefinite, relative, interrogative, personal, and possessive pronouns. Traditionally, negatives (nemo) and non-numerical quantifiers are classified as pronouns. Qualifying adjectives adjectives that express qualities such as dimension, age, value, colour, physical properties, or human qualities; e.g. novus ‘new’, vetus ‘old’, niger ‘black’, felix ‘happy’. Quantifying modifiers modifiers that evaluate the referent as to its number. Quantifying modifiers comprise non-numerical quantifiers, e.g. omnes ‘all’, multi ‘many’, nonnulli ‘some’, and numerical quantifiers, e.g. duo ‘two’, milia ‘thousands’. Referential noun (phrase) a noun (phrase) that refers to a specific or a non-specific entity in the external world. Referential unit a noun phrase whose modifiers are semantically not prominent. In particular, this is the case when the reference is unique and no subset of competing entities is available: e.g. senatus consultum ‘decree of the Senate’, deorum honores ‘the honours of the gods’, hominum memoria ‘human memory’. Satellite (optional complement) a complement that is not required by valency, for example the possessor in domus Clodi ‘Clodius’ house’, expressions of quality, content, material: corona ex asperis herbis ‘a crown of wild herbs’, etc. Secondary predicate secondary predicate (“praedicativum”) is a constituent that specifies the state-of-affairs expressed by the verb, e.g. Amphitruo uxorem salutat laetus (Pl. Am. 676) ‘Amphitruo is happy to greet his wife’. Secondary predicates function as satellites. Semantic prominence this term is used here for modifiers in postposition that are semantically more important than their head noun. They further specify the referent: they have a specifying value. Further specification of an entity makes it possible to classify it into a certain category, within a subset of other (similar) entities. The concept of semantic prominence is used especially for classifying adjectives, genitive complements, and prepositional phrases e.g. tribunus militaris ‘military tribune’, lex Iulia ‘the Julian law’, ad templum Concordiae ‘towards the Temple of Concord’, but

362

glossary of linguistic terms

numerals can also have semantically prominent value: elephanti triginta ‘thirty elephants’. See also “referential unit”. Shared knowledge information supplied by common knowledge shared by a linguistic community. For example, the referent of ille calamitosus dies ‘the day of disaster’, used in the context of inhabitants of Syracuse, is available to the addressee on the basis of shared knowledge (the day of the capture of Syracuse by Marcellus in 212). Specific and non-specific referents an expression is specific if the speaker presupposes the existence and unique identifiability of its referent; e.g. I have bought a car (specific) vs. I want to buy a car (non-specific). Specifying value see “semantic prominence”. Topic the element about which a sentence provides information; e.g. the following sentence is about the land of Campania (ager Campanus— Topic): At enim ager Campanus hac lege dividetur. ‘But the land of Campania will be divided by this law.’ Valency the semantic requirement of complements. Obligatory complements are called “arguments”, optional complements “satellites”. Nouns requiring one argument are called “monovalent” (e.g. adventus ‘arrival’), those requiring two arguments “bivalent” (amor ‘love’); nouns that do not semantically require any complement are “zero-valent” (aedificium ‘building’). See also “argument”.

INDEX LOCORUM Aristoteles Hist. Anim. 552b

294n

B. Afr. 36.2

270n17, 322n103

Caesar Civ. 1.3.6 1.5.3 1.8.2 1.8.4 1.14.4 1.15.1 1.23.2 1.23.2 1.26.1 1.27.6 1.30.4 1.40.1 1.40.3 1.45.2 1.46.5 1.48.3 1.48.5 1.50.6 1.52.2 1.58.5 1.64.7 1.69.1 1.78.2 1.80.5 2.6.4 2.17.1 2.18.1 2.18.3 2.18.4 2.18.5 2.23.3 2.42.5 2.44.1 3.2.2 3.2.3

274 28 18 274 93 148 55 120n69 76 50, 131 136 294 126 291 116 303 16 112 125 117 66 176 15, 123n65 49 179 29 125 121 15 30n61 135n 114 49 116 243

3.3.1 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.4 3.7.2 3.8.3 3.9.1 3.9.3 3.10.1 3.10.2 3.11.2 3.15.2 3.16.1 3.16.5 3.19.1 3.19.7 3.20.1 3.20.5 3.21.1 3.24.1 3.27.2 3.28.4 3.29.2 3.29.3 3.35.2 3.36.3 3.36.6 3.37.1 3.37.2 3.39.2 3.45.1 3.46.1 3.47.3 3.49.1 3.52.1 3.53.5 3.54.1 3.57.5 3.63.1 3.63.7 3.69.2 3.71.4 3.72.2 3.73.5

250 281 177 316 209, 248 231 231, 247 257, 226 302 254 245 85 220, 288 240 11, 295 112 231 134 281 155 178 121 112 249 304 300 247 301 220 136 324 226 121 16, 241 226 255 234 241n34 242 232 223 138 121 255, 289

364 Civ. (cont.) 3.75.3 3.76.1 3.78.4 3.80.1 3.80.2 3.80.3 3.80.7 3.82.1 3.82.3 3.83.1 3.86.5 3.87.4 3.87.7 3.88.4 3.89.1 3.91.1 3.94.3 3.95.2 3.96.4 3.97.3 3.99.3 3.101.1 3.101.2 3.101.3 3.101.6 3.102.8 3.103.2 3.105.5 3.106.1 3.108.1 3.109.4 3.111.1 3.111.3 3.112.8 Gal. 1.1.2 1.2.3 1.4.2 1.5.2 1.10.1 1.12.1–13.1 1.15.5 1.23.1 1.30.2 1.38.4 1.48.3 2.4.3 2.5.4 2.6.1 2.12.1–2 2.16.1–2

index locorum 244 113 246, 255 221, 287 247 243 85 220 249 235 197 245 223 227 258 164, 227, 314 227 257 135 230 256 52n108 228 250 246 242 199, 314 236 117 275 249 235 256 245 299 296 115 128 179 293 118 312 30n64 296 118 194 293 287 286 294

2.21.2 3.5.3 3.13.4 3.14.7 3.15.1 3.16.1 3.18.1 4.16.8 4.21.1 4.22.4 4.24.2 4.28.1 4.29.2 4.33.1 4.36.1 5.4.1 5.5.2 5.6.6 5.16.3 5.30.1 5.35.6 5.42.1 5.48.7 5.57.4 6.3.5 6.17.2 6.29.2 6.30.1 6.40.4 6.40.8 7.5.4 7.11.1 7.20.10 7.32.4 7.34.1 7.57.1 7.59.5 7.64.4 7.73.2 7.83.5

194 253 61 29 48 191 194 121 135n 117 198 116 135 99 153 153 91, 116 32 100 66 264 80 21 195 187 202 226n17 189 160 122 293 290 138 160 287 287 212 48 121 212

Ps. Caper GL VII

23

Cato Agr. pr. 2 1.4 1.7 2.7 3.2 5.3

90 90 15 88 89 13

index locorum 6.1 7.1 7.4 10.4 12 18.3 27 30 38.1 40.1 50.1 50.2 56 88.1 96 102 117 133.2 141.2 153 157.3 Celsus 6.11 Cicero Ac. 1.13 2.11 Agr. 1.5 1.13 1.17 1.23 2.1 2.10 2.12 2.21 2.23 2.28 2.57 2.58 2.68 2.70 2.76 2.78 2.84 3.4 3.15 3.39 Amic. 6

75 89 76 66 9 322 81 89 89 57 61 63 16 82 89 47 9 58 316 59n124 15 123n65

169 311 204 51 31 324 53n45 132 71 67, 75 185n 186 75n154 204 132 114, 149 148, 304 148 54, 114 253n45 148 75n154 322

37 98 Arch. 8 10 21 Att. 1.1.3 1.8.1 1.14.1 1.19.4 2.2.2 2.7.1 2.8.2 2.15.2 2.19.5 3.6 4.1.5 4.1.7 4.3.3 4.9.2 4.13.1 5.18.1 5.18.2 5.20.1 6.2.3 6.2.6 6.5.3 6.8.4 7.1.4 7.4.3 7.7.3 7.13a.3 8.10 10.4.6 10.8.10 10.15.4 11.17 13.1.3 13.9.1 13.18 13.19.3 13.19.4 13.25.3 13.29.3 13.50.1 14.13.2 15.8.2 16.7.5 Balb. 6

365 168n121 88, 160 31, 152, 185 24 84n174 328 162 183 209 164 34 283 253 71n 328 205 219 39, 79n164, 159 297 113 270n17 123 119 75n154 31 205 136 27 283 137 265 197 23 141 16 11 197 49n99 208 118 117 67n 61 208 97 172 295n72 72

366 Balb. (cont.) 45 55 Brut. 60 68 81 90 104 158 205 218 265 283 287 Caec. 7 12 22 28 53 Cael. 78 Catil. 1.3 1.4 1.31 2.11 2.12 3.20 4.21 Clu. 28 47 53 87 98 118 121 137 148 181 191 de Orat. 1.179 1.224 1.240 1.249 2.124 2.154 2.171 2.193

index locorum 272 170 7, 151, 175 72 274 210 187 72 157 23, 279 147, 166 169 150 186 127 162 161 308 147 163 297 155 139 45 119 304 55 134 134 122 23 28, 312 189 298 275 200 200 67, 299 181 180 180 22 71 327 30, 321

2.223 2.224 2.265 2.268 2.280 2.335 2.352 2.367 3.78 3.84 3.137 3.155 3.230 Deiot. 8 Div. 1.1 1.6 1.36 1.52 1.57 1.73 1.98 1.99 1.100 1.105 1.117 1.119 1.122 2.2 2.5 2.8 2.12 2.20 2.24 2.27 2.29 2.32 2.33 2.34 2.36 2.38 2.45 2.46 2.48 2.54 2.56 2.58 2.59 2.62 2.63 2.65

101 111 265 314 281 210 30n61 75 300 325 180 72 167 46 201 165 157 162, 310 47 219 295 152 152 139 174 232n 181 21, 256–257 242 172, 316 242 324 141 325 233 244 232 222 232, 239, 242 244 223 224 230 84n174 233 295 207 322 234 245, 254

index locorum 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.73 2.75 2.77 2.80 2.85 2.88 2.92 2.101 2.102 2.103 2.105 2.107 2.114 2.119 2.123 2.134 2.135 2.136 2.143 2.145 2.148 2.150 Div. Caec. 9 18 Dom. 4 7 11 24 43 62 64 70 75 84 85 91 102 105 113 127 131 144 Fam. 1.7.3 1.7.9 1.9.7 3.3.1

321 84, 233 222, 255 50n102 195 323 224 321 310 225 324 250 233 203 311 239, 243 304 231 15 112, 317 318 225 250 332 316 81 74n152 239 279 17, 96 50 96 39 55 54 33 297 51 272 39 147 69 169 184 316 182 170 32 281

3.4.1 3.11.4 5.5.2 6.6.8 6.14.2 7.1.3 9.26.4 10.6.1 11.18.1 13.6.1 13.16.3 13.29.8 13.68.1 13.77.3 14.7.3 16.1.2 Fat. 1 17 Fin. 1.5 1.8 2.34 2.40 2.56 2.59 2.62 2.75 2.77 2.112 4.76 5.58 Flac. 2 3 45 Font. 13 19 Har. 11 12 9 13 15 27 30 37 51 53 54 61

367 143 143 71 206 201 173 82 163 74 203 187 31 197 263 144 155 168 202 61 164, 280n35 202 8 92 206 45n86 329 23 17 80 167 28 211 144 285 15, 127 130, 192 192, 299 22, 32 239 133 130, 152 51 51n106 159 150 300 145

368 Inv. 1.47 2.12 2.52 2.63 2.98 Leg. 1.42 2.5 2.30 2.34 2.48 2.57 3.45 Lig. 1 Man. 11 22 60 Mil. 19 20 39 46 80 92 101 Mur. 25 33 86 N.D. 1.16 1.25 1.29 1.30 1.39 1.45 1.118 1.120 1.122 1.123 2.3 2.6 2.11 2.61 2.81 2.158 2.167 3.57 3.74

index locorum 15 58n120 202 129 135 81 328 145 185 182 322 80, 306n78 32 311 127, 173 198 168 200 84 328 98 54 187 7 84 160 181 201 189 206 50 22 200 169 207 207 115 173 162 96n18 51n106 85 66 295n72 57

Off. 1.39 1.43 1.48 1.79 1.99 2.1 2.11 2.53 2.56 2.59 3.50 3.76 3.86 3.89 Opt. Gen. 17 Orat. 143 217 Parad. 12 20 36 44 Part. 4 6 Phil. 2.33 2.35 2.36 2.40 2.58 2.63 2.66 2.76 2.80 2.93 2.108 2.110 2.116 3.3 3.4 3.14 3.16 5.3 5.5 5.19 5.23 5.40 5.44

175 32 156 175 29 172 100 31 15, 49n99, 126 34 158 157 190 207 301 258 42 312 206 169 124 93 93 193 124 159 49 329 122 15, 126 81 92 147 77, 83 186 74 140 162 160 188 140 142 119 140 143 36

index locorum 5.53 7.5 7.12 8.15 8.32 9.4 9.16 10.18 11.5 11.18 11.34 11.39 12.27 13.7 13.25 13.26 14.7 14.8 14.23 Pis. 40 56 58 67 68 75 77 87 89 Planc. 17 19 Prov. 18 19 30 32 Q. fr. 1.2.10 1.2.5 2.2.3 2.12.4 2.3.4 2.3.6 3.5.8 Quinct. 38 57 73 82 Rab. Perd. 17

141 74 298 20 211 161 59 139 196 153 143 321 301 173 20n40, 65 46 158 166, 199 142, 153, 282 81 280 166 49 20 158 316 196 290 64 144 164 169 219 153, 191 309 20 137 21 34n72 282 126 132 205 122n 118 130

25 26–27 Rab. Post. 27 38 Red. Pop. 10 11 12 Red. Sen. 31 Rep. 1.1 1.13 2.5 2.54 2.64 3.12 S. Rosc. 17 19 20 30 78 133 135 Scaur. 7 45 Sen. 71 78 Sest. 13 26 45 82 84 93 122 134 143 Sul. 14 48 70 78 81 Top. 1 53 82

369 73 162 313 75n154 194 301 163 197 313 112 263 143 55 117, 209 20 310 124 18 32n67, 201 146, 168 50 199 60 15, 126 73 210 193 57, 165 195 159 165 29n58 144n97 20 83 196 33 190 265 112 134 196

370 Tul. 10 14 Tusc. 1.13 1.16 1.18 1.23 1.59 1.94 1.96 1.110 1.119 4.29 4.81 5.1 5.13 5.54 Vat. 18 23 Ver. 14 18 30 42 1.30 1.46 1.48 1.55 1.60 1.63 1.70 1.83 1.85 1.89 1.91 1.92 1.93 1.108 1.135 1.137 2.4 2.13 2.26 2.30 2.31 2.35 2.46 2.50 2.68 2.107

index locorum 115 74n151 167 33 48 202 170 294 158 194 111 36 212 174 155 156 58 326 166 279 169 167, 199 119 192 189 299 199 291 73 81n166 297 133 16, 168 123 188 93 264 301 284 135 124 129 307 124, 146 128 188 255, 280 275

2.117 2.118 2.126 2.128 2.158 2.159 2.176 2.183 3.6 3.13 3.31 3.41 3.43 3.44 3.45 3.56 3.86 3.91 3.93 3.100 3.103 3.106 3.109 3.120 3.124 3.129 3.163 3.171 3.173 3.176 3.181 3.186 3.202 3.203 3.204 3.216 4.19 4.20 4.30 4.39 4.42 4.48 4.51 4.52 4.62 4.69 4.70 4.79 4.93 4.96 4.98 4.117

71 309 185 306 130 184, 198, 215 17, 125 15 185 75n154 128 325 127 187, 283 128 128 122 321 298 114n49 114 126n71 149 9 156 306 58n119, 125 126 122n 133 129 320 124 144 309 47 136 13 85, 300 306 59 75 146 146 123 96n18 18 29 145 180 307 284

index locorum 4.118 4.123 4.126 4.131 4.137 4.146 4.151 5.1 5.3 5.5 5.8 5.13 5.14 5.21 5.25 5.26 5.31 5.36 5.44 5.45 5.47 5.48 5.49 5.50 5.53 5.61 5.69 5.72 5.73 5.79 5.86 5.87 5.88 5.90 5.92 5.93 5.94 5.97 5.100 5.102 5.103 5.108 5.111 5.114 5.115 5.118 5.156 5.163 CIL I2 9

155 96 308 54n 298 7 137, 166 257 79 191, 239, 257 307 226 191, 324 243 236 81, 284 223n12 85, 225 6 76 6 259 6, 232, 323 193 133, 222 85 54n 177, 244 231 319 223, 228n19, 236, 321 114, 244 178, 228 171, 178 229 246 249 229 67 111 320 317 229 325 51 319 265 322 327n115

371

Columella 5.11.13–14 12.24.3

322n103 54

Ennius Ann. 541 Ann. 3.157 var. 54

66 297n74 275

Gellius 4.11.11 9.12.13

49 28n

Homerus Il. 1.357 13.571

21n43 321n100

Horatius Epod. 5.43

297n74

Laberius com. 130

75

Livius 1.7.1 4.12.9 6.33.4 32.16.17

327 62n131 285n47, 288n59 123n67

Lucanus 7.540–543

74n153

Ovidius Met. 5.652

297

Plautus Am. 429 frg. 4 As. 57 89 513 Aul. 212–213 744 Bac. 441

99 14 80n 81n167 80 88 82n172 77n158

372 Bac. (cont.) 671 882 1050 Cas. 763 Cist. 731 Cur. 410 Epid. 488–489 Mos. 900–901 Per. 211 Rud. 125–126 318 Trin. 1095 Truc. 622 n. 903

index locorum 123n65 59n124 10n18 54n 78n162 13n25 327 53 51n106 92 82 92 80n 123n65

Plinius Nat. 6.184 7.59 11.120 12.29 15.41 16.136 25.80

322 12 293n 322n103 50n101 322n103 322

Priscianus GL III 213.9

25n50

Quintilianus Inst. 3.8.9

190n145

Rhet. Her. 4.45

62

Sallustius Cat. 17.7 26.1–5 30.2 30.3

13 205 139 282

30.7 31.6 31.7 37.6 39.4 43.2 46.5 Hist. 3.79 Jug. 4.1 5.1 5.4 6.3 7.2 8.1 11.3 12.3 12.4 13.5 13.6 14.1 14.4 14.9 14.10 14.14 14.16 14.23 17.5 17.7 19.7 21.2 22.4 24.10 29.2 29.4 29.6 30.3 31.7 31.13 32.1 33.1 35.2 35.6 35.7 35.9 36.1–4 37.4 38.2 38.6 38.9 39.4

145 279 283 138 66 83 7 322n104 23, 194 251 318 159 151 255 256n 286 179 31, 245 220 316 30n62 317 323 18 234 223 71 149 259, 318 288 243 211 258 299 48–49, 91, 127 236 236 167, 251n 274 222 271, 274 258 305 243 205 226n17 224 208 247 50

index locorum 40.1 43.1 52.1 53.1 54.6 55.1 56.6 58.3 58.5 62.5 64.1 64.5 66.3 68.3 69.1 73.7 74.3 75.1 75.5 79.1 80.1 81.2 89.6 94.1 97.1 102.1 103.7

254 302, 306n78, 314 320 15 241 224, 254 177 259 321 127 321 320 259, 303 320 225 279 55 287, 304 15 232 312 288 49 328 16 312n85 118

Seneca Ep. 41.8 86.12

8 53n112

Statius Theb. 1.81

17n

Valerius Probus GL IV 153 Varro L. 5.121 5.133 8.35 9.58 9.66 9.67 10.66 10.67 R. 1.2.2 1.7.7 1.11.2 1.44.3 2.1.16 2.1.17 2.2.3 2.3.2 3.16.24

373

62n131

58 62n131 21n44 40n81 13–14 16n32 9 11 21 322 74n151 51 71 322 62n131 49 322

Vergilius A. 1.247

270n17

Vitruvius 2.7.1 2.9.9

58n120 58n120

INDEX RERUM Ablative of quality, 34, 80, 82, 164, 169, 306, 308 Adjectives classifying, 38, 40, 58–59, 63, 69, 75, 99, 131–138, 143–145, 147, 153, 208, 221–222, 332–334 derived from proper names, 26, 79n164, 94n12, 108, 131, 147–154, 175–179, 181–183, 190n146, 221, 227 descriptive, 108, 154–155, 157, 160–161, 163, 169–170, 221, 223, 228, 250, 332, 334 evaluative, 57, 61, 67, 104n, 107–108, 142, 147, 162–163, 165–166, 169–170, 202, 216, 221, 224, 250, 260, 277, 315, 329, 334 expressing a relative position in space and time, 63–64, 171, 173–175, 221, 225–226, 332, 334 Adverbs (as adnominal expansions), 36 Agent, 2, 25–29, 33–34, 63, 76, 80n, 83n173, 182, 186, 192, 196–197, 201, 247, 252 Agreement, 13, 295–296, 311–312, 320, 327n113, 328 Appositional/appositive status of modifiers, 1, 90–91 Arguments (obligatory/valency complements) of adjectives, 69–73, 256 Arguments (obligatory/valency complements) of nouns, 1, 24–28, 32–35, 73, 182, 332–333 ablative, 81 completive clause, 85, 182, 203 dative, 28, 80 genitive, 28, 77, 80, 182, 203, 242 gerund / gerundive, 85 possessives, 79, 105, 182, 196–197 prepositional phrase, 30, 83, 182, 198–200, 203, 208, 218, 244–245, 247, 249, 255, 260, 336 Article, 1, 5–6, 39–40, 97n20, 219, 270n15, 272n23, 294n, 332 Attributive/adnominal use of modifiers, 43, 45, 51, 56, 60, 72–74, 76, 102, 113, 255–256, 264, 305, 337 Bivalent, see Valency

Colon, 219, 239 Completive clause (as nominal expansion), 23, 36, 38, 84–85, 104, 110, 182, 201–203, 216, 332 Indirect questions, 23, 85, 202 Infinitive clauses, 31, 70n144, 71n145, 84, 85n176, 201–203, 253 Complex noun phrases, 38, 57, 59, 72, 110, 116, 135–136, 142, 164, 188, 197, 206–209, 211–212, 219–220, 235, 240, 248, 256 Complex noun phrases in appositions, 278, 280, 290, 296, 298–300, 302, 306, 310, 333 Contextually given/known information, 6, 88, 100–101, 124, 126, 142, 153, 173, 178–181, 185, 189, 191–195, 199, 203, 213–215, 230–233, 235, 242–245, 248, 254, 256, 258–260, 302, 333, 335 Contrast/contrastive, 71, 78, 89, 93, 96–97, 99n, 100, 101, 103, 117, 119, 132–138, 143–146, 148, 151–153, 155, 161, 165, 176–180, 182, 186, 189, 193–196, 199, 203, 206–208, 213–215, 219, 222, 224, 226, 228–231, 235–236, 241–242, 248–249, 258, 260, 282–283, 293–294, 307, 313, 321–322, 333–335 contrastive Topic, 89, 121, 125, 136, 149, 176, 181, 185, 195 contrastive Focus, 89, 135, 177, 180, 185 Coordination, 57–60, 76, 82, 101, 126n71, 164, 188, 190n145, 191, 196, 200, 224, 235–236, 299, 305, 308, 328 Definite(ness), 5, 39, 120n62, 141, 185, 274, 287, 308, 319, 327 Degrees of comparison, 56, 63, 67–68, 72n148, 123 superlative, 89, 124, 154–155, 157, 159–162, 165n118, 169–170, 224 Deictic modifiers, 46, 64, 172, 197 Discontinuity (hyperbaton), 45, 74n151, 90, 117, 138, 159, 169, 211, 239, 247, 276, 280, 291–293, 305, 309–310, 313–314 Dominant participle (ab urbe condita construction), 85

index rerum Emphasis/emphatic, 78, 89–90, 101, 103, 124, 133, 139, 141–142, 148, 152n106, 153, 156–158, 160–161, 164–166, 168, 170, 180, 193, 195, 200, 203, 210–215, 219–224, 229, 239, 249–250, 257, 260, 322–325 Evaluation (subjective), 41, 59, 66–67, 89–90, 92, 98, 103, 154, 161, 165, 170, 221, 216, 224, 235, 305, 321, 328, 332–335 Exclamations / exclamatory accusatives, 41, 61, 66–67, 328 Extensional meaning, 60–62, 67n137, 90, 92, 147, 168n121, 169, 172 Fixed order / fixed expressions, 35, 61, 94, 97, 133n79, 222, 227, 316n92 Focus, see also Contrast(ive) 88–89, 100–101, 116, 119, 132–133, 136, 138, 140, 148, 155, 157–159, 161, 165, 169, 176–177, 179, 181, 191–192, 199, 205, 207, 213, 231, 248, 294, 333, 334 Framing / framed noun phrases, 51, 101, 120, 125, 127, 142, 164–166, 199–200, 206–212, 215, 217–219, 228–229, 233, 237–242, 244, 248–249, 259, 335 Generic referent, 5–6, 8–9, 98–99, 101, 104, 138, 142, 146, 151n105, 156, 159–159, 161, 168, 181, 184–187, 189, 192–193, 195, 197, 201, 203, 210–211, 215, 231–232, 320, 327, 334 Generic(ity), 5–6, 39, 334–335 Genitive, 1–2, 18, 22, 25, 28, 32, 35, 37–38, 76, 83, 85–87, 90, 94–99, 100–101, 104, 108–110, 213–215, 217, 229–236, 248–249, 253, 260, 298–299, 331, 333–336 explicative, 204–205 objective, 23, 26–27, 29, 30, 32, 76–77, 104, 182–186, 188–195, 197–200, 203, 210–112, 252, 322 of content, 14, 99, 204–206, 208, 323 of material, origin, price, 26, 34, 76, 80, 98–99 of quality, 34, 80, 82, 164, 306 of the author, 26n51, 34n72, 176, 180–181, 206–208 of the whole (of quantity), 14–15, 48–49, 52, 62n131, 76, 80, 111, 120–123, 125–128, 130–131, 215, 334 partitive, 257–258, 269n13, 270, 322 possessive, 24–26, 39, 76–79, 94n12, 99, 103, 149n104, 176, 178–179, 182, 198, 230, 237, 270, 290, 297, 310, 316n92, 318

375

subjective, 28–30, 32–33, 76–77, 79, 104, 182–189, 196–197, 199, 200–201, 203, 211, 247, 252, 322 with adjectives, 70, 73 Gerund / Gerundive, 23, 29n59, 31, 36, 38, 70–71, 84, 85, 109, 253 Implicit contrast, 89, 94–95, 135, 144, 155, 284 Inalienable possession, 18n36, 78 Indefinite(ness), 39, 44, 46, 121n62, 138, 141, 159, 291, 300, 308, 311, 317 Inferrable (from the context), 25, 33–35, 78, 144, 152, 192, 201, 266, 310, 317–318 Inherent/permanent property, 56n117, 59, 61n129, 64, 69, 70n143, 133, 154, 161, 213, 216, 221, 223, 301, 332 Integration of modifiers (into the noun phrase), 1n1, 51, 218 Intensional meaning, 60–61, 90 Juxtaposition, 42, 57, 59, 270, 299, 323 Localising adjectives, see Adjectives expressing a relative position Measure expressions, 14, 16–17, 40, 47, 50, 53, 80, 126, 233–234 Monovalent, see Valency Multiple modifiers, 59, 76, 228, 298 Nesting, 40, 76 New information, 88, 101, 115, 134, 137, 149, 153, 157–159, 180, 213, 233, 291, 335 Non-inherent property, 67, 175, 213, 225, 332–334 Non-referential noun (phrase), 4–6, 18, 39, 157, 266, 323 Non-restrictive apposition, 262, 264n8, 336 Non-specific referent, 5–7, 98–99, 104, 121, 125, 135, 158, 185, 188 Noun abstract, 8, 13n24, 22, 47, 49n99, 50, 123n65, 160–161, 211, 215, 240, 243, 331 agent, 4, 18, 25–26, 240, 321 collective, 2, 8, 10, 12–13, 16, 50–51, 104–105, 110, 114–115, 120n61, 168, 184, 188, 312, 331 countable, 8–9, 1–12, 14, 17, 20, 22–23, 34, 47–50, 52, 55, 108–111, 113–115, 120, 130, 216 kinship, 18, 26, 77–78, 98n22, 99, 277–278, 315–317

376

index rerum

mass, 4, 8–9, 13–17, 49, 52, 55, 65, 104, 108–109, 120n61, 122, 123n65, 124, 128, 216, 331 non-countable, 10n17, 13, 15, 17, 22–23, 40, 47, 108–110, 122, 125, 129–130, 216 proper names 2, 4, 7n12, 8, 11, 18–20, 46, 264, 267–268, 271–273, 275–278, 280–283, 285–294, 296–304, 305–311, 315, 317–319, 329–331, 336–337 relational, 18, 35, 77, 277, 310, 315, 316n92, 331 result, 33–35, 240–241 verbal, 27–28, 30–35, 79–85, 109–110, 182–183, 188, 196–198, 201, 216, 234, 237, 240, 244–245, 250, 251n41, 252–254, 260, 331–332, 336 verbal nouns of movement, 27, 32–33, 81–82, 244–246, 252, 254 Numerals, see also Quantifiers cardinal, 10–11, 13, 16, 44n, 46, 48, 51, 115, 118 distributive, 10–12, 48, 54n, 115 ordinal, 43, 45, 48, 51, 64, 91, 171, 173–175, 215, 226–227, 332 Parallelism (transcategorial), 31, 70n144, 80, 82–83, 237 Partitive (partial) apposition, 261–263, 303, 312n84, 323–325 Partitive expressions, 14n29, 257–259 Partitive meaning of adjectives, 64, 175, 226 Patient, 2, 25–30, 34, 76, 80n165, 82, 182, 196n153, 197, 251n41, 252 Plural group plural, 12, 21 with abstract nouns, 22, 55 with collective nouns, 12–13, 114, 312, 324 with mass nouns, 13, 16–17, 109, 123, 129, 134 with proper names, 20–21 with verbal nouns, 23, 109–110, 113, 129 Pluralia tantum, 10–12, 17, 21–22, 54n113, 331 Pragmatic unit, 87–88, 91, 124, 132–135, 137, 140, 144, 147–148, 157, 159, 246 Predicative use of adjectives, 24, 28, 38, 43, 51, 56, 60, 63, 69, 72–76, 113, 157, 255–256, 260 Pronoun anaphoric, 6, 45, 54, 74, 102, 188, 192–193, 196, 199, 208, 215n, 219, 248, 256, 258, 270, 274, 293, 319, 327

demonstrative, 6, 39, 45, 54–55, 102, 199, 208, 219, 229, 256, 319, 332 indefinite, 7, 39, 45–47, 52–54, 102, 105, 242, 250, 260, 300, 332 possessive, 2, 26–27, 33, 39, 42n, 78n163, 79, 102–105, 176, 182–183, 193, 196–197, 310, 332 Proper names, see Noun Quantifiers nominal, 13n24, 14–15, 17, 25n49, 49–50, 52, 80, 110, 120–122, 124–125, 127, 130–131, 215, 234, 332, 334 non-numerical, 48–49, 52, 102, 110–112, 120, 122–123, 130, 215–216, 220, 257, 324, 332–333 numerical, 40, 48, 52, 59n124, 89, 91, 102, 110, 112, 115–117, 119, 130, 206, 215, 220, 257, 300, 324, 332, 334 Referential(ity), 4–6, 18–19, 39, 94n12, 266, 270, 282–283, 289, 330 Referential unit, 91, 97–98, 112, 116–117, 119, 130, 151, 172, 176, 178, 180, 184–187, 189, 192, 194, 203, 207, 213–215, 223, 227, 231–232, 227, 231–233, 244, 248–249, 257, 259, 333–334, 336 Relative clause, 1, 4, 36, 37m77, 39, 45n88, 84n175, 132, 196, 235, 247, 250, 258, 264, 272–274, 286, 291, 294n71, 298, 300, 313–314, 330 Restrictive apposition, 262, 264n8, 336 Salient information/constituent, 88, 132, 135, 137, 147, 150, 207, 285n47, 289n59, 291–292, 294–295, 314 Satellite (optional complement), 1, 24–26, 29n58, 30, 32–34, 69–71, 73, 77–78, 80–81, 83, 176, 204, 208, 218, 241–245, 247, 255–256, 260, 333, 336 Secondary predicate (praedicativum), 55, 72–73, 114, 128, 256, 279–281, 282n40 Semantic prominence, 90–91, 98–99, 182, 187, 189, 191–192, 194, 198–200, 203, 210, 212–215, 226–228, 231, 244–245, 248, 257–258, 260, 333–336 Shared knowledge, 39, 100, 134, 138, 140, 143–144, 150–151, 165–166, 173, 176–178, 180, 188n143, 209, 214–215, 229, 236, 271, 281, 284, 286–288, 292, 308, 319, 327, 334–335, 337 Singularia tantum, 14

index rerum Specific(ity), 5, 39, 334–335 Specific referent, 5–7, 18, 46, 96, 98–99, 101, 104, 121, 125, 135–136, 138, 141–142, 146, 158–159, 161–162, 164, 168, 171, 176, 181, 184–186, 188–193, 200, 203, 211, 214–215, 230, 232, 334 Superlative, see Degrees of comparison Support verb constructions, 31, 198–201, 218, 238–239, 241, 244–247, 250–252, 254, 336 Setting spatial, 239, 286, 288–289, 292, 294–295 temporal, 151, 174–175, 190 Temporal meaning of adjectives, 64–65, 160–161, 172, 225–226 Topic, 88–89, 91, 100–101, 113, 116, 121, 131–132, 143, 148, 153, 178, 180, 190, 207, 213, 222, 248, 254, 257, 260, 284, 294–295, 284, 294–295, 306, 308, 310–311, 333–335

377

Valency of adjectives, 57, 70–71, 73, 225, 256 bivalent adjectives, 57, 69–72, 75, 254, 256, 260, 310 monovalent adjectives, 57, 69, 72, 255–256 Valency of nouns, 1, 8, 18, 24–26, 28–29, 31, 35, 77, 79, 80n165, 83n173, 84n175, 105, 182, 203, 241–242, 245, 247, 260, 331–333 bivalent nouns, 18, 22–23, 25–27, 110, 188, 242, 332 monovalent nouns, 18, 25–27, 109, 243 zero-valent nouns, 9, 18n35, 25, 241, 243, 331–332 Valency of verbs, 2, 30, 73 trivalent verbs, 14n46, 32, 34n72, 110 Variable ordering, 66, 97n19, 99, 102–103, 115, 117–118, 132–134, 137, 144, 146, 149, 152, 154, 189n144, 192, 209, 213–215, 241–242, 244–245, 260, 288, 333, 335 Verbal construction (of nouns), 83, 253