The Oxford Latin Syntax, Volume II: the Complex Sentence and Discourse 9780199230563, 0199230560

This second volume of a two-volume work applies contemporary linguistic theories and the findings of traditional grammar

390 49 15MB

English Pages xxxii+1338 [1471] Year 2021

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD PDF FILE

Table of contents :
The Oxford Latin Syntax, Volume II: The Complex Sentence and Discourse
Contents
Preface
Signs and other conventions
Abbreviations
14 Subordinate clauses: common properties and internal structure
14.1 Subordinate clauses and other forms of clause combining
14.2 Formal and semantic properties of subordinate clauses
14.3 Ambiguous or hybrid instances of clause combining
14.4 The levels at which subordinate clauses can be used
14.5 The internal properties of subordinate clauses
14.6 Finite subordinate clauses
14.7 Non-finite subordinate clauses
14.8 The internal structure of accusative and infinitive clauses
14.9 The nominative and infinitive construction
14.10 ‘Fused’ clauses
14.11 Prolative infinitive clauses
14.12 Gerundial clauses
14.13 Supine clauses
14.14 Participial, gerundival, and nominal clauses
14.15 Means of tightening and making more explicit the relationship between subordinate and superordinate clauses
14.16 Preparative elements in the main clause
14.17 Resumptive elements in the main clause
14.18 Particles and adverbs tightening or clarifying the relationship between subordinate and superordinate clauses
14.19 Forms of interlacing of superordinate and subordinate clauses
14.20 Subordinators
14.21 Subordinators used with both argument and satellite clauses
14.22 Subordinators and relative adverbs
14.23 Developments in the system of subordinating devices from Latin to the Romance languages
14.24 The period
14.25 Direct and indirect speech
15 Subordinate clauses filling an argument position
15.1 The functions of argument clauses
15.2 Types of argument clauses
15.3 Finite argument clauses
15.4 Finite declarative argument clauses
15.5 The use of quod in argument clauses
15.6 The use of quod clauses with the verb accedit ‘to be added to’ or ‘to constitute an addition to’
15.7 The use of quod clauses with verbs and expressions meaning ‘to leave unmentioned’
15.8 The use of quod clauses with verbs and expressions of emotion
15.9 The use of quod clauses with verbs and expressions of perception, cognition, and communication
15.10 The use of quod clauses with verbs and expressions of accusing and convicting and of blaming, excusing, praising, congratulating, and thanking
15.11 The use of quod clauses in combination with a subject or object complement
15.12 The use of quod clauses with a variety of other expressions
15.13 The use of quod clauses with verbs of happening
15.14 The use of quod clauses in combination with a preparative or interrogative pronoun or similar expressions
15.15 The use of quia in declarative argument clauses
15.16 The use of quia clauses with the verb accedit ‘to be added’, or ‘to constitute an addition to’
15.17 The use of quia clauses with verbs and expressions meaning ‘to leave unmentioned’
15.18 The use of quia clauses with verbs and expressions of emotion
15.19 The use of quia with verbs and expressions of perception, cognition, and communication
15.20 The use of quia clauses with verbs and expressions of blaming, praising, congratulating, and thanking
15.21 The use of quia clauses in combination with a preparative pronoun or determiner
15.22 The use of quoniam in declarative argument clauses
15.23 The use of cum (quom) in declarative argument clauses
15.24 The use of quomodo and quemadmodum in declarative argument clauses
15.25 The use of ut in declarative argument clauses
15.26 The use of ut clauses with the verb accedit ‘to be added to’ or ‘to constitute an addition to’
15.27 The use of ut clauses with verbs and expressions of happening and befalling
15.28 The use of ut clauses as subject with the verb sum
15.29 The use of ut clauses with verbs and expressions meaning ‘the conclusion is’, ‘it follows’
15.30 The use of ut clauses with verbs and expressions meaning ‘it remains to be done’, ‘it is sufficient’
15.31 The use of ut clauses with various third person singular verb forms (so-called impersonal verbs)
15.32 The use of ut clauses with expressions consisting of the copula and an adjective functioning as subject complement
15.33 The use of ut clauses with expressions consisting of the copula and a noun or noun phrase functioning as subject complement
15.34 The use of ut clauses with expressions consisting of the copula and other categories that function as subject complement
15.35 The use of ut clauses with verbs and expressions of perception, cognition, and communication
15.36 The use of ut clauses in ‘periphrastic’ constructions
15.37 The use of ne in declarative argument clauses with verbs and expressions of fearing and worrying
15.38 The use of quin in declarative argument clauses with a negative main clause
15.39 The use of si in declarative argument clauses
15.40 The use of si clauses with verbs and expressions of waiting in expectation and trying
15.41 The use of si clauses with verbs and expressions of surprise
15.42 The use of si clauses in combination with so-called impersonal expressions
15.43 The use of quasi in argument clauses with verbs and expressions of pretending
15.44 The use of tamquam (si) and quasi in argument clauses with verbs and expressions of accusing and of emotion and with verbs of communication
15.45 Finite interrogative argument clauses (indirect questions)
15.46 Verbs and expressions governing indirect questions
15.47 Types of interrogative argument clauses (indirect questions)
15.48 Simple interrogative argument clauses (indirect questions)
15.49 Indirect clausal questions
15.50 Indirect clausal questions without a question particle
15.51 Indirect clausal questions with a question particle
15.52 The use of -ne in indirect clausal questions
15.53 The use of nonne in indirect clausal questions
15.54 The use of num in indirect clausal questions
15.55 The use of utrum in indirect clausal questions
15.56 The use of an in indirect clausal questions
15.57 The use of si in indirect clausal questions
15.58 The use of nē (not clitic) in pseudo-indirect clausal questions
15.59 Indirect questions with indefinite pronouns, determiners, adjectives, adverbs, and particles formed with ec-
15.60 Indirect constituent questions
15.61 Overlap of indirect constituent questions and autonomous relative clauses
15.62 Multiple indirect questions
15.63 Minor combinations of particles in multiple indirect questions
15.64 Finite imperative argument clauses
15.65 Verbs and expressions governing imperative clauses
15.66 The use of finite imperative clauses with verbs and expressions of ordering and commanding (class (i) (a))
15.67 The use of finite imperative clauses with verbs and expressions of begging, requesting, etc. (class (i) (b))
15.68 The use of finite imperative clauses with verbs and expressions of advising, warning, exhorting, reminding, admonishing, etc. (class (i) (c))
15.69 The use of finite imperative clauses with verbs and expressions of inducing, persuading, etc. (class (i) (d))
15.70 The use of finite imperative clauses with verbs and expressions of permitting, granting, allowing (class (i) (e))
15.71 The use of finite imperative clauses with verbs and expressions of forcing (class (i) ( f))
15.72 The use of finite imperative clauses with verbs and expressions of hindering, preventing, etc. (class (i) (g))
15.73 The use of finite imperative clauses with verbs and expressions of wishing, desiring, preferring, etc. (class (ii) (a))
15.74 The use of finite imperative clauses with verbs and expressions of striving (class (ii) (b))
15.75 The use of finite imperative clauses with verbs of causation (class (iii))
15.76 The use of finite imperative clauses with verbs and expressions of deciding, resolving, etc. (class (iv))
15.77 The use of finite imperative clauses with verbs and expressions of deserving (class (v))
15.78 The use of finite imperative clauses in combination with a neuter singular adjective or a comparable expression that functions as subject or object complement (class (vi))
15.79 The use of finite imperative clauses in combination with a noun functioning as subject or object complement (class (vii))
45.80 The use of finite imperative clauses with so-called impersonal expressions (class (viii))
15.81 The subordinating devices of finite imperative clauses
15.82 The use of ut, ut ne, and ne in imperative clauses
15.83 Imperative clauses with a simple subjunctive (without a subordinator)
15.84 The use of the subordinator ne in imperative clauses
15.85 The use of quin in imperative clauses
15.86 The use of quominus in imperative clauses
15.87 The use of quo in imperative clauses
15.88 The use of qui in imperative clauses
15.89 Exclamatory argument clauses
15.143 Relative clauses functioning as argument
15.144 Nominal (verbless) argument clauses
15.90 Non-finite argument clauses
15.91 Infinitival argument clauses
15.92 Accusative and infinitive clauses
15.93 The functions of accusative and infinitive clauses
15.94 The use of the accusative and infinitive clause as subject or object with verbs and expressions of happening and befalling or causing to happen
15.95 The use of the accusative and infinitive clause as subject with accedit ‘to be added to’ or ‘to constitute an addition to’
15.96 The use of the accusative and infinitive clause as subject or object with verbs and expressions meaning ‘to leave unmentioned’
15.97 The use of the accusative and infinitive clause with verbs and expressions of emotion
15.98 The use of the accusative and infinitive clause with verbs and expressions of perception, cognition, and communication
15.99 The use of the accusative and infinitive clause with verbs and expressions of praising, blaming, and thanking
15.100 The non-declarative use of the accusative and infinitive clause
15.101 The use of the accusative and infinitive clause as subject with one-place and so-called impersonal verbs
15.102 The use of accusative and infinitive clauses in combination with expressions that function as subject or object complement
15.103 The use of the accusative and infinitive clause with a preparative pronoun
15.104 Independent accusative and infinitive clauses
15.105 The use of the accusative and infinitive clause in interrogative clauses and sentences
15.106 The use of the accusative and infinitive clause in exclamations
15.107 The use of the accusative and infinitive in relative clauses
15.108 The use of the accusative and infinitive in correlative and comparative structures
15.109 The use of the accusative and infinitive in subordinate (especially satellite) clauses with a subordinator
15.110 The use of the accusative and infinitive as subject of passive two- and three-place verbs
15.111 The nominative and infinitive construction
15.112 Other personal constructions resembling the NcI construction
15.113 Diachronic developments of the accusative and infinitive
15.114 Prolative infinitive clauses
15.115 The use of the prolative infinitive with verbs and expressions of ordering and commanding (class (i) (a))
15.116 The use of the prolative infinitive with verbs and expressions of begging, requesting, etc. (class (i) (b))
15.117 The use of the prolative infinitive with verbs and expressions of advising, warning, exhorting, reminding, admonishing, etc. (class (i) (c))
15.118 The use of the prolative infinitive with verbs and expressions of inducing, persuading, etc. (class (i) (d))
15.119 The use of the prolative infinitive with verbs and expressions of permitting, granting, allowing, etc. (class (i) (e))
15.120 The use of the prolative infinitive with verbs and expressions of forcing (class (i) ( f))
15.121 The use of the prolative infinitive with verbs and expressions of hindering, preventing, etc. (class (i) (g))
15.122 The use of the prolative infinitive with verbs and expressions of wishing, desiring, preferring, etc. (class (ii) (a))
15.123 The use of the prolative infinitive with verbs and expressions of striving (class (ii) (b))
15.124 The use of the prolative infinitive with verbs of causation (class (iii))
15.125 The use of the prolative infinitive with verbs and expressions of deciding, resolving, etc. (class (iv))
15.126 The use of the prolative infinitive with verbs and expressions of deserving (class (v))
15.127 The use of the prolative infinitive in combination with a neuter singular adjective that functions as subject or object complement (class (vi))
15.128 The use of the prolative infinitive in combination with other expressions that function as subject or object complement (class (vii))
15.129 The use of the prolative infinitive with so-called impersonal expressions (class (viii))
15.130 The use of the infinitive with verbs of accusing and convicting
15.131 The use of the (present) infinitive with auxiliary verbs and verbs with a related meaning
15.132 Participial argument clauses (dominant participles)
15.133 The use of the dominant participle construction as subject
15.134 The use of the dominant participle construction as object or as third argument
15.135 Gerundial argument clauses
15.136 The use of gerundial clauses as argument with verbs
15.137 The use of gerundial clauses as second or third argument
15.138 The use of gerundial clauses instead of prolative infinitives
15.139 The use of gerundial clauses with two-place adjectives that function as subject or object complement
15.140 Gerundival argument clauses
15.141 The use of gerundival clauses as arguments with verbs
15.142 The use of gerundival clauses with adjectives that function as subject or object complement
16 Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position
16.1 Verbal and nominal satellite clauses
16.2 Finite satellite clauses
16.3 Classes of finite satellite clauses
16.4 The role of subordinators in satellite clauses
16.5 Satellite clauses (seemingly) filling an argument position
16.6 Space clauses (adjuncts)
16.7 Time clauses (adjuncts)
16.8 Time clauses denoting an event that is simultaneous with the event in the main clause
16.9 Time clauses that locate the event of the main clause in time (cum, dum, quando, quoniam, quotiens)
16.10 Time clauses with cum (quom)
16.11 So-called cum inversum clauses
16.12 The temporal use of quoniam
16.13 Time clauses with quando, quandoque, and quandocumque
16.14 Time clauses with dum locating the event of the main clause in time
16.15 Time clauses indicating the extent of time of the event in the main clause
16.16 Time clauses indicating a co-extensive event
16.17 Dum clauses indicating an event that lasts longer than the event of the main clause
16.18 Time clauses indicating an event that concludes the event of the main clause
16.19 Time clauses denoting anterior events
16.20 Time clauses with cum
16.21 Time clauses with postquam
16.22 Time clauses with simul
16.23 Time clauses with ubi
16.24 Time clauses with ut
16.25 Time clauses with mox, primum, and statim
16.26 Time clauses with ex quo
16.27 Time clauses denoting a posterior event
16.28 Non-temporal interpretations of time clauses
16.29 The interpretation of cum (quom) clauses as indicating the reason for the content of the main clause
16.30 The interpretation of dum clauses as indicating the reason for the content of the main clause
16.31 The concessive (or: ‘adversative’) interpretation of cum (quom) clauses
16.32 The concessive and reason interpretations of postquam clauses
16.33 Manner clauses
16.34 Manner adjunct clauses
16.35 Attitudinal manner clauses (disjuncts)
16.36 Illocutionary manner clauses (disjuncts)
16.37 Degree clauses (adjuncts)
16.38 Respect clauses (disjuncts)
16.39 Reason (causal) clauses
16.40 Reason clauses with quia (adjuncts)
16.41 Reason clauses with quod (adjuncts)
16.42 Reason clauses with quoniam (disjuncts)
16.43 Reason clauses with quando(quidem) (disjuncts)
16.44 Reason clauses with quandoque (disjuncts)
16.45 Reason clauses with quatenus (disjuncts)
16.46 Reason clauses with quin (adjuncts)
16.47 Reason clauses with quo (adjuncts)
16.48 Later developments
16.49 Purpose (final) clauses
16.50 Purpose clauses with ut and (ut) ne
16.51 Purpose clauses with quo (adjuncts)
16.52 Purpose clauses with quī (adjuncts)
16.53 Stipulative clauses
16.54 Result (consecutive) clauses
16.55 Conditional clauses
16.56 Negation of conditional clauses
16.57 Conditional clauses functioning as adjunct
16.58 ‘Abbreviated’ conditional periods
16.59 Purpose si clauses
16.60 Adversative, concessive, and causal interpretations of conditional clauses
16.61 So-called temporal si clauses
61.62 Ni/Nisi ‘de rupture’
16.63 Conditional clauses functioning as attitudinal disjunct
16.64 Conditional clauses functioning as illocutionary disjunct
16.65 Alternative conditional clauses with sive/seu
16.66 Conditional comparative clauses
16.67 Nisi clauses of exception
16.68 Concessive clauses
16.69 So-called concessive conditional clauses
16.70 Concessive and concessive conditional clauses functioning as adjunct
16.71 Concessive clauses functioning as attitudinal disjunct
16.72 Concessive clauses functioning as illocutionary disjunct
16.73 The individual concessive subordinators: quamquam, quamvis, the si compounds, and licet
16.74 Concessive clauses with quamquam
16.75 Concessive clauses with quamvis
16.76 Concessive clauses with etsi, etiamsi, tametsi, and tamenetsi
16.77 Concessive clauses with etsi
16.78 Concessive clauses with tametsi (and tam etsi)
16.79 Concessive clauses with etiamsi (and etiam si)
16.80 Concessive clauses with tamenetsi (and tamen etsi)
16.81 Concessive clauses with licet
16.82 The concessive interpretation of ut clauses
16.83 Quod and quantum clauses of qualification (disjuncts)
16.84 Satellite clauses introduced by complex subordinators
16.85 Non-finite satellite clauses
16.86 Infinitival satellite clauses
16.87 Participial satellite clauses
16.88 Participial ablative absolute clauses
16.89 The semantic relationship between the participial ablative absolute clause and the main clause
16.90 The relationship between arguments of the participial ablative absolute and the main clause
16.91 The internal complexity of the participial ablative absolute clause
16.92 Ablative participles without a subject noun (phrase)
16.93 Ablative absolute clauses of one-place verbs
16.94 Participial absolute clauses in other case forms
16.95 Participial nominative absolute clauses
16.96 Participial genitive absolute clauses
16.97 Participial accusative absolute clauses
16.98 Prepositional participial satellite clauses
16.99 Gerundial satellite clauses
16.100 Gerundial purpose adjunct clauses
16.101 Gerundial instrument/manner adjunct clauses
16.102 Gerundial temporal adjunct clauses
16.103 Gerundial reason adjunct clauses
16.104 Gerundial adjuncts in other semantic relations (ablative and prepositional expressions)
16.105 Gerundival satellite clauses
16.106 Gerundival purpose adjunct clauses
16.107 Gerundival instrument/manner adjunct clauses
16.108 Gerundival temporal/circumstantial adjunct clauses
16.109 Gerundival reason adjunct clauses
16.110 Gerundival adjunct clauses in other semantic functions (mostly prepositional phrases)
16.111 Supine satellite clauses
16.112 The use of the first supine (in -um) as a purpose adjunct
16.113 The so-called second supine in -u
16.114 Nominal (verbless) satellite clauses
16.115 Nominal ablative absolute clauses
16.116 Substantival ablative absolute clauses
16.117 Adjectival ablative absolute clauses
16.118 Nominal absolute clauses in cases other than the ablative
16.119 Prepositional nominal absolute clauses
17 Subordinate clauses with nouns, adjectives, and adverbs
17.1 Introductory remarks
17.2 Subordinate clauses at the noun phrase level
17.3 Finite subordinate clauses functioning as attribute at the noun phrase level
17.4 Declarative subordinate clauses functioning as attribute at the noun phrase level
17.5 Declarative clauses with quod and quia at the noun phrase level
17.6 Declarative clauses with ut at the noun phrase level
17.7 Declarative clauses depending on nouns of fearing and worrying
17.8 Declarative clauses with quin at the noun phrase level
17.9 The use of tamquam and quasi clauses with nouns of emotion, cognition, and communication
17.10 Interrogative subordinate clauses functioning as attribute at the noun phrase level
17.11 Imperative subordinate clauses functioning as attribute at the noun phrase level
17.12 Non-finite subordinate clauses functioning as attribute at the noun phrase level
17.13 Infinitival subordinate clauses functioning as attribute at the noun phrase level
17.14 Accusative and infinitive clauses functioning as attribute at the noun phrase level
17.15 Prolative infinitive clauses functioning as attribute at the noun phrase level
17.16 Participial clauses functioning as attribute at the noun phrase level
17.17 Gerundial and gerundival clauses functioning as attribute at the noun phrase level
17.18 Gerundial clauses functioning as attribute at the noun phrase level
17.19 Gerundival clauses functioning as attribute at the noun phrase level
17.20 Optional gerundial and gerundival clauses at the noun phrase level
17.21 Subordinate clauses at the adjective phrase level
17.22 Finite subordinate clauses functioning at the adjective phrase level
17.23 Declarative finite subordinate clauses functioning at the adjective phrase level
17.24 Interrogative finite subordinate clauses functioning at the adjective phrase level
17.25 Imperative finite subordinate clauses functioning at the adjective phrase level
17.26 Non-finite subordinate clauses functioning at the adjective phrase level
17.27 Infinitival clauses functioning at the adjective phrase level
17.28 Accusative and infinitive clauses functioning at the adjectivep hrase level
17.29 Prolative infinitive clauses functioning at the adjective phrase level
17.30 Participial clauses functioning at the adjective phrase level
17.31 Gerundial and gerundival clauses functioning at the adjective phrase level
17.32 Gerundial clauses functioning at the adjective phrase level
17.33 Gerundival clauses functioning at the adjective phrase level
17.34 Gerundial and gerundival clauses functioning as optional constituents at the adjective phrase level
17.35 Subordinate clauses at the adverb phrase level
18 Relative clauses
18.1 Introduction
18.2 Types of relative clauses
18.3 Adnominal relative clauses
18.4 Semantic types of adnominal relative clauses
18.5 Restrictive relative clauses
18.6 Non-restrictive relative clauses
18.7 The function of the relative expression in the relative clause
18.8 Exceptional case marking of relative expressions
18.9 The syntactic functions of heads with an adnominal relative clause
18.10 Interlacing of adnominal clauses with other subordinate clauses
18.11 Reduction of inferrable elements in adnominal relative clauses
18.12 The relative order of the adnominal relative clause and its head
18.13 Multiple adnominal relative clauses
18.14 Adjectives and other constituents related to the relative expression instead of to the head
18.15 Autonomous relative clauses
18.16 The syntactic functions of autonomous relative clauses and their formal expression
18.17 Complex autonomous relative clauses
18.18 The presence of the same noun (phrase) in the relative and superordinate clause
18.19 Autonomous relative clauses at the adjective phrase level
18.20 Some observations on the use of the tenses in relative clauses
18.21 The use of the tenses in relative clauses with a future indicative
18.22 The use of the tenses in relative clauses with a subjunctive
18.23 The use of the moods in relative clauses
18.24 The use of the moods in non-restrictive adnominal relative clauses
18.25 The use of the moods in restrictive adnominal clauses
18.26 The use of the moods in autonomous relative clauses
18.27 Autonomous relative clauses functioning as clausal appositions
18.28 Relative connexion
18.29 The use of the connective relative in ablative absolute clauses
18.30 Coordination of relative clauses
18.31 Indefinite relative clauses
18.32 Indefinite adnominal relative clauses
18.33 Indefinite autonomous relative clauses
18.34 Relative adjectives and adverbs
18.35 Relative adjectives
18.36 Relative adverbs
18.37 Relative clauses containing a space adverb
18.38 Adnominal relative clauses with cum (quom)
18.39 Relative clauses with adverbs of reason (quamobrem, quapropter, and quare)
19 Coordination
19.1 Introductory remarks
19.2 Syndetic coordination
19.3 Syndetic coordination of clauses
19.4 Syndetic coordination of constituents at the clause level
19.5 Syndetic coordination of verbs sharing the same subject
19.6 Syndetic coordination of verbs sharing the same object
19.7 Syndetic coordination of verbs with different argument marking that share an object or a comparable constituent
19.8 Syndetic coordination of verbs sharing a third argument or a satellite
19.9 Syndetic coordination of arguments and satellites at the clause level
19.10 Syndetic coordination of constituents below the clause level
19.11 Syndetic coordination of constituents at the noun phrase level
19.12 Syndetic coordination of constituents at the adjective phrase level
19.13 Syndetic coordination of prepositions and of prepositional phrases
19.14 Asyndetic coordination
19.15 Asyndetic coordination of clauses
19.16 Asyndetic coordination of verbs sharing the same subject
19.17 Asyndetic coordination of verbs sharing the same object, indirect object, or satellite
19.18 Asyndetic coordination of arguments and satellites at the clause level
19.19 Asyndetic coordination of constituents below the clause level
19.20 Asyndetic coordination of modifiers at the noun phrase level
19.21 Asyndetic coordination of constituents at the adjective phrase level
19.22 Asyndetic coordination of nouns and noun phrases in prepositional phrases
19.23 Conjunctive (or: copulative) coordinators
19.24 Simple conjunctive coordination
19.25 The simple use of the conjunctive coordinator -que
19.26 The simple use of the conjunctive coordinator ac/atque
19.27 The simple use of the conjunctive coordinator et
19.28 The single use of the negative conjunctive coordinator nec/neque
19.29 Correlative conjunctive coordination
19.30 The correlative use of the conjunctive coordinator -que
19.31 The correlative use of the conjunctive coordinator ac/atque
19.32 The correlative use of the conjunctive coordinator et
19.33 The correlative use of the negative conjunctive coordinator nec/neque
19.34 The correlative use of different conjunctive coordinators
19.35 Correlative combinations of -que with another conjunctive coordinator
19.36 Correlative combination of et and ac/atque
19.37 Correlative combinations of nec/neque with another conjunctive coordinator
19.38 Multiple conjunctive coordination
19.39 Multiple syndetic conjunctive coordination
19.40 Multiple mixed (syndetic and asyndetic) conjunctive coordination
19.41 The semantic relation between conjunctively linked conjoins
19.42 The use of cum resembling a comitative coordinator
19.43 Disjunctive (or: alternative) coordinators
19.44 Simple disjunctive coordination
19.45 The simple use of the disjunctive coordinator aut
19.46 The simple use of the disjunctive coordinator vel
19.47 The simple use of the disjunctive coordinator -ve
19.48 The simple use of the disjunctive coordinator sive/seu
19.49 The simple use of an as a disjunctive coordinator
19.50 Correlative disjunctive coordination
19.51 The correlative use of the disjunctive coordinator aut
19.52 The correlative use of the disjunctive coordinator vel
19.53 The correlative use of the disjunctive coordinator -ve
19.54 The correlative use of the disjunctive coordinator sive/seu
19.55 The correlative use of the negative disjunctive coordinator neve
19.56 The correlative use of different disjunctive coordinators
19.57 Multiple disjunctive coordination
19.58 Multiple syndetic disjunctive coordination
19.59 Multiple mixed (syndetic and asyndetic) disjunctive coordination
19.60 The semantic relation between disjunctively linked conjoins
19.61 Adversative coordination
19.62 The use of the adversative coordinator sed
19.63 The use of the adversative coordinator verum
19.64 The use of the adversative coordinator ceterum
19.65 The correlative use of the adversative coordinators
19.66 Hierarchical ordering of sequences of conjoins
19.67 Epitactic coordination
19.68 Conjunctive epitactic coordination
19.69 Adversative epitactic coordination
19.70 Asyndetic epitactic coordination
19.71 Quasi-coordinators
19.72 The quasi-coordinating use of nedum
19.73 The use of the combination cum . . . tum as a correlative conjunctive quasi-coordinator
19.74 The use of the combination ut . . . ita (sic) as a correlative coordinator
19.75 Less common types of coordination
19.76 Coordination of two or more functionally equivalent conjoins belonging to different lexical categories
19.77 Coordination of nouns and noun phrases with constituents that belong to other lexical categories
19.78 Coordination of adjectives with constituents that belong to other lexical categories
19.79 Coordination of adverbs with constituents that belong to other lexical categories
19.80 Coordination of two or more functionally unequivalent conjoins
19.81 Other noteworthy types of coordination
19.82 Hysteron Proteron
19.83 Zeugma
19.84 Hendiadys
20 Comparison
20.1 Introduction
20.2 Comparison between two terms with respect to a certain standard
20.3 Comparison of non-equivalence
20.4 The comparative particles of non-equivalence
20.5 The comparative particle quam ‘than’
20.6 The use of ac/atque and et in comparison of non-equivalence
20.7 The ablative of comparison (ablativus comparationis)
20.8 Minor alternative expressions for the basis of comparison in comparisons of non-equivalence
20.9 The comparative element used with expressions of quantity, extent of space or time, age, etc.
20.10 Expressions specifying the measure of difference in comparisons of non-equivalence
20.11 Comparison of equivalence
20.12 Comparison between two properties
20.13 Comparison of non-equivalence between two properties
20.14 Comparison of equivalence between two properties
20.15 Similarity and dissimilarity
20.16 The use of coordinators in expressions of similarity and dissimilarity
20.17 The use of ac/atque in expressions of similarity and dissimilarity
20.18 The use of et in expressions of similarity and dissimilarity
20.19 The use of quam in expressions of similarity and dissimilarity
20.20 The use of the ablative in expressions of similarity and dissimilarity
20.21 The use of relative adverbs of manner and conditional comparative subordinators in expressions of similarity
20.22 The use of prepositions and nisi in expressions of dissimilarity
20.23 Expressions specifying the degree of dissimilarity
20.24 Comparative expressions of quality
20.25 Ut clauses characterizing a quality of a constituent in the main clause
20.26 Ut and related phrases functioning as secondary predicate
20.27 Ut phrases of qualification
20.28 Proportional comparison
20.29 The proportional pattern with a comparative
20.30 The proportional pattern with a superlative
20.31 The absolute use of comparative forms of adjectives and adverbs
20.32 The superlative and related expressions
21 Secondary predicates
21.1 Secondary predicates: introductory remarks
21.2 Categories of constituents functioning as secondary predicate
21.3 Adjectives functioning as secondary predicate
21.4 The use of adjectives as secondary predicate in poetry and poeticizing prose
21.5 Adjective phrases functioning as secondary predicate
21.6 Nouns and noun phrases (showing agreement) functioning as secondary predicate
21.7 Participles functioning as secondary predicate
21.8 Accusative and participle construction with perception verbs
21.9 Gerundives functioning as secondary predicate
21.10 Noun phrases in the genitive functioning as secondary predicate
21.11 Nouns in the dative functioning as secondary predicate
21.12 Noun phrases in the ablative functioning as secondary predicate
21.13 Prepositional phrases functioning as secondary predicate
21.14 The gerund developing into an alternative for the present participle
21.15 Autonomous relative clauses functioning as secondary predicates
21.16 The distribution of secondary predicates
21.17 The semantic relationship between a secondary predicate and its clause
21.18 Explicit marking of the semantic relation between a secondary predicate and the clause to which it belongs
21.19 Secondary predicates and related constructions
21.20 The difference between an adjective functioning as secondary predicate and a related adverb
21.21 Potential ambiguity: secondary predicate or apposition?
21.22 Pragmatic considerations
21.23 Quantifiers and related expressions seemingly functioning as secondary predicate
21.24 Ipse and idem
21.25 Co-occurrence of various secondary predicates and related expressions in the same clause
22 Information structure and extraclausal expressions
22.1 The information structure of clauses
22.2 Topic
22.3 Topic and subject
22.4 Eligibility of constituents for the function of topic
22.5 Types of constituents that function as topic
22.6 Formal properties of topics
22.7 Focus
22.8 What makes a constituent of a clause focus?
22.9 Complex focus
22.10 How can we identify focus constituents?
22.11 Presentative sentences
22.12 Cleft sentences
22.13 The extraclausal functions theme, setting, and tail
22.14 Theme constituents
22.15 Setting constituents
22.16 Tail constituents
22.17 Contrast and emphasis
22.18 Contrast
22.19 Emphasis
22.20 Emphasizing particles
22.21 Additive emphasizing particles
22.22 Scalar additive particles
22.23 Exclusive particles
22.24 Particularizing particles
22.25 Quidem and equidem
22.26 Quidem
22.27 Equidem
22.28 Saltem and related expressions
22.29 Saltem
22.30 Certe
22.31 Utique
22.32 Dumtaxat
22.33 Praesertim and related expressions
22.34 Praesertim
22.35 Praecipue
22.36 Imprimis
22.37 Maxime
22.38 Potissimum
22.39 Demum
22.40 Iam
22.41 Suffixes of personal pronouns and possessive adjectives
22.42 Preparative expressions as emphasizers
22.43 Parenthetical clauses and other types of extraclausal constituents
22.44 Parenthetical constituents
22.45 Parenthetical clauses and sentences
22.46 Parenthetical use of verbs and expressions of perception, cognition, and communication
22.47 Curses and swear words
22.48 Interjections
22.49 Sound-reproducing interjections
22.50 Summonses
22.51 Introductory interjections
22.52 Expressive interjections
22.53 Address
22.54 The functions of address
22.55 The forms of address
22.56 The syntax of address
23 Word order
23.1 Methodological preliminaries
23.2 Roman ideas about word order
23.3 Factors that determine the linear order of words and larger constituents
23.4 Sentence type
23.5 Text type
23.6 Categorial factors
23.7 Domain integrity
23.8 Semantic factors
23.9 Syntactic factors
23.10 Pragmatic factors
23.11 Euphonic and rhythmic factors
23.12 Complexity
23.13 Iconicity
23.14 Artistic factors
23.15 Typological considerations
23.16 Syntactic structure and intonation structure
23.17 Pause and the determination of sense boundaries
23.18 Clausulae
23.19 The order of constituents at the clause and sentence levels
20.20 Categories of constituents with a more or less fixed position
23.21 Connectors and interactional particles
23.22 Anaphoric constituents
23.23 Subordinating devices
23.24 Subordinators
23.25 Relative pronouns, adjectives, adverbs, and determiners
23.26 Question words
23.27 Interrogative particles
23.28 Interrogative pronouns, adjectives, adverbs, and determiners
23.29 Categories of constituents that tend to be placed after another constituent
23.30 Indefinite determiners and pronouns
23.31 Personal pronouns and forms of the verb sum
23.32 The position of personal pronouns
23.33 The position of forms of the verb sum
23.34 Emphasizing particles
23.35 Bound clitics
23.36 The position of the coordinators -que and -ve
23.37 The position of the interrogative particle -ne
23.38 The position of negation adverbs
23.39 The relative position of arguments, satellites, secondary predicates, and (finite) verbs
23.40 The position of arguments, satellites, secondary predicates, and ( finite) verbs in declarative sentences
23.41 The first position in declarative sentences
23.42 Arguments in first position in declarative sentences
23.43 Satellites in first position in declarative sentences
23.44 Secondary predicates in first position in declarative sentences
23.45 Finite verbs in first position in declarative sentences
23.46 The last position in declarative sentences
23.47 Arguments in final position in declarative sentences
23.48 Satellites in final position in declarative sentences
23.49 Finite verbs in final position in declarative sentences
23.50 Intermediate positions in simple declarative sentences
23.51 Word order in interrogative sentences
23.52 Word order in sentence questions
23.53 Word order in constituent questions
23.54 Word order in multiple questions
23.55 Word order in imperative sentences
23.56 Word order in imperative sentences with a directive illocutionary force
23.57 Word order in imperative sentences with an optative illocutionary force
23.58 Word order in imperative sentences with a concessive illocutionary force
23.59 Word order in superordinate (main) clauses
23.60 Word order in subordinate clauses
23.61 Word order in finite subordinate clauses
23.62 Word order in accusative and infinitive clauses
23.63 Word order in ablative absolute clauses
23.64 The order of superordinate and subordinateclauses in complex sentences
23.65 The relative order of finite superordinate and subordinate clauses in sentences with two clauses
23.66 The relative order of superordinate and accusative and infinitive clauses in sentences with two clauses
23.67 The relative order of superordinate and ablative absolute clauses in sentences with two clauses
23.98 The relative order of superordinate and subordinate clauses in multi-clausal sentences
23.69 Word order at the noun phrase level
23.70 The relative order of head and attribute
23.71 The position of attributes that agree with their head
23.72 The position of determiners
23.73 The position of anaphoric and demonstrative determiners
23.74 The position of indefinite determiners
23.75 The position of relative and interrogative determiners
23.76 The position of attributive possessive adjectives
23.77 The position of identifiers
23.78 The position of attributive quantifiers
23.79 The position of attributive adjectives
23.80 The position of attributive adjective phrases
23.81 Comparatives and superlatives
23.82 The position of modifiers of attributes
23.83 The position of nouns and noun phrases functioning as attribute
23.84 The position of attributive noun phrases of description (or quality) (genetivus and ablativus qualitatis)
23.85 The position of adnominal arguments
23.86 Word order in complex noun phrases
23.87 Discontinuity (or: hyperbaton) of noun phrases
23.88 Constituents causing hyperbaton of noun phrases
23.89 Word order in prepositional phrases
23.90 The order of constituents in continuous prepositional phrases
23.91 The position of prepositions in prepositional phrases without a modifier
23.92 The position of prepositions in prepositional phrases with a modifier
23.93 The pattern modifier—preposition—noun
23.94 The pattern noun—preposition—modifier
23.95 The position of prepositions in restrictive appositive phrases
23.96 Discontinuous prepositional phrases
23.97 The relative order of constituents in phrases with the auxiliary sum ‘to be’ and other auxiliaries
23.98 The relative order in complex verb forms with the auxiliary sum ‘to be’
23.99 The position of the auxiliary iri
23.100 The relative order of infinitives and the verbs that govern them
23.101 Discontinuity of coordinated constituents
23.102 Tmesis
23.103 Tmesis created by the coordinator -que
23.104 Diachronic developments
24 Discourse
24.1 Introduction
24.2 Sentence and discourse
24.3 Text types (or: discourse modes)
24.4 Discourse coherence
24.5 Anaphoric reference to participants
24.6 Lexical repetition and variation
24.7 Lexical repetition in combination with anaphoric determiners
24.8 Zero-anaphora: the absence of explicit subject and other obligatory constituents
24.9 Anaphoric(ally used) pronouns and adverbs
24.10 Anaphoric reference to states of affairs and to segments of discourse
24.11 Nouns used to refer to preceding states of affairs or segments of discourse
24.12 Anaphoric(ally used) pronouns and adverbs used to refer to preceding states of affairs or segments of discourse
24.13 Preparative (cataphoric) reference to following states of affairs and segments of discourse
24.14 Cohesive devices linking sentences
24.15 Syndetic connexion of sentences
24.16 Conjunctive connexion of sentences
24.17 The conjunctive connector -que
24.18 The conjunctive connector ac/atque
24.19 The conjunctive connector et
24.20 The conjunctive connector nec/neque
24.21 Disjunctive connexion of sentences
24.22 Adversative connexion of sentences
24.23 The adversative connector ast
24.24 The adversative connector at
24.25 The adversative connector atqui
24.26 The adversative connector autem
24.27 The adversative connector ceterum
24.28 The adversative connector sed
24.29 The adversative connector verum
24.30 The adverb contra
24.31 The adverb tamen
24.32 The adverb nihilominus
24.33 The adverb/connector vero
24.34 The use of etsi, tametsi, and quamquam as connectors
24.35 Explanatory and justificatory connexion of sentences
24.36 The connector nam
24.37 The connector namque
24.38 The connector etenim
24.39 The connector quippe
24.40 The interactional particle enim
24.41 The interactional particle nempe
24.42 Consecutive connexion of sentences
24.43 The connector igitur
24.44 The connector itaque
24.45 The interactional particle ergo
24.46 Sequential connexion of sentences
24.47 The semantic relation between asyndetically connected sentences
24.48 The use of connectors and interactional particles to connect paragraphs
24.49 Grammatical devices contributing to discourse coherence
24.50 Opening and concluding a conversation or letter
Addenda and corrigenda to Volume I
Missing commentaries (pp. 1359–60)
Additional bibliography (publications which are not cited in the bibliography of Volume I)
Bibliography
A. Abbreviated references
B. Linguistic Studies
C. Commentaries and editions
Index locorum
Index of grammatical terms and Latin words
Recommend Papers

The Oxford Latin Syntax, Volume II: the Complex Sentence and Discourse
 9780199230563, 0199230560

  • 0 0 0
  • Like this paper and download? You can publish your own PDF file online for free in a few minutes! Sign Up
File loading please wait...
Citation preview

THE OXFORD

LATIN SYNTAX VOLUME 2

THE COMPLEX SENTENCE AND DISCOURSE

The Oxford Latin Syntax

THE OXFORD LATIN SYNTAX Volume II The Complex Sentence and Discourse

HA R M P I N K S T E R

1

1

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © Harm Pinkster 2021 The moral rights of the author have been asserted First Edition published in 2021 Impression: 1 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: 2020937312 ISBN 978–0–19–923056–3 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199230563.001.0001 Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.

CONTENTS

Preface Signs and other conventions Abbreviations

14

Subordinate clauses: common properties and internal structure

14.1 Subordinate clauses and other forms of clause combining 14.2 Formal and semantic properties of subordinate clauses 14.3 Ambiguous or hybrid instances of clause combining 14.4 The levels at which subordinate clauses can be used 14.5 The internal properties of subordinate clauses 14.6 Finite subordinate clauses 14.7 Non -finite subordinate clauses 14.8 The internal structure of accusative and infinitive clauses 14.9 The nominative and infinitive construction 14.10 'Fused' clauses 14.11 Prolative infinitive clauses 14.12 Gerundial clauses 14.13 Supine clauses

14.14 Participial, gerundival, and nominal clauses 14.15 Means of tightening and making more explicit the relationship

between subordinate and superordinate clauses 14.16 Preparative elements in the main clause 14.17 Resumptive elements in the main clause 14.18 Particles and adverbs tightening or clarifying the relationship between subordinate and superordinate clauses 14.19 Forms of interlacing of superordinate and subordinate clauses 14.20 Subordinators 14.21 Subordinators used with both argument and satellite clauses 14.22 Subordinators and relative adverbs 14.23 Developments in the system of subordinating devices from Latin to the Romance languages 14.24 The period 14.25 Direct and indirect speech

xxvii xxix xxxi

1 1 6 9 11 13 13 16 17 20 21 22 24 25 25 31 31 36 37 39 40 41 43 44 45 48

vi

15

Contents

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position

15.1 The functions of argument clauses 15.2 Types of argument clauses 15.3 Finite argument clauses 15.4 Finite declarative argument clauses 15.5 The use of quod in argument clauses 15.6 The use of quad clauses with the verb accedit 'to be added to' or 'to constitute an addition to' 15.7 The use of quad clauses with verbs and expressions meaning 'to leave unmentioned' 15.8 The use of quad clauses with verbs and expressions of emotion 15.9 The use of quad clauses with verbs and expressions of perception, cognition, and communication

52 53 56 57 57 59 59 61 61 63

15.10 The use of quad clauses with verbs and expressions of accusing and

15.11 15.12 15.13 15.14

convicting and of blaming, excusing, praising, congratulating, and thanking The use of quad clauses in combination with a subject or object complement The use of quad clauses with a variety of other expressions The use of quad clauses with verbs of happening The use of quad clauses in combination with a preparative or interrogative pronoun or similar expressions

15.15 The use of quia in declarative argument clauses 15.16 The use of quia clauses with the verb accedit 'to be added: or 'to constitute an addition to'

66

69 70 71 73 76 76

15.17 The use of quia clauses with verbs and expressions meaning

'to leave unmentioned' 15.18 The use of quia clauses with verbs and expressions of emotion 15.19 The use of quia with verbs and expressions of perception, cognition,

76 76

and communication 15.20 The use of quia clauses with verbs and expressions of blaming,

77

praising, congratulating, and thanking 15.21 The use of quia clauses in combination with a preparative pronoun or determiner

78

15.22 The use of quoniam in declarative argument clauses 15.23 The use of cum (quom) in declarative argument clauses 15.24 The use of quomodo and quemadmodum in declarative argument clauses 15.25 The use of ut in declarative argument clauses

79 80

78

80 81

15.26 The use of ut clauses with the verb accedit 'to be added to' or 'to

constitute an addition to'

82

Contents 15.27 The use of ut clauses with verbs and expressions of happening and befalling 15.28 The use of ut clauses as subject with the verb sum 15.29 The use of ut clauses with verbs and expressions meaning 'the conclusion is: 'it follows' 15.30 The use of ut clauses with verbs and expressions meaning 'it remains to be done: 'it is sufficient' 15.31 The use of ut clauses with various third person singular verb forms (so-called impersonal verbs) 15.32 The use of ut clauses with expressions consisting of the copula and an adjective functioning as subject complement 15.33 The use of ut clauses with expressions consisting of the copula and a noun or noun phrase functioning as subject complement 15.34 The use of ut clauses with expressions consisting of the copula and other categories that function as subject complement 15.35 The use of ut clauses with verbs and expressions of perception, cognition, and communication 15.36 The use of ut clauses in 'periphrastic' constructions

15.37 The use of ne in declarative argument clauses with verbs and expressions of fearing and worrying 15.38 The use of quin in declarative argument clauses with a negative main clause 15.39 The use of si in declarative argument clauses 15.40 The use of si clauses with verbs and expressions of waiting in expectation and trying 15.41 The use of si clauses with verbs and expressions of surprise 15.42 The use of si clauses in combination with so-called impersonal expressions

15.43 The use of quasi in argument clauses with verbs and expressions of pretending 15.44 The use of tamquam (si) and quasi in argument clauses with verbs and expressions of accusing and of emotion and with verbs of communication 15.45 Finite interrogative argument clauses (indirect questions) 15.46 Verbs and expressions governing indirect questions 15.47 Types of interrogative argument clauses (indirect questions) 15.48 Simple interrogative argument clauses (indirect questions) 15.49 Indirect clausal questions 15.50 Inclirect clausal questions without a question particle 15.51 Indirect clausal questions with a question particle 15.52 The use of -ne in indirect clausal questions 15.53 The use of nonne in indirect clausal questions

vii

83 85 86 86 87 88 90 91 92 93 94 96 100 100 101 102 103

104 105 106 107 108 108 108 109 110 111

Copy· 1ghted ~•te

viii

Contents 15.54 The use of num in indirect clausal questions 15.55 The use of utrum in indirect clausal questions 15.56 The use of an in indirect clausal questions 15.57 The use of si in indirect clausal questions 15.58 The use of ne (not clitic) in pseudo-indirect clausal questions 15.59 Indirect questions with indefinite pronouns, determiners, adjectives, adverbs, and particles formed with ec15.60 Indirect constituent questions 15.61 Overlap of indirect constituent questions and autonomous relative clauses 15.62 Multiple indirect questions 15.63 Minor combinations of particles in multiple indirect questions

15.64 Finite imperative argument clauses 15.65 Verbs and expressions governing imperative clauses

111 113 113 115 117 118 119

122 123 125 126 129

15.66 The use of finite imperative clauses with verbs and expressions of ordering and commanding (class (i) (a))

131

15.67 The use of finite imperative clauses with verbs and expressions of begging, requesting, etc. (class (i) (b))

133

15.68 The use of finite imperative clauses with verbs and expressions of advising, warning, exhorting, reminding, admonishing, etc. (class (i) (c))

134

15.69 The use of finite imperative clauses with verbs and expressions of 15.70 15.71 15.72 15.73 15.74 15.75 15. 76 15.77 15.78

15.79

inducing, persuading, etc. (class (i) (d)) The use of finite imperative clauses with verbs and expressions of permitting, granting, allowing (class (i) (e)) The use of finite imperative clauses with verbs and expressions of forcing (class (i) (f)) The use of finite imperative clauses with verbs and expressions of hindering, preventing, etc. (class (i) (g)) The use of finite imperative clauses with verbs and expressions of wishing, desiring, preferring, etc. (class (ii) (a)) The use of finite imperative clauses with verbs and expressions of striving (class (ii) (b)) The use of finite imperative clauses with verbs of causation (class (iii)) The use of finite imperative clauses with verbs and expressions of deciding, resolving, etc. (class (iv)) The use of finite imperative clauses with verbs and expressions of deserving (class (v)) The use of finite imperative clauses in combination with a neuter singular adjective or a comparable expression that functions as subject or object complement (class (vi)) The use of finite imperative clauses in combination with a noun functioning as subject or object complement (class (vii))

135 136 137 138 139 140 142 144 145

145 147

Copyngrted 11ater al

Contents 15.80 The use of finite imperative clauses with so-called impersonal expressions (class (viii))

15.81 The subordinating devices of finite imperative clauses 15.82 15.83 15.84 15.85 15.86 15.87 15.88

The use of ut, ut ne, and ne in imperative clauses Imperative clauses with a simple subjunctive (without a subordinator) The use of the subordinator ne in imperative clauses The use of quin in imperative clauses The use of quominus in imperative clauses The use of quoin imperative clauses The use of qui in imperative clauses

15.89 Exclamatory argument clauses 15.90 Non-finite argument clauses 15.91 Infinitival argument clauses 15.92 Accusative and infinitive clauses 15.93 The functions of accusative and infinitive clauses 15.94 The use of the accusative and infinitive clause as subject or object with verbs and expressions of happening and befalling or causing to happen 15.95 The use of the accusative and infinitive clause as subject with accedit 'to be added to' or 'to constitute an addition to' 15.96 The use of the accusative and infinitive clause as subject or object with verbs and expressions meaning 'to leave unmentioned' 15.97 The use of the accusative and infinitive clause with verbs and expressions of emotion 15.98 The use of the accusative and infinitive clause with verbs and expressions of perception, cognition, and communication 15.99 The use of the accusative and infinitive clause with verbs and expressions of praising, blaming, and thanking 15.100 The non-declarative use of the accusative and infinitive clause 15.101 The use of the accusative and infinitive clause as subject with one-place and so-called impersonal verbs 15.102 The use of accusative and infinitive clauses in combination with expressions that function as subject or object complement 15.103 The use of the accusative and infinitive clause with a preparative pronoun 15.104 Independent accusative and infinitive clauses 15.105 The use of the accusative and infinitive clause in interrogative clauses and sentences 15.106 The use of the accusative and infinitive clause in exclamations 15.107 The use of the accusative and infinitive in relative clauses 15.108 The use of the accusative and infinitive in correlative and comparative structures

ix

148 149 149 150 154 154 154 154 155 155 156 156 157 157

159 160 161 161 162 170 170 181 183 184 186 186 189 189 190

Copy· 1ghted ~•te

x

Contents 15.109 The use of the accusative and infinitive in subordinate (especially satellite) clauses with a subordinator 15.110 The use of the accusative and infinitive as subject of passive two- and three-place verbs 15.111 The nominative and infinitive construction 15.112 Other personal constructions resembling the Nd construction 15.113 Diachronic developments of the accusative and infinitive 15.114 Prolative infinitive clauses 15.115 The use of the prolative infinitive with verbs and expressions of ordering and commanding (class (i) (a)) 15.116 The use of the prolative infinitive with verbs and expressions of begging, requesting, etc. (class (i) (b)) 15.117 The use of the prolative infinitive with verbs and expressions of advising, warning, exhorting, reminding, admonishing, etc. (class (i) (c)) 15.118 The use of the prolative infinitive with verbs and expressions of inducing, persuading, etc. (class (i) (d)) 15.119 The use of the prolative infinitive with verbs and expressions of permitting, granting, allowing, etc. (class (i) (e)) 15.120 The use of the prolative infinitive with verbs and expressions of forcing (class (i) (f)) 15.121 The use of the prolative infinitive with verbs and expressions of hindering, preventing, etc. (class (i) (g)) 15.122 The use of the prolative infinitive with verbs and expressions of wishing, desiring, preferring, etc. (class (ii) (a)) 15.123 The use of the prolative infinitive with verbs and expressions of striving (class (ii) (b)) 15.124 The use of the prolative infinitive with verbs of causation (class (iii)) 15.125 The use of the prolative infinitive with verbs and expressions of deciding, resolving, etc. (class (iv)) 15.126 The use of the prolative infinitive with verbs and expressions of deserving (class (v)) 15.127 The use of the prolative infinitive in combination with a neuter singular adjective that functions as subject or object complement (class (vi)) 15.128 The use of the prolative infinitive in combination with other expressions that function as subject or object complement (class (vii)) 15.129 The use of the prolative infinitive with so-called impersonal expressions (class (viii)) 15.130 The use of the infinitive with verbs of accusing and convicting 15.131 The use of the (present) infinitive with auxiliary verbs and verbs with a related meaning

191 192

194 200 202 204 204 205

205 206 207 208 208 209 209 211 211 212

212 213

215 216 219

Copyngrted 11ater al

Contents

15.132 Participial argument clauses (dominant participles) 15.133 The use of the dominant participle construction as subject 15.134 The use of the dominant participle construction as object or as third argument 15.135 Gerundial argument clauses 15.136 The use of gerundial clauses as argument with verbs 15.137 The use of gerundial clauses as second or third argument 15.138 The use of gerundial clauses instead of prolative infinitives 15.139 The use of gerundial clauses with two-place adjectives that function as subject or object complement 15.140 Gerundival argument clauses

15.141 The use of gerundival clauses as arguments with verbs 15.142 The use of gerundival clauses with adjectives that function as subject or object complement

xi

220 220 223 224 225 225 227 229 229 230

15.143 Relative clauses functioning as argument 15.144 Nominal (verbless) argument clauses

233 234 234

16

237

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position

16.l Verbal and nominal satellite clauses 16.2 Finite satellite clauses 16.3 Classes of finite satellite clauses 16.4 The role of subordinators in satellite clauses 16.5 Satellite clauses (seemingly) filling an argument position 16.6 Space clauses (adjuncts) 16.7 Time clauses (adjuncts) 16.8 Time clauses denoting an event that is simultaneous with the event in the main clause 16.9 Time clauses that locate the event of the main clause in time (cum, dum, quando, quoniam, quotiens) 16.10 Time clauses with cum (quom) 16.11 So-called cum inversum clauses 16.12 The temporal use of quoniam 16.13 Time clauses with quando, quandoque, and quandocumque 16.14 Time clauses with dum locating the event of the main clause in time 16.15 Time clauses indicating the extent of time of the event in the main clause 16.16 Time clauses indicating a co-extensive event 16.17 Dum clauses indicating an event that lasts longer than the event of the main clause 16.18 Time clauses indicating an event that concludes the event of the main clause

237 237 238 238 239 240 241 243 243 243 245 248 249 250 251 251 254 255

Copy· 1ghted ~•te

xii

Contents

16.19 Time clauses denoting anterior events 16.20 16.21 16.22 16.23 16.24 16.25 16.26

Time clauses with cum Time clauses with postquam Time clauses with simul Time clauses with ubi Time clauses with ut Time clauses with mox, primum, and statim Time clauses with ex quo

16.27 Time clauses denoting a posterior event 16.28 Non-temporal interpretations of time clauses 16.29 The interpretation of cum (quom) clauses as indicating the reason for the content of the main clause 16.30 The interpretation of dum clauses as indicating the reason for the content of the main clause 16.31 The concessive (or: 'adversative') interpretation of cum (quom) clauses 16.32 The concessive and reason interpretations of postquam clauses 16.33 Manner clauses

16.34 Manner adjunct clauses 16.35 Attitudinal manner clauses (disjuncts) 16.36 Illocutionary manner clauses (disjuncts) 16.37 Degree clauses (adjuncts) 16.38 Respect clauses (disjuncts) 16.39 Reason (causal) clauses 16.40 Reason clauses with quia (adjuncts) 16.41 Reason clauses with quad (adjuncts) 16.42 Reason clauses with quoniam (disjuncts) 16.43 Reason clauses with quando(quidem) (disjuncts) 16.44 Reason clauses with quandoque (disjuncts) 16.45 Reason clauses with quatenus (disjuncts) 16.46 Reason clauses with quin (adjuncts) 16.47 Reason clauses with qua (adjuncts) 16.48 Later developments 16.49 Purpose (final) clauses 16.50 Purpose clauses with ut and (ut) ne 16.51 Purpose clauses with qua (adjuncts) 16.52 Purpose clauses with qui (adjuncts) 16.53 Stipulative clauses 16.54 Result (consecutive) clauses 16.55 Conditional clauses 16.56 Negation of conditional clauses 16.57 Conditional clauses functioning as adjunct 16.58 J\bbreviated' conditional periods

257 258 258 260 261 262 264 264 265 266 266 268 269 270 270 271 274 277 278 279 281 285 287 289 293 294 294 295 296 297 297 300 304 305 306 308 314 316 322 332

Copyngrted 11ater al

Contents

16.59 Purpose si clauses 16.60 Adversative, concessive, and causal interpretations of conditional clauses

16.61 So-called temporal si clauses 16.62 Ni/Nisi 'de rupture' 16.63 Conditional clauses functioning as attitudinal disjunct 16.64 Conditional clauses functioning as illocutionary disjunct 16.65 Alternative conditional clauses with sive/seu 16.66 Conditional comparative clauses 16.67 Nisi clauses of exception 16.68 Concessive clauses 16.69 So-called concessive conditional clauses 16.70 Concessive and concessive conditional clauses functioning as adjunct 16.71 Concessive clauses functioning as attitudinal disjunct 16.72 Concessive clauses functioning as illocutionary disjunct 16.73 The individual concessive subordinators: quamquam, quamvis, the si compounds, and licet 16.74 Concessive clauses with quamquam 16.75 Concessive clauses with quamvis 16.76 Concessive clauses with etsi, etiamsi, tametsi, and tamenetsi 16.77 Concessive clauses with etsi 16.78 Concessive clauses with tametsi (and tarn etsi) 16.79 Concessive clauses with etiamsi (and etiam si) 16.80 Concessive clauses with tamenetsi (and tamen etsi) 16.81 Concessive clauses with licet 16.82 The concessive interpretation of ut clauses 16.83 Quod and quantum clauses of qualification (disjuncts) 16.84 Satellite clauses introduced by complex subordinators 16.85 Non-finite satellite clauses 16.86 Infinitival satellite clauses 16.87 Participial satellite clauses 16.88 Participial ablative absolute clauses 16.89 The semantic relationship between the participial ablative absolute clause and the main clause

xiii 334 336 339 341 343 345 346 348 350 354 358 360 362 364 365 365 366 369 370 371 371

373 373 375 377 378 383 383 386 387 388

16.90 The relationship between arguments of the participial ablative absolute and the main clause

16.91 The internal complexity of the participial ablative absolute clause 16.92 Ablative participles without a subject noun (phrase) 16.93 Ablative absolute clauses of one-place verbs 16.94 Participial absolute clauses in other case forms 16.95 Participial nominative absolute clauses

394 397 400 402 402 402

Copy· 1ghted ~•te

xiv

Contents 16.96 Participial genitive absolute clauses 16.97 Participial accusative absolute clauses 16.98 Prepositional participial satellite clauses

16.99 Gerundial satellite clauses 16.100 16.101 16.102 16.103 16.104

Gerundial purpose adjunct clauses Gerundial instrument/manner adjunct clauses Gerundial temporal adjunct clauses Gerundial reason adjunct clauses Gerundial adjuncts in other semantic relations (ablative and prepositional expressions)

16.105 Gerundival satellite clauses 16.106 16.107 16.108 16.109 16.110

Gerundival purpose adjunct clauses Gerundival instrument/manner adjunct clauses Gerundival temporal/circumstantial adjunct clauses Gerundival reason adjunct clauses Gerundival adjunct clauses in other semantic functions (mostly prepositional phrases)

16.111 Supine satellite clauses 16.112 The use of the first supine (in -um) as a purpose adjunct 16.113 The so-called second supine in - u

16.114 Nominal (verbless) satellite clauses 16.115 Nominal ablative absolute clauses 16.116 Substantival ablative absolute clauses 16.117 Adjectival ablative absolute clauses 16.118 Nominal absolute clauses in cases other than the ablative 16.119 Prepositional nominal absolute clauses

17

Subordinate clauses with nouns, adjectives, and adverbs

17. I Introductory remarks 17.2 Subordinate clauses at the noun phrase level 17.3 Finite subordinate clauses functioning as attribute at the noun phrase level 17.4 Declarative subordinate clauses functioning as attribute at the noun phrase level 17.5 17.6 17. 7 17.8 17.9

Declarative clauses with quad and quia at the noun phrase level Declarative clauses with ut at the noun phrase level Declarative clauses depending on nouns of fearing and worrying Declarative clauses with quin at the noun phrase level The use of tamquam and quasi clauses with nouns of emotion, cognition, and communication

17.10 Interrogative subordinate clauses functioning as attribute at the noun phrase level

403 403 404 406 406 409 412 412 413

414 414 416 418 419 419 420 421 423 427 427 427 430 433 433 435 435 436 439 440 440 441 442 443 443 444

Copyngrted 11ater al

Contents

17 .11 Imperative subordinate clauses functioning as attribute at the noun phrase level 17.12 Non-finite subordinate clauses functioning as attribute at the noun phrase level

17 .13 Infinitival subordinate clauses functioning as attribute at the noun phrase level 17.14 Accusative and infinitive clauses functioning as attribute at the noun phrase level 17.15 Prolative infinitive clauses functioning as attribute at the noun phrase level

17 .16 Participial clauses functioning as attribute at the noun phrase level 17 .17 Gerundial and gerundival clauses functioning as attribute at the noun phrase level 17.18 Gerundial clauses functioning as attribute at the noun phrase level 17.19 Gerundival clauses functioning as attribute at the noun phrase level 17.20 Optional gerundial and gerundival clauses at the noun phrase level

17.21 Subordinate clauses at the adjective phrase level 17.22 Finite subordinate clauses functioning at the adjective phrase level 17.23 Declarative finite subordinate clauses functioning at the adjective phrase level 17.24 Interrogative finite subordinate clauses functioning at the adjective phrase level 17.25 Imperative finite subordinate clauses functioning at the adjective phrase level 17.26 Non-finite subordinate clauses functioning at the adjective phrase level 17.27 Infinitival clauses functioning at the adjective phrase level 17.28 Accusative and infinitive clauses functioning at the adjective phrase level 17.29 Prolative infinitive clauses functioning at the adjective phrase level

17.30 Participial clauses functioning at the adjective phrase level 17.31 Gerundial and gerundival clauses functioning at the adjective phrase level 17.32 Gerundial clauses functioning at the adjective phrase level 17.33 Gerundival clauses functioning at the adjective phrase level

xv

446 448 448 448 449 451 452 454 456 458 459 460 460 461 462 463 463 463 464 466 466 467 468

17.34 Gerundial and gerundival clauses functioning as optional constituents at the adjective phrase level 17.35 Subordinate clauses at the adverb phrase level

469 469

18

471

Relative clauses

18. l Introduction 18.2 Types of relative clauses 18.3 Adnominal relative clauses

471

473 478

Copy· 1ghted ~•te

xvi

Contents

18.4 Semantic types of adnominal relative clauses 18.5 Restrictive relative clauses 18.6 Non-restrictive relative clauses 18. 7 The function of the relative expression in the relative clause 18.8 Exceptional case marking of relative expressions 18.9 The syntactic functions of heads with an adnominal relative clause 18.10 Interlacing of adnominal clauses with other subordinate clauses 18.11 Reduction of inferrable elements in adnominal relative clauses 18.12 The relative order of the adnominal relative clause and its head 18.13 Multiple adnominal relative clauses 18.14 Adjectives and other constituents related to the relative expression instead of to the head 18.15 Autonomous relative clauses 18.16 The syntactic functions of autonomous relative clauses and their formal expression 18.17 Complex autonomous relative clauses 18.18 The presence of the same noun (phrase) in the relative and superordinate clause 18.19 Autonomous relative clauses at the adjective phrase level 18.20 Some observations on the use of the tenses in relative clauses 18.21 The use of the tenses in relative clauses with a future indicative 18.22 The use of the tenses in relative clauses with a subjunctive 18.23 The use of the moods in relative clauses 18.24 The use of the moods in non-restrictive adnominal relative clauses 18.25 The use of the moods in restrictive adnominal clauses 18.26 The use of the moods in autonomous relative clauses 18.27 Autonomous relative clauses functioning as clausal appositions 18.28 Relative connexion 18.29 The use of the connective relative in ablative absolute clauses 18.30 Coordination of relative clauses 18.31 Indefinite relative clauses 18.32 Indefinite adnominal relative clauses 18.33 Indefinite autonomous relative clauses 18.34 Relative adjectives and adverbs 18.35 Relative adjectives 18.36 Relative adverbs 18.37 Relative clauses containing a space adverb 18.38 Adnominal relative clauses with cum (quom) 18.39 Relative clauses with adverbs ofreason (quamobrem, quapropter, and quare)

478 479 484 487 489 492 492 494 496 498 500 501 514 527 528 532 536 536 53 7 538 539 544 547 551 555 560 562 567 567 568 570 570 575 575 579 580

Contents

19

Coordination

19.1 Introductory remarks 19.2 Syndetic coordination 19 .3 Syndetic coordination of clauses 19.4 Syndetic coordination of constituents at the clause level 19 .5 Syndetic coordination of verbs sharing the same subject 19.6 Syndetic coordination of verbs sharing the same object 19. 7 Syndetic coordination of verbs with different argument marking that share an object or a comparable constituent 19 .8 Syndetic coordination of verbs sharing a third argument or a satellite 19.9 Syndetic coordination of arguments and satellites at the clause level 19.10 Syndetic coordination of constituents below the clause level 19.11 Syndetic coordination of constituents at the noun phrase level 19.12 Syndetic coordination of constituents at the adjective phrase level 19 .13 Syndetic coordination of prepositions and of prepositional phrases 19.14 Asyndetic coordination 19.15 Asyndetic coordination of clauses 19 .16 Asyndetic coordination of verbs sharing the same subject 19 .17 Asyndetic coordination of verbs sharing the same object, indirect object, or satellite 19 .18 Asyndetic coordination of arguments and satellites at the clause level 19.19 Asyndetic coordination of constituents below the clause level 19.20 Asyndetic coordination of modifiers at the noun phrase level 19.21 Asyndetic coordination of constituents at the adjective phrase level 19 .22 Asyndetic coordination of nouns and noun phrases in prepositional phrases 19.23 Conjunctive (or: copulative) coordinators 19.24 Simple conjunctive coordination 19 .25 The simple use of the conjunctive coordinator -que 19 .26 The simple use of the conjunctive coordinator ac/ atque 19 .27 The simple use of the conjunctive coordinator et 19.28 The single use of the negative conjunctive coordinator nec/neque 19 .29 Correlative conjunctive coordination 19 .30 The correlative use of the conjunctive coordinator -que 19.31 The correlative use of the conjunctive coordinator ac/atque 19.32 The correlative use of the conjunctive coordinator et 19 .33 The correlative use of the negative conjunctive coordinator nec/neque 19.34 The correlative use of different conjunctive coordinators 19.35 Correlative combinations of -que with another conjunctive coordinator

xvii 583 583 588 588 589 591 592 593 595 595 597 597 599 600 606 609 611 613 614 618 619 620 620 620 621 624 628 632 637 638 638 640 640 642 644 644

Copy· 1ghted ~•te

xviii

Contents 19.36 Correlative combination of et and ac/atque 19.37 Correlative combinations of nec/neque with another conjunctive coordinator

19.38 Multiple conjunctive coordination 19.39 Multiple syndetic conjunctive coordination 19.40 Multiple mixed (syndetic and asyndetic) conjunctive coordination 19.41 The semantic relation between conjunctively linked conjoins 19.42 The use of cum resembling a comitative coordinator 19.43 Disjunctive (or: alternative) coordinators 19 .44 Simple disjunctive coordination 19.45 The simple use of the disjunctive coordinator aut 19.46 The simple use of the disjunctive coordinator vel 19.47 The simple use of the disjunctive coordinator -ve 19 .48 The simple use of the disjunctive coordinator sive/ seu 19.49 The simple use of an as a disjunctive coordinator 19.50 Correlative disjunctive coordination 19.51 The correlative use of the disjunctive coordinator aut 19.52 The correlative use of the disjunctive coordinator vel 19.53 The correlative use of the disjunctive coordinator -ve 19.54 The correlative use of the disjunctive coordinator sive/seu 19.55 The correlative use of the negative disjunctive coordinator neve 19.56 The correlative use of different disjunctive coordinators 19.57 Multiple disjunctive coordination 19.58 Multiple syndetic disjunctive coordination 19.59 Multiple mixed (syndetic and asyndetic) disjunctive coordination 19.60 The semantic relation between disjunctively linked conjoins 19.61 Adversative coordination 19.62 The use of the adversative coordinator sed 19.63 The use of the adversative coordinator verum 19.64 The use of the adversative coordinator ceterum 19.65 The correlative use of the adversative coordinators 19.66 Hierarchical ordering of sequences of conjoins 19.67 Epitactic coordination 19.68 Conjunctive epitactic coordination 19.69 Adversative epitactic coordination 19. 70 Asyndetic epitactic coordination 19.71 Quasi-coordinators 19.72 The quasi-coordinating use of nedum 19. 73 The use of the combination cum ... tum as a correlative conjunctive quasi-coordinator 19.74 The use of the combination ut . .. ita (sic) as a correlative coordinator

646 647 649 650 651 653 656 657 658 658 660 662 665 667 668 668 671 672 672 674 675 676 676 678 679 680 682 684 685 686 689 691 693 696 698 698 699 701 702

Copyngrted 11ater al

Contents 19.75 Less common types of coordination 19. 76 Coordination of two or more functionally equivalent conjoins belonging to different lexical categories 19.77 Coordination of nouns and noun phrases with constituents that

belong to other lexical categories

xix 703 704 704

19.78 Coordination of adjectives with constituents that belong to

other lexical categories

705

19. 79 Coordination of adverbs with constituents that belong to other

lexical categories 19 .80 Coordination of two or more functionally unequivalent conjoins 19.81 Other noteworthy types of coordination 19.82 Hysteron Proteron 19.83 Zeugma 19.84 Hendiadys

20

Comparison

20.l Introduction 20.2 Comparison between two terms with respect to a certain standard 20.3 Comparison of non-equivalence 20.4 The comparative particles of non-equivalence 20.5 The comparative particle quam 'than' 20.6 The use of ac/atque and et in comparison of non-equivalence

20.7 The ablative of comparison (ablativus comparationis) 20.8 Minor alternative expressions for the basis of comparison in

comparisons of non-equivalence 20.9 The comparative element used with expressions of quantity, extent of space or time, age, etc. 20.10 Expressions specifying the measure of difference in comparisons of non-equivalence 20.11 Comparison of equivalence 20.12 Comparison between two properties 20.13 Comparison of non-equivalence between two properties 20.14 Comparison of equivalence between two properties 20.15 Similarity and dissimilarity 20.16 The use of coordinators in expressions of similarity and dissimilarity 20.17 The use of ac/ atque in expressions of similarity and dissimilarity 20.18 The use of et in expressions of similarity and dissimilarity 20.19 The use of quam in expressions of similarity and dissimilarity 20.20 The use of the ablative in expressions of similarity and dissimilarity 20.21 The use of relative adverbs of manner and conditional comparative subordinators in expressions of similarity

706 707 710 710 711 713 715 715 716 724 726 727 729 729 733 735 739 744 747 747 750 752 754 755 755 756 759 760

Copy· 1ghted ~•te

xx

Contents

20.22 The use ofprepositions and nisi in expressions of dissimilarity 20.23 Expressions specifying the degree of dissimilarity 20.24 Comparative expressions of quality 20.25 Ut clauses characterizing a quality of a constituent in the main clause 20.26 Ut and related phrases functioning as secondary predicate 20.27 Ut phrases of qualification 20.28 Proportional comparison 20.29 The proportional pattern with a comparative 20.30 The proportional pattern with a superlative 20.31 The absolute use of comparative forms of adjectives and adverbs 20.32 The superlative and related expressions

21

Secondary predicates

21. l Secondary predicates: introductory remarks 21.2 Categories of constituents functioning as secondary predicate 21.3 Adjectives functioning as secondary predicate 21.4 The use of adjectives as secondary predicate in poetry and

poeticizing prose 21.5 Adjective phrases functioning as secondary predicate 21.6 Nouns and noun phrases (showing agreement) functioning as secondary predicate 21 .7 Participles functioning as secondary predicate 21.8 Accusative and participle construction with perception verbs 21.9 Gerundives functioning as secondary predicate 21.10 Noun phrases in the genitive functioning as secondary predicate 21.11 Nouns in the dative functioning as secondary predicate 21 .12 Noun phrases in the ablative functioning as secondary predicate 21.13 Prepositional phrases functioning as secondary predicate 21.14 The gerund developing into an alternative for the present participle 21.15 Autonomous relative clauses functioning as secondary predicates 21 .16 The distribution of secondary predicates 21.17 The semantic relationship between a secondary predicate and

its clause 21.18 Explicit marking of the semantic relation between a secondary predicate and the clause to which it belongs 21.19 Secondary predicates and related constructions 21 .20 The difference between an adjective functioning as secondary predicate and a related adverb 21.21 Potential ambiguity: secondary predicate or apposition? 21.22 Pragmatic considerations 21.23 Quantifiers and related expressions seemingly functioning as

secondary predicate

761 761 762 762 763 765 766 766 770 772 773 777 777 780 780 784 789 789 791 796 797 799 800 801 803 804 806 807 810 814 815 816 818 819 819

Copyngrted 11ater al

Contents

xxi

21.24 Ipse and idem 21.25 Co-occurrence of various secondary predicates and related expressions in the same clause

824

Information structure and extraclausal expressions

826

22

22.1 The information structure of clauses 22.2 Topic 22.3 Topic and subject 22.4 Eligibility of constituents for the function of topic 22.5 Types of constituents that function as topic 22.6 Formal properties of topics 22.7 Focus 22.8 What makes a constituent of a clause focus? 22.9 Complex focus 22.10 How can we identify focus constituents? 22.11 Presentative sentences 22.12 Cleft sentences

22.13 The extraclausal functions theme, setting, and tail 22.14 Theme constituents 22.15 Setting constituents 22.16 Tail constituents 22.17 Contrast and emphasis 22.18 Contrast 22.19 Emphasis 22.20 Emphasizing particles 22.21 Additive emphasizing particles 22.22 Scalar additive particles 22.23 Exclusive particles 22.24 Particularizing particles 22.25 Quidem and equidem 22.26 Quidem 22.27 Equidem 22.28 Saltern and related expressions 22.29 Saltern 22.30 Certe 22.31 Utique 22.32 Dumtaxat 22.33 Praesertim and related expressions 22.34 Praesertim 22.35 Praecipue 22.36 Imprimis 22.37 Maxime 22.38 Potissimum

825

826 829 830 830 838 839 839 841 842 843 844 846 849 850 856 857 858 859 862 865 868 872

875 877 877 878 884 888 888 890 891 893 894 894 896

899 900 901

Copy· 1ghted ~•te

xxii

Contents

22.39 Demum 22.40 lam 22.41 Suffixes of personal pronouns and possessive adjectives 22.42 Preparative expressions as emphasizers 22.43 Parenthetical clauses and other types of extraclausal constituents 22.44 Parenthetical constituents 22.45 Parenthetical clauses and sentences 22.46 Parenthetical use of verbs and expressions of perception, cognition, and communication 22.47 Curses and swear words 22.48 Interjections 22.49 Sound-reproducing interjections 22.50 Summonses 22.51 Introductory interjections 22.52 Expressive interjections 22.53 Address 22.54 The functions of address 22.55 The forms of address 22.56 The syntax of address

917 919 923 924 925 92 7 931 937 939 942 946

23

948

Word order

23.1 Methodological preliminaries 23.2 Roman ideas about word order 23.3 Factors that determine the linear order of words and larger constituents 23.4 Sentence type 23.5 Text type 23.6 Categorial factors 23.7 Domain integrity 23.8 Semantic factors 23.9 Syntactic factors 23.10 Pragmatic factors 23.11 Euphonic and rhythmic factors 23.12 Complexity 23.13 Iconicity 23.14 Artistic factors 23.15 Typological considerations 23.16 Syntactic structure and intonation structure 23.17 Pause and the determination of sense boundaries 23.18 Clausulae 23.19 The order of constituents at the clause and sentence levels 23.20 Categories of constituents with a more or less fixed position 23.21 Connectors and interactional particles

902 904 906 908 909 909 910

949 952 954 954 955 955 956 958 959 959 960 960 961 962 965 966 967 970 972 973 973

Copyngrted 11ater al

Contents

23 .22 Anaphoric constituents 23 .23 Subordinating devices 23.24 Subordinators 23.25 Relative pronouns, adjectives, adverbs, and determiners

23.26 Question words 23.27 Interrogative particles 23.28 Interrogative pronouns, adjectives, adverbs, and determiners

23 .29 Categories of constituents that tend to be placed after another constituent 23.30 Indefinite determiners and pronouns 23.31 Personal pronouns and forms of the verb sum 23.32 The position of personal pronouns 23.33 The position of forms of the verb sum 23.34 Emphasizing particles 23.35 Bound clitics 23.36 The position of the coordinators -que and -ve 23.37 The position of the interrogative particle -ne

23.38 The position of negation adverbs 23.39 The relative position of arguments, satellites, secondary predicates, and (finite) verbs 23.40 The position of arguments, satellites, secondary predicates, and (finite) verbs in declarative sentences 23.41 The first position in declarative sentences 23.42 Arguments in fir t position in declarative sentences 23.43 Satellites in first position in declarative sentences 23.44 Secondary predicates in first position in declarative sentences 23.45 Finite verbs in first position in declarative sentences 23.46 The last position in declarative sentences 23.47 Arguments in final position in declarative sentences 23.48 Satellites in final position in declarative sentences 23.49 Finite verbs in final position in declarative sentences 23.50 Intermediate positions in simple declarative sentences

23.51 Word order in interrogative sentences 23.52 Word order in sentence questions 23.53 Word order in constituent questions 23.54 Word order in multiple questions

23.55 Word order in imperative sentences 23.56 Word order in imperative sentences with a directive illocutionary force 23.57 Word order in imperative sentences with an optative illocutionary force 23.58 Word order in imperative sentences with a concessive illocutionary force

23.59 Word order in superordinate (main) clauses 23 .60 Word order in subordinate clauses 23.61 Word order in finite subordinate clauses

xxiii 976 978 978 981 982 982 983 983 983 984 987 991 994 995 995 999 1000 1001 1003 1005 1006 1012 1013 1015 1020 1021 1024 1025 1027 1027 1027 1031 1033 1033 1034 1036 1036 1037 1037 1038

Copy· 1ghted ~•te

xxiv

Contents

23.62 Word order in accusative and infinitive clauses 23.63 Word order in ablative absolute clauses 23.64 The order of superordinate and subordinate clauses in complex sentences

23.65 The relative order of finite superordinate and subordinate clauses in sentences with two clauses 23.66 The relative order of superordinate and accusative and infinitive clauses in sentences with two clauses 23.67 The relative order of superordinate and ablative absolute clauses in sentences with two clauses 23 .68 The relative order of superordinate and subordinate clauses in multi-clausal sentences 23.69 Word order at the noun phrase level 23.70 The relative order of head and attribute 23.71 The position of attributes that agree with their head 23.72 The position of determiners 23 .73 The position of anaphoric and demonstrative determiners 23.74 The position of indefinite determiners 23.75 The position ofrelative and interrogative determiners 23.76 The position of attributive possessive adjectives 23. 77 The position of identifiers 23. 78 The position of attributive quantifiers 23. 79 The position of attributive adjectives 23.80 The position of attributive adjective phrases 23.81 Comparatives and superlatives 23.82 The position of modifiers of attributes

23.83 The position of nouns and noun phrases functioning as attribute 23.84 The position of attributive noun phrases of description (or quality) (genetivus and ablativus qualitatis) 23.85 The position of adnominal arguments 23.86 Word order in complex noun phrases 23.87 Discontinuity (or: hyperbaton) of noun phrases

23.88 Constituents causing hyperbaton of noun phrases 23.89 Word order in prepositional phrases 23.90 The order of constituents in continuous prepositional phrases 23 .91 The position of prepositions in prepositional phrases without a modifier 23.92 The position of prepositions in prepositional phrases with a modifier 23.93 The pattern modifier-preposition-noun 23.94 The pattern noun-preposition-modifier 23.95 The position ofprepositions in restrictive appositive phrases 23.96 Discontinuous prepositional phrases

1041 1044 1047 1049 1055 1057 1059 1062 1066 1066 1067 1067 1071 1071 1072 1074 1075 1076 1080 1083 1084 1084 1090 1091 1093 1097 1101 1108 1109 1109 1113 1115 1118 1119 1120

Copyngrted 11ater al

Contents

xxv

23.97 The relative order of constituents in phrases with the auxiliary sum 'to be' and other auxiliaries 23.98 The relative order in complex verb forms with the auxiliary sum 'to be' 23.99 The position of the auxiliary iri 23.100 The relative order of infinitives and the verbs that govern them 23.101 Discontinuity of coordinated constituents 23.102 Tmesis 23.103 Tmesis created by the coordinator -que 23.104 Diachronic developments

1122 1125 1126 1129 1132 1134 1135

24

1138

Discourse

24.1 Introduction 24.2 Sentence and discourse 24.3 Text types (or: discourse modes) 24.4 Discourse coherence 24.5 Anaphoric reference to participants 24.6 Lexical repetition and variation 24.7 Lexical repetition in combination with anaphoric determiners 24.8 Zero-anaphora: the absence of explicit subject and other obligatory constituents 24.9 Anaphoric(ally used) pronouns and adverbs 24.10 Anaphoric reference to states of affairs and to segments of discourse 24.11 Nouns used to refer to preceding states of affairs or segments of discourse 24.12 Anaphoric(ally used) pronouns and adverbs used to refer to preceding states of affairs or segments of discourse 24.13 Preparative (cataphoric) reference to following states of affairs and segments of discourse 24.14 Cohesive devices linking sentences 24.15 Syndetic connexion of sentences 24.1 6 Conjunctive connexion of sentences 24.17 The conjunctive connector -que 24.18 The conjunctive connector ac/atque 24.19 The conjunctive connector et 24.20 The conjunctive connector nec/neque 24.21 Disjunctive connexion of sentences 24.22 Adversative connexion of sentences 24.23 The adversative connector ast 24.24 The adversative connector at 24.25 The adversative connector atqui 24.26 The adversative connector autem

1122

1138 1138 1140 1143 1144 1144 1146 1148 1150 1153 1153 1157 1161 1162 1164 1166 1166 1167 1168 1170 1171 1172 1174 1175 1176 1177

Copy· 1ghted ~•te

xxvi

Contents 24.27 The adversative connector ceterum 24.28 The adversative connector sed 24.29 The adversative connector verum 24.30 The adverb contra 24.31 The adverb tamen 24.32 The adverb nihilominus 24.33 The adverb/connector vero 24.34 The use of etsi, tametsi, and quamquam as connectors 24.35 Explanatory and justificatory connexion of sentences 24.36 The connector nam 24.37 The connector namque 24.38 The connector etenim 24.39 The connector quippe 24.40 The interaction al particle enim 24.41 The interactional particle nempe 24.42 Consecutive connexion of sentences 24.43 The connector igitur 24.44 The connector itaque 24.45 The interactional particle ergo 24.46 Sequential connexion of sentences

24.47 The semantic relation between asyndetically connected sentences 24.48 The use of connectors and interactional particles to connect paragraphs 24.49 Grammatical devices contributing to discourse coherence 24.50 Opening and concluding a conversation or letter

Addenda and corrigenda to Volume I Bibliography Index locorum Index ofgrammatical terms and Latin words

1181 1184 1187 1188 1188 1189 1190 1191 1193 1194 1197 1198 1199 1201 1206 1208 1209 1212 1213 1216 1218 1223 1226 1228 1233 1247 1303 1356

Colour versions of Figures 15.1, 19.1, and 23.1 can be found on the book's companion website at www.oup.co.uk/ companion/pinkster

Copyngrted 11ater al

PR EFACE

This second (and final) volume of The Oxford Latin Syntax appears six years after the first. My considerations for writing this Syntax can be found in the Preface to the first volume and they are still valid. Inevitably, I changed my mind on some minor points (for example, on the use of the notion ‘subjunct’ and of the term ‘comparative clause’) and some of the things promised in the first volume I decided not to deal with at all. The title of this volume is ‘The complex sentence and discourse’, but in reality this volume contains more, for example word order. A number of items might also have been dealt with in the first volume. I hope that the two volumes together are a useful instrument for people working with Latin texts and/or interested in how Latin works. The first volume has been received very positively and I am grateful to the reviewers for their reports and for their suggestions. I am also grateful to readers who have sent me their suggestions. In preparing this volume I myself have noted several minor mistakes and omissions. Some of these have been corrected silently in the second impression and others will be corrected in a later one. In addition, I have collected more serious corrections and references to publications which are not in the Bibliography of the first volume in a list of addenda and corrigenda at the end of this volume. Most of the work for this volume was done at home in Amsterdam and sometimes in the Library of the University of Amsterdam, but I have also spent much time in the Regenstein Library of the University of Chicago and in the Bodleian Library in Oxford. I am very grateful for their support and hospitality. It is time now to thank a number of people who greatly contributed to my work, in the first place, PhD students of the University of Chicago. I have been very fortunate to profit from Branden Kosch’s acumen for most chapters in this volume, even after he finished his PhD and started his own academic career. Of other graduate students of the University of Chicago who assisted me I thank especially David (Douglas) Williams for his work on the final chapters. I also thank Stephen van Beek in Amsterdam for his assistance in the final stage. Jim Adams, James Clackson, Cynthia Damon, Helma Dik, Andy Dyck, Daan den Hengst, Alex Mazzanti, Josine Schrickx, and Jaap Wisse discussed various items with me, asked questions, and sent suggestions. A number of colleagues read one or more chapters and sent me their comments. Esperanza Torrego organized a wonderful discussion day in Madrid with the community of Spanish Latin linguists, which was followed by written comments by several participants. I mention especially Olga Álvarez Huerta, José Miguel Baños, Conchita Cabrillana, Antonio Revuelta, Eusebia

xxviii

Preface

Tarriño, Luis Unceta, and Jesús de la Villa. Esperanza herself sent me her comments on several chapters, as did Caroline Kroon, Hannah Rosén, and Peter White. Guus Bal and Roland Hoffmann read the whole work and contributed detailed comments. In the final stage of proof reading, several friends mentioned above contributed much more than just reading the proofs, as did Rodie Risselada and Hans Smolenaars. Olga Spevak not only generously commented on several versions but also undertook the making of the Index of grammatical terms and Latin words. I thank them all, not only for their learned comments, but also for the moral support it implied. Last but not least I thank my daughter Akke Pinkster, who again did the Index locorum and helped me with the bibliography. I thank Julia Steer, commissioning editor at OUP, Vicki Sunter, assistant editor, and Clare Jones, production editor, for their efficient and competent support. I have greatly benefitted from the acribia, learning, and good advice of Malcolm Todd, copyeditor, and Ginny Catmur, copy-editor and proof-reader. It was a privilege to work with them. At the end of my Odyssey of twenty-four chapters I thank my daughters Fenne and Akke and their families, Willy van Wetter, and all my friends for their support and their patience. Like the first, this volume is dedicated to the memory of Machtelt Bolkestein and Simon Dik. Amsterdam and Chicago October 2019 / January 2021

SIGNS A ND OTHER CON VENTIONS

*

indicates a nonexistent or ungrammatical expression

?

indicates an expression that may be ungrammatical

Ø

indicates a missing element




A > B means: A comes before B

[]

indicates portions of a text that should be removed

indicates portions of a text that should be inserted NB: in editions of inscriptions the practice is the other way around: in those editions [] means ‘insertion’; this practice is ignored in this book

†...†

‘obeli’ or ‘daggers’ indicate that the text between them is regarded as corrupt

**

indicates a lacuna in the Latin text.

/

line break (in poetry and in inscriptions, etc.)

//

indicates the transition from one column to another in inscriptions



indicates that one or more words are omitted; occasionally used for incomplete quotations of texts by other authors of Antiquity (for example, Ennius quoted by Cicero)

_

indicates an illegible letter in directly transmitted texts

#

indicates change of speakers in a dialogue



in contrast with

A

indicates a particular manuscript, in this case the ms. A

Small capitals are used for directly transmitted texts (inscriptions, etc.) and for definitions. Vowel quantity is very rarely indicated, only when it is necessary for a correct understanding of the text. When necessary, long vowels are marked by a macron: ā. Punctuation in ancient documents (when known) is indicated by an interpunct: ‘·’.

ABBR EV IATIONS

AcI

accusative and infinitive (accusativus cum infinitivo)

add.

addidit ‘added by scholar X’

ad loc(c).

ad locum/locos ‘at the passage(s) quoted’

alii alia

‘different solutions proposed’

ap.

apud ‘quoted in’

c.

circa ‘approximately’

cj. X

conjecture (proposed by X)

cod(d )

codex (codices)

corr.

correxit ‘corrected’

deest X

manuscript X is not available here

del. X

deleted by X

dett.

deteriores ‘worse manuscripts’

ed(d ).

editor(s)

edd. nonnulli

some editors

ex(x).

example(s)

fin.

in fine ‘at the end’

Gramm.

Grammatici (Latini)

LLT

Library of Latin Texts

ms(s).

manuscript(s)

N

number of instances

NcI

nominative and infinitive (nominativus cum infinitivo)

NP

noun phrase

OCT

Oxford Classical Texts

om.

omisit or omiserunt ‘left out by X or by X and Y’

p.c.

personal communication

PHI

Packard Humanities Institute

pler.

plerique ‘most (editors)’

Rep.

dating from the Republican era

recc.

recentiores ‘the more recent (manuscripts)’

sc.

scilicet ‘to wit’

secl.

seclusit ‘regarded as an intrusion by X’

xxxii Abbreviations suppl.

supplevit ‘supplied by X’

s.v(v).

sub voce (vocibus) ‘under the specified word(s)’

tr.

translated by X

v(v).l(l).

varia(e) lectio(nes) ‘alternative reading(s) in (an)other manuscript(s)’

Eng.

English

Fr.

French

It.

Italian

CHAPTER 14

Subordinate clauses: common properties and internal structure

14.1 Subordinate clauses and other forms of clause combining Latin has various means by which simple clauses can be combined with other constituents to form larger units. We will start with the distinction made in §  2.2 between the two ways of combining ‘simple’ clauses to form ‘multiple’ clauses, viz. the use of ‘subordination’ to form ‘complex’ clauses and of ‘coordination’ to form ‘compound’ clauses. After that attention will be given to clauses of comparison and to secondary predicates.¹ (i) Complex clauses (subordination) Examples of complex clauses are (a)–(c), repeated from § 2.2. (a)

. . . sine. / # Non sino neque equidem [[illum {me vivo} corrumpi]] sinam. (‘Let it be.’ # ‘No, I won’t, and I won’t let him be corrupted while I’m alive.’ Pl. Bac. 418–19)

(b)

Postquam peperit, pueros lavere iussit nos. (‘After she gave birth, she told us to wash the boys.’ Pl. Am. 1102)

(c)

Miser est qui amat. (‘Wretched is the man who is in love.’ Pl. Per. 179)

In (a), the constituent between double square brackets [[ . . . ]] is an accusative and infinitive clause which is an obligatory argument (the object) of the governing verb sinam. In (b), the postquam clause is an optional constituent which is not required by the meaning of the verb iussit, that is, it is a satellite in the terminology of this Syntax. Whereas (a) has a non-finite clause, the one in (b) is finite. Different again is (c): here the relative clause qui amat is an obligatory constituent (the subject) required by the meaning of miser (est). These three clauses differ from each other in many respects, but what they have in common is that they are part of another clause, together with ¹ For a typological analysis of Latin subordination, see Lehmann (1989).

The Oxford Latin Syntax. Harm Pinkster, Oxford University Press (2021). © Harm Pinkster. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199230563.003.0014



Subordinate clauses: properties and internal structure

which they form a complex sentence. For that reason they are called subordinate clauses. By contrast, the clauses containing sinam, iussit, and miser est are called superordinate clauses. In all three cases, since the superordinate clauses are not themselves again part of another clause, they are also main clauses. (ii) Compound clauses (coordination, also called: conjunction) The situation is entirely different with compound clauses. An example is (d). Here two grammatically independent clauses (indicated by curly brackets) are combined into a whole by the coordinator et, which, unlike postquam and qui in (b) and (c), does not belong to the clause that follows:² whereas from a grammatical point of view the order of the clauses in (b) and (c) could be switched, it would be impossible to put the sequence et . . . proficisci in front. Also in compound sentences in which the events themselves could be inverted, as in (e)—amo et odi is quite well possible—inversion is excluded: *et amo odi. (d)

{Haec evincit in consilio sententia} et {prima luce postridie constituunt proficisci.} (‘This opinion prevailed in the meeting, and they decided to set out the following day at first light.’ Caes. Civ. 1.67.6)

(e)

Odi et amo. (‘I hate and love.’ Catul. 85.1)

So both in (a)–(c) and in (d) and (e) simple clauses are combined into larger units, but the two types of clause combining are different.³ There are two further differences between subordination and coordination. In the first place, some of the coordinating devices, notably et, can also be used to connect independent sentences, as in (f). As the example shows, it is not always clear whether we are dealing with coordination of clauses that belong to the same sentence or connexion of different sentences, and editors vary sometimes in their decisions. In the domain of subordination only relative clauses can be used as independent sentences (see § 18.28 on relative connexion). (f)

Hac oratione habita (sc. Caesar) concilium dimisit. Et (del. Meusel) secundum ea multae res eum hortabantur quare sibi eam rem cogitandam et suscipiendam putaret . . . (‘With this speech he dissolved the convention. And straightway many considerations induced him to suppose that he must take thought and action in the matter.’ Caes. Gal. 1.33.2)

² Editors put a comma after sententia, probably to suggest that there is a semantic relation of consequence between the second conjoin and the first. In English a comma would be normal. ³ The notions of subordination and coordination are relatively recent in the history of grammar. See Pfister (1995).

Subordinate clauses and other forms of clause combining



More importantly, et is often used to coordinate constituents within clauses, for which no parallel exists in the case of subordinators. Examples are (g) and (h), with two coordinated pronouns and adjectives, respectively. (g)

Quid? Auspicia, quibus ego et tu, Crasse, cum magna rei publicae salute praesumus. (‘What of augury, over which you and I, Crassus, preside, greatly to the welfare of the Republic?’ Cic. de Orat. 1.39)

(h)

Iustam rem et facilem esse oratam a vobis volo. (‘I want to ask you for a just and a small favour.’ Pl. Am. 33)

(iii) Comparison Another category of expressions that are usually regarded as subordinate clauses are ‘clauses of comparison’.⁴ These clauses are usually divided into two types: ‘clauses of manner’ and ‘clauses of degree’. The first type is illustrated by (i), the second by ( j) and (k) below. (i)

Ut sementem feceris, ita metes. (‘As ye sow, so shall ye reap.’ Cic. de Orat. 2.261—tr. May and Wisse)

The ut clause in (i) resembles the postquam clause in (b) in that (i) it is an optional constituent (a satellite) with respect to metes; (ii) ut belongs to the clause with sementem feceris and the whole clause could be placed after (ita) metes. For these reasons such manner clauses are discussed in the Chapter on satellite clauses in this Syntax (§§ 16.33–6). The ‘clauses of degree’ in ( j) and (k) are different. There is no indication of subordination. In addition, as the examples suggest, it is very rare to find a verb like the supplied est in the part after quam. The comparison is rather between two constituents within the same clause. In this respect comparison of this type resembles coordination. Such comparative expressions have a chapter of their own (Chapter 20). ( j)

Meus equus tam celer est quam tuus (est). (‘My horse is as fast as yours is.’)

(k)

Meus equus celerior est quam tuus (est). (‘My horse is faster than yours is.’)

(iv) Secondary predicates There is one more type of expressions which are usually not described as ‘clauses’ that are part of a larger unit, but which are often regarded as more or less equivalent to subordinate clauses proper. The clearest examples are so-called ‘predicatively used’ participles, for which in this Syntax the term ‘secondary predicate’ is used. An example ⁴ For this paragraph, see Woodcock (1959: 205), from whom the examples are taken. They are called ‘Vergleichende Adverbialsätze’ in K.-St.’s (II.448) terminology.



Subordinate clauses: properties and internal structure

is (l).⁵ Although Woodcock’s paraphrase with ‘while’ suggests that we are dealing with a satellite clause comparable with the postquam clause in (b), in reality scribens is related in some way to the subject qui (see Chapter  21). Grammatically speaking scribens has nothing to do with subordination nor with clause-combining proper. (l)

. . . Platonis, qui uno et octogesimo anno scribens est mortuus . . . (‘. . . of Plato, who died writing in his eighty-first year . . .’ Cic. Sen. 13—‘while he was writing’)

Figure 14.1 indicates the various forms of combining discussed above and their relative similarity: secondary predicates, at least the participles, are only semantically related to the other types of clauses. Subordinate clauses in the broad sense (sensu lato) are different from coordinate and comparative expressions. A further distinction can be made between subordinate clauses in the narrow sense (sensu stricto) and relative clauses (see (v) below). x y subordination s.l.

secondary predication z

subordination s.s.

relativization coordination comparison

Chs. 15–17

Ch. 18

Ch. 19

Ch. 20

Ch. 21

Figure 14.1 Subordination and other forms of clause combining The signs ‘x’, ‘y’, and ‘z’ are used to mark nodes in the tree; they have no particular meaning.

(v) Subordination sensu stricto and relativization The relationship between subordination sensu stricto and relativization needs some additional discussion. Both postquam in (b) and qui in (c) are part of the clause in which they occur (as a relocation test easily shows) and both form the link between the superordinate clause and their own. But there is a difference as well: qui has a function of its own (subject) in its clause, as appears among other things from the agreement between the subject and the finite verb est; however, nothing similar can be said about postquam. For a speaker of English, the interpretation of a relative pronoun in its clause can be quite complicated, as in (m). Here, the relative clause inter se quos nunc credo dicere is the subject in the main clause with sunt hic. The relative clause is complex itself: the relative pronoun quos is subject in the accusative and infinitive clause, which is as a whole the object of credo. ⁵ The example is also used by Woodcock (1959: 72), where a clear exposition of the standard description can be found.

Subordinate clauses and other forms of clause combining (m)



Sunt hic inter se quos nunc credo dicere: . . . (‘There are (people) here who I believe are saying to each other: . . .’ Pl. Cas. 67)

In (c) and (m) the relative clauses fulfil a function in the main clause. For this kind of use this Syntax introduces the term ‘autonomous relative clauses’ (see §  18.2). However, relative clauses are more often used at the noun phrase level, as in (n). Here, the relative clause qui puellam ab eo emerat is a modifier (attribute) of the noun adulescenti and fulfils no function at the clause level (this type of relative clause is called ‘adnominal’ in this Syntax—see § 18.2). (n)

Adulescenti qui puellam ab eo emerat / ait sese Veneri velle votum solvere . . . (‘To the young man who had bought the girl from him he said he wanted to fulfil a vow to Venus . . .’ Pl. Rud. 59–60)

(vi) Finite and non-finite subordination Examples (a) and (b) above illustrate two forms of subordinate clauses, the non-finite accusative and infinitive clause and the finite postquam clause. Most scholars nowadays would agree in regarding these clauses as subordinate. Not everyone, however, will classify the so-called ablative absolute construction me vivo in (a), repeated here as (o), as a subordinate clause (which itself is part of another subordinate clause). However, in this Syntax the ablative absolute, along with a few other constructions not typically classified as subordinate clauses, will be treated as such. The reason for regarding me vivo as a clause is that the relationship between me and vivo resembles that between ego and vivus in a finite clause (ego) sum vivus and because the ablative absolute clause potentially shares many of the properties of such a finite clause, for example the possibility of adding satellites, such as adhuc to form me adhuc vivo ‘with me still being alive’. For further details, see § 14.14. (o)

. . . sine. / # Non sino neque equidem illum me vivo corrumpi sinam. (‘. . . let it be.’ # ‘No, I won’t, and I won’t let him be corrupted while I’m alive.’ Pl. Bac. 418–19)

(vii) The history of subordination Subordination is found in all periods of Latin and in all sorts of texts written in all sorts of registers. However, there are changes over time in the subordinating devices used; further, the degree to which these devices are used varies from author to author and from text to text.⁶ Generally speaking, subordination is less frequent and less complex in interactive texts (comedy and dialogue, for example) but more frequent and more complex in literary narrative and in didactic texts. Details are given in the following chapters. It is often assumed that Indo-European did not possess subordinating devices and that as a consequence the structure of complex sentences has to be explained starting ⁶ For quantitative data, see Denooz (2013).



Subordinate clauses: properties and internal structure from two so-called paratactic, or juxtaposed, simple clauses. Since all known languages have complex sentences, such an assumption is not very helpful, and even though specific devices of historic times may go back to originally paratactic structures, ‘the paratactic stage had been passed centuries before Plautus’.⁷

. Formal and semantic properties of subordinate clauses Latin possesses a wide array of subordinate clauses in the narrow sense discussed in the preceding section. A distinction can be made between verbal clauses, which can be either finite or non-finite, and verbless nominal clauses. Table 14.1 presents a survey of the various possibilities. Table . Survey of subordinate clauses Verbal clauses Finite clauses various interrogative clauses  

various clauses with (or without) a subordinator 

Nominal clauses

Non-finite clauses accusative and infinitive (nominative and infinitive)

‘fused’ clauses: infinitive gerund supine

‘substantival’ ‘adjectival’ clauses (see ‘participial’ clauses (see § 14.14) § 14.14) clauses: participle gerundive

The properties of these clauses are discussed from § 14.6 onwards. Subordinate clauses, whatever their formal structure, have a number of properties (not the same for all) which show their subordinate status. In the first place, subordinate clauses that function as argument, such as the accusative and infinitive clause in (a) and, in a similar way, the ut clause in (b), must be subordinate because they are required by another constituent, dixit and dignos, respectively.⁸ (a)

Te pro filio / facturum dixit rem esse divinam domi, / quia Thebis salvos redierit. (‘He said you were going to offer sacrifice at home for your son, because he returned safely from Thebes.’ Pl. Epid. 414)

(b)

. . . quos ut socios haberes dignos duxisti, haud indignos iudicas quos in fidem receptos tuearis. (‘. . . men whom you have considered worthy to be your allies you do not judge unworthy for you to guard after they have been taken under your protection.’ Liv. 23.42.13—NB: parallelism of the ut and the relative clause)

Apart from this indirect clue, there are also a number of positive indicators.⁹ ⁷ So Bennett: I.255, discussing the use of the simple subjunctive as a subordinating device. See also Pinkster (1972: 167–9) and Sznajder (2003: 14–16) on ‘le mythe de la “parataxe primitive”’. ⁸ For this argument, see Bennett: I.244–5. ⁹ For a discussion of these properties applied to clauses with a simple subjunctive, see Sznajder (2003: 37–69).

Subordinate clauses and other forms of clause combining



(i) Most subordinate clauses are formally marked as such. For non-finite clauses, such as the accusative and infinitive clause in (a), the fact that the verb form is an infinitive and the subject an accusative (and not a finite form and a nominative) is a clear signal of its subordinate status. With regard to the ablative absolute, the participial clause naturally lacks a finite verb form, as in (c), and the participle is marked by the regular case for satellites, the ablative. (c)

Victores victis hostibus legiones reveniunt domum . . . (‘With the enemy conquered, our legions are returning home as conquerors . . .’ Pl. Am. 188)

Finite clauses, in turn, are almost always marked by a subordinator (for exceptions, see below), like postquam in (b) in § 14.1. (ii) Moreover, the finite verb forms are often subjunctives for which a regular semantic explanation along the lines of § 7.8 can hardly be given. See §§ 7.130 and 7.138. (iii) The tense of finite subordinate clauses in the subjunctive is often determined by the tense of the superordinate clause (according to the ‘rules of the sequence of tenses’, consecutio temporum—see § 7.85). This is the case with haberes in (b), where the imperfect tense is adjusted to the perfect form duxisti of the superordinate clause, if one assumes that haberes is contemporaneous with duxisti. (iv) Negator climbing (see § 8.6) is another form of ‘domination’ of a subordinate by the superordinate clause, as can be seen in (d). Here, the negator non precedes the verb puto, but it has in fact esse venalis in its scope, not puto. (d)

Clodiae (sc. horti) sane placent, sed non puto esse venalis. (‘Clodia’s gardens would be admirable, but I don’t think they’re for sale.’ Cic. Att. 12.38a.2)

(v) Sometimes constituents that semantically belong to a finite subordinate clause function as pseudo-object in the superordinate clause, as in (e), where te is syntactically the object of faciam, but semantically the first argument of miserrumus . . . sis (see § 9.17). (e)

. . . ego te faciam miserrumus mortalis uti sis. (‘I’ll make sure you’re the most wretched mortal on earth.’ Pl. Aul. 443)

(vi) A feature shared by finite and non-finite subordinate clauses concerns the use of the reflexive pronoun and the reflexive possessive adjective to refer to a constituent, usually the subject, of the superordinate clause. This use of the so-called indirect reflexive is shown for an accusative and infinitive clause in (f) and for an ut clause in (g) (see § 11.127).¹⁰ (f)

Me sibix epistulas dedisse dicitx. (‘He says that I have given him the letters.’ Pl. Trin. 896)

¹⁰ The exponent ‘x’ marks coreferentiality.



Subordinate clauses: properties and internal structure (g)

Nam illa mulierx lapidem silicem subigere ut sex amet potest. (‘That woman could force a flintstone to love her.’ Pl. Poen. 290)

(vii) In addition, there are a number of tests to prove the subordinate status of a clause. A subordinate clause can be given in answer to a question word or phrase, as the accusative and infinitive clause is given in reply to quid in (h), the object of its clause. Also, a subordinate clause may be announced by a preparative (or: cataphoric) expression, as in (i). Here hoc, the object of dicito, announces the accusative and infinitive clause facturum me . . ., which functions as object as well. A subordinate clause may be coordinated with a noun phrase, as in ( j), where the quia clause is coordinated by means of non . . . sed with the cause adjunct in the ablative iactantia.¹¹ (h)

Quid dicis? An bello fugitivorum Siciliam virtute tua liberatam? (‘What are you saying? That Sicily was saved from the war with the revolted slaves by your courage?’ Cic. Ver. 5.5)

(i)

Quin etiam illi hoc dicito, / facturum ut ne etiam aspicere aedis audeat . . . (‘Well now, you just tell him this—that I shall see to it he does not dare give that dwelling so much as a glance.’ Pl. Mos. 422–3)

( j)

Quod non iactantia refero, sed quia collegio quindecimvirum antiquitus ea cura . . . (‘A fact which I recall not out of vanity, but because from of old this responsibility belonged to the College of Fifteen . . .’ Tac. Ann. 11.11.1)

(viii) Finally, it should be mentioned that in indirect speech main clauses become accusative and infinitive clauses and subordinate clauses as a rule stay more or less as they are (see § 2.2 and, for exceptions, § 15.109).¹² Unfortunately, we do not have access to the best criterion for determining the status of clauses, namely intonation. Just as in contemporary languages, the intonation contour must have been the best indicator for determining whether a given sequence of clauses constituted a single complex sentence or several independent sentences. As for pragmatic and semantic aspects of the subordinate clauses in Table 14.1, the various types differ in the degree to which they allow and exhibit the characteristics that are typical of independent sentences. Most of them lack an illocutionary force of their own and do not contain connectors or interactional particles that belong to the clauses themselves (and not to the complex sentence to which they belong). Finite clauses in the left hand column of the Table exhibit many of the internal properties of independent sentences. Although there are certain constraints on tense and mood, especially for argument clauses, and although the governing verb may also constrain the category voice (see § 15.2), these clauses are less restricted in terms of type and number of obligatory and optional constituents than non-finite and nominal clauses. ¹¹ For more instances from Tacitus, see Sánchez Martínez (2000: 244–53). ¹² For this test and some exceptions, see Pfister (1995: 245).

Subordinate clauses and other forms of clause combining



Of the non-finite clauses the accusative and infinitive clause allows for relative tense distinctions, but the category of mood is irrelevant. For the other non-finite clauses the number of constraints is higher. The nominal clauses in the right hand column lack most sentential properties. There are, therefore, considerable differences between the various clauses in their degree of ‘desententialization’.¹³ Further details are provided in the following sections.

. Ambiguous or hybrid instances of clause combining Whereas in most cases identifying subordinate clauses (and also main clauses) as such is unproblematic, there are also cases where two different analyses are possible and even cases which seem to have a status in-between one complex sentence and two independent simple sentences.¹⁴ First person singular forms of a number of cognition verbs (which may also govern an accusative and infinitive clause) can be used as qualified truth disjuncts (see § 10.101) to modulate the illocutionary force of declarative (§ 6.2), interrogative (§ 6.21), and imperative sentences (§ 6.29). Examples of the verb credo used in the sense of ‘presumably’ are (a) and (b). In the former credo is usually described as a parenthesis, a more or less independent structure that is inserted in another structure, without being syntactically a part of that structure. It functions as a modulator of the assertive illocutionary force of the sentence. In (b) credo is best taken as modifying ad uxorem meam. In the case of (c), where credo precedes a complete sentence, it is more difficult to regard it as unrelated to what follows: the fact that it is the first word creates the expectation that something will follow expressing what the I believes, so the sequence may have been perceived as a single sentence. In this particular case, however, one cannot be sure, since it is impossible to know what the intonation contour was. (a)

Pol ea ipsa credo ne intro mittatur cavet . . . (‘She herself avoids being let in, I suppose . . .’ Pl. Aul. 101)

(b)

Intro edepol abiit, credo ad uxorem meam. (‘He went inside, to my wife I believe.’ Pl. Am. 1045)

(c)

Credo aurum inspicere volt, ne surruptum siet. (‘I think he wants to look at his gold to make sure that it hasn’t been stolen.’ Pl. Aul. 39)

In (d) the segment ni nocias meos might be taken as a subordinate imperative clause with rogo (see § 15.67), but comparison with (e) and (f) may also suggest that it should be regarded as an independent prohibition: nolei (= noli) and the perfect subjunctive feceris signal independent prohibitions. See also (g) with an imperative. ¹³ On ‘desententialization’, see Bolkestein (1989a; 1989b) and Lehmann (1989). ¹⁴ For the problem in general, see Pfister (1995: 243–5).



Subordinate clauses: properties and internal structure (d)

rogo · te · viator · ni nocias (= ne noceas) · meo (‘I ask you, traveller, not to harm my family.’ CIL X.4053.1 (Capua)—NB: for the exceptional use of the accusative instead of the dative, see § 12.31)

(e)

rogo · te / viator · nolei / me · nocerei (‘I ask this of you, traveller: do not harm me.’ CIL I2.3121.4–6 (Capua, 1st cent. bc (mid))—NB: nocerei is a deponent form)¹⁵

(f)

rogo · te · viator · monumento · huic · nil · male · feceris / (‘I ask this of you, traveller: do not damage this tomb.’ CIL VI.9545.3 (Rome, Rep.))

(g)

Rogo, inquam, domina, . . . celerius confice. (‘I ask,’ I said, ‘madam, be quick with it.’ Petr. 20.1)

Faxo ‘I will bring about’, the sigmatic future of facio, serves as another illustration of the difficulty involved in determining whether a sequence of clauses should be regarded as two independent sentences or as one complex sentence.¹⁶ The clause which tells us what is brought about may be in the future indicative, as in (h), or in the present subjunctive, as in (i). In Early Latin the future is much more common than the subjunctive, and there is only one instance of faxo + an explicit subordinator (ut) + a subjunctive, viz. ( j).¹⁷ The (ut +) subjunctive clauses in (i) and ( j) seem to be the object of faxo and can be compared to instances of the normal future faciam with either the simple subjunctive or (more common) ut + subjunctive (see § 15.75). Semantically there seems to be no difference between (h) and (i), both meaning roughly ‘I shall bring it about that . . .’, but taking iam . . . hic erit as an object clause in the indicative with a verb of causation is very problematic. Instead, it seems better to assume that faxo in (h) had developed into an idiomatic parenthetical expression meaning something like ‘certainly’. This interpretation seems inevitable in a case like (k). The clauses with erit in (h) and amabit in (k) must then be described as independent. (h)

Iam faxo (sc. machaera) hic erit. (‘I’ll make sure it’s here in a second.’ Pl. Mil. 463)

(i)

Faxo hau quicquam sit morae. (‘I’ll make sure that there won’t be any delay.’ Pl. Am. 972)

( j)

Sine, revenias modo domum, faxo ut scias / quid pericli sit dotatae uxori vitium dicere. (‘Well then! Just come home, I’ll make sure that you know what danger there is in speaking badly about a wife with a dowry.’ Pl. As. 897–8)

(k)

Sane sapit / atque ob istanc industriam etiam faxo amabit amplius. (‘He’s just doing the smart thing and because of your officiousness he will surely make love to her even more.’ Pl. Men. 790–1)

¹⁵ So Solin (in CIL I2.iv.1, p. 1009). ¹⁶ This discussion of faxo is based on de Melo (2007: 180–9). See also Sznajder (2003: 35–7). ¹⁷ There are also a few future perfect and perfect subjunctive instances, which are not relevant to the problem discussed here. There are also instances of faxim + simple subjunctive.

The levels at which subordinate clauses can be used



14.4 The levels at which subordinate clauses can be used Just as with constituents of simple clauses, a distinction is made between argument clauses, required by the meaning of a governing verb of the superordinate clause, and satellites, optional constituents from the perspective of the governing verb of the superordinate clause. These two types of clauses will be treated in detail in Chapters 15 and 16. Satellite clauses will be distinguished by semantic function and, where applicable, will be divided into adjunct and disjunct clauses. This threefold distinction is illustrated by the ut clauses in (a)–(c), all three of which are related to a main clause together with which they form a sentence. In (a), the ut clause is the object argument, governed by the three-place verb imperat in the main clause (for details, see § 15.66). In (b), it is a purpose adjunct. In (c), it is an illocutionary disjunct that serves as a justification for why the speaker tells the addressee that he was born in Carthage (for details, see § 16.48). (a)

Ecce, Apollo mihi ex oraclo imperat / ut ego illic oculos exuram lampadibus ardentibus. (‘Look, Apollo tells me through a divine utterance to burn out that woman’s eyes with flaming torches.’ Pl. Men. 840–1)

(b)

Quam mox navigo / in Ephesum, ut aurum repetam ab Theotimo domum? (‘How soon shall I sail to Ephesus to take my money back home from Theotimus?’ Pl. Bac. 775–6)

(c)

Carthagini ego sum gnatus, ut tu sis sciens. (‘Just so you know, I was born in Carthage.’ Pl. Poen. 1038)

Subordinate clauses can also function at a lower level, as constituents of noun, adjective, and adverb phrases (details in Chapter 17). Examples of an ut clause functioning as an adnominal argument in a noun phrase are (d) and (e), governed by de voluntate tua and officium meum, respectively. Note that an ut clause may also be used in combination with the same noun at the clause level: in (f) ut facerem is the subject of the clause, meum officium the subject complement. The ut clause in (d) can be compared with the one in (g), which is the object of the verb volo. (d)

De voluntate tua ut simul simus . . . non dubito. (‘Of your desire for us to be together . . . I have no doubt.’ Cic. Att. 12.26.1)

(e)

Quamquam ego serva sum, / scio ego officium meum ut quae rogiter vera, ut accepi, eloquar. (‘Even though I’m a slave girl, I know my duty: to say the truth about what I’m asked, just as I’ve heard it.’ Pl. Per. 615–16)

(f)

Fuit meum officium ut facerem, fateor. (‘It would have been my duty to do so, I admit it.’ Pl. Ps. 913)



Subordinate clauses: properties and internal structure (g)

Dimidium / volo ut dicas. (‘I want you to say half.’ Pl. Rud. 960–1)

Examples of a subordinate clause with an adjective are (h) and (i): in the former an ut clause and in the latter a gerundival clause function as the argument of two-place dignus (see § 4.101); the whole expression ((vir) dignus . . . credamus) is in apposition to Cornelius Celsus.¹⁸ In ( j) the gerundial clause ad persuadendum is required by the two-place adverb apte with which it forms a manner adjunct. (h)

. . . Cornelius Celsus, mediocri vir ingenio, . . . dignus vel ipso proposito ut eum scisse omnia illa credamus. (‘. . . Cornelius Celsus, a man of very ordinary ability, because of his plan alone is worthy of our trusting him in the claim that he knew all those things.’ Quint. Inst. 12.11.24)

(i)

. . . Agrippina . . . testaretur adultum iam esse Britannicum, veram dignamque stirpem suscipiendo patris imperio . . . (‘. . . Agrippina testified that Britannicus was now mature, the true and worthy stock for undertaking his father’s command . . .’ Tac. Ann. 13.14.2—tr. Woodman)

( j)

Hi fere aut in persuadendo aut in dicendo apte ad persuadendum positum orandi munus sunt arbitrati. (‘They almost all believe that the function of oratory lies in persuading or in speaking in a way adapted to persuade.’ Quint. Inst. 2.15.3)

All the examples in the preceding two paragraphs concern subordinate clauses that are required by the valency of the nouns, adjectives, and adverbs involved. It is less common for subordinate clauses that resemble satellites at the clause level to be used at the phrase level, although gerundial and gerundival clauses at that level are common, as in (k). (k)

Decemviros legibus scribendis intra decem hos annos et creavimus et e re publica sustulimus. (‘Within the past ten years we have elected decemvirs for drawing up the laws, and removed them from the commonwealth.’ Liv. 4.4.3)

The various types of clauses mentioned in Table 14.1 are very diverse as far as their distribution is concerned. Whereas supine clauses can only be used as purpose adjuncts and accusative and infinitive clauses only as arguments (with specific governing expressions), other classes of clauses can be used in all sorts of functions at the clause level (see the examples of ut clauses above). Verbs and other governing expressions vary in the types of clauses that can function as arguments with them. This is illustrated by the following examples of second arguments with the verb volo. In (l) the agent of accipere is identical with the subject of volo; this is the typical context for a prolative infinitive clause. However, in the same situation an accusative and ¹⁸ For the relatively rare instances of ut clauses with dignus, see TLL s.v. 1152.24ff.

The internal properties of subordinate clauses



infinitive is not excluded, as is shown by (m).¹⁹ For different subjects in the main and the accusative and infinitive clause, see (n). When the subjects are different, it is also possible to use a finite clause with or without ut, as in (o) and (p), respectively. (l)

[Immo] hoc primum volo, / quaestioni accipere servos. (‘This I want first, to accept his servants for questioning.’ Pl. Mos. 1091–2)

(m)

Magnufice volo me viros summos accipere, ut mi rem esse reantur. (‘I want to entertain some high-class gentlemen in grand style so that they think I have money.’ Pl. Ps. 167)

(n)

Vera volo loqui te, nolo assentari mihi. (‘I want you to tell the truth, I don’t want you simply to agree with me.’ Pl. Am. 751)

(o)

Quid vis? # Hos ut accipias coquos . . . (‘What do you want? # That you take these cooks . . .’ Pl. Aul. 351)

(p)

Le/no argentum hoc vo/lo a me accipiat . . . (‘I want the pimp to receive this money from me . . .’ Pl. Ps. 1121a–23)

Details concerning the distribution of argument clauses are discussed in Chapter 15.

14.5 The internal properties of subordinate clauses Sections § 14.6 up to and including § 14.14 deal with the internal structure of subordinate clauses. The order of treatment follows to some extent the order in Table 14.1.

. Finite subordinate clauses A common feature of finite clauses is, of course, that they have finite verb forms and therefore can be marked for tense, mood, and person/number. The rules for the use of the tenses and moods in the individual types of subordinate clauses are discussed in §§ 7.85ff. and §§ 7.128ff., respectively. Historic infinitives are exceptional. In most finite clauses the identity of the subject is inferrable from the verb form (notably for the first and second person) and/or is expressed explicitly. Examples in which the subject has to be inferred are (a) and (b). The subject of fieret in (a) is identical to is in the main clause; in (b) the subject of curet is Naevius, to be inferred from the object of the main clause. (a)

Is speculatum huc misit me, ut quae fierent fieret particeps. (‘He sent me here to watch out so that he’d have his share in knowledge of what’s happening.’ Pl. Aul. 605) ¹⁹ For such instances in Plautus, see Lodge s.v. volo 909 § 2a.



Subordinate clauses: properties and internal structure (b)

Naevium certiorem facit, rogat ut curet quod dixisset. (‘He informed Naevius, and asked him to provide for the payment, a thing which he had said he would do.’ Cic. Quinct. 18)

Another common feature of finite subordinate clauses is that they have a recognizable linking device, that is a particle, a subordinator, or a special pronoun, determiner, adjective, or adverb (for clauses without such a device, see the end of this section). However, there are differences in the role these linking devices play in their own clause. This is illustrated for each class of finite subordinate clauses below. Examples of interrogative subordinate clauses (indirect questions) are (c)–(e). In (c) the interrogative particle -ne marks the clause as an interrogative clause; the particle belongs to the clause as a whole and in this respect differs from the subordinating devices in (d) and (e). The interrogative adverb quo and the interrogative determiner quas in (d) and the interrogative pronoun quis in (e) not only mark their clauses as subordinate and interrogative but also fulfil a function within these clauses: quo is a direction argument in its clause, quas is the attribute of the noun aedis within another direction argument, and quis is the subject complement in its clause (for details on the function of these interrogative words in their clauses, see §§  15.45ff.; for the corresponding types of direct questions, see §§ 6.6ff.). (c)

Rogato servos veneritne ad eum tuos. (‘You must then ask whether your slave has come to him.’ Pl. Poen. 181)

(d)

Ill’ clam opservavit servos / quo aut quas in aedis haec puellam deferat. (‘That slave who’d abandoned her observed secretly where and into which house the woman was taking the girl.’ Pl. Cist. 168–9—NB: the lines are deleted by Degering, followed by de Melo)

(e)

Verbero, etiam quis ego sim me rogitas . . . (‘You thug, you even ask me who I am . . .’ Pl. Am. 1029)

A similar distinction exists between relative clauses and clauses with a subordinator. This is shown in (f), repeated from § 14.1, and in (g). In (f) the relative pronoun qui functions as subject in its clause and at the same time marks the clause as subordinate. By contrast, ut in (g), repeated from § 14.4 (a), has no function in its clause; it only marks it as a subordinate clause. Note that in (h), repeated from § 14.4 (b), ut not only marks the clause as subordinate, but also contributes to the interpretation of the clause as a purpose adjunct. (f)

Miser est qui amat. (‘Wretched is the man who is in love.’ Pl. Per. 179)

(g)

Ecce, Apollo mihi ex oraclo imperat / ut ego illic oculos exuram lampadibus ardentibus. (‘Look, Apollo tells me through a divine utterance to burn out that woman’s eyes with flaming torches.’ Pl. Men. 840–1)

The internal properties of subordinate clauses (h)



Quam mox navigo / in Ephesum, ut aurum repetam ab Theotimo domum? (‘How soon shall I sail to Ephesus to take my money back home from Theotimus?’ Pl. Bac. 775–6)

Finite clauses can also be incorporated into their superordinate clause by means of prepositional expressions, both as argument and as satellite. An example of an argument is shown in (i), with the-two place verb versor in (see § 4.42); the ut . . . defenderet clause functions as the second argument. Since prepositions cannot directly govern clauses, the pronoun eo serves as a support. Together the prepositional phrase and the subordinating device form a complex subordinator.²⁰ In ( j), cum (eo) marks the quod . . . fiat clause as an adjunct of accompanying circumstances (see §10.76). The combination of cum eo . . . quod with tamen makes it more or less equivalent to a stipulative adjunct clause (see § 16.53). In (k) the autonomous relative clause is marked by cum (with the anaphoric determiner eo) as the associative argument of cohaereo (see § 4.38). As the examples show, the regular expression is with the anaphoric pronoun/ determiner is in the case form required by the preposition. For relative pronouns, see §  18.16. For a rare instance of an indirect question in combination with a prepositional phrase, see (l). Of the combinations exemplified below those with cum, de, ex, and in are relatively common from Cicero’s time onwards. For further examples of satellite clauses, see § 16.84. This use of is should not be confused with the preparative use of pronouns and related expressions that is discussed in § 14.16. (i)

Nempe eius omnis oratio versata est in eo ut scriptum plurimum valere oportere defenderet. (‘Surely his entire address was concerned with defending the claim that the written word ought to prevail to the uttermost.’ Cic. de Orat. 1.244)

( j)

Sit sane, quoniam ita tu vis, sed tamen cum eo, credo, quod sine peccato meo fiat. (‘So be it, since you will have it so, but with the proviso surely that it come about without any fault on my part.’ Cic. Att. 6.1.7)

(k)

Simplex autem conclusio reprehenditur, si hoc quod sequitur non videatur necessario cum eo quod antecessit cohaerere. (‘A simple conclusion is refuted if that which follows does not seem to be necessarily consistent with that which precedes.’ Cic. Inv. 1.86)

(l)

Equidem pro eo quanti te facio quicquid feceris approbabo. (‘For my part, in accordance with how greatly I esteem you, I shall approve of whatever you have done.’ Cic. Fam. 3.3.2)

Instances of the combination of a preposition with a subordinator are all (very) Late. An example is (m).²¹ ²⁰ See Herman (1963: 74–116) on these ‘locutions conjonctives’. ²¹ See Sz.: 583, Norberg (1943: 232–42), and especially Herman (1963: 88–104) for combinations of prepositions with quod, much less often quia and ut—e.g. ante, de, post, pro, propter (taken as an adverb in TLL s.v. 2117.43ff.), secundum—in Late Latin. See also TLL s.v. pro 1435.51ff. (very late).



Subordinate clauses: properties and internal structure

(m)

. . . et cibum recusat et multum bibet, propter quod ardorem siccum pulmonis patitur. (‘. . . and he rejects food and drinks a lot, because he suffers a dry burning of the lungs.’ Mulom. Chir. 170) Scholars have had difficulty describing combinations such as praeter quod, that is combinations in which a word that is used as both a preposition and an adverb is followed by a subordinator. Praeter in the combination praeter quod ‘except that’ is described as an adverb by TLL s.v. praeter 1001.33ff. The OLD makes a distinction between praeter adverb (§ B) and praeter conjunction (§ C) and calls it a conjunction in the cases under discussion ( praeter id quod is attested earlier, from Mela onwards). For other combinations meaning ‘except that’, see § 16.84.

A number of verbs that govern argument clauses with ut are also used with subordinate clauses in the subjunctive without a subordinator, and with some verbs this is quite common (with facio, for example). Two examples are (n) and (o) (the null sign ‘Ø’ indicates the missing ut). In this Syntax such clauses are called ‘clauses with a simple subjunctive’. For further illustrations of this type of clause, see § 15.83, and, for exceptional instances of satellite clauses, § 16.4. (n)

Rogo vos Ø quam primum mihi rescribatis. (‘I beg you to answer this letter as promptly as possible.’ D. Brut. Fam. 11.15)

(o)

Qui Summanu’s? Fac Ø sciam. (‘How come you’re Summanus? Let me know.’ Pl. Cur. 414) Appendix: The use of an infinitive in an ut subordinate clause is twice attested in Livy and a few times in later texts. However, most instances are emended, as in (p).²² (p) Tribuni plebis appellati ab L.  Scipione ita decreverunt ut, si morbi causa excusaretur, sibi placere accipi eam causam diemque a collegis prodici. (‘The tribunes of the people, when appealed to by Lucius Scipio, thus decreed: that, if the plea of illness were submitted, it was their pleasure that this plea should be accepted and the case adjourned by their colleagues.’ Liv. 38.52.8—NB: editors since Frobenius eliminate ut)

. Non-finite subordinate clauses The ‘non-finite clauses’ as in Table 14.1 constitute a very heterogeneous set; they are discussed separately below. The main concern here will be the internal structure of these clauses. Their distribution is discussed in Chapters 15, 16, and 17.

²² Also Liv. 5.15.11, Gaius Inst. 3.160, Cypr. Ep. 57.5. See Panchón (2007: 166–9). See also §  7.71, Appendix.

The internal properties of subordinate clauses



. The internal structure of accusative and infinitive clauses A distinction must be made between accusative and infinitive clauses (abbreviated: AcI clauses) that are used with verbs of perception, cognition, and communication, and AcI clauses with manipulation verbs. Only the first class is discussed in detail in this section. Examples of the first class are (a)–(h). The subjects of the clauses are in the accusative (me, hanc, Marcellum, clipeum, se, hoc, gratias, and nihil). In (a)–(d) and in (f)– (h) the subjects of the accusative and infinitive clause are different from those of their main clause; in (e), the reflexive pronoun se is coreferential with the subject of praedicat. See also suo and sibi in (g). All three infinitives (present (a), perfect (b), or future (c)) are possible.²³ The AcI clause may be active or passive. Examples of a passive accusative and infinitive clause are (f) and (g), both with the agents expressed (ab accusatore, ab his) (though this is relatively rare). The nominal parts of complex verb forms, such as natam in (b), and subject complements, such as salvum in (d), agree with the subject of the accusative and infinitive clause in the usual way. Apart from arguments required by the verb or a comparable expression the AcI clause may contain adjuncts of various kinds, like Athenis in (b) and in pompam and ludis aedilibus in (e). Ex. (g) also has a disjunct, sine dubio, a sign that the clause is declarative. An AcI clause may contain modal expressions, as in (h). Note that in (e) part of the AcI clause precedes the governing verb praedicat (see also § 23.66). (a)

Audivistin’ tu me narrare haec hodie? (‘Did you hear me tell her about this today?’ Pl. Am. 748)

(b)

Quid ego ex te audio? # Hanc Athenis esse natam liberam. (‘What do I hear from you? # That this girl was born free in Athens.’ Pl. Rud. 739)

(c)

Quid . . . spectans deus ipse diceret Marcellum . . . in mari esse periturum? (‘What consideration could lead the god himself to say that Marcellus was going to die at sea?’ Cic. Fat. 33)

(d)

. . . ei percontanti dictum est clipeum esse salvum . . . (‘When he asked, it was related to him that his shield was safe . . .’ Cic. Fam. 5.12.5)

(e)

Non audis? Mures Africanos praedicat / in pompam ludis dare se velle aedilibus. (‘Can’t you hear? He states that he wants to present African mice for the parade at the games of the aediles.’ Pl. Poen. 1011–12)

(f)

At hoc ab accusatore ne dici quidem audistis. (‘You have not heard this so much as mentioned by the accuser.’ Cic. S. Rosc. 39)

²³ For the increase of the use of (active and passive) future infinitives in Classical Latin as compared to Early Latin, see Perrochat (1932b: 1–83).



Subordinate clauses: properties and internal structure (g)

. . . Scipio cum existimasset pro suo beneficio sine dubio ab his gratias sibi actum iri, potestatem iis dicundi fecit. (‘Since Scipio had determined that gratitude would undoubtedly be expressed by them for his kindness, he gave them permission to speak.’ B. Afr. 45.1)

(h)

. . . videbat re publica oppressa nihil posse decerni. (‘. . . he saw that with the Republic crushed nothing could be decreed.’ Cic. Phil. 8.5)

In (a) the accusative and infinitive clause functions as the object of active audivistin’; it could be replaced by id or something similar. This can be seen from (b), where the AcI clause as a whole constitutes the answer to the preceding question, replacing the object quid in that question. The subject of the accusative and infinitive clause fulfils no function in the main clause, nor does the infinitive. In this respect the accusative and infinitive clause differs from the accusative and prolative infinitive construction (see § 14.11). When the governing verb is in the so-called impersonal passive, the AcI clause functions as the subject, as in (d), where clipeum esse salvum is the subject. The fact that dictum (est) is neuter singular shows that the accusative and infinitive clause counts as neuter singular. Supplement: Modal expression: . . . cum (sapiens) sibi cum capitali adversario, dolore, depugnandum videret . . . (Cic. Fin. 4.31) Passive infinitive with explicit agent: . . . sophistas . . . lusos videmus a Socrate. (Cic. Fin. 2.2); . . . ut ab ipsis Stoicis scriptum videmus . . . (Cic. Fin. 4.15); . . . ne fando quidem auditum est crocodillum . . . violatum ab Aegyptio. (Cic. N.D. 1.82).

Accusative and infinitive clauses have their own illocutionary force, as was shown in (g) above by the use of the disjunct sine dubio. Most often they are declarative. For interrogative AcI clauses, see § 15.105. For the use of the AcI in relative clauses, see ex. (m) in § 14.1 and § 15.107. When the context offers sufficient support, the subject of the AcI clause is quite often not expressed.²⁴ The unexpressed subject is easier to supply if it is identical with the subject of the main clause, as in (i), but sometimes it must be inferred from the context, as in ( j), where eum has to be supplied referring to the barber in his shop who is mentioned before. Implicit subjects are particularly common in comedy, but they are also found in early tragedy, in Cicero (most examples one finds quoted are from the letters, but see (k) and (l)), Caesar, and other authors. There is no reason to assume that it was typical of a lower variety of (spoken) Latin.²⁵ In the examples below the null sign ‘Ø’ indicates an unexpressed subject.

²⁴ For a survey of accusative and infinitive clauses without an explicit subject in Early Latin, see Bennett: I.383–8. For other authors, see the references in Sz.: 362. ²⁵ See de Melo (2006). For Cicero, see Lebreton (1901b: 378). For Tertullian, see Hoppe (1903: 49–50= 1985: 101).

The internal properties of subordinate clauses (i)



. . . neque ego hau committam ut, si quid peccatum siet, / Ø fecisse dicas de [me] mea sententia. (‘I won’t run the risk that if any mistake is made you might say that you had done it according to my verdict.’ Pl. Bac. 1037–8)

( j)

Sed utrum strictimne Ø adtonsurum dicam esse an per pectinem, / nescio. (‘But whether I should say that he’s going to give him a close shave or one through the comb, I don’t know.’ Pl. Capt. 268–9)

(k)

Hic alios negasse Ø audere, alios respondisse Ø non putare id perfici posse. (‘At this, some of them had said they would not dare to try it, others had replied that they did not believe it could be managed.’ Cic. Ver. 23)

(l)

Qui negare noluit esse in eo numero Sullam . . . Ø nescire dixit. (‘The man who did not like to deny that Sulla was among that number said he did not know.’ Cic. Sul. 39) Supplement: Id ego aecum ac iustum fecisse expedibo atque eloquar. (Enn. scen. 148J); Pol si istuc faxis, hau sine poena feceris, / si ille huc rebitet, sicut confido affore. (Pl. Capt. 695–6); Ut, si sequentur me, hac abiisse censeant. (Pl. Men. 556); Nisi forte illud quod dicturum te esse audio, quaestorem illius fuisse. (Cic. Div. Caec. 59); Iam ne nocte quidem turba ex eo loco dilabebatur refracturosque carcerem minabantur, cum remisso eo, quod erepturi erant, ex senatus consulto Manlius vinclis liberatur. (Liv. 6.17.6); Certe enim oblitos (sc. esse) agitis. (Tert. Apol. 10.6); Meminerat certe, nisi circumcisum scirent, non admittendum in sancta sanctorum. (Tert. Marc. 4.7.7) The subjects of present active infinitives with a future reference (quite common in Early Latin, see §§  7.68–9) are relatively often identical to the subject of the main clause, which explains why they are more often implicit than in accusative and infinitive clauses that contain another infinitive. Another facilitating factor is the endings of the participial elements of perfect passive and future active infinitives, as well as adjective endings (de Melo 2006). An example is (m), where the ending -am makes it clear that the speaker is talking about his daughter. (m) Postremo etiam, si voles, / desponsam quoque esse dicito. (‘And finally, if you want, even say that my daughter is engaged.’ Ter. Hau. 865–6) Sometimes one may have difficulty in deciding whether the infinitive is part of an accusative and infinitive clause (without a subject) or a prolative infinitive.

With manipulation verbs, the use of an AcI clause is for most governing verbs restricted to their use as a two-place verb. The AcI clause may be active or passive, but it is restricted in other ways. For details, see § 15.100. Accusative and infinitive clauses can be used as subject or object at the clause level (see §  15.93), and as argument with certain nouns and adjectives (see §  17.13 and § 17.28). For rare instances of AcI clauses in a satellite position, see § 14.16, ex. (f).



Subordinate clauses: properties and internal structure There has been extensive debate in the literature on the origin and structure of the  AcI (see §  12.5). For the distinction between the accusative and infinitive and the  prolative infinitive clauses, see Bolkestein (1976a, 1976b, 1977b, and 1979) and,  from a diachronic perspective, Hettrich  (1992). See also Adams (2005a) on documentary data.

. The nominative and infinitive construction The nominative and infinitive construction (nominativus cum infinitivo, abbreviated: NcI), illustrated by (a), is often regarded as a personal passive counterpart of the use of the accusative and infinitive clause in (b), which itself is often labelled an ‘impersonal’ passive construction. In (a), habitare has no explicit subject of its own: the person living in the house is Demaenetus, the subject of the passive verb form dicitur or, in other words: the agent of habitare is coreferential with the subject of dicitur. In (b), the accusative and infinitive clause is as a whole the subject of dictum’st. The Latin expression in (a) resembles the English expression John was said to be in Birmingham, where the entity to which be in Birmingham applies manifests itself as subject of the passive expression was said. (a)

. . . hasce aedis esse oportet / Demaenetus ubi dicitur habitare. (‘. . . it ought to be this house here where Demaenetus is said to live.’ Pl. As. 381–2)

(b)

In hac habitasse platea dictum’st Chrysidem . . . (‘It is said that Chrysis lived on this street.’ Ter. An. 796)

There is a second type of nominative and infinitive construction with a passive infinitive, illustrated by (c). Here, the patient of captus esse is coreferential with the subject of dici. A corresponding ‘impersonal’ construction with a passive accusative and infinitive clause functioning as the subject is (d). (c)

Hoc commode reprehenditur, si dici possit ex hostibus equus esse captus . . . (‘A proper answer is made to this if the horse can be said to have been captured from the enemy . . .’ Cic. Inv. 1.85)

(d)

. . . mihi et dictum est et scriptum vehementer consilium vestrum reprehendi . . . (‘. . . it was both said to me and written that your tactics were being strongly criticized . . .’ Cic. Att. 3.24.1)

Just as with the accusative and infinitive clause all three active infinitives are possible in the nominative and infinitive construction, as can be seen in (e) and (f), with a future and a perfect infinitive, respectively (for further examples, see § 15.110). For a present passive infinitive in the ‘patient’ type of nominative and infinitive construction, see (g). (e)

Is nunc dicitur / venturus peregre. (‘Now he’s said to be about to come from abroad.’ Pl. Truc. 84–5)

The internal properties of subordinate clauses (f)



(sc. Pelias) . . . quem medicamento et suis venenis (sc. Medea) dicitur / fecisse rursus ex sene adulescentulum . . . (‘(sc. Pelias) . . . whom she’s said to have turned from an old man into a young one again with her medicine and potions . . .’ Pl. Ps. 870–1)

(g)

Amplissime laudari existimabatur qui ita laudabatur. (‘One so praised was thought to be praised most honourably.’ Cato Agr. praef. 2)

Apart from the formal differences, the AcI and NcI constructions differ in many other respects as well. Firstly, unlike the accusative and infinitive clause, the nominative and infinitive construction cannot be said to fulfil a function within a superordinate clause; it thus resembles the ‘fused’ clauses discussed in §§ 14.10–13 in the requirement of identity of the subject of the main verb and the agent or patient of the infinitive. Secondly, it seems unlikely that attitudinal disjuncts were allowed with the nominative and infinitive. Thirdly, there are differences in the contexts in which the AcI and NcI can be used (see § 15.111). For these reasons the NcI will be regarded as a distinct construction in this Syntax.

. ‘Fused’ clauses Infinitival, gerundial, and supine clauses have in common that the first argument of the clause has to be inferred from the superordinate clause. These clauses are called fused clauses in this Syntax. In (a), for example, the first argument that is understood with the (prolative) infinitive monere (object) is identical to the subject of volo. In (b), the first argument of the gerundial clause is identical to the subject of abrogant; the gerundial clause functions as means adjunct in its sentence. In (c), the agent of the supine clause (a purpose adjunct) is identical to the subject of isse. The clausal character of these expressions appears from the fact that they contain arguments and in (b) and (c) also satellites. (a)

At hoc volo, monere te. (‘But what I want is to warn you.’ Pl. Ps. 915)

(b)

Male fidem servando illis quoque abrogant etiam fidem / qui nil meriti. (‘By keeping faith badly they take away faith even from those who haven’t done anything wrong.’ Pl. Trin. 1048–9)

(c)

Alii di (sc. Iovem) isse ad villam aiebant servis depromptum cibum. (‘The other gods said he’d gone to his country estate to deal out rations to his slaves.’ Pl. Trin. 944)

Whereas in (a)–(c) the first argument of the subordinate clause is the same as the subject of the main verb, identity with another argument is common as well, as is shown in (d) and (e): in (d) the first argument of the infinitive adsentari is identical to mihi, the indirect object of the three-place verb imperavi; in (e), the first argument



Subordinate clauses: properties and internal structure

of reverti is identical to eum, the object of rogo. A comparable example of the supine is (f). (d)

Postremo imperavi egomet mihi / omnia adsentari. (‘Finally I ordered myself to agree with them in everything.’ Ter. Eu. 252–3)

(e)

Sed nunc quoque eum reverti / maturius ex Dalmatia rogo. (‘But now I appeal to him to hasten his return from Dalmatia.’ Stat. Silv. 4.pr.20)

(f)

Pamphilam / cantatum provocemu’. (‘Let’s summon Pamphila to sing.’ Ter. Eu. 442–3)

. Prolative infinitive clauses Prolative infinitive clauses are of several types.²⁶ The examples used in the preceding section and repeated here illustrate two types: those functioning as object with twoplace verbs, as in (a), and those functioning as object with three-place verbs, as in (b). The object status of monere te in (a) appears from the presence of the cataphorically used pronoun hoc. With so-called impersonal verbs like licet ‘it is permitted’, the prolative clause functions as the subject, as in (c). (a)

At hoc volo, monere te. (‘But what I want is to warn you.’ Pl. Ps. 915)

(b)

Postremo imperavi egomet mihi / omnia adsentari. (‘Finally I ordered myself to agree with them in everything.’ Ter. Eu. 252–3)

(c)

Nunc licet mi libere quidvis loqui. (‘Now it is permitted to me to say anything freely.’ Pl. Am. 393)

If the prolative infinitive clause contains the copula sum, the subject complement agrees with a constituent of the superordinate clause: in (d), callidus and veterator agree with homo luteus, the subject of vult; in (e), quieto agrees with tibi, the second argument of licet. The same goes for secondary predicates, like tacitus with os tuum praebere in (f). (For the rules of agreement involved, and some exceptions, see § 13.18.) (d)

Deinde in hoc homo luteus etiam callidus ac veterator esse vult . . . (‘In the second place, this dirty fellow wants even in this to seem cunning and wily . . .’ Cic. Ver. 3.35)

(e)

Per hanc curam quieto tibi licet esse. (‘As far as that worry is concerned, you can be calm.’ Pl. Epid. 338)

(f)

. . . iis (sc. testibus) tacitus os tuum praebere malueris . . . (‘. . . you who preferred to show them your face without speaking a word . . .’ Cic. Ver. 3.41)

²⁶ ‘The infinitive used in this way with a finite verb is called the Prolative Infinitive because it “carries on” or extends the sense of the finite verb.’ (Woodcock 1959: 16).

The internal properties of subordinate clauses



With three-place verbs such as rogo—see (e) in § 14.10—the second argument functions as object; accordingly, when the verb is passive, the second argument functions as subject, as in (g). (g)

Et sane cum quis rogatur accepta certa quantitate portionem restituere, duplex est fideicommissum . . . (‘Certainly, when a man is asked, after he has accepted a certain sum, to restore his portion, the fideicommissum is double . . .’ Ulp. dig. 32.11.3)

Formally, quis rogatur restituere in (g) resembles the first type of nominative and infinitive construction illustrated by Demaenetus dicitur habitare in ex. (a) in § 14.9. However, there is a semantic difference: whereas quis in (g) is the person the question is addressed to, Demaenetus is not the addressee of dicitur. The addressee with the verb dico is in the dative and can also be expressed in a nominative and infinitive construction with dico, as in (h). (h)

Dicitur mihi tuus servus anagnostes fugitivus cum Vardaeis esse. (‘They tell me that a runaway slave of yours, a reader, is with the Vardaei.’ Vat. Fam. 5.9.2)

Another important difference between (g) and the nominative and infinitive construction is that the infinitive in a prolative infinitive clause is usually restricted to the present (see §§ 7.68–9, where there are also examples of a few other infinitives). In addition, with three-place rogo the second type of nominative clause with a passive infinitive (see § 14.9) is excluded. For further details concerning the prolative infinitive at the clause level, see §§ 15.114ff.²⁷ With three-place verbs of accusing and convicting there are no restrictions, as is shown in (i) and ( j) (for accusative and infinitive clauses with these verbs when meaning ‘to prove’ or ‘to allege’, see § 15.130). (i) . . . insimulant eum (sc. Ulixem) tragoediae simulatione insaniae militiam subterfugere voluisse. (‘. . . the tragedies charge him (sc. Ulysses) with having wanted to escape a soldier’s service by feigning madness.’ Cic. Off. 3.97—perfect infinitive) ( j) . . . incusabatur facile toleraturus exilium . . . (‘. . . the charge was made that he would carry his exile lightly . . .’ Tac. Ann. 6.3.3—future infinitive)

The combination of a prolative infinitive clause and volo in (a) and vult in (d) looks like but is actually not an auxiliary + infinitive phrase; for the difference, see § 4.98. Prolative infinitive clauses are also used with nouns and adjectives (see § 17.15 and § 17.29, respectively). In Early Latin and in poetry infinitive clauses can also be used as adjuncts with verbs of movement, as in (k), and with the verb do ‘to give’ and related verbs, as in (l). The

²⁷ For the restrictions that hold for prolative infinitive clauses, see Bolkestein (1976a and 1976b).



Subordinate clauses: properties and internal structure term ‘prolative’ is not used for such infinitive clauses in this Syntax. For further details, see § 16.86. (k) Illa autem in arcem abiit aedem visere / Minervae. (‘She has gone to the acropolis to visit the temple of Minerva.’ Pl. Bac. 900–1) (l) Age, circumfer mulsum, bibere da usque plenis cantharis. (‘Go on, pass the honey-wine round, give us to drink from full goblets.’ Pl. Per. 821)

. Gerundial clauses Gerundial clauses can be used as arguments (see §§  15.136–8) and as satellites (see § 16.99–104) at the clause level, as well as with nouns, adjectives, and adverbs at a lower level (see §§ 17.17–20; 31–4). They cannot, however, function as subject (see § 5.42). In Late Latin they can also be used as secondary predicates in more or less the same way as present participles (see §  21.14). Gerundial clauses may contain arguments and/or adjuncts, as in (a), two arguments; in (b), a (contextually given) argument and an adjunct (saepius); and in (c), one argument with each gerund (see also (b) in § 14.10). However, instead of a gerundial clause containing an object, gerundival clauses are preferred (see §  15.140). Satellites are very uncommon. Disjuncts and connectors and interactive particles are not allowed. (a)

Homines enim ad deos nulla re propius accedunt quam salutem hominibus dando. (‘For in nothing do men more nearly approach the gods than in doing good to their fellow-men.’ Cic. Lig. 38—NB: parallelism with nulla re)

(b)

Deinde saepius dando (sc. munus gladiatorum) et modo volneribus tenus, modo sine missione, etiam [et] familiare oculis gratumque id spectaculum fecit . . . (‘Then by frequent repetitions, by sometimes allowing the fighters to go only as far as wounding one another, sometimes permitting them to fight without giving quarter, he made the sight familiar and even pleasing . . .’ Liv. 41.20.12)

(c)

. . . duorum labori ego hominum parsissem lubens, / mei te rogandi et tis respondendi mihi. (‘. . . I’d have been happy to spare two people from trouble, me from asking you and you from answering me.’ Pl. Ps. 4–5)

The first argument of the gerundial clause is almost always identical to the subject of the superordinate clause. When ipse is used in the gerundial clause, it agrees with this subject, as in (d). An exception to the rule of coreferentiality is (e): with the zerovalent verb pluit (see § 4.90) coreferentiality is excluded. For further exceptions, see § 16.101 fin., (f).

The internal properties of subordinate clauses (d)



Sed eos Ser. Sulpicius Galba . . . prensando ipse . . . stimulaverat ut frequentes ad suffragium adessent. (‘But Servius Sulpicius Galba had egged on the men to appear for voting in full numbers, by buttonholing the men himself.’ Liv. 45.35.8)

(e)

. . . Mucius . . . diceret omnem aquam oportere arceri quae pluendo crevisset. (‘. . . Mucius would come to argue that all water which has risen because of rain should be excluded.’ Cic. Top. 38)

. Supine clauses For the categorial status of the two supines and their relation, see §  3.21. The first supine (in -um) functions as a purpose adjunct at the clause level, whereas the second supine (in -u) is almost restricted to adjectives. With the first supine arguments are not uncommon nor is it difficult to find adjuncts, as in (c) in § 14.10 and in (a) below, with an object and a beneficiary adjunct. With the second supine arguments and satellites are rarely attested, which may be due to its infrequency. A rare instance of a satellite is Latino sermone in (b). With both supines disjuncts and discourse particles are excluded. For further details, see §§ 16.111–13. (a)

Iam hercle ego per hortum ad amicam transibo meam / mi hanc occupatum noctem. (‘Now I’ll go over to my girlfriend through the garden in order to secure this night for myself.’ Pl. St. 437–8)

(b)

Ex his (sc. oppidis) digna memoratu aut Latino sermone dictu facilia, a flumine Ana litore Oceani oppidum Ossonoba . . . (‘Worthy of mention in this district, or easy to say in Latin, are: on the ocean coast beginning at the river Guadiana, the town Ossonoba . . .’ Plin. Nat. 3.7)

. Participial, gerundival, and nominal clauses The four remaining classes in Table 14.1 above (p. 6), both the verbal and the nominal ones, differ considerably from those discussed so far. With regard to their internal structure, they consist of an element that corresponds to the subject in a simple finite clause and an element that functions like a subject complement. This is shown in (a). The internal structure of me . . . auctore, an ablative absolute clause, resembles that of (ego) auctor sum in (b), where ego is the subject and the noun auctor the subject complement.²⁸ Interestingly, the roles of the content of the advice and the person acting as adviser are inverted: in (a) the content of the advice is the main clause and the person acting as adviser subordinate; in (b) the content of the advice is governed by the person acting as adviser. ²⁸ Latin has no present participle of the verb sum.



Subordinate clauses: properties and internal structure (a)

Non me quidem / faciet auctore hodie ut illum decipiat. (‘Not with me advising him will he bring about the deception of that man today.’ Pl. St. 602–3)

(b)

. . . Lysimache, auctor sum ut me amando enices. (‘Lysimachus, I give you permission to kill me by loving me.’ Pl. Mer. 312)

In (a) the subject complement-like constituent is a noun. This function can also be fulfilled by constituents that belong to other lexical categories. Ex. (c) contains two coordinated ablative absolute clauses, one with a present participle (dicente), the other with an adjective (vivo). This adjective might theoretically be taken as an attribute modifying Sulla (which would then be its head), thus making it a noun phrase instead of a clause. However, the coordination with contra dicente Cotta proves that this analysis is incorrect. (c)

Atque hoc et contra dicente Cotta et Sulla vivo iudicatum est. (‘And this verdict was given though Cotta opposed it and Sulla was still alive.’ Cic. Caec. 97)

Further support for the treatment of Sulla vivo as a clause and not as a phrase (and consequently for the treatment of vivo not as an (optional) attribute of Sulla, but as a subject complement-like constituent, as in Sulla vivus erat) can be found in the observation that Sulla alone would be difficult to understand. As for dicente in (c), this can be compared with the use of a finite verb, as in Cotta contra dicebat. Present participles rarely function as subject complement (see § 7.78 and § 9.23). Of the other participles the use of the perfect passive participle in participial clauses is very common, the perfect deponent rare, and the future participle extremely rare. In Early Latin nouns and adjectives are much more common than participles. An indication of the relative frequency of the various categories used in ablative absolute clauses is given in Table 14.2.²⁹ Table . Categories of subject complements in ablative absolute clauses in the letters of Cicero, Seneca, Pliny the Younger, and Fronto Perfect participles

Present participles

Adjectives

Nouns

Total

Cicero

58%

23%

10%

9%

741

Seneca

52%

40%

7%

1%

204

Pliny

58%

32%

6%

4%

279

Fronto

60%

33%

2%

5%

85

Another type is the gerundival clause lamentando . . . filio in (d). Here, too, filio alone would be difficult to interpret. ²⁹ For the development of the use of the various categories in the ablative absolute, see FlinckLinkomies (1929). For numerical data, see Steele (1902: 298; 1904: 315) on Livy and the letters used for Table 14.2 respectively, partially repeated in Flinck-Linkomies (1929: 138).

The internal properties of subordinate clauses (d)



Thetis quoque etiam lamentando pausam fecit filio. (‘And even Thetis stopped lamenting for her son.’ Pl. Truc. 731)

In accordance with the rules of agreement (see § 13.2) the subject complements, participles, and gerundives in these clauses agree with their subject constituents. There are a few exceptions to the rule of agreement between the two constituents of  the ablative absolute that already drew the attention of ancient commentators. Examples are: absente nobis (Ter. Eu. 649); praesente amicis (Pompon. com. 47); praesente multis (Rhet. Her. 4.16); posuit · / titulum de suo · astan- / te civibus · suis / impensi · . . . (CIL V.895 (Aquilea, Imperial period)).³⁰

As for the subject of these clauses, it is usually a noun or a noun phrase (or a proper name). However, the subject may also be a pronoun, and this is the most frequent category in Early Latin. Interrogative and relative pronouns and phrases functioning as subject of a participial phrase deserve special mention. Two examples of interrogative expressions are given in (e) and (f). For autonomous relative clauses and for argument clauses functioning as subject of participial clauses, see § 16.91. (e)

. . . tu vero quibus rebus gestis, quo hoste superato contionem donandi causa advocare ausus es? (‘But what victory had you won, what enemy had you defeated, that you should dare to summon a public meeting at which to make such presentations?’ Cic. Ver. 3.185)

(f)

Musa, mihi causas memora, quo numine laeso / quidve dolens regina deum tot volvere casus / insignem pietate virum, tot adire labores / impulerit. (‘Tell me, O Muse, the causes; wherein thwarted in will or wherefor angered, did the Queen of heaven drive a man, of goodness so wondrous, to traverse so many perils, to face so many toils.’ Verg. A. 1.8–12)

The clausal character of the expressions under discussion deserves some further elaboration. In (g), the combination of the participle occisus and the noun dictator functions as the subject of the subordinate clause. (g)

. . . cum occisus dictator . . . pulcherrimum facinus videretur. (‘. . . when the slaughter of the dictator . . . seemed the finest of acts.’ Tac. Ann. 1.8.6— tr. Woodman)

This combination, just like Sulla vivo in (c), has at first sight all the properties of a noun phrase. The perfect passive participle occisus agrees with the human common noun dictator in the same way as an attributive participle, and the unit as a whole is singular, as can be seen from its agreement with the third person singular verb form (videretur). Semantically, however, the unit does not refer to a human being with the property of being dead, but to the fact that this particular human being has been killed. Thus the unit behaves as an event noun from the semantic point of view (for

³⁰ See TLL s.v. praesens 838.55ff.



Subordinate clauses: properties and internal structure

example occisio dictatoris—note the translation),³¹ and accordingly can be described as a most beautiful action. This analysis of the combination is corroborated by the existence of a few instances of coordination of a participial clause and a noun phrase containing a deverbal noun, as in (h).³² (h)

Decuriatio tribulium, discriptio populi, suffragia largitione devincta severitatem senatus et bonorum omnium vocem ac dolorem excitarunt. (‘It was the dividing of the men of a tribe into decuries, the classification of the whole people, and the attempt to bind men’s votes by bribes, that provoked the severity of the senate and the energetic indignation of all good men.’ Cic. Planc. 45)

Further evidence that these clauses behave as one unit can be seen in the fact that they can be replaced by a clause of some sort. Thus the ablative absolute clause in (i) can be replaced by a postquam clause, as is shown in ( j).³³ A participial clause can also be pronominalized, as it is by quod in (k).³⁴ (i)

(Cethegus) . . . recitatis litteris (a me, sc. Cicerone) . . . repente conticuit. (‘(Cethegus) . . . after his letter was read out (by me) . . . suddenly fell silent.’ Cic. Catil. 3.10)

( j)

Postquam litteras recitavi (ego {Cicero}), Cethegus repente conticuit.

(k)

Plerique amicorum Alexandri non tam criminum quae palam obiciebantur atrocitatem quam memoriam occisi per illos Parmenionis, quod tacitum prodesse reis apud regem poterat, intuebantur . . . (‘Very many of Alexander’s friends had an eye, not so much to the atrocity of the crimes that were openly laid to the charge of these men, as to the memory that they had killed Parmenion, which might secretly help the accused with the king . . .’ Curt. 10.1.6—NB: quod tacitum is also a participial clause)

The clausal character of participial clauses appears also from the possibility of adding arguments and satellites. This possibility is fully exploited by authors like Livy, especially for the ablative absolute clause, as in (l). The ablative absolute clause between the square brackets [[ . . . ]] contains two satellites, prius and a subordinate ablative absolute clause (agro . . . diviso), which in turn contains the satellite viritim. Its subject agro is expanded by a participial phrase functioning as its attribute (between curly brackets). (For similar cases of complexity, see § 16.91.) ³¹ However, participial clauses differ from deverbal nouns in several respects. See Spevak (2018). ³² Holland (1986) discusses the various forms of absolute constructions in older Indo-European languages. He suggests that absolute constructions are essentially nominal sentences that have been grammaticalized and received different case forms in the various languages. The idea that the ablative absolute functions as a clausal unit and not as an expanded noun phrase has been supported inter alios by Flinck-Linkomies (1929: especially 92–6), Heick (1936), Pinkster (1972), Helander (1977: 28–9 and passim), Serbat  (1979), Bolkestein (1981a), Lavency  (1986), Hoff  (1989), Longrée  (1995), Nikitina and Haug (2016), and Spevak (2018). ³³ The equivalence of the ablative absolute clause with a finite temporal clause was already noted by Priscianus (18.14ff.): me vidente puerum cecidisti = dum ego video, puerum cecidisti. See also § 16.88 and § 16.89. ³⁴ This point is illustrated by Storme (2010: 126–7).

The internal properties of subordinate clauses (l)



Servius . . . [[conciliata prius voluntate plebis (agro {capto ex hostibus} viritim diviso)]] ausus est ferre ad populum vellent iuberentne se regnare. (‘Servius . . . with the goodwill of the commons having first been obtained through a division among all the citizens of the land captured from the enemy, made bold to call upon the people to vote whether they were desiring or ordering him to rule.’ Liv. 1.46.1)

Another proof of the clausal character of participial clauses is the use of negators, as in (m).³⁵ (m)

Atque ex omnibus illa plaga est iniecta petitioni tuae non tacente me maxima . . . (‘And the greatest of all these blows against your campaign fell not without a warning from me.’ Cic. Mur. 48)

The examples discussed so far showed clauses functioning at the sentence level. However, participial and gerundival clauses can also be used at the noun phrase and the adjective phrase levels, as in (n), repeated from § 3.20. Here the gerundival clause is in the genitive, just like the noun phrase with which it is coordinated. The clauses discussed in this section are as a whole marked by the case or the preposition that is suitable in the context. (For further details, see Chapter 17.) (n)

. . . habere utramque debet disciplinam, et agri culturae et pecoris pascendi . . . (‘. . . he ought to have a knowledge of both pursuits, agriculture and cattle-raising . . .’ Var. R. 2.pr.5)

Table 14.3 presents a survey of the various functions participial and nominal clauses may fulfil in their sentences. There are not attestations for all the structurally possible Table . Syntactic functions of participial and nominal clauses verbal (participial) function

perf. pass.

argument

occisus dictator (o)

satellite: bare case

recitatis litteris (s)

satellite: preposition

ob amicitiam servatam (x)

attribute in a noun phrase

conservatae rei publicae testimonium (z)

perf. dep.

orta luce (t)

nominal

pres. act.

noun

fugiens Pompeius (p)

filius orator (q) gnarus hostis (r)

nullo hoste prohibente (u)

me auctore (v) civibus salvis (w) ante me consulem (y)

³⁵ For the use of negators with participles in general, see Flinck-Linkomies (1929: 39–44).

adjective



Subordinate clauses: properties and internal structure

expressions, and some attested expressions are rare and only found in mannered literary texts, for example in the works of Tacitus. These expressions are printed in bold. Examples follow below. (o)

. . . occisus dictator . . . pulcherrimum facinus videretur. (‘. . . the slaughter of the dictator . . . seemed the finest of acts.’ Tac. Ann. 1.8.6—tr. Woodman)

(p)

Fugiens . . . Pompeius mirabiliter homines movet. (‘The picture of Pompey on the run affects people marvellously.’ Cic. Att. 7.11.4)

(q)

. . . filius legati orator publicae causae satis ostenderet necessitate expressa quae per modestiam non obtinuissent. (‘. . . the sight of their general’s son pleading the common cause showed plainly enough that the things which they could not have obtained by orderly methods had been extracted by force.’ Tac. Ann. 1.19.5)

(r)

Augebat metum gnarus Romanae seditionis et, si omitteretur ripa, invasurus hostis. (‘To add to the alarm, the enemy was cognizant of the disaffection of the Roman ranks, and invasion was certain if the Rhine bank was abandoned.’ Tac. Ann. 1.36.2)

(s)

(sc. Cethegus) recitatis litteris . . . repente conticuit. (‘(Cethegus,) after his letter was read out . . . suddenly fell silent.’ Cic. Catil. 3.10)

(t)

. . . orta luce sub sinistra Britanniam relictam conspexit (sc. Caesar). (‘. . . at sunrise (Caesar) sighted Britain left behind on the port side.’ Caes. Gal. 5.8.1)

(u)

. . . nullo hoste prohibente aut iter demorante incolumem legionem in antuates . . . perduxit ibique hiemavit. (‘. . . as there was no enemy to hinder him or delay his march, he brought the legion safely into the territory of the Nantuates . . . and there wintered.’ Caes. Gal. 3.6.4)

(v)

Nicias . . . etsi invito me tamen eodem me auctore, profectus est. (‘Nicias . . ., on my advice though against my will, set out.’ Cic. Att. 13.28.3)

(w)

Hostibus victis, civibus salvis . . . / . . . vobis gratis habeo atque ago, quia probe sum ultus meum inimicum. (‘Now that the foes are conquered, the citizens safe . . . I say and give thanks to you . . . because I have taken proper revenge on my enemy.’ Pl. Per. 753–6)

(x)

Amicitiam nonne facile (sc. defendere fuit) ei qui ob eam summa fide, constantia iustitiaque servatam maximam gloriam ceperit? (‘Would not the defence of friendship be easy for that man who on account of his preserving it with the utmost fidelity, constancy and sense of justice has gained the greatest renown?’ Cic. Amic. 25)

(y)

. . . mortuus est annis LXXXVI ipsis ante me consulem. (‘. . . he died . . . exactly eighty-six years before my consulship.’ Cic. Brut. 61)

Relationship between subordinate and superordinate clauses  (z)

Sibi enim bene gestae, mihi conservatae rei publicae dat testimonium. (‘He bears witness to the state having been by him well served, by me saved.’ Cic. Att. 2.1.6)

Grammarians have used various terms and notions for these clauses. This Syntax will use the expression dominant (participle) construction.³⁶

14.15 Means of tightening and making more explicit the relationship between subordinate and superordinate clauses The relation between subordinate and superordinate clauses can be strengthened by various devices. correlative expressions in the superordinate clause, either preparing for a subordinate clause to come or referring back to one that has preceded, are shown in §  14.16 and §  14.17.³⁷ These expressions serve several purposes, one of which is to make the structure of the sentence more transparent, especially when it is long. They can also serve to draw attention to a salient element. A second device is the use of various particles and adverbs that clarify the relationship between the two clauses (§ 14.18). A third device is the use of various forms of interlacing: the integration of elements that semantically belong to one clause into the syntactic structure of the other clause (§ 14.19).

. Preparative elements in the main clause Subordinate clauses can be announced in the superordinate clause by means of preparative expressions of various types.³⁸ Very common are neuter (almost always singular)³⁹ forms of the pronouns hic, ille, is, and (rarely) iste, in that order of frequency.⁴⁰ Examples of each of these pronouns are (a)–(d). For their cataphoric use in general, see § 11.139. The use of cataphoric pronouns is particularly frequent in interactive texts (e.g. letters, orations, and drama).⁴¹

³⁶ The term ‘dominant participle’ was introduced by A.G. de Man in his Dutch school grammar Accipe ut reddas (1965). A more common term is ab urbe condita construction. See Woodcock (1959: 75–7), Bolkestein (1980b; 1980c; 1981b; 1983), Lambertz (1982: 568–86), and Haspelmath (1987). ³⁷ For a very complete survey of correlative devices, see Herman (1963: 74–104). ³⁸ See Bodelot (2000: 41–158) on ‘complétives et construction appositionnelle’. Also Bodelot (2003: 201–5; 2010; 2016) and Lavency (2003: 115–25). ³⁹ For a few exceptional instances of the plural, see TLL s.v. ille 348.40f. (e.g. Cic. Phil. 5.17). ⁴⁰ In the corpus used by Bodelot (2000: 121). See also her p. 139 for the use of the individual words in various text types. For her description of their meanings, see pp. 122–38. ⁴¹ See Bodelot (2000: 122).



Subordinate clauses: properties and internal structure (a)

Quid si hoc potis est, ut tu taceas, ego loquar? (‘What if we do this: you keep quiet, I’ll do the talking.’ Pl. Bac. 35—subject clause)

(b)

Eheu, huic illud dolet, / quia nunc remissus est edendi exercitus. (‘Oh, oh, oh, this one ( points to his stomach) is in pain because the army for eating has been dismissed now.’ Pl. Capt. 152–3—subject clause)

(c)

Quaeso ut sat habeas id, pater, quod Chrysalus / me obiurigavit plurumis verbis malis . . . (‘I beg you to consider it enough, father, that Chrysalus has scolded me with a great many harsh words . . .’ Pl. Bac. 1019–20—object clause)

(d)

Idem ego istuc quom credebam credidi, / te nihil esse redditurum. (‘When I trusted you with that money, I trusted that the very same thing would happen, that you wouldn’t return anything.’ Pl. Cur. 541–2—accusative and infinitive clause functioning as object)

Exx. (a)–(d) illustrate the use of these pronouns with argument clauses. The verbs of the main clauses can also govern these argument clauses without the preparative pronoun.⁴² The pronouns can therefore be considered optional and serve to emphasize the content of the clause. However, there are also cases like (e): without hoc the quod clause seems difficult to interpret as the object with sollicitudo habet. More difficult is id in (f). It has generally been regarded as an ‘internal object’⁴³ but it is actually a satellite in its clause. Different again is (g), where hōc (ablative) marks the quod clause as a means adjunct (or is it a third argument?).⁴⁴ Note that in this last case the ablative pronoun is necessary for ensuring a correct interpretation of the subordinate clause (quod does not mean ‘because’). The function of the pronouns in these cases is not so much to prepare for the following subordinate clause, but to offer grammatical support. This use resembles the use of prepositional phrases to integrate subordinate clauses in a superordinate clause, for which see § 14.6. (e)

Habet hoc sollicitudo, quod omnia necessaria putat. (‘Anxiety has this quality, that it supposes all things necessary.’ Plin. Ep. 6.9.2—object clause)

(f)

. . . id nunc his cerebrum uritur, / me esse hos trecentos Philippos facturum lucri. (‘Their brains are now suffering this annoyance, namely that I am going to make a profit of these three hundred Philippics.’ Pl. Poen. 770–1—accusative and infinitive clause functioning as reason adjunct)

(g)

. . . hoc me tamen consolor quod posthac ad ludos venies nosque vises . . . (‘I console myself with the thought that henceforth you will come to the shows and visit us . . .’ Cic. Fam. 7.1.6—means adjunct)

⁴² See Bodelot (2000: 76–7). ⁴³ So TLL s.v. is 479.33. ⁴⁴ For more instances of means adjuncts (or third arguments) with consolor, see TLL s.v. 480.25ff.

Relationship between subordinate and superordinate clauses  A second type of preparative expression consists of noun phrases containing one of the cataphorically used determiners hic, ille, is, and iste. Examples with the semantically rather ‘vague’ event noun res ‘act’ are (h) and (i). In these instances the subordinate clauses would also be possible without the res expressions. (h)

Digne autem coqui / nimis lepide ei rei dant operam, ne cenet senex. (‘And the cooks for their part take care ever so charmingly that the old man won’t get his dinner.’ Pl. Cas. 772–3—third argument)

(i)

Sed in hac difficultate illa me res tamen, iudices, consolatur, quod vos de criminibus sic audire consuestis ut . . . (‘But in the face of this difficulty, judges, this thing still consoles me—that you have been accustomed to hear accusations in such a way that . . .’ Cic. Clu. 3—subject)

Cataphorically used determiners can also be used as preparative devices with nouns that may govern a subordinate clause, as with mos ‘custom’ in ( j) and consuetudo ‘custom’ in (k), both with ut clauses. In these cases the determiners have an emphasizing function. ( j)

Habent hunc morem plerique argentarii, / ut alius alium poscant, reddant nemini . . . (‘Most bankers have the following custom: they demand money from each other while they themselves don’t repay anything to anyone.’ Pl. Cur. 377–8)

(k)

Habuit et hanc consuetudinem, ut octo calvos rogaret ad c[a]enam . . . (‘He had this custom, moreover, of asking to dinner eight bald men . . .’ Hist. Aug. Heliog. 29.3)

Pronouns can also be used as preparative devices in combination with nouns that function as subject or object complement and are followed by an appropriate subordinate clause, as in (l). Here hunc and hanc are subject of their clauses and sermonem ‘talk’ and opinionem ‘opinion’ are subject complements. (l)

Neminem vestrum ignorare arbitror, iudices, hunc per hosce dies sermonem volgi atque hanc opinionem populi Romani fuisse, C. Verrem altera actione responsurum non esse . . . (‘Gentlemen, I think that none of you is unaware that it has during these last few days been the common talk, and the belief of this nation, that Gaius Verres would make no defence at the second hearing . . .’ Cic. Ver. 1.1)

(m)

Populi Romani hanc esse consuetudinem, ut socios atque amicos non modo sui nihil deperdere, sed gratia, dignitate, honore auctiores velit esse. (‘This was the tradition of the Roman people, to desire that its allies and friends should not only lose none of their possessions, but should enjoy increase of influence, dignity, and distinction.’ Caes. Gal. 1.43.8)

The same preparative devices are available for most satellite clauses: a pronoun in (n), a determiner + res in (o), and a determiner + causa in (p). Note that the quod clause



Subordinate clauses: properties and internal structure

(a reason adjunct) suits the meaning of causa ‘reason’. In addition there are preparative adverbs, as in (q). In all these cases the preparative device is optional and merely gives emphasis, since the subordinators have a clear enough meaning for ensuring the correct interpretation even without it. (n)

At non eo, quia tibi non cupiam quae velis . . . (‘But not because I wouldn’t wish you to have what you want . . .’ Pl. As. 844–5)

(o)

Sed ego apud me te esse ob eam rem, miles cum veniat, volo, / quia, quom tu aderis, huic mihique haud faciet quisquam iniuriam. (‘But when the soldier comes, I’d like you to be with me for the simple reason that when you’re there, no one will wrong her or me.’ Pl. Bac. 58–9)

(p)

Is dicere solebat ob hanc causam praestare nostrae civitatis statum ceteris civitatibus, quod in illis singuli fuissent fere quorum suam quisque rem publicam constituisset . . . (‘Cato used to say that our constitution was superior to those of other States on account of the fact that in those it had generally been down to individuals, each of whom had established his own state . . .’ Cic. Rep. 2.2)

(q)

Nam partim ideo fortes in decernendo non erant, quia nihil timebant, partim quia timebant . (‘Thus, some were disinclined to take firm measures because they were not afraid of anything, others because they were afraid of everything.’ Cic. Mur. 51)

In (n)–(q) the preparative expression and the subordinator are semantically more or less equivalent. However, there are also combinations of a preparative device and a subordinator where this is not the case. Examples are (r)–(t).⁴⁵ In all these instances, the si clauses are prepared by an expression that functions as argument in the main clause. (In (r), the si clause seems also possible without a preparative element; in (s) and (t) this looks more problematic.) (r)

Idne irascimini, si quis superbior est quam nos? (‘Are you mad about it, if someone is more arrogant than we are?’ Cato orat. 169)

(s)

Sed totum est in eo, si ante quam ille ineat magistratum. (‘But everything depends on this, whether (you come) before he starts his term of office.’ Cic. Att. 2.22.5)

(t)

. . . plus esse in eo iudicabant, si uxor et soror tua quam si Augustae dicerentur. (‘. . . they believed there was more in this, whether they were spoken of as your wife and sister, than in whether (they were spoken of as) Augustae.’ Plin. Pan. 84.6)

⁴⁵ Examples (r) and (t) are taken from the OLD s.v. si § 12c. See also TLL s.v. in 779.16ff. for in eo cum and in eo dum combinations in translations of the Bible.

Relationship between subordinate and superordinate clauses  Noun phrases without a determiner can also function as preparative expressions, as secundis rebus nostris in (u), which prepares the accusative and infinitive clause duos . . . missos (and its sequence); glorior can also be used with an accusative and infinitive clause without such a preparative phrase (see §  15.97). The relationship between the accusative and infinitive clause and secundis rebus nostris is the same as the one between appositive noun phrases: the accusative and infinitive clause can be interpreted as a more precise indication of what is meant by secundis rebus nostris (this relationship is sometimes called ‘explicative’). (u)

Non ego secundis rebus nostris gloriabor duos consules ac duos consulares exercitus ab nobis sub iugum missos et si qua alia aut laeta aut gloriosa nobis evenerunt. (‘I shall not boast of our successes, that two consuls and two consular armies were sent under the yoke by us, nor of any other events which have brought us either joy or fame.’ Liv. 23.42.7)

Another common device is illustrated by (v). Here, the quod clause is preceded by an autonomous relative clause with the determiner illud, the content of which is specified by the quod clause.⁴⁶ Note that in the Classical period recordor usually governs an accusative and infinitive clause and not a quod clause.⁴⁷ (v)

. . . recordamini illud etiam quod nondum est relatum, quod eodem fere tempore factus in agro Piceno Potentiae nuntiatur terrae motus horribilis . . . (‘. . . recall, too, what was not discussed before, that an awful earthquake is reported to have occurred at about the same time at Potentia in Picenum . . .’ Cic. Har. 62) It is difficult to draw a borderline between the preparative devices discussed above and the use of non-restrictive appositive clauses discussed in § 11.82 fin.

The adverbs sic and ita can be used as preparative devices with argument clauses, as in (w) and (x), with accusative and infinitive clauses.⁴⁸ (w)

Sic enim sentio ius legatorum, cum hominum praesidio munitum sit, tum etiam divino iure esse vallatum. (‘For my feelings are that the privileges of ambassadors are not only fenced round by human protection, but are also guarded by divine laws.’ Cic. Har. 34)

(x)

(sc. Verres) Qui ita dictitat, iis esse metuendum qui quod ipsis solis satis esset surripuissent . . . (‘Whose favourite saying it is that they have got to fear who have stolen only as much as is enough for themselves . . .’ Cic. Ver. 4)

⁴⁶ See Bodelot (2000: 54–9) for this use of relative (and other types of) clauses. ⁴⁷ Quod seems to be first attested in Suet. Tit. 8.1, according to the OLD. ⁴⁸ See Lavency (2004). For the use of ita with facio ut, see Taillade (2019: 174–5).



Subordinate clauses: properties and internal structure

. Resumptive elements in the main clause The same expressions that are used as preparative elements (see § 14.16) can also be used as resumptive expressions. However, the resumptive use of pronouns and determiners is much less frequent than the preparative use. Most common is the anaphoric pronoun/determiner is, as is to be expected, followed by hic; ille and iste are very rare.⁴⁹ Examples of resumptive pronouns and of a resumptive determiner (+ res) referring to argument clauses are given in (a)–(c) and (d), respectively. (a)

Nondum egressum esse eum, id miror tamen. (‘That he has not come out yet, that surprises me.’ Pl. Rud. 1201)

(b)

Nos secundum ferri nunc per urbem haec omnia, / ne quis tibi hoc vitio vortat. (‘All this stuff now being carried behind us throughout the city, I’m afraid that someone might find fault with you for it.’ Pl. Mil. 1349–50)

(c)

Ut filius / cum illa habitet apud te, hoc vostrum consilium fuit? (‘That my son lives with her in your house, was that your scheme?’ Ter. Ph. 933–4)

(d)

Nisi forte quod apud publicanos gratiosus fuisti, in ea re spes te aliqua consolatur. (‘Unless by chance some hope consoles you in the fact that you were popular with the revenue contractors.’ Cic. Ver. 2.169)

Examples of the same devices with satellite clauses are (e)–(h). (e)

Quia tam misere hoc esse cupio verum, eo vereor magis. (‘I so desperately want this to be true; for that reason I’m all the more nervous.’ Ter. Ad. 698)

(f)

Acrius ex ira quod enim se quisque parabat / ulcisci quam nunc concessumst legibus aequis, / hanc ob rem est homines pertaesum vi colere aevom. (‘For because each man in his wrath would make ready to avenge himself more severely than is permitted now by just laws, for this reason men were utterly weary of living in violence.’ Lucr. 5.1148–50)

(g)

Videte igitur quam inique accidat, quia res indigna sit, ideo turpem existimationem sequi; quia turpis existimatio sequatur, ideo rem indignam non vindicari. (‘See, then, how iniquitously it happens, that because an action is infamous, therefore a discreditable reputation should attach to it, because a loss of reputation would ensue, for that reason a scandalous action is not punished.’ Cic. Caec. 8)

(h)

Quamquam gravatus fuisti, non nocuit tamen. (‘Even though you objected, nevertheless it still didn’t hurt you.’ Pl. St. 722) ⁴⁹ In the corpus of Bodelot (2000: 121). See also Bodelot (2016).

Relationship between subordinate and superordinate clauses  The resumptive use of id in (a) above resembles its anaphoric use to refer to all or part of the content of a preceding clause or even passage (see § 11.136). In (i) id refers to the content of the quamquam clause, whereas tamen resumes the subordinator itself. In ( j), illud refers to the content of the postquam clause. (i) Quorum autem officiorum praecepta traduntur, ea quamquam pertinent ad finem bonorum, tamen minus id apparet . . . (‘But as regards special duties for which positive rules are laid down, though they are  affected by the doctrine of the supreme good, still that is not so obvious . . .’ Cic. Off. 1.7) ( j) Ceterum postquam parte muri arietibus decussa per ipsas ruinas transcenderunt in urbem armati, illud principium velut novi atque integri laboris fuit. (‘But when a section of the wall was thrown down by the battering-rams and the soldiers had entered the city over the ruins, that was, so to speak, the beginning of new and fresh toil.’ Liv. 32.17.6)

. Particles and adverbs tightening or clarifying the relationship between subordinate and superordinate clauses Certain particles can also be used to tighten the relationship between superordinate and subordinate clauses. An example is the use of iam in main clauses that are accompanied by subordinate clauses of manner or time, and especially with conditional clauses, as in (a)–(d). Here iam puts emphasis on the specific semantic relation between the subordinate clause and its main clause.⁵⁰ For a similar use of demum, see (e).⁵¹ (a)

Iam iurgio enicabit (sc. uxor), si intro rediero. (‘Now she’ll kill me with her nagging if I go back in.’ Pl. Mer. 557)

(b)

Nam si cogites, remittas iam me onerare iniuriis. (‘For if you were to think about it, you would now stop troubling me with your unjust demands.’ Ter. An. 827)

(c)

Ut igitur paulo ante animum inter Fidenatem Romanamque rem ancipitem gessisti, ita iam corpus passim distrahendum dabis. (‘Therefore, just as a little while ago you bore a heart divided between the interests of Fidenae and Rome, so now you’ll give up your body to be torn apart.’ Liv. 1.28.9)

(d)

Id tu, Brute, iam intelleges, cum in Galliam veneris. (‘You will understand presently what I mean, Brutus, when you come to Gaul.’ Cic. Brut. 171)

⁵⁰ For this use of iam as an emphasizing particle, see Kroon and Risselada (1998; 2002: 73–5). For critical comments, see Rosén (2009: 360). See also § 22.40. ⁵¹ For demum, see Rosén (1993, especially p. 178) and § 22.39.



Subordinate clauses: properties and internal structure (e)

Servata res est demum, si illam videro. (‘Things are safe at last if I see her.’ Pl. Mer. 909)

Just like other constituents, certain subordinate clauses (adjunct clauses and autonomous relative clauses) may contain the emphasizing particle quidem, which follows the subordinator or relative pronoun. Examples of subordinators and of a relative clause are (f)–(g) and (h), respectively. See also the use of the scalar particle etiam with a quia reason adjunct clause in (i). This particle seems to be excluded with a quoniam reason disjunct clause.⁵² (f)

Haeret haec res, si quidem haec iam mulier facta est ex viro. (‘This is a sticky matter, if he really has now become a woman instead of a man.’ Pl. Am. 814—tr. Christenson)

(g)

Cedo sis dexteram. / # Ut quidem tu huius oculos illutis manibus tractes aut teras? (‘Lend me a hand, please. # So that you can handle or rub her eyes with dirty hands?’ Pl. Poen. 315–16)

(h)

Sed te, nullusne est tibi amator alius quisquam? / # Nisi tuos modo unus filiu’st, quem quidem ego amem alius nemo est. (‘But please don’t you have any other lover? # Apart from your only son, there’s no one else whom I can love at least.’ Pl. Cist. 369–70)

(i)

Sed qui non modo quia necesse est mori, verum etiam quia nihil habet mors quod sit horrendum, mortem non timet, magnum is sibi praesidium ad beatam vitam comparavit. (‘But the man who is without fear of death, not simply because it is unavoidable but also because it has no terrors for him, has secured a valuable aid towards rendering life happy.’ Cic. Tusc. 2.2)

Adverbs are another means to make the relationship between a subordinate clause and its superordinate clause more precise. Examples are nisi ‘except’, praesertim ‘especially’, praeterquam ‘apart from’, as in ( j)–(l), respectively. Note that nisi and praeterquam can also be used as subordinators by themselves. (For more si clauses, see § 16.57; for cum clauses, see § 16.10.) The same adverbs can also be used in combination with various participial constructions, as in (m) and (n), with present participles. ( j)

. . . nec mi umbra hic usquam’st, nisi si in puteo quaepiam’st. (‘. . . and I haven’t any shade here anywhere, unless there’s a bit in the well.’ Pl. Mos. 769)

(k)

Quo usque negotiabere cum praesertim sis isto loco natus? (‘How long are you going to continue in business, especially since you were born in that place?’ Cic. Flac. 70)

⁵² For further examples of the use of particles and adverbs with subordinate clauses, see Rosén (2008: 220–1). For etiam, see also § 22.22.

Relationship between subordinate and superordinate clauses  (l)

De classe Carthaginiensibus remissum, praeterquam si quid navium ex foedere deberent. (‘The Carthaginians were released from their promise about the fleet, except if they had a treaty obligation to provide ships.’ Liv. 36.4.9—NB: see Briscoe ad loc.)

(m)

. . . breviter, quoniam non consulto sed casu in eorum mentionem incidi, quasi praeteriens satisfaciam universis. (‘. . . but since I have come to mention them not intentionally, but by chance, I will briefly, as though in passing, satisfy them all in a few words.’ Cic. Div. Caec. 50)

(n)

E diverso niger est Alabandicus (sc. lapis) terrae suae nomine, quamquam et Mileti nascens . . . (‘On the other hand, the stone named after Alabanda, its place of origin, although it occurs also at Miletus, is black . . .’ Plin. Nat. 36.62)

A number of connectors can be used in a main clause that follows a subordinate clause and in this way serve as a ‘superordinator’.⁵³ Examples are (o) and (p). In (o), atque ‘at once’⁵⁴ follows a temporal clause. In (p), the contrast between the contents of the conditional clause and the main clause is marked by at. (o)

Quoniam convocavi, atque illi me ex senatu segregant. (‘When I’ve assembled them, they exclude me from the senate meeting at once.’ Pl. Mos. 1050)

(p)

Si tibi est machaera, at nobis veruina est domi. (‘If you have a sword, we have a spit at home.’ Pl. Bac. 887)

. Forms of interlacing of superordinate and subordinate clauses Subordinate clauses behave like self-contained units: constituents of superordinate and subordinate clauses are usually confined to their own domain. For most types of subordinate clauses, it is rare to find elements of them within the boundaries of a superordinate clause or the other way around. However, sometimes a constituent that belongs semantically to a subordinate clause fulfils a function in the superordinate clause: this is the case for the pseudo-object constituents discussed in §  9.17, an example of which is (a), taken from § 14.2. There are also other types of anticipation and postponement, illustrated by (b) and (c), respectively (see § 18.14 for parallels of ex. (c)). In (b) meliorem in the main clause is in fact a modifier of condicio in the relative clause; in (c) it is the other way around: ligneum in the relative clause is in fact the

⁵³ The term is used by Rosén (1989b: 398–9; 2009: 343–6), from whom the examples are taken. For further examples of conditional clauses, see § 16.57. ⁵⁴ ‘Forthwith’, ‘lo and behold’ are the translations of OLD s.v. § 6. See also TLL s.v. atque 1075.82ff. ‘et statim’.



Subordinate clauses: properties and internal structure

modifier of the noun equos in the main clause. Note that in both instances the form of the modifier is determined by the clause to which it syntactically belongs. (a)

. . . ego te faciam miserrumus mortalis uti sis. (‘I’ll make sure you’re the most wretched mortal on earth.’ Pl. Aul. 443)

(b)

Nisi qui meliorem afferet / quae mi atque amicis placeat condicio magis, / quasi fundum vendam . . . (‘Unless anyone offers a better deal, which I and my associates like more, as if I were selling a plot by auction . . .’ Pl. Capt. 179–81)

(c)

. . . non sunt tabellae sed equos quem misere Achivi ligneum. (‘These aren’t tablets, but the wooden horse which the Achaeans sent.’ Pl. Bac. 936)

Whereas in the examples above the form of the ‘transposed’ constituent is adjusted to suit the structure to which it belongs, in another form of interlacing no such adjustment occurs. In (d) eri lenitas belongs to a subordinate clause together with quorsum evaderet, from which it is separated by the governing verb verebar. Semper, which belongs with verebar to the superordinate clause, separates eri (topical information) from lenitas. The forms are the same as if the order had been: semper verebar quorsum eri lenitas evaderet. (For further discussion, see § 23.65.) (d)

Mirabar hoc si sic abiret et eri semper lenitas / verebar quorsum evaderet. (‘I was surprised if it could end this way, and I’ve been afraid all the time of where our master’s calmness was leading.’ Ter. An. 175–6)

Subordinators are often preceded by constituents that form a link with a preceding sentence, notably relative and anaphoric pronouns and determiners. See § 23.20–8.

14.20 Subordinators Latin offers a broad spectrum of subordinators, some of which have a very precise meaning, for example postquam ‘after’, while others have a broader meaning, for example cum (quom) ‘when’, ‘since’, ‘although’. In addition, their interpretation may vary depending on the context in which they are used (in the case of cum one can think of its purely temporal, its causal, or its concessive interpretation). Some subordinators are only used in satellite clauses (for example the two just mentioned, although there is some doubt about the status of cum clauses with verbs of praising and thanking—see §  15.23), while others are used in both argument and satellite clauses (notably ut). Some of the words involved belong to only one lexical category (e.g. postquam: subordinator—see also below),⁵⁵ others have homonyms in one or more other categories (e.g. ut (uti): subordinator and interrogative/relative manner ⁵⁵ For Late instances of the use as adverb, see TLL s.v. 250.8ff.

Subordinators  adverb ‘how’).⁵⁶ Some of them are more or less stable over the period covered by this Syntax, others undergo significant changes: in Early and Classical Latin there are instances in which post and postea are combined with quam even though particles or full words intervene between them, as in (a). This shows the development of the combination of adverb + comparative particle into a subordinator. Another example is licet, the development of which from an ‘impersonal’ verb ‘it is permitted’ into a concessive subordinator can be seen from Cicero’s time onwards; this development is shown in (b), where licet is on its way to becoming a subordinator (for further details, see § 16.81).⁵⁷ (a)

Itaque Calpurnius cum . . . cognosset . . . Claudium aedes postea proscripsisse quam esset ab auguribus demoliri iussus, arbitrum illum adegit . . . (‘And so, when Calpurnius . . . had discovered that Claudius had advertised his house for sale only after the augurs had ordered them (sc. the parts of the house obstructing the augurs’ view) to be pulled down, he summoned the former owner before a court . . .’ Cic. Off. 3.66)

(b)

Licet iste dicat emisse, sicuti solet dicere, credite hoc mihi, iudices. (‘Verres may say, as he usually does say, that he bought everything; but believe me, gentlemen.’ Cic. Ver. 4.133)

. Subordinators used with both argument and satellite clauses Several subordinators are used both with argument and with satellite (adjunct and disjunct) clauses. The four most prominent ones in all periods of Latin are quod, ut (uti) and ne, and si. The question of how to distinguish formally between, for example, an ut argument and an ut satellite clause has received considerable attention in the last few decades.⁵⁸ Apart from the fact that an ut argument clause occupies one of the obligatory positions required by the meaning of the governing verb, there are a number of objective tests that one can use to determine the status of a particular clause. One such test is to determine which type of correlative device can be used with a given subordinate clause (see §§  14.16–17), for example id . . . ut (argument clause) vs ideo . . . ut (a satellite purpose clause). Another test consists in determining which question words may trigger the subordinate clause as an answer, for example quid? vs cur? A third one is to determine whether clauses of both types are found juxtaposed in one complex sentence, as in (a) with an ut argument and an ut satellite purpose clause.⁵⁹ For a similar instance of a quod argument and a quoniam reason clause, see (b). ⁵⁶ For the use of the form uti, see Panchón (2013). For Ennius and Vitruvius, see Adams (2016: 9–10). ⁵⁷ For a study of subordinators in satellite clauses from a typological perspective, see Hoffmann (2013, also in: 2018a: 191–224). ⁵⁸ For ut, see Bolkestein (1977a), LSS § 7.4.1, and Bodelot (2000: 210–42; 2002a); for si, see Bodelot (2000: 161–210). ⁵⁹ For another instance of two ut clauses (‘at first sight puzzling’ (Dyck ad loc.)), see Cic. Cael. 8.



Subordinate clauses: properties and internal structure (a)

. . . intellexi . . . nihil mihi optatius cadere posse quam ut tu me quam primum consequare, ut, cum ex Italia profecti essemus . . ., tuo tuorumque praesidio uteremur . . . (‘I see that nothing could be more desirable to me than that you should overtake me as soon as possible, so that when I leave Italy I may have the protection of you and your people . . .’ Cic. Att. 3.1.1)

(b)

Sane gaudeo quod te interpellavi, quoniam quidem tam praeclarum mihi dedisti iudicii tui testimonium. (‘I am very glad indeed that I interrupted you, since you have given me so fine a proof of your good opinion.’ Cic. Leg. 3.1)

Another question which has received attention for a much longer period of time than the preceding one is how to explain the use of the same subordinator in both argument and subordinate clauses. Here ut may again serve as an illustration.⁶⁰ It can be used as a subordinator in argument clauses with manipulation verbs, as in (c), and as a subordinator in various satellite clauses, for example in purpose clauses, as in (d). (c)

Impero auctorque sum ut tu me quoivis castrandum loces. (‘I order and command you to hand me over to anyone you like for castration.’ Pl. Aul. 251)

(d)

Explicari mihi tuum consilium plane volo, ut penitus intellegam. (‘I certainly do want to have your advice set out for me so that I thoroughly understand it.’ Cic. Att. 8.12.1)

In (c), the person who gives the order indicates to the ‘you’ that the latter is responsible for the action me quoivis castrandum loces and has to perform it. Completely different is the situation in (d). The ut clause is optional from the point of view of the main clause. The person who is asked to explain his plan clearly has no control over the ‘I’ who has to understand the matter; the ‘I’ could not be ordered to understand things, because he would have no control over this. So on first sight ut argument and ut purpose clauses may be thought to share a semantic feature like ‘working towards the achievement of a future state of affairs’, but in reality they are different from a semantic point of view. Whereas ut in (d) contributes to the interpretation of the subordinate clause as ‘purpose’, ut in (c) is ‘only’ a linking device, and the interpretation of the subordinate clause depends on the governing expression.⁶¹ The difficulty involved in finding a common explanation for the use of ut on the argument and satellite levels is even greater for so-called ut temporale, as in (e) (for details, see § 16.24).

⁶⁰ For an extensive discussion of the etymology and the diversity of use of ut, see Panchón (2003: 335–66). ⁶¹ See also Bodelot (2000: 215–18), who discusses ex. (d), and Panchón (2003: 461–6).

Subordinators  (e)

Principio ut illo advenimus, ubi primum terram tetigimus, / continuo Amphitruo delegit viros primorum principes. (‘First, when we arrived there, as soon as we touched the shore, Amphitruo immediately chose the leading men among those of high rank.’ Pl. Am. 203–4) Temporal ut and purpose ut clauses differ from each other in several respects. The former usually precede the superordinate clause, are in the indicative, and there are no restrictions on the tense of the clause. Purpose clauses, by contrast, usually follow, are always in the subjunctive, and are subject to the rules of the sequence of tenses.

. Subordinators and relative adverbs Spatial satellite clauses (see § 16.6) are linked to the superordinate clause by means of a relative adverb. In (a) the second ubi ‘where’ marks the (independently used) clause as the location where the ego in the previous sentence will be: (eris) ubi maxime esse vis. In its own clause ubi functions as the space argument with esse in its meaning ‘to be somewhere’. Like the other space adverbs, relative ubi has interrogative and indefinite homonyms (see the first ubi? in (a)). Ubi clauses may also function as adnominal relative clauses with a noun (phrase), as in (b) with aedis. In addition, ubi may introduce autonomous relative clauses, which can fulfil various functions in the superordinate clause, for example as the object with invenires in (c). For details, see § 18.16. (a)

Ubi ego ero? # Ubi maxime esse vis. (‘Where will I be? # Where you want to be most.’ Pl. Mos. 392)

(b)

. . . hasce aedis esse oportet / Demaenetus ubi dicitur habitare. (‘. . . it ought to be this house here where Demaenetus is said to live.’ Pl. As. 381–2)

(c)

Ubi habitaret invenires saltem, si nomen nequis. (‘You should have at least found out where he lives, if you can’t find out his name.’ Pl. Mer. 636)

The situation is less clear with the linking devices of temporal satellite clauses (§ 16.7). Quando ‘when’ resembles spatial ubi in the coexistence of relative, interrogative, and indefinite homonyms. Also, just like spatial adverbs, quando can be combined with cumque (quandocumque). However, cum (quom) is different. Etymologically it is related to the relative/indefinite pronoun/determiner qui, quae, quod,⁶² but it has no interrogative and indefinite homonyms, and it cannot be combined with cumque.⁶³ It can be used in the same way as an adnominal relative clause with words denoting time (tempus cum ‘a time at which’) (see § 18.38), but there are no instances of autonomous

⁶² See de Vaan (2008) s.v. ⁶³ With the exception of cum . . . cumque in Lucr. 2.114. See Bailey ad loc.



Subordinate clauses: properties and internal structure

cum clauses parallel to the autonomous ubi clause in (c). In this Syntax cum is treated as one of the broad variety of temporal subordinators of various origins.⁶⁴ Ut is even more complicated. In the OLD it is labelled an adverb and a conjunction. There are two adverbial homonyms (interrogative/exclamative ‘how?/!’ and relative ‘in the same way as’). In its temporal use ut (see (e) in § 14.21) is described as being a ‘temporal conjunction’. Apart from that OLD distinguishes ut as a ‘conjunction’ in argument and purpose and other satellite clauses. In this Syntax two adverbial ut’s and one subordinator ut (including the temporal use) will be distinguished.⁶⁵

. Developments in the system of subordinating devices from Latin to the Romance languages In the period covered by this Syntax a number of major changes took place in the system of subordinating devices.⁶⁶ Some of these are mentioned here, but detailed discussion is provided in the following chapters. First of all one can observe the decrease in the use of a number of non-finite clauses: the accusative and infinitive clause lost ground—very slowly—to quod (and also to quia) as the subordinating device with verbs of perception, cognition, and communication (see §  15.9 and § 15.113). Quod clauses and accusative and infinitive clauses were already competitors in several other contexts. Supine clauses gradually disappeared and so did gerundival clauses. The present infinitive replaced the gerund in certain contexts (see § 16.86). Of the subordinators (and relative adverbs) used in finite clauses ut as an interrogative/ relative adverb of manner lost ground to quomodo (and qualiter) (see § 16.33) and as a subordinator to quod (see §§ 15.25–7). There is no trace of it in the Romance languages. Cum as a temporal subordinator was gradually replaced by dum (see § 16.17) and quando; it too left no trace in the Romance languages. Quod, which already in Cicero’s works is used in a broad spectrum of contexts (see Figure 15.1, p. 60), expanded its functions and so became a ‘general’ subordinator.⁶⁷ At the same time the number of combinations of quod with prepositional phrases and adverbs increased considerably (see §  14.6). Although there is no direct etymological relation, que in  French and che in Italian play a role in the Romance languages similar to quod in Latin. Appendix: The common Romance subordinator (French) que, (Italian) che, etc. cannot be derived from quod, nor from quia. Especially in Merovingian Latin (relatively well documented) one finds forms which must be the predecessor of the Romance subordinator, spelled as que, but also found as quae or quem, pronounced [ke], as in (a).

⁶⁴ ⁶⁵ ⁶⁶ ⁶⁷

OLD s.v. calls cum a relative adverb. For the unclear etymology of ut, see de Vaan (2008) s.v. For the major developments, see Herman (1963: 120–2). The term is taken from Rosén (1989a).

The period  (a) . . . dicens que Neptuno munera daret. (‘. . . saying that he was giving gifts to Neptune.’ Fredeg. Chron. 4.63) These forms are most likely some sort of merger of relative quae and quem. Note that synchronically quod was not only a subordinator, but also a relative pronoun.⁶⁸

14.24 The period The term ‘period’ goes back to Greek .p{jzoz| (lit. ‘way round’), translated by Cicero in various ways,⁶⁹ and adopted as periodus from Quintilian Inst. 9.4.125 onwards. In Antiquity it is not defined in syntactic terms, but as a balanced sequence of cola (uŷvl, Lat. membra) and/or (smaller) commata (u†wwl~l, Lat. incisa) which together form a semantically coherent whole.⁷⁰ In addition, a period is usually described as a rhythmically well structured utterance. Whereas in modern descriptions the period is defined as a complex sentence with at least one subordinate clause, the discussion by Cicero in (a) of his own text ( pro Scauro 45) shows that the term comprehensio was also used for something longer than a membrum,⁷¹ in fact, for a longer simple sentence. In the terminology of this Syntax we would describe the quotation in (a) as three asyndetically coordinated sentences or clauses, of which the last is longer (or: ‘heavier’) than the other two. (a)

. . . at membratim (sc. efferuntur) quae secuntur duo: ‘Incurristi amens in columnas, in alienos insanus insanisti.’ Deinde omnia tanquam crepidine quadam comprehensione longiore sustinentur: ‘depressam, caecam, iacentem domum pluris quam te et quam fortunas tuas aestimasti’—dichoreo finitur. (‘. . . but the following falls into two membra: ‘You have madly dashed against the columns; you have raved wildly against strangers.’ Then the whole passage is set, as it were, on the foundation of a longer period: ‘a fallen, dark and prostrate home you thought more valuable than yourself and your fortunes.’ It ends in a ditrochee.’ Cic. Orat. 224)

The complexity of a sentence can be increased in various ways: In the first place a speaker is to some extent free to add optional information in the form of satellites to the information provided by the verb and its arguments. Next, the positions of the arguments and satellites can be filled by finite or non-finite clauses and these clauses can themselves contain finite and non-finite clauses. Thirdly, nominal constituents ⁶⁸ Discussion can be found in Herman (1963: 123–5), with special reference to Jeanjaquet (1894). ⁶⁹ For example: ambitus, circuitus, and comprehensio (Cic. Brut. 162; Orat. 204). ⁷⁰ Compare the requirement in K.-St.: II.629 that a period must represent one unified idea (‘die Einheit eines Gedanken’). See also Sz.: 732. ⁷¹ In fact, periods consisting of one membrum were also accepted. For the ancient ideas about period, colon, and comma, see Lausberg (1990: §§ 923–47).



Subordinate clauses: properties and internal structure

(both at the clause level and below) can be modified by adnominal relative clauses and can be expanded by appositions and secondary predicates, which can be complex as well. Finally, at all these points the complexity can be increased by coordination. In spontaneous spoken language there is a certain limit, both for the speaker and for the hearer, to the number and the type of clauses that can be incorporated within one sentence. In prepared speeches, however, and in writing sentences can be extended considerably. The period in Cicero’s oration pro Archia 3, for example, contains some twenty-five clauses. (We are dealing with grammatically correct and fully understandable sentences, not with anacoluthons.) In the examples of periods that follow, the clauses of which they consist are numbered.⁷² Some of the clauses are interrupted, which explains why the same number returns at different places. The first example, (b), is used twice by Quintilian as an illustration and is still much discussed.⁷³ The sentence consists of three coordinated si clauses, each with its own internal complexity, and a heavy main clause at the end (in bold). The structure of (c) is completely different. Here the short main clause encompasses a sequence of a secondary predicate (circumsessa), a cum temporal clause, and two ablative absolute clauses, of which the first is complex in itself. These four segments are arranged in chronological order to illustrate the sequence of events leading to the surrender of the town. For again a different structure in a different type of text, see (d), where the main clause is followed by a complex ablative absolute clause.⁷⁴ (b) 1. 2. 3. 2. 4. 5. 6. 5. 7. 8. 9. 8. 9. 8.

Si quid est in me ingeni, iudices, quod sentio quam sit exiguum, aut si qua exercitatio dicendi, in qua me non infitior mediocriter esse versatum, aut si huiusce rei ratio aliqua ab optimarum artium studiis ac disciplina profecta, a qua ego nullum confiteor aetatis meae tempus abhorruisse,

⁷² For a discussion and graphical presentation of these and other complex sentences, see Coleman (1983). ⁷³ For an analysis of this sentence, see Gotoff (1979: 96–100). For the rhetorical effect, see von Albrecht (2003: 198–202). ⁷⁴ For Pliny’s sentence structure, see Pinkster (2005: 248–50).

The period  10.

earum rerum omnium vel in primis hic A.  Licinius fructum a me repetere prope suo iūrĕ dēbet. (‘Gentlemen of the Jury: Whatever talent I possess (and I realize its limitations), whatever be my oratorical experience (and I do not deny that my practice herein has been not inconsiderable), whatever knowledge of the theoretical side of my profession I may have derived from a devoted literary apprenticeship (and I admit that at no period of my life has the acquisition of such knowledge been repellent to me),—to any advantage that may be derived from all these my friend Aulus Licinius has a pre-eminent claim, which belongs to him almost as of right.’ Cic. Arch. 1)

(c) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 6. 8. 1.

Ea urbs circumsessa cum a Celtiberis auxilia arcessisset, morantibus iis, non quia ipsi cunctati sunt, sed quia profectos domo inexplicabiles continuis imbribus viae et inflati amnes tenebant, desperato auxilio suorum in deditionem venit. (‘When this town was besieged, it sent for assistance from the Celtiberians but they were slow to arrive, not from any hesitation on their part but because after leaving home they were held up by roads made impassable by incessant rain and by swollen rivers. Thus, losing hope of receiving aid from its friends, the town surrendered.’ Liv. 44.33.2)

(d) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 6. 1. 7. 8.

Nilus incertis ortus fontibus, ut per deserta et ardentia et inmenso longitudinis spatio ambulans famaque tantum inermi quaesitus sine bellis, quae ceteras omnes terras invenere, originem, ut Iuba rex potuit exquirere, in monte inferioris Mauretaniae non procul Oceano habet lacu protinus stagnante, quem vocant Nilidem. (‘The sources from which the Nile rises have not been ascertained, proceeding as it does through scorching deserts for an enormously long distance and only having been explored by unarmed investigators, without the wars that have discovered all other countries; but so far as King Juba was able to ascertain, it



Subordinate clauses: properties and internal structure has its origin in a mountain of lower Mauretania not far from the Ocean, and immediately forms a stagnant lake called Nilides.’ Plin. Nat. 5.52)

Sentences with such a degree of complexity are common in prose from Cicero onwards. The frequency with which they are used and the types that are used vary between authors and text types. In Cicero there is a difference between his personal and official letters, between his judicial and political orations, and even between parts of the same oration, depending upon the audience and the intended rhetorical effect. Periods are not limited to prose. However, the use of periodic sentence structure is mainly a matter of individual style and this short introduction must suffice.⁷⁵

14.25 Direct and indirect speech A person’s words (written or spoken) or thoughts may be reported by a speaker or writer in two different ways. It may be in the form of an (often fictitious) repetition of the words that were actually used (or will be used). This is called direct speech (also ‘direct discourse’, oratio recta). Alternatively, the words (or rather a paraphrase or a summary of them) may depend on a verb of speaking or thinking, which may be explicit or implicit. This is called indirect speech (also ‘indirect discourse’, oratio obliqua). Examples of direct speech are the sentences in quotation marks of (a,ii) and of (c), with the very common verb inquit; examples of indirect speech are the accusative and infinitive clauses in the first sentence of (a) and in (b). (a)

(i) . . . dico med esse atriensem. (ii) Sic hoc respondit mihi: / ‘Ego pol Sauream non novi neque qua facie sit scio. / Te non aequom est suscensere. Si erum vis Demaenetum, / quem ego novi, adduce. Argentum non morabor quin feras’. (‘. . . I said that I am the steward. He answered me like this: “I don’t know Saurea or what he looks like. It wouldn’t be fair of you to be angry. Do bring along your master Demaenetus, whom I do know, if you please. I won’t delay you getting the money.”’ Pl. As. 352–5)

(b)

Hospes respondit Zacynthi ficos fieri non malas. (‘My friend has replied that there are decent figs in Zacynthus.’ Pl. Mer. 943)

(c)

‘Immo duas dabo,’ inquit ille adulescens, ‘una si parum est. Et si duarum paenitebit,’ inquit, ‘addentur duae.’ (‘ “No, I’ll give you two,” says that young man, “if one is too little; and if you’re not content with two,” he says, “two more will be added.”’ Pl. St. 550–1)

⁷⁵ For a historical survey, see Sz.: 732–9 and Wilkinson (1963: 167–88). For Cicero’s style in general, see von Albrecht (2003).

Direct and indirect speech



Both (a,ii) and (b) contain the verb respondeo. In (a,ii) the direct speech is not syntactically related to respondit, whereas in (b) it is (it is the object). In (a,ii) the direct speech is prepared by hoc. It could also have been used in (b). In principle each text in direct speech can be also be expressed in indirect speech, albeit with some limitations. The indirect AcI clause corresponding to Ego pol . . . scio in (a,ii) could not contain pol (*respondit se pol Sauream non novisse neque qua facie esset scire), nor could immo in (c) be used in a corresponding indirect expression.⁷⁶ Apart from these limitations there are also a number of formal differences. In the indirect version the accusative se corresponds to the nominative ego in the direct version and the infinitive novisse to the finite verb form novi. Furthermore, the imperfect esset in the relative clause has respondit as its reference point, whereas the present sit in the direct speech has the time of speaking as its reference point (for details on the use of the tenses in indirect speech, see §  7.113). The indirect version of Si erum vis . . . adduce would be Si erum vellem Demaenetum, quem ipse novit, adducerem, where the past subjunctive adducerem corresponds to the present imperative adduce (see § 7.62). (For interrogative and exclamatory sentences in the AcI, see §§ 15.105–6. For interrogative sentences in the subjunctive, see § 7.61.)⁷⁷ Due to its ‘indirectness’ the preferred contexts for indirect speech are words or opinions of crowds and rumours, accusations, and summaries of spoken or written texts. The content of the indirect speech can be coloured or characterized by the choice of governing verb. The range of verbs governing indirect speech is accordingly much wider than the range of verbs introducing direct speech.⁷⁸ The term ‘indirect speech’ is used in various ways. Some grammarians do not include verbs of thinking, others include manipulation verbs like hortor ‘I urge’, which do not necessarily imply verbal behaviour at all. It is important to realize that the speech presented as ‘direct’ is usually not what was actually spoken and is almost always fictitious. This is not only the case in literary  dialogue, but is shown by Cicero’s and Sallust’s quotations of a letter in the Catilinarian affair.⁷⁹ (d) Erant autem sine nomine, sed ita: ‘Quis sim scies ex eo quem ad te misi. Cura ut vir sis, et cogita quem in locum sis progressus. Et vide quid tibi iam sit necesse et cura ut omnium tibi auxilia adiungas, etiam infimorum’. (‘The letter was unsigned but read as follows: “You will know who I am from the man whom I have sent to you. Be resolute and take stock of your position. See what you must now do and take care that you get the support of everyone, even the lowest.”’ Cic. Catil. 3.12)

⁷⁶ For ‘unreportable entities’ in indirect speech, see Bolkestein (1990a; 1990b). See also Rosén (2013: 243–5), who, however, incorrectly suggests that certe and similar words cannot occur in indirect speech. ⁷⁷ For a discussion of the linguistic properties of indirect speech, see Adema (2017: 32–75; 2019a: 295–6, with references). ⁷⁸ See the lists of verbs in Lambert (1946: 56–7) and Wiesthaler (1956: 79–83). ⁷⁹ For Cicero’s way of reporting, see Wiesthaler (1956: 23–8).



Subordinate clauses: properties and internal structure (e) ‘Qui sim ex eo quem ad te misi cognosces. Fac cogites in quanta calamitate sis, et memineris te virum esse. Consideres quid tuae rationes postulent. Auxilium petas ab omnibus, etiam ab infumis’. (‘ “My present situation you will learn from the person I have sent you. See to it that you bear in mind in what a desperate situation you are, and remember that you are indeed a man. Consider what your interests demand; seek help from all, even the lowliest.”’ Sall. Cat. 44.5)

Indirect speech is also regularly used without an introductory verb of speaking or thinking. The term used for this in this Syntax is free indirect speech.⁸⁰ A common English term is ‘implied indirect discourse’. In such cases there is some contextual information from which the notion of speaking or thinking can be inferred. A simple form is when an accusative and infinitive with a governing verb precedes (so that it is not always clear whether we are dealing with free indirect speech), but there are also less direct ways. Ex. (f) has the free indirect speech preceded by an exhortation. In (g), there is a verb of refusing; in (h), the noun mandata. Here an imperative sentence in the subjunctive is followed by a declarative sentence in the AcI. In (i), the free indirect speech continues the command vox . . . ut. (f)

Pro quibus rebus hortatur ac postulat ut rem publicam suscipiant atque una secum administrent. Sin timore defugiant illis se oneri non futurum et per se rem publicam administraturum. (‘For all these reasons he exhorted the senators and asked them to take charge of the state and administer it with him. “But if fear makes you shirk the task, I will not be a burden to you but will administer the state myself.”’ Caes. Civ. 1.32.7)

(g)

In senatum venit. Mandata exposuit. Sententiam ne diceret recusavit. Quamdiu iure iurando hostium teneretur non esse se senatorem. (‘He came into the senate and stated his mission; but he refused to give his own vote on the question; for, he held, he was not a member of the senate so long as he was bound by the oath sworn to his enemies.’ Cic. Off. 3.100)

(h)

Illi deliberata respondent scriptaque ad eum mandata per eos remittunt. Quorum haec erat summa: Caesar in Galliam reverteretur, Arimino excederet, exercitus dimitteret; quae si fecisset Pompeium in Hispanias iturum . . . (‘After deliberation they replied in writing and sent the message to Caesar through Roscius and Lucius Caesar. The gist was this: Caesar was to return to Gaul, leave Ariminum, dismiss his army. If he did this, Pompey would go to Spain.’ Caes. Civ. 1.10.2–3)

(i)

Nam non multo ante urbem captam exaudita vox est a luco Vestae, qui a Palatii radice in novam viam devexus est ut muri et portae reficerentur; futurum esse, nisi provisum esset, ut Roma caperetur. ⁸⁰ For properties of free indirect discourse, see Adema (2017: 22–30, esp. p. 29).

Direct and indirect speech



(‘Not long before the capture of the city by the Gauls, a voice, issuing from Vesta’s sacred grove, which slopes from the foot of the Palatine Hill to the New Road, was heard to say, “the walls and gates must be repaired; unless this is done the city will be taken.”’ Cic. Div. 1.101)

There are other indirect ways in which a speaker or writer can allude to another person’s words or thoughts. Two illustrations are ( j) and (k). In ( j), the sentence with the three imperfect forms reflects Curtius’ story about what Caesar was doing at the time of Curtius’ visit to Cicero. In (k), Virgil reports Aeneas’ deliberations, resulting in the sententia mentioned a few lines later (the subjunctive is deliberative; usually it is first person—see § 7.42).⁸¹ In instances like these formal clues are absent, and the interpretation is purely contextual. ( j)

Vixdum epistulam tuam legeram cum ad me currens ad illum (sc. Caesarem) Postumus Curtius venit, nihil nisi classis loquens et exercitus; eripiebat Hispanias, tenebat Asiam, Siciliam, Africam, Sardiniam, confestim in Graeciam persequebatur. (‘I had hardly read your letter when Curtius Postumus arrived at my door hurrying to join Caesar and with nothing but fleets and armies on his tongue. He (Caesar) was snatching Spain, holding Asia, Sicily, Africa, Sardinia, pursuing Pompey hot-foot into Greece.’ Cic. Att. 9.2a.1–2)

(k)

(sc. Aeneas) ardet abire fuga dulcisque relinquere terras / attonitus tanto monitu imperioque deorum. / Heu quid agat? Quo nunc reginam ambire furentem / audeat adfatu? Quae prima exordia sumat? . . . Haec alternanti potior sententia visa est. (‘He burns to flee away and quit that pleasant land, awed by that warning and divine commandment. Ah, what to do? With what speech now dare he approach the frenzied queen? What opening words choose first? . . . This, as he wavered, seemed the better counsel.’ Verg. A. 4.281–7) The interest of Latinists in indirect ways of representing the words (or thoughts) of characters in a narrative started with the publications of Bayet (1931; 1932), which were stimulated by studies on the frequent use of this narrative mode in modern literature.⁸²

⁸¹ The interpretation of ( j) is disputed. See Rosén (2013: 234–6). For instances like (k) in Virgil, see Laird (1999: 167–83). ⁸² See Hyart (1954—sceptical), Laird (1999: 84–102), Biraud and Mellet  (2000), Sznajder  (2005), Rosén (2013; 2015), and Adema (2017). See also Nølke et al. (2004: 57–83).

CHAPTER 15

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position

With certain types of verbs or comparable expressions (see below) one of the arguments may or must be a clause belonging to one of the classes indicated in Table 15.1 (p. 58). These clauses are called argument clauses in this Syntax; they are also referred to in the literature as ‘nominal’ or ‘noun’ clauses, as ‘substantive’ clauses, and as ‘complement’ clauses. The argument clauses themselves consist of a verb or a comparable expression together with its argument(s) and possibly other constituents. The best-known contexts in which argument clauses are used are those in which they function as argument of a verb. An example is (a), where the accusative and infinitive clause is the object of the verb spero ‘to hope (that)’. (a)

Speroque me ob hunc nuntium aeternum adepturum cibum. (‘And I expect that for this message I’ll get food forever.’ Pl. Capt. 780)

However, accusative and infinitive clauses can also be used with various expressions containing the related noun spes ‘hope’: for example, spes est (b), spem habere (c), and in spem venire (d). The verbs in these combinations can be regarded as support verbs (see § 4.4), and the combinations can be regarded as alternate expressions for spero, more or less equivalent to sperare potes in (b), aliquantum sperare in (c), and valde sperare in (d). The accusative and infinitive clauses with these expressions are argument clauses. (b)

. . . aliquid aliqua aliquo modo / alicunde ab aliqui aliqua tibi spes est fore mecum fortunam. (‘. . . you have some hope to have a fortune with me, something, somehow, in some way, from somewhere, from someone.’ Pl. Epid. 332–3)

(c)

. . . tu mihi videris spem non nullam habere haec aliquando futura meliora. (‘. . . you appear to cherish a hope that things will one day get better.’ Cic. Fam. 5.13.3)

(d)

. . . magnamque in spem veniebat pro suis tantis populique Romani in eum beneficiis . . . fore uti pertinacia desisteret. (‘. . . he began to have a good hope that, in consideration of the signal benefits conferred upon him by Caesar and the Roman people, . . . (sc. Ariovistus) would abandon his obstinacy.’ Caes. Gal. 1.42.3)

The Oxford Latin Syntax. Harm Pinkster, Oxford University Press (2021). © Harm Pinkster. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199230563.003.0015

The functions and types of argument clauses

53

Whereas in (b)–(d) the accusative and infinitive clauses depend on the combination of spes and the verbs involved, this analysis is excluded for (e). Here the accusative and infinitive clause sibi id utile futurum depends solely on spe, in a way that is comparable to largitionis further on. Cases like these are discussed in Chapter 17. Note also in (e) the ne clause depending on metu. (e)

Ducuntur enim aut benivolentia aut beneficiorum magnitudine aut dignitatis praestantia aut spe sibi id utile futurum aut metu ne vi parere cogantur aut spe largitionis promissisque capti . . . aut . . . mercede conducti. (‘They may be influenced by good-will; by gratitude for generous favours conferred upon them; by the eminence of that other’s social position or by the hope that their submission will turn to their own account; by fear that they may be compelled perforce to submit; they may be captivated by the hope of gifts of money and by liberal promises . . . or . . . they may be bribed with money.’ Cic. Off. 2.22)

The difference between (b)–(d) on the one hand and (e) on the other is rather clearcut. Some other cases are not so easy to classify as belonging to one or the other types discussed above.1 Another familiar context in which argument clauses can be used is with neuter forms of adjectives that function as subject or object complement, as in (f) and (g), respectively. Argument clauses with adjectives in other functions are dealt with in Chapter 17. (f)

. . . in urbes Campaniae, quas satis certum erat non mutasse fidem, perfugerunt. (‘. . . they fled for refuge to those cities of Campania of which it was known that they had not changed sides.’ Liv. 23.17.6)

(g)

(sc. consules) Certum habere maiores . . . dimicationem subituros fuisse . . . (‘They felt certain that their forefathers . . . would have faced any conflict whatsoever . . .’ Liv. 4.2.9)

15.1 The functions of argument clauses Subordinate clauses of various classes can be used in the function of subject with oneplace verbs and comparable expressions. First, they can be used with the so-called impersonal one-place modal verbs licet and oportet discussed in § 4.14. An example of this use is (a), where an accusative and infinitive clause functions as the subject of oportet. Secondly, they can be used with a variety of third person singular forms of one-place verbs, such as abest, constat, and accidit, as in (b)–(e) (see also §  4.12). Thirdly, they can be used with combinations of third person singular forms of copular verbs and adjectives or nouns that function as subject complement, as in (f) and (g), respectively. These combinations function as support verbs. As the examples show, 1 For a discussion of the problems involved, see Bodelot (1995; 2010), Lavency (2003: 115–25), from whom exx. (d) and (e) are taken, and especially Hoffmann (2015; 2018b).

54

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position

certain verbs or other governing expressions can be used with more than one class of subordinate clause. (Autonomous relative clauses are different; they can be used as subject with all sorts of verbs. Ex. (h) will suffice. Further illustrations of these relative clauses can be found in § 18.16.) (In the examples, subordinators are shown in italics; the class to which clauses without a subordinator belong is indicated in the translation line.) (a)

Aut pol haec praestigiatrix multo mulier maxuma est / aut pateram hic inesse oportet. (‘Either this woman is by far the greatest trickster or the bowl ought to be in here.’ Pl. Am. 782–3—accusative and infinitive clause)

(b)

. . . quo id factum nomine appellari oporteat constat . . . (‘. . . it is clear by what term the act should be defined . . .’ Cic. Inv. 1.12—indirect question)

(c)

Prorsus nihil abest quin sim miserrimus. (‘There is really nothing wanting to make me the most miserable of mankind.’ Cic. Att. 11.15.3)

(d)

Hoc loco percommode accidit quod non adest is qui paulo ante adfuit . . ., C. Aquilius. (‘Now it happens most conveniently at this point that there is absent from the court one who was here but recently…, Gaius Aquilius.’ Cic. Caec. 77)

(e)

Interdum accidit ut non habeat furti actionem is cuius interest rem salvam esse. (‘It sometimes happens that there is no action for theft available to the person who has an interest in the safety of the thing.’ Gaius dig. 47.2.49)

(f)

Non fuisse ei grave nec difficile eam causam excipere . . . (‘It was not hard or difficult for him to make an exception of the excuse . . .’ Cic. Inv. 2.130—prolative infinitive clause)

(g)

Videtur tempus esse ut eamus ad forum . . . (‘It seems to be time for us to go to the forum . . .’ Pl. Mil. 72)

(h)

Quem di diligunt / adulescens moritur, dum valet, sentit, sapit. (‘He whom the gods love dies young, while he has his strength, senses, and wits.’ Pl. Bac. 816–17—autonomous relative clause)

Subordinate clauses can be used as second argument with a variety of two- and threeplace verbs. Examples from various classes are (i)–(p). (i)

Audivistin’ tu me narrare haec hodie? (‘Did you hear me tell her about this today?’ Pl. Am. 748—accusative and infinitive clause)

( j)

Nemo fere vestrum est quin quemadmodum captae sint a M.  Marcello Syracusae saepe audierit . . .

The functions and types of argument clauses

55

(‘There can hardly be any among you who has not often heard how Syracuse was captured by Marcus Marcellus . . .’ Cic. Ver. 4.115—indirect question)

(k)

Abs quivis homine . . . beneficium accipere gaudeas. (‘You should be happy to receive a kindness from anybody.’ Ter. Ad. 254—prolative infinitive clause)

(l)

Metuo in commune ne quam fraudem frausus sit. (‘I’m afraid he might have got into some mischief involving the two of us.’ Pl. As. 286)

(m)

Sane gaudeo quod te interpellavi . . . (‘I am very glad indeed that I interrupted you . . .’ Cic. Leg. 3.1)

(n)

. . . nonnumquam interdiu, sepius noctu si perrumpere possent conati . . ., hoc conatu destiterunt. (‘(the Helvetii) . . . having attempted sometimes by day, more often by night to see if they could break through . . ., abandoned this attempt.’ Caes. Gal. 1.8.4)

(o)

Curabo ut praedati pulchre ad castra convertamini. (‘I’ll make sure that you return to the camp after acquiring booty in fine style.’ Pl. Per. 608)

(p)

. . . obiurgavit Albium Granius quod . . . valde absoluto Scaevola gauderet . . . (‘. . . Granius reproved Albius because the latter was much delighted by Scaevola’s acquittal.’ Cic. de Orat. 2.281—participial clause)

Examples of subordinate clauses that function as third argument are (q)–(w). (q)

Tantum te admonebo, si illi (sc. Ligario) absenti salutem dederis, praesentibus te his daturum. (‘I will merely remind you that if you grant life to the absent Ligarius you will grant it to all these here present.’ Cic. Lig. 38—accusative and infinitive clause)

(r)

Rogabis me ubi sit. (‘You’ll ask me where he is.’ Pl. Bac. 189—indirect question)

(s)

Nonne te . . . Quinta illa Claudia aemulam domesticae laudis in gloria muliebri esse admonebat . . .? (‘Did not even . . . that celebrated Quinta Claudia admonish you to emulate the praise belonging to our house from the glory of its women . . .?’ Cic. Cael. 34—prolative infinitive clause)

(t)

Qua re ut ad me omnia quam diligentissime perscribas te vehementer rogo. (‘Therefore I earnestly beg of you to write everything to me in full detail.’ Cic. Fam. 2.10.4)

(u)

Sed iam impedior egomet, iudices, dolore animi ne de huius miseria plura dicam. (‘I am now prevented by my mental anguish, Judges, from saying more about his misfortune.’ Cic. Sul. 92)

56

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position (v)

. . . ne quid inpediare quin ad hanc utilitatem pariter nobiscum progredi possis. (‘. . . so that you may in no way be kept from being able to make equal progress with me towards the mastery of this useful art.’ Rhet. Her. 3.1)

(w)

. . . quos ad capiendam fugam naturae et virium infirmitas inpediret. (‘. . . whom weakness of nature and strength hampered from taking flight.’ Caes. Gal. 7.26.3—gerundival clause)

Whereas in the examples discussed so far the argument clauses fulfil functions that would be marked by the nominative, accusative or other case if we were dealing with argument noun phrases, the following examples concern arguments that are marked by prepositions or similar expressions. In (x) id functions as a pronominal support for the ut clause, which cannot be governed by a preposition directly. The combination ad id ut . . . simillimi functions as the second argument of accedunt. Similarly, the eo . . . ut clause in (y) functions as the second argument of pertinet. (For this use of prepositions, see § 14.6, with further references.) Comparable is the role of the adverb huc in (z), with an indirect question.2 (x)

Qui proxume accedunt ad id ut omnia habeant eadem vocantur gemini, simillimi. (‘Those who come nearest to having them all alike, are called most like, as it were, twins.’ Var. L. 10.4)

(y)

Hoc eo pertinet ut nihil existiment esse tam difficile quod non pro te mihi susceptum iucundum sit futurum. (‘The point is that they must think nothing too difficult for me to undertake with pleasure on your behalf.’ Cic. Fam. 6.10a.3)

(z)

Ubi friget, huc evasit quam pridem pater / mihi et mater mortui essent. (‘When the conversation flagged, she turned off to this point, asking how long ago my father and mother had died.’ Ter. Eu. 517–18) Supplement: Desunt omnino ei populo multa, sub rege est, in primisque libertas, quae non in eo est ut iusto utamur domino, sed ut nul. (Cic. Rep. 2.43); Tamen tantum afuit ab eo ut ulla ignominia iis exercitibus quaereretur ut et urbs Roma per eum exercitum . . . reciperaretur. . . (Liv. 25.6.11–12); Hoc autem ad id pertinet quod, qui fida gratia inter se iuncti sunt, numquam ab amicitia resolvuntur. (Porph. Hor. Carm. 3.21.22)

15.2 Types of argument clauses Just as sentences can be assigned to sentence types in accordance with their communicative function, one can also distinguish between declarative, interrogative, imperative, and 2 The example is taken from Bodelot (2003: 202–3), where further discussion can be found.

Finite declarative clauses

57

exclamatory subordinate clauses. The last mentioned are difficult to distinguish from interrogative clauses.3 These clause types share certain properties with the sentence types discussed in Chapter 6. An important distinction between declarative and interrogative argument clauses on the one hand and imperative clauses on the other is the use of the negator. Characteristic of declarative and interrogative clauses is that their negation is by non (and not by ne); one of the zero quantifiers, such as nemo ‘nobody’ and nihil ‘nothing’; or by a negative verb, such as nolo ‘to wish not’. Another characteristic of these clauses is that there are no restrictions on tense. Finally, in imperative argument clauses true passive verb forms are exceptional, due to the fact that their content is ‘controlled’; in declarative clauses, by contrast, these verb forms are not uncommon. Some of the classes mentioned in Table 15.1 are typical of a specific clause type: The accusative and infinitive clause is typical of declarative clauses; ut (negation ne) clauses are typical of imperative clauses; clauses with a question particle or question word are typical of interrogative clauses.4

15.3 Finite argument clauses For ease of exposition finite and non-finite clauses are discussed separately. Finite argument clauses contain an indicative or a subjunctive verb form; there are no argument clauses containing an imperative verb form. For finite argument clauses a distinction is made according to type: declarative, interrogative, imperative, and exclamatory.

15.4 Finite declarative argument clauses Table 15.1 contains an overview of the contexts in which the main classes of declarative finite argument clauses can be used. Also included are the accusative and infinitive clause and the nominative and infinitive construction. Some of the contexts are determined by the meaning of the governing verb (emotion verbs, for example), others are of a different kind: in (a), for example, the clause is anticipated by the preparative pronoun hoc (on this example, see § 14.16); in (b), the main clause is negated. (a)

Habet hoc sollicitudo, quod omnia necessaria putat. (‘Anxiety has this quality, that it supposes all things necessary.’ Plin. Ep. 6.9.2—object clause )

(b)

. . . non dubitabam quin te ille aut Dyrrachi aut in istis locis uspiam visurus esset. (‘. . . I didn’t doubt that he would be seeing you at Dyrrachium or somewhere else over there.’ Cic. Att. 1.17.2)

3 For independent exclamatory accusative and infinitive sentences, see § 6.35. 4 See Torrego (1986). She relates the use of the subordinator quod with a verb like gaudeo to exclamatory clauses.

Finite clauses

Classes of subordinate clauses

+ + L + +           + + + (L)

‘to leave unmentioned’ (mitto, praetereo)

‘emotion’ ( gaudeo)

‘fearing’ (timeo)

‘perception’, ‘cognition’, ‘communication’ (video, scio, dico)

‘praising’, ‘blaming’, ‘congratulating’ (laudo, arguo, gratulor)

‘to be surprised’ (miror)

‘to wait’, ‘to try’ (exspecto, conor)

‘to happen’ (evenit, fit, accidit)

‘to conclude’, ‘to follow’ (relinquitur)

transition expressions (reliquum est, restat)

various other verbs and expressions (refert, satis)

verbs of happening (bene accidit)

preparative pronouns and other expressions (illud, hoc)

negated main clauses (non dubito)

L

 

L

 

L

(L)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(+)L  

L

 

?

(L)

L

Legend: + = attested throughout; L = Late Latin ; S = Silver Latin; ? = unclear; () = rare

+

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

+

 

 

+

 

 

 

+

 

+

+

+

+

?

 

 

 

 

 

 

+

 

 

 

 

 

 

(+)

+

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

+

 

 

 

+

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

+

 

 

 

 

 

+

+

 

 

 

 

 

 

quod quia quoniam other ut (non) ut (ne) ne (non) quin si

‘to be added to’ (accedit)

 

Semantic classes of governing verbs

Table 15.1 Survey of classes of declarative clauses and their governing expressions (selected)

+

+

+

+

 

+

(+)

 

+

+

+

L

+

+

(+)

AcI

(S)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

+

+

 

 

 

 

NcI

Non-finite clauses

Finite declarative clauses

59

As observed above, a feature that declarative clauses have in common is that there are no restrictions on the tense of the verb and that they are negated by non. Exceptions to these general properties will be signalled below. The established subordinating form for most classes of declarative clauses is, from the beginning of our records onward, the accusative and infinitive clause (for its description see §§ 15.92ff.).5 This remained the dominant subordinating construction for the entire period covered by this Syntax, although in Late Latin finite constructions became more frequent in certain types of expression and also are preferred more generally by certain authors. Finite declarative clauses are discussed according to the subordinators. The internal order of the discussion of each subordinator will be the same as that given in Table 15.1.

. The use of quod in argument clauses The subordinator quod is used from our earliest texts onward in various types of subordinate clauses. Its use as a subordinator of argument clauses can also be traced from Early Latin onwards, in a range of contexts that varies in the course of time. These contexts are discussed separately in the sections that follow. In addition to this usage, it is found as a subordinator marking disjuncts describing the sphere of applicability of the main clause ‘as to . . .’ (see § 16.38—respect clauses),6 also from Early Latin onwards. Its use as a subordinator of reason clauses meaning ‘because’ can also be found in all periods (see § 16.41). Apart from its being used as a marker of reason adjuncts, it came to be used in other types of adjuncts as well: in Cicero’s time it is not infrequently used in combination with prepositional phrases, such as in eo quod ‘in respect of the fact that’, and in the Post-Classical period it is used on its own in a wide range of satellites (see § 16.84). Figure 15.1 gives an impression of the frequency of use of quod and quia in each of these categories in Cicero’s orations.7 As Figure 15.1 shows, quia is almost entirely restricted to reason adjunct clauses, with or without a correlating expression.8 Quod, by contrast, is used in many more contexts; its use as a marker of arguments (on the right in the graph) constitutes about a third of all its uses in subordinate clauses.

. The use of quod clauses with the verb accedit ‘to be added to’ or ‘to constitute an addition to’ Quod is used in argument clauses with accedit ‘to be added to’ or ‘to constitute an addition to’. In (a) the quod clause refers to a factual situation, which accounts for the use of the indicative habent. In (b) the subjunctive esset is counterfactual (sc. si istic 5 For statistical data concerning Pl. As., see Serbat (2003: 529). 6 For the etymology and development, see Sz.: 572–3. For a synchronic sketch of the relation between the various uses, see Taylor (1951). 7 Based on Merguet (Reden). For more numerical data, see Herman (1963: 108–11) and Serbat (2003: 734–8). 8 For quia, see Baños (1991a) and (2014: 54–6).

60

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 various

preparatives

quia

cleft

emotion

quod

praise

addition

non reason

reason + cor

reason

disjunct

0

Figure 15.1 Distribution of quod and quia clauses in Cicero’s orations (in percentages) Quod N = 935; quia N = 200

non sederes). The main clause may contain a preparative expression, as in (c). For the semantic difference from accedit ut, see § 15.26. (a)

Accedit quod orationis etiam genus habent fortasse subtile et certe acutum . . . (‘There is the further point that they have a way of speaking that is perhaps subtle and undoubtedly penetrating . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 3.66)

(b)

Huc accedit quod paulo tamen occultior . . . ista cupiditas esset. (‘There must be added to this, that that cupidity of yours should have been a little more concealed.’ Cic. S. Rosc. 104)

(c)

Accedit illa quoque causa quod a ceteris forsitan ita petitum sit ut dicerent ut . . . (‘There is this reason, also, that perhaps the request to undertake this cause was made to the others so that . . .’ Cic. S. Rosc. 4—subjunctive because of forsitan) Supplement: Accedit etiam quod . . . T.  Annio devota et constituta ista hostia esse videtur. (Cic. Har. 7); . . . cum ad has suspiciones certissimae res accederent quod per fines Sequanorum Helvetios traduxisset, quod obsides inter eos dandos curasset, quod ea omnia . . . inscientibus ipsis fecisset, quod a magistratu Haeduorum accusaretur, satis esse causae arbitrabatur . . . (Caes. Gal. 1.19.1); Ceterum id quoque ad gloriam accessit quod cum illo simul iusta ac legitima regna occiderunt. (Liv. 1.48.8); Eo accedit quod Enoch apud Iudam apostolum testimonium possidet. (Tert. Cult. fem. 1.3)

Finite declarative clauses

61

. The use of quod clauses with verbs and expressions meaning ‘to leave unmentioned’ Quod is used with a variety of verbs and expressions meaning ‘to pass over’, ‘to leave unsaid’. There are two Early Latin examples of this usage which was to become a common rhetorical device in Cicero. Examples are (a) and (b). With this type of expression the accusative and infinitive is used as well (see § 15.96). (a)

Nam ut mittam quod ei amorem difficillimum et / carissimum, a meretrice avara virginem / quam amabat, eam confeci sine molestia . . . (‘Not to mention that I’ve secured for him without trouble a very difficult and very expensive love affair, since the girl he loved belonged to a greedy courtesan . . .’ Ter. Eu. 926–8)

(b)

Praetereo quod . . . eam sibi domum sedemque delegit . . . (‘I pass over the fact that . . . she chose as her own residence and home the very house . . .’ Cic. Clu. 188) Supplement (in alphabetical order by verb): Suo loco praeteritum’st quod equites ex Italia cum Asprenate ad Caesarem venissent. (B.  Hisp. 10.2); Taceo enim quod princeps civitatis filiam ei nuptum dedit, cuius pecunia tam ieiunos penates videbat. (V. Max. 4.4.9); Non tango quod avarus homo est, quodque improbus, mitto. (Lucil. 1224M=1248K); . . . transeamusque quod Archimedes unus obsidionem Syracusarum in longius traxit. (Quint. Inst. 1.10.48)

. The use of quod clauses with verbs and expressions of emotion Quod is used from Early Latin onward as a marker of object and subject clauses with verbs of emotion such as gaudeo ‘to be glad’, doleo ‘to be grieved at’, miror ‘to be surprised’, moleste fero ‘to be annoyed at’, me pudet ‘to be ashamed’.9 However, it is used much less often than the accusative and infinitive in this context (see § 15.97), and in Early Latin it is also less frequent than both quia, which itself is not used that frequently (see § 15.18), and quom (see § 15.23).10 Sometimes it is difficult to decide whether the quod clause is an argument or a reason adjunct. It is not easy to tell what determines the choice between the accusative and infinitive clause and the finite subordinate clause. According to K.-St.: II.277 the quod clause is used to emphasize the factuality of the emotion, but there is no objective evidence for this.11 Examples are (a)–(e). For the (indicative) mood, see § 7.131. (a)

Quod male feci crucior. (‘I am tormented by the thought that I treated him badly.’ Pl. Capt. 996)

9 There are a few instances of metuo and timeo ‘to fear’ in Late Latin. 10 For the development from Early to Classical Latin—increase of the accusative and infinitive—see Perrochat (1932b: 95–131). 11 For discussion, see Bolkestein (1989b: 47–8).

62

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position (b)

Sane gaudeo quod te interpellavi, quoniam quidem tam praeclarum mihi dedisti iudicii tui testimonium. (‘I am very glad indeed that I interrupted you, since you have given me so fine a proof of your good opinion.’ Cic. Leg. 3.1)

(c)

Doluisse se quod populi Romani beneficium sibi per contumeliam ab inimicis extorqueretur. (‘He was indignant that a benefit to him from the Roman people was being insolently wrested from him by his enemies.’ Caes. Civ. 1.9.2)

(d)

Molestissime autem fero quod te ubi visurus sim nescio. (‘I am very upset, however, that I don’t know where I will see you.’ Cic. Fam. 3.6.5)

(e)

Nunc quoque ne pudeat quod sis mihi nupta . . . (‘Even now be not ashamed that you are wedded to me.’ Ov. Tr. 4.3.61) Supplement (in alphabetical order by governing expression): . . . ad officium pertinere aegre ferre quod sapiens non sis . . . (Cic. Tusc. 3.68); Angebatur tamen animi necessario quod domum eius exornatam atque instructam fere iam iste reddiderat nudam . . . (Cic. Ver. 2.84); . . . neque te tam commovebat quod ille cum toga praetexta quam quod sine bulla venerat. (Cic. Ver. 1.152); Itaque non tam ista me sapientiae . . . fama delectat . . . quam quod amicitiae nostrae memoriam spero sempiternam fore . . . (Cic. Amic. 15—NB: coordination with fama); Nunc me delectat quod fugerunt treceni. (Sen. Suas. 2.8); Sed de maiestatis iudicio duo mihi illa ex tuis litteris iucundissima fuerunt: unum quod te ab ipsa re publica defensum scribis . . . (Cic. Fam. 3.11.3); Atque illud in primis mihi laetandum iure esse video quod in hac insolita mihi ex hoc loco ratione dicendi causa talis oblata est in qua oratio deesse nemini possit. (Cic. Man. 3); Ergo mirabar quod dudum scapulae gestibant mihi (Pl. As. 315); Miror quod mihi tot tempus nihil rescripsti (CEL appendix Vindol. r 4–6 (Vindolanda, c. ad 105)); . . . mirabar quod non mitterentur mihi bestiae. (Passio Perp. 10.5—NB: unmotivated subjunctive); Mirum quod (sc. a certain plant) eodem die germinat quo iniectum est. (Plin. Nat. 13.129); Eho an te paenitet / in mari quod elavi . . . (Pl. Rud. 578–9); Pol haud perit quod illum tantum amo. (Pl. Truc. 581); Placet tamen inter haec quod inaestuas et pio metu antevertis necessitatem. (Symm. Ep. 4.54.3); Adiutorium hoc ad causam putatis? Me pudet quod rogatus sum. ([Quint.] Decl. 9.9); Eho tu, inpudens, non satis habes quod tibi dieculam addo . . .? (Ter. An. 710)

It is common to include in this semantic class of emotion verbs the verbs queror ‘to complain’, conqueror ‘to complain’, and glorior ‘to boast’, although they would better be described as denoting the verbal manifestation of emotions (TLL s.v. glorior: ‘plerumque fere i.q. gloriose loqui’), since they seem to behave more like communication verbs (proportionally they are found more often with the accusative and infinitive than the emotion verbs proper). Examples are (f) and (g). (f)

Sed . . . (sc. Scipio) querebatur quod omnibus in rebus homines diligentiores essent. (‘But (sc. Scipio) used to complain that men were more painstaking in all other things.’ Cic. Amic. 62)

Finite declarative clauses (g)

63

. . . qui glorianti cuidam mercatori quod multas navis in omnem oram maritimam demisisset . . . inquit . . . (‘. . . who, . . . when a certain trader boasted that he had dispatched a great number of ships to every distant coast, remarked . . .’ Cic. Tusc. 5.40) Supplement (in alphabetical order by verb): . . . indignatione conquerimur quod ab iis a quibus minime conveniat male tractemur . . . (Cic. Inv. 1.109); Seneca missum ad se Natalem conquestumque nomine Pisonis quod a visendo eo prohiberetur . . . (Tac. Ann. 15.61.1); Nunc autem, cum prope gloriati sint quod se hostibus dediderint . . . (Liv. 22.60.7); Socrates, deorum hominumque , gloriari solebat quod numquam neque in tabernam conspexerat nec . . . (Petr. 140.14); . . . gloriantem quod illa pusillitas . . . in manus Dei . . . pervenit . . . (Tert. Res. 6.1); Is mihi etiam queritur quod ab nobis novem solis diebus prima actio sui iudicii transacta sit . . . (Cic. Ver. 1.156); Quam multi quod nati sunt queruntur. (Sen. Ben. 1.1.11)

. The use of quod clauses with verbs and expressions of perception, cognition, and communication Quod, just like quia (see §  15.19), is also used in subordinate clauses with verbs and expressions indicating perception, cognition, and communication, which in Early and Classical Latin normally govern an accusative and infinitive clause (see § 15.98).12 There are very few instances before the second century ad, but ecclesiastical authors from Tertullian onwards use it with increasing frequency (together with quia and—much less frequently—quoniam, later also quomodo, quemadmodum, and qualiter) as an alternative for the accusative and infinitive expression.13 However, the accusative and infinitive clause remained the normal expression throughout the period taken into account in this Syntax. The spread of quod, quia, and quoniam was stimulated by Ø~t (hóti) and ot†~t (dihóti) in Greek texts, although the accusative and infinitive is also found in translations of Greek. The ‘advantages’ of the finite quod clause over the accusative and infinitive are first that it avoids potential ambiguity about which entity is the subject and which the object, and second that it allows for the expression of grammatical mood. These ‘advantages’ may indeed be the explanation for the use of the subjunctive in the very first attested instances of quod clauses, with the cognition verb scio ‘to know’ in Plautus, (a), and with the communication verb renuntio ‘to report’, (b): the speaker/author of the main clauses does not necessarily subscribe to the truth of the content of the quod clauses (see my paraphrase of (a); for (b), see the continuation of the story in B. Hisp. 37).14 (a)

Equidem scio iam filius quod amet meus / istanc meretricem . . . (‘Well, I already know that (people say that) my son is in love with that prostitute . . .’ Pl. As. 52–3)

12 Statistical data can be found in Mayen (1889: 47–8). 13 For the use of quod in the old Latin gospels and the use of the moods, see Burton (2000: 189–90). 14 Discussion in Cuzzolin (1994: 106–7), (2013a), and (2013b).

64

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position (b)

. . . legati . . . renuntiaverunt quod Pompeium in potestatem haberent. (‘. . . envoys reported that they had Pompeius in their hands.’ B. Hisp. 36.1)

Although proper verbs of communication are exceptionally found with a quod clause, the verb addo ‘to add’ in its meaning ‘to add (orally or in writing)’ is used with a quod clause (in the indicative) from Terence onwards, as in (c).15 (For the AcI, see § 15.98.) (c)

. . . ut ne addam quod sine sumptu ingenuam, liberalem nactus es / quod habes, ita ut voluisti, uxorem sine mala fama palam. (‘. . . to say nothing of the fact that without any expense you’ve got yourself a respectable freeborn woman and have married her, just as you wanted, all in the open and without any harm to your reputation.’ Ter. Ph. 168–9) Supplement: Adde quod inbecilla nimis primordia fingit. (Lucr. 1.847); Adde huc quod perferri litterae nulla condicione potuerunt (Pol. Fam. 10.31.4); Adicite ad haec quod foedus aequum deditis . . . (Liv. 23.5.9)

Quod is initially more frequent than quia, but the latter increases in frequency from the Bible translations found in Cyprian’s writings onwards (c. ad 250). Of the pair quia and quod the former seems to be used by less educated language users more often than the latter. This distinction between the two can be seen as early as Petronius, and it becomes particularly apparent later on from the way Augustine uses them. He strongly prefers quod in his more formal writings, quia in his more popular Sermones.16 Quod (+ subjunctive) is strongly preferred by Jerome and is also used in his Vulgate Bible translation when he translates from the Hebrew (Old Testament). Quia is used to translate Greek Ø~t in the New Testament.17 A regional difference has been suggested between the use of quod and quia in very Late writings of the fifth and sixth centuries. Quod is used more frequently in Merovingian Latin texts, quia in Italy and Spain. However, these differences probably have other explanations.18 For the use of the moods in these clauses, see § 7.131. Quod clauses normally follow the main verb, both for pragmatic reasons (usually non-topical information) and because quod is a polysemous subordinator. By contrast, the subjects of accusative and infinitive clauses are often topical and coreferential with

15 Examples in TLL s.v. addo 590.6ff. 16 Further details can be found in Sz.: 577. Recent quantitative data can be found in Cuzzolin (1994) and in Stotz (1998: 397); see also Raviolo (2002) on Augustine. For Petronius, see Herman (2003) and Adams (2005a). Quod/quia clauses are absent in the Passio Perp. (Adams 2016: 328). For Priscian’s frequent use of quod (often in stereotyped expressions like sciendum est quod ), see Biville (2014; 2015). For the historical development, see Scivoletto (1962), Cuzzolin (1994), Serbat (2003: 650–6), Touratier (2005), and Calboli (2012). For ‘hybrid’ use of these subordinators with direct speech in Bible translations, see Sznajder (2017b). 17 For the variation in the distribution of quod, quia, and quoniam in the works of Jerome and in the Vulgate, see Bejarano (1975), García de la Fuente (1981), Calboli (2012), Sznajder (2017a; 2017b), and Greco and Ferrari (2019). For the Peregrinatio, see Bejarano (1983). For Symmachus, see Haverling (1988: 242–3). 18 Regional variation has been suggested by Herman (1963: 40–3), but see Adams (2007: 456).

Finite declarative clauses

65

an entity that is already present in the preceding context, especially if the AcI clause precedes the main clause.19 Supplement (in alphabetical order by governing expression): Perception: . . . et cum audisset quod iam evenerat . . . (Pass. Perp. 20.9); Unde in Plinio Secundo legimus quod (Mazzarino; quoniam Keil) nominativus singularis non debet esse ‘iuger’, sed hoc ‘iugerum’. (Pomp. V.  193.36sqq. K); Dein cum metuens sibi quisque mussaret monstraretque perspicua veritas quod repulsus forsitan ariditate vel altitudine montium ad aquas redire non poterit miles . . . (Amm. 24.7.5); At illa gaudio exultans ‘vides’ inquit ‘Chrysis mea, vides quod aliis leporem excitavi?’ (Petr. 131.7); (Pharao) . . . quando vidit quod filii Israhel dimiserant eum . . . (Pereg. 8.5) Cognition: Omnium est aestimare . . . quod (sc. fama) ab uno aliquando principe exorta sit necesse est. (Tert. Apol. 7.11); Adiuro enim tuum mihi carissimum caput nulli me prorsus ac ne tibi quidem ipsi adseveranti posse credere quod tu quicquam in meam cogitaveris perniciem. (Apul. Met. 3.14.3—NB: subjunctive); . . . et nos credimus quod tu sis Christus (Tert. Prax. 21.18 (paraphrasing Joh. 6.69)—NB: subjunctive); . . . credo quod litteras meas libenter accipias . . . (Symm. Ep. 9.1—NB: subjunctive); Nec Hiberum pro ea re dubitare puto quod rem non permissam facit . . . (Proc. dig. 8.2.13);20 Malo quod illum talem inveni quam si multiplicatum hoc ad me de quo loquebar alia via pervenisset. (Sen. Ben. 2.3.3); . . . affirmans et praescisse se olim et praedixisse quod centenario iam contiguus sepelietur in solo Romano. (Amm. 24.1.10); Puto quod nec ipse audeas adversum talem ac tantum virum, tibi veritatem, illi mendacium reputare. (Hier. C. Iohan. 10—NB: subjunctive); Atque etiam recordatus quondam super cenam quod nihil cuiquam toto die praestitisset, memorabilem illam meritoque laudatam vocem edidit: amici, diem perdidi. (NB: subjunctive) (Suet. Tit. 8.1); Illic reputans ideo se fallacibus litteris accitam et honore praecipuo habitam quodque litus iuxta non ventis acta, non saxis impulsa navis summa sui parte veluti terrestre machinamentum concidisset. (Tac. Ann. 14.6.1—NB: coordination of an accusative and infinitive and a quod clause (in the subjunctive)); Scis enim quod epulum dedi binos denarios. (Petr. 71.9 (Trimalchio speaking)); Sciendum quod hodie is praevaricati sunt poena iniungitur extraordinaria. (Ulp. dig. 47.15.2); Sciendum etiam quod de capillis his qui cum homine nascuntur certiora sint signa (Physiogn. 13—NB: subjunctive); . . . sciens quod, si remanserit usquam, exsectis cruribus relinquetur. (Amm. 23.5.21); Unum sane sciendum est quod Germani omnes cum ad auxilium essent rogati a Proculo, Pro servire maluerunt quam cum Bonoso et Proculo . (Hist. Aug. Prob. 18.7) Communication: Non commemoro quod draconis saevi sopivi impetum, / non quod domui vim taurorum et segetis armatae manus. (Enn. scen. 274–5V—NB: for the attribution of this text to Ennius, see Jocelyn, p. 350); Denuntiavi enim litem moventi quod ad me causa pertineat nec defuturum eis meae actionis auxilium. (Symm. Ep. 9.24.2—NB: subjunctive); . . . non sine causa dicetur quod usuras quoque percipere debeat . . . (Paul. dig. 17.2.67.2—NB: subjunctive); In summa autem dicendum 19 For the pragmatic differences between the AcI and quod (and quia) clauses, see Herman  (1989), Cuzzolin (1994), Greco (2008), and the summarizing discussion in Greco (2012: 44–50). For Merovingian texts, see Greco (2014). 20 For later instances, also with the subjunctive, see TLL s.v. 2088.1ff.

66

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position est quod omnibus stellis noceat vicinitas Solis. (Firm. Mat. 2.8.2—NB: subjunctive); . . . docetque quod apud Parisios natus in Galliis et equestri militans turma vindictam quondam commissi facinoris timens ad Persas abierat profugus exindeque morum probitate spectata sortita coniuge liberisque susceptis speculatorem se missum ad nostra saepe veros nuntios reportasse. (Amm. 18.6.16—NB: parallelism with accusative and infinitive); Fama est quod Ampelium et quosdam alios de Sardinia, ut adseritur, senatores in crimen adductos forum conpetens observare praeceperis. (Symm. Ep. 2.33a—NB: subjunctive); Deinde cum esset in Asia bellum Mithridaticum gerens, per Lucium Titium ei mandatum est a Iove quod esset Mithridatem superaturus, et factum est. (August. Civ. 2.24—NB: subjunctive); Promiseras enim quod non dares sanctum tuum videre corruptionem, et nunc in sepulcro tegitur. (Hier. Tract. psal. 88.272—NB: subjunctive); Veritas . . . sanctis fidelibusque promittit quod erunt aequales angelis Dei. (August. Civ. 11.13); At hercule nemo refert quod Italia externae opis indiget, quod vita populi Romani per incerta maris et tempestatum cotidie volvitur. (Tac. Ann. 3.54.4) For exceptional instances of eo quod in the same context as quod, see (d). In some cases the interpretation of the eo quod clause as a reason clause is not excluded.21 (d) Nam dicent eo quod filii Israhel in honore ipsorum eas (sc. statuas) posuerint. (‘And the people will tell you that the children of Israel set them up in their honour.’ Pereg. 8.2—tr. Wilkinson) For the use of quod, quia, and quoniam as introducers of direct speech in ecclesiastical authors, see Sz.: 578–9. Appendix: Quod in the following much-debated fragment of Cato can be taken as an interrogative determiner modifying bonum. (e) Dicam de istis Graecis suo loco, Marce fili, quid Athenis exquisitum habeam, et quod bonum sit illorum litteras inspicere, non perdiscere. (‘I shall speak about those Greek fellows in their proper place, Marcus, my son, and point out the result of my enquiries at Athens, and convince you what benefit comes from dipping into their literature, and not making a close study of it.’ Cato Fil. 1(J))

. The use of quod clauses with verbs and expressions of accusing and convicting and of blaming, excusing, praising, congratulating, and thanking A quod clause (and—less often—quia) is the regular construction that is used with verbs and expressions of blaming, excusing, praising, congratulating, and thanking. These verbs can be found with a second argument which is either the addressee who 21 See Herman (1963: 47–9), Väänänen (1987: 73), and Baños (2014: 158–9). For a causal interpretation of eo quod in (d), see Griffe (2011).

Finite declarative clauses

67

is blamed, praised, etc. or the content of the blame, as in (a). They can also be found with three arguments, with both the addressee and the content. With some verbs the addressee is in the accusative, as in (b), with others in the dative, as (c). There are also related expressions with which the quod clause is the subject, as in (d). As illustrated by (e), it is not always easy to decide whether the quod or quia clause is the content of the praise, blame, etc. or the reason for praising or blaming somebody.22 In Early Latin cum (quom) is relatively common as an alternative to quod (see § 15.23). With some verbs the accusative and infinitive clause is also possible (see § 15.99). (a)

Nec vos arguerim, Teucri, nec foedera nec quas / iunximus hospitio dextras. (‘Yet I would not blame you, Trojans, nor our covenant, nor the hands we clasped in friendship.’ Verg. A. 11.164–5)

(b)

. . . cum obiurgavit Albium Granius quod . . . absoluto Scaevola gauderet . . . (‘. . . when Granius reproached Albius with being delighted by Scaevola’s acquittal . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 2.281)

(c)

Tibi . . . tamen quod abes gratulor, vel quia non vides ea quae nos, vel quod excelso et illustri loco sita est laus tua . . . (‘But all the same, I congratulate you on your absence. On the one hand, you do not see what we are seeing; on the other, your renown is situated in a lofty and distinguished place . . .’ Cic. Fam. 2.5.1—NB: co-occurrence of a quod argument clause and reason adjunct clauses with quia and quod )

(d)

Quod te in tanta hereditate ab omni occupatione expedisti valde mihi gratum est. (‘It is very good news to me that you have freed yourself from business although you have so large an inheritance to think of.’ Cic. Att. 3.20.2)

(e)

Eo in metu arguere Germanicum omnes quod non ad superiorem exercitum pergeret . . . (‘Amid the alarm all condemned Germanicus for not going to the upper army . . .’ Tac. Ann. 1.40.1) Supplement (in alphabetical order by verb or comparable expression): Without an addressee: . . . accusabat quidam vilitate ipsa despectus quod, cum imperium Procopius affectasset, aliqua pro eo locuti sunt bona. (Amm. 29.3.7); ‘Nihil aliud scio’, inquit, ‘nihil arguo, nisi quod cum ferro comisatum venerunt.’ (Liv. 40.14.5); Non quidem sibi ignarum posse argui quod tam recenti dolore subierit oculos senatus. (Tac. Ann. 4.8.3); . . . criminabatur etiam quod Titum filium, qui postea est Torquatus appellatus, ab hominibus relegasset . . . (Cic. Off. 3.112); Hoc tu igitur in crimen vocas quod cum iis fuerit C.  Rabirius . . .? (Cic. Rab. Perd. 24); . . . (sc. litterae) videntur . . . quasi exprobrare quod in ea vita maneam in qua nihil insit nisi propagatio miserrimi temporis. (Cic. Fam. 5.15.3); Gaudeo et gratulor quod Fusco Salinatori filiam tuam destinasti. (Plin. Ep. 6.26.1); . . . quod te intro misi gratiam referat mihi.

22 For gratias ago, see Ros  (2005), with arguments in favour of considering quod clauses with this expression as reason adjuncts. See also Ripoll (2012).

68

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position (Lucil. 835M=904K); Gratulemur quod iam nulla civitas fame laborat. ([Quint.] Decl. 12.10); Quod minuit auctionem decemviralem laudo, quod regi amico cavet non reprehendo, quod non gratis fit indignor. (Cic. Agr. 2.58); Quod bene cogitasti aliquando laudo; quod non indicasti gratias ago; quod non fecisti ignosco. (Cic. Phil. 2.34) Accusative addressee: Accusat eos quod eius modi de se sermones habuerint. (Cic. Ver. 5.102); Pacem petebat excusabatque sese quod per Aetolos recuperasset paternum regnum. (Liv. 38.3.2); Laudor quod osculavi privignae caput. (Titin. com. 155— NB: unless to be regarded as causal quod ); Phalereus Demetrius, qui Periclem . . . vituperat quod tantam pecuniam in praeclara illa propylaea coniecerit. (Cic. Off. 2.60) Dative addressee: Criminique ei tribunus inter cetera dabat quod filium iuvenem . . . prope in carcerem atque in ergastulum dederit . . . (Liv. 7.4.4); Quod bene fecisti referetur gratia. (Pl. Capt. 941); Fecisti mihi pergratum quod Serapionis librum ad me misisti. (Cic. Att. 2.4.1); . . . cum laetor tandem longi erroris vobis finem factum esse, tum quod secundis potissimum vestris rebus hic error est sublatus et vobis et propter vos rei publicae gratulor. (Liv. 5.3.3); Ago tibi gratias quod me dign habuisti et sequrum fecisti. (CEL 142.7–8 (Karanis, c. ad 115)); Obicio tibi quod occidisti hominem . . . (Sen. Con. 7.2.8); Vitio mihi dant quod mortem hominis necessari graviter fero atque eum quem dilexi perisse indignor. (Matius Fam. 11.28.2) Damno and condemno ‘to condemn’ are included in this semantic class by K.-St.: II.276. However, the quia and quod clauses in (f)–(i) are better taken as reason adjuncts.23 (f) . . . C. Decianus, de quo tu saepe commemoras, quia, cum hominem omnibus insignem notis turpitudinis, P. Furium, accusaret summo studio bonorum omnium, queri est ausus in contione de morte Saturnini, condemnatus est. At Sex. Titius, quod habuit imaginem L. Saturnini domi suae, condemnatus est. (‘But take the case of Gaius Decianus, whom you are so fond of quoting: he was condemned because—while with the entire approval of all good citizens he was accusing Publius Furius, a man notorious for every kind of infamy— he dared to lament in the course of his speech the death of Saturninus. And Sextus Titius also was condemned because he had a portrait of Saturninus in his house.’ Cic. Rab. Post. 24) (g) Et ii qui Fabrici libertum, quia minister in maleficio fuerat, patronum, quia conscius esset condemnassent, ipsum principem atque architectum sceleris absolverent? (‘And could those who had condemned the freedman of Fabricius, because he had been an agent in the crime, and his patron, because he had been privy to it, acquit the principal and original contriver of the whole wickedness?’ Cic. Clu. 60—see also Clu. 61) (h) In qua cognitione magis utra pars Romanis, utra regi favisset quaesitum est quam utra fecisset iniuriam aut accepisset; . . . A. Baebius unus est damnatus, quod milites Romanos praebuisset ad ministerium caedis. 23 Examples taken from TLL s.v. condemno 124.65f.; s.v. damno 15.49ff.

Finite declarative clauses

69

(‘In this investigation, the question was more which side had favoured the king and which the Romans, than which had done wrong or had been wronged; . . . only Aulus Baebius was condemned for furnishing Roman soldiers to help carry out the slaughter.’ Liv. 45.31.1–2) (i) . . . arguimus nos ipsi penitusque re visa atque inspecta damnamus, quod humanitatis iure deposito naturalis initii consortia ruperimus. (‘. . . we ourselves accuse and condemn ourselves when the thing is seen and looked into thoroughly, because, neglecting the law which is binding on men, we have broken through the bonds which naturally united us at the beginning.’ Arn. Nat. 7.4—tr. Bryce)

. The use of quod clauses in combination with a subject or object complement In (a)–(c) the quod clauses function as subject of a clause whose verb consists of a form of sum in combination with a subject complement; in the first two examples the subject complement is an adjective (neuter singular form), in the last a noun phrase. A quod clause functioning as object in combination with an object complement is shown in (d). The main clause can have a preparative pronoun as its object, as in (e). Note that the nouns and adjectives involved are semantically related to the verbs discussed above. (a)

. . . nihil praeclarius quam quod eosdem . . . praeesse voluerunt . . . (‘. . . but no action of theirs was ever more wise than their desire that the same men should superintend. . .’, Cic. Dom. 1)

(b)

Est autem in hoc genere molestum quod in maximis animis . . . existunt honoris, imperii . . . cupiditates. (‘But the trouble about this matter is that it is in the greatest souls that lust for honour and power emerges.’ Cic. Off. 1.26)

(c)

Parumne est malai rei quod amat Demipho . . .? (‘Is it not enough of a bad thing that Demipho is in love . . .?’ Pl. Mer. 692)

(d)

Maximum vero eius beneficium numero quod hoc animo in rem publicam est . . . (‘But I count it as his greatest benefaction that he is of this mind toward the Republic . . .’ Cic. Phil. 13.7)

(e)

Nisi hoc indignum putas quod vestitum sedere in iudicio vides quem tu e patrimonio . . . nudum expulisti. (‘Unless you think it scandalous to see in this court sitting fully clothed the man whom you have driven naked out of his patrimony.’ Cic. S. Rosc. 147) Supplement (in alphabetical order by governing expression): Sed causa erat iudici postulandi quod ex edicto professus non esset. (Cic. Ver. 3.39); Praecipuum destinationis meae documentum habete quod de nemine queror. (Tac. Hist. 2.47.3); Tot luctibus funesta civitate pars maeroris fuit quod Iulia Drusi filia,

70

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position quondam Neronis uxor, denupsit in domum Rubellii Blandi . . . (Tac. Ann. 6.27.1); Alterum est vitium quod quidam nimis magnum studium multamque operam in res obscuras atque difficiles conferunt . . . (Cic. Off. 1.19) Fuerit verecundiae tuae quod nihil hactenus nobis adloquii detulisti. (Symm. Ep. 8.8) Quod autem idem maestitiam meam reprehendit, idem iocum, magno argumento est me in utroque fuisse moderatum. (Cic. Phil. 2.40); . . . nisi etiam quod omnino coluit crimini fuerit. (Cic. S. Rosc. 49); Cn. Octavio . . . honori fuisse accepimus quod praeclaram aedificasset in Palatio . . . domum . . . (Cic. Off. 1.138); . . . indicio fuit quod ipse expulso Dionysio imperium dimittere noluit. (Nep. Tim. 2.3); Voluptati mihi est quod vales. (Symm. Ep. 7.37) Cuius ex omni vita nihil est honestius quam quod cum mima fecit divortium. (Cic. Phil. 2.69); Optimum vero quod dictaturae nomen in perpetuum de re publica sustulisti (Cic. Phil. 2.91) Quod Thebae cecidere meum est (Ov. Met. 13.173); Nostrum est quod evocavimus ad causam dicendam eos . . . (Liv. 39.36.13) Quam ob rem etsi magis est quod gratuler tibi quam quod te rogem, tamen etiam rogo . . . (Cic. Att. 16.5.2)24 With a preparative pronoun: Nec vero illud non eruditorum temporum argumentum est quod et deorum pulvinaribus et epulis magistratuum fides praecinunt . . . (Cic. Tusc. 4.4) Quamquam illud est egregium quod hac lege ante omnia veneunt . . . (Cic. Agr. 2.71); Id vero egregium quod provisu deum vidua iungeretur principi sua tantum matrimonia experto. (Tac. Ann. 12.6.2); Hoc quidem hau molestum est iam quod collus collari caret. (Pl. Capt. 357)

. The use of quod clauses with a variety of other expressions Apart from the more or less precise semantic contexts dealt with in the preceding sections, quod argument clauses are used with a broad range of other expressions, which by their meaning allow a quod argument clause referring to a factive content. It is this enormous variety that testifies to the role of quod as a ‘general’ subordinator, even in Cicero’s time. A few examples must suffice.25 In (a) and (b), the quod clauses function as subject with the two-place verbs habeo and adiuvo, respectively. In (c), the quod clause functions as subject of two-place (so-called impersonal) refert.26 In many instances some form of preparative expression anticipates the quod clause. (a)

Quod vero ita avocatur a Mutina . . . quam habet ignominiam . . .! (‘Now he is ordered off from Mutina in such a fashion . . . what a disgrace does that entail!’ Cic. Phil. 6.6)

(b)

Quam ad spem multum eos adiuvabat quod Liger ex nivibus creverat . . .

24 For the various expressions with magis est, see TLL s.v. magis 64.47ff. 25 One can get a good impression by browsing through Merguet’s lexicons to Cicero’s Orations and Philosophica s.v. quod. For the relationship between these various uses, see Taylor  (1951) and Woolsey (1953). 26 For more instances of verbs of advantage, importance, etc., see Serbat (2003: 579–82).

Finite declarative clauses

71

(‘The fact that the Loire was so swollen from the melting of the snows contributed greatly to this hope.’ Caes. Gal. 7.55.10)

(c)

Nec refert quod inter se specie differunt, cum genere consentiant. (‘It matters nothing that they differ in special points, seeing that they are generically alike.’ Tac. Dial. 25.4) Supplement (in alphabetical order by governing expression): Quod clause as object: Ille dedit quod non anima haec Cyclopis in ora / venit . . . (Ov. Met. 14.174–5—NB: ut or a prolative infinitive would be normal); Quid habet mea domus religiosi nisi quod impuri et sacrilegi parietem tangit? (Cic. Har. 33); Neque satis habuit quod eam in occulto vitiaverat, quin eius famam prostitueret. (Cato hist. 36=27C); At quo teste, di immortales, non satis quod uno, non quod ignoto, non quod levi. (Cic. Scaur. 29) Quod clause as subject: Interfecit Opimius Gracchum. Quid facit causam? Quod rei publicae causa (sc. interfecit), cum ex senatus consulto ad arma vocasset. (Cic. de Orat. 2.132) Appendix: Quod clauses are also used in headings in Cato’s Agr. An example is (d). (d) De brassica quod concoquit. (‘About cabbage that it promotes digestion.’ Cato Agr. 156.1)

. The use of quod clauses with verbs of happening Quod clauses are used as subject with a variety of main clauses which have in common that they contain an expression that, from a semantic point of view, can be understood as an evaluation of the content of the quod clause. The phenomenon is particularly common with verbs and expressions of happening when the superordinate clause contains an evaluative expression. Examples are perincommode in (a) and bene in (b).27 In these examples the adverbs perincommode and bene constitute the salient information; the content of the quod clause is ‘factive’ and known information. For the combination of accidit and an evaluative adverb with a non-clausal subject, see (c).28 (a)

Sed accidit perincommode quod eum nusquam vidisti. (‘It is most unfortunate that you did not see him at all.’ Cic. Att. 1.17.2)

(b)

Magna me, inquit, spes tenet, iudices, bene mihi evenire quod mittar ad mortem. (‘ “I entertain, gentlemen of the jury, high hopes,” said he, “that it is for my good that I am sent to death.” ’ Cic. Tusc. 1.97)

(c)

Quod consilium etsi in eiusmodi casu reprehendendum non est, tamen incommode accidit. (‘This plan, though not reprehensible in such an emergency, had an unfortunate result.’ Caes. Gal. 5.33.4)

27 See TLL s.v. incommode 988.57ff. 28 For quod clauses with verbs of happening and with facio, see Bolkestein (1989b), Rosén (1989a), Cuzzolin (1996), and Panchón (2003: 407–11; 421–6).

72

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position

The verbs with which such quod clauses are attested are the verbs of happening accidit ‘to happen’, cadit ‘to happen’, evenit ‘to happen’, and fit ‘to occur’. With these verbs ut is normal when there are no evaluative expressions present (see § 15.27). For accusative and infinitive clauses in similar contexts, see § 15.94.29 A counterpart of subject clauses with verbs and expressions of happening are object clauses with the verb facio ‘to do’, as in (d) and (e). (d)

Bene facis, inquit, quod me adiuvas . . . (‘ “You do a service to me,” he said, “in helping me . . .” ’ Cic. Fin. 3.16)

(e)

Sed fecit humaniter Licinius quod ad me misso senatu vesperi venit . . . (‘Licinius acted kindly toward me in calling on me this evening after the Senate had risen.’ Cic. Q. fr. 2.1.1)

The expressions involved are mainly adverbs like the ones in (a)–(e). Less common are noun phrases in the ablative expressing cause, as in (f) and (g). (f)

Num tu, inquit, harum rerum natura accidere arbitraris, quod ‘unam terram’ et ‘plures terras’ . . . dicamus . . . (‘Surely you do not think that it happens from the nature of these things that we say “one land” and “several lands”.’ Caes. gram. 3a—tr. Garcea)

(g)

Noli putare pigritia me facere quod non mea manu scribam . . . (‘You must not suppose it is out of laziness that I do not write in my own hand . . .’ Cic. Att. 16.15.1) Supplement (in alphabetical order by verb): Hoc loco percommode accidit quod non adest . . . C. Aquilius. (Cic. Caec. 77); Sed hoc tamen cecidit mihi peropportune quod . . . ad Antonium audiendum venistis. (Cic. de Orat. 2.15); Numquam edepol quicquam iamdiu quod mage vellem evenire / mi evenit quam quod modo senex intro ad nos venit errans. (Ter. Eu. 1002–3); . . . scripseras velle te bene venire quod de Crasso domum emissem . . . (Cic. Fam. 5.6.2); . . . dicere est solitus benigne sibi a populo Romano esse factum quod nimis magna procuratione liberatus modicis regni terminis uteretur (Cic. Deiot. 36); Itaque sive casu accidit sive consilio, percommode factum est quod . . . de morte et de dolore . . . disputatum est. (Cic. Tusc. 4.64) Pervorse facis. # Quodne amem? (Pl. Mer. 573); Quod scribis scire te mihi illam rem fore levamento, bene facis. (Cic. Att. 12.43.2); . . . cave suspiceris contra meam voluntatem te facere quod non sis mecum. (Cic. Fam. 16.22.1); Qua re facis tu quidem fraterne quod me hortaris . . . (Cic. Q. fr. 2.14.2); Tu autem Fanni, quod mihi tantum tribui dicis quantum ego nec adgnosco nec postulo, facis amice. (Cic. Amic. 9); Bene facitis quod abominamini. (Liv. 6.18.9); Bene fecisti, quod libertum aliquando tibi carum reducentibus epistulis meis in domum, in animum recepisti. (Plin. Ep. 9.24)30

29 For the use of quod clauses and the difference from ut clauses with these verbs, related to quod’s causal meaning, see Baños (1990). 30 More instances in TLL s.v. facio 106.84ff.

Finite declarative clauses

73

…nec mehercules possum dicere inhumanitate tua fieri quod non audeo . . . (Sen. Con. 10.1.1); Non magnam rem facis quod vivere sine regio apparatu potes . . . (Sen. Ep. 110.12) An exceptional Late Latin instance of a quia clause in a similar context is (h). Ex. (i) is different: there quia means ‘because’ (compare Pl. Aul. 643).31 (h) Et bene accidit quia nos laboraturos Dominus sciebat . . . (‘And it is fortunate that the Lord knew that we were going to work . . .’ Ambr. Virgin. 130) (i) Istuc male factum arbitror, quia non latus fodi. (‘I think that (threatening you) was a mistake because I should have stabbed you in the side.’ Pl. Aul. 418) There are a few instances with quom in Plautus, as in ( j). ( j) . . . et bene et benigne facitis, quom ero amanti operam datis. (‘. . . and you are acting well and kindly . . . by helping my lovesick master.’ Pl. Poen. 588) Noteworthy instances of combinations of accidit and quod are (k) and (l). In (k) the context shows that fortuitum (which would require ut—see § 15.27) must be interpreted as ‘as an accident’.32 In (l) nihil novi looks like the subject of accidisse, with the quod clause as its explanation, but it is probably better to take the quod clause as the subject and nihil novi as equal to non aliquid novi, ‘not as something new’.33 (k) Accidit fortuitum, sed non tamquam fortuitum, quod . . . Certus . . . implicitus morbo decessit. (‘It happened by coincidence, though it seemed no mere coincidence, . . . that Certus fell ill and died.’ Plin. Ep. 9.13.24) (l) . . . nihil novi accidisse respondit, quod duo senatores in re publica dissentirent . . . (‘. . . he said that it was nothing strange for two senators to hold different views in the state . . .’ Tac. Hist. 2.91.3)

. The use of quod clauses in combination with a preparative or interrogative pronoun or similar expressions Quod argument clauses are used with preparative and—less frequently—resumptive expressions from Early Latin onwards (see also §§ 14.16–17). Examples are (a)–(c). In (a) illuc is the subject complement of the main clause; it prepares for the quod clause. The sentence would be acceptable without the preparative pronoun, and the quod 31 K.-St.: II.275, Sz.: 579, and Panchón (2003: 408–9) take this as an instance of quia as a marker of a clause with male facere. Baños (2014: 54) and Taillade (2019: 168–9) take it as a reason adjunct. 32 See Ehlers (1971) and Cuzzolin (1996: 230). 33 See Gerber and Greef s.v. quod 1342, § n; OLD s.v. quod § 6. For a different analysis, see Cuzzolin (1996: 228) and Serbat (2003: 575).

74

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position

clause would serve as an argument on its own (see § 15.11). However, the pronoun is not always omissible, as can be seen in (b) (repeated from § 15.4), since habeo does not govern an argument clause.34 Ex. (c) shows the use of the determiner illa as a modifier of antiqua. Illa can either be understood as cataphoric or—more likely—as exophoric (see § 11.107), ‘the well-known ancient story’. According to this interpretation, the quod clause functions as an appositive clause specifying illa antiqua (see § 14.16). In (d) the quod clause is prepared for by the pronoun id (for quod clauses with vitium as their subject complement, see § 15.11). The use of the interrogative pronoun quid in (e) can be compared with the use of the preparative pronouns in (a) and (b). Ex. (f) can be compared with (c). For a resumptive pronoun, see (g). (a)

Quid illuc est quod illi caperrat frons severitudine? (‘What’s the reason that his forehead is wrinkled from grave thoughts?’ Pl. Epid. 609)

(b)

Habet hoc sollicitudo, quod omnia necessaria putat. (‘Anxiety has this quality, that it supposes all things necessary.’ Plin. Ep. 6.9.2)

(c)

Nam illa nimis antiqua praetereo quod C. Servilius Ahala Sp. Maelium novis rebus studentem manu sua occidit. (‘I pass over that well-known ancient story that Gaius Servilius Ahala with his own hand killed Spurius Maelius, who was pursuing revolution.’ Cic. Catil. 1.3)

(d)

Id illi vitium maxumum est / quod nimis tardus est advorsum mei animi sententiam. (‘It’s his greatest fault that he’s too slow, against my heart’s wishes.’ Pl. Mer. 596–7)

(e)

Quid quod Staienus est condemnatus? (‘What of the fact that Staienus was condemned?’ Cic. Clu. 99)

(f)

. . . miretur profecto quae sit tanta atrocitas huiusce causae quod diebus festis . . . hoc iudicium exerceatur . . . (‘. . . he would in truth wonder what great atrocity there is in this particular cause such that this trial alone should proceed during these days of festival and public games . . .’ Cic. Cael. 1)

(g)

Quod discordis dispersasque Vitellii legiones . . . fudisset, id pulcherrimum et sui operis. (‘As to the fact that he had put to rout the discordant and scattered legions of Vitellius, Antonius called that a most beautiful achievement and the work of his own hand.’ Tac. Hist. 3.53.2) Supplement (in alphabetical order by preparative expression): NB: In some of the instances cited below we find both some sort of preparative device, on the basis of which they have been placed in this category, and a main verb that fits in with one of the categories in the preceding sections.

34 For the preparative use of ille, see TLL s.v. 348.36ff.; for is, TLL s.v. 477.66 (quia) and 478.1ff. (quod ); for iste, TLL s.v. 508.28ff. See also Merguet (Phil.) s.v. quod 332B; (Reden) 221A. Ex. (b) is taken from Bodelot (2000: 76).

Finite declarative clauses

75

Sed quid hoc est quod foris concrepuit proxima vicinia? (Pl. Mos. 1062); Sed hoc inter me atque illum interest quod ille . . . inimicos suos ultus est . . . (Cic. Red. Pop. 20); Hoc enim uno praestamus vel maxime feris quod conloquimur inter nos et quod exprimere dicendo sensa possumus. (Cic. de Orat. 1.32—NB: for praesto, see § 4.57) Quaeso ut sat habeas id, pater, quod Chrysalus / me obiurigavit . . . (Pl. Bac. 1019– 20); . . . semperque id valuisse plurimum quod in se auctoritatis habuisset aequitatisque plurimum . . . (Cic. Caec. 80); Ceterum id quoque ad gloriam accessit quod cum illo simul iusta ac legitima regna occiderunt. (Liv. 1.48.8); At Pallas id maxime in Agrippina laudare quod Germanici nepotem secum traheret. (Tac. Ann. 12.2.3) Hoc nimirum est illud quod non longe a gradibus Aureliis haec causa dicitur. (Cic. Flac. 66); An illa non gravissimis ignominiis monumentisque huius ordinis ad posteritatis memoriam sunt notanda quod unus M. Antonius in hac urbe post conditam urbem palam secum habuerit armatos? (Cic. Phil. 5.17); Non ego illud parvi aestimo, milites quod nemo est vestrum cuius . . . (Liv. 21.43.17) Quid istuc est quod meos te dicam fugitare oculos, Tyndare . . . (Pl. Capt. 541) In contexts like (b) the preparative pronoun functions as a grammatical device to mark the function of the clause in its sentence. This resembles the use of pronouns with quod clauses functioning as satellite, as in (h). Here, eo is obligatory: the combination of a preposition and a subordinator ( pro quod ) is ungrammatical until (very) Late Latin (see also § 16.84). (h) Sin autem pro magnitudine iniuriae proque eo quod summa res publica in huius periculo temptatur haec omnes vindicarent . . . (‘But if, in consideration of the greatness of the injustice, and of the fact that the highest intrests of the State are being attacked in the peril by which he is threatened—if all were to punish these acts . . .’ Cic. S. Rosc. 148)

A different phenomenon is the combination of a preparative pronoun + est + quod, for example hoc est quod, in examples like (i). Here, quod is not a subordinator, but the accusative neuter of the relative pronoun functioning as a reason adjunct ‘why’. Similarly, quid est quod ‘what is it why’ in ( j). See also § 18.39 for the use of the relative adverb cur in the same configuration. Compare also (k), with id in the same function. Scholars vary in the way they deal with quod in these cases. Some regard it as a subordinator, others as a relative pronoun functioning as ‘adverbial accusative’ or ‘internal accusative’.35 (i)

Hoc ecastor est quod ille it ad cenam cottidie. (‘Yes, that explains why he has to go to dinner every day.’ Pl. As. 865)

( j)

Nam quid est quod haec huc timida atque exanimata exsiluit foras? (‘What on earth is the reason why she’s rushed out here, all fearful and anxious?’ Pl. Cas. 630)

(k)

Id nos ad te, si quid velles, venimus. (‘That’s why we have come to you, to see if you want anything.’ Pl. Mil. 1158)

35 I follow Baños (1991b), with extensive discussion.

76

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position Supplement: Hoc, / hoc est quod peracescit. / Hoc est demum quod percrucior . . . (Pl. Bac. 1099–1101); Hoc erat, alma parens, quod me per tela, per ignis / eripis . . .? (Verg. A. 2.664–5) Sed quid est quod tuo nunc animo aegre’st? (Pl. Cas. 178); Sci’n quid est quod ego ad te venio? (Pl. Men. 677); Quid est quod tu exanimatus iam hos multos dies / gestas tabellas tecum . . . (Pl. Ps. 9–10); Quid est quod de voluntate caelestium dubitare possimus? (Cic. Phil. 4.10); Quid est quod diligenter conficiamus tabulas? (Cic. Q. Rosc. 7); Quid erat quod confirmabat se abs te argentum esse repetiturum . . .? (Cic. Ver. 4.43)36 NB: Quid fecerat quod eum totiens per insidias interficere voluistis? (Cic. Dom. 59)

. The use of quia in declarative argument clauses Quia is relatively uncommon as a subordinator in declarative argument clauses until its expansion with certain classes of governing expressions in Late Latin.

. The use of quia clauses with the verb accedit ‘to be added’, or ‘to constitute an addition to’ Quia is used with accedit ‘to constitute an addition to’ from Augustine onward. An example is (a). (a)

Huc accedit quia ipse dies. . . incertus est. (‘To this fact is added that the day itself . . . is uncertain.’ August. Serm. 17.7)

. The use of quia clauses with verbs and expressions meaning ‘to leave unmentioned’ Quia with verbs and expressions meaning ‘to leave unmentioned’ is very rare and Late. An example is (a).37 (a)

Non praeterimus quia aliqui nec in Hebraeo putant esse, nec in ceteris interpretationibus . . . (‘We do not fail to record the fact that some do not believe that it is either in the Hebrew or in other versions . . .’ Ambr. Hex. 3.5.20)

. The use of quia clauses with verbs and expressions of emotion There are only a few instances in Early Latin and in later periods of quia as a marker of clauses with verbs and expressions denoting emotion (verba affectuum). An example is (a). Since with this class of verbs the reason for the emotion is sometimes expressed, there are instances where one may interpret the quia clause as a reason adjunct. The 36 See Lebreton (1901a: 318–19). For more instances in Cicero, see Merguet (Phil.) s.v. quis 312A; (Reden) s.v. quod 223, § 7c; Bennett: I.136–7. See also Löfstedt (1966: 262–4; 2000: 85–6). 37 See TLL s.v. praetereo 1020.74ff.

Finite declarative clauses

77

accusative and infinitive is—by far—the normal construction with emotion expressions, of which gaudeo is the only representative with a considerable number of instances of quia clauses. (a)

. . . ut mi volup est . . . quia vos . . . / rediisse video . . . (‘. . . as it is a pleasure for me to see that you’ve both . . . returned home . . .’ Pl. St. 506–7) Supplement (in alphabetical order by verb): Sin autem †sicut† hinc discesseras, lacrimis ac tristitiae te tradidisti, doleo quia doles . . . (Lucc. Fam. 5.14.2); Nam quia vos tranquillos video, gaudeo et volup est mihi. (Pl. Am. 958); Romae quia postea non fuisti quam discesseras miratus sum, quod item nunc miror. (Lucc. Fam. 5.14.1); . . . non oportere nos mirari super haereses istas sive quia sunt . . . sive quia fidem quorundam subvertunt . . . (Tert. Praescr. 1.1); Non dedisse istunc pudet: me quia non accepi piget. (Pl. Ps. 282); At nos pudet quia cum catenis sumus. (Pl. Capt. 203)

As with quod (see § 15.8), instances of queror quia are often included in this class of verbs. An example from Cicero is (b). (b)

. . . secum Titinium et Servium questos esse quia non . . . remisisset . . . (‘. . . that Titinius and Servius have grumbled to him for not making the concession . . .’ Cic. Att. 10.3a.2)

. The use of quia with verbs and expressions of perception, cognition, and communication The first two instances of quia marking an argument clause with a perception and a communication verb are found in Petronius (the freedman Echion speaking in his substandard variety of Latin),38 one of which is (a). This use became more common in ecclesiastical authors, probably stimulated by the use of Ø~t (hóti) with comparable verbs in Greek. However, just like quod, it always remained a minor competitor of the accusative and infinitive, except in the Bible translations in Cyprian (c. ad 250) and in the Peregrinatio, where it is more frequent than the accusative and infinitive. (For the relative development of quia and quod, see § 15.9.) (a)

Sed subolfacio quia nobis epulum daturus est Mammaea . . . (‘I scent that Mammaea is going to give us a meal . . .’ Petr. 45.10 (Echion speaking)) Supplement (in alphabetical order by governing expression): Perception expressions: Sed et haec audivi quia daemonium illos occidit. (Vulg. Tob. 6.14); . . . quia ubi legebant venturum Christum, ibi legebant quia occisuri erant Christum. (Aug. Serm. 92.1) Cognition expressions: . . . et nos credidimus et cognovimus quia tu es Christus . . . (Vulg. Joh. 6.70); . . . hoc intelligis quia . . . (Mulom. Chir. 118); Novit enim quia, si dederit illam viro alio, morte periet . . . (Vulg. Tob. 6.13); An opinatus es quia aurum 38 See Herman (2003), Adams (2005a), and Cuzzolin (2013b).

78

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position tuum desiderarem? (Ambr. Ep. 4.14); . . . et putans quia ex potu calicis inimicae gentes interficerentur et ruerent calicem meri libenter accepit non intellegens in omnibus gentibus etiam Hierusalem conprehendi. (Hier. Ep. 18A.15); Scio enim quia valde me bene ames. (Scaev. dig. 44.7.61.1); Scit enim quia mortis est fabricatrix voluptas. (Lact. Inst. 6.22.3); Scias quia his oculis aestimatur etiam Alexander magnus fuisse. (Physiogn. 33); Spero autem de deo quia dabit tibi . . . ampliorem laetitiam. (Hist. Apoll. RA 40) Manifestum est ergo quia homines dixit deos ex gratia sua deificatos, non de substantia sua natos. (August. Psal. 49.2) Communication expressions: Ego illi iam tres cardeles occidi, et dixi quia mustella comedit. (Petr. 46.4 (Echion speaking)); . . . prophetavit quia Iesus moriturus erat pro gente . . . (Hier. Is. 15.56.8.9)

. The use of quia clauses with verbs and expressions of blaming, praising, congratulating, and thanking With verbs and expressions meaning ‘to blame’, ‘to praise’, ‘to congratulate’, and ‘to thank’ quia is rarely found before ecclesiastical authors started using it. Just as with quod (see § 15.10) it is not always clear whether the quia clause is an argument or a reason adjunct clause. (a)

Quod laudas quia oblivisci me scripsi ante facta et delicta nostri amici, ego vero ita facio. (‘As to your praising me for writing that I forget the past actions and errors of our friend, indeed I do forget them.’ Cic. Att. 9.9.1) Supplement (by verb in alphabetical order): Id quia non est a me factum, agi’ gratias? (Ter. Ad. 596—NB: unless it is a reason adjunct); . . . gratulamini mihi quia inveni . . . drachmam quam perdideram. (Vet. Lat. Luc. 15.9); Respondens autem archisynagogus indignans quia sabbato curasset Iesus dicebat turbae . . . (Vulg. Luc. 13.14); Invenimus apostolum tamquam crimen obiecisse hominibus quia homines sunt. (August. Serm. 166.2); Vitio vertunt quia multa egeo; at ego illis quia nequeunt egere. (Cato orat. 173=174M)

. The use of quia clauses in combination with a preparative pronoun or determiner Instances of quia in argument clauses combined with a preparative pronoun are found from Early Latin onward, but this use of quia is relatively infrequent, quod being the normal subordinator in this function. An example is (a). In some cases quia is used with the same verbs without a preparative element. (a)

Eheu, huic illud dolet / quia nunc remissus est edendi exercitus. (‘Oh, oh, oh, this one ( points to his stomach) is in pain because the army for eating has been dismissed now.’ Pl. Capt. 152–3)

Finite declarative clauses

79

Supplement: Idne pudet te quia captivam genere prognatam bono / in praeda es mercatus? (Pl. Epid. 107–8); An id doles, soror, quia illi suom officium / non colunt, quom tu tuom facis? (Pl. St. 34–6) Sin ea’st causa retinendi apud vos / quia aegra’st, te mihi iniuriam facere arbitror . . . (Ter. Hec. 255–6)

. The use of quoniam in declarative argument clauses Quoniam is found as a subordinator introducing subject and object clauses with verbs and expressions of perception, cognition, and communication from Tertullian and the early Bible translations in his writings onward, as in (a).39 However, whereas quod and quia are increasingly found in various subordinate clauses from Early Latin onward, this is not the case with quoniam, the spread of which in ecclesiastical and other later authors may therefore well be ascribed to the influence of the Bible (especially in imitation of the use of Greek ot†~t (dihóti)). An early instance is (b), clearly translating Gk. ntnxˆ}uptx }p shvƒ Ø~t ( gignóskein se thélo hóti). It seems that quoniam followed the development of quia, with which it also occasionally overlaps in reason clauses (see § 16.42). Like quia it is more common than quod in the New Testament.40 Quoniam was used much less frequently than quod and quia, with some individual variation.41 (a)

Si Deus videt quoniam propter ipsum feci, pariter videt quoniam propter ipsum fecisse me nolui ostendere . . . (‘If God sees that I have done it for his sake, He equally sees that I have been unwilling to show that I did it for his sake . . .’ Tert. Idol. 22.3)

(b)

Scire te volo conia non acc/epi a quratori esopera (= supra) co/ntubernio. (‘I wish you to know that I have not received (anything) from the curator concerning the lodging (?).’ O. Did. 417 (Didymoi, c. ad 120–5)—NB: the meaning of contubernium is not clear)42

(c)

Nemo cum temptatur dicat quoniam a Deo temptor. (‘Let no one say, when he is tempted, that he is tempted by God.’ Vulg. Jac. 1.13) Supplement (in alphabetical order by verb): . . . ut cognoscatis et credatis et intellegatis quoniam ego sum. (Vet. Lat. Is. 43.10— NB: Vulg. has quia); Nam mihi credat volo affectio vestra quoniam nullus Christianorum est qui non se tendat illuc. (Pereg. 17.2); . . . intellexit . . . quoniam angelus . . . est. (Vet. Lat. Iud. 13.21—NB: Vulg. has AcI); . . . et nos credimus et cognovimus quoniam tu es filius . . . (Cypr. Ep. 59.7—NB: quod in Vet. Lat. Joh. 6.69; quia in Vulg.); Et scribae qui ab Hierosolymis descenderant dicebant quoniam

39 For Tertullian, see Hoppe (1903: 76–7 = 1985: 148–9). 40 See Sznajder (2019). 41 Irenaeus shows an idiosyncratically strong preference for quoniam. See Svennung (1948: 46). 42 See Bülow-Jacobsen in Cuvigny (2012: 352–5).

80

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position Beelzebub habet et quia in principe daemonum eicit daemonia. (Vulg. Marc. 3.22— NB: coordination); . . . legitur in domo tua de minore filio tuo quoniam ‘mortuus erat et revixit’, perierat et inventus est. (August. Conf. 8.6); . . . scitote quoniam me primo odit. (Cypr. ad Fort. 11.7); Dic tu aliter ut scias quoniam necessitate hoc fit. (Pomp. V.253.32K) NB: . . . laetati sunt quoniam siluerunt . . . (Vet. Lat. Psal. 106.30—NB: Vulg. has quia)

. The use of cum (quom) in declarative argument clauses In Plautus’ comedies, and in Early Latin in general, cum (quom)43 is found in subordinate clauses with some of the verbs with which quod begins to be used in that period, viz. emotion verbs and verbs of praising, blaming, congratulating, and thanking (cf. § 15.8 and § 15.10, respectively). Examples are (a) and (b). Cum in such cases functions basically as a temporal subordinator (see § 16.10), denoting (inter alia) the concomitance of two events (see § 7.125). Note in (c) the parallelism of a temporal cum adjunct clause and a conditional si adjunct clause. (a)

Quom istaec res tibi ex sententia / pulchre evenit gaudeo. (‘I’m happy this turned out well for you, according to your wish.’ Pl. Rud. 1365–6)

(b)

Gratiam habeo tibi / quom copiam istam mi et potestatem facis. (‘I’m grateful to you for giving me the chance and opportunity . . .’ Pl. Capt. 373–4)

(c)

. . . nec minus laetabor cum te semper sordidum, quam si paulisper sordidatum viderem. (‘. . . nor shall I rejoice less at seeing you in constant and unceasing distress, than I should if I saw you for a short time in the mourning robe of a criminal on his trial.’ Cic. Pis. 99) Supplement (in alphabetical order by governing expression): Primumdum, quom tu es aucta liberis / quomque bene provenisti salva gaudeo. (Pl. Truc. 384–5); Metuo quom illic opscaevavit meae falsae fallaciae. (Pl. As. 266); Volup est quom istuc ex pietate vostra vobis contigit. (Pl. Rud. 1176) Di deaeque omnes, vobis habeo merito magnas gratias / quom hac me laetitia affecistis tanta et tantis gaudiis . . . (Pl. Poen. 1274–5); Quom tu recte provenisti quomque es aucta liberis / gratulor, quom mihi tibique magnum peperisti decus. (Pl. Truc. 516–17); Gratulor igitur mihi cum et ego tot ac tantis viris adnumeror. (Apul. Apol. 27); Laudo malum quom amici tuom ducis malum. (Pl. Capt. 151)

. The use of quomodo and quemadmodum in declarative argument clauses Quomodo and quemadmodum ‘how’ are manner adverbs, which can be found in clauses depending on perception and cognition verbs, where sometimes two different 43 I follow the orthography of the Library of Latin Texts.

Finite declarative clauses

81

perspectives on reality can compete: ‘I saw how he fell’ presupposes ‘I saw that he fell’. An illustration is (a). There are a few borderline cases mentioned in the literature, especially of quomodo, one of which is (b). The parallelism with the context makes it likely that this is still a case of strained use of the interrogative adverb and not a subordinator in statu nascendi. There are, however, from the fourth century onward cases that cannot be interpreted as interrogative at all. Apart from the semantic overlap mentioned above, this evolution of quomodo may have been stimulated by its becoming the substitute for interrogative ut as well (see §  15.60). The equivalent use of quemadmodum is less frequent.44 (a)

Non meminisse nos ratu’s, / quo modo trecentos Philippos Collybisco vilico / dederis . . . (‘Didn’t you think we’d remember how you gave your overseer Collybiscus three hundred Philippics . . .’ Pl. Poen. 557–9)

(b)

Scis Gnaeum quam sit fatuus, scis quomodo crudelitatem virtutem putet, scis quam se semper a nobis derisum putet. (‘You know how foolish Gnaeus is, how he takes cruelty for courage, how he thinks we always made fun of him.’ Cas. Fam. 15.19.4)

. The use of ut in declarative argument clauses The subordinator ut is used in declarative subject clauses with a number of governing expressions. These clauses are often called ‘consecutive noun clauses’,45 although in reality from the semantic point of view no ‘result’ is involved in most cases (in contrast to result adjunct clauses). Examples are (a) and (b). (a)

Etenim mihi ipsi accidit ut cum duobus patriciis . . . peterem. (‘For indeed it happened to me myself that along with two patricians . . . I was candidate.’ Cic. Mur. 17)

(b)

Restat ut de imperatore ad id bellum deligendo ac tantis rebus praeficiendo dicendum esse videatur. (‘It remains, I think, to speak of the choice of a general to direct the war and of his appointment to a command of such importance.’ Cic. Man. 27)

The regular negation is non, which distinguishes these clauses from imperative ut argument clauses, in which the negator is ne (the latter clauses are often called ‘final noun clauses’). In the case of coordination of multiple clauses, the negator in the second (or following) clause is neque. In declarative ut clauses the subordinator ut cannot be omitted (but see § 15.30). These clauses are discussed in § 7.130 (v) from the point 44 Examples can be found in TLL s.v. modus 1283.10ff; 1290.75ff. For a discussion of the evolution of quomodo, see Herman (1957; 1963: 58–9); for its development in the Romance languages, see Herman (1963: 166–74). 45 ‘Konsekutive Substantivsätze’ in K.-St.: II.234–47.

82

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position

of view of the use of the subjunctive mood.46 In contrast to imperative ut clauses, there are no restrictions on the tense of the verb of a declarative ut clause (see § 7.101). A common feature of the expressions governing these declarative ut clauses is that normally no agent is implied: they are, for example, third person singular verb forms (often called ‘impersonal’), such as accidit ‘it happens’ and restat ‘the possibility remains that’, combinations of copular est with a subject complement, either an adjective (verisimile est ‘it is likely’) or a noun (caput est ‘the main point is’), or third person singular passive forms (relinquitur). When the context does contain information on the basis of which ‘control’ by some human entity or other external force must be assumed, the ut clause is treated as imperative and, if it is negated, ne must be used. A common feature of the declarative ut clauses is that they usually present the actions and processes as virtual and non-factive. With most of the governing expressions accusative and infinitive clauses can be used and with many of them quod clauses can be used as well. K.-St.: II.246–7 draw attention to the fact that the relationship between the ut clause and what seems to be the governing verb can sometimes only be understood by assuming some form of ‘brachylogy’, that is that one has to mentally insert a link to understand the precise relationship. Examples are (c) and (d). (c) . . . ne in cogitationem quidem cadit ut fuerit tempus aliquod nullum cum tempus esset . . . (‘. . . since it is inconceivable that there was ever a time when time did not exist.’ Cic. N. D. 1.21—NB: ut fuerit tempus instead of ut fuisse tempus existimemus) (d) Ille (sc. dixit) et tibi et sibi visum et ita se domi ex tuis audisse ut nihil esset incommodi. (‘He said that you and he both thought, and he heard from your people at  home that there was nothing wrong.’ Cic. Att. 6.9.1—NB: ut nihil esset incommodi instead of ut audiret nihil esse incommodi)

. The use of ut clauses with the verb accedit ‘to be added to’ or ‘to constitute an addition to’ With the verb accedit the subject clause is more often a quod clause (see § 15.6). The difference in meaning between a quod and an ut clause is not always obvious. A muchdiscussed example is (a), where there can be no doubt that Appius Claudius was indeed blind, the typical context for factive quod. The common explanation, reflected in the translation below, which follows Powell ad loc., is that the ut clause indicates that the content is of relatively major importance.47 However, this is difficult to prove. (a)

Ad Appi Claudi senectutem accedebat etiam ut caecus esset. Tamen is, cum sententia senatus inclinaret ad pacem cum Pyrrho foedusque faciendum, non dubitavit dicere . . .

46 For discussion, see Potůček (2000) and Panchón (2003: 361–5). 47 See K.-St.: II.273 and Panchón (2003: 426–8).

Finite declarative clauses

83

(‘In addition to Appius Claudius’ old age it was his misfortune that he should be (italics Powell) blind; yet when the sentiment of the senate was inclining towards making peace and an alliance with Pyrrhus, he did not hesitate to say . . .’ Cic. Sen. 16)

(b)

Accedit eodem ut etiam ipse candidatus totum animum atque omnem curam, operam diligentiamque suam in petitione non possit ponere. (‘A further result is that even the candidate himself cannot devote all his attention, all his care and all his unremitting effort to the campaign.’ Cic. Mur. 45) Supplement: Accedit ut accusatorum alterius crudelitate, alterius indignitate conturber. (Cic. Deiot. 2); Huc accedit uti quicque in sua corpora rursum / dissolvat natura . . . (Lucr. 1.215–16); Nam ad cetera id quoque accesserat ut ne alendi quidem exercitus nisi ex Bruttio agro spes esset . . . (Liv. 28.12.7) NB: TLL s.v. accedo 269.83 and K.-St.: II.242 refer to an exceptional negation by ne in Cels. 4.8.1, but the text seems uncertain. The verbs addo, adicio, and adiungo are also mentioned in this context, but for those verbs the ut (or ne) clause must be explained as with dico (see § 15.64).

. The use of ut clauses with verbs and expressions of happening and befalling Ut (non) is the regular subordinator with verbs and expressions of happening and befalling. Examples are (a)–(c). A few ‘deviant’ negated clauses are given in the Supplement alongside normal ones with ut non. The use of ne is required if human participation or some external force is implied in the context, as it is for example by procuratione in (d).48 Non is required when the negation is local (see § 8.7), as in (e), where non goes with casu incideret, in contrast with iudicio perveniret.49 For the use of quod with these verbs, see §  15.13. Whereas the quod clause is usually factive and contains known information, the ut clause is usually non-factive (or ‘virtual’) and contains new information (but see ex. (a)).50 (a)

Velut / mi evenit ut ovans praeda onustus incederem. (‘Just as it has become my lot to be marching along rejoicing and weighed down with booty.’ Pl. Bac. 1068–9)

(b)

‘Insperanti’, inquit, ‘mihi et Cottae, sed valde optanti utrique nostrum, cecidit ut in istum sermonem, Crasse, delaberemini.’ (‘ “We never looked for it,” exclaimed Sulpicius, “but it has fallen out, Crassus, just as both I and Cotta earnestly hoped, I mean that you two should slip into this particular conversation.’ Cic. de Orat. 1.96)

48 See Calboli (1995/6: 147), who also mentions the relative frequency of instances of ne in the jurists. 49 For statistical information concerning the distribution of ut non and ne with fio ‘to happen’, see Kirk (1923: 263), with further discussion. 50 See Bolkestein (1989b: 48–9), Rosén (1989a), and Greco (2012: 36–7).

84

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position (c)

. . . cum accidere possit ut (sc. curator) negotio . . . habilis non sit . . . (‘. . . for it could happen that he is not suited to the business . . .’ Nerat. dig. 27.10.9)

(d)

Nihil autem est pro certo futurum, quod potest aliqua procuratione accidere ne fiat. (‘But nothing is “certain to happen” which there is some means of dealing with so as to prevent its happening.’ Cic. Div. 2.21)

(e)

Gallus Vibius . . . cui hoc accidisse uni scio ut insaniam non casu incideret, sed iudicio perveniret. (‘Vibius Gallus, to whom alone, as far as I know, the following happened: he did not fall into madness by chance but rather came to it by an act of judgement.’ Sen. Con. 2.1.25) Supplement (in alphabetical order by governing expression): Eadem nocte accidit ut esset luna plena . . . (Caes. Gal. 4.29.1—NB: factive); Id cum appararetur, priusquam classis exiret, accidit ut una nocte omnes Hermae, qui in oppido erant Athenis, deicerentur . . . (Nep. Alc. 3.2); Ac forte acciderat ut eam gentem Rhenum transgressam avus Agrippa in fidem acciperet. (Tac. Ann. 12.27.1); Quod numquam opinatus fui neque alius quisquam civium / sibi eventurum, id contigit ut salvi poteremur domi. (Pl. Am. 186–7); Quoniam autem tecum ut essem non contigit, utinam tui consili certior factus essem! (Cic. Att. 8.11d.5); . . . ni antehac vidissemus fieri / ut apud lenones rivales filiis fierent patres. (Pl. Bac. 1209–10); Cum hoc, ut fere fit, in via sermonem contulit; ex quo factum est ut illud iter familiarius facere vellent. (Cic. Inv. 2.14); Locos quidem quosdam, si videbitur, transferam, et maxime ab iis quos modo nominavi, cum inciderit ut id apte fieri possit . . . (Cic. Fin. 1.7); . . . cum . . . Marco Metello obtigisset ut is de pecuniis repetundis quaereret . . . (Cic. Ver. 1.21); Sed ex eo credo quibusdam usu venire ut abhorreant a Latinis, quod . . . (Cic. Fin. 1.8) Negated clauses:. . . cum ipsius vitio acciderit ne mandatori possit actionibus cedere. (Papin. dig. 46.3.95.11.pr.); De possessore quoque furioso quaeri potest, si quid ne in rerum natura esset per furorem eius accidisset. (Pomp. dig. 26.7.61); Tam facile innocens occisus est in ea civitate in qua sibi putat aliquis tam facile posse contingere ne reus fiat? (Quint. Decl. 294.8); Nam si multi gavisi sunt ibi se habuisse divitias suas, quo contigit ut hostis non accederet . . . (August. Civ. 1.10); Quo evenit ne Hasdrubal cum duobus se consulibus proeliaturum prius sciret quam utriusque virtute prosterneretur. (V. Max. 7.4.4); Sed ob id quod furtum fecit servus aut noxam nocuit evenit quo minus eum habere domino liceat, sicuti ob id quod obligatus est fundus accidere possit ut eum habere domino non liceat. (Pomp. dig. 30.45.1); In hoc genere saepe fieri potest ut non plane par numerus sit syllabarum . . . (Rhet. Her. 4.28);51 Id ne fieri posset obsidione atque oppidi circummunitione fiebat. (Caes. Civ. 1.19.5); Ita fit ne decidant fructus. (Plin. Nat. 17.253); Forte ita inciderat ne duo violenta ingenia matrimonio iungerentur fortuna, credo, populi Romani, quo diuturnius Servi regnum esset constituique civitatis mores possent. (Liv. 1.46.5)52

51 TLL s.v. possum 135.34ff. mentions two instances of ut ne in Terence (An. 699; Ph. 245), but they seem to be wrongly analysed. 52 See Ogilvie ad loc. and Panchón (2003: 457–8).

Finite declarative clauses

85

. The use of ut clauses as subject with the verb sum Ut clauses can function as subject of a third person singular form of sum, meaning ‘to be the case’ (see also § 4.15). An example is (a). Future forms are relatively common, as in (b). The combination looks like the ‘periphrastic’ use of facio and committo discussed in § 15.36.53 (a)

. . . quando denique fuit ut quod licet non liceret? (‘. . . when, in fact, was it that what is allowed was not allowed?’ Cic. Cael. 48)

(b)

Quodsi esset aliquando futurum ut aliquis de L. Flacci pernicie cogitaret . . . (‘And if it was fated ever to happen that any one should devise mischief to Lucius Flaccus . . .’ Cic. Flac. 2) Supplement: Non erat ut, qui modus moribus fuerat, idem esset iniuriae. (Cic. Dom. 65—add. Nisbet); Ille erat ut odisset primum defensorem salutis meae . . . (Cic. Mil. 35—illi cj. Clark); Non est igitur ut mirandum sit ea praesentiri a divinantibus quae nusquam sint. (Cic. Div. 1.128); Qui fuit ut tutas agitaret Daedalus alas, / Icarus immensas nomine signet aquas? (Ov. Tr. 3.4.21–2); Neque est ut putemus ignorari ea ab animalibus. (Plin. Nat. 18.3) Future forms: Quodsi diutius alatur controversia, fore uti pars cum parte civitatis confligat. (Caes. Gal. 7.32.5); Ipse parat sese porro speratque futurum / ut videat quod consequitur rem quamque. (Lucr. 4.805–6); Quod si permittatur, perpaucis lustris futurum ut deserta oppida deserti agri nullum militem dare possent. (Liv. 41.8.7); Sed si hoc optinuerit, futurum est ut in potestate eius . . . sit compromissum eludere. (Ulp. dig. 4.8.30) Negation by ne: Continuo enim rex adfirmavit fore ne amplius de se Ptolomaeus quereretur . . . (V. Max. 6.4.3)

Sometimes the main clause has a preparative pronoun or determiner as the subject (so-called ‘explicative’ ut). An example is (c). Another way of announcing the ut clause is shown in (d). (c)

Sed fuit hoc in utroque eorum ut Crassus non tam existimari vellet non didicisse, quam . . . (‘There was nevertheless this point of difference between the two men, that Crassus did not so much wish to be thought to have learned nothing, as . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 2.4)

(d)

Sed si ita est ut tu sis Iahonis filius, / signum esse oportet in manu laeva tibi . . . (‘But if it’s true that you are Iahon’s son, you should have a mark on your left hand . . .’ Pl. Poen. 1072–3) Supplement: In qua velim sit illud quod saepe posuisti ut non necesse sit consumere aetatem atque ut possit is illa omnia cernere qui tantummodo aspexerit. (Cic. de Orat. 3.145); Cf.: 53 For more examples, see OLD s.v. sum § 7.

86

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position Tum Catulus ‘est’, inquit, ‘ut dicis, Antoni, ut plerique philosophi nulla tradant praecepta dicendi . . . Sed Aristoteles . . . (Cic. de Orat. 2.152); Quod si ita est ut neque quisquam nisi bonus vir et omnes boni beati sint, quid philosophia magis colendum aut quid est virtute divinius? (Cic. Fin. 3.76)

. The use of ut clauses with verbs and expressions meaning ‘the conclusion is’, ‘it follows’ Ut is used in argument clauses with verbs and expressions meaning ‘the conclusion is’ or ‘it follows’. Examples are (a)–(c). (a)

Relinquitur ut id quod dicitis non modo non fecerim, sed ne potuerim quidem facere. (‘It follows that I not only did not do what you say, but that I was not even able to do it.’ Cic. Inv. 1.45)

(b)

Restat ut aut summa negligentia tibi obstiterit aut unica liberalitas. (‘The only alternative is that extreme negligence or unparalleled generosity prevented you.’ Cic. Quinct. 41)

(c)

. . . consequens esse videtur ut scribas tu idem de legibus. (‘. . . I consider it a logical thing that . . . you should also write about its laws.’ Cic. Leg. 1.15) Supplement (in alphabetical order by governing expression): At si tu possideas, consequens est ut utilis mihi actio adversum te dari debeat. (Gaius Inst. 2.78); Ex quo efficitur ut quod sit honestum, id sit solum bonum. (Cic. Tusc. 5.45); Linquitur ut merito maternum nomen adepta / terra sit, e terra quoniam sunt cuncta creata. (Lucr. 5.795–6—NB: presence of the attitudinal disjunct merito within the ut clause); Reliquum est ut per servos id admiserit. (Cic. S. Rosc. 77); Quod si fit, ut me excutiam atque egrediar domo / id restat. (Ter. Ph. 586–7); Nec enim sequitur ut, cui cor sapiat, ei non sapiat palatus. (Cic. Fin. 2.24); Superest ut nec te consilii nec me paeniteat obsequii. (Plin. Ep. 1.1.2) NB: exceptional negation: Reliquum est ne quid stulte, ne quid temere dicam aut faciam contra potentis. (Cic. Fam. 9.16.5); Sequitur enim ne ultra velis id te esse quod, si prius scisses, non fuisses. (Tert. Apol. 8.9)

. The use of ut clauses with verbs and expressions meaning ‘it remains to be done’, ‘it is sufficient’ With verbs and expressions meaning ‘it remains to be done’ and ‘it is sufficient’ ut subject clauses can be used alongside quod clauses and accusative and infinitive clauses, usually with a clear difference in meaning. Examples are (a)–(c). (a)

Sequitur ut de frumento empto vos, iudices, doceam . . . (‘My next business, gentlemen, is to put before you the purchase of corn . . .’ Cic. Ver. 3.163)

Finite declarative clauses (b)

87

Relinquitur ut si vincimur in Hispania quiescamus. (‘There remains the possibility that if we lose in Spain I do nothing.’ Cic. Att. 10.8.2)

(c)

Sati’n ut quem tu habeas fidelem tibi aut quoi credas nescias? (‘Is it enough for you not to know who to regard as reliable and who to trust?’ Pl. Bac. 491) Supplement (in alphabetical order by governing expression): Proximum est ut doceam deorum providentia mundum administrari. (Cic. N.D. 2.73); Relinquebatur Caesari nihil nisi uti equitatu agmen adversariorum male haberet et carperet. (Caes. Civ. 1.63.2); Relinquebatur ut neque longius ab agmine legionum discedi Caesar pateretur. (Caes. Gal. 5.19.3); Reliquum est ut de Q. Catuli auctoritate et sententia dicendum esse videatur. (Cic. Man. 59); Illud etiam restiterat, quod hesterno die fecerunt, ut te in ius adducerent, ut nobis tempus quam diu diceremus praestitueres. (Cic. Quinct. 33—NB: the second ut clause is a result adjunct clause); Restat ut pauca de eis in quos praerogativae favor inclinavit dicam. (Liv. 24.8.9); Satis est igitur ut nihil finxerit, nihil cupiditate revertendi mentitus sit . . . (Quint. Decl. 254.16); Hunc si retinere velis, sufficit ut moreris. ([Quint.] Decl. 17.16); Superest ut ad extremas partes corporis veniam, quae articulis inter se conseruntur. (Cels. 4.29.1); Tertium est ut caveamus ut ea quae pertinent ad liberalem speciem et dignitatem moderata sint. (Cic. Off. 1.141) There are two attestations of a subject clause with reliquum est without ut, emended by earlier editors (Cic. Fam. 15.21.5 and Dolab. Fam. 9.9.3). See also in the preceding section Cic. Fam. 9.16.5 with ne.

. The use of ut clauses with various third person singular verb forms (so-called impersonal verbs) Subject ut clauses can be used with a few other verbs. Examples are (a)–(c). In (c) the first ut clause is the subject of abest, the second depends on tantum. Note in (a) the use of the preparative pronoun hoc as subject. With some of these verbs the accusative and infinitive is more common. (a)

Quodsi hoc apparet in bestiis . . . ut se ipsae diligant . . . (‘Now if it is evident in animals . . . that they love themselves . . .’ Cic. Amic. 81)

(b)

Quomodo, oro te, convenit ut et Diogenen mireris et Daedalum? (‘How, I ask, is it consistent that you admire both Diogenes and Daedalus?’ Sen. Ep. 90.14)

(c)

. . . tantumque abest ut aliquam mihi bonam gratiam quaesisse videar, ut multas me etiam simultates . . . intellegam . . . suscepisse. (‘It is so far from being the case that I have sought any popularity for myself, that I am aware of having even incurred many enmities . . .’ Cic. Man. 71)

88

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position Supplement (in alphabetical order by governing expression): In quo tantum abest ut nostra miremur ut usque eo difficiles ac morosi simus ut nobis non satis faciat ipse Demosthenes. (Cic. Orat. 104); Iudicis igitur officio convenit ut aut satisdatione interposita absolvat maritum aut habita ratione compensationis eum condemnet . . . (Ulp. dig. 24.3.24.2); Neque posse principem sua scientia cuncta complecti neque expedire ut ambitione aliena trahatur. (Tac. Ann. 3.69.3); Expedire omnibus dicunt ut singulae civitates . . . suas leges habeant. (Justin. 34.1.7); Potest ut alii ita arbitrentur et ego ut ne credam tibi. (Pl. Ps. 633) With a preparative pronoun as subject: Non enim hoc convenire Antigoni prudentiae ut sic deuteretur victo. (Nep. Eum. 11.3); Id Sabino convenire ut imperium fratri reservaret, id Vespasiano ut ceteri post Sabinum haberentur. (Tac. Hist. 3.64.2); At id quoque potest ut non dent homini, ipsi habeant. (Cic. Div. 2.106) Bene habet ut ea quae Dei sunt circa sacrificium eius agere valeamus. (August. Ep. 213.7) An exceptional instance of ‘raising’ of the subject of a subject clause with abest to the position of subject of the main clause is (d). The second argument of absum may also be filled by an ut clause, in that case in combination with the prepositional expression ab eo, as in (e) (see also § 14.6).54 (d) Hoc detrimento milites nostri tantum afuerunt ut perturbarentur, ut incensi atque incitati magnas accessiones fecerint in operibus hostium expugnandis. (‘Our troops were so far from being dismayed by this reverse that, impassioned and stimulated, they carried out large-scale sallies in the course of storming the enemy’s defence-works.’ B. Alex. 22.1—NB: cf. tantum afuit ut milites nostri hoc detrimento perturbarentur ut . . .) (e) Tantum autem abest ab eo ut malum mors sit . . . ut verear ne homini nihil sit non malum aliud certius . . . (‘So wide of the truth, however, is the view that death is an evil . . . that I incline to think that nothing else is more assuredly not an evil for a human being . . .’ Cic. Tusc. 1.76)

. The use of ut clauses with expressions consisting of the copula and an adjective functioning as subject complement There is a large number of neuter singular forms of adjectives which function as subject complement with the copula or a copular verb and which have an ut clause as the subject. Examples are (a)–(e). In many of these combinations the accusative and infinitive is possible as well or even more common (see § 15.102), not always with a clear difference in meaning. With many of these adjectives a prolative infinitive is also possible (see §§ 15.127–8), and in some cases an imperative interpretation is possible as well (see § 15.78). Some of these adjectives resemble the meaning classes discussed in the

54 Another instance is Liv. 25.6.11.

Finite declarative clauses

89

preceding sections but others do not. Several of them are bivalent adjectives; many are evaluative. The main clause often has a preparative pronoun as subject, as in (f). (a)

Iustum est tuos tibi servos tuo arbitratu serviat. (‘It’s only just that your slave serves you according to your wishes.’ Pl. Bac. 994)

(b)

Aequom videtur tibi ut ego alienum quod est / meum esse dicam? (‘Does it seem right to you that I should say that something belonging to someone else belongs to me?’ Pl. Rud. 1230–1)

(c)

Non est veri simile ut Chrysogonus horum litteras adamarit . . . (‘It is improbable that Chrysogonus took a fancy to their culture . . .’ Cic. S.  Rosc. 121—NB: perfect subjunctive)

(d)

. . . consentaneum est huic naturae ut sapiens velit gerere et administrare rem publicam . . . (‘. . . it follows from this natural disposition that the Wise Man should desire to engage in politics and government . . .’ Cic. Fin. 3.68)

(e)

Difficile est quidem ut ad haec hilariora studia tam vehementer perculsus animus tam cito possit accedere. (‘It would be difficult indeed for a mind so severely smitten to approach so quickly this lighter kind of literature.’ Sen. Dial. 11.8.3)

(f)

Mi illud videri mirum ut una illaec capra / uxoris simiai dotem ambederit. (‘It seemed strange to me that that one goat should have eaten up the monkey’s wife’s dowry.’ Pl. Mer. 240–1—NB: perfect subjunctive) Supplement (in alphabetical order by adjective): Erat enim sane absurdum ut X servorum domino quinque liberare liceret . . . (Gaius Inst. 1.45); Aecum est ut cum alienis dividamus liberos quos non dividimus cum matribus? (Sen. Con. 9.3.1); Quo mihi nihil videtur alienius a dignitate disciplinaque maiorum quam ut, qui consul Kalendis Ianuariis habere provinciam debet, is ut eam desponsam non decretam habere videatur. (Cic. Prov. 36); . . . non videtur esse alienum uti caute summaque diligentia, antequam instituantur opera, eorum expediantur rationes. (Vitr. 10.pr.4); Quocirca arduum est ut unius sermo conpenset quod tantorum contraxit adfectio. (Symm. Ep. 4.4.1); . . . ut omnium artium recte dici potest commune esse ut in aliqua scientia versentur . . . (Cic. Fin. 5.26); Non par videtur nec sit consentaneum, / . . . / praesentibus illis paedagogus una ut siet. (Pl. Bac. 139–42—NB: textually uncertain); Est enim inconveniens Deo ut huiusmodi potestate sit praeditus qua noceat et obsit . . . (Lact. Ir. 3.1); Atque ei ne integrum quidem erat ut ad iustitiam remigraret, civibus libertatem et iura redderet. (Cic. Tusc. 5.62); Aequissimum quidem ac iustissimum esse ut populo detur summa rerum potestas . . . (Quint. Decl. 339.7); Longum est ut Deum meum bonum ostendam . . . (Tert. Scorp. 5.1); Nec quicquam meliu’st mihi, / ut opinor, quam ex me ut unam faciam litteram / longam . . . (Pl. Aul. 76–8); Mirum satis ut infantia naturaliter animosa sit . . . (Tert. An. 19.9); . . . nihil mihi fuit potius quam ut Masinissam convenirem regem . . . (Cic. Rep. 6.9); Qui eam secat rarum est ut non vulneret sese. (Plin. Nat. 25.69); Rarum est autem ut in foro

90

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position iudicia propter id solum constituantur . . . (Quint. Inst. 3.10.3); Rectum’st, ego ut faciam; non est te ut deterream. (Ter. Hau. 79); Quid tam singulare quam ut ex senatus consulto legibus solutus consul ante fieret quam ullum alium magistratum per leges capere licuisset? (Cic. Man. 62); Quid porro in Graeco sermone tam tritum atque celebratum est quam, si quis despicatui ducitur, ut ‘Mysorum ultimus’ esse dicatur? (Cic. Flac. 65); Si verum est, quod nemo dubitat, ut populus Romanus omnes gentes virtute superarit . . . (Nep. Han. 1.1—NB: perfect subjunctive) With a preparative pronoun as subject: De ipso Roscio potest illud quidem esse falsum ut circumligatus fuerit angui, sed ut in cunis fuerit anguis, non tam est mirum . . . (Cic. Div.—NB: perfect subjunctive); Magnificum illud etiam Romanisque hominibus gloriosum ut Graecis de philosophia litteris non egeant. (Cic. Div. 2.5); Semper tu hoc facito, Lesbonice, cogites, / id optumum esse tute uti sis optumus. (Pl. Trin. 485–6); . . . cum hoc proprium sit animantium ut aliquid adpetant quod sit naturae accommodatum . . . (Cic. N.D. 1.104); Praeclarum illud est et, si quaeris, rectum quoque et verum ut eos qui nobis carissimi esse debeant aeque ac nosmet ipsos amemus. (Cic. Tusc. 3.73)

. The use of ut clauses with expressions consisting of the copula and a noun or noun phrase functioning as subject complement Ut subject clauses can be used as subject with various combinations of nouns and noun phrases (cf. §§ 9.22, 9.29–35) that function as subject complement. Examples are (a) and (b). Quite often the main clause has a preparative pronoun as the subject, as in (c). The accusative and infinitive (see § 15.102) and the prolative infinitive (see § 15.128) are possible as well. In some cases an imperative interpretation is also possible (see also § 15.79).55 (a)

Fuit occasio, si vellet, iam pridem argentum ut daret. (‘There was an opportunity for him to give me the money long ago if he’d wanted to.’ Pl. Ps. 285)

(b)

Caput autem est in omni procuratione negotii et muneris publici ut avaritiae pellatur etiam minima suspicio. (‘But the chief thing in all public administration and public service is that even the slightest suspicion of self-seeking should be avoided.’ Cic. Off. 2.75)

(c)

Sed mos numquam illi fuit patri meo / ut exprobraret quod bonis faceret boni. (‘It was never my father’s habit to cast in good people’s teeth what good turns he was doing them.’ Pl. Am. 46–7) Supplement (in alphabetical order by noun (phrase)): Consuetudo eorum omnium est ut sine utribus ad exercitum non eant. (Caes. Gal. 1.48.7); Iliaci cineres et flamma extrema meorum, / testor, in occasu vestro nec tela nec ullas / vitavisse vices, Danaum et, si fata fuissent / ut caderem, meruisse manu. 55 Most examples are taken from K.-St.: II.244–6, where more can be found.

Finite declarative clauses

91

(Verg. A. 432–4); Sed est mos hominum ut nolint eundem pluribus rebus excellere. (Cic. Brut. 84); Natura rerum est ut qui balbutiunt plus loquantur. (Symm. Ep. 1.76); Satis est enim certe in virtute ut fortiter vivamus. (Cic. Tusc. 5.53) Est miserorum ut malevolentes sint atque invideant bonis. (Pl. Capt. 583); . . . negavit moris esse Graecorum ut in convivio virorum accumberent mulieres. (Cic. Ver. 1.66); Nam et sapientis est consilium explicare suum de maximis rebus et honesti et diserti ut mente providere, auctoritate probare, oratione persuadere possis. (Cic. de Orat. 2.233—NB: parallelism of infinitive and ut clause) With a preparative pronoun as subject: Ea causa fuit aedis haec dedicare. (Cic. Leg. 2.58); Est enim hoc Gallicae consuetudinis uti et viatores etiam invitos consistere cogant . . . (Caes. Gal. 4.5.2); In propriis igitur est verbis illa laus oratoris ut abiecta atque obsoleta fugiat . . . (Cic. de Orat. 3.150); Non ignoro omnium fere qui abdicantur hunc esse morem ut acta iam causa ad preces convertantur . . . (Quint. Decl. 258.10); Ea natura rerum est, patres conscripti, ut qui sensum verae gloriae ceperit . . . nihil cum hac gloria comparandum putet. (Cic. Phil. 5.49); Summa denique huius generis haec est ut, si in refellendo adversario firmior esse oratio quam in confirmandis nostris rebus potest, omnia in illum conferam tela. (Cic. de Orat. 2.293); Id erat forte tempus anni ut frumentum in areis Hispani haberent. (Liv. 34.9.12); Est enim hoc commune vitium magnis liberisque civitatibus ut invidia gloriae comes sit . . . (Nep. Cha. 3.3)

. The use of ut clauses with expressions consisting of the copula and other categories that function as subject complement Ut subject clauses are also found with other combinations of subject complements with the copula. Examples are (a), a possessive adjective (neuter singular form), and (b), a prepositional phrase. (a)

Hoc meum est ut faciam sedulo. (‘This is my task: to do my best.’ Pl. Per. 46)

(b)

In rem hoc tuam est. # Ut quidem emoriar prius quam ducam. (‘It’s for your own good. # Certainly, that I die before I marry.’ Pl. Aul. 154) Supplement: Adverb: Quibus si finitum malum non fuerit, prope est ut perpetuum sit. (Cels. 3.23.8). Prepositional phrases: Ex tua re est ut ego emoriar. (Pl. Ps. 336); Est igitur in tua potestate ut ille in me satis sibi praesidi putet esse. (Cic. Fam. 13.39.1); Nos uti per otium tuti simus, in vostra manu est, patres conscripti. (Sal. Jug. 14.13)

A cleft-like example is (c), more or less equivalent to magis ipse moleste fert.56 (For ‘cleft’ constructions, see § 22.12.)

56 See Löfstedt (1966: 273–5; 2000: 100) and Norberg (1937: 112ff.).

92

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position (c)

. . . magis est ut ipse moleste ferat errasse se . . . quam ut istius amicitiae crimen reformidet. (‘. . . there is more reason that he should himself be troubled that he made a mistake . . . than that he should be in fear of such a friendship being made a matter of accusation.’ Cic. Cael. 14) Supplement: Quin etiam quanto in partes res quaeque minutas / distrahitur magis, hoc magis est ut cernere possis / evanescere paulatim stinguique colorem. (Lucr. 2.826ff.); Sed prius est ut vobis, quod initio facere debueram, vel nunc saltem referam, quis iste vel unde fuerit. (Apul. Met. 10.18.1); Vix est ut occurrat talis oratio . . . (August. Psal. 85.7); . . . ante est ut ostendat et probet esse illic ecclesiam. (Cypr. Sent. 55); Prope est ut veniat tempus. (Vulg. Is. 14.1)

. The use of ut clauses with verbs and expressions of perception, cognition, and communication Instances of ut without a preparative pronoun in declarative clauses governed by perception, cognition, and communication verbs are found in Late Latin but are very rare.57 An early example is (a). When used with a preparative pronoun, such clauses can already be found in Cicero, as in (b). For the use of ut with semantically related nouns like opinio ‘opinion’, see § 17.6. This use is not uncommon in later periods.58 (a)

De hoc fertur ut sit Arcas nomine . . . (‘It is said concerning this that its name is Arcas . . .’ Hyg. Astr. 2.4.1)

(b)

Iam hoc non ignoratis, iudices, ut etiam bestiae fame monitae plerumque ad eum locum ubi aliquando pastae sunt revertantur. (‘Now you are not unaware of this fact, gentlemen, that even brute beasts, when prompted by hunger, generally return to the place where they have at some time previously found food.’ Cic. Clu. 67) Supplement: . . . non esse credendum ut in id genus mortis exposuerit Creator filium suum quod ipse maledixerat. (Tert. Marc. 3.18.1); Quis hoc crederet ut barbara Getarum lingua Hebraicam quaereret veritatem . . . (Hier. Ep. 106.1) Much discussed is the use of ut in (c), a quotation of Protagoras. Ut corresponds to ì| (hōs) in the Greek original and can be viewed as Cicero’s ‘overliteral’ rendering.59

(c) Nam Abderites quidem Protagoras, cuius a te modo mentio facta est, sophistes temporibus illis vel maximus, cum in principio libri sic posuisset ‘de divis neque ut sint neque ut non sint habeo dicere’, Atheniensium iussu urbe atque agro est exterminatus . . . 57 See Sz.: 645–6. For the use of ut in imperative clauses with dico and other verbs, see § 15.66. 58 For discussion and references, see Greco (2012: 36–9). 59 So Pease ad loc. See also Coleman (1971: 215) and Panchón (2003: 371).

Finite declarative clauses

93

(‘Since as for Protagoras of Abdera, perhaps the greatest sophist of that age, to whom you just now alluded, for beginning a book with the words ‘About the gods I am unable to affirm either that they exist or that they do not exist,’ he was sentenced by a decree of the Athenians to be banished from the city and the country . . .’ Cic. N.D. 1.63) Appendix: Gregory of Tours has a few instances of verbs of this class governing a clause with a simple subjunctive, as in (d).60 (d) Quod credo Ø providentia Dei fecisset. (‘I believe that the providence of God did this.’ Greg. Tur. Hist. 8.20)

. The use of ut clauses in ‘periphrastic’ constructions In a way that resembles its use with imperative sentences (see § 6.29), facio can be used to emphasize the active involvement of a person in the action that he is (was, will be) undertaking.61 Examples are (a) and (b). Another verb used in a similar way is ago ‘to bring it about that’, as in (c). Compare also committo ‘to perpetrate’ in (d). Most instances come from Cicero. This use is sometimes called ‘periphrastic’. (a)

Etsi . . . videbam te hanc epistulam cum ad urbem esses esse lecturum, . . . tamen . . . faciendum mihi putavi ut tuis litteris brevi responderem. (‘Although . . . I see that you won’t read this till you are at the gates of Rome . . ., yet . . . I thought I ought to be careful to give your letter a brief answer.’ Cic. Fam. 3.8.1)

(b)

Invitus feci ut fortissimi viri T.  Flaminini fratrem L.  Flamininum e senatu eicerem . . . (‘Against my will I brought it about that I expelled from the Senate Lucius Flamininus, the brother of that most valiant man, Titus Flamininus . . .’ Cic. Sen. 42)

(c)

Atqui ne ex eo quidem tempore id egit Sestius ut a suis munitus tuto in foro magistratum gereret . . . (‘But not even since that time has Sestius worked towards being able to discharge the duties of his magistracy safely in the forum under the guard of his own men.’ Cic. Sest. 79)

(d)

Nam profecto non est meum . . . committere ut neglegens scribendo fuisse videar . . . (‘It would hardly be in character . . . to commit the error of appearing negligent through failure to write . . .’ Cic. Fam. 3.9.3) Supplement: Heia, Megadore, haud decorum facinus tuis factis facis / ut inopem atque innoxium abs te atque abs tuis me inrideas. (Pl. Aul. 220–1); Quapropter et his qui eos ludos habent et his qui eo venire consuerunt visum est faciundum ut ostenderemus nostram 60 See Bonnet (1890: 667–9) and Sznajder (2003: 34; 90–1). 61 See Bodelot (2000: 68–73) and Panchón (2003: 407–8).

94

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position sententiam, nobis non placere. (Edictum adversos Latinos rhetores apud Gel. 15.11.2); . . . negavi me esse facturum ut de periculo publico non ad consilium publicum rem integram deferrem. (Cic. Catil. 3.7); . . . fecimus et alias saepe et nuper in Tusculano ut ad eam consuetudinem disputaremus. (Cic. Tusc. 5.11); Euntibus vero, domesticis praesertim, ut nihil ad te dem litterarum facere non possum . . . (Cic. Att. 8.14.1); Eo feci ut [eo] celeriter eunti darem. (Cic. Att. 11.23.2); Faciebat hoc Sextius, ut consummato die . . . interrogaret animum suum. (Sen. Dial. 5.36) Id agis ut . . . effugias ex urbe inanis. (Pl. Trin. 699–701); Id egit ut amicos observantia, rem parsimonia retineret. (Cic. Quinct. 59); Non ergo id agitur ut aliquid adsensu meo comprobem . . . (Cic. Luc. 126); Adice nunc quod id agis ut et iram feras et iniuriam. (Sen. Dial. 5.26) Neque ego hau committam ut, si quid peccatum siet, / fecisse dicas de [me] mea sententia. (Pl. Bac. 1037–8); Id me commissurum ut patiar fieri ne animum induxeris. (Pl. Trin. 704); At vero posthac frustra potius dabo quam, si recte dari potuerint, committam ut non dem. (Cic. Att. 5.11.1); . . . Volumnius ‘Quoniam in collegae voluntate interpretanda’ inquit ‘erravi, non committam ut quid vos velitis obscurum sit: manere an abire me velitis clamore significate.’ (Liv. 10.19.11)

. The use of ne in declarative argument clauses with verbs and expressions of fearing and worrying Ne is used in declarative argument clauses with verbs and expressions of fearing and worrying or when fear or worry is implied in the context. When used with such verbs it has no negative meaning. This is also reflected in the fact that coordination of another clause is usually by et, -que, or atque, as in (c), or aut, and not by for example neque (for which, see § 8.36; for aut, see § 19.45). Negation by non is shown in (a) and (b). Note the occurrence of verb forms that refer to states of affairs posterior and anterior to the main verb in (d) and (e), respectively. Posteriority is normally not expressed explicitly: in (c) augeam is understood as pertaining to the future (see § 7.39). The periphrastic future forms are normally interpreted as ‘prospective’ (see § 7.24). (a)

Ne non sat esses leno, id metuebas miser, / impure, avare . . .? (‘You wretch, were you afraid that you would not be enough of a pimp, you dirty, greedy creature . . .?’ Pl. Per. 686–7)

(b)

Verebamini / ne non id facerem quod recepissem semel? (‘Were you afraid that, once I’d given an undertaking, I wouldn’t do it?’ Ter. Ph. 901–2)

(c)

Sed vereor ne, dum minuere velim laborem, augeam atque ad illam causarum operam . . . adiungatur haec iuris interpretatio . . . (‘But I fear that, while endeavouring to lessen my labour, I may only increase it, and find that, in addition to my usual pleading of cases . . . this interpretation of the law is imposed upon me.’ Cic. Leg. 1.12)

(d)

Sed non vereor ne aut meae vitae modestia parum valitura sit in posterum contra falsos rumores aut ne . . .

Finite declarative clauses

95

(‘However, I’m not afraid that the moderation of my career will be too little a defence against false reports in time to come; nor am I afraid that . . .’ Mat. Fam. 11.28.8)

(e)

Accepi tuas litteras, quibus intellexi te vereri ne superiores mihi redditae non essent. (‘I got your letter, through which I found out that you were afraid that your earlier letters had not been delivered to me.’ Cic. Fam. 14.5.1)

From Early Latin onwards ut is used in argument clauses with verbs and expressions of fearing. The origin and the meaning of ut is disputed: in about half of the instances in Plautus, Terence, Cicero, and Caesar the interpretation of the ut clause as an indirect question with ut meaning ‘how’ is perfectly possible, as in (f) (‘I’m afraid how I would be able . . .’), but in other instances it is preferable to interpret ut as ne non, as in (g) and (h). In Early Latin ut was four times commoner than ne non, whereas in Cicero’s works the proportion is the reverse.62 (f)

Ornamenta quae locavi metuo ut possim recipere. (‘I’m afraid I might not be able to get back the costumes I hired out.’ Pl. Cur. 464)

(g)

Id paves (vv.ll.) ne ducas tu illam. Tu autem ut ducas. (‘You fear that you’re going to marry her, you (to Charinus) that you’re not.’ Ter. An. 349—NB: Donatus ad loc.: pro ne non ut posuit)

(h)

Quod enim tu afuisti, vereor ut satis diligenter actum in senatu sit de litteris meis. (‘For I’m afraid that because of your absence the deliberation in the Senate concerning my letter was not careful enough.’ Cic. Att. 6.4.2) Supplement (in alphabetical order by governing expression): Eo plus horreo ne illae magis res nos ceperint quam nos illas. (Liv. 34.4.3); Metuo in commune ne quam fraudem frausus sit. (Pl. As. 286); At metuo ut satis sis subdola. (Pl. Mil. 355); Metuo te atque istos expiare ut possies. (Pl. Mos. 465); Ehem, te hercle ego circumspectabam, nimis metuebam male ne abiisses. (Pl. Ps. 912); Primum omnium iam hunc comparem metuo meum / ne deserat med atque ad hostis transeat. (Pl. Ps. 1026–7—NB: with pseudo-object, see §  9.17); Metui’ ne non, quom velis, convincas esse illum tuom? (Ter. Hau. 1017); Ecquid paves ne scelus feceris? (Quint. Decl. 340.7); Quod mihi ne eveniat non nullum periculum est. (Pl. Capt. 91); Numquid subtimes ne ad te hoc crimen pertinere videatur? (Cic. Phil. 2.36); . . . rem frumentariam ut satis commode supportari posset timere dicebant. (Caes. Gal. 1.39.7); . . . timeo ne male facta antiqua mea sint inventa omnia. (Pl. Truc. 774); Timere non debeo ne non unus iste civis Romanus illa cruce dignus, ceteri omnes simili periculo indignissimi iudicentur. (Cic. Ver. 5.171); . . . sed firmae haec vereor ut sint nuptiae. (Ter. Hec. 101); Sed quod vereor ne plures sint futuri qui de hoc genere me quod nimium multa [re]scripserim reprehendant . . . (Var. L. 7.109); . . . ne verendum quidem est ut tenere se possit, ut moderari, ne honoribus nostris elatus intemperantius suis opibus

62 So Woodcock (1959: 144–5). OLD s.v. ut § 3 classifies the use of ut with verbs of ‘anxiety or misgiving’ as indirect interrogative adverb. For the various explanations offered for the use of ut, see Sz.: 534–5 and Ripoll (2012: 303–5).

96

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position utatur. (Cic. Ph. 5.48); Quorum si nemo verum vidit de natura deorum, verendum est ne nulla sit omnino. (Cic. N.D. 1.94); Unum vereor ne senatus propter urbanarum rerum metum Pompeium nolit dimittere. (Cic. Att. 5.18.1); Si manet, vereor ne exercitum firmum habere non possit. (Cic. Att. 7.12.2) NB: Me nihil magis pudebat quam ne Eumolpus sensisset, quicquid illud fuerat, et homo dicacissimus carminibus vindicaret . . . (Petr. 113.12) Further examples of coordination: Pertimuerunt ne caritate patriae ductus aliquando ab ipsis descisceret et cum suis in gratiam rediret. (Nep. Alc. 5.1); O colonia, quae . . . vereris . . . ne supinus eat cavaque in palude recumbat. (Catul. 17.1–8); Etenim vereor ne aut celatum me illis ipsis non honestum aut invitatum refugisse mihi sit turpissimum. (Cic. Phil. 2.32); . . . veriti ne noctu impediti sub onere confligere cogerentur aut ne ab equitatu Caesaris in angustiis tenerentur . . . (Caes. Civ. 1.66.2) Exceptional forms of coordination: Magis curae est magisque afformido ne is pereat neu corrumpatur. (Pl. Bac. 1078); Eos nunc homines metuo mihi ne opsint neve opstent uspiam . . . (Pl. Mil. 996); . . . non possumus vereri ne male comparati sitis nec tantum rei publicae prosit . . . (Liv. 40.46.4)63 Problematic is the use of ut in (i). Various explanations have been suggested,64 but Madvig’s emendation ne may be the best solution. Much discussed also is ut in Hor. S. 1.3.120–1, which is best taken as ironic. (i) Neque erat ulla satis firma statio opposita, quia nihil minus quam ut egredi moenibus auderent timeri poterat. (‘And no outpost in sufficient strength had been stationed to face them, since nothing less could be feared than that they should venture to sally out from the walls.’ Liv. 28.22.12)

. The use of quin in declarative argument clauses with a negative main clause The subordinator quin is used in declarative argument clauses with main clauses that contain negative expressions, or which are negative by implication (rhetorical questions, for example); with impersonal abest ‘to be far from’; and with verbs and expressions of doubt (see § 8.27 (ii) and (iii)).65 The content of these quin clauses is positive (for clauses with a negative content, see below). Examples of a quin argument clause with a main clause containing abest are (a)–(c). The only clear instance of a quin clause with a negative expression is (b), repeated from § 8.27. Ex. (c) has a passive form in the argument clause. (a)

Aberit non longe quin hoc a me decerni velit . . . (‘It won’t be long before he wants me to sanction this . . .’ Cic. Att. 9.9.3)

63 For further combinations, see K.-St.: II.252–3. 64 See K.-St.: II.256; Orlandini (2003: 495–6); Gowers ad Hor. S. 1.3.120–1. 65 For the contexts in which quin is used, see Moussy (1987; 1998; 2012), Fleck (2008: 204–30).

Finite declarative clauses (b)

97

. . . quid abest quin actum nobis nihil sit quod a Philippo liberavimus Graeciam . . .? (‘. . . how does this differ from saying that nothing was accomplished by us in freeing Greece from Philip . . .?’ Liv. 35.16.12)

(c)

. . . haud procul afuit quin violarentur. (‘. . . they weren’t far from suffering violence.’ Liv. 25.1.11) Supplement: Abesse non potest quin eiusdem hominis sit probos improbare qui improbos probet. (Gracch. orat. 24); . . . naves . . . longas XXVIII invenit instructas neque multum abesse ab eo quin paucis diebus deduci possint. (Caes. Gal. 5.2.2); . . . quid abest quin proditis Sidicinis non Romanorum solum sed Samnitium quoque dicto pareamus . . . ? (Liv. 8.4.2); Sed re prospere gesta non multum afuit quin a Bructero quodam occideretur . . . (Suet. Tib. 19.1) NB: Paene factum est quin castra relinquerent atque cederent hosti. (Quad. hist. 58=59C)66

For argument clauses dependent on expressions of doubt, declarative status is easier to prove, as is shown by the examples (d)–(f), with (d) and (e) negated and (f) containing an anterior tense. Further examples are provided in the Supplement. (d)

Sibi non fuisse dubium quin nullo foedere a re publica bene gerenda impediretur. (‘That he never doubted for a moment that he could not be hindered by any treaty from doing anything which was to the advantage of the republic.’ Cic. Balb. 47)

(e)

Sed non est dubium quin non debeat (sc. praedo) melioris esse condicionis quam bonae fidei possessor. (‘But there is no doubt that he (sc. one who takes illegal possession) ought not to be in a better position than the possessor in good faith.’ Paul. dig. 5.3.36.3)

(f)

Numquid, Gnatho, tu dubitas quin ego nunc perpetuo perierim? (‘Can you have any doubt at all, Gnatho, that I am now finished forever?’ Ter. Eu. 1043) Supplement: Quid ergo dubitas quin lubenter tuo ero meus quod possiet / facere faciat male . . . (Pl. Poen. 881–2); Nam hoc haud dubium’st quin Chremes / tibi non det gnatam. (Ter. An. 391–2—NB: with preparative hoc); Equidem non dubito qui animadverteris item in ea[m] innumerabilem similitudinum numerum . . . (Var. L. 9.32); . . . dubitandum non est quin numquam possit utilitas cum honestate contendere. (Cic. Off. 3.11); Quis igitur . . . dubitet quin in virtute divitiae sint? (Cic. Parad. 48—NB: the quin clause expresses a state); An dubium est quin nihil sit habendum in eo genere quo vita beata compleatur, si id possit amitti? (Cic. Tusc. 5.40); Non enim dubitabat Xeno quin ab Ariopagitis invito Memmio impetrari non posset. (Cic. Att. 5.11.6); Itaque 66 For discussion, see Orlandini (2003: 518–19).

98

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position non dubito quin ad Pisonem, quin ad Servium scripserit. (Cic. Att. 7.17.3); de quam turpi leto pereamus, et dubita, si potes, quin ille, seu victus seu victor redierit, caedem facturus sit. (Cic. Att. 10.10.5); Illud non dubito quin, si te mea summa erga te studia parum mihi adiunxerint, res publica nos inter nos conciliatura coniuncturaque sit. (Cic. Fam. 5.7.2—NB: with preparative illud ); Nam de equitibus hostium, quin nemo eorum progredi modo extra agmen audeat ne ipsos quidem debere dubitare. (Caes. Gal. 7.66.6); Dubitas ergo quin sedendo superaturi simus eum qui senescat in dies . . . (Liv. 22.39.15); Numquid enim dubium esse cuiquam potest quin nihil sit tam inquietum quam aër, tam versabile et agitatione gaudens? (Sen. Nat. 6.16.4); Non tamen puto dubites, Vinici, quin magis pro re publica fuerit manere adhuc rudem Corinthiorum intellectum quam in tantum ea intellegi et quin hac prudentia illa imprudentia decori publico fuerit convenientior. (Vell. 1.13.5—NB: coordination by et); Nemo dubitat quin substitutus ultimum diem aditionis exspectare non solet. (Paul. dig. 29.2.72) Related expressions (in alphabetical order by governing expression):67 . . . neque ambigitur quin Brutus idem qui tantum gloriae Superbo exacto rege meruit pessimo publico id facturus fuerit . . . (Liv. 2.1.3); Nec diu anquirendum quin Agrippina claritudine generis anteiret. (Tac. Ann. 12.6.1); At controversia non erat quin verum dicerent. (Cic. Caec. 31); Nemo enim est qui aliter dixerit quin omnium naturarum simile esset id ad quod omnia referrentur . . . (Cic. Fin. 4.32); Nec discrepat quin dictator eo anno A. Cornelius fuerit. (Liv. 8.40.1); Si istaec vera sunt, divinitus / non metuo quin meae uxori latae suppetiae sient. (Pl. Am. 1105–6); . . . nec iam aliter sentire . . . quin paene circumvallati atque omni exitu et pabulatione interclusi viderentur. (Caes. Gal. 7.44.4) NB: no overt negation in the main clause: Nam si quis coactus aliquid boni fecit, quin nos non obliget, manifestius est. (Sen. Ben. 6.7.2) The various expressions of ‘no doubt’ have a strong assertive illocutionary force. Possible alternatives for the quin clause are the accusative and infinitive clause (from Terence onwards—see §  15.98), the nominative and infinitive construction (from Tac. Ann. 3.8.2 onwards), the quod clause (see § 15.9), and also the quia clause (a few Late Latin instances).68

Quin argument clauses are also found with a few other negated expressions of cognition and communication, with which the accusative and infinitive clause is regular. Examples are (g) and (h).69 (g)

Atqui alterum dici non potest quin i qui nihil metuant . . . beati sint . . . (‘Well at any rate there can be no question of the one point—that those who have no fear . . . are happy . . .’ Cic. Tusc. 5.17)

(h)

Nec pol me multum fallit quin quod suspicor sit quod velit. (‘And I can’t be too far from the mark in thinking that what I have in mind is what he wants.’ Ter. Hec. 728) 67 Examples taken from K.-St.: II.264, where more can be found. 68 For details, see TLL s.vv. dubito; dubius. 69 The quin clause in (g) is regarded as an indirect question in TLL s.v. dico 983.50f.

Finite declarative clauses

99

Supplement: Non potest dici quin commode fiat . . . (Rhet. Her. 4.39); Quamquam quis ignorat, qui modo umquam mediocriter res istas scire curavit, quin tria Graecorum genera sint vere? (Cic. Flac. 64); Illud te non arbitror fugere quin homines in dissensione domestica debeant, quam diu civiliter sine armis certetur, honestiorem sequi partem. (Cael. Fam. 8.14.3); Itaque negare non posse quin rectius sit etiam ad pacatos barbaros . . . exercitum mitti. (Liv. 40.36.2) Noteworthy: Neque eum consilium suum fefellit quin hostes eo proelio audito nihil iam de bello essent cogitaturi. (B. Alex. 32.2—NB: alongside the subject consilium suum)

In a way that resembles the use of ut in ‘periphrastic’ constructions (see § 15.36), quin can also be used in argument clauses with expressions like non possum quin ‘I cannot but’,70 facere non possum ‘I cannot bring it about that . . .’ and fieri non potest ‘it is not possible that . . .’, where it is almost equivalent to ut non. When a quin clause is used with these expressions, its content is negative. Examples are (i) and ( j). For a parallel with a more emphatic negation by ut non, see (l). (i)

Video non potesse quin tibi eius nomen eloquar. (‘I see that it’s not possible for me not to tell you his name.’ Pl. Bac. 559)

( j)

Ut mihi rem narras, Callicles, nullo modo / potest fieri prosus quin dos detur virgini. (‘The way you tell me the story, Callicles, it’s absolutely impossible that a dowry not be given to the girl.’ Pl. Trin. 729–30)

(k)

Tamen facere non possum quin cottidie ad te mittam ut tuas accipiam. (‘Still I can’t resist sending you a daily letter so as to get your replies.’ Cic. Att. 12.27.2)

(l)

Fieri, inquam, Triari, nullo pacto potest ut non dicas quid non probes eius a quo dissentias. (‘It’s in no way possible’, I say, ‘that you do not say what you do not approve of in the views of the man with whom you disagree.’ Cic. Fin. 1.27) Supplement: Eheu, nequeo quin fleam, / quom aps ted abeam. (Pl. Mil. 1342–3); Sati’n, si quis amat, nequit quin nihili sit atque improbis se artibus expoliat? (Pl. Truc. 553); Non enim faciam quin scias. (Pl. Mil. 283); Sed quom orata huiu’ reminiscor nequeo quin lacrumem miser. (Ter. Hec. 385); Fieri nullo modo poterat quin Cleomeni parceretur. (Cic. Ver. 5.104); . . . facere non potui quin tibi et sententiam et voluntatem declararem meam. (Cic. Fam. 6.13.1) Related examples (in alphabetical order by governing expression): Tribus non conduci possum libertatibus, / quin ego illis hodie comparem magnum malum / quinque hanc omnem rem meae erae iam faciam palam. (Pl. Cas. 504–6); . . . ut effici non possit quin eos tam oderim quam rem publicam diligo. (Cic. Phil. 11.36); Non possum pati / quin tibi caput demulceam. (Ter. Hau. 761–2); . . . non esse in nostra potestate quin illa eveniant quorum causae fuerint . . . (Cic. Fat. 45) 70 For this expression, see Fleck (2006).

100

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position Appendix: An isolated idiom is constituted by the combination mirum quin ‘it is a miracle that not’ in Plautus, as in (m). (m) Mirum quin grex venalium in cistella infuerit una. (‘It’s odd that there wasn’t a whole group of slaves in that one casket.’ Pl. Cist. 733)

. The use of si in declarative argument clauses The subordinator si is used in argument clauses with two types of expressions (§§ 15.40–1). With a third type (§ 15.42), si clauses are better taken as satellites. It is common in conditional satellite clauses (see §§ 16.57ff.).

. The use of si clauses with verbs and expressions of waiting in expectation and trying With a couple of verbs and expressions of waiting in expectation and trying, si argument clauses in the subjunctive refer to situations which are uncertain or the outcome of which is uncertain. The verbs involved are also found with ut argument clauses that express aiming at the realization of a state of affairs.71 Examples of si clauses are (a) and (c); for ut clauses with the same verbs, see (b) and (d). In (e), res seems to function as a preparative device. The si clause normally follows the main clause; negated clauses seem not to be attested. With some of these verbs, indirect questions with an interrogative particle occur as well (see § 15.46). These argument clauses must be distinguished from the purpose si clauses discussed in § 16.59. (a)

Miror huc iam non arcessi in proxumum uxorem meam, / quae iam dudum si arcessatur ornata exspectat domi. (‘I’m surprised that my wife is not yet being sent for to go next door. She’s all dressed up and has been waiting at home for a long time already in case she’s sent for.’ Pl. Cas. 539–40)

(b)

Nisi exspectare vis / ut eam sine dote frater nuptum conlocet. (‘Unless you want to wait for her brother to give her in marriage without dowry.’ Pl. Trin. 734–5)

(c)

Helvetii . . . nonnumquam interdiu, sepius noctu si perrumpere possent conati . . . hoc conatu destiterunt. (‘The Helvetii, after having made attempts sometimes by day, more often by night, to see if they could break through . . . abandoned this attempt.’ Caes. Gal. 1.8.4)

(d)

. . . Caesar intellexit nihil aliud eos conari nisi ut se cogerent castra eo loco ponere . . . (‘. . . Caesar realized that what they were trying to do was no less than force him to pitch camp at a spot . . .’ B. Afr. 69)

(e)

Temptata res est si primo impetu capi Ardea posset. (‘An attempt was made to see if Ardea could be seized by an initial attack.’ Liv. 1.57.3) 71 See Meini (2004) on the element of uncertainty.

Finite declarative clauses

101

Supplement: Ei rei operam dare te fuerat aliquanto aequius / si qui probiorem facere posses, non uti / in eandem tute accederes infamiam . . . (Pl. Trin. 119–21); . . . non recusavit quo minus vel extremo spiritu si quam opem rei publicae ferre posset experiretur. (Cic. Phil. 9.2); Haec (sc. vipera) cum temptaret siqua res esset cibo, / Limam momordit. (Phaed. 4.8.4–5); Temptemus tamen si adhuc sorbilia sunt. (Petr. 33.5 (Trimalchio speaking)); At Germanicus . . . dandum adhuc spatium ratus si recenti exemplo sibi ipsi consulerent praemittit litteras ad Caecinam . . . (Tac. Ann. 1.48.1—NB: depends on dandum spatium)

. The use of si clauses with verbs and expressions of surprise Si clauses are used relatively frequently in combination with the verb miror ‘to be surprised’, with which the accusative and infinitive is more common and which is also found with a factive quod clause, just like emotion verbs (see § 15.8). Although one may sometimes hesitate as to whether the si clauses are really argument clauses, and not conditional satellites, the argument status is sometimes proved by the presence of preparative pronouns like id in (b) and illud in (c). The si clause normally follows the main clause. The main clause is often negative or understood as negative. The si expression differs in meaning from the other two expressions.72 There are a few attestations of negation by nisi, as in (d), unless it is a conditional clause. Instances of negation by si non are attested in Augustine, as in (e).73 (a)

Edepol minime miror si te fugitat aut oculos tuos / aut si te odit, qui istum appelles Tyndarum pro Philocrate. (‘Seriously, I’m not surprised at all if he’s avoiding you, or eye-contact with you, or if he hates you, since you address him as Tyndarus instead of Philocrates.’ Pl. Capt. 545–6)

(b)

Idne tu mirare si patrissat filius? (‘Are you surprised if the son takes after his father?’ Pl. Ps. 442)

(c)

Enim vero illud praeter alia mira miror maxume / si haec habet [pateram] illam. (‘Honestly, I am astonished if she has that bowl more than I am astonished about the other astonishing things.’ Pl. Am. 772–3)

(d)

Mirarer nisi pro tam bono patre fuisset qui mori vellet. (‘I should have been surprised had there been no son who was willing to die for so good a father.’ Sen. Con. 9.4.8)

(e)

Ubi miror si non scelere graviore mercedem tantam tanto sceleri reddiderunt. (‘Here I wonder if it was not a greater crime for them to bestow so great a reward on so great a crime.’ August. Civ. 3.15.11)

72 See Bodelot (1998: 179–81).

73 TLL s.v. miror 1067.14ff.

102

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position Most if not all of the instances of si clauses with other emotion verbs mentioned in K.-St. (II.424–5)74 can be understood as conditional satellites. An example is (f). TLL s.v. ignosco 318.81 gives (g) as an illustration of ignosco governing a si clause, but the parallelism with the quoniam clause shows that this is incorrect. Notable is the use of the conditional clause in (h), mentioned in K.-St., but it is not the counterpart of a factive quod clause. (f) (sc. Demosthenes) Qui dolere se aiebat, si quando opificum antelucana victus esset industria. (‘(Demosthenes) who said that he was grieved if ever he had been beaten by the diligence of workmen rising before the break of day.’ Cic. Tusc. 4.44) (g) Si quid in te peccavi, ac potius quoniam peccavi, ignosce. In me enim ipsum peccavi vehementius. (‘If I have treated you badly in any way, or rather since I have done so, forgive me. I have treated myself worse.’ Cic. Att. 3.15.4) (h) Commoti patres vice fortunarum humanarum, si ille praepotens opibus populus . . . adeo infractos gereret animos ut se ipse suaque omnia potestatis alienae faceret. (‘The Fathers were profoundly moved by the vicissitudes of human fortune, considering how that great and opulent people . . . was become so broken in spirit as to yield itself up with all its possessions to the dominion of another.’ Liv. 7.31.6) NB: In (i) si non is local negation (see § 8.7). (i) Minus mirandum est illaec aetas si quid illorum facit / quam si non faciat. (‘It’s less of a surprise if a man of that age does some of those things than if he doesn’t.’ Pl. Bac. 409–10)

. The use of si clauses in combination with so-called impersonal expressions Si clauses are also used in combination with various so-called impersonal expressions. An example is (a) with impersonal interest ‘it makes a difference’. More common are combinations of est with a subject complement like mirum est ‘it is remarkable’, as in (b)–(d). With these expressions several other types of clauses are found as well (notably quod clauses, accusative and infinitive clauses, and indirect questions). These clauses function as arguments. The si clauses, by contrast, are ‘normal’ conditional satellite clauses.75 (a)

Nihil interesse autem non modo si omni ex parte eiusdem modi sint sed etiam si discerni non possint. (‘That it makes no difference not only if they are alike in every aspect but also if they cannot be distinguished from each other.’ Cic. Luc. 40)

74 See also Sz.: 666.

75 See K.-St.: II.425 for the examples quoted below (and more).

Finite declarative clauses (b)

103

Nil mirum—vetus est maceria—lateres si veteres ruont. (‘It’s not surprising—the wall is old—if old bricks tumble down.’ Pl. Truc. 305)

(c)

Ecastor hau mirum si te habes carum, / hominem tam pulchrum . . . (‘Goodness, it’s no surprise if you hold yourself dear, such a beautiful man . . .’ Pl. Mil. 1041–2)

(d)

Quid mirum igitur in senibus si infirmi sint aliquando, cum id ne adulescentes quidem effugere possint? (‘What wonder, then, if the aged are sometimes weak, when even the young cannot escape the same fate?’ Cic. Sen. 35) Supplement: Plusque proficit si ponetur spes utilitatis futurae quam praeteriti beneficii commemoratio. (Cic. de Orat. 2.206); Quin et verba Flavi vulgabantur non referre dedecori si citharoedus demoveretur . . . (Tac. Ann. 15.65.1) Volup est quod agas si id procedit lepide at sententia. (Pl. Mil. 947); Mirum tibi videtur si tu loquendo talentum quaesisti? (Gracch. orat. 44); Aut, si haec dici non poterunt, dicendum erit illud extremum, non esse mirum si nunc primum deliquerit. (Cic. Inv. 2.34); ‘Minime mirum’, inquit Antonius, ‘si ista res adhuc nostra lingua inlustrata non est.’ (Cic. de Orat. 2.55); Obprobrio fuisse adulescentibus si amatores non haberent. (Cic. Rep. 4.3); Quod si eam veniam sibi dedisset tantisque implicatum rebus sublevasset, magno ei praemio futurum. (Nep. Paus. 4.6); Illud te mihi ignoscere, P. Corneli, aequum erit, si . . . ne tuam quidem gloriam bono publico praeponam. (Liv. 28.41.1); . . . si pavetis aciem, indignum id quidem . . . (Tac. Hist. 4.58.4) The negation in these cases is by non, except in the combination mirum est/mira sunt ni, as in (e). Nisi in this context is rare, but there are already three instances of mira nisi in Plautus.76 (e) . . . mirumque adeo est ni hunc fecere sibi Aetoli agoranomum. (‘. . . and it would be a surprise indeed if the Aetolians haven’t made him their market inspector.’ Pl. Capt. 824)

. The use of quasi in argument clauses with verbs and expressions of pretending In Early Latin quasi clauses can be used as second argument with verbs and expressions of pretending.77 Although they are found again in later periods, in Classical Latin accusative and infinitive clauses are the regular expression. An example in which both expressions co-occur is (a).

76 For further examples, see TLL s.v. mirus 1074.20ff. 77 The material can be found in Bennett (1900: 416–17). For comparative data, see Perrochat (1932b: 89–94).

104 (a)

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position Ita praecipito mulieri atque ancillulae, / ut simulet se tuam esse uxorem et deperire hunc militem, / quasique hunc anulum faveae suae dederit . . . (‘Instruct the woman and her maid that the woman has to pretend to be your wife and to be madly in love with this soldier, and that she has to act as though she were giving this ring to her favourite slave girl . . .’ Pl. Mil. 795–7) Supplement (in alphabetical order by verb): Assimulato quasi gubernator sies. (Pl. Mil. 1181); Adibo atque adsimulabo quasi nunc exeam. (Ter. Eu. 461); Sed nimium lepide dissimulant quasi nil sciant / fore huius quod futurum est. (Pl. Cas. 771–2); Simulabo quasi non videam. (Pl. Per. 84)

. The use of tamquam (si) and quasi in argument clauses with verbs and expressions of accusing and of emotion and with verbs of communication From Seneca the Elder onwards tamquam ‘on the ground that’ clauses are used as argument with verbs and expressions of accusing, blaming, excusing, etc. and with verbs and expressions of emotion. Semantically, the expressions differ from the more common quod clauses (see § 15.10) and accusative and infinitive clauses (see §§ 15.97–8) in that the author does not commit himself to the truth of the reason for the accusation or emotion to which the clause refers.78 Later on, quasi is used in a similar way, especially by Suetonius. Examples are (a)–(c).79 (For conditional comparative adjuncts, see § 16.66.) (a)

Diligentius me tibi excusarem tamquam huic rei non essem natus, nisi scirem . . . (‘I should take more pains in my defence (pleading that I was not born for such things) if I didn’t know . . .’ Sen. Con. 3.pr.14)

(b)

Deinde iam me pudet tamquam diu non seriam rem agam. (‘More recently I have begun to be ashamed on the ground that for a long time I haven’t been doing anything of substance.’ Sen. Con. 10.pr.1)

(c)

De reddenda re p. bis cogitavit. Primum post oppressum statim Antonium, memor obiectum sibi ab eo saepius quasi per ipsum staret ne redderetur. (‘He twice thought of restoring the republic. First immediately after the overthrow of Antony, remembering that the criticism was often laid against him by his rival on the ground that it was his fault that it was not restored.’ Suet. Aug. 28.1)

Whereas in (a)–(c) the content of the accusation or shame is at the same time the reason for it, this is different for (d) and (e), where the governing expressions are verbs of communication. 78 For the meaning of tamquam in these contexts, see Bodelot (2011: 271–2) and Baños (2014: 73). 79 For the use of tamquam (si) in argument clauses and its development from satellite clauses (see § 16.66), see Bennett (1900) and Bodelot (2011; 2014b). For quasi, see Bennett (1900). See also Rosén and Shalev (2017).

Finite interrogative clauses (indirect questions) (d)

105

(sc. Plautius Silvanus) . . . turbata mente respondit tamquam ipse somno gravis atque eo ignarus et uxor sponte mortem sumpsisset. (‘. . . he replied in a disturbed state of mind to the effect that he had been heavily asleep and therefore unaware and that his wife took death upon herself.’ Tac. Ann. 4.22.1— tr. Woodman, with adjustment)

(e)

Nam quo pertinuit . . . differri . . . etiam per externos tamquam veneno interceptus esset . . . (‘And what was the point of its being spread abroad, and among foreigners too, that he had met a premature death from poison?’ Tac. Ann. 3.12.4—tr. Woodman) Supplement (in alphabetical order by governing expression): Atriplex . . . accusatum a Pythagora tamquam faceret hydropicos morbosque regios . . . (Plin. Nat. 20.219—NB: following André in his Budé edition); . . . admonentibus domesticis quasi plura polliceretur quam praestare posset . . . (Suet. Tit. 8.1); . . . ut hic pauper inputet diviti tamquam praevaricatus sit. (Quint. Decl. 333.3); Omnes infamaverunt adulescentem quasi illius criminationibus factum sit ut frater abdicaretur. (Sen. Con. 2.4.7); At Cicero . . . reprehenditur a quibusdam tamquam orationem ad rhythmos alliget. (Quint. Inst. 9.4.53—unless it is an adjunct); Diversitas supplicii illuc respicit, tamquam scelera ostendi oporteat dum puniuntur, flagitia abscondi. (Tac. Ger. 12.2—NB: preparative illuc) NB: An early example may be: At primum sumpseras tamquam interesset. (Cic. Luc. 44).80

15.45 Finite interrogative argument clauses (indirect questions) The notion ‘indirect question’ covers a variety of expressions, only some of which correspond to direct questions in that they refer to a situation in which a speaker or writer wants to obtain information from an addressee (see §§ 6.5–26). This is the situation in (a), where the indirect question sit which is dependent on rogas corresponds to the immediately preceding direct question which is directed to an addressee. In (b), however, the indirect question does not presuppose an addressee. Exx. (a) and (b) do, nevertheless, share a common feature in that they both refer to a lack of information. The notion ‘indirect question’ is also used for indirect exclamatory argument clauses, such as (c). In such cases there is no lack of information involved (see § 15.89). (a)

Estne ea intu’? # Sit rogas? (‘Is she inside? # Are you asking whether she’s inside?’ Ter. Hau. 454)

(b)

Pol ego haud scio quid post fuat. (‘I don’t know what’ll happen later on.’ Pl. Aul. 426)

(c)

Vide palliolum ut rugat. (‘Look how your cloak is all crumpled.’ Pl. Cas. 246) 80 See Bodelot (2014b: 200–1).

106

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position

Further details concerning the governing expressions are discussed in § 15.46. It is often difficult to decide whether a sequence that consists of a verb of communication and a question is an instance of a complex sentence with an indirect question or of two independent sentences, one of which is a direct question. This problem is particularly acute if the question is in the indicative mood; specific contexts are discussed in § 7.133. Here an illustration with dic ‘tell me’ will suffice. In (d), the question is in the subjunctive (malis), which makes it attractive (though not necessary) to consider the sequence si . . . malis as a subordinate clause (an indirect question). In (e) est is indicative, which makes it attractive (though not necessary) to consider Roscia . . . offert an independent sentence (a direct question), with dic sodes inserted as a parenthesis.81 (d)

‘Dic mihi’, quaeso, ‘Xenophontis uxor, si vicina tua melius habeat aurum quam tu habes, utrum illudne an tuum malis?’ (‘If your neighbour had a better gold ornament than you have, please tell me, wife of Xenophon, whether you would prefer that one or your own?’ Cic. Inv. 1.51)

(e)

Roscia, dic sodes, melior lex an puerorum est / nenia quae regnum recte facientibus offert . . . (‘Tell me, pray: is the Roscian law better or the children’s jingle which offers a kingdom to those who “do right” . . .’ Hor. Ep. 1.1.62–3)

For the use of the moods in indirect questions see § 7.133–7; for the tenses, see § 7.98. Appendix: In Late Latin the infinitive is occasionally found in indirect questions instead of a subjunctive finite form.82 An example is (f). (f) . . . non habent quid respondere. (‘. . . they do not know what response to make.’ August. Psal. Don. 40)

. Verbs and expressions governing indirect questions The verbs that can govern an indirect question can be classified into four categories (see also § 15.52 and § 15.56):83 1

2

verba interrogandi, comprising the verbs that mean ‘to ask for information’, such as quaero ‘to seek to know about’ (OLD § 8) and rogo ‘to ask’; verbs of this class constitute 6 per cent of all expressions governing an indirect question in Bodelot’s sample. With these verbs the source of the information is often expressed. verba investigandi, comprising the verbs that mean ‘to try to find out’, such as cogito ‘to consider’, experior ‘to try out’, quaero ‘to examine’ (OLD § 9), tempto

81 This is the way the two examples are treated in the TLL s.v. dico 983.46 and 983.18f., respectively. In TLL s.v. an 6.47 (e) is treated as an independent question. 82 Examples are discussed by Martínez-Pais (1994). 83 Following Bodelot (1987: 25–51; 2003: 211–14).

Finite interrogative clauses (indirect questions)

3

4

107

‘to find out by trial’ (OLD § 3c), viso ‘to go and look at’; verbs of this class constitute 11 per cent of the expressions governing an indirect question. verba declarandi, comprising verbs of communication, such as dico ‘to say’, narro ‘to tell’, scribo ‘to write’, and statuo ‘to make up one’s mind’ (OLD § 14); verbs of this class constitute 20 per cent of the expressions governing an indirect question. verba sciendi, sentiendi, etc., comprising verbs of perception and cognition, such as dubito ‘to be in doubt’, existimo ‘to think’, intellego ‘to understand’, miror ‘to be surprised’, paenitet ‘to give reason for regret’, scio ‘to know’ and nescio ‘not to know’, timeo ‘to fear’, and video ‘to see’; verbs of this class constitute 63 per cent of the expressions governing an indirect question.

It is only for verbs of the first class that the indirect questions may reflect real questions, but even with these verbs this is often not the case: the reported words are so general that it is difficult to reconstruct a particular utterance from them, for example in (a), where the original wording of the question cannot be determined with any precision. (a)

Rogant me servi quo eam. Dico me ire quo saturi solent. (‘The servants asked me where I was going. I said I was going where those who are full normally go.’ Pl. Cur. 362)

As for the distribution of the two types of indirect questions, viz. clausal questions (corresponding to ‘sentence questions’ in §  6.8) and ‘constituent questions’ (see § 6.19), the former are relatively uncommon with verbs and expressions belonging to classes (iii) and (iv), and certain combinations are excluded for obvious reasons. Typical combinations are (b) and (c), whereas something like (d) is not attested or conceivable.84 (b)

Requireres, / rogitares quis esset aut unde esset, qua prosapia, / civisne esset an peregrinus. (‘You should have inquired and asked who he was or where he was from, from what family, and whether he was a citizen or a foreigner.’ Pl. Mer. 633–5)

(c)

Scio quam rem agat. (‘I know what he’s up to.’ Pl. Aul. 574)

(d)

*Scio civisne sit.

. Types of interrogative argument clauses (indirect questions) Just as with interrogative sentences, a distinction must be made between two types of interrogative clauses: simple indirect questions and multiple (or: disjunctive) indirect questions (see § 6.6). 84 See Bodelot (2003: 220–5).

108

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position

. Simple interrogative argument clauses (indirect questions) Again, just as with direct questions (see § 6.7), simple indirect questions can be subdivided into clausal questions, exemplified by (a), and constituent questions, exemplified by (b). The same verb may govern coordinated pairs belonging to these two types of clauses, as in (c). (a)

Rogato servos veneritne ad eum tuos. (‘You must then ask whether your slave has come to him.’ Pl. Poen. 181)

(b)

Quid nos opinemur audietis ex iuratis. (‘What we think, you will learn from the evidence of witnesses on oath.’ Cic. Cael. 4)

(c)

. . . cum ex me quidam quaesisset quo die Roma exissem et num quidnam esset novi. (‘. . . when someone asked me on what day I had left Rome, and whether there was any news.’ Cic. Planc. 65)

15.49 Indirect clausal questions Indirect clausal questions usually contain one of the question particles or ec- compounds that are common in direct questions. The absence of such devices is rare for indirect questions, in notable contrast to direct questions, where they are very frequently omitted. The most common particles are -ne, num (and its compounds) and an(ne); by contrast, nonne, si, utrum, and nē (not clitic!) are very rare. Livy has two instances of the interjection en in indirect questions (for its use in direct questions, see § 6.15). For the Late Latin use of ne, see § 6.11 Appendix. 15.50 Indirect clausal questions without a question particle Indirect questions without an interrogative particle are very rare85 and accordingly the instances in question have sometimes been emended, as in (a). The best early example is (b), but there are a few more in combination with other clearly marked indirect questions, as in (c).  (a)

Hic nunc volo scire eodem pacto sine malo fateamini. (‘I want to know now whether you admit it here in the same way without a beating.’ Pl. Truc. 779—add. Studemund)

(b)

Estne ea intu’? # Sit rogas? (‘Is she inside? # Are you asking whether she’s inside?’ Ter. Hau. 454)

(c)

Quom ipsi interea vivant, valeant, / ubi sint, quid agant, ecquid agant / nec participant nos nec redeunt. (‘That they aren’t returning and don’t let us know whether in the meantime they themselves are alive and in good health, where they are, what they’re doing, if they’re doing anything.’ Pl. St. 31–3) 85 See Sz.: 542. For a problematic passage in Cic. Tusc. 1.60, see Lundström (1986: 32–6).

Finite interrogative clauses (indirect questions)

109

Supplement: De Theopompo, summo homine, negleximus, qui ubi terrarum sit, quid agat, vivat denique an mortuus sit, quis aut scit aut curat? (Cic. Phil. 13.33); Rure iam redierim quaeris. (Hirt. Att. 15.6.2—add. Wesenberg); Debes hoc etiam rescribere sit tibi curae (si tibi curae cj. Chabot) / quantae conveniat Munatius. (Hor. Ep. 1.3.30–1); Tu pande vivat coniugis frater mei / et pande teneat quas soror sedes mea. (Sen. Ag. 404–5) It is not surprising that there are so few attestations: with most governing verbs a subordinate clause without a subordinating device would be ambiguous.

15.51 Indirect clausal questions with a question particle Of the three most frequent interrogative particles in indirect clausal questions in Early and Classical Latin (-ne, num, and an), an is mostly restricted to contexts of uncertainty (haud scio an, nescio an ‘I don’t know if ’, dubito an ‘I am wondering whether’). The particle -ne is the most frequent of the three: in Cicero there are more instances of indirect -ne than of num and an together. After Terence it is rare in poetry.86 Whereas in Classical Latin -ne and num when used in direct questions have different meanings (-ne neutral as to the response expected, num expecting a negative response), this is less obvious in the case of indirect questions. In (a) and (b) the two particles are used in identical contexts, which is taken as proof of their interchangeability.87 However, in (b) the num clause refers to a situation that is considered undesirable by the person who requests the information, so here num seems to be fully justified (for further discussion, see below § 15.54). (a)

Atque etiam ante iudicium de constituendo ipso iudicio solet esse contentio, cum aut sitne actio illi qui agit aut iamne sit aut num iam esse desierit aut illane lege hisne verbis sit actio quaeritur. (‘And even before the trial begins there is usually a dispute about the institution of the trial itself, when the question is raised whether the party taking proceedings has the right to do so, or has the right to do so yet, or has now ceased to have it, or whether action is open to him under the law cited, or in the terms employed.’ Cic. Part. 99)

(b)

Ac facti quidem controversia in omnia tempora potest tribui. Nam quid factum sit, potest quaeri, hoc modo: occideritne Aiacem Ulixes; et quid fiat, hoc modo: bonone animo sint erga populum Romanum Fregellani; et quid futurum sit, hoc modo: si Carthaginem reliquerimus incolumem, num quid sit incommodi ad rem publicam perventurum. (‘As to the dispute about a fact, this can be assigned to any time. For the question can be “What has been done?” in the following way “Did Ulysses kill Ajax?” and “What is being done?,” e.g. “Are the Fregellans friendly to the Roman people?” and what is

86 For the general decrease of -ne, especially in prose, see TLL s.v. 261.25ff.; for its decrease in indirect questions, see 271.71f. For quantitative and distributional data concerning these question particles, see Bodelot (2002b). 87 So K.-St.: II.513.

110

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position going to occur, e.g.“If we leave Carthage untouched, will any harm come to the Roman state?” ’ Cic. Inv. 1.11)

After the classical period -ne and num are gradually replaced by an. To give one example, whereas in Classical Latin there are numerous instances of -ne and num with the verb quaero ‘to inquire’, with no sure attestation of an,88 in Seneca, by contrast, an is normal, as in (c).89 Instances of variation of the two particles as in (d) provide further evidence for their equivalence in Post-Classical Latin. (c)

Hoc tam invisum vitium an inpunitum esse debeat quaeritur . . . (‘Some raise the question whether a vice so odious as this ought to go unpunished . . .’ Sen. Ben. 3.6.1)

(d)

Ubi in balneum venit, paulisper resistere experirique num tempora adstringantur et an sudor aliqui oriatur. (‘On arriving at the bath, he should sit for a while to try whether his temples become tightened, and whether any sweat arises.’ Cels. 2.17.6)

15.52 The use of -ne in indirect clausal questions The regular context of -ne is with verbs and expressions that indicate or imply a request for information: examples are (a)–(b). However, other governing verbs are also found from Plautus onwards, as in (c). Examples for the four classes of governing verbs mentioned in § 15.46 can be found in the Supplement. The particle is normally attached to the first full word of the indirect question, as in (a). That word is usually the verb of the clause, but it can be another word that constitutes the scope of the question (for scope, see § 6.8). The particle is occasionally attached to a question word, as in (d). (a)

Quid tu igitur rogitas tene obiurigem? (‘Then why do you ask if it’s you that I’m reproaching?’ Pl. Trin. 70)

(b)

. . . ex quibus quaererem signa scirentne fuisse quae non essent. (‘. . . I would make them say whether they knew of the previous existence of statues that were no longer there.’ Cic. Ver. 1.51)

(c)

Contempla, amabo, mea Scapha, sati’n haec me vestis deceat. (‘Look me over, please, my dear Scapha, to see if this dress suits me nicely.’ Pl. Mos. 166)

(d)

. . . Teutonorum legatus respondit interrogatus quantine eum aestimaret donari sibi nolle talem vivum verumque. (‘. . . the Teuton envoy when asked what he thought was the value of it said that he would rather not have even the living original as a gift.’ Plin. Nat. 35.25) Supplement (in alphabetical order by verb): Class 1 (see § 15.46): Ecastor equidem te certo heri advenientem ilico / et salutavi et valuissesne usque exquisivi simul . . . (Pl. Am. 714–15); . . . commilitones appellans et 88 For a few (apparent) exceptions, most textually uncertain, see K.-St.: II.522. 89 For the use of an in Seneca, see Brodmuehler (1914: 45–6).

Finite interrogative clauses (indirect questions)

111

magna verborum contumelia interrogans solerentne veterani milites fugere . . . (Caes. Civ. 3.71.4); Quaero autem . . . iturine ad Pompeium et, si sunt, qua quandove ituri sint. (Cic. Att. 9.1.2); Volo uti mihi respondeas . . . fecerisne ante rostra pontem . . . (Cic. Vat. 21); Ac ne subito a me obprimantur, haec sum rogaturus: navem populo Romano debeantne? (Cic. Ver. 4.150); Illa (sc. mater) rogare, quantane (sc. belua fratres elisisset). (Hor. S. 316–17) Class 2: Tui consili est, si tempus, si senatus coget, si honeste a nobis recusari non poterit, velisne perseverare; mei offici est meminisse qua obtestatione decedens mihi ne paterer fieri mandaris. (Cic. Fam. 8.10.5—NB: parallelism with infinitive); Primum, sitne ambiguum, quaerendum’t; (Rhet. Her. 2.16); Abi intro ad vos domum / continuo, vide sitne istaec vostra intus. (Pl. Mil. 535–6) Class 3: Tu igitur ne de Persarum quidem rege magno potes dicere beatusne sit. (Cic. Tusc. 5.35); Sed tamen velim scribas ad me, primum placeatne tibi aliquid ad illum, deinde, si placebit, hocne potissimum. (Cic. Att. 13.6.2); Haec consensu produntur. Aspexeritne matrem exanimem Nero et formam corporis eius laudaverit, sunt qui tradiderint, sunt qui abnuant. (Tac. Ann. 14.9.1—NB: instead of an accusative and infinitive clause) Class 4: . . . alterum fortasse dubitabunt, sitne tantum in virtute, ut ea praediti vel in Phalaridis tauro beati sint, alterum non dubitabunt, quin et Stoici convenientia sibi dicant et vos repugnantia. (Cic. Fin. 5.85); Verum homines notos sumere odiosum est, cum et illud incertum sit velintne hi sese nominari, et . . . (Cic. S. Rosc. 47); Sed haec ipsa nescio rectene sint litteris commissa. (Cic. Fam. 2.5.2); . . . parum constitit bellone publico gentis universae tuendi Veientes essent. (Liv. 4.61.2); Hoc primum ex te, de quo modo Antonius exposuit, quid sentias, quaerimus, existimesne artem aliquam esse dicendi. (Cic. de Orat. 1.102)

15.53 The use of nonne in indirect clausal questions Nonne is only attested six times, and only in Cicero, as in (a), expecting the answer ‘yes’. (a)

Quaero igitur a te, L. Piso, nonne oppressam rem publicam putes, si tot tam impii, tam audaces, tam facinerosi recepti sint. (‘Then I ask you, Lucius Piso, whether you would not regard the Republic as crushed if so many who are so wicked, so bold, and so vicious are taken back.’ Cic. Phil. 12.15)

15.54 The use of num in indirect clausal questions In Cicero about half of the instances of indirect questions with num depend on verbs and expressions that indicate or imply a request for information. In most of these the num clause refers to a situation that is viewed as negative in some way by the person who requests the information, as in direct questions. Examples are (a) and (b). Sometimes in a similar context it is difficult to see a negative implication, as in (c). For a rare example of another type of governing verb with which a num clause is used, again with a negative implication, see (d). Normally with such verbs the negative implication is absent.90 (a)

Tum (sc. Sophocles) senex dicitur eam fabulam quam in manibus habebat et proxime scripserat, Oedipum Coloneum, recitasse iudicibus quaesisseque 90 For a discussion of all the Ciceronian instances of num, see Stegmann (1890: 25–9).

112

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position num illud carmen desipientis videretur. Quo recitato sententiis iudicum est liberatus. (‘Thereupon, it is said that the old man read to the jury his play, Oedipus at Colonus, which he was carrying with him and had just written, and that he inquired whether that poem seemed to be the work of an imbecile. When he had finished reciting it he was acquitted by the verdict of the jury.’ Cic. Sen. 22)

(b)

Quaerit ex proximo vicino num feriae quaedam piscatorum essent, quod eos nullos videret. ‘Nullae, quod sciam’ ille . . . (‘He asked his next-door neighbour whether it was a fishermen’s holiday, since he did not see a sign of them. “Not so far as I know,” he said . . .’ Cic. Off. 3.59)

(c)

Velim . . . alicui des negotium qui quaerat Q.  Staberi fundus num quis in Pompeiano Nolanove venalis sit. (‘Please . . . commission someone to find out whether there is a farm belonging to Q. Staberius for sale in the district of Pompeii or Nola.’ Cic. Att. 13.8.1)

(d)

Nunc huc intro ibo, visam hesternas reliquias, / quierintne recte necne, num infuerit febris, / opertaen’ fuerint, ne quis obreptaverit. (‘Now I’ll go in here and and check on yesterday’s leftovers to see whether they have slept well or not, whether they’ve caught a fever, and whether they’ve been covered, so that no one could have approached them stealthily.’ Pl. Per. 77–9—NB: infuerit is often emended)

Num becomes less frequent from the Augustan period onwards, its place being taken by an—already normal in Silver Latin—and by numquid, for example in Seneca (see also § 6.13). An example is (e). (e)

Observa te itaque numquid vestis tua domusque dissentiant, numquid in te liberalis sis, in tuos sordidus, numquid cenes frugaliter, aedifices luxuriose. (‘Observe yourself, then, and see whether your dress and your house are inconsistent, whether you treat yourself lavishly and your family meanly, whether you eat frugal dinners and yet build luxurious houses.’ Sen. Ep. 20.3) Supplement (in alphabetical order by verb): Class 1 (see § 15.46): A quibus si qui quaereret sedissentne iudices in C. Fabricium, sedisse se dicerent. Si interrogarentur num quo crimine is esset accusatus praeterquam veneni eius quod quaesitum Habito diceretur, negarent. (Cic. Clu. 105); Hic iam de ipso accusatore quaero, qui P. Sestium queritur cum multitudine in tribunatu et cum praesidio magno fuisse, num illo die fuerit? Certe non fuit. (Cic. Sest. 78); An Lacedaemonii Philippo minitante per litteras se omnia quae conarentur prohibiturum quaesiverunt num se esset etiam mori prohibiturus. (Cic. Tusc. 5.42); Interrogatusque a Tiberio num se mandante eam sententiam prompsisset, sponte dixisse respondit . . . (Tac. Ann. 1.8.4) Class 2: Quaeso, reputate cum animis vostris num id mutare melius sit . . . (Sal. Jug. 85.10); Simul circumvehi procul castra iubet specularique num auctum aliqua parte sit vallum, et ut attendant semel bisne signum canat in castris. (Liv. 27.47.3); Vide ergo num satius sit aut invulnerabilem animum dicere aut animum extra omnem

Finite interrogative clauses (indirect questions)

113

patientiam positum. (Sen. Ep. 9.2); Nequeo mirari satis / quo ille abire ignavo’ possit longius, nisi si domum / forte ad nos rediit. # Vise amabo num sit. # Iam faxo scies. (Ter. Eu. 661–3) Class 3: Et haud facile dixerim num illa tanto expeditiora sint discentibus artificia, quanto minus ampla sunt. (Col. 11.1.9); Tu tamen mitte, quaeso, mihi obviam litteras numquid putes rei publicae nomine tardandum esse nobis. (Cic. Att. 6.7.2); . . . perscribe ad me omnia, sed diligentissime in primisque num quid iudiciorum status aut factorum aut futurorum etiam laboret. (Cic. Att. 5.13.3); Volo uti mihi respondeas num quis ex toto collegio legem sit ausus ferre praeter unum te? (Cic. Vat. 17—NB: editors assume a lacuna at this point, with various proposals to emend) Class 4: Dubito num idem tibi suadere quod mihi debeam. (Plin. Ep. 6.27.1); Opperiar, ut sciam num quid nam haec turba tristitiae adferat. (Ter. An. 235); Sed velim scire quid adventus Octavi, num qui concursus ad eum, num quae xpƒ~p{t}wzŪ suspicio. (Cic. Att. 14.5.3) The precise contribution of num to the meaning of the indirect question is much disputed. The presentation given above follows essentially Stegmann (1890). For a more sceptical view of the negative interpretation of num clauses, see Bodelot (2003: 251–5). Noteworthy is the use of num expecting a negative answer ‘whether by any chance’ in combination with permoveor ‘I am filled with concern’ in (f). (f) . . . plerumque permoveor num ad ipsum referri verius sit . . . (‘I have often been moved whether it might be more probable for it to be ascribed to the man himself . . .’ Tac. Ann. 4.57.1—tr. Martin and Woodman)

15.55 The use of utrum in indirect clausal questions Utrum alone is used in simple indirect questions in literary Late Latin.91 An example is (a). (a)

Utrum Mediolani etiam nunc posito pagina ista reddenda sit in ambiguo conloco. (‘I am in doubt whether, on the assumption that you are still in Milan, this page should be sent to you there.’ Symm. Ep. 1.86)

15.56 The use of an in indirect clausal questions In Early and Classical Latin, indirect questions with an very rarely reflect true questions. Its usual contexts are expressions of uncertainty (haud scio, nescio, dubito) (class 4), as in (a)–(c). The verb rogo is used with an only from Ovid onwards, as in (d), a request to obtain information (class 1). Verbs of communication (class 3) are exceptional. (a)

Nunc hunc hau scio an colloquar. (‘Now I don’t know if I should talk to him.’ Pl. Mos. 783)

(b)

De accessione dubito an Apronio ipsi data sit merces operae atque inpudentiae. (‘As for the fee, it may possibly have been given to Apronius himself as the pay for his trouble—and his unblushing knavery.’ Cic. Ver. 3.76) 91 See Haverling (1988: 237–8).

114 (c)

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position Qui scis an tibi istuc eveniat prius quam mihi? (‘How do you know that won’t happen to you rather than to me?’ Pl. Mos. 58)

(d)

At si forte roges fecundam Amathunta metallis / an genuisse velit Propoetidas, abnuat . . . (‘But if you should chance to ask Amathus, rich in veins of ore, if she is glad that she gave birth to the Propoetides, she would repudiate . . .’ Ov. Met. 10.220–1) Supplement (in alphabetical order by verb): Class 1 (see § 15.46): Cum versus facias, te ipsum percontor an et cum / dura tibi peragenda rei sit causa Petilli? (Hor. S. 1.10.25–6); . . . te quaerere ex iis . . . iubebat an ferrum habuissent . . . (Liv. 40.14.7); . . . quem dereptum vehiculo sarcinis gravant aguntque primo in agmine per ludibrium rogitantes an tam immensa onera, tam longa itinera libenter ferret. (Tac. Ann. 1.20.1) Class 2: Non quaeritur nunc an profueris mihi sed an beneficium dederis. (Sen. Ben. 5.19.6); Et ipsum dolorem scrutamur an aliquid habeat iucundum circa se et voluptarium. (Sen. Ep. 99.28); Itane? Temptas an sciamus? (Pl. Poen. 557); Vide an sub his exemplis patri fortius loqui liceat. (Sen. Con. 10.3.8) Class 3: An priores coeperint Alexandreae et Pergami reges, qui bibliothecas magno certamine instituere, non facile dixerim. (Plin. Nat. 35.10); Diplomata, domine, quorum dies praeterit, an omnino observari et quam diu velis rogo scribas . . . (Plin. Ep. 10.45) Class 4: An dolo malo factum sit ambigitur. (Cic. Tul. fr. 1b); Tum M. Curtium, iuvenem bello egregium, castigasse ferunt dubitantes an ullum magis Romanum bonum quam arma virtusque esset. (Liv. 7.6.3); Haec memorans animo nunc huc, nunc fluctuat illuc, / an sese mucroni ob tantum dedecus amens / induat et crudum per costas exigat ensem, / fluctibus an iaciat mediis et litora nando / curva petat Teucrumque iterum se reddat in arma. (Verg. A. 10.680–4); Moriendum enim certe est et incertum an hoc ipso die. (Cic. Sen. 74); Nescio an noris hominem, quamquam nosse debes . . . (Plin. Ep. 6.21.3); Atque haud scio an quae dixit sint vera omnia, / sed parvi pendo. (Ter. An. 525–6) Other: Di te perdant, si te flocci facio an periisses prius. (Pl. Trin. 992); Nam quid id refert mea / an aula quassa cum cinere effossus siet? (Pl. Cur. 395–6) Verb to be supplied (brachylogy): (sc. Latro) Divisit in ius et aequitatem, an abdicari possit, an debeat. (Sen. Con. 1.1.13) In the Classical period the combinations haud scio an and nescio an functioned as idioms, meaning more or less ‘perhaps’. An example is (e). The idiomatic status of these expressions appears also from their use below the clause level, for example as a modifier of an adjective, as in (f). They resemble the expressions fortasse an, forsitan, fors fuat an (for which see (g)). (e) Constantiam dico. Nescio an melius patientiam possim dicere. (‘I call it constancy. Perhaps it would be better to say “endurance”.’ Cic. Lig. 26) (f) Quorum quidem testem non mediocrem, sed haud scio an gravissimum Regulum nolite quaeso vituperare. (‘And pray do not disparage Regulus, as no unimportant witness—nay, I am rather inclined to think he was the very best witness—to the truth of their doctrine.’ Cic. Off. 3.105)

Finite interrogative clauses (indirect questions)

115

(g) Nam istaec quae tibi renuntiantur, filium / te velle amantem argento circumducere, / fors fuat an istaec dicta sint mendacia. (‘Well, as for the things reported to you, that your lovesick son wants to swindle you out of your money, perhaps those words are lies.’ Pl. Ps. 430–2)

15.57 The use of si in indirect clausal questions The use of si in indirect clausal questions is first attested with verbs and expressions of seeing, in rare instances like (a) and (b). It is much more common for these verbs to be used with indirect question particles such as -ne. Note the instances with -ne in (c) and with num in (d). Ex. (e) shows si clauses functioning in basically the same way as the -ne clauses in the following sentence, with both being governed by the verb quaero ‘to inquire’, ‘to examine’ in the preceding text. Ex. (f) has the si indirect question preceded by preparative id, which shows beyond doubt that it is an argument clause, and not a satellite.92 Note that here the si clause is in the indicative (more examples in the Supplement). By the time of Vitruvius, si is firmly established as an indirect question particle. It survives in the Romance languages.93 (a)

Viso huc amator si a foro rediit domum . . . (‘I’m popping by here to see if our lover has come back home from the market . . .’ Pl. Cas. 591)

(b)

Vide vero si tibi satis placet.94 (‘But see if you like it well enough.’ Pl. Per. 825)

(c)

Abi, vise redieritne iam an nondum domum. (‘Go and see if he’s returned home yet or not.’ Ter. Ph. 445)

(d)

Vide num moratur. (‘See if he keeps you waiting.’ Pl. Mos. 614)

(e)

(quaeritur) De expetendo et fugiendo huius modi: Si expetendae divitiae, si fugienda paupertas. De aequo et iniquo: Aequumne sit ulcisci a quocumque iniuriam acceperis. (‘Questions about what to seek and what to avoid are like this: Whether riches should be sought? Whether poverty should be avoided. A question about right and wrong: Whether it is right to take vengeance on whomsoever has wronged you.’ Cic. Top. 84)

(f)

Nulla lex satis commoda omnibus est. Id modo quaeritur, si maiori parti et in summam prodest. (‘No law is entirely convenient for everyone; this alone is asked, whether it is good for the majority and on the whole.’ Liv. 34.3.5)

Indirect questions with si normally follow the main clause. However, (g) has the reverse order, which is the normal one for si conditional clauses; a translation ‘in case

92 So Bräunlich (1920: 96). 93 For discussion, see Bräunlich (1920: 201–4), Arias (1995), Herman (1996b), and Bodelot (2013). 94 This example is taken as an instance of purpose si clauses (see § 16.59) by Bodelot (2013: 369).

116

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position

he has returned’ is not impossible. The negation of si indirect questions is by non, as in (h). (g)

Nunc redeo. Si forte frater redierit viso. (‘I’ve come back here now: I’m seeing whether maybe my brother has returned.’ Ter. Ad. 549)

(h)

Vide amabo, si non, quom aspicias, os inpudens / videtur! (‘Please take a look and see if, when you look at him, his face doesn’t seem impudent.’ Ter. Eu. 838–9) Supplement (in alphabetical order by verb):95 Class 1 (see § 15.46): Et sic singulariter interrogat episcopus vicinos eius, qui intravit, dicens: ‘si bonae vitae est hic, si parentibus deferet, si ebriacus non est aut vanus?’ (Pereg. 45.3);96 Et interrogatus a Iudaeis si ipse esset Christus . . . (Tert. Prax. 22.9); Pilatus autem audiens Galilaeam interrogavit, si homo Galilaeus esset. (Vulg. Luc. 23.6); Chlamydes Lucullus, ut aiunt, / si posset centum scaenae praebere rogatus / ‘Qui possum tot?’ ait. (Hor. Ep. 1.6.40–2); Hoc per tuam caritatem rogo, quod praesens praesentem rogare volueram, si eius haberem copiam. (August. Ep. 148.4) Class 2: Sed hoc . . . considerandum, ut prius rettuli, si facilis est humus . . . (Col. 3.11.6); Inspice si possum donata reponere laetus. (Hor. Ep. 1.7.39); . . . consulibus permisere ut perspecto iure et si qua iniquitas involveretur, rem integram rursum ad senatum referrent. (Tac. Ann. 3.63.1—NB: coordination with iure);97 Quaerebam, sicca si posset piscis harena / nec solitus ponto vivere torvus aper, / aut ego si possem studiis vigilare severis. (Prop. 2.3a.5–7); Et de hoc enim quaeratur, si spiritus hominis ipsius salvus erit. (Tert. Pud. 13.24); Vide si hoc utibile magis atque in rem deputas, / ut ipsum adeam Lesbonicum, edoceam ut res se habet. (Pl. Trin. 748–9); Vide, quaere, circumspice, siquis est forte ex ea provincia in qua tu triennium praefuisti qui te nolit perisse. (Cic. Ver. 3.180); Hoc in genere primum sicut in ceteris, si quid aut ex coniecturali aut ex alia constitutione sumi possit, videri oportebit. (Cic. Inv. 2.87); Inscriptio quoque vide diligenter si haec satis idonea tibi videtur. (Petr. 71.12 (Trimalchio speaking)); Vide si potes imbenire . . . (CEL 144.6–7 (Karanis, ad 115)); Videamus nunc, si et apostolus formam vocabuli istius secundum Genesim observat . . . (Tert. Virg. 6.1); Videamus si Filius quidem animam suam posuit, et ei animam suam Pater reddidit, non ipse sibi. (August. Serm. 52.13); Ibo, visam si domi’st. (Ter. Hau. 170) Class 3: Dic mihi si tanti agrum vendidistis. (Vulg. Act. 5.8); . . . ostendat si haeretico aliquid concedendum putavit aut si fidem et baptisma eorum probavit aut si perfidos et blasphemos remissionem peccatorum accipere extra ecclesiam posse constituit. (Cypr. Ep. 73.14.3); Quid est quod mi non rescripsisti si panes percepisti. (CEL 73.3–4 (Wâdi Fawâkhir, c. ad 50)) Class 4: At haec falsa videntes homines non reprehendunt sed delectantur, neque animadvertunt, si quid eorum fieri potest necne. (Vitr. 7.5.4); Sed fatis incerta feror

95 A collection of instances can be found in Arias (1995: 304–8), not all of them convincing. 96 Väänänen (1987: 96, n. 223) assumes that the actual words were spoken in Greek. 97 For another interpretation (variation of ablative absolute and si clause), see Woodman and Martin ad loc.

Finite interrogative clauses (indirect questions)

117

si Iuppiter unam / esse velit Tyriis urbem Troiaque profectis, / miscerive probet populos aut foedera iungi. (Verg. A. 4.110–12); De ipsa autem testa, si sit optima seu vitiosa ad structuram, statim nemo potest iudicare . . . (Vitr. 2.8.19); Nescio si quid amplius ad controversiam baptismi ventilatur. (Tert. Bapt. 15.1); Nescio si versatur ante oculos vestros nisi Christus . . . (August. Serm. 45.6); Tum mihi naturae libeat perdiscere mores, /. . . sub terris sint iura deum et tormenta nocentum, / Tisiphones atro si furit angue caput . . . (Prop. 3.5.25–40) There is a rich literature on the question of how this interrogative use of si developed.98 It is plausible that the use of si was extended from its use with verbs and expressions like exspecto, where the si clause refers to an ‘undetermined situation’99 (see § 15.40), to verbs like viso and video (in a context that implies obtaining information, for instance an imperative form like vide). Both with verbs and expressions of ‘waiting in expectation’ and ‘trying’ as well as in indirect questions, the situation referred to in the subordinate clause is uncertain. With exspecto, indirect questions with the regular question particles are exceptional. However, they do occur with viso and video. Si therefore occupied a position that was already available in the frames of these verbs. I do not believe, as some scholars do, that si in the Plautine (i) is interrogative; an interpretation as a conditional satellite clause is perfectly possible. Convincing instances with verba declarandi are (much) later, but this may have to do with the overall low frequency of indirect questions with this type of verb. There is also a tendency to point to instances like ( j) as early signs of the development of an interrogative si. In this case the si clause is not a straightforward ‘conditional’, but the fact that the object position of perscrutabor is filled by fanum is a proof of the satellite function of the si clause. The use of the same subordinating device in conditional and interrogative clauses is not restricted to Latin. Parallels are provided by pà (ei) in Greek and if in English. Sometimes Greek influence is assumed for the use of si in Latin, but this is not necessary, given the fact that other languages have developed this double possibility independently from one another.  (i) Dicito, si (dic si cj. Lindemann) quid vis. (‘If you want something, tell me.’ Pl. Am. 391) ( j) Ibo hinc intro, perscrutabor fanum, si inveniam uspiam / aurum, dum hic est occupatus. (‘I’ll go inside and search the shrine, to see if I can find the gold anywhere while he’s busy.’ Pl. Aul. 620–1)

15.58 The use of nē (not clitic) in pseudo-indirect clausal questions With a number of verbs of perception and cognition, notably with video ‘to see’, the subordinate clauses introduced by nē (‘to check that not’) come close to being indirect questions and ne resembles a question particle with the sense of num ‘whether not’. Examples are (a)–(c). In (a), the subordinate clause is not something the subject of visam can control himself 98 See Arias (1995) and Bodelot (2000: 165–72; 2003: 258–63). A survey of earlier literature can be found in Calboli (1968: 412–13). 99 I adopt the term ‘undetermined situation’, used by OLD s.v. si § 13.

118

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position

(note also the perfect tense turbaverint). In (b) and (c), the subordinate clauses contain the negator non. In Late Latin ne is so used with verbs with an interrogative meaning as well, as in (d). Note the parallelism with utrum. See also § 6.11, Appendix, with references.100 For imperative clauses with verbs of perception and cognition, see § 15.74 fin. (a)

Ego ibo ad fratrem ad alios captivos meos, / visam ne nocte hac quippiam turbaverint. (‘I’ll go to my brother’s to my other prisoners. I’ll check that they didn’t create trouble last night.’ Pl. Capt. 126–7)

(b)

Quod si auctoritatem interponis sine armis, magis equidem laudo, sed vide ne hoc ipsum non sit necesse. (‘If, however, you are bringing into play the respect in which you are held without any implication of armed force, the more credit to you, say I; but consider whether even this very act is unnecessary.’ Cic. Phil. 13.15—NB: the translation under Philologic runs: ‘but beware lest this thing itself be quite unnecessary’.)

(c)

Caput illud est, ut, si ista vita tibi commodior esse videatur, cogitandum tamen sit ne tutior non sit. (‘The capital point is this: if you feel the life you are leading suits you better, you must still consider whether it is equally secure.’ Cic. Fam. 4.9.4)

(d)

Quaerimus utrum tu sis Christus . . . Quaerimus ne forte praecursor illius sis . . . Quaerimus ne forte aliquis multum praeveniens praeco es . . . (‘We ask whether you are the Christ . . . We ask whether you perchance are His precursor . . . We ask, if perchance you are some herald come long before . . .’ August. Ev. Jo. 4.8—tr. Gibb) Supplement: Vide ne quae illic insit alia sortis sub aqua. (Pl. Cas. 380); Sed speculabor ne quis aut hinc aut ab laeva aut dextera nostro consilio venator adsit . . . (Pl. Mil. 607–8); Cum circumspiceret ne quid praeterisset . . . (Var. R. 2.9.16); Atque erit observandum diligenter ne nihil ad id quo de agatur pertineat id quod iudicatum sit. (Cic. Inv. 1.82); Sed vide ne quid Catulus attulerit religionis. (Cic. de Orat. 2.367—NB: perfect tense); Vide igitur ne nulla sit divinatio. (Cic. Div. 2.12); Aeque ambigentibus inter se ne ipse esset Christus . . . (Tert. Prax. 22.1); Verum tamen interrogate fideliter animas vestras ne forte de isto integritatis et continentiae vel pudicitiae bono vos inflatius extulistis . . . (August. Civ. 1.28—NB: perfect tense and indicative mood)

15.59 Indirect questions with indefinite pronouns, determiners, adjectives, adverbs, and particles formed with ecSome general information concerning ec- indefinites is given in § 6.18. In indirect questions they are mainly used with the first two classes of verbs mentioned in § 15.46 and with verbs and expressions of fearing.101 Examples of pronouns are (a) and (b); of 100 For further instances, see TLL s.v. ne 313.54ff. For Tertullian, see Hoppe (1903: 72=1985: 141–2). 101 See TLL s.v. ecquis 56.38ff.

Finite interrogative clauses (indirect questions)

119

a determiner, (c); of a particle, (d); of adverbs, (e) and (f). Most attested instances come from Early Latin and from Cicero. (a)

. . . percontabor ecquis hunc adulescentem noverit. (‘I’ll ask if anyone knows this young man here.’ Pl. Capt. 459)

(b)

. . . ubi sint, quid agant, ecquid agant / nec participant nos, nec redeunt. (‘. . . they aren’t returning, and they don’t let us know . . . where they are, what they’re doing, if they’re doing anything.’ Pl. St. 32–3—NB: variation quid . . . ecquid )

(c)

Ibo in Piraeum, visam ecquae advenerit / in portum ex Epheso navis mercatoria. (‘I’ll go to the Piraeus and check if any merchant ship from Ephesus has arrived in the harbour.’ Pl. Bac. 235–6)

(d)

Tace, subauscultemus ecquid de me fiat mentio. (‘Be quiet, let’s listen to hear if any mention is made of me.’ Pl. Mil. 993)

(e)

. . . coepi opservare, ecquī maiorem filius / mihi honorem haberet quam eius habuisset pater. (‘. . . I began to observe whether his son would in any way hold me in greater honour than his father had.’ Pl. Aul. 15–16)

(f)

Simul etiam illud volo uti respondeas . . . ecquando dubitaris contra eas leges cum plebe agere et concilium convocare. (‘I should also like you to answer this . . . whether you ever hesitated, contrary to those laws, to transact business with the commons and summon a meeting.’ Cic. Vat. 18)

15.60 Indirect constituent questions Indirect constituent questions are introduced by the same interrogative pronouns, determiners, adjectives, and adverbs that are discussed in the section on direct constituent questions (§ 6.19).102 These question words may also fulfil the same functions as indicated there for direct questions, as is shown in (a)–(d). Occasionally they are combined with one of the interrogative particles or with the emphasizing particle nam, as in (e).103 (a)

Loquere filiam meam quis integram stupraverit. (‘Tell me who violated my innocent daughter.’ Pl. Truc. 821—subject)

(b)

Dicisne mi ubi sit Toxilus? (‘Won’t you tell me where Toxilus is?’ Pl. Per. 281—position in space adjunct)

(c)

Ill’ clam opservavit servos / quo aut quas in aedis haec puellam deferat. (‘That slave who’d abandoned her observed secretly where and into which house the woman was taking the girl.’ Pl. Cist. 168–9—direction adjunct and determiner, respectively—NB: the lines are deleted by Degering, followed by de Melo)

102 For quantitative data and the distribution concerning these question words, see Bodelot (2002b). 103 For further instances of nam, see TLL s.v. 29.43ff. and Holmes (2012).

120 (d)

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position Provisam quam mox vir meus redeat domum. (‘I’ll check how soon my husband’s returning home.’ Pl. Men. 704—degree modifier)

(e)

Sed haec res mihi in pectore et corde curae est / quidnam hoc sit negoti . . . (‘But this matter is a worry in my breast and in my heart, what this business is . . .’ Pl. Men. 761–2) Supplement: Pronouns: Nunc experiemur nostrum uter sit blandior. (Pl. Cas. 264); Videamus qui hinc egreditur. (Pl. Men. 349);104 Timeo quid siet. (Pl. Mer. 110); Nunc igitur primum quae ego sim et quae illaec siet / huc quae abiit intro, dicam . . . (Pl. Trin. 6–7); Video cui sit Apulia attributa, quis habeat Etruriam . . . (Cic. Catil. 2.6); Quoniam cuius consilio occisus sit invenio, cuius manu sit percussus non laboro. (Cic. S. Rosc. 97); Ex tuis litteris plenus sum exspectatione de Pompeio quidnam de nobis velit aut ostendat. (Cic. Att. 3.14.1); Neque enim ei deesse volebam et quid possem timebam. (Cic. Att. 12.24.1); scribit mihi ut ei no / tum faciam quid gessero (T. Vindol. 645) Determiners: Obsecro vos ego, mi auxilio, / oro obtestor, sitis et hominem demonstretis quis eam abstulerit. (Pl. Aul. 715–16—NB: with hominem as pseudo-object, cf. Neque hercle ego habeo, neque te quis homo sis scio. (Pl. Men. 301)); Quin percontatu’s hominis quae facies foret / qui illam emisset. (Pl. Mer. 622–3); Quo genere aut qua in patria nata sit aut quibus parentibus / . . . volo te percontari. (Pl. Per. 596–8); . . . videte, per deos immortales, quem in locum rem publicam perventuram putetis. (Cic. S. Rosc. 153); Iam vero in bonis Q. Opimi vendendis quas iste praedas, quam aperte, quam improbe fecerit, longum est dicere. (Cic. Ver. 1.156) Adjectives: Dic mihi quali me arbitrare genere prognatum. (Pl. Aul. 212); . . . quom illum rescisces criminatorem meum / quanto in periclo et quanta in pernicie siet. (Pl. Bac. 826–7—NB: with illum . . . as pseudo-object); Eho an paenitet te quanto hic fuerit usui. (Pl. Ps. 305); Recordamini qui dies nudius tertius decimus fuerit, quantus consensus vestrum, quanta virtus, quanta constantia. (Cic. Phil. 5.2); In qua docet quot a civitate sua nautas acceperit, quot et quanti quemque dimiserit, quot secum habuerit. (Cic. Ver. 5.112) Adverbs: Exspecto quam mox recipiat sese Geta. (Ter. Ph. 606);. . . quaero unde nata sit aut quo modo. (Cic. Luc. 23); . . . ista tamen amicitia, tametsi vereor quomodo accepturi sitis, tamen dicam, vos me privastis. (Rhet. Her. 4.29); Ibi cum velut saeptos montium altitudo teneret Gallos circumspectarentque quanam per iuncta caelo iuga in alium orbem terrarum transirent . . . (Liv. 5.34.7); Qui cum illi breviter constanterque respondissent per quem ad eum quotiensque venissent . . . (Cic. Catil. 3.11); Sed id genus quid ita populo Romano in urbe fieri non oporteat exponam . . . (Vitr. 2.8.16); . . . non iniuria tibi defleo qualiter ecclesiasticas caulas . . . lupus . . . arrodat. (Sid. Ep. 7.6.2); Nec quid dicatis scire nec me quor ludatis possum. (Pl. As. 730); Animus audire expetit / ut gesta res sit. (Pl. Cist. 554–5); Eu ecastor, quom ornatum aspicio nostrum ambarum, paenitet / exornatae ut simus. (Pl. Poen. 284–5)

104 Qui in this example is taken as a relative by Gratwick. See, however, Bennett: I.120–2 and, for the variation between quis (before vowels) and qui (before s) in Plautus, see Adams (2016: 48–51). See also § 15.61.

Finite interrogative clauses (indirect questions)

121

Just like direct questions (see § 6.19), indirect constituent questions may contain more than one question word, as in (f)–(g). (f)

Quam ob rem etiam atque etiam considera, C.  Piso, quis quem fraudasse dicatur. (‘Therefore, Gaius Piso, consider again and again who is said to have cheated, and who to have been cheated.’ Cic. Q. Rosc. 21)

(g)

. . . reliquum est, iudices, ut nihil iam quaerere aliud debeatis nisi uter utri insidias fecerit. (‘. . . it only remains for you to decide, gentlemen, which of the two was guilty of conspiracy against the other.’ Cic. Mil. 23) Supplement: Da pignus, ni nunc perieres, in savium, uter utri det. (Pl. Poen. 1242); Mica uter utrubi accumbamus. (Pl. St. 696); . . . postremo habere regulam qua vera et falsa iudicarentur et quae quibus propositis essent quaeque non essent consequentia. (Cic. Brut. 152); Quos autem numeros cum quibus tanquam purpuram misceri oporteat nunc dicendum est . . . (Cic. Orat. 196); . . . Iuniam familiam a stirpe ad hanc aetatem ordine enumeraverit notans qui a quo ortus quos honores quibusque temporibus cepisset. (Nep. Att. 18.3); . . . commemorantium ex quantis opibus quo reccidissent Carthaginiensium res. (Liv. 30.42.18); . . . ego quid cui debeam scio. (Sen. Ben. 4.32.4); Illud tibi geometres potest dicere, quantum abesse debeat corpus ab imagine et qualis forma speculi quales imagines reddat. (Sen. Ep. 88.27); . . . sed plurimum refert compositionis quae quibus anteponas. (Quint. Inst. 9.4.44) NB: with an ablative absolute clause: Sed tamen videmus quibus extinctis oratoribus quam in paucis spes, quanto in paucioribus facultas, quam in multis sit audacia. (Cic. Off. 2.67)

Indirect constituent questions are less restricted with respect to the governing expressions than indirect clausal questions (for which, see § 15.46). In addition to (a) above, consider (h)–(k), in which indirect questions are found with the verbs habeo ‘to have’, impero ‘to order’, sum ‘to be’, and ‘impersonal’ paenitet ‘to cause dissatisfaction’, respectively.105 For ambiguous situations, see the next section. (h)

Nunc de peripetasmatis quemadmodum te expedias non habes. (‘Whereas now you have no way of clearing yourself about these tapestries.’ Cic. Ver. 4.28)

(i)

Non imperabat coram quid opu’ facto esset puerperae . . . (‘She didn’t give instructions concerning what needed to be done for the woman in childbirth . . .’ Ter. An. 490)

( j)

. . . neque est quor [non] studeam has nuptias mutatier. (‘. . . and I have no reason why I should be keen to have this marriage replaced by another one.’ Pl. St. 52) 105 For further instances, see TLL s.v. habeo 2437.13ff.; impero 586.3ff.

122 (k)

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position Eu ecastor! Quom ornatum aspicio nostrum ambarum, paenitet / exornatae ut simus. (‘Goodness! When I look at our dresses, I’m unhappy about how we’re made up.’ Pl. Poen. 284–5)106

15.61 Overlap of indirect constituent questions and autonomous relative clauses Due to the formal overlap of some interrogative pronouns, determiners, adjectives, and adverbs on the one hand and relative pronouns, determiners, adjectives, and adverbs on the other, it is not always easy to determine whether a subordinate clause is an indirect question or a relative clause; in certain contexts both are real options. Two formally unambiguous examples are (a)—relative clause in the indicative—and (b)—an indirect question in the subjunctive. Here the difference between relative quod and interrogative quid is obvious. However, there is no such formal indication in instances like (c) and (d) (repeated from §  7.136—where further examples can be found), and the verbs and expressions in the main clauses allow both an autonomous relative clause and an indirect question as object.107 (a)

Equidem non dubitabo quod sentio dicere. (‘At all events I will not hesitate to speak what I think.’ Cic. de Orat. 1.61)

(b)

. . . neque gravabor breviter meo more, quid quaque de re sentiam, dicere. (‘. . . and I shall make no difficulty about saying, in my brief fashion, what I think about every point.’ Cic. de Orat. 1.107)

(c)

. . . huc adhibete auris quae ego loquor (v.l. loquar) . . . (‘. . . apply your ears here to what I’m saying . . .’ Pl. Ps. 153)

(d)

. . . dum patefacio vobis quas isti penitus abstrusas insidias se posuisse arbitrantur contra Cn. Pompei dignitatem. (‘. . . while I reveal the snares which they think they have laid with complete secrecy against the honour of Gnaeus Pompeius.’ Cic. Agr. 2.49)

Closer examination of instances such as (a) and (b) shows that the contexts in which Cicero chooses the relative or the interrogative option are different. One difference can be seen in (b), the addition of a satellite quaque de re in the indirect question. In instances such as (b) the addressee of the verb of communication is regularly expressed. Pragmatically, the focus in the relative option is on the main clause, often just the verb dico itself, whereas in the interrogative option it is the interrogative clause or a constituent of that clause. Also, interrogative clauses more often precede the main clause than relative clauses.108 106 The example is wrongly taken as an example of an ‘ut completive’ clause (which would then belong to § 15.31 of this Syntax) by Fedriani (2014: 52). 107 For a list of verbs of cognition and communication governing an autonomous relative clause in Cicero, see Eckert (1992: 17–26). 108 For further details, see Eckert (1992: 65–97). See also Bodelot  (2002b) on habeo quid . . . /habeo quod . . .

Finite interrogative clauses (indirect questions)

123

. Multiple indirect questions The most common linking device for multiple (‘alternative’ or ‘disjunctive’—see § 6.20) indirect questions is an(ne) alone. Less common are multiple indirect questions in which the first member contains utrum or utrumne (followed by an(ne)) and -ne (followed by an(ne)). An may be repeated if there are further alternatives. There are also several other combinations, which are discussed in the next section. Examples of the most common types of multiple indirect questions are (a)–(e).109 Sometimes particles are entirely absent, as in (f). (a)

Quid id ad me tu te nuptam possis perpeti / an sis abitura a tuo viro? (‘What do I care whether you can tolerate being married or will leave your husband?’ Pl. Men. 722)

(b)

Quidnam id est? / # Haec dies summa hodie est mea amica sitne libera / an sempiternam servitutem serviat. (‘What is it? # This is the day that decides whether my girlfriend will be free or serve as a slave for ever.’ Pl. Per. 33–4a)

(c)

Nunc me ire iussit ad eam et percontarier / utrum aurum reddat anne eat secum simul. (‘Now he has ordered me to call on her and inquire whether she intends to pay him back his money, or go along with him.’ Pl. Bac. 575–6)

(d)

. . . utrumne divi cultu erga se mortalium laetiscant an superna agentes humana neglegant. (‘. . . whether the gods rejoice at mortals’ worship of them, or whether they simply conduct heavenly business and ignore human affairs?’ Sis. hist. 123=79C)

(e)

Nunc mi incertum est / abeam an maneam an adeam an fugiam. (‘Now I’m uncertain whether I should go away or stay or go up to him or run away.’ Pl. Aul. 729–30)

(f)

Sit, non sit non edepol scio. Si is est, eum esse oportet. (‘Whether he is the man or not, I don’t know, by Pollux. If it’s him, it ought to be him.’ Pl. As. 465) Supplement: Temptabam spiraret an non. (Pl. Mil. 1336); Nam me isdem edictis nescit laedat an laudet. (Cic. Phil. 3.18); Non crediderit factum an tantum animo roboris fuerit, nec traditur certum nec interpretatio est facilis. (Liv. 2.8.8.) Agitur autem liberine vivamus an mortem obeamus, quae certe servituti anteponenda est. (Cic. Phil. 11.24); Neque certum inveniri poterat, obtinendine Brundisi causa ibi remansisset . . . an inopia navium ibi restitisset . . . (Caes. Civ. 1.25.3)

109 For quantitative data, see Bodelot (2002b).

124

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position Videndum est primum utrum eae velintne an non velint. (Pl. Mos. 681—NB: A has aut instead of an); Si virum illa meliorem habeat, quam tu habes, utrumne tuum virum malis an illius? (Cic. Inv. 1.51); . . . quaerendumque utrum una species et longitudo sit earum anne plures . . . (Cic. Orat. 206) Nec vero Protagoras, qui sese negat omnino de deis habere quod liqueat, sint non sint qualesve sint, quicquam videtur de natura deorum suspicari. (Cic. N.D. 1.29); Velit nolit scire difficile est. (Cic. Q. fr. 3.6.4)

Whereas the alternatives in (a)–(f) concern entire clauses, those in (g)–(i) are constituents. (g)

. . . tuos servos servet Venerine eas det an viro. (‘. . . your slave shall watch whether she is giving them to Venus or to a man.’ Pl. As. 805)

(h)

. . . non illud iam in iudicium venit, occisusne sit, quod fatemur, sed iure an iniuria . . . (‘. . . the point before the court today is not, whether Clodius was slain—for we admit it—but whether the act was justifiable or not . . .’ Cic. Mil. 31)

(i)

. . . illos, qui omnia sic incerta dicunt ut stellarum numerus par an impar sit, quasi desperatos aliquos relinquamus. (‘. . . let us leave on one side as a hopeless sort of persons the others who say that all things are as uncertain as whether the number of the stars is odd or even.’ Cic. Luc. 32) Supplement: Ferro an fame acrius urgear, incertus sum. (Sal. Jug. 24.3); . . . docete nos agri cultura quam summam habeat, utilitatemne an voluptatem an utrumque. (Var. R. 1.2.12); Quid tu, malum, curas, / utrum crudum an coctum ego edim . . . (Pl. Aul. 429–30); Cremutius Cordus et ipse ait Ciceronem secum cogitasse utrumne Brutum an Cassium an Sex. Pompeium peteret. (Sen. Suas. 6.19)

For negation of the second or later member of a multiple indirect question, see § 6.20. Necne, a few illustrations of which are given in the Supplement, is used less frequently in Early Latin, but is more common in Cicero than an + non or another negator. It is rare in poetry.110 Supplement: Non edepol scio / molestum necne sit, nisi dicis quid velis. (Pl. Epid. 461–2); Sed ego is non sum qui statuere debeam iure quis proficiscatur necne. (Cic. Att. 10.10.2); Quaesisti proxime, Fabi frater, fugiendum necne sit in persecutione, quod nescio quid annuntiaretur. (Tert. Fug. 1) . . . rogitare oportet prius et contarier, / adsitne ei animus necne adsit quem advocet. (Pl. Cas. 571–2); Quaero enim potueritne Roscius ex societate suam partem petere necne. (Cic. Q. Rosc. 52) . . . quaeram utrum emeris necne et quomodo et quanti emeris . . . (Cic. Ver. 4.35)

110 See TLL s.v. necne 278.19ff.

Finite interrogative clauses (indirect questions)

125

15.63 Minor combinations of particles in multiple indirect questions The use of the particle -ne in indirect questions in both alternatives is found once in Terence (Hec. 665) and once in Caesar (Gal. 7.14.8). It is then used in poetry, occasionally also in direct questions. Two examples from Virgil are (a) and (b), the latter possibly a direct question. (a)

At pius Aeneas . . . / qui teneant (nam inculta videt), hominesne feraene, / quaerere constituit . . . (‘But loyal Aeneas . . . determines to learn who dwells there, man or beast—for all he sees is waste . . .’ Verg. A. 1.305–9)

(b)

Namque avia cursu / dum sequor et nota excedo regione viarum, / heu misero coniunx fatone erepta Creusa / substitit, erravitne via seu lapsa resedit, / incertum. (‘For while I follow byways at a run and leave the course of the streets I know, my wife Creusa—alas! whether she halted, snatched from me by an unhappy fate, or whether she strayed from the path or sat down in exhaustion, is not clear to me.’ Verg. A. 2.736–40)

The combination an . . . an in indirect questions is found in poetry and in Silver Latin prose. Two examples are (c) and (d). It is not always clear whether the two clauses are alternatives or two consecutive simple questions. (c)

Haec memorans animo nunc huc, nunc fluctuat illuc / an sese mucroni ob tantum dedecus amens / induat . . . fluctibus an iaciat mediis . . . (‘So saying, he wavers in spirit this way and that, whether because of disgrace so foul he should in madness throw himself on his sword . . . or plunge into the midst of the waves. . .’ Verg. A. 10.680–3)

(d)

Saepe manus operi temptantes admovet an sit / corpus an illud ebur . . . (‘Often he lifts his hands to the work to try whether it be flesh or ivory . . .’ Ov. Met. 10.254–5)

In indirect questions the second alternative is sometimes marked by -ne if the contrast between the alternatives is clear enough; in such cases the first part has no particle. Examples are (e)–(g). Note the variation in (f).111 (e)

Certabant urbem Romam Remoramne vocarent. (‘They were competing over whether they should call the city Roma or Remora.’ Enn. Ann. 82V=77S)

(f)

Cum igitur dicis: ‘miser M. Crassus’ aut hoc dicis: ‘miser est Crassus’ ut possit iudicari, verum id falsumne sit, aut nihil dicis omnino. (‘Therefore when you say “wretched Marcus Crassus,” either you say “Marcus Crassus is wretched,” so that it can be settled whether the statement is true or false, or you say nothing at all.’ Cic. Tusc. 1.14)

111 More examples in OLD s.v. -ne §  5c; TLL s.v. -ne 276.26ff. For discussion, see Norberg (1944: 99–100).

126 (g)

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position Gaudeat an doleat, cupiat metuatne, quid ad rem . . .? (‘Whether a man feel joy or grief, desire or fear, what does it matter . . .?’ Hor. Ep. 1.6.12) Other combinations of particles are found as well, especially with the alternative coordinators aut, sive, and seu. A few examples will suffice. Supplement: . . . sepe non minus de tertio quam de primo dubitatur, ut in hoc, utrum primum una canis aut canes sit appellata. (Var. L. 7.32);112 Temptat enim dubiam mentem rationis egestas / ecquaenam fuerit mundi genitalis origo, / et simul ecquae sit finis, quoad moenia mundi / et taciti motus hunc possint ferre laborem, / an divinitus aeterna donata salute / perpetuo possint aevi labentia tractu / inmensi validas aevi contemnere viris. (Lucr. 5.1211–17); Num tamen excuses erroris origine factum / an nihil expediat tale movere vide. (Ov. Pont. 2.2.55–6); De ipsa autem testa, si sit optima seu vitiosa ad structuram, statim nemo potest iudicare . . . (Vitr. 2.8.19)

15.64 Finite imperative argument clauses Finite imperative argument clauses, commonly called ‘final noun (or: substantive) clauses’,113 differ from finite declarative argument clauses with respect to negation: the latter are negated by non, the former either by the negation adverb ne, in combination with the subordinator (mostly ut) (see § 8.13) or by the negative subordinator ne (see § 8.23) (see also § 15.84). They are in the subjunctive mood and are used with governing expressions that belong to various semantic classes (see § 15.65). Some of these governing expressions can also govern non-finite subordinate clauses, with or without a difference in meaning. This is shown in exx. (a)–(b) and (c)–(d) for the verbs dico ‘to tell’ and hortor ‘to urge’, respectively. In (a), dicebam refers to an order; the ne clause is a finite imperative clause that functions as the object of the verb. In (b), by contrast, dicere refers to stating a fact, and the subordinate clause te . . . Sosiam esse is a non-finite accusative and infinitive clause which as a whole functions as the object of dicere. Here the difference in class of subordinate clause corresponds to a difference in meaning. (a)

Dicebam, pater, tibi ne matri consuleres male. (‘I told you, father, not to play tricks on mother.’ Pl. As. 938)

(b)

Tun’ te audes Sosiam esse dicere, / qui ego sum? (‘You dare say that you are Sosia, the one I am?’ Pl. Am. 373–4)

In the case of hortor, however, the choice of subordinate clause does not affect the meaning of the sentence. In (c) hortabitur resembles dicebam in (a) with respect to its meaning; the ut and following clauses are finite imperative clauses that function as the object of the verb. The meaning of hortatus sum in (d) is the same as that of hortabitur 112 For more instances, see TLL s.v. aut 1575.39ff.

113 ‘Finale Substantivsätze’ in K.-St.: II.208.

Finite imperative clauses

127

in (c); the subordinate clause isto proficisci is a non-finite prolative infinitive clause that functions as the object of hortatus sum. The agent of proficisci is identical with the object eum in the main clause. Thus there is no difference in meaning that corresponds to the difference in form between (c) and (d). The only difference in this case of variation in form is that (c) is attested earlier than (d). (For hortor meaning ‘to give as one’s opinion’ with an accusative and infinitive clause, see § 15.100 (iii).)114 (c)

Ille extemplo illam hortabitur / ut eat, ut properet, ne matri morae sit. (‘He’ll instantly encourage her to go and to hurry, so as not to waste her mother’s time.’ Pl. Mil. 1189–90)

(d)

Sed ego eum non solum hortatus sum verum etiam coegi isto proficisci . . . (‘However, I have not only urged but also compelled him to leave for the place where you are . . .’ Planc. Fam. 10.17.2)

On closer inspection there are certain factors that influence the choice between a finite clause and a prolative infinitive.115 When the subject of the governing clause has a high degree of control on the state of affairs of the subordinate clause the prolative infinitive is preferred, as is illustrated by (d), where coegi is used alongside hortatus sum. Factors that favour the use of a finite clause are (i) negation of the main clause, as in (e), and (ii) forms of modalizing the content of the main clause, as in (f)—with a non-factive mood— and in (g)—with an attitudinal manner clause (see § 16.35). (e)

. . . nihil prohibet quominus mense Iulio vervacta subigantur. (‘. . . there is no objection to breaking fallow land in the month of July.’ Col. 2.4.5)

(f)

Di prohibeant, iudices, ne hoc quod maiores consilium publicum vocari voluerunt praesidium sectorum existimetur! (‘Heaven forbid, gentlemen, that this which our ancestors willed should be called the public council, would be thought to be a safeguard for brokers.’ Cic. S. Rosc. 151)

(g)

Impedior non nullius offici, ut ego interpretor, religione quominus exponam quam multa . . . (‘A certain regard for what is due to a colleague, as I interpret the matter, makes me scruple to set out how many . . . ’ Cic. Sest. 8)

In the case of coordination of two or more finite (subordinate) imperative clauses of which the second (or following) is negative, several coordinating devices are available (see also §§ 8.38–40). The most common ones are neve (neu, occasionally also nive and—in inscriptions—neive) and neque (nec).116 If the preceding clause is positive (with the subordinator ut, rarely without ut), neve is the regular coordinator from Early Latin onwards, as in (h)–( j), whereas neque is used equally often from Cicero onwards, as in (k). 114 For the gradual expansion of the accusative and prolative infinitive expression in place of ut + subjunctive, see Perrochat (1932b: 207–22). 115 This section follows Torrego (2016a) on verba impediendi, cogo, and iubeo. She presents statistical data at p. 48. 116 For other combinations, see K.-St.: II.211.

128 (h)

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position Blepharo, quaeso ut advocatus mi adsis neve abeas. (‘Blepharo, please help me as an advocate and don’t go away.’ Pl. Am. 1037)

(i)

Deinde te hortor ut auctore populo Romano maneas in sententia neve cuiusquam vim aut minas pertimescas. (‘And in the second place, I exhort you, having the approbation of the Roman people, to persevere in those sentiments, and not to fear the violence or threats of any one.’ Cic. Man. 69)

( j)

Praecipit atque interdicit . . . unum omnes petant Indutiomarum neu quis quem alium prius vulneret . . . (‘He gives this command and prohibition, that . . . they should all make for Indutiomarus, and no one wound any other man before . . .’ Caes. Gal. 5.58.4)

(k)

Illi eum commonefaciunt ut . . . utatur instituto suo nec cogat ante horam decimam de absente secundum praesentem iudicare . . . (‘They requested him to . . . follow his own regular practice, and to wait till four o’clock before directing a judgement by default in favour of the party present . . .’ Cic. Ver. 2.41) Supplement: . . . huic persuadere quo modo potis siem / ut illam vendat neve det matri suae. (Pl. Mer. 331–2); . . . quaeso oroque vos, patres conscripti, ut . . . accipiatis sine offensione quod dixero neve id prius quam quale sit explicaro repudietis . . . (Cic. Phil. 7.8) Te atque senatum obtestamur consulatis miseris civibus, legis praesidium quod iniquitas praetoris eripuit restituatis neve nobis eam necessitudinem inponatis . . . (Sal. Cat. 33.5) Si hercle istuc umquam factum est, tum me Iuppiter faciat ut semper sacruficem nec umquam litem. (Pl. Poen. 488–9); . . . hortemurque potius liberos nostros ceterosque . . . ut animo rei magnitudinem complectantur neque . . . exercitationibus quibus utuntur omnes sed aliis quibusdam se id quod expetunt consequi posse confidant. (Cic. de Orat. 1.19); His persuaderi ut diutius morarentur neque suis auxilium ferrent non poterat. (Caes. Gal. 2.10.5)

If the preceding clause is negative (with ut ne or ne) the regular coordinator is neve/neu, as in (l)–(o). The earliest attestation of neque is found in Nepos, as in (p).117 (l)

Eadem exorabo Chrysalo causa mea / pater ne noceat neu quid ei suscenseat . . . (‘At the same time I’ll persuade my father not to harm Chrysalus for my sake and not to be angry with him . . .’ Pl. Bac. 521–2)

(m)

(sc. lex) Sanxit in posterum . . . ne quis heredem virginem neve mulierem faceret. (‘It merely enjoined . . . that no one should make a girl or woman his heiress in future.’ Cic. Ver. 1.107)

(n)

. . . una cautio est atque una provisio ut ne nimis cito diligere incipiant neve non dignos. (‘. . . there is but one security and one provision . . . and that is, neither to enlist your love too quickly nor to fix it on unworthy men.’ Cic. Amic. 78)

117 In Cic. Off. 1.91 editors read neve, with Nonius and one recent cod.; all other codd. have nec.

Finite imperative clauses (o)

129

Caesar ad Lingonas litteras nuntiosque misit ne eos frumento neve alia re iuvarent. (‘Caesar sent letters and messengers to the Lingones (with orders) that they should not assist them with corn or with anything else.’ Caes. Gal. 1.26.6)

(p)

Modo magis Pausanias perturbatus orare coepit ne enuntiaret nec se meritum de illo optime proderet. (‘Pausanias, still more disturbed, began to beg him not to report and betray one who had always deserved well of him.’ Nep. Paus. 4.6) Supplement: . . . te obtestor ne abs te hanc segreges neu deseras. (Ter. An. 291); Praeclara senatus consulta fecisti ne qua post Idus Martias immunitatis tabula neve cuius benefici figeretur. (Cic. Phil. 2.91); Quae ego ne frustra subierim nive (v.l. neve), prius quam reliquias meae diligentiae consequar, decedere cogar valde laboro. (Lent. Fam. 12.14.5); . . . obsecrat ne quam contumeliam remanere in exercitu victore neve hostis inultos abire sinat. (Sal. Jug. 58.5); . . . orabat ne quod scelus Ap. Claudi esset sibi attribuerent neu se ut parricidam liberum aversarentur. (Liv. 3.50.5) Conspirasse inde ne manus ad os cibum ferrent nec os acciperet datum nec dentes quae acciperent conficerent. (Liv. 2.32.10); . . . legiones . . . veterem ad morem reduxit ne quis agmine decederet nec pugnam nisi iussus iniret. (Tac. Ann. 11.18.2)

. Verbs and expressions governing imperative clauses In §  6.27 three different illocutionary forces are distinguished for imperative sentences: directive, optative, and concessive. Among the governing expressions of imperative clauses two classes can be identified that roughly correspond to the first two illocutionary forces: (i) manipulation verbs and expressions, (ii) verbs and expressions of striving, wishing, desiring, preferring, etc.118 Manipulation verbs and expressions comprise a wide range of three-place verbs (see § 4.85) where an external force, usually a human being, compels, urges, invites, requests, etc. another entity, usually a person, to bring about a certain state of affairs. Three other classes that do not easily fit in with the two mentioned above are (iii) causation verbs and expressions, (iv) verbs and expressions of deciding, resolving, etc. and (v) verbs of deserving. And then there are (vi) miscellaneous expressions. A more detailed classification is used in Table 15.2. Examples follow below. For each (sub)class the examples provided will focus primarily on one verb; there then follow in a Supplement a few examples of other verbs from these classes. These verbs are also regularly used with the prolative infinitive, some verbs more than others.119 Especially in poetry the use of the infinitive seems to be extensive.

118 The terms with inverted commas in this section are taken from Bennett: I.xiv–xv. 119 For the characteristics of ut clauses with these verbs, see Bolkestein (1976b). For differences between ut clauses and prolative infinitives when it comes to the degree of control exercised by the subject, see § 15.64.

130

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position

Table 15.2 Survey of classes of imperative clauses and their governing expressions (selected) Semantic and other properties of the superordinate clause (i)

ut / Ø ut+ne / ne

ne / quin / prol. other quominus infin.

(a) ordering and commanding

+

+



+

+

(b) begging, requesting, etc.

+

+



+

+

(c) advising, warning, exhorting, reminding, admonishing, etc.

+

+



+

+

(d) inducing, persuading, etc.

+

+



+

+

(e) permitting, granting, allowing

+

+



+

+

(f) forcing

+

+



+

+

(g) hindering, preventing, etc.

L



+

+

+

(ii) (a) wishing, desiring, preferring, etc.

+

+



+

+

+

+



+

+

(b) striving (iii) causation

+

+



(+)

+

(iv) deciding, resolving, etc.

+

+



+

+

(v)

+





+



+

+



+



+

(+)



+



deserving

(vi) adjective as subject or object complement (vii) noun as subject or object complement (viii) so-called impersonal verbs

much individual variation, see § 15.80

Legend: ‘+’ = is attested; ‘–’ = is not attested; ‘(+)’ = is very rare; ‘Ø’ symbolizes the absence of ut; ‘prol. infin.’ = prolative infinitive; ‘L’= Late Latin

Imperative clauses, especially ut clauses, are often announced by preparative pronouns (see § 14.16). Examples are (a) and (b). However, usually the ut clause can also be used alone. Occasionally, the preparative pronoun seems to facilitate the interpretation of an ut clause, as in (c). For ut clauses related to nouns with a preparative determiner, see § 17.11.120 (a)

Et quoniam videris hoc velle, ut . . . virtus satis habeat ad vitam beatam praesidii . . . (‘And since you seem to want this, that virtue should be enough of a defence for a happy life . . .’ Cic. Tusc. 5.83)

(b)

Non enim credo id praecipit, ut membra nostra aut staturam figuramve noscamus. (‘For he does not, I suppose, prescribe this, that we should know our limbs, our height or shape.’ Cic. Tusc. 1.52)

120 For the use of preparative pronouns, see note 34. See also Merguet (Phil.) s.v. ut 889A; (Reden) 1037B.

Finite imperative clauses (c)

131

Distinguunt illud etiam, ut libido sit earum rerum, quae dicuntur de quodam aut quibusdam, quae ul~rnz{iwl~l dialectici appellant, ut habere divitias, capere honores . . . (‘They distinguish also this, that lust may be of the predicates affirmed of a person or persons (which the logicians call ul~rnz{iwl~l), as for instance a man longs to have riches, to obtain distinctions . . .’ Cic. Tusc. 4.21)

. The use of finite imperative clauses with verbs and expressions of ordering and commanding (class (i) (a)) Exx. (a)–(c) show imperative clauses functioning as object of the three-place verb impero ‘to order’, with ut + subjunctive, with the simple subjunctive, and with a prolative infinitive, respectively. The prolative infinitive construction is relatively rare (see § 15.115). Whereas with impero the addressee (recipient of the order) is expressed in the dative, with other verbs in this class it is in the accusative (see the Supplement). Ex. (d) has a declarative clause as the object of two-place impero, in the typical form of an accusative and infinitive clause; there is no addressee constituent. The accusative and infinitive clause is in the passive, but this is not required (see § 15.100 (iii)). Ex. (e) is a rare instance of a nominative and infinitive construction (see §  15.111).121 Verbs of communication can be used with a declarative or an imperative subordinate clause, of which the latter is with ut (ne), as in (f), or Ø. For an expression functioning as an order, see (g). For the verbs iubeo and veto, see § 15.100 (vi). (a)

. . . Apollo mihi ex oraclo imperat / ut ego illic oculos exuram . . . (‘. . . Apollo tells me through a divine communication to burn out that woman’s eyes . . .’ Pl. Men. 840–1)

(b)

Huic imperat Ø quas possit adeat civitates horteturque ut populi Romani fidem sequantur . . . (‘Him he commanded to visit what states he could and to exhort them to seek the protection of Rome . . .’ Caes. Gal. 4.21.8—NB: ut is present in the lower-level clause governed by hortetur)

(c)

Postremo imperavi egomet mihi / omnia adsentari. (‘In short I told myself to agree to everything.’ Ter. Eu. 252–3—prolative infinitive)

(d)

Princeps Cleomenes . . . malum erigi, vela fieri, praecidi ancoras imperavit. (‘Cleomenes, as commander-in-chief . . . ordered the mast to be erected, the sails to be set, the anchor to be weighed.’ Cic. Ver. 5.88)

(e)

In has lautumias siqui publice custodiendi sunt etiam ex ceteris oppidis Siciliae deduci imperantur. (‘Into these quarries men are commanded to be brought even from other cities in Sicily, if they are commanded by the public authorities to be kept in custody.’ Cic. Ver. 5.68) 121 For parallels of (d) and (e), see TLL s.v. impero 585.54ff.

132 (f)

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position Praedico ut caveas. Dico, inquam, ut caveas. Cave. (‘I’m telling you in advance that you should be on your guard. I’m telling you, I insist, that you be on your guard. Be on your guard!’ Pl. Ps. 517)

(g)

Itaque Androsthenes, praetor Thessaliae . . . ad Scipionem Pompeiumque nuntios mittit ut sibi subsidio veniant. (‘So Androsthenes, the top man in Thessaly . . . sent messengers to Scipio and Pompey with a request for help.’ Caes. Civ. 3.80.3) Supplement (in alphabetical order by governing expression): At Laterensis, vir sanctissimus, suo chirographo mittit mihi litteras . . . in quibus aperte denuntiat Ø videam ne fallar. (Planc. Fam. 10.21.3); Dixi equidem Ø in carcerem ires. (Pl. St. 624); Imperat (sc. Labieno) Ø . . . eruptione pugnet. (Caes. Gal. 7.86.2); Conclamitare tota urbe et praedicere / Ø omnes tenerent mutuitanti credere. (Pl. Mer. 51–2); Fabius Maximus . . . scripsit Fulvio et Postumio, qui in praesidio urbi erant, Ø copias ad Clusium moverent. (Fron. Str. 1.8.3) Additumque ut, si placeret vellentque, eodem iure amicitiae Elei Lacedaemoniique et Attalus et Pleuratus et Scerdilaedus essent, Asiae Attalus, hi Thracum et Illyriorum reges; bellum ut extemplo Aetoli cum Philippo terra gererent; navibus ne minus viginti quinque quinqueremibus adiuvaret Romanus. (Liv. 26.24.10); . . . auctores iniuriae . . . clamare coeperunt sibi ut haberet hereditatem. (Cic. Ver. 2.47); Accusatus in senatu ab uxore Cotyis damnatur ut procul regno teneretur. (Tac. Ann. 2.67.2); Quidam dicunt ut in coitu et sub terra sit luna, quod fieri non potest nisi noctu. (Plin. Nat. 16.191);122 . . . eum [ego] docebo, / si qui ad eum adveniant, ut sibi esse datum argentum dicat / pro fidicina . . . (Pl. Epid. 364–6); Nunc adeo tu, qui meus es, iam edico tibi, / ut nostra properes amoliri omnia . . . (Pl. Ps. 855–6); De · Bacanalibus quei · foideratei / esent · ita exdeicendum censuere · neiquis · eorum · Sacanal (= Bacanal) · habuise · velet ·. (CIL I2.581.2–3 (SCBac., Tiriolo, 186 bc)); Edicit ne vir quisquam ad eam adeat et mihi ne abscedam imperat. (Ter. Eu. 578); Quadraginta maioribus hostiis quibus dis consules sacrificarent ediderunt et uti supplicatio fieret . . . (Liv. 43.13.8); Hoc item in Sileni . . . Graeca historia est: . . . Quo cum (Hannibal) venisset, Iovem imperavisse ut Italiae bellum inferret . . . (Cic. Div. 1.49); . . . nisi ero meo uni indicasso, atque ei quoque ut ne enuntiet / id esse facinus ex ted ortum. (Pl. Poen. 888–9); Senex est quidam qui illam mandavit mihi / ut emerem—ad istanc faciem. (Pl. Mer. 426–7); Caesar interim in Sardiniam nuntios cum litteris et in reliquas provincias finitimas dimisit ut sibi auxilia . . . mittenda curarent. (B.  Afr. 8.1); Deliberantibus Pythia respondit ut moenibus ligneis se munirent. (Nep. Them. 2.7); Velim domum ad te scribas ut mihi tui libri pateant non secus ac si ipse adesses . . . (Cic. Att. 4.14.1) NB: Quidam . . . retinere locum, ferire hostem, seque et proximos hortari et . . . manus ad obsessos tendere ne tempori deessent. (Tac. Hist. 4.34.4—see Heubner ad loc.)

122 This is one of the earlier instances cited by Mayen (1889: 57–62) as an example of the use of ut discussed in § 15.35.

Finite imperative clauses

133

. The use of finite imperative clauses with verbs and expressions of begging, requesting, etc. (class (i) (b)) Exx. (a)–(c) illustrate imperative clauses functioning as third argument of the threeplace verb oro ‘to beseech’. The addressee, if expressed, is in the accusative. Ex. (d) has a declarative accusative and infinitive clause (in the passive) with two-place oro.123 In addition, oro is used (‘in the Greek manner’ according to Servius) by poets and later prose authors as a two-place verb with a prolative infinitive (compare cupio), as in (e): the subject of transmittere is coreferential with the agent of orantes, as appears from the nominative form of the secondary predicate primi. A verb like peto when governing an imperative clause is often combined with an ab prepositional phrase that indicates the source (for its status, see § 4.3), as in (f).124 (a)

Velatis manibus orant Ø ignoscamus peccatum suom . . . (‘With covered hands they asked us to forgive them their transgression.’ Pl. Am. 257)

(b)

. . . nunc te oro per precem . . . ne me secus honore honestes . . . (‘. . . I’m now asking you by way of entreaty . . . not to honour me less than . . .’ Pl. Capt. 244–7)

(c)

Orant (sc. Thesea) succedere muris / dignarique domos. (‘They beg him to come inside their walls and honour their homes.’ Stat. Theb. 12.784–5—prolative infinitive)

(d)

. . . occultas preces quis permitti Meherdaten patrium ad fastigium orabant. (‘. . . secret pleas in which they begged that Meherdates be admitted to his ancestral pinnacle.’ Tac. Ann. 11.10.4—tr. Woodman)

(e)

Stabant orantes primi transmittere cursum . . . (‘They stood, pleading to be the first ferried across . . .’ Verg. A. 6.313)

(f)

. . . petam a vobis ut me, dum de his singulis disputo iudiciis, attente audiatis. (‘. . . I ask you to give me your careful attention while I deal with these trials one by one.’ Cic. Clu. 89) Supplement (in alphabetical order by governing expression): Nunc te opsecro, / Ø stultitiae adulescentiaeque eius ignoscas. (Pl. Mos. 1156–7); . . . magnoque opere abs te peto Ø cures ut is intellegat meam commendationem maximo sibi apud te et adiumento et ornamento fuisse. (Cic. Fam. 13.34.1—NB: ut is present in the lower-level clause governed by cures); Quaeso edepol, Charine, quoniam non potest id fieri quod vis, / Ø id velis quod possit. (Ter. An. 305–6); Nam quod rogas Ø curem ut scias quid Pompeius agat . . . (Cic. Att. 7.12.2—NB: ut is present in the lower-level clause governed by curem); . . . tamen te magno opere non hortor solum sed etiam pro amore nostro rogo atque oro Ø te colligas virumque praebeas et qua condicione omnes homines et quibus temporibus no nati simus cogites.

123 For (late) non-passive accusative and infinitive clauses and further instances of the passive, see TLL s.v. oro 1041.15ff.; for parallels of (e), see ibid. 1040.76ff. 124 For the use of rogo in requests, see Halla-aho (2009: 81–5) and Coleman (2012:199–206).

134

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position (Cic. Fam. 5.18.1); Ø Meam dignitatem commendatam habeas rogo. (Planc. Fam. 10.21a); Roga patrem tuum Ø cedat tibi. (Sen. Con. 10.2.17); Rogo Ø cures Ø quanti aequum est emat. (Plin. Ep. 1.24.2) Fac ut exores Plesidippum ut me emittat. (Pl. Rud. 1218); At pro me superiores consules semper ut referrent flagitati sunt. (Cic. Red. Pop. 11); Difficile est ab eo qui peccatorum vindex esse debet ut ignoscat impetrare. (Cic. Inv. 2.104); Qui omnes ad eum multique mortales oratum in Albanum obsecratumque venerant ut ne meas fortunas desereret cum rei publicae salute coniunctas. (Cic. Pis. 77); . . . ita ted obtestor per senectutem tuam / perque illam, quam tu metuis, uxorem tuam/ . . . ut tibi superstes uxor aetatem siet / atque illa viva vivos ut pestem oppetas. (Pl. As. 18–22); . . . peto a vobis ut tantum orationi meae concedatis quantum et pio dolori et iustae iracundiae concedendum putetis. (Cic. Sest. 4); Verum id te quaeso ut prohibessis, Fides. (Pl. Aul. 611); Cuius causam dignitatemque mihi ut commendaret, rogavit ut eam ne oppugnarem, si nollem aut non possem tueri. (Cic. Fam. 1.9.9); His rebus permotus Quintus Titurius . . . interpretem suum Gnaeum Pompeium ad eum mittit rogatum ut sibi militibusque parcat. (Caes. Gal. 5.36.1); rogo ut eum commen \ digneris (T. Vind. 250.10–11); Quia tamen in hoc quoque indulsisti, admoneo simul et impense rogo, ut Attium Suram praetura exornare digneris, cum locus vacet. (Plin. Ep. 101.2.2)

In the same semantic class can be included two-place verbs of demanding, such as posco and postulo. Examples of finite imperative clauses are (g) and (h). A source constituent may optionally be added, as in aps te in (h). Flagito in its two-place pattern has the same possibilities (for the three-place pattern, see the Supplement above). (g)

Ø rem cognoscas simul et dictis animum adtendas postulo. (‘I ask you to look into this with me and bend your mind to what I say.’ Lucil. 693M=707K)

(h)

Postulo aps te ut mi illum reddas servom . . . (‘I demand that you give me back that slave . . .’ Pl. Capt. 938) Supplement (in alphabetical order by verb): Repente cuncti consona voce flagitant . . . Ø iudicium tantum theatro redderetur. (Apul. Met. 3.2.6); . . . quin adeas vatem precibusque oracula poscas / Ø ipsa canat vocemque volens atque ora resolvat. (Verg. A. 3.456–7); . . . plura dicemus postulabimusque Ø ex qua lÄ{h}pt ‘vi hominibus armatis’ deiectus sis in eam restituare. (Cic. Fam. 15.16.3) . . . semper flagitavi ut convocaremur. (Cic. Phil. 5.30); Miles aegre teneri, clamare et poscere ut perculsis instare liceat. (Liv. 2.65.2); Atque a me postulat primum ut clam colloquatur mecum vel Capuae vel non longe a Capua. (Cic. Att. 16.8.1)

. The use of finite imperative clauses with verbs and expressions of advising, warning, exhorting, reminding, admonishing, etc. (class (i) (c)) Exx. (a)–(c) illustrate imperative clauses functioning as object of the three-place verb suadeo ‘to recommend’, ‘to advise’. With this verb the addressee, if expressed, is in the

Finite imperative clauses

135

dative. Suadeo in this sense is rarely used with an accusative and infinitive clause (see § 15.100 (iii)). (a)

Proinde istuc facias ipse quod Ø faciamus nobis suades. (‘So you should practise yourself what you’re preaching to us.’ Pl. As. 644)

(b)

Infit lenoni suadere ut secum simul / eat in Siciliam. (‘He began to advise the pimp to come to Sicily with him.’ Pl. Rud. 54–5)

(c)

Tamen nemo suaserit studiosis dicendi adulescentibus in gestu discendo histrionum more elaborare. (‘Yet no one will urge young devotees of eloquence to toil like actors at the study of gesture.’ Cic. de Orat. 1.251—prolative infinitive) Supplement (in alphabetical order by verb and other governing expressions): Adhortor Ø properent. (Ter. Eu. 583); Hunc admonet Ø iter caute diligenterque faciat. (Caes. Gal. 5.49.2); . . . amicosque . . . hortatus sum Ø regis sui vitam . . . omni cura custodiaque defenderent. (Cic. Fam. 15.2.6); . . . eos hoc moneo Ø desinant . . . (Cic. Catil. 2.20); Quamobrem te quoque, Hortensi . . . moneo Ø videas etiam atque etiam et consideres quid agas . . . (Cic. Ver. 5.174); Meam sororem tibi Ø dem suades sine dote? (Pl. Trin. 681) Adhortatus milites ne necessario tempore itineris labore permoveantur . . . (Caes. Gal. 7.40.4); . . . Lysimache, auctor sum ut me amando enices. (Pl. Mer. 312); At hic dehortatus est me ne illam tibi darem. (Ter. Ph. 910); Pol bene facta tua me hortantur / tuo ut imperio paream. (Pl. Per. 841–1a); Quae cum esset locutus, monui regem ut omnem diligentiam ad se conservandum adhiberet . . . (Cic. Fam. 15.2.6); Id modo simul orant ac monent ut ipsis ab invidia caveatur . . . (Liv. 3.52.11); (sc. Pompeius) . . . cum Crasso se dixit loqui velle mihique ut idem faceret suasit. (Cic. Q. fr. 2.8.2) NB: Cohortarer vos quo animo fortiores essetis nisi vos fortiores cognossem quam quemquam virum. (Cic. Fam. 14.7.2)

. The use of finite imperative clauses with verbs and expressions of inducing, persuading, etc. (class (i) (d)) Exx. (a)–(c) illustrate imperative clauses functioning as object of the three-place verb persuadeo ‘to persuade’. With persuadeo the addressee, if expressed, is in the dative. With this verb declarative accusative and infinitive clauses are rare, but see (d) and (e).125 (a)

Huic Sp. Albinus . . . persuadet Ø . . . regnum Numidiae ab senatu petat. (‘Spurius Albinus persuaded this man to ask the senate for the throne of Numidia.’ Sal. Jug. 35.2)

(b)

Hoc nunc mi viso opu’st, / huic persuadere quo modo potis siem, / ut illam vendat neve det matri suae. (‘This is my task now, to try to persuade him as best I can . . . to sell her and not to give her to his mother.’ Pl. Mer. 330–2) 125 For a declarative quod clause, see Apul. Met. 3.4.3.

136 (c)

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position (sc. Plato) . . . ut ei persuaserit tyrannidis facere finem libertatemque reddere Syracusanis. (‘. . . that he persuaded Dionysius to put an end to his tyranny and restore their freedom to the Syracusans.’ Nep. Di. 3.3—prolative infinitive)

(d)

Relinqui ex ea duas partes apibus ratio persuadet . . . (‘Reason advises that two-thirds of it be left behind for the bees . . .’ Plin. Nat. 11.42)

(e)

Cum vero hoc nemini persuadere possis te tam amentem fuisse ut . . . (‘And as you can make none of us believe that you were so insane as to . . .’ Cic. Ver. 3.91) Supplement (in alphabetical order by verb and other governing expressions): T. Sempronius Gracchus consul . . . exhortatione confirmavit suos et impulit Ø consternatum superstitione invaderent hostem . . . (Fron. Str. 1.12.3); Cunctantem legatum milites perpulerant Ø fortunam proelii experiretur. (Tac. Hist. 4.20.2) Non possum adduci ut suspicer te pecunia captum. (Cic. Phil. 1.33); Sed tamen me / numquam hodie induces ut tibi credam hoc argentum ignoto. (Pl. As. 493–4); Quod ut facerem egestas me inpulit . . . (Ter. Ph. 733); Postremo, si dictis nequis perduci ut vera haec credas / mea dicta, ex factis nosce rem. (Pl. Mos. 198–9); Diu cunctantem Crispinum perpulere turmales ne inpune insultare Campanum pateretur. (Liv. 25.18.11)

. The use of finite imperative clauses with verbs and expressions of permitting, granting, allowing (class (i) (e)) Exx. (a)–(c) illustrate imperative clauses functioning as object of the three-place verb permitto ‘to permit’, ‘to allow’, and (d) shows a declarative accusative and infinitive clause.126 When the latter type of clause is used, it is not possible to add an addressee. For the verbs patior and sino, see § 15.100 (vi). For (impersonal) licet, see § 15.80. (a)

(sc. Cicero praetoribus) Cetera Ø uti facto opus sit ita agant permittit. (‘As to the rest, he left it up to them to carry out the operation according to what action was needed.’ Sal. Cat. 45.1)

(b)

Nec tamen Epaminondae permitteremus . . . ut is nobis sententiam legis interpretaretur . . . (‘Nevertheless we should not permit Epaminondas . . . to interpret to us the meaning of the law . . .’ Cic. Inv. 1.70)

(c)

. . . ut iam ipsis iudicibus sine mea argumentatione coniecturam facere permittam . . . (‘. . . that I may now allow the members of this Court, without listening to any arguments of my own, to infer for themselves . . .’ Cic. Ver. 5.22—prolative infinitive)

(d)

. . . impetrato prius a consulibus ut in Gallum tam inmaniter adrogantem pugnare sese permitterent . . .

126 For corresponding instances of the nominative and infinitive construction, see TLL s.v. 1561.28ff.

Finite imperative clauses

137

(‘. . . first obtaining the consuls’ permission to fight with the Gaul who was boasting so vainly . . .’ Quad. hist. 12)127 Supplement (in alphabetical order by verb and other governing expressions): Nam vos quidem id iam scitis concessum et datum / mi esse ab dis aliis Ø nuntiis praesim et lucro. (Pl. Am. 11–12); Quare concedo Ø sit dives, dum omnia desint. (Catul. 114.5); Siquidem mihi saltandum est, tum vos date Ø bibat tibicini. (Pl. St. 757) Et Caesar adulationibus senatus libens cessit ut vicesimo aetatis anno consulatum Nero iniret . . . (Tac. Ann. 12.41.1); Verum concedo tibi ut ea praetereas quae, cum taces, nulla esse concedis. (Cic. S. Rosc. 54); Est istuc datum / profecto ut grata mihi sint quae facio omnia. (Ter. Eu. 395–6); Dabitis enim profecto ut in rebus inusitatis . . . utamur verbis interdum inauditis. (Cic. Ac. 1.24); Et si qui deus mihi largiatur ut ex hac aetate repuerascam et in cunis vagiam . . . (Cic. Sen. 83)

. The use of finite imperative clauses with verbs and expressions of forcing (class (i) ( f)) Exx. (a)–(c) illustrate imperative clauses functioning as third argument of the threeplace verb cogo ‘to compel’. With this class of verbs subordinate clauses without ut are rare. For a non-declarative passive accusative and infinitive clause (without an addressee), see (d) (for further examples, see § 15.100). (a)

Institi itaque gubernatori et illum, vellet nollet, coegi Ø peteret litus. (‘Therefore, I urged and indeed forced my pilot to make for the shore, willy-nilly.’ Sen. Ep. 53.3)

(b)

Iamne isti abierunt, quaeso, ex conspectu meo, / qui me vi cogunt ut validus insaniam? (‘Are they out of my sight now, I ask, those two who absolutely compelled me, sound though I am, to go insane?’ Pl. Men. 876–7)

(c)

Non med istanc cogere aequom est meam esse matrem, si nevolt. (‘It wouldn’t be fair of me to force her to be my mother if she doesn’t want to be.’ Pl. Epid. 586—prolative infinitive)

(d)

Hic . . . indicta causa civem Romanum capitis condemnari coegit. (‘. . . he forced a citizen to be condemned on a charge involving his life and citizenship without a hearing of his case.’ Cic. Rab. Perd. 12) Supplement (in alphabetical order by verb and other governing expressions): Si modo id liceat, vis ne opprimat, / quae vis Ø vim mi afferam ipsa adigit. (Pl. Rud. 680–1) Elicerem ex te cogeremque ut responderes, nisi vererer . . . (Cic. Fin. 2.119); Nec tu me quidem umquam subiges redditum ut reddam tibi . . . (Pl. Cur. 540); Illi se numerare velle, urgere ut acciperet. (Cic. Att. 5.21.12)

127 For the authorship, see Chapter 16, footnote 278.

138

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position

. The use of finite imperative clauses with verbs and expressions of hindering, preventing, etc. (class (i) (g)) Exx. (a) and (b) illustrate finite imperative clauses functioning as third argument of the three-place verb prohibeo ‘to prevent’. With this class of verbs the subordinate clause has one of the negative subordinators ne, quin, or quominus, without a negative meaning: see §§  8.24, 8.27, and 8.31.128 Ex. (c) has a prolative infinitive (see also §  15.121). With quin the main clause is usually negated in some way (see §  8.26). Prohibeo can also be used with an accusative and infinitive clause, as in (d). In that case it is not possible to add an addressee (see § 15.100). A number of related twoplace verbs are also in this class, such as recusabo in (e). (a)

Simul prohibet Ø faciant advorsum eos quod nolint. (‘At the same time it prevents them from doing anything they don’t want against them.’ Pl. Ps. 206–7—NB: unique instance of Ø; the verse is normally bracketed)

(b)

Tun’ me prohibeas / meam ne tangam? (‘Are you forbidding me to lay hands on my own girl?’ Ter. Eu. 806–7)

(c)

Tu modo ne me prohibeas accipere, si quid det mihi. (‘You just shouldn’t prevent me from receiving something if he gives it to me.’ Pl. Trin. 370—prolative infinitive)

(d)

Tirones autem iubet inter legiones dispertiri et Cominium cum Ticida in conspectum suum prohibet adduci. (‘As for the recruits, he ordered them to be drafted among the legions, and would not allow Cominius together with Ticida to be brought into his presence.’ B. Afr. 46.3)

(e)

Nec vero, ut noster Lucilius, recusabo quo minus omnes mea legant. (‘Nor yet shall I object, like our Lucilius, to all the world’s reading what I write.’ Cic. Fin. 1.7) Supplement (in alphabetical order by verb and other governing expressions): Iussit maximo / opere orare ut patrem aliquo apsterreres modo / ne intro iret ad se. (Pl. Mos. 420–2); Hae fundae Samaeos cohibuerunt ne tam crebro neu tam audacter erumperent . . . (Liv. 38.29.8); Verum tamen nequeo contineri quin loquar. (Pl. Men. 253); . . . neive quis in eo agro agrum oqupatum habeto neive defendito quo mielit compascere liceat. (CIL I2.585.25 (Lex Agr., c.111 bc)); Neque si vivit, eam viva umquam quin inveniam desistam. (Pl. Rud. 228); . . . hau ferro deterrere potes ne amem, Stratophanes. (Pl. Truc. 929); Numquam hercle deterrebor / quin viderim id quod viderim. (Pl. Mil. 369–70); Plura ne dicam tuae me etiam lacrimae impediunt . . . (Cic. Planc. 104); . . . nec aetas impedit quo minus . . . agri colendi studia teneamus usque ad ultimum tempus senectutis. (Cic. Sen. 60); . . . neque · intercesurum · esse · q(uo) · h(ac) · l(ege) · minus · setiusve · fiat ·. (CIL I2.2924.20 (Taranto, c.100 bc)); Quod cum audissemus, nullam moram  interponendam putavimus quin videremus hominem . . . (Cic. Ac. 1.1);

128 For this class of verbs, see Orlandini (2003: 496–510). For prohibeo, see Torrego (2014).

Finite imperative clauses

139

Ac ne bello quidem Italico, mox civili omissum quin multa et diversa sciscerentur . . . (Tac. Ann. 3.27.2); Nec me Iuppiter nec di omnes id prohibebunt, si volent, / quin sic faciam uti constitui. (Pl. Am. 1051–2); Quei / ager · compascuos · erit · in · eo · agro quo · minus · pecus

ascere · Genuates · Veituriosque · liceat · ita · utei · incetero · agro / Genuati · compascuo · niquis · prohibeto . . . (CIL I2.584.33–4 (Sent. Minuc., Genoa, 117 bc)); Hiemem credo adhuc prohibuisse quominus de te certum haberemus quid ageres . . . (Cic. Fam. 12.5.1); Reprimam me ne aegre quicquam ex me audias. (Ter. Hau. 765) NB: Si ut inopia magna sit meum nomen in causa est, cur nihil impedio ut sit feracitas maxima? (Arn. Nat. 1.16);129 Di prohibeant, iudices, ut (ne cj. Whitte) hoc quod maiores consilium publicum vocari voluerunt praesidium sectorum existimetur! (Cic. S. Rosc. 151)130

. The use of finite imperative clauses with verbs and expressions of wishing, desiring, preferring, etc. (class (ii) (a)) The verbs of this class, in contrast with those discussed above in the subclasses of class (i), are two-place verbs. With the verbs volo ‘to wish’, nolo ‘not to wish’, and malo ‘to prefer’, subordinate clauses with a simple subjunctive are common, certainly in Early Latin. For details, see § 15.83. Examples of imperative clauses with the verb volo are (a)–(c). In (c), the person being referred to by bonus . . . esse is coreferential with the subject of the main clause. A declarative accusative and infinitive clause with volo is shown in (d). With some expressions an object constituent in the main clause is possible, as in (e). Unlike those used with the verbs in § 15.67, these object constituents are not also the subject of the subordinate clause, nor should they be confused with the pseudo-objects of § 9.17. The subordinate clause may contain an anterior tense, just as in unrealizable wishes (for which, see § 7.58). An example is (f). (a)

Amicus sum, Ø eveniant volo tibi quae optas. (‘I’m your friend, I want your wishes to come true.’ Pl. Per. 293)

(b)

Eum ego ut requiram atque uti redimam volo. (‘I want to find him and set him free.’ Pl. Per. 696—NB: ut is rarely used when the subjects of the governing and subordinate clauses are the same)

(c)

Bonus volo iam ex hoc die esse. (‘From this day onward I want to be good.’ Pl. Per. 479—prolative infinitive)

(d)

Nunc volo me emitti manu. (‘Now I want to be set free.’ Pl. Aul. 823)

(e)

Equidem sana sum et deos quaeso ut salva pariam filium. (‘I am sane and I ask the gods that I may safely give birth to a son.’ Pl. Am. 720)

129 For further late instances, see TLL s.v. impedio 534.75ff. 130 Dyck ad loc. retains ut. Orlandini (2003: 499) prefers ne. For later instances of ut, see TLL s.v. prohibeo 1789.71ff.

140 (f)

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position Nimis vellem Ø hae fores erum fugissent . . . (‘I very much wish that this door had fled from its master . . .’ Pl. St. 312) Supplement (in alphabetical order by governing expression): Cuperem Ø ipse parens spectator adesset. (Verg. A. 10.443); Nam si exoptem Ø quantum dignu’s tantum dent, minus nihilo sit. (Pl. Ps. 937); Malim Ø istuc aliis videatur quam uti tu te, soror, collaudes. (Pl. Poen. 1184); At Ø taceas malo (Pl. Ps. 209); Nolo Ø me in via / cum hac veste videat. (Ter. Eu. 906–7); Opto felicissimus bene / valeas. (CEL appendix Vindol. y 7–8 (Vindolanda, c. ad 105–20)); Sed Ø mihi vel tellus optem prius ima dehiscat / vel . . . (Verg. A. 4.24–5); . . . Ø ita me audias precor . . . (Liv. 40.9.7); Ø Mi dederit velim. (Pl. Bac. 334—NB: perfect subjunctive); Visne igitur te inspiciamus a puero? (Cic. Phil. 2.44) De quo ut quem optas quam primum nuntium accipias . . . cupio. (Cael. Fam. 8.3.1); Tibi cum omnia mea commendatissima esse cupio tum nihil magis quam ne tempus nobis provinciae prorogetur. (Cic. Fam. 2.8.3—NB: variation of construction); Quod ut faceres idque maturares magno opere desiderabat res publica. (Cic. ad Brut. 17(18).1=1.10.1); Illique exopto ut relicuam vitam exigat / cum eo viro . . . (Ter. Hec. 490–1); Malim hercle ut verum dicas quam ut des mutuom. (Pl. Trin. 762); Illum ut vivat optant, meam autem mortem exspectant scilicet. (Ter. Ad. 874); Bene equidem tibi dico, qui te digna ut eveniant precor. (Pl. Rud. 640); Non speramus ut illum iudex probet sed ut dimittat. (Sen. Con. 9.2.18); . . . quem spes reliquere omnes esse ut frugi possiet. (Pl. Bac. 370); Ut ille te videat volo. (Pl. Bac. 77); Id quaerunt, id volunt haec ut infecta faciant. (Pl. Cas. 828); At ne videas velim. (Pl. Rud. 1067); Volo ut mihi respondeas tu . . . (Cic. Vat. 14, cf. 17, 18, 21, 29) NB: with an object constituent in the main clause: . . . ita ted optestor per senectutem tuam / perque illam, quam tu metuis, uxorem tuam / . . . ut tibi superstes uxor aetatem siet / atque illa viva vivos ut pestem oppetas. (Pl. As. 18–22); opto deos · ut bene valeas . . . (CEL 74.2 (Wâdi Fawâkhir, c. ad 50)—NB: the object deos is exceptional) Cupio aliquem emere puerum . . . (Pl. Cur. 382); Regiones colere mavellem Accherunticas. (Pl. Bac. 199); Voluit in cubiculum abducere me anus. (Pl. Mos. 696)

. The use of finite imperative clauses with verbs and expressions of striving (class (ii) (b)) The verbs in this class are two-place verbs. Clauses with a simple subjunctive are rare. Examples of imperative clauses with the verb curo ‘to undertake’ are (a)–(c). In (c) the agent of defendere is coreferential with the subject of the main clause. Ex. (d) shows a declarative accusative and infinitive clause. (a)

Per aestatem Ø boves aquam bonam et liquidam bibant semper curato. (‘See that the cattle always have good, clear water to drink in summer-time.’ Cato Agr. 73.1)

(b)

Curabo ut praedati pulchre ad castra convortamini. (‘I’ll make sure you return to the camp loaded with booty in fine style.’ Pl. Per. 608)

Finite imperative clauses (c)

141

. . . si qui sunt qui desertum illum Carneadeum curent defendere. (‘. . . if there are any who would make an effort to defend that moral end of Carneades.’ Cic. Tusc. 5.87—prolative infinitive)

(d)

Curatum est — esse te senem miserrumum. (‘Care has been taken — that you should be a most miserable old man.’ Pl. Bac. 1067) Supplement (in alphabetical order by verb and other governing expressions): Ill’, quod in se fuit, accuratum habuit Ø quod posset mali / faceret in me . . . (Pl. Bac. 550–1); Cave Ø quisquam, quod illic minitetur, vostrum flocci fecerit. (Pl. Men. 994); Is curavit quod argumentum ex Dionysio ipse sumpsisset Ø ex eo ceteri sumerent. (Cic. Luc. 2.71); Ne illa quidem curo Ø mihi scribas quae maximis in rebus rei publicae geruntur cottidie . . . (Cic. Fam. 2.8.1); Nunc contra Ø villam urbanam quam maximam ac politissimam habeant dant operam . . . (Var. R. 1.13.7); domum studeo Ø haec priu’ quam ille redeat. (Ter. Hec. 262) Iam ut eriperes apparabas. (Pl. Aul. 827); Puerum autem ne resciscat mi esse ex illa cautio’st. (Ter. An. 400); Quod ut ne accidat magis cavendum est. (Cic. Amic. 99); Tertium est ut caveamus ut ea quae pertinent ad liberalem speciem et dignitatem moderata sint. (Cic. Off. 1.141); . . . minus hodierno die contendi, minus laboravi ut mihi senatus adsentiens tumultum decerneret, saga sumi iuberet. (Cic. Phil. 6.16); Semper curato ne sis intestabilis. (Pl. Cur. 30); Exigere te oportuit navem . . . quae defenderet ne provincia spoliaretur, non quae provinciae spolia portaret. (Cic. Ver. 5.59); Ex summis opibus viribusque usque experire, nitere / erus ut minor opera tua servetur. (Pl. Mer. 111–12); Optata ut evenant operam addito. (Pl. Per. 629); Nos hic valemus recte et quo melius valeamus operam dabimus. (D. Brut. Fam. 11.23.1); . . . praestaboque et enitar ut in dies magis magisque haec nascens de me duplicetur opinio. (Cic. fil. Fam. 16.21.2); Heia autem, dum studeo illis ut quam plurumum / facerem, contrivi in quaerundo vitam atque aetatem meam. (Ter. Ad. 868–9); . . . cum ille Romuli senatus . . . temptaret post Romuli excessum ut ipse regeret sine rege rem publicam . . . (Cic. Rep. 2.23) NB: . . . Tum vero dubitandum non existimavit quin pugna decertaret. (Caes. Gal. 3.23.8); . . . non dubitasse quin et corpus suum et cetera omnia . . . patriae restitueret. (Liv. 24.22.15)

Verbs of perception and cognition can be used in a similar way. Examples are (e) and (f). See also § 15.58. (e)

Vide ne me ludas. (‘Make sure you aren’t making fun of me.’ Pl. Cur. 325–6)

(f)

Hic erit considerandum ne quid perturbate, ne quid contorte dicatur, ne quam in aliam rem transeatur, ne ab ultimo repetatur, ne ad extremum prodeatur, ne quid, quod ad rem pertineat, praetereatur. (‘On this point care will have be taken not to say anything in a confused or intricate style, not to shift to another subject, not to go back to ultimate beginnings nor to go on too far, and not to omit anything pertinent to the case.’ Cic. Inv. 1.29)

142

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position Supplement (in alphabetical order by verb): (sc. vilicus) . . . consideret Ø quae dominus imperaverit fiant. (Cato Agr. 5.2); Vide sis Ø calleas. (Pl. Poen. 578) Circumspice dum ne quis nostro hic auceps sermoni siet. (Pl. Mil. 995); Et velim, quod poteris, consideres ut sit unde nobis suppeditentur sumptus necessarii. (Cic. Att. 11.13.4); Sed eum videto ut capias (Pl. Mos. 558); Au, obsecro, vide ne in cognatam pecces. (Ter. Ph. 803); Haec ut imperet illi parti animi quae oboedire debet, id videndum est viro. (Cic. Tusc. 2.47)

. The use of finite imperative clauses with verbs of causation (class (iii)) This class consists of the verb facio ‘to make’ (in its two-place frame) and its compounds.131 With this verb, clauses with a simple subjunctive are very common in Early Latin (of imperative forms more than half are combined with simple subjunctives) (see also § 15.83).132 Examples of imperative clauses with facio are (a)–(c). Note in (c) the pseudo-object te ipsam (see § 9.17). Such pseudo-objects are relatively common in Early Latin with non-imperative forms of facio.133 With the exception of a few further instances in Late Latin, the prolative infinitive in (d) is unique and as a result is often emended.134 (a)

. . . date viam qua fugere liceat, facite Ø totae plateae pateant. (‘. . . make way for me to flee, clear all the streets.’ Pl. Aul. 407)

(b)

. . . facturum ut ne etiam aspicere aedis audeat . . . (‘. . . I’ll make sure that he won’t even dare to look at the house . . .’ Pl. Mos. 423)

(c)

. . . te ipsam culleo ego cras faciam ut deportere—in pergulam. (‘. . . I’ll make sure that you yourself will be carried in a leather bag—to the common brothel.’ Pl. Ps. 214)

(d)

. . . visum est faciendum, quoquo modo res se haberet, vos certiores facere. (‘. . . stand the matter how it may, I feel it my duty to inform you.’ Sulp. Ruf. Fam. 4.12.1) Supplement: Dabuntur, Ø animo sis bono face, exoptata optingent. (Pl. As. 726); Iam faxo Ø ipsum hominem manufesto opprimas. (Pl. As. 876); Tum illam . . . . / faxo Ø se hau dicat nactam quem derideat. (Pl. Bac. 863–4—NB: illam is a pseudo-object); . . . in lapicidinas facite Ø deductus siet. (Pl. Capt. 736); Eadem istaec facito Ø mulier ad me transeat / per hortum. (Pl. Per. 445–6); . . . eo quia paupertas fecit Ø ridiculus forem. (Pl. St. 178)

131 K.-St.: II.212–13 also include praesto in its meaning ‘to produce (a result, an effect, etc.)’ (OLD § 12). See also TLL s.v. 2praesto 921.56ff. For facio, see Álvarez Huerta (2014). 132 See Bennett: I.224–8 and Mazzanti (2020) for detailed statistics. 133 For pseudo-objects with facio + ut, see Bortolussi (2014). 134 See TLL s.v. facio 104.53ff. and Shackleton Bailey ad loc.

Finite imperative clauses

143

Collyrae facite ut madeant et colyphia . . . (Pl. Per. 92); Ac te faciet ut sis civis Attica atque libera. (Pl. Poen. 372—NB: te is a pseudo-object); Iam pol ego illam pugnis totam faciam uti sit merulea . . . (Pl. Poen. 1289—NB: illam is a pseudo-object); Feci hodie ut fierent . . . (Ter. An. 603); Si poterit fieri ut ne pater per me stetisse credat . . . (Ter. An. 699); . . . puer ut satur sit facito. (Ter. Hec. 769); . . . fecisti ut ne cui innocenti maeror tuus calamitatem et falsum crimen adferret. (Cic. Clu. 168); Di immortales faxint ne sit alter (sc. Sulla). (Cic. Ver. 3.81); Alterum facio, ut caveam, alterum, ut non credam, facere non possum. (Cic. Att. 2.20.1); Alterum facio libenter, ut . . . per litteras tecum quam saepissime colloquar. (Cic. Fam. 1.7.1); Tu me reficisque fovesque, / tu facis ut silvas, ut amem loca sola. (Ov. Met. 7.818–19); Ille, si [unum] se sequerentur, quo celerius fieret, facturum dixit. (Liv. 41.4.2); Ita fit ne decidant fructus. (Plin. Nat. 17.253); . . . verba legis Papiae faciunt ut . . . debeatur. (Gaius Inst. 3.47) Sicut ego efficiam, quae facta hic turbavimus, / profecto ut liqueant omnia et tranquilla sint . . . (Pl. Mos. 416–17); (sc. sol) . . . quoque efficiat ut omnia floreant et in suo quaeque genere pubescant. (Cic. N.D. 2.41) Perficito argentum hodie ut habeat filius, / amicae quod det. (Pl. As. 103–4); Perfeci ut spectarentur. (Ter. Hec. 20); Perfeceratque Fortuna ne quid tale scribere possem aut omnino cogitare. (Cic. Fam. 4.13.1); Perfice ut ne minus res publica tibi quam tu rei publicae debeas. (Cic. Fam. 10.12.5) NB: Quo tardius certior fierem de proeliis apud Mutinam factis Lepidus effecit . . . (Pol. Fam. 10.33.1)

The interpretation of ut clauses with facio as imperative is obvious if the subject of facio is human. With a non-animate subject, by contrast, the clause may be interpreted as declarative, as in (e), where the negator is non.135 For a declarative accusative and infinitive clause, see (f) (see also § 15.93). However, with a non-animate subject like virtus the clause may well be imperative, as in (g). (e)

Splendor vester facit ut peccare sine summo rei publicae detrimento . . . non possitis. (‘Your eminence makes it so that you could not err without the greatest injury to the state.’ Cic. Ver. 1.22)

(f)

Nulla res magis penetrat in animos . . . talesque oratores videri facit, quales ipsi se videri volunt. (‘Nothing else so penetrates the mind . . . and causes orators to seem such men as they wish to seem.’ Cic. Brut. 142)

(g)

. . . si potest virtus efficere ne miser aliquis sit . . . (‘. . . if virtue can bring it about that a man not be miserable . . .’ Sen. Ep. 92.15) Appendix: In their section on causation verbs K.-St.: I.212–13 also deal with Early Latin poti’n (= potisne) ut/ne ‘is it possible that (not)?’ and with causa est ut/ne ‘there

135 Álvarez Huerta (2014: 85–7) calls such instances ‘causativité faible’.

144

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position is a reason to/not to’, as in (h) and (i), respectively. The reason for treating the subordinate clauses with these expressions as imperative is the negation, as in ( j). (h) Poti’n ut taceas? (‘Isn’t there any way for you to be quiet?’ Pl. Poen. 916) (i) An vero non iusta causa est ut vos servem sedulo . . .? (‘But don’t I have good reason to guard you carefully . . .?’ Pl. Capt. 257) ( j) Poti’n ut mihi molestus ne sis? (‘Isn’t there any way for you to stop being a nuisance to me?’ Pl. Cist. 465)

. The use of finite imperative clauses with verbs and expressions of deciding, resolving, etc. (class (iv)) The verbs in this class are two-place verbs. Clauses with a simple subjunctive are rare. Examples of imperative clauses with the verb decerno ‘to decide’ are (a)–(c). Ex. (c) shows a prolative infinitive, (d) a declarative accusative and infinitive clause. (a)

. . . senatus decrevit Ø darent operam consules ne quid res publica detrimenti caperet. (‘. . . the senate decreed “that the consuls should see to it that the state suffer no harm”. ’ Sal. Cat. 29.2)

(b)

Decrevit quondam senatus uti L. Opimius consul videret ne quid res publica detrimenti caperet. (‘The Senate once decreed that the consul Lucius Opimius should see to it that the state suffer no harm.’ Cic. Catil. 1.4)

(c)

Quidquid peperisset decreverunt tollere. (‘Whether it’s a boy or girl, they have decided to raise it.’ Ter. An. 219)

(d)

Uxorem decrerat dare sese mi hodie. (‘He had resolved that he himself would give me a wife today.’ Ter. An. 238) Supplement (in alphabetical order by verb and other governing expressions): Immo Ø dicamus senibus legem censeo . . . (Pl. Mer. 1015); Ø Profestos festos habeam decretum est mihi. (Pl. Poen. 501); Quotienscumque sit decretum Ø darent operam magistratus nequid res publica detrimenti caperet . . . (Caes. Civ. 1.7.5); . . . instituit Ø quotannis in demortuorum locum ex iis qui recensi non essent subsortitio a praetore fieret. (Suet. Jul. 41.3) . . . sic in animo habeto: uti ne cupide emas . . . (Cato Agr. 1.1); Quo leto censes me ut peream potissumum? (Pl. Mer. 483—NB: me is a pseudo-object); Alii . . . ut celeriter perrumpant censent . . . (Caes. Gal. 6.40.2);136 Labienus . . . ne quam occasionem rei bene gerendae dimitteret cogitabat. (Caes. Gal. 5.57.1); Ante omnia ut quaestio de iis habeatur qui coierint coniuraverintve quo stuprum flagitiumve inferretur. (Liv. 39.14.8); Capio 136 For censeo, see Bolkestein (1998a: 25–6).

Finite imperative clauses

145

consilium ut senatum congerronum convocem. (Pl. Mos. 1049); Consilium capiunt ut ad servos M. Tulli veniant. (Cic. Tul. 34); Quin rus ut irem iam heri constitueram. (Pl. Ps. 549); Constitueram ut V Id. aut Aquini manerem aut in Arcano. (Cic. Att. 16.10.1); Postea mihi placuit, eoque sum usus adulescens, ut summorum oratorum Graecas orationes explicarem . . . (Cic. de Orat. 1.155); In dicendo autem nihil est propositum nisi ut ne immoderata . . . sit oratio. (Cic. Orat. 198); Durius etiam Athenienses, qui sciverunt ut Aeginetis, qui classe valebant, pollices praeciderentur. (Cic. Off. 3.46)

. The use of finite imperative clauses with verbs and expressions of deserving (class (v)) This class concerns the two-place verb mereo(r) ‘to deserve’ and its compounds. With these verbs clauses with a simple subjunctive are not atttested. Examples of imperative clauses are (a) and (b). An exceptional declarative accusative and infinitive clause is shown in (c).137 (a)

. . . ego te meruisse ut pereas scio . . . (‘. . . I know you’ve deserved to perish . . .’ Pl. Poen. 1407)

(b)

Qua merui culpa fieri tibi vilis, Achille? (‘Because of what fault do I deserve to be cheap to you, Achilles?’ Ov. Ep. 3.41—prolative infinitive)

(c)

Peculium et ex eo consistit quod parsimonia sua quis paravit vel officio meruerit a quolibet sibi donari . . . (‘A peculium is made up of anything a slave has been able to save by his own economies or has been given by a third party in return for meritorious services . . .’ Florent. dig. 15.1.39) Supplement (in alphabetical order by verb): . . . numquam sciens commerui merito ut caperet odium illam mei. (Ter. Hec. 580); Quom tu es liber, gaudeo. / # Merui ut fierem. # Tu meruisti? (Pl. Epid. 711–12); (sc. Socrates) . . . respondit sese meruisse ut amplissimis honoribus et praemiis decoraretur . . . (Cic. de Orat. 1.232); . . . quoniam nulla vis humanave, virtus meruisse umquam potuit ut quod praescripsit fatalis ordo non fiat. (Amm. 23.5.5);138 Promeruisti ut ne quid ores quod velis, quin impetres. (Pl. Men. 1100)

. The use of finite imperative clauses in combination with a neuter singular adjective or a comparable expression that functions as subject or object complement (class (vi)) Subordinate clauses with these expresssions can be understood as imperative, if the person involved in the main clause (explicit—usually in the dative—or implicit) is the same 137 For a few more Late Latin instances, see TLL s.v. mereo 808.65ff. 138 For the negation in argument clauses with mereo, see TLL s.v. 810.63f.

146

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position

as the subject of the subordinate clause, as in (a). Unfortunately, there are no attestations of negated clauses, which would make it possible to determine whether such clauses are declarative or imperative. Ex. (b) shows a comparable object complement. (a)

Quid mi meliu’st, quid magis in rem est, quam a corpore vitam ut secludam? (‘What’s better for me, what’s more useful, than to take my life away from my body?’ Pl. Rud. 220)

(b)

. . . nec habui quicquam antiquius quam ut Pansam statim convenirem. (‘. . . nor did I hold anything more important than that I should meet Pansa immediately.’ D. Brut. Fam. 11.4.1)

The other possibilities are illustrated for optimum and melius (est) in (c)–(g).139 In exx. (c)–(e), it is suggested that the subject of the subordinate clause will undertake some action to bring about the state of affairs referred to by the subordinate clause. It is only in (e) that this subject is present in the governing clause (huic urbi). The fact that an action is required to achieve something can be made explicit by the addition of the supine factu, as in (f). Ex. (g) illustrates a declarative accusative and infinitive clause. For declarative ut clauses with adjectives, see §  15.32. For declarative quod clauses with adjectives, see § 15.11. (c)

Nunc adeam Ø optumum est . . . (‘It’s best to go up to him now . . .’ Pl. As. 448)

(d)

Semper tu hoc facito, Lesbonice, cogites / id optumum esse tute uti sis optumus. / Si id nequeas, saltem ut optumis sis proxumus. (‘Lesbonicus, always make sure that you consider it to be best to be the best yourself; if you can’t be that, at least that you should be next to the best.’ Pl. Trin. 485–7)

(e)

Moveri sedibus huic urbi melius est atque in alias, si fieri possit, terras demigrare . . . (‘It would be better for this city to be moved from her foundations and to migrate, were it possible, to other lands . . .’ Cic. Phil. 13.49—prolative infinitive)

(f)

Nunc hoc mihi factu est optumum, ut ted auferam, / aula, in Fidei fanum. (‘Now this is the best thing for me to do, my pot: to carry you off into the shrine of Good Faith.’ Pl. Aul. 582–3)

(g)

. . . utrum tandem putes huic civitati . . . melius fuisse et praestabilius me civem in hac civitate nasci an te? (‘. . . would you suppose it would have been better and preferable for this State for me or for you to have been born in it as a citizen?’ Cic. Vat. 10) Supplement (in alphabetical order by subject complement): Quid mihi meliu’st quam, quando illi me insanire praedicant, / Ø ego med adsimulem insanire, ut illos a me apsterream? (Pl. Men. 832); Sed Ø taceam optumum est (Pl. Epid. 59); Ø Capillum promittam optumum est . . . (Pl. Rud. 377); Prius est igitur Ø 139 For further instances, see TLL s.v. bonus 2100.17ff.

Finite imperative clauses

147

neges creatorem indulsisse aliquando delicta . . . (Tert. Marc. 4.10.4); Reliquum est Ø tuam profectionem amore prosequar, reditum spe exspectem, absentem memoria colam, omne desiderium litteris mittendis accipiendisque leniam. (Cic. Fam. 15.21.5) . . . bonum hercle factum pro se quisque ut meminerit. (Pl. Poen. 45); Ex tua re est ut ego emoriar. (Pl. Ps. 336); Neque enim ad mare admovit, quod ei fuit illa manu copiisque facillimum ut in agrum Rutulorum Aboriginumque procederet . . . (Cic. Rep. 2.5) Appendix: There are also combinations of necesse ‘necessary’ and the copula (or something similar).140 Exx. (h)–(k) illustrate the well-known imperative clauses, (l) an accusative and infinitive clause.141 The simple subjunctive is much more common than ut + subjunctive, which is the reason to regard these clauses as imperative.142 (h) Ø . . . hoc iudicium reprehendas . . . necesse est . . . (‘. . . you are bound to find fault with this decision.’ Cic. Clu. 114) (i) Nam hoc necesse est ut is qui nobis causam adiudicaturus sit aut inclinatione voluntatis propendeat in nos . . . (‘For it is necessary that a person who is to decide a case in our favour should either lean in our direction because his sympathies are so inclined . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 2.129) ( j) Atque ille eo tempore paruit cum parere senatui necesse erat. (‘And he obeyed at a time when obedience to the Senate was inevitable.’ Cic. Lig. 20) (k) Mihi necesse est ire hinc. (‘It’s necessary for me to go away from here.’ Pl. Am. 501—prolative infinitive, see § 15.127) (l) Nam necesse est hodie Sicyoni me esse aut cras mortem exsequi / . . . (‘I need to be in Sicyon today or die tomorrow . . .’ Pl. Ps. 995)

. The use of finite imperative clauses in combination with a noun functioning as subject or object complement (class (vii)) Interpretation of this type of expression as imperative is most likely when the noun indicates an obligation or necessity. A good example is officium ‘duty’.143 Ex. (a) shows the only attested instance of a simple subjunctive. There is one attestation of the negator ne (see the Supplement). For a declarative accusative and infinitive clause, see (d). Ex. (e) shows an ut clause in combination with an object complement. Often there is a preparative pronoun as subject, as in (e).

140 For the unclear categorial status of necesse, see de Vaan (2008: 103–4). 141 Two meanings of necesse can be distinguished, ‘deontic’ and ‘inferential’; see Bolkestein (1980a) and Núñez (1991). The examples in the text are all deontic. 142 K.-St.: II.236–7 take it as declarative (‘konsekutiv’). 143 For further instances, see TLL s.v. officium 525.82ff.

148 (a)

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position Primum ego officium scriptoris existimo Ø (v.l. ut) titulum suum legat . . . (‘I think a writer’s first duty is to read his title . . .’ Plin. Ep. 5.6.42)

(b)

Fuit meum officium ut facerem, fateor. (‘It would have been my duty to do so, I admit it.’ Pl. Ps. 913)

(c)

Non matronarum officium est, sed meretricium, / viris alienis, mi vir, subblandirier. (‘My dear husband, it’s not the job of wives, but of prostitutes, to charm other women’s husbands.’ Pl. Cas. 585–6—prolative infinitive)

(d)

Quid fuit officium meum me facere? (‘What was it my duty to do?’ Pl. Trin. 174)

(e)

Hoccin’ boni esse officium servi existumas, / ut eri sui corrumpat et rem et filium? (‘Is this what you consider the duty of a good servant, to ruin his master’s wealth and son?’ Pl. Mos. 27–8) Supplement (in alphabetical order by noun): Nihil opu’st Ø resciscat. (Pl. Mer. 1004) Hoc est servi facinus frugi, facere quod ego persequor, / ne morae molestiaeque imperium erile habeat sibi. (Pl. Aul. 587–8); Neque enim fas est ut tanto dispendio meo etiam culpa iungatur. (Symm. Ep. 9.125); Etsi scio ego, Philumena, meum ius esse ut te cogam / quae ego imperem facere . . . (Ter. Hec. 243–4); . . . hoc sapientiae munus esse dicebant ut, eum tueretur, qui constaret ex animo et corpore, in utroque iuvaret eum ac contineret. (Cic. Fin. 4.17); Sed iustitiae primum munus est ut ne cui quis noceat . . . deinde ut communibus pro communibus utatur . . . . (Cic. Off. 1.20); An erit haec optio et potestas tua ut . . . Milonem dicas . . . gladiatoribus et bestiariis opsedisse rem publicam? (Cic. Vat. 40); . . . hic opus est aliquot ut maneas dies. (Pl. Poen. 1421); Nihil enim tam contrarium quam si . . . defenderem ut reum, cui opus esset ne reus videretur. (Plin. Ep. 7.6.4); Sed cur impedimus Antonium, cuius audio esse partis ut de tota eloquentia disserat . . . (Cic. de Orat. 2.26); Videtur tempus esse ut eamus ad forum, / ut . . . denumerem stipendium. (Pl. Mil. 72–4—NB: ut argument and ut purpose adjunct clause); Iam tempus est ut isto gladio deorsus ad meum Tlepolemum viam quaeram. (Apul. Met. 8.13.5); Nunc ad me ut veniat usu’st Acroteleutium . . . (Pl. Mil. 1132); Qui autem ex eo cogi putat ne ut sedeamus quidem aut ambulemus voluntatis esse . . . (Cic. Fat. 9)

. The use of finite imperative clauses with so-called impersonal expressions (class (viii)) Imperative clauses are also used as subject with a few so-called impersonal verbs (for the term ‘impersonal’, see § 4.13). The evidence for the imperative status, in the form of the negation that is used, is very limited (see the Supplement). The verb licet ‘to be permitted’ serves as an illustration. Exx (a)–(c) are imperative clauses, (d) is declarative. With

Finite imperative clauses

149

licet, clauses with a simple subjunctive are very common; ut is attested for the first time in Late Latin, and only rarely there.144 It is from this use of licet with a simple subjunctive that its use as a concessive subordinator developed (see § 16.81). With decet ‘it is proper’, the example with a simple subjunctive in the Supplement seems to be unique, and ut is rarely attested (in Late Latin).145 With oportet ‘it is proper’, ut is rarely attested (in Late Latin). The prolative infinitive is also only attested in Late Latin.146 (a)

Estne empta mi istis legibus? # Ø Habeas licet. (‘Has she been bought by me on those terms? # You can have her.’ Pl. Epid. 471)

(b)

Si credis ex toto corde tuo . . . licet ut baptizeris. (‘If you believe with all your heart, you may be baptized.’ Vet. Lat. Act. 8.37)

(c)

Per hanc curam quieto tibi licet esse — (‘As far as that worry is concerned, you can be calm —’ Pl. Epid. 338)

(d)

. . . gladium ut ponat et redire me intro ut liceat. (‘. . . that she should put down the sword and let me return inside.’ Pl. Cas. 706) Supplement (in alphabetical order by verb): . . . decet / Ø animo aequo nunc stent . . . (Pl. Poen. 21–2); Licet Ø laudem Fortunam, tamen ut ne Salutem culpem. (Pl. As. 718); Licet Ø iste dicat emisse, sicuti solet dicere, credite hoc mihi iudices. (Cic. Ver. 4.133); Illa licet Ø non det (sc. oscula), non data sume tamen. (Ov. Ars 1.664—NB: local negation by non); . . . Ø faber haec faciat oportet. (Cato Agr. 14.1); Ø Omnia fecerit oportet . . . (Cic. Phil. 7.26); . . . multa oportet Ø discat ac dediscat . . . (Cic. Quinct. 56); Ø Ego crimen oportet diluam . . . (Cic. S. Rosc. 36) Hominem . . . decuerat ne voluisset aliter reverti. ([Quint.] Decl. 5.2—NB: a unique (?) negated clause); Filius autem cum sit verus, oportet ut de divina illa substantia patris genitus cognoscatur. (Filastr. 66.4 (4th cent. ad (late))

. The subordinating devices of finite imperative clauses Ut + subjunctive for clauses with a positive content and ne for negative clauses are by far the most common subordinators in imperative clauses. They are used with all governing expressions discussed in §§ 15.66–80, with the exception of the so-called impersonal expressions discussed in §  15.80. Argument clauses in the subjunctive without a subordinator are also quite common. Ne, quin, and quominus are used for the verbs discussed in § 15.72. The status of quo and qui as subordinators of argument clauses is not obvious. For discussion, see §§ 15.87–8.

. The use of ut, ut ne, and ne in imperative clauses If an imperative clause is negative, the regular negation is either by the adverb ne (in ut ne), which is also used in negative imperative sentences (see §  8.13), or by the 144 See TLL s.v. liceo 1361.72ff. 145 See TLL s.v. deceo 135.5ff. 146 See TLL s.v. oportet 742.14ff.; 741.42ff., respectively.

150

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position

subordinator ne (see § 8.23). However, with many of the verbs and expressions discussed in §§ 15.66–80, ut + non is found as well (see also §§ 15.25 and 15.27 for the reverse situation).147 Most of these instances can be understood in one of the following ways: if (i) there is no obvious entity that controls the action the clause is about, or if (ii) the negation does not affect the clause as a whole, but only part of it, or if (iii) the content of the clause is in contrast with something else, non is the necessary negator. An example of efficio, a verb that usually has a negative clause with ne, is (a); however, here we have a clear contrast with bonum etiam esse mortem in the preceding context, so non is what one would expect.148 An additional factor in the use of non where ne might be expected is the gradual decrease in the use of ne, both in independent sentences and in subordinate clauses. (a)

Ut doceam, si possim, non modo malum non esse, sed bonum etiam esse mortem. # . . . Ut enim non efficias quod vis, tamen mors ut malum non sit efficies. (‘To show you if I can that death is not merely no evil but positively a good.’ # . . . ‘For though you may not achieve what you wish, still you will succeed in showing that death is not an evil.’ Cic. Tusc. 1.16)

For the use of neque and neve in coordinated imperative clauses, see §§ 8.38–40. From Early Latin onwards the combination ut(i) ne is much less common than the subordinator ne, especially, it seems, in argument clauses: in Cicero’s orations there are about thirty-five instances of ut ne argument clauses and about thirty-five of satellite clauses, each half a column in Merguet’s lexicon; the instances of ne argument clauses take up more than eight columns, those of ne satellite clauses three and a half. In the same texts juxtaposed ut ne is as frequent as separated ut . . . ne.149 Much attention has been devoted to the question of whether the subordinator ne must be explained as a reduced form of ut ne or ut ne as an extended form of ne. The latter position is more attractive, but there is no proof.150

. Imperative clauses with a simple subjunctive (without a subordinator) Among the utterances that contain one of the governing expressions discussed in §§ 15.66–80 and a clause with a simple subjunctive (that is: without a subordinator), a large number belong to only a few of these expressions, viz. those of begging and requesting (§ 15.67), causation verbs (§ 15.75), and a few others, and to these only in a very stereotyped form. The first class consists of utterances in which a clause containing a first person singular present indicative form of a verb of asking (e.g. oro ‘to supplicate’, quaeso ‘to ask’, 147 A very complete collection of verbs that are used with (ut) ne and ut non can be found in Kirk (1923). For discussion, see Panchón (2003: 448–60). 148 Panchón (2003: 449–50) discusses the same example and explains non as due to the fact that a state of affairs like mors malum est ‘death is an evil’ is not controllable. Still another explanation is that of K.-St.: II.246: brachylogy instead of ut mortem malum non esse putem. 149 The data in Merguet (Reden) can be found s.v. ne, p. 253. For Plautus and Terence, see Panchón (2003: 451). 150 See Panchón (2003: 451–2), with references.

Finite imperative clauses

151

and rogo ‘to ask’) is followed or preceded by a clause with a subjunctive verb form in the second person. The apparently governing expressions more often follow the subordinate clause, as in (a), or are inserted parenthetically, as in (b); however, they may also precede, as in (c). What seems at first to be a subordinate clause functions in fact as an independent imperative sentence, with the verb of asking functioning almost as a question particle (like English ‘please’), in the same way as oro functions in (d) with the imperative dic. (See § 6.29 on modulation of the directive illocutionary force of imperative sentences.) (a)

Modo Ø pacem faciatis oro, ut ne mihi iratus siet. (‘Just make peace between us, please, so that he isn’t angry with me.’ Pl. Mer. 992)

(b)

Opsecro ego vos, Ø mi auxilio, / oro optestor, sitis et hominem demonstretis quis eam apstulerit! (‘I beg you, I entreat you: please help me and show me the man who’s taken it away.’ Pl. Aul. 715)

(c)

Quaeso Ø ignoscas, siquid stulte dixi atque imprudens tibi. (‘Please forgive me if I said anything stupid to you without being aware of it.’ Pl. Men. 1073)

(d)

Sed tu dic, oro, pater meus tune es? (‘But please do tell me: are you my father?’ Pl. Capt. 1021)

In less stereotyped contexts the verb of asking more often precedes and ut is more common, as illustrated by (e) and (f). In (e) the form of oro is future tense, and the subject of the ut clause is third person. In (f) oro governs an object (te) and the clause is longer. In instances like these the governing expressions cannot be regarded as modulators added to independent imperative sentences. (Obviously, in individual instances with a first person form it may be difficult to tell whether we are dealing with its idiomatic use or with its full lexical meaning—see also § 14.3.)151 (e)

Igitur orabo ut manu me emittat. (‘Then I’ll ask him to set me free.’ Pl. Aul. 817)

(f)

Et te oro Ø porro in hac re adiutor sis mihi. (‘And I ask you to continue to stand by me in this.’ Ter. Hec. 721) A similar idiomatic use (very common in Cicero’s letters) can be observed for the first person singular present subjunctive form of the verb volo ‘to wish’ (velim) in combination with a subordinate clause in the second person, as in (g) and (h). The subjunctive clause might also be regarded as independent in questions with vis and vi’n ( = visne) ‘do you want?’, as in (i). But in ( j), with a third person subject in the clause, such an analysis is excluded. Note the presence of ut. (g) Ø Vera dicas velim. (‘I wish you would tell the truth.’ Pl. Cas. 234)

151 For the use of rogo with and without ut in non-literary letters, see Halla-aho (2009: 81–5).

152

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position (h) Et velim Ø cogites, id quod mihi pollicitus es, quem ad modum bibliothecam nobis conficere possis. (‘And please give some thought to how you are to procure a library for me as you have promised.’ Cic. Att. 1.7) (i) Vi’n vocem huc ad te? # Voca. (‘Do you want me to call him over here to you? # Yes, call him.’ Pl. Capt. 360) ( j) Velim ut tibi amicus sit. (‘I hope he will remain your friend.’ Cic. Att. 10.16.1) Supplement: Et quo die Roma te exiturum putes velim Ø ad me scribas, ut . . . (Cic. Att. 2.5.3); Et Ø scribas mihi velim de gladiatoribus, sed ita bene si rem gerunt; non quaero male si se gesserunt. (Cic. Att. 4.8.2); Ø Dionysium velim salvere iubeas et eum roges ut te hortetur quam primum venias . . . (Cic. Att. 4.15.10—NB: ut is used in the lower-level subordinate clause governed by roges) Cf.: Nolo Ø ames. (Pl. Cas. 233); Ø Erum exhibeas volo. (Pl. Mil. 546); Ø Tu vellem ego vel cuperem adesses. (Cic. Att. 2.18.4) Malim hercle ut verum dicas quam ut des mutuom. (Pl. Trin. 762)

The second class of expressions that are used with clauses in the subjunctive without a subordinator consists of imperatival forms of facio ‘to make’, sino ‘to permit’, and caveo ‘to beware’. In Early Latin there are 180 simple subjunctives with such forms of facio vs eighty-seven with ut, of sino sixty-four simple subjunctives vs zero ut, and of caveo sixty-seven simple subjunctives vs twenty-four ne. Examples of these imperative forms are (k)–(o). In (k) fac might be omitted (it functions as a metadirective—see § 6.29): second person singular present subjunctive assis alone is not impossible. In (l), cave (formally a second person singular imperative form) functions de facto like the negator ne with the second person plural subjunctive form dirumpatis; therefore it is not omissible. Comparable is (m), where cave explains the use of quicquam (instead of nihil). The other two examples are different. In (n) the use of second person singular present subjunctive scribas to express an invitation to write is not excluded, but the coordination of scribas plane et probe with adde would be strange; so vide is necessary here. In (o) the verb of the subordinate clause is first person; sinite could be omitted, but the interpretation of the subordinate clause would be different. (k)

Nunc tu, divine, huc fac assis, Sosia. (‘Now, divine Sosia, do come here.’ Pl. Am. 976)

(l)

Si tenetis, ducite. / Cave dirumpatis, quaeso, sinite transigi. (‘If you’ve got it, pull; be careful you don’t break it off, please, let it glide through.’ Pl. Poen. 116–17)

(m)

Cave quicquam, nisi quod rogabo te, mihi responderis. (‘Mind you don’t give me any reply except what I ask.’ Pl. Am. 608)

Finite imperative clauses (n)

153

Addone? # Adde et scribas vide plane et probe. (‘Should I add that? # Yes, add it and mind that you write clearly and properly.’ Pl. As. 755)

(o)

Sinite abeam, si possum, viva a vobis. (‘Let me go away from you two alive, if I am able to.’ Pl. Mil. 1084)

The simple subjunctive is attested in clauses with most of the other classes of expressions or with other forms of the verbs mentioned above, but ut + subjunctive in these cases is the normal expression. Examples are supplied in the relevant chapters. The degree to which authors (until Late Latin) use the simple subjunctive varies; it is relatively common in Early Latin, in poetry,152 and in poeticizing and archaizing prose.153 It has been suggested that (at least in Cicero) the use of ut is more formal than the simple subjunctive. Thus Cicero in his ad Familiares uses rogo ut thirty-nine times and the simple subjunctive only twice, whereas his correspondents prefer the latter (eight vs four). However, the rogo ut instances in Cicero differ from the rogo + subjunctive ones in several respects: (i) the former are often combined with expressions insisting on the seriousness of the request (vehementer, etiam atque etiam); (ii) ut seems to be preferred also when the subordinate clause is complex; (iii) ut seems to be preferred when the clause is separated from the governing verb by intervening constituents; the simple subjunctive most often stands next to the governing verb. (iv) Furthermore, the simple subjunctive seems to be preferred when repetition of ut can be avoided, as in (p) and (q). It seems, then, that complexity and requirements of transparency are the main determinants.154 (p)

Tanta est exspectatio vel animi vel ingeni tui ut ego te obsecrare obtestarique non dubitem Ø sic ad nos conformatus revertare ut, quam exspectationem tui concitasti, hanc sustinere ac tueri possis. (‘The anticipation of your spirit and talents is so great that I don’t scruple to beg and adjure you to return to us with a character so finished, as to be able to support and maintain the expectations which you have excited.’ Cic. Fam. 2.1.2)

(q)

Illud abs te peto, Ø des operam, id quod mihi adfirmasti, ut te ante Kal. Ian. ubicumque erimus sistas. (‘I only ask you to try, as you assured me you would, to present yourself wherever I am before the Kalends of January.’ Cic. Att. 3.25) Caesar uses simple subjunctives sparingly, but whereas in Plautus the bulk of the instances are found with a limited number of governing expressions, the distribution in Caesar is more even; this is not a sign of informality but rather is part of a general

152 See Wieland (1966) on Verg. Ecl. 5.15. 153 Detailed information for Early Latin can be found in Bennett: I.208–45 and Mazzanti (2020) (especially about facio). A survey of the verbs involved and the first attestations can be found in K.-St.: II.227–31; Sz.: 530–1. For Symmachus, see Haverling (1988: 228–31). 154 See Halla-aho (2009; 2010), Pinkster (2010b: 198–200), TLL s.v. peto 1975.6ff. In Plautus and Terence distance between the governing verb and the subordinate clause favours the use of ut (Mazzanti p.c.).

154

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position endeavour in the text segments in which they are found to be brief.155 In the Vindolanda Tablets the simple subjunctive predominates (twelve (+two?) : five).156

The relationship between the governing expression and the clause it governs in the stereotyped expressions discussed above is sometimes called ‘paratactic’, and many scholars assume that it was from such ‘paratactic’ combinations that the less stereotyped combinations like (e) and (f) above developed. However, the latter show all the characteristics of subordination mentioned in § 14.2 and must therefore be regarded as subordinate.157

. The use of the subordinator ne in imperative clauses The subordinator ne is used with a negative meaning in most of the classes discussed in §§ 15.65–80, with the exception of verbs of hindering and preventing (§ 15.72). See also § 8.23.

. The use of quin in imperative clauses The subordinator quin is used without a negative meaning with verbs and expressions of hindering, preventing, and hesitating (see §  15.72; also §  8.27) and of striving (see § 15.74). The main clause is almost always negative. There are a few exceptions, which are explained as intrusions of quin into the domain of quominus.158 The first instance is (a). (a)

. . . ut . . . alii morari (nihil morari recc.) Caesarem dicerent quin naves conscendere iuberet . . . (‘. . . that . . . some asserted that Caesar was being slow in giving orders to embark.’ B. Alex. 7.1) Supplement: . . . Veranius . . . quin ultra bellum proferret morte prohibitus est . . . (Tac. Ann. 14.29.1); . . . nocturnas tenebras sibi causabatur obsistere quin clavem curiose absconditam repperiret. (Apul. Met. 9.20.3)

. The use of quominus in imperative clauses The subordinator quominus is used without a negative meaning with verbs and expressions of hindering, preventing, and hesitating (see § 15.72; also § 8.31).

. The use of quo in imperative clauses The subordinator quo is very rarely used more or less in the sense of ut in combination with a comparative expression in imperative clauses governed by verbs and expressions 155 See Sznajder (1987). 156 The data are taken from Adams (1995: 117). 157 See Bennett: I.244–5 and Sznajder (1996; 2001a; 2003: 37–69; 2012). 158 See K.-St.: II.262.

Finite imperative clauses

155

of admonishing (§ 15.68) and causation (§15.75). See the examples quoted in these sections. See also (a), which shows the relationship with quominus in § 15.86. (a)

Nemo est enim quin sciat quo minus discessio fieret per adversarios tuos esse factum. (‘For there is no one that is ignorant of the fact that it was all the doing of your opponents that no division took place.’ Cic. Fam. 1.4.2)

. The use of qui in imperative clauses The interrogative/relative adverb quī is sometimes used in Early Latin in a way that resembles the use of ut in imperative argument clauses. An example is (a). Note the negator ne. (a)

. . . / facite, fingite, invenite, efficite qui detur tibi. / Ego id agam mihi qui ne detur. (‘. . . plot, scheme, contrive to have her given to you. I’ll do the same to have her not given to me.’ Ter. An. 334–5) Supplement: Nolo ego mi te tam prospicere qui meam egestatem leves, / sed ut inops infamis ne sim . . . (Pl. Trin. 688–9); Haud facile’st defensu qui ne comburantur proxumae. ( pall. 47)

15.89 Exclamatory argument clauses This section deals with finite exclamatory argument clauses; accusative and infinitive clauses that function as independent exclamatory sentences are discussed in § 6.35, exx. (t)–(y) + Supplement. Finite exclamatory clauses consist of a finite verb form and one of the exclamatory pronouns, determiners, adjectives, or adverbs which are also used in exclamatory sentences (see § 6.35, exx. (a)–(g) + Supplement). Formally these exclamatory words cannot be distinguished from the question words listed in § 6.19. As a consequence, exclamatory clauses resemble interrogative clauses and in grammars are often not treated as a separate clause type (see § 15.45).159 Examples of exclamatory clauses are (a)–(e), with a pronoun in (a), a determiner in (b), a manner adverb in (c), and an adverb of degree modifying largus in (d). (a)

Videti’n viginti minae quid pollent quidve possunt? (‘Can you see what power and what might twenty minas has?’ Pl. As. 636)

(b)

Quae hic monstra fiunt anno vix possum eloqui. (‘I could barely tell you in a year what apparitions take place here.’ Pl. Mos. 505)

(c)

Vide palliolum ut rugat. (‘Look how your cloak is all crumpled.’ Pl. Cas. 246—repeated from § 15.45)

159 See, however, Bodelot (2005) from whom most of the examples in this section have been taken.

156 (d)

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position Audi’n hunc opera ut largus est nocturna? (‘Can you hear how generous he is with his nightshift?’ Pl. As. 598)

The subordinate clauses in (a)–(d) do not refer to missing knowledge the addressee might be interested in; rather, they draw attention to something in the communicative situation that is surprising, unexpected, or extraordinary. The governing expressions make an appeal to the addressee or show the involvement of the speaker. In Early Latin, the mood in these clauses is regularly the indicative, as in the examples above. In fact, in several cases omission of the governing expression would result in a correct independent exclamatory sentence. Later on the subjunctive becomes ever more common (see § 7.133–5). Supplement: Papae, / audi’n tu ut deliramenta loquitur? (Pl. Men. 918–20); O scelera: illuc vide / ut in ipso articulo oppressit. (Ter. Ad. 228–29); Non dici potest quam cupida eram huc redeundi . . . (Ter. Hec. 91–2); Et vide quam conversa res est (sit cj. Lambinus): illum quo antea confidebant metuunt, hunc amant quem timebant. (Cic. Att. 8.13.2); Aspice venturo laetentur ut omnia saeclo! (Verg. Ecl. 4.52); Servilius atque Atilius, proximi consules, vide quemadmodum eum ludificati sint. (Liv. 22.39.17); Vide quam sit se contentus: aliquando sui parte contentus est. (Sen. Ep. 9.4)

15.90 Non-finite argument clauses The non-finite verbal argument clauses will be discussed in the following sections in an order that differs from that used in §§ 14.5–14: here the order will be according to the traditional morphological classification of infinitives (§§ 15.91–131), participles (§§ 15.132–4), gerunds (§§ 15.135–9), and gerundives (§§ 15.140–2).

15.91 Infinitival argument clauses Two classes of infinitival argument clauses are distinguished: accusative and infinitive (AcI) clauses and prolative infinitive clauses. The difference between the two classes can be demonstrated with the three-place verb admoneo that allows both. In its meaning ‘to advise or remind (that something is the case)’ it may govern an accusative and infinitive clause, as in (a); in its meaning ‘to advise or recommend (to do something)’ it may govern a prolative infinitive clause, as in (b). (a)

Tantum te admonebo si illi absenti salutem dederis, praesentibus te his daturum. (‘I will merely remind you that, if you grant life to the absent Ligarius you will grant it to all these here present.’ Cic. Lig. 38)

(b)

Nonne te . . . Quinta illa Claudia aemulam domesticae laudis . . . esse admonebat? (‘Did not even that celebrated Quinta Claudia admonish you to emulate the praise belonging to our house?’ Cic. Cael. 34)

Infinitival clauses

157

In (a), the infinitive daturum has its own subject te (which happens to be coreferential with the addressee te of admonebo). In (b), by contrast, esse has no subject of its own; its subject has to be inferred from te, the addressee of admonebat. Thus it is a type of ‘fused’ clause (see § 14.10). In (a), the infinitive is part of an accusative and infinitive construction that as a whole functions as the third argument of admonebo, whereas in (b) esse itself (with its subject complement aemulam) is the third argument of admonebat. Both have their passive counterpart with the addressee constituent as subject, as in (c) and (d), respectively. (c)

. . . admonitus sum ab illo multo maiore auctoritate illis de rebus dici posse, si ipse loquerer de re publica . . . (‘It was suggested to me that a discourse on such subjects could be given with much greater force if I spoke of the state in my own person.’ Cic. Q. fr. 3.5.1)

(d)

. . . nostrique detrimento admonentur diligentius exploratis locis stationes disponere . . . (‘. . . and our own troops were taught by the disaster to post their pickets only after the prospective locations had been reconnoitred more carefully.’ Hirt. Gal. 8.12.7)

The accusative and infinitive clause with admoneo is a declarative clause, and alternative finite clauses with quod are also attested for this verb (from Gaius onwards). The prolative infinitive clause, by contrast, is an imperative clause, and ut clauses can also be used with admoneo and in fact are more common.

. Accusative and infinitive clauses For the internal structure of the accusative and infinitive clause, see § 14.8. The content of an AcI clause is declarative (but see § 15.100 (iii)), which explains the lack of restrictions on its internal structure: even disjuncts are permitted. AcI clauses are very common in all periods of Latin. Although the AcI is used with a large range of governing expressions, it is especially its use with verbs of communication that is responsible for its high frequency in narrative texts.

. The functions of accusative and infinitive clauses The AcI is used in four different argument positions: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

as subject with various so-called impersonal expressions160 and in the passive counterparts of two-place active verbs that are found with the AcI as object; as object with a variety of two-place verbs and expressions; as object with a variety of three-place verbs; as third argument with a number of so-called double accusative verbs, such as admoneo ‘to advise’ and doceo ‘to teach’.

160 Some scholars deny that in this context the AcI has the function subject. For discussion, see Lavency (2003: 102–9).

158

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position

In addition, the AcI can be used with all sorts of preparative expressions, which is sometimes called its explicative use. The following sections (§§ 15.93–102) deal with the classes of governing expressions with which the AcI is regular; the ordering is the same as for finite subordinate clauses with quod and quia in §§ 15.5–21. In narrative texts or in narrative passages a large proportion of accusative and infinitive clauses does not depend on a specific governing verb.161 Examples are (a)–(d). In (a), repeated from § 14.25, the accusative and infinitive in the main clause of the second sentence follows an imperative clause governed by hortatur ac postulat. With hortor the accusative and infinitive is exceptional.162 In (b), the accusative and infinitive clause follows an indirect question governed by rogitantibus, which is not found with an accusative and infinitive clause (for rogo, see §  15.100). In (c), it is likely that loquitur is used absolutely and does not immediately govern the AcI (for loquor + AcI, see § 15.98). In (d), criminatus est governs a personal object (Q. Metellum) and is then continued by an AcI clause. See also § 14.25 for ‘free indirect discourse’. (a)

Pro quibus rebus hortatur ac postulat ut rem publicam suscipiant atque una secum administrent. Sin timore defugiant illis se oneri non futurum et per se rem publicam administraturum. (‘For all these reasons he exhorted the senators and asked them to take charge of the state and administer it with him. “But if fear makes you shirk the task, I will not be a burden to you but will administer the state myself.” ’ Caes. Civ. 1.32.7)

(b)

Ac plerisque rogitantibus dimissi ecquod feminis quoque asylum aperuissent; id enim demum compar conubium fore. (‘And they were dismissed by numerous people asking if they had opened a sanctuary for women as well as for men, for in that way only would they obtain suitable wives.’ Liv. 1.9.5)

(c)

Audiente utroque exercitu loquitur Afranius: non esse aut ipsis aut militibus suscensendum, quod fidem erga imperatorem suum Cn. Pompeium conservare voluerint. (‘While each army was listening, Afranius spoke: he said that they shouldn’t be angry with them or their soldiers because they wanted to keep their loyalty to their general Cn. Pompeius.’ Caes. Civ. 1.84.3)

(d)

C. Marius, cum a spe consulatus longe abesset et iam septimum annum post praeturam iaceret neque petiturus umquam consulatum videretur, Q. Metellum, cuius legatus erat, summum virum et civem, cum ab eo, imperatore suo, Romam missus esset, apud populum Romanum criminatus est. Bellum illum ducere. Si se consulem fecissent, brevi tempore aut vivum aut mortuum Iugurtham se in potestatem populi Romani redacturum.

161 See Sznajder (2001b: 613–18). In a corpus analysed by her the majority of accusative and infinitive clauses are not governed by verbs and expressions that regularly allow the accusative and infinitive clause. 162 Such an exception is Verg. A. 2.33. For instances of continuation of hortor with an AcI, see TLL s.v. 3012.4f. With postulo the accusative and infinitive is not uncommon (see § 15.100).

Infinitival clauses

159

(‘When Gaius Marius was far removed from any hope of gaining the consulship and was in obscurity in what was already the seventh year after his praetorship and it appeared that he would never seek the office of consul, when he was sent to Rome by his commander Quintus Metellus’ order, before the Roman people he lodged an accusation against Metellus, a great man and citizen, under whom he was a lieutenant. That man was prolonging the war; if they would make him consul, then within a short time he would deliver Jugurtha alive or dead into the hands of the Roman People.’ Cic. Off. 3.79)

What these examples have in common is that the notion of communication is present in the immediately preceding context, and the AcI clauses reflect what the speaker(s) said: we are dealing with some form of independent or free indirect speech. However, it is important to realize that indirect speech is only one of the uses of accusative and infinitive clauses. When, for example, an AcI functions as the subject of a verb of happening (see § 15.94), the notion of indirect speech does not apply at all. 15.94 The use of the accusative and infinitive clause as subject or object with verbs and expressions of happening and befalling or causing to happen Accusative and infinitive clauses are rare with verbs and expressions of happening. Examples are (a) and (b). Ut clauses are the regular expression (see §15.27). (a)

Nimis opportune mi evenit rediisse Alcesimarchum. (‘It’s a very convenient coincidence for me that Alcesimarchus has come back.’ Pl. Cist. 309)

(b)

Videte igitur quam inique accidat, quia res indigna sit, ideo turpem existimationem sequi; quia turpis existimatio sequatur, ideo rem indignam non vindicari. (‘See, then, how iniquitously it happens, that because an action is infamous, therefore a discreditable reputation should attach to it, but because a loss of reputation would ensue, for that reason a scandalous action is not punished.’ Cic. Caec. 8) Supplement (in alphabetical order by verb): Illud vero mihi permirum accidit tantam temeritatem fuisse in eo adulescente . . . (Cic. Fam. 3.10.5); Ceterum Tiberio haud ingratum accidit turbari res Orientis. (Tac. Ann. 2.5.1); Sed inpuberes quidem in tutela esse omnium civitatium iure contingit. (Gaius Inst. 1.189); Evenerat autem isdem diebus . . . Adonea ritu vetere celebrari . . . (Amm. 22.9.15); Ex qua mea disputatione forsitan occurrat illud . . . non posse ea quae inter se discrepant eisdem praeceptis atque una institutione formari. (Cic. de Orat. 3.34)

The accusative and infinitive construction is also found as object with the verbs of causation facio and efficio; however, ut clauses are much more common (see § 15.75). Examples are (c) and (d). This use of facio is very common in translations of the Bible.163 In some (late) instances the use of facio and efficio resembles that of iubeo, as

163 See Thielmann (1886: 180–91), TLL s.v. facio 115.37ff., Heine (1990: 6), and Hoffmann (2008; 2014; 2016a: 49–52). For the non-relatedness with Romance causative expressions, see Vincent (2016).

160

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position

in (e). With these verbs the nominative and infinitive construction (see §  15.111) seems to be excluded. In other contexts, facio means more or less fingo, as in (f).164 (c)

. . . desiderium marcescere facit volucres . . . (‘. . . the longing makes the birds grow thin . . .’ Var. R. 3.5.3)

(d)

. . . calida umoris ieiunitas . . . vehementer efficit ea coire . . . (‘. . . the hot desiccation . . . causes them to combine vehemently . . .’ Vitr. 2.6.4)

(e)

. . . quem digredientem post epulas hospitalis officii sanctitate nefarie violata trucidari securum effecit.165 (‘. . . as he (sc. Gabinius) was departing after the feast and suspected no treachery, Marcellianus, with abominable violation of the sacred duties of hospitality, had him murdered.’ Amm. 29.6.5)

(f)

. . . nuper fecit servo currenti in via / decesse populum . . . (‘. . . who recently portrayed a crowd making way for a running slave in the street . . .’ Ter. Hau. 31–2) Supplement: Si timuisse eos facis qui discesserunt, concede non timuisse eos qui remanserunt. (Cic. Dom. 10);166 . . . nulla res magis . . . tales . . . oratores videri facit quales . . . (Cic. Brut. 142); Quin ipsum Isocratem, quem divinus auctor Plato suum fere aequalem admirabiliter in Phaedro laudari fecit ab Socrate . . . (Cic. Opt. Gen. 17); Quem tamen Homerus apud inferos conveniri facit ab Ulixe . . . (Cic. N.D. 3.41); . . . quod faciat nos / vivere cum sensu . . . (Lucr. 3.100–1); Facit . . . capitis gravitatem . . . sudoresque frigidos manare. (Larg. 180); . . . et factum est illi venire Alexandrie con tirones et me reliquid con matrem meam . . . (CEL 146.21–3 (Karanis, c. ad 115)—NB: illi is a dative instead of an accusative);167 Tutores et curatores . . . satisdare debere verba edicti faciunt. (Gaius Inst. 4.99); Nam et in evangelio Mathei (sc. 5.32): qui dimiserit, inquit, uxorem suam praeter causam adulterii, facit eam adulterari. (Tert. Marc. 4.34.6—NB: .ztpś lß~ÿx wztpsōxlt); Haec omnia mixta . . . defervere facies. (Mulom. Chir. 158) Quidam debitor epistulam quasi a Titio mitti creditori suo effecit, ut ipse liberetur. (Ulp. dig. 4.3.38); . . . ut instar ducis rerum experientia clari ad arbitrium suum audiri efficeret causas. (Amm. 19.12.5)

15.95 The use of the accusative and infinitive clause as subject with accedit ‘to be added to’ or ‘to constitute an addition to’ There is only one attestation of the use of the AcI with the verb accedit, viz. (a). Quod clauses are the norm (§15.6). a)

Quod superest, nescio morum gloriae an indignationis dolori accedat inter tot Metellos tam sceleratam C. Atini audaciam semper fuisse inultam.

164 See TLL s.v. facio 117.82ff. 165 So Thielmann (1886: 191–206). 166 For these instances, see Thielmann (1886: 177–80). 167 See Adams (1977: 63–4).

Infinitival clauses

161

(‘For the rest I know not whether it adds to the credit of our morals or to the anguish of our indignation that among so many Metelli that criminal audacity of Gaius Atinius for ever went unpunished.’ Plin. Nat. 7.146)

15.96 The use of the accusative and infinitive clause as subject or object with verbs and expressions meaning ‘to leave unmentioned’ The accusative and infinitive clause is occasionally used with expressions meaning ‘to leave unmentioned’. An example is (a). Quod clauses are the norm, for which see § 15.7. (a)

Etsi paene praeterii chartam tibi deesse. (‘Although I almost failed to mention that you are short on paper.’ Cic. Att. 5.4.4) Supplement: . . . mitto cupiditate matris expulsam ex matrimonio filiam. (Cic. Clu. 188); Nec illud praeteribo, aspidum naturae halicacabum in tantum adversam ut . . . (Plin. Nat. 21.182)

15.97 The use of the accusative and infinitive clause with verbs and expressions of emotion The AcI is found with verbs and expressions of emotion from Early Latin onward, both as the object, as with gaudeo in (a), and as the subject, as with pudeat te in (b), and with the neuter singular adjective iucundum in (c). From the same time on, finite clauses with quod and other subordinators are found as well, but these are less common in Early and Classical Latin: they make up less than 10 per cent of the total number of subordinate clauses dependent on this class of verbs (see § 15.8). For subject infinitives with the impersonal verbs of emotion, see § 15.129. (a)

Placiturum tibi esse librum II suspicabar, tam valde placuisse quam scribis valde gaudeo. (‘I thought you would like Book II, but I’m very glad you liked it so very much as you say in your letter.’ Cic. Q. fr. 2.8.1)

(b)

. . . pudeat te ausum illum umquam esse incedere tamquam tuum competitorem. (‘. . . you would be ashamed that he ever dared to parade as your competitor.’ Cael. Fam. 8.9.1)

(c)

Qua in re non tam iucundum mihi videri debuit non interfectum a te quam miserum te id impune facere potuisse. (‘In this affair the fact that I was not killed by you was necessarily not so pleasing to me as the thought that you could have done so with impunity was lamentable.’ Cic. Phil. 2.5) Supplement (in alphabetical order by governing expression): . . . id nunc his cerebrum uritur, me esse hos trecentos Philippos facturum lucri. (Pl. Poen. 770–1); Crucior bolum tantum mi ereptum tam desubito e faucibus. (Ter. Hau. 673); Ego te afuisse tam diu a nobis et dolui, quod carui fructu iucundissimae consuetudinis, et laetor, quod absens omnia cum maxima dignitate es consecutus quodque in omnibus tuis rebus meis optatis Fortuna respondit. (Cic. Fam.

162

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position 2.1.2); . . . Hoc tibi non invideo, caruisse te pulcherrimo spectaculo . . . (Cic. Fam. 8.4.1); . . . laetor tandem longi erroris vobis finem factum esse . . . (Liv. 5.3.3); Istuc tibi ex sententia tua obtigisse laetor. (Ter. Hau. 683); Maiorum optenui laudem, ut sibei me esse creatum / laetentur. (CIL I2.15.6–7 (Scip. Elog., Rome, c.135 bc?)); . . . qui eam (sc. patriam) nimium tarde concidere maererent. (Cic. Sest. 25); Sed ut maestus est sese hasc’ vendidisse. (Pl. Mos. 796); . . . populi Romani exercitum hiemare atque inveterascere in Gallia moleste ferebant . . . (Caes. Gal. 2.1.3); Vitio mihi dant quod mortem hominis necessari graviter fero atque eum quem dilexi perisse indignor. (Mat. Fam. 11.28.2) Iuvat me haec praeclara nomina artificum, quae isti ad caelum ferunt, Verris aestimatione sic concidisse. (Cic. Ver. 4.12); Nec vero paenitere potest rem publicam me pro eo spopondisse . . . (Cic. ad Brut. 26.4); . . . simul me piget parum pudere te. (Pl. Trin. 661); Pudet prodire me ad te in conspectum, pater. (Pl. Bac. 1007); Dolet pudetque Graium me et vero piget. (Acc. trag. 471); Carthaginienses . . . ita pigebat inriti incepti, pudebatque adeo se spretos ut . . . (Liv. 26.37.6)

The accusative and infinitive construction is also the usual one with the verbs queror and conqueror ‘to complain’ and glorior ‘to boast’, which denote the verbal manifestation of an emotion (for quod, see § 15.8, exx. (f) and (g) + Supplement). (d)

Nam quod se similem esse Catilinae gloriari solet, scelere par est illi, industria inferior. (‘For as to the fact that he is accustomed to boast of being like Catilina, he is equal to him in wickedness, but inferior in energy.’ Cic. Phil. 4.15) Supplement (in alphabetical order by governing expression): Iam vero quomodo ego illam labem ignominiam calamitatemque totius ordinis conquerar, hoc factum esse in hac civitate . . . (Cic. Ver. 40); . . . (sc. homines) qui gloriantur se talem habuisse civem . . . (August. Civ. 1.152); Questus est libertum suum Flacco praetore esse damnatum. (Cic. Flac. 87)

15.98 The use of the accusative and infinitive clause with verbs and expressions of perception, cognition, and communication From Early Latin onward, the accusative and infinitive clause is the regular argument clause with two-place verbs and expressions of perception and cognition, and with two- and three-place verbs of communication (the traditional Latin term for these classes of verbs is verba sentiendi et dicendi (sometimes declarandi)). (i) When with a perception verb the accusative and infinitive clause refers to a state of affairs that is actually perceived as going on at the moment of perception, the infinitive is either a present infinitive or a perfect infinitive indicating a state resulting from an anterior action. Examples are (a) and (b). Note in (b) the parallelism of the perfect infinitive versa (sc. esse) and the present infinitive ferre. (a)

Non ego te modo hic ante aedis . . . / vidi astare? (‘Didn’t I see you standing here in front of the house . . . just now?’ Pl. Men. 632–3)

Infinitival clauses (b)

163

. . . (sc. vestigia) omnia foras versa vidit nec in partem aliam ferre . . . (‘. . . he saw that they were all turned outward and yet did not lead to any other place . . .’ Liv. 1.7.6) Supplement: Audio: Audivisti’n tu me narrare haec hodie? (Pl. Am. 747); Audi’n illum? # Ego vero ac falsum dicere. (Pl. Am. 755—NB: this is a nice illustration of the immediateness of the perception: hearing someone doing something implies hearing that person); Numquam audivi in Epicuri schola Lycurgum, Solonem . . . Epaminondam nominari . . . (Cic. Fin. 2.67); . . . ut Catonem dicere audivi . . . (Cic. Amic. 76); . . . satis lubenter te ausculto loqui. (Pl. Ps. 523a) Sentio: . . . aestuosas sentio aperiri fores . . . (Pl. Truc. 350); Postquam se amari sensit . . . (Petr. 91.7); . . . ubi (sc. sepiae) sensere se adprehendi . . . (Plin. Nat. 9.84); . . . invidia animalis mori se sentientis. (Plin. Nat. 37.158); . . . validiorem fieri se sentiat. (Plin. Nat. 20.80); Sensit immensa vi quadam urgente morborum ultimae necessitatis adesse praescripta . . . (Amm. 30.6.6) Video: Ut si illic concriminatus sit advorsum militem / meus conservos, eam vidisse hic cum alieno osculari . . . (Pl. Mil. 242–3); . . . quos semper videas bibentes168 esse in thermopolio . . . (Pl. Cur. 292); Interea intro ire neminem / video, exire neminem. (Ter. An. 363–4); Video’n ego Getam currentem huc advenire? / Is est ipsus. (Ter. Ph. 177–8); . . . videmus ex acie efferri saepe saucios . . . (Cic. Tusc. 2.38); M. . . . Cethegum . . . quanto studio exerceri in dicendo videbamus etiam senem. (Cic. Sen. 50); . . . quorum alterum sedere in accusatorum subselliis video . . . (Cic. S. Rosc. 17); . . . ut per quietem solet, videbat coniugem suam absentem sedere . . . (Amm. 30.5.18) Quid vos maestos tam tristesque esse conspicor? (Pl. Bac. 669)

In such contexts, the accusative and infinitive clause is to some extent in competition with an entirely different construction in which someone perceives an entity while that entity is engaged in a certain state of affairs, as in (c). (c)

Quis hic est quem astantem video ante ostium? (‘But who’s this I see standing in front of the door?’ Pl. Bac. 451)

Here quem, the object of the perception verb video, is expanded by the present participle astantem, which functions as a secondary predicate (the so-called accusative and participle construction—see § 21.8). Although instances like (c) are semantically close, they differ structurally from the accusative and infinitive construction. There are also contexts in which the accusative and participle construction is excluded, for example, when the embedded clause is passive: Latin has no present passive participle. The instances with a participle usually do not contain many additional constituents and are therefore usually simpler than those with an accusative and infinitive.169 However, most instances of accusative and infinitive clauses with perception verbs do not refer to actual perception, but rather to knowledge and reflection based on

168 This is not an instance of a periphrastic construction. See § 7.79. 169 For a discussion of the differences between the two constructions, see Greco (2013), with references.

164

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position

some form of perception.170 This is certainly the case when the infinitive in the AcI clause refers to an anterior or to a posterior event, as in (d) and (e), respectively, but it is also quite common when the clause has a present infinitive, as in (f). The governing verbs function de facto as cognition verbs, which explains why in the Latin terminology the two classes are not distinguished (verba sentiendi). As such, they behave like verbs such as disco ‘to learn’, cognosco ‘to get to know’, and lego ‘to read’. (d)

P. Clodium, Appi f., credo te audisse cum veste muliebri deprehensum domi C. Caesaris . . . (‘I imagine you will have heard that P. Clodius, son of Appius, was caught dressed up as a woman in C. Caesar’s house . . .’ Cic. Att. 1.12.3)

(e)

In hac discordia video Cn. Pompeium senatum quique res iudicant secum habiturum . . . (‘In the present quarrel I see that Cn. Pompeius will have with him the Senate and the people who sit on juries . . .’ Cic. Fam. 8.14.3)

(f)

Nam ego illum audivi in amore haerere apud nescio quam fidicinam. (‘I’ve heard that he is fixated on a love affair with some lyre girl or other.’ Pl. Epid. 191) Supplement: Audio: Postquam ante ostium / me audivit stare, adproperat. (Ter. An. 474–5); . . . hunc audiebant antea, nunc praesentem vident tanta temperantia (sc. esse) . . . (Cic. Man. 13); Audivi ex maioribus natu hoc idem fuisse in P.  Scipione Nasica . . . (Cic. Off. 1.109—NB: source of information added); . . . longius eum progressum audiebat neque ulla de reditu eius fama adferebatur . . . (Caes. Gal. 6.36.1); Audimus quidem te omne munus consulis obisse, sed audimus. (Plin. Pan. 59.3) Sentio: Fac te patrem esse sentiat. (Ter. Hau. 925); Sentiri haec putat, ut calere ignem, nivem esse albam, dulce mel. (Cic. Fin. 1.30); . . . nihil adpetunt, nulla re egent, nihil sibi deesse sentiunt, nihil requirunt. (Cic. Parad. 52); Falsa haec esse Pompei et Herculaneum sensere. (Sen. Nat. 6.26.4) Video: Video hercle ego te me arbitrari, Euclio, hominem idoneum / quem senecta aetate ludos facias . . . (Pl. Aul. 252–3); . . . videbat re publica oppressa nihil posse decerni. (Cic. Phil. 8.5); Nonne ad servos videtis rem venturam fuisse? (Cic. Sest. 47); Sumam annum tertium, quod et recentissimus est et ab isto ita administratus ut cum se certe decessurum videret, non laboraret, si aratorem in Sicilia nullum omnino esset relicturus. (Cic. Ver. 3.104); . . . sophistas . . . lusos videmus a Socrate. (Cic. Fin. 2.2); . . . etsi nullum consecuturum emolumentum vident. (Cic. Fin. 2.45); . . . (sc. homines) ea perferant quae Philoctetam videmus in fabulis. (Cic. Fin. 5.32); . . . nostros victores flumen transisse conspexerant . . . (Caes. Gal. 2.24.2)

(ii) Verbs and expressions of cognition cover a wide range of mental activities. Examples with a present, future, and perfect infinitive are (g)–(i), respectively. With verbs and expressions of deciding, resolving, etc., such as statuo, an imperative ut clause is possible as well—see § 15.76. 170 See Bolkestein (1976b: 283–8).

Infinitival clauses (g)

165

. . . qui omnis se amare credit . . . (‘. . . who believes that all women . . . fall in love with him . . .’ Pl. Mil. 1391)

(h)

Non mihi censebas copiam argenti fore . . .? (‘You didn’t think I’d have a lot of money, did you?’ Pl. Per. 415)

(i)

. . . scit peperisse iam, ut ego opinor, / filiam suam. (‘. . . he already knows his daughter’s given birth.’ Pl. Aul. 729–9a) Supplement (in alphabetical order by governing expression): Non ego istuc facinus mi, mulier, conducibile esse arbitror. (Pl. Bac. 52); Hoc facto proelio Caesar neque iam sibi legatos audiendos neque condiciones accipiendas arbitrabatur ab iis . . . (Caes. Gal. 4.13.1); Hunc censebat te esse, credo, quom vocat te ad prandium. (Pl. Men. 1136); . . . confido parasitum hodie adventurum / cum argento ad me. (Pl. Cur. 143–4); Si id quod dari stipulamur tale sit ut dari non possit, inutilis est stipulatio, velut si quis hominem liberum, quem servum esse credebat, aut mortuum, quem vivum esse credebat, aut locum sacrum vel religiosum, quem putabat humani iuris esse, dari stipuletur. (Gaius Inst. 3.97); . . . nihil in eo nisi frugalitatem, laborem, vigilantiam esse curamus . . . (Cic. Planc. 62); Uxorem decrerat dare sese mi hodie: nonne oportuit / praescisse me ante? (Ter. An. 238–9); Quam porro quis ignominiam . . . ut effugiat dolorem, si id summum malum esse decreverit? (Cic. Tusc. 2.16); Eos me decretum est persequi mores patris. (Pl. As. 73); . . . relinquitur intellectui nostro non dubitare hoc esse proprium angelicae potestatis . . . (Tert. Carn. Chr. 6.10);171 Nam si periclum ullum in te inest, perisse me una haud dubium’st. (Ter. Hec. 326); Non ego illam mihi dotem duco esse quae dos dicitur . . . (Pl. Am. 839); Iam vero eo magis illi maturandum iter existimabant. (Caes. Civ. 1.63.1); . . . cum exspectaret effusos omnibus portis Aetolos in fidem suam venturos . . . (Liv. 43.22.2); Quin ipsum Isocratem, quem divinus auctor Plato . . . admirabiliter in Phaedro laudari fecit ab Socrate . . . (Cic. Opt. Gen. 17—NB: see also § 15.93); . . . his vocabulis esse deos facimus? (Cic. N.D. 1.83—NB: facimus ‘we assume’); Non me fugit, iudices, vetera exempla pro fictis fabulis iam audiri atque haberi. (Cic. Ver. 3.182); Quis enim haec cernens et statos siderum (quoniam ita appellare placuit) labores non suae necessitati mortales genitos ignoscat? (Plin. Nat. 2.55); Villam integundam intellego totam mihi . . . (Pl. Rud. 101); . . . inveniebat ex captivis Sabim flumen a castris suis non amplius milibus passuum X abesse. (Caes. Gal. 2.16.1); Memoria teneo Milesiam quandam mulierem . . . rei capitalis esse damnatam. (Cic. Clu. 32); Nunc si filiam locassim meam tibi, in mentem venit / te bovem esse et me esse asellum. (Pl. Aul. 228–9); Ecquid in mentem est tibi / patrem tibi esse? (Pl. Bac. 161–2); Iam pridem equidem istuc scivi et miratus fui / neminem venire . . . ( Pl. Poen. 1347–8); Obliviscor enim Roscium et Cluvium viros esse primarios. (Cic. Q.  Rosc. 50); . . . ne senatus populusque Romanus in eam civitatem animadvertendum putaret. (Cic. Ver. 1.68); Roga me viginti minas, / ut me effecturum tibi quod promisi scias. (Pl. Ps. 114–15); In summa sciendum est, quod lege Aelia Sentia cautum sit, ut creditorum fraudandorum causa manumissi liberi non fiant, [hoc etiam ad peregrinos pertinere], [senatus

171 For the use of accusative and infinitive clauses with non dubito in Tertullian, see Hoppe (1903: 50–1= 1985: 103).

166

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position ita censuit ex auctoritate Hadriani] cetera vero iura eius legis ad peregrinos non pertinere. (Gaius Inst. 1.47); Id me insimulatam perperam falsum esse somniavi. (Pl. Mil. 392); . . . te speras modo / potesse dissimulando infectum hoc reddere. (Pl. Mos. 1014–15); Occasione / inventa spero me celerius aput te venturum (CEL 147.9–11 (Karanis, ad 100–25)); . . . proprium hoc statuo esse virtutis, conciliare animos hominum et ad usus suos adiungere. (Cic. Off. 2.17) NB: . . . nec adducar aut in extis totam Etruriam delirare aut eandem gentem in fulgoribus errare aut fallaciter portenta interpretari . . . (Cic. Div. 1.35—with TLL s.v. 602.59ff. one may understand a prolative infinitive like putare ‘to think’ with adducar (see § 15.118))

(iii) The term communication is here used in a wider sense, comprising both verbs which indicate the production of an utterance, such as clamo ‘to shout’ (a two-place verb) and verbs that indicate the transfer of information to an addressee, such as dico ‘to tell’ (a three-place verb). Many verbs and expressions of the latter type allow both a declarative and an imperative clause. The accusative and infinitive is used when the clause is declarative. For imperative ut clauses with verbs and expressions of advising, warning, exhorting, reminding, admonishing, etc., see § 15.68. Examples of accusative and infinitive clauses with these verbs are ( j)–(l), with a present, future, and perfect infinitive, respectively. Some verbs of transfer can also function as communication verbs, like addo, as in (m). Often the notion of communication is implied by the context, as in (n).172 ( j)

Ibo intro et dicam te hic astare Erotio . . . (‘I’ll go inside and tell Erotium that you’re standing here . . .’ Pl. Men. 331)

(k)

Iura te non nociturum esse homini de hac re nemini . . . (‘Swear that you won’t harm anyone for this . . .’ Pl. Mil. 1411)

(l)

. . . post id si prehensi simus, excusemus ebrios / nos fecisse amoris causa. (‘. . . if we were caught afterwards, we could say as an excuse that we did so while drunk and out of love.’ Pl. Aul. 749–50)

(m)

Mercator hoc addebat: e praedonibus / unde emerat se audisse abreptam e Sunio. (‘The merchant added this, that he had heard from the pirates from whom he had bought her that she had been kidnapped from Sunium.’ Ter. Eu. 114–15)

(n)

Ostendit sese iam mihi medullitus: / se mi infidelem numquam, dum vivat, fore. (‘She revealed herself to me from the depths of her heart: that she’ll never be unfaithful to me for as long as she lives.’ Pl. Truc. 439–40) Supplement (in alphabetical order by governing expression): Summam spem . . . nuntiabant fore ut . . . Addebant etiam me desiderari, subaccusari. (Cic. Att. 16.6.4); Ille adicit ab eodem scriptore, si locus umectus sit, ibi cacumina populorum serenda et harundinetum. (Var. R. 1.24.4); Ille autem affirmat coniugem 172 For more instances in Early Latin, see Bennett: I.383.

Infinitival clauses

167

esse adulteram . . . (Phaed. 3.3.9); Is ait se mihi allaturum cum argento marsuppium. (Pl. Men. 1043); Omnis res gestas esse Athenis autumant . . . (Pl. Men. 8); Ecce autem maxima voce clamat populus neque se uni neque paucis velle parere. (Cic. Rep. 1.55); . . . cum aliquid, quod contra dicatur, aequum esse concedimus . . . (Cic. Inv. 1.96); . . . in novissima parte corporis totum me periturum deflebam. (Apul. Met. 7.24.1); Cingetorigi, quem ab initio permansisse in officio demonstravimus, principatus atque imperium est traditum. (Caes. Gal. 6.8.9); P. Clodium meo consilio interfectum esse dixisti. (Cic. Phil. 2.21); Nec enim hunc ipsum mundum pro certo rutundum esse dicitis . . . (Cic. N.D. 2.48—NB: pro certo is a disjunct); Tandem hic exclamat eum / sibi esse sodalem. (Pl. Capt. 510–10a); Fateor eam esse importunam atque incommodam. (Pl. As. 62); Hisce eum tragoediis liberatum ferebat (sc. Rutilius). (Cic. de Orat. 1.228); . . . me discedere flevit . . . (Verg. Ecl. 3.78); Et Celsus inquit vino legato, etiamsi non sit legatum cum vasis, vasa quoque legata videri . . . (Ulp. dig. 33.6.3.1);173 Loquebantur omnes tamen (credo, quod volebant) in Syria te esse, habere copias. (Cic. Fam. 12.5.1); Iuppiter e terra genitam mentitur, ut auctor / desinat inquiri. (Ov. Met. 1.615–16—NB: subject of AcI is implicit); aute negavit se habere aspros. (CEL 141.9 (Karanis, ad 100–25)); . . . sed etiam puer ipse sibi persuasit te omnia mea causa facturum esse . . . (Cic. Fam. 13.61.1); Itaque tantum verbo posuit Sacerdote praetore Sthenium litteras publicas corrupisse. (Cic.  Ver. 2.93); praecipiendum habeo, stercus omne . . . segetibus esse maxime utile . . . (Colum. 2.14.9); Promitto tibi non offuturum, si id hodie effeceris. (Pl. As. 97–8—NB: subject of AcI is implicit); Is nunc ducentos nummos Philippos militi, / quos dare se promisit, dabit. (Pl. Bac. 969–70); Illud . . . His ego iudicibus non probabo C. Verrem contra leges pecuniam cepisse? (Cic. Ver. 1.10); Et hunc planius (cj. StorrBest) locutum esse Latine quam Hirr[i]um praetorem renuntiatum Romam  in senatum scriptum habemus. (Var. R. 2.5.5); Hospes respondit Zacynthi ficos fieri non malas. (Pl. Mer. 943); Vincone argumentis te non esse Sosiam? (Pl. Am. 433) NB: facio = fingo: . . . quem tamen Homerus apud inferos conveniri facit ab Ulixe . . . (Cic. N.D. 3.41); Si timuisse eos facis qui discesserunt, concede non timuisse eos qui remanserunt. (Cic. Dom. 10)174

With three-place verbs that have a double accusative pattern, such as admoneo and doceo (see § 4.72), the third argument may be an accusative and infinitive clause. Examples are (o) and (p). In the passive the second argument becomes the subject, as is shown by (q) and (r). (With both verbs an imperative clause is possible as well—see § 15.68.) (o)

Docuerunt enim me periti homines . . . ad Volusium traferri nomen a Valerio non potuisse. (‘Experts informed me . . . that the debt could not be transferred from Valerius to Volusius.’ Cic. Fam. 5.20.3)

(p)

Hi, ut dico, hominem admonent rem esse praeclaram . . . (‘These persons, I say, pointed out to him that the property was a very noble one . . .’ Cic. Ver. 2.36)

173 The use of the AcI with inquam is rare. See TLL s.v. inquam 1778.67ff. 174 For these instances, see Thielmann (1886: 177–80).

168 (q)

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position (sc. Romani) . . . docti . . . a ducibus erant horridum militem esse debere, non caelatum auro et argento sed ferro et animis fretum. (‘The Romans had been taught by their generals that a soldier should be rough to look on, not adorned with gold and silver but putting his trust in iron and in courage.’ Liv. 9.40.4)

(r)

. . . admonitus sum ab illo . . . illis de rebus dici posse . . . (‘. . . I was told by him that concerning these matters it could be said . . .’ Cic. Q. fr. 3.5.1) Supplement (in alphabetical order by governing expression): Certiorem te faciunt P. Africanum Carthagine deleta simulacrum Dianae maioribus suis restituisse . . . (Cic. Ver. 4.80); Primum vos docuit meis consiliis rem publicam esse servatam . . . (Cic. Red. Pop. 16); Mittitur et magni Venulus Diomedis ad urbem / qui petat auxilium, et Latio consistere Teucros, / advectum Aenean classi victosque penatis / inferre et fatis regem se dicere posci / edoceat . . . (Verg. A. 8.9–13); . . . monete eum modum quendam esse religionis . . . (Cic. Dom. 105); Fabius inpedimentis in locum tutum remotis . . . praemonitis militibus adesse certamen quadrato agmine ad praedictas hostium latebras succedit. (Liv. 10.14.7)

In the same way the three-place verb persuadeo is found with a dative addressee and either a prolative infinitive, when meaning ‘to succeed in urging’ (see § 15.118), or an accusative and infinitive clause, when meaning ‘to induce acceptance of (a statement)’ (OLD). Examples of the latter are (s) and (t). In (s) the AcI clause is the object of persuadere; in (t), the subject of persuasum sit. (s)

Cum vero hoc nemini persuadere possis, te tam amentem fuisse ut . . . (‘Since you can’t persuade anyone of this, that you were so insane as to. . .’ Cic. Ver. 3.91)

(t)

Ecquis est iudex cui non . . . persuasum sit istum in aratorum bona fortunasque impetum fecisse? (‘Is there one member of this Court who has not been convinced that he (sc. Verres) made a violent assault on the property and livelihood of the farmers?’ Cic. Ver. 3.142) Occasionally—in later Latin—communication verbs are found governing an accusative and infinitive clause that has to be understood as a command; in such cases the infinitive is present passive (see also § 15.100 (iii)). An example is (u).175 (u) . . . (sc. mulier) subiungi machinae novicium clamabat asinum . . . (‘. . . the woman shouted that the newly purchased donkey should be yoked to the mill-wheel . . .’ Apul. Met. 9.15.1) Exceptional active infinitive: in quam rem legatos ire / dixerunt universos ordinis viros (CIL VI.1685.13–14 (Rome, ad 321)). Appendix: With the verbs discussed in this section poets especially (but already Plautus) sometimes use a prolative infinitive construction, instead of an accusative and infinitive clause with a subject that is coreferential with the subject of the governing

175 Sz.: 355 calls this the ‘voluntative use’ of verba sentiendi and dicendi. For Apuleius’ usage, see Callebat (1968: 306–8).

Infinitival clauses

169

verb. Examples are (v) and (w). This is usually taken as a Graecism, but it can also be understood as an extension of the use of the prolative infinitive on the analogy of verbs of wishing and striving (see §§ 15.122–3).176 Some scholars use the term ‘nominative and infinitive’ also for these instances.177 (v) (sc. minae) . . . quas hodie adulescens Diabolus ipsi daturus (sc. esse) dixit . . . (‘. . . which young Diabolus said he’d give to her today . . .’ Pl. As. 634—NB: daturus P, daturum M, many scholars reject -us) (w) Phaselus ille quem videtis, hospites, / ait fuisse navium celerrimus (cj. Parthenius; -um OGR) . . . (‘The pinnace you see, my friends, says that she was once the fleetest of ships . . .’ Catul. 4.1–2) Supplement: Altera (sc. puella) non fama dixerit esse prior. (Verg. Cat. 9.24); Sabinus ille quem videtis, hospites, / ait fuisse mulio celerrimus . . . (Verg. Cat. 10.1–2); Vir bonus et sapiens dignis ait esse paratus . . . (Hor. Ep. 1.7.22); Iurabo bis sex integer esse dies. (Prop. 3.6.40); . . . rettulit Aiax / esse Iovis pronepos . . . (Ov. Met. 13.141–2); . . . venturaque (sc. esse) rauco ore minatur hiems . . . (Stat. Theb. 1.347–8); . . . quoad summos illi promitterent honores habituri (sc. esse) mihi. (Apul. Met. 7.14.3); Felix cum et domus tuae cultor esse diceret . . . (Symm. Ep. 9.56) (sc. vox) . . . quam ego non sine admiratione et, cum diceretur, audisse memini et deinde aliis narrasse . . . (Sen. Cl. 2.1.1)178 Different from the instances discussed above are combinations of a verb that normally governs an AcI with a perfect participle which agrees with the subject of the verb. The first attested instance of a verb of perception is (x); of a verb of communication, (y). It is also attested with other verbs, as in (z), where it is not clearly distinct from the use of participles as secondary predicate (see § 21.7).179 The use of the participle with these verbs is common in Greek.180 (x) Dixit, et extemplo (neque enim responsa dabantur / fida satis) sensit medios delapsus in hostis. (‘He spoke, and at once—for no reply that he could well trust was offered— he realized that he had fallen into the midst of foes.’ Verg. A. 2.376–7—NB: Gr. ĝ}sp~z §w.p}ˆx) (y) (sc. ianua) . . . pulsata indignis saepe queror manibus . . . (‘I complain that I have oft been battered by ill-bred hands . . .’ Prop. 1.16.6) (z) Gaudent perfusi sanguine fratrum . . . (‘They take joy in being covered in brothers’ blood . . .’ Verg. G. 2.510)

176 See the discussion in Calboli (2009: 121–30), with references. Norberg (1943: 46–63) has the fullest discussion of the relationship between these instances and other expressions where Greek influence is unlikely or excluded. 177 For example, Sz.: 365. 178 For this and similar cases, see Haverling (1988: 248–9). 179 For further instances of gaudeo, see TLL s.v. 1709.63ff., also with present participles. 180 See K.-G.: II.50ff.

170

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position Supplement: Superata fateri / cogor opemque tuam timidis exposcere votis. (Ov. Met. 9.545–6); Si libidinosa essem, quererer decepta. Nunc etiam languori tuo gratias ago. (Petr. 129.4); Invidiae nefariae letali plaga percussi sero sentitis. (Apul. Met. 4.34.4) Quo nunc Turnus ovat spolio gaudetque potitus. (Verg. A. 10.500); Iniecta monstris terra dolet suis . . . (Hor. Carm. 3.4.73)

15.99 The use of the accusative and infinitive clause with verbs and expressions of praising, blaming, and thanking The accusative and infinitive is found with verbs and expressions of praising, blaming, congratulating, and thanking, although in Classical Latin a quod clause is more common (see § 15.10; also § 15.23 for cum (quom) clauses). The use of the accusative and infinitive is especially rare when the person who is praised or blamed is identified explicitly or implied by the context. (For verbs of accusing and convicting, see § 15.130.) (a)

. . . neque ille haud obiciet mihi / pedibus sese provocatum. (‘. . . and he shan’t throw at me that he was challenged to a footrace.’ Pl. Epid. 664–5)

(b)

Gratulor nobis Quintum filium exisse. (‘I congratulate ourselves that young Quintus has gone out of town.’ Cic. Att. 15.22) Supplement (in alphabetical order by governing expression): With the person praised or blamed expressed: Boeotis exprobratum societatem eos cum Perseo iunxisse. (Liv. 42.38.5); Dis gratias agebat, tempu’ sibi dari, / ubi Phaedriae esse ostenderet nihilo minus / amicum sese quam Antiphoni. (Ter. Ph. 596–8); Exstinxisse nefas tamen et sumpsisse merentis / laudabor poenas . . . (Verg. A. 2.585–6—NB: passive); Ah, cave tu illi obiectes nunc in aegritudine / te has emisse. (Pl. Mos. 810–11) Not expressed: Pergi’n servom me exprobrare esse, id quod vi hostili optigit? (Pl. Capt. 591); . . . et id gratum fuisse advorsum te habeo gratiam. (Ter. An. 42); Hercules, decumam esse adauctam tibi quam vovi gratulor. (Pl. St. 386); . . . iterum cum oppressum Seianum apud eosdem gratularetur. (Suet. Claud. 6.1); Obiciebant (sc. eum) etiam eloquentiae laudem uni sibi adsciscere . . . (Tac. Ann. 14.52.3)

15.100 The non-declarative use of the accusative and infinitive clause The accusative and infinitive clause can be used not only with the verbs and expressions discussed above (§§ 15.93–9), which imply a factual content. It can also be used with a number of two-place verbs, notably those of wishing, and with (three-place) manipulation verbs when there is no addressee. In these cases the content of the clause is not factual. In this Syntax the term non-declarative accusative and infinitive clause is used. The verbs and expressions involved are the following: (i) (ii) (iii)

verbs and expressions of wishing, desiring, preferring, such as volo ‘to wish’; verbs and expressions of deciding and determining, such as placet ‘it seems good’ and censeo ‘to decide’; many of the manipulation verbs in class (i) of Table 15.2 (p. 130), such as impero ‘to order’ and prohibeo ‘to hinder’, when used as two-place verbs;

Infinitival clauses (iv) (v) (vi)

171

verbs of demanding, such as posco and postulo; verbs of allowing and tolerating, such as perpetior and fero; verbs requiring special attention: iubeo, veto, patior, and sino.

(i) Verbs of wishing, desiring, preferring, etc. occur with a variety of constructions, among which is the AcI. This variety is shown for the verb volo in § 15.73. When used with an accusative and infinitive clause, the subject of the AcI may be either identical to the subject of the main clause, as in (a), or different, as in (b). In the case of identity the prolative infinitive was initially more common, as in (c) (repeated from § 15.73), but over the course of time the AcI became the more commonly used construction (see also the note below). (a)

Equidem me Caesaris militem dici volui, vos me imperatoris nomine appellavistis. (‘I, for my part, wished to be called a soldier of Caesar: you have addressed me by the title of Imperator.’ Caes. Civ. 2.32.14)

(b)

Vera volo loqui te, nolo assentari mihi. (‘I want you to tell the truth, I don’t want you simply to agree with me.’ Pl. Am. 751)

(c)

Bonus volo iam ex hoc die esse. (‘From this day onward I want to be good.’ Pl. Per. 479) Supplement (in alphabetical order by governing expression): Eius cupio filiam / virginem mihi desponderi. (Pl. Aul. 172–3); Cupio, patres conscripti, me esse clementem. (Cic. Catil. 1.4); Nunc me gratiam aps te inire verbis nil desidero. (Pl. St. 514); Namque actor est, qui desiderat aut exhiberi aut restitui, reus is est, a quo desideratur, ut exhibeat aut restituat. (Gaius Inst. 4.157—NB: variation of construction); Nam quos videre exoptabam me maxume, / una exeuntis video hinc e proxumo. (Pl. Mil. 1135–6); Multa illi opera opu’st ficturae, qui se fictorem probum / vitae agundae esse expetit. (Pl. Trin. 365–6); . . . mori me malim: sentiet qui vir siem. (Ter. Eu. 66); . . . nisi Quintus aliud quid nos agere mavult . . . (Cic. Leg. 1.13); Secures suas cruentari scelere noluit. (Cic. Har. 35); Patres ordinem publicanorum in tali tempore offensum181 nolebant. (Liv. 25.3.12); . . . Chrysidem, / quae sese inhoneste optavit parere hic ditias . . . (Ter. An. 797–8); Quem te et opto esse et confido futurum. (Cic. Fam. 10.20.3); O

to te bene valre. (CEL 145.27 (Karanis, ad 100–25)); . . . quom quid cupienter dari / petimus nobis . . . (Pl. Ps. 683–4); Se quisque hostem ferire, murum ascendere, conspici, dum tale facinus faceret, properabat. (Sal. Cat. 7.6); . . . neque est quor [non] studeam has nuptias mutarier. (Pl. St. 52); . . . qui versari in re publica atque in ea se excellentius gerere studuerunt. (Cic. Sest. 96); Iustam rem et facilem esse oratam a vobis volo. (Pl. Am. 33); . . . res quaedam est quam volo / ego me aps te exorare. (Pl. Trin. 324–5); Cur te interponis invitissimis iis quibus maxime lex consultum esse vult? (Cic. Div. Caec. 21); . . . si id te senatus aut populus Romanus facere voluisset. (Cic. Ver. 3.117); Augustus, imperii formator, ne dominum quidem dici se volebat. (Tert. Apol. 34.1)

181 For the use of the perfect infinitive with verbs of wishing, see § 7.76.

172

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position NB: . . . tametsi multitudo . . . terrebat eum clamore . . . atque aliis omnibus quae ira fieri amat, vicit tamen inpudentia. (Sal. Jug. 34.1—NB: ira is nominative; Graecism according to Koestermann ad loc.)); . . . easque (sc. statuas) . . . auro curant imbratteari . . . (Amm. 14.6.8) The situation with this class of verbs is more complex than the summary above suggests. In the case of referential identity between the subject of the governing clause and the agent of the embedded clause, Terence, Cicero, and Caesar use the accusative and infinitive when the infinitive is the copula, as in (d), or a passive infinitive, as in (e). In other cases the prolative infinitive is preferred unless there is a special reason to make the subject explicit, as in (f). Plautus uses the subject accusative more freely.182 (d) . . . Ulixes . . . cum . . . in omni sermone omnibus affabilem [et iocundum] esse se vellet. (‘. . . Ulysses . . . when he strove in every word to be courteous to all.’ Cic. Off. 1.113) (e) . . . a quo Verres minime se accusari velit. (‘. . . by whom Verres wants least of all to be prosecuted.’ Cic. Div. Caec. 22) (f) Me enim quam socios tua frui virtute malebam . . . (‘I should have preferred that I rather than my allies enjoy your virtue . . .’ Cic. Planc. 13)

(ii) The use of an accusative and infinitive clause as subject of impersonal placet is attested from Terence onwards, as in (g). In an official political context it can be used to refer to a decision being made, mainly by the senate, as in (h). Visum est can be used in the same way, as in (i). The cognition verb censeo (see § 15.98) is also used in the sense of making decisions or voting in favour of, as in ( j). A more explicit way of expressing the desirability of a certain action is by using the gerund or gerundive, as in (k). The verb decerno in its sense ‘to declare’ also belongs here. (g)

Placet non fieri hoc itidem ut in comoediis . . . (‘I don’t want this to happen in the same way as it does in comedies.’ Ter. Hec. 866)

(h)

. . . si hic ordo placere sibi decreverit te ire in exsilium, obtemperaturum te esse dicis. (‘. . . if this body decides to vote for you to go into exile, you say you will obey.’ Cic. Catil. 1.20)

(i)

Ita deinde diis visum nec inritam conditoris templi vocem esse . . . (‘It pleased the gods, in the sequel, that neither should the words of the founder of the temple be in vain . . .’ Liv. 1.10.7)

( j)

Equidem cum ante legatos decerni non censuissem, hoc me tamen consolabar . . . (‘Though on the previous occasion I had voted against the ambassadors being decreed, still I consoled myself with this reflection . . .’ Cic. Phil. 8.21) 182 See Perrochat (1932b: 192–206).

Infinitival clauses (k)

173

Haec recitata a consule ita movere senatum ut non exspectanda comitia consuli censeret, sed . . . extemplo in provinciam redeundum. (‘These statements as read by the consul so swayed the senate that it decided that the consul must not wait for the elections but that . . . he must at once return to his province.’ Liv. 27.5.14) Supplement (in alphabetical order by governing verb): . . . senatus populique Romani verbis nuntient velle et censere eos ab armis discedere . . . (Sal. Jug. 21.4); De bonis regiis, quae reddi ante censuerant, res integra refertur ad patres. (Liv. 2.5.1); . . . bellum gerendum fuisse censerent hostibus et Syracusanorum et populi Romani, et urbem recipi, non capi, et receptam legibus antiquis et libertate stabiliri, non fessam miseranda servitute bello adfligi. (Liv. 26.32.2— NB: variation of construction);. . . variae fuere sententiae, ut primus vivam cremari censeret puellam, secundus bestiis obici suaderet, tertius patibulo suffigi iuberet, quartus tormentis excarnificari praeciperet. (Apul. Met. 6.31.1); Curatum est—esse te senem miserrumum. (Pl. Bac. 1067); Aditus a parentibus virginis raptae eum qui violarat convictum relegari decrevit. (Amm. 16.5.12);183 Et Apronianum Romae decrevit esse praefectum . . . (Amm. 23.1.4); Deliberatum est tamen id quoque lenius vindicari . . . (Amm. 17.13.2); Hoc sibi pulchra suum ferri Proserpina munus / instituit. (Verg. A. 6.142–3); De exercitu autem C. Caris ita censeo decernendum: ‘senatui placere militibus veteranis qui Caesaris pontificis auctoritatemque huius ordinis defenderint atque defendant iis liberisque eorum militiae vacationem esse, utique C. Pansa A. Hirti[c]us consules . . . cognoscerent . . .’ (Cic. Phil. 5.53—NB: variation of construction); . . . senatui placere C. Cassium pro consule provinciam Syriam obtinere . . . (Cic. Phil. 11.30); Hos corripi dilato ad tempus Sabino placitum . . . (Tac. Ann. 4.19.1)

(iii) The various manipulation verbs mentioned in Table  15.2 (p. 130) are usually used as three-place verbs, governing either an ut clause (see §§ 15.66–72) or a prolative infinitive (see §§ 15.115–21). However, when there is no (explicit) addressee and the governing verbs function de facto as two-place verbs, the AcI is not uncommon. Examples of such AcI clauses functioning as object are (l)–(n); as subject, (o). The clause is mostly passive and, in accordance with the meaning of the governing verb, has to be understood as imperative. The states of affairs of the AcI clause must be controlled; they cannot be anterior or posterior to the tense of the governing verb.184 For this usage with iubeo, see the discussion in (vi).185 (l)

Impera suovitaurilia circumagi. (‘Bid the suovitaurilia to be led around.’ Cato Agr. 141.1)

(m)

. . . missusne sis a me consule Puteolos, ut inde aurum exportari argentumque prohiberes?

183 For Ammianus, see den Boeft et al. ad 23.1.4. See also TLL s.v. decerno 144.70ff. 184 For these and other constraints that are typical of imperative clauses, see Bolkestein (1976a: 284–95). 185 For instances from juridical texts, see Kalb (1912: 84–6). For the extension of the AcI to other verbs in Fredegar, see Bodelot (2014b).

174

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position (‘. . . were you not sent by me when I was consul to Puteoli, that you might prevent gold and silver from being exported from there?’ Cic. Vat. 12)

(n)

Vergilius alternis cessare arva suadet.186 (‘Virgil advises letting the fields “lie fallow every other year”.’ Plin. Nat. 18.187)

(o)

Item inpuberem apud populum adoptari aliquando prohibitum est, aliquando permissum est. (‘Again, for a person below the age of puberty to be adopted before the people has sometimes been forbidden and sometimes permitted.’ Gaius Inst. 1.102) Supplement (in alphabetical order by governing verb): Passive infinitive: Hic etiam ficta vel dubia adigebat videri certissima vi nimia tormentorum. (Amm. 21.16.10); . . . ita vos estis praediti callenti ingenio improbi / officium vestrum ut vos malo cogatis commonerier. (Pl. Ps. 149–50); Si vis erat, si fraus, si metus, si circumscriptio, quis pactionem fieri, quis adesse istos coegit? (Cic. Flac. 89); . . . nequam homines et improbos, quibus aut frumentum aut pecuniam publice cogebat dari. (Cic. Ver. 3.84);187 Gallicus tumultus dictatorem creari coegit. (Liv. 7.11.4); Thymoetes / duci intra muros hortatur et arce locari (sc. equum) (Verg. A. 2.32–3);188 In quibus casibus illa ratio impedit fideiussorem obligari . . . (Gaius dig. 46.1.70.5); Pro eo tibi praesentem pecuniam solvi imperavi, ne tu expensum muneribus ferres. (Cic. Att. 2.4.1); Eo partem navium longarum convenire, frumentum commeatumque ab Asia . . . conportari imperat. (Caes. Civ. 3.42.2—NB: parallelism of active and passive infinitive); Haec aeternitas vestra venerabilis cum senatui statuenda mandaret, referri ad se protinus imperavit, ut placita cunctis inmortali lege solidentur. (Symm. Rel. 8.4); . . . signa, quae, ne nuntii morarentur, tolli procul, ut quidque factum foret, mandaverat. (Suet. Tib. 65.2); . . . si discipulos sabbato ieiunare mandasset adversus statum scripti et voluntatis creatoris. (Tert. Marc. 4.12.7); hic senior vates . . . / velleris obscuri pecudes armentaque sisti / atra monet. (Stat. Theb. 4.443–6);189 Nec defuit audentia Druso Germanico, sed obstitit Oceanus in se simul atque in Herculem inquiri. (Tac. Ger. 34.2); . . . adegit Parthos mittere ad principem Romanum occultas preces, quis permitti Meherdaten patrium ad fastigium orabant. (Tac. Ann. 11.10.4); . . . quom quid cupienter dari / petimus nobis . . . (Pl. Ps. 683–4); . . . eidem (sc. uxori) anulos et vestem reddi ab heredibus petit, quasi propria uxoris fuissent. (Scaev. dig. 34.2.18); Praecepit etiam triremis . . . magna ex parte itinere terrestri Romam devehi. (Suet. Cal. 47.1); Atquin et apostolus, cum praecipit mulierem a viro non discedere . . . (Tert. Marc. 5.7.7); Sequantur qui capi signum ab hoste prohibituri sunt. (Liv. 25.14.7); . . . cum abrumpi dissimulationem etiam Silius . . . urguebat. (Tac. Ann. 11.26.1); . . . eum ipsum qui cum omnibus creditoribus suis male agat invitum de praedio detrudi vetat. (Cic. Quinct. 85) With a gerundive:. . . hortatur ferenda esse praesentia . . . (Suet. Aug. 87.1); . . . cenam adferri quam optimam imperavit, item optimis insternendum vestimentis. (B. Hisp.

186 187 188 189

For the accusative and infinitive when suadeo means ‘to seek to persuade (that)’, see OLD s.v. § 4. For this use of cogo, see Torrego (2016b: 303, 308–9). For this exceptional use of hortor, see Bolkestein (1976a: 298–9). For this exceptional use of moneo, see Bolkestein (1976a: 297–9).

Infinitival clauses

175

33.3); Quae cura intercisionis venarum quoquo loco faciendum praecipio . . . (Mulom. Chir. 104)190 Active infinitive: Nec minus in certo dentes cadere imperat aetas / tempore et inpubem molli pubescere veste / et pariter mollem malis demittere barbam. (Lucr. 5.672–4); Caesar celeriter de navibus imperat omnes egredi atque . . . milites exspectare. (B.  Afr. 11.2); Irin ad Hersiliam descendere . . . / imperat . . . (Ov. Met. 14.830–1); . . . quot haberet corpora pulvis, / tot mihi natales contingere vana rogavi. (Ov. Met. 14.137–8)191

(iv) Of the verbs of demanding that can govern an AcI, postulo is the most common.192 The subject of the AcI clause may be identical to the subject of the governing clause, as in (p), or different, as in (q). Note in (p) the use of a future infinitive, which shows that there are no restrictions on the infinitive, as is normal for accusative and infinitive clauses (see § 14.8). With this class of verbs ut clauses are also common (see § 15.67) and prolative infinitives are possible as well (see § 15.116). These verbs are two-place verbs, with the exception of flagito, which also has a three-place pattern (see § 15.67).193 (p)

Iam postulabas te, impurata belua, / totam Siciliam devoraturum insulam? (‘You dirty beast, did you expect you’d immediately swallow the whole island of Sicily?’ Pl. Rud. 543–4)

(q)

. . . nos nostras aedis postulas comburere? (‘. . . do you expect us to burn down our house?’ Pl. Aul. 361) Supplement (in alphabetical order by governing verb): Ille Armeniam quoque diversis praesidiis vacuam fieri expostulabat. (Tac. Ann. 15.17.3); . . . cum quidem tanta populi Romani contumacia fuit, ut theatri clamoribus reponi apoxyomenon flagitaverit . . . (Plin. Nat. 34.62); . . . ereptumque dolo reddi sibi poscit honorem. (Verg. A. 5.342); Ego me amitti, donicum ille huc redierit, non postulo. (Pl. Capt. 339); . . . quis nostrum tam inpudens est qui se scire aut posse postulet? (Cic. de Orat. 1.101)

(v) Examples of verbs of allowing and tolerating governing an accusative and infinitive clause are (r) and (s) (see also (o) above). Permitto also has a three-place pattern (see § 15.70 and § 15.119). (r)

Aliam tecum esse equidem facile possum perpeti. (‘I can easily handle another girl being with you.’ Pl. As. 845)

(s)

Ferunt enim aures hominum cum illa quae iucunda . . . tum etiam illa, quae mirabilia sunt in virtute, laudari. (‘Men’s ears can endure it when both those aspects of virtue which are pleasing . . . and also those that are admirable are praised.’ Cic. de Orat. 2.344)

190 More examples and references in Aalto (1949: 86). 192 For the material, see TLL s.v. postulo 271.16ff.

191 See Bömer ad loc. 193 See TLL s.v. 845.33ff.

176

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position Supplement (in alphabetical order by governing expression): Neque vero haec inter se congruere possent, ut natura et procreari vellet et diligi procreatos non curaret. (Cic. Fin. 3.62); Binas centesimas ab sese ablatas ferendum non putant, et recte non putant. (Cic. Ver. 3.168); Nil moror negotiosum mi esse tergum. (Pl. Mil. 447); Theopompum, nudum, [non] expulsum a Trebonio, confugere Alexandream neglexistis. (Ant. in Cic. Phil. 13.33); Aliud quidvis impetrari a me facilius perferam quam . . . (Pl. Mos. 1170); Quare illud satis est, si te permittis amari. (Verg. Cat. 4.11); Ille (sc. deus) meas errare boves, ut cernis, et ipsum / ludere quae vellem calamo permisit agresti. (Verg. Ecl. 1.9–10); Otho . . . concedi corpora sepulturae cremarique permisit. (Tac. Hist. 1.47.2); Etenim quis mortalium . . . tolerare potest illis divitias superare . . . (Sal. Cat. 20.11) NB: cf.: . . . da (non indebita posco / regna meis fatis) Latio considere Teucros / errantisque deos agitataque numina Troiae. (Verg. A. 6.65–7)

(vi) The verbs iubeo, veto (voto), patior, and sino deserve separate attention.194 Most scholars assume that iubeo and veto are three-place verbs governing an accusative object and a prolative infinitive. K.-St., however, distinguish two major constructions, depending on whether the infinitive is active or passive.195 Examples for these four verbs are (t)–(w) and (x)–(aa). In the first—active—series, the accusative is taken by K.-St. as the object/patient of the governing verb and the infinitive—in the terminology used in this Syntax—as a prolative infinitive. The examples in the passive series, by contrast, are taken as instances of a ‘proper’ accusative and infinitive clause, which as a whole functions as object of the verb. In other words, the first series represents a three-place, the second a two-place pattern.196 (t)

Iubet igitur nos Pythius Apollo noscere nosmet ipsos. (‘Accordingly the Pythian Apollo bids us “learn to know ourselves”.’ Cic. Fin. 5.44)

(u)

. . . ab opere singulisque legionibus singulos legatos Caesar discedere . . . vetuerat. (‘. . . Caesar had forbidden the several lieutenant-generals to leave the entrenching and their proper legions.’ Caes. Gal. 2.20.3)

(v)

. . . Transalpinas gentis oleam et vitem serere non sinimus . . . (‘. . . we who do not allow the races beyond the Alps to plant the olive or the vine . . .’ Cic. Rep. 3.16)

(w)

. . . (sc. Alcibiades) neque Athenas victas Lacedaemoniis servire poterat pati. (‘. . . nor could he endure the idea that Athens after being conquered was enslaved to the Lacedaemonians.’ Nep. Alc. 9.4)

194 The verb censeo can also govern an imperative AcI. See Bolkestein (1998a: 25–6). For iubeo salvere, see Torrego (2013); for veto, see Torrego (2017a). 195 K.-St.: I.715–18. The examples (p)–(z) are taken from their discussion. For further examples of iubeo, see TLL s.v. 577.5ff. For a discussion of the imperative use of the AcI with iubeo, see Bolkestein (1976a: 284–95). 196 This is essentially also the position taken in LSS § 7.4.3. Bennett: I.379–82 regards all clauses governed by ‘verba voluntatis’ as object clauses—that is, in the terminology of this Syntax, as accusative and infinitive clauses.

Infinitival clauses (x)

177

Pontem qui erat ad Genvam iubet rescindi. (‘He ordered the bridge at Geneva to be broken down.’ Caes. Gal. 1.7.2)

(y)

Caesar . . . castra facere constituit et . . . vallo muniri vetuit . . . (‘Caesar determined to pitch his camp . . . and he forbade it to be fortified with a rampart.’ Caes. Civ. 1.41.4)

(z)

. . . nullos honores mihi nisi verborum decerni sino. (‘. . . I allow none but verbal honours to be decreed to me.’ Cic. Att. 5.21.7)

(aa)

Vinum ad se omnino importari non patiuntur . . . (‘They do not allow wine to be imported to themselves at all . . .’ Caes. Gal. 4.2.5)

K.-St. seem to be correct in identifying a difference in the constructions, but there are reasons for doubting that the distinction is exactly as they describe—a three-place construction with the active infinitive, two-place with the passive. The following paragraphs will survey the arguments and arrive at a more refined distinction. An important point in the discussion to follow is that some of the constituents in the accusative in the examples (t)–(aa) cannot be taken as the addressee of the order expressed by the governing verb. As evidence for the existence of the three-place pattern K.-St. and other scholars cite instances like (ab)–(ad), where the governing verbs are in the passive and the object of the corresponding active governing clause is the subject of the passive governing clause. This is normal for three-place verbs governing an accusative and a prolative infinitive, such as admoneo (see §§ 15.115–21). (ab)

. . . decemviri libros adire atque inspicere iussi (sc. sunt) . . . (‘. . . the decemvirs were instructed to approach and consult the Sacred Books . . .’ Liv. 22.36.6)

(ac)

Quo factum est ut a praefecto morum Hasdrubal cum eo vetaretur esse. (‘Because of that charge it came about that Hasdrubal was forbidden by the censor of morals from being with Hamilcar.’ Nep. Ham. 3.2)197

(ad)

. . . (sc. Milo) accusare eum moderate a quo ipse nefarie accusatur per senatus auctoritatem non est situs. (‘. . . he has not been allowed by a resolution of the Senate to prosecute dispassionately the man by whom he himself is prosecuted with such virulence.’ Cic. Sest. 95)

However, these examples can also be taken as nominative and infinitive constructions of the agent type as discussed in § 15.111 for verbs like dico and audio. Interestingly, just like these verbs, iubeo is also common in constructions of the patient type, as in (ae) and (af). (ae)

. . . proxumo iussa’st dari (sc. puella) . . . (‘. . . she has been ordered to be given to her nearest relative . . .’ Ter. Ph. 416)

197 K.-St. also cite Ter. Ph. 864: Ait (sc. se) esse vetitum intro ad eram accedere, and so does Bennett: I.389. Alternatively one may regard the infinitive accedere as the subject. See at the end of this section. There are obviously no passive examples for patior.

178 (af)

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position . . . Ø iussus es renuntiari consul . . . (‘. . . the order was given for you to be declared consul . . .’ Cic. Phil. 2.79)

Secondly, there are also instances of an accusative with a non-passive infinitive where the accusative cannot be regarded as the object of the governing verb, and in the case of iubeo as the addressee of the order (see the examples directly below). This is quite obvious for instances with a passive infinitive like (x)—the main reason for K.-St.’s positing an AcI—but it is also evident in many other cases: in (ag) it is clearly not the narrative that is being commanded, and in (ah), which occurs in a legal context, it is unlikely that the me and te personally received an order. Similarly in (ai) Caesar will not have first summoned the cavalry to pass on his orders to them directly. Interesting too is the parallelism of an ut clause and an accusative and infinitive sequence in the decretum of L. Aemilius Paullus in (aj), which must both be taken as object clauses. (ag)

Iam vero narrationem quod iubent veri similem esse et apertam et brevem, recte nos admonent. (‘Then again, in requiring the statement of the case to be plausible, lucid and brief, they advise us well.’ Cic. de Orat. 2.83)

(ah)

Sed quaero a te, putesne, si populus iusserit me tuum aut te meum servum esse, id iussum ratum atque firmum futurum? (‘But I ask you: if the people gave the order for me to be your slave, or for you to be mine, do you think that this command would be binding and valid?’ Cic. Caec. 96)

(ai)

Caesar ab opere legiones revocat, equitatum omnem convenire iubet . . . (‘Caesar recalled his legions from their work, ordered that the entire cavalry assemble . . .’ Caes. Civ. 1.82.2)

(aj)

L Aemilius · L · F · inpeirator · decreivit / utei · quei · hastensium · servei / in · turri · Lascutana · habitarent / leiberei · essent. · Agrum · oppidumqu(e) / quod · ea · tempestate · posedisent / item · possidere · habereque / iousit · . . . (‘Lucius Aemilius, son of Lucius, commander-in-chief, decreed that the slaves of the people of Hasta dwelling in the tower of Lascuta should be free. The land and the town which they had possessed at that time he ordered that they should possess and hold as heretofore . . .’ CIL I2.614.1–7 (near Cadiz, 189 bc)

There are many other instances of iubeo with an accusative and an active infinitive that could be analysed as proper AcI clauses; in such cases iubeo could be translated ‘to ordain’ or ‘to decree’.198 Thirdly, there are instances of parallelism or coordination of active and passive clauses, as in (ak) and (al)—coordinated clauses—and (am)—coordinated infinitives. It is preferable to explain them in the same way (as AcI clauses). 198 García de la Calera (2008) takes the position that in Caesar and Sallust all combinations of iubeo with an accusative and an active infinitive represent in fact accusative and infinitive clauses. Gavoille (2014: 218) characterizes iubeo as ‘un verbe de parole . . . constatif ’, for which the AcI is the normal expression. See also Hoffmann’s (2016a: 50–1) discussion of iubeo as a non-causative verb.

Infinitival clauses (ak)

179

. . . Caesar portas claudi militesque ex oppido exire iussit . . . (‘. . . Caesar gave orders that the gates be closed and the soldiers leave the town . . .’ Caes. Gal. 2.33.1)

(al)

. . . Perseus . . . prima impedimenta ire, deinde peditum signa ferri iussit. (‘. . . Perseus ordered the baggage to go first, then the standards of the infantry to be carried away.’ Liv. 42.64.5)

(am)

Haec Demetrius noster utraque manu tenere proficientem iubet . . . eoque cottidiana meditatione perduci ut sua sponte occurrant salutaria . . . (‘My friend Demetrius teaches that the tiro in philosophy must grasp these things with each hand and that through daily meditation he must be brought to the point where these wholesome maxims occur to him of their own accord . . .’ Sen. Ben. 7.2.1)

Fourthly, if iubeo were being used with a three-place frame, one might expect a more or less synonymous parallel accusative + (ut +) subjunctive pattern (see §  15.114). However, convincing instances of such a pattern for iubeo are rare: most of the examples cited in the TLL lack an entity that could be interpreted as the addressee of the order.199 There are two instances with an accusative constituent plus a simple subjunctive clause in Plautus, one of which is (an), but these accusatives must be taken as pseudoobjects (on which see §  9.17). In (ao), with passive alter consul iussus, the active infinitive gerere is continued by an ut clause. For a few more straightforward later examples, see the Supplement. (an)

Tu servos iube / hunc ad me ferant. (‘You tell your slaves to bring him here to me.’ Pl. Men. 955–6)

(ao)

Alter consul, cui Italia provincia evenisset, cum Boiis iussus bellum gerere utro exercitu mallet ex duobus quos superiores consules habuissent, alterum ut mitteret Romam, eaeque urbanae legiones essent paratae quo senatus censuisset. (‘The other consul, to whom Italy should have fallen as a province, was ordered to carry on war with the Boii, using whichever he preferred of the two armies which the preceding consuls had had, and to send the other to Rome, and that these, as reserve legions, should be ready to move wherever the senate should direct.’ Liv. 36.1.9) There are instances of a double accusative construction with iubeo; this concerns especially pronouns, as in § 4.76. Examples are (ap), active, and (aq), passive.200 (ap) Heia, hoc face quod te iubet soror. (‘Now, now, do what your sister tells you.’ Pl. Aul. 153) (aq) Quod iussus sum eo tempore atque ita feci ut appareret invito imperatum esse. (‘I did what I was ordered at a time and in such a way that it was apparent that I had been ordered against my will.’ Pol. Fam. 10.31.3)

199 TLL s.v. 579.73ff.

200 See TLL s.v. iubeo 582.4ff.

180

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position Supplement: Passive infinitive: . . . cum alia lex iubet aut permittit, alia vetat quippiam fieri . . . (Rhet. Her. 1.20); . . . interea sarcinas in unum locum conferri et eum ab iis, qui in superiore acie constiterant, muniri iussit. (Caes. Gal. 1.24.3—NB: explicit agent); Papirius Cursor ea tempestate dictator securem per lictorem expediri . . . iussit . . . (Amm. 30.8.5) Cf.: . . . quem digredientem post epulas hospitalis officii sanctitate nefarie violata trucidari securum effecit. (Amm. 29.5.6) NB: Pleonastic combination with a gerundival clause: . . . ut iuberes dandam in absentem sententiam? (Lucif. Athan. 1.25, l.23 D)201 Non-passive infinitive: Iubeo / illam te amare et velle uxorem, hanc esse Clitiphonis. (Ter. Hau. 702–3) Active and passive coordinated: Eos · fineis · facere · terminosque · statui · iuserunt. (Sent. Minuc., CIL I2.584.3 (Genoa, 117 bc)) (ut +) subjunctive: Ubi Britannico iussit Ø exsurgeret progressusque in medium cantum aliquem inciperet . . . (Tac. Ann. 13.15.2—NB: dative, cf. Tac. Ann. 13.40.2); Silo Pompeius, dum praeceptum sequitur quo iubemur ut, quotiens possumus, de omnibus legis verbis controversiam faciamus, illam quaestionem movit: . . . (Sen. Con. 1.2.15); Hunc tribunus militum . . . occidit lectis codicillis quibus ut id faceret iubebatur. (Suet. Tib. 22);202 Eosdem / camellos iube Ø adaquentur . . . (M 1107.6–8 (see §  9.17, (k)); . . . iubere eum debebt proconsul ut idonee caveat. (Gaius dig. 5.3.41.pr.) NB: coordination with repetition of nos: Iussit vel nos atriensem vel nos uxorem suam / defraudare (Pl. As. 365–6)

The strongest argument against assuming that the sequence accusative + active infinitive is a proper AcI and that this sequence as a whole functions as the object of iubeo is that there are said to be no passive counterparts attested of iubetur or iussum est in combination with an accusative and infinitive clause as the subject,203 as discussed in § 15.110; but see (ar). (ar)

Nepesinis inde edictum ut arma ponant parcique iussum inermi. (‘The Nepesini were then commanded to lay down their weapons and the order was given to spare such as were unarmed.’ Liv. 6.10.5) Supplement: Rogo / quam ob rem retineat me. Ait esse vetitum intro ad eram accedere. (Ter. Ph. 863–4—but see note 197); Alio mihi debita fato / summa dies, vetitumque (sc. summam diem) dari mortalibus armis. (Stat. Theb. 3.623–4)

For all these reasons, in this Syntax iubeo will be taken to have two verb frames: a three-place frame with an accusative object/addressee and a prolative infinitive, and a two-place frame, the second argument of which can be filled by a non-declarative accusative and infinitive clause (as with the verbs discussed in (iii) above). This is

201 Examples from Lucifer can be found in Diercks’ edition (1978: XCII). 202 Following the interpretation of OLD s.v. iubeo § 3, where also Hyg. Fab. 196.1 is quoted. 203 See Lavency (2003: 111–13), who regards the infinitive with iubeo and veto as a prolative infinitive.

Infinitival clauses

181

close to K.-St.’s position, but with the added recognition that the two-place frame may contain either an active or a passive infinitive. Iubeo and the other verbs can also be used with an active infinitive when the identity of the agent of the infinitive is sufficiently clear or irrelevant, as in (as) and (at), respectively. (as) Hic apud me hortum confodere iussi. (‘I ordered people to dig up the garden here at my place.’ Pl. Aul. 243) (at) Quocirca bene praecipiunt qui vetant quicquam agere . . . (‘Wherefore those who bid us not to do anything . . . give us an excellent precept.’ Cic. Off. 1.30) Appendix: The situation for the three other verbs is to some extent different from that of iubeo. For patior there is no evidence at all for a three-place pattern, and the TLL describes the infinitival clauses as AcI, as does the OLD. For sino the OLD has a section that is explicitly labelled ‘prolative’ (§ 5), but it also devotes a section to AcI clauses, including clauses with non-passive infinitives (§ 2b). The same organization of examples is used for veto (§ 2a and § 1b, respectively). This analysis of the two verbs is also adopted in this Syntax.

15.101 The use of the accusative and infinitive clause as subject with one-place and so-called impersonal verbs Accusative and infinitive clauses can be used as subject of a wide variety of one-place verbs, among these the so-called impersonal verbs of obligation and permission oportet and licet (see §§ 4.8; 4.12; 4.14).204 (For est + AcI, see also § 4.15.) (a)

Nam lege quidem bona venire non potuisse constat. (‘For it is evident that the property could not have been sold by virtue of the law.’ Cic. S. Rosc. 128)

(b)

Adparet servom hunc esse domini pauperis / miserique. (‘It’s obvious that this man is the slave of a wretched poverty-stricken master.’ Ter. Eu. 486–7)

(c)

Itaque me malum esse oportet . . . (‘Therefore it’s necessary that I be malicious . . .’ Pl. Am. 268)

(d)

Non licet donati opsoni me participem fieri? (‘Is it not permitted to me to have my share of the provisions I gave as a gift?’ Pl. Truc. 747) Supplement (in alphabetical order by governing verb): Verbs of obligation and permission: Nam iniusta ab iustis impetrari non decet . . . (Pl. Am. 35); . . . tum verborum omnium definitiones, in quibus neque abesse quicquam decet neque redundare. (Cic. de Orat. 2.83); . . . teque hilari animo esse et prompto ad 204 For other constructions with licet, see § 15.80.

182

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position iocandum valde me iuvat. (Cic. Q. fr. 2.12.1); ‘Hanc te’, inquit, ‘capere non licuit.’ (Cic. Flac. 56); Sed si properabas magis, / pridie nos te advocatos huc duxisse oportuit. (Pl. Poen. 525–6); Patrem familias vendacem, non emacem esse oportet. (Cato Agr. 2.7); Totam enim rem, Catule, Lucullo integram servatam oportuit. (Cic. Luc. 10)205 Verbs of excellence and desirability: Convenit stellas in occasu vespertino proximas esse terrae et altitudine et latitudine . . . (Plin. Nat. 2.68); Patrem familiae villam . . . bene aedificatam habere expedit . . . (Cato Agr. 3.2); Nimio impendiosum praestat te quam ingratum dicier. (Pl. Bac. 396); Alioquin non prodest eum exheredari. (Gaius Inst. 2.127) Other verbs: In ceteris partibus vitae continentissimum constat ac sine suspicione ullius vitii. (Suet. Aug. 72.1); Sed inpuberes quidem in tutela esse omnium civitatium iure contingit. (Gaius Inst. 1.189) . . . cum hoc nescio quo modo apud eos increbruisset me in causis maioribus sicuti te solere versari . . . (Cic. de Orat. 1.82); Cum pateat igitur aeternum id esse quod se ipsum moveat . . . (Cic. Tusc. 1.54); Restat Bactra novis, restat Babylona tributis / frenari. (Stat. Silv. 4.1.40–1) Appendix: In this context, grammars often deal with other expressions that in reality involve two-place verbs. Examples are (e) and (f). With placet in (e), a dative argument for the person who is pleased would be normal.206 In (f), the person who should feel ashamed is in the usual accusative (te). For the latter, see § 15.97 (emotion verbs). (e) Apage, non placet me hoc noctis esse (= edere). Cenavi modo. (‘Away with you! I don’t like eating at this time of night. I’ve just had my dinner.’ Pl. Am. 310) (f) . . . pudeat te ausum illum umquam esse incedere tamquam tuum competitorem. (‘. . . you would be ashamed that he ever dared to parade as your competitor.’ Cael. Fam. 8.9.1) Supplement (in alphabetical order by governing verb): Quid enim attinet, cum una facies sit, plura esse nomina? (Cic. N.D. 1.84); . . . tamen conducere arbitror talibus aures tuas vocibus undique circumsonare nec eas, si fieri possit, quicquam aliud audire. (Cic. Off. 3.5); . . . exemplum . . . litterarum, in quo erat illas XI esse legiones. (Cic. Fam. 6.18.2); Sed accepi litteras a collega tuo datas Id. Mai. in quibus erat te ad se scripsisse a Lepido non recipi Antonium. (Cic. Fam. 10.22.2); Est etiam apud Hippocraten ei quem septimus dies liberaturus sit quartum esse gravissimum. (Cels. 3.4.14); Quos hostes vicisse tanti fuit? (Plin. Nat. 7.145); Num me fefellit hosce id struere? (Ter. Hau. 514); Quid secus est aut quid interest dare te in manus / argentum amanti homini adulescenti . . . (Pl. Trin. 130–1); Sed tamen parvi refert abs te ipso ius dici aequaliter . . . (Cic. Q. fr. 1.1.20); Non mihi videtur ad beate vivendum satis posse virtutem. (Cic. Tusc. 5.12)

205 For the use of the perfect infinitive in such contexts, see § 7.76. 206 See, for example, TLL s.v. placeo 2261.16ff.

Infinitival clauses

183

15.102 The use of accusative and infinitive clauses in combination with expressions that function as subject or object complement Accusative and infinitive clauses can be used as subject of a wide variety of expressions consisting of the copula and a subject complement. The most common ones are combinations of the copula and a noun (or noun phrase) or a neuter singular adjective, as in (a) and (b), but other types of subject complements (see §§ 9.20ff.) are used as well. An example of a possessive genitive, sometimes called genetivus proprietatis (see § 9.30) is (c); of a predicative dative (see § 9.34), (d); of a prepositional phrase (see § 9.37), (e). Ex. (f) shows the related use of an accusative and infinitive clause with an object complement. Ex. (g) has a preparative pronoun as the subject of the main clause. (a)

Stultitia est ei te esse tristem quoius potestas plus potest. (‘It’s stupidity to be sulky with someone who has greater authority.’ Pl. Cas. 282)

(b)

Si aequom siet / me plus sapere quam vos, dederim vobis consilium catum . . . (‘If it were proper for me to be wiser than you, I’d give you a smart plan . . .’ Pl. Epid. 257–8)

(c)

Sed nunc ea me exquirere / iniqui patris est. (‘Well, for me to look into that now is to behave like an unreasonable father.’ Ter. An. 186–7—tr. Brown)

(d)

. . . num molestiae est / me adire ad illas propius? (‘Is there any harm in me coming closer to them?’ Pl. Rud. 830)

(e)

Ea si dicam non esse e re publica dividi . . . (‘If I were to say that it is contrary to public interest that those properties should be brought under assignment . . .’ Cic. Fam. 13.8.2)

(f)

. . . antea semper pro indignissimo habuerant se patrio regno tutoris fraude pulsos . . . (‘. . . they had always considered it the greatest outrage that they had been ousted from their father’s kingship by the crime of their guardian . . .’ Liv. 1.40.2)

(g)

Illa enim est gloria divina Pompei, . . . praedones . . . redactos esse omnes in potestatem . . . (‘This is the superhuman achievement of Pompeius: that he brought under control all those pirates . . .’ Cic. Flac. 30) Supplement (in alphabetical order by governing expression): Nouns and noun phrases: . . . magnum dedecus et flagitium . . . eum non virtute, sed scelere superatum. (Cic. Off. 3.86); Deus est mortali iuvare mortalem, et haec ad aeternam gloriam via. (Plin. Nat. 2.18); Nunc si me fas est opsecrare aps te, pater, / da mihi ducentos nummos Philippos, te opsecro. (Pl. Bac. 1025–6); Nimia est miseria nimis pulchrum esse hominem. (Pl. Mil. 68); Atque etiam morbus est aliquis sapientiam mori. (Plin. Nat. 7.169—NB: the text is problematic); Nunc servitus si evenit, ei vos morigerari mos bonu’st . . . (Pl. Capt. 198); Quid fuit officium meum me facere? (Pl. Trin. 174); . . . nunc, quantus pudor esset edocens ab Liguribus . . . Romanum

184

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position exercitum obsideri. (Liv. 40.27.10); Res nova et inusitata supplicium de studiis sumi. (Sen. Con. 10.pr.5); Iam tum erat suspicio / dolo malo haec fieri omnia. (Ter. Eu. 514–15); ‘Sed tempus est’ inquit ‘iam hinc abire, me, ut moriar, vos, ut vitam agatis.’ (Cic. Tusc. 1.99) With a preparative pronoun: Haec igitur sit prima partitio, quod facete dicatur, id alias in re habere, alias in verbo facetias. (Cic. de Orat. 2.248); Nimirum haec est natura rerum, haec potentia eius, saevissimas ferarum maximasque numquam vidisse quod debeant timere et statim intellegere, cum sit timendum. (Plin. Nat. 8.10) Adjectives (neuter singular forms): Non possum durare, certum est exulatum hinc ire me. (Pl. Mer. 644); . . . consequens esse beatam vitam virtute esse contentam . . . (Cic. Tusc. 5.18); An decorum est advorsari meis te praeceptis? (Pl. As. 508); Nimium difficile est reperiri amicum . . . (Pl. Trin. 620); Feci ego ista ut commemoras, et te meminisse id gratum est mihi. (Pl. Capt. 414); Lautissimum quippe habetur e nardi folio eas dari aut veste Serica versicolori, unguentis madida. (Plin. Nat. 21.11); Sed maximum est in amicitia parem esse inferiori. (Cic. Amic. 69—NB: generic subject); Longe optimum est febrem omnino non esse. (Cels. 2.8.6); Sed par est omnis omnia experiri . . . (Cic. Orat. 4); . . . quanto fuerat praestabilius ubivis gentium agere aetatem . . . (Ter. Hec. 284); Tanto rarius est servatorem unum a servatis donari. (Plin. Nat. 22.9); . . . (sc. gladiatores) quos promiscue spectari sollemne olim erat . . . (Suet. Aug. 44.2); Accusatores multos esse in civitate utile est . . . (Cic. S. Rosc. 55); Bene factum et volup est me hodie his mulierculis / tetulisse auxilium. (Pl. Rud. 892–3) NB: possessive adjective: Haud tuom istuc est te vereri. (Pl. St. 718) Predicative datives: Satis scio, quibuscumque dis cordi fuit subigi nos ad necessitatem dedendi res quae ab nobis ex foedere repetitae fuerant, iis non fuisse cordi tam superbe ab Romanis foederis expiationem spretam. (Liv. 9.1.4); . . . tibi curae est sentire cives tuos quanto per te onere leventur . . . (Liv. 30.31.3); Circa rem nostram Siculam turbidum esse Nectarium indicio erunt litterae quas nuper Euscius misit. (Symm. Ep. 6.66.2); Ita nunc per urbem solus sermoni omnibu’st, / eum velle amicam liberare . . . (Pl. Ps. 418–19) Prepositional phrases: Eundem in fame vesci terra inter auguria. (Plin. Nat. 8.83); An, si pro illo fuit fieri vim quoi facta dicitur, non teneatur qui fecit? (Sen. Con. 9.5.6) Adverb: . . . cum palam esset per errorem ingressos . . . (Liv. 31.14.8) Object complement: Tu’n verberes, qui pro cibo habeas te verberari? (Pl. As. 628); Pompeium pro certo habemus per Illyricum proficisci in Galliam. (Cic. Att. 10.6.3)

15.103 The use of the accusative and infinitive clause with a preparative pronoun Accusative and infinitive clauses are often announced by preparative pronouns (and adverbs). Examples with a preparative pronoun are (a) and (b). Compare also (c), with the preparative adverb ita.207 In (d), the relative pronoun serves a similar function. (a)

Scelestissume, audes mihi praedicare id, / domi te esse nunc, qui hic ades? (‘You hardened criminal, do you really dare to say that to me, that you, who are here, are at home now?’ Pl. Am. 561–2)

207 For the use of ita and sic as preparative devices with accusative and infinitive clauses, see Lavency (2004) and Bodelot (2005).

Infinitival clauses (b)

185

Inter omnis igitur hoc constat, . . . virorum esse fortium . . . toleranter dolorem pati. (‘It is universally agreed then . . . that it is characteristic of men who are brave . . . to suffer pain with patience.’ Cic. Tusc. 2.43)

(c)

. . . mecum Tadius locutus est te ita scripsisse, nihil esse iam quod laboraretur . . . (‘. . . Tadius has told me that you have written him word that there is no need to worry any longer . . .’ Cic. Att. 1.5.6)

(d)

Quod cum audivisset adulescens filius, negotium exhiberi patri, accurrisse Romam . . . dicitur. (‘It is said that when the son, who was then a young man, heard this, namely that his father was in trouble on his account, he hastened to Rome.’ Cic. Off. 3.112) Supplement (in alphabetical order by preparative expression): Pronouns: Opsecro, etiamne hoc negabis, te auream pateram mihi / dedisse . . .? (Pl. Am. 760–1); Sed hoc mementote, quoscumque locos attingam, unde ridicula ducantur, ex eisdem locis fere etiam gravis sententias posse duci. (Cic. de Orat. 2.248); Rursus mortales oraculorum societatem dedere Chiloni Lacedaemonio tria praecepta eius Delphis consecrando aureis litteris, quae sunt haec: nosse se quemque, et nihil nimium cupere, comitemque aeris alieni atque litis esse miseriam. (Plin. Nat. 7.119); Nam primum fuit illud asperius, me quae de Plancio dicerem ementiri et temporis causa fingere. (Cic. Planc. 72); Verum illud dicendum est, illi ita non esse visum. (Cic. Inv. 2.22); . . . illud tamen exploratum habeto, nihil fieri potuisse sine causa . . . (Cic. Div. 2.60); Nam illud, nulli rei adsensurum esse sapientem, nihil ad hanc controversiam pertinebat. (Cic. Luc. 78); Et illud intellego, Quirites, omnium ora in me convorsa esse . . . (Sal. Jug. 85.5); . . . praeter eos inimicos quibus id ipsum, se inimicos esse, non liceret aut dissimulare aut negare. (Cic. Att. 4.1.5); Haud mirum id quidem esse, furere civitatem . . . (Liv. 5.25.4) Adverbs: ‘Sic igitur’, inquit, ‘sentio,’ Crassus ‘naturam primum atque ingenium ad dicendum vim adferre maximam.’ (Cic. de Orat. 1.113); Huius oratio ut semper gravis et grata in contionibus fuit, sic contendo numquam neque sententiam eius auctoritate neque eloquentiam iucunditate fuisse maiore. (Cic. Sest. 107)

Accusative and infinitive clauses are rarely used in combination with a neuter pronoun in non-argument positions in the sentence. An example is (e), where the ablative neuter pronoun illo (an ablativus comparationis) serves as a preparative expression for the accusative and infinitive clause and, together with the clause, serves as the basis of comparison (see § 20.1) with esse certius. Ex. (f) has a prepositional phrase with the same function (see also § 14.16 and § 16.84). (e)

. . . potest illo quicquam esse certius, in tua potestate atque in tuis horreis omne frumentum Siciliae per triennium atque omnis fructus agri decumani fuisse? (‘. . . can there be any fact more certain than that for three years all the corn of Sicily, all the harvests of the tithe-paying land, were in your granaries and under your control?’ Cic. Ver. 3.178)

186 (f)

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position Itaque narrabat eum graviter et copiose de hoc ipso, nihil esse bonum nisi quod esset honestum, cubantem disputavisse . . . (‘And accordingly he related that from his sickbed the philosopher had earnestly and fully discussed this very proposition “that there is nothing good except what is honourable” . . .’ Cic. Tusc. 2.61)

. Independent accusative and infinitive clauses The AcI can be used without an overt governing expression. A very common use is in free indirect speech, where it may correspond to a declarative or an interrogative (rhetorical) sentence in direct speech, but it is also used more or less independently in utterances expressing indignance or surprise, as in (a). (a)

Criminin’ me habuisse fidem? (‘To think that I believed that accusation?’ Pl. Bac. 629)

15.105 The use of the accusative and infinitive clause in interrogative clauses and sentences Accusative and infinitive clauses may correspond to independent declarative sentences (this is the normal situation), but also to interrogative sentences with an indirect assertive illocutionary force (so-called rhetorical questions, see §  6.23). Interrogative AcI clauses are not uncommon in historical writers,208 who report speeches or messages, and occasionally thoughts, which have an indirect assertive illocutionary force. However, some instances could be construed instead as exclamations. The negation word is non, just as in finite interrogative sentences. Usually there is no governing verb. Following the distinction made in § 6.7, sentence questions and constituent questions are dealt with separately. Instances of simple sentence questions are (a)–(e). Such sentences may, but need not, contain one of the question particles. (a)

(Caesar ita respondit) . . . quod si veteris contumeliae oblivisci vellet, num etiam recentium iniuriarum . . . memoriam deponere (sc. se) posse? (‘(Caesar replied as follows) . . . but even if he were willing to forget their former affront, could he also lay aside the remembrance of recent outrages?’ Caes. Gal. 1.14.3)

(b)

Hocine patiendum fuisse, si ad nutum dictatoris non responderit vir consularis? (‘Was this the penalty a consular must undergo, if he did not respond to the nod of a dictator?’ Liv. 6.17.3)

(c)

Quid? Ipsorum magistratuum nonne plerosque variis libidinibus obnoxios? (‘Well, were not too many of the magistrates themselves vulnerable to temptation in more shapes than one?’ Tac. Ann. 3.34.3)

208 The fullest collection of examples is Kraz (1862). For discussion, see Orlandini (1994).

Infinitival clauses (d)

187

Romam, caput orbis terrarum, petentibus quicquam adeo asperum atque arduum videri quod inceptum moretur? (‘To those seeking Rome, the capital of the world, does anything seem so difficult and arduous that it should delay the endeavour?’ Liv. 21.30.10)

(e)

Adeo neminem isdem in terris ortum, qui principem locum impleat, nisi . . .? (‘Was it so indisputable that there was not a man born upon the same soil as themselves who was competent to fill the princely station . . .?’ Tac. Ann. 11.16.3) Supplement: Quid censes, si ratio esset in beluis, non suo quasque generi plurimum tributuras fuisse? (Cic. N.D. 1.78); Quid tandem? Illi non licere, si quid consules superbe in aliquem civium aut crudeliter fecerint, diem dicere, accusare iis ipsis iudicibus, quorum in aliquem saevitum sit? (Liv. 3.9.9); Itaque id quemquam mirari posse, cur . . . (Liv. 36.40.6) With question particles: Quid igitur censes Apim illum sanctum Aegyptiorum bovem nonne deum videri Aegyptiis? (Cic. N.D. 1.82); Nonne Canuleio duce se speraturos Capitolium atque arcem scandere posse? (Liv. 4.2.14); Potuisse patres plebi scito pelli honoribus suis. Num etiam in deos immortales inauspicatam legem valuisse? (Liv. 7.6.11); An aequum esse dediticios suos illa fertilitate atque amoenitate perfrui . . .? (Liv. 7.38.7); An quia victus proelio foret, inexpiabile bellum factum? (Liv. 33.12.8); An praetorias cohortes, quae binos denarios accepit, quae post sedecim annos Penatibus suis reddantur, plus periculorum suscipere? (Tac. Ann. 1.17.6); Easdem artes Drusum rettulisse numquamne ad se nisi filios familiarum venturos? (Tac. Ann. 1.26.2) Multiple questions with (utrum) . . . an are rare. Ex. (f), from Cicero, is controversial. The Livian exx. (g) and (h) and the Tacitean (i) are accepted without comment. (f) Intellexi hominem moveri, utrum Crassum inire eam gratiam quam ipse praetermisisset an esse tantas res nostras quae tam libenti senatu laudarentur, ab eo praesertim qui mihi laudem illam eo minus deberet quod meis omnibus litteris in Pompeiana laude perstrictus esset. (‘I noticed that the man was agitated, whether at Crassus earning the gratitude which he had himself neglected, or at the fact that my achievements were of such magnitude that the senate was so glad to hear them praised, especially by a man who was the less under an obligation to praise me, because in everything I ever wrote my praise of Pompey was practically a reflection on him.’ Cic. Att. 1.14.3) (g) Quod naturae damnum utrum nutriendum patri, si quidquam in eo humani esset, an castigandum ac vexatione insigne faciendum fuisse? (‘But ought not his father to have healed and mended this infirmity of nature—if he had a particle of humanity about him—or should he have chastised it and made it conspicuous by persecution?’ Liv. 7.4.6) (h) Utrum enim partem regni petiturum esse an totum erepturum? (‘Was he in doubt whether to seek for part of the kingdom, or to seize it all?’ Liv. 45.19.15)

188

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position (i) Nunc pro Othone an pro Vitellio in templa ituros? (‘Should they go to the temples on behalf of an Otho or a Vitellius?’ Tac. Hist. 1.50.3)

Constituent questions in the AcI are illustrated by exx. ( j)–(n). In ( j), the governing verb is expressed.209 ( j)

Quid esse illi morbi dixeras? (‘What illness did you say he has?’ Pl. Men. 889)

(k)

Postremo quid esse (v.l. esset) levius aut turpius quam auctore hoste de summis rebus capere consilium? (‘Lastly, what could be more senseless or more discreditable than to adopt measures respecting the most important affairs on the authority of an enemy?’ Caes. Gal. 5.28.6)

(l)

Quonam haec omnia nisi ad suam perniciem pertinere? (‘To what does all this tend but to his own ruin?’ Caes. Civ. 1.9.4)

(m)

Si bellum in provincia esset, quid sese inter pacatos facere? Si debellatum iam et confecta provincia esset, cur in Italiam non revehi? (‘If there was a war in the province, what were they doing among people already pacified? If the war was over now and the province set in order, why were they not transported back to Italy?’ Liv. 28.24.7)

(n)

Cur enim neminem alium delectum qui saevienti impudicae vocem praeberet? (‘For why had none other been chosen to put his voice at the disposal of that homicidal wanton?’ Tac. Ann. 13.43.4) Supplement: Interrogative pronouns and determiners: Quid censes hunc ipsum Sex. Roscium quo studio et qua intellegentia esse in rusticis rebus? (Cic. S. Rosc. 49); Cui enim non apparere, adfectare eum imperium in Latinos? (Liv. 1.50.4); . . . cui dubium esse, quin extemplo conscensurus sit navem atque in patriam rediturus? (Liv. 24.26.6); Quo enim illum unquam imperatoris functum officio esse? (Liv. 35.48.13); Scio dici simile aliquid etiam ex parte diversa: quem sibi usum fore pecuniae dicet. (Quint. Decl. 269.11—NB: with the governing verb expressed);210 Sed quos omitti posse, quos deligi? (Tac. Ann. 6.2.4); Sin populum Romanum armis vocent, quotam partem generis humani Batavos esse? (Tac. Hist. 5.25.1); Sed revertentibus post laborem quod honestius quam uxorium levamentum? (Tac. Ann. 3.34.2) Interrogative adverbs: Quamdiu autem tranquillam, quae secesserit, multitudinem fore? (Liv. 2.32.6); Eam sententiam alii totam aspernari. Cur enim illos, qui se arcessant, ipsos non venire, cum aeque coniungi possent? (Liv. 22.50.5); Quonam modo enim Hasdrubalem et Magonem, nisi defunctos suo bello, sine certamine adducere exercitum potuisse? (Liv. 25.35.5); Nam unde, cum pecunia in aerario non esset, paraturos navales socios? (Liv. 26.35.10); Quando legatum, gravi quidem comitatu et 209 For further examples with dico, see TLL s.v. dico 895.62ff. 210 See Winterbottom ad loc.: ‘an astonishing construction’.

Infinitival clauses

189

superbo, cum imperio venire? (Tac. Hist. 4.14.3); Cogitavit etiam de Homeri carminibus abolendis, cur enim sibi non licere dicens quod Platoni licuisset, qui eum e civitate quam constituebat eiecerit? (Suet. Cal. 34.2—NB: with the governing verb expressed) The distinction between an interrogative sentence with an assertive illocutionary force and one with an informative illocutionary force (rhetorical vs. real questions) is not a clear-cut one. Especially if a communication verb immediately precedes, authors have the choice between an accusative and infinitive and a finite subjunctive clause, in order to form a rhetorical or a real question, respectively. (For the latter, see § 7.115.) There is also variation in the manuscripts (ex. (k), for example), where editors have to make a decision. Noteworthy instances of the accusative and infinitive are exx. (o) and (p).211 (o) . . . cunctique instare et: Quanto satius esse (esset cj. Adam) vel socios obsidione eximere vel victam iam semel classem iterum vincere . . . (‘. . . all the other officers were pressing him (saying) how much better it would be either to relieve allies from a siege or again to defeat the navy already once defeated . . .’ Liv. 37.26.12–13—NB: for a different approach, see Briscoe ad loc.) (p) Et postquam adnuit, agere incipiunt: ‘Quem illum tanta superbia esse, ut aeternitatem famae spe praesumat?’ (‘When he had nodded assent, they began to plead their cause: “Who can be so arrogant as to anticipate in hope an eternity of renown?” ’ Tac. Ann. 11.7.1)

15.106 The use of the accusative and infinitive clause in exclamations Exclamatory accusative and infinitive sentences are discussed in § 6.35. 15.107 The use of the accusative and infinitive in relative clauses The accusative and infinitive is not uncommon in non-restrictive adnominal relative clauses and in sentences with relative connexion.212 As is the case with finite clauses, it is not always easy to decide between the two, and editors vary in their punctuation. Here they are printed as independent sentences. An example with an antecedent in the preceding clause is (a); here the relative expression might be taken as an adnominal clause. In exx. (b) and (c), by contrast, quo and quare refer to the preceding content as a whole; therefore it is more attractive to take them as instances of relative connexion. For a rare example of a restrictive relative clause in the accusative and infinitive, see (d). (a)

Unum quasi comperendinatus medium diem fuisse. Quem totum Galbam in consideranda causa componendaque posuisse. (‘Only one day before the final hearing intervened, and this whole time Galba devoted to considering the case and to shaping it for presentation.’ Cic. Brut. 87)

211 More instances in K.-St.: II.541. 212 See Évrard (1992: 180–6; 2011), Orlandini (1994), Álvarez Huerta (1996), Bolkestein (1996b), and Meyers (2011).

190 (b)

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position . . . Croesi filium, cum esset infans, locutum. Quo ostento regnum patris et domum funditus concidisse. (‘. . . Croesus’ son, when an infant, had spoken. With this serving as a portent his father’s kingdom and house were utterly overthrown.’ Cic. Div. 1.121)

(c)

Postea demonstrabitur ne . . . quidem . . . potuisse hunc ipsum de illa supplicium sumere. Quare esse indignum eum, qui . . . (‘After that it will be pointed out that he himself could not have inflicted the punishment on her; therefore it is intolerable that he who . . .’ Cic. Inv. 2.82)

(d)

Fama est aram esse in vestibulo templi cuius cinerem nullo umquam move vento. (‘It is reported that in the space in front of the temple there is an altar whose ashes are never stirred by any wind.’ Liv. 24.3.7) Supplement: Quem iam ingredientem in navem et Verri nimis atrociter minitantem ab se retractum esse et adservatum . . . (Cic. Ver. 5.160); Quod item fieri nullo modo posse, nisi cognosset is qui . . . (Cic. de Orat. 1.87); Deinde, quos in senatu ne tenuissima quidem suspicione attigerat, eos nominavit: Lucullum, a quo solitum esse ad se mitti C. Fannium, illum qui in P. Clodium subscripserat, L. Domitium, cuius domum constitutam fuisse unde eruptio fieret. (Cic. Att. 2.24.3); Qui si alicuius iniuriae sibi conscius fuisset, non fuisse difficile cavere. (Caes. Gal. 1.14.2); Quibus proeliis calamitatibusque fractos . . . coactos esse Sequanis obsides dare nobilissimos civitatis . . . (Caes. Gal. 1.31.7); Cuius rei magnam partem laudis atque existimationis ad Libonem perventuram si illo auctore atque agente ab armis sit discessum. (Caes. Civ. 1.26.4); Qua oratione deterritos amplius iugulationem non fecisse. (B. Hisp. 16.4); Quem si Romanis tradidisset, fore ut illi plurumum deberetur. (Sal. Jug. 111.1); Nobiles iuvenes quosdam, quorum principem L.  Caecilium Metellum (sc. esse), mare ac naves spectare, ut deserta Italia ad regum aliquem transfugiant. (Liv. 22.53.5); . . . illum, quia male administratae provinciae aliorumque criminum urgebatur, culpam invidia velavisse, frustra conterrita uxore, quam etsi nocentem periculi tamen expertem fuisse. (Tac. Ann. 6.29.1); . . . tuta pone tergum Achaia Asiaque, quas inermes exponi Vitellio, ni praesidiis firmarentur. (Tac. Hist. 2.83.2); Trepidus ad haec Vitellius pauca purgandi sui causa respondit culpam in militem conferens, cuius nimio ardori imparem esse modestiam suam. (Tac. Hist. 3.70.4); Britanniam petisse spe margaritarum, quarum amplitudinem conferentem interdum sua manu exegisse pondus. (Suet. Jul. 47.1)

15.108 The use of the accusative and infinitive in correlative and comparative structures In correlative structures such as those with ut . . . sic ‘just as . . . so’ both parts can be an accusative and infinitive clause, as in (a). This is not surprising since the combined clauses behave in the same way as coordinated clauses. In fact, ut . . . sic and cum . . . tum can be used as ‘quasi-coordinators’ (see §§ 19.73–4). For cum . . . tum, see (b).

Infinitival clauses (a)

191

Ex quo intellegi potuit id quod saepe dictum est, ut mare quod sua natura tranquillum sit ventorum vi agitari atque turbari, sic populum Romanum sua sponte esse placatum, hominum seditiosorum vocibus ut violentissimis tempestatibus concitari. (‘From which one could easily understand what has often been said—that as the sea, which by its own nature is tranquil, is often agitated and disturbed by the violence of the winds, so, too, the Roman people is, when left to itself, calm, but is easily roused by the language of seditious men, as if by raging storms.’ Cic. Clu. 138)

(b)

. . . eas (sc. res) a Stoicis esse perspectas, eisdemque de rebus hos cum acutius disseruisse, tum sensisse gravius et fortius . . . (‘. . . Those matters were understood clearly by the Stoics, and concerning the same subjects they had both engaged in more insightful discussions and had perceived them with greater depth and strength . . .’ Cic. Fin. 4.62) Supplement: Ut cum in sole ambulem, etiam si ego aliam ob causam ambulem, fieri natura tamen ut colorer, sic . . . sentio illorum tactu orationem meam quasi colorari. (Cic. de Orat. 2.60); Huc accedit uti videamus, corpus ut ipsum / suscipere inmanis morbos durumque dolorem, / sic animum curas acris luctumque metumque. (Lucr. 3.459–61); . . . et tot acies ut hostium exercitus delesse, ita victoris etiam copias parte aliqua minuisse. (Liv. 23.12.4); . . . quem ad modum, si non dedatur obses pro rupto foedus se habiturum, sic deditam inviolatamque ad suos remissurum. (Liv. 2.13.8); . . . admonemus cives nos eorum esse et, si non easdem opes habere, eandem tamen patriam incolere? (Liv. 4.3.3); Ut enim qui in villis intra consaepta morarentur, quam qui foris terram molirentur, ignaviores habitos, sic eos . . . segniores visos. (Col. 1.pr.17); Quorum favorem ut largitione et ambitu male adquiri, ita per bonas artes haud spernendum. (Tac. Hist. 1.17.2); Ceterum quis tam stultus . . . est ut audeat repugnare hominem a Deo ut primum potuisse fingi ita posse denuo reformari? (Min. Fel. 34.9)

In a similar way, when two clauses are compared, for example with ante . . . quam, both can be accusative and infinitive, as in (c).213 (c)

Censes ante coronam herbae exstitisse quam conceptum esse semen? (‘Do you think the crown of herbs appeared before their seeds were formed?’ Cic. Div. 2.68)

15.109 The use of the accusative and infinitive in subordinate (especially satellite) clauses with a subordinator The use of the accusative and infinitive in subordinate clauses with a subordinator, for example in a causal clause with the subordinator quia, is rare in Latin (though it is amply attested in Classical Greek).214 Two examples are (a) and (b). An instance with cum is (c). 213 See Orlandini (1994). 214 Instances can be found in K.-St.: II.545–7; Sz.: 361. See also Orlandini (1994). A few instances from Seneca are mentioned by Setaioli (2000: 51). For Greek instances, see K.-G.: II.550–2.

192 (a)

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position . . . id, quod falsum fuerit, sine ulla dubitatione pro vero probasse. Quia si dubitarit, summae fuisse amentiae dubia spe inpulsum certum in periculum se committere. (‘. . . he undoubtedly held what was false as true. For if he was in doubt it was stark madness to rush into certain danger through the lure of a doubtful hope.’ Cic. Inv. 2.27)

(b)

Ideo se moenibus inclusos tenere eos. Quia (quippe cj. Friedersdorff) si qui evasissent aliqua, velut feras bestias per agros vagari, et laniare et trucidare quodcunque obvium detur. (‘He was keeping them shut up inside the walls for the reason that, if any escaped in some way, they roamed like wild beasts over the country and mangled and slew all that met them.’ Liv. 26.27.12)

(c)

Iacere tam diu inritas actiones, quae de suis commodis ferrentur, cum interim de sanguine ac supplicio suo latam legem confestim exerceri et tantam vim habere. (‘The measures which had been proposed in their interests lay all this while neglected, whereas the law that was passed concerning their punishment and their lives was carried out at once, and was being strictly enforced.’ Liv. 4.51.4) Unproblematic are accusative and infinitive sentences with the connector quamquam and with the ironic combination nisi forte, as in (d) and (e), respectively: these are not subordinate clauses.215 (d) Quamquam nullam nobilitatem, nullos honores, nulla merita cuiquam ad dominationem pandere viam. (‘To be sure no nobility, no honours, no merits, opened wide the road to tyranny for any man.’ Liv. 4.15.5) (e) Nisi forte clarissimo cuique pluris curas, maiora pericula subeunda, delenimentis curarum et periculorum carendum esse. (‘Unless your distinguished men must endure more responsibilities and greater dangers but must lack the relaxations compensating those responsibilities and those dangers.’ Tac. Ann. 2.33.3)

. The use of the accusative and infinitive as subject of passive two- and three-place verbs The AcI can be used as subject of a passive main verb. This construction is often called the impersonal passive construction as opposed to the personal passive construction of § 15.111 (the nominative and infinitive construction). It is greatly preferred if the main verb is a complex form (for example perfect passive (a) or gerundive + sum); when the main verb is governed by a modal verb such as possum ‘to be able’, as in (b); 215 For a discussion of (e), see Goodyear ad loc. A different approach can be found in Sz.: 360–1, who explains (e) as a subordinate accusative and infinitive clause.

Infinitival clauses

193

and when the main verb is specified by one or more agent, addressee, or satellite constituents, like mihi in (c).216 In the case of simplex forms, the personal passive is much more common than the impersonal. However, there are also situations in which a nominative and infinitive construction is excluded, for example when the AcI clause contains an impersonal verb. There are only a few attestations in Early Latin.217 (a)

In hac habitasse platea dictum’st Chrysidem . . . (‘It has been reported to me that Chrysis lived in this street . . .’ Ter. An. 796)

(b)

. . . ut recte dici possit omnia officia eo referri, ut adipiscamur principia naturae . . . (‘. . . so that it may correctly be said that all “appropriate acts” are means to the end of attaining the primary needs of nature.’ Cic. Fin. 3.22)

(c)

. . . dici mihi memini ludorum Romanorum diebus L.  Crassum quasi colligendi sui causa se in Tusculanum contulisse. (‘I remember that it was said to me that Lucius Crassus, as if for the sake of recruiting his energies, went to his seat at Tusculum during the days of the Roman Games.’ Cic. de Orat. 1.24) Supplement (in alphabetical order by governing verb): Aliquot me adierunt, ex te auditum qui bant hodie filiam / meam nubere tuo gnato. (Ter. An. 534–5); . . . ne fando quidem auditum’st crocodilum . . . violatum ab Aegyptio. (Cic. N.D. 1.82); . . . si . . . audiretur Romae nullum in mea provincia nummum nisi in aes alienum erogari. (Cic. Att. 6.1.21); Deinde audito Saguntiae Celtiberum omnes sarcinas impedimentaque relicta, eo pergit . . . (Liv. 34.19.10); . . . cernebatur . . . novissimos . . . premi . . . (Caes. Civ. 1.64.1); Esse igitur deos confitendum est. (Cic. N.D. 1.44); . . . satis credebatur obsidione domitos hostes in fidem venisse. (Liv. 8.26.7); Cura hoc. Iam ego huc revenero. / # Curatum est . . . esse te senem miserrumum. (Pl. Bac. 1066–7); De hoc Verri dicitur habere eum perbona toreumata . . . (Cic. Ver. 4.38); . . . ei . . . dictum est clipeum esse salvum . . . (Cic. Fam. 5.12.5); . . . non sine causa dicitur ad ea referri omnes nostras cogitationes . . . (Cic. Fin. 3.60); . . . ut pulsis hostibus dici posset eos ab se per fidem in conloquio circumventos. (Caes. Gal. 1.46.3); Dicitur eo tempore matrem Pausaniae vixisse . . . (Nep. Paus. 5.3);218 Non admisi avum quia dictum erat mihi hoc illum animo venire, ut raperet. (Sen. Con. 9.5.11); Taprobanen alterum orbem terrarum esse diu existimatum est Antichthonum appellatione. (Plin. Nat. 6.81); . . . ut non libeat cuiquam dare nisi de quo exploratum sit tibi eum redditurum. (Cic. Att. 4.15.3); Fertur . . . ab his qui Hadriani vitam diligentius in litteras retulerunt Hadrianum Veri scisse genituram . . . (Hist. Aug. Ael. 3.8); . . . ex quo intellegitur ab Oppianico esse corruptum . . . (Cic. Clu. 64); . . . ut . . . intellegeretur iam ad summum paene (sc. maturitatem dicendi Latine) esse perductam. (Cic. Brut. 161); Quae si hominibus solis nota sunt, hominum facta esse causa iudicandum est. (Cic. N.D. 2.155); . . . eum mortuum postridie

216 For quantitative data on prose authors from the Rhetorica ad Herennium up to and including Suetonius, see Kirk (1938). 217 See Bennett: I. 389–96. 218 This instance is the starting point of a detailed treatment of the ‘impersonal construction’ by Calboli (1962: 3–115).

194

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position hora decima denique ei nuntiabatur? (Cic. Mil. 48); . . . nuntiatum est nobis a M.  Varrone venisse eum Roma pridie . . . (Cic. Ac. 1.1); Nuntiatur Afranio magnos commeatus, qui iter habebant ad Caesarem, ad flumen constitisse. (Caes. Civ. 1.51.1); . . . nuntiatum regi patribusque est in monte Albano lapidibus pluvisse. (Liv. 1.31.2); Nam istum doctum et sapientem virum fuisse memoriae traditum est. (Cic. Parad. 23)

As can be seen from these examples, most verbs are verba sentiendi et declarandi. However, the AcI is also found as subject of the expression mihi videtur ‘it seems to me’, which is then more or less synonymous with censeo, as in the much discussed (d). (d)

Non mihi videtur ad beate vivendum satis posse virtutem. (‘It does not appear to me that virtue is enough for leading a happy life.’ Cic. Tusc. 5.12)219 Supplement: Neque eum ad me adire neque me magni pendere / visum est. (Pl. Cur. 262–3); Natare autem eos posse ideo videtur, quod terra est de qua ducuntur pumicosa. (Vitr. 2.3.4)

. The nominative and infinitive construction In addition to the use of the accusative and infinitive as subject of a passive (singular neuter) verb form (a so-called impersonal passive construction), Latin has another passive construction, the so-called nominative and infinitive construction (for its internal properties, see § 14.9). An example is (a). Here, the person who is meant to be the comrade of Hercules is unexpressed. This person is identical with qui, the subject of the passive form diceris. However, this qui is not the patient of the action of saying and, as a consequence, cannot be regarded as the normal passive subject of dico. From Early Latin—with few attestations220—onwards this construction is particularly frequent with passive forms of dico ‘to say’,221 but it is in principle possible with all passivizable perception, cognition, and communication verbs, as can be seen in (b) and (c). The infinitives may be active (or equivalent), as in (a)–(c) and (e)—the ‘agent’ type (see § 14.9)—or, less frequently,222 passive, as in (d) and (f)— the ‘patient’ type. The range of governing verbs expands from Cicero onwards, especially in Lucretius, and in Ovid and other Augustan poets.223 Complex forms are rare, but see 219 Discussion in Orlandini (2000: 340–3). See also the note on videor on p. 197 below. 220 See Bennett: I.388–9. 221 In Kirk’s (1938) prose sample there are 457 instances of the personal passive expression with dico and only 24 of the impersonal. For credo the figures are 114 against 14. Conversely, for nuntio the figures are ten against forty-five. For Pliny the Elder, see Tarriño (2002: 276–7). Merguet (Phil.) s.v. dico 679ff. and (Reden) s.v. dico 96ff. has a large collection of instances, with only a few impersonal forms. See Heine (1990: 8–9). 222 See Tarriño (2002: 282–4). In her corpus of Pliny the Elder, in twenty-eight NcI’s fourteen infinitives are ‘transitive’, ten ‘intransitive’ and four passive. With the forty-seven impersonal AcI clauses in the same corpus it is just the other way around. 223 For Ovid, see Bömer ad Ov. Met. 2.42.

Infinitival clauses

195

est dicta in (e). Specifications of the main verb (for example, addressee, agent, and satellite constituents or a modal verb) are very rare, but see possit in (d) and the agent ab suis in (f). See also § 15.110 for the use of these specifications with the so-called impersonal construction. (a)

. . . qui Herculei socius esse diceris . . . (‘(you) who are said to be Hercules’ companion . . .’ Pl. Rud. 161)

(b)

Ut enim mel . . . suo tamen proprio genere saporis, non comparatione cum aliis dulce esse sentitur . . . (‘Just as honey is perceived to be sweet by its own particular kind of flavour and not by being compared with something else . . .’ Cic. Fin. 3.34)

(c)

Qui habitus et quae figura non procul abesse putatur a vitae periculo . . . (‘That type of condition and build which is commonly thought of as incurring risk of life itself . . .’ Cic. Brut. 313)

(d)

Hoc commode reprehenditur, si dici possit ex hostibus equus esse captus . . . (‘A proper answer is made to this if a horse can be said to have been captured from the enemy . . .’ Cic. Inv. 1.85)

(e)

Anus / quae est dicta mater esse ei antehac non fuit. (‘The old woman who was previously said to be her mother wasn’t.’ Ter. Hau. 269–70)

(f)

. . . pueri quidam visi ab suis erant inter obsides Illyrios ducti . . . (‘. . . some boys were seen by their relatives being led along with the Illyrian hostages . . .’ Liv. 44.35.3) Supplement (in alphabetical order by governing verb): Simple forms: Perception verbs: ‘Agent’ type: Bibulus nondum audiebatur esse in Syria. (Cic. Att. 5.18.1); Iam Caesar a Gergovia discessisse audiebatur . . . (Caes. Gal. 7.59.1); . . . quod sub te duce, te iubente, cessi, / quod tu maximus arbiter meaeque / victor perpetuus legere ripae. (Stat. Silv. 4.3.82–4); . . . quae, si forte notasti, / oscula sentiri non esse sororia possent. (Ov. Met. 9.538–9) ‘Patient’ type: . . . ut lapide hoc uni nupta fuisse legar. (Prop. 4.11.36) Cognition verbs: ‘Agent’ type: Tametsi mihi nihil fuit optatius quam ut primum abs te ipso, deinde a ceteris omnibus quam gratissimus erga te esse cognoscerer, tamen . . . (Cic. Fam. 1.5a.1); . . . pro certo creditur necato filio vacuam domum scelestis nuptiis fecisse. (Sal. Cat. 15.2); Puer o dignissime credi / esse deus . . . (Ov. Met. 4.320–1); . . . plures aliquanto necaturus (sc. fuisse) . . . creditur . . . (Suet. Tib. 62.3); . . . ut haec inveniantur hodie esse huius filiae. (Pl. Poen. 1171); Etiamque ubi nunc triglyphi constituuntur, si ibi luminum spatia fuisse iudicabuntur, isdem rationibus denticuli in Ionicis fenestrarum occupavisse loca videbuntur. (Vitr. 4.2.4); . . . P. Sulpicius, qui deinceps eum magistratum petiturus putabatur. (Cic. de Orat. 1.26); . . . in eas Italiae partis Pythagoras venisse reperitur. (Cic. Rep. 2.28); Ceterae Illyrici legiones secuturae sperabantur. (Tac. Hist. 2.74.1)

196

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position ‘Patient’ type: Et tamen apud illam facilius creditur Iuppiter taurus factus aut cycnus quam vere homo Christus penes Marcionem. (Tert. Carn. 4.7); Haec palam et vitato omni secreto. Neque dubitabantur praescripta ei a Tiberio . . . (Tac. Ann. 3.8.2); Existimatur etiam equestres census pollicitus singulis. (Suet. Iul. 33); . . . Hecubam autem putant propter animi acerbitatem quandam et rabiem fingi in canem esse conversam. (Cic. Tusc. 3.63); Nam Deus omnipotens mente una omnium et communi mortalitatis adsensu neque genitus scitur neque . . . (Arn. 1.34.2); Quia igitur plurimae gentes vi maiore collaturae capita sperabantur, dubia bellorum coniectans sobrius rector magnis curarum molibus stringebatur. (Amm. 17.3.1) Communication verbs: ‘Agent’ type: Necessitudo autem infertur, cum vi quadam reus id, quod fecerit, fecisse defenditur, hoc modo. (Cic. Inv. 2.98); Sub idem tempus e familia Scriboniorum Libo Drusus defertur moliri res novas. (Tac. Ann. 2.27.1); . . . hasce aedis esse oportet / Demaenetus ubi dicitur habitare. (Pl. As. 381–2); Cretae . . . dicitur platanus esse quae folia hieme non amittat . . . (Var. R. 1.7.6); Dicitur mihi tuus servus anagnostes fugitivus cum Vardaeis esse. (Vat. Fam. 5.9.1); . . . ut . . . minime . . . pecuniae cupidus fuisse doceatur. (Cic. Inv. 2.36);224 . . . libere respondisse fertur (sc. Hannibal) . . . (Cic. de Orat. 2.75); De eo qui naufragus et ante agrorum sterilitate vexatus in scholis fingitur se suspendisse. (Quint. Inst. 8.5.22); . . . incusabatur facile toleraturus exilium . . . (Tac. Ann. 6.3.3);225 Is (sc. Socrates) autem memoratur prudenter doctissimeque dixisse . . . (Vitr. 3.pr.1); Caesar enim adventare iam iamque et adesse eius equites falso nuntiabantur. (Caes. Civ. 1.14.2); . . . complures . . . civitates renovare belli consilia nuntiabantur . . . (Hirt. Gal. 8.1.1); . . . crebris motibus terrae ruere in agris nuntiabantur tecta. (Liv. 4.21.5); Illis (sc. comis) contulerim, quas quondam nuda Dione / pingitur umenti sustinuisse manu. (Ov. Am. 1.14.33–4); Cervis in capite inesse vermiculi . . . produntur. (Plin. Nat. 11.135); Bubonis oculorum cinis collyrio mixtus claritatem oculis facere promittitur. (Plin. Nat. 29.127); . . . haec avis scribitur conchis se solere complere . . . (Cic. N.D. 2.124); Blemmyis traduntur capita abesse ore et oculis pectori adfixis. (Plin. Nat. 5.46) ‘Patient’ type: . . . ne quis in provincia simul virtute tanta et felicitate perdomita relictus hostis dici posset. (Liv. 28.32.12); Nobili Graecorum et ampla civitate Ephesi lex vetusta dicitur a maioribus dura condicione sed iure esse non iniquo constituta. (Vitr. 10.pr.1); Primum ad oppugnationes aries sic inventus memoratur esse. (Vitr. 10.13.1); Oppugnata domus C.  Caesaris, clarissimi et fortissimi viri, multas noctis horas nuntiabatur. (Cic. Mil. 66); . . . alius postea in paradisum ereptus debet ostendi cui permissum sit eloqui quae paulo mutire non licuit. (Tert. Praescr. 24.6); Plures (sc. soles) quam tres simul visi ad hoc aevi numquam produntur. (Plin. Nat. 2.99) Complex forms (including forms of sum understood): ‘Agent’ type: Adnotatusque miles qui fascem lignorum gestabat ita praeriguisse manus ut oneri adhaerentes truncis brachiis deciderent. (Tac. Ann. 13.35.3); (sc.  apes)  [Cum] a mellario cum id fecisse sunt animadversae . . . (Var. R. 3.16.30); . . . saepe auditus multo antehac rettulisse . . . (Amm. 19.12.10); Septimum

224 Note that the subject of doceatur corresponds with the subject of the AcI in the active parallel construction and not with the object/patient of doceo. 225 For the NcI with verbs of accusing and convicting in Tacitus, see Draeger (1882: 63).

Infinitival clauses

197

decimum Kal. Aprilis interclusa anima creditus est mortalitatem explevisse. (Tac. Ann. 6.50.4); Sin fuisse aliis quoque causa faciendi videbitur, aut potestas defuisse aliis demonstranda est aut facultas aut voluntas. (Cic. Inv. 2.24); Qui autem dictus est adiutor fuisse et conscius, P. Asicius, iudicio est liberatus. (Cic. Cael. 23); Is ingenio et industria magna praeter reliquos excellens dictus est artificiosis rebus se delectare. (Vitr. 9.8.2); Fortasse mirabuntur i qui multa ventorum nomina noverunt quod a nobis expositi sunt tantum octo esse venti. (Vitr. 1.6.9); Regnum adpetisse est iudicatus. (Cic. Dom. 101); Apud Arbilam Magni Alexandri victoria luna defecisse noctis secunda hora est prodita eademque in Sicilia exoriens. (Plin. Nat. 2.180); . . . quia tanta sapientia fuisse in iure constituendo putanda est quanta fuit in his tantis opibus imperi comparandis. (Cic. de Orat. 1.196); Reliquae (sc. naves) . . . Uticam versus petere visae sunt. (B. Afr. 7.3) ‘Patient’ type: Prius data est quam tibi dari dicta . . . (Pac. trag. 167—NB: dicta = promissa); Quae quom sit lex, lege quoque consociati homines cum dis putandi sumus. (Cic. Leg. 1.23)

There is much discussion about the origin of the nominative and infinitive construction and its relation to the accusative and infinitive. The best synchronic explanation seems to be that the entity which becomes the subject in the personal passive construction is selected for that function for pragmatic reasons, more or less the same ones that determine the choice between active and passive: it is often topical (see § 5.10), but it can also be used to introduce a new entity in presentative-like utterances.226 As a consequence that entity is ‘raised’ from its relation with the infinitive to a relation with the main verb (for the notion of ‘raising’ in connexion with the accusative and infinitive, see § 12.5).227 Heberlein (2002: 179–81), focusing on dicor in particular, states that it mainly functions as a ‘quotative’ modal verb, comparable with German sollen. However, this explanation only applies to those instances in which the action of saying is specified in one of the ways mentioned above. Combinations of videor, formally the passive counterpart of video ‘to see’, and an infinitive are usually also treated as nominative and infinitive constructions. However, with very few exceptions videor in this combination does not mean ‘to see’. In this Syntax it is taken either as a copular verb (see § 4.97) or as an auxiliary (see § 4.98). Mihi videtur + AcI (see § 15.110) is different. As for diachronic explanations, the most common one is to regard the personal passive with a verb like dico as an extension of the use of the passive of a verb like admoneo with a prolative infinitive (see § 15.117). Other scholars refer to the object + object (passive: subject + subject) complement construction that is found with a verb like dico, as in tu diceris bonus (esse) ‘you are said to be good’.228

The NcI is in principle also possible with verbs and expressions of praising, blaming, congratulating, and thanking that govern an accusative and infinitive construction, but instances such as (g) are very rare. 226 For such cases in Pliny the Elder, see Tarriño (2002: 280). 227 For factors influencing the choice between AcI and NcI, see Bolkestein (1981a; 1983; 1985). 228 So Torrego  (1987) and Lavency (2003: 179–83). Interestingly, Roby (1882: II.143) considers the infinitive a secondary predicate.

198 (g)

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position Sollers ornare Cypassis / obicitur dominae contemerasse torum. (‘Cypassis, the girl skilled at fashioning your hair, is accused of wronging her mistress’ couch.’ Ov. Am. 2.7.17–18) Supplement: Extinxisse nefas tamen et sumpsisse merentis / laudabor poenas . . . (Verg. A. 2.585–6—NB: belongs to a section (567–88) that is rejected by many editors; see Conte ad loc. and Horsfall (2008: App. 1))

Nominative and infinitive constructions of the ‘patient’ type can also be used with iubeo (on which see §  15.100 (vi))229 and a few other verbs that are discussed in § 15.100 (iii). Examples are (h)–(k). (h)

Proximo iussa’st dari . . . (‘She has been ordered to be given to her nearest relative . . .’ Ter. Ph. 416)

(i)

His igitur rebus praeclare commendatus iussus es renuntiari consul et quidem cum ipso. (‘Since you were admirably commended by these qualities, Caesar gave orders for you to be declared elected consul, and with himself as your colleague.’ Cic. Phil. 2.79)

( j)

. . . nec patefieri quae scientiam eius latebant permissis . . . (‘. . . and without those things which were concealed from his knowledge having been allowed to be explained . . .’ Amm. 20.2.5)

(k)

In has lautumias siqui publice custodiendi sunt etiam ex ceteris oppidis Siciliae deduci imperantur. (‘Into these quarries men are commanded to be brought even from other cities in Sicily, if they are ordered by the public authorities to be kept in custody.’ Cic. Ver. 5.68) Supplement (in alphabetical order by verb): . . . populi maiestas conservari iubetur . . . (Cic. Balb. 36); . . . (sc. aqua pluvia) iubetur ab arbitro coerceri . . . (Cic. Top. 39); . . . (sc. Romulus) dicitur ab Amulio . . . exponi iussus esse. (Cic. Rep. 2.4—NB: double personal passive); Triginta quinqueremes . . . mitti iussae (sc. sunt). (Liv. 27.7.15); Trecenae familiae in singulas colonias iubebantur mitti. (Liv. 32.29.4); Siculum . . . frumentum in Aetoliam ad exercitum portari iussum . . . (Liv. 37.2.12); . . . duo milia electi qui mori iuberentur: novi generis edictum. (Flor. Epit. 2.9); . . . propter fornicationem carnis permittitur homo a coniuge separari . . . (August. adult. coniug. 1.17.19); Ficorum (sc. umbra) levis, quamvis sparsa, ideoque inter vineas seri non vetentur. (Plin. Nat. 17.89) It has been suggested (by, among others, Sz.: 364) that in (h) iussa est dari is the regular passive of iussi eam dari, but this is impossible, since eam is not the object of iussi, nor is dari a prolative infinitive: the passive is incompatible with ‘ordering’ situations (see § 7.66).

229 For further examples, see TLL s.v. iubeo 578.54ff.

Infinitival clauses

199

Examples of the ‘agent’ type of NcI constructions with these verbs are given in § 15.100 (vi), exx. (x)–(z). Additional examples are (l) and (m). (l)

Ubei ea dies venerit quo die iusei erunt adesse . . . (‘When the day shall have come on which the parties shall be ordered to appear . . .’ CIL I2.583.63 (Lex Acilia, 122 bc))

(m)

Nam et volgo quaesitam sororem quis vetatur uxorem ducere. (‘For a man is forbidden to marry his sister even if she is illegitimate.’ Scaev. dig. 23.2.54)

It is uncommon to continue a nominative and infinitive expression with a second or third infinitive depending on the same governing personal passive expression. There are a number of instances where this might seem to have been possible, but where instead the continuation takes the form of an accusative and infinitive expression, as if governed by an impersonal governing verb. An example is (n). In the first sentence a nominative and infinitive construction is used, but in the second it is replaced by an accusative and infinitive clause, which is possible because impersonal videtur can be understood from the preceding personal videtur (the subject of which is quisquam). (n)

Mihi enim non videbatur quisquam esse beatus posse, cum in malis esset. In malis autem sapientem esse posse, si essent ulla corporis aut fortunae mala. (‘No one seemed to me to be able to be happy when encompassed with evil; but (it seemed) that the wise man could be encompassed with evil if any evils of body and fortune existed.’ Cic. Tusc. 5.22) Supplement: Ad quem (sc. Themistoclem) quidam doctus homo atque in primis eruditus accessisse dicitur eique artem memoriae . . . pollicitus esse se traditurum. Cum ille quaesisset, quidnam illa ars efficere posset, dixisse illum doctorem, ut omnia meminisset. Et ei Themistoclem respondisse gratius sibi illum esse facturum, si se oblivisci quae vellet, quam si meminisse docuisset. (Cic. de Orat. 2.299); . . . M. Papirius, unus ex iis, dicitur Gallo barbam suam, ut tum omnibus promissa erat, permulcenti scipione eburneo in caput incusso iram movisse atque ab eo initium caedis ortum, ceteros in sedibus suis trucidatos. Post principum caedem nulli deinde mortalium parci, diripi tecta, exhaustis inici ignes. (Liv. 5.41.9–10). Inevitably, with two more or less equivalent expressions mixed utterances (contamination) occur. An example (sometimes emended) is (o). Fertur is personal passive, with Papinianus as its subject; however, the sentence continues with dicentem, as if Papinianum had preceded.230 (o) Et fertur quidem Papinianus, cum raptus a militibus ad Palatium traheretur occidendus, praedivinasse dicentem (dicens cj. Petschenig) em stultissimum fore qui in suum subrogaretur locum, nisi adpetitam crudeliter praefecturam vindicaret.

230 For references, see Sz.: 365. Examples in Kirk (1938).

200

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position (‘And it is further related that Papinian, when, seized by the soldiers, he was being dragged to the Palace to be put to death, foretold the future, saying that whoever should succeed to his position would be an utter fool if he did not take vengeance for this brutal attack on the prefecture.’ Hist. Aug. Carac. 8.8)

. Other personal constructions resembling the NcI construction Resembling the personal passive construction with cognition, perception, and communication verbs are rare infinitival constructions with intransitive verbs with roughly the same meaning, such as clueo ‘to be spoken of ’, ‘to be known as’ in (a), and the expression in suspicionem venio ‘to come under suspicion’ in (b). These constructions are extended in poetry. (a)

Atridae duo fratres cluent fecisse facinus maxumum . . . (‘The two brothers, the sons of Atreus, are said to have done a most famous deed . . .’ Pl. Bac. 925).

(b)

Nonnullis etiam ipsi magistratus veniebant in suspicionem detinuisse nos et demorati esse . . . (‘In some quarters the magistrates themselves were suspected of having deliberately detained and delayed us . . .’ Lent. Fam. 12.15.5) Supplement (in alphabetical order by verb): . . . (sc. barathrum) quod quondam caesis montis fodisse medullis / audit falsiparens Amphitryoniades . . . (Catul. 68.111–12); . . . tu cum mendax esse clarueris . . . (Lucif. Athan. 2.25); Esse per gentes cluebat omnium miserrimus. (Enn. scen. 366V); . . . nec mea conveniunt duro praecordia versu / Caesaris in Phrygios condere nomen avos. (Prop. 2.1.41–2).231 . . . ut innotesceret praetor curam agere . . . (Ulp. dig. 4.9.3.1); Hosce opinor Cibyrae cum in suspicionem venissent suis civibus fanum expilasse Apollinis, veritos poenam iudicii ac legis domo profugisse. (Cic. Ver. 4.30)

The label nominative and infinitive is also used for personal expressions that are occasionally found alongside impersonal expressions with which the accusative and infinitive can be used as subject. These impersonal expressions, for example apparet ‘it appears’ and constat ‘to be an established fact’, are discussed in § 15.101. Examples of personal use are (c) and (d). In (c) apparent is plural in agreement with haec; in (d), constarent with quae. (c)

Haec apparent magis ita esse in latioribus regionibus, simplicia cum sunt. (‘These things are more clearly present in broad stretches, when they are uniform.’ Var. R. 1.6.2)

(d)

Quae si omnia e Ti. Coruncani scientia . . . acta esse constarent . . . (‘But if all these things were known to have been done in a manner equal to the knowledge of Coruncanius . . .’ Cic. Dom. 139) 231 For this instance and a few others, see Sánchez Martínez (1996).

Infinitival clauses

201

Supplement (in alphabetical order by verb): Atque ut membra nobis ita data sunt, ut ad quandam rationem vivendi data esse appareant, sic . . . (Cic. Fin. 3.23); . . . quo facilius appareat ita degenerasse a suorum virtutibus Nero, ut tamen vitia cuiusque quasi tradita et ingenita retulerit. (Suet. Ner. 1.2); . . . sed aliud si is iudex nihil scisset nisi quae praeiudicia de eo facta esse constarent . . . (Cic. Clu. 104); Tunc modulatae multitudinis conferta vox aures eius affertur, ut, quamvis hominum nemo pareret, chorus tamen esse pateret. (Apul. Met. 5.3.5)

In the same way modal expressions that are normally impersonal are sometimes used personally, like decet ‘to be right’ and oportet ‘to be proper’ and with the impersonal expression opus est ‘to be essential’ (for the impersonal expressions, see §  15.101). Examples of personal use are (e)–(g), respectively. (e)

Quae ab imperatore decuerint (sc. provideri) omnia suis provisa . . . (‘All those things which ought to be provided by a leader were provided for his troops . . .’ Sal. Jug. 49.2)

(f)

Adhuc, Archylis, quae adsolent quaeque oportent (v.l. oportet) / signa esse ad salutem, omnia huic esse video. (‘As yet, Archylis, all the symptoms which are normal and which ought to exist toward recovery, I perceive in her.’ Ter. An. 481–2)

(g)

Tu, quae istic opus erunt administrari, prospicies ut . . . (‘In regard to those things which will need to be done at Rome, please look to it that . . .’ D. Brut. Fam. 11.11.2) Supplement (in alphabetical order by verb): Quae (sc. porticus) videntur ita oportere conlocari, uti . . . (Vitr. 5.9.2); Haec enim Marcioni displicere oportebant. (Tert. Marc. 5.19.4); . . . nisi ea quae nil opu’ sunt scire. (Ter. An. 337); . . . atque quot iuga boum opus fuerint (fuerit edd.) ibi versari, ita finiantur. (Vitr. 6.6.1)

With the verb possum in its epistemic meaning ‘to be possible’, the personal construction is the normal one, as in (h)–( j).232 (h)

Non esse servos peior hoc quisquam potest / nec magis vorsutus . . . (‘There can’t be a worse slave than this one, or one cleverer . . .’ Pl. As. 118–19)

(i)

Nam unum aliquid aut alterum potest in istum casu cecidisse suspiciose . . . (‘To be sure, some one or two of these things can by chance have happened in such a way so as to throw suspicion upon this defendant . . .’ Rhet. Her. 4.53)

( j)

Sed cum haec scribebam V Kal., Pompeius iam Brundisium venisse poterat. (‘But as I write on the 25th it is possible that Pompey has already reached Brundisium.’ Cic. Fam. 8.9a.2)

232 More examples OLD s.v. possum 5; TLL s.v. possum 133.51ff. Discussion in Núñez (1991: 176–84).

202

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position The verb debeo ‘must’ in its deductive epistemic meaning is normally found in personal expressions (see § 7.22). An impersonal exception in Classical Latin is (k); there are more instances in Late Latin.233 (k) . . . nunc credo eo magis quod debet etiam fratris Appi amorem erga me cum reliqua hereditate crevisse . . . (‘. . . I believe that he is more (well-disposed) now because it must be the case that his brother Appius’ affection for me has grown along with the rest of his estate . . .’ Cic. Att. 6.1.10)

. Diachronic developments of the accusative and infinitive The accusative and infinitive gradually came to be used with a wider range of verbs. This is especially true for verbs of wishing (see § 15.100). Nevertheless, on the whole it lost territory to finite clauses with subordinators, especially quod, quia, and quoniam, in this order of frequency, with quoniam decreasing from the third century onwards. Early examples of the use of quod with verbs of perception, cognition, and communication are cited in § 15.9 and § 15.19. On the speed of this development opinions vary; in the written evidence the AcI remains the normal expression by far.234 The use of subordinators is particularly strong in translations of the Bible. The quotations from this text in ecclesiastical authors show variation between authors. Jerome uses quod and quia in his Vulgate translation where Vetus Latina versions have the AcI. For the distribution of quod and quia, see § 15.9.235 In their own works ecclesiastical writers largely maintained the accusative and infinitive, as can be seen from Table 15.3. Particularly interesting in this respect is Augustine. Before his conversion to Christianity the proportion of AcI and finite clauses is 55 : 1. In his Confessiones the proportion is 11 : 1, and in his Sermones 2 : 1. Similar adaptations to uneducated readers and hearers are found elsewhere in his work. Claudius Terentianus uses only AcI clauses, which Adams considers an indication for the late spread of finite clauses with these verbs (Adams 1977: 61). Calboli (1990) suggests that the consistent use of the AcI is a sign of Terentianus’ endeavour to write correct Latin. For a relativizing reaction, see Halla-aho (2003). Adams (2005a: 195) observes that quod clauses are entirely absent from non-literary Latin texts. Quia and quod clauses are frequent in Augustine’s correspondent Publicola (Adams 2016: 389). According to Herman (1989: 135), in the Christian texts he examined about 10 per cent of the object clauses with these verbs are with a subordinator, 90 per cent are with AcI. Almost the opposite is the case in the Vitae Patrum, where the AcI is only 233 See Bolkestein (1980a: 120–1) for discussion. 234 This also holds for Medieval Latin. See Bodelot (2017; 2018). 235 Quantitative data and details on the development of alternatives for the AcI can be found in Mayen (1889), Bonnet (1890: 666), Dokkum (1900), Salonius (1920), Herman (1963; 1989; 2003), WirthPoelchau (1977: 15), Haverling (1988: 242–7), Cuzzolin (1994); Stotz (1998: 393–6); Burton (2000: 189–90), Roca (2001), Greco (2008; 2012: 39–40), Calboli (2012), Sznajder (2017a; 2019). For the Vulgate, see García de la Fuente (1981), Olivera (1990), Rodríguez Martín (1993), and Moreno Sánchez (1995). For diachronic changes in the ordering of AcI clauses with respect to the governing verb, see Greco (2018).

Infinitival clauses

203

Table 15.3 Percentages of accusative and infinitive clauses with verbs of perception, cognition, and communication in a number of Late Latin writers Author/text

%

St Augustine: early writings

98.7

Confessiones

91.7

Sermones

66.7

Peregrinatio Egeriae

81.2

Tertullian: Bible quotations

40.7

his own writings

97.1

Cyprian: Bible quotations

21.5

his own writings

91.5

Lucifer of Cagliari: Bible quotations his own writings

25.5 86.4

Macrobius

96.6

Martianus Capella

96.8

Source: Wirth-Poelchau (1977: 23)

half as frequent as the finite alternatives (Salonius 1920), but in most other authors the AcI predominates. In Greg. Tur. the proportion is still AcI : quod, etc. = 3 : 1.236

Quod finite clauses are also found in pagan authors, so for example in Ammianus, who definitely strives after an elevated style and uses them as a source of variation,237 as appears from the parallelism in (a). There are a few Late Latin instances of an accusative and infinitive construction in combination with the subordinator quod. An example is (b), possibly also intended as variation. (a)

. . . latentem invenimus militem . . . qui . . . docet . . . quod . . . ad Persas abierat profugus exindeque . . . speculatorem se missum ad nostra saepe veros nuntios reportasse. (‘. . . we found one soldier hiding who said that he had deserted to the Persians, and then that he was sent as a spy to our territories and often brought back trustworthy news.’ Amm. 18.6.16)

(b)

Sed hactenus responderunt, quod, cum interiora occupaverint protinus gradientes Romani, se quoque utpote regnorum sequellas victoribus accessuros. (‘But they went so far as to reply, that as soon as the Romans by further advance had got possession of the interior, they also would go over to the victors, as appendages of the kingdom.’ Amm. 24.2.1) 236 See Herman (2000: 24).

237 Hagendahl (1921: 18f.).

204

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position

. Prolative infinitive clauses A survey of the verbs and expressions that may govern a prolative infinitive clause is given in Table 15.2 (p. 130). As the table shows, the prolative infinitive competes with finite imperative clauses, especially those with the subordinator ut. The relative frequency of each construction with a given governing expression varies and changes over the course of time. In poetical texts the prolative infinitive is preferred to other expressions, due to the tendency in poetry to avoid short words.238 In some instances this preference may have been encouraged by the existence of Greek parallels as well. Unlike ut clauses, prolative infinitive clauses are negated by non. In the following sections the order of the governing expressions is the same as in the sections on finite imperative clauses (§§ 15.66–80). For the prolative infinitive the present is the normal tense form used, but the perfect is also found. See § 7.70 and § 7.76. A particular class of verbs that are found with an object and an infinitive consists of three-place verbs of accusing and convicting. They are not in competition with imperative clauses, but rather with declarative quod clauses. Also, the infinitive is not necessarily in the present tense. This class of verbs is dealt with in § 15.130.

. The use of the prolative infinitive with verbs and expressions of ordering and commanding (class (i) (a)) The use of the prolative infinitive with verbs and expressions of ordering and commanding (class (i) (a)) is less common than finite imperative clauses (see § 15.66), but it is preferred by poets and poeticizing prose writers.239 Examples with impero are (a) and (b). (a)

Animo nunciam otioso esse impero. (‘Now then, I bid you set your minds at ease.’ Ter. An. 842)

(b)

Flectere iter sociis terraeque advertere proras / imperat . . . (‘He bids his comrades change their course and turn their prows to land . . .’ Verg. A. 7.35–6) Supplement (in alphabetical order by verb): (sc. Augustus) Etiam discedens eodem modo sedentibus valere dicebat. (Suet. Aug. 53.3); Tu, Voluse, armari Volscorum edice maniplis . . . (Verg. A. 11.463—NB: autocausative passive); Oblitus es quemadmodum inter vos officia divisa sint: illi oblivio inperata est, tibi meminisse mandavimus. (Sen. Ben. 7.22.1) NB: On the analogy of impero, etc. the dative is also introduced with verbs like iubeo, with a (disputed) early example in Catullus (c).240

238 For Lucretius’ ‘very extended’ use of the prolative infinitive, see Bailey (1949: I.101–2). For Virgil, see Görler (1985: 271–2). For the use of the infinitive instead of other finite and non-finite expressions, see also Banniard (2012: 65–7). 239 For a comparison of impero and iubeo, see Gavoille (2014). 240 For an extensive discussion, also of the developments in French, see Norberg (1945: 83–95). See also TLL s.v. iubeo 577.39ff.

Infinitival clauses

205

(c) . . . non haec miserae (-am ed. 1472) sperare iubebas, / sed conubia laeta . . . (‘. . . not this didst thou bid me hope, ah me, but a joyful wedlock . . .’ Catul. 64.140–1) Supplement: Quamquam hae mihi (me cj. Corradus) litterae Dolabellae iubent ad pristinas cogitationes reverti. (Cic. Att. 9.13.2); Perdicca pueris (-os edd.) equos iussit conscendere . . . (Curt. 10.8.4); . . . ipsis hostibus iussit suum vincire rectorem. (Amm. 26.8.5); . . . natura rerum praeceptis physicorum veras patitur habere explicationes . . . (Vitr. 2.1.9)

. The use of the prolative infinitive with verbs and expressions of begging, requesting, etc. (class (i) (b)) With verbs of begging, requesting, etc., the prolative infinitive is very rare. There are some instances with rogo. (a)

. . . qui rogetur de patrimonio sumptus faciendos committere gratiae petentis . . . (‘. . . who is asked to entrust expenditure at his own cost to the pleasure of the petitioner . . .’ Vitr. 6.pr.5) Supplement: Quare, si sapiet, viam vorabit, / quamvis candida milies puella / euntem revocet, manusque collo / ambas iniciens roget morari . . . (Catul. 35.7–10)

As in § 15.66, two-place verbs of demanding, such as posco and postulo, can be added here. An example is (b). (b)

Hae duae partes . . . quarum altera dici postulat ornate, altera apte . . . (‘These two divisions, the first of which demands that an oration be spoken with embellishment, the second that it be spoken in a suitable manner . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 3.91) Supplement: . . . Iliacosque iterum demens audire labores / (sc. Dido) exposcit . . . (Verg. A. 4.78–9); . . . Perna magis et magis hillis / flagitat immorsus refici . . . (Hor. S. 2.4.60–1); Esse sacerdotes delubraque vestra tueri / poscimus et quoniam concordes egimus annos, / auferat hora duos eadem . . . (Ov. Met. 8.707–9—NB: infinitives continued by a clause with a simple subjunctive)241

. The use of the prolative infinitive with verbs and expressions of advising, warning, exhorting, reminding, admonishing, etc. (class (i) (c)) With this class of verbs prolative infinitives are well attested. Examples are (a)— repeated from § 15.91—and (b). These verbs are also found with an accusative and infinitive clause instead of a prolative infinitive (see § 15.91). 241 It seems that Bömer ad loc. regards this as an accusative and infinitive clause without an explicit subject (on which, see § 14.8).

206 (a)

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position Nonne te . . . Quinta illa Claudia aemulam domesticae laudis . . . esse admonebat? (‘Did not even that celebrated Quinta Claudia admonish you to emulate the praise belonging to our house?’ Cic. Cael. 34)

(b)

Neque . . . conamur docere eum dicere qui loqui nesciat. (‘We do not attempt to teach someone to speak who doesn’t know how to talk.’ Cic. de Orat. 3.38) Supplement (in alphabetical order by verb): Active: Sed ego eum non solum hortatus sum verum etiam coegi isto proficisci . . . (Cic. Fam. 10.17.2); Haec me tibi scribere non prudentia mea hortatur sed amor in te et cupiditas oti . . . (Cic. Fam. 11.20.4); . . . ratio ipsa monet amicitias comparare . . . (Cic. Fin. 1.66); . . . aspera quis natura loci dimittere quando / suasit equos . . . (Verg. A. 10.366–7—NB: many editors prefer Madvig’s emendation aquis, see Harrison and Conte ad loc.) Passive: . . . nostrique detrimento admonentur diligentius exploratis locis stationes disponere . . . (Hirt. Gal. 8.12.7); Ceterum ad alia defendenda serius sunt redire commoniti. (August. Civ. 3.8); . . . an sum etiam nunc vel Graece loqui vel Latine docendus? (Cic. Fin. 2.15); . . . amphorae fumum bibere institutae / consule Tullo. (Hor. Carm. 3.8.11–12); Aut Philippus hasne in capulo quadrigulas vitare monebatur? (Cic. Fat. 5)

. The use of the prolative infinitive with verbs and expressions of inducing, persuading, etc. (class (i) (d)) With this class prolative infinitives are well attested. The verb persuadeo is here used in its meaning ‘to succeed in urging’ (OLD); in its meaning ‘to induce acceptance of (a statement)’ (OLD) it is also used with an accusative and infinitive clause (see § 15.98). (a)

[cum] Equus matrem salire cum adduci non posset, eum capite obvoluto auriga adduxisset et coegisset matrem inire . . . (‘When a horse could not be induced to mount his dam and when the groom, having covered his head, led him up, and forced him to do so . . .’ Var. R. 2.7.9)

(b)

Hoc quoque quaerentibus remittamus, quis Romanis primus persuaserit navem conscendere. (‘We may excuse also those who inquire into this—who first induced the Romans to go on board a ship.’ Sen. Dial. 10.13.4)

(c)

At ex regulis prior Mithridates Pharasmanen perpulit dolo et vi conatus suos iuvare . . . (‘Of the chieftains, Mithridates was the first to induce Pharasmanes to support his attempts by fraud and by force . . .’ Tac. Ann. 6.33.1) Supplement (in alphabetical order by verb): . . . nulla calamitate victus Correus excedere proelio silvasque petere aut invitantibus nostris ad deditionem potuit adduci . . . (Hirt. Gal. 8.19.8—NB: parallelism of the two

Infinitival clauses

207

prolative infinitives and the prepositional phrase with ad ); Musa, mihi causas memora, quo numine laeso / quidve dolens regina deum tot volvere casus / insignem pietate virum, tot adire labores / impulerit. (Verg. A. 1.8–11); Sed tua me virtus tamen et sperata voluptas / suavis amicitiae quemvis efferre laborem / suadet et inducit noctes vigilare serenas . . . (Lucr. 1.140–2) Persuadeo in the meaning discussed in this section can also be used with an accusative and infinitive clause, if there is no specific addressee involved. An example is (d).242 The infinitives are usually passive. (See also § 15.100 (iii).) (d) Sed quotiens id fieri publica utilitas persuadet; tyrannis saevitia cordi est. (‘Yes, but only when the good of the state induces one that this should be done. It is tyrants for whom cruelty is a source of delight.’ Sen. Cl. 1.12.1)

. The use of the prolative infinitive with verbs and expressions of permitting, granting, allowing, etc. (class (i) (e)) Prolative infinitives are very well attested for this class, especially for permitto, as in (a). Examples are (a)—active—and (b)—passive. Permitto can also be used with an accusative and infinitive clause, when used as a two-place verb. See §  15.100 (iii). Concedo in its meaning ‘to admit the truth of ’ (OLD § 10b) can be used with an accusative and infinitive clause. (a)

. . . ut iam ipsis iudicibus sine mea argumentatione coniecturam facere permittam . . . (‘. . . that I may now allow the members of this Court, without listening to any arguments of my own, to infer for themselves . . . ’ Cic. Ver. 5.22)

(b)

. . . ita animus si in iram, amorem aliosque se proiecit adfectus, non permittitur reprimere inpetum. (‘. . . so with the mind, if it plunges into anger, love, or the other passions, it has no power to check its impetus.’ Sen. Dial. 3.7.4) Supplement (in alphabetical order by verb): Active: . . . aut mihi concedant homines oportet in rebus bonis non exquirere ea iura . . . (Cic. Prov. 46); . . . qui quondam per mare magnum stravit iterque dedit legionibus ire per altum . . . (Lucr. 3.1029–30—NB: taking iter as a cognate object with ire); . . . namque tibi divum pater atque hominum rex / et mulcere dedit fluctus et tollere vento. (Verg. A. 1.65–6);243 . . . ac si cui videor non iustus, inulto / dicere quod sentit permitto. (Hor. S. 2.3.189–90) Passive: Neque illis concedendum ita imperare, ut verberibus coerceant potius quam verbis . . . (Var. R. 1.17.5); . . . sed nulli vincere fata datur. (Verg. Cat. 16.4); In araeostylis

242 For more, mostly late, instances, see TLL s.v. 1761.54ff. Ex. (d) is also in the OLD s.v. § 1.c. 243 See Domínguez and Martín Rodríguez (1993) for the development of this use of do (from Lucretius and Virgil onwards in poetry, from Vitruvius onwards in prose).

208

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position autem nec lapideis nec marmoreis epistyliis uti datur . . . (Vitr. 3.3.5); . . . qui per vallum Barbationis transiere securi ideo labi permissi, quod . . . (Amm. 16.11.6); . . . non baptizati in regnum caelorum non permittuntur intrare . . . (August. Anim. 3.13.19)

. The use of the prolative infinitive with verbs and expressions of forcing (class (i) ( f)) The most common representative of this class is the verb cogo.244 Examples are (a)— active, repeated from § 15.71, and (b)—passive. When used as two-place verbs, these verbs may also govern an accusative and infinitive clause (see § 15.100 (iii)). (a)

Non med istanc cogere aequom est meam esse matrem, si nevolt. (‘It wouldn’t be fair of me to force her to be my mother if she doesn’t want to be.’ Pl. Epid. 586)

(b)

Atque hoc tantum lucri coguntur dare publice . . . (‘And they are compelled as a community to pay him that huge bonus . . .’ Cic. Ver. 3.75) Supplement (in alphabetical order by verb): Active: . . . tua tristis imago / saepius occurrens haec limina tendere adegit. (Verg. A. 6.696); Num te emere coegit qui ne hortatus quidem est? (Cic. Off. 3.55); Denique tanto opere in dubiis trepidare periclis / quae mala nos subigit vitai tanta cupido? (Lucr. 3.1076–7); Obvia Persephone comites heroidas urget / adversas praeferre faces. (Culex 261–2) Passive: . . . avaritiam . . . adactam opes suas spargere et domui rebusque in unum conlatis inicere ignem. (Sen. Dial. 4.36.6); . . . gnate, ego quem in dubios cogor dimittere casus . . . (Catul. 64.216); Suppeditatur enim confestim lumine lumen / et quasi protelo stimulatur fulgere fulgur. (Lucr. 4.189–90); Mea vi subacta est facere. (Pl. Am. 1143); Dolere integre non potest qui urgetur irasci. (Calp. Decl. 11)

. The use of the prolative infinitive with verbs and expressions of hindering, preventing, etc. (class (i) (g)) The use of the prolative infinitive with this class of verbs is relatively common. Examples of prohibeo are (a)—active, repeated from § 15.72, and (b)—passive. When it is used as a two-place verb, it can be used with an accusative and infinitive clause as well (see § 15.100 (iii)). For related two-place verbs, see the Supplement. (a)

Tu modo ne me prohibeas accipere, si quid det mihi. (‘You just shouldn’t prevent me from receiving something if he gives it to me.’ Pl. Trin. 370)

(b)

. . . certe violare alterum naturae lege prohibemur. (‘. . . we are certainly forbidden by Nature’s law to wrong our neighbour.’ Cic. Off. 3.27) 244 For the use of cogo with a prolative infinitive, see Torrego (2016b: 299–310).

Infinitival clauses

209

Supplement (in alphabetical order by verb): Absiste precando / viribus indubitare tuis. (Verg. A. 8.403–4); Dum mi apstineant invidere, sibi quisque habeant quod suom est. (Pl. Cur. 180); Iam puerum calamos et odorae vincula cerae / iungere non cohibes . . . (Calp. Ecl. 4.19–20); . . . simul ac defecit suppeditare / materies aliqua ratione aversa viai. (Lucr. 1.1040–1); Desiste percontarier. (Pl. Epid. 40); In stupris vero et flagitiis nefarias eius libidines commemorare pudore deterreor. (Cic. Ver. 14); Me enim et hunc Sulpicium impedit pudor ab homine omnium gravissimo . . . haec . . . exquirere. (Cic. de Orat. 1.163); . . . velut tacita quadam verecundia inhibemur plus nobis credere . . . (Quint. Inst. 10.1.18); . . . si (sc. Pisistratus) alium facere (sc. malum) prohibuerit. (Cic. Att. 8.16.2); . . . rationes in ea disputatione a te collectae vetabant me rei publicae penitus diffidere. (Cic. Fam. 5.13.3)

. The use of the prolative infinitive with verbs and expressions of wishing, desiring, preferring, etc. (class (ii) (a)) The prolative infinitive is very common with verbs and expressions of wishing, desiring, preferring, etc., and their antonyms, though not with all of them. Examples are (a) and (b). The agents of the infinitives are coreferential with the subject of the governing verbs. (a)

Voluit in cubiculum abducere me anus. (‘The old lady wanted to draw me to the bedroom.’ Pl. Mos. 696)

(b)

Age igitur. Nolo advorsari tuam advorsum sententiam. (‘Go on then; I don’t want to oppose your decision.’ Pl. Mer. 377) Supplement (in alphabetical order by governing expression): Nam si potuisset, nihil ei fuisset antiquius quam ad Capitonem . . . reverti . . . (Cic. Fam. 13.29.3); . . . vacui curis etiam quid in caelo fiat scire avemus . . . (Cic. Fin. 2.46); Cupio aliquem emere puerum . . . (Pl. Cur. 382); Diligit ipsa alios, a me fastidit amari. (Ov. Rem. 305); Iam hercle amplexari, iam osculari gestio. (Pl. Cas. 471); Pergi’n, sceleste, intendere hanc arguere? (Pl. Mil. 380); Regiones colere mavellem Accherunticas. (Pl. Bac. 199); Si dabor ut condar loculis, exire negabo . . . (Ov. Am. 2.15.19); Sed mea desidia spem deserere nolui. (Pl. Rud. 92); Tun’ domo prohibere peregre me advenientem postulas? (Pl. Am. 361); . . . tum maxime illo tempore totum onus sustinere non recusabant . . . (B. Alex. 11.3); Quae mihi ipsi, qui volo et esse et haberi gratus, grata non essent . . . (Cic. Fin. 2.72) NB: relatively uncommon: Haec enim scire desidero. (Cic. N.D. 1.65); Quor tu, opsecro, immerito meo me morti dedere optas? (Pl. As. 608); Nam iam saepe homines patriam carosque parentis / prodiderunt vitare Acherusia templa petentes. (Lucr. 3.85–6)

. The use of the prolative infinitive with verbs and expressions of striving (class (ii) (b)) The prolative infinitive is very common with verbs and expressions of striving and the reverse. Examples are (a) and (b). The agents of the infinitives are coreferential with the subject of the governing verbs.

210 (a)

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position Studeo hunc lenonem perdere . . . (‘I’m keen to ruin this pimp . . .’ Pl. Poen. 818)

(b)

Nam hoc paene iniquom est, comico choragio / conari desubito agere nos tragoediam. (‘Well, it would almost be unfair to suddenly try to stage a tragedy with your comedy get-up.’ Pl. Capt. 61–2) Supplement (in alphabetical order by governing expression): Pacuvium videri doctiorem qui esse docti adfectant volunt. (Quint. Inst. 10.1.97); . . . si aut . . . convellere adoriamur ea quae non possint commoveri. (Cic. de Orat. 2.205); . . . ut te videre audireque aegroti sient. (Pl. Trin. 76); . . . delenire apparas . . . (Pl. As. 434); Tun’ te audes Sosiam esse dicere, / qui ego sum? (Pl. Am. 373–4); Concurrunt veluti venti, quom . . . fluctus extollere certant. (Enn. Ann. 443–5V=432–4S); Sed quid ego cesso ire ad forum quo inceperam? (Pl. As. 125); . . . quod sibi probare non possit, id persuadere alteri conetur. (Cic. Q. Rosc. 4); Milites summa vi transcendere in hostium naves contendebant. (Caes. Gal. 3.15.2); Quam ob causam non est cunctandum profiteri . . . hunc mundum animal  esse . . . (Cic. Tim. 10); . . . fundum agrum terramque meam, quota ex parte sive circumagi sive circumferenda censeas, uti cures lustrare. (Cato Agr. 141.1); . . . neque voluisse se diutius vivere neque curasse . . . (Suet. Jul. 86); (sc. Augustus) . . . affirmavitque non daturum se quamvis dare destinaret. (Suet. Aug. 42.2); . . . Dionysius, cum a Zenone fortis esse didicisset, a dolore dedoctus est. (Cic. Tusc. 2.60); Cum haesitaret, cum teneretur, quaesivi quid dubitaret proficisci . . . (Cic. Catil. 2.13); Pasiphaë fieri gaudebat adultera tauri. (Ov. Ars 1.295); . . . ut (sc. Ariovistus) in conloquium venire invitatus gravaretur . . . (Caes. Gal. 1.35.2); . . . saltem populi Romani commoda respicite, si sociis fidelissimis prospicere non laboratis. (Cic. Ver. 3.128); Meditor esse adfabilis, / et bene procedit. (Ter. Ad. 896–7); Metuont credere omnes. (Pl. Ps. 304); An metuit (sc. anima) conclusa manere in corpore putri / et domus aetatis spatio ne fessa vetusto / obruat? (Lucr. 3.773–5—NB: change of construction); Em ad quem legatos mittamus, cui bellum moremur inferre. (Cic. Phil. 5.33); . . . sed ut architectus his litteris imbutus haec nisus sum scribere. (Vitr. 1.1.18); . . . nonne ea dissimulare nos / magis humanum’st quam dare operam id scire qui nos oderit? (Ter. Hec. 552–3); Operam praeterea numquam sumam quaerere. (Pl. Men. 244); Nunc, ne quis erret vostrum, paucis in viam / deducam, si quidem operam dare promittitis. (Pl. Trin. 4–5); Ubi primum est licitum, ilico / properavi abire de foro. (Pl. Men. 599a–600); . . . vehes pol hodie me, si quidem hoc argentum ferre speres. (Pl. As. 699); . . . (sc. viri) qui hoc sermone quem referre suscepimus continentur. (Cic. de Orat. 3.9); Post hos aequo discrimine Pristis / Centaurusque locum tendunt superare priorem. (Verg. A. 5.154–5); Quid ego ineptus, dum sermonem vereor interrumpere, / solus sto nec quod conatus sum agere ago? (Pl. Trin. 1149–50) NB: Me miserum, si turpe putas mihi nupta videri! (Ov. Tr. 4.3.51); . . . tutumque putavit / iam bonus esse socer . . . (Luc. 9.1038–9)

Infinitival clauses

211

. The use of the prolative infinitive with verbs of causation (class (iii)) The verb facio in its three-place frame can be used with the prolative infinitive and is in this sense sometimes paraphrased by iubeo.245 However, as with iubeo (see § 15.100 (vi)), many of the examples cited in the TLL can be regarded as accusative and infinitive clauses (see §  15.93). Two examples where the accusative constituents can be regarded as agents of the action denoted by the infinitive which is forced upon him or her by another person are (a) and (b). (a)

(sc. tibi) . . . qui nati coram me cernere letum / fecisti . . . (‘. . . you who have made me look on my own son’s murder . . .’ Verg. A. 2.538–9)

(b)

Ille dedit vitam. Tu quam dedit ille tueris / et facis (sc. me) accepto munere posse frui. (‘He gave me life. You preserve the life he gave and you make me able to enjoy the boon I have received.’ Ov. Tr. 5.9.13–14)246 Supplement: . . . deinde fecit reporrigere (sc. phialam) Caesari (Caesarem cj. Scheffer) et illam in pavimentum proiecit. (Petr. 51.2 (Trimalchio speaking));247 (sc. cucurbitas) Fervere facias et inferes. (Apic. 4.2.8—NB: unless it is an AcI);248 Sic enim efficitur ut . . . insurgant filii in parentes et mori eos faciant. (Vet. Lat. Mat. 10.21 = Tert. Scorp. 10.17— NB: most codd. and Vulg. have morte eos afficient); Illos aetas facit putare quod non est, hos stultitia. (Lact. Inst. 1.22.14)

. The use of the prolative infinitive with verbs and expressions of deciding, resolving, etc. (class (iv)) The use of the prolative infinitive with verbs and expressions of deciding, resolving, etc. is very common from Early Latin onwards. Examples are (a)–(c). (a)

Mirum ni hic me quasi murenam exossare cogitat. (‘It would be odd if he isn’t thinking about filleting me like a lamprey.’ Pl. Am. 319)

(b)

Nam illi mihi dotem iam constituerunt dare. (‘They’ve already agreed to hand over the dowry to me.’ Ter. Ph. 676)

(c)

Age iam, id ut ut est, etsi est dedecori, patiar, facere inducam animum. (‘Go on now, whatever it’s like, even if it’s a disgrace, I’ll bear it, I’ll bring myself to do it.’ Pl. Bac. 1191)

245 See TLL s.v. facio 115.37ff. 246 For discussion of this example, see Álvarez Huerta (2014: 90–3). 247 It does not matter very much whether we accept the ms. or the conjecture, since the intention is clear, and the confusion of case forms is such that the dative could be understood like the dative with verbs such as impero. 248 For a discussion of this and other instances in Apicius, see Christol (2014).

212

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position Supplement (in alphabetical order by governing expression): Praedium quom parare cogitabis . . . (Cato Agr. 1.1); Coniuravere nobilissumi cives patriam incendere . . . (Sal. Cat. 52.24); Etenim cum homines nefarii de patriae parricidio confiterentur . . . se urbem inflammare, civis trucidare, vastare Italiam, delere rem publicam consensisse . . . (Cic. Phil. 2.17); Omnia experti Galli, quod res nulla successerat, postero die consilium ceperunt ex oppido profugere. (Caes. Gal. 7.26.1); Ego, ut ad te pridie scripseram, Nonis constitueram venire in Puteolanum. (Cic. Att. 15.28.1); Quidquid peperisset decreverunt tollere. (Ter. An. 219); . . . cum deliberassent nobiscum bellum gerere . . . (Rhet. Her. 4.13); (sc. mihi) Persuasum est facere quoius me nunc facti pudet. (Pl. Bac. 1016); Mihi autem hoc propositum est ostendere . . . (Cic. Sest. 31); Cum his viris equisque, ut dicitur, si honestatem tueri ac retinere sententia est, decertandum est. (Cic. Off. 3.116); . . . quamquam statueram in senatum ante Kal. Ian. non venire . . . (Cic. Fam. 11.6a.1); Pompeius quoque, ut postea cognitum est, suorum omnium hortatu statuerat proelio decertare. (Caes. Civ. 3.86.1); . . . sic habuisti statutum cum animo ac deliberatum omnes . . . iudices reicere . . . (Cic. Ver. 3.95)

. The use of the prolative infinitive with verbs and expressions of deserving (class (v)) Prolative infinitives are attested with mereo and mereor and its compounds from Propertius and Ovid onwards. An example is (a).249 (a)

Haec merui sperare? (‘Have I deserved to expect this?’ Prop. 2.5.3) Supplement (in alphabetical order by verb): . . . ab excellentibus parte in hac viris et veritatem istam commeritis nosse satis plene accurateque responsum est . . . (Arn. Nat. 3.1.1); Ennius emeruit, Calabris in montibus ortus, / contiguus poni, Scipio magne, tibi. (Ov. Ars 3.409–10); . . . neve merere meo subscribi causa sepulcro. (Ov. Met. 9.563); Ne Ubii quidem, quamquam Romana colonia esse meruerint, . . . origine erubescunt . . . (Tac. Germ. 28.4)

. The use of the prolative infinitive in combination with a neuter singular adjective that functions as subject or object complement (class (vi)) Prolative infinitives are attested with expressions consisting of a neuter singular adjective that functions as subject or object complement from Early Latin onwards. Examples of common adjectives used as subject complements are (a)–(c). For a possessive adjective, see (d). With many of the adjectives involved, the agent or patient of the prolative infinitive can be expressed explicitly as a dative constituent, as in (e). (a)

Humana matre natus, humano patre / mirari non est aequom sibi si praetimet. (‘He’s born of a human mother and a human father, so it’s no surprise if he’s afraid for himself.’ Pl. Am. 28–9) 249 For very late instances of prolative infinitives with promereo(r), see TLL s.v. 1845.38ff.

Infinitival clauses (b)

213

Facile est miserum irridere. (‘It’s easy to mock a poor wretch.’ Pl. Cur. 240)

(c)

. . . melius sanam est, mulier, mentem sumere. (‘. . . it would be better to adopt a healthy attitude, woman.’ Pl. Men. 802)

(d)

Tuom’st, siquid praeter spem evenit, mi ignoscere. (‘If anything turns out contrary to expectation, it is for you to forgive me.’ Ter. An. 678)

(e)

. . . dignos indignos adire atque experi[ri] certum est mihi. (‘. . . I’ve decided to approach the deserving and the undeserving and to try my luck.’ Pl. As. 247)

Prolative infinitives can also be used with adjectives functioning as object complement, as in (f)—note the dative mihi. (f)

. . . non mihi grave duxi scribere ad te . . . (‘. . . I should not have found it too onerous to write to you . . .’ Cic. Att. 1.5.4) Supplement (in alphabetical order by adjective): Sed non alienum est, quo facilius vis verbi intellegatur, rationem huius verbi faciendi Zenonis exponere. (Cic. Fin. 3.51); Eho an amare occipere amarum est, opsecro? (Pl. Cist. 68); Sed adire certum est hanc amatricem Africam. (Pl. Poen. 1304); Difficile est finem facere pretio nisi libidini feceris. (Cic. Ver. 4.14); . . . ut inplexis colocasiae foliis in variam speciem vasorum potare gratissimum habeant. (Plin. Nat. 21.87); In ius vos voco, nisi honestiu’st prehendi. (Pl. Poen. 1232); Indignum est a pari vinci aut superiore, indignius ab inferiore atque humiliore; luctuosum est tradi alteri cum bonis, luctuosius inimico; horribile est causam capitis dicere, horribilius priore loco dicere. (Cic. Quinct. 95); At tibi tanto sumptui esse mihi molestum est. (Pl. Mil. 672); Sed nostrum est intellegere utquomque atque ubiquomque opu’ sit obsequi. (Ter. Hau. 578); Quantum est adhibere hominem amicum, ubi quid geras. (Pl. Per. 595) Cf.: Mihi necesse est ire hinc. (Pl. Am. 501); Vixisse nimio satiu’st iam quam vivere. (Pl. Bac. 151)

. The use of the prolative infinitive in combination with other expressions that function as subject or object complement (class (vii)) Prolative infinitives are used with noun phrases in various cases or with prepositional phrases functioning as subject or object complement from Early Latin onwards and in that period they are more common than gerundial and gerundival clauses.250 Examples of such constituents functioning as subject complement are (a)–(c). In (a), officium is in the nominative (see § 9.22); in (b), saluti is a predicative dative (see § 9.34); in (c), patris is a so-called possessive genitive (see § 9.30); in (d), the prepositional phrase in rem functions as subject complement (see § 9.37). Ex. (e) shows a prolative infinitive in combination with an object complement. 250 See Perrochat (1932b: 170–87).

214 (a)

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position Non matronarum officium est, sed meretricium, / viris alienis, mi vir, subblandirier. (‘My dear husband, it’s not the job of wives, but of prostitutes, to charm other women’s husbands.’ Pl. Cas. 585–6)

(b)

(sc. homines) . . . quibus insputari saluti fuit atque is profuit. (‘. . . for whom being spat on was helpful and beneficial.’ Pl. Capt. 555)

(c)

Neque adeo arbitrari patris est aliter. (‘Indeed, it’s not for her father to think otherwise.’ Ter. Hec. 529)

(d)

. . . cetera quae cognosse in rem erat summa omnia cum cura inquirendo exsequebatur. (‘. . . he then went to work with all possible diligence to learn . . . everything, in short, which it was important to find out.’ Liv. 22.3.2)

(e)

Haec . . . haud ab re duxi verbis quoque ipsis, ut tradita nuncupataque sunt, referre. (‘These particulars I have thought it not foreign to my purpose to repeat, and in the very words in which they were formulated and handed down.’ Liv. 8.11.1) Supplement (in alphabetical order by noun (phrase) or prepositional phrase): . . . non est meae consuetudinis initio dicendi rationem reddere qua de causa quemque defendam . . . (Cic. Rab. Perd. 1); Praecipuamque curam duxit sensum animi quam apertissime exprimere. (Suet. Aug. 86.1); Et vere tantum laboris . . . suscipere . . . dementia ducebatur. (Paneg. 3 (11).20.2); Facinus est vincire civem Romanum, scelus verberare, prope parricidium necare: quid dicam in crucem tollere? (Cic. Ver. 5.170); Leporem et gallinam et anserem gustare fas non putant. (Caes. Gal. 5.12.6); Ergo erat in fatis Scythiam quoque visere nostris . . . (Ov. Tr. 3.2.1); Nam hoc mi haud labori est, laborem hunc potiri . . . (Pl. Rud. 191); Quia mos est oblivisci hominibus / nec novisse quoius nihili sit faciunda gratia. (Pl. Capt. 985–6); Communes loci (de iis loquor quibus citra personas in ipsa vitia moris est perorare, ut in adulterum . . . (Quint. Inst. 2.4.22); . . . nunc adest occasio / bene facta cumulare . . . (Pl. Capt. 423–4); . . . hoc servi esse officium reor, / retinere ad salutem . . . (Pl. Aul. 593–4); Quid opus nota noscere? (Pl. Mil. 636); Verum ubi nulla datur dextra adfectare potestas . . . (Verg. A. 3.670); . . . potestatem habeo dimittere te . . . (Vulg. Ioh. 19.10); Germanico pretium fuit convertere agmen . . . (Tac. Ann. 1.57.3); An pro illo fuerit rapi. (Sen. Con. 9.5.6); Nec pudor est oculos tenui signare favilla . . . (Ov. Ars 3.203); Quae petit ille refert, ceterum narrare pudori / qua tulerit mercede. (Ov. Met. 7.687–8—NB: the text is much disputed); Tempus est subducere hinc me. (Pl. As. 912) With a number of these nouns a gerundial clause is also possible, as in (f) (for gerundial clauses functioning as attribute, see § 17.18). (f) Tacendi tempus est, nam crepuerunt fores. (‘It’s time to be quiet: the door has creaked.’ Pl. Poen. 741)

Infinitival clauses

215

. The use of the prolative infinitive with so-called impersonal expressions (class (viii)) The prolative infinitive is used with a variety of so-called impersonal expressions from Early Latin onwards. Examples are (a) and (b). (a)

. . . decet et facta moresque huius habere me similis item. (‘. . . I also ought to have similar ways and habits.’ Pl. Am. 267)

(b)

Qui lubitum est illi condormiscere? (‘How could it please him to fall asleep?’ Pl. Mil. 826) Supplement (in alphabetical order by verb): Meo me aequom est morigerum patri, eius studio servire addecet. (Pl. Am. 1004); Immo vero, sed ipsi patriae conducit pios habere cives in parentes. (Cic. Off. 3.90); . . . ita uti liberali esse ingenio decet . . . (Ter. Hec. 164—NB: with a dative); Sunt autem alii, quos in luctu cum ipsa solitudine loqui saepe delectat . . . (Cic. Tusc. 3.63); . . . ut in sole, quod a te dicebatur, lucernam adhibere nihil interest aut teruncium adicere Croesi pecuniae. (Cic. Fin. 4.29); Iuvat enim magnifice loqui et certe decet . . . (Brut. ad Brut. 1.16.2); . . . nec tibi licet non facere quod iussus es. (Sen. Con. 7.1.3); Quoi illam dedisset exquisisse oportuit. (Pl. Cist. 574); . . . etiam delinquere non oportet et audientibus. (Tert. Paen. 7.1); Tamen multum prodest ea quae metuuntur ipsa contemnere. (Cic. Tusc. 4.64); Sed quid meminisse id refert, ego te tamen. (Pl. Mil. 809); Nunc autem mihi est visum de senectute aliquid ad te conscribere. (Cic. Sen. 1)

Subject infinitives can also be used with impersonal expressions of emotion such as piget (me) ‘to be affected with displeasure’ (for which see also §§  15.8, 15.18, and 15.97). Although they do not properly belong here, because the content of the infinitive is factive, this usage is illustrated below. An example with a present infinitive is (c); with a perfect infinitive, (d). (c)

. . . ut te ne pigeat dare operam mihi quod te orabo, senex. (‘. . . do not begrudge attending to me in what I ask of you, old man.’ Pl. Rud. 634)

(d)

. . . bene si amico feceris / ne pigeat fecisse, ut potius pudeat si non feceris. (‘. . . if you’ve done a friend a good turn, you shouldn’t be upset to have done so, and so that you should rather feel shame if you haven’t done so.’ Pl. Trin. 347–8) Supplement (in alphabetical order by verb): Present infinitive: Nam alia memorare quae illum facere vidi dispudet (Pl. Bac. 481); Huiusce modi Scipio ille fuit quem non paenitebat facere idem quod tu . . . (Cic. Mur. 66); Nam illa quidem piget dicere . . . (Sal. Jug. 31.2); . . . nec me meminisse pigebit Elissae . . . (Verg. A. 4.335); . . . si quem id facere piget . . . (Liv. 44.22.14); Eam pudet me tibi in senecta obicere sollicitudinem. (Pl. Mil. 634); . . . nec me pudet ut istos fateri nescire quod nesciam. (Cic. Tusc. 1.60); At enim taedet iam audire eadem miliens. (Ter. Ph. 487)

216

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position Perfect infinitive: . . . neque me vixisse paenitet . . . (Cic. Sen. 84); Non dedisse (sc. viginti minas) istunc pudet: me quia non accepi piget. (Pl. Ps. 282); Nec genuisse pudet Sparten Hyacinthon. (Ov. Met. 10.217)

. The use of the infinitive with verbs of accusing and convicting Three-place verbs of accusing and convicting have (in the active) an object/patient argument in the accusative and a third argument that indicates the charge. When this argument is a noun phrase, it is usually in the genitive (see § 4.63). These verbs can also be used with an infinitive, which, unlike the cases discussed in the previous sections, can be both a present and a perfect infinitive. An example is (a) with the perfect infinitive occidisse, which can be taken as a charge argument parallel to genitive of the charge. The agent of the infinitive is coreferential with the object/patient aliquem. (a)

Sin autem sic agetis ut arguatis aliquem patrem occidisse. . . (‘But if you act in such a manner as to endeavour to prove that someone has murdered his father . . .’ Cic. S. Rosc. 57)

This situation formally resembles that of several classes of three-place verbs that are used with an object and a prolative infinitive, for example verbs of advising, warning, etc., discussed in § 15.117. This is, in fact, the analysis adopted by many, but not all Latinists, for (a). Those who do not follow the analysis presented here take aliquem patrem occidisse as an accusative and infinitive clause.251 The OLD s.v. arguo § 2, for example, distinguishes for arguo a sense ‘to allege, assert, affirm’—that is, it takes arguo as a two-place verb. There are facts that can be used as support for either analysis. Ex. (b) is a straightforward example of an accusative and infinitive clause. In the sense ‘to bring a charge against, to accuse’ (OLD § 4b) the charge can be expressed as an accusative and infinitive clause, as in (c) (see also further on in this text). Note that the object/patient is expressed as well: the first me. Ex. (d) can be taken either as the passive counterpart of the three-place frame where the object/patient has become the subject/patient or as a personal passive construction, resembling the nominative and infinitive with verba declarandi (see § 15.100). (b)

. . . cives Romanos necatos esse arguo. (‘. . . I am making the charge that Roman citizens were put to death.’ Cic. Ver. 5.149)

(c)

Nam arguere in somnis me meus mihi familiaris visu’st / me cum alieno adulescentulo, quasi nunc tu, esse osculatam . . . (‘A household member of mine seemed to accuse me in my dream of having kissed an unknown young man, just as you’re doing now . . .’ Pl. Mil. 389–90)

251 My analysis follows K.-St.: I.688 (but see the note further on), Burkard and Schauer (2000: 677), and Lavency (2003: 110–1). Bennett: I.367ff. and Ernout and Thomas (1953: 321) deal with these verbs as verba declarandi which govern an accusative and infinitive clause. Many treatments are vague.

Infinitival clauses (d)

217

Occidisse patrem Sex. Roscius arguitur. (‘Sextus Roscius is accused of having murdered his father.’ Cic. S. Rosc. 37) Ex. (c) seems to be the only attestation of an object/patient + AcI combination with these verbs, although such combinations are found with doceo and admoneo (see §§ 15.91 and 15.98 (iii)). An alternative analysis could be to take the second me as an emphatic repetition.

The position taken in this Syntax is that the verbs of this class have two frames, a three-place frame, as described above, and a two-place frame in which the second argument can be filled by an accusative and infinitive clause.252 A comparable situation exists for manipulation verbs (see § 15.100 (iii)) and also for iubeo (see § 15.100 (vi)). (For quod clauses with these verbs, see § 15.10.) The accusative and infinitive clauses with these verbs are not restricted to passive clauses such as (b). In some instances there will be clear signals for interpreting the utterance as an accusative and infinitive clause. In (e)–(g), for example, the subject constituents in the accusative and infinitive clauses cannot be conceived of as object/ patient of the governing verb, and in (h) the subject of the governing verb is inanimate. In (i), however, there are no such signals, and it is only by using common sense that one is able to determine that one is dealing with an accusative and infinitive clause: this is simply not about a situation in which someone accuses his conservus. Many instances, however, are not so easy to construe and must be regarded as cases of ambiguity. (e)

Metui’ ne non, quom velis, convincas esse illum tuom? (‘Are you afraid that you cannot prove that he is yours, whenever you please?’ Ter. Hau. 1017)

(f)

. . . in vultu tacitas arguis esse notas. (‘. . . you charge that in her face were unspoken signals.’ Ov. Am. 2.7.6)

(g)

. . . cumque defectionem eius nullam posse excusationem [eius] imprudentiae recipere coarguisset . . . (‘. . . and when he had demonstrated that no excuse for his imprudence could account for his failure . . .’ B. Alex. 68.1)

(h)

Eodem modo Hirtuleium dissolvisse publicae tabulae coarguunt. (‘The public account-books prove that Hirtuleius in his payments followed the same method.’ Cic. Font. 2)

(i)

. . . eam / arguam vidisse apud te contra conservom meum / cum suo amatore amplexantem atque osculantem. (‘I’ll rebut my fellow slave and say that he’s seen this one at your place embracing and kissing her lover.’ Pl. Mil. 243–5)

252 So K.-St.: I.692.

218

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position

The infinitive with these verbs in their three-place frame is not restricted to the present, as is the case with the regular prolative infinitives. For a perfect infinitive—by far the most frequent—see (a); for a present infinitive, see ( j); for a future infinitive, see (k). ( j)

. . . Sullanas res defendere criminor (me criminatur cj. Lambinus) (‘. . . I am accused of defending the acts of Sulla.’ Cic. Agr. 3.13)

(k)

. . . incusabatur facile toleraturus exilium . . . (‘. . . the charge was made that he would carry his exile lightly . . .’ Tac. Ann. 6.3.3) Supplement (in alphabetical order by verb): Three-place frame: Active main verb: Conlatio est, cum accusator id quod adversarium fecisse criminatur, alii nemini nisi reo bono fuisse demonstrat . . . (Rhet. Her. 2.6); . . . veneni quod eiusdem Clodiae necandae causa parasse Caelium criminantur. (Cic. Cael. 51); . . . neque minus Rhoemetalcen quam Trebellenum incusans popularium iniurias inultas sinere. (Tac. Ann. 3.38.3); Insimulant hominem fraudandi causa discessisse. (Cic. Ver. 2.59); Sed Marcellum insimulabat sinistros de Tiberio sermones habuisse . . . (Tac. Ann. 1.74.3) Passive main verb: . . . cum accusetur ambitu magistratum petisse . . . (Rhet. Her. 2.43); Mox Numantina, prior uxor eius, accusata iniecisse carminibus et veneficiis vaecordiam marito, insons iudicatur. (Tac. Ann. 4.22.3); Is . . . arguitur domi te suae interficere voluisse. (Cic. Deiot. 15); Tunc mihi, tunc placeant silvae, si, lux mea, tecum / arguar ante ipsas concubuisse plagas. ([Tib.] 3.9.15–16); Decretum igitur extemplo ut qui pro Perseo adversus Romanos dixisse quid aut fecisse convincerentur capitis condemnarentur. (Liv. 45.10.14); Aut dabis aut contra edictum fecisse damnabere. (Cic. Ver. 3.25); . . . tanto infensius caesi quanto perfugae et proditores ferre arma ad suum patriaeque servitium incusabantur. (Tac. Ann. 4.48.3); Barbatio . . . cum ex magisterio peditum altius niti quorundam susurris incusaretur . . . (Amm. 14.11.24); Ilotarum deinde quidam . . . transfugere voluisse insimulati . . . necantur. (Liv. 34.27.9) Two-place frame: Active infinitive: Atque arguo / eam me vidisse osculantem hic intus cum alieno viro. (Pl. Mil. 337–8); Ego te tantum gaudere dico, fecisse non arguo. (Cic. Phil. 2.36—NB: parallelism with dico); . . . Cornelia ac Sergia . . . ab confutante indice bibere iussae ut se falsum commentam arguerent . . . (Liv. 8.18.8); Non enim urguent ut coarguant neminem ulla de re posse contendere nec adseverare . . . (Cic. Luc. 35); . . . nihil te de bonis rebus in vita . . . nihil de ratione vitae didicisse, nihil omnino quaesisse, nihil scire convincerent. (Cic. de Orat. 1.42); Haec Carneades aiebat . . . ut Stoicos nihil de dis explicare convinceret. (Cic. N.D. 3.44) Passive infinitive: . . . accusantibus Cyrenensibus violatum ab eo thesaurum Aesculapii dilectumque militarem pretio et ambitione corruptum. (Tac. Ann. 14.18.1); Haec, per se gravia, indigniora ut viderentur tribuni plebis seditiosis contionibus faciebant ideo aera militibus constituta esse arguendo, ut plebis partem militia, partem tributo conficerent. (Liv. 5.10.6); Tum invectus est Musonius Rufus in Publium Celerem, a quo Baream Soranum falso testimonio circumventum arguebat. (Tac. Hist. 4.10); Quid si quaedam bene facta damnaturus est iudex nisi ea non esse

Infinitival clauses

219

facta convicerimus . . . (Quint. Inst. 12.1.41); Si quis instrumentum litis suae a procuratore adversario proditum esse convicerit . . . (Paul. dig. 48.19.38.8); (sc. litterae ad Hannibalem) . . . [quibus] non Capuam solam traditam in manum hostibus, sed se quoque et praesidium in omnes cruciatus proditos incusabant. (Liv. 26.12.11); Nisi etiam hoc falso dici insimulaturus es. (Pl. Am. 902); . . . insimulat privigni veneno filium suum interceptum. (Apul. Met. 10.5.3) NB: nominative and infinitive construction of the ‘patient’ type (see § 14.9): Aut enim de iure dubitari potest eius qui rogat, ut de P. Clodi, qui non rite creatus tribunus arguebatur. (Quint. Inst. 2.4.35)

. The use of the (present) infinitive with auxiliary verbs and verbs with a related meaning Auxiliary verbs are dealt with in § 4.98. On the basis of the criteria discussed in that section seven clear-cut auxiliaries are distinguished: the modal verbs debeo ‘must’, possum ‘to be able to’, ‘to be possible’, ‘to be allowed to’, queo ‘to be able’ and nequeo ‘to be unable’; the habitual auxiliary soleo ‘to be accustomed to’; and the phasal verbs incipio (coepi) ‘to begin’ and desino ‘to stop’. In their auxiliary meaning, these verbs are used with a present infinitive. In addition to auxiliaries proper, there is a large number of verbs that (at least in one of their senses) are semantically similar to the proper auxiliaries and which can also be used with a present infinitive. Related to the modal auxiliaries are the verbs scio in its sense ‘to know how to’, ‘to be able to’ and its negative counterpart nescio; disco ‘to learn how to’ and a number of its compounds; and habeo in its senses ‘to be able to’ and ‘to have to’.253 Examples are (a)–(c). For the development of habeo (+ infinitive) into a temporal auxiliary, see § 7.27. (a)

Nescio ego istaec: philosophari numquam didici neque scio. (‘I don’t know that; I’ve never learned to philosophize and I don’t know how to.’ Pl. Mer. 147)

(b)

Habeo etiam dicere quem . . . de ponte in Tiberim deiecerit. (‘I can even give you an example of a man whom he threw from the bridge into the Tiber.’ Cic. S. Rosc. 100)

(c)

Quid habui facere? Perducere illum ad patruum? Non feci. (‘What could I do? Take him to my uncle? I did not do it.’ Sen. Con. 1.1.19)

Related to the habitual auxiliary soleo are suesco ‘to get used to’ and a number of its compounds. An example is (d). (d)

. . . ut eculi consuescant et videre eorum faciem et e motu audire crepitus. (‘. . . so that the young horses may become accustomed both to the sight of it and to hearing the jingling from its motion.’ Var. R. 2.7.12)

253 For further instances, see TLL s.v. 2454.12ff. (= possum) and 2454.53ff. (= debeo). For a discussion of the modal uses of habeo, and references, see Adams (2013: 654–7).

220

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position

A number of verbs that are related in meaning to the phasal auxiliaries proper are discussed in § 4.98. Two further examples are (e) and (f). (e)

Maiores nos res scribere ingressos, C.  Trebati, . . . e cursu ipso revocavit voluntas tua. (‘When I had set out to write on a larger subject, my dear Trebatius, your request recalled me from my course.’ Cic. Top. 1)

(f)

Iam de istoc rogare omitte. Non vides nolle eloqui? (‘Stop asking about this now—can’t you see she doesn’t want to tell?’ Pl. Per. 642) Supplement (in alphabetical order by verb): Quod facile est, si quam plurimis constitutionibus aggredietur id inprobare. (Cic. Inv. 2.75); Quem ferunt . . . instituisse . . . non quid ipse sentiret ostendere, sed . . . (Cic. de Orat. 3.67); . . . reliquis consecutis diebus non intermittebas quasi donum aliquod cotidie adferre rei publicae. (Cic. Phil. 1.32); Iam scrutari mitto. Redde huc. (Pl. Aul. 651); Sed maneam etiam opinor, namque hoc commodum orditur loqui. (Pl. Trin. 1136); Nunc domum ibo atque ex uxore hanc rem pergam exquirere . . . (Pl. Am. 1015)

15.132 Participial argument clauses (dominant participles) The internal structure of participial clauses is dealt with in § 14.14. The term introduced there is ‘dominant participle’. This section examines the use of dominant participles as arguments of complex sentences. Participial argument clauses are used from Early Latin onwards; they are relatively popular in authors who strive to construct complex periods (Livy, for example) and / or to condense information (poets and Tacitus, for example). The most common form is with a perfect passive participle. However, the other participles can be used as well (see § 14.14). The perfect passive participle clause is found in all argument positions, but present and future active participial clauses seem to be used only as subjects. Participial clauses (and related nominal ones) can be used in a broad variety of other positions as well, in clauses, in noun phrases and in prepositional phrases. A survey can be found in § 14.14.254 NB: The participial clauses that are discussed in the following sections should not be confused with the accusative and participle construction, for which see § 15.98, ex. (c) and § 21.8.

. The use of the dominant participle construction as subject It is not always easy to decide whether a sequence consisting of a (pro)noun and a participle is a noun phrase or a participial clause. This can be illustrated by (a), usually interpreted as a participial clause (see the translation by ‘the arrest’). The verb terreo is 254 The best survey of the construction in the period from Plautus to Suetonius is Heick (1936, with statistical data at pp. 71–2—NB: to be read selectively; see Spevak (2019)). For Cicero, see Laughton (1964: Ch. 4); for Tacitus, Adams (1972: 371); for Ammianus, Blomgrén (1937: 88).

Participial clauses (dominant participles)

221

found with human agents meaning ‘to constrain or inhibit by fear’ ‘to terrorize’, ‘to overawe’ (OLD § 1a), but it would be odd to speak of people causing this fear after they have been arrested. It is therefore unlikely that deprehensi functions as an attribute with the nouns. An example with a present participle, first attested in Cicero, is (b). The future participle is used in this way from Livy onwards (see the Supplement). Note that the verb of the superordinate clause agrees with the subject of the dominant participle construction, plural in (a), singular in (b). Exceptional is the use of a dominant participle with a clause as its subject, as auditum + postero . . . proficisci in (c). However, this is more common when such a combination functions as satellite (with the participle in the ablative—see § 16.91). (a)

. . . ne eum Lentulus et Cethegus aliique ex coniuratione deprehensi terrerent . . . (‘ . . . that the arrest of Lentulus and Cethegus and the others from the conspiracy should not scare him . . .’ Sal. Cat. 48.4)

(b)

In quo vehementer eum consentiens Etruria movebit. (‘Under this head the unanimous feeling of Etruria will have great influence on him.’ Cic. Fam. 6.6.8)

(c)

Haud procul iam Carthagine aberant cum ex obviis auditum postero die omnem exercitum cum M. Silano in Lacetanos proficisci . . . metu . . . liberavit eos . . . (‘They were now not far from (New) Carthage when the news, heard from those they met, that on the next day the entire army would set out under Marcus Silanus against the Lacetani, relieved them of their fear . . .’ Liv. 28.26.6) Supplement: Passive Perfect Participle: (sc. ea) Perdita perdidit me. (Pl. Cist. 686—NB: unless perdita is taken as a secondary predicate); . . . nec aequitati quicquam tam infestum est quam convocati homines et armati. (Cic. Caec. 33—NB: parallelism); Irridebatur haec illius reconciliatio et persona viri boni suscepta . . . (Cic. Clu. 101—NB: coordination); . . . dubitabat nemo quin violati hospites, legati necati, pacati atque socii nefario bello lacessiti, fana vexata hanc tantam efficerent vastitatem. (Cic. Pis. 85); . . . omnibus amicis quorum benevolentiam nobis conciliarat per me quondam te socio defensa res publica . . . (Cic. Fam. 4.13.2); . . . ea res saepe temptata etsi impetus eius consiliaque tardabat . . . (Caes. Civ. 1.26.2); Non illi paucitatem nostrorum militum . . . non abscisum in duas partes exercitum . . . causae fuisse cogitabant. (Caes. Civ. 3.72.2); . . . ademptus Hector / tradidit fessis leviora tolli / Pergama Grais. (Hor. Carm. 2.4.10–12); Alterum (sc. Horatium) intactum ferro corpus et geminata victoria ferocem in certamen tertium dabat. (Liv. 1.25.11); Haec dicta vulgo creditaque cum indignitate angerent consulis animum, vocato ad concilium populo summissis fascibus in contionem escendit. (Liv. 2.7.7); Equidem, sicubi loco cessum, si terga data hosti, si signa foede amissa obici nobis possent, tamen hoc a te impetrari aequum censerem, ut nos virtute culpam nostram corrigere et abolere flagitii memoriam nova gloria patereris. (Liv. 7.13.4); Temptatum domi per dictatorem ut ambo patricii consules crearentur rem ad interregnum perduxit. (Liv. 7.22.1—NB: ut clause as the subject of temptatum); . . . maximum vinculum erant trecenti equites, nobilissimus quisque Campanorum, in praesidia Sicularum urbium delecti ab Romanis ac missi.

222

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position (Liv. 23.4.8); Ceterum transportati milites in Siciliam—et erant maior pars Latini nominis sociorumque—prope magni motus causa fuere. (Liv. 27.9.1); Ad Prusiam regem legatus T. Quinctius Flamininus venit, quem suspectum Romanis et receptus post fugam Antiochi Hannibal et bellum adversus Eumenen motum faciebat. (Liv. 39.51.1); Nec terra mutata mutavit genus aut mores. (Liv. 37.54.19); Ultima pestis urbis fuit cuniculo subrutus murus, per cuius ruinas hostis intravit. (Curt. 4.6.23); Urebat nobilem populum mare ablatum, raptae insulae, dare tributa, quae iubere consueverat. (Flor. Epit. 1.22); Britannos . . . visa classis obstupefaciebat . . . (Tac. Agr. 25.2); Observatum id antiquitus comitiis dirimendis non terruit Galbam . . . (Tac. Hist. 1.18.1); An excidit trucidatus Corbulo? (Tac. Hist. 2.76.3); . . . filios, e quibus Zammac comiti nomine Romano acceptus latenter a fratre Firmo peremptus discordias excitavit et bella. (Amm. 29.5.2) Active Present Participle: Fugiens denique Pompeius mirabiliter homines movet. (Cic. Att. 7.11.4); Quod principium favoris et mater Agrippina spem male tegens perniciem adceleravere. (Tac. Ann. 4.12.1—NB: coordination); Id perniciabile reo et Caesar truci vultu defensionem accipiens . . . (Tac. Ann. 4.34.2) Active Future Participle: Nec his nec illis periculum suum, publicum imperium servitiumque obversatur animo futuraque ea deinde patriae fortuna quam ipsi fecissent. (Liv. 1.25.3); Ab hoc affectu reges suam flevere potentiam, nec illos magnitudo fortunae suae delectavit, sed venturus aliquando finis exterruit. (Sen. Dial. 10.17.1); Augebat metum gnarus Romanae seditionis et, si omitteretur ripa, invasurus hostis. (Tac. Ann. 1.36.2—NB: parallelism) NB: Si ambo praesentes, sol occasus (solis Q) suprema tempestas esto. (Lex XII ap. Gel. 17.2.10) Comparable with (c) is the use of the adjective notum ‘well-known’ in (d).255 (d) Duri magno sed amore dolores / polluto notumque furens quid femina possit, / triste per augurium Teucrorum pectora ducunt. (‘But the cruel pangs when deep love is profaned, and knowledge of what a woman can do in frenzy, lead the hearts of the Trojans amid sad forebodings.’ Verg. A. 5.6–8—NB: duri dolores and notum coordinated)

There are exceptional instances of a neuter singular perfect passive participle of one-place verbs functioning as subject of the sentences, as in (e) and (f). In (e) responsum, haesitatum, and titubatum are parallel to deprehensum aliquid; note also visus (sc. reus).256 (e)

Haec proprie attingunt eos ipsos qui arguuntur, ut telum . . . ut deprehensum aliquid, quod ablatum ereptumve videatur, ut responsum inconstanter, ut haesitatum, ut titubatum, ut cum aliquo visus . . . (‘These intimately touch the actual persons accused—for instance, a weapon . . . the discovery of some article that looks as if it had been taken away or snatched from the victim, an inconsistent answer, hesitation, stammering, having been seen in company with somebody . . .’ Cic. Part. 114)

255 See Williams ad loc.

256 For more instances, some of which are disputable, see K.-St.: I.769.

Participial clauses (dominant participles) (f)

223

Quin ea arte aequasset superiores reges ni degeneratum in aliis huic quoque decori offecisset. (‘Indeed he would have equalled in this art the kings who had gone before him, if his degeneracy in other things had not also dimmed his glory here.’ Liv. 1.53.1) Supplement: Diu non perlitatum tenuerat dictatorem ne ante meridiem signum dare posset. (Liv. 7.8.5); Equidem, sicubi loco cessum, si terga data hosti, si signa foede amissa obici nobis possent, tamen . . . (Liv. 7.13.4—NB: parallel with dominant participles of two-place verbs)

. The use of the dominant participle construction as object or as third argument It is not always easy to decide whether a sequence consisting of a (pro)noun and a participle in the accusative should be construed as a participial clause or as an accusative and infinitive clause without esse. This can be illustrated by (a). The verb fero can be found with various types of objects: nouns referring to a situation, nouns referring to human beings, accusative and infinitive clauses, and finite clauses.257 (a)

. . . cum auctorem senatus exstinctum laete atque insolenter tulit. (‘. . . when he displayed delight and insolence at the death of the senate’s advisor.’ Cic. Phil. 9.7) Supplement: . . . in re publica me a se dissentientem non tulit . . . (Cic. Q. fr. 3.4.2); . . . tantum quod momen mutatum dicere possis. (Lucr. 2.220); . . . cum visa atque audita et obversatum totiens somno Iovem, minas irasque caelestes repraesentatas casibus suis exposuisset . . . (Liv. 2.36.6); Scipio . . . cum . . . Carthagini ab se captae captam ab eo Orongin aequasset . . . (Liv. 28.4.2); Occisum Ciceronem malos mores voco. (Sen. Con. 7.2.1); Neque populus ademptum ius questus est . . . (Tac. Ann. 1.15.1)

There is obviously no possibility of such ambiguity with objects or third arguments in the genitive, dative, or ablative,258 illustrated by (b)–(d), respectively. (b)

. . . relicuorum, quos pecuniae captae arcessebat . . . (‘. . . the rest whom he (sc. Memmius) was accusing of taking bribes . . .’ Sal. Jug. 32.1)

(c)

Carthaginienses quoque Capuae amissae Tarentum captum aequabant. (‘The Carthaginians likewise balanced the capture of Tarentum against the loss of Capua.’ Liv. 26.37.6)

(d)

. . . obiurgavit Albium Granius quod . . . valde absoluto Scaevola gauderet . . . (‘. . . Granius reproved Albius because he was much delighted by Scaevola’s acquittal.’ Cic. de Orat. 2.281)

257 Examples of an accusative and infinitive can be found in TLL s.v. fero 538.1ff; without esse 538.19ff. 258 For cause expressions in the ablative, see Baños (2007: 19, n. 7).

224

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position Supplement: Genitive: . . . (sc. pacem) cuius impetratae ab insita animis levitate ante deductum Cremera Romanum praesidium paenituit. (Liv. 2.49.12); . . . cum L. Scipio et accusatus et damnatus sit pecuniae captae ab rege . . . (Liv. 38.56.8); . . . adnitar ne quem pacis per me partae paeniteat. (Liv. 30.30.30); . . . ne eius (sc. Marii) nati rem publicam paeniteret . . . (Vell. 2.12.5); . . . accusatur rei publicae laesae. (Sen. Con. 10.1.13); . . . quia (sc. Labeo) male administratae . . . provinciae aliorumque criminum urgebatur . . . (Tac. Ann. 6.29.2—NB: coordination) Dative: Reditum ad vestitum confectae victoriae reservate. Confectio autem huius belli est D. Bruti salus. (Cic. Phil. 14.1—NB: continuation by confectio); Si . . . perituraeque addere Troiae / teque tuosque iuvat, patet isti ianua leto . . . (Verg. A. 2.659–61) Ablative: Eas leges quas ipse nobis inspectantibus recitavit, pronuntiavit, tulit, quibus latis gloriabatur . . . evertendas putamus? (Cic. Phil. 1.24); Aut quidnam fracta gaudes, Neptune, carina? (Prop. 3.7.15); Quae posteaquam litteris Scipionum Romae volgata sunt, non tam victoria quam prohibito Hasdrubalis in Italiam transitu laetabantur. (Liv. 23.29.17); Classes et Pontica signa / atque indignatos temerato litore reges / mente agitet . . . (Val. Fl. 1.800–2)

From Early Latin onwards instances are found of the so-called impersonal expressions opus est and usus est ‘it is needed’ with what seems a dominant (perfect) participle construction in the ablative, as in (e).259 (e)

Celeriter mi hoc homine convento’st opus. (‘It’s necessary that I meet this man quickly.’ Pl. Cur. 302) Supplement: Quid istis nunc memoratis opu’st, quae commeminere? (Pl. Mil. 914); Si duobus praefurnis coques, lacuna nihil opus erit; cum cinere eruto opus erit, altero praefurnio eruito, in altero ignis erit. (Cato Agr. 38.2); Primum ut id iniquissimum esse confitear eius modi est, ut commutatis eis opus sit legibus, non ut his quae sunt non pareamus. (Cic. Clu. 150); . . . nihil Oaeneo capto opus esse . . . (Liv. 43.19.4) Recita modo: ex tabellis iam faxo scies, / quam subito argento mi usus invento siet. (Pl. Ps. 49–50)

15.135 Gerundial argument clauses Gerundial arguments are used with both verbs and verbal phrases (§§ 15.136–8) and with two-place adjectives (§ 15.139). Gerundial clauses do not function as subject (see § 5.42) or as object in the accusative, but they do function as non-accusative second or third argument with a number of verbs and adjectives.

259 Instances in TLL s.v. opus 857.70ff.

Gerundial clauses

225

. The use of gerundial clauses as argument with verbs Gerundial clauses are sometimes used with verbs in a way similar to other nominal expressions, but sometimes they are also found as competitors of prolative infinitive clauses. These two uses are dealt with separately.

. The use of gerundial clauses as second or third argument Gerundial clauses can be used as second or third arguments, both as bare case forms and in prepositional expressions, from Early Latin onwards. The dative is the most common case form of bare case gerunds functioning as argument; particularly common is the expression scribendo adsum ‘to attend the writing’, exemplified by (a). Ex. (b) is a rare instance of a gerund functioning as a complement in the ablative (for absisto + abl., see § 4.44). An equally rare and late example of a genitive complement is (c) (for admoneo + gen., see § 4.66). A prepositional expression is exemplified by (d). The gerund may itself govern an argument in the appropriate case, as in (e), where a gerund in the dative case (quaerendo) governs an accusative object Epidicum. However, instances like (e) are relatively infrequent, gerundival clauses being the normal expression (see §§ 15.140–2.). There are a few instances of satellites belonging to a gerundial argument clause (see the Supplement). (a)

Sc(ribendo) arf(uerunt) M. Claudius M. f., L. Valerius P. f . . . . (‘Marcus Claudius, son of Marcus, Lucius Valerius, son of Publius, attended the writing . . .’ (CIL I2.581.2 (SCBac., Tiriolo, 186 bc))

(b)

. . . desperatione tandem fessum absistere sequendo coegit. (‘. . . he forced him, at last, tired and in despair, to stop pursuing.’ Liv. 29.33.8)

(c)

. . . Latini comici metuentes . . . ne quis fastidiosus finito actu velut admonitus abeundi reliquae comoediae fiat contemptor et surgat . . . (‘. . . the Latin comic poets, fearing that some bored audience member, as though being advised to depart when an act ends, would become a despiser of the rest of the comedy and would get up to leave . . .’ Don. Ter. Ad. pr. 1.4)

(d)

Ad resistendum me paro. (‘I am getting ready to defend myself.’ Cic. Att. 2.21.6)

(e)

Ego . . . Epidicum operam quaerendo dabo. (‘I’ll make an effort to find Epidicus.’ Pl. Epid. 605) Supplement (arguments of the gerund are indicated in italics, satellites in bold italics): Dative: Atque hominem investigando operam huic dissimulabiliter dabo . . . (Pl. Mil. 260); . . . eae nos lavando, eluendo operam dederunt . . . (Pl. Poen. 223); Aliquando osculando meliu’st, uxor, pausam fieri. (Pl. Rud. 1205); Scribendo adfui. (Cic. Prov. 28); Neque vero coniuncti Albici comminus pugnando deficiebant neque multum

226

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position cedebant virtute nostris. (Caes. Civ. 2.6.3); . . . is censendo finis factus est. (Liv. 1.44.2); . . . prodendo obstat ingens verecundia . . . (Plin. Nat. 28.29); Occasionem loquendo capto, nec mehercules possum dicere inhumanitate tua fieri, quod non audeo . . . (Sen. Con. 10.1.1); . . . eo quod nemo e familia restaurando sufficeret . . . (Tac. Ann. 3.72.2); ‘Parce’, inquit, ‘in verba ista haec tam absurda tamque immania mentiendo.’ (Apul. Met. 1.2.5);260 . . . cum / cuncta parasset / edendo . . . (sc. muneri) (CIL VIII.241.5–7 (Sbeitla (Sufetula), 2nd cent. ad)) Ablative: (sc. Masinissa) Verminam . . . taedio et desperatione tandem fessum absistere sequendo coegit. (Liv. 29.33.8); Desiste canendo, / nata. (Stat. Theb. 4.583–4); see also § 15.138, ex. (c) Prepositional expressions: (ab): Deterrent ab saliendo. (Var. R. 2.2.14); Nullum tempus illi umquam vacabat aut a forensi dictione aut a commentatione domestica aut a scribendo aut a cogitando. (Cic. Brut. 272—NB: coordination with abstract nouns); A scribendo prorsus abhorret animus. (Cic. Att. 2.6.1) (ad): Ita sum inritatus, animum ut nequeam ad cogitandum instituere. (Ter. Ph. 240); Nulla enim res tantum ad dicendum proficit quantum scriptio. (Cic. Brut. 91); Quod me hortaris ad scribendum, amice tu quidem, sed me scito agere nihil aliud. (Cic. Att. 16.11.3); . . . ut spatium ad colligendum se homines haberent . . . (Planc. Fam. 10.23.3); . . . pedites . . . rapiditate fluminis ad transeundum impedirentur. (Caes. Civ. 1.62.1); Itaque ad remedium iam diu neque desideratum nec adhibitum, dictatorem dicendum, civitas confugit. (Liv. 22.8.5—NB: in apposition to a prepositional phrase); . . . me debilitatum aegre ad exurgendum compellunt. (Apul. Met. 6.25.5); . . . cogendum se ad ducendum eam uxorem. . . (Suet. Claud. 26.3); . . . Quod autem pertineat ad consuetudinem refutandum. (Firmil. ap. Cypr. Ep. 75.19.1) (cum): Nam et scribendi ratio coniuncta cum loquendo est et . . . (Quint. Inst. 1.4.3)

Gerundial clauses in the dative are also used as argument with the verb sum in its meaning ‘to be capable of ’. Especially common from Cicero onwards is the use of sum in this sense with the dative gerund form solvendo ‘(up to) paying’. In later times solvendo became an idiom yielding utterances like unus non solvendo decessit ‘one . . . died insolvent’ (Modest. dig. 3.5.25). In addition to this combination of sum and a dative gerund, there are also a few others. (For parallel gerundival expressions, see § 15.141.) (f)

. . . cum solvendo civitates non essent. (‘. . . although the states were not capable of paying.’ Cic. Fam. 3.8.2) Supplement: Tu nec solvendo eras nec te ullo modo nisi eversa re publica fore incolumem putabas. (Cic. Phil. 2.4); Iamque ferendo / vix erat illa gravem maturo pondere ventrem . . . (Ov. Met. 9.684–5) It is a matter of dispute whether there are also gerundial clauses in the accusative that function as second argument. An example that is cited in the literature is (g).261 Here faciundum looks like a gerund in the accusative that functions as the object of coiraverunt and which itself governs a number of object constituents in the accusative. 260 For the interpretation of the prepositional in phrase, see TLL s.v. parco 333.70ff. 261 So, for example, Aalto (1949: 84–5) and Blümel (1979: 86).

Gerundial clauses

227

However, this seems rather a formulaic expression typical of composers of inscriptions.262 A gerundival clause is the normal expression. (g) . . . portas turreis moiros / turreisque aequas qum moiro / faciundum coiraverunt. (‘. . . they saw to the construction of gates, towers, and walls and of towers that were level with the wall.’ CIL I2.1722.3–5 (Mirabella Eclano, c.80 bc))

. The use of gerundial clauses instead of prolative infinitives Gerundial clauses are sometimes in competition with prolative infinitive clauses. Prepositional phrases can be used with a number of verbs to indicate the thing or activity entered upon (with ad ‘to’ + accusative) or the thing or activity from which one ceases (with the ablative or ab ‘from’ + ablative). An example of the former is the verb ingredior ‘to begin’; of the latter, desisto ‘to leave off ’. These verbs are usually found with the prolative infinitive (see § 15.131), but gerundial clauses are found as well. Examples of prepositional gerundial clauses are (a) and (b). Lucifer, writing c. ad 360, has bare ablative gerund forms with such verbs, as in (c), showing the confusion of the functions of the gerund and the present infinitive.263 (a)

. . . ante quam ad discendum ingressi sumus . . . (‘. . . before we have entered on the required study.’ Cic. de Orat. 1.94)

(b)

. . . ut desisteret ab agendo . . . (‘. . . that he should cease from doing something . . .’ August. Civ. 8.14.2)

(c)

Non itaque cessabimus tibi Domini ingerendo praecepta . . . (‘Accordingly, we will not cease from repeating to you the sayings of the Lord . . .’ Lucif. De non parc. 9 l. 35D) Appendix: In Early Medieval Latin the bare accusative case of the gerund (or at least that is what it presumably would look like through Classical Latin eyes) is also found in positions where the prolative infinitive is normal, so, for example, with phasal auxiliary verbs (for these see § 4.98) and then also with modal auxiliaries. Two seventh-century Merovingian illustrations are (d) and (e).264 (d) . . . de eodem incipiens tempore scribendum . . . (‘. . . beginning to write about the same time . . .’ Fredeg. Chron. 4pr.) (e) Theubertus . . . prilium vellens (= proelium volens) committendum adgreditur. (‘Theubertus . . . attacks, wishing to join in the battle.’ Fredeg. Chron. 4.37)

262 See Warmington IV.188, n. 4. For a discussion of this inscription, see Baldi (1999: 217). As an alternative to the explanation given above he suggests that the neuter form faciundum may have been chosen because the nouns it agrees with are of different gender, but then one would expect plural faciunda (see §§ 13.9 and 13.17). 263 Examples can be found in Diercks’ edition (1978: XCI). 264 Further examples from Fredegar can be found in Odelstierna (1926: 45–56).

228

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position

Another area for competition between the gerund and the infinitive is in more or less idiomatic phrases that consist of sum and nouns that function as subject complement, such as mos est ‘it is the/a custom’. With this particular phrase the normal construction is the prolative infinitive, as in (f), but (g) may be analysed in the same way. Compare also (h). However, here one might take mala . . . et impia as the subject complement and contra deos disputandi as the adnominal argument of consuetudo (see also §§  17.17–18).265 A step further is (i). Here the explanation must be that Tacitus wanted to avoid the more common use of the infinitive vitare.266 (f)

Quia mos est oblivisci hominibus . . . (‘Because it’s people’s custom to forget . . .’ Pl. Capt. 985)

(g)

. . . sed quia mos est ita rogandi, rogo. (‘. . . but because it is the custom to ask in this way, I ask . . .’ Cic. Fam. 12.17.1)

(h)

Mala enim et impia consuetudo est contra deos disputandi . . . (‘For it is a wicked and impious practice to argue against the gods.’ Cic. N.D. 2.168)

(i)

Vologaesi vetus et penitus infixum erat arma Romana vitandi . . . (‘With Vologeses it was an old and deep-seated principle to avoid the Roman arms . . .’ Tac. Ann. 15.5.3) Supplement: Mos vero liberos genitos protinus obiciendi saevissimis earum eoque genere pudicitiam coniugum experiendi . . . (Plin. Nat. 7.14.2); Nec grave manumissis per idem obsequium retinendi libertatem . . . (Tac. Ann. 13.26.3); Decernaturque et maneat provincialibus potentiam suam tali modo ostentandi. (Tac. Ann. 15.21.2); . . . monumentum · refecit · ex / subscriptione · eorum quorum iuris est · dandi . . . (CIL VI.9035.9–10 (Rome, 1st cent. ad (late))); Iam propositi erat . . . ad Asiam accedendi . . . (Pereg. 23.10); . . . cum id iustitia ipsa persuadeat ab eo haec recognosci, qui evocandi personas sua interesse crediderit. (Cod. Just. 7.62.6.2); . . . quod eis nec donandi nec testandi aut capiendi vel ab aliis derelictum penitus subiaceret . . . (Vict. Vit. 3.9) Appendix: In Late Latin there are a few instances where the subject complement analysis seems acceptable, but here a more general confusion between infinitival and gerundial expressions may be an additional explanation as well, a confusion which is apparent in other contexts, for example in ( j). ( j) Set quid aliut fieri potest nisi naturae ser/viendum? (‘But what else can be done except obey nature?’ (CIL VIII.23245.2–3 (Hr Djuana)).

265 One might occasionally prefer to regard the gerundial clause as the subject of the sentence. A discussion of these cases can be found in Norberg (1943: 225ff.) and Wistrand (1967). 266 For these exceptional instances in Tacitus, see Löfstedt (1942/1933: I.106).

Gerundival clauses

229

15.139 The use of gerundial clauses with two-place adjectives that function as subject or object complement Gerundial clauses can be used with two-place adjectives that function as subject complement or as object complement. The gerunds may be either bare case forms in the genitive, dative, or ablative, or they may be prepositional expressions (mainly with ad ‘to’). An example with a dative gerund is (a). There are a few instances of such gerundial clauses with an argument (or a satellite), but the expression normally used in such cases is the gerundival clause. An example is (b). The gerundial clause videndi—itself in the genitive—contains an argument vos, in the expected accusative case form, and an adjunct, hic. The two other gerunds are combined with a space argument. (a)

Illud ediscendo scribendoque commune est . . . (‘This is common to learning by heart and writing . . .’ Quint. Inst. 11.2.35)

(b)

. . . quam cupida eram huc redeundi, abeundi a milite, / vosque hic videndi . . . (‘. . . how eager I was to come back here, to get away from the soldier, and to see all of you here . . .’ Ter. Hec. 91–2) Supplement: Genitive: Harum partium quaeque suis muneribus fungitur, si modo vinitor gnarus est iis utendi[s]. (Col. 4.25.1); Armorum et equitandi peritissimus, laboris ultra fidem patiens erat. (Suet. Jul. 57.1—NB: coordination with a noun) Dative: Est autem utilis sulpurata (sc. aqua) nervis, aluminata paralyticis aut simili modo solutis, bituminata aut nitrosa, qualis Cutilia est, bibendo itaque purgationibus. (Plin. Nat. 31.59—NB: coordination with a noun) Ablative: . . . culpando nihilum dignus, set dignus amari . . . (anth. II.1.650.2 (ad 360)) Prepositional phrase: At quidem hercle est perdundum magis quam ad scribundum cito. (Pl. Bac. 738); Non sati’ tutus est ad narrandum hic locus. (Ter. Ph. 818); Ut enim nulla materies tam facilis ad exardescendum est . . . (Cic. de Orat. 2.190); Ac ne me existimaris ad manendum esse propensiorem . . . (Cic. Att. 8.3.6); . . . ut (sc. balineae) habiles ad lavandum fierent . . . (Scaev. dig. 32.35.3); . . . solers ad audiendum, clemens ad ignoscendum . . . (CIL V.6725.7 (Vercelli, 5th cent. ad))

15.140 Gerundival argument clauses For the internal structure of gerundival clauses and their ‘dominant’ character, see § 14.14. Dominant gerundival clauses resemble dominant participial clauses with a past passive participle, the difference between them being that the gerundival clause denotes something that still has/had to take place (see § 5.41), while the participial clause refers to something that has/had already taken place. This is illustrated by ex. (a). The same difference can be seen in Livy’s famous temporal adjunct ante conditam condendamve urbem in (b).267 267 For the difference in meaning between the participial and the gerundival clauses, see Bolkestein (1980b: 93).

230 (a)

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position Non praesentem solum dictatorem obstitisse rei bene gerendae, sed absentem etiam gestae obstare . . . (‘Not only had the dictator prevented a successful engagement being fought while he was present, but even when absent he objected to the victory now that it was won . . .’ Liv. 22.25.4)

(b)

Quae ante conditam condendamve urbem poeticis magis decora fabulis quam incorruptis rerum gestarum monumentis traduntur, ea nec adfirmare nec refellere in animo est. (‘The things which have been handed down since before the city was founded or rather was presently to be founded and which are rather adorned with poetic legends than based upon trustworthy historical proofs, I purpose neither to affirm nor to refute.’ Liv.1.pr. 6)

Gerundival arguments are found both with verbs (§ 15.141) and with two-place adjectives (§ 15.142).

. The use of gerundival clauses as arguments with verbs Gerundival clauses can function as arguments of various types, but not as subject (but see ex. (g)). In the first place, gerundival clauses in the genitive, dative, or ablative can be used as second or third arguments, although the number of attested instances is relatively small. There are almost no attestations of genitive and ablative gerundival clauses in this use, but the dative is used with a range of verbs, including the verb sum in its meaning ‘to be equal to’. There are a few attestations of prepositional phrases. Examples of gerundival clauses are (a)–(c). (a)

. . . cum primores civitatis . . . tumultus hostilis et turbandae rei publicae accerserentur. (‘. . . when the leading men of the city . . . were indicted for armed rebellion and for disturbing the peace of the state . . .’ Tac. Ann. 4.29.1—NB: coordination with a noun phrase)

(b)

Thetis quoque etiam lamentando pausam fecit filio. (‘And even Thetis stopped lamenting for her son.’ Pl. Truc. 731)

(c)

. . . si gerendis negotiis orbatus possit paratissimis vesci voluptatibus. (‘. . . if, debarred from taking part in affairs, he should be able to enjoy the most exquisite pleasures.’ Cic. Fin. 5.57) Supplement (satellites of the gerundive are indicated in italics): Genitive: Ne feminae quidem exsortes periculi qua occupandae rei publicae argui non poterant, ob lacrimas incusabantur. (Tac. Ann. 6.10.1) Dative: Armamentis complicandis, [et] componendis studuimus. (Pl. Mer. 192); . . . bello gerendo M. Catonem praefecisti. (Cic. Dom. 20); . . . sic noster hic rector studuerit sane iuri et legibus cognoscendis . . . (Cic. Rep. 5.5); Dum consul placandis Romae dis haben-

Gerundival clauses

231

doque dilectu dat operam . . . (Liv. 22.2.1); Portoriisque et tributo plebes liberata, ut divites conferrent, qui oneri ferendo essent: pauperes satis stipendii pendere, si liberos educarent. (Liv. 2.9.6); Experiundam rem denique in uno aut altero esse sitne aliqui plebeius ferendo magno honori . . . (Liv. 4.35.9); . . . Domitium Corbulonem retinendae Armeniae praeposuerat . . . (Tac. Ann. 13.8.1); Et ne ponti iniciendo impedimentum hostiles turmae adferrent . . . (Tac. Ann. 15.9.1); . . . quod inter spectandum epistulis libellisque legendis aut rescribendis vacaret . . . (Suet. Aug. 45.1); . . . dum magister meus lectulo probe coaptando destrictus inservit . . . (Apul. Met. 10.35.1); . . . si quis pecuniis faenerandis, agris colendis, mercaturis redempturisque faciendis praeposuerit (sc. institorem) . . . (Ulp. dig. 14.3.5.2); . . . qui / cautionibus accipiendis de/sunt . . . (CIL II.2959.5–7 (Pamplona, ad 119)); . . . qui · se · numini · eius · in perpetuum · / colendo · obligaverunt . . . (CIL XII.4333.11–12 (Narbonne, ad 11)); (sc. provinciae) . . . quas natura agro potius eluctando commodavit . . . (Tert. Pal. 4) Prepositional phrase: A ducenda autem uxore sic abhorret ut libero lectulo neget esse quicquam iucundius. (Cic. Att. 14.13.5); . . . revocant ab inpugnandis operibus armatos murisque disponunt. (Hirt. Gal. 8.43.2); . . . cum · domi re/pelleretur · a · gerendis · honoribus . . . (CIL XIII.1668. I.14–15 (Lyon, ad 48)); Seneca missum ad se Natalem conquestumque nomine Pisonis, quod a visendo eo prohiberetur, seque rationem valetudinis et amorem quietis excusavisse respondit. (Tac. Ann. 15.61.1); . . . nec ulla lege (sc. testes) a dicendo testimonio excusantur. (Charis. dig. 22.5.1.1); Iam se ad prohibenda circumdari opera Aequi parabant (Liv. 3.28.7); Hoc ius ad rapa condienda optime facit. (Col. 12.57.1); . . . quae ad solutionem pecuniae aut operam praebendam pertinent. (Javol. dig. 4.8.39.1—NB: coordination with a noun phrase)

There are also gerundival clauses functioning as object (and as subject in the passive, as in (e)), although their existence is ignored in some grammars.268 The clearest instances occur with the verb curo, as in (d). (d)

. . . cum ad has suspiciones certissimae res accederent . . . quod obsides inter eos dandos curasset . . . (‘. . . since to these suspicions the most unequivocal facts were added . . . namely that he had caused hostages to be given between them.’ Caes. Gal. 1.19.1)

(e)

Ne quis concedat quo olea legunda et facienda carius locetur . . . (‘No one shall form a combination in order that the harvesting and milling of olives might be contracted out at a higher price. . .’ Cato Agr. 144.4)

This use is limited to the verbs curo ‘to cause to be done’, do ‘to impose (a task)’, and loco ‘to contract for having done’. The construction is normally regarded as identical to the use of the gerundive as a secondary predicate (see § 21.9), as in (f). (f)

Sanguinis ingenui mulierem praetor . . . triumviro in carcere necandam tradidit. (‘A praetor handed over a woman of free birth . . . to the Triumvir to be executed in prison.’ V. Max. 5.4.7)

268 So  K.-St.: I.731 and Sz.: 371–2. Not so Bennett: I.444. The view taken in this Syntax is that of Odelstierna (1926: 15). She rightly argues that a ‘final’ interpretation is impossible with curare. More or less similarly Blümel (1979: 88–9) and Töttössy (1998).

232

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position

However, with these three verbs, and unlike the secondary predicate instances, the entities the objects refer to very often (in the case of curare always) are the result of the action denoted by the gerundive (they resemble ‘effected’ objects (in the passive subjects), for which see § 2.12 and § 4.20). By contrast, with the other verbs with which a gerundive may be used as a secondary predicate, we are dealing with an ‘affected’ object of the governing verb, as in (g) (see § 2.12 and § 4.20). There are also a few (very) Late Latin instances of facio ‘to do’ with a gerundival clause as object, but these date from a period in which infinitive and -nd- forms were confused regularly (see § 15.138). Supplement (satellites of the gerundival clause indicated in italics): Cura adservandum vinctum, atque audi’n? Quadrupedem constringito. (Ter. An. 865); . . . deinde ipsum Aurium . . . tollendum interficiendumque curavit. (Cic. Clu. 23); . . . monumentum quam amplissimum locandum faciendumque . (Cic. Phil. 14.38); . . . pontem in Arari faciendum curat atque ita exercitum traducit. (Caes. Gal. 1.13.1); . . . quod Atheniensium legem probantes me arte erudiendum curaverunt . . . (Vitr. 6.pr.4); . . . aut ullo alio genere (sc. eum) persequendum curabis . . . (Petr. 109.2) Ibi nunc statuam volt dare auream / solidam faciundam ex auro Philippo . . . (Pl. Cur. 439–40); Calcem partiario coquendam qui dant, ita datur: . . . (Cato Agr. 16); Lectulos—in sole—ilignis pedibu’ faciundos dedit. (Ter. Ad. 585); C. Mario L. Valerio consulibus senatus rem publicam defendendam dedit. (Cic. Phil. 8.15) (sc. terminos) statuendos locaverunt (CIL I2.400.5–6 (near Rome, 5th cent. bc (early))); . . . ut tu me quoivis castrandum loces. (Pl. Aul. 251); Villam aedificandam si locabis novam ab solo, faber haec faciat oportet. (Cato Agr. 14.1); † trapeti † facito si operarii conducti erunt aut facienda locata erit, pro eo resolvito, aut deducetur. (Cato Agr. 145.1); Magno cum luctu . . . simulacrum Dianae tollendum locatur. (Cic. Ver. 4.76—NB: subject in a passive sentence); Opera deinde facienda ex decreta in eam rem pecunia, lacus sternendos lapide, detergendasque, qua opus esset, cloacas in Aventino, et in aliis partibus qua nondum erant faciendas locaverunt. (Liv. 39.44.5)269 ?uxsor benemerenti / faciendum fecit (CIL II.2549.4–5 (Hisp. Tarr.—‘inscriptio male descripta’270)) A gerundival clause functioning as subject in a non-passive sentence is (g). Here the use of the gerundival clause is facilitated, as K.-St.: I.754 say, by its coordination with Gallia. A comparable case which is cited as a gerundival clause functioning as object is (h). (g) Cn. Domitio extra Italiam quo senatus censuisset provincia evenit, L. Quinctio Gallia et comitia habenda. (‘To Gnaeus Domitius was allotted a province outside Italy, wherever the senate should decree; to Lucius Quinctius fell Gaul and the holding of the elections.’ Liv. 35.20.8)

269 Note that in this example detergendas presupposes the existence of cloacae, whereas faciendas does not. 270 So TLL s.v. facio 87.51.

Gerundival clauses

233

(h) Nec caelestes modo caerimonias, sed iusta quoque funebria placandosque manes ut idem pontifex edoceret . . . (‘And the pontifex was to teach not only ceremonies relating to the gods above, but also proper funeral observances and the propitiation of the spirits of the dead . . .’ Liv. 1.20.7) Supplement: . . . moverat eum et primi periculi casus . . . et subeunda dimicatio totiens quot coniurati superessent . . . (Liv. 2.13.2)271

Gerundival clauses can also be used as subject complement with the copula sum ‘to be’ or with another copular verb to denote a future state of affairs that is likely to occur. Such clauses are sometimes described as ‘final’ gerundival expressions, but they should not be confused with gerundival purpose adjuncts described in § 16.106, where no copular verb is involved. An example of a subject complement is (i). For a gerundival clause that functions as object complement, see ( j) (for the genitive, see § 9.42). (i)

. . . quae res evertendae reipublicae solent esse . . . (‘. . . which matters usually ruin the state . . .’ Cic. Ver. 2.132)

( j)

(sc. Marius) Quae postquam gloriosa modo neque belli patrandi cognovit . . . (‘But after Marius realized that such exploits merely brought him glory and did not tend to finish the war . . .’ Sal. Jug. 88.4) Supplement: . . . multa contra morem consuetudinemque militarem fierent quae dissolvendae disciplinae severitatisque essent . . . (B.  Alex. 65.1); Si plebeiae leges displicerent, at illi communiter legum latores et ex plebe et ex patribus, qui utrisque utilia ferrent quaeque aequandae libertatis essent, sinerent creari. (Liv. 3.31.7); Lectis rerum summis cum animum advertisset pleraque dissolvendarum religionum esse . . . (Liv. 40.29.11); . . . quaeque alia conciliandae misericordiae videbantur . . . (Tac. Ann. 11.3.1)

. The use of gerundival clauses with adjectives that function as subject or object complement Gerundival clauses functioning as argument of adjectives in subject or object complement function are found in all periods of Latin, although they are not frequent. Such clauses are used in the genitive, dative, and—very rarely—ablative, as well as in prepositional phrases. Examples are (a)–(d), respectively. (a)

. . . ille restituendi mei quam retinendi studiosior . . . (‘. . . his being more concerned for my restoration than for the prevention of my banishment.’ Cic. Att. 8.3.3)

(b)

Haec nox scita est exercendo scorto . . . (‘This night is perfect for exhausting a prostitute . . .’ Pl. Am. 288) 271 For ‘variety and inconcinnity’ in Livy, see Catterall (1938), especially p. 313.

234 (c)

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position At nunc causa mihi est orandae sola salutis / dignum donanda, Caesar, te credere vita. (‘But now my only reason for begging for life, is that I think you, Caesar, are worthy to grant it.’ Luc. 4.346–7)

(d)

. . . quod illa aetas magis ad haec utenda idonea’st . . . (‘. . . since that age is more suitable for enjoying them . . .’ Ter. Hau. 133) Supplement (satellites of the gerundive are indicated in light italics): Genitive: Mercatorem autem strenuum studiosumque rei quaerendae existimo . . . (Cato Agr. pr. 3); Pacis inter civis conciliandae te cupidum esse laetor. (Cic. Fam. 10.27.1); Nam ut ad bella suscipienda Gallorum alacer ac promptus est animus, sic . . . (Caes. Gal. 3.19.6); Fuit enim disertus, impiger, laboriosus, rei militaris peritus neque minus civitatis regendae. (Nep. Tim. 1.1—NB: coordination with a noun phrase); Latiaris, ut rettuli, praecipuus olim circumveniendi Titii Sabini et tunc luendae poenae primus fuit. (Tac. Ann. 6.4.1); Eutrapelus . . . corrumpendorum hominum callidus fuit . . . (Porph. ad Hor. Ep. 1.18.31) Dative: Sed hoc non liquet nec satis cogitatum est, / . . . utram aetati agundae arbitrer firmiorem. (Pl. Trin. 227–9); Facilis impetrandae veniae Claudius, Fulvio durior sententia erat. (Liv. 26.15.1); . . . qui perferendis militum mandatis habebatur idoneus ob promptum ingenium. (Tac. Ann. 1.23.4); At ego referendis laudibus tuis exilis ingenio et adhibendis sacrificiis tenuis patrimonio. (Apul. Met. 11.25.5) Ablative: (sc. patres) . . . nec iam possidendis publicis agris contentos esse . . . (Liv. 6.14.11); . . . et uberrimum gignendis uvis solum est. (Curt. 6.4.21);272 . . . dum flumen gignendo sale fecundum et conterminum vi trahunt . . . (Tac. Ann. 13.57.1) Prepositional phrase: Gonlegium . . . opiparum a veitam quolundam . . . (CIL I2.364b.1–2 (Falerii, c.150 bc)); (sc. glaebas) . . . aptiores facere ad accipiendum imbrem . . . (Var. R. 1.27.2); Haec igitur opera grata multis et ad beneficiis obstringendos homines accommodata. (Cic. Off. 2.65)

15.143 Relative clauses functioning as argument Autonomous relative clauses functioning as argument are dealt with in § 18.16.

15.144 Nominal (verbless) argument clauses Parallel to the participial and gerundival argument clauses discussed in previous sections, there are a few instances of clauses that consist of a noun (phrase) and a noun (phrase), as in (a), or of a noun (phrase) and an adjective, as in (b), and which function as subject in their sentence. They lack a copula in the way nominal sentences do 272 Commonly taken as an ablative, although it might be a dative.

Nominal (verbless) clauses

235

(see § 4.96). Although they are acceptable on a structural level (given the fact that they are quite common in satellite positions (see §§ 16.114ff.)), the fact that they occur in only a few very experimental authors suggests that they are literary exploitations of a structure that was probably not in use in everyday Latin. (a)

. . . filius legati orator publicae causae satis ostenderet necessitate expressa quae per modestiam non obtinuissent. (‘The fact that their commander’s son was serving as pleader of the common cause clearly showed that they had wrested by compulsion what they had failed to obtain by good behaviour.’ Tac. Ann. 1.19.5)

(b)

Augebat metum gnarus Romanae seditionis . . . hostis. (‘The fact that the enemy was aware of the Roman mutiny heightened the alarm.’ Tac. Ann. 1.36.2) Supplement: Noun (phrase): Et quantum misericordiae saevitia accusationis permoverat, tantum irae P. Egnatius testis concivit. (Tac. Ann. 16.32.2—NB: parallelism with saevitia accusationis) Adjective: Multa me dehortantur . . .: opes factionis, vostra patientia, ius nullum, ac maxume quod innocentiae plus periculi quam honoris est. (Sal. Jug. 31.1); Sed minuit furorem / vix una sospes navis ab ignibus . . . (Hor. Carm. 1.37.12–13); Ceterum plena Caesarum domus, iuvenis filius, nepotes adulti moram cupitis adferebant. (Tac. Ann. 4.3.1) K.-St.: I.770 analyse the noun phrases in (c)–(d) and a few others as argument clauses. In these cases the information provided by the attributes is definitely salient, but this does not make the expressions argument clauses. (c) . . . praeclara . . . est aequabilitas in omni vita et idem semper vultus eademque frons . . . (‘. . . an unruffled temper is excellent in every condition of life, as well as an unchanging expression and the same countenance . . .’ Cic. Off. 1.90) (d) Quae postquam oppidani cognovere, res trepidae, metus ingens, malum inprovisum, ad hoc pars civium extra moenia in hostium potestate coegere, uti deditionem facerent. (‘After the inhabitants perceived these things, their state of consternation and extreme dread, the suddenness of the calamity, and, moreover, the consideration that part of their fellow-citizens were outside the walls in the enemy’s power compelled them to surrender.’ Sal. Jug. 91.5) Supplement: Accedere matrem muliebri impotentia. (Tac. Ann. 1.4.5); Facilem adsensum Gallo sub nominibus honestis confessio vitiorum et similitudo audientium dedit. (Tac. Ann. 2.33.4)

236

Subordinate clauses filling an argument position

Just as there are participial clauses functioning as argument with the expression opus est ‘it is needed’ (see § 15.134), there are a few instances of nominal clauses in that position, as in (e). (e)

Quid opu’st me advocato . . . (‘What need is there for me to be an advocate . . .’ Pl. Am. 1038) Supplement: Noun (phrase): Si quis tamen virtutibus vitia pensarit, vir magnus ac memorabilis fuit, et in cuius laudes equendas Cicerone laudatore opus fuerit. (Liv. ap. Sen. Suas. 6.22) Adjective: . . . sobrio tanta ad mala / opus est Thyeste. (Sen. Thy. 900–1)

CHAPTER 16

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position

16.1 Verbal and nominal satellite clauses As with argument clauses, a distinction is made in this chapter between satellite clauses that contain a finite or non-finite verb form and clauses that contain a noun or an adjective instead. Examples to illustrate these types are (a)–(b) and (c)–(d), respectively. Ex. (a) contains a finite adjunct clause indicating the reason why the state of affairs of the main clause takes place; (b), a non-finite (participial) adjunct clause; (c), a nominal (verbless) adjunct clause containing the noun duce; (d), likewise a nominal adjunct clause but with an adjective (vivo) instead of a noun. Exx. (b)–(d) are usuallly called ‘ablative absolute’ constructions. Semantically, they are interpreted as indicating the time at which the state of affairs of the main clause takes place. (a)

Merito vostro amo vos, / quia me colitis [et] magni facitis. (‘I’m fond of you two, and deservedly so, because you’re kind to me and appreciate me.’ Pl. Cist. 21–2)

(b)

. . . intellegebat Habito mortuo bona eius omnia ad matrem esse ventura. (‘. . . he realized that when Habitus died all his property would pass to his mother.’ Cic. Clu. 45)

(c)

(sc. exercitus) . . . quem pulsum a se Domitio duce sciebat . . . (‘. . . which he knew had been routed by himself when Domitius led it . . .’ B. Alex. 74.3)

(d)

Non sino, neque equidem illum me vivo corrumpi sinam. (‘No I won’t, and I won’t let him be corrupted while I’m alive.’ Pl. Bac. 419)

16.2 Finite satellite clauses Finite satellite clauses contain an indicative or a subjunctive verb form. For the tenses and moods required or allowed in the various satellites clauses, see §§ 7.85ff.

The Oxford Latin Syntax. Harm Pinkster, Oxford University Press (2021). © Harm Pinkster. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199230563.003.0016

238

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position

and §§ 7.128ff., respectively. There are no satellite clauses containing an imperative verb form. Historic infinitives are rare.1

. Classes of finite satellite clauses The division of finite satellite clauses into fourteen classes that follows is mainly based on semantic grounds. The number of classes distinguished is not entirely the same as in Chapter  10 on prepositional and noun phrases functioning as satellite. Where appropriate, a further distinction is made between the use of a specific class of satellite clause as adjunct or as disjunct, with a further distinction between attitudinal disjuncts (the clause indicates some form of comment on either the content or the wording (or: linguistic form) of the main clause) and illocutionary disjuncts (the clause specifies the communicative function of the main clause—see § 10.97).

. The role of subordinators in satellite clauses Finite satellite clauses consist of a clause which is connected to the main clause by a subordinating device and which contains a finite verb form (but see below). The subordinating device indicates the semantic relation between the subordinate clause and its main clause. The function of this subordinating device is not the same in all types of finite satellite clauses (see also § 14.6). In some clauses the only function seems to be to indicate the semantic relation of the subordinate clause with respect to the (complex) sentence as a whole, a relation that may be made explicit by a correlating expression in the main clause, as in (a). In other clauses, notably in space clauses, the subordinating device has a syntactic and semantic function in its own clause as well, and the correlating expression in the main clause may have a meaning that is different from the subordinating device, as in (b) (see §  16.6, ex. (f)). This usage resembles that  of relative pronouns, which, apart from connecting the subordinate and main clauses, have a function in their own clause as well; indeed, devices such as unde in  (b)  are relative adverbs. Temporal cum satellite clauses are also often included in this category (see § 16.10). In this chapter the term ‘subordinator’ is used for all these devices. (a)

Equidem hercle nullum perdidi ideo quia numquam ullum habui. (‘I for one haven’t lost any such man for that reason, because I’ve never had one.’ Pl. As. 622)

(b)

. . . eo unde discedere non oportuit aliquando revertamur. (‘. . . let me at length return to those pursuits from which I never should have departed.’ Cic. Att. 2.16.3)

1 For the use of the historic infinitive in the historians, especially Tacitus, see Perrochat (1932a: 67–70).

Finite satellite clauses 239 Some of the subordinators used in satellite clauses are formally identical to ones used in argument clauses. See § 14.4. Further, a number of subordinators occur in more than one type of satellite clause. Satellite clauses without a subordinator are very rare. Examples are (c) and (d)— purpose clauses—and (e)—a result clause. There are more instances in (very) Late Latin texts by less educated authors.2 (c) Siquidem mihi saltandum est, tum vos date bibat tibicini. (‘If I have to dance, then you two must give the flute player something to drink.’ Pl. St. 757) (d) Da quaeso scribae recitet ex codice professionem. Recita. (‘Kindly hand this to the clerk so that he can read aloud from the volume the passage about the returns to be made. Read it, please.’ Cic. Ver. 3.26) (e) Et si fistula erit, turundam intro trudito; si turundam non recipiet, diluito, indito in vesicam, eo calamum alligato, ita premito in fistulam introeat. (‘If there is a fistula, insert a pellet; or if it will not admit a pellet, make a solution, pour it into a bladder, attach a reed to it, and squeeze the bladder in such a way that the solution enters into the fistula.’ Cato Agr. 157.14)

For the use of the historic infinitive in subordinate clauses, see § 7.71, Appendix, and § 7.122. For the use of the accusative and infinitive in subordinate satellite clauses, see § 15.109. Also, just as in other types of clauses and sentences, a finite verb (and other constituents) may be absent for various reasons.

. Satellite clauses (seemingly) filling an argument position Satellite clauses are sometimes so closely interwoven with their main clause that they resemble argument clauses. Examples are the conditional si clauses in (a) and (b). In the main clause of (a) the second argument of interdicunt is not expressed and must be inferred from the si clause: it is coreferential with qui: ‘that somebody’. The si clause could be replaced by an autonomous relative clause functioning as a whole as the second argument of interdicunt. (For autonomous relative clauses, see §§ 18.15ff. See also § 14.17.)3 (a)

Si qui aut privatus aut populus eorum decreto non stetit, sacrificiis interdicunt. (‘If any person or people has not abided by their decision, they ban such from sacrifice.’ Caes. Gal. 6.13.6)

(b)

Et si quid contusum est, erumpet. (‘And if a part of the body has been bruised, it will burst.’ Cato Agr. 157.4)

2 For further references, see Sz.: 531–2. For Late Latin, see Svennung (1934). 3 For a discussion of these and related instances, see Bodelot (2005: 469–73).

240

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position

16.6 Space clauses (adjuncts) Space satellite clauses locate the event of the superordinate clause in space. There are four types, introduced by position, direction, source, or path expressions. Each of these types is typically introduced by one of the subordinators (or more precisely: relative adverbs—see §  16.4 and below) given in Table  16.1. The main clause may contain one of the demonstrative or anaphoric adverbs in the right hand column, which may either precede (their preparative use) or follow (their resumptive use). Examples of each of the four types are (a)–(d), respectively.4 Table 16.1 Survey of spatial relative adverbs Position

ubi ‘where’, ubicumque ‘wherever’, ubiubi ‘wherever’

hic ‘here’, ibi ‘there’, illic ‘over there’, istic ‘over there’

Direction quo ‘whither’, quocumque ‘whithersoever’, quoquo ‘whithersoever’

huc (and hoc) ‘hither’, illuc (and illo(c)) ‘thither’, istuc (and isto(c)) ‘to the place where you are’, eo ‘thither’, eodem ‘to the same place’

Source

unde ‘whence’, undecumque ‘from whatever direction’

hinc ‘hence’, illinc ‘thence’, istinc ‘from over there’, inde ‘thence’

Path

qua ‘by which route’

ea ‘along that way’

(a)

Istic ubi vis condormisce. (‘Sleep over there where you like.’ Pl. Rud. 572)

(b)

Do fidem, si omittis, isto me intro ituram quo iubes. (‘I give you my word that if you let go of me, I’ll go in there where you tell me to.’ Pl. Mil. 455)

(c)

Brevis erit (sc. oratio), si, unde necesse est, inde initium sumetur . . . (‘It will be brief if the beginning is taken up from the point where it needs to be . . .’ Cic. Inv. 1.28)

(d)

(Hannibal) . . . effecit ut ea elephantus ornatus ire posset, qua antea unus homo inermis vix poterat repere. (‘. . . Hannibal made it possible for an elephant with its equipment to go over places along which before that a single unarmed man could barely creep.’ Nep. Han. 3.4) Relative space adverbs are used in a variety of non-spatial senses (for details, see the OLD). The most conspicuous case is ubi, which is also regularly used in time clauses (see § 16.23). An example of an ubi clause that is used in a sense somewhere between the locative and temporal is (e), where ubi has to be taken in the sense of ‘in which (situation)’.5 4 See Wölfflin (1896).

5 See OLD s.v. ubi § 8.

Time clauses

241

(e) Rursus autem ex cognitionis consultatione, ubi sit necne sit aut fuerit futurumve sit quaeritur, unum genus est quaestionis . . . (‘And again, under the consideration of learning, in cases where it is inquired whether a thing is (or was, or will be) or not, one class of question is . . .’ Cic. Part. 64)

The correlative pairs may have different functions in their own clause, as is shown by exx. (f), repeated from §  16.4, and (g). In (f) unde is part of a subordinate clause, where it functions as a source argument with discedere; the clause as a whole functions as a direction argument with the verb revertamur in the main clause, as is made explicit by eo. Ex. (g) shows unde functioning as source adjunct. In (h) and (i) there is no such correlating element. (f)

. . . eo unde discedere non oportuit aliquando revertamur. (‘. . . let me at length return to those pursuits from which I never should have departed.’ Cic. Att. 2.16.3)

(g)

Eo inpendi laborem ac periculum unde emolumentum atque honos speretur. (‘Toil was bestowed and danger risked, they said, in causes from which benefit and honour could be hoped for.’ Liv. 4.35.7)

(h)

Sed redeat unde aberravit oratio. (‘But my discourse should return to the point from which it wandered.’ Cic. Tusc. 5.66)

(i)

. . . ut unde deiecisset restitueret. (‘. . . to restore to the place whence he had ejected.’ Cic. Caec. 23)

Space clauses as exemplified above are in fact autonomous relative clauses functioning as space satellites. They are dealt with in this Chapter to maintain the same organization of satellites as in Chapter 10. Autonomous and adnominal space clauses are also used in other functions at the sentence and noun phrase levels. For details, see § 18.36. Just as with noun phrases functioning as direction and source expressions, it is often difficult to decide whether the clausal constituents in such sentences are an argument or a satellite. To a lesser extent this holds also for position expressions. This problem is ignored in this section, because the internal and external properties of the two types of clause are very much the same.

16.7 Time clauses (adjuncts) Time satellite clauses locate the event of their superordinate clause in time. More precisely they indicate the temporal relation of the event referred to in the superordinate clause with respect to the event in the time clause. This is illustrated by (a)– (c), in which time clauses are used independently as answers to a question with quando ‘when?’

242 (a)

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position Obstitisti videlicet ne ex Italia transire in Siciliam fugitivorum copiae possent. Ubi, quando, qua ex parte? Cum aut ratibus aut navibus conarentur accedere? (‘But you made it impossible, as you claim, for bands of revolted slaves to cross from Italy to Sicily. Where? When? From what quarter? When they were attempting to approach Sicily by boat or ship?’ Cic. Ver. 5.5)

(b)

‘Quando tandem, Galba de triclinio tuo exibis?’ # ‘Cum tu,’ inquit, ‘de cubiculo alieno.’ (‘ “Galba, whenever will you come out of your own dining room?” # “When you,” he said, “come away from other people’s bedrooms.” ’ Cic. de Orat. 2.262)

(c)

Quando ista vis autem evanuit? An postquam homines minus creduli esse coeperunt? (‘When did the virtue disappear? Was it after men began to be less credulous?’ Cic. Div. 2.117)

The temporal relationship between the events of the subordinate and the superordinate clause may be one of simultaneity, as in (a) and (b); anteriority, as in (c); or posteriority, as in (d). (d)

Prius quam intro redii, exanimatus fui. (‘Before I returned inside, I was practically dead.’ Pl. Aul. 208)

The subordinators used to mark these three types of relationship are given in Table 16.2. Some of these are in fact relative adverbs (see §16.10 and § 18.38 on cum (quom)). Table 16.2 Survey of temporal subordinators simultaneity

(a) cum (quom) and quoniam ‘when’, quando ‘when’, quandocumque and quandoque ‘whenever’, quotiens ‘as often as’ (for ubi, see § 16.6); (b) donec, dum, quamdiu, quoad, and quatenus ‘as long as’

anteriority

cum ‘when’, ‘after’, postquam, ubi, and ut ‘after’, cum primum, cum extemplo, simul, simulatque, simulac, simul ut, ubi primum, and ut primum ‘as soon as’ (also ex quo ‘since’ and—very rarely—unde)

posteriority

antequam and priusquam ‘before’; donec, (dum,) and quoad ‘until’

The lexical meaning of the subordinators interacts with the semantic value of the types of states of affairs and the tenses used in the two clauses, which explains why some subordinators are used in more than one subclass of time clauses. The most conspicuous subordinator in this respect is dum, which can be translated as both ‘as long as’ and ‘until’ depending on the type of state of affairs and the tenses and moods used (for details, see § 16.15 and § 16.17, respectively).6

6 For dum and the types of events with which it occurs see TLL s.v. dum 2202.50ff.

Time clauses

243

Depending on the context, the relationship between a time clause and the main clause may be interpreted as causal (cum, dum, postquam, quando), concessive (or adversative) (cum, dum, postquam, quando), conditional (dum and quando), or final (antequam, priusquam). In most of these cases the mood of the temporal clause is subjunctive. Cum especially can be used in a wide range of contexts, and it resembles in this respect ablative absolute clauses.7 There are a few instances of et and atque ‘and’ in the (following) main clause after finite and non-finite temporal subordinate clauses. See § 19.12.

. Time clauses denoting an event that is simultaneous with the event in the main clause The first group of subordinators shown in Table 16.2 (time clauses denoting simultaneity) can be divided into two subgroups, one that indicates at what time or in what period the state of affairs of the main clause was located (cum, quando, and quoniam), more or less equivalent to quo tempore, and another one that indicates the extent of time of the state of affairs of the main clause.8

. Time clauses that locate the event of the main clause in time (cum, dum, quando, quoniam, quotiens) The first four time clauses that locate the event of the main clause in time (with cum, dum, quando, or quoniam) are discussed in separate sections. For quotiens, see § 16.13, Appendix. The use of quoniam and of quando and its compounds as temporal subordinators is relatively uncommon and mostly attested in Early Latin. The use of dum in a locating sense is poetic and Late. 16.10 Time clauses with cum (quom) Cum (< quom) clauses locate the state of affairs of the main clause in time, that is, they indicate when the state of affairs of the main clause takes, took, or will take place. The most common uses of cum clauses are treated in § 7.125 (use of the tenses) and § 7.142 (use of the moods). Cum clauses may precede, as in (a), or (less often) follow their main or superordinate clause, as in (b). When they precede, the information they convey is usually closely connected to the preceding context. When they follow, they sometimes describe a further development in a series of events rather than locate the state of affairs of the main clause in time.9 An example is (c). The relation between the main clause and a following cum clause is sometimes as loose as between a main clause and a connecting relative clause, as in (d). (Further examples in the Supplement.)10 In 7 8 9 10

See Lavency (1975; 1976) and Luraghi (2001: 411–13). Woodcock (1959: 177) uses the term ‘contemporaneous’ for this subgroup. Sz.: 623 calls this use of cum ‘weiterführend’. See also K.-St.: II.340–2, which is the source of most of the examples above.

244

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position

the next section special attention will be given to so-called cum inversum clauses, which in most cases have an indicative verb form. In narrative texts the locating function of the cum clause is less prominent, and its function is rather to introduce and set the stage for the event in the main clause, as in (e).11 (a)

Quom exibam, hic erat. (‘When I came out, she was here.’ Pl. Mil. 181)

(b)

Praesagibat mi animus frustra me ire, quom exibam domo. (‘My mind felt a premonition that I was going in vain when I left the house.’ Pl. Aul. 178—NB: Cicero Div. 1.65 quotes it with subjunctive exirem)

(c)

Plus triginta annis natus sum, quom interea loci / numquam quicquam facinus feci peius nec scelestius / quam hodie . . . (‘It’s been more than thirty years since I was born, during which time I’ve never committed a worse or more wicked crime than today . . .’ Pl. Men. 446–8)

(d)

. . . medico quem tecum tu eduxeras imperasti ut venas hominis (sc. Platoris) incideret; cum quidem tibi etiam accessio fuit ad necem Platoris Pleuratus eius comes, quem necasti verberibus summa senectute confectum. (‘. . . you ordered the physician whom you had taken out with you to open the man’s veins. To the murder of Plator you added that of Pleuratus his friend, whom you scourged to death, worn out though he was with extreme old age.’ Cic. Pis. 83–4)

(e)

Ut Alexandrum regem videmus, qui cum interemisset Clitum familiarem suum, vix a se manus abstinuit. (‘As for instance we see King Alexander did, who after he had killed his friend Clitus could scarcely keep his hands off himself.’ Cic. Tusc. 4.78) Supplement: Litteras in contione recitasti quas tibi a C.  Caesare missas diceres ‘CAESAR PULCHRO’, cum etiam es argumentatus amoris esse hoc signum, cognominibus tantum uteretur . . . (Cic. Dom. 22); Recordare cetera, quam cito senatum illo die facta sortitione coegerim, quam multa de te verba fecerim, cum tu ipse mihi dixisti orationem meam non solum in te honorificam sed etiam in collegas tuos contumeliosam fuisse. (Cic. Fam. 5.2.3); Cum Caesar in Galliam venit, alterius factionis principes erant Haedui, alterius Sequani. (Caes. Gal. 6.12.1) Primo actu placeo; quom interea rumor venit / datum iri gladiatores, populu’ convolat. (Ter. Hec. 39–40); (sc. Piso) . . . domum se abdidit; inde nocte intempesta . . . navem conscendit . . . et ultimas Hadriani maris oras petivit, cum interim Dyrrachii milites domum . . . obsidere coeperunt . . . (Cic. Pis. 92) . . . sed uterque nostrum cedere cogebatur magnitudini animi orationisque gravitati, cum quidem ille maxima laude et gratulatione omnium vestrum pollicitus est se quod velletis esse facturum . . . (Cic. Phil. 9.9) Neque est ille vir passus in ea re publica quam ipse decorarat atque auxerat diutius vestrorum scelerum pestem morari, cum tamen ille (sc. Gabinius), qualiscumque est, 11 See Kroon (1998a) and Heberlein (2014: 272–3).

Time clauses

245

qui est ab uno te improbitate victus . . . conlegit ipse se vix . . . (Cic. Pis. 27); Torpebat Vitellius et fortunam principatus inerti luxu ac prodigis epulis praesumebat . . ., cum tamen ardor et vis militum ultro ducis munia implebat . . . (Tac. Hist. 1.62.2) Cum is a temporal relative adverb, which is used both adnominally (fuit tempus cum ‘there was a time when’ (see § 18.38)) and autonomously, as in this section. Some scholars indeed deal with these clauses as relative clauses.12 Cum is also used as a subordinator in argument clauses with gaudeo ‘to rejoice’ and related verbs (see §  15.23). For cum clauses that resemble secondary predicates, see § 21.15, Appendix. Unlike quando and its locative counterpart ubi, cum does not have a corresponding interrogative homonym (nor an indefinite one).13 The relationship between a cum clause and its superordinate clause may be made more precise by various adverbs (see § 14.18), as is illustrated by (f)–(h). (f) At primum istae ipsae leges quas recitas, ut mittam cetera, significant, quam noluerint maiores nostri, nisi cum pernecesse esset, hominem occidi. (‘But, in the first place those very laws which you read—to say nothing of other points—prove how utterly our ancestors disapproved of any man being slain, unless it was absolutely unavoidable.’ Cic. Tul. 49) (g) Omnia cum adprobatione ingenti sunt audita, praeterquam cum ad mentionem Nabidis ventum esset. (‘The whole speech was received with great applause, except when mention was made of Nabis.’ Liv. 34.48.5) (h) (sc. legionem) . . . incitatissimam retinui aegre mehercules, nec retinuissem si uno loco habuissem, utpote cum singulae quaedam cohortes seditionem fecerint. (‘Nevertheless I have managed to retain it though in a most restless state: nor should I have retained it, if I had kept it united and stationary, for certain cohorts have actually mutinied.’ Pol. Fam. 10.32.4)

16.11 So-called cum inversum clauses A special type of cum clause is the so-called inverse cum clause, or cum inversum, in which the roles of the main and the cum clause are reversed: the cum clause, which normally locates the state of affairs of the main clause in time and presents background information, contains the most prominent event itself, and this event is thus situated within the state of affairs of the main clause. In this configuration the main clause denotes an event that is part of the set of events in the preceding context and continues them. Most often the event in the main clause is presented as ongoing (expressed in the imperfect—see § 7.20, as in (a) and (c)), or as following previous actions (expressed in the pluperfect, as in (b)), whereas the state of affairs in the cum

12 Discussion in Maurel (1995). 13 For the much disputed cumque in Hor. Carm. 1.32.15, see Nisbet and Hubbard ad loc. and Sz.: 200, with references.

246

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position

clause is terminative or momentaneous. Both clauses are in the indicative. Formally, these cum clauses are subordinate clauses and the identification of them as cum inversum constructions is not always self-evident, as in (b).14 (a)

Tu clamabas deum fidem atque hominum omnium, / quom ego accurro teque eripio vi, pugnando, ingratiis. (‘You were calling upon the faith of all gods and men, when I ran up and rescued you by fighting, with force, against their will.’ Pl. Men. 1053–4)

(b)

Longe iam abieram / quom sensi. Redeo rursum, male me vero habens. (‘I was a long way past when I realized it. I retraced my steps in a bad mood.’ Ter. Eu. 633–4)

(c)

Iamque ab eo non longius bidui via aberant, cum duas venisse legiones missu Caesaris cognoscunt. (‘And by now they were no farther from him than a two days’ march, when they learnt that two legions were come, as dispatched by Caesar.’ Caes. Gal. 6.7.2)

Cum inversum clauses are used to express that a more or less unexpected incident occurs in the midst of another event or just after another event. This relationship between the main and cum clauses is often made more explicit by satellites in the main clause like vix ‘scarcely’ and iam ‘by this time’, ‘already’, as in (c) and in (d)–(f). The events in the cum clause are most often expressed in the historic present or the perfect. However, this combination of main and cum clause is exploited in artistic narrative, and other tenses (including the historic infinitive) are found as well, as in (e) and (f). The cum clause may contain an expression of unexpectedness like repente ‘suddenly’ or subito ‘all of a sudden’. The cum inversum construction became a favourite ‘technique de rupture’ (interruption technique) in narrative prose and poetry.15 (d)

Vix ea fatus eram, gemitu cum talia reddit. (‘Scarcely had I said the words, when with a groan he answers thus.’ Verg. A. 2.323)

(e)

Iamque adeo donati omnes opibusque superbi / puniceis ibant evincti tempora taenis, / cum . . . inrisam sine honore ratem Sergestus agebat. (‘And now all had their gifts and, proud of their wealth, were going their way, their brows bound with purple fillets, when . . . Sergestus brought in his ridiculed, inglorious boat.’ Verg. A. 5.268–72)

(f)

Iamque Ostiam invectum multitudo ingens, iam in urbe clandestini coetus celebrabant, cum Tiberium anceps cura distrahere . . .

14 The best discussion of the relationship between the cum clause and its main clause is still Nehring (1929: 141–54). See also Lavency (1975). 15 For ‘techniques de rupture’ in narrative prose, see Chausserie-Laprée (1969: part IV), with statistical data on cum pp. 592–5. For the use of cum inversum as a ‘Diskursstrategie’, see Wehr  (1984: 181–7), Heberlein (2008), and Viti (2013). Virgil’s use of the cum inversum and related coordinate constructions is discussed by Hahn (1956: 179–89). See also § 19.24 on the use of the coordinators et, -que, and atque. For the similarity of cum and nisi in certain contexts ‘de rupture’, see Orlandini and Poccetti (2019b).

Time clauses

247

(‘Already huge crowds were greeting his arrival in Ostia, already there were clandestine receptions in the capital itself, when the dilemma began to distract Tiberius . . .’ Tac. Ann. 2.40.1) Supplement: Cum + historic present: Iam [hosce] apsolutos censeas, / quom incedunt infectores corcotarii . . . (Pl. Aul. 520–1); Erat hiemps summa . . . cum iste imperat lictoribus ut Sopatrum de porticu, in qua ipse sedebat, praecipitem in forum deiciant nudumque constituant. (Cic. Ver. 4.86); Vixdum epistulam tuam legeram, cum ad me . . . Postumus Curtius venit . . . (Cic. Att. 9.2a.3); Iamque paulum a fuga aberant, quom Sulla profligatis iis, quos advorsum ierat, rediens ab latere Mauris incurrit. (Sal. Jug. 101.8); Iamque fere spatio extremo fessique sub ipsam / finem adventabant, levi cum sanguine Nisus / labitur infelix . . . (Verg. A. 5.327–9); Romae interim plerumque obsidio segnis et utrimque silentium esse . . . cum repente iuvenis Romanus admiratione in se  civis hostesque convertit. (Liv. 5.46.1); Metuque concessum barbarus ratus moliri  portas et claustra refringere parat, cum patefactis repente portis cohortes duae . . . ingenti cum tumultu erumpunt . . . (Liv. 23.18.2–3); Iam haud procul castris aberant pedites equitesque, et Thracum quidam in vagos palatosque per agros hostes impetum fecerant, cum repens terror castris infertur. (Liv. 33.15.6); Nos interim vestiti errare coepimus, immo iocari magis et circulis ludentium accedere, cum subito videmus senem calvum, tunica vestitum russea, inter pueros capillatos ludentem pila. (Petr. 27.1); Itaque ad casae ostiolum processi, cum ecce tres anseres . . . impetum in me faciunt . . . (Petr. 136.4—NB: this is the reading of L, which is defended by Petersmann (1977: 276–7); most editors assume a lacuna because of the perfect tense in the main clause); . . . cedendum potius quam pellerentur ignavi specie prudentium admonebant, cum interim cognoscit hostes pluribus agminibus inrupturos. (Tac. Agr. 25.3); Nec procul seditione aberant, cum Hordeonius Flaccus abire legatos, utque occultior digressus esset, nocte castris excedere iubet. (Tac. Hist. 1.54.2) Cum + imperfect: Nulla nota, nullus color, nullae sordes videbantur his sententiis adlini posse, cum iste repente ex alacri atque laeto sic erat humilis atque demissus ut non modo populo Romano, sed etiam sibi ipse condemnatus videretur. (Cic. Ver. 17); Vix erat hoc plane imperatum, cum illum spoliatum stipatumque lictoribus videres. (Cic. Ver. 4.86—NB: potential subjunctive of the past) Cum + perfect: Vix annus intercesserat ab hoc sermone cohortationis meae, cum iste accusavit C.  Norbanum defendente me. (Cic. de Orat. 2.89); Iamque haec facere noctu apparabant cum matres familiae repente in publicum procurrerunt flentesque proiectae ad pedes suorum omnibus precibus petierunt ne . . . (Caes. Gal. 7.26.3); Et iam finis erat, cum Iuppiter aethere summo / despiciens mare velivolum terrasque iacentis / litoraque et latos populos, sic vertice caeli / constitit et Libyae defixit lumina regnis. (Verg. A. 1.223–6); Sensit utraque acies unius viri casum, cedebatque inde Romanus, cum M.  Fabius consul transiluit iacentis corpus obiectaque parma ‘hoc iurastis,’ inquit, ‘milites, fugientes vos in castra redituros?’ (Liv. 2.46.5); Necdum sciebamus, mitteremus suspiciones nostras, cum extra triclinium clamor sublatus est ingens, et ecce canes Laconici etiam circa mensam discurrere coeperunt. (Petr. 40.2); C. Asinio C. Antistio consulibus nonus Tiberio annus erat compositae rei publicae, florentis domus (nam Germanici mortem inter prospera ducebat), cum repente turbare fortuna coepit, saevire ipse aut saevientibus viris praebere. (Tac. Ann. 4.1.1)

248

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position Cum + pluperfect: His ex sententia rectoris et militum ordinatis vix dies intercessere pauci, cum Mamertinum . . . Avitianus ex vicario peculatus detulerat reum. (Amm. 27.7.1) Cum + (historic) infinitive: Fusis Auruncis victor tot intra paucos dies bellis Romanus promissa consulis fidemque senatus expectabat, cum Appius et insita superbia animo et ut collegae vanam faceret fidem, quam asperrime poterat, ius de creditis pecuniis dicere. Deinceps et qui ante nexi fuerant creditoribus tradebantur et nectebantur alii. (Liv. 2.27.1); Iam legiones in testudinem glomerabantur, et alii tela saxaque incutiebant, cum languescere paulatim Vitellianorum animi. (Tac. Hist. 3.31.1) Certain cum clauses, as in (g) and (h), are sometimes taken as cum inversum clauses, but they do not exhibit the ‘incident’ character of the latter; rather, they are parallel events (‘while’, ‘on which occasion’—OLD § 11).16 (g) Itaque multum diei processerat, quom etiam tum eventus in incerto erat. (‘And so a considerable part of the day had passed, when the outcome of the battle was still uncertain.’ Sal. Jug. 51.2) (h) Tria milia ferme aberat, cum hauddum quisquam hostium senserat. (‘He was some three miles away when not one of the enemy had yet noticed them.’ Liv. 28.2.1) Supplement: Evolarat iam e conspectu fere fugiens quadriremis, cum etiam tum ceterae naves uno in loco moliebantur. (Cic. Ver. 5.88); Eoque ad te tardius scripsi quod cottidie te ipsum exspectabam, cum interea ne litteras quidem ullas accepi . . . (Cic. Fam. 3.6.5); De quo et praesens tecum egi diligenter, cum tu mihi humanissime respondisti, et scripsi ad te accurate antea. (Cic. Fam. 13.75.1); Iamque dies consumptus erat, quom tamen barbari nihil remittere atque, uti reges praeceperant, noctem pro se rati acrius instare. (Sal. Jug. 98.2)

16.12 The temporal use of quoniam Quoniam (< quom iam) was originally a temporal subordinator and was still mainly so used by Plautus. By Cicero’s time, however, it had developed into a causal subordinator to mark reason disjuncts (see § 16.42). Examples of its temporal use are (a)–(c). Note correlative (temporal—see § 10.30) ibi in (c). In (d) it is difficult to tell whether the clause is a temporal or a reason clause. (a)

Is quoniam moritur—ita avido ingenio fuit— / numquam indicare id filio voluit suo . . . (‘When he died, he didn’t even want to make this known to his own son—he was so greedy . . .’ Pl. Aul. 9–10)

(b)

Negavit posse, quoniam arcesso, mittere. (‘When I invited her, he said he couldn’t send her.’ Pl. Cas. 583) 16 Examples in Chausserie-Laprée (1969: 564ff.).

Time clauses (c)

249

. . . quoniam nuntiatum est / istarum venturos viros, ibi festinamus omnis. (‘. . . when it was announced that these women’s husbands were going to come, at that point we all bustled about.’ Pl. St. 676–7)

(d)

Quoniam ei qui me aleret nil video esse relicui, / dedi ei meam gnatam quicum aetatem exigat. (‘When I saw that he had nothing left with which to maintain me, I gave him my daughter to spend his life with.’ Pl. Trin. 14–15)

16.13 Time clauses with quando, quandoque, and quandocumque Time clauses with the adverb quando in a temporal sense ‘when’ are common in Plautus but rare in later times, when cum was preferred. Even more rare are time clauses with quandoque ‘at whatever time’ and quandocumque ‘whenever’. In the main clause there may be a correlative expression, like tum in (a). In (b), the quando clause is in reply to the interrogative adverb quando? ‘when?’ in the preceding sentence. The events in the quando clause are often iterative, but not necessarily so, as in (c). The indicative prevails, but the subjunctive is used as well, when it is justified in its context, as in (d). (a)

Ubi satur sum, nulla crepitant. Quando esurio, tum crepant. (‘When I’m full, they don’t rumble at all; when I’m hungry, then they do.’ Pl. Men. 926)

(b)

Id quando fit? Quando illi cursus interdictus est. (‘When does this happen? Whenever its path is forbidden to it.’ Sen. Nat. 6.17.1)

(c)

Quando id quod sat erat satis habere noluit, / ego paussam feci. (‘When she didn’t want to be satisfied with what was satisfactory, I stopped.’ Pl. Poen. 458–9)

(d)

Utinam . . . tum essem natus quando Romani dona accipere coepissent. Non essem passus diutius eos imperare. (‘If only I had been born in those days when the Romans began to accept bribes. I should then have suffered them to hold their supremacy no longer.’ Cic. Off. 2.75) Supplement: Igitur tum accedam hunc, quando quid agam invenero. (Pl. Mos. 689); Omne ego pro nihilo esse duco quod fuit, quando fuit. (Pl. Per. 637); Auctoritatem senatus exstare hereditatis aditae sentio tum quando (quom cj. Klotz) Alexa mortuo legatos Tyrum misimus . . . (Cic. Agr. 2.41); . . . censuerunt patres Apollini ludos vovendos . . . et quando ludi facti essent . . . hostias maiores dandas. (Liv. 25.12.12) Et hoc puta vatem dixisse, quandoque ista gens suas litteras dabit, omnia conrumpet . . . (Cato Fil. 1(J)); . . . quandoque ab eadem parte sol . . . iterum defecerit, tum . . . expletum annum habeto. (Cic. Rep. 6.24); . . . ne cunctaretur Agrippam morte adficere quandoque ipse supremum diem explevisset. (Tac. Ann. 1.6.1); In proeliis cotidianis quandocumque fors obtulerat . . . (B. Alex. 22.2)

250

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position Appendix: Quotiens ‘as often as’, quotienscumque ‘every time that’ and quotiensque ‘every time that’ indicate iterativity. Examples are (e)–(i). The regular mood is the indicative, but the subjunctive is found from Pliny the Elder onwards and then expands (for a comparable development in cum clauses, see §  7.125).17 The main clause may contain the correlative adverb totiens, as in (g). (e) . . . quoius quotiens sepulcrum vides, sacruficas / ilico . . . Orco hostiis . . . (‘. . . whenever you see her tomb, you immediately sacrifice victims . . . to Orcus . . .’ Pl. Epid. 175–6) (f) . . . se . . . si tot consulibus meruisset quotiens ipse consul fuit, omnia iura belli perdiscere ac nosse potuisse. (‘. . . that if he had served under consuls as often as he himself was consul, he might have learnt and become thoroughly acquainted with all the laws of war.’ Cic. Balb. 47) (g) Quotienscumque dico, totiens mihi videor in iudicium venire . . . (‘Every time I make a speech I feel I am submitting to judgement . . .’ Cic. Clu. 51) (h) Quid tu huc occursas in urbem quotienscumque advenimus? (‘Why do you keep running here every time we come into town?’ Pl. Truc. 282) (i) . . . quotiensque habebis cui des ad me litteras nolim praetermittas. (‘. . . and as many times as you have anyone to whom you can give a letter for me, please don’t fail.’ Cic. Att. 11.13.5)

16.14 Time clauses with dum locating the event of the main clause in time From Ovid onwards instances of dum occur where it locates the state of affairs of the main clause in time instead of indicating the extent of time (for which see § 16.15).18 Examples are (a) and (b). In later authors this locating use of dum increases at the expense of cum.19 (a)

Forsitan admotis etiam tangere labellis, / rumpere dum niveo vincula dente volet. (‘Perchance thou wilt even be touched by her approaching lips when she seeks to break thy bands with her snowy tooth.’ Ov. Ep. 18.18–19)

(b)

Finisque adurendi est, dum ex omni parte sensus doloris est. (‘The cauterizing is stopped when pain is felt all over the lesion.’ Cels. 5.28.1B) Supplement: Ac dum . . . fruendi laborarem inopia, casu scilicet pessumo lucerna fervens oleum rebullivit in eius umerum. (Apul. Met. 5.26.5); Viderimus de fide istorum, dum suo loco digeruntur. (Tert. Nat. 1.7.30); Dum promissionem Dei audivit, non haesitavit omnino. (August. Serm. 16A.12)

17 For examples, see OLD s.v. 18 See Poirier (2001; 2009). 19 For a comparison of some late historical texts with Caesar, Sallust, and Tacitus, see Galdi (2016c: 651–3), with references.

Time clauses

251

. Time clauses indicating the extent of time of the event in the main clause Time clauses indicating the extent of time can be divided into three groups: (i) the clause contains an event that is co-extensive with the event of the main clause: ‘while’ or ‘as long as’ (dum and quamdiu; for donec and quoad see below); (ii) the clause contains an event that is co-extensive with the event of the main clause, but lasts longer than this event: ‘while still’ or ‘during the time that’ (dum); (iii) the clause contains an event that constitutes the limit of the event of the main clause: ‘up to the time that’ or ‘until’ (donec (donicum, donique, doneque),20 dum, quamdiu (in Late Latin), and quoad (quaad)).21 The relationship between clauses of the third type and their main clause is by implication also one of posteriority (see Table 16.2 on p. 242). 16.16 Time clauses indicating a co-extensive event Of the subordinators used to combine an event in the main clause with a co-extensive event in the subordinate clause, dum is already found in Early Latin. It is the most common subordinator meaning ‘as long as’. The main clauses often contain expressions denoting the duration of the event, such as tam diu ‘so long (as)’, tantisper ‘for so long (as)’, usque ‘all the time (that)’.22 The examples of dum below illustrate the variety of tense combinations. Ex. (a) shows two present tense forms, (b) two simple futures, (c) an imperfect and a pluperfect that is notionally an imperfect, (d) two perfects, (e) a perfect in the main clause, with an imperfect in the subordinate clause, (f)—less common—the other way around. (a)

Quod sibi volunt, / dum id impetrant, boni sunt. (‘They are good while they’re trying to achieve what they want for themselves.’ Pl. Capt. 232–3)

(b)

Quia edepol, dum ego vivos vivam, numquam eris frugi bonae. (‘Because as long as I live my life you’ll never be any good.’ Pl. Ps. 337)

(c)

Te dum vivebas noveram. (‘While you lived I knew you.’ Pl. Truc. 165)

(d)

Dedi, dum fuit. # Non peto quod dedisti. (‘I gave you money as long as I had some. # I’m not asking for what you gave.’ Pl. Ps. 256)

(e)

Fuit haec gens fortis, dum Lycurgi leges vigebant. (‘This race was brave, while the laws of Lycurgus were being honoured.’ Cic. Tusc. 1.101)

20 For these three forms, see TLL s.v. 1992.32ff. 21 For this tripartition of extent of time clauses, see Woodcock (1959: 177). But see also TLL s.v. dum. For the differences and similarities in meaning of dum, donec, and quoad, and the historical development, see Poirier (1996; 1998; 2001; integrated in 2009 and 2012). See also Sz.: 629, 654 for the frequency with which authors use these subordinators. 22 See TLL s.v. donec 2003.55ff.; s.v. dum 2231.81ff.

252 (f)

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position Dum Carthaginienses incolumes fuere, iure omnia saeva patiebamur. (‘While the Carthaginians were unconquered, we quite naturally were suffering all kinds of hardship.’ Sal. Jug. 14.10)

Quamdiu is used as an extent of time relative adverb from Cicero onwards, as in (g) and (h). (g)

(sc. aurum) Sumpsit a Clodia, sumpsit sine teste, habuit quamdiu voluit. (‘He took it from Clodia, took it without witnesses, and kept it as long as he wanted.’ Cic. Cael. 31)

(h)

Tamdiu pependit in arbore socius amicusque populi Romani . . ., quamdiu voluntas Aproni tulit. (‘This friend and ally of Rome . . . hung there from that tree . . . for as long as Apronius chose to let him hang.’ Cic. Ver. 3.57)

Instances in which quoad can be interpreted more or less in this way are found from Cicero’s time onwards, but a translation ‘for the time that lasted as long as’, implying a limit, is more in line with quoad’s common meaning ‘until’, as in (i). (For the use of quoad in degree clauses, see § 16.37.) Also interesting is (j) from Tacitus, which might suggest that the three subordinators are more or less synonymous and used here for the sake of variatio. However, this variation may have been motivated by the difference between the types of states of affairs in the quoad and donec clauses as opposed to the dum clause. (i)

Ut aegroto, dum anima est, spes esse dicitur, sic ego, quoad Pompeius in Italia fuit, sperare non destiti. (‘As there is said to be hope for a sick man while there is life, so I, as long as Pompey was in Italy, did not give up hope.’ Cic. Att. 9.10.3)

(j)

(sc. tempus) Egregium vita famaque, quoad privatus vel in imperiis sub Augusto fuit; occultum ac subdolum fingendis virtutibus, donec Germanicus ac Drusus superfuere; . . . intestabilis saevitia, sed obtectis libidinibus, dum Seianum dilexit timuitve. (‘One (phase) of life and reputation was exceptional so long as he was a private individual or in command under Augustus; one secretive and guileful in its fabrication of virtues while Germanicus and Drusus survived; . . . infamous for his savagery, but with his lusts cloaked, while he loved or feared Sejanus.’ Tac. Ann. 6.51.3—tr. Woodman (adapted))

Quoad is gradually replaced by donec, which is absent from Caesar and rare in Cicero. In Livy, for example, donec is three times as frequent as quoad. The archaist Apuleius has quoad relatively often, but hardly in the ‘as long as’ meaning. The earliest instances in which donec is used meaning more or less ‘as long as’ are in Lucretius and Horace. However, its more common meaning until Late Latin is ‘until’. Quatenus is sporadically used in juridical texts. There is variation among authors in the relative frequency with which they use these expressions. A few more early instances of each of the subordinators involved are given below in the Supplement.

Time clauses

253

Supplement: Donec gratus eram tibi / nec quisquam potior bracchia candidae / cervici iuvenis dabat, / Persarum vigui rege beatior. (Hor. Carm. 3.9.1–4); Donec eris sospes, multos numerabis amicos. (Ov. Tr. 1.9a.5); Sed donec stetit ante signa Mago, gradum sensim referentes ordines et tenorem pugnae servabant. (Liv. 30.18.12); Vulgus trucidatum est, donec ira et dies permansit. (Tac. Ann. 1.68.5) Mane dum scribit. (Pl. Bac. 737); Ovibus frondem viridem, usque dum habebis, praebeto. (Cato Agr. 30); . . . dum id rescitum iri credit, tantisper cavet. (Ter. Ad. 70); . . . nam antea / qui scire posses aut ingenium noscere, / dum aetas metus magister prohibebant? (Ter. An. 52–4); C. Claudius . . . usus est hoc Cupidine tam diu dum forum dis inmortalibus populoque Romano habuit ornatum . . . (Cic. Ver. 4.6); Nec enim dum eram vobiscum, animum meum videbatis, sed eum esse in hoc corpore ex iis rebus quas gerebam, intellegebatis. (Cic. Sen. 79) Est quidam Graecus qui cum isto vivit, homo, vere ut dicam—sic enim cognovi— humanus, sed tamdiu quamdiu aut cum aliis est aut ipse secum. (Cic. Pis. 68); . . . quamdiu facta est caedes civium, domo se tenuit . . . (Nep. Ep. 10.3) . . . a tutela et cura excusantur, quatenus rei publicae causa absunt, et interea curator loco eorum datur. (Justin. Inst. 1.25.2) Anniculis iam factis dandum hordeum et furfures, usque quaad erunt lactantes. (Var. R. 2.7.12); Custodiatur igitur vita mea rei publicae eaque, quoad vel dignitas vel natura patietur, patriae reservetur. (Cic. Phil. 12.30); . . . liciti sunt usque adeo quoad se efficere posse arbitrabantur. (Cic. Ver. 3.77); Et defendebatur egregie quoad tela suppeditarunt. (Liv. 30.25.6); A multis tentatus non modo nullum detrimentum existimationis fecit, sed, quoad vixit, virtutum laude crevit. (Nep. Ca. 2.4) The first instance of a pluperfect in this type of dum clause is (k). As the imperfects in the preceding sentence show, the pluperfect of terminative averto is equivalent to a state in the past. Something similar is the case with the future perfect inveneris in (l) (quoted by Sz.: 612). (k) Eodem tempore Romani et ruinas muri supervadebant et scalas ad stantia moenia inferebant. Et dum in unam partem oculos animosque hostium certamen averterat, pluribus locis scalis capitur murus, armatique in urbem transcenderunt. (‘At the same moment the Romans were both climbing over the ruins of the wall and moving their ladders against the standing ramparts. And while the eyes and thoughts of the enemy were fixed on the conflict, the wall in several places was taken by escalade and the soldiers climbed over into the city.’ Liv. 32.24.5) (l) . . . ut, dum illa legis et in his aliquid doctrinae . . . inveneris, putes tibi quoque scripta esse quae scripta sunt. (‘. . . so that, while you read those and find in these some teaching, you may think that what has been written has been written also for you.’ Hier. Ep. 32.1.3) For the use of dum in stipulative clauses, see § 16.53. This use is related to its purely temporal co-extensive meaning.

254

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position

16.17 Dum clauses indicating an event that lasts longer than the event of the main clause Dum clauses indicating an event that lasts longer than the event of the main clause (‘while yet’, ‘during the time that’) are found from Early Latin onwards. The main clause may contain an expression like interea and interim ‘in the meantime’, as in (a) and (b), or subito and repente ‘suddenly’, as in (c)–(e), which shows that the event of the main clause is an incident that occurs while the event of the dum clause is going on. Note in (e) the extent of time expression paucos dies. The verbs of these dum clauses are usually in the present indicative no matter what the tense of the main clause is (for details and examples, see § 7.126). (a)

Quid fit deinde? # Dum haec aguntur, interea uxorem tuam / nec gementem nec plorantem nostrum quisquam audivimus. (‘What happened next? # Meanwhile, while this was going on, none of us heard your wife groaning or weeping.’ Pl. Am. 1098–9)

(b)

Interim dum de condicionibus inter se agunt . . . paulatim circumventus interficitur. (‘While they two were discussing terms together . . . he was gradually surrounded and slain.’ Caes. Gal. 5.37.2)

(c)

Ego dum in provincia omnibus rebus Appium orno, subito sum factus accusatoris eius socer. (‘While I was still in my province honouring Appius with all manner of compliments, I suddenly became his accuser’s father-in-law.’ Cic. Att. 6.6.1)

(d)

Dum spoliandis iis . . . tempus teritur, repente milites . . . concurrerunt. (‘While time was being taken to strip them . . ., suddenly soldiers . . . came running.’ Liv. 29.9.5)

(e)

Dum paucos dies ad Vesontionem rei frumentariae commeatusque causa moratur . . . tantus subito timor omnem exercitum occupavit ut . . . (‘While he was tarrying a few days at Vesontio for the provision of corn and other supplies . . . so great a fear suddenly seized upon all the army, that . . .’ Caes. Gal. 1.39.1)

Dum clauses are increasingly found with an imperfect subjunctive from the time of Virgil and Livy onwards, the first sure instance being (f). This semantically unmotivated use of the subjunctive is possibly influenced by the fact that from this time onwards dum is increasingly used as a locating (instead of as a duration) subordinator, more or less equivalent to cum, with which the subjunctive became normal in Cicero’s time (see § 7.142).23 (f)

Hic, dum in opere nostri distenti essent, complures ex superiori loco adversariorum decucurrerunt . . .

23 See Poirier (2009), who notes examples from Ovid onwards.

Time clauses

255

(‘At this point, while our men were busily engaged in the operation, a fair number of the enemy swooped down upon them from higher ground . . .’ B. Hisp. 23.2)

(g)

Illa quidem, dum te fugeret per flumina praeceps, / immanem ante pedes hydrum moritura puella / servantem ripas alta non vidit in herba. (‘She, in truth, while fleeing headlong from you along the river, saw not the monstrous serpent that before her feet, doomed maiden, hugged the banks amid the deep grass.’ Verg. G. 4.457–9)

(h)

In quae haud magno certamine impetu facto, dum praedae magis quam pugnae memores tererent tempus, triarii Romani . . . conglobati ad praetorium redeunt . . . (‘There, after they had forced an entrance without much opposition, while they were frittering away their time, their thoughts more taken up with the booty than with the battle, the Roman reserves . . . closed up their ranks and returned to the praetorium . . .’ Liv. 2.47.5)

16.18 Time clauses indicating an event that concludes the event of the main clause The main subordinators that are used in clauses denoting an event that constitutes the limit of the event of the main clause (‘up to the time that’, ‘until’) are donec, dum, and quoad. Of these dum is found in all periods of Latin (but see below), quoad is very rare before the Classical period, and donec is very rare in the Classical period. Quamdiu is rarely used in this type of clause in juridical texts and in Late Latin. The main clauses often contain expressions denoting duration or limitation, such as tam diu ‘for such a long time’, usque ‘up to the time that’, adeo usque ‘right until’, ad eum finem ‘up to the point when’, tantisper ‘for such time (as)’. The regular tenses in this type of subordinate clause are the present, perfect, and future perfect, as is shown in (a)–(c), respectively, but the simple future occurs as well, as in (d). Dum is rarely used in clauses with the perfect tense in Early and Classical Latin:24 for the ‘until’ interpretation, the subjunctive of an infectum tense is normal. For the use of the subjunctive in these clauses when intention or design is involved, see § 7.141. Donec is increasingly used with an infectum tense (in the subjunctive), so for example in Tacitus and in Late Latin authors.25 (a)

Age age, mansero / tuo arbitratu, vel adeo usque dum peris. (‘All right, all right, I’ll wait just as you wish, or even until you die.’ Pl. As. 327–8)

(b)

. . . impedit / piscis usque adeo donicum eduxit foras. (‘. . . he keeps the fish entangled until he’s taken them out.’ Pl. Truc. 38–9)

(c)

Usque ero domi, dum excoxero lenoni malam rem aliquam. (‘I’ll be at home throughout until I’ve cooked up some misfortune for the pimp.’ Pl. Per. 52)

24 So Sz.: 615.

25 See Poirier (1998; 2001; 2009).

256 (d)

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position Erroris ambo ego illos et dementiae / complebo . . . / adeo usque satietatem dum capiet pater / illius quam amat. (‘I’ll fill both of them . . . with misunderstandings and madness until my father gets enough of the woman he’s in love with . . . .’ Pl. Am. 470–3) Supplement: . . . ne quoquam exsurgatis, donec a me erit signum datum. (Pl. Bac. 758); . . . coquito usque donec commadebit bene, aquam defundito. (Cato Agr. 156.5); Suadere orare usque adeo donec perpulit. (Ter. An. 662); . . . tamen usque eo timui, nequis de mea fide atque integritate dubitaret, donec ad reiciundos iudices venimus. (Cic. Ver. 1.17); Hic iam ter centum totos regnabitur annos / gente sub Hectorea, donec regina sacerdos / Marte gravis geminam partu dabit Ilia prolem. (Verg. A. 1.272–4); Ita de comitiis, donec rediit Marcellus, silentium fuit. (Liv. 23.31.9); Sed neque credes tu mihi, donec compleris sanguine campum . . . (Liv. 25.12.6); . . . laetique interdum nuntii vulgabantur, donec provisis, quae tempus monebat simul excessisse Augustum et rerum potiri Neronem fama eadem tulit. (Tac. Ann. 1.5.4); . . . hostium potius exercitibus illum furorem, illam discordiam inicerent orabat, donec fatisceret (v.l. fatiscere) seditio et extremo iam die sua quisque in tentoria dilaberentur. (Tac. Hist. 3.10.4); . . . testudinem lanceis contisque scrutantur, donec soluta compage scutorum exsangues aut laceros prosternerent multa cum strage. (Tac. Hist. 3.27.3) Eodem modo latitudinem orbiculis ligneis aut armillis ferreis temperato, usque dum recte temperabitur. (Cato Agr. 22.2); Delibera hoc dum ego redeo, leno. (Ter. Ad. 196); Si non, saepius facito, usque dum odorem malum dempseris. (Cato Agr. 110); [ea] Mansit in condicione atque pacto usque ad eum finem dum iudices reiecti sunt. (Cic. Ver. 16); Nunc et Scaevola, quoniam in Tusculanum ire constituit paululum requiescet, dum se calor frangat . . . (Cic. de Orat. 1.265); Tibi igitur hoc censeo, latendum tantisper ibidem dum effervescit haec gratulatio et simul dum audiamus quem ad modum negotium confectum sit. (Cic. Fam. 9.2.4—NB: dum + indicative followed by dum + subjunctive); Tityre, dum redeo (brevis est via), pasce capellas . . . (Verg. Ecl. 9.23); Ille quidem lateat malim, dum tempora dentur / laetitiae mixtos non habitura metus. (Ov. Ep. 16.5–6); . . . me satiavit, usque dum lassis animis et marcidis artibus defatigati simul ambo corruimus inter mutuos amplexus animas [h]anhelantes. (Apul. Met. 2.17.4) Igitur hanc dotem periculo mulieris esse dico, quamdiu dominus vel pater ratam promissionem vel donationem habuerit. (Julian. dig. 23.3.46); . . . non cogitare . . . noctem tamdiu esse quamdiu inlucescat dies . . . (Cypr. Ep. 59.11.2) Milo autem cum in senatu fuisset eo die quoad senatus est dimissus, domum venit . . . (Cic. Mil. 28); An id exspectamus quoad ne vestigium quidem Asiae civitatum atque urbium relinquatur? (Cic. Phil. 11.25); Atque hoc scitis omnes, usque adeo hominem in periculo fuisse quoad scitum est Sestium vivere. (Cic. Sest. 82); . . . tamen non faciam finem rogandi quoad nobis nuntiatum erit te id fecisse quod magna cum spe exspectamus. (Cic. Att. 16.16e.2); Quoad dedita arx est, caedes tota urbe passim factae . . . (Liv. 26.46.10)

In historical prose from Livy onwards donec clauses are used to introduce an unexpected or sudden interruption of an ongoing state of affairs, comparable with cum

Time clauses

257

inversum (see § 16.11) and ni ‘de rupture’ (see § 16.62) clauses.26 Examples of donec ‘de rupture’ are (e) and (f). In (e), the main clause has a perfect tense; in (f), an imperfect. As in the case of sentences containing a cum inversum clause, the imperfect tense is the most common one in main clauses with a donec ‘de rupture’ clause, but it does not predominate to the same degree. (e)

Nec minor caedes in urbe quam in proelio fuit donec abiectis armis nihil praeter vitam petentes dictatori deduntur. (‘Nor was the slaughter in the city less than it had been in the battle, until, with their weapons cast aside, they surrendered to the dictator, seeking nothing but their lives.’ Liv. 4.34.3)

(f)

Pugnabaturque in angustiis ambigue donec Germani transnatantes terga Labeonis invasere. (‘A battle was fought in this narrow space without a decisive issue until the Germans swam across the river and attacked Labeo’s rear.’ Tac. Hist. 4.66.2)

An exceptional instance of a donec clause with an imperfect cited in the literature is (g). This is a beautiful illustration of Tacitus’ exploitation of the limits of the tense system. See also § 7.124. (For a historic infinitive in a donec clause in Tacitus, see § 7.122.) (g)

Inferioris Germaniae legiones diutius sine consulari fuere, donec missu Galbae A. Vitellius aderat . . . (‘The soldiers of Lower Germany were without a general of consular rank for a considerable time, until A. Vitellius was present by dispatch of Galba . . .’ Tac. Hist. 1.9.1) Appendix: Donec, dum, and quoad clauses are also regularly found with the verb exspecto ‘to wait in expectation’, which is also used with argument clauses, both with an accusative and infinitive and with an ut clause (see § 15.98 (ii) and § 15.40, respectively). In this combination they resemble to some extent argument clauses, as in (h). (h) Num exspectatis dum L.  Metellus . . . de istius scelere improbitate audacia testimonium dicat? (‘You’re not going to wait till L. Metellus gives testimony concerning Verres’ wickedness, dishonesty, and audacity, are you?’ Cic. Ver. 3.122)

. Time clauses denoting anterior events Latin has a variety of subordinating devices which introduce time clauses that indicate anterior events. The subordinator cum (quom) can be used in clauses that indicate an event that is anterior to the event in the main clause, in which case it usually precedes that clause.27 Postquam and the prepositional relative phrase ex quo indicate anteriority by their own lexical meaning. Simul (ac/atque), ubi, and ut 26 For donec ‘de rupture’, see Chausserie-Laprée (1969: 617–36). 27 For the lexical status of cum, see § 16.4.

258

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position

indicate parallel events, and anteriority of the clause has to be inferred from the context or is expressed by the tense of the verb and/or by adverbs denoting succession. Examples of such adverbs are primum ‘for the first time’, as in the combination ut primum ‘as soon as’ (from Cicero’s time onwards), statim ‘immediately’, as in statim ut (from Cicero onwards), and mox ‘soon’, as in mox ut (in Late Latin).

. Time clauses with cum Time clauses with cum (quom) that denote an anterior event are dealt with in § 7.125. The anterior interpretation of these clauses is a consequence of the use of one of the tenses of the perfectum stem. Two examples are (a) and (b). An example of the combination of cum with primum is (c). (a)

Prima pars cum adorta oppugnare est (esset cj. Riemann), atrox sane et anceps proelium fuit. (‘After the first third began to attack, there was, to be sure, a fierce and indecisive battle.’ Liv. 28.3.6)

(b)

Cum Ilium captum est, Hannibal . . . omnes statuas aeneas . . . incendit. (‘After Ilium was taken, Hannibal set fire to all the bronze sculptures.’ Petr. 50.5 (Trimalchio speaking))28

(c)

Haec quom primum acta est, vicit omnis fabulas. (‘When it was first staged, it surpassed all other plays.’ Pl. Cas. 17)

. Time clauses with postquam Postquam and in prose also posteaquam (especially in Varro and Cicero) are the most common subordinators indicating anteriority. The elements of the compound—the adverb post(ea) and the comparative particle quam—are still regularly separated by particles like vero in Classical prose, as in (a). Postquam is preferred over posteaquam when the time elapsed is specified, as in (b) (the same holds for the adverbs post and postea—see § 10.30).29 (a)

Postea vero quam intellexerunt isti virum fortem quem summe provincia expectabat Q. Arrium, non succedere, statuerunt . . . (‘But after they understood that that brave man, Quintus Arrius, whom the province was eagerly looking for, was not his successor, they then settled . . .’ Cic. Ver. 4.42)

(b)

. . . Habonio opus in acceptum rettulit quadriennio post quam diem operi dixerat.

28 On Petronius’ use of cum, see Petersmann (1977: 275–8). 29 The most complete information can be found in TLL s.vv. posteaquam and postquam. For the (rare) use of post and postea as subordinators in Late Latin, see TLL s.v. 185.18ff. and 192.10ff. For rare and Late instances of post quod, see TLL s.v. quod 164.59ff. (see also § 16.84).

Time clauses

259

(‘. . . at last he enters the work in Habonius’ name as undertaken by him, four years after the day which he had fixed for its completion.’ Cic. Ver. 1.149)

Because of the basically comparative meaning of these subordinators, anteriority need not be expressed in the verb, although it sometimes is. This is illustrated in (a) above: both the postea . . . quam clause and the main clause are in the perfect tense. Another example with two perfects is (c); one with two historic presents is (d); one with two (actual) presents is (e). In (b) above, by contrast, with the pluperfect dixerat, and in (f) with the perfect sunt . . . meriti, anteriority is expressed in the verb; in both cases the tense indicates anteriority with respect to the tense of the main clause. In Classical prose the pluperfect is preferred when the time elapsed is indicated (as in (b) above by quadriennio, a so-called ablativus mensurae, see §  20.10), but it also occurs in other contexts (ex. (g)), especially in Sallust, Livy, and Tacitus. The relative order of the two clauses may be relevant as well. For the use of the imperfect in a postquam clause, see § 7.124. (c)

Postquam peperit, pueros lavere iussit nos. (‘After she gave birth, she told us to wash the boys.’ Pl. Am. 1102)

(d)

Abeo ab illis, postquam video me sic ludificarier. (‘I left them after I saw I was being made a fool of this way.’ Pl. Capt. 487)

(e)

Nunc ego illam me velim / convenire, postquam inanis sum, contemptricem meam. (‘Now I’d like her to meet me, now that I have nothing, that woman who despises me.’ Pl. Bac. 530–1)

(f)

Nam illi qui nil metuont postquam sunt malum meriti, / stulta sibi expetunt consilia. (‘For those who don’t fear anything, even after deserving a thrashing, are seeking stupid counsel for themselves.’ Pl. Mos. 860–1)

(g)

Nam omnis posthabui mihi res, ita uti par fuit, / postquam id tanto opere vos velle animum advorteram. (‘I’ve put off all my other business, as was only proper after I’d realized you were so set on the marriage.’ Ter. Ph. 908–9)

The regular mood in the postquam clause is the indicative. The subjunctive (influenced by its use with cum) is found five times in Cicero (quam in each case being emended to quom or cum)30 and rarely elsewhere, in less elevated texts or in Late Latin, as in (h) and (i) below.31 (h)

Postquam Iuba ante portas diu multumque primo minis pro imperio egisset cum Zamensibus, dein cum se parum proficere intellexisset, precibus orasset

30 See Sz.: 598–9 and TLL s.vv. posteaquam 196.58ff. and postquam 252.44ff. 31 For further examples of the subjunctive, see TLL s.v. postquam 251.44ff.

260

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position uti se ad suos deos penates admitterent . . . petit ab eis ut sibi coniuges liberosque redderent ut secum eos asportaret. (‘After Juba for a long time earnestly treated with the men of Zama before the gates of the town and at first employed threats, as his authority warranted, but then, when he realized that he was making but little headway, he besought them with entreaties to let him have access to his own hearth and home . . . he begged them to hand over to him his wives and children, so that he could carry them away with him.’ B. Afr. 91.3)

(i)

Inter quae illud elucere clarius potuit, si Macrianum regem ea tempestate terribilem vivum capere potuisset, ut industria magna temptarat, postquam eum evasisse Burgundios, quos ipse admoverat Alamannis, maerens didicisset et tristis. (‘And among these it would have been a most glorious feat if he had been able to take King Macrianus alive, who was at that time formidable. He had made great efforts to do so after he learned with grief and sorrow that the king had escaped from the Burgundians, whom Valentinian himself had aroused against the Alamanni.’ Amm. 30.7.11)

. Time clauses with simul Time clauses with simul ‘as soon as’ alone or in combination with ac and atque—also written as one word—and (in Cicero) also with et, are rare in Early Latin but common in Cicero’s time. Whereas in Classical prose the longer forms are preferred, simul becomes more popular in poetry from the Augustan poets onwards and then also in literary prose from Livy onwards. The choice between ac and atque is mainly phonologically determined (see §  19.26). There are also instances of the combination of simul(ac/atque) with primum, as in (d).32 (a)

Simul herbae coeperint nasci, eximito. (‘Clear off the weeds as soon as they begin to grow.’ Cato Agr. 48.2)

(b)

Id quidem tibi hercle fiet, / ut vapules, Demaenetum simul ac conspexero hodie. (‘That’ll happen to you, getting beaten, as soon as I set eyes on Demaenetus today.’ Pl. As. 478–9)

(c)

Simul et quid erit certi, scribam ad te. (‘As soon as there is anything definite I shall write to you.’ Cic. Att. 2.20.2)

(d)

Simulac primum ei occasio visa est . . ., aversa pecunia publica quaestor consulem exercitum sortem provinciamque deseruit. (‘As soon as an opportunity presented itself to him . . ., the quaestor, having embezzled the public money, deserted his consul, his consul’s army, the lot and his sphere of duty.’ Cic. Ver. 1.34) 32 The most complete survey of simul is Jones (1906: 90–102).

Time clauses

261

As for the use of the tenses, the same tendency applies in essence to simul (ac/atque) as was said about the use of the perfect with postquam to denote an event that is anterior to a past event in the main. The indicative is the normal mood, with a few instances of the subjunctive in Silver and Late Latin (see OLD s.v. § 11b). A few other temporal adverbs are—rarely—used as a subordinator in combination with the coordinator atque. Ulpian has a couple of instances of statim atque (see OLD s.v. statim § 4). TLL s.v. atque 1084.71ff. also mentions Late Latin instances of ilico atque and protinus atque.

. Time clauses with ubi Clauses with ubi in a temporal sense ‘at or after the time in or at which’, ‘when’ are common in Early Latin comedy and are not rare in the Classical period. The combination with primum meaning ‘as soon as’ is used by Plautus a few times; it is absent from Cicero, but frequent in the historians Livy and Tacitus. Examples are (a)–(e). There are also a few instances of ubi combined with semel ‘once’.33 See also § 7.124. (a)

Nam ubi me aspiciet, ad carnuficem rapiet continuo senex. (‘As soon as he sees me, the old man will drag me to the executioner.’ Pl. Bac. 688)

(b)

Principio ut illo advenimus, ubi primum terram tetigimus, / continuo Amphitruo delegit viros primorum principes. (‘First, when we arrived there, as soon as we touched the shore, Amphitruo immediately chose the leading men among those of high rank.’ Pl. Am. 203–4)

(c)

Quod ubi iste audivit, usque eo commotus est ut . . . (‘When Verres heard this, he was so thoroughly upset that . . .’ Cic. Ver. 4.39)

(d)

At hostes ubi primum nostros equites conspexerunt . . ., impetu facto celeriter nostros perturbaverunt. (‘However, as soon as the enemy saw our cavalry, they charged, and speedily threw our men into confusion.’ Caes. Gal. 4.12.1)

(e)

Sed ubi minitari Artabanus et parum subsidii in Armeniis, vel, si nostra vi  defenderetur, bellum adversus Parthos sumendum erat, rector Syriae Creticus Silanus excitum custodia circumdat . . . (‘But, when Artabanus started menacing and too little support for Vonones was coming from the Armenians (the alternative, if he was to be defended by our might, was taking up war against the Parthians), the governor of Syria, Creticus Silanus, summoned him and surrounded him with guards . . .’ Tac. Ann. 2.4.3—tr. Woodman; NB: historic infinitive coordinated with an imperfect indicative—see § 7.122)

The normal mood in temporal ubi clauses is the indicative, as in the examples above. However, the subjunctive is found in those clauses that refer to a repeated event (the

33 Details in Jones (1906: 233–45); Sz.: 651–2; OLD s.v. semel § 4.

262

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position

so-called iterative use of the subjunctive—see § 7.142) from Livy onwards, as in (f) and (g). This use is almost completely confined to the imperfect and pluperfect, but see (h). Most authors who allow the subjunctive use the indicative as well and often more frequently. An instance of the exceptional use of the subjunctive for a one-time event is (i).34 (f)

. . . consilium et modum adhibendo, ubi res posceret, priores erant. (‘. . . they surpassed him in using wisdom and restraint when the need arose.’ Liv. 3.19.3)

(g)

Id ubi dixisset, hastam in fines eorum emittebat. (‘After he said this, he would hurl his spear into their territory.’ Liv. 1.32.13)

(h)

Mox, ubi sanguis in artus extremos suffuderit, levi ictu cruorem eliciunt atque in vicem lambunt. (‘Then, when the blood has run to the extremities, they draw it out with a slight incision, and each prince licks it in turn.’ Tac. Ann. 12.47.2)

(i)

Quod ubi coeptum est fieri et equis concitatis Iuliani impetum fecissent, Pacideius suos equites exporrigere coepit in longitudinem . . . (‘When this manoeuvre was under way and the Julians had delivered their attack at full gallop, Pacideius began to deploy his horsemen on a broader front . . .’ B.  Afr. 78.4—NB: coordinated with a ‘correct’ perfect) Supplement: . . . Titianus et Proculus, ubi consiliis vincerentur, ad ius imperii transibant. (Tac. Hist. 2.40); Amicorum libertorumque, ubi in bonos incidisset, sine reprehensione patiens, si mali forent, usque ad culpam ignarus. (Tac. Hist. 1.49.3); . . . erat tamen interdum timidus ad audaces, contra timidos celsior, ut videretur, cum sibi fideret, de coturno strepere tragico et, ubi paveret, omni humilior socco. (Amm. 27.11.2—NB: parallelism with cum clause)

. Time clauses with ut Clauses with ut (rarely uti in poetry from Virgil onwards)35 in a temporal sense ‘when’, ‘as soon as’, and ‘since’ (see OLD s.v. §§ 25, 26, 27) are found from Early Latin onwards. Examples are (a)–(c). They are less frequent than simulac, ubi, and cum clauses. The combination with primum in the sense of ‘as soon as’ is common in Cicero’s time, as in (d). Later authors use it with varying frequency. It is relatively frequent in Petronius (but not among the freedmen).36 A few instances of ut combined with semel are found from Plautus onwards, as in (e). The precise interpretation of the ut clause depends among other things on the tense in that clause: the simultaneous interpretation ‘when’, 34 For the instances in Livy, see Riemann (1885: 296–7). See also K.-St.: II.364. 35 So Sz.: 635. 36 Details in Jones (1906: 233–45). For Petronius, see Petersmann (1977: 274).

Time clauses

263

for example, correlates with the imperfect (an ongoing event in the past), as in (g) and (h). See also § 7.124. (a)

Verum in tonstrina ut sedebam, me infit percontarier / ecquem filium Stratonis noverim Demaenetum. (‘But as I was sitting at the barber’s he began to ask me if I knew a certain Demaenetus, the son of Strato.’ Pl. As. 343–4)

(b)

Nam ut dudum hinc abii, accessi ad adulescentes in foro. (‘When I went away from here some time ago, I approached young men in the market.’ Pl. Capt. 478)

(c)

Quid ego, qui illam ut primum vidi, numquam vidi postea? (‘What should I have done? After seeing her for the first time I never saw her again.’ Pl. Epid. 600)

(d)

Qui ut primum in illud oppidum venit, statim tamquam ita fieri non solum oporteret . . . ita continuo signum ut demolirentur et Messanam deportarent imperavit. (‘Who, as soon as he came to their city, in a moment, as if it were not only a becoming thing to be done . . . in a moment, I say, ordered them to take the statue down and to transport it to Messana.’ Cic. Ver. 4.84)

(e)

Quia septem menses sunt, quom in hasce aedis pedem / nemo intro tetulit, semel ut emigravimus. (‘Because it’s seven months since anyone put a foot into this house once we’d moved out.’ Pl. Mos. 470–1)

(f)

Ut cuique aliquid acciderit qua re commodius sit esse plebeium, simili ratione adoptabitur. (‘Whenever anything happens to anyone to make it more convenient for him to be a plebeian, he will be adopted in the same manner.’ Cic. Dom. 37)

(g)

. . . praegressus Tullius ad caput Ferentinum, ut quisque veniret, primores eorum excipiens querendo indignandoque, et eos ipsos sedulo audientes secunda irae verba et per eos multitudinem aliam in subiectum viae campum deduxit. (‘. . . Tullius, who had gone ahead, arrived before them at the source of the Ferentina. There, when any of their chief men arrived, he met them with words of complaint and indignation, and he led to a field which lay below the road both the leaders themselves, who listened eagerly to words which ministered to their anger, and through their influence the rest of the throng also.’ Liv. 2.38.1)

(h)

. . . hac sic communicantibus nobis, iam ut exiremus de aecclesia, dederunt nobis presbyteri loci ipsius eulogias . . . (‘. . . and when the oblation had been duly made, at which we communicated, and as we were coming out of the church, the priests of the place would give us blessed gifts . . .’ Pereg. 3.6—tr. McClure and Feltoe)

264

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position

The normal mood in temporal ut clauses is the indicative, as in (a)–(f). Instances of ut clauses in the subjunctive referring to repeated events are found from Livy onwards, as in (g) and (h).37 Tacitus extends the use of the historic infinitive to ut clauses (see § 7.122). An example is (i). Note the imperfect patiebantur in the coordinated clause. (i) Mox, ut praeberi ora contumeliis et posita omni ferocia cuncta victi patiebantur, subit recordatio illos esse, qui nuper Bedriaci victoriae temperassent. (‘Later when the defeated troops offered their faces to every indignity and, with all ferocity laid aside, they were suffering all kinds of abuse, the victors began to remember that these were the troops who had recently shown moderation after they had won at Bedriacum.’ Tac. Hist. 3.31.3)

. Time clauses with mox, primum, and statim A number of adverbs that in earlier periods were used in combination with cum, ubi, and ut to indicate the rapid succession of events came to be used independently, that is as subordinators, in Late Latin (sometimes combined with atque or quam). Mox ‘soon’ is so used in Vetus Latina versions of the Bible, but also in other texts, as in (a). A (disputed) example with primum is (b); with statim, (c).38 (a)

Mox autem primus pullus cantaverit, statim descendet episcopus . . . (‘As soon as the first cock has crowed, the bishop immediately comes down . . .’ Pereg. 24.9)

(b)

Proinde horrifico adversum fragore terrente, primum apud Argentariam . . . concurri est coeptum, sagittarum . . . pulsibus crebriores hinc indeque sternebantur. (‘Therefore, when from the opposite side the terrifying battle-cry was heard, as soon as the battle began at Argentaria, many were struck down on both sides by wounds from . . . flying arrows.’ Amm. 31.10.8—NB: usually emended to ubi primum)

(c)

. . . statim est adeptus imperium (sc. Carus), Sarmatas . . . contudit . . . (‘. . . as soon as he (Carus) received the imperial power, he crushed the Sarmatians . . .’ Hist. Aug. Car. 9.4)

. Time clauses with ex quo Time adjuncts with the preposition ex in the temporal sense ‘since’ are common from Plautus onwards (see § 10.29). Time clauses with ex and the relative pronoun quo are

37 See Riemann (1885: 297) and Väänänen (1987: 81). Also K.-St.: II.364. 38 TLL s.v. mox 1553.1ff.; s.v. prior 1368.10ff. See also Jones  (1906) and Sz.: 637. For ‘reduction of subordinators’, see Heberlein (2011: 291–4).

Time clauses

265

attested from Cicero’s time onwards. Two examples are (a)—with quo used as a relative determiner with tempore—and (b)—with corresponding ex illo. (a)

Ex quo tempore concordia de civitate sublata est, libertas sublata est. (‘Since the time when concord disappeared from our state, liberty disappeared.’ Rhet. Her. 4.19)

(b)

Impius ex quo / Tydides sed enim scelerumque inventor Ulixes /. . . / corripuere sacram effigiem / . . . / ex illo . . . (‘But from the time that the ungodly son of Tydeus and Ulysses, the contriver of crime . . . snatched up the sacred image . . . from that time . . .’ Verg. A. 2.163–9)

. Time clauses denoting a posterior event Latin has two subordinators to introduce time clauses that denote a posterior event, antequam (also ante quam as two words, rarely anteaquam—like posteaquam) and priusquam (and prius quam as two words) ‘before’; the latter is the older one. It is not always easy to decide whether we are dealing with two words or one.39 Priusquam is found from Plautus onwards and remains prevalent in most Classical authors, including Livy. However, antequam, which is attested from Cato and Terence onwards, is already more frequent in Cicero, and priusquam gradually disappears in the course of the development of Latin. The indicative is predominant in Early and Classical Latin, as in (a) and (b), but semantically justified subjunctives do occur. For the use of the subjunctive when intention or design is involved, see (c). The expansion of its use without a semantic justification starts from Livy onward (see § 7.141). For the use of the imperfect and pluperfect in these clauses, see § 7.124. (a)

Nam semper occant prius quam sariunt rustici. (‘Farmers always harrow before they hoe.’ Pl. Capt. 663)

(b)

Quin iam prius quam sum elocutus scis si mentiri volo. (‘No, even before I’ve finished speaking you know if I want to lie.’ Pl. Mer. 155)

(c)

Haec facito, ante quam viniam fodere incipias. (‘Do all this before you begin cultivating the vines.’ Cato Agr. 50.2)

(d)

Piso in Annalibus scribit . . . Mettium Curtium Sabinum . . . in locum palustrem, qui tum fuit in foro antequam cloacae sunt factae, secessisse . . . (‘Piso in his Annals writes . . . a Sabine named Mettius Curtius . . . got away into a swampy spot which at that time was in the Forum, before the sewers had been made . . .’ Var. L. 5.149)

39 Distributional data in Sz.: 600. Contextual criteria for determining whether one is dealing with one or with two words are given in TLL s.v. priusquam 1410.34ff.

266

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position

Specifications of the time elapsed beforehand are normal with antequam but very rare with priusquam. A normal instance of an ablative of measure with antequam is (e).40 An exceptional instance with prius . . . quam is (f). (e)

Itaque vitem triduo antequam inserant desecant . . . (‘For this reason they cut off the vine three days before grafting . . .’ Var. R. 1.41.3)

(f)

. . . / puer septuennis surrupitur Carthagine, / sexennio prius quidem quam moritur pater. (‘. . . (sc. the only son) is kidnapped from Carthage as a seven-year-old boy, six years before his father dies.’ Pl. Poen. 66–7) There are rare instances of prius = priusquam in Late Latin (TLL s.v. prius 1344.41ff.). For pridie quam, postridie quam, and related expressions, see § 20.5.

. Non-temporal interpretations of time clauses Depending on context, time clauses can be interpreted in various other senses, especially as reason and concessive (or: adversative) clauses. They are dealt with in §§ 16.29–32. They have received considerable attention in the literature.41 The clauses for which this is particularly relevant are those with the subordinators cum and postquam. For dum, causal interpretations are rare.42

. The interpretation of cum (quom) clauses as indicating the reason for the content of the main clause Scholars have different views on the need to distinguish a separate use of cum as a subordinator of reason. There is also disagreement both about when the first instances of causal cum can be found and about when the first instances of this cum with a subjunctive can be found.43 There is no strong evidence for a separate causal meaning:44 there are no instances of a cum clause in answer to a cur or quare ‘why’ question in the LLT material. Also, instances of cum with the correlating adverbs idcirco, ideo, and propterea are exceptional.45 An example of a cum clause with such a correlating expression is (a). Further support for regarding the causal interpretation as only contextually determined can be found in the fact that some authors combine cum with various expressions to underline the causal interpretation of the cum clause. Examples are (in decreasing order of frequency) the adverb praesertim ‘especially’ (often in Cicero), as in (b); the particle quippe ‘as is natural when’, ‘inasmuch as’ (relatively 40 41 42 43 44 45

See TLL s.v. antequam 155.28ff.; 157.8ff. For general discussion, see Heberlein (2008; 2011: 238–41). For ubi, see Sz.: 652. Interesting is ubi . . . eo in Sal. Cat. 52.23, as suggested by Branden Kosch. For discussion and references, see Heberlein (2011: 281–4). See Lavency (1996b; 1997: 241–2; 2003) and Baños (2014: 67–70). TLL s.v. idcirco 175.64ff; s.v. ideo 217.43ff.; s.v. propterea 2132.68ff. See also Lodge s.v. quom 528A.

Time clauses

267

frequent in Cicero and Pliny the Elder), as in (c);46 or utpote ‘as one might expect’, ‘as is natural’ (a favourite of Pliny the Elder), as in (d). These words are very rarely, if ever, combined with quia, quod, quoniam, and quando in the authors covered by the LLT. Christian authors do not use utpote with any of these subordinators. Quippe is occasionally combined with cum, quod, and quia in later Christian authors (not in Tertullian) and there are more instances of praesertim combined with cum and quia, notably in Augustine. These three considerations argue against postulating a contextindependent causal meaning of cum. Nevertheless, a few examples that are sometimes cited in the literature as causal cum clauses are added in the Supplement.47 (For the use of the moods in causally interpreted cum clauses, see § 7.143.) (a)

. . . praefatus idcirco se hunc iudicandi modum secutum, cum liqueret sibi Titinium . . . coniugium expetisse. (‘. . . prefacing that he had followed this mode of judgement because it was clear to him that Titinius had sought to marry . . .’ V. Max. 8.2.3)

(b)

Praesertim quom is me dignum quoi concrederet / habuit, me habere honorem eius ingenio decet. (‘Because he has considered me worthy, a man whom he could trust, it’s only fair that I should respect his inclinations.’ Pl. As. 80–1)

(c)

Intellego te, frater, alias in historia leges observandas putare, alias in poëmate. # Quippe quom in illa omnia ad veritatem, Quinte, referantur, in hoc ad delectationem pleraque. (‘As I understand it, then, brother, you believe that one set of principles must be observed in writing history, another in poetry. # Certainly, Quintus, since in the former all things are judged by reference to the truth, while in the latter most things are judged by reference to pleasure.’ Cic. Leg. 1.5)

(d)

Me . . . incommoda valetudo, e qua iam emerseram utpote cum sine febri laborassem . . . tenebat duodecimum iam diem Brundisi. (‘An indisposition, from which I have now recovered (as is to be expected since I was ill without a fever) . . . has kept me these twelve days at Brundisium.’ Cic. Att. 5.8.1) Supplement: Isto tu pauper es quom nimis sancte piu’s. (Pl. Rud. 1234); Ei obviam bubulcus de plebe Venusina advenit et per iocum, cum ignoraret qui ferretur, rogavit num mortuum ferrent. (Gracch. orat. 49 ap. Gel. 10.3.5); Sed demiror / quid sit quam ob rem hunc tanto opere omnis nos celare volueris / partum, praesertim quom et recte et tempore suo pepererit. (Ter. Hec. 529–31); . . . ut non intellegam, quare aut hic vetet intercedere aut quemquam intercessurum putet, cum intercessio stultitiam intercessoris significatura sit, non rem impeditura. (Cic. Agr. 2.30); Nam cum solitudo et vita sine amicis insidiarum et metus plena sit, ratio ipsa monet amicitias comparare . . . (Cic. Fin. 1.66); ‘Quem hunc appellas, Zeno?’ ‘Beatum,’ inquit. ‘Etiam beatissimum?’ ‘Quippe,’ inquiet, ‘cum tam docuerim gradus istam rem non habere quam virtutem, 46 For quippe cum, see Schrickx (2011: 120–4).

47 More examples in OLD s.v. § 6.

268

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position in qua sit ipsum etiam beatum.’ (Cic. Fin. 5.84); Superabatur navium multitudine. Dolo erat pugnandum, cum par non esset armis. (Nep. Han. 10.4); Hanc (sc. aquam) putant nimio frigore esse noxiam, utpote cum profluens ipsa lapidescat. (Plin. Nat. 31.28)

Cum clauses rarely function as an attitudinal or an illocutionary disjunct. An example of an illocutionary cum clause that gives the reason for making the statement of the main clause is (e); ex. (f) contains the justification for making the observation of the main clause (it is an attitudinal disjunct). (e)

Sed quom pietatem amori video tuo praevortere, / omnes tibi patres sunt? (‘But since I can see that you prefer filial piety to your love, are all men your fathers?’ Pl. Ps. 293–4)

(f)

Falso excipitur et spartum, quippe cum in Hispania multa in spartariis mella herbam eam sapiant. (‘It is a mistake to say that esparto grass is also an exception, because a great deal of the honey obtained in the broom-thickets in Spain tastes of that plant.’ Plin. Nat. 11.18)48

. The interpretation of dum clauses as indicating the reason for the content of the main clause Causal interpretations of dum clauses are found from Pliny the Elder onwards.49 Examples are (a) and (b). Most instances are much later. As with cum, there is little reason to assume a context-independent causal meaning. (a)

(sc. Apollodorum) . . . crebro perfecta signa frangentem, dum satiari cupiditate artis non quit, ideoque insanum cognominatum. (‘. . . often breaking his statues in pieces after he had finished them because he was unable to be satisfied due to his passion for his art, and consequently he was given the surname of the Madman.’ Plin. Nat. 34.81)

(b)

. . . sectam de auctoris appellatione mutari utique probum usitatumque ius est, dum philosophi quoque de auctoribus cognominentur Pythagorici et Platonici . . . (‘. . . it is no doubt a fair and usual custom that a sect should be marked out by the name of its founder, since philosophers are called Pythagoreans and Platonists after their masters.’ Tert. Nat. 1.4.1—tr. Holmes)

48 Discussed by Tarriño (2004: 366–7). 49 See OLD s.v. dum § 4.b ‘with loss of temporal force’ and TLL s.v. dum 2211.80ff.; 2221.55ff. ‘significatione tantum causali’. One dum clause from Plautus Am. 637–9 is cited by the TLL s.v. as an early instance, but this is unnecessary. See also Baños (2014: 71–2).

Time clauses

269

. The concessive (or: ‘adversative’) interpretation of cum (quom) clauses The relationship between a cum clause and the main clause may, depending on the content of the clauses, be interpreted as adversative (‘while’, ‘whereas’) or as concessive (‘though’, ‘even when’). Early instances cited in this connexion are (a)—indicative, the regular mood in this time period—and (b)—subjunctive.50 Note in (a) the use of the correlative concessive adverb tamen. Instances of this adverb and also of nihilominus ‘nevertheless’ are rare, but they can be found until Late Latin. A Classical example is (c), in the subjunctive which is normal in that period, although there are also instances of the indicative. A Late Latin example is (d)—in the indicative, although in other authors the subjunctive is predominant.51 As in causally interpreted clauses, one occasionally finds praesertim, as in (e), an adverb which is not found with true concessive subordinators. (a)

Servi qui, quom culpa carent, tamen malum metuont, / i solent esse eris utibiles. (‘Those slaves who fear a thrashing even when they’re free from guilt are generally useful to their masters.’ Pl. Mos. 858–9)

(b)

Eo vos vostrosque adeo pantices madefactatis, quom ego sim hic siccus. (‘With that you irrigate yourselves and also your bellies, while I am dry here.’ Pl. Ps. 184)

(c)

. . . Socrates . . . cum facile posset educi e custodia, noluit . . . (‘. . . Socrates . . . though he could easily have been removed from prison, refused . . .’ Cic. Tusc. 1.71)

(d)

Et cum hi (sc. montes) omnes, qui per girum sunt, tam excelsi sint . . ., tamen ipse ille medianus . . . tanto altior est omnibus illis . . . (‘And though all the peaks in the group attain such a height, yet the central one . . . is so much higher than them all . . .’ Pereg. 2.6)

(e)

. . . nihil nos magnopere mirari cum praesertim neque necessitati subveniatur . . . (‘. . . we are not very greatly astonished, even though by it no extreme need is relieved . . .’ Cic. Off. 2.56) Supplement: Classical indicative forms: . . . etiam cum alienissimos defendimus, tamen eos alienos, si ipsi viri boni volumus haberi, existimare non possumus. (Cic. de Orat. 2.192); Quom tabulas signa toreumata emunt, nova diruunt, alia aedificant, postremo omnibus modis pecuniam trahunt vexant, tamen summa lubidine divitias suas vincere nequeunt. (Sal. Cat. 20.12)

50 The examples (‘adversative’ in his terminology) are taken from Bennett: I.141f.; 303. 51 See Bertocchi and Maraldi (2011: 168–70) and Spevak (2005b: 176–80) for the Late Latin use of cum ‘concessivum’.

270

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position Classical subjunctive forms: Cuius ingenium variosque sermones immortalitati scriptis suis Plato tradidit, cum ipse litteram Socrates nullam reliquisset. (Cic. de Orat. 3.60); Fuit enim perpetuo pauper, cum divitissimus esse posset . . . (Nep. Phoc. 1.2); Nam (sc. Druentia flumen) cum aquae vim vehat ingentem, non tamen navium patiens est . . . (Liv. 21.31.11) Late Latin instances: An cum miserum esse neminem libeat, libet tamen esse misericordem . . .? (August. Conf. 3.2.3); (sc. litterae) Brevi enim erant transcursu quae, cum mihi voluptatem adferant, negant satietatem . . . (Symm. Ep. 5.50); Nec enim cautum deinde expergefactis, quos petebant insidiae, in apertum properare discrimen, cum iam undique frendentium catervae Persarum in proelia venirent accensae. (Amm. 19.6.8)

. The concessive and reason interpretations of postquam clauses In specific contexts the temporal relationship between a postquam clause and its main clause may be interpreted as a reason (cf. quoniam), as in (a); or even as concessive, as in (b), where the main clause contains tamen.52 (a)

Nam postquam haec aedes ita erant ut dixi tibi, / continuo est alias aedis mercatus sibi. (‘Well, after our house was the way I told you, he immediately bought himself another.’ Pl. Mos. 647–8)

(b)

Postquam obtineri non poterat, tamen labefactandae legis Treboniae causa effectum est, ut cooptarentur tribuni plebis C. Lacerius et M. Acutius . . . (‘Although this could not be obtained, nevertheless, in order to invalidate the Trebonian law, it was brought about that Gaius Lacerius and Marcus Acutius should be chosen tribunes . . .’ Liv. 5.10.11)

16.33 Manner clauses Manner clauses denote the manner in which the event of the main clause takes (took or will take) place or the way the event has to be understood. They are introduced by the relative adverbs ut(i) and sicut(i), also velut(i), ‘just as’, ‘like’; by the relative phrases quemadmodum (also: quem ad modum) and quomodo (also quo modo) ‘in the manner in which’, ‘as’; and the subordinator ceu ‘as (if)’—found mainly in poetry, in prose from Seneca onwards. The manner expressions based on modus ‘manner’ are relatively infrequent in Early and Classical Latin. The conditional comparative subordinators quasi ‘as if ’, tamquam ‘as though’, and velut ‘as if ’ are dealt with separately in § 16.66. Ut clauses can function as adjuncts and as (attitudinal or illocutionary) disjuncts. The clauses with a subordinator other than ut are mainly used as 52 For further examples of a reason interpretation, see OLD s.v. postquam §  3; TLL s.v. postquam 246.71ff.; 248.33ff. For an ‘adversative force implied’, see OLD s.v. postquam § 3. See also Sz.: 599.

Manner clauses 271 adjuncts. The clauses discussed in this section are usually called ‘comparative clauses of manner’ or ‘clauses of comparison’.53 Manner clauses can also function as subject complement, as in (a) and (b) (see § 9.36). (a) Haec res sic est ut narro tibi. (‘This is just as I’m telling you.’ Pl. Mos. 1034) (b) Ero ut me voles esse. (‘I will be as you want me to be.’ Pl. Capt. 228)

. Manner adjunct clauses Manner adjuncts denote the way in which the state of affairs of the main clause takes place. There may be a corresponding manner expression in the main clause, either an adverb like sic ‘so’ or—less common—ita ‘so’, also proinde ‘in the same way (as)’, or a noun phrase, as in (c).54 Examples of ut clauses are (a)–(d), of clauses introduced by the other expressions, (e)–(g). (a)

Facis ut alias res soles. (‘You’re handling the matter as you usually handle other things.’ Pl. Am. 536)

(b)

. . . cogat alios laudare, sicut in multis conatus est. (‘. . . let him force others to give praises, as in many cases he has tried to do.’ Cic. Ver. 2.139)

(c)

Hoc modo res gesta est ut ego dico. (‘The matter happened just the way I’m telling you.’ Pl. Rud. 1072)

(d)

Ut sementem feceris, ita metes. (‘As ye sow, so shall ye reap.’ Cic. de Orat. 2.261—tr. May and Wisse)

(e)

Conserva igitur tuis suos, ut quemadmodum cetera quae dicta sunt a te, sic hoc verissimum reperiatur. (‘Preserve, then, for your adherents their loved ones, so that, just as the rest of the things said by you, so this may be found completely true.’ Cic. Lig. 33)

(f)

Quo modo autem in corpore est morbus, est aegrotatio, est vitium, sic in animo. (‘Now as the body is liable to disease, to sickness, to defect, so is the soul.’ Cic. Tusc. 4.28)

53 For a discussion of the terminology and the various uses of manner clauses with ut, see Revuelta (2002). A monograph on the subject is Fontana (1997). See also Tarriño (2011: 399–420) and Van Laer (2013, 2014, 2015). 54 A large number of correlative expressions can be found in Lodge, s.v. ut 922B–923A; Merguet (Reden) s.v. ut 1053B–1054A; TLL s.v. modus 1285.55ff. (quemadmodum); 1294.41ff. (quomodo). See also Revuelta (2002: 210–16).

272 (g)

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position Impastus stabula alta leo ceu saepe peragrans / (suadet enim vesana fames), si forte fugacem / conspexit capream aut surgentem in cornua cervum, / gaudet . . . / . . ., / sic ruit in densos alacer Mezentius hostis. (‘Even as often an unfed lion, ranging the deep coverts, for maddening hunger prompts him, if haply he has spied a timorous roe or stately-antlered stag, exults . . ., so Mezentius springs lightly upon the massed foemen.’ Verg. A. 10.723–9) Supplement: An te auspicium commoratum est an tempestas continit (cj. Luchs, continet P), / qui non abiisti ad legiones, ita uti dudum dixeras? (Pl. Am. 690–1); Satis audacter. # Ut pudicam decet. (Pl. Am. 838); Faciam ita ut iubes (Pl. Am. 1144); Quid tu? recte’n atque ut vis vales? (Pl. Aul. 183—NB: coordination with a manner adverb); Eandem puellam peperit quam a me acceperat, / sine opstetricis opera et sine doloribus, / item ut aliae pariunt quae malum quaerunt sibi. (Pl. Cist. 140–2); Diespiter me sic amabit— # Ut quidem edepol dignus es. (Pl. Poen. 869); Proinde ut decet amat virum suom, cupide expetit. (Pl. St. 284); Ut potero feram. (Ter. An. 898); Non, si ex capite sis meo / natus, item aiunt ut Minervam esse ex Iove . . . (Ter. Hau. 1035–6); Quapropter ut invitus saepe dissensi a Q. Fufio, ita sum eius sententiae libenter adsensus. (Cic. Phil. 11.15); Nimirum eodem modo haec aspicitis ut priora. (Cic. Phil. 13.26); Ut frumenta nata sunt, ita decumae veneunt. (Cic. Ver. 3.147); Nimirum ut hic nomen suum conprobavit, sic ille cognomen. (Cic. Ver. 4.57); At reliquarum legionum milites . . . a tribunis militum legatisque, ut erat a Caesare praeceptum, retinebantur. (Caes. Gal. 7.47.3); Utque volans alte raptum cum fulva draconem / fert aquila . . . / haut aliter praedam Tiburtum ex agmine Tarchon / portat ovans. (Verg. A. 11.751–8); Quare ars est aput te ministrare nec temere et ut libet conlocatur argentum sed perite  struitur et est aliquis scindendi obsonii magister? (Sen. Dial. 7.17.2—NB: coordination); Hunc ego non ut multi sed artissime diligo. (Plin. Ep. 6.8.2—NB: coordination)55 Estne intus nunc Phronesium? # Utut aliis, tibi quidem intus. (Pl. Truc. 188) Itaque ille perfectus quem iam dudum nostra indicat oratio, utcumque se affectum videri et animum audientis moveri volet, ita certum vocis admovebit sonum. (Cic. Orat. 55); (sc. Theophrastus scripsit) . . . quae essent in re publica rerum inclinationes et momenta temporum, quibus esset moderandum, utcumque res postularet. (Cic. Fin. 5.11) Sicut tuom vis unicum gnatum tuae / superesse vitae sospitem et superstitem, / ita ted optestor . . . (Pl. As. 16–18); Atque utinam, sicut mihi tota in hac causa versatus ante oculos, sic nunc horum te offeras mentibus . . . (Cic. Scaur. 49) Suspensaeque diu lacrimae fluxere per ora, / qualiter abiecta de nive manat aqua. (Ov. Am. 1.7.57–8) Non enim quem ad modum si quaesitum ex eo sit stellarum numerus par an impar sit, item si de officio multisque aliis de rebus, in quibus versatus exercitatus, nescire se dicat. (Cic. Luc. 110); . . . primo in magna spe fuit quemadmodum Rhodiam classem ad Samum circumsessis ad exitum faucibus portus expugnasset, sic et Romanam expugnaturum. (Liv. 37.28.6); Et quo modo hominum inter homines 55 This instance is quoted by Van Laer (2013: 413).

Manner clauses 273 iuris esse vincula putant, sic homini nihil iuris esse cum bestiis. (Cic. Fin. 3.67); Quo modo in militia aut via fessus adminiculum orarem, ita in hoc itinere vitae senex . . . praesidium peto. (Tac. Ann. 14.54.2); Nam quomodo fama non est unius sermo nec infamia unius mala existimatio, sic nec claritas uni bono placuisse. (Sen. Ep. 102.8) Ceu cum frigore inhorruimus, tremor sequitur, sic terras quoque spiritus extrinsecus accidens quassat. (Sen. Nat. 6.24.4) Some of the corresponding adverbs (e.g. proinde) are also found with the comparative particle atque/ac. There the particle and the phrase or clause it introduces must be considered obligatory constituents required by the valency of proinde in the same way as atque in expressions like aliter atque and idem atque—see § 20.15. Sometimes two events may be compared which are in contrast with each other, with ita or sic in the main clause and (sic)ut in the manner clause (‘while . . . at the same time’ (OLD s.v. ut § 5b)). Seneca has an instance of quemadmodum used in this way. Examples are (h)–(k). (h) Nam ut (sc. Pausanias) virtutibus eluxit, sic vitiis est obrutus. (‘For while he possessed conspicuous merits, yet he was overloaded with defects.’ Nep. Paus. 1.1) (i) Saguntini ut a proeliis quietem habuerant . . . ita non nocte, non die umquam cessaverant ab opere . . . (‘The Saguntines, though they had had a rest from fighting . . . neither by night nor by day had ever ceased from labour . . .’ Liv. 21.11.5) (j) Ceterum iter multo quam [ut] in ascensu fuerat, ut pleraque Alpium ab Italia sicut breviora ita adrectiora sunt, difficilius fuit. (‘The rest of the path was much more difficult than it was along the ascent, as indeed most parts of the Alps from the Italian side are shorter but more precipitous.’ Liv. 21.35.11) (k) Nam quemadmodum sola non prosunt, sic curationem adiuvant. (‘For though, by themselves, they are of no avail, yet they are a help towards the cure.’ Sen. Ep. 94.36) Quatenus meaning quomodo is found in Late Latin, from Tertullian onwards, as in (l).56 (l) Sequitur itaque ut, quatenus circumcisionis carnalis et legis veteris abolitio expuncta suis temporibus demonstratur, ita sabbati quoque observatio temporaria fuisse demonstretur. (‘It follows, accordingly, that, in the same way as the abolition of carnal circumcision and of the old law is demonstrated as having been consummated at its specific times, so also the observance of the Sabbath is demonstrated to have been temporary.’ Tert. Iud. 4.1)

56 See Wölfflin (1888: 407–8).

274

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position

If the main and subordinate clause would contain more or less identical constituents one of them may remain implicit in either clause, as is shown in (m) and (n): nominabatur is not repeated as nominatur; erat not as est. (m)

Mensa vinaria rotunda nominabatur cilibantum, ut etiam nunc in castris. (‘A round table for wine was formerly called a cilliba, as even now it is in the camp.’ Var. L. 5.121)

(n)

Antiquis enim torus e stramento erat, qualiter etiam nunc in castris. (‘For people in old times had bedding of straw, in the same way as in camp now.’ Plin. Nat. 8.193)

. Attitudinal manner clauses (disjuncts) Attitudinal manner clauses give evidence for the content of the main clause (or a part of it), situate it in a general context, or qualify the assertion in some way (see also § 6.2). These clauses represent the point of view of the speaker and are therefore usually in the indicative mood, and often in the present tense. Examples are (a)–(c). A number of such ut clauses have become idioms, such as ut opinor ‘as I think’ and ut videtur ‘as it seems’. Manner clauses are also used as disjuncts to justify or to comment on the wording chosen in the main clause. Examples are (d) and (e). Sometimes the ut clause can be interpreted in a causal sense, as in (f).57 In these attitudinal manner clauses the emphasizer quidem is quite common.58 (a)

Pol ego ut rem video, tu inventu’s, vera vanitudine / qui convincas. (‘As I see this matter, you’ve been found to be the sort of person who confutes the truth with falsehood.’ Pl. Capt. 569–70)

(b)

Ut sunt humana, nihil est perpetuom datum. (‘Nothing, as is the way with all things human, is given for good.’ Pl. Cist. 194)

(c)

Nominatae, ut ait Ennius, Titienses ab Tatio, Ramnenses ab Romulo, Luceres, ut Iunius, ab Lucumone; sed omnia hec vocabula Tusca, ut Volnius, qui tragoedias Tuscas scripsit, dicebat. (‘These tribes were named, as Ennius says, the Titienses from Tatius, the Ramnenses from Romulus, the Luceres, according to Junius, from Lucumo; but all these words are Etruscan, as Volnius, who wrote tragedies in Etruscan, stated.’ Var. L. 5.55)

57 Gibert (2007) deals with attitudinal manner clauses; some examples are taken from his article. For terminology and criteria, see also Revuelta (2002: 203–25). Many examples can be found in Lodge s.v. ut 924B–925A, who observes: ‘comparatio parenthetica est, non genuina’. Also OLD s.v. ut §§ 20–2. In Sz. the use of ut in expressions like ut opinor is called ‘parenthetical’ (634). So also Fontana  (1997), Bolkestein (1998a)—on the differences between parenthetical expressions of opinion in the use of ut— and already K.-St.: II.450. For the causal interpretation of ut clauses, see Baños  (2014: 73–7) and Van Laer (2014). 58 So Kroon (2009b: 154).

Manner clauses 275 (d)

Quid erat induta? An regillam induculam an mendiculam? / # Impluviatam, ut istaec faciunt vestimentis nomina. (‘What did she wear? The royal or the beggarly dress? The marbled dress, as those women invent names for their clothes.’ Pl. Epid. 223–4)

(e)

‘Serit arbores quae alteri saeculo prosient’, ut ait Statius noster in Synephebis. (‘He plants the trees to serve another age, as our Caecilius Statius says in his Young Comrades.’ Cic. Sen. 24)

(f)

Pallida est, ut peperit puerum. (‘She’s pale, as having given birth to a boy.’ Pl. Truc. 576) Supplement: Content: Homo hic ebrius est, ut opinor. (Pl. Am. 574); Quom me adiit, ut pudentem gnatum aequom est patrem, / cupio esse amicae quod det argentum suae. (Pl. As. 82–3); Salvos sum. Salva spes est, ut verba audio. (Pl. Cas. 312); . . . nescio, nisi, ut meus est animus, fieri non posse arbitror. (Pl. Cist. 5); Nam hic latro in Sparta fuit, / ut quidem ipse nobis dixit, apud regem Attalum. (Pl. Poen. 663–4); . . . quasi Dircam olim, ut memorant, duo gnati Iovis / devinxere ad taurum . . . (Pl. Ps. 199–200); Atque ut nunc valide fluctuat mare, nulla nobis spes est. (Pl. Rud. 303); Ita, ut ingenium’st omnium / hominum ab labore proclive ad lubidinem, / accepit condicionem, dehinc quaestum occipit. (Ter. An. 77–9); Tria sunt enim, ut quidem ego sentio, quae sint efficienda dicendo. (Cic. Brut. 185); Natura nulla est, ut mihi videtur, quae non habeat in suo genere res complures dissimiles inter se, quae tamen consimili laude dignentur. (Cic. de Orat. 3.25); Quinti fratris epistulam ad te misi, non satis humane illam quidem respondentem meis litteris, sed tamen quod tibi satis sit, ut equidem existimo. (Cic. Att. 13.47a.2); Quod reliquum est, cottidie tabellarios habebis et, ut ego arbitror, etiam quid scribas habebis cottidie. (Cic. Att. 16.15.3); Ad alteram partem succedunt Ubii, quorum fuit civitas ampla atque florens, ut est captus Germanorum. (Caes. Gal. 4.3.3); Patre usus est diligente et, ut tum erant tempora, diti . . . (Nep. Att. 1.2—NB: at the adjective phrase level); Pastor Aristaeus fugiens Peneia Tempe / amissis, ut fama, apibus morboque fameque / tristis ad extremi sacrum caput adstitit amnis . . . (Verg. G. 4.317–19); Paucae civitates, ut quidem ego audio, quas vicina maxime hiberna premebant in ius dicionemque venerunt. (Liv. 40.35.13); . . . a sole numquam absistens partibus sex atque quadraginta longius, ut Timaeo placet. (Plin. Nat. 2.38); Circuitus vero totius Ponti viciens semel L, ut auctor est Varro et fere veteres. (Plin. Nat. 4.77); M. Sergio, ut equidem arbitror, nemo quemquam hominum iure praetulerit . . . (Plin. Nat. 7.104);59 Aesculapius . . . novissime fertur Hippolytum . . . sanasse, ita uti Eratosthenes dicit. (Hyg. Astr. 2.14, l. 578) Et, quemadmodum nostra quidem fert opinio, oratoris ars et facultas in hac materia tripertita versari existimanda est. (Cic. Inv. 1.7) Quo modo nunc se istorum artes habent, pertimescenda est multitudo causarum. (Cic. de Orat. 2.140); . . . quo modo Stoici dicunt omnis esse divites qui caelo et terra frui possint . . . (Cic. Fam. 7.16.3); Sed, quo modo video, si aestimationes tuas vendere

59 For more instances from Pliny the Elder, see Tarriño (2004: 364). For Pliny the Elder’s use of sicut(i), see also Duarte (2019).

276

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position non potes neque ollam denariorum implere, Romam tibi remigandum est. (Cic. Fam. 9.18.4); Quo modo quidem nunc se res habet, modo ut haec nobis loca tenere liceat . . . (Cic. Fam. 14.14.1); Sed quomodo dicunt—ego nihil scio, sed audivi—cum Incuboni pilleum rapuisset, et thesaurum invenit. (Petr. 38.8 (Hermeros speaking)) Style: O praeclarum custodem ovium, ut aiunt, lupum! (Cic. Phil. 3.27); Venio nunc ad istius quemadmodum ipse appellat studium, ut amici eius, morbum et insaniam, ut Siculi, latrocinium. (Cic. Ver. 4.1); Quam ob rem, si ornate locutus est, sicut et fertur et mihi videtur, physicus ille Democritus, materies . . . (Cic. de Orat. 1.49); Quamvis sphaeram in scaenam, ut dicitur, attulerit Ennius, tamen in sphaera fornicis similitudo inesse non potest. (Cic. de Orat. 3.162); . . . cum isdem ad calcem ut dicitur pervenire. (Cic. Amic. 101); . . . de omni animi, ut ego posui, perturbatione, morbo, ut Graeci volunt, explicabo. (Cic. Tusc. 3.13); Hunc censes primis ut dicitur labris gustasse physiologiam id est naturae rationem, qui quicquam quod ortum sit putet aeternum esse posse? (Cic. N.D. 1.20); Hic tum, ut ait Ennius, nostri ‘cessere parumper’. (B. Hisp. 23.3) In nullo genere aeque facilis mixtura cum fero, qualiter natos antiqui hybridas vocabant . . . (Plin. Nat. 8.213) Appendix: Causally interpreted ut clauses (as in (f) above) are sometimes treated as identical to the use of ut clauses that characterize the property of a constituent in the main clause (see § 20.25).60 A few more examples in which a causal interpretation is possible are: Atque in pauca, ut occupatus nunc sum, confer quid velis. (Pl. Ps. 278); . . . aiunt hominem, ut erat furiosus, respondisse . . . (Cic. S.  Rosc. 33); Horum auctoritate finitimi adducti, ut sunt Gallorum subita et repentina consilia, eadem de causa Trebium Terrasidiumque retinent . . . (Caes. Gal. 3.8.3); . . . exploratores hostium, ut omni fluminis parte erant dispositi, inopinantes quod . . . a nostris opprimuntur. (Caes. Gal. 7.61.1); Sed ubi ille adsedit, Catilina, ut erat paratus ad dissimulanda omnia, demisso voltu, voce supplici postulare a patribus coepit, ne quid de se temere crederent. (Sal. Cat. 31.7); . . . consulem invenerunt, quam poterant maxime miserabilem bonis sociis, superbis atque infidelibus, ut erant Campani, spernendum. (Liv. 23.5.1); Ipsi, ut est volgus sine rectore praeceps pavidum socors, adventante Civile raptis temere armis ac statim omissis, in fugam vertuntur. (Tac. Hist. 4.37.1)

This type of ut clause can also be used with constituents at a lower level, as in (g), where ut Poenus justifies the qualification expressed by the attribute acutus. Such cases are discussed in § 20.27. (g)

A Clitomacho sumam . . . homo et acutus ut Poenus et valde studiosus ac diligens. (‘I shall take it from Clitomachus . . . a clever fellow as being a Carthaginian, and also extremely studious and industrious.’ Cic. Luc. 98)

60 So K.-St.: II.451–2.

Manner clauses 277

. Illocutionary manner clauses (disjuncts) Illocutionary manner disjuncts either denote what the status of the content of the main clause is in relation to its context or they aim at the involvement of the audience in what is being said. Examples are (a)–(b) and (c), respectively.61 (a)

Quamquam, ut iam dudum dixi, resciscet tamen / Amphitruo rem omnem. (‘Still, as I told you some time since, Amphitruo will find out the whole thing all the same.’ Pl. Am. 491–2)

(b)

In quo ego tam subito et exiguo et turbido tempore multa divinitus, ita ut dixi, non mea sponte providi . . . (‘In that crisis, so sudden, so sharp, so stormy, I showed great foresight guided, just as I have said, not by my own resources but by divine inspiration.’ Cic. Sul. 43)

(c)

Ita sum, ut videtis, splendens stella candida, / signum quod semper tempore exoritur suo / hic atque in caelo. (‘I am the way you see me: resplendent with a shining star, a constellation that always rises in its due season here and in heaven.’ Pl. Rud. 3–5) Supplement: Fugitivos ille, ut dixeram ante, huius patri, / domo quem profugiens dominum apstulerat, vendidit. (Pl. Capt. 17–18); Ita ut occepi dicere, / lenulle, de illac pugna Pentetronica, / quom sexaginta milia hominum uno die / volaticorum manibus occidi meis. (Pl. Poen. 470–3); Mercatorem autem strenuum studiosumque rei quaerendae existimo, verum, ut supra dixi, periculosum et calamitosum. (Cato Agr. pr. 3); Hic di immortales, ut supra dixi, mentem illi perdito ac furioso dederunt, ut huic faceret insidias. (Cic. Mil. 88); Is igitur, ut dico, Timarchides in omnes civitates accepto pretio censores dimisit. (Cic. Ver. 2.136); Quare cum genere idem sit, fit aliud, quod parte quadam et specie, ut diximus, differat. (Cic. Inv. 1.40); Quid de Paulo aut Africano loquar aut, ut iam ante, de Maximo? (Cic. Sen. 61); Scilicet, ut tu scribis, casus consilium nostri itineris iudicabit. (Cic. Att. 15.25.1); Erat vallis inter duas acies, ut supra demonstratum est, non ita magna at difficili et arduo ascensu. (Caes. Civ. 2.34.1);62 Interim ii qui ad alteram partem oppidi, ut supra demonstravimus, munitionis causa convenerant . . . (Caes. Gal. 7.48.1); Tenebat adversum oppidum e  regione pon, ut supra scripsimus, tripertito. (B.  Hisp. 5.2); Ipsius triquetrae, ut diximus, promunturium Pelorum vocatur . . . (Plin. Nat. 3.87); Sed, ut coeperam dicere, ad hanc me fortunam frugalitas mea perduxit. (Petr. 75.10 (Trimalchio speaking)); Missus tamen Drusus, ut rettulimus, paci firmator. (Tac. Ann. 2.46.5) Cyperos iuncus est, qualiter diximus, angulosus . . . (Plin. Nat. 21.117) Sed in animo est, quemadmodum ante dixi, leviter transire ac tantummodo perstringere unamquamque rem . . . (Cic. S. Rosc. 91)

61 For the illocutionary use of ut clauses, see Griffe (1985). For instances with the verb dico, see TLL s.v. 973.48ff. and Garcea (2003: 192–4). 62 For the word order demonstratum est, typical for this type of clause, see Devine and Stephens (2006: 189–90).

278

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position Nuper quidem, ut scitis, me ad regiam paene confecit. (Cic. Mil. 37); Piso igitur hoc modo, vir optimus tuique, ut scis, amantissimus. (Cic. Fin. 4.73); L.  Coelius Antipater scriptor, quemadmodum videtis, fuit ut temporibus illis luculentus, iuris valde peritus, multorum etiam, ut L. Crassi, magister. (Cic. Brut. 102)

16.37 Degree clauses (adjuncts) Autonomous relative clauses with quod can be used to indicate the degree to which what is stated in the main clause is (was, will be) realized. Examples are (a)–(b). These clauses are normally in the indicative.63 Quantum is occasionally found as well, as in (d)–(f). These clauses resemble the clauses of qualification discussed in § 16.83. (a)

Ill’, quod in se fuit, accuratum habuit quod posset mali / faceret in me . . . (‘As far as was in his power he took pains to do me all the harm he could.’ Pl. Bac. 550–1)

(b)

Di istaec prohibeant! # Deos nescio. Ego, quod potero, sedulo. (‘May the gods forbid it. # I don’t know as to the gods; so far as I shall be enabled, I will carefully prevent it.’ Ter. Hau. 1038)

(c)

Quae tibi mandavi et quae tu intelleges convenire nostro Tusculano velim, ut scribis, cures, quod sine molestia tua facere poteris. (‘What I commissioned you to get for me, and anything you see suitable to my Tusculan villa, I should be glad if you will, as you say in your letter, procure for me, so far as you can without putting yourself to too much trouble.’ Cic. Att. 1.5.7)

(d)

Postidea domum / me rursum quantum potero tantum recipiam. (‘Afterwards I’ll return home again as quickly as I can.’ Pl. Aul. 118–19)

(e)

Quam (sc. fidem) qui laedit oppugnat omnium commune praesidium et, quantum in ipso est, disturbat vitae societatem. (‘One who violates this promise attacks what is the common safeguard of all, and, as far as it is in his power, ruins all social life.’ Cic. S. Rosc. 111)

(f)

Illum deum (cj. Eden) ab Iove, quem, quantum quidem in illo fuit damnavit incesti? (‘That he was made god by Iuppiter, whom he, as far as was in his power, condemned on the accusation of incest?’ Sen. Apoc. 8.2)

There are related expressions with the relative adverbs quatenus ‘to the extent to which’ (OLD s.v. 7a) and quoad ‘to the degree that’ (OLD s.v. 3a), as in (g) and (h), respectively. See also § 16.53 on stipulative clauses. (g)

. . . vulgus quod absit a perfecto non fere intellegit, quatenus autem intellegit, nihil putat praetermissum. 63 See Hale (1891) and D’Elia (1975).

Degree and respect clauses

279

(‘. . . the common crowd does not, as a rule, comprehend how far it falls short of real perfection, but, to the extent to which they do comprehend they think there is no deficiency.’ Cic. Off. 3.15)

(h)

. . . animo non deficiam et id quod suscepi, quoad potero, perferam. (‘. . . I will not lose courage, but will accomplish to the best of my ability the task which I have undertaken.’ Cic. S. Rosc. 10) Most grammars distinguish two types of comparative clauses, those of manner (discussed in this Syntax in §§ 16.33–6) and those of degree, which are discussed in this paragraph. For comparative clauses with ut, see §§ 20.24–7. See also § 16.83.64

16.38 Respect clauses (disjuncts) Respect clauses identify a state of affairs or an entity for which the information contained in the main clause is particularly relevant. The subordinating device is quod ‘as for’, ‘with regard to’. These clauses, which are usually found in sentence-initial position, present the frame for the information of the main clause and often make reference to the preceding context or to an earlier exchange, as in (a) and (b). For an embedded quod clause, see (c). They are illocutionary disjuncts.65 (See also § 16.83.) (a)

Quod ille gallinam aut columbam se sectari aut simiam / dicat, disperistis, ni usque ad mortem male mulcassitis. (‘As to the fact that he might say he was chasing a hen or a dove or a monkey, you’re done for, unless you savagely beat him to death.’ Pl. Mil. 162–3)

(b)

Romae quod scribis sileri, ita putabam. (‘As to the fact that you write that there is silence in Rome, so I thought.’ Cic. Att. 2.13.2)

(c)

Quare quom ad analogias quod pertineat non est ut omnia similia dicantur . . . (‘Since therefore so far as concerns the Regularities it is not essential that all words that are spoken should be alike in their systems . . .’ Var. L. 9.83) Supplement: Quod illa aut amicum aut patronum nominet / aut quod illa amicai amatorem praedicet, / fores occlusae omnibus sint nisi tibi. (Pl. As. 757–9); Ingenium patris habet, quod sapit. (Pl. Poen. 1198a);66 Sane quod tibi nunc vir videatur esse hic, nebulo magnus est. (Ter. Eu. 785); Nam ita me di ament, quod me accusat nunc vir, sum extra noxiam. (Ter. Hec. 276); Quod quisque pecudes in calleis viasve publicas itneris causa indubus vieie publiceis pastum inpulsum itineris causa erit neiquid populo eive publicano d6

The negation word in concessive clauses is non. The concessive clause more often precedes the main clause, but it may also follow, or be inserted. As in other complex 200 Details can be found in Spevak (1998). 201 Quantitative data on the use of si compounds in the history of Latin can be found in a Table compiled by J.B. Hofmann in Burckhardt’s article in TLL s.v. etiamsi 964.59ff. The data in Martín Puente (2002) are slightly different. I use her information on etiamsi and quamquam. The data on quamvis come from the LLT. The data on licet are from Spevak (2001: 338).

356

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position

sentences, the actual order depends on the distribution of topical and focal information over main and subordinate clauses. Main clauses that follow the subordinate clause often contain an adversative adverb (especially tamen, also nihilominus and the connector at). Here, too, there is variation from author to author, and the frequency of concessive or adversative expressions in the main clause varies by concessive subordinator. Only 12 out of 255 instances of the subordinator quamquam in Cicero’s prose are found without tamen in the main clause; figures for etsi (17/307) and tametsi (1/65) show a similar proportion. By contrast, the scalar concessive quamvis and the concessive conditional etiamsi occur without tamen much more frequently (quamvis 50/99; etiamsi 192/342).202 A few examples with quamquam are (d)–(f).203 In (g), the first tamen connects the entire complex sentence with the preceding sentence.204 More instances of such expressions in the main clause can be found in the sections on the individual subordinators. (d)

. . . et quamquam hoc tibi aegre est, tamen fac accures. (‘. . . and although this upsets you, make sure you prepare it nevertheless.’ Pl. Cas. 421)

(e)

Quod ego quamquam quid sit nescio, tamen hoc statuo, hunc, si amicus esset Pompeio, laudaturum illum non fuisse. (‘Although I do not know what this means, nevertheless my conviction is that if Clodius were a friend to Pompeius he would not have congratulated him.’ Cic. Har. 52)

(f)

Quamquam ego vinum bibo, at mandata / non consuevi simul bibere una. (‘Even though I do drink wine, it isn’t my custom to drink down your commands at the same time.’ Pl. Per. 170–70a)

(g)

Sed tamen Lurconem quamquam pro sua dignitate moderatus est in testimonio dicendo religioni suae, tamen iratum Flacco esse vidistis. (‘Nevertheless, you saw that, although Lurco with his usual dignity restrained himself when giving evidence, he was nevertheless angry with Flaccus.’ Cic. Flac. 87)

Three of these words (quamquam, etsi, and tametsi) are also used as contrastive connectors of sentences as in (h), where the connector etsi is followed by the subordinator quamvis, and in (i), where quamquam is the connector and etsi the subordinator. The relationship between such independent sentences and the preceding sentences is one of comment, correction, or clarification. It therefore resembles the relationship between attitudinal and illocutionary concessive clauses and their corresponding main clauses. In Cicero roughly half of the instances of these words are sentence

202 See Martín Puente  (2002: 50, 88, 103, 135), Eckert  (2003: 226–37), and Spevak  (2005c: 147–9; 2006c: 225, Table 2). There are sequences of tamen in a main clause and concessive subordinators in a following concessive clause, but no real instances of correlation (see also Spevak 2005c: 154). 203 A survey of correlating expressions with etiamsi and etsi can be found in TLL s.v. 968.21ff. and 974.49ff.; 976.44ff. 204 The example is taken from Martín Puente (1998a: 314).

Concessive clauses

357

connectors (quamquam more than half, etsi less).205 Often it is difficult to decide whether the sentences are really independent. Editors vary in the way they punctuate before such concessive sequences. See also § 24.34. (h)

Etsi, quamvis non fueris suasor et impulsor profectionis meae, at probator certe fuisti, dum modo Kal. Ian. Romae essem. (‘All the same, although you did not recommend or instigate my trip, you certainly did approve of it, provided I was back in Rome on the Kalends of January.’ Cic. Att. 16.7.2)

(i)

Quamquam haec quidem iam tolerabilia videbantur, etsi aequabiliter in rem  publicam, in privatos, in longinquos, in propinquos, in alienos, in suos inruebat. (‘Still, such acts as these came to be looked on as endurable, although he encroached equally upon the state, upon individuals, upon those at hand, upon those at a distance, upon foreigners, upon his very own.’ Cic. Mil. 76)

Etsi, quamquam, and later licet are also used as concessive particles with constituents below the clause level. This use is relatively rare in the Classical period, but it becomes more frequent in later authors. The following examples show the types of constituent modified by concessive particles (no chronology implied). In (j) and (k) etsi and quamquam, respectively, modify attributive adjectives (note tamen in (k)). In (l)–(n) etsi and quamquam are used with appositive adjectives (note tamen in (m) and the position of quamquam in (n)). Ex. (o) shows the use of quamquam with an adverb functioning as a satellite. Exx. (p) and (q) show a prepositional and a noun phrase functioning as satellites. (j)

Nam etsi iustum dolorem pudor impediebat. (‘For shame impeded his pain, even though it was just.’ Tac. Ann. 11.35.2)

(k)

Et patres quamquam rem parvam, tamen . . . laeti accepere id . . . (‘The senators, though it was a small matter, nevertheless gladly welcomed it . . .’ Liv. 4.8.5)

(l)

. . . quaedam adferunt per se adiuvantia, etsi non necessaria . . . (‘. . . and add certain things which themselves give aid, although they are not necessary . . .’ Cic. Top. 59)

(m)

. . . Metelloque Numidia evenerat, acri viro et, quamquam advorso populi partium, fama tamen aequabili et inviolata. (‘. . . Numidia had fallen to Metellus, a man of spirit and, although he was an opponent of the popular party, of a nevertheless consistently unblemished reputation.’ Sal. Jug. 43.1)

(n)

Haec, mira quamquam, fidem ex eo trahebant . . . (‘The tale, though remarkable, drew credibility from this . . .’ Tac. Ann. 6.30.4) 205 See the table in Martín Puente (2002: 143).

358 (o)

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position . . . responsumque quamquam non inutiliter, fortuito tamen magis consensu quam communi consilio esse. (‘. . . and although a not useless answer had been returned, yet this had been due rather to their happening to feel alike about the matter than to a concerted plan.’ Liv. 3.51.1)

(p)

Nam et si dicatur, licet ex occasione materiae, suo tamen arbitrio bona protulisse (sc. Deum) . . . (‘Now, if it be also argued, that although matter may have afforded Him the opportunity, it was still His own will which led Him to the creation of good creatures . . .’ Tert. Hermog. 14.1—tr. Holmes)

(q)

. . . C.  Caesar . . . quamquam sua sponte eximiaque virtute, tamen approbatione auctoritatis meae colonias patrias adiit . . . (‘. . . Gaius Caesar . . . although of his own accord and by his own rare virtue, yet with the warranty of my authority, entered the colonies founded by his father . . .’ Cic. Phil. 5.23)

Concession may be expressed in other ways besides subordination with specialized subordinators. In (c) at the beginning of this section there are two independent sentences. Tamen in the second sentence signals that the speaker expected another outcome of the state of affairs described in the first sentence (for details about concessive sentence connexion and how it differs from concessive subordination, see § 24.31). For the concessive interpretation of cum, and ut clauses, see §  16.31 and §  16.82, respectively. For the concessive interpretation of relative clauses, see § 18.24. For the concessive interpretation of participial clauses and secondary predicates, see § 16.89 and § 21.17.206 For the concessive interpretation of generalizing autonomous relative clauses, see § 18.33. Concessive clauses (not with all concessive subordinators) are used as adjuncts and as attitudinal and illocutionary disjuncts, as discussed below in §§ 16.70–2.207

. So-called concessive conditional clauses Clauses introduced by etsi are normally understood as concessive clauses. However, in a way comparable to what is shown for si clauses, the relation between the content of the etsi clause and the main clause may be such that it is interpreted as conditional rather than as concessive. This is illustrated by (a) and (b), where de Melo’s Loeb translation has ‘even if ’. The use of et alone in the sense ‘even’ is Post-Classical and poetic.208 This is different in the case of etiamsi (etiam si), because etiam is used in this 206 For the definition of ‘concession’ and the various forms in which this may be expressed, see Bertocchi and Maraldi (2011: 139–43) and Spevak (2005b: Introduction), with references. Also—briefly— Martín Puente (2002: 21–5). 207 Crevels (2000) distinguishes four types of concessive relations within the framework of Functional Grammar: content, epistemic, speech-act, and textual (the latter concern sentence connexion). For another, related, approach, see Spevak (2005b). 208 See TLL s.v. 908.22ff.

Concessive clauses

359

sense from Early Latin onwards (though for that period the combination of it with si is not beyond doubt). From signalling an extreme condition etiamsi developed into a concessive subordinator. In Cicero’s time it is used in both senses. The conditional interpretation of etsi and etiamsi clauses is especially likely in cases like (b) and (e), with the subjunctive mood.209 The scalar concessive subordinator quamvis resembles etiamsi insofar as it may indicate that what its clause refers to is indeed the case to a very high or extreme degree (for details, see below, §  16.75). However, it lacks the conditional aspect of etiamsi.210 Additionally, strengthening of the conditional subordinator (like etiamsi) and of free-choice indefinites (like quamvis) is a well-known source for concessive expressions in many languages.211 For a conditional interpretation of licet, see (f). (a)

Etsi pervivo usque ad summam aetatem, tamen / breve spatium est perferundi quae minitas mihi. (‘Even if I live to a great age, it’s still only a short period for me to bear what you’re threatening me with.’ Pl. Capt. 742–3)

(b)

Pol etsi taceas, palam id quidem est. Res ipsa test’est. (‘Even if you were to be silent it would be obvious: the facts speak for themselves.’ Pl. Aul. 421)

(c)

Etiamsi dudum fuerat ambiguom hoc mihi, / nunc non est, quom eam [con]sequitur alienus puer. (‘Even if this had been in doubt for me for a long time, it’s not now, since someone else’s child is following her.’ Ter. Hec. 648–9)

(d)

Eundem igitur esse creditote, etiamsi nullum videbitis. (‘Believe therefore that the same thing exists, even if you do not see it.’ Cic. Sen. 79)

(e)

Etiamsi propter amicitiam vellet illum ab inferis evocare, propter rem publicam non fecisset. (‘Even if he had been desirous for friendship’s sake of summoning him from the dead, for the commonwealth’s sake he would have refrained from doing so.’ Cic. Mil. 79)

(f)

. . . nec tibi parsero, licet mehercules Iovem Olympium clames. (‘. . . and I shall not spare you, even though by Hercules you cry out to Olympian Jove.’ Petr. 58.5 (Hermeros speaking))

209 For etsi, see TLL s.v. 974.10ff., Mellet (2002), and Spevak (2005b: 107, n. 91). The concessive conditional interpretation of etsi is rejected by Martín Puente  (2002) and Bertocchi and Maraldi  (2011: 148–50). For etiamsi, see TLL s.v. 965.78ff., Martín Puente (1998b), and Mellet (2002: 258–9). 210 For a different view, see Bertocchi and Maraldi (2010a). 211 See König and Siemund  (2000), Spevak  (2005b: 11–25), Bertocchi and Maraldi  (2010a; 2011: 140–2).

360

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position

. Concessive and concessive conditional clauses functioning as adjunct The most common use of concessive and concessive conditional quamquam, quamvis, etsi, tametsi, etiamsi, and licet clauses is as adjuncts. Examples are (a)–(f). In all these cases the natural cause and effect relationship between the states of affairs in the subordinate and main clauses is in some way frustrated. Concessive adjunct clauses usually precede their main clause, and tamen is quite frequent with the purely concessive subordinators (for concessive conditionals, see § 16.69). (a)

Quamquam ego serva sum, / scio ego officium meum . . . (‘Even though I’m a slave girl, I know my duty . . .’ Pl. Per. 615–16)

(b)

. . . ut . . . quamvis civis Romanus esset, in crucem tolleretur. (‘. . . that even if he were a Roman citizen, he might be put on the cross.’ Cic. Ver. 5.168)

(c)

Nil habeo certi quid loquar. Non vidi eam, etsi vidi. (‘I don’t have anything definite to say: I didn’t see her, even if I did.’ Pl. Mil. 407)

(d)

Tam etsi fur mihi es, molestus non ero. (‘Even though you are a thief in my eyes, I won’t make trouble.’ Pl. Aul. 768)

(e)

. . . sed in animo revolvente iras, etiam si impetus offensionis languerat, memoria valebat. (‘. . . but in his heart, brooding over its grounds for wrath, even if the first transport of resentment might have died down, memory lived.’ Tac. Ann. 4.21.1)

(f)

Licet tibi, ut scribis, significarim ut ad me venires, id dono tamen et intellego te istic prodesse, hic ne verbo quidem levare me posse. (‘Although I may have suggested to you, as you say, that you should join me, nevertheless I give that up, and realize that you are helping me where you are, whereas you could do nothing even verbally to lighten my load here.’ Cic. Att. 3.12.3—NB: an early instance of licet as a subordinator in a reported statement) Supplement: Quid, impurate? Quamquam Volcano studes, / cenaene causa aut tuae mercedis gratia / nos nostras aedis postulas comburere? (Pl. Aul. 359–61); Aetoli cives te salutamus, Lyce, / quamquam hanc salutem ferimus inviti tibi . . . (Pl. Poen. 621–2); Quamquam ad ignotum arbitrum me appellis, si adhibebit fidem, / etsi ignotu’st, notu’s. Si non, notus ignotissumu’st. (Pl. Rud. 1043–4); Quamquam estis nihili, tam ecastor simul vobis consului. (Titin. com. 157); Quamquam enim adsunt Kalendae Ianuariae, tamen breve tempus longum est imparatis. (Cic. Phil. 3.2); Quoi quamquam virtus, gloria atque alia optanda bonis superabant, tamen inerat contemptor animus et superbia, commune nobilitatis malum. (Sal. Jug. 64.1); Gratum primoribus civitatis etiam plebs adprobavit, quod reversis ab exilio iura libertorum concessisset, quamquam id omni modo servilia ingenia corrumpebant . . . (Tac. Hist. 2.92.3); Quamquam autem distulerim congressionem . . ., non erit delibationi

Concessive clauses

361

transfunctoria expugnatio. (Tert. Val. 6.2); Quamquam sitierit te anima mea, tamen multo te plus carnis meae labore quaesivi . . . (Hier. Ep. 122.1.13) Quamvis sphaeram in scaenam, ut dicitur, attulerit Ennius, tamen in sphaera fornicis similitudo inesse non potest. (Cic. de Orat. 3.162); Nam quamvis de mensura minus auctoribus convenit, hanc tamen videri commodissimam docuit noster usus. (Col. 2.9.1); Palumbis et turtur plurimum terna nec plus quam bis vere pariunt, atque ita, si prior fetus corruptus est et ut, quamvis III pepererint, numquam plus II educant. (Plin. Nat. 10.158); Neque miseratus est posthac Tiberius, quamvis domus Hortensii pudendam ad inopiam delaberetur. (Tac. Ann. 2.38.5); Nec ipsa mali relevatio fit per communionem cladis sed per solatium caritatis, ut quamvis alii ferendo patiuntur alii cognoscendo compatiuntur, communis sit tamen tribulatio . . . (August. Ep. 99.2) Sed quod crebro videt, non miratur, etiamsi, cur fiat, nescit. (Cic. Div. 2.49); Nam ista veritas, etiam si iucunda non est, mihi tamen grata est. (Cic. Att. 3.24.2); Apud quem etiam si caritate a fratre maiore vincor, misericordia certe reus vinci non debeo. (Liv. 40.15.15); In hac controversia, etiamsi coniecturalis est et habet quasi certum tritumque iter, fuit tamen aliqua inter declamantis dissensio. (Sen. Con. 7.7.10); Etiamsi credideris, nego te velle. Etiamsi volueris, nego te posse. (Tert. Apol. 8.4); . . . semper tamen credidi et esse te et curam nostri gerere, etiamsi ignorabam vel quid sentiendum esset de substantia tua vel quae via duceret aut reduceret ad te. (August. Conf. 6.5.8) Etsi mihi facta iniuria’st, verum tamen / . . . abduce hanc, minas quinque accipe. (Ter. Ph. 407–10); Quam etsi spero falsam esse, numquam tamen extenuabo. (Cic. Marc. 21); . . . Caesar . . . huc iam deduxerat rem, ut equites, etsi difficulter atque aegre fiebat, possent tamen atque auderent flumen transire . . . (Caes. Civ. 1.62.1); Quae singula etsi distrahebant rem publicam, exercebant tamen illorum temporum eloquentiam . . . (Tac. Dial. 36.4); Nam, etsi a Numa concepta est curiositas superstitiosa, nondum tamen aut simulacris aut templis res divina apud Romanos constabat. (Tert. Apol. 25.12); Qua iniquitate percitus qui audiebatur ‘etsi me,’ inquit, ‘despicit imperator, negotii tamen est magnitudo, ut non nisi iudicio principis nosci possit et vindicari.’ (Amm. 20.2.4) Non eo genere sumus prognatae, tametsi sumus servae, soror, / ut deceat nos facere quicquam quod homo quisquam irrideat. (Pl. Poen. 1201–2); Nolebat in agendo discere, tametsi non provinciae rudis erat et tiro . . . (Cic. Ver. 2.17); Nostri tametsi ab duce et a fortuna deserebantur, tamen omnem spem salutis in virtute ponebant . . . (Caes. Gal. 5.34.2); At ille, tametsi omnia potiora fide Iugurthae rebatur, tamen, quia penes eosdem, si advorsaretur, cogendi potestas erat, ita, uti censuerant Italici, deditionem facit. (Sal. Jug. 26.2); Quae tametsi maestitiam sollicito incuterent principi, residua tamen non contemnebat urgentia, dum pugnandi tempus ei veniret optatum. (Amm. 22.14.1) Quod bonum felix et faustum itaque, licet salutare non erit, Photis illa temptetur. (Apul. Met. 2.6.8); Si furioso . . . rem tradideris, licet ille non erit adeptus possessionem, tu possidere desinis. (Gaius dig. 41.2.18.1); Omnibus licet membris lavet quotidie Israel, numquam tamen mundus est. (Tert. Or. 14); Qui credit in me, licet moriatur, vivet . . . (Cypr. Mort. 21); . . . et privatus licet dici velles, inhaesit tibi ingenita maiestas. (Paneg. 7.12.4); . . . itaque quoniam episcopus, licet Siriste noverit, tamen semper Grece loquitur et nunquam Siriste. (Pereg. 47.3); . . . si quis eum adisset . . . hoc non

362

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position impetrato ad eundem, quem metuebat, licet multa praetenderet iusta, remittebatur. (Amm. 27.7.8)

When the concessive and the main clause (would) have the same verb, it is normally expressed only once, as in (g) and (h). In (g) audiebat has to be understood in the etiamsi clause, in (h) continentur has to be understood in the main clause. (g)

Erat surdaster M. Crassus, sed aliud molestius, quod male audiebat, etiamsi, ut mihi videbatur, iniuria. (‘Marcus Crassus was half-deaf; still he suffered another worse annoyance, in hearing himself spoken ill of, even if, as I thought at the time, what he heard was unjust.’ Cic. Tusc. 5.116)

(h)

Coniuges autem et liberi et fratres et alii, quos usus familiaritasque coniunxit, quamquam etiam caritate ipsa, tamen amore maxime continentur. (‘Wives, however, and children and brothers and others, who become attached to us by association and familiarity, although (they are bound to us) by actual esteem as well, are bound to us chiefly by affection.’ Cic. Part. 88)

. Concessive clauses functioning as attitudinal disjunct Concessive clauses are used as attitudinal disjuncts to mitigate, elaborate, or comment on the content of the main clause, as in (a) and (b). Ex. (c) is an example of a concessive disjunct commenting on the wording of the main clause.212 Concessive disjuncts more often follow the main clause (in such instances the main clause does not contain tamen or a related expression) and, when the concessive clause precedes, tamen is much less common than in the adjunct type. Attitudinal concessive clauses may contain disjuncts like the epistemic adverb fortasse ‘perhaps’, as in (b). (a)

Contentionis praecepta rhetorum sunt, nulla sermonis, quamquam haud scio an possint haec quoque esse. (‘There are rules for oratory laid down by rhetoricians; there are none for conversation, although perhaps these could exist as well.’ Cic. Off. 1.132)

(b)

Mihi quoque, inquit Brutus, [et] exspectanda sunt ea quae Attico polliceris, etsi fortasse ego a te huius voluntarius procurator petam, quod ipse, cui debes, incommodo exacturum negat. (‘The things which you promised Atticus, Brutus said, must also be awaited by me, even though I, as his willing agent, shall perhaps demand that which he himself, to whom you are a debtor, denies that he will exact at your inconvenience.’ Cic. Brut. 17)

(c)

Erat enim inter eos dignitate regia, quamvis carebat nomine . . . (‘As a matter of fact, he enjoyed the rank of king among them, although he didn’t hold that title . . .’ Nep. Milt. 2.3—NB: the use of the indicative fits in with the type of concessive clause: a factual comment) 212 K.-St.: II.444 use the term quamquam correctivum.

Concessive clauses

363

Supplement: Nec refert de Graeco an de Latino loquar, quamquam Graecum esse priorem placet. (Quint. Inst. 1.4.1); Non videt autem (sc. mens) quod minimum est, formam suam (quamquam fortasse id quoque, sed relinquamus). (Cic. Tusc. 1.67); Haec si torreatur aequa parte rubrica admixta, sandycem facit, quamquam animadverto Vergilium existimasse herbam id esse illo versu. (Plin. Nat. 35.40) Certe nisi sole adverso non fiunt nec umquam nisi dimidia circuli forma nec noctu, quamvis Aristoteles prodat aliquando visum, quod tamen fatetur idem non nisi XXX luna posse fieri. (Plin. Nat. 2.150); Impune erratur nisi delinquatur—quamvis et errare delinquere est—impune, inquam, vagatur qui nihil deserit. (Tert. Praescr. 11.1); Quem quidem Aurelianus idcirco dicitur occidisse, quod superbior illa epistula ipsius diceretur dictata consilio, quamvis Syro esset sermone contexta. (Hist. Aug. Aur. 30.3)213 Talia esse scripta eius non dubito, etiam si magis reminiscor quam teneo . . . (Sen. Ep. 100.12); Levissimum autem longe genus ex verbo, etiam si est apud Ciceronem in Clodiam . . . (Quint. Inst. 9.2.99) Quam ob rem . . . etsi utile est etiam subito saepe dicere, tamen illud utilius, sumpto spatio ad cogitandum, paratius atque accuratius dicere. (Cic. de Orat. 1.150); Etsi hoc, inquit, fortasse non poterit sic abire, cum hic adsit—me autem dicebat, tamen audebo te ab hac Academia nova ad veterem illam vocare . . . (Cic. Fin. 5.7); Ubi etsi  adiectum aliquid numero sit, magna certe caedes fuit. (Liv. 3.8.10); Terra etsi aliquanto specie differt, in universum tamen aut silvis horrida aut paludibus foeda . . . (Tac. Ger. 5.1) Quorum tametsi utrumque convenit orationi, tamen possis illud grammaticum, hoc rhetoricum magis dicere. (Quint. Inst. 9.3.2) Et licet multa sunt eius laudanda in huiusmodi controversiis, unum tamen sufficiet poni, ad cuius similitudinem acta vel dicta sunt. (Amm. 18.1.3); Septima decima mansio, quam in ‘lateres’ possumus vertere, licet quidam Lebona transferentes male ‘candorem’ interpretati sunt. (Hier. Ep. 78.19)

The relationship between the attitudinal concessive clause and the main clause is often one of contrast. The main clause may either contain generally acknowledged information, as in (d), or refer to someone else’s words or actions, as in (e), which is repeated from § 16.68. In these cases, the concessive clause almost always precedes. With such contrastive concessive clauses, the main clause often contains tamen or a related expression, as in (f), but also epistemic adverbs like certe ‘certainly’, utique ‘absolutely’, and profecto ‘assuredly’, as in (g)–(h).214 (d)

De futuris autem rebus etsi semper difficile est dicere, tamen interdum coniectura possis propius accedere . . . (‘Although it is always difficult to speak of things to come, nevertheless you can sometimes come quite close to the mark by guessing.’ Cic. Fam. 6.4.1)

213 This example is discussed by Spevak (2005c: 155). 214 Spevak (2005b: 58–9) calls such concessive clauses ‘confrontatives’. Most examples are taken from that source. For epistemic adverbs with etiamsi, see TLL s.v. 968.60ff.

364 (e)

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position Etsi, quamvis non fueris suasor et impulsor profectionis meae, at probator certe fuisti, dum modo Kal. Ian. Romae essem. (‘All the same, although you did not recommend or instigate my trip, you certainly did approve of it, provided I was back in Rome on the Kalends of January.’ Cic. Att. 16.7.2)

(f)

. . . quamquam omnis virtus nos ad se allicit . . ., tamen iustitia et liberalitas id maxime efficit. (‘. . . although every virtue attracts us . . . still justice and generosity do so most of all.’ Cic. Off. 1.56)

(g)

Et erat tam demens hic cui vos ingenium certe tribuitis, etiam si cetera inimica oratione detrahitis, ut omnis suas fortunas alienis servis committeret? (‘And this man, whom you certainly credit with some ability, although you deprive him of other qualities with your hostile language—was so great a fool as to entrust all his fortunes to another person’s slaves?’ Cic. Cael. 57)

(h)

Vos, etiamsi tunc faciendum non fuerit, nunc utique faciendum putatis. (‘You think that even if then it ought not to have been done, yet now at any rate it ought.’ Liv. 5.53.3) Supplement: Sed omnis loquendi elegantia, quamquam expolitur scientia litterarum, tamen augetur legendis oratoribus et poetis. (Cic. de Orat. 3.39); Qua quidem de re quamquam assentior iis, qui haec omnia regi natura putant—quae si natura neglegat, ipsa esse non possit—tamen concedo ut qui de hoc dissentiunt existiment quod velint . . . (Cic. Fin. 5.33); Ego valeo, quamvis animus aeger bonum sanitatis ignoret. (Symm. Ep. 4.74.2); Quamquam voluntas non sit in crimine, error in culpa est. (Hier. Ep. 22.8.5); Victorino martyri in libris suis, licet desit eruditio, tamen non deest eruditionis voluntas. (Hier. Ep. 70.5.2)

. Concessive clauses functioning as illocutionary disjunct Although it may be assumed that in Latin, as in other languages,215 concessive clauses function as illocutionary disjuncts to specify the relationship between the speaker and the addressee, to position the state of affairs of the main clause in a wider context, or to indicate its position in the ongoing discourse, there are not many undisputed instances.216 (a)

Ex quo, quamquam hoc videbitur fortasse cuipiam durius, tamen audeamus imitari Stoicos . . . (‘Therefore, although this will seem perhaps too strict to some, still we may dare to imitate the Stoics . . .’ Cic. Off. 1.23)

215 See Crevels (2000: 32). One of her examples is: The answer is on page 200, although I’m sure you already know that. 216 For (a), see Spevak (2005b: 40).

Concessive clauses (b)

365

Sed ea tametsi vos parvi pendebatis, tamen res publica firma erat, opulentia neglegentiam tolerabat. (‘But although you were wont to give little weight to my words, yet the state was unshaken; its prosperity put up with your neglect.’ Sal. Cat. 52.9) Supplement: Mihi quoque, inquit Brutus, [et] exspectanda sunt ea quae Attico polliceris, etsi fortasse ego a te huius voluntarius procurator petam, quod ipse, cui debes, incommodo exacturum negat. (Cic. Brut. 17); . . . teque ad hoc studium religiosa exhortatione destimulo, licet bona voluntas quae ex ingenio venit non sit agitanda calcaribus. (Symm. Ep. 5.94)

. The individual concessive subordinators: quamquam, quamvis, the si compounds, and licet The following sections deal with the individual concessive subordinators. They differ from each other in the frequency with which they are used and in the periods in which they were used. Quamquam is the most common concessive subordinator, used from Plautus onwards. Licet is Late and quamvis mainly Silver Latin. Etsi and tametsi are also used from Early Latin onwards. There are also differences between the subordinators in the use of the moods.

. Concessive clauses with quamquam Quamquam is used as a concessive subordinator from Plautus onwards to express an acknowledged fact.217 The indicative is the appropriate mood for such statements, as in (a). However, the subjunctive is also used with its normal semantic justification, as in (b), where we find a potential subjunctive.218 In addition it is found in certain wellknown syntactic configurations (see § 7.162 on ‘modal assimilation’), as in (c), where it is embedded in the ut . . . doleremus clause. The use of it without one of these semantic or syntactic justifications starts with Nepos, as in (d), and it becomes the prevalent mood in Tacitus and Pliny the Younger and in later authors. The spread of the subjunctive was probably stimulated by its use with quamvis. However, in attitudinal and illocutionary quamquam clauses the indicative is preferred for semantic reasons.219 Quamquam gradually becomes less common than quamvis.220 (a)

Pol quamquam domum cupio, opperiar . . . (‘Even though I long for home, I’ll wait . . .’ Pl. Trin. 842)

217 For the relationship between quamquam as a concessive subordinator and sed and other adversative coordinators, see Maraldi (2001). For its use as a connector, see § 24.34. 218 See Wisse et al. ad loc. 219 So also in Tertullian and Cyprian. See Waszink ad Tert. An. 38.1. 220 Details and references in Sz.: 602–3. For Livy (no semantically unmotivated instances of the subjunctive), see Ladouceur (1981).

366 (b)

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position Quae (sc. eloquentia) quamquam (quamvis L) contemnatur ab eis, necesse est tamen aliquem cumulum illorum artibus adferre videatur. (‘Although it might be despised by them, still it must seem to add some embellishment to their skills.’ Cic. de Orat. 3.143)

(c)

Ita nobismet ipsis accidit ut, quamquam essent multo magis alia lugenda, tamen hoc doleremus quod . . . (‘So it befell me that, although other things were to be lamented much more, still I grieved over the fact that . . .’ Cic. Brut. 8)

(d)

Nec praeteribo, quamquam nonnullis leve visum iri putem . . . non amplius quam terna milia peraeque in singulos menses ex ephemeride eum expensum sumptui ferre solitum. (‘I shall not pass over the fact, although I suppose that some will regard it as trivial, that we know from the entries in his day-book that he consistently limited his expenses to not more than three thousand sesterces each month.’ Nep. Att. 13.6) Supplement: Semantically justified subjunctives: Sed in versibus res est apertior, quamquam etiam a modis quibusdam cantu remoto soluta esse videatur oratio . . . (Cic. Orat. 183); Quamquam enim sensus abierit, tamen suis et propriis bonis laudis et gloriae, quamvis non sentiant, mortui non carent. (Cic. Tusc. 1.109); Nam vi quidem regere patriam aut parentis, quamquam et possis et delicta corrigas, tamen inportunum est . . . (Sal. Jug. 3.2); Nec vero Alciden me sum laetatus euntem / accepisse lacu, nec Thesea Pirithoumque, / dis quamquam geniti atque invicti viribus essent. (Verg. A. 6.392–4—a reported statement ‘although, as they said . . .’); Quamquam expertum exercitum adsuetumque imperio, qui in Volscis erat mallet, nihil recusavit. (Liv. 6.9.6) Semantically unmotivated subjunctives: Neve haec commenta putetis, / admonitu quamquam renovetur luctus amarus, / perpetiar memorare tamen. (Ov. Met. 14.464–6); Hae flexere virum voces, et, tempora quamquam / sint aliena toris iam fato in bella vocante, / foedera sola tamen vanaque carentia pompa / iura placent sacrisque deos admittere testes. (Luc. 2.350–3); At hercule Germanicum, Druso ortum, octo apud Rhenum legionibus imposuit adscirique per adoptionem a Tiberio iussit, quamquam esset in domo Tiberii filius iuvenis . . . (Tac. Ann. 1.3.5); Quamquam autem et retro praestruxerimus . . . pubertatem quoque animalem cum carnali dicimus convenire . . . (Tert. An. 38.1)

. Concessive clauses with quamvis Quamvis is a scalar adverb in Plautus—as in (a) below, where it modifies malam. It is related to the free-choice indefinite determiner quivis (see § 11.115). It usually modifies gradable adjectives and adverbs, but it is also used as an adverb of degree on the clause level. The mood in the (independent) sentences in which it occurs is the subjunctive (called: ‘concessive’). As a (scalar) concessive subordinator in a subordinate clause that is related to a main clause (often containing tamen) it is found from Varro

Concessive clauses

367

and Cicero onwards, although it continues to be used as a scalar adverb as well, for which see (b), where it is found next to licet. A clear instance of its use as a subordinator is (c), repeated from § 16.70: civis Romanus is not gradable (not all scholars agree on this—see OLD s.v. quamvis § 3b). The regular mood in such quamvis clauses is the subjunctive. The earliest undisputed instance of an indicative is (e), repeated from § 16.71, where the indicative fits in with the (attitudinal) type of concessive clause, namely a factual comment (see also the examples in the Supplement). Usually the indicative is explained on the analogy of quamquam. The use of both an indicative and a subjunctive in the same quamvis clause in Ammianus (ex. (f)) can only be understood as stylistic variation influenced by Greek.221 (a)

Quamvis malam rem quaeras, illi reperias. (‘However bad the thing you’re looking for, you could find it there.’ Pl. Trin. 554)

(b)

Et praeter eos quamvis enumeres multos licet, quom deni creentur, non nullos in omni memoria reperies perniciosos tribunos . . . (‘And beyond these, you could count as many as you like; for when a college of ten is elected, you will find some tribunes in every period whose activities are harmful . . .’ Cic. Leg. 3.24)

(c)

. . . ut . . . quamvis civis Romanus esset, in crucem tolleretur. (‘. . . that even if he were a Roman citizen, he might be put on the cross.’ Cic. Ver. 5.168—NB: the imperfect subjunctive esset cannot depend on vis in quamvis)

(d)

. . . constantiam . . . quam ego quamvis ipse probarem ut probo, tamen non commemorarem nisi a te cognovissem in primis eam virtutem solere laudari. (‘. . . the constancy which, though I respected it myself, as I do respect it, I nevertheless would not mention, unless I had known that that virtue in particular is accustomed to be praised by you.’ Cic. Lig. 26)

(e)

Erat enim inter eos dignitate regia, quamvis carebat nomine . . . (‘As a matter of fact, he enjoyed the rank of king among them, although he didn’t hold that title . . .’ Nep. Milt. 2.3)

(f)

Et quamvis offundebatur oculis altitudo pulveris et aestus calescens officeret alacritati membrorum, tamen velut exauctoratus amisso ductore sine parsimonia ruebat in ferrum. (‘And although high clouds of dust blinded the eyes, and the burning heat weakened the activity of their limbs, yet as though discharged by the loss of their leader without sparing themselves, they rushed upon the swords of the enemy.’ Amm. 25.3.10)222

221 For the development of quamvis from a scalar adverb (see § 11.97) into a scalar concessive subordinator, see Schaffner (1954), Bertocchi (2002a), Spevak (2005b: 74–81), Leuschner (2008), and Bertocchi and Maraldi (2011: 156–60). For the use of the moods, see Sz.: 603–4. 222 See Ehrismann (1886: 45).

368

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position Supplement: Subjunctive: Nunc quamvis sint homines qui mortuum Cn. Carbonem oderint, tamen hi debent, non quid illi accidere voluerint, sed quid ipsis in tali re metuendum sit cogitare. (Cic. Ver. 1.39); . . . et si tibi pro P. Rutilio non philosophorum more, sed tuo licuisset dicere, quamvis scelerati illi fuissent, sicuti fuerunt . . . , tamen omnem eorum importunitatem ex intimis mentibus evellisset vis orationis tuae. (Cic. de Orat. 1.230); . . . quamvis sint sub aqua, sub aqua maledicere temptant. (Ov. Met. 6.376); Ad flumina cum pecora suis temporibus anni parantur ad conceptionem partus, per id tempus adiguntur eo cotidie potum, ex eoque, quamvis sint alba, procreant aliis locis leucophaea, aliis locis pulla, aliis coracino colore. (Vitr. 8.3.14); Neronem enim transeo, quamvis sciam non corrumpi in deterius, quae aliquando etiam a malis, sed honesta manere, quae saepius a bonis fiunt. (Plin. Ep. 5.3.6) Indicative: Ut quisque duo verba in quattuor formis finxeri[n]t similiter, quamvis haec nolemus (nolimus Spengel), tamen erunt sequenda, ut † Iuppiti, Marspitrem. (Var. L. 8.33); Hoc ille natus, quamvis patrem numquam viderat, tamen . . . in paternae vitae similitudinem deductus est. (Cic. Rab. Post. 4—NB: various emendations for quamvis and for viderat); Nec bonus Eurytion praelato invidit honori, / quamvis solus avem caelo deiecit ab alto. (Verg. A. 5.541–2); Non tibi quamvis infesto animo et minaci perveneras (secl. Novák), ingredienti fines ira cecidit? (Liv. 2.40.7); Ex quo casu, quamvis vita redditur, tamen id fere membrum debilitatur. (Cels. 2.4.7); Iam scies patrem tuum mercedes perdidisse, quamvis et rhetoricam scis. (Petr. 58.8 (Hermeros speaking)); Quamvis non minus sudoris habuimus, etiam postquam ad stabulum pervenimus. (Petr. 79.5); De vita tua aeterna certus eram, quamvis eam in aenigmate et quasi per speculum videram. (August. Conf. 8.1) The subjunctive is semantically justified in instances like (a) above, where quamvis modifies malam (for this ‘concessive’ use of the subjunctive, see § 7.59).223 The subjunctive in (g) from Cicero may be explained along the same lines, although in other cases this may seem artificial. On the other hand, the indicative is perfectly understandable in (h) and (i), cited as early instances of the use of this mood: the clauses describe plain facts. (For the indicative in an attitudinal clause, see above, (e).) (g) Quamvis sis molestus, numquam te esse confitebor malum. (‘However distressing you might be, I shall never admit that you are an evil.’ Cic. Tusc. 2.61) (h) Quamvis est circum caesis lacer undique membris / truncus, adempta anima circum membrisque remota / vivit et aetherias vitalis suscipit auras. (‘However much the trunk is mangled with the limbs hewn all around, though the soul be rent from him all around and wrested from his body, he lives and draws in the breath of heaven to give him life.’ Lucr. 3.403–5—quamvis modifies lacer; text and translation by Bailey) (i) Neque aliud magis tempus pestilentiae patet, cuiuscumque ea generis est, quamvis variis rationibus nocet. (‘Nor is any other period of the year more exposed to pestilence, of whatever sort it is and no matter how various the ways in which it is harmful.’ Cels. 2.1.9—NB: quamvis modifies variis) 223 See Woodcock (1959: 201–2).

Concessive clauses

369

Quamvis is a combination of the degree adverb quam ‘how’ and the second person singular form vis of the verb volo. Other personal forms are also attested, as in (j) and (k). Such expressions are also found as degree expressions with adjectives and adverbs, as in (l). (j) Quam volent in conviviis faceti, dicaces, non numquam etiam ad vinum diserti sint, alia fori vis est . . . (‘However humorous, witty, sometimes glib they may be at dinner parties over drinks, the idea of court is one thing. . .’ Cic. Cael. 67—NB: the mss. vary) (k) Quam volumus licet, patres conscripti, ipsi nos amemus, tamen . . . omnis gentis nationesque superavimus. (‘However good be our conceit of ourselves, conscript fathers, nevertheless . . . we have excelled every race and every nation.’ Cic. Har. 19—Note the presence of licet) (l) Quod commodum est, expectate facinus quam voltis improbum. (‘As is convenient, expect a deed however immoral you wish.’ Cic. Ver. 5.11) Quamlibet ‘in whatever degree one likes’ is used as a scalar degree modifier of adjectives and adverbs (see § 11.97). It is relatively popular in Ovid and later in Augustine, but infrequent in other authors; a rare example is (m). From Silver Latin onwards it is also occasionally found on the clause level, resembling the use of quamvis as a subordinator ‘however much’ (with a subjunctive), as in (n). (m) . . . Curionem video se dupliciter iactaturum, primum ut aliquid Caesari adimat, inde ut aliquid Pompeio tribuat, quodvis quamlibet tenue munusculum. (‘. . . I envisage that Curio will make his weight felt in two directions: first he’ll try to take something away from Caesar, then give something to Pompey, any little douceur, however trifling.’ Cael. Fam. 8.10.3) (n) Nam certe quamlibet parvum sit, quod contulerit aetas prior, maiora tamen aliqua discet puer ipso illo anno, quo minora didicisset. (‘For though the knowledge contributed by the earlier years may be small, still the boy will be learning some more important things in the year in which he would otherwise have been learning more elementary matters.’ Quint. Inst. 1.1.18).

. Concessive clauses with etsi, etiamsi, tametsi, and tamenetsi Concessive subordinators formed with si ‘if ’ are found from Early Latin onwards. As with si clauses, these clauses may be in the indicative or in the subjunctive (potential and counterfactual). The degree to which these subordinators are used varies by author and text.224 In poetry they are avoided. Tamenetsi (or: tamen etsi) is very rare in all periods of Latin. Etsi is the most common concessive subordinator in this group 224 See the reference in note 201.

370

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position

in all periods of Latin (and so absent from Sallust). Tametsi is the most common concessive subordinator in Rhet. Her. and in Sallust and is also relatively frequent in Cicero’s orations and in the jurists, but it is rare in other authors and texts. Etiamsi (or: etiam si) is the most frequent concessive subordinator in argumentative texts, Cicero’s included. It is the only one used by Seneca the Elder and almost the only one used by  Seneca the Younger in his philosophical works. It is also predominant in Pliny the  Elder and in Petronius. Tertullian, however, strongly prefers etsi over etiamsi. Augustine uses both, with a slight preference for etsi. 16.77 Concessive clauses with etsi Etsi is found from Early Latin onwards, with varying popularity. It is rare in poetry. The use of the moods is the same as in si clauses. Ex. (a) has the indicative, the normal mood for presenting factual information; (b) has the potential subjunctive, (c) the counterfactual subjunctive. An interesting example is (d) with the difference in mood between the etsi and etiamsi clauses.225 The first attested semantically unmotivated subjunctive seems to be found in (e). (a)

Equidem tam sum servos quam tu, etsi ego domi liber fui, / tu usque a puero servitutem servivisti in Alide. (‘Yes, I am a slave like you, even if I was free at home and you were a slave in Elis from childhood.’ Pl. Capt. 543–4)

(b)

Pol etsi taceas, palam id quidem est. (‘Even if you were to be silent it would be obvious.’ Pl. Aul. 421)

(c)

Sed me vera pro gratis loqui, etsi meum ingenium non moneret, necessitas cogit. (‘But even if my character did not warn me, necessity compels me to speak what is true instead of what is agreeable.’ Liv. 3.68.9)

(d)

Ut qui pila ludunt non utuntur in ipsa lusione artificio proprio palaestrae, sed indicat ipse motus didicerintne palaestram an nesciant, et qui aliquid fingunt, etsi tum pictura nihil utuntur, tamen utrum sciant pingere an nesciant non obscurum est, sic in orationibus hisce ipsis iudiciorum contionum senatus, etiam si proprie ceterae non adhibeantur (v.l. adhibentur) artes, tamen facile declaratur utrum is, qui dicat, tantummodo in hoc declamatorio sit opere iactatus an ad dicendum omnibus ingenuis artibus instructus accesserit. (‘Just as ball-players do not in their game itself employ the characteristic dexterity of the gymnasium, and yet their movements show whether they have had such training or know nothing of their art and, just as, in the case of those who are portraying anything, even though at the moment they are making no use of the painter’s art, there is none the less no difficulty in seeing whether or not they know how to paint; even so is it with these same speeches in the Courts, the popular assembly and the 225 For information about the use of etsi in various authors, see TLL s.v. etsi 973.62ff.

Concessive clauses

371

Senate-house—granting that the other arts may not be specially brought into play, still it is made easily discernible whether the speaker has merely floundered about in this declamatory business or whether he has come to the task of speaking with training in all the liberal arts.’ Cic. de Orat. 1.73)

(e)

. . . ignes, quibus etsi propria desit (defit cj. Orelli) / forma, per appositi noscuntur lumina signi. (‘. . . stars, which, even though a constellation of their own may be lacking, are recognized through the lights of a constellation nearby.’ Germ. Arat. 377–8)

16.78 Concessive clauses with tametsi (and tam etsi) Tametsi (also written tam etsi, editors vary) is found from Early Latin onwards (though less frequently than etsi), with both the indicative and the (potential and counterfactual) subjunctive mood, as in si clauses. The first attested semantically unmotivated subjunctive is in (e). (a)

Audis quae dico, tam etsi praesens non ades. (‘You can hear what I’m saying, even if you’re not physically present.’ Pl. Am. 977)

(b)

Memini, tam etsi nullu’ moneas. (‘I have that in mind even without you prompting me.’ Ter. Eu. 216)

(c)

Si veniret ab Statilio, tametsi artificio Roscium superaret, adspicere nemo posset. (‘If he had come from Statilius, although he might have surpassed Roscius in skill, no one would have looked at him.’ Cic. Q. Rosc. 30)

(d)

Quod tametsi non reprehendunt, tamen magno opere quod laudent non habent. (‘Even though they do not censure this, nevertheless they do not have much to praise.’ Cic. Ver. 46)

(e)

Nunc mihi videtur, tametsi non sint Italicae consuetudinis palaestrarum aedificationes, traditae tamen, explicare . . . (‘Although the building of palaestrae is not of Italic custom, still, since it has been handed down, it seems right for me now to explain . . .’ Vitr. 5.11.1)

16.79 Concessive clauses with etiamsi (and etiam si) Etiamsi (also written etiam si, editors vary) is a compound of the scalar additive particle etiam ‘even’ (see § 22.22) and the conditional subordinator si ‘if ’. Clauses introduced by etiamsi that can be regarded as regular conditional clauses, as in (a), can be found in all periods of Latin. The fact that etiam and si can be separated by other constituents—as in (b) and (c)—confirms that the two parts are still independent words with their original meanings. After an isolated concessive etiam si in Terence, instances of its concessive use are cited from Cicero onward, as illustrated by (d). In Classical prose etiamsi far less frequently corresponds with tamen in the main clause

372

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position

than the actual concessive subordinators. On the other hand, the epistemic adverbs certe ‘certainly’ (ex. (e)) and profecto ‘assuredly’ are used more often with etiamsi.226 Convincing concessive instances in which the ‘contrary to expectation’ feature is present are found from Seneca the Elder onwards, as in (f).227 The moods are the same as in si clauses. The first attested semantically unmotivated subjunctives are found in the freedmen’s passages in Petronius (ex. (g)).228 (a)

Atque equidem filium / tum etiam si nolit, cogam ut cum illa una cubet. (‘And indeed, I would force your son to sleep together with her, even if he were unwilling.’ Ter. Ad. 850–1)

(b)

Omniane bonis viris quae facere possunt facienda sunt, etiamne, si turpia, si perniciosa erunt, si facere omnino non licebit? (‘Are good men to do everything they have the power to do, even if those things are  base, if they are pernicious, if it will be altogether unlawful to do them?’ Cic. Phil. 13.14)

(c)

Si haec . . . non ad homines, verum ad bestias, aut etiam ut longius progrediar, si . . . haec conqueri ac deplorare vellem, tamen omnia muta . . . commoverentur. (‘If I were speaking . . . not even to human beings, but to brute beasts, or to go even further, if I were minded to tell this tale of suffering and wrong . . . even all that is mute and lifeless would be moved.’ Cic. Ver. 5.171)

(d)

Hoc . . . ita vobis planum faciemus, ut hoc statuatis, etiamsi spatium ad dicendum nostro commodo vacuosque dies habuissemus, tamen oratione longa nihil opus fuisse. (‘This fact . . . we will make so plain to you that you will conclude that, even we had had days to spare and time to speak at leisure, there would still have been no need to speak at any great length.’ Cic. Ver. 56)

(e)

Nimirum enim inops ille, si bonus est vir, etiam si referre gratiam non potest, habere certe potest. (‘For presumably that poor man, if he is a good man, even if he is not able to return a favour, can at least be grateful.’ Cic. Off. 2.69)

(f)

Etiamsi multa contra expectationem accidunt, numquam tamen futurum putavi, ut . . . (‘Even though many things happen contrary to expectation, still I never thought it would come about that . . .’ Sen. Con. 2.1.1)

(g)

Diffusus hac contentione Trimalchio ‘Amici,’ inquit, ‘et servi homines sunt et aeque unum lactem biberunt, etiam si illos malus fatus oppresserit (oppressit cj. Buecheler).

226 See Martín Puente (1998a: 322–4). 227 For information about the development of etiamsi, see TLL s.v. etiamsi 964.75ff. Martín Puente (2002: 126–8) has evidence for the purely conditional meaning of etiamsi clauses in her corpus (Caesar, Cicero, Sallust). See also Martín Puente (1998b). 228 For critical discussion, see Petersmann (1977: 283).

Concessive clauses

373

(‘Trimalchio expanded at this dispute and said, “Ah, my friends, a slave is a man and drank his mother’s milk like ourselves, even if a cruel fate has trodden him down.” ’ Petr. 71.1 (Trimalchio speaking))

16.80 Concessive clauses with tamenetsi (and tamen etsi) In most of the twenty or so sequences of tamen etsi and tamenetsi in the LLT (Antiquitas) database, both elements can be explained as separate words with their own meaning (tamen sometimes connecting with the preceding context), and editors vary in the way they punctuate the sentences in which this sequence is found. A few more convincing items, where tamenetsi functions as a compound concessive subordinating device, are (a)–(c).229 There are also attestations of tamen etsi in Christian authors, including Augustine. (a)

Eumque si quam gloriam peperisse videatur, tamenetsi ea non sit iniqua merces periculi, tamen ea non delectari . . . (‘And that, if he seems to have won any glory, even though the price of the risk is not unfair, still he does not enjoy these things.’ Cic. de Orat. 2.210—see Leeman et al. ad loc.)

(b)

Quae tamen etsi absunt, at mens sibi conscia factis / praemetuens adhibet stimulos torretque flagellis . . . (‘And even if these are absent, yet the guilty conscience, terrified before anything can come to pass, applies the goad and scourges itself with whips . . .’ Lucr. 3.1018–19)

(c)

Quibus tamenetsi deesse summam fatendum est, non est tamen maximae calamitatis loco numeranda parum plena felicitas. (‘Even if it must be admitted that the highest (awareness) is lacking from these, still in a situation of the greatest disaster, happiness must not be counted small.’ [Quint.] Decl. 6.16—NB: v.l. tametsi)

. Concessive clauses with licet The impersonal deontic modal verb licet ‘it is permitted’, ‘one may’ is used with a finite complement clause in the subjunctive from Plautus onwards, as in (a) (for more examples and—in Plautus’ time much more frequent—alternative constructions, see §  4.14). Its use with an epistemic meaning is attested in the Classical period, for instance in (b), where it signals a possible line of reasoning. Licet is also used with this meaning in combination with an infinitive, as in (c). Note that in (b) the tense of eligerent and probarent is imperfect: in its epistemic meaning there is no restriction on the tense of the embedded clause with licet. It is difficult to determine when precisely licet developed into a concessive subordinator. Concessive interpretations of the relation between a complex of licet (and also, in Classical and Silver Latin, other forms, 229 Example (a) is rejected as an example of the use of tamenetsi as a concessive subordinator by Martín Puente (2002). For discussion, see also Bertocchi and Maraldi (2011: 151–2).

374

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position

like the future licebit) and a subjunctive verb form, on the one hand, and a preceding or following clause on the other can be found from the time of Cicero onwards, as in (d). Clear contexts in which licet is not used as a modal verb are exemplified by (e)– (g). In (e) esset gestum is a pluperfect tense form, a tense which is not normally found in independent concessive sentences (see § 6.34) and which is also rare in complement clauses with the modal licet.230 In (f) erit is an early instance of an indicative form, semantically fully justified in its context. The indicative is common in the Digests, although the subjunctive is predominant (many concessive clauses are of the attitudinal type, but the indicatives may also be due to the Greek compilers of the Digests).231 It is also relatively frequent in Ammianus, who also uses the subjunctive. In (g) licet introduces an ablative absolute, in a way comparable with other subordinators (see § 16.89). In Late Latin the order main clause / licet clause became quite rare, except in attitudinal and illocutionary licet clauses (see §§ 16.71–2). It is important to note that licet continued to be used as a modal verb throughout Latinity.232 (a)

Estne empta mi istis legibus? # Habeas licet. (‘She is mine on those terms? # You can have her.’ Pl. Epid. 471)

(b)

Licet enim eligerent et probarent quemlibet, qui sibi in omnes res subpeditaret exempla, vel poetam vel oratorem, cuius auctoritate niterentur. (‘For they might choose and approve whom they would, poet or orator to supply them with examples for all cases, one on whose authority they could rely.’ Rhet. Her. 4.7)

(c)

Crescere itemque dies licet et tabescere noctes, / et minui luces . . . (‘Days may also increase and nights may wane, and days again may diminish . . .’ Lucr. 5.680–1)

(d)

Licet iste dicat emisse, sicuti solet dicere, credite hoc mihi iudices . . . (‘Verres may say, as he usually does say, that he bought everything; but believe me, gentlemen . . .’ Cic. Ver. 4.133)

(e)

Quod factum licet necopinantibus nostris esset gestum, tamen . . . (‘But although this operation had come as a surprise to our men, yet . . .’ B. Hisp. 16.3)

(f)

. . . licet salutare non erit, Photis illa temptetur. (‘. . . even if it will not be salutary, let Photis be assailed.’ Apul. Met. 2.6.8)

(g)

. . . ut diem suum sibi domus facia[n]t licet sole nolente. (‘. . . so that the house creates its own sunlight even with the sun denying its rays.’ Apul. Met. 5.1.6)

230 For imperfect and pluperfect subjunctive forms with licet, see Purnelle (2001: 579–80). 231 So Kalb (1888: 66). Details in TLL s.v. licet 1365.81ff. 232 For the history of the development of licet, see Núñez (1991: 184–6), Maraldi and Orlandini (1998), Martín Puente (1998a), Purnelle (1998; 2001), and Spevak (1998; 2005b: 82–92), as well as TLL s.v. licet 1364.1ff.

Concessive clauses

375

Supplement: Past tense subjunctive in the licet clause: . . . neque multa ab eo (sc. verborum etyma dici possent), quem non erunt in lucubratione litterae prosecutae, multum licet legeret. (Var. L. 7.2); Croeso divitior licet fuissem, / Iro pauperior forem, Charine, / si conchem totiens meam comesses. (Mart. 5.39.8–10); Ad cenam si me diversa vocaret in astra / hinc invitator Caesaris, inde Iovis, / astra licet propius, Palatia longius essent, / responsa ad superos haec referenda darem . . . (Mart. 9.91.1–4); Improbitas illo fuit admirabilis aevo, / credebant quo grande nefas et morte piandum / si iuvenis vetulo non assurrexerat et si / barbato cuicunque puer, licet ipse videret / plura domi fraga et maiores glandis acervos. (Juv. 13.53–7) Indicative mood in the licet clause: Respondi apparere id actum esse, ut id quoque accederet, licet scriptura non continetur. (Labeo dig. 18.1.78 pr.); . . . valet transactio, quia fructus habitationis praestatur, licet ruinae vel incendio subiecta transactio est. (Ulp. dig. 2.15.8.25); Super quorum moribus licet in actibus principis Marci et postea aliquotiens memini rettulisse, tamen nunc quoque pauca de isdem expediam carptim. (Amm. 14.4.2) There are a few instances of quamvis licet and licet quamvis in the same clause, as in (h) and (i); quamvis in such cases has its normal scalar meaning. In Late Latin licet is found with other concessive subordinators (and also with si) as well. These combinations seem to function as reinforced equivalents of licet.233 (h) Proinde licet quamvis caelum terramque reantur / incorrupta fore aeternae mandata saluti. / Et tamen . . . (‘So let them think as much as they like that heaven and earth will be indestructible, entrusted to some everlasting protection. And yet . . .’ Lucr. 6.601–3—following Bailey ad loc.) (i) Quamvis licet insectemur istos, ut Carneades solebat, metuo ne soli philosophi sint. (‘However we may attack such men, as was the way of Carneades, I have a misgiving they are the only true philosophers.’ Cic. Tusc. 4.53)

. The concessive interpretation of ut clauses Subordinate clauses in the subjunctive with ut in combination with a main clause containing some form of contrastive information can receive a concessive (conditional) interpretation ‘even supposing’ or ‘even if ’. Ex. (a) is the only instance from Early Latin, but Cicero has many. Concessive ut clauses usually precede the main clause. The regular negation word is non. The main clause often contains the kind of words that are also found with the concessive clauses discussed in § 16.68, e.g. tamen, as in (b), and at, as in (c). The ut clause sometimes contains the particle iam (see § 16.57, with note 161), as in (d).234 233 See TLL s.v. licet 1367.63ff.; references in Sz.: 605. See also Schaffner (1954: 37). 234 For the concessive interpretation of ut clauses, see Iordache (1985), Maraldi (1998), Spevak (2005b: 112–14, 182), and Bertocchi and Maraldi (2011: 170–2).

376 (a)

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position Iam in hac re, ut taceam, quoivis facile scitu’st quam fuerim miser. (‘And in such a situation, even if I were to remain silent, it must be obvious to anyone how miserable I was.’ Ter. Hec. 296)

(b)

Ut enim non efficias quod vis, tamen, mors ut malum non sit, efficies. (‘For though you may not succeed in your wish, still you will succeed in showing that death is not an evil.’ Cic. Tusc. 1.16)

(c)

Et tamen hoc quoque uti concedam scire, at id ipsum / quaeram . . . / unde sciat . . . (‘And yet even if I grant that he knows that, still I will ask just this: . . . how he knows . . .’ Lucr. 4.473–5)

(d)

. . . sed, ut iam nos hoc fallat, de Buthroto te non fallet. (‘. . . but even supposing I am deceived in that, you shall not be disappointed over Buthrotum.’ Cic. Att. 15.2.2) Supplement: Ut enim neminem alium nisi T. Patinam familiarissimum suum rogasset, scire potuit illo ipso die Lanuvi a dictatore Milone prodi flaminem necesse esse. (Cic. Mil. 46); Mihi porro, ut ego non dicam, quis omnium mortalium non intellegit quam longe progredi sit necesse? (Cic. Ver. 5.179); Ut enim quaeras omnia, quomodo Graeci ineptum appellent, non reperies. (Cic. de Orat. 2.18); Ut enim rationem Plato nullam adferret—vide, quid homini tribuam—ipsa auctoritate me frangeret. (Cic. Tusc. 1.49); Verum ut hoc non sit, tamen, sive ruet get rem publicam, praeclarum spectaculum mihi propono, modo te consessore spectare liceat. (Cic. Att. 2.15.2); In iis autem rebus quae nihilo minus ut ego absim confici poterunt peto a te ut me rationem habere velis . . . (Cic. Fam. 10.2.2); Ac iam ut omnia contra opinionem acciderent, tamen se plurimum navibus posse . . . (Caes. Gal. 3.9.6); Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas. (Ov. Pont. 3.4.79); Quod cum ita sit quae, malum, ratio est expertis talia experiri, cum iam ut virtus vestra transire alio possit, fortuna certe loci huius transferri non possit? (Liv. 5.54.6); Albucius in duas partes declamationem divisit. Primum negavit ullam esse proditionem, deinde, ut esset, ad se non pertinere. (Sen. Con. 7.7.10); Ecce hic dies ultimus est. Ut non sit, prope ab ultimo est. Vale. (Sen. Ep. 15.11); . . . utque familiae ipsae iam exstinctae sint, reperies, qui ob similitudinem morum aliena malefacta sibi obiectari putent. (Tac. Ann. 4.33.4); Iam, ut (sc. Roma) venalis fuisset, habuit emptorem. (Flor. Epit. 1.36.18) Ut clause follows: Nihilominus tamen agi posse de compositione, ut haec non remitterentur, neque hanc rem illi esse impedimento. (Caes. Civ. 3.17.4); In eo nullum periculum est, etiam ut (v.l. etiamsi) nulla curatio adhibeatur. Maturescit enim per se, atque erumpit. (Cels. 5.28.8) This concessive use of ut clauses is treated as a variant of the use of ut clauses functioning as result satellite, the decisive reason being the use of the negator non. For a survey of existing explanations and an explanation of her own, see Maraldi (1998). The only example of ut ne mentioned in the literature is (e), but this may well be explained differently, as a purpose disjunct (see § 16.50).

Concessive clauses

377

(e) Sin quaeris, qui sint Romae regnum occupare conati, ut ne replices annalium memoriam, ex domesticis imaginibus invenies. (‘But if you ask who have tried to establish tyrannies at Rome, I will tell you so that you don’t have to search through historical records: you will find them in your own family tree.’ Cic. Sul. 27)

16.83 Quod and quantum clauses of qualification (disjuncts) Clauses of qualification introduced by the relative pronoun quod or the relative adjective quantum contain a restriction on the applicability of what is asserted in the main clause. Thus they function as attitudinal disjuncts (see § 10.98). They are found from Early Latin onwards. The content of the main clause is usually negated, or negation is implied. The quod clause has a—potential—subjunctive (for which see § 7.104), as in the formula quod sciam ‘as far as I know’ in (a).235 Instances of non-first person subjects and of tenses other than the present tense exist as well, as in (b) and (c). Formally, the clause is a relative clause, with quod being the object of the verb.236 The  clauses sometimes contain the emphasizer quidem (in Pliny the Elder also equidem).237 For other types of relative clauses of qualification, see § 18.27. See also § 16.38. (a)

Mequidem praesente numquam factum est, quod sciam. (‘This never happened when I was present, as far as I know.’ Pl. Am. 749)

(b)

Dic mihi, enumquam intestina tibi crepant, quod sentias? (‘Tell me, do your intestines ever rumble, as far as you observe?’ Pl. Men. 925)

(c)

Nam numquam ante hunc diem meis oculis eam, quod nossem, videram. (‘For up to today I had never seen her with my own eyes, so far as I knew.’ Ter. Hec. 863) Supplement: Non me novisti? # Quod quidem nunc veniat in mentem mihi. (Pl. Epid. 638); Est tibi Menaechmo nomen. # Tantum quod sciam. (Pl. Men. 297); Vigilo hercle quidem, quod sciam. (Pl. Men. 503); Tune has pepulisti foras? . . . Non equidem istas, quod sciam. (Ter. Ad. 638–41); Quaero autem, cur Alexandro tam inlustre somnium, tam certum, nec huic eidem alias, nec multa ceteris. Mihi quidem praeter hoc Marianum nihil sane, quod meminerim. (Cic. Div. 2.141); . . . qui se unus, quod sciam, sapientem profiteri sit ausus. (Cic. Fin. 2.7); His addit—ut nihil, quod equidem noverim, praeteream—Aristoteles nullum animal nisi aestu recedente expirare. (Plin. Nat. 2.220); Fortasse aliquis iubebit sepeliri. Certe, quod sciam, nemo prohibebit. ([Quint.] Decl. 6.24); Haec forma .l{lvpj‚pƒ| nova nec ab ullo alio, quod ego sciam,

235 Hale (1891) accounts for the use of the subjunctive as being related to the fact that the main clauses are usually negative. 236 For the development of these quod clauses, see Taylor (1951). 237 See TLL s.v. equidem 721.73ff.

378

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position usurpata est. (Fro. Ant. 1.2.12); Iam dudum, quod sciam, fidei atque parciloquio meo perpendisti documenta, nec eo setius adprobabitur tibi nunc etiam firmitas animi mei. (Apul. Met. 5.13.1); Totum, quod sciam, Vetus Testamentum omnis haereticus inridet. (Tert. Marc. 5.5.10); Si frigus fuerit et brumales nives, ligna non coemam. Calidius vigilabo vel dormiam, certe, quod sciam, vilius non algebo. (Hier. Ep. 43.3)

Quantum is used in the same context as quod, as in (d). However, unlike the clauses with quod, those with quantum are found in the indicative as well, as in (e). Quantum is also found with other verbs; an example is (f). Probably influenced by this expression is quanta ingenia in (g).238 (d)

Usque in hunc diem, Iulia, quantum quidem ego sciam, adsiduus viri tui comes . . . dedisti operam, ne quid . . . (‘Up to this day, Julia, at least so far as I am aware, as the constant companion of your husband . . . you have taken pains, that nothing . . .’ Sen. Dial. 6.4.3)

(e)

. . . nemo adhuc correptus hoc malo, quantum ego scio, expeditus est. (‘. . . no one who has been struck by this illness has ever been cured, as far as I know.’ Larg. 171)

(f)

Ac te ipsum, quantum ego opinione auguror, . . . aetas mitigabit. (‘And, so far as I can surmise, . . . age will mellow you.’ Cic. Mur. 65)

(g)

Ego enim, quantum auguror coniectura quantaque ingenia in nostris hominibus esse video, non despero fore aliquem aliquando . . . (‘For personally, so far as I can form a prediction, and judging from the vast supply of talent which I see existent among our fellow-citizens, I do not despair of its coming to pass that some day some one . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 1.95) Supplement: Hic illam vidit osculantem, quantum hunc audivi loqui. (Pl. Mil. 275); Enimvero, Dave, nil loci’ st segnitiae neque socordiae, / quantum intellexi modo senis sententiam de nuptiis. (Ter. An. 206–7); Deficio, nostrisque, a corpore quantum / auguror, accedent tempora parva malis. (Ov. Tr. 4.6.39–40); Romanorum primus, quantum ego quidem sciam, condidit aliqua in hanc materiam M. Cato . . . (Quint. Inst. 3.1.19); Saturnum itaque, quantum litterae, neque Diodorus Graecus . . . neque ullus commentator eiusmodi antiquitatum aliud quam hominem promulgaverunt. (Tert. Apol. 10.7)

16.84 Satellite clauses introduced by complex subordinators A device that developed from the Classical period onwards is that of prepositional phrases followed by quod, serving as a complex subordinating device.239 These expressions superficially look like quod clauses with a preparative pronoun (discussed in 238 This is the explanation of Howard (1962: 311). 239 For quantitative data for the period from Lucretius to Gellius, see Baños (2014: 92).

Complex subordinators

379

§ 15.14), but they are different, because an expression like cum eo in (a) cannot be omitted without making the resulting utterance ungrammatical. Some of them, like (b), also look like preparative expressions with causal quod (see § 16.39), but here too quod alone could hardly be interpreted as causal. This use of quod is part of its development into an omnipurpose subordinator, parallels of which can be found outside Latin/Romance. In Dutch, for example, dat ‘that’ has the same range of uses. Other instances that illustrate this phenomenon for quod are (c)–(e). The subordinate clauses connected in this way to the main clause are declarative. There are also a few instances of quia used in this way. One example will suffice: (f), in which a causal interpretation of quia seems not entirely excluded.240 (a)

Sit sane . . ., sed tamen cum eo, credo, quod sine peccato meo fiat. (‘So be it . . . but with the proviso surely that it be done without any fault on my part.’ Cic. Att. 6.1.7)

(b)

. . . cum Hannibal Carthagine expulsus Ephesum ad Antiochum venisset exul proque eo quod eius nomen erat magna apud omnis gloria, invitatus esset ab hospitibus suis, ut eum quem dixi, si vellet, audiret . . . (‘. . . when Hannibal, banished from Carthage, had come in exile to Antiochus at Ephesus and, inasmuch as his name was highly honoured all the world over, had been invited by his hosts to hear the philosopher in question, if he so pleased . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 2.75)

(c)

Prata dicta ab eo quod sine opere parata. (‘Prata “meadows” are named from this, that they are parata “prepared” without labour.’ Var. L. 5.40)

(d)

. . . ex eo intellegi potest quod vos de re iudicare non debetis. (‘. . . may be understood from the fact that you are not supposed to decide upon this question.’ Cic. Caec. 102)

(e)

Nec vero Aristoteles non laudandus in eo quod omnia quae moventur aut natura moveri censuit aut vi aut voluntate. (‘Aristotle is also to be commended for his view that all things that move do so by nature, force, or will.’ Cic. N.D. 2.44)

(f)

Sed (sc. Isocrates) cum ex eo quia quasi committeret contra legem ‘quo quis iudicio circumveniretur’ saepe ipse in iudicium vocaretur, orationes aliis destitisse scribere . . . (‘But when it happened repeatedly that he was summoned as having violated a law like ours “providing against circumvention or chicanery by judicial process,” he ceased to write speeches for others . . .’ Cic. Brut. 48) Supplement: With is: Dilectuque decreto nemo nomen dedit, furente Appio et insectante ambitionem collegae, qui populari silentio rem publicam proderet et ad id quod de credita 240 So TLL s.v. ex 1107.8ff.

380

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position pecunia ius non dixisset, adiceret ut ne dilectum quidem ex senatus consulto haberet. (Liv. 2.27.10); Ad id quod sua quemque mala cogebant auctoritate publica evocati omnia delubra inplent. (Liv. 3.7.8); Medium ferme diei erat, et ad id quod sua sponte cedente in mare aestu trahebatur aqua acer etiam septentrio ortus inclinatum stagnum eodem quo aestus ferebat . . . (Liv. 26.45.8) Cum eo quidem quod vix ullus est tam communis locus, qui possit cohaerere cum causa nisi aliquo propriae quaestionis vinculo copulatus . . . (Quint. Inst. 2.4.30); Nec fortuiti sermonis contextum mirabor umquam, quem iurgantibus etiam mulierculis videamus superfluere cum eo quod, si calor ac spiritus tulit, frequenter accidit ut successum extemporalem consequi cura non possit. (Quint. Inst. 10.7.13) Non enim tam multa dixit de rationibus non relatis quam de eo quod civis improbus ut optimus laudatus esset. (Cic. Opt. 21—NB: parallelism) Causa fortissimis optimisque consulibus Kalendis Ianuariis de re publica primum referendi fuit ex eo quod XIII Kalendas Ianuarias senatus me auctore decrevit. (Cic. Phil. 6.1); At Caesar . . . et ex eventu navium suarum et ex eo quod obsides dare intermiserant fore id quod accidit suspicabatur. (Caes. Gal. 4.31.1—NB: parallelism) Neque in eo solum offenderat quod patriae male consuluerat, sed etiam quod amicitiae fidem non praestiterat. (Nep. Phoc. 2.2); In eo quoque plebs superior fuit quod tenuit ne consules in proximum annum crearentur. (Liv. 4.30.16); Labdacismum vitium in eo esse dicunt quod eadem littera vel subtilius a quibusdam vel pinguius ecfertur. (Consent. V.394.22K.) Nam praeter id quod his levissimi cuiusque animus facillime terretur, nescio an etiam naturaliter apud plurimos plus valeat malorum timor quam spes bonorum . . . (Quint. Inst. 3.8.40) Habitus cum se ab omni eius modi negotio removisset, tamen pro loco, pro antiquitate generis sui, pro eo quod se non suis commodis sed etiam suorum municipum ceterorumque necessariorum natum esse arbitrabatur, tantae voluntati universorum Larinatium deesse noluit. (Cic. Clu. 43—NB: parallelism); Sin autem pro magnitudine iniuriae proque eo quod summa res publica in huius periculo temptatur haec omnes vindicarent . . . (Cic. S. Rosc. 148—NB: coordination); Quin pro eo quod pluribus verbis vos . . . fatigavi veniam a vobis . . . velim . . . (Liv. 38.49.13) Haec vulgo iactata super id quod nullo auctore certo firmantur prompte refutaveris. (Tac. Ann. 4.11.1) . . . Marcellus etiam adverso rumore esse, superquam quod primo male pugnaverat, quia vagante per Italiam Hannibale media aestate Venusiam in tecta milites abduxisset. (Liv. 27.20.10)241 Cf.: . . . si in eo crimen est quia suffragium tulit, quis non tulit publicanus? (Cic. Planc. 35) With hic: Prima atque praecipua opinionum circa hoc differentia quod alii malos quoque viros posse oratores dici putant . . . (Quint. Inst. 2.15.1); . . . in hoc sumus sapientes quod naturam optumam ducem tamquam deum sequimur eique paremus. (Cic. Sen. 5); Quae non laudantur modo a plerisque, sed, quod est peius, propter hoc ipsum quod sunt prava laudantur. (Quint. Inst. 2.5.10) 241 For superquam ‘in addition to the fact that’, see Iordache (2010: 10).

Complex subordinators

381

Instances of quod clauses directly governed by prepositions are of a (much) later date.242 See below, however, for praeter. A special subtype of these satellite clauses is formed by expressions meaning ‘except’ in combination with quod and—in Early Latin more often—quia, without a difference in meaning.243 The most common combination is nisi quod, with the adverb nisi.244 Praeterquam (and praeter quam) and much less often praeter, tantum, and excepto are used in the same way,245 as in (g)–(l). (g)

Nam equidem nisi quod custodem habeo liberum me esse arbitror. (‘For really, except for the fact that I have a guard, I judge myself to be a free man.’ Pl. Capt. 394)

(h)

. . . nec, nisi quia miser non eo pessum, / mihi ulla abest perdito permities. (‘. . . and I’m destroyed and lack no ruin, except that I don’t sink to the bottom, wretch that I am . . .’ Pl. Cist. 223–4)

(i)

Nam dum abs te absum, omnes mihi labores fuere quos cepi leves, / praeterquam tui carendum quod erat. (‘While I was parted from you, all the hardships I bore were light, except for the fact of having to live without you.’ Ter. Hau. 399–400)

(j)

Praeter quod non sum iurgiosus, etiam libenter te nuper usque albus an ater esses ignoravi . . . (‘Not being a contentious man myself, until quite recently I did not even know whether you were dark or pale, and with pleasure too . . .’ Apul. Apol. 16.9—tr. Hunink)

(k)

Componit edictum iis verbis ut quivis intellegere possit unius hominis causa conscriptum esse, tantum quod hominem non nominat. (‘He composed a clause for his edict so worded that anyone can see how it was framed to meet the case of one particular person, except for the fact that he does not name the man.’ Cic. Ver. 1.116)

(l)

Haec tibi dictabam post fanum putre Vacunae, / excepto quod non simul esses, cetera laetus. (‘These lines I am dictating to you behind Vacuna’s crumbling shrine, happy on all counts save that you are not with me.’ Hor. Ep. 1.10.49–50) Supplement: Sed memento te, quae nos sentiamus, omnia probare, ni quod verbis aliter utamur, mihi autem vestrorum nihil probari. (Cic. Fin. 4.80); Cum de industria omnia . . . proferrentur, silentium omnium rerum ac iustitio simile otium fuit, nisi

242 The precise category of these items is difficult to assess. They are sometimes called prepositions, sometimes adverbs. See also § 14.6. 243 See Sz.: 589 for earlier postulations of an original difference in meaning. 244 See Bertocchi and Maraldi (2011: 115–18). 245 For the development of excepto, see Löfstedt (1976: 136 (= 2000: 188–9)) and Molinelli (2001). See also § 12.24 and TLL s.v. excipio 1249.26ff.

382

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position quod . . . verecundia inde inposita est senatui ex patribus iubendi aediles curules creari. (Liv. 7.1.4–6); Vixeruntque mira concordia, per mutuam caritatem et in vicem se anteponendo, nisi quod in bona uxore tanto maior laus, quanto in mala plus culpae est. (Tac. Agr. 6.1); . . . infelix, qui huic uni rei vivit, ut altilia decenter secet, nisi quod miserior est, qui hoc voluptatis causa docet quam qui necessitatis discit. (Sen. Ep. 47.6); Nec ullum miserae reformationis video solacium, nisi quod mihi iam nequ[e]eunti tenere Fotidem natura crescebat. (Apul. Met. 3.24.6); . . . arescunt omnia siti perpetua, nisi quod in puteis aqua repperitur exilis, quid agerent . . . (Amm. 18.7.9); Quid est homo, nisi quod memor es eius? (August. Serm. 163.12) Nam praeter quod246 diurnae quietis imagines falsae perhibentur, tunc etiam nocturnae visiones contrarios eventus nonnumquam pronuntiant. (Apul. Met. 4.27) Ego me in Cumano et Pompeiano, praeter quam quod247 sine te, ceterum satis commode oblectabam . . . (Cic. Q. fr. 2.13.1); Hoc autem loco tantum explicemus haec honesta, quae dico, praeterquam quod nosmet ipsos diligamus, praeterea suapte natura per se esse expetenda. (Cic. Fin. 5.61); Nam praeterquam quod in populo nihil erat praesidii sublata provocatione, intercessionem quoque consensu sustulerant . . . (Liv. 3.36.6); Praeterquam quod nomina tantum ducum in Hispania Romani habeant, exercitum quoque inde veterem deductum. (Liv. 29.1.21) Intestinas meas noverat. Tantum quod mihi non dixerat quid pridie cenaveram. (Petr. 76.11 (Trimalchio speaking)) Iter commode explicui, excepto quod quidam ex meis adversam valetudinem ferventissimis aestibus contraxerunt. (Plin. Ep. 8.1.1); Nos autem, excepto quod Christiani sumus, . . . sumus etiam praepositi . . . (August. Serm. 46.2) Incedere inde agmen coepit primoribus, super quam quod dissenserant ab consilio, territis etiam duplici prodigio, milite in vulgus laeto ferocia ducis, cum spem magis ipsam quam causam spei intueretur. (Liv. 22.3.14); Haec vulgo iactata super id quod nullo auctore certo firmantur, prompte refutaveris. (Tac. Ann. 4.11.1) . . . ad Dei filium pertinet iuxta quod Deus est. (Ambrosiast. in Rom. 1.1.3)248 De publicis scribenda non suppetunt absque eo quod in Traiani platea ruina unius insulae pressit habitantes. (Symm. Ep. 6.37)249

The same phenomenon can be observed with ut clauses in the subjunctive, often called result (consecutive) clauses. Thus one finds cum, in, and pro + eo + ut, as illustrated by (m) and (n). (m)

. . . debeo profecto, quantumcumque possum, in eo quoque elaborare ut sint opera, studio, labore meo doctiores cives mei . . . (‘. . . however much I am able, I assuredly must also work to make my fellow citizens more educated through my zeal, enthusiasm, and labour . . .’ Cic. Fin. 1.10)

(n)

Lanuvinis civitas data sacraque sua reddita cum eo ut aedes lucusque Sospitae Iunonis communis Lanuvinis municipibus cum populo Romano esset.

246 TLL s.v. praeter 1001.72 makes a distinction between ‘respectu admittendi’, as in the examples provided here, and ‘respectu excludendi’ in later texts. 247 On praeterquam, see Iordache (2010: 8–12). 248 See TLL s.v. iuxta 754.6ff. 249 For the history of this use of absque, see Haverling (1988: 45–8).

Infinitival clauses

383

(‘The Lanuvini were given citizenship, and their worship was restored to them, with the stipulation that the temple and grove of Juno Sospita should be held in common by the burghers of Lanuvium and the Roman people.’ Liv. 8.14.2) Supplement: Et Antium nova colonia missa, cum eo ut Antiatibus permitteretur, si et ipsi adscribi coloni vellent. (Liv. 8.14.8); Si nihil reliqua proficiunt, sanguis mittendus est, sed paulatim cotidieque pluribus diebus, cum eo ut cetera quoque eodem modo serventur. (Cels. 3.22.7); Romae sicut plebis victoria fuit in eo ut quae mallent, comitia haberent, ita eventu comitiorum patres vicere. (Liv. 4.56.1); Galli, quos praedae populationumque conciverat spes, postquam pro eo ut ipsi ex alieno agro raperent agerentque, suas terras sedem belli esse premique utriusque partis exercituum hibernis videre, verterunt retro Hannibalem ab Romanis odia. (Liv. 22.1.2) Appendix: For an example of a comparable combination, but this time with a subordinate interrogative clause (an indirect question), see (o). (o) . . . in omnibus quae aguntur ex eo quomodo quisque natus est . . . quid deceat exquirimus . . . (‘. . . in all that is undertaken we try to find out what is proper for everyone on the basis of how he was born . . . ’ Cic. Off. 1.119)

For comparable argument clauses, see § 15.1 fin.

16.85 Non-finite satellite clauses . Infinitival satellite clauses The present infinitive is used as a purpose adjunct from Early Latin onwards with verbs of transferring (e.g. do ‘to give’) and movement (e.g. eo ‘to go’, mitto ‘to send’). This usage is found from Early Latin onwards, but it is almost entirely absent from the prose of Cicero and Caesar. The range of verbs in each of these groups widens gradually, especially in poetry, where the infinitive had certain advantages over the competing supine, gerund, and gerundive expressions.250 It is very common in Christian writers, often copying or following the Greek model.251 Grammars call this use of the infinitive its ‘final’ use. An example of a ‘final’ infinitive with the verb do is (a). The object of da is unspecified, but mulsum can be understood from the preceding clause. In (b), quod is the subject of passive dari. The drink distributed is also understood as the object of bibere. The competing expression would be mulsum bibendum da, with a gerundival secondary predicate as discussed in § 21.9, as in (c). The gerundival expression is the one preferred in Classical prose. 250 For Virgil’s extensive use of infinitives, see Görler  (1985: 271–2). For a diachronic survey, see Perrochat (1932b: 164–9). 251 See Burton (2000: 187–8).

384 (a)

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position Age, circumfer mulsum, bibere da usque plenis cantharis. (‘Go on, pass the honey-wine round, give it to us so that we can drink it from full goblets.’ Pl. Per. 821)

(b)

. . . quod iussi dari bibere et quantum imperavi, / date. (‘. . . what I ordered to be given her to drink, and as much as I prescribed, give it to her.’ Ter. An. 484–5)

(c)

. . . calefactamque aquam pueris bibendam dedit. (‘. . . he heated the water and gave it to the children to drink.’ V. Max. 2.4.5)

Another non-finite competitor of the infinitive bibere in (a) would be an ad + gerund expression, as in (d) (see also § 16.100). As the infinitive gradually replaces the gerund, rare instances like (e), where the preposition ad governs the infinitive manducare, are fully understandable (with, perhaps, some influence from Greek). This alternative expression is relatively late and forms the basis for the Romance expressions like French donner à manger.252 (d)

. . . et exemplum ceteris ad imitandum dedit. (‘. . . and he gave others an example to imitate.’ Enn. Euh. 10V=11FRL)

(e)

Quomodo potest hic nobis carnem dare ad manducare? (‘How can he give us meat to eat?’ Vet. Lat. (cod. Verc.) Joh. 6.52) Supplement: Active: Bis in die farciat et meridie bibere dato: ne plus aqua sita siet horam unam. (Cato Agr. 89); Idem Cn. Flavius, Anni filius, dicitur ad collegam venisse visere aegrotum. (Calp. hist. 27=29C); . . . nec Homerum audio, qui Ganymeden ab dis raptum ait propter formam, ut Iovi bibere ministraret. (Cic. Tusc. 1.65); Ille (sc. Xerxes) quoque ipse, viam qui quondam per mare magnum / stravit iterque dedit legionibus ire per altum / ac pedibus salsas docuit super ire lacunas . . . (Lucr. 3.129–31); . . . dederatque comam diffundere ventis . . . (Verg. A. 1.319); Musis amicus tristitiam et metus / tradam protervis in mare Creticum / portare ventis . . . (Hor. Carm. 1.26.1–3); Maxime regum, / di tibi dent capta classem redducere Troia. (Hor. S. 2.3.190–1); Et quoniam in patria, fatis agitatus iniquis, / vivere non potui, da mihi posse mori. (Ov. Ars. 2.27–8); . . . idcirco stolidam praebet tibi vellere barbam / Iuppiter? (Pers. 2.28–9); Sic mirum, si a Deo data eadem canit quae Deus suis dedit nosse? (Tert. Test. 5.2); . . . unam atque eamdem nobis tribuens vitam habere cum Christo. (Hier. Ephes. 1.2.1); Esurivi enim et dedistis mihi manducare. (Vulg. Mat. 25.35) Passive: Quae totiens rapta’st, praebuit ipsa rapi. (Ov. Her. 5.132); Nihil prius petierunt a praetore quam ut bibere sibi iuberet dari. (Liv. 40.47.5); . . . licet sinus lateraque dissuta relinquant flatibus agitari ventorum . . . (Amm. 23.6.84)

252 For a survey of the development of the infinitive in general (which she calls ‘prospective’), see Fruyt (1996). For the Romance development, see Roegiest (1983). For instances with the verb do, see TLL s.v. 1688.59ff. See also Norberg (1943: 216). For a discussion of the infinitive as one of the purpose expressions, see Cabrillana (2011).

Infinitival clauses

385

Further Late Latin examples and discussion can be found in Norberg (1943: 206–31), also useful for the rest of this section. In certain text types (poetry, translations of the Bible) the influence of Greek cannot be excluded, but the increase in the use of the infinitive at the cost of the gerund and gerundive is mainly an internal Latin development.

From Early Latin onwards the infinitive is also found with verbs of (implied) movement.253 Examples are (f) and (g). The most common non-finite purpose expression is the supine in -um, as in (h) (see also § 16.112). Hardly used in Early Latin is the gerundival purpose adjunct expression (ibit ad aurum arcessendum), as in (i) (see also § 16.106), which is common in Classical prose. In Augustan poetry the range of verbs with which the infinitive is used is widened, under Greek influence.254 The infinitive is used in Bible translations and in quotations from the Bible, where the Greek koine text has an infinitive and the agent of the infinitive is coreferential with the subject of the governing verb. An example is (j).255 Christian authors rarely use infinitives in their own texts. As with the verb do (see above), predecessors of a Romance expression can be found from the Vetus Latina onwards in the form of an ad + infinitive expression, as in (k). (f)

Illa autem in arcem abiit aedem visere / Minervae. (‘She has gone to the Acropolis to visit the temple of Minerva.’ Pl. Bac. 900–1)

(g)

Senex in Ephesum ibit aurum arcessere. (‘The old man will go to Ephesus to fetch the gold.’ Pl. Bac. 354)

(h)

Tune es qui hau multo prius / abiisti hinc erum accersitum? (‘Aren’t you the one who went away a little earlier to fetch his master?’ Pl. Rud. 1055–6)

(i)

. . . legati ad arcessendum Hannibalem . . . venerunt. (‘. . . legates came to invite Hannibal . . .’ Liv. 24.13.8)

(j)

Paene universa civitas convenit audire verbum Domini. (‘Almost the whole city came together to hear the word of God.’ Vulg. Act. 13.44)

(k)

Cum veneris ad bibere, accede et illuminare. (‘Since you have come to drink, come forward and be illuminated.’ August. Serm. 225.4) Supplement: Ecquis currit pollinctorem accersere? (Pl. As. 910); Militis parasitus modo / venerat aurum petere hinc. (Pl. Bac. 631–31a); Ego hunc missa sum ludere. (Pl. Cas. 688); Recipe te et recurre petere recenti (Pl. Trin. 1015); . . . nunc ad amicam venis

253 For statistical information about Plautus and Terence and discussion, see Adams and Vincent (2016: 266–8). 254 See Penney (1999: 253–8) and Calboli (2009: 131–3). For the history of the infinitive with the verbs eo and venio, see Adams and Vincent (2016). 255 See Burton (2000: 187–8).

386

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position querimonias referre. (Pl. Truc. 167); Nostra ilico / it visere ad eam. (Ter. Hec. 188–9); Sempronius Lilybaeo celocem in Africam mittit visere locum, ubi exercitum exponat. (Coel. hist. 12=9C); A quo est in Sota Enni: ‘Ibant malaci viere Veneriam corollam’. (Var. L. 5.62); . . . cum . . . visere venissemus . . . (Var. R. 2.1.1); . . . nec dulces occurrent oscula nati / praeripere . . . (Lucr. 3.895–6); Non nos aut ferro Libycos populare penatis / venimus, aut raptas ad litora vertere praedas . . . (Verg. A. 1.527–8); . . . idem omnis simul ardor agit nova quaerere tecta. (Verg. A. 7.393); Atqui non ego te tigris ut aspera / Gaetulusve leo frangere persequor. (Hor. Carm. 1.23.9–10); An potius maritum, qui tuo vulnere periclitatur, intervisere venisti? (Apul. Met. 6.9.2); Utriusque nominis testes esse vel magi adsunt. (Tert. Apol. 22.2); Non venerant mori, ideo nec nasci. (Tert. Carn. Chr. 6.5); . . . et iam unusquisque hiens ad domum suam festinat manducare . . . (Pereg. 30.3); . . . statim unusquisque animosi vadent in Syon orare ad columnam illam . . . (Pereg. 37.1); . . . venimus adorare eum. (Vulg. Mat. 2.2); . . . et ipse salvator non venit iustos vocare, sed peccatores. (Hier. Ep. 11.2); Ergo quantum in medico est, sanare venit aegrotum. (August. Tract. Io. 12.12); Ad tua, sanctae, limina veni, nihil aliud quam parvitatis meae vota deferre. (Greg. Tur. Jul. 21) NB: Ipsum elegit . . . ad offerre sacrificium Deo. (Vet. Lat. (cod. Tolet.) Sirach 45.20— cf. Tob. 3.25 with later instances to follow in the 7th century).

In Late Latin the infinitive is also occasionally found as a purpose adjunct with other verbs besides those mentioned above, for which Early or Classical examples are lacking and where the Greek original is copied.256 An instance of this is (l). (l)

. . . et sedit populus comedere ac bibere et surrexerunt ludere. (‘. . . and the people sat down to eat and drink, and they stood up to play.’ Vulg. Ex. 32.6) Supplement: . . . non stabam frui Deo meo, sed rapiebar ad te . . . (August. Conf. 7.23); Et rursus Esaias ait erit radix Iesse et qui exsurget regere gentes in eo gentes sperabunt. (Vulg. Rom. 15.12) From Cicero’s time onward, but especially in poetry, the infinitive is also found with manipulation verbs such as rogo ‘to ask’, hortor ‘to urge on’, and moneo ‘to warn’. Although these infinitival expressions are often called ‘final’, they are actually arguments of the governing verbs and not satellites. See the discussion of this ‘prolative’ use of the infinitive in §§ 15.114ff.

. Participial satellite clauses The most commonly known participial satellite clause is the ablative absolute clause. An example is (a). (a)

Tum Cethegus . . . recitatis litteris (a me, sc. Cicerone) . . . repente conticuit.

256 For a discussion of possible Greek influence, see Calboli (2009: 131–3).

Participial clauses

387

(‘Then Cethegus . . . when his letter was read out (by me) . . . suddenly fell silent.’ Cic. Catil. 3.10)

Perfect passive participles are the most common form of participle used in participial clauses, as in the example above. However, the present active, present and perfect deponent, and future active participles are allowed as well, as illustrated by (b)–(e). (b)

Fugiens . . . Pompeius . . . homines movet. (‘The picture of Pompey on the run affects men.’ Cic. Att. 7.11.4)

(c)

. . . senatus consultum factum ut . . . is . . . potissimum consulibus ad bellum profectis urbi praeesset. (‘. . . the senate decreed that . . . he . . . should be in charge of the city when the consuls took the field.’ Liv. 24.9.5)

(d)

. . . qui non nascentibus Athenis sed iam adultis fuerunt . . . (‘. . . who belonged to Athens not in her infancy but in her maturity . . .’ Cic. Brut. 27)

(e)

Augebat metum . . . invasurus hostis. (‘The enemy being about to invade heightened the alarm.’ Tac. Ann. 1.36.2)

For a discussion of the internal structure of participial clauses and their relation to gerundival and non-verbal clauses, see § 14.14.257

. Participial ablative absolute clauses Participial ablative absolute (ablativus absolutus) clauses are found in all periods of Latin and in all types of texts and registers, although with varying distributions and degrees of internal complexity.258 Perfect participles are relatively rare in the comedies of Plautus and Terence, but seem to be fully exploited by the early historians of the second century bc. Passive participles are much more common than deponent ones. Present participles are used with much lower frequency than perfect participles. They are relatively rare in Early Latin but become a normal part of the narrative technique of the early historians. They are relatively frequent in Cicero’s works, where they serve as an alternative for substantival ablative absolute clauses (see § 16.116) and are characteristic of the narrative style of Caesar and the Caesarean corpus. Finally they are fully integrated into the narrative techniques of Livy, Tacitus, and most other authors with literary aspirations until Late Latin.259 In didactic texts, such as Pliny the Elder, ablative absolute clauses were a convenient way to condense information.260 However, 257 For the development of absolute constructions from Latin to the Romance languages, see MüllerLancé (1994). 258 For the history of the analysis of this construction from Antiquity onwards, see FlinckLinkomies  (1929: 7–27), Sluiter  (2000), and Copeland and Sluiter  (2009: 314–38). For the history of the  term ‘ablativus absolutus’ (found for the first time c.1050), see also Scaglione  (1970) and Keydana (1997: 6–7). 259 For the relative frequency of the present participle in participial satellite clauses in late (fifth- and sixth-century) historians, see Galdi (2016c) and Gayno (2016: 38–9). 260 For Pliny the Elder’s use of the ablative absolute, see Cova (1986).

388

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position

the present participle is rare in stylistically less elaborated texts, such as the Cena Trimalchionis and the Vetus Latina translations of the Bible. Future participles are very uncommon in all periods of Latin. The first attestation is from Asinius Pollio (see § 16.89), followed by several instances in Livy. As for the stylistic register of ablative absolute clauses, Flinck-Linkomies (1929: 227–44; 250–6) shows, among other things, that in the Vetus Latina translations of the Bible present participle ablative absolute clauses are avoided, whereas in the Vulgate translation they are used to translate Greek participial clauses. There is a similar difference between the ‘vulgar’ version of the Epistula Alexandri ad Aristotelem and the more literary version by Leo Presbyter. To a lesser extent this also holds for the use of perfect passive participles (ibid.: 250–6). The development of the complex ablative absolute clauses of the Classical authors, especially the historians, was influenced by ‘the syntactic models of classical Greek literary prose’ (Coleman 1989: 364).

In the following sections attention will be paid to five different aspects of the participial ablative absolute clause: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)

The semantic relationship between the participial clause and the matrix clause (§ 16.89); The relationship between arguments of the participial and matrix clauses (§ 16.90); The internal complexity of the participial clause (§ 16.91); Participial ablative absolute clauses without a corresponding noun (phrase) (§ 16.92); The impersonal use of perfect passive participles (§ 16.93).

16.89 The semantic relationship between the participial ablative absolute clause and the main clause The most common use of the ablative absolute clause is as an adjunct, as (a), repeated from § 16.87, and (b). The latter is an example of the ‘ablatif absolu de reprise’ (summarizing absolute ablative) which is typical of Caesar’s narrative, but also found in Sallust, Livy, and Tacitus.261 (a)

Tum Cethegus . . . recitatis litteris (a me, sc. Cicerone) . . . repente conticuit. (‘Then Cethegus . . . when his letter was read out (by me) . . . suddenly fell silent.’ Cic. Catil. 3.10)

(b)

. . . omnibus navibus ad unam incolumibus milites exposuit. . . . Expositis militibus naves eadem nocte Brundisium a Caesare remittuntur . . . (‘…he landed the soldiers from all of his ships without losing a single ship. . . . Once the soldiers were on land, Caesar sent the ships back to Brundisium the same night . . .’ Caes. Civ. 3.6.3–8.1)

261 For an exhaustive discussion, see Chausserie-Laprée (1969: 109–20). For Tacitus, see Enghofer (1961: 114–20). See also § 23.67.

Participial clauses

389

Although most ablative absolutes function as adjunct, they can also be used as disjuncts, as in (c), where viso . . . favo provides the evidence for a statement in the main clause (it is an attitudinal disjunct). (c)

Aliubi enim favi cera spectabiles gignuntur, ut in Sicilia, Paelignis, aliubi copia mellis, ut in Creta, Cypro, Africa, aliubi magnitudine, ut in septentrionalibus, viso iam in Germania octo pedum longitudinis favo in cava parte nigro. (‘In some places honeycombs distinguished for their wax are formed, as in Sicily and the Abruzzi, in other places for quantity of honey, as in Crete, Cyprus, Africa, in others for size, as in the northern countries, a comb having before now been seen in Germany that was 8 ft. long, and black in its hollow part.’ Plin. Nat. 11.33)

Ablative absolute clauses cover a broad range of meanings (position in time, cause, condition, concession, or manner, and especially—but more vaguely—circumstance). However, unlike finite satellite clauses with a similar meaning, the semantic relationship with the matrix clause is not marked by a subordinator;262 as a result, the precise relationship between an ablative absolute and the main clause must be inferred.263 The examples given below to exemplify the various semantic relations must therefore be seen as groupings of more or less similar interpretations (argument and satellite constituents within the ablative absolute are marked in italics and bold italics, respectively). Ablative absolute clauses in their ‘circumstance’ interpretation are often more or less equated with cum clauses. Baños (1992, 1994) shows that the ablative absolute clauses and cum clauses are more or less in complementary distribution: cum clauses are required when there are structural limitations on the use of an ablative absolute, or when the clause is structurally complex.264 Supplement: Position in time: Perfect participle: . . . patriam deseres, / cognatos, affinitatem, amicos factis nuptiis. (Pl. Trin. 701–2); Pallam ad phrygionem fert confecto prandio / vinoque expoto, parasito excluso foras. (Pl. Men. 469–70); (sc. L. Mummius) Achaia · Capt(a) · Corinto / deleto · Romam · redieit / triumphans. (CIL I2.626.3–5 (Rome, 142 bc)); Custodibus discessis multi interficiuntur. (Coel. hist. 32=29C); His sic tractatis accusator utetur loco communi . . . (Rhet. Her. 2.21); Nunc, absoluta a nobis difficillima parte rhetoricae, hoc est inventione perpolita atque omne causae genus adcommodata, tempus est ad ceteras partes proficisci. (Rhet. Her. 3.8); Quam ob rem, quoniam Dolabella hesterno die hoste decreto bellum gerendum est, imperator est deligendus. (Cic. Phil. 11.16); Tamen ante Periclem, cuius scripta quaedam feruntur, et

262 Another difference between finite satellite clauses and participial ones is that the former locate the state of affairs in time, whereas participial clauses only indicate relative time. 263 Krisch (1988) takes the temporal/circumstantial meaning as the basic meaning of the participial clauses and explains the other interpretations as contextually determined. 264 See also Hoff  (1989: 409–10). For Late Latin authors, including Ammianus Marcellinus, see Gago (1998).

390

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position Thucydidem, qui non nascentibus Athenis sed iam adultis fuerunt, littera nulla est, quae quidem ornatum aliquem habeat et oratoris esse videatur. (Cic. Brut. 27); Dein Sulla omnia265 pollicito docti, quo modo apud Marium, item apud senatum verba facerent, circiter dies quadraginta ibidem opperiuntur. (Sal. Jug. 103.7); . . . in quo uno tantum esset, ut, quoad ille viveret, ipsi securi esse non possent, interfecto nihil habituri negotii essent. (Nep. Eum. 12.1—NB: parallelism with quoad clause); P. et Cn. Scipionibus inter se partitis copias . . . (Liv. 23.26.2); . . . misso Syphace et captivis, ceteras urbes Numidiae quae praesidiis regiis tenebantur adiuvante Masinissa recipit. (Liv. 30.12.22); . . . gratum elocuta consiliantibus / Iunone divis . . . (Hor. Carm. 3.3.17–18); Septentrionalis vero Oceanus maiore ex parte navigatus est, auspiciis Divi Augusti Germaniam classe circumvecta ad Cimbrorum promunturium . . . (Plin. Nat. 2.167); Adde quod omne caput fluvii . . . / . . . ingresso vere tumescit / prima tabe nivis. (Luc. 10.223–5); Ex · auctoritate / Imp(eratoris) · Caesaris / Vespasiani · Aug(usti) · / loca · publica · a privatis / possessa · T(itus) · Suedius · Clemens / tribunus · causis · cognitis · et / mensuris · factis · rei / publicae Pompeianorum / restituit. (CIL X.1018 (Pompeii)); Occasione / inventa spero me celerius aput te / venturum. (CEL 147.9–11 (Karanis, ad 100–25)); Conferti tantum et pilis emissis post umbonibus et gladiis stragem caedemque continuarent, praedae immemores. Parta victoria cuncta ipsis cessura. (Tac. Ann. 14.36.2); Quo mortuo aut capite deminuto revertitur ad eum tutorem tutela, qui cessit. (Gaius Inst. 1.170); . . . Sticho statim libertatem consecuto . . . (Scaev. dig. 34.1.18.2); Contra illi, qui nos oderunt, dolere, non gaudere debebant, consecutis nobis quod elegimus. (Tert. Apol. 49.6); Nuncupato igitur Licinio imperatore Maximinus iratus nec Caesarem se nec tertio loco nominari volebat. (Lact. Mort. 32.1); Lecto ergo eo loco et annuntiata Pascha fit missa. (Pereg. 29.5) Present participle: Interea prope iam occidente sole inhorrescit mare, / tenebrae conduplicantur . . . (Pacuv. trag. 411–12); Piro florente dapem pro bubus facito. (Cato Agr. 131, cf. Var. R. 1.37.5; Plin. Nat. 18.243); . . . queritur priore patrono causam defendente numquam perorari potuisse . . . (Cic. Quinct. 34); Hanc opinionem discipulus eius Pythagoras maxime confirmavit, qui cum Superbo regnante in Italiam venisset, tenuit Magnam illam Graeciam . . . (Cic. Tusc. 1.38); Dubitante Caesare atque eorum studio cupiditatique resistente sibique eruptione pugnari non placere clamitante etiam atque etiam aciem sustentante subito dextro cornu iniussu Caesaris tubicen a militibus coactus canere coepit. (B. Afr. 82.3); Fracti bello fatisque repulsi / ductores Danaum, tot iam labentibus annis, / instar montis equum divina Palladis arte / aedificant . . . (Verg. A. 2.13–16); Potantibus ergo nobis et accuratissime lautitias mirantibus larvam argenteam attulit . . . (Petr. 34.8); Prius fuit a litore stadiis X—maritimum etiam Vipsania porticus habet—Iuba vero prodente p. (Plin. Nat. 6.139); Etiamsi albescente caelo exire voluero (Tab. Vindon. 46 (Windisch, between ad 30 and 101)); Quo tenente regnum Aeneas ab Ilio Troia a Graecis expugnata in Italiam venit statimque bello exceptus . . . (Justin. 43.1.10) Future participle: (sc. Rex apum) procedit foris non nisi migraturo examine. (Plin. Nat. 11.54)

265 Perfect deponent participles governing an argument are not attested until this example. A full list of such instances can be found in Schmalz (1884).

Participial clauses

391

Cause: Perfect participle: . . . qui cursum rerum eventorumque consequentiam diuturnitate pertractata notaverunt . . . quid futurum sit, intellegunt. (Cic. Div. 1.128—NB: if this is the correct interpretation; see Pease ad loc.); C. Flaminium Coelius religione neglecta cecidisse apud Transumenum scribit cum magno rei publicae vulnere. (Cic. N.D. 2.8); Nec dissolutio navigii sequebatur, turbatis omnibus et quod plerique ignari etiam conscios impediebant. (Tac. Ann. 14.5.2—NB: coordination with a quod clause) Present participle: Ad quas adero, et omni ope atque opera enitar, adiuvante me scilicet auctoritate tua et gratia et summa aequitate causae, ut de Buthrotiis senatus consultum quale scribis fiat. (Cic. Att. 14.14.6); Cum duce adsumpto Alexandrini . . . eludentibus . . . militibus regis aetatem atque infirmitatem magnum dolorem acciperent . . . (B. Alex. 25.1); Honesta res est, sollemnitate publica exigente, induere domui tuae habitum alicuius novi lupanaris! (Tert. Apol. 35.4); . . . ubi incensus est vitulus ipse, iubente sancto Moyse . . . (Pereg. 5.6); . . . hos patri / inscripsi v / sus dictante / dolore . . . (CIL VIII.1359.15–18 (Testur (Africa Proconsularis), ad 408/21)) Future participle: Huius ergo viri tot tantisque operibus mansuris266 in omne aevum praedicare de ingenio atque industria superva. (Asin. Pollio apud Sen. Suas. 6.24); Parumper silentium et quies fuit nec Etruscis, nisi cogerentur, pugnam inituris et dictatore arcem Romanam respectante . . . (Liv. 4.18.6); Carthaginienses…prima luce oppugnaturis hostibus / castra saxis undique . . . congestis augent vallum… (Liv. 28.15.12–3); Ceterum propalam conprehendi Dareus non poterat tot Persarum milibus laturis opem regi. Graecorum quoque fides timebatur. (Curt. 5.10.7); Exercitum Vitellii universum advenisse, nec multum virium a tergo, quoniam Galliae tumeant et deserere Rheni ripam inrupturis tam infestis nationibus non conducat. (Tac. Hist. 2.32.1) Condition: Perfect participle: Quae potest esse vitae iucunditas sublatis amicitiis? (Cic. Planc. 80) Present participle: . . . maximas vero virtutes iacere omnis necesse est voluptate dominante. (Cic. Fin. 2.117); Denique nihil me sciente frustra voles. (Sal. Jug. 110.5) Concession: Perfect participle: Is me nunc renuntiare repudium iussit tibi. / # Repudium rebus paratis, exornatis nuptiis? (Pl. Aul. 783–4) Present participle: Conligavit? # Atque equidem orante ut ne id faceret Thaide. (Ter. Eu. 956); Atque ex his horum contraria facile tacentibus nobis intellegentur. (Cic. Inv. 2.157); Itaque acrius de integro coortum est bellum pluribusque partibus vix accipientibus quibusdam opera locis vineae coeptae agi admoverique aries. (Liv. 21.8.2) Manner/Circumstance: Perfect participle: Qui (sc. rex apum) tamen et ipse spoliandus est alis, ubi saepius cum examine suo conatur eruptione facta profugere. (Col. 9.10) Present participle: Egone istuc dixi? # Tute istic, etiam astante hoc Sosia. (Pl. Am. 747); . . . resistam et aut concedente aut etiam adiuvante Milone eius conatum 266 There is a conjecture mansuri, adopted by many editors.

392

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position refutabo . . . (Cic. Har. 7); . . . . nullo hoste prohibente aut iter demorante incolumem legionem in antuates, inde in Allobroges perduxit ibique hiemavit. (Caes. Gal. 3.6.5)

Instances of participial ablative absolute clauses that cannot be described in terms of ‘adjunct-like’ specifications are rare in Early Latin and in Cicero. From Sallust onward, however, and especially in the historians Livy, Tacitus, and Ammianus Marcellinus, and also in Pliny the Elder, the participial ablative absolute clause is found at the end of the complex sentence, describing the circumstances or offering some form of comment or an explanation, as in (d).267 Another form of loose attachment of a participial ablative absolute clause is shown in (e), where the ablative absolute is attached to a noun phrase. (d)

Arruns prior quam pater moritur uxore gravida relicta. (‘Arruns died before his father, leaving his wife with child.’ Liv. 1.34.2)

(e)

Ibique captivorum simulacra barbarico vestis ornatu superbia meritis contumeliis punita sustinentia tectum conlocaverunt . . . (‘There they placed statues of their captives in barbaric dress—punishing their pride with deserved insults—to support the roof . . .’ Vitr. 1.1.6) Supplement: Dein Micipsa filius regnum solus obtinuit, Mastanabale et Gulussa fratribus morbo absumptis. (Sal. Jug. 5.6); Hactenus de arboribus praecepisse abunde est reddituro pecoris curam et remedia sequenti volumine. (Col. 5.12.5); . . . Dareus . . . cum magno deinde exercitu mare traiecit, inlato Macedoniae et Graeciae bello. (Curt. 4.1.10); Super omnia, quae umquam audita sunt, erit prodigium in nostro aevo Neronis principis ruina factum in agro Marrucino, Vetti Marcelli e primis equestris ordinis oliveto universo viam publicam transgresso arvisque inde e contrario in locum oliveti profectis. (Plin. Nat. 17.245); Vis ei ad calfaciendum extenuandumque, efficax contra suffusiones et caligines oculorum, suco eiusdem poto contra serpentes. (Plin. Nat. 25.158); Nondum ea clades exoleverat, cum ignis violentia urbem ultra solitum adfecit, deusto monte Caelio. (Tac. Ann. 4.64.1)

Hand in hand with the increasing use of elaborate and complex sentences, especially (but not solely) in historical and didactic works, authors began to insert constituents either in the matrix clause or in the ablative absolute clause to make the semantic relationship between them more explicit, such as deinde ‘thereafter’ and tamen ‘nevertheless’ in the main clause, and nisi ‘unless’ and quamvis ‘although’ in the ablative absolute clause. (For the same development in participial secondary predicates, see § 21.18.) The ‘autonomous’ clausal character of ablative absolute clauses was in this

267 For this use of the ablative absolute (which he calls rallonge ‘extension’), see Chausserie-Laprée (1969: 318–27); Enghofer (1961: 130–8); Longrée (1995; 1996a). In their commentary on Tac. Ann. IV Martin and Woodman (1989: 23–4) use the term ‘appendix’. For the frequent use of such ‘appended’ clauses in late historical texts, see Galdi (2016c: 653–5).

Participial clauses

393

way further enhanced. Examples are (f) and (g). However, semantically related finite clauses still remained on the average more complex. (f)

(Dicaearchus) . . . qui collectis ceteris causis . . . deinde comparat . . . (‘(Dicaearchus) . . . who, after gathering together all the other causes (of destruction) . . ., then proceeds to show by way of comparison . . .’ Cic. Off. 2.16)

(g)

Etsi aliquo accepto detrimento tamen . . . locum . . . capi posse. (‘Though some loss should be sustained, yet the place . . . can be captured.’ Caes. Civ. 1.67.5) Supplement: NB: for each adverb/subordinator only the earliest attestations are given. This is not an exhaustive survey of all the particles/subordinators found.268 In the main clause: . . . castris positis populatur inde agrum Romanum . . . (Liv. 2.39.5); Conferti tantum et pilis emissis post umbonibus et gladiis stragem caedemque continuarent, praedae immemores. (Tac. Ann. 14.36.2); Sed confecto proelio, tum vero cerneres, quanta audacia quantaque animi vis fuisset in exercitu Catilinae. (Sal. Cat. 61.1); Hisce omnibus rebus consideratis, tum denique id, quod primum est dicendum, postremum soleo cogitare, quo utar exordio. (Cic. de Orat. 2.315) Atque haec eo pertinet oratio ut perditis rebus omnibus tamen ipsa virtus se sustentare posse videatur. (Cic. Fam. 6.1.4); . . . quo defendente nullo tamen armatis ascendere esset difficile . . . (Hirt. Gal. 8.33.1) Caesar interim consilio hostium cognito iubet aciem in longitudinem quam maximam porrigi et alternis conversis cohortibus ut una post altera ante signa tenderet ita coronam hostium dextro sinistroque cornu mediam dividit . . . (B. Afr. 17.1) In the ablative absolute clause: Decemviri querentes se in ordinem cogi non ante quam perlatis legibus, quarum causa creati essent, deposituros imperium se aiebant. (Liv. 3.51.13); Postero die sub ortum solis instruxere ab alto naves velut ad iustum proelium navale et tamquam exituris contra Romanis. (Liv. 30.10.11);269 Aetoli campos Thessaliae opimos ad praedam petiere, sequente quamquam non probante Amynandro nec effusas populationes Aetolorum nec castra quo fors tulisset loco sine ullo discrimine aut cura muniendi posita. (Liv. 31.41.7); . . . praesidens certamini Neroneo cupientem inter citharoedos contendere nec quamvis flagitantibus cunctis promittere audentem ideoque egressum theatro revocaverat . . . (Suet. Vit. 4); Non loquar nisi pace facta . . . (Pl. Am. 390); Iste quasi praeda sibi advecta . . . eos in hostium numero ducit. (Cic. Ver. 5.64); Me tueor ut oppressis omnibus non demisse, ut tantis rebus gestis parum fortiter. (Cic. Att. 2.18.3); Ac venti velut agmine facto / . . . ruunt . . . (Verg. A. 1.82–3); Parthi, penes quos velut divisione orbis cum Romanis facta nunc Orientis imperium est, Scytharum exules fuere. (Justin. 41.1.1); Simul et in hostis iam pavidos quippe fuso suae partis validiore cornu impetum facit. (Liv. 3.63.2)

268 A very complete (but not always reliable) list of subordinators can be found in Lease (1928; 1931). Livy has the most abundant and varied use. 269 For Livy’s use of ut and tamquam with participial clauses and secondary predicates, see Traenkle (1968: 139–40).

394

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position

The semantic relationship between the ablative absolute clause and the main clause may also be specified by the incorporation of other types of constituents, such as the adverb statim ‘at once’, as in (h). (h)

Opuntii quoque ab eadem ira increpiti quod, cum trahere obsidionem in adventum suum potuissent, viso statim hoste prope in voluntariam deditionem concessissent. (‘The men of Opus also were no less angrily upbraided because, although they could have dragged out the siege until his coming, at the first sight of the enemy they had almost willingly surrendered.’ Liv. 28.7.9) Supplement: Sed a Caesare perfecto demum scelere magnitudo eius intellecta est. (Tac. Ann. 14.10.1); Candente itaque protinus die signo ad arma capienda . . . dato . . . (Amm. 31.7.10)270

16.90 The relationship between arguments of the participial ablative absolute and the main clause In (a), repeated from § 16.87 and § 16.89, the argument of the ablative absolute clause (litteris), semantically the patient of recitatis, does not have the same referent as the argument of the main clause (Cethegus), semantically the agent of conticuit. (a)

Tum Cethegus . . . recitatis litteris (a me, sc. Cicerone) . . . repente conticuit. (‘Then Cethegus . . . when his letter was read out (by me) . . . suddenly fell silent.’ Cic. Catil. 3.10)

The predominant situation, at least in Classical Latin, is that these constituents of the two clauses are referentially distinct, as in (a), and this is often formulated as a rule that the subject of the ablative absolute clause should not be a constituent of the main clause. School books in particular tend to be very rigid about the need to use the ablative absolute clause if the constituents are distinct and to use a participle as secondary predicate (the so-called participium coniunctum) in the case of identity. However, there are many exceptions to this generalizing statement, even in the ‘Classical authors’.271 Examples of referential identity between constituents of the ablative absolute clause and the main clause are (b) and (c). In the latter example the object of the main clause has to be inferred from the ablative absolute clause. More examples can be found in the Supplement. (b)

. . . non modo permittente patre, sed etiam suadente ab eo semigravit . . . (‘. . . then not only with the permission of his father, but even with his advice, he separated from him . . .’ Cic. Cael. 18)

270 The placement of protinus is ‘cursus causa’, according to den Boeft et al. ad loc. 271 For a discussion of deviations from the rules in Caesar, see Hoff (1989). For Sallust and Livy, see Kruijer and la Roi (2018).

Participial clauses (c)

395

(sc. Vercingetorix) . . . convocatis suis clientibus facile incendit (sc. eos). (‘(Vercingetorix), having summoned his own dependents, easily fired their spirit.’ Caes. Gal. 7.4.1)

In (b) something like (b') (with a secondary predicate) may not seem an impossible alternative (but see below). However, something like (c') sounds odd, because the participle used in this way refers to a state the clientes are in, and less to a sequence of actions of Vercingetorix.272 So there are cases where the two constructions are not interchangeable, that is to say, they are not just two morphological variants for the same message. (b') (c')

A patre non modo permittente sed etiam suadente semigravit. Vercingetorix suos clientes convocatos facile incendit.

Moreover, as is sometimes stated in the literature, instances like (b) and (c) may have had certain advantages: some ablative absolute clauses are more or less set phrases (especially those with invito and absente, for which see § 16.117). Repeating two identical entities stresses this identity; the structure of the entire sentence is more transparent and events are more clearly sequenced than when a secondary predicate is used. Also, the ablative absolute clause usually contains topical information and therefore precedes the main clause. Finally, it is sometimes the case that no grammatical alternative secondary predicate is available. Supplement: Quaeso tamen, tu meam partem, infortunium / si dividetur, me apsente accipito tamen. (Pl. Mil. 865–6); In qua (sc. re publica) quidem nunc me restituto vivit mecum simul exemplum fidei publicae. (Cic. Sest. 50); . . . praesertim cum eius essem civitatis ex qua C. Mucius solus in castra Porsenae venisset eumque interficere proposita sibi morte conatus esset. (Cic. Sest. 48); Qua re tibi nuntiata, ut constabat inter eos qui una fuerunt, concidisti. (Cic. Phil. 2.107); Quibus (sc. navibus) effectis armatisque diebus XXX a qua die materia caesa est adductisque Massiliam his D.  Brutum praeficit, C. Trebonium legatum ad oppugnationem Massiliae relinquit. (Caes. Gal. 1.36.5—NB: dative his immediately follows the ablative absolute); Turribus autem excitatis tamen has altitudo puppium ex barbaris navibus superabat . . . (Caes. Gal. 3.14.4); Ubi se diutius duci intellexit . . . convocatis eorum principibus quorum magnam copiam in castris habebat . . . graviter eos accusat quod, cum neque emi neque ex agris sumi possit . . . ab iis non sublevetur . . . (Caes. Gal. 1.16.5–6); Exinde duabus admotis quadrigis in currus earum distentum inligat Mettium . . . (Liv. 1.28.10); Illo loco aut cadendum esse aut stratis hostibus per corpora eorum evadendum. (Liv. 10.35.18); Cameris dispositis et intextis imum caelum earum trullissetur, deinde harena dirigatur, postea autem creta aut marmore poliatur. (Vitr. 7.3.3); Sed a Caesare perfecto demum scelere magnitudo eius intellecta est. (Tac. Ann. 14.10.1); Interim cunctantibus prolatantibusque spem ac metum Epicharis quaedam, incertum

272 Helttula (1987: 17–19) does regard the ablative absolute in this case as a variant of a direct object modified by a participle.

396

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position quonam modo sciscitata (neque illi ante ulla rerum honestarum cura fuerat), accendere et arguere coniuratos . . . (Tac. Ann. 15.51.1) Clam nuntiis ad Milonem missis . . . atque eo in Italiam evocato . . . sibi (sc. eum) coniunxit atque eum in Thurinum ad sollicitandos pastores praemisit. (Caes. Civ. 3.21.4).

In the initial example (a), repeated as (d), the implied agent of the passive participle in the ablative absolute clause (Cicero) is distinct from the subject of the matrix clause (Cethegus). Other examples are given in the Supplement. (d)

Tum Cethegus . . . recitatis litteris (a me) . . . repente conticuit. (‘Then Cethegus . . . when his letter was read out (by me) . . . suddenly fell silent.’ Cic. Catil. 3.10) Supplement: Nihil prodest narratio tum, cum ab adversariis re exposita nostra nihil interest iterum aut alio modo narrare. (Cic. Inv. 1.30); Post autem aliquanto, toto iam indicio exposito atque edito, surrexit . . . (Cic. Catil. 3.11); . . . Belgas . . . solos . . . esse qui patrum nostrorum memoria omni Gallia vexata (sc. a Teutonis Cimbrisque) Teutonos Cimbrosque intra suos fines ingredi prohibuerint. (Caes. Gal. 2.4.2); . . . concilio prius inter sese habito senatum adeunt factaque dicendi potestate equis se suis stipendia facturos promittunt. (Liv. 5.7.5); Quae tibi virginum / sponso necato barbara serviet? (Hor. Carm. 1.29.5–6); Tum Amyntas facta dicendi potestate ‘Si nihil’, inquit, ‘interest regis, peto, ut, dum dico, vinculis liberer.’ (Curt. 7.1.18); Defuncto autem Herode ecce apparuit angelus Domini in somnis Ioseph . . . (Vulg. Mat. 2.19)273

Much more often, however, and throughout the history of Latin, although there is some fluctuation among authors, the agent of a passive ablative absolute clause and the subject of the matrix clause are referentially identical, as in (e). The agent of the passive ablative absolute clause may be explicitly specified, as in (f). Another possibility is to insert the subject of the main clause, which is also the agent of the participial clause, into the participial clause, as in (g). Livy in particular274 sometimes underlines the identity of agent and subject by the insertion of ipse ‘self ’ into the ablative absolute clause, as in (h). However, sometimes such an inserted ipse seems only to stress the personal involvement of the agent of the ablative absolute clause, as in (i) (see also § 14.18 and § 23.67). In (j), inserted Caesar is the recipient of the action in the ablative absolute clause. (e)

Haec eadem locutus sum domi meae adhibito Quinto, fratre meo . . . (‘I said these same things at my house, with Quintus, my brother, having been invited.’ Cic. Fam. 10.25.3)

(f)

Quis enim potest aut deserta per se patria aut oppressa beatus esse? (‘For who can be happy when he has either deserted his country or oppressed it?’ Cic. Att. 10.4.4)

273 The Vetus Latina version has Cum autem mortuus esset (see also note 256). 274 Material in Riemann (1885: 259–61). For discussion, see Traenkle (1968: 140–2).

Participial clauses (g)

397

Hac re statim Caesar per speculatores cognita insidias veritus . . . exercitum . . . castris continuit. (‘Caesar learnt this at once through his scouts; and fearing an ambush he kept the army in camp.’ Caes. Gal. 2.11.2)

(h)

Romani quoque imperatores . . . iunctis et ipsi exercitibus . . . ad sedem hostium pervenere . . . (‘The Roman commanders on their part . . . when they had united their armies . . . also reached the place where their enemies had concentrated . . .’ Liv. 29.2.1)

(i)

. . . causa ipse pro se dicta . . . damnatur. (‘. . . having pleaded his own cause . . ., he was condemned.’ Liv. 4.44.10)

(j)

Quibus litteris circiter media nocte Caesar adlatis suos facit certiores eosque ad dimicandum animo confirmat. (‘The dispatch was brought in about midnight; Caesar informed his troops thereof, and encouraged them for the fight.’ Caes. Gal. 5.49.4) Supplement: ‘Quid dubitas igitur’, inquam, ‘summo bono a te ita constituto, ut id totum in non dolendo sit, id tenere unum, id tueri, id defendere?’ (Cic. Fin. 2.11); . . . concilio prius inter sese habito senatum adeunt . . . (Liv. 5.7.5) Quo tamen incommodo Domitius accepto reliquias exercitus dissipati collegit . . . (B. Alex. 40.5); Recepta cocus tunica cultrum arripuit porcique ventrem hinc atque illinc timida manu secuit. (Petr. 49.9)

16.91 The internal complexity of the participial ablative absolute clause Authors vary in the degree of complexity of their participial ablative absolute clauses and in the degree to which they strive after ‘integration’ of the participial and the main clause (on the latter, see § 14.15). In the earliest texts we find a few short present participial expressions such as me (in)sciente ‘with me (not) knowing’. There is only one example in Terence of a participial ablative absolute clause containing an argument clause (Eu. 956, quoted in § 16.89, Supplement). There are no instances in Plautus, Terence, Cato, or Varro of participial ablative absolute clauses containing a noun (phrase) in the case form required by the verb, and there are only a few attestations of ablative absolute clauses containing a satellite, as in (a). The use of arguments with the present participle is common in Cicero, as in (b), but not with the perfect deponent participle, which is first attested in Sallust, as in (c).275 The use of satellites is well attested in the early works of Cicero and in the Rhetorica ad Herennium, as shown by (d). The use of participial ablative absolute clauses with more than one simple satellite or argument is typical of educated writers of the Empire, especially in literary narrative and in didactic texts, but see already (e) from Caesar with four adjuncts.276 Many 275 For further examples of perfect deponents with an argument, see K.-St.: I.783–4. 276 For historical accounts and data, see Flinck-Linkomies (1929), Serbat (1979), Coleman (1989), and Keydana (1997: 239–57).

398

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position

instances can be found in Ammianus Marcellinus.277 Such clauses are often loosely integrated in their sentence. (a)

Pallam ad phrygionem fert confecto prandio / vinoque expoto, parasito excluso foras. (‘He’s taking the mantle to the embroiderer after the lunch is finished off, the wine drunk out, and the hanger-on locked out.’ Pl. Men. 469–70)

(b)

. . . concursus est ad templum Concordiae factus senatum illuc vocante Metello consule. (‘. . . the mob flocked to the temple of Concord, whither the consul Metellus was summoning the senate.’ Cic. Dom. 11)

(c)

Dein Sulla omnia pollicito docti . . . circiter dies quadraginta ibidem opperiuntur. (‘Then, after Sulla had promised to do all . . . they lingered there for about forty days.’ Sal. Jug. 103.7)

(d)

Qua oratione habita graviter et sententiose maxime demittitur animus hominum . . . (‘When such a passage is delivered gravely and sententiously, the spirit of man is greatly abased . . .’ Cic. Inv. 1.106)

(e)

At hostes . . . conlocatis insidiis bipertito in silvis opportuno atque occulto loco a milibus passuum circiter duobus Romanorum adventum exspectabant . . . (‘But the enemy . . . posted a double ambush in the woods, in a convenient and covert spot about two miles away; and there they awaited the coming of the Romans.’ Caes. Gal. 5.32.1) Supplement: . . . me . . . absentem principe Cn. Pompeio referente et de corpore rei publicae tuorum scelerum tela revellente revocarant. (Cic. Pis. 25); Me Cn. Pompeius multis obsistentibus eius erga me studio atque amori semper dilexit . . . (Cic. Pis. 76); . . . Lusitanis a Ser. Galba praetore contra interpositam, ut existumabatur, fidem interfectis L. Libone tribuno plebis populum incitante et rogationem in Galbam privilegi similem ferente . . . M. Cato legem suadens in Galbam multa dixit. (Cic. Brut. 89)

Various other factors may contribute to the complexity of participial ablative absolute clauses. One is to use autonomous relative clauses as subject (see § 18.16), as in (f). (f)

. . . Hiberum copias traiecit praemissis qui . . . specularentur. (‘. . . he led his troops across the Ebro, after sending agents ahead to explore . . .’ Liv. 21.23.1)

277 See Bitter (1976: 171–91).

Participial clauses

399

Supplement: Quo enim omnia iudicantur sublato reliqua se negant tollere. (Cic. Luc. 33); . . . ullis ad signa redeuntibus et qui reliqui erant per summa flagitia detractantibus militiam . . . (Sal. Jug. frg. 10a); Deinde eos quoque ipsos exigua parte pontis relicta revocantibus qui rescindebant cedere in tutum coegit. (Liv. 2.10.7); Rapto poculo argenteo ex oppidani domo Plemini miles fugiens sequentibus quorum erat obvius forte Sergio et Matieno tribunis militum fuit. (Liv. 29.9.2); Calas huic regioni praepositus est, ipse adsumptis qui ex Macedonia nuper advenerant Cappadociam petiit. (Curt. 3.1.24); . . . qui penetratis omnibus Hispaniae gentibus ingenti vi hominum urbiumque potitus numero aditis quae vix audita erant Gallaeci cognomen meruit. (Vell. 2.5.1); . . . avulsa . . . . tamquam impedimento coniugii cum qua cubare solitus eram . . . (Aug. Conf. 6.25) Cf.: . . . cruenta fora templaque, passim trucidatis ut quemque fors obtulerat. (Tac. Hist. 4.1.1)

Another factor that contributes to complexity is the use of a perfect passive participle with an argument clause, the earliest example of which is (g).278 This becomes more frequent from the Augustan period onward, mostly with verbs of thinking and saying. (For such combinations functioning as subject, see § 15.133.) (g)

. . . impetrato prius a consulibus ut . . . permitterent progreditur . . . (‘. . . with consent having first been obtained from the consuls, he proceeds . . .’ Quad. hist. 12) Supplement: Sin vita ante acta ignorabitur, hoc loco praeterito et cur praetereatur demonstrato argumentis accusationem statim confirmare oportebit. (Cic. Inv. 2.34); Perfecto enim et concluso neque virtutibus neque amicitiis usquam locum esse . . . (Cic. Fin. 2.85); At Lucullus audito Q.  Marcium Regem pro consule per Lycaoniam cum tribus legionibus in Ciliciam tendere . . . (Sal. Hist. 5.14); Haec tibi dictabam post fanum putre Vacunae, / excepto quod non simul esses cetera laetus. (Hor. Ep. 1.10.48–9);279 . . . lato . . ., ut solet, ad populum ut equum escendere liceret . . . (Liv. 23.14.2); Sed Tiberius saepe apud se pensitato an coerceri tam profusae cupidines possent . . . postremo litteras ad senatum composuit . . . (Tac. Ann. 3.52.3); . . . et miles nomine Calusidius strictum obtulit gladium addito acutiorem esse (Tac. Ann. 1.35.5); . . . petito . . . ut intrare illi urbem et deos eorum adorare liceret . . . (Justin. 43.5.6); . . . conperto quod homines essent sine litteris et idiotae admirabantur et cognoscebant eos . . . (Vulg. Act. 4.13)

The clausal character of the participial ablative absolute clause can be further exploited by the expansion of the noun phrase with attributive participial constituents and the addition of satellites, among which are other participial clauses including ablative 278 The source of the text is Gel. 9.11.6, where it belongs to what seems to be a quotation. It was attributed to Quadrigarius by Peter, but no longer so by Briscoe in Cornell’s edition. The literature on the subject is abundant. See e.g. Lebek (1970: 263–4) and Ambrosetti in her edition, Appendice, pp. 354–74. 279 For excepto developing into an adverb and preposition, see note 245. Compare also conpleto matutinas ‘after the morning’ (Itin. Anton. Plac. 11, quoted by Väänänen (1981: 167)).

400

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position

absolute clauses. An example of a participial clause is (h), where his rebus gestis is a constituent of omni Gallia pacata. (h)

His rebus gestis omni Gallia pacata tanta huius belli ad barbaros opinio perlata est, uti . . . (‘When Gaul had been pacified by the accomplishment of these things, so mighty a report of this campaign was carried to the natives that . . .’ Caes. Gal. 2.35.1) Supplement: . . . prope iam desperata salute nonnullae eiusmodi sententiae dicebantur, ut impedimentis relictis eruptione facta isdem itineribus, quibus eo pervenissent, ad salutem contenderent. (Caes. Gal. 3.3.3); Servius . . . conciliata prius voluntate plebis agro capto ex hostibus viritim diviso ausus est ferre ad populum, vellent iuberentne se regnare. (Liv. 1.46.1); Ignara matre, dein frustra obnitente (sc. Acne) penitus inrepserat per luxum et ambigua secreta ne senioribus quidem principis amicis adversantibus muliercula (sc. Acne) nulla cuiusquam iniuria cupidines principis explente . . . (Tac. Ann. 13.12.2)280

The instances given above in this section are all illustrations of the internal complexity of ablative absolute clauses. Another form of complexity involves the use of more than one ablative absolute clause in a sentence. An early example of this is (i) from Plautus, possibly a parody of a commander’s military report.281 Caesar and Livy are very fond of such strings of ablative absolutes.282 (i)

Hostibus victis, civibus salvis, re placida, pacibus perfectis, / bello exstincto, re bene gesta, integro exercitu et praesidiis, . . . eas vobis gratis habeo . . . (‘Now that our foes are vanquished, the citizens safe, the state tranquil, peace treaties concluded, war come to an end, the affair successfully concluded, the army and garrisons intact . . . I give thanks to you . . .’ Pl. Per. 753–6) Supplement: Confecta Britannia, obsidibus acceptis, nulla praeda, imperata tamen pecunia exercitum ex Britannia reportabant. (Cic. Att. 4.18.5); Caesar ab decimae legionis cohortatione ad dextrum cornu profectus, ubi suos urgeri signisque in unum locum conlatis duodecimae legionis confertos milites sibi ipsos ad pugnam esse impedimento vidit, quartae cohortis omnibus centurionibus occisis signiferoque interfecto, signo amisso, reliquarum cohortium omnibus fere centurionibus aut vulneratis aut occisis, in his primipilo P. Sextio Baculo fortissimo viro multis gravibusque vulneribus confecto . . . (Caes. Gal. 2.25.1–2); Re publica felicissume gesta atque liberatis vectigalibus restitutis, exercitum salvom atque incolumem plenissimum praeda domum reportavit; iterum triumphans in urbem Romam redit. (Liv. 41.28.9)

16.92 Ablative participles without a subject noun (phrase) Sometimes ablative participles are found without a noun (phrase) (or one of the substitutes discussed), which must be understood from the context, although this is not 280 For Tacitus’ usage, see Enghofer (1961). 282 For Caesar, see Odelman (1972: 130–4).

281 So Leeman (1963: 176).

Participial clauses

401

always easy to do. Such instances must be seen as extremes of the general communicative rule that known entities may be left out. The examples cited in the literature come especially from Livy and later historians. An example is (a). (a)

Haec atque talia agitantibus gravescere valitudo Augusti . . . (‘As men were churning over such things as these, there was a deterioration in Augustus’ health . . .’ Tac. Ann. 1.5.1)

In this example the ones who are agitantes are in general the people surrounding Augustus. There are examples of this omission with present active, perfect passive participles, and—less frequent—perfect deponent participles. Supplement: Present active participles: Eranam autem, quae fuit non vici instar sed urbis, quod erat Amani caput, itemque Sepyram et Commorim, acriter et diu repugnantibus, Pomptino illam partem Amani tenente, ex antelucano tempore usque ad horam diei X magna multitudine hostium occisa cepimus castellaque vi capta complura incendimus. (Cic. Fam. 15.4.9); Attalus quoque Pteleon nihil minus quam tale quicquam in alterius oppugnatione urbis timentibus oppressit. (Liv. 31.46.13); Curatum ea scio omnibus fere ossibus confractis prolapsum ex arbore alta putatorem, circumdata universo corpori, aquam suam adspergentibus, quotiens inaresceret, raroque nec nisi deficientem herbam mutationis causa resolventibus, convaluisse vix credibili celeritate. (Plin. Nat. 27.69) Perfect passive participles: Profectus dictator cum exercitu proelio uno Marsos fundit. Conpulsis deinde in urbes munitas, Milioniam, Plestinam, Fresiliam intra dies paucos cepit . . . (Liv. 10.3.5); . . . in Macedoniam rediit, missis ad accolas Histri fluminis barbaros ut in Italiam inrumperent sollicitandos. (Liv. 39.35.4); Biduo deinde ad quietem dato militibus iussisque et classem et machinas pariter admovere, ut undique territis instaret, ipse in altissimam turrem ascendit ingenti animo, periculo maiore. (Curt. 4.4.10); Sed plurimum trepidationis in publico, ut quemque nuntium fama attulisset, animum vultumque conversis, ne diffidere dubiis ac parum gaudere prosperis viderentur. (Tac. Hist. 1.85.2) Perfect deponent participles: Caralitani, simul ad se Valerium mitti audierunt, nondum profecto ex Italia sua sponte Cottam ex oppido eiciunt. (Caes. Civ. 1.30.3) Appendix: A much debated expression is pace et principe in (b). In agreement with some scholars I take it as a position in time adjunct (as in § 10.28), but others take it as an ablative absolute.283 Others again take it as the object of uteremur (instead of quis = quibus). (b) Sexto demum consulatu Caesar Augustus, potentiae securus, quae triumviratu iusserat abolevit deditque iura quis pace et principe uteremur. (‘At last, in his sixth consulate, Augustus Caesar, feeling his power secure, cancelled the behests of his triumvirate, and presented us with laws to serve our needs in peace and under a prince.’ Tac. Ann. 3.28.2) 283 Woodman and Martin ad loc. prefer to take it as a position in time adjunct, pointing to triumviratu in the preceding context, while Enghofer (1961: 73, 111) takes it ‘beyond doubt’ as an ablative absolute.

402

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position

16.93 Ablative absolute clauses of one-place verbs There are a few instances of the so-called impersonal use of the perfect passive participle, the best-known of which is sortito ‘after drawing lots’. An example is (a). It is an ablative absolute of the one-place verb sortio (or sortior). For two instances of present participles used in this way, see § 4.90. (a)

Deos quaeso . . . / mi ut sortito eveniat— # —ut quidem hercle pedibus pendeas. (‘I pray to the gods that it falls to me through the lot— # —that you hang from your feet.’ Pl. Cas. 389–90) Supplement: . . . quoieique de eo agro loco ex lege plebeive sc(ito) IIIvir sortito ceivi Romano dedit adsignavit . . . (CIL I2.585.3 (Lex. Agr., 111 bc)).; Sin aliquando tacent omnes, tunc sortito coguntur dicere. (Cic. Ver. 4.142); Nam et ipse, quod principium rei publicae fuit, urbem condidit auspicato . . . (Cic. Rep. 2.16); . . . aliquantisper pugnato nihil promovet Poenus. (Quad. hist. 60=61C)

. Participial absolute clauses in other case forms In the course of time, participial ‘absolute’ clauses in cases other than the ablative developed, with most examples dating from the Late Latin period. They have the same general characteristics as the ablative absolute, but they do not have the same distribution. While some instances must be explained as due to Greek influence, such as the genitive absolutes which are literal translations of Greek texts, others are simply ungrammatical.284 16.95 Participial nominative absolute clauses Nominative absolute constructions with a participle (usually active present) are not found before Late Latin.285 Putative earlier examples (in Calpurnius Piso and in Curtius Rufus, for example) have to be explained in a different way.286 An indisputable example is (a). (a)

. . . et benedicens nos episcopus profecti sumus. (‘. . . and with the bishop blessing us we set out.’ Pereg. 16.7) Supplement: Qui iure familiaritatis admissi, dum alterum priorem dicentem intentus audit tyrannus, ab altero occupatur. (Justin. 16.5.15); Quod vulnus semper humores liquidi profluentes non desinet. (Mulom. Chir. 94); Quae opinio divulgata usque in hodiernum a nescientibus armatorum tantus numerus aestimatur, cum sit nunc exiguus et

284 For absolute clauses in Gregory of Tours, see Tarriño (1991). 285 For the structure and the development, see Galdi (2017), with references. 286 See Keydana (1997: 328). Galdi (2017) accepts Calp. hist. 27.

Participial clauses

403

infirmus. (Vict. Vit. 1.2); Mater autem . . . negata (i.e. necata), soror ipsius in monasterio . . . transmittitur . . . (Greg. Tur. Hist. 5.39) The following example is sometimes taken as a nominative absolute,287 but it is better to regard the si clause as lacking a finite verb form. (b) Si ambo praesentes sol occasus suprema tempestas esto. (‘If both be present, sunset shall be the time-limit.’ Lex XII 1.9 ap. Gel. 17.2.10) Appendix: Due to the increasing similarity in use of the present participle and the gerund, there are also a few examples of a ‘gerundial absolute clause’ instead of a nominative participle, the first instance being in Epist. Alex. (p. 206.17–19K.): Quorum (sc. elephantorum) equites caedendo poplites admodum nongentos congregatos octoginta occidimus . . .288

16.96 Participial genitive absolute clauses The first instances of a genitive absolute clause are found in the Bellum Hispaniense, where they are usually regarded as Graecisms or (better) emended. The ecclesiastical Late Latin examples are often literal translations of Greek biblical texts. There is no reason to assume that the genitive absolute was ever a native Latin construction.289 (a)

Eius praeteriti temporis Pompeius trans flumen Salsum castellum constituit . . . (‘That time having gone past, Pompeius established a fort across the river Salsum . . .’ B. Hisp. 14.1) Supplement: † Huius concidentis temporis ad viri fortis insignia cum conplures adversariorum concursum facerent . . . (B. Hisp. 23.5); . . . et inter se invicem cogitationum accusantium aut etiam defendentium . . . (v.l. cogitationibus accusantibus aut etiam defendentibus) (Vulg. Rom. 2.15—NB: the Greek version has a genitive absolute) NB: Difficult to assess is the genitive in: Aeris confessi rebusque iudicatis XXX dies iusti sunto. (Lex XII 3.1 ap. Gel. 15.13.11 and 20.1.45)

16.97 Participial accusative absolute clauses Reliable attestations of the accusative absolute date from the mid fourth century ad.290 It became a relatively frequent construction in the sixth century in the works of Jordanes and Gregory of Tours. Instances of present active participles are very rare. Supplement: Perfect passive participles: . . . cultores · Domus · Aug(ustae) · area pri / vatam · emptam templum / cum · porticibus · a solo · sua / pecunia · fecerunt . . . (CIL 287 See Holland (1986: 169), referring to Schrijnen (1939) and Krisch (1988: 8). 288 See Aalto (1949: 80–2), Sz.: 144, and Kooreman (1989: 221). 289 See Sz.: 142, Murru (1977), and Maiocco (2005: 42–62). For the (dubious) instances in the Bellum Hispaniense, see Gaertner (2010: 244–5). 290 Earlier and much disputed passages are discussed by Helttula (1987), who has written the most comprehensive monograph on the topic. For Pelagonius, see Gitton (2003).

404

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position VIII.21825.4–7 (Mauretania, ad 158)); . . . reliquias recol / lectas tumu / lum tibi consti / tui . . . (CIL VIII.4372.11–14 (Numidia)); Ac sic ergo visa loca sancta omnia . . . visis etiam et sanctis viris qui ibi commorabantur in nomine Dei regressi sumus in Faran (Pereg. 15.11); . . . seniles / annos inpletos Iuli / um Sarnianum suum ma / ritum secuta est . . . (CIL VIII.7517.3–6 (Numidia)); (Iunoni ceterisque diis immortalibus gratiam referens quod . . .) rebelles caesos, multos / etiam et vivos adpre / hensos, sed e praedas / actas . . . / . . .victorim reportaverit . . . (CIL VIII.8924.9–14 (Mauretania, c. ad 400)); . . . qui impleta tem / pora cessit . . . (CIL VIII.4551.1–2 (Numidia)); Quem tumorem palpatum intelliges carnem intus esse. (Mulom. Chir. 89); Halaricus . . . vastatam Italiam Romam ingressus est. (Jord. Rom. 323); Ille vero porrectam dexteram iuravit . . . (Greg. Tur. Hist. 5.18) Present active participles: Sed ad ista adolescentem non intendentem291 vocavit matrem. (Vet. Lat. 2Macc. 7.25 ap. Lucif. Non Parc. 22.40); Similem dolorem ingentem sine inflatione et in cursu se tollentem huic manu et depremes in anum . . . (Mulom. Chir. 235)

16.98 Prepositional participial satellite clauses Prepositional participial satellite clauses are another variant of the dominant participle construction (see § 14.14. fin.), which are commonly called ab urbe condita constructions.292 Examples are attested from Plautus onward. Among the attested instances those with prepositions indicating time—of which there are many in historical narrative texts—prevail, but more ‘abstract’ instances, for example with sine ‘without’, are found as well. Most instances are relatively short and non-complex, but there are some that contain a satellite or comparable constituent (here marked in italics or bold italics). Participles other than the perfect are very rare.293 For an exceptional example of a neuter singular perfect passive participle of a one-place verb, see (c) (see also § 15.133). (a)

Mox hercle vero post transactam fabulam, / argentum si quis dederit, ut ego suspicor, / ultro ibit nuptum, non manebit auspices. (‘But soon, after the play has reached its end, I suspect if anyone gives her money she’ll marry him willingly and won’t wait for the augurs.’ Pl. Cas. 84–6)

(b)

Illi regibus parere iam a condita urbe didicerant. Nos post reges exactos servitutis oblivio ceperat. (‘They had learned ever since the foundation of the city to obey kings; we after the eviction of the kings had forgotten our servitude.’ Cic. Phil. 3.8)

(c)

. . . invento carmine in libris Sibyllinis propter crebrius eo anno de caelo lapidatum inspectis . . . (‘. . . because in the Sibylline books, which were consulted on account of the frequent showers of stone that year, an oracle was found . . .’ Liv. 29.10.4)

291 Editors emend to the ablative; see Helttula (1987: 36). 292 The term was introduced by Hahn (1928: 266). See also Spevak (2018; 2019). 293 Examples can be conveniently found in the TLL under the prepositions involved, for example s.v. ante 134.24ff.; ob 32.77ff.; post 1066.26ff. A large collection of instances can be found in Heick (1936).

Participial clauses

405

Supplement (in alphabetical order by preposition): Passive perfect participles: ab · colonia · deducta · anno · XC . . . (CIL I2.698.1 (Pozzuoli, 105 bc)); Nec cessabant Sabini, feroces ab re priore anno bene gesta, lacessere . . . (Liv. 3.61.13); Ad haec visa auditaque clamor ingens oritur. (Liv. 2.23.7); Annis fere CCCCCX post Romam conditam Livius fabulam dedit C. Claudio, Caeci filio, M. Tuditano cos. anno ante natum Ennium. (Cic. Tusc. 1.3); Sed Laelius . . . neque a proposito deterrebatur neque ante proelium in Thessalia factum cognitum . . . ex portu insulaque expelli potuit. (Caes. Civ. 3.100.3); (sc. Pacem) Cuius impetratae, ab insita animis levitate, ante deductum Cremera Romanum praesidium paenituit. (Liv. 2.49.12); . . . formaque eadem civitatis esset quae ante Sacrum montem occupatum fuerat. (Liv. 3.15.3); Separatim toto tractatu sententia eius indicanda est, ut in omni genere noscamus quae fuerint celeberrima anno DC urbis, circa captas Carthaginem ac Corinthum, cum supremum is diem obiit . . . (Plin. Nat. 14.45); Maior itaque ex civibus amissis dolor quam laetitia fusis hostibus fuit. (Liv.4.17.8); Antigonum igitur appellat, cui et palam facti parricidii gratia obnoxius erat . . . (Liv. 40.56.3); Inter haec parata atque decreta Cethegus semper querebatur de ignavia sociorum. (Sal. Cat. 43.3); Inde inter eruptionem temptatam compulso in urbem hoste occasio data est Romanis inrumpendi . . . (Liv. 4.61.6); Ut populus . . . ob rem bene gestam coronatus supplicatum eat . . . (Cato Mil. 2(J)); ob hasce res · bene · gestas . . . hanc · aedem · . . . dedicat (CIL I2.626.5–10 (Rome, 145 bc)); . . . Volscos Aequosque ob communitam Verruginem fremere. (Liv. 4.1.4); . . . agendum . . . ob mulum ruptum vel debilitatum . . . (Ulp. dig. 9.2.27.34); . . . ob defensum negotium . . . accepisse mercedem. (Amm. 30.4.5); Deinde duoetvicesimo anno post dimissum bellum, quod quattuor et viginti annos fuit, Karthaginiensis sextum de foedere decessere. (Cato hist. 84=77C); . . . post · hance · legem · rogatam . . . (CIL I2.582.23 (Lex incerta, Banzi, c.100 bc)); Hi enim tres post civitatem a L.  Bruto liberatam plus potuerunt quam universa res publica. (Cic. Phil. 5.17); . . . eandem indolem militibus Romanis post exactos decemviros esse . . . (Liv. 3.61.6); . . . post finitima cuncta vi vel aequitatis consideratione vel metu subacta . . . (Amm. 23.6.4);294 . . . cum post pugnam agminaque deleta Persarum licenter obambulans armillas aureas vidisset . . . (Amm. 30.8.8—NB: coordination); . . . qui vel post administratam provinciam honorati auctoritate fulcitur . . . (Cod. Theod. 6.35.9); . . . et post facta missa vigiliarum in ecclesia maiore statim cum ymnis venitur ad Anastase . . . (Pereg. 38.2);295 . . . post assertam a Manlio faciem restitutamque a Camillo acrius vehementiusque in finitimos surrexit (Jord. Rom. 138); Sed praeter furta et rapinas et virgis caesos socios haec quoque fecit, ut ipse gloriari solet, eadem quae C. Caesar. (Poll. Fam. 10.32.2); Nam praeter errantis barbariae aut adiectum aut deminutum clamorem miscebat Atellanicos versus . . . (Petr. 68.5); Lustrum propter Capitolium captum, consulem occisum condi religiosum fuit. (Liv. 3.22.1); . . . cum Messeniis propter stupratas virgines suas in sollemni Messeniorum sacrificio bellum intulissent . . . (Justin. 3.4.1); . . . sciturosque296 sine restituta potestate redigi in concordiam res nequeant . . . (Liv. 3.52.2); Sub haec tam varia fortuna gesta L.  Furius Purpurio alter consul per tribum Sapiniam in Boios venit. (Liv. 33.37.1) 294 For Ammianus’ use of the construction, see Helttula (1985). 295 For the ‘indifferent’ form facta missa, see Väänänen (1987: 20, 89). 296 The text is uncertain, but this does not affect the sine phrase.

406

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position Present participles: Sequere hac, mea gnata, me, cum dis volentibus. (Pl. Pers. 332); Describam nunc ego cruciatus et miseram corporis patientiam inter tyrannica tormenta saevientia. (Sen. Con. 2.5.6); . . . ob excedentia ripas suas . . . flumina . . . fertiles (sc. sunt). (Mela 2.15); Secuti exemplum veterani haud multo post in Raetiam mittuntur, specie defendendae provinciae ob imminentis Suebos, ceterum ut avellerentur castris trucibus adhuc non minus asperitate remedii quam sceleris memoria. (Tac. Ann. 1.44.4); . . . post Dauni stagnantia regna . . . (Sil. 12.43) NB: . . . ante proelium in Thessalia factum cognitum . . . (Caes. Civ. 3.100.3)

. Gerundial satellite clauses The gerund can be used in adjunct clauses of various forms, both bare cases and prepositional expressions, which can fulfil a range of functions. The description given here is based on the semantic functions gerundial clauses fulfil with respect to the  main clause.297 However, it should be noted that often this relationship has to be inferred from the context. Accordingly, the description given below must not be taken too rigidly. Second arguments are rare, but become more frequent in the Late Latin period.

. Gerundial purpose adjunct clauses There are a few gerundial clauses in the genitive that must be interpreted as purpose adjuncts. Whether on the basis of this small number one wants to assume that there ever existed a rule of Latin grammar in conformity with which these utterances were produced depends on the importance one attaches to a very few genitive noun phrases which seem to be meant as purpose adjuncts (see § 10.83) and to the corresponding gerundival expressions (see § 16.106). Some examples are given below in the Supplement. The dative, as in (a), is much more common, although not frequent either. It is not always easy to distinguish the gerundial satellites from the gerundial arguments presented in § 15.137. (a)

Utuntur (sc. scirpis) in vinea alligando fasces . . . (‘They use (rushes) in the vineyard for tying up bundles of fuel . . .’ Var. L. 5.137)

Prepositional expressions with ad ‘to’, causa ‘for the purpose of, for the sake of ’, gratia ‘for the sake of ’, and a few others are more often used as purpose adjuncts than the above types (those with ad are sometimes difficult to distinguish from gerundial arguments). However, outside of Caesar and legal texts, finite clauses with ut are much more common.298 When used with verbs of giving and receiving, this purpose expression is sometimes in competition with the much more common use of gerundives as secondary predicates, as discussed in § 21.9. Examples with ad are (b) and (c). Clauses

297 On the satellite status of gerunds and gerundives, see Vester (1990). 298 Statistics in Steele (1898). See also Odelman (1972: 92ff.).

Gerundial clauses

407

with causa are relatively frequent in Caesar299 and in legal or administrative texts. Gratia is used much less often. (b)

Tribunus et quadringenti ad moriendum proficiscuntur. (‘The tribune and his four hundred marched forth to death.’ Gel. 3.7.11)

(c)

. . . propones illi exempla ad imitandum. (‘. . . you will set before him examples for imitation.’ Cic. Phil. 10.5) Supplement: Genitive: . . . ne id adsentandi mage quam quo habeam gratum facere existumes. (Ter. Ad. 270) (NB: parallelism with the quo purpose clause); porcas piaculares duas luco coinquendi et operis faciendi immolavit (CIL VI.2065.II.19–20 (Rome, ad 87)); . . . posterior magis admonendi emptoris et liberandi se eandem legem repetierit . . . (Paul. dig. 18.7.9—NB: Kuebler inserts causa)300 Variant readings in the manuscript tradition are an additional problem in the following passages: quae causam facit et continet defensionem, hoc modo, ut docendi causa in hac potissimum causa consistamus. (Rhet. Her. 1.26—NB: some of the mss. omit causa, but cf. inter alia Cic. Inv. 1.18); Tum Scipio: ‘Sunt ista ut dicis; sed audisse te credo Tubero, Platonem Socrate mortuo primum in Aegyptum discendi causa, post in Italiam et in Siciliam contendisse, ut Pythagorae inventa perdisceret . . .’ (Cic. Rep. 1.16—NB: causa is added on the basis of Nonius’ quotation).301 Dative: . . .vitandoque imbres et aestus (sc. casas) tegebant harundinibus et fronde. (Vitr. 2.1.3); Scolymus carduorum generis ab his distat, quod radix eius vescendo est decocta. (Plin. Nat. 21.96); . . . clementiam suam obstringens crebris orationibus, quas Seneca testificando quam honesta praeciperet vel iactandi ingenii voce principis vulgabat. (Tac. Ann. 13.11.2—NB: parallelism with the genitive gerundival clause); Adicit iure iurando Paeti cautum apud signa, adstantibus iis, quos testificando rex misisset, neminem Romanum Armeniam ingressurum . . . (Tac. Ann. 15.16.2); . . . cum primum Charite nubendo maturuisset . . . (Apul. Met. 8.2.1); Ego autem arbitror hoc quoque ligni appellatione contineri, quod nondum minutatim fuit concisum, si iam concidendo fuit destinatum. (Ulp. dig. 32.55.2—NB: or an argument?); Absolvendo reos venis et me verbere torques. (Ven. Fort. Mart. 4.138)302 Prepositional phrases: . . . si analogia rerum dissimilitudines adsumat ad discernendum vocis verbi figuras. (Var. L. 9.42); . . . pecudes, quod perspicuum sit, partim esse ad usum hominum, partim ad fructum, partim ad vescendum procreatas. (Cic. Leg. 1.25); Ad consolandum autem . . . illa valent quae eleganter copioseque collegisti . . . (Cic. Fam. 5.13.3); Nunc ades ad imperandum, vel ad parendum potius; sic enim antiqui loquebantur. (Cic. Fam. 9.25.2); . . . ut spatium ad colligendum se homines haberent . . . (Planc. Fam. 10.23.3); . . . legati, quibus hae partes ad defendendum obvenerant . . . (Caes. Gal. 7.81.6); Post scaenam porticus sunt constituendae, uti, cum

299 300 301 302

They are almost as frequent as ut subjunctive clauses. See Steele (1898). Compare also the use of the genitive in Isidore of Seville, for which see Maltby (2002: 227–9). For other debatable instances, see Aalto (1949: 60–1). See also Pasoli (1963; 1966: 40–2). Aalto (1949: 76–7) takes this as a purpose adjunct in the ablative.

408

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position imbres repentini ludos interpellaverint, habeat populus quo se recipiat ex theatro, choragiaque laxamentum habeant ad comparandum. (Vitr. 5.9.1—NB: parallelism with the quo clause); Non ad exercendum verba diutius hoc idem tracto, sed ut cognata esse ista et eiusdem notae ac naturae probem. (Sen. Nat. 2.21.4); Merum est imperium habere gladii potestatem ad animadvertendum facinorosos homines . . . (Ulp. dig. 2.1.3); . . . nonnullos ad vastandum Moesiam dirigit . . . (Jord. Get. 101); . . . iussit rex ut . . . ad excolendum agros accipiatis . . . (Vict. Vit. 3.20); Quicumque eos ad custodiendum accepit servus sibi ex his fecit. (Greg. Tur. Hist. 3.15)303 Quod si educitur in ambulandum . . . (Mulom. Chir. 115) Noteworthy is the use of the preposition ad in combination with a gerund with the verb habeo, as in (d), a parallel of cases of habeo + gerundive in which the gerundive indicates purpose, as mentioned in § 21.9.304 (d) Oportet . . . facientem melius aliquid habere ad faciendum quam est id quod facit. (‘In order to make, the maker must possess something more valuable than what he is making.’ August. Imm. 8.14) sellae / curulis · locus · ipsi · . . . / ad · Murciae · spectandi · caussa · datus / est (CIL XI.1826.11–14 (Arezzo, Rep.)); . . . cum illam iudicandi causa tabellam sumpserit . . . (Cic. Clu. 159); (sc. pars) . . . quam supra commemoravi praedandi frumentandique causa Mosam transisse . . . (Caes. Gal. 4.16.2); Afranius Petreiusque terrendi causa atque operis impediendi copias suas ad infimas montis radices producunt et proelio lacessunt. (Caes. Civ. 1.42.2) . . . cum aut lavandi aut gestandi aut ludorum gratia prodierit praetor . . . (Gaius dig. 40.2.7—NB: coordination with ludorum); Hostium enim paucis spoliandi gratia mortuos per ea loca diu versatis nullus fugatorum vel accolarum illuc adire est ausus. (Amm. 31.13.12)

In (very) Late Latin bare accusative case forms of the gerund are found instead of prepositional expressions with ad, especially with verbs of movement.305 This has its parallel in gerundival clauses (see § 16.106) and is part of a more general confusion between the functions of the present infinitive and the gerund (see §  15.138). The disappearance of the supine in -um may also have played a role (see § 16.111). An example of a bare accusative case form of the gerund in a purpose adjunct is (e). (e)

. . . alio die ambulandum ducere . . . (‘. . . on another day (you should) take him for a walk . . .’ Mulom. Chir. 133) A few late examples of a bare case accusative are cited by Aalto (1949: 86), for example the gerundival clause in (f). Of course, the very use in this context of the term ‘bare

303 Textually uncertain or debatable instances of ad expressions can be found in Aalto (1949: 89–90). 304 For a discussion of combinations of ad + gerund with the verb habeo, see Norberg (1943: 216). 305 Odelstierna (1926: 32–42) has collected some thirty instances with verbs of movement and seven with other verbs, most of them taken from Fredegar. An example of such a gerund with a verb that does not indicate movement is Fredeg. Chron. 4.66: Spolia eorum Sarracini per legatus Heraclio recipiendum offerunt. A survey in Sz.: 379.

Gerundial clauses

409

accusative’ is questionable as it projects the Classical Latin case system onto the utterances from this period. What is written as an accusative need not correspond with what was actually spoken. It may also be the product of ignorance or a mistaken display of learning (‘Hyperurbanismus’ according to Norberg  (1943: 223)). Most likely in such instances all these factors are in play. (f) Censeo igitur ut adorandum me venias . . . (‘I recommend therefore that you come to adore me.’ Jul. Valer. I.42.51K.=I.1348 R.—NB: Rossellini now reads ut )

. Gerundial instrument/manner adjunct clauses The most widespread use of the gerundial clause is that of describing the method used in effecting something, the action leading up to a certain result, or the manner in which something is obtained, as in (a), (c), and (d). Sometimes the semantic relationship with respect to the main clause is even less specific, for example when the gerund indicates the circumstances, as in (b). The appropriate case form for this semantic relation is the ablative.306 Examples are found from a very early date until the end of the period covered by this Syntax. The gerund may govern an argument in the case required by the verb, as in (c); this becomes quite normal in Late Latin.307 There are also instances of gerunds with a satellite. Gerundial clauses in the ablative became a normal element in building periodic sentences in Livy and then in other historians, as well as in didactic texts by authors striving for conciseness. (a)

. . . mendicum malim mendicando vincere. (‘. . . I’d rather outdo a beggar in begging.’ Pl. Bac. 514)

(b)

. . . mobilitatem . . . quae crescit eundo . . . (‘. . . velocity which grows by moving . . .’ Lucr. 6.341)

(c)

Quaeris quomodo illa tua facias? Dona dando. (‘Do you ask how you can make them your own? By bestowing them as gifts!’ Sen. Ben. 6.3.3)

(d)

(sc. Hannibal) . . . qui senex vincendo factus Hispanias . . . monumentis ingentium rerum complesset. (‘(Hannibal) . . . who, grown old through victories, had filled the Spanish lands . . . with the evidence of his mighty deeds.’ Liv. 30.28.5) Supplement (arguments in italics, satellites in bold italics): . . . Macelucnandod · cepet. (CIL VI.1300.4–5 (Rome, 260 bc)); Male fidem servando illis quoque abrogant etiam fidem . . . (Pl. Trin. 1048); Ego vapulando, ill’ verberando, usque ambo defessi sumus. (Ter. Ad 213); Sed haec

306 Gerundial adjuncts in the ablative are discussed by Vester (1983: 101–21) and, from a diachronic perspective, by Kooreman (1989). For the wide range of semantic relations between the gerund and its clause from Early Latin onwards, see Adams (2013: 725–40). 307 See Kooreman (1989: 224–5 + Table 3 on p. 229).

410

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position omittamus; augemus enim dolorem retractando. (Cic. Att. 8.9a.1); . . . sic ulciscar . . . malos civis rem publicam bene gerendo, perfidos amicos nihil credendo atque  omnia cavendo, invidos virtuti et gloriae serviendo . . . (Cic. Red. Pop. 21); Mucius . . . diceret omnem aquam oportere arceri quae pluendo crevisset. (Cic. Top. 38); Iam vero alia animalia gradiendo, alia serpendo ad pastum accedunt, alia volando, alia nando, cibumque partim oris hiatu et dentibus ipsis capessunt, partim unguium tenacitate arripiunt partim aduncitate rostrorum, alia sugunt, alia carpunt, alia vorant, alia mandunt. (Cic. N.D. 2.122); Quodsi expectando et desiderando pendemus animis . . . (Cic. Tusc. 1.96); Quis enim ad me non perscripsit te non solum auctoritate, oratione, sententia tua, quibus ego a tali viro contentus eram, sed etiam opera, consilio, domum veniendo, conveniendis meis nullum onus offici cuiquam reliquum fecisse? (Cic. Fam. 3.13.1—NB: coordination with nouns and gerundival clause); Tua nunc opera meae puellae / flendo turgiduli rubent ocelli. (Catul. 3.17–18); Tu coniunx, tibi fas animum temptare precando. (Verg. A. 4.113); Omne tulit punctum qui miscuit utile dulci, / lectorem delectando pariterque monendo. (Hor. Ars 343–4); Milanion nullos fugiendo, Tulle, labores / saevitiam durae contudit Iasidos. (Prop. 1.1.9–10); Satis superque humilis est, qui iure aequo in civitate vivit, nec inferendo iniuriam nec patiendo. (Liv. 3.53.9—NB: parallelism with iure aequo); Neutrum faciam, patres conscripti, et si nulla alia re, modestia certe et temperando linguae adulescens senem vicero. (Liv. 28.44.18—NB: coordination); . . . ut . . . auctorem . . . se exhibendo ac velut visa, quae dubia erant, narrando concitaret iras hominum. (Liv. 24.31.14); Iis simul prudenter simul magnifice utendo effecit primum ut sibi deinde ut aliis non indignus videretur regno. (Liv. 33.21.2); Ea lege male utendo alii sociis alii populo Romano iniuriam faciebant. (Liv. 41.8.9); . . . triduum fere consumpsit incerta consilia volvendo. (Curt. 10.8.7); Cum ergo fuerit hoc ita perstratum, supra nucleus inducatur et virgis caedendo subigatur. (Vitr. 7.1.7); Deinde pilae manibus versando efficiuntur . . . (Vitr. 7.11.1); . . . tenuitas eius minus valendo faciliter rumpitur . . . (Vitr. 7.3.8); Deinde cum aeris unda nitentes, cum perventum ad montes, ab eorum offensa et procellis propter plenitatem et gravitatem liquescendo disparguntur (sc. nubes) et ita diffunditur in terras. (Vitr. 8.2.2); . . . circumagendo rotundationem utrarumque manuum et pedum digiti linea tangentur. (Vitr. 3.1.3); . . . Scipionis Aemiliani, quem in adoptionem dando duarum familiarum ornamentum esse voluisti . . . (V.  Max. 2.10.4); Nam quod invidiam facis nobis ingenuos honestosque clamando, vide ne deteriorem facias confidentia causam. (Petr. 107.10); Sperando enim timebimus, timendo cavebimus, cavendo salvi erimus. Contra si praesumamus, neque timendo neque cavendo difficile salvi erimus. (Tert. Cult. 2.2.3); . . . pestem fugiendo vitate . . . (Cypr. Ep. 43.5.3); Haec aliaque in eundem modum saepius replicando maiorem exercitus partem primae barbarorum opposuit fronti . . . (Amm. 16.12.34); Et licet potuit, quoad vixit, ingentia largiendo et intervallando potestates assiduas. . . (Amm. 27.11.2); . . . omnia loca quae filii Israhel tetigerant eundo vel redeundo ad montem Dei . . . (Pereg. 5.11); . . . novum . . . testamentum cui prophetando scienter utiles fuerunt, qualis David fuit. (August. c. Faust. 22.84) There is one much discussed case at Cic. Dom. 1, where the manuscripts have: Cum multa divinitus, pontifices, a maioribus nostris inventa atque instituta sunt, tum nihil praeclarius quam quod eosdem et religionibus deorum immortalium et summae rei publicae praeesse voluerunt, ut amplissimi et clarissimi cives rem publicam bene

Gerundial clauses

411

gerendo religiones, religionibus sapienter interpretando rem publicam conservarent. Edd. emend religionibus to religiones, but the manuscript reading is accepted by Löfstedt (1942/1933: II.162–4) as an instance of contamination.

As in the above examples, the agent of the gerundial clause is almost always identical with the subject of the matrix clause/sentence. This identity may be underlined by the presence of ipse ‘himself ’ in the gerundial clause. Agent/subject identity is also typical of the use of the present active participle as a secondary predicate. This explains the structure in (e), where the participial phrase recipientes umorem is parallel with the gerund siccescendo. See also § 21.14 for the development of the gerund. (e)

(sc. craticii parietes) . . . recipientes umorem turgescunt, deinde siccescendo contrahuntur . . . (‘(walls of wattlework) . . . taking up moisture they swell, then by drying they contract . . .’ Vitr. 2.8.20) Supplement: . . . unus ex Romanis ex propinquo murum contemplans numerando lapides aestimandoque ipse secum quid in fronte paterent singuli, altitudinem muri quantum proxime coniectura poterat permensus . . . ad Marcellum rem defert. (Liv. 25.23.11); Sed eos Ser. Sulpicius Galba . . . prensando ipse . . . stimulaverat ut frequentes ad suffragium adessent. (Liv. 45.35.8); Ita et sua sponte irarum pleni et incitati domos inde digressi sunt instigandoque suos quisque populos effecere, ut omne Volscum nomen deficeret. (Liv. 2.38.6); Non dissimilem offensionem et Aemiliani subiit L. Hostilius Mancinus, qui primus Carthaginem inruperat, situm eius oppugnationesque depictas proponendo in foro et ipse adsistens populo spectanti singula enarrando, qua comitate proximis comitiis consulatum adeptus est. (Plin. Nat. 35.23) Vitex ignis et aeris habendo satietatem, umoris temperate, parum autem terreni habens leviore temperatura comparata egregiam habere videtur in usu rigiditatem. (Vitr. 2.9.9); Credo libero commeantes mari saepiusque adeundo ceteris incognitas terras elegisse sedes iuventuti . . . (Curt. 4.4.20); . . . Piso . . . modo semet adflictando, modo singulos nomine ciens, praemiis vocans seditionem coeptabat . . . (Tac. Ann. 2.81.1); Impetu pervagatum incendium plana primum, deinde in edita adsurgens et rursus inferiora populando anteiit remedia velocitate mali . . . (Tac. Ann. 15.38.3) As for parallelism, see Aalto (1949: 70), who refers to different versions of the same message, for instance Vet. Lat. Luc. 18.18 quid faciendo vs. faciens in the Vulgate.

Exceptions to agent/subject identity are rare. An early instance is (f), where the person hurt by walking is me (see also § 5.35 on the voice value of the gerund). (f)

. . . ut me ambulando rumperet. (‘. . . he’d burst my guts with running errands.’ Ter. Hec. 435) Supplement (arguments in italics, satellites in bold italics): Lumbi sedendo, oculi spectando dolent, / manendo medicum, dum se ex opere recipiat. (Pl. Men. 882–3); Id opprimi sustentando et prolatando nullo pacto potest.  (Cic. Catil. 4.6); Alitur vitium vivitque tegendo . . . (Verg. G. 3.454); Crescit

412

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position enim assidue spectando (spectandi N, spectanti cj. Müller) cura puellae. (Prop. 3.21.3); Paulatim deinde recipiendo in civitatem qui arma aut non ceperant aut deposuerant maturius vires refectae sunt . . . (Vell. 2.16.4); Nec sine canendo tibicines dicti . . . (Var. L. 6.75)

. Gerundial temporal adjunct clauses The gerund is used in various prepositional expressions to locate the state of affairs of the main clause in time. Examples are (a) and (b). (a)

. . . in pariundo aliquot adfuerunt liberae. (‘. . . there were several free women present at the birth.’ Ter. An. 771)

(b)

. . . vociferari inter vapulandum incipit . . . (‘. . . while the lashing still went on, he began to shout . . .’ Gel. 1.26.7) Supplement (in alphabetical order by preposition): Namque ante domandum / ingentis tollent animos . . . (Verg. G. 3.206–7); Pol magis metuo ne defuerit mihi in monendo oratio. (Pl. Bac. 37); In supponendo ova observant ut sint numero imparia. (Var. R. 3.9.12); Iam istuc te quoque impediet in navigando et in conserendo, in uxore ducenda in liberis procreandis, plurimisque in rebus, in quibus nihil sequere praeter probabile. (Cic. Luc. 109); Quid praeterea ad te scribam non habeo, et mehercule eram in scribendo conturbatior. (Cic. Att. 1.12.4); Tum Apollinaris, ut mos eius in reprehendendo fuit, . . . (Gel. 13.20.5); . . . si erravit in solvendo . . . (Ulp. dig. 15.3.3.1); . . . in retinendo iura rerum suarum singulare ius est.  (Jav. dig. 41.2.23.1): . . . in proscindendo duritiam soli . . . convellit armos. (Veg. Mulom. 4.18); inter ponendum (Enn. fr. inc. 2); Tum inter laudandum hunc timidum tremulis palpebris / percutere nictu. Hic gaudere et mirarier. (Caecil. Com. 193–4); Inter loquendum. (Afran. Com. 423); . . . inter agendum / occursare capro— cornu ferit ille—caveto. (Verg. Ecl. 9.24–5); . . . suscepta obligatio inter dandum accipiendumque. (Paul. dig. 13.6.17.3) NB: Qui cum ad matrem confugissent, in gremio eius inter ipsa oscula trucidantur, proclamante Arsinoë, quid tantum nefas aut nubendo aut post nuptias contraxisset. (Justin. 24.3.7–8). Appendix: There are some ungrammatical instances, resulting from literal translations from Greek, such as: In autem dormiendo homines venit inimicus (Vet. Lat. Mat. 13.25—NB: corresponding to a subject in a finite clause). See also Wistrand (1967: 71) for discussion.

. Gerundial reason adjunct clauses Prepositional expressions with causa, gratia, and (in Early Latin) ergo ‘for the sake of ’ in combination with the genitive of the gerund are a very common way of expressing a person’s motive for doing something. In rare instances, the preposition ob is also used in this way.

Gerundial clauses (a)

413

. . . omnia aliorum causa esse generata, ut eas fruges atque fructus quos terra gignit animantium causa, animantes autem hominum, ut ecum vehendi causa, arandi bovem, venandi et custodiendi canem. (‘. . . all things were created for the sake of some other thing: thus the corn and fruits that the earth produces were created for the sake of animals, and animals for the sake of man: for example the horse for riding, the ox for ploughing, the dog for hunting and keeping guard.’ Cic. N.D. 2.37) Supplement: Eadem nunc nego. / Dicendi, non rem perdendi gratia haec nata est mihi. (Pl. Cur. 705–6); . . . quae (frequentia) convenit uno tempore undique comitiorum, ludorum censendique causa. (Cic. Ver. 54—NB: coordination); Qui primum illud valde graviter tulerunt, promulgatum ex senatus consulto fuisse ut de eis qui ob iudicandum accepissent quaereretur. (Cic. Att. 1.17.8)

. Gerundial adjuncts in other semantic relations (ablative and prepositional expressions) The bare ablative of the gerund can function as an adjunct of respect (see § 10.90), as in (a): (a)

. . . cum disserendo par esse non posset . . . (‘. . . since he was not able to be his equal in discussion . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 1.240) Supplement: P. Scipio . . . Latine loquendo cuivis erat par . . . (Cic. Brut. 128); Sim digna merendo, / cuius honoratis ossa vehantur avis. (Prop. 4.11.101–2—NB: avis is a conjecture for mss. aquis) NB: Textually uncertain: . . . ut neglegens scribendo fuisse videar . . . (Cic. Fam. 3.9.3—so Shackleton Bailey; Lambinus); Etenim quis est tam scribendo (v.l. in scribendo) impiger quam ego? (Cic. Fam. 2.1.1)

Prepositional gerundial clauses fulfil a variety of semantic functions, depending on the semantic value of the preposition. They are given here in alphabetical order by preposition. Source: Nam sicut a ‘ligando’ ‘lictor’ et a ‘legendo’ ‘lector’ et a ‘viendo’ ‘vitor’ et ‘tuendo’ ‘tutor’ et ‘struendo’ ‘structor’ productis, quae corripiebantur, vocalibus dicta sunt. (Gel. 12.3.4); . . . quae virtus ex providendo est appellata prudentia . . . (Cic. Leg. 1.60) Subject matter: Tibi enim tantum de orationis genere quaerenti respondi etiam breviter de inveniundo et conlocando. (Cic. Orat. 54); Haec ego, inquit, super irascendo sentio. (Gel. 1.26.3) Beneficiary: Heus, senex! Pro vapulando hercle ego aps te mercedem petam. (Pl. Aul. 456) Restriction: Septimius quoque Tertullianus fuit omni genere litterarum peritus, sed in eloquendo parum facilis . . . (Lact. Inst. 5.1.23—NB: parallelism)

414

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position

. Gerundival satellite clauses Gerundival satellite clauses are either bare case forms or prepositional phrases. Bare case-form gerundival satellite clauses can appear in the genitive, dative, or ablative. Following the order of the section on gerundial satellites and bearing in mind that the precise semantic function of a gerundival clause in its sentence is often a matter of interpretation, one can recognize a number of different semantic functions, which are discussed in §§ 16.106–10.

. Gerundival purpose adjunct clauses The use of genitive gerundival clauses as purpose adjuncts (see also § 10.83) is a typically Tacitean extension of Latin grammar, although there are earlier instances (some of them disputed).308 An example is (a). The dative is more common, as in (b), though still not frequent. Very rare are instances of ablative gerundival clauses that seem to be intended as purpose adjuncts, as in (c). Prepositional gerundival phrases, by contrast, are quite common as purpose adjuncts, especially those with ad ‘to’, as in (d). Note that in (e) it is difficult to find the feature ‘control’ in the main clause, which is usual with purpose clauses (see also § 16.50).309 (a)

. . . Germanicus Aegyptum proficiscitur cognoscendae antiquitatis. (‘Germanicus set out for Egypt to view its antiquities.’ Tac. Ann. 2.59.1)

(b)

Serviendae servituti ego servos instruxi mihi . . . (‘I schooled my slaves to serve me . . .’ Pl. Mil. 745)

(c)

. . . Nero . . . prosequitur abeuntem . . . sive explenda simulatione, seu . . . (‘. . . Nero . . . escorted her on her way . . . either in order to consummate his hypocrisy, or . . .’ Tac. Ann. 14.4.4)

(d)

Ad aquam praebendam commodum adveni domum. (‘I’ve come home in the nick of time, to fetch water.’ Pl. Am. 669)

(e)

Flamen interim Quirinalis virginesque Vestales . . . quae sacrorum secum ferenda, quae, quia vires ad omnia ferenda deerant, relinquenda essent consultantes . . . (‘Meanwhile the flamen of Quirinus and the Vestal virgins . . . were consulting which of the sacred things they should carry with them, and which, because they were not strong enough to carry them all, they must leave behind . . .’ Liv. 5.40.7) Supplement: Genitive: Cum dicat Orestes se patris ulciscendi matrem occidisse . . . (Rhet. Her. 1.26); . . . ut si arborum trunci sive naves (trabes cj. Schneider) deiciendi operis causa

308 For a discussion of Greek influence, see Calboli (2009: 83–93). For the use of the genitive in Isidore of Seville, see Maltby (2002: 227–9). 309 For this example, see Torrego (2001: 633).

Gerundival clauses

415

essent a barbaris missae . . . (causa deest l) (Caes. Gal. 4.17.9);310 . . . arma civilia. Quae ille adversum divina et humana omnia cepit non pro sua aut quorum simulat iniuria sed legum ac libertatis subvertundae. (Sal. Hist. 1.77.11); Opus erat partibus auctoritate gratia, cuius augendae (causa add. Laurent) C. Marium cum filio de exilio revocavit quique cum iis pulsi erant. (Vell. 2.20.5); . . . clementiam suam obstringens crebris orationibus, quas Seneca testificando, quam honesta praeciperet, vel iactandi ingenii voce principis vulgabat. (Tac. Ann. 13.11.2—NB: parallelism with the dative gerundial clause); Namque hoc genus orationis non capitis defendendi nec suadendae legis nec exercitus adhortandi nec inflammandae contionis scribitur, sed facetiarum et voluptatis. (Fro. Laudes fumi et pulveris 3, p. 215.21 vdH—NB: coordination with genitive nouns; gratia vel causa add. Novák); Quid enim si amicos adhibendos debitor requirat vel expediendi debiti vel fideiussoribus rogandis? (Ulp. dig. 22.1.21.pr.) Dative: Ius iurandum rei servandae, non perdendae conditum est. (Pl. Rud. 1374); Ager oleto conserundo, qui in ventum Favonium spectabit et soli ostentus erit, alius bonus nullus erit. (Cato Agr. 6.2); Quaeritur argentum puerisque beata creandis / uxor . . . (Hor. Ep.1.2.44–5); Scipio . . . protinus causis regulorum civitatiumque cognoscendis . . . Tarraconem rediit. (Liv. 28.16.9–10); . . . ea (sc. testa) non potest in structura oneri ferendo esse firma. (Vitr. 2.8.19); Temporibusque Augusti dicendis non defuere decora ingenia . . . (Tac. Ann. 1.1.2); Nec ad invidiam ista, sed conciliandae misericordiae refero. (Tac. Ann. 2.37.4—NB: coordination with the ad phrase); . . . aliquid cibatus refovendo spiritu desidero. (Apul. Met. 1.18.7); Proinde aurum, aes, argentum, ebur, lignum et quaecumque fabricandis idolis materia capiatur, quis in saeculo posuit nisi saeculi auctor Deus? (Tert. Spect. 2.9); (sc. Zenobia) . . . ut ne virum suum quidem scierit nisi temptandis (cj. Cornelissen, temptatis P) conceptionibus. (Hist. Aug. trig. tyr. 30.12); (sc. Zenobia) . . . iterum potestatem quaerendis liberis dabat. (Hist. Aug. trig. tyr. 30.12); Et quia nec arietibus admovendis nec ad intentandas machinas vel, ut possint forari cuniculi, inveniebatur locus usquam habilis disparatione brevi civitatem Natisone amni praeterlabente, commentum excogitatum est cum veteribus admirandum. (Amm. 21.12.8—NB: parallelism) NB: with the verb esse: Poenam illorum sibi oneri, inpunitatem perdundae rei publicae fore credebat. (Sal. Cat. 46.2); . . . ea modo quae restinguendo igni forent portantes in agmen Romanum ruebant. (Liv. 30.6.3) Ablative: Iam qui ad muros differenda morte properaverant aut fossas cadaveribus aequabant aut . . . (Paneg. 2.34.3) Prepositional phrases (in alphabetical order by preposition): Hic in noxa’st. Ille ad defendundam causam adest. (Ter. Ph. 266); Cum ad rem publicam liberandam accessi . . . (Cic. Fam. 11.10.5); Magnam haec res Caesari difficultatem ad consilium capiendum adferebat . . . (Caes. Gal. 7.10.1); Dimisso conventu decem legati . . . ad liberandas suae quisque regionis civitates discesserunt . . . (Liv. 33.35.1); Carcer enim ad continendos homines, non ad puniendos haberi debet (Ulp. dig. 48.19.8.9); . . . si arborum trunci sive trabes deiciendi operis causa essent a barbaris missae . . . (Caes. Gal. 4.17.10—NB: causa is omitted in one part of the manuscript tradition); Qui accepto oraculo carendi furoris causa . . . (Hyg. Fab. 261); Ex hoc tanto numero 310 Eden (1962: 92) considers causa ‘a quite usual instance of trivialization’.

416

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position deductus est nemo, et cum illam pecuniam nominatim Flacco datam referant, maiorem aliam cum huic eidem darent in aedem sacram reficiendam se perscripsisse dicunt, quod minime convenit. (Cic. Flac. 44); Qui in navem exstruendam vel  instruendam credidit vel etiam emendam . . . (Paul. dig. 42.5.26); Praeterea ad Troiam cum misi ob defendendam Graeciam . . . (Enn. scen. 313V—see Jocelyn p. 394); . . . eadem precor ab isdem dis immortalibus ob eiusdem hominis consulatum una cum salute obtinendum, et ut vestrae mentes atque sententiae cum populi Romani voluntatibus suffragiisque consentiant eaque res vobis populoque Romano pacem tranquillitatem otium concordiamque adferat. (Cic. Mur. 1—NB: parallelism with ut clause); Ac primo mediocria gerebat, existumans Iugurtham ob suos tutandos in manus venturum. (Sal. Jug. 89.2); Cum L. Papirius Cursor dictator reversus in urbem ab exercitu esset propter auspicia repetenda, Q. Fabius, magister equitum, occasione bene gerendae rei invitatus, contra edictum eius prospere adversus Samnites pugnavit. (Liv. Per. 8); . . . propter terrendos miseros viatores in summo atque edito sarcinarum cumulo ad instar exercitus sedulo composuerat. (Apul. Met. 10.1.2)

In (very) Late Latin bare accusative gerundival clauses occur as purpose adjuncts (in place of prepositional expressions with ad), especially with verbs of movement. The same occurs with gerundial clauses (see §  16.100). The earliest instance, which is dubious, is (f).311 (f)

Probabili argumento firmandam fidem ( firmandam edd.) reperto . . . (‘Having invented a plausible means for strengthening his confidence . . .’ Amm. 15.5.21) Supplement: . . . iste homo Dei, qui a Deo obiurgandum Hieroboam regem fuerit missus . . . (Lucif. Cal. Non Conv. 3)

. Gerundival instrument/manner adjunct clauses Bare ablative gerundival clauses functioning as instrument/manner adjuncts are not very frequent. They are very rare in Early Latin, are not uncommon in Classical Latin, but become infrequent once more soon after the Classical period. Most often the ablative gerundival clause describes the method used in effecting something, the factors leading up to a certain result, or the manner in which something is obtained. Further distinctions are difficult to make and depend entirely on the context. Prepositional gerundival expressions with these semantic functions are rare. Very often the agent of the gerundival clause is identical with the subject of the matrix clause (or agent if the verb is passive). Examples are (a) and (b). (a)

His enim ipsis legendis in memoriam redeo mortuorum. (‘For by reading them I refresh my recollection of the dead.’ Cic. Sen. 21) 311 More instances, mainly from Fredegar, can be found in Odelstierna (1926: 32–42).

Gerundival clauses (b)

417

Qui partis honoribus eosdem in foro gessi labores quos petendis. (‘(I,) who, after my honours have been won, have spent the same labour in the forum as when I was seeking them.’ Cic. Phil. 6.17) Supplement: Nisi patrem materno sanguine exanclando ulciscerem . . . (Enn. scen. 147V=144J); Aggerundaque aqua sunt viri duo defessi. (Pl. Poen. 224); Iane pater, te hac strue ommovenda bonas preces precor, uti sies volens propitius mihi . . . (Cato Agr. 134.2); Ancillas, servos, nisi eos qui opere rustico / faciundo facile sumptum exsercirent suom, / omnis produxi ac vendidi. (Ter. Hau. 142–4); . . . ne dicendis sententiis aliquem tribunum alienarem. (Cic. Att. 7.4.2); Qua cum ipsi Caesari nihil esset utilius, gratiam quoque nos inire ab eo defendenda pace arbitrabamur. (Cic. Fam. 4.2.3); . . . tractandis condicionibus et simulatione deditionis extracto primo noctis tempore . . . (Caes. Civ. 3.28.5); Tam felix vobis corrumpendis fuit, qui servitia non commovit auctor? (Liv. 3.17.2); L. Trebonius . . . insectandis . . . patribus, unde Aspero etiam inditum est cognomen, tribunatum gessit. (Liv. 3.65.3–4); Reliquum diei expediendis armis et curatione corporum consumptum, et maior pars noctis quieti data est. (Liv. 25.38.23—NB: coordination with a noun phrase); Inopiae quoque abietis aut sappinorum vitabuntur utendo cupresso . . . (Vitr. 1.2.8); Omnibus quidem virtutum generibus exercendis colendisque populus Romanus e parva origine ad tantae amplitudinis instar emicuit . . . (Gel. 20.1.39) Prepositional phrase: Efficeretur per exceptionem mihi opponendam . . . (Paul. dig. 2.14.27.5)

However, there are also instances in which the agent and the subject are not identical, as in (c), and instances in which the state of affairs of the main clause is [–control], as in (d). In such cases the semantic relationship between the gerundival and the matrix clause is more difficult to describe. (See also § 16.101 on gerundial satellite clauses with these semantic functions and § 5.37 on the voice value of the gerundive.) (c)

. . . . . . plausum meo nomine recitando dedisset, habui contionem. (‘. . . when the people had applauded at the reading out of my name, I addressed them.’ Cic. Att. 4.1.6)

(d)

. . . Antonius coniectura movenda aut sedanda suspicione aut excitanda incredibilem vim habebat . . . (‘. . . Antonius possessed incredible skill in creating a presumption of probability, in allaying or in provoking a suspicion . . .’ Cic. Brut. 144) Supplement: Ita te aggerunda curvom aqua faciam probe, / ut postilena possit ex te fieri. (Pl. Cas. 124–5); At puer Ascanius . . . triginta magnos volvendis mensibus orbis / imperio explebit . . . (Verg. A. 1.267–70); . . . ut contra eo violentior potestas tribunicia inpediendo dilectu esset . . . (Liv. 6.31.4); Prolatandis igitur comitiis cum dictator magistratu abisset, res ad interregnum rediit. (Liv. 7.21.2); Rem per se popularem ita dextere egit, ut medendis corporibus animi multo prius militum imperatori reconciliarentur . . . (Liv. 8.36.7); Nam fruendis voluptatibus crescit carendi dolor. (Plin. Ep. 8.5.2)

418

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position

Sometimes the semantic relationship is made explicit (see § 16.89 for this phenomenon in participial clauses) by the presence of a subordinator or an adverb, which enables a wider range of semantic relations between the gerundival and matrix clauses. Supplement: Quam ob rem eas manibus ipsis agricolarum ingessit vertique iussit ipsa die folia et esse confecti sideris signum, nec silvestrium arborum remotarumque, ut in saltus devios montesque eundum esset quaerentibus signa, non rursus urbanarum quaeque topiario tantum coluntur, quamquam his et in villa visendis. (Plin. Nat. 18.265—NB: the clause seems to indicate a possibility); . . . pars Philippopolim exindeque Serdicam, alia Macedoniam cum intemeratis opibus, quas vehebant, omni studio properandum ( properandum add. Lindenborg) excogitato currebant velut in regionibus illis repperiendo Valente. (Amm. 31.16.2)

The gerundive developed into a form of future passive participle in Late Latin (see § 7.84). There are a few instances in Ammianus Marcellinus of a gerundival satellite in which the gerundive is used in this way. Supplement: Pauca itaque super benevolo omnium flumine Nilo, quem Aegyptum Homerus appellat, praestringi conveniet mox ostendendis aliis, quae sunt in his regionibus admiranda. (Amm. 22.15.3); At in Galliis fervorum tenore gliscente diffusis per nostra Germanis iamque Alpibus ad vastandam Italiam perrumpendis nihil multa et nefanda perpessis hominibus praeter lacrimas supererat . . . (Amm. 25.4.25); Sex milium enim annorum in sex diebus tempus ostenditur, quo circa mundum est oberratum et quodam generationum circulo circumcursatum, eodem ipso mundo ad tubae vocem in tempore septimo millesimo resolvendo, sola ecclesia . . . reservanda. (Hil. Myst. 2.10)

. Gerundival temporal/circumstantial adjunct clauses Clear-cut instances of bare case temporal gerundival clauses do not exist. There are a few which may be labelled ‘circumstantial’. In any case, the distinction between these instances and those in the preceding section is vague. Prepositional expressions (especially with in ‘at’) are not uncommon. (a)

. . . labores qui sint re publica ( re p. add. Schuetz) defendenda sustinendi . . . (‘. . . the labours that must be performed in the defence of the state . . .’ Cic. Rep. 1.4)

(b)

. . . quod · in · incendio / restinguendo · interi. (‘. . . because he died while trying to put out a fire.’ CIL XIV.4494.6–7 (Ostia, time of Augustus)) Supplement: Ablative: Accitus, sicut Romulus augurato urbe condenda regnum adeptus est, de se quoque deos consuli iussit. (Liv. 1.18.6); Ipse cum peditum agmine castris egreditur,

Gerundival clauses

419

nec ex ordine solito quicquam acie instruenda ( acie instruenda edd., but see Weissenborn ad loc.) mutat. (Liv. 28.14.11) Prepositional phrase (in alphabetical order by preposition): . . . ante conditam condendamve urbem . . . (Liv. praef. 6); Nam in prologis scribundis operam abutitur . . . (Ter. An. 5); Magnum crimen vel in legatis insidiandis vel in servis ad hospitem domini necandum sollicitandis, plenum sceleris consilium, plenum audaciae! (Cic. Cael. 51); Sic in interpretando, in definiendo, in explicanda aequitate nihil erat Crasso copiosius. (Cic. Brut. 144); Principia autem in sententiis dicendis brevia esse debebunt. (Cic. Part. 97); Sed ego nulla in re malo quam in te amando constans et esse et videri. (Cic. ad Brut. 1.15.13); . . . rei publicae, quae te in me restituendo multum adiuvisset . . . (Cic. Fam. 1.9.4); Ex victoribus ducenti triginta septem milites perierunt, plures in matutina fuga quam in recipiendis castris. (Liv. 41.4.8—NB: coordination with a prepositional phrase); . . . et in versu faciendo / saepe caput scaberet . . . (Hor. S. 1.10.70–1); Puer ipse quem vult sequatur, ut sit illi saltem in eligendo fratre [salva] libertas. (Petr. 80.5); Sed inter rem agendam istam erae huic respondi quod rogabat. (Pl. Cist. 721); . . . et ille inter aurum accipiendum et in spem pacis solutis animis Gallos adgressus sit . . . (Liv. 6.11.5); Comitiali quoque morbo bis inter res agendas correptus est. (Suet. Jul. 45.1)

. Gerundival reason adjunct clauses There are a few gerundival reason clauses, with ob and propter. It is not easy to distinguish them from purpose expressions (see § 16.106). (a)

Si erunt plures qui ob innocentem condemnandum pecuniam acceperint . . . (‘Should there be several who have taken a bribe to condemn an innocent man . . .’ Cic. Clu. 129) Supplement: Ergo ut omittam tuos peculatus, ut ob ius dicendum pecunias acceptas, ut eiusmodi cetera quae forsitan alii quoque etiam fecerint, illud in quo te gravissime accusavi, quod ob iudicandam rem pecuniam accepisses, eadem ista ratione defendes, fecisse alios? (Cic. Ver. 3.206); Propter litem inofficiosi testamenti ordinandam exheredato filio . . . (Papin. dig. 26.2.26.2)

. Gerundival adjunct clauses in other semantic functions (mostly prepositional phrases) There are very few gerundival clauses that function as a respect adjunct. The gerundive in (a) finds support in the use of an ablative noun with melior ‘better’ in Virgil (see § 11.92, Supplement). (a)

Ipse pugnae avidus et contemnendis quam cavendis hostibus melior . . . (‘Himself eager for battle and better in despising than in guarding against enemies . . .’ Tac. Hist. 4.71.1)

420

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position Supplement: . . . qualis excipiendo hoste, quam resistenti vehemens, quam facilis supplicanti. (Paneg. 4.37.2)

Gerundival clauses are used in various other semantic functions, depending on the meaning of the prepositions involved. Examples are (b) and (c). (b)

Qui de amittenda Bacchide aurum hic exiget. (‘Who’ll demand money here for letting Bacchis go.’ Pl. Bac. 223)

(c)

Consiliis tuis quae scribis de quattuor legionibus deque agris adsignandis ab utroque vestrum vehementer adsentior. (‘I emphatically agree with your advice in what you write about the four legions and the assignment of lands by the two of you.’ Cic. Fam. 11.21.5—NB: explicit agent) Supplement (in alphabetical order by preposition; arguments in italics): Fuit (sc. Tubero) autem patricius et transit a causis agendis ad ius civile . . . (Pompon. dig. 1.2.2.46); Atque hoc etiam Plato ibidem dicit non defugiendas esse neque respuendas huiuscemodi exercitationes adversum propulsandam vini violentiam . . . (Gel. 15.2.6); Inde illa veterum circa occultandam eloquentiam simulatio, multum ab hac nostrorum temporum iactatione diversa. (Quint. Inst. 4.1.9); Circa conlocandos quoque calices observari oportet ut ad lineam ordinentur . . . (Fron. Aq. 113.1); A. d. XIII Kal. Ian. senatus [aut] frequens mihi est adsensus cum de ceteris rebus magnis et necessariis tum de provinciis ab iis qui obtinerent retinendis neque cuiquam tradendis nisi qui ex senatus consulto successisset. (Cic. Fam. 12.22a.1— NB: explicit agent); Alterum quod sine edicto satis commode transigi non potest, de hereditatum possessionibus, de bonis possidendis, magistris faciendis, vendendis, quae ex edicto et postulari et fieri solent. (Cic. Att. 6.1.15—NB: coordination with abstract noun); De mercennariis testibus a suis civitatibus notandis, nisi iam factum aliquid est per Flaccum, fiet a me cum per Asiam decedam. (Cic. Fam. 3.11.3—NB: explicit agent); (sc. fama) erga haec explicanda, quae Romae sunt, obsolescit . . . (Amm. 16.10.17); Leno te argentum poscit, solida servitus, / pro liberanda amica . . . (Pl. Per. 425–6); Quod divo Marco pro libertatibus conservandis placuit . . . (Papin. dig. 40.4.50 pr.); Quae autem in testamento diximus super prohibendis testimoniis . . . (Ulp. dig. 28.1.20.3); . . . missurum ad imperatorem Romanum legatos super petenda Armenia et firmanda pace respondet . . . (Tac. Ann. 15.5.4)

. Supine satellite clauses The two so-called supines are usually described as (originally) accusative and ablative singular forms of a deverbal noun in -us (see § 3.21). Whether this explanation is correct or not (see the individual sections), it does not explain why the first supine (in -um) is active and—if the verb is two- or three-place—is found in combination with arguments, and in Post-Classical authors also with satellites, whereas the second supine (in -u) is passive and is not found with arguments or satellites. As their properties are different, so their histories are different. Both were restricted to a number of

Supine clauses

421

idiomatic expressions by the time of Cicero, but were to some extent revitalized in poetry and literary prose, sometimes beyond the structural properties we know from Early Latin. They did not survive in the Romance languages.

. The use of the first supine (in -um) as a purpose adjunct The first supine (in -um) is found with one- or two-place verbs of movement (e.g. eo ‘to go’, venio ‘to come’, and mitto ‘to send’) and with verbs implying movement (e.g. voco ‘to call’, do ‘to give’) to express the purpose of that action. By far the most common verb with which the first supine occurs is eo, both when physical movement is involved, as in (a), and in a more abstract sense, as in (b). It is in the latter sense that it is also used as a substitute for the future passive infinitive, as in (c) (further details in §  7.72). The first supine, usually regarded as an accusative form (see §  3.21), is sometimes explained as the goal of the movement, indicating ‘whither’, but the presence of two explicit goal constituents in (a) (huc and ad vicinam) shows that questum, whatever its prehistory, is not a goal constituent (see also the first note below). The subject of eo is animate, mostly human (with a very few Late exceptions).312 The second and third argument of the supine can be expressed, like erum in (f). Satellites are almost unattested except after the Classical authors. The supine in -um is relatively common in Early Latin in a restricted number of combinations (partly due to the fact that there is much coming and going in Latin comedy), but it gradually loses ground to competing purpose expressions, especially the active infinitive and gerundi(v)al clauses. However, poets and historians use it in varying degrees, expanding its clausal possibilities. It is relatively popular in the archaizing authors Apuleius and Gellius.313 (a)

Nunc huc meas fortunas eo questum ad vicinam. (‘Now I’m going here to my neighbour to complain about my misfortunes.’ Pl. Cas. 162)

(b)

Mox hercle vero post transactam fabulam, / argentum si quis dederit, ut ego suspicor, / ultro ibit nuptum, non manebit auspices. (‘But soon, after the play has reached its end, I suspect if anyone gives her money she’ll marry him willingly and won’t wait for the augurs.’ Pl. Cas. 84–6)

(c)

. . . nisi se sciat vilico non datum iri. (‘. . . unless she knows she won’t be given to the overseer.’ Pl. Cas. 699)

(d)

Inde partem equitatus atque ferentarios praedatum misit. (‘Then he sent out part of the cavalry and the light troops to go looting.’ Cato Mil. 6(J))

(e)

. . . quo me in silvam venatum vocas? (‘. . . where are you calling me to hunt in the woods?’ Pl. Men. 835)

312 See TLL s.v. eo 648.51ff. 313 For a survey of the first supine forms (although slightly out of date), see Draeger (1878: II.824–8). For Caesar’s use of the first supine, see Carducci (2018).

422 (f)

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position Tune es qui hau multo prius / abiisti hinc erum accersitum? (‘Aren’t you the one who went away a little earlier to fetch his master?’ Pl. Rud. 1055–6) Supplement: Eam ero nunc renuntiatum est nuptum huic Megadoro dari. (Pl. Aul. 604); Vos in aram abite sessum. (Pl. Rud. 707); Libii qui aquatum ut lignatum videntur ire securim atque lorum ferunt . . . (Cato hist. 33=30C); Siquando illa dicet ‘Phaedriam / intro mittamu’ comissatum’, Pamphilam / cantatum provocemu’. (Ter. Eu. 441–3); . . . illud videndum, ut satis sit verecundi etiam illam in eandem arenam vocare pugnatum. (Var. L. 10.2.19); . . . et unde hospites atque amici gratulatum Romam concurrerent repente exsistet ipse nuntius suae calamitatis! (Cic. Mur. 89); . . . senatoribus singulis spectatum e senatu redeuntibus. (Cic. Sest. 117); . . . tamen quid potius faciam prius quam me dormitum conferam, non reperio. (Cic. Fam. 9.26.1); Proximo die praesidio in castris relicto universas ad aquam copias educunt. Pabulatum emittitur nemo. (Caes. Civ. 1.81.5); . . . sororem ex matre et propinquas suas nuptum in alias civitates collocasse. (Caes. Gal. 1.18.7); Bello Helvetiorum confecto totius fere Galliae legati principes civitatum ad Caesarem gratulatum convenerunt. (Caes. Gal. 1.30.1); Remiges interim qui aquatum e navibus exierant . . . (B. Afr. 7.5); Ipse in finitima regione Persidis hiematum copias divisit . . . (Nep. Eum. 8.1—NB: movement implied); Inde frumentatum duas exercitus partes mittebat. (Liv. 22.23.9); Cum sole eunt cubitum (sc. galli gallinacei) . . . (Plin. Nat. 10.46); Praeponam enim unum ex libertis sepulcro meo custodiae causa, ne in monumentum meum populus cacatum currat. (Petr. 71.8 (Trimalchio speaking)); . . . omnem viciniam suppetiatum convocans . . . (Apul. Met. 7.7.2); . . . abeunt libidinatum ad filias Moab . . . (Tert. Scorp. 3.4) With arguments (and satellites) expressed (in italics and bold italics, respectively): . . . nunc venis etiam ultro irrisum dominum. (Pl. Am. 587); Quid ego emerui, adulescens, mali, / quam ob rem ita faceres meque meosque perditum ires liberos? (Pl. Aul. 735–6); . . . qui magis potueritis mi honorem ire habitum . . . (Pl. Cist. 4); Iam hercle ego per hortum ad amicam transibo meam / mi hanc occupatum noctem. (Pl. St. 437–8); . . . tum venias. # Vae aetati tuae! / # Vasa lautum non ad cenam dico. (Pl. St. 594–5); Ego . . . / prosilui amicum castigatum innoxium (Pl. Trin. 215–16); Atque equidem ipsus ultro venit Philto oratum filio. (Pl. Trin. 611); Alii di isse ad villam aiebant servis depromptum cibum. (Pl. Trin. 944); . . . missa’st ancilla ilico / obstetricem accersitum ad eam et puerum ut adferret simul. (Ter. An. 514–15— NB: coordination with purpose ut clause); Idque adeo venio nuntiatum, Demipho, / paratum me esse. (Ter. Ph. 906–7); Quid tum? ‘Inde ibi ego te ex iure manum consertum voco’. (Cic. Mur. 26); Etsi admonitum venimus te, non flagitatum. (Cic. de Orat. 3.17); Quo ex oppido cum legati ad eum venissent oratum, ut sibi ignosceret suaeque vitae consuleret . . . obsides dari iubet. (Caes. Gal. 7.12.3); . . . Nectenebin adiutum profectus regnum ei constituit. (Nep. Cha. 2.1); Nupta tu quoque quae tuus / vir petet cave ne neges / ni petitum aliunde eat. (Catul. 61.151–3); . . . licentiam in vos auctum atque adiutum properatis. Neque ego vos ultum iniurias hortor . . . (Sal. Hist. 3.48. 16–17—NB: remarkable use of hortor); Tamen interim transfugas et alios opportunos, Iugurtha ubi gentium aut quid agitaret, cum paucisne esset an exercitum haberet, ut sese victus gereret, exploratum misit (sc. Metellus). (Sal. Jug. 54.2); Si fortuna permittitis uti / quaesitum Aenean et moenia Pallantea, . . . (Verg. A. 9.240–1—NB: quaesitum is

Supine clauses

423

taken as a supine from Antiquity onwards, but it is very odd in its context; see Dingel ad loc., who suggests it is a perfect passive participle); Hic sponsum vocat, hic auditum scripta . . . (Hor. Ep. 2.2.67); . . . atque in me veniat mictum atque cacatum / Iulius et fragilis Pediatia furque Voranus. (Hor. S. 1.8.38–9); In ea castra Q.  Fabius, P. Volumnius, A. Postumius legati ab Roma venerunt questum iniurias et ex foedere res repetitum. (Liv. 3.25.6); . . . eamque iniuriam excidio ipsius ultum iturum. (Tac. Ann. 12.45.1); Tradunt plerique eorum temporum scriptores crebris ante exitium diebus inlusum isse pueritia Britannici Neronem . . . (Tac. Ann. 13.17.2); . . . quin omni sententiarum via servatum ire socios niteretur. (Gel. 6.3.44); Corvus et vulpis unam offulam simul viderant eamque raptum festinabant . . . (Apul. Soc. Prol. 4)314 There is one instance of a supine in an answer to a question with quo ‘whither’, clearly a joke: (g) Quo nunc ibas? # Exulatum. (‘Where were you going just now? # Into exile.’ Pl. Mer. 884) There are a number of idiomatic expressions consisting of supine (-like) forms like pessum and venum in combination with verbs like eo and do, which occur with actual supines as well. Another idiom is herctum cieo. (See also § 10.8.)

. The so-called second supine in -u The so-called second supine construction is found from Early Latin onwards. It is not very frequent (some 600 instances reported); a large number of the supine forms come from a limited number of verbs with a fairly general meaning, such as factu, auditu, dictu. The regular construction consists of a combination of an adjective and a second supine form which can function as subject or object complement at the clause level, as in (a), where facilia factu is the subject complement in the passive clause with facta haec sunt, or as an attribute at the noun phrase level, as in (b)— repeated from § 3.21. In (c), factu optumum is combined with the copula.315 (a)

. . . quorum opera mihi facilia factu facta haec sunt quae volui effieri. (‘. . . through your hard work the things I wanted done became easy for me to do.’ Pl. Per. 761)

(b)

Bonam atque iustam rem oppido imperas et factu facilem. (‘That’s an absolutely fine and reasonable suggestion—and easy enough to carry out.’ Ter. Hau. 704)

(c)

Nunc hoc mihi factu est optumum, ut ted auferam, / aula, in Fidei fanum. (‘Now this is the best thing for me to do, my pot: to carry you off into the shrine of Good Faith.’ Pl. Aul. 582–3)

314 For the so-called Prologus, see Hunink (1995). 315 For a general discussion of the second supine, see Lambertz (1982: 542–4) and Kroon (1989a). The most complete survey of instances is Sjöstrand (1891). For a survey of dictu combinations, see TLL s.v. dico 969.58ff. See also s.v. dignus 1152.71ff; facilis 59.52ff. For the use of the construction by various authors, see Sz.: 382–3.

424

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position

In the above examples factu might be omitted without making the remaining expression ungrammatical or meaningless. The situation is different in (d) and (e). (d)

Virtus difficilis inventu est, rectorem ducemque desiderat. (‘Virtue is difficult to find; it needs a director and guide.’ Sen. Nat. 3.30.8)

(e)

In his igitur rebus cum bona sint, facile est intellectu quae sint contraria. (‘As then there are good things in these departments, it is easy to understand what things are the opposite of good.’ Cic. Part. 88)

In (d), inventu seems to be optional: virtus difficilis est is syntactically correct. However, semantically, virtus is the patient of inventu. An alternative, more or less synonymous, formulation would be: difficile est virtutem invenire ‘it is difficult to find virtue’, where virtutem is the object of the infinitive invenire and the combination virtutem invenire the subject of difficile est. In (e), the indirect question quae sint contraria is the subject of facile est intellectu. Unlike in (d), leaving out intellectu would not result in a semantically and syntactically acceptable formulation. Semantically, the indirect question is the patient of intellectu. An alternative formulation would be facile est intellegere, with a present infinitive instead of the supine. In that case the infinitive would be the subject of facile est and quae sint contraria the object of intellegere. On the basis of instances like (d) and (e) the subjects in (a) and (c) can also be interpreted as semantically related to factu. An analogous explanation can be given for rem in (b). At the clause level various types of constituents may function as subject. In (a), it is the autonomous relative clause haec . . . quae volui effieri; in (c), an ut clause with a preparative pronoun hoc; in (e), an indirect question; accusative and infinitive clauses are also not uncommon. These clauses more often follow the supine. For a noun, see virtus in (d). The subject is rarely a human being or concrete entity. The adjectives with which the second supine is used are evaluative, indicating the feasibility or easiness of performing a certain action or the moral or physical quality of the entity involved in such an action. Most of the adjectives involved are one-place, as in (f) and (g). Noteworthy exceptions are dignus ‘worthy’ and indignus ‘unworthy’, which govern an ablative, as in (h) (see §  4.101). Some adjectives with which the supine is used also occur with dative arguments, for example, iucundus ‘pleasant’ (see § 4.100). See also facilis in (l) with a dative and a supine. (f)

Estne hoc miserum memoratu? (‘Isn’t this a sorry tale?’ Pl. Cist. 229)

(g)

. . . incredibile memoratu est quam facile coaluerint. (‘. . . it is unbelievable to relate how easily they merged.’ Sal. Cat. 6.2)

(h)

. . . nihil dignum memoratu actum. (‘. . . nothing worthy of relation was accomplished.’ Liv. 4.43.2)

(i)

Aut (sc. quid est) tam iucundum cognitu atque auditu quam sapientibus sententiis gravibusque verbis ornata oratio et polita? (‘Or what is so pleasing to the understanding and the ear as a speech adorned and polished with wise reflections and dignified language?’ Cic. de Orat. 1.29)

Supine clauses

425

As to the supine forms that are used, authors like Cicero and Livy, who have many instances of the second supine (due to the size of the preserved corpus), on average use each supine form about four times. The supine has limited verbal properties: satellites, as Latino sermone in (j), or argumentlike constituents, as in (k) and (l), are very rare. Many instances are parenthetical, as is the well-known Virgilian expression in (m). (j)

Ex his (sc. oppidis) digna memoratu aut Latino sermone dictu facilia, a flumine Ana litore Oceani oppidum Ossonoba . . . (‘Worthy of mention in this district, or easy to say in Latin, are: on the ocean coast beginning at the river Guadiana, the town Ossonoba . . .’ Plin. Nat. 3.7)

(k)

Quod scire vis qua quisque in te fide sit et voluntate, difficile dictu est de singulis. (‘As to your desire to know how this person and that has behaved and felt towards you, it is difficult to speak of individuals.’ Cic. Fam. 1.7.2)

(l)

Sed ea cuncta Romanis ex tenebris et editioribus locis facilia visu magnoque hortamento erant. (‘Now, all this was easy to see for the Romans from their higher position in the darkness and encouraged them greatly.’ Sal. Jug. 98.7)

(m)

Infert se saeptus nebula (mirabile dictu) / per medios miscetque viris, neque cernitur ulli. (‘Veiled in a cloud, he enters—wondrous to tell—through their midst, and mingles with the people, seen by none.’ Verg. A. 1.439–40) Supplement: Clause level: Ita ridicula auditu iteratu ea (sc. facta) sunt, quae ego intus turbavi. (Pl. Cas. 880); Simul flare sorbereque hau factu facile est. (Pl. Mos. 791); . . . difficile est hoc genus exornationis inventu . . . (Rhet. Her. 4.39); Difficile est dictu, Quirites, quanto in odio simus apud exteras nationes . . . (Cic. Man. 65); Nec hoc tam re est quam dictu inopinatum atque mirabile. (Cic. Parad. 35—NB: parallelism); Incredibile dictu est quam multi Graeci de harum valvarum pulchritudine scriptum reliquerint. (Cic. Ver. 4.124); . . . nascenti cui tris animas Feronia mater / —horrendum dictu— dederat . . . (Verg. A. 8.564–5); Sapiens, vitatu quidque petitu / sit melius, causas reddet tibi. (Hor. S. 1.4.115–16); Id dictu quam re, ut pleraque, facilius erat. (Liv. 31.38.3—NB: parallelism); Ista dabunt formam, sed erunt deformia visu, / multaque, dum fiunt, turpia, facta placent. (Ov. Ars 3.217–18); Nec proinde diiudicari potest quid optimum factu fuerit quam pessimum fuisse quod factum est. (Tac. Hist. 2.39.2); Tum magister comperto, quamobrem malum desideraret, non, uti iussus erat, maiorem, sed quem esse magis idoneum aptioremque faciendo arieti facilioremque portatu existimabat, minorem misit. (Gel. 1.13.12—NB: parallel gerundival clause); Est enim paene supra humanum modum ne in cogitationem quidem admittere quod sit vel factu malum vel inprobum dictu. (Lact. Inst. 6.13.8); . . . si quod inpossibile nobis est factu, illi possibile atque ad modum obsecutionis paratum? (Arn. 2.35) Noun phrase level: Tanta factu modo mira miris modis / intus vidi . . . (Pl. Cas. 625–6—NB: mira used substantivally); . . . hasce herbas huius modi in suom alvom

426

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position congerunt / formidulosas dictu, non esu modo. (Pl. Ps. 823–4); . . . quam levia genere ipso, quam falsa re, quam brevia responsu! (Cic. Clu. 164—NB: parallelism); O rem non modo visu foedam sed etiam auditu! (Cic. Phil. 2.63); O rem cum auditu crudelem, tum visu nefariam! (Cic. Planc. 99); . . . cum paucis amicis et quaestore nostro quasi obvius honoris causa procedit in tumulum facillumum visu insidiantibus. (Sal. Jug. 113.5); Ipse arduus altaque pulsat / sidera (di talem terris avertite pestem!) / nec visu facilis nec dictu affabilis ulli. (Verg. A. 3.619–21); Sed si vera potius quam dictu speciosa dicenda sunt, cupido imperii duos cognatos vicinosque populos ad arma stimulat. (Liv. 1.23.7); . . . eximuntur grana piperis magnitudine, candida, dulcia, facilia purgatu. (Plin. Nat. 27.95); Quaedam pudenda dictu tanta auctorum adseveratione commendantur, ut praeterire fas non sit . . . (Plin. Nat. 29.61); Nescio quid visu dubium incertumque moveri / corporaque ire videt. (Stat. Theb. 10.391–2); . . . lagoena iuxta orificio caesim deasceato patescens facilis (facili cj. Luetjohann) auritu . . . (Apul. Met. 2.15.6)

The second supine can be used with the nouns fas and nefas in combination with the verb sum ‘it is (not) permissible’, which has more or less the same meaning as the adjectives mentioned above. In (n), an accusative and infinitive clause functions as the subject; in (o), hoc. From the combination with gerundive forms like horrendus ‘terrible’ and pudendus ‘shameful’ the step to the combination of a finite verb form with a supine seems to have been made by Tacitus in (p). There are a few continuations of both constructions in Late Latin. (n)

Quia profecto videtis nefas esse dictu miseram fuisse talem senectutem. (‘Because you surely realize now that it would be monstrous to call unhappy such an old age as his.’ Cic. Sen. 13)

(o)

Humanus . . . animus . . . cum alio nullo nisi cum ipso deo, si hoc fas est dictu, comparari potest. (‘The human mind . . . can be compared with nothing else, if it is right to say so, save God alone.’ Cic. Tusc. 5.38)

(p)

. . . nisi si Gallos et Germanos et—pudet dictu—Britannorum plerosque . . . fide et adfectu teneri putatis. (‘. . . unless you suppose that Gauls and Germans, and even—to their shame be it spoken—many of the tribes of Britain . . . are attached to Rome by loyalty and liking.’ Tac. Agr. 32.1)

The second supine was clearly in decline in the Classical and Silver Latin periods. It is absent from Petronius. The archaists Apuleius and Gellius have it relatively often. Among the ecclesiastical authors Arnobius uses it often, Tertullian not at all. Alternative expressions were gerundial and gerundival clauses (see §§ 17.32–3) and the passive infinitive—especially in poetry—(see § 17.29). It is sometimes difficult to make a distinction between a second supine and the ablative form of a deverbal noun in -us functioning as respect adjunct (see § 10.91 and § 11.92), but sometimes the semantics helps, as in (q) and (r). Note in (r) and (s) the parallelism with the other adjective phrases.

Nominal (verbless) satellite clauses

427

(q) . . . servos is habitu hau probu’st.316 (‘. . . well, he is a slave who isn’t worth keeping.’ Pl. St. 59) (r) Non hodieque magna Scytharum pars tergis vulpium induitur ac murum, quae tactu mollia et inpenetrabilia ventis sunt? (‘Even at the present day does not a large portion of the Scythian tribe garb itself in the skins of foxes and mice, soft to the touch and impervious to the winds?’ Sen. Ep. 90.16—NB: ventis is dative) (s) Alter, o di boni, quam taeter incedebat, quam truculentus, quam terribilis aspectu! (‘The other, O ye good gods! how horrible was his approach, how savage, how terrible was he to look at!’ Cic. Sest. 19) The origin of the construction and its relation to the first supine in -um have received much attention in the literature. The second supine is normally regarded as an ablative form, although some scholars regard it as a dative.317 Those who regard it as an ablative form do not agree on how to explain it. The second supine construction has (partial) parallels in other languages, for example English John is easy to please. ~ It is easy to please John. See Kroon (1989a) for discussion.

16.114 Nominal (verbless) satellite clauses Nominal satellite clauses resemble participial clauses in many respects. Just as with participial satellite clauses, there are two types of nominal satellite clauses: those that occur as bare case forms (ablative absolute clauses) and those that appear in prepositional phrases (just like ab urbe condita constructions).

16.115 Nominal ablative absolute clauses Nominal ablative absolute clauses consist of a noun (phrase) or pronoun that forms the subject of the clause and a subject complement (see § 14.14). This complement can be a noun or an adjective (very rarely a pronoun); accordingly, a distinction is made between substantival and adjectival ablative absolute clauses.

. Substantival ablative absolute clauses The subject constituent in substantival ablative absolute clauses is most often a personal pronoun or a proper name. The nouns that serve as subject complement often 316 Some scholars take habitus as a noun. For discussion, see Petersmann (ad loc.). 317 Sihler (1995: 613), Meiser (1998: 225), and Fruyt (2019a: 197) take it as a dative.

428

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position

indicate functions in society.318 An example of this is consulibus ‘consuls’ in (a), which came to be used as a dating formula. Nouns denoting age do occur but are not frequent (e.g. puero ‘boy’ in (c)). Especially in Early Latin and in Cicero there is a much wider spectrum,319 including deverbal nouns, such as suasor ‘advisor’, as in (b), emptor ‘buyer’, and adiutor ‘helper’, for which, starting in Cicero’s time, the present participle became a competitor. In the first century ad this type of ablative absolute clause became a marginal phenomenon, except for a few stereotyped expressions and deliberately archaizing expressions that appear in some authors, such as Apuleius. For an interrogative sentence, see (d). For relative expressions as subject, see § 18.29. (a)

. . . (sc. Cato) qui L. Marcio M’. Manilio consulibus mortuus est. (‘. . . (Cato,) who died in the consulship of Lucius Marcius and Manius Manilius.’ Cic. Brut. 61)

(b)

Me suasore atque impulsore id factum audacter dicito . . . (‘You may boldly say that it was done on my advice and urging . . .’ Pl. Mos. 916)

(c)

Puero me hic sermo inducitur, ut nullae esse possent partes meae. (‘The conversation is supposed to have taken place when I was a boy, so that I could not take any part.’ Cic. Att. 13.19.4)

(d)

Unde ista erumpunt, quo auctore proferuntur? Si sunt falsa, cur probantur? (‘Where do these handwritten documents spring from, on whose authority are they produced? If they are forgeries, why are they approved?’ Cic. Phil. 2.100) Expressions of the type consulatu Xgenitive or post consulatu Xgenitive become more frequent from the mid fourth century ad onwards (examples are Amm. 20.1.1 and CIL X.4712 (Cales, ad 306), resp.). Inscriptional material in Ruggiero (1956: II.709).

These nominal ablative absolute clauses are almost always non-complex. The range of their semantic relations with their main clauses is smaller than that of participial clauses (see §  16.89). Most of them are adjuncts, but there are also disjuncts, for example with auctor ‘initiator’ and testis ‘witness’, as in (e) and (f). (e)

Potestne virtus, Crasse, servire istis auctoribus . . . (‘Can Virtue be a slave, Crassus, according to those authorities of yours . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 1.226)

(f)

XV p. in longitudinem quas diximus fauces Oceani patent, V in latitudinem, a vico Mellaria Hispaniae ad promunturium Africae Album, auctore Turranio Gracile iuxta genito.

318 A list of nouns used in substantival ablative absolute clauses can be found in Flinck-Linkomies (1929: 262–3). For information about the frequency with which they are used in Plautus and in Cicero’s orations and philosophical works, see Flinck-Linkomies (1929: 72; 130–1, respectively). 319 Especially in Cicero’s orations and letters (Flinck-Linkomies 1929: 130–1).

Nominal (verbless) satellite clauses

429

(‘The ocean straits mentioned are fifteen miles long and five miles broad, from the village of Mellaria in Spain to the White Cape in Africa, as given by Turranius Gracilis, a native of the neighbourhood.’ Plin. Nat. 3.3)320 Supplement: Atqui aut hoc emptore vendes pulchre aut alio non potis. (Pl. Per. 580); Impetrabit te advocato atque arbitro. (Pl. Trin. 1161); Nam me puero venter erat . . . (Pl. ap. Gel. 3.3.5); C.  Licinio praetore remiges scribti cives Romani sub portisculum, sub flagrum conscribti veniere passim. (Cato Orat. 190); ager publicus populi Romanei quei in italia P(ublio) Mucio L(ucio) Calpurnio co(n)s(ulibus) fuit, eius agri . . . (CIL I2.585.15 (Lex Agr., 111 bc)); viar(um) · T. · Vibio · . . . (CIL I2.808.6 (Rome, c.80 bc)); Et quidem licet adicias, inquam, pastorum vitam esse incentivam, agricolarum succentivam, auctore doctissimo homine Dicaearcho . . . (Var. R. 1.2.16); . . . L.  Considio Sex. Saltio, quem ad modum ipsi loquebantur, ‘praetoribus’ . . . (Cic. Agr. 2.92); Rectissime, et quidem ista (sc. natura) duce errari nullo pacto potest. (Cic. Leg. 1.20); Est enim ius iurandum affirmatio religiosa. Quod autem affirmate et quasi deo teste promiseris id tenendum est. (Cic. Off. 3.104); . . . tenent nihilo minus illis mortuis senatus alteram partem, dissidentem a vobis auctore Metello et P. Mucio . . . (Cic. Rep. 1.31); Omnia summa consecutus es virtute duce, comite Fortuna . . . (Cic. Fam. 10.3.2); Postremo quid esse levius aut turpius quam auctore hoste de summis rebus capere consilium? (Caes. Gal. 5.28.6); Itaque magnifice Datamen donatum ad exercitum misit, qui tum contrahebatur duce Pharnabazo et Tithrauste ad bellum Aegyptium . . . (Nep. Dat. 3.5); . . . quis adiutoribus regem adgressus inpellit, uti advorsus Romanos bellum incipiat. (Sal. Jug. 80.3); Auctoribus qui aderant ut sequeretur, ad tribunal Appi perventum est. (Liv. 3.44.9— NB: an autonomous relative clause as subject); Eo tribunorum militarium nulla mentio his consulibus fuit. (Liv. 4.10.9); . . . bellum . . . parare Antiochum Hannibale ministro . . . (Liv. 34.60.1); . . . laudator temporis acti / se puero . . . (Hor. Ars 173–4); Custode rerum Caesare non furor / civilis aut vis exiget otium . . . (Hor. Carm. 4.15.17–18); Ovem rogabat cervus modium tritici / lupo sponsore. (Phaedr. 1.16. 3–4); Trinos soles et antiqui saepius videre, sicut Sp. Postumio  Q.  Mucio et Q.  Marcio  M.  Porcio et M.  Antonio  P.  Dolabella et M.  Lepido  L.  Planco cos., et nostra aetas vidit Divo Claudio principe, consulatu eius Cornelio Orfito collega. (Plin. Nat. 2.99); Antiquissimum in cibis hordeum, sicut Atheniensium ritu Menandro auctore apparet et gladiatorum cognomine, qui hordearii vocabantur. (Plin. Nat. 18.72); [Sed] memini Safinium. Tunc habitabat ad arcum veterem me puero, piper, non homo. (Petr. 44.6); Caesar indicium haud aspernatus congressus abnuit. Posse enim eodem Flacco internuntio sermone commeare. (Tac. Ann. 2.28.2); Impuberes tutore auctore obligantur . . . (Iulian. dig. 26.8.13); Quid etiam est, Aemiliane, quod non te iudice refutaverim? (Apul. Apol. 102); Bene autem quod omnia tempus revelat, testibus etiam vestris proverbiis atque sententiis ex dispositione naturae . . . (Tert. Apol. 7.13); . . . revertar ad te hoc eodem tempore vita comite et  habebit Sara filium. (Vulg. Gen. 18.14); . . . spes una salutis / nam mihi fit chrs, quo duce mors moritur. (Inscr. Christ. 3420.5–6 (Rome)); . . . Palatina cohors palinodiam in exitium concinens nostrum invenit tandem amplam nocendi 320 More instances in Tarriño (2004: 365).

430

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position fortissimo viro auctore et incitatore coetu spadonum . . . (Amm. 18.5.4) Propter hoc nullis auribus credidi quod primum me censore damnaveram. (Sidon. 8.15.2) NB: Non Bibulo quiddam nuper sed Caesare factum est. / Nam Bibulo fieri consule nil memini. (Suet. Jul. 20.2—NB: a popular distichon: sc. consule)

. Adjectival ablative absolute clauses Most adjectives that serve as subject complement in this construction denote a state or condition of the head constituent, which most often refers to a person.321 An example is (a). Much more uncommon is uno ‘alone’ in (b).322 Instances can be found in all periods of Latin, but their distribution over the authors and inscriptions shows that, apart from a few stereotyped expressions, their use began to decrease from the first century ad onward. Sallust, Livy, and Tacitus, however, exploited the possibilities of this construction more intensively and daringly. The expressions are usually short. Note in (c) and (d) the referential identity between mihi and invito me and me libente, respectively. Often adjectival ablative absolute clauses cannot easily be distinguished from noun phrases in the ablative functioning as adjunct denoting the general circumstances under which an event takes place.323 (a)

Non sino, neque equidem illum me vivo corrumpi sinam. (‘No, I won’t allow it, and I won’t let him be corrupted while I’m alive.’ Pl. Bac. 419)

(b)

Mihi quidem uno te plus etiam est quam volo . . . (‘Even with you by yourself I have more than I want . . .’ Pl. Am. 610)

(c)

. . . meas mihi ancillas invito me eripis. (‘. . . you’re tearing my slave-girls away from me against my will.’ Pl. Rud. 712)

(d)

. . . me libente eripies mihi hunc errorem. (‘. . . you must correct my error to my own rejoicing.’ Cic. Att. 10.4.6) Supplement: . . . praesente dictatored (CIL I2.25.9–10 (Rome, 260 bc)); Hostibus victis, civibus salvis, re placida, pacibus perfectis, / bello exstincto, re bene gesta, integro exercitu et praesidiis, / quom bene nos, Iuppiter, iuvisti, dique alii omnes caelipotentes, / eas vobis gratis habeo atque ago, quia probe sum ultus meum inimicum. (Pl. Per.753–6); Sine dote uxorem? # Ita, / tua re salva: hoc pacto ab illo summam inibis gratiam . . . (Pl. Trin. 375–6); Perii miser, / quia pudicitiae huius vitium me hinc apsente est additum. (Pl. Am. 810–11); Tum Valerius tribunus, ceteris inter metum pudoremque ambiguis . . . progreditur . . . (Quad. hist. 12); praedia empto]ris

321 A list of adjectives found in the ablative absolute clause can be found in Flinck-Linkomies (1929: 263–4). 322 Uno te is explained as an ‘ablative of degree of difference’ by Christenson ad loc. 323 A useful list of what he does not regard as ablative absolute clauses but as ‘sociative’ ablatives can be found in Flinck-Linkomies (1929: 265–6).

Nominal (verbless) satellite clauses

431

ter tanti invito eo quei dabit accipito (CIL I2.585.84 (Lex. Agr., 111 bc)); Haec omnia, iudices, imprudente L. Sulla facta esse certe scio. (Cic. S. Rosc. 21); Mutari etiam mores hominum saepe dicebat, alias adversis rebus, alias aetate ingravescente. (Cic. Amic. 33); Cum iam amplius horis sex continenter pugnaretur ac . . . hostes acrius instarent languidioribusque nostris vallum scindere et fossas complere coepissent . . . (Caes. Gal. 3.5.1); At Varinius, dum haec aguntur a fugitivis, aegra parte militum autumni gravitate . . . quaestorem suum C.  Thoranium . . . m miserat. (Sal. Hist. 3.96 A); . . . M. Scaurus . . . trepida etiam tum civitate . . . effecerat, uti ipse in eo numero crearetur. (Sal. Jug. 40.4); Tum ad equites dictator advolat obtestans, ut fesso iam pedite descendant ex equis et pugnam capessant. (Liv. 2.20.10); Dant tamen arma, non volgo, tantum ut incerto hoste praesidium satis fidum ad omnia esset. (Liv. 3.15.8); . . . duae quinqueremes haud cuiquam dubio quin hostium essent opprimique a pluribus . . . possent nihil aliud quam tumultum ac trepidationem simul militum ac nautarum . . . fecerunt. (Liv. 28.17.14); Vivo patre et hoc parricidium est. (Sen. Con. 7.3.5); Imperator adulescens renuntiatus est omnibus laetis praeter patrem. (Sen. Con. 7.7.1); Hoc multo fortius est, ebrio ac vomitante populo siccum ac sobrium esse . . . (Sen. Ep. 18.4); Attonitis admiratione universis ‘salvo’ inquit ‘tuo sermone’ Trimalchio ‘si qua fides est . . .’ (Petr. 63.1); . . . Sallustius Crispus . . . metuens ne reus subderetur iuxta periculoso ficta seu vera promeret monuit Liviam . . . (Tac. Ann. 1.6.3); Et cuncta ad rem publicam referri, qua tenui angustas civium domos, postquam eo magnificentiae venerit, gliscere singulos. (Tac. Ann. 2.33.2); De Atimeto supplicium sumptum, validiore apud libidines principis Paride, quam ut poena adficeretur. (Tac. Ann. 13.22.2); Haud procul inde agebat Marius Maturus, Alpium maritimarum procurator, fidus Vitellio, cuius sacramentum cunctis circa hostilibus nondum exuerat. (Tac. Hist. 3.42.2); Sed et si credat aliquis invito domino se rem contrectare, domino autem volente id fiat, dicitur furtum non fieri. (Gaius Inst. 3.198); Triumphum ipse distulit maesta civitate clade Variana. (Suet. Tib. 17.2); Ne mora, cum iam in meridiem prono iubare rursum nos ac praecipue me longe gravius onustum producunt illi latrones stabulo. (Apul. Met. 4.4.1); Praevia igitur spe meliorum Romani duces . . . Gothos, quidquid molirentur, sagaciter observabant . . . (Amm. 31.7.6); . . . vibam (= vivam) te sospite semp . . . (CIL VI.25128.14 (Rome)) Noun/pronoun in abl. abs. coreferential with an argument in the main clause: Spectamen bono servo id est, qui rem erilem / procurat, videt, collocat cogitatque, / ut apsente ero rem eri diligenter / tutetur, quam si ipse assit, aut rectius. (Pl. Men. 966–9); . . . nequod iudicium . . . illo absente de existimatione eius constitueretur. (Cic. Ver. 2.60) This form of coreferentiality is particularly frequent in inscriptions, as in (e) and (f), below. Note also the mixed expression in (g).324 (e) . . . / momumentum / me vivo aedific / avi . . . (‘I built the monument while I was alive.’ CIL I2.1251.3–5 (Rome, Rep.))325

324 See the index of CIL VI.6.fasc. 3: ‘passim’.

325 For vivo suo and the like, see Galdi (2000).

432

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position (f) lucia se / viva locum / sibi emit. (‘Lucia bought the place for herself while she was alive.’ Inscr. Christ. Diehl 3739 E (Rome)) (g) c(aio) iulio primiceni / et iuliae irenetis / se bibi (= vivi) fecerunt / liber(tis) libertabus(que) / suis. (‘Gaius Iulius Primigenius and Iulia Irenetis built (this monument) for their freedmen and freedwomen while they were alive.’ CIL X.2567 (Pozzuoli, 1st cent. ad))

There are a few instances in Livy and Tacitus where the subject of the ablative absolute clause is a clause itself, as in (h). (h)

. . . haud cuiquam dubio quin (sc. duae quinqueremes) hostium essent opprimique a pluribus priusquam portum intrarent possent . . . (‘. . . it being doubtful to no one that they belonged to the enemy and that they could be surprised by superior numbers before they entered the harbour . . .’ Liv. 28.17.14) Supplement: Secundum hanc pugnam, nondum gnaris eius qui Messanae erant, Ti. Sempronius consul Messanam venit. (Liv. 21.50.7); . . . trepidis et verba iuris iurandi per varias artes mutantibus quis flagitii conscientia inerat. (Tac. Hist. 4.41.1) In § 9.36 instances are given of adverbs functioning as subject complement. Tacitus extends this use to the ablative absolute clause, as in (i) and (j). (i) Inter quae nulla palam causa delapsum Camuloduni simulacrum Victoriae ac retro conversum, quasi cederet hostibus. (‘Meanwhile, for no apparent reason, the statue of Victory at Camulodunum fell, with its back turned as if in retreat from the enemy.’ Tac. Ann. 14.32.1) (j) Sed ubi diem ex die prolatabant, multis coram et adprobantibus Surena patrio more Tiridan insigni regio evinxit. (‘However, as day after day found them still procrastinating, the Surena, with a crowd being present and expressing its approval, fastened, in the traditional style, the royal diadem upon the brows of Tiridates.’ Tac. Ann. 6.42.4) As with participial ablative absolute clauses (cf. § 16.89 fin.), here too subordinators are sometimes used to make the semantic relationship between the ablative absolute clause and its matrix clause more explicit, as in (k)–(m). (k) Qui si me audissent, quamvis iniqua pace honeste tamen viverent. (‘Had they listened to me, they would at least be living honourably, however harsh the terms of peace.’ Cic. Fam. 7.3.6) (l) Nicias a Dolabella magno opere arcessitus (legi enim litteras) etsi invito me tamen eodem me auctore profectus est. (‘Nicias having been urgently summoned by Dolabella—for I read the letter— has gone against my will, yet at the same time on my advice.’ Cic. Att. 13.28.3)

Nominal (verbless) satellite clauses

433

(m) Quid nos, quibus te vita si superstite / iucunda, si contra, gravis? (‘What about me, to whom life will be a delight with you—if alive—but otherwise a burden?’ Hor. Epod. 1.5–6)

16.118 Nominal absolute clauses in cases other than the ablative Nominal absolute clauses in cases other than the ablative seem not to be recorded, except in substandard inscriptions like (a), where it is difficult to define the case at all.326 (a)

Cucumio et Victoria / se vivos fecerunt. (‘Cucumius and Victoria made this monument, while they were alive.’ CIL VI. 9232.1–2 (Rome))

16.119 Prepositional nominal absolute clauses Prepositional nominal absolute clauses are not infrequent, especially those with nouns referring to functions in society, such as praetor and consul.327 An example is (a). There are also a few instances with adjectives, as in (b). The range of prepositions is more restricted than with the participial ab urbe condita expressions (§ 16.98). Most attested instances are time adjuncts. They can be found in all periods of Latin. (a)

Anno ante me censorem mortuus est, novem annis post meum consulatum . . . (‘He died in the year before I was censor, nine years after my consulship . . .’ Cic. Sen. 19)

(b)

Voltis a Romulo, voltis post liberam civitatem ab iis ipsis, qui liberaverunt? (‘Will you start with Romulus, or will you start after the liberation of the state with the liberators themselves?’ Cic. Parad. 11) Supplement (in alphabetical order by preposition): Qui ab A. Postumio, Q. Fulvio censoribus postve ea testamentum fecit fecerit. (Cic. Ver. 1.106); A quo consule quintus annus erat, cum is ipse Lepidus . . . consul factus esset. (Liv. 39.56.4); Ergo ille a Crasso consule et Scaevola usque ad Paulum et Marcellum consules floruit, nos in eodem cursu fuimus a Sulla dictatore ad eosdem fere consules. (Cic. Brut. 328); . . . mortuus est, annis LXXXVI ipsis ante me consulem. (Cic. Brut. 61); . . . imbelle triennium ferme pestilentia inopiaque frugum circa A.  Cornelium consulem fuit . . . (Liv. 4.20.9); . . . post te praetorem multi in eadem causa fuerunt. (Cic. Ver. 1.111); Igitur post Enthymesin extorrem et matrem eius 326 For variants of the se vivo expression in epigraphic texts, see Zelenai (2018). 327 See note 318.

434

Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position Sophiam coniugi reducem . . . novam excludit copulationem. (Tert. Val. 11.1); Te sequor. / Hic quidem pol certo nil ages sine med arbitro. (Pl. Cas. 142–3); Iudica quod mulier sine tutore auctore promiserit, deberi. (Cic. Caec. 72) Iam post laceros Pentheos artus / Thyades, oestro membra remissae, / velut ignotum videre nefas. (Sen. Oed. 442–4)

CHAPTER 17

Subordinate clauses with nouns, adjectives, and adverbs

17.1 Introductory remarks Subordinate clauses that function as argument or as satellite in their sentences are discussed in Chapters 15 and 16, respectively. However, subordinate clauses can also  be used below the clause level as part of noun, adjective, and adverb phrases. Many of these clauses are comparable with arguments in that they are required by the meaning of the governing words. The nouns, adjectives, and adverbs involved mostly belong to the same semantic classes as the verbs that can govern a subordinate clause on the sentence level, and the classes of subordinate clause are also very similar. Just as one can at the sentence level use an accusative and infinitive clause with a verb of  communication like nuntio ‘to report’, as in (a), one can use an AcI with the noun  nuntius ‘message’, as in (b), where (optatissimum) nuntium is itself the object of accepissem. Nuntium is a third-order entity referring to the content of reporting (see § 3.6). (a)

Eadem nocte transfuga nuntiavit Pompeium et Labienum de iugulatione oppidanorum indignatos esse. (‘That same night a deserter reported that Pompeius and Labienus had been filled with indignation at the massacre of the townsfolk.’ B. Hisp. 18.9)

(b)

Cum optatissimum nuntium accepissem te mihi quaestorem obtigisse . . . (‘After I received the most welcome news of your appointment by lot as my Quaestor . . .’ Cic. Fam. 2.19.1)

An example of a subordinate clause at the adjective phrase level (for adjective phrases, see §§ 11.91ff.) is (c). Here, a gerundival clause depends on the two-place adjective cupidos, which itself functions as attribute with homines in the prepositional phrase in homines . . . cupidos. This use of a subordinate clause with cupidus can be compared with the use of subordinate clauses with the related noun cupiditas in (d) and the related verb cupio in (e). (c)

Atque utinam res publica stetisset quo coeperat statu nec in homines non tam commutandarum quam evertendarum rerum cupidos incidisset!

The Oxford Latin Syntax. Harm Pinkster, Oxford University Press (2021). © Harm Pinkster. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199230563.003.0017



Subordinate clauses with nouns, adjectives, and adverbs (‘I would that the government had stood fast in the position it had begun to assume and had not fallen into the hands of men desirous not so much of reforming as abolishing the constitution.’ Cic. Off. 2.3)

(d)

Ardeo cupiditate incredibili neque, ut ego arbitror, reprehendenda nomen ut nostrum scriptis illustretur et celebretur tuis. (‘I have a burning desire, of a strength you will hardly credit but ought not, I think, to blame, that my name should gain lustre and celebrity through your works.’ Cic. Fam. 5.12.1)

(e)

De quo ut quem optas quam primum nuntium accipias tua medius fidius magis quam mea causa cupio. (‘Upon my word, it’s for your sake rather than my own that I want you to get the news you are praying for concerning him as soon as may be.’ Cael. Fam. 8.3.1)

As for subordinate clauses depending on adverbs, there is no attestation of cupide with a dependent clause, but see (f), with a gerundial clause depending on apte. (f)

(sc. oratio) . . . qua praecepta salutis et laudis apte ad persuadendum edat suis civibus . . . (‘. . . by which he might publish precepts conducive to health and praise in a manner suited to persuading his fellow-citizens . . .’ Cic. Leg. 1.62)

The preceding examples contain clauses that are comparable with arguments. Such clauses occur commonly enough. By contrast, it is much less common to find subordinate clauses below the clause level that are comparable with satellites. A few examples are given in §§ 17.20; 29; 34.

17.2 Subordinate clauses at the noun phrase level Subordinate clauses can be used as an obligatory (less often as optional) attribute with a variety of nouns, many of which are, more or less overtly, related to verbs or adjectives that (may) govern subordinate clauses as their arguments. Many of the internal properties of subordinate clauses at the noun phrase level are therefore identical to or resemble those at the clause level, and these internal properties are dealt with in detail in Chapters 14 and 15. For subordinate clauses that function as subject or object in a clause in which a noun functions as subject or object complement, see § 15.11 and other sections of Chapter 15. Although the subordinate clauses discussed in this chapter must be considered attributes, they differ considerably from attributive (in this Syntax: adnominal) relative clauses. For example, unlike these, the subordinate clauses discussed in this chapter cannot be coordinated with attributive adjectives (for examples of coordination of relative clauses, see § 18.25).¹ ¹ Quirk et al. (1985: 1049) use the term ‘appositive’, but this covers only part of the instances discussed here.

Introductory remarks  When a noun functions as subject or object of the verb in the superordinate clause, it is sometimes difficult to decide whether a clause should be described as an attribute of that noun alone or as an argument of a complex expression consisting of a verb and  the noun. When nouns are used with a support verb (see §  4.4), for example potestatem do or facio ‘to give the power, a chance, opportunity, or right’ (OLD s.v. potestas § 5), it may be more attractive to consider an ut clause like the one in (a), the argument that depends on the combination of noun and verb.² (a)

. . . tibi potestatem dedi / cum hac annum ut esses . . . (‘. . . I’ve given you the power to be with her for a year . . .’ Pl. As. 847–8)

The situation in (b), however, is different. Here the most convincing explanation for the ne clause is that it is an (obligatory) argument of (hoc) praeceptum (officii): teneo itself cannot govern an ut or ne clause, at least not in the meaning required here,³ but the verb praecipio and hence praeceptum can. The determiner hoc has a preparative function and serves to strengthen the relation between the noun and the attributive clause. (b)

Atque etiam hoc praeceptum officii diligenter tenendum est ne quem umquam innocentem iudicio capitis arcessas. (‘Again, the following rule of duty is to be carefully observed: never bring a capital charge against any person who may be innocent.’ Cic. Off. 2.51)

In other contexts the situation is more complicated, for example in the case of legem promulgavit in (c), which could be paraphrased by: rogavit ‘he proposed’. However, legem is found with a wide range of verbs in more or less the same sense,⁴ and promulgo is not found with an ut clause when it does not govern a noun such as legem.⁵ An ut clause is also possible when lex functions as a satellite, as in (d), or as an attribute, as in (e). All this suggests that in (c) the ut clause is the attribute of legem alone; it is a specification of the rights and duties for those who are subject to the law. The clause is imperative and the use of ut (and not of declarative quod) is fully understandable. (c)

. . . legem promulgavit ut sexenni die sine usuris . . . creditae pecuniae solvantur. (‘. . . he promulgated a law that the money owed shall be paid without accumulation of interest six years from that day.’ Caes. Civ. 3.20.5)

² For a discussion of the status of these subordinate clauses, see Heine (1990: 5–6), with criticism of their treatment in LSS. For argument clauses with the combination of a support verb and a noun, see Hoffmann (2015). For criteria to decide whether a clause depends on the combination of support verb and noun or the noun by itself, see also Hoffmann (2018b). He would deal with many of the examples in this Chapter as having support verbs (p.c.). ³ For ut/ne clauses with teneo in its meaning ‘to make good one’s point (that)’, see OLD s.v. § 16c. ⁴ See TLL s.v. lex 1254.27ff. See also s.v. 1244.62ff. for combinations like ea lege ut/ne. ⁵ See TLL s.v. promulgo 1904.9. There is one attestation of promulgo with an accusative and infinitive clause (Plin. Nat. 27.9 (v.l. provulg . . .)).

 (d)

Subordinate clauses with nouns, adjectives, and adverbs . . . dilectu per omne Samnium habito nova lege ut qui iuniorum non convenisset ad imperatorum edictum quique iniussu abisset caput Iovi sacraretur. (‘. . . a levy having been held throughout Samnium under this new ordinance, that whosoever of military age did not report in response to the proclamation of the generals, or departed without their orders, should forfeit his life to Jupiter.’ Liv. 10.38.3)

(e)

Ferretne civitas ulla latorem istius modi legis ut condemnaretur filius aut nepos, si pater aut avus deliquisset? (‘Would any state tolerate the passer of a law dictating that a son or grandson be sentenced if his father or grandfather had committed a crime?’ Cic. N.D. 3.90) The status of lex in (f) is ambiguous. It is usually taken as the subject of existential est (see the translation) and in that interpretation the ut clause is the argument of lex, that is: at the noun phrase level. If, however, lex is taken as the subject complement (i.e. it is a law at Rhodes that . . .), the ut clause is subject at the sentence level. In that case it belongs in § 15.11. (f)

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)

Still other relations between a noun (and verb) and an ut clause are illustrated by (g) and (h). In (g), the ut clause can be explained on the basis of the valency not only of facultatem,⁶ but also of assequi, as becomes clear if hanc facultatem is excised. The use of hanc resembles that of hoc in (b). However, the need to win the sympathy of one’s fellow-men has already been mentioned in Off. 2.17, and this may explain the use of hanc: it is an anaphoric determiner. The word facultatem itself has not been used before, so the ut clause seems to fulfil an ‘explanatory’ function.⁷ In (h), the ut clause can neither be regarded as the argument of reperiebant nor as that of remedia alone. Without preparative haec the ut clause would be impossible. (g)

Quibus autem rationibus hanc facultatem assequi possimus ut hominum studia complectamur eaque teneamus dicemus . . . (‘I shall presently discuss the means by which we can gain the ability to win and hold the affections of our fellow-men . . .’ Cic. Off. 2.19)

(h)

Quibus rebus nostri usu docti haec reperiebant remedia ut alio loco ignes facerent, . (‘Our men, taught by experience, discovered the following remedies for these emergencies, to light fires in one place, .’ Caes. Civ. 3.50.2)

The nouns in the examples discussed so far belong to different categories. Praeceptum is morphologically and semantically related to praecipio; it refers to the content of a

⁶ See TLL s.v. facultas 148.8ff. ⁷ See Bodelot (1995) for examples (f) and (g) and the analysis of attributive arguments in general. See also Georgiewa (1993/4), Bodelot (2000; 2010), Lavency (2003: 115–25), and Spevak (2014a: 201–4).

Finite clauses at the noun phrase level



command and as such is a third-order entity. Lex is not morphologically or semantically related to a verb, but its content and function can be specified, as is the case in (d) and (e) and it also refers to the content of an order. Remedium is related to the verb (re-)medeor and normally requires the expression either of what it is used for or what it is used against. However, in (h) the ut clause does not express either of these two relations; rather, it describes the content of the remedium. Facultas in (g) is different again. It refers to an ability (a second-order entity), which clearly requires an entity to which this property applies. Note that in (e) and (f) the sentences would be grammatically correct if the ut clauses were not there. In (h) this is excluded by the presence of the determiner haec, which can only be understood as preparative. Further examples of what is described in this paragraph are (i)–(k). Such clauses are sometimes called ‘explicative’.⁸ (i)

. . . usus essem mea consuetudine ut diligenter et quid actum esse et quid ex eo futurum sperarem perscriberem. (‘. . . I should follow my usual practice of describing in detail both what had happened and what consequences I expected to follow.’ Cael. Fam. 8.5.3)

(j)

. . . me ipse consolor, et maxime illo solacio quod eo errore careo quo amicorum decessu plerique angi solent. (‘. . . I am consoling myself, and most of all with the comforting thought that I am free from the delusion by which most men are distressed at the departure of their friends.’ Cic. Amic. 10)

(k)

Cremutius Cordus postulatur novo ac tunc primum audito crimine quod editis annalibus laudatoque M.  Bruto  C.  Cassium Romanorum ultimum dixisset. (‘Cremutius Cordus was prosecuted upon the novel and till then unheard-of charge that in the history he published, after eulogizing Brutus, he had called Cassius the last of the Romans.’ Tac. Ann. 4.34.1)

Just as with verbs at the clause level, many nouns can be used with several of the subordinating devices. The first distinction in the sections that follow is between finite and non-finite clauses. There is a change over time in the frequency with which these types of subordinate clauses are used. There are also differences in the types of text in which they occur, running partly parallel to the historical developments.

. Finite subordinate clauses functioning as attribute at the noun phrase level For finite clauses a further distinction is made between three types that correspond to the distinction ‘declarative’, ‘interrogative’, and ‘imperative’ in Chapter 15. ⁸ See, for example, Gerber and Greef s.v. quod 1343–4, where many instances can be found.



Subordinate clauses with nouns, adjectives, and adverbs

. Declarative subordinate clauses functioning as attribute at the noun phrase level The following sections follow the order of treatment of these subordinate clauses in Chapter 15. Only some of the subordinating devices mentioned in that chapter are discussed here, as examples are sometimes lacking.

. Declarative clauses with quod and quia at the noun phrase level The most common subordinator to mark declarative subordinate clauses at the clause level is quod. One would therefore expect this subordinator to be used with nouns that indicate emotion, praise, and blame, and in later periods perception, cognition, and communication (for the verbs, see §§ 15.8–10), but such combinations turn out to be relatively infrequent. Examples are (a)–(c). However, quod clauses are used with other nouns as well, in a way that is often called ‘explicative’ (see also §  17.2), as in (d).⁹ (a)

Non enim tua ulla culpa est, si te aliqui timuerunt, contraque summa laus quod minime timendum fuisse senserunt. (‘For no blame is yours if some have feared you, but rather the greatest commendation, that they knew that you were to be feared so little.’ Cic. Marc. 20)

(b)

In litteris veteribus memoria exstat quod par quondam fuit vigor et acritudo amplitudoque populi Romani atque Poeni. (‘In ancient records there is an account that the strength, the spirit and the numbers of the Roman and the Carthaginian people were once equal.’ Gel. 10.27.1)

(c)

Nunc . . . confiteare necesse est te opinionem multum fefellisse quod existimaris me causam A. Cluenti non facto eius sed lege defensurum. (‘Now . . . you must admit that you were greatly deceived by the opinion that I should base my defence of my client’s case not upon its merits but upon its legal aspect.’ Cic. Clu. 143)

(d)

Additurque atrocior saevitia quod caput amputatum latumque in Urbem Poppaea vidit. (‘And there was the addition of a more frightful savagery, in that Poppaea saw the head after it had been amputated and carried into the city.’ Tac. Ann. 14.64.2—tr. Woodman (adapted)) Supplement (in alphabetical order by noun): Quid enim aliud ille dicebat, quam causam sui dementissimi consili et facti adferebat, nisi quod intercessio neglecta, ius tribunicium sublatum, circumscriptus a senatu esset Antonius? (Cic. Phil. 2.53); . . . (sc. se) licentiam arrogantiamque reprehendere quod plus se quam imperatorem de victoria atque exitu rerum sentire existimarent. (Caes. Gal. 7.52.3); Catilinam luxuria primum, tum hinc conflata egestas rei familiaris, ⁹ For examples in Cicero, see Merguet (Phil. and Reden) s.v. quod, §§ III and IV.

Finite clauses at the noun phrase level



simul occasio quod in extremis finibus mundi arma Romana peregrinabantur, in nefaria consilia opprimendae patriae suae conpulere. (Flor. Epit. 2.12.1); . . . cum segnitiem Neronis incusares quod per singulas domos seque et delatores fatigaret. (Tac. Hist. 4.42.4) With a preparative determiner: Sed illa quanta (sc. est) benignitas naturae quod tam multa ad vescendum tam varie tam iucunda gignit . . . (Cic. N.D. 2.131); Iam satis hoc Graiae memorandum contigit urbi / aeternumque decus quod . . . / vincitur una mora. (Luc. 3.388–92); Haec dispositio hanc habet difficultatem quod epistylia propter intervallorum magnitudinem franguntur. (Vitr. 3.3.4); Sed tamen . . . hunc accepi dolorem quod . . . discedis a nobis . . . (Cic. Fam. 15.21.1); Equidem ad reliquos labores . . . hanc molestiam adsumo quod mihi non solum pro Cn. Plancio dicendum est . . . (Cic. Planc. 3); Accessit etiam ista opinio fortasse quod homini homine pulchrius nihil videatur. (Cic. N.D. 1.77); Terrebant haec. Sed ille maximus terror animos agitabat quod saepius Quinctius dictitabat se consulum comitia non habiturum. (Liv. 3.20.8)

Clauses with quia at the noun phrase level are extremely rare.¹⁰ The best example is (e). In (f) the quia clause is most likely a reason adjunct. (e)

Sed ego uno utor argumento quam ob rem me ex animo vereque arbitrer diligi quia et nostra fortuna ea est et illorum ut simulandi causa non sit. (‘But I only employ one proof to convince me that I am loved from the heart and in sincerity—namely, that my fortune and theirs is of such a kind as to preclude any motive on their part for pretending.’ Cic. Fam. 9.16.2)

(f)

Quod eo errore dixisti, quia existumas ab is providentiam fingi quasi quandam deam singularem . . . (‘You said this in error, because you imagine that providence is fashioned by them as a kind of special deity . . .’ Cic. N.D. 2.73)

. Declarative clauses with ut at the noun phrase level Declarative clauses with ut at the noun phrase level are difficult to distinguish from imperative clauses, as is the case with declarative and imperative ut clauses at the clause level (see § 15.25). Examples are (a)–(c) (ex. (a) is repeated from § 17.2). Ex. (b) has a determiner, which may be anaphoric in its context. (a)

. . . usus essem mea consuetudine ut diligenter et quid actum esse et quid ex eo futurum sperarem perscriberem. (‘. . . I should follow my usual practice of describing in detail both what had happened and what consequences I expected to follow.’ Cael. Fam. 8.5.3)

(b)

Ceterum si nihilo minus permaneret in eo vitio ut circa fana bacchari soleret et quasi demens responsa daret . . . vitium tamen esse . . .. (‘But if he persist in that bad habit of cavorting around the shrines and uttering virtually demented ravings . . . it is still a defect . . .’ Ulp. dig. 21.1.1.10) ¹⁰ See K.-St.: II.271, from whom ex. (e) is taken. Ex. (f) is taken from TLL s.v. is 477.66ff.

 (c)

Subordinate clauses with nouns, adjectives, and adverbs Antiquum etiam retulit morem ut, quo mense fasces non haberet, accensus ante eum iret, lictores pone sequerentur. (‘He also revived a bygone custom, that during the months when he did not have the fasces an orderly should walk before him, while the lictors followed him.’ Suet. Jul. 20.1) Supplement (in alphabetical order by noun): An vero non iusta causa est ut vos servem sedulo . . . (Pl. Capt. 257); Sunt . . . indicia naturae, maxime scilicet in homine, sed in omni animali, ut appetat animus aliquid agere semper . . . (Cic. Fin. 5.55); In vobis resident mores pristini, / ad denegandum ut celeri lingua utamini. (Pl. Truc. 7–8); Cum mos a maioribus traditus sit ut monumenta maiorum ita suorum quisque defendat ut ea ne ornari quidem nomine aliorum sinat . . . (Cic. Ver. 4.79—NB: ut argument clause and an ut adjunct clause); . . . hac opinione discessi ut mihi tua salus dubia non esset. (Cic. Fam. 6.14.2)¹¹ With a preparative determiner: Hic dies nostris longe gravissimus fuit. Sed tamen hunc habuit eventum ut eo die maximus numerus hostium vulneraretur atque interficeretur . . . (Caes. Gal. 5.43.5); Sed haec eius diei praefertur opinio ut se utrique superiores discessisse existimarent. (Caes. Civ. 1.47.1)

. Declarative clauses depending on nouns of fearing and worrying Just as with the related verbs (see § 15.37), ne is the subordinator of argument clauses with nouns of fearing, as in (a) and (b). (a)

Ergo iste metus me macerat, quod ille fastidiosu’st, / ne oculi eius sententiam mutent, ubi viderit me . . . (‘Well then, since he’s picky, the fear is wearing me out that his eyes might change his decision when he’s seen me . . .’ Pl. Mil. 1233–4)

(b)

Itaque metu ne per tantam gratiam solus rerum poteretur contra eam nisi sua et ipsius consilia disturbaverunt. (‘And out of fear that through such great influence he might gain sole mastery of affairs, they strove against that influence, and thus upset their own planned course of action and his as well.’ Sal. Rep. 2.6.5) Supplement (in alphabetical order by noun): Causa praecipua ex formidine ne Germanicus . . . habere imperium quam exspectare mallet. (Tac. Ann. 1.7.6); Convenere extemplo, alii iam ante ad hoc praeparati, alii metu ne non venisse fraudi esset . . . (Liv. 1.47.9); Ecastor [nobis] periclum magnum [et] familiae portenditur, / dum eius exspectamus mortem, ne nos moriamur fame. (Pl. As. 530–1); Et tamen interdum praesens vis ipsa pericli / subdit et hunc stimulum quadam de parte timoris / ne pedibus raptim tellus subtracta feratur / in barathrum . . . (Lucr. 6.603–6)

¹¹ For further instances of opinio + ut clause, see TLL s.v. 718.55ff. (called ‘epexegeticum’).

Finite clauses at the noun phrase level



With a preparative determiner: Ille quidem semper inpendebit timor ne rex, quod plerumque evenit, exsistat iniustus. (Cic. Rep. 2.50)

. Declarative clauses with quin at the noun phrase level Declarative clauses with quin at the noun phrase level are infrequent; the nouns they modify belong to the same semantic classes as the verbs with which they occur (see § 15.38). An example is dubitatio in (a). (a)

Cum igitur hic locus nihil habeat dubitationis quin homines plurimum hominibus et prosint et obsint, proprium hoc statuo esse virtutis . . . (‘Since, therefore, there can be no doubt that man is the source of both the greatest help and the greatest harm to man, I set it down as the peculiar function of virtue . . .’ Cic. Off. 2.17) Supplement: . . . nulla dubitatio relinquetur quin honore mortui quam vivo iniuriam fecimus sarciamus. (Cic. Phil. 9.8); Nulla enim nec disceptatio nec dubitatio fuit quin omnes eosdem genti Achaeorum hostes et amicos quos populus Romanus censuisset iudicarent . . . (Liv. 35.50.2)

. The use of tamquam and quasi clauses with nouns of emotion, cognition, and communication Just as with the corresponding verbs (see § 15.44), nouns of emotion, cognition, and communication can be combined with tamquam and quasi clauses, as in (a).¹² (a)

. . . famam diffudit tamquam ultro a Syphace accerseretur. (‘. . . he spread abroad the report that he was expressly sent for by Syphax.’ Fron. Str. 2.7.4) Supplement (in alphabetical order by noun) Hoc animo tibi hanc epistulam scribo, tamquam me cum maxime scribentem mors evocatura sit. (Sen. Ep. 61.2); . . . quorum domini in invidiam venerant quasi exceptos supprimerent non solum viatores . . . (Suet. Tib. 8.1—NB: perhaps to be regarded as a support verb construction); Nam, cum omnia ad deum referant, in ea opinione sunt tamquam non, quia facta sunt, significent, sed quia significatura sunt, fiant. (Sen. Nat. 2.32.2); P. Claudius . . . sparsit rumorem quasi bellum iniussu populi inceptum gerere non posset . . . (Fron. Str. 1.4.11); Pactumeio Magno occiso et rumore perlato quasi filia quoque eius mortua mutavit testamentum . . . (Paul. dig. 28.5.93.1)

¹² See Bennett (1900), Bodelot (2014a: 202–4), and Rosén and Shalev (2017).



Subordinate clauses with nouns, adjectives, and adverbs

. Interrogative subordinate clauses functioning as attribute at the noun phrase level In § 15.46 four categories of verbs are distinguished that govern interrogative subordinate clauses. Along the same lines four categories of nouns can be distinguished, each illustrated by two examples, with a clausal question and a constituent question, as in (a)–(h). (i)

nomina interrogandi

(a)

Quibus (sc. legatis) longiorem exorsis orationem brevis interrogatio cessurusne iis tribus urbibus esset sermonem incidit . . . (‘When they had begun a lengthy argument, a terse question, whether he would evacuate these three cities, cut short their speech . . .’ Liv. 32.37.5)

(b)

Succlamationes frequentes erant interrogationesque cur scelere fratris oppressos Ligures in libertatem non restituisset. (‘There were frequent outcries and questions as to why he had not restored to freedom the Ligurians crushed by his brother’s injustice.’ Liv. 42.28.3)

(ii)

nomina investigandi

(c)

Ex homine remediorum primum maximae quaestionis et semper incertae est polleantne aliquid verba et incantamenta carminum. (‘Of the remedies derived from man, the first raises the very important and never settled question of whether words and formulated incantations have any effect.’ Plin. Nat. 28.10)

(d)

Quid tibi, malum, me aut quid ego agam curatio est? (‘Damn it, why do you have a care for me or what I do?’ Pl. Mos. 34—NB: disjunction by aut; support verb construction?: see § 4.4)

(iii) (e)

nomina declarandi Absentibus secundum praesentes facillime dabat, nullo dilectu culpane quis an aliqua necessitate cessasset. (‘Whenever one party to a suit was absent, he was prone to decide in favour of the one who was present, with no distinction whether his opponent had failed to appear through his own fault or from a necessary cause.’ Suet. Cl. 15.2)

(f)

Postquam domum venit et mater mentionem intulit quid eo die, quid deinceps ceteris quae ad sacra pertinerent faciendum esset, negat . . . (‘When he came home and his mother made mention of what he had to do that day and on the following days in connexion with the rites, he denied . . .’ Liv. 39.11.1—NB: support verb construction?)

Finite clauses at the noun phrase level



(iv)

nomina sciendi, sentiendi, etc.

(g)

De quo alterum potest habere dubitationem adhibendumne fuerit hoc genus, quod in divisione Panaetii tertium est an plane omittendum . . . (‘But with regard to this assertion, the one point may admit of doubt as to whether that question, which is third in Panaetius’ classification, ought to have been included or omitted altogether . . .’ Cic. Off. 3.9—NB: support verb construction?)

(h)

. . . scientiam quid agatur, memoriamque quid a quoque dictum sit, omnium puto esse oportere. (‘. . . so, I hold, it is for all men to be admitted to the knowledge of what shall here take place, and to the memory of what shall be said by each speaker.’ Cic. Ver. 54)

However, apart from these verb-related nouns there are other nouns as well with which interrogative clauses can function as attributes, such as causa in (i) and difficultate in (j). (i)

An vero non iusta causa est quor curratur celeriter . . . (‘Well, isn’t there a just cause for running quickly . . .?’ Pl. Poen. 533)

(j)

Eo cum venisset, magna difficultate adficiebatur qua ratione ad exercitum pervenire posset. (‘When he arrived there he was confronted with a great difficulty, as to the means whereby he could reach the army.’ Caes. Gal. 7.6.2) Supplement (in alphabetical order by noun): Clausal questions: Quod itinerum meorum ratio te nonnullam in dubitationem videtur adducere visurus ne me sis in provincia, ea res se sic habet. (Cic. Fam. 3.5.3); . . . iudicatio nascitur: possintne eiusdem pecuniae plures dissimilibus generibus heredes esse? (Cic. Inv. 2.64); Iudicatio est: cum is, qui potestatis nihil habuerit, iussu imperatoris in foedere et in tanta religione interfuerit, dedendusne sit hostibus necne? (Cic. Inv. 2.92); Deinde (sc. utemur) percontatione scirentne adversarii id scriptum fuisse in lege aut testamento . . . (Rhet. Her. 2.13—NB: following Achard’s Budé edition) Constituent questions: . . . magnamque hominibus admirationem praebebat quam ob rem id accidisset. (B.  Alex. 6.2); Philosophorum vero exquisita quaedam argumenta cur esset vera divinatio collecta sunt. (Cic. Div. 1.5); Id testibus me pollicitus sum planum facturum qui et scire deberent et causam cur mentirentur non haberent. (Cic. Quinct. 86); Quapropter a natura mihi videtur potius quam ab indigentia orta amicitia, adplicatione magis animi cum quodam sensu amandi quam cogitatione quantum illa res utilitatis esset habitura. (Cic. Amic. 27); . . . sapientiam esse rerum divinarum et humanarum scientiam cognitionemque quae cuiusque rei causa sit. (Cic. Tusc. 4.57); Deinde (sc. utemur) conlatione quid scriptum sit, quid adversarii se fecisse dicant, quid iudicem sequi conveniat. (Rhet. Her. 2.13); Utinam, Quirites, virorum fortium atque innocentium copiam tantam haberetis ut haec vobis deliberatio difficilis esset quemnam potissimum tantis rebus ac tanto bello praeficiendum putaretis. (Cic. Man. 27); Relinquetur desideratio . . . quid ita non etiam ibi nascitur



Subordinate clauses with nouns, adjectives, and adverbs pulvis . . . (Vitr. 2.6.4); . . . regressus ad Dium est dubitatione omnibus exempta quid intercluso ab Thessalia patiendum fuisset . . . (Liv. 44.7.7); . . . alteri (sc. hoc faciendum est), si plane causam redarguendo explicarit, enumeratione ut quidque diluerit et miseratione ad extremum. (Cic. Part. 122); Utendum etiam est excusatione adversus eos, quos invitus offendas, quacumque possis, quare id, quod feceris, necesse fuerit nec aliter facere potueris . . . (Cic. Off. 2.68); Sum in exspectatione omnium rerum, quid in Gallia citeriore, quid in urbe mense Ianuario geratur. (Cic. Fam. 10.4.4); Ei mihi, quom istaec blanda dicta quo evenant madeo metu. (Pl. Mos. 395); . . . omnisque ille sermo ductus a percontatione fili quid in senatu esset actum. (Cic. Brut. 218); Propositioque quid sis dicturus . . . (Cic. de Orat. 3.203) NB: with a preparative pronoun: . . . cum id in controversiam venit qua quis lege puniendus vel honorandus sit. (Quint. Inst. 7.4.41)

. Imperative subordinate clauses functioning as attribute at the noun phrase level The common subordinator of imperative argument clauses at the noun phrase level is ut, negated (ut) ne. Examples with deverbal nouns that correspond to the meaning classes illustrated in §§  15.65–80 are (a)–(d). Some nouns do not easily fit in with these classes, for example the agent noun auctor in (e).¹³ (a)

Quid quod a senatu dantur mandata legatis ut D. Brutum que eius adeant . . . (‘Add to this the fact that commands are given to the legates by the senate, that they proceed to Decimus Brutus and his troops . . .’ Cic. Phil. 6.6)

(b)

De voluntate tua ut simul simus, vel studio potius et cupiditate, non dubito. (‘Of your desire for us to be together, or rather your eagerness and anxiety, I have no doubt.’ Cic. Att. 12.26.1)

(c)

. . . sese a suis civibus haec habere mandata ut ad Verrem adirent et eum simulacrum Cereris et Victoriae reposcerent; . . . testimonium ne quod dicerent. (‘. . . they had these commands from their fellow-citizens, that they approach Verres and request him to restore the images of Ceres and Victory; . . . that they were to give no official evidence against him.’ Cic. Ver. 4.113—NB: preparative determiner)

(d)

Omnino omnium horum vitiorum atque incommodorum una cautio est atque una provisio ut ne nimis cito diligere incipiant neve non dignos. (‘In short: there is but one security and one provision against these ills and annoyances, and that is, neither to enlist your love too quickly nor to fix it on unworthy men.’ Cic. Amic. 78)

(e)

Auctor est ut quam primum agere incipiant . . . (‘He is the proposer that they set to work without delay . . .’ Cic. Ver. 2.37)

¹³ For examples see Lodge s.v. ut II.938A; Merguet (Reden) s.v. ut 1044B–1045B; (Phil.) s.v. ut 893; (Caesar) s.v. ut 1129A–1130A; TLL s.v. ne 29828ff.

Finite clauses at the noun phrase level



Supplement (in alphabetical order by noun): . . . hoc animo fui semper ut invidiam virtute partam gloriam, non invidiam putarem. (Cic. Catil. 1.29); Huic veri videndi cupiditati adiuncta est appetitio quaedam principatus, ut nemini parere animus bene informatus a natura velit nisi praecipienti aut docenti aut utilitatis causa iuste et legitime imperanti. (Cic. Off. 1.13); Quom ego huius verba interpretor, mihi cautio est / ne nucifrangibula excussit ex malis meis. (Pl. Bac. 597–8); Quibus cum condicionem ferret ut oppido excederent idque sibi vacuum traderent . . . (B. Afr. 25.3); Ibi cognoscit de P. Clodii caede senatusque consulto certior factus ut omnes iuniores Italiae coniurarent, dilectum tota provincia habere instituit. (Caes. Gal. 7.1.1); Atque haec non cupiditate aliqua scribit inductus ut in alienam provinciam mittat litteras ante tempus, sed consilio ne, si tempus sationis praeterisset, granum ex provincia Sicilia nullum haberemus. (Cic. Ver. 3.44); Nam mihi summa curatio est ut amicitiam tuam boni haberent. (Symm. Ep. 1.43.2); Novum in re publica introductum exemplum queritur ut tribunicia intercessio armis votaretur (notaretur cj. Holder) atque opprimeretur . . . (Caes. Civ. 1.7.2); . . . exhortationes et preces miscebat ut spernerent sonores barbarorum et inanis minas. (Tac. Ann. 14.36.1); Totas istas praesagias . . . Marcion illa intentione suscepit ne . . . nativitas quoque eius defenderetur . . . (Tert. Marc. 3.11.1); Fit sermo inter eos et invitatio ut Graeco more biberetur. (Cic. Ver. 1.66); Interim litteras accepit a Caesare ut in Africam exercitum traiceret . . . (B.  Alex. 51.1); . . . scio ego officium meum ut quae rogiter vera, ut accepi, eloquar. (Pl. Per. 616); (sc. Orgetorigem) damnatum poenam sequi oportebat ut igni cremaretur. (Caes. Gal. 1.4.1); Sin quaestiones habitae aut postulatio ut habeantur causam adiuvabunt, confirmandum primum genus quaestionum erit . . . (Cic. Part. 117); . . . prope iam desperata salute nonnullae huiusmodi sententiae dicebantur ut impedimentis relictis eruptione facta isdem itineribus quibus eo pervenissent ad salutem contenderent. (Caes. Gal. 3.3.3); . . . cum . . . vos et omnes boni vota faceretis ut Miloni uti virtute sua liberet. (Cic. Mil. 41); Nam non multo ante urbem captam exaudita vox est a luco Vestae . . . ut muri et portae reficerentur. (Cic. Div. 1.101) With a preparative determiner: . . . huic amanti ac Philocomasio hanc ecficiamus copiam / ut hic eam abducat habeatque. (Pl. Mil. 769–70); . . . in his autem tribus continetur cura etiam illa ut probemur iis quibuscum apud quosque vivamus . . . (Cic. Off. 1.126); Ibi super campos patentes duo duces Poeni ea mente ne detractarent certamen consederunt. (Liv. 28.12.15); . . . et di eam potestatem dabunt ut beneficium bene merenti nostro merito muneres. (Pl. Capt. 934–5) NB: Some of the examples cited above might be taken as manifesting a support verb construction, for example those with copia and potestas.

Imperative clauses with quominus can be used with nouns that are semantically related to the verbs discussed in § 15.72. An example is (f). (f)

Num quando tibi moram adtulerit quo minus concilium advocares legemque ferres . . . ? (‘Did it ever cause you a delay so that you could not summon a meeting and pass a law…?’ Cic. Vat. 15)



Subordinate clauses with nouns, adjectives, and adverbs Supplement (in alphabetical order by noun): Ex vobis audio nemini civi ullam quo minus adesset satis iustam excusationem esse visam. (Cic. Pis. 36); . . . nullius periculi timorem multitudini fore impedimento quominus se dederent. (B. Alex. 23.2); . . . quae religio C. Mario, clarissimo viro, non fuerat quo minus C.  Glauciam, de quo nihil nominatim erat decretum, praetorem occideret . . . (Cic. Catil. 3.15)

. Non-finite subordinate clauses functioning as attribute at the noun phrase level The non-finite verbal argument clauses will be discussed in the following sections in the same order as in Chapter 15 (see § 15.90), according to the traditional morphological classification of infinitives (§§  17.13–15), participles (§  17.16), and gerunds and gerundives (§§ 17.17–20).

. Infinitival subordinate clauses functioning as attribute at the noun phrase level Just as in § 15.91, two classes of infinitival clauses are distinguished: accusative and infinitive clauses and prolative infinitive clauses. The difference between the two classes can be seen by comparing (a) and (b). It corresponds to the difference between declarative and imperative clauses explained in Chapter 15. Note in (b) the parallelism with the gerund clause. (a)

Cogitatio igitur diuturna nihil esse in re mali dolori medetur, non ipsa diuturnitas. (‘Continued reflection therefore that there is no evil in the circumstances has a healing effect upon pain, not the continuance of time alone.’ Cic. Tusc. 3.74)

(b)

Summa eludendi occasio’st mihi nunc senes / et Phaedriae curam adimere argentariam . . . (‘Now I have the perfect opportunity to fool the old men and relieve Phaedria’s financial worries . . .’ Ter. Ph. 885–6)

. Accusative and infinitive clauses functioning as attribute at the noun phrase level Accusative and infinitive clauses can be used with nouns that are semantically related to the verbs that can govern an accusative and infinitive clause, especially verbs of cognition and emotion (see §§ 15.94–102). (a)

. . . ut illa opinio, quae semper fuisset, tolleretur alterum non doctissimum, alterum plane indoctum fuisse. (‘. . . in order that that notion, which had always prevailed, be dispelled, (namely) that one of them had no great learning and the other none at all.’ Cic. de Orat. 2.7)

Infinitival clauses at the noun phrase level (b)



. . . crebris nuntiis incitati oppidum ab Romanis teneri praemissis equitibus magno cursu eo contenderunt. (‘. . . incited by frequent messages that the town was held by the Romans, they sent the horsemen in advance and hastened thither in a mighty stream.’ Caes. Gal. 7.48.1— NB: the AcI was deleted by Pluygers, followed by Meusel, who says—wrongly—that AcI clauses are ‘never’ found with nouns that do not form a complex expression with a verb (p. 602 ad loc.)) Supplement (in alphabetical order by noun): Nihil est enim quod tam optundat elevetque aegritudinem quam perpetua in omni vita cogitatio nihil esse quod non accidere possit . . . (Cic. Tusc. 3.34); . . . ubi est illa definitio effatum esse id quod aut verum aut falsum sit. (Cic. Luc. 95); Qua quidem ex re magnum accipio dolorem homines amplissimis populi Romani beneficiis usos L. Pisonem ducem optimae sententiae non secutos. (Cic. Phil. 1.14); Hinc enim illa et apud Graecos exempla Miltiadem . . . vitam ex hostium telis servatam in civium vinclis profudisse . . . (Cic. Rep. 1.5); . . . principes quidam iuventutis inventi, manifesta fides publica ope Volscos hostes adiutos. (Liv. 6.13.7); Haec autem opinatio est iudicatio se scire quod nesciat. (Cic. Tusc. 4.26); Descendit ad accusandum. Quis umquam tam proprie rei publicae causa . . . nulla hominum postulatione aut etiam opinione id eum umquam esse facturum? (Cic. Sest. 89);¹⁴. . . (sc. Tiberius) addictus mathematicae plenusque persuasionis cuncta fato agi . . . (Suet. Tib. 69); Tum promissio, si audierint, probaturos. (Cic. de Orat. 2.339); (sc. iustitia) . . . aliquid quid cum vi sua atque natura . . . tum spe nihil earum rerum defuturum quas natura non depravata desideret. (Cic. Fin. 1.50); . . . non patiar istam manere suspicionem nos rem iudicari nolle. (Cic. Quinct. 34); Hoc vos mihi testes estis me verum loqui. (Pl. Capt. 3) With a preparative determiner: Vetus est haec opinio, iudices, quae constat ex antiquissimis Graecorum litteris ac monumentis, insulam Siciliam totam esse Cereri et Liberae consecratam. (Cic. Ver. 4.106); Nunc mea mater irata est mihi, / quia non redierim domum ad se, postquam hanc rem resciverim, / eum uxorem ducturum esse aliam. (Pl. Cist. 101–3); Est haec res posita, quae ab adversario non  negatur, Caecinam . . . pulsum prohibitumque esse vi . . . (Cic. Caec. 32); . . . subest ille timor ea (sc. utilitate) neglecta ne dignitatem quidem posse retineri. (Cic. de Orat. 2.334) NB: . . . (sc. Scipio) qui hoc Stoicorum (‘this Stoic maxim’) verum esse declaravit, numquam privatum esse sapientem . . . (Cic. Tusc. 4.51); In quo facetum illud Bionis, perinde stultissimum regem in luctu capillum sibi evellere, quasi calvitio maeror levaretur. (Cic. Tusc. 3.62)

. Prolative infinitive clauses functioning as attribute at the noun phrase level In § 15.128 a discussion can be found of the use of the prolative infinitive with nouns that function as subject or object complements. The infinitive is also common with noun–verb combinations that in their meaning resemble simple verbs with which the infinitive is regular. An example is consilium capio, which resembles the class of verbs ¹⁴ For more instances of opinio + AcI, see TLL s.v. 718.36ff.



Subordinate clauses with nouns, adjectives, and adverbs

described in § 15.125, and which is indeed treated there as a support verb construction. An additional example is (a).¹⁵ (a)

. . . eadem te hora consilium cepisse hominis propinqui fortunas funditus evertere. (‘. . . at the very same hour you formed the plan to ruin utterly the fortunes of one who was your kinsman.’ Cic. Quinct. 53)

The use of the prolative infinitive with nouns in other functions is rare. Where such instances do occur, some scholars assume Greek influence.¹⁶ The gerund or gerundive is much more common. (b)

Quod plerique omnes faciunt adulescentuli / ut animum ad aliquod studium adiungant, aut equos / alere aut canes ad venandum aut ad philosophos . . . (‘He behaved as all young lads tend to do, involving themselves in some pursuit like breeding horses or hunting-dogs or studying philosophy . . .’ Ter. An. 55–7)

(c)

Magnam molestiam suscepit et minime necessariam primus Zeno, post Cleanthes, deinde Chrysippus, commenticiarum fabularum reddere rationem . . . (‘First Zeno, then Cleanthes, then Chrysippus undertook the great and completely unnecessary labour of rationalizing purely fanciful myths . . .’ Cic. N.D. 3.63) Supplement (in alphabetical order by governing noun): Omnibus idem animus scelerata excedere terra, / linqui pollutum hospitium et dare classibus Austros. (Verg. A. 3.60–1—NB: variation between prolative infinitive clauses and an AcI); . . . sed tamen saluberrimam consuetudinem tenebat ecclesia in ipsis quoque schismaticis et haereticis corrigere quod pravum est, non iterare quod datum est, sanare quod vulneratum est, non curare quod sanum est. (August. Bapt. 2.7.12); Cupido cepit miseram nunc me proloqui . . . (Enn. scen. 257V=222J); Iuvenes, fortissima frustra / pectora, si vobis audentem extrema cupido / certa sequi, quae sit rebus fortuna videtis. (Verg. A. 2.348–50); . . . iis IIviri · . . . viatores · binos · librarium praeconem haruspicem tibicinem · habere · ius · potestas/que esto · . . . (CIL II.5.1022.LXII.11–15 (Lex coloniae Genetivae Iuliae, Osuna, c.44 bc);¹⁷ . . . di monuere uti . . . nobis demeres acerbam necessitudinem pariter te errantem atque illum sceleratissumum persequi. (Sal. Jug. 102.5); Nunc est illa occasio / inimicum ulcisci. (Pl. Per. 725–6); Rape occasionem . . . non habere cui debitum solveres et a quo exsolvereris. (Tert. Cast. 10.1); Sequitur ordo de lapidicinis explicare . . . (Vitr. 2.7.1); . . . trepidaque a mente recedit / vertere terga pudor . . . (Sil. 4.328–9); . . . nec vero esse ullam rationem disputare cum is qui nihil probarent . . . (Cic. Luc. 17) Appendix: There are several interesting instances of coordination of a gerund and an infinitive, as in (d); such coordination suggests that they were felt as equivalent. There is an

¹⁵ For further examples, see TLL s.v. consilium. See also the discussion in K.-St.: I.742–3. ¹⁶ Discussion in Sz.: 351. See also Skutsch ad Enn. Ann. 294V=255S and Binder (2019: I.352–3). ¹⁷ The actual document is from the Flavian period. See Crawford (1996: I.395).

Participial clauses at the noun phrase level  interesting variation in Mat. 9.6, where the Vetus Latina version (cod. d) has the infinitive dimittere while the Vulgate version has the gerund dimittendi, showing the difference in register. (d)

. . . ut (sc. equites) haberent facultatem turmas Iulianas circumeundi et . . . pugnare. (‘. . . so they might have the ability to swarm round Caesar’s squadrons and fight.’ B. Afr. 78.4)

Supplement: Summa eludendi occasio’st mihi nunc senes / et Phaedriae curam adimere argentariam . . . (Ter. Ph. 885–6—NB: parallelism, see §  17.13); Et dedit ei potestatem congregandi exercitum et fabricare arma. (Vulg. I Macc. 10.6)¹⁸

. Participial clauses functioning as attribute at the noun phrase level There are two types of participial clauses (for a general introduction, see § 14.14) that can be used as attribute at the noun phrase level. One type is relatively frequent and consists of a clause containing a noun (phrase) and a perfect participle, both in the genitive case, as in (a); the other is rare and consists of a prepositional phrase, as in (b). In this example, with the first-order noun corona, the prepositional phrase is optional. (a)

Sibi enim bene gestae, mihi conservatae rei publicae dat testimonium. (‘He testifies to the Republic being well served by himself, but saved by me.’ Cic. Att. 2.1.6)

(b)

Nullum ornamentum . . . pulchrius . . . est quam illa corona ob cives servatos . . . (‘No decoration is . . . more beautiful than that crown bestowed for saving the lives of fellow-citizens . . .’ Sen. Cl. 1.26.5)

The clauses in the genitive are instances of the dominant participle construction; the prepositional phrases are instances of the type of dominant participle construction that is usually called ab urbe condita (see § 14.14 fin.). The clauses are usually short, but they may contain satellites (here in italics). Supplement (in alphabetical order by governing noun): Genitive: . . . in actionibus dementiae, malae tractationis, rei publicae laesae. (Quint. Inst. 7.3.2); Certare socii civesque utri reciperatae arcis suum decus facerent (Liv. 3.18.7); . . . tactusque dolore / coniugis amissae lacrimis ita fatur obortis. (Ov. Met. 7.688–9); . . . fateri facinus insimulati falso crimine senatus . . . (Liv. 6.16.1); Cuius fama haud procul iam ab Aricia visi tanto tumultu concivit Romanos, ut . . . (Liv. 2.26.5); Quippe minore exercitu insignes captivos, caedem ducis bellique confecti famam deportarat. (Tac. Ann. 4.26.1); Gloriam captae nobilissimae pulcherrimaeque

¹⁸ For more examples and references, see Aalto (1949: 62).



Subordinate clauses with nouns, adjectives, and adverbs urbis Graecarum dei tibi dederunt, Marcelle. (Liv. 25.29.4);¹⁹ Huius patrati (sc. belli) gloria penes M. Crassum fuit . . . (Vell. 2.30.6); Cum vero . . . provincia tibi ista manupretium fuerit eversae per te et perditae civitatis . . . (Cic. Pis. 57); Syria et Macedonia quas vobis invitis et oppressis pestiferi illi consules pro perversae rei publicae praemiis occupaverunt. (Cic. Prov. 3); Hoc pretium positae virginitatis habe. (Ov. Fast. 6.128); Ob hasce res gestas consul cum . . . videret . . . ad solacium aequatae repulsae sibi quoque negare triumphum . . . (Liv. 10.37.6–7); . . . cum in [hanc] suspicionem C. Flavi equitis Romani occisi venisset . . . (V. Max. 8.4.2); . . . iniuriam corporis et ultionem violatae per vim pudicitiae confessa viro est . . . (Liv. 38.24.9) Prepositional phrase: Nam quas ex itinere antequam ex Asia egressus es ad me litteras misisti, unas de legatis a me prohibitis proficisci, alteras de Appiorum aedificatione impedita, legi perinvitus. (Cic. Fam. 3.9.1); Tamquam enim clausa sit Asia, sic nihil perfertur ad nos praeter rumores de oppresso Dolabella . . . (Cic. Fam. 12.9.1)

. Gerundial and gerundival clauses functioning as attribute at the noun phrase level Gerundial and gerundival subordinate clauses at the noun phrase level are found with abstract nouns, such as copia ‘opportunity’ and occasio ‘occasion’, from the earliest authors onward. They are also found with actor deverbal nouns such as auctor ‘instigator’ from Cicero onward. The nouns involved are semantically and often also formally related to verbs or expressions that govern prolative infinitive clauses. Another—much less frequent—class of nouns concerns properties and denotes the manner of the state of affairs referred to by the gerundi(v)al clause, in the way manner adverbs do on the sentence level. An example is (a). Ex. (b) shows the same verb in combination with a corresponding adverb. (a)

Hoc unum (sc. inopia navium) Caesari ad celeritatem conficiendi belli defuit. (‘This (lack of ships) alone hindered Caesar’s speedy conclusion of the war.’ Caes. Civ. 3.2.2)

(b)

. . . arbitratus id bellum celeriter confici posse . . . (‘. . . believing that the campaign could be speedily completed . . .’ Caes. Gal. 3.28.1)

Gerundial and gerundival clauses are most commonly used as arguments of the type of nouns discussed sofar. However, they can also be used with other nouns in a specific context. For instance, the combination of a noun with a specific verb may give this noun access to the combinatorial range of a closely related expression. Thus the word dies ‘day’ seems, of its own meaning, not to require another entity it is related to, but when it depends on postulo ‘to demand’ as an object, it may govern a gerundial clause in the genitive, as in (c), with the meaning ‘day’s time’. In this example the action of delibero is expressed as a defining property of dies. More or less the same ¹⁹ For instances of gloria with a dominant participle, see TLL s.v. 2071.82ff.

Gerundial and gerundival clauses at noun phrase level



content can be conveyed with a prepositional purpose expression with ad, as in (d). Similarly, the word deversorium ‘lodging’ is, at first sight, a clear example of a noun that does not require another entity to complete its meaning (it is a first-order entity; see § 3.6). However, in its non-literal meaning it is used by Cicero with a genitive of the gerund, as in (e), as it is used figuratively with nouns implying certain actions, as in (f). (c)

(sc. Simonides) . . . deliberandi sibi unum diem postulavit. (‘(Simonides) . . . requested a day’s grace for consideration.’ Cic. N.D. 1.60)

(d)

Noctem sibi ad deliberandum postulavit. (‘He asked for a night to consider.’ Cic. Sest. 74)

(e)

Commorandi enim natura deversorium nobis, non habitandi dedit. (‘For nature gave us lodging for passing the time in, not for dwelling in.’ Cic. Sen. 84)

(f)

Studiorum enim suorum M. Varro voluit illud, non libidinum deversorium. (‘For Varro wished that house to be a retreat for his own studies, not for his lusts.’ Cic. Phil. 2.104)

There are, however, also instances that cannot be explained in this way: they are clearly optional constituents (satellites). A humorous example from Plautus is (g), repeated from § 14.16 and § 15.21. Historical authors, especially Tacitus, expand the range of head constituents with which the genitive of the gerundive may occur to non-relational nouns such as victima ‘sacrifice’²⁰—in Livy—and pecunia ‘money’—in Tacitus. Such gerundival clauses are often called ‘final’, and they are indeed not always easy to distinguish from gerundival purpose adjuncts (see § 16.106). This is a literary development that did not affect the language system as a whole and left no trace in the history of Latin. An early example is (h). A large step even further away from relational head nouns is Sallust’s use of a gerundival clause with the substantival plural neuter quantifier omnia ‘everything’ in (i). (g)

Eheu, huic illud dolet, / quia nunc remissus est edendi exercitus. (‘Oh, oh, oh, this one (points to his stomach) is in pain because the army for eating has been dismissed now.’ Pl. Capt. 152–3)

(h)

. . . M. Aemilius . . . exercitum opprimendae libertatis habet . . . (‘. . . Marcus Aemilius . . . has an army for the purpose of overthrowing our liberties . . .’ Sal. Hist. 1.77.3)

(i)

. . . ut . . . omnia retinendae dominationis honesta aestimet. (‘. . . that . . . he regards every means of retaining his supremacy as honourable.’ Sal. Hist. 1.55.8)

²⁰ Aalto (1949: 106–7) quotes instances like immolavit · porcas piaculares · duas · luco coinquiendo et / operis · faciundi (from the Acta Arv. of ad 120—CIL VI.2080.36–7) as parallels.



Subordinate clauses with nouns, adjectives, and adverbs Supplement: …placuit averruncandae deum irae victimas caedi . . . (Liv. 8.6.11); . . . sulcus designandi oppidi coeptus . . . (Tac. Ann. 12.24.1); . . . quia pecuniam a Vario Ligure omittendae delationis ceperant . . . (Tac. Ann. 6.30.1); . . . cenam dabat amicis ac magistris sub urbe in rusculo celebrandae lucis annuae . . . (Gel. 19.9.1)

After the Classical period there are also instances in which a gerundival clause defines the content of a noun (phrase) (sometimes referred to as a genetivus explicativus), but just as with the use of the genitive to mark nouns or noun phrases as the attribute of a head constituent, the semantic range is very wide, and precise labelling makes no sense. Examples to illustrate the wide semantic range are (j) and (k). (j)

. . . et proverbium inde natum suspendio arborem eligendi. (‘. . . and from that was born the proverb of “choosing the tree for hanging oneself.”’ Plin. Nat. pr. 29)

(k)

Unde ista tormenta cruciandae simplicitatis et suspendendae veritatis? (‘Why adopt such excruciating means of torturing simple knowledge and crucifying the truth?’ Tert. An. 18.7—tr. Holmes)

Finally there is (l), a passage from the Vulgate which tries to follow the Greek original (which has an infinitive!). (l)

Qui habet aures audiendi . . . (‘He that has ears to hear . . .’ Vulg. Marc. 4.9)

. Gerundial clauses functioning as attribute at the noun phrase level There are several types of gerundial expressions found as argument with nouns: genitive bare case gerunds and prepositional expressions, with ad ‘to’ being the most common preposition. Examples of a gerund in the genitive are (a) and (b). An example of a prepositional gerundial expression is (c). (a)

Et meam partem loquendi et tuam trado tibi. (‘I grant you both my share of speaking and yours.’ Pl. As. 517)

(b)

In hunc me casum vos vivendi auctores impulistis. (‘Such is the dilemma into which you advocates of living have pushed me.’ Cic. Att. 3.9.1)

(c)

. . . perfecistis ut . . . mihi summa facultas ad accusandum daretur . . . (‘…You have brought it about that the greatest ability to accuse was granted to me. . .' Cic. Ver. 2.178)

The gerund may govern an argument (in the case required by the verb—see below for a few exceptions), and satellites are also used occasionally. An example of a gerund in the genitive with an object constituent is (d), where tutores is in the accusative, the

Gerundial and gerundival clauses at noun phrase level



regular case with do ‘to give’. Gerundival clauses are (much) more common for this in all periods of Latin, certainly before Livy.²¹ (d)

Ius dandi tutores datum est omnibus magistratibus municipialibus . . . (‘The right of appointing tutors is granted to all municipal magistrates . . .’ Ulp. dig. 26.5.3) Supplement (in alphabetical order by governing noun): Gerund with abstract nouns: Genitive: Causa autem fuit huc veniendi ut quosdam hinc libros promerem. (Cic. Fin. 3.8);²² . . . habent consuetudinem dandi his quos humane suscipiunt. (Pereg. 11.1); Nam ea res dedit tum existumandi copiam / cotidianae vitae consuetudinem . . . (Ter. Hau. 282–3); Si reducimus exercitum, quis est qui dubitet illos non a cupiditate solum ulciscendi, sed etiam necessitate inposita ex alieno praedandi, cum sua amiserint, agrum nostrum invasuros? (Liv. 5.5.3); . . . complures tum ibi dies sum propter navigandi difficultatem commoratus. (Cic. de Orat. 1.82); . . . si rei dignitas adimet iocandi facultatem . . . (Cic. Inv. 1.25); Eisque · pontificib(us) · . . . togas · praetextas haben/ di ius · potestasq(ue) · esto. (CIL II...LXVI.– (Lex coloniae Genetivae Iuliae, Osuna, c.44 bc);²³ Ceterum prophetandi ius et illas habere iam ostendit . . . (Tert. Marc. 5.8.11); Tanta lubido cum Mario eundi plerosque invaserat. (Sal. Jug. 84.3); . . . normamque tenere canendi / primus . . . (CIL XIII.2400.11–12 (Lyon, ad 575)); . . . hortaturque ne sui in perpetuum liberandi atque ulciscendi Romanos pro iis, quas acceperint, iniuriis occasionem dimittant. (Caes. Gal. 5.38.2); Merope postquam vidit occasionem sibi datam esse ab inimico se ulciscendi, redit cum Polyphonte in gratiam. (Hyg. Fab. 137.6); . . . fuisse illi antehac tam truculentum officium edendi homines demiratur. (Jul. Val. 1.17); Patres censuerunt qui honorem quem sibi capere per leges liceret peteret, in eo populo creandi quem velit potestatem fieri aequum esse. (Liv. 32.7.11); Parsimonia est scientia vitandi sumptus supervacuos aut ars re familiari moderate utendi. (Sen. Ben. 2.34.4); Agros rediens vastat ulciscendi magis quam praedae studio. (Liv. 1.15.4—NB: coordination with the noun praedae); . . . speculatores omnia visendi et Scipio ad comparanda quae in rem erant tempus habuit. (Liv. 30.4.6—NB: parallelism with a gerundival clause)²⁴ Prepositional phrase: Sed non senatui libertas ad paenitendum erat . . . (Tac. Ann. 3.51); Non est locus ad tergiversandum. (Cic. Att. 7.1.4); Ad loquendum atque ad tacendum tute habeas portisculum. (Pl. As. 518); . . . (sc. civitates) eo processuras unde receptum ad²⁵ paenitendum non haberent. (Liv. 42.13.3)

²¹ K.-St.: I.735 report that in Cicero there are 587 gerundival clauses in comparison with only 24 gerundial clauses in the genitive with an argument. Curtius, according to their report, is the only one who prefers the gerundial clause. ²² For argument clauses with causa, see Spevak (2014b). ²³ See note 17. ²⁴ Ungrammatical, and possibly inspired by a Greek source, is a unique utterance in Macrobius (1.8.8): . . . certo iam tempore finis factus est procedendi de caelo semina (NB: corresponding with a subject in a finite clause) ad elementorum conceptionem . . . Discussion in Wistrand (1967: 70–1), with a critical comment on putative instances of ‘subjects’ of gerundial clauses mentioned by Sz.: 376. ²⁵ For ad + gerundi(v)al clauses modifying nouns, see TLL s.v. ad 504.61ff.; 538.82ff.



Subordinate clauses with nouns, adjectives, and adverbs Gerund with agent nouns: Genitive: . . . Pyrrhus unicus pugnandi artifex . . . (Liv. frg. 1Jal); Auctor ego audendi. (Verg. A. 12.159); Sacrum quoque, quod equidem dis minime cordi esse crediderim, multis saeculis intermissum repetendi auctores quidam erant . . . (Curt. 4.3.23); Nihil amplius quaesierunt quam an auctor esset sibi divinis honoribus colendi suum regem. (Curt. 4.7.28); Non hic Atridae nec fandi fictor Ulixes. (Verg. A. 9.602); . . . ut occidendi Attalum non alio ministro uti mallet. (Curt. 7.1.3); Nam et qui principes inveniendi fuerunt quem ex quaque belua usum habere possemus . . . (Cic. Off. 2.14— NB: indirect question as object); Et ideo nihil prohibet duos reos stipulandi constitui vel promittendi . . . (Julian. dig. 45.2.5)

There are a number of instances of a noun governing a genitive of the gerund, with another noun seemingly depending on the gerund—not, however, in its regular case, but in the genitive. An example is (e). However, I would argue that tuendi is governed by copiam, the combination of which is modified by lucis.²⁶ (e)

Quia mi item ut parentes lucis das tuendi copiam. (‘Because like parents you give me a chance of seeing the light.’ Pl. Capt. 1008) Supplement (in alphabetical order by governing noun): Nominandi istorum tibi erit magis quam edundi copia / hic apud me, Ergasile. (Pl. Capt. 852–3); Utinam ne . . . / neve inde navis inchoandi exordium / cepisset . . . (Enn. scen. 246–8V=210–11J); Agitur utrum M. Antonio facultas detur opprimendae rei publicae, caedis faciendae bonorum, urbis, [eruendorum] agrorum suis latronibus condonandi, populi Romani servitute opprimendi, an horum ei facere nihil liceat. (Cic. Phil. 5.6); . . . quibus ne reiciundi quidem amplius quam trium iudicum praeclarae leges Corneliae faciunt potestatem . . . (Cic. Ver. 2.77); . . . sive enim aliquod fuit principium generandi animalium . . . (Var. R. 2.1.3); Quarum ego quid vobis aut inveniendi rationem aut genera ponam? (Cic. de Orat. 3.156); Earum autem rerum nullam sibi iste neque infitiandi rationem neque defendendi facultatem reliquit. (Cic. Ver. 4.104); Nullas enim consequuntur voluptates, quarum potiendi spe inflammati multos labores magnosque susceperant. (Cic. Fin. 1.60)

. Gerundival clauses functioning as attribute at the noun phrase level Gerundival clauses are found with the same head constituents as the gerundial clauses, which are discussed in the previous section. Typical examples, in the genitive, are (a) and (b). Examples of gerundival clauses in the dative and in a prepositional phrase are (c) and (d), respectively. (a)

. . . natura cupiditatem ingenuit homini veri videndi . . . (‘. . . nature has engendered in mankind the desire of seeing truth . . .’ Cic. Fin. 2.46)

²⁶ The precise relationship between governing noun, gerund, and depending genitive noun is much debated. See Bolkestein (1989a: 7–9), who analyses the fifty-two known instances from the point of view of word order.

Gerundial and gerundival clauses at noun phrase level (b)



. . . te . . . auctorem fuisse . . . moderandae victoriae? (‘. . . that you were the proponent in favour of moderating victory?’ Cic. Fam. 11.27.8)

(c)

Nam cum dies venisset rogationi . . . ferendae . . . (‘When the day came for putting the bill to the Assembly . . .’ Cic. Att. 1.14.5)

(d)

. . . fui verum etiam ceteris auctor ad te adiuvandum . . . (‘. . . but I also urged others to come to your assistance . . .’ Cic. Att. 9.11a.2)

The gerundival clause is in certain ways comparable to a proper deverbal noun and sometimes gerundives and deverbal nouns derived from the same stem occur in similar contexts, as can be seen by comparing (e) and (f): (e)

Die constituta causae dictionis Orgetorix . . . familiam . . . coegit . . . (‘On the day appointed for the presentation of his case Orgetorix gathered his retainers . . .’ Caes. Gal. 1.4.2)

(f)

Haec agitata sermonibus, donec dies causae dicendae venit. (‘Such was the current of talk until the day for speaking the case came.’ Liv. 38.50.10)

However, as is explained in § 3.16 about the gerund, in spite of certain similarities there are also essential differences in distribution. It is not always clear whether the dative and ad clauses are constituents at the noun phrase level or whether they should rather be seen as depending on the combination of the noun and the verb or should even be regarded as purpose adjuncts (for which see § 16.106). Supplement (in alphabetical order by governing noun): Gerundival clause with abstract nouns: Genitive: . . . huius rei aut leniendae aut corrigendae nullam rem adiumento futuram. (Rhet. Her. 2.48); Ea ignominia accepta . . . praebuit iustiorem causam resistendi collegae. (Liv. 4.53.4); Tamen tanta universae Galliae consensio fuit libertatis vindicandae et pristinae belli laudis recuperandae . . . (Caes. Gal. 7.76.2); Date, di, quaeso, conveniundi mi eius celerem copiam. (Pl. Mer. 850); Inde natum initium dicitur fori ornandi ab aedilibus, cum tensae ducerentur. (Liv. 9.40.16); . . . si rationum referendarum ius vetus et mos antiquus maneret . . . (Cic. Fam. 5.20.1); . . . restituendae Romanis Capuae mora atque impedimentum es. (Liv. 23.9.11); . . . erit . . . carnifex cui occidendorum hominum officia credantur . . . (Firm. Math. 8.17.1); Tunc nos in ancipiti periculo constituti vel opprimendi nostri vel deserendi socii remedium e re nata validum eo volente comminiscimus. (Apul. Met. 4.11.1); . . . quia spei maioris avertendae solacium obiectum censebant. (Liv. 5.24.5); Atqui si tempus est ullum iure hominis necandi—quae multa sunt—certe illud est . . . (Cic. Mil. 9); Multi venisse tempus premendae plebis putabant reciperandique iura quae extorta secessione ac vi patribus essent. (Liv. 2.34.8—NB: coordination with a gerund); . . . sicut et collegii concordia et colligendae fraternitatis ac medendi vulneris utilitas exigebat . . . (Cypr. Ep. 55.7.2) Dative: Ego caput huic argento fui hodie reperiundo. (Pl. As. 728); Comitia consulibus rogandis fuere: creati P. Cornelius Lentulus M. Baebius Tamphilus. (Liv.



Subordinate clauses with nouns, adjectives, and adverbs 40.18.1); Nam cum dies venisset rogationi ex senatus consulto ferendae . . . (Cic. Att. 1.14.5); . . . vectigalibusve publiceis fruendeis locandeis vendundeis legem deixerunt . . . (CIL I2.585.85 (Lex Agr., Rome, c.111 bc)); Fama est adpulsa nave mercatorum nitri, cum sparsi per litus epulas pararent nec esset cortinis attollendis lapidum occasio, glaebas nitri e nave subdidisse… (Plin. Nat. 36.191); Origo quaestoribus creandis antiquissima est . . . (Ulp. dig. 1.13.1) Prepositional phrase: Actione de rationibus distrahendis nemo tenetur . . . (Paul. dig. 27.3.2.pr.); . . . aut inpudentia et huic et ceteris magnam ad se defendendum facultatem dabit. (Cic. Cael. 50); Eis ad ignoscendum (‘to obtain pardon’) nulla facultas est data et a militibus nostris interfecti sunt. (B. Hisp. 12.2); . . . qui morae ad decernendum bellum ad Naupactum [auctor] fuerat . . . (Liv. 31.40.9); Eam occasionem Polyxenidae ad rem gerendam fore. (Liv. 37.26.7); . . . et speculatores omnia visendi et Scipio ad comparanda quae in rem erant tempus habuit. (Liv. 30.4.6—NB: parallelism with a gerund clause); Instructius deliberatiusque fore arbitramur theorematium hoc de mandatis huiuscemodi obsequendis, si exemplum quoque P.  Crassi Muciani, clari atque incluti viri, apposuerimus. (Gel. 1.13.9) Gerundival clause with agent nouns: Genitive: . . . te et non suscipiendi belli civilis gravissimum auctorem fuisse et moderandae victoriae? (Cic. Fam. 11.27.8); Multa illi opera opu’st ficturae qui se fictorem probum / vitae agundae esse expetit. (Pl. Trin. 365–6) Dative: . . . ille legibus per vim et contra auspicia ferendis auctor . . . (Cic. Att. 8.3.3) NB: agent nouns referring to magistrates: . . . Demosthenes curator muris reficiendis fuit . . . (Cic. Opt. Gen. 19); . . . curator · vi(i)s · sternundis . . . (CIL VI.1283.b2 (Rome, 181 bc)); . . . curator · pecuniae· publicae · exi / gendae · et · attribuendae . . . (CIL XIV.376.13–14 (Ostia Antica, c. ad 150)); . . . alterum triumvirum coloniis deducundis . . . (Sal. Jug. 42.1)

. Optional gerundial and gerundival clauses at the noun phrase level All sorts of nouns may be modified by optional gerundial and gerundival clauses with various prepositions. (a)

. . . sed etiam commemorant sodalitatem in accusando . . . (‘. . . but in accusing they even harp on their fraternity . . .’ Cic. Cael. 26)

(b)

. . . si mihi libeat totius gentis in testimoniis dicendis explicare levitatem. (‘. . . if I wanted to display the untrustworthiness of the whole nation in giving evidence.’ Cic. Flac. 12) Supplement (in alphabetical order by preposition): Gerundial clauses: Atque hic parum a magistris institutus naturam habuit admirabilem ad dicendum. (Cic. Brut. 280); Nec bestiarum solum ad nocendum scelera sunt sed interim aquarum quoque ac locorum. (Plin. Nat. 25.20) Gerundival clauses: . . . otium / ab senibus ad potandum ut habeam. (Ter. Ph. 831–2); . . . legionis Martiae quartaeque mirabilis consensus ad rem publicam recuperandam laude et testimonio nostro confirmetur . . . (Cic. Phil. 3.7); Nunc propraetoris unius et

Subordinate clauses at adjective/adverb phrase level



parvi ad tuendam Nolam praesidii praeda sumus. (Liv. 23.42.10); Semper illius . . . praestantem in re publica tuenda curam . . . celebrabit. (Cic. Phil. 9.10);²⁷ Quae enim proposita fuerant nobis . . . dignitas in sententiis dicendis, libertas in re publica capessenda, ea sublata tota sunt . . . (Cic. Fam. 1.8.3); . . . omnes quidem debitos Domino spectat ut omnes salutis in promerendo Deo petitores . . . (Tert. Paen. 6.1); . . . decreta super iugandis / feminis . . . (Hor. Saec. 18–19)

17.21 Subordinate clauses at the adjective phrase level Two-place adjectives (see §§  4.99–104) can be used with a subordinate clause as their argument, both when they function as an attribute of a noun phrase, as in (a)—relatively rare—and—much more common—when they function as a subject or object complement, as in (b) and (c), respectively. In (a), dignam governs a gerundival clause; in (b) and (c) dignus and dignos govern a finite ut clause; in (c) indignos governs an autonomous relative clause. For these relative clauses, see § 18.19. Examples of adjectives that function as subject complement can be found in the following sections. (a)

. . . adultum iam esse Britannicum, veram dignamque stirpem suscipiendo patris imperio . . . (‘. . . that Britannicus was now mature, the true and worthy stock for undertaking his father’s command . . .’ Tac. Ann. 13.14.2—tr. Woodman)

(b)

Quia enim non sum dignus prae te palum ut figam in parietem. (‘Because compared with you I’m not worthy to pound a peg into a wall.’ Pl. Mil. 1140)

(c)

. . . si modo quos ut socios haberes dignos duxisti haud indignos iudicas quos in fidem receptos tuearis. (‘. . . if only men whom you have considered worthy to be your allies are not judged by you unworthy to be taken under your protection and defended.’ Liv. 23.42.13)

The embedded clauses at the adjective phrase level have in principle the same structural possibilities as in independent sentences and main clauses, but here as elsewhere these possibilities are rarely exploited, in order to avoid an overload of information. Adjectives may be modified by various types of optional embedded clauses as well, for example a clause indicating the cause of the state or the property denoted by the adjective (see § 17.29). Neuter singular adjectives that function as subject or object complement with a clause as the subject or object are dealt with in Chapter 15.

²⁷ For in + gerundi(v)al clauses modifying nouns, see TLL s.v. in 785.9ff.



Subordinate clauses with nouns, adjectives, and adverbs

. Finite subordinate clauses functioning at the adjective phrase level As with governing nouns in earlier sections of this Chapter three types of clauses are distinguished that correspond more or less to declarative, interrogative, and imperative subordinate clauses at the sentence level. However, this threefold distinction is especially relevant for adjectives that denote cognition, as is shown in (a)–(c), with the adjective memor ‘mindful’. Ex. (a) is a rare example of a declarative quod clause; (b) of a not uncommon interrogative clause; (c) of an exceptional imperative clause (note the coordination with diligens).²⁸ (a)

Igitur Antiochus memor quod . . . frater propter segnitiam contemptus fuisset . . . civitates . . . summa industria persequitur . . . (‘Therefore Antiochus . . . remembering that his brother had been despised for his indolence . . . proceeded to make war, with the utmost vigour, on the provinces . . .’ Justin. 36.1.9)

(b)

(sc. Hortensius) Adtuleratque minime volgare genus dicendi . . . memor et quae essent dicta contra quaeque ipse dixisset. (‘And he brought to the Forum a style which was far from commonplace . . . summarizing what had been said on the other side, and what he himself had said.’ Cic. Brut. 302)

(c)

Et memor sum et diligens ut quae imperes compareant. (‘I’m mindful and careful that what you order should appear.’ Pl. Am. 630—NB: parallelism)

With the idiom certiorem facio aliquem ‘to inform somebody’ all three types of clauses are well attested.²⁹ An example of an imperative clause is (d). (d)

. . . Bibulus Pompeium fecerat certiorem ut caveret insidias, in quo ei Pompeius gratias egerat. (‘. . . Bibulus had sent information to Pompeius warning him of a plot, for which Pompeius had thanked him.’ Cic. Att. 2.24.3)

. Declarative finite subordinate clauses functioning at the adjective phrase level Declarative finite subordinate clauses with quod, quia, and quoniam at the adjective phrase level are very uncommon and mostly Late, as is the case at the clause level (see § 15.113). An example is (a).³⁰ By contrast, accusative and infinitive clauses are attested from Early Latin onwards (see § 17.28). ²⁸ For a very Late instance of memor ut, see TLL s.v. 661.46. ²⁹ See TLL s.v. certus 922.12ff. ³⁰ For such clauses with memor in translations of the Bible, see TLL s.v. 660.52ff.

Subordinate clauses at adjective/adverb phrase level (a)



(sc. rex) . . . ignarus quod . . . eorum animos ut ad opimam praedam sollicitabat. (‘. . . little thinking that . . . he was thus exciting their cupidity for what seemed to them a plentiful loot.’ Justin. 25.1.7) Supplement (in alphabetical order by adjective): (sc. Severus) Sedit et in sella imperatoria temere a ministro posita ignarus quod non liceret. (Hist. Aug. Sept. Sev. 1.9); . . . ordines civitatum et populi . . . detinebant paene publicum defensorem memores quod . . . nihil amiserat per decennium . . . (Amm. 18.6.2) Primo igitur certus esse debes quia nigri . . . oculi imbecillem . . . animum . . . indicant. (Physiogn. 27)

Examples of a ne clause with an adjective of fearing and worrying are (b) and (c). (b)

Ego pol quoque etiam timida sum, quom venit mi in mentem quae sim, / ne nomen mihi quaesti obsiet. (‘I am also, by heaven, rather apprehensive, when I remember what I am, that the reputation of my profession will count against me.’ Ter. Hec. 734–5)

(c)

. . . ne qua seditio aut bellum oriretur anxius erat. (‘. . . he worried that some rebellion or war might erupt.’ Sal. Jug. 6.3) Supplement (in alphabetical order by adjective): . . . ita gladiis portas caedebant, quas supra diximus obseratas, admodum anxii ne urbe excisa ipsi quoque sine ullo specioso facinore deleantur . . . (Amm. 19.6.4); . . . (sc. oppidani) pavidiquene iam subrutis muris facta in urbem via esset, fossam intra murum . . . ducere instituunt. (Liv. 38.7.7)

An example of a quin clause with the adjective dubius is (d). (d)

Nec mihi mens dubia est quin te tua numina damnent. (‘And my mind doubts not that you, too, are under condemnation of your gods.’ Ov. Ep. 7.87)

. Interrogative finite subordinate clauses functioning at the adjective phrase level Interrogative subordinate clauses at the adjective phrase level are not uncommon. Examples are (a) and (b). (a)

Quod ubi est Philodamo nuntiatum, tametsi erat ignarus quantum sibi ac liberis suis iam tum mali constitueretur, tamen ad istum venit. (‘But when this is reported to Philodamus, although he was ignorant what great misfortune was at that moment being contrived for him and for his children, still he comes to him.’ Cic. Ver. 1.65)

 (b)

Subordinate clauses with nouns, adjectives, and adverbs . . . Lacetani . . . memores quam saepe in agro eorum impune persultassent, quotiens ipsos signis conlatis fudissent fugassentque, patefacta repente porta universi in eos erumpunt. (‘. . . the Lacetani . . . remembering how often they had roamed around this people’s territory with impunity and on how many occasions they had beaten and routed them in pitched battle, suddenly drew open the gate and burst forth in a body against them.’ Liv. 34.20.6) Supplement (in alphabetical order by adjective): Sed Galba . . . anxius quonam exercituum vis erumperet . . . (Tac. Hist. 1.14.1); Hanc tum regionem et totam infestam Masinissa et ex quadam parte dubiae possessionis sui regni an Carthaginiensium esset effecerat. (Liv. 34.62.4); . . . dicit Callisthenem incidisse in hominem summa potentia summaque fortuna sed ignarum quem ad modum rebus secundis uti conveniret. (Cic. Tusc. 3.21); . . . vive memor quam sis aevi brevis. (Hor. S. 2.6.97); Qua re non sum nescius quanto periculo vivam . . . (Cic. Sul. 28)

. Imperative finite subordinate clauses functioning at the adjective phrase level As is stated in § 17.22, true imperative subordinate clauses at the adjective level are very rarely attested. The use of an ut clause with the adjective dignus is illustrated in § 17.21, exx. (b) and (c). These ut clauses are sometimes called ‘consecutive’. Another example is (a) below. Relative clauses are more common with such adjectives than ut clauses, and are normal in the Classical period (see § 18.19). Ex. (b) is an example of what is sometimes called the ‘final’ use of an ut clause governed by an adjective. (a)

Digna res visa ut simulacrum celebrati eius diei Gracchus, postquam Romam rediit, pingi iuberet . . . (‘The affair seemed to merit (it,) that Gracchus, after he returned to Rome, ordered a representation of that day of festivity to be painted . . .’ Liv. 24.16.19)

(b)

. . . idonea esse causa debet ut post annum actio haec dari debeat. (‘. . . there ought to be a satisfactory reason justifying the award of this action after a year.’ Ulp. dig. 4.2.14.2) Supplement (in alphabetical order by adjective): Audivimus de te quod vir potens viribus et aptus es ut sis amicus noster. (Vulg. I Macc. 10.19); Et respondens centurio ait: Domine, non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum . . . (Vulg. Mat. 8.8—NB: non sum idoneus ut . . .Vet. Lat. (cod. k))

Ut clauses can also be used after a comparative expression + quam, as in (c) and (d). For autonomous relative clauses after such expressions, see § 18.19. (c)

Quis enim . . . non intellegit Canachi signa rigidiora esse quam ut imitentur veritatem? (‘For who . . . does not recognize that the statues of Canachus are too rigid to reproduce the truth of nature?’ Cic. Brut. 70)

Subordinate clauses at adjective/adverb phrase level (d)



Hannibali nimis laeta res est visa maiorque quam ut eam statim capere animo posset. (‘To Hannibal the idea was too joyous and too vast for him to grasp it at once with his mind.’ Liv. 22.51.3) Supplement: Sed si haec maior esse ratio videtur quam ut hominum possit sensu aut cogitatione comprehendi . . . (Cic. de Orat. 3.21); (sc. Isocrates) Maiore mihi ingenio videtur esse quam ut cum orationibus Lysiae comparetur . . . (Cic. Orat. 41); . . . clarior res erat quam ut tegi ac dissimulari posset . . . (Liv. 26.51.11); Vulva . . . in mulieribus vero, nisi ubi gravidae sunt, non multo maior quam ut manu conprehendatur. (Cels. 4.1.12); Est enim sapientis rustici reputare num maiore fructu vitis se induerit quam ut perferre eum possit. (Col. 4.27.5); . . . in quis erant sagittarii, sicuti ante dictum est, gravioribus telis quam ut apte excuti possent. (Curt. 8.13.6); Itaque nonnullos reperias qui sibi eloquentiores videantur quam ut causas agant. (Quint. Inst. 12.6.6); . . . validiore apud libidines principis Paride quam ut poena adficeretur. (Tac. Ann. 13.22)

. Non-finite subordinate clauses functioning at the adjective phrase level The following sections deal with infinitival, participial, and gerundial and gerundival clauses functioning as argument or satellite at the adjective phrase level. For the supine, see § 16.113.

. Infinitival clauses functioning at the adjective phrase level Just as in § 17.13 with infinitival clauses at the noun phrase level, two classes of infinitival clauses are distinguished: accusative and infinitive clauses and prolative infinitive clauses.

. Accusative and infinitive clauses functioning at the adjective phrase level The adjectives with which accusative and infinitive clauses can be used as attribute most often denote cognition or emotion, as in (a) and (b), respectively. Instances can be found in all periods of Latin. (a)

Postquam mihi responsum est, abeo ab illo maestus ad forum / med illo frustra advenisse. (‘After receiving this answer, I went away from him to the market, sad that I’d gone there for nothing.’ Pl. Cur. 336–7)

(b)

Constituunt enim . . . duo genera causarum . . . ignari omnis controversias ad universi generis vim et naturam referri. (‘They posit two classes of cases—without realizing that all disputes can be related to one about the essential nature of a general category.’ Cic. de Orat. 2.133—tr. May and Wisse)



Subordinate clauses with nouns, adjectives, and adverbs Supplement (in alphabetical order by adjective): (sc. Tarquinius) Conscius deinde male quaerendi regni ab se ipso adversus se exemplum capi posse, armatis corpus circumsaepsit. (Liv. 1.49.2); (sc. Vitellius) Super insitam [mortem] animo ignaviam conscius sibi instare donativum et deesse pecuniam omnia alia militi largiebatur. (Tac. Hist. 2.94.2); . . . Ilioneus . . .‘di’ que ‘o communiter omnes’, / dixerat ignarus non omnes esse rogandos / ‘parcite!’ (Ov. Met. 6.261–4); Ceterum ab ignaris militibus omissam ab hoste pugnam et quid imperator vellet impetus in eos est factus . . . (Liv. 33.10.5); Sed ut maestus est se hasce vendidisse. (Pl. Mos. 796); Quid si me, Meleagre, tuam memor esse sororem / forte paro facinus . . .? (Ov. Met. 9.149–50); Tum tu insiste audax hostium muris memor quam per tot annos obsides urbem ex ea tibi his quae nunc panduntur fatis victoriam datam. (Liv. 5.16.11); Nescius adsumptis Priamus pater Aesacon alis / vivere lugebat. (Ov. Met. 12.1–2); Quis ille haud sane motus satisque prudens otii vitia negotio discuti edicit ut omnes in vestibulo regiae praesto sint. (Curt. 7.1.4)

. Prolative infinitive clauses functioning at the adjective phrase level Infinitival clauses are found with adjectives that are semantically, and sometimes formally, related to verbs with which infinitival clauses are common, as in (a) and (b);³¹ however, in poetry and in poeticizing prose, infinitives are used with other adjectives as well. This usage was certainly stimulated by the use of infinitival clauses in similar contexts in Greek.³² In (Classical) prose other expressions are more common, such as gerundival clauses, the supine in -u (for which, see § 16.113), and relative clauses with a subjunctive.³³ The infinitive can refer to a state of affairs that is controlled by the entity the adjective is related to, as in (a)–(d), but this is not necessary, as is shown by (e) and (f).³⁴ (a)

. . . nihili est autem suom qui officium facere immemor est, nisi est ammonitus. (‘. . . but someone who is forgetful in doing his duty unless he’s reminded is worthless.’ Pl. Ps. 1104)

(b)

Insignita fere tum milia militum octo / duxit delectos bellum tolerare potentes. (‘Then he led some eight thousand warriors, wearing badges, chosen men, strong to bear war well.’ Enn. Ann. 10.332–3V=330–1S)

(c)

Illa dolos dirumque nefas in pectore versat, / certa mori, variosque irarum concitat aestus. (‘She revolves in her heart wiles and dreadful crime, fixed on dying, and awakens the swirling surge of anger.’ Verg. A. 4.563–4)

³¹ ³² ³³ ³⁴

For the frequency of the use of the infinitive in Christian writers, see Perrochat (1932b: 188–91). For possible Greek influence, see Calboli (2009: 133–4). For further instances, see K.-St.: I.683–7; Sz: 350–1. For further instances of dignus, see TLL s.v. 1152.32ff.

Subordinate clauses at adjective/adverb phrase level (d)



Aut nihil aut paulo cui tum concedere digna / lux mea se nostrum contulit in gremium . . . (‘Either not at all or a little deserving to give place to that one, my bright one came into my arms . . .’ Catul. 68.131–2)

(e)

Et puer ipse fuit cantari dignus . . . (‘The boy himself was worthy to be sung . . .’ Verg. Ecl. 5.54)

(f)

Campus erat, campi claudebant ultima colles / silvaque montanas occulere apta feras. (‘There was a plain; hills and a forest suited for hiding mountain animals enclosed its borders.’ Ov. Fast. 2.215–16) Supplement (in alphabetical order by adjective): . . . avidi committere pugnam . . . (Ov. Met. 5.75); Cur non, Mopse, boni quoniam convenimus ambo, / tu calamos inflare levis, ego dicere versus, / hic corylis mixtas inter consedimus ulmos? (Verg. Ecl. 5.1–3); . . . amicum, / praesertim cautum dignos adsumere . . . (Hor. S. 1.6.50–1); O celere at mala vota dei / has audire · preces . . . (CIL X.7570.4–5 (Cagliari, 2nd cent. ad (first half))); . . . Caesar . . . certus procul urbe degere. (Tac. Ann. 4.57.1); Cum diabolo temptante congreditur et inimicum tantum vicisse contentus nihil ultra verba conatur. (Cypr. Pat. 6); (Iulianus dixit) Verum non uno modo vicisse contentus argumenti tui, cuius impietatem prodidi, coarguam falsitatem. (August. Jul. 5.39); . . . cupidus falsis attingere gaudia palmis . . . (Prop. 1.19.9); . . . durus componere versus. (Hor. S. 1.4.8); Ah nimium faciles aurem praebere puellae, / discite desertae non temere esse bonae! (Prop. 2.21.15–16); . . . (materiam) spiritalem et penetrare et insidere facilem per substantiae suae subtilitatem. (Tert. Bapt. 4.1); Septima post decumam felix et ponere vitem / et prensos domitare boves et licia telae / addere. (Verg. G. 1.284–6); . . . impiger hostium / vexare turmas . . . (Hor. Carm. 4.14.22–3); Ingens ferre mala et Fortunae subdere colla / nescius . . . (Sil. 10.215–16); . . . ademptus Hector / tradidit fessis leviora tolli / Pergama Grais. (Hor. Carm. 2.4.10–12); . . . Creator omnium et multum potens formare nostra deformia. (Aug. Conf. 9.6); Is recens praetura, modicus dignationis et quoquo facinore properus clarescere . . . (Tac. Ann. 4.52.1); Nomentanus erat super ipsum, Porcius infra, / ridiculus totas semel absorbere placentas. (Hor. S. 2.8.23–4); . . . portu, quo non spatiosior alter / innumeras cepisse rates et claudere pontum . . . (Sil. 8.481–2) Passive infinitive: . . . gens barbara, aspera et regi difficilis . . . (V. Max. 7.3.6); . . . ne totiens falli digna fuisse puter. (Ov. Fast. 3.490); Necdum ora patent, dubiusque notari / signa dabat magnae longe manifesta ruinae / planctuque et gemitu. (Stat. Theb. 3.42–4); Quamquam ipse videri / exiguus, gravia ossa tamen nodisque lacerti / difficiles. (Stat. Theb. 6.844–6); . . . et facilis spargi munda sine arte rosa . . . (Prop. 4.8.40); unde et acetaria appellantur, facilia concoqui nec oneatura sensu cibo et quae minime accenderent desiderium panis. (Plin. Nat. 19.58); . . . urit grata protervitas / et vultus nimium lubricus adspici. (Hor. Carm. 1.19.7–8); . . . maiorque videri / nec mortale sonans adflata est numine quando / iam propiore dei. (Verg. A. 6.49–51); (sc. vitulus) . . . niveus videri, / cetera fulvos. (Hor. Carm. 4.2.59–60)



Subordinate clauses with nouns, adjectives, and adverbs

. Participial clauses functioning at the adjective phrase level Instances of participial clauses governed by adjectives are very rare. An example with nescius is (a). (a)

Nescius interea capti ducis arma parabat / Magnus . . . (‘Magnus meanwhile, unaware that the general had been made prisoner, was taking the field . . .’ Luc. 2.526–7) Supplement: . . . nec tremis admissae conscia nequitiae? (Prop. 1.15.38)³⁵

. Gerundial and gerundival clauses functioning at the adjective phrase level Gerundial and gerundival clauses with adjectival attributes and subject and object complements are found in all periods of Latin, although in Early Latin only in very small numbers. They are used especially with two-place adjectives that indicate volition, ability, and suitability, and they are marked by the cases or prepositions required by the adjectives (see §  11.92). Examples with gerunds are (a), a genitive, and (b), a dative. (a)

Qui neque in Oceano natare volueris, studiosissimus homo natandi . . . (‘Though you are a person most fond of swimming you had no mind for a dip in the ocean . . .’ Cic. Fam. 17.10.2)

(b)

Semina limus habet virides generantia ranas, / et generat truncas pedibus, mox apta natando / crura dat . . . (‘Slimy mud contains seeds that produce green frogs, without legs at first, but soon it gives them legs adapted to swimming . . .’ Ov. Met. 15.375–7)

The range of adjectives was gradually widened by poets and, following their example, by certain prose authors, with Tacitus as a prominent representative. But some authors went even further and used gerundial and gerundival clauses with adjectives that do not belong to the semantic classes mentioned above. A typical example is (c), where a property of the action or process denoted by the verb no ‘to swim’—which could well be expressed by an adverb celeriter—is predicated of a person. (c)

Ille, celer nandi, iamiamque apprendere tuta / dum parat . . . (‘He, swift in swimming, struggled for a safe hand-hold . . .’ Sil. 4.585–6)

This development is especially notable with respect to the genitive and fits in with the general widening of the use of the genitive with adjectives (see § 11.92 and § 12.14, Appendix). ³⁵ The example was suggested by Leon Wash (University of Chicago).

Subordinate clauses at adjective/adverb phrase level



Table . Adjectives governing gerundial and gerundival clauses Early Latin

Classical Latin

Silver Latin

Late Latin

 

late Republican period

Augustan period

 

 

cupidus

avidus

aptus

celer

acutus

firmus

idoneus

contentus

insolens

dulcis

natus

inops

doctus

potens

inconstans

peritus

insuetus

impotens

pravus

nobilis

studiosus

promptus

liber

primus

 

 

sciens

memor

pronus

 

 

 

utilis

vetus

 

Table 17.1 gives a number of adjectives found with gerundial and gerundival clauses with an indication of their first attestation in that construction. Gerundial and gerundival clauses in this context rarely contain arguments or satellites. In the examples given in the following sections, adjectives are included which are used as head constituent (so-called substantival use) or which function as appositives.

. Gerundial clauses functioning at the adjective phrase level Examples with a gerund in the genitive and the dative are given in § 17.31, (a) and (b), respectively. Prepositional expressions are illustrated by (a) below. An example of an ablative gerundial clause is (b). Extension of the gerund to adjectives that do not require another entity is shown in (c). (a)

. . . minime aptum ad dicendum genus. (‘. . . a sort ill-suited to public speaking.’ Cic. Brut. 131)

(b)

. . . cul

and nihilum dignus, set dignus amari . . . (‘. . . not at all worthy of blaming, but worthy to be loved . . .’ CIL III.9504.2–4 (=CLE 650.2, Salona, ad 360))

(c)

. . . tenebatque animos nostros homo ille fandi dulcissimus . . . (‘. . . and that man most sweet at speaking held our minds enthralled . . .’ Gel. 16.3.1) Supplement (in alphabetical order by adjective; some examples are rather satellites): Genitive: Thebis hebetes et brutos nasci relatum est, Athenis sapiendi dicendique acutissimos . . . (Tert. An. 20.3);³⁶ . . . Dominum . . . percutiendi et saeviendi alienum . . . (Tert. Marc. 5.12.8); Nam Tiberius cuncta per consules incipiebat, tamquam vetere re publica et ambiguus imperandi. (Tac. Ann. 1.7.3); Aeneas celsa in puppi, iam certus eundi, / carpebat somnos rebus iam rite paratis. (Verg. A. 4.554–5); Ut si quis apud

³⁶ For Tertullian’s frequent use of the genitive with adjectives, see Hoppe (1903: 21ff.=1985: 54ff.).



Subordinate clauses with nouns, adjectives, and adverbs equites Romanos cupidos iudicandi Caepionis legem iudiciariam laudet. (Cic. Inv. 1.92); Qua ex parte homines bellandi cupidi magno dolore adficiebantur. (Caes. Gal. 1.2.4); Secunda activa est quae tantum vitae commodis anxiata, ornatui petax, habendi insatiata, rapiendi cauta, servandi sollicita geritur. (Fulg. Myth. 2.66); . . . (sc. Hasdrubal) mercandi dextras largus belloque parata / prodigere in bellum facilis. (Sil. 15.495–6); Orator est, Marce fili, vir bonus, dicendi peritus. (Cato Fil. 14(J)); . . . naves, piscatoriae pleraeque, conspectae peritis nandi dedissent effugium. (Liv. 23.1.7) Dative: . . . hominem non imperando habilem . . . (Paneg. 4(10)8.2); Nam emporitica inutilis scribendo involucris chartarum segestriumque mercibus usum praebet, ideo a mercatoribus cognominata. (Plin. Nat. 13.76); Quem ubi equites quoque tegendo satis latebrosum locum circumvectus ipse oculis perlustravit . . . (Liv. 21.54.1) Ablative: . . . lassos itinere ac proeliando milites ad oppugnanda castra succedere noluit. (B. Alex. 30.2—NB: coordination) Prepositional phrase: . . . in ipsius paterno genere fuit noster ille amicus, dignus huic ad imitandum . . . (Cic. Rep. 1.30); (Nilus) . . . irrigat adeo efficacibus aquis ad generandum alendumque ut . . . (Mela 1.9.52); . . . non unam aut facilem ad subigendum frenat et domat . . . (Cic. Rep. 2.67); Principium est, cum statim auditoris animum nobis idoneum reddimus ad audiendum. (Rhet. Her. 1.6); Incidit per id tempus ut tempestates ad navigandum idoneas non haberet. (B.  Afr. 1.3); Oratorem autem . . . eum puto esse, qui et verbis ad audiendum iucundis et sententiis ad probandum accommodatis uti possit . . . (Cic. de Orat. 1.213); Itaque ficus, malus Punica et vitis propter feminam mollitiam ad crescendum prona, contra palma et cupressus et olea in crescendo tarda. (Var. R. 1.41.4–5)

. Gerundival clauses functioning at the adjective phrase level Gerundival clauses with adjectival attributes and subject and object complements can be found in all periods of Latin, in spite of their complexity. Examples of a genitive, dative, ablative, and prepositional gerundival clause are (a)–(d), respectively. The clauses are normally not complex in themselves. (a)

. . . qui perpessus est omnia potius quam conscios delendae tyrannidis indicaret. (‘. . . who endured every torment rather than be brought to divulge his accomplices in the plot to overthrow tyranny.’ Cic. Tusc. 2.52)

(b)

Referundae ego habeo linguam natam gratiae. (‘I have a tongue that was made for returning thanks.’ Pl. Per. 428)

(c)

. . . dum flumen gignendo sale fecundum et conterminum vi trahunt . . . (‘. . . while they attempt to appropriate by force a river fertile in producing salt and one which served as the frontier line between the tribes . . .’ Tac. Ann. 13.57.1)

(d)

. . . magnum quoddam ornamentum orationis et aptum ad animos conciliandos vel maxime, saepe autem etiam ad commovendos. (‘. . . a considerable ornament of style, and extremely effective in calming down an audience and often also in exciting it.’ Cic. de Orat. 3.204)

Subordinate clauses at adjective/adverb phrase level



Supplement (in alphabetical order by adjective): Genitive: Avidus consul belli gerundi movere quam senescere omnia malebat. (Sal. Jug. 35.3); . . . defensionem . . . quam Cremutius, relinquendae vitae certus, in hunc modum exorsus est. (Tac. Ann. 4.34.2); . . . si sunt ad rem militarem apti et cupidi bellorum gerendorum. (Cic. Off. 1.74); . . . neuter, dum hostem vulneraret, sui protegendi corporis memor . . . (Liv. 2.6.9); Plato, veritatis homo amicissimus eiusque omnibus exhibendae promptissimus . . . (Gel. 10.22.1); . . . dum a libertis et clientibus, apiscendae potentiae properis, exstimulatur . . . (Tac. Ann. 4.59.3) Dative: . . . frutecta atque virgulta simul omnia pomis frugibusque gignendis felicia cum sentibus et rubis purificandi agri gratia convellit . . . (Gel. 19.12.9); Unde nisi a diabolo maritum petant idoneum exhibendae sellae . . . (Tert. Ux. 2.8.3); . . . eadem humus movendis inutilis turribus . . . tabulata turrium perfringebat . . . (Curt. 4.6.9); M. vero Scaurus . . . vir regendae rei publicae scientissimus . . . (Cic. de Orat. 1.214) Ablative: . . . testaretur adultum iam esse Britannicum, veram dignamque stirpem suscipiendo patris imperio, quod insitus et adoptivus per iniurias matris exerceret. (Tac. Ann. 13.14.2) Prepositional phrases: Elapso die parum apto ad inchoandas rerum magnitudines . . . (Amm. 26.2.1); . . . in favorem Severi magistri tunc peditum ut apti ad hoc impetrandum . . . (Amm. 27.6.3); (sc. Caesar) . . . loco pro castris ad aciem instruendam natura op

ortuno atque idoneo . . . transversam fossam duxit . . . (Caes. Gal. 2.8.3); Sin autem non naturalem locum neque idoneum ad tuendas ab tempestatibus naves habuerimus . . . (Vitr. 5.12.2); . . . navigabilem amnem, opportunum ad comportanda quae usui sint . . . (Liv. 38.3.11)

. Gerundial and gerundival clauses functioning as optional constituents at the adjective phrase level Gerundial and gerundival clauses can be used as optional constituents at the adjective phrase level in various functions. In (a) orandis causis ‘by pleading cases’ indicates the cause of Mamercus being insignis ‘distinguished’ (note the coordination with nobilitate). In (b) the in clause functions as a respect constituent. (a)

Mamercus dein Scaurus rursum postulatur, insignis nobilitate et orandis causis, vita probrosus. (‘Then came the second impeachment of Mamercus Scaurus, distinguished by birth and by his pleading of cases, but in life a reprobate.’ Tac. Ann. 6.29.3)

(b)

Dicit enim natio minime in testimoniis dicendis religiosa. (‘For a people that is quite without scruples in what it says is giving evidence.’ Cic. Flac. 23)

17.35 Subordinate clauses at the adverb phrase level Subordinate clauses at the adverb phrase level are rare, for understandable reasons: there is a risk of an overload of information. Two examples are (a) and (b).

 (a)

Subordinate clauses with nouns, adjectives, and adverbs . . . nequis iniussu vilici exierit neque vilicus iniussu domini longius quam ut eodem die rediret . . . (‘. . . no one shall leave the farm without the direction of the overseer, nor the overseer without the direction of the master, for longer than so as to return on the same day . . .’ Var. R. 1.16.5)

(b)

(sc. oratio) . . . qua praecepta salutis et laudis apte ad persuadendum edat suis civibus . . . (‘. . . by which he might publish precepts conducive to health and praise in a manner suited to persuading his fellow-citizens . . .’ Cic. Leg. 1.62) Supplement: Nam et vera esse et apte ad repraesentandam iram deum ficta possunt. (Liv. 8.6.3); . . . sed is est orator qui de omni quaestione pulchre et ornate et ad persuadendum apte dicere . . . possit. (Tac. Dial. 30.5); . . . gressum reciperavi, nondum quidem ad innitendum idonee, sed . . . (Apul. Flor. 16.23–4)

CHAPTER 18

Relative clauses

18.1 Introduction Relative clauses consist minimally of a relative expression and a finite verb form (rarely a historic infinitive—see § 7.71, Appendix, and § 7.122—or an accusative and infinitive clause—see § 15.107). There are two types of expressions involving relatives: relative words and relative phrases. Latin has three classes of relative words: relative pronouns, relative adjectives, and relative adverbs. The most common relative pronoun is qui, quae, quod ‘who’, ‘which’, illustrated by (a). Ex. (b) shows the use of the relative adjective qualis, here used as a subject complement with es. Ex. (c) illustrates the use of the relative adverb ubi. (a)

Nam improbus est homo qui beneficium scit accipere et reddere nescit. (‘For a man who knows how to receive a good turn, but doesn’t know how to return it, is worthless.’ Pl. Per. 762)

(b)

Pariter suades qualis es. (‘Your advice is of the same quality as you are.’ Pl. Rud. 875)

(c)

Ubi se adiuvat, ibi me adiuvat. (‘When she’s helping herself, she’s helping me.’ Pl. Per. 304)

Relative phrases consist of a head noun or noun phrase and a relative determiner or a relative adjective that modifies that noun or noun phrase. An example of a relative determiner is quibus . . . dictis in (d); of a relative adjective, quale bellum in (e). (d)

Quibus est dictis dignus usque oneremus ambo. (‘Let’s both burden him with the words he deserves.’ Pl. Mer. 978)

(e)

In hoc . . . bello, quale bellum nulla umquam barbaria cum sua gente gessit . . . (‘In this war, . . . a war such as no tribe of barbarians ever fought among its own people . . .’ Cic. Catil. 3.25)

As a comparison of (a) and (d) shows, qui, quae, quod can be used both as a pronoun and as a determiner. Most scholars use the terms ‘substantival’ and ‘adjectival’ to distinguish between these two uses (for determiners, see § 3.8 and §§ 11.25–8).

The Oxford Latin Syntax. Harm Pinkster, Oxford University Press (2021). © Harm Pinkster. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199230563.003.0018

472

Relative clauses Instances in Late Latin of utterances which look like a combination of a main clause with a relative clause in which a relative pronoun is missing are mentioned by Sz.: 532. Just as in other types of clauses and sentences a finite verb (and other constituents) may be absent for various reasons.

Latin has a large number of relative words, some more common than others. Many are built with qu-, of which the most frequent are cited in Table 18.1 (for examples see the OLD). Not included are most of the indefinite relative pronouns and adverbs. Latin has formations with  -cumque ‘-ever’ as in quicumque ‘whoever’, ‘whatever’ (from Early Latin onwards), many of which are attested from Cicero’s time onwards. Reduplicated forms of the type quantusquantus ‘however great’ and ubiubi ‘wherever’ are also present from Early Latin onwards. In Silver or Late Latin other formations are used as well, with -libet (such as quantuslibet ‘however great’ (from Quintilian onwards)) and with  -vis (for instance, quivis ‘whoever’ (fourth century ad)). Table 18.1 A survey of Latin relative words pronoun/determinera

qui ‘who’, ‘that’, quicumque ‘whoever’, ‘whatever’, quisque ‘whoever’, ‘whatever’ (rare), quisquis ‘whoever’, ‘whatever’ (all attested from Early Latin onwards), uter ‘whichever (person) of the two’

adjective

qualis ‘of which sort or quality’, quantus ‘of what size’ (both from Early Latin onwards), quantulus ‘of what (small) size’ (from Cicero onwards), quot ‘as many as’

adverb

(all from Early Latin onwards, unless indicated) cum (quom) ‘when’, cur (quor) ‘why’, ‘on account of which’, qua ‘by which route’, qualiter ‘in which manner’ (from Ovid onwards), quam ‘as much as’, quamdiu ‘as long as’ (from Cicero onwards), quamobrem ‘for which reason’, quando ‘at which time’, quandoque ‘at whatever time’, quanto ‘by how much’, quantopere ‘in what degree’ (from Cicero onwards), quantum ‘to what extent’, quapropter ‘wherefore’, quare ‘for which reason’ (from c.170 bc onwards), quemadmodum ‘in the manner in which’, quo ‘to which place’, quomodo ‘in the manner in which’, quotiens ‘as often as’, quotiensque ‘as often as’ (from Columella onwards), ubi ‘where’, ‘when’, unde ‘from where’, ut ‘in the same way as’ and its compounds such as sicut The use of cum (quom) as relative adverb demands special attention (see §18.38).

a

Only m. sg. forms are indicated.

As for the internal structure of relative clauses, there are no restrictions as far as arguments and adjuncts are concerned. The relative pronoun may be expanded with a secondary predicate, such as maesti in (f) and meorum . . . commotus in (g). Relative clauses may contain other relative clauses, as is shown in (g). For sentence type and

Types of relative clauses 473 the illocutionary force of individual types of relative clauses, see §  18.6 fin. and §§ 18.23–6. (f)

Pauci tamen boni inerant, quos reiectione fugare ille non potuerat, qui maesti inter sui dissimilis et † maerentes † sedebant et contagione turpitudinis vehementer permovebantur. (‘Even so there were a few honest men whom the accused had not been able to drive off at the challenge and who sat there, gloomy and shamefaced (?) in this incongruous party, sadly uncomfortable to feel themselves exposed to the miasma of disreputability.’ Cic. Att. 1.16.3)

(g)

An ego, qui meorum lacrimis me absente commotus simultates quas mecum habebat deposuisset, meaeque salutis non modo non oppugnator, ut inimici mei putarant, sed etiam defensor fuisset, huius in periculo non significarem dolorem meum? (‘Would you have me exhibit no symptoms of grief when danger threatened one who had been so affected by the tears of my dear ones, when I myself was far away, that he had waived his old differences with me, and, so far from standing forth, as my enemies had anticipated, as the assailant of my well-being, had actually become its champion?’ Cic. Planc. 76)

Relative adjectives and adverbs are treated separately in §§ 18.34–9. The sections that follow are mainly about the pronoun/determiner qui and related relative words.1

18.2 Types of relative clauses Relative clauses in Latin can function at three different levels: at the level of the noun phrase, of the adjective phrase, or of the clause. In the first case they function as attribute of a noun or noun phrase and can be compared with adjectives. In the second case they function as argument of adjectives (for example, dignus). In the third case they function among other things as argument or satellite and so are functionally equivalent to nouns and noun phrases.2 The second type will be left out of account for the moment. A detailed discussion can be found in § 18.19. The first usage at the level of the noun and noun phrase is illustrated by (a) and (b). (a)

Eo praesente homini extemplo ostendit symbolum / quem tute dederas ad eum ut ferret filio. (‘In his presence he promptly showed him the token, the one you yourself had given your son to bring to him.’ Pl. Bac. 263–4)

1 Relative clauses have received much attention, both in general linguistics and in studies of Latin. Major contributions are Touratier (1980), Lehmann (1984), Lavency (1998a), and Pompei (2011c). For indications of the relative frequency of relative clauses and participial constructions in various authors, see Calboli (2006). For the frequency of use of relative clauses by various authors, see Meyers (2019: 280). 2 For these two types of relative clauses, see Touratier (2002), with references.

474 (b)

Relative clauses Mercurius, Iovis qui nuntius perhibetur, numquam aeque patri / suo nuntium lepidum attulit quam . . . (‘Mercury, who is said to be Jupiter’s messenger, never brought his father a message as delightful as . . .’ Pl. St. 274–5)

In (a), the relative clause quem tute dederas ad eum ut ferret filio functions as attribute of the noun symbolum, which in turn is the head of the relative clause. The relative pronoun quem refers to the same entity as symbolum; in other words, it is coreferential with symbolum. In its clause, quem functions as the object, while symbolum is the object of the main clause. A common label for the head of a relative clause is antecedent, but in reality relative clauses do not always follow their heads. In this Syntax the term ‘head’ is used in most cases. Ex. (b) resembles (a) in that qui is coreferential with Mercurius, but the semantic relationship between the relative clause and its head in (b) is less close than in (a): in (a), the relative clause is essential for a correct understanding of which token is meant, while in (b) it contains supplementary information; Mercurius is well-known and omission of the relative clause does not result in an incomprehensible or bizarre text. The relative clause in (a) will be called restrictive, the one in (b) non-restrictive (often called appositive). In spoken Latin, the two types of relative clauses were probably distinguished by intonation, with a pause before the non-restrictive type. These two types of relative clauses, which both function as attribute at the noun phrase level, are called adnominal relative clauses in this Syntax. The term ‘adnominal’ is slightly misleading since it suggests that the relative clause always modifies a noun. In reality an adnominal relative clause often modifies a noun phrase. This can be seen in (c), where quae Caryatides dicuntur modifies the entire phrase statuas marmoreas muliebres stolatas and not statuas alone. Also, nonrestrictive relative clauses can be used with personal pronouns and with anaphoric and anaphorically used pronouns (see § 18.6). (c) . . . si quis statuas marmoreas muliebres stolatas, quae Caryatides dicuntur, pro columnis in opere statuerit . . . (‘. . . if anyone in his work sets up, instead of columns, marble statues of longrobed women, which are called caryatids. . .’ Vitr. 1.1.5)

The use of relative clauses at the clause level is illustrated by (d) and (e), the former with a relative pronoun (qui), the latter with a relative phrase (qui homo). These clauses differ from (a) and (b) in that there is no head constituent in the main clause: they are ‘headless’ relative clauses. In this Syntax, they are called autonomous relative clauses. Other scholars use the term ‘nominal relative clause’,3 or ‘free relative clause’. In (d), the clause qui amat functions as the subject of the main clause misera affligitur aerumna. In English it could be translated as ‘a lover’. In his translation de Melo has added he, which functions more or less as an antecedent of who. In contemporary English some form of antecedent is required with who, but in ‘archaic English’ 3 So, for example, Quirk et al. (1985: 1056) and Lavency (1998a). Lehmann (1984: 45) has the term ‘substantivisch.’

Types of relative clauses 475 one could say who holds the sea, perforce doth hold the land.4 With what an antecedent is excluded, as in What happened upset him and I love what I do.5 Generally speaking, there are more restrictions on this type of relativization in English than in Latin. Likewise in (e), qui homo mature quaesivit pecuniam functions as the subject of the main clause mature esurit. There is no possibility of translating this into English while keeping the structure of the Latin. The difference between (e) and (f)—an adnominal relative clause—is that qui in (f) has an ‘external’ head that belongs to another clause, whereas qui in (e) has an ‘internal’ head within its own clause.6 But note that de Melo uses the same translation: ‘a man who’. (d)

Edepol qui amat . . . misera affligitur aerumna. (‘Truly, he who is in love . . . is struck by miserable sorrow.’ Pl. Cur. 142)

(e)

Qui homo mature quaesivit pecuniam / . . . mature esurit. (‘A man who has made money quickly . . . goes hungry quickly.’ Pl. Cur. 380–1)

(f)

O Libane, uti miser est homo qui amat. (‘Oh Libanus! How wretched is a man who’s in love.’ Pl. As. 616)

The essential difference between adnominal and autonomous relative clauses is that the former function at the level of the noun phrase (as attribute), whereas the latter function at the level of the clause, as subject, object, or in other functions (see § 18.16). They can also function at the level of the adjective phrase (see § 18.19). Autonomous relative clauses are often described as a variant of adnominal relative clauses, that is, as relative clauses of which the head is ‘omitted’7 or is incorporated into or ‘contained’8 in the relative clause. An objection to this analysis is that the frequency of the autonomous type (see below) is such that there is no need to regard the adnominal type as the original one from which the autonomous type is a deviation. Also, the syntactic behaviour of autonomous relative clauses is very different from that of adnominal relative clauses.9 In Dutch the adnominal relative pronoun (die, dat) is formally distinct from the autonomous relative pronoun (wie, wat).

As to the frequency with which these types of relative clauses are used, this varies with the type of text and the author involved. Table 18.2 gives an impression of the frequency in a number of texts.10 Note that the percentage of autonomous relative clauses is far from negligible. (For connective relative clauses, see § 18.28.) 4 Example taken from The New Oxford Dictionary of English s.v. who. The Dutch equivalent with wie is fully acceptable. 5 See Quirk et al. (1985: 1056–9). Whoever relative clauses are also less restricted. 6 Some scholars use the term ‘internally headed relative clause’, e.g. Fabb (1999: 321). 7 So Allen and Greenough § 307 c. The idea that with autonomous relative clauses a head is missing is already expressed by Priscian 17.128.8–14K. 8 As in Quirk et al. (1985: 1056). 9 See Serbat (1988b: 37–43) on the failure to describe all varieties of relative clauses in terms of ‘adjectival clauses’. For the need to deal with the two types of relative clauses separately, see Taylor (1951: 238). 10 Frequency data can also be found in Addabbo (2001) and Fruyt (2019c), on Cato Agr.; Serbat (1988b: 37–43), on Ter., Pl. Aul., Cic. Off. 1, Apul. Met. 11; Fruyt (2019d), on Sen. Nat. See also Pompei (2011c: 529–39) for diachronic considerations. The research for Table 18.2 was done by Jeremy Brightbill.

476

Relative clauses

Table 18.2 Relative frequency (in %) of types of relative clauses (50 clauses per text)  

Pl. Cic. Cic. Caes. Liv. Plin. Tac. Rud. Att. Catil. Civ. 3 9 Nat. 2 Ann. 1

Lucr. 3

Verg. Ov. A.1 Met.1

Autonomous

40

54

48

24

50

40

32

28

26

26

Adnominal

58

38

34

58

42

52

54

54

66

56

Restrictive

18

16

Non-restrictive 40 Connective

2

22 8

18 16 18

18 40 18

16 26 8

12 40 8

18 36 14

10 44 18

20 46 8

12 44 18

A notable feature of Latin, which proves that there is a fundamental difference between the two types of relative clauses, is the co-occurrence of an adnominal relative expression and an autonomous one within the same complex sentence, a form of ‘interlacing’ as discussed in § 14.20. Examples are (g)–(i). In (g), there is an adnominal relative clause quam . . . indicabunt. The pronoun quam, which is coreferential with conscientiae, fulfils no function in relation to indicabunt, but is the object in the autonomous relative clause quam qui neglegunt, which itself is the subject of indicabunt. Ex. (h) is comparable. (g)

. . . magna vis conscientiae, quam qui neglegunt, cum me violare volent, se ipsi indicabunt. (‘. . . there is great power in conscience and those who ignore it will give themselves away when they want to do me violence.’ Cic. Catil. 3.27)

(h)

. . . quis est qui eum hostem non existimet quem qui armis persequantur conservatores rei publicae iudicentur? (‘. . . who is there who does not regard him as an enemy, when those who pursue him with arms are considered the saviours of the State?’ Cic. Phil. 3.14)

A more complicated example is (i). It contains an adnominal relative clause with the pronoun quo and necesse est as the main verb; the pronoun is coreferential with bonum. It is the object of potiatur and displays the corresponding case marking (ablative); qui is the subject of the clause. Quo qui potiatur is an autonomous relative clause which is the subject of beatus sit; the clause quo qui potiatur . . . beatus sit is the subject of necesse est (ut): it is necessarily the case that the possessor of this good is happy. In ( j), an instance of relative connexion (see § 18.28), quod refers to the preceding text. (i)

(cum) id . . . bonum solum sit quo qui potiatur necesse est beatus sit . . . (‘since that alone is good which necessarily makes him who possesses it happy . . .’ Cic. Fin. 5.83)

( j)

Ergo et hi numeri sint cogniti et genus illud tertium explicetur quale sit, numerosae et aptae orationis. Quod qui non sentiunt quas auris habeant aut quid in his hominis simile sit nescio.

Types of relative clauses 477 (‘Now that we have learned the nature of this kind of rhythm, let us proceed to explain the third topic—the well-knit rhythm of prose. There are some people who do not feel this, but I do not know what sort of ears they have, nor whether they are human at all.’ Cic. Orat. 168)

In all these examples the first pronoun is coreferential with a constituent in the preceding clause (or with the clause as a whole or a more extended text). Thus, the pronoun is ‘adnominal’. The second relative pronoun belongs to an autonomous relative clause that has its own function in a superordinate clause.11 The use of an adnominal relative expression within an autonomous relative clause is a common feature of the Classical prose of Caesar and Cicero, but is less frequent in other authors. Supplement:12 Quae (sc. arma) qui non habuerint, eos inermos fuisse vinces. (Cic. Caec. 61); Non enim eloquentem quaero neque quicquam mortale et caducum sed illud ipsum, cuius qui sit compos, sit eloquens. (Cic. Or. 101); (sc. Epicurus) Est enim, quod tibi ita videri necesse est, non satis politus iis artibus quas qui tenent eruditi appellantur. (Cic. Fin. 1.26); Nihil est enim virtute amabilius, quam qui adeptus erit ubicumque erit gentium a nobis diligetur. (Cic. N.D. 1.121); Qualia igitur ista bona sunt quae qui habeat miserrimus esse possit? (Cic. Tusc. 5.45); Aequiculis autem in Italia et in Alpibus natione Medullorum est genus aquae, quam qui bibunt efficiuntur turgidis gutturibus. (Vitr. 8.3.20); Susis autem, in qua civitate est regnum Persarum, fonticulus est, ex quo qui biberint, amittunt dentes. (Vitr. 8.3.23); Spiracula vocant, alii Charonea, scrobes mortiferum spiritum exhalantes, item in Hirpinis Ampsancti ad Mephitis aedem locum, quem qui intravere moriuntur. (Plin. Nat. 2.208); Nam sunt quaedam cognata, ut dicunt, id est eiusdem generis, in quibus qui alia specie quam oportet utetur, non minus quam ipso genere permutato deliquerit. (Quint. Inst. 1.5.49) The examples above should not be confused with other complex formations involving relative pronouns, such as those in which an adnominal relative clause contains another subordinate clause (e.g. a satellite clause), as in (k), or an autonomous relative clause, as qui audiunt ‘the listeners’ in (l)—quem is not object of audiunt, but subject of the accusative and infinitive clause, which in turn is the object of arbitrantur—or where an adnominal relative clause modifies an autonomous relative clause, as in (m), or where the entire utterance is anacoluthic, as in (n). (k) (M. Horatius ille Pulvillus), qui, cum eum multi propter invidiam fictis religionibus impedirent, restitit . . . (‘. . . Horatius Pulvillus, who, when many men were moved by jealousy to interfere with his actions on false pleas of religious hindrances, still stood his ground . . .’ Cic. Dom. 139) 11 A generative explanation is given by Maurel (1989) and Danckaert (2012). For examples, see also Ambrosini (1992: 174–8). 12 Most of the examples are taken from K.-St.: II.315–19.

478

Relative clauses (l) Magna est enim admiratio copiose sapienterque dicentis quem qui audiunt intellegere etiam et sapere plus quam ceteros arbitrantur. (‘For there is great admiration for the eloquent and judicious speaker, and those who hear him judge him to have greater understanding and wisdom than all others.’ Cic. Off. 2.48) (m) Quicquid eiusdem generis habebis dignum Academia tibi quod videbitur, ne dubitaris mittere et arcae nostrae confidito. (‘Anything you may have of the same sort which you think suitable for the Academy, don’t hesitate to send it and trust my purse.’ Cic. Att. 1.9.2) (n) Edepol ne me eius patris misere miseret, qui quom istaec sciet / facta ita, amburet ei misero corculum carbunculus. (‘Honestly, I feel terribly sorry for his father; once he knows what’s been done, a coal will burn this wretched man’s poor heart.’ Pl. Mos. 985–6) Supplement: Non laudandu’st quoi plus credit qui audit quam qui videt. (Pl. Truc. 487); Mihi autem aequius videbatur Zenonem cum Polemone disceptantem, a quo quae essent principia naturae acceperat . . . (Cic. Fin. 4.45); Est autem infima condicio et fortuna servorum, quibus non male praecipiunt qui ita iubent uti ut mercennariis: operam exigendam, iusta praebenda. (Cic. Off. 1.41); Propositum hoc est de quo qui rerum potiuntur sunt dimicaturi . . . (Cael. Fam. 8.14.2); Decessit filius tuus, id est, decucurrit ad hunc finem, ad quem quae feliciora partu tuo putas properant. (Sen. Dial. 6.11.2); Simile est regnum caelorum thesauro abscondito in agro quem qui invenit homo abscondit . . . (Vulg. Mat. 13.44) Also with other types of subordinate clauses: Itaque illud indecorum, quod quale sit ex decoro debet intellegi, hic quoque apparet . . . (Cic. Orat. 82); Errare mehercule malo cum Platone, quem tu quanti facias scio . . . (Cic. Tusc. 1.39); De decumis, de civium Romanorum condicione in arationibus disputo, qui quem ad modum essent  accepti, iudices, audistis ex ipsis. (Cic. Ver. 3.59); Sed eo vidisti multum, quod  praefinisti quo ne pluris emerem. (Cic. Fam. 7.2.1—NB: quo is an ablativus comparationis)13

18.3 Adnominal relative clauses 18.4 Semantic types of adnominal relative clauses Adnominal relative clauses are sometimes called ‘adjective clauses’.14 For adnominal relative clauses, the relationship between the relative and its head does indeed resemble that between an adjective and its head noun. Their function can therefore be said to be that of an attribute. In § 18.2 two types of adnominal clauses are distinguished: restrictive and non-restrictive. The following sections deal with these two types. 13 See K.-St.: II.210.

14 ‘Adjektivsätze’ in German. For discussion, see Touratier (2011).

Adnominal relative clauses 479

18.5 Restrictive relative clauses Several subtypes of restrictive relative clauses can be distinguished. In (a), the relative clause serves to identify which symbolum is meant: it is thus an identifying relative clause. In (b), the relative clause specifies what kind of slave is useful: this type is called descriptive. The modifiers in both examples reduce the number of possible referents of the heads. However, the distinction between the two types is not always obvious. (a)

Eo praesente homini extemplo ostendit symbolum / quem tute dederas ad eum ut ferret filio. (‘In his presence he promptly showed him the token, the one you yourself had given your son to bring to him.’ Pl. Bac. 263–4)

(b)

Servi qui, quom culpa carent, tamen malum metuont, / i solent esse eris utibiles. (‘Those slaves who fear a thrashing even when they’re free from guilt are generally useful to their masters.’ Pl. Mos. 858–9)

Just like noun phrases in general (see §§ 11.100–8), a noun phrase consisting of a head and its relative clause may be definite, as in (a), or indefinite, as in (c). Ex. (b) illustrates a generic noun phrase containing a relative clause. Note that in (b) the constituent servi qui . . . metuont as a whole is resumed by the anaphoric pronoun i. (c)

Adulescens venit modo qui id argentum attulit. (‘A young man’s just come who has brought this money with him.’ Pl. As. 337) Supplement: Identifying relative clauses: . . . ut ego tua magnufica verba neque istas tuas magnas minas / non pluris facio quam ancillam meam quae latrinam lavat. (Pl. Cur. 579–80); Cum factum tuum gratum omnibus debet esse, tum vero oratio qua recitatis litteris usus es. (Cic. Phil. 10.1); Miraculo primo esse Romanis qui proximi steterant, ut nudari latera sua sociorum digressu senserunt. (Liv. 1.27.7); Nervus ex quo testiculus dependet plenior fit, simulque indurescit. (Cels. 7.18.11); Oppida Aegae, in quo sepeliri mos reges, Beroea et in regione quae Pieria appellatur a nemore, Aeginium. (Plin. Nat. 4.33) Descriptive relative clauses: Habe’n tu amicum aut familiarem quempiam / quoi pectus sapiat? (Pl. Trin. 89–90); Sunt enim certa vitia quae nemo est quin effugere cupiat. (Cic. de Orat. 3.41); Utrisque ad animum occurrit unum esse illud tempus quo maxime contendi conveniat. (Caes. Gal. 7.85.2); Mali etiam morbi signum est . . . habere sudores non per totum corpus aequales quique febrem non finiant; et eas febres quae quotidie tempore eodem revertantur; quaeve semper pares accessiones habeant, neque tertio quoque die leventur; quaeve sic continuent, ut . . . (Cels. 2.4.4–5); Obiecisti mihi ultimum nefas et quod qui tantum suspicatus est noluit vivere. (Sen. Con. 8.3.fin.) Descriptive adnominal relative clauses are traditionally called ‘consecutive’, ‘generic’, or ‘generalizing’, just like the autonomous relative clauses discussed in §  18.26.

480

Relative clauses Likewise, the subjunctive in these clauses is sometimes called ‘generic’ or ‘consecutive’.15

In many instances, as in (a)–(c) at the beginning of this section, it is the context or the situation that provides the information necessary to decide whether a noun phrase containing a restrictive relative clause is definite or indefinite. However, the definiteness or indefiniteness of a noun phrase may also be explicitly indicated. Definiteness may be expressed by one of the demonstrative determiners (hic, ille, iste, as in (d) and (e)). Indefinite noun phrases may be marked explicitly as specifying by quidam (see § 11.114) or as just indefinite by aliqui (see § 11.111), as in (f) and (g), respectively. (d)

Et hic qui poscet eam sibi uxorem senex, / is adulescentis est illius avunculus / qui illam stupravit noctu, Cereris vigiliis. (‘And this old man who’s going to ask for her hand, he’s the uncle of that young fellow who violated her chastity by night during the vigil held in honour of Ceres.’ Pl. Aul. 34–6)

(e)

Ubi sunt isti scortatores qui soli inviti cubant? (‘Where are those lechers who are lying alone against their will?’ Pl. Am. 287)

(f)

Illam minorem in concubinatum sibi / volt emere miles quidam qui illam deperit. (‘A certain soldier, who is passionately in love with that younger one, wants to buy her to become his concubine.’ Pl. Poen. 102–3)

(g)

Nam pater exspectat aut me aut aliquem nuntium / qui hinc ad se veniat. (‘Your father is expecting either me or some other messenger who is coming to him from here.’ Pl. Capt. 382–3) Supplement: Postea L. Sulla homo . . . cum eius rei quaestionem hac ipsa lege constitueret qua vos hoc tempore iudicatis, populum Romanum . . . adligare novo quaestionis genere ausus non est. (Cic. Clu. 151); Argumentum evidens, quod omnia superiora e caelo decidentia (sc. fulmina) obliquos habent ictus, haec autem quae vocant terrena rectos. (Plin. Nat. 2.138) Numquam edepol fuit neque fiet ill’ senex insanior / ex amore quam ille adulescens quoi ego do hanc operam, pater. (Pl. Mer. 446–7); Ego cum illo quocum tum uno rem habebam hospite / abii huc. (Ter. Eu. 119–20); . . . si Philonem, illum architectum qui Atheniensibus armamentarium fecit, constat perdiserte populo rationem operis sui reddidisse . . . (Cic. de Orat. 1.62); . . . Eandem hanc aliqui esse dicunt, alii similem illi (sc. herba) quam militarem vocant . . . (Plin. Nat. 24.168) Qua re istam orationem qua es usus omittas licet, post illam sententiam quam dixeram de annona pontificum animos esse mutatos. (Cic. Dom. 31) Etiam opilio qui pascit, mater, alienas ovis / aliquam habet peculiarem qui spem soletur suam. (Pl. As. 539–40); si . . . neque aliquod negotium exstiterit quod honeste subterfugere non possit . . . (Cic. Agr. 1.26); Quod si te, Cotta, arbitrarer aut te, Sulpici, 15 ‘Generic’, for example, Woodcock (1959: 114–19); ‘consecutive’, Roby (1882: 294).

Adnominal relative clauses 481 de iis rebus audire velle, adduxissem huc Graecum aliquem qui nos istius modi disputationibus delectaret. (Cic. de Orat. 1.104); Esse aliquam in terris gentem quae sua impensa . . . bella gerat . . . (Liv. 33.33.5) Est ei quidam servos qui in morbo cubat . . . (Pl. Cas. 37); Hic quandam noram quoi(u)s vir uxorem . . . (Ter. Ph. 941); Ennium esse quendam cuius bona teneat Habitus. (Cic. Clu. 163); Appositus erat Venuleius quidam qui emeret. (Cic. Ver. 3.99); Quod non tam interfuit mea . . . quam rei publicae, quod erant quidam improbi qui contentionem fore aliquam mihi cum Pompeio ex rerum illarum dissensione arbitrarentur. (Cic. Att. 1.19.7)

Is is not infrequently used as a determiner of noun phrases with a restrictive relative clause.16 A head noun may also be understood from the context, as with iis (digitis) in ( j). If the restrictive clause is identifying, the regular mood is the indicative, as in (h)–( j); if the clause is descriptive, the mood is the subjunctive, as in (k) and (l). Is indicates that not just any person or thing will do, but only ‘the very one’ with the specifics mentioned.17 (h)

Coquos equidem nimis demiror, qui utuntur condimentis, / eos eo condimento uno non utier omnibus quod praestat. (‘I’m highly surprised that cooks, who use spices, don’t use this one spice which surpasses all others.’ Pl. Cas. 219–20)

(i)

Meruisse vero stipendia in eo bello quod tum populus Romanus non modo maximum sed etiam solum gerebat virtutis . . . fuit. (‘However, by serving in the war which was the most important—in fact the only— war then being fought by the Roman people he gave proof of his bravery.’ Cic. Mur.  12)

( j)

In digitis nihil ultra fieri debet, quam quod in iis qui sunt in manu positum est. (‘For the toes nothing else is required than what was laid down for the fingers.’ Cels. 6.24)

(k)

Cape, opsecro hercle, cum eo una iudicem / —sed eum videto ut capias qui credat mihi. (‘Please, choose an arbitrator together with him (but make sure that you choose one who believes me).’ Pl. Mos. 557–8)

(l)

Non sum autem ego is consul qui, ut plerique, nefas esse arbitrer Gracchos laudare . . . (‘I am not one of those consuls who, like the majority, think it a crime to praise the Gracchi . . .’ Cic. Agr. 2.10)

16 For the instances of is . . . qui in Caesar, see Lavency  (1996a). See also Vester  (1989: 342), Lavency (1998a: 30–1), and Pompei (2011b: 71–2). 17 See Lehmann (1984: 290) and his example: ‘Ich suche den Regenschirm, der unter zwanzig Mark kostet.’

482

Relative clauses Supplement: Indicative mood: Ubi is homo est quem dicis? (Pl. Truc. 826); Nam impediebantur, verum ea lege quam idem iste de Macedonia Syriaque tulerat. (Cic. Dom. 70); At Sugambri ex eo tempore quo pons institui coeptus est . . . finibus suis excesserant . . . (Caes. Gal. 4.18.4); . . . tertiae cohortis centuriones ex eo quo stabant loco recesserunt . . . (Caes. Gal. 5.43.6); . . . in eo volumine quod scripsit Nicodoro Atheniensium magistratu, qui fuit urbis nostrae CCCCXL anno. (Plin. Nat. 3.58) Subjunctive mood: Non enim latroni, sed regi credidit, nec regi inimico populi Romani, sed ei cuius reditum consuli commendatum senatu videbat, nec ei regi ([ei] Olechowska) qui alienus ab hoc imperio esset, sed ei quicum foedus feriri in Capitolio viderat. (Cic. Rab. Post. 6); Nam et legem ullam omnino abrogari est indignatus, et eam praecipue legem quae luxuriae muliebris coercendae causa lata esset. (Liv. 34.6.1); Idem tradit in Paphlagonia effodi pisces . . . in iis locis in quibus nullae restagnent aquae . . . (Plin. Nat. 9.178—NB: the subjunctive may be oblique) Is in the examples above does not have its regular anaphoric function. Combinations of is + noun + relative where is is indeed anaphoric are extremely rare. In such instances the relative clause is of course non-restrictive.18

Noun phrases that consist of a head noun and a restrictive relative clause may be modified in various other ways, for example by quantifiers like nonnulli, omnes, or pauci. This is shown by (m)–(o). In general, there are no restrictions on the type of determiner allowed. (m)

Adhuc neminem cognovi poetam . . . qui sibi non optumus videretur. (‘So far I have known no poet . . . who did not think himself the best.’ Cic. Tusc. 5.63)

(n)

H[u]ic quoque accidit—quod fuit necesse—ut nonnulli milites qui lignationis munitionisque causa in silvas discessissent repentino equitum adventu interciperentur. (‘In his case also it happened—as was inevitable—that some soldiers who had gone off into the woods to get timber for entrenching were cut off by the sudden arrival of the enemy’s horsemen.’ Caes. Gal. 5.39.2)

(o)

Huc omnes mulieres quibuscum iste consuerat conveniebant . . . (‘All the women with whom he had associated came together here.’ Cic. Ver. 5.30)

(p)

. . . ut intellegatis, quantam locus ipse adferat superbiam, quae paucis diebus quibus illo colonia deducta est perspici atque intellegi potuit. (‘. . . so you may understand what pride the very place inspires, as could be clearly seen and understood within the first few days during which the colony was established.’ Cic. Agr. 2.92)

As is shown above, a noun phrase that consists of a head noun and a restrictive relative clause can contain determiners like hic or ille. This combination may be referred to with a resumptive pronoun which indicates the function of the preceding noun phrase in the main clause, usually the anaphoric pronoun is. A resumptive pronoun 18 See TLL s.v. is 474.63ff. Vester (1989: 342) denies the existence of such instances.

Adnominal relative clauses 483 seems to be preferred if the entity to which it refers continues to be the topic of the following sentence.19 Examples from Plautus are (q) (repeated from (d) above)–(s). Note that in (q) and (r) hic . . . senex and pallam illam have the same case form as the resumptive pronouns, which is the case required in their clause. In (s), by contrast, the cases are different and, moreover, hunc chlamydatum has the same case as the relative pronoun quem, an instance of attractio inversa (see § 18.8). The combination of head noun + adnominal relative clause followed by a resumptive pronoun resembles some of the theme constituents discussed in § 22.14.20 (q)

Et hic qui poscet eam sibi uxorem senex, / is adulescentis est illius avunculus / qui illam stupravit noctu, Cereris vigiliis. (‘And this old man who’s going to ask for her hand, he’s the uncle of that young fellow who violated her chastity by night during the vigil held in honour of Ceres.’ Pl. Aul. 34–6)

(r)

Immo edepol pallam illam, amabo te, quam tibi dudum dedi, / mihi eam redde. (‘No by Pollux, please return that mantle I gave you a while ago.’ Pl. Men. 678–9)

(s)

Hunc chlamydatum quem vides, / ei Mars iratu’st. (‘This man in a cloak you can see, Mars is angry with him.’ Pl. Poen. 644–5)

The various possibilities for head nouns + restrictive relative clauses are expressed in Table 18.3. The brackets () mark optional elements. Table 18.3 The structure of head nouns and restrictive relative clauses (Determiner)

Noun + Relative clause

(Resumptive pronoun)

(hic)

vir qui . . .

(is)

Restrictive relative clauses are not excluded in the case of proper names. Consider for instance the phrase the young Cicero (as opposed to Cicero when he was old) in English. Examples are (t)–(v). (t) Qui Phormio? # Is (sc. Phormio) qui istanc— (‘Which Phormio? # The one who got the girl.’ Ter. Ph. 618) (u) Ei mihi qualis erat, quantum mutatus ab illo / Hectore qui redit exuvias indutus Achilli . . . (‘Ah me, what aspect was his! How changed he was from that Hector who returns after donning the spoils of Achilles . . .’ Verg. A. 2.274–5)

19 See Halla-aho (2018: 138–45). 20 A few more instances can be found in Lodge s.v. is 845A.§ 9; TLL s.v. ille 349.13ff. For a more complete survey, see Halla-aho (2018).

484

Relative clauses (v) Se quoque eundem dictatorem Mam. Aemilium esse qui antea Veientium Fidenatiumque adiunctis Faliscis ad Nomentum exercitus fuderit . . . (‘That he was himself the same dictator Mamercus Aemilius who had formerly put to flight the armies of the Veientes and the Fidenates, with the Faliscans added, before Nomentum . . .’ Liv. 4.32.3)

Restrictive adnominal relative clauses cannot be interrogative or imperative, unlike non-restrictive ones (for which, see § 18.6, (h)–( j)). Modern languages are said not to allow attitudinal or illocutionary disjuncts in such cases, but there is no evidence to prove or disprove this claim for Latin.21

18.6 Non-restrictive relative clauses Non-restrictive (or appositive) adnominal relative clauses differ from the restrictive ones discussed above in two essential ways. In the first place, their head is (presented as) known to the speaker and hearer. Since the head is definite itself, the relative expression does not serve to restrict the number of possible referents, but instead provides supplementary information. The second essential difference is clause-internal: non-restrictive relative clauses have their own sentence type. In this respect, they resemble independent sentences. Examples of definite heads are (a)–(g). In (a) and (b), the heads are proper names. In (c) and (d), they are personal pronouns. In (d), the demonstrative pronoun illa functions similarly. In (e), there is an unexpressed (but known) addressee. Ex. (f) illustrates a non-restrictive adnominal relative clause with anaphoric eos, which refers to Brutis in the preceding sentence.22 Frequently the head is introduced in the preceding context, as in (f), or it is known by common knowledge, as in (g). It is sometimes possible to replace the relative clause by a parenthetical independent clause such as eam vir insontem probri Amphitruo accusat in (a). (a)

Simul Alcumenae, quam vir insontem probri / Amphitruo accusat, veni ut auxilium feram. (‘At the same time I’ve come to bring help to Alcumena, whom her husband Amphitruo is accusing of adultery, even though she’s innocent.’ Pl. Am. 869–70)

(b)

Si erum vis Demaenetum, / quem ego novi, adduce. (‘Bring along your master Demaenetus, whom I do know, if you please.’ Pl. As. 354–5)

(c)

Io, / io, te, te tyranne, te ego, qui imperitas Pseudolo, quaero . . . (‘Io, Io! You, you, ruler, you, who command Pseudolus, you I seek . . .’ Pl. Ps. 702–3)

(d)

Id duae nos solae scimus: ego, quae illi dedi, / et illa, quae a me accepit . . . (‘This we two alone know: I who gave the girl to her and she who took her from me.’ Pl. Cist. 145–6)

21 For discussion, see Touratier (1980: 284–9). 22 For discussion of this example, see Pompei (2011c: 449–50).

Adnominal relative clauses 485 (e)

Salve, qui me interfecisti paene vita et lumine . . . (‘And my greetings to you, who have almost deprived me of life and light . . .’ Pl. Truc. 518)

(f)

Quod est tibi cum Brutis bellum? Cur eos, quos omnes paene venerari debemus, solus oppugnas? (‘What war you have with the Bruti? Why do you alone attack those men, whom we are all bound almost to worship?’ Cic. Phil. 10.4)

(g)

In lege autem, quam attingere noluerit, praesidii nihil fuisse. (‘But that the statute, on which he declined to dwell, afforded him no protection.’ Cic. Clu. 156) Supplement: Quis tu homo es? / # Libertus illius, quem omnes Summanum vocant. (Pl. Cur. 412–13); . . . melanthi acetabulum, quod medici vocant zmurnaeum, conterito . . . (Cato Agr. 102.1); Nunc te patria, quae communis est parens omnium nostrum, odit ac metuit . . . (Cic. Catil. 1.17); C.  Marius . . . Q.  Metellum, cuius legatus erat, summum virum et civem, . . . criminatus est . . . (Cic. Off. 3.79); Haec duo Graeci illi, quorum copiosior est lingua quam nostra, uno nomine appellant. (Cic. Tusc. 2.35); Erat aeger in praesidio relictus Publius Sextius Baculus, qui primum pilum apud Caesarem duxerat, cuius mentionem superioribus proeliis fecimus, ac diem iam quintum cibo caruerat. (Caes. Gal. 6.38.1); Bellovaci autem defectione Haeduorum cognita, qui ante erant per se infideles, manus cogere atque aperte bellum parare coeperunt. (Caes. Gal. 7.59.2); . . . Larisamque—non illam in Thessalia nobilem urbem, sed alteram, quam Cremasten vocant—subito adventu praeter arcem cepit. (Liv. 31.46.12); Militavi senex, militavi exsanguis, militavi qui iam vicarium dederam. (Sen. Con. 8.5.med.—NB: parallelism with secondary predicates); . . . in eo volumine, quod scripsit Nicodoro Atheniensium magistratu, qui fuit urbis nostrae CCCCXL anno. (Plin. Nat. 3.58); In hoc tractu interierunt Boi, quorum tribus CXII fuisse auctor est Cato, item Senones, qui ceperunt Romam. (Plin. Nat. 3.116); Oro te, Romule Arpinas, qui egregia tua virtute omnis Paulos Fabios Scipiones superasti, quem tandem locum in hac civitate obtines? ([Sal.] Cic. 7)

Non-restrictive adnominal relative clauses share certain properties with independent sentences with relative connexion, to such an extent that the two types often cannot be distinguished. This is especially the case when the relative clause follows the clause that contains its head noun. Frequency counts of relative connexion in the same text show different results and the punctuation of texts varies considerably.23 There are three distinctive properties that non-restrictive adnominal relative clauses and sentences with relative connexion have in common. The first regards sentence type. Most relative clauses are declarative, but they can also be interrogative or imperative. Examples are (h)–( j). In (h) and (i) the relative clauses have imperative verb forms. In ( j) note the interrogative adverb quid.24 23 See Bolkestein (1996a: 554–6). 24 See Lehmann (1984: 271); Touratier (1980: 428); Suárez (2012: 169–76).

486 (h)

Relative clauses Hic ille iam vertetur orbis, cuius naturalem motum atque circuitum a primo discite adgnoscere. (‘At this point that orbit will turn, with whose natural motion and circular course you must become acquainted from its beginning.’ Cic. Rep. 2.45)

(i)

Multas ad res perutiles Xenophontis libri sunt, quos legite quaeso studiose, ut facitis. (‘Xenophon’s writings are very instructive on many subjects, and I beg you to keep reading them studiously as you have been doing.’ Cic. Sen. 59)

( j)

Navigabit igitur, cum erit tempus, maximis classibus et ad Italiam accedet, in qua nos sedentes quid erimus? (‘He will take to the sea, therefore, as soon as the season permits, with an enormous fleet, and will approach the shores of Italy: and what then will be our position who remain there doing nothing?’ Cic. Att. 10.8.4) Supplement: Itaque haesitantem te . . . ad communem ambitus causam contulisti, in qua desinamus aliquando, si videtur, vulgari et pervagata declamatione contendere. (Cic. Planc. 47); . . . primum M. Metellum amicissimum, deinde Hortensium consulem non solum, sed etiam Q. Metellum, qui quam isti sit amicus attendite. (Cic. Ver. 26); Hic · tumulus · Fructi sacer · est ·, quem · laedere · noli, / hospes. (CIL VI.5767.2–3 (Rome)) Capitalis oratio est ad aequationem bonorum pertinens, qua peste quae potest esse maior? (Cic. Off. 2.73)

The second property is that non-restrictive adnominal relative clauses and sentences with relative connexion may have the form of an accusative and infinitive construction. An example is (k). Further examples can be found in § 15.107. (k)

Intellegitur enim a beata inmortalique natura et iram et gratiam segregari; quibus remotis nullos a superis inpendere metus. (‘For it is understood that from the nature of a blessed and immortal being both anger and favour are excluded and that, with these removed, no terrors hang over us from the gods above.’ Cic. N.D. 1.45)

The third common property is the acceptability of the particle quidem, of the adverb tamen, and of attitudinal disjuncts such as profecto and peropportune, in (l)–(o), respectively. See also § 18.24 fin. for quin, ut, and utpote.25 (l)

Reliqua vero multitudo, quae quidem est civium, tota nostra est . . . (‘However, the rest of this throng, so far as it consists of citizens, is entirely ours . . .’ Cic. Mil. 3)

(m)

Causam tibi exposuimus Ephesi; quam tu tamen coram facilius meliusque cognosces. (‘I explained the case to you in Ephesus, but you will acquaint yourself with it more easily and accurately face to face.’ Cic. Fam. 13.55.1) 25 For quidem, see Danckaert (2014: 100).

Adnominal relative clauses 487 (n)

. . . commendo vobis parvum meum filium, cui profecto satis erit praesidi . . . (‘. . . I entrust to you my little son, who will surely receive protection enough . . .’ Cic. Catil. 4.23)

(o)

Tandem relatum responsum quibusdam, quia nimis cupere Romanus pacem videbatur, iniquis per occasionem adiectis, quae peropportune cupienti tollere indutias Scipioni causam praebuere. (‘At last the answer was returned. Because the Roman seemed extremely desirous of peace, certain unreasonable terms were adroitly added, which most opportunely offered a pretext to Scipio, who desired to denounce the truce.’ Liv. 30.4.8)

18.7 The function of the relative expression in the relative clause Relative words and phrases fulfil various functions within their own clauses (both adnominal and autonomous). This is demonstrated in the examples below with the relative pronoun qui. In (a)—autonomous—and (b)—adnominal—qui functions as the subject; in (c)—autonomous—quod is the object of amat. In qua and a quibus in (d) and (e), respectively, are place satellites. In (f), qua functions as the basis of comparison with pulchrior (for more examples, see § 20.7). In (g), quoius functions at the noun phrase level and modifies imaginem. The case form of the relative pronoun is the normal one required by the structure of its clause, with rare exceptions (see § 18.8). Relative words and phrases also function in non-finite clauses, notably the ablative absolute construction. Examples are (h) and (i). (a)

Sat habet favitorum semper qui recte facit, / si illis fides est quibus est ea res in manu. (‘A man who always acts correctly has enough supporters, if those can be trusted in whose hands this is.’ Pl. Am. 79–80)

(b)

O Libane, uti miser est homo qui amat. (‘Oh Libanus! How wretched is a man who’s in love.’ Pl. As. 616)

(c)

Ipsus se excruciat qui homo quod amat videt nec potitur, dum licet. (‘He who sees what he loves and doesn’t take advantage while he may merely tortures himself.’ Pl. Cur. 170)

(d)

Videsne igitur vel in ea ipsa urbe, in qua et nata et alta sit eloquentia, quam ea sero prodierit in lucem? (‘You see thus even in that city in which eloquence was born and grew to maturity, how late it stepped forth into the light of day?’ Cic. Brut. 39)

(e)

Inde iam duxit ad Alcen urbem, ubi castra Celtiberorum erant, a quibus venerant nuper legati. (‘From there he next led his troops to the town of Alce, where the camp of the Celtiberians lay from which the ambassadors had recently come.’ Liv. 40.48.1)

488 (f)

Relative clauses . . . ecce ad me advenit / mulier, qua mulier alia nulla est pulchrior. (‘. . . lo and behold, a woman came to me, than whom no other woman is more beautiful.’ Pl. Mer. 100–1)

(g)

Nunc hodie Amphitruo veniet huc ab exercitu / et servos, quoius ego hanc fero imaginem. (‘Now today Amphitruo will come here from the army, and also his slave, whose likeness I bear.’ Pl. Am. 140–1)

(h)

Quarum prima pars est quae ducitur ab ea ratione quae docet esse deos. Quo concesso confitendum est eorum consilio mundum administrari. (‘Of these parts, the first issues from the principle that propounds that the gods do exist; if this is granted, it must be admitted that the world is governed by their wisdom.’ Cic. N.D. 2.75)

(i)

Nam Cassiae legis culpam Scipio tuus sustinet, quo auctore lata esse dicitur. (‘Your beloved Scipio received the blame for the Cassian Law, since his support is said to have made its enactment possible.’ Cic. Leg. 3.37)

The grammatical gender of a relative pronoun in an adnominal relative clause is determined by agreement with the head constituent. For discussion, see the sections on cross-clausal agreement (§ 13.27, § 13.28, and § 13.33). Occasionally, the pronoun agrees with something that is implied by a modifier of the head constituent, that is there is some form of notional agreement, as in ( j), where plural quos can be explained by the fact that the head servili tumultu implies a plurality of slaves.26 The instances cited in the literature only concern non-restrictive relative clauses. ( j)

Factum etiam nuper in Italia servili tumultu, quos tamen aliquid usus ac disciplina quam a nobis accepissent sublevarent. (‘Danger also came about recently in Italy, during the rebellion of the slaves, whom, however, the experience and training which they had received from us assisted to some degree.’ Caes. Gal. 1.40.5) Supplement: Hoc dicendi genus ad patrocinia mediocriter aptum videbatur, ad senatoriam vero sententiam, cuius erat ille princeps, vel maxume. (Cic. Brut. 112); Certamina domi finita. Veiens bellum exortum, quibus Sabini arma coniunxerant. (Liv. 2.53.1); † regis † haec Romana esse, non versutiarum Punicarum neque calliditatis Graecae, apud fallere hostem quam vi superare gloriosius fuerit. (Liv. 42.47.7); Tu vero, cui numerati sunt capilli nostri, errore omnium qui mihi instabant ut discerem utebaris ad utilitatem meam, meo autem, qui discere nolebam, utebaris ad poenam meam, qua plecti non eram indignus tantillus puer et tantus peccator. (August. Conf. 1.19)

26 For references, see Pompei (2011c: 467) and Sz.: 439.

Adnominal relative clauses 489

18.8 Exceptional case marking of relative expressions As is stated and shown in § 18.7, the case form of a relative expression is normally determined by its function within the relative clause. There are, however, exceptions to this general rule in which the case form of the relative expression is the same as that of its head in the main clause.27 The term used for this phenomenon is attraction (attractio relativi). Examples are (a) and (b), with quo instead of expected quod in (a) and quibus instead of expected quos in (b). The only Latin author with a considerable number of instances (thirteen) is Gellius. There are relatively many instances of this phenomenon in the Bible translations, following the Greek original.28 (a)

. . . notante / iudice quo nosti, populo, qui stultus honores / saepe dat indignis . . . (‘. . . even when rated by the people—the judge you know so well, who in folly often gives office to the unworthy . . .’ Hor. S. 1.6.14–16)

(b)

. . . quibus poterat sauciis ductis secum . . . ad urbem proximis itineribus pergit. (‘. . . he carried with him such of the wounded as he was able and took the nearest road to the City.’ Liv. 4.39.9) Supplement: Si solitudine delectare, cum scribas et aliquid agas eorum quorum consuesti, gaudeo neque reprehendo tuum consilium. (Lucc. Fam. 5.14.1); (sc. Hostius Quadra) fecit . . . specula huius notae cuius modo rettuli imagines longe maiores reddentia . . . (Sen. Nat. 1.16.2); Atque haec quidem in his quibus dixi libris pervulgata sunt. (Gel. 10.23.1); ‘Suprema’ multa est eius numeri cuius diximus ultra quem multam dicere in dies singulos ius non est . . . (Gel. 11.1.3); . . . ex necessitate qua diximus . . . (Tert. Mon. 3.5); . . . vel si . . . una de duabus . . . aliam tali quali diximus radiatione respexerit. (Firm. Mat. 3.6.31); Et reversi sunt pastores . . . laudantes Deum in omnibus quibus audierunt et viderunt (Vet. Lat. Luc. 2.20—copying Greek §.ā .ľ}tx zÊ| ·uz}lx; cf. in omnibus quae . . . Vulg.); Conprehenduntur in consiliis quibus cogitant. (Vulg. Ps. 9.23) Cf.: Ut vero iam equitum clamor exire iubentium instabat . . . raptim quibus quisque poterat elatis cum larem ac penates tectaque . . . relinquentes exirent, iam continens agmen migrantium inpleverat vias . . . (Liv. 1.29.4–5) In the following instance from Ovid, Hall and other editors read quod instead of quo, which is found in some of the manuscripts. In this way, they also eliminate a clearly unexplainable form of attraction: Elige nostrorum minimum quodcumque malorum. / Isto, quod reris, grandius illud erit. (Ov. Tr. 5.6.35–6).

27 See K.-St.: II.287ff.; 289ff.; Sz.: 566ff. According to Kurzová (1981: 48), ‘attractio’ is much more frequent in Greek, whereas in Latin ‘attractio inversa’ occurs more often. See also Comrie (1989: 146–8) and Lehmann (1984: 306–8) on other languages. For possible Greek influence, see Calboli (2009: 168–9), with references. 28 The material is collected by Foerster (1902). Discussion in Thomas (1956: 317–19).

490

Relative clauses A very exceptional case is the following, where in quo is equivalent to quem (some mss. read quo without a preposition, as in the Greek original): . . . in viro in quo statuit fidem praebens omnibus . . . (Vulg. Act. 17.31).29

Some of the instances given above resemble instances like (c) at first sight. The difference is that in (c) it is not difficult to supply from the context a verb form with which the case of the relative pronoun is fully understandable. There are, of course, also instances where it is difficult to decide whether a verb should be supplied.30 (c)

Scire hoc vis? # Hac quidem causa qua dixi tibi. (‘Do you really want to know? # Yes, for the reason I’ve already told you.’ Ter. Hau. 87—sc. Hac causa scire volo, qua me scire velle tibi dixi.) Supplement: . . . nulla beatior possit esse . . . et delectatione qua (v.l. quam; de qua cj. Opitz) dixi et saturitate (Cic. Sen. 56); Nos tamen hoc confirmamus illo augurio quo diximus . . . (Cic. Att. 10.8.7) NB: Ibi Cn. Scipio cum quibus ante dictum est copiis substitit. (Liv. 25.32.10); Singilis fluvius in Baetim quo dictum est ordine inrumpens Astigitanam coloniam adluit . . . (Plin. Nat. 3.12) Attraction is also found in the idiomatic expression qui et (vocatur), as in (d).31 (d) Cyprianus qui et Thascius Florentio cui et Puppiano fratri s(alutem). (‘Cyprian, who is also called Thascius, sends greetings to his brother Florentius, who is also called Puppianus.’ Cypr. Ep. 66—NB: parallelism)

Less infrequent than attraction is the reverse phenomenon inverse attraction (attractio inversa): in these cases the head has the case form of the relative expression. There are a significant number of instances in Plautus, but it is rare in later texts and is not found in high literature. Examples are (e)–(h). In (e), Naucratem is the subject of the main clause and therefore the nominative would be appropriate. A similar case presents itself in (f), unless we take quem as determiner of eunuchum (see § 18.15). In (g), illis is picked up by i, which has the expected nominative form. In (h), ill’ is picked up by the resumptive eum. See also § 22.14 on theme constituents.32 (e)

Naucratem, quem convenire volui, in navi non erat . . . (‘Naucrates, whom I wanted to get hold of, wasn’t on the ship . . .’ Pl. Am. 1009)

(f)

Eunuchum quem dedisti nobis quas turbas dedit! (‘That eunuch you gave us, what trouble he’s caused!’ Ter. Eu. 653)

29 A few cases of attraction are discussed by Löfstedt (1985: 79). 30 Full discussion in Touratier (1980: 213–33). See also Powell ad Cic. Sen. 56. More elliptical instances can be found in Roby (1882: § 1066) and K.-St.: II.288. 31 See Löfstedt (1911: 228) and Sz.: 413. 32 The material can be found in Bach (1888) and—Post-Classical and Late examples—Halla-aho (2016: 384–7). For discussion, see Vonlaufen (1974), Touratier (1980: 197–211), Lavency (1998a: 93–6), Álvarez Huerta (2005a; 2005b), Calboli (2014: 744–51), and Halla-aho (2018: 52–6). Touratier and Álvarez Huerta regard such cases as ‘extraposition’. See also Adams (2016: 15–17).

Adnominal relative clauses 491 (g)

Qui invident egent. Illis quibus invidetur, i rem habent. (‘Those who envy are in need. Those who are envied have money.’ Pl. Truc. 746)

(h)

. . . ill’ qui mandavit, eum exturbasti ex aedibus? (‘. . . the man who entrusted him to you—you drove him out of his home, didn’t you?’ Pl. Trin. 137) Supplement: Patronus qui vobis fuit futurus, perdidistis. (Pl. As. 621—NB: unless patronus is taken as subject complement in the relative clause, which then functions as a whole as object);33 Ego te hodie reddam madidum, si vivo, probe, / tibi, quoi decretum est bibere aquam. (Pl. Aul. 573–4); Quasi pueri qui nare discunt scirpea induitur ratis, / qui laborent minus . . . (Pl. Aul. 595–6); Nam ego has tabellas opsignatas consignatas quas fero, / non sunt tabellae . . . (Pl. Bac. 935–6); Hos quos videtis stare hic captivos duos, / illi quia astant, hi stant ambo, non sedent. (Pl. Bac. 1–2); Istos captivos duos / heri quos emi de praeda a quaestoribus, / eis indito catenas singularias . . . (Pl. Capt. 110–12); Sed istum quem quaeris ego sum. (Pl. Cur. 419); Hi qui illum dudum conciliaverunt mihi / peregrinum Spartanum, id nunc his cerebrum uritur . . . (Pl. Poen. 769–70); . . . tibicinam illam tuos quam gnatus deperit / ea circumducam lepide lenonem . . . (Pl. Ps. 528–9); Istic scelestus liber est. Ego qui in mari prehendi / rete atque excepi vidulum, ei darei negatis quicquam. (Pl. Rud. 1291–2); In creta et uligine et  rubrica et ager qui aquosus erit semen adoreum potissimum serito. (Cato Agr. 34.2);34 Sin illud quod significatur debet esse simile, Diona et Theona quos dicunt esse pene ipsi geminos, inveniuntur esse dissimiles . . . (Var. L. 8.41); . . . cognosce · amicum · hunc · quem / speraveram · mi · esse · ab · eo · mihi · accusato / res · subiecti · et · iudicia · instaurata . . . (AE 1964.160.3–5 (Pompei)—NB: the accusative in amicum hunc may be due to preceding cognosce as a false start of an accusative and infinitive clause); . . . hunc adulescentem quem vides malo astro natus est. (Petr. 134.8); Illum quem despicis pauperem largus et dives est. (Firm. Err. 18.6); In summitatem ipsius fabricam quam vides ecclesia est. (Pereg. 13.4); . . . et sermonem quem audistis non est meus sed eius qui misit me Patris. (Vulg. Jo. 14.24—NB: the Greek text has Ô v†nz| Öx)

A similar form of attraction is found with adverbs, as in (i)–( j).35 (i)

Quia illim unde huc advecta sum malis bene esse solitum est. (‘Because in the place where I was brought from it’s usually the bad girls who have a good time.’ Pl. Mer. 511)

( j)

Indidem unde oritur facito ut facias stultitiam sepelibilem. (‘Mind that you make your silliness ready for burial in the place from which it originates.’ Pl. Cist. 62)

33 As Halla-aho (2018: 51–2) takes it. 34 Lehmann (1984: 350) regards ager as not governed by the preposition in and as a theme (in my terminology, see § 22.14). See also Adams (2016: 74–5). 35 As noted by Löfstedt (1911: 216). See also Sz.: 567.

492

Relative clauses

18.9 The syntactic functions of heads with an adnominal relative clause Adnominal relative clauses can be combined with heads that belong to various categories and have various syntactic functions. As is shown above, the heads may be nouns and noun phrases (including proper names) as well as pronouns (especially personal, demonstrative, and anaphoric pronouns). In Latin, there are no restrictions on the syntactic function of these heads in their main clause.36 This is shown by the following examples of relative clauses with the head adulescens in Plautus. Statistically, relative clauses are most common with subject constituents.37 (a)

Adulescens venit modo qui id argentum attulit.

subject

(‘A young man’s just come who has brought this money with him.’ Pl. As. 337)

(b)

Adulescenti qui puellam ab eo emerat / ait . . .

indirect object

(‘To the young man who had bought the girl from him he said . . .’ Pl. Rud. 59–60)

(c)

. . . pro illo adulescente quem tu esse aibas divitem.

satellite

(‘For the sake of that young fellow who you used to say was rich.’ Pl. Trin. 428)

(d)

. . . is adulescentis est illius avunculus / qui illam stupravit . . .

attribute

(‘. . . he is the uncle of that young fellow who violated her chastity . . .’ Pl. Aul. 35–6)

18.10 Interlacing of adnominal clauses with other subordinate clauses In comparison with what is possible in English, it is remarkable that adnominal relative clauses can be used inside other subordinate clauses, both finite (relative, argument (including interrogative), and satellite clauses) and non-finite (infinitival and participial clauses), in various functions. English grammars have no special term for this phenomenon. In this Syntax the term interlacing will be used.38 This phenomenon is quite common in Classical prose, but Plautus already has instances of relative connexion that exhibit such interlacing (see §  18.28). Instances of interlacing of adnominal and autonomous relative clauses have been treated in § 18.2. In (a), quae is coreferential with omnia; it is the subject of ne fieri possent. This clause, in turn, is the object in the superordinate clause senatus perfecerat. In (b), the second quod refers to ‘what cannot be refused’ in the preceding text and is the object of the conditional clause. In (c), the relative quarum is governed by potiendi (spe), a force adjunct with 36 Lehmann (1984: 213–14) and Pompei (2011b: 80; 2011c: 482) observe that there are no instances of relative clauses attached to an adnominal prepositional phrase, but this may well be due to chance. 37 For a typological study of the constituents with which relative clauses can be combined, see Lehmann  (1986). For Latin relative clauses in a typological perspective based on Caes. Gal., see Pompei (2011a; 2011b: 78–88). 38 The German term is ‘relative Verschränkung und Verschmelzung’ (‘crossing and merging’) (K.-St.: II.315); cf. Sz.: 568–9. Rosén (1999: 165–73) uses the term ‘interlacing’. Mihaileanu (1907) has a complete survey of Cicero’s usage. I have not been able to consult Kunst  (1908). For a generative approach, see Maurel (1989). Bortolussi (2005: 490) has a table on Cicero’s use of the various types of clauses with which interlacing occurs. Danckaert (2012) discusses relative clauses in a broader context of expressions that may precede a subordinator.

Adnominal relative clauses 493 the passive participle inflammati, which functions as secondary predicate in its clause. In (d), qua is governed by usum, which is a secondary predicate with the object eum with Plato facit (see § 21.7). When the relative clause is interlaced with a finite subordinate clause the relative expression precedes the subordinator, as in (a), (b), and (e).39 (a)

Omnia perfecit quae senatus salva republica ne fieri possent perfecerat. (‘He accomplished all that the senate had managed to prevent from being done so long as the Republic survived.’ Cic. Phil. 2.55)

(b)

O rem miseram! Si quidem id ipsum deterrimum est quod recusari non potest, et quod ille si faciat, iam a bonis omnibus summam ineat gratiam. (‘A wretched situation indeed if the worst of all contingencies is something which cannot be refused and which, should he accept it, would make all the honest men immediately and heartily grateful to him!’ Cic. Att. 7.9.3)

(c)

Nullas enim consequuntur voluptates, quarum potiendi spe inflammati multos labores magnosque susceperant. (‘For they never attain any of the pleasures, inflamed by the hope of acquiring which they undertook many great labours.’ Cic. Fin. 1.60)

(d)

Quae est igitur eius oratio, qua facit eum Plato usum apud iudices iam morte multatum? (‘What then is the speech which Plato represents him as having given before his judges when condemned to death?’ Cic. Tusc. 1.97)

(e)

Auctore utar Simonide, de quo cum quaesivisset hoc idem tyrannus Hiero, deliberandi sibi unum diem postulavit. (‘I shall follow the example of Simonides, who having the same question put to him by the great Hiero, requested a day’s grace for consideration.’ Cic. N.D. 1.60) Supplement:40 . . . permansit hoc ius terra humandi. Quam41 quom proxumi fecerant obductaque terra erat . . . (Cic. Leg. 2.63); Is enim fueram, cui cum liceret aut maiores ex otio fructus capere quam . . . non dubitaverim . . . (Cic. Rep. 1.7); Cum quibus cum discubuisset rex, paulisper epulatus convivio egreditur. (Curt. 8.5.9); . . . nec Alpes aliae sunt, quas dum superant comparari nova possint praesidia. (Liv. 21.41.15); Odio enim tui, in quo etsi omnis propter tuum in me scelus superare debeo, tamen ab omnibus paene vincor, sic sum incitatus ut . . . (Cic. Vat. 1); ‘Noli, oro te’, inquit Pomponius, ‘adversum eos me velle ducere, cum quibus ne contra te arma ferrem, Italiam reliqui.’ (Nep. Att. 4.2); At ego basilicus sum, quem nisi oras, guttam non feres. (Pl. Rud. 431); Nonnumquam etiam in olea unus ramus ceteris aliquanto est laetior, quem nisi recideris, tota arbor contristabitur. (Col. 5.9.18); Ex quo exsistit et illud, multa esse probabilia, quae quamquam non perciperentur, tamen . . . his sapientis vita regeretur. (Cic. N.D. 1.12—NB: resumptive his); . . . Arcadas insuetos acies inferre pedestris / ut

39 For quantitative data concerning the preposing of relative pronouns and phrases and other constituents, see Danckaert (2012: 121). 40 Most of the examples in the Supplement are taken from K.-St.: II.315–19. 41 Editors read quod, but see Löfstedt (1942/1933: II.146). Further references in Dyck (2004) ad loc.

494

Relative clauses vidit Pallas Latio dare terga sequaci, / aspera quis (= quibus) natura loci dimittere quando / suasit equos . . . / nunc prece, nunc dictis virtutem accendit amaris. (Verg. A. 10.364–8);42 . . . corona a populo data est . . . quam quod amor civium et non vis expresserat, nullam habuit invidiam magnaque fuit gloria. (Nep. Thr. 4.1); Atque edepol in eas plerumque esca imponitur, / quam si quis avidus poscit escam avariter, / decipitur in trasenna avaritia sua. (Pl. Rud. 1237–9); Fuit . . . talis, quales si omnes semper fuissent, numquam desideratus vehemens esset tribunus. (Cic. Planc. 28); Aberat omnis dolor, qui si adesset, nec molliter ferret et tamen medicis plus quam philosophis uteretur. (Cic. Fin. 2.64); ‘Video equidem’ inquam, ‘sed tamen iam infici debet iis artibus, quas si, dum est tener, combiberit, ad maiora veniet paratior.’ (Cic. Fin. 3.9); Nolo enim hunc de me optime meritum existimare ea me suasisse Pompeio quibus ille si paruisset esset hic quidem clarus in toga et princeps . . . (Cic. Fam. 6.6.5); Quod si factum esset, votum rite solvi non posse. (Liv. 31.9.7); Dedit gladiatores sestertiarios iam decrepitos, quos si sufflasses cecidissent. (Petr. 45.11 (Echion speaking)); Ceterum, dum ea res geritur, L. Sulla quaestor cum magno equitatu in castra venit, quos uti ex Latio et a sociis cogeret, Romae relictus erat. (Sal. Jug. 95.1) Indirect questions: Itaque illud indecorum, quod quale sit ex decoro debet intellegi, hic quoque apparet . . . (Cic. Orat. 82); Errare mehercule malo cum Platone, quem tu quanti facias scio et quem ex tuo ore admiror, quam cum istis vera sentire. (Cic. Tusc. 1.39); Omnia enim erant suspensa propter exspectationem legatorum, qui quid egissent nihildum nuntiabatur. (Cic. Fam. 11.8.1); Quibus omnibus ita demum similis adolescet, si imbutus honestis artibus fuerit, quas plurimum refert a quo potissimum accipiat. (Plin. Ep. 3.3.2) NB: with connecting relatives: De quo, iudices, neque quomodo dicam neque quomodo taceam reperire possum. (Cic. S. Rosc. 124); . . . ipse opinione celerius venturus esse dicitur. Cui utrum obviam procedam an hic eum exspectem cum constituero, faciam te certiorem. (Cic. Fam. 14.23) Participial secondary predicates: Illa tamquam cycnea fuit divini hominis vox et oratio, quam quasi expectantes post eius interitum veniebamus in curiam . . . (Cic. de Orat. 3.6); . . . ipsius in mente insidebat species pulchritudinis eximia quaedam, quam intuens in eaque defixus ad illius similitudinem artem et manum dirigebat. (Cic. Orat. 9); Non sunt igitur ea bona dicenda nec habenda, quibus abundantem licet esse miserrimum. (Cic. Tusc. 5.44); Quorum oratione permotus Varus praesidium quod introduxerat ex oppido educit ac profugit. (Caes. Civ. 1.13.2); . . . accepit trecentos milites, quos adhortatus ut virtute sua exercitum servarent in mediam vallem decucurrit. (Fron. Str. 1.5.15) Accusative and infinitive with connecting relative ablative absolute clause: Dixi apud pontifices istam adoptionem . . . pro nihilo esse habendam. Qua sublata intellegis totum tribunatum tuum concidisse. (Cic. Dom. 38)

18.11 Reduction of inferrable elements in adnominal relative clauses When the head of a relative pronoun is a prepositional phrase and the relative pronoun has more or less the same function in its clause as its head, a preposition that 42 For the text, usually emended, see Conte (2016: 51–2).

Adnominal relative clauses 495 would be expected may be omitted. Examples are (a)–(c). In (a), fuisse in the subordinate clause corresponds with sum in the main clause. In (b), in quibus sunt can be supplied for quibus. In (c), the verbs in the two clauses are semantically similar. The preposition is normally expressed in the relative clause if the function of the relative would become unclear, as in (d), where quos agebatur would be incomprehensible. (a)

Nam ego in ista sum sententia, qua te fuisse semper scio . . . (‘I am of the same opinion as I know you have always been.’ Cic. Leg. 3.33)

(b)

Quae sunt isdem in erratis fere quibus ea quae de Platone dicimus. (‘Utterances that involve almost the same mistakes as those which we quoted from Plato.’ Cic. N.D. 1.31)

(c)

. . . si bellatum prospere esset resque publica in eodem, quo ante bellum fuisset, statu permansisset. (‘. . . if they proved victorious and the Republic remained in the same state in which it had been before the war.’ Liv. 22.9.10)

(d)

Res agitur per eosdem creditores per quos, cum tu aderas, agebatur. (‘The business is being managed with the aid of the same creditors by whom it was managed when you were here.’ Cic. Fam. 1.1.1) Supplement: Quicum litigas, Olympio? / # Cum eadem qua tu semper. # Cum uxore’n mea? (Pl. Cas. 317–18); In eadem propemodum brevitate qua illae bestiolae reperiemur. (Cic. Tusc. 1.94); Nunc quoniam in eadem inopia egestate patientia, qua Germani, permanent, eodem victu et cultu corporis utuntur. (Caes. Gal. 6.24.4); Romanus imperator . . . urbem magnam et in ea parte, qua sita erat, arcem regni nomine Zamam statuit oppugnare . . . (Sal. Jug. 56.1); Quibus rebus cum unus in civitate maxime floreret, incidit in eandem invidiam quam pater suus ceterique Atheniensium principes. (Nep. Cim. 3.1); Prorogatum et L. Veturio Philoni est ut pro praetore Galliam eandem provinciam cum iisdem duabus legionibus obtineret quibus praetor obtinuisset. (Liv. 27.22.5); . . . cum hoc Dominus propter humilitatis formam quam docendam venerat commendaverit . . . (August. Ep. 55.33) Rerum autem amplificatio sumitur eisdem ex locis omnibus e quibus illa quae dicta sunt ad fidem. (Cic. Part. 55); Fecimus hoc in eo libro in quo nosmet ipsos, quantum potuimus, consolati sumus. (Cic. Tusc. 1.83)

When the verb of an adnominal relative clause would be the same as in the governing clause it may be omitted. Examples are (e) and (f). (e)

. . . ut haberet in consilio . . . omnis Metellos . . ., in quibus Numidicum illum . . . (‘. . . that he had as his councillors . . . all the Metelli, among whom the hero of Numidia . . .’ Cic. Red. Sen. 25)43

43 For parallels of in quibus, see Draeger (1878: I.211) and TLL s.v. in 776.84ff.

496 (f)

Relative clauses . . . eius soceri L. Pisonis avum, L. Pisonem legatum, Tigurini eodem proelio quo Cassium interfecerant. (‘. . . the Tigurini had slain Lucius Piso the lieutenant (of Cassius), the grandfather of Lucius Calpurnius Piso, his (Caesar’s) father-in-law, in the same battle as the one in which they killed Cassius.’ Caes. Gal. 1.12.7) Supplement: . . . deceperat omnes, / in quibus Aiacem, sumptae fallacia vestis. (Ov. Met. 13.163–4); Et pars equitum . . . nobilissimos Belgarum, in quis ducem Valentinum, cepit. (Tac. Hist. 4.71.5) NB: reduction in the main clause: . . . quae nullis sunt partibus aucta, / non possunt ea quae debet genitalis habere / materies . . . (Lucr. 1.631–3) These instances of reduction of verbs are often described as ellipse, but the pattern is so common that it is better to deal with these as with other forms of reduction. See § 19.3.

18.12 The relative order of the adnominal relative clause and its head The normal position of an adnominal relative clause is after its head. Instances of this order can be found passim above. There are a few instances in which the relative clause belonging to a specific head constituent is positioned farther away in the sentence, as in (a)–(c).44 Note that in (b) and (c) there is the risk of ambiguity. (a)

. . . materies illa fuit physici de qua dixit, ornatus vero ipse verborum oratoris putandus est. (‘. . . the material he spoke about belonged to the province of the natural philosopher, but the actual distinction of his language must be considered the property of the orator.’ Cic. de Orat. 1.49—tr. May and Wisse)

(b)

Sed me, iudices, non minus . . . Ser. Sulpici conquestio quam Catonis accusatio commovebat, qui gravissime et acerbissime ferre dixit me . . . (‘But, gentlemen, the complaint of Servius Sulpicius affected me no less than the accusation made by Cato, who said that he was deeply and bitterly hurt that I . . .’ Cic. Mur. 7)

(c)

Bellovaci autem defectione Haeduorum cognita, qui ante erant per se infideles, manus cogere atque aperte bellum parare coeperunt. (‘But when they learned of the revolt of the Aedui, the Bellovaci, who had previously been treacherous to one another, began to assemble forces and openly to prepare for war.’ Caes. Gal. 7.59.2) Supplement: Cavendum vero ne etiam in graves inimicitias convertant se amicitiae, ex quibus iurgia maledicta contumeliae gignuntur. (Cic. Amic. 78); Quod huic officium, quae

44 See K.-St.: II.286 and Lundström (1964: 52). For instances in Livy, see Pettersson (1930: 39, n. 2). More references in Sz.: 692.

Adnominal relative clauses 497 laus, quod decus erit tanti, quod adipisci cum dolore corporis velit, qui dolorem summum malum sibi esse persuaserit? (Cic. Tusc. 2.16)

The relative clause may also be enclosed between a determiner and its head. Examples are (d)–(g). Note that in theory quem in (f) could be taken as the determiner of numerum, the whole clause (and in that analysis, autonomous) being determined by eum, as in the second relative construction of (g). For more examples of this construction, see § 18.16. (d)

. . . exponit ea quibus abundabat plurima et pulcherrima vasa argentea . . . (‘. . . he set out those most lovely and numerous silver vessels, of which he had an ample stock.’ Cic. Ver. 4.62)

(e)

Discessu Liburnarum ex Illyrico M. Octavius cum iis quas habebat navibus Salonas pervenit. (‘At the departure of the Liburnian ships from Illyricum, Marcus Octavius went to Salonae with the ships he had available.’ Caes. Civ. 3.9.1)

(f)

. . . atque eum quem supra demonstravimus numerum expleverat. (‘. . . and had thus filled up the number I stated above.’ Caes. Civ. 3.4.6)

(g)

At ii qui in iugo constiterant . . . neque in eo quod probaverant consilio permanere, ut se loco superiore defenderent, neque eam quam profuisse aliis vim celeritatemque viderant imitari potuerunt . . . (‘But the part which had taken post on the ridge . . . could neither abide by the plan that they had approved, namely that they would defend themselves on higher ground, nor could they imitate the vigour and the speed which they had seen to be of assistance to others . . .’ Caes. Gal. 6.40.6) Supplement: . . . pro meis in vos singularibus studiis proque hac quam perspicitis ad conservandam rem publicam diligentia . . . (Cic. Catil. 4.23); . . . ea ipsa de qua disputare ordimur eloquentia obmutuit. (Cic. Brut. 22); . . . celeriter ad eas quas diximus munitiones pervenerunt . . . (Caes. Gal. 3.26.2); Ea quae secuta est hieme . . . Usipetes Germani et item Tenctheri magna multitudine hominum flumen Rhenum transierunt . . . (Caes. Gal. 4.1.1); En illa, illa quam saepe optastis libertas . . . (Sal. Cat. 20.14); . . . illa quae iniuria depulsa fuerat ancilla totam faciem eius fuligine larga perfricuit . . . (Petr. 22.1) NB: between adjective and head: Igitur Romanus qui aderat exercitus sextum post cladis annum trium legionum ossa . . . condebant. (Tac. Ann. 1.62.1)45

In prose it is uncommon for adnominal relative clauses to precede their head, but in poetry this order is not at all rare, as for instance in Ovid. Examples are (h) and (i). (h)

. . . quaeque diu steterant in montibus altis, / fluctibus ignotis insultavere carinae . . . (‘. . . and keels of pine, which long had stood upon high mountainsides, now leapt insolently over unknown waves . . .’ Ov. Met. 1.133–4)

45 For a discussion on the appropriateness of Romanus (he suggests omnis), see Goodyear ad loc.

498 (i)

Relative clauses Citati inde retro qua venerant pergunt repetere viam. (‘They thereupon hastened back to regain the road by which they had come.’ Liv. 9.2.10) Supplement: Marmora invehi, maria huius rei causa transiri quae vetaret lex nulla lata est. (Plin. Nat. 36.4)

18.13 Multiple adnominal relative clauses A complex sentence may contain more than one adnominal relative clause attached in some way to the same head constituent. Two different situations must be distinguished: (i) the same head constituent is modified by two (or more) relative clauses that have similar semantic relationships to the head constituent (both are restrictive or non-restrictive); (ii) there is a difference in hierarchical position of the relative clauses, one modifying the head constituent, the other modifying the combination of the head constituent and relative clause (see § 11.75). For the latter construction the term nesting is sometimes used. Only in the first situation is coordination possible by means of one of the coordinators ac, atque, et, que, or by zero-coordination (also called asyndetic coordination—for details see § 19.1). Examples of the first type with coordination are (a) and (b). In these examples the relative pronoun is repeated. Examples of coordination of relative clauses without repetition of the pronoun are discussed in § 18.30.46 (a)

Nolim enim mihi fingere asotos, ut soletis, qui in mensam vomant et qui de conviviis auferantur crudique postridie se rursus ingurgitent . . . (‘For I should be sorry to picture to myself, as you are so fond of doing, debauchees who vomit onto the table and who have to be carried home from dinner-parties and next day gorge themselves again when they still have indigestion . . .’ Cic. Fin. 2.23— NB: further coordination by -que)

(b)

Nos enim, qui ipsi sermoni non interfuissemus et quibus C. Cotta tantummodo locos ac sententias huius disputationis tradidisset, quo in genere orationis utrumque oratorem cognoveramus, id ipsum sumus in eorum sermone adumbrare conati. (‘For I was not present at the actual conversation, and have learned from Gaius Cotta only the general lines of the argument and the ideas brought forward in this discussion. So in reporting their conversation, I have tried to sketch exactly the type of speech that each of the two orators used, as I had come to know it.’ Cic. de Orat. 3.16—tr. May and Wisse) Supplement: Tum piscatores qui praebent populo piscis foetidos, / qui advehuntur quadrupedanti crucianti cantherio, / quorum odos subbasilicanos omnis abigit in forum, / eis ego

46 For further instances of repeated relative pronouns in Cicero, see Lebreton (1901b: 103–5).

Adnominal relative clauses 499 ora verberabo . . . (Pl. Capt. 813–16); Quin mihi ancillulam ingratiis postulat, / quae mea est, quae meo educta sumptu siet, / vilico suo se dare. (Pl. Cas. 193–5); Quin etiam leges latronum esse dicuntur quibus pareant, quas observent. (Cic. Off. 2.40); . . . (sc. Belgae) proximique sunt Germanis, qui trans Rhenum incolunt, quibuscum continenter bellum gerunt. (Caes. Gal. 1.1.3); Confidentes garrulique et malevoli supra lacum, / qui alteri de nihilo audacter dicunt contumeliam / et qui ipsi sat habent quod in se possit vere dicier. (Pl. Cur. 477–9); Homines qui gestant quique auscultant crimina, / si meo arbitratu liceat, omnes pendeant . . . (Pl. Ps. 427–8); . . . cum iis una Commium, quem ipse Atrebatibus superatis regem ibi constituerat, cuius et virtutem et consilium probabat, et quem sibi fidelem esse arbitrabatur, cuiusque auctoritas in his regionibus magni habebatur, mittit. (Caes. Gal. 4.21.6–7); . . . ex adverso terrebat tanta vis navium cum ingenti sono fluminis et clamore vario nautarum militum, et qui nitebantur perrumpere impetum fluminis et qui ex altera ripa traicientes suos hortabantur. (Liv. 21.28.1–2)

Examples of nesting are (c)–(e). In these cases the first relative clause is restrictive, the second non-restrictive. Note in (c) the subjunctive in the first, restrictive, clause; the indicative in the second, non-restrictive clause. The difference in grammatical relation between the two clauses was probably also reflected in intonation. Editors sometimes use a comma to mark the difference, as in the examples below, but there is both individual and national variation. (c)

Histriones eos vidimus quibus nihil posset in suo genere esse praestantius, qui non solum in dissimillimis personis satis faciebant, cum tamen in suis versarentur, sed . . . (‘We have seen actors whose superiors in their own class cannot be found, who not only gained approval in utterly different parts while confining themselves to their own proper spheres of tragedy and comedy, but . . .’ Cic. Orat. 109)

(d)

Quam copiose ab eo agri cultura laudatur in eo libro qui est de tuenda re familiari, qui Oeconomicus inscribitur! (‘With what copious eloquence is agriculture lauded in his book that treats of the management of estates, which is entitled The Householder!’ Cic. Sen. 59)

(e)

Quid? Illa vis quae tandem est quae investigat occulta, quae inventio atque excogitatio dicitur? (‘Again, what, I ask, is the power which investigates hidden secrets, which is known as discovery and contrivance?’ Cic. Tusc. 1.62) Supplement: Affatim est hominum in dies qui singulas escas edint, / quibus negoti nihil est, qui esum nec vocantur nec vocant. (Pl. Men. 457–8); Habet enim certos sui studiosos qui non tam habitus corporis opimos quam gracilitates consectentur, quos, valetudo modo bona sit, tenuitas ipsa delectat . . . (Cic. Brut. 64—NB: variation of mood); Sed omnium oratorum sive rabularum qui et plane indocti et inurbani aut rustici etiam fuerunt, quos quidem ego cognoverim, solutissimum in dicendo et acutissimum iudico nostri ordinis Q. Sertorium, equestris C. Gargonium. (Cic. Brut. 180); Quae lex hanc sententiam continet, ut omnes leges tollat quae postea latae sunt, quae

500

Relative clauses tegunt omni ratione suffragium, ne quis inspiciat tabellam, ne roget, ne appellet. (Cic. Leg. 3.38); Tenebam enim quosdam senariolos quos in eius monumento esse inscriptos acceperam, qui declarabant in summo sepulcro sphaeram esse positam cum cylindro. (Cic. Tusc. 5.64)

18.14 Adjectives and other constituents related to the relative expression instead of to the head Cicero in particular tends to use adjectives and exceptionally other words seemingly as secondary predicates in relation to the relative pronoun, where an expression with the adjective as attribute of the head in the superordinate clause is a viable alternative. Examples are (a)–(d). What is noteworthy about many of these cases is that the adjectives in question are not normally used as secondary predicates, since they do not refer to temporary states of the entity to which they are related (see §  21.3). Florentissima ‘when it was extremely flourishing’ in (c) comes closest to the regular use of secondary predicates.47 (a)

Nemini credo qui large blandu’st dives pauperi. (‘I don’t trust any rich man who is over-polite to a poor one.’ Pl. Aul. 196)

(b)

Mittit rogatum vasa ea quae pulcherrima apud eum viderat . . . (‘He sent to ask for the loan of the most beautiful vessels he had seen at his house . . .’ Cic. Ver. 4.63)

(c)

. . . eam civitatem in qua ipse florentissima multum omnibus gloria praestitisset. (‘. . . the community in which even at its most flourishing he himself far excelled all others in glory.’ Cic. de Orat. 3.8)

(d)

Sed tum umido die et soluto gelu neque conti neque gladii quos praelongos utraque manu regunt usui . . . (‘On this occasion, however, the day was wet and the snow melting: they could not use their pikes or the long swords which they wield with both hands . . .’ Tac. Hist. 1.79.3) Supplement: In is (sc. fabulis) quas primum Caecili didici novas / partim sum earum exactu’ . . . (Ter. Hec. 14–15); Iam misericordia movetur, si is qui audit adduci potest, ut illa quae de altero deplorentur, ad suas res revocet quas aut tulerit acerbas aut timeat, ut intuens alium crebro ad se ipsum revertatur. (Cic. de Orat. 2.211); Hoc vere tamen licet dicere P.  Scipioni ex multis diebus quos in vita celeberrimos laetissimosque viderit, illum diem clarissimum fuisse, quom . . . (Cic. Amic. 12); Veniat Caesar cum copiis quas habet firmissimas . . . (Planc. Fam. 10.23.6); . . . consiliis pare, quae nunc pulcherrima Nautes / dat senior. (Verg. A. 5.728–9); . . . exaugurare fana sacellaque statuit, quae aliquot ibi, a Tatio rege primum in ipso discrimine adversus Romulum pugnae vota, consecrata inaugurataque postea fuerant. (Liv. 1.55.2—NB: the use of aliquot, 47 See Touratier (1980: 400–8).

Autonomous relative clauses

501

a  quantifier, is remarkable); Id unum dignum tanto apparatu consiliorum et certamine quod ingens exsudandum esset praemium fore. (Liv. 4.13.4); Masinissa fiducia maxime loci confisus quo multo aequiore pugnaturus erat et ipse dirigit suos. (Liv. 29.33.4); Ex virginibus autem quae speciosae sunt captae, ut in Perside, ubi feminarum pulchritudo excellit, nec contrectare aliquam voluit nec videre . . . (Amm. 24.4.27); . . . de vinculo quidem desiderii concubitus, quo artissimo tenebar, et saecularium negotiorum servitute quemadmodum me exemeris, narrabo . . . (August. Conf. 8.13) NB: Also with a so-called partitive genitive: Mittuntur etiam ad eas civitates legati quae sunt Citerioris Hispaniae finitimae Aquitaniae. (Caes. Gal. 3.23.3)

18.15 Autonomous relative clauses Autonomous relative clauses function as argument or satellite at the sentence or clause level (for details, see §  18.16).48 They fulfil the same functions as nouns and noun phrases. For this reason they are sometimes called ‘substantival’, ‘nominal’, or ‘nominalized’ relative clauses. They are also called ‘free’ or ‘independent’ relative clauses. In this Syntax they are called autonomous relative clauses, as opposed to the ‘adnominal’ ones of §§ 18.3–14. Latin has two types of autonomous relative clauses. The first type contains a relative pronoun, relative adjective, or relative adverb; the second consists of a relative determiner and a head noun or noun phrase. Exx. (a)–(c) illustrate autonomous relative clauses of the first type, with a relative pronoun. Supplex in (a) is the subject complement, which for number and gender agrees with the person referred to by qui deliquit. Its case (nominative) is in agreement with the function the relative clause fulfils (subject). In (b), the relative clause qui vidit is the object of invenio. In (c), the relative clause qui . . . epistulam is at the same level as erum and lenonem. Together they function in apposition to tris, the object in the main clause. In (a)–(c), the case form of the relative pronoun is determined by its function in the relative clause (as with adnominal relative clauses). Number and gender are determined by the referent of the relative clause. (a)

Ut qui deliquit supplex est ultro omnibus! (‘How the delinquent is willing to fawn on everyone!’ Pl. Bac. 1024)

(b)

Si invenio qui vidit, ad eum vineam pluteosque agam. (‘If I find the one who’s seen her, I’ll move all my siege equipment against him.’ Pl. Mil. 266)

(c)

Nunc ego hac epistula / tris deludam, erum et lenonem et qui hanc dedit mi epistulam. (‘With this letter I’ll now deceive three people, my master and the pimp and the man who gave me this letter.’ Pl. Ps. 690–1)

48 For other views on the role of these relative clauses, see Pompei (2011c: 460–2), with references. For Greek, see Probert (2015: 71–3) on ‘relative clauses of the third kind’.

502

Relative clauses Autonomous relative clauses of this type can be used as a substitute for deverbal nouns (abstract and concrete) and are therefore relatively common in technical prose, especially as paraphrases or translations of Greek terminology, for example qui laborat = ‘the patient’.49 Supplement: Instances of coordination: Eo die feriae bubus et bubulcis et qui dapem facient. (Cato Agr. 132.1); Hae rei materiam et quae opus sunt dominus praebebit. (Cato Agr. 14.3); In hac discordia video Cn. Pompeium senatum quique res iudicant secum habiturum . . . (Cael. Fam. 8.14.3); Horum vocibus . . . milites centurionesque quique equitatui praeerant perturbabantur. (Caes. Gal. 1.39.5); Quod postquam Scipio quique cum eo erant cognoverunt . . . (B.  Afr. 57.1); Inde ruunt alii . . . et acutae vocis Hylactor / quosque referre mora est. (Ov. Met. 3.209–25); L. Atilio, praefecto praesidii, quique cum eo milites Romani erant clam in portum deductis . . . (Liv. 24.1.9); . . . Tiberiumque ipsum victoriarum suarum quaeque in toga per tot annos egregie fecisset admonuit. (Tac. Ann. 1.12.3)

Exx. (d)–(f) are instances of autonomous relative clauses with a relative phrase consisting of a relative determiner and a head noun. In (d), the relative clause quam . . . virginem is the subject of the clause ut ei detur. In (e), qui . . . dubiis is the subject of nauci non erit. In (f), quae . . . oblata is the object of suscepi. The number, gender, and case of the relative determiners are determined by their respective head nouns. The determiner normally precedes its head. Exx. (g) and (h) are different in that the relative phrase consists of a relative pronoun and a noun or noun phrase in the genitive (a so-called genetivus partitivus). Note that in (h) the relative clause is coordinated with sua omnia by praeterquam. (d)

. . . ut ei detur quam istic emi virginem . . . (‘. . . that the girl whom I purchased there be given to him . . .’ Pl. Cur. 433)

(e)

Qui homo timidus erit in rebus dubiis nauci non erit. (‘Someone who is timid in emergencies won’t be worth a farthing.’ Pl. Mos. 1041)

(f)

. . . quae prima innocentis mihi defensio est oblata suscepi . . . (‘. . . I undertook the first defence of an innocent man that was offered me . . .’ Cic. Sul. 92)

(g)

. . . navium quod ubique fuerat unum in locum coegerant. (‘. . . they had collected in one place every single ship they had anywhere.’ Caes. Gal. 3.16.2)

(h)

Integraque sua omnia, praeterquam quod vini cibique absumptum erat, receperunt. (‘And they recovered all their possessions in their entirety, except for the wine and food that had been consumed.’ Liv. 41.4.4)

49 See Nägelsbach and Müller  (1905: 168–72). For instances in medical prose, see Langslow  (2000: 396–408; 418–30). For Cicero’s use of relative clauses in his translation of Plato’s Timaeus to render Greek definite expressions, see Meyers (2011). For the use of autonomous relative clauses in the Vulgate translation of the Bible and in Augustine, see Bortolussi and Sznajder (2017).

Autonomous relative clauses

503

Supplement: L. · Aemilius · L. · f. · inpeirator · decreivit / utei · quei · hastiensium · servei / in · turri · Lascutana · habitarent / leiberei · essent. (CIL I2.614.1–4 (Gades, 189 bc)); Scyphos quos utendos dedi Philodamo, rettulitne? (Pl. As. 444); Quod tibi nomen est fecit mihi. (Pl. Men. 1128); Agrum quem Volsci habuerunt campestris plerus Aboriginum fuit. (Cato hist. 7=24C);50 Agrum quem vir habet tollitur. (Cato orat. 159—NB: determiner follows); Quo cum venerit, quae primum navigandi nobis facultas data erit, utemur. (Cic. Fam. 3.3.2); Ex hac fuga protinus quae undique convenerant auxilia discesserunt . . . (Caes. Gal. 5.17.5); Qua vehimur navi fertur, cum stare videtur. (Lucr. 4.387); Urbem quam statuo vestra est. (Verg. A. 1.573—NB: usually taken as an instance of attractio inversa);51 Hannibal, ab Nola remisso in Bruttios Hannone cum quibus venerat copiis, ipse Apuliae hiberna petit circaque Arpos consedit. (Liv. 23.46.8); At quae aliae segetes vel umidae moveri possunt melius tamen siccae sariuntur . . . (Col. 2.11.5); Singilis fluvius, in Baetim quo dictum est ordine inrumpens, Astigitanam coloniam adluit . . . (Plin. Nat. 3.12); Reliqua Iudaea dividitur in toparchias decem quo dicemus ordine: Hiericuntem palmetis consitam, fontibus riguam, Emmaum, Lyddam, Iopicam, Acrabatenam, Gophaniticam, Thamniticam . . . (Plin. Nat. 5.70); . . . Germanicus Caesar a. d. VII. Kal. Iunias triumphavit de Cheruscis C(h)attisque et Angrivariis quaeque aliae nationes usque ad Albim colunt. (Tac. Ann. 2.41.2)52 The noun of a relative phrase may be modified by an adjective, as in (i). In ( j) the noun of the relative phrase is modified by alio.53 (i) Quibus iniuriis gravissimis tamen illud erat misero solacium, quod id perdere videbatur, quod alio praetore eodem ex agro reparare posset. (‘Yet while suffering these terrible wrongs, he had at least this consolation in his misery, that he saw himself losing what, under some other governor, he would be able to regain from that same land.’ Cic. Ver. 3.199) ( j) . . . eique statuam equestrem inauratam in rostris aut quo alio loco in foro vellet ex huius ordinis sententia statui placere. (‘. . . and that it pleases the senate that by the decision of this body a gilt equestrian statue to him be placed on the Rostra or in any other position in the Forum which he may choose.’ Cic. Phil. 5.41—a proposal for a senatus consultum) Autonomous relative clauses of this type are a relatively infrequent relativization device, used in Cicero especially in cases of relative connexion. In Plautus they cover c. three columns in Lodge’s lexicon of a total of c. sixty-three columns for all relative clauses. In Cicero’s orations they cover 14 of 182 columns in Merguet’s Lexikon.

50 On this example, see Briscoe (2010: 155–6). 51 For its placement in this section, see Fraenkel (1954), Vonlaufen (1974: 29), and the discussion of ex. (n) below. For the other view, see Halla-aho (2016: 384; 2018: 52–6). 52 For further instances in Tacitus, see Sörbom (1935: 119). 53 For instances in Tacitus, see TLL s.v. alius 1629.43ff.

504

Relative clauses

Both types of autonomous relative clauses can be combined with resumptive pronouns from Early Latin onwards (especially is, much less often hic,54 ille—rarely, in Varro, Lucretius, and later poets—and rarely idem). Examples are (k)–(m). These resumptive pronouns have the case form that is appropriate in their clause: eum in (k) is the object of optruncabo, ibus in (l) is the indirect object with denumerem. The number and gender of the resumptive pronoun agree with the preceding relative clause. In (m), eandem is the object of vis. In instances like (n), with mulier in initial position in the sentence, one may debate whether it is an instance of attractio inversa (see §  18.8) or, preferably, the preposed head of the relative phrase quae mulier.55 When preposed, these relative clauses are usually at the beginning of the sentence to which they belong, but see (l). These preposed relative clauses resemble theme constituents (see § 22.14).56 (For resumptive phrases with a determiner, see § 18.18.) (k)

Quemque hic intus videro / cum Philocomasio osculantem, eum ego optruncabo extempulo. (‘Whomever I see here inside kissing Philocomasium, I’ll slaughter him on the spot.’ Pl. Mil. 460–1)

(l)

Videtur tempus esse ut eamus in forum, / ut in tabellis quos consignavi hic heri / latrones ibus denumerem stipendium. (‘It seems to be time for us to go to the forum so that I can count out the pay to the soldiers that I enlisted in my tablets here yesterday.’ Pl. Mil. 72–4)

(m)

. . . quae te volt eandem tu vis. (‘. . . you want the same woman who wants you.’ Pl. Mil. 1071)

(n)

Mulier quae se suamque aetatem spernit, speculo ei usus est. (‘A woman who is dissatisfied with herself and her age needs a mirror.’ Pl. Mos. 250) These combinations of a relative clause with a resumptive pronoun or phrase (sometimes called ‘diptychs’) have received much attention in studies on the origin of the relative pronouns. The order of the clauses is considered to reflect an older stage with indefinite pronouns, from which relative pronouns developed later on.57 Some scholars regard the combination of a relative with a resumptive pronoun as a special type of clause combining, called correlation.58 However, this distinction seems unnecessary.

54 TLL s.v. hic 2711.36ff.; ille 349.29ff. For Plautus’ usage, see Blänsdorf  (1967: 98); for Caesar’s, Lavency (1996a). 55 For further instances, see Havers (1925: 245–6). For a discussion of attractio inversa and postposed relative determiners, see Vonlaufen  (1974: 25–30) and Lehmann  (1984: 350). There is even a third possibility, a variant of attractio inversa, which is to take mulier as a theme constituent (‘nominativus pendens’) modified by an adnominal relative clause. So Halla-aho  (2016: 370–2). See also Probert and  Dickey  (2016: 393) and §  22.14. For the material in Plautus, Terence, and Cicero Att., see Bertelsmann (1885). 56 See Lehmann (1984: 350–2), Halla-aho (2016), and Probert and Dickey (2016). 57 See Lehmann (1984: 368–75; 2008: 216–21) and Pompei (2011c: 518–29). 58 For discussion, see Touratier (1994: 696–700), Bodelot (2004), Fruyt (2004; 2005b), and Probert and Dickey (2016)—also for diachronic observations.

Autonomous relative clauses

505

Supplement: Relative pronouns: Vi’n qui in hac villa habitat eius arbitratu fieri? (Pl. Rud. 1035); Olim quos abiens affeci aegrimonia, / eos nunc laetantis faciam adventu meo. (Pl. St. 406–7); . . . et quos ferro trucidari oportebat, eos nondum voce volnero! (Cic. Catil. 1.9); . . . Qui inter tot annos ne appellarit quidem Quinctium cum potestas esset agendi cotidie, qui quo tempore primum male agere coepit in vadimoniis differendis tempus omne consumpserit, qui postea vadimonium quoque missum fecerit, hunc per insidias vi de agro communi deiecerit, qui cum de re agendi nullo recusante potestas fuisset sponsionem de probro facere maluerit, qui cum revocetur ad id iudicium unde haec nata sunt omnia condicionem aequissimam repudiet, fateatur se non pecuniam sed vitam et sanguinem petere, is non hoc palam dicit? . . . (Cic. Quinct. 46); Quibuscum vivi bona nostra partimur, iis praetor adimere nobis mortuis bona fortunasque poterit? (Cic. Ver. 1.113); Quae in quem cadunt, in eundem cadit ut serviat . . . (Cic. Tusc. 3.14); qui · nostrum · mentitur · / eum · nec · di · penates · nec · inferi · recipiant. (AE 1964, 160 (Pompeii, 1st cent. ad (early))) Relative phrases: Tum Saturno filius qui primus natus est, eum necaverunt. (Enn. var. 72—NB: relative determiner follows); Nunc ibo ut pro praefectura mea ius dicam larido / et quae pendent indemnatae pernae, is auxilium ut feram. (Pl. Capt. 907–8); Qui ager frigidior et macrior erit, ibi oleam Licinianam seri oportet. (Cato Agr. 6.2— NB: resumptive adverb); Arbores crassiores digitis quinque quae erunt, eas praecisas serito oblinitoque fimo summas et foliis alligato. (Cato Agr. 28.2); Ab arbore abs terra pulli qui nascentur, eos in terram deprimito . . . (Cato Agr. 51.1—NB: relative determiner follows);59 Sed vina quae heri vendidi vinario Exaerambo, / iam pro eis satis fecit Sticho? (Pl. As. 436–7—NB: relative determiner follows); Himera deleta quos civis belli calamitas reliquos fecerat, ii se Thermis conlocarant in iisdem agri finibus nec longe ab oppido antiquo. (Cic. Ver. 2.86); Quae hic rei publicae vulnera imponebat, eadem ille sanabat. (Cic. Fin. 4.66); Signa quae nobis curasti, ea sunt ad Caietam exposita. (Cic. Att. 1.3.2—NB: relative determiner follows); Quas Numestio litteras dedi, sic te iis evocabam ut nihil acrius neque incitatius fieri posset. (Cic. Att. 2.24.1); Nam ad senatum quas Bibulus litteras misit, in iis quod mihi cum illo erat commune sibi soli attribuit. (Cic. Fam. 2.17.7); . . . et, quae gravissime adflictae erant naves, earum materia atque aere ad reliquas reficiendas utebatur et, quae ad eas res  erant usui, ex continenti comparari iubebat. (Caes. Gal. 4.31.2); Nam quae ab reliquis Gallis civitates dissentirent, has sua diligentia adiuncturum . . . (Caes. Gal. 7.29.6); . . . (sc. milites) quam · fidem · pietatemq · domui · aug · parerent · eam · sperare / perpetuo · praestaturos. (S.C.  de Gn. Pisone patre Copy  A.161–2 (ad 20))

Just like nouns and noun phrases, autonomous relative clauses may be definite or indefinite, and when indefinite either specified or not. They may also be generic. The normal situation, certainly when the relative clause is sentence-initial, is that it is indefinite. Explicit means to mark an autonomous relative clause as definite are the demonstrative determiners hic, ille, and iste (discussed immediately below) and the anaphoric determiner is (discussed further on). These determiners normally 59 For further examples, see Havers (1925: 243).

506

Relative clauses

immediately precede the relative pronoun.60 This usage is common with relative pronouns, as in (o) and (p), but rare with relative determiners. There are only a few, mainly poetic, instances of a determiner modifying a relative phrase, as in (q).61 Occasionally, a determined autonomous relative clause is picked up by a resumptive expression, as in (r). The various possibilities are shown in Table 18.4. The brackets ( ) indicate optional elements. Table 18.4 The structure of autonomous relative clauses

(o)

(Determiner)

Relative clause

(Resumptive pronoun)

(hic, iste, ille, is)

qui . . . (is) qui leno . . . (ex. (q))

Sed hunc quem quaero commonstrare si potes, / inibis a me . . . grandem . . . gratiam. (‘But if you can show me the man I’m looking for, you’ll earn my . . . great . . . gratitude.’ Pl. Cur. 404–5)

(p)

Eripe oculum istic ab umero qui tenet, ere, te opsecro. (‘Master, I beg you, tear out the eye of the man who is holding you at the shoulder.’ Pl. Men. 1011)

(q)

Di illum infelicent omnes qui post hunc diem / leno ullam Veneri umquam immolarit hostiam, / quive ullum turis granum sacruficaverit. (‘May all the powers above confound the pimp who after this day ever sacrifices a single victim to Venus or offers her a single grain of incense.’ Pl. Poen. 449–51)

(r)

Ille qui adoptavit hunc sibi pro filio / is illi Poeno, huius patruo, hospes fuit. (‘That gentleman, who adopted this lad as his son—he was once the family friend of the boy’s Carthaginian uncle.’ Pl. Poen. 119–20) Supplement: Relative pronouns: Cum hoc quem novi fabulor. (Pl. Men. 324); Hoc quod te rogo responde, . (Pl. Mer. 214) . . . illis quibus (sc. bene) est invides. (Pl. Ps. 1135); Multo illi potius bene erit quae bene volt mihi . . . (Pl. Truc. 446) ‘Istanc quam quaeris’, inquit, ‘ego amicae meae / dedi . . .’ (Pl. Cist. 570–1); Sed istum quem quaeris ego sum. (Pl. Cur. 419); Operam atque hospitium ego isti praehiberi volo / qui tibi tabellas affert. (Pl. Per. 510–11); Ubi isti sunt quibus vos oculi estis . . . (Pl. Ps. 179) Serva erum, cave tu idem faxis alii quod servi solent . . . (Pl. As. 256) Relative phrases: . . . unde hic cognitus est ipsi quem nominat ignem. (Lucr. 1.695)

60 For further examples, see Eckert (1992: 70–2; 2003: 172–82). In the 1992 sample of object clauses with verbs of communication from Cicero there are forty-seven instances without and twenty-five with a determiner. 61 Munro in his commentary on Lucretius has a collection of examples (ad 1.15).

Autonomous relative clauses

507

. . . cum illud quo iam semel est imbuta veneno . . . (Enn. Ann. 535V=476S—NB: fragmentary text); . . . confluere ex ipso possunt elementa vaporis / et simul ex illa quae tum res excipit ictum. (Lucr. 6.312–13); Illi scripta quibus comoedia prisca viris est / hoc stabant, hoc sunt imitandi. (Hor. S. 1.10.16–17) Idem de istis licet omnibus dicas quos supra capita hominum . . . delicatos lectica suspendit. (Sen. Ep. 80.8) With a resumptive pronoun: Haec quae possum, ea mi profecto cuncta vehementer placent. (Pl. Mos. 841); Quid? Istanc quam emit, quanti eam emit? (Pl. Epid. 51)

The most common determiner of autonomous relative clauses is the anaphoric determiner is (see §§ 11.105–6).62 Two situations must be distinguished. On the one hand there are instances of a form of is in combination with an autonomous relative clause where is has its regular anaphoric meaning: it adds the element ‘already mentioned or referred to in the preceding context’ even in more or less set phrases such as id quod in (s). The same goes for (t) and (u). In (v) we see an example of a non-restrictive adnominal relative clause with anaphoric eos, which refers to Brutis in the preceding sentence (repeated from § 18.6).63 (s)

Nam primum, id quod dixi, cum ceteris in coloniis duumviri appellentur, hi se praetores appellari volebant. (‘In the first place, as I have said, whereas in all the other colonies the magistrates are called duumviri, those of Capua desired that they should be called praetors.’ Cic. Agr. 2.93)

(t)

Quid id quod vidisti? Ut munitum muro tibi visum oppidum est? (‘How about that which you have observed? How did the city appear to be fortified with its wall?’ Pl. Per. 553—Cf. 550: urbis speciem vidi)

(u)

Dic mihi, si audes, quis ea est quam vis ducere uxorem? (‘Tell me, if you please, who is she whom you want to marry?’ Pl. Aul. 170—NB: there has been some talking going on about marriage)

(v)

Quod est tibi cum Brutis bellum? Cur eos, quos omnes paene venerari debemus, solus oppugnas? (‘What war you have with the Bruti? Why do you alone attack those men, whom we are all bound almost to worship?’ Cic. Phil. 10.4)

That is in cases like (s)–(v) has a clear semantic value is confirmed by instances like (w) and (x). In (w), is is followed by quidem, which normally serves to emphasize a constituent in its sentence (see § 22.26). Note also the distance between is and qui. Ex. (x) is cited as an example of ‘emphatic’ use of is, more or less like talis ‘such’. (w)

Certo is quidem nihili est / qui nil amat. (‘But surely the man who doesn’t love at all is worthless.’ Pl. Per. 179–80)

62 The use of is is very common in legal texts and in the jurists. See Selig (1992: 34–40) and Reggio (2005). For the use of ille in this function in Late Latin, see Fruyt  (2005a). For Caesar’s usage of is qui, see Lavency (1996a). 63 See also TLL s.v. 474.60ff.

508 (x)

Relative clauses Itaque ego is qui sum, quantuscumque sum ad iudicandum, omnibus auditis oratoribus, sine ulla dubitatione sic statuo et iudico . . . (‘And I, being what I am, and so far as I am competent to judge, after hearing all the orators, do unhesitatingly decree and pronounce as follows . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 2.122)

There are, on the other hand, definitely instances of is for which no semantic justification can be given. The sole function of is in these instances is to serve as a bearer of case information for the relative clause: is is a ‘semantically empty preparative’ determiner.64 Latin, like other languages,65 has no means to mark autonomous relative clauses for the syntactic function they fulfil in their superordinate clause. In the case of clauses functioning as argument their status will as a rule be clear on the basis of the meaning of the verb to which they belong. However, for clauses that function as satellite or as attribute at the noun phrase level there is no such contextual support. Exx. (y) and (z) will serve as illustrations. In (y), the autonomous relative clause eorum . . . contra quos diceret is governed by the preposition causa. In Latin it is impossible to combine this type of clause with a preposition, so in this case eorum serves as a linking device, that is, it makes no semantic contribution of its own (see also § 14.6 for other types of subordinate clauses). In (z), the relative clause eorum . . . senati qui columen cluent functions as attribute of sanguinem. Here too, eorum cannot be explained by its meaning, but rather it serves as marker of the syntactic relation between the head noun and the clause. See also § 18.16. The use of this ‘semantically empty’ is is most common with autonomous relative clauses in the indicative.66 (y)

Consecutus itaque est, ut aliquid eorum quoque causa videretur facere contra quos diceret. (‘He thus succeeded in seeming to do something even for the sake of those against whom he was speaking.’ Quint. Inst. 11.1.85)

(z)

Iam ego me convortam in hirudinem atque eorum exsugebo sanguinem / senati qui columen cluent. (‘Now I’ll turn myself into a leech and suck out the blood of these so-called pillars of the senate.’ Pl. Epid. 188–9) Supplement: Determiner + relative pronoun: Bene ei qui invidet mi / et ei qui hoc gaudet. (Pl. Per. 776–6a); Di faciant ut id bibatis quod vos numquam transeat. (Pl. Per. 823); Sed ea quae demissurus eris sumito paulo acerbiora. (Cato Agr. 101); Destiti stomachari et me unum ex iis feci qui ad aquas venissent. (Cic. Planc. 65); Sed iam forma ipsa restat et l{lu~ÿ{ ille qui dicitur. (Cic. Orat. 134);67 Quare si potest esse beatus is qui est in asperis reiciendisque rebus, potest is quoque esse qui est in parvis malis. (Cic. Fin. 5.78); Obtrectatio autem est, ea quam intellegi qrvz~.jlx volo, aegritudo ex eo

64 The description is Lehmann’s (1984: 308). See also Touratier (1980: 139–46). Lavency (1998a: 59), Serbat (1988b: 37–43), and Meyers (2011: 228) are more or less along the same lines. 65 See Lehmann  (1984: 308). Icelandic has only pronominally headed autonomous relative clauses (Andrews 2007: 214). 66 See Lavency (2005). 67 For the use of determiners with this type of relative clauses, see Nicolas (1999: 55–6).

Autonomous relative clauses

509

quod alter quoque potiatur eo quod ipse concupiverit. (Cic. Tusc. 4.17); Neque enim tu is es qui quid sis nescias . . . (Cic. Fam. 5.12.6); Est autem non modo eius qui sociis et civibus sed etiam eius qui servis, qui mutis pecudibus praesit eorum quibus praesit commodis utilitatique servire. (Cic. Q. fr. 1.1.24); At Sugambri ex . . . fuga comparata hortantibus iis quos ex Tenctheris atque Usipetibus apud se habebant finibus suis excesserant. (Caes. Gal. 4.18.4); Neque inmemor eius quod initio consulatus inbiberat reconciliandi animos plebis, saucios milites curandos dividit patribus. (Liv. 2.47.12); Addunt pavorem mota e castris signa eorum qui in praesidio relicti fuerant. (Liv. 1.14.9); Iis quorum agros urbesque populatus esset redderet res quae comparerent. (Liv. 32.10.3); Quidam eos qui hoc e thynnis faciant pompilos vocant. (Plin. Nat. 9.51) Determiner + relative phrase: Pignus da ni ligneae haec sunt quas habes Victorias. (Pl. Truc. 275); Quem oportebat omnium eorum quos antehac habui liberos partis  eorum tolerare atque curare . . . (Cornelia Nep. fr. 2); Hic .{zŵuzxzwr}gwrx quidam pßulj{ƒ| de iis quae in Sestium apparabantur crimina . . . (Cic. Q.  fr. 2.3.6); . . . neque eam quam profuisse aliis vim celeritatemque viderant imitari potuerunt . . . (Caes. Gal. 6.40.6); Quare illud satis est si nobis is datur unis / quem lapide illa dies (diem ed. 1473)68 candidiore notat. (Catul. 68.147–8); Ipse cum admodum exiguis copiis Genuam repetit, eo qui circa Padum erat exercitus Italiam defensurus. (Liv. 21.32.5); . . . duo legati venerunt, Philocles et Apelles . . . speculatum magis inquisitumque missi de iis quorum Perseus Demetrium insimulasset sermonum . . . habitorum. (Liv. 40.20.3); . . . ut eas quae in Sicilia naves essent reficeret atque expediret . . . (Liv. 42.27.2); At . . . transcendere ad ea quis maxime fidebant in populum Romanum officiis . . . (Tac. Ann. 4.56.1) With a resumptive pronoun: Id quod in rem tuam optumum esse arbitror, / ted id monitum advento. (Pl. Aul. 144–5); Igitur id quod agitur, hic primum praevorti decet. (Pl. Mil. 765); Ergo id quod natura ipsa et quaedam generosa virtus statim respuit . . ., in eo magistra vitae philosophia tot saecula permanet. (Cic. Tusc. 2.16)69 NB: Id quod providet, illius rei constat imago. (Lucr. 4.885)70 With inanimate entities the combination of is and res functions more or less in the same way as is alone. Compare (aa) and (ab). (aa) Cuius hoc dicto admoneor, ut aliquid etiam de humatione et sepultura dicendum existimem, rem non difficilem, is praesertim cognitis quae de nihil sentiendo paulo ante dicta sunt. (‘And I am reminded by this saying of his that I think something should also be said about interment and burial—no difficult matter, especially when those things have been understood which were said a little while back about absence of sensation.’ Cic. Tusc. 1.102)

68 For parallels for the remarkable word order, see Schuster (1950/1: 51–2). 69 The interpretation of this passage is disputed. See Giusta (1991: 198–200). 70 For Lucretius’ ‘remarkable idiom . . . of using res and the neuter as interchangeable’, see Bailey (1949: I.94–5). The example can also be regarded as an instance of attractio inversa (see § 18.8 and Vonlaufen 1974: 132).

510

Relative clauses (ab) Pompeius his rebus cognitis quae erant ad Corfinium gestae Luceria proficiscitur Canusium atque inde Brundisium. (‘After learning what had happened at Corfinium, Pompey set out from Luceria for Canusium and from there for Brundisium.’ Caes. Civ. 1.24.1) Often relative clauses in combination with demonstrative and anaphoric pronouns are regarded as modifiers of the pronouns which in turn are regarded as heads, in the same way as an adjective modifies its head noun.71 However, in an expression like hic bonus, bonus cannot be regarded as the modifier of hic. Rather, hic must be considered the determiner of substantival bonus ‘this good person’. Likewise, hic in (ac) can be described as determining the autonomous relative clause quem astantem video, which functions as its head. If hic is omitted, the sentence remains grammatical. This is also illustrated by the parallelism of illos qui dant and qui deludunt in (ad). Note also resumptive eos, referring to the combination illos qui dant.72 (ac) Sed quis hic est quem astantem video ante ostium? (‘But who’s this whom I see standing in front of the door?’ Pl. Bac. 451) (ad) Illos qui dant, eos derides. Qui deludunt deperis. (‘Men that give you things—them you treat with contempt; those that trifle with you you dote on.’ Pl. As. 527)

There is a great variety of relative expressions determined by idem which are usually taken to mean ‘the same as’, comparable with idem atque (see §  20.15).73 We find idem + noun . . . qui, idem . . . qui + noun, and idem + noun . . . qui + noun (for which see also § 18.18). Ex. (ae) illustrates the most common type. Exx. (af) and (ag) are exceptional. Then there is also idem . . . qui, as in (ah). (For less common idem atque, see § 20.15.) (ae)

Qui minus / eadem histrioni sit lex quae summo viro? (‘Why shouldn’t the same law apply to an actor as to a man of high rank?’ Pl. Am. 76–7)

(af)

Mala es atque eadem quae soles illecebra. (‘You’re sly and the same temptress as usual.’ Pl. Truc. 184)

(ag)

Quaero quae tanta in te vanitas . . . ut in hoc iudicio T. Annium isdem verbis laudares, quibus eum verbis laudare et boni viri et boni cives consuerunt . . . (‘I ask you what is the meaning of all this levity of yours, that in this trial you extolled Titus Annius in the very same words in which good men and good citizens have been in the habit of extolling him . . .’ Cic. Vat. 40)

71 Very clearly stated in K.-St.: II.279 Hostes, qui fugiunt, non sunt timendi; Ea, quae vera sunt, dicam. For the view that we are dealing with determiners that mark the function of the relative clause, see Vester (1989: 342), Eckert (1992: 152), Touratier (1994: 628–9), Addabbo (2001: 163–4). For discussion, see also Pompei (2011b: 69) and Halla-aho (2018: 48–51). 72 For discussion of the status of is, see especially Lehmann (1979: 9); Serbat (1984), Longrée (1991: 95–8), and Lavency (1998a: 57). 73 See TLL s.v. idem 194.67ff. and Gibert (2011).

Autonomous relative clauses (ah)

511

Apud bonos iidem sumus quos reliquisti, apud sordem urbis et faecem multo melius quam reliquisti. (‘With the honest men I stand as I did when you left, with the dregs of the city populace much better than when you left.’ Cic. Att. 1.16.11)

Autonomous relative clauses marked as indefinite by the pronouns quidam (specifying indefinite) and aliqui (indefinite) are relatively rare. Examples are (ai) and (aj). On the one hand these pronouns can be left out without causing the remaining construction to become ungrammatical (which suggests they are the modifiers). On the other hand they can also function independently, in which case the relative clauses are modifiers. (ai)

Iam quidam qui nos absentis defenderunt incipiunt praesentibus occulte irasci, aperte invidere. (‘Already, now that I am here, certain men who championed me when I was away are beginning to resent me secretly and to express their jealousy of me openly.’ Cic. Att. 4.1.8)

(aj)

Quem ament igitur? # Aliquem id dignus qui siet. / Nam nostrorum nemo dignu’st. (‘Then whom should they love? # Someone who deserves it: none of us does.’ Pl. Poen. 860–1) Supplement: Video enim esse hic in senatu quosdam qui tecum una fuerunt. (Cic. Catil. 1.8); . . . raros esse quosdam qui ceteris omnibus pro nihilo habitis rerum naturam studiose intuerentur. (Cic. Tusc. 5.9); Sunt quidam qui nolint nisi secreto accipere. (Sen. Ben. 2.23.1) Saltem aliquem velim qui mihi ex his locis / aut viam aut semitam monstret. (Pl. Rud. 211–12); Fuisse credo tum quoque aliquos qui discerptum regem patrum manibus taciti arguerent . . . (Liv. 1.16.4); In Cn. Pompeium terra marique victorem fuit qui carmen componeret, uno, ut ait, digito caput scalpentem. Fuit aliquis qui licentia carminis tres auratos currus contemneret! (Sen. Con. 10.1.8)

Examples of generic autonomous relative clauses are (ak) and (al). Qui laborat in (ak) means ‘the patient’ in general—that is, not a specific patient. Note the coordination of the relative clause with the likewise generic nouns polypi et murenae in (al). (ak)

Sed si nullum tamen appareat aliud auxilium, periturusque sit qui laborat, nisi temeraria quoque via fuerit adiutus. (‘If, however, there appears to be no other remedy, and if the patient is likely to die unless he be helped even at some risk . . .’ Cels. 2.10.7)

(al)

Exeunt in terram et qui marini mures vocantur et polypi et murenae, quin et in Indiae fluminibus certum genus piscium ac deinde resilit. (‘The fish which are called the sea-mouse also come out onto the land, as do the polypus and the moray; so also does a certain kind of fish in the rivers of India and then jumps back again.’ Plin. Nat. 9.71)

512

Relative clauses

Autonomous relative clauses may be modified in various ways other than by the determiners dealt with above. Exx. (am) and (an) illustrate the use of the quantifiers omnes and pauci. (am)

Omnes qui amant graviter sibi dari uxorem ferunt. (‘All lovers resent being given a wife.’ Ter. An. 191)

(an)

. . . donec pauci qui proelio superfuerant paludibus abderentur. ( ‘. . . until the few who escaped battle could hide themselves in the swamp.’ Tac. Hist. 1.79.4) Supplement: Cum vero is quem nemo vestrum vidit umquam, nemo qui mortalis esset audivit, tantum dicit . . . (Cic. Flac. 40); Neminem qui aut libertate dignus esset aut vellet omnino liber esse, sibi amicum arbitrabatur. (Cic. Tusc. 5.63); . . . ut in hac confusa atque universa defensione nihil a me quod ad vestram quaestionem, nihil quod ad reum, nihil quod ad rem publicam pertineat praetermissum esse videatur. (Cic. Sest. 5)74 . . . ex quo sunt nonnulli qui tuam legem de civitate natam, Crasse, dicant . . . (Cic. de Orat. 2.257) Hac oratione ab Diviciaco habita omnes qui aderant magno fletu auxilium a Caesare petere coeperunt. (Caes. Gal. 1.32.1); . . . Iugurtha, homo omnium quos terra sustinet sceleratissumus . . . (Sal. Jug. 14.2); (sc. vomitus necessarius est) Ergo omnibus qui ante febres horrore et tremore vexantur. Omnibus qui cholera laborant. (Cels. 2.13.1); Nam ex omnibus qui nunc se philosophos vocant vix unum aut alterum invenies tanta sinceritate, tanta veritate. (Plin. Ep. 3.11.6) Sunt autem multi . . . qui eripiunt aliis quod aliis largiantur . . . (Cic. Off. 1.43); . . . a multis qui e Samnio Apuliaque veniebant admoniti sumus . . . (Cic. Att. 8.11d.3); . . . foediore multorum qui perpeti medicinam toleraverant cicatrice quam morbo. (Plin. Nat. 26.3); . . . multa in terris fieri caeloque tuentur, / quorum operum causas nulla ratione videre / possunt . . . (Lucr. 1.152–4); Huc addent divi quam plurima quae Themis olim / antiquis solita est munera ferre piis. (Catul. 68. 153–4)

Notice also the use of aliarum in (ao), ceterorum in (ap), and omnibus in (aq) in combination with relative phrases.75 (ao)

Is illius laudare infit formam virginis / et aliarum itidem quae eius erant mulierculae. (‘This fellow begins to praise that girl’s figure and those of the other girls who are in his keeping.’ Pl. Rud. 51–2)

(ap)

. . . queram, cur idem nostra nomina et Persarum et ceterorum quos vocant barbaros cum casibus dicat. (‘. . . then I shall ask why the same persons use a full set of case forms not only for our own personal names, but also for those of the Persians and of the others whom they call barbarians.’ Var. L. 8.64) 74 For the zero-quantifiers nemo and nihil, see also § 11.27. 75 For (aq), see Deufert (2018: 117).

Autonomous relative clauses (aq)

513

Illud in his igitur rebus meminisse decebit, / non ex omnibus omnino quaecumque creant res / sensilia extemplo me gigni dicere sensus . . . (‘Herein it will be right to remember this, that I do not say that sensations are begotten at once from all and every of the things which give birth to sensible things . . .’ Lucr. 2.891–3) In addition to examples such as (q) (page 506 above) which illustrate demonstrative pronouns (all poetic) and is (also in prose) modifying an autonomous relative clause with a relative phrase, there are a few remarkable instances in which a word of another category modifies such a clause, such as alii in (ar). Even more striking is the use of a normal adjective in (as), where meliorem goes with condicio. This form of anticipation can probably be attributed in part to the influence of Greek examples.76 (ar) Eupolis atque Cratinus Aristophanesque poetae / atque alii quorum comoedia prisca virorum est . . . (‘Eupolis and Cratinus and Aristophanes the poets, and the other men to whom Old Comedy belongs . . .’ Hor. S. 1.4.1–2) (as) ‘Nisi qui meliorem afferet / quae mi atque amicis placeat condicio magis,’ / quasi fundum vendam . . . (‘ “It’s settled unless anyone offers a better deal, which I and my associates like more.” As if I were selling a plot by auction . . .’ Pl. Capt. 179–81) Supplement: Quis non malarum amor quas curas habet / haec inter obliviscitur? (Hor. Ep. 2.37–8—NB: all sorts of emendations have been proposed, see Watson ad loc.) Appendix: Autonomous relative clauses may also be combined with ipse, either preceding, or following. Examples are (at)–(au)—‘pregnant’ ipse—and (av)—‘discretive’ ipse (for the terminology, see §  11.144).77 In these examples ipse is functioning as some sort of secondary predicate (see § 21.3). It is incorrect to consider the relative clauses as adnominally related to ipse, which is often regarded as the head of the combination. (at) Sed tamen, tu nempe eos asinos praedicas / vetulos, claudos, quibus suptritae ad femina iam erant ungulae? / # Ipsos qui tibi subvectabant rure huc virgas ulmeas. (‘But are you talking about those old, lame donkeys whose hooves had been worn away up to the thighs? # Exactly, the ones which used to carry elmrods from the country here for you.’ Pl. As. 339–41) (au) Septimus (sc. locus), per quem ad ipsos qui audiunt [similem in causam] convertimus . . . (‘The seventh (sc. topic), in which we turn to the audience . . .’ Cic. Inv. 1.108)

76 For more instances, see Munro ad Lucr. 1.15. See also Bailey (1949: I.105). 77 For more examples, see TLL s.v. ipse 306.27ff.

514

Relative clauses (av) Quo qui intraverant se ipsi acutissimis vallis induebant. (‘Any men who entered within them were likely to impale themselves on very sharp stakes.’ Caes. Gal. 7.73.4)

Autonomous relative clauses that open a sentence can contain a connector (unlike connective relatives). In that case the connector connects the whole sentence with what precedes. Examples are (aw) and (ax). (aw)

Nam qui amat quod amat si habet, id habet pro cibo. (‘For if a lovesick man has the object of his love, he regards it as food . . .’ Pl. Mer. 744)

(ax)

Qui autem auscultare nolet exsurgat foras . . . (‘But if anyone doesn’t want to listen, let him get up and get out.’ Pl. Mil. 81)

18.16 The syntactic functions of autonomous relative clauses and their formal expression The most common syntactic function of autonomous relative clauses is that of subject, but they are also found in object and—much more rarely—other functions at the sentence level, as well. Exx. (a)–(f) illustrate relative clauses that function as arguments, satellites, (subject/object) complements, or secondary predicates. The functions are the same as those of noun phrases at the sentence or clause level.78 In (a)–(c), we see the relative clause function as an argument in the main clause: in (a), qui recte facit . . . functions as the subject, whereas in (b) the relative clause functions as the object. In (c), it functions as an indirect object, in (d), as an adjunct expressing direction (or is it an argument?). The relative clause of (e) is the subject complement with the verb sum.79 In (f), qui nobiscum prandeat functions as a secondary predicate (traditionally called a ‘relative clause of purpose’—for details, see §  21.15). Autonomous relative clauses also function below the clause or sentence level, for example as an apposition, as in (g), or as an attribute, as in (h).80 Details follow below. Autonomous relative clauses may also appear at the adjective phrase level, for instance, qui sies in (i), which functions as an argument of the bivalent adjective dignus. For details, see § 18.19. For autonomous relative clauses functioning as degree clauses, see §  16.37; for those functioning as clausal appositives, see § 18.27. For disjunct-like uses, see the end of that section. (a)

Sat habet favitorum semper qui recte facit . . . (‘A man who always acts correctly has enough supporters . . .’ Pl. Am. 79)

(b)

Diespiter te dique, Ergasile, perdant et . . . / . . . qui posthac cenam parasitis dabit. (‘May Jupiter and the gods destroy you, Ergasilus and . . . anyone who gives a dinner to hangers-on hereafter.’ Pl. Capt. 909–10—NB: coordination of relative clause with other nominal constituents)

78 See also the survey in Mellado (2011: 41–4). 79 For more instances, see § 22.12 on cleft sentences. 80 See Dik (1997: II.366–76) for data on other languages. A sample of twenty-seven languages and their relativization rules can be found in Bakker and Hengeveld (1999). Lavency (1998a) gives a detailed classification of Latin relative clauses.

Autonomous relative clauses (c)

515

Perdormisco, si resolvi argentum quoi debeo. (‘I sleep through if I’ve paid everyone I owe money to.’ Pl. Men. 929)

(d)

Ego eo quo me ipsa misit. (‘I’m going where my mistress sent me.’ Pl. Cas. 790)

(e)

Pro Iuppiter, / hic est quem ego tibi misi natali die. (‘O Jupiter! This is the one I sent you on your birthday.’ Pl. Cur. 655–6)

(f)

. . . Blepharonem arcessat qui nobiscum prandeat. (‘. . . he is to fetch Blepharo so that he can have lunch with us.’ Pl. Am. 951)

(g)

Nec audiendus eius auditor Strato, is qui physicus appellatur, qui omnem vim divinam in natura sitam esse censet . . . (‘Nor should one heed Strato, his pupil, the man who is called a natural philosopher; he deems that all divine power lies in nature.’ Cic. N.D. 1.35)

(h)

Hic . . . quam invisa sit singularis potentia et miseranda vita, qui se metui quam amari malunt, cuivis facile intellectu fuit. (‘In this instance too . . . it was readily apparent to all how detestable and wretched the life is of those who prefer to be feared rather than loved.’ Nep. Di. 9.5)

(i)

Ego multo tanta miserior quam tu, Labrax. # Qui? # Quia ego indignus sum, tu dignu’s qui sies (sc. miser). (‘I am much more miserable than you, Labrax. # How so? # Because I don’t deserve it, but you do.’ Pl. Rud. 521–2)

The function of a relative clause can be revealed by the presence of a determiner or another constituent that marks the syntactic function by its case form. Examples of determiners, quantifiers, and other words that offer this kind of information are given in § 18.15, for example (aa) and (ak); another example is ( j). The syntactic function of a relative clause is also obvious when it is followed by a resumptive expression (see earlier examples and the examples in the Supplement), or when there is a secondary predicate, as is the case with omnibus in (k). However, overt marking may be absent. This is quite normal in the case of relative clauses that function as subject or object, as is shown in (l) and (m), but marking may be absent in the case of clauses that function as third arguments, an example of which is (n). Here the relative clause homines qui . . . aedis is the third argument with erupui, which requires a dative. In all these cases the semantic relationship of the relative clauses follows from the meaning of the governing verb. Note that the relative determiner qui follows its head homines. ( j)

Esne tu an non es ab illo militi Macedonio, / servos eius qui hinc a nobis est mercatus mulierem . . . (‘Are you or aren’t you the slave of that Macedonian soldier who bought a woman from us here . . .?’ Pl. Ps. 616–17)

(k)

Qui sunt qui erunt quique fuerunt quique futuri sunt posthac, / solus ego omnibus antideo facile miserrumus hominum ut vivam. (‘In living as the most wretched man I alone easily surpass all those who live, who will live, who have lived, and who are going to live hereafter.’ Pl. Per. 777–8)

516 (l)

Relative clauses Quem di diligunt / adulescens moritur . . . (‘He whom the gods love dies young . . .’ Pl. Bac. 816–17)

(m)

Ibo, adducam qui hunc hinc tollant et domi devinciant . . . (‘I’ll go and fetch some who might carry him away from here and tie him up at home . . .’ Pl. Men. 845)

(n)

Quin modo / erupui homines qui ferebant te sublimem quattuor, / apud hasce aedis. (‘But just now, at this house, I rescued you from four men who had lifted you up and were carrying you off.’ Pl. Men. 1051–3) Supplement: Relative pronoun: Without a resumptive expression: Subject: Postidea loci / qui deliquit vapulabit, qui non deliquit bibet. (Pl. Cist. 784–5); . . . facio idem quod plurumi alii quibus res timida aut turbida est. (Pl. Mos. 1052); . . . coepti sunt a praecone recini[i], quem quaeque tribus feceri[n]t aedilem. (Var. R. 3.17.1); Quod igitur est eius modi crimen ut qui commisit non neget, qui negavit absolutus sit, id hic pertimescat qui non modo a facto, verum etiam a conscientiae suspicione afuit? (Cic. Cael. 23); Quinque omnino fuerunt qui illum vestrum innocentem Oppianicum . . . absolverent (v.l. absolverunt). (Cic. Clu. 76); Cui placet obliviscitur, cui dolet meminit. (Cic. Mur. 42); Sed si parum multi sunt qui nobilitatem ament, num ista est nostra culpa? (Cic. Planc. 18); Nam qui audiunt haec duo animadvertunt et iucunda sibi censent, verba dico et sententias. (Cic. Orat. 197); . . . si in eo sit errore civitas, ut bonum illum virum sceleratum, facinerosum, nefarium putet, contra autem (ed. ) qui sit inprobissimus existimet esse summa probitate ac fide . . . (Cic. Rep. 3.27); Quid est quod semper sit . . . (Cic. Tim. 3—NB: translates Greek ~ă Õx —pj); Quod ad me de Hermathena scribis per mihi gratum est. (Cic. Att. 1.4.3); Tum vero ex omnibus urbis partibus orto clamore qui longius aberant repentino tumultu perterriti, cum hostem intra portas esse existimarent, sese ex oppido eiecerunt. (Caes. Gal. 7.47.4); Itaque interfectis Novioduni custodibus, quique eo negotiandi aut itineris causa convenerant, pecuniam atque equos inter se partiti sunt . . . (Caes. Gal. 7.55.5—NB: coordination); ‘O terque quaterque beati / quis ante ora patrum Troiae sub moenibus altis / contigit oppetere . . .’ (Verg. A. 1.94–6); Proximi ibant quos Persae Inmortales vocant, ad decem milia. (Curt. 3.3.13) Object: Neque scis qui apstulerit? # Istuc quoque bona (sc. fide dico). # Atque id si scies, / qui apstulerit mihi indicabis? (Pl. Aul. 773–4); Quia mos est oblivisci hominibus / nec novisse quoius nihili sit faciunda gratia. (Pl. Capt. 985–6); Non ego possum quae ipsa sese venditat tutarier. (Pl. Mil. 312); Furtum ego vidi qui faciebat. (Pl. Rud. 956); qui · semel · occubuit · nulla · querella · iuvat (CIL IX.3071.16 (San Valentino in Abruzzo Citeriore, bc)); . . . qui debilis erit haec res sanum facere potest. (Cato Agr. 157.10); Meminero me non sumpsisse quem accusarem, sed recepisse quos defenderem . . . (Cic. Ver. 2.179); Mercatoribus est aditus magis eo, ut quae bello ceperint, quibus vendant habeant . . . (Caes. Gal. 4.2.1—NB: object clause in object clause); Redeuntes equites quos possunt consectantur atque occidunt. (Caes. Gal. 5.58.6); Celeriter sibi Senones, Parisios . . . reliquosque omnes qui Oceanum

Autonomous relative clauses

517

attingunt adiungit. (Caes. Gal. 7.4.6); . . . ipse in Haeduos proficisci statuit senatumque omnem et quos inter controversia esset ad se Decetiam evocavit. (Caes. Gal. 7.33.2— NB: coordination); Hoc se quisque modo fugit, at quem scilicet, ut fit, / effugere haut potis est, ingratius haeret et odit / propterea, morbi quia causam non tenet aeger. (Lucr. 3.1068–70); . . . mediam in toto esse terram, eandemque universo cardine stare pendentem, librantem per quae pendeat, ita solam inmobilem circa eam volubili universitate. (Plin. Nat. 2.11); Epileum Graeci vocant qui solus omni tempore apparet. (Plin. Nat. 10.21) Subject complement: Quis est quem vides? # Vir / eccum it. (Pl. Cas. 213–14); Non ego sum qui te dudum conduxi. (Pl. Mer. 758); Quis enim est qui de hac officina, qui de vasis aureis, qui de istius pallio non audierit? (Cic. Ver. 4.55); Is autem est qui cum Lucullo fuit. (Cic. Att. 13.32.3); Nemo erit, mihi crede, in quo modo aliquid sit, qui hoc tempus sibi oblatum amicitiae tecum constituendae praetermittat . . . (Q. Cic. Pet. 27—NB: nemo in quo . . . sit is the subject of the clause); Ecquis erit mecum, iuvenes, qui primus in hostem? (Verg. A. 9.51); Hispo Romanius erat natura qui asperiorem dicendi viam sequeretur. (Sen. Con. 9.3.11); Ager est arcifinius qui nulla mensura continetur. (Fron. agrim. p. 2, l. 8)81 Third argument and other obligatory constituents: Ego illam reddidi qui argentum a te attulit. (Pl. Cur. 581); Etiam qui it lavatum / in balineas, quom ibi sedulo sua vestimenta servat, / tamen surrupiuntur. (Pl. Rud. 382–4); Nam hoc assimile est quasi de fluvio qui aquam derivat sibi. (Pl. Truc. 563); Lepus multum somni adfert qui illum edit. (Cato Fil. 3(J)); De · Bacanalibus · quei · foideratei / esent · ita · exdeicendum · censuere ·. (CIL I2.581.2–3 (SC Bac., Tiriolo, 186 bc)); Poena est qui receperit . . . (Cic. Dom. 51); Ut agerentur gratiae qui e municipiis venissent? (Cic. Red. Sen. 27); Nam Xerxes . . . praemium proposuit qui invenisset novam voluptatem. (Cic. Tusc. 5.20); Namque versibus qui honore rerumque gestarum amplitudine ceteros Romani populi praestiterunt, exposuit ita, ut . . . (Nep. Att. 18.5); Dies deinde praestituta capitalisque poena qui non remigrasset Romam . . . (Liv. 6.4.5); Ad haec respondeo: et qui in summo est calore, opus est calore adiecto, ut summum teneat. (Sen. Ep. 109.9); L. etiam Cinnae, uxoris fratri, et qui cum eo . . . ad Sertorium confugerant reditum in civitatem rogatione Plotia confecit . . . (Suet. Jul. 5—NB: coordination); Is saltatorie procurrens malumque bracteis inauratum dextra gerens qui (, qui v.; qui suppl. Castiglioni) Paris videbatur, porrigit quid mandaret Iuppiter. . . (Apul. Met. 10.30.5) With a resumptive pronoun: Qui est imperator divom atque hominum Iuppiter, / is nos per gentis alios alia disparat . . . (Pl. Rud. 9–10); Quem vides, eum ignoras. Illum nominas, quem non vides. (Pl. Capt. 566); Itaque quibus res erat in controversia, ea vocabatur lis. (Var. L. 7.93—NB: ea in agreement with lis); . . . et sine dubio quoniam salubrior pars septemtrionalis est quam meridiana, et quae salubriora, illa fructuosiora, dicendum utique Italiam magis eam fuisse op

ortunam ad colendum quam Asiam . . . (Var. R. 1.2.3); Quae (sc. arma) qui non habuerint, eos inermos fuisse vinces. (Cic. Caec. 60); Nam qui pro re publica vitam ediderunt—licet me desipere dicatis—numquam me hercule eos mortem potius quam inmortalitatem adsecutos putavi. (Cic. Planc. 90); Nam qui semel a veritate deflexit, hic non maiore religione ad 81 For this form of definition, see Conso (2006: 287–8).

518

Relative clauses periurium quam ad mendacium perduci consuevit. (Cic. Q.  Rosc. 46); Quod ubi Caesar resciit, quorum per fines ierant, his uti conquirerent et reducerent, si sibi purgati esse vellent, imperavit. (Caes. Gal. 1.28.1); Quibus autem longae febres sunt, his aut abscessus aliqui, aut articulorum dolores erunt. (Cels. 2.7.27); Num alias natura sic est, ut qui melius dixerit, hic verxisse videatur? Non qui verius, is melius? (Tert. Nat. 2.6.5); Qui disposuit demutationem, iste instituit et diversitatem. (Tert. Marc. 4.1.9) Relative phrase: Without a resumptive expression: Subject: Quae materies semen non habet, cum glubebit, tum tempestiva est. (Cato Agr. 17.1); Favete, adeste aequo animo et rem cognoscite, / ut pernoscatis, ecquid spei sit relicuom, / posthac quas faciet de integro comoedias, / spectandae an exigendae sint vobis prius. (Ter. An. 24–7); Urbem quam statuo vestra est. (Verg. A. 1.573); Et in quem primum egressi sunt locum Troia vocatur. (Liv. 1.1.3); Cecidere manu quas legerat herbas (v.l. herbae) . . . (Ov. Met. 14.350) Object: Heus foras educite, / quam introduxistis fidicinam. (Pl. Epid. 472–3); Quae hic monstra fiunt, anno vix possum eloqui. (Pl. Mos. 505); Habeo quas ad eundem litteras misisti. (Cic. Ver. 1.78); Oblata spe Germani quam nacti erant praedam in occulto relinquunt. (Caes. Gal. 6.35.10); Pallas quas condidit arces / ipsa colat. (Verg. E. 2.61–2) Third argument and other obligatory constituents: Quid fecisti scipione aut quod habuisti pallium? (Pl. Cas. 975); Sinite me prius perspectare, ne uspiam insidiae sient / concilium quod habere volumus. (Pl. Mil. 597–8); At quibus bestiis erat is cibus ut aliis generis escis vescerentur, aut vires natura dedit aut celeritatem. (Cic. N.D. 2.123) With a resumptive pronoun: Subject: Mane quod tu occeperis / negotium agere, id totum procedit diem. (Pl. Pers. 114–15); Quas enim leges sociis amicisque dat is qui habet imperium a populo Romano, auctoritatem legum dandarum ab senatu, eae debent et populi Romani et senatus existimari. (Cic. Ver. 2.121); . . . quae pars civitatis Helvetiae insignem calamitatem p. R. intulerat, ea princeps poenas persolvit. (Caes. Gal. 1.12.6); Quae gratia currum / armorumque fuit vivis, quae cura nitentis / pascere equos, eadem sequitur tellure repostos. (Verg. A. 6.653–5) Object: Qui antehac / invicti fuere viri, pater optime Olympi, / hos ego in pugna vici victusque sum ab isdem. (Enn. Ann. 192–4V=180–2S); Ab arbore abs terra pulli qui nascentur, eos in terram deprimito . . . (Cato Agr. 51); Quia enim qui eos gubernat animus, eum infirmum gerunt. (Ter. Hec. 311); Praeterea quae arbores in ordinem satae sunt, eas aequabiliter ex omnibus partibus sol ac luna coquunt. (Var. R. 1.7.4); . . . si, quod ius in parentis, deos, patriam natura conparavit, id religiose colendum demonstrabimus. (Rhet. Her. 3.4); Sed hoc non concedo ut quibus rebus gloriemini in vobis, easdem in aliis reprehendatis. (Cic. Lig. 20); . . . ut, quemcumque casum fortuna invexerit, hunc apte et quiete ferat. (Cic. Tusc. 4.38); Tamen tanti regis ac ducis mentio, quibus saepe tacitis cogitationibus volutavi animum, eas evocat in medium . . . (Liv. 9.17.1) Other: Quae enim cupiditates a natura proficiscuntur facile explentur sine ulla iniuria, quae autem inanes sunt, iis parendum non est. (Cic. Fin. 1.53); Qui fit, Maecenas,

Autonomous relative clauses

519

ut nemo, quam sibi sortem / seu ratio dederit seu fors obiecerit, illa / contentus vivat, laudet diversa sequentis? (Hor. S. 1.1.1–3) NB: Cuius modo rei nomen reperiri poterat, hoc satis esse ad cogendas pecunias videbatur. (Caes. Civ. 3.32.2)82

Explicit marking may be absent for non-argument clauses as well, although this is rare. In (o) the two relative clauses are satellites functioning as disjunct of qualified truth. The dative is the usual case for this function (the so-called dativus iudicantis— see § 10.102). In (p), qui . . . cepisset is a beneficiary satellite. In (q) the relative clause is a modifier of vestigia. There are a few poetic instances of autonomous relative clauses functioning as address (see the Supplement). (o)

Eugae, litteras minutas. # Qui quidem videat parum. / Verum qui satis videat, grandes satis sunt. (‘Goodness, such tiny letters! # Tiny for someone who doesn’t see well enough. But for someone who does see well enough they’re big enough.’ Pl. Bac. 991–2)

(p)

. . . alteram insulae partem . . . adgreditur praemiis magnis propositis qui primus insulam cepisset. (‘. . . he launched an attack . . . upon the other side of the island, offering large rewards to the first man who could capture it.’ B. Alex. 17.3)

(q)

. . . nec ad quos pertineat facinus vestigia ulla exstare. (‘. . . nor were there any traces of those who committed the crime.’ Liv. 31.12.1) Supplement: Relative pronoun: Without a resumptive expression: Ea libertas est, qui pectus purum et firmum gestitat. (Enn. scen. 302V = 256J); . . . (sc. Xerxes) praemium proposuit qui invenisset novam voluptatem . . . (Cic. Tusc. 5.20); Pactum est, quod inter quos convenit ita iustum putatur, ut . . . (Cic. Inv. 2.68); Semper in proelio iis (edd. pler. with the majority of the manuscripts) maxumum est periculum qui maxume timent. (Sal. Cat. 58.17); . . . eiusque · pecuniae · cui (sic!) · volet · petitio · persecutio ex ac lege · esto. (CIL II2.5.1022.LXXIII.8 (Lex coloniae Genetivae Iuliae, Osuna, c.44 bc));83 Qui domos redire mallent, daturum se operam ne cuius suorum popularium mutatam secum fortunam esse vellent. (Liv. 21.45.6); Quibus iuvenibus fluxit alvus plerumque in senectute contrahitur. (Cels. 1.3.33); Noli pigere laudem voce reddere / veram qui voluit esse te sanum tibi . . . (Courtney ML 40, 16–17 (Bu Njem, ad 203))84 NB: Address: Atque illum (sc. Iovem) talis iactantem pectore curas / . . . / adloquitur Venus: ‘O qui res hominumque deumque / aeternis regis imperiis et fulmine terres, / quid meus Aeneas in te committere tantum, / quid Troes potuere . . .’ (Verg. A. 1.227–32) With a resumptive pronoun: Quam ob rem quis hoc non iure miretur summeque in eo elaborandum esse arbitretur, ut quo uno homines maxime bestiis praestent in hoc 82 For a discussion of this and related examples, see Bodelot (2005: 468–9). 83 For this and other instances instead of normal qui volet, see Boegel (1902: 99–100). 84 For discussion, see Adams (1999b: 125).

520

Relative clauses hominibus ipsis antecellat? (Cic. de Orat. 1.33); . . . dilectu per omne Samnium habito nova lege, ut qui iuniorum non convenisset ad imperatorum edictum quique iniussu abisset, eius caput Iovi sacraretur. (Liv. 10.38.3) Relative phrase: Without a resumptive expression: Vere s[t]ationes quae fiunt terram rudem proscindere oportet . . . (Var. R. 1.27.2); Nam quem fundum in Tusculano emit hic Varro a M. Pupio Pisone, vidisti ad bucinam inflatam certo tempore apros et capreas convenire ad pabulum . . . (Var. R. 3.13.1); . . . insidias equitum conlocavit quo in loco superioribus fere diebus nostri pabulari consueverant . . . (Caes. Civ. 3.37.5); Ubi prima impedimenta nostri exercitus ab iis qui in silva abditi latebant visa sunt, quod tempus inter eos committendi proelii convenerat, . . . subito omnibus copiis provolaverunt . . . (Caes. Gal. 2.19.6); Magna pars forte, in quem quaeque inciderat, raptae. (Liv. 1.9.11) With a resumptive pronoun: Quam quisque norit artem, in hac se exerceat. (Cic. Tusc. 1.41); . . . querens tantum se opinionem fefellisse ut a quo genere hominum victoriam sperasset, ab eo initio fugae facto paene proditus videretur. (Caes. Civ. 3.96.4); Nam quibus difficultatibus locorum Romanos claudere voluerant, his ipsi tenebantur. (Hirt. Gal. 8.19.6); . . . et qua modo pocula parte / sumpta mihi fuerant, illa vestigia feci. (Ov. Met. 14.283–4)

When the function of an autonomous relative clause in its superordinate clause is marked by a preposition, this preposition is almost never simply combined with the relative clause. Examples are (r) and (s). In (r), Langen proposed to read prae quod. Prae marks the clause as a disjunct of qualified truth (see § 10.103); quod is the object of velis. In (s), editors used to read cum quos.85 Cum marks the relative clause as a sociative adjunct in the sentence and quos is in the case form required by nominavi. The normal strategy is to use a determiner, most often a form of is, in combination with the relative clause, as in (t)–(v). (r)

Immo res omnis relictas habeo prae quod tu velis. (‘On the contrary, I regard everything as of no account by comparison with what you want.’ Pl. St. 362)

(s)

. . . ibique Scipio cum quos paulo ante nominavi interiit. (‘. . . and Scipio together with those I have just named perished aboard them.’ B. Afr. 96.2)

(t)

Matronae magis conducibile est istuc, mea Selenium, / unum amare et cum eo aetatem exigere quoi nupta est semel. (‘It’s more advisable for a matron, my dear Selenium, to love only one man and to spend her life with the man she has once been married to.’ Pl. Cist. 78–9)

(u)

. . . aut num iam satis pro eo quod fecerit, honos habitus sit. (‘. . . whether he has already received sufficient honour for what he did.’ Cic. Inv. 2.113)

85 Instances of what he calls ‘Ellipse des Demonstrativums’ are discussed by Baehrens (1912: 324–9); for instances in Livy, see Pettersson (1930: 30–40).

Autonomous relative clauses (v)

521

Qua re tibi nuntiata, ut constabat inter eos qui una fuerunt, concidisti. (‘When this was reported to you—as was evident to those with you—you collapsed.’ Cic. Phil. 2.107) Supplement: Without is: Nunc redeo ad ea quae (v.l. ad quae) mihi mandas. (Cic. Att. 5.11.6); Si suppuratio vicerit, neque per quae supra scripta sunt discuti potuerit, omnis mora vitanda erit . . . (Cels. 8.9.1g); At hic qui se ad quod (edd. ad quod) exigit natura, composuit non tantum extra sensum est paupertatis, sed extra metum. (Sen. Ep. 119.10) With is: (see also § 18.15 for further examples) Id volo vos scire, quo modo ad hunc devenerim / in servitutem ab eo quoi servivi prius. (Pl. Mil. 96–7); Ubi comperi ex is qui ei fuere conscii, / domum revortor maestus . . . (Ter. Hau. 121–2); Sed in eis qui fortunati sunt magis id apparet. (Cic. Phil. 13.16); Quantum igitur quaestum putamus factum esse per eum cui quidvis licitum sit . . . (Cic. Ver. 3.150); . . . intellegi volui, in eo cuius omnes cupidissimi essent quam pauci digni nomine evaderent. (Cic. Brut. 299); Simplex autem conclusio reprehenditur, si hoc quod sequitur non videatur necessario cum eo quod antecessit cohaerere. (Cic. Inv. 1.86); Obtrectatio autem est . . . aegritudo ex eo quod alter quoque potiatur eo quod ipse concupiverit. (Cic. Tusc. 4.17); Qui sim, ex eo quem ad te misi cognosces. (Sal. Cat. 44.5); . . . proditus deinde ab eis qui in Insula erant, circumsessus ab universa civitate . . . (Liv. 24.25.3)

There is no overt marking by a determiner for relative clauses functioning as space or time adjunct if the relative (phrase) itself denotes space or time, as in (w)–(y). In (w), apud in apud quos marks the clause as a position in space adjunct, in the same way as ubi ‘where’ would. Note that the other autonomous relative clause qui hanc petessunt functions as the subject of the sentence. Exx. (x) and (y) have a relative phrase with a noun indicating time and (figurative) place, respectively (quo tempore in (x) can be compared with cum ‘when’). (w)

Apud quos autem venandi et equitandi laus viget, qui hanc petessunt, nullum fugiunt dolorem. (‘Those among whom honour in hunting and horsemanship is valued shrink from no pain in their quest for this.’ Cic. Tusc. 2.62)

(x)

. . . qui quo tempore primum agere coepit in vadimoniis differendis tempus omne consumpserit . . . (‘. . . who, from the moment he began to act fraudulently, wasted all the time in a number of adjournments . . .’ Cic. Quinct. 46)

(y)

Sed cum essent in quibus demonstravi angustiis ac se Libo cum Bibulo coniunxisset loquuntur ambo ex navibus cum . . . (‘But when they were in the difficulties which we explained above, and Libo had joined Bibulus, the two of them aboard ship addressed . . .’ Caes. Civ. 3.15.6) Different from the cases illustrated above are those (infrequent) instances in which there is one prepositional phrase where two could be present, as in (z). Here we

522

Relative clauses understand cadere possunt in eos in quos cadere nolis. In quos is required by understood cadere in the relative clause. (z) Ergo haec quae cadere possunt in quos nolis, quamvis sint bella, sunt tamen ipso genere scurrilia. (‘Such jokes, therefore, which can be applied to the wrong people, neat as they may be, are still by nature buffoonish.’ Cic. de Orat. 2.245—tr. May and Wisse) Supplement: Nunc video illum circumventum, me desertum, a quibus minime conveniebat. (Met. Cel. Fam. 5.1.1)

Autonomous relative clauses can be used as secondary predicates (see also § 21.15).86 Since the verbs in the superordinate clause are action verbs and the subject of the relative clause is coreferential with one of the arguments in the superordinate clause, the actions referred to in the relative clause are often taken as signalling the purpose of the action in the superordinate clause, as in (aa)–(ad) (such clauses are usually called ‘final relative clauses’ or ‘relative clauses of purpose’). For the use of the subjunctive in these clauses, see § 18.26. (aa)

I, Palaestrio, / aurum, ornamenta, vestem, pretiosa omnia / duc adiutores tecum ad navim qui ferant. (‘Go, Palaestrio, and take helpers with you to take the gold, jewellery, clothing, and all the valuables to the ship.’ Pl. Mil. 1301–3)

(ab)

Foribus dat aquam quam bibant. (‘To the door she gives water to drink.’ Pl. Cur. 161)

(ac)

Quae cum omnia facta sint, tamen unam solam scitote esse civitatem Mamertinam quae publice legatos qui istum laudarent miserit. (‘When all these things were done, nevertheless let me tell you that there was only one single city, that of the Mamertines, which sent official envoys to speak in this man’s support.’ Cic. Ver. 2.13)

(ad)

. . . D.  Laelium ab Asiatica classe abductum reliquit qui commeatus Byllide atque Amantia inportari in oppidum prohiberet. (‘. . . he left behind D. Laelius, whom he had taken from the Asiatic fleet, so that he could prevent stores from being imported into the town from Byllis and Amantia.’ Caes. Civ. 3.40.4) Supplement: Dedi ei meam gnatam quicum aetatem exigat. (Pl. Trin. 15); . . . viatorem · unum · legunto · quei · in / ea · decuria · viator · appareat . . . (CIL I2.587.8–9 (Lex Corn., 81 bc)); Venerat ipse qui esset in consilio et primus sententiam diceret. (Cic. Ver. 1.73—NB: qui is coreferential with the subject of venerat); Neque erat uxor quae consolari hominem in malis posset. (Cic. Ver. 5.92); His rebus cognitis exploratores centurionesque praemittit qui locum castris idoneum deligant. (Caes. Gal. 86 See Vester (1989) and Lavency (1998a: 24–5).

Autonomous relative clauses

523

2.17.2); . . . Caesar duas legiones in citeriore Gallia novas conscripsit et inita aestate in interiorem Galliam qui deduceret, Q. Pedium legatum misit. (Caes. Gal. 2.2.1— NB: relative clause precedes); Ea qui conficeret C.  Trebonium legatum relinquit. (Caes. Gal. 7.11.2—NB: relative clause precedes); Itaque missi sunt delecti cum Leonida, Lacedaemoniorum rege, qui Thermopylas occuparent longiusque barbaros progredi non paterentur. (Nep. Them. 3.1); Tum ex consilio patrum Romulus legatos circa vicinas gentes misit qui societatem conubiumque novo populo peterent. (Liv. 1.9.2) Also with relative adverbs: Locum in foro destinant quo pretiosissima rerum suarum congererent. (Liv. 28.22.6) In (ae) the qui clause is adnominal and restrictive with legati, which itself is a secondary predicate (for the subjunctive, see § 18.25). (ae) Ad  D.  Brutum liberandum legati missi principes civitatis qui illi hosti ac parricidae denuntiarent ut a Mutina discederet. (‘To liberate Decimus Brutus, leaders of the community were sent as envoys to order that enemy and traitor to withdraw from Mutina.’ Cic. Phil. 14.4)

Autonomous relative clauses also occur at the noun phrase level. Examples are (af) and (ag). In (af), qui servos est has the same referent as the genitive huius in the preceding sentence. However, it may also be regarded as an adnominal non-restrictive relative clause with huius understood from the preceding context. Ex. (ag) is unambiguous—note the coordination of the relative clause with the genitive Scipionis. In (ah), the function of the qui clause is obvious due to the determiner eorum in the genitive. Obviously, genitive forms of is are also found as resumptive pronouns, as in (ai) and (aj). (af)

Nam ille quidem, quem tu hunc memoras esse, hodie hinc abiit Alidem / ad patrem huius. # Quem patrem, qui servos est? (‘Well, the one who you say this one here is went to Elis today to this one’s father. # What father? Of this one who’s a slave?’ Pl. Capt. 573–4)

(ag)

Ipse interea ex perfugis et incolis cognitis condicionibus Scipionis et qui cum eo bellum contra se gerebant mirari . . . (‘Meanwhile when he learned from deserters and the local inhabitants of the terms entered into by Scipio and his supporters who were engaged in hostilities against him he was surprised . . .’ B. Afr. 8.5)

(ah)

. . . eorum qui absolverunt misericordiam non reprehendo, eorum qui in iudicando superiora iudicia secuti sunt . . . constantiam comprobo . . . (‘. . . while I find no fault with the clemency of those who voted for acquittal, I approve the constancy of those who . . . in passing judgement stood by the judgements they had passed already.’ Cic. Clu. 106)

(ai)

Qui gentis omnis mariaque et terras movet, / eius sum civis civitate caelitum. (‘In the city of the celestials I am a fellow-citizen of him who wields sway over all peoples, seas, and lands.’ Pl. Rud. 1–2)

524 (aj)

Relative clauses Qui falsas litis falsis testimoniis / petunt quique in iure abiurant pecuniam, / eorum referimus nomina exscripta ad Iovem. (‘Of those who bring fraudulent cases to court, supported by fraudulent evidence, and of those who deny the receipt of money before a magistrate on oath, we write down the names and bring them back to Jupiter.’ Pl. Rud. 13–15) Supplement: Oleam cogito recte omnem arbitratu domini, aut quem custodem fecerit, aut cui olea venierit. (Cato Agr. 144.1); In hoc libro dicam de vocabulis locorum et quae in his sunt, in secundo de temporum et quae in his fiunt . . . (Var. L. 5.1.10); . . . gentibus cognationibusque hominum quique una coierunt . . . (Caes. Gal. 6.22.2); . . . quam invisa sit singularis potentia et miseranda vita qui se metui quam amari malunt, cuivis facile intellectu fuit. (Nep. Di. 9.5); Conveniebat enim fruges . . . mittere signum / sanguinis aut aliquid nostro quae corpore aluntur . . . (Lucr. 1.881–3); En dextra fidesque / quem secum patrios aiunt portare penates . . . (Verg. A. 4.597–8);87 Hoc in sativis rumix vocatur, omnium quae seruntur nascunturque fortissimum. (Plin. Nat. 19.184—NB: textually uncertain); Ut satis testium et qui servi eadem noscerent repperit, aditum ad principem postulat . . . (Tac. Ann. 2.28.1); . . . libertas hominis recogitata se potius ream ostendet quod ( quod cj. Engelbrecht) ipsa commisit. (Tert. Marc. 2.6.8) With a determiner in the genitive: Certe modo / huius quae locuta est quaerere aibas filiam. (Pl. Cist. 606–7); . . . illorum verbis falsis acceptor fui, / qui omnia se simulant scire nec quicquam sciunt. (Pl. Trin. 204–5); Servos eius qui hinc a nobis est mercatus mulierem . . . (Pl. Ps. 617); Non aetas eius qui adoptabat est quaesita . . . (Cic. Dom. 35); Vult enim magnitudine rei sic occupare animos eorum qui audiunt ut difficilis aditus veritati relinquatur. (Cic. Font. 20); Est enim quoddam genus eorum qui se philosophos appellari volunt, quorum dicuntur esse Latini sane multi libri. (Cic. Tusc. 2.7); Supplicia eorum qui in furto aut latrocinio aut aliqua noxia sint comprehensi gratiora dis inmortalibus esse arbitrantur. (Caes. Gal. 6.16.5); Constat fugisse ex castris regem ipsum receptumque in navem multitudine eorum qui ad proximas naves adnatabant demerso navigio perisse. (B. Alex. 31.6)

Autonomous relative clauses can function in apposition to a noun phrase. Such relative clauses are often marked as definite by the pronoun is, as in (ak)–(am). The presence and absence of such marking can be seen together in relation to the same noun phrase A. Albinus in (am). Such an appositional clause may be modified by a constituent that specifies the relationship between the head and the apposition, as videlicet ‘evidently’ in (an). It is not always easy to distinguish autonomous relative clauses functioning in apposition to a noun phrase from adnominal non-restrictive relative clauses.88 (ak)

Quis te prohibuit? / # Sosia ille, quem iam dudum dico, is qui me contudit. (‘Who forbade you? # That Sosia I’ve been talking about all this time, the one who beat me up.’ Pl. Am. 617–18)

87 See Pease ad loc.: ‘with ellipsis of eius’, with parallels from Virgil. 88 See Lavency (1998a: 28–30, 101–3) for discussion.

Autonomous relative clauses (al)

525

Neque vero Asclepiades, is quo nos medico amicoque usi sumus, . . . medicinae facultate utebatur . . . (‘Asclepiades also, he with whom we have been familiar both as physician and as friend, was not exhibiting the skill of a physician . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 1.62)

(am)

Nam et A. Albinus, is qui Graece scripsit historiam, qui consul cum L. Lucullo fuit, et litteratus et disertus fuit. (‘Thus Aulus Albanus, the man who wrote a history in Greek and who was consul with Lucius Lucullus, was both a man of letters and a good speaker.’ Cic. Brut. 81)

(an)

Copo autem . . . cum illum alterum, videlicet qui nummos haberet, animum advertisset, noctu postquam illos artius iam ut ex lassitudine dormire sensit, accessit . . . (‘Then the innkeeper . . . who had taken note of one of the travellers, that is the one with the money, came in the dead of night when he knew that they were sleeping heavily as people do when tired . . .’ Cic. Inv. 2.14) Supplement: L.  Opimius eiectus est patria, is qui et praetor et consul maximis rem publicam periculis liberarat. (Cic. Pis. 95); Ego Q. Maximum, eum qui Tarentum recepit, senem adulescens ita dilexi ut aequalem. (Cic. Sen. 10); At Diagoras cum Samothracam venisset, Atheus ille qui dicitur, atque ei quidam amicus ‘Tu . . .’ (Cic. N.D. 3.89); Sed demus tibi istas duas sumptiones (ea quae viwwl~l appellant dialectici . . .) . . . (Cic. Div. 2.108—NB: ea in agreement with quae); . . . fateor me communium malorum consolationem nullam invenire praeter illam, quae tamen, si possis eam suscipere, maxima est quaque ego cottidie magis utor, conscientiam rectae voluntatis maximam consolationem esse rerum incommodarum . . . (Cic. Fam. 6.4.2)

In the above examples of apposition the relative expression is formed by a pronoun. It may also be formed by a relative phrase, as in (ao)–(ar). Such cases are sometimes difficult to distinguish from connecting relatives. (ao)

Agonis quaedam est Lilybitana, liberta Veneris Erycinae, quae mulier ante hunc quaestorem copiosa plane et locuples fuit. (‘There is a certain woman from Lilybaeum, named Agonis, formerly a slave of Venus of Eryx. This woman, in the days before Caecilius was quaestor, had very considerable wealth and property.’ Cic. Div. Caec. 55)

(ap)

. . . id iure laudabitur ut in astrologia C. Sulpicium audimus, in geometria Sex. Pompeium ipsi cognovimus, multos in dialecticis plures in iure civili, quae omnes artes in veri investigatione versantur . . . (‘. . . that work will be justly praised, as we hear Gaius Sulpicius was praised for his work in astronomy and as I personally know Sextus Pompey was in the field of geometry; further, many have received praise for their work in dialectics and even more for civil law. All these professions are occupied with the search after truth . . .’ Cic. Off. 1.19)

(aq)

. . . iter in Santonum fines facere, qui non longe a Tolosatium finibus absunt, quae civitas est in provincia.

526

Relative clauses (‘. . . to march into the territory of the Santones, who are not far removed from the territory of the Tolosates, which is a state in the Province.’ Caes. Gal. 1.10.1)

(ar)

Eodem anno a Campanis Cumae, quam Graeci tum urbem tenebant, capiuntur. (‘In this same year Cumae, a city which the Greeks then held, was captured by the Campanians.’ Liv. 4.44.12) Supplement: Idemque Servium Galbam, quem hominem probe commeminisse se aiebat, pergraviter reprehendere solebat, quod . . . (Cic. de Orat. 1.227); Eum tibi unice commendo eoque magis quod cum ipsum diligo, tum quod negotia procurat L. Egnati Rufi, quo ego uno equite Romano familiarissime utor et qui cum consuetudine cottidiana tum officiis plurimis maximisque mihi coniunctus est. (Cic. Fam. 13.43.1—NB: coordination); Etiam Cingulo, quod oppidum Labienus constituerat suaque pecunia exaedificaverat, ad eum legati veniunt . . . (Caes. Civ. 1.15.2) The appositions with a relative phrase above differ from various expressions that bear some vague resemblance, like (as)–(au). Ex. (as) admits of two analyses: either virum optimum and the qui clause both modify M. Laenium Flaccum, or—preferably—the qui clause is a non-restrictive adnominal clause with virum, which itself is an apposition with M. Laenium Flaccum. In (at), the quod clause is a restrictive adnominal clause with flumine (maximo), which serves as an apposition with Isara (and is probably meant to identify it for Cicero). In (au), the cuius clause is a restrictive clause with vir. Together vir and cuius function as an apposition of Q. Servilius Priscus. Examples like (au) are not attested before Livy, but that may be the result of chance. (as) Nos Brundisi apud M. Laenium Flaccum dies XIII fuimus, virum optimum, qui periculum fortunarum et capitis sui prae mea salute neglexit . . . (‘I have stayed in Brundisium for thirteen days with M. Laenius Flaccus, a very worthy gentleman, who has disregarded the danger to his property and status in his concern for my safety . . .’ Cic. Fam. 14.4.2) (at) Itaque in Isara, flumine maximo quod in finibus est Allobrogum, ponte uno die facto exercitum a. d. VII Id. Mai. traduxi. (‘I therefore constructed in one day a bridge across the Isara, the largest river on the border of the Allobrogian territory, and led my army across on 9 May.’ Planc. Fam. 10.15.3) (au) . . . dictator ex senatus consulto dictus Q. Servilius Priscus, vir cuius providentiam in republica cum multis aliis tempestatibus ante experta civitas erat tum . . . (‘. . . Quintus Servilius Priscus was in consequence of a senatorial decree named dictator—a man whose clear vision in public affairs the state had proved on many previous occasions . . .’ Liv. 4.46.10)

An autonomous relative clause can also function as the subject of an ablative absolute construction (see § 16.91, (f)). Examples are (av)–(ax).89 89 For Tacitus, see Enghofer (1961: 64–5).

Autonomous relative clauses (av)

527

Iam . . . turba . . . refracturosque carcerem minabantur, cum remisso quod erepturi erant ex senatus consulto Manlius vinclis liberatur. (‘By this time the crowd . . . were threatening to break open the prison, when, with that which they were going to extort by violence having been conceded, Manlius was released from his bonds by decree of the Senate.’ Liv. 6.17.6—NB: the printed text is the reading of the OCT; most of the mss. have id quod; other editors read eo quod with some inferior mss.)

(aw)

. . . hoc genus solum, ut ea quae cete appellant, animal parit, excepta quam ranam vocant. (‘. . . this kind alone, like the creatures termed cetaceans, is viviparous, with the exception of the species called the fishing-frog.’ Plin. Nat. 9.78)

(ax)

Flaccus interim cognito castrorum obsidio et missis per Gallias qui auxilia concirent, lectos e legionibus Dillio Voculae . . . tradit . . . (‘Flaccus, meanwhile, after he had heard that the camp was besieged and had sent emissaries through the Gallic provinces to call out auxiliary forces, entrusted troops picked from his legions to Dillius Vocula . . .’ Tac. Hist. 4.24.1) NB: coordination: Itaque interfectis Novioduni custodibus quique eo negotiandi aut itineris causa convenerant pecuniam atque equos inter se partiti sunt . . . (Caes. Gal. 7.55.5).

18.17 Complex autonomous relative clauses Autonomous relative clauses may be modified by adnominal non-restrictive relative clauses. In (a), the coordinated relative clauses qui . . . invenerunt are the subject of superiores (sc. sunt). The subject is modified by the relative clause a quibus . . . defluximus. (a)

Etiam superiores, qui fruges, qui vestitum, qui tecta, qui cultum vitae, qui praesidia contra feras invenerunt, a quibus mansuefacti et exculti a necessariis artificiis ad elegantiora defluximus. (‘Earlier still the men who discovered the fruits of the earth, clothing, dwellings, an ordered way of life, protection against wild creatures—men under whose civilizing and refining guidance we have gradually passed on from the indispensable handicrafts to the finer arts.’ Cic. Tusc. 1.62) Supplement: Haec sunt enim tria, ea vero quem ad modum inlustrentur praesto est qui omnes docere possit, qui hoc primum in nostros mores induxit, qui maxime auxit, qui solus effecit. (Cic. de Orat. 2.121); Is solis consuluit quos bona ratione donavit, quos videmus si modo ulli sint esse perpaucos. (Cic. N.D. 3.70); . . . quod et eos quos ipse restituerat, quorum bona alii possederant, egere iniquissimum esse arbitrabatur . . . (Cic. Off. 2.81); Est enim quoddam genus eorum qui se philosophos appellari volunt, quorum dicuntur esse Latini sane multi libri. (Cic. Tusc. 2.7); . . . earumque factionum sunt principes qui summam auctoritatem eorum iudicio habere existimantur,

528

Relative clauses quorum ad arbitrium iudiciumque summa omnium rerum consiliorumque redeat. (Caes. Gal. 6.11.2–3)

An autonomous clause can be embedded in a superordinate autonomous clause (or a sentence with relative connexion), as in (b). The qui capitalem . . . essent clause is the attribute of the qui . . . fierent clause, its function being marked by the resumptive pronoun eorum, just as the function of the qui . . . fierent clause (subject of the accusative and infinitive clause) is resumed by eos. Different again is (c). Here the qui . . . tyrannum clause is the subject complement with quis est omnium (for such questions, see  §  22.12). The qui modo . . . commercium clause is a parenthetical autonomous relative clause. (b)

. . . edixitque, qui capitalem fraudem ausi quique pecunia iudicati in vinculis essent, qui eorum apud se milites fierent, eos noxa pecuniaque sese exsolvi iussurum. (‘. . . and he issued an edict that of those who had committed a capital offence or were in chains as judgement debtors, any who would become soldiers under him he would order to be released from punishment or debt.’ Liv. 23.14.3)

(c)

Quis est omnium, qui modo cum Musis, id est cum humanitate et cum doctrina, habeat aliquod commercium, qui se non hunc mathematicum malit quam illum tyrannum? (‘Who in all the world, who enjoys merely some degree of communion with the Muses, that is to say with liberal education and refinement, is there who would not choose to be this mathematician rather than that tyrant?’ Cic. Tusc. 5.66)

18.18 The presence of the same noun (phrase) in the relative and superordinate clause In addition to the regular pattern in which adnominal relative clauses are used (essentially: a noun, with or without a determiner, and a relative pronoun), instances are found from Early Latin onwards of the repetition of the same noun or a near synonym in the relative, as in ex. (a). This form of repetition is also possible with autonomous relative clauses. The various possibilities are shown in Table 18.5. These combinations are discussed throughout this section. Table 18.5 Repetition of the noun (phrase) in the relative clause a. adnominal

noun

relative determiner

noun

b. adnominal

preparative determiner

noun

relative determiner

noun

c. autonomous

relative determiner

noun

resumptive determiner

noun

The effect of repetition is, on the one hand, more clarity and less ambiguity, which explains why it is relatively common in legal texts, especially of the Republican period

Autonomous relative clauses

529

(see (a)).90 On the other hand, this form of repetition makes sentences longer and more complex. Another example is (b), with the anaphoric determiner eo + agro.91 In the Rhetorica ad Herennium it belongs to the text illustrating the middle style (ex. (c)).92 (a)

Cos. · quei · nunc · sunt, · iei · ante · K. · Decembreis · primas · de · eis, · quei / cives · Romanei · sunt, · viatorem · unum · legunto, · quei · in / ea · decuria · viator · appareat, · quam · decuriam · viatorum / ex · noneis · Decembribus · primeis · quaestoribus · ad · aerarium / apparere · oportet · oportebit. (‘The consuls now in office shall, before the first day of December next, choose, from those who are Roman citizens, one messenger who shall attend as messenger in that department of messengers which is or shall be required to attend the quaestors at the treasury on and after the fifth day of December next.’ CIL I2.587.7–11 (Lex Cornelia, Rome, 81 bc))

(b)

Si totus ager itineri aut actui servit, dominus in eo agro nihil facere potest quo servitus impediatur . . . (‘If an entire estate is subject to a servitude of iter or actus, the owner of that estate is not entitled to do anything on the land that would hinder the exercise of servitude . . .’ Javol. dig. 8.3.13.1—tr. Birks)

(c)

. . . cum . . . non . . . viderent . . . ullam rem quae res pertinet ad bellum administrandum? . . . Nedum illi imperium orbis terrae, cui imperio omnes gentes . . . consenserunt . . ., ad se transferre tantulis viribus conarentur. (‘. . . when they saw none of the things needful for carrying on the war? . . . It is still less credible that with such meagre forces they would attempt to usurp that sovereignty over the whole world which all the peoples have accepted.’ Rhet. Her. 4.13)

Although this repetition has received much scholarly attention, it is, in reality, a minor phenomenon and one which is more stylistic than syntactic. Relatively frequent are nouns such as dies ‘day’, lex ‘law’, locus ‘place’, pars ‘part’, and res ‘thing’. Grammars note that authors vary in the degree to which they use these constructions. They are said to be relatively frequent in Caesar (Parzinger (1910: 83–4) calculates twenty-six instances, others somewhat fewer), not infrequent in Cicero (about fifty instances, especially in his early writings, but decreasing afterwards), rare in Livy, but more common again in Vitruvius, archaizing authors like Fronto, and the jurists. These constructions are also not uncommon in Late Latin.93 The most frequent types are the adnominal (paras. a. and b. below). The number of illustrations provided below is overproportionate to the general frequency. 90 For a discussion of such instances, see Pascucci (1968: 12–17), de Meo (2005: 87–90), and Hallaaho (2018: 161–5). 91 Instances can be found in Kalb (1888: 41–3); Lebreton (1901b: 19–20); Merguet (1905/6: 592B, § II); Parzinger  (1910: 83–4); Eden  (1962: 87–9); Odelman  (1972: 148–52). For the complexity of relative clauses in legal inscriptions, see Amacker (2011). 92 See Calboli (2006: 235–6). 93 For a historical survey, see Sz.: 535–6; for the jurists, see also Pascucci (1968: 12–17), Calboli (2006), and Reggio (2005; 2006).

530

Relative clauses a.

Adnominal pattern (i): (N)rN: head noun modified by a relative determiner + noun

The pattern with the head noun repeated in the relative clause is found from Plautus onwards. This is the pattern that is most common in Caesar’s Commentarii de bello Gallico.94 Most of the relative clauses are restrictive, like those in (d) and (e), but in (f) the context suggests interpreting bonorum exemplum as definite—‘the example set by good poets’—and the relative clause as non-restrictive.95 (d)

Immo dicamus senibus legem censeo / prius quam abeamus qua se lege teneant contentique sint. (‘No, I think we should tell the old men our law before we leave, the law which they should follow and be content with.’ Pl. Mer. 1015–16)

(e)

Omnibus rebus ad profectionem comparatis diem dicunt qua die ad ripam Rhodani omnes conveniant. (‘Having therefore provided all things for their departure, they named a day by which all should assemble upon the bank of the Rhone.’ Caes. Gal. 1.6.4)

(f)

Habet bonorum exemplum, quo exemplo sibi / licere [id] facere quod illi fecerunt putat. (‘He has the example of good writers, in accordance with which example he supposes he is permitted to do what they did.’ Ter. Hau. 20–1) Supplement: Est causa qua causa simul mecum ire veritu’st. (Pl. Epid. 41); Interea dies advenit quo die sese ex instituto ac lege Rupilia dicas sortiturum Syracusis iste edixerat. (Cic. Ver. 2.37); . . . statua est in Ceramico Chrysippi sedentis porrecta manu, quae manus significet illum in hac esse rogatiuncula delectatum. (Cic. Fin. 1.39); . . . (sc. Romulus) populum . . . in tribus tris curiasque triginta discripserat (quas curias earum nominibus nuncupavit, quae ex Sabinis virgines raptae postea fuerant oratrices pacis et foederis) . . . (Cic. Rep. 2.14); A M. Laberio C. Albanius praedia in aestimationem accepit quae praedia Laberius emerat a Caesare de bonis Plotianis. (Cic. Fam. 13.8.2); Erant omnino itinera duo, quibus itineribus domo exire possent. (Caes. Gal. 1.6.1); Loci natura erat haec, quem locum nostri castris delegerant. (Caes. Gal. 2.18.1); . . . naves iubet post hostium tergum quam maxime ad litus adpelli signumque suum observare, quo signo dato . . . hostibus aversis incuterent terrorem . . . (B. Afr. 80.5); . . . lex Porcia aliaeque leges paratae sunt, quibus legibus exilium damnatis permissum est. (Sal. Cat. 51.40 (Caesar’s oration)); ‘Item senatui placere de militibus qui in exercitu C. Caesaris sunt, qui eorum stipendia emerita aut causas, quibus de causis missi fieri debeant habeant, ad hunc ordinem referri, ut eorum ratio habeatur causaeque cognoscantur.’ (Cael. Fam. 8.8.7—NB: quotation of a senatus consultum); . . . murum ab imo ad summum crebris cubitalibus fere cavis aperuit, per quae cava pars sagittis pars scorpionibus modicis ex occulto petebant hostem. (Liv. 24.34.8); Item in Thessalia fons est profluens, ex quo fonte nec pecus ullum gustat nec . . . (Vitr. 8.3.15); Eaque columna versatilis perficiatur, uti ad sigillum

94 Fifteen instances from Caesar are collected by Odelman (1972: 148–9), alongside four or five of type b. 95 Pace Pompei (2011b: 77), who holds that most clauses of this type are non-restrictive.

Autonomous relative clauses

531

virgulamque, qua virgula egrediens sigillum ostendit horas, columna versando continenter suis cuiusque mensibus brevitates et crescentias faciat horarum. (Vitr. 9.8.7); Diem, qui dies ex ista nocte nascetur, aeterna mihi nuncupavit religio . . . (Apul. Met. 11.5.5); Praeter has leges Aemiliam quoque legem invenimus, qua lege non sumptus cenarum, sed ciborum genus et modus praefinitus est. (Gel. 2.24.12); Lucius Titius . . . fundum Cornelianum locavit  Sempronio, qui Sempronius reliqua traxit. (Paul. dig. 26.7.46.pr.);96 . . . cepimus ascendere montes singulos, qui montes cum infinito labore ascenduntur, quoniam . . . (Pereg. 3.1); ‘Dicimus’ inquit ‘iudicium futurum, in quo iudicio . . .’ et cetera . . . Dixerat ‘iudicium futurum’ sed, homo cautus, timuit solum dicere ‘in quo’ et posuit ‘in quo iudicio’ ne, si non secundo repetisset ‘iudicium’ nos, obliti superiorum, pro ‘iudicio’ ‘asinum’ putaremus! (Hier. Ruf. 2.6); . . . cervicem illius loro cinges, quod lorum strictius teneatur super scapulas ab aliquo . . . (Mulom. Chir. 6) NB: Ubi de eius adventu Helvetii certiores facti sunt, legatos ad eum mittunt nobilissimos civitatis, cuius legationis Nammeius et Verucloetius principem locum obtinebant . . . (Caes. Gal. 1.7.3)

b.

Adnominal pattern (ii): p[(N)rN]: preparative determiner + head noun modified by a relative determiner + noun

This pattern is the most common among the three types mentioned. (g)

Sinite exorator sim, eodem ut iure uti senem / liceat quo iure sum usus adulescentior . . . (‘Allow me to succeed in my advocacy; let me enjoy as an old man the same privilege as I did in my younger days . . .’ Ter. Hec. 10–11—see also § 18.15 on idem)

(h)

Ubi eum castris se tenere Caesar intellexit . . . ultra eum locum quo in loco Germani consederant . . . castris idoneum locum delegit . . . (‘When Caesar observed that he kept to his camp . . . he chose a suitable spot for the camp beyond the place in which the Germans had pitched theirs.’ Caes. Gal. 1.49.1)

(i)

Ego tibi illam Aciliam legem restituo, qua lege multi . . . condemnati sunt . . . (‘I am restoring the old Acilian law for you—a law under which many a man . . . has been found guilty . . .’ Cic. Ver. 1.26) Supplement: Cn. Flavius . . . scriptum faciebat isque in eo tempore aedili curuli apparebat quo tempore aediles subrogantur . . . (Calp. hist. 27=29C); Quei ager publicus populi Romanei in terra italia P. Mucio L. Calpurnio cos. fuit, exra eum agrum quei ager ex / lege . . . (CIL I2.585.4 (Lex Agr., 111 bc)); Oratoris officium est de iis  rebus posse dicere quae res ad usum civilem moribus et legibus constitutae sunt . . . (Rhet. Her. 1.2); A. Cluentius causam dicit eques Romanus ea lege qua lege senatores et ii qui magistratum habuerunt soli tenentur. (Cic. Clu. 156); Deinde illud, cuius confirmandi causa fiet inductio, videndum est, ut simile iis rebus sit quas res quasi non dubias ante induxerimus . . . (Cic. Inv. 1.53); Quintus hic dies, Brute, finem faciet Tusculanarum disputationum, quo die est a nobis ea de re quam tu ex omnibus maxime probas disputatum. (Cic. Tusc. 5.1); Lege itaque Aelia Sentia cavetur, ut, qui 96 See also OLD s.v. qui § 8.

532

Relative clauses servi a dominis poenae nomine vincti sunt . . . eiusdem condicionis liberi fiant cuius condicionis sunt peregrini dediticii. (Gaius Inst. 1.13); Cuperemus profecto, mi Naucelli carissime, eo nos fato praeditos, ut, si mihi liberi etiam virilis sexus nati fuissent eorumque aetas hoc potissimum tempore ad munia militiae fungenda adolesceret quo tempore tu provinciam cum exercitu administrares, uti sub te mei liberi stipendia mererent. (Fro. Amic. 1.5.1)

c. ( j)

Autonomous pattern: relative determiner + noun followed by a resumptive determiner + noun I ergo intro, et quoi rei’st, ei rei [hilarum] hunc sumamus diem. (‘Go indoors, then, and let’s devote this day to the object to which it belongs.’ Ter. Ad. 854)

(k)

Quam rem pr(aetor) ex h(ac) l(ege) egerit, sei eam rem proferet, quoi . . . (‘With regard to the action which shall have been taken under this law by the praetor, to wit, should he postpone the case . . .’ CIL I2.583.39 (Lex Acilia, 122 bc)) Supplement: Si communiter pisunt, qua ex parte politori pars est, eam partem in pistrinum politor. (Cato Agr. 136); . . . uae · pequnia · publica · sacra · religiosa · eius · municipi / quemque · eorum · in · eo · magistratu · pervenerit, · eam · pequniam · municipio / Tarentino · salvam · rec essra subordinator is obligatory in Classical Latin prose.126 (a)

Quem pol ego hodie ob istaec dicta faciam ferventem flagris. (‘For those words, by Pollux, I’ll warm you up with whips today.’ Pl. Am. 1030)

(b)

Lycurgus quidem, qui Lacedaemoniorum rem publicam temperavit, leges suas auctoritate Apollinis Delphici confirmavit. Quas cum vellet Lysander commutare, eadem est prohibitus religione. (‘Lycurgus himself, who once organized the Spartan state, established his laws by authority of Apollo’s Delphic oracle. When Lysander wished to change these laws, he was prevented by the same religious authority.’ Cic. Div. 1.96)

119 In Lodge s.v. qui, pp. 472–4, §§ M and N. 120 For the evolution of the use of relative connexion, see Rosén (1999: 165–73). 121 See Kurzová (1981: 47). In Caesar’s works 27 per cent of relative clauses are punctuated as independent sentences (Évrard 2011: 194). 122 ‘Dieser relative Anschluss wird mit Recht als das letzte Moment in der Entwicklung der relativen Syntaxe betrachtet’ (K.-St.: II.319). 123 See Petersmann (1977: 272). 124 For the quite common use of relative connexion by Lucretius and his relation to earlier authors, see Vonlaufen (1974: 179–84). 125 See especially Touratier (1994: 546–7) and Évrard (1992; 2011), who also discusses the history of the concept of relative connexion. 126 See Pennell Ross (1987: 95–9) on what she calls ‘displacement’ in Caesar, Sallust, and Livy. See also Panhuis (1982: 122).

Relative connexion (c)

557

Quam (sc. coronam) quod amor civium et non vis expresserat, nullam habuit invidiam magnaque fuit gloria. (‘Because the love of his fellow-citizens, not force, had induced them to give him this crown, it excited no envy, but brought him great glory.’ Nep. Thr. 4.1)

(d)

Quae res bene vortat mi et tibi et ventri meo . . . (‘May this turn out well for me and you and my belly . . .’ Pl. Per. 329)

(e)

Quam ob rem mi magis par est via decedere et concedere. (‘For this reason it’s more appropriate to get off the street for me and to get out of my way.’ Pl. Am. 990)

(f)

Qui mos cum a posterioribus non esset retentus, Arcesilas eum revocavit . . . (‘When this practice was not continued by his successors, Arcesilas reinstituted it . . .’ Cic. Fin. 2.2)

(g)

Ne in unius imperium res reccidat admonemur. Ad quem metum si deorum monitis non duceremur, tamen ipsi nostro sensu coniecturaque raperemur. (‘We are warned to take care that the republic does not fall under the absolute dominion of a single individual. And even if we were not led to this fear by the warnings of the gods, we should nonetheless be forcibly driven upon it by our own powers of perception and inference.’ Cic. Har. 54)

(h)

. . . subito vi ventorum et aquae magnitudine pons est interruptus et reliqua multitudo equitum interclusa. Quo cognito a Petreio et Afranio . . . legiones IIII equitatumque omnem traiecit . . . (‘. . . the bridge was suddenly broken down by a storm of wind and a great rush of water, and a large force of cavalry that remained behind was cut off. When Petreius and Afranius discovered this, . . . (Afranius) immediately sent four legions and all his cavalry across . . .’ Caes. Civ. 1.40.3–4) Supplement: Amat, sapit, recte facit, animo quando opsequitur suo. Quod omnis homines facere oportet . . . (Pl. Am. 995–6); Nunc hinc parasitum in Cariam misi meum / petitum argentum a meo sodali mutuom. / Quod si non affert, quo me vortam nescio. (Pl. Cur. 67–9); Nam hunc nescire sat scio / de illa amica. Quod si sciret, esset alia oratio. (Pl. Mer. 382–3); Quos quom ferias, tibi plus noceas. (Pl. Ps. 137–8); Quos quidem quam ad rem dicam in argentariis referre habere, nisi pro tabulis, nescio . . . (Pl. Truc. 70); Alter terribilem minatur vitae cruciatum et necem. / Quae nemo est tam firmo ingenio et tanta confidentia / quin refugiat timido sanguen atque exalbescat metu. (Enn. scen. 24–6V=18–20J); Quod qui rescierint, culpent. Illud merito factum omnes putent. (Ter. Eu. 387); . . . gloria · atque · ingenium quibus sei / in · longa · licuset · tibe utier vita / facile · facteis · superases · gloriam / maiorum. (CIL I2.10.5–8 (Scip. Elog., Rome, c.170 bc?)); Nam illud quidem non dices?—quod utinam dicas!—ad Apronium non pervenisse tantum. (Cic. Ver. 3.107); Quo quid miserius, quid acerbius, quid luctuosius vidimus? (Cic. Mil. 90); Quod si ita esset, ut quisque minimum esse in se arbitraretur, ita ad amicitiam esset aptissimus. Quod longe secus est. (Cic. Amic. 29); Quem inridebant collegae tui eumque tum Pisidam,

558

Relative clauses tum Soranum augurem esse dicebant. (Cic. Div. 1.105); Quo quid potest dici absurdius? (Cic. Div. 2.98); An eum discere ea mavis quae cum plane perdidicerit nihil sciat? (Cic. Fin. 5.76); Restant duae perturbationes, laetitia gestiens et libido. Quae si non cadent in sapientem, semper mens erit tranquilla sapientis. (Cic. Tusc. 4.8); Quo audito vehementer sum commotus . . . (Cic. Fam. 15.4.4); Reducitur ad eum deprensus ex itinere N. Magius Cremona, praefectus fabrum Cn. Pompei. Quem Caesar ad eum remittit cum mandatis. (Caes. Civ. 1.24.4); Quorum oratione permotus Varus praesidium quod introduxerat ex oppido educit ac profugit. (Caes. Civ. 1.13.2); Ad quos cum Caesar nuntios misisset . . . (Caes. Gal. 4.16.3); Quarta quoque his igitur quaedam natura necesse’st / adtribuatur. Ea’st omnino nominis expers. / Qua neque mobilius quicquam neque tenuius extat / nec magis e parvis et levibus ex (est cj. Wakefield) elementis. / Sensiferos motus quae didit prima per artus. (Lucr. 3.241–5); Quem ut barbari incendium effugisse viderunt, telis eminus missis interfecerunt . . . (Nep. Alc. 10.6); Quibus illi freti non, uti equestri proelio solet, sequi, dein cedere, sed advorsis equis concurrere . . . (Sal. Jug. 59.3—NB: historic infinitive); Quod ubi audivit consul, extemplo filium aversatus contionem classico advocari iussit. (Liv. 8.7.14); Quod si factum esset, votum rite solvi non posse. (Liv. 31.9.7); Quae cum ita sint, ego iam hinc praedico, patres conscripti, me exercitu eo qui nunc est rem publicam administraturum. (Liv. 40.35.14); Foveam igne repletam terra superiecta obruit. In quam adulescentibus lapsis et consumptis accusatur rei publicae laesae. (Sen. Con. 10.1.13—NB: some editors print this as one sentence); E quibus qui a teneris aetatibus doctrinarum abundantia satiantur optimos habent sapientiae sensus . . . (Vitr. 9. pr. 2); Conduntur hieme et Pontici mures, dumtaxat alvi. Quorum palatum in gustu sagacissimum auctores quonam modo intellexerint miror. (Plin. Nat. 8.132); In quo ita loquimur, tamquam omnis sermo habeat figuram . . . (Quint. Inst. 9.1.12) Audimus aliquem tabulas numquam confecisse. Quae est opinio hominum de M. Antonio falsa, nam fecit diligentissime. (Cic. Ver. 1.60); Cui legi cum vestra dignitas vehementer adversetur, istius spes falsa et insignis inpudentia maxime suffragatur. (Cic. Ver. 5.178); Quarum omnium rerum quia vis erat tanta ut sine deo regi non posset, ipsa res deorum nomen optinuit. (Cic. N.D. 2.61); Tarsum veni a. d. III Non. Oct. inde ad Amanum contendi, qui Syriam a Cilicia in aquarum divortio dividit; qui mons erat hostium plenus sempiternorum. (Cic. Att. 5.20.3); Postea mihi non tam meorum litterae quam sermones eorum qui hac iter faciebant animum tuum immutatum significabant. Quae res fecit ut tibi litteris obstrepere non auderem. (Cic. Fam. 5.4.1); Consueverat, si iure non potuerat, iniuria quavis inimico exitium machinari. Cui rei mors indigna Palamedi testimonium dat. (Rhet. Her. 2.28); Quae res omnium rerum copia complevit exercitum. (Caes. Civ. 2.25.7); Nam tota fere tum / tempestas concussa tremit fremitusque moventur. / Quo de concussu sequitur gravis imber et uber . . . (Lucr. 6. 288–90); . . . prope uti locus hic linquatur inanis. / Cuius ubi e regione loci venere volantis . . . (Lucr. 6.832–3); Cuius victoriae non alienum videtur quale praemium Miltiadi sit tributum docere . . . (Nep. Milt. 6.1); Qui mos cui potius quam consuli aut quando magis usurpandus colendusque est . . . (Plin. Pan. 1.2) Connective relative not immediately following the clause in which its antecedent is present: . . . signa legionum . . . conspiciuntur, quas C. Fabius . . . miserat, suspicatus

Relative connexion

559

fore—id quod accidit—ut duces . . . uterentur. Quarum adventu proelium dirimitur . . . (Caes. Civ. 1.40.7).127 Tamen ‘nevertheless’ is said to be an exception to the incompatibility of connective relatives and connectors, in view of instances like (i), but tamen is an adverb (see § 24.31).128 Very exceptional is the use of et in ( j). (i) At cuius hominis! Clarissimi ac potentissimi. Qui tamen cum consul fuisset, condemnatus est. (‘But what a man. Very eminent and powerful. Yet, though an ex-consul, he was prosecuted and found guilty.’ Cic. Ver. 4.22) ( j) . . . et · cuius · mortem · gavisum · esse · eum · his · argumentis · senatui · apparuerit. (‘. . . that he rejoiced in his death was obvious to the senate from the following evidence.’ S.C. de Gn. Pisone patre Copy A.61–2 (ad 20)) Sometimes a connective relative that refers to the preceding content is developed later on in the sentence, as in (k) and (l). (k) Quod si rescierit peperisse eam, id qua causa clam me habuisse / dicam, non edepol scio. (‘If he discovers she’s had a child, heaven help me, I’ve no idea what reason I can give him for keeping it secret.’ Ter. Hec. 519–20) (l) Quod tamen nemo suspicari debet, tam esse me cupidum ut . . . (‘This no one ought to suppose, that my eagerness should make me willing that . . .’ Cic. Ver. 4.124) Supplement: Quo quidem mihi turpius videri nihil solet quam cum ex oratoris dicto aliquo aut responso aut rogato sermo ille sequitur: ‘occidit’. (Cic. de Orat. 2.302); Quod postquam Caesar intellexit incitatis militum animis resisti nullo modo posse signo Felicitatis dato equo admisso in hostem inter principes ire contendit. (B. Afr. 83.1); Quae ubi in castra Siculorum sunt nuntiata, Epicyden Syracusis excessisse, a Carthaginiensibus relictam insulam et prope iterum traditam Romanis, legatos de condicionibus dedendae urbis explorata prius per conloquia voluntate eorum, qui obsidebantur, ad Marcellum mittunt. (Liv. 25.28.1–2)

Sentences with a connective relative can in principle be of any sentence type (declarative, imperative, and interrogative). They can be part of an accusative and infinitive sentence (see § 15.107), but usually they belong to a subordinate clause within the accusative and infinitive sentence, as in (m).129 Disjuncts and discourse particles can  be used. An example of an imperative sentence is (n), of an interrogative, (o). See also § 18.6.

127 Example taken from Bolkestein (1996a: 563–4). 129 See Évrard (2011: 194–203).

128 See Spevak (2006c).

560

Relative clauses

(m)

Caesarem . . . facile intercludi posse frumentoque prohiberi. Quod nisi fecerit (sc. Pompeius), se (sc. Domitium) cohortesque amplius XXX magnumque numerum senatorum atque equitum Romanorum in periculum esse venturum. (‘That Caesar . . . could easily be trapped and cut off from his food supply. But if Pompey did not do this, he (Domitius), more than thirty cohorts, and a large number of senators and men of equestrian rank would be in danger.’ Caes. Civ. 1.17.1–2)

(n)

Is hunc suo testimonio sublevat. Quod recita. (‘He gives evidence in his favour. Read this evidence.’ Cic. Clu. 168)

(o)

(sc. hae translationes) Quarum ego quid vobis aut inveniendi rationem aut genera ponam? (‘Why should I specify for you the categories of these or the method of discovering them?’ Cic. de Orat. 3.156) Supplement: Imperative: Apud alium ipsis facti pudet, / ne ineptu’, ne protervo’ videar. Quod illum facere credito. (Ter. Hau. 576–7); (sc. belua) Quae quoniam in foveam incidit obruatur. (Cic. Phil. 4.12); Omne igitur caelum sive mundus, sive quo alio vocabulo gaudet, hoc a nobis nuncupatus sit—de quo id primum consideremus . . . (Cic. Tim. 4—NB: translates Greek: }up.~hzx oŅzåx .p{ā lß~zŪ .{ŷ~zx); Quorum progeniem vos, patres conscripti, nolite pati me nepotem Masinissae frustra a vobis auxilium petere. (Sal. Jug. 14.6) Interrogative: Ai’n tu te illius invenisse filiam? # Inveni, et domi est. / . . . / # Quamne hodie per urbem uterque sumus defessi quaerere? (Pl. Epid. 717–19); Quae quo usque tandem patiemini, o fortissumi viri? (Sal. Cat. 20.9)

18.29 The use of the connective relative in ablative absolute clauses The use of connective relative pronouns and phrases in ablative absolute clauses is found from Ennius onwards, as in (a). The ablative absolute in that example functions as a summary of the preceding event. The use of such sentence-initial clauses is frequent in Caesar’s narrative. The clauses may, however, be more elaborate—as in (b) and (c)—and they need not be in sentence-initial position, as in (e). Note in (b) the position of Caesar in the middle of the ablative absolute clause. In (d), hunc refers back to quo in the ablative absolute.  (a)

Mater gravida parere se ardentem facem / visa est in somnis Hecuba. Quo facto pater / rex ipse Priamus . . . / exsacrificabat hostiis balantibus. (‘My mother Hecuba, heavy with child, in a dream thought she gave birth to a burning brand; when this happened my father king Priam himself . . . made atoning sacrifice with bleating victims.’ Enn. scen. 35–9V=50–4J)

(b)

Quibus litteris circiter media nocte Caesar adlatis suos facit certiores eosque ad dimicandum animo confirmat. (‘When this dispatch was delivered about midnight, Caesar informed his troops of it and encouraged them for the fight.’ Caes. Gal. 5.49.4)

Relative connexion (c)

561

In campo certe non fuisti cum hora secunda comitiis quaestoris institutis sella Q. Maximi, quem illi consulem esse dicebant, posita esset. Quo mortuo nuntiato sella sublata est. (‘At all events you were not in the Campus Martius when, after the opening of the Comitia for the election of quaestors, at the second hour, the chair of Q. Maximus, whom those men declared to be consul, was set; and then, on the announcement of his death, the chair was put away.’ Cic. Fam. 7.30.1)

(d)

Quo percusso exanimatoque hunc scutis protegunt hostes, in illum universi tela coniciunt neque dant regrediendi facultatem. (‘When he was struck senseless, the enemy sought to cover him with their shields, and discharged their spears in a volley at the foeman and gave him no chance to retire.’ Caes. Gal. 5.44.6)

(e)

. . . qua Lysimachi quondam regnum fuerit, quo victo omnia quae illius fuissent iure belli Seleuci facta sint, existimare suae dicionis esse. (‘. . . (but all the country) which had once been the kingdom of Lysimachus, and all of which, when he was defeated, passed into the hands of that man Seleucus by right of conquest, he considered his own.’ Liv. 33.40.3) Supplement: Quo mortuo, nec ita multo post, in Galliam proficiscitur Quinctius. (Cic. Quinct. 15); . . . ut iis consulibus praetor esset, quibus si non adiuvantibus, at coniventibus certe speraret se posse eludere in illis suis cogitatis furoribus. (Cic. Mil. 32); Quibus hic litteris lectis ad urbem confestim incredibili celeritate advolavit. (Cic. Sest. 11); Recte videretur, nisi et virtutis et vitiorum sine ulla divina ratione grave ipsius conscientiae pondus esset, qua sublata iacent omnia. (Cic. N.D. 3.85); Cui cum tres optationes Neptunus dedisset optavit, interitum Hippolyti filii, cum is patri suspectus esset de noverca; quo optato impetrato Theseus in maximis fuit luctibus. (Cic. Off. 3.94); Quibus rebus ego cognitis cunctatus non sum. (Planc. Fam. 10.15.2); Qua pronuntiatione facta temporis puncto sublatis ancoris omnes Uticam relinquunt et quo imperatum est transeunt. (Caes. Civ. 2.25.7); Qua perfecta munitione animadversum est ab speculatoribus Caesaris cohortes quasdam . . . (Caes. Civ. 3.66.1); Quibus ad sequendum impeditis Caesar quod fore providerat meridiano fere tempore signo profectionis dato exercitum educit . . . (Caes. Civ. 3.76.4); Qua re cognita Vercingetorix omnibus interruptis eius fluminis pontibus ab altera fluminis parte iter facere coepit. (Caes. Gal. 7.34.3); Quibus rebus confectis omnia propere per nuntios consuli declarantur. (Sal. Cat. 46.1); . . . raptim quibus quisque poterat elatis cum . . . exirent, iam continens agmen migrantium inpleverat vias . . . (Liv. 1.29.4–5); Quo repulso tum vero indignum facinus esse clamitantes, qui patrum consulibus aderant, devolant de tribunali, ut lictori auxilio essent. (Liv. 2.29.3); . . . quibus poterat sauciis ductis . . . ad urbem proximis itineribus pergit. (Liv. 4.39.9); . . . ceciditque miserabilius quam ille quo cadente factus est clamor. (August. Conf. 6.13) Ablative absolutes are also common in (non-restrictive) adnominal relative clauses. Examples are (f)–(h).

562

Relative clauses (f) . . . me expulso, Catone amandato, in eum ipsum se convertit quo auctore, quo adiutore in contionibus ea quae gerebat omnia quaeque gesserat se et fecisse et facere dicebat. (‘. . . as soon as I had been expelled and Cato removed, he turned round upon the very man whose agency and assistance in mass meetings had enabled him, as he himself admitted, to carry out all his projects in the past, and still continued to enable him.’ Cic. Dom. 66) (g) Nam post Q. Fulvium Q. Fabium consules, quibus consulibus Capua devicta atque capta est, nihil est in illa urbe contra hanc rem publicam non dico factum, sed nihil omnino est cogitatum. (‘For, after the consulship of Quintus Fulvius and Quintus Fabius, during whose consulship Capua was subdued and taken, nothing has even been thought of in that city, much less done, that is against the interests of this republic.’ Cic. Agr. 2.90) (h) (Africanus) . . . quo vivo, nisi ut ille senatu moveretur, quam notam nemo memoriae prodidit, alius princeps in locum eius lectus non esset. (‘. . . and while he lived, unless he had been expelled from the senate, a disgrace which no one has recorded, another princeps would not have been chosen in his stead.’ Liv. 39.52.1) Supplement: Eos enim civis pugna illa sustulerat, quibus non modo vivis sed etiam victoribus incolumis et florens civitas esse posset. (Cic. Phil. 14.23); An hoc tibi persuasum est, fore ceteros ab eo liberos, quo invito nobis in ista civitate locus non sit? (Brut. ad Brut. 1.16.5)

18.30 Coordination of relative clauses Coordination of adnominal relative clauses with repetition of the relative pronoun is discussed in § 18.13. This section deals with coordination of relative clauses of whatever type without repetition of the pronoun. The second (or following) relative expression need not be expressed, if the functions of the relative expressions in their clauses are the same. This is the case in (a), where there is no explicit subject of praefuerunt (signalled by ‘Ø’); qui functions as the subject of both clauses. Similarly in (b). If, on the other hand, the functions are different, the second (or following) relative expression is normally expressed, as in (c) and (d) (for constraints on coordination in general, see §§ 19.75–81).  (a)

Quem umquam audisti maiorum tuorum, qui et sacra privata coluerunt et Ø publicis sacerdotiis praefuerunt, cum sacrificium Bonae Deae fieret interfuisse? (‘Who of your ancestors, who were assiduous in their performance of private rites and their supervision of state priesthoods, have you heard intruded when the sacrifice to the Benign Goddess was being performed?’ Cic. Dom. 105)

Coordination of relative clauses 563 (b)

Itemque Dumnorigi Haeduo, fratri Diviciaci, qui eo tempore principatum in  civitate obtinebat ac Ø maxime plebi acceptus erat, ut idem conaretur persuadet . . . (‘And Dumnorix also, of the Aedui, brother of Diviciacus, who at that time held the chieftaincy of the state and was a great favourite with the common people, he persuaded to attempt the same thing . . .’ Caes. Gal. 1.3.5)

(c)

Edepol me uxori exoptatum credo adventurum domum, / quae me amat, quam contra amo. (‘By Pollux, I’ll come home much longed-for by my wife, I think, who loves me as I love her.’ Pl. Am. 654–5)

(d)

. . . quaeque ipse miserrima vidi / et quorum pars magna fui. (‘. . . the sights most piteous that I saw myself and wherein I played no small role.’ Verg. A. 2.5–6)

However, throughout Latinity instances can be found where a second relative is absent even though there is a difference in function. Several patterns may be distinguished. In (e), the two coordinated clauses share a second argument. If we insert a second relative, it must be in the accusative (quam), whereas utor governs an ablative (qua). In (f), the subject of the embedded accusative and infinitive (quae) and the subject of the coordinated clause are identical. Formally, the expressed quae is an accusative, while the absent one would be a nominative. What is noteworthy is the fact that the clauses are hierarchically different. In (g), the absent relative is the subject in its clause (qui), whereas the expressed one is the object in its clause: the relatives therefore have two different functions. In (h) cui is the third argument in its clause (a recipient), whereas the absent relative (quem) is the subject of the embedded accusative and infinitive clause. Other possibilities (one relative satellite, the other argument, and one relative attribute, the other sentence constituent) are given in the Supplement.130 All these examples concern conjunctive coordination. An exceptional instance of disjunctive coordination with aut is (i).131  (e)

Prima est (sc. species) qua usi antiqui et Ø (= quam) nos reliquimus . . . (‘The first (category) is that which the ancients used and we have abandoned . . .’ Var. L. 10.4.73)

(f)

Quae superiore tempore fieri oportuerit et Ø (= quae) non sunt absoluta . . . (‘What should have been done in the former period but was not completed . . .’ Var. R. 1.30.1)

(g)

Bocchus cum peditibus, quos Volux, filius eius, adduxerat neque Ø (= et qui non) in priore pugna, in itinere morati, adfuerant, postremam Romanorum aciem invadunt. (‘Bocchus with the infantry which his son Volux had brought and which had been delayed on the way and had not taken part in the former battle, charged the Roman rear.’ Sal. Jug. 101.5)

130 The examples are taken from K.-St.: II.324.

131 Mentioned by TLL s.v. aut 1565.79ff.

564 (h)

Relative clauses . . . quemque dignum fortuna quam amplissima putant aut cui fidem habent et Ø (= quem) bene rebus suis consulere arbitrantur aut . . . (‘. . . who they think is worthy of the most splendid fortune a man can have, or whom they have confidence in and who they think manages his own affairs well or . . .’ Cic. Off. 2.21)

(i)

At quibus longior mora est et ignis fortior motumque caeli sequens aut Ø (= qui) etiam proprios cursus agunt cometas nostri putant, de quibus dictum est. (‘But the ones which last a long time, and have a stronger flame, and follow the motion of the sky or even maintain their own course, our Stoics call comets (which have already been discussed).’ Sen. Nat. 1.15.4) Supplement corresponding to exx. (e)–(h): Eamne rationem igitur sequere, qua tecum ipse et cum tuis utare, Ø profiteri et in medium proferre non audeas? (Cic. Fin. 2.76) Omnibus modis qui pauperes sunt homines miseri vivont, / praesertim quibus nec quaestus est neque Ø didicere artem ullam. (Pl. Rud. 290–1); Nam qui cum ingeniis conflictatur eius modi / neque Ø commovetur animus in ea re tamen, / scias posse habere iam ipsum suae vitae modum. (Ter. An. 93–5); . . . mancipium putarunt, quo et omnes utimur et Ø non praebetur a populo. (Cic. Ver. 4.9); Nam illud tertium, quod et a Crasso tactum est et Ø ut audio ille ipse Aristoteles, qui haec maxime inlustravit adiunxit, etiamsi opus est, minus est tamen necessarium. (Cic. de Orat. 2.43); Qui autem se integros castosque servavissent, quibusque fuisset minima cum corporibus contagio Ø seseque ab is semper sevocavissent . . . is ad illos a quibus essent profecti reditum facilem patere. (Cic. Tusc 1.72); . . . bello superatos esse Arvernos et Rutenos a[b] Quinto Fabio Maximo, quibus p. R. ignovisset neque Ø in provinciam redegisset [neque . . . redegisset del. Meusel] neque Ø stipendium inposuisset. (Caes. Gal. 1.45.2); In ea nave captus est P. Vestrius eques Romanus et P. Ligarius Afranianus quem Caesar in Hispania cum reliquis dimiserat et Ø postea se ad Pompeium contulerat . . . (B. Afr. 64.1); Longe illi dea mater erit, quae nube (sc. eum) fugacem / feminea tegat et Ø vanis sese occulat umbris. (Verg. A. 12.52–3);132 . . . Pallantis pueri, victum quem vulnere Turnus / straverat atque Ø umeris inimicum insigne gerebat. (Verg. A. 12.943–4); . . . destillat ab inguine virus, / hippomanes, quod saepe malae legere novercae / Ø miscueruntque herbas et non innoxia verba. (Verg. G. 3.281–3); At ex parte altera pontifex Livius, cui lictores Decius tradiderat Ø iusseratque pro praetore esse, vociferari vicisse Romanos, defunctos consulis fato. (Liv. 10.29.3); . . . id ipsum est quod addubito et Ø consilium posco. (Fro. Caes. 3.3.3) Nunc reliquum iudices attendite, de quo et vos audistis et populus Romanus non nunc primum audiet et Ø in exteris nationibus usque ad ultimas terras pervulgatum est. (Cic. Ver. 4.64); Nonne illius similitudo est arboris, sub qua sibi furens manus et infelix adulescentulus intulit et Ø genetrix divum in solatium sui vulneris consecravit? (Arn. 5.16)

132 For this interpretation, see Conte (2016: 55–8).

Coordination of relative clauses 565 M. Bibulum cuius inclusione contentus non eras, Ø interficere volueras, spoliaras consulatu, patria privare cupiebas. (Cic. Vat. 24); Leptitanos quorum superioribus annis bona Iuba diripuerat et Ø ad senatum questi per legatos atque arbitris a senatu datis sua receperant XXX centenis milibus pondo olei in annos singulos multat . . . (B. Afr. 97.3) There are a few attestations of coordination of a clause with a relative clause although the relative has no function in the second clause, as in ( j).133 ( j) . . . necesse est terra adruenda pulvinos fieri, quos inrigationes et pluviae tempestates abluunt et agrum faciunt macriorem. (‘. . . beds must be formed by heaping up the soil, and irrigation and heavy rains wash these away and thus make the ground poorer.’ Var. R. 1.35.1) Supplement: Actum est de decem legatis, quos alii omnino non dabant, Ø alii exempla quaerebant, Ø alii tempus differebant, Ø alii sine ullis verborum ornamentis dabant. (Cic. Prov. 28) A minor alternative for ‘repeating’ relative expressions when the functions in their clauses are different is shown in (k) and (l). The second clause has an anaphoric(ally used) pronoun instead.134 (k) Multos iste morbus homines macerat, / quibus insputari saluti fuit atque is (= iis) profuit. (‘That illness wears down a lot of people for whom being spat on was helpful and beneficial.’ Pl. Capt. 554–5) (l) Sed omnes tum fere, qui nec extra urbem hanc vixerant neque eos aliqua barbaries domestica infuscaverat, recte loquebantur. (‘Still, practically everyone, who had not lived outside this city and whose speech no crudeness of home environment had tainted, in those days spoke well and correctly.’ Cic. Brut. 258) Supplement: Quem neque fides neque iusiurandum neque illum misericordia / repressit neque . . . (Ter. Ad. 306–7); Altera, quae latius patet, de lacte et caseo, quam scriptores Graeci separatim ~{z.ztjlx appellaverunt ac scripserunt de ea re permulta. (Var. R. 2.1.28); . . . Themistocles; ad quem quidam doctus homo atque in primis eruditus accessisse dicitur eique artem memoriae, quae tum primum proferebatur, pollicitus esse se traditurum. (Cic. de Orat. 2.299); . . . ut bestiis aliud alii praecipui a natura datum est, quod suum quaeque retinet nec discedit ab eo . . . (Cic. Tusc. 5.38); (sc. laurus) . . . quam pater inventam . . . / ipse ferebatur Phoebo sacrasse Latinus / Laurentisque ab ea nomen posuisse colonis. (Verg. A. 7.61–3); . . . abstractum a Deci Magi latere, cum quo ferocissime pro Romana societate adversus Punicum foedus steterat, nec eum aut inclinata in partem alteram civitas aut patria maiestas sententia

133 For a few more instances, see K.-St.: II.325. 134 Lebreton  (1901a: 100–1) has the (twenty) Ciceronian instances (against eighty-four instances of repetition of the relative pronoun). See also K.-St.: II.324–5.

566

Relative clauses depulerat. (Liv. 23.8.3); . . . domi improspera fuit ob impudicitiam filiae ac neptis, quas urbe depulit adulterosque earum morte aut fuga punivit. (Tac. Ann. 3.24.2)

There are some instances of coordination of a relative pronoun with a noun or noun phrase, as in (m) and (n).135 (m)

Asia dicta ab nympha, a qua et Iapeto traditur Prometheus. (‘Asia was named from the nymph, and it was by her and Iapetus that Prometheus is said to have been begotten.’ Var. L. 5.31)

(n)

Erat stagnum salinarum inter quod et mare angustiae quaedam . . . intererant. (‘There was a lagoon of salt water, between which and the sea there was a certain narrow strip of land . . .’ B. Afr. 80.1) Appendix: From Apuleius (see ex. (o)) onwards, relative clauses are found with a ‘pleonastic’ anaphoric or demonstrative pronoun in the same case as the relative pronoun. These combinations appear in larger numbers in ecclesiastical authors and in Bible translations, as in (p), under the influence of the Greek original (itself influenced by the Hebrew).136 A remarkable example is (s), usually considered the first instance of the phenomenon, but it is deviant in that the two pronouns are juxtaposed. There are a few more attestations before Apuleius (Pl. Cist. 691; Var. R. 1.12.3; Liv. 8.37.8—usually emended; Att. 10.1.1 is different).137 There are also instances like  (t), quoted by Augustine in his comments on odd Latin translations of the Bible text, where the anaphoric pronoun is in a construction that differs from the relative pronoun. (o) De isto quidem, mi erilis, tecum ipsa videris, quem sine meo consilio pigrum et formidulosum familiarem istum sortita es . . . (‘You must decide yourself, mistress, what is to be done with this feeble craven lover you acquired without my advice . . .’ Apul. Met. 9.16.1) (p) Nam et hoc scire debes me et dominis meis fratribus tuis scripsisse, quas peto illis eas legere digneris. (‘This too you should know, that I have written also to my lords, your brethren, and I beg you to deem it worthy to read these Epistles to them.’ Cypr. Ep. 21.4.2) (q) Terentiae · Rufillae · v. ·V. / cuius · multi · temporis · bonitatem / et · humanitatem · eius · circa · se / in brevi · senserunt. (‘To Terentia Rufilla, Vestal virgin, whose goodness and humanity towards themselves many people of her time felt for a short time.’ CIL VI.2135.10 (Rome, c. ad 250)—the interpretation of the text is problematic) (r) . . . quod divo Iuliano fuit acceptus, cuius memorandis virtutibus eius ambo fratres principes obtrectabant nec similes eius nec suppares.

135 For a few more instances, see K.-St.: II.325. 136 For the Hebrew basis of these expressions, see Rubio (2009: 212–13). 137 See TLL s.v. hic 2743.21ff.; ille 353.39ff.; is 465.11ff.; iste 505.35ff. Discussion in Sz.: 556–7 (also for references), Callebat  (1968: 110), Touratier  (1980: 482–514—‘relative pléonastique’), Lavency  (1998b: 111), and Pompei (2011b: 84–5).

Indefinite relative clauses 567 (‘. . . because he had been well regarded by the deified Julian, whose noteworthy merits both the imperial brothers depreciated, without being his equal or anywhere near it.’ Amm. 26.10.8—NB: eius is absent from some of the mss.) (s) Inter eosne homines condalium te redipisci postulas? Quorum (coram cj. Gratwick) eorum unus surrupuit currenti cursori solum. (‘Do you expect to recover your ring from among these people? One of them  stole the sole of a runner’s shoe from him while he was actually running.’ Pl. Trin. 1022–3) (t) . . . et terra quam inhabitasti in ea . . . (‘…and the land in which you have lived . . .’ Vet. Lat. Gen. 21.23 (= August. Loc. Hept. 1.68)—NB: Vulg.: . . . terrae in qua versatus es . . .)

18.31 Indefinite relative clauses Latin has a number of so-called indefinite relative pronouns (more precisely, pronouns and determiners) which can in principle be used in both adnominal and autonomous clauses. The distribution of these expressions is very uneven. In Early Latin quicumque (also qui . . . cumque) is rare in comparison with quisquis. In Cicero, by contrast, the quicumque type is more common than the quisquis type. Neuter quicquid is especially common. Plural forms are very rarely attested. The mood in these indefinite clauses is almost always the indicative.138

18.32 Indefinite adnominal relative clauses The so-called indefinite relative pronouns quicumque ‘who in any way’ or ‘which in any way’ and—rarely—quisquis ‘whoever it is that’ or ‘whatever it is that’ can be used in adnominal relative clauses more or less in the same way as qui clauses. The first attestation of quicumque is in (a). The first clear instance of the adnominal use of quisquis seems to be (c).139 (a)

Quaestor . . . facito in diebus V proxumeis quibus quomque eiei aerarium provincia obvenerit (‘The quaestor shall cause the baskets to be unsealed within the next five days after the treasury shall have fallen to him as his department . . .’ CIL I2.583.68 (Lex Acilia, 122 bc))

(b)

. . . non semper easdem sententias ab isdem sed quascumque rei publicae status . . . postularet esse defensas. (‘. . . that the same opinions have not always been held by the same men, but that they have adopted whatever sentiments the state of the republic would demand.’ Cic. Planc. 94) 138 For discussion, see Ghiselli (1961). 139 More examples in OLD s.v. quicumque § 1.b; quisquis § 3.

568 (c)

Relative clauses Inter omnes (sc. odores) potentissimus odor quisquis novissime additur. (‘Among all the scents the most powerful is whichever scent is added last.’ Plin. Nat. 13.19)

18.33 Indefinite autonomous relative clauses The indefinite relative pronouns/determiners quisquis ‘anyone who’ and quicumque ‘whoever’ have generalizing force. The pronoun quisque (in Early Latin, in inscriptions, and in Late Latin)140 and the relative pronoun uter ‘whichever of the two’ can be used in autonomous relative clauses both independently and as determiners of noun phrases (quisque is rarely attested as a determiner).141 Ex. (a) shows the use of quisquis as a pronoun, (b) and (c) its use as a determiner. In the first two examples, the pronouns are the subjects in their clauses. In (c), the relative clause is resumed by dative ei, in accordance with its function as recipient. In (d), the relative clause functions as  a  position-in-space adjunct and has an exceptional subjunctive. An indefinite autonomous relative clause may be determined, as in (e), or modified by a quantifier, as in (f). (a)

Quisquis praetereat, comissatum volo vocari. (‘I want everybody who walks past to be invited to join the revelry.’ Pl. St. 686)

(b)

Quis homo? # Quisquis [homo] huc profecto venerit, pugnos edet. (‘Who? # Yes, whoever comes here will eat fists.’ Pl. Am. 309)

(c)

. . . quemquem hominem attigerit, profecto ei aut malum aut damnum dari. (‘. . . any man she touches, he is immediately given either ill fortune or loss.’ Pl. Truc. 228)

(d)

(sc. Socrates) . . . quam se cumque in partem dedidisset, omnium fuit facile princeps . . . (‘. . . whatever side in a debate he took up, he easily came out on top.’ Cic. de Orat. 3.60—NB: subjunctive)

(e)

Quinam igitur dicendi est modus melior . . . quam ut Latine, ut plane, ut ornate, ut ad id quodcumque agetur apte congruenterque dicamus? (‘Now what better style of expression can there be . . . than that our language should be correct, lucid, ornate, and suitably appropriate to the particular matter under consideration?’ Cic. de Orat. 3.37)

(f)

. . . iste omnia quaecumque Carpinatius postulabat facere ac decernere solebat . . . (‘That man was accustomed to doing and ordering everything, whatever Carpinatius asked of him.’ Cic. Ver. 2.172)

140 For Early and Late Latin instances, see Neue-W.: II.493–7. 141 On the relationship between quisquis and quisque, see Calboli (1961b) and Bertocchi et al. (2010: 111–14), with references. For Late Latin, see Bortolussi (2012).

Indefinite relative clauses 569 Supplement: Ita omnem mihi / rem necesse eloqui est, quicquid egi atque ago. (Pl. Men. 117–18); Omnia mala ingerebat, quemquem aspexerat. (Pl. Men. 717); At di dabunt— / # Tibi quidem hercle, quisquis es, magnum malum . . . (Pl. Rud. 107–8); . . . quicquid domi fuit in navem imposivit? (Pl. Rud. 357); Ita, quicquid est illud, quod sentit quod sapit quod vivit quod viget, caeleste et divinum ob eamque rem aeternum sit necesse est. (Cic. Tusc. 1.66); . . . accusare quoquo modo posset quam illo modo emori maluit. (Cic. Clu. 42); Quisquis est deus, si modo est alius, et quacumque in parte, totus est sensus, totus visus, totus auditus, totus animae, totus animi, totus sui. (Plin. Nat. 2.14); Igitur longe minus utilis illi / uxor, quisquis erit bonus optandusque maritus. (Juv. 6.210–11) Quiquomque ubi sunt, qui fuerunt quique futuri sunt posthac / stulti, stolidi, fatui, fungi, bardi, blenni, buccones, / solus ego omnis longe antideo / stultitia et moribus indoctis. (Pl. Bac. 1087–9a); Quodquomque optes, tibi velim contingere. (Pl. Cist. 497—NB: subjunctive); Nam publicae rei causa quiquomque id facit / magis quam sui quaesti, animus induci potest, / eum esse civem et fidelem et bonum. (Pl. Per. 65–7); Quid male facio aut quoi male dico? # Quoi pol quomque occasio est. (Pl. Per. 210); Cum quibus erat quomque una is sese dedere . . . (Ter. An. 63; . . . ioudicatio litisque aestumatio quei quomque ioudicium ex h.l. erunt, eorum h.l. esto. (CIL I2.583.6 (Lex Acilia, 122 bc)); Nam etsi, quocumque in loco quisquis est, idem est ei sensus et eadem acerbitas ex interitu rerum et publicarum et suarum, tamen . . . (Cic. Fam. 6.1.1); Licere illis per se incolumibus ex hibernis discedere et quascumque in partes velint sine metu proficisci. (Caes. Gal. 5.41.6); Nam quicumque tuum violavit vulnere corpus / morte luet merita. (Verg. A. 11.848–9); Qui testamentum tradet tibi cumque legendum, / abnuere et tabulas a te removere memento . . . (Hor. S. 2.5.51–2—NB: discontinuity) Quisque obviam huic occesserit irato, vapulabit. (Pl. As. 404); Quemque a milite hoc videritis hominem in nostris tegulis, / extra unum Palaestrionem, huc deturbatote in viam. (Pl. Mil. 160–1);142 . . . moechum, qui forma est ferox, / qui omnis se amare credit quaeque aspexerit / mulier. (Pl. Mil. 1390–2); Nam ego arbitror latrones, quique eorum recte sapiunt, nihil anteferre lucro suo debere . . . (Apul. Met. 7.9.4); . . . ut quisque (quisquis edd. nonnulli) vim se pati existimaret ‘Vivus ardeat Valens’ licentius clamitaret . . . (Amm. 31.1.2) Utrum enim horum dixeris, in eo culpa et crimen haerebit. (Cic. Ver. 3.106); Sed haec aut sanabuntur cum veneris aut ei molesta erunt in utro culpa erit. (Cic. Att. 1.11.1); Nullum enim bellum civile fuit in nostra re publica . . . in quo bello non, utracumque pars vicisset, tamen aliqua forma esset futura rei publicae. (Cic. ad Brut. 23.10)143 The form quisquis is in Plautus almost limited to the expressions quisquis es or est (that is, to the function subject complement).144 Emendations of the text of (a) and (b) above substituting quisque have been suggested, unnecessarily.145 For other uses 142 Further examples can be found in Lodge s.v.: 517B. 143 Further examples can be found in the OLD. 144 According to Bertocchi et al. (2010: 104, n. 137) thirty-two out of a total of thirty-five instances of quisquis. 145 See Ammann (1949).

570

Relative clauses of quisque, see § 11.36. For the indefinite use of quisquis and quicumque, see § 11.115 and § 11.154. Indefinite autonomous relative clauses can sometimes be interpreted in a concessive sense. Examples are (g) and (h).146 (g) Non recuso; ago etiam gratias, quoquo animo facis. (‘I do not decline, I even thank you, whatever your motive is for doing it.’ Cic. Phil. 2.33) (h) . . . quicquid dederis, contentus est. (‘. . . whatever you give him, he is quite pleased with it.’ Petr. 46.7) Appendix: Combinations of the conditional subordinator si and the indefinite determiner or pronoun qui/quis are sometimes interchangeable with an indefinite relative determiner or pronoun. Examples are (i) and ( j), respectively. In ( j) the si quid clause is coordinated with two other relative clauses; all three are resumed by ea.147 In (k) si quis is continued by plural homines. In its generalizing use it can also be part of an ablative absolute clause, as in (l).148 (i) Novi, Neptunus ita solet, quamvis fastidiosus / aedilis est: si quae improbae sunt merces, iactat omnis. (‘I know, that’s what Neptune is like, he’s an ever-so-particular market inspector: if there’s any bad merchandise, he throws the lot overboard.’ Pl. Rud. 372–3) ( j) Qua locus recte ferax erit, quae arida erunt et si quid ventus interfregerit, ea omnia eximito. (‘Where the land is very fertile, clear out all dry branches and anything the wind has broken.’ Cato Agr. 44.1) (k) Si quis est qui his delectetur, nonne melius tenues homines fruuntur quam illi qui is abundant? (‘If there is anyone who would find delight in them, cannot men of narrow means enjoy them better than those who have plenty?’ Cic. Tusc. 5.102) (l) . . . dimissisque si qui parum idonei essent . . . (‘. . . and with those who were unfit having been discharged . . .’ Liv. 42.31.7)

18.34 Relative adjectives and adverbs 18.35 Relative adjectives The relative adjectives of quality, quantity or size, and number and the related indefinite ones can in principle be used ‘adjectivally’ or ‘substantivally’ in a whole range of 146 See Maraldi (2002a) and Bertocchi and Maraldi (2011: 141; 167–8). 147 For further examples, see OLD s.v. quis2 § 1a. 148 For discussion, see Bortolussi (2010).

Relative adjectives and adverbs 571 constructions. The adjectives involved are qualis ‘of which sort’, ‘such as’; quantus ‘of what size or amount’; quot ‘whatever number of ’, ‘as many as’;149 and quotus ‘of which number in a series’ (rare). The range of constructions will be shown for qualis and quantus; further examples can be found in the Supplement and in the OLD. With regard to qualis, its very common use as subject complement is shown in (a) and (b). The latter shows interlacing of the (adnominal) relative with the si clause. In (c) quale is the attribute of bellum; the same noun is used in the superordinate and the adnominal relative clause. In (d) the relative clause is adnominal with nardo; quale functions as the object of laborarint. Ex. (e) shows the substantival use, with qualia functioning as the object in its clause. Note the resumptive use of talis. Ex. (f) is an instance of relative connexion. A rare instance of a preceding quale clause that is not followed by a corresponding demonstrative in the main clause is (g). (a)

Ecastor condignum donum, quale est (= qualis est) qui donum dedit. (‘Honestly, a worthy gift, matching the one who gave it.’ Pl. Am. 537)

(b)

. . . cum senatus populusque Romanus haberet ducem, qualis si qui nunc esset, tibi idem quod illis accidit contigisset? (‘. . . when the senate and the Roman people possessed a leader such that, if someone like him were now here, the same fate would have overtaken you as befell them?’ Cic. Phil. 2.17)

(c)

In hoc autem uno post hominum memoriam maximo crudelissimoque bello, quale bellum nulla umquam barbaria cum sua gente gessit, quo in bello lex haec fuit a Lentulo, Gabinio, Cethego, Cassio constituta ut . . . (‘In this war, however, the most important and the most savage within memory of man, a war such as no tribe of barbarians ever fought among its own people, a war in which Lentulus, Gabinius, Cethegus and Cassius laid it down as a law that . . .’ Cic. Catil. 3.25)

(d)

. . . / senem, quod omnes rideant, adulterum / latrant Suburanae canes / nardo perunctum, quale non perfectius / meae laborarint manus. (‘. . . the dogs of the Subura bark at the old lecher, a sight to make everybody laugh, plastered as he is with the most exquisite perfume that my own hands could concoct.’ Hor. Epod. 5.57–60)

(e)

Qualia quisque habet, talis est. (‘A person is of the same sort as that which he possesses.’ Sen. Ep. 87.17)

(f)

Qualibus ostentis Aristandri apud Graecos volumen scatet . . . (‘The volume of Aristander teems with portents of this nature in Greece.’ Plin. Nat. 17.243)

(g)

Quale tamen potui, de caelite, Brute, recenti / vestra procul positus carmen in ora dedi. (‘Yet from my distant abode I sent for your reading such poem as I could, Brutus, about the new god.’ Ov. Pont. 4.6.17–18) 149 For quot, see Gibert (2013).

572

Relative clauses

Of the examples of quantus below, (h) illustrates the attributive use. In (i), quanta is the subject complement. Exx. ( j)–(m) illustrate the very common substantival use of quantus in various functions. In ( j), quantum is the object of vis, the whole clause being an autonomous clause functioning as the object of edas. In (k), quanto is a degree modifier (ablativus mensurae) with plus. In (l), quanti is a price adjunct. The use of quantum in the si clause in (m) resembles the examples of relative connexion discussed in § 18.29. For quantum clauses of qualification, see § 16.83. (h)

Inde (sc. globos) quantos voles facere facito. (‘Produce from that as many balls as you want.’ Cato Agr. 79.1)

(i)

Si auctoritatem quaerimus, etsi id est aetatis ut nondum consecutus sit, tamen quanta est in adulescente auctoritas, ea propter tantam coniunctionem adfinitatis minor est putanda. (‘If it is moral weight for which we are looking, though he is not yet of an age to have gained this, still, however considerable be the authority which that young man possesses, we should consider it diminished due to the close connexion with Clodius which his marriage involves.’ Cic. Dom. 118)

( j)

An vero non iusta causa est quor curratur celeriter, / ubi bibas, edas de alieno quantum vis usque ad fatim . . . (‘Well, isn’t there a just cause for running quickly to a place where you can drink and eat out of someone else’s pocket as much as you want until you’re full . . .’ Pl. Poen. 533–4)

(k)

Quasi ob industriam, quanto ego plus propero, procedit minus. (‘The more of a hurry I’m in, the less progress is made, as if on purpose.’ Pl. Cas. 805)

(l)

Oratio edepol pluris est huius, quam quanti haec empta est. (‘Her speech is worth more than the price she was bought for.’ Pl. Mer. 514)

(m)

. . . gratulor tibi cum tantum vales apud Dolabellam, quantum si ego apud sororis filium valerem, iam salvi esse possemus. (‘. . . I congratulate you on having an influence with Dolabella, such as if I had had with my sister’s son, we might now have been safe.’ Cic. Fam. 9.14.3) Supplement: Qualis volo vetulos duo. (Pl. Epid. 187); Qua in sorte sapiens praetor, qualis hic fuit, offensionem vitat . . . (Cic. Mur. 41); . . . statua . . . inaurata equestris, qualis L.  Sullae primum statua est. (Cic. Phil. 9.13); . . . est etiam bonorum et fortium civium, quales vos omnibus rei publicae temporibus extitistis, intercludere omnis seditionum vias . . . (Cic. Rab. Perd. 3); . . . meque tum denique sibi esse visum rei publicae qualis fuissem restitutum . . . (Cic. Fam. 1.9.20); Namque / Plotius et Varius Sinuessae Vergiliusque / occurrunt, animae qualis neque candidiores / terra tulit neque quis me sit devinctior alter. (Hor. S. 1.5.39–42) Nec mehercule me raudusculum movet, sed homines benevolos, qualescumque sunt, grave est insequi contumelia. (Cic. Att. 14.14.5)

Relative adjectives and adverbs 573 Quantum hic inest? # Quantum sat est, et plus satis. (Pl. Epid. 346); Conveniet numeru’ quantum debui. (Ter. Ph. 53); . . . quanta est in adulescente auctoritas, ea propter tantam coniunctionem adfinitatis minor est putanda. (Cic. Dom. 118); . . . ut ab eo provincias acciperent quas ipsi vellent, exercitum et pecuniam quantam vellent . . . (Cic. Sest. 24); At pater Aeneas . . . horrendumque intonat armis: / quantus Athos aut quantus Eryx aut ipse coruscis cum fremit ilicibus quantus gaudetque nivali / vertice se attollens pater Appenninus ad auras. (Verg. A. 12.697–703); . . . iubet . . . inter ipsam dimicationem quanto maxime posset moto pulvere se ostendere. (Liv. 10.40.8); Adhibeaturque frictio, quantam is sustinere poterit . . . (Cels. 3.12.5) . . . quantumcumque itineris equitatu efficere poterat, cotidie progrediebatur . . . (Caes. Civ. 3.102.1) . . . dico pluribus milibus medimnum venisse decumas agri Leontini quam quot milia iugerum sata essent in agro Leontino. (Cic. Ver. 3.113); Navibus circiter octoginta onerariis coactis contractisque quot satis esse ad duas transportandas legiones existimabat . . . (Caes. Gal. 4.22.3) ‘Mando tibi, Mani, uti illace suovitaurilia fundum agrum terramque meam, quota ex parte sive circumagi sive circumferenda censeas, uti cures lustrare.’ (Cato Agr. 141.1)

When a clause containing a relative adjective follows a main clause containing a corresponding demonstrative adjective, the combination functions as an expression of comparison (see also § 20.1 and § 20.11). Examples are (n)–(p), with the order t- . . . qu-. In (n) the disposition of quis is compared to that of all people, to which it ought to be equivalent. In (o) the factio of nos is compared to that of tu in terms of size. In (p) the cyathi are equivalent in number to the fingers of tibi. Ex. (q) is an interesting combination of a relative adjective with an expression of similarity (for which see §§ 20.16–18). (n)

Ac si quis est talis qualis esse omnis oportebat . . . (‘But if there is any one of that disposition which all men should have . . .’ Cic. Catil. 2.3)

(o)

Neque nos factione tanta quanta tu sumus . . . (‘We don’t have as great connexions as you . . .’ Pl. Cist. 493)

(p)

Vide quot cyathos bibimus. # Tot quot digiti tibi sunt in manu. (‘See how many cups we’re drinking. # As many as you have fingers on a hand.’ Pl. St. 706)

(q)

Pariter suades qualis es. (‘Your advice is of the same quality as you are.’ Pl. Rud. 875) Supplement: Nec meus servos umquam tale fecit quale tu mihi. (Pl. Men. 1027); Quid Tarquinius tale qualia innumerabilia et facit et fecit Antonius? (Cic. Phil. 3.9); Permanent illi soli . . . qui sunt tales qualis pater tuus, M.  Scaure, fuit . . . (Cic. Sest. 101); . . . ut et ipsis apud quos ageret talis qualem se esse optaret, videretur. (Cic. de Orat. 1.87); . . . ut non sit mirum, si in talis disposituras / deciderunt quoque et in talis

574

Relative clauses venere meatus / qualibus haec rerum geritur nunc summa novando. (Lucr. 5.192–4); . . . teporque talis est qualis esse sani solet. (Cels. 3.6.7) Tum meretricum numerus tantus quantum in urbe omni fuit / obviam ornatae occurrebant suis quaequae amatoribus. (Pl. Epid. 213–14); Malo bene facere tantundem est periculum / quantum bono male facere. (Pl. Poen. 633–4); Auctoritatis tantae quantam vos in me esse voluistis . . . (Cic. Balb. 1); . . . qui ab dis immortalibus tot et tantas res tacitus auderet optare quot et quantas di immortales ad Cn. Pompeium detulerunt. (Cic. Man. 48); Cum finis provinciae tantos haberet quantos voluerat, quantos optarat, quantos pretio mei capitis periculoque emerat, iis se tenere non potuit. (Cic. Pis. 49) Talentis magnis totidem quot ego et tu sumus. (Pl. Mos. 644); Nego ullo de opere publico, de monumento, de templo tot senatus exstare consulta quot de mea domo . . . Cic. Har.16); Aequa dicitur divisio, quotiens tot tempora habet arsis quot et thesis. (Pomp. gramm. 123.33K)

The reverse order, in which the relative clause precedes, is far less common though it seems to be relatively popular in Post-Classical poetry. Examples are (r)–(t). Since instances of a preceding relative clause without a resumptive element in the main clause are very rare (see above), some scholars regard the combination of a relative adjective with a resumptive demonstrative as another instance of ‘correlation’ (see § 18.15).150 (r)

Itaque illo interfecto qualem in nos eum esse voluit, talis ipse in ceteros exstitit. (‘And so, when he (sc. Caesar) was killed, he himself (sc. Antonius) became such a man toward the rest of the community as he wanted Caesar to be toward us.’ Cic. Phil. 13.17)

(s)

Postidea domum / me rursum quantum potero tantum recipiam. (‘Afterwards I’ll return home again as quickly as I possibly can.’ Pl. Aul. 118–19)

(t)

Quot autem in causa constitutiones . . . erunt, totidem necesse erit quaestiones . . . reperire. (‘Moreover it will be necessary to find the same number of questions . . . as there are issues . . . in the case.’ Cic. Inv. 1.19) Supplement: . . . qualescumque summi civitatis viri fuerint, talem civitatem fuisse. (Cic. Leg. 3.31); . . . quales in re publica principes essent, talis reliquos solere esse civis. (Cic. Fam. 1.9.12); Quale solet silvis brumali frigore viscum / fronde virere nova, quod non sua seminat arbos, / et croceo fetu teretis circumdare truncos, / talis erat species auri frondentis opaca / ilice, sic leni crepitabat brattea vento. (Verg. A. 6.205–9); Qualis et Ischomache Lapithae genus heroine, / Centauris medio grata rapina mero; / Mercurio qualis fertur Boebeidos undis / virgineum Brimo composuisse latus: / talis visa mihi somno dimissa recenti. (Prop. 2.29b.29–33); Quantusque et  qualis ab alta / Iunone excipitur, tantus talisque, rogato, / det tibi conplexus . . .

150 For quanto . . . tanto in proportional comparative constructions, see § 20.29. For the frequency of qualis . . . talis and related pairs in technical texts, see Viré (2005).

Relative adjectives and adverbs 575 (Ov. Met. 3.284–6); . . . ne, qualis Anci liberum animus adversus Tarquinium fuerat, talis adversus se Tarquini liberum esset . . . (Liv. 1.42.1); Plane qualis dominus, talis et servus. (Petr. 58.4 (a freedman speaking)) Tanti quanti poscit, vi’n tanti illam emi? (Pl. Mer. 490); Tantum tibi boni di immortales duint quantum tu tibi optes. / Nam si exoptem quantum dignu’s tantum dent, minus nihilo sit. (Pl. Ps. 936–7); Quod si aut quantam voluntatem habent ad hunc opprimendum aut quantam ad male dicendum licentiam, tantum haberent aut ementiendum animi aut ad fingendum ingeni . . . (Cic. Font. 40); Viri quantas pecunias ab uxoribus dotis nomine acceperunt, tantas ex suis bonis aestimatione facta cum dotibus communicant. (Caes. Gal. 6.19.1); Lenta salix quantum pallenti cedit olivae, / puniceis humilis quantum saliunca rosetis, / iudicio nostro tantum tibi cedit Amyntas. (Verg. Ecl. 5.16–18); Quantus apud Danaos Podalirius arte medendi, / Aeacides dextra, pectore Nestor erat, / quantus erat Calchas extis, Telamonius armis, / Automedon curru, tantus amator ego. (Ov. Ars 2. 735–8) Quot genera voles, tot indito. (Cato Agr. 40.3); Quot homines tot sententiae. (Ter. Ph. 454); . . . ut quot iugera sint sata, totidem medimna decumae debeantur. (Cic. Ver. 3.112); Quot homines tot causae. (Cic. de Orat. 2.140); Sed quot officia oratoris tot sunt genera dicendi. (Cic. Orat. 69); At primum quot hominum linguae tot nomina deorum. (Cic. N.D. 1.84); . . . monstrum horrendum, ingens, cui quot sunt corpore plumae, / tot vigiles oculi subter (mirabile dictu), / tot linguae, totidem ora sonant, tot subrigit auris. (Verg. A. 4.181–3); Gargara quot segetes, quot habet Methymna racemos, / aequore quot pisces, fronde teguntur aves, / quot caelum stellas, tot habet tua Roma puellas. (Ov. Ars 1.57–9); Quot enim clientes circa singulos fuistis patronos, tot nunc adversus unum hostem eritis. (Liv. 6.18.6)

18.36 Relative adverbs Of the relative adverbs mentioned in §  18.1, a number of space adverbs, the time adverb cum (quom), and the reason adverbs cur and quare are used in adnominal relative clauses. Autonomous relative clauses containing space and time adverbs that function as space and time satellites in their sentences are dealt with in Chapter 16 on satellite clauses. Relative adverbs of space also occur in autonomous relative clauses functioning in ways other than as space and time satellites. These usages are treated in §  18.37 and §  18.38. Reason relative adverbs are discussed in §  18.39. For relative degree adverbs (quanto and quantopere), see § 20.29. In relative clauses with a relative adverb the use of the moods is as in ‘normal’ relative clauses (see §§ 18.23–6).151 

18.37 Relative clauses containing a space adverb Relative adverbs of space are more or less synonymous with prepositional expressions containing a form of qui and related relatives, as is illustrated by the pair in (a).152 151 For Cato’s use of relative adverbs, see Fruyt (2019b). 152 For a survey, see § 14.22.

576 (a)

Relative clauses Namque hanc urbem ei rex donarat, his quidem verbis, quae ei panem praeberet (ex qua regione quinquaginta talenta quotannis redibant), Lampsacum autem, unde vinum sumeret, Myunta, ex qua obsonium haberet. (‘For the king had given him that city, with the remark that it would furnish him with bread (the annual revenue of the district was five hundred talents), also Lampsacus, from which he could get wine, and Myus, from which he could have the rest of his fare.’ Nep. Them. 10.3)

Relative adverbs of space are used in adnominal relative clauses modifying nouns indicating space. Examples are (b)–(e). (b)

Nam dudum ante lucem et istunc et te vidi. # Quo in loco? / # Hic in aedibus ubi tu habitas. (‘Not long ago, before sunlight, I saw both him and you. # In what place? # Here in the house where you live.’ Pl. Am. 699–700)

(c)

Mamertini tibi et urbem quo furta undique deportares, et navem in qua exportares praebuerunt. (‘The Mamertines gave you both a city to which you could carry all the plunder you amassed from all quarters, and also a ship, in which you could take it away.’ Cic. Ver. 5.59—NB: Note the parallelism with navem in qua)

(d)

. . . Romanos neque ullam facultatem habere navium neque eorum locorum ubi bellum gesturi essent, vada, portus, insulas novisse. (‘. . . while the Romans had no supply of ships, no knowledge of the shoals, harbours, or islands of the regions where they were about to wage war.’ Caes. Gal. 3.9.6)

(e)

Pontem fecit in Histro flumine qua copias traduceret. (‘He built a bridge over the river Hister for the transport of his troops.’ Nep. Milt. 3.1) Supplement: Siliginem, triticum in loco aperto celso ubi sol quam diutissime siet, seri oportet. (Cato Agr. 35.1); A regione, si potius ex his locis ubi nascuntur amplae quam exiles (sc. sues), pararis. (Var. R. 2.4.4); . . . habent propinquam, fidelem fructuosamque provinciam, quo facile excurrant, ubi libenter negotium gerant. (Cic. Ver. 2.6); Equidem vobis, quoniam ita voluistis, fontes unde hauriretis atque itinera ipsa ita putavi esse demonstranda . . . (Cic. de Orat. 1.203); Omnes enim colles ac loca superiora unde erat propinquus despectus in mare ab exercitu tenebantur. (Caes. Gal. 3.14.9); Mortuus Cumis, quo se post fractas opes Latinorum ad Aristodemum tyrannum contulerat. (Liv. 2.21.5)

Relative adverbs of space are used to refer to a human being instead of prepositional expressions consisting of a preposition and a pronominal form.153 This use has received attention from Antiquity onwards. Examples are (f)–(h). As these examples show, relative adverbs are used in this way both in adnominal and in autonomous

153 Fraenkel (1934), Palmén (1958), and also Pascucci (1968: 17–22).

Relative adjectives and adverbs 577 relative clauses. Similar observations can be made about anaphoric and demonstrative pronouns. Semantically, there is nothing unusual about this phenomenon. (f)

Nescioquem ad portum nactus es ubi cenes. (‘You’ve found some guy at the harbour to dine with.’ Pl. Capt. 837)

(g)

. . . in Thensauro scripsit, causam dicere / prius unde petitur, aurum qua re sit suom, / quam illic qui petit, unde is sit thensaurus sibi . . . (‘. . . in the Thesaurus [the Treasure] he has described him from whom the gold is demanded, as pleading his cause why it should be deemed his own, before the person who demands it has stated how this treasure belongs to him . . .’ Ter. Eu. 10–12—NB: Donatus ad loc. explains unde as ‘a quo’)

(h)

Nam ego ad Menaechmum hunc eo, quo iam diu / sum iudicatus. (‘I’m going to Menaechmus here, the bond servant of whose household I’ve been for a long time already.’ Pl. Men. 96–7) Supplement: Quodsi saltatorem avum habuisses neque eum virum unde pudoris pudicitiaeque exempla peterentur, tamen . . . (Cic. Deiot. 28); Sed tamen, quia consules, ubi summa rerum esset, ad id locorum prospe rem gererent, minus his cladibus commovebantur. (Liv. 25.22.1); . . . sed in tribunos centurionesque ubi pretium caedis erat [re]verteretur. (Tac. Hist. 3.31.1) Spatial relative adverbs are also used in a more abstract way. Examples are (i) and ( j). (i) Velut haec mi evenit servitus, ubi ego omnibus / parvis magnisque miseriis praefulcior. (‘For instance, this slavery has come upon me where I’m used as a prop for all small and big miseries.’ Pl. Ps. 771–2) ( j) Quot res dedere, ubi possem persentiscere, / ni essem lapis! (‘How many clues there were where I could have detected the truth, if I hadn’t been such a dolt!’ Ter. Hau. 916–17)

Autonomous relative clauses with a relative adverb of space fulfil all sorts of functions in their superordinate clauses just like those with qui and related words (see § 18.16). They may function as subject or object, as in (k) and (l), and as satellites, as in (m) and (n)—in the latter after a comparative adverb. Note that in (k)–(m) the relative adverbs refer to human beings. Alternatives would be a quo in (k) and (l), quibus (dative) in (m). (k)

Pr . . . facos is quei petet et unde petetur ex h. l. legerint . . . (‘The praetor . . . shall cause the names of the 50 persons whom the plaintiff and the defendant will have chosen under this law . . . ‘ CIL I2.583.26 (Lex Acilia, 122 bc))

(l)

Domi habuit unde disceret. (‘He had someone to learn from at home.’ Ter. Ad. 413)

(m)

Nam quo dedisti nuptum abire nolumus. (‘We don’t want to leave the men you gave us in marriage to.’ Pl. St. 142)

578 (n)

Relative clauses . . . quod non longius hostes aberant quam quo telum adigi posset . . . (‘. . . as the enemy were not further from them than the distance to which a dart could be cast . . .’ Caes. Gal. 2.21.3) Supplement: Si quis quid vestrum Epidamnum curari sibi / velit, audacter imperato et dicito. / Sed ita ut det, unde curari id possit sibi. (Pl. Men. 51–3) Ita quoquo adveniunt, ubiubi sunt, / duplici damno dominos multant. (Pl. Cas. 722–2a)

The function of the clause may be marked by a determiner and/or a resumptive expression. Examples are (o)–(q). (o)

Quid, si igitur reddatur illi unde empta est? (‘Then how about returning her to the man I bought her from?’ Pl. Mer. 418)

(p)

Is eum unde petet in ious ed[ucito . . . (‘Such person shall bring the person whom he shall sue to court . . .’ CIL I2.583.6 (Lex Acilia, Rome, 122 bc))

(q)

. . . illi unde petitur, ei potius credendum esse. (‘. . . the one from whom the claim is made, that one ought rather to be credited.’ Cato orat. 51) Supplement: . . . ut, qui eum necasset unde ipse natus esset, careret iis rebus omnibus ex quibus omnia nata esse dicuntur? (Cic. S. Rosc. 71); Is Lilybaei multos iam annos habitat, homo et domi nobilis et apud eos quo se contulit propter virtutem splendidus et gratiosus. (Cic. Ver. 4.38); ‘Potest fieri’, inquit, ‘Sile, ut is, unde te audisse dicis, iratus dixerit’. (Cic. de Orat. 2.285); Sed qui sunt ex iis nati, eorum habentur liberi, quo primum virgo quaeque deducta est. (Caes. Gal. 5.14.5); quominus Maximum Batonis quove ea res pertinebit habere possidereque recte liceat. (CIL III.936.10–12 (Verespatak, ad 139))

Autonomous adverbial relative clauses may be modified by quantifiers, such as omnibus in (r). (r)

Ego omnibus unde petitur hoc consili dederim, ut a singulis interregibus binas advocationes postulent. (‘I would give this counsel to all men by whom it is sought: that they demand two adjournments from each interrex!’ Cic. Fam. 7.11.1)

Spatial relative adverbs are also found at the adjective level, as in (s). (s)

. . . adeo digna res est ubi tu nervos intendas tuos. (‘. . . the affair is a deserving one for you to exert your energies upon.’ Ter. Eu. 312) Topographical descriptions are often elliptical. An example is (t) from Pliny the Elder, where the ubi clause is more or less equivalent to ‘where there used to be a town called Salduba’. There are a few very late instances of relative ubi in combination with a form of locus where ubi does not function as a place adverb in its clause. In (u) it seems to function as the subject (= quae).154

154 See Compernass (1916: 117), Önnerfors (1956: 20–1), Sz.: 210, and Touratier (1980: 513).

Relative adjectives and adverbs 579 (t) Caesaraugusta colonia immunis, amne Hibero adfusa, ubi oppidum antea vocabatur Salduba, regionis Edetaniae, recipit populos LV. (‘Caesaraugusta, a colony that pays no taxes, is washed by the river Ebro; its site was once occupied by a town called Salduba, belonging to the district of Edetania. It is the centre for 55 peoples.’ Plin. Nat. 3.24) (u) Dumque venissent in locum ubi Sylvula vocabatur non longe ab urbe Como . . . (‘Until they had come to a place which was called Sylvula not far from the city Comus . . .’ Passio Fidelis, Exanti et Carpofori 1)

18.38 Adnominal relative clauses with cum (quom) Cum (quom) is the only temporal relative adverb used in adnominal relative clauses. Examples are (a) and (b). The head nouns involved denote time. Compare the use of the relative quo in (c). (a)

Recordare tempus illud cum pater Curio maerens iacebat in lecto. (‘Recall that time when Curio the father, sick at heart, was lying on his bed . . .’ Cic. Phil. 2.45)

(b)

. . . sed eo ipso tempore, cum esses in litore, Tertia illa tua, quam tu tecum deportaras, erat in omnium conspectu. (‘. . . but all that very time, there you were on the seacoast with that woman of yours, Tertia, whom you were taking off home with you, in full view of everyone.’ Cic. Ver. 5.40)

(c)

. . . negat ullum esse tempus quo sapiens non beatus sit. (‘. . . he says that there is no time at which the wise man is not happy.’ Cic. Tusc. 3.49) Supplement: Nunc est ille dies cum gloria maxima sese / nobis ostendat si vivimus sive morimur. (Enn. Ann. 391V=393J); Hic ille est dies quom nulla vitae meae salus sperabile’st. (Pl. Capt. 518); In Clodium vero non est hodie meum maius odium quam illo die fuit cum illum ambustum religiosissimis ignibus cognovi . . . emissum. (Cic. Har. 4); Nam fuit quoddam tempus cum in agris homines passim bestiarum modo vagabantur . . . (Cic. Inv. 1.2); Ac fuit antea tempus cum Germanos Galli virtute superarent . . . (Caes. Gal. 6.24.1) Exceptional is the use of quod in (d).155 (d) Quarto die navigationis quod imparati a Carteia profecti sine aqua fuissent ad terram adplicant. (‘On the fourth day of their voyage from the time they had set sail from Carteia ill-prepared and without water, they put in to land.’ B. Hisp. 37.3)

155 For instances in later texts, see Norberg (1943: 239).

580

Relative clauses

18.39 Relative clauses with adverbs of reason (quamobrem, quapropter, and quare) Cur, quamobrem, and quare are found in adnominal relative clauses with the noun causa (caussa) and occasionally in other combinations. Quapropter does not seem to be attested.156 Examples are (a)–(d). Compare (e), which contains a relative clause with a relative pronoun. These clauses are usually in the subjunctive. (a)

Quid erat causae cur metueret ne condemnaretur? (‘What reason was there why he should be afraid of being condemned?’ Cic. Q. Rosc. 26)

(b)

Quae fuit enim causa quam ob rem isti mulieri venenum vellet dare Caelius? (‘For what reason was there why Caelius would want to poison this woman?’ Cic. Cael. 56)

(c)

. . . cum causa quare peccaret non intercessit . . . (‘. . . when there was no motive for him to go wrong . . .’ Cic. Inv. 2.32)

(d)

. . . neque esse rationem quare hoc propter hoc fiat . . . (‘. . . there is no reason why this should be done for that . . .’ Cic. Inv. 2.75)

(e)

. . . si perpetuae sunt causae quibus flumina oriuntur ac fontes . . . (‘. . . if the causes from which rivers and streams arise are constant . . .’ Sen. Nat. 3.11.1) Supplement: Nam ei causa alia quae fuit, / quamobrem abs te abiret? (Ter. Hec. 695–6); Quapropter nulla res est quamobrem ego istum nolim ex paternis probris ac vitiis emergere. (Cic. Ver. 3.162); Quae autem aestimanda essent, eorum in aliis satis esse causae quam ob  rem quibusdam anteponerentur . . . partim satis habere causae, quam ob rem reicerentur . . . (Cic. Fin. 3.51); . . . nulla hic alia obligatio est quam ob rem dati re non secuta? (Cels. dig. 12.4.16) Permulta sunt quae dici possunt quare intellegatur summam tibi facultatem fuisse maleficii suscipiendi. (Cic. S. Rosc. 94); . . . miror quid causae fuerit qua re consilium mutaris. (Pomp. Att. 8.12b.1); (sc. ulmus) nil praeter frondes, quare peteretur, haberet. (Ov. Met. 14.664)

Common is the use of the relative adverbs with a cataphoric or interrogative pronoun and the copula sum, as in (f) and (g). For a comparable usage of the subordinator quod, see § 15.14. (f)

Hoc est cur quaedam tigna supra aquam paene tota efferantur . . . (‘This is why some logs are elevated almost entirely above water . . .’ Sen. Nat. 3.25.6)

(g)

Quid est cur iudicio velit eum liberare ? (‘What ground have you for wishing to acquit him of the suit?’ Rhet. Her. 4.52)

156 See TLL s.v. caussa 676.81ff.; s.v. ob 31.31ff.

Relative adjectives and adverbs 581 Supplement: Quam ob rem . . . nihil est cur alius alio iudice melior aut sapientor existimetur [his]. (Cic. Font. 22); Idque erat cum aliis cur te, si fieri posset, cuperem videre. (Cic. Att. 11.15.1); Hoc est cur pueri tangar amore minus. (Ov. Ars 2.684) Quid est quamobrem putes te tuam culpam non modo derivare in aliquem . . . posse? (Cic. Ver. 2.49) Sed quid est quapropter nobis vos malum minitamini? (Pl. Bac. 1144) . . . quid est qua re quisquam mihi se ipsa populari ratione anteponat? (Cic. Dom. 88); Quid est, quare uxorem dimiseris? (Sen. Con. 2.5.7)

For the use of relative clauses with an adverb of reason as a reason adjunct, see (h). (h)

Quid igitur obstat quor non verae fiant? (‘What, therefore, prevents this (wedding) from being real?’ Ter. An. 103) Supplement: Quid accidit cur tanto opere iste homo occultaretur ut eum ne casu quidem quisquam adspicere posset? (Cic. Ver. 5.65); . . . quid habent cur Graeca anteponant iis quae et splendide dicta sint neque sint conversa de Graecis? (Cic. Fin. 1.6); Nam quid feci ego quidve sum locutus / cur me tot male perderes poetis. (Catul. 14.4–5); . . . aut amet aut faciat cur ego semper amem! (Ov. Am. 1.3.2); Quid tamen evenit cur sis metuentior undae . . . (Ov. Ep. 19.83) Quid ego feci qua istaec propter dicta dicantur mihi? (Pl. Am. 815)

Quamobrem, quapropter, and quare are regularly used as connective relatives.157 Cur is not used in this way. Examples are (i)–(k). Note also (l). (i)

Quam ob rem mi magis par est via decedere et concedere. (‘For this reason it’s more appropriate to get off the street for me and to get out of my way.’ Pl. Am. 990)

( j)

Quapropter te ipsum purgare ipsi coram placabilius est. (‘So it’s more likely to satisfy her if you explain the situation in person to her face.’ Ter. Ad. 608)

(k)

quare · lubens · te · in gremiu, / Scipio, recipt · terra . . . (‘Wherefore, Scipio, joyfully does Earth take you to her bosom.’ CIL I2.10.7–8 (Scip. Elog., Rome, c.170 bc))

(l)

Quare non est cur eorum qui se studio eloquentiae dediderunt spes infringatur . . . (‘Therefore there is no reason why the hopes of those who have devoted themselves to the study of oratory should be dashed . . .’ Cic. Orat. 6)

Relative adverbs of reason are also found (rarely) on the adjective level, as in (m) and (n).

157 See Merguet (Phil.) s.v. ob 782–3; quapropter 233; quare 233; (Reden) s.v. ob 409–10; quapropter 38; res 316–17.

582 (m)

Relative clauses . . . tamen digna causa videretur cur inimicitias hominis improbissimi susciperem, ut hospitis salutem fortunasque defenderem. (‘Nevertheless to defend the safety and fortunes of this kind friend would seem a worthy cause why I should incur this foul scoundrel’s enmity.’ Cic. Ver. 2.117)

(n)

. . . modo illud adtendatur, dignane causa videatur ea, quae ad utilitatem pertinebit, quare de magnificentia aut de honestate quiddam derogetur. (‘. . . provided only that some attention is paid to the question whether this cause which conduces to our advantage is worth a loss in glory and honour.’ Cic. Inv. 2.175)

CHAPTER 19

Coordination

19.1 Introductory remarks In § 14.1 various forms of clause combining are discussed among which is included combining of clauses into compound clauses by means of coordination (also called: conjunction). There, coordination is primarily compared with subordination, a means of combining clauses into complex clauses. The major difference between coordination and subordination is that in the latter one clause becomes part of another clause, whereas with the former this is not the case. Another important difference is that subordination pertains only to clauses, whereas coordination also pertains to units of a lower level, for example nouns, as is shown below. Furthermore, coordination, as a means of combining clauses, bears a certain similarity to means that are used to combine sentences to form larger units such as episodes and paragraphs (see § 2.13). This is especially relevant to the most common coordinating device et ‘and’, which can also be used to connect sentences. Examples of clause combining and sentence combining are (a) and (b), respectively, repeated from § 14.1. From Antiquity onwards the term ‘conjunction’ is applied to both uses. Something similar is the case with aut ‘or’, which most frequently functions as a disjunctive coordinator, but which is taken as a sentence connector in cases like (c). It is not always easy to decide whether one is dealing with coordination of clauses or with connexion of sentences. Sentence connexion is discussed in Chapter 24. (a)

{Haec evincit in consilio sententia} et {prima luce postridie constituunt proficisci.} (‘This opinion prevailed in the meeting, and they decided to set out the following day at first light.’ Caes. Civ. 1.67.6)

(b)

Hac oratione habita (sc. Caesar) concilium dimisit. Et (del. Meusel) secundum ea multae res eum hortabantur, quare sibi eam rem cogitandam et suscipiendam putaret . . . (‘With this speech he dissolved the convention. And straightway many considerations induced him to suppose that he must take thought and action in the matter.’ Caes. Gal. 1.33.2)

(c)

Quid? Si per vim tulisti, tamenne lex est? Aut quicquam iure gestum videri potest quod per vim gestum esse constet?

The Oxford Latin Syntax. Harm Pinkster, Oxford University Press (2021). © Harm Pinkster. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199230563.003.0019



Coordination (‘Furthermore, if you employed force to carry your measure, is it, in spite of this, a law? Do you think that the result of any operation which might has effected can be thought to be founded on right?’ Cic. Dom. 53) In Merguet (Reden) s.v. et, two columns are reserved for sentence connexion (‘am Anfang des Satzes’), forty-two for coordination (‘im Satz’), thirty-six of which are of the simply additive type (A et B), six of the correlative type (et A et B). Similar calculations are less easy to perform in the material for aut ‘or’ or sed ‘but’.

The most common form of coordination is by specific words or phrases that link the units involved, like et in (a). For such a linking device this Syntax uses the term coordinator (see §  3.25). The traditional term is ‘conjunction’. The coordinated units are called conjoins.¹ They belong to various types. Examples of coordinated clauses are (a) above and (d), repeated from § 2.2. Here the coordinator et ‘and’ combines two simple clauses into a compound clause. The two clauses do not depend on each other, as is the case with subordinate clauses (see § 2.2 and § 14.1). In (d), the compound clause as a whole functions as a subordinate clause of reason and answers the question Quapropter, quaeso? In (e), two coordinated clauses are both in the accusative and infinitive (see also § 2.2). (d)

Quapropter, quaeso? # Quia ego hanc amo et haec med amat . . . (‘Why, if I may ask? # Because I love her and she loves me . . .’ Pl. As. 631)

(e)

Neque hoc . . . vos . . . non vidistis, illam esse nullam atque esse potius flammam temporis . . . (‘Nor did you . . . fail to see that that was no law at all, and that it was rather the heat of the times . . .’ Cic. Dom. 69)

Coordination can be used not only for combining entire clauses, as in (a) and (d), but also for combining constituents at the level of the clause or at a lower level. This is illustrated by (f) and (g), respectively. (f)

Deinde rogas Fabium ut et patrem et filium vivos comburat, si possit. (‘You proceed to ask Fabius to burn both father and son alive if he can.’ Cic. Q. fr. 1.2.6)

(g)

Sese . . . non arbitratur . . . patrimonium tam amplum et copiosum posse obtinere . . . (‘. . . he thinks himself unable to retain possession of an inheritance so large and rich . . .’ Cic. S. Rosc. 6)

In (f), the nouns patrem and filium, both referring to human beings, are coordinated by et . . . et ‘both . . . and’. Patrem and filium do not depend on each other, as they would in a phrase like filium patris ‘the son of the father’, where patris is an attribute that modifies filium. Together they function as the compound object of the clause. The combination counts as plural, as is made clear by the form of the secondary predicate ¹ I take the term ‘conjoin’ from Quirk et al. (1985: 46).

Introductory remarks  vivos. It is understood that both the father and the son will be burnt. In (g), two attributive adjectives of a noun phrase are coordinated by et. Both adjectives are understood as a quality of patrimonium. They belong to the same semantic class (dimension and size—see § 3.7) and could together be given in answer to the question quale patrimonium? ‘what kind of estate?’² The compound phrase is modified by the degree adverb tam. Subordinate clauses can be coordinated in a similar way, as in (h), where two reason clauses are coordinated. (h)

Chrysalus mihi usque quaque loquitur nec recte, pater, / quia tibi aurum reddidi et quia non te defrudaverim. (‘Chrysalus is reviling me all the time, father, because I returned the money to you and because I didn’t cheat you.’ Pl. Bac. 735–6)

An intermediate form of coordination (neither complete clauses, as in (a) and (d), nor individual constituents, as in (f)–(h)) is shown in (i). Here, prohibere iniuriis incursionibusque must be understood with the first part of the sentence Cheruscos ab Suebis. For such instances, in which there is a contrast between two or more arguments that share the same verb, grammars of English use the term ‘gapping’. A traditional term is ‘ellipsis’. It is part of a more general form of coordination of incomplete clauses that contain several constituents, for which this Syntax uses the term conjunction reduction (see §§ 19.3–4). (i)

Hanc (sc. silvam) . . . Cheruscos ab Suebis Suebosque a Cheruscis iniuriis incursionibusque prohibere. (‘That it (the forest) . . . kept the Cherusci from raids and outrages on the part of the Suebi, and the Suebi likewise from the Cherusci.’ Caes. Gal. 6.10.5)

The cases mentioned above all make use of an overt coordinator. Coordination by means of such a coordinator is often called syndetic coordination. However, coordination is also possible without an overt lexical device, as in (j), an instance of conjunction reduction, and in (k). This is called asyndetic coordination (or: zero-coordination). In cases of asyndetic coordination, intonation will have played a role in marking the sequence as a compound sentence, as it does in contemporary languages. In (j), the relationship between the two parts may be understood as adversative. An example of asyndetic conjunctive coordination is (k). (j)

Gallos ab Aquitanis Garunna flumen, a Belgis Matrona et Sequana dividit. (‘The Galli (Gauls) are separated from the Aquitani by the river Garonne, from the Belgae by the Marne and the Seine.’ Caes. Gal. 1.1.2)

(k)

L., frater eius, causam agebat. Aderant amici, propinqui. (‘His brother Lucius pleaded his case. His friends and relatives were present.’ Cic. Ver. 1.125) ² For a parallel, see Pl. Trin. 1095–6.



Coordination

Following the grammatical tradition, three semantic classes of overt coordinators are distinguished, each with their own properties and each containing a number of devices with their own specific properties: conjunctive (also called ‘copulative’ or ‘additive’), disjunctive (also called ‘alternative’), and adversative. The coordinators most typically involved are et ‘and’, aut ‘or’, and sed ‘but’, respectively. Sequences of more than two conjoins are also very common. In this Syntax, this will be called multiple coordination. If syndetic coordinators are used, they may be the same, as in (l), or different, as in (m). An example of asyndetic multiple coordination is (n) (° marks the asyndeton); syndetic and asyndetic coordination may co-occur, as in (o), where sapienter and docte are linked asyndetically. Mixed coordination of this type is very common in Early Latin prose, both in legal texts and in Cato’s de Agricultura.³ (l)

Ego valeo recte et rem gero et facio lucrum . . . (‘I am doing well and am busy and am making a profit . . .’ Pl. Per. 503)

(m)

Accedam atque hanc appellabo et supparasitabor patri. (‘I’ll go to them and address her and play my father’s hanger-on.’ Pl. Am. 515)

(n)

Aderant unguenta, coronae. ° Incendebantur odores. ° Mensae conquisitissimis epulis extruebantur. (‘There were perfumes, garlands; incense was burnt; the tables were loaded with the choicest banquet.’ Cic. Tusc. 5.62)

(o)

(sc. res) . . . quas tu sapienter, ° docte et cordate et cate / mihi reddidisti opiparas opera tua. (‘. . . which you have intelligently, cleverly, sensibly, and shrewdly made sumptuous for me through your efforts.’ Pl. Poen. 131–2)

A further distinction is made between single coordinators such as those just mentioned, and pairs of coordinators like conjunctive et . . . et ‘both . . . and’, disjunctive aut . . . aut ‘either . . . or’, and adversative non solum . . . sed (etiam) ‘not only . . . but also’. For this form of coordination, in which both conjoins have a coordinating device, the term correlative coordination will be used. Such paired coordinators emphasize the identity of one or both of the conjoins involved. An example is (p). Here graviter et vehementer, themselves coordinated by the single coordinator et, form the ‘more particular or noteworthy’ part of the pair coordinated by cum . . . tum.⁴ (p)

. . . tametsi dici cum vere tum graviter et vehementer potest . . . (‘. . . although they might be stated not only truly, but also with vehemence and with indignation . . .’ Cic. Ver. 1.86)

Examples of correlative coordination of more than two conjoins are (q) and (r). In (s) et is used four times to link four combinations of an infinitive with an adjunct expression ³ For the relationship between asyndetic and syndetic coordination in Early Latin prose, see Penney (2005). ⁴ Quotation from OLD s.v. cum2 § 14.

Introductory remarks  (the last consisting of two nouns linked by the conjunctive coordinator ac ‘and’). Sequences of more than two conjoins are common with conjunctive and disjunctive, but not with adversative, coordinators. (q)

. . . et fugi et tibi surrupui filium et eum vendidi. (‘. . . I ran away and snatched your son from you and sold him.’ Pl. Capt. 972)

(r)

. . . quae res recte vortat mihique tibique tuaeque filiae . . . (‘. . . may this turn out well for me, you, and your daughter . . .’ Pl. Aul. 218)

(s)

. . . tamen esset magnum tantam causam, tam exspectatam, et diligentia consequi et memoria complecti et oratione expromere et voce ac viribus sustinere. (‘. . . still it would be a great undertaking in a case so great, so anticipated, both to follow it up with diligence, and to keep it in one’s memory, and to discuss it properly in speech, and to support it with voice and stamina.’ Cic. Div. Caec. 39)

The three types of coordination are represented in a formulaic form in Table 19.1. Table . Types of coordination  

Syndetic

Asyndetic Mixed

coordination by a single coordinator

A&B

A°B



multiple coordination

A&B&C

A°B°C

A&B°C/A°B&C

correlative coordination

&A&B





Legend: & = overt coordinator; ° = asyndeton

Conjoins are most often adjacent, as in the examples above and in (t). However, discontinuity with an intervening constituent is not uncommon. In that case the coordinator and the conjoin are postposed together, as in (u). Further instances can be found in § 23.101. (t)

Quam ego pecuniam quadruplicem aps te et lenone auferam. (‘This money I’ll take away from you and the pimp, fourfold.’ Pl. Cur. 619)

(u)

Erroris ambo ego illos et dementiae / complebo atque omnem Amphitruonis familiam . . . (‘I’ll fill both of them and Amphitruo’s entire household with misunderstandings and madness . . .’ Pl. Am. 470–1) Most of the words that are discussed in this chapter occur in other configurations as well. The most common coordinators et ‘and’ and sed ‘but’, for instance, can be used as linking devices both between independent sentences and between sections of a text, that is as ‘connectors’ (see above). Et can also be used in the sense of etiam ‘also’, ‘too’—that is, as an additive emphasizing particle (see § 22.21).



Coordination

19.2 Syndetic coordination In the sections that follow a number of topics are discussed that apply to all or most overt coordinators. The sections on asyndetic coordination (§§ 19.14–22) will follow the same format. Thereafter follow details concerning the three semantic types of coordination mentioned in the introductory section (§ 19.1).

. Syndetic coordination of clauses Examples of syndetic conjunctive coordination of clauses with one coordinator are (a) and (b).⁵ An example of syndetic correlative conjunctive coordination is (c). Note that the two coordinated clauses together serve as subsidiary information for the preceding polite request Ignoscetis autem. This is made explicit through the use of the  connector nam. An example of two coordinated simple clauses within a compound subordinate clause is (d); of the (repeated) negative conjunctive coordinator nec/neque, (e). (a)

Seiquis · scies / violasit · dolo · malo, / Iovei · bovid · piaclum / datod · et · a(sses) · CCC / moltai · suntod. (‘If any one does damage knowingly and with wrongful intent, he shall make sinoffering to Jupiter with an ox, and moreover let there be a fine of 300 as-pieces.’ (CIL I2.366.II.3–7 (Spoleto, not long after 241 bc))

(b)

Et meus pater nunc intus hic cum illa cubat, / et haec ob eam rem nox est facta longior . . . (‘And my father’s now lying with her inside the house, and for that very reason this night’s been made longer . . .’ Pl. Am. 112–13)

(c)

Ignoscetis autem. Nam et studio rusticarum rerum provectus sum et senectus est natura loquacior . . . (‘However, forgive me if I go on. For I am both carried away by my farmer’s zeal, and old age is naturally more chatty . . .’ Cic. Sen. 55)

(d)

Cum dies hibernorum complures transissent frumentumque eo comportari iussisset, subito per exploratores certior factus est . . . (‘After several days had passed in winter quarters and he (sc. Galba) had ordered for grain to be brought in there, suddenly he was alerted by his scouts . . .’ Caes. Gal. 3.2.1)

(e)

Nec enim libidine dominante temperantiae locum esse neque omnino in voluptatis regno virtutem posse consistere. (‘For neither where lust holds sway is there any place for self-control, nor in pleasure’s realm is there anywhere virtue can stand.’ Cic. Sen. 41) ⁵ The first et in (b) is a sentence connector.

Syndetic coordination  Conjunctive coordination of entire clauses as shown in (a) and (b) is not very common; the correlative type shown in (c) slightly more. Common elements are often not repeated, as in exx. (i) and (j) in § 19.1 and in (i) and (j) below. With correlative disjunctive coordinators and with adversative coordinators coordination of entire clauses seems relatively more common. Examples are (f)–(h). (f)

Aut pol haec praestigiatrix multo mulier maxuma est / aut pateram hic inesse oportet. (‘Either this woman is by far the greatest trickster or the bowl ought to be in here.’ Pl. Am. 782–3)

(g)

. . . Claudio utrumvis satis est planum facere, vel se a me ipso vi deiectum esse vel me consilium inisse ut vi deiceretur. (‘. . . it is sufficient for Claudius to prove either point—either that he was driven out with violence by my very self, or that I contrived a plan to have him driven out with violence.’ Cic. Tul. 29)

(h)

Cuius a morte tertius hic et tricesimus annus est sed memoriam illius viri omnes excipient anni consequentes. (‘Thirty-three years have passed since that hero’s death, but each succeeding year will carry on his memory.’ Cic. Sen. 19)

In the case of coordination of clauses that have the same subject it is normal to express it only once, as in (i): quae is expressed only with the first clause. If two clauses also have the same verb, this is also normally expressed only once: in (j), deportasse is only expressed in the first clause. The term used in this Syntax for the phenomenon under discussion is conjunction reduction. (i)

Ab illa quae digitos despoliat suos et tuos digitos decorat. (‘From the one who is robbing her fingers and adorning yours.’ Pl. Mil. 1048)

(j)

Novi enim moderationem animi tui et aequitatem teque non cognomen solum Athenis deportasse sed humanitatem et prudentiam intellego. (‘For I know your self-control and the even temper of your mind, and I am aware that you brought home from Athens not only a nickname but culture and practical wisdom too.’ Cic. Sen. 1) Very useful is the organization of the lemmata in Merguet (Caesar). For et there are two and a half columns (338A–339B) for coordinated clauses ‘with different subjects and predicates’ against eight dedicated to other coordinated clauses (334A–338A). For -que, six vs. fifteen (879B–882A/871B–879A). Atque is much less common in the Caesarian corpus and is not so subdivided.

. Syndetic coordination of constituents at the clause level Examples of syndetic coordination of constituents at the clause level are (a) and (b). In (a), there is one subject (fortuna) and one object constituent (humana), both related



Coordination

to two coordinated verbs (fingit, artat). In (b), repeated from § 19.1, et patrem et filium are together object of the verb comburat. (a)

Fortuna humana fingit artatque ut lubet. (‘Fortune moulds and pinches human life as she likes.’ Pl. Capt. 304)

(b)

Deinde rogas Fabium ut et patrem et filium vivos comburat, si possit. (‘You proceed to ask Fabius to burn both father and son alive if he can.’ Cic. Q. fr. 1.2.6)

Such cases of coordination of constituents at the clause level, both syndetic and asyndetic, are often described as elliptic or brachylogical forms of clausal coordination.⁶ Thus, in order to explain that fortuna and humana are understood with both verbs, (a) is said to represent the shortened version of (a'). In a similar way, (b) is said to represent the shortened version of (b'), and likewise (c) of (c'). (a') (b') (c)

Fortuna humana fingit & fortuna humana artat ut lubet. Deinde rogas Fabium ut patrem vivum comburat & filium vivum comburat, si possit. Turbant, miscent mores mali. (‘The bad confuse and mix up our standards.’ Pl. Trin. 285)

(c')

Turbant mores mali & miscent mores mali.

Describing these actually attested sentences as derived from more ‘basic’ clauses is problematic in several respects. In the first place, conjunctively coordinated pairs such as those in (b) behave as a unit, with a particular property that differs from those of the underlying pairs: et patrem et filium is plural (see § 19.1). Compare also the use of ambos in (d). Another problem is that it is sometimes impossible to divide a coordinated clause into two basic clauses, as is shown in (e) and (e'), since verbs like pugno require two arguments (see §  4.38 fin.). In (f), senatus populusque Romanus behaves as one constituent and counts as singular; yet it would be odd to paraphrase the content as (f ').⁷ For similar considerations concerning prepositional phrases, see § 19.13. (d)

. . . vos in patriam domum / rediisse video bene gesta re ambos, te et fratrem tuom. (‘. . . I see that you’ve both, you and your brother, returned home to our country conducting your business so successfully.’ Pl. St. 506–7)

(e)

Nunc, male res iunctae, calor et reverentia pugnant. (‘Now, passion and regard for men, two things that ill go together, are at odds.’ Ov. Ep. 19.173)

(e')

Nunc . . . calor pugnat & reverentia pugnat.

⁶ K.-St.: II.555–6 use the term ‘Brachylogie’. ⁷ For instances of irreducible coordinate expressions in English, see Quirk et al.  (1985: 942–3). For further discussion and references, see Pinkster (1990: 8–9).

Syndetic coordination  (f)

. . . pro hoc gradu in quo me senatus populusque Romanus conlocavit . . . (‘. . . in view of the rank conferred upon me by the senate and the people of Rome . . .’ Cic. Phil. 2.6)

(f ')

. . . pro hoc gradu in quo me senatus (Romanus?) conlocavit & in quo me populus Romanus conlocavit . . .

This phenomenon of reduction is found in all periods of Latin and in all sorts of texts. It is part of a more general strategy of leaving implicit what is already present in the (usually preceding) context. Related phenomena are discussed in §§ 9.9–10 and § 9.16 for subjects and objects, respectively; in §  18.11 for adnominal relative clauses; in § 18.30 for coordination of relative clauses; in § 20.1 for comparative clauses; and in § 24.8 for discourse continuity and zero-anaphora.

. Syndetic coordination of verbs sharing the same subject Examples of conjunction reduction with a noun phrase that is expressed as the subject only once are (a)–(d). In (e), the subject is mentioned in the preceding context. (a)

Quid nunc agam, / quem omnes mortales ignorant et ludificant ut lubet? (‘What should I do now, I whom all mortals disown and ridicule as they like?’ Pl. Am. 1046–7)

(b)

Quod quo studiosius ab istis opprimitur et absconditur eo magis eminet et apparet. (‘Which, the greater the efforts made by them to suppress and conceal it, the more evident and conspicuous it becomes.’ Cic. S. Rosc. 121)

(c)

. . . contra vitam fortunasque nostras ab homine profligato ac perdito non comparari sed geri iam viderem. (‘. . . I saw (war) being not plotted but actually waged by a profligate and desperate man against our lives and property.’ Cic. Phil. 3.1)

(d)

Quis mihi in re publica potest aut debet esse coniunctior . . . (‘Who in the Republic can or should be more closely tied to me . . .’ Cic. Mur. 3)

(e)

(sc. equites) Foedant et proterunt hostium copias / iure iniustas. (‘They rightly mangled and crushed the enemy’s unrighteous troops.’ Pl. Am. 246–7) Supplement: . . . qui nunc festinat atque ab hac minatur sese abire. (Pl. As. 604); Iuppiter, qui genus colis alisque hominum . . . (Pl. Poen. 1187) . . . causa non solum exponenda, sed etiam graviter copioseque agenda est. (Cic. Div. Caec. 39) . . . nescio unde auxili, praesidi, perfugi / mi aut opum copiam comparem aut expetam. (Pl. Cas. 623–4); . . . praesertim cum tribunus plebis vel denuntiare potueris vel etiam cogere? (Cic. Dom. 117—NB: with a shared secondary predicate); Difficile



Coordination ad fidem est in tam antiqua re quot pugnaverint ceciderintve exacto adfirmare numero. (Liv. 3.5.12) NB: shared subject complement: Itaque et illos septem, qui a Graecis σοφοί, sapientes a nostris et habebantur et nominabantur . . . (Cic. Tusc. 5.7)⁸

. Syndetic coordination of verbs sharing the same object Examples of simple conjunction reduction with a noun phrase that is expressed only as the object of the first verb are (a)–(e) (see also § 9.16). Conjunction reduction is almost obligatory when the first object is a pronoun used anaphorically or a relative pronoun, as in (b), and when the coordinated verbs have more or less the same meaning, as in (c).⁹ Note that in (d) the secondary predicate perterritos that belongs to the implied object of egerunt is expressed. An example of a clausal object is (f). For examples of disjunctive and adversative coordination, see the Supplement. (a)

Pacisce ergo, opsecro, quid tibi lubet, / dum ne manufesto hominem opprimat neve enicet. (‘Settle the issue, then, please, on any terms you like, so long as he doesn’t surprise the man in the act and kill him.’ Pl. Bac. 866–7—NB: for the use of neve, see § 8.40)

(b)

(sc. parasiti) . . . quos numquam quisquam nec vocat neque invocat. (‘. . . whom no one ever either calls to or calls on.’ Pl. Capt. 76)

(c)

Illud unum vos magnopere oro atque obsecro, iudices . . . ne fictis auditionibus . . . fortunas innocentium subiciiendas putetis. (‘One thing I do most earnestly beg and pray of you, gentlemen . . . do not consider it right that the fate of the guiltless should lie at the mercy of fictitious rumours.’ Cic. Planc. 56)

(d)

. . . reliquos in fugam coniecerunt atque ita perterritos egerunt ut . . . (‘. . . they put the rest to rout, and indeed drove them in such a panic that . . .’ Caes. Gal. 4.12.2)

(e)

Indignatus puer quod (sc. Trimalchio) Scylacem tam effuse laudaret catellam in terram deposuit hortatusque ut ad rixam properaret. (‘The boy, offended because Trimalchio praised Scylax so lavishly, put the puppy on the ground and encouraged her to attack at once.’ Petr. 64.9)

(f)

Quod ego etsi mea sponte ante faciebam . . . nunc tamen et agam studiosius et contendam ab illo vehementius . . . (‘What I have been doing already of my own accord . . . I shall now set to work at more zealously and press him about harder . . .’ Cic. Att. 1.10.2) Supplement: Est profecto deus qui quae nos gerimus auditque et videt. (Pl. Capt. 313); Domum meam maioribus praesidiis munivi atque firmavi . . . (Cic. Catil. 1.10); Caesar . . . crates ⁸ See Nicolas (1999: 56). ⁹ For ‘quasi-synonymous verbs’, see Spevak (2010a: 104–6).

Syndetic coordination  ad extremum tumulum contra hostem proferri et adversas locari . . . iussit. (Caes. Civ. 3.46.1—NB: with secondary predicate); Milites . . . praecipites Pompeianos egerunt et terga vertere coegerunt. (Caes. Civ. 3.46.5—NB: with a secondary predicate) Quotiens te votui Argyrippum, filium Demaeneti, / compellare aut contrectare, colloquive aut contui? (Pl. As. 522–3); Eum praeter Marcellos patronum quem suo iure adire aut appellare posset habere neminem. (Cic. Ver. 2.36); . . . uti . . . quid quisque eorum de quaque re audierit aut cognoverit quaerant . . . (Caes. Gal. 4.5.2) Nunc quam ob rem huc sum missa, amabo, vel tu mi aias vel neges. (Pl. Rud. 427); . . . tum hic bonus augur eo se sacerdotio praeditum esse dixit ut comitia auspiciis vel impedire vel vitiare posset . . . (Cic. Phil. 2.80) At placuero huic Erotio, / quae me non excludet ab se sed apud se occludet domi. (Pl. Men. 670–1); Cum vero ne de venalibus quidem homines electos sed ex ergastulis emptos nominibus gladiatoriis ornarit . . . (Cic. Sest. 134); Eius rei testimonium esse . . . quod bellum non intulerit sed defenderit. (Caes. Gal. 1.44.6)

When an object is not expressed with the second verb of a coordinated pair, we find both the word order ‘object verb & verb’ (OV & V) and ‘verb object & verb’ (VO & V). The former seems to predominate, as in the examples above, but see (g) and (h) for the reverse order. When the object is omitted with the first verb, the normal word order is V & VO, as in (i), and not V & OV, but see (j) for an exception.¹⁰ (g)

. . . plura suscepi veritus ne movere hominum studia viderer, retinere non posse. (‘. . . I embarked upon further undertakings in fear that I would seem to have piqued human interest, but to be unable to maintain it.’ Cic. Fin. 1.2)

(h)

. . . sordidatus cum gentilibus clientibusque in foro prensabat singulos orabatque, ne Claudiae genti eam inustam maculam vellent, ut . . . (‘. . . dressed for mourning, accompanied by his clansmen and clients, he approached one citizen after another in the Forum and begged that they not allow a stain to besmirch the Claudian line such that . . .’ Liv. 3.58.1)

(i)

Ostentare hoc est, Romani, non gerere bellum. (‘This, Romans, is making a show of war, not waging it.’ Liv. 3.2.8)

(j)

Neque hercle ego uxorem habeo neque ego Erotio / dedi nec pallam surrupui. (‘I don’t, by God, have a wife and I neither gave the mantle to Erotium, nor did I steal it.’ Pl. Men. 509)

. Syndetic coordination of verbs with different argument marking that share an object or a comparable constituent Conjunction reduction of a noun phrase or a similar constituent that is related to two or more coordinated verbs can occur even when the verbs have different verb frames or different case patterns.¹¹ In (a), the verbs involved govern different cases (accusative ¹⁰ See Sznajder (1998: 805–6). ¹¹ The examples are taken from K.-St.: II.565 and from von Nägelsbach and von Müller (1905: 388–9). For cases such as (a) some scholars use the term ‘syllepsis’ (see Sz.: 831–2).



Coordination

and dative, respectively) but only the dative is expressed. In (b), the understood object of the verb educit is coreferential with the indirect object of the coordinated verb dat. As the examples show, the reduction may concern the object of the earlier verb, as in (a), or the object of the later verb, as in (b). In (c), ab ea may be understood with evehuntur. In this case, the expressed constituent is probably a direction argument. For examples with two objects expressed with different marking, see (d) and (e). (a)

Qui autem non defendit nec obsistit, si potest, iniuriae, tam est in vitio quam si parentes . . . deserat. (‘But he who does not prevent or oppose wrong, if he can, is just as guilty of wrong as if he deserted his parents . . .’ Cic. Off. 1.23)

(b)

Eodem tempore clamore exaudito dat tuba signum suis Vercingetorix atque ex oppido educit. (‘At the same moment, hearing the shout, Vercingetorix gave his troops the signal by trumpet, and led them out of the town.’ Caes. Gal. 7.81.3)

(c)

Vilicus . . . appellatus a villa, quod ab eo in eam convehuntur fructus et evehuntur, cum veneunt. (‘The name vilicus . . . is derived from villa, as this is the place into which the crops are hauled by him and out of which they are hauled when they are sold.’ Var. R. 1.2.14)

(d)

Ipse dux hostium Camulogenus suis aderat atque eos cohortabatur. (‘The leader of the enemy, Camulogenus, was himself there among his men and was urging them on.’ Caes. Gal. 7.62.6)

(e)

In hoc sumus sapientes, quod naturam optumam ducem tamquam deum sequimur eique paremus. (‘I am wise because I follow Nature as the best of guides and obey her as a god.’ Cic. Sen. 5) Supplement: Verum si augeam / aut etiam adiutor sim eius iracundiae, / insaniam profecto cum illo. (Ter. Ad. 145–7); Nam quid ego de aedile ipso loquar, qui etiam diem dixit et accusavit de vi Milonem? (Cic. Sest. 95); . . . tamen apparet atque exstat utrum simus earum rudes an didicerimus. (Cic. de Orat. 1.73); Quocirca poetae in magna varietate personarum etiam vitiosis quid conveniat et quid deceat videbunt. (Cic. Off. 1.98); . . . univorsos in contione laudat atque agit gratias . . . (Sal. Jug. 54.1); Odi odioque sum Romanis. (Liv. 35.19.6) NB: Accusative me governed by the second verb: Nam postea me ut sibi essem legatus non solum suasit verum etiam rogavit. (Cic. Prov. 42) . . . hoc voluit clarissimum relinquere indicium latrociniorum suorum, de quo non audire aliquando sed videre cotidie possemus. (Cic. Ver. 1.130); . . . id me non modo non hortatur ad disputandum sed etiam deterret. (Cic. de Orat. 2.25); (sc. Scipio) . . . ad Hannibalem detrahendum ex Italia transferendumque et finiendum in Africa bellum se transire volgaverat. (Liv. 29.26.6); Extemplo caetrati Achaeorum in castra impetum faciunt et diripiunt. (Liv. 35.30.4—NB: unless et diripiunt is an interpolation; see Briscoe ad loc.; Gronovius proposed et )

Syndetic coordination 

. Syndetic coordination of verbs sharing a third argument or a satellite Instances of coordinated verbs that share a third argument or a satellite are difficult to find. An example with a third argument is (a); with satellites, (b) and (c). Note the proposed emendation in (d). (a)

Utrum quae tibi ex societate debeatur an quae ex liberalitate huius promissa sit et ostentata? (‘Was it owing to you from the partnership, or had it been promised and offered you by my client’s generosity?’ Cic. Q. Rosc. 16)

(b)

. . . maxumeque reliquiae rerum earum moventur in animis et agitantur de quibus vigilantes aut cogitavimus aut egimus . . . (‘. . . and the remnants of those things that we either thought about or accomplished when awake are especially moved and stirred in our souls . . .’ Cic. Div. 2.140)

(c)

Sequitur tertia, quae per omnis partis sapientiae manat et funditur . . ., disserendi ratio et scientia. (‘In the third place follows that which seeps into and suffuses all aspects of wisdom . . ., the art and science of reasoning.’ Cic. Tusc. 5.72)

(d)

Ei legi et egi (cum eo add. Wesenberg). (‘I read it to him and took the matter up.’ Cic. Att. 15.1.2) Supplement: . . . cogit quaestorem suum pecuniam quam ex Agonidis bonis redegisset eam mulieri omnem annumerare et reddere. (Cic. Div. Caec. 57); . . . pro Quinctio cui tu et rem et famam tuam commendare proficiscens et concredere solebas . . . (Cic. Quinct. 62); Vos, quaeso, date hoc et concedite pudori meo, ut aliquam partem de istius impudentia reticere possim. (Cic. Ver. 1.32); Est tuum, est ingenii diligentiaeque tuae. Do hoc tibi et concedo. (Cic. Ver. 3.16) Atque illi miseri nati in illis agris et educati, glebis subigendis exercitati, quo se subito conferant non habebunt. (Cic. Agr. 2.84); Habeo autem certam viam atque rationem qua omnis illorum conatus investigare et consequi possim. (Cic. Ver. 1.48); . . . factum est senatus consultum quibus de sartis tectis cognitum et iudicatum non esset uti C. Verres P. Coelius praetores cognoscerent et iudicarent. (Cic. Ver. 1.130)

. Syndetic coordination of arguments and satellites at the clause level Clauses with coordinated arguments and satellites that share the same verb are very common.¹² Compound subjects that consist of two or more conjunctively coordinated ¹² Complete collections can be found in Merguet (Phil. and Reden, also Caesar), s.vv. atque and et, and in Lodge, s.vv. atque and et.



Coordination

noun phrases, however, deserve special attention, since specific rules of agreement apply to them (see §§ 13.4–9). Examples of compound subjects are (a)–(e). In (a) the verb is singular and the coordination is asyndetic. In (b), the verb is plural and the coordination is partly asyndetic. In (c), the verb is singular; in (d), plural. (a)

Persuasit nox, amor, vinum, adulescentia. (‘Night, love, wine, and youth persuaded him.’ Ter. Ad. 470)

(b)

. . . praesertim cum Romae domus eius, uxor, liberi essent et procurator aeque utriusque necessarius. (‘. . . especially as he had at Rome a house, a wife, children, and an agent equally connected to both parties.’ Cic. Quinct. 86)

(c)

. . . nihil est . . . quod humilitatem cuiusquam gravitas et virtus iudicis consoletur. (‘. . . there is nothing which the authority and integrity of a judge can do for anyone’s abjection.’ Cic. Quinct. 5)

(d)

Quid? Auspicia, quibus ego et tu, Crasse, cum magna rei publicae salute praesumus. (‘What of augury, over which you and I, Crassus, preside to the great welfare of the Republic?’ Cic. de Orat. 1.39)

(e)

Sestius apud me fuit et Theopompus pridie. (‘Sestius was with me yesterday, and Theopompus.’ Cic. Att. 13.7.1)

Noun phrases coordinated by a disjunctive or adversative coordinator do not pose such problems of agreement: the verb agrees with the nearest conjoin. Two noteworthy cases are shown in (f) and (g). In (f), juridical precision explains the repetition of the participle to agree with nata. In (g), the plural erant is understood with Graeci sacrilegi etc. (f)

Quicumque filius aut filia mihi natus natave erit, heres mihi sit. (‘Let whatever son or daughter is born to me be my heir.’ Gaius [Epit.] 2.3.2)

(g)

. . . eius modi recuperatores, quorum civis Romanus nemo erat sed Graeci sacrilegi iam pridem improbi . . . (‘. . . court officials of this sort, none of whom was a Roman citizen, but who were shameless Greeks, formerly temple-robbers . . .’ Cic. Ver. 3.69)

Examples of other compound arguments are the accusative object in (h), the dative object in (i), the indirect object in (j), and the ablative third argument in (k). Ex. (l) illustrates a compound subject complement; (m) and (n) illustrate compound satellites. (h)

Noctem tuam et vini cadum velim, si optata fiant. (‘I’d wish for a night with you and a jar of wine if my wishes came true.’ Pl. As. 624)

(i)

. . . si potius vobis ac rei publicae quam sibi et suis commodis opera, sumptu, labore deserviunt . . . (‘. . . if, by their toil, expense, and labour, they serve you and your country better than themselves and their own advantage . . .’ Cic. Ver. 3.228)

Syndetic coordination  (j)

Tlepolemo dat et Hieroni negotium. (‘. . . he put the matter into the hands of Tlepolemus and Hiero.’ Cic. Ver. 4.96)

(k)

Quanta me cura et sollicitudine adficit / gnatus. (‘How much worry and anxiety my son is causing me.’ Ter. Ph. 441–2—NB: quanta modifies both cura and sollicitudine; see § 19.11)

(l)

. . . is cum amicus et socius populi Romani esset, . . . praeceps provincia populi Romani exturbatus est. (‘. . . this man, although he was the friend and ally of the Roman nation, . . . was driven out headlong from a Roman province.’ Cic. Ver. 4.67)

(m)

Nam tua opera et comitate et virtute et sapientia / fecisti ut redire liceat ad parentes denuo . . . (‘Well, through your efforts and kindness and noble spirit and wisdom you’ve made it that I can return to my parents again . . .’ Pl. Capt. 410–11—NB: see note on (k))

(n)

. . . quae res ad usum civilem moribus et legibus constitutae sunt . . . (‘. . . those matters which have been established by law and custom for citizen use . . .’ Rhet. Her. 1.2)

Examples of disjunctive and adversative coordinators linking constituents that are connected to the same verb can be found in the relevant sections on individual coordinators.

. Syndetic coordination of constituents below the clause level Syndetic coordination of constituents below the clause level can occur at the level of the noun, the adjective, the adverb, and the prepositional phrase.

. Syndetic coordination of constituents at the noun phrase level Examples of syndetic coordination of constituents at the noun phrase level are (a) and (b), in which attributive noun phrases are coordinated, and (c) and (d), in which attributive adjectives are coordinated. Note in (c) the discontinuity of the coordinated adjectives (for further examples, see § 23.101). In the following sections most examples contain the conjunctive coordinator et. Further examples of et and other coordinators can be found in later sections. For coordination of attributive adjectives, see also § 13.22. (a)

Ego virtute deum et maiorum nostrum dives sum satis. (‘Thanks to the gods and our ancestors I’m rich enough.’ Pl. Aul. 166)

(b)

Heraclius . . . capit consilium de amicorum et propinquorum sententia non adesse ad iudicium. (‘Heraclius . . . planned, based on the opinion of his friends and associates, not to appear in court.’ Cic. Ver. 2.41)

 (c)

Coordination Iustam rem et facilem esse oratam a vobis volo. (‘I want to ask you for a just and a small favour.’ Pl. Am. 33)

(d)

. . . quod in rebus honestis et cognitione dignis operae curaeque ponetur, id iure laudabitur . . . (‘. . . what of effort and care is devoted to matters honourable and worthy of contemplation, this will rightly be praised . . .’ Cic. Off. 1.19) Supplement: . . . aliud fraudis et insidiarum in eodem vestigio deverticulum reperit. (Cic. Q. Rosc. 51); . . . quibus rebus ad illum primum motum animi et amoris adhibitis . . . (Cic. Amic. 29); Lacedaemoniorum deinde exsulum et Achaeorum legati introducti sunt . . . (Liv. 40.20.2); . . . omissis orationum et causarum studiis omne tempus modo circa Medeam, ecce nunc circa Thyestem consumas . . . (Tac. Dial. 3.4) . . . qui mage amico utantur gnato et benevolo. (Pl. As. 66); Mulier commoda et / faceta haec meretrix. (Ter. Hau. 521–2); Hoc vestro iudicio tanto tamque praeclaro excitatus ita Kalendis Ianuariis veni in senatum ut . . . (Cic. Phil. 6.2); . . . cumque eos permensus est idem et semper sui similis orbis. (Cic. Tim. 33); Splendidiore nunc eos catena sed multo graviore vinctos esse . . . (Liv. 35.38.10); . . . sanctiorem illam et augustiorem eloquentiam colam. (Tac. Dial. 4.2) The category of adjectives consists of several semantic classes (see § 3.7). In principle only adjectives that belong to the same semantic class can be coordinated (see § 11.39). If adjectives that belong to different semantic classes are coordinated the second adjective is usually explicative. Noteworthy cases where such an interpretation is difficult are (e) and (f).¹³ (e) . . . video . . . illac facere, omnem fere iuventutem, omnem illam urbanam ac perditam plebem . . . (‘. . . I see that all the younger people, all the desperate city rabble are on his side . . .’ Cic. Att. 7.3.5) (f) Incedebat muliebre et miserabile agmen . . . (‘There went on its way a pitiable column of women . . .’ Tac. Ann. 1.40.4—tr. Woodman)

Conversely, compound head nouns with two or more constituents can be modified by one (or more) modifier(s), as in (g)–(h). In (g), the genitive noun claustrorum modifies both head nouns. In (h) more and modo are modified by the possessive adjective nostro. Note here the discontinuity of the two coordinated nouns (for further examples, see § 23.7). Further details, including those concerning the rules of agreement in such cases, are discussed in § 13.21. (g)

. . . sonitum et crepitum claustrorum audio . . . (‘. . . I can hear the noise and clattering of the bolts . . .’ Pl. Cur. 203)

¹³ See Risselada  (1984: 220–2), Spevak  (2010a: 229–39), and, for Tacitus, Sánchez Martínez  (2000: 194–201).

Syndetic coordination  (h)

. . . nos nostras more nostro et modo instruximus / legiones . . . (‘. . . we drew up our legions according to our usual method and manner . . .’ Pl. Am. 221–2) Supplement: Sed eccos video incedere / patrem sodalis et magistrum. (Pl. Bac. 403–4); . . . dignitatem nostram, ut potest in tanta hominum perfidia et iniquitate, retinebimus. (Cic. Fam. 1.2.4); . . . etsi nemini concedo qui maiorem ex pernicie et peste rei publicae molestiam traxerit . . . (Cic. Fam. 4.3.1); . . . vagus auditor adsuevit iam exigere laetitiam et pulchritudinem orationis. (Tac. Dial. 20.3) Spero consuetudine et / coniugio liberali devinctum, Chreme, / de(h)inc facile ex illis sese emersurum malis. (Ter. An. 560–2); Tu aliquem patronum invenies, hominem antiqui offici, qui splendorem nostrum et gratiam neglegat. (Cic. Quinct. 72); Sin has caedes et rapinas et hos tantos tamque profusos sumptus aut facient aut approbabunt . . . (Cic. S. Rosc. 139); Equidem adhuc miser in maximis meis aerumnis et luctibus . . . maneo Thessalonicae . . . (Cic. Att. 3.8.2); . . . primum strata humi longoque fletu et silentio, post altaria et aram complexa . . . inquit . . . (Tac. Ann. 16.31.1)

. Syndetic coordination of constituents at the adjective phrase level Examples of syndetic coordination of constituents at the adjective phrase level are (a) and (b), both illustrating arguments that are required by the adjective (see § 4.99 and § 11.92). (a)

Pater iam hic me offendet miserum adveniens ebrium, / aedis plenas convivarum et mulierum. (‘On his arrival, my father will find me drunk here now, wretch that I am, and the house full of guests and women.’ Pl. Mos. 378–9)

(b)

. . . consilium ceperunt plenum sceleris et audaciae . . . (‘. . . they formed a plan full of villainy and audacity . . .’ Cic. S. Rosc. 28) Supplement: Num etiam fratris mei litteras plenissimas humanitatis et aequitatis reprehensurus es? (Cic. Flac. 78); Huc homines digni istius amicitia, digni vita illa conviviisque veniebant. (Cic. Ver. 5.30); . . . ut ex eo donum aureum, dignum amplitudine templi ac numine dei, ex dignitate populi Romani fieret. (Liv. 5.23.11); . . . dignum fide constantiaque Romana capiamus consilium . . . (Tac. Ann. 15.20.4)

There are also instances of compound adjective phrases that are modified in some way. Ex. (c) illustrates a place satellite (example repeated from § 11.92). More common are instances with the degree adverb tam, as in (d). (c)

Quis Platorem . . ., hominem in illis locis clarum ac nobilem, legatum Thessalonicam . . . venisse nescit? (‘Who does not know that Plator . . ., a noble and a celebrity in his own land, came . . . to Thessalonica as legate?’ Cic. Har. 35)

 (d)

Coordination . . . sese hoc incolumi non arbitratur huius innocentis patrimonium tam amplum et copiosum posse obtinere . . . (‘. . . he thinks himself unable, while that man is still living, to retain possession of the inheritance of this innocent man, so large and rich it is . . .’ Cic. S. Rosc. 6) Supplement: . . . quod tam infestum scelus et immane . . .? (Cic. Clu. 188); Quae tanta enim potest exsistere ubertas ingenii . . . quod tam divinum atque incredibile genus orationis . . . (Cic. Red. Sen. 1); Quae ista tanta crudelitas est, quae tam fera immanisque natura? (Cic. S. Rosc. 146) NB: coordinated adverbs: Ita tantum bellum, tam diuturnum, tam longe lateque dispersum . . . (Cic. Man. 35)

. Syndetic coordination of prepositions and of prepositional phrases When two prepositional phrases with the same preposition are coordinated, the preposition may be repeated, as in (a) and (b). In (c) and (d), however, the preposition is used only once. In (c), one may interpret the sequence cum ero et vostra familia either as a pair of coordinated nouns governed by a preposition, or as a case of conjunction reduction with the second preposition unexpressed (for a similar problem, see § 19.4). In this case, the first analysis is more attractive due to the close semantic relationship between erus and familia. In (d), by contrast, the second analysis seems preferable. In these examples, the coordinator is the conjunctive et, as is the case with most of the examples in this section. For other coordinators, see the Supplement.¹⁴ (a)

Quin tu i dierecta cum sucula et cum porculis. (‘Go and be hanged with your little sow and your little piglets.’ Pl. Rud. 1170)

(b)

Id solus solum per amicitiam et per fidem / flens me opsecravit . . . (‘He, in tears, begged this of me one-on-one by our friendship and by my good faith . . .’ Pl. Trin. 153–4)

(c)

. . . capias restim ac te suspendas cum ero et vostra familia. (‘. . . you should take a rope and hang yourself with your master and household.’ Pl. Poen. 396)

(d)

Per supremi regis regnum iuro et matrem familias / Iunonem . . . (‘I swear by the kingdom of the king on high and by the matriarch Juno . . .’ Pl. Am. 831–2) Supplement (in alphabetical order by preposition): Preposition repeated: Conjunctive coordination: Eheu, redactus sum usque ad unam hanc tuniculam / et ad hoc misellum pallium. (Pl. Rud. 549–50); Est enim ratio mensque sapientis ad

¹⁴ For instances with et, see Lodge: s.v. 524B–525A, 526A, 527A; McGlynn: s.v. 169B–170A. For instances with atque, see Lodge: s.v. 169B–170A.

Syndetic coordination  iubendum et ad deterrendum idonea. (Cic. Leg. 2.8); Viri, arma, equi ad usum et ad decus supererant. (Tac. Hist. 1.51.2); Inde in amicitiam insinuavit cum matre et mecum simul . . . (Pl. Cist. 92—NB: postpositional cum with the pronoun me); At te, vicine, di deaeque perduint, / cum tua amica cumque amationibus. (Pl. Mer. 793–4); . . . filiam ut darem in seditionem atque in incertas nuptias . . . (Ter. An. 830—NB: some mss. lack in before incertas); Apud eum sunt in honore et in pretio. (Cic. S. Rosc. 77); Ait enim vim divinam in ratione esse positam et in universae naturae animo atque mente . . . (Cic. N.D. 1.39); Est in Africa consuetudo incolarum ut in agris et in omnibus fere villis sub terra specus frumenti condendi gratia clam habeant . . . (B.  Afr. 65.1); . . . honores . . . ad quos vos per ludum et per neglegentiam pervenistis. (Cic. Ver. 5.181); Si sine vi et sine bello velint rapta et raptores tradere . . . (Pl. Am. 206); . . . armatos non fuisse eos qui sine scutis sineque ferro fuerint . . . (Cic. Caec. 64) Disjunctive coordination: Per epistulam aut per nuntium, quasi regem, adiri eum aiunt. (Pl. Mil. 1225) Adversative coordination: . . . ut tota res non solum a me sed etiam a senatu et a vobis manifesto deprenderetur. (Cic. Catil. 3.4); . . . ut onus huius laboris atque officii non ex meo sed ex meorum necessariorum tempore mihi suscipiendum putarem. (Cic. Div. Caec. 5); (sc. qui) . . . non per praestigias sed palam per potestatem uno imperio ostiatim totum oppidum conpilaverit. (Cic. Ver. 4.53) Preposition not repeated: Conjunctive coordination: . . . tibi muni viam / qua cibatus commeatusque ad te et legiones tuas / tuto possit pervenire. (Pl. Mil. 223–5); Mox conversus ad signa et bellorum deos . . . (Tac. Hist. 3.10.4); Sed hic rex cum aceto pransuru’st et sale, sine bono pulmento. (Pl. Rud. 937); Ego de urbe et his propriis ac vernaculis vitiis loquar . . . (Tac. Dial. 28.3); . . . ut fueris animatus erga suom gnatum atque se . . . (Pl. Capt. 407); Nam in mala uxore atque inimico si quid sumas, sumptus est . . . (Pl. Mil. 673); Advorsari sine dedecore et scelere summo hau possumus . . . (Pl. St. 72) Disjunctive coordination: . . . si erga parentes aut deos me impiavi. (Pl. Rud. 192); Potui umor ex hordeo aut frumento, in quandam similitudinem vini corruptus. (Tac. Ger. 23.1); Nec vero criminibus falsis in odium aut invidiam quemquam vocabit . . . (Cic. Off. 1.86); . . . Zenonem, qui nulla in re nisi in virtute aut vitio ([aut vitio] Davisius, edd.) propensionem ne minimi quidem momenti ad summum bonum adipiscendum esse diceret . . . (Cic. Fin. 4.47); Eadem de causa sunt quae non possunt vivere nisi in loco aquoso aut etiam aqua . . . (Var. R. 1.7.7); . . . pluresque in eo loco sine vulnere quam in proelio aut fuga intereunt . . . (Caes. Civ. 2.35.3); . . . plures per silentium aut occultum murmur excepere. (Tac. Ann. 2.38.4); . . . illa immensa volumina quae pro M. Tullio aut Aulo Caecina legimus? (Tac. Dial. 20.1) Adversative coordination: Finis Neronis . . . varios motus animorum non modo in urbe apud patres aut populum aut urbanum militem, sed omnes legiones ducesque conciverat . . . (Tac. Hist. 1.4.2); Usque eone te diligis et magnifice circumspicis ut pecuniam non ex tuis tabulis sed (sed ex cj. Sylvius) adversariis petas? (Cic. Q. Rosc. 5); Tunc xystici contemplandi, non in gymnasiis sed igne iaculati . . . (Tert. Spect. 30.5); . . . non solum inter barbaros, sed etiam omnes Graeciae civitates, clam dare operam coepit . . . (Nep. Con. 5.2); Inde non per Macedoniam modo sed etiam Thraciam prosequente et praeparante omnia Philippo . . . (Liv. 37.7.16) NB: poetic (and poeticizing) word order: . . . manibus sine nonnulli pedibusque manebant / in vita tamen . . . (Lucr. 6.1210–11); Italiam utroque mari duae classes,



Coordination Misenum apud et Ravennam, proximumque Galliae litus rostratae naves praesidebant . . . (Tac. Ann. 4.5.1)¹⁵ The preposition inter, which by virtue of its meaning requires two members, should normally not be repeated, but compare (e) and (f), the latter with repetition.¹⁶ (e) Nunc ita convenit inter me atque hunc, Tyndare / ut . . . (‘Now the agreement between me and him, Tyndarus, is that . . .’ Pl. Capt. 378) (f) . . . ut nihil inter te atque inter quadripedem aliquam putes interesse? (‘. . . that you believe there is no difference between you and some four-footed animal?’ Cic. Parad. 14)

The preposition seems not to be repeated when the prepositional phrase contains two or more modifiers of one head, as in (g) and (h). (g)

Nunc volo opsonare, ut, hospes, tua te ex virtute et mea / meae domi accipiam . . . (‘Now I want to buy food, my guest, so that I can receive you kindly in my house, as befits your character and mine . . .’ Pl. Mil. 738–9)

(h)

. . . necdum exarui ex amoenis rebus et voluptariis. (‘. . . and I’m not yet burned-out from all things lovely and enjoyable.’ Pl. Mil. 641)

With single conjunctive coordinators, as in the preceding examples, the preposition is more often not repeated, at least in Classical authors. By contrast, with disjunctive and adversative coordinators repetition is more common. With pairs of coordinators repetition is understandably the rule, since the repetition serves to mark the individuality of the conjoins. It is difficult to tell if semantic factors played a role in the choice between repetition and non-repetition of the preposition. In an example like (i) the two prepositional phrases in the clause appear to have different semantic functions, which may explain the repetition. However, it is more likely that an author’s decision to repeat the preposition was the product of a personal choice to present the second phrase in its own right. Intonation may be another factor. (i)

. . . puellam peperit quam a me acceperat, / sine opstetricis opera et sine doloribus . . . (‘. . . she gave birth to the girl she’d received from me, without the help of a midwife and without labour pains . . .’ Pl. Cist. 140–1) Clark (OCT) and Hinard (Budé), with little manuscript support, read in at Cic. S. Rosc. 78 . . . in egestate et in insidiis versatur . . . (with  and ƒ) and at S. Rosc. 81 . . . in praeda et in sanguine versabantur . . . (with ƒ); other editors follow the main manuscripts and leave the preposition out. Landgraf, in his commentary ad 78, is very explicit: ‘the preposition cannot be omitted here, because et coordinates two different notions’ (my paraphrase). K.St.: II.579, however, state that there is nothing whatsoever ¹⁵ For a discussion of this order, see Marouzeau (1947: 320–1). ¹⁶ For further examples, see TLL s.v. inter 2147.68ff.

Syndetic coordination  that prevents a repetition of the preposition. See also § 19.83 on zeugma. In the two instances cited the version without repetition is preferable from the rhythmical point of view.¹⁷

Regular instances of correlative coordination with repetition of the preposition are (j)–(m). (j)

(sc. Alcumena) . . . / utrimque est gravida, et ex viro et ex summo Iove. (‘. . .Alcumena is pregnant from both, from her husband and from great Jupiter.’ Pl. Am. 110–11)

(k)

. . . permulti et ex urbe et ex agris se in illa castra conferre dicuntur. (‘. . . many are said to be bringing themselves to those camps from both the city and the country.’ Cic. Catil. 2.21)

(l)

. . . quod aut in oppidis aut in agris maiores nostri proprium nobis reliquerint . . . (‘. . . that which our ancestors have left us as our own either in the towns or lands . . .’ Cic. Agr. 2.48)

(m)

. . . quod sit vel a dis inmortalibus vel a natura parente omnium constitutum. (‘. . . that which is established either by the immortal gods or by nature, the mother of all things.’ Cic. Tusc. 1.118) Supplement: Reddenda nunc est eustyli ratio, quae maxime probabilis et ad usum et ad speciem et ad firmitatem rationes habet explicatas. (Vitr. 3.3.6); . . . si eos aut in odium aut in invidiam aut in contemptionem adducemus. (Cic. Inv. 1.22); . . . ut tantam pecuniam scriba tuus auferret sive de aratorum bonis sive de populi Romani vectigalibus? (Cic. Ver. 3.181)

Other patterns are shown in (n) and (o). (n)

Id facies si omne genus liberalitatis quod et ab humanitate et potestate (a potestate cj. Wesenberg) tua proficisci poterit . . . exprompseris. (‘To effect this, you have only to bring out for the occasion all the manifold generosity that it lies within your good nature and your present power to provide.’ Cic. Fam. 13.6.4)

(o)

. . . ut aut de nomine aut scripto et sententia vel ratiocinatione quaeratur. (‘. . . so that the enquiry is concerned with the name of a given act, with the letter of the law and its meaning, or with something that requires to be settled by argument.’ Quint. Inst. 3.6.72) Supplement: . . . non dubitem quin et in Caesare et Antonio (in Antonio cj. Lambinus) se praestaturus fuerit . . . (Brut. ad Brut. 1.11.1); Sub idem fere tempus et ab Attalo rege et Rhodiis legati venerunt . . . (Liv. 31.2.1); . . . integrioris iudicii et a favore et odio . . . ¹⁷ As was pointed out to me by Andrew Dyck (p.c.).



Coordination (Liv. 45.37.8—NB: text much disputed and altered); Quae interim ductu imperioque Alexandri vel in Graecis vel Illyriis ac Thraecia gesta sunt . . . (Curt. 5.1.1)

As the examples discussed so far show, it is the second preposition in a sequence that can be omitted. Instances in which the preposition is missing from the first conjoin are attested from Plautus onwards, as in (p). This became a ‘pervasive usage in Latin verse’¹⁸ from Catullus onwards, as in (q), which is known as the figura ἀπὸκοινοῦ. The first prose example is (r). While it is clear that the figura constituted a stylistic preference in poetry, attested prose instances should be looked at critically.¹⁹ (p)

Solus solitudine ego ted atque ab egestate apstuli. (‘I was the only one to rescue you from loneliness and poverty.’ Pl. As. 163—NB: unless Plautus ventures a bare ablative to create the pun sol . . . sol . . .)²⁰

(q)

Cur non exilium malasque in oras / itis . . .? (‘Why don’t you go into banishment on accursed shores . . .?’ Catul. 33.5–6)

(r)

Paleas triticeas et hordeaceas, acus fabaginum, vicia (de vicia cj. Keil) vel de lupino, item de ceteris frugibus omnia condito. (‘Store wheat and barley straw, husks of beans, of vetch or lupines, and likewise of all other crops.’ Cato Agr. 54.2) Supplement: Poetry: Illa Notos atque atra volans in nubila fugit. (Verg. A. 5.512); Quas ego te terras et quanta per aequora vectum / accipio! (Verg. A. 6.692–3); Quae nemora aut quos agor in specus / velox mente nova? (Hor. Carm. 3.25.2–3); . . . foedera regum / vel Gabiis vel cum rigidis aequata Sabinis . . . (Hor. Ep. 2.1.24–5); Pectore Procris erat, Procris mihi semper in ore. (Ov. Met. 7.708) NB: variation of construction: Sed ubi aspera saxa / aut in materiam ligni pervenit . . . (Lucr. 4.147–8) Prose: Quod (cj. Augustinus) declinatione voluntaria sit anomalia, in naturali magis analogia. (Var. L. 8.23); Quam (sc. dignitatem) ego, si mihi per Servium liceat, pari (parem cj. Bake) atque in eadem (eadem in cj. Lambinus)²¹ laude ponam. (Cic. Mur. 21); Qua enim (edd. with the deteriores) barbaria quisquam tam taeter, tam crudelis tyrannus quam in hac urbe armis barbarorum stipatus Antonius? (Cic. Phil. 13.18); Sed mehercule et tum rem publicam lugebam, quae non solum a suis me sed etiam a meis erga se beneficiis erat mihi carior . . . (Cic. Fam. 7.28.3—following Shackleton Bailey ad loc.); . . . ut (edd. with V) alienissimis sociis amicissimos, ex infidelissimis firmissimos redderem . . . (Cic. Fam.

¹⁸ So Brink ad Hor. Ep. 2.1.31. ¹⁹ A large collection of ἀπὸ κοινοῦ instances in prose can be found in Baehrens (1912: 233–99; 533), many of them unreliable (see TLL s.v. in 804.16ff. and Kroll (1914)). For ἀπὸ κοινοῦ in Plautus in general, see Leo (1896); for prepositions (1896: 42–4=1960: 117–19). ²⁰ This is suggested by Leo (1896: 43=1960: 117). ²¹ TLL s.v. 804.41ff. gives only one instance of such an order (Lucil. 973M=1026K). For combinations of par and idem, see TLL s.v. idem 191.3ff. For the use of par as object complement with pono, see Nep. Alc. 3.5 (TLL s.v. pono 2651.63f.). The transmitted text cannot be right.

Syndetic coordination  15.4.14); Atqui et (add. Gronovius) Alliam cum Gallis et ad Heracleam cum Pyrrho utraque non tam clade infamis quam pavore et fuga pugna fuit. (Liv. 22.59.8) Not ἀπὸ κοινοῦ: Illa quaero quae apud te nuper ad omnes columnas, omnibus etiam intercolumniis (in intercolumniis cj. R. Klotz, but see § 10.4), in silva denique disposita sub divo vidimus. (Cic. Ver. 1.51) Appendix: Under the label of ஌›ಱౝԒϑഢԒഌ use of prepositions, scholars also refer to different phenomena where no coordination is involved, illustrated by (s) and (t). Of these, (s) seems to be an isolated instance.²² In (t), the preposition is not repeated in the relative clause, a common occurrence, for which see § 18.11. (s) Fugio sicut ab hoste viro (v.l. virum). (‘I shrink from my mate as away from a foe.’ Ov. Ep. 8.110) (t) Quicum litigas, Olympio? / # Cum eadem qua tu semper. # Cum uxoren’ mea? (‘Who are you arguing with, Olympio? # With the same woman you are always arguing with. # With my wife?’ Pl. Cas. 317–18)

When two prepositional phrases with different prepositions but with the same noun, noun phrase, or pronoun are coordinated, various possibilities can be distinguished, as illustrated by (u)–(y). In (u), the paired prepositions govern the same case but have opposite meanings. The noun is only expressed once (with the second preposition) and the prepositions themselves are coordinated. In the other examples, we are dealing with prepositional phrases, which are structurally similar to (y). In (v), the pronoun is expressed twice, which is necessary since the prepositions govern different cases, but which can also occur when they govern the same case (see the Supplement). In (w), the second (asyndetically coordinated) conjoin is an anaphoric pronoun. In (x), the second conjoin, extra, which can be used as a preposition and as an adverb, appears on its own. (u)

. . . dum in XV diebus ante et post brumam, ut pleraque, ne facias. (‘. . . provided you do not do this, or in fact most things, during the fifteen days preceding and following the solstice.’ Var. R. 1.35.2)

(v)

. . . ita et cum his et inter hos vixi . . . (‘. . . I lived my life in this way both with them and among them . . .’ Cic. Planc. 75)

(w)

Semper ille antea cum uxore, tum sine ea. (‘Before then he was always with his wife; at that time he was without her.’ Cic. Mil. 55)

(x)

. . . sed tamen et in corpore et extra esse quaedam bona. (‘. . . yet still there are certain good things both in the body and without.’ Cic. Fin. 2.68)

(y)

. . . eas leges quas M. Antonius tulisse dicitur omnes censeo per vim et contra auspicia latas . . . (‘. . . the laws which Marcus Antonius is said to have championed were all championed through violence and in contravention of the auspices . . .’ Cic. Phil. 5.10) ²² Pestelli ad loc. gives no precise parallels. The v.l. seems preferable.



Coordination Supplement: . . . sacra et uls et cis Tiberim non mediocri ritu fiant. (Var. L. 5.84); . . . ancipitem terrorem intra extraque munitiones . . . (Caes. Civ. 3.72.2); Quod  Q.  Aelius Tubero Paulus Fabius Maximus cos. V(erba) F(ecerunt) constitui oportere quo iure intra extraque urbem ducerent aquas quibus adtributae essent . . . (Fron. Aq. 108.1) Alfenus cum iis et propter eos periit quos diligebat . . . (Cic. Quinct. 70); . . . in caede atque ex caede vivunt. (Cic. S. Rosc. 78); . . . pro tabulis et contra tabulas et pro testibus et contra testis et pro quaestionibus et contra quaestiones . . . (Cic. de Orat. 2.118); . . . amicitiam ipsam sua sponte, vi sua, ex se et propter se expetendam . . . (Cic. Fin. 2.83); Materiam enim rerum ex qua et in qua omnia sint . . . (Cic. N.D. 3.92); . . . quod omne orationis officium aut in iudiciis est aut extra iudicia. (Quint. Inst. 3.4.6) Sub terra et supra virgulta non eodem tempore aeque crescunt. (Var. R. 1.45.2); Iliacos intra muros peccatur et extra. (Hor. Ep. 1.2.16); . . . intra eam (sc. portam) extraque latae viae sunt . . . (Liv. 31.24.9); Excidunt autem et in posteriorem partem et in priorem et supra saeptum transversum et infra. (Cels. 8.14.2); Aliorum fructus in terra est, aliorum et extra, aliorum non nisi extra. (Plin. Nat. 19.61) Nam aut in animis aut in corporibus aut extra esse possunt. (Cic. Part. 38)

19.14 Asyndetic coordination In scholarly literature the designation asyndeton (the absence of an overt linking device; a Latin term is dissolutio, a calque of Gr. διάλυσις) is applied to diverse phenomena. It is used to describe the sequence of two or more independent sentences without an overt connecting device. This is the case in (a) and (b); it is impossible that these sequences were expressed as one compound sentence in a single intonation contour.²³ In these instances we are dealing with asyndetic sentence connexion. The effect of asyndetic linking in (a) is to suggest a rapid succession of events and vividness. In (b), we are dealing with an enumeration of exempla. For a more detailed discussion of the semantic relations between asyndetically connected sentences, see § 24.47. (In the examples asyndeton is marked by ‘°’. I keep the punctuation of the editors of the texts.) (a)

Mittuntur ad Caesarem confestim a Cicerone litterae magnis propositis praemiis, si pertulissent; ° obsessis omnibus viis missi intercipiuntur. ° Noctu ex materia quam munitionis causa comportaverant turres admodum centum XX excitantur incredibili celeritate. ° Quae deesse operi videbantur perficiuntur. ° Hostes postero die multo maioribus coactis copiis castra oppugnant, fossam complent. ° A nostris eadem ratione qua pridie resistitur. Hoc idem reliquis deinceps fit diebus.

²³ Ex. (a) is taken from K.-St.: II.155–6. The punctuation follows Hering’s Teubner edition. Ex. (b) is taken from Draeger (1878: II.197–8). Many examples in the sections on asyndetic coordination are taken from these authors and from von Nägelsbach and von Müller  (1905: 790–804). For (a), see also Fraenkel (1956: 192). For instances of asyndeton in the jurists, see Kalb (1912: 134–9).

Asyndetic coordination



(‘Dispatches were at once sent by Cicero to Caesar, with promise of great rewards if the bearers delivered them safe; with all the roads blocked, the messengers were cut off. During the night about one hundred and twenty towers were erected with incredible speed out of the timber which they had collected for the purpose of the entrenchment. The apparent deficiences in the earthworks were rectified. On the next day, with far greater forces assembled, the enemy assaulted the camp and filled in the trench. Our troops resisted in the same fashion as on the day before. Exactly the same was done on the other days following.’ Caes. Gal. 5.40.1–4)

(b)

Non tamen adeo virtutum sterile saeculum ut non et bona exempla prodiderit. ° Comitatae profugos liberos matres, ° secutae maritos in exilia coniuges; ° propinqui audentes, constantes generi, contumax etiam adversus tormenta servorum fides; ° supremae clarorum virorum necessitates, ipsa necessitas fortiter tolerata et laudatis antiquorum mortibus pares exitus. ° Praeter multiplices rerum humanarum casus caelo terraque prodigia et fulminum monitus et futurorum praesagia, laeta tristia, ambigua manifesta; nec enim umquam . . . (‘Yet this age was not so barren of virtue that it did not display noble examples. Mothers accompanied their children in flight, wives followed their husbands into exile; relatives were courageous, sons-in-law steadfast, the loyalty of slaves unyielding even in the face of torture. There were the final straits of famous men—the fate itself endured bravely and their passings equal to the lauded deaths of the ancients. Besides the manifold misfortunes of human affairs, there were prodigies in the sky and on the earth and warnings given by thunderbolts and prophecies of the future, joyful and gloomy, uncertain and clear. For never was it . . .’ Tac. Hist. 1.3.1)

The term ‘asyndeton’ is also applied to coordinated clauses, as in (c) and (d), and to constituents at or below the clause level that are not linked by an overt coordinator, as in (e) (see also § 19.1). (c)

Vixdum dimidium dixeram, ° intellexerat. (‘I had scarcely said the half of it and he’d grasped the situation.’ Ter. Ph. 594)

(d)

(sc. parentes) Adsunt, ° defendunt, ° proclamant, ° fidem tuam, quae nusquam erat neque umquam fuerat, inplorant. (‘They were present, they fronted a defence, they raised an outcry, they appealed to your sense of justice, which was non-existent, nor had it ever existed.’ Cic. Ver. 5.108)

(e)

Et eodem accedit servitus, ° sudor, ° sitis. (‘And to this is added slavery, sweat, thirst.’ Pl. Mer. 674)

These forms of asyndetic coordination are discussed in the following sections. Sequences of conjoins wherein two or more asyndetically linked conjoins are combined with a final, overtly linked conjoin (type A, B & C, etc.) are discussed in § 19.66. Asyndetic coordination must not be confused with what is discussed in § 11.75 with respect to the hierarchical structure of the noun phrase. While in the case of asyndetic



Coordination coordination it is possible to supply one of the overt coordinators, this cannot be done for modifiers that belong to different categories in the hierarchical structure of the noun phrase. In the same way the co-occurrence of multiple space or time adjuncts in the same clause (see, for example, § 10.3) has nothing to do with asyndetic coordination. Asyndetic coordination must also not be confused with simple listing, as illustrated by (f)–(h) (although the boundary is not very clear). (f) Eae partes (sc. orationis) sex esse omnino nobis videntur: exordium, narratio, partitio, confirmatio, reprehensio, conclusio. (‘These components seem to me to be just six in number: exordium, narrative, partition, confirmation, refutation, peroration.’ Cic. Inv. 1.19) (g) Communia autem simplicium coniunctorumque sunt haec quinque quasi lumina, dilucidum, breve, probabile, illustre, suave. (‘But the following five ornaments belong in common both to single words and to combinations of words: lucidity, brevity, acceptability, brilliance, charm.’ Cic. Part. 19) (h) At vero meam domum P. Lentulus, consul et pontifex, P. Servilius, M. Lucullus, Q. Metellus, M’. Glabrio, M. Messalla, L. Lentulus, flamen Martialis, P. Galba, Q.  Metellus Scipio, C.  Fannius, M.  Lepidus, L.  Claudius, rex sacrorum, M.  Scaurus, M.  Crassus, C.  Curio, Sex. Caesar, flamen Quirinalis, Q. Cornelius, P. Albinovanus, Q. Terentius, pontifices minores . . . omni religione una mente omnes liberaverunt. (‘But Publius Lentulus, consul and pontiff, Publius Servilius, Marcus Lucullus, Quintus Metellus, Manius Glabrio, Marcus Messalla, Lucius Lentulus, the priest of Mars, Publius Galba, Quintus Metellus Scipio, Gaius Fannius, Marcus Lepidus, Lucius Claudius, the Priest in charge of Rites, Marcus Scaurus, Marcus Crassus, Gaius Curio, Sextus Caesar, priest of Quirinus, and the sub-pontiffs Quintus Cornelius, Publius Albinovanus, and Quintus Terentius . . . have all unanimously absolved my house from all sanctity.’ Cic. Har. 12) Manuscripts sometimes vary between syndetic and asyndetic sequences, which results in variation among editors. Editors are also tempted to emend transmitted asyndeta. A few examples are given in the Supplement. Supplement: dies / noctes (Pl. Trin. 287a–b—v.l. noctesque); precibus lacrimis (v.l. ac / et) (Cic. Lig. 13); Nihil enim habent quod definitum sit aut certum, nisi me vultu, taciturnitate (v.l. et taciturnitate, edd. pler.) significasse tibi non esse amicum . . . (Cic. Fam. 3.8.2); Avaritia . . . semper infinita insatiabilis (et insatiabilis in Gel. 3.1.2) est . . . (Sal. Cat. 11.3); nautarum militum (v.l. militumque) (Liv. 21.28.2); Hannibal . . . inritat etiam de industria m ducem, si forte accensum tot indignitatibus [cladibus] (del. Walters; other emendations in the mss. are et cladibus and cladibusque; alii alia) sociorum detrahere ad aequum certamen possit. (Liv. 22.13.1); Anceps igitur spes metus (et metus in old emendations) miscebant animos. (Liv. 30.32.5); L. Postumius Albinus M. Popilius Laenas cum omnium primum de provinciis exercitibus (et exercitibus cj. Vahlen)²⁴ ad senatum rettulissent, Ligures utrique decreti sunt. (Liv. 42.1.1) ²⁴ For some textual problems in Livy, see Briscoe ad loc.

Asyndetic coordination



Asyndetic coordination is often accompanied by repetition of the same word or phrase at the beginning of the conjoins, as in (i)–(l). The Latin term for this phenomenon is anaphora (or: repetitio).²⁵ (i)

Tute ad eum adeas, tut’ concilies, tute poscas. (‘You should approach him, you should win him over, you should ask for her.’ Pl. Trin. 386)

(j)

Sed pleni omnes sunt libri, plenae sapientium voces, plena exemplorum vetustas . . . (‘All literature, all philosophy, all history abounds with exemplars. . .’ Cic. Arch. 14)

(k)

. . . diffidentem tuis rebus, sine voce, sine libertate, sine auctoritate, sine ulla specie consulari, horrentem, trementem, adulantem omnis videre te volui; vidi. (‘. . . I have desired to see you distrusting your own interests, without voice, without liberty, without authority, without any consular pomp, shivering, trembling, fawning upon all; and so have I seen you.’ Cic. Pis. 99)

(l)

Verum parcite dignitati Lentuli, si ipse pudicitiae, si famae suae, si dis aut hominibus umquam ullis pepercit. (‘By all means, have regard for Lentulus’ rank, if he ever had regard for his own modesty, his own reputation, or any gods or men.’ Sal. Cat. 52.32—Cato’s speech) The asyndetic pair velitis iubeatis had become such a fixed idiom that the question particle -ne could be attached to the second word, also in vellent iuberentne (e.g. Liv. 1.46.1). (m) . . . ut, si tribuno plebis rogante ‘VELITIS IUBEATISNE’ Fidulii centum se velle et iubere dixerint, possit unus quisque nostrum amittere civitatem? (‘. . . so that, when a tribune of the people asks, ‘Is it your will and command?’, if a hundred men of Fidulius’ stamp say that it is their will and command, each one of us lose our privileges?’ Cic. Dom. 80)

The frequency with which asyndeton is used by different authors and in different types of text varies and is a matter of stylistic preference.²⁶

. Asyndetic coordination of clauses Although asyndetic coordination of two or more clauses occurs from Early Latin onwards, it is relatively uncommon. Early examples are (a)–(c). Exx. (a) and (b) occur in reports of battle scenes and relate the details of contemporaneous actions in rapid succession. In (c), the asyndetic linking of the clauses reflects the pimp’s excitement about his future acquisition of a new girl. In (d), we see three asyndetically coordinated clauses without a copula (see § 4.96 on nominal sentences). It is not unlikely that these clauses, or at least some of them, were pronounced in one intonation contour as ²⁵ For further examples, see K.-St.: II.155 and Lindholm (1931: 157–73), especially on Cicero. ²⁶ For a survey of the individual usage, see Sz.: 828–31.



Coordination

a compound sentence. (In the examples, asyndeton is marked by ‘°’. I keep the punctuation of the editors of the texts.) (a)

Pro se quisque id quod quisque potest et valet / edit, ferro ferit, ° tela frangunt, ° boat / caelum fremitu virum, ° ex spiritu atque anhelitu / nebula constat, ° cadunt volnerum vi [et] viri. (‘Each man inflicted for himself what he was well and able, he struck with his sword; lances broke, the heavens resounded with the uproar of men, a mist arose from their breathing and gasping, men fell under the force of their wounds.’ Pl. Am. 231–4)

(b)

Aes sonit, ° franguntur hastae, ° terra sudat sanguine. (‘Bronze clatters, spears are snapped, earth sweats with blood.’ Enn. scen. 181V=165J)

(c)

Si hanc emeris— / di immortales—nullus leno te alter erit opulentior. / ° Evortes tuo arbitratu homines fundis, familiis; / ° cum optumis viris rem habebis, ° gratiam cupient tuam: / venient ad te comissatum. (‘If you buy her—immortal gods!—no pimp will be better off than you. You’ll turn men out of their estates and households as you please; you’ll have dealings with men of the highest rank, they’ll be keen on your favour; they’ll come to you for their drinking parties.’ Pl. Per. 564–8)

(d)

Praeclara tamen senatus consulta illo ipso die vespertina, ° provinciarum religiosa sortitio, ° divina vero opportunitas ut quae cuique apta esset, ea cuique obveniret. (‘Yet splendid were the decrees of the Senate made on that very day at nightfall; scrupulously exact was the allotment of the provinces; truly Heaven-directed the fitness whereby what suited each individual fell to the lot of that individual!’ Cic. Phil. 3.24) Supplement: In bono praedio . . . libentius et saepius venies, ° fundus melior erit, ° minus peccabitur, ° fructi plus capies. (Cato Agr. 4.1); Vix elocuta’st hoc, ° foras simul omnes proruont se, / ° abeunt lavatum, ° perstrepunt . . . (Ter. Eu. 599–600); An vero vir amplissimus, P. Scipio, pontifex maximus, Ti. Gracchum mediocriter labefactantem statum rei publicae privatus interfecit, ° Catilinam orbem terrae caede atque incendiis vastare cupientem nos consules perferemus? (Cic. Catil. 1.3); Peroravit aliquando, adsedit; ° surrexi ego. ° Respirare visus est quod non alius potius diceret. ° Coepi dicere. (Cic. S.  Rosc. 59–60); . . . iudicium hoc omnium mortalium est, fortunam a deo petendam, ° a se ipso sumendam esse sapientiam. (Cic. N.D. 3.88); Nondum plane ingemueram, ° ‘salve’ inquit Arrius. (Cic. Att. 2.15.3)

Much more common than coordination of entire clauses are sequences of clauses with conjunction reduction of one or more constituents. Very common is reduction of the subject, as in (e) and (f). (e)

Vidi, cognovi, interfui. (‘I was present, observing, and taking note.’ Cic. Fam. 6.12.1)

(f)

Caesar . . . celeriter concilium dimittit, Liscum retinet. (‘Caesar . . . speedily dismissed the meeting. He kept Liscus back.’ Caes. Gal. 1.18.2)

Asyndetic coordination



More complicated instances of conjunction reduction are shown in (g) and (h). In (g), repeated from §  19.1, two asyndetically coordinated clauses share both the object Gallos, which is implied in the second clause, and the verb dividit, which must be understood with the first clause. The third arguments are different (although both have the preposition a/ab that is required by the verb). The apposition flumen in the first clause is probably also understood (in plural form) in the second clause. Another complex example is (h). It shows an opposition between the subjects (plebs / optumates) and between the modifiers of the object constituents (publicos canes / domesticos (sc. canes)). From alit in the first conjoin alunt has to be supplied for the second.²⁷ In practice, almost everything is possible: ‘almost any type of constituent in one clause may be opposed to its counterpart in the other clause(s)’.²⁸ (g)

Gallos ab Aquitanis Garunna flumen, a Belgis Matrona et Sequana dividit. (‘The Galli (Gauls) are separated from the Aquitani by the river Garonne, from the Belgae by the Marne and the Seine.’ Caes. Gal. 1.1.2)

(h)

In Hyrcania plebs publicos alit canes, optumates domesticos. (‘In Hyrcania the populace take care of dogs shared by the community, the nobles keep privately owned dogs.’ Cic. Tusc. 1.108) Supplement: Sin autem servire meae laudi et gloriae mavis, egredere cum importuna sceleratorum manu, ° confer te ad Manlium, ° concita perditos civis, ° secerne te a bonis, ° infer patriae bellum, ° exsulta impio latrocinio, ut a me non eiectus ad alienos, sed invitatus ad tuos isse videaris. (Cic. Catil. 1.23); (sc. Caesar dixit) Suam innocentiam perpetua vita, felicitatem Helvetiorum bello esse perspectam. (Caes. Gal. 1.40.13); Harum alterius principatum tenere Haeduos, alterius Arvernos. (Caes. Gal. 1.31.4); . . . quibus profecto contra naturam corpus voluptati, anima oneri fuit. (Sal. Cat. 2.8); Hunc consensum senatus equester ordo est secutus, equestris ordinis plebs. (Liv. 26.36.12); Facilius crediderim Tiberio et Augusta, qui domo non excedebant, cohibitam, ut par maeror et matris exemplo avia quoque et patruus attineri viderentur. (Tac. Ann. 3.3.3)²⁹

. Asyndetic coordination of verbs sharing the same subject In addition to (f) in the preceding section, (a)–(c) demonstrate asyndetic coordination of verbs sharing the same subject. In (c), the three verbs share the same object constituent as well. An example of adversative asyndeton is (d).

²⁷ The English term ‘gapping’ is used in a strict sense for instances like: ‘One girl has written a poem, and the other ° a short story’ (see Quirk et al. 1985: 974). Other scholars define it in a different way, e.g. Panhuis (1980). See also Grover (1999: 120–2). ²⁸ Panhuis (1980: 234). ²⁹ Some of the examples are taken from Panhuis (1980) or suggested by Manfredini (p.c.). For Tac. Ann. 3.3.3, see Woodman and Martin ad loc.

 (a)

Coordination Venio ad macellum, rogito piscis. Indicant / caros; agninam caram, caram bubulam, / vitulinam, cetum, porcinam: cara omnia. (‘I went to the market and asked for fish. They told me it’s expensive. Lamb: expensive; beef: expensive; veal, tunny, pork: all expensive.’ Pl. Aul. 373–5)

(b)

(sc. Curio) Contionatus est, rediit, fuit ad me sane diu. (‘He made his speech, returned, and paid me quite a lengthy visit.’ Cic. Att. 10.4.8)

(c)

. . . quattuor exercitus Carthaginiensium fudi, fugavi, Hispania expuli . . . (‘. . . I routed, put to flight, drove out of Spain four armies of the Carthaginians . . .’ Liv. 28.28.9)

(d)

Sed non hoc solum, multa alia praetermisi. (‘But that is only one of many chances I let slip.’ Cic. Q. fr. 1.3.6) Supplement: Conjunctive: Salutant, ad cenam vocant, adventum gratulantur. (Ter. Eu. 259); Necare eandem voluit (sc. Caelius); quaesivit venenum, sollicitavit quos potuit, potionem paravit, horam locum constituit, clam attulit. (Cic. Cael. 31—NB: textually uncertain; see Dyck ad loc.); ‘Tria genera bonorum’. Proclivi currit oratio. Venit ad extremum, haeret in salebra. (Cic. Fin. 5.84); Tum iuvenes . . . veste posita corpora oleo perunxerunt, ad iugum accesserunt. (Cic. Tusc. 1.113); (sc. Isaeus) Poscit controversias plures. Electionem auditoribus permittit, saepe etiam partis. Surgit, amicitur, incipit. (Plin. Ep. 2.3.2); Pontico triumpho inter pompae fercula trium verborum praetulit titulum VENI · VIDI · VICI, non acta belli significantem sicut ceteris, sed celeriter confecti notam. (Suet. Jul. 37.2) Disjunctive: Meliu’ peiu’, prosit obsit, nil vident nisi quod lubet? (Ter. Hau. 643)

Asyndetic coordination of imperative verb forms is common from Early Latin onwards. An example is (e). The Plautine corpus contains 150 instances of asyndetically coordinated imperatives, 120 instances of coordination by atque, and 60 by et.³⁰ (e)

I sane ac morem illi gere. / Percontare, exquire quidvis. (‘Do go and obey him. Ask her, inquire about anything you like.’ Pl. Per. 605–6) Supplement: I, sequere illos, ne morere. (Pl. Mil. 1361); Abi prae, curre, ut sint domi / parata. (Ter. Eu. 499–500); Sin autem servire meae laudi et gloriae mavis, egredere cum importuna sceleratorum manu, confer te ad Manlium, concita perditos civis, secerne te a bonis, infer patriae bellum, exsulta impio latrocinio . . . (Cic. Catil. 1.23); Nunc, mi Capito, . . . enitere, elabora vel potius eblandire, effice ut Plancus, quem spero optimum esse, sit etiam melior opera tua. (Cic. Att. 16.16c.3); . . . sed obstinata mente perfer, obdura. (Catul. 8.11); Decurrit inde quanto maxime poterat cum tumultu ‘ad arma’ et ‘pro vestram fidem, cives’ clamitans; ‘arx ab hostibus capta est; defendite, ite.’ (Liv. 9.24.10)

³⁰ See K.-St.: II.152, referring to Loch (1871).

Asyndetic coordination



. Asyndetic coordination of verbs sharing the same object, indirect object, or satellite Examples of asyndetic coordination of verbs that share the same object are (a) and (b). A rare example of disjunctive asyndeton, resulting from the opposite meanings of the two verbs, is (c). In (d), the two verbs are combined with the same manner adjunct. (a)

Falsone an vero laudent, culpent quem velint, / non flocci faciunt. (‘They don’t care a straw whether it is rightly or wrongly that they praise and find fault with anyone they wish.’ Pl. Trin. 210–11)

(b)

Eum (sc. Clodium) qui regna dedit, ademit, orbem terrarum quibuscum voluit partitus est. (‘A man who had bestowed and taken away thrones, and allotted the world to whomsoever he wished.’ Cic. Mil. 73)

(c)

Scias ista, nescias. Fient. (‘Whether you know these things or not, they will take place.’ Sen. Ep. 88.15)

(d)

Celeriter isti, redisti, ut cognosceret te si minus fortem at tamen strenuum. (‘You made haste to go, haste to return, so that he might recognize that, if you were weak in courage, you were at least strong in energy.’ Cic. Phil. 2.78) Supplement: Velitis iubeatis ut M.  Tullio aqua et igni interdicatur? (Cic. Dom. 47); Audita re Hirtius cum cohortibus XX veteranis redeunti Antonio in sua castra occurrit copiasque eius omnis delevit, fugavit . . . (Galb. Fam. 10.30.4); Quom tabulas signa toreumata emunt, nova diruunt, alia aedificant, postremo omnibus modis pecuniam trahunt, vexant, tamen summa lubidine divitias suas vincere nequeunt. (Sal. Cat. 20.12); Hi ferre agere plebem plebisque res . . . (Liv. 3.37.7); Ripas fluminum publicorum reficere munire utilissimum est. (Ulp. dig. 43.15.1) Ius civile didicit, multum vigilavit, laboravit, praesto multis fuit, multorum stultitiam perpessus est, adrogantiam pertulit, difficultatem exsorbuit. (Cic. Mur. 19) Disjunctive: . . . ut mihi velim nolim sit certa quaedam tuenda sententia. (Cic. N.D. 1.17); Velit nolit scire difficile est. (Cic. Q. fr. 3.6.4)

A few examples of multiple asyndetic coordination of verbs are given in the Supplement below. Supplement: Eventus est exitus alicuius negotii, in quo quaeri solet quid ex quaque re evenerit, eveniat, eventurum sit. (Cic. Inv. 1.42); . . . quibus et lege et senatus consulto permissum erat ut de Caesaris actis ‘cognoscerent, statuerent, iudicarent’ . . . (Cic. Att. 16.16b.1); . . . quae lex earum rerum quas Caesar ‘statuisset, decrevisset, egisset’ consulibus cognitionem dedit. (Cic. Att. 16.16c.2); . . . populus Romanus Quiritium bellum cum Priscis Latinis iussit esse senatusque populi Romani Quiritium censuit consensit conscivit ut bellum cum Priscis Latinis fieret . . . (Liv. 1.32.13); . . . externa litora et urbes hostium urere, vastare, rapere . . . (Tac. Hist. 2.12.2)



Coordination

. Asyndetic coordination of arguments and satellites at the clause level Asyndetic coordination of arguments and satellites at the clause level occurs commonly from the archaic period onwards, as is demonstrated by fossilized pairs of nouns like patres conscripti ‘patricians and registered men’,³¹ sarta tecta (sc. aedificia) ‘windproof and water-tight’ buildings (OLD), loca lautia ‘lodging and entertainment’. For such pairs, Draeger introduced the term ‘asyndeton sollemne’.³² The words are usually semantically related, sometimes near synonyms, sometimes antonyms; the effect of coherence is once in a while increased by alliteration, an example of which is forte fortuna ‘by pure chance’. Asyndetic pairs of conjoins are often found in a prominent position at the end or—less often—at the beginning of a clause or sentence. Cases of asyndeton that do not conform to these characteristics are sometimes emended.³³ See also the note below. Disjunctive instances are rare, but see (l) (disputed).³⁴ Exx. (a)–(k) illustrate pairs of conjoins in various syntactic functions. Note that editors vary in their punctuation. Exx. (a) and (b) show coordinated subjects; (c), coordinated subjects of an accusative and infinitive clause; (d), coordinated objects; (e), coordinated (interrogative) object clauses; (f), coordinated subject complements; (g), coordinated value arguments; (h)–(j), coordinated adjuncts; (k), coordinated secondary predicates; (l), coordinated cause arguments with the secondary predicate corrupta. (a)

Valent mater, pater? (‘Are my mother and father well?’ Pl. Mer. 948)

(b)

L., frater eius, causam agebat. Aderant amici, propinqui. (‘His brother Lucius pleaded his case. His friends and relatives were present.’ Cic. Ver. 1.125)

(c)

Haec si gravia aut acerba videantur, multo illa gravius aestimari debere liberos coniuges in servitutem abstrahi, ipsos interfici. (‘If these measures seemed grievous or cruel, they ought to take into account that it was far more grievous for their children and their wives to be dragged off into slavery, for their own selves to be slaughtered.’ Caes. Gal. 7.14.10)

(d)

. . . munire urbem, frumentum convehere, tela arma parare; instruere naves ac mittere ad Hipponem adversus Romanam classem. (‘. . . to fortify the city, to bring in grain, to provide arms offensive and defensive, to equip ships and send them to Hippo to face the Roman fleet.’ Liv. 29.4.2)

³¹ For the historical background, see New Pauly s.v. conscripti. ³² Draeger  (1878: II.187). The most extensive collection of examples is Preuss  (1881). For Cato, see Adams (2016: 77–80). ³³ Harrison (2006), for example, discusses some ten instances in Apuleius. ³⁴ For discussion, see Giusta (1991: 352): ‘non pare credibile che Cicerone abbia unito per asindeto due sostantivi di significato fra loro opposto’.

Asyndetic coordination (e)



Quid sequatur, quid repugnet vident. (‘They understand what follows from, what contradicts a given premise.’ Cic. Fin. 5.83)

(f)

Condus promus sum, procurator peni. (‘I'm the getter-in and giver-out, the superintendent of supplies.’ Pl. Ps. 608)

(g)

Tranquillissimus autem animus meus, qui totum istuc aequi boni facit . . . (‘Calmest of all is my own mind, which takes the whole business philosophically . . .’ Cic. Att. 7.7.4)

(h)

. . . is me autem porro verberat, incursat pugnis, calcibus. (‘. . . and he beats me in turn and attacks me with fists and heels.’ Pl. Poen. 819)

(i)

. . . omnibusque opibus viribus ut nosmet ipsi nobis mederi possimus elaborandum est. (‘. . . and we must endeavour, with the strength of all our resources, to have the power to be ourselves our own physicians.’ Cic. Tusc. 3.6)

(j)

Certiorem te esse volt, / ne quid clam furtim se accepisse censeas. (‘He wants you to be informed so that you won’t think he’s taken anything in secret and by stealth.’ Pl. Poen. 1021–2)

(k)

. . . Neptuno / laetus lubens laudis ago et gratis gratiasque habeo . . . (‘To Neptune I joyfully and happily offer praise and thanksgiving . . .’ Pl. Trin. 820–1)

(l)

. . . nec eam minis (cj. Pohlenz; minimis d; nimiis cj. Schiche) blandimentis (aut blandimentis cj. Bentley; blandimentisve cj. Pohlenz, alii alia) corrupta deseret. (‘. . . nor will it (sc. beata vita), corrupted by threats and bribes, abandon it (sc. virtutem).’ Cic. Tusc. 5.87)

In the Supplement, pairs of conjoins will be given in the traditional way—that is, according to their lexical category, many of them without their context (and with the punctuation of the text editions retained). The collection is not restricted to groupings termed ‘sollemne’. Supplement: Noun phrases: leges mores (Enn. var. 134); Vinum, frumentum quod supersit, vendat. (Cato Agr. 2.7); manibu’ pedibu’ (Ter. An. 676); Locu’ tempu’ constitutum’st. (Ter. Eu. 541); Bassus assiduitate indulgitate victus (Sis. hist. 46=19C); studium diligentiam (Cic. Fam. 12.15.6); vestitu edificiis (Var. L. 8.30); iuventute, armis (Liv. 9.25.5); arma dexterae (Liv. 22.29.11); viris armis (Liv. 28.37.8); Nam verba vultus in crimen detorquens recondebat. (Tac. Ann. 1.7.7); ibique praetextati sacrificium · deae Diae ture · vino · fecerunt (CIL VI.2080.30–1 (Comm. Fr. Arv. 69, 30–1, ad 120)); Quidam enim lege impediuntur ne iudices sint, quidam natura, quidam moribus. Natura, ut surdus mutus . . . (Paul. dig. 5.1.12.2) Adjectives functioning as subject/object complement or as secondary predicates: Pater iam hic me offendet miserum adveniens ebrium . . . (Pl. Mos. 378); . . . precor uti sies volens propitius mihi . . . (Cato Agr. 134.2); Aut in eo, QVOD MELIUS AEQUIUS, potest ulla pars inesse fraudis? (Cic. Off. 3.61); acer, bellicosus (Sal. Jug. 20.2); Nec



Coordination enim secretum putant esse nisi quod certum adprobatum (ac probatum cj. Obrecht) sit. (Quint. Decl. 254.15);³⁵ . . . adversus superiores tristi adulatione, adrogans minoribus, inter pares difficilis . . . (Tac. Ann. 11.21.3) Prepositional phrases: Decedam ego illi de via, de semita, / de honore populi. (Pl.  Trin. 481–2); . . . ut . . . ostenderet nepotem sub verbere centurionis, inter servorum ictus . . . (Tac. Ann. 6.24.3)³⁶ Adverbs: Dextra sinistra, foramina ubi feceris, lamnis circumplectito. (Cato Agr. 21.2); Hac illac circumcursa. (Ter. Hau. 512); dextra sinistra (Cic. Phil. 13.19); . . . et tamen ab illo aperte tecte quicquid est datum libenter accepi. (Cic. Att. 1.14.4);³⁷ huc illuc (Cic. Att. 9.9.2); comminus eminus (Liv. 21.34.6) Disjunctive interpretation: . . . (sc. castra) quae non longius ab ea caede abesse plus minus VIII milibus dicebantur . . . Hirt. Gal. 8.20.1); serius ocius (Hor. Carm. 2.3.26) NB: The following is probably not a case of coordination, but rather of a difference in hierarchical position (for related cases see §§ 10.53–4): . . . haec incerta . . . inter paucos, quos tu nosti, palam secreto narrantur. (Cael. Fam. 8.1.4).³⁸

Proper names can also be asyndetically coordinated, but syndetic coordination is more common. Examples are (m), with praenomen, and (n), without praenomen (uncommon).³⁹ (m)

Cum L. Octavius C. Aurelius consules aedis sacras locavissent . . . (‘When Lucius Octavius and Gaius Aurelius during their consulship had made contracts for temple maintenance . . .’ Cic. Ver. 1.130)

(n)

Dicebat idem Cotta, Curio. (‘Cotta could say the same, and Curio.’ Cic. Off. 2.59) Supplement: Iovei · Iunonei · Minervai / Falesce · quei in Sardinia · sunt / donum · dederunt. (CIL XI.3078.1–3 (Civita Castellana, 2nd cent. bc (mid)—NB: names of gods); Q(uintus) · M(arcus) · Minucieis · Q(uinti) · f(ilii) · Rufeis ·de · controvorsieis inter / Genuateis · et ·Veiturios ·in · re · praesente · cognoverunt . . . (CIL I2..– (Sent. Minuc., Genoa, 118 bc—NB: asyndetic praenomina); . . . decernendum . . . utique C. Pansa A. Hirtius consules, a ave, si e v, cognoscerent . . . (Cic. Phil. 5.53); Quare L. Sullae, C. Caesaris pecuniarum translatio a iustis dominis ad alienos non debet liberalis videri . . . (Cic. Off. 1.43); . . . Caesar, postquam instabat virginum aetas, L. Cassium, M. Vinicium legit. (Tac. Ann. 6.15.1)

In date expressions of the type X Y consulibus ‘in the consulship of X and Y’, there are several possibilities for coordination. In public inscriptions until the first century ad, asyndetic coordination is the rule, as in (o). This is also quite common in Cicero (especially in his orations), in Caesar, and in the historians. Beginning with Cicero ³⁵ See Winterbottom ad loc. for a collection of instances in Quint. Decl. ³⁶ For Tacitus, see Sörbom (1935: 46–9). ³⁷ Shackleton Bailey ad loc. wants the two adverbs ‘to be taken together, in the sense that Pompey’s praise was neither open and direct nor so veiled as to be imperceptible’, comparing expressions like English ‘bitter-sweet’. ³⁸ For this passage, see Cavarzere ad loc. For luce palam, see Pinkster (1972: 127–9; 2004a). ³⁹ Tac. Ann. 11.6.2, mentioned by K.-St.: II.150, is not a reliable example.

Asyndetic coordination



overt linking by et becomes more common, as in (q). In non-official texts, it was possible to omit the praenomina, as in (r), an option which is also found in later inscriptions. In these cases, linking by et or -que seems to be the rule.⁴⁰ (o)

Quei ager poplicus populi Romanei in terram Italiam  P.  Muucio L. Calpur (‘In regard to the public land in the country of Italy belonging to the Roman people in the consulship of Publius Mucius and Lucius Calpurnius . . .’ CIL I2.585.1 (Lex Agr., 111 bc))

(p)

Is (sc. Hortensius) L. Crasso Q. Scaevola consulibus primum in foro dixit . . . (‘This man began his public career in the consulship of Lucius Crassus and Quintus Scaevola.’ Cic. Brut. 229)

(q)

Atqui hic Livius [qui] primus fabulam C. Claudio Caeci filio et M. Tuditano consulibus docuit . . . (‘And yet this Livius produced his first play in the consulship of Gaius Claudius, son of Caecus, and Marcus Tuditanus . . .’ Cic. Brut. 72)

(r)

Quam legem L. Cassius Lepido et Mancino consulibus tulit. (‘A provision which Lucius Cassius passed in the consulship of Lepidus and Mancinus.’ Cic. Brut. 106) Supplement: P. · Rutilio · Cn. · Mallio · cos. (CIL X.. (Pozzuoli, 94 bc)); L. Licinio Q. Mucio consulibus (Cic. Ver. 2.122); Ea quae secuta est hieme, qui fuit annus Cn. Pompeio M. Crasso consulibus, Usipetes . . . flumen Rhenum transierunt . . . (Caes. Gal. 4.1.1); L.  Genucio et Ser.  Servilio consulibus (Liv. 7.1.1); Trinos soles et antiqui saepius videre, sicut Sp. Postumio  Q.  Mucio et Q.  Marcio  M.  Porcio et M. Antonio P. Dolabella et M. Lepido L. Planco cos. (Plin. Nat. 2.99); Condita erat Ti. Sempronio P. Cornelio consulibus . . . (Tac. Hist. 3.34.1) Lepido et Tullo consulibus (Cic. Catil. 1.15); . . . etiamsi tripudium solistumum pulli fecissent L.  Iunio et P.  Claudio consulibus . . . (Cic. Div. 2.20); Centone Tuditanoque consulibus (Cic. Sen. 50); Nunc quidem in circo quosdam passuum tolerare non ignoramus nuperque Fonteio et Vipstano cos. (Plin. Nat. 7.84); Nam ut de Cicerone ipso loquar, Hirtio nempe et Pansa consulibus, ut Tiro libertus eius scribit, septimo Idus occisus est . . . (Tac. Dial. 17.2)

Asyndetic coordination of more than two conjoins is also very common from Early Latin onwards.⁴¹ Some of these combinations resemble the instances of asyndeton sollemne mentioned at the beginning of this section, though these sequences seem to be less restricted in terms of the words that can be used. Examples are (s) and (t).

⁴⁰ See TLL s.v. consul 568.26ff.; Pease ad Cic. Div. 2.20. For Cicero’s naming conventions in general, see Adams (1978). ⁴¹ For the numerous cases of asyndetic coordinaton of three members (‘tricola’) in Plautus, see Leo (1906). For Cicero, see Lindholm (1931: 157–73).

 (s)

Coordination Me a portu praemisit domum ut haec nuntiem uxori suae, / ut gesserit rem publicam ductu, imperio, auspicio suo. (‘He’s sent me ahead home from the harbour so that I could report to his wife how he managed affairs of state through his leadership, command, and authority.’ Pl. Am. 195–6)

(t)

Inter ea conregione conspicione cortumione . . . (‘Between these points, temples, and wild lands . . .’ Var. L. 7.8—NB: part of a quotation of the words of an augur; text very problematic) Supplement: Quid isti debes? # Tria. # Quae tria nam? # Unguenta, noctem, savium. (Pl. Truc. 938); Pernam callum glandium sumen facito in aqua iaceant. (Pl. Ps. 166); Illos accubantis, potantis, amantis / cum scortis reliqui . . . (Pl. Ps. 1271–2); Sumat consumat perdat, decretum’st pati . . . (Ter. Hau. 465); Sin autem fuga laboris desidiam, repudiatio supplicum superbiam, amicorum neglectio improbitatem coarguit . . . (Cic. Mur. 9); armis equis viris (Cic. Phil. 8.21); Caesari ad saucios deponendos, stipendium exercitui dandum, socios confirmandos, praesidium urbibus relinquendum necesse erat adire Apolloniam. (Caes. Civ. 3.78.1); Natura ferox, vehemens, manu promptus erat . . . (Sal. Catil. 43.4); . . . quod bonum faustum felix Palaepolitanis populoque Romano esset . . . (Liv. 8.25.10—NB: in Livy the normal formula is with felixque, see Oakley ad loc.); Neque aliud Civilis amicitia partum quam vulnera fugas luctus. (Tac. Hist. 5.24.1); Amisi enim, amisi vitae meae testem rectorem magistrum. (Plin. Ep. 1.12.12) Grammars pay special attention to the asyndetic coordination of multiple pairs, as in (u). This reflects an exploitation of the syntactic possibilities for stylistic purposes.⁴² For an interesting example of variation, see (v). (u) Democritus luminibus amissis alba scilicet discernere et atra non poterat, at vero bona mala, aequa iniqua, honesta turpia, utilia inutilia, magna parva poterat . . . (‘Democritus, when his sight failed him, could not, to be sure, distinguish black from white: but all the same he could distinguish good from bad, just from unjust, honourable from disgraceful, useful from useless, great from small . . .’ Cic. Tusc. 5.114) (v) Arma tela, equi viri, hostes atque cives permixti. (‘Arms and weapons, men and horses, enemies and citizens were mingled in confusion.’ Sal. Jug. 51.1)

. Asyndetic coordination of constituents below the clause level The following sections deal with asyndetic coordination at the noun and adjective phrase levels, as well as with asyndetic coordination in prepositional phrases. ⁴² For further examples, see K.-St.: II.153 and Draeger (1878: II.194–5).

Asyndetic coordination



. Asyndetic coordination of modifiers at the noun phrase level Examples of asyndetic coordination of modifiers at the noun phrase level are (a) and (b), which involve attributive noun phrases, and (c) and (d), which involve attributive adjectives. (a)

Quis est qui C. Fabrici M’. Curi non cum caritate aliqua benivola memoriam usurpet . . . (‘Is there anyone who does not dwell with some kindly affection on the memory of Gaius Fabricius and Manius Curius . . .?’ Cic. Amic. 28)

(b)

Densior deinde incessu tot hominum equorum (et equorum edd.) oriens pulvis signum propinquantium hostium fuit. (‘Afterwards an increasingly thick cloud of dust, that rose with the advance of so many men and horses, gave them notice that their enemies were approaching.’ Liv. 21.46.4)

(c)

Purus putus hic sycophanta est. (‘This chap is a pure, unadulterated impostor.’ Pl. Ps. 1200)

(d)

Ex hoc haruspicum responso decrevit senatus ut de locis sacris religiosis ad hunc ordinem referretis. (‘As a result of this response of the soothsayers the Senate decreed that a vote of this body should be taken on the subject of hallowed and consecrated sites.’ Cic. Har. 11) Supplement: Propagatio pomorum, aliarum arborum. (Cato Agr. 51); Hic tu me abesse urbe miraris, in qua domus nihil delectare possit, summum sit odium temporum, hominum, fori, curiae? (Cic. Fam. 5.15.4); Inde ad Baeculam urbem processum cum omni exercitu civium, sociorum (sociorumque cj. Walsh), peditum equitumque quinque et quadraginta milibus. (Liv. 28.13.5); Quod si vatum, annalium ad testimonia vocentur, plures sibi ac locupletiores esse. (Tac. Ann. 4.43.3); Mirum est qua religione quo studio imagines Brutorum Cassiorum Catonum domi ubi potest habeat. (Plin. Ep. 1.17.3) Recordetur id, / qui nihili sunt, quid eis preti / detur ab suis eris, ignavis, improbis viris. (Pl. Men. 972–3); Illum liquet mihi deierare his mensibus / sex septem prorsum non vidisse proxumis . . . (Ter. Eu. 331–2—NB: ‘six or seven’); De bonis vero rebus et malis, aequis, iniquis, utilibus, inutilibus, honestis, turpibus quam potest habere orator sine illis maximarum rerum artibus facultatem aut copiam? (Cic. Part. 140); Loca amoena, voluptaria facile in otio ferocis militum animos molliverant. (Sal. Cat. 11.5); Praeter multiplices rerum humanarum casus caelo terraque prodigia et fulminum monitus et futurorum praesagia, laeta tristia, ambigua manifesta. (Tac. Hist. 1.3.2) NB: Probably not coordination, but rather a difference in hierarchy (see §  11.75): Siliginem, triticum in loco aperto celso, ubi sol quam diutissime siet, seri oportet. (Cato Agr. 35.1); cf.: . . . in loco aperto edito . . . (Plin. Nat. 18.164)



Coordination

. Asyndetic coordination of constituents at the adjective phrase level Examples of asyndetic coordination of constituents at the adjective phrase level are (a) and (b). Both examples involve arguments required by the adjective (see § 11.92). (a)

(sc. Verres) . . . procedit in medium vini somni stupri plenus. (‘. . . he came into their midst, heavy with sleep and drink and debauchery.’ Cic. Ver. 5.94)

(b)

. . . decemvir ille perpetuus, bonis, tergo, sanguini civium infestus . . . (‘. . . that man, the perpetual decemvir, inimical to the fortunes, the persons, and the lives of the citizens . . .’ Liv. 3.57.2) Supplement: . . . capesserent pugnam, coniugum parentum patriae memores. (Tac. Hist. 5.17.2)

. Asyndetic coordination of nouns and noun phrases in prepositional phrases The asyndetic coordination of nouns or noun phrases governed by the same preposition is rare. Examples are (a) and (b). Note in (a) the continuation with an overtly coordinated pair. In quite a few transmitted cases editors have inserted a coordinator.⁴³ (a)

Sed quoniam decorum illud in omnibus factis dictis, in corporis denique motu et statu cernitur . . . (‘But since that propriety shows itself in every deed, in every word, even in every movement and attitude of the body . . .’ Cic. Off. 1.126)

(b)

. . .Vitellius . . . de numero servorum, electione litorum loqui. (‘. . .Vitellius . . . spoke of the number of slaves and the selection of his place of retreat.’ Tac. Hist. 3.63.2) Supplement: Ad ferrum, faces, ad cotidianam caedem, incendia, rapinas se cum exercitu suo contulit. (Cic. Sest. 88); . . . gratia mea sic utantur in omnibus publicis privatis, forensibus domesticis, tuis amicorum, hospitum clientium tuorum negotiis ut . . . (Cic. Fam. 5.8.5); L. Postumius Albinus M. Popilius Laenas cum omnium primum de provinciis exercitibus ( cj. Vahlen) ad senatum rettulissent . . . (Liv. 42.1.2)

19.23 Conjunctive (or: copulative) coordinators Latin has three conjunctive coordinators: ac/atque, et, and -que, and additionally the negative conjunctive coordinator nec/neque. When these coordinators are used to ⁴³ This type of asyndetic coordination is discussed in detail by Adams (forthc.).

Conjunctive (or: copulative) coordinators  link two conjoins, it is called simple coordination (§ 19.24). The same coordinators can also be used for combinations of three or more conjoins (§ 19.38). This is called multiple coordination. The coordinators et and neque, and to some extent -que, can furthermore be used in such a way that all conjoins are marked by a coordinator (for ac and atque, see below). This is called correlative syndetic coordination (§ 19.29).

. Simple conjunctive coordination The conjunctive coordinators ac/atque, et, and -que are used in different contexts in Early and Classical Latin. Et is the general coordinator that can be used for all types of coordination, both clauses and constituents, regardless of the semantic relation between the conjoins. It simply adds another element. The other two coordinators are less often used to link clauses. Between them, -que is the most neutral; it frequently links constituents with cognate meanings, suggesting that the conjoins are closely related. Ac and atque are used with the same type of conjoins as -que, but they form a stronger link (‘and . . . too’, ‘and what is more’ (OLD)), and are more formal and elevated (see below).⁴⁴ There are diachronic differences as well: et is the only coordinator that survived in some form in the Romance languages (with the exception of Romanian), though there are also traces of ac. Atque/ac and -que seem to have fallen out of use in the uneducated spoken language towards the end of the first century ad, as attested by their infrequency or complete absence in Vitruvius, the Cena Trimalchionis, and inscriptions from Pompeii.⁴⁵ There are also differences in the type of text in which the individual coordinators are used: -que, for example, is the regular coordinator in legal texts on inscriptions,⁴⁶ while its use, as a clitic, is avoided in most authors after certain words and at the end of sentences.⁴⁷ Atque is almost absent in Cato’s de Agricultura; in his historical narrative and speeches it is the other way around. The disyllabic coordinator atque, when followed by a consonant, can be employed to create rhythmic patterns, for example, consistently throughout Cicero’s loftier orations and occasionally in his other speeches,⁴⁸ and in poetry.⁴⁹ In Augustine’s de Civitate Dei the proportion between et and -que/atque is c.2:1; in the Sermones 20:1.

⁴⁴ For a description of the relation of et, ac/atque, and -que, in ‘structural’ terms, see Coşeriu (1968). For the differences between the three coordinators and their development in Early Latin prose, see Penney (2005). ⁴⁵ For discussion and references, see Sz.: 477 and Rosén (2009: 402). Sz. also mentions the Bellum Hispaniense, but see Gaertner (2010). ⁴⁶ See Elmer (1887), who also refers to the frequent use of -que in Cic. Phil. 14.36–8, a proposal for a senatus consultum. ⁴⁷ See Kraus (1992: 323) for a survey of prose authors: Sallust, Livy, and Tacitus do not avoid -que at the end of a sentence. For a survey of poetry, see her p. 328, n. 30. ⁴⁸ For Cicero’s use of atque to build clausulae, see Hutchinson (1995). ⁴⁹ For the use of atque in poetry, see Butterfield (2008). For metrical factors determining the choice between atque and et in Plautus, see Penney (2005: 44).



Coordination

As a result of these differences the picture of the usage of the individual coordinators in individual authors and in individual texts is quite complicated, as can be seen in Figure 19.1. 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1

2

3

4

5

6

-que

7 et

8

9 10 11 12 13

atque

ac

Figure 19.1 Distribution of the conjunctive coordinators in a number of prose and poetry authors/texts by percentage Legenda: 1 = Plautus (N = 3,309); 2 = Cicero Orations (N = 5,164); 3 = Cicero Letters (N = 5,888); 4 = Caesar (N = 3,292); 5 = Virgil A. (N = 6,570); 6 = Livy (N = 24,900); 7 = Vitruvius (N = 3,320);a 8 = Petronius Cena (N = 512); 9 = Petronius 1–27 (N = 205); 10 = Tertullian (N = 14,670); 11 = Peregrinatio Egeriae (N = 460);b 12 = Augustine Civ. (N = 12,840); 13 = Augustine Serm. (N = 40,210). a

Of his approximately seventy instances of ac, forty are in the expression dextra ac sinistra (TLL s.v. atque 1050.17f.)

b

Including forty-four instances of sentence-initial Ac sic and seven instances of ac si.

The data are taken from the Library of Latin texts. Especially in the case of et, the results are not entirely reliable, since sentence-connecting et, et as etiam, and correlative et . . . et are not distinguished. Similarly, atque is used in ways other than as a coordinator. Nevertheless, one can still get a good sense of the general differences between authors and time periods. To illustrate the variation in the frequency with which the coordinators are used in the works of Cicero, Table 19.2, extracted from Lindholm (1931: 124), is useful.

Table . The distribution of et, atque/ac, and -que in six works of Cicero   et atque/ac -que

Q. Rosc.

Man.

Cael.

Phil. 2

de Orat. 1.1–148

Tusc. 5

85

88

141

140

96

64

6

127

91

18

110

23

11

56

63

43

76

87

In poetry and in poeticizing prose, coordination of two clauses is sometimes preferred over a cum inversum construction (for which see § 7.20 and § 16.11; see also

Conjunctive (or: copulative) coordinators  § 16.18 donec and § 16.62 nisi) to express the suddenness or the speed of an incident that interferes with a particular event. The preceding clause normally refers to an ongoing event; the following clause usually to a terminative or momentaneous event (see § 2.9). Examples are (a)–(c).⁵⁰ (a)

Vix primos inopina quies laxaverat artus, / et super incumbens cum puppis parte revolsa / cumque gubernaclo liquidas proiecit in undas . . . (‘Sudden slumber had scarcely loosened the first of his limbs, and looming over him, he (sc. deus) flung him into the clear waters together with a cleft part of the keel and the rudder . . .’ Verg. A. 5.857–9)

(b)

Vix ea fatus erat senior subitoque fragore / intonuit laevom . . . (‘Scarcely had the aged man thus spoken, when with sudden crash there was thunder on the left . . .’ Verg. A. 2.692–3)

(c)

Huc mihi, dum teneras defendo a frigore myrtos, / vir gregis ipse caper deerraverat atque ego Daphnim / aspicio. (‘To this place, while I sheltered my tender myrtles from the frost, my he-goat, the lord of the flock himself, had strayed; and I catch sight of Daphnis.’ Verg. Ecl. 7.6–8) Supplement: Vixdum ad consulem se pervenisse et audisse oppidum expugnatum, principes securi percussos, sub corona ceteros venisse. (Liv. 43.4.10); Iamque nitidior lux discussa caligine aciem hostium ostenderat et Macedones sive alacritate sive taedio expectationis ingentem pugnantium more edidere clamorem. (Curt. 4.12.23); Nondum quartus a victoria mensis et libertus Vitellii Asiaticus Polyclitos Patrobios et vetera odiorum nomina aequabat. (Tac. Hist. 2.95.2); Vix consideramus et nox, non qualis inlunis aut nubila, sed qualis in locis clausis lumine exstincto. (Plin. Ep. 6.20.14); Commodum cubueram et ecce Photis mea, iam domina cubitum reddita, laeta proximat rosa serta et rosa soluta in sinu tuberante. (Apul. Met. 2.16.1) Iamque propinquabant portis, rursusque Latini / clamorem tollunt et mollia colla reflectunt. (Verg. A. 11.621–2); Et a Volscis et Aequis statum iam ac prope sollemne in singulos annos bellum timebatur propiusque aliud novum malum necopinato exortum. (Liv. 3.15.4) Vix ego haec dixeram cunctabundus atque inibi quispiam . . .‘Valerium’, inquit, ‘Probum audivi haec dicere . . .’ (Gel. 3.1.5) NB: without a temporal adverb: Iusserat et fratris virgo Saturnia iussis / adnuit et mediae tempora noctis erant. (Ov. Fast. 6.383–4)⁵¹

The (rare) use of et and atque in the main clause following a temporal subordinate clause—attested from Plautus onwards—may be related to the use of the coordinators illustrated above. Examples are (d)–(g).⁵² ⁵⁰ Chausserie-Laprée (1969: 646–7) deals with this use of coordination as one of the ‘techniques de rupture’ (‘breaking off ’) used in historical narrative. For further examples, see TLL s.v. 895.25ff. For Virgil’s practice, see Hahn (1956: 186–9). ⁵¹ For a few more examples, see TLL s.v. et 895.53ff. ⁵² For ex. (d), see Petersmann (1977: 242–3). For (e), see Callebat (1968: 496). For further instances of atque in Plautus, see Lodge: 179B, § 15; TLL s.v. atque 1076.6ff. For—mainly Late Latin—instances and the Romance successors, see Wehr (1984: 153–81; 2008). TLL s.v. et 896.51ff. has further instances of this socalled abundant use of et in (very) Late Latin.

 (d)

Coordination Quom ad portam venio atque ego illam illi video praestolarier . . . (‘When I came to the gate, I saw her waiting for him . . .’ Pl. Epid. 217)

(e)

. . . cum Incuboni pilleum rapuisset et (om. edd. plerique) thesaurum invenit. (‘. . . when he pulled off Incubo’s cap, and discovered a treasure-trove.’ Petr. 38.8 (Hermeros speaking))

(f)

Interim dum puerum illum parentes sui plangoribus fletibusque querebantur et adveniens ecce rusticus . . . destinatam sectionem meam flagitat. (‘Meanwhile, the boy’s parents were in the process of mourning him with blows to their breasts and tears, and that country fellow, appearing suddenly . . . called for my fated castration.’ Apul. Met. 7.26.4)

(g)

Nam posteaquam completo desiderio descenderis inde et de contra illum vides, quod antequam subeas facere non potest. (‘After you have seen everything and come down, it can be seen facing you, but this cannot be done till you start your climb.’ Pereg. 2.7—tr. Wilkinson) Supplement: . . . dum circumspecto atque ego lembum conspicor / longum . . . (Pl. Bac. 279–80); Postquam id quod volui transegi atque ego conspicor / navim ex Rhodo . . . (Pl. Mer. 256–7) Haec ubi ille dixit et discessit. (Gel. 2.29.8)

. The simple use of the conjunctive coordinator -que The coordinator -que is the regular one in inscriptions that date from before the second Punic War (218–201 bc), and it remains the regular coordinator in legal inscriptions thereafter. In the Lex Agraria of 111 bc (CIL I2.585), for example, there are forty-six instances of -que against one of et and one of atque.⁵³ It is also the regular coordinator used by Cato in the prayer of Agr. 141.⁵⁴ It is used to link clauses, as in (a)—almost a new sentence—and in (b) and (c), and to link constituents, as in (d). For the rare use of -que as a connector of sentences, see (e) and § 24.17. (a)

. . . o . . . esto; censorque queiquomque erit faito utei is ager . . . (‘. . . and there shall be allowed right of purchase and sale of the said ground . . . and a  censor in office at any time shall cause the said land . . .’ CIL I2.585.8 (Lex Agr., 111 bc))

(b)

Bacas · vir · nequis · adiese · velet · ceivis · Romanus ...nisei · pr(aitorem) · urbanum · adie · sent · isque · de · senatuos · sententiad . . . iousise[n]t.

⁵³ See the survey in Elmer (1887: 294). See also Sz.: 473–4. For Early Latin prose, see Penney (2005: 41–4) and, for Cato, Adams (2016: 62–4). For -que to coordinate clauses in legal contexts, see Powell (2005: 130–1). ⁵⁴ For which see Courtney (1999: 62–7).

Conjunctive (or: copulative) coordinators  (‘Let no man, whether Roman citizen . . . be minded to attend a meeting of Bacchant women . . . unless they have first approached the praetor of the city and he has authorized them, by a vote of the Senate, to do so.’ CIL I2.581.7–9 (SCBac., Tiriolo, 186 bc))

(c)

Vortentibus Telobois telis complebantur corpora / ipsusque Amphitruo regem Pterelam sua optruncavit manu. (‘When the Teloboians turned their backs, their bodies were filled with spears, and Amphitruo himself slew King Pterela with his own hand.’ Pl. Am. 251–2)

(d)

Hec · cepit · Corsica · Aleriaque · urbe. (‘He captured Corsica and the city of Aleria.’ CIL I2.9.5 (Scip. Elog., Rome, c.200 bc))

(e)

Ob easque res ex litteris Caesaris dies quindecim supplicatio decreta est, quod ante id tempus accidit nulli. (‘And for those achievements, upon receipt of Caesar’s dispatches, a fifteen days’ thanksgiving was decreed, an honour that had previously fallen to no man.’ Caes. Gal. 2.35.4)

In Plautus, the instances of coordination of constituents with -que are two and a half times more frequent than those of coordination of entire clauses and of clauses with two or more constituents, apart from shared constituents.⁵⁵ In Cicero, clausal coordination by -que occurs less frequently and in Tacitus even less so.⁵⁶ Certain combinations of words and phrases are particularly common, such as di deaeque ‘gods and goddesses’, senatus populusque Romanus ‘the senate and people of Rome’, terra marique ‘on land and sea’, longe lateque ‘far and wide’, satis superque ‘more than sufficiently’.⁵⁷ Supplement: Constituents: Nouns and noun phrases: . . . huic mihique hau faciet quisquam iniuriam. (Pl. Bac. 59); Ita di deaeque faxint. (Pl. Capt. 172); . . . ita[que] venter gutturque resident esurialis ferias. (Pl. Capt. 468); Conservi conservaeque omnes, bene valete et vivite . . . (Pl. Mil. 1340); . . . res rationesque eri / Ballionis curo . . . (Pl. Ps. 626–7); Ut te quidem omnes di deaeque (que del. Guyet, edd.) quantum’st, Syre, / . . . perduint! (Ter. Hau. 810–11);⁵⁸ Viam · fecei ·ab · Regio · ad · Capuam · et / in · ea · via · ponteis · omneis · miliarios / tabelariosque · poseivei. (CIL X..– (Polla,  bc); Atque ut vos una mente unaque voce dubitare vos negatis, sic . . . (Cic. Phil. 4.8); Ad causam bellumque redeamus. (Cic. Phil. 6.15); Hoc bellum quintum civile geritur . . . primum non modo non in dissensione et discordia civium sed in maxima consensione incredibilique concordia. (Cic. Phil. 8.8—NB: variation et . . . que in parallel noun phrases); . . . hic ira dementiaque inflammatus . . . (Cic. Phil. 12.26); Hic servo spe libertatis magnisque persuadet praemiis ut litteras ad Caesarem deferat. (Caes. ⁵⁵ Vocabula ‘words and phrases’ have more than ten columns vs. less than four columns for clauses in Lodge. ⁵⁶ In Cicero’s orations, thirty-four columns of -que concern constituents; thirteen, clauses or parts of clauses (Merguet (Reden)). In Tacitus it is thirty-five to nine (Gerber and Greef). It is particularly infrequent in Rhet. Her. and in Cicero’s Inv. (Merten 1893: 24–7). ⁵⁷ For the history of the use by various authors, see Sz.: 475–6. ⁵⁸ For the deletion of -que, see Sjögren (1900: 8).



Coordination Gal. 5.45.3); Quem (sc. Germanicum) per omnis illos dies noctesque . . . vix cohibuere amici quo minus eodem mari oppeteret. (Tac. Ann. 2.24.2) NB: governed by a preposition: Ex summis opibus viribusque usque experire, nitere . . . (Pl. Mer. 111); Nempe in Antoni congressum conloquiumque veniendum est. (Cic. Phil. 12.26). See also § 19.13. Adjectives, adjective phrases, and other attributes: . . . regias copias aureasque optuli . . . (Pl. Bac. 647); Tun’ ted expurges mihi, / qui facinus tantum tamque indignum feceris? (Pl. Mil. 497–8); . . . ego omnibus / parvis magnisque miseriis praefulcior. (Pl. Ps. 771–2); Adparet servom hunc esse domini pauperis / miserique. (Ter. Eu. 486–7); Atque sic a summis hominibus eruditissimisque accepimus . . . (Cic. Arch. 18); Nullam esse actionem dicere in re tam insigni tamque atroci neque prudentiae neque auctoritatis tuae est. (Cic. Caec. 37); . . . descendi in campum cum firmissimo praesidio fortissimorum virorum et cum illa lata insignique lorica . . . (Cic. Mur. 52); Itaque hominem huic optimae tutissimaeque custodiae non audet committere . . . (Cic. Ver. 5.69); . . . pars magna a feris barbarisque nationibus incolitur . . . (Caes. Gal. 4.10.4) Adverbs: . . . illum mater arte contenteque habet . . . (Pl. As. 78); Bene opportuneque obviam es, Palaestrio. (Pl. Mil. 898); Edepol ne istuc magis magisque metuo, quom verba audio. (Pl. Ps. 1214); Quam ob rem, dum multorum annorum accusationi breviter dilucideque respondeo, quaeso ut me, iudices . . . benigne attenteque audiatis. (Cic. Clu. 8); . . . ibi primum in morbum incidit ac satis vehementer diuque aegrotavit. (Cic. Clu. 175); . . . ut undique . . . gratiam atque amicitiam publice privatimque peterent. (Caes. Gal. 5.55.4); Inde graves simultates, quas Antonius simplicius, Mucianus callide eoque implacabilius nutriebat. (Tac. Hist. 3.53.3) Prepositions: see § 19.13 fin. Prepositional phrases: . . . ita ted optestor per senectutem tuam / perque illam quam tu metuis uxorem tuam . . . (Pl. As. 18–19); . . . ego erum expugnabo meum / sine classe sineque exercitu et tanto numero militum. (Pl. Bac. 929–30); . . . per tuam fidem perque huiu’ solitudinem / te obtestor . . . (Ter. An. 290–1); . . . multa autem impendere videntur praeter naturam etiam praeterque fatum . . . (Cic. Phil. 1.10); De bonorum emptione deque ea societate neminem esse qui verbum facere auderet hoc tempore? (Cic. S. Rosc. 58). See also § 19.13. Finite and non-finite verb forms: Iuppiter, qui genus colis alisque hominum . . . (Pl. Poen. 1187); Totus, Parmeno, / tremo horreoque, postquam aspexi hanc. (Ter. Eu. 83–4); . . . deinde ipsum Aurium . . . tollendum interficiendumque curavit. (Cic. Clu. 23); Decidis statuisque tu . . . quid eis ad denarium solveretur. (Cic. Quinct. 17); . . . ad te litteras misit mittendasque curavit. (Cic. Ver. 5.15); . . . qui a parentibus spe nostri imperii nostraeque aequitatis suscepti educatique sunt . . . (Cic. Ver. 5.123); . . . magno opere a te peto ut operam des efficiasque ne quid mihi fiat iniuriae . . . (Cic. Fam. 15.12.2); Huc magno cursu contenderunt, ut quam minimum spatii ad se colligendos armandosque Romanis daretur . . . (Caes. Gal. 3.19.1); Ad deos, ad effigiem Augusti, ad genua ipsius manus tendere, cum proferri libellum recitarique iussit. (Tac. Ann. 1.11.3); Atque illum cupido incessit adeundi visendique templum Paphiae Veneris . . . (Tac. Hist. 2.2.2) Adnominal relative clauses: Salve, qui me interfecisti paene vita et lumine / vimque mihi magni doloris per voluptatem tuam / condidisti in corpus . . . (Pl. Truc. 518–20)⁵⁹ ⁵⁹ For relative clauses coordinated by -que in Plautus and Terence, see Sjögren (1900: 117–20).

Conjunctive (or: copulative) coordinators  Autonomous relative clauses: Nimiae voluptati est quod in extis nostris portentum est, soror, / quod[que] haruspex de ambabus dixit. (Pl. Poen. 1205–6) Result clauses with ut: (sc. sic) . . . ipsus sese ut neget esse eum qui siet / meque ut esse autumet qui ipsus est. (Pl. Ps. 929–30)⁶⁰ Clauses: Eugepae, edictiones aedilicias hicquidem habet / mirumque adeo est ni hunc fecere sibi Aetoli agoranomum. (Pl. Capt. 823–4); At ego aio id fieri in Graecia et Carthagini, / et hic in nostra terra in Apulia / maioreque opere ibi serviles nuptiae / quam liberales etiam curari solent. (Pl. Cas. 71–4); Haec Andria, / si[ve] ista uxor sive amica’st, gravida e Pamphilo’st. / Audireque rum’st operae pretium audaciam . . . (Ter. An. 215–17); Quod ego longe secus existimo, iudices, deque eo pauca disseram. (Cic. Mur. 31); . . . illa insula eorum deorum sacra putatur tantaque eius auctoritas religionis et est et semper fuit ut . . . (Cic. Ver. 1.48); Ille . . . Uticae domi suae vivus exustus est idque ita illi merito accidisse existimatum est ut laetarentur omnes . . . (Cic. Ver. 1.70); (sc. Ubii) . . . sunt humaniores, propterea quod Rhenum attingunt multumque ad eos mercatores ventitant . . . (Caes. Gal. 4.3.3); Nam Carnutes . . . veniunt in deditionem, ceteraeque civitates . . . imperata sine mora faciunt. (Hirt. Gal. 8.31.5);⁶¹ . . . preimario viro pro eius meriteis / hoc monumentum constitutum est / eique merenti gratia rellata est / isque octiens duomvir ter cens(or) colonorum iudicio / apsens praesensque factus est . . . (CIL VI.29754.5–9 (Ostia, time of Augustus)); Tum . . . Meherdates promissa Parracis paterni clientis secutus dolo eius vincitur traditurque victori. (Tac. Ann. 12.14.3); Nam postero die quam Curiatius Maternus Catonem recitaverat, cum offendisse potentium animos diceretur, tamquam in eo tragoediae argumento sui oblitus tantum Catonem cogitasset, eaque de re per urbem frequens sermo haberetur, venerunt ad eum Marcus Aper et Iulius Secundus . . . (Tac. Dial. 2.1); Occupantur plana Umbriae et qua Picenus ager Hadria adluitur omnisque Italia inter Vespasianum ac Vitellium Appennini iugis dividebatur. (Tac. Hist. 3.42.1)

As a rule, -que is attached to the first word of a conjoin that is linked to a preceding conjoin when the second conjoin starts with, or consists of, a phrase. This can be seen in (d) above: -que is attached to the first word of the phrase Aleria urbe. However, when that first word is a monosyllabic preposition, -que is often attached to another word of the phrase, as is shown by the prepositional phrase ob easque res in (e) above. Other examples are the adverbs tam and quam in (f) and (g), respectively. It is occasionally postposed with disyllabic prepositions as well, as in (h). -que is never attached to non. It cannot be combined with words ending in -c (*hicque).⁶² Note that in (i)  -que is attached to the relative quae in the relative clause that precedes its main clause. (See also § 23.36.)

⁶⁰ Plautus and Terence avoid the sequence utque. See Sjögren (1900: 126). It is also very rare elsewhere. ⁶¹ For a well-organized survey of similar coordinated clauses in the Caesarian corpus, see Merguet (Caesar) 879B–882A. ⁶² See Bolkestein (2000: 134, n. 7). For Cicero’s usage of monosyllabic words, see Shipley (1913: 43–5).

 (f)

Coordination In hoc igitur tanto tam immensoque campo cum liceat oratori vagari libere . . . (‘Consequently as the orator has the liberty to roam freely in so wide and measureless a field . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 3.124)

(g)

Fac, mi frater, ut valeas quam primumque venias. (‘Be sure to keep well, my dear brother, and come as soon as you can.’ Cic. Q. fr. 2.6.4)

(h)

. . . apud eosque (sc. iudices) me . . . cogas causam de fortunis omnibus dicere? (‘. . . and do you force me to plead concerning all my fortunes before them?’ Cic. Planc. 40)

(i)

Vela dabant ventis (nec adhuc bene noverat illos / navita) quaeque prius steterant in montibus altis / fluctibus ignotis exsultavere carinae. (‘Men now spread sails to the winds, though the sailor as yet scarce knew them; and the keels of pine, which long had stood upon high mountainsides, now leaped over unknown waves.’ Ov. Met. 1.132–4) Supplement: . . . tam diuque ut obtineat dum M. Brutus C. Cassius consules prove coss. provincias obtinebunt. (Cic. Phil. 8.27);. . . (sc. morbos) omnis opinabilis esse et voluntarios ea reque suscipi, quod ita rectum esse videatur. (Cic. Tusc. 4.83) There are no limitations on the attachment of -que to polysyllabic words, e.g. innumerabilitatemque mundorum ‘and the countless number of worlds’ (Cic. N.D. 1.73), or on its attachment to words ending in a short ĕ, e.g. constituereque ‘and to establish’ (Cic. Fin. 4.25).⁶³

. The simple use of the conjunctive coordinator ac/atque Ac is an apocopated form of atque (< ad + que?) that is used in front of consonants (with very few exceptions); atque appears regularly in front of vowels and h, but it can be used in front of consonants and is in some authors preferred in front of the velar consonants c, g, and q. Cicero uses atque followed by a consonant to build clausulae.⁶⁴ There do not seem to be other distributional differences between the two forms. They are used to link clauses, as in (a)–(c), and to link constituents, as in (d) and (e). Coordination of constituents by ac/atque is much more common than coordination of clauses.⁶⁵ Typical is the use of ac/atque in epitactic conjoins (see § 19.68) to add a specification to a preceding clause; also after a change of speaker, as in (f).⁶⁶ Atque is by far preferred in Cato’s orations, whereas it is rare in his Agr.⁶⁷ ⁶³ For older publications on these two items, see K.-St.: II.13–14. ⁶⁴ See TLL s.v. 1049.34ff. In the PHI corpus the sequence atque a occurs 3,570 times; ac a three times; atque e 2,460 times; ac e never. For metrical considerations, see Richmond  (1965) and, for Cicero, Nisbet (1990: 355–7), Hutchinson (1995), and Berry in his commentary on the pro Sulla (1996: 49–54). ⁶⁵ Sixteen columns in Lodge vs. four (168A–175B/176A–178A); more than twenty-one columns vs. one and a half in Cicero’s orations (Merguet (Reden) 310B–321A/321A–322A). ⁶⁶ This use of atque is paraphrased as et quidem in the TLL s.v. atque 1050.36ff. See also Lodge s.v. atque 179 (§ 14). ⁶⁷ See Penney (2005: 44–9). For Ennius, see Adams (2016: 11–12).

Conjunctive (or: copulative) coordinators  It is also relatively common in Cicero in elevated parts of his orations and letters.⁶⁸ Conversely, ‘It never established itself in colloquial Latin.’⁶⁹ For the use of ac/atque as a connector of sentences, see (g) and § 24.18. For the use of atque as a comparative particle, see § 20.6. (a)

. . . hic vos / dormitis interea domi atque erus in hara, haud aedibus, habitat. (‘. . . you servants in the meantime sleep here at home and master has to live in a pigsty, not a house.’ Pl. As. 429–30)

(b)

. . . ne ex his nationibus auxilia in Galliam mittantur ac tantae nationes coniungantur. (‘. . . in order that auxiliaries not be sent from these nations into Gaul, and that such great nations not form an alliance.’ Caes. Gal. 3.11.3)

(c)

Nam nec se Septentriones quoquam in caelo commovent / nec se Luna quoquam mutat atque uti exorta est semel, / nec Iugulae nec Vesperugo nec Vergiliae occidunt. (‘For the Great Bear isn’t moving anywhere in the sky, the Moon isn’t going to any place different from where it was when it first rose, and Orion, the Evening Star, and the Pleiades aren’t setting either.’ Pl. Am. 273–5)

(d)

Eo domum, patrem atque matrem ut meos salutem . . . (‘I’m going home to greet my father and mother . . .’ Pl. Mer. 659)

(e)

. . . cum matronarum ac virginum veniebat in mentem . . . (‘. . . when the thought of wives and unwed girls came into my mind . . .’ Cic. Sul. 19)

(f)

Iamne ostendisti signa nutrici? # Omnia. / # Amabo, quid ait? Cognoscitne? # Ac memoriter. (‘Have you already shown the nurse the tokens? # All of them. # What does she say, darling? Does she recognize them? # Yes, and by memory.’ Ter. Eu. 914–15)

(g)

Ac iam ut omnia contra opinionem acciderent, tamen se plurimum navibus posse, [quam] Romanos neque ullam facultatem habere navium neque eorum locorum ubi bellum gesturi essent vada, portus, insulas novisse. Ac longe aliam esse navigationem in concluso mari atque in vastissimo atque apertissimo Oceano perspiciebant. (‘(sc. the Veneti felt that,) even though everything was turning out contrary to expectation, they were predominant in sea-power, while the Romans had no supply of ships, no knowledge of the shoals, harbours, or islands of the regions where they were about to wage war; and they could perceive that navigation on a land-locked sea was quite different from navigation on an Ocean very vast and open.’ Caes. Gal. 3.9.6–7)

⁶⁸ For statistical data, see Merten (1893: 2–5). See also TLL s.v. atque 1050.10ff. ⁶⁹ So Courtney (1999: 3).



Coordination Supplement: Constituents: Nouns and noun phrases: . . . eos auspicio meo atque [in]ductu primo coetu vicimus. (Pl. Am. 657) . . . tantum erus atque ego flagitio superavimus nuptiis nostris . . . (Pl. Cas. 876); . . . Narbonensis colonia, quae . . . nunc eiusdem miseriis ac periculis commovetur. (Cic. Font. 46); . . . suorum servorum manibus nuntio atque imperio tuo violatus esset. (Cic. Quinct. 83); Constat . . . nullum hoc splendore atque hac dignitate consilium fuisse. (Cic. Ver. 49); . . . si quis quid de re publica a finitimis rumore ac (v.l. aut) fama acceperit . . . (Caes. Gal. 6.20.1); . . . alius deleto exercitu atque imperatore victores barbaros venisse contendit. (Caes. Gal. 6.37.7); . . . magnumque numerum in oppidum telorum atque tormentorum convexerant . . . (B. Alex. 2.1)⁷⁰ NB: governed by a preposition: . . . ex spiritu atque anhelitu / nebula constat . . . (Pl. Am. 233–4); . . . si quis perdiderit vidulum cum auro atque argento multo, / ad Gripum ut veniat. (Pl. Rud. 1295–6); . . . quidvis esse perpeti satius quam in tanta vi atque acerbitate versari. (Cic. Ver. 1.69); . . . qui illum adesse cum magnis copiis dicerent et de custodia ac defensione urbis hortarentur. (Caes. Civ. 2.36.3); Varius sermo et ad metum atque iram accommodatus terruit simul audientem et accendit. (Tac. Ann. 14.62.1). (For other prepositional phrases, see below.) Adjectives, adjective phrases, and other attributes: Quin tu istanc orationem hinc veterem atque antiquam amoves? (Pl. Mil. 751); . . . dederim vobis consilium catum, / quod laudetis, ut ego opino, uterque— # Ergo ubi id est, Epidice? / # —atque ad eam rem conducibile. (Pl. Epid. 258–60—NB: Epidicus is interrupted); (sc. ratio) Est hercle inepta, ne dicam dolo, atque / absurda. (Ter. Ad. 375–6); Recte hoc repetitur a vobis ut virum optimum atque innocentissimum plurimisque mortalibus carissimum atque iucundissimum his aliquando calamitatibus liberetis . . . (Cic. Clu. 202); . . . propter hominem perditissimum atque alienissimum de officio ac dignitate decedis . . . (Cic. Ver. 28); At quo loco! Celeberrimo ac religiosissimo, ante ipsum Serapim, in primo aditu vestibuloque templi. (Cic. Ver. 2.160); Sperare ab eo de sua ac militum salute impetrari posse. (Caes. Gal. 5.36.3); . . . sperans barbaros atque imperitos homines . . . ad iniquam pugnandi condicionem posse deduci. (Caes. Gal. 6.10.2) Adverbs: Benene usque valuit? # Pancratice atque athletice. (Pl. Bac. 248); Sed ut astu sum aggressus ad eas. # Lepide hercle atque commode. (Pl. Poen. 1223); . . . id eum exercitumque eius, municipia, colonias provinciae Galliae recte atque ordine exque re publica fecisse et facere. (Cic. Phil. 3.38); Planius atque apertius dicam. (Cic. Q. Rosc. 43) Prepositions: see § 19.13 fin. Prepositional phrases: Equidem me iam censebam esse in terra atque in tuto loco . . . (Pl. Mer. 196); Natas ex Philomela atque ex (ac [ex] cj. Bothe) Procne esse hirundines. (Pl. Rud. 604); Ut animus in spe atque in timore usque ant(e)hac attentus fuit . . . (Ter. An. 303); Fures privatorum furtorum in nervo atque in compedibus aetatem agunt, fures publici in auro atque in purpura. (Cato orat. 224); . . . in caede atque ex caede vivunt. (Cic. S. Rosc. 78); Ipse Sulla . . . ab se hominem atque ab exercitu suo removit. (Cic. Ver. 1.38). See also § 19.13.

⁷⁰ For the use of atque and other conjunctive coordinators in the Bellum Alexandrinum, see Gaertner and Hausburg (2013: 70–1).

Conjunctive (or: copulative) coordinators  Verbs: . . . id vi et virtute militum victum atque expugnatum oppidum est . . . (Pl. Am. 191); Cogo atque impero: / numquam defugiam auctoritatem. (Ter. Eu. 389–90); Multorum te etiam oculi et aures non sentientem, sicut adhuc fecerunt, speculabuntur atque custodient. (Cic. Catil. 1.6); . . . quod agendum atque faciendum, id non modo non recusem sed etiam appetam atque deposcam. (Cic. Phil. 3.33); . . . te dicere atque enumerare causas omnis oportebat . . . (Cic. S. Rosc. 53); Unamque cohortem, quae temere ante ceteras extra aciem procurrerat, seclusam ab reliquis circumveniunt atque interficiunt . . . (Caes. Civ. 1.55.2) Autonomous relative clauses: . . . tamen non defore qui illa restituerent atque qui ante omnia commutarent quam nos audire possemus. (Cic. Agr. 2.90) Conditional clauses: Quid si adduco tuom cognatum huc a navi Naucratem, / qui mecum una vectu’st una navi, atque is si denegat / facta quae tu facta dicis, quid tibi aequom est fieri? (Pl. Am. 849–51) Purpose clauses: Ego servi sumpsi Sosiae mi imaginem, / . . . ut praeservire amanti meo possem patri / atque ut ne qui essem familiares quaererent . . . (Pl. Am. 124–7) Clauses: Nam si erus tu mi es atque ego me tuom esse servom assimulo . . . (Pl. Capt. 224); Ergo iste metus me macerat . . . / ne oculi eius sententiam mutent, ubi viderit me, / atque eius elegantia meam extemplo speciem spernat. (Pl. Mil. 1233–5); Scio solere plerisque hominibus rebus secundis atque prolixis atque prosperis animum excellere atque superbiam atque ferociam augescere atque crescere. (Cato orat. 163—NB: atque functioning at different levels); (sc. oro) . . . ut me adiuves in hac re atque ita uti nuptiae / fuerant futurae, fiant. (Ter. An. 542–3); . . . si ne tuorum quidem quisquam loco motus erit atque omnes in aedibus adservati ac retenti . . . (Cic. Caec. 37); . . . facile me atque vos crudelitatis vituperatione prohibebo atque obtinebo eam multo leniorem fuisse. (Cic. Catil. 4.11); . . . patimini veritate patefacta atque omni errore sublato eo transire illius turpitudinis infamiam . . . (Cic. Clu. 83); An dies auget eius desiderium, an magis oblivionem, ac laurea illa magnis periculis parta amittit longo intervallo viriditatem? (Cic. Prov. 29); At vivis et viges, at in omnium animis atque ore versaris atque divinus animus mortale nihil habuit neque tuorum quicquam potuit emori praeter corpus. (Cic. Scaur. 50); Et . . . paucis diebus magna erat rerum facta commutatio ac se fortuna inclinaverat . . . (Caes. Civ. 1.52.2); Eodemque tempore pugnatum est ad portum ac longe maximam ea res adtulit dimicationem. (Caes. Civ. 3.111); Qui cum se suaque omnia in oppidum Bratuspantium contulissent atque ab eo oppido Caesar cum exercitu circiter milia passuum quinque abesset . . . (Caes. Gal. 2.13.2); . . . excipiunt Vitellianos temere effusos atque illi consternantur. (Tac. Hist. 3.17.2); . . . neque aliud externi reges aut qui eadem saevitia usi sunt nisi dedecus sibi atque illis gloriam peperere. (Tac. Ann. 4.35.5)

The second conjoin of a pair of words or phrases linked by ac/atque often has a stronger or more precise meaning than the first conjoin. This may result from the lexical meaning of the words or phrases, as in (h) and (i),⁷¹ and/or from the presence

⁷¹ Exx. (h) and (i) are taken from K.-St.: II.16.



Coordination

of certain adverbs or other expressions, like adeo ‘rather’ in (j) and etiam ‘also’, ‘even’ in (k).⁷² This also occurs with paene ‘almost’, potius ‘rather’, quoque ‘also’, and others. (h)

Cum in maximis periculis huius urbis atque imperii, gravissimo atque acerbissimo rei publicae casu, socio atque adiutore consiliorum periculorumque meorum L. Flacco, caedem a vobis . . . depellebam . . . (‘When in the greatest perils of this city and Empire, in that most grim and bitter hour of crisis for the Republic, with Lucius Flaccus as my companion and helper in my deliberations and dangers, I staved off disaster from you.’ Cic. Flac. 1)

(i)

. . . si fuerit is qui haec habet iniustus, intemperans, timidus, hebeti ingenio atque nullo, dubitabisne eum miserum dicere? (‘. . . if the man who possesses these things is unjust, intemperate, fearful, with an intelligence sluggish or even non-existent, will you hesitate to pronounce him wretched?’ Cic. Tusc. 5.45)

(j)

Hoc consilio atque adeo hac amentia impulsi . . . eum iugulandum vobis tradiderunt. (‘Driven by this plan, or rather by this folly . . . they have handed him over to you to murder.’ Cic. S. Rosc. 29)

(k)

Qui illum Persam atque omnis Persas atque etiam omnis personas / male di omnes perdant! (‘May all the gods ruin that Persian and all Persians and even all stage characters!’ Pl. Per. 783–4) Atque also appears commonly in the combination etiam atque etiam ‘more and more’ (more than one hundred instances in Cicero alone, etiam et etiam only once (Cic. Att. 8.15a.2—NB: see the apparatus criticus)), magis atque magis ‘more and more’ (from Virgil onwards), and alius atque alius ‘first one person then another’.⁷³

. The simple use of the conjunctive coordinator et Et is considered the most neutral of the conjunctive coordinators. However, it has certain particular features. A comparison of the use of et, atque/ac, and -que in pairs of proper names referring to persons or gods in the orations of Cicero yields the following results: for sixteen columns of et used to connect nouns and/or pronouns there are 123 pairs of proper names (e.g. Dolabella et Antonius); for eighteen columns of atque/ac, there are two or three (e.g. Cassius atque Brutus); for twenty-four columns of -que, there are two (e.g. Apollinem Dianamque).⁷⁴ Et is the normal coordinator used to link numerals (see Table 19.3 and the Appendix there). Apparently, it is also ⁷² Adeo is also paired with -que in Early Latin and in poetry. The combination with et is very rare (TLL s.v. adeo 613.42ff.; 614.8ff.). For etiam and quoque, see TLL s.v. atque 1053.39ff.; s.v. etiam 941.12ff; see there also for (less common) combinations of etiam with et and -que. ⁷³ See TLL s.v. atque 1071.36ff. ⁷⁴ Material taken from Merguet (Reden): ac/atque: Dolabella et Antonius (Phil. 13.26); Pomptini atque Flacci (Catil. 3.6); unius P. Servili ac (aut cj. Madvig, edd.) M. Luculli responso (Har. 12); -que: Apollinem Dianamque (Ver. 1.48); Titus Gaiusque Coponii (Cael. 24—NB: praenomina of two brothers).

Conjunctive (or: copulative) coordinators  the best coordinator to link entities that are not closely related in sense, as it simply adds another conjoin. Conversely, when two nouns are coordinated of which the second one has a strong meaning, atque/ac seems to be preferred, though -que is also used: thus (improbitas) atque/ac nequitia/ae/am (or: nequitiaque) ‘(shamelessness) and depravity’ and (dedecore) ac turpitudine ‘(discredit) and disgrace’ (see also § 19.26). Et is less often used than atque/ac and -que to link nouns and pronouns (the preferred categories of -que), and adjectives and other attributes (the preferred categories of atque). At least, this is the situation in Cicero’s orations. Et is used to link clauses, as in (a), and in (b) (repeated from § 19.1), and to link constituents, as in (c)—two objects—and (d)—two attributes. Coordination of clauses by et is more common than of constituents.⁷⁵ For the use of et in epitactic coordination, see (e) and §§ 19.67–8 (for the term and further examples). For the use of et as a connector of sentences, see § 24.19. For the rare use of et in comparisons, see § 20.6. Finally, for the use of et as an adverb, more or less equivalent to etiam, see § 22.21. (a)

. . . ego illam illi video praestolarier / et cum ea tibicinae ibant quattuor. (‘. . . I saw her waiting for him, and four flute-girls were walking along with her.’ Pl. Epid. 217–18)

(b)

Haec vincit in consilio sententia et prima luce postridie constituunt proficisci. (‘This opinion prevailed in the meeting, and they decided to set out the following day at first light.’ Caes. Civ. 1.67.6)

(c)

Em illius servos huc ad me argentum attulit / et opsignatum symbolum. (‘Well, his slave brought the money here to me, and the sealed token.’ Pl. Ps. 1091–2)

(d)

. . . tibi cum homine disertissimo et ad dicendum paratissimo futurum esse certamen . . . (‘. . . your contest will be with a man highly eloquent and trained in speaking . . .’ Cic. Div. Caec. 44)

(e)

Is dicebatur esse Myronis, ut opinor, et certe. (‘This was said to be the work of Myron, I believe—yes, it was so.’ Cic. Ver. 4.5) Supplement: Constituents: Nouns and noun phrases: Nunc hodie Amphitruo veniet huc ab exercitu / et servos quoius ego hanc fero imaginem. (Pl. Am. 140–1); Ego virtute deum et maiorum nostrum dives sum satis. (Pl. Aul. 166); Primo haec pudice vitam parce ac duriter / agebat, lana et (ac D2, Grammatici Latini, edd.) tela victum quaeritans. (Ter. An. 74–5); . . . neque aequum est tempore et die memoriam benefici definire. (Cic. Red. Pop. 23); Tanta enim erat auctoritas et vetustas illius religionis . . . (Cic. Ver. 4.108); . . . illa summa vis et contentio probatur. (Cic. de Orat. 1.255); Nunc venio ad tua illa brevia, quae consectaria esse dicebas, et primum illud quo nihil potest brevius. (Cic. Fin. 4.48); Probat enim legum et libertatis interitum . . . (Cic. Off. 3.83); Ad reliqua transeamus animalia et primum terrestria. (Plin. Nat. 8.1); . . . sive hostis illos seu Pansam venenum ⁷⁵ Merguet (Caesar) offers the easiest overview.



Coordination vulneri adfusum, sui milites Hirtium et machinator doli Caesar abstulerat . . . (Tac. Ann. 1.10.2—NB: the asyndetically coordinated clauses in the seu sequence are a good example of ‘gapping’) NB: governed by a preposition: Em hominem tibi, / qui a matre et sorore venit. (Pl. Mil. 1312–13); Suspicionem hanc propter fratrem ei(u)s esse et illam psaltriam. (Ter. Ad. 600); Agitur . . . ut nullum sit posthac in re publica publicum consilium, nulla bonorum consensio contra improborum furorem et audaciam . . . (Cic. Rab. Per. 4) . . . non solum ex oratione Caesaris . . . sed etiam ex oculis et vultu, ex multis praeterea signis . . . hac opinione discessi ut mihi tua salus dubia non esset. (Cic. Fam. 6.14.2); . . . quem tu cum civi acerrimo, patre tuo, in ore et amore semper habuisti. (Cic. Fam. 10.28.1); Segni Condrusique, ex gente et numero Germanorum . . . legatos ad Caesarem miserunt . . . (Caes. Gal. 6.32.1); . . . Afranium et Faustum cum coniuge et liberis vivos capit. (B. Afr. 95.3); Missus ilico Stertinius cum equite et armatura levi igne et caedibus perfidiam ultus est. (Tac. Ann. 2.8.4). See also § 19.13. Adjectives, adjective phrases, and other attributes: Paucis, Euclio, est quod te volo / de communi re appellare mea et tua. (Pl. Aul. 199–200); . . . recta porta invadam extemplo in oppidum antiquom et vetus. (Pl. Bac. 711); Imitatur nequam bestiam et damnificam. (Pl. Cist. 728); Mulier commoda et / faceta haec meretrix. (Ter. Hau. 521–2); Qui tamen ita gravis est accusator et vehemens ut . . . (Cic. Mur. 58); Etiam a Stoicis ista tractata sunt? # Non sane, nisi . . . a magno homine et in primis erudito, Panaetio. (Cic. Leg. 3.14); . . . atque idem Aventinum et Caelium montem adiunxit urbi . . . (Cic. Rep. 2.33); . . . paene iniquo loco et leviter declivi castra fecerant. (Caes. Gal. 7.83.3); . . . insignisque et antiquitus sacras coronas adeptus . . . (Tac. Ann. 15.33.2); . . . quia Vespasianus, venerabilis senex et patientissimus veri, bene intellegit . . . (Tac. Dial. 8.3) Adverbs: Bene ego istam eduxi meae domi et pudice. (Pl. Cur. 518); . . . nisi multa aqua usque et diu macerantur . . . (Pl. Poen. 243); Nam hic Clinia . . . attamen / habet (sc. amicam) bene et pudice eductam, ignaram artis meretriciae. (Ter. Hau. 225–6); . . . cum una quaque de re a P. Cannutio, homine eloquentissimo, graviter et diu diceretur. (Cic. Clu. 30); . . . aperte iam et perspicue nulla esse iudicia. (Cic. Ver. 20); . . . uterque eorum ex castris stativis a flumine Apso exercitum educunt, Pompeius clam et noctu, Caesar palam atque interdiu. (Caes. Civ. 3.30.3); Nam quo sordidius et abiectius nati sunt . . . (Tac. Dial. 8.3) Prepositions: see § 19.13 fin. Prepositional phrases: Id solus solum per amicitiam et per fidem / flens me opsecravit . . . (Pl. Trin. 153–4); Nunc te per amicitiam et per amorem obsecro . . . (Ter. An. 326); Non fuerunt armati, cum fustibus et cum saxis fuerunt. (Cic. Caec. 64). See also § 19.13. Finite and non-finite verb forms: Novi erum, novi aedis nostras. Sane sapio et sentio. (Pl. Am. 448); Quin collaudo consilium et probo. (Pl. Trin. 1148); Quae si erunt, ut mea ratio et cogitatio fert, posita et constituta, nullam accusationis partem pertimescam. (Cic. Scaur. 21); . . . solet haec quae rapuit et furatus est non numquam dicere se emisse . . . (Cic. Ver. 1.60); Homo nobilis, qui a suis amari et diligi vellet . . . (Cic. Ver. 4.51); Timere Caesarem . . . ne ad eius periculum reservare et retinere eas (sc. legiones) ad urbem Pompeius videretur. (Caes. Civ. 1.2.3); Dum ea conquiruntur et conferuntur . . . (Caes. Gal. 1.27.4); At nunc colimus externos et adulamur . . . (Tac. Ann. 15.21.1); Frustra Cassium amovisti, si gliscere et vigere Brutorum aemulos passurus es. (Tac. Ann. 16.22.5)

Conjunctive (or: copulative) coordinators  Autonomous relative clauses: Qui utuntur vino vetere sapientis puto / et qui lubenter veteres spectant fabulas. (Pl. Cas. 5–6) Conditional clauses: Nunc vos, si vobis placet / et si placuimus neque odio fuimus, signum hoc mittite. (Pl. Capt. 1034–5) Purpose clauses: At vero praeclarum diem illis reposuisti Verria ut agerent et ut ad eum diem quae sacris epulisque opus essent in compluris annos locarentur. (Cic. Ver. 2.52) Indirect questions: . . . cum ex me quidam quaesisset quo die Roma exissem et num quidnam esset novi. (Cic. Planc. 65 ); Tu tamen de †Tutio† ad me rescribe certius et num quis in eius locum paretur, et quid de P. Clodio fiat . . . (Cic. Att. 2.5.3) Clauses: Decet me facetum esse et hunc irridere / lenonem lubido est, quando dignus est. (Pl. Per. 807–8); Gratiam habeo et de talento nulla causa est quin feras, / quod isti sum iuratus. (Pl. Rud. 1397–8); Cum patre altercasti dudum et is nunc propterea tibi / suscenset . . . (Ter. An. 653–4); Esse autem tertium ac medium inter illos et ita factos eos pedes esse ut in iis singulis modus insit aut sesquiplex aut duplex aut par. (Cic. Orat. 193); Vos videte quid aliae faciant isto loco feminae et ne, cum velitis, exire non liceat. (Cic. Fam. 14.18.2); Cassius . . . onerarias naves circiter XL praeparatas ad incendium immisit et flamma ab utroque cornu comprensa naves sunt conbustae quinque. (Caes. Civ. 3.101.4); Cum in conloquium ventum esset et, ut convenerat, manum Commii Volusenus adripuisset . . . (Hirt. Gal. 8.23.5); Aderat iam annus quo proconsulatum Africae et Asiae sortiretur et occiso Civica nuper nec Agricolae consilium deerat nec Domitiano exemplum. (Tac. Ag. 42.1); Is (sc. Simo) a Quintilio Varo obtinente Syriam punitus et gentem coercitam liberi Herodis tripertito rexere. (Tac. Hist. 5.9.1) Appendix: Special attention is given to coordination of clauses by et, where the first  conjoin can be interpreted as the condition for the realization of the second conjoin. A term used for this is ‘parataxis poetica et vulgaris’. A few examples are the following.⁷⁶ Dic quibus in terris—et eris mihi magnus Apollo— / tris pateat caeli spatium non amplius ulnas. (Verg. Ecl. 3.104–5); . . . promissa . . . foedera serva / et comitum princeps tu mihi . . . eris. (Ov. Fas. 2.159–60); Concupiscite et poenas certe non dabitis. (Sen. Suas. 6.25)

The second conjoin of a pair of words or phrases coordinated by et can be emphasized by the use of etiam ‘also’, ‘even’, ‘still’ and—less commonly—quoque ‘too’. Examples are (f)–(h). (f)

. . . ita sibi convenisse cum Dolabella ut ille Trebonium et, si posset, etiam Brutum, Cassium, discruciatos necaret . . . (‘. . . that he had arranged with Dolabella for him to kill Trebonius and, if he could, also Brutus and Cassius, first putting them to the torture . . .’ Cic. Phil. 13.37)

⁷⁶ For further examples, see TLL s.v. et 894.55ff.



Coordination

(g)

. . . cum duplici vallo fossaque et muro etiam, qua res postulabat, ex multa copia passim iacentium lapidum permunisset omnia . . . (‘. . . when he had strengthened everything with a double wall and ditch and even, where the situation demanded, with a rampart constructed out of the great quantity of stones which were scattered all about . . .’ Liv. 36.16.1)

(h)

Praeclarum illud est et, si quaeris, rectum quoque et verum ut . . . (‘It is an excellent thing, if you look into it, a right and just thing, too, that . . .’ Cic. Tusc. 3.73) Appendix: Et is the regular coordinator in complex numerals. Examples are (i)–(k). -que and ac/atque are exceptional, as in (l) and (m) and in the Supplement. Asyndetic combinations are also possible. For the various possibilities and orderings, see Table 19.3.⁷⁷ (i) Decem horis nocturnis sex et quinquaginta milia passuum cisiis pervolavit . . . (‘During the night, in ten hours, with light equipage, he rapidly covered fifty-six miles . . .’ Cic. S. Rosc. 19) (j) Centum et unum aratores unus ager istius iniuria desiderat . . . (‘Through the oppression of this man, one single district mourns the loss of one hundred and one farmers . . .’ Cic. Ver. 3.120) (k) Mille et ducentos Philippos attulimus aureos / Epheso . . . (‘We brought one thousand two hundred gold Philippics from Ephesus . . .’ Pl. Bac. 230–1) (l) Primum stipendium meruit annorum decem septemque. (‘He served his first campaign at the age of seventeen.’ Nep. Ca. 1.2) (m) . . . amissa Sicilia et Sardinia duabusque Hispaniis et cohortibus Italia atque Hispania civium Romanorum C atque XXX . . . (‘. . . after losing Sicily and Sardinia and the two Spains and citizen cohorts in Italy and Spain, a hundred and thirty of them . . .’ Caes. Civ. 3.10.5)

Table . The structure of complex numerals in Latin  

21–99

lower number precedes

duo et viginti

quattuor quadraginta (very rare)

sex et trecenti (rare)

101–999  

centum et mille

>1000

lower number follows

octoginta et quattuor (rare)

viginti duo

centum et decem

ducenta sexaginta duo

mille et quattuor ducenti (less milia ducenti frequent) septuaginta

⁷⁷ For further examples, see K.-H.: 640–1.

 

Conjunctive (or: copulative) coordinators  Supplement: . . . turres, ubi mons iuvisset, in sexagenos pedes, inter devexa in centenos vicenosque attollebantur . . . (Tac. Hist. 5.11.3) . . . de duobus milibus ac ducentis. (Cato orat. 86); Caesa ibi milia hominum duo ferme atque octingenti, capta quattuor milia ducenti septuaginta. (Liv. 10.39.3); In Thessalia quattuor atque triginta (sc. montes sunt) . . . (Plin. Nat. 4.30)

. The single use of the negative conjunctive coordinator nec/neque The use of nec and neque to coordinate a negative clause with a preceding clause is discussed in §§ 8.35–40. For the distribution of nec and neque, see § 8.12 fin. This section deals with its use to coordinate constituents at or below the clause level. Coordination by means of single nec/neque at these levels is relatively rare. Examples of nec/neque linking a negative element to a preceding negative element are (a)—two means adjuncts—and (b)—two subject complements; to a preceding positive element, (c)—two subject complements—and (d)—two attributes. For (d) and a few parallels, see also § 8.9 on coordination of locally negated constituents. (a)

Virtute dixit vos victores vivere, / non ambitione nec perfidia. (‘He said that you live as victors through virtue, not through canvassing or unfair behaviour.’ Pl. Am. 75–6)

(b)

. . . cum in his, inquam, rebus omnibus publicanus petitor ac pignerator, non ereptor neque possessor soleat esse . . . (‘. . . in all these situations, I say, the tax-gatherer tends to be a petitioner or a lender, not a repossessor or an occupier . . .’ Cic. Ver. 3.27)

(c)

Dicant te mendacem nec verum esse . . . (‘People would say that you’re a liar and not truthful . . .’ Pl. Mil. 1369)

(d)

. . . eius enim nomine, optimi viri nec tibi ignoti, male dicebat tibi . . . (‘. . . for it was under the name of a man, excellent and not unknown to you, that he proceeded to slander you . . .’ Cic. Deiot. 33) Supplement: Noun phrases: . . . si ex omnibus rebus se ipsum nudum neque praeterea quicquam excepit . . . (Cic. S. Rosc. 144); Numquam hoc ita defendit Epicurus neque Metrodorus aut quisquam eorum . . . (Cic. Fin. 1.25); . . . vitamque sibi neque amplius quicquam deprecatur. (B. Afr. 89.5) Adjectives: . . . sic vixerit ut nullum umquam pudicum neque sobrium convivium viderit . . . (Cic. Ver. 3.160); Reperiam multos, vel innumerabilis potius, non tam curiosos nec tam molestos quam vos estis . . . (Cic. Fin. 2.28); Nam dum tibi turpe nec dignum viro videbitur gemere . . . (Cic. Tusc. 2.31) Disputed are instances of single neque where negation of the first conjoin has to be inferred (so-called ஌›ಱౝԒϑഢԒഌ use of neque), as in (e). The ms. reading is accepted by



Coordination Löfstedt, but most editors emend the text.⁷⁸ The first case that is not usually emended is (f), from Valerius Flaccus. (e) Transierant illuc, [ut] rationem eius habendam qui exercitum neque provincias traderet. (‘They have come around to accept that a person should be allowed to stand for office without handing over his army and provinces.’ Cael. Fam. 8.13.2— following Watt’s OCT edition) (f) . . . immanes quos sternere Bessi / nec Geticae potuere manus aut aequoris irae. (‘. . . the men whom neither the huge Bessi nor the Getic armies nor the anger of the sea could overcome.’ V. Fl. 2.231–2)

. Correlative conjunctive coordination The following sections deal with pairs or series of conjoins that are each marked by a coordinator, so & A & B or & A & B & C. The coordinators involved are et, -que, and neque. For atque there is only one reliable attestation. These forms of correlative coordination must not be confused with cases in which the first coordinator actually links a sequence of conjoins A & B to the preceding context, expressed in the formula CONTEXT & (A & B) (see § 19.66).

. The correlative use of the conjunctive coordinator -que The attachment of -que to each conjoin is attested beginning with Plautus, as in (a) and (b),⁷⁹ and Ennius, as in (c).⁸⁰ Its use in Ennius is influenced by the combination τε . . . τε in Homer, and metrical convenience.⁸¹ The usage is highly literary and was adopted by later (especially hexameter) poets. It is absent from the Classical prose of Cicero and Caesar.⁸² It is infrequent in later prose, limited in some authors to the coordination of relative clauses, as in (d), from Livy.⁸³ By far its most common use is in the coordination of nouns and noun phrases, but see (a) and (d) for relative clauses; extreme is its use in the coordination of independent clauses by Tacitus in (e). (a)

. . . quasque incepistis res quasque inceptabitis . . . (‘. . . what you have begun and what you will begin . . .’ Pl. Am. 7)

⁷⁸ See Löfstedt (1942/1933: I.342–7) and Cavarzere ad loc., with references. See also K.-St.: II.562–3 and Sz.: 517 for further instances. ⁷⁹ It occurs eleven times in all, rarely in the senarian metre, though twice in prologues. See Sjögren (1900: 130–1). ⁸⁰ It occurs a total of thirteen times in his Annales. ⁸¹ See Skutsch ad Enn. Ann. 184–4V=170–1S. The most complete study of the use of double -que in hexameter poetry is Christensen (1908). For Plautus and Ennius—did he create it?—see Fraenkel (1922: 209–11) and Haffter (1934: 119). ⁸² Cic. Fin. 1.51 noctesque diesque is an Ennianism (cf. Cic. Sen. 1 and Powell ad loc.). ⁸³ For a historical survey, see Sz.: 515.

Conjunctive (or: copulative) coordinators  (b)

Tibi paterque (que om. A) avosque facilem fecit et planam viam / ad quaerundum honorem. (‘Both your father and your grandfather gave you an easy and plain way for finding distinction.’ Pl. Trin. 645–6)

(c)

Proletarius publicitus scutisque feroque / ornatur ferro. (‘The state-supported commoners were armed with shield and savage steel.’ Enn. Ann. 183–4V=170–1S)

(d)

. . . idque ita cecinere vates quique in urbe erant quosque ad eam rem consultandam ex Etruria acciverant. (‘. . . and such was the interpretation of the soothsayers, both those who were in the City and those who were called in from Etruria to consider the matter.’ Liv. 1.55.6— NB: see Weissenborn and Müller ad loc.)

(e)

Etiam si bella externa . . . memorarem, meque (me v.l., see Wellesley in his apparatus) ipsum satias cepisset aliorumque taedium expectarem . . . (‘Even if I were narrating campaigns abroad . . . a sense of sufficiency would have taken hold of me myself, and I would expect the tedium of others . . .’ Tac. Ann. 16.16.1) Supplement: Constituents: Nouns and noun phrases: . . . huc opesque spesque vostrum cognoscendum condidi. (Pl. Rud. 1145); Educta ita uti teque illaque dignum’st. (Ter. Eu. 748); . . . populusque patresque / iactare indu foro se omnes . . . (Lucil. 1229–30M=1253–4K); Quendam municipem meum de tuo volo ponte / ire praecipitem in lutum per caputque pedesque . . . (Catul. 17.8–9); . . . seque remque publicam curabant. (Sal. Cat. 9.3); . . . et nos aliquod nomenque decusque / gessimus. (Verg. A. 2.89–90); . . . multam in medio sine nomine plebem, / Fadumque Herbesumque subit Rhoetumque Abarimque / ignaros. (Verg. A. 9.343–5—NB: a sequence of four); . . . ut et ipsa Iovis coniunxque sororque / eventus Hecubam meruisse negaverit illos. (Ov. Met. 13.574–5); Hoc fiduciam in posterum quoque praebuerat, levatos se oneribus[que] (edd.) inpensisque, quibus, alia aliis inperantibus, exhauriebantur. (Liv. 43.17.3); . . . Arsacidarum vi seque regnumque tutatus est. (Tac. Ann. 2.3.2) Adjectives, adjectival phrases, and other attributes: Apud aedilis pro eius factis plurumisque pessumisque / dixi causam . . . (Pl. Men. 590–1); . . . et mores veteresque novosque †tenentem / multorum veterum leges divomque hominumque . . . (Enn. Ann. 247–8V=283–4S); . . . dextrumque (dextrum v.l.) sinistrumque cornu, ubi elephanti erant, in conspectu patenti adversariorum constituit. (B. Afr. 41.3);⁸⁴ . . . sed et haec vilisque vetusque/ vestis erat . . . (Ov. Met. 8.658–9) Adverbs: Ergo postque magisque viri nunc gloria claret. (Enn. Ann. 372V=365S); Variae circumque supraque / adsuetae ripis volucres et fluminis alveo / aethera mulcebant . . . (Verg. A. 7.32–4) Verbs: . . . Iam iam stupido Thessala somno / pectora languentque senentque. (Acc. trag. 611–12); . . . hanc versa in faciem Turni se pestis ob ora / fertque refertque sonans clipeumque everberat alis. (Verg. A. 12.865–6) ⁸⁴ For this example, see Adams (2005b: 81).



Coordination Clauses: . . . eamque legem qui non servent . . . existumantur indoctique (indocti v.l.) esse disputandique morem atque rationem non tenere. (Gel. 16.2.1) Appendix: It is unlikely that the expression susque deque ‘both up and down’ (Pl. Am. 886, etc.) belongs here.⁸⁵ See also . . . susque omnia deque fuerunt, / susque et deque fuere . . . (Lucil. 110–11M=108–9K)

. The correlative use of the conjunctive coordinator ac/atque There is only one sure instance of a correlative use of atque, viz. (a), where two noun phrases are coordinated.⁸⁶ (a)

Hic crine effuso atque Hennaeae numina divae / atque Acheronta vocat Stygia cum veste sacerdos. (‘Here the priestess with streaming hair and Stygian garb calls up Acheron and the divinity of Henna’s goddess.’ Sil. 1.93–4)

. The correlative use of the conjunctive coordinator et The correlative use of et is widely attested from Plautus onwards to join both constituents and clauses. There seem to be no instances in Ennius, and in later (hexameter) poetry its use is not as prominent as that of -que . . . -que. Examples of the various categories of conjoins are given in (a)–(g). Ex. (a) shows two coordinated nouns; (b), possessive adjectives; (c), adverbs; (d), prepositions; (e), prepositional phrases; (f), verbs; (g), clauses. (a)

Namque ecastor Amor et melle et felle est fecundissumus. (‘To be sure, Love abounds in honey as well as in bitterness.’ Pl. Cist. 68)

(b)

Et meam partem loquendi et tuam trado tibi. (‘I grant you both my share of speaking and yours.’ Pl. As. 517)

(c)

. . . ne et hic viris sint et domi molestiae. (‘. . . so that they won’t be a nuisance to their husbands here as well as at home.’ Pl. Poen. 35)

(d)

. . . cum ideo sacra et uls et cis Tiberim non mediocri ritu fiant. (‘. . . since in that connexion rites are performed on both sides of the Tiber with no small ceremony.’ Var. L. 5.83)

(e)

. . . ita tu diligenter et nobiscum et sine nobis considerabis . . . (‘. . . if you study diligently, both with and without me . . .’ Rhet. Her. 2.50)

(f)

Deos quoque edepol et amo et metuo . . . ⁸⁵ See Fraenkel (1922: 209–11). ⁸⁶ For a few other more or less debatable instances, see TLL s.v. atque 1055.27ff.

Conjunctive (or: copulative) coordinators  (‘I also love and fear the gods . . .’ Pl. Poen. 282)

(g)

Et te utar iniquiore et meus me ordo inrideat . . . (‘I wouldn’t have you as my equal and the people of my class would laugh at me.’ Pl. Aul. 232)

Correlatively coordinated nouns and noun phrases, as well as other conjoins, are ‘very often’⁸⁷ preceded by expressions that emphasize that both conjoins are equally involved, as utrimque and simul in (h) and (i).⁸⁸ Relatively often the conjoins belong to different lexical or syntactic categories, as in (j), where a prepositional phrase and a quod clause are coordinated (see also §§ 19.75–80). The greatest number of repetitions of et on record is twelve.⁸⁹ (h)

. . . utrimque est gravida, et ex viro et ex summo Iove. (‘. . . she’s pregnant from both, from her husband and from great Jupiter.’ Pl. Am. 111)

(i)

. . . iudices longius quam potestatem habeant progressuros, si simul et de reo et de eo quem reus arguat iudicarint. (‘. . . the judges will go beyond their authority if they pass judgement at the same time on the defendant and the person whom the defendant accuses.’ Cic. Inv. 2.81)

(j)

. . . L. Carpinatius, qui et sui quaestus causa et fortasse quod sociorum interesse arbitrabatur, bene penitus in istius familiaritatem sese dedit. (‘. . . Lucius Carpinatius, who both for his own profit and possibly also because he believed it was in the interest of his associates, worked his way very thoroughly into the intimacy of this man.’ Cic. Ver. 2.169) Supplement: Constituents: Nouns and noun phrases: Deos quaeso ut adimant et patrem et matrem meos. (Naev. trag. 95); . . . et datores et factores omnis subdam sub solum. (Pl. Cur. 297); . . . eduxi omnem legionem, et maris et feminas. (Pl. Mos. 1047); Putavit me et aetate et benevolentia / plus scire et providere quam se ipsum sibi. (Ter. Hau. 115–16); . . . tertium (sc. genus) quod habet utrunque et tempora et casus . . . (Var. L. 6.36); Ita is cuius arbitrio et populus Romanus et exterae gentes contentae esse consuerunt ipse . . . contentus non fuit. (Cic. Clu. 134); Sin hoc et ratio doctis et necessitas barbaris et mos gentibus et feris natura ipsa praescripsit . . . (Cic. Mil. 30); Utrumque opus est, et cura vacare et negotio. (Cic. Leg. 1.8); Qua quidem voluntate esse erga Atticum saepe praesens et illi ostendisti et vero etiam mihi. (Cic. Att. 16.16b.2) Adjectives, adjectival phrases, and other attributes: . . . animus induci potest / eum esse civem et fidelem et bonum. (Pl. Per. 66–7); Quam multi sunt summi homines et ornatissimi et nostri et equestris ordinis quorum pro salute se hic Sullae obligavit! (Cic. Sul. 72); Omnis et demonstrativa et deliberativa et iudicialis causa . . . (Cic.

⁸⁷ So TLL s.v. et 881.13. The TLL article is for all questions the most reliable source of information. The number of examples given in this section is for that reason very small. ⁸⁸ In (h), the coordinated noun phrases could be taken as apposition of utrimque (see Spevak 2014a: 323–5). ⁸⁹ See TLL s.v. et 885.64ff.



Coordination Inv. 2.12); Et ad scorpionis autem et aranei ictum alium cum ruta recte miscentur . . . (Cels. 5.27.6—NB: position of autem) Adverbs: . . . et bene et benigne facitis . . . (Pl. Poen. 589); . . . confiteareque aliquando me quod faciam et grate et pie facere. (Cic. Planc. 98); . . . disputas tu quidem et amanter et prudenter . . . (Cic. Att. 1.20.2) Prepositional phrases: . . . ita et cum his et inter hos vixi . . . (Cic. Planc. 75); Multa enim et in deos et in homines impie nefarieque commisit . . . (Cic. Ver. 1.6) Finite and non-finite verb forms: Tum tu igitur sine me ire. # Et iubeo et sino. (Pl. Per. 189); Ergo propterea te sedulo / et moneo et hortor ne quoiusquam misereat . . . (Ter. Hec. 63–4); . . . magnas copias pulsas esse et vidimus et audivimus . . . (Cic. Caec. 43); Ut igitur et monere et moneri proprium est verae amicitiae . . . (Cic. Amic. 91); Tu vero ut me et appelles et interpelles et obloquare et colloquare velim. (Cic. Q. fr. 2.9.1—NB: four times) Clauses: Et salve et salvom te advenisse gaudeo. (Pl. Trin. 1097); Ita boves et corpore curatiores erunt et morbus aberit. (Cato Agr. 103.1); Locus is melior, quem et non coquit sol et tangit ros. (Var. R. 3.14.2); Ex quo simul utrumque, et huic accusare et illi condemnari, necesse fuisse intellegetis. (Cic. Clu. 43); Etenim sine controversia et magna est et late patet et ad multos pertinet et summo in honore semper fuit et clarissimi cives ei studio etiam hodie praesunt. (Cic. de Orat. 1.235—NB: five times); Quid est cur dubitemus dicere et sapientiam propter voluptates expetendam et insipientiam propter molestias esse fugiendam? (Cic. Fin. 1.46); Nam hic uterque et id posuit quod conveniebat et tamen suae causae commodo consuluit. (Cic. Inv. 1.31); Nam et semper me coluit diligentissimeque observavit et a studiis nostris non abhorret. (Cic. Fam. 13.22.1); ‘Et aequum postulare videtur’, inquit, ‘Hasdrubal, et ego tamen non censeo quod petit tribuendum.’ (Liv. 21.3.3); Saepe et contemptus hostis cruentum certamen edidit et incluti populi regesque perlevi momento victi sunt. (Liv. 21.43.11)

. The correlative use of the negative conjunctive coordinator nec/neque Correlative use of nec/neque is found from Early Latin onwards, both for clauses, as in (a) and (b), and for constituents, as in (c)–(e). This correlative use must not be confused with sequences of nec/neque wherein the first provides a link to something prior, as in (f)—a phenomenon attested from Caesar onwards.⁹⁰ For the use of nec/neque in epexegetic negation, see § 8.46. Occasionally the second conjoin is omitted, a phenomenon known as particula pendens.⁹¹ (a)

Sed hoc primum, me expurigare tibi volo me insaniam / nec tenere nec mi esse ullum morbum . . . (‘But first I want to clear myself with you: I’m neither mad nor is there anything wrong with me . . .’ Pl. Capt. 620–1) ⁹⁰ So K.-St.: II.46.

⁹¹ See Sz.: 517.

Conjunctive (or: copulative) coordinators  (b)

Nimis demiror, Sosia, / qui illaec illic me donatum esse aurea patera sciat, / nisi tu dudum hanc convenisti et narravisti haec omnia. / # Neque edepol ego dixi neque istam vidi nisi tecum simul. (‘I’m very surprised, Sosia, how she knows I was presented with a golden bowl there, unless you met her before and told her about all this. # I haven’t told her, nor have I seen her except together with you.’ Pl. Am. 765–8)

(c)

. . . quorum animis avidis atque insatietatibus / nec lex nec sutor capere est qui possit modum. (‘. . . neither law nor cobbler can take the measure for their greedy hearts and grasping natures.’ Pl. Aul. 487–8)

(d)

. . . Publio tuo neque opera neque consilio neque labore neque gratia neque testimonio defui. (‘. . . then neither in my time nor in my advice nor in my effort nor in my friendship nor in my testimony did I fail your son Publius.’ Cic. Fam. 5.17.2)

(e)

. . . quibus nihil nec taetrius nec foedius excogitari potest. (‘. . . nothing either more atrocious or more repulsive than these things can be conceived.’ Cic. Off. 3.36)

(f)

Haeduis se obsides redditurum non esse neque his neque eorum sociis iniuria bellum inlaturum . . . (‘He would not restore their hostages to the Aedui, and he would make war neither on them nor on their allies without cause . . .’ Caes. Gal. 1.36.5) Supplement: Constituents: Nouns and noun phrases: Nec tu illi nec mihi viro ipsi credis? (Pl. Am. 756); Nec med umquam deseruisse te nec factis nec fide, / rebus in dubiis egenis. (Pl. Capt. 405–6—NB: an instance of epexegetic negation, see §  8.46); Adeon’ me ignavom putas / . . . ut neque me consuetudo neque amor neque pudor / commoveat . . . (Ter. An. 277–80); Nam neque neglegentia tua neque odio id fecit tuo. (Ter. Ph. 1016); Reliqui fuerunt quos neque terror nec vis, nec spes nec metus, nec promissa nec minae, nec tela nec faces a vestra auctoritate, a populi Romani dignitate, a mea salute depellerent. (Cic. Red. Sen. 7) Adjectives, adjectival phrases, and other attributes: Quid factis (sc. me arbitrare)? # Nec malis neque improbis. (Pl. Aul. 213); . . . neque boni / neque liberalis functus officium’st viri. (Ter. Ad. 463–4); . . . victorias . . . quarum nulla neque tam diuturnam laetitiam attulit nec tantam. (Cic. Mil. 77) Adverbs: Recte et vera loquere, sed nec vere nec recte adhuc / fecisti umquam. (Pl. Capt. 960–1); Em neque domi nunc nos nec militiae sumus. (Enn. scen. 239V=200J); Neque istic neque alibi tibi erit usquam in me mora. (Ter. An. 420); Verum ego quod invitus ac necessario facio neque diu neque diligenter facere possum. (Cic. S. Rosc. 123) Prepositional phrases: Nolo ego cum improbis te viris, gnate mi, / neque in via, neque in foro necullum sermonem exsequi. (Pl. Trin. 281–2a—NB: an instance of



Coordination epexegetic negation); Tu enim neque in litteris quas Neroni mittis neque in testimonio causam tanti tumultus ostendis ullam. (Cic. Ver. 1.80) Finite and non-finite verb forms: . . . nec dependes nec propendes . . . (Pl. As. 305); Viri non esse neque exorari neque placari. (Cic. Mur. 61); . . . nullo modo nec divelli nec distrahi possint . . . (Cic. Fin. 1.50) Clauses: . . . quae nec sunt facta neque ego in me ammisi arguit. (Pl. Am. 885); Nec tu me quidem umquam subiges redditum ut reddam tibi / nec daturus sum. (Pl. Cur. 540–1); Verum nec tu illum sati’ noveras / nec te ille. (Ter. Hau. 153–4); Haec igitur lex in amicitia sanciatur, ut neque rogemus res turpes nec faciamus rogati. (Cic. Amic. 40); Nam nec hostes moverunt arma neque consul in agrum eorum legiones induxit. (Liv. 43.9.1)

. The correlative use of different conjunctive coordinators . Correlative combinations of -que with another conjunctive coordinator Correlative combinations of -que and et (in that order) are used from Early Latin onwards, when they are even more common than -que . . . -que.⁹² Examples are (a) and (b). The combination is not used by Cicero, Caesar, or Nepos. When used in poetry and prose (especially when poeticizing), it represents an elevated archaism. The sequences -que . . . -que . . . et and -que . . . et . . . et, etc. are also used (see the Supplement). (a)

. . . maxumas opimitates . . . / suis eris ille una mecum pariet, gnatoque et patri . . . (‘. . . along with me he’ll bring forth the greatest prosperity . . . for his masters, both son and father . . .’ Pl. As. 282–3)

(b)

. . . malaque et bona dictu / evomeret . . . (‘. . . he would blurt out words both good and bad to say . . .’ Enn. Ann. 240–1V=274–5S) Supplement: Constituents: Nouns and noun phrases: Sed optume eccum exit senex, patronus mihique et vobis. (Pl. Rud. 705); Nimium ipse duru’ st praeter aequomque et bonum . . . (Ter. Ad. 64);⁹³ quamquam annisque et aetate hoc corpus putret (Pac. trag. 340); . . . ubi (sc. terra) putorem umida nacta’st / intempestivis pluviisque et solibus icta. (Lucr. 6.1101–2); . . . fide accepta seque et sua omnia et oppidum proconsuli tradit. (B. Afr. 93.3); . . . Adherbali suadent uti seque et oppidum Iugurthae tradat . . . (Sal. Jug. 26.1); . . . venti / confligunt, Zephyrusque Notusque et laetus Eois / Eurus equis. (Verg. A. 2.416–18); Ipsa subit manibusque undantis flectit habenas / cuncta gerens, vocemque et corpus et arma Metisci. (Verg. A. 12.471–2); Te fontium qui celat

⁹² See Sjögren (1900: 131–2). For a survey of the instances, see TLL s.v. et 887.36ff. ⁹³ This example is discussed by Bagordo (2001: 82).

Conjunctive (or: copulative) coordinators  origines / Nilusque et Hister, te rapidus Tigris . . . (Hor. Carm. 4.14.45–6); Tela in hostem hastaque et gladius. (Liv. 1.43.2); . . . tumultus eo pavore signaque et ordines turbavit ut . . . (Liv. 2.59.7); Laudat digitosque manusque / bracchiaque et nudos media plus parte lacertos. (Ov. Met. 1.500–1); . . . dum Augustus aetate validus seque et domum et pacem sustentavit. (Tac. Ann. 1.4.1); . . . ratus regnumque et domum suam procul iniuria fore. (Tac. Ann. 14.31.1) Adjectives, adjectival phrases, and other attributes: . . . alterius quoniam’st ipsum pars primaque et una . . . (Lucr. 1.604) Adverbs: . . . ut res rationesque vostrorum omnium / bene expedire voltis peregrique et domi . . . (Pl. Am. 4–5) Finite and non-finite verb forms: Sileteque et tacete atque animum advortite . . . (Pl. Poen. 3—NB: see also § 19.36);⁹⁴ Exerce vocem quam per vivisque et clues. (Pl. Poen. 13); Amoque et laudo et vehementer desidero. (Ter. Hec. 488); . . . quae voles / faciamque et dicam. (Ter. Ph. 1050–1) Clauses: Illic tegumenque removit / et posuit pennas . . . (Ov. Met. 1.674–5)

The reverse order et . . . -que is less common, and many instances are rejected or emended.⁹⁵ The first examples date from Cicero’s time. Unlike instances of -que . . . et, occurrences of et . . . -que with words and phrases are rare (the first attested example of its use with nouns is (c)) and most are found in prose, as in (d). They are probably better regarded as a change of construction due to the complexity of the sentence. (c)

. . . debetis dare . . . operam ut quam paratissimi et (del. Cratander, edd.) ab exercitu reliquisque rebus pro vestra salute . . . confligamus. (‘. . . you should . . . take care that in military force and all other respects we are as well equipped as possible to join battle in your defence . . .’ Brut. Planc. Fam. 11.13a.2— NB: et outside the prepositional phrase and -que inside is very strange)

(d)

. . . unusquisque vestrum qui et ipsi incensi sunt studio quod ad agrum colendum attinet vitamque hanc rusticam . . . et honestissimam et suavissimam esse arbitrantur. (‘. . . each of you, who of their own accord are inspired by zeal for everything that pertains to agriculture, and consider this country life . . . to be most honourable and most agreeable.’ Cic. S. Rosc. 48) Supplement: Constituents: Nouns and noun phrases: Namque temperatissimae ad utramque partem et corporum membris animorumque vigoribus pro fortitudine sunt in Italia gentes. (Vitr. 6.1.11); Interim quae sunt communia et pomis omnibusque sucis saporum genera XIII reperiuntur. (Plin. Nat. 15.106)

⁹⁴ For this example, usually but unnecessarily regarded as a quotation from Ennius, see Jocelyn (1969: 104–10). ⁹⁵ See TLL s.v. et 888.20ff. For (putative) cases of ‘redundant’ et . . . -que, see Goodyear ad Tac. Ann. 1.65.4.



Coordination Clauses: Namque et in Lysandri, qui Lacedaemoniorum clarissimus fuerat, statua quae Delphis stabat in capite corona subito exstitit . . . stellaeque aureae, quae Delphis erant a Lacedaemoniis positae post navalem illam victoriam Lysandri . . . stellae aureae, quas dixi, Delphis positae paulo ante Leuctricam pugnam deciderunt neque repertae sunt. (Cic. Div. 1.75); Quae quidem omnia et innumerabilia praeterea quis est quin intellegat et eos qui fecerint dignitatis splendore ductos immemores fuisse utilitatum suarum nosque, cum ea laudemus, nulla alia re nisi honestate duci? (Cic. Fin. 5.64—NB: Madvig ad loc. is still worth reading); Igitur et Epaminondas, princeps meo iudicio Graeciae, fidibus praeclare cecinisse dicitur, Themistoclesque aliquot ante annos cum in epulis recusaret lyram, est habitus indoctior. (Cic. Tusc. 1.4); . . . quod et illa prima facile in contraria vitia convertuntur, ut exsistat ex rege dominus . . . quodque ipsa genera generibus saepe conmutantur novis . . . (Cic. Rep. 1.69); . . . labore et perseverantia nautarum et (del. Dinter) vim tempestatis superari posse sperabat praetervectosque Dyrrachium magna vi venti nihilo setius sequebatur. (Caes. Civ. 3.26.3); Aeneas, quamquam et sociis dare tempus humandis / praecipitant curae turbataque funere mens est, / vota deum primo victor solvebat Eoo. (Verg. A. 11.2–4); Sed et hunc innata libido / exstimulat pronumque genus regionibus illis / in Venerem est. (Ov. Met. 6.458–60); . . . Nero et iuventutem proximas per provincias quaesitam supplendis Orientis legionibus admovere legionesque ipsas propius Armeniam conlocari iubet . . . (Tac. Ann. 13.7.1)

The correlative use of -que . . . atque is very rare; it is found from Lucretius (once) and Virgil onwards. This combination primarily links pairs of constituents, as in (e), but compare (f).⁹⁶ (e)

. . . Bistoniasque plagas atque Ismara propter . . . (‘. . . near the coasts of the Bistones and Ismara . . .’ Lucr. 5.31)

(f)

Saepe exiguus mus / sub terris posuitque domos atque horrea fecit . . . (‘Often under the ground the tiny mouse sets up a home and builds his storehouses . . .’ Verg. G. 1.181–2) Supplement: Nouns and noun phrases: Mortua quin etiam iungebat corpora vivis / componens manibusque manus atque oribus ora . . . (Verg. A. 8.845–6); Et Acarnanas quos aegre ferrent Aetoli a corpore suo diremptos restituturum se in antiquam formulam iurisque ac dicionis eorum. (Liv. 26.24.7); Atque illa . . . seque ac maiores et posteros municipali adultero foedabat . . . (Tac. Ann. 4.3.4) Adjectives: . . . esto / liberque ac sapiens praetoribus ac Iove dextro. (Pers. 5.114–15) Adverbs: . . . quidque furor valeat Penthea caede satisque / ac super ostendit. (Ov. Met. 4.430–1)

. Correlative combination of et and ac/atque The combination et . . . ac/atque is practically unattested, and most instances are dubious.⁹⁷ An example is (a). ⁹⁶ The material can be found in TLL s.v. atque 1054.76ff. ⁹⁷ See TLL s.v. atque 1055.14ff. and s.v. et 888.59.

Conjunctive (or: copulative) coordinators  (a)

. . . ibi tum et pabulum multum, quod in campis aret, ac cultura arborum aptior . . . (‘. . . because there is abundant forage at that time, whereas it is dry in the plains, and the cultivation of the trees is more convenient . . .’ Var. R. 1.6.5)

. Correlative combinations of nec/neque with another conjunctive coordinator Correlative use of the combination nec/neque . . . -que (in that order) is attested from Cicero onwards, but it is very rare. An example is (a). Some sequences are dubious, as in (b).⁹⁸ All examples quoted in the literature concern coordination of clauses. (a)

Ex quo intellegitur nec intemperantiam propter se esse fugiendam temperantiamque expetendam . . . (‘This clearly proves that Intemperance need not be shunned for its own sake, and that Temperance should be coveted . . .’ Cic. Fin. 1.48)

(b)

Sed nec illa extincta sunt alunturque potius et augentur cogitatione et memoria mea et, si illis plane orbatus essem, magnum tamen adfert mihi aetas ipsa solacium. (‘But those experiences with him are not dead and are rather nourished and made more vivid by my reflection and memory; and even if I were utterly deprived of them, yet my age would of itself afford me great relief . . .’ Cic. Amic. 104) Supplement: . . . perficiam . . . ut neque bonus quisquam intereat paucorumque poena vos omnes salvi esse possitis. (Cic. Catil. 2.28); Nec enim in Torquati sermone quicquam implicatum aut tortuosum fuit, nostraque, ut mihi videtur, dilucida oratio. (Cic. Fin. 3.3); Nec enim divinationem quam probatis ullam esse arbitror fatumque illud esse quo omnia contineri dicitis contemno. (Cic. Luc. 126); . . . si istic adfuissem, neque tibi defuissem coramque meum dolorem tibi declarassem. (Serv. Fam. 4.5.1)

Correlative use of the combination nec/neque . . . ac/atque is exceptional.⁹⁹ An example is (c). The examples quoted in the literature concern coordination of clauses. (c)

Naturam Oceani atque aestus neque quaerere huius operis est ac multi rettulere. (‘The character and tides of the ocean it is not the function of this work to investigate, and, besides, many have recorded them.’ Tac. Agr. 10.6)

Correlative use of the combination nec/neque . . . et (in this order) to combine clauses is attested from Plautus onwards, as in (d); the reverse order is found from Cicero’s time onwards, as in (e). Beginning with Cicero, both iterations are only rarely used to combine constituents, as in (f)–(h).¹⁰⁰ An inherent contrast between the two conjoins ⁹⁸ It is taken as a combination nec/neque . . . -que by K.-St.: II.48 and by Powell in his (2006) OCT edition. Further instances can be found in Merguet (Phil.) s.v. nec 679, a. ⁹⁹ See TLL s.v. atque 1055.23ff. ¹⁰⁰ For a survey of the combinations, see TLL s.v. et 888.65ff.



Coordination

can be made explicit by the addition of tamen ‘nevertheless’ or vero ‘indeed’ (see the Supplement). (d)

Nec munda adaeque es, ut soles (hoc sis vide, ut petivit / suspiritum alte), et pallida es. (‘You’re not as neat as usual (just look how she heaved a deep sigh) and you’re pale.’ Pl. Cist. 55–6)

(e)

. . . Stloga, iudice hoc nostro, primario viro, qui et rem agnoscit neque hominem ignorat. (‘. . . Stloga, a juror in this case, an eminent man, and one who realizes what is going on and is not ignorant.’ Cic. Flac. 46)

(f)

C. Canius, eques Romanus, nec infacetus et satis litteratus . . . (‘Gaius Canius, a Roman knight, a man not lacking wit and sufficiently literate . . .’ Cic. Off. 3.58)

(g)

. . . patebat via et certa neque longa. (‘. . . a road safe and of no great length lay open before him.’ Cic. Phil. 11.4)

(h)

. . . nam cetera neque enumerare et minus serere dignamur . . . (‘. . . for we do not think it worthwhile to enumerate the rest, and still less to sow them . . .’ Col. 2.10.24) Supplement: nec/neque . . . et: Constituents: Nouns and noun phrases: . . . idque neque amoris mediocris et ingeni summi ac sapientiae iudico. (Cic. Att. 1.20.1); Hoc nec mihi placebat et multo illi minus. (Cic. Att. 14.8.1) Adjectives and adverbs: . . . ut ego, qui neque usu satis et ingenio parum possum, cum patrono disertissimo comparer . . . (Cic. Quinct. 2); . . . M.  Buculeius, homo neque meo iudicio stultus et suo valde sapiens et ab iuris studio non abhorrens . . . (Cic. de Orat. 1.179); Ita caesi in medio praedatores, neque ad pugnam viribus pares et ad fugam saeptis omnibus viis. (Liv. 2.11.10—NB: variation of construction) Clauses: Vide, Parmeno, / quid agas, ne neque illi prosis et tu pereas. (Ter. Eu. 964–5); Ita neque fumosa erunt et ardebunt bene. (Cato Agr. 130.1); Aberat omnis dolor, qui si adesset, nec molliter ferret et tamen medicis plus quam philosophis uteretur. (Cic. Fin. 2.64); (sc. natura animi atque vis) Quae si est una ex omnibus quae se ipse moveat, neque nata certe est et aeterna est. (Cic. Rep. 6.28); Neque enim naves erant aliae quibus reportari possent et omnia deerant quae ad reficiendas naves erant usui . . . (Caes. Gal. 4.29.4); . . . neque regerentur magis quam regerent casus et eo magnitudinis procederent, ubi pro mortalibus gloria aeterni fierent. (Sal. Jug. 1.5); . . . super ripas Tiberis effusus lenibus stagnis nec adiri usquam ad iusti cursum poterat amnis et posse quamvis languida mergi aqua infantes spem ferentibus dabat. (Liv. 1.4.4); Sed neque cur morerer quicquam mihi comperit actum, / et minus infestus quam fuit esse potest. (Ov. Pont. 1.2.93–4)

Conjunctive (or: copulative) coordinators  et . . . ne/neque: Constituents: Adjectives and adverbs: Neque segnius ad hostes bellum apparatur qui et parti ante decoris memores neque ignari auctarum virium hostis suas quoque vires augent. (Liv. 7.7.4); At olim et pauca erant balnea nec ullo cultu exornata. (Sen. Ep. 86.9) Clauses: Nam et in recentibus pomariis . . . alii conserunt hortos, alii quid aliud neque cum convaluerunt arbores, idem faciunt, ne violent radices. (Var. R. 1.23.6); Itaque intellegitis et animum ei praesto fuisse nec consilium defuisse. (Cic. Phil. 13.13); . . . et beatus esse poterit virtute una praeditus carens ceteris, nec tamen illud tibi concedetur, praeter virtutem nihil in bonis esse ducendum. (Cic. Fin. 4.51); Nam et perturbatis animis inducuntur—accepimus enim deorum cupiditates aegritudines iracundias—nec vero, ut fabulae ferunt, bellis proeliisque caruerunt . . . (Cic. N.D. 2.70); . . . ita sunt Stoici assensi, ut et quicquid honestum esset id utile esse censerent nec utile quicquam, quod non honestum. (Cic. Off. 3.11); . . . et ego regem nostrum Cluilium causam huiusce esse belli audisse videor, nec te dubito, Tulle, eadem prae te ferre. (Liv. 1.23.7)

. Multiple conjunctive coordination Multiple coordination concerns the coordination of more than two conjoins either by two or more syndetic devices or by a combination of syndetic and asyndetic devices, with the first conjoin lacking its own coordinator. Examples of the first type are (a) and (b), of the second (c) and (d) (asyndeton is marked by °). In (a), the same coordinator is repeated; (b) shows variation. In (c), the coordinator et follows two asyndeta; in (d) the asyndetic batiocis follows two conjoins with an overt coordinator et. The examples in this section exemplify coordination of nouns and noun phrases. For other categories, see the following sections. (a)

Omnium primum salutem dicito matri et patri / et cognatis et si quem alium benevolentem videris. (‘First of all give my regards to my mother and father and relatives and if you see anyone else who wishes me well.’ Pl. Capt. 389–90)

(b)

. . . id petam id persequarque corde et animo atque auribus. (‘. . . with heart, and mind, and ears I will look for and strive after what benefits you most.’ Pl. Capt. 387)

(c)

(sc. accipiam te) Lepido victu ° vino ° unguentis et inter pocula pulpamentis. (‘With lovely food, wine, perfumes, and with titbits between the cups.’ Pl. Ps. 947)

(d)

Quibus divitiae domi sunt scaphio et (scaphiis cj. Bothe)¹⁰¹ cantharis / ° batiocis bibunt. (‘Those who have wealth at home drink from a beaker, tankards, and goblets.’ Pl. St. 693–4) ¹⁰¹ Most editors follow Bothe, but see Sjögren (1900: 32) and TLL s.v. et 878.38f.



Coordination

. Multiple syndetic conjunctive coordination All three conjunctive coordinators are used in multiple conjunctive coordination, both with and without variation in the other coordinators. Et is the most common coordinator used in this way, atque the least. In addition to exx. (a) and (b) with et in § 19.38, see (a) and (b) below with -que and (c) and (d) with atque. Often, the variation of coordinators correlates with a difference in hierarchy (see §  19.66). These examples concern coordination of nouns and noun phrases. For other categories, see the Supplement. (a)

Iube / domi mi tibique tuaeque uxori celeriter cenam coqui. (‘Have a dinner cooked at home quickly, for myself and you and your wife.’ Pl. St. 608–9)

(b)

Harundinem fert sportulamque et hamulum piscarium. (‘He’s carrying his fishing rod, a basket, and a fishhook.’ Pl. St. 289)

(c)

Iam perdidisti te atque me atque operam meam . . . (‘Now you’ve wasted yourself and me and my efforts . . .’ Pl. Bac. 132)

(d)

Larvae hunc atque intemperiae insaniaeque agitant senem. (‘Evil spirits and madness and insanity are troubling this old chap.’ Pl. Aul. 642) Supplement: (without variation):¹⁰² -que: Emit hospitalem is filium imprudens senex / puerum illum eumque adoptat sibi pro filio / eumque heredem fecit, quom ipse obiit diem. (Pl. Poen. 75–7); Immo Athenis natus altusque educatusque Atticis. (Pl. Rud. 741); . . . qui uno tempore fratris uxorem speratosque liberos fratremque ipsum . . . interfecerit . . . (Cic. Clu. 125); . . . plena domus caelati argenti optimi multaeque stragulae vestis pretiosorumque mancipiorum. (Cic. Ver. 2.35); Tam claram tamque testatam rem tamque iustam, Buthrotiam, non tenebimus aliqua ex parte? (Cic. Att. 14.12.1); . . . percursis Asiatici in rem publicam officiis recentique adversus Britanniam militia quaeque alia conciliandae misericordiae videbantur, liberum mortis arbitrium ei permisit. (Tac. Ann. 11.3.1) ac/atque: Nam illius oculi atque aures atque opinio / transfugere ad nos. (Pl. Mil. 589–90); Facite enim ut non solum mores et adrogantiam eius sed etiam voltum atque amictum atque etiam illam usque ad talos demissam purpuram recordemini. (Cic. Clu. 111); . . . a constantia atque a mente atque a se ipse discessit? (Cic. Div. 2.114); Mella contrahunt sucumque dulcissimum atque subtilissimum ac saluberrimum . . . (Plin. Nat. 11.11) et: Malum et scelestum et periurum aibat esse me. (Pl. Ps. 1083); Immo vero pulchre discedo et probe / et praeter spem. (Ter. Ph. 1047–8); Hi sunt anni consumpti in quaestura et legatione Asiatica et praetura urbana et praetura Siciliensi. (Cic. Ver. 1.34); Cogitare enim et providere et discere et docere et invenire aliquid et tam multa

¹⁰² Collections of instances can easily be found in the TLL s.v. atque and s.v. et, as well as in the lexica to individual authors. For that reason, the Supplement is relatively brief.

Conjunctive (or: copulative) coordinators  [alia] meminisse, amare odisse, cupere timere, angi laetari, haec et similia eorum in horum quattuor generum inesse nullo putat. (Cic. Tusc. 1.22); . . . qui a finibus Allobrogum et lacu Lemanno et flumine Rhodano ad summas Alpes pertinent. (Caes. Gal. 3.1.1); Iam adulescentulus cum declamaret, apte et convenienter [et decenter] hoc genere utebatur. (Sen. Con. 7.pr.6); Illi ut segnem et desidem et circo ac theatris corruptum militem, hi peregrinum et externum increpabant. (Tac. Hist. 2.21.4) (with variation): -que: Imbres fluctusque atque procellae infensae frangere malum . . . (Pl. Trin. 836); . . . quos hieme saltem in domos ac tecta reduci oporteat et aliquo tempore anni parentes liberosque ac coniuges invisere . . . (Liv. 5.2.12) . . . missis ad eum undique legatis obsidibusque datis et pace facta constituit cohortes duas in Nantuatibus conlocare . . . (Caes. Gal. 3.1.4); Iunias triumphavit de Cheruscis Chattisque et Angrivariis quaeque aliae nationes usque ad Albim colunt. (Tac. Ann. 2.41.2) ac/atque: Omnis enim calor ac frigus mediique tepores . . . (Lucr. 2.517); Contra Vitellius ac Veranius ceterique Germanicum comitati tendebant . . . (Tac. Ann. 3.10.1) Quibus rebus et agris et urbibus et nationibus rem publicam atque hoc imperium et populi Romani nomen auxerunt. (Cic. S. Rosc. 50); Rura insuper arvis atque vinetis et pascuis silvisque varia . . . (Suet. Nero 31.1) et: At ego te per crura et talos tergumque optestor tuom . . . (Pl. Rud. 635); . . . id eum recte et ordine exque re publica fecisse . . . (Cic. Phil. 5.36); . . . propter virtutis caelestem quandam et divinam tantamque praestantiam . . . (Cic. Fin. 5.95); . . . navibus quas ex Pictonibus et Santonis reliquisque pacatis regionibus convenire iusserat . . . (Caes. Gal. 3.11.5) Est etiam quiete et pure atque eleganter actae aetatis placida ac lenis senectus. (Cic. Sen. 13); Quem ego diem si videro et si in vestrum complexum venero ac si et vos et me ipsum reciperaro, satis magnum mihi fructum videbor percepisse et vestrae pietatis et meae. (Cic. Fam. 14.1.3); Idem hoc L. Lentulo, qui superiore anno consul fuerat, et P. Lentulo consulari ac nonnullis aliis acciderat Rhodi. (Caes. Civ. 3.102.7)

. Multiple mixed (syndetic and asyndetic) conjunctive coordination Sequences of three or more conjoins, of which two or more are asyndetically linked and one or more are linked by at least one conjunctive coordinator, are found from Early Latin on. Examples are (a)–(c), with -que, atque, and et, respectively. Note that in (b) the conjoin linked by atque is continued by three other asyndetically linked conjoins. (a)

Nam amorem haec cuncta vitia sectari solent, / cura ° aegritudo nimiaque elegantia. (‘Well, normally all these vices go hand in hand with love: worry, distress, and excessive refinement.’ Pl. Mer. 18–19)

(b)

Os habet ° linguam ° perfidiam ° malitiam atque audaciam ° / confidentiam ° confirmitatem ° fraudulentiam. (‘She has a mouth, a tongue, perfidy, wickedness and boldness, self-confidence, selfassurance, and deceit.’ Pl. Mil. 189–90)

 (c)

Coordination Apollo, quaeso te, ut des pacem propitius / ° salutem et sanitatem nostrae familiae . . . (‘Apollo, I ask you to give us peace in your mercy, health and well-being for our household . . .’ Pl. Mer. 678–9)

It has been observed that sequences with final et or ac/atque are rare in Cicero and Caesar; beginning with Madvig’s conjecture on (d) the attested instances have often been emended in some way, without good reason.¹⁰³ Only cases like (e) were accepted, where et is taken to mean omnino.¹⁰⁴ Certain cases are explained as belonging to different levels (see § 19.66). (d)

. . . rebus iis quas nos bonas ducimus concessit ut haberentur aptae¹⁰⁵ ° habiles (aptae et habiles cj. Madvig, aestimabiles cj. Heine) et ad naturam accommodatae . . . (‘. . . he allowed the things that we call goods to be considered “fitting”, “proper” and “suited to nature” . . .’ Cic. Fin. 4.56)

(e)

Vox ° gestus et omnis actio sine lepore (sc. erant). (‘His voice, his gesture, and his whole delivery were without charm.’ Cic. Brut. 238) Supplement: -que: Mars pater, te precor quaesoque uti sies volens propitius mihi ° domo ° familiaeque nostrae (Cato Agr. 141.2); . . . eaque res vobis populoque Romano pacem ° tranquillitatem ° otium concordiamque adferat. (Cic. Mur. 1—NB: compare: . . . id quod ego . . . adfero, pacem ° tranquillitatem ° otium. (Cic. Agr. 2.102)); . . . omnia non modo dicere, verum etiam libenter ° audacter libereque dicere. (Cic. S. Rosc. 31); . . . ut . . . ea res fauste ° feliciter prospereque eveniret (Cic. Mur. 2); Quae maiores nostri quia valere censebant, idcirco omnibus rebus agendis ‘QUOD BONUM, ° FAUSTUM, ° FELIX ° FORTUNATUMQUE ESSET’ praefabantur . . . (Cic. Div. 1.102); . . . licet magnifice ° graviter animoseque vivere . . . (Cic. Off. 1.92); . . . ex ea proficiscuntur honestae voluntates ° sententiae ° actiones omnisque recta ratio . . . (Cic. Tusc. 4.34); . . . cuncta a Bestia ° Albino Metelloque imperata nave fecerant. (Sal. Jug. 77.4); . . . quod bonum ° fauixque sit sod (CIL VIII. (Medeina))¹⁰⁶ ac/atque: I hac mecum intro, ubi tibi sit lepide victibus ° vino atque unguentis. (Pl. Bac. 1181); Quid? antepones Veneri iaientaculo? / # Me ° te atque hosce omnis. (Pl. Cur. 73–4); Sed habet patrem quendam avidum ° miserum atque aridum . . . (Ter. Hau. 526); . . . non est incredibile putandum istius quoque animum ferum ° crudelem atque inhumanum cupide ad inimici perniciem profectum. (Rhet. Her. 2.29); . . . te non tam res gestas quam mores (mores del. Madvig, mores et cj. Shackleton Bailey) ° instituta atque (institutamque cj. Lehmann) vitam imperatorum spectare solere . . . (Cic. Fam. 15.4.14); . . . omnia removistis: avaritiam ° inperitiam atque superbiam. (Sal. Jug. 85.45)

¹⁰³ See Merten (1893: 59–60) and Pinkster (1969). ¹⁰⁴ See, for example, TLL s.v. et 877.8ff. ¹⁰⁵ Some editors have apte in their apparatus criticus. ¹⁰⁶ Part of a Punic–Latin bilingual inscription discussed by Adams (2003b: 224–5).

Conjunctive (or: copulative) coordinators  et: . . . breve iam relicuom vitae spatium est: quin ego / voluptate ° vino et amore delectavero. (Pl. Mer. 547–8); Sumito testam picatam ° eo prunam lenem indito ° suffito serta et schoeno et palma, quam habent unguentarii, ° ponito in dolio et operito . . . (Cato Agr. 113.1); . . . eam confeci sine molestia / ° sine sumptu et sine dispendio. (Ter. Eu. 928–9); . . . neget in [cornibus] bovom ° hominum et equorum natura similitudines proportione constare. (Var. L. 9.33); Cum commiserari ° conqueri et ex illius invidia deonerare aliquid et in te traicere coeperit . . . (Cic. Div. Caec. 46); . . . qui ex bello (belli cj. Madvig) ° caede et fuga nunc primum audent contra M. Fonteium inermem consistere. (Cic. Font. 14); In contemptionem adducentur, si eorum inertia ° neglegentia ° ignavia ° desidiosum studium et luxuriosum otium proferetur. (Cic. Inv. 1.22); Haec erunt quae . . . dicentur . . . in homines claros ° nobiles et honore usos . . . (Cic. Inv. 1.103); In picturis alios horrida ° inculta ° abdita et (abdita et del. Madvig) opaca, contra alios nitida ° laeta ° conlustrata delectant. (Cic. Orat. 36); . . . temperantia ° modestia ° iustitia et omnis honestas perfecte absoluta est. (Cic. Fin. 4.18); Qua de re cum ad me ita suaviter ° diligenter ° officiose et humaniter (v.l. ° humaniter) scripseris ut . . . (Cic. Att. 1.20.1); In controversiam autem veniebant Philippopolis ° Tricca ° Phaloria et Eurymenae et cetera circa eas oppida . . . (Liv. 39.25.3); . . . alios tormentis hastas ° saxa et faces ingerere. (Tac. Ann. 2.81.2)¹⁰⁷

The reverse order—with two or more syndetically linked conjoins followed by one or more asyndetically linked ones—is less common.¹⁰⁸ Examples are (f)–(h). (f)

Egomet autem quom extemplo arcum [mihi] et pharetram et sagittas sumpsero ° / cassidem in caput, dormibo placidule in tabernaculo. (‘But as soon as I have taken a helmet for my head and bow and quiver and arrows . . . I’ll sleep calmly in the tent.’ Pl. Trin. 725–6)

(g)

Itaque illi amanti suo hospiti morem gerit / nosque opera consilioque adhortatur ° iuvat. (‘And so the old man humours that lovesick guest of his and encourages and supports us with help and advice.’ Pl. Mil. 136–7)

(h)

Concedite atque apscedite omnes ° de via decedite . . . (‘Get away and get out, all of you, get off the street . . .’ Pl. Am. 984)

. The semantic relation between conjunctively linked conjoins Depending on their respective meanings and on contextual information the relationships between conjunctively linked conjoins can be interpreted in various ways. Scholars vary in their approach to these different interpretations and in the number of interpretations they recognize, which may also depend on their native language: in some languages the various available coordinators correspond more precisely with ¹⁰⁷ For a very complete survey of instances of et used for the last conjoin after a sequence of asyndetically linked conjoins, see TLL s.v. et 877.1ff. See also Lodge s.v. atque 180 § 17; s.v. et 538 § l. ¹⁰⁸ For et, see TLL s.v. 878.34ff.



Coordination

the Latin idiom than in others.¹⁰⁹ Dictionaries indicate cases in which a conjunctive coordinator might be replaced by a disjunctive (rare) or an adversative coordinator. Random examples from the scholarly literature are (a)–(c) and (d)–(f), respectively.¹¹⁰ In reality, Latin authors apparently preferred to use a conjunctive coordinator in these cases, and it is advisable to take the coordinator as a conjunctive coordinator with its proper meaning. (a)

. . . sic animus nonnumquam laeditur ipse / laetitiaque viget . . . (‘. . . so the mind sometimes feels pain by itself or waxes strong with joy . . .’ Lucr. 3.149–50—NB: see Kenney ad loc.)

(b)

. . . nec sibi quaeque sine alterius vi posse videtur / corporis atque animi seorsum sentire potestas . . . (‘. . . neither power of either body or mind can feel separately without the power of the other . . .’ Lucr. 3.333–4—NB: Kenney’s paraphrase ad loc.)

(c)

Vineis incensis, multis hostium volneratis et occisis consulum quoque alterum . . . prope interfecerunt. (‘Siege shelters were burned, many of their enemies were wounded or slayed, and one of the consuls . . . they almost killed.’ Liv. 2.17.3)

(d)

. . . homines, cum quaedam etiam praeclara cuperent eaque nescirent nec ubi nec qualia essent . . . . (‘. . . human beings, since they desire some things that are, indeed, noble but do not know of these things where or of what nature they are . . .’ Cic. Tusc. 3.4)

(e)

Sed ubi is nunc est? # Ubi ego minime atque ipsus se volt maxume. (‘But where is he now? # Where I want him to be least and where he wants to be most.’ Pl. Capt. 640)

(f)

Valeo et valui rectius. (‘I’m well, but I’ve been better.’ Pl. Trin. 50) Apart from the disjunctive and adversative interpretations illustrated above, others may arise from the relationship between the meanings of the conjoins. These are also mere interpretations and the coordinators retain their proper meaning.¹¹¹ A few examples with et are (g)–(i). (g) Perii et tu periisti. (‘I’m dead, and you’re dead, too.’ Pl. Cas. 633—‘et etiam’) (h) . . . omnia haec quae putantur in communi vitae consuetudine mala ac molesta et fugienda . . .

¹⁰⁹ See Kirk (1921). ¹¹⁰ For further examples of an adversative interpretation, see TLL s.v. atque 1074.16ff. and s.v. et 893.4ff.; for a disjunctive interpretation, see TLL s.v. et 894.30ff. For -que, see OLD s.v. §§ 7–8 and Gerber and Greef s.v. 1282 § c. For . . . prout bene ac secus cessit . . . at Plin. Pan. 44.8, see Galli (2019). ¹¹¹ So TLL s.v. 892.53ff. The examples are taken from that section.

Conjunctive (or: copulative) coordinators  (‘. . . all such things as in everyday life are thought evil and troublesome and necessary to be shunned . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 1.221—‘et ideo’) (i) . . . unguor, / ut illi placeam, et placeo, ut videor. (‘. . . I use the ointment in order to please her. And I do seem to please her.’ Pl. Cas. 227–8—‘et profecto’) Other labels for what are in fact interpretations which are used in the literature are ‘epexegetic’,¹¹² as in (j), or ‘explicative’ ‘and so’,¹¹³ as in (k). (j) . . . ipsa animi vis / . . . posset . . . / tandem in eodem homine atque in eodem vase manere. (‘. . . the force of mind itself could . . . at least remain in the same man or the same vessel.’ Lucr. 3.790–3) (k) Quod genus in nostris membris et corpore toto / mixta latens animi vis est . . . (‘Even as in our limbs and our whole body the force of the mind is secretly intermingled . . .’ Lucr. 3.276–7)

The semantic relation between conjunctively linked conjoins can be made explicit or more specific by adverbs of all sorts. Some of the most frequent combinations are item ‘as well’ + -que; atque/ac + adeo ‘and what is more’, etiam ‘and even’, quoque ‘and also’, potius ‘and rather’, ita ‘and in that way’; et + etiam ‘and even’, quidem ‘and what is more’, tamen ‘and yet’. See also maxime in (o). (l)

Nam si ita diceres, qui iuris consultus esset, esse eum oratorem, itemque qui esset orator, iuris eundem esse consultum . . . (‘For if you were to put it in this way, that the man learned in law is an orator, and  likewise the orator is at the same time one learned in the law . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 1.236)

(m)

Qui illum Persam atque omnis Persas atque etiam omnis personas / male di omnes perdant! (‘May all the gods ruin that Persian and all Persians and even all stage characters!’ Pl. Per. 783–4)

(n)

Pompeius N. Magium de pace misit et tamen oppugnatur. (‘Pompey has sent N. Magius to sue for peace and is besieged just the same.’ Cic. Att. 9.13a.1)

(o)

Ceteris de rebus maximeque de pecunia, cum Pansae mortem ignorares, scripsisti . . . (‘You write on other points, especially money, since you are unaware of Pansa’s death . . .’ Cic. Fam. 12.30.6)

¹¹² See OLD s.v. et § 11. ¹¹³ The term and paraphrase are used by Kenney ad loc. Ex. (j) is also taken from Kenney. See also Risselada (1984) on explicative relations between coordinated adjectives.



Coordination

. The use of cum resembling a comitative coordinator In §  4.38, two-place verbs that require an associative second argument are discussed. An example of this is the verb osculor ‘to kiss’, for which the associative argument can be marked by cum ‘with’. With these types of verbs, the two entities involved can also be expressed as a plural subject, with the two noun phrases coordinated by a conjunctive coordinator, as in (a), repeated from § 4.38. A mixed form of expression is shown in (b). Here, the verb is in the plural although the subject Syrus is singular, as both Syrus and ille voster are naturally involved in the action consusurrant. The same phenomenon is also found with associative adjuncts (see § 10.72 fin.), as in (c), and with non-subject constituents, as in (d), where A. Cottam cum T.  Sabino behaves as a plural constituent with two coordinated members, as appears from the plural form legatos. (a)

Modo nescioquis inspectavit . . . Philocomasium atque hospitem / osculantis. (‘Just now someone saw . . . Philocomasium and my guest kissing.’ Pl. Mil. 174–6)

(b)

Syru’ cum illo vostro consusurrant, conferunt / consilia ad adulescentes. (‘Syrus is whispering with that slave of yours, and they’re reporting their plans to the young men.’ Ter. Hau. 473–4)

(c)

Cana Fides et Vesta, Remo cum fratre Quirinus / iura dabunt. (‘White-haired Faith and Vesta, Quirinus with his brother Remus, shall give laws.’ Verg. A. 1.292–3)

(d)

Aurunculeium Cottam cum Titurio Sabino legatos amisimus. (‘We lost the lieutenant-generals Aurunculeius Cotta and Titurius Sabinus.’ Flor. Epit. 1.45.10)

This use of cum, more or less equivalent to et or ac/atque, resembles the use of comitative coordinators in other languages.¹¹⁴ However, it is not a productive coordinating device in Latin.¹¹⁵ Supplement: Scipio interim cum Damasippo et Torquato et Plaetorio Rustiano navibus longis diu multumque iactati cum Hispaniam peterent . . . (B. Afr. 96.1); . . . Demosthenes cum ceteris qui bene de re publica meriti existimabantur populi scito in exilium erant expulsi. (Nep. Phoc. 2.2); Summisere oculos cum duce turba suo. (Ov. Fast. 3.372); Nam et castra expugnata sunt atque ipse dux cum aliquot principibus capiuntur. (Liv. 21.60.7); Hermeros / cum Phile / tero · et Caphi / so hic · futu / erunt (CIL IV.2192 (Pompeii)); Apelles Mus cum fratre Dextro / amabiliter · futuimus bis / bina(s). (CIL IV.10678 (Pompeii)); Annua nunc maestis ferimus tibi iusta querellis / . . . cum genero et natis consocer Ausonius (Auson. 189. 11–12S=X.30.11–12 Green) ¹¹⁴ For a survey of languages using the AND and the WITH device, see Stassen (2000). ¹¹⁵ For further examples, see TLL s.v. cum 1377.72ff. ‘de structura q.d. ad sensum’.

Disjunctive (or: alternative) coordinators  Fecit amor . . . volucres cum paelice regem . . . (Ov. Tr. 2.389); tituli heic / ordinantur et / sculpuntur / aedibus sacreis / qum operum / publicorum (CIL X. (Panormus))¹¹⁶

19.43 Disjunctive (or: alternative) coordinators The relationship between alternatives linked by disjunctive (or: alternative) coordinators can be one of mutual exclusivity (It will be a boy or a girl), one of non-exclusivity (Give me a pen or a pencil—it doesn’t matter which), or one of equivalence, wherein the second option is a reformulation or a correction of the first, as in (a). (a)

. . . in ardore caelesti qui aether vel caelum nominatur. (‘. . . in the fiery heat of heaven that is entitled the aether or sky.’ Cic. N.D. 2.41)

Latin has four disjunctive coordinators: aut, vel, -ve, and sive (seu). Of these aut is by far the most common in all periods of Latin and is the one which has left its traces in the Romance languages (e.g. Fr. ou). Although it can be used to link two mutually exclusive alternatives from Early Latin onwards (for examples, see § 19.45), which is considered its original purpose,¹¹⁷ it is more common as a non-exclusive coordinator, especially in negative contexts (where English may use and/or). In Early and Classical Latin, vel is the second most frequent disjunctive coordinator, but is all but absent from certain authors, like Caesar and Livy. Its original meaning ‘or if you wish’¹¹⁸ applies in some cases in Early and Classical Latin (obviously not in legal texts). Often it is more or less equivalent to non-exclusive aut, but, unlike aut, it is usually used in positive contexts. The frequency of its use in a given text depends on the authorial preference. It is relatively frequent in Silver and Late Latin, especially with the jurists.¹¹⁹ The clitic coordinator -ve is the least frequent. It is used in legal contexts in Early and Classical Latin. Due to its clitic nature it is common with pronouns and subordinators (for example sive) and has certain metrical advantages in poetry. Its meaning is more or less equivalent to vel. It disappeared early on from the spoken language.¹²⁰ The words sive (in inscriptions also seive) and seu can be used in the same contexts, though the former is rare in poetry. All four of these coordinators can be used to link pairs of conjoins (simple coordination, §§ 19.44–9). The coordinators aut, vel, sive, and to some extent -ve can also be used in such a way that all conjoins are marked by a coordinator (correlative coordination, §§ 19.50–6). The same coordinators can furthermore be used for combinations ¹¹⁶ See the discussion of the inscription in Adams (2003b: 429). ¹¹⁷ For the etymology, see de Vaan (2008) s.v. The ‘exclusive’ instances in Lodge s.v. 201A–B take up half a column, the other uses five and a half. ¹¹⁸ See Sz.: 500. ¹¹⁹ For indications of its frequency in Late Latin, see Sz.: 501. ¹²⁰ According to Bal (p.c.) the proportion of aut, vel, and -ve in the BTL is 8 : 4 :1.



Coordination

of three or more conjoins (multiple coordination, §§ 19.57–9). An, which is common in multiple direct (§ 6.20) and indirect (§ 15.62) questions, is also used, albeit rarely, as a disjunctive coordinator from Cicero onwards.

. Simple disjunctive coordination Of the four disjunctive coordinators, vel and sive are not used for simple coordination as often as for correlative or multiple coordination.

. The simple use of the disjunctive coordinator aut Examples of aut linking conjoins that are mutually exclusive are (a) and (b).¹²¹ This is not a special use of aut, but results from the opposite meanings of the conjoins involved. An exclusive interpretation is unlikely if the context is explicitly or implicitly negative, as in (c), or in questions, as in (d).¹²² The use of aut instead of a conjunctive coordinator to link two (or more) ne argument clauses with verbs of fearing, as in (e), is also common (see § 15.37). (a)

Nam hodie Sicyoni necesse est me esse aut cras mortem exsequi. (‘I need to be in Sicyon today or die tomorrow.’ Pl. Ps. 995)

(b)

Id ergo est pronuntiatum quod est verum aut falsum. (‘A proposition then is a statement which is true or false.’ Cic. Tusc. 1.14)

(c)

Tantum superantibus aliis ac mergentibus malis nemo tribunos aut plebem timebat. (‘So greatly did other evils overtop and threaten to engulf them that no one feared the tribunes or the plebeians.’ Liv. 3.16.4)

(d)

Numquis servorum deliquit? Num ancillae aut servi tibi / responsant? (‘Did any of the servants commit an offence? Do the slave-girls or the slaves talk back to you?’ Pl. Men. 620–1)

(e)

. . . non verear ne iniuste aut graviter mi imperet. (‘. . . I shouldn’t be afraid that he would order me around in an unjust or harsh way.’ Pl. Capt. 308)

Aut can link various types of constituents, but is also used to link clauses. In addition to examples above consider (f)–(j). For the use of aut as a connector, see § 24.21. (f)

Ubi ego nunc Libanum requiram aut familiarem filium . . .? (‘Where should I now look for Libanus or for our young master . . .?’ Pl. As. 267—two noun phrases)

¹²¹ See TLL s.v. aut 1564.65 and K.-St.: II.100. ¹²² For discussion, see Orlandini (2001: 117–49) and Jennings (1994: 239–51; 2008). Negative and interrogative clauses have in common that they are ‘nonassertive’ (Quirk et al. 1985: 83–4). For the use of aut and -ve instead of a conjunctive coordinator in Lucretius, see Reinhardt (2010: 205–6), with references.

Disjunctive (or: alternative) coordinators  (g)

Non mihi isti placent Parmenones, Syri, / qui duas aut tris minas auferunt eris. (‘I don’t like those Parmenos and Syruses, who take two or three minas away from their masters.’ Pl. Bac. 649–50)

(h)

Nisi qui illud tractat aut movet, mutum est, tacet. (‘Unless someone pulls at it or moves it, it’s silent and quiet.’ Pl. Trin. 1005)

(i)

Certen’ vidit? # Tam hercle certe quam ego te aut tu me vides. (‘Has he seen her for certain? # For as certain as I see you or you me.’ Pl. Mer. 186)

(j)

Leno, tu autem amicam mihi des facito aut [auri] mihi reddas minam. (‘Pimp, you, on the other hand, must make sure to give me a girlfriend or to return my mina to me.’ Pl. Poen. 1414) Supplement: Constituents: Nouns and noun phrases: . . . quis parentem aut hospitem necasset . . . (Enn. scen. 211–12V=177–8J); Quid tibi hanc curatio est rem, verbero, aut muttitio? (Pl. Am. 519); Atque hoc idem in parentis, in amici re aut periculo fecerit. (Cic. Off. 1.154); Nec tamen omnes possunt esse Scipiones aut Maximi . . . (Cic. Sen. 13); Neque quisquam agri modum certum aut fines habet proprios . . . (Caes. Gal. 6.22.2) Adjectives, adjectival phrases, and other attributes: . . . si esse salvom vis me aut vitalem tibi. (Pl. Bac. 998); Em nunc ipsast opus ea aut, siquid potest, / meliore et callidiore. (Ter. Ph. 227–8); . . . neque homini infanti aut impotenti iniuste facta conducunt . . . (Cic. Fin. 1.52); . . . fractique motus, quales protervorum hominum aut mollium esse solent, contra naturam sunt . . . (Cic. Fin. 5.35); . . . quod ex omnibus saeculis vix tria aut quattuor nominantur paria amicorum. (Cic. Amic. 15); . . . uti inter novissimum hostium agmen et nostrum primum non amplius quinis aut senis milibus passuum interesset. (Caes. Gal. 1.15.5); . . . noctu dimittunt eos quos aut aetate aut viribus inferiores aut inermes habebant . . . (Hirt. Gal. 8.14.1) Adverbs: Quia, si facias recte aut commode, / me sinas curare ancillas, quae mea est curatio. (Pl. Cas. 260–1); . . . hos ego asotos bene quidem vivere aut beate numquam dixerim. (Cic. Fin. 2.23); . . . non esse in iis partem maximam positam beate aut secus vivendi. (Cic. Fin. 4.59); Non haec omnia fortuito aut sine consilio accidere potuisse. (Caes. Gal. 7.20.2) Prepositional phrases: Ni pagunt, in comitio aut in foro ante meridiem causam conicito. (Lex XII 1.7); Hoc genus oleae in XXV aut in XXX pedes conserito. (Cato Agr. 6.1); . . . omnia exempla cruciatusque edere, si qua res non ad nutum aut ad voluntatem eius facta sit. (Caes. Gal. 1.31.12) Verbs: Servin’ uxorem ducent aut poscent sibi? (Pl. Cas. 69—NB: non-exclusive in question); Nam omnia quae sumenda quaeque legenda aut optanda sunt inesse debent in summa bonorum . . . (Cic. Fin. 4.46); . . . quom aliquid minutatim et gradatim additur aut demitur. (Cic. Luc. 49) Clauses: . . . si vos eximat vinculis / aut solutos sinat quos argento emerit. (Pl. Capt. 204–5); Dabitur malum, / me quidem si attigeris aut si propius ad me accesseris. (Pl. Men.



Coordination 856–7); Quasi vero quicquam sit tam valde quam nihil sapere vulgare aut quasi tibi ipsi in iudicando placeat multitudo! (Cic. Div. 2.81); Quis, quaeso, inquit, est qui quid sit voluptas nesciat aut qui, quo magis id intellegat, definitionem aliquam desideret? (Cic. Fin. 2.6) Additional examples of interrogative and negative contexts:¹²³ . . . si disputetur num interire virtus in homine aut num in vitium possit convertere. (Cic. de Orat. 3.114); Quaero enim de te, si sunt di . . . quī (‘how’) possint esse beati, cum voluptates corpore percipere non possint, aut, si sine eo genere voluptatis beati sint, cur similem animi usum in sapiente esse nolitis. (Cic. Fin. 2.115) Non eo dico, C. Aquili, quo mihi veniat in dubium tua fides et constantia aut quo non his quos tibi advocavisti viris lectissimis civitatis spem summam habere P. Quinctius debeat. (Cic. Quinct. 5); Erant praeterea complures . . . nobiles quos magis dominationis spes hortabatur quam inopia aut alia necessitudo. (Sal. Cat. 17.5); Et quisquam numen Iunonis adorat / praeterea aut supplex aris imponet honorem? (Verg. A. 1.48–9)

. The simple use of the disjunctive coordinator vel There are only a few instances of the simple disjunctive use of vel in Plautus, as in (a), where two clauses are coordinated. In Cicero’s time it is used with all types of constituents, as is shown in (b)–(e), and with clauses. Vel is rarely used in negative contexts, but for an exception see (f). The exclusive use of vel is more common in Silver and Late Latin, as in (g), but for an early example see (a). It may also be used, with or without potius, to add a correction or modification (see the Supplement). (a)

Diu qui domi otiosi dormierunt, decet / animo aequo nunc stent vel dormire temperent. (‘Those who have slept at leisure at home for too long ought now to stand with goodwill or else refrain from sleeping.’ Pl. Poen. 21–2)

(b)

Transfer idem ad modestiam vel temperantiam . . . (‘Apply the same test to Temperance or Moderation . . .’ Cic. Fin. 2.60)

(c)

Sunt autem etiam clariora vel plane perspicua minimeque dubitanda indicia naturae . . . (‘But there are signs of nature even more striking, and in fact absolutely obvious and not doubtable in the least . . .’ Cic. Fin. 5.55)

(d)

(sc. animus) . . . paullo momento huc vel illuc impellitur. (‘. . . it is driven here or there by just a little thing.’ Ter. An. 266)

(e)

. . . quibus moribus aut legibus (sc. rem publicam) constituere vel conservare possimus. (‘. . . by what training, customs, or laws we shall be able to establish or preserve it.’ Cic. Rep. 2.64) ¹²³ The examples of negative contexts are taken from Orlandini (2001: 119–21).

Disjunctive (or: alternative) coordinators  (f)

Neque satis Bruto, qui classi praeerat, vel tribunis militum centurionibusque, quibus singulae naves erant attributae, constabat quid agerent . . . (‘Nor did it appear clear to Brutus, who commanded the fleet, or to the military tribunes and the centurions, to whom the individual ships were assigned, what to do . . .’ Caes. Gal. 3.14.3)

(g)

Si copias armatorum, si causas belli secum expenderent, vincendum illa acie vel cadendum esse. (‘If they considered in their own hearts the forces of armed men and the motives of the war, on that field they must conquer or fall.’ Tac. Ann. 14.35.2) Supplement: Constituents: Nouns and noun phrases: Meam tu amicam vendidisti? # Valide, viginti minis. / # Viginti minis? # Utrum vis, vel quater quinis minis . . . (Pl. Ps. 344–5); Tantus igitur te stupor oppressit vel, ut verius dicam, tantus furor ut . . . (Cic. Phil. 2.65); Magno in dolore, patres conscripti, vel maerore potius . . . inest tamen aliquid quod rei publicae profuturum putem. (Cic. Phil. 11.1); Cum, ut scitis, hoc triduo vel quadriduo tristis a Mutina fama manaret . . . (Cic. Phil. 14.15); Ceteros veniae vel saevitiae Vitellii reliquit. (Tac. Hist. 1.68.2); Quicumque casus temporum illorum nobis vel aliis auctoribus noscent . . . (Tac. Ann. 14.64.3) Adjectives, adjectival phrases, and other attributes: omnis vel si quis est seniosus, hac eadem curatione sanum facies. (Cato Agr. 157.8); Ex hoc enim populo indomito vel potius immani deligitur aliqui plerumque dux . . . (Cic. Rep. 1.68); At enim eadem Stoici ‘praecipua’ vel ‘producta’ dicunt quae ‘bona’ isti. (Cic. Tusc. 5.47); . . . ut quisque Pannonici vel Germanici exercitus militibus oblatus esset . . . (Tac. Hist. 1.26.1) Adverbs: Caruitne febris te heri vel nudiustertius? (Pl. Cur. 17); . . . quando hinc vel illinc appellere indiscretum et innoxium est. (Tac. Hist. 3.47.3) Prepositional phrases: Dodrantes horarum, cum minimum, intervalla ea desiderant ante solis ortum vel post occasum, ut aspici possint. (Plin. Nat. 18.219) Verb forms: . . . Carbone et Cassio et Scauro Aurelio et Servilio Caepione Maximoque Mallio fusis vel captis . . . (Tac. Ger. 37.5) Conditional clauses: . . . si tum auxilia Pompeio vel si etiam filium misisset, ipse aetatis excusatione usus esset. (Cic. Deiot. 9) Clauses: Servi ne opsideant, liberis ut sit locus, / vel aes pro capite dent. (Pl. Poen. 23–4); Lege vel tabellas redde. (Pl. Ps. 31); Atque utinam his omnibus abstergere fletum sententiis nostris consultisque possemus vel aliqua talis eis adhiberi publice posset oratio . . . (Cic. Phil. 14.34); Unum illud extimescebam, ne quid turpiter facerem vel dicam iam ne fecissem. (Cic. Att. 9.7.1); Ubii autem, qui uni ex Transrhenanis ad Caesarem legatos miserant, amicitiam fecerant, obsides dederant, magnopere orabant ut sibi auxilium ferret, quod graviter ab Suebis premerentur; vel si id facere occupationibus rei publicae prohiberetur, exercitum modo Rhenum transportaret. (Caes. Gal. 4.16.5)



Coordination

. The simple use of the disjunctive coordinator -ve Simple -ve is used from Early Latin onwards to link noun phrases, as in (a), but in Plautus and Terence it is used more commonly as a coordinator of subordinate clauses, especially conditional clauses with si and ni, as in (b) and (c); imperative and other subordinate clauses with ne, as in (d) (see also § 15.37 fin. and § 15.64); and relative clauses, as in (e). In legal texts it is used for constituents and for clauses, as is shown in (f). For its use in interrogative clauses, see (g) and (h). In Cicero’s works it is used to link constituents much more often than clauses.¹²⁴ Caesar does not use it at all. It is common in poetry and in poeticizing prose. (For sive and neve as coordinators, see § 19.48 and § 19.55, respectively.) (a)

Noenum mecastor quid ego ero dicam meo / malae rei evenisse quamve insaniam, / queo comminisci. (‘I simply cannot imagine what misfortune, or what madness I should say, has come over my master.’ Pl. Aul. 67–9)

(b)

Si hercle scivissem sive adeo ioculo dixisset mihi, / se illam amare, numquam facerem ut illam amanti abducerem. (‘If I’d known or if he’d told me merely in jest that he was in love with her, I would never have made a point of taking her away from her lover.’ Pl. Mer. 993–4)

(c)

Di me perdant, si ego tui quicquam apstuli / nive adeo apstulisse vellem. (‘May the gods destroy me if I carried away anything belonging to you . . . (aside) and if I wouldn’t have wanted to.’ Pl. Aul. 645–6)

(d)

Id utrumque, argentum quando habebo, cavero, / ne tu delinquas neve ego irascar tibi. (‘When I have the money I’ll prevent both these things: you committing an offence and me being angry with you.’ Pl. Men. 270–1)

(e)

Qui sibi mandasset delegati ut plauderent / quiv’ quo placeret alter fecisset minus, / eius ornamenta et corium uti conciderent. (‘Should anyone have given instructions that hired hands should applaud him, or should anyone have caused another to be unsuccessful, they should beat his costume and his skin to pieces.’ Pl. Am. 83–5)

(f)

. . . lege plebive scito quod C. Sempronius Ti. f. tr(ibunus) pl(ebei) rogavit exceptum cavitumve est nei divideretur, quod quoieique de eo agro . . . IIIvir dedit adsignavit reliquit inve formas tabulasve retulit referive iusit . . . (‘. . . not including the land which, by a saving clause under the law or plebiscite introduced by Gaius Sempronius, son of Tiberius, tribune of the plebs, was excepted from division . . . whatever part of the said land a member of the Board of Three has granted,

¹²⁴ Cicero uses -ve some two hundred times. See also Merguet (Phil.); it is absent from Merguet (Reden).

Disjunctive (or: alternative) coordinators  assigned or left to any person or has entered or ordered to be entered in the plans and registers . . .’ CIL I2.585.6–7 (Lex Agr., 111 bc)

(g)

Quid mihi scelesto tibi erat auscultatio, / quidve hinc abitio quidve in navem inscensio? (‘What induced a wretch like me to listen to you? Or what to go away from here? Or what to go aboard a ship?’ Pl. Rud. 502–3)

(h)

Eho Mysis, puer hic unde’st? Quisve huc attulit? (‘Hey there, Mysis, where does this baby come from? Or who brought it here?’ Ter. An. 748—NB: usually printed as two sentences) Since most of the conjoins linked by -ve in Plautus are not really contrastive alternates, Langen (1880) thought that its original function was not disjunctive but conjunctive, being more or less equivalent to -que. This idea now has few if any adherents, but it left its traces in Lodge’s Lexicon. For its function as a clitic the same observations hold that are made concerning -que in § 19.25. Supplement: Constituents: Nouns and noun phrases: Uti legassit super [familia] pecunia tutelave suae rei, ita ius esto. (Lex XII 5.3); / aut occasus ubi tempusve audere, repressit (Enn. Ann. 294V=254–5S);¹²⁵ . . . quasi magistratum sibi alterive ambiverit. (Pl. Am. 74); Numquid est / aliud mali damnive quod non dixeris / relicuom? (Ter. Eu. 994–6); Corbes ab eo quod eo spicas aliudve quid corruebant. (Var. L. 5.139); Num, quod maximum est, leges nostras moresve novit? (Cic. Phil. 5.13); Ut saepe in hilaritatem risumve (sc. animos) convertat. (Cic. Orat. 138); Cur stella Iovis aut Veneris coniuncta cum luna ad ortus puerorum salutaris sit, Saturni Martisve contraria? (Cic. Div. 1.85); . . . pluris esse contendat dulcedinem corporis ex eave natam laetitiam quam gravitatem animi atque constantiam. (Cic. Fin. 3.1—NB: position -ve); . . . verba illa UTI NE PROPTER TE FIDEMVE TUAM CAPTUS FRAUDATUSVE SIM. (Cic. Off. 3.70); Non illis omnibus arma / nec clipei currusve sonant. (Verg. A. 7.685–6); Qui aedes acervumve frumenti iuxta domum positum conbusserit, victus verberatus igni necari iubetur . . . (Gaius dig. 47.9.9) Adjectives, adjectival phrases, and other attributes: Si uno duobusve dubitabit, sic verba concipito. (Cato Agr. 141.4); Post hanc habitam contionem duabus tribusve horis optatissimi nuntii et litterae venerunt. (Cic. Phil. 14.16); Quod enim munus rei publicae adferre maius meliusve possumus . . . (Cic. Div. 2.4); Sic enim res se habet, ut ad prosperam adversamve fortunam qualis sis aut quem ad modum vixeris nihil intersit. (Cic. N.D. 3.89) Adverbs: Quaere obsecro, / nequid plus minusve faxit quod nos post pigeat, Geta. (Ter. Ph. 553–4); Progredientibus autem aetatibus sensim tardeve potius quasi nosmet ipsos cognoscimus. (Cic. Fin. 5.41); . . . cavetque ne quid indecore effeminateve

¹²⁵ For this difficult passage, see Skutsch ad loc.



Coordination faciat . . . (Cic. Off. 1.14); A te vero bis terve summum et eas (sc. litteras) perbrevis accepi. (Cic. Fam. 2.1.1) Prepositional phrases: fuit fueritve ex lege quam L. Calpurnius . . . rogavit exve lege quam M. Iunius . . . rogavit . . . (CIL I2.583.74 (Lex Acilia, 122 bc)); . . . ne quis ad concilium sociorum referret agendas apud senatum pro praetoribus prove consulibus grates . . . (Tac. Ann. 15.22.1); . . . edictum per manipulos ne quis in certamine iurgiove seditionem aut cladem commilitoni obiectaret. (Tac. Hist. 4.72.4) Verb forms: Quotiens te votui Argyrippum filium Demaeneti / compellare aut contrectare colloquive aut contui? (Pl. As. 522–3); Nam si id facis facturave es . . . (Ter. Hec. 739); Nec enim satis est iudicare quid faciendum non faciendumve sit . . . (Cic. Fin. 1.47—NB: position of -ve not after non); (sc. corpus) . . . quod dirimi distrahive non possit. (Cic. N.D. 3.29); . . . nec veterum memini laetorve malorum. (Verg. A. 11.280); Additur senatus consulto, qui talem operam emptitasset vendidissetve perinde poena teneretur . . . (Tac. Ann. 14.41) Relative clauses: Serviendae servituti ego servos instruxi mihi, / hospes, non qui mi imperarent quibusve ego essem obnoxius. (Pl. Mil. 745–6) Subordinate clauses with ne: Blepharo, quaeso ut advocatus mi assis neve abeas. (Pl. Am. 1037); . . . dum ne manufesto hominem opprimat neve enicet. (Pl. Bac. 867); Dictum hoc inter nos fuit / . . . ne tu curares meum / neve ego tuom? (Ter. Ad. 796–8); . . . vereor ne illud graviu’ Phaedria / tulerit neve aliorsum atque ego feci acceperit . . . (Ter. Eu. 81–2); . . . quod habeat rationem ne cui falso adsentiamur neve umquam captiosa probabilitate fallamur . . . (Cic. Fin. 3.72); Isdemque temporibus cavendum est ne assentatoribus patefaciamus aures neve adulari nos sinamus, in quo falli facile est. (Cic. Off. 1.91) Conditional clauses: Verum qui improbu’st si quasi bibit / sive adeo caret temeto, tamen ab ingenio improbu’st. (Pl. Truc. 832–3); Illa te, si adulterares sive tu adulterarere, digito non auderet contingere neque ius est. (Cato orat. 222); . . . si quis occentavisset sive carmen condidisset quod infamiam faceret flagitiumve alteri. (Cic. Rep. 4.12); Si minus id commodo rei publicae facere posses sive non existimares ex re publica esse, ut in isdem locis exercitum contineres. (Cic. ad Brut. 13.1(1.5.1)); Praeterea senatus censuit, ut si tutor pupilli pupillaeve suspectus a tutela remotus sit sive ex iusta causa fuerit excusatus, in locum eius alius tutor detur . . . (Gaius Inst. 1.182) NB: with reduction of common element(s) (especially the verb) in one of the two clauses: Tua quidem ille causa potabit minus, / si (cj. Bothe; sive P (deest A)) illic sive alibi lubebit? (Pl. Men. 792–3); . . . si quis pro se sive pro altero rationem dari volet, voca[t] inlicium huc ad me. (Var. L. 6.86—NB: quotation from the Censoriae Tabulae); . . . ut si arborum trunci sive trabes deiciendi operis causa essent a barbaris missae, his defensoribus earum rerum vis minueretur . . . (Caes. Gal. 4.17.10); Si atro die faxit insciens, probe factum esto. Si nocte sive luce, si servus sive liber faxit, probe factum esto. (Liv. 22.10.6—NB: part of a rogatio) NB: poetic sive . . . si: Sive sacro pavi sedive sub arbore sacra / pabulaque e bustis inscia carpsit ovis, . . . da veniam culpae. (Ov. Fast. 4.749–55) Clauses (general): Si ei fort’ fuisset febris, / censerem emori; cecidissetve ebrius aut de equo uspiam, / metuerem ne ibi diffregisset crura aut cervices sibi. (Pl. Mil. 720–2); De(h)inc postulo

Disjunctive (or: alternative) coordinators  sive aequom’st te oro, Dave, ut redeat iam in viam. (Ter. An. 190—NB: -ve links the entire complex clause si . . . viam to the preceding clause); Nam si omnes atomi declinabunt, nullae umquam cohaerescent, sive aliae declinabunt, aliae suo nutu recte ferentur, primum erit hoc quasi provincias atomis dare . . . (Cic. Fin. 1.20—NB: -ve links the entire complex clause si . . . atomis dare to the preceding clause);¹²⁶ Sin quando aut regi iusto vim populus attulit regnove eum spoliavit aut etiam, id quod evenit saepius, optimatium sanguinem gustavit . . . (Cic. Rep. 1.65); Non equidem insector delendave carmina Livi / esse reor. (Hor. Ep. 2.1.69–70) Direct questions: Quid petam praesidi aut exequar quove nunc / auxilio exili aut fugae freta sim? (Enn. scen. 86–7V=81–2J); Quid tu’s tristi’ quidve’s alacris? (Ter. Eu. 304—NB: usually printed as two sentences); Quis enim hippocentaurum fuisse aut Chimaeram putat quaeve anus tam excors inveniri potest quae . . . (Cic. N.D. 2.5) Indirect questions: . . . ut saltem sciam / quid de hac re dicat quidve sit sententiae. (Ter. Ph. 443–4); . . . unde omnia orerentur quove reciderent . . . (Cic. Tusc. 5.10); A quibus cum quaereret Caesar quo loco multitudo esset Bellovacorum quodve esset consilium eorum . . . (Hirt. Gal. 8.7.3); . . . quae loca, quive habeant homines, ubi moenia gentis / vestigemus . . . (Verg. A. 7.131–2) NB: Indirect question with si (see §  15.57): De ipsa autem testa si sit optima seu vitiosa ad structuram statim nemo potest iudicare . . . (Vitr. 2.8.19) In (b) and (c) and in the Supplement, clauses with sive/seu follow a conditional clause with si or an indirect question and have the same conditional or interrogative meaning: ‘if . . . or if ’ and ‘(to see) whether . . . or’, respectively. The notation sive suggests that in the period in which these examples were produced they were understood by the speakers and writers of Latin as combinations of si and -ve. However, this need not be the case; in these contexts sive may already have been regarded and used as one word to indicate an alternative condition (or an alternative indirect question). Also, the fact that seu can be used in the same contexts as sive suggests that sive was one word; whatever its etymology, it is unlikely that synchronically seu was regarded as containing the suffixed clitic -ve.¹²⁷ In the same way, the correlative pair sive . . . sive, which can carry the same meaning as the si . . . sive cases described above (see § 16.65), need not—and in fact should not—be described as the pair -ve . . . -ve in combination with si clauses. The use of -ve . . . -ve in other contexts is rare (see § 19.53).

. The simple use of the disjunctive coordinator sive/seu The use of sive/seu as a disjunctive coordinator to link constituents is well attested from Cicero’s time onwards (apart from a few fragments of Ennius and Lucilius that are difficult to interpret). Examples are (a) and (b). The second conjoin often serves as a correction or a more precise description of the content of the preceding word or phrase, as in (c) and (d). Sometimes this is made explicit by an adverb like potius in (e). ¹²⁶ For further examples, see OLD s.v. sive § 2. ¹²⁷ For the etymology of seu, see de Vaan (2008: 561).

 (a)

Coordination Adiungit . . . Attalicos agros in Cherroneso, in Macedonia qui regis Philippi sive Persae fuerunt . . . (‘He adds . . . the lands of Attalus in the Chersonese; those in Macedonia, which belonged to king Philip or Perses . . .’ Cic. Agr. 2.50)

(b)

. . . fluere e lapide hoc permulta necesse’st / semina sive aestum qui discutit aëra plagis . . . (‘. . . it must be that very many seeds flow out from this stone, or, let us say, a current which by its blows beats away all the air . . .’ Lucr. 6.1002–3)

(c)

Ut meliore tui soceri fundus Hirpinus sit sive ager Hirpinus—totum enim possidet—quam meus paternus avitusque fundus Arpinas? ‘(sc. What are you saying?) That your father-in-law’s farm in the Hirpine district, or rather the territory of Hirpinum (for he possesses it all), is held by a better title than my farm at Arpinum, passed down by my father and grandfathers?’ Cic. Agr. 3.8)

(d)

Sed omnium oratorum sive rabularum . . . solutissimum in dicendo et acutissimum iudico nostri ordinis Q. Sertorium . . . (‘But of all that class of orators, or rather ranters . . . I hold Quintus Sertorius of our order . . . to have been the readiest and shrewdest speaker . . .’ Cic. Brut. 180)

(e)

. . . quid perturbatius hoc ab urbe discessu sive potius turpissima in qua sum fuga? (‘. . . what could be . . . more disorderly than this withdrawal from the capital or rather this disgraceful flight in which we are now involved?’ Cic. Att. 8.3.3) Supplement: Constituents: Nouns and noun phrases: Tum illam incredibilem celeritatem seu potius audaciam protuli. (Cic. Quinct. 88); . . . huius improbissimi furti sive adeo nefariae praedae tam illustrem ac tam nobilem civitatem testem futuram. (Cic. Ver. 1.87); Ista enim flagitia Democriti sive etiam ante Leucippi . . . (Cic. N.D. 1.66); . . . si verum est Q.  Fabium Labeonem seu quem alium . . . arbitrum Nolanis et Neapolitanis de finibus a senatu datum . . . (Cic. Off. 1.33); Inde iter qua maxime ἀναπάντητον esset ad mare superum remotis sive omnino missis lictoribus. (Cic. Att. 9.1.3); Tum vobis veniat in mentem, ut vere dicam, neglegentia vestra sive ignavia potius illos omnes ante oculos vestros trucidatos esse . . . (Rhet. Her. 4.48); . . . sagitta / armatam saevi Parthus quam felle veneni / Parthus sive Cydon, telum immedicabile, torsit . . . (Verg. A. 12.856–8); . . . opulentam urbem matri seu novercae reliquit . . . (Liv. 1.3.3); . . . Aristarchus et aetate nostra Palaemon, qui vocabulum sive appellationem nomini subiecerunt tamquam speciem eius . . . (Quint. Inst. 1.4.20); Quippe Getae praetorii praefecto haud satis fidebant ad honesta seu prava iuxta levi. (Tac. Ann. 11.33); . . . qui sese Chaldaeos seu genethliacos appellant . . . (Gel. 14.1.1) Adjectives, adjectival phrases, and other attributes: . . . et inde tot per impotentia freta / erum tulisse, laeva sive dextera / vocaret aura . . . (Catul. 4.18–20); Albanum, Maecenas, sive Falernum / te magis adpositis delectat, habemus utrumque. (Hor. S. 2.8.16–17); . . . Sallustius Crispus . . . metuens ne reus subderetur iuxta periculoso ficta seu vera promeret monuit Liviam . . . (Tac. Ann. 1.6.3); . . . quaesitis . . . carminibus

Disjunctive (or: alternative) coordinators  Sibullae, una seu plures fuere . . . (Tac. Ann. 6.12.3); Plurimum coeptis contulerunt iactatum exemplar epistulae verae sive falsae defuncti Othonis ad Vespasianum . . . (Suet. Ves. 6.4) Prepositional phrases: Titio vina quae in urbe habeo seu in portu do lego. (Paul. dig. 34.2.30) Verb forms: Postremo eiecto sive emisso iam ex urbe Catilina ille arma misit . . . (Cic. Sul. 17); Dixit Pompeius sive voluit. (Cic. Q. fr. 2.3.2); . . . nec timuit . . . rabiem Noti, / quo non arbiter Hadriae / maior, tollere seu ponere volt freta. (Hor. Carm. 1.3. 12–16); . . . tertium illud, utrocumque est nomine, delectandi sive, ut alii dicunt, conciliandi praestare videatur officium . . . (Quint. Inst. 12.10.59) Clauses: Nam dispulsa suo de coetu materiai / copia ferretur magnum per inane soluta / sive adeo potius numquam concreta creasset / ullam rem . . . (Lucr. 1. 1017–20)

Simple sive/seu can be used in clauses that serve as a correction or explanation of a preceding formulation (‘or it may be (that)’—OLD s.v. § 9), as in (f) and (g). Instances are attested from Cicero’s time onwards. (f)

Sed haec ars tota dicendi, sive artis imago quaedam et similitudo est, habet hanc vim . . . (‘But this whole art of speaking (or perhaps it is only a shadow and semblance of an art) has this function . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 2.356—tr. adapted from Wisse and May)

(g)

Isque censor seive quis alius mag(istratus) censum populi aget . . . eos libros census . . . accipito . . . (‘And let this official or any other magistrate who takes the public census . . . receive . . . those records of the census . . .’ CIL I2.593.153–4 (Lex Iulia Munic., Pisticci, 45 bc)) Supplement: Ut mihi Platonis illud, seu quis dixit alius, perelegans esse videatur. (Cic. Rep. 1.29); . . . redde harmoniai / nomen ad organicos alto delatum Heliconi, / sive aliunde ipsi porro traxere et in illam / transtulerunt, proprio quae tum res nomine egebat. (Lucr. 3.131–4); . . . me, seu corpus spoliatum lumine mavis, / redde meis. (Verg. A. 12.935–6); Ita haec pars dialectica, sive illam dicere malumus disputatricem, ut est utilis saepe . . . (Quint. Inst. 12.2.13); . . . inprompto iam ob continua pericula, sive illum recens acceptum vulnus tardaverat. (Tac. Ann. 2.21.1)¹²⁸

. The simple use of an as a disjunctive coordinator Early examples of the use of an (rarely anne) more or less equivalent to aut are (a) and (b). A rare and disputed correlative case is (c). There are quite a few instances in Tacitus, several with conjoins that belong to different categories (see the Supplement).¹²⁹ ¹²⁸ For discussion and further examples, see Goodyear ad loc. See also Sánchez Martínez (2000: 457). ¹²⁹ For further instances, see TLL s.v. 6.83ff. For Tacitus, see Eriksson (1934: 70ff.). For later developments, see Norberg (1944: 99–100).

 (a)

Coordination Themistocles quidem, cum ei Simonides an quis alius artem memoriae polliceretur, ‘Oblivionis’, inquit, ‘mallem.’ (‘Themistocles at all events, when Simonides or someone else offered to teach him the art of memory, replied that he would prefer the art of forgetting.’ Cic. Fin. 2.104)

(b)

Cum signaretur argentum Apolloniae, non possum dicere eum non praefuisse neque possum negare adfuisse, sed non plus duobus an tribus mensibus. (‘When money was minted at Apollonia, I cannot assert that he was not in charge, and I cannot deny that he was present, but for no more than two or perhaps three months.’ Cic. Fam. 13.29.4)

(c)

Is dicitur vidisse Quintum an (del. Ernesti) euntem an iam in Asia. (‘He is said to have seen Quintus on his way or maybe already in Asia.’ Cic. Att. 11.6.7) Supplement: Saucius an sanus numquid tua signa reliqui? (Ov. Fast. 4.7); . . . finem vitae sponte an fato implevit. (Tac. Ann. 2.42.3); (sc. Tiberius) . . . ut solitum per illos dies egit, altitudine animi an compererat modica (sc. bella Germanorum) esse et vulgatis leviora. (Tac. Ann. 3.44.4); Simul Civilis ausus an ex composito intulit se agmini Tungrorum. (Tac. Hist. 4.66.2); Horum omnium vix duos anne tres incolumis praestitit . . . (Suet. Tib. 55.1) This use of an is a further development of its regular use in multiple questions, with examples like (d) serving as a bridge between the two usages.¹³⁰ (d)

Quo mihi etiam indignius videtur obtrectatum esse adhuc Gabinio dicam anne Pompeio an utrique, id quod est verius . . . (‘And this in my opinion makes even more ungracious the opposition which has hitherto been offered, whether to spite Gabinus or Pompeius, or, as is nearer the truth, both of them . . .’ Cic. Man. 57)

. Correlative disjunctive coordination All four disjunctive coordinators are also used correlatively, aut and vel from Early Latin onwards, sive from Cicero onwards, and -ve in poetry, with an early example in Ennius. For details about the constellations in which each can be used, see the individual sections that follow. In Late Latin, aut . . . aut and vel . . . vel lose their adversative meaning and are more or less equivalent to et . . . et.¹³¹

. The correlative use of the disjunctive coordinator aut The correlative use of aut is widely attested from Plautus onwards, both with constituents and with clauses. Examples of the various categories of conjoins are given in ¹³⁰ See TLL s.v. 6.61ff.

¹³¹ See Väänänen (1987: 118).

Disjunctive (or: alternative) coordinators  (a)–(f). In these examples the interpretation of aut . . . aut is exclusive. In a negative context, as in (g), this need not be the case.¹³² (a)

. . . aut mihi in mundo sunt virgae aut atriensi Saureae. (‘. . . rods are certainly in store either for me or for the steward Saurea.’ Pl. As. 264)

(b)

Ego emero matri tuae / ancillam . . . aut Syram aut Aegyptiam. (‘I’ll buy your mother some maid . . . a woman from Syria or Egypt.’ Pl. Mer. 413–15)

(c)

(sc. Diana) Adhibetur autem ad partus, quod i maturescunt aut septem non numquam aut ut plerumque novem lunae cursibus . . . (‘She is invoked to assist at the birth of children, because the period of gestation is either occasionally seven, or more usually nine, lunar revolutions . . .’ Cic. N.D. 2.69)

(d)

Aut ad populum aut in iure aut apud aedilem res est. (‘. . . The case comes before the people or the court or the aedile.’ Pl. Men. 587—NB: versum del. Ussing)

(e)

Haec vasa aut mox aut cras iubebo aps te peti. (‘I’ll have these vessels demanded back from you a bit later or tomorrow.’ Pl. Mer. 781)

(f)

Aut pol haec praestigiatrix multo mulier maxuma est / aut pateram hic inesse oportet. (‘Either this woman is by far the greatest trickster or the bowl ought to be in here.’ Pl. Am. 782–3)

(g)

Non sum aut tam inhumanus aut tam alienus a Sardis . . . (‘I am neither so inhuman nor so lacking in sympathy toward the Sardinians . . .’ Cic. Scaur. 39) Supplement: Constituents: Nouns and noun phrases: Ea mihi cottidie / aut ture aut vino aut aliqui semper supplicat . . . (Pl. Aul. 23–4); . . . ut istic Philocrates non magis est quam aut ego aut tu. (Pl. Capt. 623); Quem tibi aut hominem invitis dis immortalibus aut vero deum tantis eorum religionibus violatis auxilio futurum putas? (Cic. Ver. 4.78); Sed quo potius utar aut auctore aut teste quam te? (Cic. Div. 1.17); . . . ut Graeci dicunt omnis aut Graios esse aut barbaros . . . (Cic. Rep. 1.58); Difficile est enim in philosophia pauca esse ei nota, cui non sint aut pleraque aut omnia. (Cic. Tusc. 2.1); Non esse aut ipsis aut militibus suscensendum quod . . . (Caes. Civ. 1.84.3); . . . noctu dimittunt eos quos aut aetate aut viribus inferiores aut inermes habebant . . . (Hirt. Gal. 8.14.1) Adjectives, adjectival phrases, and other attributes: Num ista aut populna sors aut abiegna est tua? (Pl. Cas. 384); Aves eventus significant aut adversos aut secundos. (Cic. Div. 2.79); . . . Epicuro concedenti omne enuntiatum aut verum aut falsum esse . . . (Cic. Fat. 19); Nempe fundamentum dialecticae est, quidquid enuntietur (id  autem appellant ἀξίωμα, quod est quasi ecfatum) aut verum esse aut falsum.

¹³² See Orlandini (2001: 119–21).



Coordination (Cic. Luc. 95); Nam fortasse . . . calamitatem aut propriam suam aut temporum queri . . . etiam mediocris est animi. (Caes. Civ. 3.20.3) Adverbs: . . . ut rem divinam faciat, aut hodie aut heri. (Pl. Rud. 130); si enim inter visa < * * nihil interesset>, (sc. sapiens adsensionem) aut semper sustineret aut numquam. (Cic. Luc. 53) Prepositional phrases: . . . ibit istac, aliquo, in maxumam malam crucem, / latrocinatum, aut in Asiam aut in Ciliciam. (Pl. Trin. 598–9); Necesse est quid aut ad naturam aut contra sit a natura ipsa iudicari. (Cic. Fin. 1.30); . . . confideretque se fruiturum aut in omni aut in magna parte vitae dolore non interveniente . . . (Cic. Tusc. 3.38) Verb forms: Quotiens te votui Argyrippum filium Demaeneti / compellare aut contrectare, colloquive aut contui? (Pl. As. 522–3—NB: non-exclusive: interrogative sentence); Quin tu huic respondes aliquid, / aut facturum aut non facturum? (Pl. Mil. 1067–8—NB: exclusive in an interrogative sentence); . . . si pleraque somnia aut ignorantur aut negleguntur . . . (Cic. Div. 2.125); Ita semper angi aut accipiendo aut cogitando malo. (Cic. Tusc. 3.32); Reliquos omnes earum turmarum aut interfecerunt aut captos ad Domitium deduxerunt. (Caes. Civ. 3.38.4) Subordinate clauses: An tu existimas aut suppetere nobis posse quod cotidie dicamus in tanta varietate rerum, nisi animos nostros doctrina excolamus, aut ferre animos tantam posse contentionem, nisi eos doctrina eadem relaxemus? (Cic. Arch. 12—NB: non-exclusive) Clauses: . . . quin ego illum aut deseram / aut satis faciat mi ille . . . (Pl. Am. 888–9); Ecquis est igitur . . . qui illud aut fieri noluerit aut factum improbarit? (Cic. Phil. 2.29—NB: non-exclusive); Nunc reliqua videamus, nisi aut ad haec, Cato, dicere aliquid vis aut nos iam longiores sumus. (Cic. Fin. 4.44); . . . ubicumque haec aut occurrat aut deficiat, aut ‘etiam’ aut ‘non’ respondere possit. (Cic. Luc. 104); Ibi perpauci aut viribus confisi tranare contenderunt aut lintribus inventis sibi salutem reppererunt. (Caes. Gal. 1.53.2) There are a number of instances in which the author changed the structure of the sentence he had in mind with the result that there is only one conjoin introduced by aut. Examples of such anacoluthic structures are (h) and (i).¹³³ (h)

Quasi vero aut concedatur in omnibus stultis aeque magna esse vitia . . . et quasi nihil inter res quoque ipsas in quibus peccatur intersit ut . . . (‘As though it were admitted that all foolish people possess an equal degree of vice . . . and as though there were no difference also between the respective circumstances in which the transgressions are committed, so that . . .’ Cic. Fin. 4.77)

(i) Nec aut (del. Vielhaber) procurrere quisquam ab ordinibus suis . . . audebant et stantes, quo densiores erant, hoc plura . . . vulnera accipiebant. (‘No one dared to rush forward from their ranks . . . and, standing fast, the more closely they were crowded together the more wounds they received.’ Liv. 38.26.7—NB: see Briscoe ad loc.)

¹³³ For further instances, see TLL s.v. aut 1572.56ff.

Disjunctive (or: alternative) coordinators 

. The correlative use of the disjunctive coordinator vel Although correlative vel is relatively uncommon in Plautus, it is used frequently by other authors both with constituents and clauses. Examples are (a)–(e). In Cicero, it appears with all sorts of conjoins. (a)

In Velabro vel pistorem vel lanium vel haruspicem / vel qui ipsi vorsant vel qui aliis ubi vorsentur praebeant. (‘In the Velabrum you can meet the miller or the butcher or the soothsayer or those who turn or give others the opportunity to turn.’ Pl. Cur. 483–4—NB: three nouns and two autonomous relative clauses)

(b)

Num te ad fabulas revoco vel nostrorum vel Graecorum poëtarum? (‘Why don’t I recall to your memory some stories to be found in the works of Roman and of Greek poets?’ Cic. Div. 1.40)

(c)

hanc tu mihi vel vi vel clam vel precario / fac tradas. (‘Now get her delivered to me, by force or stealth or entreaty.’ Ter. Eu. 319–20)

(d)

Vel me monere hoc vel percontari puta. (‘Take it as advice or, if you like, as a question.’ Ter. Hau. 78)

(e)

Me misit miles ad eam Cleomachus, / vel ut ducentos Philippos reddat aureos / vel ut hinc in Elatiam hodie eat secum simul. (‘The soldier Cleomachus has sent me to her; she must either return the two hundred gold Philippics, or she must accompany him from here to Elatia today.’ Pl. Bac. 589–91) Supplement: Constituents: Nouns and noun phrases: . . . tamen vel virtus tua me vel vicinitas, / . . . facit ut te audacter moneam . . . (Ter. Hau. 56–8); . . . quaerere ex eo viderenturne illa Philonis aut ea num vel e Philone vel ex ullo Academico audivisset aliquando. (Cic. Luc. 11); Id enim esse praeclarissimum sapientiae munus maximumque virtutis vel documentum vel officium puto. (Cic. Rep. 1.33); Caesarem vel auctoritate sua atque exercitus vel recenti victoria vel nomine populi Romani deterrere posse, ne . . . (Caes. Gal. 1.31.16) Adjectives, adjectival phrases, and other attributes: [nam quoivis homini vel optumo vel pessumo] (Pl. Mos. 410—NB: eliminated by Ritschl); Si enim id quod eventurum est vel hoc vel illo modo potest evenire . . . (Cic. Div. 2.24); Atque habet etiam amoenitas ipsa vel sumptuosas vel desidiosas inlecebras multas cupiditatum. (Cic. Rep. 2.8); Una mehercule nostra vel severa vel iocosa congressio pluris erit quam . . . (Cic. Fam. 7.10.4) Adverbs: Vel ego huc vel illuc vortar, quo imperabitis. (Pl. Capt. 370); . . . an sum etiam nunc vel Graece loqui vel Latine docendus? (Cic. Fin. 2.15) Prepositions: . . . vomica vel ante vel circa vicesimum diem erumpet. (Cels. 2.7.36) Prepositional phrases: . . . vel in lautumiis vel in pistrino mavelim / agere aetatem . . . (Pl. Poen. 827–8); . . . prohiberi sese non posse quominus cotidie navibus aquam peterent vel a sinistra parte a Paratonio vel dextra ab insula . . . (B. Alex. 8.2)



Coordination Verb forms: Sed hic numquis adest? # Vel adest vel non. (Pl. Mil. 1019); . . . quas (sc. habenas) vel adducas, cum velis, vel remittas. (Cic. Amic. 45); . . . imagines quae vel prodesse nobis solent vel nocere . . . (Cic. N.D. 1.120) Subordinate clauses: Nempe anui illi prodita abs te filia’st planissume, / per te vel uti quaestum faceret vel uti veniret palam. (Ter. Hau. 639–40); Qui me valde movet, vel quod amavi hominem sicut ille me vel quod ita iudico . . . (Cic. Luc. 113); . . . quis umquam dixit . . . vel id solum percipi posse quod esset verum tale quale falsum esse non posset vel sapientem nihil opinari. (Cic. Luc. 113) Clauses: Vel ai vel nega. (Naev. com. 125); Iussit vel nos atriensem vel nos uxorem suam / defrudare. (Pl. As. 365–6)

. The correlative use of the disjunctive coordinator -ve The correlative use of -ve is rare and mainly limited to poetry (from Ennius onwards). Examples from Virgil are (a)—two nouns—and (b)—two indirect questions. (a)

. . . si quis in adversum rapiat casusve deusve, / te superesse velim . . . (‘. . . if some god or chance should sweep me to disaster, I would want you to survive . . .’ Verg. A. 9.211–12)

(b)

. . . regi memorat nomenque genusque / quidve petat quidve ipse ferat . . . (‘. . . to the king he announces his name and race, the aid he seeks, and the aid he himself offers . . .’ Verg. A. 10.149–50) Supplement: Constituents: Nouns and noun phrases: (sc. imago) sic eliditur, ut siquis, prius arida quam sit / cretea persona, adlidat pilaeve trabive . . . (Lucr. 4.296–7); Non has (sc. pecudes) pastorve canisve, / non armenta truces possunt defendere tauri. (Ov. Met. 8.296–7);¹³⁴ . . . quis tales impune moras casusve laborve / attulerit. (V. Fl. 3.574–5) Adverbs: . . . nullaque laudetur plusve minusve mihi. (Ov. Fast. 5.110) Verb forms: . . . Prudentem qui dicta loquive tacereve posset . . . (Enn. Ann. 250V=285S); Ipse pavet nec se qui sit status ipse fatetur / scire ratis rector nec quid iubeatve vetetve. (Ov. Met. 11.492–3); . . . nec quod fuimusve sumusve, / cras erimus. (Ov. Met. 15.215–16) Secondary predicates: Sed (sc. Turnus) neque currentem se nec cognoscit euntem / tollentemve manu saxumve immane moventem. (Verg. A. 12.903–4—NB: variation with neque . . . nec)

. The correlative use of the disjunctive coordinator sive/seu The correlative use of sive/seu is well attested in the Classical period. Earlier instances are usually emended, as in (b) (see also § 16.65 with note 191). It is used with all sorts of constituents both at the clause level, as in (a), and at a lower level, as in (b) and (c). ¹³⁴ For further instances in Ovid, see Bömer ad loc.

Disjunctive (or: alternative) coordinators  In (a) there are several prepositional phrases and purpose clauses at the clause level as well as attributive adjectives at the noun phrase level. In (b), there are two appositives; in (c), there are two attributive noun phrases. As (a) shows, a considerable number of conjoins can be linked by sive. (a)

Nam (sc. oratio) sive de caeli natura loquitur sive de terrae, sive de divina vi sive de humana, sive ex inferiore loco sive ex aequo sive ex superiore, sive ut impellat homines sive ut doceat sive ut deterreat sive ut concitet sive ut reflectat sive ut incendat sive ut leniat, sive ad paucos sive ad multos sive  inter alienos sive cum suis sive secum, rivis est diducta oratio, non fontibus . . . (‘Whether its subject is the nature of the heavens or of the earth, the power of gods or men, whether it speaks from a place lower, equal, or higher, whether its object is to move men to action or to instruct them or to deter them, to excite them or to curb them, to fire them or to calm them down, whether it be delivered to few or to many, among strangers or among friends or by oneself, the flow of language diverges in its channels, not in its sources . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 3.23)

(b)

Annos gnatus sexaginta qui erit, si quem scibimus / seu (P, deest A; si cj. Brix) maritum sive hercle adeo caelibem scortarier, / cum eo nos hac lege agemus. (‘If we find out that any sixty-year-old, married or unmarried, whores around, we shall deal with him according to the following law.’ Pl. Mer. 1017–19)

(c)

Quod genus hominum, quem numerum, quem ordinem proferre possum qui te non oderit, sive civium Romanorum sive Siculorum? (‘What type or grade or class of men can I mention that does not hate you, whether they are Romans or Sicilians?’ Cic. Ver. 2.166) Supplement: Constituents: Nouns and noun phrases: Quinque omnino fuerunt qui illum vestrum innocentem Oppianicum sive imprudentia sive misericordia sive aliqua suspicione sive ambitione adducti absolverunt. (Cic. Clu. 76); Sed tamen, si quis est, iudices, qui illam Postumi sive inanem spem sive inconsultam rationem sive, ut gravissimo verbo utar, temeritatem vituperandam putet, ego eius opinioni non repugno. (Cic. Rab. Post. 2); . . . si cuiquam ordini sive aratorum sive pecuariorum sive mercatorum probatus sit . . . (Cic. Ver. 2.17); . . . similiter arbitror in hac sive ratione sive exercitatione dicendi . . . (Cic. de Orat. 2.70); Ex quo exardescit sive amor sive amicitia. (Cic. Amic. 100); Itaque sive casu accidit sive consilio, percommode factum est quod . . . (Cic. Tusc. 4.64); Drappes . . . sive indignitate et dolore vinculorum sive timore gravioris supplicii paucis diebus cibo se abstinuit atque ita interiit. (Hirt. Gal. 8.44.2); Eodem anno seu motu terrae seu qua vi alia forum medium ferme specu vasto conlapsum in immensam altitudinem dicitur. (Liv. 7.6.1); Hinc illae quaestiones sive actionis sive tralationis. (Quint. Inst. 3.6.83); . . . ita haec de quibus loquimur, sive tropi sive figurae dicentur, idem efficient. (Quint. Inst. 9.1.8) Adjectives, adjectival phrases, and other attributes: . . . ut quibusdam populis, sive foederatis sive liberis, permittendum esse videatur ut statuant ipsi non de nostris sed



Coordination de suis rebus . . . (Cic. Balb. 22); . . . quem voles eorum testium quos produxero, qui ex Sicilia testes sunt, sive togatum sive Siculum, rogato . . . (Cic. Ver. 2.152); Seu tristis veniam seu contra laetus amicis, / quicquid ero, dicam ‘Cynthia causa fuit.’ (Prop. 1.11.25–6); Servos seu fugitivos seu bello captos, seu quis liber captus aut transfuga erit, reddito Romanis sociisque. (Liv. 38.38.8) Adverbs: Quam qui ignorat, is est iniustus, sive est illa scripta uspiam sive nusquam. (Cic. Leg. 1.42) Prepositional phrases: . . . sum (sc. deiectus) de via, sum certe alicunde, sive de privato sive de publico. (Cic. Caec. 82) Verb forms: Nam qui appetitus longius evagantur et tamquam exultantes sive cupiendo sive fugiendo non satis a ratione retinentur, ii sine dubio finem et modum transeunt. (Cic. Off. 1.102) Subordinate clauses: . . . artes nostrae nescio quo modo nunc uberiores fructus ferre videntur quam olim ferebant, sive quia nulla nunc in re alia acquiescimus sive quod gravitas morbi facit ut medicinae egeamus . . . (Cic. Fam. 9.3.2); Hunc virgo, sive ut templis praefigeret arma / Troia captivo sive ut se ferret in auro / venatrix, unum ex omni certamine pugnae / caeca sequebatur . . . (Verg. A. 11.778–81); Rubrum mare Graeci sive quia eius coloris est sive quod ibi Erythras regnavit Erythran thalassan appellant. (Mela 3.72) Secondary predicates and ablative absolute clauses: At Pharnaces impulsus sive loci felicitate sive auspiciis et religionibus inductus . . . sive paucitate nostrorum qui in armis erant comperta . . . sive etiam fiducia veterani exercitus sui . . . simul contemptu exercitus nostri . . . inito consilio dimicandi descendere praerupta valle coepit. (B. Alex. 74.3)

. The correlative use of the negative disjunctive coordinator neve In legal inscriptions, pairs or longer sequences of neve (neive) used with each conjoin are fairly common in prohibitions to mean ‘neither . . . nor’, as illustrated by (a), with coordinated constituents; and (b), with coordinated clauses. This use of neve (also neive) resembles the use of the negator ne in imperative sentences and clauses (see § 8.5). Much more rare is its use as a subordinator in imperative subordinate clauses, as in (c). A third use is illustrated by (d), where neve . . . neve are inside an ut clause and themselves have no subordinating function. (a)

Neive quis iudex neive quaestor facito sciens dolo m B. An exception are clauses with an ablative of comparison, as in (ao) and (ap), which are discussed in detail in § 20.7. Here the standard of comparison comes first. (ao)

. . . nec me miserior femina est neque ulla videatur magis. (‘. . . and there isn’t a more wretched woman than me, nor could there seem to be one.’ Pl. Am. 1060)

(ap)

. . . quis me miserior umquam fuit? (‘. . . who was ever more wretched than I?’ Cic. Att. 11.2.3)

724

Comparison

In comparisons formed with quam the basis of comparison is sometimes inserted between quam and the expression that carries the comparative element proper. This is not uncommon with the verb malo ‘to wish rather’, as in (aq)—two accusative and infinitive clauses compared—and (ar)—two prolative infinitive expressions. It is occasionally found with other expressions, as in (as) and (at).10 (aq)

. . . carere me aspectu civium quam infestis omnium oculis conspici mallem. (‘. . . I should wish not to see a single one of my fellow-citizens rather than meet the hostile gaze of them all.’ Cic. Catil. 1.17—tr. Macdonald)

(ar)

. . . ex iis qui vadimonia deserere quam illum exercitum maluerunt. (‘. . . of men who would rather jump their bail than desert his ranks.’ Cic. Catil. 2.5)

(as)

Thai’ quam ego sum maiuscula’st. (‘Thais is a bit older than I am.’ Ter. Eu. 527)

(at)

. . . quia Libyes quam Gaetuli minus bellicosi. (‘. . . because the Libyans are less warlike than the Gaetulians.’ Sal. Jug. 18.12)

The discussion of comparison between two terms will start with sections on comparison of non-equivalence (§§ 20.3–10) and then a section on comparison of equivalence will follow (§ 20.11).

20.3 Comparison of non-equivalence In the case of non-equivalence the comparative element usually consists of two not necessarily adjacent elements: a lexeme or a combination of lexemes with a comparative meaning and a particle (for the term, see below) or a case form. The lexemes can be divided into three classes: (i)

(ii) (iii)

Comparative forms of adjectives and adjectives modified by an adverb with a comparative meaning like magis ‘more’ and minus ‘less’; similarly comparative forms of adverbs and adverbs modified by a comparative adverb. Comparative forms related to adverbs/prepositions with a local or temporal meaning like posterior ‘later’ and propior ‘closer’, ‘nearer’. Lexical items with a comparative meaning, including: — adverbs and prepositions that indicate relative position (in space or time) like ante ‘before’, post ‘after(wards)’, infra ‘below’, and pridie ‘the day before’ (see also § 10.30); — verbs expressing preference, such as malo ‘to prefer’ and praesto ‘to be preferable’.11

The following examples, four with the particle quam, one with an ablative, serve as an illustration: (a) has a comparative adjective; (b), repeated from § 20.2, the adverb post 10 See Fontana (1997: 25).

11 Three-place praesto ‘to surpass’ is different. See § 4.53.

Comparison of non-equivalence

725

and the comparative adverb tardius ‘more slowly’; (c), the adverb saepe ‘often’ modified by the comparative adverb magis; (d) shows the comparative adjective propior; (e), the verb praesto. (a)

Hominem ego iracundiorem quam te novi neminem. (‘I don’t know anyone more prone to anger than you.’ Pl. Mer. 141)

(b)

Sed tonitrum fit uti post auribus accipiamus, / fulgere quam cernant oculi, quia semper ad auris / tardius adveniunt quam visum quae moveant res. (‘But it comes to pass that we receive the thunder in our ears after our eyes perceive the lightning, because things always move more slowly to the ears than things which stir the eyes.’ Lucr. 6.164–6—tr. Bailey)

(c)

Insperata accidunt magis saepe quam quae speres. (‘Things that are not hoped for happen more often than things you do hope for.’ Pl. Mos. 197)

(d)

Tunica propior pallio est. (‘The shirt is closer than the overcoat.’ Pl. Trin. 1154)

(e)

. . . profecto damnum praestet facere quam lucrum. (‘. . . it is certainly better to make a loss than a profit.’ Pl. Capt. 327)

For the second part of the comparative element, for example quam, the term ‘particle’ will be used. This is a rather vague term (see § 3.22). In this combination with a comparative expression, quam is neither an adverb nor a coordinator, and certainly not a subordinator.12 The same goes for atque and et as part of a comparative element in § 20.6 and in § 20.11. Comparative forms of adjectives and adverbs can also be used in an ‘absolute’ sense (see § 3.7 and § 20.31). Obviously, in this sense they cannot be combined with another term. An example of absolute use is (f). (f)

Tu puere, abi hinc intro ocius. (‘You, boy, go inside quickly.’ Pl. Mer. 930)

A negated expression of non-equivalence sometimes comes close to an expression of equivalence. This is especially the case with non minus quam ‘no less than’ and non magis/plus quam ‘no more than’. Examples are (g)–(i).13  (g)

Et si non minus nobis iucundi atque inlustres sunt ii dies quibus conservamur quam illi quibus nascimur . . . (‘And if the days on which we are saved are no less bright and joyous than those on which we are born . . .’ Cic. Catil. 3.2)

12 For similar problems with English than, see Quirk et al. (1985: 661–2). 13 For further examples, see TLL s.v. magis 66.30ff.; parvus 578.33ff. For subtle differences between these expressions, see K.-St.: II.481–3. Lundström (1993) discusses instances of non minus quam in the two Senecas.

726 (h)

Comparison Qui est enim animus in aliquo morbo . . . non magis est sanus quam id corpus quod in morbo est. (‘For the soul which is suffering from some disease . . . is no more in a sound condition than the body which is diseased.’ Cic. Tusc. 3.10)

(i)

Domus erat non domino magis ornamento quam civitati. (‘The house served as an adornment not more for the owner than for the whole town.’ Cic. Ver. 4.5) Supplement: Ea nobis erepta esse quae hominibus non minus quam liberi cara esse debent . . . (Sulp. Ruf. Fam. 4.5.2); . . . cum . . . ad extremam senectutem non minus dignitate quam gratia fortunaque crevisset . . . (Nep. Att. 21.1) . . . credas mihi adfirmanti velim me hoc non pro Lysone magis quam pro omnibus scribere . . . (Cic. Fam. 13.24.2); Debitor non est sine creditore, non magis quam maritus sine uxore aut sine filio pater. (Sen. Ben. 5.8.1) Nec nunc quidem vires desidero adulescentis . . . non plus quam adulescens tauri aut elephanti desiderabam. (Cic. Sen. 27) (sc. Fabius fuit) Nec vero in armis praestantior quam in toga. (Cic. Sen. 11) The use of magis + a positive form of an adjective or adverb instead of a comparative form is attested from Early Latin onwards and is regular with classes of adjectives and adverbs for which there are formal or semantic constraints on the formation of comparative forms (see § 3.7).14 These constraints concern e.g. the stem of the adjective/ adverb (e.g. vowel stems like idoneus—for exceptional innoxiior, see §  20.13 Supplement), polysyllabic adjectives like manufestus, verbal adjectives like amicus, and adjectives with a prefix in-. Outside these classes the use of magis is uncommon; sometimes it is justified by metrical or other considerations. It is therefore not entirely correct to call magis an ‘analytic’ alternative for the ‘synthetic’ comparative.15 Plus + a positive instead of a comparative is rare until very Late Latin. An early example is ( j). ( j) Homo nullu’st . . . / . . . quoi ego de industria amplius male plus lubens faxim. (‘There is no man whom I’d be more willing to hurt intentionally.’ Pl. Aul. 419–20) Supplement: Plus miser sim si scelestum faxim quod dicam fore. (Enn. scen. 308V=261J); Nimio plus quam velim nostrorum ingenia sunt mobilia. (Liv. 2.37.5)

20.4 The comparative particles of non-equivalence Between the particles that are used for the basis of comparison and the ‘ablative of comparison’ (ablativus comparationis) expression (see §  20.7) there are differences 14 See TLL s.v. magis 61.5ff. and K.-H.: 565–75. Discussion in Maltby (2016: 342–3) and Pultrová (2018). 15 As in Cuzzolin (2011: 576–7).

Comparison of non-equivalence

727

with respect to frequency, distribution, semantics, and diachronic change, each of which will be described below in the discussion of the various devices.16

20.5 The comparative particle quam ‘than’ The regular comparative expression of non-equivalence consists of a comparative degree or similar combined with quam for introducing the basis of comparison, as in (a), with quam and the comparative adjective facilius. There are almost no syntactic or semantic restrictions on the use of this particle, as opposed to the use of ac/atque and the ablative of comparison. (a)

Incipere multo est quam impetrare facilius. (‘It’s much easier to begin something than to succeed.’ Pl. Poen. 974) Supplement: Adjectives: . . . ubi amicae quam amico tuo fueris magis fidelis . . . (Pl. As. 573); Ita fustibus sum mollior magis quam ullus cinaedus. (Pl. Aul. 422—NB: magis + comparative); . . . et invidia nos minore utamur quam utimur . . . (Pl. Aul. 482); Postulo aps te ut mi illum reddas . . . qui mi melior quam sibi semper fuit . . . (Pl. Capt. 938–9); Minus iam furtificus sum quam antehac. (Pl. Epid. 12); Tamen non dubito quin ea tela quae coniecerit inimicus quam ea quae collega patris emisit leviora atque hebetiora esse videantur. (Cic. Har. 2); Ego eo die casu apud Pompeium cenavi nactusque tempus hoc magis idoneum quam umquam antea . . . (Cic. Fam. 1.2.3); Quae, cum veneris, tanto consilio tantaque animi magnitudine a me gesta esse cognosces ut tibi multo maiori quam Africanus fuit [a] me non multo minore quam Laelium facile et in re publica et in amicitia adiunctum esse patiare. (Cic. Fam. 5.7.3); Plus est quam poena sine spe miserum vivere. (Pub. Sent. P 5); Sed non Hannibalem magis infestum tam sanis consiliis habebat quam magistrum equitum . . . (Liv. 22.12.11); Nihil in eo triumpho magis insigne fuit quam quod forte evenit ut . . . (Liv. 40.59.3); . . . posteriorque operum quam funerum cura est. ([Quint.] Decl. 13.17) Adverbs: Non tuom tu magis videre quam ille suom gnatum cupit. (Pl. Capt. 399); Nihil est quod magis expediat quam boves bene curare. (Cato Agr. 54.5); Etenim isti . . . fines officiorum paulo longius quam natura vellet protulisse . . . (Cic. Mur. 65); Si pridie quam a me tu coactus es confiteri . . . (Cic. Ver. 5.77); (sc. oratio) . . . octava quam habui ad populum postridie quam Catilina profugit . . . (Cic. Att. 2.1.3); Paulo post in urbem est ingressus consul, non ab se magis enixe amovens culpam quam Tempanium meritis laudibus ferens. (Liv. 4.41.9); In cubito enim celerius quam in ullo alio articulo . . . callus circumdatur. (Cels. 8.16.4) Verbs: Edepol ne illa si istis rebus te sciat operam dare, / ego faxim ted Amphitruonem esse malis quam Iovem. (Pl. Am. 510–11); Non omnia iudicia fieri mallet quam unum illud unde haec omnia iudicia nascuntur. (Cic. Quinct. 46)

The second term of a comparative expression with quam is often negative by implication. In (a) impetrare is not easy. This negative pragmatic implication explains the 16 See Torrego (2002).

728

Comparison

occurrence in the second member of the comparative expression of quisquam (instead of nemo), as in (b), ullus (instead of nullus), as in (c), or aut (instead of vel ), as in (d).17 (b)

. . . ut superior sis mihi quam quisquam qui imperant. (‘. . . so that for me you are above any of those who command me.’ Pl. Men. 192)

(c)

Ita fustibus sum mollior magis quam ullus cinaedus. (‘Thanks to your clubs I’m softer than any catamite.’ Pl. Aul. 422)

(d)

. . . nobiles, quos magis dominationis spes hortabatur quam inopia aut alia necessitudo. (‘. . . nobles, whom hope for supremacy was urging on rather than poverty or any other exigency.’ Sal. Cat. 17.5)

Quam is used without an explicit comparative expression from Plautus onward. Whereas in his plays there are only a few examples, it is relatively frequent in the historians, especially Tacitus, and it remains quite common in later authors.18 Examples in poetry are very rare. Editors tend to emend such passages, especially in Classical authors.19 Examples are (e), repeated from § 20.2, and (f). In ecclesiastical texts, in which this use of quam is very common, Greek influence is obvious.20  (e)

. . . vidua vivam quam tuos mores perferam. (‘. . . I’ll live as a divorcee rather than tolerate your habits.’ Pl. Men. 726)

(f)

. . . et nobilitatem . . . honori quam ignominiae habendam ducebat. (‘. . . it held (that) . . . an honoured name . . . should be considered an honour rather than a disgrace.’ Tac. Ann. 3.32.2) Supplement: Eo tacent, quia tacita est melior mulier semper quam loquens. (Pl. Rud. 1114—NB: various emendations); Quodsi in ceteris quoque studiis a multis eligere homines commodissimum quodque quam sese uni alicui certe vellent addicere, minus in arrogantia[m] offenderent. (Cic. Inv. 2.5); Hoc etsi Autophrodates videbat, tamen statuit congredi quam cum tantis copiis refugere . . . (Nep. Dat. 8.1); Ipsorum quam Hannibalis ( cj. Wesenberg) interesse capta an tradita Nola poteretur. (Liv. 23.43.13); Occumbere tandem / possumus idque sedet quam non quaecumque subire / patris iussa tui. (V. Fl. 7.427–9); . . . quia bonum scilicet fidere in Deum quam fidere in hominem . . . (Tert. Marc. 2.19.3); Paulisper praepilabantur missilia et properantes concito quam considerato cursu Germani telaque dexteris explicantes involavere nostrorum equitum turmas . . . (Amm. 16.12.36); . . . ex magna parte id patiebar invitus quam faciebam volens . . . (August. Conf. 8.11) The use of quam is excluded or at least avoided in combination with a relative pronoun. The ablative of comparison is used instead, as in (g). The use of quam is

17 18 19 20

See Bertocchi and Orlandini (1996: 196–9), Orlandini (2001: 95–8). See Lodge s.v. quam 416B.5; Gerber and Greef s.v. quam 1246A.c. See Timpanaro (1970) for a discussion of emended passages. See also Questa (2007: 210). For references, see Sz.: 593–4.

Comparison of non-equivalence

729

unavoidable with constituents that cannot be expressed in the ablative, for instance with satis ‘enough’, as in (h). (g) . . . L. fratrem exspectat, quo neminem reperire potest sui similiorem. (‘. . . he is waiting for his brother Lucius—no one more like himself could he find.’ Cic. Phil. 3.31) (h) Vide sis, ne forte ad merendam quopiam devorteris / atque ibi ampliuscule quam satis fuerit biberis. (‘I suspect that you called in somewhere for a snack and that you drank a little more there than was good for you.’ Pl. Mos. 966–7)

20.6 The use of ac/atque and et in comparison of non-equivalence The use of ac/atque with comparative forms of adjectives and adverbs is rare.21 In the examples before Horace there is a negation element present, like nullus in (a). This use is not found with verbs that express preference. Even more rare is et, as in (b). (a)

Amicior mi nullus vivit atque is est / qui illam habet. (‘No one’s a closer friend to me than the one who has her.’ Pl. Mer. 897–8)

(b)

. . . nec minus ille diu iam non erit, ex hodierno / lumine qui finem vitai fecit, et ille / mensibus atque annis qui multis occidit ante. (‘. . . and no less long a time will he be no more, who has made an end of life with today’s sun, than he who fell many a month and year before.’ Lucr. 3.1092–4)

The use of ac/atque in comparisons with magis and minus is equally rare. Examples are (c) and (d).22 (c)

Illi non minus ac tibi / pectore uritur intimo / flamma . . . (‘In his inmost heart no less than in yours glows the flame . . .’ Catul. 61.169–71)

(d)

Non Apollinis mage verum atque hoc responsum’st. (‘Apollo’s oracle doesn’t speak more truthfully than this.’ Ter. An. 698—tr. Brown) Supplement: Nec fallaciam astutiorem ullus fecit / poeta atque ut haec est fabre facta ab nobis. (Pl. Cas. 860–1); Quod posse videmus / nec minus atque homines inter se nota cluere. (Lucr. 2.350–1); Haud minus ac iussi faciunt . . . (Verg. A. 3.561); Inachia langues minus ac me. (Hor. Epod. 12.14); . . . (sc. sententiam) velut gravius atque ipse sensisset exceptam. (Suet. Jul. 14.1)

20.7 The ablative of comparison (ablativus comparationis) From Early Latin onwards comparative forms of adjectives are used in combination with a noun phrase (for a few exceptions, see the Supplement) in the ablative (the 21 See TLL s.v. atque 1084.38ff.; s.v. et 894.23 and 27. 22 For further examples see TLL s.v. parvus 578.71ff.

730

Comparison

ablativus comparationis). These combinations are usually regarded as an alternative way of expressing comparison of non-equivalence. However, the construction is confined to a limited number of contexts, which widens in Post-Classical poetry and poeticizing prose. In Early Latin, the ablative and quam expressions are not synonymous, and there is little overlap (see the note under the Supplement). The ablative never became a common way to express comparison.23 The use of the ablative is almost restricted to situations in which the first term of the comparison functions as subject or object in its clause and is also almost entirely restricted to comparison by means of a comparative form of an adjective or adverb. The second term, the standard of comparison, is—obviously—a noun phrase. A majority of the examples contain or imply a negative element, especially in Early Latin. The ablative is avoided when the comparative element is determined by expressions like multo, paulo, nihilo (the so-called ablative of measure (ablativus mensurae) expressions, for which see § 20.10) or by a so-called genitive of price ( genetivus pretii—see § 10.59). In these cases quam is used instead.24 The ablative is the only comparative device that can be used with relative pronouns, as in (b), and it is also normal in a number of more or less idiomatic expressions, such as celerius opinione in (c). Other expressions are with spe ‘than hoped’, aequo ‘than what is equitable’, iusto ‘than what is just’, necessario ‘than what is necessary’, solito ‘than usual’. Other idiomatic expressions are alius alio magis ‘some more than others’ (Cic. Fin. 4.43), and the hyperbolic expressions melle dulci dulcior ‘sweeter than sweet honey’ (Pl. As. 614) and levior pluma, as  in (d). If instead of a comparative degree form a comparative adverb is used, as  minus in (e), the first term of the comparison can only be the subject, in this case nemo.  (a)

Habet . . . me . . . se ipso cariorem. (‘. . . he is . . . fonder of me than of himself.’ Cic. Att. 10.11.1)

(b)

Sequamur . . . Polybium . . ., quo nemo fuit . . . diligentior. (‘We should follow . . . Polybius, . . . than whom no one was . . . more diligent.’ Cic. Rep. 2.27)

(c)

. . . ipse opinione celerius venturus esse dicitur. (‘. . . he is said to be arriving in person sooner than was expected.’ Cic. Fam. 14.23.1)

(d)

Si quid bene facias, levior pluma est gratia. (‘If you do them a good turn, their thanks is lighter than a feather.’ Pl. Poen. 812)

(e)

Hoc nemo fuit / minus ineptu’, mage severu’ quisquam nec mage continens. (‘Nobody was less irresponsible than he or more serious or more sober-minded.’ Ter. Eu. 226–7)

23 A diachronic description can be found in Sz.: 107–10, with references. See also van der Heyde (1930), Löfstedt (1942/1933: I.326ff.), and Cuzzolin (2011: 608–11). See Neville (1901), for the Early and Classical Latin material; Bennett: II.292–7, for Early Latin; and Wölfflin (1889), for Silver Latin. 24 Formal restrictions on the use of the ablative are discussed in Traglia (1947: 12–16), Pasoli (1966: 76–87), and Torrego (2002: 259ff.). Bertocchi and Orlandini (1996: 199) observe that the ablative forms quoquam and ullo are excluded.

Comparison of non-equivalence

731

Supplement: With comparative forms: Neque ego hac nocte longiorem me vidisse censeo . . . (Pl. Am. 279); Iam istoc es melior. (Pl. As. 717); Quis me est ditior? (Pl. Aul. 809); Nihil hoc homine audacius. (Pl. Men. 631); . . . tu es lapide silice stultior . . . (Pl. Poen. 291); Nullus me est hodie Poenus Poenior. (Pl. Poen. 991); Minus hercle in istis rebus sumptum est sex minis. (Pl. Trin. 411); . . . dum · ne · minus · senatorbus · C · adesent . . . (CIL I2.581.6 (SCBac., Tiriolo, 186 bc)); . . . Annos sexaginta natus es / aut plus eo, ut conicio. (Ter. Hau. 62–3); Habeo etiam dicere quem contra morem maiorum minorem annis LX de ponte in Tiberim deiecerit. (Cic. S. Rosc. 100); ‘Hoc plus’, inquit, ‘ne facito.’ (Cic. Leg. 2.59 = Lex XII 10.2); . . . quid philosophia magis colendum aut quid est virtute divinius? (Cic. Fin. 3.76—NB: parallelism); Atqui pares esse virtutes nec bono viro meliorem nec temperante temperantiorem nec forti fortiorem nec sapiente sapientiorem posse fieri facillume potest perspici. (Cic. Parad. 21); . . . itaque nihil mathematicis inlustrius. (Cic. Tusc. 1.5); Hoc mihi gratius facere nihil potes. (Cic. Fam. 6.9.2); . . . uti inter novissimum hostium agmen et nostrum primum non amplius quinis aut senis milibus passuum interesset. (Caes. Gal. 1.15.5); . . . nisi eorum vitam sua salute habeat cariorem. (Caes. Gal. 7.19.5); . . . fossas duas . . . in eum locum deduxit quo longius constituerat suam non producere aciem. (B. Alex. 38.3); Sed nec reverentior captae maiestatis alius Paulo fuit. (Flor. Epit. 1.28.10); Qua re maiorem in modum te rogo ut rem potiorem oratione ducas . . . (Mat. Fam. 11.28.5); Amico firmo nihil emi melius potest. (Pub. Sent. A 53) Ei mihi, credibili fortior illa (sc. Dido) fuit. (Ov. Fast. 3.618); Ea res aliquanto expectatione omnium tranquillior fuit. (Liv. 4.24.1); Ille est oneratus recte et plus iusto vehit. (Pl. Bac. 349); Prius tua opinione hic adero. (Pl. Am. 545); Latius opinione disseminatum est hoc malum. (Cic. Catil. 4.6); Illi tertio mense pervenere in Pontum multo celerius spe Mithridatis. (Sal. Hist. 2.79) With magis:25 . . . nec te equo magis est equos ullus sapiens. (Pl. As. 704); Quem cum mihi conspectum morte magis vitandum fugiendumque esse videatis, nolite . . . (Cic. Dom. 146); . . . sed tamen est species alia (sc. virtus) magis alia formosa et inlustris . . . (Cic. de Orat. 3.55); . . . nil tamen hoc habuisse viro praeclarius in se / nec sanctum magis et mirum carumque videtur. (Lucr. 1.729–30); . . . nunc ab secundis rebus magis etiam solito incauti. (Liv. 5.44.6) With minus:26 Nemo me minus timidus, nemo tamen cautior. (Cic. Phil. 12.24); . . . nemo illo minus fuit emax . . . (Nep. Att. 13.1) Relative pronouns as the basis of comparison: . . . conspicatus sum interim / cercurum, quo ego me maiorem non vidisse censeo. (Pl. St. 367–8); Vos obsecro, iudices, ut huic optimo viro, quo nemo melior umquam fuit, nomen equitis Romani . . . ne eripiatis. (Cic. Rab. Post. 48); Itaque et Phidiae simulacris quibus nihil in illo genere perfectius videmus et iis picturis quas nominavi cogitare tamen possumus pulchriora. (Cic. Orat. 8); Profecto id, quo ne in deo quidem quicquam maius intellegi potest. (Cic. Tusc. 1.65); Punici tamen belli perpetrati, quo nullum maius neque periculosius Romani gessere, unus praecipuam gloriam tulit. (Liv. 38.53.11) More exceptional uses of the ablative as the basis of comparison: With a verb: Nullos his mallem ludos spectasse. (Hor. S. 2.8.79); . . . in agresti negotio dici vix potest, quid navus operarius ignavo et cessatore (cessatori cj. Rodgers) praestet. (Col. 11.1.16) 25 For further examples, see TLL s.v. magis 66.15ff. 26 For further examples, see TLL s.v. parvus 578.78ff.

732

Comparison Consimili ratione necessest ventus et aër / et calor inter se vigeant commixta per artus / atque aliis aliud subsit magis emineatque . . . (Lucr. 3.282–4) Comparative is attribute of a non-accusative second argument: Pane egeo iam mellitis potiore placentis. (Hor. Ep. 1.10.11); . . . qui pauperiem veritus potiore metallis / libertate caret . . . (Hor. Ep. 1.10.39–40) Comparative is attribute in the genitive: Me pedibus delectat claudere verba / Lucili ritu, nostrum melioris utroque. (Hor. S. 2.1.28–9) Participial clause as the basis of comparison: Quid impudentius publicanis renuntiantibus? (Cic. Att. 2.1.8)27 Gerundial clause as the basis of comparison: Nullum enim officium referenda gratia magis necessarium est. (Cic. Off. 1.47) Comparative modified by an ablative of measure: Praestatur laus virtuti, sed multo ocius / verno gelu tabescit. (Andr. trag. 16–17) In the proverbial examples like melle dulcior, mel constitutes the conventional prototype of sweetness and one might just as well consider it an expression of equivalence ‘as sweet as honey’. In Early Latin the use of quam—an explicit marker of nonequivalence—in a similar context is very rare, as in (f), which may be compared with (d) above. Initially, there must have been a semantic difference between the two expressions. Substituting prius opinione veni by prius veni quam opinio results in nonsense.28 (f) Quid ais, homo / levior quam pluma . . .? (‘What do you say, you man lighter than a feather . . .’ Pl. Men. 487–8) Quam is used when the head noun of a noun phrase is not expressed, in instances like (g) and (h), where the comparison is between attributes: (g) Novella (capra) enim quam vetus utilior. (‘The young goat is more profitable than the old.’ Var. R. 2.3.1) (h) Ex quo iudicari potest virtus esse quam aetatis cursum celeriorem. (‘From this it can be concluded that the course of ability is swifter than that of age.’ Cic. Phil. 5.48) In the literature two instances are discussed of an ablative in combination with a positive form of the adjective, one of which is (i). The other example is tan · durum saxso in CIL IV.1895 (cf. Ov. Ars 1.474).29 (i) (sc. aedes) Speculo claras, candorem merum. (‘One bright as a mirror, pure candor.’ Pl. Mos. 642)

27 For discussion, see Laughton (1964: 96–7). 28 For the idea that the ablativus comparationis is a marker of equivalence, see Rosén (1999: 189–93), following van der Heyde  (1930). So also Traglia (1947: 11). Bertocchi and Orlandini (1996: 199) and Orlandini and Poccetti (2010) point to the ‘elative’ meaning of the expression: ‘the highest degree of sweetness’. Donatus in his Ars IV.401.24K describes the phenomenon as a hyperbole: ‘Hyperbole est dictio  fidem excedens augendi diminuendive causa: augendi ut nive candidior, minuendi ut tardior testudine.’ 29 See Traglia (1947: 16) and Sz.: 110, with references.

Comparison of non-equivalence

733

The origin of the ablative in prehistoric times is disputed (separative or instrumental?).30

Cicero has a number of instances of ‘double comparison’31 with an ablative (either the connecting relative quo or the preparative demonstrative hōc) and quam followed by an accusative and infinitive, as in (k), or a finite clause, as in ( j) and (l). ( j)

Quo quidem mihi turpius videri nihil solet quam cum (L, quod M) ex oratoris dicto aliquo aut responso aut rogato sermo ille sequitur: ‘occidit. # . . .’ (‘Actually, I always think that nothing is more disgraceful than when an utterance or response or question from an orator gives rise to an exchange like this: “That’s really the end of it!” # . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 2.302—tr. May and Wisse)

(k)

Quid ergo hoc fieri turpius aut dici potest quam eum . . . labi . . . (‘And so what more unseemly can be done or said than this, that the very man . . . should blunder . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 1.169)

(l)

. . . tamen hoc certius esse nihil potest quam quod omnes artes aliae sine eloquentia suum munus praestare possunt . . . (‘. . . nevertheless, there can be nothing more certain than this, that while all other arts are able to discharge their functions unaided by eloquence . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 2.38)

20.8 Minor alternative expressions for the basis of comparison in comparisons of non-equivalence (i) Sallust is the first author to use the dative for the basis of comparison with inferior ‘inferior’, as in (a), and there are a few later instances. It is better to relate this use of the dative to its use with words like impar ‘not the equal (of)’ (see § 4.100) and to regard other instances of the dative in the literature (see the Supplement) as analogical extensions.32 (a)

Vir gravis et nulla arte cuiquam inferior. (‘An impressive man and inferior to none in any type of activity.’ Sal. Hist. 2.37) Supplement: Nulli tua forma secunda est (Ov. Am. 1.8.25); Adiuro per ducem istum capilli tui nodulum, quo meum vinxisti spiritum, me nullam aliam meae Fotidi malle. (Apul. Met. 3.23.2)

(ii) The use of the genitive for the basis of comparison is slightly better attested from Vitruvius onwards. Examples are (b) and (c). Its relatively frequent use in 30 For discussion and references, see Cuzzolin (2011: 589–92; 603–5). 31 This term is used by Pease in his note ad Cic. N.D. 1.38, where he also mentions one instance at Lact. Inst. 5.10.4. Löfstedt (1942/1933: II.170–1) discusses the phenomenon in his chapter on ‘Kontamination’. 32 For discussion and references, see Sz.: 113–14. For the dative for the basis of comparison with inferior, see TLL s.v. inferus 1395.35ff.

734

Comparison

ecclesiastical texts (including early Latin translations of the Bible) is due to Greek influence.33 (b)

Intervalla autem turrium ita sunt facienda, ut ne longius sit alia ab alia sagittae missionis . . . (‘The distances between the towers are so to be made that one is not further from another than a bowshot.’ Vitr. 1.5.4)

(c)

Caelia · C. · l. · quae · fuit / caeli · melior (‘Caelia, freedwoman of Caelia, who was better than heaven.’ CIL VI.4912.1–2 (Rome, 1st cent. ad (early)) Supplement: Fistulae ne minus longae pedum denum fundantur. (Vitr. 8.6.4); . . . primus peregrini marmoris columnas habuit in eodem Palatio, Hymettias tamen nec plures sex aut longiores duodenum pedum . . . (Plin. Nat. 36.7); . . . in id quod amplius sui debiti solutum est teneri. (Scaev. dig. 12.6.61); Nec tamen sui molliore provocarat. (Apul. Met. 9.38.5); Memorat et Plato maiorem Asiae vel Africae terram Atlantico mari inereptam. (Tert. Apol. 40.4)

(iii) The use of a prepositional phrase with ab + ablative for the basis of comparison is very rare and is almost restricted to Christian texts, starting with the early Latin versions of the Bible. Many of the instances are in combination with suppletive comparative forms, such as magis ‘more’ and plus ‘more’. An example is (d). However, this use originates from the use of ab with words like alter and secundus meaning ‘after’, as in (e), and in its poetic extension, as in (f). It is also found with alius (see § 20.20). Even rarer than the use of ab is the use of de and ex in this context.34 (d)

Quanto magis melior est homo ab ove. (‘How much more valuable is a man than a sheep!’ Vet. Lat. Mat. 12.12—NB: for magis, see § 20.10 fin.)35

(e)

Tu nunc eris alter ab illo. (‘Now you will be next after him.’ Verg. Ecl. 5.49)

(f)

. . . nec Priamo’st a te dignior ulla nurus. (‘. . . after you, there is no one more worthy to be a daughter-in-law to Priam.’ Ov. Ep. 16.98)

Deroux (1973) discusses the origin of the expression (following earlier scholars who suggest influence from Hebrew)36 and a few expressions that may have favoured the 33 For the history of the construction and references, see Sz.: 112–13 and Cuzzolin (2011: 611–15), also about possible Greek influence on the early instances. A few more instances are cited in TLL s.v. parvus 579.6ff. See also § 20.9 fin. 34 See TLL s.v. de 64.34ff.; Sz.: 112. 35 The Vulgate has melior ove. 36 Hebrew has no comparative form and uses a prepositional expression for the basis of comparison (Roland Hoffmann, p.c.).

Comparison of non-equivalence

735

use of the preposition ab, such as longe ab ‘far away from’ and ab meaning ‘next to’, as in (e). Compare: Dulcissimum ab hominis (sc. lacte) camelinum, efficacissimum ex asinis. (Plin. Nat. 28.123).37 (iv) Prepositional phrases with prae meaning ‘in comparison with’ are found from Early Latin onwards, in combination with a comparative expression, as in (g), but also with all sorts of expressions, as in (h).38 It is not really the (obligatory) basis of comparison in a comparative expression, but a satellite. (g)

Ac me minoris facio prae illo . . . (‘And I think my case is not as bad as that man’s . . .’ Pl. Epid. 522)

(h)

Quid est? / # Quia enim non sum dignus prae te palum ut figam in parietem. (‘What is it? / # Because compared with you I’m not worthy to pound a peg into a wall.’ Pl. Mil. 1139–40)

20.9 The comparative element used with expressions of quantity, extent of space or time, age, etc. With the comparatives plus ‘more’, amplius ‘more’, ‘longer’, ‘farther’, minus ‘less’, and— rarely—longius ‘longer’ and propius ‘nearer’, ‘closer’ used in combination with an expression of quantity or of extent of space or distance quam is not used in Early Latin and the ablative of comparison is less common than the expression shown in (a) and (b). In (a), minus is juxtaposed to quindecim dies, the subject in its clause, and hence in the nominative. In (b), amplius is juxtaposed to the measure expression duodeviginti partibus, which is in the ablative case, as is common with measure expressions (it is an ablativus mensurae—see §  20.10). The comparatives in (a) and (b) are so to speak insensitive to the syntactic environment in which they are used.39 Very rare are cases like (c), where pluris is in the genitive, just like sestertium triginta milium, an instance of the genitive of description (see § 11.48). (a)

Minus quindecim dies sunt quom pro hisce aedibus / minas quadraginta accepisti a Callicle. (‘It’s less than two weeks since you got forty minas for this house from Callicles.’ Pl. Trin. 402–3)

(b)

Quid potest sole maius, quem mathematici amplius duodeviginti partibus confirmant maiorem esse quam terram? (‘What can be bigger than the sun, which the mathematicians declare to be eighteen times the size of the earth?’ Cic. Luc. 82)

37 Material can be found in TLL, s.v. ab 39.40ff. Add Deroux’s (1973) comments. He also notes the occasional use of ab with inferior (Var. R. 1.2.16) and citerior (Val. Max. 9.12.6). The ab expression is found in texts of both educated and uneducated writers (Adams 2013: 363–70). 38 The material can be found in the TLL s.v. 374.46ff. See also Torrego (2002: 272). 39 For thoughts about the origin of the construction, see Sz.: 110, with references, Calboli (1961a), and Pasoli (1966: 84–7). The two constituents are sometimes called ‘appositives’.

736 (c)

Comparison . . . qui praedium praediave rustica pluris sestertium triginta milium haberent . . . (‘. . . those who had an estate or estates in the country valued at over thirty thousand sesterces . . .’ Liv. 45.15.2) Supplement:40 Quid si tandem amplius triennium est? (Cic. Q.  Rosc. 8); . . . cum eum Syracusis amplius centum cives Romani cognoscerent . . . (Cic. Ver. 1.14); Reliquum spatium, quod est non amplius pedum sescentorum . . . (Caes. Gal. 1.38.5); Hamilcar puerulo me utpote non amplius novem annos nato . . . Iovi optimo maximo hostias immolavit. (Nep. Han. 2.3) Vitibus sulcos et propagines ne minus p. IIS quoquoversus facito. (Cato Agr. 43.2); . . . nisi mature Laetilius in Siciliam cum litteris venisset, minus XXX diebus Metellus totam triennii praeturam tuam rescidisset. (Cic. Ver. 2.140); . . . ad castra Caesaris omnibus copiis contenderunt et a milibus passuum minus duobus castra posuerunt. (Caes. Gal. 2.7.3); (sc. vallum) . . . neque minus XL pedes altitudinis habebat . . . (B. Alex. 2.4); Inter eos satis constabat non minus ducentos Carthaginiensium equites fuisse . . . (Liv. 29.34.17) Nam illaec me in alvo menses gestavit decem, / at ego illam in alvo gesto plus annos decem. (Pl. St. 159–60); Quantum sat est et plus satis: superfit. (Pl. Epid. 346); Supra terram ne plus IIII digitos transvorsos emineant. (Cato Agr. 45.3); In Sauracti Fiscello caprae ferae sunt quae saliunt e saxo pedes plus sexagenos. (Cato hist. 52=47C); Homini misero plus quingentos colaphos infregit mihi. (Ter. Ad. 200); Tribunum plebis plus viginti vulneribus acceptis iacentem moribundumque vidistis. (Cic. Sest. 85); Unius tamen ea magnitudo hominis erit collecta paulo plus decem annorum felicitate. (Liv. 9.18.8) . . . ipse legiones . . . non longius fere mille passus ab suis munitionibus progressus in acie constituit. (B.  Afr. 78.2); Neque enim provocationem esse longius ab urbe mille passuum . . . (Liv. 3.20.7) . . . dum ne pius urbem Romam CC milia admoveret? (Cic. Phil. 6.5—NB: propius governs urbem41); P. Mucius Scaevola urbanam sortitus provinciam est et ut idem quaereret de veneficiis in urbe et propius urbem decem milia passuum . . . (Liv. 40.44.6) NB: Quid sit quod . . . Q.  Calidius damnatus dixerit minoris HS tricies praetorium hominem honeste non posse damnari. (Cic. Ver. 38—a penalty argument in the genitive, see § 4.64; HS tricies is invariable)

Examples that conform to the regular patterns described in §§  20.5 and 20.7 are (d)—with quam—and (e)—with an ablative of comparison. (d)

Nam partim quinque eius partes esse dixerunt, partim non plus quam in tres partes posse distribui putaverunt. (‘For some have said that it has five parts and others have thought that it could be divided into not more than three parts.’ Cic. Inv. 1.57)

40 Most of the examples are taken from K.-St.: II.471–2.

41 See TLL s.v. prope 1962.4ff.

Comparison of non-equivalence (e)

737

Plus triginta annis natus sum . . . (‘I’m more than thirty years old . . .’ Pl. Men. 446) Supplement: Eam (sc. enumerationem) plus quam trium partium numero esse non oportet. (Rhet. Her. 1.17); . . . nequis nostrum plus quam unius civitatis esse possit . . . (Cic. Balb. 31); . . . eorum qui non sunt usi plus quam quattuor coloribus, formas et liniamenta laudamus. (Cic. Brut. 70); Plus octo milia hominum caesa, et haud multo minus quam mille captum . . . (Liv. 24.42.8); Nec plus quam quattuor milia hominum effugerunt. (Liv. 39.31.13); . . . si . . . id . . . testati fuerint adhibitis non minus quam septem testibus civibus Romanis puberibus . . . (Gaius Inst. 1.29) Cum iam amplius horis sex continenter pugnaretur . . . (Caes. Gal. 3.5.1); Sed ubi certis auctoribus comperit minus V et XX milibus longe ab Utica eius copias abesse . . . (Caes. Civ. 2.37.3) NB: (sc. Cicero) pluris occidit uno . . . (Brut. ad Brut. 26 (25[1.17]).1); . . . neve hiberna propius ullam urbem decem milibus passuum aedificarent. (Liv. 26.1.10)

In age expressions with the adjective natus ‘old’, the number of years, months, or days is regularly a noun phrase in the accusative, as with other dimensional adjectives (see § 4.104). An example is (f). (f)

Ovem tibi eccillam dabo, natam annos sexaginta, / peculiarem. (‘Look, I’ll give you that sheep, sixty years of age, as your very own.’ Pl. Mer. 524–5)

Natus has no comparative form. For expressing a higher or a lower number of years, months, or days there are a few other possibilities illustrated by (g)–(i).42 In (g), annos is in the accusative case, as in ex. (f) with natam alone; in (h), annis is in the ablative case, with the comparative minor, as in (e). (g)

Annos natus maior quadraginta. (‘He is more than forty years old.’ Cic. S. Rosc. 39)

(h)

. . . leges Halaesinis dedit, in quibus multa sanxit de aetate hominum, nequi minor XXX annis natus . . . (‘. . . he gave laws to the men of Halaesa in which he laid down many rules about the age of the men who might be elected; that no one might be under thirty years of age . . .’ Cic. Ver. 2.122) Supplement: . . . queive minor anneis XXX maiorve annos LX gnatus siet . . . (CIL I2.583.13 (Lex Acilia, Rome, 122 bc)) Maior enim annos sexaginta natus decessit florente regno. (Nep. Reg. 2.3); . . . ne quis minor quinquaginta annos natus hospitio matris familias uteretur. (Fron. Str. 4.1.10) Sic Hannibal minor quinque et viginti annis natus imperator factus . . . (Nep. Han. 3.2) 42 See TLL s.v. nascor 88.18ff.

738

Comparison

There are also various expressions with the number of years in the genitive, most probably derived from the genitive of description (see §  11.48). They are relatively common in inscriptions and in juridical texts. Examples are (i)–(k), (i) with gnatus alone, ( j) with minor and maior and natus, and (k) with minor alone. (i)

rnelius · L. · f. · L. · n. / pio Asiagenus / Comatus annoru / gnatus · XVI (‘Cornelius Scipio Asiagenus Nevershorn, son of Lucius, grandson of Lucius, sixteen years of age.’ CIL I2.13 (Scip. Elog., Rome, c. 150 bc))

( j)

. . . dum ne in/vito eius opera exigatur qui minor annor(um) XIIII / aut maior annor(um) LX natus erit . . . (‘. . . as long as no labour is exacted unwillingly from any person less than fourteen  or  more than sixty years of age.’ CIL II.5.1022.XCVIII.8–10 (Lex coloniae Genetivae Iuliae, Flavian copy of a law adopted soon after Julius Caesar’s death, 44 bc))

(k)

. . . dumne · cuiius comi/tis · rationem · habeat · qui · IIviratum · pe/tet · et qui minor · annorum · XXV erit . . . item qui aedilitatem · quaesturam/ve · petet · qui minor · quam annor(um) XXV erit . . . (‘. . . provided that he does not accept in the election the eligibility of anyone seeking the duumvirate who is under 25 . . . likewise of anyone seeking the aedileship or the quaestorship who is under 25 . . .’ CIL II.1964.54.10–15 (Lex Irnitana, Malaga, 1st cent. ad (late)—NB: note quam in the second age expression—tr. González)) Supplement: Obsides Romanis viginti dato et triennio mutato, ne minores octonum denum annorum neu maiores quinum quadragenum. (Liv. 38.38.15); Cautum est, domine, Pompeia lege quae Bithynis data est ne quis capiat magistratum neve sit in senatu minor annorum triginta. (Plin. Ep. 10.79.1)43 Cf.: Cautumque in posterum senatus consulto ne quis gladiatorium munus ederet cui minor quadringentorum milium res . . . (Tac. Ann. 4.63.1)

In a way that resembles the examples above, plus quam and minus quam can be used to modify nouns functioning as subject complement and adjectives functioning as attribute to indicate an extreme degree. Examples are (l) and (m), respectively. (l)

Confiteor eos . . . plus quam sicarios, plus quam homicidas, plus etiam quam parricidas esse . . . (‘I confess them to be worse than assassins, worse than murderers, worse even than parricides.’ Cic. Phil. 2.31)

(m)

Odisse plebem plus quam paterno odio. (‘That he hated the plebs with a hatred greater than his father’s.’ Liv. 2.58.5)

43 This instance is discussed by Coleman (2012: 222–3).

Comparison of non-equivalence

739

Supplement: . . . primaque eorum proelia plus quam virorum, postrema minus quam feminarum esse. (Liv. 10.28.4) Has tantas viri virtutes ingentia vitia aequabant, inhumana crudelitas, perfidia plus quam Punica, nihil veri . . . (Liv. 21.4.9)

20.10 Expressions specifying the measure of difference in comparisons of non-equivalence When two terms are compared with respect to a certain standard, the most common way to indicate the measure of difference between them is to use a noun phrase in the ablative case (the so-called ablativus mensurae). This may be a full noun phrase containing a noun and a quantifier of some form, as in (a), a noun with a specific meaning, as in (b), or a neuter singular form of an adjective of amount, as in (c). In (d), the head noun to which the numeral una belongs can be understood from the context (tribu). (a)

Probae hic argenti sunt sexaginta minae. / Duobus nummis minus est (sc. argentum). (‘There are sixty decent silver minas here, minus two obols.’ Pl. Per. 683–4)

(b)

Ego enim ne pilo quidem minus me amabo. (‘I won’t love myself any less, not even less by a hair’s breadth.’ Cic. Q. fr. 2.16.5)

(c)

Immo hercle vero / qui pendet multo est miserior. (‘No, a chap is more miserable by far when he’s hanging.’ Pl. As. 616–17)

(d)

. . . legem una plures tribus antiquarunt quam iusserunt. (‘. . . the law was rejected by one more tribe than voted in its favour.’ Liv. 5.30.7)

Examples of noun phrases in the ablative of measure of difference are (e)–(g). Among them noun phrases with partes ‘times’ are relatively common, as in (e) and (f).44 (e)

Quis est . . . avaritia tam ardenti . . . ut eandem illam rem . . . non multis partibus malit ad sese . . . sine facinore . . . pervenire? (‘For who is there . . . of avarice so consuming . . . that he would not a hundred times rather attain the same object without transgressing?’ Cic. Fin. 3.36)

(f)

Si duabus partibus doceo te amplius frumenti abstulisse quam populo Romano misisse . . . (‘If I prove that you embezzled twice as much corn as you sent home for the nation . . .’ Cic. Ver. 3.49)

(g)

Transeunt Rhenum . . . triginta milibus passuum infra eum locum ubi pons erat perfectus . . . (‘They crossed the Rhine thirty miles below the spot where the bridge had been built . . .’ Caes. Gal. 6.35.6) 44 For further examples, see TLL s.v. pars 453.22ff., OLD s.v. pars § 4e.

740

Comparison Supplement: With comparative forms of adjectives and adverbs: Nempe octoginta debentur huic minae? # Hau nummo amplius. (Pl. Mos. 919); Immo edepol una littera plus sum quam medicus (sc. mendicus). (Pl. Rud. 1305); Uno Gelasimo minus est quam dudum fuit. (Pl. St. 498); Quasi volturii triduo / prius praedivinant quo die esuri sient. (Pl. Truc. 337–8); . . . cum maximas animo voluptates percipiat omnibusque partibus maiores quam corpore . . . (Cic. Fin. 2.108); Quam molestum est uno digito plus habere. (Cic. N.D. 1.99); (sc. honestas) . . . certe omni pondere gravior habenda quam reliqua omnia . . . (Cic. Off. 3.35); Uno plus Tuscorum cecidisse in acie. (Liv. 2.7.2); Non die, non hora citius quam necesse est magistratu abieris . . . (Liv. 9.34.15) NB: Assunt quae imperavisti omnia: / uxor, sortes, situla atque egomet. # Te uno adest plus quam ego volo. (Pl. Cas. 358–9) With malo and praesto: Nam decem partibus tuas litteras legere malim quam omnes Massicos aut Gauranos palmites. (Fro. Ep. ad M.  Caes. 4.4.2vdH); . . . quattuor et triginta tum habebat annos totidemque annis mihi aetate praestabat. (Cic. Brut. 161) With adverbs and related prepositional phrases: Eam (sc. vitem) anno post praecidito seritoque cum qualo. (Cato Agr. 52.2); Ergo his fundamentis positis consulatus tui triduo post . . . Lex Aelia et Fufia eversa est. (Cic. Pis. 9); . . . exposuit nobis sermonem Laeli de amicitia habitum . . . paucis diebus post mortem Africani. (Cic. Amic. 3); . . . qui annis ante permultis fuit quam ipse Pythagoras. (Cic. de Orat. 2.154); . . . paucis ante annis ex praetura eam provinciam obtinuerat. (Caes. Civ. 1.31.3); . . . milibus passuum duobus ultra eum (sc. Caesarem) castra fecit . . . (Caes. Gal. 1.48.2); Paucis citra milibus lignatores ei cum praesidio occurrunt. (Liv. 10.25.5)

The use of adjectives of amount in the ablative as measure of difference expressions is very common. Apart from multo in (c), these adjectives include nimio ‘too much’ (especially in Plautus), paulo ‘little’, nihilo ‘nothing’, aliquanto ‘somewhat’, aliquo ‘somewhat’, quanto ‘how much’, tanto ‘so much’, and several combinations with tanto, e.g. bis tanto ‘twice as much’. Examples are (h) and (i). The measure expressions usually precede the comparative expression, as in (h), but see (i) (see also § 23.80 fin.).45 (h)

Ter tanto peior ipsa est quam illam tu esse vis. (‘She’s three times worse on her own than you want her to be.’ Pl. Per. 153)

(i)

Sed certe eidem illi melius aliquanto dicerent, si . . . (‘But those same individuals would certainly speak rather more successfully, if . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 2.103) Supplement (in alphabetical order by ablative): With comparative forms of adjectives and adverbs: Atque aliquanto lubentius quam aps te sum egressus intus. (Pl. Epid. 380); Sed et si non totum evictum sit verum aliquo minus habet quam putavit, erit ei subveniendum. (Ulp. dig. 38.2.8.1); . . . vir sapiens multo arte maiore praeditus non quid verissimum sit, sed quid velit vulgus, exquiret? (Cic. Tusc. 5.104); Sed quod te misi, nihilo sum certior. (Pl. Cur. 327); Vixisse nimio satiu’st iam quam vivere. (Pl. Bac. 151); Quem res plus nimio delectavere secundae, / mutatae quatient. (Hor. Ep. 1.10.30–1—NB: nimio follows); . . . Accius 45 For the Early Latin instances, see Bennett: II.362–3.

Comparison of non-equivalence

741

tunc haut parvo iunior proficiscens in Asiam . . . devertit ad Pacuvium . . . (Gel. 13.2.2); Sed ea quae demissurus eris sumito paulo acerbiora. (Cato Agr. 101.1); Caesar . . . maturius paulo quam tempus anni postulabat in hiberna in Sequanos exercitum deduxit. (Caes. Gal. 1.54.2—NB: paulo follows); Illa autem (sc. via) qua omnes commeabant altero tanto longiorem habebat anfractum . . . (Nep. Eum. 8.5) With malo and praesto: . . . quicquid in Creta nascatur infinito praestare ceteris eiusdem generis alibi genitis . . . (Plin. Nat. 25.94); Ne me quidem contemno meoque iudicio multo stare malo quam omnium reliquorum. (Cic. Att. 12.21.5); . . . multo mihi, multo, inquam, iudices, praestat in eandem illam recidere fortunam quam tantam inportare meis defensoribus et conservatoribus calamitatem. (Cic. Sest. 146); Nunc illud est, quom me fuisse quam esse nimio mavelim. (Pl. Capt. 516) With adverbs and related prepositional phrases: . . . epulamur una non modo non contra legem, si ulla nunc lex est, sed etiam intra legem, et quidem aliquanto. (Cic. Fam. 9.26.4);. . . quorum furibunda mens videt ante multo quae sint futura. (Cic. Div. 1.114—NB: multo follows); Cucumin silvestrem esse diximus, multo infra magnitudinem sativi. (Plin. Nat. 20.3); Aut in qua inserunt (sc. vitem), in ea paulo infra quam insitum est incidunt . . . (Var. R. 1.41.3); . . . propter ea vitia maritimarum urbium quae ante paulo perbreviter adtigi. (Cic. Rep. 2.9—NB: paulo follows); . . . legati eorum paulo ante a Caesare discesserant . . . (Caes. Gal. 4.12.1) Appendix: Difficult to explain are instances of tantā in similar contexts, transmitted several times in the manuscripts of Plautus and Apuleius, and also transmitted in the palimpsest at Cic. Ver. 3.225. Two examples are ( j) and (k). Many editors prefer reading tanto.46 ( j) Ego multo tanta miserior quam tu, Labrax. (‘I am much more wretched than you, Labrax.’ Pl. Rud. 521—NB: also multo) (k) Ego tibi redimam bis tanta pluris pallam quam voles. (‘I’ll buy you another mantle instead, twice as expensive, of your own choice.’ Pl. Men. 680)

Instead of ablative neuter forms of adjectives of amount, accusative forms are used. The first undisputed attestations are from Livy, as in (l) and (m). Such accusative forms are well attested as extent of space adjuncts (see § 10.18), quantity adjuncts (see § 10.63), and as degree modifiers of adjectives and adverbs (see § 11.94) from Early Latin onwards. It is therefore not impossible that the earlier instances that are transmitted are correct, though they are sometimes emended (see the Supplement).47 (l)

. . . formamque viri aliquantum ampliorem augustioremque humana intuens rogitat qui vir esset. (‘. . . looking at the man’s figure, which was somewhat ampler and more august than a mortal’s, he inquired who he was.’ Liv. 1.7.9)

46 For discussion, see K.-St.: I.403, Sz.: 136, and Petersmann ad Pl. St. 339, with references. Also TLL s.v. multus 1616.40ff. 47 See Lundström (1961: 73–5) and Leeman et al. ad Cic. de Orat. 3.92. There seems to be only one Late Latin attestation of multum with malo (see TLL s.v. multus 203.60).

742 (m)

Comparison . . . flumen Allia . . . haud multum infra viam Tiberino amni miscetur. (‘. . . the river Allia . . . mingles, not far south of the highway, with the waters of the Tiber.’ Liv. 5.37.7) Supplement: With comparative forms of adjectives and adverbs: Hercle, qui multum (P, multo ς) improbiores sunt quam a primo credidi. (Pl. Mos. 824); Eiu’ frater aliquantum ad rem’st avidior. (Ter. Eu. 131); Illud rursus ipsum quod tradunt isti . . . non multum (multo cj. Manutius) est maius quam illud vulgare et forense. (Cic. de Orat. 3.92); . . . meliore aliquantum militum genere urgebantur . . . (Liv. 40.40.1); Est et beta silvestris quam limonium vocant . . . multum minoribus foliis tenuioribusque ac densioribus. (Plin. Nat. 20.72); Itaque verba posui Varronis e libro . . . cuius principium hoc est: ‘Praxiteles, qui propter artificium egregium nemini est paulum modo humaniori ignotus.’ (Gel. 13.17.3); Sesquipede quiddam est quam tu longior. (Pl. Trin. 903—NB: in combination with an ablative of comparison)48 With adverbs and prepositional phrases: De qua etsi permultum (permulto cj. Lambinus) ate certior factus eram litteris . . . (Cic. Fam. 3.11.1); Uvae paulum ante maturitatem decerptae siccantur acri sole . . . (Plin. Nat. 14.77); Multum infra hunc sucum est qui in Gallia fit . . . (Plin. Nat. 25.79); . . . cuius sane decora et procax soror, Iunia Calvina, haud multum ante Vitellii nurus fuerat. (Tac. Ann. 12.4.1) NB: Exceptional noun phrases in the accusative: Is locus est citra Leucadem stadia CXX. (Cic. Fam. 16.2.1); Nacti portum, qui appellatur Nymphaeum, ultra Lissum milia passuum III, eo naves introduxerunt . . . (Caes. Civ. 3.26.4)

The adverb longe ‘by far’ is also used as a modifier of comparative expressions, as in (n) and (o).49 The use of adverbs becomes more common in Late Latin.50 (n)

. . . longe superiores virtute rem feliciter gerebant. (‘. . . being far superior in courage, they fought successfully.’ B. Alex. 46.4)

(o)

Utra societas sit utilior, eam longe minorem ac levioris momenti consultationem esse. (‘Which alliance was the more advantageous was a far less significant question and one of far less weight.’ Liv. 24.28.5) Supplement: Gnate mihi longe (cj. Hoeufft, longa V) iucundior unice vita . . . (Catul. 64.215); . . . inimicitiis . . . quas longe acrius arsuras si matrimonium Liviae velut in partis domum Caesarum distraxisset. (Tac. Ann. 4.40.3) . . . longe ante omnes mihi quae me carior ipso est . . . (Catul. 68B.159); . . . fuere longe quidem infra praedictos, probati tamen, Antaeus, Callistratus . . . (Plin. Nat. 34.52) Ianua vel domina penitus crudelior ipsa, / quid mihi tam duris clausa taces foribus? (Prop. 1.16.17–18); Item munitiones muri turriumque aggeribus coniunctae maxime sunt tutiores . . . (Vitr. 1.5.5); . . . bonus Deus atque his validissime longissimeque praestantior. (August. Conf. 7.7)

48 For the use of quidam, see § 11.114. 49 For further examples, see TLL s.v. longus 1648.41ff. 50 For instances and references, see Sz.: 167.

Comparison of non-equivalence

743

From Plautus onwards instances are found of clauses that contain both a comparative form of an adjective or adverbs and magis. In some cases magis is used in its ‘corrective’ sense (like potius, see § 19.61 fin. and § 20.13),51 but most of the eleven instances in Plautus seem to be pleonastic, as in (p). This also holds for (q) and (r). The phenomenon is slightly more frequent in the Latin Bible translations.52 (p)

Ego faxo posthac di deaeque ceteri / contentiores mage erunt atque avidi minus, / quom scibunt, Veneri ut adierit leno manum. (‘I’ll make sure that from now on the other gods and goddesses will be more contented and less avaricious when they know how the pimp tricked Venus.’ Pl. Poen. 460–2)

(q)

. . . exercitus eius magis suspensiore animo ante adventum Iubae commovebatur. (‘. . . his army was moved by a greater feeling of suspense before the arrival of Juba.’ B. Afr. 48.3)

(r)

. . . quae (sc. manus sinistra) . . . videbatur aequitati magis aptior quam dextera. (‘ . . . a left hand which seemed more appropriate for justice than a right hand.’ Apul. Met. 11.10.5) Appendix: A number of particles can be used with comparatives (and related expressions) with a scalar meaning (see also § 22.22). Common in all periods of Latin are iam ‘even’, as in (s)53 and etiam ‘even’, ‘still’, as in (t);54 vel ‘even’ is used from the Classical period onwards, as in (u); adhuc ‘even’, ‘still’ is used in this way from Seneca onwards, as in (v).55 (s) . . . certe de istoc Amphitruone iam alterum mirum est magis. (‘. . . the other business with that Amphitruo is certainly even odder.’ Pl. Am. 829) (t) . . . Hegionem, cui boni / tantum affero quantum ipsus a dis optat, atque etiam amplius. (‘. . . Hegio, to whom I’m bringing as much good as he himself wishes from the gods, and even more.’ Pl. Capt. 776–7) (u) Si autem fieri posset, vel pluris te animos habere vellem . . . (‘But if it were possible, I should wish you had even more than one mind . . .’ Cic. Phil. 11.22) (v) Magis adhuc proderunt summissi et humani et dulces . . . (‘Still more helpful will be those who are yielding and kindly and suave . . .’ Sen. Dial. 5.8.5)

51 See TLL s.v. magis 58.25ff. 52 For further examples, see TLL s.v. magis 62.72ff. For discussion, see Löfstedt (1942/1933: II.199– 208), Sz.: 166–7; also for other pleonastic combinations, K.-St.: II.464, and Maltby (2016: 344). The usage is criticized by Donatus IV.363.3K. 53 For further examples, see TLL s.v. iam 125.12ff. 54 For further examples, see TLL s.v. etiam 948.69ff. 55 For further examples, see TLL s.v. adhuc 662.61ff.

744

Comparison Supplement: Adhuc difficilior observatio est per tenores . . . (Quint. Inst. 1.5.22); Melius quidem adhuc eae civitates in quibus tantum virgines nubunt . . . (Tac. Ger. 19.2) Maioreque opere ibi serviles nuptiae / quam liberales etiam curari solent. (Pl. Cas. 74–5); Scelus est accipere ab reo: quanto magis ab accusatore, quanto etiam sceleratius ab utroque! (Cic. Ver. 2.78); Ego vero, et quidem fecit etiam iste me epilogus firmiorem. (Cic. Tusc. 1.119); Maxime tamen doleo adeo et longo et infesto itinere ad me veniri ut die quadragensimo post aut ultra etiam quam facta sunt omnia nuntientur. (Pol. Fam. 10.33.5); Ibi minus etiam quod alienis cladibus ceciderant animi certaminis fuit. (Liv. 1.11.3) Quippe qui certo scio / ibi plus scortorum esse iam quam ponderum. (Pl. Truc. 68–9); Quasi quicquam in hunc iam graviu’ dici possiet. (Ter. An. 874); . . . neque in uno aut altero animadversum est sed iam in pluribus . . . (Cic. Mur. 43); Sed me minus iam movent, ut vides. (Cic. Fam. 13.15.2); Ab ignis iam maiore vi ac violentia Volcanus dictus. (Var. L. 5.70); Trans Lugios Gotones regnantur, paulo iam adductius quam ceterae Germanorum gentes . . . (Tac. Ger. 43.6) Sed Campans genus / multo Surorum iam antidit patientia. (Pl. Trin. 546–7); Sin vera sunt quae dicuntur . . . id multo iam beatius est. . . . quod etiam vel maior est in quibus similitudines reperiuntur . . . (Var. L. 9.114); Quintus fuit mecum dies compluris et, si ego cuperem, ille vel pluris fuisset. (Cic. Att. 16.5.2); Haec vel melior est vitibus satio. (Col. 3.4); Sunt etiam qui decem genera fecerint sed eo modo quo fieri vel plura possunt. (Quint. Inst. 8.5.5) These adverbs are also used with verbs and expressions that denote a gradual change. An example is etiam in (w). Adhuc is attested from Seneca onwards, as in (x).56 (w) Inde in totam urbem discursum est, aucto etiam tumultu quod circa forum ignis tectis iniectus erat. (‘They now ran amok throughout the city, the chaos becoming further intensified because the buildings around the forum were put to the torch.’ Liv. 31.23.7) (x) Tu ista credis excelsa quia longe ab illis iaces. Ei vero qui ad illa pervenit humilia sunt. Mentior nisi adhuc quaerit escendere. Istud quod tu summum putas gradus est. (‘You deem lofty the objects you seek, because you are on a low level and hence far away from them. But they are mean in the sight of him who has reached them. And I am very much mistaken if he does not desire to climb still higher. That which you regard as the top is merely a rung of the ladder.’ Sen. Ep. 118.6)

20.11 Comparison of equivalence The most common way from Early Latin onwards to indicate that two terms are equivalent with respect to a certain standard is with the correlative adverbs 56 See TLL s.v. etiam 948.63ff.; s.v. adhuc 662.36ff.

Comparison of equivalence

745

tam . . . quam. These adverbs can be used with adjectives, adverbs, prepositional phrases, and with verbs, as in (a)–(c), but also with entire clauses, as in (d). The standard may be indicated with both terms but is usually indicated only with one. An example of indication of the standard in both terms is (e). Conditional clauses with si are relatively frequent as the second term in this type of comparison, as in (d). For other correlative pairs, see §§ 20.28–30. (a)

Neque opes nostrae tam sunt validae quam tuae. (‘And our wealth is not as great as yours.’ Pl. Cist. 494)

(b)

Quis umquam nepos tam libere est cum scortis quam hic cum sororibus volutatus? (‘What debauchee ever wallowed so dissolutely with prostitutes as he has with his sisters?’ Cic. Har. 59)

(c)

. . . intellegatis nihil esse homini tam timendum quam invidiam . . . (‘. . . you know that nothing should be feared by a man so much as prejudice.’ Cic. Clu. 7)

(d)

Qui autem non defendit nec obsistit, si potest, iniuriae . . . tam est in vitio quam si parentes aut amicos aut patriam deserat. (‘But he who does not prevent or oppose wrong, if he can, is just as guilty of wrong as if he deserted his parents or his friends or his country.’ Cic. Off. 1.23)

(e)

Tam frictum ego illum reddam quam frictum est cicer. (‘I’ll make sure he’s as roasted as a roasted pea.’ Pl. Bac. 767) Supplement: Tam ego homo sum quam tu. (Pl. As. 490); Tam ego fui ante liber quam gnatus tuos, / tam mihi quam illi libertatem hostilis eripuit manus, / tam ille apud nos servit quam ego nunc hic apud te servio. (Pl. Capt. 310–12); Tam propitiam reddam quam quom propitia est Iuno Iovi. (Pl. Mer. 956); Nihil esse in civitate tam diligenter quam ius civile retinendum. (Cic. Caec. 70); . . . tamque omnibus Caesarianis quam Pompeianis Longinum esse in odio . . . (B. Alex. 59.1); Non tam creber agens hiemem ruit aequore turbo / quam multae pecudum pestes. (Verg. G. 3.470–1); . . . aliamque orationem non tam honorificam audientibus quam sibi deformem habuisse. (Liv. 45.44.20) NB: Magis quam id reputo, tam magis uror / quae meus filius turbavit. (Pl. Bac. 1091–91a—NB: magis repeated); Quam magis aspecto, tam magis est nimbata et nugae merae. (Pl. Poen. 348) The relatedness of tam . . . quam and tantus . . . quantus expressions appears from combinations like (f). In (f) the amount of terror and the joy are equivalent. More mixed are (g) and (h).57 (f) Profectio Q. Fabi trans Ciminiam silvam quantum Romae terrorem fecerat, tam laetam famam in Samnium ad hostes tulerat interclusum Romanum exercitum obsideri . . .

57 For further examples, see K.-St.: II.458–9.

746

Comparison (‘As much terror as Quintus Fabius’ march through the Ciminian Forest had created at Rome, just so happy had the report arrived in Samnium among the enemy that the Roman army was intercepted and besieged.’ Liv. 9.38.4) (g) Quid est enim in vita tantopere quaerendum quam cum omnia in philosophia, tum id, quod his libris quaeritur, qui sit finis . . .? (‘For what problem in life should be inquired into so much as all the topics of philosophy, and especially the question raised in these volumes—What is the End . . . ?’ Cic. Fin. 1.11) (h) Iam non tantum mihi videntur iniuriam facere ii qui haec disputant quam si cuius aures ad hanc disputationem patent. (‘At this point those who so contend don’t seem to do me so much wrong as those whose ears are open to such a contention.’ Cic. Fam. 3.8.3) The demonstrative elements of these pairs are rarely combined with a comparative particle, as in (i) and ( j). TLL s.v. atque 1083.53 quotes two late instances of tam . . . atque. (i) Faxo tali sum (= eum) mactatum atque hic est infortunio. (‘I’ll have the same misfortunes inflicted on him as on our friend here.’ Ter. Ph. 1028) ( j) . . . cum totidem navibus atque erat profectus Athenas magna cum offensione civium suorum rediret. (‘. . . and returned to Athens with the same number of ships as he had set out with, to the great vexation of his fellow citizens.’ Nep. Milt. 7.4)

Equivalence can also be expressed by other combinations of correlative words, as in (k)–(m) (see § 18.35). (k)

Si . . . tot labores et pericula suscepissem quotiens . . . vobis salus quaesita est, nihil amplius in absentem me statuissetis . . . (‘If . . . I had undertaken so many dangerous exertions as many times as . . . your safety has been secured, you would have passed no more severe measures against me in my absence . . .’ Sal. Hist. 2.98.1)

(l)

Sed plerique perverse, ne dicam inpudenter, habere talem amicum volunt, quales ipsi esse non possunt . . . (‘But most men unreasonably, not to say shamelessly, want to have such a friend as they cannot be themselves . . .’ Cic. Amic. 82)

(m)

. . . tot noctes reddat spurcas quot pure habuerit. (‘. . . she shall give you as many unchaste nights as she had chaste ones.’ Pl. As. 807)

Negation of an expression of comparison of equivalence can be interpreted more or less as an expression of non-equivalence, as in (n)–(p), where non tam quam resembles minus quam. (n)

Nostrum enim unus quisque, qui tam beati quam iste est non sumus, tam delicati esse non possumus, si quando aliquid istius modi videre volet, eat ad aedem Felicitatis . . .

Comparison between two properties

747

(‘As for ourselves, who are not such grand people as he is, not able to afford such luxuries, if any one of us is ever disposed to have a look at something of this sort, let us go off to the temple of Good Fortune . . .’ Cic. Ver. 4.126)

(o)

Id adeo non tam ex re quam ex istius factis decretisque cognosco. (‘I am led to this conclusion not so much by direct evidence as by observing what Verres did or ordered to be done.’ Cic. Ver. 5.9)

(p)

(sc. Apollonius) . . . multaque non tam graviter dixit quam facete. (‘. . . and many of his remarks, rather than being serious, were made in a spirit of jest.’ Cic. de Orat. 1.75)

For a similar situation with comparison of non-equivalence, see § 20.3 fin. The choice between a positive and a negative expression can be made for pragmatic reasons.58 See also § 8.8 and § 8.50 for pragmatic aspects of negation.

20.12 Comparison between two properties As with comparison between two terms, for comparison between two ‘properties’ (for the term, see § 20.1) a distinction must be made between the situation in which two properties are presented as equivalent and one in which they are presented as nonequivalent. The two types are illustrated by (a) and (b), the latter repeated from § 20.1, respectively. (a)

At hic (sc. Alexander) a pueritia latro gentiumque vastator, tam hostium pernicies quam amicorum . . . (‘But this other was from his boyhood a robber and a plunderer of nations, a scourge alike to his friends and to his foes . . .’ Sen. Ben. 1.13)

(b)

Sed longior quam latior acies erat. (‘But the battle-line was deep rather than widely extended.’ Liv. 27.48.7)

20.13 Comparison of non-equivalence between two properties Latin has two devices for indicating that of two properties which an entity possesses one is present in a higher (or lower) degree than the other. One device is magis (or minus) quam. It can be used to compare two verbs, as in (a): Pompeius showed both caution and fear, but his degree of caution was higher.59 In a similar way it is used to compare two adjectives (with the copula expressed or not), as in (b), but it can also be 58 For statistical data on the use of positive and negative expressions of comparison, see Baños (1998: 32). 59 Such utterances are analysed by Baños (2002: 50–6). See also Orlandini and Poccetti (2018), who use the term ‘epistemic comparison’. For comparison of reason adjunct clauses, see Baños (2019).

748

Comparison

used to compare two adverbs, as in (c) (with the adverbs functioning as disjuncts). Ex. (d), already cited in § 20.2, shows two clauses that do not share a common entity; the standard of comparison is the degree of similarity. (a)

Verum ut intellego, cavebat magis Pompeius quam timebat . . . (‘But, as I understand, Pompeius was more cautious than fearful.’ Cic. Mil. 66)

(b)

Celer tuus disertus magis est quam sapiens. (‘Your relation Celer is more eloquent than wise.’ Cic. Att. 10.1a.4)

(c)

. . . per hanc consensionem quae magis honeste quam vere sodalitas nominaretur . . . (‘. . . by means of that form of combination which, in compliment rather than accuracy, is known as an association . . .’ Cic. Planc. 37)

(d)

Nec lact’ lactis magis est simile quam ille ego simil’est mei. (‘Milk doesn’t resemble milk more than that me resembles this me.’ Pl. Am. 601) Supplement: . . . perfectam artem iuris civilis habebitis, magis magnam atque uberem quam difficilem et obscuram. (Cic. de Orat. 1.191); Si vero aut numerus quidam sit animus, quod subtiliter magis quam dilucide dicitur, aut quinta illa non nominata magis quam non intellecta natura . . . (Cic. Tusc. 1.41); Credulitas enim error est magis quam culpa . . . (Planc. Fam. 10.23.1); . . . dum se temere magis quam satis caute in mediam dimicationem infert . . . (Liv. 3.5.7); Ad ea consul respondit magis saepe quam vere unquam Aetolos pacem petere . . . (Liv. 38.8.7); Ludicro Iuvenum sub Nerone velut ex necessitate, mox sponte mimos actitavit, scite magis quam probe. (Tac. Hist. 3.62.2); Adversus quos Lupicinus . . . temere magis quam consulte progressus in nono ab urbe miliario stetit paratus ad decernendum. (Amm. 31.5.9)

The other device to indicate the non-equivalence of two properties consists of two comparative forms of adjectives (both when functioning as subject or object complement and as attribute) or adverbs in combination with quam, as in (e) and (f). This device is attested from Cato onwards, while the use of magis in such comparisons can be found from Cicero onwards. The former becomes more frequent from Livy onwards. (e)

Id non est in oratoribus aut, etiam si est ut alius gravitatem sequens subtilitatem fugiat, contra alius acutiorem se quam ornatiorem velit . . . (‘But the same is not true of orators, or, even if one in pursuit of weight and dignity avoids simplicity, and on the other hand, another prefers to be plain and to the point rather than ornate . . .’ Cic. Opt. Gen. 6)

(f)

Non timeo, iudices, ne odio mearum inimicitiarum inflammatus lubentius haec in illum evomere videar quam verius. (‘I have no fear, gentlemen, lest I should be thought, in the heat of personal animosity, to give vent to this attack upon Clodius with greater relish than respect for truth.’ Cic. Mil. 78)

Comparison between two properties

749

Supplement: Quantoque suam vitam superiorem atque ampliorem atque antiquiorem animum inducent esse quam innoxiiorem. (Cato orat. 178); Haec diligentius quam apertius dicta esse arbitror . . . (Var. L. 10.75); Collegae eius Pauli una . . . contio fuit, verior quam gratior populo . . . (Liv. 22.38.8); Nam Asia . . . ditiores quam fortiores exercitus faciebat. (Liv. 39.1.3); . . . repentinus et tumultuarius exercitus acrius primo impetu quam perseverantius pugnavit. (Liv. 41.10.3); . . . praecepto compositius cuncta quam festinantius agerent. (Tac. Ann. 15.3.1); . . . reciperare gloriam avidius quam consultius properabat. (Tac. Hist. 2.24.1) Tacitus has two instances of the combination of a comparative form of an adverb + quam + a positive form, as in (g) (also once in Ammianus 21.16.9). (g) Nimia pietas vestra acrius quam considerat excitavit. (‘It was your excessive loyalty that spurred you to an action more violent than cautious.’ Tac. Hist. 1.83.2)

In (a) above and in some of the other examples in the Supplement another interpretation is possible as well: according to the speaker the expression caveo is more appropriate than timeo (the ‘corrective’ use of magis). Other examples are (h) and (i).60 (h)

At is quem petebat quietus . . . metuens magis quam metuendus. (‘While his intended victim was quiet . . . more given to fear than inspiring it.’ Sal. Jug. 20.2)

(i)

Interfecto Vitellio bellum magis desierat quam pax coeperat. (‘At the death of Vitellius it was rather that war had stopped than peace had begun.’ Tac. Hist. 4.1.1) Appendix: In a way resembling the corrective use of magis mentioned above, potius ‘rather, preferably’ quam, and to a lesser extent citius ‘sooner’ quam and prius ‘earlier’ quam, can be used to correct a term or to replace it by another term. Examples are  ( j)–(m). These expressions convey a subjective evaluation (TLL uses the term aestimatio).61 ( j) . . . dem potius aurum quam illum corrumpi sinam. (‘. . . I’d give him the gold rather than let him be ruined.’ Pl. Bac. 1040) (k) . . . facite hic lege potius liceat quam vi victo vivere. (‘. . . make sure that one can live here by law rather than coerced by brute force!’ Pl. Rud. 621) (l) . . . dies me citius defecerit quam nomina. (‘. . . daylight will run out before the names do.’ Cic. Ver. 4.59) (m) Qui scis, an tibi istuc eveniat prius quam mihi? / # Quia numquam merui, tu meruisti et nunc meres.

60 For further examples, see TLL s.v. magis (‘correctivum’) 58.22ff. For discussion, see Bertocchi and Orlandini (1996: 219), Tarriño (2011: 377–8), Whitton (2011), and Manfredini (2015b). 61 For these expressions, sometimes called ‘pseudo-comparatives’, see Bertocchi and Orlandini (1996: 223); Baños (2002: 56–9); Tarriño (2007; 2011: 392–5), and Manfredini (2015b). For further instances, see TLL s.v. citus 1212.31ff.; s.v. potis 347.59ff; s.v. prior 1341.30ff. See also OLD s.v. potius.

750

Comparison (‘How do you know that won’t happen to you rather than me? # Because I’ve never deserved it; you have deserved it and still do now.’ Pl. Mos. 58–9) Supplement: Etenim semper magno ingenio adulescentes refrenandi potius a gloria quam incitandi fuerunt. (Cic. Cael. 76) From Livy onwards potius quam and citius quam can also be used to link a subordinate clause with ut to a preceding or following main clause. Examples are (n) and (o).62 (n) . . . multi ex plebe spe amissa potius quam ut cruciarentur trahendo animam capitibus obvolutis se in Tiberim praecipitaverunt. (‘. . . with hope lost, many of the plebeians, sooner than suffer torment by prolonging their existence, covered up their heads and threw themselves into the Tiber.’ Liv. 4.12.9) (o) . . . in corpora sua citius per furorem saevituros quam ut Romanam amicitiam violarent. (‘. . . intending rather to rage madness against their own persons than violate the Roman friendship.’ Liv. 35.31.16)

20.14 Comparison of equivalence between two properties Properties that are presented as equivalent may have various forms and may occur at various levels. In (a), two mutually independent clauses are presented as equivalent. The reverse order of the clauses is shown in (b), where the two clauses share the same verb. In (c), the relevant properties felix and pia are subject complements in their clause, both related to the subject haec mens nostra. In the case of negation of the part containing tam, the comparison is one of non-equivalence rather than of equivalence, as in (d) and (e): in (d), Gracchus ought to have shown more pietas towards his country than to his brother; patriae has the pragmatic function of ‘replacing focus’ (on which see § 22.8).63 Another example, with two contrastive clauses, is (f). (a)

. . . quoi tam credo datum voluisse quam me video vivere. (‘. . . to whom I believe he wanted it to be given as much as I can see that I’m alive.’ Pl. Men. 461)

(b)

Quam tu filium tuom, tam pater me meus desiderat. (‘Just as you long for your son, so does my father long for me.’ Pl. Capt. 316)

(c)

Haec mens nostra est (sit cj. Karsten)—di immortales faciant—tam felix quam pia. (‘Such is our resolution. May the gods make it as fortunate as it is loyal.’ Liv. 6.26.6)

62 For a discussion of seemingly similar instances of potius ut in Cicero, see Roveri (1959). 63 For such instances of ‘replacing focus’, see Manfredini (2015b: 484–5).

Comparison between two properties (d)

751

Utinam (sc. C.  Gracchus) non tam fratri pietatem quam patriae praestare voluisset. (‘If only C. Gracchus had been willing to prefer loyalty not to his brother but to his country.’ Cic. Brut. 126)

(e)

Cum autem ego te non tam vitandi laboris mei causa quam quia tua id interesse arbitrarer . . . hortatus essem . . . (‘When, however, not so much to avoid my labour as because I thought it would be for your good I had urged you to . . .’ Cic. Top. 2)

(f)

Sed tanta est in plerisque levitas ut eos non tam constantia in re publica nostra delectet quam splendor offendat. (‘But so great is the pettiness in most men that my steadfastness in public affairs does not please them so much as my distinction irritates them.’ Cic. Fam. 1.7.7) Supplement: Cupam facito p. X, tam crassam quam modioli postulabunt, media inter orbis quae convenia[n]t crassam quam columella ferrea erit. (Cato Agr. 21.1—NB: text is problematic); Quis enim umquam . . . tam brevi tempore tot loca adire, tantos cursus conficere potuit, quam celeriter Cn. Pompeio duce tanti belli impetus navigavit? (Cic. Man. 34); (sc. Fama) . . . magnas territat urbes, / tam ficti pravique tenax quam nuntia veri. (Verg. A. 4.187–8) Quamquam non tam dicendi ratio mihi habenda fuit quam audiendi. (Cic. N.D. 1.56); . . . redeoque ad illud quod initio scripsi, totius facti tui iudicium non tam ex consilio tuo quam ex eventu homines esse facturos. (Cic. Fam. 1.7.5); . . . non tam pugnandi quam diffugiendi fuit utrorumque consilium. (Hirt. Gal. 8.23.6) Instead of non tam . . . quam (or other negated expressions) occasionally quam is used alone, as in (g) and (h), with non alone. Positive instances without a negation, as in (i), are even less frequent and the earlier attestations are disputed (Sen. Dial. 6.15.2; Fron. Aq. 128.1).64 (g) Non edepol piscis expeto / quam tui sermonis sum indigens. (‘I’m not looking for fish as much as I’m in need of a conversation with you.’ Pl. Rud. 943–3a) (h) . . . non militum, quos perpaucos habebat, fiducia, quam iuventutis Thurinae. (‘. . . from his confidence not so much in his soldiers, of whom he had very few, as in the young men of Thurii.’ Liv. 25.15.9) (i) educatus · litter(is) / Graecis · quam ·et · Latinis (‘Educated in both Greek and Latin literature.’ CIL VI.28138.10–11 (Rome))

64 Examples in OLD s.v. quam § 6. Baehrens (1912: 308–9) is the most generous defender of the transmitted texts. For discussion of this example and a few others, see Löfstedt (1936: 24–5). See also Orlandini and Poccetti (2009).

752

Comparison

20.15 Similarity and dissimilarity Expressions of similarity and dissimilarity belong to various lexical classes: (i) (ii)

(iii) (iv)

(v)

idem ‘the same’, alius ‘other’, and related adverbs; two-place adjectives and adverbs like aequus ‘equal’ and aeque ‘equally’ also when used as a modifier of adjectives and adverbs; par ‘equal’ and related adjectives and adverbs; similis ‘similar’, and related adjectives and adverbs; diversus ‘different’, etc.; adverbs like ita ‘in the same way (as)’, perinde ‘in the same way (as)’, proinde ‘just (as if)’, secus ‘otherwise’, ‘differently’; various adverbs that in their literal meaning indicate position, such as contra ‘otherwise (than)’, iuxta ‘alike’, ‘equally’, proxime ‘most nearly’,65 and ultra ‘more (than)’; prepositional phrases with pro, notably pro eo ‘just the same as’.

Examples of the classes mentioned above are (a)–(g), all with the comparative element ac/atque. Note that the two-place adjectives and adverbs in class (ii) also govern cases (genitive or dative) if the constituent with which (dis)similarity exists is a nominal one. Idem is also occasionally found with a dative,66 though it is much more often followed by a relative clause (see § 18.15). (a)

Illi / sunt alio ingenio atque tu . . . (‘Those have a different character from you . . .’ Pl. Ps.1134–4a)

(b)

Pumex non aeque est ardus atque hic est senex. (‘A pumice stone is not as dry as this old fellow.’ Pl. Aul. 297)

(c)

Date operam, adeste aequo animo per silentium, / ne simili utamur fortuna atque usi sumus / quom . . . (‘Pay attention, and listen in silence with open minds, so that we do not suffer the same fate as we suffered when . . .’ Ter. Ph. 30–2)

(d)

Nam numquam secus / habui illam ac si ex me esset gnata. (‘I’ve never treated her otherwise than as if she were my own daughter.’ Ter. Hec. 278–9)

(e)

Item contra atque apud nos fieri ad Elephantinen, ut neque ficus neque vites amittant folia. (‘(It is said) that, contrary to what happens in our country, near Elephantine neither the fig nor the vine sheds its leaves.’ Var. R. 1.7.6)

(f)

Nam primum debeo sperare omnis deos . . . pro eo mihi ac mereor, relaturos esse gratiam.

65 See TLL s.v. prope 1958.18ff. 66 See TLL s.v. idem 189.93ff. For possible Greek influence in the cases of Horace and Lucretius, see Calboli (2009: 97–8), with references.

Similarity and dissimilarity 753 (‘Firstly, I am bound to hope that all the gods . . . will recompense me as I deserve.’ Cic. Catil. 4.3)

(g)

Eundem animum oportet nunc mihi esse, gratum ut impetravi, / atque olim . . . (‘I ought to have the same attitude now that I’ve got what I wanted as I used to have back then . . .’ Pl. Mos. 220–1) Supplement: Num alia res, alia ratio illius iudicii, alia natura totius negotii nunc est ac tum fuit? (Cic. Clu. 92); Iam vero virtus eadem in homine ac deo est neque alio ullo in genere praeterea. (Cic. Leg. 1.25); Aliae enim sunt legati partes atque imperatoris. (Caes. Civ.  3.51.4); . . . quamquam aliud dicit ac sentit, non aliud tamen simulat. (Quint. Inst.  9.2.45); Hic loquebatur aliter atque omnes, sentiebat idem quod ceteri. (Cic. Fin. 4.57) . . . pariter hoc fit atque ut alia facta sunt. (Pl. Am. 1019); Si amavit umquam aut si  parem sapientiam [hic] habet ac formam / . . . (Pl. Mil. 1251); Neque vero illum similiter atque ipse eram commotum esse vidi. (Cic. Phil. 1.9); In rebus minoribus socium fallere turpissimum est aequeque turpe atque illud de quo ante dixi. (Cic. S. Rosc. 116) At te ego faciam / hodie proinde ac meritus es, / ut minus valeas . . . (Pl. Am. 583–5); Nec despero tamen, quamquam languet iuventus, nec perinde atque debebat, in laudis et gloriae cupiditate versatur . . . (Cic. Pis. 82); . . .non dixi secus ac sentiebam. (Cic. de Orat. 2.24); Sed quoniam coepi secus agere atque initio dixeram . . . (Cic. N.D. 2.23); Haud secus ac iussi faciunt . . . (Verg. A. 3.236); . . . ita vindicandum atque in propriis servis senatus censuit. (Ulp. dig. 29.5.1.15) Contrarium est, quod contra dicitur atque ii, qui audiunt, fecerunt. (Cic. Inv. 1.93); E quis feminas Q. Modius Equiculus, vir fortissimus, etiam patre militari, iuxta ac mares habere solebat. (Var. R. 2.7.1); Tricipitinus . . . non ultra quam in Hernicos procedit. (Liv. 3.8.4); De iis, quae passi erant, questi non sunt, ne quid ultra ac mandatum esset loquerentur . . . (V. Max. 2.2.5) . . . sane quam pro eo ac debui graviter molesteque tuli . . . (Serv. Fam. 4.5.1)

The comparative element with expressions of similarity and dissimilarity can be (i) ac/atque, as in the above examples, and et, (ii) quam, (iii) rarely the ablative of comparison, (iv) a preposition such as ab ‘from’, or (v)—especially with alius—nisi ‘except’. Relative adverbs of manner such as ut and conditional comparative subordinators such as quasi can be used as well. The term introduced by a particle follows (not necessarily immediately) the word or phrase that denotes similarity or dissimilarity. The terms presented as similar or dissimilar belong to various lexical categories, but the (dis)similarity may also concern a difference in tense form, as in (h) (already used above as (c)). The second term may be a full main clause, but it may also be a subordinate clause. Potential or counterfactual si clauses are relatively frequent, as in (i). When the content of the first and the second terms overlap the second term is usually reduced. Often the two terms have the same syntactic function, but this need not be the case.

754 (h)

Comparison Date operam, adeste aequo animo per silentium, / ne simili utamur fortuna atque usi sumus / quom per tumultum noster grex motus loco’st. (‘Pay attention, and listen in silence with open minds, so that we do not suffer the same fate as we suffered when our company was driven from the stage by an uproar.’ Ter. Ph. 30–2)

(i)

Qui me cum omnibus rebus quibus tribunus plebis potuit defendit, tum reliquis officiis iuxta ac si meus frater esset sustentavit. (‘He not only defended me by every means he could as tribune of the plebs but even supported me by performing other friendly services almost as if he were my own brother.’ Cic. Red. Sen. 20)

20.16 The use of coordinators in expressions of similarity and dissimilarity Ac/atque and rarely et are used to introduce the second term in expressions of (dis) similarity. In certain situations the utterances containing them may be ambiguous (allowing two interpretations) or be liable to misunderstanding. This is the case in (a)–(c). In (a) the adverb aeque can be omitted without making the remainder of the sentence ungrammatical, which proves that aeque . . . et need not be taken together as an expression of similarity, as the words are in the Loeb translation. For et can also be taken as a coordinator on its own and aeque as an adverb: ‘unless we love our friends and ourselves equally’. The situation in (c) with the adverb iuxta is similar, but here the translator does not take iuxta . . . et as an expression of similarity.67 The same applies to the adjective aequo in (b). There can be no doubt in cases with multiple et.68 (a)

. . . nisi aeque amicos et nosmet ipsos diligamus . . . (‘. . . unless we love our friends as much as ourselves . . .’ Cic. Fin. 1.67)

(b)

Aequo mendicus atque ille opulentissumus / censetur censu ad Accheruntem mortuos. (‘The beggar and the richest man in the world are rated with an equal rating in the Underworld.’ Pl. Trin. 493–4)

(c)

Post ubi paulatim licentia crevit, iuxta bonos et malos lubidinose interficere, ceteros metu terrere. (‘But afterwards, when their licence gradually increased, the tyrants slew good and bad alike at their pleasure and intimidated the rest.’ Sal. Cat. 51.30)

(d)

Aeque enim perfidiosum et nefarium est fidem frangere quae continet vitam et pupillum fraudare qui in tutelam pervenit et socium fallere qui se in negotio coniunxit. 67 It is cited as an example in TLL s.v. et 894.26f. 68 For further instances, see Núñez (2002: 152–4), also with pariter in Cic. Parad. 46.

Similarity and dissimilarity 755 (‘For it is equally perfidious and wicked to break faith, which is the bond of life, as it is to defraud a ward who has come under one’s guardianship, and to deceive someone who is a business partner.’ Cic. Q. Rosc. 16)

20.17 The use of ac/atque in expressions of similarity and dissimilarity Ac/atque are common in expressions of similarity and dissimilarity from Early Latin onwards. Many examples are given in the introduction to this section (§ 20.15), so three more will suffice here.69 (a)

. . . quam ego fabulam aeque ac me ipsum amo . . . (‘. . . a play I love as much as myself.’ Pl. Bac. 214)

(b)

. . . nulla adaeque est Acheruns / atque ubi ego fui, in lapicidinis. (‘. . . there is no Underworld that can match the place where I was, in the quarries.’ Pl. Capt. 999–1000)

(c)

Pomarium seminarium ad eundem modum atque oleagineum facito. (‘Make the fruit nursery in the same way as the olive nursery.’ Cato Agr. 48.1) Just as with quam with comparative expressions of non-equivalence, there are occasional instances with atque without an explicit similarity expression. Examples are (d)–(f). (d) Sicut est hic quem esse amicum ratus sum atque ipsus sum mihi. (‘Such is this man who I thought was as good a friend to me as I am to myself.’ Pl. Bac. 549) (e) Nempe / vir bonus et prudens dici delector ego ac tu. (‘To be sure, I like to be called a good man and wise, even as you do.’ Hor. Ep. 1.16.31–2) (f) . . . condicionem inesse stipulationi atque si hoc expressum fuisset. (‘. . . the condition was incorporated in the stipulation, just as if it had been expressly stated.’ Paul. dig. 2.14.4.3) Supplement: . . . nec se Luna quoquam mutat atque uti exorta est semel . . . (Pl. Am. 274)

20.18 The use of et in expressions of similarity and dissimilarity Instances of the use of et in expressions of similarity and dissimilarity, where it cannot be interpreted as a coordinator, are found from Cicero onwards, but in all periods they are rare.70 Examples are (a) and (b).

69 For a detailed list of the combinations with atque, see TLL s.v. atque 1080.10ff. For historical observations on the individual words, see Sz.: 478. 70 For instances of et in combination with aeque, see TLL s.v. aequus 1042.81ff. See also s.v. et 895.4ff.

756 (a)

Comparison . . . nec si ille sapiens ad tortoris eculeum a tyranno iure cogatur, similem habeat vultum et si ampullam perdidisset . . . (‘. . . and if the Wise Man were to be forced by a tyrant to go to the rack, he would not wear the same look as if he had lost his oil-flask.’ Cic. Fin. 4.31)

(b)

Et quoniam catuli qui iam dispecturi sunt caeci aeque et ii qui modo nati, Platonem quoque necesse est, quoniam nondum videbat sapientiam, aeque caecum animo ac (v.l. et) Phalarim fuisse. (‘Again, since puppies on the point of opening their eyes are as blind as those only just born, it follows that Plato, not having yet attained to the vision of wisdom, was just as blind mentally as Phalaris.’ Cic. Fin. 4.64) Supplement: Quod de puero alter ad te scripsit et ad matrem de filio, non reprehendo. (Cic. Att. 10.11.1); Non enim alia causa est aequitatis in uno servo et in pluribus . . . (Cic. Caec. 57); Idque si ita dicit . . . dicit absurde, similiter et (ut cj. Lambinus) si dicat non  reprehendendos parricidas . . . (Cic. Fin. 2.21); . . . solet enim aliud sentire et loqui . . . (Cael. Fam. 8.1.3); Isdem sua (sc. vox) maribus, aliis eadem et feminis, ut lusciniarum generi. (Plin. Nat. 11.268); Conchylia et purpuras omnis hora atterit, quibus eadem mater luxuria paria paene et margaritis pretia fecit. (Plin. Nat. 9.124); Servitia perinde et ingenua plebes raptim exstingui . . . (Tac. Ann. 16.13.2) The use of -que in expressions of similarity and dissimilarity is mentioned as a PostClassical phenomenon in various studies, and as typical of Tacitus.71 However, all the instances mentioned in Gerber and Greef ’s lexicon72 can be interpreted as coordination, as in (c). Similarly in (d), mentioned in the OLD s.v. § 1. (c) Eodem subsidio obaerati adversum creditores suspectique capitalium criminum receptabantur . . . (‘Debtors and men suspected of a capital offence were covered by the same shelter . . .’ Tac. Ann. 3.60.1) (d) Non idem tibi sunt aliisque triumphi. (‘You and other men don’t have the same triumphs.’ [Tib.] 3.7.136)

20.19 The use of quam in expressions of similarity and dissimilarity The use of quam in expressions of (dis)similarity is rare in Early Latin, except with aeque and aliter. These instances are usually negated or negative by implication. Examples are (a)–(c). The first instance of quam with aeque in a positive context is (d). The use of quam spreads after Cicero and Caesar, especially with expressions of dissimilarity. This spread is illustrated for a few lexical items in Table 20.2. Note that with perinde atque remains the norm. 71 See Sz.: 478.

72 s.v. -que p. 1284A, § B.

3

3

3

0

6

15

aeque

aliter

alius

perinde

secus

Total

10

1

0

3

1

5

a

0

0

0

0

0

0

q

11

1

0

4

3

3

a

Ter.

0

0

0

0

0

0

q

18

2

0

3

5

8

a

Cic.

0

0

0

0

0

0

q

10

0

0

8

2

0

a

Caes.

1

0

0

0

1

0

q

3

1

0

0

0

2

a

Hor.

5

0

0

3

2

0

q

7

7

0

0

0

0

a

Verg.

61

12

0

42

5

2

q

0

9

2

1

5

a

17

Liv.

194

2

0

102

56

34

q

7

0

2

0

1

4

a

Sen.

109

28

10

57

1

13

q

8

0

7

0

0

1

a

Tac.

50

0

1

31

13

5

q

7

2

4

0

1

0

a

Suet.

5

0

0

5

0

0

q

2

0

0

0

1

1

a

Petr.

7

2

0

5

0

0

q

0

0

0

0

0

0

a

Amm.

q = quam; a = ac/atque The table is based on Fontana (1997: 154–9), where details concerning the corpus used for the individual authors can be found. See Sz.: 593–4 for diachronic data.

q

 

Pl.

Table 20.2 The use of quam and atque with a number of expressions of (dis)similarity

758 (a)

Comparison Neque eques nec pedes profecto est quisquam tanta audacia, / qui aeque faciat confidenter quicquam quam mulier facit. (‘No soldier on foot or on horseback is indeed so bold as to do anything as selfconfidently as a woman.’ Pl. Mil. 464–5)

(b)

Quid si sors aliter quam voles evenerit? (‘What if the lot settles it differently from how you want it?’ Pl. Cas. 345)

(c)

. . . nec mi secus erat quam si essem familiaris filius. (‘. . . and I wasn’t in a different situation from being a son of the house.’ Pl. Capt. 273)

(d)

Expalluit aeque / quam puer ipse deus . . . (‘The god grew deadly pale even as the boy . . .’ Ov. Met. 10.185–6) Supplement (in alphabetical order by (dis)similarity expression): Qui tamen nequaquam adeo est intempestivus quam vestrae istae absurdae atque abhorrentes lacrimae sunt. (Liv. 30.44.6); . . . nec quemquam interea alium ammittat prorsus quam me ad se virum. (Pl. As. 236); Nunc mihi certum est alio pacto Pseudolo insidias dare / quam in aliis comoediis fit . . . (Pl. Ps. 1239–40—NB: positive context); Aliud enim quam cogebatur inlatum est. (Cic. Inv. 1.87—NB: positive context); Praeterea bybliothecas, pinacothecas, basilicas non dissimili modo quam publicorum operum magnificentia comparatas . . . (Vitr. 6.5.2); Eruca praecipue frigorum contemptrix diversae est quam lactuca naturae concitatrixque Veneris. (Plin. Nat. 19.154); . . . non eadem neglegentia in exterminium discretis (sc. iniuriis) quam acciderat in casibus matris. (Tert. Val. 16.2); Studia exercitus raro cuiquam bonis artibus quaesita perinde adfuere quam huic per ignaviam. (Tac. Hist. 3.86.1); Si proinde amentur, mulieres diu quam lavant, / omnes amantes balneatores sient. (Pl. Truc. 324–5); Haud proinde id damnum Vitellianos in metum compulit quam ad modestiam composuit . . . (Tac. Hist. 2.27.1) Appendix: Several of the adverbial expressions of similarity mentioned in the previous sections are also found in combination with clauses and phrases introduced by ut(i) (also sicut(i), quemadmodum, and quomodo). An example is (e). These combinations are sometimes presented as equivalent to the ac/atque expressions. However, whereas in the previous sections the terms introduced by ac/atque (and quam) must be regarded as obligatory constituents required by their governing two-place similarity expressions, in their co-occurrence with ut clauses many similarity expressions can better be regarded as (optional) modifiers of the ut clauses as a whole. In (f) and (g), for instance, the entire proinde/perinde ut clauses correspond with sic/ita in the main clauses. There is also another difference: in (h) the ut clause precedes simillime, which is impossible with the similis ac/atque combination. This is also the case in (i) with exinde (exim) (which does not occur with ac/atque). In (e) the ut soles clause is a set phrase (ac/atque soles does not occur). Adaeque is therefore best regarded as an autonomous degree expression. For further details about ut and related expressions see §§ 20.24–7. (e) Nec munda adaeque es ut soles . . . (‘You are not as neat as usual . . .’ Pl. Cist. 55)

Similarity and dissimilarity 759 (f) Numquam edepol quemquam mortalem credo ego uxorem suam / sic efflictim amare, proinde ut hic te efflictim deperit. (‘By god, I don’t believe there’s a mortal man alive who loves his own wife so madly as the mad way he dotes on you.’ Pl. Am. 516–17) (g) Omnia ista, perinde ut cuique data sunt pro rata parte, ita aut longa aut brevia dicuntur. (‘All such things are spoken of as long or short according to the proportion in which they are in each case allotted.’ Cic. Tusc. 1.94) (h) Ut onera contentis corporibus facilius feruntur, remissis opprimunt, simillime animus intentione sua depellit pressum omnem ponderum . . . (‘As weights are more easily carried by straining every nerve of the body but become too heavy when the nerves are relaxed, quite similarly the soul by its intense effort throws off all pressure of burdens . . .’ Cic. Tusc. 2.54) (i) Utquomque in alto ventu’st, Epidice, exim velum vortitur. (‘One turns the sail according to how the wind is on the sea, Epidicus.’ Pl. Epid. 49) Supplement: Quis enim cuiquam inimicior quam Deiotaro Caesar? Aeque atque huic ordini, ut equestri, ut Massiliensibus, ut omnibus quibus rem publicam populi Romani caram esse sentiebat. (Cic. Phil. 2.94—NB: the ut phrases add another point of similarity and they are not continuations of atque); . . . cui nihil aeque in causis agendis ut brevitas placet. (Plin. Ep. 1.20.1); Eo fit, quia mihi / plurumum credo et scio istaec facta proinde ut proloquor. (Pl. Am. 756–7); Atque hoc verum est: proinde ut quisque fortuna utitur, / ita praecellet atque exinde sapere eum omnes dicimus. (Pl. Ps. 679–80)

20.20 The use of the ablative in expressions of similarity and dissimilarity The use of the ablative for the second term in expressions of similarity and dissimilarity (ablativus comparationis) is very rare. An example with alius is (a); with (ad )aeque, (b). The instances with (ad )aeque have pronouns in the ablative. An even more noteworthy later instance is (c), where aeque modifies the verb miror. An example of a mixed construction (contamination) is (d), where aeque modifies the comparative miserior.73 (a)

. . . est aliut melle propoli. (‘It is a different substance from either honey or propolis.’ Var. R. 3.16.23)

(b)

Qui me in terra aeque fortuna- / tus erit, si illa ad me bitet, / Palinure? (‘Who on earth will be as fortunate as me, if she comes to me, Palinurus?’ Pl. Cur. 141–2)

73 See Sz.: 110; TLL s.v. aequus 1044.35ff; Traglia (1947: 16–18); Pasoli (1966: 81ff.); Timpanaro (1970: 474=1978: 39); Núñez (2002: 161–2).

760

Comparison

(c)

Exstant certe hodieque antiquiores urbe picturae Ardeae . . ., quibus equidem nullas aeque miror . . . (‘At all events there survive even today in Ardea paintings that are older than the city of Rome, and I don’t marvel at any paintings in the same way as I do at them . . .’ Plin. Nat. 35.17)

(d)

Homo me miserior nullu’st aeque . . . (‘Nobody is more wretched than me . . .’ Pl. Mer. 335) Supplement: With alius: Nos ab initio spectasse otium nec quicquam aliud libertate communi quaesisse exitus declarat. (Brut. Cas. Fam. 11.2.2); . . . neve putes alium sapiente bonoque beatum . . . (Hor. Ep. 1.16.20)74 With (ad )aeque: Nullu’st hoc metuculosus aeque. (Pl. Am. 293); Neque est neque fuit me senex quisquam amator / adaeque miser. (Pl. Cas. 684–5); Quo nemo adaeque iuventute ex omni Attica / antehac est habitus parcus nec magis continens . . . (Pl. Mos. 30–1—NB: here magis continens may have contributed to the use of the ablative)

20.21 The use of relative adverbs of manner and conditional comparative subordinators in expressions of similarity Relative adverbs of manner (see § 16.33) and conditional comparative subordinators (see § 16.66) can be used with expressions of similarity, but instances are relatively rare. Examples are (a)–(e). (a)

Nec simile’st ut cum inpulsi procedimus ictu / viribus alterius magnis magnoque coactu. (‘Nor is this the same as when we move forwards impelled by a blow from the strength and mighty effort of another.’ Lucr. 2.272–3)

(b)

. . . invenietur eadem latitudo uti altitudo . . . (‘. . . the breadth will be found to be the same as the height . . .’ Vitr. 3.1.3)

(c)

Namque de tegulis . . . mutandis non est eadem cura quemadmodum de his . . . (‘For the same care is not needful in repairing roof tiling as in these . . .’ Vitr. 6.8.8)

(d)

Simile est ius iurandum amantum quasi ius confusicium. (‘A lover’s oath is similar to oatmeal gruel.’ Pl. Cist. 472)

(e)

Haec omnia . . . alligato integitoque ad eundem modum tamquam oleas. (‘Tie all these up and protect them in the way I have described for olives.’ Cato Agr. 41.4)

74 See TLL s.v. alius 1636.58ff., where a few Late instances of alius ab can be found as well.

Similarity and dissimilarity 761

20.22 The use of prepositions and nisi in expressions of dissimilarity The preposition ab is rarely used with alius from Tertullian onward, but see the earlier use with aliter in the Supplement. An example is (a). Similarly with dissimilis.75 (a)

. . . nisi eum longe alium demonstraveritis a Christo Creatoris . . . (‘. . . unless you show that he is altogether different from the Christ of the Creator.’ Tert. Marc. 3.16.7) Supplement: Cultores regionum multo aliter a ceteris agunt. (Mela 1.57)

In clauses containing alius prepositional phrases meaning ‘but’, ‘save’, ‘except’ (e.g. praeter, praeterquam, and citra) are quite common, in all periods of Latin. An example is (b).76 (b)

Numquis est hic alius praeter me atque te? (‘There isn’t anyone here apart from me and you, is there?’ Pl. Trin. 69)

The use of nisi ‘other than’, ‘except’ in interrogative or negative clauses with alius is very common from Early Latin onwards, as in (c) and (d), respectively (see also § 16.67). (c)

Quid ego aliud exoptem amplius nisi illud quoius inopia est . . .? ‘What other thing should I wish for more than that which I lack . . .?’ Pl. As. 724)

(d)

Negat ponere alio modo ullo profecto / nisi se sciat vilico non datum iri. (‘She says she won’t put them down unless she knows she won’t be given to the overseer.’ Pl. Cas. 698–9)

20.23 Expressions specifying the degree of dissimilarity The degree of dissimilarity can be expressed by an adjective of amount in the ablative (of comparison), as in (a) and (b), or by the adverb longe, as in (c) (see also § 20.10).77 (a)

Non multo aliter tuendum hoc pecus in pastu atque ovillum. (‘In the matter of feeding this animal does not need to be cared for much differently from sheep.’ Var. R. 2.3.6)

(b)

Ut enim athletas nec multo secus gladiatores videmus nihil . . . facere caute . . . (‘For as we observe that boxers, and gladiators not much less, do not make any motion cautiously . . .’ Cic. Orat. 228)

75 See TLL s.v. alius 1636.67ff.; s.v. dissimilis 1475.36ff. 76 For further examples, see TLL s.v. alius 1636.31ff. 77 For further examples of longe, see TLL s.v. 1648.29.

762 (c)

Comparison At erat huic iudicio longe dissimilis illa contentio. (‘But that earlier dispute was very different from the present case.’ Cic. Sul. 49) Supplement: Verum aliter evenire multo intellegit. (Ter. An. 4); Item amaturus eiusdem modi habet declinationes, amans paulo aliter. (Var. L. 9.110); Nec multo aliud de novis sentio. (Quint. Inst. 10.1.41) Ego fateor, sed longe aliter est amicus atque amator. (Pl. Truc. 172); O fortunam longe disparem, M. Fontei, si deligere potuisses . . . (Cic. Font. 49); Quod ego longe secus existimo, iudices. (Cic. Mur. 31); Tum ille ‘ut ita ista esse concedam,’ inquit ‘Antoni, quae sunt longe (L, valde M) secus, quid mihi tu tandem hodie aut cuiquam homini quod dici possit reliquisti?’ (Cic. de Orat. 2.365); Sed longe clarius inlustraverunt hoc opus Sophocles atque Euripides . . . (Quint. Inst. 10.1.67)

20.24 Comparative expressions of quality Satellite clauses of manner introduced by ut(i), sicut(i), quemadmodum, and quomodo with or without corresponding cataphoric or anaphoric adverbs are dealt with in §§ 16.33–6. They indicate how the event of the main clause took place (as adjuncts) or situate the event in a broader perspective (as disjuncts). This section and the two following ones deal with the use of ut(i) (and rarely sicut) in characterizing qualities of entities. Two types can be distinguished: (i) introducing a finite clause, as in (a), (ii) in combination with constituents of various forms in the clause which function as secondary predicates, as in (b). In both cases we are dealing with optional constituents.78 Details for these two types are given in § 20.25 and § 20.26, respectively. (a)

Horam unam aut duas eodem loco armatos ut collocati fuerant retinere magnum fuit? (‘Would it have been so difficult to retain the armed men in the same place for an hour or two as they had originally been positioned?’ Cic. Deiot. 19)

(b)

. . . et venit vel rogatus ut amicus, vel accersitus ut socius . . . (‘. . . and he came either requested as a friend, or summoned as an ally . . .’ Cic. Deiot. 13)

20.25 Ut clauses characterizing a quality of a constituent in the main clause Examples of ut clauses that characterize the quality of a constituent in the main clause are (a)–(d). These clauses contain a form of the verb sum (as copula or auxiliary), which usually follows ut immediately. For another order, see (e). Sometimes the ut 78 The label ‘quality’ is taken from Dik (1997: I.231), where the expressions discussed in the text are regarded as satellites. See also Revuelta (2002: 195–7).

Comparative expressions of quality

763

clause can be interpreted in a causal sense, as in (e). There may be a corresponding ita, as in (a) and (b). (a)

Oleum si in metretam novam inditurus eris, amurca, ita uti est cruda, prius colluito . . . (‘If you are to put oil in a new jar, rinse it first with amurca just as it comes, raw . . .’ Cato Agr. 100—tr. Dalby)

(b)

. . . ut erat laena amictus ita venit in contionem seditionemque cum auctoritate tum oratione sedavit. (‘. . . clad in his priestly robe, just as he was, he hurried to the assembly, and by the authority of his presence as well as by his words allayed the tumult.’ Cic. Brut. 56)

(c)

Deinde . . . litterasque nondum perlectas, sicut erant signatae, dat homini certo ad Scipionem perferendas. (‘He then . . . gave the letter—still unread and with its seals intact—to a reliable messenger to take to Scipio.’ B. Afr. 4.4)

(d)

His, sicut erant nuntiata, expositis auctoribusque in curiam introductis consul de religione patres consuluit. (‘When the consul had laid these reports before the senate exactly as they had come to him and had introduced into the House the men who had vouched for their truth, he consulted the Fathers regarding their religious import.’ Liv. 22.1.14)

(e)

Ab hoc abaci vasa omnia ut exposita fuerunt abstulit. (‘He (sc.Verres) swept his sideboard clean of all its vessels, just as they stood there.’ Cic. Ver. 4.35) Supplement: Quae cum iam accubanti in convivio esset data, sicut erat signata, sub pulvinum subiciens . . . inquit . . . (Nep. Pel. 3.2–3); Lotis in herbosa sub acernis ultima ramis, / sicut erat lusu fessa, quievit humo. (Ov. Fast. 1.423–4); Haec, sicut audita erant, rex M. Aemilio praetori, cuius Sicilia provincia erat, perscribit . . . (Liv. 21.49.6) NB: Cum iis litteris sicut erant signatis L.  Verginio tribuno militum ducendi ad Claudium consulem traduntur. (Liv. 27.43.4).

20.26 Ut and related phrases functioning as secondary predicate Not unlike the way in which the ut clauses in the preceding section characterize the quality of a constituent of the main clause, phrases consisting of ut and a noun (phrase), an adjective, or a participle may characterize the quality of an entity. The nominal parts of the phrase agree with the constituent to which they are related in case, gender, and number. They are in fact secondary predicates, as described in Chapter 21. It is not always easy to distinguish such phrases from condensed manner clauses (see § 16.34 fin.). Examples are (a)–(c). We also find sicut, quasi, and tamquam used in this way. Examples are (d)–(f).79 79 For tamquam phrases, especially in Petronius, see Manfredini (2014).

764 (a)

Comparison In ea est crebra ista vocum concursio, quam magna ex parte ut vitiosam fugit Demosthenes. (‘In this there is frequent clash of vowels, which Demosthenes generally avoided as vicious.’ Cic. Orat. 151)

(b)

. . . nec . . . te consoler ut adflictum et iam omni spe salutis orbatum sed ut eum de cuius incolumitate non plus dubitem quam te memini dubitare de mea. (‘I shall not console you as a man undone beyond all hope of recovery, but as one of whose rehabilitation I feel no more doubt than I remember you used to feel of mine.’ Cic. Fam. 6.6.2)

(c)

. . . cum vos me ut carissimum filium desiderabatis . . . (‘. . . at a time when you regretted my absence as if I were a beloved son . . .’ Cic. Prov. 43)

(d)

. . . Graeci (sc. mihi) quasi Ephesio praetori se alacres obtulerunt. (‘. . . the Greeks, as though I were governor in Ephesus, presented themselves to me with eagerness.’ Cic. Att. 5.13.1)

(e)

Quam tu totam insulam cuidam tuorum sodalium sicut aliquod munusculum condonaras . . . (‘This island that you presented complete, as though it were some trifling gratuity, to one of your associates . . .’ Cic. Ver. 3.85)

(f)

Hi dum aedificant tamquam beati . . . in tantum aes alienum inciderunt, ut . . . (‘Putting up buildings as men of wealth . . . they have run so deeply into debt that . . .’ Cic. Catil. 2.20) Supplement: Iacet enim corpus dormientis ut mortui . . . (Cic. Div. 1.63); . . . superante multitudine hostes carpere multifariam viris Romanas, ut non suffecturas ad omnia, adgressi sunt. (Liv. 3.5.1); Quid te ut regium iuvenem conspici sinis? (Liv. 1.47.5); Nam cum Speusippum sororis filium Plato philosophiae quasi heredem reliquisset . . . (Cic. Ac. 1.17); . . . sermone, qui ore (ex ore cj. Novak) eius quasi e beato quodam eloquentiae fonte manabat . . . (V. Max. 2.6.8—NB: variation); An quicquam stultius quam, quos singulos sicut operarios barbarosque contemnas, eos aliquid putare esse universos? (Cic. Tusc. 5.104); ‘Mihi vos nunc’, inquit Crassus, ‘tamquam alicui Graeculo otioso . . . quaestiunculam de qua meo arbitratu loquar ponitis?’ (Cic. de Orat. 1.102); . . . cum eum cives sui missis legatis tamquam seditiones apud eos moventem accusarent. (V.  Max. 4.1.6); Postremo sociis nostris veluti hostibus, hostibus pro sociis utuntur. (Sal. Jug. 31.23—NB: parallelism); . . . si, ut poetis, nobis quoque mos esset . . . (Liv. praef. 12); . . . velut adsueti malis abalienaverant ab sensu rerum suarum animos, arma tantum ferrumque in dextris velut solas reliquias spei suae intuentes. (Liv. 5.42.8); . . . ne se quoque, ut patrem Hamilcarem, deinde Hasdrubalem, cunctantem casus aliquis opprimeret . . . (Liv. 21.5.1); . . . numquam more aliarum, quibus omnis commendatio ex forma petitur, tumescentem uterum abscondisti quasi indecens onus . . . (Sen. Dial. 12.16.3); Mihi [in] anima in naso esse, stabam tamquam mortuus. (Petr. 62.5); Cassius quidem Parmensis quadam epistula non

Comparative expressions of quality

765

tantum ut pistoris, sed etiam ut nummulari nepotem sic taxat Augustum: . . . (Suet. Aug. 4.2); . . . Onesimus quo velut fratre minusculo fruebatur . . . (Hier. Ep. 3.4.2)

20.27 Ut phrases of qualification Ut (rarely sicut) is used with phrases to indicate from which perspective the statement being made about the entity to which it is attached must be understood. The qualifying function of such ut phrases resembles the use of ut clauses that function as attitudinal disjuncts (see § 16.35 and, for the adjective phrase level, § 11.92). Examples are (a)–(d).80 In (a) Epicharmus’ qualities acuti and nec insulsi are said to be typical for a Sicilian. In (d), conversely, Meneclides’ quality satis exercitatum is said to be unusual for a Theban. (a)

Sed tu mihi videris Epicharmi, acuti nec insulsi hominis ut Siculi, sententiam sequi. (‘But you seem to me to agree with the aphorism of Epicharmus, who was, as one expects in a Sicilian, a man of keen insight and not without taste.’ Cic. Tusc. 1.15)

(b)

. . . Pythius qui esset ut argentarius apud omnes ordines gratiosus piscatores ad se convocavit . . . (‘. . . Pythius, who, as might be expected of a moneylender, could command favours of all classes, called the fishermen together . . .’ Cic. Off. 3.58)

(c)

Tum ab Staieno, sicut ab homine ad excogitandum acutissimo ad audendum impudentissimo ad efficiendum acerrimo . . ., auxilium capiti ac fortunis suis petere coepit. (‘And so from Staienus, seeing as he was a man subtle in scheming, brazen in contrivance, and swift in execution, he began to seek aid for his fortunes and for his very life . . .’ Cic. Clu. 67)

(d)

Habuit obtrectatorem Menecliden quendam . . ., satis exercitatum in dicendo, ut Thebanum scilicet. Namque illi genti plus inest virium quam ingenii. (‘He had a detractor in the person of one Meneclides . . ., who too was a practised speaker, at least for a Theban; for that people possesses more bodily strength than mental ability.’ Nep. Epam. 5.2) Supplement: Quos tum ut pueri refutare domesticis testibus patre et C. Aculeone propinquo nostro et L. Cicerone patruo solebamus . . . (Cic. de Orat. 2.2); Ne tu, inquam, Cato, ista exposuisti, ut tam multa memoriter, ut tam obscura, dilucide. (Cic. Fin. 4.1); . . . (sc. Clitomachus) homo et acutus ut Poenus et valde studiosus ac diligens. (Cic. Luc. 98); Durior Diogenes, et is quidem eadem sentiens, sed ut Cynicus asperius. (Cic. Tusc. 1.104); . . . non nihil ut in tantis malis est profectum. (Cic. Fam. 12.2.2); Fuerunt quibus haec eius oratio ut sera et intempestiva et praepostera displiceret . . . (Plin. Ep. 6.5.3) 80 For further examples, see OLD s.v. ut § 22. For discussion, see Van Laer (2010: 353–4).

766

Comparison

20.28 Proportional comparison The degree to which a certain property A pertains to an entity X in relation to the degree to which another property B pertains to another entity Y can be expressed by two types of constructions, one using pronouns or quantifiers in combination with comparative expressions, the other using adverbs in combination with superlative expressions.81 They are dealt with in sections § 20.29 and § 20.30, respectively.

20.29 The proportional pattern with a comparative The standard proportional expression with a comparative is formed by the combination of a subordinate and a main clause. The subordinate clause contains either the relative pronoun quo or the relative quantifier quanto functioning as a measure expression in the ablative (a so-called ablativus mensurae) in combination with a comparative form. The main clause usually contains the anaphoric pronoun eo (or the demonstrative pronoun hoc) or the demonstrative quantifier tanto functioning as a measure expression in the ablative in combination with a comparative. (The quo . . . eo combination is almost not attested in Early Latin.) The subordinate clause usually precedes. The term used in this Syntax is proportional comparative pattern.82 In both clauses the properties that the comparatives express are variable and the variation is proportional: the more or less of property A in the subordinate clause, to the same degree more or less of property B in the main clause. Examples with the correspondence fully expressed are (a)–(c). Note in (b) the (rare) correlation between quo and tanto. (a)

Atque quanto, Nox, fuisti longior hac proxuma, / tanto brevior dies ut fiat faciam . . . (‘And, Night, I’ll make the day shorter by the amount you were prolonged last night . . .’ Pl. Am. 548–9—tr. Christenson)

(b)

Quo mage novi, tanto saepius. (‘The more I know, the more often (I do it).’ Ter. Ph. 328)

(c)

Sed quo maior est in eis praestantia et divinior, eo maiore indigent diligentia. (‘To the degree that their superiority is greater and more divine, to that degree they need greater care.’ Cic. Tusc. 4.58)

In (d) and (e) there are no correlating elements in the main clause (tanto and eo, respectively). In these and the earlier examples the proportional pattern connects two 81 K.-St.: II.483ff. deal with this expression type in the chapter on ‘Vergleichende Adverbialsätze der Quantität oder Intensität’. 82 It is also called ‘comparative conditional’ and ‘comparative correlative’. For recent discussion, see Bertocchi and Maraldi (2008; 2009); Michaelis (1992; 1994). For the use of the proportional comparative pattern in technical texts, see Viré (2005).

Proportional comparison

767

clauses—the qu-clause being subordinate to the other. However, it can also function at a lower level, as in (f), where two attributes are connected. (d)

Quasi ob industriam, quanto ego plus propero, procedit minus. (‘It seems almost intentional—the more I hurry, the less headway we make.’ Pl. Cas. 805)

(e)

Nam cui proposita sit conservatio sui, necesse est huic partes quoque sui caras esse carioresque, quo perfectiores sint et magis in suo genere laudabiles. (‘For he who aims at the preservation of himself, must necessarily feel an affection for the parts of himself also, and the more so, the more perfect and admirable in their own kind they are.’ Cic. Fin. 5.37)

(f)

Duae ad Luceriam ferebant viae, altera . . . patens apertaque, sed quanto tutior, tanto fere longior, altera per furculas Caudinas, brevior. (‘There were two roads to Luceria. One . . ., though open and unobstructed, was long almost in proportion to its safety. The other led through the Caudine Forks, and was shorter.’ Liv. 9.2.6) Supplement: Full correlative pattern: Quanto in pectore hanc rem meo magis voluto, / tanto mi aegritudo auctior est in animo. (Pl. Capt. 781–2); . . . quanto diutius / abest, mage cupio tanto et mage desidero. (Ter. Hau. 424–5—NB: tanto follows mage cupio); . . . recte praecipere videantur qui monent ut quanto superiores simus tanto nos geramus summissius. (Cic. Off. 1.90); Quanto vos adtentius ea agetis, tanto illis animus infirmior erit. (Sal. Cat. 52.18); Quanto quaeque magis sint terram sidera propter, / tanto posse minus cum caeli turbine ferri. (Lucr. 5.623–4); Quod quanto plura parasti, / tanto plura cupis, nulline faterier audes? (Hor. Ep. 2.2.147–8); . . . ceraeque renovabuntur, quae tanto deteriores sunt quanto vetustiores. (Col. 9.15.11); Ea sic conficitur, ut dura sit, et quanto facta est vetustior, eo melior in usu est. (Col. 12.23.1—NB: unequal correlatives); Procellae, quanto plus habent virium, tanto minus temporis. (Sen. Nat. 7.9.3) Arationes absolvi, quae eo fructuosiores fiunt, quo caldiore terra aratur. (Var. R. 1.32.1); An id agendum ut eo celerius de isto transigamus, quo maturius ad Apronium possimus . . . (Cic. Ver. 3.60); . . . solet idem Roscius dicere se, quo plus sibi aetatis accederet, eo tardiores tibicinis modos et cantus remissiores esse facturum. (Cic. de Orat. 1.254); Eiusdem collis occupandi [gratia] Labienus consilium ceperat et quo propiore loco fuerat eo celerius occurrerat. (B. Afr. 49.2); . . . sed quo inpunitior sit, eo effrenatiorem fore. (Liv. 3.50.7); Passum, quo ex sicciore uva est, eo valentius est. (Cels. 2.18.12); Eo enim crassior est aër quo terris propior. (Sen. Nat. 7.22.2) Iam quo quisque est sollertior et ingeniosior, hoc docet iracundius et laboriosius. (Cic. Q.  Rosc. 31); Quo magis exhaustae fuerint, hoc acrius omnes / incumbent generis lapsi sarcire ruinas . . . (Verg. G. 4.248–9); Hanc tibi commendo, quae, quo magis orba parente est, / hoc tibi tutori sarcina maior erit. (Ov. Tr. 3.14.15–16); Et quo longius moles agebatur a litore, hoc magis quicquid ingerebatur praealtum absorbebat mare. (Curt. 4.2.22); Quo quisque honestior genere, fama, patrimonio est, hoc se fortius gerat, memor in prima acie altos ordines stare. (Sen. Dial. 2.19.3)

768

Comparison Only relative element present: Ita quanto (cj. Pius; quanti mss.) magis extergeo, rutilum atque tenuius fit. (Pl. Rud. 1301—NB: positive form rutilum);83 Nam quanto propius truncum ridica statuitur, etiam leviter defixa stabilior est . . . (Col. 4.16.3); At ille, quanto acriora in eum studia militum et aversa patrui voluntas, celerandae victoriae intentior, tractare proeliorum vias . . . (Tac. Ann. 2.5.2—NB: positive form aversa); Crebriores apud ipsum sermones, quanto sperantibus plura dicuntur. (Tac. Hist. 2.78.4) Quoque suo propior sceleri est, magis horret. (Ov. Met. 10.460); Venit amor gravius, quo serius. (Ov. Ep. 4.19); Quo plures erant, maior caedes fuit. (Liv. 2.51.6); . . . procul dubio apparere, quo quid humilius sit, propius a centro esse terrae . . . (Plin. Nat. 2.165); Et hercule ut aliae bonae res, ita bonus liber melior est quisque, quo maior. (Plin. Ep. 1.20.4); . . . quo sublimior gloria est, maior et cura est. (Cypr. Hab. Virg. 3) Very remarkable instances of the proportional pattern are (g)–(i). In (g)—if the text is correct—there are two measure constituents with melior, of which quo lacks its corresponding eo. In (h) and (i) the bases of comparison are expressed as well (quam quos vicisti and Aristarcho, respectively).84 (g) Nam tibi eos certo scio, / quo vir melior multo es quam ego, obtemperaturos magis. (‘They’re more likely to take notice of you, I’m quite sure, insofar as you are a much better man than I am.’ Ter. Ad. 704–5) (h) Quod tu non esses, iure vir illa fuit. / Qua tanto minor es, quanto te, maxime rerum, / quam quos vicisti, vincere maius erat. (‘She was by full right what you were not: a man. You are as much less than she, O greatest of men, as it was greater to vanquish you than those you vanquished.’ Ov. Ep. 9.106–8) (i) Corrigere ut res est tanto minus ardua, quanto / magnus Aristarcho maior Homerus erat . . . (‘But while to emend is as much easier as great Homer was greater than Aristarchus . . .’ Ov. Pont. 3.9.23–4) In deviation from the proportional pattern with two comparative expressions some authors exhibit patterns with only one comparative, with either a comparative expression in the qu-part of the pattern, as in ( j) and (k), or, the other way around, with a comparative expression in the eo or tanto part. Sometimes the meaning of the verb implies a gradual change, like crescit in ( j). These patterns are favoured by Livy and especially Tacitus.85 These authors also use a proportional pattern with a positive adjective or adverb in one part and a comparative in the other, as in (l) and (m).86 ( j) Ita dimissis, quo minus consules velle credunt, crescit ardor pugnandi. (‘Dismissed with these words, the soldiers’ eagerness to fight grew greater the less they believed the consuls wanted to fight.’ Liv. 2.45.9)

83 84 85 86

For further examples with magis, see TLL s.v. 65.73ff. For these examples, see Bertocchi and Maraldi (2008: 26–30). Tacitus’ instances can be found in Heubner’s commentary ad Hist. 1.14.2. For Tacitus, see Sörbom (1935: 98).

Proportional comparison

769

(k) . . . ceteri nobilium, quanto quis servitio promptior, opibus et honoribus extollerentur . . . (‘. . . the rest of the nobles, each in proportion to his readiness for servitude, were being exalted by wealth and honours . . .’ Tac. Ann. 1.2.1—tr. Woodman) (l) Romani ovantes ac gratulantes Horatium accipiunt eo maiore cum gaudio, quo prope metum res fuerat. (‘The Romans welcomed Horatius with jubilations and thanksgivings, and with a joy that was greater to the degree that the event had been close to fear.’ Liv. 1.25.13) (m) Hosti . . . sonus tubarum, fulgor armorum, quanto inopina, tanto maiora offunduntur . . . (‘Over the enemy . . . there poured the sound of trumpets and glitter of arms, magnified in proportion to their unexpectedness . . .’ Tac. Ann. 1.68.4—tr. Woodman (adapted)) Supplement: Ea, quo maiore pugnabat ira ob erepta bona patriamque ademptam, pugnam parumper restituit. (Liv. 2.19.10); Ea pars morum eius, quo suspectior sollicitis, adoptanti placebat. (Tac. Hist. 1.14.2); Sed quo plus virium ac roboris, e fiducia tarditas inerat. (Tac. Hist. 2.11.1) . . . quantum ipse feroci / virtute exsuperas, tanto me impensius aecum est / consulere (Verg. A. 12.19–21—NB: gradable verb); Quantum autem augebatur militum numerus, tanto maiore pecunia in stipendium opus erat . . . (Liv. 5.10.5—NB: gradable verb); . . . quanto quis audacia promptus, tanto magis fidus rebusque motis potior habetur. (Tac. Ann. 1.57.1); . . . tanto infensius caesi, quanto perfugae et proditores ferre arma ad suum patriaeque servitium incusabantur. (Tac. Ann. 4.48.3); . . . quantumque hebes ad sustinendum laborem miles, tanto ad discordias promptior. (Tac. Hist. 2.99.1); . . . dimisit lanceam tanto ille quidem fidentius, quanto crederet ferri vulnera similia futura prosectu dentium. (Apul. Met. 8.5.10); Quanto pecunia dites et voluptatibus opulentos, tanto magis imbelles Aeduos evincite et fugientibus consulite. (Tac. Ann. 3.46.2); . . . quanto dives aliqua est et matronae nomine inflata, tanto capaciorem domum honoribus suis requirit . . . (Tert. Ux. 2.8)

In Early Latin and in poetry, instead of the measure expressions dealt with above, the degree adverbs quam . . . tam are found with comparatives as well, especially with magis ‘more’.87 An example is (n). Sometimes the relative adverb is used alone, as in (o). Sometimes one of the comparatives is absent, as in (p). And there are also occasionally mixed expressions, as in (q). An instance without an explicit degree expression is (r). (n)

Magis quam id reputo, tam magis uror / quae meus filius turbavit. (‘The more I think it over, the more I burn with anger because of the trouble my son’s stirred up.’ Pl. Bac. 1091–1a)

87 The whole range of measure expressions with magis can be found in TLL s.v. 65.54ff.

770 (o)

Comparison Quam magis in pectore meo foveo, quas meus filius turbas turbet, / . . . / magis curae est magisque afformido ne is pereat neu corrumpatur. (‘The more I ponder in my heart what trouble my son’s stirring up . . . the more it’s a source of anxiety for me and the more I fear that he might perish or go astray.’ Pl. Bac. 1076–8)

(p)

Quam magis te in altum capessis, tam aestus te in portum refert. (‘The more you put out to sea, the more the tide brings you back to the harbour.’ Pl. As. 158)

(q)

Quam magis extendas tanto astringunt artius. (‘The more you stretch them, the more tightly they tie.’ Pl. Men. 95)

(r)

Immo, hospes, magis quom periclum facies, magis nosces meam / comitatem erga te amantem. (‘Indeed, my dear guest, when you test me more, you’ll get to know more of my friendliness toward you in your love.’ Pl. Mil. 635–6) Supplement: Quam magis aspecto, tam magis est nimbata et nugae merae. (Pl. Poen. 348); Tam magis illa fremens et tristibus effera flammis, / quam magis effuso crudescunt sanguine pugnae. (Verg. A. 7.787–8); Quam magis specto, minus placet mi haec hominis facies. (Pl. Trin. 861); Quam magis exhausto spumaverit ubere mulctra, / laeta magis pressis manabunt flumina mammis. (Verg. G. 3.309–10); Quae quanto magis inter se perplexa coibant, / tam magis expressere ea quae mare sidera solem / lunamque efficerent . . . (Lucr. 5.452–4); Et, quanto ad gelidas propius quis venerit Arctos, / tam magis effugiunt oculos brumalia signa, / vixque ortis occasus erit. (Man. 3.344–6) Exceptional and Late are instances like (s) and (t). Ex. (s) has a correspondence between a superlative and a comparative, but must be intended as a proportional expression. Ex. (t) has what was originally a proportional measure expression in combination with a positive adverb, but must be understood as a variant of the coordinator cum . . . tum (see § 19.73). (s) Quo enim quemquam maxime diligimus, eo minus ei debemus in quibus magno periculo peccatur committere. (‘For the more we love anyone, the more are we bound to avoid entrusting to him things which are the occasion of very dangerous faults.’ August. Ep. 104.7—tr. Cunningham) (t) Haec testimonia animae quanto vera tanto simplicia . . . quanto naturalia tanto divina. (‘These testimonies of the soul are as true as they are simple, . . . as natural as they are divine.’ Tert. Test. 5.1—tr. Arbesmann)

20.30 The proportional pattern with a superlative There are two types of proportional expressions with a superlative (proportional superlative pattern), one with the degree adverbs quam . . . tam, the other with the  manner adverbs ut . . . ita (or sic). The expressions indicate that the entities are

Proportional comparison

771

equivalent and that to each of them the highest degree indicated by the relevant superlatives applies.88 Instances of the use of quam . . . tam with superlatives are almost confined to Early Latin. Examples are (a) and (b). In (b) the second superlative is absent. (a)

Quam ad probos propinquitate proxume te adiunxeris, / tam optumum est. (‘The more closely you connect yourself with honourable men through family ties, the better it is.’ Pl. Aul. 236–7)

(b)

Quam citissume potest, tam hoc cedere ad factum volo. (‘I want this matter to come to pass as quickly as possible.’ Pl. Capt. 352) Supplement: Quam potis tam verba confer maxume ad compendium. (Pl. Mil. 781); Quam citissime conficies, tam maxime expediet . . . (Cato Agr. 64.2); Nam quam maxume huic visa haec suspitio / erit vera . . . / . . . tam facillume patri’ pacem in leges conficiet suas. (Ter. Hau. 997–8); Quam paucissimos (sc. canes) reliqueris, tam optimi in alendo fiunt propter copiam lactis. (Var. R. 2.9.12); Ita quam quisque pessume fecit, tam maxume tutus est. (Sal. Jug. 31.14)

Instances of the use of ut . . . ita with superlative adjectives and adverbs and verbs of a gradable meaning are common in Cicero and later authors. The ut clause contains a form of the pronoun quisque ‘each’ (see § 11.158). Examples are (c)–(e). (c)

Profecto ut quisque minimo contentus fuit, / ita fortunatam vitam vixit maxime . . . (‘Truly as each man was content with the least, so he lived a happy life to the highest degree. . .’ Turp. com. 142–3)

(d)

Ut quisque te maxime cognatione . . . attingebat, ita maxime manus tua putabatur. (‘The more closely a man was connected with you by any tie of blood . . ., the more he was reckoned one of your hands.’ Cic. Ver. 2.27)

(e)

. . . ut quisque aetate et honore antecedit, ita primus solet sua sponte dicere, itaque a ceteris ei conceditur. (‘. . . according as a person is senior in age or official position, he is accustomed to speak first of his own accord, and that precedence is yielded to him by the rest.’ Cic. Ver. 4.142) Supplement: Cuius quidem rei cum causam quaererem, quidnam esset cur, ut in quoque oratore plurimum esset, ita maxime is pertimesceret, has causas inveniebam duas. (Cic. de Orat. 1.123); Ut enim quisque sordidissimus videbitur, ita libentissime severitate iudicandi sordis suas eluet . . . (Cic. Phil. 1.20); . . . colendum autem esse ita quemque maxime ut quisque maxime virtutibus his lenioribus erit ornatus . . . (Cic. Off. 1.46); Et ut quisque contemptissimus et vel ludibrium est, ita solutissimae linguae est. (Sen. Dial. 2.11.3) 88 See Bertocchi and Maraldi (2008: 33–5).

772

Comparison

20.31 The absolute use of comparative forms of adjectives and adverbs Comparative forms of adjectives and adverbs can be used with the basis of comparison unexpressed. This is the normal situation if from the meaning of the comparative word it is clear with what entity the comparison is made, as in (a). (a)

VIII Kal. duas a te accepi [litteras]. Respondebo igitur priori prius. (‘On the 25th I have received two letters from you, so I shall answer the earlier first.’ Cic. Att. 15.13.1)

In other situations comparative forms without a basis indicate a relatively high degree of the meaning of the adjective or adverb, or a higher degree than expected in the specific situation or in general. Examples are (b)–(d). (b)

Eugae, / corpulentior videre atque habitior. (‘Excellent! You seem stouter and heavier.’ Pl. Epid. 9–10)

(c)

Interea haec soror / quam dixi ad flammam accessit inprudentius, / sati’ cum periclo. (‘Meanwhile this sister I was talking about approached the flames with little regard for her own safety and was in real danger.’ Ter. An. 129–31)

(d)

. . . senectus est natura loquacior . . . (‘. . . old age is naturally inclined to talk too much . . .’ Cic. Sen. 55)

The use of comparative forms without a clear semantic motivation is rare in Early and Classical Latin. The traditional early example is ocius in (e), repeated from § 20.3 (f), for which the positive form ociter is not attested before Apuleius. A morphologically unmotivated example is (f), where supra would be adequate. This phenomenon increases in the course of time, especially in non-elevated texts.89 It is also not uncommon in Ammianus, sometimes for rhythmic purposes, as in (g). (e)

Tu puere, abi hinc intro ocius. (‘You, boy, go inside quickly.’ Pl. Mer. 930)

(f)

Namque ut superius demonstravimus loca excellentia tumulis contineri . . . (‘For as we have pointed out earlier that the lofty country is surrounded by hills . . .’ B. Hisp. 28.4—NB: the text is problematic)

(g)

Impositusque scuto pedestri et sublatius eminens nullo silente Augustus renuntiatus iubebatur diadema proferre . . . (‘And being placed upon an infantryman’s shield and raised on high, he was hailed by all as Augustus and bidden to bring out a diadem.’ Amm. 20.4.17)

89 See Sz.: 168–9 and Adams (1977: 58; 1991: 91–2).

The superlative and related expressions 773 Supplement: Ex quavis olea oleum viridius et bonum fieri potest, si temperi facies. (Cato Agr. 3.4); Si demptus erit odor deterior, id optime. Si non, saepius facito, usque dum odorem malum dempseris. (Cato Agr. 110.1); (sc. Antonius Iulianus) Doctrina quoque ista utiliore ac delectabili veterumque elegantiarum cura et memoria multa fuit. (Gel. 1.4.1); Pares enim quodam modo coiere cum paribus, Alamanni robusti et celsiores, milites usu nimio dociles. (Amm. 16.12.47)

20.32 The superlative and related expressions Superlative forms of adjectives and adverbs indicate the highest degree of intensity of a certain property, either in comparison with other entities or states of affairs or in an absolute sense (the ‘elative’ use of the superlative—see § 3.7). A high degree of intensity may also be expressed by degree modifiers (see §§  11.93–9), and with certain adjectives and adverbs this is the only possible or the preferred expression (see § 3.7 and the note below ex. (c), this page).90 Two examples of coordination of a superlative form with an adjective modified by maxime are (a) and (b). From Vitruvius onwards it is also used with comparative and superlative forms, as in (c).91 Note in (a) the use of minime to indicate a very low degree of intensity. (a)

. . . maximeque pius quaestus stabilissimusque consequitur minimeque invidiosus . . . (‘. . . their livelihood is most highly respected, most assured and least liable to hostility . . .’ Cato Agr. pr. 4)

(b)

. . . quia virtus, ut omnes fatemur, altissimum locum in homine et maxime excellentem tenet . . . (‘. . . because virtue, as we all agree, holds the highest and most esteemed place in a man . . .’ Cic. Fin. 4.37)

(c)

Equilibus quae maxime in villa loca calidissima fuerint, constituantur . . . (‘For the stables must be designated those areas in the villa that are the warmest . . .’ Vitr. 6.6.4) For some adjectives superlative forms are excluded or avoided, either for formal reasons, for example adjectives ending in -osus or -eus and polysyllabic adjectives like domesticus, or for semantic reasons, for example present participles and gerundives (unless they are used as adjectives).92

90 Latin has also two prefixes of adjectives and adverbs that indicate high intensity: per- and prae-. See André (1951) and Cuzzolin (2011: 643–6). 91 See TLL s.v. magis 73.47ff. Cic. Att. 12.38a.1 is usually emended. 92 See TLL s.v. magis 72.43ff.

774

Comparison

The entity or entities in comparison with which an entity possesses the highest degree of a certain property is regularly expressed by the partitive genitive (see § 11.54) or the preposition ex (see § 11.68). Examples are (d) and (e)–(f), respectively.93 (d)

. . . propterea quod Ariovistus . . . tertiam . . . partem agri Sequani, qui esset optimus totius Galliae, occupavisset . . . (‘. . . because Ariovistus has seized a third of the territory of the Sequani, which is the best in all Gaul . . .’ Caes. Gal. 1.31.10)

(e)

Acerrimum autem ex omnibus nostris sensibus esse sensum videndi. (‘That the keenest of all our senses is the sense of sight . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 2.357)

(f)

Ex tempestatibus vero optimae aequales sunt, sive frigidae sive calidae. (‘But of weather conditions the best are those which are settled, whether cold or hot . . .’ Cels. 2.1.2)

Superlative forms can be combined with various expressions, such as the scalar particles etiam ‘even’, vel ‘quite’, ‘altogether’, and ne . . . quidem, as in (g)–(i),94 the adverbs of degree quam ( potest) in ( j) and longe in (k), and the ablative of measure multo (see § 20.10) in (l). Another combination is shown in (m), where the numeral unus, functioning as a secondary predicate, indicates the uniqueness of the high degree of intensity.95 (g)

Omnes enim ad pericula propulsanda concurrimus et qui non aperte inimici sumus etiam alienissimis in capitis periculis amicissimorum officia et studia praestamus. (‘We all rush to repel danger and those of us who are not open enemies fulfil the obligations and good offices of the closest friendship even in the case of total strangers when their civil rights are in danger.’ Cic. Mur. 45)

(h)

Huius domus est vel optuma Messanae . . . (‘His house is perhaps the finest in Messana . . .’ Cic. Ver. 4.3)

(i)

. . . ne minimam quidem moram interposuisti quin quam primum maximo gaudio et gratulatione frueremur. (‘. . . you did not let even the slightest of intervals delay our enjoyment of so great a cause for happiness and congratulation.’ Cic. Phil. 10.1)

( j)

Pabulum aridum, quod condideris in hieme, quam maxime conservato . . . (‘Save as carefully as possible the dry fodder that you have stored against winter . . .’ Cato Agr. 30)

93 For other prepositions that can be used in the context of superlatives, see Torrego (1998) on praeter and Cuzzolin (2011: 649–51). 94 For the use of scalar particles with superlatives, see Bertocchi and Maraldi (2012: 12–15), from whom some of the examples are taken. 95 For further expressions with quam, see TLL s.v. magis 75.15ff.; 76.20ff.

The superlative and related expressions 775 (k)

(sc. porticus) Longe omnium longissuma est. (‘It’s by far the longest of them all.’ Pl. Mos. 911)

(l)

Aut pol haec praestigiatrix multo mulier maxuma est / aut pateram hic inesse oportet. (‘Either this woman is by far the greatest trickster or the bowl ought to be in here.’ Pl. Am. 782–3)

(m)

. . . ex ea provincia quae fuerit ex omnibus una maxime triumphalis . . . (‘. . . from a province which was above all others the most prolific in triumphs . . .’ Cic. Pis. 44) Supplement: Qua ex pugna cum se ille eripuisset et Bosphorum confugisset quo exercitus adire non posset, etiam in extrema fortuna et fuga nomen tamen retinuit regium. (Cic. Mur. 34); Litaviccus cum suis clientibus, quibus more Gallorum nefas est etiam in extrema fortuna deserere patronos, Gergoviam perfugit. (Caes. Gal. 7.40.7); Nemo non fortius ad id cui se diu composuerat accessit et duris quoque, si praemeditata erant, obstitit. At contra inparatus etiam levissima expavit. (Sen. Ep. 107.4) Speramus optima, pati vel difficillima malumus quam servire. (Cic. Phil. 13.16); . . . duobus milibus nummum sese dicit emisse adulescens vel potentissimus hoc tempore nostrae civitatis, L. Cornelius Chrysogonus. (Cic. S. Rosc. 6); . . . quorum splendore vel maxime istius qui legem promulgavit oratio et causa nititur. (Cic. Ver. 2.175); Quamquam vel inimicissimis omnibus praeclusisse vocem videbatur, Phaeneas tamen Aetolus cunctis tacentibus ‘quid? nobis’, inquit, ‘Philippe . . .’ (Liv. 33.13.5) Crudele, nefarium, ne in sceleratissimo quidem civi sine iudicio ferundum! (Cic. Dom. 47); . . . causam, in qua ne tenuissima quidem dubitatio posset esse . . . (Cic. Ver. 2.20); Ciceronis autem factum adeo visum est probabile, ut imitari id ne inimicissimus quidem illi P. Pulcher dubitaverit. (V. Max. 4.2.5); Videbis portum . . . sic tutum ut ne maximarum quidem tempestatium furori locus sit. (Sen. Dial. 6.17.4)

Instead of quam alone, illustrated by ( j) above, and which is possibly the origin of that usage, quam is also used as a relative adverb ‘to which extent’ in ‘qualifying’ clauses (see § 16.83 and § 18.27) with the verb possum, as in (n)—modifying an adverb in the superordinate clause—and (o), modifying the adjective of a noun phrase. The use of quam in (n) can be compared with the relative manner adverb ut in (p).96 (n)

. . . teque ut quam primum possim videam emortuam. (‘. . . and that I may see you dead as quickly as possible.’ Pl. Trin. 42)

(o)

Locum quam optimum et apertissimum et stercorosissimum poteris . . . eum locum bipalio vertito . . . (‘The best, most open and most highly fertilized land you can (sc. find for this purpose), turn this with a trench spade . . .’ Cato Agr. 46.1)

96 For a discussion of quam, see Manfredini (2018). For further examples of quam, see OLD s.v. § 7; for ut, see OLD s.v. § 15b.

776 (p)

Comparison Curate igitur familiarem rem ut potestis optume. (‘Then look after the household affairs as best as you can.’ Pl. St. 145) Supplement: Concede huc, mea nata, ab istoc quam potest longissime. (Pl. Men. 834—NB: impersonal potest); . . . quam potui maximis itineribus ad Amanum exercitum duxi. (Cic. Fam. 15.4.7) . . . ut potui accuratissime te tuamque causam tutatus sum . . . (Cic. Fam. 5.17.2)

CHAPTER 21

Secondary predicates

21.1 Secondary predicates: introductory remarks Among the constituents of Latin sentences, those functioning as secondary predicate (or: praedicativum) introduce a particular set of interpretive issues.¹ Adjectives indicating the mental or physical condition of a person are the best known type of constituent functioning as secondary predicate. An example is (a). (a)

At ii qui ab Alesia processerant maesti . . . se in oppidum receperunt. (‘But they who had come forth from Alesia sadly withdrew again into the town.’ Caes. Gal. 7.80.9)

Maesti is an optional constituent in the sentence and therefore resembles a satellite. It is in some way related to the subject ii qui ab Alesia processerant—with which it agrees in number, gender, and case—but it is not an attribute of that constituent. It indicates the mental condition of the people who had left Alesia while they were on their way to the oppidum.² Two other common types of constituents that can function as a secondary predicate are shown in (b), with the quantifier omnes, and (c), with a present participle. Examples illustrating other types of constituents are discussed later on in this chapter. (b)

(sc. Athenienses et Boeotii ceterique eorum socii) Quos omnes gravi proelio vicit (sc. Agesilaus). (‘(the Athenians and Boeotians, and others in alliance with them) All of them he defeated in a great battle.’ Nep. Ag. 4.5)

(c)

Is amore misere hanc deperit mulierculam / quae hinc modo flens abiit. (‘He’s dying wretchedly with love for this poor woman who went off crying a moment ago.’ Pl. Cist. 131–2)

¹ In LSS, Chapter 8 these constituents are called ‘praedicativa’. Secondary predicates have received considerable attention in the last few decades, both in Latin linguistics (see LSS, ch. 8, with references, Longrée (1989), Müller (1990), a collection of articles and discussion in Touratier (ed.) (1991), Pinkster (1991a; 1992—on Celsus), Heberlein (1996), Hoffmann (1999)) and in general linguistics. For a survey of the construction in the world’s languages and the variety of terminology, see Himmelmann  (1986) and Himmelmann and Schultze-Berndt  (2005). A common term in general linguistics is ‘converb’ (see Hoffmann 1999, also in: 2018a: 71–86). These expressions are called ‘supplementive (adjective and participle) clauses’ in Quirk et al. (1985: 424–6; 1124–7). They are part of ‘nonfinite and verbless adverbial clauses’ (ibid.: 1120). ² An entirely different analysis of the sequence, in which maesti is taken as a substantival head and ii qui ab Alesia processerant as the attribute, is extremely unattractive from a semantic point of view.

The Oxford Latin Syntax. Harm Pinkster, Oxford University Press (2021). © Harm Pinkster. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199230563.003.0021



Secondary predicates

In (b), omnes is optional, just as maesti in (a): it is related to the object quos, with which it agrees in number, gender, and case, but is not an attribute of quos. It indicates the number of people Agesilaus defeated. (Here, too, taking quos as the attribute of substantival omnes is very unattractive.) In (c), flens is also an optional constituent: it agrees with the relative pronoun quae, which is the subject of the clause. It cannot be taken as the attribute of the pronoun. Since maesti in (a) resembles a satellite in that it is an optional constituent of the sentence, it is usually taken as an adverbial constituent (often described as an adjective used instead of a manner adverb). Unlike the morphologically related adverbs maeste and maestiter, however, it does not specify the action of the verb se receperunt: the people did not retreat in a sad manner, they were sad while retreating. In some grammatical traditions, notably the Dutch, maesti is regarded as ‘double-connected’, with both the subject and the verb; but, as was said above, there is no confirmation of the latter connexion. The adverb-like approach does not at all work for omnes in (b): how could it be adverbially related to vicit? Similarly, the woman in (c) is not leaving in a crying manner. A more detailed discussion of the relationship between adjectives and adverbs is given in § 21.20. The secondary predicates in (a) are valid at the time referred to by the verb of the clause to which they belong. In (a) maesti is simultaneous with se receperunt, which refers to a time before the time of speaking (it is part of a speech given by Minucius). In (c), the action of the present participle flens is simultaneous with abiit, the departure of the muliercula, which itself occurs before the time of speaking. Another example of simultaneity is (d), wherein consul and quaestorem indicate the social position of ego and quem, respectively, at the time of the action marked by the pluperfect ornaram. When the secondary predicate is a perfect participle, as in (e), the reference point of the action is simultaneous with the time of the main verb considunt, but the action itself is anterior to the time marked by the main verb (for ‘reference point’, see § 7.2 and § 7.4). Note that these temporal notions are not relevant for quantifiers, such as omnes in (b) (for further discussion, see § 21.23). (d)

. . . is tribunus plebis quem ego maximis beneficiis quaestorem consul ornaram . . . (‘. . . that tribune of the people whom, when I was consul and he quaestor, I honoured with extraordinary kindness . . .’ Cic. Red. Pop. 12)

(e)

Ipsi profecti a palude in ripa Sequanae e regione Lutetiae contra Labieni castra considunt. (‘After they themselves had set out from the marsh, they halted on the bank of the Seine opposite Lutetia over against the camp of Labienus.’ Caes. Gal. 7.58.6)

Secondary predicates frequently appear with arguments, as in the examples above. They are particularly frequent with subject constituents, but they can also be used with satellites and at the noun phrase level. Secondary predicates can even expand other secondary predicates (see § 21.16). As has already been shown, secondary predicates belong to various lexical categories. Participles, both present and perfect, are relatively frequent, with the future being

Introductory remarks  much less frequent until the Augustan period. Certain adjectives and nouns can also be used as secondary predicate. Constituents from these categories agree with the entity that they expand in case, number, and gender. They cannot always be distinguished easily from other optional and obligatory agreeing constituents, such as attributes and subject or object complements. However, there are also non-agreeing secondary predicates. An example is the ablative constituent defaecato . . . animo in (f) (usually called an ‘ablative of description’, see § 11.63, also § 21.12). An example of a relative clause functioning as secondary predicate is (g), repeated from § 18.16 (see § 21.15). (f)

Nunc defaecato demum animo egredior domo . . . (‘Now that I’ve regained a clear mind at last I’m leaving the house . . .’ Pl. Aul. 79)

(g)

I, Palaestrio, / aurum, ornamenta, vestem, pretiosa omnia / duc adiutores tecum ad navim qui ferant. (‘Go, Palaestrio, and take helpers with you to take the gold, jewellery, clothing, and all the valuables to the ship.’ Pl. Mil. 1301–3)

Participial secondary predicates (and to a lesser extent adjectival and substantival ones) can be accompanied by arguments or satellites of their own, as illustrated in (e) by a palude in ripa Sequanae. This is very rare in texts reflecting oral conversation (such as the comedies of Plautus) and is typical of authors striving to condense information (for example Suetonius) or of those working in a special stylistic framework, such as Livy. Secondary predicates are relatively common as expansions of arguments with certain classes of verb, such as verbs of standing, moving, finding, and perceiving, but they are not semantically restricted in their occurrence. Most secondary predicates formally resemble subject and object complements, and there are instances in which it is difficult to decide whether a constituent is one or the other. (Three-place verbs with an object complement are discussed in §§ 4.87–9; the copula and copular verbs with a subject complement in § 4.92 and § 4.97.) The difference between secondary predicates and complements becomes clear when they co-occur in the same clause. Examples are (h)–( j).³ In (h), infidus is the subject complement, sciens the secondary predicate. Similarly, a secondary predicate may be used in a clause with locative sum alongside a position in space argument (on which see § 4.42), as is shown in (k). (h) Ubi sciens fideli infidus fueris . . . (‘Occasions where you were knowingly unfaithful to someone . . .’ Pl. As. 568) (i) Nam sola nulla invitior solet esse. (‘Usually no girl is less willing to be alone than me.’ Pl. Cist. 310) ³ For this entire note, see Cabrillana (2010b), where some statistics can be found as well. For the difficulty of distinguishing secondary predicates from subject and object complements, see Cabrillana (2019b).



Secondary predicates ( j) . . . saepe magno usui rei publicae Ser. Sulpicius et privatus et in magistratibus fuerit. (‘. . . Servius Sulpicius was often of great service to the Republic both as a private citizen and in public office.’ Cic. Phil. 9.15) (k) Ego, ut in his malis, Patris sum non invitus. (‘In these bad times I am not sorry to be at Patrae.’ Cic. Att. 11.16.4) The term ‘secondary predicate’ for the categories mentioned is so chosen because the expressions involved resemble so-called ‘primary predicates’. Thus, just as se receperunt tells us something about (or: predicates something of) the subject ‘we’, maesti in (a) tells us that the ‘they’ ‘are sad’ at that moment of se receperunt (for the terminology, see also footnote 1).

21.2 Categories of constituents functioning as secondary predicate Most of the categories of constituents that can be used as secondary predicate can also be used as subject complements (see § 9.21 with Table 9.6) or as object complements (see § 9.39 with Table 9.7), although this is not necessarily attested or possible for every lexical item belonging to these categories. This holds especially for adjectives and nouns and noun phrases that show agreement with the constituent to which they are related.

. Adjectives functioning as secondary predicate The most common subclass of adjectives that can be used as secondary predicate describes a non-permanent or transient mental or physical condition of the entity to which they are related (see § 3.7).⁴ Examples are (a)–(d). In (a)–(c), the secondary predicate is related to the subject; in (d), to the object. Ex. (c) shows an inanimate subject. When the adjectival secondary predicate is related to the subject of the clause, it can often be replaced by the corresponding adverb, but with a difference in meaning (see § 21.1 and § 21.20). Replacement is obviously out of the question if the adjective is related to a non-subject constituent, as in (d). (a)

Primumdum, quom tu es aucta liberis / quomque bene provenisti salva, gaudeo. (‘First of all, I’m happy that you’ve been blessed with a child and that you’ve pulled through safe and sound.’ Pl. Truc. 384–5)

(b)

. . . Neptuno / laetus lubens laudes ago . . . (‘. . . to Neptune . . . I joyfully and happily offer praise . . .’ Pl. Trin. 819–20)

⁴ For collections of examples, see K.-St.: I.234ff. and Lundström (1982: 50–2). For dactylic poets, see Priess (1909).

Constituents functioning as secondary predicate (c)



Anio Novus . . . excipitur ex flumine quod . . . etiam sine pluviarum iniuria limosum et turbulentum fluit. (‘The New Anio . . . takes its water from the river, which . . . even without the effect of rainstorms, is muddy and turbid.’ Fron. Aq. 15.1)

(d)

Sed laetum eum atque fidentem et subole et disciplina domus Fortuna destituit. (‘But in the midst of all his joy and hopes in his numerous and well-regulated family, his fortune failed him.’ Suet. Aug. 65.1—tr. Thomson) Supplement (in alphabetical order by adjective) With the subject: Non ita ut sperarunt mali . . . alacris exsultat improbitas in victoria. (Cic. Att. 1.16.7); Tum tu insiste audax hostium muris . . . (Liv. 5.16.10); . . . omnes avidi spectant ad carceris oras . . . (Enn. Ann. 85V=80S); Ergo avidus muros optatae molior urbis . . . (Verg. A. 3.132); (sc. puer) . . . citus e cunis exsilit . . . (Pl. Am. 1115); Iamque mari magno classis cita / texitur . . . (Enn. scen. 65–6V=43–4J); . . . ne crudus sumat medicamentum. (Larg. 122); Vexasti negotiatores. Inviti enim Romam raroque decedunt. (Cic. Ver. 3.96—NB: coordination with adverb); Invita in hoc loco versatur oratio. (Cic. N.D. 3.85); Ille laetus in castra Iugurthae proficiscitur. (Sal. Jug. 112.2); Lepidus vivis.⁵ (Pl. Trin. 390); . . . cum totius Italiae concursus, quem mea salus concitarat, facti illius gloriam lubens agnovisset . . . (Cic. Mil. 38); Ego, qui tuo maerore maceror, / macesco, consenesco et tabesco miser. (Pl. Capt. 133–4); (sc. Marius) . . . tum vero multus (‘assiduous’—OLD s.v. § 6) atque ferox instare. (Sal. Jug. 84.1); (sc. Cupido) . . . qui plurimus urget et urit pectora nostra . . . (Ov. Met. 9.624–5— NB: adverb does not fit within the metre); . . . inopiam quaeque ipsi inter se fremere occulti (v.l. occulte) soliti erant conquesti . . . (Liv. 25.28.6); Et cum audissent, turbae secutae sunt eum pedestres de civitatibus. (Vulg. Mat. 14:13—NB: some of the Greek manuscripts read .pqzj instead of the accepted reading .pqŎ); . . . campos quos rapidus amnis ex praecipitio vel, cum per plana infusus est, placidus interfluit. (Sen. Con. 2.1.13); Nemo enim fere saltat sobrius, nisi forte insanit . . . (Cic. Mur. 13); Maxumum vero argumentum est naturam ipsam de inmortalitate animorum tacitam iudicare . . . (Cic. Tusc. 1.31); . . . errare videbar / tardaque vestigare et quaerere te neque posse / corde capessere. (Enn. Ann. 41–3V=40–2S); . . . qui Styga tristem non tristis videt . . . (Sen. Ag. 607); Sic quoque, quotiens imbres superveniunt, (sc. aqua) turbida pervenit in urbem. (Fron. Aq. 15.3); (sc. Iugurtha) . . . varius incertusque agitabat. (Sal. Jug. 74.1); . . . hoc · monumentum / cum · aedificio / me · vivus⁶ · feci · mihi · et / Calviae / Asclepiadi / coniugi (CIL VI.8455.9–14 (Rome, ad 290?)) With the object (passive subject): Villam aedificandam si locabis novam ab solo, faber haec faciat oportet: . . . . (Cato Agr. 14.1); . . . ipsaque sibi imbecillitas indulget in altumque provehitur imprudens . . . (Cic. Tusc. 4.42); (sc. fructus) Qui tamen nisi primo quoque tempore maturi legantur, ad terram decidunt. (Col. 3.2.22); Quis te illis diebus sobrium . . . vidit? (Cic. Pis. 22); Nam quia vos tranquillos video, gaudeo et volup est mihi. (Pl. Am. 958); Quos (sc. legatos) cum tristioris vidisset, triginta minas accepit . . . (Cic. Tusc. 5.91); . . . te vegetum nobis in Graecia siste . . . (Cic. Att. 10.16.6);

⁵ Instances of secondary predicates with the verb vivo are quite frequent in comedy and in (Augustan) poetry. See Heerdegen (1913) and Hofmann (1924: 81). See also § 4.97 on copular verbs. ⁶ For me vivo in a similar context, see § 16.117.



Secondary predicates (sc. columbae) Eligendae vero sunt ad educationem neque vetulae nec nimium novellae sed corporis maximi . . . (Col. 8.8.7—NB: coordination); Quos Caesaris equites consecuti partim interfecerunt, partim vivorum sunt potiti. (B. Afr. 50—NB: parallelism)

A second subclass of adjectives that can be used as secondary predicate describes a stative physical condition, age, or socio-economic position. Examples are (e)–(g). In these cases, the adjectives cannot be replaced by corresponding adverbs (which, for these examples, happen not to exist).⁷ (e)

Quis? Nescio, nil video, caecus eo . . . (‘Who? I don’t know, I can’t see anything, trot along blindly . . .’ Pl. Aul. 714)

(f)

Adoptat annos viginti natus, etiam minor, senatorem. (‘A man twenty years of age or even less adopts a senator.’ Cic. Dom. 34)

(g)

. . . Chrysidem, / quae sese inhoneste optavit parere hic ditias / potius quam honeste in patria pauper viveret. (‘. . . Chrysis, who has chosen to get rich here dishonourably rather than live a poor but honourable life in her homeland.’ Ter. An. 796–8) Supplement: Beluarum modo caecos in foveam lapsos. (Liv. 9.5.7—NB: for lapsos, see Oakley ad loc.); Aut dives opto vivere aut pauper mori. (Sen. Ep. 115.14=Trag. Graec. frg. adesp. 181.6 Nauck); Ecce autem structores nostri ad frumentum profecti, cum inanes redissent, rumorem adferunt . . . (Cic. Att. 14.3.1); . . . (sc. Dionysius) cum quinque et viginti natus annos dominatum occupavisset. (Cic. Tusc. 5.57); (sc. Syria) . . . quam pauper divitem ingressus dives pauperem reliquit . . . (Vell. 2.117.2); . . . cum (sc. servus) . . . testamento se liberum relictum audisset . . . (Ulp. dig. 21.1.17.16); Habeo etiam dicere quem contra morem maiorum minorem annis LX de ponte in Tiberim deiecerit. (Cic. S. Rosc. 100)

A third subclass of adjectives that can be used as secondary predicate encompasses those which specify space or time in a broad sense. Examples are (h) and (i) for spatial indicators and ( j) and (k) for temporal ones. Poets notably expand the number of adjectives that are used in this way (see § 21.4). For some of these adjectives—when they are related to the subject of the clause—corresponding adverbs with more or less the same meaning are available (notably for ( j)), but they are nevertheless not expressions of manner. (h)

Omnium primum divorsae state. (‘First of all, stand apart from each other.’ Pl. Truc. 787)

(i)

Quin tu illum iubes ancillas rapere sublimem domum? (‘Why don’t you order your maids to pick him up and drag him home?’ Pl. As. 868)

⁷ For exceptional caece, see TLL s.v. caecus 47.47. Tert. Cult. fem. 2.11.3 has the comparative form pauperius incedit (sc. mulier quaedam). Vitae pauperis is attested at Luc. 5.527–8.

Constituents functioning as secondary predicate ( j)



Nam cum hic Sex. Roscius esset Ameriae, T. autem iste Roscius Romae, cum hic filius assiduus in praediis esset . . ., iste (ipse cj. Eberhard) autem frequens Romae esset, occiditur . . . Sex. Roscius. (‘For when this man Sextus Roscius was at Ameria, but that Titus Roscius at Rome; while the former—the son—was diligently attending to the farm . . ., but the other was constantly at Rome, Sextus Roscius . . . was slain.’ Cic. S. Rosc. 18)

(k)

. . . quem Vergobretum appellant Haedui, qui creatur annuus et vitae necisque in suos habet potestatem . . . (‘. . . whom the Haedui call Vergobret, who is elected for a period of one year and holds the power of life and death over his fellow-countrymen.’ Caes. Gal. 1.16.5) Supplement (in alphabetical order by adjective): Position in space expressions: Stratippoclem aiunt, Periphanei filium, / apsentem curavisse ut fieret libera. (Pl. Epid. 508–9); Statim conplures cum telis in hunc faciunt de loco superiore impetum; adversi raedarium occidunt. (Cic. Mil. 29); Quos omnes dextra Dryantis / perculit adversos. (Ov. Met. 12.311–12); Trabes earum liminares ita altae ponantur ut altitudines latitudinibus sint aequales. (Vitr. 6.3.4); Hannibal paucis propugnatoribus in vallo portisque positis ceteros confertos in media castra recepit . . . (Liv. 21.59.4); Quemquem visco offenderant, / tam crebri ad terram reccidebant quam pira. (Pl. Poen. 483–5); . . . diversae duae legiones . . . in ipsis fluminis ripis proeliabantur. (Caes. Gal. 2.23.3); Nam ut quis misericordia in Germanicum et praesumpta suspicione aut favore in Pisonem pronior diversi interpretantur (sc. the facts). (Tac. Ann. 2.73.4); Tamen obvias mihi litteras . . . mittas. (Cic. Att. 6.5.1); Utinam mi[hi] esset aliquid hic quo nunc me praecipitem darem! (Ter. An. 606); Rex Antiochus . . . praeceps e provincia populi Romani exturbatus est. (Cic. Ver. 4.67); Egone quid velim? / Cum milite istoc praesens absens ut sies. (Ter. Eu. 191–2); Miraculo primo esse Romanis qui proximi steterant, ut nudari latera sua sociorum digressu senserunt. (Liv. 1.27.7); Genus erat pugnae militum illorum ut . . . rari dispersique pugnarent . . . (Caes. Civ. 1.44.1); . . . cumque / rara per ignaros errent animalia montis. (Verg. Ecl. 6.39–40); Ipsa Paphum sublimis abit sedesque revisit / laeta suas . . . (Verg. A. 1.415–16); Terrebat eum natura mortalium avida imperi . . . praeterea opportunitas suae liberorumque aetatis, quae etiam mediocris viros spe praedae transvorsos agit. (Sal. Jug. 6.3) Time expressions: Cum complicarem hanc epistulam noctuabundus, ad me venit cum epistula tua tabellarius. (Cic. Att. 12.1.2—NB: if noctuabundus is correct; see Shackleton Bailey ad loc.⁸); Stare solitus Socrates dicitur pertinaci statu perdius atque pernox . . . (Gel. 2.1.2—NB: disputable, see TLL s.v. perdius)

A fourth subclass encompasses adjectives that indicate relative position (in space or in time), such as inferior ‘lower’, and ordinal numerals like primus ‘first’. Examples are (l) and (m).⁹ These cannot be replaced by corresponding adverbs.

⁸ See also Watt (1962), who proposes to read noctu cunctabundus and takes it with the cum clause, as I print it. ⁹ For the partitive use of some of these adjectives, e.g. medius, see § 11.77.

 (l)

Secondary predicates (sc. P. Quinctius) At si in causa pari discedere inferior videretur, tamen esset non mediocriter conquerendum. (‘But if, in a cause where the merits were equal, he seemed to come off the worse, that would be something to complain of in no small degree.’ Cic. Quinct. 59)

(m)

Primus cubitu surgat, postremus cubitum eat. (‘He must be the first out of bed, the last to go to bed.’ Cato Agr. 5.5) Supplement (in alphabetical order by adjective or numeral): . . . alvos, quas ideo videntur medias facere angustissimas, ut figuram imitentur earum. (Var. R. 3.16.15); Iacet inter eos satis patens clausus in medio campus herbidus aquosusque, per quem medium iter est. (Liv. 9.2.7); . . . etiam sapientibus cupido gloriae novissima exuitur. (Tac. Hist. 4.6.1); . . . princepsque decima legio per tribunos militum ei gratias egit . . . (Caes. Gal. 1.41.2); (sc. Hannibal) Princeps in proelium ibat, ultimus conserto proelio excedebat. (Liv. 21.4.8); . . . multo illo adveni prior . . . (Pl. Aul. 705); Abi tu sane superior . . . (Pl. St. 696); Tertius ad hos Favonius accessit. (Cael. Fam. 8.11.2)

Other adjectives can be used as well, especially by poets (see §  21.4). Examples of evaluative adjectives from Cicero can be seen in (n) and (o). These cannot be replaced by their corresponding adverbs. (n)

Carus omnibus exspectatusque venies. (‘Your arrival is eagerly expected, and you will find an affectionate welcome from everyone.’ Cic. Fam. 16.7)

(o)

Fac bellus revertare . . . (‘Mind you come back in good shape . . .’ Cic. Fam. 16.18.1)

. The use of adjectives as secondary predicate in poetry and poeticizing prose Poets and poeticizing prose writers quite often use adjectives as secondary predicates. The frequent use of adjectives by poets is driven by three tendencies: (i) the avoidance of adverbs in general; (ii) the use of related adjectives in place of adverbs that do not fit within the metre; and, more vaguely, (iii) the desire to impart some form of characterization to entities, especially human beings, rather than events. (i) Although there is some variation between authors and types of poetry, adverbs are used less frequently in poetry than in prose and the variety of adverbs is likewise not as great. This holds especially for dactylic poetry, in which very common adverbs such as valde ‘strongly’, vehementer ‘strongly’, recte ‘correctly’ were replaced by less common ones like multum ‘much’, magnum ‘greatly’, and rite ‘properly’, respectively.¹⁰ An alternative ¹⁰ For the use of adverbs by dactylic poets, see Priess (1909: 10–38, especially 36–8); in general, Axelson (1945: 62–3), Maurach (1983: 103–5). Håkanson (1986) has detailed statistics about the use of adverbs in a large number of poetical texts and in prose (Cicero, Livy, and Seneca the Younger). Ovid has recte twice; Horace, often (c.35 times).

Constituents functioning as secondary predicate



expression using a noun in the ablative could also replace an adverb such as astu instead of astute in (a), and dolo instead of dolose in (b) (for these ablatives, see § 10.44).¹¹ Another alternative is the use of adjectives as secondary predicates, as with citus instead of cito in (c)—avoided in epic poetry from Ennius onwards¹²—and lenta instead of lente in (d). (a)

Inde Mago procul infensam (sc. Aeneas) contenderat hastam: / ille astu subit . . . (‘Next at Magus from a distance he had aimed the hostile lance. Deftly he cowers . . .’ Verg. A. 10.521–2)

(b)

Tu faciem illius noctem non amplius unam / falle dolo et notos pueri puer indue vultus . . . (‘For but a single night, feign by craft his form and, boy that you are, don the boy’s familiar face . . .’ Verg. A. 1.683–4)

(c)

Volat ille per aëra magnum / remigio alarum ac Libyae citus astitit oris. (‘Through the wide air he flies with the stroke of his wings, and speedily alights on the Libyan coasts.’ Verg. A. 1.300–1)

(d)

Lenta bibis. (‘Unmoved, you drink.’ Prop. 2.33b.25)

In (c) and (d), were the adverbs cito and lente used, we would be dealing with subjectoriented manner adjuncts (see §  10.43). One might, therefore, say that the authors chose to emphasize a different perspective when assigning the properties ‘fast’ and ‘slow’: they attached them to the persons that act as the subjects of the clauses and not to the verbs.¹³ (ii) Among the adjectives that poets use as secondary predicates there are quite a few for which a corresponding adverb did not exist, or did not exist at their time. Examples are amens in (e), fervidus in (f),¹⁴ and insontes in (g).¹⁵ It is not surprising to find these as secondary predicate, since they are semantically close to the subclasses of adjectives discussed above. (e)

Arma amens capio. (‘Frantic, I seize arms.’ Verg. A. 2.314)

(f)

Ocius¹⁶ ensem / Aeneas viso Tyrrheni sanguine laetus / eripit a femine et trepidanti fervidus instat.

¹¹ For nouns in the ablative, see Priess (1909: 39–41). ¹² See Priess (1909: 68–9). ¹³ See Heberlein (1996). ¹⁴ A Late Latin instance of the adverb fervide is (sc. Iulianus) fervide instans in August. Civ. 5.21.3. For secondary predicates in the context of insto, see TLL s.v. insto 1999.52ff. ¹⁵ Priess (1909: 45–9) has a list with about sixty adjectives that lack a corresponding adverb and an even longer lists of adjectives for which corresponding adverbs are attested after Ovid’s time (49–55). ¹⁶ The adverb ocius is used without a comparative meaning from Plautus onwards. See TLL s.v. ocius 414.80ff. and § 20.3, ex. (f). The adjective ocior is common as a secondary predicate, but with a comparative meaning.



Secondary predicates (‘Quickly Aeneas, gladdened by the sight of the Tuscan’s blood, snatches his sword from the thigh and presses eagerly on his confused foe.’ Verg. A. 10.786–8)

(g)

Proxima deinde tenent maesti loca qui sibi letum / insontes peperere manu . . . (‘The region thereafter is held by those sad souls who in innocence wrought their own death . . .’ Verg. A. 6.434–5—NB: maesti is also a secondary predicate, but not translated as such)

There are also adjectives for which a corresponding adverb does exist, but one that does not fit within the dactylic metre, such as turbidus in (h) and memor in (i). In these examples, too, the use of the adjectives as a secondary predicate is not surprising, even though from the semantic point of view turbide and memoriter are not impossible. This holds for most of the adjectives in this category, as listed by Priess.¹⁷ They are used not because the adverb was unavailable, but because they belong to the semantic classes that are readily used as secondary predicate. (h)

At vero ingentem quatiens Mezentius hastam / turbidus ingreditur campo. (‘But now Mezentius, brandishing his mighty spear, advances like a whirlwind on the plain.’ Verg. A. 10.762–3)

(i)

‘Arcades, haec’, inquit, ‘memores mea dicta referte / Euandro.’ (‘Arcadians, give heed, and bear these words of mine back to Evander.’ Verg. A. 10.491–2)

(iii) There are two ways in which poets assign a property to their characters. One way is to use attributes; the other is to use secondary predicates. Many descriptive adjectives can be used both as an attribute and as a secondary predicate. This is shown by ( j) and (k).¹⁸ There can be no doubt that acer is an attribute in ( j),¹⁹ whereas in (k) it can only be a secondary predicate: there is no head noun. Furthermore, the use of the adverb acriter with insto is attested from Plautus onwards.²⁰ There are also ambiguous situations in which the analyses of scholars may vary, as in (l). I take acer as an attribute of Eryx²¹ and not, as others do, as a secondary predicate. ( j)

Instat Mnestheus acerque Serestus . . . (‘Mnestheus and valiant Serestus urge on the work . . .’ Verg. A. 9.171)

(k)

Dum (sc. Aeneas) nititur acer et instat . . . (‘While fiercely he tugs and strains . . .’ Verg. A. 12.783)

(l)

. . . caestus / proiecit quibus acer Eryx in proelia suetus / ferre . . . (‘. . . he threw the gauntlets in which fierce Eryx had so often raised his hands for battle . . .’ Verg. A. 5.401–3—tr. Williams)

¹⁷ Twenty-eight adjectives in total in Priess (1909: 56–8). ¹⁸ See Priess (1909: 41). ¹⁹ Acerque Serestus also at A. 9.779 and 12.549. Virgil uses it as an epitheton ornans. ²⁰ For example, Pl. Cas. 340. See TLL s.v. acer 363.44ff. ²¹ I use the translation by Williams. But Priess (1909: 41) states that this is sine dubio ‘beyond doubt’ an instance of a secondary predicate.

Constituents functioning as secondary predicate



In general, when a clause contains an adjective in agreement with a noun or a noun phrase, it can be difficult to decide whether that adjective is part of the noun phrase (functioning as attribute of the noun) or whether it functions on its own as a secondary predicate. An example of such ambiguity is (m). Here, I take feroces as the discontinuous attribute of Itali, and not as a secondary predicate.²² There is no definitive proof for either analysis. (m)

Iamque in palantes ac versos terga feroces / pugnabant Itali, subitus cum mole pavenda / terrificis Maurus prorumpit Tunger in armis. (‘And now the fierce Italians were fighting against the straggling and fleeing foe, when suddenly Tunger, the Moor, a terrible giant, rushed forward to the terrifying battle.’ Sil. 7.680–2) Two other examples are (n) and (o), where I take the adjectives as discontinuous attributes, while others identify them as secondary predicates (using other terminology).²³ Another much discussed example is (p), where some scholars take rauci as a secondary predicate replacing the adverb rauce to characterize the sound.²⁴ I think it is rather a discontinuous attribute of postes. (n) . . . fallacem circum vespertinumque (vespertinus cj. Lambinus) pererro / saepe forum . . . (‘. . . often I stroll round the cheating Circus and the nighttime Forum . . .’ Hor. S. 1.6.113–14) (o) . . . cum pater Aeneas, tristi turbatus pectora bello, / procubuit seramque dedit per membra quietem. (‘. . . when father Aeneas, his heart troubled by woeful war, lay down . . . and let a tardy sleep steal over his limbs.’ Verg. A. 8.29–30) (p) Cum subito rauci sonuerunt cardine postes . . . (‘When without warning there came the sound of the creaking gate opening . . .’ Prop. 4.8.49)

Whereas the use of adjectives that indicate a non-permanent or transient property as secondary predicate is common in all sorts of texts, poets also freely use adjectives that normally indicate a stative property, including adjectives that indicate size or substance. An example that contains adjectives of both types is (q). Another type of adjective can be seen in (r); facilis is not normally a transient property of human beings. (q)

In cicere atque faba bona tu perdasque lupinis, / latus ut in Circo spatiere et aeneus ut stes . . . (‘Would you waste your wealth on vetches, beans, and lupins, that you might parade all around in the Circus, or be set up in bronze . . .’ Hor. S. 2.3.182–3)

²² It is taken as a secondary predicate, more or less equivalent to the manner adverb ferociter, by Heberlein (1996: 355–7). (He quotes the passage incompletely: Itali feroces pugnabant.) Ferox pugna is attested from Livy 22.29.4 onwards. ²³ So Eden ad Verg. A. 8.30. Contrast this with (s) below. ²⁴ So, among others, Löfstedt (1942/1933: II.368–72). Scholars observe that the sound is produced by the cardo, and not by the postes. Therefore Hutchinson ad loc. proposes to read rauco (and also, following Heinsius, subiti).

 (r)

Secondary predicates Haec quia dulce canit flectitque facillima vocem, / oscula cantanti rapta dedisse velim. (‘Because this girl sings sweetly and modulates her voice most deftly, I would give stolen kisses to her as she sings.’ Ov. Am. 2.4.25–6) Supplement (in alphabetical order by adjective): Non amet hanc vitam quisquis me non amat, opto. / Vivat et urbanis albus in officiis. (Mart. 1.55.13–14); Vidisti quo Turnus equo, quibus ibat in armis / aureus. (Verg. A. 9.269–70); (sc. Entellus) . . . atque ingens media consistit harena. (Verg. A. 5.423); Haec ubi dicta dedit, portis sese extulit ingens / telum immane manu quatiens. (Verg. A. 12. 441–2)

Generally speaking, when the choice is available between an adjective and an adverb poets and prose writers who follow their example prefer to use the adjective. In addition, they use adjectives to replace adverbs outside of the main classes that have been discussed in § 21.3, especially in place of those adverbs with functions other than that of manner adjunct. The most striking examples are those in which adjectives are used to express a semantic relation of time or place, as in (s) and (t), a phenomenon either imitating or inspired by Greek practice.²⁵ In these cases the adjectives correspond to adjuncts that situate the event in time or place, respectively. Note in (s) the parallelism with the adverb mane (navus is a ‘normal’ secondary predicate). In (u), opportunus corresponds to opportune, a subjective evaluation disjunct, already used by Plautus (see § 10.104).²⁶ (s)

Navus mane forum et vespertinus pete tectum . . . (‘In your diligence get you to the Forum in the morning, to your home in the evening . . .’ Hor. Ep. 1.6.20)

(t)

Pransus non avide, quantum interpellet inani / ventre diem durare, domesticus otior. (‘After a slight luncheon, just enough to save me from an all-day fast, I idle away time at home.’ Hor. S. 1.6.127–8)

(u)

Numquam potuisti mihi / magis opportunus adven advenis. (‘You could never have come to me at a better time than this.’ Pl. Mos. 573–4) Supplement: Time expressions: ‘Sollemnis’, inquit, ‘dies a primis cunabulis huius urbis conditus crastinus advenit . . . (Apul. Met. 2.31.2); . . . alii viam inter Mosellamque flumen tam improvisi adsiluere ut . . . (Tac. Hist. 4.77.1); Nec minus Aeneas se matutinus agebat. (Verg. A. 8.465); Non lupus insidias explorat ovilia circum / nec gregibus nocturnus obambulat. (Verg. G. 3.537–8); Ultro acies inferre parant, armisque coruscas / nocturni texere faces, audaxque iuventus / erupit. (Luc. 3.498–500); (sc. consules) Frumentatum exeunti Hannibali diversis locis opportuni aderant . . . (Liv. 22.32.2);

²⁵ See K.-G.: I.273–6.

²⁶ For further examples, see TLL s.v. opportunus 775.74ff.

Constituents functioning as secondary predicate



Nunc sera querelis / haud iustis adsurgis et inrita iurgia iactas. (Verg. A. 10.94–5); . . . serae avaritia luxuriaque immigraverint . . . (Liv. 1.pr.11)

Finally, there are also instances of adjectives that are used as secondary predicate for which a derivationally related adverb does exist but cannot be used as a manner adverb with the verb of the clause. An example is (v).²⁷ (v)

(sc. Turnus) . . . saltuque superbus / emicat in currum . . . (‘. . . and with a bound he leaps proudly into his chariot . . .’ Verg. A. 12.326–7)

. Adjective phrases functioning as secondary predicate Adjective phrases in which the adjective is combined with an argument and/or satellite (see § 11.92) can also be used as secondary predicate, though it is more common to see participles used in this way (see § 21.7). An example is (a). Note the parallelism with the participial phrase ardens odio vestri.²⁸ Naturally, such an adjective can also be modified by a degree modifier, as in (b). (a)

Ita enim se recipiebat ardens odio vestri, cruentus sanguine civium Romanorum ... (‘He was coming back in a fever of hatred for you, stained with the blood of the Roman citizens . . .’ Cic. Phil. 4.4)

(b)

Raro quemquam alium patriam exsilii causa relinquentem tam maestum abisse ferunt quam Hannibalem hostium terra excedentem. (‘They say that rarely has any other man leaving his country to go into exile departed so sorrowfully as Hannibal on withdrawing from the enemy’s land.’ Liv. 30.20.7) Supplement (in alphabetical order by adjective): Quique pedum cursu valet et qui viribus audax / aut iaculo incedit melior levibusque sagittis / seu . . . (Verg. A. 5.67–9); Huius coniugii cupidus Callias quidam . . . egit cum Cimone ut eam sibi uxorem daret. (Nep. Cim. 1.3); . . . Syracusani tandem liberi metu portis Achradinae apertis oratores ad Marcellum mittunt . . . (Liv. 25.31.2); Resides et desuetudine tardi / rursus inire fretum, rursus dare vela iubemur . . . (Ov. Met. 14.436–7)

. Nouns and noun phrases (showing agreement) functioning as secondary predicate Nouns (and noun phrases) that indicate age or social position are regularly used as secondary predicate. Examples of age expressions are (a) and (b); (c) and (d) are examples of expressions pertaining to social position. Another type of noun (phrase) is shown in (e), a humorous extension of the possibilities by Cicero. Note in (f) the parallelism of the secondary predicate puerum and the position in time adjunct in senecta. ²⁷ It is called ‘adj. with adverbial force’ by Tarrant ad loc. (see Pinkster 2015: 177). ²⁸ For a discussion of these adjective phrases, see Heberlein (1996: 360–2), from whom three examples in the Supplement are taken.

 (a)

Secondary predicates Quia adulescens nupta est cum sene. (‘Because, though young, she is married to an old man.’ Pl. Mil. 966)

(b)

Puerum te vidi puer. (‘When I was a boy I saw you as a boy.’ Pl. Capt. 630)²⁹

(c)

At ei oratores sunt populi, summi viri. / Ambracia veniunt huc legati publice. (‘But they are public ambassadors, the men of the highest rank. They are coming here from Ambracia as envoys of the state.’ Pl. St. 490–1)

(d)

. . . qui . . . tibi non privato . . . ut gratias agerent mittebantur. (‘. . . who were sent to express gratitude to . . . you, no private individual.’ Cic. Fam. 3.8.4)

(e)

Nam illo si veneris tam Ulixes, cognosces tuorum neminem. (‘If you go there after such an odyssey, you won’t recognize any of your folk.’ Cic. Fam. 1.10)

(f)

Quem puerum vidisti formosum, hunc vides deformem in senecta. (‘Whom you saw beautiful as a boy, him you see unsightly in his old age.’ Var. L. 5.4) Supplement (in alphabetical order by noun): Age: Defendi rem publicam adulescens, non deseram senex. (Cic. Phil. 2.118); (sc. fici) Senescunt in arbore anusque dstillant cummium lacrima. (Plin. Nat. 15.82); Primum aetate idonea parandi (sc. canes), quod catuli et vetuli neque sibi neque ovibus sunt praesidio . . . (Var. R. 2.9.3); Te quoque, quam iuvenem discedens Urbe reliqui . . . (Ov. Pont. 1.4.47); . . . quos eandem hanc quaestionem pertractantes iuvenis admodum audivi. (Tac. Dial. 1.2); Nam illam minis olim decem puellam parvolam emi . . . (Pl. Cur. 528); Propter velocitatem (sc. satyri) nisi senes aut aegri non capiuntur. (Plin. Nat. 7. 24); Milo, quem vitulum adsueverat ferre, taurum ferebat. (Quint. Inst. 1.9.5) Social position: Non tamen immerito Minos sedet arbiter Orci. (Prop. 3.19.27); Hoc tu idem facies censor in senatu legendo? (Cic. Clu. 129); Quam diu mihi consuli designato, Catilina, insidiatus es . . . (Cic. Catil. 1.11); Contra quem Caesar cum plurima sua commemorasset officia quae consul ei decretis publicis tribuisset . . . (B. Alex. 68.1); Eodem Carnutes legatos obsidesque mittunt usi deprecatoribus Remis . . . (Caes. Gal. 6.4.5); Min’ domino servos tu suscenses? (Pl. Ps. 472); . . . cui populo duces Lentidios, Lollios . . . praefeceras. (Cic. Dom. 89); Per dexteram istam te oro quam regi Deiotaro hospes hospiti porrexisti . . . (Cic. Deiot. 8); Caesarem eodem tempore hostem et hospitem (sc. Deiotarus) vidit. (Cic. Div. 2.79); . . . cum Longinus imperator eadem faceret quae fecerat quaestor . . . (B.  Alex. 50.1); . . . Remi, qui proximi Galliae ex Belgis sunt, ad eum legatos [S]Iccium et Andecombogium, primos civitatis, miserunt, qui dicerent . . . (Caes. Gal. 2.3.1); Sed maxime eius eloquentia eluxit Spartae legati ante pugnam Leuctricam. (Nep. Ep. 6.4); . . . qui mortalis natus condicionem postules inmortalium . . . (Cic. Tusc. 3.36); Orator ad vos venio ornatu prologi. (Ter. Hec. 9); . . . saepe magno usui rei publicae Ser. Sulpicius et privatus et in magistratibus fuerit. (Cic. Phil. 9.15—NB: coordination with a position in time

²⁹ Bennett: II.6 takes instances like these as ‘appositives’.

Constituents functioning as secondary predicate



adjunct); Ast ego, quae divum incedo regina Iovisque / et soror et coniunx . . . (Verg. A. 1.46–7); Huic et paternum hospitium cum Pompeio et simultas cum Curione intercedebat, quod tribunus plebis legem promulgaverat . . . (Caes. Civ. 2.25.4); Foris victores domi trucidamur . . . (Sen. Suas. 6.5—NB: foris is attribute with victor; see § 11.69 fin.); Sin autem emimus quem vilicum imponeremus . . . (Cic. Planc. 62) Other: . . . nec te magis in culpa defensorem mihi paravi quam praedicatorem meritorum meorum esse volui. (Planc. Fam. 10.7.1); Fuit · Atistia · uxor · mihei / femina · opituma · veixsit (CIL I2.1206.1–2 (Rome, c. 50–20 bc)); Et Crassus ‘nox te’, inquit, ‘nobis, Antoni, expolivit hominemque reddidit.’ Cic. de Orat. 2.40); Terrai odium ambulat . . . (Pl. Bac. 820); Non te Penelopen difficilem procis / Tyrrhenus genuit parens. (Hor. Carm. 3.10.11–12); . . . ipse novas adsignationes instituit et repentinus Sulla nobis exoritur. (Cic. Agr. 3.10—NB: unless exoritur is taken as a copular verb; see § 4.97) There is no prescribed way to decide whether a word functions as a secondary predicate or as a (restrictive) apposition (see § 11.81) when the constituent to which it is related is explicitly expressed, especially with words that indicate a position in society such as consul. An example is (g). The decision can only be made on the basis of the interpretation of the context. (g) De quibus rebus Servilius consul ad senatum rettulit . . . (‘The consul Servilius referred these matters to the Senate . . .’ Caes. Civ. 3.21.3)

. Participles functioning as secondary predicate Participles that function as secondary predicates characterize the activity, process, or state in which the entity they expand is, was, or will be involved. This entity is most often the subject in its clause, far less often the object, and rarely something else.³⁰ Being non-finite forms, participles do not convey location in time on their own. Rather, they indicate the time relative to the event denoted by the main verb of the clause (for details concerning the time reference of participles, see §§ 7.77–81). Participles functioning as secondary predicates can govern arguments and be expanded by satellites in the same way as finite verbs.³¹ They are generally said to perform a semantic function similar to that of satellite (adverbial) subordinate clauses, for which reason they are often called ‘adverbial’; the Latin term is participium coniunctum.³² Examples of present participles functioning as secondary predicates are (a)–(c). In (a), the participle abiens refers to the moment of speaking, as does the main verb offers; in (b), metuens refers to the state of mind Dionysius was in when he singed his  beard; in (c), the action of fighting ( pugnans) is presented as simultaneous ³⁰ Laughton (1964: 4) gives percentages of the case forms of perfect participles in a sample of Cicero: nominative and subject-accusative 75%, accusative 22%, dative 1.5%, ablative 1.5%, genitive negligible. ³¹ A survey of arguments and satellites accompanying participles in Tac. Ann. 1 can be found in Riquelme (2005). ³² For the participium coniunctum, see Vester (1977).



Secondary predicates

with  the  action conveyed by the main verb (occiditur—a historic present). In the examples, arguments and satellites of the participles are shown in italics.³³ (a)

Salvere me iubes, quoi tu abiens offers morbum? (‘You’re telling me to be well? By going away you make me ill.’ Pl. As. 593)

(b)

(sc. Dionysius) . . . qui cultros metuens tonsorios candente carbone sibi adurebat capillum. (‘. . . who in fear of the barber’s razor used to have his hair singed off with a glowing coal.’ Cic. Off. 2.25)

(c)

. . . Lucius Petrosidius aquilifer . . . pro castris fortissime pugnans occiditur. (‘. . . Lucius Petrosidius, the standard-bearer . . . was killed in front of the camp while he was fighting most courageously.’ Caes. Gal. 5.37.5)

(d)

At Homerus . . . Laerten . . . colentem agrum et eum stercorantem facit. (‘But Homer . . . represents Laërtes as . . . cultivating his farm and manuring it.’ Cic. Sen. 54)

The perfect participle is commonly used to express either anteriority or the state resulting from a prior action or process. This is illustrated by (e)–(g). The future participle, expressing posteriority, is used much less frequently. Examples are (h), the first attested one, and (i).³⁴ It becomes more common in the Augustan period, often to express an intention. (e)

Acceptae bene et commode eximus intus . . . (‘After we’ve been entertained well and pleasurably we’re going outside . . .’ Pl. Cas. 855)

(f)

. . . hanc adepti victoriam in perpetuum se fore victores confidebant. (‘. . . having obtained this victory, they thought they would be victorious forever.’ Caes. Gal. 5.39.4)

(g)

Persae etiam (sc. mortuos) cera circumlitos condunt . . . (‘The Persians even bury their dead covered with wax . . .’ Cic. Tusc. 1.108)

(h)

Qui prodeunt dissuasuri ne hanc legem accipiatis . . . (‘Those who come forward to persuade you not to accept this law . . .’ Gracch. orat. 44)

(i)

P. Servilius . . . adest de te sententiam laturus. (‘Publius Servilius is here to pass judgement on you.’ Cic. Ver. 1.56)

There are no lexical restrictions on the type of verbs that can be used as secondary predicate. One lexical group on which Cicero draws frequently in his use of the ³³ For verbs of presenting like facio in (d), fingo, induco, pingo, etc. + object and secondary predicate, see TLL s.v. fingo 117.40ff., Laughton (1964: 51), and Szantyr (1970: 31–2). Lambertz (1982: 375), by contrast, regards such cases as causative constructions. This is also the position of Hoffmann (2016a: 47–8). ³⁴ For a discussion of the earliest examples of future participles, see Laughton (1964: 118–21); for Seneca, see Westman (1961: 90–134). For the old Latin gospels, see Burton (2000: 184–5); for the Passio Perp., see Adams (2016: 330–1); for further examples, see K.-St.: I.760–2.

Constituents functioning as secondary predicate



present participle (about one-third of all instances) encompasses physical and mental activities or states, e.g. flens ‘crying’, lacrimans ‘weeping’, maerens ‘mourning’, exspectans ‘full of expectation’, and the like. In Cicero, perfect participles predominantly express either the motive, urge, or mental state involved in realizing the state of affairs of the main predication, or a possible obstacle in realizing this state of affairs, e.g. hoc commoti dolore ‘moved by this sadness’, benignitate aut ambitione adductus ‘induced to do so by beneficence or ambition’, metu coacti ‘forced by fear’, voluptate victi ‘conquered by desire’.³⁵ In Caesar’s Commentarii there is a marked increase of the use of participles instead of finite subordinate clauses and this remained a feature of historiography in general.³⁶ Supplement: Present participles: Quia tui amans abeuntis egeo. (Pl. As. 591); Nihil est lucri quod me hodie facere mavelim, / quam illum cubantem cum illa opprimere . . . (Pl. Bac. 859–60); . . . duae mulierculae / hic in fano Veneris signum flentes amplexae tenent . . . (Pl. Rud. 559–60); Et magis par fuerat me vobis dare cenam advenientibus . . . (Pl. St. 512); Stantem stanti savium / dare amicum amicae? (Pl. St. 765–6); Aspectabat virtutem legionis suai / expectans si mussaret [dubitaret] quae denique pausa / pugnandi fieret aut duri laboris. (Enn. Ann. 343–5V=326–8S); Rex . . . in foro, inquam, Syracusis flens ac deos hominesque contestans clamare coepit . . . (Cic. Ver. 4.67); Quam vero utilitatem aut quem fructum petentes scire cupimus illa, quae occulta nobis sunt, quo modo moveantur quibusque de causis ea versantur in caelo? (Cic. Fin. 3.37—NB: the secondary predicate contains a question);³⁷ Age, finge me quamvis εὐστομάχως haec ferentem. (Cic. Att. 9.5.2); . . . ut gaudet insitiva decerpens pira . . . (Hor. Epod. 2.19); Mihi cumba volenti / solvitur . . . (Prop. 4.11.69–70);³⁸ Ipsis patribus id volentibus laetisque contigerit . . . (Sen. Ben. 3.36.1—NB: coordination) Perfect participles: . . . damnatus demum, vi coactus reddidit / mille et ducentos Philippum. (Pl. Bac. 271–2); Filius meus illic apud vos servit captus Alide. (Pl. Capt. 330); Quippe forma inpulsi nostra nos amatores colunt. (Ter. Hau. 389) . . . nequid propter tm fidem decepta poteretur mali. (Ter. Ph. 469); Conclusam hic habeo uxorem saevam. (Ter. Ph. 744); . . . id me neque metu neque calamitatis necessitudine inductum facere. (Sis. hist. 98=104C); Vos eum regem inultum esse patiemini qui legatum populi Romani, consularem, vinculis ac verberibus atque omni supplicio excruciatum necavit? (Cic. Man. 11); Huic enim adsensi VII virum acta sustulimus. (Cic. Phil. 6.14); . . . genus hominum . . . non prudentium consiliis compulsum potius quam disertorum oratione delenitum se oppidis moenibusque saepsisse? (Cic. de Orat. 1.36); Quae est igitur eius oratio qua facit eum Plato usum apud iudices iam morte multatum? (Cic. Tusc. 1.97); Laudationem Porciae tibi misi correctam. ³⁵ For a list of participles used by historians, arranged by meaning, see Chausserie-Laprée (1969: 307). ³⁶ For the development of Caesar’s style and his position in the development of the style of historiography, see Schlicher (1933; 1936). ³⁷ Laughton (1964: 43–4) cites eight examples from Cicero’s later works, suggesting that Cicero may have tried to introduce a common Greek usage into the Latin language. ³⁸ This use of dative volenti is different from the use of the dative in (q) and the Supplement below it. The same goes for the next example.



Secondary predicates (Cic. Att. 13.48.2); . . . homines locupletes . . . conductos aut emptos habent saltus. (Var. R. 3.1.8); . . . matris, / quae misera in gnata deperdita laeta . . . (Catul. 64.118–19); Aventino fulmine ipse (sc. Romulus) ictus regnum per manus tradidit. (Liv. 1.3.9); Hunc statum rerum Hannibal Tarenti relinquit regressus ipse in hiberna. (Liv. 25.11.20—NB: for the non-anterior sense of the participle, see §  7.81); Sermones . . . non nisi scriptos et e libello habebat . . . (Suet. Aug. 84.2); Quanti velis, quanti aequum putaveris, quanti aestimaveris habebis emptum. (Gaius dig. 18.1.35.1) Future participles: . . . si quidem etiam vos duo tales ad quintum miliarium, quo nunc ipsum unde se recipienti, quid agenti, quid acturo? (Cic. Att. 8.9.2); . . . capit consilium satius esse sibi suoque regno subsidio ire quam, dum alios adiuturus proficisceretur, ipse suo regno expulsus forsitan utraque re expelleretur. (B. Afr. 25.4); Ubi inluxit, egreditur castris Romanus vallum invasurus ni copia pugnae fieret. (Liv. 3.60.8); Duae classes infestae circa promunturium Pachynum stabant, ubi prima tranquillitas maris in altum evexisset concursurae. (Liv. 25.27.10); Cogniturus de filio Tarius advocavit in consilium Caesarem Augustum. (Sen. Cl. 1.15.3); Cui umquam morituro non est relictum qua gemeret? (Sen. Dial. 5.19.3); Quis umquam res suas quasi periturus aspexit? (Sen. Dial. 6.9.4); Rogo / libenter facias ut venias / ad nos, iucundiorem mihi / interventu tuo factura, si / s . . . (CEL appendix Vindol. γ (Vindolanda, c. ad 103);³⁹ . . . domum clam refugit pro condicione temporum quieturus. (Suet. Jul. 16.1)

As the examples above show, both arguments and satellites can be used with participles functioning as secondary predicate. When these participial constituents are heavy, the sentence as a whole becomes more complex, requiring the speaker/writer to use means which guarantee that the addressee will understand the message. Here we are faced with the problem of not knowing the original intonation contour that structured the pronunciation and interpretation of the sequences that we read. Nevertheless, certain strategies to facilitate comprehension can be noted. In ( j), the secondary predicate is placed at the beginning of the sentence because of the anaphoric phrases with hoc and hac. The whole expression functions as a ‘setting’ (see § 22.15) for the remainder of the sentence. In (k), the secondary predicates with perpurgatus and retractandus are placed at the end of the sentence and they serve as more of an afterthought, resembling ‘tail’ constituents (see § 22.16). This placement is very common in historiography, especially in the narrative parts.⁴⁰ A third strategy is shown in (l). Here, the two secondary predicates are clearly marked by the correlative coordinators et . . . et. Individual authors make their own stylistic choices when it comes to such strategies. ( j)

Hoc consilio atque adeo hac amentia impulsi . . . eum iugulandum vobis tradiderunt. (‘Urged on to such a degree by this plan and by this madness . . . they have handed the man over to you to be put to death.’ Cic. S. Rosc. 29)

³⁹ For a commentary on this text, see Adams (2016: 256–64). ⁴⁰ See Laughton (1964: 16–17), who calls these constituents ‘appended’. In French scholarship this phenomenon goes under the name of ‘rallonge’ (‘extension’). For the historians’ use of this strategy, see Schlicher (1933), Chausserie-Laprée (1969: 302–17), and Longrée (1989; 1996a).

Constituents functioning as secondary predicate (k)



Nunc mihi tertius ille locus est relictus orationis, de ambitus criminibus, perpurgatus ab eis qui ante me dixerunt, a me, quoniam ita Murena voluit, retractandus. (‘It now remains for me to deal with the third topic of my speech—the charges of bribery. It has already been entirely refuted by those who have spoken before me, but it must still be discussed by me, since such is the will of Murena.’ Cic. Mur. 54)

(l)

Postea polliceri et confirmare se et hoc peccato doctum et beneficio eorum qui sibi ignoverint confirmatum omni tempore a tali ratione afuturum. (‘After that he should promise and affirm that, taught by this error and strengthened by the kindness of those who have pardoned him, he will forever after refrain from such a course of conduct.’ Cic. Inv. 2.106)

The use of participles allows authors to condense information by reducing or avoiding repetition of entities that are known from the context. Examples are (m)–(p). In (m), the tragula ‘spear’ is maintained as the subject of the first sentence. In the following sentence, the epistula to which perlectam refers was mentioned in the preceding context as attached to the tragula and is therefore not explicitly restated. The implication is that ille (sc. Cicero), the subject of recitat, had read this letter and then recited it. In (n), the agent of accensos is the subject of the preceding adlocutus and the following dimisit. In (o), it is irrelevant who the agents of coniecta and posita are. Ex. (p) shows how Apuleius avoids repetition of the persons involved in the fight. In this way, participles are an essential building-block for the periodical style. (m)

Haec (sc. tragula) casu ad turrim adhaesit neque a nostris biduo animadversa tertio die a quodam milite conspicitur, dempta ad Ciceronem defertur. Ille perlectam (sc. epistulam) in conventu militum recitat maximaque omnes laetitia adficit. (‘By chance it stuck fast in the tower, and for two days was not noticed by our troops; on the third day it was sighted by a soldier, taken down, and delivered to Cicero. After he had read it through, he recited it at a parade of the troops, bringing the greatest delight to all.’ Caes. Gal. 5.48.8–9)

(n)

Quos (sc. ad duo milia peditum et ducentos equites) Poenus benigne adlocutus (sc. est)⁴¹ et spe ingentium donorum accensos in civitates quemque suas ad sollicitandos popularium animos dimisit. (‘Hannibal addressed them (sc. some two thousand foot-soldiers and two hundred horsemen) with fair words, and after encouraging them to hope for great rewards, sent them off to their several states to solicit the support of their countrymen.’ Liv. 21.48.2)

(o)

Item si legumina in vas cum ea aqua coniecta ad ignem posita celeriter percocta fuerint, indicabunt aquam esse bonam et salubrem. (‘Again, if vegetables, after they have been put in a vessel with water and boiled, are soon cooked, they will show that the water is good and wholesome.’ Vitr. 8.4.2)

⁴¹ For ellipsis of forms of sum in Livy, see Briscoe (1981: 12–13). See also § 4.93.



Secondary predicates

(p)

Ipse denique dux et signifer ceterorum validis me viribus adgressus ilico manibus ambabus capillo adreptum ac retro reflexum effligere lapide gestit. Quem dum sibi porrigi flagitat, certa manu percussum feliciter prosterno. Ac mox alium pedibus meis mordicus inhaerentem per scapulas ictu temperato tertiumque inprovide occurrentem pectore offenso peremo. (‘Their general and standard-bearer himself attacked me on the spot with might and main, snatched me by the hair with both hands, bent me backwards, and was preparing to slay me with a stone. While he was shouting for someone to hand him the stone, I struck him with unerring hand and luckily laid him low. The second had fastened his teeth into my legs, but I felled him with a nice blow between the shoulderblades, while the third I killed with a stroke straight through the chest as he ran carelessly toward me.’ Apul. Met. 3.6.1–2) Greek influence (notably by Thucydides) explains the use of the participles in instances like (q).⁴² (q) . . . vigilias ipse circumire . . . uti militibus exaequatus cum imperatore labor volentibus esset. (‘. . . he personally inspected the sentries . . . to make the soldiers willing to endure labour shared equally by their commander he did his full share.’ Sal. Jug. 100.4) Supplement: . . . quia neque plebi militia volenti putabatur et Marius aut belli usum aut studia volgi amissurus. (Sal. Jug. 84.3); Grande periculum Lilybaeo maritimisque civitatibus esse et quibusdam volentibus novas res fore. (Liv. 21.50.10); Et quibus bellum volentibus erat probare exemplum ac recentis legati animum opperiri, cum Agricola . . . ire obviam discrimini statuit. (Tac. Ag. 18.2); . . . ut quibusque bellum invitis aut cupientibus erat . . . (Tac. Ann. 1.59.1—NB: coordination); Nunc quoque, si tibi fabulam brevem libenti est audire, audi. (Fro. Fer. Als. 3.8); Nam et missis in hoc referre volentibus erat mores Abios . . . (Itin. Alex. 95)

. Accusative and participle construction with perception verbs Present participles can be used as secondary predicates with objects of perception verbs (or, rarely, as subjects of their passive counterparts). This usage is attested in all periods of Latin⁴³ and is called the accusative and participle construction. Semantically, it is close to the use of the accusative and present infinitive clause with these verbs, when the latter refers to a directly perceived state of affairs (see the discussion in § 15.98 (i)). In Late Latin the accusative and participle construction is also used in a ‘quotative’ way—that is, without direct perception—as in (c). (a)

. . . neque tibicinam cantantem neque alium quemquam audio. (‘. . . and I can’t hear a flautist playing or anyone else.’ Pl. Mos. 934) ⁴² See K.-G.: I.425.

⁴³ For discussion, see Greco (2013).

Constituents functioning as secondary predicate (b)



. . . eo ipso die puer, cum hora undecima in publico valens visus esset, ante noctem mortuus . . . est. (‘. . . and on that very day the boy, though at the eleventh hour he had been seen in public in good health, died before night.’ Cic. Clu. 27)

(c)

Audi Paulum dicentem: ‘Ideo misericordiam consecutus sum . . .’ (‘Listen to Paul when he says: “Thus I attained mercy . . .”’ August. Serm. Nov. 14D.8) Supplement (in alphabetical order by governing verb): Active main verbs: Hic, exeuntem me unde aspexisti modo. (Pl. Bac. 204); Cum et quo Antiochum saepe disputantem audiebam . . . (Cic. Luc. 11); . . . cum se mari terraque simul cernerent circumventos. (Liv. 37.11.9); . . . M. Valerius, Publicolae frater, conspicatus ferocem iuvenem Tarquinium ostentantem se in prima exsulum acie . . . (Liv. 2.20.1); (sc. canes) . . . satisque pulchre funguntur officio, si et advenientem sagaciter odorantur et latratu conterrent nec patiuntur propius accedere vel constantius adpropinquantem violenter invadunt. (Col. 7.12.7); . . . cum sensit (sc. perdix) feminam aucupis accedentem ad marem . . . (Plin. Nat. 10.102); . . . qui illam hic vidit osculantem . . . (Pl. Mil. 199); Ecce autem video rure redeuntem senem. (Ter. Eu. 967); . . . ipsum (sc. Varronem) ad nos venientem vidimus. (Cic. Ac. 1.1); Atque eos omnes quos commemoravi his studiis flagrantes senes vidimus. (Cic. Sen. 50); . . . quae (sc. mala) venientia longe ante videris. (Cic. Tusc. 3.29); . . . puerum . . . in aggeris medio vidimus heiulantem . . . (Amm. 18.6.10) Passive main verbs: Saepe auditus est . . . seque ire ad illam . . . dictitans . . . (Tac. Ann. 13.46.1); . . . murmurans querulis vocibus saepe audiebatur . . . (Amm. 15.8.20); . . . M. Antonius . . . cum cohortibus XII descendens ex loco superiore cernebatur. (Caes. Civ. 3.65.1)

. Gerundives functioning as secondary predicate The gerundive is frequently used as secondary predicate associated with the object (subject in the passive) in a range of dynamic (mostly terminative) states of affairs with verbs like do ‘to give’, mitto ‘to send’, rogo ‘to ask’ suscipio ‘to take upon oneself ’. Illustrations of this usage are (a) (active) and (b) (passive), respectively. (a)

Nam ego quidem meos oculos habeo nec rogo utendos foris. (‘Well, I for one have my own eyes and needn’t borrow them from outside.’ Pl. Mil. 347)

(b)

. . . is cui res publica a me . . . traditur sustinenda . . . (‘. . . the man to whom I am handing over the republic for him to preserve . . .’ Cic. Mur. 3)

The gerundive in such contexts is often described as ‘final’, in that it indicates the ultimate purpose of the action. In many cases the combination of object + secondary predicate could be replaced by the object and one of the gerundial purpose adjunct expressions dealt with in § 16.100. So (b) might be replaced by something like (c) and refer to more or less the same event. (c)

is cui res publica a me traditur ad sustinendum



Secondary predicates

The basis for this use is obviously the non-factive meaning of the gerundive (see § 7.84). Supplement: Spectandum ne quoi anulum det neque roget. (Pl. As. 778); Tm filium dedisti adoptandum mihi . . . (Ter. Ad. 114); . . . attribuit nos trucidandos Cethego et ceteros civis interficiendos Gabinio, urbem inflammandam Cassio, totam Italiam vastandam diripiendamque Catilinae. (Cic. Catil. 4.13); Quodsi ea quae utenda acceperis maiore mensura si modo possis iubet reddere Hesiodus quidnam beneficio provocati facere debemus? (Cic. Off. 1.48); Iphigenia Aulide duci se immolandam iubet, ut hostium eliciatur suo. (Cic. Tusc. 1.116); Epistulam quam Balbo, cum etiam nunc in provincia esset, scripsi, legendam tibi misi. (Pol. Fam. 10.32.5); . . . si umquam regnandam acceperit Albam. (Verg. A. 6.770); . . . omnis cetera praeda diripienda data est. (Liv. 22.52.5); . . . equorumque domandi greges peditibus distributi sunt . . . (Curt. 4.9.4); Coctas (sc. cepas) dysintericis vescendas dedere . . . (Plin. Nat. 20.41); Ergo igitur evocato statim armentario equisone magna cum praefatione deducendus adsignor. (Apul. Met. 7.15); Lucius Titius miles notario suo testamentum scribendum notis dictavit . . . (Paul. dig. 29.1.40 praef.) A very remarkable case with the one-place verb pateo is: Detractum culmen templo, nudatum tectum patere imbribus putrefaciendum. (Liv. 42.3.7)—a non-dynamic, non-controllable state of affairs. Another remarkable case with one-place venio is: Ergo istuc metuo quom venit vobis faciundum utrumque. (Pl. Mil. 891)—a dynamic, non-controllable state of affairs⁴⁴ (see also below on Late Latin).

The verb habeo ‘to have’, obviously not a candidate for dynamic (terminative) states of affairs, is also used with an object noun phrase (sometimes understood) and a secondary predicate as its expansion. An example is (d). Here colendum clearly has to be understood as the purpose of agrum habere, as in the instances quoted above. (d)

Ibi agrum de nostro patre / colendum habebat. (‘There he had some land to farm from my father.’ Ter. Ph. 364–5) Supplement: Queiquomque id publicum fruendum redemptum comductumve habebit (CIL I2.585.25 (Lex Agr., c.111 bc—NB: coordination with a perfect passive participle)); Aedem Castoris, iudices, P. Iunius habuit tuendam de L. Sulla Q. Metello consulibus. (Cic. Ver. 1.130)

This use of habeo must be distinguished from its use in a formally similar context, where it means ‘to have to’, as in (e), but where no object is understood (for the deontic meaning of the gerundive, see § 5.41): (e)

De omnibus meis habeo dicendum: ‘habui.’ (‘Of all my family I have to say: “I had.”’ Cestius Pius ap. Sen. Con. 9.5.1)

⁴⁴ K.-St.: I.731 paraphrase venit with offertur.

Constituents functioning as secondary predicate



The verbs curo, do, and loco are also used with a combination of a noun phrase in the accusative and a gerundive that agrees with the noun phrase in case, number, and gender. An example is (f). These expressions are structurally different from the cases discussed above (for discussion, see § 15.141). (f) . . . suspiciones . . . quod obsides inter eos dandos curasset . . . (‘. . . suspicions . . . that he had caused hostages to be given between them . . .’ Caes. Gal. 1.19.1)

In Late Latin, the gerundive is also used as a secondary predicate with the subject, both in passive and in non-passive sentences. An example of a gerundive as secondary predicate with the subject in a passive sentence is (g). (g)

. . . Hymetius ad oppidum ductus Ocriculum audiendus ab Ampelio . . . (‘. . . Hymetius was taken to the town of Ocriculum to be heard by Ampelius . . .’ Amm. 28.1.22) Supplement: Quot adhuc vobis repurgandae latent leges! (Tert. Apol. 4.10); Per eadem tempora, cum tantis honoribus occuparetur et cum formandus ad regendum statum rei publicae patris actibus interesset, studia cupidissime frequentavit. (Hist. Aug. Aur. 6.5); . . . ibi statuit immorari alimentis destituendos forsitan cedere existimans Persas. (Amm. 20.11.24);⁴⁵ Post hanc gestorum seriem Hymetius ad oppidum ductus Ocriculum audiendus ab Ampelio, urbi praefecto, et Maximino vicario confestimque perdendus, ut apparebat, data sibi copia tectius imperatoris praesidium appellavit nominisque eius perfugio tectus servabatur incolumis. (Amm. 28.1.22); Qui redivivus ait se iudicis ante tribunal / ductum damnandum . . . (Ven. Fort. Mart. 1.177–8)

. Noun phrases in the genitive functioning as secondary predicate Noun phrases in the genitive of description or of quality (see § 11.48) can be used as secondary predicate both with the subject, as in (a), and with the object, as in (b). This resembles the use of such noun phrases as subject or object complement (see § 9.31 and § 9.42 on the genitive of description for the internal properties of the phrase). (a)

Quod ei usu venit, cum annorum octoginta subsidio Tacho in Aegyptum iisset . . . (‘Such fortune attended him when, at the age of eighty, he went into Egypt to the aid of Tachos . . .’ Nep. Ag. 8.2)

(b)

. . . in funere matris suae, quam extulit annorum nonaginta . . . (‘. . . at the funeral of his mother, whom he buried at the age of ninety . . .’ Nep. Att. 17.1)

⁴⁵ More instances in Odelstierna (1926: 18–19).



Secondary predicates Supplement: . . . redis mutatae frontis . . . (Hor. S. 2.8.84); . . .‘novem’, inquit, ‘annorum a vobis profectus post sextum et tricensimum annum redii.’ (Liv. 30.37.9); Incertae enim sortis vivimus. (Sen. Suas. 4.3); Adversus utrumque statum invictum animum tenet exploratae iam firmitatis . . . (Sen. Dial. 12.5.5); . . . quod summissa animi, nulla gravis hospita turba, / stantis adhuc fati vixit quasi coniuge victo. (Luc. 8.157–8—NB: see Mayer ad loc.); (sc. Nero) . . . blandiente profectu, quamquam exiguae vocis et fuscae, prodire in scaenam concupiit . . . (Suet. Nero 20.1); Is qui in reatu decedit integri status decedit. (Ulp. dig. 48.4.11)

. Nouns in the dative functioning as secondary predicate An optional dative noun that indicates the function of the subject or the object in the event described can be added to a clause, especially with verbs of giving/taking and of going/sending. Examples are auxilio in (a), related to the subject, and dono in (b), related to the object, respectively. (a)

. . . Assum auxilio, Amphitruo, tibi et tuis. (‘ . . . I am here with help for you and your family.’ Pl. Am. 1131)

(b)

Periisti. Quod promiseram tibi dono perdidisti. (‘You’re done for: you’ve lost what I promised you as a gift.’ Pl. Mos. 185)

Such clauses often contain another dative constituent, as with tibi et tuis in (a) and tibi in (b) (hence the term ‘double dative construction’). These dative constituents fulfil various functions. In (a), tibi et tuis can be taken as the argument of the noun auxilio, as also in (c) below (see § 11.71). In (b), tibi is the recipient argument with the verb promiseram. In (d) and (e), bubus and semper sitientibus hortis are beneficiary adjuncts. Sometimes more than one analysis is possible. Note in (f) the co-occurrence of the secondary predicate auxilio and the purpose adjunct ad coercendos ignes. (c)

Ariobarzani simul cum Agesilao auxilio profectus est . . . (‘He went with Agesilaus to the assistance of Ariobarzanes . . .’ Nep. Tim. 1.3)

(d)

Rus mane dudum hinc ire me iussit pater, / ut bubus glandem prandio depromerem. (‘A while ago in the morning my father told me to go to the farm to fetch acorns for the cattle for their fodder.’ Pl. Truc. 645–6)

(e)

Vicini quoque sint amnes, quos incola durus / adtrahat auxilio semper sitientibus hortis . . . (‘Let rivers flow adjacent to your plot, whose streams the hardy gardener may divert as aid to quench the garden’s ceaseless thirst . . .’ Col. 10.23–4)

(f)

Satius itaque est comparari ea quae ad coercendos ignes auxilio esse possint . . . (‘It is better, then, to procure what may be of assistance in restraining fires . . .’ Tra. Plin. Ep. 10.34.2)

Constituents functioning as secondary predicate



Supplement: Two datives: . . . pateram, quae dono mi illi ob virtutem data est . . . . (Pl. Am. 534); . . . symphoniacos homines sex quoidam amico suo Romam muneri misit. (Cic. Ver. 5.64); Eo biduo Caesar cum equitibus DCCCC quos sibi praesidio reliquerat in castra pervenit. (Caes. Civ. 1.41.1); Atque interim Marius fugatis equitibus adcurrit auxilio suis, quos pelli iam acceperat. (Sal. Jug. 101.10); Volux adveniens quaestorem appellat dicitque se a patre Boccho obviam illis simul et praesidio missum. (Sal. Jug. 106.1); Sunt etiam de nostris quidam qui ne in acie quidem fuerunt, sed praesidio castris relicti, cum castra traderentur, in potestatem hostium venerunt. (Liv. 22.59.9); Mille praesidio urbis relictis proximos vicos depopulatur atque urit. (Curt. 7.6.10—NB: genitive attribute); Nam petisse eum a me aliquid tersui dentibus versus testantur. (Apul. Apol. 6.2) One dative: Mancupio nec promittet nec quisquam dabit. (Pl. Per. 525); . . . quae de eo genere est quo indutui mulieres ut uterentur est institutum. (Var. L. 10.27); . . . Germanosque qui auxilio a Gallis arcessiti dicebantur . . . prohibeat. (Caes. Gal. 3.11.2); Ea (sc. virtus) sola neque datur dono neque accipitur. (Sal. Jug. 85.38); Post ipsum auxilio subeuntem ac tela ferentem / corripiunt spirisque ligant ingentibus . . . (Verg. A. 2.216–17); . . . ni K.  Fabius in tempore subsidio venisset. (Liv. 2.48.5); . . . nec ante in campos degressi sunt quam legiones Faliscorum auxilio venerunt. (Liv. 4.17.11); Illud scire oportet, omne eiusmodi medicamentum quod potui datur non semper aegris prodesse, semper sanis nocere. (Cels. 2.13) The instances in this section are often labelled ‘dative of purpose’ (dativus finalis). Others call them ‘predicative datives’. In this Syntax the dative nouns (and noun phrases) involved are divided into obligatory and optional constituents. Table 21.1 shows how various dative expressions are dealt with in this syntax.

Table . Treatment of the dativus finalis (or: predicative dative) in this Syntax obligatory dative constituent

optional dative constituent

functioning as subject complement and object complement, respectively

functioning as secondary predicate

functioning as beneficiary adjunct

id tibi laudi est § 9.34

tibi auxilio venio § 21.11 (with the subject)

librum lego meae voluptati § 10.70

id tibi laudi duco § 9.43

me tibi auxilio misit § 21.11 (with the object)

. Noun phrases in the ablative functioning as secondary predicate Noun phrases in the ablative (often called ablative ‘of description’ or ‘of quality’— ablativus qualitatis—see §§ 9.35, 9.44, and 11.63) can be used as secondary predicate to expand the subject or object constituents of the clause. The nouns involved denote mental or physical properties such as animus ‘mind’, mens ‘mind’, pectus ‘breast’, or



Secondary predicates

caput ‘head’, or personal attributes like clothing. The modifier is usually a descriptive adjective. Examples are (a), repeated from § 21.1 (f), and (b)–(d). For an instance of a non-human subject, see (e). Ex. (f) is interesting because it shows an ablative phrase coordinated with an adjective and a prepositional phrase. If the modifier of the noun is a perfect passive participle, as demisso in (g), one can question whether it is an ablative absolute clause or a secondary predicate.⁴⁶ (a)

Nunc defaecato demum animo egredior domo . . . (‘Now that I’ve regained a clear mind at last I’m leaving the house . . .’ Pl. Aul. 79)

(b)

. . . quod eos infenso animo atque inimico venisse dicatis . . . (‘. . . that you declare that they had come with angry and hostile intentions . . .’ Cic. Ver. 2.149)⁴⁷

(c)

Interea ad templum non aequae Palladis ibant / crinibus Iliades passis . . . (‘Meanwhile, to the temple of unfriendly Pallas the Trojan women passed along with streaming tresses . . .’ Verg. A. 1.479–80)

(d)

. . . Codrum, qui se in medios inmisit hostis veste famulari . . . (‘. . . Codrus, who flung himself into the midst of the enemy in the costume of a slave . . .’ Cic. Tusc. 1.116)

(e)

. . . pingui flumine Nilus / cum refluit campis et iam se condidit alveo. (‘. . . when the Nile with its rich flood ebbs from the fields and at length sinks into its channel.’ Verg. A. 9.31–2)

(f)

Cum antehac videbam stare tristis, turbido / vultu, subductis cum superciliis senes . . . (‘When formerly I used to see sorry old men standing around with furrowed brows, their expression troubled.’ Turp. com. 167–8)

(g)

At C. Fabricius a subselliis demisso capite discesserat. (‘But C. Fabricius had left his seat with hanging head.’ Cic. Clu. 58) Supplement: With the subject: Paelex aedem Iunonis ne tangito; si tangit, Iunoni crinibus demissis agnum feminam caedito. (Law cited at Gel. 4.3.3); Ille traversa mente mi hodie tradidit repagula . . . (Enn. scen. 270V=229J);⁴⁸ Sed satine ego animum mente sincera gero . . .? (Pl. Bac. 509); Continuo occurrit ad me, quam longe quidem, / incurvo’, tremulu’, labiis demissis, gemens . . . (Ter. Eu. 335–6); . . . pura mente atque integra Milonem, nullo scelere imbutum . . . Romam revertisse . . . (Cic. Mil. 61); Satis est si sana mente feci. (Sen. Con. 7.6.13); . . . ut scripturas sanctas mente purissima cognoscere mereamur . . . (Cass. Inst. 32.7); . . . totoque libens mihi pectore grator . . . (Ov. Met. 9.244); . . . te prodire involuto capite, soleatum . . . (Cic. Pis. 13); Sin (sc.

⁴⁶ For a discussion of potential ambiguity in the case of participles of terminative verbs (ablative absolute clause or secondary predicate?), see Longrée  (2014). Bennett: I.368–9 deals with several of the examples cited here as ablative absolutes. ⁴⁷ For this example, see Fugier (1978: 130). ⁴⁸ Rosén (1999: 57–8) takes this as the first instance of periphrastic mente adverbs. See also § 10.48.

Constituents functioning as secondary predicate



luna) . . . pura neque obtunsis per caelum cornibus ibit . . . (Verg. G. 1.432–3); . . . cum plebs in foro erecta exspectatione staret . . . (Liv. 2.54.8); Incedere magno comitatu, splendido cultu non est fortunae meae. (Sen. Con. 10.1.3); . . . et iubet caelo superos relicto / vultibus falsis habitare terras. (Sen. Phaed. 294–5) With the object (subject in the passive): Nam hoc istum vestitu Siculi . . . saepe viderunt. (Cic. Ver. 5.86); Vigilans ictus coniventibus oculis, dormiens patentibus reperitur. (Plin. Nat. 2.145); Sed nihil barbaris atrocius visum est quam quod abscisis manibus relicti vivere superstites poenae suae iubebantur. (Flor. Epit. 1.39.7—NB: a secondary predicate within a secondary predicate) Appendix: Some Late Latin authors show a preference for abstract nouns to express the quality of a noun instead of using an attributive adjective, which results in exceptional instances like (h), with magnitudine fluenti instead of magno fluento.⁴⁹ (h) Abundans aquarum Hister advenarum magnitudine fluenti Sauromatas praetermeat . . . (‘The Hister, overflowing with tributaries, flows past the Sauromatians with its mighty stream . . .’ Amm. 31.2.13)

. Prepositional phrases functioning as secondary predicate For a prepositional phrase functioning as secondary predicate, see ex. (f ) in § 21.12. Further examples are (a)–(c) below. The prepositional phrases involved seem to be related only to subjects (in active and passive sentences); the nouns mostly indicate states of mind, weapons, clothes, or body parts.⁵⁰ (a)

Malo enim vel cum timore domi esse quam sine timore Athenis tuis. (‘I would rather be frightened at home than secure in your Athens.’ Cic. Att. 16.6.2)

(b)

. . . te . . . stetisse in comitio cum telo . . . (‘. . . you were standing in the comitium armed with a weapon . . .’ Cic. Catil. 1.15)

(c)

. . . in larvam intravi, paene animam ebullivi . . . (‘. . . I went in like a corpse, and nearly gave up the ghost . . .’ Petr. 62.10) Supplement (in alphabetical order by preposition): Ad contumeliam omnia accipiunt magis. (Ter. Ad. 606); . . . expositaque ad exemplum nostra re publica . . . (Cic. Rep. 1.70) Te cum securi caudicali praeficio provinciae. (Pl. Ps. 158); Utut est, mihi quidem profecto cum istis dictis mortuo’st. (Pl. Ps. 310);⁵¹ . . . quod is cum illo animo atque ingenio hac e civitate potissimum natus est . . . (Lael. orat. 22.2–3M); Si et ferro interfectus ille et tu, inimicus ei, cum gladio cruento comprensus in illo ipso loco . . . (Cic. de Orat. 2.170); . . . tamen cum pudore summo in conspectum vestrum processi. (Liv. 3.67.1)

⁴⁹ See den Boeft et al. ad loc., Svennung (1936: 519), and Sz.: 152. ⁵⁰ For further examples, see Bulhart (1955), Väänänen (1951); for in and pro, Happ (1976: 302, n. 590); for cum and in, TLL s.v. cum 1351.20ff., s.v. in 768.3ff., 788.46ff.; for sine, Merguet (Reden) s.v. sine. ⁵¹ For these two examples from Plautus, see Fraenkel (1968: 67).



Secondary predicates . . . cratera . . . quem Thracius olim / Anchisae genitori in magno munere Cisseus / ferre . . . dederat . . . (Verg. A. 5.536–8) . . . eques Romanus ad bellum maximum formidolosissimumque pro consule mitteretur? (Cic. Man. 62); . . . dum M. Brutus C. Cassius consules prove consulibus provincias obtinebunt. (Cic. Phil. 8.27); P.  · Paquius . . . Scaevae · . . . pro · consule · provinciam · Cyprum · optinuit. (CIL IX.2845.1–4 (Histonium, 13 bc)); . . . Lucullus cum omni litterarum generi tum philosophiae deditus fuit . . . nec vero ineunte aetate solum sed et pro quaestore aliquot annos . . . (Cic. Luc. 4); Omnia pro stimulis facibusque ciboque furoris / accipit . . . (Ov. Met. 6.480–1) . . . plerique ut fusi sine mente ac sine ullo sensu iacerent . . . (Cic. Ver. 5.28); Tamen nemo tam sine oculis, tam sine mente vivit ut . . . (Cic. de Orat. 1.249) The prepositional phrase pro consule was gradually replaced by proconsul in the course of the first century bc. While the prepositional phrase was mainly used as a secondary predicate, proconsul functioned as an apposition (or as subject, etc.).⁵²

. The gerund developing into an alternative for the present participle Throughout the history of the Latin language, but increasingly so in later periods, one finds gerunds in the ablative that cannot be easily interpreted as means/instrument or manner adjuncts in the context of their sentences. Sometimes they seem to express only the concomitance of the event of the gerundial clause with that of the main clause. In such instances, the gerund is often considered equivalent to a present participle and is seen as a forerunner of the use of the gerund in Romance languages (see also § 16.101). An early example cited in the literature is (a) from Terence. In some cases, editors prefer to amend the text, as with (b). However, sometimes replacing the gerund by a present participle leads to an equally odd result, as in (c). More instances of this use of the gerund are reported from Livy onwards. Convincing examples date from a later period. A good illustration is (d).⁵³ (a)

Ita miserrimus / fui fugitando, ne quis me cognosceret. (‘All the time I was running away I was terrified someone would recognize me.’ Ter. Eu. 846–7—tr. Brown)

(b)

Videbatur enim reconciliata nobis voluntas esse senatus, quod cum dicendo tum singulis appellandis rogandisque perspexeram. (‘For it seemed that we had regained the Senate’s good will—I had clear evidence of that both during my address and in approaches and appeals to individuals.’ Cic. Fam. 1.2.1—NB: it is not difficult to interpret the coordinated gerund as instrumental)

⁵² The inscriptional evidence and the development of pro consule and similar phrases can be found in Hajdú (1999). ⁵³ See Hoffmann (1999), Maltby (2006), and Adams (2013: Ch. 27), with references. For technical Latin texts, see Galdi and Vangaever (2019).

Constituents functioning as secondary predicate (c)



Praecipue convertit omnes subtractus Numida mortuo superincubanti Romano vivus naso auribusque laceratis, cum manibus ad capiendum telum inutilibus in rabiem ira versa laniando dentibus hostem exspirasset. (‘But what most drew the attention of all was a Numidian who was dragged out from under a dead Roman, alive but with mutilated nose and ears; for the Roman, unable to hold a weapon in his hands, had expired in a frenzy of rage, while rending the other with his teeth.’ Liv. 22.51.9)

(d)

. . . dixit . . . quod . . . sic redirent . . . dicendo psalmos vel antiphonas . . . (‘. . . he said . . . that . . . they returned in that way . . . reciting psalms and antiphons . . .’ Pereg. 15.5) Supplement: . . . morique maluerint falsum fatendo quam verum infitiando dolere. (Cic. Part. 50); . . . sed mehercule incipiendo refugi . . . (Cic. Att. 4.6.3); Tum rursus Bocchus, seu reputando quae sibi duobus proeliis venerant, seu admonitus ab aliis amicis, quos inconruptos Iugurtha reliquerat, ex omni copia necessariorum quinque delegit, quorum et fides cognita et ingenia validissuma erant. (Sal. Jug. 103.2—NB: parallelism); Neque aliter quisquam extollere sese et divina mortalis attingere potest, nisi omissis pecuniae et corporis gaudiis animo indulgens, non adsentando neque concupita praebendo, pervorsam gratiam gratificans sed in labore patientia bonisque praeceptis et factis fortibus exercitando. (Sal. Rep. 1.7.5); Novi deinde consules . . . ingressi hostium fines populando usque ad moenia atque urbem pervenerunt. (Liv. 8.17.1); Quis talia fando / Myrmidonum Dolopumve aut duri miles Ulixi / temperet a lacrimis? (Verg. A. 2.6–8); Audio quendam ex delicatis . . . dixisse interrogando: ‘iam sedeo?’ (Sen. Dial. 10.12.7); Namque ut homines dispersi ac rudes eoque in bella faciles quieti et otio per voluptates adsuescerent, hortari privatim, adiuvare publice, ut templa fora domos exstruerent, laudando promptos, castigando segnes. (Tac. Ag. 21.1); Attonitus / exiendo dico illi . . . (CEL 146.30–1 (Karanis, ad 100–25));⁵⁴ . . . pervenimus ad radicem montis Nabau, qui erat valde excelsus, ita tamen, ut pars eius maxima sedendo in asellis possit subiri. (Pereg. 11.4); . . . dum in remota terrarum vincendo procedis . . . (Paneg. 2.23.1); . . . stetit diu cunctando . . . (Amm. 17.1.8); Super his nec stando mingens⁵⁵ nec ad requisita naturae secedens facile visitur Persa. (Amm. 23.6.79); . . . ego solus confecto tantorum munerum cursu moriar stando . . . (Amm. 24.3.7); . . . aut equitando aut dormitando conscripserim . . . (Ven. Fort. Carm. praef. 4); . . . credas ut stellas ire trahendo comas. (Ven. Fort. Carm. 5.5.118); . . . cum sacerdos de ecclesia ad basilicam psallendo procederet . . . (Greg. Tur. Hist. 5.11).

Instances of the ablative form of the gerund functioning as a secondary predicate with constituents of the sentence other than the subject have been noted in Late Latin, as in (e).⁵⁶ ⁵⁴ Exiendo was taken as equivalent to the dative of the present participle exienti in earlier studies, but see Adams (2013: 734). ⁵⁵ Note that the gerund is part of a secondary predicate. ⁵⁶ More examples from Ven. Fort. in Odelstierna (1926: 58–60), for example (Carm. 4.15.7): Dic, tibi quid prodest scelus hoc peragendo, nefande. (= peragenti), but Leo, in his edition, takes it as equivalent to an infinitive.

 (e)

Secondary predicates . . . atque meos animos plura videndo cremas. (‘. . . and you burn my soul while I see more.’ Ven. Fort. Carm. 11.19.2)

. Autonomous relative clauses functioning as secondary predicates In § 18.16, the secondary predicate is mentioned as one of the syntactic functions of autonomous relative clauses. In English they are called relative clauses of purpose.⁵⁷ Instances of this usage can be found from Early Latin onwards, as in (a) and (b), where the clauses are related to an argument of the main clause. As in these examples, the main clause often contains a verb of coming or sending, but other combinations can be found as well, as in (c), where the relative clause is coordinated with an adjective. Ex. (d) represents a relatively complex case with an intervening purpose adjunct. An example with a relative adverb is (e). The mood in these relative clauses is subjunctive, traditionally labelled ‘final’. (a)

Immo alium potius misero / . . . illuc tuom qui conveniat patrem, / qui tua quae tu iusseris mandata . . . perferat. (‘No, I’d rather send someone else there who can go to your father and carry out your instructions . . .’ Pl. Capt. 341–3)

(b)

Qui? # Quia venit navis nostrae navi quae frangat ratem. (‘How come? # Because a ship has come to smash the timbers of our ship.’ Pl. Mos. 740)

(c)

Deinde ut cubitum discessimus, me et de via fessum et qui ad multam noctem vigilassem artior quam solebat somnus complexus est. (‘When we separated to take our rest, a deeper sleep than usual enveloped me, as I was weary from my journey and had stayed awake through much of the night.’ Cic. Rep. 6.10—NB: parallelism)

(d)

Qui (sc. consules) cum legatis in senatum introductis de re publica rettulissent placuissetque mitti legatos in Hispaniam ad res sociorum inspiciendas, quibus si videretur digna causa . . . Hannibali denuntiarent ut ab Saguntinis, sociis populi Romani, abstineret . . . (‘After introducing the ambassadors into the Senate, they had brought up the question of public policy, and the senators had voted to dispatch envoys to Spain to look into the affairs of their allies, to the end that, if there appeared to be just cause, they might formally warn Hannibal to keep away from the Saguntines, the allies of the Roman People . . .’ Liv. 21.6.3–4)

(e)

Agri reliquit ei non magnum modum / quo cum labore magno et misere viveret. (‘He did leave him a piece of land, not a big one, though, where he could live with great toil and miserably.’ Pl. Aul. 13–14)

⁵⁷ For the use of relative clauses as secondary predicate, see Vester (1989), Maurel (1995: 194–5), and Lavency (1998a: 24–6) (with varying terminology).

The distribution of secondary predicates



Supplement: . . . dedi ei meam gnatam quicum aetatem exigat. (Pl. Trin. 15); Hoc homini amplius, quod addidit rationem, qua regerentur animi adpetitus, qui tum remitterentur tum continerentur. (Cic. N.D. 2.34); Homines enim sunt hac lege generati qui tuerentur illum globum quem in hoc templo medium vides, quae terra dicitur. (Cic. Rep. 6.15); (sc. Helvetii) . . . legatos ad eum mittunt nobilissimos civitatis . . . qui dicerent sibi esse in animo sine ullo maleficio iter per provinciam facere . . . (Caes. Gal. 1.7.3); (sc. Clusini) . . . legatos Romam qui auxilium ab senatu peterent misere. (Liv. 5.35.5) Non oris caussa modo homines aequom fuit / sibi habere speculum ubi os contemplarent suom . . . (Pl. Epid. 382–3) Appendix: Cum clauses can be used in a similar way, not so much to locate the event of the main clause in time (for which see § 16.10), but to describe the situation in which one of the arguments of the clause is involved when the event of the main clause takes place. In this way they resemble present participles and relative clauses in their function as secondary predicate.⁵⁸ An example is (f). (f) Saepe enim soleo audire Roscium cum ita dicat . . . (‘For again and again do I hear Roscius declaring this . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 1.129) Supplement: Olympiae per stadium ingressus esse Milo dicitur cum humeris sustineret bovem. (Cic. Sen. 33); . . . audivi . . . Metrodorum cum de his ipsis rebus disputaret. (Cic. de Orat. 2.365)

21.16 The distribution of secondary predicates Secondary predicates are most naturally used with arguments of the clause, especially the subject and, to a lesser extent, the object.⁵⁹ These usages have been well illustrated in the preceding sections. However, the use of those secondary predicates that show agreement with the constituent to which they are related is not restricted to arguments. A few more noteworthy instances are given in (a)–(e) and in the Supplement.⁶⁰ In (a), there is a secondary predicate with the agent of a passive clause (an argument, see § 2.12 and § 5.8 Note). Impersonal passives with such a combination of an agent and a secondary predicate seem not to be attested. In (b), vivis is related to cum illis, an associative adjunct. In (c), vivo is related to ei, a sympathetic dative. In (d), absentis is related to cuius, a genitive attribute of the noun nomen. In (e), incautum is part of the participial phrase inter multas versantem hostium manus, which is itself a secondary predicate with Q. Fabium. Incautum is indirectly related to Q. Fabium as well. (See also § 18.14 for apparent secondary predicates in relative clauses.) ⁵⁸ Maurel (1995: 194–5). ⁵⁹ Many examples of secondary predicates with the object (passive subject) of habere can be found in TLL s.v. 2423.23ff. ⁶⁰ A few instances are added with secondary predicates from the categories that are discussed in § 21.2 and § 21.3.

 (a)

Secondary predicates . . . qui illum (sc. Carneadem) a se adulescente Athenis iam adfectum senectute multos dies auditum esse dicebat. (‘. . . who used to say that as a young man he heard him (sc. Carneades) on many occasions at Athens when he was already showing signs of age.’ Cic. de Orat. 3.68)

(b)

. . . quin sciat has Timarchidi pactiones sepulturae cum vivis etiam illis esse factas? (‘. . . who doesn’t know that these burial bargains were struck with Timarchides even by the victims themselves before they died?’ Cic. Ver. 5.120)

(c)

Quin exta inspicere in sole ei vivo licet. (‘In fact, you can inspect its innards in the sunlight while it’s still alive.’ Pl. Aul. 565)

(d)

Quem hominem absentem . . . condemnasti? Cuius absentis nomen recepisti? (‘Who is this whom, absent . . . you have pronounced guilty? Who is this whom you have allowed, in his absence, to be prosecuted?’ Cic. Ver. 2.110)

(e)

. . . Q. Fabium . . . Tuscus incautum inter multas versantem hostium manus . . . gladio per pectus transfigit. (‘. . . a Tuscan . . . caught Quintus Fabius unawares in the midst of a crowd of his enemies and drove his sword through his breast.’ Liv. 2.46.4) Supplement: Object: (sc. mulier) . . . hospitique oppresso iam desperatoque ab omnibus opitulata est. (Cic. S. Rosc. 27); Sagittaveras tu cor nostrum caritate tua et gestabamus verba tua transfixa visceribus . . . (August. Conf. 9.2.3) Indirect object: Athenienses, quibus primis post regiam legationem dicendi quae vellent potestas facta est . . . (Liv. 35.32.12); tam et apsentt praesentlo et a senatu llo e L. Arruntio non rec. (Aug. Anc. 5.1); Corpora animadversorum quibuslibet petentibus ad sepulturam danda sunt. (Paul. dig. 48.24.3) Agent/Cause in a passive clause: Nam ita diligenter constituta sunt iura decumano ut tamen ab invito aratore plus decuma non posset auferri. (Cic. Ver. 3.20); Quod enim semel testamento alicui datum est, id ab eo invito cui datum est auferri non potest. (Cic. Top. 21); . . . nec eos a quibus vita hominum instructa primis sit, fuisse philosophos arbitrantur. (Cic. Tusc. 5.6); Quo (sc. morbo) cum gravi conflictaretur (sc. Dionysius), quaesivit a medicis Dion quem ad modum se haberet . . . (Nep. Di. 2.4); Historiarum auctor iam tum Sisenna erat iuvenis, sed opus belli civilis Sullanique post aliquot annos ab eo seniore editum est. (Vell. 2.9.5); . . . eaedem poenae in Laelium Balbum decernuntur, id quidem a laetantibus, quia Balbus truci eloquentia habebatur, promptus adversum insontes. (Tac. Ann. 6.48.4) Associative adjunct: Nec diu moratus rusticus quidam familiaris oculis meis cum muliercula comite propius accessit ac diligentius considerare pallium coepit. (Petr. 12.3) Source adjunct: . . . qui cum sciret me ex Mustio vivo audisse . . . (Cic. Ver. 1.139); Igitur a quo vivo nec praesens nec absens rex Deiotarus quicquam aequi boni imperavit, apud mortuum factus est gratus. (Cic. Phil. 2.94)

The distribution of secondary predicates



Beneficiary adjunct: Vivo fit quod numquam quisquam mortuo faciet mihi. (Pl. Am. 459); Credebas dormienti haec tibi confecturos deos? (Ter. Ad. 693); . . . Silvius . . . / quem tibi longaevo serum Lavinia coniunx / educet silvis regem regumque parentem . . . (Verg. A. 6.763–5) Other type of adjunct: . . . semper is fui qui de te oratore sic praedicarem . . . (Cic. de Orat. 2.296); . . . posse ex is (sc. formis litterarum) in terram excussis annales Enni ut deinceps legi possint effici. (Cic. N.D. 2.93); L. quidem Caesar, cum ad eum aegrotum Neapolim venissem . . . (Cic. Fam. 9.14.3) Sympathetic dative: . . . non condimentis condiunt sed strigibus, / vivis convivis intestina quae exedint. (Pl. Ps. 820–1); Pamphile, haud invito ad auris sermo mi accessit tuos . . . (Ter. Hec. 482); . . . nisi (serpentibus) viventibus absciso capite non gemmescit invidia animalis mori se sentientis. (Plin. Nat. 37.158) Genitive attribute: Tamen huius cuius iniurati nutu prope terrarum orbis regebatur iurati testimonio neque in C. Fimbriam neque in C. Memmium creditum est. (Cic. Font. 24); . . . eaque sacra quae viri oculis ne imprudentis quidem aspici fas est non solum aspectu virili sed flagitio stuproque violarit . . . (Cic. Har. 8); Quorum omnium testimoniis de hac Dionis pecunia confirmatum est. (Cic. Ver. 2.23); At earum rerum est absentium metus, quarum praesentium est aegritudo. (Cic. Tusc. 4.8); Cuius et infelicitas vivi et subita mors in magnam spem Octavium adduxit provinciae potiundae. (B.  Alex. 43.4); (sc. Pausanias) Cuius mortui corpus cum eodem nonnulli dicerent inferri oportere quo . . . (Nep. Paus. 5.5); . . . sacerdotibus maxime, qui quos ad mortem devovissent, eorum deditionem vivorum hosti fecissent . . . (Liv. 31.18.6); Ergo protinus insania timenda est, ubi expeditior alicuius quam sani fuit sermo est subitaque loquacitas orta est . . . (Cels. 2.7.24); Et huius quidem recentis usus est. (Cels. 5.18.3); Cuius intestati filius tuus heres futurus est, quem dementem alligaturus est. (Sen. Con. 9.5.7) NB: with a possessive adjective: . . . cui nomen meum absentis honori fuisset, ei meas praesentis preces non putas profuisse? (Cic. Planc. 26); . . . sed moleste fero me consulem tuum studium adulescentis perspexisse, te meum, cum id aetatis sim, perspicere non posse. (Cic. Fam. 15.13.1); . . . cum mea nemo / scripta legat, volgo recitare timentis ob hanc rem . . . (Hor. S. 1.4.22–3); . . . saepe mihi dices vivae bene, saepe rogabis, / ut mea defunctae molliter ossa cubent. (Ov. Am. 1.8.107–8); Et flesti et nostros vidisti flentis ocellos. (Ov. Ep. 5.45) Sed audeat Canuleius in senatu proloqui se nisi suas leges tamquam victoris patres accipi sinant dilectum haberi prohibiturum? (Liv. 4.2.13—see also § 21.18) NB: . . . tum muliebris fletus et concursatio incerta nunc hos, nunc illos sequentium rogitantiumque viros natosque cui se fato darent . . . (Liv. 5.40.3) Secondary predicates within a participial ablative absolute clause: . . . illo absente auctore laudato . . . (Cic. Flac. 93); . . . obsidibus acceptis primis civitatis . . . (Caes. Gal. 2.13.1); Dictatore habente comitia Caesare consules creantur Iulius Caesar et P.  Servilius. (Caes. Civ. 3.1.1); . . . paucis . . . resistentibus interfectis . . . (Hirt. Gal. 8.13.2); Temperandum acre ingenium eius moderato et prudenti viro adiuncto collega censebant. (Liv. 27.34.3); . . . contemptim inmobili iacente eo (sc. cane) . . . (Plin. Nat. 8.149); . . . Mariade vivo exusto. (Amm. 23.5.3)



Secondary predicates NB: the following instances are different. Quo mortuo seems to be a dominant participle: his death was reported. Quo mortuo nuntiato sella sublata est. (Cic. Fam. 7.30.1); Quo optato impetrato Theseus in maximis fuit luctibus. (Cic. Off. 3.94)⁶¹ Secondary predicates within a secondary predicate construction: Quo cum venissem, M. Catonem, quem ibi esse nescieram, vidi in bibliotheca sedentem multis circumfusum Stoicorum libris. (Cic. Fin. 3.7); ⁶² Inde ubi prima fides pelago, placataque venti / dant maria et lenis crepitans vocat auster in altum . . . (Verg. A. 3.69–70); (sc. serpens) . . . sibilat ore / arduus insurgens . . . (Verg. A. 11.754–5);⁶³ . . . gravis incumbens scopulis arentibus aestas . . . (Verg. G. 2.377); Marcia . . . icta gravida partu exanimato ipsa citra ullum aliud incommodum vixit (Plin. Nat. 2.137); Vigilans ictus coniventibus oculis, dormiens patentibus reperitur. (Plin. Nat. 2.145) Secondary predicates within a gerund construction: Non dissimilem offensionem et Aemiliani subiit L. Hostilius Mancinus, qui primus Carthaginem inruperat, situm eius oppugnationesque depictas proponendo in foro et ipse adsistens populo spectanti singula enarrando, qua comitate proximis comitiis consulatum adeptus est. (Plin. Nat. 35.23); . . . Rhenum pervium feci . . . stando immobilis virtutis vestrae nimirum firmamento confisus. (Amm. 21.5.3); . . . ad sancta pignora . . . venerunt osculando flentes beatas reliquias . . . (Greg. Tur. Mart. 1.11)⁶⁴ Secondary predicate within an attributive participle: Vitis albae viridis tusae suco inpetigines tolluntur. (Plin. Nat. 23.4) Secondary predicate with an argument of an adjective: Quamdiu mater vixit, pater me fuit procuratore contentus. (Sen. Con. 7.5.1)

21.17 The semantic relationship between a secondary predicate and its clause Most of the secondary predicates discussed in the preceding sections characterize in some way the condition of the entity to which they are connected at the time when this entity is (or was, or will be) engaged in some state, process, or action. Such is the case in the initial example of this chapter, here repeated as (a). The same holds for (b), where the secondary predicate invitum is related to the object me. More or less the same applies to the participles in (c) and (d) and to the noun victor in (e): the relationship is one of temporal simultaneity. See also (f) where vivi is coordinated with a prepositional temporal adjunct. (a)

At ii qui ab Alesia processerant maesti . . . se in oppidum receperunt. (‘But they who had come forth from Alesia sadly withdrew again into the town.’ Caes. Gal. 7.80.9)

⁶¹ For further examples (to be sorted), see K.-St.: I.17; 772. The cases in the Supplement have to be distinguished from ablative absolute clauses with a three-place predicate governing an object and an object complement, as in: Treboni (sc. mortem) satis persecuti sumus hoste iudicato Dolabella. (Cic. Phil. 13.39). ⁶² For a few instances in Cicero, see Laughton (1964: 126–8). ⁶³ For parallels of arduus used in this way, see Williams ad Verg. A. 5.278. The often cited line Apparent rari nantes in gurgite vasto . . . (Verg. A. 1.118) does not belong here: nantes is subject. ⁶⁴ In Cic. Dom. 140 the manuscripts have revocando, for which Madvig conjectured revocans.

The relationship between secondary predicate and clause (b)



Neque enim Pompeius me sua causa quicquam facere voluisset invitum . . . (‘For Pompeius would not have wished me to do anything contrary to my inclination for his sake . . .’ Cic. Rab. Post. 33)

(c)

Ea re impetrata sese omnes flentes Caesari ad pedes proiecerunt. (‘This was granted, and they all threw themselves in tears at Caesar’s feet.’ Caes. Gal. 1.31.2)

(d)

Siquidem ego tibi vivus non prosum, qui fortasse mortuus profuissem. (‘If I, now that I am alive, am unable to be of any service to you, though perhaps I might have been of some if I had been dead.’ Cic. Planc. 101)

(e)

Advocat contionem, habet orationem talem consul qualem numquam Catilina victor habuisset. (‘He convenes an assembly. He, the consul, addresses them in such a speech as even Catiline himself, if he had been victorious, would never have delivered.’ Cic. Sest. 28)

(f)

Fortissimi milites non tamen nec vivi nec post mortem inulti fuere. (‘But the heroic soldiers were not unavenged, living or dead.’ Liv. 4.58.5)

In the case of perfect participles, the semantic relationship is often one of temporal anteriority; in the case of future participles one of temporal posteriority. For more on these temporal relations, see § 21.7. It is clear, though, that in the cases discussed in § 21.4, including (g) below, these temporal notions do not make much sense. (g)

Navus mane Forum et vespertinus pete tectum . . . (‘In your diligence get you to the Forum in the morning, to your home in the evening . . .’ Hor. Ep. 1.6.20)

Grammars also take note of the proleptic (or: anticipatory) use of adjectives in poetry, as illustrated by (h) and (i).⁶⁵ In (h), submersas and diversos indicate the resulting state of the object constituents of obrue and age, respectively. Likewise, in (i) the agros become sterilis, as the result of Sirius’ action. This usage is rare in prose, but see ( j) for an instance related to the subject and (k) for one related to the object. This resembles the use of dynamic three-place verbs with an object and a complement (see § 4.87).⁶⁶ (h)

Incute vim ventis submersasque obrue puppis / aut age (sc. Troas) diversos et dissice corpora ponto. (‘Hurl fury into your winds, obscure the ships submerged beneath the sea, or drive the men asunder and scatter their bodies on the deep.’ Verg. A. 1.69–70)

(i)

Tum sterilis exurere Sirius agros . . . (‘Then Sirius burnt the fields so that they became barren . . .’ Verg. A. 3.141—tr. Williams ad loc.)

⁶⁵ So, for example, K.-St.: I.239–40. ⁶⁶ These cases resemble what Himmelmann and Schultze-Berndt (2005: 4) call ‘resultatives’.

 ( j)

Secondary predicates Hinc CXXXII patres familias extorres profugerunt. (‘From this region 132 heads of families have fled like banished men.’ Cic. Ver. 3.120)

(k)

Utraque simul obiecta res oculis animisque immobiles parumper eos defixit. (‘Both facts presenting themselves at the same time to their eyes and minds kept them for a moment rooted to the spot.’ Liv. 21.33.3) Supplement: . . . neque ullum tempus sobrio relinquebatur. (Nep. Di. 4.4); Haud secus ac iussi faciunt tectosque per herbam / disponunt enses et scuta latentia condunt. (Verg. A. 3.236–7); . . . premit placida aequora pontus. (Verg. A. 10.103); Non ego . . . anxius illa / tempestate fui, qua centum quisque parabat / inicere anguipedum captivo bracchia caelo. (Ov. Met. 1.182–4); . . . ut attonitos formidine terreat hostes . . . (Ov. Met. 4.802)

In addition to the temporal relation already discussed, the content conveyed by the secondary predicate can be interpreted in a way that resembles how satellites are treated in their sentence or clause. This is very common with participles (see below), but there are instances with adjectives and nouns as well. A clear case is (l), where the secondary predicate avidus is coordinated with a quia reason clause. Other examples, with a conditional interpretation, are the noun victor in (e) and invitum in (b) above.⁶⁷ Such interpretations are common in the case of adjective phrases, as in (m) (note also the position of the phrase).⁶⁸ (l)

Nam si quis poenam exigit non ipsius poenae avidus sed quia oportet, non est adnumerandus iratis. (‘For the man who exacts punishment, not because he desires punishment for its own sake, but because it is right to inflict it, ought not to be counted as an angry man.’ Sen. Dial. 1.9.4)

(m)

Huius coniugii cupidus Callias quidam . . . egit cum Cimone ut . . . (‘A certain Callias . . . being desirous of having her for a wife, tried to prevail on Cimon to . . .’ Nep. Cim. 1.3) Supplement: Saluberrimus autem omnium aquilo, noxius auster et magis siccus, fortassis quia umidus frigidior est. (Plin. Nat. 2.127) Similar interpretations are possible when non-restrictive attributive adjectives are used, as in (n) and (o). These usages are sometimes compared to the use of adjectives with the participle of the copula ïx, zå}l, ×x in Greek.⁶⁹ (n) Nam divitiae, nomen, opes, vacuae consilio et vivendi atque aliis imperandi modo, dedecoris plenae sunt . . .

⁶⁷ For ‘condensed conditionals’ like (m), see Bertocchi and Maraldi (2011: 99–100). ⁶⁸ See Heberlein (1996: 360–2), who calls such phrases ‘least integrated’ in their clause in comparison with other types of secondary predicate. See also the examples in § 21.5. ⁶⁹ Sο K.-St.: I.239.

The relationship between secondary predicate and clause



(‘For riches, names, and power, when they lack wisdom and the knowledge of how to live and to rule over others, are full of dishonour . . .’ Cic. Rep. 1.51) (o) Nec enim cuiquam bono mali quicquam evenire potest nec vivo nec mortuo . . . (‘For no evil can befall any good man either in life or in death . . .’ Cic. Tusc. 1.99)

Participles in their function as secondary predicate allow a broad range of interpretations, such as cause in (p) (repeated from §  21.7), reason in (q), condition in (r), concession in (s), or purpose in (t).⁷⁰ An interesting instance of coordination between a present participle and a prepositional phrase that indicates purpose is (u). (p)

(sc. Dionysius) . . . qui cultros metuens tonsorios candente carbone sibi adurebat capillum. (‘. . . who through fear of the barber’s razor used to have his hair singed off with a glowing coal.’ Cic. Off. 2.25)

(q)

C. Servilius Ahala Sp. Maelium regnum adpetentem occupatum interemit. (‘Gaius Servilius Ahala put Spurius Maelius to death for attempting to secure regal power.’ Cic. Sen. 56)

(r)

Nemo ei neganti non credidisset quem esse omnes salvum etiam confitentem volunt. (‘No one would have refused to believe him if he denied it, when now all men wish to save him even when he confesses it.’ Cic. Mil. 50)

(s)

Hem / repudiatu’ repetor. (‘Here I am, the reject recalled.’ Ter. An. 248–9)

(t)

. . . Senones Galli multitudine ingenti ad Clusium venerunt legionem Romanam castraque oppugnaturi. (‘. . . the Senonian Gauls came with a great multitude to Clusium to besiege the Roman legion in camp there.’ Liv. 10.26.7)

(u)

‘Atqui, Catule,’ inquit Antonius, ‘non ego utilitatem aliquam ad dicendum aucupans horum libros et nonnullos alios sed delectationis causa, cum est otium, legere soleo.’ (‘ “And yet, Catulus”, rejoined Antonius, “it is not because I am on the look-out for aids to oratory, but just for pleasure, that I make a habit, when I have time, of reading the works of these authors and a few more.”’ Cic. de Orat. 2.59)

Such interpretations are sometimes clearly related to semantic or grammatical features of the secondary predicate and/or the clause to which it belongs. Metuo in (p) is a good candidate for being the motive of someone’s action. In (q), regnum adpeto represents socially undesirable behaviour and is thus a cause of Gaius Servilius’ action. In (r), the subjunctive credidisset contributes to the conditional interpretation of ⁷⁰ The examples are taken from K.-St.: I.774–7. See also Sz.: 384 and Laughton (1964: passim) for Cicero.



Secondary predicates

neganti. In (s), repudiatus and repetor are lexical opposites. In (t), the future participle in combination with the verb venerunt prompts the purpose interpretation. But the actual interpretation of a secondary predicate is more flexible and less predictable than these explanations might suggest. In this respect, these participles differ from finite subordinate clauses, where the subordinator signals the semantic relationship between its clause and the main clause to which it belongs. Supplement: Cause: . . . duae mulierculae / hic in fano Veneris signum flentes amplexae tenent / nescioquem metuentes miserae? (Pl. Rud. 559–61); Quod ubi Hannibali nuntiatum est, moram magis quam bellum metuens oratores ad regulos eorum misit . . . (Liv. 21.24.3) Reason: (sc. Athenienses Alcibiadem) . . . corruptum a rege capere Cymen noluisse arguebant. (Nep. Alc. 7.3) Condition: . . . idem (sc. Stoici) traducti a disputando ad dicendum inopes reperiantur. (Cic. Brut. 118); . . . cum mendaci homini ne verum quidem dicenti credere soleamus . . . (Cic. Div. 2.146); . . . epistulae offendunt non loco redditae. (Cic. Fam. 11.16.1) Concession: . . . ut eum (sc. risum) cupientes tenere nequeamus . . . (Cic. de Orat. 2.235) Purpose: Quam perverse fugiens Hegesias . . . saltat incidens particulas. (Cic. Orat. 226); Capta Phaloria legati a Metropoli et a Cierio dedentes urbes venerunt. (Liv. 32.15.3); Consul Larisam est profectus ibi de summa belli consultaturus. (Liv. 36.14.6)

. Explicit marking of the semantic relation between a secondary predicate and the clause to which it belongs The semantic relationship between a secondary predicate and the clause to which it belongs can be made explicit by particles or other constituents that are related directly to the secondary predicate and/or by their more general use in the clause. Examples are statim, utpote, and tamen, in (a)–(c), respectively.⁷¹ This phenomenon becomes more widespread after Cicero’s time. For the use of these words with ablative absolute clauses, see § 16.89. (a)

M. autem Calidius statim designatus sententia sua quam esset cara sibi mea salus declaravit. (‘Marcus Calidius, too, was no sooner elected praetor than he intimated by a clear declaration how high a value he set upon my restitution.’ Cic. Red. Sen. 22)

(b)

Has litteras Sisines utpote innoxius ad Alexandrum saepe deferre temptavit . . . (‘This letter Sisines, since he was innocent of any evil intention, often tried to turn over to Alexander . . .’ Curt. 3.7.13)

⁷¹ Example (b) is taken from Heberlein (1996: 360). For time specifications, see K.-St.: I.789; for reason, I.791–2; for concession, I.444–6. For the diachronic development, see Sz.: 385.

Secondary predicates and related constructions (c)



. . . tandemque relicti / stant in rupe tamen. (‘. . . and at last abandoned, they will yet stand on a cliff.’ Stat. Theb. 4.28–9) Supplement (in alphabetical order by specification): Time: . . . qui . . . armati nullum ante finem pugnae quam morientes fecerunt? (Liv. 21.14.4); Haec simul increpans cum ocius signa convelli iuberet . . . (Liv. 22.3.11); Nec illi primo statim creati nudare quid vellent . . . (Liv. 24.27.4); . . . vixdum ingressus Illyricum Tiberius properis matris litteris accitur. (Tac. Ann. 1.5.3) Reason: Quare istam quoque aggredere tractatam praesertim et ab aliis et a te ipso saepe, ut tibi deesse non possit oratio. (Cic. Fin. 4.1); Namque movetur aqua et tantillo momine flutat / quippe volubilibus parvisque creata figuris. (Lucr. 3.189–90); . . . praedae loco aestumantur quippe metu pacem repetentes, quo habitam amiserant. (Sal. Hist. 1.77.5); . . . dis carus ipsis, quippe ter et quater / anno revisens aequor Atlanticum / impune. (Hor. Carm. 1.31.13–15); Neque illis iudicium aut veritas quippe eodem die diversa pari certamine postulaturis . . . (Tac. Hist. 1.32.1); Inde Rubos fessi pervenimus, utpote longum / carpentes iter et factum corruptius imbri. (Hor. S. 1.5.94–5); Forte et numero et virtute utpote lecti utrimque haud impares aequis viribus per aliquot horas pugnarunt. (Liv. 31.33.9) Concession: . . . me . . . etsi minus prudentem multiscium reddidit. (Apul. Met. 9.13.5); Ad postremum etsi a multitudine victus gloria tamen omnes vicit. ( justin. 12.1.11); Huic licet ingratae Tityrus ipse canat. (Prop. 2.34.72); M’. Aemilio, C.  Valerio Potito consulibus bellum Aequi parabant, Volscis quamquam non publico consilio capessentibus arma voluntariis mercede secutis militiam. (Liv. 4.53.1); Neque enim di sinant ut Belgarum quamquam offerentium decus istud et claritudo sit subvenisse Romano nomini . . . (Tac. Ann. 1.43.2); Sed ne Taprobane quidem quamvis extra orbem a natura relegata nostris vitiis caret. (Plin. Nat. 6.89); . . . ut ei milites esse confestim responderint et quamvis recusantem ultro in Africam sint secuti. (Suet. Jul. 70.1); Quis enim quamvis fortis et intrepidus immani forma tantae bestiae noctu praesertim visitata non se ad fugam statim concitaret . . . (Apul. Met. 4.18.8); . . . et quae iam diu gesta et a memoria nostra remota tamen faciant fidem vere tradita esse . . . (Cic. Inv. 1.39)

Due to the range of semantic relations that are possible between secondary predicates and the remainder of the sentence in which they are used, it is no surprise to see secondary predicates coordinated with constituents of various types with which they are semantically compatible. For examples of coordination, see § 19.80.

21.19 Secondary predicates and related constructions Secondary predicates of various types (adjectives, nouns, and participles) are often regarded as equivalent to or comparable with other types of constituents. In the case of adjectives, this especially concerns adverbs; in the case of nouns, appositions; and in the case of participles, satellite (or: adverbial) subordinate clauses. In the two sections below, extra attention will be given to the relationship between adjectives functioning as secondary predicate and adverbs and to ambiguous cases where the distinction between secondary predicates and appositions is not immediately clear.



Secondary predicates

. The difference between an adjective functioning as secondary predicate and a related adverb Adjectives that function as secondary predicate are usually said to be used ‘instead of ’ adverbs, especially adverbs of manner. Scholars are often also quite explicit about the difference between the two expressions, noting first, that the secondary predicate represents a property of the entity involved instead of a property of the event (cf. § 21.1 and § 21.4 fin.); secondly, that often, at least in prose, either the secondary predicate or the adverb must be used depending on the expression; and thirdly, that there may be a difference in meaning between the two expressions. These are the relevant statements by K.-St.: (i) ‘In such cases’ (that is, when the adjective is used) ‘the Latin construction is undoubtedly more lively, more energetic and more expressive, because the specific circumstances in which an action occurs are at the same time included in the character of the entity that performs the action, e.g. Socrates venenum laetus et libens hausit (“S. gladly and willingly drank the poison”)’.⁷² (ii) ‘In most cases, at least in prose, only either the adjective or the adverb can be used: suaviter (not suavis) cantas “you play something sweet”; sobrius (not sobrie) saltat “he dances sober”.’⁷³ (iii) ‘Or the meaning is different: prudens et sciens ad interitum ruerem (voluntarium) “(I rushed) deliberately and with open eyes (upon a self-chosen doom)” (Cic. Marc. 14), but: prudenter et scienter “in a clever and skilful manner”.’⁷⁴

There are various reasons why adjectives and manner adverbs derived from the same stem are not interchangeable in the same context. The reason why we do not find K.-St.’s suavis cantas is not because the idiom requires suaviter, but because suavis indicates a value judgement of a permanent quality; as a rule, only adjectives indicating a non-permanent, transient quality can be used as secondary predicate. This restriction does not hold for adverbs derived from the same stem. The reason is therefore a semantic one. By contrast, the fact that there is only one attestation in the OLD of the adverb sobrie to mean ‘in a state of non-intoxication’⁷⁵ is due to chance (it normally means ‘temperately’). The adjective sobrius indicates a non-permanent quality and can therefore be used, and is used, as a secondary predicate. Another possible reason why adjectives and manner adverbs derived from the same stem are not interchangeable in the same context is that they have different meanings. This is the case for prudens and sciens vs. prudenter and scienter. Another illustration, alongside the one cited from K.-St. in the note above, is (a), where scienter could be replaced by scientem, but would produce a completely different meaning. ⁷² ‘Die lateinische Ausdrucksweise ist in solchen Fällen ohne Frage lebendiger, energischer und anschaulicher, indem der nähere Umstand einer Handlung zugleich in die Persönlichkeit des Handelnden aufgenommen wird’ (K.-St.: I.235). ⁷³ ‘Aber in den meisten Fällen ist in Prosa wenigstens nur entweder das Adjektiv oder das Adverb zulässig.’ (K.-St.: I.238). For the examples, compare Pl. St. 767 and Cic. Mur. 13, respectively. ⁷⁴ ‘Oder die Bedeutung ist verschieden: Cic.  Marc. 14 . . .“wissentlich und mit Vorbedacht” . . .“in kluger und geschickter Weise”’ (K.-St.: I: 238). ⁷⁵ Apul. Apol. 59.

Secondary predicates and related constructions (a)



. . . saltasse eum (sc. Epaminondam) commode scienterque tibiis cantasse. (‘. . . that he danced gracefully, and played skilfully on the flute.’ Nep. praef. 1.2)

An entirely different situation is shown in (b), where an adjective and an adverb are derived from the same stem, but where the adverb is not an adverb of manner. Here, rari ‘scattered’ cannot be replaced by raro ‘seldom’, an adverb of time comparable with numquam ‘never’, without a change of meaning.⁷⁶ (b)

(sc. Britanni) Ipsi ex silvis rari propugnabant . . . (‘They themselves came out of the woods to fight in small groups . . .’ Caes. Gal. 5.9.6)

There are contexts in which an adjective can be used but an adverb derived from the same stem is excluded. This is the case, for example, when the secondary predicate is not associated with the subject of a clause, as in (c), where it is associated with the object me. Here imprudentem cannot be replaced by imprudenter without incurring a change of meaning. (See § 21.16 for further secondary predicates that are not related to the subject.) (c)

Namque enim tu, credo, me imprudentem obrepseris. (‘Yes, for you will have taken me by surprise, I suppose.’ Pl. Trin. 61)

Moreover, replacement of an adjective by an adverb is excluded if the adjective is part of a phrase (see §  21.5) and if the context suggests a specific interpretation of the adjective in its clause (see § 21.17). Conversely, there are also contexts in which the use of an adverb is normal, but a derivationally related adjective is excluded. Illustrative are clauses with an impersonal passive like (d), where replacement of the adverb acriter by a related adjective as a secondary predicate is excluded. This adjective, though, can be used in clauses with a personal verb, as in (e). Likewise with infinitives, as in (f), adjectives cannot replace adverbs. In finite imperative clauses and with prolative infinitives secondary predicates seem to be excluded, as shown by (g) and (h), respectively. (d)

Acriter in eo loco pugnatum est. (‘Fierce was the battle fought there.’ Caes. Gal. 2.10.2)

(e)

In ius acres procurrunt . . . (‘Keenly they rush into court . . .’ Hor. S. 1.7.20–1)

(f)

Bene dicere autem, quod est scienter et perite et ornate dicere, non habet definitam aliquam regionem . . . (‘But the art of speaking well, that is to say, of speaking with knowledge, skill, and elegance, has no limited province . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 2.5)

(g)

Cupide accipiat faxo . . . (‘I’ll have him eager to accept our offer . . .’ Ter. Ad. 209)

⁷⁶ The adverb rare is used for ‘thinly’ sowing wheat at Col. 2.9.3 (for Varro’s reservations about the use of rare, see the citation at Gel. 2.25.8).



Secondary predicates

(h)

vissire tacite Chilon docuit subdolus. (‘The cunning Chilon taught how to fart silently.’ A. Epig. 1941, nr 6 (Ostia Antica, 2nd cent. ad (end))

The conclusion of all this is that derivationally related adjectives and adverbs can be used in the same context as secondary predicates or manner adverbs, respectively, to describe more or less the same situation, but only if the secondary predicate is associated with the subject, if the adjective indicates a non-permanent quality, and if there is not a difference in meaning between the adjective and the adverb. Nevertheless, they describe the situation from a different perspective, either that of the entity or of the state of affairs expressed by the verb, respectively. There are a few instances of adjectives that function as secondary predicate in coordinate or parallel structures with manner adverbs, which seem to contradict the conclusion above. An example of coordination is (i); of parallelism, ( j).⁷⁷ (i) Quaeso ignoscas si quid stulte dixi atque imprudens tibi. (‘Please forgive me if I said anything stupid to you without being aware of it.’ Pl. Men. 1074) ( j) Dum alii trepidi (trepide Sp) cedunt, alii segniter subeunt, turbata tota acies est . . . (‘While the one part in disorder was yielding ground, and the other was slow in coming up, the whole line was confused . . .’ Liv. 27.12.15) Appendix: At Cic. Att. 8.3.4 the corrupt text invite cepit Capuam is traditionally corrected as invite cepi Capuam, which is rejected as ‘bad Latin. Cicero would have written invitus.’ by Shackleton Bailey ad loc. + Appendix II, p. 439. The correction is defended by Wistrand (1979: 206–11).

. Potential ambiguity: secondary predicate or apposition? Adjectives and nouns in agreement with a nominal constituent in a clause can sometimes be interpreted in various ways. For adjectives that can or must be taken as attribute, see § 21.4. Another possible interpretation for adjectives and noun phrases is as an apposition or as a tail constituent. An example of an adjective that might be taken as an apposition is ineptus in (a). An example of a noun phrase that might be taken as a tail is decrepitus senex in (b).⁷⁸ For heavy adjective phrases, see the Supplement. (a)

Quid ego ineptus, dum sermonem vereor interrumpere, / solus sto . . .? (‘Silly me, why am I standing here alone, while being afraid to interrupt the conversation . . .?’ Pl. Trin. 1149–50)

⁷⁷ For instances of coordination of secondary predicates, also with other types of constituent, see § 19.80. ⁷⁸ For the interpretation as an apposition, see Hofmann (1924: 80): ‘One might say that this appositionlike postposition is almost the rule in popular speech for words of such an emotional content.’

Quantifiers and related expressions  (b)

. . . qui quidem cum filio / potet una atque una amicam ductet decrepitus senex. (‘. . . drinking together with his son and hiring a mistress together with him, that old fart.’ Pl. As. 862–3) Supplement: . . . quae in occipitio quoque habet oculos pessuma. (Pl. Aul. 64); Ferox rapidusque consiliis ac lingua immodicus primo inter paucos, dein propalam in volgus, pro cunctatore segnem, pro cauto timidum, adfingens vicina virtutibus vitia, compellabat, premendoque superiorem . . . sese extollebat. (Liv. 22.12.11–12); Tragoedias primus in lucem Aeschylus protulit sublimis et gravis et grandilocus saepe usque ad vitium, sed rudis in plerisque et incompositus. (Quint. Inst. 10.1.66)

21.22 Pragmatic considerations When adjectives of relative position such as primus (see § 21.4) are used as secondary predicate, they often convey salient information.⁷⁹ This is demonstrated by (a), where postrema is the essential element in explaining the name Neapolis. Something similar is the case with the superlative eloquentissimos in (b). Secondary predicates, though, share this aspect of saliency with many optional constituents at the clause or phrase level, and it is not the reason why these specific forms are chosen: in many situations, the corresponding adverbs postremum and eloquentissime would convey salient information as well. (a)

Quarta autem est (sc. urbs) quae, quia postrema coaedificata est, Neapolis nominatur. (‘There is also a fourth city, which, because it was the last built, is called Neapolis.’ Cic. Ver. 4.119)

(b)

. . . omnium mihi videor, exceptis, Crasse, vobis duobus, eloquentissimos audisse Ti. et C. Sempronios . . . (‘. . . of all men to whom I have listened except you two, Crassus, it seems to me that the most eloquent were Tiberius and Gaius Sempronius . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 1.38)

21.23 Quantifiers and related expressions seemingly functioning as secondary predicate Adjectives of amount such as unus, multus, paucus, plerusque, plurimus, and nullus; the universal quantifiers omnis and cunctus; the binary quantifiers uter, uterque, and neuter; and the distributive quantifiers quisque and singuli can all be used as attributes ⁷⁹ See K.-St.: I.234: ‘Such expressions convey the essential message of the sentence.’ See also Scherer (1975: 191, n. 13).



Secondary predicates

at the noun phrase level, as is discussed in §§ 11.33–4 and 36–7. Unlike most ‘normal’ adjectives, these quantifiers cannot be used as subject or object complement, and attestations for the adjectives of amount in a quantitive sense are rare (see below). They can, however, all be used in a similar way to the use of the secondary predicates which are discussed in §§ 21.2–16. Examples are (a) and (b). In (a), omnes is related to the subject homines, but in view of its position it is very unlikely that it is an attribute that forms a noun phrase with homines. In (b), the distributive quantifier quisque is related to the (implicit) subject of faciebant; obviously it cannot be an attribute at all.⁸⁰ Both omnes and quisque can be omitted without producing an ungrammatical sentence, making them comparable to satellites. (a)

Homines qui gestant quique auscultant crimina, / si meo arbitratu liceat, omnes pendeant . . . (‘People who spread and listen to accusations would all be hanged, if I could have my way . . .’ Pl. Ps. 427–8)

(b)

Pro se quisque sedulo / faciebant quo illam mihi lenirent miseriam. (‘Every one of them was doing his very best to soothe my grief.’ Ter. Hau. 126–7)

In this Syntax, adjectives of amount and other quantifiers used in this way are called floating quantifiers, borrowing a term that was developed in the theory of generative grammar.⁸¹ The term ‘floating’ was introduced to describe the difference between sentences like (i) and (ii). (i) All the men have found their way home. (ii) The men have all found their way home. In the generative approach, (ii) is regarded as transformationally derived from (i) by a rule called Quantifier-Floating which displaces the attribute all from its position in (i) to its position in (ii). The term ‘floating’ is not very apt for a language like Latin, in which word order is mainly determined by pragmatic factors and in which attributive quantifiers can also be separated from their heads (see the end of this section).

Adjectives of amount and quantifiers can also be used in the same range of relations that secondary predicates are shown to cover in § 21.16. This is illustrated in (c)–(h) with omnis. For omnis related to a subject, see (a) above. In (c), it is related to the object ea; in (d), to the indirect object nobis; in (e), to the agent ab . . . vobis; in (f), to the beneficiary adjunct nobis; in (g), to the attribute quorum; in (h), to nobis, which is governed by iratior, itself a secondary predicate. (c)

At ea subterfugere potis es pauca, si non omnia. (‘But you can escape a little of it, if not all.’ Pl. Capt. 970)

⁸⁰ For the use of quisque and related words as floating quantifiers, see Bertocchi and Maraldi (2010b). ⁸¹ See Pinkster (1983: 206).

Quantifiers and related expressions  (d)

. . . quas ille leges . . . fuerit impositurus nobis omnibus atque inusturus? (‘. . . what laws was that man intending to impose upon all of us, to brand on our foreheads?’ Cic. Mil. 33)

(e)

Sic enim existimare debetis . . . rem nullam maiorem . . . magis ab omnibus vobis providendam neque a tribuno pl. susceptam . . . (‘For you should realize . . . that never has any project more important, . . . more in need that all of you should guard against it, been undertaken by a tribune of the people . . .’ Cic. Rab. Perd. 4)

(f)

Deos volo bene vortere / istam rem vobis. # Et ego nobis omnibus. (‘I wish that the gods may bless you in this. # And I wish they may bless us all.’ Pl. Cur. 658–9)

(g)

Quorum omnium testimoniis de hac Dionis pecunia confirmatum est. (‘By all of whose evidence this case about Dio’s money was fully established.’ Cic. Ver. 2.23)

(h)

. . . cum multo nobis (cj. Christ; bonis mss.) omnibus veniret iratior quam illis fuerat quos trucidarat . . . (‘. . . especially as he was coming hither much more angry with all of us than he had been with those whom he had massacred there . . .’ Cic. Phil. 3.4) Supplement: Adjectives of amount (in alphabetical order): Audi viros bonos, quibus multis uteris. (Cic. Phil. 10.6); . . . omnibus maioribus natu quorum ego multorum cognovi senectutem sine querela . . . (Cic. Sen. 7); Maiores nos res scribere ingressos, C. Trebati, et his libris quos brevi tempore satis multos edidimus digniores e cursu ipso revocavit voluntas tua. (Cic. Top. 1); . . . quae non prosunt singula, multa iuvant. (Ov. Rem. 420); . . . ill’ qui vocavit nullus venit? (Pl. Rud. 143);⁸² Huc pauci vestris adnavimus oris. (Verg. A. 1.538); Neque esse crudele . . . hominum nocentium et horum quoque paucorum suppliciis remedia populis innocentibus . . . quaeri. (Cels. 1.pr.26); Pleraeque eae (sc. meretrices) sub vestimentis secum habebant retia. (Pl. Epid. 216); . . . respondebo ad ea quae dixisti, quae pleraque de ipso me fuerunt. (Cic. Planc. 58); (sc. insidiae) Quas ille plerasque vitavit. (Nep. Dat. 9.2); Ipsum animal non, ut remur plerique, vitae hominum supervacuum est . . . (Plin. Nat. 8.135);⁸³ . . . periculis etiam quae plurima adii . . . (Cic. Phil. 12.21); . . . nedum ii quibus saluti fuisti, quos tu habes plurimos, non intellegant . . . (Q. Cic. Pet. 21); . . . ut iam a laqueis Stoicorum, quibus usum me pluribus quam soleo intellego, recedamus . . . (Cic. Tusc. 5.76); Qui mihi unus uni, privato amico, eadem omnia dedit quae universae rei publicae, salutem, otium, dignitatem. (Cic. Red. Pop. 16); Est enim illius a quo uno maxime P. Sestius se oppugnari videt . . . (Cic. Sest. 132); . . . re publica restituta super omnes mortales gloriam agitabis tuaque unius mors vita clarior erit. (Sal. Rep. 2.13.6–7);⁸⁴ Quas cum solus pertulisset, ut sua unius in his gratia esset . . . (Liv. 2.8.3)⁸⁵

⁸² See also § 8.33. ⁸³ For a Late and unreliable example of the use of plerusque as subject complement, see TLL s.v. 2431.42f. ⁸⁴ On this passage, and the expression tua unius as such, see Szantyr (1974). See also ex. (l). ⁸⁵ For further examples, see K.-St.: I.245–6.



Secondary predicates The use of exiguam in (i) can be regarded as an extension of the uses illustrated so far. Cicero follows Epicurusච words m{lhl }z€Ÿ ~‡r .l{pw.j.~pt.⁸⁶ (i) Ita fit beatae vitae domina fortuna, quam Epicurus ait exiguam intervenire sapienti. (‘Consequently happiness becomes the slave of fortune; yet Epicurus says that fortune interferes with the Wise Man but little.’ Cic. Fin. 2.89) Appendix: Solus ‘alone’ can be used in the same way as adjectives of amount and quantifiers, as in ( j) and (k), and resembles unus, as is shown in (l).⁸⁷ ( j) Eripit etiam spem quae sola homines in miseriis consolari solet. (‘He takes away even hope, which alone can comfort men in their miseries.’ Cic. Catil. 4.8) (k) . . . qui ordo a vobis adhuc solis contemptus est. (‘. . . the order that you, and thus far only you, have treated with contempt.’ Cic. Ver. 4.26) (l) Solius enim meum peccatum corrigi non potest et fortasse Laeli. (‘For I am the only one whose error cannot be repaired, except perhaps Laelius.’ Cic. Att. 11.15.2) Universal quantifiers: Advortite animum cunctae. (Pl. Ps. 187); . . . quae amica es frumentariis, / quibus cunctis montes maxumi frumenti [acervi] sunt domi. (Pl. Ps. 188–9); Nec tamen haec sat sunt ad sensum cuncta creandum . . . (Lucr. 3.238); Ergo agite et laetum cuncti celebremus honorem. (Verg. A. 5.58); Sic erimus cuncti, postquam nos auferet Orcus. (Petr. 34.10—NB: part of a verse text quoted by Trimalchio)⁸⁸ Nam res plurumas pessumas, quom advenit, fert, quas si autumem omnis, nimis longus sermo est. (Pl. Men. 759–60); Nunc adeo hanc edictionem nisi animum advortetis omnes . . . (Pl. Ps. 143); . . . nonne id agendum nobis omnibus fuit ut materiem subtraheremus furori tuo? (Cic. Dom. 11); . . . cur omnium horum magister, Orata, non iucundissime vixerit? (Cic. Fin. 2.70); . . . quorum omnium gratiam atque amicitiam eius morte redimere posset. (Caes. Gal. 1.44.12); Non omnis moriar multaque pars mei / vitabit Libitinam. (Hor. Carm. 3.30.6–7) Binary quantifiers:⁸⁹ Loquere, uter meruistis culpam . . . (Pl. Men. 779) . . . cum amica sua uterque accubitum eatis . . . (Pl. Bac. 755); Pariter hos perire amando video, uterque insaniunt. (Pl. Cur. 187); Sed nunc agite uterque id quod rogabo dicite. (Pl. Men. 1105); . . . ut (sc. naves) vehementissime utraque ex concursu laborarent (laboraret N2) . . . (Caes. Civ. 2.6.5); Nam uterque cum illo gravis inimicitias exercebat (v.l. exercebant). (Sal. Cat. 49.2); Perinde legati provinciaeque cunctabantur, Hordeonius Flaccus . . .Vettius Bolanus . . . et uterque ambigui. (Tac. Hist. 2.97.1)

⁸⁶ ⁸⁷ ⁸⁸ ⁸⁹

See Dougan ad loc. See also § 18.14 on quasi-secondary predicates. For a rare instance of an attributive use of solus, see: mea sola et sera voluptas in Verg. A. 8.581–2. It is also found as an epitaph in inscriptions. See Smith ad loc. and Schmeling ad loc. For notional agreement with these binary quantifiers, see § 13.30.

Quantifiers and related expressions  NB: plural: Sed tamen nostra legens non multum a Peripateticis dissidentia, quoniam utrique Socratici et Platonici volumus esse, de rebus ipsis utere tuo iudicio . . . (Cic. Off. 1.2) Quotiens tandem edixi tibi / ut caveres neuter ad me iretis cum querimonia? (Pl. Men. 784–5) Distributive quantifiers:⁹⁰ . . . sibi quisque habeant quod suom est. (Pl. Cur. 180); Ubi vos separatim sibi quisque consilium capitis . . . (Sal. Cat. 52.23); Suam quisque culpam auctores ad negotia transferunt. (Sal. Jug. 1.5); . . . ambo exercitus, Veiens Tarquiniensisque, suas quisque abirent domos. (Liv. 2.7.1); Dimisso conventu decem legati . . . ad liberandas suae quisque regionis civitates discesserunt . . . (Liv. 33.35.1); Sic unus quisque proximi periculi confinio territus suppetiatum decurrunt anxii. (Apul. Met. 4.10.4); . . . nos non facimus Dei voluntatem . . . unusquisque sibi placentes et omnibus displicentes. (Cypr. Ep. 11.1) NB: verb agrees with quisque: Ut enim pictores et ii qui signa fabricantur et vero etiam poetae suum quisque opus a vulgo considerari vult . . . (Cic. Off. 1.147); Deinde multi . . . sibi quisque, si in armis foret, ex victoria talia sperabat. (Sal. Cat. 37.6) . . . binae singulis quae datae ancillae nobis . . . (Pl. Poen. 222); . . . non facile est dicere (sc. casus) similis esse, si eorum singulorum solum animadvertas voces . . . (Var. L. 10.29); Tria sunt omnino genera dicendi quibus in singulis quidam floruerunt . . . (Cic. Orat. 20); Vobis vero, patres conscripti, singulis et egi et agam gratias. (Cic. Red. Sen. 30); . . . et pastilli fiunt, qui singuli habeant P. ܼ =, hique singuli quotidie mane ieiuno dantur. (Cels. 5.20.6); Evenit etiam ut oculi vel ambo vel singuli minores fiant quam esse naturaliter debeant. (Cels. 6.6.14); Non potest pro omnibus agi pro quibus singulis non potest. (Sen. Con. 10.4.13) A difficult passage, not just in terms of its meaning,⁹¹ is (m). This seems to be a rare instance of omnis as a subject complement. (m) Ex hac nostra paucitate quarta pars militum praesidio inpedimentis relicta erat. Nec ignavissimum quemque relinqui ad custodiam sarcinarum scitis. Sed fuerimus omnes. (‘Out of this small force of ours, one-quarter of the men were left to guard the baggage; and you know that the guarding of the packs is not put in the hands of the most cowardly. But suppose we had been united.’ Liv. 44.38.6–7) Appendix: Ambo (see § 11.35) can be used in the same way as the quantifiers already discussed, as in (n). The totality expression totus (see § 11.38) can also be used in this way, as in (o).⁹² (n) A quo missi Dioscorides et Serapion, qui ambo legati Romae fuerant . . ., ad Achillan pervenerunt. (‘Dioscorides and Serapion, who had both been envoys at Rome, were commissioned by him (sc. the king) and came to Achillas.’ Caes. Civ. 3.109.4)

⁹⁰ See Bortolussi (2013). ⁹¹ See Briscoe ad loc. He translates: ‘suppose there were all of us’. ⁹² For the instances in Plautus, see Lodge s.v. totus § II.2.



Secondary predicates (o) Convorret iam hic me totum cum pulvisculo. (‘He’ll sweep me away to the last speck of dust now.’ Pl. Rud. 845)

When a quantifier is related to an explicit noun or noun phrase in its clause, it can be difficult to decide whether it is part of the noun phrase (in which case it is an attribute) or a floating quantifier. This is best illustrated by (p), which is often cited in grammars to explain the ‘predicative’ use of omnis and is much discussed in the literature.⁹³ In reality, it is a discontinuous attribute, as in (q), where omnis modifies natio Gallorum. Gallia is the topic of its clause. It is the very first word in Caesar’s account and in fact is the most suitable word with which to begin, since every reader knew the name Gallia. Est tends to be placed after a pragmatically prominent word (see § 23.33) and so omnis ends up in third position.⁹⁴ In (q), natio is the topic as well. Attributive omnis is difficult to translate with an attributive equivalent in a number of modern languages, but in Latin the use of omnis to describe an entity that is split up into parts is idiomatic, as is shown by (r).⁹⁵ (See also § 21.3 fin. for similar interpretive problems with other secondary predicates.) (p)

Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres, quarum unam incolunt Belgae . . . (‘The whole of Gaul is divided into three parts, one of which is inhabited by the Belgae . . .’ Caes. Gal. 1.1.1)

(q)

Natio est omnis Gallorum admodum dedita religionibus . . . (‘The whole nation of the Gauls is greatly devoted to ritual observances . . .’ Caes. Gal. 6.16.1)

(r)

Is pagus appellabatur Tigurinus. Nam omnis civitas Helvetia in quattuor pagos divisa est. (‘The name of that district was the Tigurine; for the whole state of Helvetia is divided into four districts.’ Caes. Gal. 1.12.4)

21.24 Ipse and idem Ipse is discussed in detail in §§ 11.143–7. Its status as a secondary predicate is apparent from examples like (a)–(c). In none of these can ipse be understood as an argument or a satellite on its own, nor can it be understood as an attribute. (a)

Putavit me et aetate et benevolentia / plus scire et providere quam se ipsum sibi. (‘He reckoned that given my age and concern for him I was wiser than he was and had a better understanding of what was good for him.’ Ter. Hau. 115–16)

(b)

Cuius ipsius quam constet esse artem non invenimus. (‘There is known to be a textbook from his hand, but I have not seen it.’ Cic. Inv. 2.7)

⁹³ Inter alios by Müller (1990). ⁹⁴ On this example, see also Adams (1994b: 64). ⁹⁵ See TLL s.v. omnis 612.49ff. ‘per abundantiam quandam in describendis terris vel mundo’. For the use of omnis as distinct from totus in (p) and with geographical names in general, see Nuti (2019). For the word order possibilities of omnis, see Devine and Stephens (2006: 507–11).

Co-occurrence of secondary predicates and related expressions (c)



Omitto igitur quae de his ipsis (sc. Crasso et Antonio), quae de Cotta, quae de Sulpicio, quae modo de Caelio dixeris. (‘I pass over therefore what you said of them, what you said of Cotta, of Sulpicius, and what you have just said of Caelius.’ Cic. Brut. 297)

A number of the uses of idem that are discussed in § 11.142 fin. resemble that of ipse above. An additional example is (d). (d)

. . . in illas tibi maiores plagas incidendum est in quibus te ab eodem me . . . confici et concidi necesse est. (‘. . . it will only be to fall into a much more formidable snare, entangling you wherein I cannot fail . . . to dispatch you and do away with you.’ Cic. Ver. 5.151)

21.25 Co-occurrence of various secondary predicates and related expressions in the same clause Since the constituents discussed in the preceding sections belong to different lexical categories and have different relationships to the constituents that they expand, it is not surprising to find more than one of these secondary predicates used to expand the same constituent, as in (a). This resembles the occurrence of multiple modifiers with the same head noun in a noun phrase, as discussed in § 11.75. Two further examples are (b) and (c). (a)

Ubi sunt isti scortatores qui soli inviti cubant? (‘Where are those lechers who are reclining alone against their will?’ Pl. Am. 287)

(b)

Nam cum ipsius victoriae condicione omnes victi occidissemus, clementiae tuae iudicio conservati sumus. (‘For though, by the conditions of the victory itself, we who were conquered were all ruined, we still have been preserved by the deliberate decision of your clemency.’ Cic. Marc. 12)

(c)

(sc. senatores) Clausos omnis in curiam accipite, solos, inermis. (‘As they are enclosed there, every one of them, in the Senate House, seize them, left alone, unarmed!’ Liv. 23.3.2) Supplement: . . . ilico omnes simul / laetae exclamant ‘venit’ . . . (Ter. Hec. 367–8); . . . me lugenti patriae, flagitanti senatui, poscenti Italiae, vobis omnibus orantibus reddiderunt. (Cic. Sest. 145); Qui omnes trepidi inproviso metu ac tamen virtutis memores aut arma capiebant aut . . . (Sal. Jug. 97.5); . . . qui modo ipsi exercitum ante moenia Romana habuissent victores . . . (Liv. 29.3.10)

CHAPTER 22

Information structure and extraclausal expressions

This chapter deals with quite diverse topics, all of which, however, have in common that they concern the role of the speaker/writer and the addressee in the formulation of a message and its expression in terms of clauses, sentences, and units of discourse. The way a speaker/writer structures the information in sentences depends, among other things, on the knowledge the speaker/writer and addressee have of the communicative situation and of the matter that is communicated, including their knowledge of each other’s knowledge. This is illustrated in Figure 22.1, where P stands for (pragmatic) knowledge, S for speaker, A for addressee, and (PA)S and (PS)A for the knowledge the speaker and addressee have of their knowledge of each other. Speaker

Addressee

(PA)S

PS

(PS)A

PA

Figure 22.1 Mutual knowledge of Speaker and Addressee Source: Dik (1997: I.11)

The relevant aspects of the structuring of information are discussed in §§ 22.1–16. In addition, the speaker can indicate his personal involvement by adding emphasis to parts of the information he conveys to the addressee (§§ 22.17–42). Other means to indicate the interaction between the participants are discussed in §§ 22.43–56.

22.1 The information structure of clauses The mutual exchange of information that is in some way relevant to the current situation is central to verbal interaction between human beings. In a dialogical situation

The Oxford Latin Syntax. Harm Pinkster, Oxford University Press (2021). © Harm Pinkster. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199230563.003.0022

The information structure of clauses 827 with two participants the speaker (S) may tell the addressee (A) something he thinks A will find useful or interesting because he does not know it or expects something else, or S may simply want to tell A something he himself finds noteworthy. Conversely, S may try to obtain from A information he is missing or is not certain about. Thus, in (a), Lydus’ answers to a number of (constituent) questions by Mnesilochus adequately fill the gap of information of the latter (for this example and more responses of this type, see §  6.38). A more elaborate answer can be seen in (b), also repeated from § 6.38. Here the relevant information is eri concubina. (a)

Ubi ea mulier habitat? # Hic. # Unde eam esse aiunt? # Ex Samo. / # Quae vocatur? # Bacchis. (‘Where does this woman live? # Here. ( points to Bacchis’ house) # Where do people say she’s from? # From Samos. # What’s she called? # Bacchis.’ Pl. Bac. 472–3)

(b)

Quis illaec est mulier? # Pro di immortales, / eri concubina est haec quidem. (‘Who is that girl? # Immortal gods, this is master’s concubine.’ Pl. Mil. 361–2)

For the part of a clause that conveys the information that the speaker presents as most relevant for the addressee, this Syntax uses the term focus; in other words, that part fulfils the pragmatic function of focus. In a clause there is (usually only) one part that has the focus function. In cases like (a) and (b), where the focus constituents fill a gap in the information held by the addressee, the term completive focus will be used. Just as in English and other modern languages, it is usually not difficult to determine the focus in answers to constituent questions. It is also sometimes easy to recognize the focus element in answers to sentence questions. In (c), sum is the first focus. In the following coordinated clause noster . . . Leonida is the focus. (c)

Tune es adiutor nunc amanti filio? / # Sum vero, et alter noster est Leonida. (‘Are you now an accomplice of my son in his affair? # I am indeed, and the other is our Leonida.’ Pl. As. 57–8)

For a communicative act to be successful the speaker/writer should take into account the expectations, both intellectual and social, of his addressee, as well as the linguistic and extralinguistic context in which this act is performed.1 The speaker/writer will therefore, if possible, start with something he assumes to be known to or in some way accessible for the addressee. This is illustrated by (d)—repeated from §  2.12 and § 5.3—and (e). In (d), Terentia, Cicero’s wife, is known to Cicero’s addressee, his dear friend Atticus, and therefore an ideal starting point for the message conveyed by the clause. The newsworthy information for Atticus is that Terentia has an attack of rheumatism. For the function of Terentia in the information structure of the clause the term topic will be used, whereas magnos articulorum dolores (habet) is the focus of the clause. In (e), Messalla consul is the most likely candidate to be presented as the 1 For the important role of the addressee in the formulation of the speaker/writer’s message, see Chafe (1994: 54–5), Dik (1997: I.8–9), and already Ammann (1911: 3–4). See also § 11.101 on the referring use of nouns and noun phrases.

828

Information structure and extraclausal expressions

entity about whom further information is provided. It can be assumed that Atticus knew him and, as a consequence, he can serve as topic of the clause. It is also likely that Autronius’ house was known to both Cicero and Atticus, but as an inanimate entity it is a less attractive candidate for the function of topic than animate Messalla. The price is the most surprising element in the message, as appears from the following context—in fact, it is the focus of the clause. (d)

Terentia magnos articulorum dolores habet. (‘Terentia has a bad attack of rheumatism.’ Cic. Att. 1.5.8)

(e)

Messalla consul Autronianam domum emit HS |CXXXIIII|. (‘Consul Messalla has bought Autronius’ house for 13,400,000 sesterces.’ Cic. Att. 1.13.6)

Whereas in (a)–(c) and in (e) individual constituents function as focus, in (d) the focus is more complex. The sentence can be thought of as an answer to a question like ‘How is it going with Terentia?’ In this context, neither magnos articulorum dolores nor habet alone is focus, but rather it is the combination that is newsworthy. For this type of focus this Syntax uses the term complex focus. Further details are discussed in § 22.9. The terms ‘focus’ and ‘topic’ are taken from Dik’s Functional Grammar. As for the term ‘focus’, some linguists make a distinction between ‘information focus’ on the one hand and ‘intonation focus’ or ‘emphasis’ on the other. This corresponds more or less with ‘focus’ and ‘emphasis’ in this Syntax. (See also § 22.19.) The term ‘topic’ is also used in other linguistic frameworks, among other things in the sense of ‘known’ or ‘given information’. Although the constituent that functions as topic in the sense of this Syntax is often ‘known’, it need not be so, nor is a ‘known’ entity necessarily the topic of the clause. The terms ‘topic’ and ‘focus’ correspond roughly with the terms ‘theme’ and ‘rheme’ of the Prague school of linguistics.2

While some clauses demonstrate a clear split between a topical and a focal part, there are also clauses without such a split. Such clauses are sometimes called ‘thetic’ or ‘allnew’.3 An example is (f), a presentative sentence, in which a completely new situation is presented (for further discussion, see § 22.11). In (g), the sentence marks a break in the storyline. Although res refers to the preceding situation and istius is known to the audience, the sentence is not presented as being ‘about them’; it is ‘the event as such which is the main message’.4 (For the position of the verb, typical of this type of sentence, see § 23.45.) Another type is the first sentence in (h), an entirely new fact, used by Cicero to support the philosophical point he is making. Ex. (i) illustrates a familiar

2 For a Prague school approach to Latin word order, see Panhuis (1982). 3 For the term ‘thetic’, see Ulrich (1985), Sasse (1987), Devine and Stephens (2006), Goria (2013). 4 For ‘all-new’ sentences, see Spevak (2010a: 43–4), from which ex. (h) is taken. The other quotation is a paraphrase of K.-St.: II.599, from which (g) is taken.

Topic

829

technique in historical prose. Here the main clause starts with repente to mark the unexpectedness of the event.5 (f)

Erant omnino itinera duo quibus itineribus domo exire possent. (‘There were two routes, and no more, by which they could leave their homeland.’ Caes. Gal. 1.6.1)

(g)

Pervenit res ad istius (sc. Verris) auris nescio quo modo. (‘These facts somehow or other came to the knowledge of Verres.’ Cic. Ver. 4.64)

(h)

Karthaginienses multi Romae servierunt, Macedones rege Perse capto. Vidi etiam in Peloponneso, cum essem adulescens, quosdam Corinthios . . . (‘Many Carthaginians served as slaves at Rome, many Macedonians after the capture of King Perses. I have seen too in the Peloponnese some Corinthians, when I was young . . .’ Cic. Tusc. 3.53)

(i)

Volux adveniens quaestorem (sc. Sullam) appellat dicitque se a patre Boccho obviam illis simul et praesidio missum. Deinde eum et proxumum diem sine metu coniuncti eunt. Post ubi castra locata et diei vesper erat, repente Maurus (sc. Volux) incerto voltu pavens ad Sullam adcurrit dicitque . . . (‘Upon arriving, Volux addressed the quaestor, saying that he had been sent by his father Bocchus to meet them and serve as protection at the same time. Then they journeyed in union that day and the next without any alarm. Afterward, when the camp was pitched and it was evening, the Moor suddenly with a troubled expression ran in terror to Sulla and said that . . .’ Sal. Jug. 106.1–2)

A clause normally contains one topic and one focus constituent. In the case of sentences (in fact, also of clauses) that consist of more than one clause, for example a main and a subordinate clause, each clause can have a topic and a focus. Also, a subordinate clause can be the topic or focus constituent of the main clause (see § 23.64).

22.2 Topic Topic is the element of a clause about which the speaker chooses to present further information to the addressee. In the sections below, the following aspects are discussed: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

What is the relationship between the topic and the subject of a clause? What makes an element of a clause eligible for the function of topic? What kind of constituents can function as topic? What are the formal properties of a topic?

5 For this use of repente (and subito), see Chausserie-Laprée (1969: 549–59) and Torrego (2005).

830

Information structure and extraclausal expressions

22.3 Topic and subject In this Syntax, the subject is defined as the constituent in a finite clause with which the finite verb shows agreement in person and number (see § 2.12). The term ‘perspective’ is used for the description of active/passive variation: in an active clause the state of affairs is presented from the perspective of the agent (which in practice is also the subject), in a passive clause from the perspective of the patient (see §  5.2). In the European grammatical tradition ‘subject’ is defined as ‘the person or thing of which we speak’ and a clause or sentence is defined as the combination of a subject and the predicate, which in turn is defined as ‘the declaration respecting’ the subject.6 This definition of ‘subject’ resembles the definition of ‘topic’ in this Syntax, so a few examples to show the difference are in order. In (a), filius meus is both subject and topic of the clause. This coincidence is common when the entity is a human being (see also (d) and (e) in § 22.1), but it is by no means necessary, as is shown by (b) and (c). In (b), filium tuom is object and topic; the subject is an unexpressed first person (vidi). Ex. (c) shows an anaphoric expression ad ea, a direction adjunct and topic; Caesar is subject of the clause. More examples of topics which are not subject can be found in the following sections. (a)

Filius meus illic apud vos servit captus Alide. (‘My son was taken prisoner and is a slave there, at your place, in Elis.’ Pl. Capt. 330)

(b)

Nunc hanc laetitiam accipe a me quam fero. Nam filium / tuom modo in portu Philopolemum vivom, salvom et sospitem / vidi . . . (‘Now receive from me the joy I’m bringing: I just saw your son Philopolemus in the harbour, alive, safe, and sound . . .’ Pl. Capt. 872–4)

(c)

Haec quam potest demississime et subiectissime exponit (sc. Afranius). Ad ea Caesar respondit . . . (‘He laid out this case as humbly and submissively as possible. To this Caesar replied . . .’ Caes. Civ. 1.84.5–85.1)

22.4 Eligibility of constituents for the function of topic A speaker can select a constituent as topic of a clause if he thinks it is identifiable for the addressee.7 In the case of an ‘all-new’ situation, as discussed in § 22.1, in which the  context does not provide a clue, general or encyclopedic knowledge of the speech participants concerning the entities involved may determine which entity the speaker selects as the topic of the clause. This is the case with sol ‘the Sun’ in 6 The words are Roby’s (1882: II.6). K.-St.: I.1–2 and Ernout and Thomas (1953:2) are comparable. ‘Thus the subject is often described as the constituent defining the topic of the sentence—that which the sentence is “about” and which it presupposes as its point of departure’ (Quirk et al. 1985: 78–9—their own approach is different). 7 For the following sections I am much indebted to Spevak (2010a: Ch. 2).

Topic

831

(a): everybody is familiar with the Sun and there is no need for an introduction. Certain regions and peoples also constitute encyclopedic knowledge and can be used as topic without further introduction, for example the various regions of Italy in (b). In (c), Caesar uses Helvetii without explicitly introducing them either because he counted on the knowledge of his readers or because he expected that the readers were able to infer that this must be another people after the three already mentioned (see the discussion of ex. (n) below). (a)

Male facis properantem qui me commorare. Sol abit. (‘It isn’t right of you to delay me in my hurry. The sun is setting.’ Pl. Mer. 873)

(b)

Campania plerumque boves progenerat albos . . . Umbria vastos et albos . . . Etruria et Latium conpactos . . . Appenninus durissimos . . . (‘Campania generally produces white oxen . . . Umbria breeds huge white oxen . . . Etruria and Latium breed oxen which are thick-set . . ., the oxen bred in the Apennines are very tough . . .’ Col. 6.1.1)

(c)

Qua de causa Helvetii quoque reliquos Gallos virtute praecedunt . . . (‘For this cause the Helvetii also excel the rest of the Gauls in valour . . .’ Caes. Gal. 1.1.4)

Certain entities that are not identifiable on the basis of general knowledge can be uniquely identified on the basis of the situation in which the speech participants are involved. In (d) and (e), the identity of the persons to whom the relational nouns (see § 3.6) dominus and pater refer is determined by the identity of the speakers. In Cato’s de Agri Cultura, there can be no doubt who is meant by vilicus and dominus in (f). In (g), there can be no doubt which door is meant by fores: it is the door of the procuress Cleareta’s house. In English the identifiability of the common nouns in these examples appears from the use of a definite article or a possessive adjective, whereas in Latin there is no such device. (d)

Dominus me boves mercatum Eretriam misit. (‘My master has sent me to Eretria to buy oxen.’ Pl. Per. 322)

(e)

Pater nunc intus suo animo morem gerit. (‘My father’s now enjoying himself inside.’ Pl. Am. 131)

(f)

Vilicus, si nolet male facere, (sc. familia) non faciet. Si passus erit, dominus impune ne sinat esse. (‘If the overseer sets his face against wrongdoing, they will not do it. If he allows it, the master must not let him go unpunished.’ Cato Agr. 5.2)

(g)

Alienum hominem intro mittat neminem. / Quod illa aut amicum aut patronum nominet, / aut quod illa amicai amatorem praedicet, / fores occlusae omnibus sint nisi tibi. (‘She shall not let any male outsider in. Even if she describes him as a friend or patron, or if she says that he is the lover of a female friend of hers, the door shall be shut for everyone except you.’ Pl. As. 756–9)

832

Information structure and extraclausal expressions

Within a speech situation the personal pronouns ego, tu, nos, and vos have naturally identifiable referents. Demonstrative pronouns and determiners are explicit means to make entities in the speech situation identifiable. In other communicative situations there are also specific means to present an entity as identifiable for the addressee and thereby to make it eligible as topic of its clause, such as anaphoric determiners, possessive adjectives, and nouns in the genitive, as discussed in § 11.103. By contrast, quidam can be used to explicitly mark an entity as not identifiable for the addressee (see § 11.114). Anaphoric pronouns and demonstrative pronouns used anaphorically often function as topic of their clause, as in (h). These sentences are the beginning of the final part of a lengthy belated prologue spoken by the god Auxilium, which contains information that the audience has already learned by this point in the play. They know that there is a problematic relation between a young man Alcesimarchus and a young woman Selenium caused by the young man’s father. Although the audience already knows which adulescens is meant, Auxilium introduces him as if he were unknown (hence, the use of the indefinite article in the translation ‘a young man’), with adulescens occupying the first position in its clause. The first position is typical for topics (see also below), but focus constituents are not excluded from the first position, especially when there is contrast with another entity (as pater in line 195).8 In the next clause adulescens is continued by the anaphoric pronoun ei, an experiencer satellite (dativus sympatheticus—see § 10.96). It is then continued by is, the subject of its clause. In the following coordinated clause illa is the subject and hunc the topic. Although the girl has been mentioned just before, illa is used instead of ea in order to mark the contrast with hunc. (h)

Adulescens hic est Sicyoni. Ei vivit pater. / Is amore proiecticiam illam deperit / quae dudum flens hinc abiit ad matrem suam, / et illa hunc contra, qui est amor suavissimus. (‘There’s a young man here in Sicyon. His father is alive. He is crazy about that abandoned girl who went off to her mother a moment ago, crying, and she in turn is crazy about him, which is the sweetest kind of love.’ Pl. Cist. 190–3)

Entities that have not been introduced into the discourse nor constitute general or encyclopedic knowledge can still be treated as topic if they can easily be inferred from another entity that is identifiable for the addressee. A term used for this phenomenon is associative anaphora or subtopic.9 An illustration is Vitruvius’ discussion of the construction of baths in (i), where after the mention of balinearum dispositionum he successively presents the constituent parts. Note that the noun phrase magnitudines balneorum in 5.10.4 can also be treated as topic.

8 Interestingly, almost the same text is transmitted earlier in the play (lines 125 and 130–2), with the expected expression adulescens quidam. Editors deal with the passage in various ways, often deleting it completely. 9 For the term ‘associative anaphora’, see Hawkins (1978); for ‘subtopic’, see Dik (1997: I.323–5). Exx. (i) and (j) are repeated from LSS § 12.2.1.

Topic (i)

833

Quoniam haec nobis satis videntur esse exposita, nunc insequentur balinearum dispositionum demonstrationes. Primum eligendus locus est quam calidissimus, id est aversus ab septentrione et aquilone. Ipsa autem caldaria tepidariaque lumen habeant ab occidente hiberno . . . Suspensurae caldariorum ita sunt faciendae ut . . . Concamarationes vero si ex structura factae fuerint, erunt utiliores . . . Magnitudines autem balneorum videntur fieri pro copia hominum . . . Laconicum sudationesque sunt coniungendae tepidario . . . (‘As it appears that we have given an adequate account of them, next will follow descriptions of the arrangements of baths. In the first place, the warmest possible situation must be selected; that is, one which faces away from the north and northeast. The rooms for the hot and tepid baths should be lighted from the southwest . . . The hanging floors of the hot bath rooms are to be constructed as follows . . . The vaulted ceilings will be more serviceable if built of masonry . . . The size of the baths must depend upon the number of the population . . . The Laconicum and other sweating baths must adjoin the tepid room . . .’ Vitr. 5.9.9–10.5)

In the situation in which the dialogue in ( j) takes place, two pairs are being spied upon, each consisting of a man and woman. Hominem can be inferred from the situation. (It is not at the beginning of the sentence, because novistine is an emphatic focus with the question particle-ne—see §  6.11.) Note that in the last sentence the topic hominem is not expressed (marked ‘Ø’), a case of zero-anaphora (for unexpressed objects, see § 9.16). ( j)

Vide’n convivium? / # Video exadvorsum Pistoclerum et Bacchidem. / # Qui sunt in lecto illo altero? # Interii miser. / # Novistine hominem? # Ø Novi. (‘Can you see the party? # I can see Pistoclerus and Bacchis right opposite. # Who are the ones on that other couch? # Dear me, I’m dead. # Do you know the man? # I do.’ Pl. Bac. 834–7)

Especially in so-called technical texts, like those of Celsus and Pliny the Elder,10 different aspects of the subject matter can be easily used as topics of the clauses and sentences devoted to it, such as, in the case of Celsus, ‘disease’, ‘period of the year’, or ‘treatment’, as in (k) and (l). (k)

Stomachum autem infirmum indicant pallor, macies, praecordiorum dolor, nausea, et nolentium vomitus, in ieiuno dolor capitis. (‘Weakness of the stomach is indicated by pallor, wasting, pain over the heart, nausea, and involuntary vomiting, headache when the stomach is empty.’ Cels. 1.8.2)

(l)

Vere autem maxime quaecumque humoris motu novantur in metu esse consuerunt. (‘In spring those diseases are usually to be apprehended which are stirred up anew by movement of humour.’ Cels 2.1.6)

10 For an illustration from Pliny the Elder, see Pinkster (2005: 254–6).

834

Information structure and extraclausal expressions Something related can be observed in lists of activities that can be expected to take place in a certain situation, as in (m). Here Varro, one of Caesar’s opponents, organizes a number of actions to prepare for military operation. Entities that have not been mentioned before may occupy the first position in its clause, as Gaium Gallonium in sentence (v).11 (m) (sc. Varro) . . . se quoque ad motus fortunae movere coepit. (i) Dilectum habuit tota provincia, legionibus conpletis duabus cohortes circiter XXX alarias addidit. (ii) Frumenti magnum numerum coegit, quod Massiliensibus, item quod Afranio Petreioque mitteret. (iii) Naves longas X Gaditanis ut facerent imperavit, conplures praeterea [in] Hispali faciendas curavit. (iv) Pecuniam omnem omniaque ornamenta ex fano Herculis in oppidum Gadis contulit. (v) Eo sex cohortes praesidii causa ex provincia misit Gaiumque Gallonium, equitem Romanum familiarem Domiti, qui eo procurandae hereditatis causa venerat missus a Domitio, oppido Gadibus praefecit. (vi) Arma omnia privata ac publica in domum Galloni contulit. Ipse habuit graves in Caesarem contiones. (‘. . . Then Varro’s movements began to mirror those of Fortune. (i) He recruited troops throughout his province, bringing his two legions up to strength and supplementing them with about thirty cohorts of allies. (ii) He collected a large quantity of grain to send to Marseilles and also to Afranius and Pompey. (iii) He ordered Cadiz to make ten warships and arranged for the construction of several more in Hispalis. (iv) He moved all of the money and treasures from the temple of Hercules into the town of Cadiz. (v) To guard the town he sent six cohorts from the province. He also put Gaius Gallonius, a Roman of equestrian rank and a friend of Domitius, in charge of Cadiz; Gallonius was already there, having been sent by Domitius as his agent for an inheritance. (vi) Varro moved all weapons, privately owned and public, into Gallonius’ house. He made speeches critical of Caesar.’ Caes. Civ. 2.17.4–18.3)

For entities that are not known or accessible in one of the ways mentioned, the speaker/writer must use a certain strategy to introduce them into the discourse and make them eligible for topic function. In (n), at the beginning of his Commentarii, Caesar introduces the three peoples that inhabit Gallia. These peoples were probably unfamiliar to most readers and are for that reason introduced at the end of their clauses. A late or final position in the clause for such entities that will function as topic further on in the discourse is common in many languages.12 At their first introduction they function as focus. Once introduced they can head passages that contain 11 Spevak (2010a: 41) takes it as an instance of ‘focus first’. For the use of unintroduced topics in a list, see Jones (1991: 85–6); he uses the term ‘extension’. 12 See Dik (1997: I.315–18).

Topic

835

geographical or other details, as in (o).13 In other words, they have become given topics. Other examples of the introduction of non-accessible entities are (p) and (q), which are both presentative sentences (on which see § 22.11). (n)

Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres, quarum unam incolunt Belgae, aliam Aquitani, tertiam qui ipsorum lingua Celtae, nostra Galli appellantur. (‘Gaul as a whole is divided into three parts, one of which is inhabited by the Belgae, another by the Aquitani, and a third by a people called in their own tongue Celtae, in the Latin Galli.’ Caes. Gal. 1.1.1)

(o)

Belgae ab extremis Galliae finibus oriuntur . . . (‘The Belgae begin from the edge of the Gallic territory . . .’ Caes. Gal. 1.1.6)

(p)

Erat cum eo Mithrobarzanes, socer eius, praefectus equitum. (‘He had with him Mithrobarzanes, his father-in-law, as commander of his cavalry.’ Nep. Dat. 6.3)

(q)

Erant in quadam civitate rex et regina. (‘In a certain city there were a king and queen.’ Apul. Met. 4.28.1)

The identifiability of an entity in one of the ways discussed above is a necessary condition for its being eligible for the function of topic of its clause. However, the identifiability of an entity does not entail its being chosen as the topic, as is shown by (r). Belgae is mentioned here for the third time and so is well known by this point. However, it fulfils the function of focus, being the answer to the underlying question ‘who are the bravest of these three peoples?’ (r)

Horum omnium fortissimi sunt Belgae . . . (‘Of all these peoples the Belgae are the most courageous . . .’ Caes. Gal. 1.1.3)

An entity can continue to function as topic over a longer or shorter stretch of discourse. If an entity is maintained over a longer stretch it is usually not repeated as a full lexical item; instead, anaphoric expressions, zero-anaphora, and connecting relatives are used (see also § 11.136, and § 24.5 on ‘anaphoric reference’). This is illustrated by (s). After it is introduced as a full lexical item, Orgetorix returns first as an anaphoric pronoun and then in the form of zero-anaphora.14 (s)

Apud Helvetios longe nobilissimus fuit et ditissimus Orgetorix. Is . . . coniurationem nobilitatis fecit et civitati persuasit ut de finibus suis cum omnibus copiis exirent. . . . Id hoc facilius iis Ø persuasit, quod undique loci natura Helvetii continentur. (‘Among the Helvetii the noblest man by far and the most wealthy was Orgetorix. He . . . formed a conspiracy of the nobility, and he persuaded the community to march

13 Caesar’s introduction is slightly chaotic, and earlier editors have proposed various ways to eliminate difficulties. See, for example, Meusel ad 1.1.5–7. 14 For strategies to continue once-introduced topics, see Tóth (1994: 178–83). Ex. (t) is discussed by Kroon (2009a: 117–18). For the conditions under which zero-anaphora is possible, see also Longrée (2012).

836

Information structure and extraclausal expressions out of their territory in full force. . . . In this he persuaded them the more easily, because the Helvetii are closely confined by the nature of their territory.’ Caes. Gal. 1.2.1)

When an entity ceases to be a topic and is replaced by one or more other entities but is then reintroduced after a while as a resumed topic, it usually needs the same kind of introduction as discussed above. An example is (t).15 As the author explicitly states, this Varus had been introduced before (in Civ. 1.23.2). (t)

Erat in exercitu Vari Sextus Quintilius Varus, quem fuisse Corfinii supra demonstratum est. Hic dimissus a Caesare in Africam venerat . . . (‘Sextus Quintilius Varus, whose presence at Corfinium was mentioned above, was in Attius Varus’ army. He had come to Africa after his release by Caesar.’ Caes. Civ. 2.28.1)

However, reintroduction is not necessary if an entity has become familiar enough in the preceding discourse. Thus, in his Commentarii, Caesar does not need what we might call the normal treatment, nor does Jugurtha in Sallust’s Bellum Iugurthinum. Such entities function as discourse topic.16 An illustration is (u). In (u)(i), the beginning of this section, which follows an account of the present situation by the Gaul Liscus, there is a change of topic, from Liscus to Caesar. For that reason Caesar is in first position. Note that anaphoric hac oratione, which summarizes Liscus’ speech, is not in its usual first position.17 In (ii), Caesar is continued by zero-anaphora, as is Liscus. In (iii), there is a change of topic, but Liscus has been introduced well enough and the situation as a whole is sufficiently transparent, so explicit mention is not necessary. In the same way, the switch back to Caesar in (iv) without explicit mention is unproblematic, as is its continuation in (v). After the rather lengthy report on Dumnorix Caesar is continued as topic, but due to the distance between (v) and (vi) some form of explicit mention is required: anaphoric expressions cannot be used, so the proper name is required. Since a clause-initial position of Caesar would suggest a change of topic, it is placed later in the clause. Another example is (v).18 Here a sequence of three actions by Caesar is interrupted in (iii) by Crassus’ reaction to Caesar’s order (Crassus is already mentioned as the recipient of the order in (i) and (ii)). Note that in (iii) Crassus is in final position, so as to prevent the reader from assuming a complete change of topic, while at the same time avoiding assigning the action of exiting to Caesar. (u)

(i)

Caesar hac oratione Lisci Dumnorigem, Diviciaci fratrem, designari sentiebat . . . concilium dimittit, Liscum retinet. (ii) Quaerit (sc. Caesar) ex solo (sc. Lisco) ea quae in conventu dixerat. (iii) Dicit (sc. Liscus) liberius atque audacius.

15 The example is taken from Spevak (2010a: 60). 16 See Spevak (2010a: 60; 67–73), with references. 17 For the position of summarizing hic expressions in Caesar and Sallust, see Spevak (2010a: 82–5). 18 For this example and more complicated cases in which the topic has to be reconstructed from the preceding context, see Jones (1991) and especially (2000).

Topic

837

(iv) Eadem secreto ab aliis quaerit (sc. Caesar). (v) Reperit (sc. Caesar) esse vera. (Findings concerning Dumnorix, seven paragraphs) (vi) Reperiebat etiam in quaerendo Caesar . . . ((i) ‘Caesar felt that Dumnorix, the brother of Diviciacus, was indicated in these remarks of Liscus . . . he speedily dismissed the meeting. He kept Liscus back. (ii) He questioned him separately on his statement in the assembly. (iii) Liscus now spoke with greater freedom and boldness. (iv) Caesar questioned others privately upon the same matters. (v) He found that it was so. . . . (vi) Caesar discovered also in the course of his questioning . . .’ Caes. Gal. 1.18.1–10)

(v)

(i) Caesar acceptis litteris hora circiter undecima diei statim nuntium in Bellovacos ad M. Crassum quaestorem mittit, cuius hiberna aberant ab eo milia passuum XXV. (ii) Iubet (sc. Caesar) media nocte legionem proficisci celeriterque ad se venire. (iii) Exit cum nuntio Crassus. (iv) Alterum ad C. Fabium legatum (sc. Caesar) mittit, ut in Atrebatium fines legionem adducat, qua sibi iter faciendum sciebat. (v) Scribit (sc. Caesar) Labieno . . . ((i) ‘Caesar received the dispatch about the eleventh hour of the day, and at once sent a messenger into the country of the Bellovaci to Marcus Crassus, the quartermastergeneral, whose winter quarters were 25 miles away from him. (ii) He bade the legion start at midnight and come speedily to him. (iii) Crassus marched out on receipt of the message. (iv) Another envoy was sent to Gaius Fabius, the lieutenant-general, bidding him bring his legion into the borders of the Atrebates, through which Caesar knew he himself would have to march. (v) He wrote instructions to Labienus . . .’ Caes. Gal. 5.46.1–3)

Discourse topics differ from regular (or: clause) topics in their relative freedom of position. They may be preceded by clause topics and setting constituents. Examples are (w) and (x), respectively. In (w), partly repeated from § 22.3, Caesar follows the topic constituent ad ea; in (x), the summarizing ablative absolute clause (a setting constituent—see § 22.15) his rebus confectis. (w)

Ad ea Caesar respondit nulli omnium has partis vel querimoniae vel miserationis minus convenisse. (‘To this Caesar replied: “Anyone would be more suitable than you to deliver either reproaches or appeals for pity.” ’ Caes. Civ. 1.85.1)

(x)

His rebus confectis Caesar, ut reliquum tempus a labore intermitteretur, milites in proxima municipia deducit. Ipse ad urbem proficiscitur. (‘After finishing this business Caesar withdrew his men to towns in the immediate vicinity to give them a temporary break from exertion. He himself set out for Rome.’ Caes. Civ. 1.32.1)

838

Information structure and extraclausal expressions In certain contexts readers probably had no problem in recognizing persons that are introduced at the very beginning of the text as topic of the clause to which they belong. In his letters of recommendation Cicero often starts without a proper introduction, as in (y). (y) Hagesaretus Larisaeus magnis meis beneficiis ornatus in consulatu meo memor et gratus fuit . . . (‘Hagesaretus of Larisa received substantial favours at my hands when I was Consul and held them in grateful memory . . .’ Cic. Fam. 13.25.1)

22.5 Types of constituents that function as topic The concept of ‘topic’ concerns the part of a clause about which a speaker/writer provides further information. Most of the examples discussed so far are nouns, noun phrases, and pronouns referring to animate beings or inanimate objects. However, this is not necessarily always the case: in (s) in §  22.4, id refers to the content of Orgetorix’ advice in the preceding context; it is object of its clause. In (a) below, ea res refers to the apparition of Jupiter and the disorienting effect of it on the people in Amphitryon’s house, as described in the preceding text. In (b), the adverbs ibi and ibidem function as place adjunct and as topic. In (c), the combination of the verb and its object implet . . . corpus continues inplere se in the preceding context and can therefore be taken as a topic constituent. Another example is (d). Note the parallelism of patrem vita privare and parricidae. It is, however, disputed among scholars whether such combinations, which are not ‘constituents’ in the technical sense, can be used as topic.19 (a)

Iam ea res me horrore afficit. (‘The previous events were already filling me with terror.’ Pl. Am. 1068)

(b)

Nam apud nos est convivium. / Ibi voster cenat cum uxore adeo et Antipho. / Ibidem erus est noster. (‘Well, at our place there is a banquet. There your master is dining with his wife, actually, and Antipho, and our master is in the same place.’ Pl. St. 664–6)

(c)

Ante omnia autem norit quisque naturam sui corporis . . . Tenuis vero homo  inplere se debet, plenus extenuare . . . Implet autem corpus modica exercitatio . . . (‘But above all things everyone should be acquainted with the nature of his own body . . . So then a thin man ought to fatten himself up, a stout one to thin himself down . . . Now the body is fattened: by moderate exercise . . .’ Cels. 1.3.13–15)

(d)

Patrem vita privare si per se scelus est, Saguntini, qui parentes suos liberos emori quam servos vivere maluerunt, parricidae fuerunt.

19 For a discussion of what she calls an ‘extended Topic unit’, see (Helma) Dik (1995: 64–70). Ex. (d) is taken from K.-St.: II.591 from their section on emphatic anteposition (‘betonte Voranstellung’).

Focus 839 (‘If to rob a father of life is in itself a crime, the people of Saguntum who chose that their own parents should all die free men rather than live as slaves were guilty of parricide.’ Cic. Parad. 24)

22.6 Formal properties of topics Unlike subjects, which are usually recognizable by their case form and by their agreement with the finite verb of the clause, topics have no formal marking in Latin, nor are there special suffixes or particles which mark them as topics. The only common feature of explicit topics is their position in the clause, usually the first (possible) position, as most of the examples in the previous sections have shown. This is discussed in more detail in § 23.42. At this point it is important to note that the statement that explicit topics usually are in first position cannot be reversed: not all constituents in first position are topics. Focus constituents are also quite common.20

22.7 Focus The focus part of a clause provides information about the topic of that clause which the speaker considers in some way noteworthy for the addressee. This is illustrated by the question–answer pairs in § 22.1, one of which is repeated here as (a). (a)

Quis illaec est mulier? # Pro di immortales, / eri concubina est haec quidem. (‘Who is that girl? # Immortal gods, this is master’s concubine.’ Pl. Mil. 361–2)

In instances like (a), determining which part of the clause constitutes the focus is relatively easy, because these clauses are a response to an explicit request for information by one of the speech participants, and they are also relatively short. However, question–answer pairs are only a minority among the communicative acts, and the question is how one can decide what constitutes the focus of a clause in other situations. Even when it comes to questions, the decision is more difficult when the answer is more complex than the one in (a). This is illustrated by (b) and (c). In (b), a sequence of accusative and infinitive sentences forms the answer that corresponds to quid in the preceding question and each sentence has its own internal pragmatic structure. In (i), me is the topic (a discourse topic), in contrast with te (another discourse topic) in (ii). In the absence of data concerning intonational prominence (stress, for example), it is not immediately clear which element in the remainder of (i) is the most informative: tibi, the entire action facinora puerilia obicere, or facinora puerilia alone. Although tibi has an apposition with it (istuc aetatis homini), before and after which there probably was a pause, it is given information and therefore not a likely candidate to be regarded as focus. In terms of newsworthiness for the 20 See de Jong (1989: 527): ‘There is no straightforward relation between Topic function and first position in the clause.’

840

Information structure and extraclausal expressions

addressee, facinora puerilia seems the best candidate. This interpretation is also supported by the appositionlike continuation of facinora puerilia after the verb and the anaphoric pronoun ea in the next sentence. Note that in (i) there is also a clauseinternal contrast between me and tibi, as there is in (ii), but in a different way. The focus functions in the two coordinated clauses in (ii) are fulfilled by expetere (ex opibus summis) and ire opitulatum, respectively. (b)

At hoc me facinus miserum macerat / meumque cor corpusque cruciat. # Quid id est quod cruciat? Cedo. / # (i) Me tibi, istuc aetatis homini, facinora puerilia / obicere, nec te decora nec tuis virtutibus. / (ii) Ea te expetere ex opibus summis mei honoris gratia / mihique amanti ire opitulatum . . . (‘But this fact vexes me and tortures my heart and body. # What is it that tortures you? Tell me. # (i) That I’m imposing on you, a man of your age, juvenile concerns appropriate neither for yourself nor for your character. (ii) That you seek these with all your might for my sake and come to help me in my love . . .’ Pl. Mil. 616–21)

In (c), the slave Chrysalus wants to instruct his young master Mnesilochus to write in his own name the usual greeting formula to his father. Next he will dictate the main message of the letter (from line 735 onwards). However, Mnesilochus interrupts him. It is not immediately clear which of the three constituents in Chrysalus’ continuation of his instruction (salutem, tuo patri, and verbis tuis) is focus. That the letter is intended for Mnesilochus’ father has been said before. That the letter will start with a salutem formula is to be expected in such a situation. So verbis tuis is the least expected element and for that reason a good candidate for the function of focus. However, Pistoclerus, Mnesilochus’ friend, sarcastically reinterprets the sentence in the next line, replacing salutem by morbum mortem and so changing the focus to salutem: the first thing to write is a salutation. (c)

Quod iubebo scribito istic. Nam propterea volo / scribere, ut pater cognoscat litteras quando legat. / Scribe— # Quid scribam? # Salutem tuo  patri verbis tuis. / # Quid si potius morbum mortem scribat? Id erit rectius. (‘Write there what I tell you. For I want you to write for the simple reason that your father may recognize your handwriting when he’s reading it. Write— # What should I write? # A hearty greeting to your father in your name. / What if he’s writing a greeting of illness and death to him? That’ll be more to the point.’ Pl. Bac. 729–32) It is also possible to take tuo patri as the attibute of salutem. This may be the intention of the Loeb translation. Of course, one can also assume a pause after patri and interpret verbis tuis as a second focus. NB: Verbis tuis does not mean ‘in your own words’, as the Loeb has it. It must mean a ‘personal’ address from Mnesilochus to his father (as it is indeed further on: Mnesilochus salutem dicit suo patri. (line 734)). See Barsby ad loc. and OLD s.v. verbum § 14.

In order to be able to use the term ‘focus’ in a way that can be verified by the users of this Syntax, three sections will be devoted to the following questions:

Focus 841 (i) (ii) (iii)

What makes a part of a clause focus? What kinds of linguistic constituents can function as focus? How can we identify focus constituents?

NB: In this section the term ‘focus’ is used both for a ‘part of the clause’ and for ‘constituent’. In (b) for example facinora puerilia obicere is not really a constituent of the clause in the technical sense of ‘constituent’; rather, it is a combination of a verb and its object constituent. In § 22.8 examples of focus are discussed that concern a part of a word. For ease of exposition these differences will be ignored and the term ‘constituent’ will be used throughout.

22.8 What makes a constituent of a clause focus? The preceding sections have shown several examples of entities that are introduced into the discourse for the first time and thus constitute the most important or relevant part of their clause in terms of informativity. In these cases focus is related to the ‘newness’ of the entity in its context. An example is (a), repeated from § 22.4. Orgetorix can be thought of as the answer to an underlying question, ‘who was the most important person among the Helvetians?’ In the dialogue in (b), repeated from § 22.1, eri concubina is not ‘new’, strictly speaking, but it is the answer that fills the gap of information that the addressee has explicitly indicated. The term completive focus is used for this type of focus.21 (a)

Apud Helvetios longe nobilissimus fuit et ditissimus Orgetorix. (‘Among the Helvetii the noblest man by far and the most wealthy was Orgetorix.’ Caes. Gal. 1.2.1)

(b)

Quis illaec est mulier? # Pro di immortales, / eri concubina est haec quidem. (‘Who is that girl? # Immortal gods, this is master’s concubine.’ Pl. Mil. 361–2)

Apart from this ‘completive’ type, there are other types of focuses where the information transmitted to an addressee is not ‘new’ as in the above cases, but constitutes a modification of the previous knowledge of the addressee or of his expectations. This is illustrated by three question/answer pairs in (c)–(e). In (c), the answer confirms that Philocomasium iam left while adding dudum. In (d), the time of the friendship is specified more precisely by the addition of present tense est. Both (c) and (d) are examples of expanding focus. In (e), the information of the person who asks the question is incorrect. Eius frater functions as replacing focus. (c)

Philocomasium iam profecta est? Dic mihi. # Iam dudum. (‘Has Philocomasium left already? Tell me. # Already long ago.’ Pl. Mil. 1428–9)

(d)

Fuitne hic tibi amicus Charmides? # Est et fuit. (‘Didn’t you have Charmides here as a friend? # I do and I did.’ Pl. Trin. 106)

21 For the various types of focus discussed in this section, see Dik (1997: I.330–5). Also Revuelta (1999: 698–702).

842 (e)

Information structure and extraclausal expressions Rogitabant: ‘hicine Achilles est?’ inquit mihi. ‘Immo eius frater,’ inquam, ‘est.’ (‘They kept asking. “Is this Achilles?” says one to me. “No,” I say, “it’s his brother” .’ Pl. Mil. 62)

A fourth type of focus is shown in (f). In Rome two activities were connected with the observation of signs from heaven: spectio and nuntiatio. Augurs had only the right of nuntiatio. Nuntiationem in (f) is a restricting focus, as becomes clear also through the presence of the restrictive particle solum (and the continuation with etiam).22 (f)

Nos (sc. augures) enim nuntiationem solum habemus, consules et reliqui magistratus etiam spectionem. (‘For we augurs only possess the right to report an unfavourable omen, whereas consuls and the rest of the magistrates also have the right to look for omens.’ Cic. Phil. 2.81)

Ex. (g) is an interesting instance of a change of topic and focus in dialogue. Here the slave Acanthio has announced bad news to his young master Charinus, who in his impatience interrupts him. Whereas tuam amicam vidit (a completive focus) is the planned focus in Acanthio’s message about the topic tuos pater, the interruption causes a shift due to which tuam amicam becomes topic (eam) and vidit becomes the (completive) focus of the message—indeed for Charinus the most unexpected and unwelcome part of the message (as the text that follows shows). (g)

Tuos pater — # Quid meus pater? / # Tuam amicam — # Quid eam? # Vidit. # Vidit? Vae misero mihi! (‘Your father— # What about my father? # Your girlfriend— # What about her? # He’s seen her. # He’s seen her? Poor wretched me!’ Pl. Mer. 180–1)

22.9 Complex focus As the examples in § 22.8 show, the focus can be a word or a phrase with a clear lexical meaning, as in (a)–(c), but it can also concern morphological information, as in (d), where it is the difference in tense that is relevant in the situation. The focal part of the message can also be a combination of words which do not form a (syntactic) constituent of the clause or sentence, as in (e) and (f) above. Another example is (a) below, with (legiones) ex castris educit as a complex focus unit. The sentence answers the underlying question: what did Varus do? Note the continuation with facit idem.23 Another example is (b), where the action is summarized by qua re animadversa. Support verb constructions often function as pragmatic units, as can be seen in (c),  where insidias fieri is a complex focus.24 Just as in the case of negation and of 22 There is one more type of focus recognized by Functional Grammar, viz. selecting focus. See Dik (1997: I.331–5). 23 See Spevak (2010a: 38). 24 For the term ‘complex focus’, see Dik (1995: 71–3). Compare Spevak (2010a: 44), who prefers the term ‘complex information’. Ex. (b) is taken from Spevak (2010a: 44–5). See also Wachter (2004).

Focus 843 questions, we can make a distinction in the scope of focus. Given the diversity of linguistic constituents that function as focus, it is in such cases better to speak of ‘focus units’ than of ‘focus constituents’. (a)

Qua opinione adductus Varus postero die mane legiones ex castris educit. Facit idem Curio . . . (‘Induced by this view of things Varus led his troops out of camp the following day. Curio did the same.’ Caes. Civ. 2.27.3)

(b)

Qui omnes discessu Curionis multique praeterea per simulationem vulnerum ex castris in oppidum propter timorem sese recipiunt. Qua re animadversa . . . (‘After Curio’s departure all of the wounded men (and many, too, pretending to be wounded) withdrew from the camp into the city because of their fear. Observing this . . .’ Caes. Civ. 2.35.5–6)

(c)

Quoniam videmus auro insidias fieri, / capimus consilium continuo. (‘Since we saw that a trap was being set for the gold, we made a plan at once.’ Pl. Bac. 299–300)

22.10 How can we identify focus constituents? As with topics, our Latin texts contain no specialized markers of focus constituents, with the exception of a few enclitic particles (see below on -ne, for example). Apart from question/answer pairs as discussed in the preceding sections, the identification of focus constituents must mainly be based on an analysis of the context and the situation in which the utterances occur. Trying to formulate an underlying question to which the given utterance may be a response can be helpful, as shown in the preceding sections. However, there are also a few formal indicators of focality.25 The specifying indefinite determiner quidam (see § 11.114 and § 22.4) can be used with a newly introduced entity and in that way can indirectly signal a focus constituent, as in (a). Note that the noun phrase is continued by the anaphoric pronoun is.26 (a)

Epidamniensis quidam ibi mercator fuit. / Is puerum tollit avehitque Epidamnum eum. (‘There was a certain merchant from Epidamnus there. He picked the boy up and carried him off to Epidamnus.’ Pl. Men. 32–3)

Complexity in terms of enumeration, coordination, and repetition may also function as a signal of focality, as in (b) and (c).27 Note in (c) the use of inquam to indicate insistence.28 25 See Spevak (2010a: 39–56). For the methodology of establishing focus in ancient texts (in casu Hittite), see Goedegebuure (2009). 26 For this use of quidam, see Rosén (1998: 728–31). 27 Taken from Spevak (2010a: 39–40). 28 Forms of inquam often follow an emphatic or focal constituent, but they cannot be taken as a systematic signal of emphasis of focality. See Spevak (2010a: 163–4).

844 (b)

Information structure and extraclausal expressions Frumenti vim maximam ex Thessalia, Asia, Aegypto, Creta, Cyrenis reliquisque regionibus comparaverat. (‘Pompey had procured a very large quantity of provisions from Thessaly, Asia, Egypt, Crete, Cyrene, and the other regions.’ Caes. Civ. 3.5.1)

(c)

. . . reddat misero patri filiam. Membra quae debilitavit lapidibus . . . restituere non potest. Filiam, filiam inquam, aerumnoso patri, Deciane, redde. (‘. . . let him restore the daughter to her miserable father: for the limbs which he has weakened with stones . . . those he cannot restore. The daughter—restore the daughter, I say, O Decianus, to her unhappy father.’ Cic. Flac. 73)

There are various other means to give prominence to one or more constituents of a sentence. Correlative coordinate constructions may either mark constituents as equally important (for example by et . . . et) or indicate that one constituent is more important than the other (for example by non solum . . . sed etiam—see § 19.65). These two forms of coordination can be described as devices that signal expanding focus. Epitactic conjoins usually contain an element with expanding focus (see §  19.67). Prepositional phrases with pro in its meaning ‘instead of ’ can be used to replace one entity by another, as in (d) (replacing focus).29 The preposition praeter ‘besides’, ‘except’ has been described in a similar way.30 (d)

. . . ei pro scorto supponetur hircus unctus nautea. (‘. . . for him a goat, perfumed with bilge water, will be substituted in place of a prostitute.’ Pl. Cas. 1018)

Latin has a number of ‘emphasizing particles’, which are, however, not limited to focus constituents. They are discussed in §§ 22.20–40. Two particular sentence structures are discussed in the following sections.

22.11 Presentative sentences ‘Presentative sentences’ serve to introduce or to reintroduce an entity into the discourse.31 They typically contain an existential verb (for example, sum ‘to be’ (see § 4.94), appareo ‘to appear’) or a locative verb (for example sum ‘to be somewhere’ (see § 4.42), habito ‘to live’), which can be used as indirect signals of the focus status of their argument. Examples are (a)–(f). See also ex. (a) in § 22.8 with the copula sum. In such sentences the focus constituent is most often in final position, but compare (b) and (d). The verb is most often in an initial position, as in (a) and (c), but, again, compare (b) and (d). For a presentative subordinate clause, see (e). An example of reintroduction is (f). 29 For ‘replacive’ pro phrases, see Revuelta (1999). For further examples, see TLL s.v. pro 1425.41ff. 30 See Torrego (1998) and Revuelta (1999). 31 On presentative sentences, see Bolkestein (1995), Rosén (1998), Spevak (2004; 2010a: 187–93), and Cabrillana (2010a). For examples, see also Devine and Stephens (2006: 208–13), who note that Cato has the verb sum mostly in final position.

Focus 845 (a)

Est Euboicus miles locuples, multo auro potens, / qui ubi tibi istam emptam esse scibit atque hanc adductam alteram, / continuo te orabit ultro ut illam tramittas sibi. (‘There’s a wealthy soldier from Euboea who owns a lot of gold. As soon as he knows that the first girl has been bought by you and that this second has been brought here, he’ll ask you of his own accord to send the first over to him.’ Pl. Epid. 153–5—NB: continuation in a relative clause)

(b)

In eo flumine (sc. Axona) pons erat. Ibi praesidium ponit . . . (‘There was a bridge over the river. He set a guard there . . .’ Caes. Gal. 2.5.6)

(c)

Erat vallis inter duas acies, ut supra demonstratum est, non ita magna, at difficili et arduo ascensu. Hanc uterque si adversariorum copiae transire conarentur . . . (‘There was a ravine between the two lines, as was indicated above. It was not particularly large but had a difficult and steep ascent. Each side waited to see whether the adversary’s forces would attempt to cross it . . .’ Caes. Civ. 2.34.1)

(d)

Palus erat non magna inter nostrum atque hostium exercitum. Hanc si nostri transirent, hostes exspectabant. (‘Between our own and the enemy’s army was a marsh of no great size. The enemy waited to see whether our men would cross it.’ Caes. Gal. 2.9.1)

(e)

Sed cum esset inter bina castra campus circiter milium passuum VI, Domitius castris Scipionis aciem suam subiecit . . . (‘Moreover, although there was level ground between the two camps for about six miles, Domitius positioned his line close to Scipio’s camp . . .’ Caes. Civ. 3.37.2)

(f)

Erant omnino itinera duo quibus itineribus domo exire possent: unum per Sequanos . . . Relinquebatur una per Sequanos via, qua Sequanis invitis propter angustias ire non poterant. (‘There were two routes, and no more, by which they could leave their homeland. One through the territory of the Sequani . . . There remained only the route via the territory of the Sequani, by which they could not march without the consent of the Sequani, on account of its narrowness.’ Caes. Gal. 1.6.1–9.1) Supplement: Verb-initial: Fuit olim quidam senex / mercator. Navim is fregit apud Andrum insulam. (Ter. An. 221–2); Fuit apud Segestanos ex aere Dianae simulacrum cum summa atque antiquissima praeditum religione tum singulari opere artificioque perfectum. Hoc . . . (Cic. Ver. 4.72); Quin etiam, si quis est paulo ad voluptates propensior, modo ne sit ex pecudum genere, sunt enim quidam homines non re sed nomine, sed si quis est paulo erectior . . . (Cic. Off. 1.105); Erat eo loco fossa pedum XV et vallum contra  hostem in altitudinem pedum X . . . (Caes. Civ. 3.63.1); Erat una cum ceteris Dumnorix Haeduus, de quo a nobis antea dictum est. (Caes. Gal. 5.6.1); Erat unus intus Nervius nomine Vertico, loco natus honesto, qui a prima obsidione ad Ciceronem perfugerat suamque ei fidem praestiterat. Hic servo spe libertatis magnisque persuadet praemiis ut litteras ad Caesarem deferat. (Caes. Gal. 5.45.2–4); Erat idem temporis

846

Information structure and extraclausal expressions Sex. Pompeius frater qui cum praesidio Cordubam tenebat, quod eius provinciae caput esse existimabatur. (B. Hisp. 3.1);32 Accedebant muliebres offensiones novercalibus Liviae in Agrippinam stimulis . . . (Tac. Ann. 1.33.3); Fuit in senatu Iunius Rusticus, componendis patrum actis delectus a Caesare eoque meditationes eius introspicere creditus. Is . . . (Tac. Ann. 5.4.1); Erat uarchus in ea classe Volusius Proculus, occidendae matris Neroni inter ministros, non ex magnitudine sceleris provectus, ut rebatur. Is . . . (Tac. Ann. 15.51.2); . . . incipit: ‘Erant in quadam civitate rex et regina.’ (Apul. Met. 4.27.8–28.1); Et trans vallem apparebat mons sanctus Dei Syna. (Pereg. 1.1) Verb non-initial: Haec urbs est Thebae. In illisce habitat aedibus Amphitruo. (Pl. Am. 97–8); Mercator quidam fuit Syracusis senex. / Ei sunt nati filii gemini duo . . . (Pl. Men. 17–18); Adulescens quidam est qui in hisce habitat aedibus. / Is rem paternam me adiutrice perdidit. (Pl. Trin. 12–13); Collis erat leniter ab infimo acclivis. Hunc . . . (Caes. Gal. 7.19.1); Seneca fuit, cuius nomen ad vos potuit pervenisse, ingenii confusi ac turbulenti, qui cupiebat grandia . . . (Sen. Suas. 2.17)

22.12 Cleft sentences Latin has a special construction to mark a constituent as the focus of the message.33 It looks similar to what is called a ‘cleft sentence’ in English grammar, exemplified by (a), which can be compared with (b). Whereas in (b) the salience of his callousness is expressed by word order, the information is divided into two clauses in (a) and his callousness has a clause of its own.34 (a) (b)

It is his callousness that I shall ignore. His callousness I shall ignore.

Latin examples are (c) and (d). They consist of a subject constituent, a form of the copula sum ‘to be’, and an autonomous relative clause that functions as subject complement. The subject of the copula is often in some way in contrast with another entity, explicit or implicit. In (c), there is a dispute about the identity of the person who hired the addressee, as is shown by the reaction. This explains the use of the cleft construction for ego, which is already by itself pragmatically marked (see § 9.2). In (d), Charilaus has been introduced into the discourse together with his colleague. He (and not his colleague) is selected as the focus for further information. An example of an interrogative cleft sentence is (e) (see also § 6.21 fin.).35 An example of ‘parallel focus’ (see § 22.18) is (f). (c)

Non ego sum qui te dudum conduxi. # Quid est? / Immo hercle tu istic ipsu’s. (‘I’m not the one who hired you a while ago. # What’s that? No, you yourself are the one.’ Pl. Mer. 758–9)

32 This example is disputed. Some take it as an instance of the cleft construction. For discussion, see Löfstedt (1966: 265–6) and Hoffmann (2016b: 204). 33 See Löfstedt (1966; 2000: 99–100), Goria (2013), and Hoffmann (2016b). 34 The examples and part of the formulation are taken from Quirk et al. (1985: 1383–7). See also Lehmann (1984: 358–63). 35 For the instances in Plautus, see Lodge: II.454B.

Focus 847 (d)

Charilaus et Nymphius, principes civitatis, communicato inter se consilio partes ad rem agendam divisere . . . Charilaus fuit qui ad Publilium Philonem venit . . . (‘Charilaus and Nymphius, their principal citizens, took counsel together, and arranged the part that each should play in order to bring this about. . . . It was Charilaus who went to Publilius Philo . . .’ Liv. 8.25.9–10)

(e)

Epidice! # Epidicum quis est qui revocat? # Ego sum Periphanes. (‘Epidicus! # Who is it that’s calling back Epidicus? # It is I, Periphanes.’ Pl. Epid. 201)

(f)

Neque tu eras tam excors tamque demens ut nescires Cloelium esse qui contra leges facere, alios qui leges scribere solerent. (‘And yet you were not so senseless and so infatuated as not to know that it was Cloelius’ part to act in defiance of the laws, and the business of others to formulate them.’ Cic. Dom. 48) Supplement: Si enim quid liceat quaeritis, potestis tollere e civitate quem voltis. Tabella est quae dat potestatem. (Cic. Rab. Post. 11); Nequitia est quae te non sinit esse senem. (Ov. Fast. 1.414); ‘Scythia est quo mittimur’, inquam, / ‘Roma relinquenda est, utraque iusta mora.’ (Ov. Tr. 1.3.61–2); Caeninenses Crustuminique et Antemnates erant ad quos eius iniuriae pars pertinebat. (Liv. 1.10.2); Dii maiores sunt qui me restituerunt in integrum. (Petr. 140.12); Deinde ubi Caesarem esse qui grassaretur pernotuit . . . (Tac. Ann. 13.25.2); . . . nostrum genus est cui debetur regnum caelorum, non illi generi qui induuntur purpura . . . (August. Serm. 14.3); Mons erat qui clamabat: . . . (August. Serm. 46.17) Si magno emerat, quoniam tu es qui pretia diligentissime exquisisti, qui, ut ais, magno vendidisti, quare putabas emptori lucrum addi oportere? (Cic. Ver. 3.71); Ego sum qui nullius vim plus valere volui quam honestum otium . . . (Cic. Fam. 5.21.2); Ego sum cui Marte peracto / quae populi regesque tenent donare licebit. (Luc. 7. 299–300); . . . audita est vox ‘tu es, Rufe, qui in hanc provinciam pro consule venies.’ (Tac. Ann. 11.21.1); Non tu es qui dicis: ‘Donata sunt tibi peccata tua’? (August. Serm. 16A.4) Verum totum insanum amare, hoc est quod meus erus facit. (Pl. Cur. 177); Pro Iuppiter, / hic est quem ego tibi misi natali die. (Pl. Cur. 655–6); Nempe hoc est quod illi dedi. (Pl. Men. 535); Haec ego doleo, haec / sunt quae med excruciant, haec dies / noctesque tibi canto ut caveas. (Pl. Trin. 287ab); Praeterea scio hunc esse in quem potissimum Iuppiter se convertit . . . (Var. R. 2.5.5); Hoc est quod unum’st pro laboribus tantis. (Catul. 31.11); Et hoc est quod ante omnia constituere in animo suo debeat orator . . . (Quint. Inst. 3.6.12); . . . ‘Hic est’, inquit, ‘apud quem cubitum ponitis . . .’ (Petr. 27.4); Hi sunt in quibus propheticus sermo conpletur. (Hier. Ep. 21.13.3) Sed quid est tandem quod indicat per istum puerum Cornelius? (Cic. Sul. 51); Quis est cui magis ignosci conveniat, quoniam me ad XII tabulas revocas, quam si quis quem imprudens occiderit? (Cic. Tul. 51); Quid est quod Petro recusanti dicit? (Hier. Ep. 18A.12.1) It is not always clear whether the subject of the copula is in contrast with another entity, and therefore individual instances can be disputed. This is the case with (g).36

36 Quoted as a cleft construction by Löfstedt (1966: 81), but rejected as such by Goria (2013: 155–6).

848

Information structure and extraclausal expressions Here the sentence starting with temperantia can either be regarded as a normal definition of what temperantia means, or, preferably, as a cleft sentence, in which temperantia is implicitly contrasted with the other cardinal virtues. (g) Eademque ratione ne temperantiam quidem propter se expetendam esse dicemus, sed quia pacem animis afferat et eos quasi concordia quadam placet ac leniat. Temperantia est enim quae in rebus aut expetendis aut fugiendis ut rationem sequamur monet. (‘The same principle will lead us to pronounce that temperance also is not desirable for its own sake, but because it bestows peace of mind, and soothes the heart with a tranquillizing sense of harmony. For it is temperance that warns us to be guided by reason in what we desire and avoid.’ Cic. Fin. 1.47)

The copula usually follows the subject and precedes the relative pronoun, as in the examples above.37 Also cited in this context are instances like (h) and (i), which have a determiner.38 However, they are not cleft sentences, but ‘identity statements’ (see § 4.92): ea . . . quam vis ducere uxorem and ii qui rem publicam occupavere are autonomous relative clauses which function as subject complements. (h) Dic mihi, si audes, quis ea est quam vis ducere uxorem? (‘Tell me, please, who is this woman you want to marry?’ Pl. Aul. 170) (i) At qui sunt ii qui rem publicam occupavere? (‘But who are they who have seized upon our country?’ Sal. Jug. 31.12)

A related phenomenon is the use of quod clauses in combination with a form of the verb sum and an adjunct constituent.39 A common type are evaluative adverbs, as in ( j). ( j)

Non temere est quod corvos cantat mihi nunc ab laeva manu. (‘It’s not by chance that a raven was cawing to my left just now.’ Pl. Aul. 624) Supplement: Haud temere est quod tu tristi cum corde gubernas . . . (Enn. Ann. 482V=507S); Bene autem quod omnia tempus revelat . . . (Tert. Apol. 7.13)

Other types of adjunct that are used with a quod clause are expressions of extent of time and other temporal expressions, as in (k) and (l). In such cases cum (quom) is more common, certainly in Early Latin, as in (m). For the use of quod with statim, see (n).40 (For statim see also § 16.25.)

37 For the position of the verb sum in this type of clause, see Adams (1994b: 65). Hoffmann has only a couple of exceptions in his sample of 131 instances (2016b: 203–4). 38 See Löfstedt (1966: 85–6). 39 See Rosén (1989a: 208–11) on what she calls ‘rhematizing of adverbials’. Goria (2013: 159–61) uses the term ‘adjunct cleft’. 40 For later developments of ‘temporal’ quod, see Sz.: 580–1 and Adams (2016: 329), on a possible instance in Passio Perp. 3.4.

Theme, setting, and tail 849 (k)

Agite, pugni. Iam diu est quod (quom edd.) ventri victum non datis. (‘Go on, fists. It has long been the case that you have not provided food for my stomach.’ Pl. Am. 302)

(l)

Tertius dies est quod audivi recitantem Sentium Augurinum cum summa mea voluptate, immo etiam admiratione. (‘It has been three days that I have been listening to Sentius Augurinus reciting his work, which has given me the greatest pleasure, indeed even filled me with admiration.’ Plin. Ep. 4.27.1)

(m)

Hanc domum / iam multos annos est quom possideo et colo . . . (‘It has been many years that I’ve been occupying this house and protecting it . . .’ Pl. Aul. 3–4)

(n)

Litteras ad te parum fraterne scripseram, quas . . . de pactione statim quod audieram iracundius scripseram et revocare cupiebam. (‘I had written you a not very brotherly letter which . . . I wrote in some irritation immediately after hearing about the agreement and wanted to recall.’ Cic. Q. fr. 1.2.12) Supplement: Iam pridem videtur factum heri quod homines quattuor / in soporem collocastis nudos. (Pl. Am. 303–4); Melius anno hoc mihi non fuit domi / nec (sc. fuit hoc anno) quod una esca me iuverit magis. (Pl. Mos. 690–1); Inde adeo quod agrum in proxumo hic mercatus es. (Ter. Hau. 54); . . . diuque est quod invicem diligimus ex aequo. (Sidon. Ep. 7.6.1) Quarto die navigationis quod imparati a Carteia profecti sine aqua fuissent ad terram adplicant. (B. Hisp. 37.3); . . . filii Israhel commorati sunt his diebus quod sanctus Moyses ascendit in montem . . . (Pereg. 2.2) Nam illi quidem hau sane diu est quom dentes exciderunt. (Pl. Mer. 541); Sic ut istic leno non sex menses Megaribus / huc est quom commigravit. (Pl. Per. 137–8) Iam diu factum est, postquam bibimus. Nimis diu sicci sumus. (Pl. Per. 822)

An example of a quod clause with a reason adjunct is (o). (o)

Et inde est quod Labienus, homo mentis quam linguae amarioris, dixit . . . (‘And this is the reason that Labienus, a man whose mind was sharper than his tongue, said . . .’ Sen. Con. 4.pr.2) Supplement: Inde est quod Socrates servo ait ‘caederem te, nisi irascerer’. (Sen. Dial. 3.15.3); Non hoc est quod me felicem nuncupo. (Fro. Aur. 3.13.1)

22.13 The extraclausal functions theme, setting, and tail Alongside the two intra-clausal pragmatic functions topic and focus, which concern the information structure of the clause, two other pragmatic functions are distinguished, namely theme and tail. These two do not form part of the clause itself, but precede

850

Information structure and extraclausal expressions

or follow it, respectively (they do belong to the sentence to which the clause belongs).41 In (a), the theme cancer ater indicates an entity about which the following clause presents relevant information. In that clause the anaphoric pronoun is is the topic; it is coreferential with cancer ater. Another type of ante-clausal constituent is shown in (b). Here, de forma signals a new domain of attention in the discourse which is developed in the following clause(s). There is no grammatical relation between de forma and what follows. In (c), the tail omnes scilicet Lanuvini functions as a specification of the topic permulti alii in the preceding clause. (a)

Cancer ater, is olet et saniem spurcam mittit. Albus purulentus est . . . (‘As for the black ulcer, it has a foul odour and exudes putrid pus. The white is purulent . . .’ Cato Agr. 157.3)

(b)

De forma, ovem esse oportet corpore amplo . . . (‘As for the form, a sheep ought to have a large body . . .’ Var. R. 2.2.3)

(c)

Sed erant permulti alii ex quibus id facillime scire posset, omnes scilicet Lanuvini. (‘But there were many others from whom he might very easily have ascertained the fact—any Lanuvian, for instance.’ Cic. Mil. 46)

Apart from the functions theme and tail, another extraclausal function ‘setting’, which is introduced in § 22.15, is distinguished. The clausal and extraclausal functions are shown schematically in Table 22.1. Table 22.1 Clausal and extraclausal constituents Anteclausal Theme

Clause Topic

Focus

Postclausal Tail

Setting

22.14 Theme constituents The term theme is used for a constituent that does not form part of a clause but precedes it and serves to orient the addressee with respect to a discourse topic about which the clause that follows presents information. In modern languages themes are set off by intonation or, in writing, by a comma. A common term for it in generative frameworks is ‘left-dislocation’.42 Two types of theme are distinguished in what follows. 41 For the distinction made in this Syntax between clause and sentence, see § 2.3. 42 The definition of ‘theme’ is a paraphrase of Dik (1997: II.391). There too some considerations can be found why the term ‘left-dislocation’ is misleading. ‘Theme’ has nothing to do with ‘thema’ in other pragmatic approaches. The term ‘topicalization’ is used as well. The most detailed discussion of theme constituents, which she calls ‘left-dislocations’, is Halla-aho (2018).

Theme, setting, and tail 851 (i) One type of theme constituents concerns entities which are also explicitly or implicitly present in the clause that follows. Such theme constituents are attested from Early Latin onwards, but they are rare. They are avoided in, but not absent from, literary classical prose. The example already given in §  22.13 is repeated here and discussed in more detail. (a)

Cancer ater, is olet et saniem spurcam mittit. Albus purulentus est . . . (‘As for the black ulcer, it has a foul odour and exudes putrid pus. The white is purulent . . .’ Cato Agr. 157.3)

The two sentences in (a) are part of Cato’s ‘Canticle of the Cabbage’ and deal with a certain type of brassica ‘cabbage’.43 In the preceding context Cato has already said that cabbage is a good medicine for wounds and tumours. He now turns to the discussion of the tumours, of which he distinguishes two types. The first one (black) is presented in the form of a theme constituent and continued by is, which is the subject and topic of the clause. The other one (white) is presented directly as subject and (contrastive) topic in its clause. Thereafter comes the statement that cabbage, if macerated, will cure such sores. The theme fulfils a discourse-structuring function.44 Another much discussed instance is (b). (b)

(After talking of poor people in general) Sed urbana plebes, ea vero praeceps erat de multis causis. (‘But the city populace, it was truly reckless for many reasons.’ Sal. Cat. 37.4)

In the preceding context Sallust says that cuncta plebes ‘all the common people’ supported Catiline more suo ‘as is their custom’, which he then expands. Now he switches to the urbana plebes and sets out to expound the many reasons why they sympathized with Catiline. The choice of the theme construction is intended to mark this shift. Note also the use of the adversative connector sed to mark the contrast.45 In (a) and (b) the theme constituents are in the nominative (see § 12.17), and this is the regular situation. But the accusative is attested as well, as in (c),46 which appears in a series of duties of the vilicus ‘overseer’, and, possibly, (d). (c)

Amicos domini, eos habeat sibi amicos. (‘As for this master’s friends, he must consider these his own friends.’ Cato Agr. 5.3)

43 For the term ‘canticle’, see Leeman (1963: 21). 44 Havers (1925), in his discussion of instances like (a), called them emphatic, using the term ‘isoliertemphatischer Nominativ’. Criticism in Svennung (1936: 182), Wistrand (1936: 36–8), and Boon (1981). 45 It is not always possible to distinguish between theme and topic. Chausserie-Laprée (1969: Ch. 1) points out that historians often place names of persons at the beginning of the sentence, as a kind of paragraph marker. For discussion, see Bolkestein (1981a: 65–9), Serbat (1988a; 1991; 1996: 36–43), Rosén  (1992), Tóth  (1994), Adams (2016: 94), Halla-aho (2016; 2018), and Bortolussi  (2017). Further distinctions are made by Hoffmann  (1989), Somers  (1994), and Cabrillana (1999a). For Late Latin examples, see Tarriño (1996), Ortoleva (2012), and Bortolussi and Sznajder (2014). 46 For the term ‘anticipation’ and a discussion of this and similar instances in Cato, see Halla-aho (2018: 192).

852 (d)

Information structure and extraclausal expressions (Lucretia speaking) ‘Nec ulla deinde impudica Lucretiae exemplo vivet.’ Cultrum, quem sub veste abditum habebat, eum in corde defigit, prolapsaque in volnus moribunda cecidit. (‘ “Nor in time to come shall ever unchaste woman live through the example of Lucretia.” Taking a knife which she had concealed beneath her dress, she plunged it into her heart, and sinking forward upon the wound, died as she fell.’ Liv. 1.58.10) Instances like (d) have received much attention because they allow various alternative analyses. In addition to the description given in the text, cultrum quem might be taken together as a relative phrase with the relative determiner postposed (see § 18.15, ex. (n)). It seems better to take quem . . . habebat as a non-restrictive relative clause.

What (a)–(b) and (c)–(d) have in common is that the case form of the theme constituent is the same as it would have been if it were part of the clause. Their case form can be explained as due to ‘anticipation’ of the construction required by the main verb. This is not the case in (e) and (f). The use of the nominative in such contexts is often called nominativus pendens ‘hanging nominative’, because it is not related to the verb or a comparable constituent.47 (e)

Pater tuos, is erat frater patruelis meus, / et is me heredem fecit . . . (‘Your father, he was my first cousin, and he made me his heir . . .’ Pl. Poen. 1069–70)

(f)

Tum Anci filii duo . . . tum inpensius iis indignitas crescere, si . . . (‘Now the two sons of Ancus . . . their indignation was vastly increased by the prospect that if . . .’ Liv. 1.40.2) Supplement: Nominative: Aurum, id fortuna invenitur, natura ingenium bonum. (Pl. Poen. 302); Thebae, quae ante cataclysmon Ogygi conditae dicuntur, eae tamen circiter duo milia annorum et centum sunt. (Var. R. 3.1.3); IIII · vir(ei) · aidilesque · quei · h(ac)· l(ege) · primei · erunt·, quei · eorum · Tarentum venerit ·, / is · in diebus · XX · proxumeis . . . / facito . . . (CIL I2.590.7–9 (Lex municipii Tarentini, Taranto, 1st cent. bc (early)) Sed tu, / quid tibi est? (Pl. Bac. 1108–9); Tum piscatores, qui praebent populo pisces foetidos, / qui . . . / quorum . . . / eis ego ora verberabo surpiculis piscariis . . . (Pl. Capt. 813–16); Epidamniensis ill’ quem dudum dixeram / . . . / ei liberorum nisi divitiae nihil erat. (Pl. Men. 57–9); Eius servos, qui hunc ferebat cum quinque argenti minis, / tuam qui amicam hinc arcessebat, ei os sublevi modo. (Pl. Ps. 718–19); Leonides Laco, qui simile apud Thermopylas fecit, propter eius virtutes omnis Graecia gloriam atque gratiam praecipuam claritudinis inclitissimae decoravere monumentis . . . (Cato hist. 83=76C);48 Ceterae philosophorum disciplinae, omnino alia magis alia, sed tamen omnes quae rem ullam virtutis expertem aut in bonis aut in malis numerent, eas non modo nihil adiuvare arbitror . . . (Cic. Fin. 3.11); Arma quae ad me missuri eratis, iis censeo armetis milites quos vobiscum habetis. (Pomp.

47 Löfstedt (1985: 78–9) discusses instances in the Vulgate, also in the genitive and in the dative. For Semitic influence, see Rubio (2009: 205–6). 48 For discussion of this instance, see Cornell ad loc., with references.

Theme, setting, and tail 853 Att. 8.12a.4);49 Servitium contra paupertas divitiaeque, / libertas bellum concordia cetera quorum / adventu manet incolumis natura abituque, / haec soliti sumus, ut par est, eventa vocare. (Lucr. 1.455–8);50 Hic locus est partis ubi se via findit in ambas. / Dextera, quae Ditis magni sub moenia tendit, / hac iter Elysium nobis. At laeva . . . (Verg. A. 6.540–2); Signa aliaque ornamenta, quae quererentur ex aedibus sacris sublata esse, de iis, cum M. Fulvius Romam revertisset, placere ad conlegium pontificum referri, et quod ii censuissent, fieri. (Liv. 38.44.5); Lupus enim villam intravit et omnia pecora . . . : tamquam lanius sanguinem illis misit. (Petr. 62.11)51 Ager rubricosus et terra pulla, materina, rudecta, harenosa, item quae aquosa non erit, ibi lupinum bonum fiet. (Cato Agr. 34.2) Accusative: Nunc hunc impurissumum / . . . Titanum . . . / ita mihi imperas ut ego huius membra atque ossa . . . / comminuam . . . (Pl. Men. 853–6—NB: text is problematic); Nam unum conclave concubinae quod dedit / miles . . . / in eo conclavi ego perfodi parietem . . . (Pl. Mil. 140–2); Columellam ferream quae in miliario stat, eam rectam stare oportet in medio ad perpendiculum. (Cato Agr. 20.1) NB: infinitives as theme: Nam idem velle atque idem nolle, ea demum firma amicitia est. (Sal. Cat. 20.4)52 Autonomous relative clauses with a resumptive pronoun share certain characteristics with the theme constituents discussed in this section. See § 18.5 fin.53

Whereas in the examples shown so far the theme constituent is picked up by another explicit constituent, there are also instances of nominative constituents where this is not the case. In (g), a dative constituent is unexpressed with est visum.54 In (h), the theme constituents return as nemini further on; in (i), as decumam partem. Such instances can better be regarded as anacoluthons. (g)

Dum haec ita fierent rex Iuba . . . non est visum dari spatium convalescendi . . . (‘While these events were taking place, king Juba . . . thought it advisable not to give him any respite for recovering his strength . . .’ B. Afr. 25.1)

(h)

Homines maritimi Syracusis . . . cum eius cruciatu atque supplicio pascere oculos . . . vellent, potestas aspiciendi nemini facta est. (‘The seafaring folk of Syracuse . . . longed to feast their eyes . . . with the spectacle of his torture and execution, and none of them was allowed even to look at him.’ Cic. Ver. 5.65)

(i)

Familia vero babae babae, non mehercules puto decumam partem esse quae dominum suum noverit. (‘And his slaves! My word! I really don’t believe that one out of ten of them knows his master by sight.’ Petr. 37.9)

49 50 51 52 53 54

This instance is taken as attractio inversa by K.-St.: II.290 and by Shackleton Bailey ad loc. For theme constituents in Lucretius, see Halla-aho (2018: 145–52). For this interpretation, see Rochette (2007: 285). For discussion, see Halla-aho (2018: 218). For discussion, see Halla-aho (2018: 8–10); for quantitative data, ibid. 10–15. For discussion of this instance, see Adams (2005b: 92–3) and Halla-aho (2018: 219).

854

Information structure and extraclausal expressions Supplement: Homines plous V oinvorsei virei atque mulieres sacra ne quisquam / fecise velet . . . (CIL I2.581.19–20 (SCBac., Tiriolo, 186 bc)55

More explicit forms of announcing an entity are shown in ( j) and (k). The quod clauses in these examples not only have a thematic function, but also indicate the status of the information in the interaction between speaker and addressee. In this sense they resemble the illocutionary disjunct purpose clauses discussed in § 16.50. Compare also § 16.38 on respect clauses. (j)

Quod ad me attinet, iam pannos meos comedi, et si perseverat haec annona, casulas meas vendam. (‘As for me, I have already eaten my rags, and if food-prices keep up, I shall have to sell my cottages.’ Petr. 44.15 (Ganymedes speaking))

(k)

De Parthis quod quaeris, fuisse nullos puto. (‘As for your question about the Parthians, I do not think there were any Parthians.’ Cic. Fam. 3.8.10)

(ii) The second type of theme constituents are prepositional phrases, especially those with the preposition de ‘about’. Examples are (l), repeated from § 22.13, and (m).56 (l)

De forma, ovem esse oportet corpore amplo . . . (‘As for the form, a sheep ought to have a large body . . .’ Var. R. 2.2.3)

(m)

De Pompeio, et facio diligenter et faciam quod mones. (‘As for Pompey, I am doing my best and will do what you advise me to do.’ Cic. Q.  fr. 3.1.9)

Ex. (l) is part of a discussion about buying sheep. The first important thing mentioned by the speaker, Atticus, is that a sheep must be good ab aetate ‘with respect to age’. After a discussion of the importance of age, he proceeds to another aspect, de forma ‘with respect to its physical features’, the manifestations of which are explained. He continues that it is of foremost importance that the sheep are boni seminis ‘from good stock’. With de forma in initial position Cato marks the shift to a new stage of his exposition. Its lack of integration in the clause makes it difficult to consider it an adjunct of respect (see § 10.94). In the same way de Pompeio in (m) marks the shift to a new stage in Cicero’s account, in which he has written about Caesar and will proceed to discuss other matters after Pompey. Thus it is difficult to describe it as an adjunct of respect. Prepositional phrases with in are used in a similar way, as in (n).57 Here, Pliny shifts from a discussion of miracles involving water to ones that occur in the mountains. The shift is marked by the adversative connector verum in combination with the in 55 For discussion of this example, see Halla-aho (2018: 158–61). 56 On de as a marker of theme constituents, see Rosén (1992: 253–4; 1999: 158–9), Molinelli (1999), and Weische (2005), with references. For further instances, see TLL s.v. de 76.44ff. 57 For a general discussion of the use of prepositions to mark theme constituents, see Rosén (1992: 253–4) and Weische (2005).

Theme, setting, and tail 855 phrase, which is not part of the clause that follows, and which in fact pertains to additional types of miracles mentioned later on. (n)

Namque et ignium, quod est naturae quartum elementum, reddamus aliqua miracula, sed primum ex aquis. . . . Verum in montium miraculis, ardet Aetna noctibus semper… (‘For we must also report some marvels connected with fire, the fourth element of nature, but first those arising from water. . . . But among mountain marvels, Etna always glows at night . . .’ Plin. Nat. 2.235–6) Supplement: Nam de redducenda (sc. uxore), id vero ne utiquam honestum esse arbitror / nec faciam . . . Ter. Hec. 403–4); De numero, in centum sues decem verres satis esse putant. (Var. R. 2.4.22); De litterarum missione, sine causa abs te accusor. (Cic. Att. 1.5.3); De Tadiana re, mecum Tadius locutus est te ita scripsisse, nihil esse iam quod laboraretur, quoniam hereditas usu capta esset. (Cic. Att. 1.5.6); De domo et Curionis oratione, ut scribis ita est. (Cic. Att. 3.20.2); De Tirone, mihi curae est. (Cic. Att. 12.49.3) Quod ad pastiones attinet haec fere sunt. In nutricatu, cum parere coeperunt, inigunt in stabula. (Var. R. 2.2.13–15); Itaque in probris . . . Contraque in laudibus, quae magno animo et fortiter excellenterque gesta sunt, ea nescio quomodo quasi pleniore ore laudamus. (Cic. Off. 1.61)58 Circa Felicitatem vero, et illi gratia Domini eiusmodi contigit. (Passio Perp. 15.1)

In (o) and (p), sometimes considered instances of theme constituents,59 the de phrases are in fact respect adjuncts that are part of the clause (see § 10.94). In both cases the persons referred to by hoc (homine) have been introduced in the immediately preceding context and therefore they can function as topics. It is noteworthy that the de constituents return in some form in the following accusative and infinitive clauses, as subject in (o), as attribute in (p). (o)

Melitensis Diodorus est, qui apud vos antea testimonium dixit. Is . . . De hoc Verri dicitur habere eum perbona toreumata . . . (‘There is a man of Melita named Diodorus, whose evidence you have already heard. He . . . It was reported to Verres about him that he owned some really good chased silver . . .’ Cic. Ver. 4.38)

(p)

Duodequadraginta annos tyrannus Syracusanorum fuit Dionysius . . . Atqui de hoc homine a bonis auctoribus sic scriptum accepimus summam fuisse eius in victu temperantiam . . . (‘For thirty-eight years Dionysius was tyrant of Syracuse . . . And yet about this man we are told on the authority of trustworthy writers that while he was exceedingly temperate in his way of life . . .’ Cic. Tusc. 5.57)

58 For discussion of this instance, see Weische (2005).

59 Inter alios, in LSS § 4.2.

856

Information structure and extraclausal expressions Supplement (respect adjuncts): De Africano quidem, quia notior est nobis propter recentem memoriam, vel iurare possum non illum iracundia tum inflammatum fuisse . . . (Cic. Tusc. 4.50); De Censorino, Antonio, Cassiis, Scaevola, te ab iis diligi, ut scribis, vehementer gaudeo. (Cic. Q.  fr. 1.2.13); De adiectione quae adicitur in mediis columnis, quae apud Graecos «x~l}t| appellatur, in extremo libro erit forma et ratio eius, quemadmodum mollis et conveniens efficiatur, subscripta. (Vitr. 3.3.13); De volutarum descriptionibus, uti ad circinum sint recte involutae, quemadmodum describantur, in extremo libro forma et ratio earum erit subscripta. (Vitr. 3.5.8) NB: without a resumptive pronoun: De te tamen fama constans nec decipi posse nec vinci. (Cic. Fam. 10.20.1)60

22.15 Setting constituents Setting constituents specify ‘when and where (and under which circumstances)’ the following contribution to the discourse will take place.61 Examples are (a)–(c). In his discussion of the appropriateness of the term ‘senatus’, the speaker Cato adds a parallel from Sparta in (a). In (b), Pliny moves on to a new section on thunderbolts. In (c), Virgil uses the adverb to mark the beginning of a new episode. Ablative absolute clauses also commonly function as settings, as in (d).62 Ex. (e) shows a combination of two different types of setting in one sentence. Apart from their sentence-initial position, they are difficult to distinguish from space and time adjuncts. (a)

Apud Lacedaemonios quidem ii qui amplissimum magistratum gerunt, ut sunt sic etiam nominantur senes. (‘Among the Lacedaemonians, for example, those who fill their chief magistracies are called elders, as they are in fact.’ Cic. Sen. 20)

(b)

Hieme et aestate rara fulmina contrariis de causis . . . (‘In winter and in summer thunderbolts are rare from opposite causes . . .’ Plin. Nat. 2.135)

(c)

Interea Aeneas urbem designat aratro / sortiturque domos. (‘Meanwhile Aeneas marks out the city with a plough and allots homes.’ Verg. A. 5.755–6)

(d)

His rebus confectis Caesar . . . milites in proxima municipia deducit. (‘After finishing this business Caesar withdrew his men to towns in the immediate vicinity.’ Caes. Civ. 1.32.1)

(e)

Interim Romae C.  Mamilius Limetanus tribunus plebis rogationem ad populum promulgat . . . (‘Meanwhile, at Rome, the plebeian tribune Gaius Mamilius Limetanus proposed to the people a bill . . .’ Sal. Jug. 40.1) 60 Cited by Dougan in his comment on ex. (p). 61 See Dik (1997: I.396–8). 62 See de Jong (1989: 529–31) and Spevak (2010a: 68–72).

Theme, setting, and tail 857

22.16 Tail constituents Tail constituents are postclausal constituents that function as a specification of a constituent in the clause itself.63 Thus in (a), hanc is specified by sacram urnam Veneris. Sceleris semen in (b) is rather a negative qualification of is. Ex. (c) resembles partitive apposition, as discussed in § 11.88. Whereas in (a)–(c) the tail constituents have the same morphosyntactic properties as the constituents they specify, in the same way as nominal appositives do (see §  11.80), (d) is different: here the dative tibi is due to inverse attraction by the relative quoi.64 A tail constituent may be accompanied by dico ‘I mean’, as in (e).65 (a)

Sed autem, quid si hanc hinc apstulerit quispiam, / sacram urnam Veneris? (‘But what if someone takes it away from here, the sacred pot of Venus?’ Pl. Rud. 472–3)

(b)

Is huc erum etiam ad prandium vocavit, sceleris semen. (‘He even invited my master here to lunch, that fount of infamy.’ Pl. Rud. 327)

(c)

Hercle te hau sinam emoriri, nisi mi argentum redditur, / viginti minae. (‘God, no. I won’t let you die, unless I’m paid the money, twenty minas.’ Pl. Ps. 1222–3)

(d)

Ego te hodie reddam madidum, si vivo, probe, / tibi quoi decretum est bibere aquam. (‘I’ll get you properly soaked today, as truly as I live, you with your decision to drink water.’ Pl. Aul. 573–4)66

(e)

Adfert in his momentum et aetas et sexus et pignora, liberi, dico, et parentes et propinqui. (‘Age, sex, and his “pledges”—that is to say, his childeren, parents, and relatives—all add force to this.’ Quint. Inst. 6.1.24) Supplement: Ait se ob asinos ferre argentum atriensi Saureae, / viginti minas . . . (Pl. As. 347–8); Qui mihi omnis angulos / furum implevisti in aedibus, misero mihi . . . (Pl. Aul. 551–2); Em istic homo te articulatim concidit, senex, / tuos servos. (Pl. Epid. 488–9); Sed erant permulti alii ex quibus id facillime scire posset, omnes scilicet Lanuvini. (Cic. Mil. 46); Sequebatur raeda cum lenonibus, comites nequissimi. (Cic. Phil. 2.58); Avaritiam si tollere voltis, mater eius est tollenda, luxuries. (Cic. de Orat. 2.171); Priori Remo augurium venisse fertur, sex voltures. (Liv. 1.7.1)

63 See Dik (1997: I.401–3), who, in addition, also recognizes parenthetical tails that ‘pertain to some constituent within the clause’. For discussion, see Spevak (2014a: 326–9), with references, and Cabrillana (2019a). 64 Most of the examples are taken from Hofmann (1951: 120). 65 For the clarifying function of dico with tails and other extraclausal constituents, see Cabrillana (2019a). 66 Discussed by Tóth (1994: 190).

858

Information structure and extraclausal expressions

Tail constituents resemble clausal appositions with respect to their postclausal position, but they are different in other respects (see §  11.90).67 They also differ from various expression types at the end of sentences which function as some form of afterthought, such as the ablative absolute clause in (f) (see also § 16.89) and the participial secondary predicate in (g) (see also § 21.7).68 Another type is shown in (h) and (i). Unlike the tails discussed above, the expressions in these examples do not function as a specification of a constituent in the preceding clause; rather, they are loosely attached constituents of the sentence, presenting in a disjunct-like manner a comment of the author on the content of the preceding clause. (f)

In his rebus circiter dies X consumit, ne nocturnis quidem temporibus ad laborem militum intermissis. (‘Upon this business he spent about ten days, allowing no interruption even at nighttime in the work of the troops.’ Caes. Gal. 5.11.6)

(g)

Et ipse paucis diebus eodem profectus est, iussus a senatu Italia decedere. (‘A few days later he himself set out for the same destination, having been ordered by the senate to leave Italy.’ Sal. Jug. 35.9)

(h)

Sed Tiberius pro confecto interpretatus id quoque Blaeso tribuit ut imperator a legionibus salutaretur, prisco erga duces honore qui bene gesta re publica gaudio et impetu victoris exercitus conclamabantur. (‘Tiberius, however, chose to treat it as ended, and even conferred on Blaesus the privilege of being saluted Imperator by his legions, a time-honoured tribute to generals who, after a successful campaign, were acclaimed by the joyful and spontaneous voice of a conquering army.’ Tac. Ann. 3.74.4)

(i)

Catilina longe a suis inter hostium cadavera repertus est, pulcherrima morte, si pro patria sic concidisset. (‘Catiline was discovered far in front of his fellows amid the dead bodies of his foes, a most glorious death, if he had thus fallen fighting for his country.’ Flor. Epit. 2.12.12)

22.17 Contrast and emphasis The concepts topic and focus deal with the way the speaker or writer chooses to distribute the information of a clause, the former being the element that constitutes the point of departure for the information, the latter the element which he considers particularly noteworthy for the addressee to learn about the topic. Contrast and emphasis, however, concern means with which the speaker or writer can give 67 For various types of ‘right-dislocation’, see Spevak (2013). 68 The term in French publications is ‘rallonge’. For its use by the historians, see Chausserie-Laprée (1969: 283–338). For Tacitus’ usage, see Longrée (1996b); for Late Latin historians, Kiss (2016). See also Nutting (1920; 1928: 10–11). See also § 19.68 on epitactic coordination.

Contrast and emphasis

859

pragmatic prominence to certain elements of that clause. contrast involves ‘the confrontation between two elements’ that ‘either share some property or differ in some property’.69 Emphasis ‘is a means that serves the speaker or writer to express his personal evaluation of information.’70 Contrastive elements are usually also emphatic, but there is also non-contrastive emphasis. In modern spoken languages these two means of giving prominence are often marked by intonation alongside, among other things, emphasizing particles and word order. For our Latin texts, once again, intonation is not available. The next sections deal with ways of expressing contrast and emphasis in Latin.

22.18 Contrast Contrast between two elements can be expressed explicitly, but often it must be inferred in some other way. In (a), both entities of a contrastive pair are present in the same clause, one of which is replaced by means of the combination non + adversative coordinator sed. In (b), there is a contrast between multiple elements that belong to  two adversatively coordinated clauses: video vs. vidi and nunc vs. modo. In (c), Amphitryon appeals to his slave Sosia to confirm his identity and his whereabouts the night before and so, by implication, to act as his witness. Alcmena, his wife, who is convinced that he has been with her (in reality it was Jupiter), says that she too has her witnesses. Mihi is contrastive, which also appears from the emphasizing particle quoque. Note that tu in the first sentence is also contrastive (with Alcmena), as is indicated by the emphasizing particle saltem.71 (a)

Illuc sis vide, / non ‘paedagogum’ iam me sed ‘Lydum’ vocat. (‘Just look at that! He isn’t calling me “tutor” any longer, but “Lydus”.’ Pl. Bac. 137–8)

(b)

Quin [ergo] commonstras, si vides (sc. amicam)? / # Non video hercle nunc, sed vidi modo. (‘Why don’t you show me if you can see her? # I can’t see her now, but I just did.’ Pl. Mer. 894–5)

(c)

Pro di immortales, cognosci’n tu me saltem, Sosia? / # Propemodum. # Cenavin’ ego heri in navi in portu Persico? / # Mihi quoque assunt testes qui illud quod ego dicam assentiant. (‘Immortal gods, can you at least recognize me, Sosia? # Just about. # Didn’t I have dinner on the ship yesterday, in Port Persicus? # I also have witnesses to corroborate what I’m saying.’ Pl. Am. 822–4)

69 Quoted from Spevak (2010a: 45), who refers to de Jong (1983: 132). For the distinction between contrast (he uses the term ‘antithesis’) and emphasis, see also (Adams 1976a: 78–80). 70 Quoted from de Jong (1989: 528) and Spevak (2010a: 47). 71 For the contrastive use of personal pronouns and possessive adjectives, see Fruyt (2008) and Spevak (2010a: 46; 92–3). Exx. (f), (j), and (m) are taken from Spevak.

860

Information structure and extraclausal expressions

Examples of contrast between two elements, which are asyndetically coordinated and so lack an overt marker, are (d)–(f). The contrast results from the semantic relations between the two elements and is supported by the parallel structure. (d)

Nam crudelitatis mater avaritia’st, pater furor. (‘For avarice is the mother of cruelty, fury the father.’ Rut. Lup. 2.6)

(e)

O tenebrae, o lutum, o sordes, o paterni generis oblite, materni vix memor! (‘O darkened eyes! O bemired and dingy soul! O forgetful of your father’s line, with scarce a memory even of your mother’s!’ Cic. Pis. 62)

(f)

. . . cum ab ista parte iudici pecuniam ante iudicium datam, post iudicium ereptam esse fateamini? (‘. . . when you confess that it was by your side that money was given to one of the jurors before the trial, and wrested from him after it?’ Cic. Clu. 65)

Certain words are contrastive on account of their meaning. In Cicero’s correspondence, for example, the possessive adjectives meus and tuus are by implication contrastive, as in (g). The intensifier ipse in its ‘pregnant’ use (see §§ 11.144–5) is inherently contrastive, as in (h) and in (k).72 (g)

Scriberem plura si rem causamque nossem. Nunc quae scribo scribo ex opinione hominum atque fama. Tuas litteras avide exspecto. (‘I should write more if I knew the facts of the case. As it is, what I write is based on public opinion and rumour. I am eagerly waiting to hear from you.’ Cic. Fam. 12.4.2)

(h)

Ipse ego is sum, adulescens, quem tu quaeris. (‘I myself am the chap you’re looking for, young man.’ Pl. Ps. 979)

Both topic and focus constituents can be contrastive. Examples of contrastive topic constituents are (i)–(l), the first three being typical examples of ‘topic shift’. (i)

Hostes crebri cadunt, nostri contra ingruont. (‘The enemy was falling in heaps, our men were advancing against them.’ Pl. Am. 236)

( j)

Oleum dato in menses unicuique sextarium I.  Salis unicuique in anno modium satis est. (‘Issue a pint of oil a month per person. A modius of salt a year per person is sufficient.’ Cato Agr. 58.1)

(k)

Partito exercitu T. Labienum cum legionibus tribus ad Oceanum versus in eas partes quae Menapios attingunt proficisci iubet, C. Trebonium cum pari legionum numero ad eam regionem quae Atuatucis adiacet depopulandam mittit, ipse cum reliquis tribus ad flumen Scaldim, quod influit in Mosam, extremasque Arduennae partes ire constituit . . .

72 On the additive and scalar uses of ipse, see Bertocchi and Maraldi (2012: 19–21).

Contrast and emphasis

861

(‘Having divided the army, he ordered Titus Labienus to proceed with three legions towards the districts which touch the Menapii; Gaius Trebonius with an equal number of legions to devastate the region which adjoins the Aduatuci; and he determined to march himself with the remaining three to the river Scheldt, which flows into the Meuse, and to the uttermost parts of the Ardennes . . .’ Caes. Gal. 6.33.1–3)

(l)

Quid autem si filium post testamentum natum ex besse, filiam autem post testamentum natam ex triente scripsit heredem nec ullum coheredem dedit nec substituit invicem alium? Unus natus solus ex testamento fit heres. (‘But what if he appointed a son born after the will as heir to two-thirds, but a daughter born after the will to a third and he did not either name a co-heir or substitute anyone else in turn? If only one is born, he will become heir under the will.’ Tryph. dig. 28.2.28.4)

Examples of contrastive focus constituents are (m)–(o). (m)

Ampsigura mater mihi fuit, Iahon pater. (‘My mother was Ampsigura, and my father Iahon.’ Pl. Poen. 1065)

(n)

Quibus (sc. navibus) effectis armatisque diebus XXX a qua die materia caesa est adductisque Massiliam his D. Brutum praeficit, C. Trebonium legatum ad oppugnationem Massiliae relinquit. (‘These were finished and equipped within thirty days from when the trees were cut down, then brought to Marseilles. He put Decimus Brutus in charge of the ships and left his officer Gaius Trebonius for the assault on Marseilles.’ Caes. Civ. 1.36.5)

(o)

. . . edoctus interdiu tantum obsideri saltum, nocte in sua quemque dilabi tecta luce prima subiit tumulos . . . (‘. . . having learned that his enemies guarded the pass only by day, and at night dispersed, every man to his own home, he advanced up the hills as soon as it was light, . . .’ Liv. 21.32.10)

Instances of parallel focus,73 where topic and focus constituents are both contrasted, are quite common, as in some of the examples above and in (p) and (q). (p)

Ex quibus (sc. legionibus) unam in Morinos ducendam C. Fabio legato dedit, alteram in Nervios Q. Ciceroni, tertiam in Essuvios L. Roscio. Quartam in Remis cum T. Labieno in confinio Treverorum hiemare iussit. (‘One of the legions he gave to Gaius Fabius, the lieutenant-general, to be led into the country of the Morini, a second to Quintus Cicero for the Nervii, a third to Lucius Roscius for the Esubii; a fourth, with Titus Labienus in command, he ordered to winter among the Remi on the border of the Treveri.’ Caes. Gal. 5.24.2)

(q)

Eodemque die . . . exercitum educunt, Pompeius clam et noctu, Caesar palam atque interdiu. (‘On the same day . . . they led the troops out, Pompey secretly and by night, Caesar openly and by day.’ Caes. Civ. 3.30.3) 73 The term ‘parallel focus’ is taken from Dik (1997: I.332).

862

Information structure and extraclausal expressions

As the examples used in this section show, the entities that are contrasted belong to various lexical categories and function at various levels of their clause or sentence. Contrastive elements are often in the initial or second position in their clause or sentence, as mihi in (c), filium in (l), and C. Trebonium legatum in (n), as well as mulier in (r) and nocte in (s). The early placement of a contrastive member of a phrase may lead to discontinuity, as with salis separated from its head modum in ( j). Further details can be found in § 23.87. (r)

Mulier quicquid dixerat, / idem ego dicebam. (‘Whatever the woman said, I’d say the same.’ Pl. Men. 483–4)

(s)

Et haec quidem interdiu. Nocte vero, quo commodior quies veniat, non alienum est superinponere candidi panis interiorem partem ex vino subactam. (‘These applications are made by day. At night, in order better to assure sleep, it is not inappropriate to apply above the eye, the crumb of white bread soaked in wine.’ Cels. 6.6.1.K)

22.19 Emphasis The term ‘emphasis’ is defined in § 22.17 as ‘a means that serves the speaker or writer to express his personal evaluation of information’. Some scholars use the term in a wider sense, to cover also what is called ‘focus’ in this Syntax, that is, the part of a clause that is ‘informationally prominent’, ‘the most relevant part of the message’, or ‘information focus’.74 Whereas ‘focus’ in the sense of this Syntax concerns the speaker’s assessment of the newsworthiness of a piece of information for the addressee, emphasis reflects the importance the speaker himself attaches to a piece of information: the orientation of ‘focus’ and ‘emphasis’ is opposite. Both topic and focus constituents may be emphasized, but other constituents may be as well. In contemporary spoken languages intonation plays an important role in marking emphasis, but whatever its role in Latin was, it is inaccessible to us. However, Latin has several other devices, which are briefly discussed here and which receive a more systematic treatment in later sections. (i) The most explicit way to mark a constituent as emphatic is by using an emphasizing particle, for instance quidem, as in (a) and (b).75 In (a), the preparative pronoun illud, focus in its clause, is placed in the first position of the sentence, separated by three words from the clause it announces. Its prominent role in the sentence is reinforced by the addition of the emphasizer quidem. In (b), quidem separates the possessive adjective meam from its head noun spem. Meam is in opposition to vestram, and 74 ‘Information focus’ is distinguished from ‘purely emotive emphasis’ by Quirk et al. (1985: 1414–16). 75 Exx. (b) and (d) are discussed as non-contrastive emphatic instances of quidem by Solodow (1978: 98).

Contrast and emphasis

863

quidem indicates that, even if the assumption credo item vestram is wrong, Cicero insists on his personal feelings. For details on emphasizing particles, see §§ 22.20–40. (a)

Illud quidem fatebitur Scaptius, me ius dicente sibi omnem pecuniam ex edicto meo auferendi potestatem fuisse. (‘Scaptius will at least admit this: that under my ruling he had the chance of taking the whole of the money on the terms laid down in my edict.’ Cic. Att. 6.1.7)

(b)

Auxerat autem meam quidem spem, credo item vestram, quod domum Antoni adflictam maestitia audiebam . . . (‘My hopes rose, as I expect yours did as well, from the report that gloom reigned in Antonius’ house . . .’ Cic. Phil. 12.2)

(ii) Word order alone is an important device in Latin to make a sentence or part of a sentence informationally or emphatically appropriate.76 Discontinuity of constituents that belong to the same phrase is one of the means, as is shown in (c) and (d). In (c), mea is placed in first position of the main clause and separated by three words from its head fide to emphasize that the speaker assumes personal responsibility. The combination of discontinuity and placement in first position in the clause is in itself sufficient to emphasize mea, but this can be reinforced lexically by adding quidem immediately after mea, as in (d), with four constituents between mea and vita. (c)

Quin ea te causa duco, . . . / illum ut sanum facias. # Perfacile id quidem est. / Sanum futurum, mea ego id promitto fide. (‘Well I’m hiring you to heal him. # That’s very easy. He shall be well, I promise you that on my honour.’ Pl. Men. 892–4)

(d)

Mea quidem hercle certe in dubio vita’st. (‘My life’s at risk for sure.’ Ter. An. 347)

Another way to produce discontinuity is shown in (e) and (f).77 In (e), nulla is separated from cupiditas for reasons of emphasis. This discontinuity is created by the insertion of the personal pronoun me. In instances like this, when personal pronouns do not themselves have an important role in the information structure of their clause, they are often placed immediately after an emphatic constituent. In (f), huius civitatis, the topic of the clause, is split up by the verb form est, which like other forms of the verb sum often follows an emphatic word, in this case huius; the emphasis signals that other states have less authority. However, when a form of sum is informationally important, it can be placed in first position, as in (g), where it precedes both the topic is and the focus maxime et opacus et frigidus. The initial position serves to emphasize the assertion as a whole: ‘it really is’.78

76 For the expression ‘informationally appropriate’, see Quirk et al. (1985: 1365). 77 The examples are taken from Adams (1994b: 1; 25). 78 For discussion of this example, see Adams (1994b: 73). For the placement of est and personal pronouns, see Spevak (2006a: 261–72).

864 (e)

Information structure and extraclausal expressions De triumpho autem nulla me cupiditas umquam tenuit ante Bibuli impudentissimas litteras . . . (‘With regard to the Triumph, I was never in the least eager until Bibulus sent that quite shameless letter . . .’ Cic. Att. 7.2.6)

(f)

Huius est civitatis longe amplissima auctoritas . . . (‘This state has by far the most extensive authority . . .’ Caes. Gal. 3.8.1)

(g)

Est enim is (sc. locus) maxime et opacus et frigidus. (‘For it is very shady and very cool.’ Cic. de Orat. 3.18)

Another way to emphasize a particular constituent is to put an extraclausal element after the word to be emphasized, such as sis ‘please’ in (h).79 (h)

Age aspice huc, sis, nunciam / tu qui quae facta infitiare. (‘Go on, look here now, will you, you who denies what’s happened.’ Pl. Am. 778–9)

In addition to discontinuity and position, there is a third way in which word order can have an emphasizing function, viz. the relative order of constituents of a phrase. In the expression meā sententiā (ablative, serving as an attitudinal disjunct: ‘in MỲ opinion’) mea precedes; the reverse order is not attested in the PHI corpus for this meaning: sententia mea means ‘my oPÌNion’.80 There is further discussion of this aspect of word order in Chapter 23. (iii) The clitic -ne is usually attached to the first word of an interrogative sentence (see § 6.11 and § 23.37), which in this way is emphasized. Examples are (i) and ( j). In (i), an indignant Mercurius, alias Sosia, wants to verify whether (the real) Sosia really dares to say that he is Sosia. In ( j), a furious Megaronides wants to verify whether his friend Callicles did indeed buy the house in front of which they are standing from the young man mentioned a few lines before. The particle is attached to emisti, which is focus of the clause and in the first position, to lend it further emphasis.81 However, the constituent emphasized by -ne may also be placed later in the sentence, for example, when it is preceded by a topic constituent, as in (k). See also § 23.37. (i)

Tun’ te audes Sosiam esse dicere, / qui ego sum? (‘You dare to say that you are Sosia, the one I am?’ Pl. Am. 373–4)

( j)

Emistin’ de adulescente has aedis—quid taces?— / ubi nunc tute habitas? # Emi atque argentum dedi, / minas quadraginta, adulescenti ipsi in manum. / # Dedistin’ argentum? (‘Did you buy this house from the young man—why are you quiet?—where you yourself live now? # I did buy it and I paid the young man himself cash down, forty minas. # You paid him?’ Pl. Trin. 124–7)

79 On the role of sis as an emphasizer, see Dickey (2006). 80 Using the coding of accentuation by Quirk et al. (1985). 81 For a comparative analysis of questions with and without -ne, see Schrickx (2017).

Emphasizing particles 865 (k)

Sed, quaeso, epistula mea ad Varronem valdene tibi placuit? (‘But pray, my letter to Varro, didn’t you like it more than a little?’ Cic. Att. 13.25.3)

(iv) For accusative and ablative forms of the personal pronouns me, te, se there are reduplicated forms, such as sese, which are sometimes regarded as emphasizing devices. Latin has also a number of suffixes which are attached to personal pronouns and/or possessive adjectives, such as -pte in the expression suapte natura in (l). They usually emphasize the word they are attached to. For details, see § 22.41. (l)

Atque esse tamen multos videmus qui neminem imitentur et suapte natura quod velint sine cuiusquam similitudine consequantur. (‘Nevertheless we see that there are many who imitate no one, but accomplish what they want on the strength of their own natural abilities, without resembling anyone.’ Cic. de Orat. 2.98—tr. adapted from May and Wisse)

22.20 Emphasizing particles Emphasizing particles relate to a part of a clause or of a phrase and serve to emphasize that particular part. In §  22.18, the particle quoque ‘also’ illustrates the use of an emphasizing particle with a contrastive element. Another example is (a), where quoque indicates that the Placentini constitute the addition of another type of soldiers, and where at the same time it emphasizes the contrast between the two adjectives. For the relationship between quoque and Placentinis the term ‘scope’ (see § 6.8) is used: quoque has Placentinis in its scope. Note that quoque follows the word in its scope. (For the position of these particles, see § 23.34.) (a)

Opus Panicis (sc. militibus) est, opus Placentinis quoque. (‘You need those from Breading and you also need those from the Cake District.’ Pl. Capt. 162)

Whereas quoque is only used as an emphasizing particle (but see § 22.22), there are other words that are occasionally, and often only in a specific context, used in a similar way. An example is the adverb imprimis (or in primis) ‘above all’. In (b), in primis has haec civitas in its scope; it singles out this specific city and emphasizes its exceptional status relative to the rest of Sicily. It is part of an epitactic conjoin (see § 19.67), a typical context for this interpretation. In (c), by contrast, in primis does not emphasize a particular word, but relates to the clause as a whole (it is a degree adjunct—see §  10.68), which is one of its regular usages (for details, see § 22.36). (b)

Sunt omnes Siculi non contemnendi . . . sed homines et satis fortes et plane frugi ac sobrii, et in primis haec civitas de qua loquor . . . (‘The Sicilians are, all of them, a far from contemptible race . . . they are really quite fine fellows, thoroughly honest and well-behaved; and this is notably true of the community of which I am speaking . . .’ Cic. Ver. 3.67)

866 (c)

Information structure and extraclausal expressions Quod cum ita sit resque eius modi sit ut in primis a magistratibus animadvertenda videatur, iterum quaero sitne eius rei aliqua actio an nulla. (‘This being so and the case being such that the magistrates seem to need to pay special attention to it, I ask again whether there is a legal process in my case or not.’ Cic. Caec. 33)

Emphasizing particles like quoque, which are typically used with a constituent in their scope, have different characteristics from words and expressions like in primis. The former cannot be coordinated (by et, atque, -que, sed) with similar words, cannot be followed by quidem, and are excluded from sentence-initial position. By contrast, such restrictions do not apply to adverbs and adverbial expressions like in primis. In the case of the only attested sequence et quoque in the PHI corpus, quoted in (d), et does not coordinate quoque, but the whole clause, with quoque meaning ‘even’ (see § 22.22). (d) Volt placere sese amicae, volt mihi, volt pedisequae, / volt famulis, volt etiam ancillis; et quoque catulo meo / subblanditur novos amator, se ut quom videat gaudeat. (‘He wants to please his girlfriend, he wants to please me, he wants to please the waiting-woman, he wants to please the servants, he even wants to please the maids; and a new lover even tries to make friends with my little dog so that he’s happy when it sees him.’ Pl. As. 183–5) Instead of ‘emphasizing particle’ many linguists use the term ‘focus particle’. In Vol. I I have used the term ‘focusing particle’ and ‘focusing subjunct’. The term ‘particle’ is also used in a more general way for any uninflected word (see also §§  3.26–7). Scholars vary in their use of the labels ‘particle’ and ‘adverb’. In fact, the OLD calls quoque an adverb and quidem a particle.82 Obviously, both ‘emphasizing’ and ‘focus’ in this combination with ‘particle’ are only indirectly related to the way ‘focus’ is defined in this Syntax. Sometimes I shall use the term ‘emphasizing particle’ in a general sense for ‘expressions that function as an emphasizing particle’. Etiam is a good example. In this Chapter I call it a particle, but in its use with comparative expressions (see § 20.10, Appendix) I take it as an adverb. There are languages that have an ‘empty’ emphasizing particle, without a lexical meaning of its own. The Latin particle that comes closest is quidem.83

Three main types of emphasizing particles are distinguished: additive particles, exclusive particles, and particularizing particles.84 An example of an additive particle is quoque ‘also’ in (a) and (e). By using quoque in (e), Cicero says that a 82 For recent discussion, see Rosén (2009: 327 and passim) and Kroon (2011: 176–7), with references. Quirk et al. (1985: 604–5) use the term ‘emphasizing subjunct’ to describe the relationship of these words with their host constituents (they also recognize other types of ‘subjunct’). The OLD s.v. adeo2 § 8 uses the term ‘ancillary particle’. 83 For a discussion of ‘empty focus markers’, see König (1991: 29). 84 Following the terminology of Quirk et al. (1985: 604). See also Rosén (2009: 323 and 361), who distinguishes the same three types, albeit with a different terminology. The distinction is mainly on broad semantic grounds.

Emphasizing particles 867 supplementary ballot had been used in other cases. By using the exclusive particle solum in (f), Cicero says that the other cities were exclusively bothered by their own troubles and not by those of other cities (as the continuation of the sentence shows). By using the particularizing particle quidem in (g), Cicero indicates that his statement concerns predominantly the minds of the judges. (e)

Eiusmodi subsortitionem homo amentissimus suorum quoque iudicum fore putavit per sodalem suum Q. Curtium . . . (‘The insane scoundrel thought that he could manage a supplementary ballot of the same kind for the judges who were to try himself by the help of his comrade Quintus Curtius. . .’ Cic. Ver. 1.158)

(f)

. . . ceterae civitates suis solum incommodis commoventur, Centuripini . . . etiam ceterarum civitatum damna ac detrimenta senserunt. (‘. . . the other places were roused by their own troubles only, whereas the Centuripans have also been sensitive to the losses and injuries sustained by all those others.’ Cic. Ver. 3.108)

(g)

Sed si certorum hominum mentis nulla ratione, iudices, placare possumus, vestros quidem animos certe confidimus non oratione nostra, sed humanitate vestra esse placatos. (‘But if, gentlemen, there are no means by which we can appease the feelings of certain men, I am fully confident that your minds have been appeased, not by words of mine but by your own human feelings.’ Cic. Balb. 62)

In (e) and (f) the particles immediately follow the word in their scope (they are ‘postpositive’—exceptions can be found in §§ 22.21, 24, 26). Quidem in (g) emphasizes the noun phrase vestros . . . animos as a whole, but follows the first word of that phrase (see § 23.34). The particles fulfil no function at the clause level, unlike adjuncts. They can have all sorts of content words and phrases in their scope. This is illustrated in (h)–(o) for quoque: (h), with a verb (rare); (i), with a noun; ( j), with a personal pronoun; (k), with an anaphoric pronoun; (l), with an adjective; (m), with a possessive adjective; (n), with a determiner; (o), with an adverb.85 For an accumulation of contrastive elements, see (p). (h)

. . . sentio, suspicio / quae te sollicitet: eum esse cum illa muliere. / # Immo est quoque. (‘I’ve been feeling what suspicion is troubling you: that he is with that woman. # Yes, he is with her.’ Pl. Bac. 890–2)

(i)

Servos ancillas amove. Atque audi’n? # Quid est? / # Uxorem quoque eampse hanc rem uti celes face. (‘Send away your male and female slaves. And can you hear me? # What is it? # Make sure that you conceal this business also from your wife herself.’ Pl. Trin. 799–800)

85 Convenient collections of instances in Lodge s.v. and Merguet (Reden) s.v.

868 ( j)

Information structure and extraclausal expressions Hic hodie cenato, leno. # Fiat, condicio placet. / # Sequimini intro. Spectatores, vos quoque ad cenam vocem, / ni daturus nil sim . . . (‘Have dinner here today, pimp. # Yes, I like the invitation. # Follow me in, you two. Spectators, I’d also invite you to dinner, were it not for the fact that I’m not going to give any . . .’ Pl. Rud. 1417–19)

(k)

. . . ‘quoi sit uxor’, id quoque illuc ponito ad compendium. (‘. . . “you who have a wife”, stow that away as well.’ Pl. Cas. 519)

(l)

Eundemque te memini censorias quoque leges in sartis tectis exigendis tollere . . . (‘I remember that it was you too who also changed or annulled the censor’s regulations that govern contracts for the upkeep of public buildings . . .’ Cic. Ver. 3.16)

(m)

Sapienti ornatus quid velim indicium facit. / # Meus quoque hic sapienti ornatus quid velim indicium facit. (‘My getup shows a sensible person what I want. # This getup of mine also shows a sensible person what I want.’ Pl. Rud. 428–9)

(n)

Ad eam sententiam cum reliquis causis haec quoque ratio eos deduxit quod . . . (‘To this opinion they were brought, among the other reasons, by this particular consideration also, that . . .’ Caes. Gal. 2.10.5)

(o)

Non modo ipsa lepida’st, commode quoque hercle fabulatur. (‘Not only is she herself pretty, my god, she also speaks in a pleasant way.’ Pl. Cist. 315)

(p)

Ego pol te faciam, scelus, / te quoque etiam ipsum ut lamenteris. (‘I’ll make sure that even you yourself lament also, you criminal.’ Pl. Per. 743–4)

The situation is different in the case of in primis and saltem. When they have a constituent in their scope they can follow it immediately, as in (q) and (r), but this order is optional—see ex. (c) above.86 (q)

Quare pudor in primis est ad eam rem inpedimento . . . (‘Hence it is in the first place a sense of shame which keeps us from following this practice . . .’ Rhet. Her. 4.2)

(r)

Civilis enim dissensionis . . . non est iste molestus exitus, in quo reliquos saltem civis incolumis licet conservare. (‘Of civil dissensions . . . that end is not so grievous in which we are at least allowed to preserve the rest of our citizens unharmed.’ Cic. Ver. 5.152)

22.21 Additive emphasizing particles Instances of the additive particle quoque are discussed in the preceding section.87 Other words that can function more or less in the same way as additive quoque are et 86 See TLL s.v. imprimis 677.61ff. 87 The frequency with which authors use quoque varies considerably. See Sz.: 485.

Emphasizing particles 869 ‘also’, ‘too’ (‘usually related to a single word or phrase’) and etiam ‘also’, ‘as well’, ‘too’.88 Examples are (a)–(d).89 In these examples the particles indicate the simple addition of one entity or property to another. They precede the word in their scope. This simple use must be distinguished from the use of these particles in the sense ‘even’, which is discussed in § 22.22. (a)

Et enim vero quoniam formam cepi huius in med et statum, / decet et facta moresque huius habere me similes item. (‘And since I took on his looks and dress, I also ought to have similar ways and habits.’ Pl. Am. 266–7)

(b)

Nisi vero illud dicet, quod et in Tetti testimonio priore actione interpellavit Hortensius . . . (‘Perhaps, however, he will argue as Hortensius did as well when cross-examining Tettius during the first part of the trial . . .’ Cic. Ver. 1.71)

(c)

Fuge, opsecro hercle. # Quo fugiam? Etiam tu fuge. (‘Run, I entreat you. # Where should I run? You run as well.’ Pl. Mos. 513)

(d)

Non enim, si tibi ea res grata fuisset, esset etiam approbata. (‘For welcome though it might have been, it would not have also been approved by you.’ Cic. Lig. 23) Supplement: . . . mea Philematium, potare tecum collubitum est mihi. / # Et edepol mihi tecum . . . (Pl. Mos. 295–6); Ubi occisus est Sex. Roscius? # Romae. # Quid? Tu, T. Rosci, ubi tunc eras? # Romae. Verum quid ad rem? Et alii multi. (Cic. S. Rosc. 92); Idemque mittit et signa nobis eius generis . . . (Cic. Div. 1.121); Quibus enim ratio a natura data est, eisdem etiam recta ratio data est. Ergo et lex, quae est recta ratio in iubendo et vetando. Si lex, ius quoque. (Cic. Leg. 1.33); At Iugurtha, postquam oppidum Capsam aliosque locos munitos et sibi utilis simul et magnam pecuniam amiserat . . . (Sal. Jug. 97.1); Mox cornua extendendo clausere et ab tergo hostes. (Liv. 22.47.8); Fuerunt et qui in novercam inveherentur. (Sen. Con. 7.1.20); Et haec enim philosophia praescribit. (Vitr. 1.1.7); Emicant et faces, non nisi cum decidunt visae, qualis Germanico Caesare gladiatorum spectaculum edente praeter ora populi meridiano transcucurrit. (Plin. Nat. 2.96); (sc. Caesar) Neque tamen ob ea parentis patriae delatum et antea vocabulum adsumpsit . . . (Tac. Ann. 2.87) NB: conjunctive coordinator and additive et in the same context: Iidem (sc. sativi) et contra venena prosunt . . . salutares et contra fungorum aut hyoscyami venena atque, ut Nicander tradit, et contra sanguinem tauri. (Plin. Nat. 20.25); . . . Clesippus fullo gibber et praeterea et alio foedus aspectu . . . (Plin. Nat. 34.11)90 Atque ego censui aps te posse hoc me impetrare, uxor mea, / Casina ut uxor mihi daretur; et nunc etiam censeo. (Pl. Cas. 364–5); Ducas easque in maxumam malam crucem / cum hac cum istac, cumque amica etiam tua. (Pl. Cas. 611–12); Eho an

88 See OLD s.v. et § 5, s.v. etiam § 3. For additive ‘operators’, including scalar ones, see Gast and Van der Auwera (2011); see p. 24 on et. 89 For expressions like non modo . . . sed etiam, see § 19.65. 90 See TLL s.v. et 910.52ff.; 77ff.

870

Information structure and extraclausal expressions etiam in caelum escendisti? (Pl. Trin. 942); Si utile rei publicae fuit haurire me unum pro omnibus illam indignissimam calamitatem, etiam hoc utile est, quorum id scelere conflatum sit, me occultare et tacere. (Cic. Dom. 30); Nos autem praeceptis dialecticorum et oratorum etiam . . . parentes . . . verbis quoque novis cogimur uti . . . (Cic. Ac. 1.5); Auctoritate tua nobis opus est et consilio et etiam gratia. (Cic. Fam. 9.25.3); Sed ante omnia obsidionis bellique mala fames utrimque exercitum urgebat, Gallos pestilentia etiam . . . (Liv. 5.48.1); Aqua vero frigida infusa, praeterquam capiti, etiam stomacho prodest, etiam articulis doloribusque . . . (Cels. 1.9.5); Ita proelium atque arma, quae fortibus honesta, eadem etiam ignavis tutissima sunt. (Tac. Ag. 30.1) Verum edepol ne etiam tua quoque malefacta iterari multa / et vero possunt (Pl. As. 567–8); Me quoque iuvat, velut ipse in parte laboris ac periculi fuerim, ad finem belli Punici pervenisse. (Liv. 31.1.1—NB: at the beginning of the book: ‘just as you, readers, probably are pleased’);91 (sc. Agrippina) Abeunte dehinc ancilla ‘tu quoque me deseris’ prolocuta respicit Anicetum . . . (Tac. Ann. 14.8.3)92 Whereas quoque has only constituents in its scope (but see below), etiam can also have larger parts of a clause in its scope (or perhaps one should say, it can function on its own at the clause level). This may explain the use of both words in the same clause, as in (e) and (f).93 Most instances occur in Early Latin comedy.94 This usage is sometimes called ‘pleonastic’. One can compare quoque + item in Cicero Fam. 5.1.2 and Lucretius 5.245 cj. (For additive quoque + scalar etiam, see § 22.22.) (e) Atque ego quoque etiam, qui Iovis sum filius, / contagione mei patris metuo malum. (‘And I too, who am Jupiter’s son, have also caught the fear of a thrashing from my father.’ Pl. Am. 30–1) (f) Nunc vero, Crasse, mea quoque etiam (te iam cj. Kiessling) causa rogo ut . . . (‘But now, Crassus, it is actually also for my own sake that I am asking you.’ Cic. de Orat. 1.164—tr. May and Wisse) The OLD has a small section (§ 2.c) where quoque ‘attaches to the whole rather than any individual word’. One of the examples is (g), where it is indeed difficult to attach quoque to neutra (unless it relates to quare, as it does to ideo on a few occasions). See also (h).95 The interpretation of the instances cited in the literature varies. Note that quoque causes discontinuity. (g) Hic et propositio et assumptio perspicua est. Quare neutra quoque indiget approbatione. (‘Here both the major and the minor premise are clear. Therefore neither needs proof.’ Cic. Inv. 1.66)

91 For a few more instances of what he calls ‘inceptive’ quoque, see Frischer (1983). 92 Bertocchi and Maraldi (2012: 16) interpret quoque here in a scalar sense, but this seems unnecessary. 93 So already K.-St.: II.53. 94 See TLL s.v. etiam 945.52ff. and Sz.: 523. For Lucretius, see Reinhardt (2010: 220–1). 95 Quoted by Shackleton Bailey (1956: 175–6) as an example of ‘the common [SIC!] usage whereby quoque belongs to the whole sentence and not to any particular word.’

Emphasizing particles 871 (h) Non rastros patietur humus, non vinea falcem. / Robustus quoque iam tauris iuga solvet arator. (‘Earth will not suffer the harrow, nor the vine the pruning hook. The sturdy ploughman, too, will now loose his oxen from the yoke.’ Verg. Ecl. 4.40–1) Instances of quoque preceding the constituent it relates to are attested from Varro and Livy onwards in prose (though not in Cicero and Caesar) and from Lucretius onwards in poetry. Examples are (i)–(l).96 There is not a scholarly consensus on how to analyse all the cases cited in the literature. (i) Itaque ne ab se imperatoria consilia neu consulares artes exquirerent, quae pensitanda quoque magnis (magnis quoque cj. Mueller) animis atque ingeniis essent. (‘It was not, therefore, to him that they must address inquiries concerning the strategy of commanders and the qualifications of consuls; the weighing of such abilities demanded also great mental and intellectual powers.’ Liv. 4.41.3) ( j) . . . scilicet expletis (sc. faucibus) quoque ianua raditur oris. (‘. . . and then, in truth, the door to the mouth too is scraped when the throat is choked.’ Lucr. 4.532—tr. Bailey) (k) . . . et amarunt me quoque nymphae. (‘. . . and the nymphs too have loved me.’ Ov. Met. 3.456) (l) Nam quoque (namque cj. Rodgers) eius modi laetatur alimentis et holus et arbor. (‘For both vegetables and trees thrive on nutriment of this sort too.’ Col. 1.6.24) The coordinator -que is used in the sense of quoque in the expression hodieque ‘even nowadays’ from Velleius onwards, as in (m). Also nuperque ‘even recently’ (Plin. Nat. 5.4). There are a few more much-discussed instances of -que in poetry where scholars have suggested an additive reading, as in (n). (Also meque Catul. 102.3; meque Prop. 3.1.35 al.)97 (m) Vires autem veteres earum urbium hodieque magnitudo ostentat moenium. (‘The extent of their walls even at the present day serves to reveal the greatness of these cities in the past.’ Vell. 1.4.2) (n) . . . gaudete vosque, o Lydiae lacus undae . . . (‘. . . rejoice you too, ye waters of the Lydian lake . . .’ Catul. 31.13) From Quintilian onwards quoque and etiam are used in combination with adhuc, as in (o).98

96 See Bömer ad Ov. Met. 6.27, K.-St.: II.54, Sz.: 485–6, Shackleton Bailey (1956: 175–6) and, for discussion and parallels in poetry, Ramírez de Verger (2011). In (k), Barchiesi and Rosati ad loc. take quoque with me, referring to Labate (1983). 97 For discussion and emendations of the Catullan instances, see Trappes-Lomax (2007: 95, 282). For an instance in the Vindolanda Tablets, see Adams (2019: 255). In general, Sz.: 475. 98 See TLL s.v. adhuc 662.52ff.

872

Information structure and extraclausal expressions (o) At si erit tardus ad hoc, eo quoque adhuc remedio utatur, ut ipsae notae . . . aptentur ad eos qui excidunt sensus . . . (‘But if a student is slow at this, let him use the further device of suiting his marks to the ideas which he is liable to forget . . .’ Quint. Inst. 11.2.29)

22.22 Scalar additive particles In addition to the simple additive use of the particles discussed in § 20.21, etiam and, much more rarely, et and quoque can also be used with a ‘scalar’ meaning (‘even’) to indicate ‘an extreme case’,99 as in (a)–(d). In (a), etiam has cum uxore in its scope. It indicates that the most unlikely candidate for a husband not to have intercourse with is his own wife. The use of et in this way is poetic, as in (b). Quoque is found in this use from Plautus onwards, as in (c), where this interpretation is triggered by quin (which is also common together with etiam). Note that in (d) etiam has the entire cum clause in its scope. The choice between the simple additive and the scalar interpretation is not always easy and depends to a large extent on the context. It is also not easy to determine whether etiam has a particular word or phrase in its scope or the whole clause (as is probably the case in (e)).100 For the use of nec/neque in similar contexts, see § 8.12. (a)

Et inter nos coniuravimus, ego cum illo et ille mecum: / ego cum viro et ill’ cum muliere, nisi cum illo aut ille mecum, / neuter stupri causa caput limaret. # Di immortales, / etiam cum uxore non cubet? (‘And we swore an oath together, I with him and he with me: neither of us would have sex with another, I with no man except him, nor he with any woman except me. # Immortal gods! He shouldn’t even lie with his wife?’ Pl. Mer. 536–8)

(b)

Quidquid id est, timeo Danaos et dona ferentis. (‘Whatever it be, I fear the Greeks, even when bringing gifts.’ Verg. A. 2.49)

(c)

Nullus est tibi quem roges / mutuom argentum? # Quin nomen quoque iam interiit ‘mutuom’. (‘Is there no one you could ask for money on loan? # Indeed the very word “loan” doesn’t exist now.’ Pl. Ps. 294–5)

(d)

Qui de me ad te humanissimas litteras scripsit, ad me autem, etiam cum rogat aliquid, contumaciter, adroganter, —uztxzxzi~ƒ| solet scribere. (‘And Brutus, who writes about me so kindly to you, is apt in his letters to me to take a brusque, arrogant, ungracious tone even when he is asking a favour.’ Cic. Att. 6.1.7)

99 Quoted from OLD s.v. etiam. Rosén (2009) uses the term ‘escalating’. TLL s.v. et 908.22ff. calls this use cumulative; s.v. etiam 947.63ff. elativum. In Vol. I (§ 11.145) the term ‘focusing restrictive subjunct’ is used instead of ‘emphasizing scalar additive particle’. For the use of the term ‘scalarity’, see Bertocchi and Maraldi (2012) and Risselada (2016: 192–3). 100 See Iordache (2010).

Emphasizing particles 873 (e)

Aetatem velim servire, Libanum ut conveniam modo . . . Etiam de tergo ducentas plagas praegnatis dabo. (‘I’d be willing to be a slave all my life if only I can meet Libanus. . . . I’ll even give two hundred blows from my back ready to multiply.’ Pl. As. 274–6) Supplement: Fortiter et ferrum, saevos patiemur et ignis . . . (Prop. 1.1.27); At nos vinum bibere et iumenta cogimus . . . (Plin. Nat. 14.137) Iam aderit tempus quom sese etiam ipse oderit. (Pl. Bac. 417); Quin etiam nunc intus hic in proxumo est. (Pl. Mil. 301); . . . qui tantum immanitate bestias vicerit ut . . . eos indignissime luce privarit, cum etiam feras inter sese partus atque educatio et natura ipsa conciliet. (Cic. S. Rosc. 63); In minimis privatisque rebus etiam neglegentia in crimen mandati iudiciumque infamiae vocatur . . . (Cic. S. Rosc. 113); Nam quid ego de aedile ipso loquar, qui etiam diem dixit et accusavit de vi Milonem? (Cic. Sest. 95); . . . quam etiam pecudes, si loqui possent, appellarent voluptatem . . . (Cic. Fin. 2.18); . . . cum . . . illi autem se contra imperium populi Romani pugnaturos negarent, oppidani autem etiam sua sponte Caesarem recipere conarentur . . . (Caes. Civ. 3.11.4); . . . ut . . . calones perterritos hostes conspicati etiam inermes armatis occurrerent . . . (Caes. Gal. 2.27.2); Tu Philippum patrem aversaris et, si quis deorum ante Iovem haberetur, fastidires etiam Iovem. (Curt. 8.7.13); . . . postulamus a vobis muros coloniae, munimenta servitii, detrahatis (etiam fera animalia, si clausa teneas, virtutis obliviscuntur), Romanos omnis in finibus vestris trucidetis . . . (Tac. Hist. 4.64.2) Animadvertis Cn. Pompeium nec nominis sui nec rerum gestarum gloria neque etiam regum ac nationum clientelis, quas ostentare crebro solebat, esse tutum . . . (Dolab. Fam. 9.9.2); Etiam C. Caesaris turbata mens vim dicendi non corrupit. (Tac. Ann. 13.3.2) Etenim mors honesta saepe vitam quoque inopem exornat . . . (Cic. Quinct. 49); Vidimus in glacie pisces haerere ligatos / et pars ex illis tunc quoque viva fuit. (Ov. Tr. 3.10.49–50); Quin illa quoque actio movebatur quae postcaptam utique Romam a Gallis celebratior fuit, transmigrandi Veios. (Liv. 5.24.7); Quin Cicero quoque pro Q. Ligario idem testari videtur, cum dicit . . . (Quint. Inst. 7.4.17) For ne . . . quidem as a scalar emphasizing particle, see § 8.14. According to Gellius 17.2.18 ne . . . quoque in this meaning was common in Early Latin. He uses it himself also a few times (e.g. 1.2.5). For ne/nec . . . saltem, see note 134. For the rare use of nec = ne . . . quidem, see (f).101 (f) Ita primis repulsis Maharbal cum maiore robore virorum missus nec ipse eruptionem cohortium sustinuit. (‘The first troops being thus beaten back, Maharbal, who had been sent with a larger number of picked men, was likewise unable to withstand the sally of the cohorts.’ Liv. 23.18.4) An instance of co-occurrence of scalar etiam and additive quoque is (g).102

101 See Orlandini and Poccetti (2007: 38–45).

102 See Bertocchi and Maraldi (2012: 13).

874

Information structure and extraclausal expressions (g) Neque patiar Sibyllam non solum cecinisse quae, dum viveret, prodessent hominibus, sed etiam quae cum perisset ipsa, et id etiam ignotissimis quoque hominibus. (‘And I cannot allow the Sibyl to have uttered prophecies which benefited mankind not only while she lived, but even after she had passed away, and this even benefited people whom she never knew as well.’ Var. R. 1.1.3)

Adeo ‘indeed’, ‘just’ is used as a scalar particle from Plautus onwards, although it is not always easy to determine whether it has a particular constituent in its scope or whether it belongs to the entire clause. There are instances where it is related to the verb, as in (h); to a noun (phrase), as in (i); to a pronoun, as in ( j); to an adjective, as in (k), causing discontinuity of the noun phrase; to an adverb, as in (l).103 It follows the constituent it has in its scope. This usage is rare in Cicero and in prose in general, except when related to the second conjoin of a coordinate structure, especially after atque, as in (m); in that case, adeo precedes.104 (h)

Abnuere, negitare adeo me natum suom. (‘He’d disown me and even deny that I am his son.’ Pl. Mer. 50)

(i)

Ibi voster cenat cum uxore adeo et Antipho . . . (‘There your master is dining, with his wife actually, and Antipho . . .’ Pl. St. 664)

( j)

Ille adeo illum mentiri sibi / credet . . . (‘He indeed (sc. Amphitruo) will believe that he’s (sc. Sosia) telling lies to him . . . ’ Pl. Am. 468–9)

(k)

Verum illuc est. Maxuma adeo pars vostrorum intellegit . . . (‘That’s true; and most of you know it . . .’ Pl. Mos. 280)

(l)

Nimium ego te habui delicatam. Nunc adeo ut facturus dicam. (‘I’ve spoiled you far too much. Now indeed I’ll tell you what I’m going to do.’ Pl. Men. 119)

(m)

Hoc consilio atque adeo hac amentia impulsi . . . eum iugulandum vobis tradiderunt. (‘In pursuance of this plan and indeed this folly, they have handed over to you to murder the man . . .’ Cic. S. Rosc. 29)

Vel ‘even’ is used as a scalar particle from Early Latin onwards. Plautus has it several times with numerals, as in (n), where one might consider taking it as a discontinuous disjunctive coordinator, but it is also used with other types of constituents, for example the noun mendico in (o).105 (n)

Sequere hac me, faxo iam scies. # Quo gentium? / # Tris unos passus. # Vel decem.

103 See TLL s.v. adeo 614.43ff. 104 See TLL s.v. adeo 612.41ff. 105 See OLD s.v. vel §§ 5 and 6; Lodge s.v. § A.3; Merguet (Phil.) s.v. vel 738Aff.; (Reden) s.v. vel 836Bf.

Emphasizing particles 875 (‘Follow me this way. I’ll make sure that you’ll know. # Where on earth? # Only three steps. # Even if it were ten.’ Pl. Bac. 831–2)

(o)

Cum hac dote poteris vel mendico nubere. (‘With this dowry you’ll be able to marry even a beggar.’ Pl. Per. 396) Supplement: Iam hercle vel ducentae fieri possunt praesentes minae. (Pl. Ps. 302); Si arte poteris accubare. # Vel inter cuneos ferreos. (Pl. St. 619); Huic ducendi interea apscesserit / lubido. Atque ea condicio huic vel primaria est. (Pl. Trin. 745–6); . . . homo cum gravitate et prudentia praestans, tum vel nimium parcus in largienda civitate? (Cic. Balb. 50); . . . cum viderem ex ea parte homines, cuius partis nos vel principes numerabamur . . . (Cic. Red. Pop. 13); . . . in quibus neque manu factum quicquam neque pulchritudo erat ulla, sed tantum magnitudo incredibilis de qua vel audire satis esset, nimium videre plus quam semel . . . (Cic. Ver. 4.125); . . . neque enim falsum percipi posse neque verum si esset tale quale vel falsum. (Cic. Luc. 77); . . . qui ea possideat quae secum, ut aiunt, vel e naufragio possit ecferre? (Cic. Rep. 1.28); Tu, quaeso, crebro ad me scribe vel quod in buccam venerit. (Cic. Att. 7.10.1); Tum egregiae munitiones . . . vel sine defensoribus aditum adversariis prohibebant. (B. Afr. 31.7); Arma vel tribus tantis exercitibus in armamentaria congessisse. (Liv. 42.12.10); Nefas nocere vel malo fratri puta. (Sen. Thy. 219)

For the use of a number of scalar particles with comparative forms, see §  20.10 Appendix; with the superlative, see § 20.32.

22.23 Exclusive particles The most common words that can be used as an exclusive emphasizing particle are modo ‘just’, ‘only’ ‘no more than’, as in (a), and solum ‘only’, ‘merely’, as in (b). They are usually placed after the word or phrase they have in their scope.106 There is a difference in meaning between the two: whereas both share the feature ‘exclusion’, modo excludes ‘worse alternatives’,107 that is, it has a scalar meaning, as is shown in (e): much more might have disappeared. Tantum, as in (c), and tantummodo (also: tantum modo), as in (d), have more or less the same meaning as solum, but they have, rarely, individual words or phrases in their scope and are less restricted in their position in the clause. Instances of wider scope with modo and tantum are (f) and (g). Modo is attested from Early Latin onwards; solum and tantum from Cicero’s time onwards. (For dumtaxat, see § 22.32.) (a)

Cadum modo hinc a me huc cum vino transferam, / postidea accumbam. (‘I’ll just bring the jar of wine over from my place, then I’ll recline.’ Pl. St. 647–8)

106 For a few non-postpositive instances of modo, see TLL s.v. modus 1298.3f. For solum, see OLD s.v. solum § 1 fin. 107 The quotation is from Risselada (1994). See also Bertocchi (2001b: 96–8), who describes modo as ‘restrictive’ (109).

876 (b)

Information structure and extraclausal expressions . . . ut sapiens solum . . . sine aegritudine possit et sine metu vivere. (‘Hence only the Wise Man . . . can possibly live untroubled by sorrow and by fear.’ Cic. Fin. 1.44)

(c)

Hoc (sc. simulacrum) translatum Carthaginem locum tantum hominesque mutarat, religionem quidem pristinam conservabat. (‘Its removal to Carthage was no more than a change of home and worshippers; the reverence formerly felt for it remained.’ Cic. Ver. 4.72)

(d)

Homines enim populariter annum tantum modo solis, id est unius astri, reditu metiuntur. (‘For people commonly measure the year by the circuit of the sun alone, that is, of a single star.’ Cic. Rep. 6.24)

(e)

Omnia insunt salva. Una istinc cistella excepta est modo / cum crepundiis quibuscum hodie filiam inveni meam. (‘Everything is inside, safe and sound; only one little box with tokens has been taken out of it; I’ve found my daughter with them today.’ Pl. Rud. 1362–3)

(f)

Deos salutabo modo, poste ad te continuo transeo. (‘I’ll just greet the gods, then I’ll come over to you at once.’ Pl. St. 623)

(g)

Ars demonstrat tantum ubi quaeras atque ubi sit illud quod studeas invenire. (‘Art merely shows you where to look and where what you are trying to find is.’ Cic. de Orat. 2.150) Supplement: Improbae vini modo cupidae estis. (Pl. Ps. 183); I [et] cenam coque / aut abi in malum cruciatum ab aedibus. # Abi tu modo. (Pl. Aul. 458–9); . . . cur eum beatum modo et non beatissimum etiam dixerim? (Cic. Tusc. 5.76); Paucas (sc. insulas) modo constat esse ex adverso Autololm a Iuba repertas . . . (Plin. Nat. 6.201); . . . dum viri [mei] mihi potestas videndi fuit / noctem unam modo. (Pl. Am. 638–9); Quid velis, modo id velim me scire. (Pl. Cas. 287—NB: modo precedes); Si opperiri vellem paulisper modo . . . (Pl. Bac. 486); Potin ut semel modo, / Ballio, huc cum lucro respicias? (Pl. Ps. 263–4); Quis enim umquam qui paulum modo bonorum consuetudinem nosset, litteras ad se ab amico missas offensione aliqua interposita in medium protulit palamque recitavit? (Cic. Phil. 2.7) Absurdum erat aut etiam in barbaris casibus Graecam litteram adhibere aut recto casu solum Graece loqui. (Cic. Orat. 160); Quo quidem genere orationis non uterer, iudices, hoc tempore, si mea solum interesset. (Cic. Sul. 2); . . . ceterae civitates suis solum incommodis commoventur, Centuripini . . . etiam ceterarum civitatum damna ac detrimenta senserunt. (Cic. Ver. 3.108); Quia de re una solum dissident, de ceteris mirifice congruunt. (Cic. Leg. 1.53); Quoniam omnibus rebus ereptis solum mihi superest animus et corpus, haec ipsa quae mihi de multis sola relicta sunt vobis et vestrae condono potestati. (Rhet. Her. 4.39—NB: solum precedes) Sed hoc totum agetur alio loco. Nunc tantum disputo de iure populi . . . (Cic. Planc. 8); . . . nomen tantum videbitur regis repudiatum, res manebit, si unus omnibus reliquis magistratibus imperabit. (Cic. Leg. 3.15); Tantum illud vereor, ne quos

Emphasizing particles 877 privata amicitia Iugurthae parum cognita transvorsos agat. (Sal. Jug. 14.20); Excepit unum tantum, scire se nihil se scire, nihil amplius. (Cic. Luc. 74) Itaque illi de quibus ante dixi tantummodo commoditatis habuerunt rationem, nullam dignitatis. (Cic. Orat. 193); In coniunctis autem verbis triplex adhiberi commutatio potest, non verborum sed tantum modo ordinis. (Cic. Part. 24); Oscula luctanti tantummodo pauca protervus / abstulit . . . (Ov. Ep. 17.27–8); . . . animus belli ingens domi modicus, lubidinis et divitiarum victor, tantummodo gloriae avidus. (Sal. Jug. 63.2); Quos tamen Homerus non in pestilentia neque in variis generibus morborum aliquid adtulisse auxilii sed vulneribus tantummodo ferro et medicamentis mederi solitos esse proposuit. (Cels. 1.pr.3) Modo in this meaning can also be used in imperative sentences, as in (h) (see § 6.29). Its use in a relative clause is shown by (i). For the use of modo and tantum in stipulative clauses, see § 16.53; for modo in conditional si clauses, see § 16.63. (h) Tum Crassus ‘perge modo,’ inquit, ‘Antoni.’ (‘ “Just go on, Antonius”, said Crassus.’ Cic. de Orat. 1.209) (i) Cui porro qui modo populi Romani nomen audivit, Deiotari integritas, gravitas, virtus, fides non audita est? (‘Nay, who indeed, who has but heard the name of the Roman people, has not heard of the incorruptibility, the dignity, the courage, the loyalty, of Deiotarus?’ Cic. Deiot. 16) Another expression of exclusivity that can be used with words or phrases in its scope is non nisi ‘not unless’, as in ( j).108 ( j) Ego autem medicamentorum dari potiones et alvum duci non nisi raro debere concedo. (‘Now in my opinion medicinal draughts and clysters should only be administered occasionally.’ Cels. 3.4.3)

22.24 Particularizing particles Particularizing particles indicate that the content of the clause is predominantly relevant for the word or phrase in its scope. The particles discussed in §§ 22.25–40 are very diverse. Five sections are distinguished on the basis of the meanings of words, most of them with subsections. Several of the words discussed in these sections can also be used as adverbs at the clause level. 22.25 Quidem and equidem The particle quidem is usually treated together with equidem, since the latter is considered to be formed from the former by the addition of a prefix ĕ-, the derivation of which is disputed. Equidem is often described as a stronger form of affirmation than quidem. In Early Latin comedy, clauses in which the two words are used often also have one of the swear words ecastor, (ede)pol, and hercle. However, from the syntactic 108 See Bertocchi (2001b: 92).

878

Information structure and extraclausal expressions

and semantic points of view they are very different, as can be seen in (a), where they co-occur in the same clause. Quidem can never be in first position since it has a word or a phrase in its scope which it emphasizes (the punctuation of (a) probably visualizes this close relation). By contrast, equidem has the first position, and this is the case in roughly half of its occurrences. It adds something to the meaning of the entire clause, resembling degree-of-truth disjuncts (see §  10.100): the speaker ‘seriously’ regards Epicurus as a pupil of Democritus. Another important distinction between the two words is that equidem is almost only used in clauses with a first person singular subject, while for quidem the type of subject makes no difference. For further complications, see below. (a)

Equidem etiam Epicurum, in physicis quidem, Democriteum puto. (‘For my own part I consider Epicurus also, at all events in natural philosophy, simply a pupil of Democritus.’ Cic. Fin. 4.13)

22.26 Quidem The particle quidem (NB: ne . . . quidem is discussed in § 8.14) is used from Early Latin onwards in all sorts of texts and with great frequency. There is continuous discussion about what lexical category it belongs to and how one particle can be used in a fairly broad range of contexts. Thus it also proves to be difficult to translate straightforwardly into modern languages. The position taken in this Syntax is that its function is to emphasize constituents at the clause level or, less frequently, at the constituent level. Examples are (a) and (b), respectively.109 For its use as an emphasizer of subordinate clauses, see below. (a)

Quattuor quadraginta illi debentur minae, / et sors et faenus. # Tantum est, nihilo plus peto. / # Velim quidem hercle ut uno nummo plus petas. (‘He’s owed forty-four minas, both principal and interest. # That’s the sum. I don’t ask for more. # I’d like you to ask for one single coin more.’ Pl. Mos. 630–2)

(b)

Eho, an invenisti Bacchidem? # Samiam quidem. (‘Tell me, have you found Bacchis? # Yes, the one from Samos.’ Pl. Bac. 200)

Obviously, emphasizing a particular constituent may imply that another constituent in the preceding or following context is less prominent. In this way quidem contributes to the coherence of a text (see also below). Depending on the semantic relation between the units that are, so to speak, drawn into a comparison of being ‘more or less prominent’, the interpretation (and translation) of the contribution of quidem may vary.110 In (a), for instance, quidem is categorized as ‘restrictive’ by Lodge; in (b), as ‘affirmative’.111 In (c), the relation between the two clauses is called ‘adversative’ by 109 The recent publications that I found most helpful are Solodow (1978), Orlandini (2005: 161–9), and Kroon (2004a; 2005; 2009b). For a different approach, see Danckaert (2014; 2015). 110 This is essentially the description of K.-St.: I.802. But see also Solodow (1978: 13) and Kroon (2009b). 111 See Lodge s.v. quidem § III.C.5 and § III.A.2, respectively.

Emphasizing particles 879 K.–St.: I.803 (note that quidem is in the clause that follows);112 in (d), ‘concessive’ (note that quidem precedes while sed is in the clause that follows; quidem is very commonly combined in this way with an adversative, especially sed but also autem, tamen, and verum). (c)

Cum vero sontes ferro depugnabant, auribus fortasse multae, oculis quidem nulla poterat esse fortior contra dolorem et mortem disciplina. (‘But when criminals fought to the death with the sword, for the ears there could perhaps be many more effective forms of training in facing pain and death, but for the eyes none.’ Cic. Tusc. 2.41—tr. Douglas)

(d)

Nam quod me hortaris . . . facis amice tu quidem . . . sed mihi videris aliud tu honestum meque dignum . . . iudicare atque ego existimem. (‘As for urging me . . . that is very friendly of you . . . but you seem to have a different idea of what is honourable and fitting for me . . . from that which I hold myself.’ Cic. Att. 8.2.2) In Sz: 486 quidem is classified as an adversative coordinating particle alongside sed, at, and autem. In  K.-St.: I.802 it is (together with equidem) one of the affirmative ‘Modalitätsadverbien’ (more or less equivalent to ‘sentence adverbs’) alongside nē, profecto, certe, and scilicet. Solodow (1978) recognizes two major usages, as a ‘focus particle’ and as a ‘sentence adverb, insisting on the truth of the whole statement’ (98) (see the discussion of ex. (q) below).113 Orlandini (2005) and Kroon (2005; 2009b) argue for a discourse-marking function of quidem (Kroon states that it also functions as a focus particle). Adams (1994b: 3–5) calls it an ‘emphasizing particle’, that is an ‘emphasizer’ in the terminology of this Syntax.

Quidem can follow words of various types, with pronouns of all sorts being the most prominent. It often behaves as a clitic and forms a prosodic unit with the word it follows, which may result in a shift of accent of the leading word, as in (e). Occasionally quidem emphasizes a whole phrase and not necessarily the word it follows. Examples are the first quidem in (f), a noun phrase, in which quidem is in the middle, and (g), a prepositional phrase followed by quidem. (e)

Hercle, illéquidem certo adulescens docte vorsutus fuit . . .114 (‘Really, he was certainly a cunningly clever young man . . .’ Pl. St. 561)

(f)

Sed quid ego video? # Quid vides? # Nescio quis eccum incedit / ornatu quidem thalassico. # It ad nos, volt te profecto. / Nauclerus hic quidem est.

112 Dougan ad loc. comments: ‘quidem only lends emphasis. The adversative idea (“but”) is as usual implied by the contrast of the clauses.’ 113 So also Müller (1997: 67–8): ‘Modaladverb’. Working in a different framework Danckaert (2014) holds that quidem is a marker of ‘emphatic polarity’, which has the whole clause in its scope. 114 See Petersmann ad loc.: ‘illéquidem; so betont . . . weil das quidem enklitisch ist. Vgl. Radford TAPA 35 (1904), 40.’ See also Adams (1994b: 3–4), Questa (2007: 154–61), and Fortson (2008: 51–2).

880

Information structure and extraclausal expressions (‘But what do I see? # What do you see? # Look, someone’s strutting along in a maritime outfit. # He’s coming to us, he actually wants to speak to you. This is the captain.’ Pl. Mil. 1281–3)

(g)

Inter tot dies quidem hercle iam aliquid actum oportuit. (‘Within so many days he ought to have performed some deed already.’ Pl. Truc. 510)

Very common is the use of quidem with subordinate clauses of various types, both relative clauses, as in (h) (connecting), (i) (autonomous) and ( j) (non-restrictive adnominal), and adjunct and disjunct subordinate clauses, as in (k) and (l).115 Quidem directly follows the relative pronoun/determiner or the subordinator; sometimes it forms a prosodic unit with them (notably siquidem and quandoquidem). In cases like (k) and (l), quidem emphasizes the semantic relation between the subordinate clause and the main clause, as expressed by the subordinator. Quidem is also common in epitactic conjoins, where it emphasizes the fact that another piece of information is added, as in (m) (see § 19.68). In relative clauses quidem emphasizes the semantic relationship of the clause in its context. In (i), repeated from § 18.16, for example, the autonomous relative clause qui videat parum functions as a disjunct of qualified truth with respect to the preceding sentence, comparable with a dativus iudicantis (see §§ 10.101–2); quidem emphasizes this semantic relation. (h)

Etiam agnum misi. # Quo quidem agno sat scio / magis curiosam nusquam esse ullam beluam. (‘I’ve even sent you a lamb. # I know for sure that I haven’t anywhere seen a beast that it takes more care to find out what’s going on than this lamb.’ Pl. Aul. 561–2)

(i)

Eugae, litteras minutas. # Qui quidem videat parum. / Verum qui satis videat, grandes satis sunt. (‘Goodness, such tiny letters! # Tiny for someone who doesn’t see well enough. But for someone who does see well enough they’re big enough.’ Pl. Bac. 991–2)

( j)

. . . commendo tibi . . . maxime C.  Avianium Hammonium, libertum eius, quem quidem tibi etiam suo nomine commendo. (‘. . . I recommend to you especially C. Avianius Hammonius, his freedman, whom I also recommend to you in his own right.’ Cic. Fam. 13.21.2)

(k)

Habeti’n aurum? . . . / # Postquam quidem praetor recuperatores dedit, / damnatus demum, vi coactus reddidit / mille et ducentos Philippum. (‘Do you have the gold? . . . # Well, after the praetor appointed arbitrators, he was finally convicted and forced to return the one thousand two hundred Philippics.’ Pl. Bac. 269–72)

(l)

Eloquar, quandoquidem me oras. (‘I’ll tell you, since you ask me.’ Pl. Mer. 180)

115 For the use of quidem in disjuncts, see Kroon (2009b: 154). For further examples, see §  16.35, § 16.42, and § 16.83. For non-restrictive relative clauses, see § 18.6.

Emphasizing particles 881 (m)

Proinde istuc facias ipse quod faciamus nobis suades. / # Ego vero, et quidem edepol lubens. (‘So you should practise yourself what you’re preaching to us. # I will indeed, and with pleasure.’ Pl. As. 644–5)

In (n), quidem serves to contrast the first accusative and infinitive (argument) clause with the second, which contains the adversative coordinator sed.116 (n)

. . . iudicare sena/tum referendum quidem esse acceptum maxume discipulinae avi orum et / patrui et Iuliae Aug(ustae) sed tamen ipsorum quoque nomin laudandum existumare[t]. (‘. . . the Senate judged that this should be ascribed especially to the discipline of their grandfather and paternal uncle and of Julia Augusta, but that nonetheless on their account also the Senate considered that it was praiseworthy.’ S.C. de Gn. Pisone patre 148–51, ad 20)

Quidem cannot be used to emphasize prepositions117 and connectors (there are only a few scattered attestations of nam quidem (most of them emended) and of at quidem (four in Plautus)). However, it can be used to emphasize utinam (see § 7.58). It is only attested once with the negator haud ‘not’ in Terence (checked in LLT), four times with vix ‘hardly’ (once in Plautus), and, given its frequency, rarely with non ‘not’ (some 100 times in PHI corpus), the first two attestations being in Hirtius.118 By contrast, combinations of these three words with equidem are more evenly spread. As for personal pronouns, Cicero does not use the combination ego quidem outside his letters.119 In some instances where quidem follows a pronoun, it is difficult to understand why the pronoun should be emphasized.120 Among the instances that are discussed in the literature are (o)–(q). In (o) quidem is said to emphasize carissimum; in (p), to emphasize paucos. However, it seems preferable to say that in such cases quidem does not function at the level of constituents, but at the clause level. Thus, in (o), quidem, together with following sed, underlines the contrast between the two accusative and infinitive clauses (as in (n)); in (p), quidem underlines the corrective function of the clause introduced by the alternative coordinator vel. The pronouns function as ‘host’ of the ‘clausal emphasis’. This is also more or less the explanation given by Solodow of (q): ‘the sense is not so much “boy, you are dumb” as “boy, you really are dumb.” ’ Here, however, there is no balancing clause as in (o) and (p), and in (q) ‘clausal emphasis’ is difficult to prove. The speaker, a meretrix, has already called the young lady stulta three times in the same scene, and so maybe tu quidem ‘in comparison with other girls’ reflects her frustration. 116 Existumare[t] at the end of the sentence is odd. 117 For an exceptional instance of quidem following a preposition, see ex. (d) in § 19.70. Quidem is also excluded after the degree adverb tam, so: tam efficaciter quidem (Sen. Dial. 10.6.1) (Ludewig 1891: 3). 118 For instances of quidem arranged by lexical category, see the Lexica of Lodge and Merguet. 119 So Burckhardt (1935). Cicero has it six times; his correspondents just as often. 120 ‘. . . emphatic quidem, though attracted to pronouns, does not always emphasize them’ (Solodow 1978: 98—ex. (q) is one of his examples). See also K.-St.: I.804–5, who discuss (o) and (p).

882 (o)

Information structure and extraclausal expressions Vale igitur, mi Cicero, tibique persuade esse te quidem mihi carissimum sed multo fore cariorem, si talibus monitis praeceptisque laetabere. (‘Farewell, my dear Cicero, and be assured that, while you are the object of my deepest affection, you will be dearer to me still, if you find pleasure in such counsel and instruction.’ Cic. Off. 3.121)

(p)

Tiberius Gracchus regnum occupare conatus est vel regnavit is quidem paucos menses. (‘Tiberius Gracchus tried to obtain regal power—or rather, he actually did reign for a few months.’ Cic. Amic. 41)

(q)

Inscita ecastor tu quidem es. (‘You really are silly.’ Pl. Mos. 208)

The reason for the use of emphasis is more or less explicitly traceable in the surrounding context. This is shown by (r)–(u). In (r), emphatic tum evokes the expectation of (an)other occasion(s) at which something else was the case; this expectation is fulfilled in the next sentence and reinforced by verum. In (s), emphatic tum also evokes an expectation, but here paucis interiectis diebus must be interpreted as the signal for the expected other occasion.121 In (t), emphatic ceteri creates the expectation of an exception, which turns out to be Marius in the next sentence. Ex. (u) is part of an episode about an adventure in which three friends are involved: Ascyltos, Encolpius, and Giton. The first sentence deals only with two of them, which creates an opening for emphatic Giton in the following sentence. Noteworthy is Pliny the Elder’s use of quidem in (v): it marks the change from one example of marvels (animals) to another (trees).122 (r)

Nam tum quidem omnes mortales implorare posses, quod homines in tuo negotio Latine obliviscerentur, [quod] inermi armati iudicarentur, quod, cum interdictum esset de pluribus, commissa res esset ab uno, unus homo plures esse homines iudicaretur. Verum in his causis . . . (‘For in the imaginary case you might have appealed for pity to all the world because, in dealing with your suit, the court was forgetting its Latin and holding unarmed men to be armed men, and because, while the injunction specified more than one man, and the deed was done by one only, the court was holding one man to be more than one. But in the present case . . .’ Cic. Caec. 62–3)

(s)

Ibi Sex. Tarquinium mala libido Lucretiae per vim stuprandae capit. Cum forma tum spectata castitas incitat. Et tum quidem ab nocturno iuvenali ludo in castra redeunt. Paucis interiectis diebus Sex. Tarquinius inscio Collatino cum comite uno Collatiam venit. (‘It was there that Sextus Tarquinius was seized with a wicked desire to debauch Lucretia by force; not only her beauty, but her proved chastity as well, provoked him.

121 Examples (s) and (u) are discussed by Kroon (2009b: 155–6). See also Kroon (2011: 185–6). 122 For Pliny’s usage, see Ludewig (1891: 18–24).

Emphasizing particles 883 However, for the present they ended the boyish prank of the night and returned to the camp. When a few days had gone by, Sextus Tarquinius, without letting Collatinus know, took a single attendant and went to Collatia.’ Liv. 1.57.10–58.1)

(t)

Et ceteri quidem alius alio. Marius ab subselliis in rostra recta idque, quod communiter compositum fuerat, solus edixit. (‘And while all the rest withdrew, some in one direction, some in another, Marius went straight from the council-chamber to the rostra and published individually what had been drawn up by all together.’ Cic. Off. 3.80)

(u)

Servavit nos (sc. Ascyltos and Encolpius) tamen atriensis, qui interventu suo et canem placavit et nos trementes extraxit in siccum. Et Giton quidem iam dudum se ratione acutissima redemerat a cane. (‘But the porter by his intervention pacified the dog and saved us, and pulled us shivering onto dry land. Giton had ransomed himself from the dog some time before by a very cunning plan.’ Petr. 72.8–9)

(v)

Praecipue India Aethiopumque tractus miraculis scatent. Maxima in India gignuntur animalia. Indicio sunt canes grandiores ceteris. Arbores quidem tantae proceritatis traduntur, ut sagittis superiaci nequeant . . . (‘India and the regions of the Ethiopians bubble with marvels. The biggest animals grow in India; for instance, Indian dogs are bigger than any others. Indeed the trees are said to be so lofty that it is not possible to shoot an arrow over them . . .’ Plin. Nat. 7.21)

Translating emphasizing quidem in a modern language is sometimes difficult. Often a specific word is not necessary, because intonation will suffice. Relative clauses are a good example of such difficulty, as in (w), where the entire relative clause is emphasized to restrict the number of orators to those who live now (the so-called restrictive use of quidem). It is difficult to translate this into English by just emphasizing the relative. (w)

Catonem vero quis nostrorum oratorum, qui quidem nunc sunt, legit? (‘As for Cato, who of our orators living today reads him?’ Cic. Brut. 65)

The supplement has a selection of examples where specific translations may be useful for the semantic relation between units containing quidem and the units to which they are related.123 Supplement: Restrictive: Mequidem praesente numquam factum est, quod sciam. (Pl. Am. 749); Stultitia magna est, mea quidem sententia, / hominem amatorem ullum ad forum procedere / . . . (Pl. Cas. 563–4); Caesar Alexandria se recepit, felix, ut sibi quidem videbatur, mea autem sententia, qui rei publicae sit hostis, felix esse nemo potest. (Cic. Phil. 2.64); Sed mehercule, ut quidem nunc se causa habet, etsi hesterno sermone labefacta est, mihi tamen videtur esse verissima. (Cic. Luc. 10); Si enim, ut mihi quidem videtur, non explet bona naturae voluptas, iure praetermissa est. (Cic. Fin. 5.45); Successus textor amat coponiaes ancilla / nomine Hiredem, quae 123 The organization follows K.-St.: I.803–5, including my version of their labels.

884

Information structure and extraclausal expressions quidem illum / non curat, sed ille rogat, illa comiseretur. (CIL IV.8259.1–3 (Pompeii)); Cui similia sunt illa meo quidem iudicio, in quibus verba decenter pudoris gratia subtrahuntur. (Quint. Inst. 9.3.59); Sed nec ipse ignorasse aut dissimulasse ultima vitae suae tempora videtur, aliquot quidem argumentis. (Suet. Cl. 46.1) Adversative: At publice commodasti. Non sine magno quidem rei publicae provinciaeque Siciliae detrimento. (Cic. Ver. 4.20); Id nos fortasse non perfecimus, conati quidem saepissime sumus. (Cic. Orat. 210); Haec quae dico cogitatione inter se differunt, re quidem copulata sunt . . . (Cic. Tusc. 4.24) Concessive: . . . multi iam esse libri Latini dicuntur scripti inconsiderate ab optimis illis quidem viris, sed non satis eruditis. (Cic. Tusc. 1.6); . . . filiae duae nuptae, Sulpicio maior, minor C. Licinio Stoloni erat, illustri quidem viro tamen plebeio. (Liv. 6.34.5); Sunt qui equo non quidem in iecore esse, sed in alvo putent . . . (Plin. Nat. 11.192); Et veneno quidem occisum convenit. Ubi autem et per quem dato, discrepat. (Suet. Cl. 44) Explanatory: In his autem ipsis mediocritatis regula optima est. L.  quidem Philippus . . . gloriari solebat se sine ullo munere adeptum esse omnia quae haberentur amplissima. (Cic. Off. 2.59); Nam cum apud Graecos antiquissimum e doctis genus sit poetarum, si quidem Homerus fuit et Hesiodus ante Romam conditam, Archilochus regnante Romulo, serius poeticam nos accepimus. (Cic. Tusc. 1.3); . . . certe et deum ipsum et divinum animum corpore liberatum cogitatione complecti possumus. Dicaearchus quidem et Aristoxenus . . . nullum omnino animum esse dixerunt. (Cic. Tusc. 1.51) In reactions: Di te perdant. # Vos quidem hercle. (Pl. Poen. 588); Nempe ergo aperte vis quae restant me loqui? # Sane quidem. (Ter. An. 195); Syre, processisti hodie pulchre. # Siquidem porro, Micio, / tu tuom officium facies . . . (Ter. Ad. 979–80)

22.27 Equidem As stated in § 22.25, equidem is typically used in clauses with a first person singular subject and is often the first word of its clause. The speaker regularly uses equidem when expressing his opinion, as in (a), or his source of information, as in (b), or when interacting with another person or himself, as in (c) and (d), respectively. Equidem is therefore common in dialogical texts and in speeches, or in authorial interventions in other text types.124 It resembles adverbs that function as degree-of-truth disjuncts (see § 10.100). (a)

Non equidem ullam in publico esse maiorem hac existumo. (‘I don’t think there’s any bigger than this one on the public street.’ Pl. Mos. 909)

(b)

Iam pridem equidem istuc ex te audivi. (‘I heard that from you long ago.’ Pl. Poen. 156)

(c)

Quid stamus? Quin ergo imus atque obsonium / curamus, pulchre ut simus? # Equidem te sequor. (‘Why are we standing around? Why don’t we go then and sort out the food in order to have a lovely time? # I’m following you.’ Pl. Mer. 582–3)

124 Jordan (1879) observes that Cicero’s de Officiis, a non-dialogical treatise, has only two instances of equidem, whereas they are common in his philosophical dialogues. For the frequency with which authors use equidem, see TLL s.v. equidem 720.16ff. For the use of ego and equidem in parenthetical clauses, see Bolkestein (1998a: 27–8).

Emphasizing particles 885 (d)

Quid cogitem? Equidem hercle opus hoc facto existumo / ut illo intro eam. (‘What should I think about? I believe that what needs to be done is for me to enter there.’ Pl. Mer. 566–7) Supplement: Nam scio equidem nullo pacto iam esse posse haec clam senem. (Pl. Mos. 1054–5); Equidem, quod ad me attinet, quo me vertam nescio. (Cic. Clu. 4); Haud mediocris hic, ut equidem (ego quidem P corr.) intellego, vir fuit, qui modica libertate populo data facilius tenuit auctoritatem principum. (Cic. Rep. 2.55);125 Equidem credo, mea vulnera restant / et tua progenies mortalia demoror arma. (Verg. A. 10.29–30); Alpes inde oppositae erant. Quas inexsuperabiles visas haud equidem miror, nulladum via . . . superatas. (Liv. 5.34.6); Sed prius rari succurrit . . . (sc. arbores) in tanta deliciarum pretia venisse, clarissimo, ut equidem arbitror, exemplo L. Crassi atque Cn. Domiti Ahenobarbi. (Plin. Nat. 17.1) Alii, Lyde, nunc sunt mores. # Id equidem ego certo scio. (Pl. Bac. 437); Egon’, quom haec cum illo accubet, inspectem? # Immo equidem pol tecum accumbam . . . (Pl. Bac. 1192); At ego hanc vicinam dico . . . / # Iam pridem equidem istuc ex te audivi. (Pl. Poen. 154–6); Sanum te credis esse? # Equidem arbitror. (Ter. Ad. 748); ‘Sed existimo’, inquit, ‘gratum te his, Crasse, facturum . . .’ # ‘Dicam equidem, quoniam institui, petamque a vobis’, inquit, ‘ne has meas ineptias efferatis’. (Cic. de Orat. 1.110–11)

When followed by an adversative coordinator, connector, or adverb, the clause with equidem can be interpreted in a concessive sense, as in (e) and (f), comparable with quidem clauses. (e)

Tu paucis expedi quid postulas. # Dixi equidem, sed si parum intellexti, dicam denuo. (‘You, tell me briefly what you demand. # I’ve told you, but if you didn’t understand it fully I’ll say it again.’ Pl. Rud. 1102–3)

(f)

Vellem equidem idem possem gloriari quod Cyrus, sed tamen hoc queo dicere . . . (‘Would that I myself could boast as Cyrus did, but still I can say this much . . .’ Cic. Sen. 32)

The pronoun ego can be used if there is a good reason for it, as in (g) and (h): in (g), it contrasts with tibi, in (h) with C. Lucilius. (g)

Sed quis istuc tibi / dixit? # Ego equidem ex te audivi . . . (‘But who told you that? # I heard it from you . . .’ Pl. Am. 763–4)

(h)

(sc. ut C. Lucilius) Sic ego, si iam mihi disputandum sit de his nostris studiis, nolim equidem apud rusticos, sed multo minus apud vos. (‘So too I, if I should now have to discuss these pursuits of ours, should of course be sorry to speak before an audience of uneducated people, but far more reluctant to do so in this present company.’ Cic. de Orat. 2.25) 125 For a discussion of the ms. reading, see Burckhardt (1935).

886

Information structure and extraclausal expressions

The fact that ego can co-occur with equidem makes it unattractive to describe its meaning as de facto equivalent to ego quidem;126 another issue is the fact that equidem is not restricted to first person singular clauses (see below). From Antiquity onwards equidem is discussed in relation with ego quidem, as in Servius’ comment ad Verg. A. 1.576 in (i). This explanation is still current and is reflected in translations such as ‘I for my part’ and ‘I for one’. Another approach is to compare the e- with ē-castor and ě-de-pol (so TLL).127 As far as I know, there are no proposals to derive quidem from equidem, which seems more plausible. (i) EQVIDEM in omni Vergilio ‘ego quidem’ significat, sed in aliis et pro ‘quidem’ tantum ponitur, ut Tullius ‘equidem ego ceteras tempestates’. (‘Equidem everywhere in Virgil means ego quidem, but in others it is also used instead of quidem only, as for instance Cicero’s “I, for one (considered) all other storms…” ’ Serv. A. 1.576—tr. Bal; NB: the mss. of Cic. Mil. 5, where the fragment stems from, have only equidem) In order to prove that equidem is some sort of emphatic ego, some scholars refer to a number of instances in which a clause with equidem is parallel with a clause with an explicit second person, as ( j) and (k).128 However, the continuation of the supposedly contrastive words, here added between curly brackets, makes such an interpretation very unlikely. ( j) Equidem tam sum servos quam tu {, etsi ego domi liber fui, / tu usque a puero servitutem servivisti in Alide.} (‘Yes, I am a slave like you, even if I was free at home and you were a slave in Elis from childhood.’ Pl. Capt. 543–4) (k) ‘Equidem probo ista,’ Crassus inquit, ‘quae vos facere soletis {, ut, causa aliqua posita consimili causarum earum, quae in forum deferuntur, dicatis quam maxime ad veritatem accommodate. Sed plerique in hoc vocem modo, neque eam scienter, et viris exercent suas . . .’} (‘ “I certainly approve,” replied Crassus, “of what you yourselves are in the habit of doing, when you propound some case, closely resembling such as are brought into Court, and argue it in a fashion adapted as nearly as possible to real life. Most students, however, in so doing, merely exercise their voices (and that in the wrong way), and their physical strength . . .” ’ Cic. de Orat. 1.149)

In the clauses with a first person singular subject under discussion, equidem is rarely, if ever, used at the noun phrase level, unlike quidem. Suggested examples are (l) and (m), both of which are cases of discontinuity and are thus difficult to judge.129 (l)

126 127 128 129

Hac igitur conscientia comite proficiscar, magno equidem cum dolore, nec tam id propter me . . .

So inter alios Jordan (1879) and TLL s.v. 720.62ff. Sihler (1995: 390–1) relates e- in equidem to §- in Greek §upśxz|, with the meaning ‘hither-directed’. Ex. (j) is quoted by TLL s.v. equidem 721.43; (k), by Jordan (1879: 316). Taken from TLL s.v. equidem 720.63f.

Emphasizing particles 887 (‘So I shall go with this conscience to keep me company, though not without deep sorrow, not so much for myself . . .’ Cic. Att. 10.4.5)

(m)

Tuas litteras hodie exspectabam, nihil equidem ut ex iis novi; quid enim? Verum tamen. (‘I am expecting a letter from you today, not to learn any news (what should there be?), but all the same.’ Cic. Att. 13.2.1)

In light of all these considerations, it is best to conclude that, in the clauses with a first person singular subject discussed so far, equidem is an adverb that expresses in some way the personal involvement of the speaker, something like ‘seriously’. It seems to function as an attitudinal disjunct, but differs from the attitudinal disjuncts profecto and scilicet, since it co-occurs with them in the same clause in (n) and (o), respectively. (n)

Iam vides? # Profecto nullam equidem illic cornicem intuor. (‘Do you see it now? # I really can’t spot any crow there.’ Pl. Mos. 836)

(o)

Nunc hoc te obsecro . . . / # Scilicet equidem istuc factum ignoscam. Verum, Sostrata, / male docet te mea facilitas multa. (‘But now I beseech you . . . I’ll certainly forgive you what you have done. But, Sostrata, my generosity in many ways sends you the wrong message.’ Ter. Hau. 644–8)

The use of equidem with subjects other than ego is very rare until Apuleius, who, in his Met., has nine out of eleven instances of equidem with a non-first person singular subject (the balance is different in his other works). There is variation among authors: Plautus has 160 first, 9 non-first; Cicero 320 / 1; Sallust 8 / 3.130 Examples are (p)–(s). Of these examples, the first three are not different from the ones discussed before. In (p), the second speaker reacts to the preceding statement. Me quidem would also be possible, but it would mean something different. Ex. (q) is the expression of a personal opinion and also in (r), in a speech, equidem is perfectly all right. Ex. (s) is simply bizarre: it is in a question, and seems to relate to the secondary predicate exoptatus.131 (p)

Nimis doctus ille ad male faciendum. # Me equidem certo / servavit consiliis suis. (‘He’s very clever when it comes to making mischief. # He certainly saved me with his strategies.’ Pl. Epid. 378–9)

(q)

Equidem credibile non est quantum scribam, quin etiam noctibus. (‘You would not believe how much I am writing, even at night.’ Cic. Att. 13.26.2)

(r)

‘Iam pridem equidem nos vera vocabula rerum amisimus.’ (‘But in very truth we have long since lost the true names for things.’ Sal. Cat. 52.11)

(s)

. . . infit ad eum ‘Quam olim equidem exoptatus nobis advenis?’ (‘. . . he said to him: “How long ago did you, who I’ve hoped would come, get here?” ’ Apul. Met. 2.13.6)

130 See TLL s.v. equidem 720.25ff.

131 The example is quoted in OLD s.v. equidem § 2.

888

Information structure and extraclausal expressions

The use of equidem is also odd in (t), where ego is the subject of the sentence. Here, equidem is part of the noun phrase salutares . . . aquas, and it seems to be intended to emphasize vere. Apuleius is here exploiting for artistic purposes the gradual development of using equidem instead of quidem, which can already be detected in Pliny the Elder’s use of it in quod clauses of qualification, as in (u) (see § 16.83).132 (t)

At ego sine ulla mora progressus etiam obvio gradu satis sitienter pronus et totum caput immergens salutares vere equidem illas aquas hauriebam. (‘I did not delay at all, but started forward to meet them, leaned down quite thirstily, immersed my entire head, and gulped down those truly life-giving waters.’ Apul. Met. 9.4.1)

(u)

Aristoteles tradit et simul plures cerni, nemini conpertum alteri, quod equidem sciam, ventos autem ab iis graves aestusve significari. (‘Aristotle also records that several may be seen at the same time—a fact not observed by anyone else, as far as I am aware—and that this signifies severe winds or heat.’ Plin. Nat. 2.91)

There is in principle no reason to assume for clauses with a non-first person subject another contribution of equidem to the content of the clause simply because it is a non-first person subject. 22.28 Saltem and related expressions This section deals with the particle saltem and three related expressions which are always (saltem) or in some of their uses (certe, utique, and dumtaxat) translated as ‘at least’. Of these, saltem and dumtaxat are emphasizing particles, while the other two are adverbs which are sometimes used in a way that resembles emphasizing particles. 22.29 Saltem From Plautus onwards the emphasizing particle saltem ‘at least’ is used to indicate that the word or phrase in its scope ‘has a lower value than one or more alternatives that may be “preferable” but “not practicable” ’.133 The alternative(s) can be explicit, as in (a), (c), and (d), or implicit, as in (b). Saltem is common in the apodosis of a conditional clause, as in (b), sometimes in combination with the adversative connector at ‘but’. It need not stand immediately next to the word(s) in its scope but may precede or follow it. Saltem can also be used below the clause level, as in the adjective phrase in (d). Occasionally the whole clause seems to be in its scope, as in (e), where saltem comes close to being a subjective evaluation disjunct (see § 10.104). For its use with a conditional clause in its scope, see the Supplement. In a negative context it corresponds

132 For equidem = quidem in Apuleius, see Callebat (1968: 493–4). For later instances, see TLL s.v. equidem 722.72ff. 133 Combining the description in OLD s.v. saltem and that by Risselada (2016: 193). So already K.-St.: I.801. See also Bortolussi and Sznajder (2001).

Emphasizing particles 889 to English ‘even’, as in (f). In later Latin the combination ne/nec . . . saltem is used in the sense of ne . . . quidem.134 (a)

. . . id optumum esse, tute uti sis optumus. / Si id nequeas, saltem ut optumis sis proxumus. (‘. . . that it is the best to be the best yourself; if you can’t be that, at least that you should be next to the best.’ Pl. Trin. 486–7)

(b)

In quibus si moderatio illa quae in nostris solet esse consulibus non fuit, at fuit pompa, fuit species, fuit incessus saltem Seplasia dignus et Capua. (‘And if those men were not marked by all that self-restraint which ordinarily characterizes our consuls, there was a presence about them, a magnificence, a lordly gait that was at least worthy of the Seplasia and of Capua.’ Cic. Pis. 24)

(c)

Quam ob rem obsecro te, mi Tite, eripe hunc mihi dolorem aut minue saltem . . . (‘So, my dear Titus, I implore you, rid me of this pain or at any rate relieve it . . .’ Cic. Att. 9.6.5)

(d)

Atque utinam quietis temporibus atque aliquo, si non bono, at saltem certo statu civitatis haec inter nos studia exercere possemus! (‘If only we could pursue these studies together in peaceful times and at least a settled, if not satisfactory, state of the community!’ Cic. Fam. 9.8.2)

(e)

Saltem aliquid de pondere detraxisset et paulo minoris aestimavisset ea quam Peripatetici, ut sentire quoque aliud, non solum dicere videretur. (‘He ought at least to have diminished their importance and to have set a slightly lower value on them than the Peripatetics, so as to make the difference appear to be one of meaning and not merely of language.’ Cic. Fin. 4.57)

(f)

Tubera haec vocantur undique terra circumdata nullisque fibris nixa aut saltem capillamentis . . . (‘The growths referred to are called truffles; they are enveloped all round with earth and are not strengthened by any fibres or even any filaments . . .’ Plin. Nat. 19.33) Supplement: Quis ego sum saltem, si non sum Sosia? (Pl. Am. 438); Istuc sapienter saltem fecit filius, / quom diviti homini id aurum servandum dedit. (Pl. Bac. 337–8); Ego impetrare nequeo hoc abs te, biduom / saltem ut concedas solum. # Siquidem biduom. / Verum ne fiant isti viginti dies. (Ter. Eu. 181–3); . . . obsecrabo obtestaborque vos, iudices, si cetera amisimus, hoc nobis saltem ut relinquatur . . . (Cic. Mil. 6); Ac de his tamen legibus quae promulgatae sunt saltem queri possumus: de eis quae iam latae dicuntur ne illud quidem licuit. (Cic. Phil. 1.25); . . . saltem populi Romani commoda respicite si sociis fidelissimis prospicere non laboratis. (Cic. Ver. 3.127); Saltem si qua mihi de te suscepta fuisset / ante fugam suboles, si quis mihi parvulus aula / luderet Aeneas qui te tamen ore referret, / non equidem omnino capta ac deserta viderer.

134 For ne/nec . . . saltem = ne . . . quidem in Apuleius and later Latin, see Callebat (1968: 334–5).

890

Information structure and extraclausal expressions (Verg. A. 4.327–30); Saevite in tergum et in cervices nostras. Pudicitia saltem in tuto sit. (Liv. 3.45.9); Ibi tribuni militum non loco castris ante capto . . . non deorum saltem si non hominum memores, nec auspicato nec litato, instruunt aciem . . . (Liv. 5.38.1); In crure aeque ad rem pertinet alterum saltem os integrum manere. (Cels. 8.10.5A); Non vides quemadmodum in Achaia clarissimarum urbium iam fundamenta consumpta sint nec quicquam extet ex quo appareat illas saltem fuisse? (Sen. Ep. 91.10); . . . nulli contra nos aditum tulerunt ac ne procul saltem ulli comparuerant. (Apul. Met. 8.16.7)

22.30 Certe The adverb certe ‘surely’ is normally used as a degree-of-truth disjunct (see § 10.100), but in explicitly or implicitly contrastive contexts it can be interpreted as indicating a minimal degree ‘(perhaps more, but) at least’. The contrast can hold between subordinate and main clauses, between sentences, or between words or phrases. When indicating a minimal degree, certe resembles the emphasizing particle saltem (although its meaning is different).135 Contrastive clauses are shown in (a) and (b). In (c) and (d) the contrast is implicit. Note that the contrastive words are in the first position in their clause, which in (d) results in discontinuity of the noun phrase. (a)

Nam, utut erant alia, illi certe quae nunc tibi domi’st consuleres . . . (‘If nothing else, you should have at least taken some thought for the girl you have at home . . .’ Ter. Ph. 468)

(b)

Ac si princeps eam sententiam dicerem, laudaretis profecto. Si solus, certe ignosceretis. (‘And if I were the first to put forward this opinion, you would assuredly praise me. If I were the only one to do so, you would no doubt excuse me.’ Cic. Prov. 1)

(c)

Quo quid sit beatius, mihi certe in mentem venire non potest. (‘And what can be happier than this I certainly cannot conceive.’ Cic. Tusc. 5.81)

(d)

Ergo id volumus populum Romanum . . . existimare, si senatores iudicent, hoc certe unum genus infinitae pecuniae per summam iniuriam cogendae nullo modo posse reprehendi? (‘Do we then wish the Roman people . . . to think that, if senators are the judges, this particular manner of extorting immense sums of money with the greatest injustice will never be in any way chastised?’ Cic. Ver. 3.223) Supplement: Atque is tamen aliquis Ligarius non fuit: Varus imperium se habere dicebat. Fasces certe habebat. (Cic. Lig. 22–3); . . . in causa populari si non moderate at certe populariter apstinenterque versato. (Cic. Sest. 37); . . . ut homines mortem vel optare incipiant vel certe timere desistant? (Cic. Tusc. 1.117); Redeo ego ad unum illud, me tuum esse. Fore cum tuis, si modo erunt tui. Si minus, me certe in omnibus rebus satis nostrae coniunctioni amorique facturum. (Cic. Fam. 4.8.2); In quo si praesens

135 See Risselada (2016: 193–4), with references. For further examples, see TLL s.v. 932.76ff.

Emphasizing particles 891 periculum non, at certe longinqua obsidione fames esset timenda. (Caes. Gal. 5.29.7); Numen confessis aliquod patet. Ultima certe / vota suos habuere deos. (Ov. Met. 10.488–9); Eandem multis naturam aut certe similem habere berulli videntur. (Plin. Nat. 37.76); . . . nec rerum nimiam tenuitatem, ut non dicam pinguioribus, fortioribus certe verbis miscebimus . . . (Quint. Inst. 12.10.35); Quam ob rem duo quodam modo sunt testamenta, aiud patris, aliud fili, tamquam si ipse filius sibi heredem instituisset. Aut certe unum est testamentum duarum hereditatum. (Gaius Inst. 2.180)

22.31 Utique The adverb utique ‘absolutely’, ‘at any rate’ is mostly used as a degree-of-truth disjunct (see § 10.100). Cicero has about twenty instances of this usage in his Letters to Atticus, one of which is (a), and a few in his other works. Livy has more than eighty instances of utique and he is the first to relate it to a subordinate clause, as in (b), more or less in the manner of an emphasizing particle. Word order in (c) suggests that utique relates to ipso . . . Scipione.136 Ex. (d) shows utique in the second conjoin of a coordination pair. Apuleius is the first to use it with a question word, as in (e). It is almost absent from verse (only Maur. 592),137 but common in prose authors such as Celsus, Columella, Pliny the Elder, Seneca, Quintilian, and Tertullian;138 it is avoided by Tacitus (except in the Dialogus). (a)

Velim ante possis, si minus, utique simul simus cum Brutus veniet in Tusculanum. (‘I wish you could manage it before, but if not, let us at any rate be together when Brutus comes to Tusculum.’ Cic. Att. 13.4.2)

(b)

Superbiam, verborum praesertim, iracundi oderunt, prudentes inrident, utique si inferioris adversus superiorem est. (‘Arrogance, especially of speech, is hated by the hot-tempered, but laughed at by the wise, especially if directed by an inferior against his superior.’ Liv. 45.23.18)

(c)

. . . quod Numida cum ipso utique congredi Scipione volebat atque eius dextra fidem sancire. (‘. . . because the Numidian desired in any case to meet Scipio in person and to ratify the agreement by clasping his hand.’ Liv. 28.35.1)

(d)

In senatu et utique in contionibus eadem ratio quae apud iudices adquirendae sibi plerumque eorum apud quos dicendum sit benivolentiae. (‘Among the senate and certainly among the people the same methods apply as in the law courts, and we must aim as a rule at acquiring the goodwill of our audience.’ Quint. Inst. 3.8.7)

136 The OLD s.v. utique § 7a translates ‘expressly’. Sz.: 493 states that it is equivalent to cur + ergo or igitur. The translation ‘precisely’ in (e) is also from the OLD, § 7b. For utique in Late Latin, see Langslow (2005). 137 See Axelson (1945: 96). 138 For Apuleius’ usage, see Callebat (1968: 322–3).

892 (e)

Information structure and extraclausal expressions (sc. uxor) . . . percontatur de marito cur utique contubernalis artissimi deserta cenula praematurus adforet. (‘. . . she inquired of her husband why precisely he had left supper at his best friend’s house and returned so early.’ Apul. Met. 9.23.3) Supplement: Faba quidem Pythagorei utique abstinere, quasi vero eo cibo mens, non venter infletur. (Cic. Div. 2.119); . . . et velim M. Varronis et Olli mittas laudationem, Olli utique. (Cic. Att. 13.48.2); Rursus Vergini Larcique exemplo haud salubres, utique Larci putabant sententiam quae totam fidem tolleret. (Liv. 2.30.1); . . . tribuni rem contra consules saepe temptatam adiutore utique consule obtineri posse rati suscipiunt . . . (Liv. 3.1.2); Ceterum minime exorabilem alterum utique consulem M.  Porcium Catonem habebant (Liv. 34.1.7); Gangrenam vero, si nondum plane tenet, sed adhuc incipit, curare non difficillimum est, utique in corpore iuvenili. (Cels. 5.26.34A); Huic (sc. sapienti) enim propositum est in vita agenda non utique quod temptat efficere, sed omnia recte facere. Gubernatori propositum est utique navem in portum perducere. (Sen. Ep. 85.32); Latus cellae vinariae aut certe fenestras obverti in aquilonem oportere vel utique in exortum aequinoctialem. (Plin. Nat. 14.133); (sc. Cicero) . . . quasdam sententias invenit, utique in iis orationibus quas senior iam et iuxta finem vitae composuit . . . (Tac. Dial. 22.2); . . . quod enim rebar . . . me ad alium quempiam utique leviorem laborem legatum iri . . . (Apul. Met. 9.11.5); . . . cum pater filio posuerit inimicos sub pedes, utique operarios mali. (Tert. Hermog. 11.3) NB: probably not an instance of utique (one word), but of utei + -que: . . . eademque omnia quae uteique in tabulas / rettulerit ta in tabulam in album referundam (sc. curato) . . . (CIL I2.593.14–15 (Lex Iul. Munic., Pisticci, 80–43 bc))139 Appendix: In ex. (c), the placement of utique (and congredi) causes discontinuity of ipso Scipione and makes ipso emphatic. See also the examples in the Supplement. Livy uses profecto in a similar way, as in (f) and (g). See also (h). This suggests that profecto functions as an emphasizing particle.140 (f) Nulla profecto alia gens tanta mole cladis non obruta esset. (‘Surely there was no other people that would not have been overwhelmed by a disaster of such vast proportions.’ Liv. 22.54.10) (g) (sc. Hasdrubal) . . . gener inde ob aliam indolem profecto animi adscitus . . . in imperio positus. (‘(Hasdrubal) . . . subsequently selected him as his son-in-law because of another talent, one of the mind . . . and he was given the command.’ Liv. 21.2.4) (h) . . . montem perfossum ad lacum Fucinum emittendum inenarrabili profecto impendio et operarum multitudine per tot annos . . . (‘. . . the channel that he dug through a mountain to drain the Fucine Lake. This, I need hardly say, entailed the expenditure of an indescribably large sum of money and the employment for many years of a horde of workers . . .’ Plin. Nat. 36.124) 139 Analysed as a case of coordination by Rosén (2009: 376). 140 See, with other examples, Rosén (2009: 326). See also TLL s.v. profecto 1675.21ff.

Emphasizing particles 893 22.32 Dumtaxat The emphasizing particle dumtaxat ‘only’ has, with few exceptions where it functions as an adverb,141 a word or phrase in its scope, which it may precede or follow, or, in the case of noun phrases, may be inserted in between. Dictionaries give two opposite meanings: non plus (TLL) ‘at most’ (OLD) and non minus (TLL) ‘at least’ (OLD). The earliest attestation, ex. (a), is interpreted in both ways: ‘at most’ in the TLL and the OLD, ‘at least’ by Enk ad loc. and by de Melo in his Loeb translation. Unlike the three words discussed above, dumtaxat is used with numbers and measures, in which case it clearly means ‘no more’, ‘only’, as in (b). See also (c) for a legal context (note the parallelism with tantum). In (d), classified as non minus by the TLL, there is a contrast between animo and re familiari, a context in which quidem would be appropriate. ‘Only’ would do as well.142 In (e), however, the context is one in which utique might be expected. Unlike the exclusive particles modo and solum, the combination non dumtaxat . . . sed etiam is attested only twice (in the Digesta), which is the reason why dumtaxat is not classified as an exclusive particle in this Syntax. The fact that dumtaxat can be used in two different senses can be understood from the common feature of ‘limitation’ or ‘restriction’.143 Although very rare in verse,144 it is relatively frequent in Pliny the Elder and in Christian authors, but most frequent in the jurists. (a)

. . . iubebo ad istam quinque deferri minas, / praeterea opsonari (add. Bergk) dumtaxat mina. (‘. . . I’ll have five minae brought over to her, and in addition I’ll have food bought for at least one mina.’ Pl. Truc. 444–5)

(b)

In quo impune progredi licet duo dumtaxat pedes aut paulo plus, ne plane in versum aut similitudinem versus incidamus. (‘In this rhythm we may safely continue, but only for two feet or a little more, to avoid clearly lapsing into verse or something resembling verse.’ Cic. de Orat. 3.182—tr. May and Wisse)

(c)

In conducto et locato . . . et dolum et culpam praestabunt qui servum receperunt. At si cibaria tantum, dolum dumtaxat. (‘In hire . . . they who receive the slave will be liable for both fraud and fault. But if they supplied food alone, liability is only for fraud.’ Ulp. dig. 16.3.1.10)

(d)

Nos animo dumtaxat vigemus, etiam magis quam cum florebamus. Re familiari comminuti sumus. (‘My heart is high, higher even than in my palmy days, but my purse is low.’ Cic. Att. 4.3.6—tr. Shackleton Bailey)

141 Sz.: 618, following TLL s.v. dumtaxat 2240.63, mentions as only exception Lucr. 2.123–4: Dumtaxat rerum magnarum parva potest res / exemplare dare et vestigia notitiai. Editors deal with it in various ways. There are, however, more, e.g. Plin. Nat. 3.57 (see the Supplement). 142 See Risselada (2016: 194–6) for discussion. Rosén (2009: 361; 404) has dumtaxat in the group of what are here called ‘particularizing’ particles. 143 See Bertocchi and Maraldi (2017). 144 See Axelson (1945: 96). The PHI corpus has 586 passages with one or more instances of dumtaxat, of which 376 are from the Digesta.

894 (e)

Information structure and extraclausal expressions Cetera spero prolixa esse, his dumtaxat urbanis competitoribus. (‘I hope the rest is plain sailing, at any rate as far as these local competitors are concerned.’ Cic. Att. 1.1.2) Supplement: Hae rei materiem et quae opus sunt dominus praebebit et ad opus dabit: serram I, lineam I (materiam dumtaxat succidet dolabit secabit facietque conductor), lapidem, calcem . . . (Cato Agr. 14.3); Fraudis interpretatio semper in iure civili non ex eventu dumtaxat, sed ex consilio quoque desideratur. (Papin. dig. 50.17.79); In tertia parti quis habebat piscinam nisi dulcem et in ea dumtaxat squalos ac mugiles pisces? (Var. R. 3.3.9); . . . inferiorem esse se patitur, dumtaxat usque eo ne cum bonis, fama fortunisque omnibus Sex. Naevi cupiditati crudelitatique dedatur. (Cic. Quinct. 58); . . . cum is inimicus . . . spiritu dumtaxat viveret, re quidem infra omnes mortuos amandatus esset. (Cic. Red. Pop. 10—NB: parallelism with quidem); Sed peditatu dumtaxat procul ad speciem utitur, equites in aciem inmittit. (Caes. Civ. 2.41.2); Quod ad Caesarem, crebri et non belli de eo rumores, sed susurratores dumtaxat, veniunt. (Cael. Fam. 8.1.4); [Quid, si dumtaxat Romae mihi cognitus esses, / adscitus totiens in genus omne loci?] (Ov. Tr. 1.8.33–4—NB: rejected by Luck ad loc. among other things because of ‘prosaic’ dumtaxat; Hall prints dum puero); Nec animum dumtaxat vobis fidelem ac bonum praestitit, sed omnibus interfuit bellis . . . (Liv. 37.53.9); . . . si quid ex iocinere aut liene aut pulmone dumtaxat extremo dependet . . . (Cels. 5.26.24C); Theophrastus, qui primus externorum aliqua de Romanis diligentius scripsit—nam Theopompus, ante quem nemo mentionem habuit, urbem (sc. Romam) dumtaxat a Gallis captam dixit, Clitarcus, ab eo proximus, legationem tantum ad Alexandrum missam . . . (Plin. Nat. 3.57—NB: parallelism with tantum); Hi membratim caesi cervice et abdomine commendantur atque clidio, recenti dumtaxat et tum quoque gravi rutu. (Plin. Nat. 9.48); Proxima est mensa ecori dumtaxat mustelarum . . . (Plin. Nat. 9.63); Liberti non multum supra servos sunt, raro aliquod momentum in domo, numquam in civitate, exceptis dumtaxat iis gentibus quae regnantur. (Tac. Ger. 25.2—NB: T.’s only case); Temptavi enim imitari Demosthenen semper tuum, Calvum nuper meum, dumtaxat figuris orationis. (Plin. Ep. 1.2.2); Tu, domine, dispice an instituendum putes collegium fabrorum dumtaxat hominum CL. (Plin. Ep. 10.33.3); Cum tutor non rebus dumtaxat, sed etiam moribus pupilli praeponatur . . . (Paul. dig. 26.7.12.3)

22.33 Praesertim and related expressions The following sections deal with the particularizing particle praesertim and related expressions that indicate that the words or phrases they have in their scope rank relatively high in some respect. 22.34 Praesertim The particle praesertim ‘especially’ is used in all periods of Latin with words and phrases to indicate that the constituent in its scope is particularly relevant in its context in comparison with others (which are usually not expressed). It normally precedes its scope. Its distribution is very uneven. The main user is Cicero with more

Emphasizing particles 895 than 500 instances.145 TLL mentions no instances of the independent use of praesertim at the clause level, unlike praecipue. Its use with constituents in its scope is shown in (a)–(e). In (a), it has a beneficiary adjunct in its scope; in (b), an object; in (c), an ablative absolute functioning as an adjunct of position in time or of circumstances (see § 16.89); in (d), a temporal/causal cum clause. The last-mentioned combination is very common. Ex. (e) has a participle functioning as secondary predicate. (a)

Egone istuc ausim facere, praesertim tibi? (‘Would I dare to do this, especially to you?’ Pl. Poen. 149)

(b)

Tum Crassus ‘an me tam impudentem esse existimatis, ut vobis hoc praesertim munus putem diutius posse debere?’ (‘ “Do you really suppose,” Crassus then replied, “that I am so shameless that I think I can be in your debt any longer, especially concerning this obligation?” ’ Cic. de Orat. 3.18—tr. May and Wisse)

(c)

Edepol me uxori exoptatum credo adventurum domum, / . . . praesertim re gesta bene, / victis hostibus. (‘I really believe my wife will be waiting eagerly for my arrival. Especially after this success, after our victory over the enemy.’ Pl. Am. 654–6)

(d)

Praesertim quom is me dignum quoi concrederet / habuit, me habere honorem eius ingenio decet. (‘It’s only fair that I should respect his inclinations, especially since he felt that I deserved his confidence.’ Pl. As. 80–1)

(e)

. . . longum est dicere mihi, praesertim ad alia properanti. (‘. . . it would be tedious to relate, especially as I am anxious to pass on to other topics.’ Cic. Clu. 36) Supplement: . . . quae forsitan vobis parvae esse videantur, sed magnum et acerbum dolorem commovent, mulierculis praesertim . . . (Cic. Ver. 4.47); Deforme etiam est de se ipsum praedicare, falsa praesertim . . . (Cic. Off. 1.137); . . . nihil est in re praesertim aperta ac simplici quod excellens ingenium requiratur. (Cic. Caec. 4); . . . ut condiciones ferret, leges imponeret, reserare nos exteris gentibus Italiam iuberet se praesertim incolumi . . . (Cic. Phil. 7.2); Profecto enim negare non potes te ex lege Rupilia sortiri iudices debuisse, cum praesertim Heraclius id postularet. (Cic. Ver. 2.44); Si ea seposita, ut dicis, essent tuque valde spectandi cupidus esses, non dubitares rogare dominum, ut proferri iuberet, praesertim si esset familiaris. (Cic. de Orat. 1.162); . . . vos id statuere in gravissima causa, praesertim aliorum auctoritate iam confirmatum, dubitabitis? (Cic. Ver. 2.109)

145 For frequency data, see TLL s.v. praesertim 864.72ff. and s.v. praecipue 478.56ff. for a comparison of its frequency with that of praesertim. The article on praesertim gives a detailed classification of its uses. Hand (1829/45: IV) s.v. praesertim is still worth reading.

896

Information structure and extraclausal expressions

Examples of the use of praesertim at the noun phrase level are (f)–(h), an adjective of amount, a prepositional phrase, and a relative clause, respectively, with all three functioning as attribute. (f)

Illa, Caecili, contemnendane tibi videntur esse, sine quibus causa sustineri, praesertim tanta, nullo modo potest? (‘Do these things appear contemptible to you, without which no cause, especially no cause of such importance, can by any means be supported?’ Cic. Div. Caec. 35)

(g)

. . . haec (sc. castra) etsi erant exigua per se, vix hominum milium septem, praesertim nullis cum impedimentis, tamen . . . (‘. . . and small as was the camp itself, as it was for scarce seven thousand men, and those, too, without baggage, nevertheless . . .’ Caes. Gal. 5.49.7)

(h)

. . . qui pauperes sunt homines miseri vivont, / praesertim quibus nec quaestus est . . . (‘. . . people who are poor live wretchedly, especially those who have no trade . . .’ Pl. Rud. 290–1) Supplement: . . . comitiis, praesertim aediliciis, studium esse populi, non iudicium. (Cic. Planc. 10); Petitorem ego, praesertim consulatus, magna spe, magno animo, magnis copiis et in forum et in campum deduci volo. (Cic. Mur. 44); Ei me tot tam acerba facere in corde— # Frugi nunquam eris. / # praesertim quae coniurasset mecum et firmasset fidem (Pl. Cist. 240–1); . . . ut tantis copiis tam exiguam manum, praesertim fugientem atque impeditam, adoriri non audeant. (Caes. Gal. 6.8.1)

22.35 Praecipue The adverb praecipue ‘in an outstanding manner’, ‘to an outstanding degree’ can be used as a degree adjunct at the clause level, as in the first attestation (a), and as a degree modifier with adjectives, as in (b); in the latter function the resulting phrase is sometimes equivalent to a superlative form or serves as a substitute for an uncommon or non-existing superlative form. In these functions it can be combined with the scalar particle vel (see § 22.22), as in (c).146 As a degree adjunct it can also be used in an elliptical way, as in (d). (a)

Tu ecastor erras, quae quidem illum expectes unum atque illi / morem praecipue sic geras atque alios asperneris. (‘You’re indeed making a mistake by waiting on him alone, showing him your special favour like this, and despising others.’ Pl. Mos. 188–9)

(b)

Color autem albus praecipue decorus deo est . . . (‘However, the colour white is especially suitable for a god.’ Cic. Leg. 2.45)

(c)

Haec (sc. aqua) enim vel praecipue lienem coercet. (‘For this water most pre-eminently reduces the spleen.’ Cels. 4.16.2) 146 For further examples, see TLL s.v. praecipue 481.27ff.

Emphasizing particles 897 (d)

Omnes, inquam, vincere volebamus. Tu certe praecipue (om. l) (sc. vincere volebas), qui in eum locum venisses ubi tibi esset pereundum, nisi vicisses. (‘We all, I say, wished for success, you assuredly above all, for you had come into a place where you must perish unless you succeeded.’ Cic. Lig. 28)

When used with cases of epitactic coordination (both asyndetic, as in (e), and with et, -que or sed, as in (f)) and of correlative coordination with cum . . . tum, as in (g), praecipue seems to emphasize the constituent which it precedes or follows, resembling the use of the emphasizing particle praesertim. However, the emphasis is a side effect of the use of these coordinators and not due to the presence of praecipue (see § 19.67). Praecipue can also be combined with the adversative connectors vero and autem. By contrast, praesertim does not occur in these contexts or at least this use is extremely rare. Another specific feature of praecipue is that it is often used to signal an individual that ranks higher than others mentioned in the context in some respect, as in (e) (omnes vs. pius Aeneas) and (g).147 (e)

Ergo omnes magno circum clamore fremebant, / praecipue pius Aeneas. (‘So, with loud lament, all were mourning round him, good Aeneas foremost.’ Verg. A. 6.175–6)

(f)

Tu si nos omnis amas, et praecipue me, magistrum tuum, confirma te. (‘If you love us all, and especially me, your schoolmaster, get back your strength.’ Cic. Fam. 16.3.1)

(g)

Quod (sc. otium) cum omnibus bonis utile esset, tum praecipue mihi. (‘Peace is advantageous for all decent men, but particularly for me.’ Cic. Phil. 8.11) NB: parallelism with maxime and imprimis: Haec una res in omni libero populo maximeque in pacatis tranquillisque civitatibus praecipue semper floruit semperque dominata est. (Cic. de Orat. 1.30); . . . fere subeunt lippitudines, tormina, febres, maximeque in mollioribus corporibus, ideoque praecipue in muliebribus. (Cels. 2.1.14); Quapropter in primis evitandus, et in pueris praecipue, magister aridus . . . (Quint. Inst. 2.4.8) NB: coordination: . . . omnium maxime atque praecipue fidem coluit . . . (Plin. Ep. 20.1.39)

Alongside these instances of coordination there are other instances in which praecipue seems to have a particular constituent in its scope. Exx. (h)–( j) illustrate constituents at the clause level: in (h), a subject constituent; in (i), a quod reason clause; in ( j), a secondary predicate. (h)

Illud cuivis facile est docere, cur praecipue tu dolere nihil debeas. (‘But anyone may easily show why you ought not specially to distress yourself.’ Cic. Fam. 6.4.2)

147 See TLL s.v. 478.83ff. The co-occurrence data were checked for the PHI and the LLT ‘patrum’ corpus. Gregory of Tours has twenty-four instances of et praesertim.

898 (i)

Information structure and extraclausal expressions Est aliqua mea pars virilis, quod eius civitatis sum quam ille amplam inlustrem claramque reddidit, praecipue quod in his rebus pro mea parte versor quarum ille princeps fuit . . . (‘In this right I myself have a share, as a citizen of the empire whose proud and glorious fame is due to him; the more so because I do my best to follow him in the path where he leads the way for us all . . .’ Cic. Ver. 4.81)

( j)

Quo turpior homini inscitia est fatenti praecipue iumentorum quorundam in oculis morbos cum luna increscere ac minui. (‘This makes ignorance all the more disgraceful to man, especially as he admits that with some cattle diseases of the eyes increase and diminish with the moon.’ Plin. Nat. 2.110) Supplement: Quod cum pertimuisset Dolabella, vastata provincia, correptis vectigalibus, praecipue civibus Romanis omnibus crudelissime denudatis ac divenditis, celeriusque Asia excessisset quam . . . diutius morari aut exspectare praesidium non necesse habui . . . (Lent. Fam. 12.15.1—NB: praecipuis cj. Rubenius, followed by other editors); Fiunt et solis lunaeque defectu, quoniam tempestates tunc sopiuntur, praecipue vero cum sequitur imbres aestus imbresve aestum. (Plin. Nat. 2.195)

Examples of praecipue with a constituent of a noun phrase in its scope are (k) and (l). (k)

Nam quid foedius nostra vita, praecipue mea? (‘After all what could be more ignominious than the life we lead, I especially?’ Cic. Att. 4.6.1)

(l)

. . . vocesque etiam miserabiles exaudiebantur, mulierum praecipue . . . (‘. . . plaintive cries too began to be heard, proceeding chiefly from the women . . .’ Liv. 1.29.5) Supplement: Non ullo gravius temptatur Cynthia damno / quam sibi cum rapto cessat amore decus, / praecipue nostro. (Prop. 1.4.25–7—NB: the mss. have nostri);148 Asclepiades etiam in recenti vehementique praecipueque ardente febre ad discutiendam eam gestatione dixit utendum. (Cels. 2.15.1); Huic pecudi nocet aestus, sed magis frigus, et praecipue fetae, quia gelidior hiemps conceptum vitiat. (Col. 7.6.5); . . . inter insulas Rubri praecipue maris his navigent cumbis. (Plin. Nat. 9.35)

Cicero and his correspondents use praecipue in total about fifty times, Pliny the Elder almost four times as much. Celsus, Columella, and Quintilian fall somewhere in between.149

148 For discussion, see Heyworth (2007: 22).

149 See TLL s.v. praecipue 478.56ff.

Emphasizing particles 899 22.36 Imprimis The adverb imprimis (or inprimis), also in two words in primis, in its meaning ‘above all’ resembles praecipue in that it can be used as a degree adjunct and as a degree modifier, as in (a) and (b), respectively. Just like praecipue, it can be combined with the scalar particle vel, as in (c). (a)

(sc. civitatem) . . . quam meus frater in primis colit atque diligit. (‘(that state) . . . which my brother has shown the greatest attachment to and fondness for.’ Cic. Flac. 52)

(b)

L.  quidem Philippus, Q.  f., magno vir ingenio inprimisque clarus, gloriari solebat . . . (‘To be sure, Lucius Philippus, the son of Quintus, a man of great ability and unusual renown, used to make it his boast . . .’ Cic. Off. 2.59)

(c)

. . . Crantor ille, qui in nostra Academia vel in primis fuit nobilis . . . (‘. . . The famous Crantor, who held the foremost place of distinction in our Academy . . .’ Cic. Tusc. 3.12)

Just like praecipue, in primis can be part of an epitactic conjoin, as in (d), or of other forms of coordination, as in (e). In such cases it has a particular word or phrase in its scope. (d)

Quis ergo intererat vestris consiliis? Omnes hi quos vides huic adesse et in primis Q. Hortensius. (‘Who, then, was present at your counsels? All these men whom you see here, giving Sulla the countenance of their presence; and among the first was Quintus Hortensius.’ Cic. Sul. 12)

(e)

Verba ponenda sunt quae vim habeant illustrandi nec ab usu sint abhorrentia, gravia . . . non vulgata, superlata, in primisque translata. (‘Words must be employed that are powerfully illuminating without being inconsistent with ordinary usage, weighty, . . . unhackneyed, exaggerated, and above all used metaphorically.’ Cic. Part. 53)

Other examples in which in primis seems to have a particular constituent in its scope are (f)–(h).150 In (f) and (g), the phrase has subject constituents in its scope; in (h), a ne purpose clause. (f)

. . . in hoc elaborandum est ut rem publicam constituas, eaque tu in primis summa tranquillitate et otio perfruare. (‘. . . to this must you summon all your powers to plant the constitution firmly, and you especially to reap the chiefest fruits thereof in peace and tranquillity.’ Cic. Marc. 27)

150 The TLL article s.v. imprimis has a detailed classification of its use with nouns and pronouns, adjectives, adverbs, and verbs, and clauses, using the term ‘acuuntur’. I think that in many instances we are dealing with degree adjuncts and modifiers. See also the classification in Merguet (Phil.) s.v. in 283.

900 (g)

Information structure and extraclausal expressions Et cupidi omnes et maligni omnes et timidi omnes, illi in primis qui videntur audaces. (‘They are all also covetous and spiteful and cowardly especially those who appear to be bold.’ Sen. Ben. 5.17.3)

(h)

Sed tamen multa Caesarem ad id bellum incitabant: iniuria retentorum equitum Romanorum . . . tot civitatum coniuratio, in primis ne hac parte neglecta reliquae nationes sibi idem licere arbitrarentur. (‘. . . nevertheless, many considerations moved Caesar to undertake this campaign. Such were the outrageous detention of Roman knights . . . the conspiracy of so many states and, above all, the fear that if this district were not dealt with the other nations might suppose they had the same liberty.’ Caes. Gal. 3.10.1)

Examples of in primis with a constituent at the noun phrase level are (i) and ( j). (i)

. . . ea esse eum opinione et tua et ipsius et in primis mea causa gaudeo. (‘. . . I am delighted both for your sake and his, and above all for my own, that he should be so well thought of.’ Lent. Fam. 12.14.8)

( j)

. . . nec aetas impedit quominus et ceterarum rerum et in primis agri colendi studia teneamus usque ad ultimum tempus senectutis. (‘. . . nor does age offer any hindrance to our pursuit of other activities, and especially the cultivation of the soil, even to the very end of old age.’ Cic. Sen. 60)

Cicero and his correspondents have more than 200 instances, which is more than a third of all the instances recorded in the PHI corpus. 22.37 Maxime The adverb maxime in its meaning ‘most’ resembles praecipue and in primis in the features mentioned at the beginning of §§ 22.35–6, as is shown in (a)–(c). In (a), it functions as a degree adjunct; in (b), as a degree modifier (see § 20.32); in (c), it is used with the scalar particle vel. It is attested abundantly from Early Latin onwards. (a)

Foris aperit, eccere autem / quem convenire maxime cupiebam egreditur intus. (‘The door is opening, and look, the man I wanted to meet most is coming out.’ Pl. Per. 300–1)

(b)

Nunc hic occepit quaestum hunc fili gratia / inhonestum et maxume alienum ingenio suo. (‘Now for his son’s sake he began this degrading business here, which is completely out of keeping with his character.’ Pl. Capt. 98–9)

(c)

Hoc enim uno praestamus vel maxime feris quod conloquimur inter nos . . . (‘For the one point in which we have our very greatest advantage over the brute creation is that we hold converse one with another . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 1.32)

In (d), we are dealing with an instance of epitactic coordination, where maxume has Homerum in its scope.

Emphasizing particles 901 (d)

Quae ratio poetas, maxumeque Homerum, inpulit ut principibus heroum . . . certos deos discriminum et periculorum comites adiungeret. (‘It was this reason which drove the poets, and especially Homer, to attach to their chief heroes . . . certain gods as the companions of their perils and adventures.’ Cic. N.D. 2.166)

Other examples in which maxime has constituents at the clause level and below the clause level in its scope are shown in (e) and (f), and (g) and (h), respectively. (e)

Tu fecisti ut (sc. via) difficilis foret, / culpa maxume et desidia tuisque stultis moribus. (‘You are the one who made it difficult, mostly through your fault, laziness and stupid habits.’ Pl. Trin. 646–7)

(f)

. . . id vi et virtute militum victum atque expugnatum oppidum est / imperio atque auspicio eri mei Amphitruonis maxume. (‘. . . this city has been conquered and crushed through the strength and courage of our soldiers, and chiefly under the command and auspices of my master Amphitruo.’ Pl. Am. 191–2)

(g)

Quod ego et mea et rei publicae et maxime tua interesse arbitror. (‘Which I believe will be in my and the public interest and most of all in your own.’ Cic. Fam. 2.19.2)

(h)

In urbe auri, argenti maximeque vini foeda direptio. (‘In Rome there was an ugly pillaging of gold, silver, and most of all, wine.’ Cic. Phil. 2.62) Appendix: Minime is also, but rarely, used in a similar way. Two examples are (i) and ( j).151 (i) Est id quidem in totam orationem confundendum nec minime in extremam. (‘Conciliation of the audience must indeed permeate the whole of the speech, and not least of all the peroration.’ Cic. de Orat. 2.322) ( j) Nam nec in volgum effundenda sunt, et nullius rei, minime beneficiorum, honesta largitio est. (‘For, on the one hand, benefits ought not to be showered upon the mob, and, on the other, it is not right to be wasteful of any thing, least of all of benefits.’ Sen. Ben. 1.2.1)

22.38 Potissimum The adverb potissimum ‘preferably’ can be used as a subjective evaluation disjunct (see § 10.104), as in (a). However, it is also used from Early Latin onwards and especially by Cicero with a particular constituent in its scope, both as part of an epitactic conjoin, as in (b)–(d), and otherwise, as in (e)–(g). It then resembles praecipue, in primis,

151 The examples are taken from Hand (1829/45: III) s.v. minime.

902

Information structure and extraclausal expressions

and maxime and can be translated as ‘especially’, ‘above all’.152 Unlike these degree expressions, potissimum does not function as a degree modifier with adjectives and cannot be combined with the scalar particle vel. (a)

(Artemona is here angrily responding after overhearing her husband’s complaints about her bad breath.) Nam si domum / redierit hodie, osculando ego ulciscar potissumum. (‘For if he returns home today, I will take revenge by kissing him, preferably.’ Pl. As. 902–3)

(b)

Decet innocentem qui sit atque innoxium / servom superbum esse, apud erum potissumum. (‘A slave who is without guilt and without fault ought to be proud, especially in front of his master.’ Pl. Ps. 460–1)

(c)

Existat igitur ex hac ipsa familia aliquis, ac potissimum Caecus ille. (‘Let therefore rise up from the dead some member of this very family, above all Appius Claudius the Blind.’ Cic. Cael. 33)

(d)

(sc. Natura) . . . avidam sanguinis et potissimum humani sitim accendit! (‘(Nature) . . . kindled a greedy thirst for blood and especially human blood!’ Plin. Nat. 11.3)

(e)

. . . multos fore qui vitilitigent, sed ii potissimum qui verae laudis expertes sunt. (‘. . . there will be plenty of people to quibble and quarrel, but mostly people quite devoid of true distinction.’ Cato Mil. 1(J))

(f)

Quemquam denique ego iuvarem, a quo et tam crudelis insidias rei publicae factas, et me potissimum consule constitutas putarem? (‘Or do you suppose that I would assist anyone by whom I thought that a cruel plot had been laid against the republic, and most especially against me the consul?’ Cic. Sul. 45)

(g)

Atque ut Homerum potissimum attingam . . . (‘And to give instances out of Homer, by preference . . .’ Plin. Ep. 9.26.6)

22.39 Demum The emphasizing particle demum ‘at last’, ‘only’ is particularly common with temporal expressions, as in (a), where it signals that more time has elapsed before now than expected (note the contrast with iam dudum).153 With other constituents in its scope it means that only that specific entity can reach or has reached an adequate level, as in (b) and (c); here demum functions at the noun phrase level, with a determiner and an

152 So the OLD s.v. potissimum § 1. TLL s.v. potis 355.62ff. paraphrases: ‘i.q. praecipue, imprimis sim.’ 153 Kroon and Risselada (2002: 66) use the term ‘evaluative phasal particle’.

Emphasizing particles 903 attributive noun phrase in its scope, respectively. For other types of scope, see the Supplement.154 (a)

I nunciam ad erum, quo vocas, iam dudum quo volebas. / # Nunc demum? (‘Go to our master now, which is where you are calling us and where you’ve wanted to go for some time now. # Now at last?’ Pl. As. 486–7)

(b)

Ill’ demum antiquis est adulescens moribus, / quoius numquam voltum tranquillavi gratiis. (‘Only that young man belongs to the old school: I’ve never lightened his countenance without some tangible reward.’ Pl. Capt. 105–6)

(c)

Hoc animi demum ratio discernere debet, / nec possunt oculi naturam noscere rerum. (‘The reasoning power of the mind alone must decide this, and eyes cannot recognize the nature of things.’ Lucr. 4.384–5) Supplement: Nam id demum lepidum est, triparcos homines, vetulos, avidos, aridos / bene admordere . . . (Pl. Per. 266–7); Hem, modone id demum sensti, Pamphile? (Ter. An. 882); Is enim demum est mea quidem sententia iustus triumphus ac verus, cum bene de re publica meritis testimonium a consensu civitatis datur. (Cic. Phil. 14.13); Sic enim sentio, id demum aut potius id solum esse miserum quod turpe sit. (Cic. Att. 8.8.1— NB: parallelisms); Postquam quidem praetor recuperatores dedit, / damnatus demum, vi coactus reddidit / mille et ducentos Philippum. (Pl. Bac. 270–2); Quarta vix demum exponimur hora. (Hor. S. 1.5.23); M. Cicero demum stabilivit equestre nomen in consulatu suo Catilinianis rebus . . . (Plin. Nat. 33.34); . . . pontificatum maximum, quem numquam vivo Lepido auferre sustinuerat, mortuo demum suscepit . . . (Suet. Aug. 31.1)

As in the examples above, demum usually follows its scope immediately. In (d), the connector autem follows ita demum in its frequent combination with a conditional clause; here demum follows its scope ita, which correlates with the si clause. See also (e), sometimes taken as an instance of independent (that is, adverbial) use of demum; here demum precedes its scope.155 (d)

Ita demum autem committetur stipulatio, cum adversus eam quid fit, si sine dolo malo stipulantis factum est. (‘Moreover, the stipulation is infringed only where the act which contravenes it is done without fraud or malice on the part of the promise.’ Ulp. dig. 4.8.31.1)

(e)

Servata res est demum, si illam videro. (‘Things are safe at last if I see her.’ Pl. Mer. 909)

154 For further instances, see the classification in TLL s.v. demum 515.41ff. 155 See TLL s.v. demum 518.30ff. For a discussion of demum, see Rosén (1993; 2009: 405–6).

904

Information structure and extraclausal expressions

In Silver and later Latin demum is also used more or less in the sense of solum, as in (f).156 (f)

Apud nos tria genera eius faciunt et id demum probant cuius radix tus redoleat. (‘We Romans distinguish three kinds of it, and the only one esteemed is that of which the root smells like frankincense.’ Plin. Nat. 25.102) Appendix: Denique, when used as an adverb (see § 24.46), resembles demum when it follows a temporal adverb or a cataphoric or anaphoric pronoun or determiner, as in (g) and (h).157 Conversely, in some instances demum resembles denique, as in (i).158 (g) (sc. ratio) . . . quae non tum denique incipit lex esse quom scripta est, sed tum quom orta est. (‘(reason) . . . which did not first become Law when it was written down, but only then when it first came into existence.’ Cic. Leg. 2.10) (h) Is enim denique honos mihi videri solet qui non propter spem futuri benefici sed propter magna merita claris viris defertur et datur. (‘For this alone seems to me to really be an honour, one which is offered and given, not in the expectation of future benefit, but to persons whose great services have made them illustrious.’ Cic. Fam. 10.10.1) (i) (After a discussion of the rare use of marble with markings) Columnis demum utebantur in templis, nec lautiiae causa—nondum enim ista intellegebantur—sed quia firmiores aliter statui non poterant. (‘Finally, marble columns were used in temples, not however, as an embellishment, since embellishments as such were not yet appreciated, but merely because there was no way of erecting stronger columns.’ Plin. Nat. 36.45)

22.40 Iam The adverb iam in its meaning ‘already’ can be used as an adjunct ‘denoting the relationship between one time and another’ (see § 10.41). Thus, in (a), iam indicates that at the moment of speaking the audience has a certain knowledge which it did not possess at an earlier stage; quidem shows that in contrast to vos, unnamed others have not yet reached that stage. In (b), iam indicates that, in the series of events Alcumena is going to report, her first mention of kissing already disturbs Amphitruo. In (c)–(e), iam is not an adjunct at the clause level. In (c), it relates to the secondary predicate puer and indicates that, on his way from infans to senex, Mnesilochus became a friend of Pistoclerus at an early age, possibly earlier than one would expect. In (d), iam has obsoleta in its scope and indicates that the habits referred to had possibly passed the limit of being fashionable. In (e), iam has tum in its scope, indicating that tum was

156 See TLL s.v. demum 517.30ff. 157 For further examples, see Hand (1829/45: II.275–6) and TLL s.v. denique 534.13ff. See also Rosén (2009: 331). 158 So TLL s.v. demum 518.43ff.

Emphasizing particles 905 unexpectedly early. As a side effect of iam’s relating two positions in time and implicitly contrasting them, the constituent in its scope is emphasized.159 (a)

Nam vos quidem id iam scitis concessum et datum / mi esse ab dis aliis, nuntiis praesim et lucro. (‘For you already know that I was put in charge of messages and profit by the other gods.’ Pl. Am. 11–12)

(b)

Aio, adveniensque ilico / me salutavisti, et ego te, et osculum tetuli tibi. / # Iam illud non placet principium de osculo. Perge exsequi. (‘I do claim that, and on your arrival you immediately greeted me, and I you, and I gave you a kiss. # I already dislike that first point about the kiss. Continue your story.’ Pl. Am. 799–801)

(c)

Hic sodalis Pistoclero iam puer puero fuit. (‘He was Pistoclerus’ friend already when the two were boys.’ Pl. Bac. 460)

(d)

Vereor ne haec forte cuipiam nimis antiqua et iam obsoleta videantur. (‘But there are some, I fear, to whom these instances may seem oldfashioned and already out of date.’ Cic. Ver. 1.56)

(e)

Iam tum erat suspicio / dolo malo haec fieri omnia. (‘Even at that stage I had a suspicion that everything was being done with malice aforethought.’ Ter. Eu. 514–15—tr. Bal)

Whereas in (c) and (d) iam concerns properties that are changeable over time and in a sense gradable—that is we are dealing with a temporal scale—,160 this is not the case in (f)–(i). In (f), the scale is that of acceptable and reasonable behaviour, so a temporal translation ‘already’ is inappropriate: iam is here an emphasizing particle.161 In (g), the three solutions differ in their degree of vagueness, the last being the most vague. In (h), the scale is one of enemies. Ex. (i) shows a subordinate clause in the scope of iam. In ( j), iam might at first sight be taken as a connector, more or less equivalent to deinde, but there is already another connector porro, and iam is best taken as an emphasizing particle.162 (f)

. . . hunc ego / cupio excruciari. # Iam istaec insipientia est, / iram in propromptu gerere. Quanto satius est . . . (‘. . . him I wish to be tortured. # That now is stupidity, to carry your anger on your sleeve. How much better it is . . .’ Pl. Ps. 447–9)

159 For a classification of constituents that can be used in the scope of iam when meaning ‘already’, see TLL s.v. iam 88.17ff. 160 See Kroon and Risselada (2002: 66, 71). 161 For the use of iam as emphasizing particle, see Kroon and Risselada (1998: 438–44; 2002: 73–5). Rosén (2009: 360), by contrast, regards iam in such instances as a ‘modalizer’, that is, as an adverb functioning as a disjunct, in the terminology of this Syntax. Calaresu and Pieroni (2019) regard the emphasizing function of iam as due to context. Most of the examples given in the section ‘de elatione et gradu’ of the TLL s.v. 124.12ff. belong here. 162 For ‘connecting’ iam, see TLL s.v. iam 120.72ff.

906 (g)

Information structure and extraclausal expressions Unde erit argentum quod des, quom poscet pater? / # Invenietur, exquiretur, aliquid fiet. Enicas. / # Iam istuc ‘aliquid fiet’ metuo. (‘Where will the money you give come from when your father asks for it? # It will be found, it will be sought, something will happen. You’re killing me. # It’s precisely that “something will happen” that I’m afraid of.’ Pl. Mer. 492–4—last sentence translated following Kroon and Risselada (1998: 441))

(h)

Non cum senatu modo sed iam cum dis immortalibus C. Flaminium bellum gerere. (‘That Gaius Flaminius was waging war not only with the senate but even with the immortal gods.’ Liv. 21.63.6—tr. Kroon and Risselada (2002: 71))

(i)

Id tu, Brute, iam intelleges, cum in Galliam veneris. (‘This you will, Brutus, understand right then when you come to Gaul.’ Cic. Brut. 171—tr. Kroon and Risselada (2002: 74))

( j)

Iam id porro utrum libentes an inviti dabant? (‘As to this, furthermore, did they pay that willingly or reluctantly?’ Cic. Ver. 3.118— tr. Kroon and Risselada (2002: 73)) Supplement: Vel amare possum vel iam scortum ducere. (Pl. Truc. 678); Id ita esse vos iam iudicare poteritis. (Ter. Eu. 29); . . . villam aedificare in oculis omnium tantam tugurium ut iam videatur esse illa villa quam ipse tribunus plebis pictam olim in contionibus explicabat . . . (Cic. Sest. 93); Accipite, si vultis, iudices, rem eius modi ut amentiam singularem et furorem iam, non cupiditatem eius perspicere possitis. (Cic. Ver. 4.38); Sed quod ex utroque (sc. vis and materia), id iam corpus et quasi qualitatem quandam nominabant. (Cic. Ac. 1.24); . . . si singulos numeremus in singulas, quanta iam reperiatur virorum excellentium multitudo! (Cic. Rep. 3.7); C. Arrius proximus est vicinus, immo ille quidem iam contubernalis . . . (Cic. Att. 2.14.2); Primum in statua quam posuit in rostris inscripsit ‘parenti optime merito’, ut non modo sicarii sed iam etiam parricidae iudicemini. (Cic. Fam. 12.3.1); Multi mortales convenere, studio etiam videndae novae urbis, maxime proximi quique, Caeninenses, Crustumini, Antemnates. Iam Sabinorum omnis multitudo cum liberis ac coniugibus venit. (Liv. 1.9.8–9); Sed quamvis egregia illis vita fuerit et carens fraude, non fuere sapientes, quando hoc iam in opere maximo nomen est. (Sen. Ep. 90.44)

22.41 Suffixes of personal pronouns and possessive adjectives For the ablative and especially the accusative forms of the personal pronouns me, te, se, Latin has the alternative forms meme (two instances in the PHI corpus), tete (twenty-one), and sese (more than 1,600).163 Although certain contexts have been noted in which there seems to be a preference for sese and which might suggest that this form was chosen for reasons of emphasis (at the end of a clause, for instance, as 163 For surveys of examples, see K.-H.: 581 and especially Neue-W.: II.354–9, who also have a detailed classification of the use of sese in Cicero.

Emphasizing particles 907 in (a), and/or in clauses which also contain ipse ‘self ’, as in (b)), there are also cases like (c) and (d), where such an explanation is excluded. Consequently, it is difficult to describe these geminate forms as such as a device used to create emphasis. (a)

. . . in reliquis rebus ita dissimiles erant inter sese, statuere ut tamen non posses utrius te malles similiorem. (‘. . . their differences in other respects were such that you could hardly choose which one you would rather be like.’ Cic. Brut. 148)

(b)

. . . ad tribunatum, qui ipse ad sese iam dudum vocat . . . veniamus. (‘. . . let us come to that tribunate which itself has this long while been calling us to itself . . .’ Cic. Sest. 13)

(c)

Verum utut res sese habet, / pergam turbare porro. (‘But no matter what he’s up to, I’ll carry on causing trouble.’ Pl. Mos. 545–6)

(d)

(sc. Roscius) . . . Romam confugit et sese ad Caeciliam, Nepotis filiam, quam honoris causa nomino, contulit . . . (‘(sc. Roscius) . . . took refuge in Rome, and betook himself to Caecilia, the sister of Nepos, the daughter of Balearicus (whose name I mention with respect) . . .’ Cic. S. Rosc. 27)

The suffix -met can be attached to most forms of the personal pronouns and to possessive adjectives. The best attested form in Plautus is egomet, but the total number is very low. There are, for example, eight instances in his Amphitryon (against c.125 instances of ego).164 In Cicero’s orations there are only about fifteen instances, in his philosophical works only one (in a quotation from Terence). The other forms are all very infrequent and tu-met is not attested.165 In exx. (e)–(g), it is plausible that the -met forms are emphatic, but even in Plautus not all the instances are convincing.166 In Cicero’s philosophical works nosmet, nobismet, etc. are in all but one case combined with a form of ipse (nosmet ipsi, etc.—thirty-three instances). (e)

Tu negas med esse? # Quid ego ni negem, qui egomet siem? (‘You deny that I am Sosia ? # Why shouldn’t I deny it? I myself am him.’ Pl. Am. 434)

(f)

Quis te verberavit? # Egomet memet, qui nunc sum domi. (‘Who hit you? # I hit myself, the I that is at home now.’ Pl. Am. 607)

(g)

Nunc mihi cautio est / ne meamet culpa meo amori obiexim moram. (‘Now I need to be on my guard so that I won’t delay my love through my own fault.’ Pl. Poen. 445–6)

164 For egomet in Plautus, see Lodge s.v. ego 472B § s. 165 See TLL s.v. -met for references; also s.v. egomet and meusmet. The most complete collection of examples can be found in Neue-W.: II.361–6; 373. The PHI corpus contains three instances of tutemet. The etymology of -met is uncertain (de Vaan 2008: 377). See also note 167. 166 See TLL s.v. egomet 277.74ff.

908

Information structure and extraclausal expressions

In conclusion, the forms with -met may have been preferred in certain contexts, but -met is not a prominent device used to emphasize the words to which it is attached.167 The suffix -te is used in combination with tu (tute) in Early Latin and in Cicero in contrastive contexts, as in (h)–( j). In about 10 per cent of its occurrences it is followed by ipse. Even in these texts it is rare in comparison with tu, and elsewhere it is almost non-existent.168 (h)

O Tite, tute, Tati, tibi tanta, tyranne, tulisti. (‘Thyself to thyself, Titus Tatius the tyrant, thou tookest those terrible troubles!’ Enn. Ann. 109V=104S)

(i)

Egone istuc dixi? # Tute istic, etiam adstante hoc Sosia. (‘Did I tell you about this? # Yes, you there, and Sosia was standing here right next to you.’ Pl. Am. 747)

( j)

Verum ut modo tute dixisti, te esse malo tuum. (‘I certainly prefer that you be independent, as you have just said.’ Cic. Leg. 2.17)

The suffix -pte can be attached to the ablative singular of the possessive adjectives, as in (k) (and to a few other forms).169 These forms are clearly understood as emphatic. It survives throughout Latinity in a few phrases such as suapte natura (see ex. (l) in § 22.19) and tuopte ingenio.170 (k)

Tute tibi [ea] tuopte ingenio prodes plurumum, / quom servitutem ita fers ut ferri decet. (‘You benefit greatly from your own character since you’re bearing your slavery as one ought to bear it.’ Pl. Capt. 371–2)

22.42 Preparative expressions as emphasizers Preparative pronouns and determiners are not only used to enhance the transparency of complex sentences, but they can also have an emphasizing function. Two examples are repeated below from § 14.16. (a)

Quid si hoc potis est, ut tu taceas, ego loquar? (‘What if we do this: you keep quiet, I’ll do the talking.’ Pl. Bac. 35—subject clause)

(b)

Habent hunc morem plerique argentarii, / ut alius alium poscant, reddant nemini . . . (‘Most bankers have the following custom: they demand money from each other while they themselves don’t repay anything to anyone.’ Pl. Cur. 377–8)

167 For the etymologies of -met and -te, see Dunkel (2006), who proposes to derive egomet from egom et, as already Sihler (1995: 370). 168 See Neue-W.: II.363–4. 169 See OLD s.v. -pte. 170 See Neue-W.: II.373–5; TLL s.v. meuspte. Exceptional is mepte in Pl. Men. 1058–9.

Parenthetical clauses and other extraclausal constituents 909

22.43 Parenthetical clauses and other types of extraclausal constituents Apart from the extraclausal constituents theme, setting, and tail, which play an important role in positioning the information of the clauses to which they are joined in the discourse, there are other types of extraclausal constituents. These include constituents that play a role in the interaction between the speaker/writer and the addressee (address, for example) and ones which serve to express the emotional state of the speaker (certain interjections, for example). Parenthetical sentences, which either serve as some form of clarification or comment by the speaker or have an interactional function, are yet another type of extraclausal constituent.171

22.44 Parenthetical constituents A parenthetical constituent (or: parenthesis) is a linguistic unit that is inserted inside another linguistic unit (its ‘host’), but which does not belong to and has no influence on the internal syntactic structure of its host, nor is its own internal structure determined by the host. The host unit is either a clause or a phrase. Various types of parenthetical constituents can be distinguished, but often the term ‘parenthesis’ is limited to clausal constituents, such as (a). (Throughout this and following sections brackets are used to signal parenthetical constituents in the Latin examples; the punctuation of the English translations varies as necessary.) (a)

Sed (balbi non sumus) ad rem redeamus. (‘But (we are not stammering) let’s return to the matter at hand.’ Cic. Fam. 2.10.2)

Parenthetical constituents belong to various types. Apart from entire sentences and clauses as illustrated by (a), there are ‘modalizing mental state verbs’172 like opinor ‘I think’, as in (b), swear words like di immortales, as in (c), and others. These constituents can also be used in ante- and postclausal positions; these uses are discussed in separate sections (§§ 22.46–7). See also § 18.27 for autonomous relative clauses functioning as clausal appositions. (b)

Si quidem omnes coniurati cruciamenta conferant, / habeo (opinor) familiarem . . . tergum, ne quaeram foris. (‘Even if all people formed an alliance and gathered torments, I have a comrade, I think: my back, no need to look for one outside.’ Pl. As. 318–19)

171 For the following sections I have profited greatly from comments and suggestions by Luis Unceta (p.c.). 172 The term is Bolkestein’s (1998c: 11–14).

910 (c)

Information structure and extraclausal expressions Si hanc emeris, / (di immortales), nullus leno te alter erit opulentior. (‘If you buy her—immortal gods!—no pimp will be better off than you.’ Pl. Per. 565–6) Different are illocution converters like amabo, as in (d), which have a verbal origin but probably were no longer felt as parenthetical by Latin speakers (see § 6.2). (d) Dic (amabo) an foetet anima uxoris tuae? (‘Tell me, please, does your wife’s breath smell?’ Pl. As. 894)

22.45 Parenthetical clauses and sentences In (a)–(c), the parenthetical constituents are fully fledged sentences. In (a), the parenthesis is inserted inside a clause. In (b), it is situated at the boundary between two clauses which together form a multiple (complex) clause.173 In (c), the parenthesis is  inserted inside a compound adjective phrase that functions as modifier of the noun litteras. (a)

Nam quod egomet solus feci (nec quisquam alius affuit) in tabernaclo, id quidem hodie numquam poterit dicere. (‘For what I did alone (and no one else was around) in the tent, that he’ll never be able to tell today.’ Pl. Am. 425–6)

(b)

Dictum hoc inter nos fuit / (ex te adeo ortum’st) ne tu curares meum / neve ego tuom (sc. adulescentulum)? (‘Didn’t we agree (and it was your suggestion) that you would not concern yourself with my son or I with yours?’ Ter. Ad. 796–8)

(c)

Raras tuas quidem (fortasse enim non perferuntur) sed suavis accipio litteras. (‘Your letters, as they reach me, are few and far between (perhaps they are not getting through) but delightful.’ Cic. Fam. 2.13.1)

In the above examples, we are dealing with syntactically independent sentences. Ex. (c) shares its subject with its host: litterae must be understood as the subject of perferuntur; the interactional particle enim indicates that the parenthesis serves as a possible explanation of the rareness of Caelius’ letters; it has its usual second position in a sentence. However, these connecting devices do not influence the internal structure of either unit. As in modern languages, parenthetical constituents in Latin probably were ‘not integrated in the intonation contour of the host’s clause or phrase’.174 However, due to our lack of information in this domain, it is sometimes difficult to decide what to do with subordinate clauses, for instance with the autonomous relative clause in (d), which is printed as a parenthesis by most editors but which could plausibly be taken

173 For the terms ‘multiple’, ‘complex’, and ‘compound’, see § 2.2 fin. 174 Quotation from Bolkestein (1998c: 1).

Parenthetical clauses and other extraclausal constituents 911 as a normal relative clause.175 Another problem is that some seeming parentheses, which in the text as transmitted are clearly syntactically independent, need not be parentheses at all, but instead may be ‘parallel’ texts, as in (e). Here the text between brackets is most likely an interruption occasioned by interactions between the speakers that we cannot see: Mercurius’ threatening behaviour while Sosia is speaking. (d)

Si forte morbus amplior factus siet / (quod sane nolim, maxume eri causa mei), / servom ilico introisse dicent Sostratae. (‘If for some reason the illness gets more serious (which I certainly hope it doesn’t, especially for my master’s sake) they’ll immediately say that a slave of Sostrata’s went inside the house.’ Ter. Hec. 330–2)

(e)

Quo id, malum, pacto potest nam (mecum argumentis puta) / fieri nunc uti tu hic sis et domi? (‘Damn it, how is it possible—discuss it with me in a rational way—that you’re both here and at home?’ Pl. Am. 592–3)

Parenthetical clauses and sentences are syntactically independent from their host, but semantically they are usually closely related. This is often made explicit by the presence of a connector or interactional particle, as enim in (c) above. Other connectors that are common in parenthetical sentences are nam, autem, and sed, as in (f)–(h).176 (f)

Omni igitur ratione colenda et retinenda iustitia est, cum ipsa per sese (nam aliter iustitia non esset) tum propter amplificationem honoris et gloriae. (‘Justice is, therefore, in every way to be cultivated and maintained, both for its own sake (for otherwise it would not be justice) and for the enhancement of personal honour and glory.’ Cic. Off. 2.42)

(g)

Quod vitium effugere qui volet (omnes autem velle debent) adhibebit ad considerandas res et tempus et diligentiam. (‘He who wishes to avoid this error (as all should do) will devote both time and attention to the weighing of evidence.’ Cic. Off. 1.18)

(h)

Nam orationis quidem copia videmus ut abundent philosophi, qui, ut opinor (sed tu haec, Catule, melius), nulla dant praecepta dicendi . . . (‘For we notice the overflowing copiousness of the diction of the philosophers who, I think—though you, Catulus, are better informed on these points—prescribe no rules for speaking . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 2.151) Supplement:177 In his tot et tantis (atque etiam plura possunt accidere) potest esse sapiens. (Cic. Tusc. 5.29); ‘Ferro’, inquit, ‘ferro’ (et hoc dicit in iudicio) ‘te reieci atque proterrui.’ (Cic. Caec. 24); . . . oneravi vinum (et tunc erat contra aurum), misi Romam. (Petr. 76.3

175 See also Müller (1997: 182–6). Roschatt (1885: 217–18) discusses a number of putative parenthetical relative clauses which he regards as normal relative clauses. 176 For further examples, see TLL s.v. autem 1592.58ff.; s.v. et 891.80ff.; s.v. nam 12.43ff. See also Sz.: 472–3 for a historical survey of the use of connectors in parenthetical clauses. 177 Several examples are taken from K.-St.: Index.

912

Information structure and extraclausal expressions (Trimalchio speaking)); Est enim quiddam (idque intellegitur in omni virtute) quod deceat. (Cic. Off. 1.95); Et ego ipse, quem tu per iocum (sic enim accipio) divitias orationis habere dicis, me non esse verborum admodum inopem agnosco (pÃ{ƒxp‡p}slt enim non necesse est), sed tamen idem (nec hoc pÃ{ƒxp†wpxz|) facile cedo tuorum scriptorum subtilitati et elegantiae. (Cic. Fam. 4.4.1); O socii (neque enim ignari sumus ante malorum), / o passi graviora, dabit deus his quoque finem. (Verg. A. 1.198–9) Praeclare exigis, Quinte (at ego effugisse arbitrabar), et tibi horum nihil deberi potest. (Cic. Leg. 2.7); In ripa elephantos (quadraginta autem erant) disponit. (Liv. 21.5.10) Hunc igitur ut sequerer properavi quem praesentes non sunt secuti, non ut proficerem aliquid (nec enim sperabam id nec praestare poteram) sed ut, si quid mihi humanitus accidisset (multa autem impendere videntur praeter naturam etiam praeterque fatum) huius tamen diei vocem testem rei publicae relinquerem meae perpetuae erga se voluntatis. (Cic. Phil. 1.10); Quo ex genere si quem forte tui cognosti amantiorem (fieri enim potuit) quam temporis, hunc vero ad tuum numerum libenter adscribito. (Cic. Q. fr. 1.1.15); Isset ad Iliacas (quid enim deterret amantes?) / Penelope gavisa domos, si passus Ulixes. (Stat. Silv. 3.5.46–7); Cum adhuc capillatus essem (nam a puero vitam Chiam gessi) ipsimi nostri delicatus decessit . . . (Petr. 63.3 (Trimalchio speaking)); Gnatique patrisque, / alma, precor, miserere (potes namque omnia, nec te / nequiquam lucis Hecate praefecit Avernis), / si potuit manis accersere coniugis Orpheus . . . (Verg. A. 6.116–19)

Parentheses often contain information that supports, qualifies, rectifies, justifies, or constitutes an authorial comment on the content (or part of it) of the host clause or sentence, or, more generally, situates that content in a wider context. Their semantic contribution to the sentence as a whole resembles that of attitudinal disjunct clauses, discussed in Chapter  16. They may also appeal to the knowledge of the addressee, invoke the sympathy of the addressee, or have a text-structuring function, resembling illocutionary disjunct clauses. Examples are (i)–(k).178 (i)

Qua re non equidem iam te rogo ut ad me de te, de rebus istis scribas (numquam enim, cum potes, praetermittis), sed hoc te scire volo, nihil fere umquam me sic exspectasse ut, cum haec scribebam, tuas litteras. (‘I won’t ask you to write to me about yourself and about what is going on (for you never lose an opportunity); but I do want you to know that I have never been so impatient for anything in my life as I am for a letter from you as I write these lines.’ Cic. Q. fr. 3.3.1)

178 For the semantic relation between parenthetical clauses and their host, see Roschatt (1885: 229–44) on Cicero’s orations and rhetorical works, Bolkestein (1998c) on Cicero’s letters—very detailed— Häusler (2000) on Pliny’s letters, and Damon (in press) on Caesar. For Terence, see Müller (1997: 177–86); for Petronius, Rochette (2007: 273–6). For the functions of parentheses in poetry, see above all von Albrecht (1964) on Ovid, Tarrant (1998) on Virgil and other poets, and Coleman (2010) on Statius. For the use of parentheses as ‘stage directions’ in Roman epic, see Kohn (2012). For the treatment of parenthesis by Roman grammarians, see Panico (2001: 491–6).

Parenthetical clauses and other extraclausal constituents 913 ( j)

Nimium inter vos, Demea, ac / (non quia ades praesens dico hoc) pernimium interest. (‘There’s a big difference between you two, Demea, in fact—and I don’t say that just because you are present—a very big one.’ Ter. Ad. 392–3)

(k)

Ut Quinctius (nihil enim dicam de ceteris) si fuisset homo nobilis, quis eum cum illa superbia atque intolerantia ferre potuisset? (‘Suppose that Quinctus (to take no other example) had been of noble birth, who could have put up with his haughtiness, his unbearable presumption?’ Cic. Clu. 112)

The content of a parenthesis may be relevant to what precedes, as in most of the examples presented so far, or—less often—to what follows, as in (h) above and in (l) below. What precedes may be the content of a clause, as in (h) above, but it may also  be a single word, as Quinctius in (k) and divini and Misenum in (m) and (n), respectively. (l)

Neque enim (sed bonam in partem accipies) si ulla spes salutis nostrae subesset, tu pro tuo amore in me hoc tempore discessisses. (‘And indeed—you won’t take this amiss—if there were any lingering hope of my restoration, caring for me as you do you would not have left Rome at this time.’ Cic. Att. 3.25.1)

(m)

Alterius tribuni plebis, divini hominis (dicam enim quod sentio et quod mecum sentiunt omnes) divini, insigni quadam inaudita nova magnitudine animi, gravitate, fide praediti domus est oppugnata ferro, facibus, exercitu Clodiano. (‘The house of another tribune of the commons, a divine man—for I am going to say what I feel and what everyone feels with me—divine, extraordinary for a sort of greatness of spirit previously unheard, endowed with authority and loyalty, was attacked with fire and sword by the army of Clodius.’ Cic. Sest. 85)

(n)

. . . cum istos libros ad Misenum (nam Romae vix licet) studiosius legerim . . . (‘. . . after perusing those books rather closely at Misenum (for there was little chance to do so in Rome) . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 2.60)

The parenthesis may be complex, as in (m) above and in (o) below, or elliptical, as in (h) above and in (p) below. It may be short, as in (q),179 or long—especially in Cicero’s letters, as in (o).180 There may also be more than one parenthesis in the same sentence, as in (r). For a rare parenthesis within a parenthesis, see (s).181 (o)

Nunc, quoniam et tu ita sentis (scribis enim quae nostris officiis ego ad te scripseram, etsi tibi iucunda fuerint, tamen, quoniam ex alto repetita sint,

179 For parentheses with pudet and nefas in poetry, see Coleman (2010: 297–8). 180 Comber (1976) suggests that a number of seeming digressions consisting of more than one sentence in Tacitus are in fact parentheses, for example Tac. Ann. 1.53.3–4: Nec is libidini finis (traditam . . . credebantur). Igitur amotus Cercinam . . . 181 For a different punctuation without a parenthesis, see Bömer ad loc. The text is disputed.

914

Information structure and extraclausal expressions non necessaria te putasse) et re vera confirmata amicitia et perspecta fide commemoratio officiorum supervacanea est, eam partem orationis praetermittam, tibi tamen agam, ut debeo, gratias. (‘Well, since you feel as you do (you write that, while the remarks in my letter about our services to one another gave you pleasure, you saw no need to go back so far into the past), and since reminders of services rendered are in truth superfluous between firm and tried friends, I shall leave that topic on one side. Nevertheless I shall thank you as I ought.’ Cic. Fam. 3.5.1)

(p)

Postremo nuper (credo iam omnium (sc. meretricum) / taedebat) dixit velle uxorem ducere. (‘In the end, just recently (I suppose he was getting bored with the lot of them) he told me he wanted to take a wife.’ Ter. Ad. 150–1)

(q)

. . . quibus ipse solebam / ad sata fontanas (nec pudet) addere aquas . . . (‘. . . in them I used in person to guide—and I not ashamed to say it—the spring water upon the plants . . .’ Ov. Pont. 1.8.45–6)

(r)

Licet enim de me ut libet existimes (velim quidem quam optime), si haec ita manant ut videntur (feres quod dicam), me Idus Martiae non delectant. (‘For, think of me what you like (of course I should wish you to think as well as may be), if things take the course they seem to be taking (you must bear with what I am about to say), I find no satisfaction in the Ides of March.’ Cic. Att. 15.4.3)

(s)

. . . terris adlabimur illis / quas procul hinc cernis (procul hinc (mihi crede) videnda / insula visa mihi!) tuque o iustissime Troum . . . (‘. . . we finally reached that land which you see at some distance yonder (I found it best, believe me, to see the island at a distance) and you, most righteous Trojan . . .’ Ov. Met. 14.243–5)

Parenthetical sentences are mostly declarative, but interrogative, imperative, and exclamatory clauses are not rare either, especially in poetry. Examples are (t)–(u), (v)–(w), and (x), respectively. (t)

Tuus autem ille amicus (sci’n quem dicam? de quo tu ad me scripsisti, postea quam non auderet reprehendere laudare coepisse) nos, ut ostendit, admodum diligit . . . (‘As to that friend of yours (you know whom I mean? The person of whom you write to me that he began to praise when he no longer dared to criticize), he professes the highest regard for me . . .’ Cic. Att. 1.13.4)

(u)

At regina dolos (quis fallere possit amantem?) / praesensit . . . (‘But the queen (who may deceive a lover?) divined his guile . . .’ Verg. A. 4.296–7)

(v)

Neque haec dico quod diffidam huic causae sed (crede mihi) perire satius est quam hos videre. (‘I don’t say all this because I doubt our party’s success. But, believe me, death is better than the spectacle of these people.’ Cael. Fam. 8.17.1)

Parenthetical clauses and other extraclausal constituents 915 (w)

Sollicitat (ita vivam) me tua, mi Tiro, valetudo. (‘On my life, my dear Tiro, I am anxious about your health.’ Cic. Fam. 16.20.1)

(x)

Praeterea, castis adolet dum altaria taedis, / et iuxta genitorem astat Lavinia virgo, / visa (nefas) longis comprendere crinibus ignem . . . (‘Moreover, while with hallowed torch he kindles the altars, and at her father’s side stands the maiden Lavinia, she was seen—O horror!—to catch fire in her long tresses . . .’ Verg. A. 7.71–3)

As for the host units, in Cicero’s orations and rhetorical works parentheses are most common in main clauses and in declarative sentences, but there are no restrictions on clause and sentence type.182 As for noun phrases functioning as host for parenthetical constituents, as in (c) above, they are relatively rare, at least in Cicero’s letters.183 For Ovid’s Metamorphoses, twelve instances are reported, one of which is (y), where we are dealing with a discontinuous noun phrase (gelidus . . . tremor).184 The same author has (z), with the determiner hoc separated from its head telum by a parenthesis, a form of discontinuity one does not expect outside poetry. As one would expect, there is no instance attested of a parenthesis within a prepositional phrase. (y)

Gelidus nutricis in artus / ossaque (sensit enim) penetrat tremor . . . (‘Cold horror stole through the nurse’s frame (for she understood) . . .’ Ov. Met. 10.423–4)

(z)

‘Hoc me, nate dea (quis possit credere?) telum / flere facit facietque diu . . .’ (‘ “It is this weapon makes me weep, thou son of a goddess—who could believe it?— and long will it make me weep . . .” ’ Ov. Met. 7.690–1)

After a parenthesis, the host unit can be continued in various ways. The simplest way is shown in (aa), where the host unit continues as if there were no parenthesis. Another form of continuation is shown by (ab) and (ac), ‘resumptive iteration’,185 the repetition of one or more words, with or without a parenthetical word like inquam. Repetition is also regularly combined with the connector igitur, as in (ad).186 (aa)

. . . Pompeius, quotienscumque me vidit (videt autem saepe), gratias tibi agit singularis. (‘. . . whenever Pompey sees me (he does so often), he expresses his gratitude in the warmest terms.’ Cic. Fam. 13.41.1)

(ab)

182 183 184 185 186

Quotiens ego hunc Archiam vidi, iudices, (utar enim vestra benignitate, quoniam me in hoc novo genere dicendi tam diligenter attenditis) quotiens ego hunc vidi, cum litteram scripsisset nullam . . .

The observations on Cicero are based on Roschatt (1885). See Bolkestein (1998c: 8), who also quotes Cic. Fam. 3.6.4 and 7.32.3. So Bolkestein (1998c: 5). See also von Albrecht (1964: 125–7). The term is taken from Coleman (2010: 312–14). For Cicero, see Roschatt (1885: 220–4). For further examples, see TLL s.v. igitur 266.73ff.

916

Information structure and extraclausal expressions (‘How often, gentlemen, have I seen my friend Archias—I shall presume upon your kindness, since I see you give so careful a hearing to my unconventional digression— how often, I say, have I seen him, without writing a single letter . . .’ Cic. Arch. 18)

(ac)

Hasta posita pro aede Iovis Statoris bona subiecta Cn. Pompei (miserum me! consumptis enim lacrimis tamen infixus animo haeret dolor) bona, inquam, Cn. Pompei Magni voci acerbissimae subiecta praeconis. (‘A lance was planted in front of the Temple of Jupiter Stator, and the property of Gnaeus Pompeius—dear me! tears may have run dry, but the pain clings deep in my heart—the property, I say, of Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus was subjected to the harsh voice of an auctioneer.’ Cic. Phil. 2.64)

(ad)

. . . sic recta effectio (ul~†{sƒ}tx enim ita appello, quoniam rectum factum ul~†{sƒwl) recta igitur effectio . . . crescendi accessionem nullam habet. (‘. . . so right conduct (for thus I translate katorthōsis, since katorthōma is a single right action), right conduct, I say . . . is not capable of increase or addition.’ Cic. Fin. 3.45)

Sometimes after a parenthesis some form of repair of the interrupted host unit may be required, which then may result in a change of the wording of the host, as in (ae).187 (ae)

Quin etiam, si quis est paulo ad voluptates propensior, modo ne sit ex pecudum genere (sunt enim quidam homines non re sed nomine) sed si quis est paulo erectior, quamvis voluptate capiatur, occultat et dissimulat appetitum voluptatis propter verecundiam. (‘Nay, even if a man is more than ordinarily inclined to sensual pleasures, provided, of course, that he be not quite on a level with the beasts of the field (for some people are men only in name, not in fact)—if, I say, he is a little too susceptible to the attractions of pleasure, he hides the fact, however much he may be caught in its toils, and for very shame conceals his appetite.’ Cic. Off. 1.105)

As for the position of the parenthetical clauses within their host unit, they precede the most important focal information of the sentence, at least in the letters of Cicero, and in this way contribute to the information structure of their host.188 The use of parenthetical clauses is not confined to a particular kind of text, but it seems to be more frequent in texts of an interactional character. In Petronius, parenthetical expressions are relatively frequent in the Cena Timalchionis,189 but that is not a proof that they were felt to be substandard, only that they were a normal feature of conversation. They are also quite frequent in Virgil’s Eclogues and in the speeches of the Aeneid.190

187 Example taken from K.-St.: II.76. 188 See Bolkestein (1998c: 7–11). 189 For Petronius, see Rochette (2007). 190 For the functions of parenthesis in Virgil and in poetry in general, see Tarrant (2002).

Parenthetical clauses and other extraclausal constituents 917

22.46 Parenthetical use of verbs and expressions of perception, cognition, and communication Verbs and expressions of perception, cognition, and communication can govern various types of argument clauses, in particular declarative accusative and infinitives (see § 15.98) and imperative finite ut clauses (see, for example, §§ 15.65–7), and they are found in various ut disjunct clauses (see §§ 16.35–6; 16.49–50). Apart from these uses, they can also be used as parenthesis.191 In §  6.2, §  6.21, and §  6.29, the performative use of first person verb forms is discussed in their function as modulators of the illocutionary force of declarative, interrogative, and imperative sentences, respectively. Three of the examples discussed there are repeated here as (a)–(c). (For examples of the verbs that are used in imperative and interrogative sentences, see § 6.29 (iv) Supplement.) (a)

Tandem (opinor) / conticuit. (‘At last he’s fallen silent, I think.’ Pl. As. 447–8)

(b)

(Quaeso), hercle, quid istuc est? (‘Please, by Hercules, what’s that?’ Pl. Cas. 68)

(c)

Age (quaeso) mi hercle translege. (‘Go on now, please, by Hercules, read through it for me!’ Pl. As. 750)

These expressions can be used as a parenthesis sensu stricto, as in (a) and (c), but they can also precede the clause, as in (b), or follow it, as in (d). In addition, some of them can be inserted in a phrase, creating discontinuity, as in (e). (d)

Periit potando (opinor). (‘He’s died of drinking, I think.’ Pl. Rud. 361)

(e)

Hoc (opinor) iure et maiores nostri et nos semper usi sumus. (‘That, I think, is the way in which the law has been worked, both in our fathers’ days and in our own.’ Cic. Ver. 1.115)

When these expressions are inserted in a clause or a phrase, they usually follow an emphatic word; so, for example, in (a), after tandem, and in (e), where opinor follows the emphatic determiner hoc. When they precede or follow the clause, they have the entire clause in their scope, as in (b) and (d) above and in (f) and (g) below. (f)

(Opinor) leno pugnis pectitur. (‘I think the pimp is being combed with fists.’ Pl. Rud. 661)

(g)

(Credo hercle) hodie devotabit sortis si attigerit. (‘I believe she’ll bewitch the lots if she touches them.’ Pl. Cas. 388)

191 See Bolkestein (1998a; 1998c) on Cicero’s and Seneca’s letters and Apuleius’ Met., Risselada (1989), Müller (1997: 178–82) on Terence, Longrée (2002a) on Latin historians, Adams (2003a: 19), Cabrillana  (2004) on Terence, Reinhardt (2010: 224–5) on Lucretius, Barrios-Lech (2016: 144–54) on Latin comedy.

918

Information structure and extraclausal expressions

These expressions can also be used at the boundary of clauses, as in (h) and (i). In that case they have scope over the clause that follows.192 (h)

Sed avunculo eius certe probabitur, praesertim cum senatus consultum modo factum sit, (puto) postquam tu es profectus, in creditorum causa ut centesimae perpetuo faenore ducerentur. (‘But his uncle will certainly accept it, especially as the Senate recently passed a decree for creditors, after you left Rome, I think, fixing 1 per cent simple interest as the legal rate.’ Cic. Att. 5.21.13)

(i)

In quo ipso multa occultant tuae litterae, (credo) ne vehementius desperatione perturber. (‘In that very regard your letters leave many things obscure, I suppose because you are afraid of despair throwing me quite off my balance.’ Cic. Att. 3.15.6)

Verbs of cognition vary in the types of expression they can be used in.193 Whereas, for example, arbitror ‘to judge’, ‘to think’ is, with one exception, not used as a parenthesis (but regularly in an ut attitudinal disjunct clause), credo ‘to suppose’ is commonly used as a parenthesis. It seems to have a more ‘particle-like’ status.194 Supplement (in alphabetical order by verb): Inside a clause: . . . spiritus meus ex te pependit, sed nunc vere (arbitror) sacro et venerabili ore trahitur. (Curt. 3.6.10); Pol ea ipsa (credo) ne intro mittatur cavet . . . (Pl. Aul. 101); Sed (opinor) excipiamus et exspectemus. (Cic. Att. 2.5.1); Tu (puto) hoc credis. (Cic. Att. 8.9a.2); Si mihi secundae res de amore meo essent, iam dudum (scio) / venissent. (Ter. Hau. 230–1); Ubi illinc (spero) redieris tamen, hoc ages. (Ter. Ad. 226); Noster socer (video) venit: puero nutricem adducit. (Ter. Hec. 770) At the boundary of clauses or sentences: Recte dicit, (censeo). (Ter. Hau. 588); His tantis malis haec subsidia succurrebant quominus omnis deleretur exercitus, quod Pompeius insidias timens, (credo) quod haec praeter spem acciderant eius qui paulo ante ex castris fugientis suos conspexerat, munitionibus adpropinquare aliquamdiu non audebat equitesque eius . . . ad insequendum tardabantur. (Caes. Civ. 3.70.1); Quod si luce quoque canes latrent cum deos salutatum aliqui venerint, (opinor) iis crura suffringantur, quod acres sint etiam tum cum suspicio nulla sit. (Cic. S. Rosc. 56); Si sit aliquis malus, (puto) inprobabitur; si bonus, (puto) probabitur. (Sen. Ep. 76.11) Inside a phrase: Aut etiam, ut media nocte proficiscamur, addunt, quo maiorem (credo) licentiam habeant qui peccare conentur. (Caes. Civ. 2.31.7); Cicero tuus nosterque summo studio est Paeoni sui rhetoris, hominis (opinor) valde exercitati et boni. (Cic. Q. fr. 3.3.4); . . . intra (puto) septimas Kalendas mortes hoc tibi quattuor dederunt. (Mart. 1.99.6–7—NB: inside a prepositional phrase) 192 For the use of credo at clause boundaries, see Bolkestein (1998a: 28–9). 193 For cognition verbs this has been shown by Bolkestein (1998a). For further instances, see Hofmann (1951: 106–8). For Terence, see Müller (1997: 178–82). See also Barrios-Lech (2016: 142–54) on the use of these verbs in comedy in the wider context of ‘hedges’ (that is: attitudinal comments); also Rochette (2007: 287–9) on Petronius. 194 For the parenthetic use of credo, see TLL s.v. 1137.19ff.; of opinor, TLL s.v. 723.63ff.; of puto, TLL s.v. 2769.36ff.

Curses and swear words 919 Verbs of cognition can also be used in a similar way in questions, as in ( j) and (k). Putasne is relatively common in ecclesiastical writings, where it sometimes corresponds to Gr. ›{l.195 ( j)

Cense’n hodie despondebit eam mihi, quaeso? (‘Do you reckon he’ll betroth her to me today, please?’ Pl. Rud. 1269)

(k)

Putasne / perduci poterit tam frugi tamque pudica, / quam nequiere proci recto depellere cursu? (‘You think she can be tempted—she so good, so pure, whom the suitors could not turn from the straight course?’ Hor. S. 2.5.76–8) Supplement: Sed (cense’n) plorabit, Dave, relicta? (Pers. 5.168); Adcurrens autem Philippus audivit illum legentem Esaiam prophetam et dixit (putasne) intellegis quae legis? (Vulg. Act. 8.30); (Putasne) sine istis poteris? (August. Conf. 8.26); (Putamus) non istae sunt excusationes quae impediunt omnes homines . . . (August. Serm. 112.2)

22.47 Curses and swear words Curses and swear words are often regarded as belonging to the lexical category of interjections (see § 22.48), but they have certain characteristics of their own and are therefore treated separately.196 Two types will be distinguished. The first is a typical feature of Early Latin comedy, especially of Plautus. The expressions are formally related to the gods Castor, Pollux, and Hercules: ēcastor, mecastor, edepol, pol, hercle, and mehercle (in later authors hercule and meherculē(s)).197 These curses cannot be used as one-word sentences and cannot be followed immediately by the emphasizer quidem, which shows that they are not adverbs.198 Their primary function is to underline the personal conviction or involvement of the speaker, but sometimes they resemble expressive interjections. They are more integrated in their sentences than the second type, to be discussed below. An interesting aspect is the division of these words between men and women, already observed by Gellius (11.6.1).199 In Early texts Roman women do not swear by Hercules, nor men by Castor. Edepol and pol are used in Plautus and Terence by men and women, but in Terence pol is almost exclusively used by women (see Table 22.2). Ecastor and mecastor, edepol and pol practically disappear after Terence. Cicero uses various Hercules forms (especially mehercule, rarely hercle) (c.140× in the letters; c.110× in the

195 Extensive material in TLL s.v. puto 2769.33ff. 196 Unceta (2016b) deals with them as ‘secondary interjections’. 197 For the various hercules forms used by the authors who use them frequently and for etymological considerations, see Ashdowne (2008: 20). 198 See Gagnér (1920: 195). 199 See Adams (1984) and Müller (1997: 139–46).

920

Information structure and extraclausal expressions

other works). In later authors the form hercle is also rare and replaced by other forms.200 Table 22.2 The use of swear words in Plautus and Terence (in absolute numbers) Plautus hercle mehercle

Terence

male

female

male

637

2a

101

4

ecastor

2 99

mecastor

Female

5

19

2

pol

159

84

10

45

edepol

338

26

13

10

Source: Ullman (1943: 88). Ullman correctly observes that more plays of Plautus than of Terence have been preserved, and that men have more lines than women. a Pl. Cist. 52; Per. 237. For discussion of these instances, see Stockert (2004), with references.

As for the positions these swear words occupy in their sentences in Plautus and Terence, some of them are not attested in first position (mehercle, mecastor); the second position is the most frequent, certainly for hercle, with the swear word following words of all categories (including coordinators and subordinators), which are usually emphatic, like the verb perii in (a), for example, or the adverb numquam in (b), or the subordinator quia in (c). For an exceptionally late position in the sentence (but second in the line, and after emphatic numquam), see (d). Plautus is more flexible than Terence.201 When in third position, hercle often follows a combination of an emphatic word with the emphasizer quidem, as in (e) (note also the discontinuity mea . . . causa). These swear words are very common in declarative and exclamatory sentences, but are not excluded from imperative and interrogative sentences, as can be seen in (f).202 (a)

Perii hercle ego, manufesta res [est]. (‘I’m dead! It’s all out.’ Pl. Cas. 893–5)

(b)

Numquam edepol erit ille potior / Harpax quam ego. (‘He’ll never be a better Harpax than me.’ Pl. Ps. 925–5a)

(c)

Credo, animo male est / aedibus. # Quid iam? # Quia edepol ipsum lenonem evomunt. (‘I believe the house is feeling sick. # How so? # Because it’s vomiting out the pimp himself.’ Pl. Ps. 952–3)

200 For details on Cicero and other authors, see Gagnér (1920: 31–4; 217–19). For Cicero’s own preferences, see . . . lubentius dixerim et mehercule quam mehercules. (Cic. Orat. 157). 201 See Gagnér’s conclusions (1920: 195–7). 202 For a discussion of the contexts in which these words are used, see Unceta (2016b: 222–32).

Curses and swear words 921 (d)

Peiorem ego hominem magisque vorsute malum / numquam edepol quemquam vidi, quam hic est Simia. (‘I have never seen a worse man and one who is bad in a more wicked way than this Simia is.’ Pl. Ps. 1017–18)

(e)

Mea quidem hercle causa liber esto atque ito quo voles. (‘As far as I am concerned you can be free and go where you wish.’ Pl. Men. 1029)

(f)

Hercle hanc quidem / nil tu amassis. (‘No, her you mustn’t love.’ Pl. Mil. 1006–7)

The other type of swear words consists of the noun di ‘gods’ in combination with an adjective, with or without an interjection, either pro or o.203 Examples are (g)–(i). Di immortales is popular in Plautus and Cicero; di boni, relatively popular in Terence, Cicero, and Seneca (but not in his tragedies).204 They are sometimes used as independent exclamations, and they often come first in the sentence and are then not always distinguishable from a simple invocation of the gods. They are common in interrogative and exclamatory sentences. Occasionally di boni is inserted in a phrase (see the Supplement). Their function is not much different from the former type, with which they share their resemblance to expressive interjections, but they look more like parenthetical expressions. (g)

Pro di immortales, cognosci’n tu me saltem, Sosia? (‘Immortal gods, can at least you recognize me, Sosia?’ Pl. Am. 822)

(h)

Sed, o di immortales, non dicerem hoc, audiente Scaevola, nisi ipse dicere soleret . . . (‘But, by the immortal gods, I should not say this with Scaevola listening, were he not himself in the habit of . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 1.185)

(i)

Di boni, boni quid porto? (‘Good gods, what good news I bring!’ Ter. An. 338) Supplement: Pro deum atque hominum fidem: / hocin pacto indemnatum atque intestatum me abripi? (Pl. Cur. 694–5). Di immortales, / etiam cum uxore non cubet? (Pl. Mer. 537–8); Nam quem ego adspicio? Pro supreme Iuppiter, / erus meus hicquidemst, mearum alumnarum pater, / Hanno Carthaginiensis. (Pl. Poen. 1122–4); O di immortales, meus est. (Pl. Rud. 1360); Quam id te, di boni, non decebat! (Cic. Phil. 2.20); Hic autem iratus quae dixit, di boni! (Cic. Phil. 2.80); Pro di boni, et haec puella hospitio patris excepta est? (Sen. Con. 1.6.1); Omittamus haec magna verba, sed, di boni, vera. (Sen. Ep. 13.4); Nunc quanta, di boni, ludibria sunt ineunda! ([Quint.] Decl. 1.17)

203 Statistical data in TLL s.v. deus 892.34ff. For a discussion of Plautus’ and Terence’s use of these expressions, see Müller (1997: 144–8). See also Ashdowne (2008) and Unceta (2016b). 204 See Unceta (2017a).

922

Information structure and extraclausal expressions The expression di vostram fidem is used elliptically for di, obsecro vostram fidem. Whereas Plautus uses both expressions (seven times against five, respectively) in a way that can, most of the time, be understood as an invocation of the gods, Terence has only the elliptical one (ten times), and he uses it more as an affirmative expression, as in ( j). Both expressions are situated at the beginning of the sentence. ( j) Di vostram fidem, / eamus ad ipsam. (‘Heaven help us! Let’s go and see her.’ Ter. Ph. 808–9) Wishes like ita me di ament (see § 7.57) are used by Plautus and Terence as a means to strengthen the assertion (see § 6.2), as in (k). (k) Ita me di ament, ut illa me amet malim quam di, Milphio. (‘As truly as the gods may love me, I’d prefer being loved by her to being loved by the gods, Milphio.’ Pl. Poen. 289)

Invocations of one or more individual gods (see the use of the vocative case in (m)) are sometimes used as swear words, as discussed above for di immortales, and placed further on in the sentence, preferably after an emphatic word, as in (m). (l)

Sed pro Iuppiter, / num ego disperii? (‘But good heavens, am I ruined?’ Pl. Aul. 241–2)

(m)

Quae enim res umquam, pro sancte Iuppiter! non modo in hac urbe sed in omnibus terris est gesta maior? (‘For was any greater deed ever done in Rome, holy Jupiter, or anywhere else in the world?’ Cic. Phil. 2.32)

Cicero has some thirty-five instances of me dius fidius (also medius fidius and mediusfidius), with maybe ten instances in other authors. This phrase is rarely placed at the beginning of the sentence, as in (n), but rather is almost always in second or later position, as in (o). This is the case even when it appears within a phrase, as in (p). In this internal position it follows an emphatic word. (n)

Me dius fidius, ne tu emisti v†zx praeclarum! (‘Well, upon my word you have bought a fine troop!’ Cic. Att. 4.4a.2)

(o)

Scripsi de te parce me dius fidius et timide, non revocans me ipse sed paene refugiens. (‘I have written about yourself, sparingly and gingerly enough upon my word, not only keeping myself in check but almost running the other way.’ Cic. Fam. 6.7.3)

(p)

Melioris me dius fidius civis et viri putabam quovis supplicio adfici quam illi crudelitati non solum praeesse verum etiam interesse. (‘Upon my word I thought that as a man and a citizen it was better to suffer any punishment rather than take part, let alone a leading part, in such atrocity.’ Cic. Att. 9.6.7) Malum in (q), repeated from § 22.45, and (r) is an exclamation of anger or frustration.205

205 For the use of malum ‘the deuce!, the devil!’ (OLD s.v. § 8), see Hofmann (1951: 32), Lilja (1965: 39), and Unceta (2016b: 233–5).

Interjections 923 (q) Quo id, malum, pacto potest nam—mecum argumentis puta— / fieri nunc uti tu hic sis et domi? (‘Damn it, how is it possible—discuss it with me in a rational way—that you’re both here and at home?’ Pl. Am. 592–3) (r) Quid, malum? Isti Pindenissitae qui sunt? (‘What the deuce? Those Pindenissitae, who are they?’ Cic. Att. 5.20.1)

22.48 Interjections Interjections were not recognized as a separate lexical category by Greek grammarians, but the Roman grammarians distinguished them (from adverbs) and they are mentioned as such by Quintilian Inst. 1.4.20; 1.5.52.206 They were and are described as adverb-like words which express the emotional state of the speaker. This description fits some of the interjections that are dealt with in our grammars very well, for example eheu ‘alas’, as in (a), an expression of grief or pain. Others, though, have an interactional function, such as heus ‘hey!’, which is used to draw the attention of a person or persons, as in (b).207 (a)

Age, Palaestrio, bono animo es. # Eheu, nequeo quin fleam, / quom abs te abeam. (‘Come on, Palaestrio, cheer up. # Dear me! I can’t refrain from crying because I’m leaving you.’ Pl. Mil. 1342–3)

(b)

Ecquis in aedibu’st? / Heus, ecquis hic est? (‘Is anyone in the house? Hey, is anyone here?’ Pl. Bac. 581–2)

Apart from these two types of interjections, some scholars also include the swear words discussed in § 22.47 and the particle age (see § 6.28). In this Syntax, four types of interjections will be distinguished: ‘sound-reproducing interjections’ like hahahae ‘hahaha’; summonses, like heus in (b); introductory interjections, like ecce ‘look!’; and expressive interjections, like eheu in (a).208 Interjections are informationally independent linguistic units which do not play a role in the structure of other linguistic units and which can be used as independent sentences, as in (c). Usually they precede another sentence, in conjunction with which they form a textually complex unit, as in (a) above. In modern languages there is a 206 For the Roman grammarians, see Biville (2003) and Moure Casas (2013). 207 For a very complete list of interjections and discussion, see Neue-W.: II.981–99, K.-H.: 942–3, and Hofmann (1951: 9–39). For a discussion of the grammatical status of interjections, see Biville  (1996). Unceta (2012) uses the term ‘interjection’ in a restricted sense for what are here called ‘expressive interjections’ only. 208 This fourfold distinction derives from a threefold division in Tesnière (1959: 96–9), via Müller (1997: 92), with the addition of introductory interjections as a separate category (usually taken as part of the summonses), following a suggestion by Luis Unceta (p.c.). Similar terms are also used by Hofmann (1951: 9–39), Dik (1997: II.384–6), Unceta (2012: 352–3), and others. For the functions of interjections in various text types, illustrated for Virgil, see Biville (2002).

924

Information structure and extraclausal expressions

clear intonational break between the two units, and this was probably also the case in Latin. Exceptionally, especially in elevated poetry, interjections are inserted in another sentence, as in (d) and (e). Details will be discussed in the following sections. (c)

Quid faciam tibi? / # Eheu! # Eheu? Id quidem hercle ne parsis. Dabo. (‘What should I do for you? # Dear me! # “Dear me?” Don’t spare that: I’ll give it to you.’ Pl. Ps. 78–9)

(d)

Quem procul ex alga maestis Minois ocellis, / saxea ut effigies bacchantis, prospicit, eheu (cj. Bergk), / prospicit et magnis curarum fluctuat undis . . . (‘At whom afar from the weedy beach with streaming eyes the daughter of Minos, like a marble figure of a bacchanal, looks forth, alas! looks forth tempest-tost with great tides of passion . . .’ Catul. 64.60–2)

(e)

Quid precer, heu! timeamve prius? (‘What should I entreat, or alas! what rather fear?’ Stat. Ach. 1.935)

Some interjections can be used in combination with evaluative exclamatory sentences (see §  6.35), as in (f) (with a so-called accusativus exclamationis). Grammars and dictionaries sometimes suggest that such an accusative is governed by the interjection, but this is not the case. Such accusatives can also be used without the interjection. Different is vae ‘alas’, which is usually combined with a dative personal pronoun or a noun phrase, as in (g), resembling the use of the dative with adjectives (see § 4.100); capiti tuo cannot be used alone. (f)

Heu, me miserum! Misere perii. (‘O, I’m wretched! I’ve perished wretchedly.’ Pl. Aul. 721)

(g)

Vae capiti tuo. (‘Bad luck to your head!’ Pl. Am. 741)

For understandable reasons, interjections are very unevenly distributed over text types and authors. They are very rare in narrative texts (there are no interjections in Caesar, for example) and in didactic texts (including Lucretius), but common in Early Latin comedy and in Seneca’s tragedies, as well as in poetry in general.209

22.49 Sound-reproducing interjections Sound-reproducing interjections are almost absent from the regular texts that we have, and only a few others are mentioned by ancient grammarians. Hahahae (hahae) as the sound of laughter is used a few times by Plautus and Terence, as in (a). Plautus also uses once prox, possibly the sound of a fart, as in (b), and once tuxtax, the sound of blows (Per. 264). For st, see § 22.50.210 209 For their distribution in the LASLA corpus, see Denooz (2005). The interjections attat, au, eu, euax, eugepae, papae are left out of account because they are too infrequent. 210 See Hofmann (1951: 11–12), Müller (1997: 92–3). For a few other sound-reproducing interjections, see K.-H.: 943.

Interjections 925 (a)

Hahahae. # Quid risisti? # Servi venere in mentem Syri / calliditates. (‘Hahahahaha! # What are you laughing at? # I was thinking of the craftiness of my slave Syrus.’ Ter. Hau. 886–7)

(b)

. . . dum enitor, prox! iam paene inquinavi pallium. (‘. . . while I was struggling up, whoops! I almost soiled my mantle.’ Pl. Ps. 1279)

22.50 Summonses Summonses are expressions that are used by a speaker to draw the attention of an addressee, which may be a person or a group of persons.211 An example is heus ‘hey’. (For the use of the imperative forms fac and age as summonses, see § 6.29.) Summonses are often combined with an address, often also with a form of greeting, and are often in the initial position and followed by a command or a question. They are best attested in Early Latin comedy. The expressions discussed in this section vary in their social function (heus is typically used by men) and in the frequency with which they are used by Plautus and Terence.212 By decreasing order of the number of attestations, the following interjections are used as a summons: o (oh), heus, eho, and st. Of these, only o is attested in all periods of Latin. By using the interjection eho ‘hey’, ‘hi’ the speaker directs the attention of the addressee to what he is going to say. It is used by men and women. It most often precedes an indignant or otherwise emotional question or order, as in (a) and (b), and is regularly combined with a form of address, as in (b) and (c), or with a modulator of illocution (see § 22.46), as in (d). It is usually not directed to superiors. Outside of comedy there is one conjectured instance, which is at Rhet. Her. 4.63.213 (a)

Quin etiam nunc intus hic in proxumo est. # Eho, an non domi est? (‘Actually she’s in here next door even now. # Tell me, she’s not at home?’ Pl. Mil. 301)

(b)

Eho istum, puere, circumduce hasce aedis et conclavia. (‘Hey there, boy, take him around the house and rooms.’ Pl. Mos. 843)

(c)

Eho tu, eho tu, quin cavisti ne eam videret, verbero? (‘Hey you, hey you, why didn’t you guard against him seeing her, you thug?’ Pl. Mer. 189)

(d)

Eho, amabo, quid illo nunc properas? (‘Hey, please, why are you rushing there now?’ Pl. Poen. 263)

The interjection heus ‘hey’ signals an urgent appeal to a person or persons for their attention. It is mainly attested in Early Latin comedy, especially Plautus, but continues to be used by later authors in interactive texts (rarely in other text types), for 211 There are also non-linguistic summonses like knocking on the door, which will be ignored here. See Hoffmann (1983: 225) and Roesch (2008: 210). 212 For discussion of the social aspects, see Müller (1997: 102–10) and Barrios-Lech (2016: 162–8). 213 For details, see TLL s.v. eho 298.12ff., Müller (1997: 105–6), and Barrios-Lech (2016: 166–8).

926

Information structure and extraclausal expressions

example, Cicero in the notable combination (sed) heus tu. It is usually in first position and often precedes a form of address. With very few exceptions, it is used by male speakers. At Rhet. Her. 4.14 it figures in an example of low style (genus adtenuatum). It is mainly used by people with a relatively higher social status in the situation at hand.214 Typical examples are (e)–(h). A few less common ones can be found in the Supplement. (e)

Heus, Pardalisca! / # Quid est? # Est— # Quid? # Est quod volo exquirere ex te. (‘Hey there, Pardalisca! # What is it? # There is— # What? # There is something I want to ask you.’ Pl. Cas. 688–9)

(f)

Aperite hoc. Heus, ecquis hic est? (‘Open up! Hello, is anyone here?’ Pl. Am. 1020)

(g)

Aperite, aperite! Heus, Simoni me adesse aliquis nuntiate! (‘Open up, open up! Hey, someone announce to Simo that I’m here!’ Pl. Ps. 1284)

(h)

Heus, tu, / malo, si sapis, cavebis. / Mea est haec. (‘Hey, you, watch out for trouble if you’re wise. She belongs to me.’ Pl. Cas. 837–9) Supplement: Heus, vos, ecquis haec quae loquor audit? (Pl. Cas. 165–6—Myrrhina speaking); Filia, heus. # Quid est? Quid agimus? (Pl. Men. 844); Sed heus tu, ecquid vides Kalendas venire, Antonium non venire? (Cic. Att. 2.2.3); Ac prior ‘heus,’ inquit, ‘iuvenes, monstrate, mearum / vidistis si quam . . . (Verg. A. 1.321–2); M(arcus) · Statius / M(arci) · l(ibertus) · Chilo / hic / heus · tu · viator · las/se · qu · me · praete/reis . . . (CIL I2.2138.1–6 (Cremona)); Heus tu, peccator, bono animo sis. (Tert. Paen. 8.3)

The interjection o (also oh, without an observable difference in the context in which it is used)215 is used both as an expressive interjection (see § 22.52) and as a summons. In the latter case, it is combined with a form of address. This combination can be used alone, as in (i), but it can also be combined with a sentence of which the content is to some extent emotional for the speaker, as in ( j)–(l). In that case, it usually precedes it, but it can also follow or be inserted. It is used in all periods of Latin but, due to its function, it is absent from an author like Caesar and is rare in historical and didactic texts in general. Especially in poetry, the regular order of the combination o + form of address can be interrupted by other constituents, as in (m), but the order is also (rarely) inversed, as in (n).216 (i)

O mi ocule, o mi anime. (‘O apple of my eye, o my soulmate.’ Pl. Mil. 1330)

214 For details, see TLL s.v. heus 2675.7ff., Watt (1963), Hoffmann (1983: 222–3), Müller (1997: 102–5), Berger (2015), Barrios-Lech (2016: 162–3), and Adams (2016: 128). 215 See TLL s.v. o 3.33ff. For Terence’s use of o, see Müller (1997: 123–6). 216 For the variety of word order, see TLL s.v. o 10.1ff.

Interjections 927 ( j)

O Lyde, es barbarus. (‘O Lydus, you’re a barbarian.’ Pl. Bac. 121)

(k)

Respice, o mi lepos. (‘Look back at me, my delight.’ Pl. Cas. 235)

(l)

Sed, o Palaemon, sancte Neptuni comes, / qui Herculis socius esse diceris, / quod facinus video! (‘But, o Palaemon, holy friend of Neptune, you who are also called the companion of Hercules, what action do I see!’ Pl. Rud. 160–2)

(m)

Ut stetit, ‘o’, dixit, ‘non istis digna catenis . . .’ (‘As soon as he had touched down, he said: “Oh! you who do not deserve those chains . . .” ’ Ov. Met. 4.678—tr. Kline)

(n)

‘Iuppiter o!’, dixi, ‘si te non falsa loquuntur / dicta sub amplexus Aeginae Asopidos isse . . .’ (‘I said: “O Jupiter, if they do not lie when they say that you were held in Aegina’s embrace, she, the daughter of Asopus . . .” ’ Ov. Met. 7.615–16—tr. Kline)

The infrequent interjection ohē is used as a signal that the speaker wants to stop what is going on. (o)

Nolo, inquam, aurum concredi mihi. / Vel da aliquem qui servet me. # Ohe, odiose facis. (‘I’m telling you, I don’t want to be entrusted with the gold. Or give me someone to watch over me. # Hey, you’re getting on my nerves.’ Pl. Bac. 1064–5)

The sound-reproducing interjection st is a signal to the addressee that he should be silent. In Plautus, who has about twenty instances, it is almost always accompanied with an imperative of the verb taceo, as in (p). One of the few exceptions, not accepted by all editors, is (q). After Plautus it is almost non-existent.217 (p)

St. / Tace atque abi. (‘Hush! Be quiet and be off.’ Pl. Cas. 148–9)

(q)

St. / Ne pave, restituam iam ego te in gaudio antiquo ut sies. (‘Hush! Stop being afraid. I’ll restore you to your old joy now.’ Pl. Mer. 884a–5)

22.51 Introductory interjections Introductory interjections call the attention to something noteworthy in the communicative situation and have a presentative or introductory function. The particles in this group are ecce, en, and em, in that order of frequency of attestation. Of these, ecce is used in all periods of Latin, while en is first attested in a fragment of

217 For Ter. Ph. 743, see Müller (1997: 110). Cicero has one instance at Rep. 6.12.

928

Information structure and extraclausal expressions

C. Gracchus and then is infrequently used by Cicero and continues to be found until Late Latin. Em practically disappears after Early Latin comedy. The interjection ecce ‘there’, ‘here is X’ is used in two types of contexts. In one context, it calls the attention of the addressee to an entity in the situation or to a visible or perceptible event in that situation—its proper attention-calling or ‘demonstrative’ use, as in (a) and (b). Alternatively, in a narrative or similar type of text, it serves to signal that something noteworthy is going to happen, often unexpectedly, as in (c).218 In (a), the entity to which attention is called is in the accusative, comparable with the use of the accusative for an object constituent (see also §  6.35, Appendix). In (b), ecce is the first element in a sentence in which a particular situation on stage is described. In (c), it introduces the main clause of a complex sentence which is part of a narrative. (a)

Ubi es? # Ecce me. (‘Where are you? # Here I am.’ Pl. Rud. 241)

(b)

Perii hercle. Ecce autem haec abiit. Vae misero mihi. (‘I’m done for! (turns back) But look, my wife’s left. Poor, wretched me!’ Pl. Mer. 792)

(c)

Discubitum noctu ut imus, ecce ad me advenit / mulier . . . (‘As we went off to bed that night, lo and behold, a woman came to me . . . ’ Pl. Mer. 100–1)

The use of objectlike constituents as in (a) is further illustrated by (d)–(f), the last being an indirect question. The combination of ecce in its demonstrative function with a nominative noun or noun phrase is first used by Virgil, as in (g). From Cicero onwards, ecce can be combined with an illocutionary disjunct in the dative (tibi or vobis) (a dativus ethicus, see § 10.107), as in (h). Poets especially place ecce in positions other than the first of its clause or sentence, as in (i).219 (d)

Ecce autem alterum! / Nescioquid de amore loquitur. O infortunatum senem! (‘Now look, here’s the other one, muttering something about love! The poor old master!’ Ter. Eu. 297–8)

(e)

‘En quattuor aras: / ecce duas tibi, Daphni, duas altaria Phoebo.’ (‘ “Lo, here are four altars, mind you, two for you, Daphnis; two for Phoebus!” ’ Verg. Ecl. 5.65–6)

(f)

‘Ecce ut doleat tibi, ut postea consideratius loquaris!’ (‘ “Look how sorry you are for yourself; next time take more care before you speak!” ’ Sen. Ben. 4.36.1)

218 For the various functions of ecce, see Cuzzolin (1998) and Adams (2013: 465–80), with references. The text-structuring function of ecce or, as she calls it, the ‘discourse-marking’ function, is discussed by Dionisotti (2007), especially for Virgil. 219 For further instances and details, see TLL s.v. ecce 23.73ff. For Terence’s use of ecce, see Müller (1997: 117–18).

Interjections 929 (g)

Ventum erat ad limen, cum virgo ‘poscere fata / tempus,’ ait, ‘deus ecce deus!’ (‘They had come to the threshold, when the maiden cries: “’Tis time to ask the oracles; the god, lo! the god!” ’ Verg. A. 6.45–6)

(h)

Sed cum ex Dolabellae —{t}~pjļ (sic enim tu ad me scripseras) magna †desperatione adfectus† essem, ecce tibi et Bruti et tuae litterae! (‘But just when Dolabella’s ‘star performance’, as you put it in your letter to me, had given me fresh heart (?), down comes Brutus’ letter on the one hand and yours on the other.’ Cic. Att. 14.19.1)

(i)

In somnis, ecce, ante oculos maestissimus Hector / visus adesse mihi . . . (‘In slumbers, behold, I dreamed that Hector, most sorrowful, stood before my eyes . . .’ Verg. A. 2.270–1) Supplement: Ecce Gripi scelera. (Pl. Rud. 1178); Vix haec dixerat, cum ecce iste praesto ‘sedes’, inquit, ‘audax?’ (Rhet. Her. 4.65); Ecce illa tempestas, caligo bonorum et subita atque improvisa formido . . . (Cic. Prov. 43); Ecce tibi qui rex populi Romani dominusque omnium gentium esse concupiverit idque perfecerit. (Cic. Off. 3.83); Hic aliud maius miseris multoque tremendum / obicitur magis atque improvida pectora turbat. / Laocoon, ductus Neptuno sorte sacerdos, / sollemnis taurum ingentem mactabat ad aras. / Ecce autem gemini a Tenedo tranquilla per alta / (horresco referens) immensis orbibus angues / incumbunt pelago pariterque ad litora tendunt. (Verg. A. 2.199–205); Multa miser timeo, quia feci multa proterve, / exemplique metu torqueor, ecce, mei. (Ov. Am. 1.4.45–6); Teneo ecce epistulas, in quibus manifesta proditionis argumenta sunt, in quibus hostium consilia. (Sen. Con. 10.6.1); ‘Quod si utique’, proclamabat, ‘facinore opus est, nudo ecce iugulum, convertite huc manus, imprimite mucrones.’ (Petr. 80.4); Et ecce illam misericordiam. (August. Serm. 16A.10); Date elemosynam, et ecce vobis munda sunt omnia. (August. Serm. 16A.12); Ecce quo modo salubriter mortificat Deus. (August. Civ. 17.4 (l. 138)); Indolis · hic · iacit · heu / ecce · sepultus · / cunctis · karus exosus / non · nisi · malivolis · / Dextrianus · nomine · / vocita[ta]tus in vita . . . (CIL XII.592.1–6 (Aix-enProvence)); Hoc autem schema fit aut in sensu aut in verbis. . . . Ecce hoc schema in sensu est . . . (Pomp. V.300.2–15K.)220 In Plautus and Terence, alongside ecce there are other forms which are compounds of ecce and accusative forms of demonstrative pronouns, resulting in forms like eccum, eccas, and eccillam (and once eccistam). These are, in fact, much more frequent in that corpus than ecce by itself. They can be used to draw the attention of the addressee to an entity in the situation or to a visible or perceptible event. They are semi-declinable words which only agree in number and gender with the person or thing they refer to, as can also be seen in ( j)–(m). Ex. (n) resembles (a) above in having an objectlike accusative affinem with it.221

220 For the ‘discourse-marking role’ of ecce in the grammarian Pompeius, see Adams (2013: 473–5). 221 For etymological considerations, see de Vaan (2008: 185). For a detailed treatment of these forms in Plautus, see Perdicoyanni-Paléologou (2002). See also § 11.103, Appendix.

930

Information structure and extraclausal expressions ( j) Sed Priamum adstantem eccum ante portam video. (‘But there I can see Priam standing in front of the gate.’ Pl. Bac. 978) (k) Nam meus pater intus nunc est eccum Iuppiter. (‘Well, you see, my father Jupiter is inside now.’ Pl. Am. 120) (l) Ostende huc manus. # Em tibi, ostendi, eccas. (‘Show me your hands. # Here you go, I’m showing them to you, look.’ Pl. Aul. 640–1) (m) Apud nos eccillam festinat cum sorore uxor tua. (‘Look, your wife is bustling around at our place with her sister.’ Pl. St. 536) (n) Sed eccum affinem ante aedis. (‘But look, there’s my relation in front of the house.’ Pl. Aul. 536)

The interjection em ‘here you are’, ‘look at this’, probably an abbreviated form of the imperative singular of the verb emo, is used to offer ‘some object, fact, situation, etc. to a person’s attention.’222 When presenting an entity, it is often combined with a noun or noun phrase in the accusative, as in (o). As with ecce, the objectlike element can also be a clause, as in (p). It can also be used for presenting a situation. It is usually placed in first position, as in (q). Em can be combined with an illocutionary disjunct in the dative (tibi or vobis) (a dativus ethicus, see § 10.107), as in (r). In instances like (s)—an aside—em resembles expressive interjections.223 There are very few attestations after Early Latin comedy, two of which are in the Supplement. (o)

Em voluptatem tibi, / em mel, em cor, em labellum, em salutem, em savium. ((hitting Milphio) ‘There’s your darling! There’s your honey, there’s your heart, there’s your lip, there’s your salvation, there’s your kiss!’ Pl. Poen. 382–3)

(p)

Em nunc hic quoius est (sc. ager) / ut ad incitas redactu’st! (‘Look how the present owner has been checkmated!’ Pl. Trin. 536–7)

(q)

Em aspecta: rideo. (‘There, look: I’m laughing.’ Pl. As. 841)

(r)

Quid est tibi nomen? . . . # Ausculta ergo, ut scias: / Vaniloquidorus . . . Quodsemelarripides Numquameripides. Em tibi. (‘What’s your name? . . . # Then listen so that you may know: Vainspeakerpresent . . . Whativegrabbedonceson Youllnevergetbackson. There you go.’ Pl. Per. 700–5)

(s)

Iamne abiisti? Em, sic datur. (‘Have you left already? There, that’s how she receives presents.’ Pl. Truc. 634) Supplement: Em (en cj. Lambinus) causam cur lex tam egregia . . . ferretur . . . (Cic. Phil. 5.15); Em tibi illa accusatio iurgiis inita, verbis aucta . . . (Apul. Apol. 25—NB: nominative)

222 Following OLD s.v. em. In the manuscripts there is confusion of em and hem and also of em and en. For Terence’s use of em, see Müller (1997: 115–17). For Plautus’ usage and for general discussion, see Unceta (2017b). For a comparative discussion of em and hem, see del Vecchio (2008: 115–22). 223 See Unceta (2017b: 74–5).

Interjections 931 The interjection ēn ‘observe’, ‘see’ is used to call attention either to entities visible in the situation or in other ways perceptible, or to an event in the situation.224 When presenting an entity, it is combined with a noun or noun phrase in the accusative or, more often, in the nominative, as in (t) and (u), respectively. As with ecce and em, the objectlike element can also be a clause, as in (v), the first attestation of en. When en is used for presenting a situation, it is more often placed in first position, as in (w), but can also be inserted elsewhere in the clause or sentence, at least in poetry. It is very rarely combined with an illocutionary disjunct in the dative (tibi or vobis) (a dativus ethicus, see § 10.107).225 (t)

‘En vobis’, inquit, ‘iuvenem’ . . . (‘ “Here,” he cried, “here is a young man . . .” ’ Liv. 5.18.5)

(u)

En crimen, en causa, cur regem fugitivus, dominum servus accuset. (‘Here we have the charge, here the ground which has induced a runaway to arraign his king, a slave his lord.’ Cic. Deiot. 17)

(v)

Considerate, Quirites, sinistram eius. En quoius auctoritatem sequimini . . . (‘Look, Quirites, at his left hand. There is the man whose authority you must follow . . .’ Gracch. orat. 58)

(w)

Tum Quintus ‘en’, inquit mihi, ‘haec ego patior cottidie’. (‘Quintus said to me “There! This is the sort of thing I have to put up with every day.” ’ Cic. Att. 5.1.4) The relationship between the attention-getting use of ēn, discussed above, and the interrogative use of ēn, as in (x), is not clear. As the example illustrates, the latter use is most visible in the combination with umquam (see § 6.15). Instances of its use in isolation are very rare, but see (y). (x) Sed tu enumquam cum quiquam viro / consuevisti? (‘But have you ever been intimate with any man?’ Pl. Cist. 86–7) (y) En haec promissa fides est? (‘Is this how he keeps his promise?’ Verg. A. 6.346)

22.52 Expressive interjections Latin has a large number of expressive interjections, several of which cover a broad scale of emotions. This class is, for obvious reasons, best attested in Early Roman comedy and relatively frequent in the comedies of Terence. Whereas some of them are not attested in later periods, others continued into Late Latin and even the Romance languages. They are presented in alphabetical order.226 224 The etymology of ēn is not clear. Some scholars assume its use was influenced in some way by the Greek interjection ·x ‘hey’. See de Vaan (2008: 189). 225 Symmachus has the largest number of instances (six). 226 Unceta (2012: 361–89) presents a systematic treatment of this class according to the emotions they express.

932

Information structure and extraclausal expressions

The interjection a (ah, rarely aha) is commonly used in Early Latin comedy and in poetry (including Seneca’s tragedies). There are only two instances (quotations) in prose (Cicero). In the comedies, it usually precedes an imperative, interrogative, declarative, or exclamatory sentence (including an occasional accusativus exclamationis), and it is rarely used independently. Poets use it freely where it fits in best in the metre. Three examples are (a)–(c). A(h) is used in various emotional contexts,227 but very rarely to express joy, as in (d). (a)

Apage a me, apage. # Ah, nimium ferus es. # Mihi sum. # Malacissandus es. / Equidem tibi do hanc operam. # Ah, nimium pretiosa es operaria. (‘Away from me, away! # Ah, you’re too wild. # For my own benefit. # You need to be softened. I’ll do this work for you. # Oh, you’re too expensive a worker.’ Pl. Bac. 73–4)

(b)

Non est profecto: sine. # At enim istaec in me cudetur faba. # Ah. / # Flagitium facimus. (‘It won’t, I’m sure. Let me. # But I’m the one who’ll pay for it. # Oh! # We’re committing an outrage.’ Ter. Eu. 381)

(c)

Miser, a miser, querendum’st / etiam atque etiam, anime. (‘ “Unhappy , ah unhappy heart, again, again must thou complain.” ’ Catul. 63.61)

(d)

Dic isti. / # Ah. # Quid est? Ecquid lubet? # Lubet. (‘Tell her that. # Ah! # What is it? Do you like it? # I do like it.’ Pl. Cur. 130–1)

The interjection ehem is ‘an exclamation expressing gratified surprise or recollection,’228 as in (e) and (f), respectively. Terence uses it relatively more often than Plautus to express surprise at the unexpected arrival of someone. After these authors, there are only two attestations, in the archaist Apuleius. (e)

Ehem, te hercle ego circumspectabam, nimis metuebam male ne abiisses. (‘Hey, I was looking around for you. I was very much afraid that you might have given me the slip.’ Pl. Ps. 912)

(f)

Quid? Quid aliud volui dicere? / Ehem, curate istam diligenter virginem. (‘Well, then, what else did I mean to say? You there, look after that girl with the greatest care.’ Ter. Eu. 504–5)

The interjection ei is used in Early Latin comedy, rarely alone, usually with the dative of the first personal pronoun mihi, and usually preceding a sentence. The latter usage continued until Late Latin, but almost exclusively in poetry. In comedy it is, with one exception, only used by men, mostly those of a higher social position. It is an expression of ‘anguish or sim.’ (OLD).229 Examples are (g)–(h). 227 For Terence’s use of ah, see Müller (1997: 126–30). 228 So OLD s.v. ehem. See also TLL s.v. 296.54ff., Müller (1997: 106–8), Unceta (2012: 374–6). For a different approach (ehem is an indicator of hesitation), see Luck (1964). 229 For Plautus’ use of ei, see Unceta (2012: 362–3); for Terence’s use, see Müller (1997: 138).

Interjections 933 (g)

Ei, numnam ego obolui? (‘Dear me, did I emit that smell?’ Pl. Am. 321)

(h)

Ei mihi, / perii hercle. (‘Dear me, I’m done for!’ Pl. Aul. 391–2)

(i)

‘Ei mihi quantum / praesidium, Ausonia, et quantum tu perdis, Iule!’ (‘ “Ah me! How great a protection is lost to you, Ausonia, how great a one to you, Iulus!” ’ Verg. A. 11.57–8)

The rare compound oiei (Greek zÇ + ei) is a ‘cry of pain or anguish’ (OLD). The interjection eia (heia) is infrequently used in Early Latin comedy, expressing mostly disapproval, astonishment, or urgency. It remained in use, especially in the third meaning, and mainly in poetry, until Late Latin. It usually precedes a sentence, in later periods predominantly imperative ones. Examples are ( j)–(l).230 ( j)

Heia, Megadore, hau decorum facinus tuis factis facis . . . (‘Really now, Megadorus, you aren’t doing the decent thing by behaving like this . . .’ Pl. Aul. 220)

(k)

Vos priores esse oportet, nos posterius dicere, / qui plus sapitis. # Heia vero! Age dice. # At deridebitis. (‘You ought to come first, we ought to speak later. You are wiser. # Come off it! Come on, tell us. # But you’ll laugh at me.’ Pl. Epid. 261–2)

(l)

Romae sponsorem me rapis: ‘eia, / ne prior officio quisquam respondeat, urge.’ (‘At Rome thou hurriest me off to be surety: “Come! bestir yourself, lest someone answer duty’s call before you.” ’ Hor. S. 2.6.23–4)

For some examples of the interjection ēheu ‘alas’, see § 22.48. As an expression of grief or pain, it is at home in Early Latin comedy and later on in poetry (including Seneca’s tragedies), where it often functions as a comment by the author. It is attested only twice in prose. It usually precedes a sentence, as in (m), but see (d) and (e) in § 22.48 and (n). It occasionally precedes an exclamatory sentence with an accusativus exclamationis, as in (o).231 (m)

Eheu, quis vivit me mortalis miserior? (‘Dear me! Which mortal lives more wretchedly than me?’ Pl. Rud. 520)

(n)

Socerum et scelestas / falle sorores, / quae velut nactae vitulos leaenae / singulos, eheu, lacerant. (‘Disappoint your father-in-law and my wicked sisters, who, like lionesses having possessed themselves of calves, alas! tear each of them to pieces.’ Hor. Carm. 3.11.39–42)

230 For Plautus’ use of (h)eia, see Unceta (2012: 379–82—with discussion of the variation in form); for Terence’s use, see Müller (1997: 131–2). 231 As in one of the two prose instances (Sal. Jug. 14.9).

934

Information structure and extraclausal expressions

(o)

Eheu me miseram, quor non aut istaec mihi / aetas et forma’st aut tibi haec sententia? (‘Oh dear, oh dear! If only either I had your youth and beauty or you had my sense!’ Ter. Hec. 74–5)

For the interjection hem, see § 6.25. It is used for a variety of emotions, ranging from ‘surprise, concern, etc.’ to ‘unhappiness’ (OLD).232 It is usually used in reaction to another person’s words, as in (p). It is very rare outside of comedy, one example being (q), where it is not used in a reactive context. (p)

Interemere ait velle vitam, / gladium— # Hem? # Gladium— # Quid eum gladium? / # Habet. (‘She says she wants to take his life. A sword— # What? # A sword— # What about this sword? # She has it.’ Pl. Cas. 659–61)

(q)

Hem, mea lux, meum desiderium, unde omnes opem petere solebant, te nunc, mea Terentia, sic vexari, sic iacere in lacrimis et sordibus . . . (‘Ah, my beloved, my heart’s longing! To think that you, dearest Terentia, once everybody’s refuge in trouble, should now be so tormented! There you are, plunged in tears and mourning . . .’ Cic. Fam. 14.2.2)

The interjection heu ‘alas’ is an expression of ‘sorrow, regret, etc.’ (OLD). It is used by Plautus and Terence to express a strong emotion of the speaker.233 It is used both alone, as in (r), and preceding (mainly exclamatory) sentences, including those consisting of an accusativus exclamationis, as in (s). It is rare in prose: Pliny the Elder has seven instances of the type, exemplified by (t), and it is still used as late as the Vulgate. It was popular in elevated poetry, often as comment of the author, and was sometimes positioned quite freely, as in (u) and (v). (r)

Heu heu! # Desine. # Doleo. (‘Dear o dear! # Stop it! # I’m in pain.’ Pl. Ps. 1320)

(s)

Heu me miserum! Misere perii . . . (‘O, I’m wretched! I’ve perished wretchedly . . .’ Pl. Aul. 721)

(t)

Heu dementia ab his initiis existimantium ad superbiam se genitos! (‘Alas the madness of those who think that from these beginnings they were bred to proud estate!’ Plin. Nat. 7.3)

(u)

Heu me, per urbem—nam pudet tanti mali— / fabula quanta fui, conviviorum et paenitet . . . (‘Ah me! (for I am ashamed of so great a misfortune) what a subject of talk was I throughout the city! I repent too of the entertainments . . .’ Hor. Epod. 11.7–8)

232 See also Müller (1997: 121–3) and del Vecchio (2008: 115–22). 233 For Plautus’ use of heu, see Unceta (2012: 366–7); for Terence’s use, see Müller (1997: 137).

Interjections 935 (v)

. . . Eurydicenque suam iam luce sub ipsa / immemor heu! victusque animi respexit . . . (‘. . . and on the very verge of light, unmindful, alas, and vanquished in purpose, on Eurydice, now regained looked back! . . .’ Verg. G. 4.490–1)

The interjection hui is an expression of positive or negative surprise. Outside of the comedies of Plautus (three instances) and Terence (fifteen), it is only attested eight times, in Cicero’s correspondence (six by himself).234 It can be used alone, as in (w), but can also precede a (mostly exclamatory) sentence, as in (x). (w)

Spero, est simili’ maiorum suom. # Hui! / # Syre, praeceptorum plenu’st istorum ille. # Phy! (‘He gives me hope. He’s similar to his ancestors. # Wow! # Syrus, he’s full of these maxims. # Phew!’ Ter. Ad. 411–12)

(x)

Hui, babae, basilice te intulisti et facete. (‘Hey, wow! That was a fantastic, fine movement!’ Pl. Per. 806)

In its expressive use (for its use as summons, see § 22.50), the interjection o expresses ‘various emotions: a. pleasure, satisfaction. b. pain, misery, reproach, or sim. c. surprise’ (OLD), the first two being less common. O is common in all periods of Latin, but is particularly frequent in poetry. Examples of the three types from Plautus are (y)–(aa), respectively.235 O is usually the first word of the sequence to which it belongs, as in (y) and (z). Independent instances like (aa) are very rare.236 In poetry, placement of o is freer, as in (ab). (y)

[Mihi] certum est efficere in me omnia eadem quae tu in te faxis. / # Oh, melle dulci dulcior [mihi] tu es. (‘I’ve set my mind on doing to myself everything you do to yourself. # Oh, you’re sweeter than sweet honey.’ Pl. As. 613–14)

(z)

Indigna digna habenda sunt erus quae facit. # Oh! oh! oh! / # Eiulatione haud opus est, [multa] oculis aciem minuitis. (‘The wrongs a master does must be deemed right. # No, no, no! # There’s no need for wailing; you’re merely diminishing your eyes’ sharpness.’ Pl. Capt. 200–1)

(aa)

Respice vero, Thesprio. # Oh, / Epidicumne ego conspicor? (‘But do look back, Thesprio. # Oh, do I see Epidicus?’ Pl. Epid. 3–4)

(ab)

Quare agite, o, proprios generatim discite cultus, / agricolae . . . (‘Up, therefore, O husbandmen, learn the culture proper to each after its kind . . .’ Verg. G. 2.35–6)

234 For Terence’s use of hui, see Müller (1997: 130–1). 235 Examples taken from Unceta (2012: 388–9). For general discussion, see Dickey (2002: 225–9). See also Müller (1997: 123–6) on Terence. TLL s.v. has a very detailed classification of the uses of o. 236 TLL s.v. o 4.29 refers to Leo’s explanation of (z): ‘fletur extra metrum’.

936

Information structure and extraclausal expressions

O regularly precedes evaluative exclamatory sentences with an accusativus exclamationis, as in (ac) and (ad). Exclamatory sentences with a nominative are less common and not used by Plautus. Examples are (ae) and (af). See also § 6.35. (ac)

O lepidum diem! / Nam ut dudum hinc abii, multo illo adveni prior . . . (‘O what a wonderful day! Well, after going away from here, I got there long before him . . .’ Pl. Aul. 704–5)

(ad)

O miserum te, si haec intellegis, miseriorem, si non intellegis hoc litteris mandari . . . (‘Oh you wretched fellow, if you realize this! More wretched still, if you do not realize that it is being recorded by historians . . .’ Cic. Phil. 2.54)

(ae)

O facinus audax, o Geta / monitor! (‘O outrageous behaviour! O Geta the guardian!’ Ter. Ph. 233–4)

(af)

O scelus, o pestis, o labes! (‘O wickedness, O plague, O disgrace!’ Cic. Pis. 56)

In (y), oh precedes a declarative sentence; in (aa), an interrogative one. Exx. (ag) and (ah) have imperative sentences; (ai), an exclamatory sentence. Typical for poetry is the use of o to introduce a long address, as in (aj). (ag)

O multa tibi di dent bona . . . (‘O, may the gods give you many good things . . .’ Pl. Poen. 208)

(ah)

O salve, insperate, multis annis post quem conspicor. (‘O, greetings, unhoped-for brother, whom I see after so many years.’ Pl. Men. 1132)

(ai)

O qualis tu semper istos! (‘O, how well you always hit these fellows off!’ Cic. Att. 16.11.5)

(aj)

O saepe mecum tempus in ultimum / deducte Bruto militiae duce . . . (‘O you who have so often carried with me into moments of the utmost peril when Brutus was in charge of operations . . .’ Hor. Carm. 2.7.1–2)

The interjection vae is used in combination with a dative constituent, usually a pronoun, from Early Latin comedy, especially Plautus, onwards in situations of pain or fear—when the speaker is involved—as in (ak) and (al), or as a threat—when other entities are involved—as in (am). From Virgil onwards, vae is also used without a dative constituent, inserted into the sentence as an authorial comment, as in (an). There are a few attestations of vae with an accusative constituent.237 (ak)

Nimia mira vidi. Vae mihi, / Amphitruo, ita mihi animus etiam nunc abest. (‘I have seen very strange things. Dear me, Amphitruo: I’m beside myself even now.’ Pl. Am. 1080–1) 237 Pl. As. 481; Catul. 8.15; Sen. Apoc. 4.3. For vae in Plautus, see Unceta (2012: 364–5).

Address (al)

937

Vae misero mihi, / propter meum caput labores homini evenisse optumo. (‘Oh no, I’m so wretched! Because of me the best of men had to suffer!’ Pl. Capt. 945–6)

(am)

Vae illi qui tam indiligenter opservavit ianuam. (‘Bad luck to the man who watched his door so carelessly.’ Pl. As. 273)

(an)

. . . Mantua, vae miserae nimium vicina Cremonae . . . (‘. . . Mantua, alas! too near ill-fated Cremona . . .’ Verg. Ecl. 9.28)

The interjection vah is almost limited to Plautus and Terence,238 where it is used in various emotional contexts (pain, dismay, vexation, etc.; contempt; admiration, surprise (see OLD)). It can precede all four types of sentences. Examples are (ao)–(ar), respectively. But it can also stand alone, as in (as). (ao)

Poti’n coniecturam facere, si narrem tibi / hac nocte quod ego somniavi dormiens? / # Vah, solus hic homo est qui sciat divinitus. (‘Can you interpret if I tell you what I dreamed about in my sleep last night? # Bah! This man’s the only man who knows through divine inspiration.’ Pl. Cur. 246–8)

(ap)

Ita fieri iussi. # Ecquid hallecis? # Vah, rogas? (‘That’s how I’ve had it done. # Is there any fish sauce? # Bah, you even ask?’ Pl. Per. 107)

(aq)

Sati’n hoc plane, sati’n diserte, / ere, nunc videor tibi locutus / esse? # Vah, / apage te a me. (‘Don’t you think now that I’ve said this clearly enough and eloquently enough, master? # Bah, go away from me.’ Pl. Am. 578–80)

(ar)

Tempta qua lubet. / # Vah, scelestus quam benigne, ut ne abstulisse intellegam! (‘Touch me wherever you wish. # Bah, how obliging the thug is, so I won’t realize he’s taken it.’ Pl. Aul. 647–8)

(as)

Tetigistin’? # Tetigi, inquam, et pultavi. # Vah. # Quid est? (‘You’ve touched it? # I’m telling you, I’ve touched it and I’ve knocked. # Oh no! # What is it?’ Pl. Mos. 457)

22.53 Address A speaker can stimulate a (potential) addressee to participate in linguistic interaction in various ways.239 In Latin, if the communicative situation is clear enough, he can use the second person verb form in an interrogative or imperative sentence, as in (a). He can also use the addressee’s name, the second person personal pronoun,240 or a 238 An exception in the PHI corpus is Petr. 58.12 (a freedman speaking). 239 In the following sections I shall use the singular ‘addressee’, but plural ‘addressees’ are implied as well. 240 For the use of pronouns, see Pinkster (1987). For quid tu and quid vos, see Ricottilli (1978).

938

Information structure and extraclausal expressions

common noun or noun phrase that in some way applies to the addressee, either alone, as in (b), or in combination with a sentence, as in (c)–(e). The term address is used for the function these three devices fulfil.241 (a)

Audire vocem visa sum ante aedis modo / mei Lampadisci servi. # Non surda es, era: / recte audivisti. # Quid agis hic? # Quod gaudeas. (‘Just now I seemed to hear the voice of my good slave Lampadio in front of the house. # You aren’t deaf, mistress: you heard correctly. # What are you doing here? # Something you’ll be happy about.’ Pl. Cist. 543–5)

(b)

Era. # Hem quid est? # Haec est. # Quis ? # Quoi haec excidit cistella. (‘Mistress. # Yes, what is it? # This is her. # Who is it? # The one who dropped the casket.’ Pl. Cist. 695)

(c)

Quid agis, Euclio? (‘How are you, Euclio?’ Pl. Aul. 536)

(d)

Heus tu, / malo, si sapies, cavebis. (‘Hey, you, watch out for trouble if you’re wise.’ Pl. Cas. 837)

(e)

Bonus est hic homo, mea voluptas. (‘He’s a good man, my darling.’ Pl. Poen. 1214)

Addresses are often accompanied by summonses and/or by greetings and leavetakings.242 The latter are often conventional, such as salve, vale, and di te ament, as in (f), but more individualized expressions can be used as well, as in (g).243 (f)

Salvos sis, Mnesiloche, salvom te advenire gaudeo. # Di te ament, Philoxene. (‘Hello, Mnesilochus, I’m glad you’ve arrived safely. # May the gods love you, Philoxenus.’ Pl. Bac. 456–7)

(g)

Cura, mi Tiro, ut valeas. Hoc gratius mihi facere nihil potes. (‘Look after your health, my dear Tiro. You can do nothing to please me more.’ Cic. Fam. 16.22.2)

Addresses resemble summonses (see § 22.50) in that they can sollicit the attention of an addressee, as in (b) above. The difference is that addresses have a lexical meaning and, in oral communication, usually function as a signal that the speaker wants to communicate in some way with the addressee; summonses have no lexical meaning. Summons and address frequently co-occur, especially in comedy, as in (d) above and in (h).244

241 Janson (2013) distinguishes ‘calls’ as a separate type alongside the traditional four sentence types. 242 For expressions of greeting and farewell, see Forberg  (1913), Letessier  (2000), Poccetti  (2010), Barrios-Lech (2016: 177–93), Unceta (2016a), and Berger (2017a). 243 For di te ament greeting expressions in Plautus and less conventionalized variants, see Hanson (1959) and Berger (2017a). 244 For Early Latin, see Bennett: II.268–70; 278.

Address (h)

939

Heus, Staphyla, te voco. (‘Hey! Staphyla! It’s you I’m calling!’ Pl. Aul. 269)

Addresses are not only used to start linguistic interaction. This is illustrated by (i) and ( j). In (i), Megadorus meets Euclio on the street. The two know each other and Megadorus tries to start a conversation with Euclio, who is talking to himself. After his solemn opening words, he probably uses the name Euclio not only to insist on inviting Euclio to take part in the conversation, but also as part of a greeting convention, and that is certainly the case for Megadore in Euclio’s (unwilling) reaction. A few lines later, after Euclio has complained about his poverty, Megadorus uses Euclio again, this time probably to enhance the credibility of his promise to help.245 (i)

Salvos atque fortunatus, Euclio, semper sies. / # Di te ament, Megadore. (‘May you always be well and blessed, Euclio. # May the gods love you, Megadorus.’ Pl. Aul. 182–3)

( j)

Tace, bonum habe animum, Euclio. / Dabitur, adiuvabere a me. Dic, si quid opu’st, impera. (‘Calm down and cheer up, Euclio. You’ll receive money, you’ll be helped by me. Tell me if you need anything, command me.’ Pl. Aul. 192–3)

Addresses are used in all periods of Latin, more often in some types of text, for obvious reasons, than in others, and they are used for a variety of reasons. The following sections present details on the functions, forms, and syntax of addresses.246 I use the term ‘vocative’ only to designate the vocative case form, a special form in part of the nominal system which is used to mark the relevant nominal constituents as address (see § 12.22). Sometimes the term ‘vocative’ is used as more or less equivalent to what is called ‘address’ in this Syntax.

22.54 The functions of address As is shown in the previous section § 22.53, there may be various reasons for a speaker to use an address. This section presents further details. To start with, it is important to make a distinction between the types of texts in which addresses are used. In a scene on the stage (in Plautus, for example), in a dinner conversation (the Cena Trimalchionis, for example), in a dialogue, or in a public speech with three or more people present, an address may be necessary to single out a person for whom a specific communicative act (a statement, an order, or a request) is intended. Examples are (a)–(c).247 With only two persons present an address may be necessary to draw the attention of the 245 Ctibor (2017a: 53) uses the term ‘vocative of sincerity and guarantee’. 246 A monograph on ‘address’ in Latin is Dickey (2002), with discussion of previous literature, especially from a sociolinguistic point of view. Svennung (1958) remains worth consulting. More recent discussions can be found in Cabrillana (2008), Bodelot and Verdier (2011), and Ctibor (2017a). For explicit addresses to the audience in Roman comedy, see Kraus (1934). 247 See Cabrillana (2008). See also § 9.2 on tu ‘you’.

940

Information structure and extraclausal expressions

other person, as in (d), but it may also be used for pragmatic reasons (comforting, flattering, reproaching, insulting, etc.), especially if the two persons know each other, as in (e).248 If only one person is involved, the use of an address often has an emotional function (for example, when addressing the gods, or in combination with exclamations), as in (f).249 In drama, the use of an address may also serve the purpose of making a character known to the public, as in (g).250 (a)

Nomen mulieri’ cedo quid sit, ut quaeratur. # Philterae. / # Ipsa’st. Mirum ni illa salva’st et ego perii. # Sostrata, / sequere me intro hac. (‘Tell me the woman’s name, so that we can make enquiries. # Philtera. # It’s her. It looks as if the girl’s saved and I’m lost. # Sostrata, follow me inside.’ Ter. Hau. 662–4)

(b)

Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra? (‘In heaven’s name, Catiline, how long will you take advantage of our forebearance?’ Cic. Catil. 1.1)

(c)

Videris mihi, Agamemnon, dicere: ‘Quid iste argutat molestus?’ (‘Now, Agamemnon, you look as if you were saying, “What is this bore chattering for?” ’ Petr. 46.1 (Echion speaking))

(d)

Epidice! # Epidicum quis est qui revocat? # Ego sum, Periphanes. / # Et ego quidem Apoecides sum. # Et ego quidem sum Epidicus. (‘Epidicus! # Who is it that’s calling back Epidicus? # It is I, Periphanes. # And I am Apoecides. # And I am Epidicus.’ Pl. Epid. 201–2)

(e)

Unum hoc scio, hanc meritam esse ut memor esses sui. / # Memor essem? O Mysis, Mysis, etiam nunc mihi / scripta illa dicta sunt in animo Chrysidis / de Glycerio. (‘All I know is that she doesn’t deserve to be forgotten. # Forgotten? Oh Mysis, Mysis, even now Chrysis’ words about Glycerium are engraved on my heart.’ Ter. An. 281–4)

(f)

O Fortuna, ut numquam perpetuo’s data! (‘Oh Fortune, how impermanent a gift you are!’ Ter. Hec. 406)

(g)

Aeschine, audi ne te ignarum fuisse dicas meorum morum. / Leno ego sum. (‘Listen, Aeschines, so you can’t say you’re unaware of my character. I’m a pimp.’ Ter. Ad. 160–1)

Some of the pragmatic functions mentioned can also be used in types of text other than (fictive) oral texts, for example in letters. In longer and well-prepared texts, addresses can moreover fulfil a discourse function. In speeches, for example, they may contribute to the organization of the text in paragraphs, as in Catiline’s second speech to his followers in Sallust (h).251 In dialogues the use of addresses also

248 For this function of addresses, see Bennett: II. 262–78 (with a detailed classification), Cabrillana (2008), Monserrat Roig (2010), Ctibor (2017a). 249 Exx. (a)–(g) are taken from Cabrillana (2008) and Ctibor (2017a). 250 See Cabrillana (2008). 251 For discussion, see Ctibor (2017a: 51–3).

Address

941

contributes to the structuring and the coherence of the text (they perform a ‘bridging’ function).252 (h)

Itaque contione advocata huiusce modi orationem habuit (sc. Catilina). (1) Conpertum ego habeo, milites, verba virtutem non addere . . . (2) Scitis equidem, milites, socordia atque ignavia Lentuli quantam ipsi nobisque cladem adtulerit . . . (3) Praeterea, milites, non eadem nobis et illis necessitudo inpendet. (4) Quom vos considero, milites, et quom facta vostra aestumo, magna me spes victoriae tenet. (‘Accordingly he assembled his troops and addressed them in a speech of the following purport: (1) “I am well aware, soldiers, that words do not supply valour . . . (2) You know perfectly well, soldiers, how great is the disaster that the incapacity and cowardice of Lentulus have brought upon himself and us . . . (3) Moreover, soldiers, we and our opponents are not facing the same exigency. (4) When I think of you, my soldiers, and weigh your deeds, I have high hopes of victory.’ Sal. Cat. 57.6–58)

Likewise in Cicero’s speeches the address iudices ‘judges’ helps to structure the speech, while at the same time ensuring that the judges keep listening and remain aware of their important role. Address constituents have been shown to contribute to the structuring of clauses and sentences by being situated at syntactic borderlines,253 as in (i):  (i)

Indiciis expositis atque editis, Quirites, senatum consului . . . (‘When the evidence had been produced and read out, citizens, I asked the Senate . . .’ Cic. Catil. 3.13)

Here the ablative absolute clause indiciis . . . editis is set apart by the address expression Quirites (‘fellow-citizens’).254 Another effect aimed at by putting an address constituent in a specific position in its clause or sentence is marking one or more surrounding constituents as salient. Examples include ( j)–(l) (the salient elements are in italics): ( j)

. . . aliquando, per deos immortalis, patres conscripti, patrium animum virtutemque capiamus . . . (‘. . . by the immortal gods, Members of the Senate, let us at last take our fathers’ spirit and courage . . .’ Cic. Phil. 3.29)

(k)

Ea erat, iudices, pergrandis pecunia. (‘This legacy, gentlemen, was a very large sum of money.’ Cic. Ver. 2.20)

(l)

Tamen ego hoc quod ferri nego posse, Verri, iudices, concedo et largior. (‘Nevertheless I will let this thing, which I say is intolerable, be freely allowed, gentlemen, to Verres.’ Cic. Ver. 3.194)

252 See Shalev (1998). 253 See Fraenkel (1965: 50ff.). 254 For the functions of Cicero’s use of Quirites, especially in his speeches addressed to the people, see Léovant-Cirefice (2000).

942

Information structure and extraclausal expressions Supplement: Ego, Nausistrata, esse in hac re culpam meritum non nego, / sed ea qui sit ignoscenda? (Ter. Ph. 1014–15); Dos, Pamphile, est / decem talenta. (Ter. An. 950–1); Alia civitas nulla, iudices, publico consilio laudat. (Cic. Ver. 2.13); Verum mehercule hoc, iudices, dicam. Memini Pamphilum . . . (Cic. Ver. 4.32); Ego vero, iudices, ipse me existimarem nefarium si amico, crudelem si misero, superbum si consuli defuissem. (Cic. Mur. 10); Quis globus, o cives, caligine volvitur atra? (Verg. A. 9.36) Verum hoc saepe, Phormio, / vereor, ne istaec fortitudo in nervom erumpat denique. (Ter. Ph. 324–5); Cum hoc, patres conscripti, bello, inquam, decertandum est, idque confestim; legatorum tarditas repudianda[s] est. (Cic. Phil. 5.33); Non ulla laborum, / o virgo, nova mi facies inopinave surgit. (Verg. A. 6.103–4)255

Finally, an address can also be used at the end of an exchange, in combination with an expression of leave-taking, as in (m). (m)

Di bene vortant. # Idem ego spero. # Quid me? Num quid vis? # Vale. / # Et tu, frater. (‘May the gods bless your plan. # I hope so too. # What about me? Is there anything else I can do for you? # Be well. # You too, dear brother.’ Pl. Aul. 175–6)

22.55 The forms of address If a speaker knows his addressee, a common way to address him when opening or continuing an exchange is by using his name or the second person pronoun tu, as in (a), where Daemones addresses his slave Gripus and a girl. Alternatively, a person can use a noun that indicates the social relation between the interlocutors, as in (b), a kinship term, as in (c), or, especially if the addressee is unknown to the speaker, a noun indicating age or profession, as in (d) and (e). The use of titles, e.g. domine and imperator, is rare until the Imperial period.256 (a)

Gripe, accede huc. Tua res agitur. Tu, puella, istinc procul / dicito quid insit et qua facie, memorato omnia. (‘Gripus, come here; it’s your case that’s on. You, girl, say from there, from a distance, what’s inside and what it looks like; state everything.’ Pl. Rud. 1148–9)

(b)

Ere, mane, eloquar iam, ausculta. (‘Master, wait, I’m going to tell you this instant, listen.’ Pl. Aul. 820)

(c)

Satis dicacula es amatrix. # Mater, is quaestus mihi est. (‘You’re quite a glib little hussy. # That’s my job, mother.’ Pl. As. 511)

(d)

Fores paene exfregisti. Quid nunc vis tibi? / # Adulescens, salve. # Salve. Sed quem quaeritas? # Bacchidem.

255 The examples are taken from Fraenkel (1965: 60ff.). Some of the examples in which two constituents on both sides of the address constituent are taken as salient may not convince everybody. 256 I follow more or less the classification used by Dickey (2002). For titles, see her Chapter 2.

Address

943

(‘You almost broke the door out of its frame. What do you want now? # Hello, young man. # Hello. But whom are you looking for? # Bacchis.’ Pl. Bac. 586–8)

(e)

Quid cessas, miles, hanc huic uxorem dare? (‘Soldier, why are you hesitating to give her to him as his wife?’ Pl. Cur. 672)

Apart from these ‘objective’ expressions a speaker can use more subjective expressions that describe a quality he considers applicable to the person addressed. The positively oriented expressions comprise ‘terms of endearment, affection, and esteem’;257 the negatively oriented, insults. These expressions can consist of an appropriate noun, as in (f) and (g), a common noun with an appropriate adjective, as in (h) and (i), or an appropriate substantive adjective, as in ( j) and (k).258 As the examples show, it is especially the superlative form of the adjective that is used as address. Subjective qualifications are very common in drama and in poetry. (f)

‘Da mihi hoc, mel meum, si me amas, si audes.’ / Ibi ille cuculus: ‘Ocelle mi, fiat . . .’ (‘ “Give me this, my honey, if you love me and if you want to.” Then that cuckoo says: “Yes, apple of my eye, you’ll get that . . .” ’ Pl. Trin. 245–6)

(g)

At etiam, furcifer, / male loqui mi audes? (‘You good-for-nothing, you even dare abuse me?’ Pl. Capt. 563–4)

(h)

Salve, vir lepidissime, / cumulate commoditate, praeter ceteros / duo di quem curant. (‘My greetings, most charming man, teeming with timeliness, whom two gods favour beyond the others.’ Pl. Mil. 1382–4)

(i)

Quid nunc, sceleste leno? (‘Well then, crooked pimp?’ Pl. Poen. 798)

( j)

Dicam enim, mea mulsa: de istac Casina huic nostro vilico / gratiam facias. (‘I’ll tell you, my honey: do our overseer here a favour about that Casina of yours.’ Pl. Cas. 372–3)

(k)

Scelestissume, audes mihi praedicare id, / domi te esse nunc qui hic ades? (‘You hardened criminal, you dare tell me that you, who are here, are at home now?’ Pl. Am. 561–2) The use of a proper name as address is complicated by Roman nomenclature, which  gradually developed into a system by which a free Roman man had three names (a praenomen, e.g. Marcus, a nomen gentilicium, e.g. Tullius, and a cognomen, e.g. Cicero), and sometimes also an agnomen. That was the situation in the first century ad. The use of one name is statistically predominant, but two and three are also possible, in various combinations. In Cicero, the number of names correlates with the

257 Terms taken from Dickey (2002). 258 For a list of adjectives expressing affection and/or respect, see Dickey (2002: 131–3); for a collection of insults, ibid.: 173–6, Lilja (1965), Opelt (1965), and Dubreuil (2013). For a sociolinguistic approach to insults in Plautus, see Bork (2018). For Terence, see Müller (1997: 266–80).

944

Information structure and extraclausal expressions level of formality: more formal means more names.259 In Cicero the single name is usually the cognomen, certainly for addressees of high status. The nomenclature for Roman women was less complicated. In the classical period the name of a woman is the gentilicium: Terentia (e.g. Cicero’s wife), Tulliola (diminutive of Tullia, used by Cicero for his daughter).260 The use of abstract nouns as address for human beings is common from Plautus onwards, as in (e) in § 22.53 (mea voluptas). In later times this results in quite exalted expressions in letters, such as honorificentia tua.261

The actual form of the address chosen by a speaker to address another person depends on a number of factors, such as his perception of the character of his interlocutors, the circumstances under which the exchange takes place (personal or official, formal or informal, relaxed or in a hurry and under pressure), and social considerations, such as (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi)

do the interlocutors know each other and how well do they know one another? are the interlocutors relatives, spouses, or lovers? have the interlocutors the same status in their society? is there a difference in authority between the interlocutors? are the interlocutors of the same age and/or the same sex? the communicative goals of the interlocutors: what do they want to achieve in their exchange?

As a result of all this, the interlocutors will make the form of their address and their contribution to the exchange in general more or less polite. As an illustration, a few details follow.262 The standard form of address between acquainted adult men and women ‘without any special attachment to one another’263 is by name, independent of status and power. Children (non-relatives) were more often addressed by reference to their age ( puer, puella, virgo). For strangers the use of a name was obviously excluded and another form of address, for example, miles in (e) above, had to be used. Using an address was an obligatory part of the greeting procedure in Rome.264 Relatives are usually addressed with a kinship term. In Cicero’s letters to his brother Quintus, the common address is mi frater, as in (l), and exceptionally mi Quinte. The combination Quinte frater, as in (m), and Quinte alone is used in his dialogues, which are intended for outsiders.

259 The fundamental publication is Adams (1978). A more general discussion can be found in Dickey (2002: 46–73), to which the reader is referred for details. 260 For discussion and details, see Dickey (2002: 73–6). 261 See Zilliacus (1949: 51–7) and Coleman (2012: 194–9). 262 For further details and discussion, see Dickey (2002: Part II, Interactions). For politeness in forms of address, see also Ferri (2008). 263 I use Dickey’s words (2002: 233–45). 264 See Dickey (2002: 250), with reference to Adams (1978: 163).

Address (l)

945

MARCUS QUINTO FRATRI SALUTEM. Mi frater, mi frater, mi frater, tune id veritus es ne ego iracundia aliqua adductus pueros ad te sine litteris miserim . . .? (‘From Marcus to his brother Quintus greetings. My brother, my brother, my brother! Were you really afraid that I was angry with you for some reason and on that account sent boys to you without a letter . . .?’ Cic. Q. fr. 1.3.1)

(m)

‘. . . tenebimus hanc consuetudinem a Socrate traditam eaque inter nos, si tibi, Quinte frater, placebit, quam saepissime utemur.’ ‘Mihi vero’, inquit ille, ‘nihil potest esse iucundius.’ (‘ “. . . That same method, which by the way we inherited from Socrates, I shall, if agreeable to you, my brother Quintus, follow as often as possible in our future discussions.” “Nothing could please me better,” Quintus replied.’ Cic. Div. 2.150)

More intimately known persons such as spouses are addressed by name, by a term of endearment, as in ( j) above, or by uxor or vir + attribute, as in (n).265 (n)

Opsecro, ecastor, quor istuc, mi vir, ex ted audio? (‘Good heavens, please, why must I hear that from you, my man?’ Pl. Am. 812)

Addresses to groups are mostly plural nouns indicating the social position of the addressee, such as Quirites ‘(Roman) citizens’, patres conscripti ‘enrolled fathers’, ‘senators’, iudices ‘members of the jury’, or ethnicity, such as Romani; a commander could address his soldiers as milites. Collective nouns could be used as well, especially in poetry, both the inherently collective ones like populus ‘people’, and collectively used singular nouns like miles ‘soldier’. Examples are (o) and (p), respectively.266 Subjective qualifications are rare outside of poetry. (o)

I, pete virginea, populus, suffimen ab ara. (‘Ye people, go and fetch materials for fumigation from the Virgin’s altar . . .’ Ov. Fast. 4.731)

(p)

‘Hunc imitare, miles’, aiebat, ‘et circa iacentem ducem sterne Gallorum catervas.’ (‘He cried: “Here is your pattern, soldiers! Bring down the Gauls in troops around their prostrate leader!” ’ Liv. 7.26.7)

265 For Terence’s forms of address for relatives, see Müller (1997: 280–5). In Plautus and Terence, women use mi more often than men (Adams 1984: 68–73). Trajan uses mi in his letters to Pliny. See Dickey (2002: 217–20) and Coleman (2012: 198). 266 There is extensive discussion about the (non-existent) vocative form of populus and the interpretation of cases like (p). See Sz.: 24, Svennung (1958: 284–6), Dickey (2002: 295), TLL s.v. populus 2714. 30ff.

946

Information structure and extraclausal expressions

22.56 The syntax of address Addresses are usually short. If the address is a noun phrase, the noun phrase can be modified by the possessive adjective meus (examples can be found in the preceding paragraphs), by a descriptive adjective, as bone in (a), or by another noun in the genitive, as adulescentum in (b).267 The adjective agrees with its head in the usual way, as in (a) and (c). The use of the possessive adjective reflects ‘intimacy and affection’.268 (a)

Bone serve, salve. Quid fit? (‘Hello, my good slave. What’s up?’ Pl. Bac. 775)

(b)

. . . capitis te perdam ego et filiam, / perlecebrae, permities, adulescentum exitium. (‘I’ll destroy you and your daughter utterly, you allurements, you ruins, you destructions of young men.’ Pl. As. 132–3a)

(c)

Euge, homo lepidissume. (‘Hurray, most charming man!’ Pl. Ps. 323)

More complex addresses are typical of poetry. In (d) there are two modifiers, and in (e) the adjective carus governs dative mihi. Parallels are attested from Plautus onwards but are rare. In (f), the address contains the object complement (subject in the passive) amice in the vocative. An address built on a passive perfect participle is used in (g); an autonomous relative clause, (h). In such complex examples the expressive interjection o (see § 22.52) can be taken as a signal of the address function.269 (d)

Amabo, mea dulcis Ipsitilla, / meae deliciae, mei lepores / iube ad te veniam meridiatum. (‘I entreat you, my sweet Ipsitilla, my darling, my charmer, bid me come and spend the afternoon with you.’ Catul. 32.1–3)

(e)

Hos tu, care mihi, cumque his genus omne ferarum, / quod non terga fugae, sed pugnae pectora praebet, / effuge . . . (‘These beasts, and with them all other savage things which turn not their backs in flight, but offer their breasts to battle, do you, my dear boy, avoid . . .’ Ov. Met. 10.705–7)

(f)

Rufe, mihi frustra ac nequiquam credite amice (amico X) / . . . / sicine surrepsti mi . . .? (‘Rufus, in vain and worthlessly believed by me a friend . . . have you thus stolen upon me . . .?’ Catul. 77.1–3)

(g)

O saepe mecum tempus in ultimum / deducte Bruto militiae duce, / quis te redonavit Quiritem / dis patriis . . .?

267 See Ashdowne (2002: 145–6). 268 On mi, see Dickey (2002: 214–24). 269 See Dickey (2002: 228–9), from whom the two examples are taken, Goold (1965: 32), Nisbet and Hubbard ad (g), and Müller (1997: 108–10) on Terence.

Address

947

(‘O you who have so often been carried with me into moments of the utmost peril when Brutus was in charge of operations, who has restored you as a citizen to your father’s gods . . .?’ Hor. Carm. 2.7.1–4)

(h)

O qui res hominumque deumque / aeternis regis imperiis et fulmine terres, / quid meus Aeneas in te committere tantum, / quid Troes potuere . . .? (‘You that with eternal sway rule the world of men and gods, and frighten with your bolt, what great crime could my Aeneasࡤcould my Trojansࡤhave wrought against you . . .?’ Verg. A. 1.229–32)

Addresses are syntactically independent linguistic units, as appears from the fact that they can be used alone. When they are used in combination with a sentence, also when they are inserted in it, as in (i), they are semantically and pragmatically closely related to that sentence by the very reason that they are coreferential with the addressee, whether this is explicit, as in (i), or not. Sometimes the presence of a vocative indirectly contributes to the identification of an agent in agentless sentences of various types. An example is ( j).270 (i)

Nunc, Calidore, te mihi operam dare volo. (‘Now, Calidorus, I want you to assist me.’ Pl. Ps. 383)

( j)

Ehem Demipho, / iam illi datum’st argentum? # Curavi ilico. (‘Oh Demipho! Have you given him the money yet? # I saw to it at once.’ Ter. Ph. 795–6)

In poetry the vocative is sometimes used to mark a constituent that must be interpreted as a secondary predicate, as in (k) and (l). Greek examples and metrical convenience will have contributed to this development.271 (k)

Quibus, Hector, ab oris / exspectate venis? (‘From what shores, Hector, long looked for, do you come?’ Verg. A. 2.282–3)

(l)

Tu quoque . . ., miserande, iaceres, / ni fratrum stipata cohors foret obvia . . . (‘You too . . . would have lain, a piteous sight, had not the serried band of your brothers met the foe . . .’ Verg. A. 10.324–8)

270 See Shalev (2001). 271 For Virgil, see Görler (1985: 265). For further instances, see K.–St.: I.255–6. Also Svennung (1958: 407–8).

CHAPTER 23

Word order

In English, if someone opens a conversation with ‘You know what happened? John killed Bill,’ spoken with a neutral intonation, the relative order of John and Bill makes it clear that John is the subject and Bill the object of the action of killing. The finite verb form killed has to be in the middle between them. The sequence ‘Bill killed John’ spoken with the same neutral intonation describes another situation in which the roles of the participants are inversed. In Latin, word order works differently. Sentence (a) describes a commonly known historical fact, which in its context is presented in isolation to serve as a case to be analysed: ‘Let’s take this case, a case of killing’: (a)

Interfecit Opimius Gracchum. (‘Opimius killed Gracchus.’ Cic. de Orat. 2.132)

In this sentence, Opimius is the subject, Gracchum the object of interfecit. This does not appear from their relative order, nor from their position with respect to the verb. It is clear because they are marked as nominative and accusative, respectively, and are required by the two-place verb interfecit. In fact, all six orders of these words are possible. The order shown in (a) is typical for information that is presented as new (for the occasion). For the other orders also certain tendencies can be established which are related to the status of the information in the verbal context and/or non-verbal situation. Obviously in English, too, some degree of freedom of placement exists, accompanied by other intonation patterns, but there are many syntactic constraints, which are, by contrast, rare in Latin. This is not to say that in Latin word order is ‘free’ and that anything goes. In the remainder of this chapter it will become clear that there are quite a few pragmatic constraints. At the beginning of this chapter a warning to the reader seems necessary. It is an illusion to think that we would ever be able to fully explain the actual order of the words and constituents in our written Latin texts as they have come down to us. Even if we could know how the sentences and clauses of these texts were articulated, as we do know to some extent in the case of modern spoken languages, the speaker/writer must have had considerable freedom in ordering those words and constituents that do not fulfil a specific syntactic and/or pragmatic function in their clause or sentence. We must not try to achieve what even linguists working on contemporary languages with much better data for this type of research have not been able to achieve (so far).

The Oxford Latin Syntax. Harm Pinkster, Oxford University Press (2021). © Harm Pinkster. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199230563.003.0023

Methodological preliminaries 

23.1 Methodological preliminaries I shall use the traditional term word order (and not, for example, ‘constituent order’),¹ although in Latin, as in other languages, often words do not function as separate entities as far as linear order is concerned. Rather, they function as parts of larger constituents that operate as ‘blocks’ in their sentences or clauses, and as blocks they obey certain rules for their placement in relation to other constituents. Examples of constituents are noun phrases, prepositional phrases, complex verb forms, and subordinate clauses. However, Latin shows considerably more flexibility than English, for example, in that words need not be adjacent to the other word(s) with which they form a constituent. Discontinuity (or: ‘hyperbaton’) of constituents is very common in poetry, where it was an accepted and acclaimed linguistic feature, but it is not rare in prose either. Also, the internal order of the component words inside these ‘blocks’ is in many cases not fixed. I therefore maintain the traditional label ‘word order’. Word order is one of the most difficult and intriguing parts of Latin grammar. Its study is difficult for a number of reasons. To start with, although we have ancient statements about word order (especially about the position of the verb—see § 23.2) that are often accepted by scholars as reliable evidence for a more or less fixed order, these statements were, in fact, either biased by aesthetic or rhetorical concerns (which order is the most effective?) or based on extralinguistic considerations of how words ought to be ordered.² Secondly, it is difficult to decide what data are decisive.³ Most of our texts are either written in a particular literary, aesthetic tradition and/or belong to a particular type of text (for example poetry)⁴ for which, on the analogy of word order in modern languages, separate rules or tendencies must have existed. We have a considerable amount of quantitative data about many authors and their works. The only conclusion those studying this data would agree on is that it demonstrates an enormous variety in word order in Latin texts—over time, between authors, between the works of a single author, and even between different parts of one work by the same author. In Caesar’s Gallic War, for example, the finite verb is overwhelmingly often placed at the end of the sentence or clause, but this is not the case in his geographical description of Britain (Caes. Gal. 5.12).⁵ How do we account for this, and which order is decisive for formulating a rule about Caesar’s word order, let alone Latin word order in general? Or are both orders all right, and if so why? Nor does this problem only arise in Classical Latin. In the late fourth-century Peregrinatio Egeriae, often cited for its putative pre-Romance placement of the finite verb away from the final position, there are significant differences in word order between the two parts.⁶ ¹ As in the volumes edited by Siewierska (1998) and by Spevak (2010a), and others. ² See Reynolds (1996: 111). ³ For some illustrations of variation in word order in manuscripts, see Devine and Stephens (2006: 31–2). For Caesar, see Damon (2015: 57). ⁴ See, for example, Bortolussi (2016) on Ovid. ⁵ See Panhuis (1981). ⁶ On the Peregrinatio, see Spevak  (2005a); on the Peregrinatio and the Mulomedicina Chironis, see Cabrillana (1999b).

 Word order A special problem is how to deal with metrical texts (drama and poetry) and with rhythmic prose. It is clear that poets were allowed considerable freedom of word order. Take the interlaced order of adjectives and nouns in (a), a so-called ‘golden line’. Was Ovid forced by metrical considerations (metri causa) to distribute the adjectives and nouns as he did, or was he competent enough to avoid metrical problems and did he write this line because he liked it and could count on the cooperation of his readers/ listeners? I assume, with most scholars, the latter.⁷ (a)

Grandia per multos tenuantur flumina rivos . . . (‘Great rivers are diminished by much channelling . . .’ Ov. Rem. 445)

Thirdly, the quantitive data that we have is not based on a uniform analysis of the text(s) under examination. Statements about word order, such as the well-known claim that in Classical Latin the order is S(ubject), O(bject), V(erb), are rarely based on a careful description of which types of subjects, objects, and verbs are counted: all subjects and objects, or only nominal subjects and objects (subject and object clauses excluded)? If only nouns and noun phrases (pronouns excluded), do they include noun phrases with an anaphoric determiner or with a relative clause, etc.? If only unmodified nouns, all nouns, both animate and inanimate? And so on.⁸ What one would like to have is a sufficient number of ‘minimal pairs’ with more or less the same semantic and syntactic structure which serve different pragmatic purposes. This is difficult to achieve in a closed corpus such as our Latin corpus.⁹ I shall try to be as precise as possible in the following sections. Fourthly, there is no unified approach to the interpretation of statistical data. For example, if we see that in Cicero’s de Inventione the final position is occupied by a finite verb in 50 per cent of main clauses,¹⁰ is that a significant percentage? It looks like it is, considering that finite verb forms constitute only c.10 per cent of the words in that text. But there are a few complications. In the first place, there is a large number of words that cannot stand at the end of a clause (prepositions, coordinators, connectors, subordinators, relative pronouns, etc.), and in finite subordinate clauses the finite verb cannot stand at the beginning. Thus we must first determine which words actually compete for the final position before we can use the data. We must also ask ourselves how complex these clauses are in terms of arguments, satellites, and finite verbs. Is the finite verb in final position in a clause with three constituents as frequent as in one with four? What is the average complexity of such a clause anyhow? Even if the 50 per cent were a reliable figure, could we, on the basis of the statistical predominance of finite verbs in that ⁷ For discussion, see Dik  (2007: 1–3). Habinek  (1985b), discussing Virgil, shows that by using the interlaced (he uses the term ‘interlocked’) order a colon boundary inside the hexameter is avoided. For the role of metre in the placement of possessive adjectives in Plautus, see de Melo (2010: 72–8). ⁸ Exceptions are e.g. Koll  (1965) and, more recently, Cabrillana  (1996; 1999b), Spevak  (2010a), and Hoffmann (2010b, also in 2018a: 111–32). For the diversity of the approach of earlier studies, see Baños and Cabrillana (2009: 689); for a discussion of the problematic notion of ‘basic order’, see Siewierska (1988: 8–14). ⁹ Pinkster (1995) deals with minimal pairs in the Late Latin Gesta conventus Carthaginiensis. See also Spevak (2005a, on the Peregrinatio; 2010a, in general). ¹⁰ So Linde (1923: 155).

Methodological preliminaries  position, conclude that (at least in (this work of) Cicero) there is a rule of grammar of the type: ‘the “basic” order is finite verb at the end’? Are finite verb forms in final position because they are finite verb forms, in the same way that in the Germanic languages finite verb forms are regularly in second position in declarative sentences? Or is there a deeper, underlying explanation for this statistical outcome? I take it that the statistical outcome is not an explanation itself, but that the statistical outcome itself needs an explanation. For further discussion, see § 23.39. Fifthly, whereas there exists among Latinists a certain uniformity in analysing sentences and clauses syntactically, there is no broadly accepted terminology for pragmatic properties of words and constituents, even among those Latinists who recognize that it is impossible to describe Latin word order in (purely) syntactic terms. I shall use the terminology that is presented in Chapter 22. In summary, the following concepts are used for describing the information structure of Latin clauses and sentences: (i) (ii)

(iii)

(iv) (b)

Topic: the element of a clause about which the speaker chooses to present further information to the addressee, as Terentia in (b) (see § 22.1); Focus: the part of a clause that provides information about the topic of that clause which the speaker considers in some way noteworthy for the addressee, as eri concubina in (c) (see § 22.7); Complex focus: two or more constituents of a clause that together answer the underlying question regarding what the topic does or what happens to the topic, as magnos articulorum dolores habet in (b) (see § 22.9); All-new sentences, including presentative sentences, as in (d) (see § 22.1 and § 22.11). Terentia magnos articulorum dolores habet. (‘Terentia has a bad attack of rheumatism.’ Cic. Att. 1.5.8)

(c)

Quis illaec est mulier? # Pro di immortales, / eri concubina est haec quidem. (‘Who is that girl? # Immortal gods, this is master’s concubine.’ Pl. Mil. 361–2)

(d)

Et incipit: ‘Erant in quadam civitate rex et regina.’ (‘And she began: “In a certain city there were a king and queen.”’ Apul. Met. 4.27.8–28.1)

The concepts of contrast (see § 22.18) and emphasis are also used, the latter defined as ‘a means that serves the speaker or writer to express his personal evaluation of information’ (see § 22.19). At this point it is important to stress that in this Syntax ‘emphasis’ and ‘focus’ are two different concepts. Because some word order patterns or tendencies are related to sentence type, special attention is given to the four sentence types that are described in Chapter 6. In imperative sentences, for example, verbs are more often in an initial position than in declarative sentences. In interrogative sentences, the first position is normally taken by a focus constituent (see § 23.51 and § 23.53). The frequency with which these four sentence types are used varies, mostly depending on the type of text: questions, for example, are rare in historical prose, except in speeches. For that reason, generalizations about

 Word order the constituent order in a certain text or in a certain author that do not take into account sentence type make no sense.¹¹

. Roman ideas about word order In addition to what is said in the second paragraph of § 23.1, a few citations from Latin writers can indicate that the Romans were well aware of the possible effects of word order on the interpretation of sentences.¹² In his chapter on compositio ‘composition’, ‘the artistic arrangement of words’ (Inst. 9.4), Quintilian mentions three necessary elements: ordo ‘order’, iunctura ‘linkage’, and numerus ‘rhythm’ (9.4.22). As for order, he observes that the final position of a sentence is best given to the verb, because of its high communicative potential: see (a). Apart from rhythmic considerations which might cause a writer/speaker to deviate from this best order, it may also be the case that there is a better candidate for this important position: see (b). Quintilian continues: ‘This is the sharp end of the whole passage, as it were: Antony’s need to vomit, disgusting in itself, acquires the further hideousness—not expected by the audience—that he could not keep his food down the day after.’¹³ Note also final numeris and frequentissime in (a). (a)

Verbo sensum cludere multo, si compositio patiatur, optimum est: in verbis enim sermonis vis est. Si id asperum erit, cedet haec ratio numeris, ut fit apud summos Graecos Latinosque oratores frequentissime. (‘If Composition allows, it is much the best to end with a verb, for the force of language is in the verbs. If this proves harsh, the principle will give way to Rhythm, as very often happens in the greatest orators, both Greek and Latin.’ Quint. Inst. 9.4.26)

(b)

Saepe tamen est vehemens aliquis sensus in verbo, quod si in media parte sententiae latet, transire intentionem et obscurari circumiacentibus solet, in clausula positum adsignatur auditori et infigitur, quale illud est Ciceronis: ‘ut tibi necesse esset in conspectu populi Romani vomere .’¹⁴ (‘However, there is often a powerful significance in a single word; if this is then concealed in the middle of a sentence, it tends to escape attention and be overshadowed by its surroundings, whereas if it is placed at the end it is impressed upon the hearer and fixed in his mind, as in Cicero’s “so that you were obliged to vomit in the sight of the Roman people the day after.”’ Quint. Inst. 9.4.29 (cf. 9.4.107))

¹¹ A systematic bibliography of the literature on Latin word order until 1953 can be found in Marouzeau (1953: 129–46). For more recent bibliographical data, see the bibliography in Spevak (2010a; 2014a; 2016a). ¹² For a discussion of ancient ideas about word order, see Scaglione  (1972: 74–96). See also de Jonge (2008: Ch. 5) on Dionysius of Halicarnassus and ancient theories of word order in general. Dionysius claims a special position for the verb at the end of the sentence in Greek. Furthermore, see Spevak (2016a: 123–8) on Quintilian. ¹³ The translation is taken from Russell’s Loeb edition. ¹⁴ Cic. Phil. 2.63, where the manuscripts read in populi Romani conspectu. The addition of postridie in Quintilian’s text is certain.

Methodological preliminaries  As an illustration of the misuse of the final position Quintilian quotes Maecenas, (c), who is also criticized by Seneca (Ep. 114.4–5) for his ostentatious composition. What (c) shows is an extreme case of discontinuity (or: ‘hyperbaton’) of the noun phrase exequias meas. Excessive discontinuity is a point of concern of several Roman authors. (c)

Ne exequias quidem unus inter miserrimos viderem meas. (‘May I never, alone amidst the most miserable of men, behold my own funeral rites.’ Quint. Inst. 9.4.28)

Quintilian rejects the idea ‘that nouns should precede verbs’ (and the corollary claims that verbs should precede adverbs and nouns should precede adjectives and pronouns), because ‘the contrary order is often excellent’ (9.4.24). That rejected idea is still sustained by Priscian in (d), although he also indicates that there are many exceptions in the literature. This idea of a ‘correct order’ is based on the consideration that one first has to mention the entity about which one wants to say something and then say it, a logical approach as opposed to Quintilian’s stylistic and communicative approach. (d)

Sciendum tamen quod recta ordinatio exigit ut pronomen vel nomen praeponatur verbo, ut ‘ego et tu legimus, Virgilius et Cicero scripserunt’, quippe cum substantia et persona ipsius agentis vel patientis, quae per pronomen vel nomen significatur, prior esse debet naturaliter quam ipse actus, qui accidens est substantiae. Licet tamen et praepostere ea proferre auctorum usurpatione fretum. (‘Now it is good to know that the correct ordering requires that the pronoun or noun is placed before the verb, as in “you and I read”, “Virgil and Cicero have written”, because the substance and person of the actor or undergoer, which are indicated by the pronoun or noun, by law of nature must precede the action, which is a contingent attribute of the substance. However, one may position them in the reverse order, relying on the actual practice of writers.’ Prisc. 17.105(III.164.16–21K)) The position of a constituent in its sentence may cause ambiguity, as illustrated by Marcus Aurelius’ self-correction in (e).¹⁵ (e) Loti igitur in torculari cenavimus (non loti in torculari, sed loti cenavimus) et rusticos cavillantes audivimus libenter. (‘So after we had bathed in the oil-press room we had supper; I do not mean bathed in the oil-press room, but after we had bathed we had supper there and we enjoyed hearing the yokels chaffing one another.’ Fro. Ep. ad M. Caes. 4.6.2)

Roman authors (and their Greek sources) show no awareness of grammatical, semantic, or pragmatic determinants of the sequencing of words, such as the position of the subject or the best place for topic constituents. Their main concerns were clarity, euphony, symmetry, and rhythm.¹⁶

¹⁵ I owe the reference to Guus Bal.

¹⁶ See De Neubourg (1978: 362–72).

 Word order

. Factors that determine the linear order of words and larger constituents The linear order of words and larger constituents is determined by a number of interacting and competing factors.¹⁷ The most important ones are: sentence type text type categorial factors ‘domain integrity’ semantic factors syntactic factors pragmatic factors euphonic and rhythmic factors complexity iconicity artistic factors. To these some typological considerations can be added. In the sections that follow attention will be given to constraints on the flexibility of placement of words and larger units. Later many of these constraints will be shown not to be respected in poetry and in poeticizing prose.

. Sentence type Sentence type is a major factor in the ordering of constituents at the clause or sentence level. This is best illustrated by interrogative sentences, where question words such as the pronoun quis ‘who’ and the determiner qui ‘which’ must occupy the first position, as with quis in (a), whatever their syntactic function in the clause. Such words will occupy the first position unless they are preceded by a competing expression such as a connector, as in (b), or a pragmatically prominent constituent, as in (c). (a)

Quis te verberavit? (‘Who hit you?’ Pl. Am. 607)

(b)

Nam quem ego aspicio? (‘For whom do I see?’ Pl. Poen. 1122)

(c)

Cohors ista quorum hominum est? (‘That retinue of yours, of what men is it composed?’ Cic. Ver. 3.28)

There are no comparable constraints on declarative, imperative, and exclamatory sentences.

¹⁷ See Siewierska (1988: 29), Firbas (1992: 117–20), Rosén (1999: 152–3), and Spevak (2010a: 8–11, 13–26).

Methodological preliminaries  Another major factor is the distinction between main and subordinate clauses. In finite subordinate clauses the first position of the clause is restricted to subordinating devices (subordinators, question words or particles, relative expressions), unless there are pragmatically prominent competing expressions, as in (d), where huius, the supposed bride, is present on the stage. (d)

Venus multipotens, bona multa mihi / dedisti, huius quom copiam mihi dedisti. (‘Mighty Venus, you gave me many good things when you gave me possession of her.’ Pl. Cas. 841–2)

. Text type Text type indirectly influences the ordering of words and other constituents in the clauses and sentences of a text. In a narrative text, for example, there is as a rule more continuity in the flow of information in accordance with the order of the events of the story and the relations between the entities involved. In a didactic text, such as those of Celsus and Pliny the Elder, there is as a rule no such thing as ‘order of events’. It is the author who is responsible for organizing the information he wants to convey in a coherent way. These differences between text types lead among other things to different forms and sequences of sentences, different forms of linkage, different involvement of the authors (see § 24.3). Text type is also important in that it has some consequences for the register chosen by the speaker/writer, including his attention to rhythmic structure, as described by Quintilian in (a). (a)

Est igitur ante omnia oratio alia vincta atque contexta, soluta alia, qualis in sermone et epistulis, nisi cum aliquid super naturam suam tractant, ut de philosophia, de re publica, similibusque. (‘In the first place, formal speech is either bound and woven together, or of a looser texture, like that of dialogues or letters, except when these deal with matters above their normal scope, like philosophy, public affairs, or the like.’ Quint. Inst. 9.4.19)

. Categorial factors For the description of word order it is useful to make a distinction between two types of words, mobile and non-mobile.¹⁸ Words of the first type can in principle be placed in any position (initial, final, or somewhere in between) of the clause, whereas words of the second type are restricted as far as their position is concerned. Such restrictions hold both at the level of the clause and at lower levels. Obviously, non-mobile words restrict the mobility of mobile words. Words that are restricted in their placement at the clause level belong to the categories of connectors, subordinators, interrogative and relative pronouns, and related ¹⁸ The distinction was introduced by Dover  (1960: 12ff.) for Greek word order and applied by Dik (1995) and (2007).

 Word order words. This is illustrated in (a) and (b) with the connector at. The connector at ‘but’ must be placed in the very first position of the clause or sentence, as in (a), although there are quite a few exceptions in poetry, as in (b).¹⁹ By contrast, the interactional particle enim must be placed second in its clause or sentence.²⁰ Further details for these categories can be found in later sections. (a)

Mentire nunc. / # At iam faciam ut verum dicas dicere. (‘You’re lying now. # But in a second I’ll make sure that you say I’m telling the truth.’ Pl. Am. 344–5)

(b)

Saucius at quadripes nota intra tecta refugit . . . (‘But the wounded quadruped fled under the familiar roof . . .’ Verg. A. 7.500)

Non-mobile words at the constituent level include the bound clitics -ne, -que, and -ve, which are attached to a host word, and the emphasizing particle quidem, which must follow the word in its scope (see §  22.26). Prepositions and postpositions are also restricted in their position: they must immediately precede or follow their complement. Another constraint concerns the adjacency of two words. In Latin a preposition cannot have another prepositional phrase as its complement, unless that phrase is an idiom, as in (c). (c)

Dixi ego idem in senatu caedem te optimatium contulisse in ante diem V Kalendas Novembris. (‘I also said in the Senate that you had postponed the massacre of leading citizens until the 28th of October.’ Cic. Catil. 1.7)

Further details for the elements that are mentioned here are given in separate sections. The other side of the coin is that certain words are excluded from the final position of the clause or sentences. These include prepositions, coordinators, connectors, subordinators, and relative pronouns. For details, see § 23.20ff.²¹

. Domain integrity At the constituent level (especially that of noun and adjective phrases and prepositional phrases), the freedom of placement of the words that belong to a constituent is in principle restricted by the rules of domain integrity and head proximity: elements that belong together structurally are preferably placed next to each other.²² In Latin, these rules are not as strictly observed as in other languages. In prose, they are ‘violated’ by discontinuity of modifiers, which is quite common. Poetry is even more ¹⁹ For further instances, see TLL s.v. at 992.66ff. ²⁰ See Spevak (2006a: 256; 2012b). For (disputed) exceptional instances of enim in first position, see TLL s.v. enim 574.83ff. ²¹ Out of a total of 457 words in Cic. Att. 1.5, 112 are not allowed in final position (of the clause or sentence), that is 25 per cent. ²² See Spevak  (2010a: 22–3), with references. This phenomenon is also known as the ‘first law of Behaghel’ (Behaghel 1932: 4).

Methodological preliminaries  flexible.²³ For tam this is illustrated by (a), where the second tam precedes the remainder of the ex prepositional phrase for reasons of emphasis. For discontinuity of adjectives, see (b). The traditional term for this phenomenon is ‘hyperbaton’ (see the note below). The relative freedom of position of the constituents of noun and adjective phrases diminishes in the course of time.²⁴ (a)

. . . viri fortes et fideles, sed nequaquam ex tam ampla (sc. civitate) neque tam ex nobili civitate. (‘. . . stout and trustworthy folk, though they are not from so large nor so renowned a community.’ Cic. Ver. 4.96)

(b)

Civilis quaedam ratio est, quae multis et magnis ex rebus constat. (‘There is a scientific system of politics which includes many important departments.’ Cic. Inv. 1.6)

Discontinuity of constituents has been a point of interest from ancient writers on rhetoric onwards. Together with the inversion of constituents some writers, inter alios the Auctor ad Herennium, regarded it as a means to produce smooth periods and other sequences, which was acceptable in prose if obscurity was avoided (see § 23.2).²⁵ The two illustrations given by the Auctor of what he calls transiectio are (c) and (d). Both sentences end with a preferred clausula. In (d), the noun phrase is interrupted twice. (c)

Instabilis in istum plurimum fortuna valuit. (‘Unstable Fortune has exercised her greatest power on this creature.’ Rhet. Her. 4.44)

(d)

Omnes invidiose eripuit bene vivendi casus facultates. (‘All the means of living well Chance has jealously taken from him.’ Rhet. Her. 4.44)

The above examples have discontinuous noun phrases. Discontinuity is also present in other types of phrases (see § 23.96). The usual term for ‘discontinuity’ or, in Latin, transiectio, is ‘hyperbaton’. In the terminology of the Auctor ad Herennium, transiectio (or traiectio), together with perversio, the inversion of constituents, are subtypes of transgressio, which corresponds to the Greek term à.p{ml~†x. At 4.18 the Auctor criticizes Coelius Antipater for using assiduus ‘constant’ discontinuity, as in (e), where the name Luci Aeli is split by the verb form misimus (an instance of ‘verbal hyperbaton’), resulting in a sequence that constitutes the second half of a hexameter.²⁶ (e) In priore libro has res ad te scriptas, Luci, misimus, Aeli. (‘In the previous book, Lucius Aelius, I dedicated to you the account of these events.’ Coel. hist. 24B=46C) ²³ In Classical Latin prose on average some 20 per cent (see Spevak 2010a: 275). In the Annals of Ennius one out of four noun phrases is discontinuous, in Virgil’s Aeneid one out of two (Skutsch 1985: 67). ²⁴ See Herman (1985). ²⁵ For the ‘Asianist’ position of the Auctor ad Herennium concerning the use of discontinuity, see Calboli ad Rhet. Her. 4.44. ²⁶ For this line, see Briscoe ad loc.

 Word order

. Semantic factors In the literature on word order, two semantic principles are mentioned that influence the relative order of constituents: one is called the personal hierarchy, the other the semantic role hierarchy.²⁷ The personal hierarchy states, among other things, that first person has precedence over second person and human entities over other animate and over inanimate entities. The regular order is ego et tu, as in (a). Animateness is a factor in the choice between active and passive (see § 5.10); in the domain of word order it may explain the relative order of Messalla consul and Autronianam domum in (b), where both entities must have been known to Atticus and both are new in their context.²⁸ In general in declarative sentences with a twoplace verb ‘animate entities manifest more mobility . . . than inanimate ones’ and ‘inanimate entities are mostly not contextually given.’²⁹ (a)

Quid? Auspicia, quibus ego et tu, Crasse, cum magna rei publicae salute praesumus? (‘What of augury, over which you and I, Crassus, preside, greatly to the welfare of the Republic?’ Cic. de Orat. 1.39)

(b)

Messalla consul Autronianam domum emit HS |CXXXIIII |. (‘Consul Messalla has bought Autronius’ house for 13,400,000 sesterces.’ Cic. Att. 1.13.6)

The semantic role hierarchy predicts, among other things, that all things being equal the agent precedes the patient. There is no evidence to suggest that this hierarchy works in Latin. Quintilian’s example (c) can be cited as counterevidence.³⁰ See also § 23.62. (c)

Accusativi geminatione facta amphibolia solvitur ablativo, ut illud ‘Lachetem audivi percussisse Demean’ fiat ‘a Lachete percussum Demean’. (‘Ambiguity resulting from the use of two accusatives may be removed by the substitution of the ablative: for example, “I heard that Demea struck Laches/Laches struck Demea” may be rendered clear by writing “that Demea was struck by Laches”.’ Quint. Inst. 7.9.10 (cf. 8.2.16))

A semantic consideration of a different type is Quintilian’s advice to avoid asyndetically coordinated sequences of words in which a ‘weaker’ expression follows a ‘stronger’: ‘Sentences should grow and rise. Cicero does it very well.’ (d)

Tu istis faucibus, istis lateribus, ista gladiatoria totius corporis firmitate. (‘You, with that gullet of yours, that chest, that robust physique befitting a gladiator.’ Quint. Inst. 9.4.23 (quoting Cic. Phil. 2.63))

‘If he had begun with the whole physique, it would have been an anticlimax to come down to the lungs and the throat.’ (Quint. Inst. 9.4.23). ²⁷ See Siewierska (1988: 30; 1999: 415–16) and Spevak (2010a: 9). ²⁸ See the discussion of ex. (e) in § 22.1. ²⁹ See Spevak (2010a: 118–19; 125). ³⁰ See Spevak (2010a: 117).

Methodological preliminaries 

. Syntactic factors Apart from the categorial constraints that are discussed in § 23.6, there are no syntactic constraints on words and constituents as far as their placement in a clause or sentence is concerned. Clausal constituents (arguments, adjuncts, and disjuncts) and subclausal ones (modifiers at the noun and adjective phrase levels such as adjectives, determiners, and—to some extent—degree adverbs) can be placed in any position of the clause, whatever their syntactic function. A few examples may suffice. Further details can be found in later sections. In (a)–(c), profecto, a degree-of-truth disjunct (see § 10.100), can be seen in initial, medial, and final position in its clause. Exx. (d)–(f) show the same variety of placement for the attribute argenti. (a)

Profecto expediet fabulae huic operam dare. (‘It’ll definitely be worth paying attention to this play.’ Pl. Capt. 54)

(b)

. . . nec quicquam stupri / faciet profecto in hac quidem comoedia. (‘. . . and indeed she won’t commit anything in the way of fornication, at least not in this comedy.’ Pl. Cas. 82–3)

(c)

Virtus omnibus rebus anteit profecto. (‘Courage does indeed outdo everything.’ Pl. Am. 649)³¹

(d)

Argenti viginti minas, si adesset, accepisset. (‘If he were here, he’d have received twenty silver minas.’ Pl. As. 396)

(e)

Si mihi dantur duo talenta argenti numerata in manum . . . (‘If two silver talents are handed over to me in cash . . .’ Pl. As. 193)

(f)

. . . id pro tuo capite quod dedit perdiderit tantum argenti. (‘. . . he’ll have wasted that great sum of money that he gave for you.’ Pl. Mos. 211)

For the three main functions subject, object, and verb, all six possible orders are used (see § 23.39). Here it is relevant to observe that in 40–50 per cent of clauses there is no explicit subject, with variation depending on text type and personal style.³²

. Pragmatic factors Pragmatic factors are important both at the clause or sentence level and at lower levels, as will become clear further on. The first position of the sentence, for example, is often occupied by a constituent with the function topic or by an emphatic word. However, there is no fixed position for topic or focus constituents nor is there a fixed relative order of these constituents.

³¹ Christenson ad loc. notes: ‘the final position is the most emphatic’, with a few parallels from Plautus. ³² Knoth (2006: 165–6) has the following percentages of implicit subjects for her three corpora: biography: 54 per cent, speeches (Cicero): 42 per cent, letters: 49 per cent.

 Word order

. Euphonic and rhythmic factors Euphony and rhythm are important topics in the Greek and Roman rhetorical tradition, as seen, for example, in the Rhetorica ad Herennium, in Cicero’s Orator, and in Quintilian’s Institutio Oratoria. The last-mentioned, in his section on iunctura ‘linkage’ observes that ‘the hiss produced by the collision of s with s . . . is even more disagreeable’ (than the sequence s x), as in ars studiorum ‘art of studies’.³³ Another point of attention was the avoidance of the sequence of the subordinator cum and the preposition cum, as in (a), or the repetition of syllables in adjacent words, as in (b), a fragmentary text from Cicero, criticized by Quintilian.³⁴ (a)

Idem ego, cum L.  Clodium Corcyrae convenissem, hominem ita tibi coniunctum ut mihi cum illo cum loquerer tecum loqui viderer, dixi . . . (‘Then, when I met L. Clodius in Corcyra, a person so close to you that in talking to him I felt I was talking to yourself, I told him . . .’ Cic. Fam. 3.6.2)

(b)

Res mihi visae sunt, Brute. (‘Things unseen (or hated) have been seen by me, Brutus.’ Cic. Ep. fr. VII.13W)

However, the degree to which the actual practice of authors reflects such considerations must not be over-estimated, and there is also much variation among authors.³⁵ Rhythm is another topic that is much discussed in Greek and Roman rhetorical works. Apart from the clausulae (see § 23.18), it is very difficult to deduce any rules from the observations. One interesting remark by Quintilian is (c), which is identical to an observation by Dionysius of Halicarnassus.³⁶ (c)

Non enim ad pedes verba dimensa sunt, ideoque ex loco transferuntur in locum, ut iungantur quo congruunt maxime, sicut in structura saxorum rudium etiam ipsa enormitas invenit cui adplicari et in quo possit insistere. (‘The point is that words are not measured according to metrical feet; they are therefore moved from one place to another so as to join where they fit best, just as, in constructions made of unhewn stones, the irregularity itself suggests the right stones which each piece can fit or rest upon.’ Quint. Inst. 9.4.27)

. Complexity The relative length and complexity of constituents play a role in their order. Generally speaking ‘heavier’ constituents follow ‘lighter’ constituents. An example is (a), where the subject, made heavy by a relative clause and an apposition, follows the verb.³⁷ An ³³ Quint. Inst. 9.4.36. ³⁴ Quint. Inst. 9.4.41. See also: . . . ea nescio quomodo quasi pleniore ore laudamus (‘. . . we somehow or other praise this in more eloquent strain’ Cic. Off. 1.61) and Wilkinson (1963: 29). ³⁵ See K.-St.: II.595–7 and Sz.: 699–700. ³⁶ See Pinkster (1993) and de Jonge (2008: 326–7). ³⁷ This is the so-called ‘second law of Behaghel’ (1932: 6). See also Dik (1997: I.411) and Spevak (2010a: 8–9), from whom the example is taken.

Methodological preliminaries  alternative solution is to postpose the relative clause and put it at the end, as in (b). However, in our texts there are also many cases in which an entire complex constituent precedes the final verb, as in (c).³⁸ (a)

In quis fuit M. Scaurus, de quo supra memoravimus, consularis et tum senatus princeps. (‘Among them was Marcus Scaurus, of whom I have already spoken, an ex-consul and at the time the leader of the senate.’ Sal. Jug. 25.4)

(b)

Allata est enim epistula Athenis ab Archino uni ex his Archiae, qui tum maximum magistratum Thebis obtinebat, in qua omnia de profectione eorum perscripta erant. (‘For a letter was brought from Athens, written by Archinus to one of their number, Archias, who at the time was the chief magistrate in Thebes, in which full details of the expedition were given.’ Nep. Pel. 3.2)

(c)

. . . sed filii familiarum, quorum ex nobilitate maxuma pars erat, parentis interficerent. (‘. . . the sons of families, most of whom belonged to the nobility, were to slay their fathers.’ Sal. Cat. 43.2)

As a rule, accusative and infinitive clauses are less heavy than more or less synonymous finite clauses with ut or with quod—a relatively common alternative with verbs of perception, cognition, and communication in Late Latin (see § 15.113). They are also less frequent in a postverbal position than the finite clauses. Deverbal nouns are even less frequently postverbal.³⁹

. Iconicity Sometimes the ordering of constituents is ‘in line with actual temporal succession’.⁴⁰ For Latin, attention has been drawn to the ordering of arguments with verbs of ‘following’, as in (a).⁴¹ However, in this and other examples the first constituent is topic and the second focus, so a pragmatic explanation works just as well. A more convincing case is (b), where the plants are ordered after their period of blossoming. Another example is (c). The reader of Caesar’s work knew that Luceria, Canusium, and Brundisium were the natural stations along the via Minucia, which Pompeius took to Brundisium, so the source adjunct precedes the goal adjuncts. (a)

Pacem Punicam bellum Macedonicum excepit . . . (‘The Punic peace was followed by the Macedonian war . . .’ Liv. 31.1.6)

³⁸ See LSS § 9.2.2. ³⁹ For data from Livy, see Bolkestein (1989a: 23–5). ⁴⁰ The formulation is taken from Siewierska (1999: 416). See also Spevak (2010a: 10), who has ex. (b). ⁴¹ The concept of iconicity is applied to Latin by Hoffmann (1991). The examples of verbs of ‘following’ are taken from her article. See also Cabrillana (2017b) on word order in clauses with the verb fio ‘to occur’.

 Word order (b)

In Italia violis succedit rosa, huic intervenit lilium, rosam cyanus excipit, cyanum amarantus. (‘In Italy, the violet is succeeded by the rose, the lily comes on while the rose is still in flower, the rose is followed by the blue cornflower, and the blue cornflower by the amaranth.’ Plin. Nat. 21.68)

(c)

Pompeius . . . Luceria proficiscitur Canusium atque inde Brundisium. (‘Pompey set out from Luceria for Canusium and from there for Brundisium.’ Caes. Civ. 1.24.1) Supplement (in alphabetical order by verb): Inde me commodum egredientem continatur Pythias . . . (Apul. Met. 1.24.5); . . . re cognita tantus luctus excepit ut urbs ab hostibus capta eodem vestigio videretur. (Caes. Civ. 2.7.3); ‘Immo ego vos, cui sola salus genitore reducto,’ / excipit Ascanius . . . (Verg. A. 9.257–8); Orationem Tulli exceperunt preces multitudinis . . . (Liv. 7.13.11); Sequitur hunc annum nobilis clade Romana Caudina pax T. Veturio Calvino Sp. Postumio consulibus. (Liv. 9.1.1) Quintilian has an interesting remark on this topic: Nec non et illud nimiae superstitionis, uti quaeque sint tempore, ea facere etiam ordine priora, non quin frequenter sit hoc melius, sed quia interim plus valent ante gesta ideoque levioribus superponenda sunt. (‘Another piece of gross superstition is the idea that as things come first in time, so they should also come first in order. It is not that this is not frequently the better course, but earlier events are sometimes more important and so have to be given a position of climax over the less significant.’ Quint. Inst. 9.4.25).

. Artistic factors In Kühner and Stegmann (II.616–25) and other grammars attention is paid to so-called ‘rhetorical’ patterns of word order, the placement of words to achieve a particular effect. One such pattern concerns the placement of two or more formally or semantically related words next or close to each other, as in (a)–(c), a phenomenon called parataxis.⁴² (a)

Nam iustae (sc. rei) ab iustis iustus sum orator datus. (‘For I was appointed as a just pleader pleading with the just for a just cause.’ Pl. Am. 34)

(b)

Sed ut tum ad senem senex de senectute, sic hoc libro ad amicum amicissimus scripsi de amicitia. (‘But as in that book I wrote as one old man to another old man on the subject of old age, so now in this book I have written as a most affectionate friend to a friend on the subject of friendship.’ Cic. Amic. 5)

⁴² See  K.-St.: II.617–18; Sz.: 707–8. For a large collection of instances from all periods of Latin, see Landgraf (1888); for poetry, Kellermann (1909); for Cicero, Parzinger (1910: 37–57), with statistical data on Cicero’s use in various text types. Unfortunately, the term ‘parataxis’ is also used in another sense for the opposite of hypotaxis.

Methodological preliminaries  (c)

. . . pecunia . . . inter se ducem in ducem, militem in militem rabie hostili vertit. (‘. . . money . . . mutually turned commander against commander, soldier against soldier, with the frenzy of enemies.’ Liv. 29.8.11) Supplement: Nouns and adjectives by case or preposition: One is genitive: Dubium nemini est quin omnes omnium pecuniae positae sint in eorum potestate qui iudicia dant . . . (Cic. Ver. 2.30); Eademque ratio fecit hominem hominum appetentem . . . (Cic. Fin. 2.45); Nec lact’ lactis magis est simile quam ille ego simil’est mei. (Pl. Am. 601) One is dative: Non enim res tota totae rei necesse est similis sit . . . (Rhet. Her. 4.61); Nam cum aut par pari refertur aut contrarium contrario opponitur . . . (Cic. Orat. 220); In qua intellegi necesse est eam esse naturam ut omnia omnibus paribus paria respondeant. (Cic. N.D. 1.50); Cum lex assiduo vindicem assiduum esse iubeat, locupletem iubet locupleti. (Cic. Top. 10); Postquam vero castra castris contulit, despectis eius copiis omnem timorem deponit. (B. Afr. 48.3) One is accusative: Concedetur profecto verum esse, ut bonos boni diligant . . . (Cic. Amic. 50); Morere et fratrem ne desere frater. (Verg. A. 10.600); Et apud illum quidem ratio rationem, apud alios timorem timor vicit. (Plin. Ep. 6.16.16) One is ablative: Conteris / tu tua me oratione, mulier, quisquis es. (Pl. Cist. 609–10); Aut num ante tempus praemium petat et spem incertam certo venditet pretio. (Cic. Inv. 2.113); . . . errat in eo, quod ullum aut corporis aut fortunae vitium vitiis animi gravius existimat. (Cic. Off. 3.26); Mors morte pianda est, / in scelus addendum scelus est, in funera funus. (Ov. Met. 8.483–4); Iam clipeus clipeis, umbone repellitur umbo, / ense minax ensis, pede pes et cuspide cuspis. (Stat. Theb. 8.398–9) Prepositions: Quae causa hominem adversus hominem in facinus coegit? (Sen. Con. 2.1.10) Uxor virum si clam domo egressa est foras . . . (Pl. Mer. 821); . . . ignosci adulescentibus posse, senibus non posse qui bella ex bellis sererent. (Liv. 2.18.10); Ex hoc nascitur ut etiam communis hominum inter homines naturalis sit commendatio . . . (Cic. Fin. 3.63) Verbal forms: Item vitiosum est id, quod adversarii factum esse confiteantur, de eo argumentari et planum facere factum esse. (Rhet. Her. 2.46); . . . eumque iudicem falsum iudicasse iudicavit. (Cic. Ver. 2.66); . . . qui musicorum cantibus ait mutatis mutari civitatum status. (Cic. Leg. 3.32)

A second pattern, called parallelism, is illustrated by (d) and (e) (see also § 22.18 on parallel focus). (d)

Superavi tamen dignitate Catilinam, gratia Galbam. (‘Yet I defeated Catiline in merit and Galba in popularity.’ Cic. Mur. 17)

(e)

. . . quos neque armis cogere neque auro parare queas. (‘. . . whom you can neither acquire by force of arms nor buy with gold.’ Sal. Jug. 10.4)

Still another pattern is the chiasmus, illustrated by (f)–(h). In (f), the first noun phrase has the adjective before the noun; in the second the adjective follows. In this example, the chiasmus concerns two argument constituents in the same clause; in (g),

 Word order two pairs of asyndetically coordinated clauses; in (h), the chiastic ordering concerns subordinate and main clauses. (f)

Et ut mundum ex quadam parte mortalem ipse deus aeternus, sic fragile corpus animus sempiternus movet. (‘And just as the eternal God moves the universe, which is partly mortal, so an immortal spirit moves the frail body.’ Cic. Rep. 6.26)

(g)

(sc. philosophia) Medetur animis, inanes sollicitudines detrahit, cupiditatibus liberat, pellit timores. (‘It (sc. philosophy) heals souls, takes away the load of empty troubles, sets us free from desires and banishes fears.’ Cic. Tusc. 2.11)

(h)

Si hostium fuit ille sanguis, summa militum pietas: nefarium scelus, si civium. (‘If that blood was the blood of our country’s foes, its shedding by our soldiers was the highest patriotism, but an abominable crime if it was the blood of fellow citizens.’ Cic. Phil. 14.6)

A fourth pattern that is usually discussed in this context is discontinuity, usually called hyperbaton. It is dealt with in detail in § 23.87, where the pragmatic motivation for its use is shown. However, especially in poetry, it is also used for artistic reasons. Instances of double hyperbaton represent a special case. Here, two noun phrases of a clause are both discontinuous and interlaced, as in the ‘golden lines’ (i)—repeated from § 23.1—( j), and (k).⁴³ Another play with the position of adjectives is shown in (l). (i)

Grandia per multos tenuantur flumina rivos . . . (‘Great rivers are diminished by much channelling . . .’ Ov. Rem. 445)

( j)

(sc. agricola) . . . gravibus rastris galeas pulsabit inanis / grandiaque effossis mirabitur ossa sepulcris. (‘(the farmer) . . . with his heavy hoe will strike empty helmets and will marvel at gigantic bones in the upturned graves.’ Verg. G. 1.496–7)

(k)

Quocirca vivite fortes / fortiaque adversis opponite pectora rebus. (‘Live, then, as brave men, and with brave hearts confront the strokes of fate.’ Hor. S. 2.2.135–6)

(l)

Cnosius haec Rhadamanthus . . . / . . . subigitque fateri / quae quis apud superos furto laetatus inani / distulit in seram commissa piacula mortem. (‘Cretan Rhadamanthus . . . exacts confession of crimes whenever in the world above any man, rejoicing in vain deceit, has put off atonement for sin until death’s late hour.’ Verg. A. 6.566–9)

⁴³ For discussion, see Wilkinson (1963: 215–18), Nisbet (1999: 137–41), and Dainotti (2015: 239–63). For further instances, see Norden  (1927: 393–8). The German term for ‘interlacing’ is ‘Verschränkung’ (Sz.: 691).

Methodological preliminaries  Cases like (i)–(l) have to be distinguished from instances like (m), which has the same sequence adjective, adjective, noun, noun, but is structurally different: here we have one noun phrase in which permagnum modifies optimi pondus argenti, where optimi is placed away from argenti and before pondus for reasons of emphasis.⁴⁴ Also different are instances like (n), where simulatam is an infinitive (without esse). (m) Maximus vini numerus fuit, permagnum optimi pondus argenti, pretiosa vestis, multa et lauta supellex et magnifica multis locis, non illa quidem luxuriosi hominis, sed tamen abundantis. (‘There was a great quantity of wine, a very large weight of the finest silver plate, costly draperies, much elegant and magnificent furniture, variously located, the appointments not indeed of a luxurious man, but of an affluent one.’ Cic. Phil. 2.66) (n) Dicebatur contra: . . . corruptas consulis legiones, simulatam Pompeianarum gratiam partium. (‘On the other side it was argued that . . .“he seduced the legions of a consul, and affected a leaning to the Pompeian side.”’ Tac. Ann. 1.10.1)

Another type of artistic arrangement is shown in (o), where the ordering of the subordinate clauses and the superordinate clause results in a sequence of three verbs.⁴⁵ (o)

Atque haec non ut vos, qui mihi studio paene praecurritis, excitarem, locutus sum sed ut mea vox, quae debet esse in re publica princeps, officio functa consulari videretur. (‘I have spoken in this way not to stir you, whose energy usually surpasses mine, to action, but so that my voice, which ought to be first to speak upon affairs of state, is regarded as having fulfilled my obligations as a consul.’ Cic. Catil. 4.19)

. Typological considerations Since the pioneering article by Greenberg (1963) on universals ‘with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements’, scholars have tried to establish for each language a ‘basic order’ which manifests itself at various levels of the clause (for example, in the order of (subject), object, and finite verb), at the noun phrase level (for example, in the order of a head noun and its attribute), and in prepositional phrases.⁴⁶ In his original sample of thirty languages, for example, Greenberg observed a parallelism between the order OV (object verb) and the order N(oun) Postp(osition). For Latin, which according to a long-standing belief was thought to have OV, this resulted in an inconsistency: Latin has prepositions. In order to explain this inconsistency, it was suggested that  alongside a conventional pattern SOV maintained in more formal writing by authors such as Caesar, in informal Latin already in Plautus’ time the order was SVO, ⁴⁴ See Nisbet (1999: 137). ⁴⁵ For discussion of this example, see Courtney (1999: 1). ⁴⁶ For a discussion of the notion ‘basic order’, see Siewierska (1988: 8–14) and Siewierska and Uhlířová (1998: 107).

 Word order which is the majority order in the Romance languages.⁴⁷ The Latin data shows, so to speak, a ‘language in transition’.⁴⁸ However, there are other languages in which OV and PrepN occur together,⁴⁹ and, more importantly, as indicated in § 23.1 and § 23.9, it is impossible to define for Latin a syntactically determined basic order, so the whole line of argumentation does not apply. There is no evidence for a SOV status of Latin.⁵⁰ In a comparative study of the languages of Europe using twelve constituent order variables, Latin comes out as the most flexible and as one of the least uniform languages.⁵¹ Similarly, scholars have looked for parallels between the order of elements within compound nouns and the order of clause constituents. From this perspective it has been observed that in Latin compound nouns built on a nominal and a verbal stem much more often have the order nominal element–verbal element (NV), e.g. tibi-cen ‘piper’, than the other way around (VN), e.g. Verti-cordia ‘changer of hearts’. However, the latter order (VN) is much more common and fully productive in the Romance languages.⁵²

. Syntactic structure and intonation structure In the oral production of utterances the speaker has various techniques at his disposal to add information to the grammatical, semantic, and pragmatic information already contained in the clauses and sentences he is producing. A falling intonation is often a sign that a sentence is approaching its end. Tempo and specific rhythmic sequences at the end of a sentence or clause may likewise serve as a signal for the hearer (the use of clausulae and, in later times, the cursus are good examples). Stress and pitch can be used to indicate that a particular word in a sequence is of special interest for the speaker, and therefore for the hearer as well. Variations of tempo may fulfil a similar role. Pauses (apart from the need to take breath at regular intervals) can also fulfil various functions, among them the function of indicating major boundaries—which are not necessarily syntactic—in the flow of words. All these techniques were used as they are in our modern languages and the ancient authors and theoreticians were well aware of them and wrote about them (in a manner that is more or less understandable for modern scholars). Two of these techniques can be studied on the basis of the written material that has come down to us, viz. the use of clausulae and cursus and the use of pauses. The other ⁴⁷ See Arnaiz (1998: 48–9). ⁴⁸ So Adams (1976a). ⁴⁹ See Sörés (2004) on Hungarian and Dryer (1992), in general. ⁵⁰ See also LSS § 9.6, Hoffmann (2010b), and Spevak (2010a: 2–3; 115). Dryer (2005: 331) incorrectly classifies Latin as SOV. See Hoffmann (2010b: 278). ⁵¹ See Bakker (1998: 384–5; 391; 408; 417–19). See also Song (2010: 255): ‘The concept of basic word order (at the clausal level) is irrelevant to flexible word order languages, just as the concept of tone is to non-tonal languages.’ ⁵² A monograph on the subject is Bork  (1990). For typological considerations, see Adams  (1976a: 91–2). For the relation between Latin formations and those in the Romance languages, see also Gather (2001: 192–209).

Methodological preliminaries  techniques are not independently accessible for us. It is very likely that the written material that we have, just as written language in modern times,⁵³ has certain linguistic features of its own that compensate to some extent for the absence of oral production. What is left of the forms of punctuation the Romans used is of little use. See § 2.3 and § 23.17.

. Pause and the determination of sense boundaries Quintilian and other authors on rhetoric (both Greek and Latin) pay considerable attention to the oral production of sentences and texts, including the segmentation of sense units and the use of pauses of variable length at the appropriate sense boundaries.⁵⁴ This topic does not belong to the domain of syntax, strictly speaking, but is not without relevance for it when it comes to the study of word order. The relevance of intonation units for the syntactic analysis and description of sentences can be illustrated by two passages from Quintilian. The first is Quintilian’s discussion of the opening lines of Virgil’s Aeneid (1.1–7).⁵⁵ In this discussion, Quintilian distinguishes three forms of marking sense units: the suspensio, where there is no real pause, the distinctio, a brief pause, and the depositio, a real stop. The first unit in Virgil’s text until the depositio can be graphically represented as in (a), where | marks a suspensio and || a distinctio. Note that the suspensio after oris (end of the line) does not correspond to a syntactic boundary and that the secondary predicate fato profugus, which interrupts a coordinate structure, is marked by intonation. The depositio comes at the very end of the period, marked |||. (a)

Arma virumque cano, | Troiae qui primus ab oris | / Italiam | fato profugus | Lavinaque venit / litora, || multum ille et terris iactatus et alto / vi superum, saevae memorem Iunonis ob iram, || / multa quoque et bello passus, dum conderet urbem / inferretque deos Latio; || genus unde Latinum / Albanique patres atque altae moenia Romae. ||| (‘Arms and the man I sing, who first from the coasts of Troy, exiled by fate, came to Italy and Lavinian shores; much buffeted on sea and land by violence from above, through cruel Juno’s unforgiving wrath, and much enduring in war also, till he should build a city and bring his gods to Latium; whence came the Latin race, the lords of Alba, and the lofty walls of Rome.’ Verg. A. 1.1–7) Observandum etiam quo loco sustinendus et quasi suspendendus sermo sit, quod Graeci à.zotl}~zvix vel à.z}~tnwix vocant, quo deponendus. Suspenditur ‘arma virumque cano’, quia illud ‘virum’ ad sequentia pertinet, ut sit ‘virum Troiae qui primus ab oris’, et hic iterum. Nam etiam si aliud est unde venit quam quo venit, non distinguendum tamen, quia utrumque eodem verbo continetur ‘venit’. Tertio ‘Italiam’,

⁵³ See Quirk et al. (1985: 24–5). ⁵⁴ For a discussion of Quintilian’s and other classical authors’ treatment of pause, see Luque  (2006: 328–39) and Cavarzere (2011: Ch. 5 ‘Il ritmo della voce’). See also Chafe (1994: Ch. 5 ‘Intonation units’). ⁵⁵ For discussion, see Cavarzere (2011: 199–204), from whom I have taken the graphical representation. See also Luque (2006: 328–39).

 Word order quia interiectio est ‘fato profugus’ et continuum sermonem, qui faciebat ‘Italiam Lavinaque’, dividit. Ob eandemque causam quarto ‘profugus’, deinde ‘Lavinaque venit litora’, ubi iam erit distinctio, quia inde alius incipit sensus. Sed in ipsis etiam distinctionibus tempus alias brevius, alias longius dabimus: interest enim sermonem finiant an sensum. Itaque illam distinctionem ‘litora’ protinus altero spiritus initio insequar; cum illuc venero: ‘atque altae moenia Romae’, deponam et morabor et novum rursus exordium faciam. (‘We must also note where our speech should be held up and as it were left in the air (the Greeks call this hypodiastolē or hypostigmē), and where it should be brought to rest. Arma virumque cano (“Arms and the man I sing”) is left in the air, because virum belongs to what follows, giving us virum Troiae qui primus ab oris (“the man who first from the shores of Troy”), after which there is another suspension; for, although where he came from and where he arrived are two different things, yet we do not need punctuation here, because both are covered by the same verb, venit (“came”). There is a third pause at Italiam, because fato profugus (“exiled by fate”) is parenthetical and interrupts the continuity of Italiam Lavinaque. For the same reason, there is a fourth pause at profugus, after which comes Lavinaque venit litora (“and came to Lavinian shores”), where we do at last need punctuation, because a new sentence begins from this point. Even when there is punctuation, the time we give to it may be shorter or longer, according to whether it marks the end of a phrase or of a thought. Thus I shall take a new breath immediately after the punctuation at litora, but when I come to atque altae moenia Romae (“and the walls of lofty Rome”), I shall pause and wait and make a fresh beginning.’ Quint. Inst. 11.3.35–8)

The other relevant passage from Quintilian is (b). He segments the beginning of Cicero’s speech pro Cluentio until quarum in the way indicated.⁵⁶ Note that the address iudices forms an intonation unit with animadverti and not one of its own,⁵⁷ and that the discontinuity of in duas partes is reflected in the intonation. (b)

Animadverti, iudices, | omnem accusatoris orationem | in duas | divisam esse partes: || quarum altera mihi niti | et magno opere confidere videbatur | invidia iam inveterata iudicii Iuniani, || altera tantum modo consuetudinis causa | timide et diffidenter attingere | rationem veneficii criminum, | qua de re lege est haec quaestio constituta. ||| (‘I noticed, gentlemen, that the prosecutor’s entire speech was divided into two parts, in one of which he seemed to me to be relying with all confidence upon the now time-honoured prejudice felt against the trial before Junius; while in the other he seemed to make his reluctant and diffident approach, for form’s sake only, to the question of the charge of poisoning, to deal with which this court has been by law established.’ Cic. Clu. 1) Quis enim dubitet unum sensum in hoc et unum spiritum esse: ‘animadverti, iudices, omnem accusatoris orationem in duas divisam esse partis’; tamen et duo prima verba

⁵⁶ For discussion, see Cavarzere  (2011: 212–14), from whom I have taken the continuation of the marking. ⁵⁷ Cf. Etsi vereor, iudices ‘Although I am afraid, gentlemen of the jury’, at the beginning of Cic. Mil. 1 (Cavarzere 2011: 216–20).

Methodological preliminaries  et tria proxima et deinceps duo rursus ac tria suos quasi numeros habent: spiritum sustinemus sicut rhythmis aestimatur. (‘Who can doubt that there is only one thought and one breath in animadverti iudices omnem accusatoris orationem in duas divisam esse partes? Yet the two first words, the next three, and then again the next two and three, have their own special rhythms; and we maintain our breathing as determined by the rhythm.’ Quint. Inst. 9.4.68)

Sense units thus distinguished (colon, comma, and periodus) were sometimes marked in writing by punctuation, as, for example, in the Vindolanda Tablets and other documents.⁵⁸ Readers or teachers sometimes inserted oblique strokes (virgulae) as a preparation for reading the text aloud. This system of marking the text was adopted from the Greeks in the second century bc and partly replaced, partly added to the older punctuation system to mark word boundaries, which ‘seems to have died out by the end of the first century ad’.⁵⁹ The division of texts into sense units per cola et commata, that is by starting a new sense unit on a new line, is found in the older Vulgate manuscripts and is attributed to Jerome, but people have also found traces of it in later manuscripts of, for example, works of Cicero. The length of the cola varies between thirty and six syllables, with twenty to ten syllables being the most frequent length, more or less equivalent to the length of a hexameter line, which allows combining a sense unit with breathing space.⁶⁰

In the  1920s, Eduard Fraenkel developed a method to identify smaller segments within clauses and sentences. For these he used the term ‘colon’, not in the ancient sense of ‘sense unit’, but for syntactic units, for example, an ablative absolute clause or a prepositional phrase.⁶¹ One of his observations was that so-called unstressed words often occupy the second position of a colon, as do the personal pronouns in (c) and (d) (see also § 23.32) (‘॥ ’ marks a colon boundary).⁶² For the use of forms of address to structure sentences, see § 22.54. (c)

. . . Roma puer a sorore tua missus | epistulam mihi abs te adlatam dedit . . . (‘. . . a boy sent from Rome by your sister brought me a letter which had come in from you . . .’ Cic. Att. 1.10.1)

(d)

His rebus gestis | Curio se in castra ad Bagradam recipit . . . (‘After these successes Curio went back to the camp at the Bagradas . . .’ Caes. Civ. 2.26.1)

⁵⁸ See Parkes (1992: 10–12) and Adams (1996; 2016: 254, 308). ⁵⁹ The Roman grammarians used the term distinctio for ‘punctuation mark’. See TLL s.v. distinctio 1521.28ff. For the marking of texts in the Classical period, see Wingo  (1972). The quotation is from Parkes (1992: 263). ⁶⁰ Müller (1964: 28–33). ⁶¹ For the colon approach, see Fraenkel (1932, 1933, 1965, 1968), Müller (1964: 124–31), Habinek (1985a), and Nisbet (1990). Also Adams (1994b). For the role of intonation to avoid confusion between the subordinator cum and the preposition cum, see Jones (1990). ⁶² Fraenkel (1933). See also Habinek (1985a: 6–7), from whom (c) and (d) are taken.

 Word order

. Clausulae Rhythm was a pervasive element of high-register prose in general (see § 23.11), but most important was its use at the end of sentences and other sense units. For these rhythmic endings the term clausula has been current from Cicero onwards.⁶³ The rhythm is based on the quantity of syllables which may be heavy (marked –), or light (marked ཱི); in certain circumstances, notably at the end of a rhythmic sequence, the quantity of the syllable may be indifferent, which is best marked ‘ཱི’ (scholars often use the sign ‘×’ and the term syllaba anceps).⁶⁴ NB: a distinction must be made between the quantity (heavy and light) of syllables and the length (long and short) of vowels.⁶⁵

The endeavour to arrive at certain rhythmic endings entails selecting fitting words,⁶⁶ and for that reason clausulae are relevant for word order. Cicero himself (at Orat. 232–3) gives a number of illustrations, showing the damaging effect of the permutation of the order of words in a passage from his lost speech pro Cornelio, as seen in (a) and (b). If in (a) the end is changed to ‘multi superarunt mercatores venālĭcĭ|īquĕ,’ ‘the whole thing is spoiled’, as it is also in (b), if the text of the speech is changed to ‘vicerunt eunuchi e Syria Aēg݉p|tōquĕ.’⁶⁷ In (a), the clausula is formed by a cretic (– ཱི –) (resolved) + spondee (– –), Cicero’s favoured formula (also known as ‘esse videatur’), which occurs in about one-third of the endings in his speeches. In the permutation rejected above, this clausula is replaced by a dactylic end (– ×), as in the poetic hexameter (the clausula heroa, which is very rare in Cicero);⁶⁸ in (b), the clausula is cretic + spondee as well, replaced by a much less favoured spondee + trochee (– – | – ཱི). (a)

Neque me divitiae movent, quibus omnes Africanos et Laelios multi venalicii mercatorēsquĕ sŭpĕr|ārūnt . . . (‘I am not moved by his wealth, in which many traders and slave dealers have surpassed all the Africani and Laelii . . .’ Cic. Corn. fr. II.9)

(b)

. . . neque vestis aut caelatum aurum et argentum, quo nostros veteres Marcellos Maximosque multi eunuchi e Syria Aegyptōquĕ vī|cērūnt. (‘. . . nor by raiment or gold and silver plate in which our ancient heros, Marcelli and Maximi, were outdone by many eunuchs from Syria and Egypt.’ Cic. Corn. fr. II.9)

The importance of the clausula for Cicero’s practice appears also from the fact that in his pro Sulla the three most frequent combinations constitute c.90 per cent of all endings: ⁶³ For example: Sed sunt clausulae plures quae numerose et iucunde cadant. (‘There are many clausulae which have a pleasing rhythmic cadence.’ Cic. Orat. 215) For an overview with statistical data on clausulae, see Orlandi  (1994). For ‘the development of rhythmic prose’ and its introduction in Rome, see Hutchinson (2018: 5–12). ⁶⁴ For the use of ‘৐’, see Zgoll (2012: 45–6). ⁶⁵ See Allen (1978: 89–92). ⁶⁶ An example is the use of the coordinator atque by Cicero. See Hutchinson (1995). ⁶⁷ The ‘॥’ sign indicates the boundary between the feet. ⁶⁸ However, Cicero recommends it at Orat. 217. Quintilian at Inst. 9.4.102 condemns it. For discussion, see Aili (1979: 63–4) and Oberhelman (2003: 27–67).

Methodological preliminaries  the cretic + trochee/spondee (– ཱི – | – ཱི), the cretic/molossus + double trochee (– × – | – ཱི – ཱི), and the cretic/molossus + cretic (– × – | – ཱི ৐).⁶⁹ Other authors had other preferences.⁷⁰ A problem with the research on clausulae is how to determine whether the order observed is due to chance or to purpose. Thus, in (a) and (b), are the verbs in final position to achieve the required rhythmic sequence or is the rhythmic sequence the natural outcome of positioning the verbs with their syllabic structure at the end? If one linearizes a clause in Latin, what are the chances of words at the end having a certain rhythmic sequence, given the rules of syllable structure and vowel length?⁷¹

Whereas in Classical Latin the clausulae were based on the quantity of syllables, word accent played an ever more important role from the third and fourth century onwards, due to the loss of the distinction between heavy and light syllables. This resulted in three favourite endings, called cursus, viz. the cursus planus, consisting of a sequence accented / unaccented / unaccented / accented / unaccented (´ u u ´ u), as in (c); the cursus tardus (´ u u ´ u u), as in (d), and the cursus velox (´ u u u u ´ u), as in (e). (c)

(sc. scio) . . . quas rerum acerbitates iam conclamatas et perditas concordia vicissim sibi cedentium principum meliorem revocávit in státum . . . (‘I know . . . what wretched conditions, even when everything seemed already lost and without remedy, have, by the harmony of rulers yielding in turn to each other, been brought to a better state . . .’ Amm. 20.8.17)

(d)

Impositusque scuto pedestri et sublátius éminens nullo silente Augustus renuntiatus . . . (‘And being placed upon an infantryman’s shield and raised on high, he was hailed by all as Augustus . . .’ Amm. 20.4.17)

(e)

. . . receptaque oppida Gallicana ante direpta a barbaris et excisa, quos tributarios ipse fécit et vectigáles. (‘. . . and the recovery of the Gallic towns, which before had been destroyed and plundered by the savages whom he himself had made tributaries and subjects.’ Amm. 20.4.1)

In (c), the use of the indicative in the indirect question instead of a subjunctive may have been influenced by the cursus, as may have been the use of the comparative in (d) and the use of the perfect instead of a pluperfect in (e).⁷²

⁶⁹ See Berry in his Commentary (1996: 49–54). This percentage is slightly higher than Zieliński (1904, 1914) found in his studies of Cicero’s speeches. For the importance of clausulae for the word order of clauses, see also Spevak (2016a: 123–5). ⁷⁰ For a comparison of Cicero, Sallust, Livy, Velleius, and Tacitus, see Aili (1979). ⁷¹ For a discussion of the methodological problems, see Janson  (1974), Aili  (1979: 17–50), Orlandi (2005), and Keeline and Kirby (2019: 163–8). ⁷² See den Boeft et al. ad locc.

 Word order

23.19 The order of constituents at the clause and sentence levels The following sections concern the order of constituents at the clause and sentence levels. The relative order of constituents at lower levels, for example the noun phrase and the prepositional phrase levels, are dealt with in separate sections. A first distinction is made between the order of constituents in simple, syntactically independent sentences (and, to some extent, in main clauses of complex sentences) on the one hand (§ 23.39) and in complex sentences with subordinate clauses on the other (§ 23.64). The possibility that the order of constituents in main clauses varies with the relative order of main and subordinate clauses and possible forms of interlacing between them is ignored for the moment (but see § 14.19). Depending on the type of text the proportion between simple and complex sentences varies considerably. In most prose texts complex sentences are much more frequent and sequences such as (a) are relatively rare: in the letter they are taken from there are four such simple sentences (of which the last one in (a) contains two coordinated clauses) as opposed to twenty-one complex ones, fifteen of which contain two or more subordinate clauses.⁷³ (a)

Quintum fratrem cottidie exspectamus. Terentia magnos articulorum dolores habet. Et te et sororem tuam et matrem maxime diligit salutemque tibi plurimam adscribit et Tulliola, deliciae nostrae. (‘We are expecting brother Quintus back any day. Terentia has a bad attack of rheumatism. She is very fond of you and of your sister and mother, and sends you her best love, as does my darling little Tullia.’ Cic. Att. 1.5.8)

A number of factors are relevant to the placement of constituents. The most important are: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)

the internal complexity of the sentence/clause; the distinction active/passive; the distinction first/second vs. third person arguments; the categorial status of the constituents; the internal complexity of the constituents.

(i) The internal complexity of the sentence or clause in terms of the number of arguments and satellites there are alongside the verb is an important factor. This depends to a considerable extent on the valency of the verb, the second important factor. On the basis of the valency of the verb both the number of arguments (whether explicit or not) and their semantic characteristics (e.g. animate or inanimate) are determined.

⁷³ The fourth simple sentence is De litterarum missione, sine causa abs te accusor. (Cic. Att. 1.5.3). Some of these sentences are discussed in § 23.46.

Constituents with more or less fixed position



(ii) Additionally, for those verbs for which this is relevant, it makes a difference whether the sentence or clause is active or passive, that is, whether the state of affairs is presented from the perspective of the agent or that of the patient (see § 5.10): in passive sentences the number of arguments is usually reduced. (iii) First and second person arguments are marked on the finite verb forms. For the use of explicit first and second person pronouns in the nominative special conditions hold (see § 9.2). (iv) Apart from the meaning of the individual constituents, another factor is their categorial status (e.g. noun phrase, pronoun, or clause). (For non-mobile words, see § 23.6 and § 23.20.) (v) For the position of nouns (and adjectives) it makes a difference whether they are used by themselves or are accompanied by optional and/or obligatory modifiers. Then, finally, when all these factors have been taken into account it is necessary to determine what the communicative contribution is of the individual constituents and of the sentence as a whole in its wider context and to what extent this is reflected in the relative order of the constituents. Although in recent time several studies have more or less proceeded along these lines, using different samples from different periods,⁷⁴ it is at this stage impossible to give any absolute rules, in such a way that a clear picture arises of ‘word order in Latin’. In what follows a number of the factors mentioned above will be explored.

. Categories of constituents with a more or less fixed position The sections that follow contain details about the words called ‘non-mobile’ in § 23.6, that is, the categories of words and related elements that are restricted with respect to their position in the clause or at a lower level. Included is a discussion of bound clitics, which are not ‘words’ in the technical sense.

. Connectors and interactional particles Connectors are, in conformity with their function, usually placed in the initial part of the sentence or clause. Some are regularly placed in the very first position, others are regularly placed after the first word or constituent. To the first category belong at, atque, atqui, et, etenim, itaque, nam, namque, sed, and verum; to the second category autem and igitur. Also regularly placed in second position are the interactional particles enim and ergo. However, there are both individual differences between authors—or ⁷⁴ Most extensively Panhuis (1982) on Plautus and Caesar, Devine and Stephens (2006) on data taken from various prose authors, and Spevak (2010a) on a well-defined prose corpus that consists of Cic. Tusc. I and III; Dom.; Phil. I and IV; Att. 13.50–16; Caes. Civ. 1–3.30; Sal. Jug. (supplemented with data from other sources on certain occasions).

 Word order even among a single author’s texts, which may have to do with variations in the semantic value of the words involved—and diachronic differences.⁷⁵ Igitur and ergo are a case in point. When Cicero uses them in logical inferences within a line of argumentation they are usually clause-initial, whereas overall they are predominantly in second position.⁷⁶ Examples of sentence-initial position of the first category of connectors can be found in §§ 24.22–45. In poetry, from Catullus onwards, these regular sentence-initial connectors are sometimes found further on in the sentence if another constituent takes its place for some pragmatic reason. Examples are (a)–(e). This occurs also in prose from Livy onwards. (a)

Immemor at iuvenis fugiens pellit vada remis . . . (‘But the heedless youth, flying away, beats the waves with his oars.’ Catul. 64.58—tr. Smithers)

(b)

Lenibus atque utinam scriptis adiuncta foret vis . . . (‘But would that your soft verses had force as well . . .’ Caes. poet. 1.3)

(c)

Prohibent nam cetera Parcae / scire Helenum . . . (‘For the Fates forbid Helenus to know more . . .’ Verg. A. 3.379–80)

(d)

Non me impia namque / Tartara habent tristes umbrae . . . (‘For impious Tartarus, with its gloomy shades, holds me not . . .’ Verg. A. 5.733–4)

(e)

Tertia sed postquam congressi in proelia totas / implicuere inter se acies legitque virum vir, / tum vero . . . (‘But when, clashing in the third encounter, the lines stood interlocked along their whole length, and man marked man, then . . .’ Verg. A. 11.631–3)⁷⁷ Namque is also found postposed in prose and this becomes regular in Late Latin.⁷⁸ In Lucretius itaque is only found in second position. Livy is the first prose writer with a considerable proportion of itaque in second position (especially in the first pentad). Seneca has about half in second position. That position is dominant in Apul. Met., the Vulgate, and August. Civ. Postposed et (‘and’) is found in poetry from Virgil onwards, in prose from Arnobius onwards.⁷⁹ Supplement (in alphabetical order): Vinxerat et post terga manus . . . (Verg. A. 11.81); Divinare etenim magnus mihi donat Apollo. (Hor. S. 2.5.60); Constitutiones itaque, ut ante diximus, tres sunt: coniecturalis, legitima, iuridicialis. (Rhet. Her. 1.18); Saepe itaque ex uno tondentes gramina

⁷⁵ For the differences between the individual connectors, see Spevak (2006a). ⁷⁶ Similar observations could be made about ‘therefore’ in English and ‘dus’ in Dutch. Very detailed information in TLL s.v. ergo 760.26ff. and s.v. igitur 253.42ff. A still very useful survey is Neue-W.: II.973–80. ⁷⁷ For more examples of postposition of sed, see OLD s.v. sed, introduction. See also Norden, Anhang IIIB3 and § 23.101 fin. ⁷⁸ See TLL s.v. nam 38.9ff. and Schrickx (2009: 260–3), also on itaque and etenim. ⁷⁹ TLL s.v. et 898.52ff.

Constituents with more or less fixed position



campo / lanigerae pecudes . . . (Lucr. 2.660–1;⁸⁰ Nec mirum: bene nam valetis omnes . . . (Catul. 23.7); Sic nam fore bello / egregiam et facilem victu per saecula gentem. (Verg. A. 1.444–5); . . . (dextra sceptrum nam forte gerebat) . . . (Verg. A. 12.206); Praesentes namque ante domos invisere castas / heroum . . . (Catul. 64.384–5); . . . prorogatae namque consulibus iam in annum provinciae erant . . . (Liv. 41.6.2); Magnum reginae sed enim miseratus amorem / Daedalus ipse dolos tecti ambagesque resolvit . . . (Verg. A. 6.28–9); Amisit verum vetus Albula nomen. (Verg. A. 8.332)

The usual second position of the second category of connectors and of interactional particles needs some specification. In the first place, the connectors and interactional particles mentioned are not a homogeneous group. Ergo, for instance, is relatively often found in first position if compared to igitur, but Sallust and Tacitus show an idiosyncratic preference for having both of them in first position.⁸¹ Autem and vero, by contrast, are never found in first position, and enim rarely, in Plautus and Terence, in its affirmative meaning (see § 24.40).⁸² Second position usually means ‘after the first word of the sentence or clause’, as in (f), but it is not rare to find connectors after the first full constituent, as in (g) and (l), or, rarely, after more than one constituent, as in (h) and (i). Of the instances of enim in third position a considerable portion is after a form of sum (copula or auxiliary) and/or a pragmatically prominent word in first position, as in ( j).⁸³ The normal situation for these words is that in sentences which start with a noun phrase or prepositional phrase, they split the noun phrase, as in (k).⁸⁴ They are not found after initial prepositions, as is shown by enim in (l). (f)

I sane cum illo, Phrygia. Tu autem, Eleusium, / huc intro abi ad nos. (‘Go with him now, Phrygia. But you, though, Eleusium, come in here to us.’ Pl. Aul. 333–4)

(g)

. . . anno ipso ante quam natus est Ennius, post Romam conditam autem quarto decumo et quingentesimo . . . (‘. . . in the very year before the birth of Ennius, five hundred and fourteen years after the founding of Rome . . .’ Cic. Brut. 72)

(h)

Ego ad forum autem hinc ibo, ut solvam militi. (‘But I’ll go to the market to pay off the soldier.’ Pl. Bac. 1060)

⁸⁰ More references in K.-St.: II.130. ⁸¹ See the table in TLL s.v. ergo 760–1, with comparative figures for ergo, igitur, and itaque. ⁸² See Spevak  (2012b: 336–40). First position of autem and enim was regarded as ungrammatical: (soloecismus fit) . . . transmutatione, qua ordo turbatur . . .: ‘enim hoc voluit, autem non habuit’. Ex quo genere an sit ‘igitur’ initio sermonis positum dubitari potest, quia maximos auctores in diversa fuisse opinione video, cum apud alios sit etiam frequens, apud alios numquam reperiatur. (‘Solecisms are brought about . . . by transposition as in enim hoc voluit, autem non habuit. Under this last head comes the question whether igitur can be placed first in a sentence: for I note that authors of the first rank disagree on this point, some of them frequently placing it in that position, others never.’ Quint. Inst. 1.5.39); TLL s.v. enim 574.83ff. For a discussion of the position of enim in Lucr. 6.1277, see Deufert (2018: 487–8). ⁸³ For the position and the diachronic development of autem and enim, see Spevak (2012a; 2012b). For Cicero’s use of enim in a position later than second and the words that precede, see Watt (1980). ⁸⁴ More examples in TLL s.v. autem 1576.84ff. See also s.v. enim 574.60ff., s.v. itaque 528.59ff.

 Word order (i)

Ego illic me autem sic assimulabam. (‘But there I pretended to be such.’ Pl. Epid. 420)

( j)

Sic est enim intemperans militaris in forti viro gloria. (‘So unrestrained is the appeal of military glory to a brave man.’ Cic. Tusc. 2.39—tr. Douglas)

(k)

Geminum autem fratrem servire audivi hic meum. (‘I’ve heard, moreover, that my twin brother is a slave here.’ Pl. Per. 695)

(l)

De C.  Tuditano enim quaerebam, quem ex Hortensio audieram fuisse in decem. (‘For I was enquiring about C. Tuditanus, who I heard from Hortensius was one of the ten.’ Cic. Att. 13.32.3)

The regular second position of these words is often explained as due to Wackernagel’s law (see § 23.31). In some of the examples above the word in first position is pragmatically prominent, for example in (f), where there is a change of topic (tu). However, most of the time this is not the case. These words behave as clitics in the same way the emphasizing particle quidem does. The fact that these words are not found after (especially monosyllabic) prepositions is understandable: prepositions are not autonomous words themselves. Supplement (in alphabetical order): Quae res te sollicitat autem? (Ter. Hau. 251); Non est enim philosophia similis artium reliquarum. (Cic. de Orat. 3.79); Servisne mulieris? Sic est enim obiectum. (Cic. Cael. 57); Cum in omnibus enim rebus, tum maxime etiam in architectura haec duo insunt: quod significatur et quod significat. (Vitr. 1.1.3); Ornatissimae sunt igitur orationes eae quae latissime vagantur . . . (Cic. de Orat. 3.120); Hoc sentire prudentiae est, facere fortitudinis. Et sentire vero et facere perfectae cumulataeque virtutis. (Cic. Sest. 87)

. Anaphoric constituents Anaphoric constituents (pronouns, adverbs, noun phrases containing an anaphoric determiner) are by their nature often found in the initial part of their sentence or clause (especially if the entity they refer to is a focus constituent in the preceding sentence or clause—see § 22.4, ex. (t)), but they may be preceded by other constituents that have a right to the initial position such as connectors and question words and/or by one or more of the usual pragmatically prominent words or constituents. The anaphoric determiner/pronoun is may serve as an example.⁸⁵ In Mercurius’ summary of the plot of Plautus’ play Amphitruo, he introduces Iuppiter and Amphitruo and, once introduced, they are referred to by is, usually in first position as subject of the clause, as in the beginning of (a). It is not repeated in the following clause, but reappears, ⁸⁵ Some statistical information about placement of the pronoun is in object position in Classical Latin prose (within an entirely different framework) can be found in Luraghi (2016: 249).

Constituents with more or less fixed position



juxtaposed with the object eam, after the focus gravidam fecit (she was already pregnant by Amphitruo, the spectators have been told, so this was quite surprising). Another example is (b), with three instances of is functioning as a subject complement. The second instance is placed after emphatic certe. In (c), interrogative quantae is separated from curae for the normal pragmatic reason. Tibi is the changed topic of the interrogative clause. The subject noun phrase ea res with the determiner ea is in third position. (a)

Is (sc. Iuppiter) amare occepit Alcumenam clam virum / usuramque eius corporis cepit sibi, / et gravidam fecit is eam compressu suo. (‘He fell in love with Alcumena behind her husband’s back and enjoyed her body, and he made her pregnant through his embrace.’ Pl. Am. 107–9)

(b)

Estne ipsus an non est? Is est, / certe is est, is est profecto. (‘Is this he himself or not? This is him, this is certainly him, this is him indeed.’ Pl. Trin. 1071–2)

(c)

Expectant omnes quantae tibi ea res curae sit . . . (‘The public waits eagerly to see how great a concern this matter is to you . . .’ Cic. Ver. 3.137)

The neuter singular form id is often used to refer to the content of the preceding context and for that reason frequently occupies the first position in its clause, as in (d), where id, the subject in its clause, refers to pendes. However, it may also occupy a later position in the clause, as in (e), where the first position after the question word is taken by contrastive mihi. (d)

Faci’n iniuriam mi [an non]? # Fateor, quia non pendes, maxumam. / Atque id quoque iam fiet, nisi fatere. (‘Aren’t you doing me an injustice? # Yes, I admit it, an enormous injustice, because you aren’t hanging. And that too will soon happen unless you admit it.’ Pl. Aul. 643–4)

(e)

. . . reppuli, reieci hominem. # Quid mihi id prodest? (‘. . . I drove and chased him away. # How does that help me?’ Pl. Bac. 633)

Examples of non-nominative forms of the anaphoric pronoun is are (f)–(i). In (f), the object eum refers to puer ille and it takes the first position. Id in (g), which refers to te accuso in the preceding clause, is similar. In (h), both id, referring to aurum three lines before, and eum, referring to filio in the preceding clause, are postposed in their clause to the third and fourth position, respectively. It is not easy to claim a special pragmatic prominence for all the constituents that precede them. For an example of postverbal position later in the clause, see (i). (f)

Sed puer ille quem ego lavi, ut magnu’st et multum valet! / Neque eum quisquam colligare quivit incunabulis. (‘But the boy I washed, how big and strong he is! No one could strap him down in his cradle.’ Pl. Am. 1103–4)

 Word order (g)

Neque edepol te accuso neque id me facere fas existumo. (‘I’m not accusing you, nor do I think it would be right for me to do so.’ Pl. As. 514)

(h)

. . . numquam indicare id (sc. aurum) filio voluit suo / inopemque optavit potius eum relinquere / quam eum thesaurum commonstraret filio. (‘. . . he didn’t even want to make this known to his own son and he wished to leave him penniless rather than to show this treasure to his son.’ Pl. Aul. 10–12)

(i)

Interim Oscenses et Calagurritani, qui erant [cum] Oscensibus contributi, mittunt ad eum (sc. Caesarem) legatos . . . (‘Meanwhile the people of Osca and those of Calagurris, who paid tribute to Osca, sent delegations to him . . .’ Caes. Civ. 1.60.1)

. Subordinating devices The regular position of subordinators and relative determiners, pronouns, adjectives, and adverbs is the very first position of their clause, but other words, to be specified below, can precede. This phenomenon—often called prolepsis—is regular from Early Latin onwards. It is extremely common in poetry, where it is often difficult to find either a formal or a pragmatic explanation. Artistic considerations, including metre, are decisive. Among prose authors Varro and Apuleius have abundant instances.⁸⁶

. Subordinators Subordinators are, by their nature, regularly used in the first position of their clause. However, they may be preceded by one or more words or constituents, both words that also have a right to the first position (connectors, coordinators, and relative pronouns, for example) and words (or constituents) with a specific pragmatic function in the clause (see also § 14.20). This holds both for sentence-initial and sentence-internal clauses. This phenomenon is found in all periods of Latin and in all sorts of texts, with individual variation from author to author.⁸⁷ This is illustrated by a few examples of the subordinators ut—with which this phenomenon is quite common—and postquam. The subordinate clause in (a) starts with nunc in its non-temporal meaning serving as a connector (see § 24.46) followed by the focus of the clause internosse. Ex. (b) has nihil, which is in contrast with the quod clause, in first position. Ex. (c) has consul as changed topic in first position. Exx. (d) and (e) show (connective) relative clauses (for more examples, see § 18.28). The phenomenon of constituent(s) preceding subordinators is not restricted to subordinate clauses that precede their main ⁸⁶ See Krumbiegel (1892), Laughton (1960) on Varro; Pennell Ross (1987; 1991) on Classical narrative prose; Spevak (2010a); Danckaert (2012); Schünke (1906) on poetry. As for the terminology, the following terms are used in the literature: ‘fronting’, ‘extraction’, ‘displacement’, and ‘left-dislocation’ for the constituents that precede the subordinating device; ‘postposition’ and ‘anaphora’ for the subordinating device. ⁸⁷ For quantitative data on Caesar, Sallust, and Livy, see Pennell Ross (1987; 1991: 455); for Caesar and Tacitus, see Longrée et al. (2012; 2013); for Latin poets, see Ambrosini (1992); also for general discussion.

Constituents with more or less fixed position



clauses (or are embedded in it), but is also found in subordinate clauses that follow their main clauses, as is shown in (f) and (g). (a)

Nunc internosse ut nos possitis facilius, / ego has habebo usque in petaso pinnulas. (‘Now in order that you can tell us apart more easily, I’ll have these little wings here on my hat throughout.’ Pl. Am. 142–3)

(b)

Ti. Gracchus convellit statum civitatis, qua gravitate vir, qua eloquentia, qua dignitate! Nihil ut a patris avique Africani praestabili insignique virtute, praeterquam quod a senatu desciverat, deflexisset. (‘The stability of the community was shattered by Tiberius Gracchus, so distinguished by strength of character, by eloquence, and by reputation, that he had swerved not in the least degree from the eminent and remarkable qualities of his father and his grandfather Africanus, save for his desertion of the senatorial cause.’ Cic. Har. 41)

(c)

Consul postquam detractari certamen vidit, postero die in consilium advocavit quid sibi faciendum esset . . . (‘When the consul saw the enemy refusing to engage, he called a meeting the following day to discuss what he should do . . .’ Liv. 37.39.1)

(d)

Ad quem ut veni conplexus me senex conlacrimavit . . . (‘When I came into his presence the aged man embraced me and wept copiously . . .’ Cic. Rep. 6.9)

(e)

In quem postquam omnium ora conversa sunt . . . (‘After all eyes were turned towards him . . .’ Liv. 26.18.8)

(f)

Eandem hanc, si voltis, faciam ex tragoedia / comoedia ut sit omnibus isdem vorsibus. (‘If you want, I’ll immediately turn this same play from a tragedy into a comedy with all the same verses.’ Pl. Am. 54–5)

(g)

Fac is homo ut redimatur. (‘Have this man ransomed.’ Pl. Capt. 337) Supplement: . . . senatuosque · sententiam · utei · scientes · esetis · eorum / sententia · ita · fuit . . . (CIL I2.581.23–4 (SCBac., Tiriolo, 186 bc)); At te ego faciam hodie proinde ac meritus es / ut minus valeas et miser sis, salvos domum si rediero iam. (Pl. Am. 583–4); . . . neu persentiscat aurum ubi est apsconditum . . . (Pl. Aul. 63); Nunc hoc ubi abstrudam cogito solum locum (Pl. Aul. 673); Quod cum scibitur, per urbem irridebor. (Pl. Capt. 785); Id huc / missa sum tibi ut dicerem, / ab ea uti caveas tibi. (Pl. Cas. 680–2); Ipsum gestio / dari mi in conspectum, nunc sua culpa ut sciat / lenem patrem illum factum me esse acerrimum. (Ter. Ph. 260–2); De multitudine quoniam quod satis esset admonui, de obscuritate pauca dicam (Var. L. 6.40); Nam accersitus ab aedile, cuius procuratio huius templi est, nondum rediit et nos uti expectaremus se

 Word order reliquit qui rogaret. (Var. R. 1.2.2); Quorum si alterutrum decolat . . . (Var. R. 1.2.8); Multi autem Gnathonum similes cum sint loco fortuna fama superiores, horum est adsentatio molesta . . . (Cic. Amic. 94); Cuius etsi incerta sunt tempora, tamen annis multis fuit ante Romulum. (Cic. Brut. 40); Fatetur enim libellos Alfenum deiecisse, vadimonium promisisse, iudicium quin acciperet in ea ipsa verba quae Naevius edebat non recusasse . . . (Cic. Quinct. 63); Eos enim sanos quoniam intellegi necesse est, quorum mens motu quasi morbo perturbata nullo sit, qui contra adfecti sint, hos insanos appellari necesse est. (Cic. Tusc. 3.11); Ceteros quod purgas, debent mihi probati esse tibi si sunt. (Cic. Att. 3.15.2); . . . is arma, quae cuique abi[ta]lia atque apta essent, comparat, prorsus ut quivis intellegeret non eos ad rem rusticam, verum ad caedem ac pugnam comparari. (Cic. Tul. 18); Itaque exaruerunt, vix iam ut appareant. (Cic. Brut. 82); . . . sed suum illud, nihil ut adfirmet, tenet ad extremum. (Cic. Tusc. 1.99); Apud quos cum proficere nihil posset, quibusdam solutis ergastulis Compsam in agro Hirpino oppugnare coepit. (Caes. Civ. 3.22.2); Caesar cum ab hoste non amplius passuum XII milibus abesset, ut erat constitutum, ad eum legati revertuntur. (Caes. Gal. 4.11.1); Compluribus navibus fractis reliquae cum essent funibus ancoris reliquisque armamentis amissis ad navigandum inutiles, magna . . . totius exercitus perturbatio facta est. (Caes. Gal. 4.29.3); Altero die cum ad oppidum Senonum Vellaunodunum venisset, ne quem post se hostem relinqueret, quo expeditiore re frumentaria uteretur, oppugnare instituit eoque biduo circumvallavit. (Caes. Gal. 7.11.1); Cuius in adventum praesidii causa Caesar cum plura castella occupasset . . . hic in adventu Pompei incidit ut matutino tempore nebula esset crassissima. (B. Hisp. 6.3); Qualem si cuncti cuperent decurrere vitam . . . (Prop. 2.15.41); Livius . . . dicitur, cum saepius revocatus vocem obtudisset, venia petita puerum ad canendum ante tibicinem cum statuisset, canticum egisse aliquanto magis vigente motu quia nihil vocis usus impediebat. (Liv. 7.2.9); Quam rem cum laeto animo Romanus accepisset . . . (Liv. 26.17.6); Romanis etsi quietae res ex Etruria nuntiabantur, tamen quia omnibus conciliis eam rem agitari adferebatur, ita muniebant ut ancipitia munimenta essent. (Liv. 5.1.8); Tres duces discordantes prope ut defecerint alii ab aliis trifariam exercitus in diversissimas regiones distraxere. (Liv. 26.41.20); Causam abscessus quamquam secutus plurimos auctorum ad Seiani artes rettuli . . . (Tac. Ann. 4.57.1) It is not always easy to determine whether some or all of the constituents preceding the subordinator belong to the subordinate clause. In (h), for example, where does extemplo belong? Nor is it always easy to decide whether we are dealing with one continuous sentence or a change of construction. An example is (i), where postquam might have been omitted entirely, still leaving us with a perfect sequence of clauses. This might be an example of a change of communicative strategy after the sentence has already begun, an anacoluthon, which is typical of spoken discourse. (h)

Sese extemplo ex ephebis postquam excesserit, / non, ut ego, amori neque desidiae in otio / operam dedisse . . . (‘Immediately after he had passed his teenage years, he had not, like me, devoted himself to love and laziness in leisure . . .’ Pl. Mer. 61–3)

Constituents with more or less fixed position (i)



Nam erus me postquam rus misit filium ut suom arcesserem, / abii . . . (‘For after my master sent me to the farm to fetch his son, I went . . .’ Pl. Mos. 1043–4)

In ( j), four constituents that belong to the subordinate clause precede the subordinator. It is difficult to give a pragmatic justification for each of them being anteposed. ( j)

. . . Chremes / ultro ad me venit, unicam gnatam suam / cum dote summa filio uxorem ut daret. (‘. . . Chremes came to me of his own accord to offer his only daughter in marriage with a substantial dowry.’ Ter. An.100–1) Supplement: Trecentos equites Attalus praesidii causa cum adduxisset, iactae sunt pacis condiciones. (Liv. 38.25.5)

. Relative pronouns, adjectives, adverbs, and determiners The regular position of relative pronouns, determiners, adjectives, and adverbs is clause-initial (unless the first three are governed by a preposition). When the relative clause is in sentence-initial position connectors may of course precede. Pragmatically prominent constituents belonging to a relative clause can precede the relative element as well. Instances are found from Early Latin onwards, as in (a)–(c). An example with more constituents preceding the relative pronoun is (d). It is difficult to find a pragmatic justification for the position of the temporal clauses. (a)

Sat habet favitorum semper qui recte facit . . . (‘A man who always acts correctly has enough supporters . . .’ Pl. Am. 79)

(b)

. . . idem dicetur ab illis modo quos nominavi. (‘. . . it will also be maintained by those whom I just now mentioned.’ Cic. Fin. 4.45)

(c)

Hic, exeuntem me unde aspexisti modo. (‘Here, where you just saw me come out from.’ Pl. Bac. 204)

(d)

. . . et quod optimum faenum erit seorsum condito, per ver cum arabunt, antequam ocinum des, quod edint ( or add. edd.).⁸⁸ (‘. . . and store the best hay by itself for the oxen to eat during the spring ploughing, before you feed clover.’ Cato Agr. 53) Supplement: Atque hic pater est—ut ego opinor—huius erus quam amat . (Pl. Aul. 619); Heus, senex, quid tu percontare ad te quod nihil attinet? (Pl. Mos. 940); Si quid eo fuerit, certe illius filiae, / quae mihi mandata est, habeo dotem unde dem. (Pl. Trin. 157–8); Hostem qui feriet mihi erit (†erit (inquit) mi†, Skutsch) Carthaginiensis / quisquis erit. (Enn. Ann. 8.280–1V= 7.234–5S); ); Nam idcirco accersor, nuptias quod mi adparari ⁸⁸ Editors vary in the way they punctuate the sequence.

 Word order sensit. (Ter. An. 690); Mihi nunc relictis rebus inveniundus est / aliquis, labore inventa mea quoi dem bona. (Ter. Hau. 840–1); . . . ipsi illi maiorum gentium dii qui habentur hinc nobis profecti in caelum reperientur. (Cic. Tusc. 1.29); Sanguine quae vero non rubet, arte rubet. (Ov. Ars 3.200); Item / placere · uti · Cn. · Piso pater · super · Portam Fontinalem quam · inaedificasset / . . . ea . . . · dimolienda curarent. (S.C. de Gn. Pisone patre 106–8 (ad 20)—NB: quam must be understood as quae)

. Question words Unless preceded by a connector or a coordinator or a pragmatically prominent word or constituent (sometimes more of them), question words are regularly placed in the first position. This applies both to question particles introducing sentence questions or indirect questions and to interrogative words introducing constituent questions.

. Interrogative particles Particles can be preceded by a coordinator (also when functioning as a connector). An example is (a). Pragmatically prominent constituents can also precede, but there are not many instances of this. In (b), the object accusative and infinitive clause precedes num. (a)

Sed num fumus est haec mulier quam amplexare? (‘But is the girl you’re embracing smoke?’ Pl. As. 619)

(b)

Sed te moneri num nevis? (‘But you don’t mind getting advice, do you?’ Pl. Poen. 1079)

(c)

Nominis inscriptio tibi num aliud videtur esse ac meorum bonorum direptio? (‘Does your posting of your name seem to you to be anything short of plundering of my property?’ Cic. Dom. 51)

(d)

Quid? Canis nonne similis lupo? (‘Why, does not a dog resemble a wolf?’ Cic. N.D. 1.97) Preceding coordinators: Aut num ipse ego pulmento utor magis / unctiusculo? (Pl. Ps. 220–1); Aut de immutatione, ut si disputetur: num interire virtus in homine aut num in vitium possit convertere? (Cic. de Orat. 3.114); De Rutilia quoniam videris dubitare, scribes ad me cum scies, sed quam primum, et num Clodia D. Bruto consulari, filio suo, mortuo vixerit. (Cic. Att. 12.22.2); Malae condiciones erant, fateor, sed num quid hoc peius? (Cic. Att. 8.3.3) Pragmatically prominent constituents: Exemplo tuo bona tua nonne L. Ninnius, vir omnium fortissimus atque optimus, consecravit? (Cic. Dom. 125); Tu contra et patris nobilitate et dignitate et per te ipse satis animi magnitudine diligentiaque praeditus nonne eniteris et proficisceris ad paternas clientelas auxilium tibi reique publicae atque optimo cuique efflagitatum? (B. Afr. 22.5) Nunc tu num nevis me, voluptas mea, / quo vocatus sum ire ad cenam? (Pl. Truc. 546–7); Quid? Talpam num desiderare lumen putas? (Cic. Luc. 81)

Constituents with more or less fixed position



. Interrogative pronouns, adjectives, adverbs, and determiners Interrogative pronouns, adjectives, adverbs, and determiners can be preceded by connectors as well as by pragmatically prominent words or constituents of the interrogative sentence or clause. This is found in all periods of Latin. Examples are (a)–(c), the first two showing constituents from subordinate clauses of various types preceding the question word; (c) shows a direct question with the topical subject in first position. NB: legiones hostium in (b) can also be taken as a pseudo-object (see § 9.17). (a)

Epidicum quis est qui revocat? (‘Who is it that’s calling back Epidicus?’ Pl. Epid. 201)

(b)

Ibi nunc meus pater / memorat legiones hostium ut fugaverit . . . (‘In there my father’s now telling how he put the enemies’ legions to flight . . .’ Pl. Am. 135–6)

(c)

Adventus meus atque introitus in urbem qui fuit? (‘My arrival at and entry into the city: what was its character?’ Cic. Dom. 75) Supplement: Sed ea huc quid intro ierit impulsu meo / accipite. (Pl. Trin. 10–11); Ego pol hodie, si vivo, tibi / ostendam erum quid sit pericli fallere et illi patrem. # Ah, ne saevi tanto opere. (Ter. An. 867–9); Repulsos videamus. Nam deteriores qui sint, post docebo. (Cic. Har. 56); Lucceius quid agat scribam ad te, cum . . . (Cic. Att. 2.1.9) Nescis quid ego acturus sim nec facinus quantum exordiar. (Pl. Bac. 722); Cognoscentur enim omnia istius aera illa vetera, ut non solum in imperio, verum etiam in stipendiis qualis fuerit intellegatis. (Cic. Ver. 5.33) Cf.: exclamatory sentence: Sed veniam mi quam gravate pater dedit de Chrysalo. (Pl. Bac. 532)

. Categories of constituents that tend to be placed after another constituent A number of categories of words have no special position in the clause, but tend to follow another word to which they are more or less closely attached. In the first three sections that follow, the words are discussed which behave as clitics but which do not as a rule form a phonetic unit with the word to which they are attached. The fourth section, in turn, deals with bound clitics, which do form a phonetic unit with the word to which they are attached.

. Indefinite determiners and pronouns The indefinite determiners qui, quae, quod (see §  11.110) and pronouns quis, qua, quid (see § 11.149) cannot be placed in the initial position of a clause or sentence. The same holds for the indefinite adverbs quando ‘at any time’, qui ‘in any way’, ubi ‘anywhere’,

 Word order and unde ‘from any place’. They are relatively rare in main clauses, but see (a), where quid follows the question particle num. In subordinate clauses they normally follow the subordinating device immediately, as in (b)–(d). For later placements, see (e) and (f). (a)

Num quid simile populus Romanus audierat aut viderat? (‘Had the Roman people ever heard of or experienced such a thing before?’ Cic. Amic. 41)

(b)

Verum irae si quae forte eveniunt huius modi / inter eos . . . (‘But if by chance any argument of this sort arises between them . . .’ Pl. Am. 941–2)

(c)

Ubi quid credideris, citius extemplo a foro / fugiunt quam . . . (‘When you entrust something to them, they immediately run away from the forum faster than . . .’ Pl. Per. 435–6)

(d)

Ponere iubebam de quo quis audire vellet. (‘I called upon my friends to put forward any subject which any of them wished to hear discussed.’ Cic. Tusc. 1.7)

(e)

Fieri autem potest ut recte quis sentiat . . . (‘Now it is possible for anyone to hold right views . . .’ Cic. Tusc. 1.6)

(f)

Quid enim interest utrum ex homine se convertat quis in beluam an . . . (‘For what difference does it make whether a man is actually transformed into a beast or whether . . .’ Cic. Off. 3.82) Supplement: . . . —fit enim plerumque ut ei qui boni quid volunt adferre adfingant aliquid . . . (Cic. Phil. 1.8); Quid autem est non miserius solum, sed foedius etiam et deformius quam aegritudine quis adflictus debilitatus iacens? (Cic. Tusc. 4.35); Mulieres vero in India, cum est cuius earum vir mortuus, in certamen iudiciumque veniunt . . . (Cic. Tusc. 5.78); Qui horum quid acerbissime crudelissimeque fecerat, is et vir et civis optimus habebatur. (Caes. Civ. 3.32.3); Si mala condiderit in quem quis carmina, ius est / iudiciumque. (Hor. S. 2.1.82–3) Existit autem hoc loco quaedam quaestio subdifficilis, num quando amici novi, digni amicitia, veteribus sint anteponendi . . . (Cic. Amic. 67); Ei rei operam dare te fuerat aliquanto aequius, / si qui probiorem facere posses . . . (Pl. Trin. 119–20); Mi, sicunde potes, erues qui decem legati Mummio fuerint. (Cic. Att. 13.30.2); . . . dispositis exploratoribus, necubi effecto ponte Romani copias traducerent . . . (Caes. Gal. 7.35.1)

. Personal pronouns and forms of the verb sum In 1892 Wackernagel published an influential article in which he argued that in the older Indo-European languages so-called enclitic words had a tendency to occur in second position in their clause (this is called ‘Wackernagel’s law’). Most of the evidence he presents is from Greek, but he quotes instances from Latin as well. This tendency is said to affect especially the particles mentioned in the preceding sections and (personal) pronouns, but other words, especially monosyllabic ones, are mentioned

Constituents with more or less fixed position



as well, including forms of the verb sum and indefinite pronouns. The words which they follow are said to be stressed, while the so-called enclitic words themselves are unstressed. A difficulty in Wackernagel’s observation is the notion of ‘enclitic words’. Some of the words mentioned in this framework show all the properties of other ‘normal’ words. Personal pronouns, for example, can be found in all positions in the clause, (bound) clitics can be attached to them, and they occur in pragmatic configurations in which they must have been stressed (for example when in contrastive opposition—see below).⁸⁹ It had been observed before Wackernagel’s article, and was also observed later, that the tendency of personal pronouns and forms of sum to follow other words is not restricted to the beginning of clauses, but that they are also found after words and phrases further on in the sentence.⁹⁰ Fraenkel (see § 23.17) has argued that the ‘enclitic words’ are regularly placed in the second position of a colon. There are, however, also many instances of clitics coming later within such units. In recent studies much attention has been paid to determining which words may serve as ‘host’ for personal pronouns and forms of the verb sum. It turns out that the hosts are often pragmatically prominent in their clause or in the constituent to which they belong. There may be more pragmatically prominent entities in one sentence or clause, which are usually placed at the beginning of their colon. The personal pronouns and the forms of sum may therefore also occur in another colon than the first, although this is less common. So, there is no mechanical rule requiring personal pronouns and forms of sum to occur in the second position of their sentence or clause. Attachment of personal pronouns and forms of the verb sum to pragmatically prominent hosts can be seen from the oldest texts onwards and it is still common in the letters of Claudius Terentianus. Recently the term preferential host has been introduced to refer to various types of constituents that are said to ‘attract’ personal pronouns and forms of the verb sum, which are as a consequence positioned immediately next to them.⁹¹ The label ‘preferential hosts’ covers at least five types of words and constituents. First of all there are words which are, on account of their meaning and function, mostly found in the initial position (for instance relative and interrogative pronouns discussed above, § 23.25 and § 23.28) and for that very reason can most of the time only be followed by other constituents. Then there are words and constituents that derive their pragmatic prominence from their context (contrastive words or phrases, for example). A third category are temporal adverbs like iam (‘at this point of time, now (as opposed to another time)’).⁹² Fourthly, there are words that are intrinsically emphatic on account ⁸⁹ Torrego (2017b: 171–3) discusses some noteworthy instances of ad me in sentence-initial position in Aug. Anc. 31–3. ⁹⁰ See, for example, K.-St.: II.593, Anm. 2. Some scholars have assumed that in Indo-European verbs in general behaved like clitics. For discussion, see Marouzeau (1938: 93–6). ⁹¹ The term is taken from Adams. For clitics and host words, see in particular Adams (1994a; 1994b) and Janse (1994; 1997), Kruschwitz (2004) for Republican inscriptions, and Spevak (2006a). ⁹² The paraphrase is taken from OLD s.v. iam § 1.

 Word order of their meaning. This category comprises demonstrative pronouns and adverbs, adjectives and adverbs of dimension (size and quantity) and value (including superlatives), intensifiers, and negatives. Note that the adjectives of dimension and value involved more often precede their head nouns than other adjectives and are often discontinuous from their head nouns (see § 23.79). The same holds for demonstrative determiners (see § 23.72). Finally, there are imperative forms, when used in the initial position (see §  23.55). Some of these preferential hosts are often found in the first position of a colon that is not the first colon of the sentence or clause. In Cic. Catil. (books 1 and 2) 86.4 per cent of accusative and dative personal pronouns (not being part of a prepositional phrase) have the second position in a colon, the large majority of which are in the first colon, and of these pronouns in second position 62 per cent follow one of the preferential hosts mentioned above. In another corpus (Cic. Catil. 1, Petr. 1–62, Apul. Met. 3–4), 50 out of 56 accusative and dative personal pronouns immediately follow the relative pronouns in their clause.⁹³

The main question to be answered is whether the order that we find (personal pronouns and forms of the verb sum following the items mentioned) has to be regarded as the outcome of one and the same rule or tendency or as the outcome of two different rules or tendencies: one in which these words follow other words that are normally restricted to an initial position (relative pronouns, for example) and one in which they are preceded by pragmatically prominent words. The assumption of this second rule or tendency is attractive since these pragmatically prominent words also precede the words that are normally restricted to the initial position, such as relative pronouns and subordinators. We find, for example, combinations with the discontinuous modifier nullus such as (a)–(d). (a)

. . . si tibi ita penitus inhaesisset ista suspicio, nullo ut evelli modo posset . . . (‘. . . should your suspicion prove to be so deeply engrained in your mind that it can by no means be eradicated . . .’ Cic. Mil. 68)

(b)

‘Hic nodus’, inquit, ‘nulla quem cepit manus, / mecum per ignes flagret.’ (‘ “Let this club,” he said, “which no hand but mine has wielded, burn in the flames with me.”’ Sen. Her. O. 1661–2)

(c)

Sed, ut supra dixi, nulla me ingenii, sed magna vis animi inflammat ut me ipse non teneam. (‘But, as I said before, it is no great intellectual gift, but a vigorous spirit which inflames me to such an extent that I am beside myself.’ Cic. Orat. 132)

(d)

Nullum est in hac urbe collegium . . . (‘There is no guild in this city . . .’ Cic. Dom. 74)

In addition, pragmatically prominent modifiers such as nullus may precede personal pronouns, but they do not have to. Sequences such as (e), where me precedes the noun ⁹³ Adams (1994a: 145; 151–5).

Constituents with more or less fixed position



phrase nulla vis, and (f), where the noun phrase nullus dolor precedes me, as well as a sequence such as (g), where me separates the noun phrase nulla res, are attested (the last order is more frequent in Cicero than the other two).⁹⁴ (e)

Quod profecto, cum me nulla vis cogeret, facere[t] non auderem . . . (‘And that, since no force compels me, is something that I obviously should not dare to do . . .’ Cic. Phil. 5.51)

(f)

Nullus dolor me angit unum omnia posse. (‘It does not give me a pang that one man absorbs all power.’ Cic. Att. 4.18.2)

(g)

A curia autem nulla me res divellet . . . (‘But nothing shall separate me from the House . . .’ Cic. Att. 1.20.3)

23.32 The position of personal pronouns The personal pronouns ego, tu, nos, and vos and the oblique forms have on account of their meaning a high degree of topicality: the referents of these words are by definition ‘known’. It follows that they are excellent candidates for an early position in the sentence or clause, including the initial position, unless there are other candidates for that position. Such candidates have been mentioned in the preceding section. Nominative forms of Latin personal pronouns are only used under well-defined pragmatic conditions (see §  9.2), but as far as their position is concerned, they are not essentially different from the oblique forms functioning as second or third argument in their clause.⁹⁵ Contrastive ego and mihi are both found in the initial position, as in (a) and (b). In (c) and (d) they are preceded by emphatic nullum and nullae, respectively (thus contributing to discontinuity of the respective noun phrases); ‘|’ = colon boundary. (a)

In id redactu’ sum loci, / ut quid agam cum illo nesciam prorsum. # Ego scio. (‘I’m reduced to such a state that I have no idea at all what to do. # I have.’ Ter. Ph. 979–80)

(b)

Sed quae ex statu contentio efficitur, eam Graeci u{tx†wpxzx appellant, mihi placet id, quoniam quidem ad te scribo, QUA DE RE AGITUR vocari. (‘The debate which arises from the issue (status) is called by the Greeks u{txĄwpxzx (the thing being decided), but I prefer to call it qua de re agitur (the question at stake) especially in writing to you.’ Cic. Top. 95)

(c)

Quibus pro tantis rebus, Quirites, | nullum ego a vobis praemium virtutis, nullum insigne honoris, nullum monumentum laudis postulabo praeterquam huius diei memoriam sempiternam. (‘In recognition of such great services, citizens, I shall demand of you no reward for my valour, no signal mark of distinction, no monument in my honour except that this day be remembered for all time.’ Cic. Catil. 3.26)

⁹⁴ In Cicero the sequences ‘me null* noun’, ‘null* noun me’ and ‘null* me noun’ have three, two, and nine instances, respectively. ⁹⁵ See Adams (1994a: 141–51; 1999a).

 Word order (d)

Nam ut Brundisio profectus es, | nullae mihi abs te sunt redditae litterae. (‘For since you left Brundisium, not a single letter from you has been delivered to me.’ Cic. Att. 1.15.2)

The actual position of personal pronouns in their clause depends on how many other constituents are candidates for the first or an early position, as well as the size of these constituents. When personal pronouns are placed in a later position in the clause, they are often, but not necessarily, second in their colon. Exx. (e)–(h) have both a thematic or topical and an emphatic constituent preceding the personal pronouns, as well as connecting words. Nulla in (e) is emphatic. Voluntatem in (f) is in contrast with rem ipsam in the following clause. Equidem in (g) is another emphatic host. In (h), tibi splits hac epistula (a case of hyperbaton); hac is in contrast with reliquis. In (i), however, after the topic ipsi Leontini there is no clear colon boundary that might explain the position of me. (e)

De triumpho autem | nulla me cupiditas umquam tenuit . . . (‘With regard to the Triumph, no desire ever took hold of me . . .’ Cic. Att. 7.2.6)

(f)

Ego autem | voluntatem tibi profecto emetiar, sed rem ipsam nondum posse videor. (‘I am prepared to make payment of goodwill in full measure, but the debt itself I do not now seem able to pay.’ Cic. Brut. 16)

(g)

In cotidianis autem commentationibus | equidem mihi adulescentulus proponere solebam illam exercitationem . . . (‘As for my daily exercises, in my youth I, for my part, would set myself that task . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 1.154)

(h)

Qua re Cuspianorum omnium commendationis causam | hac tibi epistula exponendam putavi, reliquis epistulis tantum faciam ut . . . (‘I have therefore deemed it proper in this letter to set before you the general position as regards my recommendation of Cuspius’ people. In future letters I shall simply . . .’ Cic. Fam. 13.6.2)

(i)

Meae diligentiae pensum magis in Leontino agro est exigendum propter hanc causam quod ipsi Leontini publice non sane me multum (multum me O) adiuverunt. (‘In dealing with the land of Leontini, a larger measure of earnest care must be required of me; for, I must confess, the people of Leontini have not, as a corporate body, helped me a great deal.’ Cic. Ver. 3.109)

Personal pronouns are also found in final position, when they are the focus of the sentence or clause, as in ( j) and (k). ( j)

Quem aequiu’st nos potiorem habere quam te? (‘Who would it be right for us to treat better than you?’ Pl. St. 97)

(k)

Ne optandum quidem est in amicitia, ut me ille plus quam se, ego illum plus quam me.

Constituents with more or less fixed position



(‘It is not to be desired in friendship either that my friend should love me more than himself, or I love him more than myself.’ Cic. Tusc. 3.73)

The fact that a personal pronoun is preceded by an emphatic word or is otherwise preceded by pragmatically prominent constituents need not imply that the pronoun is not itself a pragmatically prominent constituent in its clause. This becomes clear from (l) and (m). In (l), mihi (governed by pergratum and therefore immediately juxtaposed) is in contrast with Scaevolae (and probably was stressed in pronunciation). A few lines further on in the text Scaevola reacts to Fannius’ words: ‘Mihi vero erit gratum . . .’ (Cic. Amic. 16). In (m), the topic of the si clause servi mei is in contrast with omnes cives tui, and for that reason precedes the subordinator si. Me is in contrast with te. (l)

. . . pergratum mihi feceris, spero item Scaevolae, si . . . (‘. . . it would be very agreeable to me—and to Scaevola, too, I hope, if . . .’ Cic. Amic. 16)

(m)

Servi mehercule mei si me isto pacto metuerent, ut te metuunt omnes cives tui, domum meam relinquendam putarem. (‘If, by Hercules, my slaves feared me as much as all your countrymen fear you, I would think that I should get out of my house.’ Cic. Catil. 1.17) Personal pronouns are also involved in tmesis, as in (n) (see § 23.102). Per is emphatic. (n) Per mihi, per, inquam, gratum feceris . . . (‘You’ll do me a great, a very great pleasure indeed . . .’ Cic. Att. 1.20.7) The fact that personal pronouns are so often found in second position is sometimes interpreted as a sign of these pronouns being ‘enclitic’, ‘unstressed’, ‘weak’, ‘tonschwach’, etc. Scholars have also tried to relate this observation to the fact that in Modern French, for example, there is a distinction between me and moi. There is no reason to interpret the Latin data in this way.⁹⁶ Apart from the flexibility of their position, as shown above, one may point to their use in metrical texts, where they occur in the position of the ‘longa’, as in (o).⁹⁷ The use of punctuation after expressions like misi tibi in the Wâdi Fawâkhir ostraca and in the Vindolanda Tablets suggests that they were considered as units.⁹⁸ (o) Sed sine me dum hanc compellare. (‘But let me address her.’ Pl. Men. 378) As for the actual position of the oblique personal pronouns (not governed by prepositions) in their clause, in a sample from Cicero Tusc. and Att. Spevak (2006a: 270) gives the following percentages for the positions of me, mihi, te, and tibi (Table 23.1):

⁹⁶ ‘Weak’ or ‘enclitic’ use of the oblique personal pronouns prefiguring the Romance situation is notably proposed by Wanner  (1987) and Salvi  (2004). A more nuanced approach can be found in Adams (1994a; b). For a critical discussion, see Spevak (2006a). For the position of nobis and vobis, see Fraenkel (1966). ⁹⁷ For metrical considerations, see Spevak (2006a: 268–9). The fundamental study on monosyllables in verse is Hellegouarc’h (1964). ⁹⁸ Adams (1996) draws attention to the use of punctuation in the Wâdi Fawâkhir ostraca and in the Vindolanda Tablets.

 Word order Table . Position of oblique personal pronouns in their clause (percentages) 1

2

3

4

5

other

total (absolute number)

15

37

25

12

6

5

100% (326)

As for their position with respect to the finite verb, 40 per cent are immediately next to the finite verb (26 per cent preceding, 14 per cent following), 60 per cent are not contiguous. There is no reason to assume that in Cicero’s time there was a tendency for personal pronouns to be attached to the verb, as is the case in Modern French. In a number of ‘informal’ texts (the Letters of Terentianus and the Passio Perpetuae) oblique pronouns mostly follow the finite verb in main clauses and are mostly juxtaposed to it.⁹⁹

The Supplement contains a number of examples of personal pronouns, first those following words which are emphatic on account of their meaning,¹⁰⁰ then those following pragmatically prominent ones. Supplement: Demonstratives: Huius te cupiditati obsequi, sicuti ego fecissem in collega meo. (Cic. Pis. 12); Itaque istum ego locum totidem verbis a Dicaearcho transtuli. (Cic. Att. 6.2.3); Sed, ut coeperam dicere, ad hanc me fortunam frugalitas mea perduxit. (Petr. 75.10) Relatives: Cognoscite nunc id quod ad vestrum ius iurandum pertinet, quod vestri iudicii est, quod vobis oneris imposuit ea lex qua coacti huc convenistis . . . (Cic. Clu. 164); Quorum vobis pro vestra sapientia, Quirites, habenda est ratio diligenter. (Cic. Man. 17) Adjectives and adverbs of dimension (size and quantity): Iam intelleges multo me vigilare acrius ad salutem quam te ad perniciem rei publicae. (Cic. Catil. 1.8); Tantane vobis inopia videor esse amicorum, ut . . . (Cic. Div. Caec. 50); . . . ad quos omnis nobis aditus, qui paene solis patuit, obstructus est. (Cic. Brut. 16); Summum me eorum studium tenet . . . (Cic. Att. 1.11.3); Nunc ad rem ut redeam, ‘inhibere’ illud tuum, quod valde mihi adriserat, vehementer displicet. (Cic. Att. 13.21.3); bis me im mensem calcio (CEL 142.26 (Karanis, 2nd cent. ad (early))) Adjectives and adverbs of value: Sane gaudeo quod te interpellavi, quoniam quidem tam praeclarum mihi dedisti iudicii tui testimonium. (Cic. Leg. 3.1); Mirum me desiderium tenet urbis . . . (Cic. Fam. 2.11.1) Superlatives: Quae dum erit in vestris fixa mentibus, tutissimo me muro saeptum esse arbitrabor. (Cic. Catil. 4.23); In quo maximum nobis onus imposuit. (Cic. Phil. 11.19) Negatives: Ephesum ut venerim nosti, qui etiam mihi gratulatus es illius diei celebritatem, qua nihil me umquam delectavit magis. (Cic. Att. 5.20.1); . . . hoc existimans, neminem te tui amantiorem habere. (Cic. Fam. 5.10b) Pragmatically prominent pronouns: Te ego ulciscar, te ego ut digna es perdam atque ut de me meres. (Pl. As. 148); Ut meque teque maxume atque ingenio nostro decuit. (Pl. As. 577); Numquam hercle iterum defrudabis me quidem post hunc diem. ⁹⁹ For details, see Adams (2016: 324–46). ¹⁰⁰ Most of the examples are taken from Adams (1994a). For the various contexts in which ‘weak’ pronouns occur, see Devine and Stephens (2006: 277–312). For Petronius, see Janse and de Melo (2013).

Constituents with more or less fixed position



(Pl. Rud. 1416); In quo ego accusatore, iudices, primum illud deprecabor ne quid L. Murenae dignitas illius . . . noceat . . . (Cic. Mur. 58—contrast with illius?); Quid fit? Quamquam non debebam ego abs te has litteras poscere. Me enim tabulas tuas habere et proferre oportebat. (Cic. Ver. 4.36) Sz.: 400 discusses instances of ‘clustering’¹⁰¹ of pronouns in the initial part of a clause, as in (p) and (q), which he regards as a trace of Indo-European. Such cases seem to be rather a specific pragmatic constellation than a rule-governed form of clustering. (p) Verum hoc ego te multabo bolo: / sex talenta magna dotis demam . . . (‘But I’ll punish you with this fine: I’ll deduct six great talents from your dowry . . .’ Pl. Truc. 844–5) (q) Sed erile scelus me sollicitat, eius me impietas male habet. (‘But it’s my master’s crime that’s troubling me, it’s his wickedness that’s distressing me.’ Pl. Rud. 198)

23.33 The position of forms of the verb sum Forms of the verb sum ‘to be’, especially the monosyllabic second and third person forms es and est and the infinitive esse, are often found in the ‘shadow’ of constituents with a more prominent (pragmatic) role in the clause. The examples cited below follow the order of the ‘preferential hosts’ mentioned in § 23.31. In (a), est follows the anaphorically used determiner huius. As a result the noun phrase huius urbis, which contrasts with Atticorum in the parallel clause, is separated (a case of hyperbaton, as several below). In (b), esse follows the relative pronoun. The placement of forms of sum immediately after the relative pronoun is particularly common.¹⁰² In (c), the adjective liberorum, which is in contrast with foederatorum, precedes est. In (d), contrast is implied. In (e), est follows the discourse topic of the entire work. In (f), the adjective of dimension ingentem precedes esse. In (g), a degree modifier precedes est. In (h), the intensifying prefix per precedes fore, causing tmesis (on which, see § 23.102).¹⁰³ (a)

(sc. suavitas) Quae quidem ut apud Graecos Atticorum, sic in Latino sermone huius est urbis maxime propria. (‘A merit which as among the Greeks it is peculiar to Attica so in Latin speech is specially the attribute of this city.’ Cic. de Orat. 3.42)

(b)

Esse etiam debent in re publica proxime hos cari qui studiorum tuorum sunt aemuli, quorum esse cupio tibi copiam. (‘Next to them in your affections should stand those who emulate your patriotic ideals. I wish you to have many such.’ Cas. Fam. 12.13.2)

(c)

. . . quod commune liberorum est populorum, non proprium foederatorum . . . (‘. . . a principle which applied to free peoples and was not restricted to those bound to us by treaty . . .’ Cic. Balb. 27)

¹⁰¹ ‘Paarweise Zusammenordnung’. ¹⁰² See Adams (1994b: 44–53). ¹⁰³ For full discussion, see Adams (1994b). Most of the examples are taken from this study.

 Word order (d)

Catilina, si iudicatum erit meridie non lucere, certus erit competitor. (‘If Catiline’s jury finds that the sun doesn’t shine at midday, he will certainly be a candidate.’ Cic. Att. 1.1.1)

(e)

Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres . . . (‘The whole territory of Gaul is divided into three parts . . .’ Caes. Gal. 1.1.1)

(f)

Dici gladiorum ingentem esse numerum ad eum convectum. (‘It was said that a great quantity of swords had been carried to him.’ Liv. 1.51.6)

(g)

. . . patria, quae mihi vita mea multo est carior . . . (‘. . . my country, which means much more to me than my own life . . .’ Cic. Catil. 1.27)

(h)

. . . per fore accommodatum tibi si ad Sidam [maritimam partem provinciae] navibus accessissem. (‘. . . that it would therefore be very much to your convenience if I made my approach by sea and landed at Side.’ Cic. Fam. 3.5.3) Supplement: Demonstratives: . . . iam non possum oblivisci meam hanc esse patriam, me horum esse consulem . . . (Cic. Catil. 2.27); Cum ille is sit orator ut nihil eo possit esse praestantius, ego autem . . . (Cic. de Orat. 3.32); Populi Romani hanc esse consuetudinem ut . . . (Caes. Gal. 1.43.8) Relatives: . . . positum caput illud fuit a quo erant multorum civium capita servata. (Cic. de Orat. 3.10); Ad alteram partem succedunt Ubii, quorum fuit civitas ampla atque florens, ut est captus Germanorum. (Caes. Gal. 4.3.3) Adjectives and adverbs of dimension (size and quantity): . . . qui si diutius vixissent, magnam essent eloquentiae laudem consecuti. (Cic. Brut. 279); Quae si longior fuerit oratio cum magnitudine utilitatis comparetur. (Cic. Off. 2.20); Quintus frater cum . . . Athenas venisset Id. Mai., valde fuit ei properandum . . . (Cic. Att. 3.9.1); Omnium esse militum paratissimos animos. (Caes. Civ. 1.71.2); Ex his omnibus longe sunt humanissimi qui Cantium incolunt . . . (Caes. Gal. 5.14.1); Inter quos magna fuit contentio, utrum moenibus defenderent an . . . (Nep. Milt. 4.4) Adjectives and adverbs of value: Tanta malorum est multitudo civium (malorum civium est multitudo H) ut tibi ego hoc confirmem . . . (Cic. de Orat. 2.269) Superlatives: M. Crassus . . . ab eadem illa peste infestissimus esse meis fortunis praedicabatur. (Cic. Sest. 39); . . . cum saepissime tibi senatus breviter impoliteque dicenti maximis sit de rebus adsensus. (Cic. de Orat. 1.214); . . . qua optimum esse egressum superiore aestate cognoverat. (Caes. Gal. 5.8.3); Summo esse in periculo rem . . . (Caes. Gal. 7.32.3) Negatives: Non est enim consilium in volgo, non ratio . . . (Cic. Planc. 9); Quia nihil est victoria dulcius, nullum est autem testimonium victoriae certius quam . . . (Cic. Ver. 5.66); Mearum epistularum nulla est }xlnƒni. (Cic. Att. 16.5.5)

Forms of the verb sum are often regarded as clitic, especially the forms es and est.¹⁰⁴ However, all forms of sum in its three different functions of existential (incl. locative) verb, copula, and auxiliary are found both in sentence-initial position and in final ¹⁰⁴ Forms of the fu-stem behave differently from those of the es-stem (Adams 1994b: 46f.).

Constituents with more or less fixed position



position. Bound clitics are attached to them. They are followed by connectors like autem and igitur, as is illustrated by a few periphrastic expressions with auxiliary est in (i)–(l). They also behave as independent units in verse, as demonstrated by (m). These are all clear proofs that these forms are not clitic. (i)

Undeviginti annos natus erat eo tempore. Est autem L. Paullo C. Marcello consulibus mortuus. (‘He was then only nineteen years of age. His death occurred in the consulship of Lucius Paullus and Gaius Marcellus.’ Cic. Brut. 229)

( j)

Nihil est damni factum novi, sed quod erat inventum est. (‘No fresh harm has been done, but harm already there has come to light.’ Cic. Att. 1.16.9)

(k)

Estque in ea quaedam paulo subtilior observatio adhibenda. (‘And so a somewhat closer consideration may be given to the matter.’ Cels. 1.3.18)

(l)

Quid est autem umquam questus nisi cum a sociis et a se iniuriam propulsaret? (‘And when did he ever raise his voice in protest, save to protect himself and his partners from wrong?’ Cic. Planc. 34)

(m)

Quidquid id est, timeo Danaos et dona ferentis. (‘Whatever it be, I fear the Greeks, even when bringing gifts.’ Verg. A. 2.49)

On the other hand, the close attachment of the forms est and es to a preceding word is apparent from their contraction (or: prodelision) after participles and subject complements ending in a vowel, -m, or -s—that is, when sum is an auxiliary verb or a copula—especially at the end of a clause. This is particularly common in poetry but also frequent in prose. It is also found in inscriptions. Illustrations are (n), following a vowel, (o), following a final -m, and (p), after a final -s.¹⁰⁵ (n)

. . . raptusque · a · fatis · conditus · hoc · tumulo’st (‘. . . and snatched away by Fate he’s buried in this grave.’ CIL XII.882.6 (Arles, 1st cent. ad))

(o)

. . . et certa ratione probatum’st. (‘. . . and proved by irrefutable reasoning.’ Lucr. 2.94)

(p)

Usus, fructus, victus, cultus iam mihi harunc aedium / interemptu’st, interfectu’st, alienatu’st. Occidi! (‘The ability to use, enjoy, live in, and inhabit this house is now taken away from me, ruined, removed. I’m done for!’ Pl. Mer. 832–3)

¹⁰⁵ The examples are taken from Allen  (1973: 148–9). For poetry, see Soubiran  (1966); for Caesar, Vogel  (1938: 10). For the clitic characteristics of sum in general, see Adams  (1994b: 86–8) and Spevak (2006a: 261–5). The fullest account of the evidence for contraction can be found in Pezzini (2015: 27–97), where a full discussion of the factors involved can be found as well.

 Word order

. Emphasizing particles Emphasizing particles often follow the constituent they have in their scope. Here it will suffice to give a few illustrations of quidem and quoque, for both of which this position is the rule. For the other particles, see the relevant sections in Chapter 22. The particle quidem (see § 22.26) normally follows the constituent it has in its scope, whatever the position of that constituent, as in (a) and (b). If the constituent in its scope is a noun phrase, quidem follows the first word of the phrase and so causes discontinuity, as in (c)—repeated from §  22.20. Here, quidem marks the contrast between the entire noun phrase vestros . . . animos and oratione nostra and humanitate vestra.¹⁰⁶ (a)

Loquacitati . . . quae . . . me levat ad te quidem scribentem . . . (‘Garrulity . . . which relieves me, writing to you . . .’ Cic. Att. 7.13.4)

(b)

Venisti Brundisium, in sinum quidem et in complexum tuae mimulae. (‘You arrived in Brundisium, into the bosom and arms, that is to say, of your little mime actress.’ Cic. Phil. 2.61)

(c)

Sed si certorum hominum mentis nulla ratione, iudices, placare possumus, vestros quidem animos certe confidimus non oratione nostra, sed humanitate vestra esse placatos. (‘But if, gentlemen, there are no means by which we can appease the feelings of certain men, I am fully confident that your minds have been appeased, not by words of mine but by your own human feelings.’ Cic. Balb. 62)

When quidem is less evidently emphasizing a particular constituent it often is attracted to demonstrative or relative pronouns, as in (d). (d)

Verbis non ille quidem ornatis utebatur, sed . . . (‘His vocabulary was not elaborate, but. . .’ Cic. Brut. 227)

The scalar negator ne . . . quidem usually surrounds the constituent it has in its scope, but subordinators and relative pronouns are sometimes included as well, as in (e). If the constituent is a noun phrase only the first word of the phrase is surrounded by ne . . . quidem, as in (f). See also § 8.3 fin. and § 8.14.¹⁰⁷ (e)

In qua curia statua tua stabat et nuda filii, in ea nemo fuit ne quem nudus quidem filius nudata provincia commoveret. (‘There in the senate-house stood your statue and the naked figure of your son; and there was no one in that senate-house who was moved even by your naked son, in that province that was itself stripped naked.’ Cic. Ver. 4.143)

¹⁰⁶ See Spevak (2010a: 52–3), from which ex. (f) is taken. For the clitic use of quidem, see Questa (2007: 153–61). ¹⁰⁷ For the ordering patterns of ne . . . quidem, see Devine and Stephens (2006: 266–72), Spevak (2010a: 53), and TLL s.v. ne (. . . quidem) 331.67ff.

Constituents with more or less fixed position (f)



Ne eo quidem tempore quisquam loco cessit . . . (‘Not even then did any man yield his ground . . .’ Caes. Gal. 7.62.7)

The additive particle quoque (see §§ 22.21–2) usually follows the constituent it has in its scope, or an emphasized part of it, as in (g), but sometimes it is inserted in a phrase without emphasizing only the preceding word, as in (h). In (i), a poetic text, contrastive te is placed before the subordinator si although it is in the scope of quoque.¹⁰⁸ (g)

Tametsi . . . scio . . . quam omnibus peregrinantibus gratum sit minimarum quoque rerum quae domi gerantur fieri certiores. (‘However, I know how . . . much everybody abroad likes to be told of even the most trifling happenings at home.’ Cael. Fam. 8.1.1)

(h)

. . . non solum hortabor ut elaboret sed etiam, si vir quoque bonus mihi videbitur esse, obsecrabo. (‘I shall not merely encourage him to work out his purpose but, provided that I also think his character sound, I shall positively implore him to do so.’ Cic. de Orat. 2.85)

(i)

A, ego non aliter tristes evincere morbos / optarim quam te si quoque velle putem. (‘Ah, I would not pray to triumph over the drear disease if I thought not that thou wouldst wish it too.’ [Tib.] 3.17(4.11).3–4)

. Bound clitics Bound clitics form a phonetic unit with the host to which they are attached. The combination functions as one word as far as accentuation is concerned. 23.36 The position of the coordinators -que and -ve The coordinating clitics -que and -ve are usually attached to the first word of the second or later conjoin. Examples are (a)–(f). In (b) and (c) -que splits up the constituents regi Thebano Creoni and summam inopiam, as does -ve in (e) with quam insaniam and in (f) with numen divinum. (a)

Nunc quoius iussu venio et quam ob rem venerim, / dicam simulque ipse eloquar nomen meum. (‘And now I’ll tell you on whose command and for what reason I’ve come, and at the same time I’ll tell you my name.’ Pl. Am. 17–18)

(b)

. . . regique Thebano Creoni regnum stabilivit suom. (‘. . . and he has secured the kingship for the Theban king, Creon.’ Pl. Am. 194)

(c)

Difficultatem annonae summamque inopiam rei frumentariae . . . nemo negat. (‘The oppressive prices of grain and the great scarcity of provisions . . . are denied by none.’ Cic. Dom. 12)

¹⁰⁸ For this example and parallels, see Tränkle ad loc. For the ordering patterns of quoque, see Devine and Stephens (2006: 265–6).

 Word order (d)

Videti’n viginti minae quid pollent quidve possunt? (‘Can you see what power and what might twenty minas has?’ Pl. As. 636)

(e)

Noenum mecastor quid ego ero dicam meo / malae rei evenisse quamve insaniam / queo comminisci. (‘I simply cannot imagine what misfortune or what madness I should say has come over my master.’ Pl. Aul. 67–9)

(f)

. . . nisi qui nullam vim esse ducit numenve divinum . . . (‘. . . unless there be any who thinks that there is no such thing as divine power and control . . .’ Cic. Mil. 83)

The coordinating clitics -que and -ve are not attached to connectors, interactional particles, or interrogative particles, nor to the negator non, but they are found with all other word classes. They are usually not attached to monosyllabic adverbs like iam, tam, and quam, but to another word of the constituent to which these monosyllables belong, as in (g)–(i). Attachment of these clitics to the monosyllabic prepositions is rare and for some not attested at all (see Table 23.2). Examples are ( j) and (k). Examples of attachment of -que to other words of a conjoin are (l)–(o). Very rare is (p).¹⁰⁹ For the position of -que, see also § 19.25 fin. Table . Use of the coordinators -que and -ve with a number of prepositions (in the PHI corpus) a

ab a

ob

sub

ad

in

-que

9







4

>300

-ve







1



1

a b c

de b

apud

sine

contra

trans

205



5

72

9

5





1



c

Only Virgil (once) and Ovid. Especially in poetry (and often in Ovid). Many in Gellius.

(g)

Ut iam liceat una comprehensione omnia complecti non dubitantemque dicere omnem naturam esse servatricem sui . . . (‘So that finally we may embrace all animate existence in one broad generalization, and without hesitation say, that all nature is self-preserving . . .’ Cic. Fin. 5.26)

(h)

In hoc igitur tanto tam immensoque campo cum liceat oratori vagari libere . . . (‘Consequently as the orator has the liberty to roam freely in so wide and so measureless a field . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 3.124)

(i)

Fac, mi frater, ut valeas quam primumque venias. (‘Be sure to keep well, my dear brother, and come as soon as you can.’ Cic. Q. fr. 2.6.4)

( j)

Is . . . Cumas contulisse se dicitur inque ea urbe senio et aegritudine esse confectus. ¹⁰⁹ For Lucretius, see Deufert (2018: 349–50).

Constituents with more or less fixed position



(‘He . . . withdrew, we are told, to Cumae and in that city was brought to the grave by old age and distress of mind.’ Cic. Tusc. 3.27)

(k)

. . . unum illud spectavi, quod Chrysogonus aiebat . . . de bonorum emptione deque ea societate neminem esse qui verbum facere auderet hoc tempore. (‘. . . my only consideration has been the assertion of Chrysogonus that . . . no one in times like these would dare to utter a word about the purchase of the goods and about this partnership.’ Cic. S. Rosc. 58)

(l)

Rerum est silva magna, quam cum Graeci iam non tenerent ob eamque causam iuventus nostra dedisceret paene discendo, etiam Latini, si diis placet, hoc biennio magistri exstiterunt. (‘There is a large stock of ideas, which were no longer kept to themselves by the Greeks and which, for this reason, our young students virtually unlearned in the process of learning them, so that in the last two years there actually arose, heaven help us! Latin professors of rhetoric.’ Cic. de Orat. 3.93)

(m)

Scripserat etiam Messalla  Q.  Salasso  P.  Curtium . . . interfectum, quod consensisset . . . eum comprehendere ad Caesaremque deducere. (‘Messalla too has written to Q. Salassus that P. Curtius . . . has been executed, because he conspired . . . to seize him (sc. Pompey) and hand him over to Caesar.’ Cic. Fam. 6.18.2)

(n)

. . . summam fuisse eius in victu temperantiam in rebusque gerundis virum acrem et industrium . . . (‘. . . that this man was exceedingly temperate in his way of life and in conducting affairs showed untiring energy . . .’ Cic. Tusc. 5.57)

(o)

. . . si . . . pluris esse contendat dulcedinem corporis ex eave natam laetitiam quam gravitatem animi atque constantiam. (‘. . . if she . . . maintained that bodily enjoyment or the mental gratification which springs from it is of higher value than firmness and dignity of character.’ Cic. Fin. 3.1)

(p)

. . . primordia ferri / in vacuum prolapsa cadunt coniuncta, fit utque / anulus ipse sequatur eatque ita corpore toto. (‘. . . first-beginnings of the iron start forward and fall into the void, all joined together, and it comes to pass that the ring itself follows and advances in this way with its whole body.’ Lucr. 6.1005–7) Supplement: Instances of -que immediately following monosyllabic adverbs: Qui facinus tantum tamque indignum feceris? (Pl. Mil. 498); Neque tu eras tam excors tamque demens ut . . . (Cic. Dom. 48); Est autem fidei pietatisque nostrae declarare fortissimis militibus quam memores simus quamque grati. (Cic. Phil. 14.29) Instances of -que and -ve attached to monosyllabic and polysyllabic prepositions (in alphabetical order by preposition): . . . aque Chao densos divom numerabat amores. (Verg. G. 4.347); Marius ostio Liris evehitur adque Aenariam suos continuatur. (Sis. hist. 125=131C); Sex. Pompeius et Sex. Ap

uleius consules primi in verba Tiberii

 Word order Caesaris iuravere, apudque eos Seius Strabo et C. Turranius, ille praetoriarum cohortium praefectus, hic annonae; mox senatus milesque et populus. (Tac. Ann. 1.7.2); Periphanem, per omnem urbem quem sum defessus quaerere. / . . . per myropolia et lanienas circumque argentarias. (Pl. Epid. 197–9); Ac si quando erit narrandum, ne illa, quae suspicionem et crimen efficient contraque nos erunt, acriter persequamur, et quicquid potuerit, detrahamus. (Cic. de Orat. 2.330); Nam iam Antiphonem conveni affinem meum / cumque eo reveni ex inimicitia in gratiam. (Pl. St. 408–9); Si quam legem de actis Caesaris confirmandis deve dictatura in perpetuum tollenda deve coloniis in agros deducendis tulisse M. Antonius dicitur, easdem leges de integro ut populum teneant salvis auspiciis ferri placet. (Cic. Phil. 5.10); . . . inque tanta libertate canes etiam et equi, aselli denique libere [sint] sic incurrant ut iis de via decedendum sit. (Cic. Rep. 1.67); ‘Qui ab A. Postumio Q. Fulvio censoribus postve ea testamentum fecit fecerit.’ (Cic. Ver. 1.106); Multa autem impendere videntur praeter naturam etiam praeterque fatum. (Cic. Phil. 1.10); Non pedibus termento fuit, praeut ego erum expugnabo meum / sine classe sineque exercitu et tanto numero militum. (Pl. Bac. 929–30); . . . castra plena omnis fortunae publicae privataeque relinquit transque proximos montes laeva pedites instructos condit, dextra equites . . . (Liv. 22.41.6–7) Instances of -que and -ve attached to another word belonging to a prepositional phrase (in alphabetical order by preposition): Ac si restituor, etiam minus videbimur deliquisse abs teque certe, quoniam nullo nostro, tuo ipsius beneficio diligemur. (Cic. Att. 3.15.4); . . . quod consensisset cum Hispanis quibusdam . . . eum comprehendere ad Caesaremque deducere. (Cic. Fam. 16.18.2); Deinde effundas repente ut ante consessum meorum iudicum videam quam potuerim qui essent futuri suspicari, apud eosque me . . . cogas causam de fortunis omnibus dicere? (Cic. Planc. 40); Explorato cum firmisque praesidiis tuto receptu praedatum ierat . . . (Liv. 23.43.7); Itaque illi Syracusani statuam postea statuerunt, et is ut primum potuit, istum reliquit de provinciaque decessit. (Cic. Ver. 2.48); . . . eodem sub tegmine caeli / ex unoque sitim sedantes flumine aquai / dissimili vivont specie . . . (Lucr. 2.632–4); In eodemque omnes mihi videntur ludo doctae ad malitiam. (Ter. Hec. 203); Post paucosque dies . . . exercitus Thermopylas reductus . . . (Liv. 36.21.3); Nam cum suspicimus magni caelestia mundi / templa super stellisque micantibus aethera fixum . . . (Lucr. 5.1204–5)

-Que and -ve are usually attached not to the auxiliary part of a complex verb form, but to the lexical part. Examples are (q) and (r). Instances with the clitics attached to the auxiliary are (s)–(v). (q)

Iam vero venae et arteriae micare non desinunt . . . animadversumque saepe est cum cor animantis alicuius evolsum ita mobiliter palpitaret ut . . . (‘Again, the veins and arteries never cease throbbing . . . and frequent cases have been observed when the heart of an animal on being torn out of its body has continued to beat with a rapid motion . . .’ Cic. N.D. 2.24)

(r)

(sc. Caesar) . . . contionem apud milites habuit hortatusque est ne ea quae accidissent graviter ferrent . . . (‘Caesar . . . addressed his soldiers and urged them not to be troubled by what had happened . . .’ Caes. Civ. 3.73.2)

Constituents with more or less fixed position (s)



(sc. Karthaginem) Ad quam tu oppugnandam nunc venis paene miles, hanc hoc biennio consul evertes, eritque cognomen id tibi per te partum quod habes adhuc hereditarium a nobis. (‘Carthage, that city to which you now come to lay siege, with a rank little above that of a common soldier, within two years you as consul shall overthrow it and you will win by your own efforts the surname which till now you have as an inheritance from me.’ Cic. Rep. 6.11)

(t)

Estque in ea quaedam paulo subtilior observatio adhibenda. (‘And so a somewhat closer consideration may be given to the matter.’ Cels. 1.3.18)

(u)

Et mihi siquis erat ducendi carminis usus, / deficit, estque minor factus inerte situ. (‘For me, too, whatever skill I had in shaping song is failing and is diminished by inactive sloth.’ Ov. Pont. 1.5.7–8)

(v)

Et quidem, si tibi constare vis, omnes quicumque nati sunt eruntve non solum miseri, sed etiam semper miseri. (‘And in fact, if you wish to be consistent, everyone who has been born or will be born is not only wretched but will always be wretched as well.’ Cic. Tusc. 1.9)

23.37 The position of the interrogative particle -ne The interrogative particle -ne is regularly attached to the first word of the sentence or clause to emphasize it (see §  22.19 (iii)). An example is (a). In (b), it is used in an exclamation. It can (in Cicero in 10–15 per cent of cases)¹¹⁰ also be attached to a pragmatically prominent host word later in the sentence or clause, as in (c) and (d). In (d), one is tempted to pause after the colon de reliquis rei publicae malis, which may be regarded as a theme constituent. Then, obviously, -ne is in its regular post-initial position. Other conditions under which the host word to which -ne is attached is not the first word in its sentence or clause are when the sentence starts with a connector (e) or a setting constituent, such as the ablative absolute clause in (f). (a)

Egone istuc dixi? # Tute istic, etiam adstante hoc Sosia. (‘Did I tell you this? # Yes, you were there and Sosia here was standing right next to you.’ Pl. Am. 747)

(b)

Huncine hominem, hancine inpudentiam iudices, hanc audaciam! (‘Look at this fellow, look at this unscrupulous impudence, gentlemen, this audacity!’ Cic. Ver. 5.62)

(c)

Ai’n tu tandem? Is ipsusne’s? # Aio. (‘Do you really say so? Are you the one yourself? # Yes.’ Pl. Trin. 987)

(d)

Quid? De reliquis rei publicae malis licetne dicere? (‘What then? Is it permitted to speak of the other public ills?’ Cic. Phil. 1.14) ¹¹⁰ See Spevak (2006a: 253).

 Word order (e)

Facio, inquit, equidem, sed audistine modo de Carneade? (‘I do so, he replied, but have you heard any lectures on Carneades lately?’ Cic. Fin. 5.6)

(f)

Hac lege sublata videnturne vobis posse Caesaris acta servari? (‘When this law is abolished, does it seem possible to you that Caesar’s acts be maintained?’ Cic. Phil. 1.19) Supplement: Argenti viginti minas habesne? (Pl. As. 579); Utrum ego istuc iocon’ assimulem an serio? (Pl. Bac. 75);¹¹¹ Utrum igitur tandem perspicuisne dubia aperiuntur, an dubiis perspicua tolluntur? (Cic. Fin. 4.67); Quid? Liberalitas, gratuitane est an mercennaria? (Cic. Leg. 1.48); Lege autem carens civitas estne ob ipsum habenda nullo loco? (Cic. Leg. 2.12); Romanos in illis ulterioribus munitionibus animine causa cotidie exerceri putatis? (Caes. Gal. 7.77.10); Ornabat niveas nullane gemma manus? (Prop. 3.6.12)

The particle -ne is not attached to connectors (understandably) and almost never to prepositions. It is attached to another word of the prepositional phrase instead, as in (g) and (h). Ex. (i) is a very rare exception. (g)

Extra ordinemne pecunia est data? (‘Was any money paid irregularly?’ Cic. Font. 4)

(h)

. . . et ignoras Domitius cum fascibusne sit. (‘. . . and you don’t know whether Domitius has the fasces with him.’ Cic. Att. 8.15.1)

(i)

‘Contrane lucrum nil valere candidum / pauperis ingenium?’ querebar adplorans tibi . . . (‘I made my complaints, lamenting to you, “Has the fairest genius of a poor man no weight against wealthy lucre?”’ Hor. Epod. 11.11–12—tr. Smart) Supplement: Quid ego? Sub gemman’ abstrusos habeo tuam matrem et patrem? (Pl. Cur. 606); Sed ea, quae dixi, ad corpusne refers? (Cic. Fin. 2.107); Primum in nostrane potestate est, quid meminerimus? (Cic. Fin. 2.104); In meane potestate ut sit spectrum tuum, ut, simul ac mihi collibitum sit de te cogitare, illud occurrat? (Cic. Fam. 15.16.2); In quo quaesitum est in totone circumitu illo orationis . . . an in principiis solum an in extremis an in utraque parte numerus tenendus sit. (Cic. Orat. 204); . . . omnia sub verbone creat natura paratque? (Lucr. 4.785); Contrane institutum fiebat antiquae disciplinae tam probabile? (Gel. 1.11.9)

. The position of negation adverbs The position of the negation adverbs non and haud is discussed in § 8.49. In finite sentences the regular position of non as a sentence negator is in front of the finite verb ¹¹¹ Data on the position of -ne in Plautus can be found in Lodge s.v. 123B.

Word order in declarative sentences  and instances of intervening constituents are rare, except in the circumstances described in § 8.49. Examples are (a) and (b).¹¹² (a)

Corbulo cum suis copiis apud ripam Euphratis obvius non eam speciem insignium et armorum praetulit ut diversitatem exprobraret. (‘Corbulo with his own forces, encountering them on the bank of the Euphrates, did not make such a display of insignia and arms as to reproach the others for their dissimilarity.’ Tac. Ann. 15.16.4)

(b)

Sed non Tiberius omisit incepta. (‘But Tiberius did not abandon his undertaking.’ Tac. Ann. 6.32.3—tr. Woodman)

. The relative position of arguments, satellites, secondary predicates, and (finite) verbs Studies in which attention is paid to the relative order of arguments, satellites, secondary predicates, and verbs within a sentence or clause are relatively recent (and in none of them are satellites and secondary predicates systematically included). Most older studies (and also more recent ones) concentrate on the first and last position of sentences and clauses and the type of constituents or words in these positions, with particular attention to the finite verb (from Roman times onwards, see § 23.2).¹¹³ This line of approach is taken up later on in this chapter also. At a later stage scholars looked at the relative order of object constituents and the (finite) verbs that govern them. One stimulus for this approach was the interest in the difference between the order of these constituents in Latin and in certain Romance languages.¹¹⁴ Scholars who concentrate on the relative order of arguments and verbs are confronted with a number of methodological problems, some of which are discussed in § 23.1.¹¹⁵ In addition, there are two other issues to be solved: (i)

(ii)

What precisely is meant by ‘sentence or clause’, as it is vaguely described above? Some studies look at the relative order in sentences that are neither complex nor compound (for these terms, see § 2.2) and in main clauses of complex sentences, leaving subordinate clauses and complex sentences out of account;¹¹⁶ others use any sequences of verbs and their arguments.¹¹⁷ How much attention is paid to the individual characteristics of the verbs in these sentences or clauses, in terms of their valency and lexical meaning?

¹¹² Taken from Danckaert (2012: 13). ¹¹³ So, for example, K.-St.: II.597–603. They also look at the ‘intermediate’ positions. For the position of the verb, see Linde (1923). For the position of the verb in Apuleius’ Met., see Bortolussi (2019). ¹¹⁴ For example, Richter (1903). In recent times Adams has paid much attention to the order OV/VO in a number of publications, among them (2016). See § 23.104. ¹¹⁵ Relative order of arguments and verbs plays an important role in studies by Pinkster  (1991b), Cabrillana (1999b), Devine and Stephens (2006), Spevak (2010a), Hoffmann (2010b), and others. ¹¹⁶ So, for example, Spevak (2010a). ¹¹⁷ So, to some extent, Devine and Stephens (2006).

 Word order Some studies are very detailed,¹¹⁸ while others limit themselves to two-place verbs without further specifics or more or less ignore valency.¹¹⁹ Whatever position one takes on these issues, refining the analysis along those lines results in a decrease of the number of comparable cases due to the fact that the number of available texts and corpora is limited. Thus, if in a study on the arguments of threeplace verbs one wants to pay attention to the valency and the semantics of the verb mitto ‘to send’ and one selects sequences containing ad te/tibi, litteras, and misi, there appear to be only thirty-one of them in Cicero’s Letters to Atticus, with seven different orderings.¹²⁰ Generalizations based on such small numbers are difficult to make. As far as issue (i) is concerned, this Syntax will add a slightly different approach in using the term ‘simple sentence’. Following the distinctions between a ‘sentence’ (‘a complete unit of communication’) and a ‘clause’ (‘a complete grammatical structure’) (see § 2.3) and between ‘simple clauses’ and ‘combined clauses’ (see § 2.2 and §  14.1), the term simple sentence is used for ‘a complete unit of communication without subordinate clauses of whatever sort’. Examples of simple sentences, all of which are declarative, are (a)–(f), of which (a)–(c) follow each other immediately in the text.¹²¹ In the second sentence of (a), two arguments of imperat are understood from the context (they are given topics); the order of the explicit constituents is A2 V (or, in syntactic terms, O V); milites is (completive) focus. Not much of interest can be said about (b) in terms of word order. In (c), the sentence starts with a setting constituent (interea). The order of the other constituents is A1 A2 V (or: S O V) (for further discussion of this example, see § 23.42). In (d), the order of the second sentence is V A1 A2 (or: V S O) ^ (satellite), the latter probably being focus (in contrast with ex litteris). In (e), the anaphoric adverb sic serves as a manner ^. The sentence continues with another ^ (three asyndetically coordinated cause adjuncts—see § 10.79), the A1 plerique, a P (in fact, three coordinated secondary predicates), the A2 and the V (^ A1 P A2 V, or: ^ S P O V). The passive sentence in (f) presents all-new information. The order A1 V (or: S V) can be explained as the natural outcome of starting with a generally known concept. Permiscentur is focus.¹²² (a)

(. . . ad eum legati veniunt quaeque imperaverit se cupidissime facturos pollicentur.) Milites (sc. A1 Caesar; sc. A3 eis) imperat. (‘(. . . representatives (from Cingulum) came to him and promised to do his bidding with great eagerness.) He requisitioned soldiers.’ Caes. Civ. 1.15.2–3)

(b)

Mittunt (sc. A1 Cingulani; sc. A2 milites). (‘They sent them.’ Caes. Civ. 1.15.3)

¹¹⁸ So, for example, Devine and Stephens (2006) and Spevak (2010a). ¹¹⁹ So, for example, LSS § 9.3.2.4 and Hoffmann (2010a). ¹²⁰ See Spevak (2010a: 138–41). For his study of an extended corpus on the relative order of subject, object, and verb Hoffmann (2010a) could collect only 474 sequences. Panhuis (1982: Ch. 6) studies fiftyseven occurrences of the verbs mitto and dimitto in Caesar’s de bello Gallico. ¹²¹ A = argument; A1 = first argument; A2 = second argument; A3 = third argument; V = (finite) verb; ^ = satellite; P = secondary predicate; S = subject; O = object. ¹²² I follow the punctuation of Damon’s OCT (on which see the Preface to the edition, p. lxiii).

Word order in declarative sentences  (c)

Interea legio XII Caesarem consequitur. (‘Meanwhile the twelfth legion reached Caesar.’ Caes. Civ. 1.15.3)

(d)

Ut vero ex litteris (sc. Caesaris) ad senatum referretur impetrari (sc. a consulibus) non potuit. Referunt consules de re publica infinite. (‘Consent could not be obtained (sc. from the consuls) for a motion on the letter’s content. The consul’s motion initiated a general debate about public affairs.’ Caes. Civ. 1.1.1)

(e)

Sic vocibus consulis, terrore praesentis exercitus, minis amicorum Pompei plerique compulsi inviti et coacti Scipionis sententiam sequuntur. (‘Thus, due to the consul’s language, fear of the nearby army, and threats from Pompey’s friends, the majority—under compulsion, unwilling, and coerced—backed Scipio’s proposal.’ Caes. Civ. 1.2.6)

(f)

Omnia divina humanaque iura permiscentur. (‘All rights, divine and human, were thrown into confusion.’ Caes. Civ. 1.6.8)

As these examples show, there is great variation in the number of constituents, in both their explicit presence in the text and in their internal complexity. Table 23.3 contains some data concerning 100 simple declarative sentences in a number of texts, a tiny minority in comparison with the other sentential and clausal structures of these texts. These sentences contain on the average two to two and a half constituents alongside the finite verb, including one or more satellites, depending on the type of text. In addition, some contain connectors and other elements without a clausal status. In some texts, the V is absent in a number of sentences. All orders of constituents occur, with V most often in final position in Caesar (as is his practice in general), but not elsewhere. Constituents with an anaphoric element are relatively common in most texts, almost all of which are in the first position. Note that V includes complex verb forms with a form of auxiliary sum (see § 4.83) and combinations of infinitives with proper auxiliaries like possum ‘I can’ (see § 4.98).¹²³

. The position of arguments, satellites, secondary predicates, and ( finite) verbs in declarative sentences Although in principle there is no limit to the number of constituents a sentence may contain (certainly in written texts), the discussion below will take into account arguments, satellites, secondary predicates, and (finite) verbs in only three positions, first, intermediate, and last. The first and last positions of the sentence are usually occupied by constituents that have a prominent role in the structuring of the information in the sentence. The first position is important because its occupant fulfils an orienting function for the addressee. The final position must be occupied by a constituent that clearly marks the end of the information contained in the sentence.

¹²³ Cato Agr. has only sixty-three simple sentences.

1

Caesar Civ.

first

total

35

49

77

49

 

Cato Agr.

Cicero Phil.

Cicero Off.

Caesar Civ.

21

16

14

29

A1

15

 

Texts

1

Cicero Off.

18

30

4

2

Cicero Phil.

1

14 (22%)

 

7

30

14

2

last

40

50

41

84

42

57

21

4

31

27

20

5

10

3

4



3

1

1



≥6

3

2.5

3

3

 

Average number of constituents per sentence

33

6

6+22+12

11+1+4

A1 understood + 1 and 2 person

32

11

24

11

first

A2

11

5

15

1

last

14

4

14



total

3

1

1



first

A3

1



4



last

99

59

57

55

total

27

17

16

16

first

Σ

Number of explicit constituents per type and their position

15 (24%)

total

33 (53%)

3

Number of constituents per sentence

Cato Agr. N=62

Texts

Table . Data concerning 100 ‘simple declarative sentences’ in a number of prose texts

   

9

9

7

12

last

13

75

28

2

99

90

88

61

total

32

29

28

16

16

14

26

1

first

V

62

30

46

42

last

connectors anaphoric elements

Word order in declarative sentences  Constituents in an intermediate position often fulfil no special pragmatic function, and it is difficult to tell why they are in the specific position they are in. The term ‘first position’ needs some comment. In this Syntax it is used for the position of constituents that fulfil a function at the clause level and are not constrained in one of the ways discussed in § 23.6. Constituents in first position may be preceded by non-mobile words, such as the connector nam in (a), an independent sentence, or the subordinator ut in the subordinate clause of (b). In (a), tu will be regarded as the constituent in first position; in (b), pater. (a)

Leges pellege. / Nam tu poeta es prorsus ad eam rem unicus. (‘Read over the terms. For you are the one and only artist for this sort of thing.’ Pl. As. 747–8)

(b)

Nam propterea volo / scribere, ut pater cognoscat litteras quando legat. (‘For I want you to write for the simple reason that your father may recognize your handwriting when he’s reading it.’ Pl. Bac. 729–30)

The use of the term ‘last position’ is less problematic. In older studies on the position of finite verbs in final position, a distinction is sometimes made for complex verb forms (see § 3.11) between, for example, the orders factus est and est factus. For the latter order, German scholars use the term ‘gedeckte Endstellung’ (‘covered final position’). The same distinction is used for the order of finite auxiliary verb forms and the infinitive with which they are combined, as in esse videtur and videtur esse ‘seems to be’. See also §§ 23.97–100.

. The first position in declarative sentences For the occupation of the first position of a sentence, pragmatic factors are predominant. In a prose corpus with 1,620 initial positions in all sentence types (and not only simple sentences as defined above), almost 40 per cent of the constituents in that position are topic, 38 per cent focus, and 15 per cent setting or theme; 7 per cent are presentative sentences with a verb in initial position.¹²⁴ Examples of topic, focus, and setting are (a)–(c), respectively. (a)

Decem dies sunt ante ludos votivos quos Cn. Pompeius facturus est. Hi ludi dies quindecim auferent. (‘It is only ten days to the Votive Games that Gnaeus Pompeius is to hold; these games will occupy fifteen days.’ Cic. Ver. 31)

(b)

Quid est in Antonio praeter libidinem, crudelitatem, petulantiam, audaciam? (‘What is there in Antonius save lust, cruelty, insolence, audacity?’ Cic. Phil. 3.28)

¹²⁴ See Knoth (2006: 212). Using pragmatic and syntactic functions in the sense of Dik’s (1997) Functional Grammar she analyses constituents in first position in 1,620 periodic sentences, of which 13 per cent have a subordinate clause as their first constituent. The corpus consists of Nep. Att., Aug. Anc., Suet. Gal. (biography), Cic. Ver., Cic. Catil. III, Cic. Phil. III (speeches), and selections from Cic. Att., Sen. Ep., Plin. Ep. (letters). The percentages of the pragmatic functions mentioned in this section naturally depend upon the analysis of the corpus by the author and are for the purpose of this discussion better taken as tendencies than as hard facts.

 Word order (c)

Postero die dixit pro Mario Salvius Liberalis, vir subtilis dispositus acer disertus. (‘On the next day Salvius Liberalis, a precise and methodical speaker with a forceful command of words, spoke in defence of Marius.’ Plin. Ep. 2.11.17)

The constituents in first position have various syntactic functions. For a distribution of the syntactic functions in the same corpus a distinction was made between sentences with and without an explicit subject. Third person first arguments in particular are often not expressed if they are sufficiently known from the context or the situation. In sentences with a one-place verb, c.20 per cent of the first arguments are not expressed. In sentences with two-place verbs, this may be the case in 50 per cent or more of the first arguments, depending on the type of text.¹²⁵ Obviously, the absence of arguments has consequences for the pragmatic function and the position of other arguments and for that of the other constituents of the sentence in general. As can be seen in Table 23.4, in half of the sentences with an explicit subject, the subject occupies the first position, but this is only the case in one-quarter of all sentences. Of the explicit subjects, 60 per cent are topic, 40 per cent focus.¹²⁶ Conversely, 39 per cent of the topic constituents are subject. Of the objects, 42 per cent are topic, 58 per cent focus. Of the topic constituents 19 per cent are object. The high percentage of satellites in first position is largely due to the fact that 45 per cent of them are setting constituents.¹²⁷ Table . Syntactic function and first position (percentages)  

with an explicit subject (857=53%)

with an implicit subject (763=47%)

verb

12.5

23.7

subject

49.5

0

object

8.6

29.5

third argument

2.3

3.2

subject complement

4.2

3.2

object complement

0.1

0.1

secondary predicate

1.3

4.7

21.5

35.6

satellite Based on Knoth (2006: 174).

23.42 Arguments in first position in declarative sentences This section deals with arguments that occupy the first position of their sentence.¹²⁸ It starts with the position of arguments of ‘regular’ one-, two-, and three-place verbs. Constituents that function as subject or object complement with the verb sum and ¹²⁵ See Spevak (2006d: 368–9; 2010a: 133). ¹²⁶ See Knoth (2006: 251). ¹²⁷ See the graph in Knoth (2006: 293). ¹²⁸ This may be either a ‘simple’ sentence as defined in § 23.39 or a main clause that opens a complex sentence.

Word order in declarative sentences  other verbs are discussed separately. In declarative sentences the first constituent is usually an argument with topic function, but satellites are not uncommon, especially if they contain an anaphoric element or an attribute that is topical. Examples of arguments with topic function with a monovalent verb are (a)–(c). In (a), Micipsa is a discourse topic. The sentence is about what happened to him. In (b), L. Manlius and Rutilius Lupus are mentioned here for the first time as individuals, but officials are not unexpected in the narrative after Pompey’s general order to concentrate troops near him; they function as contrastive topics in their clauses.¹²⁹ In (c), magna copia pabuli is a subtopic which continues the more general omnium rerum . . . copia. In (d), huius rei totum consilium is presented as the topic of the sentence through its anaphoric attribute huius rei; in (e), narium duo foramina is the topic through the attribute narium which is introduced into the discourse earlier. As the examples show, the attributes can occupy the actual first position (see also § 23.79). (a)

Micipsa paucis post diebus moritur. (‘Micipsa died a few days later.’ Sal. Jug. 11.2)

(b)

L. Manlius praetor Alba cum cohortibus sex profugit, Rutilius Lupus praetor Tarracina cum tribus. (‘The praetor Lucius Manlius fled from Alba with six cohorts, the praetor Rutilius Lupus from Tarracina with three.’ Caes. Civ. 1.24.3)

(c)

At exercitus Afrani omnium rerum abundabat copia . . . Magna copia pabuli suppetebat. (‘Afranius’ army, however, had an abundance of everything . . . A large supply of fodder was available.’ Caes. Civ. 1.49.1)

(d)

. . . considera ne in alienissimum tempus cadat adventus tuus. Huius rei totum consilium tuum est. (‘. . . take care lest you arrive at the least favourable moment. This matter is entirely for you to judge.’ Cic. Fam. 15.14.4)

(e)

Foramina autem intra caput maxima oculorum sunt, deinde narium, tum quae in auribus habemus . . . Narium duo foramina osse medio discernuntur. (‘Now the largest passages leading into the head are those of the eyes, next the nostrils, then those of the ears . . . The two nasal passages are separated by an intermediate bone.’ Cels. 8.1.5)

In the corpus of sentences and clauses with two-place verbs on which Table 23.5 is based those with an explicit first argument are in the minority.¹³⁰ In these cases, the first argument usually precedes the other argument, and it is usually a topic of the same type as in (a) above, as is shown in (f), in which the first argument is a discourse topic. In (g), is serves to continue a newly introduced topic (see § 22.4, ex. (t)).

¹²⁹ Following the analysis of Spevak (2010a: 175–7). ¹³⁰ Table 23.5 is taken from Spevak (2010a: 118). For the corpus see note 74 and Spevak (2010a: 12).

 Word order Table . The relative order of first and second arguments (A1 and A2) and verbs (V)  

Pattern

1

A1>A2>V

2

A2>V

3

A1>V>A2

4

Total

Percentage

40

21

117

60

5

3

V>A2

18

9

5

A2>A1>V

13

7

6

V>A2>A1

1

0

7

A2>V>A1

1

0

 

Total

195

100

> = precedes

(f)

At Caesar milites Attianos conlaudat, Pupium dimittit . . . (‘Caesar for his part praised Attius’ soldiers, dismissed Pupius . . .’ Caes. Civ. 1.13.5)

(g)

(sc. Metellus) . . . facile Numidae (sc. Bomilcari) persuadet . . . Is, ubi primum opportunum fuit, Iugurtham anxium ac miserantem fortunas suas adcedit . . . (‘He persuaded the Numidian without difficulty . . . As soon as an opportune time came, when Jugurtha was worried and lamenting his fate, he approached him.’ Sal. Jug. 61.5–62.1)

In (h), repeated from §  23.39, by contrast, the first argument legio XII is focus. Although the potential arrival of more troops in addition to Caesar’s own thirteenth legion is mentioned in the preceding text,¹³¹ this particular legion is introduced here for the first time. Note the continuation with the anaphoric expression his duabus (the twelfth and thirteenth legions). (h)

. . . ad eum legati veniunt quaeque imperaverit (sc. Caesar) se cupidissime facturos pollicentur. Milites (sc. Caesar; sc. eis) imperat. (sc. Cingulani) Mittunt (sc. milites). Interea legio XII Caesarem consequitur. Cum his duabus Asculum Picenum proficiscitur (sc. Caesar). (‘. . . representatives (from Cingulum) arrived and promised to do his bidding with great eagerness. He requisitioned soldiers. They sent them. Meanwhile the twelfth legion reached Caesar. With these two legions he set out for Asculum in Picenum.’ Caes. Civ. 1.15.2–3)

As Table 23.5 shows, when both arguments are expressed, the second argument can precede the first. This is the case in (i)–(l). Here, as well as when the second argument alone is expressed, as in (m), the second argument usually has topic function. In (n), though, it is focus. (i)

Erat praeterea in exercitu nostro Numida quidam nomine Gauda . . . Hunc Marius anxium adgreditur atque hortatur ut . . . ¹³¹ Caes. Civ. 1.7.8; 1.12.3.

Word order in declarative sentences  (‘Furthermore, there was in our army a Numidian named Gauda . . .While he was upset, he was approached by Marius, who urged him to . . .’ Sal. Jug. 65.1–3)

( j)

Adherbalem omnisque qui sub imperio Micipsae fuerant metus invadit. (‘Fear seized Adherbal and all the former subjects of Micipsa.’ Sal. Jug. 13.1)

(k)

Tuas iam litteras Brutus exspectabat. Cui quidem ego [non] novum attuleram de Tereo Acci. (‘Brutus is now awaiting your letter. I brought him news about Accius’ Tereus.’ Cic. Att. 16.5.1)

(l)

Caput autem spina excipit. (‘Now the spine is the support of the head.’ Cels. 8.1.11)

(m)

. . . Domitium Massiliensisque de suo adventu certiores facit eosque magnopere hortatur (sc. Caesar) ut . . . (‘. . . he informed Domitius and the people of Marseilles about his approach and urged them strongly to . . .’ Caes. Civ. 2.3.3)

(n)

Id ubi vident, mutant consilium. Cupas taeda ac pice refertas incendunt easque de muro in musculum devolvunt. (‘Seeing this, the enemy changed their plan. They set on fire barrels filled with pinewood and pitch and rolled these off the wall onto the gallery.’ Caes. Civ. 2.11.2)

In the corpus mentioned above, the first argument is usually not expressed with threeplace verbs like mitto ‘to send’ and do ‘to give’.¹³² If it is expressed, it need not be in the initial position, which may be occupied by one of the other arguments, which functions as topic. In (o), Helvetii is in first position because it marks a topic change. In (p), pecuniam, the second argument, is the topic of the sentence (‘What was the purpose of the money?’). Oppianicus is a discourse topic and is, as often, placed further on, followed by the focus constituent. In (q), the third argument, two historically wellknown people, is the topic. Here, too, the discourse topic senatus comes later. In (r), Q. Ciceronis epistulam is the topic through its attribute Q. Ciceronis. (o)

Helvetii repentino eius adventu commoti, cum . . . intellegerent, legatos ad eum (sc. Caesarem) mittunt. Cuius legationis Divico princeps fuit . . . (‘The Helvetii, alarmed at his sudden approach, for they perceived that . . . , sent deputies to him. The leader of the deputation was Divico . . .’ Caes. Gal. 1.13.2)

(p)

At enim pecuniam Staieno dedit Oppianicus non ad corrumpendum iudicium sed ad conciliationem gratiae. (‘But, you may say, Oppianicus gave Staienus the money not to bribe the court, but to effect a reconciliation with Cluentius.’ Cic. Clu. 84)

(q)

Ad propiora veniamus. C. Mario L. Valerio consulibus senatus rem publicam defendendam dedit. L.  Saturninus tribunus plebis, C.  Glaucia praetor est interfectus.

¹³² Three-place verbs are discussed by Panhuis  (1982), Devine and Stephens  (2006: 40–54), and Spevak (2010a: 132–44). See also § 23.39 for the relative order of arguments of three-place verbs.

 Word order (‘Let us come to events closer to our own time. The Senate committed the defence of the State to Consuls Gaius Marius and Lucius Valerius; Tribune of the plebs Lucius Saturninus and Praetor Gaius Glaucia were killed.’ Cic. Phil. 8.15)

(r)

Ciceronis epistulam tibi remisi. (‘I am sending you back Quintus’ letter.’ Cic. Att. 13.29.3)

If the first argument is not expressed, the second argument or—less often—the third is placed in the first (or first available) position and is topic, as in (s) and (t), respectively. In (s), the second argument filium suum, which can be inferred from the context, is the topic. In (t), Clazomeniis, one of a series of changing topics, is in first position. (s)

(sc. Philodomus) Etiam filium suum, lectissimum adulescentem, foras ad propinquum suum quendam mittit ad cenam. (‘Even his son, an extremely nice boy, he sent out to supper with a relative.’ Cic. Ver. 1.65)

(t)

(sc. legati) Nominatim praeterea Colophoniis . . . immunitatem concesserunt. Clazomeniis super immunitatem et Drymussam insulam dono dederunt et Milesiis quem sacrum appellant agrum restituerunt et Iliensibus Rhoeteum et Gergithum addiderunt . . . (‘In addition, they granted freedom from taxation expressly to the Colophonians; to the Clazomenians, in addition to immunity, they gave the island of Drymussa as a gift, and to the Milesians they restored what they call the “sacred land,” and to the people of Ilium they added Rhoeteum and Gergithus . . .’ Liv. 38.39.8–10)

In contextually unrelated sentences, the first place is occupied by the topic (and subject) of the sentence, if the addressee can be supposed to be able to identify the entity. This is for example the case in dedications of buildings by the Roman emperors. They are mentioned first, as in (u).¹³³ (u)

Imp(erator) Caesar(is) ivi · f(ilius) · Augutus · . . . / portas · murosq(ue) · col(oniae) · dat. (‘Emperor Augustus, son of divine Caesar, bestows gates and walls upon the colony.’ CIL XII.3151 (Nîmes, 15 bc))

We now turn to arguments that function as subject or object complement. The copula sum (see § 4.92) and other copular verbs like maneo ‘to remain’ (see § 4.97) have two arguments, the first of which need not be expressed in an appropriate context.¹³⁴ The second argument functions as subject complement; it can belong to various categories (see Table 9.6 in § 9.21). Here, only adjectives and nouns and noun phrases showing agreement with the subject are taken into account. Examples are (v) and (w), respectively. When A1 is expressed, as in (v), six different orders are possible and attested.

¹³³ See Horster (2001: 41). Esperanza Torrego (p.c.) suggests that the building is topic and the donor focus. ¹³⁴ In the corpus used by Spevak (2010a: 181–2) one-third of the A1’s are not expressed.

Word order in declarative sentences  The most common order is A1 / subject complement / form of sum.¹³⁵ The subject complement may be contiguous to the verb, as in (v) and (w), or not, as in (x).¹³⁶ The A1 is usually topic and mostly sentence-initial, the subject complement focus. The verb can be in first position for one of the reasons mentioned in § 23.45, as in (x). The subject complement can be sentence-initial for reasons of emphasis, as in (y) and (z).¹³⁷ If the subject complement is complex, discontinuity of its members is possible (see the Supplement). (v)

Homo hic ebrius est, ut opinor. (‘This man’s drunk, I think.’ Pl. Am. 574)

(w)

Inventio est excogitatio rerum verarum aut veri similium quae . . . (‘Invention is the discovery of valid or seemingly valid arguments which . . .’ Cic. Inv. 1.9)

(x)

Est tuum nomen utraque familia consulare. (‘Your name is of consular rank both on your father’s and your mother’s side.’ Cic. Planc. 18)

(y)

Homines enim sumus et occupati officiis . . . (‘For we are but human and beset with duties . . .’ Plin. Nat. pr. 18)

(z)

Itaque stulta iam Iduum Martiarum est consolatio. (‘So there’s no sense any longer in consoling ourselves with the Ides of March.’ Cic. Att. 15.4.2) Supplement (subject complements in initial position): Adjectives: Praeclara tum oratio M. Antoni, egregia etiam voluntas. (Cic. Phil. 1.2— NB: nominal sentence without the copula); Magnus est in re publica campus, ut sapienter dicere Crassus solebat, multis apertus cursus ad laudem. (Cic. Phil. 14.17); Misera est ignominia iudiciorum publicorum, misera multatio bonorum, miserum exsilium. (Cic. Rab. Perd. 16); Credo te negaturum. Turpis enim est et periculosa confessio. (Cic. Ver. 3.165–6); Ornatissimae sunt igitur orationes eae quae latissime vagantur . . . (Cic. de Orat. 3.120); Similisque est privatarum possessionum discriptio. (Cic. Off. 1.21); Plena erant omnia timoris et luctus. (Caes. Civ. 2.41.8); Talis ea tempestate fama de Cassio erat. (Sal. Jug. 32.5); Ingens erat magistratus eius terror. (Liv. 9.26.7); Magna autem debet esse eloquentia quae invitis placeat . . . (Sen. Con. 10.pr.4) Nouns and noun phrases: Fortis et constans in optima ratione civis P. Popilius semper fuit. (Cic. Dom. 87); Causa fuit ambulatio et monumentum et ista Tanagraea oppressa libertate Libertas. (Cic. Dom. 116); Princeps enim omnium Pansa proeli faciendi et cum Antonio confligendi fuit. (Cic. Phil. 14.26); Sed dux atque imperator vitae mortalium animus est. (Sal. Jug. 1.3)

¹³⁵ Both in the corpus used by Adams (1994b: 14; 82–3) (Cato, Cicero, and Celsus) and in the corpus used by Spevak (2010a: 180–7). For further statistical details, see these two publications. ¹³⁶ In the corpus used by Spevak (2010a: 181–2) one-third of the sequences are not contiguous. ¹³⁷ Sz.: 409 observes that the A1 normally precedes the subject complement and likewise the A2 the object complement; the reverse order is used for reasons of emphasis: . . . cur mortalem fecerit mundum . . . (Cic. N.D. 1.20).

 Word order With three-place verbs that require an object complement, like appello ‘to call’ (see §§ 4.87–8), the object complement is usually focus. It can be put in first position of the sentence if it is emphatic, as in (aa). For a passive equivalent (subject complement), see (ab). (aa)

Saltatorem appellat L. Murenam Cato. (‘Cato calls Murena a dancer.’ Cic. Mur. 13)

(ab)

Princeps in senatu tertium lectus P. Scipio Africanus. (‘Publius Scipio Africanus was for the third time selected to be leader in the senate.’ Liv. 38.28.2) Supplement: Sapiens existimari nemo potest in ea prudentia quae neque extra Romam usquam neque Romae rebus prolatis quicquam valet. (Cic. Mur. 28); Levis hos semper nostri homines et audaces et malos et perniciosos cives putaverunt. (Cic. Sest. 139); Inimicos habeo civis Romanos, quod sociorum commoda ac iura defendi. (Cic. Ver. 2.166); Superiore omni oratione perattentos vestros animos habuimus. (Cic. Ver. 3.10)

23.43 Satellites in first position in declarative sentences In Chapter 10, several classes of satellites are distinguished: space and time adjuncts, process adjuncts, contingency adjuncts, respect adjuncts, and disjuncts (see § 10.1). Of these, process adjuncts are more closely related to the action or process described by the verb, whereas the others are more peripheral. Process adjuncts are rarely placed in first position, unless they contain topical information or are focus, as are the prepositional phrases with cum (with different meanings) in (a) and (b), respectively.¹³⁸ In (a), illis refers to people who have been introduced in the preceding context. It is also contrastive (therefore illis, not simply anaphoric eis) with following tua, Cicero’s opponent. By contrast, the cum phrase in (b) is focus, as appears from the continuation in what follows. Magna is placed in an emphatic position. Satellites that are common in first position without such a pragmatic justification are space and time adjuncts, as in (c): they resemble settings. Most other satellites are placed in an intermediate position. (For satellites with focus function in final position, see § 23.48.)¹³⁹ (a)

Sed cum illis possum tamen aliquid disputare: tua vero quae tanta impudentia est ut . . . (‘With these I have at all events some common ground whereon to dispute; but what impudence can rival yours . . .?’ Cic. Dom. 20)

(b)

Magna cum cura ego illum curari volo. / # Quin suspirabo plus sescenta in die: / ita ego eum cum cura magna curabo tibi.

¹³⁸ Merguet in his various lexica has a convenient section: ‘zum ganzen Satz gehörige Bestimmungen’. For a suggestion of the frequency of satellites in first position, see Tables 23.1 on p. 990 and 23.3 on p. 1004. ¹³⁹ For the position of various types of adjuncts, see Devine and Stephens (2006: 64–79; 249–62) and Hoffmann (2010b: 275–6). Out of 144 satellites in his corpus, 49 are in first position, 86 in an intermediate position, 9 in final position.

Word order in declarative sentences  (‘I want him to be taken care of with great care. # Yes, I’ll sigh more than six hundred sighs a day: in this way I’ll take care of him with such great care for you.’ Pl. Men. 895–7)

(c)

Proximis diebus habetur extra urbem senatus. (‘On the following days the Senate met outside the city.’ Caes. Civ. 1.6.1) Supplement: Disjunct: Etenim sine dubio, iudices, in hac causa ea res in discrimen adducitur. (Cic. Ver. 1.6); Sed profecto tanta fuit in eo vis ingenii atque virtutis ut . . . (Cic. Rep. 2.20) Accompanying circumstances adjuncts: Magno cum dolore parricidarum (sc. Lentuli et Antonii) elapsus sum iis. Veniebant enim eodem furore in me quo in patriam incitati . . . (Planc. Fam. 10.23.5) Associative adjuncts: Cum his ad Domitium Ahenobarbum Corfinium magnis itineribus pervenit. (Caes. Civ. 1.15.6) Frequency adjuncts: Numquam enim iste cuiquam est mediocriter minatus. (Cic. Ver. 5.110); Saepe aliquis testis aut non laedit aut minus laedit, nisi lacessatur. (Cic. de Orat. 2.301); Saepe enim hoc de maioribus natu audivimus et ita intellegimus vulgo existimari. (Cic. Rep. 2.28); Semper oratorum eloquentiae moderatrix fuit auditorum prudentia. (Cic. Orat. 24) Manner adjuncts: Sic triduum disputationibus excusationibusque extrahitur. (Caes. Civ. 1.33.3); Acriter utrimque usque ad vesperum pugnatum est. (Caes. Gal. 1.50.3); Celeriter ad omnes Galliae civitates fama perfertur. (Caes. Gal. 7.3.2); Clam cum Ariobarzane facit amicitiam, manum comparat, urbes munitas suis tuendas tradit. (Nep. Dat. 5.6) Means and instrument adjuncts: Non fuga delatos nec inertia relictos hic vos circumvenit hostis. Virtute cepistis locum, virtute hinc oportet evadatis. (Liv. 7.35.3) Purpose adjuncts: Proximo die praesidio in castris relicto universas ad aquam copias educunt. Pabulatum emittitur nemo. (Caes. Civ. 1.81.5) Space and time adjuncts: Fremebat tota provincia. Nemo id tibi renuntiabat? Romae querimoniae de tuis iniuriis conventusque habebantur. Ignorabas haec? (Cic. Ver. 3.132); Eadem nocte V legionis pilorum acumina sua sponte arserunt. (B. Afr. 47.6); Tum ex consilio patrum Romulus legatos circa vicinas gentes misit . . . (Liv. 1.9.2); Nec in Italia segnius Ligurum bellum crescebat. (Liv. 35.3.1) Reason adjuncts: His de causis aguntur omnia raptim atque turbate. (Caes. Civ. 1.5.1) Multiple adjuncts: Ita consiliis diligentiaque nostra celeriter de manibus audacissimorum civium delapsa arma ipsa ceciderunt. (Cic. Off. 1.77)

23.44 Secondary predicates in first position in declarative sentences It is difficult to formulate rules or tendencies about the position of secondary predicates in general.¹⁴⁰ In the first place, this has to do with the very nature of secondary ¹⁴⁰ As far as I know there are no detailed studies about the position of secondary predicates. K.-St.: II.611 has a very general observation about ‘Prädikative’ (which includes subject and object complements). For a comparative study of subject complements and secondary predicates with the verbs maneo, permaneo, remaneo, and sto, see Cabrillana (in prep.).

 Word order predicates: they differ from the argument and satellite constituents of the preceding sections in that they are not constituents at the clause level themselves, but are related to another constituent that operates either at the clause level or at a lower level (see § 21.1). Secondly, they belong to very heterogeneous categories (see § 21.2). Thirdly, if they are related to the subject of the clause, that subject can be explicit, as in (a), or contextually understood or expressed morphologically, as in (b) and (c) respectively. If related to a non-subject constituent, that constituent is almost always explicit, as in (d). (a)

Civitatem vero nemo umquam ullo populi iussu amittet invitus. (‘But no one by any decree of the people will ever lose his liberty against his will.’ Cic. Dom. 78)

(b)

Vexasti negotiatores. Inviti enim Romam raroque decedunt. (‘You have wrought havoc among the businessmen: for only unwillingly and rarely do they leave for Rome.’ Cic. Ver. 3.96)

(c)

Invitus dico, sed dicendum est. (‘I say it with reluctance, but say it I must.’ Cic. Phil. 8.9)

(d)

Quod cum ita sit, mihi crede, neminem invitum invitabis. (‘In this condition of affairs, believe me, you will not have to call an unwilling prosecutor to his task.’ Cic. Pis. 94)

Secondary predicates are usually focus. Judging from a number of adjectives used as secondary predicates with subjects and objects in Caesar and Cicero, the intermediate position is the most common, certainly for those related to objects, but invitus ‘reluctant’ is remarkably often in final position, as in (a). First position, as in (b), is rare and always emphatic. Supplement (in alphabetical order by adjective): Incolumem te cito ut spero, vel potius ut perspicio, videbimus. (Cic. Fam. 6.6.13); Quae cum libenter commemoro, tum non invitus non nullorum in me nefarie commissa praetereo. (Cic. Red. Sen. 23); Primus enim ego leges Antonias fregi, primus equitatum Dolabellae ad rem publicam traduxi Cassioque tradidi, primus dilectus habui pro salute omnium contra coniurationem sceleratissimam, solus Cassio et rei publicae Syriam exercitusque qui ibi erant coniunxi. (Lent. Fam. 12.14.6); Neque solum vivi atque praesentes studiosos discendi erudiunt atque docent, sed hoc idem etiam post mortem monumentis litterarum assequuntur. (Cic. Off. 1.156)

Participles functioning as secondary predicate are sometimes used to summarize a preceding activity and can then be placed at the beginning of their sentence, as in (e), with the object of interficiunt understood. (e)

Edicunt penes quem quisque sit Caesaris miles ut producat. Productos palam in praetorio interficiunt. (‘They issued an edict that anyone who had a Caesarian soldier with him had to bring him forward. They openly killed those brought forward at headquarters.’ Caes. Civ. 1.76.4)

Word order in declarative sentences  Supplement: Romani milites circumveniuntur, circumventi repugnant. Fit proelium diu anceps. (Cato hist. 83.14–15=76C); Patrem meum, cum proscriptus non esset, iugulastis, occisum in proscriptorum numerum rettulistis . . . (Cic. S. Rosc. 32); Duasque naves cum militibus, quae ad moles Caesaris adhaeserant, scaphis lintribusque reprehendunt. Reprehensas excipiunt. (Caes. Civ. 1.28.4) Laughton (1964: 46–50) discusses the position of participles functioning as secondary predicate in relation to the constituent to which they belong. They normally follow, except when they are emphatic or contrastive, as in (f) and (g), or are related to another constituent which has to come early in the clause or sentence, as in (h).

(f)

. . . ne a me defensa res publica per eundem me extremum in discrimen vocaretur. (‘. . . in order that the state which I had defended might not on my account be brought into the extremest peril.’ Cic. Red. Sen. 36)

(g)

Venientem in forum virum optimum et constantissimum, M. Cispium, tribunum plebis, vi depellunt . . . (‘As that excellent and most steadfast man, Marcus Cispius, a tribune of the commons, was coming into the Forum, they drove him away by force . . .’ Cic. Sest. 76)

(h)

Hoc sonitu oppletae aures hominum obsurduerunt. (‘Men’s ears, ever filled with this sound, have become deaf to it.’ Cic. Rep. 6.19)

23.45 Finite verbs in first position in declarative sentences Finite verbs can be placed in the first position of declarative sentences. In Table 23.5 on p. 1008, this occurs in 10 per cent of the orders observed. Table 23.4 on p. 1006 shows that the first position of finite verbs is much more common if the sentence has an implicit subject. This placement is common, though not obligatory, in a number of contexts. It is common, first, in the context of presentative sentences, as in (a).¹⁴¹ For further examples, see § 22.11. (a)

Est autem C. Herennius quidam, tribunus pl., quem tu fortasse ne nosti quidem. (‘There is a Tribune called C. Herennius, whom perhaps you don’t even know.’ Cic. Att. 1.18.4)

A second type of context in which an initial verb is common occurs when the factualness or correctness of a certain statement is asserted from someone’s personal point of view. Examples of this ‘assertive’ or ‘veridical’ use are (b) and (c).¹⁴² The context often contains elements that fit in with the argumentative character of such sentences, such as sed ‘but’ and enim ‘for’ (see the Supplement). ¹⁴¹ For presentative and what-happens sentences, see Spevak (2010a: 41–4; 187–93), with references. ¹⁴² For verum focus, see Bolkestein  (1995; 1996c: 17), Devine and Stephens  (2006: 147), and Spevak (2010a: 46–7). For the veridical use of forms of the verb sum, see Adams (1994b: 69–76). For inversion of subject and verb in the Late Latin Anonymus Valesianus, see Adams (1976b: 121–9).

 Word order (b)

Evolve diligenter eius (sc. Platonis) eum librum qui est de animo. Amplius quod desideres nihil erit. # Feci mehercule, et quidem saepius. (‘Turn over with attention the pages of his book upon the soul. You will be conscious of no further need. # I have done so, be sure, and done so many times.’ Cic. Tusc. 1.24)

(c)

Num negare audes (sc. Catilina)? Quid taces? Convincam, si negas. . . . Fuisti igitur apud Laecam illa nocte, Catilina, distribuisti partis Italiae . . . (‘You do not have the effrontery to deny it, do you? Why are you silent then? If you deny it, I shall prove it . . .You were, then, at the house of Laeca on that night, Catiline; you allocated the regions of Italy . . .’ Cic. Catil. 1.8–9) Supplement: Scio, fui ego illa aetate et feci illa omnia, sed more modesto. (Pl. Bac. 1080); Erit lorea familiae quod bibat. (Cato Agr. 25); Movet me quippe lumen curiae! (Cic. Mil. 33); Erit, erit illud profecto tempus et illucescet ille aliquando dies cum . . . (Cic. Mil. 69); Est autem gloria laus recte factorum magnorumque in rem publicam meritorum . . . (Cic. Phil. 1.29); T. Flamininum, qui cum Q. Metello consul fuit, pueri vidimus. Existumabatur bene Latine, sed litteras nesciebat. (Cic. Brut. 259); Sed ut homo neque doctus neque maxime aptus ad dicendum, sicut potuit, dolavit. Vicit tamen, ut dicis, superiores. (Cic. de Orat. 2.54); Est enim eloquentia una quaedam de summis virtutibus. (Cic. de Orat. 3.55); Sunt ista, Laeli. Nec enim melior vir fuit Africano quisquam nec clarior. (Cic. Amic. 6); Est enim hiberna navigatio odiosa . . . (Cic. Att. 15.25.1); Conatus est Caesar reficere pontes, sed nec magnitudo fluminis permittebat . . . (Caes. Civ. 1.50.1); Erat multo inferior numero navium Brutus. Sed electos . . . Caesar ei classi attribuerat, qui . . . (Caes. Civ. 1.57.1); Incitabant praeterea corrupti civitatis mores . . . (Sal. Cat. 5.8); . . . victores morantibus victoriam irati trucidarent quos pellere non poterant. Pepulerunt tamen iam paucos superantes et labore ac volneribus fessos. (Liv. 22.49.4–5); Est equos perpulcer, sed tu vehi non potes istoc. (CIL I2.2177 (Padua?, 1st cent. bc))

A third type of context for verbs in an initial position is one in which they serve to create coherence or mark the progress between the preceding context and what follows, as in (d)–(f).¹⁴³ In (d), one of the interlocutors, Stolo, interrupts the main speaker; in (e), the sentence with exit contains Crassus’ reaction to Caesar’s order; in (f), the sentence with augebatur explains why it was supposed that the enemies would not take the risk of crossing the river: they were waiting for reinforcements. List of gains and losses in military texts belong here also.¹⁴⁴ (d)

(reacting to Varro’s words) Suscipit Stolo, ‘Tu’, inquit, ‘invides tanto scriptori et obstrigillandi causa figilinas reprehendis . . .’

¹⁴³ See K.-St.: II.599–601, from where most examples are taken. For the use of sentence-initial verb forms by historians to make the story more ‘dramatic’, see Chausserie-Laprée (1969: 347–68). For sentence-initial verbs in Caesar, see Schneider  (1912: 42–62), Luraghi  (1995), and Gaertner and Hausburg (2013: 65–6), with references. For what they call the ‘thetic perspective’ as a factor that promotes initial position of verbs in general, see Devine and Stephens (2006: 149–57). ¹⁴⁴ See Gaertner and Hausburg (2013: 65–6) on the Bellum Alexandrinum.

Word order in declarative sentences  (‘Stolo interrupted: “You are jealous of that great writer and you attack his potteries carpingly . . .” Var. R. 1.2.24)

(e)

(sc. Caesar) Iubet media nocte legionem proficisci celeriterque ad se venire. Exit cum nuntio Crassus. (‘He bade the legion start at midnight and come speedily to him. Crassus marched out on receipt of the message.’ Caes. Gal. 5.46.2)

(f)

Hoc (sc. flumen) neque ipse (sc. Labienus) transire habebat in animo neque hostes transituros existimabat. Augebatur auxiliorum cotidie spes. Loquitur in consilio palam . . . (‘He had no intention of crossing this (river) himself, nor did he suppose that the enemy would cross it. Their hope of auxiliaries was increasing daily. He declared openly in the council of war that . . .’ Caes. Gal. 6.7.5–6) Supplement: Offendi ibi C.  Fundanium, socerum meum, et C.  Agrium . . . (Var. R. 1.2.1); Simulatque ego in Siciliam veni, mutatus est. Venerat ad eum illo biduo Laetilius quidam, homo non alienus a litteris . . . (Cic. Ver. 2.63–4); Iste (sc. Verres) tum petere ab illis, tum minari, tum spem, tum metum ostendere. Opponebant illi nomen interdum P. Africani. (Cic. Ver. 4.75); Est enim difficilis cura rerum alienarum. (Cic. Off. 1.30); Dabant enim hae feriae tibi opportunam sane facultatem ad explicandas tuas litteras. (Cic. Rep. 1.14); Intercedit M.  Antonius  Q.  Cassius tribuni plebis. (Caes. Civ. 1.2.7); Tum suo more conclamaverunt, uti aliqui ex nostris ad conloquium prodiret . . . Mittitur ad eos conloquendi causa Gaius Arpinius eques Romanus, familiaris Quinti Titurii . . . (Caes. Gal. 5.26.4–27.1); Inopinantes nostri re  nova perturbantur, ac vix primum impetum cohors in statione sustinet. Circumfunduntur hostes ex reliquis partibus, si quem aditum reperire possint. (Caes. Gal. 6.37.3–4—NB: this is the reading of β. l has ex reliquis hostes partibus); Conspicati ex oppido caedem et fugam suorum desperata salute copias a munitionibus reducunt. Fit protinus hac re audita ex castris Gallorum fuga. (Caes. Gal. 7.88.5); Quae (sc. quadrigae) tamen celeriter multitudine telorum opprimuntur. Capitur hoc proelio quinqueremis una et biremis cum defensoribus remigibusque et deprimuntur tres nostris incolumibus omnibus. (B. Alex. 16.6); Insequitur has (sc. quadrigas) acies hostium . . . (B. Alex. 75.2–3); Conversa subito fortuna est. (Nep. Att. 10.1—NB: auxiliary separated); Recipit extemplo animum pedestris acies . . . (Liv. 2.20.11); Sustinebat tamen Appius pertinacia tantam tempestatem . . . (Liv. 2.56.14); Hic pudor malignitatem vicit triumphumque frequentes decreverunt. Oppressit deinde mentionem memoriamque omnem contentionis huius maius et cum maiore et clariore viro certamen ortum. (Liv. 38.50.3–4); Mittam itaque ipsos tibi libros . . . (Sen. Ep. 6.5); Laudavimus dictum [Trimalchionis] et circumeuntem puerum sane perbasiamus. (Petr. 41.8); Celebrant carminibus antiquis, quod unum apud illos memoriae et annalium genus est, Tuistonem deum terra editum. (Tac. Ger. 2.2); Infecit ea tabes legionum quoque et auxiliorum motas iam mentis postquam vulgatum erat labare Germanici exercitus fidem. (Tac. Hist. 1.26.1); Nam ostenderunt nobis speluncam illam ubi fuit sanctus Moyses . . . (Pereg. 3.7); Functus est autem sacerdotio annis tribus. (Vict. Vit. 1.27)

 Word order Sentences with an unexpressed topical subject that contain complex information, answering the question ‘what did he do?’, are a last type of context for initial verbs, as in (g)–(i). This resembles, and is sometimes difficult to distinguish from, cases like ( j), a sequence of asyndetically coordinated complex focus units. See also the instances of coordination in § 19.15.¹⁴⁵ (g)

Hic Verres hereditatem sibi venisse arbitratus est, quod in eius regnum ac manus venerat is quem iste et audierat multa secum praeclara habere et suspicabatur. Mittit homini . . . Deinde ipsum regem ad cenam vocavit. Exornat ample magnificeque triclinium. Exponit ea quibus abundabat, plurima et pulcherrima vasa argentea . . . (‘It made Verres feel as if a legacy had come to him, when he saw come into his dominions, and under his power, a man who, as he had been told and was ready to believe, had with him many valuable treasures. He sent to the man . . . Then he invited the prince himself to dinner. He decorated the dining-room with lavish splendour. He set out the numerous lovely silver vessels of which he had so ample a stock . . .’ Cic. Ver. 4.62)

(h)

Dicat (sc. Verres) se licet emisse. Etenim hic propter magnitudinem furti sunt, ut opinor, litterae factae. Iussit Timarchidem aestimare argentum . . . (‘Verres may, if he chooses, claim to have bought them; for in this case, the theft being so considerable, something was, I believe, set down in writing. He told Timarchides to reckon up the value of the silver . . .’ Cic. Ver. 4.35)

(i)

Hic diffisus suae atque omnium saluti inermis ex tabernaculo prodit. Videt imminere hostes atque in summo esse rem (rem esse β) discrimine. Capit arma a proximis atque in porta consistit. (‘Doubtful of his own and the general safety, he came forth from his tent unarmed. He saw that the enemy were threateningly close and that the issue was in the greatest danger. He took arms from the nearest men and stationed himself in the gate.’ Caes. Gal. 6.38.2)

( j)

Eorum una pars, quam Gallos obtinere dictum est, initium capit a flumine Rhodano, continetur Garunna flumine, Oceano, finibus Belgarum, attingit etiam ab Sequanis et Helvetiis flumen Rhenum, vergit ad septentriones. (‘The separate part of the country which, as has been said, is occupied by the Gauls, starts from the river Rhone, and is bounded by the river Garonne, the Ocean, and the territory of the Belgae; moreover, it touches the river Rhine on the side of the Sequani and the Helvetii; and its general trend is northward.’ Caes. Gal. 1.1.5)

Sentence-initial forms of the verb sum, in its various meanings,¹⁴⁶ have received particular attention in the literature, among other things because the verb sum is often regarded as one of the lexical items to which Wackernagel’s law applies (see § 23.31).¹⁴⁷ ¹⁴⁵ Marouzeau  (1938: 71–2) and Devine and Stephens  (2006: 163–6) pay attention to the different orderings of verbs (e.g. initial capit and final consistit in (i)) in such coordinate clauses. ¹⁴⁶ See § 4.92. Auxiliary sum used in complex forms is different (see § 4.93 and § 23.97). ¹⁴⁷ See Adams (1994b: 69ff.) and Kruschwitz (2004: 61–6). See also Spevak (2010a: 183–4).

Word order in declarative sentences  Apart from the above mentioned factors that are relevant to other initial verb forms, as in (k) and (l), the initial position of forms of sum may also indicate focus on the tense or mood of the form of sum, as in (m) and (n). (k)

. . . is erit ex iis qui aut illos non audierit aut iudicare non possit. Nam fuit uterque . . . studio atque ingenio . . . praestans omnibus . . . (‘. . . he will belong to the class of people who either never heard these orators or else lack the capacity to judge them. For in point of fact each of them was . . . superior to everybody else . . . in devotion to oratory and natural talent . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 3.16)

(l)

. . . non video cur esse divinationem negem. Sunt autem ea quae posui. (‘. . . I do not see any reason for denying the existence of divination. But these premises are in fact true.’ Cic. Leg. 2.32–3)

(m)

Est idem Verres qui fuit semper. (‘He is the same Verres as he always was.’ Cic. Ver. 1.2)

(n)

Sit Ennius sane, ut est certe, perfectior. (‘Grant that Ennius is more accomplished, as undoubtedly he is.’ Cic. Brut. 76) Noteworthy is the position of est in the following inscription: Est · hoc · monimentum · Margei · Vergilei · Eurysacis / pistoris · redemptoris · apparet (CIL I2.1204 (Rome, 1st cent. bc (late)). The huge monument shows ‘various stages of bread making in a large-scale commercial setting’ and is indeed a fitting monument to the baker who built it.¹⁴⁸

With two- and three-place verbs that allow passivization, the relative order of the second argument and the verb may vary. In (o), the active verb mittit, with a first argument understood, is in first position and is followed by a complex focus unit. Valerius is mentioned here for the first time. Conversely, with the similarly active form mittit in (p), the first position is taken by a discourse topic, the first of a series of persons to receive assignments. In (q), the unknown Decidius is introduced into the discourse. The passive verb mittitur is in initial position in a way that resembles presentative sentences.¹⁴⁹ The underlying question is ‘who was sent?’ In (r), by contrast, the underlying question is ‘what happened?’; legati is an inferrable topic and therefore a good candidate for the first position. (o)

Mittit (sc. Caesar) in Sardiniam cum legione una Valerium legatum, in Siciliam Curionem pro praetore cum legionibus III . . . (‘He sent to Sardinia his officer Valerius with a single legion, to Sicily Curio as propraetor with three legions . . .’ Caes. Civ. 1.30.2)

(p)

Itaque Titum Labienum legatum in Treveros, qui proximi flumini Rheno sunt, cum equitatu mittit (sc. Caesar).

¹⁴⁸ See Petersen (2003: 232). ¹⁴⁹ For discussion, see Spevak (2010a: 145–9), with references; also Devine and Stephens (2006: 154).

 Word order (‘Accordingly he dispatched Titus Labienus, lieutenant-general, with the cavalry to the territory of the Treveri, who live next the river Rhine.’ Caes. Gal. 3.11.1)

(q)

Hoc idem fit ex castris Caesaris. Mittitur L. Decidius Saxa cum paucis qui loci naturam perspiciat. (‘The same was done from Caesar’s camp: Lucius Decidius Saxa was sent with a few men to reconnoitre the character of the terrain.’ Caes. Civ. 1.66.3)

(r)

. . . decernitur ut societas cum Samnitibus renovaretur, legatique ad eam rem mittuntur. (‘. . . it was voted to renew the alliance with the Samnites, and ambassadors were sent off to arrange it.’ Liv. 8.27.9) Verbs are regularly placed in the initial position of main clauses that follow a subordinate, especially a temporal, clause. An example is (s).¹⁵⁰ (s) Quos cum omnis salutavisset, convertit se in porticu et coniecit in medium Laelium. (‘After he had greeted them all he turned about in the portico and gave Laelius the place in the centre.’ Cic. Rep. 1.18)

. The last position in declarative sentences The last position in the sentence is not reserved for special categories of words, and certain words are excluded from that position (see § 23.6). Although in certain authors and in certain texts finite verb forms and infinitives often occupy the last position of a sentence, there is no syntactic constraint which requires this. It is not reserved for any specific pragmatic purpose. When the final constituent is an argument or a satellite it is usually focus, as in (a)–(c). There is, however, no rule that requires such focus constituents to be placed in the last position. See, for example, sine causa in (d). For a final topic, see (e), repeated from § 22.4, ex. (v). Although verbs in final position are sometimes the focus, as in (g), they usually are not, as is shown by an examination of ex. (f), where the combination dolores habet is actually a complex focus unit.¹⁵¹ For the distribution of various types of constituents in final position, see Table 23.3 on p. 1004. (a)

Quintus frater . . . secum habebat hominem {r}~zwlsō, D. Turranium. (‘My brother Quintus . . . has with him one D. Turranius, a scholarly person.’ Cic. Att. 1.6.2)

(b)

Pater nobis decessit a. d. VIII Kal. Dec. (‘We lost our father on 23 November.’ Cic. Att. 1.6.2)

(c)

. . . coliturque ea pars et habitatur frequentissime. (‘. . . and is also a crowded and thickly inhabited part of the city.’ Cic. Ver. 4.119)

¹⁵⁰ See Linde (1923: 160–1) and, for Apuleius, Möbitz (1923: 120). In the Peregrinatio 40 per cent of the verbs in such main clauses are in the initial position (Haida 1928: 15). In Augustine it occurs ‘frequently’ (Muldowney 1937: 111–12). ¹⁵¹ See also LSS § 9.3.2.3.

Word order in declarative sentences  (d)

De litterarum missione, sine causa abs te accusor. (‘About letter dispatches, I am reproached by you without cause.’ Cic. Att. 1.5.3)

(e)

Exit cum nuntio Crassus. (‘Crassus marched out on receipt of the message.’ Caes. Gal. 5.46.2)

(f)

Terentia magnos articulorum dolores habet. (‘Terentia has a bad attack of rheumatism.’ Cic. Att. 1.5.8)

(g)

Quintum fratrem cottidie exspectamus. (‘We are expecting brother Quintus back any day.’ Cic. Att. 1.5.8)

23.47 Arguments in final position in declarative sentences Subject (A1) constituents in final position are not uncommon with one-place verbs if the underlying question is ‘who?’ or ‘what?’ and the subject is focus of the sentence, as in (a) and (b). The same is true in sentences with a copula and a subject complement, as in (c). For a final discourse topic, see (e) in § 23.46. Final subjects of passive sentences (A2’s) are not uncommon either, as in (d). (a)

Intercedit M. Antonius Q. Cassius, tribuni plebis. (‘This was vetoed by the tribunes Mark Antony and Quintus Cassius.’ Caes. Civ. 1.2.7)

(b)

Stabant deligati ad palum nobilissimi iuvenes. (‘Bound to the stake stood youths of the highest birth.’ Liv. 2.5.6)

(c)

Apud Helvetios longe nobilissimus fuit et ditissimus Orgetorix. (‘Among the Helvetii the noblest man by far and the most wealthy was Orgetorix.’ Caes. Gal. 1.2.1)

(d)

Vulnerantur amplius DC. (‘More than six hundred were wounded.’ Caes. Civ. 1.46.4) Supplement: Active: Ad singulare enim M. Antoni factum festinat oratio. (Cic. Phil. 1.3); Serpit enim nescio quo modo per omnium vitas amicitia nec . . . (Cic. Amic. 87); Circa Larisam erat rex. (Liv. 33.6.3); Ad mare patebat omnibus exitus. (Liv. 34.9.7) Passive: Atque in re publica maxime conservanda sunt iura belli. (Cic. Off. 1.34); Recte etiam a Theophrasto est laudata hospitalitas. (Cic. Off. 2.64); In eo proelio ex equitibus nostris interficiuntur quattuor et septuaginta, in his . . . (Caes. Gal. 4.12.4); Augur in locum eius inauguratus Q. Fabius Maximus filius. (Liv. 30.26.10)

Examples of final position of the subject (A1) with two- and three-place verbs with another argument expressed are (e), where hominum verecundia is focus, and (f), where Caesar is (discourse) topic. In such cases, the subject is sometimes said to be added just for the sake of clarity.¹⁵² (In (f), the verb is in sentence initial position because the sentence describes a new phase in the course of events—see § 23.45.) ¹⁵² This is the reading of l, which is printed by Hering and other editors; Caesar . . . dimittit β. For corrections of the word order in β, see Hering’s edition XII–XIII. It is the only instance of Caesar as subject in

 Word order (e)

Hanc naturae tam diligentem fabricam imitata est hominum verecundia. (‘Man’s modesty has followed this careful contrivance of Nature’s.’ Cic. Off. 1.127)

(f)

Dimittit ad finitimas civitates nuntios Caesar. (‘Caesar sent messengers round to the neighbouring states.’ Caes. Gal. 6.34.8) Supplement: Probably focus: Eos quoque vobis eripuit Antonius. (Cic. Phil. 2.55); . . . et hunc locum satis, ut mihi videtur, in eis libris quos legistis expressit Scipio. (Cic. Leg. 1.27); Nec enim quicquam ingenuum habere potest officina. (Cic. Off. 1.150); Huic in tua provincia pecuniam debet P.  Cornelius. (Cic. Fam. 13.14.1); Ceterum omnia mutavit repente consulis adventus. (Liv. 9.27.13); Eorum forti fidelique opera in eo bello usi sunt saepe Romani. (Liv. 23.46.7); Venientes regio apparatu et accepit et prosecutus est rex. (Liv. 37.7.15) Discourse topic: . . . multo tamen vetustior et horridior ille (sc. Laelius) quam Scipio; et, cum sint in dicendo variae voluntates, delectari mihi magis antiquitate videtur et lubenter verbis etiam uti paulo magis priscis Laelius. (Cic. Brut. 83)¹⁵³ Rosén (1994: 140–5) discusses clauses with two-place verbs in which the subject follows a subject complement or an object, as in (g). Augustine uses the determiner ille remarkably often to mark a noun as definite (or rather, in the terminology of this chapter, as discourse topic). (g) (sc. fluctus temptationum) . . . noverat eos iam illa mater . . . (‘(floods of temptations) . . . that mother of mine knew of them already . . .’ August. Conf. 1.18)

Second arguments can be placed in final position if they are focus. See ex. (a) in § 23.46 and (h)–( j) below. In (h), Qßwzv.toŷx .g~{tl must have been entirely unexpected for Atticus. In (i), the amicitia between Datames and Ariobarzanes is unexpected after the latter’s desertion mentioned at Dat. 2.5. In ( j), the formation of a battle-line is the predictable thing to do in a war situation, but in the desperate situation the Samnites are in it is a remarkable feat, hence the unusual order, with aciem following the verb. (h)

Thyillus te rogat et ego eius rogatu Qßwzv.toŷx.g~{tl. (‘Thyillus requests you, and so at his request do I, for information about “the rites ancestral of Eumolpus’ clan”.’ Cic. Att. 1.9.2)

(i)

(sc. Datames) Clam cum Ariobarzane facit amicitiam, manum comparat, urbes munitas suis tuendas tradit.

the final position of a simple sentence in Caesar’s work. For the common postverbal position of Caesar and other discourse topics in general, see Schneider (1912: 67–9; 74) and K.-St.: II.598. ¹⁵³ K.-St.: II.598 also mention Cic. Mil. 59, where some of the mss. have Proxime deos accessit Clodius. Most editors follow the other manuscripts in reading Proxime deos Clodius accessit. It has also been proposed to delete Clodius.

Word order in declarative sentences  (‘He secretly came to an understanding with Ariobarzanes, gathered a band of soldiers, and entrusted the fortified cities to the protection of his friends.’ Nep. Dat. 5.6)

( j)

(sc. Samnites) Armati suis quisque ordinibus instruunt aciem. (‘Being armed, they went every man to his own place in the ranks, and formed the battle-line.’ Liv. 10.36.2) Supplement: Ille sensim dicebat quod causae prodesset. Tu cursim dicis aliena. (Cic. Phil. 2.42); Utitur in re non dubia testibus non necessariis. (Cic. Off. 2.16); Evocat ad se Caesar Massilia XV primos. (Caes. Civ. 1.35.1); Philippus impigre terra marique parabat bellum. (Liv. 31.33.1)

Second arguments, however, can also be in final position without a clear focus function, as is hostem in (k), which refers to the Carthaginian opponent of the Romans whose existence is presupposed: it is a discourse topic.¹⁵⁴ (k)

Is demum equitum impetus perculit hostem. (‘That charge of the cavalry finally worsted the enemy.’ Liv. 30.35.2) Supplement: Itaque equestribus proeliis lacessebant hostem. (Liv. 23.46.11)

Third arguments in sentence-final position are rare. An example of one with focus function is (l). (l)

Completur urbs et †ius† comitium tribunis [plebis], centurionibus, evocatis. (‘The city and the assembly place itself were full of staff officers, centurions, re-enlisted men.’ Caes. Civ. 1.3.3) Supplement: (sc. cives Romani) . . . laeti gratias agunt Caesari. (B.  Afr. 90.3); (sc. Consul) Neque immemor . . . reconciliandi animos plebis, saucios milites curandos dividit patribus. (Liv. 2.47.12); (sc. Camillus) Terrorem ingentem incusserat plebi. Ducibus plebis accendit magis certamine animos quam minuit. (Liv. 6.38.9)

Examples of subject complements in sentence-final position are (m)–(o), functioning as focus, with in (o) also an emphatic adjective.¹⁵⁵ An object complement is shown in (p). (m)

Erant quidem illa castra plena curae. (‘That camp was full of anxiety.’ Cic. Phil. 2.39)

(n)

Caesaris autem erat in barbaris nomen obscurius. (‘For Caesar’s name was comparatively unfamiliar to the natives.’ Caes. Civ. 1.61.3)

¹⁵⁴ For postverbal (most of them not sentence-final) second arguments which are already present in the discourse, see Devine and Stephens (2006: 127–36) and Danckaert (2012: 328–30). ¹⁵⁵ Adams (1994b: 75–7) discusses a number of sentence-final subject complements containing a noun phrase with an emphatic adjective.

 Word order (o)

Est enim eloquentia una quaedam de summis virtutibus. (‘Eloquence, after all, is one of the supreme virtues.’ Cic. de Orat. 3.55)

(p)

Equidem invitus, sed iniuriae dolor facit me praeter consuetudinem gloriosum. (‘It is against my will, to be sure, but a sense of injury makes me, contrary to my habit, vainglorious.’ Cic. Phil. 14.13) Supplement: Subject complements: Haec erunt vilici officia. (Cato Agr. 5.1); Id vinum erit lene et suave et bono colore et bene odoratum. (Cato Agr. 109); Superiore omni oratione perattentos vestros animos habuimus. Id fuit nobis gratum admodum. (Cic. Ver. 3.10); Est enim hiberna navigatio odiosa. (Cic. Att. 15.25.1); Est enim res profecto maxima. (Cic. Fam. 5.19.2); Esse homines feros magnaeque virtutis. (Caes. Gal. 2.15.5) Object complements: Eademque ratio fecit hominem hominum appetentem cumque iis natura et sermone et usu congruentem . . . (Cic. Fin. 2.45); . . . etsi illi quidem etiam voluptates faciunt interdum gloriosas. (Cic. Fin. 4.51); Pontes etiam lex Maria fecit angustos. (Cic. Leg. 3.38)

23.48 Satellites in final position in declarative sentences Satellites in sentence-final position, where they usually function as focus, are rare. Examples are (a) and (b).¹⁵⁶ (a)

Referunt consules de re publica infinite. (‘The consuls’ motion initiated a general debate about public affairs.’ Caes. Civ. 1.1.1)

(b)

Sed haec explanata sunt in Academicis nostris satis ut arbitror diligenter. (‘But this subject has been, I think, quite fully set forth in my “Academics”.’ Cic. Off. 2.8) Supplement: Associative adjuncts: Eo (sc. Caesar) proficiscitur cum legionibus. (Caes. Gal. 5.21.4); Secutus consul Servilius cum delecta peditum manu. (Liv. 2.26.3); Eo anno rex Prusias venit Romam cum filio Nicomede. (Liv. 45.44.4) Degree adjuncts: Metuoque et timeo ne hoc tandem propalam fiat nimis. (Pl. Mil. 1348); Pernovi equidem, Lesbonice, ingenium tuom ingenuom admodum. (Pl. Trin. 665); Huic legioni Caesar et indulserat praecipue et propter virtutem confidebat maxime. (Caes. Gal. 1.40.15) Frequency adjuncts: Qui te et diligunt et retinent retinebuntque semper nec . . . (Cic. Sul. 35); Qui consulatum petivit numquam factus consul est bis, primum ante tempus, iterum sibi suo tempore . . . (Cic. Amic. 11); “Isti Pindenissitae qui sunt?” inquies. “Nomen audivi numquam.” (Cic. Att. 5.20.1) Manner adjuncts: Nulla est mihi, nam quam habui apsumpsi celeriter. (Pl. Cur. 600); Teneo omnia, in pectore condita sunt, meditati sunt mihi doli docte. (Pl. Ps. 941); Multo etiam adrisum est vehementius. (Cic. de Orat. 2.262); . . . parens est educatrixque sapientia. # Laudata quidem a te graviter et vere. (Cic. Leg. 1.62–3); (sc. stellae) . . . quae globosae et rotundae, divinis animatae mentibus, circulos suos orbesque

¹⁵⁶ In Hoffmann’s corpus of satellites only nine out of 144 are in final position  (2010b: 275–6). On infinite (an emendation), see Damon  (2015: 123). Several examples in the Supplement are taken from K.-St.: II.613.

Word order in declarative sentences  conficiunt celeritate mirabili. (Cic. Rep. 6.15); Eam (sc. wlxjlx) tamen ipsam distinguimus nos melius quam illi. (Cic. Tusc. 3.11); Brutus amicus. In causa versatur acriter. (Cic. Att. 11.4a.1); Pugnatum est ab utrisque acriter. (Caes. Gal. 4.26.1); (sc. Hannibal) Navem ascendit clam atque in Syriam ad Antiochum profugit. (Nep. Han. 7.6); Hic manebimus optime. (Liv. 5.55.2) Means and instrument adjuncts: Victa igitur est causa rei publicae, et victa non auspiciis, non intercessione, non suffragiis, sed vi, manu, ferro. (Cic. Sest. 78) Price adjuncts: Ii emuntur ad Rufri macerias HS CXXC, temperantur HS XXX. (Cato Agr. 22.3) Space and time adjuncts: E Pompeiano navi advectus sum in Luculli nostri hospitium VI Id. hora fere tertia. (Cic. Att. 14.20.1); Hac re cognita Caesar mittit complures equitum turmas eodem media nocte. (Caes. Gal. 7.45.1);¹⁵⁷ Et illa quidem nocte nihil (sc. actum est) praeterquam vigilatum est in urbe. Postero die dictator . . . (Liv. 3.26.12) Reason adjuncts: (sc. Favonius) Nunc tamen petit iterum rei publicae causa. (Cic. Att. 2.1.9); Multi artifices ex Graecia venerunt honoris eius causa. (Liv. 39.22.2) Respect adjuncts: Tiribazus . . . Cononem evocavit simulans ad regem eum se mittere velle magna de re. (Nep. Con. 5.3)

23.49 Finite verbs in final position in declarative sentences The important role of finite verbs as final constituents of clauses and sentences was already recognized in Antiquity (see § 23.2) and has been stressed by Latinists ever since. Indeed, no constituent can be found as often in that position as the (finite) verb. But there is much variation from one text or author to another and even within a single text of the same author. In Plautus the verb is often followed by other constituents, whereas Caesar, the ‘fanatic of the final position’,¹⁵⁸ has the verb at the end in 84 per cent of sentences and main clauses (in subordinate clauses it is 90 per cent The percentage varies in Cicero between 32 per cent and 52 per cent and is as low as 33 per cent in Varro. In the Peregrinatio the overall percentage is 25 per cent.¹⁵⁹ For the interpretation of these statistical data at least two factors must be taken into consideration: firstly, the number of constituents in the clause or sentence (to see whether there is a choice); secondly the pragmatic status of the verb (it may or may not carry focus). Table 23.3 on p. 1004 shows that with a more precise definition of ‘simple’ declarative sentence the percentage of final finite verbs in the examined passage of Caesar is lower (62 per cent), including cases where there seems to be little choice, such as sentences with only two constituents, as in (a). Here, postulata Caesaris is the topic and therefore it occupies the first position. Both the agent and the addressee of renuntiat are known from the context. The sentence tells us what Roscius did with the postulata, so in this case renuntiat is in final position not only because there is no choice, but also because it is carrying the focus. Likewise, in (b), consequitur is the most salient information. In (c), by contrast, it is difficult to find a ¹⁵⁷ Hering punctuates: . . . eodem. Media nocte . . . ¹⁵⁸ So Linde (1923: 154), who uses the term ‘ein Fanatiker der Endstellung’. ¹⁵⁹ These data are taken from Linde (1923: 154–6) and widely used. For a survey of statistical data, see Baños and Cabrillana  (2009: 688–93), Meyer-Hermann  (2011: 11–15—very complete), and Ledgeway (2012: 228–9). See also LSS § 9.3.1.

 Word order pragmatic justification for the position of mittit: all of the information M. Antonium cum cohortibus V Arretium mittit is new (a complex focus unit), with Arretium probably being the least predictable and therefore most salient element. For most of the finite verbs in final position in Caesar a pragmatic justification is difficult to find. At the same time, in Cicero’s de Officiis, where verbs in final position are in the minority, it is also often difficult to find a pragmatic justification for this, as for (d), where (in rationem) utilitatis seems the most salient information, not cadit. (a)

(sc. Roscius) Postulata Caesaris renuntiat (sc. consulibus Pompeioque). (‘He presented Caesar’s demands.’ Caes. Civ. 1.10.1)

(b)

Interea legio XII Caesarem consequitur. (‘Meanwhile the twelfth legion reached Caesar.’ Caes. Civ. 1.15.3)

(c)

(sc. Caesar) Itaque ab Arimino  M.  Antonium cum cohortibus V Arretium mittit. (‘Caesar therefore sent Marcus Antonius from Ariminum to Arretium with five cohorts.’ Caes. Civ. 1.11.4)

(d)

Quae deliberatio omnis in rationem utilitatis cadit. (‘This whole matter turns upon a question of expediency.’ Cic. Off. 1.9)

A considerable portion of the finite verb forms in sentence-final position is constituted by auxiliary verb forms, both forms of sum in its auxiliary use in complex verb forms (see §  4.93) and auxiliary verbs proper (see §  4.98), as in (e) and (f), respectively. There is as a rule no pragmatic justification for their own position (for the internal ordering of the unit they are part of, see §§ 23.97–9; for sum, see also § 23.33). (e)

Pax denique per eum et per liberos eius cum praestantissimis civibus confirmata est. (‘Finally, through him and his son, peace with our most distinguished fellow countrymen was established.’ Cic. Phil. 1.2)

(f)

Aliquid enim salis a mima uxore trahere potuisti. (‘You could have picked up a little humour from your mime-actress spouse.’ Cic. Phil. 2.20)

It seems then that there is a default rule which holds that if there are no other obvious salient candidates for the final position of the sentence the finite verb is a suitable candidate. The reason for this rule need not be ‘stylistic’ in the sense that it is a purely individual decision of the language user. After all, the verb is the central building block of the clause, whether it is salient information or not, and may thus serve as a boundary signal, at least in writing. Some authors show more variation than others.¹⁶⁰ Considerations of clausulae may play a role as well.

¹⁶⁰ Celsus is one of the authors who prefers to put forms of sum at the very end of the clause or sentence (Adams 1994b: 56).

Word order in interrogative sentences 

. Intermediate positions in simple declarative sentences Obviously, in sentences of three or more constituents, those constituents that are not in the initial or final position end up in between. For the preference of certain pronouns, forms of sum, and a few others for a position after a pragmatically prominent constituent, see §§ 23.30–3. Verbs can end up in an intermediate position when they are used to create discontinuity. In (a), the position of abundabat lends prominence to the modifier of the noun phrase omnium rerum copia. In (b), attulit is used in combination with the third argument nostris and a satellite ad salutem to lend prominence to the modifier of the focus constituent magnum momentum. In addition to, or sometimes instead of, pragmatic considerations prosodic considerations may be relevant as well. For further details, see § 23.87. (a)

At exercitus Afrani omnium rerum abundabat copia. (‘Afranius’ army, however, had an abundance of everything.’ Caes. Civ. 1.49.1)

(b)

Hoc pugnae tempus magnum attulit nostris ad salutem momentum. (‘The time they spent fighting was of great consequence for the safety of our people.’ Caes. Civ. 1.51.6)

. Word order in interrogative sentences Interrogative sentences are much less attested in our texts than declarative sentences and also very unevenly distributed over the various text types. They are only used with some frequency in interactive texts, such as drama, orations, dialogues, and letters. As with declarative sentences, the number of simple interrogative sentences is limited, even though the proportion of simple sentences among interrogative sentences in general is high. Word order in interrogative sentences has received little systematic attention.¹⁶¹ For the description of the order of constituents in interrogative sentences that follows, the distinction between simple and multiple questions and between sentence questions and constituent questions (see §§ 6.6–7) will be maintained.

. Word order in sentence questions In §  6.8, two types of sentence questions (or ‘yes/no questions’) have been distinguished, those with and without a question particle. For an utterance without a question particle to be recognized as a sentence question (and not as a declarative sentence), the order of constituents is often not very helpful (see § 6.9). In the absence of information about intonation, we need to rely on our interpretation in the given context. In sentences without a question particle in which the scope of the question is on the verb that verb is less often in first position than in sentences with the question particle

¹⁶¹ Exceptions are Devine and Stephens (2006: 235–42) and Spevak (2010a: Ch 4).

 Word order -ne.¹⁶² Examples are (a) and (b). The position of the verbs in these examples resembles the assertive or veridical use of the first position in declarative sentences (see § 23.45). Here the responses to the questions also contribute to a correct interpretation. (a)

Periisti iam nisi verum scio. / Prompsisti tu illi vinum? # Non prompsi. # Negas? / # Nego hercle vero. (‘You are dead this instant unless I know the truth. Did you draw wine for him? # No, I didn’t. # You deny it? # I do indeed deny it.’ Pl. Mil. 828–30)

(b)

Infirmas igitur tu acta C. Caesaris, viri fortissimi? # Minime. (‘Do you then invalidate the gallant Caesar’s proceedings? # By no means.’ Cic. Dom. 39) Supplement: Ibo igitur intro? # Quippini? Tam audacter quam domum ad te. (Pl. Truc. 205); Ceterum / placet tibi factum, Micio? # Non, si queam mutare. (Ter. Ad. 736–8); Intueris illas potentium domos, illa tumultuosa rixa salutantium limina? (Sen. Ep. 84.12)

As in declarative sentences, contrastive constituents are placed in the initial position, as the topic constituent isti ordini in (c) and the focus constituents timor and ratio in (d). In (c), the preceding question Quid? contributes to the correct interpretation of the sentence as interrogative. Emphatic modifiers are placed in the initial position as well, as in (e), where hanc is separated from the remainder of the topic constituent tam . . . cupiditatem. (c)

Quid? Isti ordini iudicatus lege Iulia, etiam ante Pompeia, Aurelia non patebat? (‘Indeed? Service as a juror was not open to that class under the Julian law, and even earlier under the Pompeian and Aurelian?’ Cic. Phil. 1.20)

(d)

Timor igitur ab his aegritudinem potuit repellere, ratio ab sapienti viro non poterit? (‘Therefore fear had the power to drive away their distress, and shall not reason have power to drive it away from the wise man?’ Cic. Tusc. 3.66)

(e)

Hanc vos, pontifices, tam variam, tam novam in omni genere voluntatem, impudentiam, audaciam, cupiditatem comprobabitis? (‘And will you, gentlemen, set the seal of your sanction upon this desire, so shifting and so unusual in every respect, this impudence, effrontery, and covetousness?’ Cic. Dom. 116) Supplement: Ergo histrio hoc videbit in scena, non videbit sapiens vir in vita? (Cic. Off. 1.114); Tu illum premi putas malis? (Sen. Ep. 85.40)

Of sentence questions with a question particle, those with -ne, nonne, and num deserve attention from the point of view of word order because they (or in the case ¹⁶² See Schrickx (2017: 243).

Word order in interrogative sentences  of -ne the constituent to which it is attached) may be preceded by a connector or by a pragmatically marked, usually topical, constituent. The particle -ne is normally attached to an initial constituent to mark the scope of the question, often a constituent with focus function (see § 23.37 and also § 6.11).¹⁶³ In (f), the constituent to which -ne is attached is preceded by a connector; in (g), by the topic of the sentence; in (h), by a contrastive topic. (f)

Ipsus, inquam, Charmides sum. # Ergo ipsusne es? # Ipsissimus. (‘I’m telling you, I am Charmides myself. # Then are you him yourself? # My selfest self.’ Pl. Trin. 988)

(g)

Scyphos quos utendos dedi Philodamo, rettulitne? / # Non etiam. (‘And the goblets I lent to Philodamos, has he returned them? # He still hasn’t.’ Pl. As. 444–5)

(h)

Tibi omnisne animi commotio videtur insania? # Non mihi quidem soli . . . (‘Do you regard every agitation of the soul as unsoundness of mind? # It is not my opinion only . . .’ Cic. Tusc. 3.8) Supplement: Argenti viginti minas habesne? (Pl. As. 579); Sed videone ego Pamphilippum cum fratre Epignomo? (Pl. St. 582); Illa, Caecili, contemnendane tibi videntur esse, sine quibus causa sustineri, praesertim tanta, nullo modo potest? (Cic. Div. Caec. 35); Pro te ipso, Piso, nemone mutabit (sc. vestitum)? (Cic. Sest. 33); ‘Sed quid ago’ inquit ‘aut sumne sanus qui haec vos doceo?’ (Cic. Ac. 1.18); Facio, inquit, equidem, sed audistine modo de Carneade? (Cic. Fin. 5.6); In mancipio vendundo dicendane vitia . . .? (Cic. Off. 3.91)

In the large majority of the sentences in Cicero’s orations in which -ne is attached to a constituent other than the verb the final position is occupied by a verb, as in (i).¹⁶⁴ However, other constituents can be placed in final position as well, as in (h) above and in ( j) and (k). (i)

Bellumne populo Romano Lampsacena civitas facere conabatur? Deficere ab imperio ac nomine nostro volebat? (‘Was the town of Lampsacum aiming at making war upon Rome? Did it mean to revolt from its allegiance to our rule?’ Cic. Ver. 1.79)

( j)

Verresne habebit domi suae candelabrum Iovis e gemmis auroque perfectum? (‘Shall Verres include in his furniture this lamp-stand, wrought in gold and precious stones, that belongs to Jupiter himself?’ Cic. Ver. 4.71)

(k)

Parumne haec significant incredibiliter consentientem populi Romani universi voluntatem? (‘Is not all this enough to signify a truly extraordinary consensus of the entire Roman people?’ Cic. Phil. 1.36)

¹⁶³ For the decrease in use of -ne, see § 6.8. See also TLL s.v. -ne 261.25ff. ¹⁶⁴ Source: Merguet (Reden) s.v. -ne 255–8. In about one-third of the sentences the first position is taken by a verb.

 Word order Sentence questions with nonne are relatively often preceded by a connector, as in (l), or by a topic constituent, as in (m). A rather complex case with more constituents preceding nonne is (n). There seem to be no instances of nonne preceded by a finite verb. See also § 23.27 and § 6.12.¹⁶⁵ (l)

Sed nonne meministi licere mihi ista probare, quae sunt a te dicta? (‘But don’t you remember that it is quite open to me to approve the doctrines you have stated?’ Cic. Fin. 5.76)

(m)

Quid? Eundem in septemviratu nonne destituisti? (‘Well? Did you not also let him down in the matter of the Board of Seven?’ Cic. Phil. 2.99)

(n)

Quid? Cn. Pompeius pater rebus Italico bello maximis gestis P.  Caesium, equitem Romanum, virum bonum, qui vivit, Ravennatem foederato ex populo, nonne civitate donavit? (‘Again, did not Gnaeus Pompeius (sc. Strabo), the father of Pompeius, after great exploits in the Italian War, bestow citizenship on Publius Caesius, a Roman Knight, a worthy man still living, who was a citizen of Ravenna and a member of a federate state?’ Cic. Balb. 50) Supplement: Quaeso, nonne intellegis? (Pl. Am. 625); Ad senatum nostrum me consule nonne legati Apollonidenses omnia postulata de iniuriis unius Deciani detulerunt? (Cic. Flac. 79); Idem iste Mithridates nonne ad eundem Cn. Pompeium legatum usque in Hispaniam misit? (Cic. Man. 46); Bello Punico secundo nonne C. Flaminius consul iterum neglexit signa rerum futurarum magna cum clade rei publicae? (Cic. Div. 1.77); Quid? Nostros Gracchos, Ti. Gracchi summi viri filios, Africani nepotes, nonne agrariae contentiones perdiderunt? (Cic. Off. 2.80); Ea plaga nonne ad multos bonos viros pertinet? (Cic. Att. 2.1.10)

The large majority of simple interrogative sentences containing nonne in Cicero’s orations have a verb in final position, as in (m) and (n) above. However, other constituents may be placed there as well, as (o), with a contrastive focus in final position, and (p). (o)

Nonne te mihi testem in hoc crimine eripuit non istius innocentia, sed legis exceptio? (‘Did not the exemption the law gives you, and not your client’s innocence, deprive me of calling you yourself as a witness to the truth of this charge?’ Cic. Ver. 2.24)

(p)

(sc. Pompeius) Nonne compensavit cum uno versiculo tot mea volumina laudum suarum? (‘Did he not set off against one poor verse all those volumes of mine that sing his praises?’ Cic. Pis. 75)

Examples of constituents preceding sentence questions with num, as in (q) and (r), are less common. See § 23.27 and also § 6.13.

¹⁶⁵ For the limited distribution of nonne, see § 6.8.

Word order in interrogative sentences  (q)

Sed num quo foras / vocatus ad cenam? (‘But have you been asked out for dinner anywhere?’ Pl. Capt. 172–3)

(r)

Ex aede Liberae †parimum† caput illud pulcherrimum, quod visere solebamus, num dubitasti tollere? (‘And did you hesitate to remove from the temple of Libera that lovely head of . . . which we used to go there to see?’ Cic. Ver. 4.128) Supplement: Haec cistella numnam hinc ab nobis domo est? (Pl. Cist. 658); Iam num me decet donari / cado vini veteris? (Pl. Poen. 258–9); Quid ergo? Istius vitii num nostra culpa est? (Cic. Luc. 92); Quid? Deum ipsum numne vidisti? (Cic. N.D. 1.88)

The large majority of interrogative sentences in Cicero’s orations containing num have a verb in final position, as in (s). Different are (t), with the focus in final position, and (u), with te in final position because the beginning of a new phase of the discussion favours the initial position of the verb conturbo (for the verb in initial position in declarative sentences, see § 23.45). (s)

Num etiam de L.  Papinio, viro primario, locupleti honestoque equite Romano, turibulum emisti? (‘What of the censer belonging to Lucius Papinius, that well-known gentleman, that wealthy and highly-respected knight? Did you also buy that?’ Cic. Ver. 4.46)

(t)

Sed si parum multi sunt qui nobilitatem ament, num ista est nostra culpa? (‘If, then, those who love nobility are less numerous than you would have them, is this our fault?’ Cic. Planc. 18)

(u)

Quid est? Num conturbo te? (‘What is it? Can it be that I am confusing you?’ Cic. Phil. 2.32)

. Word order in constituent questions Constituent questions (or ‘nominal questions’) contain a question word which either functions on its own as argument or satellite of the sentence, as in (a) and (b), or functions as modifier of a noun, adjective, or adverb phrase, as in (c) and (d) (see § 6.19). As the examples show, the regular position of such question words, which are the focus in their sentence, is at the beginning. Modifiers can be separated from their heads for reasons of emphasis, as in (c). (a)

Quis enim meum in ista societate gloriosissimi facti nomen audivit? (‘Who ever heard my name linked with that partnership in a most glorious deed?’ Cic. Phil. 2.25)

(b)

Cur autem ea comitia non habuisti? (‘Why then did you not hold that election?’ Cic. Phil. 2.99)

(c)

Qui tum inde reditus aut qualis? (‘What sort of return did he make at that time, what was its nature?’ Cic. Phil. 2.48)

 Word order (d)

Quam longe est hinc in saltum vestrum Gallicanum? (‘How far is it from here to your pastures in Gaul?’ Cic. Quinct. 79)

Question words can be preceded by connectors and by pragmatically prominent words or constituents (see § 23.28). In Spevak’s corpus, this is the case in less than 10 per cent of constituent questions. This phenomenon mainly occurs with constituents that function as topics or settings. Some additional examples of pragmatically prominent constituents are (e)–(i). In (e), Stalagmus is mentioned in the preceding context and is the topic of the sentence. In (f), tu is a contrastive topic. In (g), repeated from §  23.28, Cicero’s arrival in Rome is a subtopic, part of his spectacular return from exile. Another way of putting a constituent in front of a question word is shown in (h) and (i). Here the regular order of the constituents of a noun phrase is reversed for pragmatic purposes. In (h), de collegio continues collegium in the preceding sentence. In (i), mali is a contrastive topic. (e)

Sed Stalagmus quoius erat tunc nationis, quom hinc abit? (‘But what was Stalagmus’ nationality when he went away from here?’ Pl. Capt. 887)

(f)

Atque ille tamen ad collegium rettulit, tu ad quem rettulisti? (‘Yet he submitted his dedication to the Sacred College; and to whom did you submit yours?’ Cic. Dom. 132)

(g)

Adventus meus atque introitus in urbem qui fuit? (‘As for my arrival at and entry into the city: what was its character?’ Cic. Dom. 75)

(h)

Esto, collegium non adhibuisti. Quid? De collegio quis tandem adfuit? (‘Very well, you did not call in the College. And of the College, who, pray, was present?’ Cic. Dom. 117)

(i)

Video nos, si ita sit, privari spe beatioris vitae. Mali vero quid adfert ista sententia? (‘I see that in that case we are deprived of the hope of a happier life. But what evil does such a view imply?’ Cic. Tusc. 1.82) Supplement: Quid? Pompei tertius consulatus in quibus actis constitit? (Cic. Phil. 1.18); Etsi in rebus iniquissimis quid potest esse aequi? (Cic. Phil. 2.75); Criminatio tua quae est? Roscium cum Flavio pro societate decidisse. . . Defensio mea quae est? (Cic. Q. Rosc. 37); Si damnatus eris, atque adeo cum damnatus eris—nam dubitatio damnationis illis recuperatoribus quae poterat esse?—virgis te ad necem caedi necesse erit. (Cic. Ver. 3.70); Elephanto beluarum nulla prudentior. Ad figuram quae vastior? (Cic. N.D. 1.97); Tu enim quam celebritatem sermonis hominum aut quam expetendam consequi gloriam potes? (Cic. Rep. 6.20); Quid? Ante avum tuum quis istum agrum tenuit? (Sen. Ep. 88.12); Populus Romanus cum quibus gentibus bella conseruit et quibus de causis. (Amp. 28.1—NB: heading of a section); Nomen quid est? # Pars orationis . . . (Don. min. IV.355.5K [= 585.7H])¹⁶⁶

¹⁶⁶ This order is quite normal in didactic grammatical treatises with question and answer pairs. See Flobert (2002).

Word order in imperative sentences  As for the position of the other constituents in constituent questions, no systematic research seems to have been done. In Cic. Phil. 1 and 2 there are twenty simple sentences with an initial question word that contain a two-place verb. Nineteen sentences have the finite verb at the end, as in ( j), and only one, (k), ends with another constituent, possibly to emphasize it. ( j)

Quis autem umquam tanto damno senatorem coegit? (‘Who ever compelled a senator’s attendance by so heavy a forfeit?’ Cic. Phil. 1.12)

(k)

Cur homines omnium gentium maxime barbaros, Ityraeos, cum sagittis deducis in forum? (‘Why do you bring into the Forum the most barbarous men of all nations, Ituraeans, with arrows?’ Cic. Phil. 2.112)

. Word order in multiple questions As with simple questions, topic constituents can be put in an initial position of a sentence that contains multiple (or ‘alternative’ or ‘disjunctive’) questions if that constituent belongs to both parts of the multiple question, as in (a) and (b). Note that (c) is different: here, Albiana pecunia only belongs to the first part. (a)

Haec utrum tandem lex est an legum omnium dissolutio? (‘Is this a law or the cancellation of all laws?’ Cic. Phil. 1.21)

(b)

In plebem vero Romanam utrum superbiam prius commemorem an crudelitatem? (‘As to his behaviour towards ordinary people in Rome, should I speak first of its snobbery or its cruelty?’ Cic. Ver. 1.122)

(c)

Quid? Albiana pecunia vestigiisne nobis odoranda est an ad ipsum cubile vobis ducibus venire possumus? (‘What then? Does Albius’ money need to be sniffed out along your tracks or with your guidance can we come straight to his lair?’ Cic. Clu. 82)

There is little to say with certainty about other aspects of word order in multiple questions. It seems to be the same as in declarative sentences.¹⁶⁷

. Word order in imperative sentences It is a widespread opinion among Latinists that in imperative sentences the verb regularly occupies the first position of the sentence.¹⁶⁸ On closer inspection, this is only partly true. Following the distinction between imperative sentences with a ‘directive’,

¹⁶⁷ So Devine and Stephens (2006: 241). ¹⁶⁸ For discussion, see Spevak (2010a: 205–6) and Cabrillana (2017a: 122–3).

 Word order an ‘optative’, and a ‘concessive’ illocutionary force made in Chapter 6, the word order in these three types is dealt with separately.¹⁶⁹

. Word order in imperative sentences with a directive illocutionary force Imperative sentences with a directive illocutionary force include both the prototypical directives addressed to a second person addressee (where the subject is normally not expressed) and various expressions with first and third person subjects (see § 6.28). Second person directives are discussed first. It is necessary to make a distinction between various types of second person directives. Alongside ‘regular’ directives like (a) and (b), there are ‘metadirectives’ like fac in (c) (see § 6.29) and interactional expressions like dic mihi in (d).¹⁷⁰ (a)

Sequere me hac intro. # Sequor. (‘Follow me inside this way. # I’m following you.’ Pl. Cur. 370)

(b)

Hoc animum advorte. Pacem ab Aesculapio / petas, ne fort’ tibi eveniat magnum malum . . . (‘Mark my words: seek peace from Aesculapius, so that you won’t by chance end up with the great disaster . . .’ Pl. Cur. 270–1)

(c)

Ipse vero utique fac venias, si potes in his locis adhaerescere, et Piliam adducas. (‘As for yourself, do come without fail, if you can bear to stick down here for a while, and bring Pilia.’ Cic. Att. 4.4a.2)

(d)

Sed dic mihi, / benene ambulatum est? (‘But tell me, did you have a good trip?’ Pl. Truc. 368–9)

A considerable portion of imperative sentences are of the metadirective or interactional type. These imperatives are almost always in an early position. With the regular directives, however, there is some variation. In a corpus of 116 imperative sentences with two-place verbs, Spevak (2010a: 213–16) found the order verb–second argument in 75 per cent of cases, the reverse order in 25 per cent. More importantly, the orders can usually be accounted for in terms of the distribution of topic and focus. This is illustrated by (e) and (f), which both contain the forms hanc and tollite.¹⁷¹ In (e), hanc prepares causam in the following sentence and is the focus. The command is about what to remove. In (f), hanc refers to crudelitate in the preceding context and is thus the topic. The command is about what to do with the crudelitas. In (g), sentence-final diligentiam is the focus of the sentence. In (h), totam vitam, naturam moresque hominis is the focus of the sentence (even though hominis is known information,

¹⁶⁹ For a more detailed subclassification of imperative sentences and their word order, see Cabrillana (2017a: 116–21). Her study concentrates on the verbs sum and fio. ¹⁷⁰ Instead of ‘metadirective’ Spevak (2010a: 208–9) uses the term ‘periphrastic’. ¹⁷¹ The examples are cited by Spevak.

Word order in imperative sentences  sc. Capitonis), placed in initial position for reasons of emphasis (totam). Ex ipsa legatione is an (emphatic: ipsa) topic, which leaves cognoscite at the end.¹⁷² (e)

Tollite hanc: nullam tam pravae sententiae causam reperietis. (‘Take away this reason: you will find no reason at all for so misguided a proposal.’ Cic. Phil. 14.3)

(f)

Hanc (sc. crudelitatem) tollite ex civitate, iudices, hanc pati nolite diutius in hac re publica versari. (‘Banish this cruelty from the State, gentlemen; do not allow it to stalk abroad any longer in this republic.’ Cic. S. Rosc. 154)

(g)

P.  Servilius . . . signa . . . in tabula publica ad aerarium perscribenda curavit. Cognoscite ex litteris publicis hominis amplissimi diligentiam. Recita. (‘P.  Servilius . . . took care to enter the statues in full in the official catalogue of the public Treasury. Learn of the scrupulous care shown by this eminent man from the national records. Read them, please.’ Cic. Ver. 1.57)

(h)

Venit in decem primis legatus in castra Capito. Totam vitam, naturam moresque hominis ex ipsa legatione cognoscite. (‘Capito came to the camp as one of the deputies among the ten heads of the decurions. Now learn thoroughly the manner of life, the nature and character of the man from his behaviour on the deputation alone.’ Cic. S. Rosc. 109)

The first position of the verb may also be related to emphasis, as in (i) and ( j). (i)

Obsecro, populares, ferte misero atque innocenti auxilium, / subvenite inopi. (‘I beg you, fellow citizens, come to the rescue of a poor innocent man, help a defenceless man!’ Ter. Ad. 155–6)

( j)

Retinete, retinete hominem in civitate, iudices, parcite et conservate . . . (‘Save the man, save him for Rome, gentlemen! Spare him and keep him safe!’ Cic. Ver. 2.76)

Second person directives in the subjunctive (both commands and prohibitions) have not been investigated from the point of view of word order. For examples, see § 7.53. First person directives in the ‘adhortative’ subjunctive have not received special attention either. See § 7.52. Third person directives in the ‘jussive’ subjunctive (see § 7.54) are not relevant here, because the subject is often expressed or inferrable from the context, as in (k). (k)

Vilicus ne sit ambulator, sobrius siet semper, ad cenam nequo eat. (‘The overseer must not be a gadabout, he must always be sober, and must not go out to dine.’ Cato Agr. 5.2)

¹⁷² For a different analysis, see Devine and Stephens (2006: 170–1). In his orations, Cicero addresses the judges with cognoscite about eighty times, of which about one-third are in sentences with three or more constituents. In these sentences final position of the verb is more frequent. For the initial placement of the verb in imperative sentences in Caesar, see Schneider (1912: 47–8). In legal and religious texts the verb is very often in final position, including in imperative sentences. See Panhuis (1982: Ch. 5).

 Word order With the future imperative the subject can be second or third person. In (l) it is second person, as the preceding imperatives show; in the fictitious law in (m) it is third person. (l) Stercilinum magnum stude ut habeas. Stercus sedulo conserva. Cum exportabis, purgato et comminuito. Per autumnum evehito. (‘See that you have a large dunghill; save the manure carefully, and when you carry it out, clean it of foreign matter and break it up. Autumn is the time to haul it out.’ Cato Agr. 5.8) (m) Meretrix coronam auream ne habeto. Si habuerit, publica esto. (‘A prostitute shall not wear a crown of gold; if she does, the penalty shall be confiscation as public property.’ Cic. Inv. 2.118)

. Word order in imperative sentences with an optative illocutionary force Imperative sentences with an optative illocutionary force in the subjunctive can have a first, second, or third person subject. In the last case, the subject is usually expressed. Examples can be found in §  6.33 and §§  7.56–8. There are no special studies concerning the word order in these expressions. Wishes can contain the particle utinam, which usually occupies the first position, as in (a). However, it may be preceded by a connector or a pragmatically prominent word or constituent, as in (b) and (c), respectively. (a)

Utinam P. Clodius non modo viveret sed etiam praetor, consul, dictator esset potius quam hoc spectaculum viderem! (‘Would that Publius Clodius not merely lived, but were praetor, consul, ay, dictator, rather than that I should live to see that sight!’ Cic. Mil. 103)

(b)

Sed utinam meo solum capite decernerem! (‘But if only it was just my own life I was staking!’ Cic. Att. 10.9.2)

(c)

Pecunia utinam ad Opis maneret! (‘If only the money were still in the Temple of Ops!’ Cic. Phil. 1.17)

. Word order in imperative sentences with a concessive illocutionary force In imperative sentences with a concessive illocutionary force, the verb is usually in the first position of the sentence. This resembles the assertive or veridical use of the first position in declarative sentences (see § 23.45). For examples, see § 6.34 and § 7.59. Another illustration is (a). In (b), the connector sed precedes the verb. In (c), the contrastive topic haec has the first position. (a)

Esto, concedatur haec quoque acerbitatis et odii magnitudo. (‘Well, let us even allow that the magnitude of your acrimony and your hatred is justified.’ Cic. Deiot. 30)

Word order in subordinate clauses  (b)

Sed sint falsa quaedam. Contra vera quid dicimus? (‘But grant that some are untrustworthy. Why do we declaim against those that are trustworthy?’ Cic. Div. 1.60)

(c)

Age, haec probabilia sane sint. Num etiam illa, numquam timere numquam dolere? (‘Well, granted that this may be probable, surely the following tenets are not so too, that he never feels fear and that he never feels pain.’ Cic. Luc. 135)

. Word order in superordinate (main) clauses In studies on Latin word order main clauses and superordinate clauses in general are not treated separately from simple sentences. Also, no distinction is made between superordinate clauses that precede their subordinate clause and those that follow. A few observations will suffice.¹⁷³ If the preceding subordinate clause is a setting, as in (a), the superordinate clause regularly starts with a topic constituent. In (a), faber can be inferred from the action of building (it is a ‘subtopic’—see § 22.4); similarly, oppidum in (b) can be inferred from the town Salonae. In (c), subito is emphatic and for that reason precedes anaphoric illi. Verbs in initial position are rare, but they are inevitable in cases like (d), with an implicit subject and an accusative and infinitive clause as focal second argument. (a)

Villam aedificandam si locabis novam ab solo, faber haec faciat oportet: parietes omnes . . . (‘If you are contracting for the building of a new steading from the ground up, the contractor should be responsible for the following: all walls . . .’ Cato Agr. 14.1)

(b)

Conventum Salonis cum neque pollicitationibus neque denuntiatione periculi permovere posset, oppidum oppugnare instituit. (‘Unable to influence the association of Roman citizens at Salonae either by promises or by heralding danger, he began to besiege the town.’ Caes. Civ. 3.9.2)

(c)

Et cum cotidiana consuetudine Q. Varus, praefectus equitum Domiti, venisset, subito illi ex insidiis consurrexerunt. (‘And when Quintus Varus, Domitius’ cavalry commander, arrived following the regular routine, the enemy suddenly burst out of their ambush.’ Caes. Civ. 3.37.5)

(d)

Haec cum dixisset, iuravit se nisi victorem in castra non reversurum reliquosque ut idem facerent hortatus est. (‘After speaking thus, he took an oath that he would not return to camp except as a victor, and he urged the rest to do the same.’ Caes. Civ. 3.87.5)

. Word order in subordinate clauses There are not many detailed studies on the order of constituents in subordinate clauses. In finite subordinate clauses the finite verb is more often placed at the end ¹⁷³ These observations are based on an examination of cum clauses in Caes. Civ. which open the complex sentence to which they belong. Further research is required.

 Word order than in main clauses. Word order in accusative and infinitive clauses has received some attention because ambiguity can arise when the subject and object are formally identical and the relative order is not fixed. In the following sections only a few finite and non-finite subordinate clauses are discussed separately. Subordinate clauses may be complex themselves. Cum clauses are a good example, especially those closing the sentence. In the Ciceronian sample about one-third are complex, in the Caesarian almost a quarter. The discussion will only concern ‘simple’ clauses. The term ‘simple’ is used in the same way as it is for sentences (see § 23.39).

. Word order in finite subordinate clauses What most finite subordinate clauses have in common is the presence of a subordinating device (see § 14.6), for example a subordinator, a question particle, or a relative pronoun, which usually occupies the first position of the clause. Other orders, mainly for pragmatic reasons, are discussed in §§ 23.23–8. There is little systematic research on word order in subordinate clauses, neither on the individual types of clauses, nor on how it may differ from word order in main clauses and simple sentences.¹⁷⁴ The examination below of two samples of ‘simple’ cum adjunct clauses in Cic. Phil. and Caes. Civ. will serve as an illustration of the relevant issues. Cum clauses may precede, be incorporated in, or follow their superordinate clauses, with potentially different interpretations of the cum relations, which are here ignored. One or more arguments or satellites can precede cum, as in (a), with a connective relative pronoun. A rare instance of a preceding verb form is (b), with separation of the infinitive and the auxiliary vellent. Within the cum clause the first position is most often taken by a topical first or second argument (also in passive clauses), as in (c), but a verb is not uncommon either, as in (d), a clause expressing a position in space. In clauses with two or more constituents in addition to the verb, the verb is regularly the last constituent, as in (e), but arguments and satellites are not excluded, as impunitas in (f), the focus of the clause. Constituents other than the verb in final position can usually be explained on pragmatic grounds.¹⁷⁵ Proper names are relatively common in final position when they are discourse topic, as in (g) (further examples in the Supplement—see also § 23.47 for declarative sentences). (a)

Apud quos cum proficere nihil posset, quibusdam solutis ergastulis Compsam in agro Hirpino oppugnare coepit. (‘Since he was unable to make any progress with these, he opened the slave lock-ups and began to blockade Compsa in the territory of the Hirpini.’ Caes. Civ. 3.22.2)

(b)

Hinc se recipere cum vellent, rursus illi ex loco superiore nostros premebant. (‘When our men wanted to withdraw from this position, the enemy put pressure on them from above.’ Caes. Civ. 1.45.3)

¹⁷⁴ For the position of the verb in subordinate clauses, often clause-initial, in the Peregrinatio, see Linde  (1923: 168) and Haida  (1928: 34). For Augustine, see Muldowney  (1937: 115–16), with detailed statistics. Initial position is particularly common in his less elevated writings, including his Confessions. ¹⁷⁵ This is also the case in the corpus (Caes. Gal. and Tac. Ann.) used by Longrée et al. (2019).

Word order in subordinate clauses  (c)

Cum cohortes ex acie procucurrissent, Numidae integri celeritate impetum nostrorum effugiebant . . . (‘When our cohorts advanced at a run from the line, the Numidians would flee before their attack at full speed . . .’ Caes. Civ. 2.41.6)

(d)

Accessit ut Caesare ignaro, cum esset ille Alexandriae, beneficio amicorum eius magister equitum constitueretur. (‘On top of all, he was appointed Master of the Horse by favour of Caesar’s friends without Caesar’s knowledge, since he was in Alexandria.’ Cic. Phil. 2.62)

(e)

Itaque . . . milites misit, cum repente a te praeclara illa tabula prolata est. (‘And so, he sent soldiers to you; at which point you suddenly posted that magnificent notice announcing a sale.’ Cic. Phil. 2.73)

(f)

Video autem quam sit odiosum habere eundem iratum et armatum, cum tanta praesertim gladiorum sit impunitas. (‘And I am well aware how disagreeable it is to have a man angry when he carries a weapon, especially in times when swords are used with so much impunity.’ Cic. Phil. 1.27)

(g)

Cum in Italiam proficisceretur Caesar, Servium Galbam . . . misit . . . (‘When Caesar was setting out for Italy, he sent Servius Galba . . .’ Caes. Gal. 3.1.1)

Table 23.6 (page 1040) contains some numerical data.¹⁷⁶ In the Caesarian sample, the number of constituents, other than the verb, per cum clause is lower than in simple sentences, so it is not surprising to have a higher ratio of final verbs. In both samples the number of final constituents other than verbs, as in (f) above, is lower than in simple sentences. This may be a side-effect of the higher number of anaphoric constituents in simple sentences, which usually occupy the first position in their sentence. About one-fifth of verbs are in the first available position. In addition to (d) above, see (h), where the cum clause resembles a presentative sentence. (h)

Nam cum serperet in urbe infinitum malum idque manaret in dies latius . . . talis animadversio fuit Dolabellae . . . (‘For when a boundless infection was gaining ground in Rome and spreading wider and wider day by day . . . such was the action taken by Dolabella in punishing . . .’ Cic. Phil. 1.5) K.-St.: II.598 give instances of what they call a certain ‘mannerism’ in ‘unclassical’ authors, which consists in putting a subject which is not ‘betont’ (more or less: ‘stressed’) in final position. Examples quoted from Varro are (i) and ( j). Columella and Pliny the Elder are said to do this ‘often’. Some examples can be explained on pragmatic grounds, as focus ((i)) or topic (( j)—is referring to Meli).

¹⁷⁶ The Ciceronian sample concerns Cic. Phil. 1 and 2.1–80; the Caesarian, Caes. Civ. 1–3.35.

9

(20) 3

Caes. Civ.

a

14

(27)a 4

Cic. Phil. 3

3

last

6

14

4 3.1 2.6

18 + 1 + 0

5+3+8 2

4

(28) 10

(35) 5

before cum 7

10

first

A2

1

4

last

(3) –

(4) 2

before cum –

1

first

A3





last

(31) 8

(29) 4

before cum

11

8

first

^

1

3

last

13

9

(50) 1

(50) –

before cum

9

8

first

36

36

last

finite V/Aux

A1 understood + 1 connectors anaphoric elements and 2 person

Number of explicit constituents per type and their position

3

5    

Average number of constituents per clause

The numbers between brackets are the totals, in this case the total number of A1 constituents.

7

first

A1

26

21

3

before cum

15

2

Number of constituents per cum clause

 

 

2

Texts

3

1

Caes. Civ.

 

Cic. Phil.

Texts

Table . Data concerning 50 ‘simple’ cum clauses in a number of texts

Word order in subordinate clauses  (i) . . . in Lusitania ad Oceanum . . . quaedam e vento concipiunt certo tempore equae . . . (‘. . . on the shore of the ocean in Lusitania certain mares at a particular time of year are impregnated by the wind . . .’ Var. R. 2.1.19—NB: discontinuity) ( j) Aequimelium, quod aquata Meli domus publice, quod regnum occupare voluit is. (‘The Aequimelium (“Maelius-Flat”), because the house of Maelius was aequata (“laid flat”) by the state since he wished to seize the power and be king.’ Var. L. 5.157) Supplement: Si igitur [sequitur] idem sequitur in similitudine verborum quis, reprehendundus non est. (Var. L. 9.94); Hic complures annos moratus, cum et rei familiari tantum operae daret, quantum non indiligens deberet pater familias . . . (Nep. Att. 4.3); . . . quoniam pastinationis expertes sunt exterarum gentium agricolae . . . (Col. 5.4.2) Proper names: Nisi vero illud dicet, quod et in Tetti testimonio priore actione interpellavit Hortensius . . . (Cic. Ver. 1.71); Fuit enim hoc in amicitia quasi quoddam ius inter illos, ut militiae . . . Africanum ut deum coleret Laelius, domi vicissim Laelium . . . observaret in parentis loco Scipio. (Cic. Rep. 1.18)

. Word order in accusative and infinitive clauses Table 23.7 (page 1043) has some data on simple accusative and infinitive clauses in Cicero and Caesar, which show some common features but also some differences due to individual preferences and/or the content of the texts (philosophy vs. history).¹⁷⁷ In both authors c.60 per cent of the infinitives are the final constituent of the accusative and infinitive clause, whereas initial infinitives are rare—but see (a). When there are two arguments expressed the order is more often A1/A2, as in (b), but the reverse is very well possible, as in (c).¹⁷⁸ Satellites are not uncommon in the initial position, as in (d). Final arguments and satellites are rare—but see (a) and (e). In short, in accusative and infinitive clauses which contain only one argument and which follow the main verb, a situation which is quite common in non-literary texts, the subject of the accusative and infinitive clause often immediately follows the governing verb, as in (f).¹⁷⁹ (a)

Sed tantus fuit omnium terror ut alii adesse copias Iubae dicerent, alii cum legionibus instare Varum iamque se pulverem venientium cernere . . . (‘But so great was the universal terror that some were saying that Juba’s forces were at hand, others that Varus and his legions were imminent and that the dust cloud of their approach was already visible to them. . .’ Caes. Civ. 2.43.2)

¹⁷⁷ Using Merguet’s lexica (s.vv. dico and reperio) fifty clauses were collected in Cic. Off. and N.D. and Caes. Civ. and Gal. Fifteen clauses in Caesar are not directly governed by a verb of communication but form part of a sequence of accusative and infinitive clauses. ¹⁷⁸ Rosén (1999: 154) states that in active transitive accusative and infinitive clauses the relative order of subject and object is ‘rather consistently’ S–O, but that is exaggerated. ¹⁷⁹ See Adams (2005a) and Greco (2018).

 Word order (b)

Themistocles . . . dixit in contione se habere consilium rei publicae salutare . . . (‘Themistocles announced in the Assembly that he had a plan for the welfare of the state . . .’ Cic. Off. 3.49)

(c)

Praeterita se Diviciaco fratri condonare dicit (sc. Caesar). (‘He said that he excused the past in consideration for his brother Diviciacus.’ Caes. Gal. 1.20.6)

(d)

Mihi . . . Cn. Pompeius . . . hoc tribuit ut diceret frustra se triumphum tertium deportaturum fuisse, nisi . . . (‘To me . . . Gnaeus Pompeius . . . paid this tribute when he said that his third triumph would have been gained in vain, if not . . .’ Cic. Off. 1.78)

(e)

Quibus detractis deum tamen nosse te dicis, modo liniamenta maneant. (‘Yet you say that you can recognize god even with all these attributes stripped off, provided that the outward form remains.’ Cic. N.D. 1.98)

(f)

Negabit (= negavit) se abiturum (= habiturum). (‘He said he would not have any.’ CEL 146.32 (Karanis, 2nd cent. ad (early)))¹⁸⁰

For the initial position of the constituents in (a)–(d) the usual pragmatic explanations hold: In (a), copias Iubae and Varum are focus; in (b), se is topic; in (c), praeterita is a change of topic (and contrastive) after the preceding warning by Caesar for the future; in (d), frustra is emphatic. In (e) initial deum is understandable (contrast with the preceding context), but final te is puzzling (the result is a good clausula). From Cicero onwards Ennius’ oracle text in (g) has served as an illustration of ambiguity (amphibolia). The two arguments of the accusative and infinitive clause, te and Romanos, refer to two (groups of) human beings who can fulfil the same role with respect to the two-place verb vincere and are in a sense interchangeable. Quintilian strongly advises avoidance of ambiguity in general, but especially the type illustrated by (h). (g)

Quis enim est, qui credat Apollinis ex oraculo Pyrrho esse responsum: ‘Aio te, Aeacida, Romanos vincere posse.’? (‘For who could believe that the response of Apollo’s oracle to Pyrrhus was “I say that you, Aeacus’ descendant, the Romans can defeat.”?’ Cic. Div. 2.116—Enn. Ann. 179V=167S)

(h)

Vitanda in primis ambiguitas, non haec solum . . . quae incertum intellectum facit, ut ‘Chremetem audivi percussisse Demean’ . . . (‘Above all, ambiguity is to be avoided, not only ambiguity of the kind . . . which makes understanding uncertain—“I heard that Chremes Demea struck . . .”’ Quint. Inst. 8.2.16)

Ambiguity can be avoided by using the passive, but there is no evidence that for the authors this was the main reason for choosing the passive in accusative and infinitive clauses. Illustrations are (i) and ( j). In (i), illum quem nominavi is a resumed ¹⁸⁰ A much discussed passage. See Adams (2016: 279–80).

A1

27

last

10

14

total

4



5 3.2

3.1

     8

2 – 

3

total

48

35

 

Cic.

Caes.

19

30

first

3

1 35

26 12

7

first

A2

5

1

last 3



total 2



first

A3





last

21

12

total

10

3

first

^

9

28

4

1

3

last

50

50

total

10 + 9

4+3

3

2

first

infinitive/aux

28

31

last

connectors anaphoric elements + se

 



Caes.

7

3

A1 understood

Number of explicit constituents per type and their position

1

Cic.

2

Average number of constituents per clause

Texts

1

Number of constituents per clause

 

Texts

Table . Data concerning fifty ‘simple’ accusative and infinitive clauses in a number of texts

 Word order topic, a good candidate for being the subject of its clause, which involves the use of the passive; in addition, the focus a Socrate is in final position. In ( j), me aps te is a separate colon, attached for its pathetic effect, not to avoid a sequence in the active te me amare.¹⁸¹ (i)

Sed et illum quem nominavi (sc. Gorgiam) et ceteros sophistas, ut e Platone intellegi potest, lusos videmus a Socrate. (‘But we see that Socrates made fun of the aforesaid Gorgias, and the rest of the Sophists also, as we can learn from Plato.’ Cic. Fin. 2.2)

( j)

Nolo ego metui, amari mavolo, / mi gnate, me aps te. (‘I don’t want to be feared, I prefer that I be loved by you, my son.’ Pl. As. 835–6)

Within their context morphologically ‘interchangeable’ expressions are not really ambiguous.¹⁸² The order of such interchangeable constituents is not decisive. Further examples of interchangeable constituents are given in the Supplement. Supplement: . . . aut illud falsumst quod volgo audio / dici, diem adimere aegritudinem hominibus. (Ter. Hau. 421–2); Etiam illud praeteribo . . . te senatum Panhormitanum adisse supplicem . . . (Cic. Ver. 5.21); Modo enim menti tribuit omnem divinitatem, modo mundum ipsum deum dicit esse, modo alium quendam praeficit mundo . . . (Cic. N.D. 1.33); Omnino meminisse debemus id, quod . . . iam in proverbii consuetudinem venit, largitionem fundum non habere. (Cic. Off. 2.55); Is mihi dixit se Athenis me exspectaturum ut mecum decederet. (Cic. Att. 6.3.9); Putares canem leporem persequi. (Petr. 63.4 (Trimalchio speaking)); . . . regem se voluisse ait videre, non mortuos. (Suet. Aug. 18.1)

. Word order in ablative absolute clauses Substantival ablative absolute clauses (see § 16.116) and adjectival ones (see § 16.117) rarely contain another constituent than the subject and subject complement. The two constituents are usually juxtaposed. Both orders are possible, as can be seen by comparing the position of dux in (a) and (b). In Cicero’s orations the order X duce occurs twenty-seven times, duce X nine times.¹⁸³ In (a), the ablative absolute clause provides the information ‘who was the leader?’ (an identity statement—see §  4.92), with Timarchide as focus; in (b), the information provided is ‘what was Pompey’s role?’ (a  predicational statement—see §  4.92), with duce as focus. In cases like (b), the subject is often topic, in this case discourse topic.

¹⁸¹ This example is also used in § 5.3 (g) without paying attention to the intonation break before me aps te. ¹⁸² For word order and ambiguity in accusative and infinitive clauses, see Bortolussi (2007), with references. See also ex. (b) in § 23.64. ¹⁸³ Merguet’s lexica are a good source for substantival ablative absolute clauses. For dux, see Merguet (Reden) s.v. 754b.

Word order in subordinate clauses  (a)

Ad hoc templum, cum esset iste Agrigenti, duce Timarchide repente nocte intempesta servorum armatorum fit concursus atque impetus. (‘It was against this temple that, while Verres was at Agrigentum, suddenly in the dead of night a great attack was made under the leadership of Timarchides.’ Cic. Ver. 4.94)

(b)

Quis enim . . . tantos cursus conficere potuit, quam celeriter Cn. Pompeio duce tanti belli impetus navigavit? (‘For who . . . has ever succeeded in visiting so many places . . . at the same speed with which, under the leadership of Pompeius, that mighty armament swept over the seas?’ Cic. Man. 34)

One of the most common adjectives functioning as subject complement in an ablative absolute clause is invitus ‘unwilling’. It is usually juxtaposed to its subject, with both orders attested.¹⁸⁴ In Cicero, me invito occurs twelve times, invito me twice, me being topic in the first order and focus in the latter. In (c), the information in the ablative absolute clause concerns ‘what do the gods and men think about this?’; in (d), ‘who are against it?’ (c)

Nam quis hoc non intellegit istum absolutum dis hominibusque invitis tamen ex manibus populi Romani eripi nullo modo posse? (‘For who cannot see that, though he were acquitted in despite of God and man, yet no power can deliver him from the hands of the people of Rome?’ Cic. Ver. 1.9)

(d)

Quem tibi aut hominem invitis dis immortalibus aut vero deum tantis eorum religionibus violatis auxilio futurum putas? (‘What man, against the will of the immortal gods, or what god, when you so trample on all the religious reverence due to them, do you think will come to your assistance?’ Cic. Ver. 4.78—tr. Yonge)

Ablative absolute clauses with a present participle (active or deponent) are often short, but from Cicero’s time onwards the use of arguments and satellites increases (see § 16.91).¹⁸⁵ There are not enough attestations to formulate a tendency for the relative order of these constituents. In the case of the more elaborate ablative absolute clauses in Livy and others pause and intonation must have played an important role in correctly processing the information. As for the relative position of subject and participle, both orders are possible, but the subjects, being mostly agents, are found more often in first position.¹⁸⁶ As in (a)–(d) above, preceding subjects are often topic and the following ones focus, as is shown in (e) and (f). In (e), Crasso is a (contrastive) discourse topic (me dicentem precedes); in (f), Torquato must have been known to Atticus, but appears here for the first time and is focus.

¹⁸⁴ See TLL s.v. invitus 234.50ff. The data concerning me invito and invito me are taken from LLT. ¹⁸⁵ For word order within the ablative absolute clause in Caes. Gal. I, see de Jong (1982). ¹⁸⁶ However, in the sample used by de Jong (1982: 100) the order ‘X / present participle’ represents 43 per cent; the reverse order 57 per cent.

 Word order (e)

. . . Crasso dicente nemo tam arrogans (sc. fuit) qui similiter se umquam dicturum esse confideret. (‘. . . when Crassus speaks nobody was ever so conceited as to believe that he would ever speak as well.’ Cic. de Orat. 2.364)

(f)

Accedit etiam Gabinius, quem P. Sulla . . . postularat, contra dicente et nihil obtinente Torquato. (‘Gabinius now joins them. P. Sulla . . . had brought the charge, Torquatus unsuccessfully contesting.’ Cic. Att. 4.18.3)

Interesting is the change of order of the ablative absolute clauses in the parallel sentences of (g), especially the contrast between ‘who were mourning?’ (lugente senatu) in the first parallel sentence and ‘what did the senate do?’ (senatu poscente) in the second.¹⁸⁷ (g)

An . . . licuit tibi ferre non legem sed nefarium privilegium lugente senatu, maerentibus bonis omnibus, totius Italiae precibus repudiatis, oppressa captaque re publica? Mihi populo Romano implorante, senatu poscente, temporibus rei publicae flagitantibus non licuit de salute populi Romani sententiam dicere? (‘Had you any right to pass, I will not say a law, but an iniquitous piece of party legislation . . . amid the mourning of the senate and the grief of all true patriots, while the prayers of all Italy were disdained, and while the republic lay crushed and paralysed? And had I no right, on the supplication of the Roman people, the demand of the senate, and the urgent appeal of the crisis through which the state was passing, to declare my policy for the salvation of the Roman people?’ Cic. Dom. 26)

Perfect passive participles are by far the most common in ablative absolute clauses from Cicero’s time onwards. In Cicero and Caesar these clauses often consist of only a subject and a participle. The subject is a patient, more often an inanimate entity, hence more often focus, which may explain its not uncommon position after the participle, as in (h).¹⁸⁸ Here, the agent of the ablative absolute constituents is the perditorum . . . vis. In (i), there is no evident agent in the context who is responsible for senatu dimisso. (h)

Cum omnium perditorum et coniuratorum incitata vis duce tribuno plebis, consulibus auctoribus, adflicto senatu, perterritis equitibus Romanis, suspensa ac sollicita tota civitate non tam in me impetum faceret . . .. (‘When, under the leadership of a tribune of the plebs and with the support of the consuls, with the senate humiliated, the Roman knighthood cowed, and the whole community agitated and distraught, the carefully stimulated lawlessness of desperadoes and conspirators was launching an assault not so much upon myself . . .’ Cic. Dom. 96)

¹⁸⁷ There are in Cicero six further instances of the order ‘present participle senatu’ and one of ‘senatu present participle’. ¹⁸⁸ In the sample of de Jong (1982: 100) the order ‘perfect passive participle / X’ represents 31 per cent; 20 per cent of the subjects are anaphoric and at the beginning of a sentence.

The order of superordinate and subordinate clauses  (i)

. . . illum diem clarissimum fuisse, cum senatu dimisso domum reductus ad vesperum est a patribus conscriptis . . . (‘. . . the most brilliant was the day before he departed this life, when, after the adjournment of the Senate, he was escorted home toward evening by the Conscript Fathers . . .’ Cic. Amic. 12)

But sometimes the situation is less obvious, as in ( j) and (k).¹⁸⁹ In both examples armis are mentioned in the preceding context and are therefore topic; in (k), traditis is anteposed because it is contrastive, meaning more or less sine. ( j)

. . . timore perterriti ne armis traditis supplicio adficerentur . . . (‘. . . in panic, lest after the surrender of their arms they might be put to the sword . . .’ Caes. Gal. 1.27.4)

(k)

Sibi omnes fere finitimos esse inimicos ac suae virtuti invidere, a quibus se defendere traditis armis non possent. (‘Almost all their neighbours were at enmity with them and envied their courage; and from such, if they delivered up their arms, they could not defend themselves.’ Caes. Gal. 2.31.6)

In (l), the participle is inserted in the noun phrase, causing hyperbaton.¹⁹⁰ (l)

Qua perfecta munitione animadversum est a speculatoribus Caesaris cohortes quasdam . . . esse post silvam . . . (‘After the fortification was complete, Caesar’s scouts noticed that some enemy cohorts . . . were behind a wood . . .’ Caes. Civ. 3.66.1)

. The order of superordinate and subordinate clauses in complex sentences In a complex sentence, one or more arguments and/or satellites have the form of a clause (see § 2.2 and § 14.1). This is shown in (a) and (b), which consist of a superordinate and a subordinate clause in different arrangements. In (a), the quin clause is the second argument of the verb dubito; it is the object of the sentence. In (b), the postquam clause is a satellite; it functions as a position in time adjunct in the superordinate clause. (a)

Non dubito quin Gnaeus in fuga sit. (‘I have no doubt that Gnaeus is a fugitive.’ Cic. Att. 7.24)

(b)

(sc. Alcumena) Postquam peperit, pueros lavere iussit nos. (‘After she gave birth, she told us to wash the boys.’ Pl. Am. 1102)

From the point of view of information structure, the clause quin . . . sit in (a) is the focus of the sentence; the topic ‘I’ is implied by the verb form dubito. The quin clause ¹⁸⁹ These instances are discussed by de Jong (1982: 97–8).

¹⁹⁰ See Bolkestein (2001: 249–51).

 Word order occupies the typical focus position at the end of the sentence.¹⁹¹ In (b), postquam peperit represents known information (that Alcumena gave birth to two boys is already mentioned in line 1088). It functions as setting and has the typical position of that type of constituent (see § 22.15). In addition to being the focus of the sentence as a whole, the quin clause in (a) has an internal information structure. Within the clause, Gnaeus is the topic, mentioned earlier in the letter, and in fuga is the focus. The topic has the common position for topics, in this case immediately after the subordinator quin. In the main clause of (b), after the information contained in the postquam clause, namely that Alcumena gave birth to the boys, the next step is to know what happened to them. Accordingly, pueros is placed in first position as the topic of the clause and lavere iussit is the focus. The discourse topic nos then follows at the end. For the internal order of subordinate clauses, see § 23.60. Although most subordinate clauses reflect the tendency of ‘domain integrity’ (see § 23.7), in that their constituents are placed closely together, deviations from this tendency are relatively common, a phenomenon for which the term ‘interlacing’ is used in this Syntax (see § 14.19). The main factors that favour the placement of constituents or words belonging to subordinate clauses outside of the boundaries of their clause are discourse coherence and pragmatic prominence. Both factors are illustrated by (c). Here, hac . . . oratione and tu are placed outside of the quin clause, the former because it connects the sentence to the preceding context, with hac itself separated from oratione for reasons of emphasis. The second person pronoun tu is usually selected for reasons of emphasis and/or contrast (see § 9.2), as it is here: tu is in contrast with illum. (c)

Hac tu oratione non dubito quin illum iam ascendentem in currum revocare possis. (‘I have not the least doubt that by arguments such as these you will contrive to recall him even in the act of mounting his triumphal car.’ Cic. Pis. 61)

Details concerning the relative order of superordinate and subordinate are dealt with in the following sections. Two pairs of questions are discussed: (i) (ii)

What is the relative order of superordinate and subordinate clauses in biclausal sentences and what forms of interlacing exist? What is the relative order of superordinate and subordinate clauses in multiclausal sentences and what forms of interlacing exist?

Three types of subordinate clauses will receive detailed discussion: finite subordinate clauses, accusative and infinitive clauses, and participial clauses. Adnominal relative clauses do not function at the level of the sentence. However, interlacing of constituents belonging to such clauses is quite common and instances can be found in the ¹⁹¹ In Cicero’s orations only two out of sixty-eight quin clauses with dubito are not in final position. See also TLL s.v. dubito 2100.68ff.

The order of superordinate and subordinate clauses  following sections, as well as in § 18.10. For the relative order of adnominal relative clauses with respect to their head, see § 18.12.

. The relative order of finite superordinate and subordinate clauses in sentences with two clauses Most discussions of the relative order of superordinate and subordinate clauses in biclausal sentences are limited to the most simple situation, one in which the constituents of both clauses remain within the boundaries of the clause.¹⁹² From this perspective, if we use ‘A’ for a superordinate (or: main) clause and ‘a’ for a subordinate clause, there are then two possible orders: A a and a A. In reality, though, a A a (the main clause surrounded by constituents of the subordinate clause, see ex. (c) in § 23.64) and A a A (the subordinate clause incorporated within the main clause, which will be discussed later on) are also possible. Furthermore, these discussions are generally limited to finite subordinate clauses (the accusative and infinitive clause, for example, is left out of account). The explanation which Kühner and Stegmann present for the orders A a and a A is given in terms of what is called ‘iconicity’ in §  23.13. In their words: subordinate clauses that describe an event that is ‘temporally or conceptually’¹⁹³ earlier than the event of the superordinate clause tend to precede the superordinate clause (the order is a A), or, conversely, if the event of the subordinate clause is later than the event of the superordinate clause, the subordinate clause follows the superordinate (the order is A a). This, they claim, must be taken as a fundamental rule (‘Grundgesetz’). Exceptions to the general rule are ascribed to various factors, such as the striving for clarity, emphasis, and rhythmic structure. We start with clauses that usually follow the superordinate clause (the order A a). These include argument clauses, as in (a)–(c), and certain satellite clauses, for example purpose clauses, as in (d) (for further examples, see §  16.50). The frequency with which argument clauses follow their superordinate clause can be illustrated with the verbs efficio and dubito in Cicero’s orations: with efficio, seven out of nine follow; with dubito, sixty-six out of sixty-eight. Within the framework used in this Syntax, the postposition of the subordinate clauses in (a)–(d) can be explained by the fact that they are the focus in their sentences: in (a)–(c), the argument clauses present the answer to an underlying question ‘what does it enable us to do?’, ‘what is the doubt about?’ etc. In (d), the ut clause contains the answer to the underlying question ‘why did you come here?’ (a)

(sc. eloquendi vis) Quae primum efficit ut et ea quae ignoramus discere et ea quae scimus alios docere possimus.

¹⁹² Still very useful for the order in bi-clausal sentences is Lindskog (1896). For the order in more complex sentences, see Nägelsbach and Müller (1905: 626–48). ¹⁹³ ‘zeitlich oder begrifflich’ (K.-St.: II.626). Some examples are taken from them; others are attested alternatives for their made-up examples. See also Sz.: 733, with references.

 Word order (‘In the first place it enables us both to learn things we do not know and to teach things we do know to others.’ Cic. N.D. 2.148)

(b)

Nemo dubitat quin multo maius sit novam (sc. columnam) facere. (‘Nobody can doubt that constructing one new one is by far the bigger thing.’ Cic. Ver. 1.147)

(c)

Sane gaudeo quod te interpellavi, quoniam . . . (‘I am very glad indeed that I interrupted you, since . . .’ Cic. Leg. 3.1)

(d)

Conducta veni ut fidibus cantarem seni . . . (‘I came because I was hired to play the lyre for an old man . . .’ Pl. Epid. 500)

The inverse order a A is shown in (e)–(g). In (e), the superordinate clause casus effecit contains the most salient information and is, for that reason, placed at the end. The same holds for (f). In (g), with the ut purpose clause preceding the main clause, the latter contains the answer to an underlying question ‘with this purpose in mind, what did you do?’ (e)

Ergo hoc inerat in rebus futuris et causas naturalis habebat an et ut videretur et ut eveniret casus effecit? (‘Then do you say that this (sc. Alcibiades’ dream and subsequent death) was determined in advance and had a natural cause, or did chance cause both the apparition and the subsequent event?’ Cic. Div. 2.143)

(f)

Id ut intellegatis, recuperatores, quaeso ut diligenter attendatis. Profecto quin ita sit non dubitabitis. (‘And that you may understand this, O judges, attend, I beg of you, carefully. And, in truth, you will not doubt that this is the case.’ Cic. Tul. 26)

(g)

Ut illa, credo, nefaria senatus consulta fierent, vim adferebam senatui. (‘I suppose I forced the senate to pass those nefarious decrees under threat of violence.’ Cic. Phil. 2.16) Supplement: Quid negoti est? # Quid negoti sit rogas? (Pl. Aul. 296); Nam factum sit necne vehementer quaeritur. Si factum sit, quin contra legem sit dubitare nemo potest. (Cic. Mur. 67); Id ne vobis diutius faciendum sit atque ut in perpetua pace esse possitis providebo, Quirites. (Cic. Catil. 3.29); Alfenus cum eis et propter eos periit quos diligebat, tu, post quam qui tibi erant amici non poterant vincere, ut amici tibi essent qui vincebant effecisti. (Cic. Quinct. 70); Periculi tandem quantum adeatur quem fallit? (Liv. 28.41.12); Nam ut XV diebus utrumque sidus quaereretur et nostro aevo accidit imperatoribus Vespasianis patre III filio consulibus. (Plin. Nat. 2.57)

Among the satellite clauses that usually precede (order a A), Kühner and Stegmann and Szantyr mention time, conditional,¹⁹⁴ and reason clauses, as in (h)–( j). Within ¹⁹⁴ For the position of si adjunct clauses (they most often precede), see § 16.57. Nisi clauses show more variation. For the material in Plautus, see Lindskog (1896: 17–19).

The order of superordinate and subordinate clauses  the framework of this Syntax, these subordinate clauses might be taken as settings. At any rate, the main clauses contain the most salient information. In (h), for example, the main clause non de Flacco . . . contains the answer to an underlying question ‘what will be the consequences of your receiving the ballot to vote?’; in (i), ‘what will be the consequences of losing happiness’, etc. (h)

Cum tabella vobis dabitur, iudices, non de Flacco dabitur solum, dabitur de ducibus . . . (‘When the ballot shall be given you, gentlemen, it will not be a ballot to vote on Flaccus alone, but on the leaders . . .’ Cic. Flac. 99)

(i)

Nam si amitti vita beata potest, beata esse non potest. (‘For if happiness once won can be lost, a happy life is impossible.’ Cic. Fin. 2.86)

( j)

Quia (sc. Pisonem) tristem semper . . . videbant, et quod erat eo nomine ut ingenerata familiae frugalitas videretur, favebant, gaudebant . . . (‘Because they saw him always grim . . . and because he bore a name which seemed to have made frugality the hereditary virtue of his family, they favoured him, they rejoiced . . .’ Cic. Sest. 21) Subordinators with roughly the same meaning do not necessarily behave in the same way. Donec clauses, for example, regularly follow their main clause, while dum clauses more often precede.¹⁹⁵

By contrast, when such clauses follow the main clause (order A a) they function as the focus of the sentence. Thus, in (k), the cum clause is the answer to the underlying question ‘when will they be induced to forget the claims of justice?’ (k)

Maxime autem adducuntur plerique ut eos iustitiae capiat oblivio, cum in imperiorum, honorum, gloriae cupiditatem inciderunt. (‘Most of all, however, a great many are induced to forget justice when they have fallen prey to the ambition for political power, high position, and distinction.’ Cic. Off. 1.26) Supplement: Maximum autem exemplum est iustitiae in hostem a maioribus nostris constitutum, cum a Pyrrho perfuga senatui est pollicitus se venenum regi daturum et eum necaturum. (Cic. Off. 1.40); Deserunt enim vitae societatem, quia nihil conferunt in eam studii, nihil operae, nihil facultatum. (Cic. Off. 1.29); Multa praeterea commemorarem nefaria in socios, si hoc uno quicquam sol vidisset indignius. (Cic. Off. 2.28)

We now turn to sentences in which a finite subordinate clause is preceded and followed by one or more constituents that belong to the superordinate clause (order A a A). An intermediate type is illustrated by (l) and (m).¹⁹⁶ Here, Agamemnon in (l) and ¹⁹⁵ TLL s.v. donec 2003.81ff.; s.v. dum 2232.36ff. ¹⁹⁶ See K.-St.: II.627–8, from where (m) and (n) are taken. See also Spevak (2010a: 70).

 Word order eam mutationem in (m), subject and object, respectively, have the same topic function in both clauses. In the punctuation of (l) (following the OCT), Agamemnon is assigned to the main clause and is understood as subject of the cum clause; in (m), eam mutationem is assigned to the subordinate clause, which makes it an instance of the order discussed in § 23.24 (see also (n)). It is understood as object of the main clause. What the three examples have in common is that the initial constituents are the topic in their sentence. (l)

Quid Agamemnon, cum devovisset Dianae quod in suo regno pulcherrimum natum esset illo anno, immolavit Iphigeniam, qua nihil erat eo quidem anno natum pulchrius? (‘And once more; Agamemnon, when he had vowed to Diana the most beautiful creature born that year within his realm, sacrificed Iphigenia, because nothing more beautiful than her was born that year.’ Cic. Off. 3.95)

(m)

Eam mutationem si tempora adiuvabunt, facilius commodiusque faciemus. (‘If circumstances favour such change, we will make it with greater ease and convenience.’ Cic. Off. 1.120)

(n)

Caesari cum id nuntiatum esset eos per provinciam nostram iter facere conari, maturat ab urbe proficisci . . . (‘When Caesar was informed that they were endeavouring to march through the Roman Province, he made speed to leave Rome . . .’ Caes. Gal. 1.7.1)

Clear instances of incorporation of a subordinate clause in a superordinate clause are (o)–(q). The initial constituents are pragmatically prominent: in (o) and (p), praetores and me (quoque) are contrastive topics; in (q), lacrumas is emphatic focus. The subordinate clauses as a whole do not seem to have a special pragmatic function in the sentence, although some of their constituents may, like considerate, which is contrasted with raro, in (o).¹⁹⁷ (o)

Itaque maiores nostri raro id accidere voluerunt. Praetores ut considerate fieret comparaverunt. (‘Accordingly our ancestors willed that this should happen only on rare occasions. The praetors have established that it should be done with circumspection.’ Cic. Quinct. 51)

(p)

‘Nam hercule,’ inquit Minucius, ‘me quoque Petilius ut sibi in consilio essem rogavit’ et simul a subselliis abire coepit. (‘ “Why, the truth is,” said Minucius, “that Petilius has asked me too to be one of his council”; and with that he left his place to go.’ Cic. Ver. 2.72)

(q)

Lacrumas / haec mi quom video eliciunt . . . (‘When I see this, it makes me want to weep . . .’ Pl. Trin. 289–90)

¹⁹⁷ The order A a A is relatively uncommon. For data on Cic. Phil., see Lindskog (1896: 60).

The order of superordinate and subordinate clauses  Supplement: Nam scortum in convivio / sibi amator, talos quom iacit, scortum invocat. (Pl. Capt. 72–3); Nam tibi iam ut pereas paratum est dupliciter nisi supprimis / tuom stultiloquium. (Pl. Mil. 295–6); Ego quid ille et contra ille quid ego sentirem et spectarem videbat. (Cic. Phil. 2.38); Iam enim, quoniam criminibus eius satis respondi, de ipso emendatore et correctore nostro quaedam dicenda sunt. (Cic. Phil. 2.43); Haec te vox non perculit, non perturbavit, non ut capiti et fortunis tuis prospiceres excitavit? (Cic. Ver. 3.132); Hac divisione, cum praeterire aliquid maximum vitium in dividendo sit, duo praetermissa sunt. (Cic. Off. 1.10); Ego autem quae dicenda fuerunt de te non praeterii. (Cic. Att. 1.5.5); Eodem anno Valerius consul cum exercitu in Aequos profectus, cum hostem ad proelium elicere non posset, castra oppugnare est adortus. (Liv. 2.62.1); C. Caesar bello civili cum veteranum exercitum haberet, hostium autem tironem esse sciret, acie semper decertare studuit (Fron. Str. 1.3.2); Hamilcar dux Poenorum, cum frequenter auxiliares Galli ad Romanos transirent et iam ex consuetudine ut socii exciperentur, fidissimos subornavit ad simulandam transitionem. (Fron. Str. 3.16.2) Single words of the superordinate clause at the end of the sentence are rare. Three instances from Plautus are: Metuo miser / ne patrem prehendat ut sit gesta res suspicio. (Pl. Mer. 212–13); Sescenta tanta reddam, si vivo, tibi. (Pl. Bac. 1034); Vorsabo ego illum hodie, si vivo, probe. (Pl. Bac. 766). It is not always clear what their pragmatic function is.¹⁹⁸ In Livy resumed topics that precede a postquam clause are subject of both the postquam clause and the following main clause. By contrast, when the resumed topic follows postquam, it is not the subject of the following main clause.¹⁹⁹ This is shown by (r) and (s). (r) Scipio postquam in Siciliam venit, voluntarios milites ordinavit centuriavitque. (‘Scipio, now that he had reached Sicily, assigned his volunteers to their ranks and centuries.’ Liv. 29.1.1) (s) Postquam Manlius dixit . . . pecuniae quoque summa homines movit . . . (‘After Manlius had spoken . . . people were also moved by the greatness of the sum required . . .’ Liv. 22.61.1)

We now turn to instances in which one or more constituents of a following subordinate clause precede the superordinate clause (order a A a), as in (t)–(w). In (t), Telobois are the enemy already mentioned in the preceding context, and so the topic of the sentence. In (u), unam rem is contrastive in its context. In (v), plebes is a contrastive topic. In (w), in oratoribus is in contrast with the other arts mentioned before and can be taken as an anticipation belonging to the quantum clause,²⁰⁰ but it can also be regarded as a setting constituent for the combination of the main and subordinate clauses. ¹⁹⁸ Discussed by Lindskog (1896: 37–8). ¹⁹⁹ There are fifteen instances of the order ‘resumed topic postquam’; seven of ‘postquam resumed topic’. ²⁰⁰ So K.-St.: II.628.

 Word order (t)

Eos (sc. viros) legat, Telobois iubet sententiam ut dicant suam. (‘He sent them as delegates and ordered them to tell the Teloboians his decision.’ Pl. Am. 205)

(u)

Sed unam rem vereor ne non probes. (‘But there is one item which I fear may not meet with your approval.’ Cic. Phil. 2.34)

(v)

Sed plebes incredibile memoratu est quam intenta fuerit quantaque vi rogationem iusserit . . . (‘But it is amazing to relate how engaged the commons were and with what vehemence they passed the bill . . .’ Sal. Jug. 40.3)

(w)

In oratoribus vero, Graecis quidem, admirabile est quantum inter omnis unus excellat. (‘Among orators, certainly among Greek orators, it is amazing how one man has preeminence over all.’ Cic. Orat. 6) Supplement: Quasi lupus esuriens metui ne in me faceret impetum. (Pl. Capt. 912); I, Palaestrio, / aurum, ornamenta, vestem, pretiosa omnia / duc adiutores tecum ad navim qui ferant. (Pl. Mil. 1301–3); Sed ego nunc est quom me commoror. (Pl. Poen. 924); . . . de digito anulum / detraho et eum dico ut una cum puella exponeret. (Ter. Hau. 650–1); Primum ista nostra assiduitas, Servi, nescis quantum interdum adferat hominibus fastidii, quantum satietatis. (Cic. Mur. 21); Sed vos squalidius, illorum vides quam niteat oratio. (Cic. Fin. 4.5); Ad me obsecro te ut omnia certa perscribas. (Cic. Att. 3.11.2); Eas (sc. epistulas) ego oportet perspiciam, corrigam. (Cic. Att. 16.5.5); Rationem haberi absentis non tam pugnavi ut liceret quam ut, quoniam ipso consule pugnante populus iusserat, haberetur. (Cic. Fam. 6.6.5); Tametsi tu scio quam sis curiosus et quam omnibus peregrinantibus gratum sit minimarum quoque rerum quae domi gerantur fieri certiores. (Cael. Fam. 8.1.1); Item aquarum ductiones et cetera quae eiusmodi sunt nota oportet sint architectis . . . (Vitr. 1.1.10) The a A a order is quite common with a governing verb of the type fac, cave, as in (x).²⁰¹ (x) Sed has tabellas, Paegnium, / ipsi Lemniseleni fac des . . . (‘But do give these tablets to Lemniselenis in person, Paegnium . . .’ Pl. Per. 195–6) Supplement: Anulum gnati tui / facito ut memineris ferre. (Pl. Bac. 327–8); Dolia cum vino bis in die fac extergeantur . . . (Cato Agr. 26); Principio, si id te mordet . . . quaeso, hoc facito tecum cogites. (Ter. Ad. 807–8); Tu nos fac ames. (Vat. Fam. 5.9.2) Verbo cave supplicassis. (Pl. As. 467); Incertus tuom cave ad me rettuleris pedem. (Pl. Epid. 439)

²⁰¹ See Kroll (1920: 102–4).

The order of superordinate and subordinate clauses  Anticipation is particularly common with relative pronouns or phrases that belong to a subordinate clause that follows or—less often—precedes the superordinate clause, as in (y) and (z). In (y), quod belongs to the indirect question quemadmodum gestum esset; in (z), to quam sit exiguum. (y)

. . . quod nuper ipse iuratus docuit quemadmodum gestum esset. (‘. . . a transaction whose nature he himself as a sworn witness has recently made clear.’ Cic. Ver. 5.15)

(z)

Si quid est in me ingeni, iudices, quod sentio quam sit exiguum, aut si . . . aut si . . . earum rerum omnium vel in primis hic A. Licinius fructum a me repetere prope suo iure debet. (‘Gentlemen of the Jury: Whatever talent I possess (and I realize how limited it is), whatever . . . to any advantage that may be derived from all these my friend Aulus Licinius has a pre-eminent claim, which belongs to him almost of right.’ Cic. Arch. 1) Supplement: Nam Stratonem quidem, iudices, in crucem esse actum exsecta scitote lingua. Quod nemo Larinatium est qui nesciat. (Cic. Clu. 187); Omnes habuerunt leges promulgatas, in eis multas meus necessarius, etiam de mea sententia, C. Cosconius, iudex noster, quem tu dirrumperis cum aedilicium vides. (Cic. Vat. 16); . . . improbos excruciari . . . poenae timore, qua aut afficiantur aut semper sint in metu ne afficiantur aliquando. (Cic. Fin. 2.53) Qui ordo quanto adiumento sit in honore quis nescit? (Cic. Planc. 23)

More complicated forms of interlacing, as in (aa) and (ab), are rare and difficult to explain from a pragmatic perspective. (aa)

Eius nunc mi anulum ad te ancilla porro ut deferrem dedit. (‘Now her maid has given me this ring to pass on to you.’ Pl. Mil. 960)

(ab)

Ac veteres quidem philosophi in beatorum insulis fingunt qualis futura sit vita sapientium . . . (‘And what is more, the old philosophers picture what the life of the Wise will be in the Islands of the Blest . . .’ Cic. Fin. 5.53) Supplement: Nunc, patres conscripti, ego mea video quid intersit. (Cic. Catil. 4.9); Quis autem meum consulatum praeter te ac P. Clodium qui vituperaret inventus est? (Cic. Phil. 2.11—NB: constituent of a relative clause)

. The relative order of superordinate and accusative and infinitive clauses in sentences with two clauses The same four ordering possibilities as described for finite subordinate clauses above also exist for accusative and infinitive clauses. Examples of A a; a A; A a A; and a A a are (a)–(d), respectively. More complex orders are also possible, as in (e). The most

 Word order common order is A a, among other things due to the fact that the accusative and infinitive clause is often relatively heavy.²⁰² However, there is variation among authors. The order A a is particularly common in non-literary texts and in Late Latin texts, except in those intended for an educated audience. In Late Latin, accusative and infinitive clauses are relatively often placed at the beginning of or early in their sentence in comparison with finite alternatives. See § 15.9. (a)

(sc. consules) Perspiciebant enim in Hortensi sententiam multis partibus pluris ituros . . . (‘For they perceived that the majority would altogether accede to the judgement of Hortensius . . .’ Cic. Fam. 1.2.2)

(b)

Risi nivem atram teque hilari animo esse et prompto ad iocandum valde me iuvat. (‘Your “black snow” made me laugh, and that you are so cheerful and ready for a joke makes me very glad.’ Cic. Q. fr. 2.12.1)

(c)

. . . ego ipse, quem tu per iocum (sic enim accipio) divitias orationis habere dicis, me non esse verborum admodum inopem agnosco . . . (‘. . . I myself, whom you jestingly (so I suppose) credit with verbal riches, acknowledge that I am not altogether unprovided with words . . .’ Cic. Fam. 4.4.1)

(d)

L.  Pisonem quis nescit his temporibus ipsis maximum et sanctissimum Dianae sacellum in Caeliculo sustulisse? (‘Take Lucius Piso: Surely there can be none of us who does not know that in these very days he has destroyed a magnificent and venerable shrine of Diana, situated on the lesser Caelian?’ Cic. Har. 32)

(e)

Nam ut utilitatem nullam esse docuimus, quae honestati esset contraria, sic omnem voluptatem dicimus honestati esse contrariam. (‘As I have shown that such expediency as is opposed to moral rectitude is no expediency, so I maintain that any and all sensual pleasure is opposed to moral rectitude.’ Cic. Off. 3.119) Supplement: AcI follows: Quis ignorabat Q.  Pompeium fecisse foedus, eadem in causa esse Mancinum? (Cic. Rep. 3.28); Multo denique die per exploratores Caesar cognovit et montem ab suis teneri et Helvetios castra movisse et Considium timore perterritum quod non vidisset pro viso sibi renuntiavisse. (Caes. Gal. 1.22.4); . . . et iam antea expertus sum parum fidei miseris esse. (Sal. Jug. 24.4); Ut scias me recte valere. (CEL App. l 2 (Vindolanda, c. ad 100)) AcI precedes: Magnam vim esse in fortuna in utramque partem, vel secundas ad res vel adversas, quis ignorat? (Cic. Off. 2.19); Locum autem actionis opportunitatem temporis esse dicunt. (Cic. Off. 1.142); Tamen in lege nulla esse eius modi

²⁰² For Caesar, see Schneider (1912: 92–7); for Cicero, Bolkestein (1989a); for Sallust, Greco (2019); for a number of Christian texts, Herman (1989), Adams (2016: 328), and Greco and Ferrari (2019); for nonliterary texts and Petronius, Adams (2005a); for texts from Plautus until Gregory of Tours, Greco (2018).

The order of superordinate and subordinate clauses  caput te non fallit. (Cic. Att. 3.23.4); Accedebat quod suos ab se liberos abstractos obsidum nomine dolebant . . . (Caes. Gal. 3.2.5); Iam omnes fontes aestate quam hieme gelidiores esse quem fallit? (Plin. Nat. 2.233); Te / tanto magis venturum / Coria sicut constituisti/ spero. (Vindol. III.611.2–5 (Vindolanda, c. ad 100)) AcI inserted: (sc. Pompeius) Simul infamia duarum legionum permotus quas ab itinere Asiae Syriaeque ad suam potentiam dominatumque converterat rem ad arma deduci studebat. (Caes. Civ. 1.4.5); . . . calones, qui ab decumana porta ac summo iugo collis nostros victores flumen transisse conspexerant, praedandi causa egressi, cum respexissent et hostes in nostris castris versari vidissent, praecipites fugae sese mandabant. (Caes. Gal. 2.24.2) AcI enclosing main clause: Honc oino · ploirume · cosentiont · R / duonoro · optumo · fuise · viro / Luciom · Scipione. (CIL I2.9.1–3 (Scip. Elog., Rome, c.200 bc));²⁰³ Mequidem semper scio fecisse sedulo / ut ex illiu’ commodo meum compararem commodum. (Ter. Hau. 396–7); Omnes sensus veri nuntios dixit esse. (Cic. N.D. 1.70—NB: sentence-final esse eight times in the sample underlying Table  23.7 on p. 1043); Orpheum poetam docet Aristoteles numquam fuisse . . . (Cic. N.D. 1.107); P. Clodium Appi f. credo te audisse cum veste muliebri deprehensum domi C. Caesaris cum sacrificium pro populo fieret . . . (Cic. Att. 1.12.3); Multos scio sic periisse, dum nolunt sibi verum dicere. (Petr. 47.6 (Trimalchio speaking)); . . . plerasque vero esse (sc. causas) quis nescit quae totae in sola qualitate consistant? (Quint. Inst. 12.2.15)

. The relative order of superordinate and ablative absolute clauses in sentences with two clauses Ablative absolute clauses regularly precede their superordinate clause. They sometimes constitute some sort of summary of the preceding context, as in (a) and (b). They often function as setting (see § 22.15) and are for that reason placed at the beginning of the sentence. This holds especially for perfect participles, which usually express anteriority. However, a topic constituent can precede, like Caesar in (c).²⁰⁴ Tacitus places ablative absolute clauses inside the superordinate sentence, as in (d), as well as elsewhere.²⁰⁵ (For ablative absolute clauses at the end of their sentence, see § 16.89.) (a)

(sc. Caesar) Sub castris Afrani consistit et . . . facit aequo loco pugnandi potestatem. Potestate facta Afranius copias educit . . . (‘He halted below Afranius’ camp and created an opportunity for Afranius to fight on level ground. With this opportunity before him Afranius led out his troops . . .’ Caes. Civ. 1.41.2–3)

²⁰³ For this example, in the context of a discussion of the origin of the accusative and infinitive clause, see Rosén (1999: 154–6). ²⁰⁴ For the position of ablative absolute clauses in the Bellum Alexandrinum, see Gaertner and Hausburg (2013: 63–4). Caesar places the ablative absolute clause before the main clause because of his ‘desire for chronological accuracy’ (Eden  1962: 104–6). For Sallust and Livy, see Kruijer and la Roi (2018). ²⁰⁵ See Enghofer (1961: 120–6 and, for discontinuous ablative absolute clauses in Tacitus, 76–82).

 Word order (b)

Quibus rebus confectis Caesar ad oppidum Avaricum . . . profectus est . . . (‘When this business had been dispatched, Caesar moved off . . . to the town of Avaricum . . .’ Caes. Gal. 7.13.3)

(c)

Caesar exposito exercitu et loco castris idoneo capto, ubi ex captivis cognovit . . . de tertia vigilia ad hostes contendit . . . (‘After the army was landed and a place suitable for the camp was chosen . . . when Caesar had learnt from prisoners . . . starting in the third watch, he pressed on to meet the enemy . . .’ Caes. Gal. 5.9.1)

(d)

Liberalium quoque artium commemoratio et nihil regente eo (sc. Claudio) triste rei publicae ab externis accidisse pronis animis audita. (‘The recollection of his liberal arts, and that nothing grim had befallen the state at the hands of foreigners during his rule, was also listened to with favourable attention.’ Tac. Ann. 13.3.1—tr. Woodman (adapted))

Insertion in the ablative absolute clause of one or more constituents of the superordinate clause is rare, except in Caesar and the historians, where it serves as a device to tighten the relation between clauses (see § 14.19 and § 16.90). An early instance of this form of interlacing is (e). A more elaborate form is shown in (g).²⁰⁶ (e)

Mene ego illaec patiar praesente dici? (‘Should I tolerate those things being said in my presence?’ Pl. Poen. 368)

(f)

Quibus hic litteris lectis ad urbem confestim incredibili celeritate advolavit. (‘As soon as he had read my letter he hastened to Rome with amazing speed.’ Cic. Sest. 11)

(g)

Hac re statim Caesar per speculatores cognita insidias veritus . . . exercitum . . . castris continuit. (‘Caesar learnt this at once through his scouts; fearing an ambush . . . he kept the army . . . in camp.’ Caes. Gal. 2.11.2) Supplement: . . . sancte adiurat / non posse apud vos Pamphilo se absente perdurare. (Ter. Hec. 268–9); Quibus rebus ego cognitis cunctatus non sum. (Planc. Fam. 10.15.2); Recepto Caesar Orico nulla interposita mora Apolloniam proficiscitur. (Caes. Civ. 3.12.1); Huius Pausanias voluntate cognita alacrior ad rem gerendam factus in suspicionem cecidit Lacedaemoniorum. (Nep. Paus. 2.6); Quorum Iugurtha accepta oratione respondit . . . (Sal. Jug. 22.2); Dextra Hercules data accipere se omen inpleturumque fata ara condita ac dicata ait. (Liv. 1.7.11); Contione adveniens de Manlio et Iunio habita, non ultra triduum moratus Romae, paludatis lictoribus votisque in Capitolio nuncupatis in provinciam aeque ac prius praecipiti celeritate abit. (Liv. 41.10.13—NB: secondary predicate); Quorum paucitate Alexander explorata . . . iussit. (Curt. 4.9.24)

²⁰⁶ For interlacing in ablative absolute clauses (and in participial secondary predicates) within the framework of Lexical-Functional Grammar in Caesar Gal., see Haug (2017: 130–9).

The order of superordinate and subordinate clauses  The insertion of the intensifier ipse (see §§ 11.144–6) and the distributive quantifier quisque (see § 21.23) in a participial clause is attested from Livy onwards, as in (h) and (i).²⁰⁷ (h)

. . . causam apud vos, patres conscripti, accusantibus meis ipse legatis dico. (‘. . . I am pleading my case before you in person, members of the senate, with my own legates pressing the charges.’ Liv. 38.47.7)

(i)

. . . ex omnibus oppidi partibus, relictis suis quisque stationibus, in eum . . . locum concurrerunt. (‘. . . they all left their posts in every sector of the town and quickly converged on that spot . . .’ Liv. 32.24.4) Supplement: Romani quoque imperatores . . . iunctis et ipsi exercitibus per agrum Ausetanum . . . ad sedem hostium pervenere . . . (Liv. 29.2.1–2); C.  Popillius . . . dimissis et ipse Attali navibus ad susceptam legationem peragendam navigare Aegyptum pergit . . . (Liv. 45.10.2); Quid enim aliud nobis quam caedem Crassi amisso et ipse Pacoro infra Ventidium deiectus Oriens obiecerit? (Tac. Ger. 37.3) Tum vero omnes, velut diis auctoribus in spem suam quisque acceptis, id morae quod nondum pugnarent ad potienda sperata rati, proelium uno animo et voce una poscunt. (Liv. 21.45.9) Whereas in the examples above ipse and quisque are related to the subject of the superordinate clause, this is not the case in ( j). Also cited in this context is Justin. 29.1.8. ( j) Sed postquam in Hispania Hercules, sicuti Afri putant, interiit, exercitus eius, conpositus ex variis gentibus, amisso duce ac passim multis sibi quisque imperium petentibus brevi dilabitur. (‘After Hercules died in Spain, as the Africans believe, his army (now that the leader was gone) soon dispersed, made up as it was by diverse nationalities, and many were contending, each against the others, to succeed him.’ Sall. Jug. 18.3)

. The relative order of superordinate and subordinate clauses in multi-clausal sentences ‘Multi-clausal sentence’ is a broad notion of which only a small part is explored in this section. One type consists of sentences with a superordinate clause and two or more subordinate clauses that fulfil different functions in that clause, as in (a), symbolized as a b A. Here a cur interrogative object and an etiamsi concessive adjunct clause precede the superordinate clause. The cur clause is in first position, because it is emphatic. In (b), the order of adjunct clause and object clause is inverted. The si clause is the setting; ²⁰⁷ For Livy, see Riemann (1885: 259–61). There are further references in Sz.: 402 and Traenkle (1968: 140–2). For the use of ipse in gerundial clauses, see § 16.101.

 Word order the main clause at the end contains the most salient information. In (c), we see a different arrangement with a cum adjunct clause (the setting) at the beginning and an accusative and infinitive object clause at the end as the most salient information (order: a A b). Constituents can be anteposed for pragmatic reasons, as in (d). Haec, which is the object of offendam, refers to a number of actions mentioned in the preceding context. (a)

Nunc hoc dicunt, utrumque se nosse. Alterum se cupere defensorem esse fortunarum suarum, alterum plane nolle. Cur nolint, etiamsi taceant, satis dicunt. (‘What they actually are saying is that they know both of us, and that they are eager to have one of us to champion their interests, and will not have the other at all. Why they will not have the other they let us know plainly, even if they remain silent.’ Cic. Div. Caec. 20–1)

(b)

. . . et si quem nos interrogare noluimus, quae causa nobis tacendi fuerit existimare debetis. (‘. . . and if we have shown reluctance to cross-examine someone, it is for you to infer what the motive for our silence was.’ Cic. Font. 22)

(c)

Haec cum dixisset, iuravit se nisi victorem in castra non reversurum reliquosque ut idem facerent hortatus est. (‘After speaking thus, he took an oath that he would not return to camp except as a victor, and he urged the rest to do the same.’ Caes. Civ. 3.87.5)

(d)

Haec, quom ego a foro revortar, facite ut offendam parata . . . (‘Make sure that when I return from the market I find that all this is ready . . .’ Pl. Ps. 163)

Another type is shown in (e) and (f). Here we have two adjunct clauses (exceptionally also of the same type and with the same subordinator) which function at different levels. In (e), the first ubi clause functions as a position in time adjunct for the combination of the ubi Larem . . . clause with the fundum . . . circumeat main clause. This can be symbolized as a (b A). Because the two ubi clauses are hierarchically different they cannot be coordinated. In terms of information structure both clauses function as settings, which explains the order in which they are arranged.²⁰⁸ In (g), the disjunct clause with quoniam is in its usual initial position (see § 16.42), followed by the position in time adjunct with antequam, which is the setting for the main clause at the end. (e)

Pater familias ubi ad villam venit, ubi Larem familiarem salutavit, fundum eodem die, si potest, circumeat. (‘When the master arrives at the farmstead, after paying his respect to the god of the household, let him go over the whole farm, if possible, on the same day.’ Cato Agr. 2.1)

(f)

Deinde si quam opinionem iam vestris mentibus comprehendistis, si eam ratio convellet . . . ne repugnetis eamque animis vestris aut libentibus aut aequis remittatis.

²⁰⁸ For instances of two different satellite clauses preceding a common superordinate clause in Plautus, see Lindskog (1896: 49–50).

The order of superordinate and subordinate clauses  (‘Next, that if you have already formed some opinion, if it be dislodged by reason . . . you dismiss it without resistance from your minds, if not gladly, at least without reluctance.’ Cic. Clu. 6)

(g)

Et quoniam in hoc officio studium meae defensionis ab accusatoribus atque etiam ipsa susceptio causae reprehensa est, antequam pro L. Murena dicere instituo, pro me ipso pauca dicam . . . (‘And because in this fulfilment of my obligation I have been attacked by the prosecution for the vigour of my defence and even for the fact that I have taken on the case at all, before I begin to speak in Murena’s defence, I shall say a few words on my own behalf . . .’ Cic. Mur. 2) Supplement: Si nox furtum factum sit (faxit cj. Cujacius), si im occisit, iure caesus esto. (Lex XII 8.12); Si prata inrigua habebis, simulac faenum sustuleris, inrigare. (Var. R. 1.31.5); Nam si tu mihi quamvis eruditum hominem adduxeris . . . si erit idem in consuetudine civitatis . . . hospes, non multum ei loci proderunt illi ex quibus argumenta promuntur. (Cic. de Orat. 2.131) More complex instances: [cum] Equus matrem salire cum adduci non posset, eum capite obvoluto auriga adduxisset et coegisset matrem inire, cum descendenti dempsisset ab oculis, [et] ille impetum fecit in eum ac mordicus interfecit. (Var. R. 2.7.9); Romam ut ex Sicilia redii, cum iste atque istius amici . . . sermones eiusmodi dissipassent . . . tametsi probabatur nemini . . . tamen usque eo timui ne . . . (Cic. Ver. 1.17); . . . sin autem is tu sis, qui multam utilitatem rei publicae atque hominum societati, si in vita remaneas, adferre possis, si quid ob eam causam alteri detraxeris, non sit reprehendendum. (Cic. Off. 3.30)

A third type is shown in (h). Here, the sentence consists of one superordinate clause and two subordinate clauses, a first-degree and a second-degree clause. The connective relative pronoun quod is in its typical initial position. It is the object of efficere in the second-degree indirect question quem ad modum . . . possit; this clause itself is the object of the first-degree reason adjunct clause quia . . . non videtis. The main clause is ut tragici poetae . . . confugitis ad deum. The structure can be symbolized as l a A, its actual order being l a l a A. The quia clause functions as a setting and precedes the main clause. (The main clause is interrupted again by a cum clause, here ignored.)²⁰⁹ Artistic factors (see §  23.14) seem relevant as well: note the sequence of three quwords, for which one may compare the well-known Ovidian example (i). A more complicated case is ( j), with three subordinate clauses of different degree. Τhe connective relative clause quorum verborum . . . discordia omnis in consuetudine communi, heavy as it is,²¹⁰ is in first position. It is the attribute of commutatio in the indirect question quot modis . . . facta, which itself is the object of the autonomous relative clause qui animadverterit, the subject of the main clause at the end of the sentence. (h)

Quod quia quem ad modum natura efficere sine aliqua mente possit non videtis, ut tragici poetae, cum explicare argumenti exitum non potestis, confugitis ad deum.

²⁰⁹ For discussion, see Pease ad loc.

²¹⁰ For similar heavy clauses, see Pennell Ross (1991).

 Word order (‘But because you cannot see how nature can achieve all this without the aid of some intelligence, you, like the tragic poets, have recourse to a god when you are unable to bring the plot of your drama to a dénouement.’ Cic. N.D. 1.53)

(i)

. . . si quis qui quid agam forte requirat erit / vivere me dices . . . (‘. . . if there’s one, perhaps, who asks how I am, say I’m alive . . .’ Ov. Tr. 1.1.18–19—tr. Kline)

( j)

Quorum verborum novorum ac veterum discordia omnis in consuetudine comuni (sc. est) quot modis commutatio sit facta qui animadverterit facilius scrutari origines patietur verborum. (‘Now he who has observed in how many ways the changes have taken place in those words, new and old, in which there is any and every manner of variation in popular usage, will find the examination of the origin of the words an easier task.’ Var. L. 5.6)²¹¹ Supplement: Quid autem agatur cum aperuero, facile erit statuere quam sententiam dicatis aut quam sequamini. (Cic. Phil. 5.6); Quoniam quod iudicium et quo consilio constitutum sit cognostis, nunc rem ipsam, ut gesta sit, dum breviter vobis demonstro, attendite. (Cic. Tul. 13); . . . de reliquo iam nostra culpa fuerit, si te, nisi omnia quae percontati erimus explicaris, dimiserimus. (Cic. de Orat. 1.100); Mando tibi plane totum ut videas cuius modi sit. (Cic. Att. 1.12.2); Hoc quod obicio qui in pluribus fecit occisus est. (Sen. Con. 7.6.11) More complex instances: Igitur, inquit Agrasius, quae diiungenda essent a cultura cuiusmodi sint quoniam discretum, de iis rebus quae in scientia sit in colendo nos docet ars id an quid aliud . . . (Var. R. 1.3); Sed cur tam diu de uno hoste loquimur et de eo hoste qui iam fatetur se esse hostem . . .quem, quia, quod semper volui, murus interest, non timeo. (Cic. Catil. 2.17); Mercatoribus est aditus magis eo, ut quae bello ceperint quibus vendant habeant, quam quo ullam rem ad se importari desiderent. (Caes. Gal. 4.2.1)

In the examples discussed so far a superordinate clause occupies the final position. In reality, complex sentences of this type much more often have a superordinate clause in initial position.²¹²

23.69 Word order at the noun phrase level In most studies of the relative order of constituents of the Latin noun phrase scholars have concentrated on the position of the attribute, especially of adjectives and noun phrases in the genitive. The role of the noun that functions as head of the noun phrase has received little attention, and that only recently.²¹³ In fact, the relative order of head ²¹¹ This is the reading in Kent’s Loeb edition, defended by Laughton (1960: 5). After modis Fritzsche deleted litterarum, which de Melo maintains in his text between brackets. ²¹² See Sz.: 732–4, with references. For comparative data of Plautus, Rhet. Her., and Cicero Phil. 14, see Golla (1935: 39–41). In Plautus, by contrast, sequences of preceding subordinate clauses, each having their own relation to the main clause, are common (Blänsdorf 1967: 9–27). ²¹³ See Lisón  (2001: 161–3), Devine and Stephens  (2006: Ch. 5), and Spevak  (2014a: Ch. 2), from whom many of the examples are taken.

Word order at the noun phrase level  and attribute constituents of a noun phrase is determined by a number of factors, some of which may operate at the same time. Just as in the case of the constituent order at the clause level it is often difficult to determine which factor is the decisive one in the order that is actually found. The following factors involved deserve special attention.²¹⁴ (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

the internal semantic and pragmatic structure of the noun phrase and the pragmatic function of the noun phrase as a whole in its clause: topic or focus; the category and meaning(s) of the head of the noun phrase; the category and meaning(s) of the attribute and its complexity; the complexity of the noun phrase in terms of the number and types of attributes.

(i) In its context a noun phrase consisting of a noun and an attribute can either function as a pragmatic unit or the attribute or the noun can have a pragmatic value of its own. In (a), boves vetulos and the other noun–adjective combinations function as a whole, in the same way as the single nouns lanam and pelles. The adjectives serve to qualify the items the owner of the farm must sell. The noun phrases are the focus of the clause, informing the reader what the owner of the farm must sell. The properties the adjectives indicate are not the most relevant part of the information of the clause. In (b), by contrast, magnas is pragmatically salient, as appears from the reaction to the question. Note that repetition of the noun in the answer is not necessary. The order noun/adjective is typical for situation (a), adjective/noun (and discontinuity) for (b). In (c), the nouns reo and filio are each the most salient part of their noun phrase (they are contrasted) and so precede the adjectives nobili and parvo, respectively.²¹⁵ (a)

Boves vetulos, armenta delicula, oves deliculas, lanam, pelles, plostrum vetus, ferramenta vetera, servum senem, servum morbosum, et si quid aliut supersit, vendat. (‘Let him sell worn-out oxen, blemished cattle, blemished sheep, wool, hides, an old wagon, old tools, an old slave, a sickly slave, and whatever else is superfluous.’ Cato Agr. 2.7)

(b)

Magnas vero agere gratias Thais mihi? / # Ingentis. (‘Did Thais really express great thanks to me? # Immense.’ Ter. Eu. 391–2)

(c)

. . . miseratione . . . nos ita dolenter uti solemus ut . . . alia in causa excitato reo nobili, sublato etiam filio parvo plangore et lamentatione compleremus forum. (‘. . . the appeal for sympathy . . . we are wont to use so piteously that . . . in another plea we told the noble defendant to stand up, also raised his small son, and so filled the forum with wailing and lamentation.’ Cic. Orat. 131)

²¹⁴ For the order at the noun phrase level, see Ammann (1911), Marouzeau (1922), Adams (1976a), de Jong (1986), Gettert (1999), Lisón (2001), Devine and Stephens (2006), Baldi and Nuti (2010: 365–73), Langslow (2012), Giusti and Iovino (2015), and above all Spevak (2014a; 2016b). ²¹⁵ In the corpus used by Devine and Stephens parvus precedes the noun in 85 per cent of cases (2006: 467–71).

 Word order The three examples manifest three different pragmatic constellations but only two different orders. It is very likely that they had different intonation contours, but we do not know them. Postposition of an attribute is common when the noun phrase has focus function, as in (c). By contrast, when the referent of the noun is known from the context and especially if the noun phrase is topic of the clause, anteposition of the attribute is more common.²¹⁶ (ii) The function of head of a noun phrase can be fulfilled by constituents that belong to various lexical categories, which are discussed in §§ 11.2–23. This is illustrated by (d), an example of a common noun, and (e), an indefinite pronoun. It is quite natural that these constituents have different ordering possibilities. (d)

Numqui minus ea gratia tamen omnium opera utor? (‘Do I make any less use of the services of you all for that reason?’ Pl. Ps. 160)

(e)

Hoc modo aut ego aut tu, Hortensi, aut quisquam omnium rettulit? (‘Have you or I, Hortensius, has anyone in the world, ever presented them like that?’ Cic. Ver. 1.36)

But even within the class of common nouns differences exist that are related among other things to the type of entity the nouns refer to (see § 3.6). An animate first-order noun like miles ‘soldier’ can be combined with different attributes from a secondorder noun like bellum ‘war’. However, they have in common that they can play a central role in a war narrative like Caesar’s de Bello Gallico, and their attributes are often pragmatically salient (and then anteposed). By contrast, an inanimate firstorder noun like ager ‘field’ plays a less central role in such a text and its attributes are rarely salient (and therefore rarely anteposed, see (k) below).²¹⁷ Indirectly, the frequency of ante- and postposition of the attribute can also correlate with the number of the noun. With the nominative singular vir ‘man’ postposition of the adjective is predominant, certainly when the noun phrase functions as an apposition, but also when it functions at the clause level, as in (f). By contrast, the accusative plural viros is usually part of the object, which often has focus function, and, as a consequence, anteposition of the adjective is predominant, as in (g).²¹⁸ (f)

Si exempli gratia vir bonus Alexandrea Rhodum magnum frumenti numerum advexerit in Rhodiorum inopia et fame . . . (‘If for example an honest man has imported a large cargo of grain from Alexandria to Rhodes at a time of dearth and famine of the Rhodians . . .’ Cic. Off. 3.50)

(g)

Complecti vis amplissimos viros ad tuum et Gabini scelus, neque id occulte. (‘You desire to implicate men of high standing in the crime of yourself and Gabinius, and that without disguise.’ Cic. Pis. 75)

²¹⁶ See Spevak (2014a: 99–100). ²¹⁷ See Spevak (2014a: 131, Table 2 ‘classifying adjectives’).

²¹⁸ See Spevak (2014a: 156–9; 213).

Word order at the noun phrase level  Valency of the noun is another factor in the ordering of constituents of a noun phrase. On the whole, (obligatory) arguments of nouns precede their head nouns as often as they follow, as in (h) and (i). Optional possessive genitives, depending on the head noun, are more often anteposed, as in ( j), but see (k).²¹⁹ (h)

Confines erant hi Senonibus civitatemque patrum memoria coniunxerant . . . (‘These were next neighbours to the Senones, and in the previous generation had formed one state with them . . .’ Caes. Gal. 6.3.5)

(i)

Quid? Quod usu memoria patrum venit, ut pater familias, qui ex Hispania Romam venisset . . . (‘And again, what about the case that occurred in our fathers’ time, of the head of a household who had come from Spain to Rome . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 1.183—tr. May and Wisse)

( j)

In hoc erant numero complures Pompei milites . . . (‘Among the latter were many of Pompey’s soldiers . . .’ Caes. Civ. 3.103.5)

(k)

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 were minded to march through the land of the Sequani and the Aedui into the borders of the Santones . . .’ Caes. Gal. 1.10.1)

(iii) The function of attribute of a noun phrase can be fulfilled by constituents that belong to various lexical categories, which are discussed in §§ 11.24–74. Their position with respect to the head varies, as grammars note: in Classical prose possessive adjectives, for example, regularly follow their nouns; ‘normal’ adjectives and quantifiers precede.²²⁰ The problem with observations of this type is that there is considerable variation between individual words in each of these classes and that there is also much variation between authors and types of text: in Cato Agr., for example, most ‘normal’ adjectives follow their head. Moreover, most often no explanation is given why in a specific situation the attribute follows or precedes. Among these attributes, ‘normal’ adjectives can be subdivided into several semantic classes which behave differently as far as position is concerned, as is shown in §§  23.71–9. Certain adjectives require another constituent on the basis of their valency (see §§  4.99–104). Adjectives can also be expanded with optional constituents (see § 11.91–9). The use of such adjective phrases as attribute is not very common, but see (l) and (m), repeated from § 11.92. The presence of an obligatory or optional constituent favours postponement of the adjective phrase, as in (l) and (m). (l)

. . . servos ad caedem idoneos emit . . . (‘. . . (who) has bought slaves ready for murder . . .’ Cic. Sest. 95)

²¹⁹ See Spevak (2014a: 178–203). ²²⁰ So, for example, K.-St.: II.605–9. For a ‘short overview of the state of research’, see Baños and Cabrillana (2009: 701–7) and Spevak (2014a: 102–4). For the position of possessive adjectives in Plautus, see de Melo (2010) and below, § 23.76.

 Word order (m)

Vehementem accusatorem nacti sumus, iudices, et inimicum in omni genere odiosum ac molestum. (‘We have got an energetic prosecutor, gentlemen, and an enemy in every way offensive and dangerous.’ Cic. Flac. 13)

(iv) A noun phrase can contain more than one attribute, as in (n) (see § 11.75). The order of these attributes and their position with respect to the head noun do not only depend on the internal semantic structure, as (n) might suggest, but can also be determined by various pragmatic factors, as in (o), where eruditissima precedes illa because it is emphatic. (n)

Cato censorius in illa nobili trium sapientiae procerum ab Athenis legatione audito Carneade quam primum legatos eos censuit dimittendos . . . (‘Cato the censor, on the occasion when the famous embassy of the three leaders of philosophy was sent from Athens, after hearing Carneades advised that these envoys should be sent away as soon as possible . . .’ Plin. Nat. 7.112)

(o)

Hoc vitio cumulata est eruditissima illa Graecorum natio. (‘The Greek nation, with all its learning, abounds in this fault.’ Cic. de Orat. 2.18)

. The relative order of head and attribute In the preceding section it was shown that the relative order of head and attribute is determined by various factors, such as properties of the attributes, properties of the head nouns, the role of the noun phrase as a whole in its clause, and its internal complexity. In the following sections a more traditional presentation will be given of the position of the various categories of attributes with respect to their head. An important distinction between the various types of attributes is that between attributes with and attributes without referential properties, coinciding more or less with, on the one hand, attributes that show agreement with their head and, on the other, nouns and noun phrases in various cases and prepositional phrases. For the position of adnominal relative clauses, see § 18.12.

. The position of attributes that agree with their head In the majority of the texts that have received detailed discussion attributes precede their heads.²²¹ This is the case in 78 per cent of the noun phrases in Caes. Gal. I; 67 per cent in Cic. Att. I; 62 per cent in Petronius, with the exception of the Cena Trimalchionis, where it is only 45 per cent; and 32 per cent in the Peregrinatio, with no distinction made between the two parts of that work.²²² However, there are considerable differences between the various categories of attributes. Determiners, for example, precede much more often ²²¹ See the survey in Baños and Cabrillana (2009: 701). ²²² For the difference in word order between the two parts in general, see Spevak (2005a).

Word order at the noun phrase level  than ‘normal’ adjectives; possessive adjectives slightly more often follow their heads. The various categories of attributes are discussed separately, in the order of presentation of Chapter 11.

. The position of determiners Determiners most often precede the head noun. Interrogative and relative determiners almost always precede; demonstrative, anaphoric, and indefinite determiners show more variation. The demonstrative determiner ille, for example, shows the variation in Table 23.8.²²³ Table . The order of head and the demonstrative determiner ille in a number of texts (in absolute numbers)     ille

Cicero’s orations

Caesar

Sallust

AH

HA

AH

HA

AH

HA

1735

420

23

2

24

7

‘A’ = attribute; ‘H’ = head

23.73 The position of anaphoric and demonstrative determiners The anaphoric determiner is is most often anteposed,²²⁴ as in (a), with a proper name, and in (b), with a common noun (see also § 11.105). Postposition is not uncommon when it modifies a noun which is modified by an adnominal relative clause, as in (c). Rare are cases of postposition like (d), where eius seems to be added to avoid confusion with maybe another Agathinus, and (e), after a parenthesis. (a)

Ausculta modo. / “Harpax calator meus est, ad te qui venit—” / Tun’ es is Harpax? # Ego sum . . . (‘Just listen. “Harpax is my batman who has come to you—” Are you that Harpax? # I am . . .’ Pl. Ps. 108–10)

(b)

Ubi ea mulier habitat? (‘Where does this woman live?’ Pl. Bac. 472)

(c)

Idemque, in quo fuit ‘publicola’ maxime, legem ad populum tulit eam quae centuriatis comitiis prima lata est . . . (‘It was the same man who, by an act whereby he shows himself in the highest sense “the people’s friend,” proposed to the citizens that first law passed by the centuriate assembly . . .’ Cic. Rep. 2.53)

²²³ See Rohde (1884; 1887). Lodge: s.v. ille § II (p. 747A) says that there are sixty instances of postposition of ille in Plautus. ²²⁴ In the corpus used by Lisón (2001: 115) more than 90 per cent of cases (Cic. de Orat., Liv. XXVI and XXVIII, and Sen. Ep. I–V). Spevak (2010c: 59) reports for is 98 per cent (Cic. Att. I–IV, Caes. Gal. I–V, Sal. Cat. and Jug.). For the position of is, see also Fischer (1908: 91–5), TLL s.v. 480.73ff., and Lodge: s.v. is § II (p. 829B).

 Word order (d)

Hi autem erant inimici Agathinus, homo nobilis, et Dorotheus, qui habebat in matrimonio Callidamam, Agathini eius filiam. (‘These enemies were a man of some note named Agathinus, and Dorotheus, who was married to Callidama the daughter of this Agathinus.’ Cic. Ver. 2.89)

(e)

Haec illi est pugnata pugna usque a mani ad vesperum / . . . sed proelium id tandem diremit nox interventu suo. (‘This fight was fought there without interruption from morning till evening . . . but finally night settled this battle through its intervention.’ Pl. Am. 253–5) Supplement (instances of—rare—postposition): Ne triumphus quidem finem facit belli, per quem lata est urbs ea sine qua numquam ex Transalpinis gentibus maiores nostri triumphaverunt. (Cic. Phil. 8.18); Quae nisi qui naturas hominum vimque omnem humanitatis causasque eas quibus mentes aut incitantur aut reflectuntur penitus perspexerit, dicendo quod volet perficere non poterit. (Cic. de Orat. 1.53); Itaque cum exercitu per Cappadociae partem eam quae cum Cilicia continens est iter feci . . . (Cic. Fam. 15.2.2); Maiorem partem aetatis eius qua civilibus officiis fungantur homines, Romae se quam in vetere patria vixisse. (Liv. 1.35.4) . . . Laelius interim freto in Oceanum evectus ad Carteiam classe accessit. Urbs ea in ora Oceani sita est . . . (Liv. 28.30.3)

The demonstrative determiners hic, ille, and iste are most often anteposed.²²⁵ In their deictic use (see § 11.26) they regularly precede, as is shown for hic in (f), but in Plautus the reverse order is not uncommon, as in (g), not only for entities on the stage: alongside hunc diem ‘this day’, for example, the reverse order diem hunc is also found.²²⁶ Postposition is also common in situations like (h), where Cicero mentions a person as present whom the audience already knows. When used anaphorically (which is the most common use), the determiner also most often precedes but, again, postposition is possible, as in (i). Postposition is rare when the noun is modified by an adnominal relative clause, but see ( j) and (k), when the determiner modifies a compound phrase, as in (l), or when the noun is prominent in some way, as in (m), an important person, and (n), contrast with bellum.²²⁷ Postposition is very common in poetry. (f)

Ego interim hanc aram occupabo. (‘Meanwhile I’ll occupy this altar.’ Pl. Mos. 1094)

(g)

Tange aram hanc Veneris. (‘Touch this altar of Venus.’ Pl. Rud. 1333)

(h)

C. Quinctius fuit P. Quincti huius frater . . . (‘Gaius Quinctius was the brother of Publius Quinctius, my client here . . .’ Cic. Quinct. 11)

²²⁵ In Lisón’s corpus hic more than 95 per cent; iste more than 80 per cent; ille more than 75 per cent. See also Fischer (1908: 31–2 (hic), 43 (iste), 65–6 (ille)). ²²⁶ The proportion is thirty-two vs. two (PHI). ²²⁷ For the position of hic, see TLL s.v. hic 2739.32ff. and Devine and Stephens (2006: 511–20).

Word order at the noun phrase level  (i)

. . . aegritudo in animo nomen habet non seiunctum a dolore. Doloris huius igitur origo nobis explicanda est . . . (‘. . . distress in the soul has a name which in meaning is not distinct from the meaning of pain. We must therefore trace out the origin of this pain . . .’ Cic. Tusc. 3.23)

( j)

Ac negotiis quidem fere res haec quas commemoravimus sunt adtributae. (‘And the circumstances which we have now mentioned are those which are usually attributed to things as opposed to persons.’ Cic. Inv. 1.43)

(k)

. . . cur non imitamur, Crasse, Socratem illum qui est in Phaedro Platonis? (‘Say, Crassus, why don’t we follow the example of Socrates as he appears in Plato’s Phaedrus?’ Cic. de Orat. 1.28—tr. May and Wisse)

(l)

Intellegitur, iudices, id quod iam ante dixi, imprudente L. Sulla scelera haec et flagitia fieri. (‘It is easy to see, gentlemen, that, as I have said before, all these infamous crimes were committed without the knowledge of Sulla.’ Cic. S. Rosc. 25)

(m)

. . . ut Socratem illum solitum aiunt dicere perfectum sibi opus esse, si qui satis esset concitatus cohortatione sua . . . (‘We are told that Socrates always said that his work was done if he had sufficiently succeeded, by his exhortations, in stirring someone . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 1.204—tr. May and Wisse)

(n)

Nisi aut Hamilcar Hannibali dux est praeferendus aut illud bellum huic, aut victoria illa maior clariorque quam haec . . . futura est. (‘Unless Hamilcar is to be rated above Hannibal as a general, or that war above this one, or unless that victory was greater and more famous than this one . . . is to be . . .’ Liv. 28.41.4) Supplement (instances of—rare—postposition): Sed totum genus oppugnationis huius, iudices, et iam prospicitis animis et, cum inferetur, propulsare debebitis. (Cic. Cael. 20); Sthenius hic Thermitanus cum hoc capillo atque veste domo sua tota expilata mentionem tuorum furtorum non facit. (Cic. Ver. 5.128); Cogebat enim me M. Marcellus hic noster, qui nunc aedilis curulis est et profecto, nisi ludos nunc faceret, huic nostro sermoni interesset. (Cic. de Orat. 1.57); Cossinius hic cui dedi litteras valde mihi bonus homo et non levis et amans tui visus est . . . (Cic. Att. 1.19.11); Nam ego eo nomine sum Dyrrachii hoc tempore ut quam celerrime quid agatur audiam, et sum tuto. Civitas enim haec semper a me defensa est. (Cic. Fam. 14.3.4) . . . si vidulum illum quem ego in navi perdidi / cum auro atque argento salvom investigavero . . . (Pl. Rud. 1339–40); . . . ut ex eodem Ponto Medea illa quondam fugisse dicitur . . . (Cic. Man. 22); . . . veteres illi qui huic scientiae praefuerunt . . . pervolgari artem suam noluerunt. (Cic. de Orat. 1.186); . . . stilus ille tuus, quem tu vere dixisti perfectorem dicendi esse ac magistrum, multi sudoris est. (Cic. de Orat. 1.257); Quod si Antipater ille Sidonius, quem tu probe, Catule, meministi, solitus est versus hexametros . . . fundere ex tempore . . . (Cic. de Orat. 3.104); Itaque multa auguria, multa auspicia, quod Cato ille sapiens queritur, neglegentia collegii amissa plane et deserta sunt. (Cic. Div. 1.28)

 Word order Quam diu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet? (Cic. Catil. 1.1); Quid vero habet auctoritatis furor iste quem divinum vocatis, ut quae sapiens non videat ea videat insanus . . . (Cic. Div. 2.110); . . . tibi et declinationem istam atomorum et magnitudinem solis probabo . . . (Cic. Fin. 1.28); Nihil igitur te contra soritas ars ista adiuvat . . . (Cic. Luc. 94)

Anaphoric and demonstrative determiners can modify noun phrases that contain one or more other modifiers (see §  11.26).²²⁸ The determiner most often precedes the entire remaining part of the noun phrase, as in (o) and (p), but other orders are possible as well. These are usually pragmatically motivated. In (q), curam precedes the two attributes because it is emphatic. In (r), noster precedes hic for the same reason. (o)

Itaque propter hanc dubitationem meam brevior haec ipsa epistula est . . . (‘Therefore because of this uncertainty of mine my present letter is somewhat short . . .’ Cic. Att. 1.9.1)

(p)

Vereor enim ne re iam desperata legas, ut haec mea diligentia miserabilis tibi, aliis irridenda videatur. (‘For I fear that by the time you read this the matter may already have been given up as a bad job. In that case my solicitude will seem pitiable to you and ludicrous to others.’ Cic. Att. 3.23.4)

(q)

Tanta res videbatur herbam invenire, vitam iuvare, nunc fortassis aliquis curam hanc nostram frivolam quoque existimaturis. (‘It was thought a great honour to discover a plant and be of assistance to human life, although now perhaps some will think that these researches of mine are just idle trifling.’ Plin. Nat. 25.22)

(r)

Tamen, quam diu hic erit noster hic praefectus moribus, parebo auctoritati tuae. (‘Despite the foregoing, as long as our new Prefect of Morals remains in Rome, I shall defer to your advice.’ Cic. Fam. 9.15.5)

In cases like (s) the words is and miles could be analysed either as a discontinuous noun phrase with is functioning as determiner, or as a sequence of a pronoun and an appositive noun. Similarly for is and leno in (t), and for eam and mulierem/virginem.²²⁹ It is probably best taken as an extreme form of discontinuity (see § 23.87, (vi)). (s)

Nam is illius filiam / conicit in navem miles clam matrem suam, / eamque huc invitam mulierem in Ephesum advehit. (‘For the soldier puts her daughter onto a ship, behind her mother’s back, and brings her here to Ephesus, against her will.’ Pl. Mil. 111–13)

(t)

Is eam huc Cyrenas leno advexit virginem. (‘This pimp brought that girl here to Cyrene.’ Pl. Rud. 41)

²²⁸ For combinations with hic, see Devine and Stephens (2006: 515–20). For determiners in general, see Spevak (2010c: 67–74). ²²⁹ For discussion and statistical data, see Rosén (1999: 150–1). She takes such instances as evidence for the existence of an ‘appositional’ (or: ‘explicitational’) word order in Early Latin.

Word order at the noun phrase level  23.74 The position of indefinite determiners The class of indefinite determiners is less homogeneous than that of anaphoric and demonstrative determiners. Here, only aliquis (see §  11.111) and quidam (see § 11.114) are discussed, which have different properties in several respects. Whereas aliquis most often precedes its head in Plautus, quidam more often follows. Different orders of quidam in two almost identical contexts are shown in (a) and (b). In prose, aliquis is regularly anteposed (80 per cent), quidam less often (65 per cent).²³⁰ Postposition is favoured if the head noun is pragmatically prominent, as in (c) (contrast), or if the head noun is modified by a relative clause, as in (d) and (e). (a)

Est quidam homo qui illam (sc. cistellam) ait se scire ubi sit. (‘There’s a certain man who says he knows where that casket is.’ Pl. Cist. 735)

(b)

Homo quidam est qui scit quod quaeris ubi sit. (‘There’s a certain man who knows where what you’re looking for is.’ Pl. Mil. 1012)

(c)

. . . non arte aliqua perpenditur, sed quodam quasi naturali sensu iudicatur. (‘. . . this is not dispensed by means of an art, but is based on the judgement of some sort of natural instinct.’ Cic. de Orat. 3.151—tr. May and Wisse)

(d)

De hoc Verri dicitur habere eum perbona toreumata, in his pocula quaedam quae Thericlia nominantur . . . (‘It was reported to Verres about him that he owned some really good chased silver, and in particular, some cups of the kind called Thericlia . . .’ Cic. Ver. 4.38)

(e)

Quae tum denique, cum causa aliqua quae a me dicenda est desiderat, quaero. (‘This I investigate only when some case that I must plead requires it.’ Cic. de Orat. 3.147—tr. May and Wisse)

23.75 The position of relative and interrogative determiners For exceptional postposed relative determiners, see § 18.15. Interrogative determiners are rarely postposed (it is not always clear whether we are dealing with a determiner or with a pronoun).²³¹ (a)

Si me novisti minus, / genere quo sim gnatus . . . (‘In case you don’t know what family I come from . . .’ Pl. Aul. 777–8)

(b)

Ars vero quae potest esse nisi quae non ex una aut duabus sed ex multis animi perceptionibus constat? (‘But what science can there be that is not made up of not one nor two but many mental percepts?’ Cic. Luc. 22)

²³⁰ Lisón (2001: 120–3; 135) includes other indefinite determiners (see § 11.27) in his statistics and also alius ‘other’, ceterus ‘the remaining’, and others. Spevak (2010c: 60–1) has separate statistics for aliquis and quidam. In Plautus, aliquis precedes in forty-one out of fifty-three instances; quidam, in nine out of thirtyone (source: Lodge: s.vv.). He uses quidam only three times with inanimate nouns. By contrast, in Merguet (Phil.) animate nouns are relatively rare. ²³¹ For ten instances in Plautus, see Lodge: s.v. quis § II (p. 498B).

 Word order Supplement: In metu belli furandi locus qui potest esse? (Cic. Ver. 5.10); Deinde dolorem quem maximum (sc. dicis)? (Cic. Fin. 2.93); Ubi enim iudicium emptoris est, ibi fraus venditoris quae potest esse? (Cic. Off. 3.55)

. The position of attributive possessive adjectives Possessive adjectives are a special type of modifier, since in certain contexts they are not used, in particular with relational nouns like pater ‘father’ (see § 3.6) and when the possessive adjective is coreferential with the subject of the clause, unless there is a need to emphasize the possessive relation.²³² For other not typically ‘possessive’ uses of these adjectives, see §§ 11.29–30. The frequency of ante- and postposition differs between authors and between individual possessive adjectives, as is shown in Table 23.9.²³³ Table . Relative order of head and the possessive adjectives meus and suus in Cicero’s orations, Caesar, Sallust, and Plautus (absolute numbers)  

Cicero’s orations

 

AH

meus

782

suus

908

HA

Caesar AH

HA

642

7

1044

302

Sallust

Plautus

AH

HA

AH

HA

1

20

54

664

557

127

49

122

189

230

‘A’ = attribute; ‘H’ = head

Anteposition is the rule when the possessive adjective is semantically prominent. Thus, in Cicero, ‘in my opinion’ is regularly meo iudicio, in contrast with what other people may find. In (a), the anteposition of meum in the second sentence is due to contrast, whereas in the other three sentences meus is only there to avoid confusion and therefore postposed. However, postposition may also result from anteposition of the head noun for pragmatic reasons, as in (b) and (c).²³⁴ Our grammars draw special attention to anteposition of the possessive adjective as a sign of an emotional relation, as in (d), where meus is not necessary to inform Atticus about the identity of the frater referred to. Anteposition of the possessive adjective without a pragmatic motivation is found in Late Latin, for example in Augustine’s writings in a less elevated style, as in (e). Anteposition is normal in the Romance languages.²³⁵

²³² See Spevak (2010c: 64–7). ²³³ See Rohde (1884; 1887). For the position of possessive pronouns in Cicero’s orations, and also discontinuity, see Menk (1925). For further numerical data, see Lisón (2001: 124–5) and Spevak (2010c: 65). The data for Plautus are taken from de Melo (2010: 76, Table 6.1). For Augustine, see Muldowney (1937: 60–73). ²³⁴ Fruyt (2008: 83) incorrectly regards meum in this example as ‘focalisé’, because of the translation ‘my own’. ²³⁵ See K.-St.: II.609.

Word order at the noun phrase level  (a)

Ut igitur intellegeretis qualem ipse se consulem profiteretur, (sc. Antonius) obiecit mihi consulatum meum . . . Quis autem meum consulatum praeter te et P. Clodium qui vituperaret inventus est? . . . Non placet M. Antonio consulatus meus . . . Maxime vero consulatum meum Cn. Pompeius probavit . . . (‘Well then, in order to let you see what kind of consul he professes himself to be, he reproached me with my consulship . . .Who was ever heard abusing my consulship except yourself and Publius Clodius . . . Marcus Antonius disapproves of my consulship . . . Above all, my consulship was approved by Gnaeus Pompeius . . .’ Cic. Phil. 2.11–12)

(b)

Nam mihi sobrina Ampsigura tua mater fuit. / Pater tuos, is erat frater patruelis meus . . . (‘For your mother, Ampsigura, was my second cousin; your father, he was my first cousin . . .’ Pl. Poen. 1068–9)

(c)

‘Dicam’, inquit, ‘si potuero. Nam tam bonae memoriae sum ut frequenter nomen meum obliviscar.’ (‘ “I will tell you if I can”, he said, “but my memory is in such a fine way that I often forget my own name.”’ Petr. 66.1 (Habinnas speaking))

(d)

Iacet in maerore meus frater neque tam de sua vita quam de mea metuit. (‘My brother is plunged in misery, fearing more for my life than his own.’ Cic. Att. 10.4.6)

(e)

Et si quid minamur, cum dolore fiat de scripturis comminando vindictam futuram, ne nos ipsi in nostra potestate, sed Deus in nostro sermone timeatur. (‘If there be any intimidation, let it be done with sorrow by the threats of future punishment from the Scriptures, then the fear we inspire will not be of ourselves or our authority, but of God speaking in us.’ August. Ep. 22.5) Supplement (possessive adjectives preceding their head): Quaeso hercle noli, Saurea, mea causa hunc verberare. (Pl. As. 417);²³⁶ Mnesilochus salutem dicit suo patri (Pl. Bac. 734); Eloquar, quandoquidem me oras. Tuos pater— # Quid meus pater? / # —tuam amicam— # Quid eam? # —vidit. (Pl. Mer. 180–1); Instruite nunc, Quirites, contra has tam praeclaras Catilinae copias vestra praesidia vestrosque exercitus. (Cic. Catil. 2.24); Hunc (sc. Hannibalem) sui cives e civitate eiecerunt. Nos etiam hostem litteris nostris et memoria videmus esse celebratum. (Cic. Sest. 142); . . . ingenia vero, ut multis rebus possumus iudicare, nostrorum hominum multum ceteris hominibus omnium gentium praestiterunt. (Cic. de Orat. 1.15); Caesar suas copias in proximum collem subducit, aciem instruit. Labienus . . . (Caes. Gal. 1.22.3); Cum te tam valde rogo ut studeas, meum negotium ago. (Sen. Ep. 35.1)

The genitive forms of the anaphoric pronoun eius, earum, and eorum, when referring to a third person possessor that is not the subject of the clause, behave like possessive adjectives as far as their position in the noun phrase is concerned (but see also ²³⁶ For a discussion of the order of causa + possessive adjective and the role of metre in Plautus, see de Melo (2010: 77–8).

 Word order § 23.83), as in (f) and (g).²³⁷ In (f), eorum has its regular position after its head; in (g), it precedes because it is in contrast with implied Haeduorum. (f)

. . . legati ab Haeduis et a Treveris veniebant: Haedui questum quod Harudes, qui nuper in Galliam transportati essent, fines eorum popularentur. (‘. . . deputies arrived from the Aedui and the Treveri. The Aedui came to complain that the Harudes, who had lately been brought over into Gaul, were devastating their borders.’ Caes. Gal. 1.37.2)

(g)

Sed peius victoribus Sequanis quam Haeduis victis accidisse, propterea quod Ariovistus, rex Germanorum, in eorum (sc. Sequanorum) finibus consedisset tertiamque partem agri Sequani . . . occupavisset . . . (‘But a worse fate has befallen the victorious Sequani than the conquered Aedui: Ariovistus, king of the Germans, has settled within their borders and seized a third part of their territory . . .’ Caes. Gal. 1.31.10)

. The position of identifiers The identifier idem (see § 11.31) normally precedes its head, although Celsus, Pliny the Elder, and others show more variation.²³⁸ Examples of the reverse order are (a)–(c). In (a), the noun is modified by an adnominal relative clause. In (b), fidem is contrasted with curam; in (c), voltu ‘the outward appearance’ is emphatically anteposed. (a)

Sosiam . . . / Davo prognatum patre eodem quo ego sum, forma, aetate item / qua ego sum. (‘Sosia . . . a son of the same father, Davus, as I am, and he also has the same appearance and age that I have.’ Pl. Am. 612–15)

(b)

Quod si fuisset, fidem eandem, curam maiorem adhibuisses . . . (‘Had that been so you would have brought not better faith indeed but greater solicitude to bear . . .’ Cic. Att. 3.15.7)

(c)

(sc. dux) Vincere ac vinci voltu eodem nec quemquam aspernari parem qui se offerret. (‘He would win or lose without changing countenance, nor did he scorn to match himself with anyone who challenged him.’ Liv. 7.33.2)

Alius (see § 11.31) is also normally anteposed.²³⁹ Examples of the reverse order are (d)–(f). In none of these does alius seem to signal primarily a difference of identity from other constituents, but rather seems to indicate an ‘additional’ entity (see OLD s.v. § 3). It is not clear whether this semantic feature is reflected in the order.

²³⁷ See Spevak (2010a: 253). ²³⁸ For the position of idem in prose, see TLL s.v. idem 207.64ff. For the position of idem in Plautus, see Lodge: s.v. idem § II (p. 737A). ²³⁹ See TLL s.v. alius 1650.49ff. Livy is said to have the reverse order ‘saepe’.

Word order at the noun phrase level  (d)

Nescio quid istuc negoti dicam, nisi si quispiam est / Amphitruo alius, qui forte ted hinc apsenti tamen / tuam rem curet teque apsente hic munus fungatur tuom. (‘I can’t say what’s the matter, unless there’s some other Amphitruo who happens to look after your business even when you’re away from here and who’s doing your job here in your absence.’ Pl. Am. 825–7)

(e)

. . . ut . . . deinde ita tempus duceretur ut a M’. Glabrione praetore et a magna parte horum iudicum ad praetorem alium iudicesque alios veniremus. (‘. . . so that after that the time was to be spun out till we no longer had Manius Glabrio as praetor, nor the majority of these gentlemen as members of the Court, but had to appear before a new praetor and new judges.’ Cic. Ver. 1.30)

(f)

Sacra dis aliis Albano ritu, Graeco Herculi, ut ab Euandro instituta erant, facit. (‘To other gods he sacrificed after the Alban custom, but employed the Greek for Hercules, according to the institution of Euander.’ Liv. 1.7.3)

. The position of attributive quantifiers Quantifiers (see §§ 11.33–4) are more often anteposed, adjectives of amount like multus and nullus more so (80–90 per cent) than cardinal numerals like tres (65 per cent) (for ordinal numerals, see § 23.79). Adjectives of amount are also more often separated from their head, as in (a). This different behaviour is related to the subjective character of this type of quantification. Examples of postposed adjectives of amount are (b) and (c). The reason for their postposition is because the head nouns are pragmatically prominent, in (b) a topic, in (c) an emphatic focus. In (d), the noun phrase as a whole forms a pragmatic unit (focus). The numeral follows its head because it is not pragmatically prominent. By contrast, quattuor in (e) is anteposed: the noun pagos is known from the context and quattuor is contrastive.²⁴⁰ (a)

. . . exsistit etiam ex scripti interpretatione saepe contentio, in quo nulla potest esse nisi ex ambiguo controversia. (‘. . . a further contest often arises out of the construction of a document, when the only possible dispute comes from an equivocation.’ Cic. de Orat. 2.110)

(b)

Etenim fana multa spoliata et simulacra deorum de locis sanctissimis ablata videmus a nostris . . .. (‘(Among these peoples you will find a belief in certain animals more firmly established than is reverence for the holiest sanctuaries and images of the gods with us.) For we have often seen temples robbed and images of gods carried off from the holiest shrines by our fellow-countrymen . . .’ Cic. N.D. 1.82)

(c)

. . . ut, cum omnes ea quae sunt acta improbent, querantur, doleant, varietas nulla in re sit aperteque loquantur et iam clare gemant, tamen medicina nulla adferatur. ²⁴⁰ Examples (d) and (e) are taken from Spevak (2010a: 246–7).

 Word order (‘Disapproval of what has been done and indignant complaint are universal. Opinion is not divided at any point, there is open grumbling, even to the stage of loud groaning, but nobody comes forward with a remedy.’ Cic. Att. 2.20.3)

(d)

Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres . . . (‘The whole of Gaul is divided into three parts . . .’ Caes. Gal. 1.1.1)

(e)

Is pagus appellabatur Tigurinus; nam omnis civitas Helvetia in quattuor pagos est divisa. (‘The name of the canton was the Tigurine; for the whole state of Helvetia is divided into four cantons.’ Caes. Gal. 1.12.4)

The universal quantifier omnis (see §  11.34) and the totality expression totus (see § 11.38) are also most often anteposed. Their position is not always clear, since they can also be used as floating quantifiers. This is also the case with adjectives of amount.

. The position of attributive adjectives If one takes adjectives as one indiscriminate whole the conclusion is unavoidable that all adjectives can be anteposed and postposed, that there is variation between authors and between types of text, and that overall the order A(ttribute) H(ead) is more frequent than HA. The proportions in a certain corpus are 60 : 40 for Cicero and Livy, 73 : 27 for Seneca.²⁴¹ However, for individual adjectives the proportion anteposition : postposition varies considerably, as can be seen in Table 23.10. Table . Relative order of head and attribute in Cicero’s orations, Caesar, and Sallust (absolute numbers)  

Cicero’s orations

 

AH

familiaris

HA

Caesar AH

HA

Sallust AH

HA

2

35

0

3

2

7

magnus

661

126

402

27

146

15

militaris

8

60

8

28

7

11

(Source: Rohde 1884; 1887)

In noun phrases consisting of the same head noun and the same adjective there is also considerable variation: in the corpus referred to above Livy has postero die 267 times, the reverse seven times; Cicero iure civili fifty times, the reverse only once.²⁴² A number of factors seem to be relevant to the order of the attributive adjective and its head: ²⁴¹ See Lisón (2001: 63; 90). ²⁴² See Lisón (2001: 76). Also, for extensive lists of individual adjectives, pp. 95–106.

Word order at the noun phrase level  (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

the pragmatic function of the noun phrase as a whole (topic or focus) and the pragmatic prominence (contrast or emphasis) of either the head or the adjective; the meaning of the adjective and its semantic relation with the head; expressions with a more or less fixed order; attributive adjectives can themselves be modified in various ways, both by arguments required by the valency and by optional constituents, which has consequences for their position with respect to their head nouns. This is discussed in § 23.80.

(i) The importance of the pragmatic function of a noun phrase as a whole and its constituent parts for the internal ordering of adjective and head is shown by (a) and (b). In (a), in agris publicis is focus; it functions as a pragmatic unit. In (b), agros can be inferred from its context; the relative clause, and especially publicos, is contrastive with respect to decumani and immunes in the following context.²⁴³ Whereas in (a) publicis plays no role in its context, publicos does in (b). An adjective is anteposed when it is emphatic or contrastive. (a)

Venit enim mihi in mentem . . . Tiberium et Gaium Gracchos plebem in agris publicis constituisse, qui agri a privatis antea possidebantur. (‘For I remember that . . . Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus settled plebeians in public lands, formerly occupied by private persons.’ Cic. Agr. 2.10)

(b)

Qui publicos agros arant certum est quid e lege censoria debeant. (‘The farmers of state lands were bound to supply the amount fixed by the censors’ regulations.’ Cic. Ver. 5.53) Supplement (in alphabetical order by adjective): Tibi App. Claudius augur consuli nuntiavit addubitato salutis augurio bellum domesticum triste ac turbulentum fore. (Cic. Div. 1.105); Omnia sunt externa unius virtute terra marique pacata: domesticum bellum manet . . . (Cic. Catil. 2.11); Sin te confirmare vis, et comites et tempestates et navem idoneam ut habeas diligenter videbis. (Cic. Fam. 16.1.2); . . . eosque (sc. obsides) in continentem adduci iussit, quod propinqua die aequinoctii infirmis navibus hiemi navigationem subiciendam non existimabat. (Caes. Gal. 4.36.2); Extemplo igitur consules novi, L. Aemilius Mamercinus et C. Plautius, eo ipso die, Kalendis Quinctilibus, quo magistratum inierunt, comparare inter se provincias iussi . . . (Liv. 8.20.3); Novi deinde consules a veteribus exercitu accepto ingressi hostium fines populando usque ad moenia atque urbem pervenerunt. (Liv. 8.17.1); Faucibusque portus navem onerariam submersam obiecit et huic alteram coniunxit. (Caes. Civ. 3.39.2); Tu tibi hoc numquam turpe . . . fore putasti celeberrimo loco palam tibi aedificari onerariam navem in provincia quam tu cum imperio obtinebas? (Cic. Ver. 5.46)

(ii) Ante- and postposition of adjectives is in some way related to their lexical meaning. Adjectives of dimension and size like longus ‘long’ and ingens ‘huge’ are more often anteposed in Classical Latin. The same holds for adjectives of relative position ²⁴³ The examples are taken from Spevak (2014a: 132–3).

 Word order and ordinal numerals like hesternus ‘yesterday’s’ and quartus ‘fourth’.²⁴⁴ By contrast, those of substance like aureus ‘golden’ are more often postposed.²⁴⁵ Adjectives derived from proper names are more or less as often anteposed as postposed, but in Livy populus Romanus disturbs the picture.²⁴⁶ Adjectives expressing a positive or a negative judgement, such as bonus ‘good’, malus ‘bad’, and sanctus ‘blessed’, normally precede. Illustrative examples are (c), with the postposed ‘objective’ adjective quadratario ‘of stonemasonry’, and (d), with the anteposed ‘subjective’ adjective novo ‘freshly produced’, with the same head noun opere ‘material’.²⁴⁷ Illustrations of the adjectives mentioned above can be found in the Supplement. (c)

D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum) / Q(uinto) · Gargilio Campano coniugi dulcissimo mausoleum operae (= opere)/ quadratario secundum verba testamenti eius . . . Gargila . . . extruxit . . . (‘Sacred to the spirits of the dead. For Quintus Gargilius Capanus, my sweetest of husbands, . . . Gargilia has erected this large tomb in masonry according to the words of his last will and testament . . .’ CIL VIII.9109.1–5 (Sour El-Ghozlane, ad 235—tr. Bal)

(d)

. . . aquagium novo opere a so/lo extructum suis possessionibus / constituerun et dedicaverunt. (‘. . . they have founded and dedicated this channel, constructed from the ground up as a new project at their own cost.’ CIL VIII.21671.5–7 (Ain Temouchent)—tr. Bal)

Marouzeau (1922) suggested a more abstract classification of adjectives, with a distinction between ‘qualifying’ and ‘determining’ adjectives, of which the former are ‘subjective’ and the latter ‘objective’. However, whatever classification one adopts there will always be exceptions. In reality, the order is not determined by the meaning of the adjective as such, but by the role the adjective fulfils within its noun phrase and its context. Some adjectives are on account of their meaning better candidates for emphasis or contrast than others and are for that reason more often anteposed. Supplement (in alphabetical order by adjective): Sedebat in rostris conlega tuus amictus toga purpurea, in sella aurea, coronatus. (Cic. Phil. 2.85); Tum illa ex patellis et turibulis quae evellerat ita scite in aureis poculis inligabat, ita apte in scaphiis aureis includebat, ut ea ad illam rem nata esse diceres. (Cic. Ver. 4.54); Bonum virum eccum video, se recipit domum. (Pl. Poen. 1332); Quando vir bonus es, responde quod rogo. (Pl. Cur. 708—NB: pragmatic unit); . . . videre . . . quo pacto ex iure hesterno panem atrum vorent, / nosse omnia haec salus est adulescentulis. (Ter. Eu. 937–40—NB: iure in contrast with panem); Confusius hesterno die est acta res, C.  Pansa, quam postulabat institutum consulatus tui. (Cic. Phil. 8.1); Quid tandem erat causae cur die hesterno in senatum tam acerbe cogerer? (Cic. Phil. 1.11—NB: order reconstructed from V by Halm and adopted by most modern editors;

²⁴⁴ For adjectives of relative position and ordinal numerals, see Spevak (2014a: 171–5). ²⁴⁵ For examples of adjectives of substance (or: ‘material’), see Devine and Stephens (2006: 405–13). ²⁴⁶ See Lisón (2001: 79). ²⁴⁷ The examples are taken from Saastamoinen (2010: 181–4).

Word order at the noun phrase level  hesterno die D);²⁴⁸ . . . quis ignorat Achaeos ingentem pecuniam pendere L. Pisoni quotannis . . . (Cic. Prov. 5); Et hercule cum eo nuntio pulvis ingens conspici coeptus est. (B.  Afr. 12.2—NB: pulvis is focus); In eo ergo loco . . . tamen petra ingens est per girum . . . (Pereg. 4.4—NB: the regular order in this work in its literal sense);²⁴⁹ Rhenus autem oritur ex Lepontiis . . . et longo spatio per fines . . . Treverorum citatus fertur . . . (Caes. Gal. 4.10.3); Cato in Sicilia naves longas veteres reficiebat, novas civitatibus imperabat. (Caes. Civ. 1.30.4); Navibus circiter LXXX onerariis coactis contractisque quot satis esse ad duas transportandas legiones existimabat, quicquid praeterea navium longarum habebat, id quaestori legatis praefectisque tribuit. Huc accedebant XVIII onerariae naves, quae ex eo loco a milibus passuum octo vento tenebantur . . . (Caes. Gal. 4.22.3–4—NB: contrast); . . . quod longae naves militum capere non poterant in onerarias impositis altero die Oricum pervenit . . . (Liv. 24.40.5—NB: contrast); Ipse de quarta vigilia eodem itinere quo hostes ierant ad eos contendit . . . (Caes. Gal. 1.21.3); Quo celeriter conlato proxima nocte vigilia quarta legionibus omnibus expeditis impedimentisque in castris relictis prima luce neque opinantibus hostibus eum ipsum locum cepit . . . (B.  Alex. 73.2—NB: exceptional order; possibly to avoid ambiguity);²⁵⁰ . . . ibi erant monasteria plurima sanctorum hominum . . . (Pereg. 4.6); Illud etiam presbyter sanctus dixit nobis . . . (Pereg. 15.5—NB: presbyter is contrastive)²⁵¹ K.-St.: II.607–8 note that there is no reason to assume that ante- or postposition of an adjective should correspond with a difference in meaning of that adjective, e.g. that anteposed urbanus would mean ‘witty’ against postposed ‘of the city’. This idea was unfortunately revived by Marouzeau  (1922: 14) citing urbanus praetor as a case in point—which in reality is not attested in this sense in the extant literature.²⁵² Interesting is the observation by Fronto that it does not make sense to put navem after triremem, because it is self-evident: what else could follow?: Id quoque ne ignores: pleraque in oratione ordine immutato vel rata verba fiunt vel supervacanea. ‘Navem triremem’ rite dixerim; ‘triremem navem’ supervacaneo addiderim. Neque enim periculum est ne quis lecticulam aut redam aut citharam triremem dici arbitretur. (‘Bear this, too, in mind: it frequently happens that words in a speech, by a change in their order, become essential or superfluous. I should be right in speaking of a ship with three decks, but ship would be a superfluous addition to three-decker. For there is no danger of anyone thinking that by three-decker was meant a litter, a landau, or a lute.’ Fro. Ep. ad M. Caes. 4.3.7)

(iii) There are a large number of expressions in which one order prevails. Examples from public life are praetor urbanus, ius civile (but see (e)), patres conscripti, res publica, and di immortales. Other expressions are aequo animo and aes alienum. The reason why these expressions have this so-to-speak fixed order is that they refer to a subtype of the entity referred to by the noun which is not contrasted with other subtypes or ²⁴⁸ For a full discussion of the passage, see Magnaldi (2004: 75–7) In her own edition of 2008 she follows Kayser (and Halm before him) in deleting hesterno die entirely. TLL s.v. hesternus 2668.15f. has two Late instances of die hesterno, e.g. August. Serm. 299E. ²⁴⁹ See Haida (1928: 4–5). ²⁵⁰ As suggested by Guus Bal (p.c.). ²⁵¹ See Haida (1928: 8–10) and Väänänen (1987: 108). ²⁵² For the incorrectness of Marouzeau’s idea, see Spevak (2010b: 27) and especially Langslow (2012).

 Word order emphasized for some subjective reason. Since these expressions play an important role in society and in the type of texts that we have they are frequent and as a consequence their relative order is frequent as well. Inverse orders are attested, and fully justified, as in (e), with contrastive civili, and (f), with contrastive urbanus.²⁵³ (e)

. . . praesertim cum haec non in crimine aliquo, quod ille posset infitiari, sed in civili iure consisteret? (‘. . . especially since it turned not on some criminal charge which he could have denied, but on a point of civil law.’ Cic. de Orat. 1.182—tr. May and Wisse)

(f)

An ille plus praestat qui inter peregrinos et cives aut urbanus (ς; urbanos ω) praetor adeuntibus adsessoris verba pronuntiat quam . . . (‘Or does he accomplish more who, whether in cases between citizens and foreigners or as the praetor of the city, delivers to suitors the verdict his assistant has formulated than . . .’ Sen. Dial. 9.3.5) In the writings of the jurists the order of fixed legal expressions is often reversed: publicus locus instead of locus publicus, bona fides instead of fides bona, and bonus vir instead of vir bonus, as in (g).²⁵⁴ (g) Omnis qui defenditur boni viri arbitratu defendendus est. (‘Everyone who is defended should be defended in accordance with the discretion of an honest man.’ Paul. dig. 3.3.77)

(iv) Variability of the order of adjectives remained a common feature of Latin until as late an author as Gregory of Tours. He has fides catholica alongside catholica fides and the same pragmatic factors as discussed above seem to explain the variation. The Romance languages that have the possibility to prepose or postpose adjectives seem to do so for similar reasons as Latin, which suggests continuity in this respect. However, not all Romance linguists assume that there is such a continuity.²⁵⁵ 23.80 The position of attributive adjective phrases Adjectives can be modified by various types of constituents, which can have consequences for the position of the resulting adjective phrases with respect to their head. Two main types of adjective phrases are distinguished, those with arguments and satellites (§ 11.92) and those with degree modifiers (§§ 11.93–9). This distinction is maintained in this section. For arguments of adjectives, see §§ 4.99–104.²⁵⁶ When an attributive adjective is accompanied by an argument or a satellite it is more often postposed. An example is (a). But the other order is found as well, as in (b). In (a), fossas . . . latas functions as a pragmatic unit; in (b), indignis homine docto is

²⁵³ TLL s.v. praetor 1063.49f. has a few instances of the inverse order in late inscriptions. ²⁵⁴ See Kalb (1888: 47) and de Meo (2005: 108). ²⁵⁵ For discussion, see Niemeyer and Krenn (1997) and Radatz (2001). ²⁵⁶ Devine and Stephens (2006: 391–400) discuss the relative order of adjectives and the arguments they govern, mostly not attributive adjectives. A few examples are taken from their discussion.

Word order at the noun phrase level  emphatic. A third (rare) type is shown in (c), where the adjective is emphatic and precedes the head noun.²⁵⁷ (a)

Hoc intermisso spatio duas fossas XV pedes latas eadem altitudine perduxit. (‘Behind this interval he dug all round two trenches, fifteen feet broad and of equal depth.’ Caes. Gal. 7.72.3)

(b)

. . . nec me angoribus dedidi, quibus essem confectus nisi iis restitissem, nec rursum indignis homine docto voluptatibus. (‘. . . I did not resign myself to grief, by which I should have been overwhelmed, had I not struggled against it; neither, on the other hand, did I surrender myself to a life of sensual pleasure unbecoming to a philosopher.’ Cic. Off. 2.2)

(c)

Equidem . . . Ser. Galbam memoria teneo, divinum hominem in dicendo . . . (‘I well remember Servius Galba, a man divine when it came to speaking . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 1.40) Supplement (in alphabetical order by adjective): Postposed: Lectiones etiam aptae diei et loco leguntur. (Pereg. 32.1); Ad hunc modum vasa componito: arbores crassas p. II, altas p. VIIII cum cardinibus. (Cato Agr. 18.1); Ego Antonium conlegam cupidum provinciae, multa in re publica molientem patientia atque obsequio meo mitigavi. (Cic. Pis. 5); Quid potuit elegantius facere praetor cupidus existimationis bonae . . . (Cic. Ver. 3.140); Huc homines digni istius amicitia, digni vita illa conviviisque veniebant. (Cic. Ver. 5.30); . . . cum ita dicunt, accedere ad rem publicam plerumque homines nulla re bona dignos . . . (Cic. Rep. 1.9); Sed eum casus in hanc consuetudinem scribendi induxit philosopho valde indignam . . . (Cic. Pis. 71); Habetis ducem memorem vestri, oblitum sui, quae non semper facultas datur. (Cic. Catil. 4.19) Anteposed: Ego me in hac omni causa facile intellegebam pugnandi cupidis hominibus non satis facere. (Cic. Att. 8.11d.7); Furere tibi Empedocles videtur: at mihi dignissimum rebus is de quibus loquitur sonum fundere. (Cic. Luc. 74); . . . nemo eorum satis dignum splendore vitae exitum habuit. (Liv. 39.52.8); . . . et in suis moribus simillimas figuras pecudum et ferarum transferetur . . . (Cic. Tim. 45) Split adjective (and participial) phrases: Si me hercule mihi, non copioso homini ad dicendum, optio detur . . . (Cic. Caec. 64); Non vidit flagrantem Italiam bello (M, bello Italiam L), non ardentem invidia senatum, non sceleris nefarii principes civitatis reos . . . (Cic. de Orat. 3.8); Agerent enim tecum lege primum Pythagorei omnes atque Democritii ceterique in suo (cj. Ellendt) physici vindicarent, ornati homines (L, ornati homines om. M) in dicendo et graves . . . (Cic. de Orat. 1.42); Sapiens videlicet homo cum primis nostrae civitatis norat hunc gurgitem. (Cic. de Orat. 2.224)

No research has been done on the effect of degree modifiers on the position of attributive adjectives. Since the adjectives with which these degree modifiers occur are gradable, and hence subjective and potentially emphatic, one expects the majority of these modifier adjective combinations to precede their heads, as in (d)–(f). An example with the reverse order is (g). Also in cases like (h), where tam is followed by an ²⁵⁷ For this type, see Müller (1962). The text of many instances is disputed.

 Word order expanding result clause (see §  16.54), the adjective phrase precedes its head, here praesidium. Discontinuity of the degree modifier and the adjective is not rare, especially with tam, as in (i), repeated from § 23.7, and with quam. (d)

. . . si id potius quaeris quam cur parum amplis adfecerit praemiis . . . (‘. . . if you ask this rather than why he bestowed insufficiently great rewards upon them . . .’ Cic. Mil. 57)

(e)

. . . haec mulier satis firmum accusatorem filio suo fore neminem putavit . . . (‘. . . But this woman thought that no one would have enough nerve for the prosecution of her son . . .’ Cic. Clu. 190)

(f)

Satis diu fuit in miseriis, iudices, satis multos annos ex invidia laboravit. (‘Long enough, gentlemen, has he been in misery, long years enough has he laboured under prejudice.’ Cic. Clu. 202)

(g)

Sed in rebus tam severis non est iocandi locus. (‘But in a discussion as serious as ours joking is out of place.’ Cic. Div. 2.25)

(h)

Quis enim toto mari locus per hos annos aut tam firmum habuit praesidium ut tutus esset, aut tam fuit abditus ut lateret? (‘For during these last years, what place in any part of the sea had so strong a garrison as to be safe from him? What place was so much hidden as to escape his notice?’ Cic. Man. 31)

(i)

Hanc virtutem Agrigentinorum imitati sunt Assorini postea, viri fortes et fideles, sed nequaquam ex tam ampla neque tam ex nobili civitate. (‘The plucky behaviour of these Agrigentines was subsequently copied by the people of Assorus; stout and trustworthy folk, though they are not from so large nor so renowned a community.’ Cic. Ver. 4.96)

Degree and measure expressions usually directly precede the adjective, at least in prose (for examples, see § 11.96 and § 20.10). Examples of discontinuity are ( j) and (k).²⁵⁸ ( j)

Iovis iste quidem pronepos. Tamne ergo abiectus tamque fractus? (‘Yes, he was Jupiter’s great-grandson! Is he then to be so despondent, so broken down?’ Cic. Tusc. 3.26)

(k)

Etsi enim et audio te et video libenter, tamen hoc multo erit si valebis iucundius. (‘For although I enjoy hearing and seeing you anyhow, this will still be much more pleasant if you are fit and well.’ Cic. Fam. 16.22.1) Supplement: . . . id ad probandum non multo videri debet aequius? (Cic. Div. Caec. 65); . . . multo tamen pauciores oratores quam poetae boni reperientur. (Cic. de Orat. 1.11); . . . usque eo, iudices, ut rictum eius ac mentum paulo sit attritius . . . (Cic. Ver. 4.94); . . . quanto mihi videatur illius voluntas obstinatior et in hac iracundia obfirmatior. (Cic. ²⁵⁸ For discussion and further examples, see Devine and Stephens (2006: 578–83).

Word order at the noun phrase level  Att. 1.11.1); . . . neque tam fuerunt impudentes ut . . . (Cic. Flac. 59); Neque tam vires pares quae superaverit res facile dictu est . . . (Liv. 7.8.4—NB: Oakley and others read tam pares vires, see ad loc.); Cui me praeripere desponsam iam et destinatam laudem . . . valde est iniquum. (Cic. Har. 6); Quasi vero quicquam sit tam valde quam nihil sapere vulgare . . . (Cic. Div. 2.81)

For a postposed measure expression, see (l). Postposition of degree modifiers becomes more common in Silver and Late Latin.²⁵⁹ In the Bible translations and in Christian authors postposition was influenced by Greek and Hebrew. A relatively early example of postposition in prose is (m). Compare (n). (l)

Invectus est copiosius multo in istum et paratius Dolabella quam nunc ego. (‘Dolabella delivered a much more copious and studied invective against Antonius than I am delivering now.’ Cic. Phil. 2.79)

(m)

Altum et grave solum etiam hieme moveri placet, tenue valde et aridum paulo ante sationem. (‘It is the rule to stir a deep heavy soil even in the winter, but a very thin and dry one a little before sowing.’ Plin. Nat. 18.175)

(n)

. . . iter heremi arenosum valde feceramus. (‘. . . we had travelled along the very sandy way of the desert.’ Pereg. 6.4)

23.81 Comparatives and superlatives Comparative and superlative forms of adjectives are more often ante- than postposed, which is understandable since they are in principle good candidates for contrast and emphasis. Thus, in (a), superiore is in contrast with hoc; in (b), antiquissima is emphatic. Expressions that indicate the measure of difference with a comparative adjective (see §  20.10), like multo in (c), make no difference to the position of the attributive adjective. (a)

Ita in superiore genere de tractandis argumentis, in hoc autem etiam de inveniendis cogitandum est. (‘So, in dealing with the first type, one must think about how to treat the arguments; with the second, about discovering them as well.’ Cic. de Orat. 2.117)

(b)

. . . Cotum, antiquissima familia natum atque ipsum hominem summae potentiae et magnae cognationis . . . (‘. . . Cotus, the scion of a most ancient house, and himself a man of dominant power and noble connexion . . .’ Caes. Gal. 7.32.4)

(c)

. . . egit apud populum Romanum multo gravioribus verbis meam causam quam egomet de me agere potuissem. (‘. . . he pleaded my cause before the Roman People in much weightier words than I could have pleaded myself.’ Cic. Sest. 120)

²⁵⁹ For degree adverbs in Christian Latin, see García de la Fuente (1992). For a survey, see Sz.: 410. For parum, see TLL s.v. parum 572.63ff.

 Word order In the absence of contrast or emphasis, postposition is regular: it is pontifex maximus ‘head of the college of pontifices’ and hostiae maiores ‘full-grown sacrificial animals’ and, on funeral inscriptions, coniugi karissimae or karissimo ‘to my dearest wife’ or ‘husband’. Anteposition is rare, but see the Supplement. Supplement: Iam primum omnium urbs lustrata est hostiaeque maiores . . . dis caesae . . . Romae quoque . . . et Genio maiores hostiae caesae quinque . . . (Liv. 21.62.7–9); Apollinaris / sibi · et / Quinctiliae / Tyche / bene merenti · et / karissimae · coniugi (CIL VI. (Rome)) Measure expressions like multo in (c) (an ablativus mensurae) usually precede the comparative adjective (or adverb). However, the reverse order is well attested, as in (d) and (e). (d) Edepol animam suaviorem aliquanto quam uxoris meae. (‘Yes, much sweeter breath than that of my wife!’ Pl. As. 893) (e) Ab eo intermisso spatio pedum DC alter conversus in contrariam partem erat vallus humiliore paulo munitione. (‘Six hundred feet away there was a second rampart facing the other direction with a slightly lower fortification.’ Caes. Civ. 3.63.1)

. The position of modifiers of attributes Some of the attributes in the preceding sections can be modified by the adverbs fere, ferme, paene, and prope ‘almost’. These adverbs can also function as adjunct at the clause level. When used as modifiers they regularly follow their hosts and indirectly function as emphasizers, whatever the position of that host with respect to the head noun.²⁶⁰ Examples are (a)–(c). (a)

Recitatae sunt tabellae in eandem fere sententiam. (‘His letter was read out and was in much the same vein.’ Cic. Catil. 3.10)

(b)

. . . Graeca leguntur in omnibus fere gentibus, Latina suis finibus exiguis sane continentur. (‘…Greek poetry is read among nearly all nations, Latin is confined to its own borders, which are narrow enough.’ Cic. Arch. 23)

(c)

Illud me, mi Attice, in extrema fere parte epistulae commovit. (‘I was disturbed by a phrase almost at the end of your letter.’ Cic. Att. 6.1.20)

. The position of nouns and noun phrases functioning as attribute In the sections that follow the discussion of attributive nouns and noun phrases will mainly concern attributes in the genitive, simply because they constitute the majority of attributive nouns and noun phrases. For other types of attribute, see §§ 11.45–74. ²⁶⁰ See for example TLL s.v. fere 492.77ff (idem), 494.30ff. (omnis), 498.56ff. (superlatives).

Word order at the noun phrase level  Also, little attention will be paid at this point to the internal complexity of attributive noun phrases, for example the presence of adnominal relative clauses. For such complications, see § 23.85. As was stated in § 23.70, there is a significant difference between the attributes that agree with their head noun, which are dealt with in §§ 23.71–81, and attributive nouns and noun phrases, which will be the subject of the following sections. The crucial difference is that nouns and noun phrases can refer to entities in the context or in the outside world and thus they have their own pragmatic potential: they can function as topic or focus in the clause to which their head belongs. In (a), patris refers to the father mentioned in the preceding context. It is the topic of the clause; its head noun amicus is the focus. The position of patris at the beginning of the clause, before its head amicus, is quite natural. In (b), by contrast, the pseudo-stranger must profess to speak to the young man in his father’s name, with patris as the focus of the clause at the end, and so following its head noun verbis. (a)

Vera cantas. # Vana vellem. Patris amicu’s videlicet. (‘Your tale is true. # I wish it weren’t. You are obviously a friend of the father.’ Pl. Mos. 980)

(b)

Is homo . . . salutem ei (sc. adulescenti) nuntiet verbis patris. (‘That man must greet him in his father’s name.’ Pl. Trin. 767–72)

So whereas with agreeing adjectives the position is mainly determined by the pragmatic features of contrast and emphasis, the position of attributive nouns and noun phrases can also be determined by their pragmatic function in the clause. The pragmatic ‘autonomy’, so to speak, of attributive nouns and noun phrases reflects itself in a higher mobility in the clause than that of adjectives, which means a higher frequency of discontinuity. Moreover, instead of nouns, anaphoric pronouns and anaphorically used demonstrative pronouns can be used, as in (c) and (d).²⁶¹ Also attributive noun phrases with an anaphoric(ally used) determiner are as a rule in an initial position in the clause, as in (e). Attributive relative pronouns are naturally bound to a clause-initial position and therefore precede their head, as in (f) and (g). (c)

Ego sum Iovi dicto audiens. Eius iussu nunc huc me adfero. (‘But I obey Jupiter, I’m now betaking myself here on his command.’ Pl. Am. 989)

(d)

. . . nunc autem insonti mihi / illius (sc. Amphitruonis) ira in hanc et male dicta expetent. (‘. . . his anger toward her and his bad words will fall on me now, even though I am innocent.’ Pl. Am. 895–6)

(e)

. . . considera ne in alienissimum tempus cadat adventus tuus. Huius rei totum consilium tuum est.

²⁶¹ For the genitive of the anaphoric pronoun, see also § 23.76.

 Word order (‘It would be a pity to arrive at the least favourable moment. The matter is entirely for you to judge.’ Cic. Fam. 15.14.4)

(f)

Si aequom facias, adventores meos incuses, quorum / mihi dona accepta et grata habeo, tuaque ingrata, quae aps te accepi. (‘If you were behaving appropriately, you wouldn’t criticize those of my visitors whose gifts I regard as accepted and welcome; the gifts I received from you I regard as unwelcome.’ Pl. Truc. 616–17)

(g)

Qui Philolaches? / # Quoius patrem Theopropidem esse opinor. (‘Which Philolaches? # The one whose father I believe to be Theopropides.’ Pl. Mos. 961–2)

Other examples of topical attributive nouns and noun phrases in the initial position are (h)–(k). (h)

Ciceronis epistulam tibi remisi. (‘I am sending you back Quintus’ letter.’ Cic. Att. 13.29.3)

(i)

. . . iamque Caesaris in Hispania res secundae in Africam nuntiis ac litteris perferebantur. (‘. . . and Caesar’s successes in Spain were already being conveyed to Africa by messengers and letters.’ Caes. Civ. 2.37.2)

( j)

Foramina autem intra caput maxima oculorum sunt, deinde narium, tum quae in auribus habemus . . . Narium duo foramina osse medio discernuntur. (‘Now the largest passages leading into the head are those of the eyes, next the nostrils, then those of the ears . . . The two nasal passages are separated by an intermediate bone.’ Cels. 8.1.5)

(k)

Namque et Atti Navi statua fuit ante curiam . . . fuit et Hermodori Ephesii in comitio . . . (‘For there was also a statue of Attus Navius in front of the senate-house . . . there was also one of Hermodorus of Ephesus in the Assembly-place.’ Plin. Nat. 34.22) Supplement: Eorum Amphitruonis alter est, alter Iovis. (Pl. Am. 483); Dic mihi, / quis tu es? # Illius sum integumentum corporis. (Pl. Bac. 600–1); Si helviolum vinum facere voles, dimidium helvioli, dimidium apicii indito, defruti veteris partem tricesimam addito. Quidquid vini defrutabis, partem tricesimam defruti addito. (Cato Agr. 24—NB: different orders); Nam civium Romanorum omnium sanguis coniunctus existimandus est . . . (Cic. Ver. 5.172); Caput autem est in omni procuratione negotii et muneris publici ut avaritiae pellatur etiam minima suspicio. (Cic. Off. 2.75); Etenim iustitiae non natura nec voluntas, sed inbecillitas mater est. (Cic. Rep. 3.23); Sed quid poetis irascimur? Virtutis magistri, philosophi, inventi sunt, qui summum malum dolorem dicerent. (Cic. Tusc. 2.28); Quinti fratris epistulam ad te misi . . . (Cic. Att. 13.47a.2); Caesaris autem erat in barbaris nomen obscurius. (Caes. Civ. 1.61.3); Populi Romani hanc esse consuetudinem ut . . . (Caes. Gal. 1.43.8); . . . neque . . . pacis umquam apud vos mentionem feci. (Liv. 21.13.3); (in pycnostylo . . .) Eustyli autem aedis columnae, uti systyli, in novem partes altitudo dividatur . . . (Vitr. 3.3.10)

Word order at the noun phrase level  When the head noun is the topic or focus of the clause, the attributive noun or noun phrase follows, as in (l) and (m), respectively.²⁶² (l)

Crassitudines autem eorum graduum ita finiendas censeo, ut . . . (‘And the thickness of those steps methinks must be of such dimensions that . . .’ Vitr. 3.4.4—tr. Bal)

(m)

. . . quamquam is constantiam potius imitatus patris quam elegantiam austero maluit genere quam iucundo placere. (‘. . . although he copied the harmony rather than the elegance of his father, preferring to win favour in the severely correct more than in the agreeable style.’ Plin. Nat. 34.66)

As for the percentage of attributive noun phrases of which the position is determined by their pragmatic function in the clause, in Vitruvius and Pliny the Elder this is estimated at 25 per cent.²⁶³ In discussions of the relative position of heads and attributive nouns and noun phrases and in statistical calculations of the relative orders the potential contextual function of the individual components of a noun phrase is usually left out of consideration. Statistical data on the relative position of heads and attributive nouns and noun phrases are furthermore obscured by the presence of head–noun combinations which manifest only or mainly one order. Some of the G(enitive)–H(ead) combinations can be regarded as quasi-compounds and are also written as one word. A few of these more or less fixed combinations are listed in Table 23.11.²⁶⁴ The Supplement presents some alternative or more complex orderings. Table . Relative order of head and genitive attribute in a few expressions Genitive–Head

Head–Genitive

senatus consultum ‘recommendation of the Senate’ (S C in inscriptions)

magister equitum ‘Master of the Horse’ (MAG EQ in inscriptions)

iuris (or iure) consultus ‘lawyer’, ‘jurist’

pater familias ‘father of the family’

plebis (or plebi, plebei) scitum ‘resolution of the comitia tributa’

tribunus plebis ‘plebeian tribune’ (TR PL in inscriptions)

aquae ductus ‘the conveyance of water’, ‘aqueduct’

mos maiorum ‘custom of the ancestors’

As with set expressions containing adjectives (see § 23.79 (iii)) the question of how to judge such frequently attested more or less fixed combinations is a difficult one. Some of them function as technical terms and titles of which the pragmatic environment is irrelevant to their internal order (hence the possibility of using abbreviations).

²⁶² For a study from this perspective of the relative order of head and genitival attribute in Vitruvius and Pliny the Elder, see Spevak (2016b). ²⁶³ See Spevak (2016b: 736). ²⁶⁴ Taken from Lisón (2001: 164–70) and Spevak (2010a: 265–7).

 Word order However, the same combinations can be used in context and can be as it were revived, as in (n), where the order iuris consultus is the expected one, due to the contrast between iuris and iustitiae. Likewise in (o), both senatus consulto and plebei scito have the expected anteposed attribute. Note also the discontinuity caused by etiam in (o). An interesting instance is (p), where the technical term ex senatus consulto, in its usual order, is coordinated with scito plebis, with no contrast implied. In (q), huius aquae refers to the aqua mentioned before and has its expected position with respect to its head ductum. (n)

Nec enim ille magis iuris consultus quam iustitiae fuit. (‘For he was an expert in justice no less than in jurisprudence.’ Cic. Phil. 9.10)

(o)

Sed his duobus primum senatus consulto, deinde plebei etiam scito permutatae provinciae sunt. (‘However, the provinces of the last two praetors were changed, first by senatorial decree and then also by a resolution of the plebs.’ Liv. 35.20.9)

(p)

Et  L.  Volumnio ex senatus consulto et scito plebis prorogatum in annum imperium est. (‘And the command of Lucius Volumnius was prolonged for a year by a decree of the senate and by a resolution of the people.’ Liv. 10.22.9)

(q)

(sc. Appius) . . . qui multis tergiversationibus extraxisse censuram traditur, donec et viam (sc. Appiam) et huius aquae ductum consummaret. (‘. . . who, by various subterfuges, is reported to have extended the term of his censorship until he could complete both the Appian way and this aqueduct.’ Fron. Aq. 5.3) Supplement: Adversus consulta autem senatus et decreta principum vel magistratuum remedium nullum est . . . (Quint. Inst. 5.2.5—NB: parallelism); Ac primum in vestibulo effigiem patris Silii consulto senatus abolitam demonstrat . . . (Tac. Ann. 11.35.1); Consultus iuris et actor / causarum mediocris abest virtute diserti / Messallae . . . (Hor. Ars 369–71—NB: parallelism); . . . auram favoris popularis ex dictatoria invidia petiit scitique plebis unus gratiam tulit. (Liv. 22.26.4) Cossus, equitum magister, exuere frenos imperavit . . . (Flor. Epit. 1.5.3); Ita suspensa de legibus res ad novos tribunos militum dilata. Nam plebis tribunos eosdem, duos utique quia legum latores erant, plebes reficiebat. (Liv. 6.38.1—NB: contrast with militum); Ideoque post reges exactos Liciniana illa septena iugera, quae plebis (plebi cj. Schneider) tribunus viritim diviserat, maiores quaestus antiquis rettulere . . . (Col. 1.3.10); . . . propria legis et ea quae scripta sunt et ea quae sine litteris aut gentium iure aut maiorum more retinentur. (Cic. Part. 130—NB: parallelism) In the context of fixed expressions attention is also given to the postposition of filius, often abbreviated f., in Roman names, as in (r), and the placement of the postpositions causa and gratia, which developed from ablative nouns with the attribute anteposed, as in (s). Anteposition of the attribute Gn. in (r) is quite understandable: the addition is meant to differentiate this Scipio from others, but its original use has

Word order at the noun phrase level  become a standard formula. Outside of naming contexts other orders of filius are possible, as in (t). For the use of causa as preposition, see (u).²⁶⁵ (r) L. · Cornelius · Cn. · f. · Cn. · n. · Scipio · (‘Lucius Cornelius Scipio, son of Gnaeus, grandson of Gnaeus.’ CIL I2.11.1 (Scip. Elog., Rome, c.160 bc)) (s) . . . hanc tibi noctem honoris causa gratiis dono dabo. (‘. . . I’ll give you this night with her as a gift, free of charge, on account of our regard for you.’ Pl. As. 194) (t) Quotiens te votui Argyrippum, filium Demaeneti, / compellare aut contrectare . . . (‘How often did I forbid you to speak to Argyrippus, the son of Demaenetus . . .’ Pl. As. 522–3) (u) Quam multa enim quae nostra causa numquam faceremus facimus causa amicorum. (‘For how many things we do for our friends that we would never do for ourselves!’ Cic. Amic. 57)

When we ignore the considerations at the beginning of this section concerning the role of the constituents of a noun phrase in its surrounding context and when we leave out of account the more or less fixed expressions discussed above, the orders G(enitive) H(ead) and HG are roughly equally well attested in Classical prose.²⁶⁶ HG is slightly more frequent, at least in Cicero and Livy, but there is considerable variation within authors and between authors, between text types, and also over time. In the Late Latin Peregrinatio only c.5 per cent of genitive attributes are anteposed.²⁶⁷ The relative order of a head and its attributive noun or noun phrase is essentially determined by whether the combination functions as one pragmatic unit or not. If it does, the regular position of the attribute is after its head.²⁶⁸ This is shown by (l) and (m) for noun phrases of which the head fulfils a pragmatic function in the clause, but it also operates in general, for noun phrases that do not fulfil a pragmatic function of their own in their clause. By contrast, anteposition of the attribute is pragmatically motivated in some way. Illustrations are (v)–(x). In (v) and (w), the noun phrases provide the information ‘where’, and the goddess of the temple is irrelevant. In (x), by contrast, the presence of a temple dedicated to Hercules was not self-evident and so the attribute needed to be emphatically anteposed; however, a temple dedicated to Jupiter was to be expected at a forum of any town. A few instances of anteposition of the attribute can be found in the Supplement.²⁶⁹

²⁶⁵ For further instances, see TLL s.v. caussa 684.38ff. ²⁶⁶ See Spevak (2010a: 265–7) with references to Lisón (2001: 173–5) and Polo (2004: 235ff.). For a survey of publications with statistical information, see Ledgeway (2012: 214). ²⁶⁷ See Adams (1976a: 77–8) and Lisón (2001: 175). For genitive attributes with filius, see Devine and Stephens (2006: 352–5). For the Peregrinatio, see Haida (1928: 2). ²⁶⁸ K.-St: II.610 state that the order A–H is the natural one: ‘Attributive Genetive stehen vom Haus aus vor ihrem Substantive.’ However, they continue: ‘Aber schon früh ist diese Regel durchbrochen.’ ²⁶⁹ Some of the examples are taken from K.-St.: II.610–11.

 Word order (v)

Sed ubi sunt meae gnatae? Id scire expeto. / # Apud aedem Veneris. (‘But where are my daughters? That’s what I’m keen to know. # At the temple of Venus.’ Pl. Poen. 1131–2)

(w)

. . . concursus est ad templum Concordiae factus . . . (‘. . . the mob flocked to the temple of Concord . . .’ Cic. Dom. 11)

(x)

De caelo tacta erant via publica Veiis, forum et aedes Iovis Lanuvi, Herculis aedes Ardeae, Capuae murus et turres et aedes quae Alba dicitur. (‘A public road had been struck by lightning in Veii, as had the forum and the temple of Jupiter at Lanuvium, the temple of Hercules at Ardea, and the wall, towers, and the temple called the “White Temple” in Capua.’ Liv. 32.9.2) Supplement: Anteposed genitive attributes: Sic institutam nostram sententiam sequitur orationis genus . . . (Cic. de Orat. 3.177); . . . Zenoque, eorum princeps, non tam rerum inventor fuit quam verborum novorum. (Cic. Fin. 3.5); Quin etiam anitum ova gallinis saepe supponimus. (Cic. N.D. 2.124); Philippum quidem Macedonum regem rebus gestis et gloria superatum a filio, facilitate et humanitate video superiorem fuisse. (Cic. Off. 1.90); . . . perdidit . . . Sex. Lucilium, T. Gavi Caepionis, locupletis et splendidi hominis, filium, tribunum militum. (Cic. Att. 5.20.4); Caesar cum Pompei castris adpropinquasset . . . (Caes. Civ. 3.88.1); Ipsi profecti a palude in ripa Sequanae e regione Luteciae contra Labieni castra considunt. (Caes. Gal. 7.58.6); Ad hanc corporis firmitatem plura etiam animi bona accesserant. (Nep. Ep. 3.1); Miltiades, Cimonis filius, Atheniensis . . . (Nep. Milt. 1.1); Quanto maior Zenodoro praestantia fuit, tanto magis deprehenditur aeris obliteratio. (Plin. Nat. 34.47); Praeterea sunt aequalitate celebrati artifices, sed nullis operum suorum praecipui: Ariston . . . Cantharus Sicyonius, Diodorus, Critiae discipulus . . . (Plin. Nat. 34.85); . . . in istis locis, excepto si martirorum dies evenerit, semper quarta et sexta feria etiam et a cathecuminis ieiunatur. (Pereg. 27.5) NB: Ubi eas praeterieris, / ad sinistram hac recta platea, ubi ad Dianae (sc. aedem—see § 11.20) veneris, / ito ad dextram. (Ter. Ad. 581–3) Anteposed prepositional attributes (see also § 11.67): Quid mihi scelesto tibi erat auscultatio? / Quidve hinc abitio? Quidve in navem inscensio? (Pl. Rud. 502–3); In Epirum vero invitatio quam suavis, quam liberalis, quam fraterna! (Cic. Att. 9.12.1— Cf.: In Epirum quod me non invitas . . . subirascor. (Cic. Att. 9.7.7))

In Chapter 11 several types of attributive noun phrases are distinguished. The following sections are devoted to only two of these, viz. genitives and ablatives of description (or quality) (see § 11.48 and § 11.63, respectively) and adnominal arguments (see §§ 11.70–4).

. The position of attributive noun phrases of description (or quality) (genetivus and ablativus qualitatis) Attributive noun phrases of description can be used both preceding and following their head, as in (a)–(c). Anteposition can normally be explained as emphatic or contrastive. In (a), the position of the attribute can be regarded as emphatic: the words are

Word order at the noun phrase level  part of a series of Clodius’ outrages recalled by Cicero in defence of Milo. In (b) and (c) the attributes serve to characterize the type of civis Cicero is referring to. Note in (c) that satis multi modifies the whole of cives . . . animo. (a)

Eum (sc. Clodium) qui . . . singulari virtute et gloria civem (sc. Pompeium) domum vi et armis compulit. (‘A man who had by armed violence driven within his own doors a citizen of peerless valour and renown.’ Cic. Mil. 73)

(b)

Cum autem ad talis viros veneris, non audeas civem singulari virtute, fide, constantia vituperare? (‘But, when you appear before judges such as these, you will not dare to abuse a citizen distinguished for valour, honour, and steadfastness?’ Cic. Vat. 40)

(c)

Si quis antea, iudices, mirabatur quid esset quod . . . nequaquam satis multi cives forti et magno animo invenirentur qui . . . (‘If before this, gentlemen of the jury, anyone wondered what was the reason why . . . no sufficient number of brave and great-hearted men could be found who . . .’ Cic. Sest. 1) Supplement: Ibi amare occepi forma eximia mulierem. (Pl. Mer. 13); Virginem forma bona / memini videri. (Ter. An. 428–9); Nam ego propter eius modi viros vivo miser. (Pl. Rud. 127); In eius modi re quisquam tam impudens reperietur qui . . . (Cic. Div. Caec. 20); Num argumentis utendum in re eius modi? (Cic. Ver. 4.11); . . . tabernaeque omnes cum magni pretii mercibus conflagraverunt. (Liv. 35.40.8); Nam meus conservos est homo haud magni preti . . . (Pl. Mil. 145); (sc. servi P.  Fabi) Homines magni preti servos M. Tulli nec opinantis adoriuntur. (Cic. Tul. 21); Erat inter Labienum atque hostem difficili transitu flumen ripisque praeruptis. (Caes. Gal. 6.7.5); Erant inter duas classes vada transitu angusto . . . (B. Alex. 14.5)

. The position of adnominal arguments Adnominal arguments can accompany one-, two-, and three-place deverbal and comparable nouns and occasionally there are two or three arguments with the same noun (see § 11.71). These cases in particular have been examined from the point of view of the relative position of the arguments with respect to their head and also their mutual ordering. Two often quoted instances are (a) and (b).²⁷⁰ In (a), the subjective genitive Helvetiorum precedes the head iniuriis; the objective genitive populi Romani follows. In (b), both genitives follow the head noun, but in the same order, that is, subjective precedes objective.²⁷¹ This order is the usual one, according to K.-St.: I.416, who quote (c) for the uncommon reverse order.²⁷² The order shown in ²⁷⁰ See for example K.-St.: I.416, Sz.: 67, Bolkestein  (1998b), Devine and Stephens  (2006: 316), and Spevak (2010a: 271). ²⁷¹ For a discussion of the text, including the ‘rather awkward salutis’, see Damon (2015: 135–7). ²⁷² This is also the interpretation of Bennett: II. 81 and probably Sz.: 66–7. Maurach ad loc. and de Melo in his Loeb translation have other interpretations.

 Word order (a), with the head noun in the middle, is regarded as the preferred one.²⁷³ However, in this particular example Helvetiorum is placed before the head because it is contrastive. The number of attested instances is too small to arrive at general conclusions. (a)

. . . tametsi (sc. Caesar) pro veteribus Helvetiorum iniuriis populi Romani ab his poenas bello repetisset, tamen eam rem non minus ex usu terrae Galliae quam populi Romani accidisse . . . (‘. . . although Caesar had by the campaign required satisfaction of the Helvetii for past outrages suffered by the Roman people at their hands, the result had been as beneficial to the land of Gaul as to the Roman people . . .’ Caes. Gal. 1.30.2)

(b)

Decurritur ad illud extremum atque ultimum senatus consultum quo nisi paene in ipso urbis incendio atque in desperatione omnium salutis † latorum † audacia numquam ante descensum est. (‘Recourse was had to that last and final decree of the senate, to which—unless the city was all but aflame and everyone despaired of safety in view of the temerity of † the lawgivers †—the senate had never before descended.’ Caes. Civ. 1.5.3)

(c)

Iuppiter . . . / quem penes spes vitae sunt hominum omnium . . . (‘Jupiter . . . in whom the hopes and lives of all mankind lie . . .’ Pl. Poen. 1187–8) Supplement: Head noun in the middle: Iamne vides, belua, iamne sentis quae sit hominum querela frontis tuae? (Cic. Pis. 1); Cuius cum temptaret scientiam auguratus, dixit ei cogitare se quiddam. (Cic. Div. 1.32); Tamen tanta universae Galliae consensio fuit libertatis vindicandae et pristinae belli laudis recuperandae ut . . . (Caes. Gal. 7.76.2— NB: gerundival clause) Cf.: Aegre tulisse P. Rupilium fratris repulsam consulatus scriptum apud Fannium est. (Cic. Tusc. 4.40—NB: consulatus is not an argument; cf. repulsa in consulatus petitione (Plin. Nat. 7.122)) Other orders: Quod si excusationem Ser. Sulpici, patres conscripti, legationis obeundae recordari volueritis . . . (Cic. Phil. 9.8—NB: gerundival clause); . . . non solum huius (sc. Planci) dignitatis iactura facienda est sed etiam largitionis recipienda suspicio est. (Cic. Planc. 6—NB: huius belongs also to largitionis suspicio); Quare L. Sullae, C. Caesaris pecuniarum translatio a iustis dominis ad alienos non debet liberalis videri. (Cic. Off. 1.43—Cf. §  11.71); Consul es designatus, optima aetate, summa eloquentia, maxima orbitate rei publicae virorum talium. (Cic. Fam. 10.3.3)

The number of one-place nouns with one argument or two-place nouns with only one argument expressed (either the subjective or the objective genitive) is much higher. There is considerable variation in the orders attested with different head nouns.²⁷⁴ Some expressions are in reality idioms, in a fixed order which is difficult to explain in its context, such as post hominum memoriam ‘in human memory’.²⁷⁵ In general, the position of adnominal arguments and the head nouns involved is determined by ²⁷³ So Sz.: 66–7: ‘in the interest of clarity’. ²⁷⁴ See Spevak (2014a: 182–96, especially Table 7 on p. 183) and (2015b: § 6.4). See also Devine and Stephens (2006: Ch. 4). ²⁷⁵ Devine and Stephens (2006: 318) use the term ‘grammaticalization of pragmatic factors’.

Word order at the noun phrase level  pragmatic considerations, just as in the other noun/noun combinations, and not by some sort of syntactic rule. This is illustrated with noun phrases containing the head noun memoria, with objective genitives in (d)–(f), subjective in (g) and (h). The latter refer to ‘the period covered by one’s recollection’.²⁷⁶ In (d), part of a very aggressive invective by Cicero against Antony, anteposed Caesaris is emphatic and also in contrast with tu, continued by tu and illum (not eum). In (e), Crassi is not prominent—he has already been mentioned several times—and so follows its head. In (f), memoriam is in contrast with ipsum, and therefore anteposed (and so Milonis follows). In (g), anteposed patrum is contrastive (they were no longer one state). In (h), we have a simple dating formula and patrum follows its head. (d)

Et tu in Caesaris memoria diligens, tu illum (sc. Caesarem) amas mortuum? (‘And are you looking after Caesar’s memory, do you love him in his grave?’ Cic. Phil. 2.110)

(e)

. . . neque egere mihi commendatione videbatur, qui et in bello tecum fuisset et propter memoriam Crassi de tuis unus esset, et . . . (‘. . . 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 a recommendation . . .’ Cic. Fam. 13.16.3)

(f)

Quid? Vos, iudices, quo tandem eritis animo? Memoriam Milonis retinebitis, ipsum eicietis? (‘But you, gentlemen—in what spirit will you deal with him? Will you retain Milo’s memory and cast forth his person?’ Cic. Mil. 101)

(g)

Confines erant hi Senonibus civitatemque patrum memoria coniunxerant . . . (‘These were next neighbours to the Senones, and in the previous generation had formed one state with them . . .’ Caes. Gal. 6.3.5)

(h)

Quid? Quod usu memoria patrum venit, ut paterfamilias . . . mortuus . . . esset intestato . . . (‘And what of a case that really happened, within our fathers’ recollection, that the head of a family died intestate . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 1.183)

. Word order in complex noun phrases Noun phrases can be complex in various ways. Some forms of complexity are discussed in earlier sections, for example noun phrases with attributive adjective phrases (§ 23.80) and noun phrases with more than one adnominal argument (§ 23.85). For adnominal relative clauses, see § 18.12. Coordination of the head and/or the modifier creates another form of complexity. Examples are (a)–(c). In (a), the head consists of two coordinated nouns; it is preceded by the shared attribute Naevi, a topical element. In (b), one of the head nouns, virtute, ²⁷⁶ So OLD s.v. § 6. Memoria is discussed by Devine and Stephens (2006: 317–20) and Spevak (2014a: 186–8). Memoria can also be used in the sense of ‘facility of remembering’ (OLD § 1), with a possessive genitive, as in auditoris memoria ‘the memory of the audience’ (Cic. Inv. 1.99).

 Word order precedes the attribute eorum, because it is in contrast with ars. In (c), it is the attribute that consists of two coordinated nouns. Of these, pacis is in first position for reasons of emphasis and contrast and as part of a nice chiastic arrangement. It is obvious that there are a large number of ordering possibilities, which it does not make sense to try to express in rules. For further instances of discontinuous conjoins, see § 23.101. (a)

. . . ita diligenter Sex. Naevi studio et cupiditati morem gerunt . . . (‘. . . they support the passionate desires of Naevius as zealously . . .’ Cic. Quinct. 9)

(b)

In quibus (sc. magistratibus) si qua praeterea est ars, facile patitur, sin minus, virtute eorum et innocentia contentus est (sc. populus Romanus). (‘If, in addition, they are experts in any direction, the people is well pleased; if not, then uprightness and integrity are quite enough for it.’ Cic. Planc. 62)

(c)

. . . quia pacis est insigne et oti toga, contra autem arma tumultus atque belli . . . (‘. . . since the gown is the symbol of peace and repose, and arms that of unrest and war . . .’ Cic. Pis. 73)

Another type of complexity of the noun phrase consists in ‘nesting’ of attributes within one noun phrase. A general formula for the ‘hierarchical structure’ of Latin noun phrases can be found in § 11.75. Two simple illustrations are (d) and (e). In (d), the attributive adjective magnum modifies the noun phrase fructum studiorum optimorum, which itself consists of a head and attributive noun phrase.²⁷⁷ In (e), the situation is different: the noun phrase incredibili studio et consensu, which itself consists of an attributive adjective and a head with two coordinated nouns, is modified by the attributive noun phrase provinciae Galliae. (d)

Quod quidem si facis, magnum fructum studiorum optimorum capis . . . (‘If you do this, you reap great profit from the noble studies . . .’ Cic. Fam. 6.10b.1)

(e)

. . . incredibilique studio et consensu provinciae Galliae rei publicae difficillimo tempore esse subventum. (‘. . . by the extraordinary zeal and unanimity of the province of Gaul aid has been rendered to the Republic at a most difficult time.’ Cic. Phil. 5.36) In complex noun phrases with the structure of (d) orders like studiorum magnum fructum optimorum and magnum studiorum fructum optimorum are not attested in Classical prose.²⁷⁸

Whereas in (d) and (e) the attributes belong to different categories (adjectives and noun phrases in the genitive), they can also belong to the same category, as in (f), two adjectives (further examples in § 11.39),²⁷⁹ and (g), a pronoun and a noun in the genitive. ²⁷⁷ Instances from Cicero, Caesar, and Nepos can be found in Hoff (2003). K.-St.: II.611 discuss the various word order patterns which they assume are possible for the noun phrase in (d). See also Spevak (2010a: 272–4). ²⁷⁸ See Hoff (2003: 220), based on texts by Caesar, Cicero, and Nepos. ²⁷⁹ For the position of adjectives in noun phrases with multiple adjectives, see Risselada (1984: 222–6), de Sutter  (1986: 156), and Spevak  (2010a: 229–37; 2014a: 57–60; 2015a: 315–16). See also Devine and Stephens (2006: 476–81) on ‘stacked’ adjectives and Spevak (2010a: 263–5) on ‘multiple’ modifiers.

Word order at the noun phrase level  (f)

. . . cum consuleretur (sc. Themistocles) utrum bono viro pauperi an minus probato diviti filiam collocaret . . . (‘. . . when someone asked his advice whether he should give his daughter in marriage to a man who was poor but honest or to one who was rich but less esteemed . . .’ Cic. Off. 2.71)

(g)

. . . quorum tacita gravitas et fides de uno quoque loquitur neque cuiusquam ornamenta orationis desiderat . . . (‘. . . whose sense of responsibility and loyalty—though silent—speak out for each one of them and need no elaboration in anyone’s speech . . .’ Cic. Sul. 82)

In the above examples the so-to-speak external attributes (in italics) precede or follow the more central attribute–head/head–attribute combinations (in bold). The ordering reflects the hierarchical structure, which suggests that it is determined by a syntactic rule.²⁸⁰ However, other orderings are amply attested, as in (h) and (i). In (h), formam occupies the first position in the noun phrase, before the external genitive Epicuri, because it is in contrast with verbis (Zenonis). In (i) the emphatic adjective ponderosam precedes the determiner aliquam. (h)

Habes formam Epicuri vitae beatae verbis Zenonis expressam . . . (‘You have Epicurus’ notion of a happy life, as formulated in the words of Zeno . . .’ Cic. Tusc. 3.38)

(i)

Qua re, quamquam iam te ipsum exspecto, tamen isti puero, quem ad me statim iussi recurrere, da ponderosam aliquam epistulam plenam omnium non modo actorum sed etiam opinionum tuarum . . . (‘So, though I expect you in person pretty soon, do give this boy (I’ve told him to hurry back to me at once) a massive letter, full of news and also of your own comment . . .’ Cic. Att. 2.11.1) Illustrative for the variation one encounters in our sources are the following cases from Livy. novas quattuor legiones Liv. 22.36.2 quattuor legiones novas Liv. 33.25.10 legiones quattuor novas Liv. 42.31.2 quinqueremes novas quinquaginta Liv. 35.24.8

In a similar way the first words of the noun phrases in (d)–(g) are emphatic and/or contrastive, which explains the internal order of the entire noun phrase. In recent studies special attention has been paid to cases like (d) above, with a genitive noun phrase, and to simpler cases like ( j) below, with a noun in the genitive, and to the various ordering patterns that are attested for such complex noun phrases.²⁸¹ ²⁸⁰ See Fugier (1983b), Risselada (1984: 226), and Spevak (2010a: 233) In 70 per cent of the ninetyeight noun phrases with multiple adjectives in Risselada’s corpus the relative order of the adjectives is in accordance with the hierarchical structure; in Spevak’s corpus of 130 noun phrases, 82 per cent. ²⁸¹ See Hoff (1995; 2003) and Spevak (2010a: 268–72).

 Word order All orders are attested, some more than others. Usually there is a pragmatic explanation available for the specific order used. In poetry and poeticizing prose, however, the ordering is influenced by various aesthetic considerations. A few examples follow to show the pragmatic factors at work. In ( j), extremis comes first, as one expects. Galliae precedes finibus because contrast is implied with Belgae. In (k), magnam is in its expected first position of the noun phrase; there is no reason for Galliae to be anteposed. In (l), Britanniae is the topic; it has the first position of the clause and precedes its head. It is also understood as attribute with maritima pars, of which the adjective is anteposed because of contrast. ( j)

Belgae ab extremis Galliae finibus oriuntur . . . (‘The Belgae begin from the edge of the Gallic territory . . .’ Caes. Gal. 1.1.6)

(k)

At Caesar . . . magnam partem Galliae in officio tenuit. (‘But Caesar . . . kept a great part of Gaul in submission.’ Caes. Gal. 5.54.1)

(l)

Britanniae pars interior ab iis incolitur quos natos in insula ipsi memoria proditum dicunt, maritima pars ab iis qui . . . ex Belgio transierant . . . (‘The inland part of Britain is inhabited by tribes declared in their own tradition to be indigenous to the island, the maritime part by tribes that migrated . . . from Belgium . . .’ Caes. Gal. 5.12.1) The order in ( j), with the genitive inserted, is often regarded as the canonical one.²⁸² In a corpus of 439 instances from Caesar’s de bello Gallico of combinations of A(ttribute of any type agreeing with the head), H(ead), and G(enitive noun or pronoun) all six orders are attested: AHG 45.5 per cent, AGH 27.8 per cent, HGA 11.6 per cent, GAH 7.7 per cent, GHA 4.8 per cent, HAG 2.5 per cent. The most frequent order is the one exemplified by (k). The two orders with the genitive inserted come next, together less than 40 per cent. The frequency of some of the orders is determined by the high number of certain types of expressions. GAH, for example, is dominated by genitives that function as topic, as in (l) above and in (m). The HGA order is boosted by the large number of combinations of milia passuum + numeral, as in (n).²⁸³ (m) Quorum magno numero interfecto Crassus ex itinere oppidum Sotiatium oppugnare coepit. (‘A large number of them were slain; and then Crassus turned direct from his march and began to attack the stronghold of the Sotiates.’ Caes. Gal. 3.21.2) (n) (sc. Ariovistus) . . . milibus passuum duobus ultra eum (sc. Caesarem) castra fecit . . . (‘. . . He formed camp two miles beyond him . . .’ Caes. Gal. 1.48.2)

Examples of the ordering possibilities of the more complex type shown in (d) above are (o)–(t).²⁸⁴ In (o) and (p), the noun phrases in the genitive follow; they have no ²⁸² So, for example, Adams (1976a: 80). ²⁸³ For details, see Panchón (1986) and Hoff (2003). ²⁸⁴ The examples are taken from Hoff (2003) and Spevak (2010a: 272–5).

Word order at the noun phrase level  pragmatic prominence. In (p), domesticis is anteposed because it is contrastive. In (q) and (r), the genitive noun phrases precede, in (q) because it is contrastive, in (r) because tanta incuria is focus and therefore in final position in its clause. In (s) and (t), we have instances of inclusion. In (s), reliquorum is contrastive and similes emphatic. In (t), ista gladiatoria and totius corporis are both emphatic. (o)

Nolite a sacris patriis Iunonis Sospitae, cui omnis consules facere necesse est, domesticum et suum consulem potissimum avellere. (‘Do not tear from the hereditary worship of Juno Sospita, to whom all consuls must sacrifice, the consul who is her fellow-townsman and her own.’ Cic. Mur. 90)

(p)

. . . ut potius in suis quam in alienis finibus decertarent et domesticis copiis rei frumentariae uterentur. (‘. . . in order that they might fight in their own rather than in others’ territory, and use native resources for their corn-supply.’ Caes. Gal. 2.10.4)

(q)

Nam primorum mensum litteris tuis vehementer commovebar . . . (‘For your letters in the first few months disturbed me not a little . . .’ Cic. Fam. 7.17.1)

(r)

Quo etiam magis vituperanda est rei maxime necessariae tanta incuria. (‘Therefore carelessness so great in regard to a relation absolutely indispensable deserves the more to be censured.’ Cic. Amic. 86)

(s)

Nec vero huius tyranni solum . . . interitus declarat quantum odium hominum valeat ad pestem, sed reliquorum similes exitus tyrannorum . . . (‘And not only does the death of this tyrant . . . illustrate the deadly effects of popular hatred, but so does the similar fate of all other despots . . .’ Cic. Off. 2.23)

(t)

Tu . . . ista gladiatoria totius corporis firmitate tantum vini in Hippiae nuptiis exhauseras . . . (‘You . . . with that gullet of yours, that chest, that robust physique befitting a gladiator, engulfed such a quantity of wine at Hippias’ wedding . . .’ Cic. Phil. 2.63)

. Discontinuity (or: hyperbaton) of noun phrases Discontinuity of noun phrases and other constituents is a common feature of Latin, which has attracted the attention of writers on rhetoric and others from Antiquity onwards (see § 23.7). Modern studies of discontinuity concentrate on the pragmatic and semantic conditions under which discontinuity occurs and the type and number of elements that are used between the discontinuous constituents.²⁸⁵ Pragmatic and semantic explanations for discontinuity have been given in several earlier sections. Two ²⁸⁵ See Adams  (1971), Panhuis  (1982: 72–80), Herman  (1985), de Jong  (1986), Gettert  (1999), Bolkestein (2001), Lisón (2001), Devine and Stephens (2006: Ch. 6), de Melo (2010: 72–80), Spevak (2010a: 272–9), and Powell (2010).

 Word order examples given in § 23.7 are repeated here as (a) and (b). They have discontinuous modifiers that precede their head for reasons of emphasis. Constituents that show agreement with their head, as in (a) and (b), are not the only ones that can be discontinuous; attributive noun phrases can be as well, as in (c), where nostrorum hominum, separated from its head aures, is contrastive with respect to eorum. Normally, a genitive modifier like nostrorum hominum (or rather hominum nostrorum) is expected to follow its head noun. (a)

Instabilis in istum plurimum fortuna valuit. (‘Unstable Fortune has exercised her greatest power on this creature.’ Rhet. Her. 4.44)

(b)

Omnes invidiose eripuit bene vivendi casus facultates. (‘All the means of living well Chance has jealously taken from him.’ Rhet. Her. 4.44)

(c)

Quis enim est qui putet . . . nostrorum hominum ad eorum doctissimas voces aures clausas fuisse? (‘For who can imagine that the ears of our countrymen were closed to the echo of their wisdom?’ Cic. Tusc. 4.3)

The other order, with the modifier following, is also possible, as in (d)–(f), though it is less frequent.²⁸⁶ In (d), pervehimur separates the noun phrase exitus optatos (a case of ‘verbal hyperbaton’, see § 23.88), as a result of which the emphatic modifier optatos ends up in the final position of the clause, a common place for focus constituents. Normally, on the basis of its meaning, optatus is a good candidate to precede its head. In (e), the determiner has is postposed to emphatically announce the ne . . . paterer clause. In (f), cruciatum voluntarium is focus of the clause. The discontinuity lends emphasis to both parts: that anyone would accept cruciatus is already unexpected, that he would do so voluntarily even more so. (d)

Nam et cum prospero flatu eius utimur ad exitus pervehimur optatos, et cum reflavit affligimur. (‘For when we enjoy her favouring breeze, we are wafted over to the wished-for haven; when she blows against us, we are dashed to destruction.’ Cic. Off. 2.19)

(e)

Sed ego is non sum qui statuere debeam iure quis proficiscatur necne. Partis mihi Caesar has imposuit ne quem omnino discedere ex Italia paterer. (‘However it is not my responsibility to decide whether any person is entitled to leave or not. My instructions from Caesar are to allow nobody whosoever to go out of Italy.’ Cic. Att. 10.10.2—quoting from a letter by Antony)

(f)

Quem enim locupletiorem quaerimus quam principem populi Romani (sc. Regulum), qui retinendi officii causa cruciatum subierit voluntarium?

²⁸⁶ For ‘postmodifier hyperbaton’, see Devine and Stephens (2006: 531–40). In Caesar and Cicero it is very rare (de Jong 1986; Bolkestein 2001), but in a sample from Pliny the Elder and Petronius the postmodifier order represents 18 per cent (Bolkestein 2001: 254–6). For possessive adjectives in Plautus the postmodifier order is 14 per cent, very often at the end of the line and without a pragmatic motivation (de Melo 2010: 76–8).

Word order at the noun phrase level  (‘For what more competent witness do we ask for than one of the foremost citizens of Rome, who voluntarily faced torture for the sake of being true to his moral duty?’ Cic. Off. 3.105)

Generally speaking, the function of discontinuity of the noun phrase is to signal the pragmatic saliency of the phrase. The phrase as a whole is normally focus of the clause. A modifier that precedes carries emphasis or contrast, whereas hyperbaton with a following modifier may signal emphasis or contrast of the head and/or the modifier.²⁸⁷ As for the type and number of elements that are involved in discontinuity, it is common to make a distinction between intervening elements that are in some way part of the discontinuous noun phrase (causing ‘internal’ hyperbaton) and ‘alien’ elements that do not belong to the discontinuous noun phrase. An example of the first type is (g), repeated from § 23.86, of the second (c) and (d) above, and (h). In (g), totius corporis is the attribute of firmitate, with gladiatoria modifying the combination. In (c) and (d), the intervening elements ad eorum doctissimas voces and pervehimur have no relation with the discontinuous noun phrases and they could have been placed outside these phrases. This is different for the connector autem in (h), which has limited mobility (see § 23.21). Obviously, it is not part of the noun phrase it divides. (g)

Tu . . . ista gladiatoria totius corporis firmitate tantum vini in Hippiae nuptiis exhauseras . . . (‘You . . . with that gullet of yours, that chest, that robust physique befitting a gladiator, engulfed such a quantity of wine at Hippias’ wedding . . .’ Cic. Phil. 2.63)

(h)

Postremum autem genus est . . . quod proprium Catilinae est . . . (‘The last group (sc. of the six), however, is Catiline’s very own . . .’ Cic. Catil. 2.22)

‘Alien’ discontinuity of a noun phrase can be due to the insertion of one or more constituents that belong to one or more of seven types (details are given in § 23.88):²⁸⁸ (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii)

discontinuity caused by connectors like autem and interactional particles like enim; discontinuity caused by particles like quidem, adverbs like deinde, etc.; discontinuity caused by subordinators like cum, postquam, quia, si; discontinuity caused by ‘nominals’ (nouns, noun phrases, and pronouns); discontinuity caused by finite verb forms; discontinuity caused by non-finite verb forms; discontinuity caused by subordinate clauses (‘the rest’ in Figure 23.1).

Figure 23.1 shows the use of seven types of ‘alien’ discontinuity in noun phrases in four prose authors.

²⁸⁷ Spevak (2015a) has a critical discussion of the idea of Marouzeau and others that, if the discontinuous modifier follows the head, it has a ‘prédicative’ or ‘appositive’ value. ²⁸⁸ For parentheses causing discontinuity, see Bolkestein (1998c).

 Word order 60

50

40

30

20

10

0 Cicero

Caesar

Sallust

part. & adv. subord. connectors infinite v. finite v. the rest

Tacitus nominals

Figure 23.1 The frequency of ‘alien’ discontinuity of noun phrases (paras. (i)–(vii) above) in four prose authors (in percentages) Four texts are used for Figure 23.1: Cicero Brut. (25,600 words), Caesar Gal. I (8,170), Sallust Cat. (10,900), Tacitus Ann. I (10,400). The total number of instances of the types of discontinuity mentioned above in these texts is 350, 58, 32, 83, respectively.²⁸⁹ Only Cicero has (six) instances of discontinuity in which subordinators are involved. The texts of Caesar, Sallust, and Tacitus belong to a different type from Cicero’s Brutus. This manifests itself among other things in the frequency of connectors and interactional particles like autem, enim, vero (288 in the Brutus, 53 in the other three texts together). Cicero has 102 instances of autem, 11 of which are involved in discontinuity; Caesar eight, four of which are involved in discontinuity.

Authors vary in the degree to which they use hyperbaton and in the degree to which they use the various interfering elements, especially the ‘internal’ and ‘alien’ ones. Sallust uses both types of hyperbaton rarely. Cicero, by contrast, uses hyperbaton more often, and especially ‘alien’ hyperbaton.²⁹⁰ He has it more often in his dialogue Brutus than in his Verrine orations, but less often than in his treatise de Officiis.²⁹¹ In poetry discontinuity is mainly a poetic device, without a pragmatic justification. In Late Latin, discontinuity of noun phrases and prepositional phrases caused by connectors and other particles (categories (i) and (ii) above) is present in all sorts of texts, both literary and non-literary. Discontinuity caused by categories (iv)–(vii) is common and sometimes excessive in authors with literary aspirations such as Ammianus, ²⁸⁹ The figures are based on those given in Gettert (1999: 59, 113, 122, 132). ²⁹⁰ See Spevak (2010a: 275, Table 11). ²⁹¹ See Gettert (1999).

Word order at the noun phrase level  Augustine, Jerome, and, much later, Gregory of Tours. See Table 23.12.²⁹² Discontinuity did not survive in the Romance languages. Table . Discontinuity of noun phrases in a number of Late Latin texts Author/work

Number of noun phrases

Discontinuity caused by connectors, etc.

Discontinuity caused by other alien elements

Augustine Sermones

328

10 (3%)

10 (3%)

Augustine Epistulae

348

6 (2%)

32 (9%)

Peregrinatio

325

23 (7%)

8 (2%)

Gregory the Great Dialogi

341

37 (11%)

22 (6%)

Gregory of Tours Book III

294

5 (2%)

60 (20%)

. Constituents causing hyperbaton of noun phrases This section follows more or less the division presented in Figure 23.1. (i) Discontinuity produced by connectors and interactional particles is attested in all periods of Latin and in all sorts of texts (see also §  23.21). There is variation between individual connectors, authors, and types of text. In Plautus, for example, two instances of enim out of 150 produce hyperbaton, comparable with Cicero’s use in his letters to Atticus. An example is (a). Igitur is not used to produce hyperbaton in Plautus. In Cicero’s letters to Atticus c.4 per cent of instances of igitur are involved in hyperbaton, as in (b). As for autem, in Cicero’s letters to Atticus c.25 per cent of the sentences containing autem start with a noun phrase, which is split by autem; in Plautus at most 5 per cent. Discontinuity is common with proper names, as in (d). (a)

Em! / Illoc enim verbo esse me servom scio. (‘There you go! For through this word I know I’m a slave.’ Pl. Men. 250–1)

(b)

Pauculis igitur mensibus . . . furta praetoris . . . ex uno oppido solo exportata sunt. (‘In a few short months, therefore, our praetor exported contraband goods . . . from one town alone.’ Cic. Ver. 2.185)

(c)

. . . hodierno autem die nominatim a me magistratibus statui gratias esse agendas . . . (‘. . . but I have determined on this day to thank the magistrates by name . . .’ Cic. Red. Sen. 31)

(d)

M. vero Antonius non is erit ad quem omni motu concursus fiat civium perditorum?

²⁹² The table is taken from Spevak  (2012a: 257). For the Peregrinatio, see also Herman  (1985) and Väänänen (1987: 111–13).

 Word order (‘As for Marcus Antonius, whenever there is trouble, will he not be the rallying point for desperate citizens?’ Cic. Phil. 7.18) Supplement (a few examples from non-Classical texts, in alphabetical order): Reliquos autem collibertos eius cave contemnas. (Petr. 38.6 (a freedman speaking)); Caligae autem nuclatae nugae sunt. (CEL 142.1.25–6 (Karanis, 2nd cent. ad (early))); Fluvius autem quartus ipse est Eufrates. (Vulg. Gen. 2.14); Heroum autem civitas, quae fuit illo tempore . . . nunc est come, sed grandis, quod nos dicimus vicus. (Pereg. 7.7); Catholica autem fides credit patrem et filium et spiritum sanctum unum Deum . . . (August. Serm. 7.4); Servus enim noster lancea collum eius traiecit. (Petr. 62.11 (Niceros speaking)); Multos enim sanctos monachos videbam inde venientes in Ierusolimam . . . (Pereg. 13.1); Nullo enim prorsus modo violat corruptio Deum nostrum . . . (August. Conf. 7.6); Multis enim modis significatur una res. (August. Serm. 4.25); In eo ergo loco est nunc ecclesia non grandis . . . (Pereg. 3.3); Qua igitur ratione admittas filium hominis, Marcion, circumspicere non possum. (Tert. Marc. 4.10.8); Generalis igitur fornicatio aperte manifestatur in Psalmo ubi dicitur . . . (August. Serm. 162.3)

(ii) The group of particles and adverbs represented in Figure  23.1 is a very mixed bag.²⁹³ In (e), the emphasizing particle quidem divides meo iudicio, but it might just as well be taken as an ‘internal’ hyperbaton since it forms a unit with meo (see also § 23.34). In (f), the adverb iam is a clear ‘alien’ adjunct which divides oratio nostra; oratio is contrastive. In (g), the role of the adverb deinceps is less obvious. It is regarded by some as attributive (see the Loeb translation—for this usage, see § 11.69); multae can also be taken as a secondary predicate. In (h), two members of this group contribute to the hyperbaton; crebras is contrastive. (e)

. . . eam gloriam quam nemo meo quidem iudicio est postea consecutus. (‘. . . a renown such as no one after him has in my judgement attained.’ Cic. Brut. 32)

(f)

. . . cumque ipsa oratio iam nostra canesceret haberetque suam quandam maturitatem . . . (‘. . . and when my oratory too had attained a certain ripeness and maturity of age . . .’ Cic. Brut. 8)

(g)

. . . posteaque prosperae res deinceps multae consecutae sunt . . . (‘. . . and from that time on many successes in turn followed . . .’ Cic. Brut. 12—tr. Bal)

(h)

. . . verbis volvebat satis interdum acutas, crebras quidem certe sententias . . . (‘. . . in words he rolled along thoughts sometimes quite keen but always abundant at least . . .’ Cic. Brut. 280) Supplement (a few examples from non-Classical texts): Vidimus etiam in extrema iam valle ipsa Memorias concupiscentiae . . . (Pereg. 5.10); Sed de furto superius iam praeceptum est. (August. Serm. 8.13); . . . ut uno potius nomine id explicem . . . (August. Civ. 21.3); . . . aguntur omnia sic de pullo quidem ²⁹³ See the so-called ‘modalia’ in Gettert (1999: 168).

Word order at the noun phrase level  primo iuxta consuetudinem. (Pereg. 43.1); Omnia quidem sacramenta divinarum scripturarum utique magna atque divina sunt. (August. Serm. 2.6)

(iii) Hyperbaton due to postposition of a subordinator is rare. An example is (i). For postposition of subordinators in general, see § 22.24. (i)

Sed haec Crassi cum edita oratio est . . . quattuor et triginta tum habebat annos . . . (‘But when this speech of Crassus was delivered . . . he was thirty-four . . .’ Cic. Brut. 161)

(iv) Various types of ‘nominal’ constituents that cause hyperbaton are shown in ( j)–(p). The most common intervening constituents are (personal) pronouns, as in ( j) and (k) (see also § 23.32). Ex. ( j) is noteworthy, since the hyperbaton is caused by ego following the relative determiner. The relative determiner itself cannot be pragmatically salient; ego is contrastive.²⁹⁴ The other examples are different. In (k), praedam is emphatic. In (l) and (m), with a noun phrase and a proper name, multi and magnam are emphatic. Forms of address in the vocative can serve a similar purpose, as in (n). In (o), the position of the prepositional phrase contributes to emphasis on postposed nullo. In (p), praenomen and nomen are separated by ad me, to draw attention to the identity of the specific Brutus involved. ( j)

Quem ego sermonem cum ad Brutum tuum vel nostrum potius detulissem . . . (‘When I reported that talk to your—I should say rather, our Brutus . . .’ Cic. Brut. 20)

(k)

Est enim ausus dicere hasta posita, cum bona in foro venderet . . . civium, praedam se suam vendere. (‘For when selling under the hammer in the forum the property of . . . Roman citizens, he had the effrontery to announce that he was selling his spoils.’ Cic. Off. 2.27)

(l)

. . . vivo Catone minores natu multi uno tempore oratores floruerunt. (‘. . . in Cato’s lifetime there flourished many younger orators at the same time.’ Cic. Brut. 80)

(m)

Ad haec Ariovistus respondit . . . Magnam Caesarem iniuriam facere, qui suo adventu vectigalia sibi deteriora faceret. (‘To this Ariovistus answered: . . . That Caesar was doing a great injustice, because his arrival was making his revenues less valuable.’ Caes. Gal. 1.36.4)

(n)

. . . iambum et trochaeum frequentem segregat ab oratore Aristoteles, Catule, vester . . . (‘. . . a frequent use of the iambus and the tribrach is interdicted to the orator by your Aristotle, Catulus, . . .,’ Cic. de Orat. 3.182)

(o)

Loco opportuniore in his malis nullo esse potuisti . . . (‘You could have found no more convenient place to stay in these distressing circumstances . . .’ Cic. Fam. 6.20.2) ²⁹⁴ See Bolkestein (2001: 251–2).

 Word order (p)

Nam cum inambularem in xysto et essem otiosus domi, Marcus ad me Brutus, ut consueverat, cum Tito Pomponio venerat . . . (‘For one day when I was pacing up and down my garden walk and enjoying my leisure at home, Marcus Brutus dropped in upon me, as he often did, and brought with him Titus Pomponius.’ Cic. Brut. 10) Supplement: Pronouns: . . . eique in Galliam penetranti Decimus se Brutus obiecit . . . (Cic. Phil. 13.20); His ille (sc. Caesar) rebus ita convaluit ut nunc in uno civi spes ad resistendum sit. (Cic. Att. 7.3.4—NB: ille is contrastive); . . . Samnites . . . oculos sibi Romanorum ardere visos aiebant . . . (Liv. 7.33.16–17); Hunc ego nuntium patri laeta omnia aliis e provinciis audienti feram? (Tac. Ann. 1.42.4) Other: . . . ne non tam innocentia reus sua quam recordatione meorum temporum defensus esse videatur. (Cic. Planc. 4); Castra in conspectu Hasdrubalis erant. (Liv. 30.3.3); Petillii . . . regnum in senatu Scipionum accusabant. (Liv. 38.54.6);²⁹⁵ Plurimi hoc signo scholastici nascuntur et arietilli. (Petr. 39.5 (Trimalchio speaking)); Incedebat muliebre et miserabile agmen, profuga ducis uxor, parvulum sinu filium gerens . . . (Tac. Ann. 1.40.4);²⁹⁶ . . . donec expugnandi hostes spe propius succederent . . . (Tac. Ann. 1.67.1)

(v) Discontinuity of the head and modifier constituents of a noun phrase by (finite or non-finite) verb forms (called: verbal hyperbaton) is rare in Early Latin prose and still only sparingly used in Classical Latin, where Cicero and Caesar use it especially in texts or passages with a higher level of stylistic elaboration. Sallust as well uses it quite modestly (as does later Tacitus). Nepos uses it as a means for his literary aspirations. Livy, however, was the first to introduce it on a large scale; it then became ‘monotonously frequent’ in Imperial prose.²⁹⁷ A pragmatic motivation is often no longer present in authors like Livy. Also, rhythmic considerations play a role (as in Latin poetry from its very beginning). It is uncommon in less-elevated prose texts. In Late Latin authors with literary aspirations verbal hyperbaton is a much used instrument to produce a preferred clausula or cursus. An early indisputable example of verbal hyperbaton in Cato’s prose is (q). Validam is emphatic. In (r), the adjective gravioribus is contrastive. In (s), the head maculis is contrastive. Hyperbaton is rare in the early historians (for ancient criticism of Coelius Antipater, see § 23.7). An instance from Sisenna is (t).²⁹⁸ Here it is difficult to explain the anteposition of hostium from a pragmatic point of view. In Livy’s (u), aequos is emphatic (ipsi quoque reges is the contrastive topic of the sentence). The noun phrase quam lotam glandem in (v) from Petronius shows double discontinuity. ²⁹⁵ For this interpretation, see Briscoe ad loc. ²⁹⁶ See Goodyear ad loc.: ‘. . . T. is coming perilously near to verse-rhythm.’ ²⁹⁷ For the literary character of the type of discontinuity with a verb separating head and modifier and its frequency in various prose texts and authors, see Adams  (1971), who is quoted in the text, and Mednikarova (1997). Less specific is Bolkestein (2001). For Petronius, see Herman (2003). For the frequent use of ‘verbal hyperbaton’ in Christian writers, see Burton  (2011: 494–5). For Ammianus, see Pinkster (2004a). ²⁹⁸ For Sisenna, see Perutelli (2004: 18).

Word order at the noun phrase level  (q)

(sc. brassica) . . . validam habet naturam et vim magnam habet. (‘. . . it has a hardy constitution and great efficacy.’ Cato Agr. 157.1—tr. Devine and Stephens)

(r)

Vereor me hercule ne aut gravioribus utar verbis quam natura fert, aut levioribus quam causa postulat. (‘I am afraid of using expressions so harsh that they would outrage nature, or not so strong as the cause demands.’ Cic. Quinct. 57)

(s)

Hunc tu vitae splendorem maculis aspergis istis? (‘And would you dim with your sullying insinuations the lustre of that untarnished life?’ Cic. Planc. 30)

(t)

. . . et inde ecum concitatum princeps ad hostium permittit aciem. (‘. . . and then he, taking the lead, spurred on his horse, and let him loose against the enemy’s line.’ Sis. hist. 32=28C)

(u)

Itaque ipsi quoque reges aequos adhiberent animos ad pacem accipiendam. (‘The kings themselves therefore must resign themselves to the acceptance of peace terms.’ Liv. 44.29.8)

(v)

(sc. Trimalchio) . . . adiecit: ‘Et iam (cj. Smith, etiam H) videte quam porcus ille silvaticus lotam (cj. Muncker, totam H) comederit glandem.’ (‘Trimalchio added: “And now see what fine acorns the woodland boar has been eating.”’ Petr. 40.8 (Trimalchio speaking)) Supplement (for forms of the verb sum, see also § 23.33): Suom · mareitum · corde · deilexit · souo. (CIL I2.1211.4 (Rome, 1st cent. bc (early))); . . . urbs acerbissimo concidat incendio conflagrata. (Rhet. Her. 4.12—NB: in an example of the grand style); Utriusque temporis fructum tuli maximum. (Cic. Dom. 99); . . . satis magnum ceperam fructum . . . (Cic. Phil. 6.2); Pecunia tibi debebatur certa . . . (Cic. Q. Rosc. 10); . . . quod satis sit ad diem agendum natalem suum . . . (Cic. Fin. 2.101); ‘Visne igitur’, inquit, ‘o Damocle, . . . ipse eam degustare et fortunam experiri meam?’ (Cic. Tusc. 5.61); . . . in eadem es navi . . . (Cic. Fam. 2.5.1); Provinciam suam hanc esse Galliam, sicut illam nostram. (Caes. Gal. 1.44.8); . . . quam maximis potest itineribus Viennam pervenit. (Caes. Gal. 7.9.3); . . . incolas cuiusque generis aetatisque vivos constrictosque in flammam coiciunt atque ita acerbissimo adficiunt supplicio. (B. Afr. 87.2); . . . verens ne, si eum secum haberet, aliquam occasionem sui daret opprimendi . . . (Nep. Di. 4.1); Sic iuxta posita recens filii (sc. statua) veterem patris renovavit memoriam. (Nep. Timoth. 2.3); Tum M. Tullius consul . . . orationem habuit luculentam atque utilem rei publicae, quam postea scriptam edidit. (Sal. Cat. 31.6); . . .Volgatior fama est ludibrio fratris Remum novos transiluisse muros. (Liv. 1.7.2); . . . hoc modo praedicta intereunt animalia. (Col. 6.30.10); . . . in suo quaeque consistere, inrequieto mundi ipsius constricta circuitu . . . (Plin. Nat. 2.11); Ad reliqua transeamus animalia et primum terrestria. (Plin. Nat. 8.1); Cum omnis res ab imperatore delegata intentiorem exigat curam . . . (Fron. Aq. 1.1.1); Ne dimissis quidem finem esse militiae . . . (Tac. Ann. 1.17.3); . . . ut per medium transversaremus caput illius vallis (Pereg. 2.4); (sc. monachi) . . . tales sunt ut et virtutes faciant multas . . . (Pereg. 20.6);

 Word order Sed cum pudicitia virtus sit animi . . . (August. Civ. 1.8); Ideo autem hunc tenere ordinem malui . . . (August. Civ. 21.1.1); Cum ergo nescirem quomodo haec subsisteret imago tua . . . (August. Conf. 6.5)

(vi) More extreme forms of discontinuity of noun phrases by entire clauses and by combinations of two or more ‘alien’ constituents are well known from Early Latin comedy and from poetry, as in (w)–(y). (w)

Tuo ego istaec igitur dicam illi periculo. / # Quid ais tu? (‘I’ll tell him about this, and it will be at your risk. # What do you say?’ Pl. Bac. 599–600)

(x)

qua Galli furtim noctu summa arcis adorti / moenia concubia vigilesque repente cruentant. (‘at the time for bedding down at night, the Gauls slipped stealthily over the citadel’s highest walls and suddenly bloodied the guard.’ Enn. Ann. 164–5V=227–8S)

(y)

. . . cum sic unanimam adloquitur male sana sororem. (‘. . . when, much distraught, she thus speaks to her sister, sharer of her heart.’ Verg. A. 4.8)

Even in prose, long-distance discontinuity is not rare. An example of discontinuity caused by a subordinate clause is (z) (for relative clauses, see § 18.12). Such cases must have been easy to understand for the listener. They were marked as units in pronunciation. This is less obvious in (aa). In (ab), one can imagine some sort of pause after adipisci.²⁹⁹ (z)

Nam etsi [ut] tu melius existumare videris de ea, si quam nunc habemus, facultate, tamen . . . (‘For though you appear to have a better opinion of such skill as I now possess . . .’ Cic. Brut. 298)

(aa)

Omnes autem P. Lentulus me consule vicit superiores. (‘Publius Lentulus, however, in the year of my consulship, eclipsed all that had gone before him.’ Cic. Off. 2.57)

(ab)

. . . sequitur ut disseramus, quibus rebus facillime possimus eam quam volumus adipisci cum honore et fide caritatem. (‘. . . it remains for us to discuss by what means we can most readily win the affection, linked with honour and confidence, which we desire.’ Cic. Off. 2.30) Supplement: Adjectives, determiners, etc. Ita ad me magna nuntiavit Cyamus hodie gaudia. (Pl. Truc. 702); Nam per eius unam, ut audio, aut vivam aut moriar sententiam. (Ter. Ph. 483); Obliquo inter sese medullam cum medulla libro colligato. (Cato Agr. 41.2); . . . quod nullus in eius fundo reperiri poterat stolo . . . (Var. R. 1.2.9); Magni interest ex semine esse canes eodem, quod cognati maxime inter se sunt praesidio. (Var. R. 2.9.6); Nam quod est obiectum municipibus esse adulescentem non proba-

²⁹⁹ For Caesar, see Schneider (1912: 14–22); for Apuleius, Bernard (1927: 25–7); for the Peregrinatio, Väänänen (1987: 111–13); for Augustine, Balmuş (1930: 119–23).

Word order at the noun phrase level  tum suis . . . (Cic. Cael. 5); Magna dis immortalibus habenda est atque huic ipsi Iovi Statori, antiquissimo custodi huius urbis, gratia, quod . . . (Cic. Catil. 1.11); Quis tum nobis, quis populo Romano obtulit hunc divinum adulescentem deus? (Cic. Phil. 5.43); Quae cum reprehendis, ostendis qualis tu, si ita forte accidisset, fueris illo tempore consul futurus. (Cic. Pis. 14); Rem publicam illis accepi temporibus eam quae paene amissa est, a vobis eam reciperavi quam aliquando omnes unius opera servatam iudicaverunt. (Cic. Red. Pop. 5); Mihi credite iudices—tametsi vosmet ipsos haec eadem audire certo scio—cum multas acceperint per hosce annos socii atque exterae nationes calamitates et iniurias, nullas Graeci homines gravius ferunt ac tulerunt quam huiuscemodi spoliationes fanorum atque oppidorum. (Cic. Ver. 4.132); Crassus vero mihi noster visus est oratoris facultatem non illius artis terminis, sed ingenii sui finibus immensis paene describere. (Cic. de Orat. 1.214); Antonius autem probabiliorem hoc populo orationem fore censebat suam, si . . . (Cic. de Orat. 2.4); Philo ut propria (cj. Lundström) noster et lecta poëmata et loco adiungebat. (Cic. Tusc. 2.26);³⁰⁰ . . . Pompeius togulam illam pictam silentio tuetur suam. (Cic. Att. 1.18.6); (sc. Caesar) . . . duplicem eo loco fecerat vallum . . . (Caes. Civ. 3.63.2); Hoc pugnae tempus magnum attulit nostris ad salutem momentum. (Caes. Civ. 1.51.6); In hoc tantum fuit odium multitudinis ut nemo ausus sit eum liber sepelire. (Nep. Phoc. 4.4); Sunt qui non ex oppido proficiscentem bellum gessisse tyrannum tradant, sed castris adversus Romana positis castra . . . (Liv. 34.41.8); Hunc Ti. Gracchi liberi, P.  Scipionis Africani nepotes, viva adhuc matre Cornelia, Africani filia, viri optimis ingeniis male usi, vitae mortisque habuere exitum. (Vell. 2.7.1); . . . tardiore semper ad terras omnium quae geruntur in caelo effectu cadente quam visu, sicuti fulguris et tonitrus et fulminum. (Plin. Nat. 2.216); Talis ad Oceanum pergentem Venerem comitatur exercitus. (Apul. Met. 4.31.7); Pastores enim mei perditam sibi requirentes vacculam variasque regiones peragrantes occurrunt nobis fortuito . . . (Apul. Met. 7.25.4); . . . itaque ergo singula, quemadmodum venimus per ipsam totam vallem, semper nobis sancti illi loca demonstrabant. (Pereg. 5.1—NB: distant secondary predicate); Cum itaque ignis in lignis ardeat ut lapides coquat, contrarios habet non in contrariis rebus effectus. (August. Civ. 21.4); Ita autem toleravit cubilis iniurias ut nullam de hac re cum marito haberet umquam simultatem. (August. Conf. 9.19) Nouns and noun phrases: An nescibas quam eius modi homini raro tempus se daret? (Pl. Bac. 676); Salis unicuique in anno modium satis est. (Cato Agr. 58.1); ‘Peto igitur’, Crassus inquit, ‘a te, quoniam id nobis, Antoni, hominibus id aetatis, oneris ab horum adulescentium studiis imponitur, ut . . .’ (Cic. de Orat. 1.207); . . . non tantum ingenioso homini et ei, qui forum, qui curiam, qui causas, qui rem publicam spectet, opus esse arbitror temporis . . . (Cic. de Orat. 3.86); Quibus . . . tantum Camillus auditus imperator terroris intulerat ut . . . (Liv. 6.2.9); Quid attinere cum mortali corpore uno civitatis quam immortalem esse deceat pati consenescere vires? (Liv. 6.23.7); Nec Caesaris dictatoris quemquam alium recepisse dorso equus traditur . . . (Plin. Nat. 5.155); Nam et signa ibi parebant castrorum. (Pereg. 12.9)

³⁰⁰ For a detailed discussion of hyperbaton of possessive adjectives in Cicero, see Lundström (1982: 31–8); for Plautus, see de Melo (2010: 72–80).

 Word order NB: . . . te pauper ambit sollicita prece / ruris colonus, te dominam aequoris / quicumque Bithyna lacessit / Carpathium pelagus carina. (Hor. Carm. 1.35.5–8—NB: parallelism of ruris (sc. dominam) and dominam aequoris)³⁰¹

(vii) Double hyperbaton is rare in Classical prose but common in poetry (see § 23.14), as in (ac), and in later poeticizing prose. A prose example is (ad). Both attributes are emphatic. (ac)

. . . amissos longo socios sermone requirunt . . . (‘. . . in long discourse they yearn for their lost comrades . . .’ Verg. A. 1.217)

(ad)

Maximus vini numerus fuit, permagnum optimi pondus argenti . . . (‘There was a great quantity of wine, a very large weight of the finest silver plate . . .’ Cic. Phil. 2.66) Supplement: Post Amafinium autem multi eiusdem aemuli rationis multa cum scripsissent, Italiam totam occupaverunt . . . (Cic. Tusc. 4.7); (sc. Hermathenae signum) Est ornamentum Academiae proprium meae . . . (Cic. Att. 1.4.3) Among the instances of double hyperbaton, (ae) is cited as an instance of Caesar’s usage.³⁰² In reality, it is different: Hunc is a pronoun, the object of ferunt, and omnium inventorem artium is the object complement. (ae) . . . hunc omnium inventorem artium ferunt . . . (‘. . . they declare him the inventor of all arts . . .’ Caes. Gal. 6.17.1)

23.89 Word order in prepositional phrases In §§ 3.24 and 12.23 some introductory remarks can be found about the suitability of the element ‘pre-’ in a description of the class of what are commonly called ‘prepositions’. In the same sections some information can be found about the proclitic nature of prepositions. This section deals with the relative order of prepositions with respect to the constituents they govern. It will be shown that prepositions can precede or follow them, but they can also be inserted in the middle if the constituent they govern is a phrase. Two types of prepositional phrases are distinguished: (a) those in which the preposition immediately precedes, follows, or is inserted in the constituent it governs (‘continuous’ prepositional phrases), e.g. per gratiam ‘in a friendly manner’, gratiam per ‘in a friendly manner’, and summam per iniuriam ‘by the greatest injustice’ (§ 23.90–5), and (b) prepositional phrases where the preposition is separated from the

³⁰¹ For this interpretation, see Nisbet and Hubbard ad loc.

³⁰² So Sz.: 691.

Word order in prepositional phrases  constituent it governs by one or more other elements that do not belong to the prepositional phrase (‘discontinuous’ prepositional phrases: § 23.96).³⁰³

. The order of constituents in continuous prepositional phrases Continuous prepositional phrases can again be divided into phrases which govern a constituent which is not modified and phrases in which the governed constituent is complex in itself, for example, because it contains an adjectival or genitival attribute, e.g. per gratiam bonam ‘in good friendship’.

. The position of prepositions in prepositional phrases without a modifier In this section two more subtypes are distinguished, viz. prepositional phrases with a monosyllabic and with a polysyllabic preposition. The only monosyllabic preposition that is regularly postposed is cum (‘with’), but only in certain conditions: after the personal pronoun forms me ‘me’, te ‘you’, reflexive se ‘her/him/itself ’, ‘themselves’, nobis ‘us’, and vobis ‘you’ and after relative and interrogative pronouns. It forms one prosodic unit and is written (and printed) as one word with the pronoun it governs, as is shown by the fact that the clitic coordinator -que is attached to mecum in (a). From Cicero onwards cum is more and more found before the relative and later also the interrogative pronoun, and some authors, Livy for example, allow only this. It is also regularly found before its pronoun in inscriptions. However, with personal pronouns postposition remained the rule. In (a) and (b) cum follows, whereas in (c) and (d) it precedes. (a)

. . . ornatissimum virum mecumque . . . coniunctum . . . (‘. . . an accomplished gentleman . . . bound to myself . . .’ Cic. Scaur. 31)

(b)

Novistin’ hominem? # Ridicule rogitas, quocum una cibum / capere soleo. (‘You know the man? # An absurd question when we constantly take our meals together.’ Pl. Trin. 905–6)

(c)

Non est vobis, Quirites, cum eo hoste certamen cum quo aliqua pacis condicio esse possit. (‘You have, Romans, no contest with an enemy with whom any terms of peace are possible.’ Cic. Phil. 4.11)

(d)

(coniugi) . . . cum qua viximus concordes . . . (‘To my wife, with whom I have lived in harmony. . .’ A. Epig. 2001, nr 441.12 (Rome, 1st cent. ad (late))—tr. Bal)

³⁰³ Some of the relevant articles in the TLL offer useful syntactic information, e.g. s.v. inter 2146.63ff. and per 1167.9ff. For Plautus, Lodge’s lexicon is useful, as is Gerber and Greef for Tacitus. Collections of examples can be found in Neue-W.: II.942–52; K.-St.: I.585–8; Marouzeau (1949: 35–65). Bibliography in Sz.: 218.

 Word order Most other monosyllabic prepositions are normally anteposed, as in (e) and (f). In Early Latin and in poetry, these prepositions are sometimes postposed as well. However, this is much less common in prose. This phenomenon is relatively frequent in Early Latin in combination with relative pronouns, as in (g), but rare in combination with nouns. A unique and textually uncertain Early Latin example is (h). Postposition is very rare in Late Latin. (e)

Iuppiter . . . per quem vivimus vitalem aevom . . . (‘O, Jupiter . . . through whom we live and draw the breath of being.’ Pl. Poen. 1187)

(f)

Quod volui ut volui impetravi, per amicitiam et gratiam, / a Philocomasio. (‘I obtained from Philocomasium what I wished just as I wished in all friendliness and goodwill.’ Pl. Mil. 1200–1)

(g)

Exerce vocem quam per vivis . . . (‘Exercise the voice through which you live . . .’ Pl. Poen. 13)

(h)

Gratiam per si petimus, spero ab eo impetrassere. (‘If we ask it as a favour, I have my hopes he’ll acquiesce.’ Pl. St. 71)³⁰⁴

More instances of ‘normal’ prepositional use of monosyllabic prepositions can be found throughout this Syntax. The Supplement contains only postpositional instances. Supplement: Relative pronouns: Non esse servos peior hoc quisquam potest / nec magis vorsutus nec quo ab caveas aegrius. (Pl. As. 118–19); . . . Pistoclerum, quem ad epistulam / Mnesilochus misit super amica Bacchide. (Pl. Bac. 176–7); . . . ducere te uxorem, / praesertim eam qua ex tibi commemores hanc quae domi est filiam prognatam? (Pl. Epid. 170–1); . . . hoc ipsum interdictum quo de agitur consideremus. (Cic. Caec. 55); . . . propter earum rerum, quibus de scriptum est, utilitatem . . . (Cic. Inv. 2.141); Solebat igitur Aquilius collega et familiaris meus, cum de litoribus ageretur . . . quaerentibus iis quos ad id pertinebat, quid esset litus, ita definire, qua fluctus eluderet. (Cic. Top. 32); Senatus quos ad soleret referendum censuit. (Cic. N.D. 2.10); Nam cum multo sunt animae elementa minora / quam quibus e corpus nobis et viscera constant . . . (Lucr. 3.374–5); C.  lius Prudens respondit homines Hyginum et Hermen q d a (= quibus de agitur) suus . . . se . . . (TPN 26.2.7–9 (Pompeii, ad 55)); . . . cum de ea re qua de agitur experiundi potestas est . . . (Ulp. dig. 42.8.10); Iam nunc video esse monstrandum, quid ipsi David . . . Deus promiserit, quod ad rem qua de agimus pertinet. (August. Civ. 17.8); . . . a sacramenti huius quo de agimus auctore aliena peccata innocentibus imputari. (August. Iul. 1.57); . . . ut cui eorum generi somnium quo de agimus adplicandum sit innotescat. (Macr. Comm. 1.3.1) NB: Hunc post Rhodius Hieronymus dolore vacare summum bonum dixit. (Cic. Tusc. 2.15) Nouns: Sed fugam in se tamen nemo convortitur . . . (Pl. Am. 238); . . . ignibus ex ignis, umorem umoribus esse, / cetera consimili fingit ratione putatque. (Lucr. 1.841–2); Multa siti prostrata viam per proque voluta / corpora silanos ad aquarum strata iacebant . . . (Lucr. 6.1264–5); Nos in nocte sumus somnosque in membra vocamus. (Man. ³⁰⁴ I follow the reading of A. There is an alternative reading a patre in P.

Word order in prepositional phrases  1.245); Sic annum mensesque suos natura diesque / atque ipsas voluit numerari signa per horas . . . (Man. 3.520–1); . . . ubi clari mater Iesu / nato cum pariter convivia concelebrabat. (Iuvenc. 2.128–9)

Polysyllabic prepositions are much more often postposed, in Early Latin mainly with personal, relative, and interrogative pronouns, but from Lucretius onwards also regularly after nouns.³⁰⁵ The postposition of the preposition after the noun is an artificial phenomenon, used in various degrees by individual authors and sometimes in the individual works of an author (Tacitus, for example).³⁰⁶ The phenomenon is rare in Late Latin. Examples of anteposed polysyllabic prepositions are (i) and ( j); of postposed (k) and (l).³⁰⁷ The Supplement contains further postposed ones. (i)

Censor enim, penes quem maiores nostri, id quod tu sustulisti, iudicium senatus de dignitate esse voluerunt . . . (‘For the censor, to whose power (though you have abolished that) our ancestors chose to commit the decision respecting the dignity of each member of the senate . . .’ Cic. Dom. 131—tr. Yonge)

( j)

. . . Antiphila . . . / propter quam in summa infamia sum . . . (‘. . . Antiphila . . . it’s for your sake that I’m in the greatest discredit.’ Ter. Hau. 258–9)

(k)

Iuppiter . . . / quem penes spes vitae sunt hominum omnium . . . (‘Jupiter . . . in whom the hopes and lives of all mankind lie . . .’ Pl. Poen. 1187–8)

(l)

. . . abduce me hinc ab hac quantum potest, / quam propter tantum damni feci et flagiti. (‘. . . drag me away as quickly as possible from here from this woman because of whom I’ve incurred such great loss and disgrace.’ Pl. Bac. 1031–2) Supplement (in alphabetical order by preposition): With pronouns: Mirum quin te advorsus dicat. (Pl. Am. 750); Neque amplius resisti iam apud eos poterat, quin paulatim decedentibus his, quos adversum ierant, ad postremum cuncti fugarentur. (Dict. 2.12); Diem statuo satis laxam, quam ante si solverint, dico me centesimas ducturum, si non solverint, ex pactione. (Cic. Att. 6.1.16); Quam circa lacus lucique sunt plurimi . . . (Cic. Ver. 4.107); Quod contra saepius illa / religio peperit scelerosa atque impia facta. (Lucr. 1.82–3); Quae cum ita sint, non est committendum ut iis paream quos contra me senatus . . . armavit. (Cic. Att. 10.8.8); (sc. Germani) . . . quos contra pertinax miles . . . perterrebat. (Amm. 16.12.36); Mentio si qua / de Capitolini furtis iniecta Petilli / te coram fuerit, defendas ut tuus est mos. (Hor. S. 1.4.93–5); Decernerent legatos seque coram mandata darent. (Tac. Ann. 1.19.3); Quin potius auferantur quibus coram

³⁰⁵ Bailey, in the Prolegomena to his commentary, p. 107, ascribes Lucretius’ noteworthy use of prepositions to metrical considerations. K.-St.: I.586 adduce Greek influence. Bailey also notes that Lucretius has all his local instances of propter postposed (ten, against six anteposed causal ones). ³⁰⁶ For variation in the works of Tacitus, see Goodyear (1968: 30). ³⁰⁷ It is probably not due to mere chance that I did not find minimal pairs for anteposed penes and propter with a relative pronoun in Plautus.

 Word order male vivere pudet . . . (Lact. Inst. 5.9.8); Si quid med erga hodie falsum dixeris . . . (Pl. As. 20); Huius signi caput dicitur ex tribus stellis, quas infra duae clarae, quas appellant Umeros. (Var. L. 7.50); Etiamne haec illi tibi / iusserunt ferri, quos inter iudex datu’s? (Pl. Mer. 751–2); Hanc iuxta locum fecerunt sub terra . . . (Nep. Paus. 4.4); Quem iuxta Hiezechiel, per multa iam saecula dormiente David, appellat servum suum atque pastorem dicens . . . (Hier. Is. 15.55.3); Ethnici, quos penes nulla est veritatis plenitudo, quia nec doctor veritatis Deus, malum et bonum pro arbitrio et libidine interpretantur. (Tert. Spect. 21.1); . . . nec iam te praeter in urbe / formosa est oculis ulla puella meis. ([Tib.] 4.13.3–4); . . . quis fuerit quem propter corpus suom stupri compleverit. (Pl. Am. 1016); . . . et maestum simul ante aras adstare parentem / sensit et hunc propter ferrum celare ministros / aspectuque suo lacrimas effundere civis, / muta metu terram genibus summissa petebat. (Lucr. 1.89–92); Nos secundum ferri nunc per urbem haec omnia . . . (Pl. Mil. 1349); . . . aut quibus sine omnino confici non potest . . . (Cic. Inv. 2.40); . . . siquis eas subter iacuit prostratus in herbis. (Lucr. 6.785); Exanimis pueris super exanimata parentum / corpora nonnumquam posses retroque videre . . . (Lucr. 6.1256–7); . . . sed adhibent modum quendam, quem ultra progredi non oporteat. (Cic. Tusc. 4.38). With nouns: . . . cur tenebras ante et fremitus et murmura concit? (Lucr. 6.410); . . . iactavit fusa sed caput ante coma. (Tib. 2.5.66); Is locus est Cumas apud . . . (Lucr. 6.747); . . . terque focum circa laneus orbis eat! (Prop. 4.6.6); Quam ne in manibus tenui atque accepi hic ante aedis / cistellam, ubi ea sit nescio, nisi, ut opinor, / loca haec mi circiter excidit. (Pl. Cist. 675–7); . . . atque hanc sine tempora circum / inter victrices hederam tibi serpere laurus. (Verg. Ecl. 8.12–13); Atque ego cum Graecos facerem, natus mare citra, / versiculos . . . (Hor. S. 1.10.31–2); Nihil intermissa navigatione hiberni maris Agrippina Corcyram insulam advehitur, litora Calabriae contra sitam. (Tac. Ann. 3.1.1); Quo nihil mirandum, si et in carcere inviscatas Anyti et Meliti palmas gestiens infringere ipsa morte coram immortalitatem vindicat animae necessaria praesumptione ad iniuriae frustrationem. (Tert. An. 1); Si quid amicum erga bene feci aut consului fideliter, . . . (Pl. Trin. 1128); Ventitabatque illuc Nero, quo solutius urbem extra lasciviret. (Tac. Ann. 13.47.2); . . . at legionibus cum damno labor, effodere rivos . . . humum infra moliri. (Tac. Ann. 11.20.3); . . . qui lapides inter sistit per strata viarum . . . (Lucr. 4.415); . . . quodque litus iuxta, non ventis acta, non saxis impulsa navis summa sui parte veluti terrestre machinamentum concidisset . . . (Tac. Ann. 14.6.1); Translata dehinc castra hostem propter . . . (Tac. Ann. 4.48.1); Ilia subter / caecum vulnus habes . . . (Pers. 4.43–4); Sed tu quid facitasti mandatis super? (Pl. Bac. 196); (cruorem) humum super spargens . . . (Tac. Ann. 16.35.1); Illis ira modum supra est . . . (Verg. G. 4.236); Si piguit portas ultra procedere . . . (Prop. 4.7.29)

The postposition of both monosyllabic and polysyllabic prepositions is usually called ‘anastrophe’ or ‘inversio’. In the case of nouns the inversion sometimes seems to mark the noun as salient, but often pragmatic motives for the ‘inversion’ are hard to imagine. By contrast, the separation of head and modifier constituents by the governing preposition has much more often a pragmatic explanation (see the next section).

Word order in prepositional phrases  Postponement of a preposition may have the effect of causing discontinuity of coordinated constituents, a phenomenon discussed in general in § 23.101.³⁰⁸ Examples are (m) and (n). In (m), the two conjoins are required by two-place inter. In (n), by contrast, the second conjoin is optional. This is also the case in instances with prepositions other than inter which can be found in the Supplement. This form of discontinuity by inversion is mainly a poetical phenomenon, with varying popularity from Lucretius onwards (see also § 23.101). (m)

(sc. Cicero) . . . quinque cohortes frumentatum in proximas segetes mittit, quas inter et castra unus omnino collis intererat. (‘He sent five cohorts to get corn in the nearest fields, between which and the camp but a single hill interposed.’ Caes. Gal. 6.36.2)

(n)

. . . saxa per et scopulos et depressas convallis / diffugiunt . . . (‘. . . they flee over rocks and crags and lowly valleys.’ Verg. G. 3.276–7) Supplement (in alphabetical order by preposition): Italiam utroque mari duae classes, Misenum apud et Ravennam . . . (Tac. Ann. 4.5.1); . . . vel manifestas res contra verasque repugnat. (Lucr. 3.353—NB: coordinated attributes); Postridie terram attigit Cerauniorum saxa inter et alia loca periculosa. (Caes. Civ. 3.6.3—NB: text disputed); Inter spem curamque, timores inter et iras, / omnem crede diem tibi diluxisse supremum. (Hor. Ep. 1.4.12–13); . . . Etrusci campi, qui Faesulas inter Arretiumque iacent . . . (Liv. 22.3.3); Furit immissis Volcanus habenis / transtra per et remos et pictas abiete puppis. (Verg. A. 5.662–3); . . . tametsi loca propter (propter loca cj. Merlani) et pabulum disparile non usque quaque idem fit. (Var. R. 2.11.4); . . . tumulum accepit viam Miseni propter et villam Caesaris dictatoris . . . (Tac. Ann. 14.9.1); Inde per Arcturum mediaeque silentia Lunae / arva super populosque meat. (Stat. Theb. 2.58–9)

. The position of prepositions in prepositional phrases with a modifier In prepositional phrases containing a modifier theoretically six different orders can be used, of which four actually occur regularly: preposition—modifier—noun, as in (a), preposition—noun—modifier, as in (b), modifier—preposition—noun, as in (c), and noun—preposition—modifier, as in (d). Moreover, the constituents of the prepositional phrase may be separated by other constituents of the clause, thus causing discontinuity. (a)

De magnis divitiis si quid demas, plus fit an minus? (‘Does subtracting something from a handsome fortune make it greater or less?’ Pl. Trin. 349)

(b)

Aratra in terram validam Romanica bona erunt . . . (‘Roman ploughs will be good for heavy soil . . .’ Cato Agr. 135.2)

(c)

Tantisper quidem / ut sis apud me lignea in custodia. (‘Providing, of course, that you spend your time at my house in the stocks.’ Pl. Poen. 1364–5)

³⁰⁸ For a discussion of these instances of ‘conjunct hyperbaton’, see Devine and Stephens (2006: 586–7).

 Word order (d)

. . . patrem tuom meumque adeo, unice qui unus / civibus ex omnibus probus perhibetur . . . (‘. . . your father, yes, and mine, who’s held to be the one outstanding man of high principles in this whole city . . .’ Pl. St. 12–13)

The orders exemplified by examples (a) and (b) are the most frequent ones and they can be found in all sorts of texts in all periods. Supplement (in alphabetical order by preposition): Preposition—modifier—noun: Modifiers showing agreement: Adhaesit homini ad infumum ventrem fames. (Pl. St. 236); . . . adversum Vitellianas partes modeste disseruit . . . (Tac. Hist. 1.90.2); Pompeius paucis post diebus in Thessaliam pervenit. Contionatusque apud cunctum exercitum suis agit gratias . . . (Caes. Civ. 3.82.1); Et quidquid dicere de nostris conscriptoribus intenderitis . . . (Arn. Nat. 1.57.1) Genitival and other modifiers: Nam hospes nullus tam in amici hospitium devorti potest / quin . . . (Pl. Mil. 741–2); Erant antiquitus porticus . . ., in quarum tectum egressi saxis tegulisque Vitellianos obruebant. (Tac. Hist. 3.71.1); . . . continuo malum est et in exitiabilis rei opinione ponendum. (Arn. Nat. 1.10.1); . . . ne per linguae errorem dicat: . . . (August. Conf. 1.29) Preposition—noun—modifier: Modifiers showing agreement: Quid hoc hic clamoris audio ante aedis meas? (Pl. Trin. 1093); Tantum apud homines barbaros valuit esse aliquos repertos principes belli inferendi . . . (Caes. Gal. 5.54.4); Audieram enim ego adhuc puer de vita aeterna . . . (August. Conf. 1.17); Vel inter cuneos ferreos . . . (Pl. St. 619) Genitival and other modifiers: . . . et magis magisque vivere apud fontem vitae et in lumine eius videre lumen et perfici et inlustrari et beari. (August. Conf. 13.5); Erant enim circum castra Pompei permulti editi atque asperi colles. (Caes. Civ. 3.43.1); Erant antiquitus porticus in latere clivi dextrae subeuntibus . . . (Tac. Hist. 3.71.1); . . . qui de caelo exoritur sub solio Iovis. (Pl. Trin. 940)

The word order patterns illustrated by (c) and (d) require a more detailed account. Both, especially the latter, are much rarer than the first two, and are also much more typical of poetry and of poeticizing prose.³⁰⁹ In what follows a distinction is made between the large and essentially open class of descriptive adjectives and genitival attributes on the one hand, and the much smaller classes, but each with relatively frequent members, consisting of anaphoric, demonstrative, interrogative, and relative determiners and pronouns, possessive adjectives, and quantifiers of all sorts on the other. The patterns with inserted prepositions with the class of adjectives and genitival attributes are mostly poetical and artificial, whereas some patterns with the smaller classes are common in all periods of Latin. The two other logically possible orders, with the preposition as the last member, are extremely rare. A few instances are: Lucr. 4.597 . . . haec loca per . . ., an instance of a ³⁰⁹ See Penney (1999: 263–7) and Clackson (2004: 394–6).

Word order in prepositional phrases  monosyllabic preposition, and Pl. Cist. 677 . . . loca haec circiter . . ., an instance of a polysyllabic one. Postpositive cum is assumed in Studio · pariliqum / ulla · in · avaritie / cessit · ab · officio. (CIL I2.1221.12–14 (Rome, c.80 bc)).³¹⁰

. The pattern modifier—preposition—noun (i) In prepositional phrases with an interrogative or relative determiner or pronoun the order modifier—preposition—noun is found from the earliest period onwards, in all sorts of texts.³¹¹ This holds both for the determiners, as in (a) and (b), and for pronouns in the genitive, as in (c) and (d). In some expressions, for example quam ob rem ‘for what reason’, ‘why’, this order became the norm, with very few exceptions.³¹² We also, though rarely, find this pattern with the anaphoric determiner is, or with other anaphorically used determiners. The preposing of the modifier in these cases can be explained by the focal or topical character of the anteposed elements, and there is nothing exceptional about it. Essentially, the word order encountered here cannot be separated from the forms of discontinuity of the noun phrase discussed in § 23.87. (a)

Nimia nos socordia hodie tenuit. # Qua de re, opsecro? (‘We’ve been terribly lazy today. # How so, pray?’ Pl. Poen. 317)

(b)

(Pecunia . . . solvetur.) Quibus de bonis? Pupilli . . . (‘The cost shall be paid in cash . . . From whose property? That of a boy under age . . .’ Cic. Ver. 1.146)

(c)

Reos autem appello non eos modo qui arguuntur, sed omnis quorum de re disceptatur. (‘By “parties” I mean not only the persons impeached, but all whose interests are being determined . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 2.183)

(d)

Eius ex semine haec certo est Fames. (‘That’s the breed this Hunger is certainly from.’ (Pl. St. 169) Supplement (in alphabetical order by preposition): Interrogative determiners: Quo de genere natu’st illic Philocrates? (Pl. Capt. 277); Quoiates estis aut quo ex oppido? (Pl. Poen. 994); Quibus ex hostium spoliis, de qua victoria, qua ex praeda aut manubiis haec abs te donatio constituta est? (Cic. Ver. 3.186); Quando aut quo in loco? (Pl. St. 244); Vineam quo in agro conseri oportet, sic observato. (Cato Agr. 6.4); Ista facere, immo verius pati mortales quos ob usus quasve ad voluptates alias nisi ut inter maculas lapidum iaceant . . . (Plin. Nat. 36.3) Relative determiners: . . . quibusque · de · rebus · vos · purgavistis . . . (CIL I2.586.3 (Epistula Praetoris ad Tiburtes, Tivoli, c.159 bc)); ‘Qua de re agitur’ autem illud, quod multis locis in iuris consultorum includitur formulis, id ubi esset videbat. (Cic.

³¹⁰ See Massaro (2007: 282–3). ³¹¹ The instances in Plautus are conveniently found in a section ‘collocation’ in the lemmata of the prepositions in Lodge. ³¹² See TLL s.v. ob 24.81ff.

 Word order Brut. 275); Qua ex opinione hominum illa insula eorum deorum sacra putatur . . . (Cic. Ver. 1.48) Anaphoric(ally used) determiners: Tum quae hic sunt scriptae litterae, hoc in equo insunt milites / armati atque animati probe. (Pl. Bac. 941–2); . . . is, qui, qua re homines bestiis praestent, ea in re hominibus ipsis antecellat. (Cic. Inv. 1.5); . . . et is qui scripsit hanc ob eam rem noluit / iterum referre, ut iterum posset vendere. (Ter. Hec. 6–7); Eandem ob causam opera ab optimatibus data est ut . . . (Suet. Jul. 19.2) Genitival attributes: Cuius ad arbitrium quoque copia materiai / cogitur interdum flecti per membra . . . (Lucr. 2.281–2); (sc. Sthenius) . . . cuius de meritis in rem publicam . . . fuit aenea tabula fixa Thermis in curia . . . (Cic. Ver. 2.112); . . . quorum de natura moribusque Caesar cum quaereret, sic reperiebat: . . . (Caes. Gal. 2.15.3); Quorum de numero qui sese in bella sequantur / praestantis virtute legit. (Verg. A. 8.547–8); . . . ii quorum de ultione quaeritur . . . (Quint. Inst. 7.4.33); Initium et causa penes Aelium Seianum . . ., cuius de potentia supra memoravi. (Tac. Ann. 4.1.1); Quippe eorum ex ingenio ingenium horum probant. (Pl. Trin. 1049); Magis quorum in manu sit quam ut incolumis sit quaeri. (Liv. 2.57.3); Quid enim non ille videret, / cuius in arbitrio Graecia tota fuit? (Ov. Rem. Am. 467–8); Gratulatus sum urbi Romae, cuius ad salutem estis electi, gratulatus senatui, cuius pro iudicio quod in vos habuit reddidistis pristinam dignitatem . . . (Hist. Aug. Max. Balb. 17.2) Rare instances of tmesis of quodcumque caused by a preposition or part of a prepositional phrase are (e) and (f), respectively (see for tmesis of -cumque words in general § 23.103). (e) . . . et ego in hoc omni sermone nostro, quod ad cumque legis genus me disputatio nostra deduxerit, tractabo . . . (‘. . . and it is my intention, during the whole of our conversation, to take up, as far as I can, in connexion with every branch of law to which our discussion leads us . . .’ Cic. Leg. 2.46) (f) . . . quid faciant et qua de causa cumque ferantur. (‘. . . what they do and by whatever cause they are brought to pass . . .’ Lucr. 6.85—tr. Bailey (adapted))

Quantifiers like quantus, tantus, qualis, talis, the related adverbs quam and tam, as well as nullus, multus, magnus, and the possessive adjectives behave in the same way as the determiners dealt with above on account of their inherently salient meaning, as in (g) and (h). (g)

Namque regnum suppetebat mi, ut scias, quanto e loco, / quantis opibus, quibus de rebus lapsa fortuna accidat. (‘For I used to have a kingdom, so that you may know from what standing, from what power, from what riches fortune may lapse and fall down.’ Enn. scen. 355–6V=339–40J)

(h)

Sed te uterque tuo pro iure, ego atque hic, oramus. (‘But we both—he and I—in recognition of your rights, appeal to you.’ Pl. Cas. 371)

Word order in prepositional phrases  Supplement: . . . quom illum rescisces criminatorem meum / quanto in periclo et quanta in pernicie siet. (Pl. Bac. 826–7); Magna cum cura ego illum curari volo. (Pl. Men. 895); . . . vestro sine momine, venti . . . (Enn. Ann. 595V=Spur. 4S); Quantis cum aerumnis illum exanclavi diem (Enn. scen. 102V=103J); Ah, stultitia’st istaec, non pudor. Tam ob parvolam / rem paene e patria! Turpe dictu. (Ter. Ad. 274–5); Nullane in re esse quoiquam homini fidem! (Ter. An. 425); . . . iter mihi tutum multis minitantibus magno cum suo metu praestiterunt. (Cic. Planc. 97); Aliquot post menses et homo occisus est et bona venisse dicuntur. (Cic. S. Rosc. 128); . . . et aut turpe aut inutile demonstrandum tali de homine supplicium sumere. (Cic. Inv. 2.107); Tales igitur inter viros amicitia tantas oportunitates habet quantas vix queo dicere. (Cic. Amic. 22); . . . se ut (natura) custodiat quam in optimo sui generis statu. (Cic. Fin. 5.26); . . . Themistoclesque aliquot ante annos cum in epulis recusaret lyram, est habitus indoctior. (Cic. Tusc. 1.4);³¹³ Ecquis umquam tam ex amplo statu, tam in bona causa, tantis facultatibus ingeni, consili, gratiae, tantis praesidiis bonorum omnium concidit? (Cic. Att. 3.10.2); Hac habita oratione nullam in partem ab exercitu Curionis fit significatio. (Caes. Civ. 2.28.4); Quae etsi magno cum dolore omnes ferebant, tamen . . . (Caes. Gal. 7.15.2); Quas ego te terras et quanta per aequora vectum / accipio! (Verg. A. 6.692–3); Volitant alii magno cum murmure aut mugitu . . . (Plin. Nat. 11.98); Primusque Messala Corvinus eam potestatem et paucos intra dies finem accepit . . . (Tac. Ann. 6.11.3); Nam tam diu dixi magno cum labore, maiore cum fructu. (Plin. Ep. 4.16.3); . . . verum etiam maiore de parte furiarum compressionibus imminuta. (Arn. Nat. 1.6)

(ii) Instances of descriptive adjectives and genitival attributes which are separated from their noun by a preposition are rare in Early Latin. Ex. (d) above is one of the few instances in Plautus. However, examples of adjectives in such a collocation abound in Ennius, considering the size of what is extant of his work. Ex. (i) will suffice. Other poets and poeticizing prose authors followed his lead,³¹⁴ but Cicero has instances as well, as (k) shows. Genitival attributes (the non-pronominal ones) that precede the preposition, as in ( j), are much less frequent than genitival attributes that follow the preposition, certainly in prose.³¹⁵ The function of this pattern is essentially to mark the saliency of the modifier. In poetry this pattern is often exploited even further by locating the modifier in a prominent position of the verse as well. (i)

Vix aegro cum corde meo me somnus reliquit. (‘Then did sleep scarcely leave me all sick at heart.’ Enn. Ann. 51V=50S)

( j)

Sulpureas posuit spiramina Naris ad undas. (‘He built blowholes by Nar’s sulphury waters.’ Enn. Ann. 260V=222S)

³¹³ For the order in prepositional phrases with ante, see Lundström (1961: 92–9), and for post ibid.: 113–17. ³¹⁴ See Penney (1999) and Clackson (2004) on the question of how this predilection of poets should be assessed: archaism or innovation? ³¹⁵ Compare Gettert’s (1999) surveys 3.2.1.4 and 3.2.2.1.3, respectively, in his ‘Anhang’ (Cicero, Caesar, Sallust, and Tacitus).

 Word order (k)

. . . rationem . . . habere debetis . . . Siciliae, iudices, plurimis iustissimisque de causis . . . (‘. . . you ought to have . . . consideration . . . due to the interests of Sicily, gentlemen, for many strong reasons . . .’ Cic. Ver. 2.2) Supplement: Adjectives: Redd’ cantionem veteri pro vi novam. (Pl. St. 769); . . . ipsa diligenter natura eius affectionis quam lenissime quietissima ab parte explicanda . . . (Cic. Inv. 2.25); Omnibus deinceps diebus Caesar exercitum in aciem aequum in locum produxit . . . (Caes. Civ. 3.56.1); . . . et qui reiciat gelidis a frigoris umbris / aestiferas usque in partis et fervida signa. (Lucr. 5.641–2); . . . certeis de causeis . . . (CIL I2.593.61 (Lex Iulia Munic., Pisticci, 80–43 bc)); Atque haec ipse suo tristi cum corde volutat . . . (Verg. A. 6.185); Duodecimum apud lapidem Sacrovir copiaeque patentibus locis apparuere. (Tac. Ann. 3.45.2); Illuc adverso de proelio adlatum. (Tac. Hist. 2.52.1) Genitival attributes: Is oratorum in numero non fuit, iuris civilis intellegentia atque omni prudentiae genere praestitit. (Cic. Brut. 102); Quis enim est, qui credat Apollinis ex oraculo Pyrrho esse responsum. (Cic. Div. 2.116); Quid Prodicus Cius, qui ea quae prodessent hominum vitae deorum in numero habita esse dixit . . . (Cic. N.D. 1.118); . . . atque ille non propinquum neque Arsacis de gente, sed alienigenam et Romanum increpans . . . (Tac. Ann. 12.14.3); Quamquam ista quae dicitis bella religionis nostrae ob invidiam commoveri non sit difficile comprobare post auditum Christum in mundo non tantum non aucta, verum etiam maiore de parte furiarum compressionibus imminuta. (Arn. Nat. 1.6)

. The pattern noun—preposition—modifier The pattern noun—preposition—modifier, exemplified by (d) in § 23.92, is much less common and almost restricted to poetry.³¹⁶ Most of the determiners mentioned in § 23.93 under (i) are not found in this pattern—they naturally precede on account of their cohesive function. Descriptive adjectives and genitival attributes are highly poetic and found from Ennius and Lucretius onwards. Examples are (a)–(d). This pattern is rare in ecclesiastical authors (Arnobius is a remarkable exception), where it is even more artificial. (a)

Nec med umquam deseruisse te nec factis nec fide, / rebus in dubiis, egenis. (‘And that you never deserted me in word or deed, in dangers and in need.’ Pl. Capt. 405–6)

(b)

. . . metuque in magno civitatem fuisse ne . . . (‘. . . and that city was in great panic lest . . .’ Liv. 9.37.11)

(c)

Flumen item sitiens aut fontem propter amoenum / assidet . . . (‘Again one athirst often sits beside a stream or a pleasant spring . . .’ Lucr. 4.1024–5)

³¹⁶ Rhet. Her. 4.44 gives virtute pro vestra as an instance of ‘perversio’, one of the two types of ‘transgressio’, ‘quae verborum perturbat ordinem’. For a discussion and instances of this pattern, see Bendz (1948).

Word order in prepositional phrases  (d)

Denique conubia ad Veneris partusque ferarum / esse animas praesto deridiculum esse videtur . . . (‘Finally to suppose that spirits stand ready for the amours and the parturition of wild beasts is plainly too ridiculous . . .’ Lucr. 3.776–7) Supplement: Determiners: . . . tuorum / saxa per illa, pater, memini, venerande, laborum. (V.  Fl. 8.181–2); Non est igitur necessarium parte in hac causae diutius inmorari. (Arnob. Nat. 3.1.2—NB: so six times) Quantifying and other adjectives: Perdidici istaec esse vera damno cum magno meo. (Pl. As. 187); Magna · sapientia / multasque · virtutes · Aetate · quom · parva / posidet · hoc · saxsum (CIL I2.11.2–3 (Scip. Elog., Rome, c.160 bc?)); . . . res obnoxiosae nocte in obscura latent. (Enn. scen. 303V=257J); Etenim cum sunt umore sine ullo, / flammeus plerumque colos et splendidus ollis. (Lucr. 6.207–8); Iam maris immensi prolem et genus omne natantum / litore in extremo ceu naufraga corpora fluctus / proluit. (Verg. G. 3.541–3); At parte in alia (parte alia Weissenborn) quingentis et per stagnum facilis transitus et in murum adscensus inde fuit. (Liv. 26.46.2); Idem ibi somnus eademque neglegentia erat quae Chalcidem dies ante paucos prodiderat. (Liv. 31.24.5); Nec puduit has vestes usurpare etiam viros levitatem propter aestivam. (Plin. Nat. 11.78); Qualis leo rupe sub alta . . . (Stat. Theb. 11.741); . . . quamquam et Aristoteles ab Isocrate parte in una dissenserit . . . (Quint. Inst. 4.2.32); . . . universus iamdudum orbis mitiora in opera conversis usibus ferri tranquillitate in mollissima degeret . . . (Arn. Nat. 1.6.3); . . . iudice sub tanto fandi tamen accipiet—ius. (Auson. Techn. 4.4) Genitival attributes: . . . oraclum Iovis inter aestuosi / et Batti veteris sacrum sepulcrum . . . (Catul. 7.5–6—NB: the modifier is split up by the preposition that governs the whole noun phrase); . . . Dardana qui Paridis derexti tela manusque / corpus in Aeacidae . . . (Verg. A. 6.57–8); Unde datum sentis lupus hic Tiberinus an alto / captus hiet, pontisne inter iactatus an amnis / ostia sub Tusci? (Hor. S. 2.2.31–3); . . . vergit furiale venenum / pectus in amborum praecordiaque intima movit. (Ov. Met. 4.506–7); Intrant pastorum stabula caprarumque uberibus advolant suctum propter lactis (Plin. Nat. 10.115); Nec Augustus arcuerat Taurum, Philippum, Balbum hostiles exuvias aut exundantes opes ornatum ad urbis et posterum gloriam conferre. (Tac. Ann. 3.72.1); . . . vim silicis fragmentis more subiectam venisque in eius abstrusam? (Arn. Nat. 7.50.4)

. The position of prepositions in restrictive appositive phrases The normal order of a preposition and a restrictive appositive phrase is with the preposition preceding, as in (a). An Early Latin exception with the preposition in the middle is (b). For further examples, especially from poetry, see the Supplement. For the use of prepositions in non-restrictive appositive phrases with toponyms, see § 11.82. (a)

Interea cognovi . . . magnas Parthorum copias Arabum ad oppidum Antiocheam accessisse . . .

 Word order (‘Meanwhile, I learned . . . that a large Parthian and Arab force had approached the town of Antioch . . .’ Cic. Fam. 15.4.7)

(b)

. . . ut civitas nomen mihi commutet meque ut praedicet / lenone ex Ballione regem Iasonem. (‘. . . so that the city changes my name and calls me King Jason instead of pimp Ballio.’ Pl. Ps. 192–3) Supplement: Celtiberia in terra, / quod quisque minxit, hoc sibi solet mane / dentem atque russam defricare gingivam . . . (Catul. 39.17–19); . . . usque ad Hyperboreos et mare ad Oceanum? (Catul. 115.6); . . . ut duros mille labores / rege sub Eurystheo fatis Iunonis iniquae pertulerit. (Verg. A. 8.291–3); . . . iudice sub Tmolo certamen venit ad inpar. (Ov. Met. 11.156); Nunc Iove sub domino caedes et vulnera semper . . . (Tib. 1.3.49); Andro in insula (vv. ll.) templo Liberi patris fontem Nonis Ianuariis semper vini saporem fuere Mucianus ter consul credit. (Plin. Nat. 2.231); . . . pectines— maximi et in his nigerrimi aestate laudatissimi, hi autem Mytilenis, Tyndaride, Salonis, Altini, Cia in insula, Alexandriae in Aegypto—. . . (Plin. Nat. 32.150); Et  Segestani aedem Veneris montem apud Erycum, vetustate dilapsam, restaurari postulavere . . . (Tac. Ann. 4.43.4)

. Discontinuous prepositional phrases Discontinuity in prepositional phrases is found in various forms. Apart from cases in which the discontinuity is caused by a clitic (for which see § 23.35) this phenomenon must be considered highly literary, with a few examples in Early Latin comedy and in Ennius. It is relatively uncommon in Classical prose. More instances can be found in poetry from Lucretius onwards. This development is, just like other forms of discontinuity, a purely stylistic one, showing an increasingly ingenious exploitation of the possibilities of the Latin language in verse.³¹⁷ The position of the preposition varies. It is placed either before or after the inserted material. In the examples presented below there are both instances in which the preposition governs only one word and—more frequent—instances which are complex, with at least one modifier. This gives several possibilities: (i)

(ii)

the preposition is separated by one or more elements that do not belong to the prepositional phrase: in (a) the preposition penes follows me with two words in between; the constituent governed by the preposition may be simple, as in (a), or complex, but with the constituents immediately juxtaposed; the preposition is separated together with part of the constituent it governs from the remaining part: in (b) the preposition in precedes together with the modifier quo the noun loco, with almost the entire clause in between; in (c) the preposition in follows Hellesponto together with the modifier alto;

³¹⁷ See Wilkinson (1963: 213–20) on this development, which is mainly a Roman phenomenon.

Word order in prepositional phrases  (iii) (iv)

(a)

sometimes the prepositional phrase is split up into more components, as in (d); an even more complicated instance arises if a complex modifier is distributed on both sides of the noun governed by the preposition, as in (e.i), taken from Arnobius, or if the preposition is placed in the middle of a complex modifier of the phrase it governs, as in (e.ii). Here we are approaching or possibly even transgressing the boundaries of the rules of Latin syntax. . . . nec tui me quicquam invenisti penes. (‘. . . and you didn’t find anything belonging to you on me.’ Pl. Aul. 654)

(b)

. . . commonstrabo quo in quemque hominem facile inveniatis loco, /… (‘I’ll show in which place you can easily find which sort of person.’ Pl. Cur. 467)

(c)

Isque Hellesponto pontem contendit in alto. (‘And he stretched a bridge over deep Hellespont.’ Enn. Ann. 378V=369S)

(d)

. . . in tamen humano contigit esse loco. (‘. . . I have yet had the good fortune to be in a place where men dwell.’ Ov. Pont. 1.3.48)

(e)

i. Atque utinam daretur in unius speciem contionis toto orbe contracto oratione hac uti ii. et humani in generis audientia conlocari. (‘Would that it might be granted to me here to address the whole world gathered together as in one assembly and that I might be placed within hearing of the whole human race.’ Arn. Nat. 1.29) Supplement: Simple or compact head constituents: Sine me (per te, ere, opsecro / deos immortales) ire huc intro ad filium. (Pl. Bac. 905–6); Maturo propior desine funeri / inter ludere virgines (Hor. Carm. 3.15.4–5); Contra quis ferat arma deos? (Tib. 1.6.30) Uxor virum si clam domo egressa est foras . . . (Pl. Mer. 821); . . . [et] thensaurum tuom / me esse penes . . . (Pl. Trin. 1145–6); . . . et quasi iam leti portas cunctarier ante. (Lucr. 3.67); Nam saepe Gigantum / ora volare videntur et umbram ducere late, / interdum magni montes avolsaque saxa / montibus anteire et solem succedere praeter . . . (Lucr. 4.136–9); . . . solus qui Paridem solitus contendere contra . . . (Verg. A. 5.370); Eum vasti circum gens umida ponti / exsultans rorem late dispersit amarum. (Verg. G. 4.430–1); . . . miles ne vallum litiget extra / et procul a signis. (Juv. 16.16–17) Discontinuous head constituents: Subulo quondam marinas propter astabat plagas. (Enn. Sat. 65V=14FRL); Age, ut rem esse in nostram putas. (Pl. Per. 609); Quam · in · quisque / decuriam · ita · viator · lectus · erit ·, is · in · ea . . . (CIL I2.587.I.33–4 etc. (Lex Cornel., Rome, 81 bc)); . . . cum homines humiliores in alienum eiusdem nominis infunderentur genus. (Cic. Brut. 62); . . . ut nullius oratoris aeque in potestate fuerit. (Cic. Brut. 274); Deinde, si qua ego in re fratri tuo rei publicae causa restiterim, ut mihi ignoscas . . . (Cic. Fam. 5.2.6); Omnia quae naturali ratione geruntur, / et quibus e fiant causis apparet origo. (Lucr. 6.760–1); . . . terque novas circum felix eat hostia fruges, . . . (Verg. G. 1.345); Quo ab adultero absolvitur an quo damnatur a viro? (Sen. Con. 2.7.9)

 Word order . . . vel rapidae flammis urar patienter in Aetnae . . . (Ov. Tr. 5.2b.31); . . . inbecillitatis auxilia animalibus mutuarentur a mutis . . . (Arn. Nat. 2.40.1) Multiple discontinuity: Quin etiam finis dum vitae vertitur intra . . . (Lucr. 3.592); . . . cum saevum cupiens contra contendere monstrum / aut mortem appeteret Theseus . . . (Catul. 64.101–2); Per tibi ego hunc iuro fortem castumque cruorem, / perque tuos manes . . . (Ov. Fast. 2.841–2); . . . inque sinu dominae carisque sodalibus inque / securus patria consenuisse mea. (Ov. Tr. 4.8.11–12)

23.97 The relative order of constituents in phrases with the auxiliary sum ‘to be’ and other auxiliaries As an auxiliary (see § 4.93), the verb sum is used to form complex forms with perfect participle forms, either forms of the type factus est ‘he was made’, which is the passive counterpart of the synthetic active perfect form fecit ‘he/she/it made’, or forms of deponent verbs of the type usus est ‘he used’, for which no active counterpart exists. The verb sum is also used to form other complex verbal expressions that do not belong to the paradigm proper, such as laudaturus est ‘he is going to praise’ and laudandus est ‘he must be praised’; these will be left out of account in the discussion below of the relative order of the component parts of the complex perfect verb forms (§ 23.98). Another auxiliary that plays a role in the verbal paradigm is the infinitive iri, used to form future passive infinitives such as laudatum iri ‘going to be praised’ (see § 7.72); the relative order of iri and its supine form in -um is discussed in § 23.99. In Late Latin the verb habeo is sometimes used in combination with a perfect passive participle as an alternative for the synthetic active form (see § 7.37). However, there are not sufficient attestations to discuss the relative order of the components. The modal, habitual, and phasal auxiliaries (see § 4.98) are regularly combined with present infinitives, as in (a), with the modal auxiliary potest. Note in (b) the perfect passive form of the phasal verb incipio with the auxiliary est. The relative order of these auxiliaries and their infinitives is discussed in § 23.100. (a)

. . . sues, / quarum odore praeterire nemo pistrinum potest. (‘ . . . pigs, because of whose stench no one can go past the mill.’ Pl. Capt. 807–8)

(b)

. . . ante petitam esse pecuniam quam esset coepta deberi . . . (‘. . . that money had been claimed before it had become payable . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 1.168)

. The relative order in complex verb forms with the auxiliary sum ‘to be’ This section deals with the relative order of complex forms with the auxiliary sum. In Classical prose, the continuous order of the component parts is definitely more

Relative order in phrases with auxiliaries  frequent than the discontinuous, and the sequence with the auxiliary postposed more frequent than the inverse order, although there is considerable variation from author to author and also between different works by the same author, for example in Caesar’s work. When these forms are placed in first position of the sentence the particles autem and enim relatively often follow the combination instead of causing discontinuity.³¹⁸ Table 23.13 gives some statistics from a Classical prose corpus, which shows a minor difference between the passive factus est and deponent usus est types.³¹⁹ In addition to the four possibilities given in Table 23.13 there is a fifth, namely ellipsis of the sum form, which is left out of account.³²⁰ Table . The relative order of compound verb forms with the auxiliary sum Sequence

Total

factus est

150

56

usus est

26

10

usus . . . est

factus . . . est

Percentage

Sequence

est factus

55

21

est usus

est . . . factus

34

13

est . . . usus

265

100

Total

 

Total

Percentage

70

70

5

5

19

19

6

6

100

100

The various ordering possibilities are mainly determined by the pragmatic constellation of the context. The continuous sequence factus est is used when the action is the focus of the clause. Often it is also the final constituent of the clause. Examples are (a)–(c). (a)

Te multum amamus quod ea abs te diligenter parvoque curata sunt. (‘I am most grateful to you, because this was administered by you with much care and for little money.’ Cic. Att. 1.3.2)

(b)

Provincias praetores nondum sortiti sunt. (‘The Praetors have not yet drawn lots for their provinces.’ Cic. Att. 1.13.5)

(c)

Cum civitas ob eam rem incitata armis ius suum exsequi conaretur multitudinemque hominum ex agris magistratus cogerent, Orgetorix mortuus est. (‘The state, being incensed at this, essayed to secure its due rights by force of arms, and the magistrates were bringing together a number of men from the country parts, when Orgetorix died.’ Caes. Gal. 1.4.4)

³¹⁸ See Spevak (2012b: 342–8). ³¹⁹ The data are taken from Spevak (2010a: 151, 155). The corpus consists of Cic. Off., Dom., Phil. 1–4, Caes. Civ., Sal. Jug. The most detailed accounts are Vogel (1938) on Caesar and Sallust, Adams (1994b: 34–43), Hoff (1996) with data from Caesar, Devine and Stephens (2006: 179–98) with data from Caesar, and Spevak (2010a: 149–56). Bourova (paper ICLL, Brussels 2005) says that in Petronius 81 per cent of the sum forms under consideration follow, 95 per cent in the Peregrinatio. For Augustine, who follows the Ciceronian practice, see Muldowney (1937: 129–35); see also Stengaard (1985: 217) and Herman (1996a: 67), and, for the jurists (scriptum est), Meyer-Hermann (2019: 519–20). ³²⁰ For the factus est type Spevak (2010a: 151) has 265 instances with, 103 without the auxiliary. Ellipsis is common in Sallust.

 Word order Supplement: Post autem neque sacrificiis sollemnibus factis neque votis nuncupatis non profectus est, sed profugit paludatus. (Cic. Phil. 5.24—non has constituent scope, see § 8.3 and § 8.7); Ita comitia in a. d. VI Kal. Sext. dilata sunt. (Cic. Att. 1.16.13); . . . multaque a me de ordinum dignitate et concordia dicta sunt Kal. Dec. et postridie. (Cic. Att. 1.17.9); Valerius absolutus est Hortensio defendente. (Cic. Att. 2.3.1); Eadem enim elata sunt primum a pluribus. (Cic. de Orat. 1.192); Quibus submotis omnes sagittarii funditoresque destituti inermes sine praesidio interfecti sunt. (Caes. Civ. 3.93.7); Statim allatae sunt amphorae vitreae diligenter gypsatae . . . (Petr. 34.6); Hora ergo quarta pervenimus in summitatem illam montis Dei Sancti Syna, ubi data est lex . . . (Pereg. 3.2); Nonne tibi prolocutus sum adversum me delicta mea, Deus meus . . .? (August. Conf. 1.6); Quippe ex voluntate perversa facta est libido . . . (August. Conf. 8.10)

The reverse order est factus applies if another constituent of the clause is more salient. In that case the phrase may be continuous or discontinuous, depending on the complexity of the clause. Est follows the salient constituent. Examples are (d) and (e). The auxiliary can be anteposed in strong assertions (see § 23.45), as in (f). The order can also be used to achieve a preferred clausula or for other aesthetic considerations (see Augustine in the Supplement). (d)

Sed nunc magis in suo est occupatus, in quo ego ei non desum. (‘But at present he is more concerned with one of his own, in which I am doing what I can for him.’ Cic. Att. 1.16.17)

(e)

Castra opportunis locis erant posita itemque castella XXIII facta . . . (‘Camps had been pitched at convenient spots, and twenty-three forts had been constructed as well . . .’ Caes. Gal. 7.69.7)

(f)

Qua re et illa quae violata expiabuntur et haec nostra, quae sunt sanctissime conservata, suam religionem obtinebunt. (‘Therefore trespasses shall be made good while our friendship, which has been preserved inviolate, shall remain as sacred as ever.’ Cic. Att. 1.17.7) Supplement: Continuous: Petitorum haec est informata adhuc cogitatio. (Cic. Att. 1.1.2); Caesar cum venisset mortuo plausu, Curio filius est insecutus. (Cic. Att. 2.19.3); Pollicem, si adhuc non est profectus, quam primum fac extrudas. (Cic. Fam. 14.6—non goes with adhuc); . . . parsque ibi, cum angusto exitu portarum se ipsi premerent, a militibus, pars iam egressa portis ab equitibus est interfecta. (Caes. Gal. 7.28.3); Laudationem ferculum est insecutum plane non pro expectatione magnum. (Petr. 35.1); . . . credunt Arionem . . . cum esset deiēctŭs ē nāvī, exceptum delphini dorso et ad terras ēssĕ pērvēctŭm. (August. Civ. 1.14—NB: clausula)³²¹ Discontinuous: . . . eos dies qui quasi deorum immortalium festi atque sollemnes apud omnis sunt adventu meo redituque celebrati? (Cic. Pis. 51); Cenato mihi et iam dormitanti prid. Kal. Mai. epistula est illa reddita in qua de agro Campano scribis.

³²¹ For rhythmic considerations in Augustine, see Muldowney (1937: 134).

Relative order in phrases with auxiliaries  (Cic. Att. 2.16.1); Recentissima tua est epistula Kalendis data, in qua optas congressum pacemque non desperas. Sed ego . . . (Cic. Att. 8.15.3); Signaque sunt militaria VI relata. (Caes. Civ. 3.53.2); Complures erant in castris ex legionibus aegri relicti. (Caes. Gal. 6.36.1) Assertive: Es enim ita ingressus ut quae ipse reperias tribuere aliis malis quam . . . (Cic. Rep. 2.22); Sed est miro quodam modo adfectus. (Cic. Att. 1.5.5); Est enim illud senatus consultum summa pedariorum voluntate, nullius nostrum auctoritate factum. (Cic. Att. 1.19.9); Est enim per nostrum ministerium non litteris illis quas variarum servi libidinum liberales vocant, sed Dominico pane nutritus . . . (August. Ep. 101.1)

The discontinuous order factus . . . est may serve to contrast the participial part with another constituent, as in (g), where erepta is in contrast with donata (there is also another contrast between vita and mors, both focus constituents). In (h), however, no contrast is implied: tabula is the focus of the main clause, with a following heavy relative clause, separated from its head by est. The negator non regularly splits the phrase, when functioning as a clause negator, as in (i).³²² (g)

Sed ii tamen rem publicam casus secuti sunt ut mihi non erepta L. Crasso a dis immortalibus vita, sed donata mors esse videatur. (‘But the national disasters that followed have been such as to make me feel that the powers above did not rob Lucius Crassus of life but vouchsafed to him the gift of death.’ Cic. de Orat. 3.8)

(h)

At quam caeca avaritia est! Nuper fixa tabula est qua civitates locupletissimae Cretensium vectigalibus liberantur . . . (‘But how blind avarice is! An official notice was lately posted exempting the richest communities in Crete from taxation . . .’ Cic. Phil. 2.97)

(i)

. . . quia sumptum quaestor non dedit, profectus non est. (‘. . . because the Treasurer did not supply funds he did not set out.’ Cic. Inv. 2.124) Supplement: . . . ut abs te non emissus ex urbe, sed immissus in urbem esse videatur? (Cic. Catil. 1.27); Acta res est. (Cic. Att. 1.14.5); Adflicta res publica est empto constupratoque iudicio. (Cic. Att. 1.18.3); Res delata ad senatum est. (Cic. Att. 2.24.2); . . . etsi prope exacta iam aestas erat, tamen . . . (Caes. Gal. 3.28.1); Quae minime visa pars firma est huc concurritur. (Caes. Gal. 7.84.3); Admissus ergo Caesarem est cum suo munere . . . (Petr. 51.2 (Trimalchio speaking)); In eo ergo vico, qui est in media planitie positus in medio loco, est monticulus non satis grandis . . . (Pereg. 13.3)³²³

. The position of the auxiliary iri With a few exceptions in Terence, the regular position of the auxiliary iri is immediately after the supine form in -um. Examples are (a) and (b). See also § 7.72. ³²² See Devine and Stephens (2006: 183–4). ³²³ This is one of the two discontinuous instances in this text. See Väänänen (1987: 113).

 Word order (a)

Brutum, ut scribis, visum iri a me puto. (‘As you write, I think I shall see Brutus.’ Cic. Att. 15.25.1)

(b)

Et illam sine tua opera in cubiculum iri deductum domum? (‘And she would be conducted to your home as your bride without any effort on your part?’ Ter. Ad. 694)

. The relative order of infinitives and the verbs that govern them The relevant studies on the order of auxiliary and other verbs and the infinitives they govern deal both with auxiliaries proper, such as the modal auxiliary possum ‘I can’ and the phasal auxiliary incipio/coepi ‘I begin’/‘I began’ (see § 4.98), and with other verbs that govern a prolative infinitive (see §§ 15.122, 123, 125, 126). In the remainder of this section ‘auxiliary’ will be used to cover both groups of verbs. There is much quantitive information available about the relative order of auxiliary and other verbs and the infinitives they govern. Unfortunately, not much research has been done on the factors that determine the orders recorded. In Plautus, anteposition of the infinitive is as frequent as postposition. In Cato, anteposition predominates. In Cicero, the order infinitive + auxiliary is roughly twice as frequent as the reverse. In Caesar the order infinitive + auxiliary is even more dominant. In non-literary Latin, as exemplified by Claudius Terentianus, the Vindolanda Tablets, and the freedmen’s talk in Petronius, the order auxiliary + infinitive predominates by far. This is also the case in Vitruvius. In Late Latin texts, auxiliary + infinitive is the dominant order. In the Peregrinatio, for example, this is the case in two-thirds of instances, and in the speeches it is even more predominant. In the works of Augustine, however, anteposition and postposition of the auxiliary are almost equal.³²⁴ Most often the auxiliary and infinitive are contiguous, but discontinuity is not uncommon, in both orders. The four possibilities are shown in (a)–(d). (a)

Atque utinam ut culpam, sic etiam suspicionem vitare potuisses! (‘It is a pity you could not avoid the suspicion, as you avoided the guilt.’ Cic. Phil. 1.33)

(b)

Quin etiam corpus libenter optulerim, si repraesentari morte mea libertas civitatis potest . . . (‘Yes, and I should be happy to offer my body if my death can bring into reality the freedom of our state . . .’ Cic. Phil. 2.119)

(c)

Sunt quaedam quae honeste non possum dicere. (‘There are some things of which I cannot decently speak.’ Cic. Phil. 2.47)

³²⁴ Statistical data can be found in Orinsky on Gaius (1923: 91–5), Haida on the Peregrinatio (1928: 39–41), Muldowney on Augustine (1937: 137), Adams (1991; 2013: 825–32; 2016: 331), and Moretti (2017: 488; 492–3). See also Stengaard (1985) and Meyer-Hermann (2019: 509–10).

Relative order in phrases with auxiliaries  (d)

Nec vero te umquam neque vigilantem neque in somnis credo posse mente consistere. (‘Nor do I believe that you, either waking or sleeping, can ever act with quiet sense.’ Cic. Phil. 2.68)

As for the factors involved in the choice of the four orders shown in these examples I offer some suggestions based on a limited study of possum in Cicero (see the note below): in (a), the most common order in Cicero, the infinitive and auxiliary function as one information unit, simply indicating what happens or is being done. In (b), discontinuous in the same order, the infinitive is emphatic. The order auxiliary + infinitive is used when an emphatic constituent precedes, which seems to attract the auxiliary, as honeste in (c). Discontinuity in this order is used when the auxiliary is emphatic, as in (d). Another instance of anteposition of the auxiliary is (e), an assertive statement with poteras in sentence-initial position (see §  23.45). Apart from such pragmatic factors, artistic considerations may play a role. A good example of chiastic arrangement is (f). Further research is required. (e)

Poteras autem eo tempore auguratum petere, cum in Italia Curio non esset . . . (‘Besides, could you stand for the augurate at that time seeing that Curio was out of Italy . . .’ Cic. Phil. 2.4)

(f)

Sed si te laus adlicere ad recte faciendum non potest, ne metus quidem a foedissimis factis potest avocare? (‘But if praise cannot entice you into doing right, cannot even fear deter you from the foulest offences?’ Cic. Phil. 2.115) In Cic. Phil. 1 and 2 the distribution of the orders in the 96 instances of the modal auxiliary possum is: Inf. Aux. 58 (13), Inf. . . . Aux. 7 (3), Aux. Inf. 17 (2), Aux. . . . Inf. 14 (1). This includes all forms of possum in all sentence or clause types. The figures between brackets indicate the number of instances in which the auxiliary is preceded by non. The frequency of use of one of the components as the last word of the sentence is 26, 3, 4, and 7, respectively. In Caesar, forms of possum massively follow the infinitive, with the exception of the infinitive form posse: c.15 per cent are Aux. Inf. An example is (g). Note that this is in indirect speech.³²⁵ (g) Paratos esse sese, posse et audere ea transire flumen qua traductus esset equitatus. (‘That they were ready, able, and willing to cross the river where the cavalry had crossed.’ Caes. Civ. 1.64.2)

Although there is a clear diachronic trend towards the order auxiliary + infinitive, which is the standard order in the Romance languages, it is interesting to note that the ³²⁵ See also Adams (2013: 830, n. 4). In the Pereg. negated possum follows the infinitive, whereas in affirmative sentences it normally precedes (Haida  1928: 40). For the role of negation, see also Nocentini (1987: 152–3).

 Word order four different orderings illustrated by (a)–(d) continued to be used into Late Latin, as can be seen for the verb possum in the Supplement. Supplement: Inf. Aux.: Et uti eo introeas et circumspicias, uti inde exire possis. (Cato Agr. 1.2); Neque tamen ulli civitati Germanorum persuaderi potuit ut Rhenum transiret . . . (Caes. Gal. 5.55.2); . . . quas habeant omnes colores in se potestates, ut mihi succurrere potuit, in hoc libro perscripsi. (Vitr. 7.14.3); Plane etiam hoc servus tuus indicare potest. (Petr. 41.3 (a freedman speaking)); Nam michi credat volo affectio vestra, quantum tamen pervidere potui, filios Israhel sic ambulasse . . . (Pereg. 7.3) Inf. . . . Aux.: His persuaderi ut diutius morarentur neque suis auxilium ferrent non poterat. (Caes. Gal. 2.10.5); Imperium se a Caesare per proditionem nullum desiderare quod habere victoria posset, quae iam sit sibi atque omnibus Gallis explorata. (Caes. Gal. 7.20.7); . . . in umido voragine facta consedit nec progredi nec egredi postea potuit. (Vitr. 10.16.7); Hoc solum vetare ne Iovis potest. (Petr. 47.4 (Trimalchio speaking)); . . . monachos valde sanctos, qui tamen pro etate aut inbecillitate occurrere in monte Dei ad oblationem faciendam non poterant. (Pereg. 5.10) Aux. Inf.: Si ligna et virgas non poteris vendere neque lapidem habebis unde calcem coquas . . . (Cato Agr. 38.4); (sc. se) . . . unum consilium totius Galliae effecturum, cuius consensui ne orbis quidem terrarum possit obsistere. (Caes. Gal. 7.29.6—NB: in a speech); Eaeque catenae ex ea materia comparentur cui nec caries nec vetustas nec umor possit nocere . . . (Vitr. 7.3.1); Quia tu, qui potes loquere, non loquis. (Petr. 46.1 (Echion speaking)); Hanc ergo consuetudinem iubente Deo semper tenuimus, ubicumque ad loca desiderata potuimus pervenire. (Pereg. 10.7) Aux. . . . Inf.: Ubi erit subactus, areas facito, ut possis dextra sinistraque sarire, runcare, ne calcetur. (Cato Agr. 161.1); Ita cum explicaretur, volvebat rotas, sed non poterat ad lineam via recta ducere, sed exibat in unam partem. (Vitr. 10.2.14); Poterat bovem iratum tollere. (Petr. 63.5 (Trimalchio speaking)); . . . omnis terra Iordanis, in quantum tamen poterat oculis conspici. (Pereg. 12.5)

For the phasal auxiliary coepi ‘I began’, all four orderings are attested in Cicero, Inf. Aux. being the most frequent. Examples of the four ordering possibilities are (h)–(k). Note in (k) the parallelism of the three indirect questions with the finite verbs in clause-initial position (see § 15.52).³²⁶ (h)

Hospes Ianitor . . . hominem summa vi retinere coepit. (‘His host Ianitor . . . began most urgently to dissuade him from going.’ Cic. Ver. 1.64)

(i)

(sc. Apronius) . . . tum maxime cum accubante praetextato praetoris filio saltare in convivio nudus coeperat. (‘. . . especially then, when he began to dance naked at the feast while the young son of the praetor was sitting by.’ Cic. Ver. 3.23)

³²⁶ For statistics concerning the position of the infinitive with coepi, see Adams (2013: 826). For the position of the infinitive with habeo, see § 7.27.

Discontinuity of coordinated constituents ( j)



(sc. Laetilius) Repente coepit dicere se omnia Verris causa velle. (‘He began forthwith to tell people that he was ready to do anything for Verres.’ Cic. Ver. 2.64)

(k)

Nam quaero abs te, circumsessusne sis Lampsaci, coeperitne domum in qua deversabare illa multitudo incendere, voluerintne legatum populi Romani comburere vivum Lampsaceni. (‘For I ask you whether you were besieged at Lampsacum, whether the crowd there began to set fire to the house where you were staying, whether the people of Lampsacum intended to burn a Roman governor alive?’ Cic. Ver. 1.78) In Cic. Ver. the distribution of the orders in the 63 instances of coepi is: Inf. Aux. 40, Inf. . . . Aux. 11, Aux. Inf. 7, Aux. . . . Inf. 5. This includes all forms of coepi in all sentence or clause types. For 58 instances in Petronius (1–85.3) the data are: Inf. Aux. 17 (3), Inf. . . . Aux. 13, Aux. Inf. 12 (3), Aux. . . . Inf. 16 (7). The figures between brackets are in direct speech (mostly freedmen). In the Pereg. there are 22 instances of Aux. (…) Inf., 2 in the reverse order.³²⁷ Supplement: Interrogare ergo atriensem coepi quas in medio picturas haberent. (Petr. 29.9); Homo meus coepit ad stelas facere . . . (Petr. 62.4 (Niceros speaking)); Sed, quod coeperam dicere, postquam lupus factus est, ululare coepit et in silvas fugit. (Petr. 62.7 (Niceros speaking)) Statim ergo cepimus ire cum eo pedibus totum per vallem amenissimam . . . (Pereg. 15.2); Itaque ergo ire cepimus iter nostrum sicut singulis diebus. (Pereg. 16.4); Ac sic ergo cum ceperit se hora septima facere, omnes ad Lazarium veniunt. (Pereg. 29.3)

In the Supplement below a few instances are cited from the Pereg. of prolative infinitives with some other, not properly auxiliary, verbs. Although the order Aux. Inf. is predominant, with these verbs too there is considerable flexibility. Supplement (in alphabetical order by verb): . . . non cessabam Deo nostro Iesu gratias agere . . . (Pereg. 23.9); Tunc statim illi sancti dignati sunt singula ostendere. (Pereg. 3.7); Qui tamen sanctus episcopus nobis Ramessen occurrere dignatus est. (Pereg. 8.4);. . . et iam unusquisque hiens ad domum suam festinat manducare . . . (Pereg. 35.2); Quod cum dixisset, nos satis avidi optati sumus ire . . .(Pereg. 10.9)

23.101 Discontinuity of coordinated constituents If a constituent consists of two or more conjoins the second or later conjoin may be separated from the preceding conjoin by one or more constituents. The coordinator goes with the postposed conjoin. Examples with coordinated adjectives and proper ³²⁷ See Haida (1928: 40). The use of coepi as a phasal auxiliary remains stable over time (Galdi 2016a).

 Word order names are (a) and (b), respectively. In these examples the separating elements are syntactically related to the separated elements, but this need not be the case (that is, they may be ‘alien’ elements). See the Supplement. (a)

Nam T. Aufidius . . . volebat esse similis horum eratque et bonus vir et innocens, sed dicebat parum. (‘For Titus Aufidius . . . strove to be like these, and he was a good and blameless man, but his reputation as a speaker was slight.’ Cic. Brut. 179)

(b)

Si quidem ante Solonis aetatem et Pisistrati de nullo ut diserto memoriae proditum est. (‘Since before the age of Solon and Pisistratus there is no record of any notable speaker.’ Cic. Brut. 39)

This form of discontinuity is especially common when one—most often the last—of the constituents is a heavy constituent. It may also be pragmatically motivated, to mark the saliency of one or both conjoins. Paired coordinators, such as et . . . et and nec . . . nec . . . nec in (a), (c), and (d), are relatively frequent; they mark the saliency of the individual conjoins. The separation of conjoins is also used to achieve a special rhythmic effect, as in (e) from Ammianus. It mainly concerns conjunctive coordination, but note (f).³²⁸ This form of discontinuity is common in all periods of Latin. (c)

. . . propius admovent, ut et usu eius quem diligere coeperunt fruantur et moribus… (‘. . . they move closer so that they may enjoy both the company of him whom they began to love and his character . . .’ Cic. Amic. 32)

(d)

. . . qui eas nec disponere nec inlustrare possit nec delectatione aliqua allicere lectorem . . . (‘. . . who was neither able to arrange them nor explain them nor attract the reader by some sort of charm . . .’ Cic. Tusc. 1.6)

(e)

Adeo autem ferox erat in suos illis temporibus miles et rapax, ignavus vero in hostes et fractus, ut . . . (‘Moreover, the soldiers of those times were so arrogant toward their countrymen and greedy, but so cowardly and feeble before the enemy, that . . .’ Amm. 22.4.7)

(f)

Formae dignitas aut morbo deflorescit aut vetustate. (‘Excellence of appearance fades either with sickness or with age.’ Rhet. Her. 4.38)³²⁹ Supplement: Discontinuous clauses: Nec quid dicatis scire nec me quor ludatis possum. (Pl. As. 730)

³²⁸ Devine and Stephens  (2006: 586–91) call this form of discontinuity ‘conjunct hyperbaton’. Some examples are taken from them. ³²⁹ This sentence is given as an illustration of coniunctio (putting the verb in the middle of a coordinated pair of constituents), described as a means to achieve brevitas, ‘quare saepius adhibenda est’.

Discontinuity of coordinated constituents



Discontinuous verb forms (+ dependent constituents): . . . ut simulet se tuam esse uxorem et deperire hunc militem. (Pl. Mil. 796); Vinum ad se omnino inportari non patiuntur, quod ea re ad laborem ferendum remollescere homines atque effeminari arbitrantur. (Caes. Gal. 4.2.5); Qua victoria elatus plurima miscere coepit et maiora concupiscere. (Nep. Paus. 1.3); Mirari nos celeritatem coepimus et iurare ne gallum quidem gallinaceum tam cito percoqui potuisse . . . (Petr. 49.2); Tunc ergo gratias ei agere coepi et rogare ut duceret nos ad locum . . . (Pereg. 15.2) Discontinuous arguments: Modo eam reliqui ad portum in navi et servolum. (Pl. Mer. 108); Me quidem iam satis tibi spectatam censebam esse et meos mores. (Pl. Per. 171); . . . ibi cacumina populorum serito et harundinetum. (Cato Agr. 6.3); Unus enim Xenophontis libellus . . . facile omnis imagines omnium statuasque superavit. (Cic. Fam. 5.12.7); Statim sancti monachi . . . arbusculas ponunt et pomariola instituunt vel arationes. (Pereg. 3.6); Cuius bona multis cognita dicemus et vitia. (Amm. 31.14.1)³³⁰ Sed lubricos oculos fecit et mobiles . . . (Cic. N.D. 2.142); Quod erit, magnificum sit et lautum. (Cic. Fam. 9.16.8) Discontinuous satellites: . . . Romam venit Mario consule et Catulo. (Cic. Arch. 5) Bene ego istam eduxi meae domi et pudice. (Pl. Cur. 518); (sc. philosophiam) . . . quae de maximis quaestionibus copiose posset ornateque dicere. (Cic. Tusc. 1.7); Invectus est copiosius multo in istum et paratius Dolabella quam nunc ego. (Cic. Phil. 2.79) Eo fistulam ferream indito quae in columellam conveniat et in cupam. (Cato Agr. 21.1); Ex iis evulsis ex alis pinnis et e cauda farciunt . . . (Var. R. 3.9.20) Discontinuous modifiers: Iustam rem et facilem esse oratam a vobis volo. (Pl. Am. 33); In sicco et macro loco et argilloso vernum tempus idoneum, quo minus habet umoris . . . (Var. R. 1.40.3); . . . agro non semel arato, sed novato et iterato, quo meliores fetus possit et grandiores edere. (Cic. de Orat. 2.131); Anceps et pulchra contentio exituque ipso mirabilis. (Flor. Epit. 1.1.3.4) Ita illi ipsi doctrinae studiis et sapientiae dediti ad hominum utilitatem suam intellegentiam . . . conferunt. (Cic. Off. 1.156) Discontinuous constituents of a prepositional phrase (see also § 23.91 fin.): Sed hic rex cum aceto pransuru’st et sale . . . (Pl. Rud. 937); . . . singultusque frequens noctem per saepe diemque / corripere assidue nervos . . . (Lucr. 6.1160–1— NB: per is postposed); . . . manibus sine non nulli pedibusque manebant / in vita . . . (Lucr. 6.1210–11—NB: sine is postposed) From Catullus onwards coordinators are sometimes placed inside the second (or later) conjoin instead of preceding it. Examples are (g)–(i). For postponement of these words when functioning as connectors, see § 23.21.³³¹ (g) Iuppiter omnipotens, utinam ne tempore primo / Cnosia Cecropiae tetigissent litora puppes, / indomito nec dira ferens stipendia tauro / perfidus in Creta religasset navita funem . . . ³³⁰ The placement of et vitia is ‘cursus causa’, according to den Boeft et al. ad loc. ³³¹ For examples in poetry from Catullus onwards, see Norden, Anhang IIIB3 (incomplete, also includes connectors). For et, see TLL s.v. 897.52ff. (includes connectors).

 Word order (‘Almighty Jupiter, I would the Attic ships had never touched Cnosian shores, nor ever the faithless voyager, bearing the dreadful tribute to the savage bull, had fastened his cable in Crete . . .’ Catul. 64.171–4 ) (h) Quamvis multa meis exiret victima saeptis, / pinguis et ingratae premeretur caseus urbi . . . (‘Though many a victim left my stalls, and many a rich cheese was pressed for the thankless town . . .’ Verg. Ecl. 1.33–4) (i) . . . solacia luctus / exigua ingentis misero sed debita patri. (‘. . . scant solace for grief so vast, but owed to a father’s sorrow.’ Verg. A. 11.61–2)

23.102 Tmesis The term tmesis in a strict sense is used to refer to the separation of the parts of a compound verb by one or more intervening constituents. The phenomenon is highly literary and clearly inspired by Homer. The first example is from Ennius and then instances are found with some frequency from Lucretius onwards. In (a), the preverb de- has no corresponding adverb. Therefore, it can only be understood in combination with hortatur, which by itself is a meaningful form without the preverb. Circum- in (b) has a corresponding adverb, and dare can also be the infinitive of the simplex do, but on syntactic and semantic grounds (the presence of the dative collo) circum has to be taken in combination with dare. Sometimes the morphology of the verbal element leaves no doubt, as in (c) -iecta, which can only be explained from the compound intericio. Sometimes, there are instances where it is hard to decide. The preverbial element usually precedes, but see (b). The separating element is often the coordinator -que (see § 23.103), a connector (such as enim in (c)), a pronoun, as me in (a), or an adverb, but Virgil introduces the use of nouns, such as bracchia in (b). The overall number of instances in the Augustan poets and before, including the instances discussed in § 23.103, is in the order of fifty.³³² In Late Latin tmesis is rare (an exceptional instance is (d)). (a)

Hannibal audaci cum pectore de me hortatur / ne bellum faciam . . . (‘Hannibal of audacious heart urges me not to wage war . . .’ Enn. Ann. 381–2V=371–2S)

(b)

Ter conatus ibi collo dare bracchia circum. (‘Thrice there I strove to throw my arms about her neck.’ Verg. A. 6.700)

³³² For further instances, see Marouzeau (1949: 150–2). For the various types of tmesis and for tmesis in Lucretius and Virgil, see Bernard (1960). For the poetical character of the phenomenon, see: Poetae quidem etiam verborum divisione faciunt transgressionem: ‘Hyperboreo septem subiecta trioni’ (= Verg. G. 3.381), quod oratio nequaquam recipiet. (Quint. Inst. 8.6.66).

Tmesis (c)



Inter enim iecta’st vitai pausa . . . (‘For in between has been cast a stoppage of life . . .’ Lucr. 3.859)

(d)

. . . qui in hisdem diebus tante solennitati inter non fuerit . . . (‘. . . who during these days did not take part in this solemn feast . . .’ Pereg. 49.2) Supplement: Comedy and poetry: Siquid super illi fuerit, id nobis sat est. (Pl. Cur. 85); . . . quasi numquam quicquid in eas simulem . . . (Pl. St. 77); Per ecastor scitu’ puer est natu’ Pamphilo. (Ter. An. 486); Cetera de genere hoc inter quaecumque pretantur, / omnia perversa praepostera sunt ratione . . . (Lucr. 4.832–3); . . . nec loca lux inter quasi rupta relinquit. (Lucr. 5.299); . . . pingue superque oleum fundens ardentibus extis . . . (Verg. A. 6.254); . . . Achates / succepitque ignem foliis atque arida circum / nutrimenta dedit . . . (Verg. A. 1.174–6); Miraris, cum tu argento post omnia ponas, / si . . . (Hor. S. 1.1.86–7); Et iam Dulichios portus Ithacamque Samonque / Neritiasque domus, regnum fallacis Ulixis, / praeter erant vecti. (Ov. Met. 13.711–13) Prose: . . . Atheniensibus exhaustis praeter arma et naves nihil erat super. (Nep. Alc. 8.1—NB: with inversion); At illis vix decumae super portiones erant . . . (Tac. Hist. 1.20.1)

A different type, also called tmesis, is formed by adjectival and adverbial compounds with the prefix per- ‘very’, as in (e) and (f), and pronominal compounds with -cumque ‘ever’ (and more rarely -libet ‘as you please’, and -vis ‘as you wish’), as in (g). (e)

Per pol saepe peccas. (‘You’re making a lot of mistakes.’ Pl. Cas. 370)

(f)

Per mihi, per, inquam, gratum feceris . . . (‘You’ll do me a great, a very great pleasure indeed . . .’ Cic. Att. 1.20.7)

(g)

Quid male facio aut quoi male dico? # Quoi pol quomque occasio est. (‘What am I doing badly or who am I talking about badly? # About anyone you get a chance to.’ Pl. Per. 210) Supplement: With per-: Per enim magni aestimo tibi firmitudinem animi nostri et factum nostrum probari. (Cic. Att. 10.1.1); . . . et quidem ibi te quam primum per videre velim. (Cic. Att. 15.4.2—NB: with a verb); . . . per fore accommodatum tibi si . . . (Cic. Fam. 3.5.3) With -cumque: In qua harum parte cumque sit † inferendo † et cuius modi videndum. (Var. L. 10.4.72); . . . quam se cumque in partem dedisset, omnium fuit facile princeps . . . (Cic. de Orat. 3.60); Ut enim heri feci, sic nunc rationem, quo ea me cumque ducet, sequar. (Cic. Tusc. 2.15); Qua porro cumque tenet se / corpus, ea vacuum nequaquam constat inane. (Lucr. 1.508–9); . . . semper honos nomenque tuum laudesque manebunt, / quae me cumque vocant terrae. (Verg. A. 1.609–10); Qua se cumque furens medio tulit agmine virgo, / hac Arruns subit. (Verg. A. 11.762–3); Quale tamen cumque est, ut tueare, rogo. (Ov. Pont. 3.4.6); . . . quem Fors

 Word order dierum cumque dabit lucro / appone . . . (Hor. Carm. 1.9.14–15); Garrulus hunc quando consumet cumque: . . . (Hor. S. 1.9.33); . . . movent ut mundum sidera cumque. (Man. 3.141) In the case of per- and -cumque one may hold that they are (still) adverbs. In the same way are explained Early Latin instances of separated quid + ni, at + qui, and facio/fio compounds such as (h). Catullus exploits the possibilities of tmesis by inserting tibi between quod and si in (i). For ob vos sacro and sub vos placo, mentioned as instances of tmesis in certain prayers by Festus (p. 190), and for manum endo iacito (Lex 1.2), see Bernard  (1960: 34–5). Very odd is ( j), falsely ascribed to Ennius, with a noncompound noun split up by its governing verb. (h)

Consue quoque faciunt ut alligari possint primum levibus vinclis. (‘They are also accustomed to being tied, at first with slight leashes.’ Var. R. 2.9.13)

(i)

Quod tibi si sancti concesserit incola Itoni . . . (‘But if she who dwells in holy Itonus shall grant thee . . .’ Catul. 64.228)

( j)

saxo cere comminuit brum (‘he crushed his brain with a rock’ Enn. Ann. 609V=Spur. 5S)

Other oddities: conque tubernalem (Lucil. 1137M=1152K); Invenies praesto subiuncta petorrita mulis: / Villa Lucani—mox potieris—aco. (Aus. Ep. 15.35–6)

. Tmesis created by the coordinator -que An early instance of coordination of a compound verb with the coordinator -que separating the preverb and the verb is found in Plautus, as in (a). Lucretius exploits its obvious metrical advantages (seventeen out of twenty-five instances of tmesis), but Virgil uses it less frequently. An example with the negative prefix in- is (b). (a)

Nam apsque foret te, sat scio in alto / distraxissent disque tulissent satellites tui me miserum foede . . . (‘Had it not been for you, I know well enough that your attendants would have torn me apart and dragged me apart in the sea in a frightening way, wretch that I am . . .’ Pl. Trin. 832–3)

(b)

. . . telum quod saepe nocentis / praeterit exanimatque indignos inque merentis? (‘. . . that bolt which often passes the guilty by and slays the innocent and undeserving?’ Lucr. 2.1103–4) Negative prefix: Hanc ego nunc ignaram huius quodcumque pericli / inque salutatam linquo. (Verg. A. 9.287–8); Tela retusa cadunt, manet inperfossus ab omni / inque cruentatus Caeneus Elateius ictu. (Ov. Met. 12.496–7)

Diachronic developments 

23.104 Diachronic developments One of the most striking differences between Latin and its Romance daughter languages is word order. Although there are considerable differences between the individual Romance languages, both synchronically and diachronically, they all show less variability than Latin has (but read the preceding sections for a correct interpretation of this ‘variability’). This change of word order did not develop in isolation. Other developments are the necessity of expressing the subject of the finite verb and other arguments explicitly (see §§ 9.9 and 9.16) and the development of the definite (and indefinite) article (see § 11.141). The loss of case marking may have played a role as well (see § 12.30). The discussion of the development of Latin word order at the clause level has concentrated on the relative order of the finite verb and its object. The standard view (see § 23.15) was (and is, unfortunately) that Latin shows the development from an original IndoEuropean OV order to a Romance VO order, a change that took place after the Classical period, in which (S)OV was still the normal order, certainly in subordinate clauses. An audacious alternative hypothesis, using typological considerations, was proposed by Adams, who suggests that already in Plautus’ time the normal order was VO; the old order OV is visible in its pure form in old documents and maintained in varying degrees for formal, literary, or pragmatic reasons by Plautus and by later authors such as Cicero and Caesar. The VO order is dominant in various Post-Classical ‘informal’ texts.³³³ The main problem with both descriptions is one of methodology: if in a specific text the order is massively OV or VO, a numerical fact that cannot be denied, is that order as it is because of a syntactic rule that requires this order or is the numerical outcome the result of specific properties of the text? In other words, how reliable are such texts as evidence for assuming a specific date or period for the change from OV to VO?³³⁴ One of the texts which shows OV order throughout is on an inscription which is known as the Senatus Consultum de Bacchanalibus ‘senatorial resolution concerning the orgies of Bacchus’ (CIL I2.581), dated 186 bc. The text as we have it is a copy of a letter of the consuls to the people of the Ager Teuranus in which a resolution of the Senate of Rome is reported concerning the orgies of Bacchus and further instructions are given to the local authorities on how to deal with this resolution. As for word order, there is only one declarative sentence, in the introduction to the resolution proper. Its object immediately precedes the verb (senatum consoluerunt ‘they consulted the senate’—the standard order); all other objects are in imperative sentences ³³³ For the original hypothesis, see Adams (1976b). For a more recent discussion, see Adams (2016: 341–6). A thorough critical discussion of the assumed change of word order from OV in Indo-European to VO in the Romance languages can be found in Meyer-Hermann  (2011: 10–22); see also MeyerHermann (2015: 278–85). ³³⁴ For a more detailed discussion, see Pinkster (2020).

 Word order or (subordinate) clauses or in other subordinate clauses. The text with the resolution starts as in (a). (a)

De Bacanalibus quei foideratei esent (=essent) ita exdeicendum censuere: Nei quis eorum acanal habuise (=habuisse) velet (=vellet). (‘In the matter of the orgies of Bacchus they passed a resolution that the following proclamation should be issued to those who are in league with the Romans by treaties: Let none of them be minded to keep a shrine of Bacchus.’ CIL I2.581.2–3 (SCBac., Tiriolo, 186 bc))

In (a), the object immediately precedes the governing verb. However, this is not always the case. A typical example is (b). In the second sentence, the object pecuniam is in the initial position, just like the subject complement magister in the preceding sentence. What both constituents have in common is that they are subtopics of the overall topic of the decree (Bacchanalia). They have a prominent position in their sentence, even preceding the subjects, and in this way also fulfil a text-structuring function. So, pecuniam is not in its specific position because of a syntactic rule that requires it to precede its verb. More in general, the text can hardly be regarded as a representative text showing the dominant word order of the period in which it was produced. (b)

Magister neque vir neque mulier quisquam eset (=esset). Neve pecuniam quisquam eorum comoineabuise (=habuisse) velet (=vellet). (‘No one, either man or woman, is to be an officer. Nor is anyone of them to have charge of a common treasury.’ CIL I2.581.10–11—tr. Weston)

A text that has been put forward as showing clear VO features is the Passio sanctarum Perpetuae et Felicitatis, dated to the first decennium of the third century ad. It tells the story of the execution of a number of Christians at Carthage on 7 March 203, one of them being a young woman, Perpetua, who tells her own story of the days preceding the execution. Part of her story are two visions in which she is involved. These episodes are almost without subordination, unlike the surrounding parts. The short sentences and clauses are connected or coordinated by et, immediately followed by the finite verb. An example is (c).³³⁵ (c)

Pridie quam pugnaremus, video in horomate hoc: venisse Pomponium diaconum ad ostium carceris et pulsare vehementer. 2. Et exivi ad eum et aperui ei; qui erat vestitus discincta candida, habens multiplices galliculas. 3. Et dixit mihi: ‘Perpetua, te expectamus: veni.’ Et tenuit mihi manum et coepimus ire per aspera loca et flexuosa. 4. Et vix tandem pervenimus anhelantes ad amphitheatrum, et induxit me in media arena, et dixit mihi: ‘Noli pavere. Hic sum tecum et conlaboro tecum.’ Et abiit. 5. Et aspicio populum ingentem adtonitum; et quia sciebam me ad bestias damnatam esse, mirabar quod non mitterentur mihi bestiae.

³³⁵ For a detailed discussion of the complicated linguistic aspects of this text, see Adams  (2016: 317–53). For historical and other aspects of this text, see Heffernan (2012).

Diachronic developments  (‘On the day before we were to fight, I saw this vision: Pomponius, the deacon, had come to the door of the prison, and was knocking loudly. (2) And I went out and opened the door for him. He was wearing a white unbelted robe, and multilaced sandals. (3) And he said to me: ‘Perpetua, we are awaiting you: come.’ And he took me by the hand and we began to walk through places that were rugged and winding. (4) And finally, after great difficulty, we arrived at the amphitheatre, all out of breath, and he led me into the middle of the arena, and said to me ‘Don’t be afraid: I am here with you and I will struggle with you.’ And he went away. (5) And I saw many people who were astonished; and, because I knew that I had been condemned to the beasts, I was puzzled that the beasts were not being turned loose on me.’ Pass. Perp. 10.1–5—tr. Heffernan)

Obviously, with the verb in the initial position, the arguments and satellites have to follow. This order fits in with a particular narrative mode in which the actions indicated by the verb are the most important information and are emphasized by the position in the clause (see also §  7.30 and §  24.3; for verbs in initial position in declarative sentences, see §  23.45). It is difficult to base a generalization about the development of word order on such an idiosyncratic text. A third text that plays an important role in the discussion about Latin/Romance word order is the Peregrinatio Egeriae, dated to the end of the fourth century ad. Here, too, VO order seems to be predominant. On closer inspection, a distinction must be made between the two parts of the work, which have quite different contents. The first part is about Egeria’s travels, an ideal type of text for a combination of clause-initial verbs and clause-final focus constituents (see § 22.11 and § 23.45). The other part does not show a dominant VO order at all.³³⁶ In conclusion, the texts that we possess are so different in form and content that it is difficult to come up with a clear chronology of when the changes in word order took place. There is variability from the beginning till the end of the period covered by this Syntax, most of which can be understood along pragmatic lines.

³³⁶ For details, see Spevak (2005a). Ledgeway (2017) holds that the Peregrinatio has ‘Verb second’ features, which are assumed for the medieval stage of the Romance languages by several linguists working in a generative framework.

CH APTER 24

Discourse

24.1 Introduction So far, this Syntax has mainly dealt with the internal structure of sentences and their parts (clauses, phrases, words, and morphosyntactic properties). This chapter, however, is devoted to discourse, that is to linguistic units which convey a complete communicative message (see § 2.13). As a rule, they contain more than one sentence.1 Such discourse units also have particular properties of their own which determine to some extent the content and structure of the sentences they contain. The study of linguistic properties of units above the sentence level is fairly recent. A common term used for such suprasentential units, especially in German linguistic studies, was text.2 The term ‘discourse’ is used in this Chapter to avoid ambiguity, because ‘text’ is also used in many other ways.

24.2 Sentence and discourse In the Latin material at our disposal it is not as rare as one might think for single sentences, or even single words, to constitute a complete communicative message, but most instances are outside the standard texts that are normally used for grammatical analysis. Examples are (a)–(c). In (a), a dedicatory inscription found on a fragment of a pillar, the object of dedication and probably also its social and cultural significance will have been clear from its surroundings. In (b), a coin showing the heads of the Roman kings Numa Pompilius and Ancus Marcius and, on the reverse side, an arch with a statue of Victoria and a boat under the moon, with the name of Gaius (Marcius) Censorinus above it and Roma below,3 may have served to commemorate the victory of Marius and to suggest Censorinus’ royal descent. The Romans were used to this 1 An excellent early introduction to the study of ‘texts’ is de Beaugrande and Dressler (1981). For the relation between sentence and discourse, see Mithun (2015). For a brief summary of ‘discourse linguistics and classics’, see van Gils et al. (2018: 5). 2 The term ‘text’ is also used in this sense in works on Textlinguistik (for example, de Beaugrande and Dressler  (1981)) and Textgrammatik (for example, Weinrich  (1982)). For an application to Latin, see Blänsdorf (1978). For the French tradition, see Nølke et al. (2004: 147–52). 3 For a picture, see https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numa_Pompilio

The Oxford Latin Syntax. Harm Pinkster, Oxford University Press (2021). © Harm Pinkster. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199230563.003.0024

Introduction 1139 form of propaganda.4 In (c), an electoral graffito which must have been fairly familiar, the text cannot have been a problem for those who saw it. (a)

A. · Cervio · A. · f. · cosol / dedicavit (‘Aulus Cervius, consul, son of Aulus dedicated (this).’ (CIL I2.395 (Benevento, 3rd cent. bc))

(b)

Numae · Pompili · Anci Marci / C · Censo Roma · (‘Numa Pompilius Ancus Marcius / Gaius Censorinus Rome’ CIL I2.App. 268 (Rome, c.87 bc))

(c)

Trebium · et · Gavium // aed(iles) · o(ro) v(os) f(aciatis) (‘I ask you to elect Trebius and Gavius as aediles.’ CIL IV.118 (Pompeii, ad 71–5))

In these cases the reader uses non-linguistic cues, including his knowledge of the world, to arrive at a correct understanding of the message. In discourse units of two or more sentences the hearer or reader is still expected to use his knowledge of the world and of the situation, but the correct interpretation of a sentence and its relation with the surrounding context often depends on the information provided by the sentence or sentences that precede or follow. In the earlier chapters of this Syntax several ways are discussed that assist the reader in correctly understanding the meaning of a sentence and how it coheres with its context. They will be discussed again in this chapter, but now from the perspective of discourse. An example of coherence of discourse is the very common rule of Latin that third person subjects are not expressed if they can be easily inferred from what precedes (see §§ 9.9–10). This phenomenon is one of the means to achieve continuity of participants over a stretch of text. This is illustrated by (d) and (e) (‘°’  indicates asyndeton—see below). (d)

Odi ego aurum. ° Multa multis saepe suasit perperam. (‘I hate gold: it has often led many people to act badly on many issues.’ Pl. Capt. 328)

(e)

Vicini quo pacto niteant, id animum advertito. ° In bona regione bene nitere oportebit. (‘Notice how the neighbours look. In a good district, they ought to look well.’ Cato Agr. 1.2—tr. Dalby (adapted))

In (d), aurum, the focus and object of the first sentence, is the unexpressed topic and subject of the second. In (e), vicini, the topic and subject of the first sentence, is also the topic and subject of the accusative and infinitive clause bene nitere in the second. (Also, bene corresponds to quo pacto and nitere to niteant.) Although the relation between the sentences in (d) and (e) should be perfectly clear for the reader, the semantic relation is not explicitly marked. There is no connecting device; in other words, the sentences are ‘asyndetic’. It is up to the reader to use his knowledge of the language and of the world to conceive of a relation between the 4 See Zanker (1990).

1140

Discourse

sentences. In (d), it is plausible that the second sentence contains the explanation why the ‘I’ hates gold. That could have been made explicit by using the connector nam ‘for’.5 Connectors are another important device for creating coherence of discourse. (d')

Odi ego aurum. Nam multa multis saepe suasit perperam.

In (e), the relation between the two sentences is also explanatory, but more complicated: by examining the situation at the neighbours’ farm it is possible to infer something about the quality of the district: if they thrive bene, the district must be bona. That this is the point of the explanation (its focus) is clear from the position of in bona regione in the sentence. The largest part of this chapter is devoted to the way sentences connect to form discourse units. However, the way these discourse units start and finish needs some attention as well. Furthermore, a discourse may consist of a number of units consisting of a number of sentences (‘episodes’ and ‘paragraphs’—see §  2.13) which are connected between each other in their own way. All this is the content of §§ 24.4ff. ‘discourse coherence’.

24.3 Text types (or: discourse modes) The linguistic properties of a unit of discourse as a whole depend on a number of factors, the most important of which are mentioned in § 2.13. This section deals with one of the external factors mentioned there, viz. the ‘communicative purpose’ with which a speaker/writer presents his text. The term introduced in § 2.13 for such units of discourse is ‘text type’. However, in this Syntax the term is used also in a wider sense for literary genre and other units (see the Index of grammatical terms). A more appropriate term for text type in the narrow sense would be ‘discourse type’ or ‘discourse mode’. Since the notion of ‘text type’ in the narrow sense of the term was introduced in the 1960s scholars have discussed how many and which different types can be distinguished. In addition to ‘narrative’, ‘argumentative’ (or: ‘persuasive’), and ‘didactic’ (or: ‘instructive’) texts, mentioned in § 2.13, it is common to distinguish ‘descriptive’ and ‘expository’ text types.6 As is said in § 24.1, the word ‘text’ is here used in a narrow sense: in an actual text, for example in Cicero’s oration pro Milone, several segments can be distinguished (and have been distinguished since Antiquity) which represent different text types (see (a) and (b) below). The choice of a particular text type manifests itself in the linguistic properties of the sentences that constitute that text and in the relations between them. Examples are the use of the tenses (see § 7.11), the order of constituents (see § 23.1 and § 23.5), and the use of particular lexical items (see § 2.13 on quoniam). 5 Exx. (d) and (e) are cited by K.-St.: II.158 as instances of asyndeton causale or explicativum. 6 Smith (2003), discussed by Adema (2019b: 22–34), distinguishes five different ‘discourse modes’: ‘narration’, ‘description’, ‘report’, ‘information’, and ‘argument’.

Introduction 1141 Text types are still an underdeveloped area of research, with the exception of the narrative text type (see below). Exx. (a)–(c) illustrate the narrative, argumentative, and expository type, respectively.7 Ex. (a) is a good instance of a narrative period: a series of events are presented in one complex syntactic structure from the perspective of the main character (Clodius). In the cum clause the speaker (Cicero) provides details concerning the circumstances and he finishes with his personal interpretation of the situation. This is a typical instance of ‘storytelling’ (see § 7.30 fin.). (a)

P. Clodius, cum statuisset omni scelere in praetura vexare rem publicam videretque ita tracta esse comitia anno superiore ut non multos mensis praeturam gerere posset, qui non honoris gradum spectaret, ut ceteri, sed et L. Paulum conlegam effugere vellet, singulari virtute civem, et annum integrum ad dilacerandam rem publicam quaereret, subito reliquit annum suum seseque in proximum transtulit, non—ut fit—religione aliqua, sed ut haberet, quod ipse dicebat, ad praeturam gerendam— hoc est ad evertendam rem publicam— plenum annum atque integrum. (‘Publius Clodius had determined to harass the state during his praetorship by every kind of lawless behaviour. He saw that the elections of the previous year had been so protracted that he would be able to hold his praetorship for no more than a few months. For that high office, which is what most men desire, he cared nothing; all he wanted was to avoid having Lucius Paulus, a citizen of exceptional merit, as his colleague, and to have an entire year in which to maul the state. He therefore suddenly abandoned his proper year, and transferred his name to the year following—not led thereto, as commonly happens, by any religious scruple, but in order that, according to his own account, he might enjoy for the exercise of his praetorship—that is to say, for the subversion of the state—a full and unbroken year.’ Cic. Mil. 24)

In the argumentative piece of text in (b) Cicero addresses the jury, indirectly with a rhetorical question (an est quisquam), and then directly (nisi vero existimatis and iudices). By using the interactional particle enim he ensures their cooperation and with non sine causa he underlines his argumentation. The entire text is organized to win the jury over to Cicero’s point of view.

7 They are taken from Blänsdorf ’s seminal article (1978). In (a), I follow his graphical presentation of the period.

1142 (b)

Discourse An est quisquam qui hoc ignoret, cum de homine occiso quaeratur, aut negari solere omnino esse factum aut recte et iure factum esse defendi? Nisi vero existimatis dementem P. Africanum fuisse qui, cum a C. Carbone tribuno plebis seditiose in contione interrogaretur quid de Ti. Gracchi morte sentiret, responderit iure caesum videri. Neque enim posset aut Ahala ille Servilius aut P. Nasica aut L. Opimius aut C. Marius aut me consule senatus non nefarius haberi, si sceleratos civis interfici nefas esset. Itaque hoc, iudices,  non sine causa etiam fictis fabulis doctissimi homines memoriae prodiderunt, eum qui patris ulciscendi causa matrem necavisset variatis hominum sententiis non solum divina sed etiam sapientissimae deae sententia liberatum. (‘Or is there anyone who is unaware that when inquiry is held into a murder, the act is either categorically denied, or that its commission is defended as right and justified?—unless indeed you hold that Publius Africanus was mad when, on being maliciously asked in a public meeting by Gaius Carbo, tribune of the plebs, what was his opinion concerning the death of Tiberius Gracchus, he replied that he thought he had been deservedly slain. Indeed, neither the great Servilius Ahala nor Publius Nasica nor Lucius Opimius nor Gaius Marius nor the Senate, in my consulship, could be held other than detestable, were the murder of criminal citizens in itself a detestable act. And so too, gentlemen, it is not without reason that even in their fictions accomplished poets have narrated how one, who, to avenge a father, had slain a mother, was, though the human vote was divided, acquitted by a sentence that proceeded not merely from a divine being, but from the wisest of the goddesses.’ Cic. Mil. 8–9)

In the expository piece of text (c) the speaker presents a philosophical thesis in an orderly way, indicating the logical steps and adding an explanation when necessary, without involving the addressee directly. (c)

Quocirca primum mihi videtur, ut Posidonius facit, a deo, de quo satis dictum est, deinde a fato, deinde a natura, vis omnis divinandi ratioque repetenda. Fieri igitur omnia fato ratio cogit fateri. Fatum autem id appello quod Graeci pÄwl{whxrx, id est ordinem seriemque causarum, cum causae causa nexa rem ex se gignat. Ea est ex omni aeternitate fluens veritas sempiterna. Quod cum ita sit, nihil est factum quod non futurum fuerit, eodemque modo nihil est futurum cuius non causas id ipsum efficientes natura contineat. Ex quo intellegitur ut fatum sit non id quod superstitiose, sed id quod physice dicitur, causa aeterna rerum, cur et ea quae praeterierunt facta sint et quae instant fiant et quae sequuntur futura sint. Ita fit ut et observatione notari possit quae res quamque causam plerumque consequatur, etiamsi non semper (nam id quidem affirmare difficile est), easdemque causas veri simile est rerum futurarum cerni ab eis qui aut per furorem eas aut in quiete videant. (‘Wherefore, it seems to me that we must do as Posidonius does and trace the vital principle of divination in its entirety to three sources: first, to God, whose connexion with the subject has been sufficiently discussed; secondly to Fate; and lastly, to Nature.

Discourse coherence 1143 Reason compels us to admit that all things happen by Fate. Now by Fate I mean the same that the Greeks call pÄwl{whxr, that is, an orderly succession of causes wherein cause is linked to cause and each cause of itself produces an effect. That is an immortal truth having its source in all eternity. Therefore nothing has happened which was not bound to happen, and, likewise, nothing is going to happen which will not find in nature every efficient cause of its happening. Consequently, we know that Fate is that which is called, not ignorantly, but scientifically, “the eternal cause of things, the wherefore of things past, of things present, and of things to come”. Hence it is that it may be known by observation what effect will in most instances follow any cause, even if it is not known in all; for it would be too much to say that it is known in every case. And it is probable that these causes of coming events are perceived by those who see them during frenzy or in sleep.’ Cic. Div. 1.125–6)

The text type that has received most scholarly attention is the narrative type (or: narrative mode). In Volume I of this Syntax some attention is given to it in the sections on the perfect (§ 7.30) and the (historic) present (§ 7.16). In the former, on the perfect, a distinction was made between ‘storytelling’ and ‘reporting’, in the latter the term ‘mimetic’ should have been used (instead of ‘diegetic’ in the text) to characterize the historic present as a narrative tense. Further distinctions have been proposed, a discussion of which would exceed the bounds of this section.8 The linguistic study of narrative texts is closely related to narratology as developed in literary studies.9

24.4 Discourse coherence Various instruments are available to enhance the internal coherence of a unit of discourse and to demarcate it from adjacent units. A precondition is the internal semantic coherence of the subject matter, without which these instruments cannot have their full effect. (i) Essential is the way the participants in the discourse are referred to: have they been mentioned earlier in the text or are they newly introduced; are they expected to stay, or are they mentioned only briefly? Ellipsis of structurally obligatory constituents (zero-anaphora) and anaphoric expressions play an important role in marking continuity or discontinuity of participants. This is discussed in §§ 24.5–9. Comparable is the way events in the discourse or parts of the discourse are referred to anaphorically (§§  24.10–12). Preparative (or: cataphoric) reference to participants and events is another way to guarantee continuity (§ 24.13). (ii) In addition to these forms of ‘participant tracking’, connectors and related expressions that explicitly indicate 8 For the use of the ancient (Platonic) distinction between ‘mimetic’ and ‘diegetic’, see Bakker (1997) and Kroon  (2002). For discourse modes in general and their application to the tenses in Ovid’s Metamorphoses, see Kroon (2007); for Virgil’s Aeneid, see Adema (2019b—a revised version of her 2008 dissertation). For the use of the historic present by Livy, see van Gils and Kroon (2018: 204–7; 2019). For a collection of studies on ‘war narratives’, see van Gils et al. (2018). For the relationship between historiography and discourse linguistics ibid.: 9–11. 9 A good introduction is de Jong (2014).

1144

Discourse

the relationship between the contents of adjacent sentences and between more extended units contribute to the coherence of discourse (§§ 24.14–48). (iii) Thirdly, there are various grammatical means, such as tense and voice, which may play a role in indicating discourse coherence (§ 24.49). (iv) Finally, the ordering of sentences and of larger units is an important factor in determining the coherence of the discourse as a whole (§ 24.50). It is important to realize that these means do not exclude each other. In (a), for example, the last sentence contains both the connector nam, which signals why Lesbonicus will give that piece of land as a dowry and not something else, and the anaphoric pronoun is (referring, like eum before, to ager). (a)

. . . est ager sub urbe hic nobis. Eum dabo / dotem sorori. Nam is de divitiis meis / solus superfit praeter vitam relicuos. (‘. . . we still have a plot of land here below the city; this I’ll give to my sister as a dowry: for this alone is the sole remainder of my wealth, apart from my life.’ Pl. Trin. 508–10)

The way these various devices are used to create coherence varies, depending on the type of text, the stylistic preferences of the authors, and diachronic developments.10

24.5 Anaphoric reference to participants Absence of an overt subject or another obligatory constituent in a sentence is an important cohesive device in Latin. Other devices to guarantee the continuity of participants within a discourse are various forms of lexical continuity and various anaphoric(ally used) pronouns.

24.6 Lexical repetition and variation Repetition of the same word or phrase in adjacent sentences is rare.11 Examples are (a) and (b). In both examples the hearer/reader must conclude that the second noun refers to the same horsemen and camp, respectively.12 Repetition is relatively common in legal and administrative texts for the sake of clarity, but in such texts sentences are usually quite complex, as in Cicero’s report to the Senate in (c), where he probably partly reproduces the Senate’s own document. Note that bare repetition is mixed with cases with an anaphoric pronoun.13 (a)

Hoc ubi Amphitruo erus conspicatus est, / ilico equites iubet dextera inducere. / Equites parent citi . . . (‘When my master Amphitruo saw this, he instantly gave orders to lead the cavalry to the charge on the right. The cavalry obeyed swiftly.’ Pl. Am. 242–4)

10 For diachronic changes, see Kiss (2005). 11 For various forms of repetition, see Mendell (1917: 21–85), from whom several examples are taken. For repetition in legal texts, see de Meo (2005: 87–90). 12 For a discussion of what she calls ‘faithful reiteration’, see Fugier (1991: 382–3). 13 For a discussion of this passage, see Odelman (1972: 162–3).

Discourse coherence 1145 (b)

. . . ad castra pergunt. Locus erat castrorum editus . . . (‘. . . they marched on the camp. The position of the camp was on high ground . . .’ Caes. Gal. 3.18.8–19.1)

(c)

Cum enim vestra auctoritas intercessisset ut ego regem Ariobarzanem Eusebem et Philorhomaeum tuerer eiusque regis salutem et incolumitatem regnumque defenderem, regi regnoque praesidio essem, adiunxissetisque salutem eius regis populo senatuique magnae curae esse, quod nullo umquam de rege decretum esset a nostro ordine, existimavi me iudicium vestrum ad regem deferre debere eique praesidium meum et fidem et diligentiam polliceri, ut, quoniam salus ipsius, incolumitas regni mihi commendata esset a vobis, diceret si quid vellet. (‘I had your resolution charging me to take good care of King Ariobarzanes Eusebes Philorhomaeus, to defend his welfare, security, and throne, and to protect king and kingdom; to which you added that the welfare of this monarch was a matter of great concern to the People and Senate—something that had never before been decreed by our House with respect to any monarch. I therefore considered it incumbent upon me to convey your mandate to the king, and to promise him my faithful protection and care, adding that, since his personal welfare and the security of his realm had been commended to me by yourselves, I should be glad to learn his wishes, if any.’ Cic. Fam. 15.2.4) Supplement: (sc. sulcos) Eos lapide consternito: si lapis non erit, perticis saligneis viridibus controversus conlatis consternito; si pertica non erit, sarmentis conligatis. (Cato Agr. 43.1); Itaque ex eo tempore res esse in vadimonium coepit. Cum vadimonia saepe dilata essent et cum aliquantum temporis in ea re esset consumptum neque quicquam profectum esset, venit ad vadimonium Naevius. (Cic. Quinct. 22); Si Fabius oriente canicula natus est, Fabius in mari non morietur. (Cic. Fat. 12); Igitur in stagno Agrippae fabricatus est ratem cui superpositum convivium navium aliarum tractu moveretur. Naves auro et ebore distinctae. (Tac. Ann. 15.37.2)

Variation of a word or phrase to refer to the same entity or event is another form of creating coherence between sentences.14 Examples are (d)–(f). In (d), the common noun hominem is used to continue the sequence of proper name and anaphoric pronoun.15 In (e), Cicero refers to Antonius, mentioned earlier in the speech, by an evaluative expression. In (f), oppidum is continued by the near-synonym urbi in combination with the anaphoric determiner ei. (d)

Sed videone ego Pamphilippum cum fratre Epignomo? Atque is est. / Aggrediar hominem. (‘But am I seeing Pamphilippus with his brother Epignomus? Yes, it’s him. I’ll approach the man.’ Pl. St. 582–3)

14 For the various possibilities of ‘unfaithful reiteration’, see Fugier (1991). 15 See TLL s.v. homo 2882.13ff.

1146 (e)

Discourse (sc. Antonium) Taetram et pestiferam beluam ne inclusam et constrictam dimittatis, cavete. (‘Be sure you do not let this evil and destructive monster loose from the toils that confine him.’ Cic. Phil. 7.27)

(f)

Ubi nobilitas mea erit clara, / oppidum magnum communibo. Ei ego urbi Gripo indam nomen . . . (‘When my fame is well known, I’ll set up a big city. To this city I shall give the name of Gripus . . .’ Pl. Rud. 933–4) Supplement: Videt ad ipsum fornicem Fabianum in turba Verrem. Appellat hominem et ei voce maxima gratulatur. (Cic. Ver. 19); Inde eques citato equo nuntiat regi abire Albanos. Tullus in re trepida duodecim vovit Salios fanaque Pallori ac Pavori. (Liv. 1.27.7) Evaluative expressions: Redimet hortos, aedis, urbana quaedam quae possidet Antonius. Nam argentum, vestem, supellectilem, vinum amittet aequo animo, quae ille helluo dissipavit. (Cic. Phil. 13.11); (sc. reges) Statuerunt id (sc. candelabrum) secum in Syriam reportare ut . . . legatos mitterent qui cum ceteris rebus illud quoque eximium ac pulcherrimum donum in Capitolium adferrent. (Cic. Ver. 4.64); (sc. Epicurus) Deinde ibidem homo acutus . . . attulit rem commenticiam. (Cic. Fin. 1.19) (Near-)synonyms: Nam profecto aut metus aut iniuria te subegit, Silane, consulem designatum genus poenae novom decernere. De timore supervacuaneum est disserere . . . (Sal. Cat. 51.18); Siculorum civitatibus Syracusas aut Messanam aut Lilybaeum indicitur concilium. Praetor Romanus conventus agit . . . (Liv. 31.29.8–9)

A third form of continuation of a word or a phrase is through the use of ‘subtopics’ or ‘associative anaphora’, as discussed in § 22.4, with ex. (i). Another example is (g).16 From aciem it is easy to infer ‘the soldiers’. Probably related is the use of eo anno in (h), following the indication of the consuls of that year. (g)

Consul ubi ad iniquum locum ventum est, sistit aciem. Miles aegre teneri, clamare et poscere ut perculsis instare liceat. (‘The consul ordered a halt when his army reached rising ground. The infantry could hardly be restrained, noisily demanding permission to press on after the fleeing enemy.’ Liv. 2.65.2)

(h)

Consules M. Valerius P. Postumius. Eo anno bene pugnatum cum Sabinis. (‘The consulship of Marcus Valerius and Publius Postumius. This year a successful war was waged against the Sabines.’ Liv. 2.16.1)

24.7 Lexical repetition in combination with anaphoric determiners Repetition of a word in combination with an anaphoric(ally used) determiner is more common (see § 11.105), especially in formal and technical texts. The principal 16 Cited as an instance of asyndeton adversativum by K.-St.: II.156.

Discourse coherence 1147 determiners involved are is, hic (uncommon), and qui. Examples are (a)17 and (c), with an anaphoric determiner, and (b), with a (connective) relative determiner.18 This form of repetition is also used in adjacent clauses in complex sentences (see the Supplement). (a)

Ibi nunc meus pater / memorat legiones hostium ut fugaverit, / quo pacto sit donis donatus plurumis. / Ea dona quae illic Amphitruoni sunt data / apstulimus. (‘In there my father’s now telling how he put the enemy’s legions to flight and how he was presented with a great many gifts. We took away the gifts Amphitruo was given there.’ Pl. Am. 135–9)

(b)

Qui cupidius novissimum agmen insecuti alieno loco cum equitatu Helvetiorum proelium committunt, et pauci de nostris cadunt. Quo proelio sublati Helvetii . . . proelio nostros lacessere coeperunt. (‘The cavalry, following up the rearguard too eagerly, engaged in a combat on unfavourable ground with the cavalry of the Helvetii, and a few of ours fell. Elated by this engagement the Helvetii . . . began to provoke our men to a fight.’ Caes. Gal. 1.15.2)

(c)

Insequens annus Postumum Cominium et T. Larcium consules habuit. Eo anno Romae, cum per ludos ab Sabinorum iuventute per lasciviam scorta raperentur, concursu hominum rixa ac prope proelium fuit . . . (‘The year after had as its consuls Postumus Cominius and Titus Larcius. In this year, during the celebration of the games at Rome, the Sabine youths, in a spirit of wantonness, forcibly abducted certain harlots. Men gathered hastily and there was a brawl . . .’ Liv. 2.18.1–2) Supplement: . . . lotium conservato eius qui brassicam essitarit. . . . Item pueros pusillos si laves eo lotio, numquam debiles fient. Et quibus oculi parum clari sunt, eo lotio inunguito. Plus videbunt. Si caput aut cervices dolent, eo lotio caldo lavito. Desinent dolere. Et si mulier eo lotio locos fovebit, numquam m(e)n(ses) seri fient. (Cato Agr. 157.10–11); Viam fecei ab Regio ad Capuam et / in ea via ponteis omneis miliarios / tabelariosque poseivei. (CIL I2.638.1–3 (Polla, 150–132 bc); Q. Marcius censor signum Concordiae fecerat idque in publico conlocarat. Hoc signum C.  Cassius censor cum in curiam transtulisset . . . (Cic. Dom. 130); Nihil enim debetur ei nisi ex tertia pensione, quae est Kal. Sext. Ex qua pensione ipsa maior pars est ei soluta aliquanto ante diem. (Cic. Att. 16.2.1); Extremum oppidum Allobrogum est proximumque Helvetiorum finibus Genava. Ex eo oppido pons ad Helvetios pertinet. (Caes. Gal. 1.6.3); Galba . . . constituit . . . cum reliquis eius legionis cohortibus in vico Veragrorum qui appellatur Octodurus hiemare. Qui vicus positus in valle, non magna adiecta planitie, altissimis montibus undique continetur. (Caes. Gal. 3.1.4–5);

17 Taken from TLL s.v. is 460.14ff. 18 For the jurists, see Kalb (1888: 41–3); for Caesar, Odelman (1972: 152–9). In general, see Rosén (1981: 17–19) and Adams (2013: 491–2).

1148

Discourse . . . a · quoquomq(ue) pecunia certa · credita . . . sei · is ·eam · pecuniam · in iure · . . . debere . . . se · confessus / erit . . . tum · de · eo · a · quo · ea · pecunia · peteita · erit · deque · eo · quoi · eam / pecuniam d(arei) · o(portebit) · . . . (CIL I2.592. II.1–10 (Lex de Gallia Cisalpina, Veleia, 42–1 bc)); Medius Hasdrubal inter patrem ac filium octo ferme annos imperium obtinuit . . . Is . . . ei . . . Barbarus eum quidam . . . obtruncat. . . . Cum hoc Hasdrubale . . . foedus renovaverat populus Romanus . . . (Liv. 21.2.3–7); Sed ego ideo prudentiam tuam elegi, ut formandis istius provinciae (NB: ‘the province where you are’) moribus ipse moderareris et ea constitueres quae ad perpetuam eius provinciae quietem essent profutura. (Tra. Plin. Ep. 10.117); Si totus ager itineri aut actui servit, dominus in eo agro nihil facere potest . . . (Javol. dig. 8.3.13.1)

24.8 Zero-anaphora: the absence of explicit subject and other obligatory constituents The conditions under which third person subjects can be left unexpressed are dealt with in §§ 9.9–10. That this is a very common phenomenon can be seen in Table 23.4 on p. 1006: in almost half of the sentences in the corpus on which that Table is based there is no explicit subject.19 Examples are (a) and (b). In (a), a memorial inscription, the name of Appius Claudius and his titles are followed by five unconnected sentences (‘°’ marks asyndeton) without an explicit subject (marked ‘Ø’) in which his major feats are enumerated. Another sequence of short asyndetic sentences is shown in (b), a typical ‘war bulletin’.20 (a)

Appius · Claudius / C.· f.· Caecus / censor,· cos · bis,· dict,· interrex · III, / pr · II, · aed · cur · II, · q, · tr · mil · III.· Com/plura · oppida · de Samnitibus · Ø cepit. / ° Sabinorum · et · Tuscorum · exerci/tum · Ø fudit.· ° Pacem · fieri · cum · Tyrrho (= Pyrrho) / rege · Ø prohibuit.· ° In · censura · viam / Appiam · Ø stravit · et aquam · in / urbem Ø adduxit.· ° Aedem · Bellonae / Ø fecit. (‘Appius Claudius Caecus, son of Gaius. Censor, Consul twice, Dictator, Interrex three times, Praetor twice, Aedilis curulis twice, Quaestor, Military tribune three times. He took several towns from the Samnites. He routed an army of Sabines and Tuscans. He prohibited making peace with King Pyrrhus. When he was Censor he constructed the Via Appia and an aqueduct to the City. He built the Temple of Bellona.’ CIL XI.1827 (Arezzo, c.2 bc–ad 14))

(b)

Eo legati ab Arvernis missi. ° Quae Ø (sc. Caesar) imperaret, se facturos Ø pollicentur. ° Ø Imperat magnum numerum obsidum. ° Legiones in hiberna Ø mittit. ° Captivorum circiter XX milia Haeduis Arvernisque Ø reddit. ° Titum Labienum duabus cum legionibus et equitatu in Sequanos proficisci Ø iubet. ° Huic Marcum Sempronium Rutilum Ø attribuit. ° Gaium Fabium

19 See also Spevak  (2010a: 98–9). Implicit subjects are much less common in Late Latin texts. See Herman (1991). For the development into Old French, see Prévost (2018). 20 For the use of asyndeton in ‘war bulletins’, see Fraenkel (1956: 192).

Discourse coherence 1149 legatum et Lucium Minucium Basilum cum legionibus duabus in Remis Ø conlocat, ne quam a finitimis Bellovacis calamitatem Ø accipiant. (‘The Arverni sent deputies to him there who promised to carry out his commands: he required of them a great number of hostages. He sent the legions into cantonments. He restored some twenty thousand prisoners to the Aedui and the Arverni. He ordered Titus Labienus with two legions and cavalry to march off into the country of the Sequani, attaching Marcus Sempronius Rutilus to him. Gaius Fabius, the lieutenant-general, and Lucius Minucius Basilus he stationed with two legions in the country of the Remi, in order that they might suffer no damage from the neighbouring Bellovaci.’ Caes. Gal. 7.90.1–5)

Ellipsis of objects and the frequency of that phenomenon is discussed in § 9.16. One of the examples is (c). The absent object may also refer to a sentence or a clause in the preceding context, as in (d).21 A more complex instance of ellipsis of an argument is (e), where the genitive attribute masculae (sc. columbae) helps the reader understand that a head noun of the entire noun phrase (sanguinem) is missing, and (f), where the secondary predicates afflictantem and persequentem allow matronam to be inferred from the preceding context. (c)

Quid ais, pater? / ° Ecquid matrem amas? # Egone illam? ° Nunc Ø amo, quia non adest. (‘What do you say, father? Do you love mother at all? # I her? Now I love her because she’s not around.’ Pl. As. 899–900)

(d)

. . . rogavi ut, si quid posset, ex ea summa detraheret. ° Ø Promisit. (‘. . . I asked him to obtain a deduction from that sum if he could. He promised.’ Cic. Att. 10.5.3)

(e)

Columbarum, palumbium, turturum, perdicum sanguis oculis cruore suffusis eximie prodest. ° In columbis masculae Ø efficaciorem putant . . . (‘The blood of pigeons, doves, turtle doves, or partridges, makes an excellent application for blood-shot eyes. Among pigeons, male birds are supposed to have the more efficacious blood . . .’ Plin. Nat. 29.126)

(f)

(sc. matrona quaedam) . . . corpus custodire ac flere totis noctibus diebusque coepit. Sic Ø afflictantem se ac mortem inedia persequentem non parentes potuerunt abducere, non propinqui. (‘She proceeded to watch and weep night and day over the body. Neither her parents nor her relations could divert her from thus torturing herself, and courting death by starvation.’ Petr. 111.2–3)

The examples so far have shown that the absence of arguments that are required by the valency of the verbs involved functions as a cohesive device. Valency also applies to deverbal and other nouns (see §§ 11.70–5). An example is testis in (g): the province witnessed the action Cicero has referred to in the preceding sentence.22 21 For the interpretation of zero objects, see Jones (2000: 24–5). Ex. (e) is taken from that publication. 22 See Mendell (1917: 99).

1150 (g)

Discourse Negare hoc, nisi forte negare omnia constituisti, nullo modo potes. Palam res gesta est maximo conventu Syracusis. Testis est tota provincia, propterea quod undique ad emendas decumas solent eo convenire. (‘Deny this you cannot possibly, unless you have made up your mind to deny everything. The thing was done openly at Syracuse before a large gathering. The whole province is a witness to the fact, since men come regularly from every part of it to Syracuse to attend the sales of tithe.’ Cic. Ver. 3.149)

For a demonstration of zero-anaphora, see also the discussion in § 22.4, exx. (v) and (w). Zero-anaphora is common when a topic constituent is continued (a ‘given topic’), but is not excluded when one or more other participants interfere, on condition that the intervening discourse constitutes some form of background information. An example is (h). The intervening sentence is marked as subsidiary information by enim.23 (h)

Equites missi nocte iter conficiunt, imprudentes atque inopinantes hostes aggrediuntur. Numidae enim quadam barbara consuetudine nullis ordinibus passim consederant. Ø (sc. equites) Hos oppressos somno et dispersos adorti magnum eorum numerum interficiunt. (‘The cavalry [Curio] sent finished their journey during the night; they attacked an enemy off guard and unsuspecting, for the Numidians in their barbarian fashion had camped here and there in complete disarray. By attacking while these were fast asleep and scattered, Curio’s cavalry killed a large number of them.’ Caes. Civ. 2.38.4–5)

24.9 Anaphoric(ally used) pronouns and adverbs The pronouns used to refer to participants in the preceding discourse are the (connective) relative qui (see § 18.28), the anaphoric pronoun is (see § 11.137), and the demonstrative pronouns hic, ille, and (in a limited way) iste (see § 11.136). (For diachronic considerations, see § 11.141.) The adverbs involved include relative quo ‘to which place’, eo ‘to that place’, hinc ‘from here’, and ibi ‘there’. Examples of anaphorically used adverbs are (a) and (b).24 (a)

Eos iam bene cognitos et re probatos secum in Siciliam duxit. Quo posteaquam venerunt . . . (‘Having by now tested them well and learnt their worth, Verres took them with him to Sicily. When they got there . . .’ Cic. Ver. 4.31)

(b)

Ager Herbitensis primo anno habuit aratores CCLII, tertio CXX. Hinc CXXXII patres familias extorres profugerunt. (‘The Herbita district had 252 farmers in his first year, 120 in his third: 132 of its householders left their homes and fled elsewhere.’ Cic. Ver. 3.120)

23 This example is discussed by Pennell Ross  (1996: 519–20) and Bolkestein  (2000: 128–30). Kroon (2010: 589) shows that zero-anaphora is the ‘default option’ in Ovid’s Metamorphoses. 24 For the anaphoric use of adverbs of place in historical texts, see Longrée  (2010), with detailed statistics. For the anaphoric (and cataphoric) use of ibi, see Burkard (2019). It is not used deictically.

Discourse coherence 1151 The pronouns normally agree in number and gender with the constituents to which they refer (see §§ 13.25–8; 13.33). This reduces the number of potential referents, certainly in comparison with zero-anaphora. The frequency with which these pronouns are used varies, depending on the type of text. Table 24.1 shows their frequency in two texts. The most striking difference is that between hic and ille, which is related to the fact that Caesar’s historical narrative has more topic continuity than Cicero’s letters.25 Table 24.1 Frequency of anaphorical(ly used) pronouns in Caesar Civ. and Cicero Att. Caesar Civ.

    qui

Total

%

Cicero Att. Total

%

52

13.5

36

16.6

is

163

42.4

84

38.7

hic

118

30.7

47

21.7

ille

51

13.4

50

23

384

100

217

100

Total

The four pronouns differ from each other in three respects: (i) the position of the pronoun in the sentence, (ii) the distance between the pronoun and the participant it is referring to, and (iii) the proportion of usage of the pronoun to refer to participants and to states of affairs and discourse. (i) The relative pronoun qui naturally occurs in the initial position. The other three differ from each other in their position; this is also related to the type of text in which they are used. In Caesar’s narrative, is is less frequent in initial position, whereas this is the preferred position for hic. Ille is more frequent in initial position.26 (ii) The participants to which the pronouns qui, is, and hic refer are usually to be found in the immediately preceding sentence. With ille there are regularly more intervening sentences, and more intervening other participants. As is shown for zeroanaphora in § 24.8, the intervention of other participants is not an obstacle for the use of qui, if the text segment they belong to constitutes some form of background information, such as the indirect discourse in (c).27 This also holds to some extent for is and hic. By contrast, ille is the normal choice for remote referents as such.

25 The data are based upon Pennell Ross (1996) (Caes. Civ. I and II) and Bolkestein (2000: 113–14) (Cic. Att. I and II.1–10). Longrée (2003) shows that Sallust and Tacitus use ille much more often than Caesar. 26 See Pennell Ross (1996: 514) and Spevak (2010a: 75), who has also data on Sallust. In Cicero’s letters, is and hic are divided between initial and non-initial, whereas ille is most often non-initial (Bolkestein 2000: 118). There are differences between these three words when used as pronoun and as determiner (Spevak 2010a: 74–5). See also Bolkestein (2001: 249–50). For the position of is in the function of object, see Luraghi (2016). For repetitive use of is in a number of texts, see Adams (2016: index s.v. is). 27 This example is discussed by Pennell Ross (1996: 517). See also Kroon (2009a: 124–5).

1152 (c)

Discourse Adventu Caesaris cognito decuriones Auximi ad Attium Varum frequentes conveniunt. Ø Docent sui iudici rem non esse. Neque se neque reliquos municipes pati posse C. Caesarem imperatorem bene de re publica meritum tantis rebus gestis oppido moenibusque prohiberi. Proinde habeat rationem posteritatis et periculi sui. Quorum oratione permotus Varus praesidium quod introduxerat ex oppido educit ac profugit. (‘Learning of Caesar’s approach the town councillors at Auximum met as a body with Attius Varus. They told him that the affair was not something for them to decide. “Neither we nor the rest of our townspeople can tolerate that Gaius Caesar, a commander who has such important public achievements to his credit, be barred from the town and its fortifications. Furthermore, you should consider the future and your danger.” Disturbed by their words Varus led out the garrison he had installed, and fled.’ Caes. Civ. 1.13.1–2)

(iii) Qui, is, hic, and ille can be used as pronoun and as determiner, each in different proportions. They also differ in the frequency with which they are used to refer to participants and to refer to states of affairs and segments of discourse (for short: segments of discourse). There are probably also differences related to text type. Table 24.2 shows that in Cicero’s letters ille (pronoun and determiner) is almost never used to refer to states of affairs and segments of discourse, which seems to be the task of pronominal hic.28 The connective relative pronoun mostly refers to a participant in the immediately preceding sentence. Is as a pronoun mostly refers to recently introduced participants; as a determiner it can refer to any preceding participant. Table 24.2 Reference to participants (Part.) and segments of discourse (Disc.) in Cicero Att.    

Pronoun Total Part.%

Determiner Disc.% Total

Part.%

Disc.%

qui

36

86%

14%

5

60%

40%

is

84

68%

32%

20

45%

55%

hic

47

17%

83%

41

61%

39%

50

98%

ille Total

217

 

2%  

67 133

96%  

4%  

As for the difference between hic and ille, in the Classical period their anaphoric behaviour reflects the differences between them in their deictic use (on which, see §§ 11.104; 135). Their anaphoric use is discussed in §§ 11.105; 136.29 For the difference between qui and is, see § 18.28.

28 The data come from the same corpus as Table 24.1. 29 See de Jong (1996) and Kroon (2009a; 2017).

Discourse coherence 1153

24.10 Anaphoric reference to states of affairs and to segments of discourse The examples presented so far have dealt with continuity of participants. The following sections, in turn, deal with reference to preceding states of affairs and segments of discourse of varying length and structure. The two main forms are nouns (with or without a determiner) and anaphoric(ally used) pronouns.

24.11 Nouns used to refer to preceding states of affairs or segments of discourse The most common noun that is used to refer to a situation mentioned in the preceding context is res ‘situation’ (OLD s.v. § 17), as in (a).30 (a)

(sc. reges) Statuerunt id (sc. candelabrum) secum in Syriam reportare ut . . . legatos mitterent qui cum ceteris rebus illud quoque eximium ac pulcherrimum donum in Capitolium adferrent. Pervenit res ad istius (sc. Verris) auris nescio quo modo. (‘They resolved to take it back with them to Syria, with the purpose . . . of sending an embassy to convey to the Capitol this most choice and lovely offering, together with other objects. These facts somehow or other came to the knowledge of Verres.’ Cic. Ver. 4.64)

More often reference to a preceding state of affairs or segment of discourse is made by the combination of a noun with a general meaning and an anaphoric(ally used) determiner. A common expression in the Caesarian corpus and in Nepos is quo facto, with a connecting relative, as in (b); another very common one is shown in (c) and (d). In (c), ea res refers to the situation before Alcumena’s shouting (see the translation); in (d), to the situation described just before. For the frequency with which the individual determiners are used, see Table 24.2 on p. 1152. (b)

Cuius vim multitudinis cum equites pauci Caesariani iam sustinere non possent, Caesar instructas legiones hostium copiis ostendit. Quo facto perterrito Labieno ac retardato suos equites recepit incolumes. (‘As the odds were now too great for the Caesarian horse to contain their powerful onslaught, Caesar displayed to the enemy forces his legions in battle formation. This action utterly daunted and checked Labienus, and Caesar thereupon withdrew his own cavalry without loss.’ B. Afr. 66.3–4)

(c)

Ardere censui aedis. Ita tum confulgebant. / Ibi me inclamat Alcumena. Iam ea res me horrore afficit. / Erilis praevortit metus.

30 For resumptive and anticipatory verbal nouns, see Mendell (1917: 39–40), Rosén (1983: 187–9), and Spevak (2015b: 292–5). See also Fugier (1991: 388–90) on anaphoric reference by ‘grammatical recategorization’.

1154

Discourse (‘The house was so bright at the time that I thought it was on fire. Then Alcumena called for me. The previous events were already filling me with terror, but the fear of my mistress prevailed.’ Pl. Am. 1067–9)

(d)

Quod ubi Caesar conspexit, Labienum ab suis copiis longius iam abscessisse, equitatus sui alam sinistram ad intercludendos hostes immisit. Erat in eo campo ubi ea res gerebatur, villa permagna turribus IIII exstructa. (‘But when Caesar saw that Labienus had now withdrawn some distance from his forces, he launched the left wing of his own cavalry, so as to cut the enemy off. Now in the area where this action was going on there was a very large farm building, constructed with four lofty towers.’ B. Afr. 39.5–40.1)

Another way of referring to preceding states of affairs or segments of discourse, namely with nouns with a more specific meaning with or without an anaphoric determiner, is shown in (e)–(g). In (e), hac oratione refers to Liscus’ words. In (f), ea desperatio refers to, and describes at the same time, the psychological effects of the preceding actions of the enemy. Note in (g) the almost literal repetition. (e)

Quin etiam, quod necessariam rem coactus Caesari enuntiarit, intellegere sese (sc. Liscum) quanto id cum periculo fecerit, et ob eam causam, quamdiu potuerit, tacuisse. Caesar hac oratione Lisci Dumnorigem, Diviciaci fratrem, designari sentiebat. ((Liscus is speaking) ‘Nay more, he was well aware, that though compelled by necessity, he had disclosed the matter to Caesar, at how great a risk he had done it; and for that reason, he had been silent as long as he could. Caesar perceived that by this speech of Liscus, Dumnorix, the brother of Diviciacus, was indicated.’ Caes. Gal. 1.17.6–18.1—tr. McDevitte and Bohn)

(f)

. . . et Manlius consul revectus in castra ad omnes portas milite opposito hostibus viam clauserat. Ea desperatio Tuscis rabiem magis quam audaciam accendit. (‘. . . and Manlius the consul had ridden back to the camp, and by posting men at all the gates had cut off the enemy’s egress. In desperation at this turn the Etruscans had been inflamed to the point rather of madness than of recklessness.’ Liv. 2.47.6)

(g)

Mansit in condicione atque pacto usque ad eum finem dum iudices reiecti sunt. Posteaquam reiectio iudicum facta est . . . renuntiata est tota condicio. (‘The terms of the contract held good as arranged, until judges were rejected. After the rejection of the judges had taken place . . . the contractor threw up his undertaking entirely.’ Cic. Ver. 16) Supplement: Chrysopolim Persae cepere urbem in Arabia, / plenam bonarum rerum atque antiquom oppidum. / Ea comportatur praeda, ut fiat auctio / publicitus. Ea res me domo expertem facit. (Pl. Per. 506–9); Bacchidem atque hunc suspicabar propter crimen, Chrysale, / mi male consuluisse. Ob eam rem omne aurum iratus reddidi / meo patri. (Pl. Bac. 683–5); (Orgetorix, Casticus, and Dumnorix agree on joining forces to

Discourse coherence 1155 seize power—Caes. Gal. 1.3.4–8) Ea res est Helvetiis per indicium enuntiata. (Caes. Gal. 1.4.1); Ibi diversis partibus duo duces Eupolemus et Nicodamus pugnantis hortabantur et prope certa fovebant spe iam Nicandrum ex composito adfore et terga hostium invasurum. Haec res aliquamdiu animos pugnantium sustinuit. (Liv. 38.6.5–6); Discedentem vero ex contione universi cohortantur magno sit animo neu dubitet proelium committere et suam fidem virtutemque experiri. Quo facto commutata omnium et voluntate et opinione consensu suorum constituit Curio . . . proelio rem committere. (Caes. Civ. 2.33.1–2); Quo facto cum haud immeritam laudem gratiamque apud omnes tulisset, dictatore P. Cornelio dicto ipse ab eo magister equitum creatus exemplo fuit collegas eumque intuentibus . . . (Liv. 4.57.6) Ecce autem aedificat. Columnam mento suffigit suo. / Apage, non placet profecto mi illaec aedificatio. (Pl. Mil. 209–10); Iam pridem ecastor frigida non lavi magis lubenter / nec quom me melius, mea Scapha, rear esse deficatam. / # Eventus rebus omnibus, velut horno messis magna / fuit. # Quid ea messis attinet ad meam lavationem? (Pl. Mos. 157–60); (Mysis in an aside, reacting to Pamphilus’ monologue which ends in:) Ea quoniam nemini obtrudi potest, / itur ad me. # Oratio haec me miseram exanimavit metu. (Ter. An. 250–1); Hic tamen excipit Pompeium—simillime, ut mihi videtur, atque ut illa lege, qua peregrini Roma eiciuntur, Glaucippus excipitur. Non enim hac exceptione unus adficitur beneficio, sed unus privatur iniuria. (Cic. Agr. 1.13); Itaque me non extrema tribus suffragiorum, sed primi illi vestri concursus, neque singulae voces praeconum, sed una vox universi populi Romani consulem declaravit. Hoc ego tam insigne, tam singulare vestrum beneficium, Quirites, cum ad animi mei fructum atque laetitiam duco esse permagnum, tum ad curam sollicitudinemque multo maius. (Cic. Agr. 2.4–5); Maiores nostri non solum id quod Campanis ceperant non imminuerunt verum etiam quod ei tenebant quibus adimi iure non poterat coemerunt. Qua de causa nec duo Gracchi qui de plebis Romanae commodis plurimum cogitaverunt, nec L. Sulla, qui omnia sine ulla religione quibus voluit est dilargitus, agrum Campanum attingere ausus est. (Cic. Agr. 2.81); Nemo erit praeter unum me . . . qui credat te invito provinciam tibi esse decretam. Hanc, quaeso, pro tua singulari sapientia reprime famam . . . (Cic. Phil. 11.23); Itemque Dumnorigi Haeduo . . . ut idem conaretur persuadet eique filiam suam in matrimonium dat. Perfacile factu esse illis probat conata perficere . . . (Caes. Gal. 1.3.5–6); Ex eo proelio circiter hominum milia CXXX superfuerunt eaque tota nocte continenter ierunt. (Caes. Gal. 1.26.5); . . . legatos ad eum mittunt. Cuius legationis Divico princeps fuit . . . (Caes. Gal. 1.13.2); Nec ut iniustus in pace rex, ita dux belli pravus fuit. Quin ea arte aequasset superiores reges . . . (Liv. 1.53.1)

The same determiners (is only rarely) are used in ablative absolute clauses that function as ‘Tail–Head linking constructions’, which refer to a preceding episode of a narrative.31 This is a very common phenomenon in Caesar and the Caesarian corpus. 31 For the term and the construction, see Bolkestein (2000; 2002; also summarized in 2001: 249–51). It is part of a technique called ‘ablatif absolu d’enchaînement’ by Chausserie-Laprée (1969: 120–2), which is also typical of Tacitus (Enghofer 1961: 118). For the use of these clauses, some of them ‘formulaic’, in the Bellum Alexandrinum, see Gaertner and Hausburg (2013: 63–4). Müller-Lancé (1994: 99) states that 83 out of 403 capita in Caesar’s de Bello Gallico begin with a ‘linking’ ablative absolute clause (of course, they will have been regarded as signals when our modern capita division was introduced). Holland (1986: 172) exaggerates when he states that participial ablative absolute clauses are mostly of this linking type.

1156

Discourse

Examples are (g)–(j). The anaphoric determiner hic is more frequent than the relative determiner qui and the order with the participle in the middle, as in (h), more frequent with hic, which is often emphatic. In cases like (j), the participle is the focus of the ablative absolute clause. As to the content of such ablative absolute clauses, those with hic are mainly like (g), the summary of an action, which is then continued by actions of the same protagonist; those with qui are mainly like (i), some form of communication, with a different protagonist in what follows.32 (For more examples of ablative absolute clauses with a relative expression, see § 18.29.) (g)

Hoc negotio confecto Labienus revertitur Agedincum . . . (‘Having finished this business, Labienus returned to Agedincum . . .’ Caes. Gal. 7.62.10)

(h)

Hac confirmata opinione timoris idoneum quendam hominem et callidum delegit Gallum . . . (‘After having established this suspicion of his cowardice, he selected a certain suitable and crafty Gaul . . .’ Caes. Gal. 3.18.1—tr. McDevitte and Bohn)

(i)

Quibus rebus cognitis Caesar cum undique bellum parari videret . . . maturius sibi de bello cogitandum putavit. (‘Caesar, on being informed of their acts, since he saw that war was being prepared on all sides, . . . thought that he ought to take measures for the war earlier [than usual].’ Caes. Gal. 6.2.3—tr. McDevitte and Bohn)

(j)

Qua perfecta munitione animadversum est ab speculatoribus Caesaris cohortes quasdam . . . in vetera castra duci. (‘After the fortification was complete, Caesar’s scouts noticed that some cohorts . . . were being taken back to an old camp.’ Caes. Civ. 3.66.1) Supplement: Qui: Quibus rebus explicatis tum denique ad hoc horribile et formidolosum frumentarium crimen accedam. (Cic. Scaur. 22); Quibus rebus nuntiatis Afranius (cj. Kindscher; Afranio mss.) ab instituto opere discedit . . . (Caes. Civ. 1.75.1); Quibus rebus Varus ex perfugis cognitis occasionem nactus . . . naves onerarias . . . incendit . . . (B. Afr. 62.5) Is: Cognitis iis rebus quae sunt gestae in citeriore Hispania bellum parabat. (Caes. Civ. 2.18.6); Eo celeriter confecto negotio rursus in hiberna legiones reduxit. (Caes. Gal. 6.3.3) Hic: His rebus confectis in concilio pronuntiat arcessitum se ab Senonibus . . . (Caes. Gal. 5.56.4); His rebus confectis totum exercitum lustrat. (B. Alex. 56.5); Hoc proelio trans Rhenum nuntiato Suebi, qui ad ripas Rheni venerant, domum reverti coeperunt. (Caes. Gal. 1.54.1); Hac re cognita Caesar mittit conplures equitum turmas eodem. (Caes. Gal. 7.45.1)

32 See Bolkestein (2002).

Discourse coherence 1157 In the historians hic, both as a pronoun and as a determiner, is very commonly used to close one episode before starting a new one.33 Examples are (k)–(m). (k)

Haec apud Romanos consul. Hannibal rebus prius quam verbis adhortandos milites ratus . . . (‘So spoke the consul to the Romans. Hannibal thought it well to encourage his soldiers by an object lesson before haranguing them . . .’ Liv. 21.42.1)

(l)

Hunc finem exitumque seditio militum coepta apud Sucronem habuit. Per idem tempus ad Baetim fluvium Hanno . . . (‘Such was the end and outcome of the mutiny of the soldiers which began at Sucro. About the same time along the Baetis River Hanno . . .’ Liv. 28.29.12–30.1)

(m)

Hoc maxime modo in Italiam perventum est quinto mense a Carthagine Nova, ut quidam auctores sunt, quinto decimo die Alpibus superatis. (‘Such were the chief features of the march to Italy, which they accomplished five months after leaving New Carthage—as certain authorities state—having crossed the Alps in fifteen days.’ Liv. 21.38.1)

24.12 Anaphoric(ally used) pronouns and adverbs used to refer to preceding states of affairs or segments of discourse The pronouns used to refer to states of affairs and segments of discourse are the same as those used to refer to participants (see § 24.9, also for the bibliography), but, as they refer to third-order entities (see § 11.136), only neuter forms are concerned. Examples are (a)–(d). In (a), id refers to the situation the speaker is talking about. Quod refers to the same situation and the speaker’s incompetence to see through it. Haec (plural; hoc much less), as in (b), is relatively common to refer to a preceding situation. Illud (singular) is used much less often to refer to what precedes than to announce what follows. In Plautus both singular istuc (istud) and plural istaec are common, referring to something in which the addressee is involved. In types of text other than Comedy they are rare.34 The Supplement shows that these pronouns were still in use in Late Latin, although sometimes mainly in stereotyped expressions. (a)

Ad illum modum sublitum os esse mi hodie! / Neque id perspicere quivi. / Quod quom scibitur, per urbem irridebor. (‘Is it possible that I was fooled like that today? I couldn’t see through it. Once this is known, I’ll be a laughing-stock throughout the city.’ Pl. Capt. 783–5)

(b)

Quor haec, tu ubi rescivisti ilico, / celata me sunt? Quor non rescivi? (‘Why was this concealed from me as soon as you got to know of it? Why didn’t I find out?’ Pl. Ps. 490–1)

33 See Chausserie-Laprée (1969: 55–60) and Kroon (2017). For Velleius Paterculus, see Ruiz Castellanos (2005: 935–6). 34 For further instances of quod in Plautus, see Lodge s.v. qui 472 § N 1; for id, s.v. is 841 § B 5; for hoc, s.v. hic 695 § A 2.l; for illuc (illud), s.v. ille 756 § C 2.r; for istuc (istud), s.v. iste 854 § C 2.

1158 (c)

Discourse Et illud paveo et hoc formido, ita tota sum misera in metu. (‘I’m afraid of one thing and scared of the other: I’m completely in fear, poor me.’ Pl. Cist. 535)

(d)

Quid est negoti? / # Pestis te tenet. # Nam quor istuc / dicis? Equidem valeo . . . (‘What’s the matter? # You have the plague. # Why are you saying that? I’m perfectly well . . .’ Pl. Am. 580–2) Supplement: Quod: Quem praestantissimus civis, Aquila, Pollentia expulit et quidem crure fracto. Quod utinam illi ante accidisset, ne huc redire potuisset! (Cic. Phil. 11.14); Quod ubi Caesar resciit quorum per fines ierant, his uti conquirerent et reducerent, si sibi purgati esse vellent, imperavit. (Caes. Gal. 1.28.1); Quod cum dixisset, nos satis avidi optati sumus ire . . . (Pereg. 10.9); Saguntum ergo ferociter obsidebat. Quod ubi Romae auditum est, missi legati ad Hannibalem ut ab eius obsidione discederet. (August. Civ. 3.20); Quod cum facis, vel attende, et iam noli facere. (August. Serm. 16B.1) Quae ut aspexi, me continuo contuli protinam in pedes. (Pl. Bac. 374); Quae cum cogito, iam nunc timeo quidnam . . . dignum eloqui possim. (Cic. Div. Caec. 42); Quae cum ita sint, quoniam recta vita ducenda est qua perveniendum sit ad beatam, omnes affectus istos vita recta rectos habet, perversa perversos. (August. Civ. 14.9); Quae cum ita sint, hinc est quod Dominus Iesus in Spiritu Sancto daemones eicit. (August. Serm. 71.27) Id: Quis igitur nisi vos narravit mi illi ut fuerit proelium? / # An etiam id tu scis? # Quipp’ qui ex te audivi ut urbem maxumam / expugnavisses regemque Pterelam tute occideris. / # Egone istuc dixi? (Pl. Am. 744–7); Miram in eo pietatem, suavitatem humanitatemque perspexi. Quo maiorem spem habeo nihil fore aliter ac deceat. Id te igitur scire volui. (Cic. Att. 6.3.8); Neque fas esse existimant ea litteris mandare, cum in reliquis fere rebus, publicis privatisque rationibus, Graecis utantur litteris. Id mihi duabus de causis instituisse videntur . . . (Caes. Gal. 6.14.3–4); Ad hoc enim ducitur uxor. Nam id etiam tabulae indicant ubi scribitur: Liberorum procreandorum causa. (August. Serm. 9.18) Ea tibi omnia enarravi. Nisi te amarem plurumum, / non facerem. (Pl. Am. 525–6); Eaque populus Romanus non solum plausu sed etiam gemitu suo comprobavit. (Cic. Sest. 123); Denique quando ea paululum supprimenda iudicavit et aliquanto altius latuit, dubitavit de illo daemonum princeps . . . (August. Civ. 9.21); Ea legimus, credimus ut salvemur. (August. Serm. 9.4) Hoc: Postquam hoc mihi narravit, abeo ab illo. (Pl. Cur. 349); Ubi hoc quaestori Caecilio . . . nuntiatum est, vocari ad se Agonidem iubet. (Cic. Div. Caec. 56); Hoc autem, antequam perveniremus ad Montem Dei, iam referentibus fratribus cognoveram, et postquam ibi perveni, ita esse manifeste cognovi. (Pereg. 2.7); Testantur hoc martyrum loca et basilicae apostolorum, quae in illa vastatione urbis ad se confugientes suos alienosque receperunt. (August. Civ. 1.1); An forte hoc probare non potero . . . (August. Serm. 1.2) Utrum deliras, quaeso, an astans somnias, / qui equom me afferre iubes, loricam adducere, / multos hastatos, postid multos velites, / multos cum multis? Haec tu pervorsario / mihi fabulatu’s. # Dixin’ ego istaec, opsecro? / # Modo quidem hercle haec dixisti. (Pl. Cist. 291–6); Magium se ipsum interfecisse postea. Se a Marcello ad me

Discourse coherence 1159 missum esse qui haec nuntiaret et rogaret uti medicos ei mitterem. (Sulp. Ruf. Fam. 4.12.2); Statim ergo ut haec audivi, descendimus de animalibus . . . (Pereg. 14.1); Sed haec Iuno dicebat velut irata mulier, quid loqueretur ignorans. (August. Civ. 1.3); Qui haec dicit et non it nec applicat cor suum ut faciat mala remedia, utique vincit. (August. Serm. 4.36) Illud (illuc): Egone istuc dixi tibi? / # Mihi quidem hercle. # Ita me amabit Iuppiter, / uxor, ut ego illud numquam dixi. (Pl. Mer. 761–3); Ecquis est igitur . . . qui illud aut fieri noluerit aut factum improbarit? (Cic. Phil. 2.29); An quia illud factum est indignante Menelao, illud autem concedente Vulcano? (August. Civ. 3.3); Dicendo sibi illud homines moriuntur. (August. Serm. 5.2) Egomet mihi non credo, quom illaec autumare illum audio. (Pl. Am. 416); Sed quid ego illa commemoro? (Cic. Mil. 18); Praenuntiabat illa Hermes dolendo. Praenuntiabat haec propheta gaudendo. (August. Civ. 8.24); Quare dicta sint illa omnia, quaeramus. (August. Serm. 4.22) Istuc (istud ): Qui tibi nunc istuc in mentem est? (Pl. Am. 666); Nimirum tibi istud lex ipsa renuntiavit. (Cic. Clu. 143); Neque istuc pia fides nimium reformidat . . . (August. Civ. 1.12); Istud non dicitur . . . (August. Serm. 16A.11) Nimia mira memoras. Si istaec vera sunt, divinitus / non metuo quin meae uxori latae suppetiae sient. (Pl. Am. 1105–6); Sed quo die populo Romano tribuni plebi restituti sunt, omnia ista vobis, si forte nondum intellegitis, adempta atque erepta sunt. (Cic. Ver. 5.175); Verum ista oportunius alio loco diligenter copioseque tractanda sunt. (August. Civ. 1.3); Sed ne oneremus memoriam sanctitatis vestrae, ista commemorasse suffecerit. (August. Serm. 1.5)

The adverb ita is regularly used to refer to a preceding state of affairs, as in (e)–(g). In (e), the speaker uses ita to express that ‘my behaviour will be as you indicated’. In (g), ita signals a consequence, more or less like itaque. Sic is used in a comparable way, as in (h) and (i). (e)

Sequere hac, Palinure, me ad fores, fi mi opsequens. / # Ita faciam. (‘Palinurus, follow me this way to the door, be obedient to me. # I will do so.’ Pl. Cur. 87–8)

(f)

. . . cum cognorit ab eis qui tenent quae sint in quaque re, multo oratorem melius quam ipsos illos quorum eae sunt artes esse dicturum. Ita si de re militari dicendum huic erit Sulpicio, quaeret a C. Mario adfini nostro et, cum acceperit, ita pronuntiabit ut ipsi C. Mario paene hic melius quam ipse illa scire videatur. (‘. . . after learning the technicalities of each from those who know the same, the orator will speak about them far better than even the men who are masters of these arts. For example, should our friend Sulpicius here have to speak upon the art of war, he will inquire of our relative Gaius Marius, and when he has received his teachings, will deliver himself in such fashion as to seem even to Gaius Marius to be almost better informed on the subject than Gaius Marius himself.’ Cic. de Orat. 1.65–6)

(g)

Insectatur omnis domi per aedis / nec quemquam prope ad se sinit adire. / Ita omnes sub arcis, sub lectis latentes / metu mussitant.

1160

Discourse (‘She’s chasing everybody at home throughout the house and doesn’t let anyone come near her: everybody’s hiding under chests and couches and keeping quiet out of fear.’ Pl. Cas. 662–5)

(h)

Te velle uxorem aiebat tuo nato dare, / ideo aedificare hic velle aiebat in tuis. / # Hic aedificare volui? # Sic dixit mihi. (‘He said you wanted to give a wife to your son, and he said that was why you wanted to enlarge your own house here. # I wanted to enlarge my house? # So he told me.’ Pl. Mos. 1027–9)

(i)

Reos autem appello non eos modo qui arguuntur sed omnis quorum de re disceptatur. Sic enim olim loquebantur. (‘By “parties” I mean not only persons impeached, but all whose interests are being determined, for that was how people used the term in the old days.’ Cic. de Orat. 2.183)

Anaphorical adverbs with a more specific meaning than ita and sic include reason adverbs like eo, ideo ‘therefore’, quo ‘from which fact or circumstance’ (OLD), quare ‘wherefore’, quamobrem (also written as three words quam ob rem) ‘wherefore’, and unde ‘from which’ (rare), as in (j) and (k), and time adverbs like postea ‘thereafter’, inde ‘from then on’, as in (l). (j)

Video ego te Amoris valde tactum toxico, / adulescens. Eo te magis volo monitum. (‘I can see that you’ve been hit hard by Love’s poisoned shaft, young man. That’s why I want to warn you all the more.’ Pl. Cist. 299–300)

(k)

Arbitrium vostrum, vostra existumatio / valebit. Quare omnis vos oratos volo, / ne plus iniquom possit quam aequom oratio. (‘Your judgement and your opinion will prevail. So I want to plead with all of you not to let the words of the unfair carry more weight than those of the fair.’ Ter. Hau. 25–7—tr. Brown)

(l)

Inde ex eo loco / video recipere se senem. (‘Then I saw the old bloke coming from the place.’ Pl. Aul. 709–10) Appendix: A number of demonstrative adverbs are used to introduce some form of confirmation of or argument for a preceding statement, for example ita in (m). The determiner is can be used in a comparable way, as in (n), as well as the demonstrative adjectives talis, tantus, and tot. The term used for such statements is ‘epiphonema’.35 (m) Di te deaeque omnes funditus perdant, senex. / Ita mea consilia undique oppugnas male. (‘May all the gods and goddesses kill you entirely, old man: you assault my plans from all sides.’ Pl. Mos. 684–5)

35 See K.-St.: II.158–9, Nägelsbach and Müller (1905: 758–61), TLL s.v. adeo 606.19ff.; s.v. ita 520.70ff., Sz.: 470. For the Greek term §.t€Ĉxrwl ‘interjection, exclamation’, see Dickey (2007: 238).

Preparative (cataphoric) reference 1161 (n) . . . sic / ut eum, si convenit, scio fe- / cisse. Eo est ingenio natus. (‘. . . as I know he has done if he’s found him; that’s his nature.’ Pl. Bac. 1085–6) Supplement (in alphabetical order by demonstrative word): . . . non, ut ego, amori nec desidiae in otio / operam dedisse nec potestatem sibi / fuisse. Adeo arte cohibitum esse a patre. (Pl. Mer. 62–4); Damna evenerunt maxuma misero mihi. Ita me mancupia miserum affecerunt male . . . (Pl. St. 209–10); . . . quorum quanta mens sit, difficile est existimare. Ita multa meminerunt. (Cic. Tusc. 1.59); Malum quod tibi di dabunt. Sic scelestu’s. (Pl. Ps. 1130); Invideo tibi. Tam multa cottidie quae mirer istoc perferuntur. (Cael. Fam. 8.4.1); Ut Alexandrum regem videmus, qui cum interemisset Clitum familiarem suum, vix a se manus abstinuit. Tanta vis fuit paenitendi. (Cic. Tusc. 4.79); Ipsum id metuo ut credant. Tot concurrunt veri similia. (Ter. Ad. 627); . . . a Platone, qui, cum haec exprimenda verbis arbitraretur, novam quandam finxit in libris civitatem. Usque eo illa quae dicenda de iustitia putabat a vitae consuetudine et a civitatum moribus abhorrebant. (Cic. de Orat. 1.224)

24.13 Preparative (cataphoric) reference to following states of affairs and segments of discourse Anaphoric and demonstrative determiners and pronouns can be used to announce constituents of clauses (their preparative or cataphoric function). See § 11.106 and § 11.139. They are also used to announce states of affairs and segments of discourse. The same holds for the adverbs ita and sic.36 Examples with preparative determiners are (a) and (b).37 (a)

Eo sum genere gnatus: magna me facinora decet efficere / quae post mihi clara et diu clueant. (‘Such is the stock from which I was born: I ought to do great deeds that bring me great and long renown afterward.’ Pl. Ps. 590–1)

(b)

Hac lege vinum pendens venire oportet: vinaceos inlutos et faecem relinquito. (‘These are the terms for the sale of grapes on the vine: The purchaser will leave unwashed lees and dregs.’ Cato Agr. 147) Supplement: Is: Hoc idem significat Graecus ille in eam sententiam versus: ‘Quod fore paratum est, id summum exsuperat Iovem.’ (Cic. Div. 2.25); . . . senatusque decrevit uti consules maioribus hostiis rem divinam facerent . . . cum precatione ea: ‘quod . . .’ (Liv. 31.5.3) Hic: Nam fere maxuma pars morem hunc homines habent: quod sibi volunt, / dum id impetrant, boni sunt. (Pl. Capt. 232–3); Insipiens, / semper tu huic verbo vitato aps tuo viro— # Quoi verbo? / # ‘I foras, mulier.’ (Pl. Cas. 209–12)

36 See TLL s.v. ita 518.79ff. See also §  15.103 for the use of ita and sic as preparative devices with accusative and infinitive clauses. 37 For further examples of is, see TLL s.v. is 474.6ff.

1162

Discourse Ille: Illa vero eius cupiditas incredibilis est. Nam . . . (Cic. Ver. 4.58) Iste: Postero die pastillus iste nocte super cibum dandus est et, si opus fuerit, per triduum continuum eodem tempore. Recipit autem haec: apii seminis pondo trientem . . . (Larg. 52)38

Examples with preparative pronouns are (c) and (d). (c)

Quid tibi ex filio nam, opsecro, aegre est? # Scies: / id, perit cum tuo. [atque] Ambo aeque amicas habent. (‘What upsets you about your son, please? / # You shall know. It’s that he’s perished together with yours; both alike have girlfriends.’ Pl. Bac. 1114–15)

(d)

Sed mi hoc responde. # Roga. / # Quid erat nomen nostrae matri? # Teuximarchae. (‘But answer me this. # Ask. # What was our mother’s name? # Teuximarcha.’ Pl. Men. 1130–1) Supplement: Is: Cara omnia. / atque eo fuerunt cariora, aes non erat. (Pl. Aul. 375–6); Atque id etiam de Cicerone dicit: ‘Non miror’, inquit, ‘fuisse qui hos versus scriberet . . .’ (Gel. 12.2.5) Hic: . . . quom haec pater sibi diceret: / ‘tibi aras, tibi occas, tibi seris, tibi idem metis, / tibi denique iste pariet laetitiam labos.’ (Pl. Mer. 70–2); Licet iste dicat emisse se, sicuti solet dicere, credite hoc mihi, iudices. Nulla umquam civitas tota Asia et Graecia signum ullum, tabulam pictam , ullum denique ornamentum urbis sua voluntate cuiquam vendidit. (Cic. Ver. 4.133) Ille: Atque illud saepe fit: tempestas venit, / confringit tegulas imbricesque. (Pl. Mos. 108–9); Illud enim potest dici iudici ab aliquo non tam verecundo homine quam gratioso: ‘Iudica hoc factum esse aut numquam esse factum; crede huic testi . . .’ (Cic. Caec. 72) Iste: Sed adhuc istud, mea pupula, ministrare debebis. (Apul. Met. 6.16.3)

Examples of the adverbs ita and sic are (e) and (f). (e)

Ita ingenium meum est: / Inimicos semper osa sum optuerier. (‘This is the nature of my nature: I’ve always hated looking at my enemies.’ Pl. Am. 899–900)

(f)

At ego sic agam: / Coniciam sortis in sitellam et sortiar / tibi et Chalino. (‘But I’ll act like this: I’ll put lots into an urn and draw them for you and Chalinus.’ Pl. Cas. 341–3)

24.14 Cohesive devices linking sentences The preceding sections focused on participants and events within sentences and the ways to refer to participants and events in contiguous sentences. We now turn to the 38 TLL s.v. iste 507.62ff. cites this as the first instance of preparative use of the determiner.

Cohesive devices linking sentences 1163 relations between entire sentences. Within a unit of discourse contiguous sentences can follow each other with or without a linking device that indicates the semantic relation between them: the connexion is either ‘syndetic’ or ‘asyndetic’. (The same terms are used for the way coordinated clauses, phrases, or words are connected—see § 19.1.) Examples of asyndetically and syndetically connected sentences are (a) and (b), respectively. The semantic relation between the two pairs of sentences is more or less the same: the second sentence explains the emotion mentioned in the first. The first example, repeated from § 24.2, has no specific sign of this relation (it is an instance of asyndeton causale or explicativum);39 the second has the connector nam. (a)

Odi ego aurum. ° Multa multis saepe suasit perperam. (‘I hate gold: it has often led many people to act badly on many issues.’ Pl. Capt. 328)

(b)

Factum quod aegre tuli. / Nam mihi sobrina Ampsigura tua mater fuit. (‘Yes, which was hard for me. For your mother, Ampsigura, was my second cousin.’ Pl. Poen. 1067–8)

The frequency of asyndeton varies between authors and between texts. In texts written in a periodic style asyndeton is relatively rare. In archaic texts it is relatively frequent,40 but in the prose of Seneca, too, the frequency is extremely high. The grammars often describe the high frequency in archaic texts as a mark of colloquial usage and a relatively simple style, but there is no reliable evidence. Considering Seneca, the frequency of asyndeton apparently has to do with personal preference as well. Table 24.3 offers an illustration of the variations in frequency of the use of asyndeton and explicit sentence-connecting constituents in a number of passages of similar length from Cicero’s Letters to Atticus, Livy, and Seneca’s Letters.41 In Late Latin texts, for example in the Peregrinatio, asyndeton is much less common than in the texts represented in Table 24.3.42 Table 24.3 Asyndeton in three prose texts  

Cicero

Livy

Seneca

Asyndeton

68

42

107

Syndeton

42

57

41

Authors like Cicero and Caesar use asyndeton especially in dramatic peaks of their narratives, which shows that it was an important stylistic device.43 An example is (c).

39 See K.-St.: II.158. 40 For Plautus’ ‘Armut an Konjunktionen’, see Blänsdorf (1967: 78). 41 Cic. Att. 1.1–5 (178 lines OCT); Liv. 1.48–53 (195 lines OCT); Sen. Ep. 1–5 (181 lines OCT). From Table 24.3 it can also be deduced that in this sample Seneca has the shortest, Livy the longest sentences. This figure is taken from LSS § 12.1. For Seneca, see Bolkestein (1986). 42 See Kiss (2005). 43 See Rosén (2011: 136) and von Albrecht (2012: 35, 161).

1164 (c)

Discourse Aderant unguenta, coronae. ° Incendebantur odores. ° Mensae conquisitissimis epulis exstruebantur. ° Fortunatus sibi Damocles videbatur. (‘There were perfumes, garlands; incense was burnt; the tables were loaded with the choicest banquet: Damocles thought himself a lucky man.’ Cic. Tusc. 5.62)

A number of words and clitics that can be used as connectors of sentences are also used as coordinators of clauses. As a consequence, it is not always clear whether we are dealing with syndetic and asyndetic clauses that belong to the same (compound) sentence or with separate syndetic and asyndetic sentences (see also § 14.1 (ii) and §  19.14). Editors vary in their decisions on punctuation. This is illustrated by (d) and (e), more or less the same text with different punctuations. In (d), Klotz’ Teubner edition has one adversative connector and two conjunctive coordinators. In (e), Damon’s edition has one adversative coordinator and two conjunctive connectors.44 In (c) above, editors use a comma, colon, or semicolon where I print a full stop (and a capital). (d)

(e)

Est autem oppidum et loci natura et colle munitum. Sed celeriter cives Romani ligneis effectis turribus sese munierunt, et cum essent infirmi ad resistendum propter paucitatem hominum crebris confecti vulneribus, ad extremum auxilium descenderunt servosque omnes puberes liberaverunt et praesectis omnium mulierum crinibus tormenta effecerunt. Est autem oppidum et loci natura et colle munitum, sed celeriter cives Romani, ligneis effectis turribus, his sese munierunt. Et cum essent infirmi ad resistendum propter paucitatem hominum, crebris confecti vulneribus ad extremum auxilium descenderunt servosque omnes puberes liberaverunt. Et praesectis omnium mulierum crinibus tormenta effecerunt. (‘The town is fortified both by the nature of its site and by a hill, but the Roman citizens hastily built wooden siege towers and used these as their fortifications. Being incapable—because of their small numbers—of standing firm in resistance, and overcome by numerous injuries, they came to the last resort, freeing all of the adult male slaves; they also cut off all the women’s hair, making catapult ropes.’ Caes. Civ. 3.9.2–3)

24.15 Syndetic connexion of sentences The words (and clitics) that can be used to create coherence between sentences belong to various categories, which are not always easy to distinguish one from one another. One category has been dealt with in §  24.12, namely anaphoric adverbs like ideo ‘therefore’ referring to a preceding state of affairs or segment of discourse. Another category are words that can also be used as coordinators to connect clauses and constituents within clauses like et ‘and’ and sed ‘but’ (see the discussion of exx. (d) and (e) in § 24.14). More specific are connectors like nam ‘for’ and interactional particles like enim ‘you know’. Then there are all sorts of adverbs like enumerative porro ‘besides’ 44 For Damon’s punctuation, see the Preface to her OCT edition, pp. lxiii and lxvi, n. 81.

Cohesive devices linking sentences 1165 and contrastive tamen ‘yet’. A number of words can function as adverb and as connector or interactional particle (see § 24.46 on nunc). Furthermore there are devices that create the expectation for additional information, such as the particle quidem and the adverb sane, both often followed by some form of contrast. The terminology used to refer to these words differs from language to language and between theoretical models, especially for the group of words called ‘connectors’ and ‘interactional particles’ in this Syntax. A common name for the words involved is ‘discourse particles’. Some of these words are also used to mark the relation between larger units of discourse (paragraphs, for example) and in this way contribute to the organization of the discourse.45 The difference between connectors and interactional particles (called ‘conversation management particles’ by Kroon 2011) is best demonstrated by comparing nam and enim, which are traditionally called ‘causal conjunctions’. Whereas nam ‘for’ indicates that the sentence in which it occurs contains some form of evidence for the correctness of the preceding sentence, enim ‘you know’ appeals to the cooperation of the addressee to recognize the correctness of what precedes: it is a ‘consensus’ particle. Adverbs are also often used to connect sentences. They differ from connectors and interactional particles in several respects. The main difference is that adverbs are part of their clause and contribute their lexical meaning to its content, whereas the other two categories, although positioned in a particular sentence, do not add to its content. They serve to clarify the relationship between the successive sentences. Adverbs can have clitics attached to them, the other two cannot. Adverbs are mobile in their sentence, the other two have more or less fixed positions (see § 23.21). Connectors and interactional particles cannot or can only rarely be used in subordinate clauses that follow the main clause. Furthermore, connectors and interactional particles can cooccur with adverbs in the same sentence. For an illustration, see the discussion of tamen in § 24.22. The sections in which these words are discussed below are based on semantic considerations. The following semantic relations are distinguished: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi)

conjunctive relation: -que, ac/atque, et, nec/neque disjunctive relation: aut adversative relation: ast, at, atqui, autem, ceterum, sed, verum, contra, tamen, nihilominus, vero, etsi, tametsi, quamquam explanatory and justificatory relation: nam, namque, etenim, quippe, enim, nempe consecutive relation: igitur, itaque, ergo sequential relation: e.g. deinde, tum.

The amount of detail about the individual words and clitics in the following sections varies considerably. This is related to the frequency of the items involved, their 45 See Pinkster  (1972: 153–64; 2004b), Risselada  (1998b), Rosén  (2005: 231–2), Kroon  (2011), and Schrickx (2011: 261–8).

1166

Discourse

semantic and/or pragmatic complexity, the availability of up-to-date studies, including lemmata of the TLL, and personal interest of the author.

24.16 Conjunctive connexion of sentences The conjunctive (also called: ‘copulative’ or ‘additive’) connectors are the same as the conjunctive coordinators discussed in §§ 19.24ff.: -que, ac/atque, et, and nec/neque. These connectors can be used with all sentence types, but are not attested with interrogative sentences introduced by the question particle nonne and rarely with those with num.46 They are not compatible with other connectors introducing a sentence: *et nam, *et . . . igitur (for autem, see § 24.26). 24.17 The conjunctive connector -que Sentence connexion by -que ‘and’ is rare. Examples are (a)–(c). The following sentence is simply added to the preceding one. See also § 19.25 for the use of -que as a coordinator and for further details. (a)

Haec Andria, / si ista uxor sive amica’st, gravida e Pamphilo’st. / Audireque eorum’st operae pretium audaciam. (‘The Andrian woman, whether she’s a wife or a mistress, is pregnant by Pamphilus. And you should just listen to their impudence.’ Ter. An. 215–17)

(b)

(in a discussion about ‘sordid’ jobs) Opificesque omnes in sordida arte versantur; nec enim quicquam ingenuum habere potest officina. Minimeque artes eae probandae, quae ministrae sunt voluptatum . . . (‘And all mechanics are engaged in vulgar trades; for no workshop can have anything liberal about it. Least respectable of all are those trades which cater for sensual pleasures . . .’ Cic. Off. 1.150)

(c)

Relinquebatur ut extremam rationem belli sequens quam plurimos colles occuparet et quam latissimas regiones praesidiis teneret Caesarisque copias quam maxime posset distineret. Idque accidit. (‘It remained to pursue the final military option: occupy as many hills as possible, hold as much territory as he could with garrisons, and extend Caesar’s forces as much as possible. And this is what occurred.’ Caes. Civ. 3.44.2) Supplement: Quid cesso abire ad navem dum salvo licet? / Vosque omnis quaeso, si senex revenerit, / ne me indicetis qua platea hinc aufugerim. (Pl. Men. 878–80); Eosque · viatores · eosque · praecones · omnes . . . (CIL I2.587.32 (Lex Cornelia, 81 bc)—NB: connector + coordinator); Lentulum autem sibi confirmasse ex fatis Sibyllinis haruspicumque responsis se esse tertium illum Cornelium ad quem regnum huius urbis

46 See Rosén (2011: 139–40). For the use of et in various sentence types, see TLL s.v. et 890.14ff. Et can be used to coordinate an indirect question with num with another indirect question. See §  19.27, Supplement. Aut num can be used after a preceding question. See § 24.21.

Conjunctive connexion of sentences 1167 atque imperium pervenire esset necesse: Cinnam ante se et Sullam fuisse. Eundemque dixisse fatalem hunc annum esse ad interitum huius urbis . . . (Cic. Catil. 3.9); Quaeque sunt vetera praecepta sapientium, qui iubent ‘tempori parere’ et ‘sequi deum’ et ‘se noscere’ et ‘nihil nimis,’ haec sine physicis quam vim habeant—et habent maximam—videre nemo potest. (Cic. Fin. 3.73); Quos ubi Afranius procul visos cum Petreio conspexit, nova re perterritus locis superioribus constitit. Aciemque instruit. (Caes. Civ. 1.65.1); Caesar exploratis regionibus albente caelo omnes copias castris educit. Magnoque circuitu nullo certo itinere exercitum ducit. (Caes. Civ. 1.68.1); Romaeque legatis eius, postquam errasse regem et Iugurthae scelere lapsum deprecati sunt, amicitiam et foedus petentibus hoc modo respondetur. (Sal. Jug. 104.4); Tantumque sua laude obstitit famae consulis Marcius ut, nisi foedus cum Latinis columna aenea insculptum monumento esset ab Sp. Cassio uno, quia collega afuerat, ictum, Postumium Cominium bellum gessisse cum Volscis memoria cessisset. (Liv. 2.33.9); (sc. Tacfarinas) ruendo in tela captivitatem haud inulta morte effugit. Isque finis armis impositus. (Tac. Ann. 4.25.3); Redditur ordini Lurius Varus consularis, avaritiae criminibus olim perculsus. Et Pomponia Graecina insignis femina, Plautio, quem ovasse de Britannis rettuli, nupta ac superstitionis externae rea, mariti iudicio permissa. Isque prisco instituto propinquis coram de capite famaque coniugis cognovit et insontem nuntiavit. (Tac. Ann. 13.32.2)

24.18 The conjunctive connector ac/atque Ac/atque ‘and’ is used more often as a connector of sentences than -que and et.47 Also, of the occurrences of ac/atque a higher proportion is used as connector than is the case with et. In Caesar’s de Bello Gallico, for example, of the c.600 instances of ac/atque some twenty-five are connectors; in Cicero’s de Officiis of c.180 instances, some sixty. Alongside instances where the sentence introduced by ac/atque simply adds extra information ac/atque often signals something that is unexpected, as in (a) and (b), or more important (‘and what is more’ OLD), as in (c) and (d). Sometimes the content of the ac/atque sentences is in contrast with what precedes, as in (e). Sentences with ac/atque relatively often contain particles or adverbs that make these relations explicit (see the Supplement). See also § 19.26 for the use of ac/atque as a coordinator and for further details. (a)

. . . abimus omnes cubitum. Condormivimus. / Lucernam forte oblitus fueram exstinguere. / Atque ille exclamat derepente maxumum. (‘. . . we all went to bed. We fell asleep. I’d accidentally forgotten to put out the lamp. And suddenly he lets out an enormous shout.’ Pl. Mos. 486–8)

(b)

Profectum longius reperiunt omnemque exercitum discessisse cognoscunt. Atque unus ex captivis ‘Quid vos’, inquit . . . (‘They find that he has gone on some distance, they learn that all his army is departed. And then one of their prisoners said: “Why do you . . .” ’ Caes. Gal. 6.35.7)

47 See TLL s.v. atque 1076.18ff. with a detailed semantic classification and OLD s.v. atque § 2 ‘beginning an emphatic sentence or clause’. Also Lodge: s.v. atque 178–9 (§ 13), McGlynn s.v. atque 59 (§§ XIII and XIV), Merguet (Reden) s.v. atque 308 (§II.1); (Phil.) 255 (§ II.1), and Gerber and Greef s.v. atque 109 (§ 2).

1168 (c)

Discourse Flagitium hominis, qui dixit mihi / suam uxorem hanc arcessituram [esse]. Ea se eam negat morarier. / Atque edepol mirum ni subolet iam hoc huic vicinae meae. (‘What a disgraceful creature he is! He told me his wife would send for her. But she says she doesn’t need her. And indeed it would be odd if this neighbour of mine hasn’t got wind of this already.’ Pl. Cas. 552–4)

(d)

Putatisne vos illis rebus frui posse, nisi eos qui vobis fructui sunt conservaritis, non solum, ut ante dixi, calamitate, sed etiam calamitatis formidine liberatos? Ac ne illud quidem vobis neglegendum est . . . (‘Do you imagine that you can enjoy these advantages unless you preserve those from whom you derive them and keep them free not only, as I said before, from disaster but from fear of disaster? There is still another point . . .’ Cic. Man. 16–17)

(e)

Atque ego istuc, Anthrax, aliovorsum dixeram, / non istuc quod tu insimulas. (‘Now now, Anthrax! I said this in a different sense, not the one you allege.’ Pl. Aul. 287–8) Supplement (in alphabetical order by additional particles and adverbs): Fieri non potest ut . . . eum tu in tua provincia non cognoris. Atque adeo, ne hoc aut longius aut obscurius esse possit, procedite in medium atque explicate descriptionem imaginemque tabularum . . . (Cic. Ver. 2.190); At scelesta vide’n ut ne id quidem, me dignum esse existumat / quem adeat, quem colloquatur, quoique irato supplicet? / Atque eccam illecebra exit tandem. (Pl. As. 149–51); Is enim est dicendi opifex. Atque equidem aliquantum iam etiam noctis adsumo. (Cic. Fam. 7.25.2); I, bene ambula. / # Atque audi’n etiam? # Ecce. (Pl. As. 108–9); Atque ego quidem hercle ut verum tibi dicam, pater, / ea res me male habet. (Pl. As. 843–4); Ac tamen, ut posset dicere se emisse, Archagatho imperat ut illis aliquid quorum argentum fuerat nummulorum dicis causa daret. (Cic. Ver. 4.53); Atque utinam non daretis quis sit peior. (August. Serm. 9.21)

24.19 The conjunctive connector et Et ‘and’ is rarely used as a conjunctive connector.48 In Caesar’s de Bello Gallico, for example, of the almost 900 instances of et only two are connectors; in Cicero’s de Officiis of also almost 900 instances, some thirty-five. A sentence introduced by et generally simply adds a new piece of information, more or less as deinde ‘and then’ and praeterea ‘and furthermore’ do (so the TLL).49 Usually a large number of contextually determined senses are distinguished which depend on the precise relation between the et sentence and what precedes (see also § 19.41).50 Most instances of connecting et are found in continuous discourse, as in (a) and (b), but in spoken dialogue the et sentence regularly follows a change of speaker, as in (c) and (d). Comparable is 48 See TLL s.v. et 890.14ff., Lodge s.v. et 534ff. (§§ S and D), Merguet (Reden) s.v. et 212 (§ A); (Phil.) 829 (§ C), Gerber and Greef s.v. et 389 (§ 2). For the use of et in the Passio Perp., see Adams (2016: 323–4). 49 Adverbs of addition like praeterea often imply gradation. See Iordache (2010). 50 For examples, see TLL s.v. et 892.53ff.

Conjunctive connexion of sentences 1169 the use of et in (e). Cases like (d) can sometimes also be regarded as discontinuous coordination. See also § 19.27 for the use of et as a coordinator and for further details. (a)

. . . certum est hominem eludere. / Et enim vero quoniam formam cepi huius in med et statum, / decet et facta moresque huius habere me similis item. (‘. . . I’ll definitely make a fool of him. And since I took on his looks and dress, I also ought to have similar ways and habits.’ Pl. Am. 265–7)

(b)

Tu tamen permanes constantissimus defensor Antoni. Et quidem, quo melior senator videatur, negat se illi amicum esse debere. (‘And yet you still remain Antonius’ most resolute defender. And what is more, to make himself appear a more conscientious senator, he says he has no call to be Antonius’ friend.’ Cic. Phil. 8.17–18)

(c)

Dedi equidem quod mecum egisti. # Et tibi ego misi mulierem. (‘I gave you what you arranged with me. # And I sent you the girl.’ Pl. As. 171)

(d)

Repperit patrem Palaestra suom atque matrem? # Repperit. / # Et popularis est? # Opino. # Et nuptura est mi? # Suspicor. (‘Has Palaestra found her father and mother? # She has. # And is she my compatriot? # I think so. # And is she going to marry me? # I suspect so.’ Pl. Rud. 1267–8)

(e)

Tum Scipio: ‘Atqui nactus es, sed mehercule otiosiorem opera quam animo.’ Et ille (sc. Tubero): ‘At vero animum quoque relaxes oportet.’ (Then Scipio said: “Yes, you have found me at leisure, but less so in mind than in occupation.” And he: “Yet it is your duty to relax your mind also.” ’ Cic. Rep. 1.14) Supplement: Istac lege filiam tuam sponde’n mi uxorem dari? / # Spondeo. # Et ego spondeo idem hoc. (Pl. Trin. 1162–3); Ipsu’ mihi Davo’, qui intumu’st rum consiliis, dixit. / Et is mihi persuadet nuptias quantum queam ut maturem. (Ter. An. 576–7); Inpune optare istuc licet. / Ill’ revivescet iam numquam. Et tamen utrum malis scio. (Ter. Hec. 464–5); (sc. Gallia) Omnis aequo animo belli patitur iniurias, dum modo repellat periculum servitutis. Et ut omittam reliquas partis Galliae—nam sunt omnes pares—Patavini alios excluserunt, alios eiecerunt . . . (Cic. Phil. 12.10); A malo autem vitioque causae ita recedam . . . ut totum bono illo ornando et augendo dissimulatum obruatur. Et, si causa est in argumentis, firmissima quaeque maxime tueor . . . (Cic. de Orat. 2.292); Persequi Caesar Pompeium? Quid? Ut interficiat? O me miserum! Et non omnes nostra corpora opponimus? (Cic. Att. 7.23.1); Verum haec (sc. Roma) tantum alias inter caput extulit urbes / quantum lenta solent inter viburna cupressi. / # Et quae tanta fuit Romam tibi causa videndi? (Verg. Ecl. 1.24–6); . . . ad Cn. Manlium, consulem . . . legationes undique ex omnibus civitatibus . . . conveniebant. Et ut clarior nobiliorque victoria Romanis de rege Antiocho fuit quam de Gallis, ita laetior sociis erat de Gallis quam de Antiocho. (Liv. 38.37.1–2); Passim silentia et gemitus, nihil compositum in ostentationem. Et quamquam neque insignibus lugentium abstinerent, altius animis maerebant. (Tac. Ann. 2.82.3); Et exivi ad eum et aperui ei. (Passio Perp. 10.2); Et dicitis: ‘Christiani sumus’. (August. Serm. 9.21)

1170

Discourse

24.20 The conjunctive connector nec/neque Nec/neque ‘and not’ is used as a negative connector from Early Latin onwards.51 Examples are (a)–(c). See also §  19.28 for its use as a coordinator and for further details and references. (a)

Numquam amatoris meretricem oportet causam noscere, / quin, ubi nil det, pro infrequente eum mittat militia domum. / Neque umquam erit probus quisquam amator nisi qui rei inimicu’st suae. (‘A prostitute ought never to take notice of a lover’s circumstances; rather, when he doesn’t give anything, she should send him back home as a deserter from military service. And no one will ever be a decent lover unless he’s an enemy of his own possessions.’ Pl. Truc. 229–31)

(b)

Nam certum est sine dote hau dare. # Quin tu i modo. / # Neque enim illi damno umquam esse patiar— # Abi modo. / # —meam neglegentiam. (‘For I’m resolved not to give her in marriage without a dowry. # Just go. # Yes, and I won’t ever let my carelessness— # Just go away! # —harm her.’ Pl. Trin. 585–7)

(c)

Recta enim a porta domum meam venisse . Neque hoc admiror quod non suam potius sed illud, quod non ad suam. (‘For he came straight from the city gate, let me tell you, to my house, and I’m not surprised that he didn’t rather go to his own, but I should have expected him to go to his sweetheart.’ Cic. Fam. 9.19.1) Supplement: Quanta me cura et sollicitudine adficit / gnatus, qui me et se hisce inpedivit nuptiis! / Neque mi in conspectum prodit . . . (Ter. Ph. 441–3); C. Marcelle, te appello. Siciliae provinciae, cum esses pro consule, praefuisti. Num quae in tuo imperio pecuniae cellae nomine coactae sunt? Neque ego hoc in tua laude pono . . . (Cic. Ver. 3.212); Nec vero Theophrasti inconstantia ferenda est. Modo enim menti divinum tribuit principatum modo caelo, tum autem signis sideribusque caelestibus. Nec audiendus eius auditor Strato is qui physicus appellatur . . . (Cic. N.D. 1.35); Romani vero quid petunt aliud aut quid volunt nisi . . . aeternam iniungere servitutem? Neque enim umquam alia condicione bella gesserunt. (Caes. Gal. 7.77.15); Parce, puer, stimulis et fortius utere loris, / sponte sua properant, labor est inhibere volentes. / Nec tibi derectos placeat via quinque per arcus. (Ov. Met. 2.127–9); L.  Valerium Potitum proditum memoriae est post relationem Ap. Claudi, priusquam ordine sententiae rogarentur, postulando ut de re publica liceret dicere, prohibentibus minaciter decemviris proditurum se ad plebem denuntiantem, tumultum excivisse. Nec minus ferociter M.  Horatium Barbatum isse in certamen, decem Tarquinios appellantem admonentemque Valeriis et Horatiis ducibus pulsos reges. Nec nominis homines tum pertaesum esse . . . (Liv. 3.39.2–4); . . . adeo . . . exarserat ut more regio pubem ingenuam stupris pollueret. Nec formam tantum et decora corpora, sed in his modestam pueritiam, in aliis imagines maiorum incitamentum cupidinis habebat. (Tac. Ann. 6.1.1–2); Non

51 Merguet (Reden) s.v. nec 258 (§ A); (Phil.) 662 (§ B.I.1.a).

Disjunctive connexion of sentences 1171 trepidavit offerre, quando exigebatur. Nec fuit religio credentis contraria devotioni obtemperantis. (August. Serm. 2.1)

24.21 Disjunctive connexion of sentences Of the disjunctive (also called: ‘alternative’) coordinators aut, vel, -ve, and sive (see § 19.43) only aut ‘or’ is also used as a connector. It is regularly used to connect interrogative sentences, as in (a) and (b).52 An imperative sentence is shown in (c), where aut ‘expresses the consequences of non-compliance or error’.53 (a)

Non ecastor falsa memoro. # Nam, opsecro, unde haec gentium? / Aut quis deus obiecit hanc ante ostium nostrum, quasi / dedita opera, in tempore ipso? (‘Honestly, I’m not telling lies. # Where on earth does it come from, please? Or what god threw it in front of our door, as if on purpose, right in the nick of time?’ Pl. Cist. 668–70)

(b)

Num igitur tot clarissimorum ducum regumque naufragium sustulit artem gubernandi? Aut num imperatorum scientia nihil est, quia summus imperator nuper fugit amisso exercitu? Aut num propterea nulla est rei publicae gerendae ratio atque prudentia quia . . .? (‘Then, did the fact that so many illustrious captains and kings suffered shipwreck deprive navigation of its right to be called an art? And is military science of no effect because a general of the highest renown recently lost his army and took to flight? Again, is statecraft devoid of method or skill because . . .?’ Cic. Div. 1.24)

(c)

Duos solos video auctoritate censorum adfinis ei turpitudini iudicari. Aut illud adferant, aliquid eos quod de his duobus habuerint compertum de ceteris comperisse. (‘I observe that two jurors only were held by the official pronouncement of the censors to be implicated in that scandal. Or else let them allege that they had discovered against those two something which they had not discovered against the others.’ Cic. Clu. 127)54 Supplement: Interrogative sentences: Quid istuc est? Aut ubi istuc est terrarum loci? (Pl. As. 32); Quid iam? Aut quid negoti est? Fac sciam. (Pl. Mil. 277) Metuo te atque istos expiare ut possies. / # Quam ob rem? Aut quam subito rem mihi apportas novam? (Pl. Mos. 465–6); De quo quis umquam arator questus est? Aut quis non ad hoc tempus innocentissimam omnium diligentissimamque praeturam illius hominis existimat? (Cic. Ver. 3.216); Persuaderi igitur cuiquam potest ea quae significari dicuntur extis cognita esse ab haruspicibus observatione diuturna? Quam diuturna ista fuit? Aut quam longinquo tempore observari potuit? Aut quo modo est conlatum inter ipsos, quae pars inimica, quae pars familiaris esset . . .? (Cic. Div. 2.28)

52 See Lodge s.v. aut 204 (§ D.1). 53 See OLD s.v. aut § 7. 54 Instead of the emendation non (by Graevius) there are several other proposals. See the apparatus in Rizzo’s edition.

1172

Discourse Other: Multum providisse suos maiores qui caverint ne cui patricio plebeii magistratus paterent. Aut patricios habendos fuisse tribunos plebi. (Liv. 4.25.11); . . . transgressique extemplo castra oppugnabimus, quae hodie cepissemus, ni fugissent. Aut si acie decernere volent, eundem pugnae pedestris eventum expectate qui equitum in certamine fuit. (Liv. 42.61.7–8); Neque enim, ut dixere aliqui, mundus hoc polo excelsiore se attollit—aut undique cernerentur haec sidera—verum . . . (Plin. Nat. 2.179)

Vel is used to introduce imperative sentences, as in (d), but it does not signal an alternative (see the translation). (d)

Equidem ioco illa dixeram dudum tibi, ridiculi causa. Vel hunc rogato Sosiam. (‘I said those things as a joke to you a while ago, for fun. Ask Sosia here if you like.’ Pl. Am. 916–17)

24.22 Adversative connexion of sentences In addition to the connectors sed, verum, and ceterum ‘but’, which are also used as adversative coordinators (see § 19.61), an adversative relation between sentences (and discourse units) can be expressed by the connectors at, atqui, autem, and to some extent ast, and by the adverbs contra, nihilominus, tamen, and vero.55 The difference between connectors and adverbs that express an adversative relation appears among other things from the fact that the connectors and adverbs can co-occur,56 as in (a) and (b), and from the limited mobility of the connectors (at/near the beginning of the sentence) in comparison with the adverbs. This is illustrated for tamen in (c)–(e). In (c), tamen has the final position, in (e), the very first, at the beginning of a letter.57 Tamen can have a clitic attached to it, as -ne in (f). Further details on tamen can be found in § 24.31. (a)

Abiit intro iratus. Quid ego nunc agam? . . . Sed tamen ibo et persequar. Amans ne quid faciat cauto opu’st. (‘He went inside in a rage. What should I do now? . . . But still I’ll go and follow him; I need to be careful that our lover doesn’t do anything stupid.’ Pl. Cist. 528–31)

(b)

Quae hoc tempore sileret omnia atque ea, si oblivione non posset, tamen taciturnitate sua tecta esse pateretur. Sed vero sic agitur ut prorsus reticere nullo modo possit. (‘Not one of these would he now be mentioning—rather would he allow them to be covered by the veil of silence if not of oblivion: but the issues are indeed such that silence is an absolute impossibility.’ Cic. Clu. 18)

55 In her Table 4 Rosén  (2009: 356–7) makes a distinction between pure ‘contrasting’ particles like tamen and ‘adjoining + contrastive’ particles like sed. She also has more particles than discussed in the following sections. 56 A table with collocations of adversative connecting devices can be found in Rosén (2009: 340). 57 See Orlandini (1999b: 203) and Spevak (2006c: 245).

Adversative connexion of sentences 1173 (c)

Abiero. / Flagitio cum maiore post reddes tamen. (‘I’m off. You’ll return it later nevertheless, under greater and louder demands.’ Pl. Epid. 516–17)

(d)

Scio te id nolle fieri. Efficiam tamen ego id, si di adiuvant. (‘I know you don’t want it done; but I’ll carry it through nevertheless if the gods help me.’ Pl. Capt. 587)

(e)

Tamen a malitia non discedis? Tenuculo apparatu significas Balbum fuisse contentum. (‘Still up to your tricks? You intimate that Balbus was satisfied with a modest little spread.’ Cic. Fam. 9.19.1)

(f)

Quid? Si testium studium cum accusatore sociatum est, tamenne isti testes habebuntur? (‘Again, if the witnesses have associated with the prosecutor, will they still be considered witnesses?’ Cic. Flac. 21) Appendix: The connector quod is regularly used to connect a sentence which starts with a subordinate clause, especially si, with the preceding sentence or discourse, as in (g) and (h) (quodsi is often printed as one word). Instances are found from Early Latin onwards, but the phenomenon is particularly common in Cicero. Connexion of sentences by quod when there is no introductory subordinate clause are rare and mainly poetic. An example is (i). Often the semantic relation between the adjacent sentences is adversative.58 (g) Quod si exquiratur usque ab stirpe auctoritas, / und’ quicque auditum dicant . . . (‘But if the authority for the claim were examined down to its very roots, from where they say they’ve heard everything . . .’ Pl. Trin. 217–18) (h) (sc. tyranni) Coluntur tamen simulatione dumtaxat ad tempus. Quodsi forte, ut fit plerumque, ceciderunt, tum intellegitur quam fuerint inopes amicorum. (‘Yet they are courted under a pretence of affection, but only for a season. For when by chance they have fallen from power, as they generally do, then it is known how poor they were in friends.’ Cic. Amic. 53) (i) Quod ego per hanc te dexteram [oro] et genium tuom, / per tuam fidem perque huiu’ solitudinem / te obtestor ne . . . (‘So I beg you by this right hand of yours and by the god who watches over you, by your honour and her defencelessness, not to . . .’ Ter. An. 289–91—tr. Brown) Supplement: Quod ni fssem incogitans, ita eum exspectarem ut par fuit. (Ter. Ph. 155); Quod  si non tuis nefariis in hunc ordinem contumeliis in perpetuum tibi curiam praeclusisses, quid tandem erat actum . . . (Cic. Pis. 40); Quod nisi mihi hoc venisset

58 For discussion and examples, see Otto (1912: 43–57). See also K.-St.: II.321–2 and OLD s.v. quod, § 1.a.

1174

Discourse in mentem, scribere ista nescio quae, quo verterem me non haberem. (Cic. Att. 13.10.1) Quod cum esset animadversum coniunctam esse flumini, prorutis munitionibus defendente nullo transcenderunt. (Caes. Civ. 3.68.3); Quod etsi ingeniis magnis praediti quidam dicendi copiam sine ratione consequuntur, ars tamen est dux certior quam natura. (Cic. Fin. 4.10); Quod ne id facere posses, idcirco heri non necessario loco contra sensus tam multa dixeram. (Cic. Luc. 79); Quod ubi sensi me in possessionem iudici ac defensionis meae constitisse . . . tum admiscere huic generi orationis vehementi atque atroci genus illud alterum . . . coepi. (Cic. de Orat. 2.200) NB: with a relative pronoun: Quod qui ab illo abducit exercitum et respectum pulcherrimum et praesidium firmissimum adimit rei publicae. (Cic. Phil. 10.9—NB: various emendations proposed)59 Quod ut o potius formidine falsa / ludar, et in melius tua, qui potes, orsa reflectas! (Verg. A. 10.631–2); Quod utinam ne Phormioni id suadere in mentem incidisset . . . (Ter. Ph. 157); Quod utinam aut Appius Claudius in  ista parte C.  Curio, cuius amicitia me paulatim in hanc pertam causam imposuit! (Cael. Fam. 8.17.1) The use of quod as a connector is historically related to its use as connective relative (see § 18.28). That it functions as a connector appears from the fact that it cannot co-occur with regular connectors like nam and igitur.

24.23 The adversative connector ast Ast ‘but’ is used in various ways.60 One is coordinating a second clause to a preceding conditional clause, as in the text from the Twelve Tables in (a). In Cicero’s time this usage probably was ill understood. In some of his legal formulations it is more or less equivalent to si, as in (b). For other usages, see also the Supplement. Plautus uses it as an adversative coordinator, as in (c). The Augustan poets use it as a heavy-syllable alternative of at before vowels (with few exceptions), as in (d). Prose writers follow this example later on. In this usage it is in first position of the sentence (with a few poetic exceptions). (a)

Cui auro dentes iuncti esunt, ast im cum illo sepeliet uretve, se fraude esto. (‘But him whose teeth shall have been fastened with gold, if a person shall bury or burn him along with that gold, it shall be with impunity.’ Cic. Leg. 2.60=Lex XII 10.8— ed. Powell)

(b)

Ast quando duellum gravius discordiaeve civium escunt, oenus ne amplius sex menses, si senatus creverit, idem iuris quod duo consules teneto . . . (‘If ever a serious war or civil dissensions arise, one man shall hold, for no longer than six months, the power which ordinarily belongs to the two consuls, if the Senate shall so decree.’ Cic. Leg. 3.9)

59 See, among others, Pasoli (1957: 46–9). 60 See TLL s.v. ast, where the quoted instances must be checked in recent editions. For Cicero’s usage, see Pascucci (1968: 29–34) and Powell (2005: 136–7).

Adversative connexion of sentences 1175 (c)

Atque oppido hercle bene velle illi visus sum, / ast non habere quoi commendarem capram. (‘And I seemed very well disposed to the monkey, but not to have anyone who I could entrust the goat to.’ Pl. Mer. 245–6)

(d)

Mars perdere gentem / immanem Lapithum valuit . . . / Ast ego, magna Iovis coniunx, . . . / vincor ab Aenea. (‘Mars could destroy the Lapiths’ giant race . . . But I, Jove’s mighty consort, . . . I am worsted by Aeneas!’ Verg. A. 7.304–10) Supplement: Divos et eos qui caelestes semper habiti sunt colunto et ollos quos endo caelo merita locaverunt, Herculem, Liberum, Aesculapium, Castorem, Pollucem, Quirinum, ast olla propter quae datur homini ascensus in caelum, Mentem, Virtutem, Pietatem, Fidem. (Cic. Leg. 2.19); Dicitur Appius . . . ita precatus esse: ‘Bellona, si hodie nobis victoriam duis, ast ego tibi templum voveo.’ (Liv. 10.19.17–18)

24.24 The adversative connector at The typical use of at ‘but’ is to mark a strong objection in a dialogical context, in a dialogue, either spoken, as in (a), or related in writing, as in (b). However, at is also used to mark a sharp contrast in general, as in (c).61 It usually occupies the first position of the sentence. In Tacitus it is also used as a merely transitional device (an example in the Supplement). In the spoken language it gradually disappeared from the Augustan period onwards. It is infrequent in Augustine’ Sermones, where it is only used in a few combinations. It left no trace in the Romance languages.62 For its use as a coordinator, see § 19.61. For its use to connect discourse units, see § 24.48. For its use in main clauses with a si subordinate clause, see § 16.57. (a)

Ausculta mihi modo ac suspende te. / # Siquidem tu es mecum futurus pro uva passa pensilis. / # At ego amo hanc. # At ego esse et bibere. (‘Just obey me and hang yourself. # Yes, if you hang beside me like a bunch of raisins. # But I love this girl. # But I love eating and drinking.’ Pl. Poen. 312–14)

(b)

Quo ut venimus, humanissime Quintus ‘Pomponia’, inquit, ‘tu invita mulieres, ego vero ascivero pueros.’ . . . At illa audientibus nobis ‘ego ipsa sum’, inquit, ‘hic hospita’. (‘When we arrived there Quintus said in the kindest way ‘Pomponia, will you ask the women in, and I’ll get the boys?’ . . . Pomponia, however, answered in our hearing ‘I am a guest myself here.’ Cic. Att. 5.1.3)

(c)

Brevis a natura vita nobis data est. At memoria bene redditae vitae sempiterna. (‘Brief is the life granted us by nature, but the memory of a life nobly sacrificed is eternal.’ Cic. Phil. 14.32)

61 For a discussion of at, see Kroon (1995: Ch. 12).

62 See Sz.: 489.

1176

Discourse Supplement: Est quidam homo qui illam ait se scire ubi sit. / # At pol ille a quadam muliere, si eam monstret, gratiam ineat. / # At sibi ille quidam volt dari mercedem. # At pol illa quaedam / quae illam cistellam perdidit quoidam negat esse quod det. / # At enim ille quidam o expetit quam argentum. / # At pol illi quoidam mulieri nulla opera gratuita est. (Pl. Cist. 735–40); Domus tibi deerat? At habebas. Pecunia superabat? At egebas. (Cic. Scaur. 45); Sit fur, sit sacrilegus, sit flagitiorum omnium vitiorumque princeps. At est bonus imperator, at felix et ad dubia rei publicae tempora reservandus. (Cic. Ver. 5.4); Quid hoc levius? At quantus orator! (Cic. Tusc. 5.103); Ipsi ex silvis rari propugnabant nostrosque intra munitiones ingredi prohibebant. At milites legionis septimae testudine facta et aggere ad munitiones adiecto locum ceperunt . . . (Caes. Gal. 5.9.6–7); Confestim et quos binos oneraria in iumenta imposuerant secuti, et consul cum toto agmine. At Histrorum pauci, qui modice vino usi erant, memores fuerant fugae, aliis somno mors continuata est. (Liv. 41.4.3–4); Clodius Quirinalis . . . veneno damnationem anteiit. Caninius Rebilus . . . cruciatus aegrae senectae misso per venas sanguine effugit . . . At L. Volusius egregia fama concessit . . . (Tac. Ann. 13.30.1–2); Ille autem timuit et ait: . . . At illa: Vade, inquit, fili, audi me. (August. Serm. 4.13)

At co-occurs with enim in its ‘affirmative’ sense ‘in fact’, ‘in truth’ (see § 24.40 and §  24.28 on sed enim) from Early Latin onwards, although it is absent from certain authors, e.g. Caesar and Virgil. Examples are (d) and (e). Cicero especially uses at in combination with the adverb vero ‘in truth’ (see § 24.33). (d)

Quid est, / fratris mei gnate, gnate quid vis? Expedi. / # At enim hoc volo agas. # At enim ago istuc. (‘What is it, nephew, nephew mine, what do you want? Tell me. # Well, I want you to pay attention. # Well, I am paying attention.’ Pl. Poen. 1196–7)

(e)

. . . nostri consulatus beneficio se incolumis fortunas habere arbitrantur. At enim inter hos ipsos exsistunt graves controversiae . . . (‘. . . they think they owe the safety of their money to my Consulship. Ah, but they get into serious disputes among themselves . . .’ Cic. Q. fr. 1.1.7)

24.25 The adversative connector atqui Like at, atqui ‘but’, ‘and yet’ (< at + the indefinite adverb quī) is most common in a dialogical context to express opposition to what precedes. It is rare in Plautus, but becomes more common from Terence onwards. It is absent from many authors, especially those writing in a less elevated style, like Vitruvius, and there are no instances in Augustine’s Sermones. There is a parallel form atquin, which is common in the jurists and in Christian authors like Tertullian.63 Examples are (a)–(c). (a)

Numquam auferes hinc aurum. # Atqui iam dabis. / # Dabo? # Atque orabis me quidem ultro ut auferam . . . 63 See TLL s.v. atqui 1085.11ff., Sz: 493–4, and Orlandini (1995).

Adversative connexion of sentences 1177 (‘You’ll never take the gold away from here. # And yet you will give it to me in a moment. # I will give it to you? # And you’ll beg me of your own accord to take it away . . .’ Pl. Bac. 824–5)

(b)

Quid vero? Modum statuarum haberi nullum placet? Atqui habeatur necesse est. (‘What then? Is there to be no limit to statues? But there must be.’ Cic. Ver. 2.144—tr. Yonge)

(c)

Et licet comprimantur exclamationes, ora claudantur, nihil negat, qui hoc fatetur. Atquin summorum facinorum ipsa inmanitas innocentia est. (‘And even if he stifles his exclamations and keeps his mouth firmly shut, a man who admits this, denies nothing. Still, the very outrageousness of the most horrendous deeds is what proves the innocence of the perpetrators.’ [Quint.] Decl. 19.5.5—tr. Breij) Supplement: Non sum apud me. # Atqui opus est nunc quom maxume ut sis, Antipho. (Ter. Ph. 204); . . . in ea urbe in qua, ut ait Antonius, auditus eloquens nemo erat. Atqui si Antonio Crassus eloquens visus non est aut sibi ipse, nunquam Cotta visus esset, nunquam Sulpicius, nunquam Hortensius. (Cic. Orat. 105–6); ‘Aliam vero vim voluptatis esse, aliam nihil dolendi, nisi valde pertinax fueris, concedas necesse est’. ‘Atqui reperies’, inquit, ‘in hoc quidem pertinacem.’ (Cic. Fin. 2.9); Quodsi virtutes sunt pares inter se, paria esse etiam vitia necesse est. Atqui pares esse virtutes, nec bono viro meliorem nec temperante temperantiorem nec forti fortiorem nec sapienti sapientiorem posse fieri facillime potest perspici. (Cic. Parad. 21); Sideris proprium est scribere orbem. Atqui hoc an cometae alii fecerint? Nescio. Duo nostra aetate fecerunt. (Sen. Nat. 7.23); Substantia mihi opus erat. Atquin omnia vendenda sunt et egentibus dividenda. (Tert. Idol. 12.2) Cf: At pol qui certa res / hanc est obiurgare, quae me hodie advenientem domum / noluerit salutare. (Pl. Am. 705–7)

24.26 The adversative connector autem The connector autem ‘on the other hand’ is not ‘adversative’ in the sense of at and sed; it is rather ‘contrastive’ or ‘discretive’; that is, it ‘marks off a piece of information from some other piece of information in the verbal or non-verbal context’.64 The preceding sentence often contains the emphasizing particle quidem.65 This difference in meaning explains the few co-occurrences of sed (indicating a shift of attention) and autem in the same clause, as in (a).66 Autem can also co-occur with sequential adverbs, as in (b), with tum.67 (a)

Sed quid haec hic autem tam diu ante aedis stetit? (‘But why did she (sc. Astaphium, who just entered the house) stand here in front of the house for so long?’ Pl. Truc. 335)

64 65 66 67

See Kroon (2011: 184). See also TLL s.v. autem 1578.27ff. For autem and ceterum, see Orlandini (1999a). See TLL s.v. autem 1585.42ff. For a few more examples, see TLL s.v. autem 1594.79ff. See also Kroon (1995: 246; 273). See TLL s.v. autem 1592.82ff. and Kroon (1995: 273).

1178 (b)

Discourse Quia enim loquitur laute et minime sordide. / # Quicquid istaec de te loquitur, nihil attrectat sordidi. / # Tum autem illa ipsa est nimium lepida nimisque nitida femina. (‘Because she speaks in a neat and by no means unpolished way. # She doesn’t touch any unpolished topic, whatever she speaks about you. # But then her mistress is a terribly charming and terribly neat woman.’ Pl. Mil. 1001–3)

Autem is used both to indicate that the content of a sentence B is distinct from and in some form of contrast with that of a preceding sentence A and to indicate the opposition between a part B of a sentence and a preceding parallel part A. Examples of the second type of ‘local’ contrast are (c) and (d). In (c), autem is situated in the second conjoin of two correlative clauses; in (d), in the second of three asyndetic appositions. Note vero in the third.68 (c)

Facile istuc quidem est, si et illa volt et ille autem cupit. (‘That’s easy, if she wants it and he desires it.’ Pl. Mil. 1149)

(d)

Est enim finitimus oratori poeta, numeris astrictior paulo, verborum autem licentia liberior, multis vero ornandi generibus socius ac paene par. (‘The truth is that the poet is a very near kinsman of the orator, rather more heavily fettered as regards rhythm, but with ampler freedom in his choice of words, while in the use of many sorts of ornament he is really his ally and almost his counterpart.’ Cic. de Orat. 1.70) Supplement: Agite, abite tu domum et tu autem domum. (Pl. Truc. 838); Neque enim tu is es qui quid sis nescias et qui non eos magis qui te non admirentur invidos quam eos qui laudent adsentatores arbitrere; neque autem ego sum ita demens ut me sempiternae gloriae per eum commendari velim . . . (Cic. Fam. 5.12.6) Ait se obligasse crus fractum Aesculapio, / Apollini autem bracchium. (Pl. Men. 885–6); . . . quo . . . te nomine appellemus? Improbum? . . . perfidiosum? (sc. nomina) Volgaria et obsoleta sunt; res autem nova atque inaudita. (Cic. Quinct. 56); Atque hoc ipsi utile fuisse facere, inutile autem non facere . . . (Cic. Inv. 2.90); . . . illa quae temptata iam et coepta sunt ab isto, a me autem pervestigata et cognita, moneo ut exstinguas et longius progredi ne sinas. (Cic. Ver. 5.174); Quis autem dubitet quin belli duces ex hac una civitate praestantissimos paene innumerabilis, in dicendo autem excellentis vix paucos proferre possimus? (Cic. de Orat. 1.7); ‘Ista’, inquit, ‘quae dixisti, valere, locupletem esse, non dolere, bona non dico, sed dicam Graece .{zrnwhxl, Latine autem producta—sed praeposita aut praecipua malo . . .’ (Cic. Fin. 4.72); Si enim interiora prospectus habuerint elegantes, aditus autem humiles et inhonestos, non erunt cum decore. (Vitr. 1.2.6)

Examples of the first type—true connectors—are (e)–(g). Here autem signals the transition to a new piece of information. In (e) and (g) there is a shift of topic, with puerum and equitatus in first position in the sentence. In (f), autem signals that of the two objects of desire in the preceding sentence only gloria is elaborated at this point. For 68 For further parallels of (c), see TLL s.v. autem 1593.68ff.; for (d), 1580.36ff.

Adversative connexion of sentences 1179 the initial position of est, see §  23.45. A more complex example, with a change of speakers, is (h). Here, the young man Agorastocles wants to take the pimp Lycus to court. Then Hanno, unknown to Lycus, also summons him to court, much to Lycus’ surprise, who therefore asks what Hanno (tibi, in contrast with Agorastocles) has got against him. Sometimes there is no immediately preceding explicit contrastive counterpart, as in (i). Here, Mercury interrupts a conversation between Jupiter and Alcumena, although some fifteen lines before Jupiter has warned him. This explains the use of autem in Jupiter’s reaction. The implicit counterpart is tu.69 (e)

Quin taces? / # Dicam. Puerum autem ne (sc. pater) resciscat mi esse ex illa (sc. Glycerio) cautio’st. / Nam pollicitus sum suscepturum. (‘Do shut up. # I’ll tell him. But we must make sure he doesn’t find out I’ve a child by her. I’ve promised to raise it.’ Ter. An. 399–401)

(f)

Credo enim vos . . . caritatem civium et gloriam concupivisse. Est autem gloria laus recte factorum magnorumque in rem publicam fama meritorum . . . (‘For I suppose that you have set your sights on glory and a place in the hearts of your countrymen. Glory, moreover, consists in the credit for honourable deeds and the reputation for great services benefitting the Republic . . .’ Cic. Phil. 1.29)

(g)

Submotis sub murum cohortibus . . . facilis est nostris receptus datus. Equitatus autem noster ab utroque latere . . . summum iugum virtute conititur . . . (‘With the cohorts shifted to a position in front of the wall . . . an easy retreat was available to our men. Moreover, our cavalry valiantly struggled to the top of the ridge . . .’ Caes. Civ. 1.46.2–3)

(h)

Leno, eamus in ius. # Opsecro te, Agorastocles, / suspendere ut me liceat. # (Hanno intervenes) In ius te voco. / # (Lycus) Quid tibi mecum autem? (‘Pimp, let’s go to court. # I beg you, Agorastocles, to let me hang myself. # I’m summoning you to court. # But what do I have to do with you?’ Pl. Poen. 1342–4)

(i)

(Iup.) Nunc tibi hanc pateram . . . / Alcumena, tibi condono. # (Alc.) Facis ut alias res soles. / Ecastor condignum donum, quale est qui donum dedit. / # (Mer.) Immo sic: condignum donum, quale est quoi dono datum est. / # (Iup.) Pergi’n autem? Nonne ego possum, furcifer, te perdere? (‘Now I’ll give you this bowl as a present, Alcumena. # That’s so like you. Honestly, a worthy gift, matching the one who gave it. # No: a worthy gift, matching the one it has been given to. # Are you continuing? Can’t I get rid of you, you good-for-nothing?’ Pl. Am. 534–9) Supplement: Siquid est quod doleat, dolet. Si autem non est . . . tamen hoc hic dolet. (Pl. Cist. 67); Atque ille primo quidem negavit. Post autem aliquanto . . . surrexit, quaesivit a Gallis . . . (Cic. Catil. 3.11); Cetera autem etsi nec bona nec mala essent tamen alia secundum naturam dicebat alia naturae esse contraria. His ipsis alia interiecta et 69 For (h) and (i), see Kroon (1995: 241–6).

1180

Discourse media numerabat. Quae autem secundum naturam essent ea sumenda et quadam aestimatione dignanda docebat, contraque contraria. Neutra autem in mediis relinquebat, in quibus ponebat nihil omnino esse momenti. Sed . . . (Cic. Ac. 1.36); Hactenus mihi videor de amicitia quid sentirem potuisse dicere; si quae praeterea sunt (credo autem esse multa), ab eis, si videbitur, qui ista disputant, quaeritote. (Cic. Amic. 24); . . . oppidum oppugnare instituit. Est autem oppidum et loci natura et colle munitum, sed celeriter cives Romani ligneis effectis turribus sese munierunt . . . (Caes. Civ. 3.9.3); Significatur proposita res de qua dicitur. Hanc autem significat demonstratio rationibus doctrinarum explicata. (Vitr. 1.1.3); . . . subito fores admiserunt intrantem. Mulier autem erat operto capite . . . (Petr. 16.2–3); Alioqui non peius duxerim tardi esse ingeni quam mali. Probus autem ab illo segni et iacente plurimum aberit. (Quint. Inst. 1.3.2) In interrogative sentences: Ego non tangam meam? # Tuam autem, furcifer? (Ter. Eu. 798); Hanc te aequom’st ducere, et te operam ut fiat dare. / # Me ducere autem? # Te. # Me? (Ter. Ad. 933–4); Numquis testis Postumum appellavit? Testis autem? Num accusator? (Cic. Rab. Post. 10); ‘Castrorum autem mutatio quid habet nisi turpem fugam . . .’ (Caes. Civ. 2.31.4); ‘Umquam tu hoc eventurum credidisses?’ Quare autem non? (Sen. Dial. 9.11.9); Hunc . . . cum vidisset, Petrus dixit Iesu: ‘Hic autem quid?’ (Vulg. Joh. 21.21)

Autem is particularly common in argumentative and didactic texts and passages, for instance in Cicero’s philosophical and rhetorical works, in Vitruvius, Columella, Quintilian, Tacitus’ Dialogus, and the jurists. In such texts it is often used to proceed to a new subject, as in (j) and (k). In narrative and didactic texts it can be used to mark the shift to a new topic, as in (l). The co-occurrence with ille, as in this example, is common.70 It remained in use throughout Antiquity and is, for example, frequent in Augustine’s works, both in his more classical de Civitate Dei and in his less elevated Sermones. It is also relatively frequent in the Peregrinatio, as in (m). In this and other Late Latin texts autem does not have its Classical adversative meaning and seems to serve mainly as a sentence boundary.71 Autem is normally in second position in its  sentence and causes hyperbaton (see §  23.21). It left no trace in the Romance languages. (j)

Quare hanc oratoriam facultatem in eo genere ponemus, ut eam civilis scientiae partem esse dicamus. Officium autem eius facultatis videtur esse dicere adposite ad persuasionem, finis persuadere dictione. (‘Therefore we will classify oratorical ability as a part of political science. The function of eloquence seems to be to speak in a manner suited to persuade an audience, the end is to persuade by speech.’ Cic. Inv. 1.6)

70 For the use of autem as a paragraph marker in medical texts, see Langslow (2000: 546). 71 In the Peregrinatio, autem signals an ‘opposition très atténuée en général’ (‘a generally very weak opposition’) (Väänänen 1987: 117). See also Kiss (2006), Rosén (2009: 397), and Spevak (2012b: 350). For details about frequency, see TLL s.v. autem 1576.54ff. and Spevak (2012b: 340–2), with graphics. For a comparison between Rhet. Her. and Cic. Inv. of their use of autem in almost identical passages (Rhet. Her. has asyndeton), see Golla (1935: 59–60).

Adversative connexion of sentences 1181 (k)

Architectura autem constat ex ordinatione, quae Graece taxis dicitur, et ex dispositione, hanc autem Graeci diathesin vocitant . . . Ordinatio est modica membrorum operis commoditas separatim universeque proportionis ad symmetriam comparatio. Haec conponitur ex quantitate, quae Graece posotes dicitur. Quantitas autem est modulorum ex ipsius operis sumptio e singulisque membrorum partibus universi operis conveniens effectus. Dispositio autem est rerum apta conlocatio . . . (‘Now architecture consists of Order, which in Greek is called taxis, and of Arrangement, which the Greeks name diathesis . . . Order is the balanced adjustment of the details of the work separately, and, as to the whole, the arrangement of the proportion with a view to a symmetrical result. This is made up of Dimension, which in Greek is called posotes. Now Dimension is the taking of modules from the parts of the work; and the suitable effect of the whole work arising from the several subdivisions of the parts. Arrangement, however, is the fit assemblage of details . . .’ Vitr. 1.2.1–2—NB: the textual make-up of the Loeb translation is maintained.)

(l)

At pater Anchises . . . ‘Quam metui ne quid Libyae tibi regna nocerent!’ / Ille autem: ‘Tua me, genitor, tua tristis imago / saepius occurrens haec limina tendere adegit . . .’ (‘But father Anchises . . . “How I feared the realm of Libya might harm you!” But he answered: “Your shade, father, your sad shade, meeting me repeatedly, drove me to seek these portals.” ’ Verg. A. 6.679–96)

(m)

Aputactitae omnes vadent, de plebe autem qui quomodo possunt vadent, clerici autem cotidie vicibus vadent de pullo primo. Episcopus autem albescente vadet semper, ut missa fiat matutina . . . (‘At cock-crow all the apotactites come, and any of the people who can be there, and clergy everyday by turns. When it begins to get light, the bishop always comes to give the morning dismissal . . .’ Pereg. 44.3—tr. Wilkinson—adapted)

24.27 The adversative connector ceterum Ceterum ‘for the rest’ is used as a connector to mark the transition to a sentence with new information, either a substitution or a correction. This usage is firmly attested from Sallust onwards. It is very common in prose thereafter, including Tertullian, but it is almost absent from Augustine72 and entirely absent from the Peregrinatio. Examples are (a)–(c). It is used with the same function to mark the transition to a new discourse unit, or the return to the main line of thought after a digression (see below). It occupies the first position of the sentence and cannot be combined with other connectors in the same clause. It lacks the characteristic properties of adverbs (see § 24.22), although it is called an adverb in dictionaries.73

72 Thirteen instances in the de Civitate Dei; eight in the Sermones. 73 So the OLD and TLL.

1182 (a)

Discourse Illis merito adcidet quicquid evenerit. Ceterum vos, patres conscripti, quid in alios statuatis considerate. (‘Whatever befalls those prisoners will be deserved; but see that you consider, Members of the Senate, how your decision will affect other criminals.’ Sal. Cat. 51.26)

(b)

. . . Romamque is metus manaret, adeo ut . . . duo iusti scriberentur exercitus. Ceterum Hernicum bellum nequaquam pro praesenti terrore ac vetusta gentis gloria fuit. (‘Fears for their safety even extended to Rome, where . . . two full armies were enlisted. But the war with the Hernici by no means answered to the present panic or to the nation’s old renown.’ Liv. 9.43.4–5)

(c)

Quae ne praeterisse viderer, satis habui attingere. Ceterum his nec status satis ostendi nec omnis contineri locos credo . . . (‘I touch on these points briefly, so as not to be thought to have left them out. But I do not myself think either that Issues are sufficiently defined by these headings, or that all possible Topics are covered by them.’ Quint. Inst. 3.6.28) Supplement: Ceterum postquam Neapolim a praefecto Romano teneri accepit—M. Iunius Silanus erat, ab ipsis Neapolitanis accitus—Neapoli quoque, sicut Nola, omissa petit Nuceriam. (Liv. 23.15.2); Rhinocerotes quoque, rarum alibi animal, in isdem montibus erant. Ceterum hoc nomen beluis inditum a Graecis sermonis eius ignaris . . . (Curt. 915); Ceterum si omisso optimo illo et perfectissimo genere eloquentiae eligenda sit forma dicendi, malim hercule C.  Gracchi impetum . . . (Tac. Dial. 26.1); Ceterum quis tam obtunso ingenio’st quin intellegat: . . . (Gel. 13.25.21); Ceterum instrumento fundi mancipia quoque colendi agri causa inducta contineri non ambigitur. (Paul. dig. 33.7.19.pr.); Nam neque sibi illi sumere potuissent divinitatem, quam non habebant, nec alius praestare eam non habentibus, nisi qui proprie possidebat. Ceterum si nemo est, qui deos faceret, frustra praesumitis deos factos, auferendo factorem. (Tert. Apol. 11.2–3)

Examples of the use of ceterum to mark the transition (or the return) to a new stage in the narrative or the argumentation are (d)–(f).74 In the modern editions the sentences starting with ceterum are indented to mark the start of a new section. Note that the translators deal with it differently. (d)

Sic forte correcta Mari temeritas gloriam ex culpa invenit. Ceterum dum ea res geritur, L. Sulla quaestor cum magno equitatu in castra venit . . . (‘Thus Marius’ rashness was made good by pure chance and found glory out of blame. While this campaign was in progress, the quaestor Lucius Sulla arrived in camp with a large force of horsemen . . .’ Sal. Jug. 94.7–95.1)

(e)

. . . ut liqueat . . . quo tralationum genere, quibus figuris . . . id quod intendimus efficere possimus. Ceterum dicturus quibus ornetur oratio prius ea quae sunt huic laudi contraria attingam. 74 For a discussion of (d), see Kroon (1995: 83–7; 2011: 188–9).

Adversative connexion of sentences 1183 (‘. . . it should be clear . . . what type of metaphor, what Figures . . . are needed to effect our purpose. But before I discuss Ornament of speech, I must say something about the characteristics which are contrary to this excellence.’ Quint. Inst. 8.3.40–1)

(f)

Ceterum Augustus subsidia dominationi Claudium Marcellum . . . pontificatu et curuli aedilitate . . . extulit . . . (‘Meanwhile, to consolidate his power, Augustus raised Claudius Marcellus . . . to the pontificate and curule aedileship . . .’ Tac. Ann. 1.3.1)75 Appendix: From Plautus onwards ceterum is used as some sort of respect adjunct (see §§ 10.90–5) in the sense of ‘for the rest’, as in (g). See also a unique instance from Cicero in (h).76 Note that here ceterum is not in the first position of the sentence. Pliny the Elder uses the ablative cetero more or less in the same way, as in (i). See also de cetero in (j), as well as de reliquo in (k). (g) Filium istinc tuom te meliu’st repetere. / Ceterum uxorem quam primum potest abduce ex aedibus. (‘You’d better demand your son back from there. As for the rest, take your wife out of my house as quickly as possible.’ Pl. Truc. 846–7) (h) Ego me in Cumano et Pompeiano, praeter quam quod sine te, ceterum satis commode oblectabam . . . (‘Except that I lack your company I am in other respects having a pleasant time at Cumae and Pompeii . . .’ Cic. Q. fr. 2.13.1) (i) Namque eum (sc. aggerem) muris aequavit qua maxime patebat aditu plano. Cetero (cetera v.l.) munita erat (sc. Roma) praecelsis muris aut abruptis montibus . . . (‘For he made it as high as the walls where the approach was flat and the city lay most open to attack. In other directions it had the protection of lofty walls or of precipitous hills . . .’ Plin. Nat. 3.67) (j) De cetero vellem equidem aut ipse doctrinis fuisset instructior . . . (‘For the rest, I could desire that he himself had been better equipped with learning . . .’ Cic. Fin. 1.26) (k) De · reliquo · rogo · / conserveis · ut · me · / apsentem · defendateis. De · reliq(uo) · domi · omnia · / recte ·. (‘For the rest, I ask from my fellow slaves that you defend me while absent. For the rest, at home everything is OK.’ CEL 3.4–8 (1st cent. bc (second half))) Ceterum is also used in an inferential sense: ‘otherwise’, ‘else’, first attested in Terence, ex. (l), and then from Pliny the Younger onwards.77

75 ‘The word is employed so frequently by T.  in transition, opposition and resumption that it is certainly a mannerism, almost a fault’ (Goodyear ad loc.). 76 TLL s.v. ceterus 970.29 takes (g) as the first attestation of the transitional use and, indeed, it is not always easy to decide. Further examples at 969.82ff. Another instance of ceterum in non-initial position is Pl. Poen. 92–3, in an imperative sentence. See also Orlandini (1999a: 145–6). For further examples of cetero, see TLL s.v. ceterus 974.47ff.; for de cetero, 974.64ff. 77 For this use of ceterum, see TLL s.v. ceterus 972.52ff.

1184

Discourse (l) Bene dixti, ac mihi istuc non in mentem venerat. / # Ridiculum. Non enim cogitaras. Ceterum / idem hoc tute meliu’ quanto invenisses, Thraso! (‘You’re quite right. That hadn’t occurred to me. # Ridiculous! You just hadn’t thought about it. Otherwise you’d have come up with the same idea yourself far more easily, Thraso!’ Ter. Eu. 451–3)

24.28 The adversative connector sed Sed ‘but’ functions as a connector from Early Latin onwards. The proportion with which it is used as a connector or as a coordinator depends on the type of text and the individual choice of authors. The percentages of its use as connector in a number of texts are shown in Table 24.4.78 Table 24.4 Use of sed as a connector in a number of texts (percentage of all occurrences of sed) Plautus

Cicero

Sallust

Augustine

Am., As., Aul., Bac.

Ver.

de Orat.

Catil.

Cat.

Civ.

Serm.

95%

8%

20%

24%

69%

25%

45%

Sed marks various types of contrast relations. A common usage is that of interrupting a line of thought, as in (a). It can also be used to turn to a new issue, as in (b) or—on the stage—to draw the attention to someone entering the scene, as in (c). It is common after a digression, as in (d).79 If the preceding context is negative the adversative aspect of sed can be more pronounced, especially when the contrast is reinforced by tamen, as in (e). (a)

Ita ut dicis. Nam si faxis, te in caveam dabo. / Sed satis verborum est. Cura quae iussi atque abi. (‘Just as you say: if you do so, I’ll give you a cage to be in. But enough small talk. Do take care of what I ordered and go away.’ Pl. Capt. 124–5)

(b)

Nam contra Epicurum satis superque dictum est. Sed aveo audire tu ipse Cotta quid sentias. (‘As for refuting Epicurus, that has been accomplished and more than accomplished already. But I am eager to hear what you think yourself, Cotta.’ Cic. N.D. 2.2)

(c)

Moderare animo, ne sis cupidus. Sed eccam ipsam, egreditur foras. (‘Control your heart, don’t be too eager. But look, she’s coming out herself.’ Pl. Mil. 1215)

(d)

Sed iam ad id unde digressi sumus revertamur. Hortensius igitur . . . (‘But now let me come back to the point from which we digressed. So then, Hortensius . . .’ Cic. Brut. 300–1)

78 Based on a count of maximally 100 sentences per text in LLT and following the punctuation by editors. 79 For a very detailed classification of the usages of sed in Plautus, see Lodge s.v.; in Terence, McGlynn s.v. For some Christian authors, see Gillis (1938).

Adversative connexion of sentences 1185 (e)

Non enim tam praeclarum est scire Latine quam turpe nescire, neque tam id mihi oratoris boni quam civis Romani proprium videtur. Sed tamen Antonius in verbis . . . eligendis . . . nihil non ad rationem et tamquam ad artem dirigebat. (‘It isn’t so admirable a thing to know good Latin as it is disgraceful not to know it, and it is not, I think, so much the mark of a good orator as it is of a true Roman. But to return: In the matter of choosing words . . . Antonius controlled everything by purpose and by something like deliberate art.’ Cic. Brut. 140) Supplement: Ego abeo, tu iam, scio, patiere. Sed quis hic est? Is est, / ille est ipsus. (Pl. As. 378–9); Sed quid venis? Quid quaeritas? (Pl. As. 392); Ibi amare occepi forma eximia mulierem. / Sed ea[m] ut sim implicitus dicam, si operae est auribus . . . (Pl. Mer. 13–14); . . . negoti quantum in muliere una est. / Sed vero duae, sat scio, maxumo uni / populo quoilubet plus satis dare potis sunt . . . (Pl. Poen. 225–7); Deamo te, Syre. / # Sed pater egreditur. (Ter. Hau. 825–6); Sed quaestiones urgent Milonem quae sunt habitae nunc in atrio Libertatis. (Cic. Mil. 59); . . . philosophi, qui, ut opinor (sed tu haec, Catule, melius) nulla dant praecepta dicendi . . . (Cic. de Orat. 2.151); Sed hoc posterius. Nunc iuris principia videamus. (Cic. Leg. 1.18); Quin etiam, si quis est paulo ad voluptates propensior, modo ne sit ex pecudum genere (sunt enim quidam homines non re sed nomine), sed si quis est paulo erectior, quamvis voluptate capiatur, occultat et dissimulat appetitum voluptatis propter verecundiam. (Cic. Off. 1.105); Venit ab eo Furnius. Ut quidem scias quos sequamur, Q. Titini filium cum Caesare esse nuntiat—sed illum (sc. Caesarem) maiores mihi gratias agere quam vellem. (Cic. Att. 9.6.6—NB: Cicero returns to what he wanted to tell); Sed haec hactenus. Reliqua coram. (Cic. Att. 16.7.6); Postea Piso in citeriorem Hispaniam quaestor pro praetore missus est adnitente Crasso, quod eum infestum inimicum Cn. Pompeio cognoverat. Neque tamen senatus provinciam invitus dederat, quippe foedum hominem a re publica procul esse volebat, simul quia boni complures praesidium in eo putabant et iam tum potentia Pompei formidulosa erat. Sed is Piso in provincia ab equitibus Hispanis quos in exercitu ductabat iter faciens occisus est. (Sal. Cat. 19. 1–3—NB: Sallust returns to the main storyline; note is); Fuere ea tempestate qui dicerent . . . Nobis ea res pro magnitudine parum conperta est. Sed in ea coniuratione fuit Q.  Curius . . . (Sal. Cat. 22.1–23.1—NB: as in preceding example); At enim apparet quidem pollui omnia nec ullis piaculis expiari posse. Sed res ipsa cogit vastam incendiis ruinisque relinquere urbem . . . (Liv. 5.53.1); Quo argumento amplior errantium stellarum quam lunae magnitudo colligitur, quando illae et a septenis interdum partibus emergant. Sed altitudo cogit minores videri . . . (Plin. Nat. 2.58); Sed ne faciam, quod reprehendo, omnia ista . . . relinquam. (Sen. Ben. 1.4.1); ‘Magnam’, inquit Secundus, ‘et dignam tractatu quaestionem movisti. Sed quis eam iustius explicabit quam tu . . .’ (Tac. Dial. 16.1); Licet iam hinc recognoscere. . . . Qui de pluribus suscipit aliquem eum quem non suscipit despexit. ‘Sed tot ac tanti ab omnibus coli non possunt.’ (Tert. Nat. 1.10.11–12); Sed alias, si Deus voluerit, hoc videbimus. (August. Civ. 2.21.4)

Sed is sometimes used in narrative texts or passages to mark ‘the next stage’.80 Examples are (f) and (g). In (f), following modern editions, sed starts a new section about one 80 OLD s.v. sed § 2.c.

1186

Discourse

of the women who belongs to the group introduced before. Here, the contrastive counterpart is less obvious. Kühner and Stegmann suggest that it is equivalent to atque.81 For its use to connect discourse units, see also § 24.48. In (g), sed ‘introduces the distinguishing element between communities whose cases have hitherto been described in identical terms’.82 (f)

Per eas (sc. mulieres) se Catilina credebat posse servitia urbana sollicitare, urbem incendere, viros earum vel adiungere sibi vel interficere. Sed in iis erat Sempronia, quae multa saepe virilis audaciae facinora conmiserat. (‘Through them Catiline believed he could incite the city slaves to an uprising, set fire to Rome, and as for their husbands, either attach them to his cause or kill them. Now among those women was Sempronia, who had often perpetrated many deeds of masculine daring.’ Sal. Cat. 24.4–25.1)

(g)

Aphrodisienses posthac et Stratonicenses . . . recens divi Augusti decretum adtulere, laudati quod Parthorum inruptionem . . . pertulissent. Sed Aphrodisiensium civitas Veneris, Stratonicensium Iovis et Triviae religionem tuebantur. (‘After this the Aphrodisians and Stratonicensians adduced . . . a recent decree of Divus Augustus wherein they were praised because they had endured the irruption of the Parthians. (The only difference was that the Aphrodisians’ community guarded the religious cult of Venus, the Stratonicensians’ that of Jupiter and Trivia.)’ Tac. Ann. 3.62.2—tr. Woodman) Supplement: . . . sed omnino cuncta plebes novarum rerum studio Catilinae incepta probabat. . . . Sed urbana plebes, ea vero praeceps erat de multis causis. (Sal. Cat. 37.1–4); Ab hoc posteri apud Atticos dicti Medontidae. Sed hic insequentesque archontes usque ad Charopem, dum viverent, eum honorem usurpabant. (Vell. 1.2.2)

For sed + autem, see § 24.26. The combination sed enim is attested with certainty only twice before Virgil,83 who used it as a metrically convenient combination, as in (h), and who was then followed by other poets, Apuleius, the archaists, and other prose writers. Enim is here usually taken in its ‘affirmative’ sense ‘in fact’, ‘in truth’ (see § 24.40 and § 24.24 on at enim).84 Sed often co-occurs with tamen and vero. See § 24.31. (h)

Progeniem sed enim Troiano a sanguine duci / audierat Tyrias olim quae verteret arces. (‘Yet in truth she had heard that a race was springing from Trojan blood, to overthrow some day the Tyrian towers.’ Verg. A. 1.19–20—NB: note the position)

81 K.-St.: II.77. 82 So Woodman and Martin ad loc., following Koestermann ad loc., who follows Gerber and Greef s.v. sed 1455 (§ e). 83 Cato hist. 95b=88C, quoted by Gellius 6.3.16, and Cic. Att. 6.1.11 (enim bracketed by edd.). 84 See OLD s.v. sed § 5; TLL s.v. sed 573.80ff. Quint. Inst. 9.3.14 says it is an archaism in Virgil, surprisingly, as Russell notes in his Loeb edition ad loc.

Adversative connexion of sentences 1187 24.29 The adversative connector verum Verum ‘but’, ‘yet’ functions as a connector from Early Latin onwards, more or less in the same way as sed, though it is less frequent. It is more often used as a connector than as a coordinator (for which, see § 19.63). It marks the transition to a new piece of information, often interrupting a line of thought, as in (a) and (b). It is also used after a digression or a parenthesis, as in (c), and in reactions to the words of another person, as in (d). Depending on the context the adversative aspect of verum can be more pronounced, especially when the contrast is reinforced by a word like tamen, as in (e). (a)

Quando autem homo tanta luxuria atque desidia nisi Februario mense aspirabit in curiam? Verum veniat sane. (‘And when, unless it be in February, will such an indolent profligate come near the House? But let him attend, by all means.’ Cic. Ver. 2.76)

(b)

Verum haec quidem hactenus. Cetera, quotienscumque voletis, et hoc loco et aliis parata vobis erunt. (‘But so much at any rate so far. All else, as often as you will, whether in this spot or in others, will be in readiness for you.’ Cic. Tusc. 3.84)

(c)

Verum ut Lilybaeum, unde digressa est oratio, revertamur, Diocles est . . . (‘But that my discourse may return to Lilybaeum, from which I have made this digression, there is a man named Diocles . . .’ Cic. Ver. 4.35)

(d)

Qui, malum, intellegere quisquam potis est? Ita nugas blatis. / # Verum actutum nosces, quom illum nosces servom Sosiam. (‘How on earth can anyone understand? You’re waffling such nonsense. # But you’ll get to know it in a moment when you get to know that slave Sosia.’ Pl. Am. 626–7)

(e)

Nam quom pugnabant maxume, ego tum fugiebam maxume. / Verum quasi affuerim tamen simulabo atque audita eloquar. (‘For when they were fighting most intensely, I was running away most intensely. Anyway, I’ll pretend that I was there and I’ll tell what I’ve heard.’ Pl. Am. 199–200) Supplement: Eorum Amphitruonis alter est, alter Iovis. / Verum minori puero maior est pater, / minor maiori. (Pl. Am. 483–5); Timor praepedit verba. Verum, opsecro te, / dic me uxorem orare ut exoret illam / gladium ut ponat . . . (Pl. Cas. 704–6); At pol ego amatores audieram mulierum esse eos (sc. eunuchos) maxumos, / sed nil potesse. Verum miserae (sc. mihi) non in mentem venerat. (Ter. Eu. 665–6); Qui potuerunt ista ipsa lege quae de proscriptione est, sive Valeria est sive Cornelia—non enim novi nec scio—verum ista ipsa lege bona Sex. Rosci venire qui potuerunt? (Cic. S. Rosc. 125); Verum ut ad illud sacrarium redeam, signum erat hoc quod dico Cupidinis e marmore . . . (Cic. Ver. 4.5); Verum, si placet . . . reliqua aliquanto odiosiora pergamus. (Cic. de Orat. 3.51); Eorum ego vitam mortemque iuxta aestumo, quoniam de utraque siletur. Verum enim vero is demum mihi vivere atque frui anima videtur qui . . . (Sal. Cat. 2.8–9); Verum in montium miraculis ardet Aetna noctibus semper . . . (Plin. Nat.

1188

Discourse 2.236); Verum has atque alias sontium poenas in tempore trademus. (Tac. Ann. 4.71.1); Verum, ut dixi, antiquorum magnitudines corporum inventa plerumque ossa, quoniam diuturna sunt, etiam multo posterioribus saeculis produnt. (August. Civ. 15.9)

Co-occurrence of verum with the particles autem and enim is rare. Autem is attested once at Plautus Cas. 555 and occasionally in other authors (seven times in Augustine’s Confessions). Verum enim is rare, but there are a few instances in Plautus and Terence, one of which is (f). Co-occurrence with tamen and vero is common; with enimvero it is rare, but attested not only in Plautus and Terence but also Cicero, Livy, and others.85 See (g). (f)

Verum enim meretrix fortunati est oppidi similluma. / Non potest suam rem optinere sola sine multis viris. (‘But a prostitute closely resembles a flourishing town: she cannot be successful alone, without many men.’ Pl. Cist. 80–1)

(g)

Vidi ego multa saepe picta, quae Accherunti fierent / cruciamenta. Verum enim vero nulla adaeque est Accheruns / atque ubi ego fui, in lapicidinis. (‘I’ve often seen many pictures of the tortures taking place in the Underworld, but truly there’s no Underworld that can match the place where I was, in the quarries.’ Pl. Capt. 998–1000)

24.30 The adverb contra The adverb contra is sometimes used to indicate the contrast between two consecutive sentences in the sense of ‘on the other hand’, as in (a); this is referred to as its ‘connective’ use.86 It is also used in sentences with an adversative connector, as in (b). (a)

. . . sicut Fortunatorum memorant insulas, / quo cuncti qui aetatem egerint caste suam / conveniant. Contra istoc detrudi maleficos / aequom videtur . . . (‘. . . just as they speak of the Isles of the Blessed, where all those come together who have lived their lives morally; by contrast, it seems fair that wrongdoers are thrust off onto that land . . .’ Pl. Trin. 549–52)

(b)

At nos metiendi ratiocinandique utilitate huius artis terminavimus modum. At contra oratorem celeriter complexi sumus . . . (‘But we Romans have restricted this art to the practical purposes of measuring and reckoning. But on the other hand we speedily welcomed the orator . . .’ Cic. Tusc. 1.5)

24.31 The adverb tamen One of the functions of the adverb tamen ‘still’ is to signal that the content of the sentence in which it occurs is in contrast with what might have been expected on the

85 See TLL s.v. enimvero 594.26ff.

86 So OLD s.v. contra § 8.

Adversative connexion of sentences 1189 basis of the preceding sentence or discourse unit.87 It differs in this respect from the concessive subordinators which signal a commonly accepted incompatibility.88 The sentence preceding the tamen sentence often contains the emphasizer quidem, which indicates that the content of the first sentence is asserted. In this function tamen is usually placed in first or second position, just as connectors. However, it is not a connector itself: it can co-occur with conjunctive and adversative connectors (see § 19.62) and is then often juxtaposed to them. An example of tamen alone is (a). In (b) and (c), it is juxtaposed to an adversative connector. In (d), a new paragraph describes the outcome of a discussion in the Senate reported in the preceding paragraph. (a)

Nil moror nec scire volo. / # Tamen ades. (‘I don’t care and I don’t want to know. # Still, stay.’ Pl. Bac. 989a–90)

(b)

Molestus ne sis. Haec sunt sicut praedico. / # At tamen inspicere volt. (‘Don’t be a nuisance. It’s the way I tell you. # But he still wants to inspect it.’ Pl. Mos. 772–3)

(c)

. . . neque opes nostrae tam sunt validae quam tuae. Verum tamen / hau metuo ne ius iurandum nostrum quisquam culpitet. (‘. . . and our influence isn’t as great as yours; but still, I’m not afraid that anyone will ever find fault with our oath.’ Pl. Cist. 494–5)

(d)

(Senatus consulitur . . . Fautores legatorum . . . At contra pauci . . .) Vicit tamen in senatu pars illa quae vero pretium aut gratiam anteferebat. (‘(The matter was laid before the Senate . . . The partisans of the envoys . . . But a few, on the other hand . . .) In spite of all, there prevailed that faction of the senate which rated money and influence higher than integrity.’ Sal. Jug. 15.2–16.1)

24.32 The adverb nihilominus The adverb nihilominus (also as two words) ‘nonetheless’ shares with tamen the properties described above. It is much less frequent and not synonymous with tamen, as appears from instances in which the two are used in the same clause, as in (a).89 In (b), nihilominus co-occurs with an adversative connector. (a)

Non postulo iam. Loquere. Nihilo minus ego hoc faciam tamen. (‘I don’t expect it any more. Have your say. But I’ll carry out my plan none the less.’ Ter. Hau. 1012)

87 In the Classical prose corpus used by Spevak  (2006c: 224) 20 out of 150 instances of tamen are intersentential (‘transphrastique’) connectors. Half of the instances concern its correlative use with a preceding, most often concessive, subordinate clause (see § 16.68). In a corpus of Late Latin prose, the percentage of intersentential use is much higher: 42 per cent. See Spevak (2005b: 205). 88 See Maraldi (2001). 89 Spevak (2005b: 221–2), discussing instances in Ammianus, states that in the order nihilominus tamen the first word has lost its proper meaning and only strengthens the overall concessive meaning.

1190 (b)

Discourse Sed nihilominus quaedam sunt quae etiam sapientes in alio quam in se diligentius vident. (‘But nevertheless, there are certain matters where even wise men see the facts more clearly in the case of others than in their own.’ Sen. Ep. 109.16)

24.33 The adverb/connector vero From Early Latin onwards, vero functions as an adverb indicating the truth or factuality of the content of the sentence. In comedy it is very common in questions, responses, and orders, thus underlining the personal involvement of the speaker (‘indeed’, ‘really’). It is often combined with hercle and immo (and both), as in (a). Instances of vero in a monological context are attested from Terence onwards, as in (b). Between the two asyndetic sentences in (b) there is a shift of topic from illa to miles; the adversative relation between the two sentences is strengthened by vero. An earlier example, with a syndetic adversative relation marked by the connector sed, is (c). Instances like (b) are traditionally taken as the first signs of vero’s later use as an adversative connector, but the existence of instances like (c) supports the idea that the apparent connective use of vero is in reality a matter of context.90 In (d), there is a shift from eos omnes quos to M. Cethegum resembling the shift in (b), with vero drawing attention to the extraordinary qualities of Cethegus. Instances like this abound in Cicero. Vero is almost always in second position and causes hyperbaton, just like the connector autem. However, in authors of didactic texts like Celsus and Pliny the Elder there are numerous instances where vero only seems to mark the adversative relation between adjacent sentences. It seems, then, that alongside the adverbial we must recognize a connective use of vero.91 (a)

Benigne edepol facis. / # Immo tu quidem hercle vero. (‘That’s kind of you. # No, kind of you, really.’ Pl. Rud. 1368–9)

(b)

Ibi illa cum illo sermonem ilico. / Miles vero sibi putare adductum ante oculos aemulum. (‘Then she (sc. Thais) struck up a conversation with him at once. But the soldier thought that a rival had been brought in under his very nose.’ Ter. Eu. 622–3)

(c)

Apage, sis, negoti quantum in muliere una est. / Sed vero duae, sat scio, maxumo uni / populo quoilubet plus satis dare potis sunt. (‘Away with the amount of trouble that’s in a single woman! But two, I know that well enough, can keep busy as big a community as you please.’ Pl. Poen. 225–7)

(d)

Atque eos omnis quos commemoravi his studiis flagrantis senes vidimus. Marcum vero Cethegum . . . quanto studio exerceri in dicendo videbamus etiam senem!

90 For the ‘side-effect’ idea, see Kroon (1995: 326–32; 2011: 191). For the traditional view, see K.-St.: I.798–9 and II.80. For the co-occurrence of vero with the coordinator sed, see § 19.62. 91 See Langslow  (2000: 547–9), Rosén  (2009: 374), and Schrickx  (2011: 227–30). For the difference between vero and autem, see Kroon (1995: 329–30). For their use in Cassius Felix, see Langslow (2000: 546).

Adversative connexion of sentences 1191 (‘And yet I have seen all these men whom I have mentioned, ardent in their several callings after they had grown old. Then too, there was Marcus Cethegus . . . What enthusiasm I saw him also display in his public speeches, although he was an old man!’ Cic. Sen. 50) Supplement: In dialogical texts: Equidem hercle opus hoc facto existumo, / ut illo intro eam. # Itane vero, vervex? Intro eas? (Pl. Mer. 566–7); Estne hic meus servos? # Sum hercle vero, Agorastocles. (Pl. Poen. 797); Ne attigas. # Ostende vero. # Nolo. (Pl. Epid. 723); Ora me. # Obsecro te vero, Phaedria. (Ter. Eu. 715); Tum Brutus: ‘De isto postea. Sed tu’, inquit me intuens, ‘orationes nobis veteres explicabis?’ ‘Vero,’ inquam, ‘Brute. Sed in Cumano aut in Tusculano aliquando . . .’ (Cic. Brut. 300); Fuisti saepe, credo, cum Athenis esses, in scholis philosophorum. # Vero, ac libenter quidem. (Cic. Tusc. 2.26); Ego vero Quinto epistulam ad sororem misi. (Cic. Att. 13.41.1) In monological texts: Nam hercle factum’st abs te turpiter. / Etsi tibi causa’st de hac re: mater te inpulit. / Huic vero nulla’st. (Ter. Hec. 624–6); Illud vero sine ulla dubitatione maxime nostrum fundavit imperium . . . quod princeps ille creator huius urbis, Romulus, . . . docuit . . . (Cic. Balb. 31); (Starting a new paragraph) In sartis tectis vero quem ad modum se gesserit quid ego dicam? (Cic. Ver. 1.128); (sc. Marcellus) Nihil in aedibus, nihil in hortis posuit, nihil in suburbano. . . . Syracusis autem permulta atque egregia reliquit. Deum vero nullum violavit, nullum attigit. (Cic. Ver. 4.121); Sed confecto proelio tum vero cerneres quanta audacia quantaque animi vis fuisset in exercitu Catilinae. (Sal. Cat. 61.1); Huic spei tuae obstat aetas mea, obstat gentium ius, obstat vetustus Macedoniae mos, obstat vero etiam patris iudicium. (Liv. 40.9.8); Utilius his frequens balineum est, sed ieiunis, usque sudorem. Cibis vero opus est copiosis . . . (Cels. 3.22.7); Sanat et vulvarum exulcerationes eiusdem animalis sebum inveteratum et in vellere adpositum duritias vulvarum emollit. Per se vero recens vel inveteratum ex aqua inlitum psilotri vim optinet. (Plin. Nat. 28.250); Cum tamen aliquatenus se confirmavit et velut iuvenile robur accepit, neglegentiam sustinet. Novella vero dum adolescit, nisi omnia iusta perceperit, ad ultimam redigitur maciem . . . (Col. 4.3.4–5); Delector iucundum tibi fuisse Tironis mei adventum. Quod vero scribis oblata occasione proconsulis plurimos manumissos unice laetor. (Plin. Ep. 7.32.1); Sed in ipso populo Christiano illi primatum tenent qui pertinent ad Iacob. Qui vero carnaliter vivunt . . . adhuc ad vetus testamentum pertinent, nondum ad novum. (August. Serm. 4.12)

24.34 The use of etsi, tametsi, and quamquam as connectors Apart from being used as concessive subordinators (see §  16.76) etsi, tametsi, and quamquam are also used to introduce sentences which contain some form of correction of the preceding sentence or text, thus functioning as a contrastive connector. However, it sometimes is difficult to decide whether a unit starting with etsi must be regarded as an independent sentence that is in contrast with the preceding context or a concessive subordinate clause functioning as a disjunct. Editors vary in their punctuation. The use of corrective particles is especially frequent in argumentative texts, notably in Cicero. These particles can also be in an accusative and infinitive clause.92 92 See Orlandini (1994), Pfister (1995: 245), and Maraldi (2002b).

1192

Discourse

The earliest instance of connective use of etsi is (a).93 Here, the etsi sentence functions as a correction of the preceding sentence. The presence of the adversative connector verum in the following sentence makes it impossible to understand the etsi unit as a subordinate clause. In (b), connective etsi introduces a complex sentence consisting of a concessive subordinate clause with quamvis and a main clause with at. (a)

Sed quid istuc est? Etsi iam ego ipsus quid sit prope scire puto me. / Verum audire etiam ex te studeo. (‘But what is it? Well, I think I myself am already close to knowing what it is. But I’m keen to hear it from you.’ Pl. Bac. 1160–1)

(b)

Etsi, quamvis non fueris suasor et impulsor profectionis meae, at probator certe fuisti . . . (‘All the same, if you did not recommend or instigate my trip, you certainly did approve of it . . .’ Cic. Att. 16.7.2) Supplement: Ambo accusandi. Etsi illud inceptum tamen animi’st pudenti’ signum et non instrenui. (Ter. Hau. 119–20—NB: co-occurrence of etsi and tamen); Non tractabo ut consulem. Ne ille quidem me ut consularem. Etsi ille nullo modo consul . . . (Cic. Phil. 2.10); Quid ergo potissimum scribam? Quod velle te puto, cito me ad te esse venturum. Etsi vide, quaeso, satisne rectum sit nos hoc tanto incendio civitatis in istis locis esse. (Cic. Fam. 9.3.1); . . . quo maxime apparuit . . . Seianum quaerenti occasiones sumministrasse. Etsi commentario quem de vita sua summatim breviterque composuit ausus est scribere . . . (Suet. Tib. 61.1)

Tametsi can be used in the same way, as in (c) and (d). (c)

. . . scelus quoque latere inter illa tot flagitia putatote. Tametsi hoc quidem minime latet quod ita promptum et propositum est ut . . . (‘. . . you may feel sure that crime also lies concealed among all these shameful acts. And yet about this crime there is no concealment; it is so manifest and exposed to view, that . . .’ Cic. S. Rosc. 118)

(d)

Tu quicquid indagaris de re publica . . . facito ut sciam. Tametsi nimis sum curiosus. Statui enim nihil iam de re publica cogitare. (‘On your side let me know anything you ferret out about public affairs—though after all I’m being too curious, having determined to think no more about politics.’ Cic. Att. 2.4.4) Supplement: . . . non eos ad me venturos arbitrabare? Tametsi id quidem fecerunt ridicule. Quas enim litteras adferebant . . . (Cic. Fam. 3.7.3)

93 The material can be found in TLL s.v. etsi ‘paratacticum’ 979.4ff.

Explanatory and justificatory connexion of sentences

1193

The most common contrastive connector is quamquam, as in (e) and (f).94 Ex. (g) shows the use of quamquam in an accusative and infinitive clause. (e)

. . . pater curavit . . . clandestina ut celetur consuetio. / Quamquam, ut iam dudum dixi, resciscet tamen / Amphitruo rem omnem. (‘. . . my father’s taken care that . . . the secret affair would be concealed. Still, as I’ve said already, Amphitruo will find out the whole thing all the same.’ Pl. Am. 487–92)

(f)

. . . cur nostri a nostris non legantur? Quamquam, si plane sic verterem Platonem aut Aristotelem ut verterunt nostri poëtae fabulas, male, credo, mererer de meis civibus . . . (‘. . . why should not Romans be read by Romans? Yet even supposing I gave a direct translation of Plato or Aristotle, exactly as our poets have done with the plays, would it not, pray, be a patriotic service to my fellow-countrymen?’ Cic. Fin. 1.6–7)

(g)

Quamquam nullam nobilitatem, nullos honores, nulla merita cuiquam ad dominationem pandere viam. (‘To be sure, no nobility, no honours, no merits, opened wide the road to tyranny for any man.’ Liv. 4.15.5) Supplement: . . . tu de thesauro sumes. # Satis scite et probe! / Quamquam hoc me aetatis sycophantari pudet. (Pl. Trin. 786–7); Hic, quod cum ceteris animo sentiebat, id magis quam ceteri et vultu promptum habuit et lingua. Quamquam, iudices—agnosco enim ex me—permulta in Plancium quae ab eo numquam dicta sunt conferuntur. (Cic. Planc. 34–5); . . . addite Aproni Veneriorumque servorum in agro decumano regna ac rapinas. Quamquam haec omitto, de cella loquor. (Cic. Ver. 3.200); Quam ob rem hoc vos doceo, Sulpici, . . . ut in dicendo irasci, ut dolere, ut flere possitis. Quamquam te quidem quid hoc doceam . . . (Cic. de Orat. 2.196–7); Quamquam, etsi priore foedere staretur, satis cautum erat Saguntinis sociis utrorumque exceptis. (Liv. 21.19.4); Quamquam quod ob meritum nostrum suscensuistis, patres conscripti, nobis aut suscensetis? (Liv. 25.6.4); Quamquam ne impudicitiam quidem nunc abesse . . . (Tac. Ann. 12.65.2—NB: accusative and infinitive) Appendix: Quamvis is only rarely used in a similar way, in poetry from Prop. 2.7.3 onwards; in prose from Cels. 1.pr.54 and Petr. 79.5 onwards.

24.35 Explanatory and justificatory connexion of sentences The particles which mark an explanatory, evidential, or justificatory relation between sentences or larger units of discourse are the connectors nam, namque, etenim, and quippe and the interactional particles enim and nempe. Traditionally, they are called ‘causal conjunctions’. Of these particles nam and enim are very common in all periods

94 For the syntactic and pragmatic properties of quamquam, see Martín Puente (2001). For criteria to decide whether a particular instance of quamquam is a subordinator or a connector, see Mellet (2005).

1194

Discourse

of Latin. Table 24.5 contains figures for the frequency of use.95 It shows that nempe is slightly more frequent in poetry than in prose; namque is relatively more frequent in poetry than nam; and quippe is not very common in poetry. There are also considerable differences between authors and texts. Table 24.6 gives a glimpse of this.96 It is interesting to see the different proportions of nam and enim in Plautus and Cicero. With forty-five instances of quippe, Lucretius has one-quarter of all the instances in poetry until Apuleius.  Table 24.5 Frequency of explanatory and justificatory connectors and particles  

nam

namque

quippe

enim

Total

10,528

Prose

8,035

Poetry

2,493

etenim

1,293

1,221

15,951

877

1,034

 

 

171

416

187

 

 

195

655

nempe 366

Table 24.6 Frequency of explanatory and justificatory connectors and particles in four authors  

nam

namque

quippe

enima

etenim

nempe

Plautus

790

20

21

120

2

56

Cicero

2,285

38

61

6,200

412

43

Lucretius

149

28

45

135

24

4

Livy

414

63

105

580

14

10

a

Not counting enim vero (thirty-one instances).

24.36 The connector nam A sentence or a larger discourse unit with the connector nam ‘for’ provides or requests subsidiary information with respect to a preceding sentence or discourse unit, functioning as it were as an answer to a question or an expectation raised by the preceding text.97 The information provided involves an explanation, evidence, or justification of the preceding text, which may concern either (i) the content of the preceding sentence or discourse unit, as in (a)–(d), or (ii) the reason for uttering the preceding text or choosing a particular wording (a disjunct-like usage), as in (e). Much less common is (iii) the use of nam to mark the transition to a new issue, as in (g).98 The nam sentence 95 The data concerning nam, namque, quippe, and nempe are taken from Schrickx  (2009; 2011). Included is material collected by the TLL until Apuleius. The data concerning enim and etenim come from the LLT, period Antiquitas. There is no subdivision available for prose and poetry. 96 Data obtained from LLT. 97 For this description of the function of nam, see Kroon (1995: 144) and TLL s.v. nam 840ff. For nam in Plautus, see Blänsdorf (1967: 80–90; 191–205). 98 For parallels of (a)–(d), (e), and (g), see TLL s.v. nam 8.71ff., 17.42ff., and 23.20ff., respectively. The examples are taken from the TLL article. For some later developments, see TLL s.v. 24.29ff. For (f), see Kroon (1998b: 57–60).

Explanatory and justificatory connexion of sentences

1195

explains: in (a), why there is a need to settle peace; in (b), the implications of Sosia trying to get access to Alcumena; in (c), the reason why Amphitruo is commanding the legions; in (d), Jupiter’s motive for bringing help to Alcumena. In (e), the nam sentence contains the justification for the preceding order. In (f), the nam sentence justifies the use of the expression magno usui. In (g), Sosia passes from Amphitruo’s role to that of Jupiter but first justifies why it is superfluous to add information about Jupiter. For nam in a question, see (h) (see also § 6.21).99 (a)

Pacem componi volo / meo patri cum matre. Nam nunc est irata . . . / propter istanc. (‘I want peace to be settled between my father and my mother. For now she’s angry because of that girl.’ Pl. Mer. 953–5)

(b)

Hanc nostram (sc. eram) adire non sinam. / Nam si me irritassis, hodie lumbifragium hinc auferes. (‘I won’t let you go to ours here. For if you provoke me, you’ll carry away broken hips from here today.’ Pl. Am. 453–4)

(c)

Is nunc Amphitruo praefectu’st legionibus. / Nam cum Telobois bellum est Thebano poplo. (‘This Amphitruo is now in command of the legions because the Theban people is at war with the Teloboians.’ Pl. Am. 100–1)

(d)

Simul Alcumenae . . . veni ut auxilium feram. / Nam mea sit culpa, quod egomet contraxerim, / si id Alcumenae in innocentiam expetat. (‘At the same time I’ve come to bring help to Alcumena . . . For I’d deserve blame if what I myself have stirred up should fall on innocent Alcumena.’ Pl. Am. 869–72)

(e)

Sequere hac igitur me. Nam mi istuc primum exquisito est opus. (‘Then follow me this way: I need to get to the bottom of this first.’ Pl. Am. 628)

(f)

Quae res magno usui nostris fuit. Nam . . . barbari constiterunt ac paulum modo pedem rettulerunt. (‘This movement proved of great service to our troops; for the natives . . . came to a halt, and retired, but only for a little space.’ Caes. Gal. 4.25.2)

(g)

(sc. Amphitruo) . . . gravidam Alcumenam fecit uxorem suam. / Nam ego vos  novisse credo iam ut sit pater meus (sc. Iuppiter) . . . / Is amare occepit Alcumenam clam virum . . . (‘. . . he made his wife Alcumena pregnant. Well, I believe you already know what my  father’s like . . . He fell in love with Alcumena behind her husband’s back . . .’ Pl. Am. 103–7)

(h)

Pestis te tenet. # Nam quor istuc / dicis? Equidem valeo et salvos / sum recte, Amphitruo. (‘You have the plague. # Why are you saying that? I’m perfectly well and healthy, Amphitruo.’ Pl. Am. 581–3) 99 See Holmes (2012).

1196

Discourse Supplement (in accordance with the distinctions made above): (i): . . . repente est exorta mulieris importunae nefaria libido . . . Nam Sassia, mater huius Habiti, . . . (Cic. Clu. 12); Itaque discedunt omnes. Nam ceteri quoque impetrant ne retineantur. (Cic. Ver. 2.71); . . . vivo Catone minores natu multi uno tempore oratores floruerunt. Nam et A. Albinus, is qui Graece scripsit historiam, qui consul cum L.  Lucullo fuit, et litteratus et disertus fuit. (Cic. Brut. 80); Dicebat etiam L.  Scipio non imperite Gnaeusque Pompeius Sex. f. aliquem numerum obtinebat. Nam Sex. frater eius praestantissimum ingenium contulerat ad summam iuris civilis . . . scientiam. (Cic. Brut. 175—NB: an instance of the rhetorical figure occupatio); . . . eram in scribendo conturbatior. Nam puer festivus, anagnostes noster Sositheus, decesserat . . . (Cic. Att. 1.12.4); Sic ille annus duo firmamenta rei publicae per me unum constituta evertit. Nam et senatus auctoritatem abiecit et ordinum concordiam disiunxit. (Cic. Att. 1.18.3); Fenestrarum angustias quod reprehendis, scito te V‡{z .ltopjlx reprehendere. Nam cum ego idem istuc dicerem, Cyrus aiebat . . . (Cic. Att. 2.3.2); Neque vero Pompeiani huic rei defuerunt. Nam et tela missa exceperunt et impetum legionum tulerunt . . . (Caes. Civ. 3.93.2); Caesar loquendi finem fecit seque ad suos recepit suisque imperavit ne quod omnino telum in hostes reicerent. Nam etsi sine ullo periculo legionis delectae cum equitatu proelium fore videbat, tamen committendum non putabat ut . . . (Caes. Gal. 1.46.2–3); Ibi Latine—nam apud Numantiam loqui didicerat—exclamat nostros frustra pugnare . . . (Sal. Jug. 101.6) (ii): Quo quidem etiam magis sum non dicam miser—nam hoc quidem abhorret a virtute verbum—sed certe exercitus . . . (Cic. Planc. 78); (sc. Coriolanus) . . . se ad hostes contulit conatumque iracundiae suae morte sedavit. Nam etsi aliter apud te est, Attice, de Coriolano, concede tamen ut huic generi mortis potius adsentiar. (Cic. Brut. 42); Tenesne igitur moderatorem illum rei publicae quo referre velimus omnia? Nam sic quinto, ut opinor, in libro loquitur Scipio: ‘ut enim gubernatori cursus secundus, medico salus, imperatori victoria, sic huic moderatori rei publicae beata civium vita proposita est, ut opibus firma, copiis locuples, gloria ampla, virtute honesta sit.’ (Cic. Att. 8.11.1); Qui status rerum fuerit tum cum has litteras dedi scire poteris ex C. Tidio Strabone, viro bono et optime de re publica sentiente. Nam quid dicam ‘cupidissimo tui’, qui domo et fortunis relictis ad te potissimum profectus sit? (Cic. Fam. 12.6.1—NB: an instance of the rhetorical figure of praeteritio); ‘Iuppiter— hospitibus nam te dare iura loquuntur /—hunc laetum Tyriisque diem Troiaque profectis / esse velis . . .’ (Verg. A. 1.731–3); Aristoteles putat causam tribus modis dici. . . . Tertia est forma quae unicuique operi inponitur tamquam statuae. Nam hanc Aristoteles ‘idos’ vocat. (Sen. Ep. 65.4) (iii): (discussing historians) Nam Lysiam primo profiteri solitum artem esse dicendi. (Cic. Brut. 48); Ita suspensa de legibus res ad novos tribunos militum dilata. Nam plebis tribunos eosdem, duos utique quia legum latores erant, plebes reficiebat. (Liv. 6.38.1); (discussing properties of elephants) Nam, quod ad docilitatem attinet, regem adorant, genua submittunt, coronas porrigunt. (Plin. Nat. 8.3)

Within the class of explanatory and justificatory particles, nam comes second in terms of frequency, after enim, but there are significant differences between authors (see Table 24.6 on p. 1194) and types of text: in three different text types of Cicero the

Explanatory and justificatory connexion of sentences

1197

proportion of nam and enim is 20/80 in the philosophical dialogue de Finibus, 25/75 in the letters to Atticus, 35/65 in the Verrine orations.100 These differences in frequency are related to the semantic and pragmatic differences between the two words. For discussion, see § 24.40. Nam is almost always in sentence-initial position; in poetry, however, it is sometimes in a later position. See § 23.21. If the sentence starts with a subordinate clause, nam precedes, as in (b) above. Nam co-occurs with swear words like hercle, as in (i), and with invocations of a god or gods. In such contexts, nam is sometimes described as ‘affirmative’. In reality, nam has here the same function as described above. Enim is not combined with such words.101 (i) Tu intus cura quod opus est. / Sume, posce, prome quidvis. Te facio cellarium. / # Nam hercle, nisi mantiscinatus probe ero, fusti pectito. / # Aeternum tibi dapinabo victum, si vera autumas. (‘You take care inside of what’s needed. Take, demand, help yourself to anything you like. I hereby make you my butler. # Yes, if I don’t tuck in properly, you can comb me down with a club. # I’ll serve you meals for good if you’re telling the truth.’ Pl. Capt. 894–7)

24.37 The connector namque The connector namque ‘certainly’, ‘for’ is used with the same functions as nam. Of the three uses of nam described in § 24.36, marking the transition to a new issue is rare, starting from Pliny the Elder onwards, as in (d). The most common use, to mark subsidiary information for the content of the preceding text, is shown in (a) and (b). An instance of a justification of a request is (c). (a)

Laboriosi nil tibi quicquam operis imperabo. / # Namque edepol equidem, mi senex, non didici baiolare . . . (‘I won’t tell you to do any hard work. # Yes, my dear old man, I don’t know how to carry a load . . .’ Pl. Mer. 507–8)

(b)

Nunc de ceteris sideribus . . . dicam. Namque Septentrio, quem Graeci nominant Arctum sive Helicen, habet post se conlocatum Custodem. (‘I will next speak of the other constellations . . . Now the Wagon, which the Greeks call the Bear or Helice, has the Keeper of the Bear placed behind it.’ Vitr. 9.3.3–4.1)

(c)

Gnatique patrisque, / alma (sc. Sibylla), precor, miserere—Potes namque omnia nec te / nequiquam lucis Hecate praefecit Avernis / —si . . . (‘Pity both son and sire, I beseech you, gracious one, if . . .; for you are all-powerful, and not in vain did Hecate make you mistress in the groves of Avernus.’ Verg. A. 6.116–18)

100 In Augustine’s work the proportion of nam and enim varies as well: Civ. 25/75, Conf. 20/80, Ep. 20/80, Serm. 15/85. In the Peregrinatio the proportion is 75/25 (source: LLT). For data on the frequency of nam and enim in didactic prose, see Langslow (2000: 542). 101 See Kroon (1995: 163–8; 187). For ‘affirmative’ nam, see OLD s.v. nam § 1.

1198 (d)

Discourse Eadem nascentium causa terrarum est . . . Nascuntur et alio modo terrae . . . Namque et hoc modo insulas rerum natura fecit . . . (‘The cause of the birth of new lands is the same . . . New lands are also formed in another way . . . For another way also in which nature has made islands is . . .’ Plin. Nat. 2.201–4)

There are differences of distribution between namque and nam. The former is more frequent in poetry (see Table 24.5 on p. 1194) and is preferred before words beginning with a vowel or h, and in some authors (Cicero, Caesar, and Quintilian, for example) avoided before words beginning with a consonant. In Plautus, namque is preferred after a change of speaker, and it is regularly used in combination with a swear word, as in (e). Unlike nam, namque is found in second or later position not only in poetry but also in prose (rarely later than second) from Livy onwards. In Livy 40 per cent of the instances of namque are non-initial, as in (f), where it causes hyperbaton.102 (e)

Ecquid amare videor? # Damnum, quod Mercurius minime amat. / # Namque edepol lucrum amare nullum amatorem addecet. (‘Do I seem to be in love at all? # Yes, with loss, which Mercury doesn’t love at all. # Indeed, no lover ought to love any gain.’ Pl. Poen. 327–8)

(f)

. . . decreverunt ut consules magistratus denosque principes Nepete, Sutrio . . . Interamna—hae namque coloniae in ea causa erant—Romam excirent. (‘. . . they decreed that the consuls should summon to Rome the magistrates and ten leading citizens in each case from Nepete, Sutrium . . . Interamna, for these were the colonies concerned.’ Liv. 29.15.5)

24.38 The connector etenim The connector etenim ‘for’, ‘and indeed’ marks the sentence in which it occurs as an explanation or an elaboration of the preceding sentence or text, as in (a) and (b). In (c), an address to the judges, the explanatory relation between the two sentences is more complex. Rare instances in which etenim only seems to mark the transition to a new issue are cited in the literature, not all of them convincing.103 An example is (d). As the Loeb translation ‘for’ shows, etenim has here its normal explanatory function, which becomes clear if one takes a larger piece of text into account, and not just the sentence in which it stands. Etenim is attested from Plautus onwards (once, see below), becomes particularly common in Cicero, but is uncommon in or entirely absent from most prose authors until Late Latin. Lucretius uses it relatively frequently (with quippe, see § 24.39), but it is rare in other poets. For its overall frequency, see Table 24.5 on p. 1194.104 In prose, etenim usually occupies the first position of the sentence, but see the Supplement. From Lucretius onwards poets have it also in second, and Horace even in third position. 102 For details, see Schrickx (2009); for further instances, see TLL s.v. namque. 103 See TLL s.v. etenim 920.61ff. ‘adnectit aliquid novi’. The first instance cited is Cic. Att. 1.14.4, not convincingly. 104 For the aetas patrum the LLT gives more than 5,300 instances.

Explanatory and justificatory connexion of sentences (a)

1199

Verum profecto hoc petere me precario / a vobis iussit leniter dictis bonis. / Etenim ille quoius huc iussu venio, Iuppiter / non minus quam vostrum quivis formidat malum. (‘Still, he’s told me to ask you for this by way of entreaty, mildly, with kind words. Well, that Jupiter on whose command I’m coming here is no less afraid of a thrashing than any of you.’ Pl. Am. 24–7)

(b)

Certum est . . . omnia . . . audacter libereque dicere. Nulla res tanta exsistet, iudices, ut possit vim mihi maiorem adhibere metus quam fides. Etenim quis tam dissoluto animo est qui haec cum videat tacere ac neglegere possit? (‘I have deliberately made up my mind . . . to say all boldly, and freely; no consideration shall arise of such importance, gentlemen, as to make it possible for fear to exert greater influence over me than honour. For is there a man so indifferent as to keep silence and take no notice at the sight of such atrocities?’ Cic. S. Rosc. 31–2)

(c)

. . . ut etiam (sc. gratia) obesse deberet tu tua sapientia curasti. Etenim rem totam, iudices, breviter cognoscite. (‘. . . and your intelligence has taken effective steps to make it actually tell against you. Let me in a few words, gentlemen, put the whole story before you.’ Cic. Ver. 2.169)

(d)

Gentes ei (sc. Indiae) urbesque innumerae, si quis omnes persequi velit. Etenim patefacta est non modo Alexandri Magni armis . . . (‘Its races and cities are beyond counting, if one wished to enumerate all of them. For it has been brought to knowledge not only by the armed forces of Alexander the Great . . .’ Plin. Nat. 6.58) Supplement: Facile equidem facere possum si iubes. / Etenim quo pacto id fieri soleat calleo. (Ter. Hau. 547–8); Multum etenim refert, duobus simul alternis annis legetur . . . an singulis alternis annis. (Papin. dig. 7.4.2.2); . . . (sc. oportet) ex edicto te bona P. Quincti non possedisse concedas. Etenim si ex edicto possedisti, quaero cur bona non venierint . . . (Cic. Quinct. 73); Signa nostra . . . velim imponas . . . Etenim ibi sedens haec ad te scribebam, ut me locus ipse admoneret. (Cic. Att. 1.10.3); Tutus bos etenim rura perambulat . . . (Hor. Carm. 4.5.17); Cetera exempla fortunae variantis innumera sunt. Etenim quae facit magna gaudia nisi ex malis aut quae mala inmensa nisi ex ingentibus gaudiis? (Plin. Nat. 7.134); Inlustrium domuum adversa (etenim haud multum distanti tempore Calpurnii Pisonem, Aemilii Lepidam amiserant) solacio adfecit D. Silanus Iuniae familiae redditus. (Tac. Ann. 3.24.1); Tunc etenim meretur, cum cognoscitur an mereatur. (Tert. Apol. 1.4); Et magis propitius est Deus, quando superflua et nugatoria petentem non exaudit ut det, sed exaudit ut sanet non dando. Etenim quare ista quaerant homines quis non videt? (August. Serm. 32.19)

24.39 The connector quippe The connector quippe ‘for’, ‘of course’ is used to connect sentences and larger units of discourse and in many respects resembles nam. However, it is not used as a justification of the content or wording of a preceding text and it does not mark the transition

1200

Discourse

to a new issue (uses (ii) and (iii) in § 24.36).105 Examples of its regular use as a sentence connector are (a) and (b). (a)

Nos tu ne curassis. Scimus rem omnem. Quippe omnes simul didicimus tecum una, ut respondere possimus tibi. (‘Don’t bother about us: we know the entire business, since we all learned it together with you, so that we could answer you.’ Pl. Poen. 553–4)

(b)

Sin ille tibi ludus fuit, quid te impurius, qui religiones omnes pollueris aut ementiundo aut stuprando? ‘Iam fateor’, inquit, ‘me in Gabinio nefarium fuisse.’ Quippe vides poenam illam a te in alium institutam in te ipsum esse conversam. (‘But if it was a mere farce, what can be more loathsome than your defilement of all sanctities either by falsehood or by immorality? “I am ready to confess now”, he says, “that in the case of Gabinius I acted impiously.” Yes, for you realize that the penalty you enacted against another has recoiled upon your own head.’ Cic. Dom. 125–6) Supplement: Qui tibi lubet mihi male loqui? / # Quipp’ tu mi aliquid aliquo modo alicunde ab aliquibus blatis / quod nusquam est . . . (Pl. Epid. 333–5); Nam expedit bonas esse vobis. Nos, quibu’cum est res, non sinunt. / Quippe forma inpulsi nostra nos amatores colunt. (Ter. Hau. 388–9); . . . praeclara opera cesset. Quippe ius Laodiceae me dicere, cum Romae A. Plotius dicat! (Cic. Att. 5.15.1); Nam me quidem ex animi mei sententia nulla oratio laedere potest. Quippe vera necesse est bene praedicent, falsa vita moresque mei superant. (Sal. Jug. 85.27); Nomine enim tantum minus invidiosum, re ipsa prope atrocius quam regium esse. Quippe duos pro uno dominos acceptos immoderata, infinita potestate . . . (Liv. 3.9.3); Factum eius a diis comprobatum spatio vitae et felicitate imperii apparuit. Quippe vixit annis XC, regnavit LXX. (Vell. 1.1.3); . . . nec quicquam miserius homine aut superbius. Ceteris quippe animantium sola victus cura est . . . (Plin. Nat. 2.25); Non enim quia dicimus Deum et in caelo esse et in terra (ipse quippe ait per prophetam: Caelum et terram ego impleo), aliam partem dicturi sumus eum in caelo habere et in terra aliam. (August. Civ. 22.29.3)

There are a few attestations of the collocation of quippe and enim in the same sentence in Cicero and Lucretius, although in the former many editors punctuate quippe as a one-word sentence, as in (c). Lucretius has the combination quippe etenim twenty times and, much later, Apuleius once. The combination of quippe with the adverb qui ‘in some way’ functions more or less as quippe alone. It is found in Plautus and Terence and then in Gellius and Apuleius.106 (c)

Leve nomen habet utraque res! Quippe; leve enim est totum hoc risum movere.

105 For the differences between nam and quippe, see Kroon (2014: 77–9). 106 See Schrickx  (2011: 130–3 and passim). The function of qui is disputed. For quippe in Velleius Paterculus, see Sánchez Manzano (2001) and Ruiz Castellanos (2005).

Explanatory and justificatory connexion of sentences

1201

(‘Each of these has a trivial name—of course, for this whole business of provoking laughter is a trivial matter.’ Cic. de Orat. 2.218—tr. May and Wisse (adapted))

(d)

Quare, corpus ubi interiit, periisse necesse’st / confiteare animam distractam in corpore toto. / Quippe etenim mortale aeterno iungere et una / consentire putare et fungi mutua posse / desipere’st. (‘Therefore, when the body has perished, you must confess that the spirit has passed away, torn to pieces throughout the body. In fact, to yoke mortal with immortal, and to think that they can be partners in feeling and act upon each other, is folly.’ Lucr. 3.798–802)

(e)

Quis igitur nisi vos narravit mi illi ut fuerit proelium? / # An etiam id tu scis? # Quipp’ qui ex te audivi . . . (‘Well, then who told me how the battle went there, if not you? # You know about it? # Of course! I heard from you . . .’ Pl. Am. 744–5)

Quippe in all its uses most often occupies the first position of the sentence or clause and this is the regular position in Cicero and Sallust, but, unlike nam, it is not restricted to that position in poetry nor in prose authors (Livy, Pliny the Elder, and Apuleius); non-initial placement increases over time. Quippe is relatively rare in poetry, with the exception of Lucretius.107 Supplement: Non puto, inquam, existimare te ambitione me labi, quippe de mortuis. (Cic. Brut. 244—elliptic reason adjunct?); Sol Democrito magnus videtur, quippe homini erudito in geometriaque perfecto, huic pedalis fortasse; tantum enim esse censet, quantus videtur, vel paulo aut maiorem aut minorem. (Cic. Fin. 1.20—apposition); ‘Quia animadverti nuper, cum essemus in Formiano, te familiae valde interdicere ut uni dicto audiens esset.’ # ‘Quippe vilico.’ (Cic. Rep. 1.61—apposition?) Appendix: Apart from being used as a sentence connector, quippe is also used in combination with relative clauses (see § 18.24), cum (see § 16.29) and other finite subordinate clauses, secondary predicates (see § 21.18), as well as various other constituents (see the Supplement). This concerns about 18 per cent of all instances of quippe, with much variation between individual authors: 82 per cent in Cicero, 46 per cent in Livy, almost negligible in Tacitus.108

24.40 The interactional particle enim The most typical use of the particle enim is in sentences and larger units of discourse which serve as an explanation, evidence, or justification for the preceding text, which is what the connector nam signals explicitly. However, enim is not a connector but an interactional particle (see § 24.15); it makes ‘an appeal to the involvement, cooperation and empathy of the addressee in the communicative event’, more or less comparable to y’know or the tag question isn’t it? in English, and to ja in German.109 107 On quippe in Lucretius, see Possanza (2008). 108 See Schrickx (2011: 119–25). 109 So Kroon (2011: 192). In her earlier work (1995: 184) she uses the term ‘consensus particle’.

1202

Discourse

The non-connective character of enim is apparent from the fact that it can co-occur with real connectors like et, infrequently, as in (a), at (see § 24.24), and sed (rarely, see § 24.28). The non-causal character of enim explains why it can be used in subordinate clauses of reason which follow a main clause, as in (b). In none of these situations would nam be possible. Enim is often used in sentences that contain a truth value disjunct like certe (see § 10.100), as in (c). Nam is not often combined with such words. Co-occurrence of nam and enim in the same sentence is not attested, which may be due to their semantic affinity.110 (a)

Sed de Graecis hactenus. Et enim haec ipsa forsitan fuerint non necessaria. (‘So much then for the Greeks, and even this perchance was superfluous.’ Cic. Brut. 52)111

(b)

. . . domi daturus nemo est prandium advenientibus. / # Qui tibi nunc istuc in mentem est? # Quia enim sero advenimus. (‘. . . at home no one’s going to give us a lunch on our arrival. # How did that idea occur to you now? # Well, because we’ve come too late.’ Pl. Am. 665–6)

(c)

Oh, melle dulci dulcior [mihi] tu es. # Certe enim tu vita es mi. / Complectere. (‘Oh, you’re sweeter than sweet honey. # Certainly you are sweeter than my life to me. Embrace me.’ Pl. As. 614–15)

In Plautus and Terence, enim is often used in a reaction, as in (d); similarly, in a reported dialogue like (e). In narrative texts, enim is more common in direct speech than nam.112 The context in which enim is used often contains shared information, as in (f), a monological narrative, with ut supra demonstratum est. (d)

Quid tute tecum? # Nihil enim. (‘What are you saying to yourself? # Nothing, of course.’ Pl. Mos. 551)

(e)

Bene Pericles, cum . . . casu formosus puer praeteriret dixissetque Sophocles: ‘O puerum pulchrum, Pericle!’ ‘At enim praetorem, Sophocle, decet non solum manus, sed etiam oculos abstinentes habere.’ (‘Pertinent was Pericles’ reply when . . . a handsome boy chanced to pass and Sophocles said: “Look, Pericles; what a pretty boy!” “Hush, Sophocles, a general should keep not only his hands but his eyes under control.” ’ Cic. Off. 1.144)

(f)

Quae res magnas difficultates exercitui Caesaris attulit. Castra enim, ut supra demonstratum est, cum essent inter flumina duo, Sicorim et Cingam—spatio milium XXX neutrum horum transiri poterat . . .

110 Namque enim is attested at Pl. Trin. 61. For discussion, see Kroon (1995: 209); for collocations of enim, see Kroon (1995: 172–5; 186–7). 111 Editors also print etenim. 112 In Livy 30 per cent of instances of enim and 12 per cent of nam are in direct speech. See Kroon (1995: 181).

Explanatory and justificatory connexion of sentences

1203

(‘These developments caused serious difficulties to Caesar’s army, for with his camp, as was indicated above, being between two rivers, the Sicoris and the Cinca—neither of these could be crossed for a stretch of thirty miles . . .’ Caes. Civ. 1.48.3)

The majority of the sentences in which enim is used are declarative. However, enim can also be used in imperative sentences with a low degree of bindingness, such as pieces of advice and proposals. Enim in a proposal is shown in (g). It can also be used with metadirectives (see § 6.29, (ii)), as in (h). It is rare in interrogative sentences, except in those with an assertive illocutionary force (rhetorical and ironic questions), as in (i).113 (g)

Etenim quis erit tandem modus iste? Quaeramus enim modum aegritudinis, in qua operae plurimum ponitur. (‘For what, I ask, will the suggested “limit” be? Let us inquire for instance into the limit of distress to which they devote most attention.’ Cic. Tusc. 4.40)

(h)

Facite enim ut non solum mores et adrogantiam eius, sed etiam voltum atque amictum atque etiam illam usque ad talos demissam purpuram recordemini. (‘For do but recall his manners and his arrogance, yes, and even his expression and his clothes, and that purple robe he wore right down to his heels.’ Cic. Clu. 111)

(i)

‘Tu me’, inquis, ‘mones? Iam enim te ipse monuisti, iam correxisti? Ideo aliorum emendationi vacas?’ Non sum tam inprobus ut curationes aeger obeam . . . (‘ “What,” say you, “are you giving me advice? Indeed, have you already advised yourself, already corrected your own faults? Is this the reason why you have leisure to reform other men?” No, I am not so shameless as to undertake to cure my fellow-men when I am ill myself . . .’ Sen. Ep. 27.1) Supplement: Accipe argentum hoc, danista. Hic sunt quadraginta minae. / Siquid erit dubium, immutabo. # Bene fecisti, bene vale. / # Nunc enim tu mea es. # Soror quidem edepol, ut tu aeque scias. (Pl. Epid. 646–8); Sicine ego te orare iussi? # Quo modo ergo orem? # Rogas? / Sic enim diceres, sceleste: . . . (Pl. Poen. 386–7); Ad hoc exemplum est— # An Chares? An Charmides? # Enim Charmides. / Em istic erit. (Pl. Trin. 922–3); Nam tum cum ex urbe Catilinam eiciebam—non enim iam vereor huius verbi invidiam, cum illa magis sit timenda, quod vivus exierit—, sed tum cum illum exterminari volebam . . . (Cic. Catil. 3.3); Non enim pudendo, sed non faciendo id quod non decet impudentiae nomen effugere debemus. (Cic. de Orat. 1.120); Cave enim putes Attici nostri Amalthio platanisque illis quicquam esse praeclarius. (Cic. Leg. 2.7); Quando enim me in hunc locum deduxit oratio, docebo meliora me didicisse . . . (Cic. N.D. 3.43); Accidit etiam repentinum incommodum biduo quo haec gesta sunt. Tanta enim tempestas cooritur ut numquam illis locis maiores aquas fuisse constaret. (Caes. Civ. 1.48.1); Navita sed tristis nunc hos nunc accipit illos, / ast alios longe summotos arcet harena. / Aeneas miratus enim motusque tumultu / ‘dic’, ait, ‘o virgo, quid

113 For these examples and further discussion, see Kroon  (1995: 189–95). The examples in the Supplement are also taken from Kroon (1995).

1204

Discourse vult concursus ad amnem?’ (Verg. A. 6.315–18); . . . A.  Claudius . . . dicitur dixisse vetus se ac familiare consilium domo adferre. Proavum enim suum Ap. Claudium ostendisse patribus viam . . . (Liv. 4.48.6); 215 transiri quae vetaret lex nulla lata est. Dicat fortassis aliquis: non enim invehebantur. (Plin. Nat. 36.4–5); Artifices scaenici . . . hoc indicio imitantur verecundiam. Deiciunt enim vultum, verba summittunt, figunt in terram oculos et deprimunt. (Sen. Ep. 11.7); Postquam negavit, iussit illum Caesar decollari: quia enim, si scitum esset, aurum pro luto haberemus. (Petr. 51.6 (Trimalchio speaking))

Apart from the use illustrated above, which is usually called the ‘causal’ use of enim, two others are generally distinguished, viz. the ‘affirmative’ and the ‘adversative’ use. The former is often regarded as the original use, with reference primarily to Plautus and Terence, and is taken to mean ‘to be sure’, ‘of course’ (OLD), as in (j) and (k). Note that in (j) enim occupies the first position. The instances of enim in first position (c.  fifteen in Plautus and Terence) are all ‘affirmative’, which is a reason for some scholars to regard them as adverbs.114 However, such instances often concern reactions that challenge the words of the preceding speaker (see also the examples (d) and (e) above) and can be interpreted along the lines set out above: enim is there to induce the other side to accept the speaker’s view or to remind him of what he knew or might have known already.115 (j)

Ergo quoque (sc. molesta), nisi scio / quo agas te. # Ad vos. # Et pol ego ad vos. # Quid eo? # Quid id ad te attinet? / # Enim non ibis nunc, vicissim nisi scio. (‘And I’ll continue to be a nuisance unless you tell me where you’re going. # To your place. # And I to your place. # Why there? # Why is this any of your business? # You won’t go now, unless I know in turn.’ Pl. Per. 234–6)

(k)

Cedo nunc porro: Phormio / dotem si accipiet, uxor ducenda’st domum. / Quid fiet? # Non enim ducet. (‘And tell me the next step. If Phormio accepts the dowry, he has to marry her: what happens then? # But he won’t marry her.’ Ter. Ph. 692–4) Supplement: Quotiens monstravi tibi viro ut morem geras, / quid ille faciat ne id opserves, quo eat, quid rerum gerat. / # At enim ille hinc amat meretricem ex proxumo. (Pl. Men. 788–90); Metuo maxume— / # Quid metuis? # Enim ne nosmet perdiderimus uspiam. (Pl. Mil. 428–9); Enim istic captio est. / Fac ego ne metuam ut tu meam timeas vicem. (Pl. Mos. 1144–5) Appendix: Another ‘affirmative’ use is assumed in (l) and a few more instances.116 Here enim is commonly supposed to emphasize tibi, as in the Loeb translation, but it

114 See Spevak (2012b: 337). 115 See Kroon (1995: 196–8). For the traditional view, see K.-St.: II.120, TLL s.v. enim 572.10ff., OLD s.v. enim § 1–2, and Müller (1997: 69–74). 116 For further instances, see TLL s.v. enim 572.63ff. For the argumentation, see Kroon (1995: 204).

Explanatory and justificatory connexion of sentences

1205

is actually an appeal by the poet to Juno to realize that Aeneas made the sacrifice to her in spite of her animosity. (l) . . . viridique in litore conspicitur sus. / Quam pius Aeneas tibi enim, tibi, maxima Iuno, / mactat sacra ferens . . . (‘. . . there lay outstretched on the green bank before their eyes a sow; good Aeneas offers her in sacrifice to you, indeed to you, most mighty Juno . . .’ Verg. A. 8.83–5) Supplement: Atque hic Aenean magna ter voce vocavit. / Aeneas agnovit enim laetusque precatur: . . . (Verg. A. 10.873–4)

Instances of enim which are regarded as adversative and said to resemble the use of autem are (m) and (n).117 The sentence with enim in (m), translated with ‘indeed’, is in contrast with the preceding sentence, but the contrast is independent of enim, which means something like ‘as you can imagine’. In (n), there is no need to assume an adversative relation: the speaker appeals for understanding on the part of the addressee.118 (m)

(sc. haedus) . . . coepit irridere me. / Ego enim lugere atque abductam illam (sc. capram) aegre pati. (‘. . . he started to laugh at me. I was sad indeed and upset that she’d been taken away from me.’ Pl. Mer. 250–1)

(n)

Adsequere, retine dum ego huc servos evoco. # Enim nequeo solus. Accurre. (‘After him! Hold him while I call out your slaves. # I can’t by myself. Hurry up!’ Ter. Ph. 982–3) Supplement: . . . propterea multis argumentis deos esse docere voluisti. Mihi enim unum sat erat, ita nobis maioris nostros tradidisse. Sed tu auctoritates contemnis, ratione pugnas. (Cic. N.D. 3.9); Respondebo tibi ä}~p{zx .{†~p{zx, Úwr{tuŷ|. Ego enim, quam diu senatus auctoritas mihi defendenda fuit, sic acriter et vehementer proeliatus sum ut . . . (Cic. Att. 1.16.1);119 Nam mutae bestiae laboriosissimae boves et oves: boves . . . oves . . . Apes enim ego divinas bestias puto, quae mel vomunt, etiam si dicuntur illud a Iove afferre. (Petr. 56.4–6 (Trimalchio speaking))

In (o), the end of a discussion of marine trees, enim is said to indicate the transition to a new issue.120 However, it is not clear why a transition would be appropriate at this point in a whole series of trees. Probably Pliny expected his readers to know that seavines grow everywhere (‘passim’). (o)

Ea et aliae traduntur praegrandes circa Scione. Vitis enim passim nascitur, sed ficus sine foliis, rubro cortice. Fit et palma fruticum generis.

117 See TLL s.v. enim 589.65ff.; OLD § 6 s.v. enim. 118 Brown translates ‘but’. 119 Called ‘enim inceptivum’ in TLL s.v. enim 588.3ff. 120 See TLL s.v. 590.40ff. OLD s.v. § 6 discusses instances like this under the heading: ‘introducing a slight contrast’.

1206

Discourse (‘Also other very large marine trees are reported in the neighbourhood of Sicyon— for the sea-vine grows everywhere, but there is a sea-fig, which has no leaves and a red bark, and also the class of marine shrubs includes a sea-palm.’ Plin. Nat. 13.138) Supplement: (discussing the astaphis agria ‘wild raisin’) . . . nucleum . . . Flos tritus in vino contra serpentes bibitur. Semen enim abdicaverim propter nimiam vim ardoris. (Plin. Nat. 23.18)

In medical texts enim is used in sentences in which the effect of a treatment mentioned in the preceding context is described, as in (p).121 Apparently here too, Celsus makes an appeal to shared knowledge of the readers or to their empathy. (p)

Si vetustior morbus est, (sc. oportet) ex inferioribus partibus tepidum infundere . . . tisanae cremorem vel . . . vitellos cum aqua in qua rosae floris folia cocta sint. Levant enim dolorem haec et mitiora ulcera efficiunt . . . (‘If the distemper is of longer standing, there should be injected into the rectum either a tepid cream of pearl barley, or . . . yolk of eggs in a decoction of rose-leaves: for such remedies relieve pain and mitigate ulceration . . .’ Cels. 4.22.3) Supplement: (sc. emplastrum) Ad carbunculos et cancer imponendum est. Purgat enim nec patitur latius serpere. (Larg. 206)

In Late Latin enim is used more or less like autem, as some form of sentence boundary. See § 24.26 fin. 24.41 The interactional particle nempe When using the particle nempe the speaker appeals to the addressee to commit himself to the content of the message. It resembles to some extent enim, which tries to establish consensus between the speaker and the addressee, but unlike enim, nempe involves only the addressee. In other words, it shifts the responsibility for the content of the message to the addressee: ‘you mean . . .?’, ‘of course’.122 It is used most often in dialogues and in situations in which there is an addressee who is present in person or only in thought, so, for example, in Cicero’s orations and in speeches in the historians.123 Examples are (a)–(c). In (a), the speaker wants the addressee’s confirmation of the correctness of his description. In (b), the speaker reacts to a fictive objection and invites the addressee to confirm his identification of the grandfather. In (c) the speaker answers a question by himself suggesting that this is what the priests would say. Nempe most often occupies the first position, both in prose and in poetry, but see (b).124 121 See Langslow (2000: 550–3). He states that in Celsus (books 4 and 5) nam is much less often used in this context. 122 This description follows Schrickx (2011: 83). See also K.-St.: I.809. For a comparison of nempe and enim, see Schrickx (2011: 98–100). 123 For the distribution of nempe, see Schrickx (2011: 269–71). There is only one instance in Cicero’s letters (Cic. Att. 9.15.3). 124 See Schrickx (2011: 76).

Explanatory and justificatory connexion of sentences (a)

1207

Sed istum quem quaeris Periphanem Plothenium / ego sum, si quid vis. # Nemp’ quem in adulescentia / memorant apud reges armis, arte duellica / divitias magnas indeptum? # Immo si audias / meas pugnas, fugias manibus demissis domum. (‘But the man you’re looking for, Periphanes of Plothea, it’s me, if you want anything. # You mean the one who people say acquired great wealth in his youth in the service of kings for his arms and art of war? # Yes, if you heard about my battles, you’d flee home with your hands stretched out.’ Pl. Epid. 448–52)

(b)

‘At avus nobilis.’ Tuditanus nempe ille qui cum palla et cothurnis nummos populo de rostris spargere solebat. (‘ “But her grandfather was a nobleman.” Of course, that Tuditanus who used to throw coins from the Rostra among the crowd, dressed in an actor’s robe and buskins.’ Cic. Phil. 3.16)

(c)

Quod est, pontifices, ius adoptionis? Nempe ut is adoptet qui neque procreare iam liberos possit et, cum potuerit, sit expertus. (‘What, gentlemen, is the law relating to adoption? Clearly that the adoption of children should be permissible to those who are no longer capable of begetting children, and who, when they were in their prime, put their capacity for parenthood to the test.’ Cic. Dom. 34) Supplement: Audi’n tu? Apud Archibulum ego ero argentarium. / # Nempe in foro? # Ibi, si quid opus fuerit. (Pl. As. 116–17); Nostin’ hanc quam amat frater? # Novi. Nempe, opinor, Thaidem. (Ter. Eu. 563); Si dat tantam pecuniam Flacco, nempe idcirco dat ut rata sit emptio. (Cic. Flac. 91); Nempe negas ad beate vivendum satis posse virtutem? (Cic. Tusc. 5.12); Tibi nempe, / ne foret aequalis inter conviva, magis quem / diligeret mulier sua quam te. (Hor. Epod. 12.9.22–4); Ut concedam tibi, nempe hoc facis nullo pretio inductus, nulla spe. (Sen. Ben. 4.19.4); Externi te nempe patres alienaque tangunt / pignora? (Stat. Theb. 10.709–10); An forte non exiit ad te vocandum paterfamilias? Si non exiit, quid est quod loquimur? Nempe nos servi de familia ipsius sumus, conducere operarios missi sumus. (August. Serm. 87.9) Nempe rarely co-occurs with other particles, mainly with the connectors sed (in the two Senecas and Augustine) and igitur (see the Supplement). It also co-occurs with the adverb tamen. More noteworthy is its co-occurrence with the interactional particles enim, rare, from Quintilian onwards, as in (d), and ergo, also rare, as in (e).125 Note that in both cases the translators only translate nempe. In (d), Nempe enim is at the start of a new section in which Quintilian summarizes the preceding books. (d) Nempe enim plurimum in hoc laboris exhausimus, ut ostenderemus rhetoricen bene dicendi scientiam et utilem et artem et virtutem esse.

125 See Schrickx (2011: 95–6). Enim ergo is used a few times in Early Latin and then also a few times by Tertullian and Augustine. In Quintilian, three out of ten instances of nempe also have enim. There are not enough instances to draw a conclusion about their meanings.

1208

Discourse (‘My main effort to be sure has been expended in showing: That Rhetoric is the science of speaking well, is useful, and is an art and a virtue.’ Quint. Inst. 8.pr.6) (e) Em, / istoc dicto dedisti hodie in cruciatum Chrysalum. / Nam ubi me aspiciet, ad carnuficem rapiet continuo senex. / # Ego patrem exoravi. # Nempe ergo hoc ut faceret quod loquor? / # Immo tibi ne noceat neu quid ob eam rem suscenseat. (‘There you go, with that word you handed Chrysalus over to crucifixion today: as soon as he sees me, the old man will drag me to the executioner. # I persuaded my father. # You mean, to do what I’m talking about? # No, not to harm you and not to be angry with you for this.’ Pl. Bac. 686–90) Supplement: Nempe igitur hinc tum, Pomponi, ductus est sermo, quod erat a me mentio facta causam Deiotari . . . a Bruto me audisse defensam. (Cic. Brut. 21); Hic qui te expulit, non ipse per annos decem continuos patria caruit? Propagandi sine dubio imperii causa. Sed nempe caruit. (Sen. Dial. 12.9.7); Sed tamen esto iam posse haec aeterna manere. / Nempe tamen debent aut sensum partis habere . . . (Lucr. 2.907–8) NB: with sed coordinator: Et cum dixisset se praemia in patrem contulisse, dixit: Vici te, pater, sed nempe vici tibi. (Sen. Con. 10.2.14)

24.42 Consecutive connexion of sentences Sentences and larger units of discourse which stand in a relation of consequence, result, or inference with respect to the preceding sentence or larger unit often contain one of the particles ergo, igitur, and itaque. Of these, ergo is an interactional particle, whereas igitur and itaque are connectors (details in the following sections). In addition there are various adverbs, such as ideo, inde, and propterea ‘therefore’. That we are dealing with words that belong to three different lexical categories is apparent from the (rare) cases of co-occurrence, which are usually called ‘pleonastic’.126 Examples are (a)–(c). (a)

Quo pacto ergo igitur clam dos depromi potest? (‘Then how can the dowry be taken out in secret?’ Pl. Trin. 756)

(b)

Tam etsi bona’st natura, reddunt curatura iunceam. / Itaque ergo amantur. (‘However well endowed she is by nature, by their treatment they (such girls’ mothers) make her as thin as a reed. Therefore they (these girls) then find lovers.’ Ter. Eu. 316–17)

(c)

Itaque propterea institutum diversa de causa ut ex caprino genere ad alii dei aram hostia adduceretur, ad alii non sacrificaretur . . .

126 So  K.-St.: II.145. Sz.: 525 calls it an ‘abundante konjunktionale Verbindung’. For discussion, see Thomsen (1930) and Pinkster (1972:158–62). Ergo igitur in (a) is also attested at Pl. Mos. 847 (ergo . . . igitur), then seventeen times in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses. Itaque ergo in (b) is later on five occasions attested in Livy (on which see Krylová 2003: 81), seventeen times in the Peregrinatio, occasionally elsewhere. For further combinations, see TLL s.v. ergo 774.78ff., s.v. igitur 271.55ff., s.v. itaque 530.18ff.

Consecutive and sequential connexion of sentences

1209

(‘Accordingly there arose a custom, from opposite reasons, that a victim from the goat family might be led to the altar of one god, but might not be sacrificed on the altar of another.’ Var. R. 1.2.19)

The distribution of the three particles varies considerably, as can be seen in Table 24.7. Most noteworthy is the almost complete absence of igitur (one instance) and ergo (three instances) from Caesar (all four only in speeches), the low frequency of itaque in Plautus, in contrast with the high frequency in Caesar and Livy, and the high frequency of igitur in Cicero’s philosophical prose and in Sallust, but its almost complete absence from Seneca’s Letters.127 Late Latin texts show a decrease in igitur and an increase in ergo, albeit less pronounced in Augustine’s ‘Classical’ de Civitate Dei.128 Table 24.7 Frequency of consecutive particles  

Plautus Cicero Cicero Caesar Sallust Livy Seneca August. August. Pereg.b orationsa philos.a Ep. Civ. Serm.

igitur

42%

46%

61%

1%

66%

19%

0.3%

24%

2%



itaque

7%

39%

20%

96%

31%

71%

42%

18%

5%

12%

51%

15%

19%

3%

3%

10%

58%

58%

93%

88%

Total number of instances 377

430

898

84

115

850

578

1157

7002

151

ergo

a b

Orations: Cic. Agr., Catil., Phil., Ver. Philosophical works: Cic. Div., N.D., Off., Tusc. See note 126.

24.43 The connector igitur The most common use of the particle igitur ‘then’, ‘therefore’ is as a cohesive device linking a sentence or a larger unit to a preceding text unit which has a preparatory function, while the unit in which it occurs constitutes a natural advance in the discourse.129 Examples are (a)–(f). In (a), the soldier hears that the girl is visiting the temple of Minerva and decides to go to the (adjacent) forum to find her. More or less the same holds for (b), an imperative sentence, and for (c), an interrogative sentence. In (d), sunt ligna is the logical inference from what precedes. In (e), igitur marks the transition to a new paragraph, which, however, follows from the preceding exposition and is also announced by Nunc ad reliqua progrediar . . . In (f), the speaker (Marcus) starts his contribution to the discourse, ‘seeing that the others are ready’.130 As the examples show, igitur is common in both dialogical and—more so—in monological texts, especially those of an argumentative, didactic, or narrative type. 127 For comparative data on ergo and igitur in the historians, see Krylová (2001: 67). Ammianus uses ergo and igitur more or less as do the Classical historians (Krylová 2001). 128 For detailed figures about the frequency in individual authors and texts, see TLL s.v. ergo 760.26ff, where also information about the position in the sentence can be found. 129 This formulation closely follows Kroon (1989b: 236). 130 Paraphrasing K.-St.: II.137.

1210 (a)

Discourse Illa autem in arcem abiit aedem visere / Minervae. Nunc aperta est. I, vise estne ibi. / # Abeo ad forum igitur. (‘She has gone to the acropolis to visit the temple of Minerva. It’s open now. Go and see if she isn’t there. # I’ll go to the market then.’ Pl. Bac. 900–2)

(b)

Concedo esse deos. Doce me igitur unde sint, ubi sint, quales sint corpore animo vita. (‘I grant the existence of the gods: do you then teach me their origin, their dwellingplace, their bodily and spiritual nature, their mode of life.’ Cic. N.D. 1.65)

(c)

Amphitruo, speravi ego istam tibi parituram filium. / Verum non est puero gravida. # Quid igitur? # Insania. (‘Amphitruo, I hoped that woman would bear you a son; but she’s not pregnant with a son. # Then what is she pregnant with? # With madness.’ Pl. Am. 718–19)

(d)

Ligna hic apud nos nulla sunt. # Sunt asseres? / # Sunt pol. # Sunt igitur ligna, ne quaeras foris. (‘There’s no firewood here at our place. # Are there rafters? # Yes, of course there are. # Then there is firewood, no need to look for it outside.’ Pl. Aul. 357–8)

(e)

Nunc ad reliqua progrediar meque ad meum munus pensumque revocabo. Nam . . . Ornatissimae sunt igitur orationes eae quae latissime vagantur . . . (‘I will now go on to the remaining subjects and will recall myself to the particular task assigned to me. For . . . Well then, the most ornate speeches are those which take the widest range . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 3.119–20)

(f)

Tu, ut videtur. Nos ad audiendum parati sumus. # Mors igitur ipsa, quae videtur notissima res esse, quid sit primum est videndum. (‘Take the course you think best: for our part we are ready to hear. # We must first then consider what death, which seems to be a thing well known to everyone, is in itself.’ Cic. Tusc. 1.17–18) Supplement: Verum actutum nosces, quom illum nosces servom Sosiam. / # Sequere hac igitur me. Nam mi istuc primum exquisito est opus. (Pl. Am. 627–8); Quonam igitur haec modo gesta sunt? Repetam paulo altius, iudices . . . (Cic. Clu. 65); Num quis igitur est tam demens qui hoc P. Clodio vivo contingere potuisse arbitretur? (Cic. Mil. 78); Nihilne igitur prodest oratori iuris civilis scientia? (Cic. de Orat. 1.250); Ita fit illa conclusio non solum vera, sed ita perspicua, ut dialectici ne rationem quidem reddi putent oportere. Si illud, hoc. Non autem hoc. Igitur ne illud quidem. (Cic. Fin. 4.55); Principio enim terra sita in media parte mundi circumfusa undique est hac animali spirabilique natura cui nomen est aer . . . sed ad maiora redeamus. Ex aethere igitur innumerabiles flammae siderum existunt . . . (Cic. N.D. 2.91–2); Eamque disputationem tris in partes nostri fere dividunt. Quarum prima pars . . . Secunda est autem quae . . . Tertius est locus qui ducitur ex admiratione rerum caelestium atque terrestrium. Primum igitur aut negandum est esse deos . . . (Cic. N.D. 2.75–6); (in a discussion of whether obscene language exists) Belle ‘tectoriola’. Dic ergo etiam ‘pavimenta’

Consecutive and sequential connexion of sentences

1211

isto modo. Non potes.131 Vide’n igitur nihil esse nisi ineptias, turpitudinem nec in verbo esse nec in re, itaque nusquam esse? Igitur in verbis honestis obscena ponimus. (Cic. Fam. 9.22.3–4); Corporibus caecis igitur natura gerit res. (Lucr. 1.328); (sc.  Catilina) . . . constituit bellum facere et extrema omnia experiri, quoniam quae occulte temptaverat aspera foedaque evenerant. Igitur C. Manlium Faesulas . . . dimisit . . . (Sal. Cat. 26.5–27.1); Metellus infecto negotio, postquam nox aderat, in castra cum exercitu revortitur. Igitur postero die . . . equitatum omnem . . . pro castris agitare iubet . . . (Sal. Jug. 58.7–59.1); Licinius contra suspectam et invisam semper eam pecuniam fore aiebat causasque criminum ad plebem . . . praebituram. Satius igitur esse reconciliari eo dono plebis animos . . . (Liv. 5.20.8); Igitur ut ad propositum meum redeam, rationalem quidem puto medicinam esse debere . . . (Cels. 1.pr.74); Igitur, ut diximus, iugerum habet quadratorum pedum XXVIII DCCC, qui pedes efficiunt scripula CCLXXXVIII. (Col. 5.1.8); (after a paragraph on the geographical position of Lycia) In Lycia igitur a promunturio eius oppidum Simena, mons Chimaera . . . (Plin. Nat. 5.100); Quonam igitur modo utilissime colentur agri? (Plin. Nat. 18.39); Miserat duas praetorias cohortis Caesar, addito ut magistratus Calabriae Apulique et Campani suprema erga memoriam filii sui munera fungerentur. Igitur tribunorum centurionumque umeris cineres portabantur. (Tac. Ann. 3.2.1–2); Quisquis igitur es amator longae vitae, esto potius bonae vitae. (August. Serm. 16.2)

In its function as connector igitur most often occupies the second position of the sentence, but there is individual variation among authors: in Sallust, for example, igitur occupies the first position except in interrogative sentences, in which second position is in general the rule, as it is in imperative sentences.132 Third and later positions are rare and occur mainly in poetry. Igitur is also used in a main clause following a temporal or conditional subordinate clause, as in (g). Here it is commonly taken as a temporal adverb ‘then’, which is also assumed in instances like (h). For a temporal interpretation of igitur, however, the combination with tum, as in (i), is problematic. This ‘temporal’ use is restricted to Early Latin.133 There are a few attestations of igitur in a following main clause, where it seems to have its usual consecutive meaning, as in (j).134 (g)

Mox magis quom otium mihi et tibi erit, / igitur tecum loquar. Nunc vale. (‘Soon when both you and I have more time I’ll speak to you. Goodbye for now.’ Pl. Cas. 215–16)

(h)

Quin ego illi me invenisse dico hanc praedam atque eloquor? / Igitur orabo ut manu me emittat. (‘Why don’t I say to him and tell him that I’ve found this booty? Then I’ll ask him to set me free.’ Pl. Aul. 817–18)

131 The result would be pavimentula. 132 For details, see TLL s.v. igitur 253.42ff. 133 See TLL s.v. igitur 255.51ff. For discussion of these instances, see Kroon  (2004b: 73). See also Rosén (2009: 358, (d)). 134 See TLL s.v. igitur 262.39ff.

1212 (i)

Discourse Unum ubi emeritum est stipendium, / igitur tum specimen cernitur quo eveniat aedificatio. (‘When one campaign has been served, then one can see an example of how the building is to turn out.’ Pl. Mos. 131–2)

(j)

Si neque inimicitiae fuerunt nec metus ullus nec spes [ex morte illius] alicuius commodi neque ad amicum huius aliquem mors illius pertinebat, relinquitur igitur (del. Kayser) ut ab hoc non sit occisus. (‘If there was no enmity, and no fear, and no hope of any advantages from his death and his death was of no interest to any friend of the defendant, it therefore follows that the defendant did not kill him.’ Cic. Inv. 1.45)

24.44 The connector itaque The connector itaque ‘and so’ signals that the content of the sentence in which it occurs is the natural result of the content of the preceding sentence. It does not present the content of the sentence as the outcome of personal reflection like igitur, but as an objective fact.135 Examples are (a)–(c). In (a) and (b), the sentences with itaque are clearly presented as the result of what precedes (in (b) ironically). In (c), the sentence with itaque follows after a digression. (a)

Praesagibat mi animus frustra me ire, quom exibam domo. / Itaque abibam invitus. (‘I had a feeling I was going in vain when I left the house. That’s why I went unwillingly.’ Pl. Aul. 178–9)

(b)

. . . quasi Appius ille Caecus viam muniverit, non qua populus uteretur, sed ubi impune sui posteri latrocinarentur! Itaque in eadem ista Appia cum ornatissimum equitem Romanum  P.  Clodius  M.  Papirium occidisset, non fuit illud facinus puniendum. (‘. . . asking us to believe that Appius the Blind constructed a road, not for the use of the people, but as a place wherein his descendants might with impunity play the highwayman. This, I suppose, was why, when Publius Clodius on the self-same Appian Way murdered the accomplished Roman knight Marcus Papirius, the crime was not such as to demand punishment.’ Cic. Mil. 17–18)

(c)

. . . in eum sermonem illum (sc. Scaevolam) incidere qui tum fere multis erat in ore. Meministi enim . . . Itaque tum Scaevola, cum in eam ipsam mentionem incidisset, exposuit nobis sermonem Laeli de amicitia habitum ab illo secum . . . (‘. . . he happened to fall upon a topic which, just about that time, was in many people’s mouths. You remember, don’t you, . . . And so, Scaevola, having chanced to mention this very fact, thereupon proceeded to repeat to us a discussion on friendship, which Laelius had had with him . . .’ (Cic. Amic. 2–3)

135 K.-St.: II.130–1 use for igitur the term ‘Vernunftsschluss’ (rational conclusion). Van Gils (2005: 806–9) describes itaque as signalling a ‘volitional causal’ relation.

Consecutive and sequential connexion of sentences

1213

Itaque is attested from Plautus onwards (but see the note below). It is rare in poetry and also in dialogical texts and in interrogative and imperative sentences (see the Supplement). In Late Latin it is sometimes used more or less in the sense of enim.136 In prose it regularly occupies the first position. However, later positions become more common from the Rhetorica ad Herennium (once) and Livy onwards in prose and from Lucretius onwards in poetry. Supplement: Sed siquid tibi narrare occepi, continuo dari / tibi verba censes. # Falso! # Itaque hercle nil iam muttire audeo. (Ter. An. 504–5); Constitutiones itaque, ut ante diximus, tres sunt. (Rhet. Her. 1.18); Itaque num tibi videor in causa Ligari esse occupatus, num de eius facto dicere? (Cic. Lig. 29); Tu rem publicam reprehendis, quae domesticos hostis, ne ab eis ipsa necaretur, necavit? Itaque attende, Torquate, quam ego defugiam auctoritatem consulatus mei! (Cic. Sul. 32–3); Tempus vero colloquio non dare neque accessurum polliceri magnam pacis desperationem adferebat. Itaque ab Arimino M. Antonium cum cohortibus V Arretium mittit. (Caes. Civ. 1.11.3–4); Nec superare queunt motus itaque exitiales / perpetuo . . . (Lucr. 2.569–70); Maior itaque ex civibus amissis dolor quam laetitia fusis hostibus fuit . . . (Liv. 4.17.8); Pro ingenti itaque victoria id fuit plebi . . . (Liv. 4.54.6); Ingredi est iis (sc. echinis) in orbem volvi. Itaque detritis saepe aculeis inveniuntur. (Plin. Nat. 9.100); Itaque hercule eius modi libri extant ut ipsi quoque qui egerunt non aliis magis orationibus censeantur. (Tac. Dial. 39.5); Itaque, fratres, sicut dicere coeperam, non est unde reprehendamus Deum. (August. Serm. 22.6) Opinions vary on the early instances of itaque in Plautus, including ex. (a) above. Some scholars take it as ita + -que ‘and so’, others as itaque = ita, that is as an adverb, in its consecutive interpretation (see § 24.12),137 sometimes comparing namque for the -que element.

24.45 The interactional particle ergo The interactional particle ergo ‘therefore’ signals that the speaker/writer expects the addressee to subscribe on the basis of their shared knowledge to the conclusion as formulated in the sentence or larger discourse unit in which ergo occurs.138 Examples are (a)–(f). In (a), the slave girl Pardalisca observes that, if ‘all is out’, as the slave Olympio has just said, he will agree that the only conclusion is to confess everything. In (b), ergo signals an inevitable conclusion. In (c), the speaker is surprised about the answer he has received and wants to check whether he understood correctly. Quid ergo (est) ‘what is the consequence?’ followed by a detailed question is a very common expression in Cicero, as in (d).139 In (e), ergo signals the return to the line of argument 136 See TLL s.v. itaque 531.52ff. For instances of itaque in a main clause after a subordinate clause, see ibid. 531.75ff. 137 So TLL s.v. itaque 529.43ff. Kroon (2004b: 72) states that most or all instances can be taken as ‘and so’. Conversely, Pasoli (1962) rejects the idea that -que has a coordinating function. 138 This formulation follows Kroon (2004b; 2011), from whom most of the examples are taken, and Krylová (2001; 2003; 2006). 139 Also in Seneca’s letters (Kroon 2004b: 79).

1214

Discourse

after a short digression in which the preceding information was recapitulated. In (f), ergo signals a conclusion that is based on what happens in the non-verbal situation, not in a preceding text. Ergo differs from enim among other things in that its appeal to the addressee is more urgent. An illustration is (g), which also contains the swear word edepol.140 (a)

Perii hercle ego! Manufesta res [est]. # Omnem [in] ordine rem / fateri ergo aequom est. (‘I’m dead! It’s all out. # So it’s only fair to confess everything one by one.’ Pl. Cas. 893–6)

(b)

Age porro: Iovem et Neptunum deum numeras. Ergo etiam Orcus frater eorum deus. (‘Come tell me further: you reckon Jupiter and Neptune gods, therefore their brother Orcus is also a god.’ Cic. N.D. 3.43)

(c)

Philolaches hic habitat, quoius est pater Theopropides. / Qui . . . tibicinam / liberavit. # Philolachesne ergo? # Ita. Philematium quidem. (‘Philolaches lives here, whose father is Theopropides. He freed a flute girl. # You mean Philolaches? # Yes, and she is called Philematium.’ Pl. Mos. 970–2)

(d)

‘Quid ergo? Istos’, inquies, ‘mercede conductos habebimus?’ Quid faciemus si aliter non possumus? (‘You’ll say: “Are we then to keep these fellows as mercenaries?” What else, if we can’t keep them on any other terms?’ Cic. Att. 2.1.8)

(e)

Nummos Arpinatum, si L. Fadius aedilis petet, vel omnis reddito. Ego ad te alia epistula scripsi HS CX quae Statio curarentur. Si ergo petet Fadius, ei volo reddi, praeter Fadium nemini. (‘You may hand over the money due to the municipality of Arpinum, the whole of it, if the Aedile L. Fadius claims it. I have written to you in another letter about the HS 110,000 to be paid to Statius. So then, if Fadius claims it, I want the money made over to him, but to no one except Fadius.’ Cic. Att. 15.15.1)

(f)

Quorum mediam orationem interrumpunt subito undique tela immissa, quae ille obtectus armis militum vitavit. Vulnerantur tamen complures . . . Tum Labienus: ‘Desinite ergo de compositione loqui. Nam nobis nisi Caesaris capite relato pax esse nulla potest.’ (‘Their ongoing talk was suddenly interrupted by a volley of weapons from all sides. Protected by his soldiers’ shields, Labienus avoided them. But several men were wounded . . . Then Labienus: “So stop talking about a settlement, for in our view no peace is possible unless we get Caesar’s head.” ’ Caes. Civ. 3.19.7–8)

(g)

Nam apsque te esset, hodie numquam ad solem occasum / viverem. # Ergo edepol, si recte facias, ere, med emittas manu.

140 See Krylová (2006).

Consecutive and sequential connexion of sentences

1215

(‘If it hadn’t been for you, I’d never have lived till sunset today. # Then, by Pollux!, if you were to do the right thing, master, you’d set me free.’ Pl. Men. 122–3) Supplement: Dic opsecro hercle serio quod te rogem. / Cave mi mendaci quicquam. # Quin tu ergo rogas? (Pl. As. 29–30); Quid amas— # Bacchidem? Duas ergo hic intus eccas Bacchides. / # Quid? duae? (Pl. Bac. 568–9); Dixit illi quicum ipsa ibat— # Quid? # Tace ergo, ut audias. (Pl. Epid. 241); Eho, quaeso, an tu is es? / # Is enim vero sum. # Ai’n tu tandem? Is ipsusne es? # Aio. # Ipsus es? / # Ipsus, inquam, Charmides sum.  #  Ergo ipsusne es? # Ipsissumus. / Abi’n hinc ab oculis? (Pl. Trin. 986–9); M.  Manlius . . . regnum adpetisse est iudicatus. Ergo eius domum eversam duobus lucis convestitam videtis. (Cic. Dom. 101); Non placet autem paucis a diis inmortalibus esse consultum. Sequitur ergo ut nemini consultum sit. (Cic. N.D. 3.70); Adfectus autem animi in bono viro laudabilis. Et vita igitur laudabilis boni viri. Et honesta ergo, quoniam laudabilis. (Cic. Tusc. 5.47); Clodius ergo, ut ais, ad Tigranem! (Cic. Att. 2.4.2); Epaminondas, Polymnidis filius, Thebanus. De hoc priusquam scribimus, haec praecipienda videntur lectoribus . . . Natus ergo patre, quo diximus, genere honesto . . . (Nep. Ep. 1.1–2.1); Numquamne ergo familia nostra quieta erit? (Sal. Jug. 14.9); Itaque ergo erecti suspensique in minime gratum spectaculum animo incenduntur. (Liv. 1.25.2); Correpti consules cum quid ergo se facere vellent—nihil enim segnius molliusve quam patribus placeat acturos—percontarentur, decernunt ut . . . (Liv. 2.28.5—NB: in an indirect question; the parenthesis contains the interactional particle enim); Thales primum aquam putavit omnium rerum esse principium; Heraclitus . . . Democritus . . . Pythagoreorum vero disciplina . . . Ergo Democritus, etsi non proprie res nominavit sed tantum individua corpora proposuit, ideo ea ipsa dixisse videtur, quod. . . (Vitr. 2.2.1); (talking about luxuries) Principium ergo columenque omnium rerum pretii margaritae tenent. (Plin. Nat. 9.106); ‘Quid ergo? Omnes servos admovebo mensae meae?’ Non magis quam omnes liberos. (Sen. Ep. 47.15); Quantum potes ergo, mi Lucili, reduc te ab istis exceptionibus et praescriptionibus philosophorum: aperta decent et simplicia bonitatem. (Sen. Ep. 48.12); Inter quos [etiam] pictorum amantium vultus tamquam in solitudine exclamavi: ‘Ergo amor etiam deos tangit.’ (Petr. 83.4); (sc. Nero) . . . interrogat an Seneca voluntariam mortem pararet. Tum tribunus nulla pavoris signa, nihil triste in verbis eius aut vultu deprensum confirmavit. Ergo regredi et indicere mortem iubetur. (Tac. Ann. 15.61.2); (sc. Caesar) . . . unum e collegio Pontium Aquilam non assurrexisse adeo indignatus sit ut proclamaverit: ‘Repete ergo a me, Aquila, rem publicam!’ (Suet. Jul. 78.2); Quid ergo nos docet Abraham? Ut breviter dicam: ut Deo non praeponamus quod dat Deus. (August. Serm. 2.4); (after describing the Mons Dei) Nos ergo sabbato sera ingressi sumus montem . . . (Pereg. 3.1)

Ergo can be used in a main clause following a conditional or a causal clause. This is mainly attested in Late Latin, but see (h) and (i).141 (h)

Quem igitur imitaris? Si aliquem, ceteri ergo Attice non dicebant? (‘Whom then are you going to imitate? If some particular one, do you mean that all the others did not speak pure Attic?’ Cic. Brut. 285) 141 For further instances, see TLL s.v. ergo 766.83ff.

1216 (i)

Discourse Quodsi Luna dea est, ergo etiam Lucifer ceteraeque errantes numerum deorum obtinebunt. (‘But if the Moon is a goddess, then Lucifer also and the rest of the planets will have to be counted gods.’ Cic. N.D. 3.51)

Ergo is used in all periods of Latin. It is common in texts of an interactive character but rare in purely narrative texts or episodes.142 Its relative frequency in Late Latin, for example in the Peregrinatio, is related to the increase in the use of cohesive devices in Late Latin texts in general and to the use of ergo outside its proper context (in other words, its ‘desemantization’).143

24.46 Sequential connexion of sentences The chronological sequence of events described in sentences and larger units of discourse can be clear from the content of the sentences and discourse units itself, as in the famous asyndetic sequence veni, vidi, vici ‘I came, I saw, I conquered’. The relative order of events can also be expressed explicitly, for example, by the use of special tenses. Thus, if a sentence contains a pluperfect tense the event in that sentence will be understood as anterior with respect to an event in the preceding or following discourse (see § 7.31). Time adjuncts are another explicit device to locate an event in time and so, indirectly, to indicate its position in relation to other events. Examples are the adverb pridie ‘the day before’ and the ablative noun phrase eo anno ‘in that year’ (see §§ 10.27–30).144 This section deals with a number of words which serve as linking devices between sentences and larger units and mark the sequence of the events, either just the temporal sequence, like deinde, tum, and post in (a), or (also) the position of an event in a sequence, like primo and postremo in (b).145 Words marking temporal sequence and position can co-occur, as in (c) with deinde postremo.146 The words under consideration can also be used in enumerations within sentences, as in (d). (a)

Modo consul quoanis, is deinde primus erat civitatis. Tum proficiscitur in Asiam. Deinde hostis et exul est dictus. Post imperator tmo factus est consul. (‘Recently consul every year, next he was first man of the state; then he sets out for Asia; next he is declared a public enemy and exiled; after that while general-in-chief he is made consul for the seventh time.’ Rhet. Her. 4.68)

142 For the use of ergo in narrative texts, see Krylová (2003, especially pp. 79–91). 143 For both phenomena, see Kiss (2006; 2007; 2010) and Rosén (2009: 397). 144 For the expressions of continuity used by Caesar, Sallust, and Livy, see Chausserie-Laprée (1969: 28–9); for Velleius Paterculus, Ruiz Castellanos (2005: 935); for Apuleius’ Metamorphoses, Callebat (1998: 131–7). 145 In (a) I print the Budé text of Achard. For the historical background, see Calboli ad loc. 146 ‘abundanter’ TLL s.v. posterus 219.38.

Consecutive and sequential connexion of sentences (b)

1217

Primo incaute se invehentes Masinissa excipiebat. Mox plures simul conferti porta effusi aequaverant certamen. Postremo iam omnis equitatus proelio cum adesset, sustineri ultra nequiere. (‘At first, as they rashly charged, Masinissa would meet their attack. Later larger numbers, dashing out of a gate in a mass, had made it an even combat. Finally, when all their cavalry was engaged, they could no longer be withstood.’ Liv. 29.34.12)

(c)

In hac (sc. parte) eae res quaeruntur quae gestum negotium consequuntur. Primum, quod factum est, quo id nomine appellari conveniat. Deinde . . . Deinde . . . Deinde . . . Postea . . . Deinde postremo adtendendum est num quae res . . . consequantur. (‘Under this category those things are sought which ensue from an action being performed. First, by what name shall the act be designated? . . . Next . . . Next . . . Next . . . Then . . . Next, finally, it should be noted whether some things ensue . . .’ Cic. Inv. 1.43)

(d)

Quare dicemus primum de genere eius, deinde quibus disciplinis et a quibus sit eruditus, tum de moribus ingeniique facultatibus . . . postremo de rebus gestis . . . (‘Therefore I shall speak first of his family, then of the subjects which he studied and his teachers, next of his character and his natural qualities . . . finally of his exploits . . .’ Nep. Ep. 1.4)

In addition to the words used in the above examples sequential connectors include tunc ‘then’, nunc ‘now’, interea ‘meanwhile’, denique ‘finally’.147 Apart from their use as connectors, most of the words involved function also, or primarily, as temporal adverbs.148 A case in point is nunc.149 In (e), nunc is an adverb functioning as a position-in-time adjunct which could be used as an answer to the question ‘when?’ (see § 10.30); in (f), it is a connector introducing a new discourse unit. As a connector it has its position at the beginning of the sentence, whereas in (e) nunc’s position is free. In (e), nunc is in contrast with hodie, while something similar is inconceivable for (f). An interesting instance with two cases of nunc in different functions in one sentence is (g).150 (e)

Ita ancilla mea quae fuit hodie, sua nunc est. (‘The girl who was my slave today belongs to herself now.’ Pl. Per. 472)

(f)

Quid quaeris? Permoleste tuli. Nulla enim abs te per hos dies epistula inanis aliqua re utili et suavi venerat. Nunc, si quid in ea epistula quam a. d. XVI

147 For a more complete list, see Rosén (2009: 355–9). Tandem is sometimes regarded as more or less synonymous with postremo, but it does not belong here. See Risselada (1998b). 148 For the use of temporal adverbs as discourse organizers, see Hilton (1989; 1997/8) and Kiss (2010). For nunc and denique, see Rosén (2009: 329–31). 149 For nunc, see Risselada (1998c), especially pp. 110–12, from whom exx. (e)–(g) are taken. For nunc in Plautus, see Blänsdorf (1967: 96–7). For the use of nunc in past narratives and as a contrastive connector, see Dalbera (2016; 2019). 150 The Groningen Commentary ad loc. notes ‘the repetition lends urgency’, but this is not correct.

1218

Discourse Kal. Mai. dedisti fuit historia dignum, scribe quam primum ne ignoremus. Sin nihil praeter iocationem, redde id ipsum. (‘As you can imagine I was very much put out. Every one of the letters you have sent me lately has contained something useful and charming. Now, if the letter you dispatched on 15 April had anything in it worth chronicling, write at once so that I am not left in ignorance. If on the other hand it was all badinage, why, I am entitled to that too.’ Cic. Att. 2.8.1)

(g)

. . . bestiamque aliquam recte dicentibus vobis merito consentio. Meque magnopere semper a suis terret aspectibus malumque grande de vultus curiositate praeminatur. Nunc si quam salutarem opem periclitanti sorori vestrae potestis afferre, iam nunc subsistite. (‘. . . and you must be right when you say he is some beast, I agree. He is always intimidating me from looking at him, and threatening some great punishment for any curiosity about his features. Now, if you can bring some salvation to your sister in her danger, help me right now.’ Apul. Met. 5.19.2–4)

24.47 The semantic relation between asyndetically connected sentences The semantic relation between two adjacent asyndetically connected sentences depends on the content of these sentences and on their relation to the surrounding context or the communicative situation in which the sentences are produced and received. In (a), repeated from § 19.1 (n), the three asyndetic sentences are not semantically related as such. Each of them is omissible and the linear order is arbitrary. What they have in common is that they contribute to the feeling of happiness of Damocles: there is a relation of consequence between the three sentences and the final one, which could be expressed by igitur. (a)

Aderant unguenta, coronae. ° Incendebantur odores. ° Mensae conquisitissimis epulis exstruebantur. Fortunatus sibi Damocles videbatur. (‘There were perfumes, garlands; incense was burnt; the tables were loaded with the choicest banquet: Damocles thought himself a lucky man.’ Cic. Tusc. 5.62)

Such sequences of independent sentences which have no grammatical or lexical properties in common can easily be found, for example, in Pliny the Elder’s encyclopedic work, as in (b). Here, the two sentences are not related to each other semantically in a straightforward way; however, they are both part of a discussion on the use of animals for the treatment of eye diseases, that is they belong to an ‘enumeration’. In this case  the relation is supported by the parallelism of the structure of the sentences: in semantic terms: (part of) animal—disease—effect; in syntactical terms: subject— object—verb.151

151 For cohesive devices in texts that contain lists, see Conso (2007).

Semantic relation between asyndetic sentences 1219 (b)

Ova perdicum in vase aereo decocta cum melle ulceribus oculorum et glaucomatis medentur. ° Columbarum, palumbium, turturum, perdicum sanguis oculis cruore suffusis eximie prodest. (‘Partridge eggs boiled down with honey in a bronze vessel cure ulcers on the eyes and opaqueness of the lens. The blood of pigeons, doves, turtle doves, or partridges, makes an excellent application for blood-shot eyes.’ Plin. Nat. 29.126)

In a narrative context, adjacent asyndetically connected sentences can often be interpreted as a purely temporal sequence, as in (c). However, asyndeton is also used to give the impression of a rapid succession of actions or the parallelism of simultaneous actions. Examples are (d) and (e) (repeated from § 19.14).152 In (e), the sequence of events appears partly from the time adjuncts in some of the sentences. (c)

A. d. VII Id. Mart. Brundisium veni. ° Ad murum castra posui. (‘On 9 March I reached Brundisium and encamped before the walls.’ Caes. Att. 9.13a1)

(d)

(Gallus quidam) . . . manu significare coepit utrisque quiescerent. ° Pugnae facta pausa est. ° Extemplo silentio facto cum voce maxima Ø conclamat, si quis secum depugnare vellet, uti prodiret. ° Nemo audebat propter magnitudinem atque inmanitatem facies. (‘. . . he began to gesture to both armies, telling them to stop fighting. There was a pause in the battle. Having achieved silence, he immediately shouted at the top of his voice that, if anyone was willing to fight to the finish with him, he should come forward. Because of his size and his monstrous appearance nobody dared to do so.’ Quad. hist. 10b=6C—tr. Briscoe)

(e)

Mittuntur ad Caesarem confestim a Cicerone litterae magnis propositis praemiis, si pertulissent. ° Obsessis omnibus viis missi intercipiuntur. ° Noctu ex materia quam munitionis causa comportaverant turres admodum centum XX excitantur incredibili celeritate. ° Quae deesse operi videbantur perficiuntur. ° Hostes postero die multo maioribus coactis copiis castra oppugnant, fossam complent. ° A nostris eadem ratione qua pridie resistitur. ° Hoc idem reliquis deinceps fit diebus. (‘Dispatches were at once sent by Cicero to Caesar, with promise of great rewards if the bearers carried them safe; with all the roads blocked, the messengers were cut off. During the night about one hundred and twenty towers were erected with incredible speed out of the timber which they had collected for the purpose of the entrenchment. The apparent deficiencies in the earthworks were rectified. On the next day, with far greater forces assembled, the enemy assaulted the camp and filled in the trench. Our troops resisted in the same fashion as on the day before. Exactly the same was done on the other days following.’ Caes. Gal. 5.40.1–4)

152 Taken from K.-St.: II.155–6.

1220

Discourse Supplement: Deinde Romae dies XXX fere Quinctius commoratur. ° Cum ceteris quae habebat vadimonia differt, ut expeditus in Galliam proficisci posset. ° Proficiscitur. (Cic. Quinct. 23); (sc. oppidum) Vallo et fossa circumdedi, ° sex castellis castrisque maximis saepsi, ° aggere, vineis, turribus oppugnavi ususque tormentis multis, multis sagittariis magno labore meo, sine ulla molestia sumptuve sociorum septimo quinquagensimo die rem confeci ut . . . (Cic. Fam. 15.4.10)

In addition to the enumerative and continuative relations discussed so far two types of asyndetic relation have received special attention, viz. the adversative and explanatory/justificatory relations.153 Examples of an adversative relation are (f) and (g). In (f), the contrast is between two constituents in the consecutive sentences: victumas and agninis. In (g), the contrast is at a higher level, between the contents of the entire sentences. The first sentence in the sequence can contain the particle quidem, which has a preparative function and creates the expectation of contrast, as in (h). The adverb sane can be used in a similar way.154 (f)

Nolo victumas. ° Agninis me extis placari volo. (‘I don’t want big animals for sacrifice. I want to be placated with lambs’ intestines.’ Pl. Ps. 329)

(g)

Videbant Agyrinenses quicquid ad eos recuperatores Apronius attulisset illum perfacile probaturum. ° Condemnari cum istius invidia infamiaque malebant quam ad eius condiciones pactionesque accedere. (‘The men from Agyrium saw that, before a court like this, Apronius would have no trouble in establishing any charge he might bring. They chose to be found guilty, and thus to bring odium and disgrace to [Verres], rather than accept the terms and conditions their accuser demanded.’ Cic. Ver. 3.69)

(h)

Et haec quidem humanis consiliis providebantur. ° Mox petita dis piacula aditique Sibyllae libri . . . (‘Such were the provisions made by human plans; next, expiations for the gods were sought and the books of the Sibyl were appealed to . . .’ Tac. Ann. 15.44.1—tr. Woodman) Supplement: Nam patrimonium domestici praedones vi ereptum possident, ° fama et vita innocentis ab hospitibus amicisque paternis defenditur. (Cic. S. Rosc. 15); Et forsitan in suscipienda causa temere impulsus adulescentia fecerim. ° Quoniam quidem semel suscepi, licet hercules undique omnes minae. Terrores periculaque impendeant, omnia succurram ac subibo. (Cic. S. Rosc. 31); Verum concedo tibi ut ea praetereas quae, cum taces, nulla esse concedis. ° Illud quidem, voluisse exheredare, certe tu planum facere debes. (Cic. S.  Rosc. 54); Non quaero quanta memoria Simonides

153 See K.-St.: II.156–9. 154 For this example and others, see Mendell (1917: 159–60). See also Kroon (2004a) and Orlandini (2005: 163–9).

Semantic relation between asyndetic sentences 1221 fuisse dicatur, quanta Theodectes, quanta is, qui a Pyrrho legatus ad senatum est missus, Cineas, quanta nuper Charmadas, quanta, qui modo fuit, Scepsius Metrodorus, quanta noster Hortensius. ° De communi hominum memoria loquor . . . (Cic. Tusc. 1.59); Non peculatus aerari factus est neque per vim sociis ereptae pecuniae, quae quamquam gravia sunt tamen consuetudine iam pro nihilo habentur. ° Hosti acerrumo prodita senatus auctoritas, proditum imperium vostrum est. ° Domi militiaeque res publica venalis fuit. (Sal. Jug. 31.25); Consul ubi ad iniquum locum ventum est, sistit aciem. ° Miles aegre teneri, clamare et poscere ut perculsis instare liceat. ° Ferocius agunt equites. ° Circumfusi duci vociferantur se ante signa ituros. (Liv. 2.65.2–3)

A common form of asyndeton is found between an imperative sentence of some sort and a following declarative or interrogative sentence. The relation is sometimes labelled ‘concessive-adversative’.155 Examples are (i)–(k). The adversative relation could have been made explicit by using at or tamen. (i)

Sint sane superbi. ° Quid id ad nos attinet? (‘Let us concede that they (sc. the Rhodians) are arrogant. How does that affect us?’ Cato hist. 95g=93C—tr. Cornell)

(j)

Tum ille prognatus Theti / sine perdat. ° Alia apportabunt ei Nerei filiae. (‘Then let that son of Thetis lose them: the daughters of Nereus will bring him others.’ Pl. Epid. 35–6)

(k)

Esto. Sit in verbis tuis hic stupor. ° Quanto in rebus sententiisque maior! (‘Very good; so much for the stupidity in your words: how much greater the stupidity in your actions and opinions!’ Cic. Phil. 2.30)

However, a sequence of an imperative sentence followed by a declarative one with a future verb form can also be interpreted as a consequence or result. A common form in Cato is (l), to which (m) may be compared. A similar relation of consequence exists between the two sentences in (n) and in (o).156 (l)

Postea bis in die (sc. brassicam) contritam inponito. ° Ea omnem putorem adimet. (‘Then the crushed cabbage should be applied as a poultice, and renewed twice a day; it will remove all putridity.’ Cato Agr. 157.3)

(m)

Resinam ex melle Aegyptiam vorato, salvom feceris. / # At edepol tu calidam picem bibito, aegritudo apscesserit. (‘Swallow Egyptian resin dipped in honey and you’ll get well. # But you drink hot pitch and your grief will go away.’ Pl. Mer. 139–40)

(n)

(sc. Helvetii) Nullam partem noctis itinere intermisso in fines Lingonum die quarto pervenerunt, cum et propter vulnera militum et propter sepulturam

155 A survey of concessive relations can be found in Iordache (1992). 156 Ex. (n) is discussed by Kiss (2005: 573–4). See also Rosén (2011: 141) on what she calls ‘inference’ relations.

1222

Discourse occisorum nostri triduum morati eos sequi non potuissent. ° Caesar ad Lingonas litteras nuntiosque misit ne eos frumento neve alia re iuvarent. (‘The march was not interrupted for any part of the night, and three days after they reached the borders of the Lingones; for our own troops had not been able to pursue them, having halted for three days to tend their wounds and to bury the dead. Caesar dispatched letters and messages to the Lingones, ordering them not to give assistance by corn or otherwise, and affirming that, if they gave such assistance, he would treat them in the same fashion as the Helvetii.’ Caes. Gal. 1.26.5–6)

(o)

Profice modo. ° Intelleges quaedam ideo minus timenda, quia multum metus adferunt. (‘All you need to do is to advance; you will thus understand that some things are less to be dreaded, precisely because they inspire us with great fear.’ Sen. Ep. 4.3)

Examples of an explanatory or justificatory relation are (p) and (q). In (p), the second sentence explains the emotion indicated in the first. In (q), the second sentence explains why Cassius asked his question. (p)

Miser sum. ° Argentum nusquam invenio mutuom. (‘I’m wretched, I can’t find money on loan anywhere.’ Pl. Ps. 80)

(q)

L.  Cassius ille, quem populus Romanus verissimum et sapientissimum iudicem putabat, identidem in causis quaerere solebat ‘cui bono’ fuisset. ° Sic vita hominum est ut ad maleficium nemo conetur sine spe atque emolumento accedere. (‘The illustrious Lucius Cassius, whom the Roman people considered the wisest and most conscientious of judges, was in the habit of asking repeatedly in trials, “Who had profited by it?” Such is the way of the world: no man attempts to commit a crime without the hope of profit.’ Cic. S. Rosc. 84) Supplement: Eccere autem capite nutat. ° Non placet quod repperit. (Pl. Mil. 207); Vicini quo pacto niteant, id animum advertito. ° In bona regione bene nitere oportebit. (Cato Agr. 1.2); . . . supplicium in parricidas singulare excogitaverunt ut, quos natura ipsa retinere in officio non potuisset, ei magnitudine poenae maleficio summoverentur. ° Insui voluerunt in culleum vivos atque ita in flumen deici. (Cic. S. Rosc. 70); Vereor ne aut molestus sim vobis, iudices, aut ne ingeniis vestris videar diffidere, si de tam perspicuis rebus diutius disseram. ° Eruci criminatio tota, ut arbitror, dissoluta est. (Cic. S. Rosc. 82); Cum igitur praecipitur ut nobismet ipsis imperemus, hoc praecipitur, ut ratio coërceat temeritatem. ° Est in animis omnium fere natura molle quiddam, demissum, humile, enervatum quodam modo et languidum. (Cic. Tusc. 2.47); Igitur talibus viris non labor insolitus, non locus ullus asper aut arduos erat, non armatus hostis formidulosus. ° Virtus omnia domuerat. (Sal. Cat. 7.5); Potes sine viro pati. ° Peregrinationem eius tulisti. (Sen. Con. 2.2.4)

Sometimes a passage ends with an asyndetic sentence which functions as a conclusion or a summary (asyndeton summativum).157 In (r), the last sentence indicates the result 157 See K.-St.: II.159.

Connectors and particles to connect paragraphs 1223 of Verres’ machinations. In (s), the last sentence could contain ergo, indicating the decision made by Verres on the basis of his considerations. (r)

Itaque excogitat rem singularem. ° Navis quibus legatus praefuerat Cleomeni tradit. ° Classi populi Romani Cleomenem Syracusanum praeesse iubet atque imperare. Hoc eo facit ut . . . secum illam haberet, si (sc. Cleomenem) non tamquam virum sed tamquam aemulum removisset. ° Accipit navis sociorum atque amicorum Cleomenes Syracusanus. (‘He thought of a very original way out of this difficulty, which was to hand over the fleet, hitherto commanded by a deputy governor, to Cleomenes—to give full power and command over a Roman fleet to Cleomenes the Syracusan. His purpose was to be able to enjoy the wife’s society after the removal of a man who was not only her husband but his rival. The ships of our allies and friends were handed over to Cleomenes the Syracusan.’ Cic. Ver. 5.82–3)

(s)

Etenim si Phylarchus (sc. phaleras) vendidisset, non ei, posteaquam reus factus es, redditurum te promisisses. Quod quia vidisti plures scire, cogitasti, si ei reddidisses, te minus habiturum, rem nihilo minus testatam futuram. ° Non reddidisti. (‘Nor, indeed, if Phylarchus had sold them to you, would you, after this prosecution was instituted, have promised to give them back to him. Knowing that many people were aware of the truth, you reflected that if you did give them back you would be so much the poorer, and the facts would come out in the evidence none the less; and therefore you did not give them back.’ Cic. Ver. 4.29) Supplement: Cum familiariter me in eorum sermonem insinuarem ac darem, celabar, excludebar, et, cum ostenderem, si lex utilis plebi Romanae mihi videretur, auctorem me atque adiutorem futurum, tamen aspernabantur hanc liberalitatem meam. ° Negabant me adduci posse ut ullam largitionem probarem. ° Finem feci offerendi mei, ne forte mea sedulitas aut insidiosa aut impudens videretur. (Cic. Agr. 2.12); Nam vetus haec opinio Graeciam opplevit esse exsectum Caelum a filio Saturno, vinctum autem Saturnum ipsum a filio Iove. ° Physica ratio non inelegans inclusa est in impias fabulas. (Cic. N.D. 2.64)

24.48 The use of connectors and interactional particles to connect paragraphs For practical reasons I take the division in paragraphs in modern editions as reflecting ‘discourse units’, informally defined as semantically coherent and self-contained sets of sentences. Editors vary somewhat in their division of a text into paragraphs.158 As between sentences, the coherence may be created by various means, such as finite 158 See Ctibor (2017b). For the cohesive devices used by a number of Late Latin historians between text segments, see Kiss (2019).

1224

Discourse

subordinate clauses, for example with cum ‘when’ or quod ‘as for the fact’; ablative absolute clauses; noun phrases like postero die ‘the next day’; anaphoric pronouns and phrases (in Caesar hic is very common); prepositional phrases with de ‘with respect to’; anaphoric adverbs such as ita ‘so’ and ideo ‘therefore’; and also some of the connectors and interactional particles discussed in the sections above. The choice of any one of these devices depends on the type of text and the personal preference of the author. The relationship between Caesar’s narrative de Bello Gallico and Cicero’s philosophical treatise de Officiis will serve as an illustration (see Table 24.8). Of the 344 paragraphs of Caesar only 22 have a connector or interactional particle, whereas in Cicero more than half of the 372 paragraphs have one; Caesar has the connector autem once, Cicero sixty times. Table 24.8 Connectors (and interactional particles (i.p.)) connecting paragraphs in Cic. Off. and Caes. Gal.    

Cicero Total

Used as connector (or i.p.)

Caesar Used to connect paragraphs (N = 372)

ac/atque

180

60

et

880

c.35

3

at

35

35

11

autem

265

c.240

60

sed

290

105

nam

78 –

enim igitur

Used as connector (or i.p.)

620

Used to connect paragraphs (N = 344)

25

2

884

2



130

130

8

28

24

1

40

100

20

0

78

7

38

38

0





5

5

1

280

280

13

25

25

7

100

100

34

1

1



namque

30

Total

itaque

60

60

7

43

43

3

ergo

30

30

6

3

3



Total

 

 

211

 

 

22

Examples of the use of these words to link paragraphs are given below (in the order of Table 24.8; nec and ceterum added).159 (a)

Atque in ea re omnium nostrorum intentis animis alia ex parte oppidi Adiatuanus, qui summam imperi tenebat . . . uti eadem deditionis condicione uteretur ab Crasso impetravit.

159 In (a), the Loeb edition does not start a new paragraph. For autem, see also § 24.26, (j) and (k); for ceterum § 24.27, (d)–(f); for igitur, § 24.43, (e).

Connectors and particles to connect paragraphs 1225 (‘Then, while the attention of all our troops was engaged upon that business, Adiatuanus, the commander-in-chief . . . obtained from Crassus the same terms of surrender as at first.’ Caes. Gal. 3.22.1)

(b)

Et quod paene praeterii, Bruti tui causa, ut saepe ad te scripsi, feci omnia. (‘And I nearly forgot to add that, as I have often written to you, I have done everything in my power for your friend Brutus.’ Cic. Att. 6.3.5)

(c)

Nec defuit fides, multaque arbitrio senatus constituta sunt. (‘And confirmation was not lacking, and many things were settled by the senate’s adjudication.’ Tac. Ann. 13.5.1—tr. Woodman)

(d)

At Romae nondum cognito qui fuisset exitus in Illyrico, et legionum Germanicarum motu audito, trepida civitas incusare Tiberium . . . (‘But at Rome, where it was not yet known what the outcome in Illyricum had been and news had been received of the German legions’ disturbance, the trembling community began to censure Tiberius . . .’ Tac. Ann. 1.46.1)160

(e)

Muri autem omnes Gallici hac fere forma sunt. Trabes derectae perpetuae in  longitudinem paribus intervallis distantes inter se binos pedes in solo collocantur. (‘All Gallic walls are, as a rule, of the following pattern. Balks are laid on the ground at equal intervals of two feet throughout the length of the wall and at right angles thereto.’ Caes. Gal. 7.23.1)

(f)

(Cuius partes duae: iustitia . . . et huic coniuncta beneficentia . . .) Sed iustitiae primum munus est, ut ne cui quis noceat . . . (‘(Of this there are two divisions, justice and, close akin to this, charity . . .) The first office of justice is to keep one man from doing harm to another . . .’ Cic. Off. 1.20)

(g)

Ceterum ex aliis negotiis quae ingenio exercentur in primis magno usui est memoria rerum gestarum. (‘But among sundry intellectual pursuits, the recording of past deeds is especially serviceable.’ Sal. Jug. 4.1)

(h)

Nam ut Id. Mai. in senatum convenimus, rogatus ego sententiam multa dixi de summa re publica . . . (‘For when we met in the Senate on the Ides of May and my turn came, I spoke at length about the political situation on the highest level . . .’ Cic. Att. 1.16.9)

(i)

Namque ipsorum naves ad hunc modum factae armataeque erant: carinae aliquanto planiores quam nostrarum navium . . . (‘For their own ships were built and equipped in the following fashion. Their keels were considerably more flat than those of our own ships . . .’ Caes. Gal. 3.13.1)

160 ‘Tacitus makes very frequent, indeed excessive, use of at in transitions . . .’ (Goodyear ad loc.). For further examples in Tacitus, see Gerber and Greef s.v. at 106 (§ B).

1226 (j)

Discourse Quamvis enim Themistocles iure laudetur et sit eius nomen quam Solonis inlustrius . . . non minus praeclarum hoc quam illud iudicandum est. (‘However highly Themistocles, for example, may be extolled—and deservedly—and however much more illustrious his name may be than Solon’s . . . yet Solon’s achievement is not to be accounted less illustrious than his.’ Cic. Off. 1.75)

(k)

Triplex igitur est, ut Panaetio videtur, consilii capiendi deliberatio. (‘The consideration necessary to determine conduct, is, therefore, as Panaetius thinks, a threefold one.’ Cic. Off. 1.9)

(l)

Itaque Titum Labienum legatum in Treveros, qui proximi flumini Rheno sunt, cum equitatu mittit. (‘Accordingly he dispatched Titus Labienus, lieutenant-general, with the cavalry to the territory of the Treveri, who live next the river Rhine.’ Caes. Gal. 3.11.1)

(m)

Sit ergo hic sermo, in quo Socratici maxime excellunt, lenis minimeque pertinax, insit in eo lepos. (‘Conversation, then, in which the Socratics are the best models, should have these qualities. It should be easy and not in the least dogmatic; it should have the spice of wit.’ Cic. Off. 1.134) There are of course other ways to structure a longer text. Sallust, Livy, and Velleius Paterculus use ‘digressions to indicate breaks in their narratives between one episode and another’. Velleius also uses some sort of heading of a paragraph followed by the explanatory connector quippe, or anaphoric hic or qui.161 Headings were also common in juridical texts.162 From the second century bc onwards inscriptions, papyri, wax tablets, and texts on other material show several non-linguistic means to segment longer stretches of texts into paragraphs, such as the projection of the text into the left margin, the use of capitals, and red colour, and also larger spaces.163 The same techniques are used in the older manuscripts. There is however, much variation in the degree to which these techniques were used.

24.49 Grammatical devices contributing to discourse coherence In this section three grammatical phenomena will be briefly touched upon from the perspective of discourse coherence: tense, active/passive variation, and word order. The role of tense in the organization of discourse is mentioned several times in Chapter  7.164 The clearest example is the imperfect tense. An illustration is (a), repeated from § 7.20, (h). Here, the imperfect nuntiabantur marks the content of the sentence as background information, while the surrounding perfects invasit and 161 The quotation is from Woodman (1977: 154). For the ‘headings’ and quippe, see Ruiz Castellanos (2005). 162 See Mantovani (2018: Appendice 1). 163 See Müller  (1964: 13–21), Wingo  (1972), Cancik  (1979), Bischoff  (1990), Raible  (1993), Ctibor (2017b), and Mantovani (2018). 164 See now also van Gils and Kroon (2018).

Grammatical devices 1227 consecuti sunt mark successive events. The information in the imperfect serves as an  explanation of the panic that hit Rome and made Lentulus flee, as the interactional particle enim shows. Another example, without a particle, is (b). The paragraph that precedes it reports the actions the Helvetians undertook to prepare their departure. The imperfects in (b) indicate the considerations about the journey. Then, after a summary in the form of an ablative absolute clause (see also § 24.11), the action continues, marked by a historic present, dicunt. The relation between the considerations in imperfects and the action in a historic present is one of result or consequence. (a)

. . . tantus repente terror invasit ut, cum Lentulus consul ad aperiendum aerarium venisset . . ., protinus . . . profugeret. Caesar enim adventare iam iamque et adesse eius equites falso nuntiabantur. Hunc Marcellus collega et plerique magistratus consecuti sunt. (‘. . . suddenly such a great panic hit them that although the consul Lentulus had come to open the treasury he immediately fled. For it was falsely being reported that Caesar was on the very point of arriving and that his cavalry was present. Lentulus was followed by his colleague Marcellus and most of the magistrates.’ Caes. Civ. 1.14.1–2)

(b)

Erant omnino itinera duo quibus itineribus domo exire possent. . . . Allobrogibus sese vel persuasuros . . . existimabant vel vi coacturos ut per suos fines eos ire paterentur. Omnibus rebus ad profectionem comparatis diem dicunt . . . (‘There were two routes, and no more, by which they could leave their homeland. . . . They supposed that either they would persuade the Allobroges . . . or would compel them perforce to suffer a passage through their borders. Having therefore provided all things for their departure, they named a day . . .’ Caes. Gal. 1.6.1–4)

Active/passive variation is another grammatical feature that contributes to the organization of discourse, since it can be related to the selection of topic constituents in ongoing discourse.165 This is shown by (c), repeated from § 5.10, (a). In the first two sentences the subject/agents are the Helvetians. In (iii) there is a shift of perspective to the new topic Orgetorix, who is continued in (iv). Note the use of is (see also § 22.4). (c)

(i) Ad eas res conficiendas biennium sibi satis esse duxerunt. (ii) In tertium annum profectionem lege confirmant. (iii) Ad eas res conficiendas Orgetorix deligitur. (iv) Is sibi legationem ad civitates suscepit. (‘(i) For the accomplishment of these objects they considered that two years were sufficient. (ii) They pledged themselves by an ordinance to take the field in the third year. (iii) For the accomplishment of these objects Orgetorix was chosen. (iv) He took upon himself an embassage to the communities.’ Caes. Gal. 1.3.2)

165 This paragraph follows LSS § 12.3.3.

1228

Discourse

Conversely, the choice of an active or passive form may also serve to continue the perspective. This was illustrated in ex. (f) of § 5.10, here repeated as (d). Within the framework of tree-chopping activities trabes and robur are expressed as subject of their sentence, just like ilex and piceae in the preceding sentences. This requires a passive form: scinditur. Thereafter the perspective shifts to the men implied in the various activities, with active advolvunt. (d)

(Itur in antiquam silvam, stabula alta ferarum.) / Procumbunt piceae. Sonat icta securibus ilex / fraxineaeque trabes cuneis et fissile robur / scinditur. (Advolvunt ingentis montibus ornos.) (‘(They pass into the forest primeval, the deep lairs of the beasts.) Down drop the pitchy pines. The ilex rings to the stroke of the axe; and ashen logs and splintering oak are cleft with wedges. (From the mountains they roll down huge ash trees.)’ Verg. A. 6.179–82)

Turning now to word order, the fact that the first or second position of the sentence is usually occupied by a pragmatically prominent constitutent contributes considerably to the coherence of the discourse. Very often that constituent is the topic of the clause which serves as an anchor for new information. It can also be a contrastive focus or a theme constituent, or—in the case of presentative sentences—a verb, which signals a new or unexpected entity. Chapters 22 and 23 contain enough illustrations, which need not be repeated here.

24.50 Opening and concluding a conversation or letter When opening or concluding an act of communication the participants, especially the person who initiates the interaction, have to respect a number of social conventions in order to make the interaction successful. Of these conventions some are linguistic and consist of expressions of a more or less fixed character. Obvious examples of situations in which this is relevant are conversations and letters. However, there were also conventions to be observed when presenting a book on a technical subject, in the form of a preface, for example,166 or when opening a speech in defence of someone in court, although these conventions concern primarily matters of content and the intentions of the speaker or writer. This section is limited to a few linguistic features of the openings and conclusions of conversations and letters, which have received some attention over the last few decades. Contemporary studies on conversation openings and conclusions naturally concentrate on the comedies of Plautus and Terence and—to a lesser degree—on Seneca’s tragedies.167 The actual form of an opening or ending depends on various 166 For Latin prose prefaces, see Janson (1964). 167 For openings of conversations, see Hoffmann  (1983), Roesch  (2008—also in Seneca), and Ferri (2008). For conclusions, see Roesch (2002; 2005). For the use of politeness expressions in openings in Plautus and Terence, see Berger (2017b).

Opening and concluding a conversation or letter 1229 non-linguistic factors which are determined by the relation between the speaker and the addressee and the communicative situation. A few generalizations can be made. An opening usually contains one or more of the following four components: (i) getting the attention of the addressee, (ii) addressing him or her, (iii) expressing a wish concerning the addressee’s well-being, and (iv) a question about what the addressee is doing. The first of these can also be a non-verbal activity. The addressee’s reaction may contain more or less the same components; the first component often consists of a reaction of surprise or joy. Examples are (a)–(c). (a)

Heus Phormio, / vale. # Vale, Antipho. (‘Hey, Phormio! Goodbye! # Goodbye, Antipho!’ Ter. Ph. 882–3)

(b)

Oh, / Toxile, quid agitur? # Oh, lutum lenonium . . . (‘Oh, Toxilus, how are you? # Oh, you pimp dirt . . .’ Pl. Per. 405–6)

(c)

Ecquis hic est? # Adest. # Eu, Philolaches, / salve, amicissume mi omnium hominum. / # Di te ament. Accuba, Callidamates. (‘Is anyone here? # Yes, there is. # Excellent, Philolaches, greetings, my best friend among all men. # May the gods love you. Do recline at table, Callidamates.’ Pl. Mos. 339–41)

The first component is often an interjection (see §§  22.48–52). For expressions of address, see §§ 22.53–6. The openings can be much more elaborate, for comic or other purposes. An example in exalted style is (d): Amphitruo greets his pregnant wife, Alcumena, in the presence of his slave, Sosia, unaware that a pseudo-Amphitruo (in reality, Jupiter) has already enjoyed his return from Thebes with his wife. (d)

Amphitruo uxorem salutat laetus speratam suam, / quam omnium Thebis vir unam esse optumam diiudicat, / quamque adeo cives Thebani vero rumiferant probam. / Valuisti’n usque? Exspectatu’n advenio? # (Sosia, aside) Hau vidi magis. / Exspectatum eum salutat magis hau quicquam quam canem. / # Et quom [te] gravidam et quom te pulchre plenam aspicio gaudeo. / # Opsecro ecastor, quid tu me deridiculi gratia / sic salutas atque appellas, quasi dudum non videris . . .? (‘Amphitruo is happy to greet his longed-for wife, whom her husband judges to be the absolutely best of all in Thebes, and whom the citizens of Thebes truly celebrate as virtuous. Have you been well throughout? Are you happy that I’m coming? # (Sosia, aside) I don’t think so. She’s as happy to greet him as she would be to greet a dog. # I’m pleased to see you pregnant and beautifully round. # Please, why are you making fun of me by greeting and addressing me like this, as if you hadn’t seen me for a long time . . .?’ Pl. Am. 676–83)

Conclusions of a conversation usually begin with a signal that it’s time to stop, and end with some form of farewell. Examples are (e), with the signal num quid vis, and (f). The addressee can, for comic or other purposes, ignore the signal to stop, as in (g), where Agorastocles ignores Adelphasium’s words ‘Follow me, my sister’.

1230 (e)

Discourse Quid me? Num quid vis? # Vale! / # Et tu, frater. (‘What about me? Is there anything else I can do for you? # Be well. # You too, dear brother.’ Pl. Aul. 175–6)

(f)

Intro abi, appropera, age amabo. # Impetras, abeo. / # Mox magis quom otium mihi et tibi erit, / igitur tecum loquar. Nunc vale. # Valeas. (‘Go inside, be quick, come on, please. # Yes, yes, I’m going. # Soon when both you and I have more time I’ll speak to you. Goodbye for now. # Goodbye.’ Pl. Cas. 214–16)

(g)

Etiam tibi hanc amittam noxiam unam, Agorastocles. / Non sum irata. # Non es? / # Non sum. # Da ergo, ut credam, savium. / # Mox dabo, quom ab re divina rediero. # I ergo strenue. / # Sequere me, soror. # Atque audi’n # Etiam? # Veneri dicito / multum meis verbis salutem. # Dicam. # Atque hoc audi. # Quid est? / # Paucis verbis rem divinam facito. Atque audi’n? Respice. / Respexit. Idem edepol Venerem credo facturam tibi. (‘Again I’ll let you get away with this one crime, Agorastocles. I’m not angry. # You aren’t? # No, I’m not. # Then give me a kiss so that I may believe you. # I’ll give you one in due course when I come back from the sacrifice. # Then go quickly. # Follow me, my sister. # And can you hear me? # Again? # Give my best regards to Venus. # I will. # And listen to this. # What is it? # Make your sacrifice with few words. And can you hear me? Look well at me. She did look well at me. By Pollux!, I do believe Venus will do the same to you.’ Pl. Poen. 403–9)

For letters comparable conventions existed. Apart from an indication of the sender and the addressee, as in (h),168 a letter normally contained an opening and a closure, each containing one or more components, more or less elaborate, often abbreviated, which proves that they were conventional. An example of a greeting formula, an inscriptio, is (i). An additional expression concerning the addressee’s (and sender’s) well-being is shown in (j). An exuberant version is (k). (h)

Lnginio Pris(co) C(laudius) Tiberi< a>nus (‘Claudius Tiberianus to Longinus Priscus’ CEL 147.verso (Karanis, c. ad 115))

(i)

CICERO ATTICO SAL(UTEM) (dat) (or: s.d.) (‘Cicero gives his greetings to Atticus’ Cic. Att. 1.1)

(j)

S(I) V(ALES) B(ENE) E(ST). E(GO) V(ALEO). (‘If you are well, that’s good. I am well.’ Cf. Cic. Fam. 14.8)

(k)

Miles Lyconi in Epidauro hospiti / suo Therapontigonus Platagidorus plurumam / salutem dicit. (‘The soldier Therapontigonus Platagidorus gives his warmest greetings to his host in Epidaurus, Lyco.’ Pl. Cur. 429–31)

168 The addressee alone is a further possibility. See Cugusi (1983: 64–7), who also discusses the relative order of sender and addressee.

Opening and concluding a conversation or letter 1231 Examples of a farewell formula, a subscriptio, are (l)–(n). This can be followed by an indication of the date and the place, as in (o). (l)

Vale. (‘Goodbye.’ Cic. Fam. 4.1.2)

(m)

Etiam atque etiam vale. (‘Once again, goodbye.’ Cic. Fam. 9.24.4)

(n)

Vale mihi. Bene valere te opto multis annis felicissime im perpetuo. Vale. (‘Stay well. I wish you to be well for many years in complete happiness for ever. Goodbye.’ CEL 142.63–5 (Karanis, c. ad 115))

(o)

D(atum). IIII Kal. Iun. Pergae. (‘Dispatched 29 May, at Perge.’ Lent. Fam. 12.14.8)

A DDENDA A ND COR R IGENDA TO VOLUME I

p. 3, footnote 6 Add: See also Moretti (2017; 2019), with references. p. 47, after ex. (g) Instead of ‘In the case of quite a few adjectives, derivation . . . reasons.’ read: For the majority of adjectives, derivation . . . reasons.1 p. 47, footnote 20 Add: For ‘periphrastic comparison’, see Pultrová (2018). p. 68, footnote 48 Add: For disambiguation of the preposition cum and the subordinator cum, see Jones (1990). p. 74, footnote 4 Read: Hoffmann (1996; 2015; 2018b) . . . Baños (2012; 2018). Add: For the use of support verbs in legal texts, see Spevak (2018). p. 75, footnote 7 Read: For do, see Martín Rodríguez (1996a; 2018; 2019). Add: For habeo, see Pompei (2016). For the use of facio and do with nouns indicating movement, see Pompei (2018). p. 89, ex. (c) Read: discomfiture. p. 94, footnote 26 Add: For thoughts on ‘impersonal’ potest, see Manfredini (2019). p. 110, l. 2 After ‘(i).’ add footnote: For the use of the dative with maneo, permaneo, and remaneo, see Cabrillana (2016). p. 119, footnote 54 Instead of forthc. read: 2015. p. 129, footnote 63 Add: For curo and vito, see Moussy (2014). p. 132, footnote 66 Add: For ‘experiencer verbs’ in general, see Fedriani (2014). p. 142, l.2 Read: you to him. p. 142, footnote 75 Add: For the use of ad versus the dative from a diachronic perspective, see Adams and de Melo (2016). For the preference of Theodosius or his aides for the dative as marker of addressees, see Sirks (1993: 52–3; 66–7). p. 168, footnote 97 Read: Ripoll (2012). p. 171, l. 12/14 Read: . . . neve · eum / cogito · neve · ius · iurandum · adigito · neve · a/digi · iubeto . . . (CIL II.5.1022.LXII.28–30 (Lex coloniae Genetivae Iuliae, Osuna, c.44 bc)2). p. 191, footnote 122 Read: Bodelot (2014b). p. 193 ex. (d) Read: Mayhoff. p. 194 To the note in small type at the bottom of the page add: For typological considerations, see Kienpointner (2016). p. 207, footnote 154 Add: For sto with secondary predicates which resemble subject complements, see Cabrillana (2019). For Late Latin and Romance, see Nuti (2010). 1 See Pultrová (2018).

2 The actual document is of Flavian date (see Crawford (1996: 395)).

1234

Addenda and corrigenda to Volume I

p. 212, l. 6 Instead of ‘All three’ read: Debeo, possum, and soleo. p. 242, footnote 31 Read: Landgraf (1898a). p. 246, ex. (f) Replace by: (f) Adspice . . . / . . . tunicas lacrimis sicut ab imbre gravis. (‘Look upon my robes, heavy with tears as if with rain.’ Ov. Ep. 10.137–8—NB: parallelism) p. 246, footnote 36 Add: For Vitruvius’ use of ab, see Adams (2016: 171–7). p. 259, Supplement Remove the first example (Cic. Ver. 2.63). p. 274, footnote 76 Add: and Kiss (2014). p. 276, footnote 80 Add: For reciprocal alter uter in Late Latin, see TLL s.v. alter uter 1760.18ff. and Sz.: 178. For reciprocal devices in Latin and other languages, see Cuzzolin (2015). p. 282, footnote 89 Read: Lehmann (2016). p. 282, footnote 90 Read: Hoffmann (2008; 2014). At the end of the footnote add: Garnier (2014), Hoffmann (2016). p. 293, ex. (j) Read: the shades C. Marius p. 300, Supplement Add as first example: Multi enim habent, in praediis quibus frumentum aut vinum aliudve quid desit, inportandum; contra non pauci, quibus aliquid sit exportandum. (Varro R. 1.16.2); p. 309, footnote 3 Read: Unceta (2014; 2018). p. 312, footnote 11Add: For the use of the second person in agricultural texts, see Hine (2011). p. 323, footnote 37 Add: For the difference between questions with -ne and without, see Schrickx (2017). In questions that are related to the speech situation -ne is less often used than in other types of questions. p. 325, footnote 40 Add: See also § 15.58. p. 326, footnote 42 Add: For nonne vides in Lucretius, see Schiesaro (1984). p. 331, footnote 48 Add: Rosén (2009: 349) does not regard an as a question particle, but as a ‘modal particle’, comparable with nempe. p. 334, footnote 51 Add: de Vaan (2008: 185) considers this etymology unlikely. p. 336, ex. (c) Read: on her arrival. # What mother. p. 341, footnote 57 Add: For the use of quaeso, obsecro, and amabo in the three types of interrogative sentences she distinguishes, see Fedriani (2017). p. 346, footnote 69 Add: For quid tu?, see Adams (2016: 149–51). p. 350, footnote 76 After the first sentence, insert: For prohibitions in Early Latin, see de Melo (2007a: 92–132). p. 352, footnote 80 Add: For the development of cave into a ‘prohibition marker’, see de Melo (2007a: 119–29). p. 352, footnote 81 Add: Barrios-Lech (2016a, b, c) shows that in Early Latin comedy most instances of noli(te) are polite. p. 353, l. 1 Before hanc insert: . . . nolite a me commoneri velle. Vosmet ipsi vobiscum recordamini. (Cic. Mur. 50). p. 353, footnote 83 Add: For the development of amabo, see Unceta (2015). p. 356, footnote 89 Add: For the Late Latin comedy Querolus, see Unceta (2017).

Addenda and corrigenda to Volume I

1235

p. 359, l. –3 Add: Quod utinam ne Phormioni id suadere in mentem incidisset . . . (Ter. Ph. 157). p. 375, footnote 122 Add: Müller (2017). p. 377, footnote 124 Add at the beginning: For the corrective function of immo, see Orlandini (1995b). p. 383, footnote 13 Read: Spevak (2016a). p. 391, under Table 7.5 Read: 2,447. p. 398, l. –14 Eliminate the example from Sen. Ep. 5.7. p. 402, l. – 8 Instead of ‘diegetic’ read ‘mimetic’. p. 407, footnote 47 Add: For a description of linguistic features of ‘peaks’ in Sallust, Caesar, and Tacitus, see Stienaers (2016). p. 407, footnote 50 Add: For Livy’s use of the historic present, see van Gils and Kroon (2018: 204–7; 2019). p. 408, footnote 51 Add: In Caesar Gal. 1.2–29 there are seventy-three perfects and eighty-eight historic presents, but in 1.30–54 111 vs. five (Stienaers 2015: 209–10). p. 408, footnote 52 Add: Stienaers (2015) shows that the historic present is used for a ‘pseudosimultaneous narrative mode’, the perfect for a ‘subsequent narrative mode’. p. 409, l. 7 Read: ‘authorial perfect (see § 7.30—note also the timeless present’. p. 422, l. –1 Add: However, prose rhythm may be the explanation for this exceptional use of the imperfect.3 p. 436, footnote 95 Add: For the use of the passive infinitive iri as part of the passive future infinitive -tum iri, see Pinkster (1985b: 204–6). p. 439, l. –4 Read: Fredeg. Chron. 2.62. p. 439, footnote 99 Add: For an entirely different explanation of daras, see Nahon (2017). p. 442, footnote 106 Add: For detailed discussion, see Galdi (2016: 256–63). p. 448, l. 9 Add footnote: For verbs of knowledge, see Torrego (2019). p. 450, footnote 113 Add: ‘. . . the desemanticisation of coepi governing an infinitive does not spread until the third century.’ (Galdi 2016: 255). p. 461, footnote 123 Add: For diachronic developments of the pluperfect in general, see Haverling (2015). p. 467, footnote 132 Add: For a ‘pragmatic’ explanation of the future perfect (it may function as an intensifier or a downtoner), see Orlandini and Poccetti (2014). p. 477, footnote 153 Instead of Sz.: 231–2 read 321–2. p. 478, footnote 156 Add: For recent discussion, see Haverling (2016). p. 479, l. 8 Read: wine left for us. p. 486, footnote 165 Add: For the the use of the subjunctive and the negator non (in Plautus and Terence), see Bodelot (2017). See also p. 681 below. p. 491, l. 9 After ‘semantic value’ insert: This also holds for the archaic sigmatic forms.4

3 As suggested by Daan den Hengst (p.c.).

4 See Bertocci (2016: 26–32).

1236

Addenda and corrigenda to Volume I

p. 508, l. –19 Add: Nam quod idem Segulius veteranos queri quod tu et Caesar in decem viris non essetis, utinam ne ego quidem essem! (Cic. Fam. 11.21.2). p. 508, footnote 186 Read: . . . he is aware of. Ov. Ep. 8.34 is textually uncertain. p. 517, footnote 198 Add: For the use of the third person in legal texts and of the second person in metadirective expressions, see Decorte (2016). For the conditions of use of -to forms in Plautus and Terence, see Barrios-Lech (2017). p. 541, footnote 227 Add: For a detailed treatment of the future participle in Seneca, see Westman (1961). p. 543, footnote 229 After the first sentence add: For the non-simultaneous use of the present participle from the second century ad onwards, see Lorenzo (1998). For the anterior use of present participles that function as secondary predicate with subject constituents and the types of verbs involved in Late Latin, see Galdi (2015; 2016). For Jerome’s practice of translating Greek aorist participles, see Haug (2012: 318–20). At the end of the note add: However, in the late historians discussed in Galdi (2016) participial clauses are very often at the end (see also § 21.7). p. 546, footnote 235 Add: Lorenzo (1998). p. 565, footnote 248 Read: 2014. p. 581, l. –5 Read: Areopagites. p. 599, l. 9 Read: Sperare se pro. p. 622, l. 6 Read: K.-St.: II.236–7. p. 627, at the end of § 7.131 Add to the note: For the Late Latin use of the subjunctive in a quod clause with miror, see Sz.: 575 and Adams (2016: 328–9). p. 633, footnote 291 Add: A monograph on the difference between indirect questions and relative clauses is Eckert (1992). See also § 15.61. p. 643, l. –8 After footnote cue 304 insert: The difference in mood may reflect the fact that in (i) the actions of the main and cum clauses are simultaneous, whereas in (j) the actual operation has not yet started. See also (e) above.5 p. 647, l. –1 Read: generally (see § 7.131). p. 647, footnote 309 Add: For discussion, see Orlandini (2001: 347–55). p. 649, footnote 312 Read: 2014b. p. 652, l. 2 Read: § 7.130, section (i). p. 653, l. 4 Read: § 7.130, section (v). p. 653, footnote 314 Add: For ex. (e), see Adams (2016: 298). p. 661, l. 2 above ex. (y) After (y)–(ab) insert: Here the perfect forms of the apodoses of the conditional clauses are determined by the present tense of the governing clauses. p. 668, l. –13 Read: § 7.111. p. 685, ex. (b) Read: praetor. p. 686, footnote 18 Add: For the use of haud in litotes, see Magni et al. (2017: 22–4).

5 As suggested by Guus Bal (p.c.).

Addenda and corrigenda to Volume I

1237

p. 691, § 8.11 Add a footnote: for haud see Magni et al. (2017: 24): ‘haud couvre le domaine de la négation scalaire’. p. 691 Table 8.1 in the column Verg. instead of 10 read: 110. p. 694, l. –2 Read: focusing subjunct. p. 695, l. –2 Read: focusing subjunct. p. 715, after (m) Insert note: A noteworthy instance of nec in Ovid is (15a). Here the negation belongs to the quotation with the words of the nymph Cyane.6 (15a) (sc. Cyane) . . . adgnovitque deam ‘Nec longius ibitis!,’ inquit, / ‘Non potes . . . (‘. . . and she recognized the goddess and said: ‘No further shall you go! Thou canst . . .’ Ovid. Met. 5.414–15) p. 719, ex. (j) Read: . . . they sent. p. 720, ex. (f) Replace by: (f) . . . vos interdicitis patribus commercio plebis, ne nos comitate ac munificentia nostra provocemus plebem nec plebs nobis dicto audiens atque oboediens sit. (‘. . . you deny the Fathers intercourse with the commons, lest we by our friendliness and liberality encourage them, or they become dutiful and obedient to us.’ Liv. 5.3.8) p. 739, footnote 5 Add: For the use of ego to make oneself known, as in ex. (p), see Müller (2019). p. 759, footnote 25 Read: Halla-aho (2012; 2019), with references. p. 759, footnote 26 Add: For the proleptic accusative with facio, see Bortolussi (2014). p. 768, footnote 32 Read: Pieroni (2015). p. 776, ex. (e) Read: to lie down at table. p. 820, ex. (d) Read: think that then I. p. 821, ex. (n) Read: Ariminum. p. 822, ex. (q) Instead of ‘parasite’ read: hanger-on. p. 856, example (d) Add footnote: Kroon and Risselada (2002: 71) take iam with unus, fortasse recte. p. 858, l. –12 Instead of ‘subject complement’ read: secondary predicate. p. 869, ex. (c) Read: violent day by day . . . p. 877, Appendix l. 4 Read: § 4.60. p. 878, l. 13 Read: § 10.86. p. 882 Above 10.57 read: 4.65. p. 891, l. 2 Add footnote: For ita and sic as intensifiers, see Panchón (1998). p. 891, footnote 105 Add: For paene, vix and other ‘scalar approximators’, see Bertocchi and Maraldi (2015). p. 903, ex. (b) Read: Pac. trag. 340. p. 912, footnote 132 Read: 2014b. p. 919, footnote 141 Add: Baldi and Nuti (2010: 350–5) discuss the phenomenon under the term ‘external possession’. 6 See Bömer ad loc. I was referred to this instance by Stephen van Beek.

1238

Addenda and corrigenda to Volume I

p. 922, l. 8/9 Read: Pruvost-Versteeg (2015). p. 926, l. 4 Insert footnote: Missing are examples of utique. For utique in Late Latin, see Langslow (2005). p. 928, l.–10 Read: 10.75. p. 928, l. –8 Read: Such evaluating expressions are also found with verbs of happening and causing to happen, as in (e) (more instances in § 15.13). p. 928, footnote 156 Add: For praeter, see also Torrego (1998: 139–41). p. 931, footnote 164 Read: Rosén (2015). She discusses Late Latin examples at pp. 249–53. p. 934, l. 12 Read: §§ 11.1–99. p. 964, l. –17 Insert: Siciliae provinciae, cum esses pro consule, praefuisti. (Cic. Ver. 3.212).7 p. 964, l. –6 Instead of ‘Itala’ read: Vet. Lat. p. 982, footnote 72 Add: For quantification in Latin, especially by multus and magnus, see Moonens (2019). p. 983 At the end of the text above ex. (g) add footnote: For the difference between multus and magnus, see Moonens (2016). p. 990, ex. (i) Replace by: (i) . . . silentioque ab utrisque militibus auditus. (‘. . . and he was heard in silence by soldiers on both sides.’ Caes. Civ. 3.19.3) p. 990, footnote 84 Replace by: For more instances, see OLD s.v. uterque § 3. p. 991, footnote 86 Add: For totus and omnis, see Nuti (2019). p. 999, l. –3 Read: 11.2. p. 1006, ex. (d) Read: quorum P. p. 1011, ex. (j) Read: of almost all of our orators. p. 1023, § 11.61 Add footnote: See Lagozzo and Middei (2018). p. 1041, footnote 144 Add: For -tio nouns + esse in normative texts in Early Latin, see Spevak (2017). p. 1047, first line of 11.75 Read: 11.69. p. 1047, footnote 151 Add: For the phrase ex Anniana Milonis domo, see Spevak (2016b). According to Devine and Stephens (2006: 517) and Giusti and Iovino (2015), omnis, unlike multus, has scope over the other modifiers. p. 1051, ex. (m) Read: and the rest of Greece. p. 1056, l. –1 Read: The difference in order between minimal pairs like (d) and (e) corresponds to a difference in meaning. Ballio leno corresponds to the question ‘which Ballio?’, leno Ballio to ‘which leno?’8 p. 1063, l. –3 Read: § 10.17. p. 1064, Table 11.7, first column (iv) Read: apud celebrem urbem, Antiochiam. p. 1068, l. –10 Read: k(larissimus).

7 As suggested by James Clackson (p.c.).

8 See Spevak (2015).

Addenda and corrigenda to Volume I

1239

p. 1068, footnote 178 Add: For the use of proper names in this context and a discussion of their syntactic function, see Pieroni (2019). p. 1076, footnote 190 Add: For a discussion of Varro’s use of satellites at the adjective phrase level, see Bodelot (2015). p. 1086, ex. (b) Read: great-grandfather and grandfather. p. 1092, Table 11.9, line Apuleius Read: hic 148 180, ille 334 193, iste 193 44, is 16 411. p. 1119, ex. (b) Replace the translation by: We shall leave this question open. p. 1123, l. –17 After ‘expressions’ insert footnote: See Bertocchi (1989). p. 1129 Add footnote: For developments in the ‘irregular’ use of suus, see Mari (2016: 47–63). p. 1130, ex. (d) Read: Fabius (2 x). p. 1133, footnote 253 Read: Bertocchi (1989; 1994). Add: For pragmatic factors (topicality and empathy), see also Zheltova (2016). p. 1144, ex. (c) In the translation read: Messalla. p. 1147, footnote 276 Insert after ‘Pinkster (2005c).’: For Seneca, see Fruyt (2019). Add at end: For the use of ille in hagiographic texts of the fifth and sixth century, see Joffre et al. (2017). p. 1148, footnote 279 Add: See also Kiss (2016). p. 1148, footnote 280 Add: Rosén (1994) draws attention to the increased use in Augustine’s Confessiones of ille and other determiners with postposed subject constituents of clauses with two arguments. p. 1153, l. 3 Read: (a)–(i). p. 1153, l. 4 Read: (j)–(l). p. 1153, ll. 13–14 Read: with the escalating particles etiam and et ‘even’, ne . . . quidem ‘not even’. p. 1153, l. –3 Instead of ‘Restrictive subjuncts’ read: Escalating subjuncts. p. 1153, footnote 289 Add: For the additive and escalating uses of ipse, see Bertocchi and Maraldi (2012: 16–19). p. 1173, ex. (b) Read: 1.41. p. 1178, l. –13 Read § 11.71. p. 1179, footnote 4 After ‘2012’ add: , 2018. At the end of the footnote add: See also Pinkster (2018). p. 1180, footnote 5 Add: The ordering of the cases in Figure 12.1 is by frequency and deviates from the canonical order, as presented at p. 35. p. 1185, l. –6 Instead of ‘ditransitive’ read: bitransitive. p. 1186, footnote 8 Add: For early medieval texts, see Korkiakangas (2016a; b). p. 1188 To the note in small type add: Some scholars regard the use of the accusative for the subject as an ‘ergative trait’ in Latin.9 p. 1233, ex. (b) Replace the translation by: Should I tire you out at your age for the sake of my love?

9 See Lehmann (1985), Rivas (2000), and Rovai (2012).

1240

Addenda and corrigenda to Volume I

p. 1252, ex. (w) Read: great-grandfather and grandfather. p. 1255, ex. (l) Read: Fregenae. p. 1256, l. –4 Read: colonists. p. 1281, l. 3–4 After the examples in small type instead of ‘when they function as subject or object pronoun’ read: when they function as subject or object complement. p. 1303 Add: CLE Carmina Latina Epigraphica, hrsg. v. F. Bücheler – E. Lommatzsch, Leipzig, Teubner, 1930 IGLTheben J. Baillet, Inscriptions Grecques et Latines des tombeaux des rois ou syringes à Thèbes, Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1925–6. p. 1304 Add: LLT Library of Latin Texts, Cross Database Searchtool, . PHI Packard Humanities Institute Latin Texts, . p. 1321 Add: Fruyt, Michèle (2010) ‘Interprétation du latin ipse comme un “intensifieur” ’, in Michèle Fruyt and Olga Spevak (eds), 39–74. p. 1334 Instead of Lehmann, Christian ‘(forthc.)’ read: (2016). The article is published in Paolo Poccetti (ed.), 917–41. p. 1351 Instead of Spevak, Olga ‘(forthc.) etc.’ read: (2016a). For details, see below. p. 1357 Instead of Wackernagel, Jacob (1920/4) read: (1926/92).

Missing commentaries (pp. 1359–60): Brix, Julius and Niemeyer, Max (19106). Ausgewählte Komödien des T. Maccius Plautus. Captivi. Leipzig: Teubner. Kroll, Wilhelm (1913). M. Tulli Ciceronis Orator. Berlin: Weidmann. Mayhoff, Karl Friedrich Theodor (1870). C. Plini Secundi naturalis historiae libri xxxvii, Vol. I. Leipzig: Teubner. Nisbet, Robert George (1939). M.  Tulli Ciceronis De domo sua ad pontifices oratio. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stockert, Walter (1983). T. Maccius Plautus: Aulularia. Stuttgart: Teubner. Ziegler, Karl (ed.) (1969). M. Tulli Ciceronis de Re publica. Leipzig: Teubner.

Additional bibliography (publications which are not cited in the bibliography of Volume I): Adams, James  N. (2016). An Anthology of Informal Latin 200 bc–ad 800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Adams, James N. and de Melo, Wolfgang (2016). ‘Ad versus the dative: from early to late Latin’, in James N. Adams and Nigel Vincent (eds), 87–131.

Addenda and corrigenda to Volume I

1241

Adams, James N. and Vincent, Nigel (eds) (2016). Early and Late Latin. Cambridge: Cambrige University Press. Baños, José Miguel (2012). ‘Verbos soporte e incorporación sintáctica en latín: el ejemplo de ludos facere’, Revista de Estudios Latinos 12: 37–57. Baños, José Miguel (2018). ‘Las construcciones con verbo soporte en latin: una perspectiva diacrónica’, in Colette Bodelot and Olga Spevak (eds), 21–51. Barrios-Lech, Peter (2016a). ‘Noli + infinitive in Roman Comedy’, Glotta 92: 18–23. Barrios-Lech, Peter (2016b). Linguistic Interaction in Roman Comedy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Barrios-Lech, Peter (2016c). ‘The volo command in Roman Comedy’, Mnemosyne 69: 628–47. Barrios-Lech, Peter (2017). ‘The imperative in -to in Plautus and Terence’, Classical Quarterly 67: 485–506. Bertocchi, Alessandra (1989). ‘The role of antecedents of Latin anaphors’, in Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), 441–62. Bertocchi, Alessandra and Maraldi, Mirka (2012). ‘La scalarité, application à certaines phénomènes de la langue latine’, De Lingua Latina, Revue de Linguistique Latine du Centre Alfred Ernout [Online] 8. Bertocchi, Alessandra and Maraldi, Mirka (2015). ‘Scalar approximators’, in Gerd V. M. Haverling (ed.), 518–29. Bodelot, Colette (2014b). ‘Les propositions complétives dans la Chronique originale de Frédégaire’, in Piera Molinelli et al. (eds), I.183–203. Bodelot, Colette (2015). ‘L’adjectif latin et ses expansions: une relation de solidarité à géométrie variable’, in Gerd V. M. Haverling (ed.), 301–13. Bodelot, Colette (2017). ‘Sur la valeur controversée du subjonctif nié par non dans les questions de protestation et de délibération en latin’, De Lingua Latina, Revue de Linguistique Latine du Centre Alfred Ernout [Online]: 1–22. Bodelot, Colette and Spevak, Olga (eds) (2018). Les constructions à verbe support en latin. Clermont-Ferrand: Presses Universitaires Blaise Pascal (Cahiers du LRL 7). Bortolussi, Bernard (2014). ‘La construction proleptique avec facere ut’, in Bernard Bortolussi and Peggy Lecaudé (eds), 113–30. Bortolussi, Bernard and Lecaudé, Peggy (eds) (2014). La causativité en latin. Paris: L’Harmattan. Cabrillana, Concepción (2016). ‘El estatus sintáctico-semántico del caso dativo con verbos estativos latinos’, Emerita 84: 145–66. Cabrillana, Concepción (2019). ‘Praedicativum and subject complement: a question revisited in light of the Latin verb sto’, in Lidewij W. van Gils et al. (eds), 116–33. Cabrillana, Concepción and Lehmann, Christian (eds) (2014). Acta XIV Colloquii Internationalis Linguisticae Latinae. Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas. Carlier, Anne and Guillot-Barbance, Céline (eds) (2018). Latin tardif, français ancien: Continuités et ruptures. Berlin: De Gruyter. Christol, Alain and Spevak, Olga (eds) (2012). Les évolutions du latin. Paris: l’Harmattan. Cuzzolin, Pierluigi (2015). ‘Reciprocals in Latin. A Reappraisal’, in Gerd V. M. Haverling (ed.), 221–39.

1242

Addenda and corrigenda to Volume I

Decorte, Robrecht (2016). ‘Sic habeto: the functions of -to imperatives in legal Latin and beyond’, in Paolo Poccetti (ed.), 801–19. Duarte, Pedro, Fleck, Frédérique, Lecaudé, Peggy, and Morel, Aude (eds) (2017). Histoires des mots. Paris: Presses de l’Université Paris-Sorbonne. Eckert, Günter (1992). Thema, Rhema und Fokus: Eine Studie zur Klassifizierung von indirekten Fragesätzen und Relativsätzen im Lateinischen. Münster: Nodus Publikationen. Fedriani, Chiara (2014). Experiential Constructions in Latin. Leiden: Brill. Fedriani, Chiara (2017). ‘Quapropter, quaeso? “Why, for pity’s sake?” Questions and the pragmatic functions of quaeso, obsecro, and amabo in Plautus’, in Camille Denizot and Olga Spevak (eds), Pragmatic Approaches to Latin and Ancient Greek. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 83–109. Fruyt, Michèle (2019). ‘Le système latin de la déixis et de l’endophore: l’évolution linguistique chez Sénèque’, in Lidewij W. van Gils et al. (eds), 296–316. Galdi, Giovanbattista (2015). ‘The expression of simultaneity and anteriority in the Historia of Victor Vitensis’, in Gerd V. M. Haverling (ed.), 183–92. Galdi, Giovanbattista (2016). ‘On coepi/incipio + infinitive: some new remarks’, in James N. Adams and Nigel Vincent (eds), 246–64. García Leal, Alfonso and Prieto, Clara Elena (eds) (2017). Latin vulgaire–latin tardif XI. Hildesheim: Olms Weidmann. Gils, Lidewij  W.  van, de Jong, Irene  J.  F., and Kroon, Caroline  H. M. (eds) (2018). Textual Strategies in Ancient War Narrative: Thermopylae, Cannae and Beyond. Leiden: Brill. Gils, Lidewij  W.  van and Kroon, Caroline  H. M. (2018). ‘Discourse-linguistic strategies in Livy’s account of the battle at Cannae’, in Lidewij W. van Gils et al. (eds), 191–233. Gils, Lidewij W. van and Kroon, Caroline H. M. (2019). ‘Engaging the audience. An intersubjectivity approach to the historic present in Latin’, in Lidewij W. van Gils et al. (eds), 351–73. Gils, Lidewij  W.  van, Kroon, Caroline  H. M., and Risselada, Rodie (eds) (2019). Lemmata Linguistica Latina, II: Clause and Discourse. Berlin: de Gruyter. Giusti, Giuliana and Iovino, Rossella (2015). ‘On the syntax of the Latin quantifier omnis’, in Gerd V. M. Haverling (ed.), 314–24. Halla-aho, Hilla (2019). ‘Proleptic accusatives in Latin’, Glotta 95: 135–58. Haug, Dag (2012). ‘Open verb-based adjuncts in New Testament Greek—with a view to the Latin Vulgate translation’, in Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen and Dag Haug (eds), Big Events, Small Clauses. Berlin: De Gruyter, 287–321. Haverling, Gerd V. M. (2016). ‘On the use of habeo and the perfect participle in earlier and later Latin’, in James N. Adams and Nigel Vincent (eds), 180–201. Haverling, Gerd V. M. (ed.) (2015). Latin Linguistics in the Early 21st Century. Acts of the 16th International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, Uppsala, 6–11 June 2011. Uppsala: Studia Latina Upsaliensia. Uppsala Universitet. Hine, Harry M. (2011). ‘Discite . . . agricolae: modes of instruction in Latin prose agricultural writing from Cato to Pliny the Elder’, Classical Quarterly 61: 624–54. Hoffmann, Roland (2014). ‘Les constructions causatives dans les traductions latines des textes hébreux et grecs: le cas de la Vulgate de Jérôme’, in Bernard Bortolussi and Peggy Lecaudé (eds), 143–76. Hoffmann, Roland (2016). ‘On causativity in Latin’, Journal of Latin Linguistics 15: 33–71.

Addenda and corrigenda to Volume I

1243

Hoffmann, Roland (2018a). Lateinische Linguistik. Hamburg: Buske Verlag. Hoffmann, Roland (2018b). ‘Criteria for describing valency in Latin function verb constructions’, in Colette Bodelot and Olga Spevak (eds), 75–93. Joffre, Marie-Dominique, Longrée, Dominique, and Philippart, Caroline (2017). ‘De l’emploi de iste et des autres démonstratifs dans un corpus hagiographique italien des Ve–VIe s.’, in Alfonso García Leal and Clara Elena Prieto (eds) (2017), 435–48. Jones, Frederick (1990). ‘Cum in Livy’, Liverpool Classical Monthly 15: 37–43. Kienpointner, Manfred (2016). ‘Weather verbs in Latin, German, and other languages. Contrastive and typological remarks’, Pallas 102: 57–68. Kiss, Sándor (2016). ‘Le système des déterminants et la place virtuelle de l’article en latin’, in Paolo Poccetti (ed.), 232–45. Korkiakangas, Timo (2016a). ‘Subject case in the Latin of Tuscan charters of the 8th and 9th centuries’. PhD Thesis, University of Helsinki. Korkiakangas, Timo (2016b). ‘Morphosyntactic realignment and markedness in Late Latin: Evidence from charter texts’, Pallas 102: 287–96. Lagozzo, Felicia and Middei, Edoardo (2018). ‘Le génitif “appositivus” ou “definitivus”: une catégorie instable. I.: l’état de la question et les critères d’évaluation’, ‘II.: les toponymes’, De Lingua Latina, Revue de Linguistique Latine du Centre Alfred Ernout [Online] 15: 1–18; 1–30. Landgraf, Gustav (1898a). ‘Der Akkusativ der Beziehung (determinationis)’, Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik 10, 209–23. Lehmann, Christian (1985) ‘Ergative and active traits in Latin’, in Franz Plank (ed.), Relational Typology. Berlin: Mouton-de Gruyter, 243–55. Lorenzo, Juan (1998). ‘El participio de presente latino: auge y ocaso de una forma verbal’, Cuadernos de Filología Clásica. Estudios Latinos 15: 37–58. Magni, Elisabetta, Orlandini, Anna, and Poccetti, Paolo (2017). ‘Haud: usages et fonctions d’une négation perdue’, De Lingua Latina, Revue de Linguistique Latine du Centre Alfred Ernout [Online] 14: 1–28. Manfredini, Adriana M. (2019). ‘Potest + passive infinitives: auxiliary or impersonal verb?’, in Lidewij W. van Gils et al. (eds), 67–78. Mari, Tommaso (2016). ‘Third person possessives from early Latin to late Latin and Romance’, in James N. Adams and Nigel Vincent (eds), 47–68. Martín Rodríguez, Antonio M. (2018). ‘Les emplois de dare comme verbe support: une réévaluation’, in Colette Bodelot and Olga Spevak (eds), 149–67. Martín Rodríguez, Antonio M. (2019). ‘Ruinam dare: les complexités d’une construction latine à verbe support’, in Lidewij W. van Gils et al. (eds), 79–95. Molinelli, Piera, Cuzzolin, Pierluigi, and Fedriani, Chiara (eds) (2014). Latin vulgaire–latin tardif X, 3 vols. Bergamo: Bergamo University Press. Moonens, Laurent (2016). ‘Expressions de quantité chez Plaute et Térence: les “quantificateurs” multus et magnus’, Pallas 102: 25–34. Moonens, Laurent (2019). ‘Les expressions de la quantité en latin. Quantifiants, quantifieurs et la quantification mid-scalaire par multus et magnus.’ Thesis, Université de Toulouse–Jean Jaurès. Moretti, Paola Francesca (2017). ‘The verb phrase auxiliary + infinitive: evidence of orality in the epistolary genre?’, in Alfonso García Leal and Clara Elena Prieto (eds), 487–503.

1244

Addenda and corrigenda to Volume I

Moretti, Paola Francesca (2019). ‘Is it possible to identify orality? Verb-phrases “Auxiliary + Infinitive” in spoken (late) Latin’, Mnemosyne 72: 488–508. Moussy, Claude (2014). ‘Les emplois intransitifs des verbes curare et evitare’, in Concepción Cabrillana and Christian Lehmann (eds), 391–400. Müller, Roman (2017). ‘Nein im klassischen und nicht-klassischen Dialog’, in Alfonso García Leal and Carla Elena Prieto (eds), 116–26. Müller, Roman (2019). ‘Ego sum Amphitruo: Selbestidentifikation in der römischen Komödie’, in Lidewij W. van Gils et al. (eds), 464–78. Nahon, Peter (2017). ‘Paléoroman daras (Pseudo-Frédégaire, VIIe siècle): de la bonne interprétation d’un jalon de la linguistique’, Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 112: 123–30. Nuti, Andrea (2010). ‘Some notes on the use of stare’, in Peter Anreiter and Manfred Kienpointner (eds), 437–66. Nuti, Andrea (2019). ‘Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres: Sapir’s typology and different perspectives on totality’, in Lidewij W. van Gils et al. (eds), 219–40. Orlandini, Anna  M. (1995b). ‘De la connexion: une analyse pragmatique des connecteurs latins atqui et immo’, Lalies 15: 259–69. Orlandini, Anna M. and Poccetti, Paolo (2014). ‘Gli aspetti semantico-pragmatici del futuro II latino e la loro evoluzione romanza’, in Piera Molinelli et al. (eds), 1011–30. Pieroni, Silvia (2019). ‘Themistocles veni, Tarquiniusque loquor’, in Martin Taillade et al. (eds), 217–25. Pinkster, Harm (2018). ‘ La contribution de marques casuelles à l’interprétation des propositions’, in Anne Carlier and Céline Guillot-Barbance (eds), 97–125. Poccetti, Paolo (ed.) (2016). Latinitatis Rationes. Berlin: De Gruyter. Pompei, Anna (2018). ‘Facere saltum ou dare saltum? Verbes support et noms de mouvement’, in Colette Bodelot and Olga Spevak (eds), 169–86. Pultrová, Lucie (2018). ‘Periphrastic comparison in Latin’, Journal of Latin Linguistics 17: 93–110. Ripoll, Arthur (2012). ‘Le changement invisible ou “que tout reste indentique pour que tout change” ’, in Alain Christol and Olga Spevak (eds), 299–323. Rivas, Javier (2000). Ergativity and Transitive Gradients in the Accusative and Infinitive Construction. Universidade de Santiago de Compostela: Servizo de Publicacións. Rovai, Francesco (2012). Sistemi di codifica argomentale. Pisa: Pacini. Schiesaro, Alessandro (1984). ‘Nonne vides in Lucrezio’, Materiali e Discussioni per l’Analisi dei Testi Classici 13: 143–57. Schøsler, Lene (2018). ‘ “How useful is case morphology?”: from Latin to French’, in Anne Carlier and Céline Guillot-Barbance (eds), 127–70. Sirks, Boudewijn (1993). ‘The sources of the code’, in Jill Harries and Ian Wood (eds), The Theodosian Code: Studies in the Imperial Law of Late Antiquity. London: Duckworth, 45–67. Spevak, Olga (2015). ‘L’apposition étroite en latin’, in Gerd V. M. Haverling (ed.), 325–37. Spevak, Olga (2016a). ‘À propos de l’aspect verbal en grec, en slave et en latin’, Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 111: 243–75.

Addenda and corrigenda to Volume I

1245

Spevak, Olga (2016b). ‘Ex Anniana domo Milonis: les syntagmes nominaux avec deux compléments de possession’, Pallas 102: 35–44. Spevak, Olga (2017). ‘La construction -tio + esse dans les textes normatifs de l’époque préclassique’, in Pedro Duarte et al. (eds), 403–11. Spevak, Olga (2018). ‘Les constructions à verbe support dans les textes normatifs’, in Colette Bodelot and Olga Spevak (eds), 207–19. Stienaers, David (2015). ‘Tense and discourse organization in Caesar’s De bello Gallico’, in Gerd V. M. Haverling (ed.), 208–20. Stienaers, David (2016). ‘Linguistic features of peaks in Latin narrative texts’, in Paolo Poccetti (ed.), 902–16. Torrego, Esperanza (2019). ‘The expression of knowledge in Latin: cognosco, nosco, scio, nescio and ignoro’, in Lidewij W. van Gils et al. (eds), 20–47. Unceta, Luis (2015). ‘Sobre el proceso de subjetivación de algunas formas verbales en la lengua de la comedia romana’, in Gerd V. M. Haverling (ed.), 468–79. Unceta, Luis (2017). ‘Estrategias de cortesía linguística en Querolus’, Latomus 75: 140–61. Unceta, Luis (2018). ‘Gli studi sulla (s)cortesia linguistica in latino. Possibilità di analisi e proposte per il futuro’, Studi e Saggi Linguistici 56: 9–37. Zheltova, Elena (2016). ‘Latin reflexive pronouns at the crossroads of syntax and pragmatics’, Pallas 102: 211–18.

BIBLIOGR APH Y

A. Abbreviated references AE

L’Année Épigraphique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Bennett

Bennett, Charles E., Syntax of Early Latin, 2 vols. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1910/14 (repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1966).

BTL

Bibliotheca Teubneriana Latina. Munich: Saur & Turnhout: Brepols, 2002.

CEL

Cugusi, Paolo, Corpus Epistularum Latinarum, 3 vols. Florence: Gonnelli, 1992–2002.

CIL

Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. Berlin: 1862–

Gerber and Greef Gerber, A. and Greef, A. Lexicon Taciteum. Leipzig: Teubner, 1877/1903. K.-G.

Kühner, Raphael and Gerth, Bernard, Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache, Zweiter Teil: Satzlehre, 2 vols. Hanover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung, 19043.

K.-H.

Kühner, Raphael and Holzweissig, Friedrich, Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache, Erster Teil: Elementar-, Formen- und Wortlehre. Hanover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung, 19122.

K.-St.

Kühner, Raphael and Stegmann, Carl, Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache, Zweiter Teil: Satzlehre, 2 vols. Hanover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung, 19122.

LASLA

Laboratoire d’Analyse Statistique des Langues Anciennes. Liège: .

Lodge

Lodge, Gonzalez, Lexicon Plautinum, 2 vols. Leipzig: Teubner, 1924–33.

LSS

Pinkster, Harm, Latin Syntax and Semantics. London: Routledge, 1990, . NB: The paragraph numbering is the same in the various editions in other languages.

M

Cuvigny, Hélène, La Route de Myos Hormos, vol. 2. Cairo: IFAO, 2003.

McGlynn

McGlynn, Patrick, Lexicon Terentianum, 2 vols. London/Glasgow: Blackie & Son, 1963–7.

Merguet (Caesar)

Merguet, Hugo, Lexikon zu den Schriften Caesars und seine Fortsetzer: mit Angabe sämtlicher Stellen. Jena, 1886.

Merguet (Phil.)

Merguet, Hugo, Lexikon zu den philosophischen Schriften Ciceros, 3 vols. Jena, 1887.

1248

Bibliography

Merguet (Reden)

Merguet, Hugo, Lexikon zu den Reden des Cicero, 4 vols. Jena, 1877.

Neue-W.

Neue, Friedrich and Wagener, Carl, Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache, 3 vols. Leipzig: Reisland, 1892–19023.

New Pauly

Cancik, Hubert and Schneider, Helmuth (eds), Der neue Pauly: Enzyklopädie der Antike. Stuttgart: Verlag J. N. Metzler, 1996ff. (English translation: Brill’s New Pauly. Leiden: Brill, 2010ff.)

OLD

Oxford Latin Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968–82 (20122).

poet.

Fragmenta poetarum Latinorum epicorum et lyricorum praeter Ennium et Lucilium, post W. Morel edidit Carolus Buechner. Leipzig: Teubner, 1982.

Sz.

Szantyr, Anton, New edition of Johann Baptist Hofmann, Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik. Munich: Beck, 19722.

TLL

Thesaurus Linguae Latinae. Leipzig: Teubner, 1900–

TPN

Wolf, Joseph Georg, Neue Rechtsurkunden aus Pompeji: Tabulae Pompeianae Novae. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2010.

B. Linguistic Studies Aalto, Pentti (1949). Untersuchungen über das lateinische Gerundium und Gerundivum. Helsinki: Academia Fennica. Achard, Guy and Ledentu, Marie (eds) (2000). Orateurs, auditeurs, lecteurs:  À propos de l’ éloquence romaine à la fin de la République et au début du Principat. Lyon: Broccard. Adams, James N. (1971). ‘A type of hyperbaton in Latin prose’, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 17: 1–16. Adams, James N. (1972). ‘The language of the later books of Tacitus’ Annals’, Classical Quarterly 22: 350–73. Adams, James  N. (1976a). ‘A typological approach to Latin word order’, Indogermanische Forschungen 81: 70–100. Adams, James N. (1976b). The Text and the Language of a Vulgar Latin Chronicle (Anonymus Valesianus II). London: BICS. Adams, James N. (1977). The Vulgar Latin of the Letters of Claudius Terentianus. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Adams, James N. (1978). ‘Conventions of naming in Cicero’, Classical Quarterly 28: 145–66. Adams, James N. (1984). ‘Female speech in Latin comedy’, Antichthon 18: 43–77. Adams, James N. (1991). ‘Pelagonius and Columella’, Antichthon 25: 72–95. Adams, James N. (1994a). ‘Wackernagel’s law and the position of unstressed personal pronouns in classical Latin’, Transactions of the Philological Society 92: 103–78. Adams, James N. (1994b). Wackernagel’s Law and the Placement of the Copula esse in Classical Latin. TCPS Supplementary Volume 18. Adams, James N. (1995). ‘The language of the Vindolanda Tablets: An interim report’, Journal of Roman Studies 85: 86–134. Adams, James  N. (1996). ‘Interpuncts as evidence for the enclitic character of personal pronouns in Latin’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 111: 208–10.

Bibliography 1249 Adams, James  N. (1999a). ‘Nominative personal pronouns and some patterns of speech in republican and Augustan poetry’, in James N. Adams and Roland G. Mayer (eds), 97–133. Adams, James  N. (1999b). ‘The poets of Bu Njem: Language, culture and the centurionate’, Journal of Roman Studies 89: 109–34. Adams, James  N. (2003a). ‘Petronius and new non-literary Latin’, in József Herman and Hannah Rosén (eds), 11–23. Adams, James  N. (2003b). Bilingualism and the Latin Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Adams, James N. (2005a). ‘The accusative and infinitive and dependent quod/quia clauses. The evidence of non-literary Latin and Petronius’, in Sándor Kiss et al. (eds), 195–206. Adams, James N. (2005b). ‘The Bellum Africum’, in Tobias Reinhardt et al. (eds), 73–96. Adams, James  N. (2007). The Regional Diversification of Latin, 200 bc–ad 600. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Adams, James  N. (2013). Social Variation and the Latin Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Adams, James  N. (2016). An Anthology of Informal Latin 200 bc–ad 800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Adams, James N. (2019). ‘The Latin of the new Vindolanda tablets’, Britannia 50: 253–63. Adams, James N. (forthc.). Asyndeton and Latin Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Adams, James N. and Mayer, Roland G. (eds) (1999). Aspects of the Language of Latin Poetry. London: Proceedings of the British Academy. Adams, James N. and Vincent, Nigel (2016). ‘Infinitives with verbs of motion from Latin to Romance’, in James N. Adams and Nigel Vincent (eds), 265–93. Adams, James N. and Vincent, Nigel (eds) (2016). Early and Late Latin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Addabbo, Anna Maria (2001). ‘La proposition relative dans le de agricultura de Caton’, in Claude Moussy et al. (eds), 159–69. Adema, Suzanne M. (2017). Speech and Thought in Latin War Narratives: Words of Warriors. Leiden: Brill. Adema, Suzanne M. (2019a). ‘Words when it is time for action: Representations of speech and thought in the battles of Cannae and Zama’, in Lidewij W. van Gils et al. (eds) 293–315. Adema, Suzanne M. (2019b). Tenses in Vergil’s Aeneid: Narrative Style and Structure. Leiden: Brill. Agud, Ana, Fernández Delgado, José A., and Ramos, Agustín (eds) (1996). Las lenguas de corpus y sus problemas lingüísticos. Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas. Aili, Hans (1979). The Prose Rhythm of Sallust and Livy. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wicksel. Albrecht, Michael von (1964). Die Parenthese in Ovids Metamorphosen und ihre dichterische Funktion. Hildesheim: Olms. Albrecht, Michael von (2003). Cicero’s Style: A Synopsis. Leiden: Brill. Albrecht, Michael von (20124). Meister römischer Prosa: Von Cato bis Apuleius: Interpretationen. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Allen, Joseph H. and Greenough, James B. (19032). Latin Grammar for Schools and Colleges, Founded on Comparative Grammar. Boston: Ginn & Company (repr. Eastford: Martino Fine Books, 2017). Allen, W. Sidney (1973). Accent and Rhythm. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

1250

Bibliography

Allen, W. Sidney (19782). Vox Latina. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Álvarez Huerta, Olga (1996). ‘The connecting relative in the oratio obliqua in Latin’, in Hannah Rosén (ed.), 567–575. Álvarez Huerta, Olga (2005a). ‘¿Accusativus pendens en latín?’, in Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), 433–42. Álvarez Huerta, Olga (2005b). ‘Attraction régressive et corrélation en latin’, in Paolo de Carvalho and Frédéric Lambert (eds), 181–97. Álvarez Huerta, Olga (2011). ‘Quelques réflexions sur l’emploi du subjonctif dans les relatives latines’, Les Études Classiques 79: 105–22. Álvarez Huerta, Olga (2014). ‘L’expression de la causalité en latin: la construction facere ut’, in Bernard Bortolussi and Peggy Lecaudé (eds), 79–94. Amacker, René (2011). ‘Relatives enchevêtrées: Problèmes de description’, Les Études Classiques 79: 143–75. Ambrosini, Riccardo (1992). ‘La collocazione degli elementi subordinanti in latino’, Archivio Glottologico Italiano 77: 173–95. Ammann, Hermann J. F. (1911). Die Stellungstypen des lateinischen attributiven Adjektivums und ihre Bedeutung fur die Psychologie der Wortstellung auf Grund von Ciceros Briefen an Atticus untersucht. Strasbourg: Trübner. Ammann, Hermann  J.  F. (1949). ‘Zu lateinisch quisquis es, quisquis est’, Indogermanische Forschungen 60: 1–13. André, Jacques (1951). ‘Les adjectifs et adverbes à valeur intensive en per- et prae-’, Revue des Études Latines 29: 121–54. Andrews, Avery D. (2007). ‘Relative clauses’, in Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 206–36. Anreiter, Peter and Kienpointner, Manfred (2010). Latin Linguistics Today. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft. Arias, Carmen (1995). ‘Sobre el empleo de si en las interrogativas indirectas del latín tardío’, in Louis Callebat (ed.), 297–312. Arias, Carmen (ed.) (2006). Latin vulgaire–latin tardif VII. Seville: Universidad de Sevilla. Arnaiz, Alfredo R. (1998). ‘An overview of the main word order characteristics of Romance’, in Anna Siewierska (ed.), 47–73. Ashdowne, Richard (2002). ‘The vocative’s calling: The syntax of address in Latin’, Oxford University Working Papers in Linguistics, Philology and Phonetics 7: 143–62. Ashdowne, Richard (2008). ‘E-vocative invocation: On the historical morphosyntax of Latin oaths’, in Roger Wright (ed.), 13–25. Axelson, Bertil (1945). Unpoetische Wörter. Lund: Gleerup. Bach, Joseph (1888). De usu pronominum demonstrativorum apud priscos scriptores Latinos particula prima. Strasbourg. Baehrens,Wilhelm Adolf (1912). Beiträge zur lateinischen Syntax, Philologus Supplementband 12. Leipzig: Dieterich. Bagordo, Andreas (2001). Beobachtungen zur Sprache des Terenz: Mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der umgangssprachlichen Elemente. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. Bakker, Dik (1998). ‘Flexibility and consistency in word order patterns in the languages of Europe’, in Anna Siewierska (ed.), 383–419. Bakker, Dik and Hengeveld, Kees (1999). ‘Relatieve zinnen in typologisch perspectief ’, GrammaTTT 7: 191–214.

Bibliography 1251 Bakker, Egbert  J. (1997). ‘Verbal aspect and mimetic description in Thucydides’, in Egbert J. Bakker (ed.), Grammar as Interpretation. Leiden: Brill, 7–54. Baldi, Philip (1999). The Foundations of Latin. Berlin: de Gruyter. Baldi, Philip and Cuzzolin, Pierluigi (eds) (2009). New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax, vol. I: Syntax of the Sentence. Berlin: de Gruyter. Baldi, Philip and Cuzzolin, Pierluigi (eds) (2010a). New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax, vol. II: Constituent Syntax: Adverbial Phrases, Adverbs, Mood, Tense. Berlin: de Gruyter. Baldi, Philip and Cuzzolin, Pierluigi (eds) (2010b). New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax, vol. III: Constituent Syntax: Quantification, Numerals, Possession, Anaphora. Berlin: de Gruyter. Baldi, Philip and Cuzzolin, Pierluigi (eds) (2011). New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax, vol. IV: Complex Sentences, Grammaticalization, Typology. Berlin: de Gruyter. Baldi, Philip and Nuti, Andrea (2010). ‘Possession’, in Philip Baldi and Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds), III.239–387. Balmuş, Constantin I. (1930). Étude sur le style de Saint Augustin dans les Confessions et la Cité de Dieu. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Bammesberger, Alfred and Heberlein, Friedrich (1996). Akten des VIII. internationalen Kolloquiums zur lateinischen Linguistik. Heidelberg: Winter. Banniard, Michel (2012). ‘Le latin classique existe-t-il?’, in Frédérique Biville et al. (eds), 57–78. Baños, José Miguel (1990). ‘Quod completivo tras verbos de suceso in latín clásico’, Cuadernos de Filología Clásica 24: 163–74. Baños, José Miguel. (1991a). ‘Caracterización funcional de la conjunción quia en latín arcaico y clásico’, Revista Española de Lingüística 21: 79–108. Baños, José Miguel (1991b). ‘Análisis sintáctico de las construcciones quid est quod, est quod, nihil est quod en Plauto y Terencio’, Cuadernos de Filología Clásica 1: 29–86. Baños, José Miguel (1992). ‘La distribución sintáctica entre cum histórico y el ablativo absoluto en prosa clásica’, Cuadernos de Filología Clásica (Lat) 2: 57–83. Baños, José Miguel (1994). ‘Ablativo absoluto versus cum histórico: Su distribución sintáctica en César’, in Actas del VIII Congreso Español de Estudios Clásicos, I. Madrid: Universidad Complutense, 411–18. Baños, José Miguel (1998). ‘El predicado verbal en las comparativas de tam . . . quam en latín’, Cuadernos de Filología Clásica (Lat) 15: 19–36. Baños, José Miguel (2002). ‘Comparativas con quam y verbo personal en latín’, in Empar Espinilla et al. (eds), 39–62. Baños, José Miguel (2007). ‘Estructuras predicativas de los verbos de sentimiento en latín: La complementación nominal de gaudeo y laetor’, in Esperanza Torrego et al. (eds), 11–37. Baños, José Miguel (2011). ‘Causal clauses’, in Philip Baldi and Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds), 195–234. Baños, José Miguel (2012). ‘Verbos soporte e incorporación sintáctica en latín: El ejemplo de ludos facere’, Revista de Estudios Latinos 12: 37–57. Baños, José Miguel (2014). Las oraciones causales en latín. Madrid: Escolar y Mayo Editores. Baños, José Miguel (2019). ‘Les subordonnées causales dans les constructions comparatives’, in Martin Taillade et al. (eds), 187–213. Baños, José Miguel (coordinador) (2009). Sintaxis del latín clásico. Madrid: Liceus. Baños, José Miguel and Cabrillana, Concepción (2009). ‘Orden de palabras’, in José Miguel Baños (coord.), 679–707.

1252

Bibliography

Barrios-Lech, Peter (2016). Linguistic Interaction in Roman Comedy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Barrios-Lech, Peter (2018). ‘Indirect and off-record speech in Roman Comedy: The case of the Conditional Request’, in Michael Fontaine, Charles  J.  McNamara, and William Michael Short (eds), Quasi Labor Intus: Ambiguity in Latin Literature. The Paideia Institute for Humanistic Study, 55–78. Bauer, Brigitte  L.  M. (2016). ‘The development of the comparative in Latin texts’, in James N. Adams and Nigel Vincent (eds), 313–39. Bayet, Jean (1931). ‘Le style indirect libre en latin’, Revue de Philologie 5: 327–42. Bayet, Jean (1932). ‘Le style indirect libre en latin (2e article)’, Revue de Philologie 6: 5–23. Beaugrande, Robert-Alain de and Dressler, Wolfgang (1981). Einführung in die Textlinguistik. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Behaghel, Otto (1932). Deutsche Syntax: Eine geschichtliche Darstellung, vol. V: Wortstellung, Periodenbau. Heidelberg: Winter. Bejarano, Virgilio (1975). ‘San Jerónimo y la Vulgata Latina: Distribución de las conjunciones quod, quia, quoniam’, Helmantica 26: 51–5. Bejarano, Virgilio (1983). ‘Las proposiciones completivas en la Peregrinatio Egeriae’, Helmantica 34: 91–101. Beltrán, José A., Encuentra, Alfredo, Fontana, Gonzalo, Magallón, Ana Isabel, Marina, Rosa M.ª (eds) (2013). Otium cum dignitate: Estudios en homenaje al profesor José Javier Iso Echegoyen. Zaragoza: Universidad de Zaragoza-Departamento de Ciencias de la Antigüedad. Bendz, Gerhard (1948). ‘La construction du type “rebus in arduis” ’, Eranos 46: 42–53. Bennett, Charles E. (1900). ‘Die mit tamquam und quasi eingeleiteten Substantivsätze’, Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik 11: 405–17. Berger, Łukasz (2015). ‘(Meta)discursive uses of Latin Heus’, Studia Romanica Posnaniensia 42: 3–22. Berger, Łukasz (2017a). ‘Bendecir para saludar en Plauto. Redistribución de la función pragmática’, Emerita 85: 261–87. Berger, Łukasz (2017b). ‘Estrategias de la cortesía positiva en la apertura dialógica de Plauto y Terencio’, Revista de Estudios Latinos 17: 11–35. Bernard, Emanuel (1960). Die Tmesis der Präposition in lateinischen Verbalkomposita. Winterthur: Keller Verlag. Bernard, Max (1927). Der Stil von Apuleius von Madaura. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Bertelsmann, Karl (1885). Über die verschiedenen Formen der Correlation in der Struktur der Relativsätze des ältern Latein. Jena: Neuenhahn. Bertocchi, Alessandra (1998). ‘Scalar predicates and adversative correlatives’, in Benjamín García Hernández (ed.), 155–68. Bertocchi, Alessandra (2001a). ‘The relationship between simple si conditionals and restrictive si modo conditionals’, in Claude Moussy et al. (eds), 227–44. Bertocchi, Alessandra (2001b). ‘The scalar interpretation of the restrictive adverb modo’, Papers on Grammar 7: 87–111. Bertocchi, Alessandra (2002a). ‘Scalarity and concession: The case of quamvis’, in Lea Sawicki and Donna Shalev (eds), 39–50. Bertocchi, Alessandra (2002b). ‘The expression of exclusiveness by nisi’, Papers on Grammar 8: 25–42. Bertocchi, Alessandra and Maraldi, Mirka (2003). ‘Some concessive expressions in the passage from classical to late Latin’, in Heikki Solin et al. (eds), 459–77.

Bibliography 1253 Bertocchi, Alessandra and Maraldi, Mirka (2008). ‘Quo plus potestis eo moderatius imperio uti debetis. Comparative conditionals in Latin’, Papers on Grammar 10: 1–38. Bertocchi, Alessandra and Maraldi, Mirka (2009). ‘Latin comparative correlatives and scalarity’, in Pascale Hadermann and Olga Inkova (eds), Approches de la scalarité. Geneva: Droz, 113–34. Bertocchi, Alessandra and Maraldi, Mirka (2010a). ‘Concession et scalarité’, Papers on Grammar 11: 23–44. Bertocchi, Alessandra and Maraldi, Mirka (2010b). ‘Mid-scalar quantifiers in Latin’, in Peter Anreiter and Manfred Kienpointner (eds), 193–206. Bertocchi, Alessandra and Maraldi, Mirka (2011). ‘Conditionals and concessives’, in Philip Baldi and Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds), 93–193. Bertocchi, Alessandra and Maraldi, Mirka (2012). ‘La scalarité, application à certains phénomènes de la langue latine’, Revue de Linguistique Latine du Centre Alfred Ernout: De Lingua Latina 8 [online]: http://lettres.sorbonne-universite.fr/sites/default/files/media/2020-05/mirka_ sandra_scalarite_relecture_2_.pdf. Bertocchi, Alessandra and Maraldi, Mirka (2015). ‘Scalar approximators’, in Gerd Haverling (ed.), 518–29. Bertocchi, Alessandra and Maraldi, Mirka (2017). ‘Dumtaxat’, in Pedro Duarte et al. (eds), 223–34. Bertocchi, Alessandra, Maraldi, Mirka and Orlandini, Anna (2010). ‘Quantification’, in Philip Baldi and Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds), III.19–173. Bertocchi, Alessandra and Orlandini, Anna (1996). ‘Quelques aspects de la comparaison en latin’, Indogermanische Forschungen 101: 195–232. Bertocchi, Alessandra and Orlandini, Anna (2002). ‘Impossible n’est pas latin’, in Michèle Fruyt and Claude Moussy (eds), 9–23. Biraud, Michèle and Mellet, Sylvie (2000). ‘Les faits d’héterogénéité énonciative dans les textes grecs et latins de l’Antiquité’, in Sylvie Mellet and Marcelle Vuillaume (eds), Le style indirect libre et ses contextes, Chronos 5. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 9–48. Bischoff, Bernhard (1990). Latin Palaeography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bitter, Norbert (1976). Kampfschilderungen bei Ammian. Bonn: Habelt. Biville, Frédérique (1996). ‘Le statut linguistique des interjections en latin’, in Hannah Rosén (ed.), 209–20. Biville, Frédérique (2002). ‘Les modalités interjectives (Virgile, Enéide)’, in Michèle Fruyt and Claude Moussy (eds), 275–89. Biville, Frédérique (2003). ‘La syntaxe aux confins de la sémantique et de la phonologie: Les interjections vues par les grammariens latins’, in Pierre Swiggers and Alfons Wouters (eds), Syntax in Antiquity. Leuven: Peeters, 227–39. Biville, Frédérique (2014). ‘Description du latin et métalangue au VIe siècle. Priscien, Martyrius, Cassiodore’, in Piera Molinelli et al. (eds), 679–712. Biville, Frédérique (2015). ‘Ad quod dicendum quod . . . Les emplois métalinguistiques et discursifs de quod dans le discours grammatical latin’, in Gerd Haverling (ed.), 387–98. Biville, Frédérique, Lhommé, Marie-Karine, and Vallat, Daniel (eds) (2012). Latin vulgaire– latin tardif IX. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée. Blaise, Albert (1955). Manuel du latin chrétien. Strasbourg: Le Latin Chrétien. Blänsdorf, Jürgen (1967). Archaische Gedankengänge in den Komödien des Plautus. Wiesbaden: Steiner. Blänsdorf, Jürgen (1978). ‘Erzählende, argumentierende, diskursive Prosa. Versuch einer angewandten Texttypologie’, Würzburger Jahrbücher für die Altertumswissenschaft NF 4: 107–19.

1254

Bibliography

Blomgrén, Sven (1937). ‘De sermone Ammiani Marcellini quaestiones variae’. Dissertation, Uppsala. Blümel, Wolfgang (1979). ‘Zur historischen Morphosyntax der Verbalabstrakta im Lateinischen’, Glotta 57: 77–125. Bock, Bettina (2009). ‘Relativsätze mit Nebensinn in altindogermanischen Sprachen’, in Elisabeth Rieken and Paul Widmer (eds), 15–28. Bodelot, Colette (1987). L’interrogation indirecte en latin. Paris: Société pour l’Information Grammaticale. Bodelot, Colette (1995). ‘Complétives appositives en latin: forme, sens, syntaxe’, in Dominique Longrée (ed.), 45–58. Bodelot, Colette (1998). ‘Si “complétif ” chez Tite-Live’, in Benjamín García Hernández (ed.), 169–83. Bodelot, Colette (2000). Espaces fonctionnels de la subordination complétive en latin. Leuven: Peeters. Bodelot, Colette (2002a). ‘Réflexions sur la modalité à propos de ut “final” ’, in Michèle Fruyt and Claude Moussy (eds), 249–63. Bodelot, Colette (2002b). ‘Habeo quid .  .  . / habeo quod .  .  .: Variation libre ou originalité conditionnée?’, in Alide Machtelt Bolkestein et al. (eds), 43–58. Bodelot, Colette (2003). ‘L’interrogation indirecte’, in Colette Bodelot (ed.), 193–333. Bodelot, Colette (2004). ‘Anaphore, cataphore, et corrélation: approche générale de la problématique dans l’optique de la phrase complexe’, in Colette Bodelot (ed.), 13–25. Bodelot, Colette (2005). ‘Interférences fonctionnelles entre relatives, complétives et circonstancielles’, in Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), 467–77. Bodelot, Colette (2008). ‘Information structure and grammaticalization’, in Elena Seoane and María José López-Conso (eds), Theoretical and Empirical Issues in Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 231–52. Bodelot, Colette (2010). ‘Propositions complétives entrant en séquence avec un nom ou un syntagme nominal. Étude morphosyntaxique et sémantique’, in Olga Spevak (ed.), 163–82. Bodelot, Colette (2011). ‘La grammaticalisation de lat. tamquam (si) + verbe fini: De l’origine corrélative à l’emploi complétif ’, Bulletin de la Société Linguistique de Paris 106: 263–91. Bodelot, Colette (2013). ‘La grammaticalisation de si en latin de l’adverbe modal à la conjonction introduisant une subordonnée complétive’, in Colette Bodelot et al. (eds), 365–80. Bodelot, Colette (2014a). ‘De la subordonnée circonstancielle à la subordonnée complétive: La grammaticalisation de tamquam’, in Concepción Cabrillana and Christian Lehmann (eds), 193–210. Bodelot, Colette (2014b). ‘Les propositions complétives dans la Chronique originale de Frédégaire’, in Piera Molinelli et al. (eds), I.183–203. Bodelot, Colette (2016). ‘Retour sur les marges de la subordination complétive en latin’, Journal of Latin Linguistics 15: 1–32. Bodelot, Colette (2017). ‘Dico + proposition déclarative en hagiographie du IVe au XIIe s.’, in Alfonso García Leal and Clara Elena Prieto (eds), 278–92. Bodelot, Colette (2018). ‘Les subordonnées complétives déclaratives et interrogatives indirectes dans un corpus italo-gaulois d’hagiographie médiolatine’, in Anne Carlier and Céline Guillot-Barbance (eds), 323–72. Bodelot, Colette (ed.) (2003). Les propositions complétives en latin. Grammaire fondamentale du latin X. Leuven: Peeters.

Bibliography 1255 Bodelot, Colette (ed.) (2004). Anaphore, cataphore et corrélation en latin. Clermont-Ferrand: Presses Universitaires Blaise Pascal. Bodelot, Colette (ed.) (2007). Éléments ‘asyntaxiques’ ou hors structure dans l’énoncé latin. Clermont-Ferrand: Presses Universitaires Blaise Pascal. Bodelot, Colette, Gruet-Skrabalova, Hana and Trouilleux, François (eds) (2013). Morphologie, syntaxe et sémantique des subordonnants. Clermont-Ferrand: Presses Universitaires Blaise Pascal. Bodelot, Colette and Spevak, Olga (eds) (2018). Les constructions à verbe support en latin. Clermont-Ferrand: Presses Universitaires Blaise Pascal (Cahiers du LRL 7). Bodelot, Colette and Verdier, Estelle (2011). ‘Les formules d’allocution nominales dans les tragédies de Sénèque’, Corela [online], HS-8 2010 Interpellation, https://journals.openedition. org/corela/1825. Boegel, Theodor (1902). De nomine verbali latino quaestiones grammaticae. Leipzig: Teubner. Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt (1976a). ‘The relation between form and meaning in Latin subordinate clauses governed by verba dicendi’, Mnemosyne 29: 155–75; 268–300. Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt (1976b). ‘AcI and ut clauses with verba dicendi in Latin’, Glotta 54: 263–91. Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt (1977a). ‘De herkenbaarheid van “illokutieve funkties” in het Latijn’,  in Apophoreta Leeman. Amsterdam: Klassiek Seminarium van de Universiteit van Amsterdam, 59–72. Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt (1977b). ‘Syntaktische en semantische eigenschappen van komplementen van verba sentiendi in het Latijn: Overeenkomsten en verschillen met verba dicendi’, Handelingen van het 31e Vlaams Filologenkongres, 112–20. Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt (1979). ‘Subject to object raising in Latin?’, Lingua 47: 15–34. Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt (1980a). Problems in the Description of Modal Verbs: An Investigation of Latin. Assen: van Gorcum. Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt (1980b). ‘De ab urbe condita konstruktie in het Latijn’, Lampas 13: 80–98. Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt (1980c). ‘The “ab urbe condita” construction in Latin: A strange type of Raising’, in Saskia Daalder and Marinel Gerritsen (eds), Linguistics in the Netherlands. Amsterdam: North Holland, 83–96. Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt (1981a). ‘Embedded predications, displacement and pseudoargument formation in Latin’, in Alide Machtelt Bolkestein et al. (eds), Predication and Expression in Functional Grammar. New York: Academic Press, 63–112. Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt (1981b). ‘Factivity as a condition on an expression rule in Latin: The underlying representation of the “ab urbe condita” construction in Latin’, in Alide Machtelt Bolkestein et al. (eds), Predication and Expression in Functional Grammar. New York: Academic Press, 205–33. Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt (1983). ‘The role of discourse in syntax: Evidence from the Latin nominativus cum infinitivo’, in Konrad Ehlich and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), Connectivity in Discourse and Syntax. Tilburg: University Press, 111–40. Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt (1985). ‘Cohesiveness and syntactic variation: Quantitative vs. qualitative grammar’, in Alide Machtelt Bolkestein, Casper de Groot, and J.  Lachlan Mackenzie (eds), Syntax and Pragmatics in Functional Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris, 1–14. Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt (1986). ‘Zand zonder kalk: Cohesie en het proza van Seneca’, Lampas 19: 298–308.

1256

Bibliography

Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt (1989a). ‘Parameters in the expression of embedded predications in Latin’, in Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), 3–35. Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt (1989b). ‘Latin sentential complements from a Functional Grammar perspective’, in Marius Lavency and Dominique Longrée (eds), 41–52. Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt (1990a). ‘Unreportable linguistic entities in Functional Grammar’, in Harm Pinkster and Inge Genee (eds), Unity in Diversity. Dordrecht: Foris, 13–26. Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt (1990b). ‘Sentential complements in Functional Grammar: Embedded predications, propositions, utterances in Latin’, in Jan Nuyts, Alide Machtelt Bolkestein, and Co Vet (eds), Layers and Levels of Representation in Language. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 71–100. Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt (1991). ‘Causally related predications and the choice between parataxis and hypotaxis’, in Robert G. Coleman (ed.), 427–52. Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt (1995). ‘Functions of verb-subject order in Latin’, STUF 48: 32–43. Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt (1996a). ‘Is qui: “et is”? On the so-called free relative connection in Latin’, in Hannah Rosén (ed.), 553–66. Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt (1996b). ‘Reported speech in Latin’, in Theo A. J. M. Janssen and Wim van der Wurff (eds), Reported Speech. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 121–39. Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt (1996c). ‘Free but not arbitrary. “Emotive” word order in Latin?’ in Rodie Risselada et al. (eds), 7–23. Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt (1998a). ‘Modalizing one’s message in Latin “parenthetical” verba sentiendi’, in Charles-Marie Ternes (ed.), 23–33. Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt (1998b). ‘Word order variation in complex noun phrases in Classical Latin’, in Benjamín García Hernández (ed.), 185–202. Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt (1998c). ‘Between brackets: (some properties of) parenthetical clauses in Latin. An investigation of the language of Cicero’s letters’, in Rodie Risselada (ed.), 1–17. Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt (2000). ‘Discourse organization and anaphora in Latin’, in Susan C.  Herring, Piet van Reenen, and Lene Schoesler (eds), Textual Parameters in Older Languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 107–37. Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt (2001). ‘Random scrambling? Constraints on discontinuity in Latin noun phrases’, in Claude Moussy et al. (eds), 245–58. Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt (2002). ‘Anaphoric ablative absolutes in Caesar’, in Lea Sawicki and Donna Shalev (eds), 51–63. Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt, Kroon, Caroline, Pinkster, Harm, Remmelink, H. Wim, and Risselada, Rodie (eds) (2002). Theory and Description in Latin Linguistics. Amsterdam: Gieben. Bonnet, Max (1890). Le latin de Grégoire de Tours. Paris: Hachette. Boon, Pieter (1981). ‘Isoliert-emphatischer oder proleptischer Nominativ?’, Indogermanische Forschungen 86: 271–83. Bork, Hans Dieter (1990). Die lateinisch-romanischen Zusammensetzungen Nomen + Verb und der Ursprung der romanischen Verb-Ergänzung-Komposita. Bonn: Romanistischer Verlag. Bork, Hans Spencer (2018). ‘A Rough Guide to Insult in Plautus’. PhD, University of California at Los Angeles (read at: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/38z512bm). Bortolussi, Bernard (2005). ‘Subordination seconde du relatif. Contraintes de l’emploi’, in Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), 479–92. Bortolussi, Bernard (2007). ‘Phénomènes d’ambiguïté syntaxique dans la proposition infinitive’, in Claude Moussy and Anna Orlandini (eds), 81–91.

Bibliography 1257 Bortolussi, Bernard (2010). ‘Si quis’, in Peter Anreiter and Manfred Kienpointner (eds), 221–32. Bortolussi, Bernard (2012). ‘Évolution des indéfinis existentiels et de quisque en latin tardif ’, in Frédérique Biville et al. (eds), 309–22. Bortolussi, Bernard (2013). ‘Latin quisque as a floating quantifier’, Journal of Latin Linguistics 12: 5–26. Bortolussi, Bernard (2014). ‘La construction proleptique avec facere ut’, in Bernard Bortolussi and Peggy Lecaudé (eds), 113–30. Bortolussi, Bernard (2016). ‘L’ordre des constituants en poesie: Verbe initial chez Ovide’, in Paolo Poccetti (ed.), 603–20. Bortolussi, Bernard (2017). ‘Topicalizations, left dislocations, and the left-periphery’, Catalan Journal of Linguistics 16: 101–23. Bortolussi, Bernard (2019). ‘La place du verbe dans le conte de Psyché’, in Joseph Dalbera and Dominique Longrée (eds), 293–310. Bortolussi, Bernard and Lecaudé, Peggy (eds) (2014). La causativité en latin. Paris: L’Harmattan. Bortolussi, Bernard and Sznajder, Lyliane (2001). ‘Syntaxe et interprétation de saltem’, Papers on Grammar 7: 35–59. Bortolussi, Bernard and Sznajder, Lyliane (2014). ‘Topicalization versus left-dislocation in biblical Latin’, Journal of Latin Linguistics 13: 163–95. Bortolussi, Bernard and Sznajder, Lyliane (2017). ‘Les relatives substantives antéposées dans la Vulgata: Permanence et innovations’, in Alfonso García Leal and Clara Elena Prieto (eds), 293–308. Brachet, Jean-Paul and Moussy, Claude (eds) (2006). Latin et langues techniques. Paris: Presses de l’Université Paris-Sorbonne. Bräunlich, Alice Freda (1920). ‘The Indicative Indirect Question in Latin’. Dissertation, University of Chicago. Brink, Karl (later: Charles) Oscar (1944). ‘A forgotten figure of style in Tacitus’, Classical Review 58: 43–5. Brink, Karl (later: Charles) Oscar (1969). ‘Horatian notes. Despised readings in the manuscripts of the Odes’, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 15: 1–6. Briscoe, John (2010). ‘The fragments of Cato’s Origines’, in Eleanor Dickey and Anna Chahoud (eds), 154–60. Brodmuehler, Peter (1914). ‘De particulis interrogativis nonnullorum scriptorum aetatis argenteae’. Dissertation, Bonn. Brown, Keith and Miller, Jim (eds) (1999). Concise Encyclopedia of Grammatical Categories. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Bulhart, Vinzenz (1955). ‘Ausdrucksweisen für das prädikative Verhältnis im Lateinischen’, Wiener Studien 68: 47–64. Burckhardt, Georgine (1935). ‘Equidem’, Philologus 90: 498–500. Bureau, Bruno and Nicolas, Christian (eds) (1998). Moussylanea. Leuven/Paris: Peeters. Burkard, Thorsten (2019). ‘Was heißt “Dort steht Cornelia” auf Latein?’, Gymnasium 126: 105–26. Burkard, Thorsten and Schauer, Markus (2000). Lehrbuch der lateinischen Syntax und Semantik. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Burton, Philip (2000). The Old Latin Gospels. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Burton, Philip (2011). ‘Christian Latin’, in James Clackson (ed.), 485–501.

1258

Bibliography

Butterfield, David J. (2008). ‘The poetic treatment of atque from Catullus to Juvenal’, Mnemosyne 61: 386–413. Cabrillana, Concepción (1996). ‘Multifunctional analysis of word order’, in Hannah Rosén (ed.), 377–88. Cabrillana, Concepción (1997). ‘Partícula introductoria, negación y uso de los tiempos verbales en las oraciones consecutivas latinas: Revisión crítica’, Moenia 3: 541–80. Cabrillana, Concepción (1998). ‘Evolución en la consecutio temporum: La Historia Francorum’, in Actas del II Congreso Hispánico de Latin Medieval, I. León: Universidad de León, 287–95. Cabrillana, Concepción (1999a). ‘On the integration of Theme constituents in the predication of Latin’, Euphrosyne 27: 417–27. Cabrillana, Concepción (1999b). ‘Type of text, pragmatic function, and constituent order: A comparative study of the Mulomedicina Chironis and the Peregrinatio Egeriae’, in Hubert Petersmann and Rudolf Kettemann (eds), 319–30. Cabrillana, Concepción (2002). ‘Caracterización sintáctica y semántica de las oraciones comparativas condicionales en latín’, in Empar Espinilla et al. (eds), 63–80. Cabrillana, Concepción (2004). ‘Forma lingüística y tipo de personaje en la comedia terenciana’, in Antonio López Eire and Agustín Ramos (eds), 11–31. Cabrillana, Concepción (2008). ‘Vocativo y participantes en el acto de habla en la comedia latina y la novela de Petronio’, in Roger Wright (ed.), 69–77. Cabrillana, Concepción (2010a). Consideración sintáctico-semántica de esse: Un estudio a través de Livio. Santiago de Compostela: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela. Cabrillana, Concepción (2010b). ‘Praedicativum and subject complement’, in Peter Anreiter and Manfred Kienpointner (eds), 233–45. Cabrillana, Concepción (2011). ‘Purpose and result clauses’, in Philip Baldi and Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds), 19–92. Cabrillana, Concepción (2017a). ‘Constituent order in directives with stative verbs in Latin’, in Camille Denizot and Olga Spevak (eds), 113–35. Cabrillana, Concepción (2017b). ‘Léxico, semántica y cognición en el orden de constituyentes latino’, in Jesús de la Villa, Emma Falque Rey, José Francisco González Castro, and María José Muñoz Jiménez (eds), Conventus Classicorum: Temas y formas del Mundo Clásico. Madrid: Sociedad Española de Estudios Clásicos, 417–56. Cabrillana, Concepción (2019a). ‘La dislocation à droite en latin: analyse d’une structure spécifique’, in Martin Taillade et al. (eds), 227–40. Cabrillana, Concepción (2019b). ‘Praedicativum and subject complement: A question revisited in light of the Latin verb sto’, in Lidewij W. van Gils et al. (eds), 116–33. Cabrillana, Concepción (in prep.). ‘Constituent order in constructions with praedicativum in Latin’. Paper presented at ICLL meeting, Las Palmas (2019). Cabrillana, Concepción and Lehmann, Christian (eds) (2014). Acta XIV Colloquii Internationalis Linguisticae Latinae. Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas. Calaresu, Emilia and Pieroni, Silvia (2019). ‘The diffraction of iam: Contextual effects in interpretation’, in Lidewij W. van Gils et al. (eds), 280–95. Calboli, Gualtiero (1961a). ‘Osservazioni grammaticali’, in Il Liceo Torricelli nel primo centenario della sua fondazione. Faenza: Lega. Calboli, Gualtiero (1961b). ‘Quisquis et quisque’, Ciceroniana 2: 106–22. Calboli, Gualtiero (1962). Studi Grammaticali. Bologna: Zanichelli. Calboli, Gualtiero (1968). ‘I modi del verbo greco e latino 1903–66’, Lustrum 13: 405–511.

Bibliography 1259 Calboli, Gualtiero (1990). ‘Vulgärlatein und Griechisch in der Zeit Trajans’, in Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), 23–44. Calboli, Gualtiero (1995/6). ‘The consecutive clause in Latin’, Studi Orientali e Linguistici 6: 137–55. Calboli, Gualtiero (2006). ‘L’emploi de la proposition relative dans les textes juridiques latins’, in Jean-Paul Brachet and Claude Moussy (eds), 233–47. Calboli, Gualtiero (2009). ‘Latin syntax and Greek’, in Philip Baldi and Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds), I.65–193. Calboli, Gualtiero (2012). ‘Syntaxe nominale et subordination en latin tardif ’, in Frédérique Biville et al. (eds), 440–51. Calboli, Gualtiero (2014). ‘Persistence and innovation in the studies of Vulgar Latin bilingualism and regional variation’, in Piera Molinelli et al. (eds), 739–63. Calboli, Gualtiero (ed.) (1989). Subordination and Other Topics in Latin. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Calboli, Gualtiero (ed.) (1990). Latin vulgaire–latin tardif II. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Calboli, Gualtiero (ed.) (2005). Lingua Latina (Papers on Grammar IX), 2 vols. Rome: Herder. Callebat, Louis (1968). Sermo cotidianus dans les Métamorphoses d’Apulée. Caen: Faculté des Lettres de l’Université. Callebat, Louis (1998). Langages du roman latin. Hildesheim: Olms. Callebat, Louis (ed.) (1995). Latin vulgaire–latin tardif IV. Hildesheim/New York: OlmsWeidmann. Cancik, Hubert (1979). ‘Der Text als Bild. Über optische Zeichen zur Konstitution von Satzgruppen in antiken Texten’, in Helmut Brunner, Richard Kannicht, and Klaus Schwager (eds), Wort und Bild. Munich: Fink, 81–100. Carducci, Karen L. (2018). ‘The first supine in Bellum Gallicum and Bellum Civile: A study of Caesar as grammarian, narrator, and exemplum’, Classical Philology 113: 404–22. Carlier, Anne and Guillot-Barbance, Céline (eds) (2018). Latin tardif, francनais ancien: Continuités et ruptures. Berlin: de Gruyter. Carvalho, Paulo de and Lambert, Frédéric (eds) (2005). Structures parallèles et corrélatives en grec et en latin. Saint-Étienne: Publications de l’Université de Saint-Étienne. Catterall, John  L. (1938). ‘Variety and inconcinnity of language in the first decade of Livy’, Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 69: 292–318. Cavarzere, Alberto (2011). Gli arcani dell’oratore: Alcuni appunti sull’actio dei Romani. Rome: Editrice Antenore. Chafe, Wallace (1994). Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Chausserie-Laprée, Jean-Pierre (1969). L’expression narrative chez les historiens latins. Paris: De Boccard. Christensen, H. (1908). ‘Que – que bei den römischen Hexametrikern (bis etwa 500 n. Chr.)’, Archiv für lateinische Lexicographie und Grammatik 15: 165–211. Christol, Alain (2014). ‘La causativité chez les cuisiniers’, in Bernard Bortolussi and Peggy Lecaudé (eds), 131–41. Christol, Alain and Spevak, Olga (eds) (2012). Les évolutions du latin. Paris: L’Harmattan. Clackson, James (2004). ‘The word order pattern magna cum laude in Latin and Sabellian’, in John H. W. Penney (ed.), 391–404. Clackson, James (ed.) (2011). A Companion to the Latin Language. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

1260

Bibliography

Coleman, Kathleen  M. (2010). ‘Parenthetical remarks in the Silvae’, in Eleanor Dickey and Anna Chahoud (eds), 292–317. Coleman, Kathleen M. (2012). ‘Bureaucratic language in the correspondence between Pliny and Trajan’, Transactions of the American Philological Society 142: 189–238. Coleman, Robert G. (1971). ‘The origin and development of Latin habeo + infinitive’, Classical Quarterly 21: 215–32. Coleman, Robert G. (1983). ‘The structure of Latin complex sentences’, in Harm Pinkster (ed.), 73–94. Coleman, Robert G. (1989). ‘The rise and fall of absolute constructions: A Latin case history’, in Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), 353–74. Coleman, Robert G. (ed.) (1991). New Studies in Latin Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Comber, M. R. (1976). ‘Parenthesis in Tacitus’, Rheinisches Museum 119: 181–4. Compernass, Johann (1916). ‘Vulgaria’, Glotta 8: 88–121. Comrie, Bernard (19892). Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Blackwell. Conso, Danièle (2006). ‘Arpentage et lexicologie’, in Jean-Paul Brachet and Claude Moussy (eds), 279–94. Conso, Danièle (2007). ‘Cohérence discursive et intégration syntaxique dans les notices des Libri coloniarum’, in Gérald Purnelle and Joseph Denooz (eds), 31–42. Conte, Gian Biagio (2016). Critical Notes on Virgil. Berlin: de Gruyter. Copeland, Rita and Sluiter, Ineke (eds) (2009). Medieval Grammar and Rhetoric. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Coşeriu, Eugenio (1968). ‘Coordinación latina y coordinación románica’, in Actas del III Congreso Español de Estudios Clásicos. Madrid: SEEC, 35–57. Courtney, Edward (1999). Archaic Latin Prose. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press. Cova, Pier Vincenzo (1986). ‘L’ablativo assoluto nella Naturalis Historia’, in Pier Vincenzo Cova et al., 13–142. Cova, Pier Vincenzo, Gazich, Roberto, Manzoni, Gian Enrico, and Melzani, Graziano (1986). Studi sulla lingua di Plinio il Vecchio, Milan: Università Cattolica. Crawford, Michael H. (ed.) (1996). Roman Statutes, 2 vols. London: Institute of Classical Studies. Crevels, Mily (2000). ‘Concession: A Typological Study’. Dissertation, Universiteit van Amsterdam. Ctibor, Michal (2017a). ‘Pragmatic functions of the Latin vocative’, in Camille Denizot and Olga Spevak (eds), 45–62. Ctibor, Michal (2017b). ‘Paragraphs in Classical Latin texts: Problems with editing and the internal evidence from texts’, Graeco-Latina Brunensia 22: 17–29. Cugusi, Paolo (1983). Evoluzione e forme dell’ epistolografia latina. Rome: Herder. Cuvigny, Hélène (ed.) (2012). DIDYMOI. Une Garnison romaine dans le désert Oriental d’Égypte, II: Les textes. Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale. Cuzzolin, Pierluigi (1994). Sull’origine della costruzione dicere quod: Aspetti sintattici e semantici. Florence: La Nuova Italia. Cuzzolin, Pierluigi (1996). ‘Some considerations on the verba accidendi’, in Alfred Bammesberger and Friedrich Heberlein (eds), 222–32. Cuzzolin, Pierluigi (1998). ‘Quelques remarques syntaxiques à propos de ecce’, in Benjamín García Hernández (ed.), 261–71. Cuzzolin, Pierluigi (2011). ‘Comparative and superlative’, in Philip Baldi and Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds), 549–659.

Bibliography 1261 Cuzzolin, Pierluigi (2013a). ‘The Latin construction dicere quod revisited’, Graeco-Latina Brunensia 18: 23–38. Cuzzolin, Pierluigi (2013b). ‘Some remarks on quia as a subordinator after verbs of saying and thinking’, Journal of Latin Linguistics 12: 51–70. Dahl, Bastian (1882). Die lateinische Partikel ut. Kristiania: Grøndahl and Søn. Dainotti, Paolo (2015). Word Order and Expressiveness in the ‘Aeneid’. Berlin: de Gruyter. Dalbera, Joseph (2016). ‘Nunc et les deux niveaux de narration’, Pallas 106: 149–57. Dalbera, Joseph (2019). ‘Valeurs de nunc dans l’oratio obliqua’, in Martin Taillade et al. (eds), 387–9. Dalbera, Joseph and Longrée, Dominique (eds) (2019). La langue d’Apulée dans les Métamorphoses. Paris: L’Harmattan. Damon, Cynthia (2015). Studies on the Text of Caesar’s Bellum civile. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Damon, Cynthia (in press). ‘On (authorial and other) parentheses in Caesar’s commentarii’. Danckaert, Lieven (2012). Latin Embedded Clauses. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Danckaert, Lieven (2014). ‘Quidem as a marker of emphatic polarity’, Transactions of the Philological Society 112: 97–138. Danckaert, Lieven (2015). ‘Spelling out the obvious: Latin quidem and the expression of presuppositional polarity’, Journal of Historical Pragmatics 16: 109–41. D’Elia, Mario (1975). ‘Sull’uso di quod con il senso di si nel latino giuridico’, in Scritti in onore di Giuliano Bonfante. Brescia: Paideia, I.191–204. De Neubourg, Leo (1978). ‘Arguments supplémentaires en faveur de l’analogie dans l’ordre des mots en latin’, Orbis 27: 352–72. Declerck, Renaat and Reed, Susan (2001). Conditionals: A Comprehensive Empirical Analysis. Berlin: de Gruyter. Denizot, Camille and Dupraz, Emmanuel (eds) (2012). Anaphore et anaphoriques, Rouen/ Havre, Publications des Universités de Rouen et du Havre. Denizot, Camille and Spevak, Olga (eds) (2017). Pragmatic Approaches to Latin and Ancient Greek. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Denooz, Joseph (2005). ‘L’interjection dans un corpus d’auteurs latins’, in Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), 843–52. Denooz, Joseph (2013). ‘Emploi des types de subordonnants dans un corpus latin’, in Colette Bodelot et al. (eds), 427–44. Deroux, Carl (1973). ‘Un problème de syntaxe: doctior ab illo’, Latomus 32: 709–19. Deufert, Marcus (2018). Kritischer Kommentar zu Lukrezens ‘De rerum natura’. Berlin: de Gruyter. Devine, Andrew  M. and Stephens, Laurence (2006). Latin Word Order: Structured Meaning and Information. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Di Bene, Pietro (1963). Si nisi si non: Osservazioni di lingua latina. Imola: P. Galeati. Dickey, Eleanor (2002). Latin Forms of Address. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dickey, Eleanor (2006). ‘The use of Latin sis as a Focus-marking clitic particle’, Oxford University Working Papers in Linguistics, Philology and Phonetics 11: 21–5. Dickey, Eleanor (2007). Ancient Greek Scholarship: A Guide to Finding, Reading, and Understanding Scholia, Commentaries, Lexica, and Grammatical Treatises, from their Beginnings to the Byzantine Period. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dickey, Eleanor and Chahoud, Anna (eds) (2010). Colloquial and Literary Latin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

1262

Bibliography

Dik, Helma (1995). Word Order in Ancient Greek. Amsterdam: Gieben. Dik, Helma (2007). Word Order in Greek Tragic Dialogue. New York: Oxford University Press. Dik, Simon C. (1997). The Theory of Functional Grammar, 2 vols. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Dionisotti, Carlotta (2007). ‘Ecce’, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies of the University of London 50: 75–91. Dokkum, Thomas (1900). ‘De constructionis analyticae vice acc. c. inf. fungentis usu apud Augustinum’. Dissertation, Groningen. Domínguez, Juan F. and Martín Rodríguez, Antonio M. (1993). ‘Dare con infinitivo en latín clásico. Puntualizaciones sobre un problema de sintaxis y de traducción (Caes. Civ. 1.6.3)’, Cuadernos de Filología Clásica 4: 9–22. Dover, Kenneth J. (1960). Greek Word Order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Draeger, Anton August (1878). Historische Syntax der lateinischen Sprache, 2 vols. Leipzig: Teubner. Draeger, Anton August (1882). Über Syntax und Stil des Tacitus. Leipzig: Teubner. Dryer, Matthew S. (1992). ‘The Greenbergian word order correlations’, Language 68: 81–138. Dryer, Matthew  S. (2005). ‘Order of Subject, Object and Verb’, in Martin Haspelmath et al. (eds), The World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 330–3. Duarte, Pedro (2019). ‘L’emploi de sicut(i) dans l’Histoire naturelle de Pline l’Ancien’, in Martin Taillade et al. (eds), 401–26. Duarte, Pedro, Fleck, Frédérique, Lecaudé, Peggy, and Morel, Aude (eds) (2017). Histoires des mots. Paris: Presses de l’Université Paris-Sorbonne. Dubreuil, Philippe (2013). Le marché aux injures à Rome. Paris: L’Harmattan. Ducrot, Oswald and Vogt, Carlos (1979). ‘De magis à mais’, Revue de Linguistique Romane 43: 317–41. Dunkel, George E. (2006). ‘Latin egomet and tute’, in Raffaella Bombi et al. (eds), Studi linguistici in onore di Roberto Gusmani. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’ Orso, 677–92. Dupraz, Emmanuel (2013). ‘Le grammème latin nedum: Une grammaticalisation inattendue’, in Jacques François, Pierre Larrivée, Dominique Legallois, and Franck Neveu (eds), La linguistique de la contradiction. Brussels: Peter Lang, 91–107. Eckert, Günter (1992). Thema, Rhema und Fokus: Eine Studie zur Klassifizierung von indirekten Fragesätzen und Relativsätzen im Lateinischen. Münster: Nodus Publikationen. Eckert, Günter (2003). Spezifizität. Münster: Nodus Publikationen. Eden, P. T. (1962). ‘Caesar’s style: Inheritance versus intelligence’, Glotta 40: 74–117. Ehlers, W. Wolfgang (1971). ‘Regel oder Ausnahme’, Glotta 49: 144–5. Ehrismann, Heinrich (1886). De temporum et modorum usu Ammianeo. Strasbourg: Truebner. Elmer, Herbert C. (1887). ‘The copulative conjunctions que, et, atque in the inscriptions of the Republic, in Terence and in Cato’, American Journal of Philology 8: 292–328. Enghofer, Rudolf (1961). ‘Der ablativus absolutus bei Tacitus’. Dissertation, Würzburg. Eriksson, Nils (1934). ‘Studien zu den Annalen des Tacitus’. Dissertation, Lund. Ernout, Alfred (1929). ‘Plaute, Captivi 221’, in Donum natalicium Schrijnen. Nijmegen: Dekker & van de Vegt, 729–34. Ernout, Alfred and Thomas, François (19532). Syntaxe latine. Paris: Klincksieck. Espinilla, Empar, Quetglas, Pere and Torrego, Esperanza (eds) (2002). La comparación en latín. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid / Universidad de Barcelona. Évrard, Étienne (1992). ‘Pour un inventaire raisonné de la syntaxe latine’, in Serta Leodiensia Secunda: Mélanges publiés par les Classiques de Liège à l’occasion du 175ième anniversaire de l’Université. Liège: 173–90.

Bibliography 1263 Évrard, Étienne (2011). ‘Encore le relatif de liaison: Remarques diachroniques’, Les Études Classiques 79: 187–203. Fabb, Nigel (1999). ‘Relative clauses’, in Keith Brown and Jim Miller (eds), 319–24. Fatello, Fabienne (2016). ‘Les emplois de quando dans l’Histoire romaine de Tite-Live’, Pallas 102: 171–9. Fedriani, Chiara (2014). Experiential Constructions in Latin. Leiden: Brill. Fedriani, Chiara and Molinelli, Piera (2013). ‘Ut ita dicam and cognates: A pragmatic account’, Journal of Latin Linguistics 12: 71–100. Ferri, Rolando (2008). ‘Politeness in Roman comedy: Some preliminary thoughts’, Materiali e Discussioni per l’Analisi dei Testi Classici 61: 15–28. Firbas, Jan (1992). Functional Sentence Perspective in Written and Spoken Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fischer, Anton (1908). Die Stellung der Demonstrativa bei lateinischen Prosaikern. Tübingen: Kommissionsverlag der J. J. Heckenhauerschen Buchhandlung. Fleck, Frédérique (2006). ‘ “Non possum quin”: Évolution d’une construction des comédies de Plaute à la prose d’art de Fronton et d’Apulée’, Latomus 65: 34–48. Fleck, Frédérique (2008). Interrogation, coordination et subordination: Le latin quin. Paris: Presses de l’Université Paris-Sorbonne. Fleck, Frédérique (2017). ‘Nēdum: Les intermittences de la négation’, in Pedro Duarte et al. (eds), 375–86. Flinck-Linkomies, Edwin (1929). De ablativo absoluto quaestiones. Helsingfors: Academia Fennica. Flobert, Pierre (2002). ‘Le jeu des modalités dans les manuels latins par question et réponse’, in Lea Sawicki and Donna Shalev (eds), 114–22. Foerster, Richard (1902). ‘Die Casusangleichung des Relativpronomen im Lateinischen’, Jahrbücher für classische Philologie, Supplementband 27: 170–94. Fontana, Gonzalo (1997). Las construciones comparativas latinas: Aspectos sincrónicos y diacrónicos. Zaragoza: Departemento de Ciencias de la Antigüedad, Universidad de Zaragoza. Forberg, Martin (1913). De salutandi formulis Plautinis et Terentianis. Weidae Thuringorum: Thomas et Jubert. Fortson, Benjamin W., IV (2008). Language and Rhythm in Plautus. Berlin: de Gruyter. Fraenkel, Eduard (1922). Plautinisches im Plautus. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung. Fraenkel, Eduard (1932). ‘Kolon und Satz: Beobachtung zur Gliederung des antiken Satzes’, Nachrichten der Göttinger Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Kl.: 197–213 (= 1964, I.73–92). Fraenkel, Eduard (1933). ‘Kolon und Satz, II: Beobachtung zur Gliederung des antiken Satzes’, Nachrichten der Göttinger Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Kl.: 319–54 (= 1964, I.93–119). Fraenkel, Eduard (1934). ‘Zum Interdictum utrubi’, Zeitschrift der Savigny Stiftung 54: 312–15 (= 1964, II.479–82). Fraenkel, Eduard (1954). ‘Urbem quam statuo vestra est’, Glotta 33: 157–9. Fraenkel, Eduard (1956). ‘Eine Form römischer Kriegbulletins’, Eranos 54: 189–94 (= 1964: II.69–73). Fraenkel, Eduard (1964). Kleine Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie, 2 vols. Rome: Brettschneider. Fraenkel, Eduard (1965). Noch einmal Kolon und Satz. Munich: Beck. Fraenkel, Eduard (1966). ‘Zur “Wackelnagenschen” Stellung von hemin, humin, nobis, vobis’, Museum Helveticum 23: 65–8.

1264

Bibliography

Fraenkel, Eduard (1968). Leseproben aus Reden Ciceros und Catos. Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura. Frischer, Bernard (1983). ‘Inceptive Quoque and the introduction Medias in res in classical and early medieval Latin literature’, Glotta 61: 236–51. Fruyt, Michèle (1996). ‘La syntaxe de l’infinitif en latin tardif: Réflexions sur la nature des processus évolutifs’, Recherches Augustiniennes 29: 43–73. Fruyt, Michèle (2004). ‘La corrélation en latin: Son rôle dans la subordination et l’endophore’, in Colette Bodelot (ed.), 29–53. Fruyt, Michèle (2005a). ‘La corrélation et la proposition relative dans l’Itinerarium d’Égérie’, in Sándor Kiss et al. (eds), 337–52. Fruyt, Michèle (2005b). ‘La corrélation en latin: Définition et description’, in Paolo de Carvalho and Frédéric Lambert (eds), 17–44. Fruyt, Michèle (2008). ‘Focalisation des pronoms personnels et des adjectifs possessifs en latin’, in Claude Brunet (ed.), Des formes et des mots. Besançon: Presses Universitaires, 75–89. Fruyt, Michèle (2019a). ‘Apulée et la créativité lexicale: Le suffixe -tus, -tūs’, in Joseph Dalbera and Dominique Longrée (eds), 181–201. Fruyt, Michèle (2019b). ‘Relatives introduites par un adverbe en latin archaïque (Caton, De agricultura): Un chemin de grammaticalisation vers la conjonction’, in Martin Taillade et al. (eds), 143–62. Fruyt, Michèle (2019c). ‘Les relatives en latin perspective évolutive. Comparaison entre Caton et Sénèque. 1ère partie: Les relatives dans Caton, De agricultura’, Revue de Linguistique Latine du Centre Alfred Ernout: De Lingua Latina 19: 2–33 [online]: http://lettres.sorbonneuniversite.fr/sites/default/files/media/2020-05/1-revlinglaternout_dll_19fruyt1.pdf. Fruyt, Michèle (2019d). ‘Les relatives en latin perspective évolutive. Comparaison entre Caton et Sénèque. 2ème partie: Les relatives dans Sénèque, Naturales quaestiones, livre 1’, Revue de Linguistique Latine du Centre Alfred Ernout: De Lingua Latina [online]: 19: 34–57, http://lettres. sorbonne-universite.fr/sites/default/files/media/2020-05/2-revlinglaternout_dll_19fruyt2.pdf. Fruyt, Michèle and Moussy, Claude (eds) (2002). Les modalités en latin. Paris: Presses de l’Université de Paris-Sorbonne. Fugier, Huguette (1978). ‘Les constructions prédicatives en latin’, Glotta 56: 122–43. Fugier, Huguette (1983a). ‘ “Recte et vera loquere”: L’adverbe complément de verbe en latin archaïque’, Lalies 2: 41–56. Fugier, Huguette (1983b). ‘Le syntagme nominal en latin classique’, in Wolfgang Haase (ed.), 212–69. Fugier, Huguette (1989). ‘Quod, quia, quoniam et leurs effets textuels chez Cicéron’, in Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), 91–119. Fugier, Huguette (1991). ‘Nominal anaphor, text, argumentation (from Plautus to Cicero)’, in Robert Coleman (ed.), 381–99. Gaertner, Jan Felix (2010). ‘The style of the Bellum Hispaniense’, in Eleanor Dickey and Anna Chahoud (eds), 243–54. Gaertner, Jan Felix and Hausburg, Bianca  C. (2013). Caesar and the Bellum Alexandrinum. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. Gagnér, Anders (1920). De hercle, mehercle ceterisque id genus particulis priscae poesis latinae scaenicae. Greifswald: Abel. Gago, María del Val (1998). ‘Distribución sintáctica entre ablativo absoluto y cum histórico en latín’, in Actas del IX Congreso Español de Estudios Clásicos, III. Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas, 109–15.

Bibliography 1265 Galdi, Giovanbattista (2000). ‘Reflexive and possessive pronouns in Greek and Latin inscriptions of the Empire (Moesia Inferior)’, Papers on Grammar 5: 73–94. Galdi, Giovanbattista (2016a). ‘On coepi/incipio + infinitive: Some new remarks’, in James N. Adams and Nigel Vincent (eds), 246–64. Galdi, Giovanbattista (2016b). ‘On so-called adversative nisi’, Pallas 102: 181–90. Galdi, Giovanbattista (2016c). ‘Remarks on temporal clauses and participial phrases in late historical texts’, in Paolo Poccetti (ed.), 651–67. Galdi, Giovanbattista (2016d). ‘Semantische und syntaktische Beobachtungen zum adversativen Gebrauch von nisi’, Symbolae Osloenses 90: 93–121. Galdi, Giovanbattista (2017). ‘Zum sogenannten Nominativus Absolutus im Lateinischen: Neue Auslegungen zu einem alten Problem’, Symbolae Osloenses 91: 28–80. Galdi, Giovanbattista and Vangaever, Jasper (2019). ‘On the use of the ablative of the gerund and the nominative of the present participle in Latin technical literature’, in Lidewij W. van Gils et al. (eds), 96–115. Gallego, Julie (2012). ‘De talis à tel: Évolution d’un corrélatif consécutif ’, in Frédérique Biville et al. (eds), 322–34. Galli, Leonardo (2019). ‘Un presunto caso di copulativa con valore disgiuntivo in Plin. Paneg. 44.8’, Maia 71: 440–6. Garcea, Alessandro (2003). ‘Représentation et reproduction du discours chez Cicéron’, Lalies 22: 187–200. García de la Calera, Roberto (2008). ‘Iubeo en César y Salustio: Verbo de dos o de tres posiciones’, Cuadernos de Filología Clásica (Lat) 28: 5–15. García de la Fuente, Olegario (1981). ‘Sobre el empleo de quod, quia, quoniam con los verbos de “lengua y entendimiento” en Samuel-Reyes de la Vulgata’, Analecta Malacitana 4: 3–12. García de la Fuente, Olegario (1992). ‘Sobre la colocación de los adverbios de cantidad en el latín vulgar y el latín biblico’, in Maria Iliescu and Werner Marxgut (eds), Latin vulgaire– latin tardif III. Tübingen: Niemeyer 143–57. García Hernández, Benjamín (ed.) (1998). Estudios de Lingüística latina, 2 vols. Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas. García Leal, Alfonso and Prieto, Clara Elena (eds) (2017). Latin vulgaire–latin tardif XI. Hildesheim: Olms Weidmann. Gast, Volker and van der Auwera, Johan (2011). ‘Scalar additive operators in the languages of Europe’, Language 97: 2–54. Gather, Andreas (2001). Romanische Verb Nomen-Komposita. Tübingen: Narr. Gavoille, Laurent (2014). ‘Imperare: Du causatif au directif ’, in Bernard Bortolussi and Peggy Lecaudé (eds), 199–220. Gayno, Marise (2016). ‘Le système des participes latins et les signes avant-coureurs des changements romans au VIe siècle après J.-Ch.’, in Michèle Fruyt, Gerd  V.  M.  Haverling, and Rosanna Sornicola (eds), Actes du XXVIIe Congrès international de linguistique et de philologie romanes (Nancy, 15–20 juillet 2013). Section 2: Linguistique latine/linguistique romane. Nancy: ATILF, 35–48. Georgiewa, Nedjalka (1993/4). ‘Zu einer besonderen Art Gliedsätze im Lateinischen’, Helikon 33/34: 435–40. Gettert, Hans (1999). Konstituenz und lateinische Syntax. Aachen: Shaker Verlag. Ghiselli, Alfredo (1961). ‘Quicumque num coniunctivum admittat’, in Alfredo Ghiselli (ed.), Varia Grammatica. Bologna: Gallo, 9–12.

1266

Bibliography

Gibert, Guillaume (2007). ‘Comparatives en ut + verba dicendi’, in Colette Bodelot (ed.), 137–57. Gibert, Guillaume (2011). ‘La subordination comparative en latin dans les textes de prose de Caton à Apulée’. PhD, Université Blaise Pascal—Clermont-Ferrand II (non vidi). Gibert, Guillaume (2012). ‘Remarques à propos de la construction ut qui + subjonctif en latin’, in Camille Denizot and Emmanuel Dupraz (eds), 126–45. Gibert, Guillaume (2013). ‘QUOT: Un subordonnant pro-nombre repère en latin’, in Colette Bodelot et al. (eds), 397–410. Gillis, John Hugh (1938). The Coordinating Particles in Saints Hilary, Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine: A Study in Latin Syntax and Style. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America. Gils, Lidewij W. van (2005). ‘Causality in the narrationes of Cicero’s pro Archia, pro Milone, and pro Rege Deiotaro’, in Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), 797–809. Gils, Lidewij  W.  van, de Jong, Irene  J.  F., and Kroon, Caroline  H.  M. (eds) (2018). Textual Strategies in Ancient War Narrative: Thermopylae, Cannae and Beyond. Leiden: Brill. Gils, Lidewij  W.  van and Kroon, Caroline  H.  M. (2018). ‘Discourse-linguistic strategies in Livy’s account of the battle at Cannae’, in Lidewij W. van Gils et al. (eds), 191–233. Gils, Lidewij W. van and Kroon, Caroline H. M. (2019). ‘Engaging the audience. An intersubjectivity approach to the historic present in Latin’, in Lidewij W. van Gils et al. (eds), 351–73. Gils, Lidewij  W.  van, Kroon, Caroline  H.  M., and Risselada, Rodie (eds) (2019). Lemmata Linguistica Latina, II: Clause and Discourse. Berlin: de Gruyter. Gitton, Valérie (2003). ‘L’accusatif absolu dans l’Ars Veterinaria de Pelagonius’, in Heikki Solin et al. (eds), 525–39. Giusta, Michelangelo (1991). Il testo delle ‘Tusculane’. Turin: Casa Editrice Le Lettere. Giusti, Giuliana and Iovino, Rossella (2015). ‘On the syntax of the Latin quantifier omnis’, in Gerd Haverling (ed.), 314–24. Goedegebuure, Petra (2009). ‘Focus in Hittite and the stressed pronoun apā–: In search of a method’, in Elisabeth Rieken and Paul Widmer (eds), 93–112. Goldstein, David (2013). ‘The synchrony and diachrony of a scalar coordinator: Latin “let alone” ’, Indo-European Linguistics 1: 68–106. Golla, Georg (1935). Sprachliche Beobachtungen zum Auctor ad Herennium. Breslau: Frankes Verlag. Goodyear, Frank R. D. (1968). ‘Language and style in the Annals of Tacitus’, Journal of Roman Studies 58: 22–31. Goold, George Patrick (1965). ‘Amatoria Critica’, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 69: 1–107. Goria, Eugenio (2013). ‘Towards a taxonomy of Latin cleft clauses’, Journal of Latin Linguistics 12: 147–72. Görler, Woldemar (1985). ‘La lingua’, Enciclopedia Virgiliana. Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, II.262–78. Gotoff, Harold  C. (1979). Cicero’s Elegant Style: An Analysis of the ‘Pro Archia’. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Gratwick, Adrian  S. (2002). ‘A matter of substance: Cato’s preface to the De agri cultura’, Mnemosyne 55: 41–72. Greco, Paolo (2008). ‘Accusativus cum infinitivo and quod-clauses in the first and sixth books of the Historiae of Gregory of Tours’, in Roger Wright (ed.), 371–80.

Bibliography 1267 Greco, Paolo (2012). La complementazione frasale nelle cronache latine dell’Italia centromeridionale (secoli X–XII). Naples: Liguori editore. Greco, Paolo (2013). ‘Latin accusativus cum participio: Syntactic description, evidential status, and diachronic development’, Journal of Latin Linguistics 12: 199–230. Greco, Paolo (2014). ‘L’alternanza dei complementatori quod, quia e ut in dipendenza da verba dicendi et sentiendi in alcune agiografie di epoca merovingica (VI–VII secolo)’, in Piera Molinelli et al. (eds), 287–303. Greco, Paolo (2018). ‘Strategie di costruzione dell’ Accusativus cum Infinitivo in latino: L’ordine e la disposizione dei costituenti’, in Martin Glessgen, Johannes Kabatek, and Harald Völker (eds), Repenser la variation linguistique: Actes du Colloque DIA IV à Zurich (12–14 sept. 2016). Strasbourg: ELiPhi, 215–31. Greco, Paolo (2019). ‘Forme della subordinazione completiva nel Bellum Iugurthinum di Sallustio’, Revue de Linguistique Latine du Centre Alfred Ernout: De Lingua Latina 18 [online]: http://lettres.sorbonne-universite.fr/sites/default/files/media/2020-05/revlinglaternout_ dll_18-greco.pdf. Greco, Paolo and Ferrari, Valentina (2019). ‘Aspetti della subordinazione a verbo finito nelle Vulgata’, Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 59: 119–31. Greenberg, Joseph Harold (1963). ‘Some universals of language with reference to the order of meaningful elements’, in Joseph Harold Greenberg, Universals of Language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT, 147–203. Griend, Margreet  E.  van de (1989). ‘Pseudo-conditionals in Latin’, in Marius Lavency and Dominique Longrée (eds), 447–56. Griffe, Michel (1985). ‘Ut adverbe ou conjonction?’, in Christian Touratier (ed.), 429–52. Griffe, Michel (2011). ‘Les complétives à antécédent sont-elles des relatives?’, Les Études Classiques 79: 177–86. Grover, Claire (1999). ‘Coordination’, in Keith Brown and Jim Miller (eds), 115–22. Haase, Wolfgang (ed.) (1983). Principat (Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II.29.1). Berlin: de Gruyter. Habinek, Thomas N. (1985a). The Colometry of Latin Prose. Berkeley: University of California Press. Habinek, Thomas N. (1985b). ‘Prose cola and poetic word order: Observations on adjectives and nouns in the Aeneid’, Helios 12: 51–66. Haffter, Heinz (1934). Untersuchungen zur altlateinischen Dichtersprache. Berlin: Weidmann. Hagendahl, Harald (1921). Studia Ammianea. Uppsala: Appelbergs Boktryckeri Aktiebolag. Hahn, E.  Adelaide (1922). ‘Hendiadys: Is there such a thing? (Based on a study of Vergil)’, Classical Weekly 15: 193–7. Hahn, E.  Adelaide (1928). ‘The ab urbe condita type of expression in Greek and English’, Classical Journal 23: 266–74. Hahn, E. Adelaide (1930). ‘Coordination of non-coordinate elements in Vergil’. Dissertation, New York. Hahn, E.  Adelaide (1956). ‘A source of Vergilian hyperbaton’, Transactions of the American Philological Association 87: 147–89. Haida, Roman (1928). ‘Die Wortstellung in der Peregrinatio ad loca sancta’. Dissertation, Breslau. Hajdú, István (1999). ‘Pro consule oder proconsul’, Museum Helveticum 56: 119–27. Håkanson, Lennart (1986). ‘Adverbs in Latin poetry’, Eranos 84: 23–56.

1268

Bibliography

Hale, William Gardner (1891). Die Cum-Konstruktionen: Ihre Geschichte und ihre Funktionen. Leipzig: Teubner. Halla-aho, Hilla (2003). ‘Remarks on phraseology, spoken language and language contact in the letters of Claudius Terentianus (2nd century ad Egypt)’, in Leena Pietilä-Castrén and Marjaana Vesterinen (eds), Grapta Poikila I. Helsinki: Suomen Ateenan-Instituutin Säätiö, 25–33. Halla-aho, Hilla (2009). The Non-literary Latin Letters: A Study of their Syntax and Pragmatics. Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica. Halla-aho, Hilla (2010). ‘Linguistic varieties and language level in Latin non-literary letters’, in  Trevor  V.  Evans and Dirk Obbink (eds), The Language of the Papyri. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 171–83. Halla-aho, Hilla (2016). ‘Left-detached constructions from early Latin to late Latin’, in James N. Adams and Nigel Vincent, 367–89. Halla-aho, Hilla (2018). Left-dislocation in Latin: Topics and Syntax in Republican Texts. Leiden: Brill. Halla-aho, Hilla (2019). ‘Proleptic accusatives in Latin’, Glotta 95: 135–58. Hand, Ferdinand G. (1829/45). Tursellinus seu de particulis Latinis commentarii, 4 vols. Leipzig: Weidmann. Hanson, John  A. (1959). ‘Plautus as a source book of Roman religion’, Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 90: 48–101. Happ, Heinz (1976). Grundfragen einer Dependenzgrammatik des Lateinischen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. Harrison, Stephen (2006). ‘Some textual problems in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses’, in Wytze Hette Keulen et al. (eds), Lectiones Scrupulosae. Groningen: Bakhuis, 59–67. Haspelmath, Martin (1987). ‘Verbal noun or verbal adjective? The case of the Latin gerundive and gerund.’ Arbeitspapier, N.F., Nr. 3, Institut für Linguistik, Universität zu Köln. Hatz, Gottlieb (1886). Beiträge zur lateinischen Stilistik (Hendiadys in Ciceros Reden). Programm Schweinfurt. Haug, Dag Trygve Truslew (2017). ‘Backward control in Ancient Greek and Latin participial adjuncts’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 35: 99–159. Häusler, Sabine (2000). ‘Parenthesen im Lateinischen am Beispiel der Pliniusbriefe’, Glotta 76: 202–31. Haverling, Gerd  V.  M. (1988). Studies of Symmachus’ Language and Style. Göteborg: Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgiensia XLIX. Haverling, Gerd V. M. (ed.) (2015). Latin Linguistics in the Early 21st Century. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet. Havers, Wilhelm (1925). ‘Der sogenannte nominativus pendens’, Indogermanische Forschungen 43: 207–57. Hawkins, John A. (1978). Definiteness and Indefiniteness. London: Croom Helm. Heberlein, Friedrich (1996). ‘Über prädikative Adjektive’, in Alfred Bammesberger and Friedrich Heberlein (eds), 354–71. Heberlein, Friedrich (2001). ‘Zur Entwicklung des lateinischen Konsekutivsatzes’, Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 41: 41–54. Heberlein, Friedrich (2002). ‘Die lateinische Konsekutivsätze auf der Satzverbindungshierarchie’, in Alide Machtelt Bolkestein et al. (eds), 169–82.

Bibliography 1269 Heberlein, Friedrich (2008). ‘Zeitbestimmung und Diskursorganisation: Temporalsätze bei Vergil’, in Stefan Freund and Meinolf Vielberg (eds), Vergil und das antike Epos. Stuttgart: Steiner, 237–58. Heberlein, Friedrich (2011). ‘Temporal clauses’, in Philip Baldi and Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds), 235–371. Heberlein, Friedrich (2014). ‘Das “time network” im Lateinischen’, in Concepción Cabrillana and Christian Lehmann (eds), 271–86. Heerdegen, Eugen Gottfried Ferdinand (1913). Das Wort vivere in phraseologischem Gebrauch bei Horaz und im älteren Latein. Programm Erlangen. Heffernan, Thomas J. (2012). The Passion of Perpetua and Felicity. New York: Oxford University Press. Heick, Otto William (1936). ‘The Ab Urbe Condita Construction in Latin’. University of Nebraska. Heine, Rolf (1990). Review of Harm Pinkster: Lateinische Syntax und Semantik. Franke Verlag, Tübingen 1988, Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen 242: 1–14. Helander, Hans (1977). On the Function of Abstract Nouns in Latin. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. Hellegouarc’h, Jean (1964). Le monosyllabe dans l’hexamètre latin. Paris: Klincksieck. Helttula, Anne (1985). ‘Post depositum militiae munus’, Arctos 2: 41–56. Helttula, Anne (1987). Studies on the Latin Accusative Absolute. Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica. Hengst, Daniël den (2007). ‘Die Kausalkonjunktionen “quod”, “quia” und “quoniam” in der Historia Augusta’, in Giorgio Bonamente and Hartwin Brandt (eds), Historiae Augustae Colloquium Bambergense. Bari: Edipuglia, 165–73. Herman, József (1957). ‘Cur, quare, quomodo: Remarques sur l’évolution des particules d’interrogation en latin vulgaire’, Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 5: 369–77 (= 1990: 289–97). Herman, József (1963). La formation du système roman des conjonctions de subordination. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Herman, József (1985). ‘La disparition de la déclinaison latine et l’évolution du syntagme nominal’, in Christian Touratier (ed.), 345–57 (= 1990: 326–37). Herman, József (1989). ‘Accusativus cum Infinitivo et subordonnée à quod, quia en latin tardif—nouvelles remarques sur un vieux problème’, in Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), 133–52. Herman, József (1990). Du Latin aux langues romanes: Études de linguistique historique. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Herman, József (1991). ‘On the grammatical subject in Late Latin’, in Robert Coleman (ed.), 415–25 (= 2006: 55–64). Herman, József (1996a). ‘Remarques sur l’histoire du futur latin—et sur la préhistoire du futur roman’, in Rodie Risselada et al. (eds), 57–70. Herman, József (1996b). ‘À propos du si interrogatif: Évolutions achevées et évolutions bloquées’, in Alfred Bammesberger and Friedrich Heberlein (eds), 296–307 (= 2006: 65–75). Herman, József (2000). Vulgar Latin. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press. Herman, József (2003). ‘Notes syntaxiques sur la langue de Trimalchion et de ses invités’, in József Herman and Hannah Rosén (eds), 139–46. Herman, József (2006). Du latin aux langues romanes II. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

1270

Bibliography

Herman, József (ed.) (1987). Latin vulgaire–latin tardif I. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Herman, József (ed.) (1994). Linguistic Studies in Latin. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Herman, József and Rosén, Hannah (eds) (2003). Petroniana. Gedenkschrift für Hubert Petersmann. Heidelberg: Winter. Hernández Cabrera, Tomás (2002). ‘La comparación con quam como criterio de caracterización funcional’, in Empar Espinilla et al. (eds), 105–27. Hettrich, Heinrich (1992). ‘Die Entstehung des lateinischen und griechischen AcI’, in Robert Beekes, Alexander Lubotsky, and Jos Weitenberg (eds), Rekonstruktion und relative Chronologie. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, 221–34. Heubner, Heinz (1964). ‘Umstrittene Tacitusstellen’, Wiener Studien 77: 138–43. Heyde, Klaas van der (1930). ‘L’ablatif de comparaison en latin’, Revue des Études Latines 8: 230–41. Heyworth, Stephen J. (2007). Cynthia. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hilton, John (1989). ‘Temporal connectors in the narrative discourse of Cicero’, in Marius Lavency and Dominique Longrée (eds), 173–84. Hilton, John (1997/8). ‘The role of discourse and lexical meaning in the grammaticalisation of temporal particles in Latin’, Glotta 74: 198–210. Himmelmann, Nikolaus (1986). Morphosyntactic Predication: A Functional-Operational Approach. Cologne: AKUP 62. Himmelmann, Nikolaus  P. and Schultze-Berndt, Eva (2005). Secondary Predication and Adverbial Predication. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hoff, François (1989). ‘Les ablatifs absolus irréguliers’, in Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), 401–23. Hoff, François (1995). ‘L’ordre des mots chez César: Les groupements Adjectif-Nom-Génitif rares’, Lalies 15: 245–57. Hoff, François (1996). ‘L’ordre des mots chez César: Les séquences interdites’, in Alfred Bammesberger and Friedrich Heberlein (eds), 372–82. Hoff, François (2003). ‘Magnum fructum studiorum optimorum. L’ordre des mots dans les syntagmes nominaux complexes en latin classique’, Lalies 23: 205–23. Hoffmann, Maria  E. (1983). ‘Conversation openings in the comedies of Plautus’, in Harm Pinkster (ed.), 217–26. Hoffmann, Maria E. (1989). ‘A typology of Latin theme constituents’, in Marius Lavency and Dominique Longrée (eds), 185–96. Hoffmann, Maria E. (1991). ‘Word order patterns of excipere in the sense of “to follow after” ’, in Robert Coleman (ed.), 367–80. Hoffmann, Roland (1999). ‘Beobachtungen zur Kategorie des Konverbs im Spätlatein’, in Hubert Petersmann and Rudolf Kettemann (eds), 251–65. Hoffmann, Roland (2008). ‘Causative constructions in Late Latin biblical translations’, in Roger Wright (ed.), 160–72. Hoffmann, Roland (2010a). ‘Latein und Griechisch in typologischen Perspektiv’, Gymnasium 117: 231–54. Hoffmann, Roland (2010b). ‘Latin word order revisited: Information structure of Topic and Focus’, in Peter Anreiter and Manfred Kienpointner (eds), 267–80. Hoffmann, Roland (2013). ‘Latin adverbial subordinators from a typological point of view’, in Colette Bodelot et al. (eds), 73–92. Hoffmann, Roland (2014). ‘Les constructions causatives dans les traductions latines des textes hébreux et grecs: Le cas de la Vulgate de Jérôme’, in Bernard Bortolussi and Peggy Lecaudé (eds), 143–76.

Bibliography 1271 Hoffmann, Roland (2015). ‘Sentential complements of Latin function verb constructions’, in Gerd Haverling (ed.), 362–73. Hoffmann, Roland (2016a). ‘On causativity in Latin’, Journal of Latin Linguistics 15: 33–71. Hoffmann, Roland (2016b). ‘Latin cleft constructions, synchronically, diachronically, and typologically reconsidered’, Pallas 102: 202–10. Hoffmann, Roland (2018a). Lateinische Linguistik. Hamburg: Buske Verlag. Hoffmann, Roland (2018b). ‘Criteria for describing valency in Latin function verb constructions’, in Colette Bodelot and Olga Spevak (eds), 75–93. Hofmann, Johann Baptist (1924). ‘Syntaktische Gliederungsverschiebungen im Lateinischen infolge Erstarrung ursprünglich appositioneller Verhältnisse’, Indogermanische Forschungen 42: 75–87. Hofmann, Johann Baptist (19513). Lateinische Umgangssprache. Heidelberg: Winter. Holland, Gary B. (1986). ‘Nominal sentences and the origin of absolute constructions in IndoEuropean’, Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 99: 163–93. Holmes, Nigel (2012). ‘Interrogative nam in Early Latin’, Mnemosyne 65: 203–18. Honoré, Tony (1982). Ulpian. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hoppe, Heinrich (1903). Syntax und Stil des Tertullian. Leipzig: Teubner (= Sintassi e stile di Tertulliano. Brescia: Paideia, 1985). Horster, Marietta (2001). ‘Bauinschriften römischer Kaiser’. Dissertation, Cologne. Howard, C. L. (1962). ‘An alleged type of relative clause in Latin’, Glotta 40: 307–15. Hunink, Vincent (1995). ‘The prologue of Apuleius’ De Deo Socratis’, Mnemosyne 48: 292–312. Hutchinson, Gregory  O. (1995). ‘Rhythm, style, and meaning in Cicero’s prose’, Classical Quarterly 45: 485–99. Hutchinson, Gregory O. (2018). Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hyart, Charles (1954). Les origines du style indirect latin et son emploi jusqu’à l’époque de César. Brussels: Palais des Académies. Iordache, Roxana (1977). ‘Relatives causales ou relatives consécutives, bref plaidoyer pour la syntaxe historique’, in Commentationes philologicae in honorem Julio Campos. Salamanca, 253–79. Iordache, Roxana (1985). ‘Aclaraciones en torno al ut concesivo y al origen de la subordinada concesiva’, Helmantica 25: 225–50. Iordache, Roxana (1992). ‘La coordination concessive en latin’, Revue de Philologie 66: 53–79. Iordache, Roxana (2010). ‘Les propositions circonstancielles d’addition dans la langue latine’, Živa Antika 60: 5–16. Jaubert, Anna (ed.) (2005). Cohésion et cohérence: Études de linguistique textuelle. Paris: ENS Éditions. Janse, Mark (1994). ‘La loi de Wackernagel et ses extensions en latin à propos de la collocation pronominale chez Pétrone’, TEMA 1: 107–46. Janse, Mark (1997). Review of Adams (1994), Kratylos 42: 105–15. Janse, Mark and Melo, Wolfgang de (2013). ‘La position des pronoms personnels enclitiques chez Pétrone’, Latomus 72: 447–67. Janson, Tore (1964). Latin Prose Prefaces. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Janson, Tore (1974). Prose Rhythm in Medieval Latin from the 9th to the 13th Century. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Janson, Tore (2013). ‘Vocative and the grammar of calls’, in Barbara Sonnenhauser and Patrizia Noel Aziz Hanna (eds), Vocative! Addressing between System and Performance. Berlin: de Gruyter, 219–34.

1272

Bibliography

Jeanjaquet, Jules (1894). Recherches sur l’origine de la conjonction ‘que’ et des formes romanes équivalentes. Paris: Welter. Jennings, Ray E. (1994). The Genealogy of Disjunction. New York: Oxford University Press. Jennings, Ray E. (2008). ‘Disjunction’, available online at: http://stanford.library.sydney.edu.au/ archives/win2011/entries/disjunction/#Jen94. Jocelyn, Henry David (1969). ‘Imperator Histricus’, Yale Classical Studies 21: 97–123. Jones, Frederick (1990). ‘Cum in Livy’, Liverpool Classical Monthly 15: 37–43. Jones, Frederick (1991). ‘Subject, topic, given and salient: Sentence-beginnings in Latin’, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 37: 81–105. Jones, Frederick (2000). ‘Reference in Latin’, Mnemosyne 53: 12–29. Jones, John Carleton (1906). ‘Simul, simulac und Synonyma’, Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik 14: 89–104; 232–52; 524–31. Jong, Irene  J.  F.  de (2014). Narratology and Classics: A Practical Guide. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jong, Jan R. de (1982). ‘Word order within the Latin ablative absolute construction’, in Saskia Daalder and Marinel Gerritsen (eds), Linguistics in the Netherlands. Amsterdam: North Holland, 95–101. Jong, Jan R. de (1983). ‘Word order within Latin noun phrases’, in Harm Pinkster (ed.), 131–41. Jong, Jan R. de (1986). ‘Hyperbaton en informatiestructuur’, Lampas 19: 323–31. Jong, Jan R. de (1989). ‘The position of the Latin subject’, in Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), 521–40. Jong, Jan R. de (1996). ‘The borderline between deixis and anaphora in Latin’, in Hannah Rosén (ed.), 499–510. Jonge, Casper  C.  de (2008). Between Grammar and Rhetoric: Dionysius of Halicarnassus on Language, Linguistics and Literature. Leiden: Brill. Jordan, Henri (1879). Kritische Beiträge zur Geschichte der lateinischen Sprache. Berlin: Weidmann. Kalb, Wilhelm (1888). Das Juristenlatein. Nuremberg: H. Ballhorn. Kalb, Wilhelm (1912). Wegweiser in die römische Rechtssprache. Leipzig: Teubner. Keeline, Thomas and Kirby, Tyler (2019). ‘Auceps syllabarum: A digital analysis of Latin prose rhythm’, Journal of Roman Studies 109: 161–204. Kellermann, Georg (1909). Die Wortparataxe in der Klausel des lateinischen Hexameters und Pentameters. Kempten: Kösel. Keydana, Götz (1997). Absolute Konstruktionen in altindogermanischen Sprachen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. Kirk, William Hamilton (1921). ‘And and Or’, American Journal of Philology 42: 1–11. Kirk, William Hamilton (1923). ‘Ne and non’, American Journal of Philology 44: 260–73. Kirk, William Hamilton (1938). ‘Passive verba sentiendi et dicendi with declarative infinitive’, Classical Philology 33: 182–7. Kiss, Sándor (2005). ‘Anaphore et coordination dans les textes latins tardifs’, in Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), 571–6. Kiss, Sándor (2006). ‘Fonctionnement des connecteurs dans les chroniques latines du haut Moyen-Âge’, in Carmen Arias (ed.), 381–5. Kiss, Sándor (2007). ‘Étude de la cohérence textuelle dans les abrégés d’histoire romaine du IVe siècle’, in Gérald Purnelle and Joseph Denooz (eds), 111–5. Kiss, Sándor (2010). ‘Termes organisateurs et termes continuateurs dans quelques textes narratifs latins’, in Peter Anreiter and Manfred Kienpointner (eds), 575–81.

Bibliography 1273 Kiss, Sándor (2016). ‘Schéma narratif et subjectivité du narrateur chez quelques historiens de l’Antiquité tardive’, Pallas 102: 255–63. Kiss, Sándor (2019). ‘Progression thématique et types de séquences chez quelques historiens romains’, in Lidewij W. van Gils et al. (eds), 339–50. Kiss, Sándor, Mondin, Luca and Salvi, Giampaolo (eds) (2005). Latin et langues romanes (Études de linguistique offertes à József Herman). Tübingen: Niemeyer. Knoth, Tine W. (2006). ‘Prima positio: Et functionelt studie i saetningens første position i latinsk prosa’. PhD dissertation, University of Copenhagen. Kohn, Thomas D. (2012). ‘Stage directions in parenthesis in Roman epic’, Classical Quarterly 6: 766–84. Koll, Hans-Georg (1965). ‘Zur Stellung des Verbs im spätantiken and frühmittelalterlichen Latein’, Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch 2: 241–72. König, Ekkehard (1991). The Meaning of Focus Particles. London: Routledge. König, Ekkehard and Siemund, Peter (2000). ‘Causal and concessive clauses: Formal and semantic relations’, in Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Bernd Kortmann (eds), Cause, Condition, Concession, Contrast: Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives. Berlin: de Gruyter, 341–60. Kooreman, Marion (1989). ‘The historical development of the ablative of the gerund’, in Marius Lavency and Dominique Longrée (eds), 219–30. Kraus, Christina Shuttleworth (1992). ‘How (not?) to end a sentence: The problem of -que’, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 94: 321–9. Kraus, Walther (1934). ‘Ad spectatores in der römischen Komödie’, Wiener Studien 52: 66–83. Kraz, Heinrich (1862). Über den Modus der rhetorischen Frage in der lateinischen oratio obliqua: Die sogenannte unwillige oder missbilligende Frage mit dem Conjunctiv, mit ut und dem Conjunctiv, mit dem Accusativ und Infinitiv. Stuttgart. Krisch, Thomas (1988). Zur semantischen Interpretation von absoluten Konstruktionen in altindogermanischen Sprachen. Innsbruck: Scientia. Kroll, Wilhelm (1914). ‘Randbemerkungen’, Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 69: 95–108. Kroll, Wilhelm (1920). ‘Satzverschränkung’, Glotta 20: 101–8. Kroon, Caroline H. M. (1989a). ‘Rarum dictu: The Latin second supine construction’, Glotta 67: 198–227. Kroon, Caroline H. M. (1989b). ‘Causal connectors in Latin: The discourse function of nam, enim, igitur, ergo’, in Marius Lavency and Dominique Longrée (eds), 231–43. Kroon, Caroline H. M. (1994). ‘Discourse connectives and discourse type: The case of Latin at’, in József Herman (ed.), 303–17. Kroon, Caroline H. M. (1995). Discourse Particles in Latin. Amsterdam: Gieben. Kroon, Caroline H. M. (1998a). ‘A framework for the description of Latin discourse markers’, Journal of Pragmatics 30: 205–23. Kroon, Caroline H. M. (1998b). ‘Discourse particles, tense, and the structure of Latin narrative texts’, in Rodie Risselada (ed.), 37–61. Kroon, Caroline  H.  M. (2002). ‘How to write a ghost story? A linguistic view on narrative modes in Pliny Ep. 7.27’, in Lea Sawicki and Donna Shalev (eds), 189–200. Kroon, Caroline H. M. (2004a). ‘Latin quidem and the structure of the move’, in Henk Aertsen, Mike Hannay, and Rod Lyall (eds), Words in Their Places: A Festschrift for J.  Lachlan Mackenzie. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 199–209. Kroon, Caroline H. M. (2004b). ‘Scales of involvement and the use of Latin causal connectives’, in Antonio López Eire and Agustín Ramos (eds), 65–86.

1274

Bibliography

Kroon, Caroline  H.  M. (2005). The relationship between grammar and discourse: Evidence from the Latin particle quidem’, in Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), 577–90. Kroon, Caroline H. M. (2007). ‘Discourse modes and the use of tenses in Ovid’s Metamorphoses’, in Rutger Allan and Michel Buijs (eds), The Language of Literature. Leiden: Brill, 65–92. Kroon, Caroline H. M. (2009a). ‘Text structure and referential choice in narrative: The anaphoric use of the Latin demonstrative ille’, Belgian Journal of Linguistics 23: 115–31. Kroon, Caroline H. M. (2009b). ‘Latin linguistics between grammar and discourse. Units of analysis, levels of analysis’, in Elisabeth Rieken and Paul Widmer (eds), 143–58. Kroon, Caroline  H.  M. (2010). ‘Anaphoric reference and referential choice in Ovid’s Metamorphoses’, in Peter Anreiter and Manfred Kienpointner (eds), 583–97. Kroon, Caroline H. M. (2011). ‘Latin particles and the grammar of discourse’, in James Clackson (ed.), 176–95. Kroon, Caroline H. M. (2014). ‘Causality, coherence, and Latin connectives: A discourse pragmatic approach’, in Aude Morel-Alizon and Jean-François Thomas (eds), 67–86. Kroon, Caroline H. M. (2017). ‘Textual deixis and the “anchoring” use of Latin hic’, Mnemosyne 70: 585–612. Kroon, Caroline  H.  M. and Risselada, Rodie (1998). ‘The discourse functions of iam’, in Benjamín García Hernández (ed.), 429–55. Kroon, Caroline  H.  M. and Risselada, Rodie (2002). ‘Phasality, polarity, focality; a feature analysis of the Latin particle iam’, Belgian Journal of Linguistics 16: 63–78. Kruijer, Mike and la Roi, Ezra (2018). ‘Paradigmatic possibilities as perspective for absolute constructions’, Mnemosyne 71: 799–822. Krumbiegel, Richard (1892). De Varroniano scribendi genere quaestiones. Leipzig: Hoffmann. Kruschwitz, Peter (2004). Römische Inschriften und Wackernagels Gesetz. Heidelberg: Winter. Krylová, Barbora (1997). ‘Comparison between Greek and Latin consecutive clauses’, Acta Universitatis Carolinae, Graecolatina Pragensia 15: 73–98. Krylová, Barbora (2001). ‘Die Partikeln ergo und igitur bei Ammianus Marcellinus: ein textologischer Beitrag zur Diskussion um Ammians Sprachkompetenz’, in Gabriele Thome and  Jens Holzhausen (eds), Es hat sich viel ereignet, Gutes wie Böses: Lateinische Geschichtsschreibung der Spät- und Nachantike. Munich: Saur, 57–79. Krylová, Barbora (2003). ‘Ergo als Konsensus-Partikel in lateinischen narrativen Texten. Eine Untersuchung an Prosatexten historischer Thematik von Caesar bis Sueton’, Acta Universitatis Carolinae, Graecolatina Pragensia 18: 63–94. Krylová, Barbora (2006). ‘Consensus suggested and demanded: The use and role of enim and ergo in conflict management’, Acta Universitatis Carolinae, Graecolatina Pragensia 20: 95–107. Kunst, Karl (1908). Die sog. relative Verschränkung und verwandte Satzfügungen in ihrem Verhältnis zum deutschen Satzbau. Jahresbericht des k.k. Staatsgymnasiums im XIX Bezirke von Wien für das Schuljahr 1907/1908. Kurzová-Jedličková, Helena (1981). Der Relativsatz in den indogermanischen Sprachen. Hamburg: Buske. Labate, Mario (1983). ‘Et amarunt me quoque Nymphae (Ovid. Met. 3.456)’, Materiali e Discussioni per l’Analisi dei Testi Classici 10–11: 305–18. Ladouceur, David J. (1981). ‘Livy’s use of quamquam and the subjunctive’, Glotta 59: 142–5. Laird, Andrew (1999). Powers of Expression, Expressions of Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bibliography 1275 Lambert, André (1946). ‘Die indirekte Rede als künstlerisches Stilmittel des Livius’. Dissertation, Zurich. Lambertz, Thomas (1982). Ausbaumodell zu Lucien Ternière ‘Eléments de Syntaxe Structurale’. Gerbrunn bei Würzburg: A. Lehmann. Landgraf, Gustav (1888). ‘Substantivische Parataxen’, Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik 5: 161–91. Langen, Peter (1880). Beiträge zur Kritik und Erklärung des Plautus. Leipzig: Teubner. Langslow, David  R. (2000). Medical Latin in the Roman Empire. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Langslow, David R. (2005). ‘Linguistic “highs” and “lows” in late Latin medical texts’, in Sándor Kiss et al. (eds), 313–25. Langslow, David  R. (2012). ‘Praetor urbanus—urbanus praetor: Some aspects of attributive adjective placement in Latin’, in Philomen Probert and Andreas Willi (eds), 279–312. Laughton, Eric (1960). ‘Observations on the style of Varro’, Classical Quarterly 10: 1–28. Laughton, Eric (1964). The Participle in Cicero. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lausberg, Heinrich (19903). Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik. Stuttgart: Steiner. Lavency, Marius (1975). ‘Les valeurs de la “conjonction” cum en latin classique’, Les Études Classiques 43: 376–86. Lavency, Marius (1976). ‘Les valeurs de la “conjonction” cum en latin classique (suite)’, Les Études Classiques 44: 45–59. Lavency, Marius (1986). ‘Le paradigme syntaxique de l’ablatif absolu’, in Freddy Decreus and Carl Deroux (eds), Hommages Jozef Veremans. Brussels: Latomus, 184–91. Lavency, Marius (1996a). ‘Is qui chez César, Guerre des Gaules, I–VII’, in Alfred Bammesberger and Friedrich Heberlein (eds), 249–67. Lavency, Marius (1996b). ‘Rex qui fuit—rex qui esset—rex cum esset’, in Rodie Risselada et al. (eds), 91–103. Lavency, Marius (19972). Usus: Grammaire latine: Description du latin classique en vue de la lecture des auteurs. Leuven: Peeters. Lavency, Marius (1998a). La proposition relative. Grammaire fondamentale du latin V:2. Leuven: Peeters. Lavency, Marius (1998b). ‘Morphèmes cataphoriques et propositions relatives en latin classique’, in Yves Duhoux (ed.), Langue et langues: Hommage à Albert Maniet. Leuven: Peeters, 99–115. Lavency, Marius (1999). ‘La période conditionnelle du latin’, Les Études Classiques 67: 361–90. Lavency, Marius (2003). ‘Les propositions infinitives’, in Colette Bodelot (ed.), 97–192. Lavency, Marius (2004). ‘Sic / ita / id cataphoriques de la proposition infinitive (A.c.I.)’, in Colette Bodelot (ed.), 81–93. Lavency, Marius (2005). ‘Il congiuntivo nella proposizione relativa nominalizzata’, in Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), 591–5. Lavency, Marius (2011). ‘Les propositions relatives: Détermination et qualification’, Les Études Classiques 79: 93–103. Lavency, Marius and Longrée, Dominique (eds) (1989). Actes du Ve colloque de linguistique latine: Louvain-la-Neuve/Borzée, 31 mars–4 avril 1989. Proceedings of the Vth colloquium on Latin linguistics. Leuven: Peeters. Lease, Emory B. (1928). ‘The ablative absolute limited by conjunctions’, American Journal of Philology 49: 348–53.

1276

Bibliography

Lease, Emory B. (1931). ‘Addendum’, American Journal of Philology 51: 175. Lebek, Wolfgang Dieter (1970). Verba Prisca. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Lebreton, Jules (1901a). Caesariana syntaxis quatenus a Ciceroniana differat. Paris: Hachette. Lebreton, Jules (1901b). Études sur la langue et la grammaire de Cicéron. Paris (= Hildesheim: Olms, 1979). Ledgeway, Adam (2012). From Latin to Romance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ledgeway, Adam (2017). ‘Late Latin verb second: The sentential word order of the Itinerarium Egeriae’, Catalan Journal of Linguistics 16: 163–216. Leeman, Anton Daniël (1963). Orationis Ratio, 2 vols. Amsterdam: Hakkert. Lehmann, Christian (1977). ‘A universal about conditional sentences’, in Milan Romportl et al. (eds), Linguistica Generalia I: Studies in Linguistic Typology. Prague: Charles University (Acta Universitatis Carolinae 1974, Philologica 5), 231–41. Lehmann, Christian (1979). ‘Der Relativsatz vom Indogermanischen bis zum Italienischen. Eine Etüde in diachronischer Typologie’, Die Sprache 25: 1–25. Lehmann, Christian (1984). Der Relativsatz. Tübingen: Narr. Lehmann, Christian (1986). ‘On the typology of relative clauses’, Linguistics 24: 663–80. Lehmann, Christian (1989). ‘Latin subordination in a typological perspective’, in Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), 153–79. Lehmann, Christian (2008). ‘Information structure and grammaticalization’, in Elena Seoane and Maria José López-Couso (eds), Theoretical and Empirical Issues in Grammaticalization, Amsterdam, Benjamins, 207–29. Leo, Friedrich (1896). Analecta Plautina: De figuris sermonis I. Göttingen: Dieterich (repr. in Eduard Fraenkel (ed.), Friedrich Leo: Ausgewählte kleine Schriften. Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1960: 71–122). Leo, Friedrich (1906). Analecta Plautina: De figuris sermonis III. Göttingen: Dieterich (reprinted in Eduard Fraenkel (ed.), Friedrich Leo: Ausgewählte kleine Schriften. Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1960: 163–84). Léovant-Cirefice, Véronique (2000). ‘Le rôle de l’apostrophe aux Quirites dans les discours de Cicéron addressés au peuple’, in Guy Achard and Marie Ledentu (eds), 43–55. Letessier, Pierre (2000). ‘La salutatio chez Plaute: Adaptation ludique d’un rituel social’, Lalies 20: 151–63. Letoublon, Françoise (1985). ‘Latin tantum, dum, tamen, quamquam. Cause, quantité, concession et restriction’, in Christian Touratier (ed.), 537–55. Leuschner, Thorsten (2008). ‘From speech-situation evocation to hypotaxis: The case of Latin quamvis “although” ’, in Elena Seoane and María José López-Couso (eds), Theoretical and Empirical Issues in Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 231–52. Lilja, Saara (1965). Terms of Abuse in Roman Comedy. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia. Lindholm, Elmo (1931). Stilistische Studien zur Erweiterung der Satzglieder im Lateinischen. Lund: Gleerup. Linde, Paul (1923). ‘Die Stellung des Verbs in der lateinischen Prosa’, Glotta 12: 153–78. Lindskog, Claes (1896). Beiträge zur Geschichte der Satzstellung im Latein. Lund: Gleerup. Lisón, Nicolás (2001). El orden de palabras en los grupos nominales en latín. Zaragoza: Monografías de la Universidad de Zaragoza. Loch, Eduard (1871). Zum Gebrauch des Imperativus bei Plautus. Programm Memel. Löfstedt, Bengt (1966). ‘Die Konstruktion c’est lui qui l’a fait im Lateinischen’, Indogermanische Forschungen 71: 253–77 (= 2000: 75–100).

Bibliography 1277 Löfstedt, Bengt (1976). ‘Zum spanischen Mittellatein’, Glotta 54: 117–57 (= 2000: 169–211). Löfstedt, Bengt (1985). ‘Sprachliches zur Vulgata’, Studia Classica 23: 73–84 (= 2000: 289–301). Löfstedt, Bengt (2000). Ausgewählte Aufsätze zur lateinischen Sprachgeschichte und Philologie. Stuttgart: Hersemann. Löfstedt, Einar (1911). Philologischer Kommentar zur Peregrinatio Aetheriae. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. Löfstedt, Einar (1936). Vermischte Studien zur lateinischen Sprachkunde und Syntax. Lund: Gleerup. Löfstedt, Einar (19422/1933). Syntactica, 2 vols. Lund: Gleerup. Longrée, Dominique (1989). ‘The syntactic function of the so-called Praedicativum in Classical Latin’, in Marius Lavency and Dominique Longrée (eds), 245–56. Longrée, Dominique (1991). ‘La relative en apposition, un cas de nominalisation?’, Études Classiques (Centre Universitaire de Luxembourg): II.77–100. Longrée, Dominique (1995). ‘Du fonctionnement syntaxique de la construction ab urbe condita chez Tacite’, in Dominique Longrée (ed.), 175–88. Longrée, Dominique (1996a). ‘La concurrence entre “rallonge” et “parataxe” chez Tacite: Conditionnements linguistiques, choix stylistiques’, in Hannah Rosén (ed.), 483–98. Longrée, Dominique (1996b). ‘ “Relatives en rallonge” ou “relatifs de liaison”: L’exemple de Tacite’, in Alfred Bammesberger and Friedrich Heberlein (eds), 268–81. Longrée, Dominique (1998). ‘ “Variatio”, coordination et isofonctionnalité: L’exemple de Tacite’, in Benjamín García Hernández (ed.), 1115–30. Longrée, Dominique (2001). ‘Aux frontières de la coordination: Du fonctionnement des termes “corrélatifs” chez Tacite’, in Claude Moussy et al. (eds), 393–407. Longrée, Dominique (2002a). ‘Verba sentiendi et modalisation de l’énoncé chez les historiens latins’, in Michèle Fruyt and Claude Moussy (eds), 77–93. Longrée, Dominique (2002b). ‘Sur la concurrence entre “relatifs” et “démonstratifs de liaison” chez les historiens latins: L’exemple de Tacite’, in Alide Machtelt Bolkestein et al. (eds), 205–17. Longrée, Dominique (2003). ‘Une approche statistique de la concurrence entre démonstratifs chez les historiens latins (César, Salluste,Tacite)’, in Colette Bodelot (ed.), 157–78. Longrée, Dominique (2005). ‘ “Relatifs de liaison” et temps verbaux chez les historiens latins’, in Anna Jaubert (ed.), 28–42. Longrée, Dominique (2010). ‘Adverbes de lieu, deixis et anaphore chez les historiens latins’, Revue de Linguistique Latine du Centre Alfred Ernout: De Lingua Latina 3 [online]: http:// lettres.sorbonne-universite.fr/sites/default/files/media/2020-05/longree.pdf. Longrée, Dominique (2012). ‘ “Anaphore zéro” et identification des acteurs chez les historiens latins’, in Camille Denizot and Emmanuel Dupraz (eds), 267–80. Longrée, Dominique (2014). ‘Demisso capite: Ablatif absolu ou épithète détachée? Réflexions sur la description d’un syntagme à deux constituants obligatoires’, in Concepción Cabrillana and Christian Lehmann (eds), 361–72. Longrée, Dominique (ed.) (1995). De usu: Études de syntaxe latine offertes en hommage à Marius Lavency. Leuven: Peeters. Longrée, Dominique, Philippart de Foy, Caroline and Purnelle, Gérald (2012). ‘Conditionnements linguistiques des dislocations à gauche chez César et Tacite: L’apport du projet LatSynt’, Revue de Linguistique Latine du Centre Alfred Ernout: De Lingua Latina 7 [online]: http:// lettres.sorbonne-universite.fr/sites/default/files/media/2020-05/prolepse_longree_ philippart_purnelle_def.pdf.

1278

Bibliography

Longrée, Dominique, Philippart de Foy, Caroline and Purnelle, Gérald (2013). ‘Dislocations à  gauche et nature des subordonnants en latin classique’, in Colette Bodelot et al. (eds), 445–82. Longrée, Dominique, Philippart de Foy, Caroline and Purnelle, Gérald (2019). ‘Nature et fonctionnement des syntagmes postposés dans les subordonnées latines: Étude d’un corpus d’historiens classiques’, in Martin Taillade et al. (eds), 241–52. López Eire, Antonio and Ramos, Agustín (eds) (2004). Registros lingüísticos en las lenguas clásicas. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad. Luck, Georg (1964). Über einige Interjektionen der lateinischen Umgangssprache. Heidelberg: Winter. Ludewig, Antonius (1891). Quomodo Plinius maior, Seneca philosophus, Curtius Rufus, Quintilianus, Cornelius Tacitus, Plinius Minor particula quidem usi sint. Prague: Verlag Dominicus. Lundström, Sven (1961). Abhinc und ante: Studien zur Geschichte der lateinischen Zeitdifferenzbestimmungen. Lund: Gleerup. Lundström, Sven (1964). Vermeintliche Glosseme in den Tusculanen. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. Lundström, Sven (1982). Ein textkritisches Problem in den Tusculanen. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. Lundström, Sven (1986). Zur Textkritik der Tusculanen. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. Lundström, Sven (1993). ‘Vindikationen zu Senecas Controversiae und Suasoriae’, Eranos 91: 106–19. Luque, Jesús (2006). Puntos y comas: La grafía de la articulación del habla. Granada: Editorial Universidad de Granada. Luraghi, Silvia (1995). ‘The pragmatics of verb initial sentences in some ancient Indo-European languages’, in Pamela Downing and Michael Noonan (eds), Word Order in Discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 354–86. Luraghi, Silvia (2001). ‘The discourse function of cum with the subjunctive in narrative texts’, in Claude Moussy et al. (eds), 409–26. Luraghi, Silvia (2016). ‘The position of weak pronouns in Latin prose’, in Paolo Poccetti (ed.), 246–61. Lussky, E. A. (1953). ‘Misapplication of the term “zeugma” ’, Classical Journal 48: 285–90. Mack, Sara (1980). ‘ “The single supplie”: Some observations on zeugma with particular reference to Vergil’, Ramus 9: 101–11. Magnaldi, Giuseppina (2004). Parola d’autore, parola di copista. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’ Orso. Maiocco, Marco (2005). Absolute Participial Constructions. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’ Orso. Malchukov, Andrej (2000). Dependency Reversal in Noun-attribute Constructions: Towards a Typology. Munich: Lincom. Maltby, Robert (2002). ‘Gerund and gerundive use in Isidore of Seville’, in Alide Machtelt Bolkestein et al. (eds), 219–34. Maltby, Robert (2006). ‘Gerunds, gerundives and their Greek equivalents in Latin Bible translations’, in Carmen Arias (ed.), 425–42. Maltby, Robert (2016). ‘Analytic and synthetic forms of the comparative and superlative from Early to Late Latin’, in James N. Adams and Nigel Vincent (eds), 340–66. Manfredini, Adriana M. (2014). ‘Tamquam mendici spolium fastidiose venditabat (Petr. 13.1): Observaciones sobre la función, estructura y el significado de tamquam + sintagmas no verbales’, in Piera Molinelli et al. (eds), 305–21.

Bibliography 1279 Manfredini, Adriana  M. (2015a). La elipsis verbal en las estructuras comparativas en latín. Zaragoza: Libros Pórtico. Manfredini, Adriana M. (2015b). ‘Algo más sobre las estructuras pseudocomparativas en latín’, in Gerd Haverling (ed.), 480–91. Manfredini, Adriana M. (2016). ‘Auxiliaries within comparative clauses: Some remarks concerning their syntax and grammatical description’, in Paolo Poccetti (ed.), 262–75. Manfredini, Adriana M. (2018). ‘-issim-+quam possum /quam -issim-+possum: Apuntes para un análisis sintáctico y funcional’. Paper presented at the 25th Simposio Nacional de Estudios Clásicos: I Congreso internacional sobre el Mundo Clásico: Migraciones, desplazamientos, conflictos en el mundo antiguo, Buenos Aires, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, 31 July–3 August 2018. Mantovani, Dario (2018). Les juristes écrivains de la Rome antique. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Maraldi, Mirka (1998). ‘Concessive ut: Parataxis, hypotaxis and correlation’, in Benjamín García Hernández (ed.), 487–501. Maraldi, Mirka (2001). ‘Forms of concession in Latin’, in Claude Moussy et al. (eds), 427–45. Maraldi, Mirka (2002a). ‘Free-choice quantification and concession in Latin’, in Lea Sawicki and Donna Shalev (eds), 243–53. Maraldi, Mirka (2002b). ‘Textual concessives in Latin’, Papers on Grammar 8: 123–40. Maraldi, Mirka and Orlandini, Anna (1998). ‘Sur la polysémie de l’expression licet’, in Bernard Caron (ed.), Actes du XVIe Congrès International des Linguistes. Oxford (CD-Rom). Marouzeau, Jules (1922). L’ordre des mots dans la phrase latine, I: Les groupes nominaux. Paris: Champion. Marouzeau, Jules (1938). L’ordre des mots dans la phrase latine, II: Le verbe. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Marouzeau, Jules (1947). ‘Place de la préposition’, Revue des Études Latines 25: 298–327. Marouzeau, Jules (1949). L’ordre des mots dans la phrase latine, III: Les articulations de l’énoncé. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Marouzeau, Jules (1953). L’ordre des mots en latin: Volume complémentaire. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Martin, Ronald H. (1953). ‘Variatio and the development of Tacitus’ style’, Eranos 51: 89–96. Martín Puente, Cristina (1998a). ‘La expresión de la concesividad en latín clásico: Su análisis y distribución sintáctica’. Dissertation, Madrid, Complutense. Martín Puente, Cristina (1998b). ‘Etiam si y las oraciones concesivas hipotéticas en latín’, in Benjamín García Hernández (ed.), 503–13. Martín Puente, Cristina (2001). ‘Quamquam correctivum: Sintaxis y pragmática’, in Claude Moussy et al. (eds), 447–57. Martín Puente, Cristina (2002). Las oraciones concesivas en la prosa clásica. Zaragoza: Departamento de Ciencias de la Antigüedad. Martínez-Pais Loscertales, Felicidad (1994). ‘Análisis estructural de la coordinación copulativa en la fábula de Amor y Psique’, Habis 24: 255–62. Massaro, Matteo (2007). ‘Una coppia affittata: CLE 959’, in Peter Kruschwitz (ed.), Die metrischen Inschriften der römischen Republik. Berlin: de Gruyter, 271–97. Maurach, Gregor (1983). Enchiridion Poeticum. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Maurel, Jean-Pierre (1989). ‘Subordination seconde du relatif en latin et théorie du COMP’, in Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), 181–96. Maurel, Jean-Pierre (1995). ‘Cum ou la subordination dans tous ses états’, in Dominique Longrée (ed.), 189–200.

1280

Bibliography

Mayen, Georg (1889). ‘De particulis quod quia quoniam quomodo ut pro acc. cum infinitivo post verba sentiendi et declarandi positis’. Dissertation, Kiel. Mazzanti, Alex (2020). ‘With or without ut? Full evidence of subjunctive complementation of facio in archaic Latin’, Transactions of the Philological Society 118: 79–93. McDevitt, Arthur S. (1967). ‘Hysteron proteron in the Aeneid’, Classical Quarterly 17: 316–21. Mednikarova, Iveta (1997). ‘Patterns of hyperbaton in Latin prose from Cato to Bulgaranus’, in Carl Deroux (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History VIII. Brussels: Latomus, 51–84. Meini, Linda (2004). ‘Le interrogative indirette con si in latino: Modello greco o sviluppo autonomo’, Studi e Saggi Linguistici 42: 153–71. Meiser, Gerhard (1998). Historische Laut- und Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Melander, Johan (1916). Étude sur MAGIS et les expressions adversatives dans les langues romanes. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. Mellado, Joaquín (1998). ‘El relativo y su antecedente en latín’, in Benjamín García Hernández (ed.), 515–28. Mellado, Joaquín (2011). ‘La relativa en la estructura sintáctica de la frase latina’, Les Études Classiques 79: 35–64. Mellet, Sylvie (1992). ‘Opérations de détermination, remarques sur deux indéfinis latins: quis et aliquis’, Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 87: 147–59. Mellet, Sylvie (1994). ‘Éléments pour une étude de la synonymie syntaxique: L’exemple des conjonctions de cause’, in Claude Moussy (ed.), 203–21. Mellet, Sylvie (1995). ‘Quando, quia, quod, quoniam: Analyse énonciative et syntaxique des conjonctions de cause en latin’, in Dominique Longrée (ed.), 211–28. Mellet, Sylvie (1998). ‘Ita . . . ut, sic . . . ut: Polysémie et synomymie?’, in Benjamín García Hernández (ed.), 529–40. Mellet, Sylvie (2002). ‘Le système de conjonctions concessives en latin classique’, in Alide Machtelt Bolkestein et al. (eds), 249–61. Mellet, Sylvie (2005). ‘Ponctuation et continuité dans les textes latins: La réception des éditeurs-traducteurs’, in Anna Jaubert (ed.), 13–28. Mellet, Sylvie (ed.) (1987). Études de linguistique générale et de linguistique latine offertes en hommage à Guy Serbat. Paris: Société pour l’information grammaticale. Melo, Wolfgang D. C. de (2006). ‘If in doubt, leave it in’, Oxford University Working Papers in Linguistics, Philology and Phonetics 11: 5–20. Melo, Wolfgang D. C. de (2007). The Early Latin Verb System. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Melo, Wolfgang D. C. de (2010). ‘Possessive pronouns in Plautus’, in Eleanor Dickey and Anna Chahoud (eds), 71–99. Mendell, Clarence W. (1917). Latin Sentence Connection. New Haven: Yale University Press. Menk, Edgar Allen (1925). ‘The position of the possessive pronoun in Cicero’s Orations.’ Dissertation, Iowa. Meo, Cesidio de (20053). Lingue tecniche del latino. Bologna: Pàtron. Merguet, Hugo (1905/6). Handlexikon zu Cicero. Leipzig. Merten, Wilhelm (1893). ‘De particularum copulativarum apud veteres Romanorum scriptores usu’. Dissertation, Marburg, Friedrich. Meyer-Hermann, Reinhard (2011). ‘Die Syntax der lateinischen Dokumente des Cartulario de San Millán de la Cogolla (759–1076) entspricht nicht den “patrones del español antiguo”.

Bibliography 1281 Methodologische Anmerkungen zu Blake (1992)’, Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie 127: 1–35. Meyer-Hermann, Reinhard (2015). ‘Zwischen latín und romance: Syntaktische Variation und Sprachwandel in den Fueros de Coria Cima-Coa (12./13. Jh.)’, Romanistisches Jahrbuch 66, 277–333. Meyer-Hermann, Reinhard (2019). ‘Auxiliar-Konstruktionen im llatí medieval katalanischer Urkunden (10.–13. Jh.) und in den Usatici Barchinonae / Usatges de Barcelona (12.–15. Jh.)’, Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie 135, 507–34. Meyers, Jean (2011). ‘La proposition relative dans la traduction cicéronienne du Timée de Platon’, Les Études Classiques 79: 227–56. Meyers, Jean (2019). ‘La proposition relative dans le livre 5 des Métamorphoses d’Apulée’, in Joseph Dalbera and Dominique Longrée (eds), 279–92. Michaelis, Laura A. (1992). ‘The comparative conditional in Latin’, Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 166–79. Michaelis, Laura A. (1994). ‘A case of constructional polysemy in Latin’, Studies in Language 18: 45–70. Mihaileanu, Peter (1907). ‘De comprehensionibus relativis apud Ciceronem’. Dissertation, Berlin. Mithun, Marianne (20152). ‘Discourse and grammar’, in Deborah Tannen, Heidi E. Hamilton, and Deborah Schiffrin (eds), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, 9–41. Möbitz, Otto (1923). ‘Die Stellung des Verbums in den Schriften des Apuleius’, Glotta 13: 116–26. Molinelli, Piera (1999). ‘De + ablativo: Marca di topic in latino’, in Hubert Petersmann and Rudolf Kettemann (eds), 277–85. Molinelli, Piera (2001). ‘Absolute constructions in Late Latin’, in Claude Moussy et al. (eds), 473–84. Molinelli, Piera, Cuzzolin, Pierluigi, and Fedriani, Chiara (eds) (2014). Latin vulgaire–latin tardif X, 3 vols. Bergamo: Bergamo University Press. Monserrat Roig, Catalina (2010). ‘Los vocativos metafóricos en las comedias de Plauto’, Cuadernos de Filología Clásica (Lat) 30: 7–26. Morel-Alizon, Aude and Thomas, Jean-François (eds) (2014). La causalité en latin. Paris: L’Harmattan. Moreno Sánchez, Ana Isabel (1995). ‘Sobre el empleo de quod, quia y quoniam con los verbos de lengua y entendimiento en las Cartas de Pablo de la Vulgata’, Analecta Malacitana 18: 75–90. Moretti, Paola Francesca (2017). ‘The verb phrase auxiliary + infinitive: Evidence of orality in the epistolary genre?’, in Alfonso García Leal and Clara Elena Prieto (eds), 487–503. Moretti, Paola Francesca (2019). ‘Is it possible to identify “orality”? Verb-phrases ‘auxiliary + infinitive’ in spoken (late) Latin’, Mnemosyne 72: 488–508. Moure Casas, Ana Maria (2013). ‘La interjección en los grammáticos latinos’, in José A. Beltrán et al. (eds), 137–48. Moussy, Claude (1987). ‘Les complétives en quin, quominus et le jeu des négations’, in Sylvie Mellet (ed.), 279–91 (= 2010: 208–20). Moussy, Claude (1998). ‘Négation et lexique en latin’, in Benjamín García Hernández (ed.), 583–95 (= 2010: 221–32).

1282

Bibliography

Moussy, Claude (2010). Synonymie et antonymie en latin. Paris: L’Harmattan. Moussy, Claude (2012). ‘Négation et lexique en latin’, Linguarum Varietas 1: 80–90. Moussy, Claude (ed.) (1994). Les problèmes de la synonymie en latin. Paris: Presses de l’Université de Paris-Sorbonne. Moussy, Claude, Fruyt, Michèle, and Dangel, Jaqueline (eds) (2001). De lingua Latina novae quaestiones. Actes du Xe Colloque International de Linguistique Latine, Paris-Sèvres, 19–23 avril 1999. Leuven: Peeters. Moussy, Claude and Orlandini, Anna (eds) (2007). L’ambiguïté en Grèce et à Rome: Approches linguistiques. Paris: Presses de l’Université de Paris-Sorbonne. Muldowney, Mary Sarah (1937). Word-order in the Works of Saint Augustine. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University. Müller, Alexander (1990). ‘Gallia est omnis oder das Prädikativum’, Altsprachliche Unterricht 33: 60–75. Müller, Roman (1997). Sprechen und Sprache: Dialoglinguistische Studien zu Terenz. Heidelberg: Winter. Müller, Rudolf Wolfgang (1962). ‘Divinus homo in dicendo’, Glotta 40: 219–54. Müller, Rudolf Wolfgang (1964). ‘Rhetorische und syntaktische Interpunktion. Untersuchungen zur Pausenbezeichnung im antiken Latein’. Dissertation, Tübingen. Müller-Lancé, Johannes (1994). Absolute Konstruktionen vom Altlatein bis zum Neufranzösischen. Tübingen: Narr. Muñoz, Bernardo (1976). ‘La hendíadis en Virgilio’, Estudios Clásicos 77: 45–7. Murru, Furio (1977). ‘Esiste il genitivo assoluto in latino?’, Rivista di Studi Classici 25: 368–84. Nägelsbach, Karl Friedrich von and Müller, Iwan von (1905). Lateinische Stilistik. Nuremberg (repr. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1966). Nehring, Alfons (1929). ‘Studien zur Theorie des Nebensatzes I’, Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 57: 118–58. Neville, Kenneth P. R. (1901). The Case-Construction after the Comparative in Latin, Cornell Studies in Classical Philology, no. 15. Ithaca, N.Y.: The Macmillan Company. Nicolas, Christian (1999). ‘Autonymie et autonomie syntaxique: Le latin confronté au métalangage’, Revue de Philologie, 73: 43–68. Niemeyer, Jürgen and Krenn, Herwig (1997). ‘Zur Stellung des attributiven Adjektivs im Lateinischen und in den romanischen Sprachen’, in Andreas Gather and Heinz Werner (eds), Semiotische Prozesse und natürliche Sprache. Stuttgart: Steiner, 411–23. Nikitina, Tatiana and Haug, Dag Trygve Truslew (2016). ‘Syntactic nominalization in Latin: A case of non-canonical subject agreement’, Transactions of the Philological Society 114: 25–50. Nisbet, Robert  G. (1923). ‘Voluntas fati in Latin syntax’, American Journal of Philology 44: 27–43. Nisbet, Robin George Murdoch (1990). ‘Cola and clausulae in Cicero’s speeches’, in Elizabeth M. Craik (ed.), Owls to Athens. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 348–59. Nisbet, Robin George Murdoch (1999). ‘Word order in Horace’s Odes’, in James N. Adams and Roland G. Mayer (eds), 135–54. Nocentini, Alberto (1987). ‘L’uso dei dimostrativi nella Peregrinatio Egeriae e la genesi dell’ articolo romanzo’, in Atti del convegno internazionale sulla Peregrinatio Egeriae. Arezzo: Accademia Petrarca, 137–58. Nølke, Henning, Fløttum, Kjersti, and Norén, Coco (2004). Scapoline: La théorie scandinave de la polyphonie linguistique. Paris: Éditions Kimé.

Bibliography 1283 Norberg, Dag (1937). In registrum Gregorii Magni studia critica. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. Norberg, Dag (1943). Syntaktische Forschungen auf dem Gebiete des Spätlateins und des frühen Mittellateins. Uppsala: A.B. Lundeqvistka Bokhandeln / Leipzig: O. Harassowitz. Norberg, Dag (1944). Beiträge zur spätlateinischen Syntax. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. Norberg, Dag (1945). ‘Faire faire quelque chose à quelqu’un. Recherches sur l’origine latine de la construction romane’, Uppsala Universitets Årsskrift 2: 65–106. Núñez, Salvador (1991). Semántica de la modalidad en latín. Granada: Ediciones de la Universidad de Granada. Núñez, Salvador (1996). ‘Semántica y pragmática de los enunciados condicionales en latín’, in Ana Agud et al. (eds), 257–70. Núñez, Salvador (1998). ‘Habere + participio de perfecto y la categoría de la anterioridad en latín y en las lenguas románicas’, in Actas del IX Congreso Español de Estudios Clásicos III. Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas, 199–203. Núñez, Salvador (2002). ‘El ecuativo latino con atque: ¿Extensión o reanálisis?’, in Empar Espinilla et al. (eds), 149–70. Nuti, Andrea (2019). ‘Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres: Sapir’s typology and different perspectives on totality’, in Lidewij W. van Gils et al. (eds), 219–40. Nutting, Herbert C. (1916). ‘Hysteron proteron’, The Classical Journal 11: 298–301. Nutting, Herbert C. (1920). ‘The ablative as an appositive’, Classical Philology 15: 389–92. Nutting, Herbert C. (1925). The Latin Conditional Sentence. Berkeley: University of California Press. Nutting, Herbert  C. (1928). ‘The utor fruor group’, University of California Publications in Classical Philology 10: 1–16; 17–36; 37–62; 63–150; 151–68. Oberhelman, Steven M. (2003). Prose Rhythm in Latin Literature of the Roman Empire: First Century B.C. Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen. Odelman, Eva (1972). ‘Études sur quelques reflets du style administratif chez César’. Dissertation, Stockholm. Odelstierna, Ingrid (1926). De vi futurali ac finali gerundii et gerundivi Latini observationes. Accedunt de verbo imputandi adnotationes. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. Olivera, Mari Cruz (1990). ‘Sobre el uso de quod, quia, quoniam con los verbos de lengua y entendimiento en el Evangelio de Juan de la Vulgata’, Analecta Malacitana 13: 375–82. Önnerfors, Alf (1956). Pliniana: In Plinii Maioris Naturalem Historiam studia grammatica, semantica, critica. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Opelt, Ilona (1964). Die lateinischen Schimpfwörter und verwandte sprachliche Erscheinungen. Heidelberg: Winter. Orinsky, Kurt (1923). ‘Die Wortstellung bei Gaius’, Glotta 12: 83–99. Orlandi, Giovanni (1994). ‘Le statistiche sulle clausole della prosa’, Filologia Mediolatina 6: 1–35. Orlandi, Giovanni (2005). ‘Metrical and rhythmical clausulae in Medieval Latin prose: Some aspects and problems’, in Tobias Reinhardt et al. (eds), 395–412. Orlandini, Anna M. (1993). ‘Le rôle du locuteur dans l’interprétation des systèmes hypothétiques: Une analyse sémantico-pragmatique des systèmes hypothétiques en latin et grec’, Indogermanische Forschungen 98: 130–54. Orlandini, Anna  M. (1994). ‘De l’oratio obliqua comme papier de tournesol; une analyse pragmatique d’un phénomène du discours indirect en latin: Le changement des modes’, Indogermanische Forschungen 99: 130–54.

1284

Bibliography

Orlandini, Anna M. (1995). ‘De la connexion: Une analyse pragmatique des connecteurs latins atqui et immo’, Lalies 15: 259–69. Orlandini, Anna  M. (1999a). ‘De la connexion: Une analyse pragmatique des connecteurs latins autem et ceterum’, Indogermanische Forschungen 104: 142–63. Orlandini, Anna M. (1999b). ‘Tamen. L’argumentation par ré-formulation rectifiante’, Lalies 19: 199–208. Orlandini, Anna  M. (2000). ‘Les pronoms indéfinis et la négation’, Papers on Grammar 5: 151–78. Orlandini, Anna M. (2001). Négation et argumentation en latin. Leuven: Peeters. Orlandini, Anna M. (2002a). ‘Les emplois adverbiaux de nisi: Une approche discursive’, in Lea Sawicki and Donna Shalev (eds), 277–86. Orlandini, Anna  M. (2002b). ‘Pour une pragmatique des propositions circonstancielles en “sans que” en latin’, Papers on Grammar 8: 159–84. Orlandini, Anna M. (2003). ‘Les complétives en ne, quin, quominus’, in Colette Bodelot (ed.), 482–527. Orlandini, Anna M. (2005). ‘Fonctions adverbiales dans des structures corrélatives en latin’, in Paolo de Carvalho and Frédéric Lambert (eds), 159–80. Orlandini, Anna and Poccetti, Paolo (2007). ‘Il y a nec et nec: Trois valeurs de la négation en latin et dans les langues de l’Italie ancienne’, in Franck Floricic (ed.), La négation dans les langues romanes. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 29–47. Orlandini, Anna and Poccetti, Paolo (2008). ‘Les relations sémantiques entre la coordination connective, adversative et disjonctive en latin et dans les langues de l’Italie ancienne’, Papers on Grammar 10: 179–203. Orlandini, Anna and Poccetti, Paolo (2009). ‘Corrélation, coordination et comparaison en latin et dans les langues italiques’, Langages 174.2.53–66. Orlandini, Anna and Poccetti, Paolo (2010). ‘Magis quantitativum et magis correctivum’, Papers on Grammar 11: 215–32. Orlandini, Anna and Poccetti, Paolo (2016). ‘Nuovi percorsi oltre il ciclo di Jespersen: L’apporto del latino’, in Paolo Poccetti (ed.), 410–29. Orlandini, Anna and Poccetti, Paolo (2018). ‘La comparazione detta “epistemica” in latino’, in Jesús de la Villa and Anna Pompei (eds), Classical Languages and Linguistics. Madrid: UAM Ediciones, 143–58. Orlandini, Anna and Poccetti, Paolo (2019a). ‘Les parcours sémantiques vers l’adversatif: Une approche typologique des langues anciennes’, in Lidewij W. van Gils et al. (eds), 259–79. Orlandini, Anna and Poccetti, Paolo (2019b). ‘Entre corrélation, coordination et subordination: Quand cum et nisi se rejoignent’, in Martin Taillade et al. (eds), 203–13. Ortoleva, Vincenzo (2012). ‘Palladio III,30: Un autentico caso di nominativus pendens?’, in Frédérique Biville et al. (eds), 235–52. Otto, Clemens (1912). ‘De epexegeseos in Latinorum scriptis usu’. Dissertation, Münster. Palmén, Erkki (1958). ‘Die lateinischen pronominalen Ortsadverbien in Kasusbedeutung’, Arctos n.s. 2: 104–42. Panagl, Oswald (2005). ‘Linguistisches und Stilistisches zum Hendiadyoin’, in Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), 877–84. Panagl, Oswald and Krisch, Thomas (eds) (1992). Latein und Indogermanisch:  Akten des Kolloquiums der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Salzburg, 23.–26. September 1986. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.

Bibliography 1285 Panchón, Federico (1986). ‘Orden de palabras en latín’, Studia Zamorensia 7: 213–29. Panchón, Federico (2003). ‘Les complétives en ut’, in Colette Bodelot (ed.), 335–481. Panchón, Federico (2007). ‘Ut sans valeur transitive’, in Colette Bodelot (ed.), 161–78. Panchón, Federico (2011). ‘Relatives au subjonctif avec prédicat factif en latin’, Les Études Classiques 79: 123–42. Panchón, Federico (2012). ‘Le grammème id dans la relative parenthétique id quod’, in Camille Denizot and Emmanuel Dupraz (eds), 169–208. Panchón, Federico (2013). ‘Le morphème uti: Étymologie et emploi, spécialement chez Salluste et Lucrèce’, in Colette Bodelot et al. (eds), 463–76. Panhuis, Dirk G. J. (1980). ‘Gapping in Latin’, The Classical Journal 75: 229–41. Panhuis, Dirk G. J. (1981). ‘Word order, genre, adstratum: The place of the verb in Caesar’s topographical excursus’, Glotta 59: 295–308. Panhuis, Dirk G. J. (1982). The Communicative Perspective in the Sentence: A Study in Latin Word Order. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Panico, Maria (2001). ‘La digressio nella tradizione retorico-grammaticale’, Bollettino di Studi Latini 31: 478–96. Parkes, Malcolm Beckwith (1992). Pause and Effect: An Introduction to the History of Punctuation in the West. Aldershot: Scolar Press. Parzinger, Peter (1910). Beiträge zur Erkenntnis der Entwicklung des Ciceronischen Stils. Landsut: J. Thomann. Pascucci, Giovanni (1961). ‘Nedum’, Studi Italiani di Filologia Classica 33: 127–53. Pascucci, Giovanni (1968). ‘Aspetti del latino giuridico’, Studi italiani di filologia classica 40: 3–43. Pasoli, Elio (1957). In Properti Monobiblon Commentationes. Bologna: Zanichelli. Pasoli, Elio (1962). ‘De quodam particulae itaque usu peculiari’, Latinitas 10: 100–6. Pasoli, Elio (1963). ‘Cicerone Rep. 1.16’, Rivista di filologia e di istruzione classica 91: 46–51. Pasoli, Elio (19662). Saggi di grammatica latina. Bologna: Zanichelli. Pausch, Dennis (2011). Livius und der Leser: narrative Strukturen in Ab urbe condita (Zetemata 140). Munich: Beck. Pennell Ross, Deborah (1987). ‘The order of words in Latin subordinate clauses’. PhD, The University of Michigan. Pennell Ross, Deborah (1991). ‘The role of displacement in narrative prose’, in Robert Coleman (ed.), 453–66. Pennell Ross, Deborah (1996). ‘Anaphors and antecedents in narrative text’, in Hannah Rosén (ed.), 511–23. Penney, John H. W. (1999). ‘Archaism and innovation in poetic syntax’, in James N. Adams and Roland G. Mayer (eds), 249–68. Penney, John  H.  W. (2005). ‘Connections in archaic Latin prose’, in Tobias Reinhardt et al. (eds), 37–51. Penney, John H. W. (ed.) (2004). Indo-European Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Perdicoyanni-Paléologou, Hélène (2002). ‘Les emplois de ecce, eccum, eccistum, eccillum chez Plaute’, Faventia 28: 41–52. Perrochat, Paul (1932a). L’infinitif de narration en latin. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Perrochat, Paul (1932b). Recherches sur la valeur et l’emploi de l’infinitif subordonné en latin. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Perutelli, Alessandro (2004). Prolegomeni a Sisenna. Pisa: ETS.

1286

Bibliography

Petersmann, Hubert (1977). Petrons urbane Prosa: Untersuchungen zu Sprache und Text (Syntax). Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Petersmann, Hubert and Kettemann, Rudolf (eds) (1999). Latin vulgaire–latin tardif V. Heidelberg: Winter. Petersen, Lauren Hackworth (2003). ‘The baker, his tomb, his wife, and her breadbasket: The monument of Eurysaces in Rome’, The Art Bulletin 85: 230–57. Pettersson, Oscar (1930). ‘Commentationes Livianae’. Dissertation, Uppsala. Pezzini, Giuseppe (2005). Terence and the Verb ‘To Be’ in Latin. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pfister, Raimund (1995). ‘Der Nebensatz, Ein Fachwort ohne Randschärfe’, in Dominique Longrée (ed.), 237–46. Pieroni, Silvia (2010). ‘Deixis and anaphora’, in Philip Baldi and Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds), III.389–501. Pinkster, Harm (1969). ‘A B and C coordination in Latin’, Mnemosyne 22: 258–67. Pinkster, Harm (1972). On Latin Adverbs. Amsterdam: North-Holland (reprint on demand from Amsterdam University Press). Pinkster, Harm (1983). ‘Praedicativum’, in Harm Pinkster (ed.), 199–217. Pinkster, Harm (1987). ‘The pragmatic motivation for the use of subject pronouns: The case of Petronius’, in Sylvie Mellet (ed.), 193–223. Pinkster, Harm (1990). ‘La coordination’, L’Information Grammaticale 46: 8–13. Pinkster, Harm (1991a). ‘Praedicativum’, in Christian Touratier (ed.), 72–8. Pinkster, Harm (1991b). ‘Evidence for SVO in Latin?’, in Roger Wright (ed.), Latin and the Romance Languages in the early Middle Ages. London: Routledge, 69–82. Pinkster, Harm (1992). ‘Notes on the syntax of Celsus’, Mnemosyne 45: 513–24. Pinkster, Harm (1993). ‘Chronologie et cohérence de quelques évolutions latines et romanes’, in Gerold Hilty (ed.), Actes du XXe Congrès International de Linguistique et Philologie Romanes. Tübingen: Francke, III: 239–50. Pinkster, Harm (1995). ‘Word order in the Late Latin Gesta conventus carthaginiensis’, in Louis Callebat (ed.), 549–60. Pinkster, Harm (2004a). ‘Luce . . . ac palam (Amm. 24.4.21): Een geval van hyperbaton?’, Lampas 37: 216–21. Pinkster, Harm (2004b). ‘Attitudinal and illocutionary satellites in Latin’, in Henk Aertsen, Mike Hannay, and Rod Lyall (eds), Words in Their Places: A Festschrift for J. Lachlan Mackenzie. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 191–8. Pinkster, Harm (2005). ‘The language of Pliny the Elder’, in Tobias Reinhardt et al. (eds), 239–56. Pinkster, Harm (2009). ‘De Latijnse voegwoorden quia en quoniam (en Nederlands aangezien)’, in Egbert Beijk et al. (eds), Fons Verborum: Feestbundel Fons Moerdijk. Leiden: INL, 313–20. Pinkster, Harm (2010a). ‘The use of quia and quoniam in Cicero, Seneca, and Tertullian’, in D. Richard Page and Aaron D. Rubin (eds), Studies in Classical Linguistics in Honor of Philip Baldi. Leiden: Brill, 81–95. Pinkster, Harm (2010b). ‘Notes on the language of Marcus Caelius Rufus’, in Eleanor Dickey and Anna Chahoud (eds), 186–202. Pinkster, Harm (2015). ‘Een nieuwe syntaxis voor een dode taal?’, Lampas 48: 168–87. Pinkster, Harm (2020). ‘Evidence for word order change in Latin OV>VO?’, in Rosario López Gregoris, Antonio  M.ª Martín Rodríguez, Carmen González Vázquez, and Luis Unceta

Bibliography 1287 (eds), Estudios lingüísticos en homenaje al profesor Benjamín García-Hernández. Madrid: Ediciones de la UAM. Pinkster, Harm (ed.) (1983). Latin Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Poccetti, Paolo (2010). ‘Greeting and farewell expressions as evidence for colloquial language: Between literary and epigraphical texts’, in Eleanor Dickey and Anna Chahoud (eds), 100–26. Poccetti, Paolo (ed.) (2016). Latinitatis Rationes. Berlin: de Gruyter. Poccetti, Paolo (ed.) (2017). ‘Oratio obliqua’: Strategies of Reported Speech in Ancient Languages. Ricerche sulle lingue di frammentaria attestazione 9. Pisa/Rome: Fabrizio Serra editore. Poirier, Michel (1996). ‘Dum ( jusqu’au moment où) = dum non (tant que . . . ne . . . pas). Ce paradoxe se vérifie-t-il?’, in Alfred Bammesberger and Friedrich Heberlein (eds), 322–36. Poirier, Michel (1998). ‘Dum, donec, quoad, suite et extension de la recherche présentée au précédent colloque: Le témoignage d’Ovide et de Tacite’, in Benjamín García Hernández (ed.), 641–57. Poirier, Michel (2001). ‘Dum, donec, quoad en latin tardif et patristique: La mutation d’un système’, in Claude Moussy et al. (eds), 553–68. Poirier, Michel (2009). ‘Dum, donec, quoad, du latin classique au latin tardif: La mutation d’un système syntaxique’, Latomus 68: 351–72. Poirier, Michel (2012). ‘Regards sur la mutation des emplois de dum, donec, quoad: Comment a pu se faire l’évolution du système’, in Alain Christol and Olga Spevak (eds), 325–33. Polo, Chiara (2004). Word Order between Morphology and Syntax. Padua: Unipress. Pompei, Anna (2011a). ‘De la classification typologique des phrases relatives en latin classique’, Emerita 79: 55–82. Pompei, Anna (2011b). ‘Typologie des constructions relatives en latin’, Les Études Classiques 79: 65–91. Pompei, Anna (2011c). ‘Relative clauses’, in Philip Baldi and Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds), 427–547. Possanza, D. Mark (2008). ‘Quippe ubi in Lucretius, De Rerum Natura, 1.167–8 and 4.925–8’, Classical Review 58: 692–8. Potůček, Petr (2000). ‘Some syntactic and textual aspects of existence, possibility and occurrence in Latin’, Listy Filologické 123: 1–11. Powell, Jonathan  G.  F. (2005). ‘Cicero’s adaptation of legal Latin’, in Tobias Reinhardt et al. (eds), 117–50. Powell, Jonathan G. F. (2010). ‘Hyperbaton and register in Cicero’, in Eleanor Dickey and Anna Chahoud (eds), 163–85. Preuss, Siegmund (1881). De bimembris dissoluti apud scriptores Romanos usu solemni. Edenkoben. Prévost, Sophie (2018). ‘Increase of pronominal subjects in Latin evidence for a starting-point in Late Latin’, in Anne Carlier and Céline Guillot-Barbance (eds), 171–200. Priess, Hubert Hermann (1909). ‘Usum adverbii quatenus fugerint poetae Latini quidam dactylici’. Dissertation. Marburg. Probert, Philomen (2015). Early Greek Relative Clauses. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Probert, Philomen and Dickey, Eleanor (2016). ‘Six notes on Latin correlatives’, in James N. Adams and Nigel Vincent (eds), 390–419. Probert, Philomen and Willi, Andreas (eds) (2012). Laws and Rules in Indo-European. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

1288

Bibliography

Pultrová, Lucie (2018). ‘Periphrastic comparison in Latin’, Journal of Latin Linguistics 17: 93–110. Purnelle, Gérald (1998). ‘Une étude diachronique de la syntaxe de licet’, in Benjamín García Hernández (ed.), 659–71. Purnelle, Gérald (2001). ‘Licet et subjonctif, verbe ou conjonction? Seconde enquête’, in Claude Moussy et al. (eds) 569–82. Purnelle, Gérald and Denooz, Joseph (eds) (2007). Ordre et cohérence en latin, Biblothèque de la Faculté de philosophie et Lettres de l’Université de Liège CCXCIII. Geneva: Droz. Questa, Cesare (2007). La Metrica di Plauto e Terenzio. Urbino: QuattroVenti. Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey, and Svartvik, Jan (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman. Radatz, Hans-Ingo (2001). Die Semantik der Adjektivstellung. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Raible, Wolfgang (1993). ‘Die Entwicklung ideographischer Elemente bei der Verschriftlichung des Wissens’, in Wolfgang Kullmann and Jochen Althoff (eds), Vermittlung und Tradierung von Wissen in der griechischen Kultur. Tübingen: Narr, 15–37. Ramírez de Verger, Antonio (2011). ‘Quoque in Ovid, Met. 6.27’, Philologus 155: 383–6. Raviolo, Francesca (2002). ‘Elementi di latino volgare nei sermoni 1–5 di Agostino’, Orpheus 23: 90–104. Reggio, Grazia (2005). ‘Relative clauses in juridical Latin’, in Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), 653–61. Reggio, Grazia (2006). ‘Quelques considérations sur la syntaxe dans les Digesta d’Alvénus Varus’, in Jean-Paul Brachet and Claude Moussy (eds), 251–62. Reinhardt, Tobias (2010). ‘Syntactic colloquialism in Lucretius’, in Eleanor Dickey and Anna Chahoud (eds), 203–28. Reinhardt, Tobias, Lapidge, Michael, and Adams, James N. (eds) (2005). Aspects of the Language of Latin Prose, Proceedings of the British Academy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Revuelta, Antonio (1999). ‘Focusing particles in Latin. Some remarks’, in Benjamín García Hernández (ed.), 689–704. Revuelta, Antonio (2002). ‘Oraciones comparativas de igualdad: Niveles de integración’, in Empar Espinilla et al. (eds), 191–228. Reynolds, Suzanne (1996). Medieval Reading: Grammar, Rhetoric and the Classical Text. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Richmond, John A. (1965). ‘A note on elision of final ĕ in certain particles used by Latin poets’, Glotta 43: 78–103. Richter, Elise (1903). Zur Entwicklung der romanischen Wortstellung aus der lateinischen. Halle: Niemeyer. Ricottilli, Licinia (1978). ‘Quid tu? Quid vos?’ Materiali e Discussioni 1: 215–21. Rieken, Elisabeth and Widmer, Paul (eds) (2009). Pragmatische Kategorien: Form, Funktion und Diachronie. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Riemann, Othon (1885). Études sur la langue et la grammaire de Tite-Live. Paris: Thorin. Ripoll, Arthur (2012). ‘Le changement invisible ou “que tout reste identique pour que tout change” ’, in Alain Christol and Olga Spevak (eds), 299–323. Riquelme, José (2005). ‘El participio concertado regente de aditamentación sintáctica en Annales I de Tácito: Variedad de construcciones’, Faventia 27: 25–46. Risselada, Rodie (1984). ‘Coordination and juxtaposition of adjectives in the Latin NP’, Glotta 62: 202–31. Risselada, Rodie (1989). ‘Latin illocutionary parentheticals’, in Marius Lavency and Dominique Longrée (eds), 367–78.

Bibliography 1289 Risselada, Rodie (1994). ‘Modo and sane, or what to do with particles in Latin directives’, in József Herman (ed.), 319–42. Risselada, Rodie (1998a). ‘The discourse functions of sane: Latin marker of agreement in description, interaction and concession’, Journal of Pragmatics 30: 225–44. Risselada, Rodie (1998b). ‘Tandem and postremo: Two of a kind?’, in Rodie Risselada (ed.), 85–116. Risselada, Rodie (1998c). ‘Nunc’s use as a discourse marker of “cohesive” shifts’, in CharlesMarie Ternes (ed.), 142–59. Risselada, Rodie (2016). ‘The pragmatics of “at least”: saltem, utique, dumtaxat, certe’, Pallas 102: 191–9. Risselada, Rodie (ed.) (1998). Latin in Use (Amsterdam Studies in the Pragmatics of Latin). Amsterdam: Gieben. Risselada, Rodie, Jong, Jan  R.  de, and Bolkestein, Alide  Machtelt (eds) (1996). On Latin: Linguistic and Literary Studies in Honour of Harm Pinkster. Amsterdam: Gieben. Roby, Henry J. (1882). A Grammar of the Latin Language from Plautus to Suetonius, 2 vols. London: Macmillan. Roca, María José (1997). ‘Quod, quia, quoniam en Amiano Marcelino’, Fortunatae 9: 237–51. Roca, María José (2001). La subordinación completiva en latín tardío: La extensión de las subordinadas conjuncionales (QVOD, QVIA, QVONIAM, EO QVOD). Santa Cruz de Tenerife: Universidad de La Laguna. Rochette, Bruno (2007). ‘Éléments hors structure dans la Cena Trimalchionis (26.7–78.8): Remarques sur la structure de la phrase de Pétrone’, in Colette Bodelot (ed.), 265–94. Rodríguez Martín, V. E. (1993). ‘Quod, quia, quoniam en las Epístolas católicas de la Vulgata: Su uso con los verbos de lengua y entendimiento’, Analecta Malacitana 16: 43–8. Roegiest, Eugeen (1983). ‘Do tibi aquam bibere: À propos d’une construction infinitive dans les langues Romanes’, Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie 99: 267–87. Roesch, Sophie (2002). ‘Les stratégies de clôture du dialogue dans les comédies de Plaute’, in Alide Machtelt Bolkestein et al. (eds), 317–32. Roesch, Sophie (2005). ‘L’échec des clôtures du dialogue dans les comédies de Plaute’, in Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), 921–32. Roesch, Sophie (2008). ‘Les débuts de dialogue dans la comédie et la tragédie latines’, in Bruno Bureau and Christian Nicolas (eds), Commencer et finir. Lyon: Collection du CRGR, 207–22. Rohde, Dietrich (1884). Adjectivum quo ordine apud Caesarem et in Ciceronis orationibus coniunctum sit cum substantivo. Programm Hamburg. Rohde, Dietrich (1887). Adjectivum quo ordine apud Sallustium coniunctum sit cum substantivo. Programm Hamburg. Ros, Hilke (2001). ‘Binding Theory and Valency Grammar in Latin’, Glotta 77: 244–61. Ros, Hilke (2005). ‘Gratias agere quod: Causal or complement clause’, Mnemosyne 58: 416–23. Roschatt, Alois (1885). ‘Ueber den Gebrauch der Parenthesen in Ciceros Reden und rhetorischen Schriften’, Acta Seminarii Philologici Erlangensis 3: 189–244. Rosén, Hannah (1981). Studies in the Syntax of the Verbal Noun in Early Latin. Munich: Fink. Rosén, Hannah (1983). ‘The mechanisms of Latin nominalization and conceptualization in historical view’, in Wolfgang Haase (ed.), 178–211. Rosén, Hannah (1989a). ‘General subordinators and sentence complements’, in Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), 197–217.

1290

Bibliography

Rosén, Hannah (1989b). ‘The use and function of sentential particles in Classical Latin’, in Marius Lavency and Dominique Longrée (eds), 391–402. Rosén, Hannah (1990). ‘La coordination asymmétrique comme critère de fonction syntaxique en latin’, L’Information Grammaticale 46: 34–7. Rosén, Hannah (1992). ‘Die Arten der Prolepse im Lateinischen in typologischer Sicht’, in Oswald Panagl and Thomas Krisch (eds), 243–62. Rosén, Hannah (1993). ‘Demum: A message-articulating particle’, in Jan de Clercq and Piet Desmet (eds), Florilegium historiographiae linguisticae (= CILL 75). Leuven: Peeters, 173–84. Rosén, Hannah (1994). ‘The definite article in the making’, in József Herman (ed.), 129–50. Rosén, Hannah (1996). ‘ “Eam vitam vivere quae est sola vita nominanda”. Reflections on cognate complements’, in Rodie Risselada et al. (eds), 127–49. Rosén, Hannah (1998). ‘Latin presentational sentences’, in Benjamín García Hernández (ed.), 723–42. Rosén, Hannah (1999). Latine loqui: Trends and Directions in the Crystalization of Classical Latin. Munich: Fink. Rosén, Hannah (2003). ‘Immo—its atypical use in Petronius’, in József Herman and Hannah Rosén (eds), 169–81. Rosén, Hannah (2005). ‘Particles—Hypercharacterization and status shift in Latin and Romance’, in Sándor Kiss et al. (eds), 227–36. Rosén, Hannah (2007a). ‘La mise en relief par apodose aux subordonnées en si . . ., qu . . ., quando . . ., et sim.’, in Colette Bodelot (ed.), 75–90. Rosén, Hannah (2007b). ‘On particles and otiose emendations: Epitactic sed’, in Juhani Härmä, Elina Suomela-Härmä, and Olli Välikangas (eds), L’art de la philologie, Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki 70: 231–8. Rosén, Hannah (2008). ‘Latin epitaxis in historical and typological view’, Papers on Grammar 10: 205–42. Rosén, Hannah (2009). ‘Coherence, sentence modification, and sentence-part modification— the contribution of particles’, in Philip Baldi and Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds), 317–441. Rosén, Hannah (2011). ‘Zeroing in on Latin asyndesis’, STUF 54: 136–47. Rosén, Hannah (2013). ‘About non-direct discourse: Another look at its parameters in Latin’, Journal of Latin Linguistics 12: 231–68. Rosén, Hannah (2015). ‘Le continuum des discours rapportés en latin: Du discours indirect vers le discours direct’, Revue de Linguistique Latine du Centre Alfred Ernout: De Lingua Latina 10: 1–33 [online]: http://lettres.sorbonne-universite.fr/sites/default/files/media/202005/dll_10_h-rosen.pdf. Rosén, Hannah (ed.) (1996). Aspects of Latin. Papers from the Seventh International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft. Rosén, Hannah and Shalev, Donna (2017). ‘Quasi: Its Grecizing (?) syntactic patterns’, Pallas 103: 273–82. Roveri, Alessandro (1959). ‘Osservazioni sull’uso di potius (citius, prius) quam ut in Cicerone’, in Atti del I Congresso Internazionale di Studi Ciceroniani. Rome: Centro di studi ciceroniani, II.423–32. Rubio, Gonzalo (2009). ‘Semitic influence in the history of Latin syntax’, in Philip Baldi and Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds), 195–239. Ruggiero, Ettore de (1956). Dizionario epigrafico di antichità Romane, 3 vols. Rome: L. Pasqualucci (repr. Rome: l’Erma di Brettschneider).

Bibliography 1291 Ruiz Castellanos, Antonio (2005). ‘Los capítulos como unidades textuales. Enunciados temáticos + quippe en Veleyo Patérculo, H.R. 2,1–57’, in Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), 933–42. Saastamoinen, Ari (2010). The Phraseology of Latin Building Inscriptions in Roman North Africa. Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica. Salonius, Aarne  H. (1920). Vitae patrum: Kritische Untersuchungen über Text, Syntax und Wortschatz der spätlateinischen Vitae patrum. Lund: Gleerup. Salvi, Giampaolo (2004). La formazione della struttura di frase romanze. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Sánchez Manzano, María Asunción (2001). ‘Quippe y nam en el estilo histórico de Veleyo Patérculo’, in M. José Barrios and Emilio Crespo (coords.), X Congreso Español de Estudios Clásicos, II. Sociedad de Estudios Clásicos. Sánchez Martínez, Félix (1996). ‘La construcción personal activa: A propósito de Propercio 2.1.41–2’, Cuadernos de Filología Clásica (Lat) 11: 17–27. Sánchez Martínez, Jesús (2000). Morfosintaxis latina coordinativa. Murcia: Universidad de Murcia. Sasse, Hans-Jürgen (1987). ‘The thetic/categorical distinction revisited’, Linguistics 25: 511–80. Saur, Hugo (1913). ‘Die Adversativpartikeln bei lateinischen Prosaikern’. Dissertation, Tübingen. Sawicki, Lea and Shalev, Donna (eds) (2002). Donum Grammaticum. Leuven: Peeters. Scaglione, Aldo D. (1970). Ars grammatica. The Hague: Mouton. Scaglione, Aldo  D. (1972). The Classical Theory of the Composition from its Origins to the Present. Chapell Hill: North Carolina University Press. Schaffner, Emil (1954). Die Entwicklung des lateinischen Adverbs quamvis zur Konjunktion. Winterthur: Keller Verlag. Scherer, Anton (1975). Handbuch der lateinischen Syntax. Heidelberg: Winter. Schlicher, John  J. (1933). ‘Non-assertive elements in the language of the Latin historians’, Classical Philology 28: 289–300. Schlicher, John J. (1936). ‘The development of Caesar’s narrative style’, Classical Philology 31: 212–24. Schmalz, Joseph Hermann (1884). ‘Ablativi absoluti im Perf. Depon. mit Objekt’, Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik 1: 344–7. Schneider, Nikolaus (1912). ‘De verbi in lingua Latina collocatione’. Dissertation, Münster. Schrickx, Josine (2009). ‘Namque als Variante von nam?’, Mnemosyne 62: 250–71. Schrickx, Josine (2011). Lateinische Modalpartikeln: Nempe, quippe, scilicet, videlicet und nimirum. Leiden: Brill. Schrickx, Josine (2016). ‘Nedum: “much less” or “much more”?’, Journal of Latin Linguistics 15: 117–44. Schrickx, Josine (2017). ‘Polar questions in Latin with and without the enclitic particle -ne’, in Camille Denizot and Olga Spevak (eds), 235–55. Schrickx, Josine (2018). ‘Waarom nedum altijd “laat staan” betekent’, Lampas 51: 112–25. Schrijnen, Josef (1939). ‘Ein nominativus absolutus im Altlatein’, in Collectanea Schrijnen. Nijmegen/Utrecht: Dekker & van de Vegt, 197–201. Schrijvers, Piet  H. (1970). Horror ac divina voluptas: Études sur la poétique et la poésie de Lucrèce. Amsterdam: Hakkert. Schünke, Emil (1906). ‘De traiectione coniunctionum et pronominis relativi apud poetas Latinos’. Dissertation, Kiel. Schuster, Meinhard (1950/51). ‘Kritisch-exegetische Nachlese zu Catull’, Wiener Studien 65: 42–53.

1292

Bibliography

Scivoletto, Nino (1962). ‘ “Dico quod”, “dico quia” ’, Giornale Italiano di Filologia 15: 1–34. Selig, Maria (1992). Die Entwicklung der Nominaldeterminanten im Spätlatein. Tübingen: Narr. Serbat, Guy (1979). ‘L’ablatif absolu’, Revue des Études Latines 57: 340–54. Serbat, Guy (1984). ‘Erat Pipa quaedam’, Revue des Études Latines 62: 344–56. Serbat, Guy (1988a). ‘Le nominativus pendens’, Cuadernos de Filología Clásica 21.2: 359–66. Serbat, Guy (1988b). Linguistique latine et linguistique générale. Leuven: Peeters. Serbat, Guy (1991). ‘Intégration à la phrase latine d’un groupe nominal sans fonction syntaxique (le “nominativus pendens”)’, Langages 104: 22–32. Serbat, Guy (1996). L’emploi des cas en latin. Grammaire fondamentale du latin VI. Leuven: Peeters. Serbat, Guy (2003). ‘Les complétives en quod’, in Colette Bodelot (ed.), 528–753. Setaioli, Aldo (2000). Facundus Seneca. Bologna: Pàtron. Shalev, Donna (1998). ‘Vocatives in responses: A bridging mechanism in dialogue exchange’, in Benjamín García Hernández (ed.), 765–79. Shalev, Donna (2001). ‘A pattern of agent expression in non-active and non-personal expressions in Latin’, in Claude Moussy et al. (eds), 583–96. Shackleton Bailey, David R. (1956). Propertiana. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shipley, Frederick William (1913). ‘Preferred and avoided combinations of the enclitic -que in Cicero’, Classical Philology 8: 23–47. Siegert, Hans (1939). Die Syntax der Tempora und Modi der ältesten lateinischen Inschriften (bis zum Tode Caesars). Würzburg: Triltsch. Sievers, Gualterus (1907). ‘De zeugmatis quod dicitur usu Horatiano’. Dissertation, Jena. Siewierska, Anna (1988). Word Order Rules. London: Croom Helm. Siewierska, Anna (1998). ‘Variation in major constituent orders: A global and European perspective’, in Anna Siewierska (ed.), 475–551. Siewierska, Anna (1999). ‘Word order and linearization’, in Keith Brown and Jim Miller (eds), 412–18. Siewierska, Anna (ed.) (1998). Constituent Order in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Siewierska, Anna and Uhlířová, Ludmila (1998). ‘An overview of word order in Slavic languages’, in Anna Siewierska (ed.), 105–49. Sihler, Andrew L. (1995). A New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sjögren, Håkan (1900). ‘De particulis copulativis apud Plautum et Terentium quaestiones selectae’. Dissertation, Uppsala. Sjöstrand, Nils (1891). De vi et usu supini secundi Latinorum. Lund: H. Möller. Sluiter, Ineke (2000). ‘Seven grammarians on the ablative absolute’, Historiographia Linguistica 17: 379–414. Smith, Carlota S. (2003). Modes of Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sörbom, Gunnar (1935). Variatio sermonis Tacitei aliaeque apud eundem quaestiones selectae. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. Sörés, Anna (2004). ‘La notion d’ “ordre de base” dans la typologie des langues et son application à la langue hongroise’, Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 99: 281–310. Solin, Heikki (2004). ‘Parerga zu den lateinischen Fluchtafeln’, in Kai Brodersen and Amina Kropp (eds), Fluchtafeln. Frankfurt a.M.: Verlag Antike, 115–28. Solin, Heikki, Leiwo, Martti, and Halla-aho, Hilla (eds) (2003). Latin vulgaire–latin tardif VI. Hildesheim: Olms-Weidmann.

Bibliography 1293 Solodow, J.  B. (1978). The Latin particle quidem. Boulder, Colo.: American Philological Association. Somers, Maartje H. (1994). ‘Theme and topic. The relation between discourse and constituent fronting in Latin’, in József Herman (ed.), 151–77. Song, Jae Jung (2010). ‘Word Order Typology’, in Jae Jung Song (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 253–80. Soubiran, Jean (1966). L’élision dans la poésie latine. Paris: Klincksieck. Spevak, Olga (1998). ‘L’emploi de licet en latin tardif ’, Acta Universitatis Carolinae, Graecolatina Pragensia 16: 95–114. Spevak, Olga (2001). ‘La concession en latin tardif ’. Thesis, Université de Paris IV–Sorbonne. Spevak, Olga (2004). ‘Verb–subject order in Latin: The case of existential and locative sentences’, Classica et Medievalia 55: 381–96. Spevak, Olga (2005a). ‘Itinerarium Egeriae: L’ordre des constituants obligatoires’, Mnemosyne 58: 235–61. Spevak, Olga (2005b). La concession en latin. Brussels: Latomus. Spevak, Olga (2005c). ‘Concession et corrélation’, in Paolo de Carvalho and Frédéric Lambert (eds), 141–57. Spevak, Olga (2006a). ‘Les enclitiques en latin’, Indogermanische Forschungen 111: 249–74. Spevak, Olga (2006b). ‘Quod, quia et les locutions conjonctives (Isidore de Séville, Étymologies 10)’, in Carmen Arias (ed.), 535–47. Spevak, Olga (2006c). ‘Tamen. Essai d’une description syntaxique’, Glotta 82: 221–48. Spevak, Olga (2006d). ‘L’ordre des constituants en latin’. Habilitation, Sorbonne. Spevak, Olga (2010a). Constituent Order in Classical Latin Prose. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Spevak, Olga (2010b). ‘Le syntagme nominal en latin: Les travaux des trente dernières années’, in Olga Spevak (ed.), 23–40. Spevak, Olga (2010c). ‘La place des déterminants et leur combinaisons’, in Olga Spevak (ed.), 57–75. Spevak, Olga (2012a). ‘La disjonction en latin tardif ’, in Frédérique Biville et al. (eds), 253–69. Spevak, Olga (2012b). ‘Les enclitiques enim et autem dans la diachronie du latin’, in Alain Christol and Olga Spevak (eds), 335–52. Spevak, Olga (2013). ‘La dislocation à droite en latin’, Glotta 89: 195–221. Spevak, Olga (2014a). The Noun Phrase in Classical Latin Prose. Leiden: Brill. Spevak, Olga (2014b). ‘Causa et ses compléments’, in Aude Morel-Alizon and Jean-François Thomas (eds), 17–29. Spevak, Olga (2015a). ‘Appositive construction or noun phrase? On the status of postnominal adjectives in Latin and Ancient Greek’, Journal of Latin Linguistics 14: 307–23. Spevak, Olga (2015b). ‘Les noms verbaux en latin’, Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 110: 289–321. Spevak, Olga (2016a). ‘L’ordre des mots en latin après J. Marouzeau’, Revue des Études Latines 93: 107–28. Spevak, Olga (2016b). ‘La place des génitifs chez Vitruve et Pline l’Ancien’, in Paolo Poccetti (ed.), 731–47. Spevak, Olga (2018). ‘La construction à participe dominant vs. le nom verbal chez Cicéron’, Revue de Philologie 92: 63–84. Spevak, Olga (2019). ‘La construction à participe dominant (ab urbe condita): Emplois prépositionnels’, Listy filologické / Folia philologica 142: 283–306.

1294

Bibliography

Spevak, Olga (ed.) (2010). Le syntagme nominal en latin: Nouvelles contributions. Paris: L’Harmattan. Stamm, Peter (1885). Die Partikelverbindung et . . . quidem (ac . . . quidem) bei Cicero. Programm Rössel. Stassen, Leon (2000). ‘AND-languages and WITH-languages’, Linguistic Typology 4: 1–54. Steele, Robert Benson (1898). ‘Affirmative final clauses in the Latin historians’, The American Journal of Philology 19: 255–84. Steele, Robert Benson (1902). ‘The ablative absolute in Livy’, The American Journal of Philology 23: 295–312. Steele, Robert Benson (1904). ‘The ablative absolute in the Epistles of Cicero, Seneca, Pliny, and Fronto’, The American Journal of Philology 25: 315–27. Stegmann, Carl (1890). ‘Zur lateinischen Schulgrammatik III’, Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie und Pädagogik 142: 25–37. Stengaard, Birte (1985). ‘Shift tipológico Tema/Rema y el futuro románico’, Revue Romane 20: 208–30. Stinton, T. C. W. (1976). ‘Si credere dignum est: Some expressions of disbelief in Euripides and others’, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 22: 80–9. Stockert, Walther (2004). ‘Schwören auch Frauen bei Herkules?—Bemerkungen zu Cist. 52 und anderen Plautusstellen’, in Rolf Hartkamp and Florian Hurka (eds), Studien zu Plautus’ Cistellaria. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, 363–9. Storme, Benjamin (2010). ‘Sicilia amissa: Syntagme nominal ou proposition subordonnée?’, Revue de Philologie 84: 119–36. Stotz, Peter (1998). Handbuch zur lateinischen Sprache des Mittelalters, IV: Formenlehre, Syntax und Stilistik. Munich: Beck. Suárez, Pedro Manuel (2002). ‘Subordinación o coordinación con quam’, in Empar Espinilla et al. (eds), 229–49. Suárez, Pedro Manuel (2012). Catégories grammaticales, systèmes grammaticaux et autres questions de linguistique latine. Hildesheim: Olms. Sutter, Marc de (1986). ‘A theory of word order within the Latin noun phrase, based on Cato’s De agri cultura’, in Carl Deroux (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History IV. Brussels: Latomus, 151–83. Svennung, Josef (1934). ‘Nebensätze ohne Subordinationswort’, Glotta 22: 163–93. Svennung, Josef (1936). Untersuchungen zu Palladius und zur lateinischen Fach- und Volkssprache. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. Svennung, Josef (1948).‘Sprachliche Bemerkungen zum Irenaeus’, Kungl. Hum. Vet.-Samfundet i Uppsala, Årsbok: 45–57. Svennung, Josef (1958). Anredeformen. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. Sweetser, Eve (1990). From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Szantyr, Anton (1970). ‘Bemerkungen zum Aufbau der Vergilischen Ekphrasis’, Museum Helveticum 27: 28–40. Szantyr, Anton (1972). ‘Missverstandene quod-Sätze’, Gymnasium 79: 499–511. Szantyr, Anton (1974). ‘Zu Sall. (?) Rep. 2.13.6’, Gymnasium 81: 41–8. Sznajder, Lyliane (1987). ‘Un procédé d’art chez César: Les complétives paratactiques’, in Sylvie Mellet (ed.), 293–306. Sznajder, Lyliane (1996). ‘Construction paratactique et sermo cotidianus dans la langue de Plaute’, in Jacqueline Dangel and Claude Moussy (eds), Les structures de l’oralité en latin. Paris: Presses de l’Université de Paris-Sorbonne, 167–80.

Bibliography 1295 Sznajder, Lyliane (1998). ‘Verbes transitifs sans objet en latin’, in Benjamín García Hernández (ed.), 791–808. Sznajder, Lyliane (2001a). ‘Complétives latines sans mot subordonnant’, Les Études Classiques 69: 369–88. Sznajder, Lyliane (2001b). ‘Discours indirect et dépendance syntaxique’, in Claude Moussy et al. (eds), 609–26. Sznajder, Lyliane (2003). ‘Les complétives au subjonctif sans conjoncteur’, in Colette Bodelot (ed.), 13–95. Sznajder, Lyliane (2005). ‘Stratégies de prise en charge énonciatives dans le discours indirect’, in Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), 749–61. Sznajder, Lyliane (2012). ‘Dixit autem serpens ad mulierem / mulier quoque dixit: La double expression de l’allocutaire dans les propositions introductrices de discours directs dans la Vulgate’, in Frédérique Biville et al. (eds), 271–88. Sznajder, Lyliane (2017a). ‘Complétives en quod/quia/infinitives en latin biblique’, Pallas 103: 263–72. Sznajder, Lyliane (2017b). ‘Quelques réflexions sur des discours hybrides du latin biblique: oratio obliqua ou oratio recta?’, in Paolo Poccetti (ed.), 95–111. Sznajder, Lyliane (2019). ‘Les complétives en quoniam: Étude à partir du latin biblique’, in Lidewij W. van Gils et al. (eds), 174–98. Taillade, Martin (2019).‘Réflexions sur la syntaxe de fieri en latin classique’, in Martin Taillade et al. (eds), 163–86. Taillade, Martin, Gallego, Julia, Fatello, Fabienne, and Gibert, Guillaume (eds) (2019). Nemo par eloquentia: Mélanges de linguistique ancienne en hommage à Colette Bodelot. ClermontFerrand: Presses Universitaires Blaise-Pascal. Tarrant, Richard J. (2002). ‘Parenthetically speaking (in Virgil and other poets)’, in Peter E. Knox and Clive Foss (eds), Style and Tradition: Studies in Honor of Wendell Clausen. Leipzig: Teubner, 141–57. Tarriño, Eusebia (1991). ‘Observaciones sobre el acusativo absoluto en Gregorio de Tours’, in Ramos, Agustín (ed.), Mnemosynum C. Codoñer a discipulis oblatum. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca. Tarriño, Eusebia (1996). ‘Algunos usos irregulares del nominativo en Gregorio de Tours’, in Ana Agud et al. (eds), 237–55. Tarriño, Eusebia (2002). ‘Sobre la construcción NcI en Plinio el Viejo’, in Maria José García Soler (ed.), ΤΙΜΗΣ ΧΑΡΙΝ: Homenaje al Profesor Pedro A. Gainzarain. Vitoria: Universidad del Pais Vasco, 275–87. Tarriño, Eusebia (2004). ‘Elementos metacomunicativos en la prosa de Plinio el Viejo’, in Antonio López Eire and Agustín Ramos (eds), 355–77. Tarriño, Eusebia (2007). ‘Pseudo-comparativas en latín: “factis potius quam dictis” ’, in Gregorio Hinojo and José Carlos Fernández Corte (eds), Munus quaesitum meritis:  Homenaje a Carmen Codoñer. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca, 815–24. Tarriño, Eusebia (2011). ‘Comparative clauses’, in Philip Baldi and Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds), 373–426. Taylor, Margaret  E. (1951). ‘The development of the quod clause’, Yale Classical Studies 12: 229–49. Ternes, Charles-Marie (1998). Oratio soluta—Oratio numerosa: Études Luxembourgeoises d’histoire et de littérature romaines, vol I. Luxembourg: Centre Alexandre-Wiltheim. Tesnière, Lucien (1959). Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.

1296

Bibliography

Thielmann, Philip (1886). ‘Facere mit dem Infinitiv’, Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik 3: 177–206. Thomas, François (1956). ‘Dominance et résistance dans la syntaxe latine’, in Hommages à Max Niedermann. Brussels: Latomus, 315–23. Thomsen, Hans Christian (1930). Der Pleonasmus bei Plautus und Terenz, I. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. Timpanaro, Sebastiano (1970). ‘Positivus pro comparativo in latino’, in Studia Florentina Alexandro Ronconi sexagenario oblata. Rome: Edizioni dell’ Ateneo, 455–81 (repr. in Contributi di filologia e di storia della lingua latina. Rome: Edizioni dell’ Atheneo and Bizzarri, 1978: 39–81). Toledo, Rogelio (2016). ‘Speech act conditionals in two works of Cicero: In Verrem and ad Atticum’, Pallas 102: 247–54. Torrego, Esperanza (1986). ‘The system of substantive clauses as complements in Classical Latin’, Glotta 64: 66–83. Torrego, Esperanza (1987). ‘Las construcciones pasivas de nominativo con infinitivo en latín clásico. Estudio sintáctico’, Emerita 55: 71–84. Torrego, Esperanza (1988). ‘Variantes conjuncionales para la expresión de la finalidad en las oraciones subordinadas latinas’, Revista española de lingüística 18: 317–29. Torrego, Esperanza (1998). ‘Praeter + accusativo: Descripción funcional y semántica’, in Torrego, Esperanza (ed.), 111–45. Torrego, Esperanza (1999). ‘Cohésion et rupture dans les propositions irréelles latines’, Les Études Classiques 67: 391–411. Torrego, Esperanza (2001). ‘Typologie sémantique des propositions finales latines’, in Claude Moussy et al. (eds), 626–39. Torrego, Esperanza (2002). ‘Los SN comparativos: El segundo término de la comparación’, in Empar Espinilla et al. (eds), 251–79. Torrego, Esperanza (2005). ‘Grammar and pragmatics: The textual uses of repente and subito’, in Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), 763–73. Torrego, Esperanza (2013). ‘Iubeo saluere: Una forma de saludos con directivo léxico’, in José A. Beltrán et al. (eds), 173–84. Torrego, Esperanza (2014). ‘De l’empêchement à l’interdiction: Échelle de causativité et codage dans le verbe latin prohibeo’, in Bernard Bortolussi and Peggy Lecaudé (eds), 177–97. Torrego, Esperanza (2016a). ‘Variantes de complémentation: Infinitif complétif / proposition complétive à conjonction après les verbes de manipulation’, Pallas 102: 47–56. Torrego, Esperanza (2016b). ‘Verbos y argumentos: Las combinaciones sintáctico-semánticas del verbo latino cogo’, Emerita 84: 291–316. Torrego, Esperanza (2017a). ‘Le verbe latin veto: De Plaute à l’Histoire auguste’, in Pedro Duarte et al. (eds), 335–47. Torrego, Esperanza (2017b). ‘Res gestae Divi Augusti: Word order and pragmatics of the Latin original’, in Camille Denizot and Olga Spevak (eds), 159–79. Torrego, Esperanza (ed.) (1998). Nombres y funciones: Estudios de sintaxis griega y latina. Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas. Torrego, Esperanza, Baños, José Miguel, Cabrillana, Concepción, and Méndez Dosuna, Julián (eds) (2007). Praedicativa II: Esquemas de complementación verbal en griego antiguo y en latín, Monografías de Filologia Latina 15. Zaragoza: Universidad de Zaragoza. Tóth, Alfred (1994). ‘Thema, Topik und Koda. Zu einigen syntaktischen, semantischen und pragmatischen Problemen der lateinischen Grammatik’, Papers on Grammar 4: 177–210.

Bibliography 1297 Töttössy, Csaba (1998). ‘The development of the usage of the Latin gerundive’, Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 38: 381–9. Touratier, Christian (1980). La relative: Essai de théorie syntaxique. Paris: Klincksieck. Touratier, Christian (1994). Syntaxe latine. Leuven: Peeters. Touratier, Christian (1998). ‘L’imparfait, temps anaphorique?’, in Bruno Bureau and Christian Nicolas (eds), 265–79. Touratier, Christian (2002). ‘Discussions épistémologiques et théoriques autour de la relative’, in Lea Sawicki and Donna Shalev (eds), 351–65. Touratier, Christian (2005). ‘Esquisse de l’histoire de la complétive en quod’, in Sándor Kiss et al. (eds), 77–86. Touratier, Christian (2011). ‘Qu’entend-on par “relative”?’, Les Études Classiques 79: 5–19. Touratier, Christian (ed.) (1985). Syntaxe et latin: Actes du IIème congrès international de linguistique latine, Aix-en-Provence, 28–31 mars 1983. Aix-en-Provence: Université de Provence. Touratier, Christian (ed.) (1991). Compléments prédicatifs et attributs du complément d’objet en latin. Aix-en-Provence: Publications de l’Université de Provence. Traenkle, Hermann (1968). ‘Beobachtungen und Erwägungen zum Wandel der livianischen Sprache’, Wiener Studien N.F. 2: 103–52. Traglia, Antonio (1947). Valore e uso dell' ablativo latino di comparazione. Rome: Editrice Studium. Trappes-Lomax, John M. (2007). Catullus: A Textual Reappraisal. Swansea: The Classical Press of Wales. Ulbricht, Edmundus (1875). Taciti qui ad figuram dicendi ἓν διὰ δυοῖν referuntur ex minoribus scriptis locos concessit atque interpretatus est E. U. Programm Freiberg. Ulrich, Miorita (1985). Thetisch und kategorisch: Funktionen der Anordnung von Satzkonstituenten am Beispiel des Rumänischen und anderen Sprachen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Unceta, Luis (2012). ‘Cuando los sentimentos irrumpen I: Valores expresivos de las interjecciones primarias en las comedias de Plauto’, in Rosario López Gregoris (ed.), Estudios sobre teatro Romano: El mundo de los sentimentos y su expresión. Zaragoza: Libros Pórtico, 347–95. Unceta, Luis (2016a). ‘Congratulations in Latin comedy: Types and functions’, Journal  of Politeness Research 12: 267–90. Unceta, Luis (2016b). ‘Cuando los sentimentos irrumpen II: Valores expresivos de las interjecciones primarias en las comedias de Plauto’, in Benjamín García Hernández and Azucena Penas (eds), Semántica latina y románica: Unidades de significado conceptual y procedimental. Bern: Peter Lang, 213–41. Unceta, Luis (2017a). ‘Quando las emociones irrumpen: Análisis comparativo del empleo de las interjecciones en las comedias de Terencio y las tragedias de Séneca’, Onomázein 38: 107–46. Unceta, Luis (2017b). ‘Discursive and pragmatic functions of Latin em’, in Camille Denizot and Olga Spevak (eds), 63–82. Vaan, Michiel de (2008). Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages. Leiden: Brill. Väänänen, Veikko (1951). Il est venu comme ambassadeur, il agit en soldat, etc. Helsinki: Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae. Väänänen, Veikko (19813). Introduction au latin vulgaire. Paris: Klincksieck. Väänänen, Veikko (1987). Le journal Épître d’Égérie (Itinerarium Egeriae). Étude linguistique. Helsinki: Suomainen Tiedeakatemia.

1298

Bibliography

Vallejo, José (1948). ‘Quippe (qui)’, Emerita 16: 201–20. Van Laer, Sophie (2010). ‘Approche syntaxique et discursive de la comparaison “identifiante” ’, in Peter Anreiter and Manfred Kienpointner (eds), 345–57. Van Laer, Sophie (2013). ‘Ut comparatif en latin étude syntaxique et sémantico-logique’, in Colette Bodelot et al. (eds), 411–24. Van Laer, Sophie (2014). ‘Ut causal en latin quelle relation de causalité?’, in Aude Morel-Alizon and Jean-François Thomas (eds), 109–36. Van Laer, Sophie (2015). ‘Ut comparatif en latin: Un marqueur de dialogisme?’, Revue de Linguistique Latine du Centre Alfred Ernout: De Lingua Latina 11: 1–25 [online]. Vecchio, Tommaso del (2008). ‘Problemi di interpretazione delle interiezioni nelle commedie di Plauto e Terenzio’, in Ghislaine Viré (ed.), 109–22. Vester, Elseline (1977). ‘On the so-called “participium coniunctum” ’, Mnemosyne 30: 243–85. Vester, Elseline (1983). Instrument and Manner Expressions in Latin. Assen: Van Gorcum. Vester, Elseline (1989). ‘Relative clauses: A description of the indicative–subjunctive opposition’, in Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), 326–50. Vester, Elseline (1990). ‘The satellite status of gerunds and gerundives in Latin’, in Mike Hannay and Elseline Vester (eds), Working with Functional Grammar: Descriptive and Computational Applications. Dordrecht: Foris, 103–13. Vester, Elseline (1994). ‘The internal structure of adverbial ut-clauses’, in József Herman (ed.), 269–79. Vester, Helmut (1987). ‘Zum Verhältnis von Prädikativum und Adverbialbestimmung’, Gymnasium 94: 346–66. Vincent, Nigel (2016). ‘Causatives in Latin and Romance’, in James N. Adams and Nigel Vincent (eds), 294–312. Viré, Ghislaine (2005). ‘Structures corrélatives dans quelques ouvrages techniques latins’, in Paolo de Carvalho and Frédéric Lambert (eds), 226–34. Viré, Ghislaine (ed.) (2008). Autour du lexique latin. Brussels: Latomus. Viti, Carlotta (2013). ‘The Latin construction of the cum inversum’, in Colette Bodelot et al. (eds), 115–29. Vogel, Wilhelm S. (1938). Zur Stellung von esse bei Caesar und Sallust. Würzburg-Aumühle: Triltsch Verlag. Vonlaufen, Joseph (1974). Studien über Stellung und Gebrauch des lateinischen Relativsatzes (unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Lukrez). Freiburg: Universitätsverlag. Wachter, Rudolf (2004). ‘Cicero der Sprachkünstler, oder Plauderei über lateinische Wortstellung’, in Angela Hornung et al. (eds), Studia humanitatis ac litterarum trifolio Heidelbergensi dedicata. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang, 359–76. Wakker, Gerry  C. (1994). Conditions and Conditionals: An Investigation of Ancient Greek. Amsterdam: Gieben. Wanner, Dieter (1987). The Development of Romance Clitic Pronouns: From Latin to Old Romance. Berlin: de Gruyter. Watt, William S. (1962). ‘Noctuabundus’, Glotta 40: 118–19. Watt, William S. (1963). ‘Heus’, Glotta 41: 138–43. Watt, William S. (1980). ‘Enim Tullianum’, Classical Quarterly 21: 120–3. Wehr, Barbara (1984). Diskursstrategien im Romanischen. Tübingen: Narr. Wehr, Barbara (2008). ‘Spätlatein aus der Sicht der Romanistik: zu Apodosis-einleitendem et’, in Roger Wright (ed.), 179–90. Weinrich, Harald (1982). Textgrammatik der französischen Sprache. Stuttgart: Klett.

Bibliography 1299 Weische, Alfons (2005). ‘Bemerkungen zum Gebrauch von Präpositionen im klassischen Latein’, in Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), 811–20. Westman, Rolf (1961). Das Futurpartizip als Ausdrucksmittel bei Seneca. Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica. Whitton, L. C. (2011). ‘Dubitatio comparativa’, Classical Quarterly 61: 267–77. Wieland, Hans (1966). ‘iubeto (zu Verg. Ecl. 5,15)’, Museum Helveticum 23: 212–15. Wiesthaler, Franz (1956). Die oratio obliqua als künstlerisches Stilmittel in den Reden Ciceros. Innsbruck: Wagner. Wilkinson, Lancelot Patrick (1963). Golden Latin Artistry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wingo, Elvis O. (1972). Latin Punctuation in the Classical Age. The Hague: Mouton. Wirth-Poelchau, Lore (1977). AcI und quod-Satz im lateinischen Sprachgebrauch mittelalterlicher und humanistischer Autoren. Erlangen-Nürnberg: J. Hogl. Wistrand, Erik (1936). ‘De Vitruvii sermone parum ad regulam artis grammaticae explicato’, in Apophoreta Gotoburgensia V. Lundström oblata. Göteborg: Elander, 16–52. Wistrand, Erik (1967). ‘Gerundium mit Subjektsakkusativ im Latein’, Eranos 65: 65–72. Wistrand, Magnus (1979). Cicero imperator: Studies in Cicero’s Correspondence 51–47 b.c. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis. Wölfflin, Eduard (1888). ‘Quatenus’, Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik 5: 399–414. Wölfflin, Eduard (1889). ‘Der Ablativus comparationis’, Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik 6: 447–67. Wölfflin, Eduard (1896). ‘Die Lokalsätze im Lateinischen’, Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik 9: 447–52. Woodcock, Eric Charles (1959). A New Latin Syntax. London: Methuen. Woolsey, Robert  B. (1953). ‘Quod, relative pronoun and conjunction’, American Journal of Philology 74: 52–69. Wright, Roger (ed.) (2008). Latin vulgaire–latin tardif VIII. Hildesheim: Olms-Weidmann. Zanker, Paul (1990). The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press. Zelenai, Nóra (2018). ‘The variants of the se vivo fecit expression in Latin language inscriptions’, Graeco-latina Brunensia 23: 227–44. Zgoll, Christian (2012). Römische Prosodie und Metrik. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Zieliński, Thaddeus (1904). Das Clauselgesetz in Ciceros Reden: Grundzüge einer oratorischen Rhythmik. Leipzig: Dieterich. Zieliński, Thaddeus (1914). Der constructive Rhythmus in Ciceros Reden: Die oratorische Rhythmik IIer Teil. Leipzig: Teubner. Zilliacus, Henrik (1949). Untersuchungen zu den abstrakten Anredeformen und Höflichkeitstiteln im Griechischen. Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum XV.3. Helsingfors: Societas Scientiarum Fennica.

C. Commentaries and editions Ambrosetti, Maria (2009). Q. Claudio Quadrigario Annali (Supplemento n. 25 al Bollettino dei Classici). Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei.

1300

Bibliography

Austin, Roland Gregory (1971). P. Vergili Maronis Aeneidos Liber Primus. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Bailey, Cyril (19492). Titi Lucreti Cari De Rerum Natura Libri Sex, 3 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Barchiesi, Alessandro and Rosati, Gianpiero (2007). Ovidio Metamorfosi, vol. II. Milan: Mondadori. Barsby, John (1986). Plautus: Bacchides. Warminster: Aris & Phillips. Berry, D. H. (1996). Cicero pro P. Sulla Oratio. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Binder, Gerhard (2019). P. Vergilius Maro: Aeneis: Ein Kommentar, 3 vols. Trier: WVT. Boeft, Jan den, Drijvers, Jan Willem, Hengst, Daniel den, and Teitler, Hans C. (1987/2018). Philological and Historical Commentary on Ammianus Marcellinus XX–XXXI, 12 vols. Groningen: Forsten; Leiden: Brill. Bömer, Franz (1969/1986). P. Ovidius Naso: Metamorphosen, 6 vols. Heidelberg: Winter. Briscoe, John (1981). A Commentary on Livy Books XXXIV–XXXVII. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Briscoe, John (2008). A Commentary on Livy: Books 38–40. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Briscoe, John (2012). A Commentary on Livy: Books 41–45. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Calboli, Gualtiero (1993). Cornifici Rhetorica ad C. Herennium. Bologna: Pàtron. Cavarzere, Alberto (1983). Marco Celio Rufo Lettere (Cic. fam. l. VIII). Brescia: Paideia Editrice. Christenson, David (2000). Plautus: Amphitruo. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Citroni, Mario (1975). M. Valerius Martialis Epigrammaton Liber I. Florence: La Nuova Italia. Conte, Gian Biagio (2009). P. Vergilius Maro: Aeneis. Berlin: de Gruyter. Cornell, Timothy J. (ed.) (2013). The Fragments of the Roman Historians, 3 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Courtney, Edward (1995). Musa Lapidaria. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press. Diercks, Gerardus Frederik (1978). Luciferi Calaritani opera quae supersunt. Turnhout: Brepols. Dingel, Joachim (1997). Kommentar zum 9. Buch der Aeneis Vergils. Heidelberg: Winter. Dougan, Thomas Wilson (1905–35). M.  Tulli Ciceronis Tusculanarum Disputationum Libri Quinque, 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dyck, Andrew R. (2004). A Commentary on Cicero, de Legibus. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Dyck, Andrew R. (2010). Cicero: Pro Sexto Roscio. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dyck, Andrew R. (2013). Cicero: Pro Marco Caelio. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Eden, Paul T. (1975). A Commentary on Virgil: Aeneid VIII. Leiden: Brill. Enk, Pieter-Jan (1932). Plauti Truculentus. Leiden: Sijthoff. Goodyear, Frank  R.  D. (1972/81). The Annals of Tacitus, books I and II, 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gowers, Emily (2012). Horace: Satires Book I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Groningen Commentaries on Apuleius (2004). Apuleius Madaurensis Metamorphoses Books IV, 28–35, V and VI, 1–24. Groningen: Forsten. Hall, Jon B. (2008). P. Papinius Statius, vol. III: Thebaid and Achilleid. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Harrison, Stephen J. (1991). Vergil: Aeneid 10. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Heubner, Heinz (1963). P. Cornelius Tacitus: Die Historien, Band I. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Heubner, Heinz (1976). P.  Cornelius Tacitus: Die Historien, Band IV. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.

Bibliography 1301 Horsfall, Nicholas (2000). Virgil, Aeneid 7: A Commentary. Leiden: Brill. Horsfall, Nicholas (2008). Virgil, Aeneid 1: A Commentary. Leiden: Brill. Hutchinson, Gregory (2006). Propertius: Elegies Book IV. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jocelyn, Henry David (1967). The Tragedies of Ennius. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kenney, Edward John (20142). Lucretius: de Rerum Natura Book III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Koestermann, Erich (1963/68). Cornelius Tacitus: Annalen, 4 vols. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Krapinger, Gernot and Stramaglia, Antonio (2015). [Quintilian] Der Blinde auf der Türschwelle (Grössere Deklamationen, 2). Edizioni Università di Cassino. Leeman, Anton Daniël, Pinkster, Harm, and Rabbie, Edwin (1989). M. Tullius Cicero de Oratore Libri III, vol. 3. Heidelberg: Winter. Lindsay, Wallace Martin (1904). T. Macci Plauti Comoediae, 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press (OCT). Luck, Georg (1967/77). P. Ovidius Naso: Tristia, 2 vols. Heidelberg: Winter. Madvig, Johan Nicolai (1876). Cicero de Finibus Bonorum et Malorum Libri V. Copenhagen. Manuwald, Gesine (2007). Cicero Philippics 3–9, 2 vols. Berlin: de Gruyter. Martin, Ronald H. and Woodman, Anthony J. (1989). Tacitus: Annals Book IV. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Marx, Fridericus (1915). A. Cornelii Celsi quae supersunt. Leipzig: Teubner. Maurach, Gregor (1975). Plauti Poenulus. Heidelberg: Winter. Mayer, Roland (1981). Lucan: Civil War III. Warminster: Aris & Phillips. Meusel, Heinrich (1913). C.  Iulii Caesaris Commentarii de Bello Gallico, 3 vols. Berlin: Weidmann. Munro, Hugh Andrew Johnstone (19084). T. Lucreti Cari De Rerum Natura Libri Sex, vol. II: Explanatory Notes. London: George Bell and Sons. Nisbet, Robin George Murdoch and Hubbard, Margaret (1970). A Commentary on Horace: Odes Book I. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Norden, Eduard (19273). P. Vergilius Maro: Aeneis Buch VI. Leipzig: Teubner. Oakley, Stephen (1997/2005). A Commentary on Livy, Books VI–X, 4 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Ogilvie, Robert Maxwell (1965). A Commentary on Livy, Books I–V. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Pease, Arthur Stanley (1920/23). M.  Tulli Ciceronis de Divinatione. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Pease, Arthur Stanley (1935). Publi Vergili Maronis Aeneidos liber quartus. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Pease, Arthur Stanley (1955/58). M.  Tulli Ciceronis de Natura Deorum, 2 vols. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Pestelli, Angela (2007). P. Ovidii Nasonis Heroidum Epistula VIII Hermione Oresti. Florence: Le Monnier. Petersmann, Hubert (1973). T. Maccius Plautus: Stichus. Heidelberg: Winter. Powell, Jonathan  G.  F. (1988). Cicero: Cato Maior de Senectute. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reinhardt, Tobias (2003). Cicero’s Topica. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rizzo, Silvia (1991). M. Tulli Ciceronis Pro A. Cluentio Habito Oratio. Milan: Mondadori.

1302

Bibliography

Schmeling, Gareth (2011). A Commentary on the Satyrica of Petronius. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shackleton Bailey, David  R. (1965/1970). Cicero’s Letters to Atticus, 7 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shackleton Bailey, David  R. (1977). Cicero Epistulae ad Familiares, 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Skutsch, Otto (1985). The Annals of Quintus Ennius. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Smith, Martin S. (1975). Petronii Arbitri Cena Trimalchionis. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Tarrant, Richard J. (2012). Virgil: Aeneid Book XII. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tränkle, Hermann (1990). Appendix Tibulliana. Berlin: de Gruyter. Warmington, Eric  H. (1940). Remains of Old Latin, IV: Archaic Inscriptions. London/ Cambridge, Mass.: Loeb. Waszink, Jan Hendrik (1947). Q. Septimi Florentis Tertulliani De Anima. Edited with introduction and commentary. Amsterdam: Meulenhoff. Watson, Lindsay  C. (2003). A Commentary on Horace’s Epodes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Weissenborn, Wilhelm and Müller, Hermann Johannes (1968). Titi Livi Ab Urbe Condita Libri, 10 vols. Zurich: Weidmann. Williams, Robert Deryck (1960). P. Vergili Maronis Aeneidos Liber Quintus. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Williams, Robert Deryck (1962). P. Vergili Maronis Aeneidos Liber Tertius. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Winterbottom, Michael (1984). The Minor Declamations Ascribed to Quintilian. Berlin: de Gruyter. Wisse, Jakob, Winterbottom, Michael, and Fantham, Elaine (2008). M.  Tullius Cicero: de Oratore Libri III, vol. 5. Heidelberg: Winter. Woodman, Anthony  J. (1977). Velleius Paterculus: The Tiberian Narrative (2.94–131). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Woodman, Anthony J. and Kraus, Christina Shuttleworth (2014). Tacitus: Agricola. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Woodman, Anthony J. and Martin, Ronald H. (1996). The Annals of Tacitus Book III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

INDE X LOCORUM

The Index contains all the examples that are discussed in the two volumes of this Syntax. The additional examples that are given in the Supplements are not included. The examples of volume I come first. Thereafter follow the examples in volume II, preceded by II. (only once per example). The Index was prepared by Akke Pinkster. Abbreviations wherever possible follow the Oxford Latin Dictionary and (for Late Latin authors) Blaise’s Dictionnaire. Accius trag. 76 132 86 1025 119–21 785 217–18 116 283–4 247 455 1235 529–30 198 Acta Carth. 3.186–7 751 Afranius com. 31 117 133 1025 386 688 Africanus dig. 13.6.21.1 II.294 Alfenus dig. 33.2.40 898 39.2.43.pr. 82 Ambrose of Milan Hex. 3.5.20 II.76 Luc. 5.83 435 Virgin. 130 II.73 Ammianus 14.2.14 422 14.11.26 574 15.2.15 241 15.4.3 229 15.5.21 II.416 16.5.6 1084 16.6.3 381, 449 17.2.3 981 17.3.5 284 17.12.17 1084 18.5.7 849 18.6.16 II.203 18.8.13 1290 20.2.5 II.198

20.4.1 II.971 20.4.17 II.772, 971 20.8.10 533 20.8.17 II.971 21.6.9 654 22.4.7 II.1130 24.2.1 II.203 25.3.10 II.367 26.9.5 551 26.10.8 II.567 27.11.1 199 28.1.22 II.799 28.1.49 423 29.2.15 135 29.6.5 II.160 30.7.11 II.260 30.9.1 285 31.2.13 II.803 31.10.8 II.264 Année Épigraphique 1941, nr 6 II.818 2001, nr 333 892 2001, nr 441.12 II.1109 Anonymus Valesianus 81 257 Anthimus 1 1186 10 258 Anthologia Latina 407.11 144 Antonius Att. 10.8a.1 885 orat. 16b 1212 Apicius 4.2.13 313 8.8.3 1241 Apuleius Apol. 16.9 II.381 53.8 1093 75.10 1003 81.5 368

Met. 1.12.1 902 1.18.6 916 2.6.8 II.374 2.13.6 II.887 2.23.5 1107 3.6.1–2 II.796 4.27.8–28.1 1112 4.28.1 II.835, 951 5.1.6 II.374 5.2.1 279 5.7.5 277 5.19.2–4 II.1218 7.12.2 992 7.26.2 155 7.26.4 II.624 8.29.6 1233 9.4.1 II.888 9.12.3 244 9.15.1 II.168 9.16.1 II.566 9.23.3 II.892 9.40.1 880 10.5.2 1291 10.6.8 874 10.34.3 157 11.10.5 II.743 Arnobius Nat. 1.29 II.1121 7.4 II.69 Augustine Adim. 7 572 Civ. 3.15.11 II.101 8.14.2 II.227 14.27.1 112 21.12.4 150 Conf. 1.18 II.1022 Doctr. Christ. 2.38.58 480 4.11.26 150

1304 Index Locorum Augustine (cont.) Ep. 22.5 II.1073 46.15 334 104.7 II.770 227 469 Ev. Joh. 4.8 II.118 7.1 440 12.6 435 Imm. 8.14 II.408 Locut. Hept. 2.91 880 2.91 = Vet. Lat.Ex. 17.5 883 Ord. 1.16–17 423 Psal. 66.1 195 66.2 435 90.10 573 121.4 441 148.8 572 Psal. Don. 40 II.106 Serm. 2.1 572 17.7 II.76 25.3.3 97 96.1 555, 559, 567 225.4 II.385 349.3.3 extr. 135 Serm. Nov. 14D.8 II.797 Augustus Anc. 16.1 1298 Balbus Att. 9.7b.3 1202 Balbus & Oppius Att. 9.7a.1 II.701 Bellum Africanum 4.4 II.763 8.5 II.523 10.1 1199 16.2 1241 25.1 II.853 39.5–40.1 II.1154 45.1 II.18 46.3 II.138 48.3 II.743 66.3–4 II.1153 69 II.100 78.4 II.262, 451 78.8 828 80.1 II.566 84.1–3 407 86.2 II.336 91.3 II.260

95.3 898 96.2 II.520 Bellum Alexandrinum 7.1 704, II.154 10.4 138 17.3 II.519 22.1 II.88 35.2 985 38.3 1049 46.4 II.742 66.3 788 68.1 II.217 74.3 II.237 Bellum Hispaniense 14.1 II.403 14.2 1289 16.3 II.374 18.9 II.435 23.2 615, II.255 28.4 II.772 29.1 991 33.3 304 36.1 627, II.64 37.3 II.579 42.2 149 Brutus (D. Iunius) Fam. 11.4.1 II.146 11.10.4 990 11.11.1 143 11.11.2 II.201 11.13.2 833 11.15 II.16 11.20.1 1253 Brutus (M. Iunius) ad Brut. 1.4a.2 1171 1.6.1 105 1.16.4 774 1.16.6 159 1.17.6 981 Brutus & Plancus Fam. 11.13a.2 II.645 Caecina Fam. 6.7.2 1131 Caelius Aurelianus Chron. 2.41 292 Caelius Rufus Fam. 8.1.1 879, II.995 8.1.2 802 8.3.1 II.436 8.4.1 395 8.5.3 II.439, 441 8.7.2 853 8.9.1 II.161, 182 8.10.3 II.369 8.12.2 II.533

8.13.2 II.638 8.14.1 89 8.16.2 1270 8.17.1 820, II.914 Caesar Att. 9.13a.1 II.1219 Civ. 1.1.1 II.1003, 1024 1.2.6 511, 599, II.1003 1.2.7 II.1021 1.3.3 II.1023 1.3.6 1017 1.4.3 1039 1.4.5 1000 1.5.3 II.1092 1.6.1 II.1013 1.6.8 II.1003 1.9.1 295 1.9.2 II.62 1.9.4 389, II.188 1.10.1 II.1026 1.10.2–3 II.50 1.11.4 821, II.1026 1.13.1–2 II.1152 1.13.5 II.1008 1.14.1 419 1.14.1–2 II.1227 1.15.2–3 II.1002, 1008 1.15.3 II.1002, 1026 1.17.1–2 II.560 1.18.6 955 1.24.1 II.510, 962 1.24.3 II.1007 1.26.1 45, 933, 993 1.30.2 II.1019 1.32.1 II.837, 856 1.32.7 II.50, 158 1.36.5 II.861 1.40.3–4 II.557 1.41.1 458 1.41.2–3 II.1057 1.41.4 II.177 1.44.3 102 1.45.3 II.1038 1.46.1 845 1.46.2–3 II.1179 1.46.4 II.1021 1.48.3 II.1203 1.49.1 II.1007, 1027 1.49.2 1000 1.51.1–2 416 1.51.6 II.1027 1.55.1 172 1.60.1 II.978 1.61.3 II.1023 1.64.2 II.1127 1.66.2 175 1.66.3 II.1020 1.67.5 II.393 1.67.6 II.2, 583, 633 1.69.4 831

Index Locorum 1305 1.76.4 II.1014 1.79.2–3 II.340 1.80.1 271 1.82.2 II.178 1.84.2 443 1.84.3 II.158 1.84.5–85.1 II.830 1.85.1 II.837 1.85.12 598 2.3.3 II.1009 2.5.1 250 2.9.7 827 2.11.1 817 2.11.2 II.1009 2.12.3 592 2.15.3 607 2.17.4–18.3 II.834 2.19.4 1260 2.20.8 942 2.21.4 24, 850 2.23.4 178 2.24.1 826 2.26.1 II.969 2.27.2 743 2.27.3 II.843 2.28.1 II.836 2.32.14 II.171 2.34.1 II.681, 845 2.35.5–6 II.843 2.37.2 II.1086 2.38.4 872 2.38.4–5 II.1150 2.41.6 II.1039 2.43.2 II.1041 3.1.4 II.286 3.2.2 II.452 3.4.3 939 3.4.6 962, II.497 3.5.1 II.844 3.6.3 1281 3.6.3–8.1 II.388 3.8.3 533 3.9.1 II.497 3.9.2 II.1037 3.9.2–3 II.1164 3.10.5 II.636 3.15.6 II.521 3.19.3 199, 990 3.19.7–8 II.1214 3.20.5 II.437 3.21.3 II.791 3.22.2 II.1038 3.26.5 846 3.28.1 1273 3.29.3 804 3.30.3 1291, II.861 3.32.3 II.550 3.37.2 II.845 3.37.5 II.1037 3.40.4 II.522 3.41.5 821 3.43.1. 449

3.44.2 II.1166 3.50.2 II.438 3.51.6 1232 3.55.1 II.313 3.60.4 616 3.63.1 II.1084 3.65.3 1111 3.66.1 II.1047, 1156 3.66.2 454 3.72.2 1216 3.73.2 II.998 3.80.3 II.132 3.82.4 II.298 3.87.5 II.1037, 1060 3.87.7 614 3.95.1 II.711 3.97.5 1006 3.103.5 II.1065 3.105.5 1011 3.106.5 804 3.109.4 II.823 3.110.3 1278 3.110.4 660, II.340 Gal. 1.1.1 235, 259, 1007, 1086, II.824, 835, 992, 1076 1.1.2 II.585, 611 1.1.3 1009, II.835 1.1.4 1195, 1198, II.831 1.1.5 II.1018 1.1.6 1195, II.835, 1096 1.2.1 1144, 1293, II.836, 841, 1021 1.2.3 1059, 1197, 1283 1.3.2 251, II.1227 1.3.4 253 1.3.5 II.563 1.4.2 II.457 1.4.4 II.1123 1.5.3 1208 1.5.4 1194 1.6.1 II.829 1.6.1–4 II.1227 1.6.1–9.1 II.845 1.6.4 II.530 1.7.1 II.1052 1.7.2 409, II.177 1.7.5 1195 1.8.1 405, 826, 875, 1199 1.8.4 180, 628, II.55, 100 1.9.1 259 1.10.1 II.526, 1065 1.12.4 II.824, 1076 1.12.7 II.496 1.13.2 21, II.1009 1.13.3 669 1.14.3 II.186 1.15.1 1293 1.15.2 II.1147 1.16.1 527 1.16.5 II.783 1.17.6–18.1 II.1154

1.18.1–10 II.837 1.18.2 II.610 1.19.1 II.231, 799 1.19.3 1168 1.20.6 141, 1193, II.1042 1.26.5–6 II.1222 1.26.6 II.129 1.27.4 1300, II.1047 1.28.3 1286 1.30.2 II.1092 1.31.2 1002, II.811 1.31.10 II.774, 1074 1.31.11 534, 592 1.31.14 592 1.31.16 172 1.33.2 II.2, 583 1.33.2–4 356 1.36.4 II.1103 1.36.5 II.643 1.37.2 II.1074 1.39.1 II.254 1.40.4 599, 1128 1.40.4–5 510 1.40.5 1297, II.488 1.40.12 531 1.42.3 II.52 1.43.2 803 1.43.8 II.33 1.44.5 1117 1.44.6 II.280 1.47.6 1130 1.48.2 803, II.1096 1.49.1 II.531 1.49.3 898 1.52.4 872 1.54.2 1034 2.5.6 II.845 2.6.3 1288 2.7.3 802 2.9.1 II.845 2.9.3 1284 2.9.4 1004 2.10.2 II.817 2.10.4 II.1097 2.10.5 II.868 2.11.2 175, 1196, II.397, 1058 2.15.6 531 2.16.1 523 2.17.5 422 2.19.2 422 2.19.4 1260 2.19.8 1117 2.20.3 II.176 2.21.3 II.536, 578 2.23.2 1294 2.29.2 986 2.31.6 II.1047 2.33.1 II.179 2.35.1 667, II.400 2.35.2 454 2.35.4 986, II.625

1306 Index Locorum Caesar, Gal. (cont.) 3.1.1 II.1039 3.2.1 II.588 3.5.2 1275 3.6.4 II.30 3.8.1 II.864 3.9.6 II.576 3.9.6–7 II.629 3.10.1 II.900 3.11.1 II.1020, 1226 3.11.3 II.629 3.12.1 852 3.13.1 II.1225 3.14.1 103 3.14.3 II.661 3.16.2 1020, II.502, 702 3.18.1 II.1156 3.18.8–19.1 II.1145 3.19.2 548 3.19.4 1004 3.19.6 II.703 3.21.2 II.1096 3.22.1 II.1225 3.23.2 850 3.23.7 704 3.27.1 454 3.28.1 II.452 4.1.7 847 4.2.5 II.177 4.4.4 1214 4.6.2 536 4.12.1 II.261 4.12.2 945, II.592 4.17.10 103 4.21.3 414 4.21.8 II.131 4.22.5 1051 4.23.6 805 4.25.2 II.1195 4.28.1 282 4.31.2 1194 4.37.3 77 5.3.1 1119 5.3.5 650 5.6.1 1143 5.8.1 II.30 5.9.1 II.1058 5.9.6 II.817 5.9.6–7 421 5.11.6 II.858 5.12.1 II.1096 5.12.2 1052 5.13.1 125 5.16.2 900 5.24.2 II.861 5.25.2–4 1143 5.27.2 1253 5.28.6 II.188 5.29.1–5 600 5.29.5 389 5.31.1 271 5.32.1 II.398

5.33.4 II.71 5.35.6 243, 920 5.37.2 II.254 5.37.3 1212 5.37.5 II.792 5.39.2 II.482 5.39.4 II.792 5.40.1–4 II.607, 1219 5.41.6 1270 5.41.7–8 511, 599 5.44.4 454 5.44.6 II.561 5.46.1–3 II.837 5.46.2 II.1017, 1021 5.48.8–9 II.795 5.49.4 II.397, 560 5.49.7 II.896 5.54.1 II.1096 5.55.3 126 5.58.4 II.128 6.2.3 II.1156 6.3.5 II.1065, 1093 6.7.2 420, II.246 6.7.5–6 II.1017 6.8.9 1254 6.10.5 II.585 6.12.1 614 6.13.6 II.239 6.13.10 1015 6.16.1 II.824 6.17.1 II.1108 6.21.1 122 6.32.1 719 6.33.1 II.861 6.34.8 II.1022 6.35.2 570 6.35.6 II.739 6.35.7 II.1167 6.36.2 II.1113 6.37.4 II.335 6.37.6 409 6.37.8 II.543 6.37.10 277 6.38.2 II.1018 6.40.6 II.422 7.4.1 II.395 7.6.2 II.445 7.13.3 II.1058 7.14.10 II.614 7.17.3 575 7.23.1 II.1225 7.26.3 II.56 7.32.4 II.1083 7.33.2 872 7.36.3 II.336 7.37.5 600 7.39.3 158 7.40.4 569 7.43.5 821 7.48.1 II.449 7.50.1 449 7.55.10 II.71

7.58.6 II.778 7.59.2 II.496 7.62.6 II.594 7.62.7 II.995 7.62.10 II.1156 7.68.3–69.3 417 7.69.7 II.1124 7.72.2 II.698 7.72.3 II.1081 7.72.4 181 7.73.4 II.514 7.73.5 826 7.77.5 II.548 7.80.4 907 7.80.9 II.810 7.81.3 II.594 7.83.2 802 7.90.1–5 II.1149 gram. 3a II.72 poet. 1.3 II.874 Caper Orth. 8 314 Cassiodorus Var. 1.45.10 441 Cassius Fam. 12.13.2 II.991 15.19.4 II.81 Cato Agr. praef. 2 II.21 praef. 4 II.773 1.2 II.1139 2.1 II.1060 2.5 1278 2.7 II.1063 4.1 827, II.327 5.2 II.831, 1035 5.3 II.851 5.5 762, II.784 5.6 863 5.8 1028, II.1036 6.2 II.537 6.3 802 10.4 751 14.1 II.1037 15 1029 18.1 1215 18.3 228 18.5 1242 18.6 140 20.1 696 23.3 151 24.1 1004, 1015 27 174 28.1 519 30 II.774 33.3 517

Index Locorum 1307 36 163 38.1 1075 38.4 777 41.4 II.760 43.2 685 44.1 II.570 46.1 II.775 48.1 988, II.755 48.2 II.260 50.2 640, II.265 53 II.981 54.2 II.604 58.1 II.860 61.1 767 62.1 II.716 73.1 II.140 76.4 645 79.1 II.572 87.1 381 88.1 150, 852 88.2 193 93.1 1069 100 II.763 103 163 109.1 1069 112.1 845 114.2 147 128 272 135.2 II.1113 141.1 II.173 141.2 281, 1061 143.1 696 143.2 835 144.2 1005 144.4 II.231, 324 145.2 690 147 II.1161 151.2 II.537 151.4 II.309, 322 155.1 193, 210 155.2 210 156.1 II.71 156.7 101, 358, 996 157.1 275, 783, II.1105 157.3 1210, II.850, 851, 1221 157.4 852, II.239 157.5 731 157.10–11 1097 157.12 846 157.14 II.239 158.1 1018 Fil. 1(J) II.66 hist. 22=15C 178 52=47C 818 83=76C 178, 1290 95g=93C II.1221 99=95C 100 Mil. 1(J) II.902 6(J) II.421

orat. 31 111 46 845 51 1291, II.578 74 181 126 120 128 834 130 1198 132 642 169 360, II.34 206 1301 Catullus 2b.1–2 II.721 4.1–2 II.169 5.5–6 1215 8.10–11 871 16.12–13 698 22.9–11 938 23.20 853 31.13 II.871 32.1–3 II.946 33.5–6 II.604 36.16–17 II.319 45.8–9 85 49.1–5 838 56.1–2 1276 61.169–71 II.729 63.61 II.932 64.52–67 1161 64.58 II.974 64.60–2 II.924 64.65 266 64.95 1208 64.140–1 II.205 64.143 1208 64.228 II.1134 64.171–4 II.1132 68.110–12 209 68.131–2 II.465 68B.55–6 214 77.1 1225 77.1–3 II.946 79.1–2 941 85.1 14, II.2 86.1–2 927 109.5–6 845 113.1–2 211 CEL 3.4–8 II.1183 74.15–16 1069 142.63–5 II.1231 146.28–9 106 146.11–14 453 146.21–3 1237 146.32 II.1042 147.3 740 147.verso II.1230 214quater.3–5 1212 Celsus praef. 20 878 1.3.13–15 II.838 1.3.18 II.993, 999

1.3.22 78 1.4.1 44 1.8.2 II.833 2.1.2 II.774 2.1.6 II.833 2.1.9 II.368 2.3.4 148 2.8.33 83 2.10.7 II.511 2.12 175 2.17.4 II.308 2.17.6 II.110 3.4.3 II.877 3.5.4 648 3.5.6 149 3.5.11 849 3.7.2C 1171 3.15.6 751 3.18.22 1036 3.21.6 314 3.27.1C 948 4.11.4 II.675 4.16.2 II.896 4.22.3 II.1206 5.27.3C 238 5.27.3E 956 5.27.5 1136 5.28.1B II.250 5.28.16A 890 6.4.2 1085 6.6.1.K II.862 6.8.2B.1 981 6.15.3 262 6.15.4 II.292 7.7.15A 1026 7.18 279 7.20.2 1187 7.25.1C 891 7.31.3 879, 1200 8.1.5 II.1007, 1086 8.1.11 II.1009 8.3.2 860 8.7.4 = 8.4.11 875 8.24 II.481 Cicero Ac. 1.28 245 1.39 686 1.46 766 ad Brut. 1.2 1196 1.2.2 179 1.15.9 699 Agr. 1.4 705 1.25 859 1.26 1257 2.1 710 2.6 1116 2.7 677 2.10 II.481, 1077 2.13 17

1308 Index Locorum Cicero, Agr. (cont.) 2.23 1172 2.32 1166 2.36 693 2.48 II.603, 702 2.49 633, II.122 2.50 II.666 2.52 871 2.81 463, 1252 2.87 274 2.90 II.562 2.92 II.482 2.93 II.507 2.102 762 3.8 II.666 3.13 II.218 3.16 329 Amic. 2–3 II.1212 5 II.962 6 960 10 II.439 11 496 12 II.1047 15 779 16 II.989 22 219 24 195, 750 25 II.30 28 II.619 32 949, II.1130 33 625 39 1166 40 998 41 II.882, 984 50 224 53 II.1173 57 II.1089 62 II.62 64 485 67 1072 78 II.128, 446 80 1123 81 II.87 82 II.746 86 II.1097 98 60 99 709, 724 104 495, II.647 Arch. 1 II.47, 1055 4 1064 6 578 14 II.609 18 II.916 19 1130 23 II.1084 36 543 Att. 1.1.1 872, II.992, 1230 1.1.2 II.894 1.1.4 1198

1.1.5 885 1.3.2 II.1123 1.5.3 II.1021 1.5.4 849, II.213 1.5.6 II.185 1.5.7 II.278 1.5.8 29, 31, 235, II.828, 951, 972, 1021 1.6.1 155 1.6.2 413, II.1020 1.7 II.152 1.8.1 1248 1.8.3 1259 1.9.1 II.1070 1.9.2 II.478, 1022 1.10.1 II.969 1.10.2 II.592 1.10.3 413, 774 1.11.3 891 1.12.3 875, II.164 1.13.4 1100, II.914 1.13.5 II.1123 1.13.6 II.828, 958 1.14.3 889, II.87 1.14.5 II.457 1.15.2 II.988 1.16.1–2 452 1.16.3 II.473 1.16.9 II.993, 1225 1.16.11 II.511 1.16.12 1266 1.16.17 II.1124 1.17.2 II.57, 71 1.17.7 II.1124 1.18.4 II.1015 1.18.5 1029 1.19.5–6 741 1.20.1 891 1.20.3 II.987 1.20.5 890 1.20.7 II.989, 1133 2.1.6 451, 1222, II.31, 451 2.1.8 1251, II.1214 2.1.12 620, II.544 2.4.4 II.1192 2.6.1 1014 2.8.1 II.1218 2.11.1 II.1095 2.13.2 II.279 2.14.2 586 2.15.2 II.329 2.15.3 368 2.16.1 II.696 2.16.3 II.238, 241 2.17.1 1253 2.18.3 1126 2.19.1 892 2.20.1 624 2.20.2 II.260 2.20.3 II.1076 2.21.6 II.225 2.22.5 112, II.34

2.24.3 447, II.460 2.24.5 465 3.1.1 1177, II.42 3.4 178 3.5.1 II.709 3.7.1 837 3.8.3 1001 3.9.1 II.454 3.10.3 160 3.12.3 II.360 3.13.2 290, 902, II.285 3.14.1 977 3.15.4 II.102 3.15.5 II.689 3.15.6 II.7918 3.15.7 II.1074 3.19.1 468 3.20.2 II.67 3.23.4 II.1070 3.24.1 II.20 3.25 II.153 3.25.1 II.913 4.1.6 II.417 4.1.7 664, 847 4.1.8 II.511 4.2.4 613, 643 4.3.3 825, 830 4.3.6 II.893 4.4a.1 1039 4.4a.2 II.922, 1034 4.5.3 1187 4.6.1 50, II.898 4.7.2 472 4.15.7 1255 4.16.8 1300 4.18.2 II.987 4.18.3 II.1046 4.19.1 II.344 5.1.3 II.1175 5.1.4 II.931 5.2.1 573 5.3.1 203 5.4.1 1038, II.324 5.4.4 II.161 5.8.1 817, II.267 5.11.6 581 5.11.7 642, II.683 5.13.1 II.764 5.13.3 II.696 5.14.1 830 5.14.3 457 5.18.4 663, 1104 5.20.1 II.923 5.20.4 1009 5.21.7 II.177 5.21.13 II.918 6.1.6 576 6.1.7 II.15, 379, 863, 872 6.1.10 II.202 6.1.20 II.1084 6.1.21 890 6.2.4 888

Index Locorum 1309 6.2.8 246, 576 6.3.5 II.1225 6.4.2 II.95 6.6.1 II.254 6.8.5 180 6.9.1 646, II.82, 553 7.2.3 44 7.2.6 II.864, 988 7.3.2 1114 7.3.5 II.598 7.5.5 667 7.6.1 949 7.6.2 667 7.7.4 II.615 7.7.7 II.303 7.8.2 687 7.9.3 II.493 7.9.4 486 7.11.4 II.30, 387 7.12.2 703 7.13.3 977 7.13.4 625, II.994 7.13a.3 822 7.17.3 809 7.18.2 364 7.24 II.1047 7.26.1 850 8.2.2 II.879 8.3.3 1223, II.233, 666 8.5.1 834 8.7.1 625 8.9.2 541 8.11.4 716 8.11b.2 820 8.11d.2 820 8.12.1 II.42 8.13.2 631 8.15.1 II.1000 9.1.1 98 9.2a.1–2 II.51 9.5.2 II.299 9.6.5 II.889 9.6.7 II.922 9.7.5 891, 1268 9.7.7 297 9.9.1 II.78 9.9.2 765 9.9.3 II.96 9.10.3 II.252 9.11a.2 II.457 9.13a.1 II.655 9.15.2 134 9.15.5 698 9.19.3 50 10.1a.4 II.748 10.2.2 428 10.3a.2 II.77 10.4.4 1125, II.396 10.4.5 II.887 10.4.6 II.430, 1073 10.4.8 II.612 10.4.9 416

10.5.3 867, II.1149 10.7.1 805 10.8.2 II.87 10.8.4 1256, II.486 10.8.10 616 10.9.2 584, II.1036 10.10.2 II.1098 10.10.5 734 10.10.6 724 10.11.1 II.730 10.11.3 904 10.12a.1 207 10.13.1 231 10.15.3 1057 10.15.4 149, 1234 10.16.1 II.152 10.16.5 605 10.18.2 717 11.2.3 II.723 11.6.1 839 11.6.7 II.668 11.8.2 20, 1046 11.9.1 1151 11.13.5 II.250 11.15.2 II.822 11.15.3 622, 704, II.54 11.16.4 II.780 11.18.1 1042 11.24.5 563 12.5c 289 12.7.1 534 12.8 330 12.12.2 II.347 12.14.4 889 12.20.2 1001 12.26.1 1177, II.11, 446 12.27.2 II.99 12.29.2 401 12.38.2 II.325 12.38a.2 684, II.7 12.40.5 843 12.52.1 1020 13.1.3 1046, 1123 13.2.1 II.887 13.4.2 II.891 13.7.1 II.596 13.8.1 II.112 13.13–14.1 II.684 13.14–15.2 1156 13.19.4 II.428 13.21a.1 1170 13.21a.4 II.551 13.25.3 II.865 13.26.2 II.887 13.27.2 900 13.28.3 II.30, 432 13.29.3 II.1010, 1086 13.32.3 962, II.976 13.37.3 589 13.40.2 485, 1084 13.42.1 1146 13.52.2 201

14.1.1 658 14.10.2 537 14.11.2 400 14.13.2 125, 1129 14.16.3 91 14.17a.7 724 14.19.1 II.929 14.19.2 779 15.1.2 II.595 15.2.2 II.376 15.4.2 II.1011 15.4.3 II.914 15.11.2 1126 15.13.1 II.772 15.15.1 II.1214 15.15.3 585 15.21.1 1134 15.22 II.170 15.25.1 II.1126 15.26.4 II.321 16.1.6 350, II.703 16.4.4 745 16.5.1 II.1009 16.6.2 820, II.803 16.7.2 II.357, 364, 1192 16.7.5 802 16.8.2 339 16.11.5 II.936 16.11.6 889 16.14.4 II.281 16.15.1 II.72 Balb. 2 566 7 30, 1166, 1262 24 162 27 II.991 29 1270 47 669, II.97, 250 50 II.1030 51 II.533 56 II.707 60 567 62 II.867, 994 Brut. 1 384 8 II.366, 1102 10 II.1104 12 II.1102 13–17 1119 16 II.988 17 II.362 20 II.1103 25 310 27 II.387 32 II.1102 39 1283, II.487, 1130 48 II.379 52 689, II.1202 56 II.763 61 II.30, 428 65 II.883 68 1248

1310 Index Locorum Cicero, Brut. (cont.) 70 II.462 72 II.617, 975 76 II.1019 78 1011 79 409, 552 80 II.1103 81 II.525 87 II.189 106 II.617 113 1105 124 995 126 580, II.751 128 548 129 1079 131 II.467 133 672 140 724, 756, II.1185 142 II.143 144 II.417 148 741, II.907 152 338, 741 161 II.1103 164 900 169 1277 171 II.37, 906 179 II.1130 180 543, II.666 183 929, II.548 184 II.344 188 437 203 II.545 219 106 220 1135 227 II.994 229 II.617, 993 238 II.652 239 79 240 1057 252 1011 258 II.565 262 1264 264 310 268 1013 279 856 280 II.1102 281 1130 285 II.1215 288 328 296 890 297 II.825 298 II.1106 300–1 II.1184 302 II.460 306 1267 310 886 313 II.195 332 565 Caec. 4 875 8 II.36, 159

16 733 21 II.685 22 559 23 II.241 26 687 27 II.683 33 II.866 37 476 43 1035 49 671 62–3 II.882 73 1145 77 746, II.54 96 II.178 97 II.26 101 II.296 102 II.379 Cael. 1 II.74 4 II.108 6 133 7 1034 8 690 9 147, II.351 10 993 14 196, II.92 16 II.720 18 1200, II.394 26 II.458 29 484 31 II.252 33 II.902 34 764, 1188, II.55, 156, 206 48 625, 1185, II.85 51 294 55 1104 56 II.580 57 II.364 62 580 67 II.369 76 1030 Catil. 1.1 II.940 1.3 II.74 1.4 II.144 1.6 343, 1168, II.693 1.7 II.956 1.8–9 II.1016 1.10 699 1.15 1229, II.803 1.16 362 1.17 II.724, 989 1.19 665, 1038 1.20 II.172 1.21 603, 612 1.22 347 1.25 959 1.27 327, II.992 2.3 769, II.573 2.5 II.724 2.7 211

2.11 1112, II.712 2.16 665 2.19 1122 2.20 II.764 2.21 II.603 2.22 II.1099 2.25 112 3.1 1042 3.2 II.725 3.5–6 252 3.8 868, 1055, II.336 3.9 1255 3.10 II.28, 30, 387, 388, 394, 396, 1084 3.12 952, II.49 3.13 II.941 3.17 579 3.18 1254 3.22 1118 3.24 900 3.25 II.471, 571 3.26 II.987 3.27 II.476 4.3 II.753 4.8 II.822 4.13 61 4.18 997 4.19 24, 573, 1129, II.552, 965 4.21 II.711 4.23 II.487 Clu. 1 II.968 3 II.33 6 II.1061 7 II.745 9 1196 16 670 18 1196, II.1172 27 181, 820, II.797 28 942 36 II.895 41 789 45 II.237 47 458 49 810 51 II.250 58 II.802 60 II.68 64 II.551 65 II.860 67 723, II.92, 765 80 488 82 II.1033 84 959, II.1009 88 984 89 II.133, 720 95 839 99 II.74 100 589 101 936

Index Locorum 1311 103 II.681 104 777 106 II.523 107 1076 111 II.1203 112 II.913 114 II.147 121 937 127 II.1171 129 147, II.419 138 II.191 141 589 143 II.440 146 573, II.298 151 731 155 683 156 868, II.485 158 433 168 II.560 176 939 177 1169 188 211, II.61 190 II.1082 202 II.1082 Corn. fr. II.9 II.970 de Orat. 1.4 II.684 1.6 342 1.7 733 1.11 II.717, 718 1.20 II.317 1.24 II.193 1.28 II.1069 1.29 II.424 1.32 II.900 1.33 25, 807 1.38 II.708, 819 1.39 II.3, 596, 958 1.40 II.1081 1.49 II.496 1.50 II.317 1.53 II.691 1.54 991 1.61 II.122 1.62 II.525 1.65–6 II.1159 1.70 II.682, 1178 1.73 II.371 1.74 120 1.75 II.747 1.82 II.542 1.87 557 1.89 167 1.91 1110 1.94 II.227 1.95 534, II.378 1.96 1266, II.83 1.99 903 1.102 1105 1.107 II.122

1.114 1211 1.116 936 1.121 585 1.123 646 1.126 882, 1200 1.129 II.807 1.132 1115 1.137 953 1.140 122 1.149 II.886 1.154 II.988 1.160 387 1.162 II.325 1.164 II.869 1.168 1030, II.1122 1.169 II.733 1.171 321 1.179 1079 1.182 II.1080 1.183 II.1065, 1093 1.185 II.921 1.190 563 1.194 644, 876 1.196 577 1.197 456 1.203 II.290 1.204 II.1069 1.208 177 1.209 II.877 1.213 788 1.214 63 1.220 974 1.221 II.655 1.222 II.312 1.223 1131 1.226 II.428 1.231 1083 1.232 166 1.236 II.655 1.240 II.413 1.244 II.15 1.250 331 1.251 II.135 1.253 148 1.254 211 1.255 387, 1066 1.259 II.548 2.4 II.85 2.5 II.817 2.7 688, II.448 2.9 987 2.15 977 2.16 286 2.18 II.1066 2.24 747 2.25 II.885 2.33 469 2.38 1102, 1106, II.733 2.54 957 2.58 815, II.546 2.59 II.813

2.60 II.913 2.69 950 2.75 II.379 2.77 342 2.79 1071 2.83 II.178 2.85 198, 503, II.995 2.86 296 2.88 687 2.93 1251 2.94 1301 2.98 II.865 2.103 II.740 2.107 1034 2.108 721 2.110 II.1075 2.117 II.1083 2.119 765 2.122 II.508 2.129 II.147 2.131 II.304 2.132 II.948 2.133 II.463 2.138 II.299 2.146 II.545 2.150 II.876 2.151 II.911 2.159 141 2.170 679 2.178 1105 2.182 41, 1285 2.183 II.1115, 1160 2.186 41, 1154 2.195 612 2.207 234, 268 2.208 1151 2.210 II.373 2.217 732 2.219 972, II.1201 2.222 543 2.224 743 2.233 624 2.236 949 2.237 289, 290, 296 2.240 820 2.242 1274 2.245 II.522 2.250 1150 2.253 II.682 2.254 II.345 2.259 1082 2.261 379, II.3, 271 2.262 II.242 2.270 807 2.281 109, 755, 1221, II.55, 67, 223 2.302 II.733 2.307 441 2.318 819 2.322 II.901 2.327 747

1312 Index Locorum Cicero, de Orat. (cont.) 2.333 774 2.334 1099 2.335 425 2.343 1268 2.344 II.175 2.350 719 2.355 959 2.356 550, II.667 2.357 II.774 2.364 II.1046 2.365 385 2.366 741 3.2 854 3.8 II.500, 1125 3.13 911 3.16 II.498, 1019 3.17 400 3.18 II.864, 895 3.23 II.673 3.28 942 3.34 951 3.37 II.568 3.38 II.206 3.42 II.991 3.46 40 3.53 887 3.55 145, II.1024 3.57 20 3.58 145 3.60 872, II.568 3.66 II.60 3.68 II.808 3.82 1275 3.91 II.205 3.93 II.997 3.98 1275 3.102 991 3.110 399 3.119–20 II.1210 3.124 II.311, 628, 996 3.132 332 3.138 845 3.141 II.550 3.142 144 3.143 II.366 3.145 231 3.147 II.1071 3.151 732, II.1071 3.156 II.560 3.178 1050 3.182 II.893, 1103 3.185 1258 3.188 1101 3.192 II.714 3.204 II.468 Deiot. 8 1234 13 II.716, 762 16 II.877 17 368, II.931

19 201, II.762 21 977 25 1126 26 999 27 145 30 II.1036 33 688, II.637 35 1126 Div. 1.4 873 1.8 II.692 1.24 II.1171 1.26 473 1.29 960 1.40 II.671 1.60 II.1037 1.63 132, 1116, 1130 1.71 1164 1.82 725 1.87 398 1.90 176 1.96 II.556 1.101 534, II.51 1.104 1176 1.111 II.548 1.121 II.190 1.125–6 II.1143 2.1 446 2.9 1194 2.11 1212 2.20 1067 2.21 II.84 2.25 II.1082 2.32 509 2.36 324 2.37 590 2.62 27 2.68 II.191, 718 2.71 1171 2.73 779, 986 2.78 929 2.79 202 2.91 183 2.108 659 2.116 456, II.1042 2.117 II.242 2.118 835 2.140 II.595 2.143 II.1050 2.146 205 2.150 II.945 Div. Caec. 2 1131 19 655 20–1 II.1060 22 733, II.172 27 II.707 35 II.896 39 II.587, 687 44 II.633 50 II.39

52 719 55 1081, II.525 57 1034 65 48 72 997 Dom. 1 II.69 8 131, 910, 975 11 II.398, 1090 12 II.995 17 531 18 731 19 290 20 II.1012 22 II.347 23 940 26 II.1046 34 II.782, 1207 35 834 37 II.263 39 II.1028 40 587 41 833 48 31, II.847 51 680, II.982 53 II.338, 584 62 523 66 II.562 68 878 69 II.584 74 II.986 75 II.983, 1032 76 II.313 78 II.1014 80 II.609 82 707 92 1150 93 II.290 96 II.1046 105 II.562 107 731 109 180 111 454 112 982 115 123, 884, 1122 116 II.1028 117 II.1032 118 II.572 124 138, 152 125 1047 125–6 II.1200 131 II.1111 132 II.1032 139 II.200, 405 141 273 145 839 Ep. fr. VII.13W II.960 Fam. 1.1.1 II.495 1.2.1 II.804

Index Locorum 1313 1.2.2 II.1056 1.4.2 708, II.155 1.5b.1 70 1.5b.2 353 1.7.2 II.425 1.7.3 995 1.7.7 II.751 1.7.8 1177 1.7.10 586 1.8.7 17, 66, II.722 1.9.1 1158 1.9.4 586 1.9.9 697 1.9.13 757 1.9.15 1010, 1299 1.9.19 II.675 1.9.25 II.549 1.10 940, II.790 2.1.2 II.153 2.5.1 II.67 2.6.3 945 2.7.2 840 2.10.2 II.909 2.10.4 II.55 2.11.1 1044 2.13.1 II.910 2.13.2 773 2.16.3 169 2.19.1 II.435 2.19.2 135, II.901 3.3.2 II.15 3.5.1 II.914 3.5.3 II.280, 992 3.5.4 183 3.6.2 II.960 3.6.5 II.62 3.7.3 268 3.8.1 II.93 3.8.2 II.226 3.8.3 II.746 3.8.4 II.790 3.8.9 227 3.8.10 II.854 3.9.3 II.93 3.9.4 311, 428, 664, 945 3.11.1 1041 4.1.2 II.1231 4.2.4 619 4.4.1 II.1056 4.4.3 1002 4.5.4 II.335 4.7.2 295 4.7.3 792 4.9.2 II.538 4.9.4 II.118 4.13.2 1213 4.14.1 989 5.2.9 556 5.8.2 1248 5.12.1 968, II.436 5.12.5 II.17

5.12.6 II.548 5.13.3 II.52 5.13.5 724 5.17.2 II.643 5.17.3 508 5.20.3 1189, II.167 5.21.3 864 5.21.5 1286 6.3.2 1171 6.4.1 II.363 6.4.2 II.897 6.6.2 II.764 6.6.6 839 6.6.8 II.221 6.7.3 II.922 6.10a.3 II.56 6.10b.1 II.1094 6.12.1 II.610 6.18.2 II.997 6.18.4 1210 6.20.2 II.1103 6.22.3 II.321 7.1.4 834 7.1.6 II.32 7.3.6 II.432 7.4 850 7.6.1 1070 7.11.1 II.578 7.13.1 II.553 7.15.1 1168 7.17.1 II.1097 7.28.1 II.699 7.30.1 II.537, 561 7.32.2 209 8.9a.2 II.201 8.14.3 II.164 9.1.2 1284 9.2.1 932, 1203 9.5.2 297 9.5.3 II.331 9.8.2 II.889 9.12.2 1080, 1085 9.14.2 44 9.14.3 II.572 9.15.5 II.1070 9.16.2 II.440 9.17.1 153 9.18.4 926 9.19.1 II.1170, 1173 9.21.2 254 9.22.3 168, 755 9.24.4 II.1231 9.26.2 240, II.701 10.3.1 1136 10.6.3 II.535 10.10.1 II.904 10.22.2 1262 10.25.3 587, II.396 10.30.2 1125 11.21.2 1250 11.21.5 II.420

11.24.1 362 11.27.5 458 11.27.8 II.457 12.1.2 351 12.4.2 II.860 12.17.1 1044, II.228 12.19.1 581 12.22a.1 295 12.27.1 151 12.30.1 1083 12.30.6 II.655 13.2 470, 732 13.3 470 13.6.2 II.988 13.6.4 564, II.603 13.8.1 1251 13.8.2 II.183 13.10.2 867 13.16.3 II.1093 13.21.2 II.880 13.25.1 II.838 13.29.4 II.668 13.32.1 935 13.34.1 18 13.35.1 765 13.41.1 II.915 13.55.1 II.486 13.63.1 1253 14.2.2 963, II.934 14.3.3 785 14.4.2 II.526 14.4.3 485 14.5.1 1250, II.95 14.5.2 1296 14.7.1 570 14.8 II.1230 14.14.1 860 14.19.1 1177 14.23.1 II.730 15.2.4 II.1145 15.2.8 98 15.4.7 II.1120 15.4.11 297, II.549 15.7 890 15.13.1 975 15.14.1 1130 15.14.4 II.1007, 1086 15.17.2 245 15.20.2 II.325 16.3.1 1265, II.897 16.5.2 II.345 16.7 II.784 16.9.1 808 16.9.4 357 16.12.1 289, 293, 299, 1105 16.12.2 60 16.18.1 II.784 16.20.1 II.915 16.22.1 II.1082 16.22.2 II.938 17.10.2 II.466

1314

Index Locorum

Cicero (cont.) Fat. 10 905 12 II.315 15 679 33 II.17 Fin. 1.1 58 1.2 II.593 1.6–7 II.1193 1.7 II.138 1.10 565, II.382 1.11 II.746 1.22 945 1.25 1293 1.26 II.1183 1.27 II.99 1.29 1280 1.36 1065 1.42 656 1.44 II.876 1.47 II.848 1.48 II.647 1.49 1220 1.50 1255, 1256 1.56 289 1.59 91 1.60 II.493 1.62 70 1.66 482 1.67 1155, II.754 2.1 1295 2.2 II.557, 1044, 1295 2.14 551 2.18 686, 943 2.23 II.498 2.24 624 2.40 1065 2.41 490, 717 2.43 603, 615, 944, 1228 2.44 584 2.46 II.456 2.49 581 2.54 952 2.55 158 2.59 1261 2.60 II.660 2.61 361, 644 2.62 1156 2.65 1151 2.66 907 2.68 1228, II.605 2.70 987, 1279 2.74 941 2.75 1071 2.81 II.676 2.83 663 2.86 II.1051 2.89 II.822 2.92 883 2.104 II.668

3.1 II.997 3.15 II.327 3.16 II.72 3.18 1135 3.22 II.193 3.24 1112 3.25 II.705 3.29 318, 862 3.34 II.195 3.36 II.739 3.37 337 3.39 1258 3.44 II.705 3.45 II.916 3.57 998 3.59 1148 3.64 723 3.68 II.89 3.72 1268 3.75 1172 4.12 1279 4.13 II.878 4.17 991 4.20 861 4.31 II.756 4.32 705 4.37 II.773 4.45 II.981 4.50 1253 4.56 II.652 4.57 II.889 4.62 II.191, 702 4.64 II.756 4.68 949 4.77 II.670 5.2 118, II.312 5.6 II.1000 5.9 803 5.21 II.294 5.26 II.996 5.27 858 5.33 II.680 5.37 1012, II.767 5.44 II.176 5.47 1136 5.53 II.1055 5.55 II.660 5.57 II.230 5.65 1133 5.69 1075 5.71 1269 5.76 II.1030 5.79 II.282 5.81 1169 5.83 II.476, 615 5.93 II.719 Flac. 1 II.632 2 1042, 1177, II.85 6 839 9 952

12 II.458 13 781, II.1066 14 207 21 II.1173 22 1126 23 II.469 30 II.183 41 155 43 1219 44 606 46 II.648 52 II.899 59 340 70 843, II.38 73 II.844 87 II.356 99 II.1051 Font. 2 II.217 4 983, II.1000 12 826 22 II.1060 36 293 44 1255 48 814 Har. 5 581 10 984 11 II.619 12 II.608 19 II.369 27 936 32 II.1056 34 II.35 35 1076, II.599 37 339 41 II.979 52 II.356 54 II.557 59 II.745 62 II.35 inc. orat. fr. B1S=26Cr 776 Inv. 1.6 II.957, 1180 1.9 398, II.1011 1.10 997 1.11 II.110 1.12 II.54 1.19 874, II.574, 608 1.20 996 1.28 II.240 1.29 218, II.141 1.35 1288 1.36 995 1.43 II.1069, 1217 1.44 II.328 1.45 II.86, 328, 1212 1.47 781, II.328 1.48 23 1.50 1081

Index Locorum 1315 1.51 41, 340, II.106 1.52 II.721 1.57 II.736 1.59 II.338 1.66 II.869 1.70 II.136 1.80 1166 1.82 122 1.84 II.328 1.85 II.20, 195 1.86 200, II.15, 315 1.87 737, II.316 1.106 II.398 1.108 II.513 2.2 18 2.4 722 2.7 1152, II.824 2.9 716, 958 2.14 II.525 2.27 II.192 2.32 II.580 2.33 216 2.36 839 2.63 722 2.75 II.580 2.81 II.641 2.82 II.190 2.98 II.438 2.106 II.795 2.113 690, II.520 2.118 II.1036 2.124 II.1125 2.130 II.54 2.148 773 2.166 751, 1029 2.167 907 2.168 937 2.175 II.582 Leg. 1.1 1269 1.3 731 1.5 II.267 1.12 II.94 1.15 624, II.86 1.25 287 1.30 177 1.41 1104 1.42 966 1.49 1282 1.51 113 1.52 324, 420, II.341 1.62 II.436, 470 2.7 127 2.10 II.904 2.15 771 2.17 II.908 2.18 466 2.21 512 2.29 185 2.30 753 2.31 648

2.32–3 II.1019 2.37 1030 2.43 713 2.45 II.896 2.46 II.1116 2.55 754 2.57 1061 2.58 459 2.60 755 2.60=LEX XII.10.8 II.1174 2.64 720 3.1 II.42, 55, 62, 1050 3.2 398 3.6 II.678, 691 3.7 771 3.8 520 3.9 718, II.1174 3.11 692 3.14 II.538 3.22 II.540 3.23 1170 3.24 II.367 3.26 213 3.32 II.694 3.33 1177, II.495 3.37 II.488 3.45 1046 Lig. 8 1127 20 II.147 23 496, II.869 24 421, II.692 26 II.114, 367 27 1105 28 II.683, 897 30 II.683 33 II.271 34 661 38 764, 1189, II.24, 55, 156 Luc. 2 1110 11 II.683 22 II.1071 28 586 32 II.124 40 II.102 48 1154 54 460, 1130 58 177 59 411 63 590 72 417 75 509 82 II.735 83 629, 953 89 936, 965 98 II.276 101 226 110 II.338 113 1252 119 534

122 335, II.534 123 231 125 719 135 II.1037 137 945 143 1247 Man. 3 1263 7 844 11 1259 15 966 16–17 II.1168 19 II.312 20 II.290 27 II.81 31 II.1082 32 337, 781 34 II.1045 35 1199 38 1155 51 1249 54 770 57 II.668 66 II.688 68 705 69 II.128 71 II.87 Marc. 5 II.721 9 240 12 II.825 16 838 20 II.440 21 342, 953, 1297 27 II.899 31 1170 Mil. 1 1197 3 II.486 5 1195 8 II.352 8–9 II.1142 11 288 17–18 II.1212 23 II.121 24 II.1141 26 1135 28 II.690 31 II.124 33 II.821 44 1125 46 II.353, 850 49 257, 361 50 II.329, 813 55 II.605 57 II.1082 59 II.295 64 337, 586 66 1199, II.748 68 II.986 73 II.613, 091

1316 Index Locorum Cicero, Mil. (cont.) 74 179 75 II.330 76 II.357 78 II.748 79 II.359 83 II.996 94 367 99 886, 1020 101 365, II.1093 103 II.1036 105 988 Mur. 2 II.1061 3 658, II.591, 797 7 II.496 9 1151 12 II.481 13 II.352, 1012 14 97, 237 15 1086, 1252 17 II.81, 963 20 1149 21 494, 656 23 1024 25 II.537 28 825 29 906 31 740 32 689 36 938 43 208 45 II.83, 774 48 840, II.29 51 II.34 54 II.795 56 1099 58 614 60 310 61 986 64 1033 65 711, II.378 67 II.300 74 655 77 250, 770 80 II.346 90 II.1097 N.D. 1.21 II.82 1.28 713 1.31 II.495 1.33 259 1.35 II.515 1.36 947 1.45 II.486 1.53 II.1062 1.60 II.453, 493 1.63 II.93 1.65 II.1210 1.75 1021 1.82 II.1075

1.88 762 1.89 II.693 1.97 II.982 1.98 II.1042 2.2 II.1184 2.4 710 2.6 1256 2.12 546, 727 2.21 545 2.24 1136, II.998 2.37 1286, II.413 2.41 II.657 2.43 136 2.44 II.379 2.49 563 2.52 849 2.54 176 2.69 II.669 2.73 II.441 2.75 II.488 2.79 952, 1249 2.92 245 2.96 846 2.105 992 2.116 259 2.118 565 2.122 414 2.127 874, 1012, 1116 2.128 1135 2.138 752 2.144 II.329 2.148 II.1050 2.158 61 2.166 II.901 2.167 105 2.168 II.228 3.24 327 3.31 281 3.42 II.697 3.43 II.293, 1214 3.47 176 3.51 II.1216 3.59 198 3.63 II.450 3.80 939 3.84 1030 3.86 186 3.87 91 3.90 II.438 3.92 1228 3.93 437, 985, 1088 Off. 1.1 1285 1.3 938 1.7 II.37 1.9 II.1026, 1227 1.11 960 1.17 1124 1.18 II.911 1.19 II.525, 598 1.20 II.1225

1.23 II.364, 594, 745 1.26 II.69, 1051 1.28 750 1.30 II.181 1.35 II.546 1.39 684 1.43 1040, 1045 1.56 II.364 1.58 1267 1.75 II.1226 1.78 II.1042 1.81 1254 1.86 1285 1.88 424 1.90 601, II.235 1.100 603 1.104 960 1.105 287, II.916 1.108 1247 1.112 319 1.113 II.172 1.119 II.383 1.120 II.1052 1.122 1295 1.126 II.620 1.127 II.1022 1.132 II.362 1.134 859, II.1226 1.143 603 1.144 II.1202 1.147 1261 1.148 1253 1.150 II.1166 2.2 II.1081 2.3 508, II.436 2.8 II.1024 2.16 II.393 2.17 II.443 2.19 II.438, 1098 2.21 II.564 2.22 II.53 2.23 1100, II.1097 2.25 920, II.792, 813 2.27 II.1103 2.30 II.1106 2.31 447 2.37 1062 2.38 903 2.40 575 2.42 II.911 2.48 II.406 2.51 1099, 1224, II.437 2.53 620 2.56 II.269 2.57 II.1106 2.59 II.616, 899 2.69 II.372 2.70 953 2.71 II.1095 2.72 II.314 2.75 II.90, 249

Index Locorum 1317 2.76 647 3.6 644 3.9 II.445 3.12 224 3.13 120 3.15 II.279 3.27 II.208 3.28 1246 3.30 491 3.36 II.643 3.38 205 3.44 189, 1282 3.45 653 3.46 202 3.49 II.1042 3.50 II.1064 3.58 II.648, 765 3.59 II.112 3.66 II.41 3.67 842 3.73 318 3.74 612 3.75 II.309, 685 3.76 1164 3.79 II.159 3.80 804, II.883 3.82 II.984 3.92 701 3.94 246, 955 3.95 II.1052 3.97 1165, II.23, 681 3.100 591, 702, II.50 3.101 857 3.105 II.114, 1099 3.112 II.185 3.113 674, II.317 3.114 II.546 3.119 II.1056 3.121 47, II.882 Opt. Gen. 6 II.748 10 680, II.349 Orat. 3 II.692 4 964 6 II.581, 1054 29 1252 41 918 54 287 77 687 87 888 101 349, 360, 509 105 938 109 II.499 131 II.1063 132 956, II.986 143 936 151 746, II.764 157 910 162 551 169 90

186 1104 217 985 219 1152 224 II.45 228 II.761 234 579 Parad. 11 II.433 12 1284 14 II.602 20 1001, 1016 22 624 24 523, II.839 30 202 Part. 19 II.608 31 1110 32 957 53 II.899 61 840 64 II.241 86 744 88 II.362, 424 89 495 90 141 99 II.109 114 II.222 Phil. 1.1 1046 1.2 II.1026 1.3 330 1.5 II.1039 1.12 II.1033 1.14 II.999 1.16 572 1.17 II.1036 1.19 II.1000 1.20 II.1028 1.21 155, 340, 959, II.1033 1.23 II.542 1.26 1279 1.27 II.1039 1.29 II.1179 1.33 II.1126 1.36 II.1029 1.37 1280 2.4 II.1127 2.5 II.161 2.6 II.591 2.7 620, II.544 2.11 110 2.11–12 II.1073 2.12 126 2.16 II.1050 2.17 II.571 2.18 1125 2.20 II.1026 2.21 642 2.23 914 2.25 202, II.1031 2.26 1058

2.29 1160 2.30 II.1221 2.31 II.738 2.32 II.922, 1031 2.33 739, II.570 2.34 II.1054 2.39 II.1023 2.44 176 2.45 II.579 2.47 II.1126 2.48 II.1031 2.54 II.936 2.55 1279, II.493 2.60 577 2.61 II.994 2.62 II.901, 1039 2.63 II.1097, 1099 2.64 II.916 2.66 II.965, 1108 2.68 II.1127 2.69 893, 1128 2.73 II.1039 2.75 27 2.76 165 2.77 1032 2.78 II.613 2.79 II.178, 198, 1083 2.81 II.842 2.86 504 2.92 177 2.96 1131 2.97 II.1125 2.99 II.1030, 1031 2.100 II.428 2.101 1257 2.104 II.453 2.105 88 2.107 II.521 2.110 II.1093 2.111 1066 2.112 II.1033 2.113 360, 768 2.115 II.1127 2.118 1155 2.119 II.1126 3.1 II.591 3.3 757 3.4 II.821 3.7 1277 3.8 II.404 3.14 II.404 3.16 II.1207 3.20 841 3.21 II.327 3.24 II.610 3.28 176, 868, II.1005 3.29 II.941 3.31 II.729 4.4 II.789 4.9 1264 4.11 II.1109

1318 Index Locorum Cicero, Phil. (cont.) 4.15 II.162 5.2 977 5.5 165, 433 5.6 137, 138, 1196 5.10 II.605, 676 5.22 1232 5.23 II.358 5.33 II.682 5.36 II.1094 5.39 1279 5.41 II.503 5.48 II.732 5.51 II.987 6.5 803, 1024 6.6 II.70, 446 6.16 II.688 6.17 II.417 7.7 941 7.18 II.1102 7.27 II.1146 8.3 768 8.5 II.18 8.9 II.1014 8.11 II.897 8.13 731, 1029 8.14 488, 657, 1251 8.15 II.1010 8.17–18 II.1169 8.20 II.298 8.21 II.172 8.28 955 8.31 524 8.33 670 9.7 II.223 9.9 548, II.721 9.10 II.1088 9.15 II.780 10.1 II.544, 774 10.4 II.485, 507 10.5 550, II.407 10.7 365 10.22 II.299 11.4 715, II.648 11.10 130 11.12 II.300 11.16 189 11.18 165 11.22 II.743 11.30 II.541 11.34 1251 11.37 II.692 12.2 II.863 12.4 681 12.7 134 12.9 895 12.11 821 12.15 II.111 13.7 993, II.69 13.13 812 13.14 II.372

13.15 1028, II.118 13.17 II.574 13.18 1063 13.24 335, II.712 13.28 738, 1122 13.33 553 13.37 II.635 13.49 II.146 14.3 II.1035 14.4 II.523 14.6 138, II.964 14.13 II.1024 14.17 558 14.18 237 14.22 852 14.31 367 14.32 II.1175 14.36–7 671 Pis. 3 191 8 1262 14 662, 1106 18 660 24 II.889 25 966 36 836 38 974 44 II.775 46 889 51 801 55 829 56 1057, II.936 58 250 61 II.1048 62 II.860 69 562 73 II.1094 75 II.1030, 1064 77 326 83–4 II.244 89 1064 90 872 94 II.1014 99 II.80, 609 Planc. 2 1075 7 II.281 12 II.705 13 II.172 14 603 16 1044 18 766, 769, II.1011, 1031 20 330 21 II.683 22 1273 29 962, 1203 30 II.1105 34 II.993 37 II.748 40 II.628

45 II.28 51 1275 53 993 55 216 56 II.592 59 II.719 62 II.331, 1094 65 II.108 75 II.605 76 II.401 80 II.353 84 444 87 II.695 89 952 93 766 94 1110, II.567 95 162 97 II.680 101 II.811 Prov. 1 II.890 28 1219 43 1169, II.764 44 208, 285 47 527 Q. fr. 1.1.7 II.1176 1.1.32 II.344 1.1.38 731 1.2.6 II.584, 590 1.2.11 224 1.2.12 II.849 1.3.1 568, 936, II.945 1.3.6 II.612 2.1.1 II.72 2.1.3 85 2.3.7 834 2.6.4 1225, II.628, 996 2.8.1 II.161 2.10.3 783, 1026 2.12.1 II.1056 2.12.4 974 2.13.1 II.1183 2.14.1 197 2.16.5 II.739 3.1.1 96 3.1.9 II.854 3.1.10 587 3.3.1 II.912 3.5.1 II.157, 168 Q. Rosc. 2 707 3 471, 975 9 374 16 II.595, 755 17 1113 21 1175, II.121 25 350, 909 26 II.580 30 II.371 33 641

Index Locorum 1319 52 1123 53 346 Quinct. 1 839 5 II.296, 596 9 II.1094 11 II.1068 18 II.14 21 824 24 841 30 990 31 669 32 156, II.535 41 840, II.86 43 29 46 II.521 49 II.687 51 II.1052 53 II.450 57 II.1105 59 II.784 74 II.687 79 65, 182, 589, 826, II.1032 86 II.596 Rab. Perd. 4 II.821 12 II.137 18 1111 19 II.337 20 II.286, 693 Rab. Post. 7 1178 17 184 24 II.68 26 1064 33 II.811 42 284 Red. Pop. 10 954 12 II.778 Red. Sen. 3 1110 11 1277 14 124 18 975 20 II.754 22 II.814 23 975 25 II.495 29 175 31 II.1101 34 II.723 35 976 36 II.1015 37 1257 Rep. 1.2 1041 1.4 II.418 1.14 II.1169 1.15 1087 1.18 II.1020

1.19 II.338 1.32 501 1.38 474 1.51 1275, II.813 1.58 851 1.63 1132 2.2 1067, II.34 2.5 218 2.11 575 2.27 II.730 2.31 543 2.34 1214 2.43 942 2.45 513, 976, II.486 2.49 1252 2.53 II.1067 2.64 II.660 3.16 II.176 3.23 689 3.34 897 5.11 107 6.9 979 6.10 II.806 6.11 II.999 6.15 863 6.18 1049 6.19 II.1015 6.24 II.876 6.26 II.964 S. Rosc. 4 II.60 6 1076, II.584, 600 9 768 10 II.279, 551 15 252 16 189 18 II.783 19 824, II.636 23 152 25 II.1069 27 II.907 28 II.599 29 II.632, 794, 874 30 867 31–2 II.1199 33 1153 37 II.187 39 II.17, 737 47 136, 1169 48 II.645, 687 50 641 57 1008, II.216 58 II.997 61 II.688 69 151 70 588 72 954 80 250 81 84 84 II.1222 85 227

90 1179 91 615, 777 94 1107 98 1129 100 437, 815, II.219, 314 101 137, 187, II.705 104 II.60 109 II.1035 111 II.278 117 410 118 II.1192 120 606 121 II.89, 591 128 II.181 135 983 136 144 139 952 141 646 147 II.69 148 II.75 151 II.127 154 91, II.1035 Scaur. 4 273 13 362 31 II.1109 39 II.669 44 722 Sen. 1 II.589 2 206, 1153 4 620 5 II.594 10 1037 13 II.4, 426 16 625, II.83 17 876 19 188, II.433, 589 20 II.856 21 295, II.416 22 II.112 24 II.275 30 524 32 II.885 35 550, 628, II.103 36 690 38 1021 41 II.588 42 II.93 45 1038 50 II.1191 54 II.792 55 II.588, 716, 772 56 111, 1252, II.813 59 1006, II.486, 499 60 II.900 67 658 68 795 73 668 79 II.359 84 II.453, 693

1320

Index Locorum

Cicero (cont.) Sest. 1 II.1091 6 128 8 II.127 11 II.1058 13 II.907 19 II.427 21 II.1051 26 174, 1158 28 II.811 29 1214 37 163 38 1299 42 490 52 947 60 585 74 II.453 75 99 76 II.1015 79 II.93 83 II.324 85 1110, II.913 93 689 95 1075, II.177, 1065 101 719 103 1073 120 II.1083 122 246 127 124 128 975 134 89 142 1079, 1132 145 89 Sul. 12 II.899 15 1127 18 976, II.554 19 II.629 20 II.695 21 532 27 II.377 35 985 38 681 39 II.19 43 II.277 45 II.902 46 355 49 II.762 51 385 57 855 70 935, 1038 72 210 73 988 81 1079, 1134 82 681, II.1095 88 1132 92 II.55, 502 Tim. 8 284

Top. 1 II.220 2 II.751 5 160 25 333 28 1040 32 979 35 918 38 286, II.25 59 II.357 84 II.115 95 965, 1281, II.987 Tul. 5 677 24–5 857 26 II.1050 29 679, II.589 49 II.245 Tusc. 1.1 556, 889 1.3 1252 1.4 421 1.5 II.1188 1.6 II.984, 1130 1.7 144, 1274, II.984 1.9 II.999 1.13 715 1.14 II.125, 658 1.15 II.765 1.16 768, II.150, 376 1.17–18 II.1210 1.21 128 1.23 310 1.24 II.1016 1.30 II.534 1.32 988 1.34 318 1.41 1132, 1173 1.42 II.331 1.49 949 1.52 272, II.130 1.62 II.499, 527 1.67 580 1.71 II.269 1.72 453 1.76 II.88, 347 1.81 494 1.82 534, II.1032 1.88 196, 1116 1.89 1253 1.90 488 1.93 753 1.94 II.759 1.97 II.71, 493 1.99 II.813 1.101 II.251 1.102 1054, 1071, II.509 1.108 II.611, 792 1.116 II.802 1.118 II.603 2.2 886, II.38

2.10 247 2.11 668, II.964 2.14 509 2.16 625, II.535 2.20 265 2.29 767 2.33 1108 2.35 643, 919 2.39 II.976 2.41 II.879 2.43 II.185 2.52 665, II.468 2.53 643, 1037 2.54 II.759 2.56 648 2.58 26 2.60 91 2.61 543, II.186, 368 2.62 II.521 2.64 II.296 3.4 1039, II.654 3.5 1254 3.6 II.615 3.8 324, II.1029 3.10 II.726 3.11 562 3.12 II.899 3.14 775 3.16 1211, II.535 3.21 747 3.23 II.1069 3.26 II.1082 3.27 70, II.997 3.34 928 3.36 737 3.38 II.1095 3.40 1279 3.49 1072, II.579 3.53 II.829 3.66 II.1028 3.73 II.636, 989 3.74 II.448 3.84 II.1187 4.3 II.1098 4.4 725 4.7 39 4.14 546 4.17 750 4.20 750 4.21 II.131 4.28 II.271 4.40 II.541, 1203 4.44 II.102 4.46 1164 4.50 763 4.53 II.375 4.58 II.766 4.66 360 4.71 738, 1068 4.75 765 4.78 II.244

Index Locorum 1321 4.79 1130 5.4 1108 5.7 II.713 5.12 507, II.194 5.17 705, II.98 5.21 324 5.22 775, II.199 5.25 177 5.26 748 5.33 943 5.36 978 5.38 II.426 5.40 II.63 5.41 795 5.45 II.632 5.54 1123 5.57 24, II.855, 997 5.61 1034 5.62 II.586, 1164, 1218 5.63 II.482 5.66 II.241, 528 5.72 II.595 5.81 II.890 5.82 120 5.83 II.130 5.87 II.141, 615 5.98 1171 5.102 II.570 5.104 733 5.105 502, 620, 646, 1034 5.108 789 5.109 861 5.111 787 5.114 583 II.618 5.116 II.362 Vat. 5 571, 580, 629 10 II.146 12 II.174 15 II.447 18 II.119 22 II.710 40 II.510, 1091 Ver. pr. 1 670 4 II.35 14 702, 1266 16 II.1154 19 983 23 II.19 26 II.353 31 II.1005 46 II.371 54 287, II.445 56 II.372 Ver. sec. 1.1 II.33 1.2 715, II.1019 1.6 1203 1.9 II.1045 1.11 770

1.12 575 1.13 1160 1.14 984 1.20 850 1.22 II.143 1.26 II.531 1.27 211, 836 1.30 II.1075 1.32 1234 1.34 II.260 1.36 1167, II.1064 1.51 II.110 1.55 1063 1.56 396, II.905 1.57 II.1035 1.63 901 1.64 II.1128 1.65 859, II.461, 1010 1.66 405, 776 1.67 1126 1.71 II.869 1.72 560, 915 1.75 570 1.78 II.1129 1.79 II.1029 1.80 142 1.83 142 1.84 143 1.85 II.535 1.86 1134, II.586 1.87 1032 1.92 1249 1.98 639 1.105 II.554 1.107 II.128 1.108 661 1.111 1149 1.115 II.917 1.116 II.381 1.120 268 1.122 II.1033 1.125 II.585, 614 1.130 1057, II.616 1.136 74 1.141 839, II.685 1.146 II.1115 1.147 II.1050 1.149 II.259 1.153 1264 1.154 706, II.311 1.155 727 1.157 318 1.158 II.867 2.2 547, 557, 572, II.1118 2.6 807, II.714 2.13 1273, II.522 2.14 953 2.15 709 2.20 II.941 2.23 II.821 2.24 879, II.1030

2.27 II.771 2.32 685 2.36 II.167 2.37 II.446 2.38 560 2.39 721 2.41 II.128, 597 2.46 668 2.47 II.684 2.52 102 2.60 728 2.64 II.1129 2.68 1111 2.70 II.721 2.72 II.1052 2.74 532 2.76 II.1035, 1187 2.82 994 2.84 190 2.86 1058, II.540 2.89 825, II.1068 2.93 707 2.94 714 2.97 533, 534 2.110 II.808 2.117 II.582 2.121 995 2.122 II.737 2.123 1052 2.127 284, 553 2.130 229, 1216 2.132 II.233 2.139 II.271 2.144 II.1177 2.149 966, II.802 2.150 903 2.155 153 2.160 1015 2.163 937 2.166 II.673 2.169 II.36, 641, 1199 2.172 II.568 2.176 1004 2.178 II.454 2.181 284 2.182 1062 2.185 II.1101 2.186 858 2.191 578, 1012 3.3 238 3.6 90 3.12 946, 1006 3.16 II.868 3.20 149 3.23 II.1128 3.26 130, II.239 3.27 II.637 3.28 II.954 3.29 898 3.35 1171, II.22 3.41 II.22

1322 Index Locorum Cicero, Ver. sec. (cont.) 3.42 184 3.43 247, 884, 995 3.49 II.739 3.50 1167 3.57 II.252 3.63 583 3.67 II.865 3.69 II.596, 1220 3.70 II.315 3.71 554, 559, 560 3.75 II.208 3.76 1017, II.113 3.78 889 3.81 506 3.85 II.764 3.91 II.136, 168 3.92 1144 3.93 1144 3.96 II.1014 3.97 II.682 3.103 1117 3.108 II.867 3.109 II.988 3.110 II.679 3.111 322 3.112 679 3.116 1017 3.118 II.906 3.120 II.636, 812, 1150 3.121 792 3.122 217, II.257 3.132 701 3.137 II.977 3.140 216 3.142 II.168 3.147 135, 883 3.149 II.1150 3.151 II.722 3.159–60 1144 3.162 II.723 3.163 II.86 3.164 589 3.168 107 3.178 II.185 3.185 139, 152, II.27 3.186 1259 3.187 II.294 3.193 228 3.194 II.941 3.195 II.696 3.199 II.503 3.209 254 3.213 1135 3.216 855 3.223 II.890 3.227 698 3.228 II.596 4.3 II.774 4.5 II.633, 726 4.7 816, 909, II.299 4.11 580

4.13 159 4.14 659 4.16 660 4.18 801 4.22 II.559 4.26 1107, II.822 4.28 II.121 4.29 II.1223 4.31 388, 487, II.1150 4.32 991, 1086 4.35 159, II.763, 1018, 1187 4.38 399, II.855, 1071 4.39 II.261 4.40 560 4.42 II.258 4.44 238 4.46 II.1031 4.48 1113 4.58 371, 1099 4.59 1063, II.749 4.62 II.497, 1018 4.63 II.500 4.64 695, II.300, 829, 1153 4.67 II.597 4.71 II.1029 4.72 II.876 4.76 869 4.78 II.1045 4.81 II.898 4.84 680, II.263 4.86 731, 859 4.92 1251 4.94 254, 491, II.1045 4.95 254 4.96 271, II.597, 957, 1082 4.98 II.286 4.104 156 4.107 752 4.112 226 4.113 II.446 4.115 II.55 4.117 1260 4.119 241, II.819, 1020 4.124 II.559 4.126 II.747 4.128 II.1031 4.132 318 4.133 II.41, 374 4.135 1173 4.140 695, 984 4.142 II.771 4.143 II.994 4.148 1076 4.151 1240 5.4 509 5.5 II.8, 242 5.9 808, II.747 5.11 1083, II.369 5.14 1000, II.684 5.15 II.1055 5.16 626 5.17 1134

5.20 1011 5.22 II.136, 207 5.27 213 5.30 II.482 5.32 917 5.34 973 5.40 II.579, 712 5.43 589 5.53 II.1077 5.58 II.351 5.59 II.576 5.62 II.999 5.64 125 5.65 II.853 5.67 588 5.68 II.131, 198 5.79 611 5.81 1109 5.82–3 II.1223 5.88 II.131 5.89 770 5.94 II.620 5.95 553 5.105 706 5.108 238, II.607 5.109 156 5.119 983 5.120 II.808 5.129 921, 1290, II.342 5.131 699 5.133 913 5.136 935 5.139 580 5.149 II.216 5.151 II.825 5.152 II.868 5.154 613 5.168 II.360, 367 5.171 II.372 5.174 255 5.177 952 5.178 613 5.182 29 5.188 293 [Cicero] Sal. 5 576 20 38 CIL I2.10.7–8 II.581 I2.11.1 II.1089 I2.13 II.738 I2.42 897 I2.366.II.1–2 185 I2.366.II.3–7 II.588 I2.395 II.1139 I2.561b 820 I2.581.2 II.225 I2.581.2–3 764, II.1136 I2.581.3 538 I2.581.7–9 II.625 I2.581.10 539

Index Locorum 1323 I2.581.10–11 II.1136 I2.581.27 177 I2.582.12 II.349 I2.582.17 517 I2.582.20 720 I2.583.6 II.578 I2.583.26 II.577 I2.583.35 502 I2.583.39 II.532 I2.583.55 154 I2.583.61 II.574 I2.583.63 II.199 I2.583.68 II.567 I2.583.A28 II.288 I2.584.1–2 1277 I2.584.35 707 I2.585.1 II.617 I2.585.6–7 II.663 I2.585.8 II.624 I2.585.25 II.674 I2.585.31 550 I2.585.56–7 537 I2.587.7–11 II.529 I2.590.9–11 1128 I2.590.39–42 II.308 I2.593.153–4 II.667 I2.608 815 I2.614.1–7 II.178 I2.638.3–4 809 I2.661 815 I2.800.2–3 304 I2.981.7–9 304 I2.1251.3–5 II.431 I2.1606 314 I2.1722.3–5 II.227 I2.2174 358 I2.3121.4–6 II.10 I2.App.268 II.1139 II.172 309 II.1963.II.6–7 II.712 II.1964.54.10–15 II.738 II.4365.1–2 396 II.4365.1–5 442 II.5.1022.XCVIII.8–10 II.738 III.6825 80 III.9504.2–4 II.467 IV.118 II.1139 IV.3494i 312 IV.3779 1210 V.7007.12–13 1278 VI.1287.5 II.625 VI.2135.10 II.566 VI.4912.1–2 II.734 VI.6049 1068 VI.7901 845 VI.9232.1–2 II.433 VI.9545.3 II.10 VI.9632.6–7 770 VI.28138.10–11 II.751 VI.30898 1277 VIII.2728 654

VIII.9109.1–5 II.1078 VIII.21671.5–7 II.1078 VIII.23245.2–3 II.228 X.1032 1210 X.2567 II.432 X.4053.1 II.10 X.8192 76 XII.882.6 II.993 XII.3151 II.1010 XIII.1983.13 962 XIII.11757 649 XIV.4494.6–7 II.418 XI.1827 II.1148 Codex Theodosianus 9.23.1.2 1120 12.1.4 429 Coelius hist. 24B=46C II.957 Columella 1.3.5 541 1.6.18 II.292 1.6.24 II.871 1.7.5 990 1.9.8 771 2.2.1 860 2.2.25 93 2.4.5 II.127 2.9.6 859 2.10.24 II.648 2.10.28 74 3.7.1 1170 4.29.5 1165 5.6.12 II.314 5.9.16 206 6.1.1 II.831 6.22.2 61 7.3.21 78 8.5.19 794 9.15.7 1291 10.23–4 II.800 10.364–5 193 11.3.10 827 12.12.1 1015 12.46.2 II.676 Arb. 9.2 428 11.1 980 Corippus Io. 6.88–9 441 Cornelia Nep. fr. 2 335 59 527 Curtius Rufus 3.1.8 1162 3.7.13 II.814 4.15.23 260 4.15.24 876 5.3.13 730 6.7.29 891

7.1.9 744 8.1.52 543 8.9.17 II.536 8.13.21 689 9.9.6 II.686 10.1.6 II.28 Cyprianus ad Quirin. 2.30 1014 Eleem. 13 879 Ep. 21.4.2 II.566 56.2 1240 66 II.490 73.5.1 134 Mort. 2 442 Unit. eccl. 11 651 Donatus Ter. Ad. pr. 1.4 II.225 Ennius Ann. 10.332–3V=330–1S II.464 22V=19S 1011 49V–50V=48–9S 887 51V=50S II.1117 82V=77S II.125 83–8V=78–83S 408 109V=104S II.908 164–5V=227–8S II.1106 173V=163S 860 183–4V=170–1S II.639 230 1032 240–1V=274–5S II.644 260V=222S II.1117 311V=310S 242 332–3V=330–1S 1300 341–2V=333–4S 881 378V=369S II.1121 381–2V=371–2S II.1132 400V=519S 265 405V=395S 996 609V=Spur.5S II.1134 620V=619S 1263 Epich. 2V=2FRL 151 Euh. 10V=11FRL II.384 scen. 35–9V=50–4J II.560 65–6V=43–4J 805 181V=165J 88, II.610 197–8V=182J 147 241V=202J 269 250–1V=212–13J 997 338J 807 355–6V=339–40J II.1116

1324

Index Locorum

Ennius, scen. (cont.) 360V=307J 100 410V=396J 265 Ennodius Carm. 1.9.33 279 Favorinus orat. 1 186, 214 Festus 190.9L. 99 Florentinus dig. 15.1.39 II.145 Florus Epit. 1.45.10 II.656 2.12.12 II.858 2.13.74 1084 Fredegarius Chron. 3.81 812 4.pr. II.227 4.37 II.227 4.63 II.45 Frontinus Aq. 5.3 II.1088 15.1 II.781 129.10 1163 Str. 1.5.19 1235 2.7.4 II.443 2.11.3 1294 3.3.6 II.350 4.6.1 946 Fronto Aur. 3.14.2 777 5.25.1 II.719 Ep. ad M. Caes. 4.6.2 II.953 5.55.1 468 Gaius dig. 9.2.2.1 570 10.4.13 918 47.2.49 II.54 Inst. 1.67 696 1.102 II.174 2.18 686 2.78 625 4.32 157 4.72 621 [Epit.] 2.3.2 II.596 Gellius 1.26.7 II.412 2.21.6 1166

3.1.7 1107 3.2.14 568 3.7.11 II.407 4.6.2 262 4.8.3 192 5.4.2 II.334 5.8.7 901 7.2.5 292 10.15.21 313 10.27.1 II.440 13.22.1 537 16.3.1 II.467 Germanicus Arat. 377–8 II.371 Gracchus orat. 44 546, II.792 58 II.931 Gregory of Tours Hist. 8.20 II.93 Vit. patr. 3.1 479 5.4.59 440 Hirtius Gal. 8.6.2 147 8.12.7 II.157 8.36.2 989 8.41.6 II.687 Historia Apollonii Regis Tyri RA.17 764 RA.31 97 Historia Augusta Car. 9.4 II.264 Carac. 8.8 II.200 Gall. 19.7 435 Heliog. 29.3 II.33 Maximin. 29.5 531 Pius 2.3 650 quatt. tyr. 13.6 953 Tac. 8.1 97 16.2 962 Horace Ars 24–5 1068 55–6 240 173–4 1039 218–19 225 372–3 1271 429–30 88

455–6 539 Carm. 1.2.1–2 1276 1.5.4 1177 1.18.3–4 859 2.7.1–2 II.936 2.7.1–4 II.947 2.8.21 131 2.13.30–2 79 2.15.18–20 II.714 3.10.13–16 249 3.11.39–42 II.933 3.13.13 777 3.30.11–12 116 4.14.14–15 1010 Ep. 1.1.62–3 II.106 1.1.94–5 243, 249 1.6.12 II.126 1.6.20 II.788, 811 1.10.49–50 II.381 1.16.31–2 II.755 1.18.3–4 122 1.19.44–5 88 2.1.17 438 Epod. 1.5–6 II.433 5.57–60 II.571 11.7–8 II.934 11.11–12 II.1000 12.15 212 S. 1.4.1–2 II.513 1.4.47–8 122 1.6.14–16 II.489 1.6.72–5 266 1.6.113–14 II.787 1.6.127–8 II.788 1.6.128–9 69 1.7.20–1 II.817 1.10.70–1 550 2.1.35–7 II.304 2.2.76–7 1172 2.2.106 785 2.2.135–6 II.964 2.3.26–7 150 2.3.79–80 II.678 2.3.182–3 II.787 2.5.16–18 324 2.5.68–9 944 2.5.76–8 II.919 2.6.23–4 II.933 2.6.65–6 1256 2.7.47 66, 216 Saec. 25 540 Hyginus Astr. 2.4.1 II.92 Hyginus Gromaticus agrim. T95 1113

Index Locorum 1325 Inc. trag. 34 312 Inscr. Christ. Diehl 3739E II.432 ISIS 321 1298 Javolenus Priscus dig. 8.3.13.1 II.529 Jerome Ep. 26.1 479 32.1.3 II.253 49.4 871 49.15.2 II.297 123.9 II.304 in Psal. II.88.272 573 Julianus dig. 23.4.21 605 47.2.57[56]2 240 Julius Valerius I.42.51K.=I.1348.R. II.409 Justinus 1.7.5 961 25.1.7 II.461 36.1.9 II.460 Lactantius Inst. 4.14.17 II.339 Largus (Scribonius) 38 922 40 477 114 879 157 493 159 851 171 II.378 Lentulus Fam. 12.14.8 II.900, 1231 12.15.5 II.200 Lex XII 1.1 517, 751, II.318 1.9 II.403 3.4 478 5 692 8.3 920 10.1 519 Livius Andronicus poet. 18[20] 261 Livy 1.pr.6 550, II.230 1.1.4 1052 1.4.4 1052 1.6.4 1254 1.7.3 II.1075 1.7.6 II.163 1.7.6–7 1111

1.7.9 II.741 1.9.5 II.158 1.10.7 II.172 1.13.5 1074 1.14.4 995 1.15.1 II.284 1.19.3 447 1.20.7 II.233 1.21.3 1050 1.21.4 260 1.23.6 610 1.25.13 II.769 1.28.6 958 1.28.9 II.37 1.29.5 II.898 1.30.9 II.686 1.32.1 191 1.32.13 1256, II.262 1.33.8 804 1.34.1 543 1.34.2 II.392 1.34.5 1031 1.34.11 1211 1.39.2 93 1.40.2 186, II.183, 852 1.44.3 409 1.46.1 II.29 1.47.5 520 1.51.3 236 1.51.6 II.992 1.53.1 II.223 1.55.6 II.639 1.56.7 1260 1.56.10 584 1.57.3 II.100 1.57.10–58.1 II.883 1.58.10 II.852 2.1.11 632 2.2.8 405 2.4.5 641 2.5.3 863 2.5.6 II.1021 2.6.3 598 2.7.2 1261 2.7.9 623 2.7.12 963 2.8.4 189 2.10.2 II.343 2.12.9 289 2.12.11 711 2.14.1 122 2.16.1 II.1146 2.17.3 II.654 2.18.1–2 II.1147 2.23.11 1067 2.29.11 381 2.38.1 II.263 2.38.5 1282 2.40.11 184 2.42.9 277 2.45.9 II.768 2.45.10–11 529

2.46.4 II.808 2.47.5 II.255 2.47.6 II.1154 2.58.5 II.738 2.59.6 1028 2.64.8 1028 2.65.2 II.1146 3.2.8 II.593 3.8.8 100 3.13.1 840 3.13.10 805 3.14.6 II.701 3.16.4 II.658 3.19.3 II.262 3.27.1 20 3.28.1 569 3.28.7 757 3.36.8 II.340 3.43.2 896 3.45.3 535 3.47.7 684 3.50.2 1075 3.51.1 II.358 3.52.5 209 3.53.6 895 3.54.6 900 3.56.3 1125 3.57.2 II.620 3.58.1 II.593 3.62.6 1129 3.68.9 II.370 3.71.3 II.345 4.2.9 II.53 4.4.3 II.12 4.5.1 773 4.7.1 838 4.8.5 II.357 4.9.1 544 4.10.9 860 4.12.9 II.750 4.15.5 II.192, 1193 4.17.3–4 1072 4.21.9 252 4.31.4 702 4.32.3 II.484 4.34.3 II.257 4.35.7 II.241 4.38.5 569 4.39.9 II.489 4.41.3 II.871 4.43.2 II.424 4.44.10 II.397 4.44.12 II.526 4.46.10 II.526 4.49.14 II.720 4.51.4 II.192 4.57.6 1268 4.58.2 979 4.58.5 II.811 4.58.7 817 5.3.2 755 5.3.8 720

1326 Index Locorum Livy (cont.) 5.4.4 1257 5.5.5 828 5.10.11 II.270 5.15.12 1254 5.18.5 II.931 5.27.7 268 5.27.8 874 5.30.7 II.739 5.33.6 1005 5.33.11 II.303 5.37.7 II.742 5.40.7 II.414 5.44.4 1276 5.51.5 1036 5.53.3 II.364 5.54.1 II.678 5.54.7 1257 6.10.5 II.180 6.11.6–7 749 6.12.8 961 6.12.11 407 6.17.3 II.186 6.17.6 II.527 6.26.6 II.750 6.41.3 681 7.1.7 II.303 7.2.4 74 7.2.5 1292 7.2.11 610 7.4.6 II.187 7.9.1 715 7.14.8 98 7.22.10 II.302 7.26.7 II.945 7.31.6 II.102 7.33.2 II.1074 7.33.15 241 7.34.2 611 8.2.1–3 592 8.7.15–17 II.294 8.10.10 II.303 8.11.1 II.214 8.14.2 II.383 8.19.7 1035 8.25.9 192 8.25.9–10 II.847 8.27.9 II.1020 8.31.5 389 8.32.5 662 8.36.7 294 9.2.6 II.767 9.2.10 II.498 9.3.3 817 9.6.3 1235 9.10.9 103 9.16.6 1032 9.16.13 225 9.18.1 224 9.33.5 II.720 9.37.11 II.1118

9.38.4 II.746 9.40.4 II.168 9.43.4 1292 9.43.4–5 II.1182 9.43.26 861 10.4.9 99 10.4.10 1269 10.17.8–9 199 10.22.9 II.1088 10.25.12 1154 10.26.7 II.813 10.29.5 1210 10.35.9 510 10.36.2 II.1023 10.36.6 992 10.38.3 II.438 10.39.2 1058 10.42.1 228 21.2.4 II.892 21.2.6 1134 21.4.3 743 21.6.3–4 II.806 21.8.5 458 21.10.11 427 21.11.5 II.273, 703 21.11.13 937 21.15.4 568 21.19.11 126 21.23.1 II.398 21.25.9 800 21.30.10 II.187 21.32.10 II.861 21.33.3 II.812 21.35.1 688 21.35.11 II.273 21.38.1 II.1157 21.39.4 615 21.39.8 1127 21.42.1 II.1157 21.45.1 145 21.46.4 II.619 21.48.2 II.795 21.50.10 782 21.60.3 792 21.63.6 II.906 22.1.14 II.763 22.3.2 II.214 22.4.4 255 22.9.1 831 22.9.10 II.495 22.14.7 30 22.15.1 607 22.25.4 II.230 22.27.3 85 22.31.7 877 22.36.6 II.177 22.40.8 778 22.45.2 172 22.46.4 190 22.51.3 II.463 22.51.9 II.805

22.53.11 658 22.54.10 II.892 22.59.10 540 22.59.14 311 22.60.17 II.243 22.60.23 1156 22.61.1 II.1053 23.3.2 II.825 23.4.7 702 23.9.11 768 23.14.3 II.528 23.17.6 II.53 23.18.4 693, II.873 23.29.4 1013 23.29.5 1270 23.30.7 1075 23.39.8 907 23.42.7 II.35 23.42.13 II.6, 459 23.46.11 II.1023 24.3.7 II.190 24.5.3–4 II.550 24.9.5 II.387 24.12.4 907 24.13.8 II.385 24.16.19 II.462 24.25.11 955 24.28.5 II.742 24.36.8 616 25.1.11 II.97 25.9.1 228 25.9.12 561 25.11.3 241 25.15.9 II.751 25.23.1 II.689 25.25.13 547 25.27.6 214 25.31.14 II.342 25.36.5 776 26.3.8 186 26.5.4 280 26.10.1 1278 26.10.2 1278 26.18.8 II.979 26.26.11 II.699 26.27.12 II.192 26.30.2 911 26.37.6 1219, II.223 26.51.1 II.689 27.1.2 907 27.3.1 882, 1200 27.3.2 1131 27.5.14 II.173 27.12.15 II.818 27.27.9 1006 27.29.9 173 27.30.8 II.332 27.36.14 984 27.44.9 732 27.48.7 II.715, 747 28.2.1 II.248

Index Locorum 1327 28.3.6 II.258 28.7.7 818 28.7.9 II.394 28.13.7 445 28.17.14 II.432 28.22.12 II.96 28.24.7 II.188 28.26.6 II.221 28.27.10 992 28.27.15 451 28.28.9 II.612 28.29.12–30.1 II.1157 28.31.3 561 28.35.1 II.891 28.41.4 II.1069 28.43.17 II.281 29.1.1 II.1053 29.2.1 II.397 29.3.10 577 29.4.2 II.614 29.6.7 59 29.8.11 II.963 29.9.5 II.254 29.10.4 II.404 29.11.7 861 29.15.5 II.1198 29.27.1 1274 29.32.11 846 29.33.8 1221, II.225 29.34.12 II.1217 29.37.3 114 30.4.8 II.487 30.7.10 63, 289 30.20.7 II.789 30.23.1 167 30.28.5 II.40 30.35.2 II.1023 30.37.4 II.675 30.40.10 985 30.44.7 540 31.1.6 II.961 31.12.1 II.519 31.15.6 911 31.18.6 1041 31.22.7 694 31.22.8 984 31.23.7 II.744 31.35.3 146 31.47.1 1281 31.47.3 1273 32.9.2 II.1090 32.16.11 723 32.17.6 II.37 32.19.7 1135 32.23.8 569 32.24.4 II.1059 32.24.5 II.253 32.26.2 459 32.29.1 1255 32.37.5 444 33.5.12 277

33.9.2 1291 33.26.9 832 33.37.2 830 33.40.3 II.561 33.42.6 734 34.3.5 II.115 34.4.14 668 34.7.3 139 34.20.6 II.462 34.20.7 II.699 34.48.5 II.245 35.16.12 704, II.97 35.20.8 II.232 35.20.9 II.1088 35.26.9 1289 35.31.16 II.750 35.40.7 93, 98 35.47.5 1272 36.1.9 II.179 36.4.9 II.39, 324 36.11.1 1152 36.16.1 II.636 36.43.11 280 37.26.12–13 II.189 37.32.13 1269 37.39.1 II.979 37.45.12 774 37.53.24 1250 37.53.25 427 38.10.4 868 38.14.9 953 38.26.7 II.670 38.28.2 II.1012 38.31.3 577 38.36.4 1028 38.39.8–10 II.1010 38.47.7 II.1059 38.50.10 II.457 38.52.8 II.16 39.4.11 600 39.5.7 433 39.11.1 II.444 39.16.3 480 39.28.5 773 39.40.2 1277 39.52.1 II.562 40.32.5 625 40.48.1 1283, II.487 40.51.7 768 41.4.4 II.502 41.11.1 1250 41.18.3 931 41.20.4 1170 41.20.12 II.24 42.5.2 1190 42.5.11 246 42.28.3 II.444 42.31.7 II.570 42.46.6 511 42.47.9 1022 42.53.1 847

42.57.10 837 42.58.3 841 42.64.5 II.179 43.13.1 729 43.13.4 193 44.3.3 955 44.24.1 1268 44.29.8 II.1105 44.33.2 II.47 44.35.3 II.195 44.36.7 626 44.38.6–7 II.823 45.15.2 II.736 45.19.4 II.546 45.19.15 II.187 45.23.18 II.891 45.31.1–2 II.69 45.35.8 II.25 LP 2 1227 Lucanus 2.547 248 4.346–7 234 5.313–14 520 9.982 261 Lucceius Fam. 5.14.2 328 Lucifer De non conven. 5.58 334 De non parc. 9 l.35D II.227 Lucilius 126M=127K 1024 189–90M=192–3K 205 693M=707K II.134 1142M=1159K 983 Lucretius 1.84–6 951 1.112–13 541 1.248–9 712 1.259–61 242 1.474 1052 2.3–4 1167 2.94 II.993 2.240–1 712 2.272–3 II.760 2.336–7 II.296 2.526–7 II.466 2.692–3 973, 982 2.834–6 II.292 2.842–4 200 2.891–3 II.513 2.930 686 2.1103–4 735, II.1134 3.31–4 II.679 3.68–9 539 3.149–50 II.654 3.207–8 210 3.276–7 II.655

1328

Index Locorum

Lucretius (cont.) 3.333–4 II.654 3.391–2 296 3.403–5 II.368 3.421–4 II.295 3.487–91 1214 3.489 915 3.705–6 1257 3.776–7 II.1119 3.790–3 II.655 3.798–802 II.1201 3.811 846 3.859 II.1133 3.990–1 981 3.1008–10 256 3.1018–19 II.373 3.1087–8 1232 3.1092–4 II.729 4.384–5 II.903 4.473–5 II.376 4.532 II.871 4.610–11 819 4.984–6 136 4.1024–5 II.1118 4.1170–80 178 4.1242–6 II.287 5.31 II.646 5.33–4 865 5.680–1 II.374 5.739–40 1008 5.1148–50 II.36 5.1276 295 6.85 II.1116 6.164–6 II.722, 725 6.214–15 1299 6.300–1 1276 6.341 II.409 6.519–20 848 6.601–3 II.375 6.742 811 6.771–2 779 6.1002–3 II.666 6.1005–7 II.997 6.1112–13 887 6.1232 157 M (see p. 1247) 1107.6–8 761 Manilius 2.176–7 20 Martial 2.40.8 1224 7.6.8 209 12.52.3–4 1153 Matius Fam. 11.28.8 II.95 Metellus Pius in Macr. 3.13.12 1216 Minucius Felix 16.5 171

Mulomedicina Chironis 37 440 104 730 133 II.408 170 II.16 220 279 379 1239 526 1186 840 760 997 1239 Naevius poet. 3.2 176 Nepos praef. 2 876, 1194, II.817 5 781 Ag. 4.1 598 4.5 II.777 7.4 1132 8.2 II.799 Alc. 4.1 1224 6.4 811 9.4 II.176 Ar. 1.2 575 Att. 7.1 459 13.6 II.366 17.1 482, II.799 22.2 1128 Ca. 1.2 II.636 Cim. 1.3 II.812 3.1 1132 Dat. 5.6 II.1023 6.3 II.835 6.8 1131 Di. 3.3 II.136 9.5 II.515 Ep. 1.4 II.1217 5.1 II.309 Epam. 5.2 II.765 Eum. 6.1–2 334 Ham. 3.2 II.177 Han. 1.1 746 3.4 II.240 6.2 22 Lys. 1.1 978 3.5 112

Milt. 2.3 II.362, 367 3.1 II.576 7.4 II.746 7.5 650 Paus. 1.1 II.273 2.4 1051 4.6 1129, II.129 Pel. 3.2 II.961 Them. 2.6 584 10.3 II.576 Thr. 4.1 II.557 Tim. 1.3 II.800 Timol. 4.2 1179 Neratius dig. 27.10.9 II.84 Nigidius Figulus gram. 11 879 O. Did. 417 II.79 Orosius 7.4.10 135 Ovid Am. 1.7.51 1029 1.8.43–4 II.319 2.4.25–6 II.788 2.7.6 II.217 2.7.17–18 II.198 Ars 1.59 940 1.259–60 879 Ep. 3.41 II.145 3.122 879 7.87 II.461 8.46 1014 8.110 II.605 9.106–8 II.768 9.149–50 191 10.137–8 246 16.19 691 16.98 II.734 18.18–19 II.250 19.173 II.590 Fast. 2.215–16 II.465 3.357 88 4.731 II.955 5.537 828 6.173 893 6.287 991 6.288 62

Index Locorum 1329 Met. 1.1–2 152 1.132–4 II.628 1.133–4 II.497 1.757–8 941 2.63 II.547 2.165 74 2.692–5 720 3.456 II.871 4.631–2 1008 4.678 II.927 5.405–6 92 6.118–19 1076 6.195 II.536 6.592–3 107 7.12–13 789, 796 7.224 1299 7.615–16 II.927 7.690–1 II.915 8.215 168 8.451–2 176 9.101–2 242 9.753 63 10.185–6 II.758 10.220–1 II.114 10.254–5 II.125 10.277–9 1073 10.322–3 II.324 10.423–4 II.915 10.705–7 II.946 12.187–8 1215 14.243–5 II.914 14.785–7 74 15.375–7 II.466 15.720–2 867 Pont. 1.1.37–8 1053 1.3.48 II.1121 1.5.7–8 II.999 1.8.33 280 1.8.45–6 II.914 1.10.10 89 3.1.41–2 210 3.3.57–8 241 3.9.23–4 II.768 4.6.17–18 II.571 Rem. 72 62 445 II.950, 964 694 357 Tr. 1.1.18–19 II.1062 2.459 271 2.504 936, 961 3.42 163 4.3.61 II.62 4.4a.10 209 4.4a.53–4 II.554 5.8.27 248 5.9.13–14 II.211 5.12.45–6 507, 539

Pacuvius trag. 22 116 340 903 pall. 47 II.155, 305 Palladius 1.6.14 269 1.39.2 258 3.25.18 278 9.9.2 478 Panegyrici Latini 3.6.4 92 Passio Perpetuae et Felicitatis 10.1–5 II.1137 Passio Petri et Pauli 23 441 Passio Fidelis, Exanti et Carpofori 1 II.579 Paulus dig. 2.14.4.3 II.755 3.3.77 II.1080 5.3.36.3 II.97 46.2.20 980 Pelagonius 456 163 Peregrinatio Egeriae 1.2 97 2.2 398 2.6 II.269 2.7 II.624 3.2 693 3.6 1241, II.263 4.5 1163 5.1 207 6.4 II.1083 8.2 II.66 8.5 II.679 9.5 815 10.4 1031 10.7 281, 1150 10.8 II.308 13.1 1172 15.5 II.805 16.7 II.402 19.3 654 24.9 1241, II.264 25.3 1186 25.7 279 28.3 992 30.1 1213 36.1 1114 36.3 478, 710 36.5 895 39.5 125 44.3 II.1181 47.4 207 49.2 II.1133 Petronius 4.1 II.534 9.3 858

20.1 II.10 25.2 II.547 26.8 1114 30.3 800 33.2 313 33.5 628 37.8 1014 37.9 II.853 38.4 840 38.8 II.624 40.8 II.1105 43.1 449 43.4 885 44.15 II.854 44.16 1096 45.4 434 46.1 II.940 45.10 II.77 46.7 II.570 47.2 278 47.4 696 50.5 II.258 50.7 894 52.10 491 53.9 901 58.4 930 58.5 II.359, 682 61.1 895 62.1 814 62.9 528 62.10 II.803 62.11 106 64.9 II.592 66.1 II.1073 67.7 440 71.1 II.373 71.10 269 72.8–9 II.883 74.4 258, 761 97.2 441 111.2–3 II.1149 127.1 865 140.6 II.342 Plancus Fam. 10.15.3 II.526 10.17.1 1070 10.17.2 II.127 10.24.1 1285 10.24.3 479 Plautus Am. 7 II.638 11–12 856, II.905 17–18 618, 909, II.995 18–19 1151, 1159 20 1121, 1243 24–7 II.1199 26–7 1170 28–9 128, II.212 30–1 II.870

1330

Index Locorum

Plautus, Am. (cont.) 33 II.3, 598 34 II.962 37 952 46 49 46–7 II.90 50 633 52–3 531 54–5 II.979 71 875, 1154 75–6 II.637 76–7 II.510 79 745, II.514, 981 79–80 II.487 83–5 699, II.662 87–8 430 91–2 779 94 841 94–5 430 97–8 56, 971 97–103 1119 100–1 II.1195 102–3 745, 1153 103 788 103–7 II.1195 107–9 452, 1121, II.977 110–11 II.299, 603 111 II.641 112–13 971, II.588 120 807, II.930 123 1123 124–5 1055 124–7 652, II.300 129–30 711, 1167 130 387 131 738, 744, II.831 133–4 443, 744, 763 133–5 1142 134–5 49, 745 135–6 II.983 135–9 II.1147 140 833 140–1 II.488 142–3 II.979 146–7 710, 1005 148 1057 157 94 161–2 237, 918 163–4 1022 166 1038 170 222 175 1090 180–1 809 185 1126 186–7 946 188 1245, II.7 188–9 1221 190–1 1091 191–2 II.901 193 146, 764 194 923, 1132, II.995

195 482, 574 195–6 1131, II.618 199–200 II.1187 203–4 II.43, 261 205 390, II.1054 205–9 601 209–10 1089 212–13 112 214–15 180, 1089, 1132 221 II.599 225–6 1089 231–2 1123 231–4 II.610 236 945, II.860 242 1245 242–4 II.1144 243 842 246–7 II.591 249 1252 250 1245 251–2 II.625 253 86 253–5 1089, II.1068 254 647 256 30 257 1131, II.133 258–9 II.690 260–1 253 261–4 1090 263 424 263–4 713 265–7 II.1169 266–7 II.869 267 II.215 268 II.181 268–9 179 270 57, 633 273–5 694, II.629 276 842 282 737 284 190 286 355 287 336, 1090, II.480, 825 288 II.233 293–4 1090 295 1245 297 1245 299 362 302 II.849 304–5 767 304–7 1091 309 II.568 310 II.182 311 355 317 1091 319 II.211 321 1109, II.933 327 1123 328 711 329 260 331 632, 924

336 553, 1022 336–7 675 340 653 341 24 344–5 II.956 350 806 351 989 361 341 362 373 364 1174 366–7 310 370 357 373–4 II.126, 864 379 739 386 508 387 308 390 II.293 391 II.117 393 II.22 396 II.293 400 1057 404–7 319 407 12 407–8 372 408 44, 919 409 824 411 938 425–6 II.910 433 323 434 II.907 438 673, II.319 440 II.318 447 310, 442 450 125 450–1 659 453–4 II.1195 464–5 1217 466–8 1054 468–9 II.874 470–1 150, II.587 470–3 II.256 477 139 487–92 II.1193 491–2 II.277 492–3 788 500 354 501 II.147 515 II.586 516–17 II.759 518 322 519 77, 1039 522–3 II.555 525–6 II.321 531–2 967 534–9 II.1179 536 II.271 537 II.571 541 1080, 1084 548–9 II.766 550–1 739 556–7 740

Index Locorum 1331 561–2 1146, II.184, 943 566–9 310 567–8 804, 968 574 II.1011 575 508 578–80 II.937 580–2 II.1158 581–3 II.1195 587 64 592–3 II.911, 923 597 505 599–600 207, 1172 601 941, II.723, 748 603 456 607 273, II.907, 954 608 II.152 609 935, 938 610 107, II.430 612–15 II.1074 617 813 617–18 II.524 619 742 626–7 II.1187 628 II.1014 630 II.460 632 506 640 II.286 641–1a II.719 644–5 652 646–7 1020 646–8 II.323 649 II.959 652–3 101 654–5 1229, II.563 654–6 II.895 660 353 665–6 II.1202 668 606 669 II.414 671 634 676–83 II.1229 682–3 870 684 853 687 II.282 695 521 696–7 639 699–700 II.576 709 106 714–17 318 718–19 II.1210 720 1213, II.139 721 936, 949 732 808, 1214 733–4 27, 812 741 II.924 742 II.693 744–5 II.1201 745 1283 745–7 1140 747 II.908, 999 748 493, II.17, 54

749 579, 926, II.377, 555 750 812 751 II.13, 171 755 372 758–9 372 760–1 1145 760–2 376 761 253 763–4 II.885 765–8 II.643 772–3 1146, II.101 778–9 II.864 782–3 II.54, 589, 669, 775 791 256 799–800 543 799–801 II.905 812 354, II.945 814 II.38 820 678 822 1225, II.921 822–4 II.859 825–6 972, 981, 1106 825–7 II.1075 826–7 115 829 II.743 831–2 II.600 835 1140, II.290 839–41 1040 852 330 857 II.323 861–2 205 862–3 1150 869–70 154, II.484 869–72 II.1195 876 783 880–1 II.332 895–6 II.1085 899–900 II.1162 910–11 II.721 913–14 648 916–17 II.1172 922 553 924 499 933–4 II.326 941–2 II.984 951 II.515 962 341 962–5 1143 963 1200 964 1200 966 1298 972 471, 712, II.10 973 II.706 974 987 974–5 784 976 II.152 977 II.371 984 II.653 986–7 320 989 II.1085 990 II.557, 581

991 27 1004 105 1009 II.490 1014 287, 709 1015–16 1099 1020 1165, II.926 1021 739 1026 891 1029 II.14 1030 II.556 1033–4 II.283 1037 II.128 1038 II.236 1042 832 1045 II.9 1046–7 II.591 1051–2 622 1056 365, 618 1057–8 215 1059 44, 694 1060 694, II.723 1061–2 1210 1066 1046 1067 414 1067–9 II.1154 1068 II.838 1068–9 1097 1071 942 1072–3 24 1073–4 328 1080–1 II.936 1085 1150 1088–9 315, 323 1098–9 615 1098–9 II.254 1102 13, II.1, 259, 1047 1103–4 II.977 1105–6 657 1112 743 1114–15 981 1122–4 523 1124–5 162 1125 949 1131 II.800 fr.5 587, 1069 As. 1 356 7 967 8 II.281 30 345 40 502 43 130, II.345 47 167 52–3 627, II.63 57–8 II.827 71–2 1022 80–1 II.267, 533, 895 95 169 101 789, 894 116–17 466 118 673

1332

Index Locorum

Plautus, As. (cont.) 118–19 II.201 126 123 131–2 471 132–3a II. 946 137–8 212 141–2 60 147 1149 153–4 988, 1103 158 II.770 159 1196 162 II.720 163 II.604 164 659 166 II.306 167 286 171 II.1169 182 215 183–5 II.866 192 II.719 193 II.959 194 II.1089 198 1145 208 1172 218 II.339 233 685 239 350, 424 243 24 245 1276 247 II.213 253 834 257–8 1039 264 II.669 267 II.658 269 1046 273 II.937 274–6 II.873 282–3 II.644 284 844 286 102, 623, 703, II.55 288 1127 289 83 307 161 313–14 II.533 318–19 II.909 327–8 638, II.255 330 1245 337 II.407, 492 338 304 339–41 II.513 343–4 II.263 347 1057 351 788 352–5 II.48 354–5 II.484 358–9 1146 381–2 232, 238, II.20, 43 392 385, 415 396 II.959 408 710 427 II.349

429–30 690, II.629 444–5 II.1029 445 659 447–8 310, II.917 448 II.146 449 123 450 757 458–9 II.316 462 718 465 II.123 478–9 110, 625, II.260 486–7 II.903 490 743 491–3 714 493–4 66 497–8 II.354 497–9 924 499 1027 502–3 1157 511 II.942 514 II.978 515 180 516 1012 517 II.454, 640 522–3 II.1089 527 II.510 568 II.779 587 958 592 495 593 II.792 598 II.156 609–10 910 613–14 II.935 614 927 614–15 II.1202 616 1283, II.475, 487 616–17 378, II.739 619 767, II.982 622 913, II.238 624 II.596 627 342 631 14, II.584 632–5 1160 634 II.169 636 631, II.155, 996 637 673, 1263 638 375 641 948, 1149 644 II.135 644–5 II.881 668 162 680 56 680–1 689, 1061 687 339 691–2 1068, 1226 697 1082 699 II.324 707 307, 312 714 1137 724 II.761 736 1001

741–2 672, 674 741–3 1005 747–8 II.1005 749 471 750 354, II.917 751–2 27 755 II.153 756 711 756–8 II.831 761–3 714 762–3 696 787–8 262 790 369 797–8 664 801–2 112 805 II.124 806–7 788 807 II.746 809 376 825–6 806 828 356 835–6 236, II.1044 836 740 837–8 374 839–40 66 840 501 841 II.930 842 790 843–4 II.299 844 678 844–5 648, II.34, 684 845 II.175 847–8 II.437 850 791 851–3 1097 855 225 856–7 224 862–3 II.819 865 II.75 868 II.782 869 790 877–9 341 893 II.1084 894 II.910 894–5 78 897–8 II.10 899–900 II.1149 902–3 II.902 904 376 915 424 917–18 115 920 968 921–2 711 923 856 926 524 927 379 928 318 938 411, II.126 944 766 944–5 II.311

Index Locorum 1333 Aul. 1–3 740 3–4 II.849 3–5 843 7–9 1284 9 783 9–10 II.248 10–12 II.978 11–12 666 13–14 685, 866, II.806 14 II.706 15–16 II.119 23–5 140, 185 23–30 1142 28–36 1096 29–30 714 32–3 II.304 34–6 II.480, 483 35–6 II.492 39 II.9 40 355 42 909 42–3 1075 47 278 52 1122 56–7 826 56–9 464 67–9 692, II.662, 996 69–70 852 71 672 79 II.779, 802 82 332 91–2 1168 96 293 101 II.9 103 515 109–10 715 111–12 158 118–19 II.278, 574 125–6 752 142–2a 307 147–8 847 148 377 153 II.179 154 II.91 164 705 166 II.597 170 II.507, 848 175–6 739, II.942, 1230 178 II.244 178–9 II.1212 182–3 II.939 183 346 192–3 II.939 196 II.500 198 1171 208 II.242 215–16 1031 217–19 II.551 218 II.587 220 II.933

224–5 906 229–30 162 231 732 232 II.641 236–7 II.771 241–2 II.922 243 II.181 243–5 749 244–6 117 251 II.42 269 II.939 287–8 II.1168 293 321 296 755 297 II.752 321 1174 322 742 323 767 333–4 740, II.975 340–1 825 351 II.13 357–8 II.1210 361 II.175 361–2 376 371–2 835 373–5 II.612 389–92 238 391–2 II.933 393 925 407 II.142 412–12a 1185 416–17 913 418 II.73 419 710 419–20 II.726 421 II.359, 370 422 733, II.728 423 1041 426 II.105 431 101, 341 443 759, II.7, 40 457 473 474 491, II.311 477 II.706 487–8 II.643 527 270 536 II.930, 938 536–8 331 547 678 550 570 551–2 931 561–2 II.880 565 II.681 569–71 677 573–4 II.857 574 II.107 579 652 580 983 582–3 II.146, 423 591 II.309 605 II.13

609 1167 620–1 652, II.117, 335 621–2 1198 624 II.848 629 611 634–40 676 640–1 II.930 642 II.650 643–4 II.977 645 1168 645–6 II.662 647–8 II.937 654 II.1121 661 483 688–9 1088 702–3 982 704–5 II.936 708 1121 709–10 II.1060 712 1162 713 447 714 II.782 715 II.151 715–16 1217 718–19 II.349 721 365, II.924, 934 722–3 935, 1018 723 1009 727 967 727–7a 337 729–9a II.165 729–30 II.123 732 1254 741–2 656 742 488 749–50 1233, II.166 768 II.360 772 968 772–3 373 777–8 128, II.1071 790–1 706 810 1103 811 954, 956 817 II.151 817–18 II.1211 820 II.942 823 II.139 829 486 Bac. 35 II.32, 908 37 109 44 130, 1146 47–8 947 58–9 II.34 73 48 73–4 II.932 83 96 87 377 90 710 100 354 120 733

1334

Index Locorum

Plautus, Bac. (cont.) 121 II.927 125 105 129 986 132 II.650 137–8 II.859 147 130 152 366 158 756 159–60 1218 163 1214 189 II.55 200 II.878 204 II.981 206 118 206–7 335, 374 209–10 711 213 920 214 II.755 214–15 742 216 766 223 II.420 224 II.306 230–1 II.636 235–6 823, II.119 237–8 1213 247 308 248 372 258 166 263–4 II.474, 479 269–72 II.880 271–2 547 276 355 281 971 282 227 293 364 299–300 II.843 351–2 II.314 354 II.385 357 742 388 835 397 1153 398 786 409–10 II.102 410 838 418–19 13, II.1, 5 419 II.237, 430 420 897 421 414 422–3 1216 437 771 451 II.163, 510 456 505 456–7 II.938 460 II.905 468 506 472 815, II.1067 472–3 370, II.827 491 625, II.87 506 680 514 II.409

521–2 II.128 524–5 105 530–1 1046, II.259 533 683 536–7 644, II.284 537 100 540 872 548 612 549 II.755 550–1 II.278 554–5 563 555 759, 1188 559 II.99 568 987 571–2 377 572 713 573–4 966 575–6 II.123 581–2 II.923 583 1093 584–5 II.543 586–8 II.943 587–93 1138 589–91 II.671 597–8 303 599 900 599–600 II.1106 610–11 467 611 46, 1265 612–14 786 625 293, 297 629 II.186 630a 776 633 II.977 638 16 649–50 II.659 653 817 668–8a 107 673–6 332 680–1 369 681 447, 889 682 812 686–90 II.1208 688 II.261 699–700 1087, 1187 702 622 707–8 1173 711 1235 722 553 729–30 909, II.1005 729–32 II.840 735–6 II.585 737 1001 739 130 745 631 759 80 767 II.745 775 II.946 775–6 II.11, 15 786 759 806 20

814 1224 816–17 II.54, 516 818–19 660 824–5 II.1177 831–2 984, II.875 834–7 II.833 837–8 324 839 374 842–3 878 854 208 866–7 695, II.592 873–4 II.306 884 1165 887 II.39, 326 890–2 II.867 891–2 124 900–1 II.24, 385 900–2 II.1210 905–6 1231 913–15 658 923 110 925 II.200 936 II.40 943 II.684 963–5 1126 973–4 100 978 II.930 981 196 981–2 184 984–5 1195 986 773 989a–90 II.1189 991–2 II.519, 880 994 625, II.89 1006 848 1016 132 1017 536 1018 1195 1019–20 II.32 1024 II.501 1030–1 819 1031–2 II.1111 1036 1169 1037–8 728, II.19 1039–40 664 1040 II.749 1044 132 1053 769 1055 221 1058 498 1060 II.975 1064–5 II.785 1067 II.141 1068–9 220, II.83, 310 1070–1 547 1076 102 1076–8 II.770 1079 II.681 1085–6 II.1161 1091–1a II.769 1095 1299

Index Locorum 1335 1100–1 174 1102 366 1105 1276 1109–10 373 1114–15 II.1162 1121–1a 342 1127 852 1146 39 1155a–6 1169 1160–1 II.1192 1162 306, 374 1162–3 331 1178 365 1181 914 1191 II.211 1192–2a 323 1196 342, 400 1201 II.704 1202 481 Capt. 4 1265 17–20 1143 23 870 32 652 44–5 1165 46–7 758 49 124 50 980 54 II.959 61–2 II.210 75–6 726 76 II.592 77 381 79 892 91 721 98–9 II.900 102 891 105–6 II.903 118 483 124–5 II.1184 126 977 126–7 II.118 127 835 139 516 139–40 344 148 711 152–3 II.32, 78, 453 162 II.865 165–6 362 167–8 1232 169–70 1025 172–3 II.1031 179–81 II.40, 513 190 41 191 619 194 456 200–1 II.935 222 659 228 II.271 232–3 II.251 233 410

237 483 241 II.680 244–7 II.133 249–50 118 255–6 1096 257 II.144 268–9 II.19 272 67 273 II.758 277 128 282 84 285–7 1160 304 II.590 305 379 308 II.658 310–12 II.717 316 II.750 319–20 503 326 30 327 II.725 328 II.1139, 1163 330 II.830 334 103 336 54, 193, 952, II.715 337 351, II.979 338 652 341–3 II.806 346–7 II.546 352 II.771 359–60 143 360 II.152 364 142, 158 369 745 371–2 II.908 373–4 II.80 378 II.602 382–3 738, 1088, 1128, II.408 383–4 1227 387 II.649 389–90 1103, II.649 394 II.381 399 1263 400 744 405–6 II.1118 408 215 410–11 II.597 414 41 420 56 459 II.119 461 1157 474 II.552 478 II.259, 263 529–30 1104 531 427, 485 537 508 539 972 543–4 II.370, 886 545–6 628, II.101, 691 554–5 II.565 555 II.214

558 130 561 1130 563–4 II.943 569–70 II.274 570 125 573–4 II.523 574–5 740 579 174 583 774, 1116 587 II.1173 620–1 II.642 630 II.790 640 II.654 653 876, 878 654 789 663 II.265 664 807 691–2 814 695–6 465 731 847 739 1221 742–3 II.359 772 972 776–7 II.743 780 II.52 783 366 783–5 II.1157 795 350 807–8 903, II.1122 809–10 1168 810 1158 818 220 824 II.103 827 321 831 987 833 1283 833–5 1174 837 II.577 846 340 860–2 II.298 862–3 1005 866 892 870–1 489, 657 872–4 II.830 887 II.1032 894–7 II.1197 909–10 514 916 II.300 917 212 929 806, 1233 938 II.134 945–6 II.937 950–1 739 956–7 937 960–1 859, II.707 966 1081 970 II.820 971–2 II.692 972 II.587 985 II.228 991–2 848

1336

Index Locorum

Plautus, Capt. (cont.) 996 II.61, 329 998–1000 II.1188 999–1000 II.755 1006 346, 547 1008 II.456 1011–12 763 1020 968, 997 1021 354, II.151 Cas. 5 115 17 II.258 21 18 21–2 890 27–8 833 36 897 39–62 1141 60–1 947 67 II.5 68 342, II.917 73–4 II.607 82–3 II.959 84–6 1227, II.404, 421 117 153 134–8 1226 142 132 148–9 II.927 162 II.421 166 1166 204–5 683 205 350 205–6 352 211 105 214–16 II.1230 215–16 II.1211 217–18 240 219–20 II.481 227–8 II.655 233 684 234 355, II.151 235 II.927 236 91 243 II.723 246 II.105, 155 248 515 259–60 118 282 II.183 307–8 789 317–18 II.605 333–4 II.350 341–3 II.1162 345 II.758 370 II.1133 371 1137, II.1116 372–3 II.943 382–3 966 388 II.917 389–90 II.402 408 302, II.283 409 II.338 419 514

421 II.356 445 1008 456 335 477–8 892 481–2 897 490 629 491–2 II.683 519 II.868 539–40 II.100 542 II.336 552–4 II.1168 554 203 563–4 926 574–5 623 575 703 583 II.248 585–6 II.148, 214 591 II.115 604 II.549 619–20 824 620 1232 621 770 627–8 1020 630 II.75 633 II.654 634 703 645 793 659–61 II.934 662–5 II.1160 688–9 II.926 691–2 II.696 692–3 521 695 265 697 708 698–9 673, II.761 699 532, II.421 705 388 706 II.149 719 818 725 83 735 II.693 742 336 746 190 758 271 758–8a 515 763 992, 1231 766 537 767–8 547 772–3 II.33 782–4 703 790 II.515 795 698 801 II.692 802 786 805 II.572, 767 813 271 837 II.926 837–9 II.938 841–2 II.955 855 II.792 877 134

893–5 II.920 893–6 II.1214 899–900 863 936 29 970 629 976 854, 927 998 II.321 1007 327 1008 709, 1169 1010–11 709 1011 990 1013 523 1018 II.844 Cist. 1–3 II.702 17 706 21–2 II.237 27–8 948 33 II.719 44 742 45 234 55 II.639 55–6 II.648 59–60 260 60 917 62 II.491 67 II.327, 337 68 II.640 73–4 II.544 78–9 II.520 80–1 II.1188 83 789 86–7 II.931 101 1121 101–2 647, 842 127 147 131 27, 1201 131–2 31, II.777 140–1 II.602 145–6 II.484 152–3 660 158–9 1051 168–9 570, II.14, 119 190–3 II.832 194 II.274 204 697 206–10 259 213 110 214–15 1076 223–4 II.381 229 II.424 239 215 283 368 284 178 299–300 II.1160 309 II.159 310 II.779 315 II.868 364–6 793 369 973 369–70 II.38

Index Locorum 1337 465 II.144 472 II.760 487 1196 493 II.573 494 II.745 494–5 II.1189 497 109 510–11 676, 678 511 618 528–31 II.1172 533 664 535 II.1158 543–4 1058 543–5 806, II.398 568–9 1246 582–3 1246 582–4 639 585–7 668 613 372 645 II.348 653–4 973 663 1112 666–8 676 668–70 II.1171 673 703 692 273 695 II.398 727 II.704 733 II.100 735 II.1071 736–40 969 781 23 782–3 1123 Cur. 1–2 812 6 290 28 40, 933, 935, 943 30 701 32 830 41–2 345 51 II.349 58 1108 67–8 73, 167, 822 87–8 II.1159 88–9 769 96–7 1190 97 27 100 215 117 183 130–1 II.932 132 385 141–2 II.759 142 II.403 161 II.522 170 II.487 176 886 176–7 747 182 864 183 737 203 II.598 206–7 822

216–17 II.293 221 213 225–6 822 240 II.213 246–8 II.937 260–1 808 270–1 II.1034 288–90 84 288–93 545 302 II.224 325–6 352, II.141 330 755 331–3 487 336–7 II.463 343–4 881, 1200 355 83 362 II.107 370 870, II.1034 371–2 1217 377–8 II.33, 908 380–1 II.403 404–5 II.506 409–10 992 414 II.16 419–20 195 423 374, 486, 682 429–31 II.1230 433 II.502 435 634 447–8 851 452 815 457 562, 898 464 II.95 467 II.1121 475 24 477 II.689 483–4 II.671 486 297 490–2 524 494–5 979, 1116 494–6 1297 508 II.704 512 494 518–19 15 520 1224 521 351 531 398 541–2 II.32 546 974 596 913 605 894 608 570 615–16 324 619 II.587 632 562 642–3 1186 655–6 767, II.515 658–9 II.821 672 II.943 715–16 II.299 724–5 346

Epid. 3–4 II.935 9–10 II.772 10 47 14 863 16 1083 35–6 II.1221 38 142 45 906 49 II.759 60–60a 1060 66 II.719 70–1a 213 73 295 80 II.537 121–3 474 136 1172 153 983 153–5 II.845 154 247 175–6 II.250 183 1001 188–9 II.508 191 II.164 196–7 177, 359 201 II.847, 983 201–2 II.940 210 1019 210–11 362 211–12 254 213–14 966 213–15 1288 217 II.624 217–18 II.633 223–4 II.275 257–8 II.183 261–2 II.933 267–9 500 270–2 674 285 443 289 180 289–90 1103 295 884 296 983, 1229 312–13 1103 314–16 83 320–1 247 322–3 340 332–3 II.52 338 1270, II.22, 149 360 1158 371–2 1104 378–9 II.887 388–9 917 414 II.6 414–16 820 417–18 1188 420 II.976 448–52 II.1207 471 746, II.149, 374 484–5 887

1338 Index Locorum Plautus, Epid. (cont.) 486–7 1156 500 II.1050 501–2 1011 507–9 752 508–9 588 514 679 516 901 516–17 II.1173 522 II.735 533–4 336 570–2 336, 974 574 374 586 184, II.137, 208 588 191 600 II.263 605 287, II.225 607–8 698 609 II.74 620 1174 637 II.704 658–9 88 664–5 II.170 688 689 699 II.334 710 913 730–1 237 fr. 147 195 164–5 683 Men. 8–9 48 22–3 677 24–5 149 26–7 738 31 28 32 972 32–3 1111, II.843 35–6 842 37–40 1246 59 1019 72–3 767 95 II.770 96–7 II.577 104 844 111–11a 186 114–15 307 115–16 1019 119 II.874 122–3 II.1215 141–2 463 153 II.293 192 733, 1167, 1293, II.728 199–201 II.717 218 819 221–2 II.703 250–1 II.1101 268–9 1002 269 968 270–1 II.662 270–2 467

282 25 295 II.347 303–4 1217 309 II.540 312–13 II.540 327 350, 683 331 II.166 340–1 972 357–8 781 359–9a 824 361–3 644 370 729 373–4 1063 378 II.989 379 448 379–80 800 385 860 416 307 417–18 652 445 II.551 446 II.737 446–8 II.244 460 495 461 II.750 469–70 II.398 483–4 II.862 485 201 487–8 II.732 504 484 509 II.593 511–12 265 524 886 587 II.669 600 426 611 357, 504 612 345, 377 613 679 620–1 II.658 626 105 632–3 II.162 649–51 1109 670–1 467, 824 676 1233 678–9 II.483 680 II.741 690 894 690–1 II.679 704 II.120 712 342, 653 714–15 554 718 254, 929 722 II.123 726 II.718, 728 727–8 361 746–7 II.337 761–2 II.120 782–3 246 784–5 444 790–1 II.10 801 788 802 II.213

835 II.421 837 716 840–1 554, II.11, 14, 131 845 II.516 845–6 618 850–1 515 853 687 858–9 916 868 105 876–7 II.137 882–3 1221 889 II.188 892–4 II.863 895–7 II.1013 903 1132 911–12 315 925 II.377 926 II.249 929 II.515 950 1106 954 377 955–6 II.179 968–9 1160 989 87 1011 II.506 1024 373 1029 II.921 1048 II.354 1051–3 II.516 1053–4 420, 606, II.246 1064 687 1071 II.681 1073 II.151 1074 II.818 1082 II.344 1107–8 316, 373 1110 856 1114–15 307 1115 605 1117–18 982 1119 1174 1119–20 212 1130–1 II.1162 1131 1271 1132 II.936 1133–4 899 1135 913 1146 330 1152 497 1154–5 238 1162 65, 515, 869 Mer. 11 1214 13 1220 18–19 II.651 35–6 1079 45 875 46 527 49 863 50 II.874 51 804

Index Locorum 1339 61–3 668, II.980 71–2 931 100–1 II.488, 928 103 629 139–40 II.1221 141 709, 973, II.725 147 448, II.219 154–5 1107 155 II.265 164 378 168 II.320 173 328 180 II.880 180–1 346, II.842 180–6 319 183 526 186 II.659 189 II.925 190–1 II.283 198 629 215 328 219 424 221 424 222–3 815 238–9 1128 240–1 562, II.89 245–6 II.1175 250–1 II.1205 256–7 1030 271 41 290–1 208 295–6 751 305–6 323 312 II.26 325 904, 1202 330–2 II.135 333–4 256 335 708, II.760 355–6 787 377 II.209 381 1117 384 274 387 847 410–11 1116 413–15 II.669 418 II.578 418–19 14 434 280 434–5 1093 446–7 204, 258 466–7 1154 492–4 II.906 507–8 II.1197 510 39 511 II.491 514 II.572 524 II.737 528–9 772 536–8 II.872 540 67 547 982

557 II.37 559–60 640 566–7 II.885 568 946 574–5 486 582–3 785, II.884 589 II.330 596 527 596–7 II.74 598 1162 633 490 633–5 II.107 636 II.43 659 1273, II.629 659–60 126 666 973 674 II.607 678–9 II.652 692 II.69 700 200 700–1 II.540 744 II.514 758–9 II.846 760–1 71 760–4 1142 761–2 20 778 616 781 II.669 790–1 1167 792 II.928 810–11 II.698 812–13 1087 819–20 784, II.332 823 359 832–3 II.993 862 711 864 921 868 169 873 II.831 884 381, 385, 411, II.423 884a–5 II.927 890 782 894–5 II.859 897–8 II.729 903 958 909 II.38, 903 912–13 255 924–5 1159 930 II.725, 772 939 125 942 84 943 II.48 948 II.614 951 685 953–5 II.1195 978 II.400 980 642 980–1 411 992 695, II.151 993–4 II.662 1015–16 II.530

1017–19 II.673 1021–2 514, II.308 Mil. 16 936 16–17 964 21–3 1095 25–8 757 31–2 681 35 284 62 II.842 72 625, II.54 72–4 II.504 75–6 758 81 350, 497, II.514 111–13 II.1070 121 810 123–4 622 130–1 1088 131–3 II.538 136–7 II.653 145 1086 148–9 568, 624 162–3 II.279 174–6 II.656 179 542 181 II.244 186–7 1296 189–90 II.651 204 875 212 992 223–5 212 226–7 II.300 243–5 II.217 255–6 658 262–3 706 266 II.501 290 976 301 II.925 342 196 347 II.797 355 703 361–2 371, II.827, 839, 841, 951 365 27, 29 368 II.695 369–70 667 383–4 823, 1109 389–90 II.216 407 II.360 409 615 430–2 1103 447–8 966 455 II.240 460–1 121, 1173, II.504 463 II.10 464–5 II.758 472 968 497–8 II.542 501–3 848 535–6 945 561–2 234

1340

Index Locorum

Plautus, Mil. (cont.) 591 1080 592–3 801 616–21 II.840 626 911, 1233 635–6 II.770 641 II.602 643 1042 649–50 II.695 651 II.719 686–7 II.548 718 496, 657 738–9 II.602 740 779 744 687 745 1219, II.414 778 823 787 856 795–7 II.104 806–9 311 822 678 826 II.215 828–30 321, II.1028 867 443 920–1 II.319 960 II.1055 962–3 117 966 II.790 971–3 657 974–5 820 989 928, 1203 993 II.119 994 979 1001–3 II.1178 1006–7 II.921 1008 1283 1012 II.1071 1014 716 1016 777 1036 105 1040–1 1149 1041–2 II.103 1043 733 1046–7 1174 1048 II.589 1049 223 1060 1107 1071 II.504 1074–5 629, 634 1076 882 1083 641 1084 II.153 1086 701 1099–1100 1285 1116 1081 1118 497 1139–40 II.735 1140 217, II.459 1143 1117 1149 II.1178 1158 II.75

1169–70 928 1189–90 II.127 1200–1 II.1110 1202 237 1213–14 II.322 1215 II.1184 1225 102 1233–4 II.442 1242 376 1251–2 905 1260 II.298 1263 731 1277–8 369 1281–3 II.880 1284–5 911, 1202 1301–3 II.522, 779 1305 284 1311 682 1330 II.926 1340–1 350 1342 706 1342–3 II.923 1349–50 II.36 1361 349 1368–9 II.329 1369 II.637 1371 656 1382–4 II.943 1391 II.165 1406 312 1411 728, II.166 1424 1220 1428–9 II.841 1429 484 1430 1117 1432–3 276 Mos. 1–2 356 15–16 1069 19 1069 27–8 II.148 34 II.444 37–8 II.508 42 91 42–3 II.336 49–50 42 58 II.114 58–9 II.750 66 441 68 745, 1165 71 II.306 76 342 81 1002 100 229 101–3 753 111–12 1040 114–15 1288 116–17 854 124–5 714 131–2 II.1212 149 634

166 II.110 185 II.800 188–9 II.896 192–3 II.320 197 II.725 198–9 256 208 II.882 211 II.959 214 709 220–1 II.753 235–6 1167 250 273, 1121, II.504 253 1019 263 679 270 213 272 700 272–3 913 280 II.874 298 884 324 82, 515 339–41 II.1229 364–6 43 372 736 378–9 II.599 381 630 389–90 II.687 392 II.43 422–3 II.8 422–4 695 423 II.142 432 1082 454 490 457 II.937 458–9 634 461–2 659 470–1 II.263 481 1195 486–8 II.1167 487–8 474 505 II.155 507 320 513 II.869 515 428 534 834 542 1166 545–6 II.907 551 II.1202 557–8 II.481 573–4 II.788 576–7 377 578–9 517 589 399, 1086 614 629, II.115 624 788 630–2 II.878 633 526 637–8 14 639 231 642 II.732 647–8 610, II.270 654 401

Index Locorum 1341 661 37 684–5 II.1160 686–9 467 692 29 696 II.209 697 1179 734–5 444, 1172 740 II.806 743–5 700 745 1164 749 917 764 835 769 II.38, 324 772–3 II.1189 783 II.113 784 346 803 376 811 783 812 890 820–1 474 827 769 829–30 737 836 II.887 843 II.925 857 712 858–9 II.269, 479 860–1 II.259 870–1 105 899–900 894 900 281 905 883 906–7 377 908 1080 909 II.884 911 II.775 916 II.428 931 125 934 II.796 935 1280 941 II.352 950–1 446 958 255 959 675 961–2 II.1086 966–7 II.729 970–2 II.1214 977–9 693 980 II.1085 985–6 II.406 998 396 999 329 1000 958 1027–9 412, II.1160 1034 II.271 1041 II.502 1043–4 II.981 1045 17 1046 17 1050 II.39 1072 191 1073 711, II.719

1077 1218 1091–2 II.13 1094 II.1068 1099 156 1117–18 1029 1158 864 Per. 21–2 844 33–4a II.123 38 357 42 366 46 II.91 50–1 350 52 II.255 55–6 1295 77–9 II.112 101–2 71 107 II.937 127–8 550 146 430 153 II.740 170–70a II.356 179 13, II.1, 14 179–80 II.507 191–1a 808 195–6 II.1054 198–9 84 207 352 210 II.1133 214 481 219–20 346 228 II.285 234–6 II.1204 241 18 247 140 249–50 371 259 II.298 268–9 472 281 II.119 293 II.139 300 281 300–1 II.900 304 II.471 306 1079 314 833 322 36, II.831 329 II.557 341 189, 340, 789 365–6 1286 373 388 373–4 1173 380 476 385 1036 386 267 389 352 394 1017 396 II.875 405–6 II.1229 415 II.165 428 II.468 435–6 II.984

472 II.1217 479 II.139, 171 492 42 493–4 1109 503 II.586 507–8 1054 514–15 629 520–1 968, 999 545 1088 553 II.507 564–8 II.610 565–6 II.910 569 11, 19, 24 572 350 580 1221 590 884 594 395, 941 594–5 660, II.318 605–6 II.612 608 II.55, 140 615–16 II.11, 360 635 632, 759 642 73, II.220 645 426 648 788, 942 655 84 656 350 665 882 668 882 683–4 II.739 686–7 II.94 695 II.976 696 II.139 700–5 II.930 713 161 735 936, 946 743–4 II.868 753–6 II.30, 400 761 II.423 762 II.471 765 1226 773b–4 245, 746 777–8 II.515 778 1009 783–4 II.632, 655 806 II.935 821 II.24, 384 825 682, II.115 847–8 1282 Poen. 13 II.1110 21–2 II.660 35 II.640 59–60 1186 66–7 II.266 102–3 907, II.480 104–5 803 106–7 988 111 863 112–13 II.681 116–17 II.152

1342

Index Locorum

Plautus, Poen. (cont.) 119–20 II.506 131–2 II.586 140–1 1202 145 781 149 II.895 156 II.884 156–7 1039 157–8 1057 172–3 713 179 46, 222 181 316, II.14, 108 208 II.936 219–21 260 221–3 989 224 1221 225–7 II.1190 233–4 II.542 262 40 263 II.925 272–3 1023 282 II.641 283–4 378 284–5 II.122 289 II.922 290 II.8 310 1023 312–14 II.1175 313 756 315–16 II.38 317 II.1115 327–8 II.1198 361 II.680 368 II.1058 382–3 II.930 392–5 695 396 II.600 401–2 1165 403–9 II.1230 430–3 345, 431 445–6 II.907 449–51 II.506 458–9 II.249 460–2 II.743 515–17 675 533 869, II.445 533–4 II.572 541 12 552 167 553–4 II.1200 557–9 II.81 572–3 857 576 1247 583 48, 227 588 II.73 620 1093 644–5 II.483 649–59 402 653–4 364 653–5 842 670 1017

721–2 II.329 741 II.214 770–1 II.32 798 II.943 799 359, 507 802–3 1018 811–13 1101 812 II.730 818 II.210 819 II.615 821–2 1054 851 441 852 964 860–1 II.511 871 240 872 538 881–2 622 887 952 896–8 371 904 603 916 II.144 950 1285 974 II.727 1008 629, 755 1011–12 II.17 1021–2 II.615 1028 711 1038 II.11 1044 334 1065 43, 923, II.861 1066–7 1282 1067–8 II.1163 1068–9 II.1073 1069–70 II.852 1070 189 1072–3 II.85 1079 II.982 1088 116 1094–5 1056 1107–8 364 1112 685 1122 II.954 1122–3 1225 1131–2 II.1090 1140 221 1187 II.1110 1187–8 II.1092, 1111 1188 II.928 1196–7 II.1176 1205–6 73 1207 849, 1265 1214 39, II.719, 938 1245–6 187 1264 II.305 1269 277 1277 77 1304 102 1308 1220 1313–14 222 1320–1 519 1324–5 100

1342–4 II.1179 1346 898 1364–5 II.1113 1407 II.145 1414 II.659 1422 349 Ps. 3–5 563 4–5 II.24 13–14 506 25–6 709 28–9 994 29–30 1103 41–3 979 75 682 78 697, 710 78–9 II.924 80 II.1222 88–9 876 105–6 430 108–10 II.1067 109–10 634 114 139, 164 135 1220 136 728, 1037 143 177 153 633, II.122 157–8 739 158 1033 160 II.1064 162 1149 163 II.1060 167 II.13 171 473 184 II.269 185 980 191 111 192–3 II.1120 201 902 204–4a 146 206–7 II.138 214 II.142 218 187 230 316 233 1250 236 485 252–3 678, II.330 256 II.251 259–60 863 273 232, 267 281 133 285 II.90 293–4 II.268 294–5 II.872 316–17 849 321 985 323 II.946 325–6 76, 678 326 375 329 II.1220 337 II.251

Index Locorum 1343 344 373, 889 360–1 682 378 117 383 II.947 385–6 618, II.545 427–8 II.820 430–2 II.115 442 II.101 445 316 446–8 742 447–9 II.905 453–4 54, 267 460–1 II.902 468 66 490–1 II.1157 517 II.132 524–5 86 543–4 II.691 553–4 665 562–4 909 581–2 1220 590–1 II.1161 596 1063 598–9 1057 600–600a II.318 608 II.615 615 898 616 818 616–17 II.515 623–4 639 640 656 654 677 656–7 369 665 23 674 788 679–80 425 690–1 II.501 697–8 554 702–3 II.484 705–5a 878 724–5 1025 731 837 748 335 753 898 759 1021 766 1151 771–2 II.577 798–9 411 851–2 332 861 945 869–71 854 870–1 II.21 888 66 903–4 701 908–8a 343 912 II.932 913 II.11, 148 915 II.21, 22 916–18 682 925–5a II.920 947 II.649

948 1114 950–50a 881 952–3 II.920 963 1093 971 630 973 988 978 1151 978–9 372 979 II.860 995 II.147, 658 1000–1 1061 1015 499 1017–18 II.921 1017–31 1095 1051 829 1057–8 867 1066–7 375 1067 309 1071 115 1080 140 1091 178 1091–2 II.633 1097 1254 1103 1130 1104 II.464 1105–6 272 1105–8 381 1106 274 1107–8 1024 1121a–23 II.13 1124 767 1130 967, 1104 1132 950 1134–4a II.752 1140–3 1160 1148 II.332 1154–5 1057 1156–7 400 1164 1240 1178 631 1193–4 165 1200 II.619 1222–3 26, II.857 1239–41 74 1248 424 1259 61 1279 II.925 1282 645 1284 143, 1246, II.926 1298–9 1066, 1099 1302–4 851 1314 II.354 1318–19 534 1320 II.934 Rud. 1–2 II.523 3–5 II.277 13–15 II.524 29 867 41 II.1070 49–50 117

51–2 II.512 54–5 II.135 58–63 1151 59–60 968, II.5, 492 69 865 70–1 II.716 80 933 100 116 104–5 340 127 1002 133–5 II.676 139 94 142–3 15 146 105 160–2 II.927 161 II.195 162–77 397 168 401 175 1235 191 115, 688 198 II.991 220 II.146 235 319 241 II.928 246–7 149 249 307 261–2 1080 264–5a 860 268–9 829, 889 281 1005 285–5a 210 290–1 II.896 327 II.857 343–7 327 361 II.917 366–7 607 369–70 245 372–3 II.570 379 580 406–7 II.533 408–10 1127 428–9 II.868 451–2 1285 462 II.541 472–3 II.857 494–5 667 497–8 359 502 1217 502–3 1047, II.663 520 II.933 521 II.741 521–2 II.515 543–4 II.175 545–6 1274 552–3 1105 559–60 548 564 770 565 15 572 II.240 582 357 583 1023

1344

Index Locorum

Plautus, Rud. (cont.) 586–7 101 590–1 489 615–16 1297 620 892 621 II.749 622–3 1263 629–30 968 634 II.215 639 950 645–6 II.534 661 II.917 675–6 951 691–2 186 694–5 548 700–1 719 712 II.430 712–13 1113 739 II.17 739–41 322 743 160 746 135 752–4 II.340 790–1 1117 798–9 II.692 811–13 639 830 II.183 833 130 845 II.824 846–7 614 875 II.400, 573 922 1127 930 1196 933–4 II.1146 943–3a II.718, 751 960–1 II.12 979–80 1012 1010 1060 1023 355 1024 976 1033 334 1034 800 1049 790 1055–6 II.385, 422 1064 256 1069 857 1072 II.271 1077–8 1032 1085 708 1102–3 II.885 1103 655, II.322 1117 333 1120–1 894 1148–9 739, II.942 1170 II.600 1171 1087 1188 744 1201 1145, II.36 1205 549 1212 482 1230–1 208, II.89

1252 824 1267–8 II.1169 1269 II.919 1270 373 1277 684 1295 968 1298 1217 1304–6 328 1315 1023 1326 83 1328 737 1333 II.1068 1337 115 1353–4 II.337 1362–3 II.876 1365–6 II.80 1368–9 II.1190 1417–19 II.868 1421 65 St. 12–13 II.1114 20–1 720 27–8 700, 715 31–3 II.108 32–3 II.119 51 133 52 II.121 57 257 59 II.427 71 II.1110 92–3 400, 676 97 189, II.988 117 662 127 537 141 710 142 II.577 145 II.776 148 517 159 844 169 II.1115 171–2 II.332 174 1272 190 II.321 247 385 251–2 185 270 1061 274 191 274–5 II.474 289 II.650 295 1021 307 362 310 868 312 II.140 324–5 211 351 376 362 II.520 370 277, 1067 396 761 410 630 419–20 II.348 419–22 984

437–8 II.25 451–2 832 464 745 490–1 II.790 506–7 II.77, 590 536 II.930 539 200 542 107, 933 547 II.549 550–1 II.48 561 II.879 577 932 578 222 582–3 II.1145 590–1 496 602–3 677, II.26 608 701 608–9 II.650 610 536 612 400 623 II.876 627 1170 647–8 II.875 664 II.874 664–6 II.838 667 262 676–7 II.249 678 551 682 800 686 II.568 693–4 II.649 696 1175 706 II.573 713–14 132 715–17 355 722 II.36 731 766 744 783 757 II.239 Trin. 14–15 II.249 15 618, II.537 22 867 25–7 659 29 986 33 102 34–5 1243 42 II.775 46–7 785 50 379, 442, II.654 61 II.817 65 271 69 II.761 70 II.110 87 702 89–90 1106 90 863 96 170 98 627 106 II.841 124–7 II.864

Index Locorum 1345 127 132, 372 129 262 133 504 133–5 490 137 II.491 153–4 II.600 156 1137 157–8 877 158–9 1129 160–1 455 174 II.148 181 896 210–11 II.613 217–18 II.1173 223–4 983 227–8 974 233–4 990 245–6 II.943 258 659 261–3 753 265a–6 816 277–8 786 284 1127 285 II.500 289–90 II.1052 309 1014 310 II.548 313 1217 321–2 273 328 722 337 1033 341 II.295 347–8 II.215 349 II.1113 370 II.138, 208 377 105 380 87 386 II.609 392–3 47 400–1 1162 402–3 II.735 403–5 1284 405 877 425–6 1300 428 II.492 436–7 505 473 339 482–3 II.555 484 854 485–7 II.146 486–7 II.889 493–4 II.754 508–10 II.1144 524 988 536–7 II.930 547–8 II.544 549–52 II.1188 554 II.367 559 II.327 567–8 841 577–8 376

585–7 II.1170 618 349, 505 627 352, 720 640 704 645–6 II.639 646–7 II.901 666–7 II.680 688–9 II.683 696–7 1280 725–6 II.653 729–30 706, II.99 734–5 II.100 740 483 756 870, II.1208 762 II.719 767–72 II.1085 797 1083 799–800 II.867 800 168 803 1019 814 521 819–20 II.780 820–1 II.615 825 791 827 192 832–3 96, II.1134 837 784 842 II.365 848–50 712 869 290, 302 894–5 971 894–902 1160 896 1125, II.7 905–6 II.1109 926 683 940–1 1049 944 II.21 954–5 II.534 963 285 967 1186 970–1 771 979 499 986–7 766 987 II.999 987–8 372 988 II.1029 991 II.284 1005 II.659 1022–3 II.567 1023 946, 1006 1035 58, 747 1039 177 1040 460 1048–9 549, 698, II.21 1071–2 II.977 1094–5 337 1094–6 1031 1095–6 II.705 1115 1010 1122–3 1298 1149–50 II.818

1154 II.725 1156–7 721 1159 295 1162 526, 1246 1184–6 II.337 Truc. 1–3 178 4 340 6 1034 12 1271 38–9 638, II.255 47 914 64–5 1018 84–5 198, II.20 105 1068 116–17 15 127 II.284 132 154 151 947 153–4 1175 165 II.251 184 II.510 184–5 306 186 1034 223 62 228 II.568 229–31 II.1170 235 737 239 1130 250–2 1115 251 117 258 1038, 1044 261 630 267–8 II.320 282 II.250 296 II.722 303–4 989 305 II.103 335 II.1177 340–1 843 343 837 352–3 II.314, 535 368–9 II.1034 372 151 378 1203 380–1 414 384–5 II.780 394 136 401–4 1286 409 368 417 877 433–7 1139 439–40 II.166 440–4 347 444–5 II.893 457 647 510 II.880 511 611 518 II.485 534 923 538 113

1346

Index Locorum

Plautus, Truc. (cont.) 543 680 576 275 606 158 616–17 II.1086 622–3 1038, 1047 634 II.930 645–6 II.800 697–8 980 712 306 731 II.27, 230 746 II.491 747 II.181 747–8 II.327 748 658 758 347 762 156 768 886 779 II.108 787 II.782 787–8 718 801 766 821 II.119 838 353 840 1086 844–5 II.991 846–7 II.1183 872–3 1105 894 II.300 900 699 907 849 945 1061 948 120 Vid. 103 933 Pliny the Elder Nat. praef. 18 767, II.1011 praef. 29 II.454 2.85 101 2.91 II.888 2.110 II.898 2.135 II.856 2.159 971 2.187 183 2.194 259 2.201–4 II.1198 2.234 II.292 2.235–6 II.855 3.3 II.429 3.7 II.25, 425 3.24 II.579 3.39 931 3.56 802 3.59 442 3.67 II.1183 3.70 1060 3.107 754 3.152 910 4.5 921 4.66 1219 4.83 100, 755

5.52 II.48 5.57 887 5.87 189 5.121 278 6.58 II.1199 6.113 386 7.3 II.934 7.21 II.883 7.46 1220 7.97 992 7.112 II.1066 7.121 139 7.146 II.161 7.159 753 7.166 149, 1234 8.103 1062 8.136 1008 8.142–4 1086 8.193 II.274 8.216 398 9.71 II.511 9.78 II.527 9.144 1249 9.164 744 10.93 1084 10.129 919 10.158 121 10.171 1115 10.207 1266 11.3 II.902 11.18 II.268 11.33 II.389 11.42 II.136 11.139 1013 11.162 809 11.253 1116 12.97 689 13.19 II.568 13.138 II.1206 14.148 II.716 15.22 852 16.48 1116 17.27 651 17.74 193 17.214 286 17.243 II.571 18.062 137 18.175 II.1083 18.187 II.174 18.339 208 19.33 II.889 19.84 829 19.187 122 21.11 755 21.68 II.962 22.135 173 22.145 897 24.39 897 24.135 896 25.22 II.1070 25.87 956 25.102 II.904

28.10 II.444 28.122 869 29.101 1162 29.103 387 29.126 II.1149, 1219 31.28 II.268 31.43 677 32.144 248 33.26 1016 33.155 244 34.22 II.1086 34.66 II.1087 34.81 II.268 35.17 II.760 35.25 II.110 36.35 262 36.42 1251 36.45 II.904 36.62 II.39 36.124 II.892 37.57 1211 Pliny the Younger Ep. 1.5.8 II.697 1.23.2 294 2.11.17 II.1006 3.1.4 175 4.27.1 II.849 5.6.42 II.148 5.14.8 II.708 6.9.1 II.32 6.9.2 II.57, 74 6.31.15 386 8.1.2 1299 9.13.24 II.73 9.26.6 II.902 10.96.10 962 Pan. 44.1 II.552 60.3 386 84.6 II.34 Pollio Fam. 10.31.3 II.179 10.32.4 II.245 10.33.2 1039 Pompeius V.133.27–9K 1162 Pomponius (L.) com. 65 96 Pomponius (Sex.) dig. 40.7.29.1 605 Priscian 8.53 448 17.105 II.953 Propertius 1.3.11–12 243 1.4.25–7 978 1.10.25 258 1.15.1 951

Index Locorum 1347 1.16.6 II.169 1.18.31 1213 1.19.9 22 1.19.9–10 217 1.19.13 1070 2.5.3 II.212 2.19.32 728 2.33b.25 II.785 3.9.7 1008 4.8.49 II.787 Publilius Syrus Sent. I.20 847

12.10.29 686 12.11.24 II.12 [Quintilian] Decl. 2.8 II.535 6.16 II.373 12.27 89 14.10 904 17.6 581 19.5.5 II.1177 Quintus Cicero Pet. 39 198

Quadrigarius hist. 10b=6C II.1219 12 113, 418, 1211, II.137, 399 Quintilian Decl. 246.pr. 1179 259.15 II.285 265.7 II.283 270–2 924 322.9 II.282 344.pr. 1202 Inst. 1.1.18 II.369 1.3.15 II.285 1.5.11 165 1.6.1 579, II.300 1.7.26 448 1.12.14 415 2.15.3 II.12 2.19.2 114 3.6.28 II.1182 3.6.72 II.603 3.7.28 985 3.8.7 II.891 4.2.66 II.295 6.1.24 II.857 6.3.83 956 7.4.21 1175 7.9.10 II.958 8.2.16 1187, II.1042 8.3.40–1 II.1183 8.6.30 540 8.pr.6 II.1208 9.3.101 1110 9.4.19 II.955 9.4.23 II.958 9.4.26 II.952 9.4.27 II.960 9.4.28 II.953 9.4.29 II.952 10.1.12 723 10.1.105 1171 11.1.85 II.508 11.2.29 II.872 11.2.35 II.229 12.10.23 972

Rhetorica ad Herennium 1.1 1023 1.2 II.597 1.4 996 1.5 297 1.8.11 472 1.9 240 1.14 851 1.26 1223 2.7 285 2.16 II.702 2.27 650 2.42 122 2.45 184 2.50 II.640 3.1 II.56 3.39 970 4.2 II.868 4.7 II.374 4.13 II.529 4.19 II.265 4.33 160 4.38 II.1130 4.39 1177 4.44 II.957, 1098 4.46 115 4.50 906 4.52 II.580 4.53 942, II.201 4.55 895, 1198 4.68 II.1216 Rufinus Hist. 4.26.7 423 Rutilius Lupus 2.6 II.860 S.C. de Gn. Pisone patre 21 777 148–51 II.881 Copy A.61–2 II.559 Sacerdos VI.432.11K 438 Sallust Cat. 1.6 257 3.2 754 6.1 1058

6.2 II.424 6.6 910 7.6 1280 11.4 448 11.8 II.303 17.5 II.728 19.5 1119 24.4–25.1 II.1186 25.5 528 29.2 II.144 31.6 1075 33.5 719 36.4 1285 37.4 26, II.851 43.2 II.961 44.5 II.50 45.1 II.136 48.4 II.221 51.26 II.1182 51.30 II.754 52.9 II.365 52.11 II.887 52.22 918 52.32 II.609 54.1 1268 57.6–58 II.941 58.1 479 58.3 II.304 58.14 766, 770 Hist. 1.55.6 954 1.55.8 II.453 1.55.12 1074 1.77.3 II.453 2.28 950 2.37 II.733 2.87B 949 2.98.1 II.746 3.24 242 3.48.26 1073 4.10 269 Jug. 1.4 II.536 1.5 II.722 2.4 II.686 4.1 II.1225 6.3 II.461 10.4 876, II.963 11.2 II.1007 13.1 II.1009 14.10 II.252 15.2–16.1 II.1189 16.2 1266 18.3 II.1059 18.12 II.724 20.2 II.749 20.3 1235 25.4 II.961 27.2 141, 1193 28.2 1293 31.12 II.848 31.22 II.554

1348

Index Locorum

Sallust, Jug. (cont.) 31.26 787, 1265 32.1 1222, II.223 35.2 II.135 35.9 II.858 40.1 II.856 40.3 II.1054 43.1 II.357 44.4 844 46.8 II.711 48.3 949 49.2 II.201 51.1 II.618 51.2 II.248 52.1 120 56.5 1235 58.3 II.340 61.5–62.1 II.1008 64.5 850 65.1–3 II.1009 68.1 1258 70.5 608 71.1 614 71.4 737 71.5 960 81.3 77 84.3 782 87.1 II.686 87.4 785 88.4 II.233 91.5 II.235 91.7 II.286 92.4 II.686 94.7–95.1 II.1182 97.3 106 98.2 608 98.3 219, 1136 98.7 II.425 100.4 II.796 101.5 899, II.563 103.7 II.398 106.1–2 II.829 106.3 665 107.1 270 107.7 271 111.1 135 112.3 810 Rep. 2.6.5 II.440 Scaevola dig. 23.2.54 II.199 44.7.61.1 627 Seneca the Elder Con. 1.pr.16 1147 1.1.11 335 1.1.19 437, II.219 2.1.1 II.372 2.1.25 II.84 2.4.7 912 2.7.9 512

3.pr.14 II.104 4.pr.2 II.849 5.3.1 27, 905 7.pr.1 195 7.pr.1–2 417 7.1.23 973 8.4.1 978 8.5.1 913 9.1.4 626 9.2.8 248 9.2.17 94 9.2.18 518 9.3.11 1157 9.4.8 II.101 9.5.1 II.798 10.pr.1 II.104 10.pr.4 II.707 10.1.1 458, 775 10.1.10 889 10.2.4 299, 893 10.4.5 921 10.5.19 374 Suas. 1.3 774 1.8 289, 298 2.21 912 Seneca the Younger Apoc. 8.2 II.278 12.1 832 Ben. 1.2.1 II.901 1.11 626 1.13 II.747 2.6.1 886 2.24.3 II.286 3.6.1 II.110 4.28.2 II.723 4.36.1 II.928 5.10.3 273 5.17.3 II.900 6.3.3 II.409 7.2.1 1022, II.179 7.3.2 299 7.30.1 861 Cl. 1.12.1 II.207 1.26.5 II.451 2.5.3 782 2.6.1 II.287 Dial. 1.9.4 II.812 3.2.1 114 3.7.4 II.207 3.8.7 611 3.18.3 226 3.20.2 182 4.22.4 1123 5.8.5 II.743 6.4.3 II.378 7.9.3 945

9.3.5 II.1080 10.13.4 II.206 10.18.5 145 11.8.3 II.89 Ep. 4.3 II.1222 7.5 1271 20.2 122, 873 20.3 II.112 27.1 II.1203 46.1 II.309 47.1 378 53.3 II.137 66.41 270 70.21 1178 75.3 121 75.11 II.299 77.18 164 87.15 79 87.17 II.571 87.30 268 88.15 II.613 88.27 523 90.14 II.87 90.16 II.427 92.15 II.143 94.3 858 94.36 II.273 109.16 II.1190 117.22 II.331 118.6 II.744 Her. O. 1661–2 II.986 Nat. 1.15.4 II.564 3.11.1 II.580 3.25.5 856 3.25.6 II.580 3.30.8 II.424 5.9.4 847 6.17.1 II.249 6.32.2 85 Thy. 713–14 895 771 562 [Seneca the Younger] Oct. 863–4 II.282 Servius Honoratus A. 1.576 II.886 Sidonius Ep. 7.14.10 649 Silius Italicus 1.93–4 II.640 3.231–3 169 4.585–6 II.466 5.333–4 249 7.680–2 787 14.281 249 15.3–4 249

Index Locorum 1349 Sisenna hist. 123=79C II.123 32=28C II.1105 Mil. 2 114 Statius Ach. 1.935 II.924 Silv. 4.pr.20 II.22 Theb. 1.657 701 3.115–17 92 4.28–9 II.815 4.434 828 4.607–8 II.676 5.361–2 828 10.8–9 1289 11.522 121 12.784–5 II.133 Suetonius Aug. 28.1 II.104 33.1 319 64.3 165 65.1 II.781 86.3 1253 94.9 1163 Cal. 16.2 868 38.1 1273 Cl. 15.2 II.444 28.1 964 Dom. 10.3 650 Jul. 20.1 II.442 20.3 110 37.2 451 Tib. 59.1 89 Tit. 5.3 99 Sulpicius Rufus Fam. 4.12.1 II.142 Symmachus Ep. 1.78.1 1003 1.86 II.113 4.58.2 911 Rel. 4.1 1120 Tab. devot. Audollent 283.9–11 1239 Tab. Vindol. II.211 68 III.645.ii.16–18 413

Tab.Vindon. 2 1017 Tacitus Agr. 10.6 II.647 27.1 1289 32.1 II.426 Ann. 1.2.1 II.769 1.3.1 II.1183 1.5.1 II.401 1.6.3 535 1.8.2 II.679 1.8.6 746, II.27, 30 1.10.1 II.965 1.18.3 929 1.19.5 II.30, 235 1.21.2 707 1.27.1 1072 1.36.2 967, II.30, 235, 387 1.40.1 II.67 1.40.4 II.598 1.42.1 1213 1.44.2 1267 1.46.1 II.1225 1.59.1 782 1.61.1 1011 1.67.1 160 1.68.4 II.769 2.4.3 II.261 2.6.4 640 2.31.3 198 2.33.3 II.192, 353 2.38.2 II.698 2.40.1 II.247 2.59.1 II.414 3.1.2 1291 3.12.4 II.105 3.23.2 701 3.28.2 II.401 3.32.2 II.728 3.34.3 II.186 3.60.1 II.756 3.62.2 II.1186 3.74.4 II.858 4.2.1 526, 592 4.4.1 578 4.10.2 1257 4.21.1 II.360 4.22.1 II.105 4.24.2 978 4.29.1 II.230 4.29.2 1292 4.34.1 II.439 4.57.1 II.113 4.66.2 285 5.11.2 640 6.3.3 II.23, 218 6.10.3 1074 6.12.1 1013 6.29.3 II.469 6.30.4 II.357

6.32.3 II.1001 6.33.1 II.206 6.42.4 II.432 6.48.4 794 6.51.3 II.252 11.7.1 II.189 11.10.4 II.133 11.11.1 II.8 11.16.3 II.187 11.25.5 II.303 11.26.1 II.676 11.27 II.699 11.35.2 II.357 12.12.2 1250 12.47.2 II.262 12.65.2 1251 13.3.1 II.1058 13.5.1 II.1225 13.14.2 II.12, 459 13.16.2 910 13.42.4 600 13.43.4 II.188 13.49.2 511 13.57.1 II.468 14.4.4 II.414 14.20.5 1290 14.29.1 704 14.32.1 II.432 14.35.2 II.661 14.46.2 1295 14.64.2 II.440 15.5.3 II.228 15.16.4 II.1001 15.27.2 1073 15.44.1 II.1220 15.54.1 891 15.62.2 1266 16.16.1 II.639 16.21.2 157 Dial. 25.4 II.71 Ger. 21.2 1171 29.1 II.543 Hist. 1.3.1 II.607 1.9.1 II.257 1.10.2 965 1.49.3 216 1.50.3 II.188 1.62.2 II.713 1.64.2 II.343 1.79.3 II.500 1.79.4 II.512 1.83.2 II.749 2.4.2 544 2.43.2 199 2.45.2 707 2.74.1 868 2.77.3 59 2.91.3 II.73 3.10.3 608, 616

1350

Index Locorum

Tacitus, Hist. (cont.) 3.29.1 817 3.31.3 II.264 3.38.4 II.333 3.53.2 II.74 3.63.2 II.620 3.70.3 1269 3.71.2 II.343 3.77.1 1294 3.78.2 II.294 4.1.1 II.749 4.18.3 1272 4.24.1 II.527 4.34.2 547 4.47 1073 4.50.3 1111 4.66.2 II.257 4.71.1 II.419 4.80.1 62 5.21.2 410 5.26.2 288 Terence Ad. 40 128 44–5 527 106–8 657 107–10 664 126 914 136 323 150–1 II.914 155–6 II.1035 160–1 II.940 209 II.817 254 II.55 279–80 499 309–10 90 344 804 347 II.332 364–5 404 392–3 II.913 411–12 II.935 413 II.577 470 II.596 490 170, 184 507 734 536–7 902 545 1065 549 II.116 560–1 322 582–3 963 606 795 608 II.581 614 180 618–19 456 657–8 1246 660–1 375 662–4 II.346 671 338 694 II.1126 698 II.36 704–5 II.768

713 286 751 958 758 365 796–8 II.910 803–4 1136 822–4 745 828 95 832 917 850–1 II.372 854 II.532 855–7 942 865 892 886 192 902–3 1027 924–6 372 958 876 An. 9–10 1171 53–4 1255 55–7 II.450 74–5 76 93–5 1152 100–1 II.981 103 II.581 117–19 1115 125–6 1279 129–31 II.772 175 628 175–6 II.40 186–7 774, II.183 191 II.512 196–7 II.304 215–17 II.1166 219 II.144 224–5 368 238 II.144 248–9 II.813 266 II.660 281–4 II.940 289–91 II.1173 314 400 327 766 334–5 II.155 338 II.921 347 II.863 349 II.95 357 1001 399–401 II.1179 405 705 423 126 428–9 524 460 1218 472 II.304 481 94 481–2 1028, II.201 484–5 II.384 489 485 490 II.121 499–500 343 607 1299 617 373

678 303, II.213 690 913, II.288 691 461 693–4 1246 698 II.729 699–700 708 713 356 748 II.663 763–5 371 771 II.412 787 638, 772 796 1187, II.20, 193 796–8 II.910 819 838 827 II.37 828–30 121 839 990 842 II.204 850–1 372 915 344 950–1 1261 958 110 977 760 Eu. 1–3 1296 10–12 II.577 22 642 27–8 II.296 36–9 94 44 868 98 905, 1202 107 414 107–8 453 108–11 373 114–15 II.166 116–17 II.349 170–1 236 193–5 88 208–9 366 216 II.371 223 1237 226–7 II.730 232–3 956 234–5 942, 1169 238 952 252–3 II.22, 131 296–7 1100 297–8 II.928 302–3 II.540 305 118 305–6 727 312 II.578 316–17 II.1208 319–20 II.671 345–7 319 351 390 360 366 381 II.932 391–2 II.1063 392–3 88 442–3 II.22

Index Locorum 1351 451–3 II.1184 460 388 486–7 II.181 496 37 504–5 II.932 514–15 II.905 517–18 1247, II.56 527 II.724 530 854 547–8 II.351 572 162 573 338, II.303 581–2 200 600 36 622–3 II.1190 633–4 II.246 638–9 II.319 639–40 II.319 640–1 722 653 II.490 664 935 666 922 679 681 728 1080 773–4 930 806–7 II.138 809 154 838–9 II.116 846–7 II.804 889–90 652 912–13 262 914–15 II.629 926–8 II.61 981–2 537 1035 759, 763 1043 733, II.97 1044 924 1045–8 339 1067–8 515 Hau. 20–1 II.530 25–7 II.1160 31–2 II.160 63–4 1002 77 1020, 1265 78 II.671 87 II.490 95 341 104 795 115–16 II.824 126–7 II.820 133 II.234 158 269 199 770 203 873 248 716 258–9 II.1111 259–60 699 269–70 II.195 305–6 212 333–5 153

399–400 II.381 429 330 436 375 452–4 727, II.303, 699 454 II.105, 108 473–4 II.656 601 1300 617 507 644–8 II.887 652 1034 662–4 II.940 686–7 90 689–90 762 704 64, II.423 705–6 311 743 232, 267, 498 747 1018 865–6 II.19 871 632 886–7 II.925 916–17 II.577 952 190 981 II.307 990–1 375 1004–5 1021 1006–7 363 1008 II.324 1012 II.1189 1017 II.217 1038 II.278 1050–1 375 1064–5 II.293 Hec. 10–11 II.531 74–5 II.934 90–1 1223 91–2 II.229 141–2 672 160–2 1155 172 871 174–5 1121 181–3 II.339 194 87 205–6 375 214 190 249 948, 1149 259–60 1155 277–8 678 278–9 II.752 283 1085 293 673 296 II.376 298 457 313 970 314 1106 330–2 II.911 372 217 378–9 102 406 II.940 435 II.411 458 399

501 624 503 860 516 427 519–20 II.559 529 II.214 560–1 1157 566 1220 572 256 623–4 698 648–9 II.359 667 973, 990 670–1 1151 704–5 644 721 II.151 728 705, II.98 734–5 II.461 773 1112 788 975, 1046 839 701 863 II.377 866 II.172 Ph. 27–9 250 29 106 30 868 30–1 II.715 30–2 II.752, 754 56 1245 67–8 1016 89–90 585 91–3 529 94 1261 113–14 715 117–18 528 126 981 155 734 159–60 716 163 111 168–9 II.64 228 234 233–4 II.936 247 888 260–2 1099 292–3 303 298 413 305–7 1101 315 548 318 520 328 II.766 360 364 364–5 299, 437, II.798 400–1 658 408–10 665 416 II.177, 198 429 279 441–2 II.597 445 II.115 454 202 468 II.890 476 II.702 531–2 526

1352 Index Locorum Terence, Ph. (cont.) 569–72 617 586–7 625 594 457, II.607 618 II.483 676 II.211 682 346 692–4 II.1204 739 322 754 317 756–7 II.550 795–6 II.947 799 212 808–9 II.922 846 328 882–3 II.1229 885–6 II.448 899–900 319 901–2 II.94 908–9 II.259 933–4 II.36 947 170 965 703 974–5 II.313 979–80 II.987 982–3 II.1205 1028 II.746 Tertullian An. 14.3 651 18.7 II.454 Apol. 1.2 692 9.1 574 11.4 604 14.5 912 30.4 546 33.3 136 38.2 585 39.12 162 Carn. 18.6 965 Hermog. 14.1 II.358 Idol. 22.3 II.79 Iud. 3.5 II.292 4.1 II.273 13.26 535 Marc. 1.24.5 541 2.4.6 [= Gen. 2.17] 865 2.16 168 3.7.6 169 3.16.7 II.761 4.1.8 1031 4.8.1 440 4.33.8 434 4.40.1 438 5.4.3 896 5.18.4 473

Mart. 2.7 698 Mon. 9.1 II.338 Nat. 1.4.1 II.268 1.10.45 284 1.10.49 325 Orat. 3.3 1290 Pall. 5.3 278 Praescr. Haer. 11.2 533 Prax. 13.4 195 17.2 II.295 Pud. 16.10 574 Res. 40.7 434 40.11 438 51 551 Scorp. 12.5 551 Spect. 3 429 Test. 5.1 II.770 Uxor. 1.5.4 1036 Virg. 5.2 570 Tibullus 1.2.33–4 880 1.7.21–2 940 [Tibullus] 3.7.136 II.756 3.17(4.11).3–4 II.995 4.7.7–8 729 Traianus Plin. Ep. 10.34.2 II.800 Tryphoninus dig. 28.2.28.4 II.861 Turpilius com. 142–3 II.771 167–8 II.802 Ulpian dig. 1.9.12.1 302 2.15.8.22 312 3.3.27 303 4.2.14.2 II.462 4.6.26.4 II.298 4.8.31.1 II.903 8.5.10.1 730 9.1.1.6 312 14.3.4 478

14.4.9.pr 807 16.3.1.10 II.893 18.4.2.20 988 19.1.13.5 114 21.1.1.10 II.441 24.1.32.27 764 24.3.22.8 II.306 26.5.3 II.455 27.4.3.3 527 32.11.3 II.23 38.5.1.6 426 42.4.7.6 59 47.2.46 912 50.17.2 205 Valerius Flaccus 2.52 134 2.231–2 690, II.638 3.412 358 7.354 207 Valerius Maximus 1.1.ext.3 967 1.1.14 II.281 2.4.5 II.384 2.7.4 395 3.7.1e 986 5.4.7 II.231 6.5.5 II.689 8.2.3 II.267 Varro apud Plin. Nat. 36.92 229 L. 5.1 557, 558 5.4 II.790 5.5 204 5.6 II.1062 5.8 807, 927 5.14 816 5.21 880 5.31 II.566 5.40 II.379 5.55 II.274 5.83 II.640 5.106 151 5.121 II.274 5.123 1263 5.137 II.406 5.149 II.265 5.157 II.1041 5.174 114 6.8 1049 6.23 1260 6.24 990 6.25 816 6.50 944 7.3 762 7.8 1262, II.618 7.10 1060 7.16 830 7.32 173 7.42 813

Index Locorum 1353 8.10 1251, 1266 8.64 II.512 9.24 182 9.61 1249 9.76 873 9.83 II.279 9.106 262 9.110 771 10.2.4 21 10.4 II.56 10.4.73 II.563 10.25 879 Men. 45 730 428 151 R. 1.1.3 II.874 1.1.6 725 1.2.10 885 1.2.14 II.594 1.2.19 II.1209 1.2.20 1060 1.2.23 730 1.2.24 II.1017 1.6.2 II.200 1.6.4 1116 1.6.5 II.647 1.6.6 812 1.7.6 II.752 1.14.1 954 1.14.3 144 1.16.5 II.470 1.21 302 1.23.6 714 1.30.1 II.563 1.32.1 845 1.35.1 II.565 1.35.2 1228, II.605 1.41.3 II.266 1.41.5 II.324 1.46.1 1281 1.53.1 76 1.54.1–2 314 1.57.1 1258 1.62.1 292 2.1.16 219 2.1.19 II.1041 2.2.3 II.850, 854 2.2.15 313 2.3.1 II.732 2.3.6 30, II.761 2.4.2 1070 2.4.4 1267 2.4.8 751 2.4.11 801 2.5.15 285 2.7.5 685 2.7.9 II.206 2.7.12 II.219 2.8.5 198 2.9.13 II.1134 2.10.8 1296

2.11.11 725 2.pr.3 1268 2.pr.5 63, II.29 3.1.9 1274 3.2.10 1030 3.2.14 726 3.2.16 730 3.5.3 II.160 3.9.6 991 3.12.1 199 3.14.4 889 3.16.6 106 3.16.23 II.759 3.17.7 1062 Vatinius Fam. 5.9.2 II.23 Vegetius Mil. 2.23.2 880 4.11.1 493 Mul. 1.27.2 879 Velleius Paterculus 1.4.2 II.871 1.11.2 1256 1.14.8 1272 2.11.3 840 2.26.1 1036 2.37.5 777 2.48.5 130 2.54.2 915 2.80.1–2 653 2.92.5 873 2.109.2 792 2.111.3 119 2.127.2 113 Venantius Fortunatus Carm. 11.19.2 II.806 Vetus Latina Act. 8.37 II.149 17.24 208 Gen. 21.17 1164 21.23 II.567 30.18 II.289 III Esdr. 7.10 1148 III Reg. 21.19 II.297 Joh. 2.07 150 6.52 II.384 Luc. 9.44 442 11.46 170 15.27 1148 19.8 149 Mat. 2.13 442

12.12 II.734 13.13 II.297 Virgil A. 1.1–7 II.967 1.8–12 II.27 1.19–20 II.1186 1.60–1 II.713 1.67 831 1.69–70 II.811 1.71 100 1.159–61 275 1.172–3 1197 1.195 149 1.198 1036 1.217 II.1108 1.229–32 II.947 1.242–4 1024 1.292–3 II.656 1.293–4 II.713 1.300–1 II.785 1.305–9 544, II.125 1.318–19 873 1.439–40 II.425 1.476–8 408 1.479–80 II.802 1.479–82 418 1.480–1 548 1.524–5 396 1.637–8 138 1.658–9 266 1.683–4 II.785 1.713–14 266 1.748–9 79 2.5–6 II.563 2.31 279 2.49 II.872, 993 2.54–6 461 2.141–3 1228 2.163–9 II.265 2.265–7 252 2.270–1 II.929 2.272–3 242 2.274–5 II.483 2.282–3 1225, II.947 2.314 II.785 2.323 II.246 2.325–6 446 2.333–4 896 2.353 II.711 2.376–7 II.169 2.538–9 II.211 2.692–3 II.623 2.736–40 II.125 2.801–4 420 3.141 II.811 3.379–80 II.974 3.411 1052 3.447 124 3.700–1 241 4.8 II.1106 4.66–9 408

1354 Index Locorum Virgil, A. (cont.) 4.281–7 II.51 4.296–7 II.914 4.322–3 421 4.518–19 266 4.553–7 419 4.563–4 II.464 5.6–8 II.222 5.200 863 5.268–72 II.246 5.401–3 II.786 5.450–1 1217 5.451 814 5.608 266 5.733–4 II.974 5.755–6 II.856 5.857–9 II.623 6.45–6 II.929 6.95–6 516 6.116–18 II.1197 6.133–4 22 6.175–6 II.897 6.179–82 252, II.1228 6.268 1053 6.313 II.133 6.346 II.931 6.358–61 II.341 6.400–1 848 6.434–5 II.786 6.566–9 II.964 6.574–5 805 6.595–7 828 6.679–96 II.1181 6.695–6 811 6.700 II.1132 6.805 818 6.879–80 275 7.5–7 II.711 7.35–6 II.204 7.71–3 II.915 7.73–5 243 7.255–7 970 7.304–10 II.1175 7.471–2 277 7.500 II.956 7.638–40 265 7.676–7 863 7.796 244 7.805–6 69 8.29–30 II.787 8.39–40 261, 520 8.72–7 1226 8.83–5 II.1205 8.489–90 85 9.30–1 867 9.31–2 II.802 9.171 II.786 9.211–12 II.672 9.595–7 217 10.14 539 10.116–17 1050

10.149–50 II.672 10.324–8 II.947 10.491–2 II.663 10.501–4 425 10.521–2 II.785 10.680–3 II.125 10.698–9 916 10.700–1 177 10.723–9 II.272 10.762–3 II.786 10.786–8 II.786 11.55–6 999 11.57–8 II.933 11.61–2 II.1132 11.105 189 11.112–13 II.343 11.164–5 II.67 11.621–2 420 11.631–3 II.974 11.693 107 11.702–3 127, 1235 12.52 785 12.326–7 II.789 12.680 86 12.783 II.786 12.951–2 404 Cat. 16.03 120 Ecl. 1.12–13 1162 1.33 983 1.33–4 II.1132 1.64–6 823 3.78 85 3.80–1 768 3.106–7 244 4.40–1 II.871 5.49 II.734 5.54 II.465 5.65–6 II.928 6.53–4 266 7.6–8 II.623 7.35–6 769 8.101–2 717 9.28 II.937 G. 1.1–3 1208 1.49 450 1.92–3 II.678 1.181–2 II.646 1.365–6 126 1.496–7 II.964 2.35–6 II.935 2.510 II.169 3.30–3 241 3.203 817 3.276–7 II.1113 3.325 40 3.355 829 4.13–14 916 4.453 721

4.457–9 II.255 4.490–1 II.935 Vitruvius 1.1.5 993, 1273, II.403 1.1.6 II.392 1.2.1–2 II.1181 1.5.4 II.734 1.5.6 818 1.6.7 256 1.7.2 862 2.1.3 1219 2.3.1 493 2.4.1 772 2.5.1 480 2.6.4 II.160 2.8.6 477 2.8.9 545 2.8.11 1049 2.8.20 II.411 2.9.14 240 3.1.3 II.760 3.4.4 II.1087 3.pr.2 II.675 4.3.3 1027 4.4.1 984 4.4.3 284 4.5.2 299 5.3.4 1209 5.9.2 94 5.9.9–10.5 II.833 5.11.1 II.371 6.1.7 809 6.1.10 481 6.6.4 II.773 6.6.5 1200 6.8.6 284 6.8.8 II.760 6.pr.5 II.205 7.3.2 881 7.9.2 793 7.pr.6 167 7.pr.15 911 8.3.7 190 8.3.20 1115 8.4.2 II.795 8.6.3 980 9.2.2 1017 9.2.4 838 9.3.3–4.1 II.1197 9.4.5 861 9.8.6 1240 9.pr.3 955 9.pr.18 1095 10.2.14 1239 10.2.15 459, 828 10.4.2 1240 Vulgate Act. 13.44 II.385 17.24 208

Index Locorum 1355 Ex. 20.13–15 429 32.6 II.386 Gen. 12.14 760 Jac. 1.13 II.79 Jer. 25.8–9 II.293

Job 37.2 865 Luc. 13.10 545 14.3 334 15.23 1149 23.10 546 Marc. 3.16 1211

4.9 II.454 15.4 156 Mat. 5.6 89 6.5 429 26.69 1114 Rom. 8.18 438

INDE X OF GR A M M ATICA L TER MS A ND LATIN WOR DS The Index covers both volumes of this Syntax. References to volume I are by page number only. References to volume II are preceded by II (only once per lemma). Numbers in italics signal pages where a definition or description of a term is given. In longer lemmas, numbers in bold signal pages with the most relevant information on the subject. The Index for volume I was prepared by Jeremy Brightbill, the Index for volume II and the integration of the two by Olga Spevak. a(h) (interjection) II.932 ab (preposition) combined with alius and aliter II.761 in comparisons of (dis)similarity II.753 to mark agent adjuncts in non-passive clauses 245 to mark agent arguments 237, 239, 245, 269 in gerundive + sum construction 297 of deverbal nouns 245 to mark arguments of adjectives 220, 226 to mark arguments of verbs 123 to mark cause adjuncts 904 to mark extent of time adjuncts indicating relative order of events (‘after’) 849 to mark instrument adjuncts 880 to mark optional attributes of nouns 1030 to mark position in time adjuncts 837 to mark reason adjuncts 911 to mark respect adjuncts 917 to mark source adjuncts 818 to mark source arguments 73, 126, 127, II.133 with adjectives of lacking 220 with comparatives II.734 with verbs of asking 167 with verbs of depriving 149, 1233 with verbs of descent or provenance 127 with verbs of difference 121 ab urbe condita construction 1266, II.404 abante 1229, 1242 abest with quin clause II.96 with ut clause II.87 abhinc 834 ablative absolute clauses 13, II.387–402 agent of passive ablative clauses II.396 agreement within clause 1267 as afterthought II.396, 858 as setting constituent II.856 as summarizing device II.1155 compared with cum clauses II.389 compared with secondary predicates II.394 complex ablative absolute clauses II.397 containing question words 337 distinguished from ablative of description or quality II.802

distinguished from adjuncts of attendant circumstances 855 expressions to make semantic relationship to main clause explicit II.392 in relative clauses II.561 internal word order II.1044–7 nominal (verbless) absolute ablatives II.427 of one-place (‘impersonal’) verbs (sortito) II.402 relationship with arguments of main clause II.394 relative clause as subject II.398, 526 relative order with respect to main clause II.1057 semantic relationship with main clause II.388 strings of ablative absolutes II.400 subject complement in II.25 use of indirect reflexive pronoun and possessive adjective in 1125, 1130 with connective relative expressions II.555, 556, 560 with relative words or phrases II.487 with si qui(s) relative clause II.570 with so-called elliptical utinam 360 with substantival participle as subject 954 without a subject II.400 ablative case 1179, 1183, 1199, 1207, 1219–21 ablativus absolutus II.387 causae 90, 112, 903 comparationis 1220, II.185, 726, 730, 759 copiae 110 explicativus 862 instrumenti 146, 875, 1193, 1206 limitationis 914, 1076 loci 1206 mensurae 842, II.258, 572, 735, 739, 766 modi 862, II.706 normae 871 pretii 113, 882 prosecutivus 830, 832 qualitatis 782, 938, 965, 1025, 1117, 1206, II.553, 801 respectus 914 separativus 126, 150, 1206 temporis 835 viae 830

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words 1357 archaic forms of 1207, 1236 cognate ablative 88, 864 locative, separative, and instrumental use 1207 of accompaniment, see cum (preposition): to mark associative arguments; to mark associative adjuncts of accompanying circumstances 900; see also cum (preposition): to mark accompanying circumstance adjuncts of accordance 872 of agent 245, 249; see also ab (preposition): to mark agent arguments of association, see below, with verbs: of treatment or supplying with of cause 89, 903 of comparison II.726, 729 adjectives of amount in expressions of dissimilarity II.761 compared with quam II.730 competing with quam II.732 in preparative expressions for accusative and infinitive clause II.185 with alius and (ad)aeque II.759 with expressions of (dis)similarity II.753 with expressions of age II.736 with expressions of quantity and extent of space or time II.735 of description or quality 1025 as object complement 793 as optional attribute 1025 as secondary predicate II.779, 801 as subject complement 782 compared with cum phrase 1031 compared with genitive of description 1002, 1025 position of II.1090 relative phrase functioning as II.553 of fine or penalty 155, 156, 876 of instrument 146, 875, 1193, 1200 of manner 862, II.706 of material 1033 of means 146, 875, 1193, 1200 of measure quo and quanto in proportional comparison II.766 quanto plus II.572 with antequam II.266 with postquam II.258 of measure of difference II.739 of origin 127 of place whence 125, 178, 816, 819, 1196 of place where 803, 819 of price 113, 158, 882, 1200 of quality 782, 793, 1002, 1025, 1031 of respect 914, 1075 of separation 110, 125, 178, 184, 219, 1189, 1193, 1196, 1233 of source 27 of specification 914, 1075 of time during which 845 of time when 835, 1199 of time within which 849

of way by which 830 to mark accompanying circumstance adjuncts 900 to mark adjuncts denoting weather conditions and attendant circumstances 854 to mark agent arguments (bare ablative) 249 to mark arguments of adjectives 1220 to mark cause adjuncts 903 in non-passive clauses 245 to mark cause arguments 237, 245 to mark direction and goal adjuncts 814 to mark extent of space adjuncts 827 to mark extent of time adjuncts 845 to mark manner adjuncts 862 so-called cognate ablative 88, 864 to mark means and instrument adjuncts 146, 875, 1193, 1200 distinguished from arguments 146 to mark non-finite clauses 1220 to mark norm adjuncts 872 to mark object complements 793 to mark optional attributes of nouns 1220 of description or quality 1025 of other semantic relations 1026 to mark path adjuncts 830 to mark position in space adjuncts 803, 819 to mark position in space arguments 175, 1196 to mark position in time adjuncts 835, 1199 to mark price adjuncts 882, 1200 with substantival neuter singular adjectives 883 to mark price or value arguments 113, 158 to mark qualified truth disjuncts 926 to mark reason adjuncts 910 to mark respect adjuncts 914 to mark respect expressions with adjectives 1075 to mark second arguments (ablative objects) 29, 110–16, 1193 to mark source adjuncts 816, 819 to mark source arguments 125, 178, 1196 to mark subject complements in ablative absolute clause 188 to mark subject in ablative absolute clauses 736 to mark subjective evaluation disjuncts 928 to mark time within which adjuncts 849 with adjectives of abundance and lacking 219 with adjectives of fullness (and their opposites) 222 with adjectives of sharing and power 222 with dignus 221 with expressions of descent or provenance 127 with verbs facio and fio 152, 877 fruor 115 fungor 115, 1193 judicial verbs 155, 156, 876 of abundance and lacking 110, 1189, 1193 of depriving 184, 1233 of dressing 264 of eminence or superiority 113, 1193 of emotion 89 of flowing 88

1358

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words

ablative case (cont.) of motion 125 of sacrificing and praying 185 of sprinkling 163 of surpassing 151 of teaching 168 of treatment or supplying with 146, 1195 potior 115 utor 115, 1193 vescor 115 weather verbs 193 absolute constructions, see participial clauses (dominant participles) absolute use of tenses 552; see also sequence of tenses absolute use of verbs 78, 80, 98, 756 absque est 96 absum, impersonal abest with quin clause 704 abundance, adjectives of 219, 1189 abundance, verbs of 110, 1189, 1193 abusque (preposition) 837 ac/atque as comparative particle co-occurring with statim, ilico, and protinus II.261 co-occuring with talis, totidem, and tam II.746 in combination magis/minus ac/atque II.729 in combination proinde ac/atque II.273 in combination simul ac/atque II.260 with comparative forms of adjectives and adverbs II.729 with expressions of (dis)similarity II.752, 753, 755, 756 as connector II.629, 1166, 1167–8 as coordinator 68, II.628–32 co-occurring with etiam, paene, potius, and quoque II.631 correlative atque . . . atque II.640 correlative et . . . ac/atque II.646 correlative nec/neque . . . ac/atque II.647 correlative -que . . . atque II.646 in combination atque adeo II.631, 874 in epitactic coordination II.693 in main clause after time clause II.623 of negative declarative clauses 715 of subject constituents 1249 with locally negated constituents 689 with the last conjoin in multiple coordination II.652 position of II.973 accedit with accusative and infinitive clause II.160 with quia clause II.76 with quod clause II.59 with ut clause 624, II.82 accidit with quod clause II.71 with ut clause II.82 accompanying circumstance adjuncts 899–902 distinguished from manner adjuncts 899

accomplishments (state of affairs) 23 accordance adjuncts, see norm adjuncts accusative and infinitive clauses 13, II.17, 157–94 accusative subject 736, 1186 ambiguity between subject and object 235, 1187 first and second person usually expressed 743 unexpressed (implicit) subject 1265, II.18 agreement of subject complements and secondary predicates 196 announced by preparative (cataphoric) determiner 1098–9 announced by preparative (cataphoric) pronoun 1145 as competitor of quod clause II.44 as non-declarative clause II.170, 180 as subject of passive verb II.192 compared with accusative and participle construction II.163 compared with finite imperative clauses II.126 compared with nominative and infinitive construction II.21 compared with prolative infinitive clauses II.18, 156, 168 containing pleonastic negation 730 containing question words 337 diachronic development II.202 exclamatory accusative and infinitive clauses 365, II.186 governed by cognition verb in oblique subjunctive 620 historical and structural explanations for 1187 in indirect speech 510, 591, 669, II.48 in interrogative clauses or sentences II.186 in Late Latin II.202 in sentences with relative connexion II.189, II.486 in ut . . . sic and ante . . . quam structures II.190 internal word order II.1041–4 interpreted as a command II.168 introduced by quamquam II.1193 negator climbing in 683 perfect participle agreeing with subject as alternative to II.169 quin clauses as alternative to 705 quod and quia clauses as alternatives to 533 relative order with respect to main clause II.1055 tense of infinitive in 521, 525 use of indirect reflexive pronoun and possessive adjective in 1125, 1130 use of infinitives II.17, 162 use of tenses in subordinate clauses depending on 586 used at various levels II.19 used in relative clauses II.486 used in subordinate clauses II.191 with adjective as subject or object complement II.146 with adjectives of cognition and emotion II.463

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words 1359 with noun phrase as subject or object complement II.147 with nouns of cognition and emotion II.448 with nuntius II.435 with verbs accedit II.160 arguo II.216 cogo II.137 decerno II.144 est and subject complement II.183 facio II.143 impersonal est 95 iubeo and veto II.176 licet and oportet 94 mereo(r) II.145 mitto and praetereo II.161 of allowing and tolerating II.175 of causation 624, II.159 of communication II.17, 162 of deciding and determining II.172 of demanding II.175 of emotion 89, II.161 of fearing 623 of happening II.159 of manipulation II.19, 173 of obligation and permission II.181 of ordering and commanding II.131 of perception and cognition II.17, 162 of praising, blaming, congratulating, and thanking II.170 of striving II.140 of wishing, desiring, and preferring II.171 permitto II.136 persuadeo II.135, 168 prohibeo II.138 relinquitur II.86 volo II.139 without esse 197 distinguished from participial clause II.223 without governing verb II.158, 186 accusative and participle construction II.163, 796 accusative case 1179, 1183, 1213–16 accusativus adverbialis 330, 697, 828, 847, 885 exclamationis 363, 365, II.924, 932, 933, 934, 936 Graecus 244, 267, 1076 adverbial accusative 85, 330, 334, 697, 827, 828, 844, 847, 865, 885; see also expansion of arguments quod as II.75 anticipatory 759 as ‘base form’ in Late Latin 1216 bare accusative of gerund II.408 bare accusative of gerundive as purpose adjunct II.416 cognate accusative 86; see also below, to mark cognate object double accusative 163 with compound verbs 171, 1185 with verbs of asking 165, 1185 with verbs of teaching 167, 1185

Greek accusative 242, 264, 915, 1076 in calendar expressions 1229 in exclamations 363 as object-like constituent with ecce II.928, 931 as object-like constituent with em II.930 combined with interjections II.932, 933, 934, 936 to mark age expressions with natus II.737 internal accusative 86, 102, 213 object accusative 101, 137, 140, 146, 153, 163, 183, 186, 754 of degree 330, 334, 697, 885, 1080, 1215 of extent of space 827 of extent of time 844, 847 of inner object 86, 102, 213; see also expansion of arguments of limit of motion 92, 178 of person or thing affected 101, 137; see also object: affected objects of respect 242 of result produced 101, 137; see also object: effected objects of so-called local object, see below, to mark direction and goal arguments of so-called locative object 92 replacing nominative in Late Latin non-literary texts 1186 retained with autocausative passives 264 retained with passive participles 242 synecdochical accusative 242, 264, 915 to mark arguments of deverbal nouns 1039, 1215 to mark cognate object 86, 102, 213 to mark direction and goal adjuncts 810, 819 to mark direction and goal arguments 178 to mark extent of space adjuncts 827 to mark extent of time adjuncts 844, 847 to mark items in a list 1216 to mark manner adjuncts 865 to mark modifiers of adverbs 1215 to mark non-finite clauses as object 1216 to mark object complements 186, 787, 1211 to mark optional attributes of nouns 1028 to mark optional modifiers of adjectives 1215 to mark price adjuncts 885 to mark pseudo-object in proleptic construction 631, 759, 1188 to mark quantity and degree adjuncts 330, 334, 697, 885 to mark quantity and degree modifiers of adjectives 1080 to mark respect adjuncts 915 to mark respect expressions with adjectives 1075 to mark second arguments (accusative objects) 101, 137, 140, 146, 153, 163, 183, 186, 754 to mark subject of accusative and infinitive clause 736, 1186 with compound verbs of motion 102 with impersonal verbs of emotion 132

1360

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words

accusative case (cont.) with judicial verbs 157 with verbs of concealing 168 of dressing 264 of filling 150 of producing a sensation 91 of remembering and forgetting 117 weather verbs 193 accusing, verbs of with infinitive II.216 with quod clause II.66 with tamquam or quasi clause II.104 achievements (state of affairs) 23 actions (state of affairs) 22 active voice 54, 230–305 ad (adverb) 1229 ad (preposition) as alternative to dative case 1027 to mark arguments of adjectives 222, 227 beneficiary arguments 218 to mark arguments of verbs 123 to mark beneficiary adjuncts 897 to mark direction and goal adjuncts 812 to mark extent of space adjuncts 829 to mark instrument adjuncts 880 to mark manner adjuncts 868 to mark optional attributes of nouns 1030 to mark position in time adjuncts 837 to mark purpose adjuncts 907 to mark respect adjuncts 917 with adjectives of desire 222 with adjectives of helpfulness 218 with gerund as competitor of infinitival purpose clause II.384 with gerundi(v)al clause as attribute of nouns II.454, 456 with gerundi(v)al purpose clause II.406, 414 with infinitive as purpose adjunct II.384, 385 with judicial verbs 157 with verbs of preparing 896 with verbs of sending letters 142 ad sensum/sententiam construction 1287; see also agreement: notional agreement adaeque, see aeque additive coordinators, see coordinators: conjunctive (copulative) coordinators addo with accusative and infinitive clause II.166 with quod clause II.64 with ut clause II.83 address 1224, II.937–47 as extraclausal constituent II.937 at conversation opening II.1229 autonomous relative clause as II.519 combined with summonses II.925, 926 compared with summonses II.938 long addresses with o in poetry II.936 modified by appositions 1068 vocative case 1224, II.1103 addressee arguments 27, 1192

addressee (semantic function) 27 with impero II.131 with oro II.133 with persuadeo II.135, 168 with suadeo II.134 with verbs of blaming, excusing, praising, congratulating, and thanking II.67 with verbs of communication 143 adeo as emphasizing particle II.874 in combination atque adeo II.632 adhuc 856 co-occurring with comparatives II.743 in combination quoque adhuc II.871 to mark gradual change II.744 adicio, with ut clause II.83 adiungo, with ut clause II.83 adiuvo, with quod clause II.70 ‘adjective’ clauses II.478; see adnominal relative clauses adjective phrases 17, 215–29, 1074–85; see also adjectives: two-place adjectives; valency: of adjectives arguments of adjectives 215–29, 1074, 1204 as secondary predicate II.789, 812 compound adjective phrases II.599 coordination of their arguments II.599, 620 optional modifiers of adjectives 1074–85 position of their arguments and satellites II.1080 with degree modifier 1079–85 adjectives adverbial use, see accusative case: adverbial accusative arguments of, see adjective phrases; valency: of adjectives as a word class 45 as attributes 216, 993; see also attributes anteposed before preposition in poetry II.1117 coordination of adjectives II.597 factors determining position of adjectives II.1076 position of comparative and superlative forms of adjectives II.1083 position of modifiers of attributes II.1084 rarely expanded by optional modifiers 1075 as modifiers of relative phrases II.503 as object complement 790 as secondary predicate 780–9; see also secondary predicates: adjectives as as alternative to adverbs in poetry II.784, 788 comparable to manner adverbs II.778, 816 distinguished from apposition and tail constituent II.818 with conditional interpretation II.812 as subject complement 215, 769 comparative degree 46, 1075 absolute use II.772 constraints on formation II.726

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words 1361 in comparisons of non-equivalence II.724 with ablative of comparison II.729 with ut clause II.462 coordination with constituents belonging to different categories II.705 descriptive adjectives 45, 1047 combined with alius 947 enallage or transference of 1051 evaluative adjectives 64, 208, 362, 369, 1047, II.424, 784 modifying proper name 938 first and second declension 38, 45, 770, 1021 neuter frequently used substantivally 951 generic use of 1116 gradable adjectives 46, 686, 734, 982, 1082 modified by degree expressions 888 inflection of 37 neuter singular as subject or object complement with accusative and infinitive clause II.183 with gerundi(v)al clause II.229, 233 with imperative clause II.145 with prolative infinitive clause II.212 of amount, see quantifiers: adjectives of amount of non-permanent mental or physical condition II.777, 780 of physical condition, age, or socio-economic position II.782 of relative position II.783, 819 of size or substance 983, II.787 of space or time II.782 of volition, ability, and suitability with gerundi(v)al clause II.466, 467, 468 with prolative infinitive clause II.464 one-place adjectives with gerundial clause II.466, 467 with prolative infinitive clause II.464 optional modifiers of 1074–85 partitive use of medius, summus, etc. 1048, 1049–51 positive degree 46 with partitive genitive 1011 possessive adjectives, see possessive adjectives proleptic use in poetry II.811 semantic classes of 45 substantival use 41, 216, 948 modified by other adjectives 952 neuter modified by determiner or possessive 948 neuter singular in prepositional phrase 951 so-called elliptical substantivation 954 superlative degree 46, 1075 constraints on formation II.773 elative use 47, II.773 with partitive genitive 1009 temporal stability (semantic feature) 46 third declension 38, 45, 770 rarely used in neuter + genitive of quantity 1021 two-place adjectives as expressions of (dis)similarity II.752 with argument clause II.459, 460, 462

with gerundival clause II.435 with interrogative clause II.461 with participial clause II.466 with relative clause II.514, 532 used with relative pronouns (apparent secondary predicates) II.500 used with supine in -u II.424 valency of, see adjective phrases; valency: of adjectives with degree modifier 1079–85 with gerundi(v)al clause II.467 adjunct clauses II.238 concessive adjunct clauses, see concessive clauses conditional adjunct clauses, see conditional clauses degree adjunct clauses, see degree clauses manner adjunct clauses 663; see also manner clauses purpose (final) adjunct clauses, see purpose (final) finite clauses reason adjunct clauses, see reason (causal) clauses respect adjunct clauses, see respect clauses result (consecutive) adjunct clauses, see result (consecutive) clauses space adjunct clauses 638, II.240 stipulative adjunct clauses 652, II.306; see also stipulative clauses time adjunct clauses II.241; see also time clauses adjuncts 25, 30, 797, 798–923, 1198–1202; see also satellites distinguished from disjuncts 797 distinguished from arguments 25, 72, 797 accompanying circumstance adjuncts 899–902 adjunct clauses II.238; see also adjunct clauses agent adjuncts 28, 245, 902–5; see also agent adjuncts associative adjuncts 28, 897–99 relative clauses as II.520 beneficiary adjuncts 28, 129, 141, 892–7, 1192; see also beneficiary adjuncts cause adjuncts 28, 90, 91, 245, 247, 902–5; see also cause adjuncts coordination with secondary predicates II.708 diachronic developments in marking of 1240 direction and goal adjuncts 808–15; see also direction and goal adjuncts extent of space adjuncts 182, 825–9 extent of time adjuncts 842–9 with sum + quod clause II.848 frequency adjuncts 851 instrument adjuncts, see below, means and instrument adjuncts manner adjuncts 28, 784, 858–71; see also manner adjuncts means and instrument adjuncts 28, 152, 154, 874–81, 1193; see also means and instrument adjuncts norm adjuncts 871–4 of weather conditions and attendant circumstances 854

1362

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words

adjuncts (cont.) path adjuncts 829–32 position in space adjuncts 182, 800–8; see also position in space adjuncts position in time adjuncts 833–42; see also position in time adjuncts price adjuncts 881–5; see also price adjuncts purpose adjuncts 28, 905–9; see also purpose (final) adjuncts quantity and degree adjuncts 885–92, 690; see also quantity and degree adjuncts reason adjuncts 28, 909–13; see also reason adjuncts respect adjuncts 914–18; see also respect adjuncts distinguished from theme constituents II.854 source adjuncts 815–19; see also source adjuncts space adjuncts 800–32 distinguished from setting constituents II.856 relative clauses as II.521 statistical data on frequency 1181 sympathetic dative adjuncts 919; see also dative case: to mark sympathetic dative adjuncts time adjuncts 833–56; see also time adjuncts distinguished from setting constituents II.856 relative clauses as II.521 time within which adjuncts 849–51, 852 admodum, in answers to questions 373 admoneo with accusative and infinitive clause II.167 with prolative infinitive clause II.156 admonishing, verbs of with argument clause II.134 with prolative infinitive clause II.205 adnominal arguments 44, 966, 1037–47, 1190, 1204, II.11 distinguished from optional attributes 966 retaining same case or preposition as at clause level 1041, 1204 adnominal relative clauses II.474, 476, 478–501; see also head (of adnominal relative clause) agreement in number and gender with apposition 1283 agreement in number and gender with head 1283 as secondary predicate II.806 deviations from sequence of tenses II.537 enclosed between determiner and head II.497 exceptional case marking (attraction) II.489 indefinite relative clauses II.567 multiple clauses with one head II.498 non-restrictive clauses II.474, 484 compared with relative connexion II.485 containing an ablative absolute II.561 distinguished from autonomous relative clauses II.524

in the accusative and infinitive II.189, 486 interrogative and imperative relative clauses II.485 use of moods in II.539, 542 reduction of preposition with relative pronoun II.494 reduction of verb II.495 relative order of head and relative clause II.496 repetition of head noun in relative clause II.530, 531 restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses II.474, 484 restrictive clauses II.474, 479 descriptive clauses II.479, 481, 545, 547 determiners of their head II.482 identifying clauses II.479, 481, 544 sentence-initial clauses resembling theme constituents II.483, 490 structure of head noun + relative clause II.483 use of moods in II.544 use of indirect reflexive pronoun and possessive adjective in 1127, 1132 with relative adverbs of space II.575 adpositions 67, 1176; see also prepositions adsum, with gerundial clause II.225 adusque (preposition) 837 advenio 123 adverb phrases 17 adverbials, see adjuncts; disjuncts; satellites adverbs; see also connective adverbs as a word class 65 as arguments of nouns 1047 as attitudinal disjuncts 309 as attributes of nouns 1035 as degree of truth disjuncts 924 as direction and goal adjuncts 812 as extent of space adjuncts 829 as extent of space arguments 183 as extent of time adjuncts 847 as illocutionary disjuncts 931 as manner adjuncts 869 as object complements 794 as path adjuncts 832 as position in space adjuncts 807 as position in time adjuncts 841 as price adjuncts 884 as purpose adjuncts 909 as quantity and degree adjuncts 887, 890, 1023 as quantity and degree modifiers of adjectives 890, 1081 as reason adjuncts 912 as respect adjuncts 918 as setting constituents II.856 as source adjuncts 818 compared with agents in passive clauses 246 as subject complements 783 as subjective evaluation disjuncts 928 causal adverbs + quod II.287 causal/resultative adverbs with conditional si clause II.326

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words 1363 causing discontinuity II.1102 comparative degree of absolute use II.772 constraints on formation II.726 in comparison of non-equivalence II.724 co-occurring with conditional si clause II.322 co-occurring with inverse cum clause II.246 co-occurring with time clause II.245, 255, 258 coordination with constituents belonging to different categories II.706 distinguished from emphasizing particles II.866 governing a gerundial clause II.436 governing a subordinate clause II.469 gradable adverbs 1082 manner adverbs as correlative expression with conditional si clause II.325 comparable to adjectives as secondary predicates II.778, 780, 816 in expressions of similarity II.760 with sum 860 mente developing into adverbial suffix 871 modifying appositions, attributes, and secondary predicates 1037 of certainty or contrast with conditional si clause II.319 of evaluation with sum + quod clause II.848 with verbs of happening + quod clause II.71 of space or time in comparison of nonequivalence II.724 relationship with prepositions 1228 scalar degree adverbs II.366 sentence valence of 65 substantival use of 964 superlative degree of, elative use II.773 use as subordinators II.264 use in poetry II.784 use in complex sentences to make semantic relations explicit II.38 adversative clauses, see concessive clauses adversative connectors, see connectors: adversative connectors adversative coordination II.680–9, 696; see also coordination; asyndetic coordination substitution and modification as types of II.680 ‘adversative/concessive’ relative clauses II.539, 550 adversative coordinators, see coordinators: adversative coordinators adversus/um (adverb) 1229 adversus/um (preposition) 812 advising, verbs of with imperative clause II.134 with prolative infinitive clause II.205 aeque as correlative expression with conditional comparative clause II.349 combined with ablative of comparison II.759 combined with quam II.756

aequo animo, as expression with fixed order II.1079 aequus, as expression of similarity II.752 aes alienum, as expression with fixed order II.1079 aestimo 158, 159 affected objects 27, 101, 1190 affero, as support verb 75 afterthought ablative absolute clauses as II.392, 858 nisi clauses of exception as II.351 participial secondary predicates as II.794, 858 relative clauses or connective relative sentences as II.555 age (particle) 349, 353, 356, 361, II.923 agent (semantic function) 19, 26 agentless impersonal verbs II.82 distinct from main clause subject in ablative absolute II.396 identical with main clause object in infinitival construction II.127, 216 identical with main clause subject in ablative absolute clauses II.396 in fused clauses II.21 in gerundial clauses II.411 in gerundival clauses II.416 in imperative clauses II.140 in nominative and infinitive construction II.20, 194 in prolative infinitive clauses II.12, 209 position of II.958 agent adjuncts 28, 245, 902–5 distinguished from agent arguments 247, 905 distinguished from cause adjuncts 902 in dative with prolative infinitive II.212 intermediate agents 249, 875 agent arguments 26 in passive clauses 245 distinguished from agent adjuncts 247 frequency of 239 with adjectives in -bilis 248 with gerundive + sum construction 296 with impersonal passives 269 agentful passives 237 agentless passives 237, 1123 ago as support verb 75 with ut clause II.93 agreement 39, 736, 1243–1301 grammatical agreement 1243, 1244–87 cross-clausal and cross-sentential 1282 of relative pronouns with subject complement II.552 of secondary predicates II.779, 807 of subject and object complements with pronouns 1278 of subject complement in accusative and infinitive clauses II.17 of verb with subject 1244–72 with compound subject II.596 within noun phrase 1244, 1272–8

1364

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words

agreement (cont.) notional agreement 1243, 1287–1301 of pronouns across clause boundary 1295 of relative pronouns II.488 of subject and object complements and secondary predicates 1292 of verb across clause or sentence boundary 1293 of verb with subject 1287 with metonymical expressions 1299 within noun phrase 1298 aio, generic third person ait 753 Aktionsart, distinguished from grammatical aspect 380 alibi 808 aliquando 841 aliquanto, to express measure of difference II.740 aliqui(s) 49 as determiner 972, 1104 combined with cardinal numerals 985, 1105 combined with proper names 1106 combined with unus or alter 970 meaning ‘some other’ 1105 of autonomous relative clauses II.511 of head of restrictive relative clauses II.480 position with respect to head noun II.1071 as pronoun 1165 combined with unus or alter 942 neuter with genitive of quantity 1019 with second person plural imperative 512, 1246 compared with qui(s) and quisquam 1103, 1104, 1164, 1165, 1167 statistical data on frequency 1102 with potential subjunctive 483 aliquotiens 852 aliter combined with ab prepositional phrase II.761 combined with quam II.756 aliubi 808 alius 981 alius atque alius II.632 as expression of dissimilarity II.752 as subject complement meaning ‘different’ 771 combined with descriptive adjectives 947 modified by determiners and quantifiers 946 position with respect to head noun II.1074 repeated in distributive apposition 1067 to express reciprocity 276 with ablative of comparison II.759 with partitive genitive 1008 with prepositional phrases II.761 alliteration, in asyndetically coordinated constituents II.614 ‘all-new’ sentences II.828, 951 allowing, verbs of with accusative and infinitive clause II.175 with imperative clause II.136 with prolative infinitive clause II.207 alter 981, 989 combined with aliqui(s) 942, 970 in combination alter . . . alter, notional agreement with implied plural 1301

in distributive apposition 1067 to express reciprocity 276 with ab prepositional phrase II.734 with partitive genitive 1008 alternative coordinators, see coordinators: disjunctive (alternative) coordinators alternative indirect questions, see interrogative (subordinate) clauses: multiple indirect questions alteruter 1113, 1171 altus 228 amabo as illocution converter 307, 312, II.910 combined with summonses II.925 typical of female speech 354 used as parenthesis in imperative sentences 353 used to strengthen questions 341 ambiguity amphibolia in accusative and infinitive clauses II.1042 of word order II.953, 958 ambo 987 as apparent secondary predicate II.823 compared with duo 987 compared with uterque 991 amens, as secondary predicate in poetry II.785 amnis, in apposition to name 1058 amplius: in expressions of quantity and extent of space or time II.735 an as disjunctive coordinator II.658, 667 as question particle 316 an and an non in multiple questions 339 in indirect questions II.108, 109, 112, 113 in multiple indirect questions II.123, 125, 668 in sentence questions 330 anacoluthon 1211, II.853, 980 anaphora, as repetition of the same word in asyndetic coordination II.609 anaphoric adverbs as summarizing device II.1157 referring to discourse participants II.1150 anaphoric use of facio and fio 372, 376 of res 1096 anaphoric(ally used) determiners with result clauses II.309 anaphoric determiner is 970, 1096; see also is anaphoric use of demonstrative determiners 970, 1096 as cohesive device when combined with lexical repetition II.1146 as preparative device II.1161 position with respect to head noun II.1067 used with nouns as summarizing device II.1153 anaphoric(ally used) pronouns; see also resumptive expressions; preparative (cataphoric) expressions anaphoric pronoun is 1139, 1144; see also is anaphoric use of demonstrative pronouns 1139

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words 1365 as means of discourse coherence II.1143 as preparative device II.1161 as summarizing device II.1157 as topic II.832 frequency and distribution of II.1151 grammatical agreement with preceding constituent 1282 compound constituent 1284 grammatical agreement with subject or object complement 1278 notional agreement with preceding constituent 1295 ‘pleonastic’ use inside relative clauses II.566 position of II.976 referring to discourse participants II.1150 resuming theme constituents II.853 anastrophe (inversio), postposition of prepositions II.1112 animacy as factor determining word order II.958 in choice between active and passive voice 251 in choice of agreement with compound subject 1247, 1284 animadverto 173 animus, genitive animi as respect adjunct 917 annalistic use (of historic present) 409 anne, see an annon, see an ante (adverb) 841, 1229 with ablative indicating extent of time 842 ante (preposition) in calendar expressions 841 to mark direction and goal adjuncts 812 to mark position in time adjuncts 840 antecedent II.474; see head (of adnominal relative clause) antecedent (protasis) II.315; see conditional periods antequam clauses II.265 ante . . . quam as comparative expression II.717 ante . . . quam in accusative and infinitive clause II.191 use of moods in 638 use of tenses in 611 anteriority, expression of 383 in imperative clauses II.139 in secondary predicates II.778, 811 with perfect participles II.792 in time clauses II.242, 257 anticausative 275; see passive voice: autocausative passives anticipation as form of interlacing II.39 of constituent of subordinate clause in main clause II.1153 ‘anticipation’ of case form of extraclausal constituents II.852; see also theme constituents anticipatory, see proleptic antonyms, occurring in similar constructions 109, 110, 118, 140, 146, 622, 1191

—.ăuztxzŪ figura coordinated nouns sharing a modifier 1275 reduction of preposition from the first conjoin II.604 reduction of preposition with relative pronoun II.605 use of neque II.637 apodosis II.315; see also conditional periods apparet, with nominative and infinitive construction II.200 apposition 1053–74 agreement of relative pronoun with 1283 agreement of verb with subject modified by 1259 attributive apposition 1055 autonomous relative clause as II.514, 524, 551 clausal apposition 1053, 1070, II.551 distinguished from tail constituents II.858 compared with genitive of definition 1023 co-occurring with relative clause II.526 distinguished from adjective or noun as secondary predicate II.818 distinguished from epitactic coordination II.698 distinguished from tail constituents II.857 distributive apposition 1067 explicative apposition 1055 modified by adverbs 1037 nominal apposition 1053, 1054–66 non-referring noun phrase as 1117 non-restrictive apposition 1055, 1061 of noun phrase with first person subject 738 partitive apposition of measure expressions 1069 position of preposition in restrictive apposition II.1119 restrictive apposition 1055, 1056 with toponyms 1058, 1260 terminology for 1056 to forms of address 1068 to unexpressed first and second person subjects 1068 ‘appositive’ nouns II.790 ‘appositive’ quod clauses II.74 ‘appositive’ relative clauses II.474, 484 approaching, verbs of 104, 1192 apte, with gerundial clause II.436 aptus, with relative clause as argument II.533 aquae ductus, as expression with fixed order II.1087 arbitror, in answers to questions 373 arceo, with dative beneficiary adjunct 894 argument clauses II.11, 52, 56 as subject or object II.53 as subject of an ablative absolute clause II.399 distinguished from satellite clauses II.11 finite clauses II.56 declarative clauses II.57 exclamatory clauses II.155 imperative clauses II.126 interrogative clauses II.105

1366

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words

argument clauses (cont.) governed by adjectives II.459 governed by nouns II.436 governed by prepositions II.56 governed by verbs II.52 non-finite clauses accusative and infinitive clauses II.157 gerundial clauses II.224 gerundival clauses II.229 nominal (verbless) clauses II.234 participial clauses II.220 prolative infinitive clauses II.204 relative order with respect to main clause II.1049 use of indirect reflexive pronoun and possessive adjective in 1126, 1130 use of moods in 621, II.57 use of tenses in 566 with neuter singular adjectives as subject or object complement II.53 with nouns as subject or object complement II.52 with support verbs II.52 argumentative discourse mode II.1141 argumentative texts, see text types arguments 11, 24, 72, 736–87, 797, 1176–98; see also argument clauses addressee arguments 27, 143, 1192 adnominal arguments 44, 966, 1037–47, 1190, 1204, II.11; see also adnominal arguments agent arguments 26; see also agent arguments associative arguments 27, 119, 121, 161, 227 autonomous relative clauses as II.514, 532 cause arguments 27, 245 compound arguments II.596 diachronic developments in marking of 1238 direction and goal arguments 28, 124, 142, 175, 176, 178 experiencer arguments 27, 116, 132 of adjectives, see valency: of adjectives of nouns, see adnominal arguments; valency: of nouns of verbs; see also valency: of verbs first arguments 81, 100, 139, 1181, 1186 second arguments 100, 139, 1181 use of cases and prepositions to mark 1189–95 third arguments 139, 1181 use of cases and prepositions to mark 1195 patient arguments 27 place arguments 28 position of II.1006, 1021, 1091 recipient arguments 27, 141, 142, 1192 source arguments 28, 125, 178, 1196 statistical data on frequency 1181 arguo, as two- and three-place verb II.216 asking, verbs of 164, 165, 1185 performative use of 354, 630 with simple subjunctive clause II.150

aspect 380 distinguished from Aktionsart 380 perfective aspect of perfect tense 444 assentio/assentior 283 assertion (illocutionary force) 308, 309 asseverative expressions 375, 427, 676, 677; see also swear words assimilation (back agreement) 1278 assimilation of moods 667, 669 associative adjuncts 28, 897 associative anaphora or subtopic II.832 associative arguments 27, 119, 121, 161 with adjectives 227 associative (semantic function) 27 ast II.326, 1172, 1174 asyndetic connexion of sentences II.1139, 1163 asyndetic coordination II.585, 606–20 adversative interpretation of II.611 combined with syndetic coordination II.649 disjunctive interpretation of II.613, 614 distinguished from apposition 1056 multiple asyndetic coordination II.613, 617 of arguments and satellites II.614 of clauses II.609 of constituents at adjective phrase level II.620 of modifiers at noun phrase level II.619 of nouns in prepositional phrases II.620 of proper names II.616 of subject constituents 1249 of verbs sharing subject or object II.611 with anaphora (repetition) II.609 asyndeton II.606 asyndeton causale or explicativum II.1163 asyndeton sollemne II.614, 617 concessive/adversative asyndeton II.1221 interpreted as conclusion or summary (asyndeton summativum) II.1222 interpreted as consequence or result II.1221 statistical data on frequency II.1163 at II.1172 as connector 12, 33, 68, II.1175 combined with saltem II.888 in combination at enim or at vero II. 1176 as coordinator at noun phrase level II.681 as correlative expression with concessive clause II.356 with conditional si clause II.319, 326, 336 with ut clause with concessive interpretation II.375 as non-mobile word II.956 position of II.973 atque, see ac/atque atqui as connector II.1172, 1176 position of II.973 atquin II.1176; see atqui attendant circumstances and weather conditions, adjuncts of 854 attitudinal adverbs 309; see also disjuncts: attitudinal disjuncts

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words 1367 attitudinal disjuncts 923; see also disjuncts: attitudinal disjuncts attraction distinguished from autonomous relative clause with relative phrase II.490, 504 inverse attraction (attractio inversa) II.483, 490 of infinitive to match perfect tense of governing verb 540 of moods 667, 669 of pronouns to agree with subject or object complement 1278 of verb to agree with subject complement 1261 progressive attraction (attractio relativi) II.489 attributes 17, 965–1047 adjectival attributes compared with secondary predicates in poetry II.786 agreeing attributes compared with genitives II.1085 argument or satellite clauses at noun phrase level II.436 autonomous relative clauses as II.514 distinguished from adnominal arguments 965 genitives anteposed before prepositions II.1117 modified by adverbs 1037 position of adjectival attributes II.1062 position of genitival attributes II.1084, 1095 relative clause as II.474, 478 audeo, sigmatic subjunctive ausim 491 audio, with subject complement 209 aut as connector II.583, 1171 as coordinator 68, II.586, 658, 676 conjunctive interpretation II.679 correlative aut . . . aut II.586, 668 with locally negated constituents 691 as substitute for vel in comparisons of non-equivalence II.728 autem as connector II.1172 co-occuring with sed and tum II.1177 in parenthetical sentences II.911 in combination sin autem II.330 position of II.973 causing discontinuity II.1101, 1123 authorial perfect (statement) use 409, 416, 425, 552 autocausative passives, see passive voice autonomous relative clauses II.474, 501–55 as apposition II.524, 551, 554 as argument with two-place adjectives II.532 as qualified truth disjunct II.519, 520 as secondary predicate II.522, 806 sequence of tenses in II.537 with subjunctive mood II.549 as space or time adjunct II.521 as subject of ablative absolute clause II.398, 526 as substitute for deverbal noun II.502 at adjective or noun phrase level II.514, 523, 532 complex clauses II.527 co-occurring with adnominal relative clause II.476 co-occurring with ipse II.513 co-occurring with talis and eiusmodi II.535

definite and indefinite clauses II.505 determiners of II.505, 507, 510, 512, 515; see also determiners (of autonomous relative clauses) functioning as address II.519 generic clauses II.511, 550 in cleft constructions II.846 indefinite clauses II.568 resembling theme constituents II.504 syntactic functions of II.514 as indirect object 763 as subject of clause 744 use of indirect reflexive pronoun and possessive adjective in 1126, 1130 use of moods II.547, 550 with adjectives modified by tam and tantus II.534 with comparative constituent containing quam II.536 with cum as time adverb II.245 with partitive genitive 1005 with relative space adverbs II.577, 578; see also space clauses with relative word or phrase II.501, 502 with res II.509 with resumptive expressions II.504, 506, 515 repetition of noun II.528, 532 with sum + relative phrase in ablative or genitive of quality II.553 with sum + subject complement II.553 auxiliary phrase 211 auxiliary verbs 210–15 distinguished from full verbs 210 habitual, modal, and phasal verbs II.219 order of infinitive and auxiliary II.1126 with infinitive distinguished from prolative infinitive clause II.23 with passive infinitives 254 back agreement 1278 basis of comparison II.717 befalling, verbs of with a dative 104, 1192 with ut clause 624, II.83 begging, verbs of with imperative clause II.133 with prolative infinitive clause II.205 bene est 785 beneficiary adjuncts 28, 129, 141, 892–7, 1192 compared with (ethic) dative illocutionary disjuncts 931 compared with sympathetic dative 923 beneficiary arguments, of adjectives 218 beneficiary (semantic function) 28 beneficio (as preposition) 912 Bible translations; see also Greek influence (probable or proposed) accusative and infinitive clauses with facio II.159 adverbs as modifiers of nouns 1036 competitors to simple future 436 compound verbs with double accusative 171

1368

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words

Bible translations (cont.) concrete nouns with gerundi(v)al clauses II.454 eo and do with purpose infinitival clause II.385 genitive of description without attribute 1003 gerund and infinitive as adnominal argument clause II.450 ‘gnomic’ use of the perfect 450 ille to translate a definite article 1148 mox used as subordinator II.264 pleonastic use of magis with comparatives II.743 pluo used as two-place verb 194 postposition of degree modifiers II.1083 present participle in ablative absolute clause II.388 propter quod used as complex subordinator II.288 pseudo-object in proleptic construction 759 quod and quia clauses with verbs of perception, cognition, and communication II.64, 77, 202 quoniam clauses with verbs of perception, cognition, and communication II.79 use of ab prepositional phrase with comparatives II.734 use of future indicative with directive force 429 bibo, valency of 78 binary quantifiers 989 biographies 451 bitransitivization 172 bivalent, see verbs: two-place verbs blaming, verbs of with accusative and infinitive clause II.170 with cum clause II.80 with nominative and infinitive construction II.197 with quia clause II.78 with quod clause II.66 with tamquam and quasi clause II.104 brachylogy as form of clausal coordination II.590; see also conjunction reduction in ut argument clauses II.82 cadit, with quod clause II.72 calendar expressions 841 agreement with 1265 calling, verbs of 191 capio as support verb 75 consilium capio with a prolative infinitive clause II.449 caput est, with ut clause II.82 caring and their opposites, verbs of 104, 1192 carus, with sum and price adjunct 881 case 35, 1176 cases and prepositions as system 1176–1242 contribution to meaning of clauses and phrases 1177 diachronic developments of 1236 relationship with prepositions 1231 choice between bare case and preposition 1233

relationship with preverbs 1234 statistical data on frequency 1179–85 casus obliqui 1209 casus recti 1209 cataphoric expressions, see preparative (cataphoric) expressions causa (noun); see also ob eam causam as head of adnominal relative clauses II.580 causa est ut/ne II.143 with interrogative clause II.445 causa (preposition) 1202, 1233 position of II.1088 to mark purpose adjuncts 907 gerundial purpose adjuncts II.406 to mark reason adjuncts 911 gerundial reason adjuncts II.412 causal clauses, see reason (causal) clauses ‘causal conjunctions’ II.1165, 1193 ‘causal’ relative clauses II.539 causation, verbs of 567, 624 with accusative and infinitive clause II.159 with imperative clause II.129, 142 with prolative infinitive clause II.211 causative constructions 282 cause adjuncts 28, 90, 91, 245, 247, 902–5 compared with norm adjuncts 872 compared with purpose adjuncts 903 compared with reason adjuncts 902, 909 compared with respect adjuncts 914 compared with secondary predicates 903 distinguished from agent adjuncts 902 cause arguments 27 in passive clauses 245 cause expressions modifying adjectives 1078 cause (semantic function) 27 caveo cave functioning as negator II.152 metadirective cave 349, 351 compared with other directive expressions 513 metadirective caveto ne 519 with dative or accusative 129 with simple subjunctive clause II.152 censeo censesne as parenthesis II.919 in answers to questions 373 with accusative and infinitive clause II.172 certe 309, 348, 575, 680, 924 as correlative expression with concessive clause II.363 with conditional clause II.326 with etiamsi II.372 co-occurring with disjunctive coordinators II.679 in answers to questions 373 in questions 319 used as emphasizing particle II.890–1 ceterum as connector II.1172, 1181–4 as coordinator II.680, 685 used as respect adjunct II.1183 ceterus 981, 1051 with partitive genitive 1008

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words 1369 ceu (subordinator) introducing conditional comparative clauses II.349 introducing manner clauses II.270 change (feature of state of affairs) 22 changing, verbs of 151 chiasmus II.963 cingor 265 circa/circum (adverb) 1229 circa/circum (preposition) to mark position in space adjuncts 806 to mark position in time adjuncts 837 circiter (preposition) to mark direction and goal adjuncts 812 to mark position in space adjuncts 806 cis/citra (preposition) to mark direction and goal adjuncts 812 to mark position in space adjuncts 806 to mark position in time adjuncts 837 citius, combined with quam (corrective use) II.749 citra (adverb) 1229 clam (adverb) 869, 1229 clausal apposition 1053, 1070, II.551 clause 11, II.1002; see also subordinate clauses complex clauses 13, II.1, 9, 583 compound clauses II.2, 583, 584 hierarchical structure of 25 main and superordinate clause II.2 multiple clauses 14 subordinate clauses II.2 clause combining II.1, 9, 504, 583 clause negation 672 ‘clauses of comparison’ (with quam) II.717 clausulae 197, 517, II.960, 966 as rhythmic ending II.970 use of atque in II.628 with verbal hyperbaton II.1104 cleft constructions 31, 342, II.846 magis est ut II.91 time adjuncts used in 842 clitics 17, 69, II.976 as non-mobile words II.956 causing discontinuity of prepositional phrases II.1120 distinguished from words 17 enclitics 69 forms of sum as II.992 personal pronouns as II.989 position of II.983, 995 proclitics 67 clueo with infinitival construction II.200 with subject complement 209 coepi relative order of auxiliary and infinitive II.1128 with infinitives II.219 passive infinitives 254 cogito, with indirect question II.106 cognate objects 86 with one-place verbs 86 with two-place verbs 102 with verbs governing a non-accusative object 103

cognition, adjectives of with accusative and infinitive clause II.463 with finite argument clause II.460 with gerundival clause II.468 with prolative infinitive clause II.464 cognition, nouns of with accusative and infinitive clause II.448 with tamquam or quasi clause II.443 cognition, verbs of II.9 as parentheses II.917 in answers to questions 373, 375 in perfect passive participle with habeo 479 use of moods in argument clauses 627 use of tenses in argument clauses 567, 591 with accusative and infinitive clause 620, II.17, 162, 172 in Late Latin II.203 with imperative clause II.141 with indirect question II.107 with infinitival construction II.200 with nē in pseudo-indirect question II.117 with nominative and infinitive construction II.194 with present infinitive 525 with pseudo-object 759 with quia clause II.77 with quin clause 705, II.98 with quod clause II.63 with quomodo or quemadmodum clause II.80 with quoniam clause II.79 with ut clause II.92 cognomen, agreement with 1276 cogo with finite imperative clause II.137 with prolative infinitive clause II.208 coherence, see discourse coherence colon (membrum) 16, II.45 as syntactic unit (Fraenkel’s definition) II.969 position of personal pronouns and forms of sum II.985 comitative adjuncts 28, 897 comma (incisum) II.45, 969 commanding, verbs of with imperative clause II.131 with prolative infinitive clause II.204 commands 349–58; see also imperative sentences commands and prohibitions of the past 503 containing metadirectives 351 containing parenthetic inquam 355 directive expressions compared 512 modulation of 350 of non-controlled states of affairs 356 responses to commands and prohibitions 376 statistical data on frequency 513 use of subject pronoun with 353, 740 use of tenses in subordinate clauses after main clause containing a command 562 with future imperative 351, 517 with present imperative 351, 514 with so-called jussive infinitive 358 with subjunctive 351 committo, with ut clause II.93

1370

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words

communication, nouns of with accusative and infinitive clause II.435 with tamquam or quasi clause II.443 communication, verbs of 166 as parentheses II.917 as three-place verbs 763 use of moods in argument clauses 627 use of tenses in argument clauses 591 with accusative and infinitive clause II.17, 157, 162, 166, 194 in Late Latin II.213 with addressee or direction arguments 143, 166, 1192, 1195 with declarative or imperative clause II.131 with goal adjuncts 808 with indirect question II.106, 107, 113, 122 with infinitival construction II.200 with nominative and infinitive construction II.194 with present infinitive 525 with pseudo-object 759 with quia clause II.77 with quin clause 705, II.98 with quod clause II.63 with quoniam clause II.79 with tamquam or quasi clause II.104 with ut clause II.92 communicative function, see illocutionary force communicative purpose 33 communicative situation 379 comparative clauses; see also comparative constructions agreement of verb with subject of 1263 discussion of terminology II.718 formal ambiguity with interrogative clauses (indirect questions) 633 use of indirect reflexive pronoun and possessive adjective in 1127 use of moods in 664 comparative clauses of manner, see manner clauses; degree clauses comparative conditional clauses, see conditional comparative clauses, with tamquam and quasi ‘comparative conditional’ clauses (quanto . . . tanto) II.766; see also proportional comparative pattern comparative constructions II.3, 717 agreement of verb with subject in 1263 as obligatory constituents (ante . . . quam) II.717 comparative element II.717 coordinated with relative clauses II.545 ‘double comparison’ II.733 negated by implication 733, II.727 negated comparative expressions (non minus quam) II.725 of (non-)equivalence with quam 733, II.718, 727 purpose clauses with quo as II.304 reduction of shared elements II.721 use of ac/atque and et II.729

use of moods in 664–6 use of quo instead of quam II.728 with comparative element containing quam (maior quam) 1075 and autonomous relative clause II.536 and ut clause II.462 with magis quam II.749 with potius quam 664, II.749 ‘comparative correlative’ II.766; see also proportional comparative pattern comparison; see also comparison, degrees of ablative of comparison II.729, 759 ac/atque and et in expressions of (dis) similarity II.753, 754, 755 ac/atque and et with comparatives II.729 adjectives of amount and longe II.761 comparative expressions of quality II.762, 763 discussion of terminology II.718 double comparison II.733 equivalence and non-equivalence II.716–51 expressions of measure of difference II.739 expressions of quantity and extent of space or time II.735 magis and plus + adjective or adverb II.726 magis/minus quam II.747 manner adverbs and conditional comparative subordinators II.760 negation II.725, 746 nisi clauses II.761 preposition ab II.761 proportional comparative pattern II.766 proportional superlative pattern II.770 quam in expressions of (dis)similarity II.756 -que in expressions of (dis)similarity II.756 quo as ablative of comparison II.728 similarity and dissimilarity II.752–62 tam . . . quam II.745 types of II.715 use of dative, genitive, ab, and prae in basis of comparison II.733 use of quisquam, ullus, and aut as substitutes for negative words II.727 ut clauses and phrases II.762, 763 with ut(i), sicut(i), quemadmodum, and quomodo II.758 ‘comparison, clauses of ’ II.3, 271; see also manner clauses; degree clauses comparison, degrees of 46; see also comparison absolute (‘elative’) use of comparatives 47, II.725, 772 absolute (‘elative’) use of superlatives 47, II.773 age expressions with maior and minor annos/ annis natus II.737 comparatives + quam II.724, 727, 748 comparatives + quam . . . tam II.769 constraints on formation of comparative forms II.726 constraints on formation of superlative forms II.773 superlatives with quam . . . tam II.771 with magis (pleonastic) II.743

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words 1371 ‘complement’ clauses II.52; see argument clauses ‘complementary infinitive’, see prolative infinitive clauses complements, see arguments; object complements; subject complements problems of terminology 30 complex clauses 13 complex sentences II.2, 45, 972, 1147 coreferentiality of constituents of subordinate clauses 1124 order of clauses in II.1047–8, 1062 use of tenses in 552, 564, 582 zero-anaphora 757 complex subordinators II.15, 378–83 causal expression + quod II.287 preposition directly combined with quod II.381 prepositional expressions + quod or quia II.378 prepositional expressions + ut II.382 pro eo quod II.292 pronominal support (cum eo) distinguished from preparative pronoun II.378 with indirect question (ex eo quomodo) II.383 complex verb forms 51 agreement of the nominal part 1245, II.16 auxiliary sum in 197–200 position of -que and -ve II.998 relative order of components II.1026, 1122–5 complexity, increase of within a sentence II.45 compound clauses 14, II.584 compound sentences II.2, 585, 606, 610 compound subjects 1244, 1246–58 compound verbs 141, 1185 preverbs 1228 separation of components (tmesis) II.1132 use of cases and prepositions with 1234 concealing, verbs of 168 concedo, with prolative infinitive clause II.207 concessions, as imperative sentences with concessive illocutionary force 348, 360 internal word order II.1036 use of subjunctive in 509 concessive clauses II.354–77 as adjuncts II.354, 360 distribution of subordinators formed with si II.369 so-called concessive conditional clauses II.358 with etiamsi II.371 with etsi II.370 with licet 663, II.373 with quamquam 663, II.365 with quamvis 662, II.366 with tamenetsi II.373 with tametsi II.371 as disjuncts attitudinal disjuncts II.362 illocutionary disjuncts II.364 frequency and distribution of subordinators II.354, 355, 365 use of moods in 662 use of tenses in 566, 578

with historic present 607 concessive illocutionary force 348, 360 concessive interpretation of relative clauses II.570 of time clauses II.243 of ut clauses II.375 conclusion, of conversations or letters II.1229 concord, see agreement condemno, with quod or quia clause II.68 conditional clauses II.314–54; see also conditional periods as adjuncts II.314 adversative/concessive interpretation of conditional clauses II.336 alternative conditional clauses with correlative sive/seu II.346 alternative conditional clauses with si . . . sive/ seu II.348 alternative conditions with sīn or si(n) minus II.330 as second term of comparison of (dis) similarity II.753 causal interpretation of conditional clauses II.337 combined with tam . . . quam II.745 conditional interpretation of time clauses II.243 coordinated by sive/seu II.665 coordinated by -ve II.662 correlative expressions in main clause II.325 ‘elliptical’ si clauses II.332 idiomatic expressions with pignus do/ accipio II.334 multiple si clauses II.331 ni/nisi de rupture clauses II.341 nisi clauses of exception II.350 position of si clauses II.327 ‘purpose’ si clauses II.333, 334 si clauses contrasted with time cum clauses II.314 temporal interpretation of si clauses II.339 with consecutive particle as correlative expression II.328 with etiam si II.371 with ni II.317 with nisi II.317, 320 with si II.314, 322 with si minus II.321 with si non II.319 without main clause II.329 as disjuncts attitudinal disjuncts II.343 illocutionary disjuncts II.333, 345 with siquidem II.338 distinguished from si argument clauses II.101, 102 forms of negation and their distribution II.316 position with respect to main clause II.1050 use of moods in 654–61 conditional comparative clauses, with tamquam and quasi II.348

1372

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words

conditional periods (sentences) II.315 abbreviated periods II.332 alternative conditions with sive II.331 choice between potential and counterfactual subjunctive 655 condensed protasis or apodosis II.329 conditional interpretation of a constituent II.329 counterfactual conditions 494–7, 654, 660 potential conditions 484, 488, 491, 654, 658 ‘predictive use’ for logical reasoning II.328 real conditions 654 tenses and moods in apodosis 484, 654–61 future imperative 518 imperative clauses as apodosis 657 imperfect subjunctive (counterfactual use) 495 imperfect subjunctive (past potential use) 488 indicative tenses 660 interrogative clauses as apodosis 657 perfect subjunctive 491 pluperfect subjunctive 495, 496 present indicative 401 present subjunctive 484 tenses and moods in protasis 654–61 future indicative 401 future perfect indicative 401 imperfect subjunctive (counterfactual use) 495 imperfect subjunctive (past potential use) 488 perfect subjunctive 491 pluperfect subjunctive 495, 496 present indicative 401 present subjunctive 484, 659 congratulating, verbs of with accusative and infinitive clause II.170 with cum clause II.80 with nominative and infinitive construction II.197 with quia clause II.78 with quod clause II.66 coniunctivus (modus) 56, 387, 481 adhortativus 497 concessivus 509 exhortativus 497 irrealis 388, 494, 654, II.315 iussivus 497 potentialis 388, 482, 654, II.315 realis 388, 654, II.315 volitivus 388 conjoin (coordinated unit) II.584 conjugation 53 conjunction (clause combining) II.2, 583; see also coordination conjunction reduction II.589, 721 in multiple questions 339 in second conjoin in adversative coordination II.683 of head noun 1277 of object 757, II.592, 611, 613

verbs with different case patterns II.593 of preposition in coordinated phrases II.600 of preposition in the first conjoin II.604 of subject 749, II.591, 610, 611 of third argument or satellite II.595 of verb 1253 conjunction (word class), see coordinators; subordinators conjunctive (copulative) coordination II.620; see also coordination; syndetic coordination; coordinators: conjunctive (copulative) coordinators agreement with coordinated subjects 1249 conjunctive epitactic coordination II.693 correlative coordination II.638 emphatic et . . . et and neque . . . neque 1252 multiple coordination II.649 semantic relationship between conjoins II.653, 655 connective adverbs deinde, tum, post, primo, and postremo II.1216 distinguished from connectors and interactional particles II.1165 tunc, nunc, interea, and denique II.1217 connective relative pronouns as part of ablative absolute clause II.555, 556, 560 as part of accusative and infinitive clause II.559 preceding subordinators II.556 quod(si) II.1174 connective relative sentences II.555 compared with et + is II.555 distinguished from relative clauses as apposition II.525 imperative or interrogative sentences II.559 in the accusative and infinitive II.189 with repetition of noun II.1147 connectors 12, 33, 68, II.1165; see also individual connectors; particles: interactional particles; connective adverbs adversative connectors II.1172–93 adverb contra II.1188 adverb nihilominus II.1189 adverb tamen II.1188 adverb/connector vero II.1190 ast II.1174 at II.1175 atqui II.1176 autem II.1177 ceterum II.1181 sed II.1184 verum II.1187 as means of discourse coherence II.1143 as non-mobile words II.955 causing discontinuity II.1101 conjunctive (copulative) connectors II.1166–71 ac/atque II.1167 et II.1168 nec/neque II.1170 -que II.1166 connecting paragraphs II.1224

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words 1373 consecutive connectors II.1208–16 igitur II.1209 itaque II.1212 pleonastic combinations ergo igitur or itaque propterea II.1208 statistical data on frequency II.1209 contrastive connectors etsi, tametsi, and quamquam II.356, 1191 disjunctive (alternative) connectors aut II.1171 explanatory and justificatory connectors II.1193–1208 etenim II.1198 nam II.1194 namque II.1197 quippe II.1199 statistical data on frequency II.1194 placement in first or second sentence position II.973–6 to mark the relation between main clause and subordinate clause II.39 connexion of sentences II.1162; see also connectors asyndetic connexion II.1163 adversative relation II.1220 enumerative and continuative relation II.1218 explanatory and justificatory relation II.1222 distinguished from coordination of clauses II.583, 1164 syndetic connexion II.1164–1216 adversative connexion II.1172 conjunctive connexion II.1166 consecutive connexion II.1208 disjunctive connexion II.1171 explanatory and justificatory connexion II.1193 sequential connexion II.1216 conqueror with accusative and infinitive clause II.162 with quod clause 626, II.62 consecutio temporum 555; see also sequence of tenses consecutive clauses, see result (consecutive) clauses ‘consecutive’ noun clauses 623, 625, II.81 ‘consecutive’ relative clauses II.479, 533, 537, 548 ‘consecutive’ ut clauses with dignus II.462 consequent (apodosis) II.315; see conditional periods constat, with nominative and infinitive construction II.200 constituent questions, see interrogative sentences constituent scope 318 constituents 19 constructio ad sensum/sententiam 1287; see also agreement: notional agreement consulo with dative beneficiary adjunct 893 with dative or accusative 129 contamination 134, 171, 184, 304, 1007, 1010

contingency adjuncts 899–913; see also cause adjuncts; agent adjuncts; continuity of perspective, in choice between active and passive 252 contra (adverb) 1229 as connective adverb II.1172, 1188 as expression of dissimilarity II.752 as position in space adjunct 808 contra (preposition) to mark beneficiary adjuncts 897 to mark direction and goal adjuncts 812 to mark position in space adjuncts 806 to mark price adjuncts 885 contraction (prodelision), of est and es II.993 contrast II.859, 859–62, 951, 1098 control (feature of state of affairs) 22, 349, 538 as explanation for non-accusative objects 1190 in imperative sentences 23, 356, 359 in ‘purpose’ si clauses II.333 in purpose ut clauses II.42, 302 in pseudo-indirect questions with nē II.1177 in sentences with passive imperative 520 in ut argument clauses II.42, 127 influencing choice of indirect reflexive pronoun 1124 with beneficiary adjuncts 23 with manner adjuncts 23, 860, 1201 with means and instrument adjuncts 23 with passive verbs 239 convenio impersonal convenit with perfect infinitive by attraction 540 with dative or accusative 129 conventional reduction of arguments 77, 80, 98, 756 converbs II.777; see secondary predicates convertible verbs 231 statistical frequency of active and passive forms 235 convicting, verbs of with infinitive II.216 with quod clause II.66 coordination 14, 68, II.2, 583; see also asyndetic coordination; syndetic coordination; connexion of sentences adversative coordination 713, 716, II.680 agreement of verb with compound subject 1249 as a test to distinguish types of adjuncts 799 conjunction reduction II.589; see also conjunction reduction conjunctive coordination 713, 715, II.620 correlative coordination II.586, 638, 668, 686 discontinuity of coordinated constituents II.1129 disjunctive coordination 713, 716, II.657 epitactic coordination II.691, 698 hendiadys II.713 hierarchical ordering of sequences of conjoins II.689 hysteron proteron II.710 multiple coordination II.586 conjunctive coordination II.649, 650

1374

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words

coordination (cont.) disjunctive coordination II.676 mixed coordination II.651, 678 of adjectives 45, 993 adjective of amount and descriptive adjective 982 of adjuncts 797 of clauses and constituents II.584 of clauses, compared with connexion of sentences II.583, 1164 of complex noun phrases II.1093 of conjoins with different functions II.707 of constituents at different clause levels II.709 of constituents of different categories II.704, 705, 706 of events within a single time clause 616 of locally negated constituents 688 of negative declarative clauses 713 of negative imperative clauses 717 of negative interrogative sentences 340 of nouns or noun phrases agreement of modifiers with 1273 agreement of pronouns with 1284 of prepositions governing same noun 1228 of subordinate clauses alternative conditional si clauses with correlative sive/seu II.346 imperative argument clauses II.127 multiple relative clauses attached to one head II.498 with anaphoric pronoun instead of second relative pronoun II.565 ne clauses with verbs of fearing and worrying II.94 negative purpose clauses II.300 negative result clauses II.312 syndetic and asyndetic coordination II.585 types of II.587 use of cum resembling a comitative coordinator 899, II.656 zeugma II.711 coordinators 14, 68, II.584; see also individual coordinators; quasi-coordinators; connectors adversative coordinators II.586, 680–9 ceterum II.685 sed II.682, 696 verum II.684 conjunctive (copulative) coordinators II.586, 620–49 ac/atque II.628 disjunctive or adversative interpretation II.654 ‘epexegetic’ (explicative) interpretation II.655 et II.632 nec/neque II.637 -que II.624 disjunctive (alternative) coordinators II.586, 657–76 an (anne) II.667 aut II.658 conjunctive interpretation II.679

sive/seu II.655 -ve II.662 vel II.660 in expressions of (dis)similarity II.754 semantic classes of II.586 simple and correlative uses II.586 statistical data on frequency and distribution II.622 copia, with gerundial clause II.456 copular verbs 204–10, 765–87 copulative coordinators, see coordinators: conjunctive (copulative) coordinators coram (adverb) 1229 coram (preposition) 806 core 11, 19, 25 coreferentiality at phrase level 1129, 1130, 1132 clause-internal and clause-external 1128 of agents of infinitives II.209, 216, 385 of constituent of subordinate clause 1124–7, 1131–2 of first argument of gerundial clause II.24 of pronouns in adnominal relative clauses II.474, 477 of reflexive pronouns and adjectives 132, 979, 1120–5 of subject of ablative absolute with argument of main clause II.431 of subject of accusative and infinitive clause II.17, 64 of subject of finite imperative clause II.139 with ‘logical’ subject 1130 with non-subject 1133–5 ‘correlation’, as combination of relative and resumptive expressions II.504, 574 correlative coordination II.586 as indicator of focality II.844 conjunctive coordination II.638 correlative use of adversative coordinators II.686 disjunctive coordination II.668 of prepositional phrases with repetition or reduction of preposition II.602 correlative expressions II.31 in subordinate and superordinate clauses II.31 with conditional si clause II.326 with dum clause II.251 with manner clause II.271 with purpose clause II.298 with quando time clause II.249 with quoniam clause II.291 with reason clause II.283, 287 with stipulative clause II.306 with subordinators of satellite clauses II.238 counterfactual, see subjunctive mood: counterfactual use crassus 228 crebro 852 credo as parenthesis II.9, 918 compared with qualified truth disjuncts 926 cuias 336

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words 1375 cum clauses as arguments II.80 as alternative to quod clauses II.67 with verbs of emotion II.80, 245 with verbs of happening II.73 with verbs of praising, blaming, congratulating, and thanking II.80 as satellites as attitudinal or illocutionary disjunct II.268 combined with idcirco, ideo, and propterea 912 cum identicum 611, 613, 641, 643 cum narrativum 611, 613, 641, 643 cum temporale 611, 613, 641, 643 inverse cum clauses (cum inversum) 420, 457, 605, 608, II.244, 245, 622 with historic infinitive 608 with historic present 605 time clauses 611, 641, II.243–5 comparable with participles or relative clauses fuctioning as secondary predicates 643, II.807 compared with time ubi, simulac, and postquam clauses 613 contrasted with conditional si clauses II.314 with anterior meaning 613, II.257 with causal interpretation 578, 644, II.266 with concessive interpretation 578, II.269 with habitual or iterative meaning 611 with simultaneous meaning 613, II.243 use of moods in 641, 644 use of tenses in 589 with historic present 605 cum eo quod (complex subordinator) II.379 cum eo tamen, with quod, ut, or ne as equivalent to stipulative clauses II.308 cum inversum clauses 420, 457, 605, 608, II.244, 245, 622 cum (preposition) as alternative to et and ac/atque with associative expressions II.656 in postposition II.1109 in result expressions 163 to mark accompanying circumstance adjuncts 901 to mark arguments of adjectives 227 to mark associative adjuncts 897 to mark associative arguments 119, 144, 151, 161 to mark manner adjuncts 866 to mark means and instrument adjuncts 878 to mark optional attributes of nouns 898, 1030 compared with ablative of description 1031 to mark position in space adjuncts 806 to mark position in time adjuncts 837 to mark subject complements 786 with relative clause as associative adjunct II.520 with verbs of changing 151 -cumque compounds introducing relative clauses II.472 tmesis of II.1133

cum (relative adverb) II.43, 245 introducing clauses with extent of time adjunct + sum II.848 introducing relative clauses II.43, 575, 579 cum (subordinator) 68 combined with praesertim II.266, 269 in combination cum primum II.258 in combination quippe or utpote cum II.266 introducing argument clauses II.80 introducing reason clauses II.284 introducing time clauses II.243 cum . . . tum as correlative quasi-coordinator II.701 combined with praecipue II.897 cunctus 804, 985 co-occurring with a determiner 971 substantival use 1172 cupido 22, 1039 cupidus 22, 215, 222, 1039 with gerundival clause II.435 cupio 21, 215 with dative or accusative 129 cur 336 introducing reason clauses II.285 introducing relative clauses II.575, 580 curo in imperative used as metadirective 351 with gerundial clause II.226 with gerundival clause II.231 with imperative clause II.140 with object and gerundive as secondary predicate II.799 curses, see swear words cursus, as rhythmic ending II.966, 971 with verbal hyperbaton II.1104 damno 157 with quod or quia clause II.68 dating formulae 835, 841, 1229 dative case 1179, 1183, 1206, 1216–19 archaic forms of 1236 dativus auctoris 247, 269, 301, 1217 commodi/incommodi 892, 1192 ethicus 895, 931, 1203, II.928 finalis 778, 895, II.801 iudicantis 926, 1203, II.519 possessivus 107 sympatheticus 917, 919, 1217 double dative construction 780, II.800 ethic dative 931, 1203 ‘local’ dative, see below, to mark direction and goal adjuncts of advantage/disadvantage 141, 892, 1192 of agent 245, 248, 269, 296 of direction and limits of motion 813 of indirect object 29, 104–10, 138, 141, 162, 763, 1192, 1195 of interest 141, 892, 1192 of local standpoint 926, 1203 of person judging 926, 1203 of possessor 107, 301

1376

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words

dative case (cont.) of purpose 77, 186, 778, 780, 793, II.801 of reference 141, 892, 1192 of separation 106, 1191 possessive dative 107 predicative dative 778 as object complement 186, 793 as secondary predicate II.801 as subject complement 77, 778 with accusative and infinitive clause II.183 redundant use of sibi with suus or se 980, 1136 replaced by prepositional phrases with ad 1027 to mark addressee arguments (indirect object) 141, 763, 1192, 1195 to mark agent adjuncts in non-passive clauses 248 with prolative infinitive II.212 to mark agent arguments 245, 269 in gerundive + sum construction 296, 301 of adjectives in -bilis 248, 296 to mark associative arguments 120 to mark beneficiary adjuncts 141, 892, 1192 compared with illocutionary disjuncts (ethic dative) 931 compared with sympathetic dative 923 so-called dative of purpose with abstract nouns 895 to mark beneficiary arguments of adjectives 218 to mark direction and goal adjuncts 813 to mark illocutionary disjuncts (ethic dative) 931, 1203 with ecce II.928 with em and en II.930 to mark non-finite clauses 1218 to mark nouns as secondary predicate with verbs of giving or taking and going or sending II.800 to mark optional attributes of nouns 1027 to mark possessor 107, 301 compared with habeo 108 compared with possessive genitive 773, 1001 to mark qualified truth disjuncts 926, 1203, II.519 to mark recipient arguments (indirect object) 138, 141, 162, 763, 1192, 1195 to mark second arguments (dative objects) 29, 104–10, 1192 to mark subject complements 188 to mark sympathetic dative adjuncts 242, 919 compared with possessive genitive 921 with adjectives of helpfulness, interpersonal relations, and similarity and suitability 217 with adjectives of sharing and power 222 with comparatives II.733 with compound verbs 106, 1191 with ei II.932 with vae II.924, 936 with verbs copular verbs 110 judicial verbs 157 libet 110

of approaching and befalling 104, 1192 of asking 166 of communication 141, 184, 763, 1192, 1195 of difference 122 of helping, caring, and their opposites 104, 1192 of mixing 150 of motion 813 of pleasing, flattering, and threatening 104, 1192 of preparing 896 of ruling, obeying, and serving 104, 1192 of sacrificing and praying 185 of sending letters 142 of sprinkling 163 of supplying with 149 of surpassing 151 of transfer and giving 138, 140, 763, 813, 1192, 1195 de (preposition) de prepositional phrase as theme constituent 762, II.854 to mark arguments of adjectives 227 to mark arguments of verbs 123 to mark cause adjuncts 904 to mark instrument adjuncts 880 to mark manner adjuncts 868 to mark optional attributes of nouns 1030 to mark partitive attributes 1034, 1234 with numerals 1006 to mark position in time adjuncts 837 to mark respect adjuncts 917 to mark source adjuncts 818 to mark source arguments 126, 127 with facio and fio 153 with judicial verbs 154, 155 with verbs of communication 73 with verbs of concealing 168 with verbs of depriving 149 with verbs of descent or provenance 127 with verbs of reminding 160 deagentivization, forms of 253 debeo as auxiliary verb 212 compared with other directive expressions 298, 512 debeo + infinitive construction, as competitor of simple future 440 in passive 255 with infinitive II.219 with deductive meaning 427, 440 decausative passives, see passive voice decerno with accusative and infinitive clause II.172 with imperative clause II.144 decet used personally with infinitive II.201 with imperative clause II.149 deciding, verbs of with accusative and infinitive clause II.172 with imperative clause II.129, 144 with prolative infinitive clause II.211

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words 1377 declarative (finite subordinate) clauses II.9, 57 as alternative to accusative and infinitive clauses II.59 at adjective phrase level II.460 at noun phrase level II.440 with cum II.80 with ne II.94, 442 with quia II.76, 441 with quin II.96, 443 with quod II.59, 440 with quomodo and quemadmodum II.80 with quoniam II.79 with si II.100 with tamquam and quasi II.104, 443 with ut II.441 declarative sentences 16, 306, 308–14, 388 coordination of negative declarative sentences 713 declarative main clause as apodosis of condition 657 internal word order II.1003 negation of 675 use of subjunctive mood in 483, 490 with indirect directive illocutionary force 311, 513 with indirect interrogative illocutionary force 310 declension 36, 42 of adjectives, see adjectives decrees 538 deductive modality 426, 427, 440 definite article absence of in Latin 1087 later development from ille 1149 later development from ipse 1149, 1162 definite noun phrases 1088–1101 degree adjuncts 885–92 degree clauses II.3, 278–9 degree expressions as correlative expressions with result clauses II.309 of dissimilarity II.761 of similarity with conditional comparative clause II.349 position of II.1081 degree of comparison 46; see also comparison, degrees of degree of truth disjuncts 924 dehinc 818 deictic use of demonstrative determiners 970, 1093 of demonstrative pronouns 1137 deinceps, causing discontinuity II.1102 deinde as connective adverb to mark sequence of events II.1216 as position in time adjunct 841 as source adjunct 818 co-occurring with ablative absolute clause II.392 deliberative questions with imperfect subjunctive 489

with present subjunctive 485 demanding, verbs of with accusative and infinitive clause II.175 with imperative clause II.134 demonstrative determiners 969–72 anaphoric use 1096 deictic use 1093 diachronic developments of 1146 exophoric use 1099 of head of adnominal relative clause II.480 position with respect to head noun II.1067 preparative (cataphoric) use 1098 with result clause II.309 statistical data on frequency 1148 to mark autonomous relative clause as definite II.505 demonstrative pronouns 1137–49 anaphoric use 1139 as topic II.832 grammatical agreement with preceding constituent 1282 notional agreement with preceding constituent 1295 as a word class 49 combined with relative pronoun in the same clause II.566 deictic use 1137 diachronic developments of 1146 exophoric use 1146 grammatical agreement with subject or object complement 1278 preparative (cataphoric) use 1145 resumptive use 1145 statistical data on frequency 1148 used as substitute for third person pronoun 1118 with partitive genitive 1005 demum combined with conditional si clause II.37 used as emphasizing particle II.902 denique II.904 as connective adverb to mark sequence of events II.1217 denuo 853 deontic (‘obligative’) value of gerundive 288–90, 294, 298–304, 435, 472 of habeo + infinitive 437, 439 deontic use of subjunctive mood 56, 388, 481, 497–510 in autonomous relative clauses II.548 in comparative constructions 664 in imperative clauses 619, 621–3, 629 in purpose (final) clauses 651 in relative clauses II.539 in stipulative clauses 652 deponent verbs 54, 234, 282–5 gerundives of deponent verbs 284 used with passive meaning 283 word order of complex forms with sum II.1122 depositio, to mark sense units II.967 depost 1229 depriving, verbs of 169, 1233

1378

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words

descent or provenance, expressions of 127 descriptive adjectives 45, 1047 combined with alius 947 desententialization II.9 deserving, verbs of with imperative clause II.129, 145 with prolative infinitive clause II.212 desino as auxiliary verb 210 more often in perfect than historic present 445 not with momentaneous states of affairs 24 with infinitives II.219 passive infinitives 254 desire, adjectives of 222 desiring, verbs of with accusative and infinitive clause II.171 with imperative clause II.129, 139 with prolative infinitive clause II.209 desisto, with gerundial clause II.227 despero, with dative beneficiary adjunct 893 determinative pronouns, as a word class 49; see also idem; ipse; is determiners 49, 969–74 anaphoric determiners 970, 1096 co-occurring with omnis, cunctus, or totus 971 demonstrative determiners, see demonstrative determiners indefinite determiners, see indefinite determiners interrogative determiners 336, 969, 974 modifying infinitives 943 modifying noun phrase with possessive adjective 976 relative determiners 969 unusual combinations of 969 determiners (of autonomous relative clauses) 1147, II.505, 551 distinguished from head of adnominal relative clauses II.510 governed by preposition II.520 idem II.510 is with anaphoric meaning II.507 omnis and pauci II.512 quidam and aliqui II.511 semantically empty is II.508 to mark syntactic function of relative clause II.515 to modify a relative phrase II.506, 513 determining, verbs of, with accusative and infinitive clause II.172 devenio, with perfect passive participle 258 deversorium, with gerundival clause II.453 di boni, as swear expression or exclamation II.921 di deaeque, as coordinated pair II.625 di immortales as expression with fixed order II.1079 as parenthesis II.909 as swear expression or exclamation II.921 di (obsecro) vostram fidem, as invocation of gods II.922 diathesis 233; see also voice dico in expression dixisse liceat 539

passive with nominative and infinitive construction II.194 to accompany tail constituents II.857 valency of 19, 71 with accusative and infinitive clause II.166 with finite imperative clause or accusative and infinitive clause II.126 didactic texts, see text types diegetic narrative mode 402, II.1143 dies in calendar expressions 841 repetition in relative clauses II.529 with gerundial clause II.452 difference, adjectives of 226 difference, verbs of 121 difficultas, with interrogative clause II.445 dignus 215, 221, 953 with prolative infinitive clause II.464 with relative clause as argument II.514, 533 with ut clause II.462 with various argument clauses II.459 dimension, adjectives of 228 direct object 29 direct questions, see interrogative sentences direct speech (discourse) II.48 direction (semantic function) 28 direction and goal adjuncts 808–15 distinguished from arguments 808 domus and rus in 819 in apposition to toponym 1063 multiple goal adjuncts in a clause 810 towns and small islands in 819 direction and goal arguments 28, 124, 142, 175, 176, 178 distinguished from adjuncts 808 in apposition to toponym 1063 directive illocutionary force 307, 348 disco 448, II.219 discontinuity (hyperbaton) II.949, 956, 964, 1097–1101; see also hyperbaton ‘alien’ discontinuity II.1099 as emphasizing device II.863 constituents causing discontinuity II.1101–8 distribution in authors II.1100 double discontinuity II.1104, 1108 of auxiliary and infinitive II.1126 of complex verb forms with sum II.1125 of constituents of non-restrictive apposition 1061 of constituents of restrictive apposition 1055 of coordinated adjectives II.597 of coordinated constituents II.587, 1113, 1129–32 of coordinated nouns II.598 of noun phrases II.1097 of possessive adjective and noun 1057 of post(ea)quam II.258 of prepositional phrases II.1113, 1120–2 types of discontinuity II.1099 with contrastive elements II.862 with negators non and haud 732 discourse 32, II.1138 paragraphs as discourse units II.1223

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words 1379 discourse coherence 33, II.1143 address as means of structuring II.940 anaphoric devices reference to participants II.835, 1144 reference to states of affairs and segments of discourse II.1153 use of anaphoric pronouns and adverbs II.1150 cohesive devices linking sentences II.1162 grammatical devices contributing to II.1226 lexical repetition and variation II.1144 openings and conclusions of conversations or letters II.1228 preparative (cataphoric) devices II.1161 use of connectors and interactional particles connecting paragraphs II.1223 verbs in initial position as cohesive device II.1016 zero-anaphora II.1148 discourse modes (text types) II.1140 ‘discourse particles’ II.1165; see connectors; interactional particles discourse topic 33, II.836 in choice between active and passive 251 disjunct clauses II.238 ablative absolute clauses II.389 autonomous relative clauses with quod II.554 concessive clauses II.362, 364 conditional si clauses II.343, 345 cum clauses II.268 manner clauses II.274, 277 purpose clauses II.300 qualification clauses with quod or quantum II.377 quod clauses as theme constituent II.854 reason clauses with quoniam 642, 650, II.289, 290 relative clauses II.553 respect clauses II.279 so-called pseudo-final ut/ne disjunct clauses 566 use of tenses and moods in 566, 579 disjunctive (alternative) coordination 713, 716, II.657, 658; see also coordination; syndetic coordination; coordinators: disjunctive (alternative) coordinators agreement with subjects joined by 1253, 1267, 1286 correlative coordination II.668 multiple coordination II.676 of exclusivity, non-exclusivity, and equivalence II.657 semantic relationship between conjoins II.679 disjunctive indirect questions, see interrogative (subordinate) clauses: multiple indirect questions disjunctive questions 315, 339–41 disjuncts 25, 30, 66, 797, 923–32, 1203; see also disjunct clauses attitudinal disjuncts 309, 310, 348, 923, 923–30 compared with degree adjuncts 889 in negative declarative sentences 680 in questions 319

in relative clauses II.486 qualified truth disjuncts autonomous relative clause as II.519, 520 distinguished from adjuncts 797 illocutionary disjuncts 923, 930–2 expressions of politeness II.345 modifying adjectives 1079 outside scope of negation 798, 925 subjective evaluation disjuncts 928 distinguished from manner adjuncts 861, 928 not used in imperative sentences 348 truth value disjuncts 924–8 degree of truth disjuncts 924 not used in imperative sentences 348 qualified truth disjuncts 924, 926 compared with respect adjuncts 914 use of cases and prepositions to mark 1203 dissolutio (asyndeton) II.606 distinctio, to mark sense units II.967 distributive apposition 1067 diu 841 diversus, as expression of dissimilarity II.752 do as support verb 75 imperative of operam do used as metadirective 351 potestatem do with ut clause II.437 valency of 20 with gerundival clause II.231 with gerundive as secondary predicate II.797 with object and gerundive II.799 with purpose infinitival clause II.23, 383 with supine in -um II.421 doceo 164, 1185, 1271 with accusative and infinitive clause II.167 doleo, with quod clause II.61 domain integrity as factor determining word order II.956 of subordinate clauses II.1048 dominant (participle) construction II.31, 220, 223 domus ablative as source adjunct 816, 819 accusative as direction or goal adjunct 811, 819 locative as position in space adjunct 803, 819 donec clauses 420, II.252, 255, 256 use of moods in 638 donicum, donique, doneque, see donec clauses dono 138, 152 passivization of 253 with dative as secondary predicate II.800 double negation 726 doubting, verbs of 704, 733 with quin clause II.96, 97 dressing, verbs of 264 dubitatio, with quin clause II.443 dubitative questions 327 dubito 581 with indirect question II.109, 113 with quin clause II.97 dubius, with quin clause II.461 dudum 841

1380

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words

dum (clitic particle), used to modulate directive expressions 355 dum clauses stipulative clauses 652 distinguished from time clauses II.306 time clauses 615, 645, II.250–7 to indicate co-extensive event (‘as long as’) II.251 to indicate lasting event (‘while’) II.254 to indicate limit (‘until’) II.255 to locate events in time (‘when’) II.250 use of moods in 615, 638, 645, 652 use of tenses in 615 historic present 616 with causal intepretation II.268 dum (subordinator) introducing stipulative clauses II.306 introducing time clauses II.242, 250, 251 as equivalent to cum II.254 dummodo (subordinator) introducing stipulative clauses II.306 dumtaxat, used as emphasizing particle II.893 duo, compared with ambo 987 dynamic (state of affairs) 22 ea (adverb) 832 eapropter, as correlative expression with reason clause II.283 eatenus (adverb) 812 ec- compounds, in indirect questions II.108, 118 ecastor 320, II.919 typical of female speech 353 ecce (interjection) 368, II.923, 928 combined with ille and iste 1093, 1148 eccum, and other semi-declinable forms II.929 ecquis 1165 ecquid as question particle 335 in sentence questions 334 edepol 320, II.919 effected objects 27, 101 efficio imperative used as metadirective 351 with accusative and infinitive clause II.159 ego, see personal pronouns ehem (interjection) II.932 eheu (interjection) II.923, 933 eho (interjection) II.925 ei (interjection) II.932 eia (heia) II.933 eiusmodi, combined with relative clause II.535 elative use, of superlative 47; see also comparison, degrees of: absolute (‘elative’) use of comparatives; superlatives electing, verbs of 191 ‘ellipsis’, in coordinated clauses, see conjunction reduction ‘ellipsis’ of object, see object: conjunction reduction of; reduction (conventional) of arguments; zero-anaphora ‘ellipsis’, of obligatory constituents, see zero-anaphora

‘ellipsis’ of subject, see subject: conjunction reduction of; zero-anaphora ‘ellipsis’, of verbs, see reduction (ellipsis of shared constituents) elliptic substantivation 954 elliptical clauses, purpose ut clauses II.303 elliptical interrogative sentences 346 em (interjection) 368, II.930 embedded clauses, see subordinate clauses eminence, verbs of 113, 1193 emotion, adjectives of, with accusative and infinitive clause II.463 emotion, nouns of with accusative and infinitive clause II.448 with tamquam or quasi clause II.443 emotion, verbs of 89, 116, 132 use of moods in quod and quia clauses 626 with accusative and infinitive clause II.161 with cum clause II.80 with quia clause II.76 with quod clause II.61 with reason clause with cur II.285 with tamquam or quasi clause II.104 emphasis II.859, 862–5, 951; see also preferential host; particles: emphasizing particles causing discontinuity of noun phrases II.1098 conveyed by personal pronouns 740 distinguished from focus II.862 ‘emphatic’ use of is II.507 non in initial position 731 personal pronouns and possessive adjectives with -met II.907 preparative expressions as emphasizers II.908 reduplicated forms of personal pronouns II.865, 906 en (interjection) II.931 in exclamations 368 in indirect questions II.108 in sentence (yes/no) questions 333, II.931 enallage adiectivi 1051–3 enim 12, II.1193, 1201–6 as connector in parenthetical sentences II.911 as non-mobile word II.956 as sentence connexion device II.1164 combined with nempe II.1207 combined with quippe II.1200 in combination at enim II.1176 position of II.973 causing discontinuity II.1101, 1123 so-called adversative use II.1205 so-called affirmative use II.1204 so-called causal use II.1201 entitling, verbs of 191 enumquam II.931 eo (adverb) as summarizing device II.1160 referring to discourse participants II.1150 eo (verb) 812 idiomatic expressions with 811 iri in future passive 532 position of iri as auxiliary II.1125

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words 1381 with purpose infinitival clause II.383 with supine in -um II.421 eo consilio, as correlative expression with purpose clause II.298 epexegetic, see ‘explicative’ ‘epexegetic’ coordination II.691; see epitactic coordination ‘epexegetic’ negation 726 epexegeticum, ut II.442 epiphonema II.1160 episode 32, 453, II.1155, 1157, 1216 epitactic coordination II.691–8 asyndetic coordination II.698 to signal expanding focus II.844 use of ac/atque II.628, 693 use of et II.633, 693 use of -que and nec/neque II.693 use of sed II.696 with imprimis II.865, 899 with maxime II.900 with praecipue II.897 with quidem II.880 equidem 309, II.884–8 combined with ego II.885 compared with quidem II.877 in combination atque equidem II.695 in quod clauses of qualification II.377 equivalence (of two terms under comparison) II.716 equivalence (type of disjunctive coordination) II.657 erga (preposition) 1042 ergative 280 ergo (particle) as correlative expression with causal clause II.1215 with conditional clause II.326, 328, 1215 as interactional particle II.1208, 1213–16 combined with nempe II.1207 combined with question particles 317 position of II.973 ergo (preposition) 911 with gerundial reason adjunct II.412 erudio 168 et as comparative particle in expressions of (dis)similarity II.754, 755 with adjectives and adverbs in comparative degree II.729 as connector II.633, 1164, 1166, 1168 connecting sentences II.583 in combination et quoniam II.289 as coordinator 14, 68, II.584, 586, 621, 632–7 co-occurring with etiam and quoque II.635 correlative et . . . ac/atque II.646 correlative et . . . et 1252, II.586, 640, 844 with discontinuity of conjoins II.1130 correlative et . . . nec/neque II.647 correlative -que . . . et II.644 in epitactic coordination II.693 nec quisquam preferred to et nemo 1168

of complex numerals II.636 of negative declarative clauses 715 of subject constituents 1249 use in main clause after time clause II.623 with locally negated constituents 689 with the last conjoin in multiple coordination II.652 as scalar emphasizing particle II.872 in combination et ipse 1153 position of II.973 etenim as connector II.1193, 1198 in combination quippe etenim II.1200 position of II.973 etiam 856, II.869, 872 as scalar adverb to mark gradual change II.744 co-occurring with comparatives II.743 co-occurring with et II.635 co-occurring with quoque II.873 co-occurring with superlatives II.774 in answers to questions 373 in combination atque etiam II.632, 655 etiam atque etiam II.632 in combination etiam ipse 1153 in combination etiam si II.371 in combination non modo . . . sed/verum etiam II.687 in combination quoque etiam II.870 in combination vel etiam II.679 in questions 341 with indirect directive illocutionary force 345 etiamsi clauses II.371–3 so-called concessive conditional clauses II.358 etiamsi, as subordinator of concessive clauses II.355 etsi as contrastive connector II.356, 1191 as subordinator of concessive clauses II.355 with constituents below the clause level II.357 etsi clauses II.370–1 so-called concessive conditional clauses II.358 euphony, as factor determining word order II.960 evado 1234 evaluative adjectives 64, 208, 362, 369, 1047, II.424, 784 modifying proper name 938 evenit, with quod clause II.72 ex (preposition) to mark arguments of verbs 123 to mark cause adjuncts 904 to mark instrument adjuncts 880 to mark manner adjuncts 868 to mark optional attributes of nouns 1030 to mark partitive attributes 1034 with numerals 1006 to mark position in time adjuncts 837 to mark source adjuncts 818 to mark source arguments 126, 127 with superlative, to mark entity in comparison II.774 with verbs of depriving 149 with verbs of descent or provenance 127

1382

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words

ex quo, introducing time clauses II.264 excepto quod (complex subordinator) II.381 exchange (communicative) 12 exclamatory sentences 16, 306, 361–8 combined with interjections II.924, 936 evaluative and non-evaluative exclamatory sentences 363 exclamatory (subordinate) clauses II.105, 155 exclusivity (type of disjunctive coordination) II.657 excusing, verbs of with quod clause II.66 with tamquam or quasi clause II.104 exhorting, verbs of with imperative clause II.134 with prolative infinitive II.205 eximius, with partitive genitive 948 exinde 818 exophoric use of demonstrative determiners 969, 970, 1099 of demonstrative pronouns 1146 expansion of arguments 78, 84 experiencer (semantic function) 27 of dative adjuncts (sympathetic dative) 919 of dative disjuncts (dativus iudicantis) 927 of dative disjuncts (ethic dative) 931 experiencer arguments 27, 116, 132 expletive use of negation, see negation ‘explicative’ (epexegetic) interpretation of conjunctive coordinators II.655 ‘explicative’ quod clauses II.35, 439, 440 ‘explicative’ ut clauses II.85, 438, 439 expository discourse mode II.1142 exsisto 205 as suppletion for non-existing forms of sum 207 exspecto si II.117 extent of space adjuncts 182, 825–9 extent of space arguments 97 compared with extent of space adjuncts 181 with adjectives 228 extent of time adjuncts 842–9, II.251 extent of time arguments 97 extra (adverb) as direction or goal adjunct 812 as source adjunct 819 extra (preposition) to mark direction and goal adjuncts 812 to mark position in space adjuncts 806 to mark source adjuncts 818 extra quam si II.324 extraclausal constituents 26 curses and swear words II.919 functioning as address 738, II.937 interjections II.923 marked by nominative case 1209 parenthetical constituents II.909 theme, setting, and tail II.849–58 vocatives 1224 extremus 1050 with partitive genitive 948 extrinsecus 819 exuor 265

facio 152 anaphoric use in answers to questions 372 in epitactic coordination II.695 in responses to directive utterances 376 as support verb 75 certiorem facio aliquem with argument clause II.460 future or future perfect faxo 470 as idiomatic parenthetical expression II.10 (ut) + subjunctive II.10 future perfect gratissimum feceris as idiom 470 impersonal facit 97 metadirective fac 349, 351, II.152 compared with other directive expressions 512 subjunctive faxim 491 equivalent to present subjunctive 503, 506 suppletive passive forms from fio 234 valency of 20 with accusative and infinitive clause II.143, 159 with gerundival clause II.232 with prolative infinitive clause II.142, 211 with pseudo-object II.142 with quod clause II.72 with simple subjunctive clause II.16, 142, 152 with ut clause II.93, 143 factivity 388 of conditional periods 654 of indicative mood 388, 626, 636, 638, 641, 654 of quod and quia argument clauses 626 of satellite clauses 636 of space adjunct clauses 638 of subordinate clauses in indirect speech 669 of time cum clauses 641 of ut argument clauses 623 factum, as summarizing anaphoric expression II.1153 facultas, with ut clause II.438 fateor, in answers to questions 373 fear clauses 623, 702, II.94 fearing, verbs of 623 with indirect question II.118 with ne clause II.94 female speech 353 fere, as modifier of attributes II.1084 fero as support verb 75 moleste fero, with quod clause II.61 fervidus, as secondary predicate in poetry II.785 fido 112, 1193 figura —.ăuztxzŪ, see —.ăuztxzŪ figura figura etymologica 86, 102, 213, 864 filling, verbs of 150 final adjuncts, see purpose (final) adjuncts final clauses, see purpose (final) finite clauses ‘final’ gerundival expressions II.233, 453 ‘final’ infinitive II.383, 386 ‘final’ noun clauses 621, II.81, 126 final position, see position (in clause/sentence): last position ‘final’ relative clauses II.522, 537, 543, 549

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words 1383 ‘final’ substantive clauses, see imperative (subordinate) clauses ‘final’ ut clauses with adjectives II.462 fio 152, 200, 204 anaphoric use in answers to questions 372 in responses to directive utterances 376 as alternative passive auxiliary 257 as suppletive passive for facio 234 fit, with quod clause II.72 with deverbal nouns as passive periphrasis 253 first person, see personal pronouns; subject first position, see position (in clause/sentence): first position flagito, with imperative clause II.134 flattering, verbs of 104, 1192 fleo, valency of 84 floating quantifiers 710, II.819–24, 1076 flowing, verbs of 88 flumen, in apposition to name 1058 agreement of verb with 1260 focalization (narratology), distinguished from pragmatic focus 32 focus (pragmatic function) 31, 108, 686, 731, II.827, 839–49, 951 accusative pseudo-object as 759 completive focus 676, 739, II.827, 841 complex focus II.828, 842, 951 contrastive focus 269, 676, 678, 739, II.861 conveyed by personal pronouns 739 distinguished from emphasis II.862 expanding focus 739, II.692, 841, 844 focus constituents in first position II.832, 1005 indicators of focality II.843; see also presentative sentences; cleft constructions introduction of new information 31, 748 with quidam 1111 nominative pseudo-subject as 761 parallel focus 739, II.861 possessive genitive as 773 replacing focus 739, II.692, 841, 844 with non modo . . . sed etiam II.688 with non . . . sed II.680 with non tam . . . quam II.750 restricting focus II.842 scope of focus II.843 focus(ing) particles, see particles: emphasizing particles foras (adverb) 1229 forbidding, verbs of with ne clause 701 with quin clause 704 with quominus clause 706 forcing, verbs of with imperative clause II.137 with prolative infinitive clause II.208 fore, see sum forgetting, verbs of 117–18, 1222–3 foris (adverb) 1229 as direction or goal adjunct 812 formality (of discourse) 32

fors 924 forsan 924 forsitan and fors fuat an 924, II.114 fortasse (adverb) 309, 348, 924 fortasse (an) II.114 in concessive clauses II.362 in responses to questions 370 forte, with nisi clauses of exception II.352 forte fortuna, as asyndeton II.614 free indirect speech II.50, 186 accusative and infinitive clauses without governing verb II.159 ‘free’ relative clauses II.474, 501; see autonomous relative clauses frequency adjuncts 851 fruor 115 full verbs, distinguished from auxiliary verbs 210 fullness, adjectives of 222 fungor 115, 1193 furo, valency of 85 fused clauses II.21 argument clause with admoneo II.157 gerundial clauses II.24 prolative infinitive clauses II.22 supine clauses II.25 future anterior, see future tense: future perfect indicative future of the past 472 future periphrastic, see future tense future tense future imperative 351, 512, 517 difference from present imperative 515 passive forms 520 statistical data on frequency 513 future indicative 423–35 competitors to simple future 435 future perfect indicative 462–72 difficulty of distinguishing from perfect subjunctive 462, 491 idiomatic expressions 469 in conditional periods 401 in dum time clauses II.253 indicative retained in subordinate clauses in indirect speech 670 retrospective value of 467 shift of infectum to perfectum forms of sum 473 so-called sigmatic forms 464, 470 statistical data on frequency 463 with deductive interpretation 471 with indirect directive illocutionary force 472 periphrastic future in -urus + sum 429–35, 553, 581 as future of the past 472 as substitute for missing subjunctive forms 433 compared with simple future 429 in ne clauses with verbs of fearing and worrying II.94 prospective value of 430

1384

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words

future tense (cont.) simple future 423 compared with periphrastic future with -urus + sum 429 compared with present subjunctive 427 gnomic use 425 in conditional periods 401 in relative clauses II.536 indicative retained in subordinate clauses in indirect speech 670 so-called assumptive use 426 so-called authorial use 425 so-called deductive use 426 so-called dubitative use 427 so-called potential use 426 statistical data on frequency 463 with indirect directive illocutionary force 312, 427 futurum exactum 441, 462 futurum simplex 423 ‘gapping’ II.585; see conjunction reduction gaudeo with accusative and infinitive clause II.161 with cum clause II.80 with quia clause II.42, 55, 77 with quod clause II.61 gender 35, 39 agreement of verb in 1245, 1256 general (encyclopedic) knowledge II.830 generic noun phrases, see noun phrases ‘generic’ (‘generalizing’ or ‘consecutive’) relative clauses II.479 generic subjects first person plural 743 second person singular 487, 743 with potential subjunctive 483 third person plural 483, 752 third person singular inquit and ait 753 with impersonal passives 271 genitive case 1203, 1221–4 appositional genitive 1023 ellipsis of head noun 962 with names of gods 963 epexegetic genitive 1023 explicative genitive 1023 genetivus causae 906 criminis 153, 1222 definitivus 1023 explicativus 1023, II.454 forensis 153, 1222 obiectivus 1039 partitivus 709, 1003, II.502 possessivus 208, 1001 pretii 884 proprietatis 774, II.183 qualitatis 775, 1002, 1025, 1117, II.553 relationis 1223 subiectivus 253, 1038 tituli 1017 idiomatic uses of 161

in apposition to possessive adjective 1066 in exclamations 368 objective genitive 1039, 1190 accusative used instead of 1041, 1204 of pronouns 1044 possessive adjective used instead of 975, 1045 relative order with subjective genitive 1040, II.1091 of charge 153, 156 of definition 1023 as gerundival clause II.454 of description or quality 1002 as object complement 792 as optional attribute 941, 1002 genitive noun without adjective modifying another noun 1003 as relative phrase II.553 as secondary predicate II.799 as subject complement 775 compared with ablative of description 1002, 1025 coordination with adjectives II.705 position of II.1090 of measure 1003, 1004, 1015–23 of origin 1000 of possession 1001 as object complement 792 as optional attribute 1001 as subject complement 773, 910 with accusative and infinitive clause II.183 compared with habeo 773 compared with possessive dative 773, 1001 compared with sympathetic dative 921 substantival use of 962 of price 158, 884 of quality 775, 792, 941, 1002, 1003 of quantity 941, 1004, 1015–23, 1169 distinguished from partitive genitive 1003, 1015 of respect (animi) 917 of separation 150, 1189 of the rubric 161, 1017 of the whole (partitive genitive) 941, 1003, 1003–14, 1223 as object complement 792 as subject complement 777 distinguished from genitive of quantity 1003, 1015 modifying substantival adjectives 948 multiple head constituents with one whole 1007 pseudo-partitive construction 949 replaced by ex or de 1234 with numerals 1006 substantival use of 962 with relative pronoun II.502 with superlative, to mark term of comparison II.774 of value 158, 884 partitive genitive, see above, of the whole statistical data on frequency 1179, 1183

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words 1385 subjective genitive 253, 1038 possessive adjective used instead of 1045 relative order with objective genitive 1040, II.1091 to mark age expressions with natus II.738 to mark non-finite clauses 1222 to mark object complements 792 to mark optional attributes 946, 1000–25 in any semantic relationship 1000 of pronouns 941 of substantival adjectives 948 to mark price adjuncts 884 to mark price or value arguments 158 to mark purpose adjuncts 906 to mark respect adjuncts 917 to mark respect expressions with adjectives 1075 to mark second arguments (genitive objects) 116–19 to mark subject complements 188, 772, 775, 777, 910 with adjectives 222 of abundance and lacking 220 with comparatives II.732 with gerunds II.456 with present participles 223 with verbs interest and rēfert 135 impersonal verbs of emotion 132 judicial verbs 153, 156 of abundance and lacking 112, 1189 of depriving 149 of emotion 116 of filling 150 of remembering and forgetting 117 of reminding 160 of separation 150 gentilicium, agreement with 1276 genus verbi 54, 233; see also voice gero, as support verb 75 gerundial clauses II.24 as arguments II.224–9 as competitors of prolative infinitive clauses II.227, 228 in the accusative as second argument II.226 in the dative with adsum II.225 in the dative with sum II.226 with adjectives as subject or object complement II.229 with adjectives of volition, ability, and suitability II.467 with sum and noun as subject complement II.228 as satellites II.406–13 gerundial absolute clauses II.403 instrument/manner adjuncts II.409 purpose adjuncts II.406 as competitors of gerundives as secondary predicates II.797 bare accusative as alternative to ad phrase II.408 prepositional expressions with ad, causa, or gratia II.406

at adjective phrase level II.466, 469 at noun phrase level II.452, 454, 458 reason adjuncts with causa, gratia, ergo, or ob II.412 respect and other adjuncts II.413 time adjuncts II.412 with one-place adjectives II.467 gerundival clauses II.25, 29 at adjective phrase level II.466, 469 at noun phrase level II.453, 456, 458 as arguments II.229–34 as subject or object complement II.233 compared with object + gerundives as secondary predicates II.231, 799 compared with participial clauses II.229 with adjectives as subject or object complement II.233 with adjectives of volition, ability, and suitability II.468 as competitors of deverbal nouns II.457 as satellites II.414–20 instrument/manner adjuncts II.416 purpose adjuncts II.414 with verbs of movement II.385 reason adjuncts II.419 respect and other adjuncts II.419 so-called final gerundival clauses with nouns II.453 time adjuncts II.418 with subordinators or adverbs to make semantic relationship explicit II.418 gerundives as future active participle 295 as secondary predicate 293, 299, II.797 as competitors of gerundial purpose adjuncts II.797 as competitors of infinitival purpose clauses II.383 as substitutes for present participles in Late Latin II.799 distinguished from gerundival clauses II.799 with do, mitto, rogo, and suscipio II.797 with habeo + object II.798 as subject complement 769 attributive use 998 developing into future passive participle 299, 551 ‘final’ gerundives II.797 gerundive + sum as future of the past 472 developing into periphrastic future passive expression 435 with esse as future passive infinitive 535 gerundive + sum as passive deontic expression 62, 288–90, 298, 301, 550 compared with other directive expressions 298, 512 with ab to mark agent 297 with dative agent 296 impersonal use 288, 290 morphosyntactic properties of 62 of deponent verbs 284

1386

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words

gerundives (cont.) personal use 288, 292 referring to non-factive state of affairs 299, 550 relationship with gerund 301 substantival use 961 temporal value of 550 use of indirect reflexive pronoun and possessive adjective with 1125 used as future passive participle II.418 voice value (active or passive) 285–305 with habeo 299 gerunds compared with deverbal nouns proper 59 in ablative as equivalent to present participle II.804 in bare accusative with verbs of movement II.408 morphosyntactic properties of 58 relationship with gerundive 301 temporal value of 549 voice value (active or passive) 285–305 with a noun in the genitive II.456 with ad, as competitors of infinitival purpose clauses II.384 giving, verbs of 137, 140–2, 188 glorior use of moods in quod or quia argument clauses 626 with accusative and infinitive clause II.162 with quod clause II.62 gnomic future 425 goal adjuncts, see direction and goal adjuncts gradable words gradable adjectives, see adjectives gradable opposites one-sided 686 two-sided 686 modified by degree adjuncts 885 grammatical aspect, see aspect granting, verbs of with imperative clause II.136 with prolative infinitive clause II.207 gratia (preposition) 1202, 1233 position of II.1088 to mark purpose adjuncts 907 to mark reason adjuncts 911 with gerundial purpose adjunct II.406 with gerundial reason adjunct II.412 gratis 882 gratus, gratissimum feceris as idiom 470 Greek influence (probable or proposed) 33; see also Bible translations ablative cognate object 865 accusative cognate object 865 accusative object of navigo 831 accusative object retained with passive verbs 242, 265 accusative to mark respect adjuncts 915 ad + infinitive as purpose adjunct II.384 adjectives as secondary predicates with conditional interpretation II.812 adverbs as modifiers of nouns 1036

attraction of relative word II.489 complex ablative absolute clauses II.388 correlative use of -que . . . -que II.638 dative agents with true passive verbs 247 dative with sum and participle or adjective of volition 782 dative with verbs of motion 125, 813 double accusative construction 170, 172, 243 expanded use of present participle 996 expressions of measure 1069 exsistens as present participle of sum 207 genitive with adjectives of abundance and lacking 220 genitive with verbs of ruling 116 genitive with verbs of separation 150 habeo + infinitive construction 437 impersonal est 95 impersonal gerundive of verb that governs accusative 291 in + ablative as instrument adjunct 880 incipio to translate Greek whvvƒ 442 indicative mood in licet clauses II.374 infinitive in result clauses II.314 infinitive with verbs of movement II.385 interrogative use of si II.117 neuter accusative plural adjectives as manner adjuncts 865 neuter accusative plural adjectives as quantity adjuncts 887 neuter plural agreement with feminine abstract nouns 1258 neuter singular adjective as subject complement 768 nouns governing prolative infinitive clauses II.450 participial absolute clauses in case forms other than ablative II.402, 403 partitive genitive with same noun 1014 passivization of verbs with non-accusative objects 241 perfect infinitive with non-anterior meaning 539 perfect participle agreeing with subject as alternative to accusative and infinitive clause II.169 prepositions governing genitive or dative 1230, 1233 present participle with anterior meaning 543 prolative infinitive clause as alternative to accusative and infinitive clause II.169 prolative infinitive clauses with one-place adjectives II.464 quia and quoniam clauses to translate Ø~t and ot†~t II.63, 64, 79 relative pronoun in combination with anaphoric or demonstrative pronoun II.566 si as question particle 334 subject complement with audio and sono 209 subject complements agreeing with non-subject arguments 1270

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words 1387 sum + present participle 545 use of adjectives of space or time as alternative to adverbs in poetry II.788 use of determiners, ipsum and totum to modify infinitives 943 use of genitive with comparatives II.734 use of quam without comparative expression II.728 ut in combination with interrogative expression to translate Èxl ~j II.303 variation of moods in concessive quamvis clauses II.367 verb + reflexive pronoun governing an object 275 vocative case to mark secondary predicate as form of address II.947 vocative subject complements and secondary predicates 1225 Greek words as answers to questions in Plautus and Terence 374 grammatical agreement with 1281 habeo as support verb 75 compared with possessive genitive and dative 108, 772 habeo + infinitive construction 436, II.219 abilitive meaning 437 as alternative to potential subjunctive 440 as competitor of simple future 436 as future of the past 472 as source of synthetic future in Romance 438 deontic meaning 437, 439 obligative meaning 437 idiomatic expressions with in + accusative abstract noun 809 idiomatic use with reflexive pronoun 278 impersonal habet 97 so-called shifted use of pluperfect for imperfect 458 statistical data on tense usage 394 used in future perfect without anterior meaning 466 valency of 186 with adverb as object complement 794 with object and gerundive as secondary predicate 299, II.798 with perfect passive participle replacing active perfectum forms 478 with predicative dative as object complement 778 with quod clause II.70 habito 123 hahahae (interjection) II.923, 924 happening, verbs of 93, 567 with accusative and infinitive clause II.159 with evaluation disjuncts 928 with quia or cum clause II.73

with quod clause II.71 with ut clause 624, II.83 haud 691–2 as prosodic unit with word modified 732 combined with coordinators 689 compared with non 691 haud + indefinite pronoun as alternative to zero quantifier 711 in declarative sentences 675 in negative answers 376 position of 730, II.1000 preferred with locally negated constituents 685 head (of adnominal relative clause) II.474 agreement of relative pronoun II.488 distinguished from determiner of autonomous relative clause II.510 governing multiple clauses II.498 ‘incorporated’ into relative clause II.497 ‘internal’ head II.475 inverse attraction (attractio inversa) II.490 is and demonstratives and personal pronouns as II.484 proper names as II.483 repetition in relative clause II.528, 530, 531 syntactic functions of II.492 use of determiners II.480 head (of noun phrase) 16; see noun phrases head proximity, as factor determining word order II.956 ‘headless’ relative clauses II.474; see autonomous relative clauses Hebrew influence (probable or proposed) ablative cognate object 865 accusative cognate object 865 frequency of cunctus in Vulgate 986 genitive of description without attribute 1003 in + ablative as instrument adjunct 880 postposition of degree modifiers II.1083 relative pronoun in combination with anaphoric or demonstrative pronoun II.566 use of ab prepositional phrase with comparatives II.734 heia (interjection) II.933 helpfulness, adjectives of 217 helping and their opposites, verbs of 104, 1189, 1192 hem (interjection) 346, II.934 hendiadys, hendiadyoin 1254, II.713 hercle 320, II.919 combined with vero II.1190 in combination nam hercle II.1197 typical of male speech 353 heri 841 hesitating, verbs of with quin clause 705 with quominus clause 707 hesitation clauses, see quin clauses: with verbs of doubting heu (interjection) 364, II.934 heus (interjection) II.923, 925

1388

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words

hic as demonstrative determiner 970 anaphoric use 1096 as cohesive device when combined with lexical repetition II.1147 deictic use 1093 exophoric use 1100 position with respect to head noun II.1068 preparative (cataphoric) use 1098 to mark autonomous relative clause as definite II.505 as demonstrative pronoun 49 anaphoric use 1139 as summarizing device with ablative absolute II.1156 neuter form haec as summarizing device II.1157 referring to discourse participants II.1150 deictic use 1137 hoc + genitive noun (idiom) 1022 hoc as ablative of comparison in combination with quam II.733 hoc as correlative expression with reason clause II.283 hoc as preparative expression of argument clause II.31 hoc as resumptive expression of argument clause II.36 preparative (cataphoric) use 1145 resumptive use 1145 used as substitute for third person pronoun 1118 as subject complement 771 compared with ille and iste 1094, 1097, 1137, 1142 compared with is 1097, 1142 diachronic developments of 1146 statistical data on frequency 1092, 1148 hīc (adverb) 1137 hierarchical structure of noun phrase 1031, 1047; see also nesting hinc (adverb) 818 referring to discourse participants II.1150 hindering, verbs of 622 with imperative clause II.138 with ne clause 701 with prolative infinitive clause II.208 with quin clause 704 with quominus clause 706 historic infinitive, see infinitives historic tenses 554 hoc est cur II.580 hoc est quod II.75 hodie 841 homo combined with nemo 973 developing into indefinite pronoun 1171 with descriptive adjective, in apposition to proper name 1171 horreo, ‘impersonal’ horret 134 hortor, with argument clause II.126 hui (interjection) II.935

hyperbaton (discontinuity) II.964, 1097–1108; see also discontinuity ‘alien’ hyperbaton II.1099 caused by autem II.1180 caused by namque II.1198 caused by vero II.1190 double hyperbaton II.964 ‘internal’ hyperbaton II.1099 verbal hyperbaton II.957, 1098, 1104 hypothetical clauses, see conditional clauses hysteron proteron II.710 iaceo, as copula 207 iam 856 causing discontinuity II.1102 co-occurring with comparatives II.743 co-occurring with inverse cum clause II.246 co-occurring with manner, time, or conditional clause II.37 in combination iam ut with concessive interpretation II.375 in combination si iam II.323 in questions 341 used as emphasizing particle II.904–6 with actions continuing from past into present 398 ibi 808, 841 referring to discourse participants II.1150 ibidem 808 iconicity as factor determining word order 451, 544, II.961 relative order of subordinate and main clause II.1049 ictus 69 idcirco as correlative expression with conditional clause II.338 with purpose clause II.298 with quod clause II.287 with reason clause II.283 as purpose adjunct 909 as reason adjunct 912 idem 981, 1149 as determiner of autonomous relative clause II.510 position with respect to head noun II.1074 as expression of similarity II.752 as pronoun 49 as secondary predicate II.825 as subject complement 771 combined with determiners 947 combined with omnis and other quantifying adjectives 948 meaning taken over by ipse 1163 identifiers 981; see also alius; alter; ceterus; idem; reliquus substantival use of 946 with partitive genitive 1008 ideo as connective adverb II.1164, 1208 as correlative expression with conditional clause II.326, 338

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words 1389 with purpose clause II.298 with reason quia clause II.283 with reason quod clause II.283, 287 as summarizing device II.1160 as purpose adjunct 909 as reason adjunct 912 idoneus, with relative clause as argument II.533 igitur as connector II.1208, 1209–12 as correlative expression with conditional clause II.326, 328, 338, 1211 with time clause II.1211 combined with nempe II.1207 combined with question particles 317 position of II.973 causing discontinuity II.1101 so-called temporal use with tum II.1211 ignoro 712 ilico 841 ilico atque, in time clauses II.261 ille as demonstrative determiner 970 anaphoric use 1096 deictic use 1093 developing into Romance definite article 1149 exophoric use 1099 position with respect to head noun II.1068 preparative (cataphoric) use 1098 to mark autonomous relative clause as definite II.505 used to mark case of uninflected words 1148 as demonstrative pronoun 49 anaphoric use 1139 as head of non-restrictive relative clause II.484 illud as summarizing device II.1157 referring to discourse participants II.1150 deictic use 1137 exophoric use 1146 illud as preparative expression of argument clause II.31 illud as resumptive expression of argument clause II.36 preparative (cataphoric) use 1145 resumptive use 1145 used as substitute for third person pronoun 1118 used instead of reflexive pronoun 1133 as subject complement 771 combined with ecce 1093, compared with hic and iste 1094, 1097, 1137, 1141 compared with is 1097, 1141 diachronic developments of 1146 statistical data on frequency 1092, 1148 illīc 808 illocution converters 307, 310, 312 illocutionary disjuncts 923, 930–2 illocutionary force 307, 307–78 assertive illocutionary force 308 basic vs. indirect illocutionary force 307 concessive illocutionary force 348, 360 directive illocutionary force 307, 348

indicativus pro imperativo 312 indirect assertive illocutionary force 342, 510 indirect directive illocutionary force 307 of declarative sentences 311–14 indirect interrogative illocutionary force 310 information-requesting illocutionary force 315 interrogative sentences 342, 345, 510, 682 modulation of illocutionary force assertive force 309 directive force 350–6 information-requesting force 341 verbs of perception, cognition, and communication as modulators of II.917 of declarative sentences 427, 431 of exclamatory sentences 361 of future participles 546 of imperative sentences 348–50, 357, 377, 497 optative illocutionary force 348, 357, 359 illuc 812, 1137 immo 377 combined with vero II.1190 impar, with dative for basis of comparison II.733 imperative (subordinate) clauses II.126–55 anterior tense in II.139 as simple subjunctive clause II.150 at adjective phrase level II.462 at noun phrase level II.446 classes of and governing expressions II.129 compared with accusative and infinitive and prolative infinitive clauses II.126 expression of addressee II.131, 133, 134, 135 expression of source argument II.133, 134 negation in II.126 preparative expressions II.130 subordinators ne, quin, and quominus II.138 subordinators quin, quo, and quī II.154 subordinators ut and ne II.149 use of disjunctive coordinator -ve with ne clauses II.662 use of moods in 621–5 use of neve as subordinator II.674 use of tenses in 554, 566, 567, 597 use of ut, ne, and non in negative clauses II.149 with adjectives as subject or object complement II.145 with impersonal verbs II.148 with nouns as subject or object complement II.147 with verbs facio II.142 of advising, warning, exhorting, reminding, and admonishing II.134 of begging and requesting II.133 of causation II.142 of deciding and resolving II.144 of deserving II.145 of forcing II.137 of hindering and preventing II.138 of inducing and persuading II.135 of ordering and commanding II.131 of perception and cognition II.141 of permitting, granting, and allowing II.136 of wishing, desiring, and preferring II.139

1390

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words

imperative mood 512–21 asyndetic coordination of imperative verb forms II.612 difference between imperative and subjunctive in commands 351, 498 difference between present and future imperative 351 future imperative, see future tense: future imperative in connective relative sentences II.559 in relative clauses II.485 inhibitive use of 516 position of imperative verb forms II.1034, 1036 present imperative, see present tense: present imperative statistical data on frequency 513 use of tenses in subordinate clauses after main clause with imperative 562 imperative sentences (commands) 16, 306, 348–61, 388 asyndetic connexion with declarative or interrogative sentence II.1221 coordination of negative imperative sentences 717 directive illocutionary force of 350–8 modulation of 350–6 imperative main clause as apodosis of condition 657 in indirect speech 511 internal word order II.1033–7 introduced by vel II.1172 negation of 682 negative imperative sentences (negative commands), see prohibitions use of imperative mood in 512 use of subjunctive mood in 497–504 with concessive illocutionary force (concessions) 348, 360 with enim II.1203 with modo II.877 with optative illocutionary force (wishes) 359 imperativus (modus) 56 imperfect tense imperfect indicative 410–23 compared with other narrative tenses 408, 416, 528 compared with perfect indicative 412 compared with present indicative 411 in time clauses 609 in time dum clauses 615 modal use (to make state of affairs less direct) 414 so-called aoristic use 412 so-called conative use 420 so-called epistolary use in letters 413 so-called narrative use 411 used in narration 453 to report words or thoughts of character 415 imperfect subjunctive ambiguity between potential and counterfactual use 487, 656

counterfactual use 494 in commands and prohibitions of the past 503 in conditional periods 488, 495 in declarative sentences (potential use) 487 in interrogative sentences 489 in nisi clauses to mark interruption II.341 in time dum clauses 615 in unrealizable wishes 507 use of tenses in subordinate clauses after main clause with imperfect subjunctive 563 imperfectum de conatu 381, 420 imperfectum modestiae 414, 415 impero 554 with prolative infinitive clause II.204 with ut clause II.131 impersonal passive construction compared with nominative and infinitive construction II.20 impersonal passives, see passive voice impersonal verbs 192, see verbs: impersonal verbs implied indirect discourse, see free indirect speech imprimis, used as emphasizing particle II.865, 899 imus 1050 in- (negative prefix) 734 in compounds with tmesis 735, II.1134 in (preposition) choice between ablative and accusative case 175, 1232 governing ablative in prepositional phrases as theme constituents II.854 to mark adjuncts denoting weather conditions and attendant circumstances 854 to mark manner adjuncts 868 to mark means and instrument adjuncts 880 to mark optional attributes of nouns 1030 to mark position in space adjuncts 806 of abstract location (limitativum) 807 to mark position in space arguments 175 to mark position in time adjuncts 837 to mark respect adjuncts 917 to mark subject complements 786 to mark time within which adjuncts 851 with gerundival time adjunct II.418 with judicial verbs 154, 155, 157 governing accusative idiomatic sum + in + abstract noun 809 to mark arguments of adjectives 222, 228 to mark arguments of deverbal nouns 1042 to mark direction and goal arguments 175 to mark extent of space adjuncts 829 to mark optional attributes of nouns 1030 to mark purpose adjuncts 809, 907 to mark subject complements 786 with adjectives of desire 222 with verbs of changing 151 in eo quod (complex subordinator) II.59 incipio 450 as auxiliary verb 210 not with momentaneous states of affairs 24

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words 1391 used to translate Greek whvvƒ 442 valency of 20 with infinitives II.219 passive infinitives 254 inconcinnitas, see variatio inde as connective adverb II.1208 as source adjunct 818 as summarizing device II.1160 in extent of time expressions 848 indefinite article absence of in Latin 1087 possible early development from unus and quidam 1114 indefinite determiners 969, 972, 1101–15 in negative sentences 1107 not combined with adjectives of amount 985 pleonastic use 1102 position of II.983 position with respect to head noun II.1071 statistical data on frequency 1102 indefinite noun phrases, see noun phrases indefinite pronouns 1164–72 as a word class 49 in negative sentences 1167 negative indefinite pronouns, see zero quantifiers neuter with genitive of quantity 1019 pleonastic use 1102 position of II.983 statistical data on frequency 1102 used in negative clauses 1167 with genitive modifier 941 with negator as alternative for zero quantification (nemo) 711 with partitive genitive 1005 indefinite relative clauses II.567–70 comparable with si qui(s) II.570 with indefinite relative pronouns II.567 indefinite relative pronouns II.472, 567 ‘independent’ relative clauses II.501; see autonomous relative clauses independent speech, see free indirect speech indicative mood 56, 395–481 clauses in which indicative competes with subjunctive 601, 618 factive value of 388, 395, 626, 636, 638, 641, 654 future indicative, see future tense future perfect indicative, see future tense imperfect indicative, see imperfect tense in ‘causal’ relative clauses II.539 in concessive clauses 662 in conditional periods 401, 654 in cum clauses reason cum clauses 644 time cum clauses 641 in licet clauses II.374 in manner clauses 663 in quamvis clauses II.367, 368 in quando clauses 651 in quatenus clauses 651 in quod and quia clauses 626 in quoniam clauses 650

in reason clauses 646 in relative clauses II.481, 539, 544, 567 in result (consecutive) clauses 653 in si clauses meaning ‘to see if ’ 628, 652 in si conditional clauses 654 in siquidem clauses 651 in space adjunct clauses 638 in subordinate clauses in indirect speech 669 in subordinate interrogative clauses (indirect questions) 629 in time clauses 638 perfect indicative, see perfect tense pluperfect indicative, see pluperfect tense present indicative, see present tense relevance of sequence of tenses 602 indicativus (modus) 56 pro imperativo 312 indidem 818 indignus 221 with relative clause as argument II.533 indirect commands, see imperative (subordinate) clauses indirect discourse, see indirect speech indirect illocutionary force, see illocutionary force indirect object 29, 763; see also dative case: to mark addressee arguments; dative case: to mark recipient arguments indirect questions, see interrogative (subordinate) clauses indirect reflexive pronouns or adjectives 1122, 1124, II.7 indirect speech 389, II.48; see also communication, verbs of; free indirect speech as indicator of non-subordinate status of cum (. . . tum) II.701 imperative sentences in 511 interrogative sentences in 510 use of tenses in 599 rhetorical questions in 510 use of moods in subordinate clauses in 668 use of subjunctive in 510 use of tenses in 591–600 inducing, verbs of with imperative clause II.135 with prolative infinitive clause II.206 induo 264 infectum stem 50, 51, 382 diachronic developments of 473 in time clauses 609 inferior 1050 as secondary predicate II.783 with dative for basis of comparison II.733 infimus 1050 infinitival clauses 156–94, 383–6; see also nominative and infinitive construction accusative and infinitive clauses II.157, 204 at adjective phrase level II.463 at noun phrase level II.448 prolative infinitive clauses II.204, 448, 464 purpose infinitive clauses II.383 with verbs of movement in poetry II.23

1392

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words

infinitive clauses (‘substantival infinitives’) as object complement 796 as subject complement 787 as subject or object of clause 746 infinitives 57, 521–41 agreement of subject complement after prolative infinitive 1271 as head of noun phrase 942 as part of prepositional phrase 944 compared with deverbal nouns proper 59 directive use 358, 530 future infinitive 521, 531–5 compared with present infinitive 525 temporal value of 531–5 future passive infinitive fore ut and futurum esse ut as alternative 533 gerundive + esse 535 other alternatives to supine + iri 525, 533 supine + iri 522, 525, 532 future perfect infinitive 536 historic infinitive 522, 527 compared with other narrative tenses 528 in subordinate clauses 608 in time ut clauses II.264 use of tenses in subordinate clauses after main clause with historic infinitive 561 in accusative and infinitive clause II.17, 162 in interrogative clauses II.106 in nominative and infinitive construction II.20 in result clauses II.314 in ut argument clauses II.16 perfect infinitive 521, 536–41 in prohibitions 538 perfect by attraction 540 resulting state interpretation with terminative state of affairs 537 temporal value of 536–41 use of tenses after 559, 588 used as prolative infinitive 526 without anterior meaning 538 present infinitive 521, 522–31 as purpose adjunct II.383 with ad II.384, 385 compared with future infinitive 525 instead of finite verb in indirect question 531 present passive as alternative to future passive infinitive 525 temporal value of 522 used as prolative infinitive 526 with verbs of promising 525 prolative use 164, 183, 522, 526, II.23; see also prolative infinitive clauses statistical data on frequency 521 temporal value of 521–41 with auxiliary verbs II.219 with debeo 440, II.219 omitted (conventionally) 213 with future reference in accusative and infinitive clauses II.19 with habeo 436, 472, II.219

with possum 441, II.219 with verbs of accusing and convicting II.216, 218 with volo 441 infinitivus historicus 527 infinitivus pro imperativo 358, 530 infitias, with eo 811 inflectional categories 35, 52 inflectional endings 35 information questions 316, 336–9, 370 information-requesting illocutionary force 315, 341 information structure II.826, 849, 863, 951, 1060; see also word order; pragmatic functions infra (preposition) to mark direction and goal adjuncts 812 to mark position in space adjuncts 806 ingredior, with gerundial clause II.227 inhibitive use of imperative 516 initial position, see position (in clause/sentence): first position iniuria, ablative as subjective evaluation disjunct 928 inquam generic third person inquit 753 inquit with direct speech II.48 used parenthetically in imperative sentences 355 inscribo 446 inscriptio, as greeting formula II.1230 insons, as secondary predicate in poetry II.785 instituo 168 instrument adjuncts, see means and instrument adjuncts instrument (semantic function) 28 instruo 1195 insuper 1242 integer, replacing totus in meaning ‘whole’ 992 inter (preposition) coordination of prepositional phrases II.602 to express reciprocity 276 to mark direction and goal adjuncts 812 to mark position in space adjuncts 806 to mark time within which adjuncts 851 interaction management II.345 interactional particles 12, 68; see also particles: interactional particles interactive texts, see text types interdico 184, 1185 interea as connective adverb to mark sequence of events II.1217 co-occurring with dum clause II.254 interest 135 with si clause II.102 interim, co-occurring with dum clause II.254 interjections 923–37 at conversation opening II.1229 combined with exclamatory sentences II.924 expressive interjections II.931 introductory interjections II.927 sound reproducing interjections II.924 summonses II.925

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words 1393 interlacing II.31, 39, 492 constituent(s) of main clause preceding subordinate clause II.1051 constituent(s) of subordinate clause preceding main clause II.1053 incorporation of subordinate clause into main clause II.1052 of ablative absolute clause with main clause II.1058 of connective relative with a subordinate clause II.556 of relative clause with another subordinate clause II.492 of relative clause with si clause II.571 of relative clauses II.476 of subordinate clause with main clause II.1048 of two noun phrases (double hyperbaton) II.950, 964 intermediate agents 249, 875 ‘internally’ headed relative clauses, see autonomous relative clauses interpersonal relations, adjectives of 217 interrogative adverbs 336 interrogative (subordinate) clauses II.105–26 announced by preparative expressions 1099, 1145 as cleft sentences II.846 at adjective phrase level II.461 at noun phrase level II.444 constituent questions II.121 coordinated by sive/seu II.665 coordinated by -ve II.662 distinguished from direct questions 316, II.106 distinguished from relative clauses II.122 governing verbs II.106 formal ambiguity with relative and comparative clauses 633 multiple indirect questions II.107 marking of the second alternative II.125 with an(ne) II.123 necne and an non in second of multiple questions 340 pseudo-indirect question with nē II.117 use of indirect reflexive pronoun and possessive adjective in 1126, 1130 use of moods in 628–36 diachronic changes in use of moods 635 indicative mood 629 subjunctive mood 618, 628–36 use of tenses in 552, 566, 570, 599 with adjectives of cognition II.460 with complex subordinator (ex eo quomodo) II.383 with ec- compounds II.118 with infinitive II.106 with question particles II.109–17, 123–6 with si II.115 with verbs of fearing II.118 with verbs of seeing II.115 without question particle II.108 interrogative determiners 336, 969, 974 interrogative pronouns 336

as a word class 49 as non-mobile words II.955 combined with quod argument clauses II.74 combined with relative clauses II.580 combined with ut purpose clauses II.303 position of II.983 with genitive modifier 941 interrogative (question) particles 316, 322–33 in accusative and infinitive clause II.186 in indirect questions II.109–17, 123–6 position of II.982 statistical data on frequency 320 interrogative sentences 16, 306, 315–48, 388 connective relatives in II.559 constituent questions 316, 336–9 in accusative and infinitive clauses II.188 responses to 370 coordination of negative interrogative sentences 340 dubitative questions 327 elliptical interrogative sentences 346 internal word order II.1027–33 interrogative main clause as apodosis of condition 657 multiple questions 315, 339–41 negation of 681 repudiating (polemical) questions 344 rhetorical questions 343; see also rhetorical questions sentence (yes/no) questions 316, 316–35 difficulties of analysis 320 responses to 371 scope of sentence questions 318 with question particle 322–34 without question particle 321 simple questions 315 use of tenses in indirect speech 599 with enim II.1203 with imperfect subjunctive 489 with indirect assertive illocutionary force (rhetorical questions) 319, 343, 374, 600 becoming accusative and infinitive clauses in indirect speech 510 with indirect directive illocutionary force 342, 345, 513, 600, 630 becoming subjunctive in indirect speech 510 with present subjunctive 485 interruption (de rupture) technique 420 coordination as II.623 donec clauses II.256 inverse cum clauses II.246 ni/nisi clauses II.341 intervallum, ablative intervallo as extent of space adjunct 827 intimus 1050 intonation contour 15, 16, 306, 676, 994 for distinguishing between restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses II.474 for identification of complex clauses II.8, 9 of ablative absolute clauses II.1045 of asyndetic coordination II.606, 609

1394

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words

intonation contour (cont.) of attributes in ante- and postposition II.1064 of contrast and emphasis II.859 of interjections II.924 of parenthetical constituents II.910 of participles as secondary predicates II.794 of restrictive and non-restrictive appositions 1055 of theme constituents II.850 of vocatives 1224 to mark emphasis II.862 intonation structure, of utterances II.966 intonation units, distinction of II.967 intra (adverb) 812, 1229 intra (preposition) to mark direction and goal adjuncts 812 to mark position in space adjuncts 806 to mark position in time adjuncts 837 to mark time within which adjuncts 851 intransitive use of transitive verbs 78, 80, 84 intransitive verbs 81; see also one-place verbs; indirect object with non-accusative object 1190 intransitivization 279 intro (adverb) 808 intro (preposition) 806 intus (adverb) as direction or goal adjunct 812 as position in space adjunct 808 as source adjunct 819 intus (preposition) 806, 1233 invado 1234 invicem, to express reciprocity 276 invideo 184 invitus 769 ipse 1150–64 as pronoun 49 as secondary predicate II.824 combined with relative clause II.513 developing into meaning ‘the same’ 1163 developing into Romance definite article 1149, 1162 developing into Romance demonstrative pronoun 1162 difficulty of assigning to lexical category 1156 discretive use 1152, 1153 as scope of negation 1154 insertion in ablative absolute clause as form of interlacing II.1059 neuter ipsum modifying infinitive 943 pregnant use 1152 combined with various focusing (emphasizing) particles 1153 ipse as inherently contrastive element II.860 to stress agent/subject identity in ablative absolute clause II.396 in gerundial clause II.411 with reflexive verbs 273 discretive ipse highlighting involvement of subject 1155

pregnant ipse highlighting object 1155 to avoid ambiguity between coreferential constituents 1128 iri, see eo (verb) irrealis conditional 388, 494, 654, II.315; see also conditional periods: counterfactual conditions irregular verbs 53 is as anaphoric determiner 970, 1096 anteposed before preposition II.1115 combined with lexical repetition as cohesive device II.1147 demonstrative use in place of hic 1095 of head of relative clause II.481 position of II.976 position with respect to head noun II.1067 preparative (cataphoric) use 1098 as anaphoric pronoun 49, 1139, 1144 as head of relative clause II.484 as pronominal support of a preposition + subordinator II.15 as resumptive expression of restrictive relative clause II.482 eo as correlative expression with reason clause II.283 genitive as non-reflexive possessive pronoun 980 used instead of suus 1134 position with respect to head noun II.1073 id + genitive noun (idiom) 1022 id as preparative expression of argument clause II.31 id as resumptive expression in epitactic coordination II.693, 696 id as resumptive expression of argument clause II.36 id ‘for that reason’ II.755 in an expression of confirmation of a preceding statement II.1160 in proportional comparison quo . . . eo II.766 instead of second relative pronoun in multiple relative clauses II.565 position of II.976 preparative (cataphoric) use 1145 referring to discourse participants II.1150 resumptive use 1145 used as substitute for third person pronoun 1119 used instead of reflexive pronoun 1133 as determiner of autonomous relative clause II.507 ‘emphatic’ use II.507 governed by preposition II.520 relative clause as apposition II.551 semantically empty II.508 with anaphoric meaning II.507 as subject complement 771 compared with hic, ille, and iste 1097, 1140 diachronic developments of 1146 statistical data on frequency 1092, 1148

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words 1395 iste as demonstrative determiner 970 anaphoric use 1096 deictic use 1093 exophoric use 1101 in derogatory sense 1101 position with respect to head noun II.1068 preparative (cataphoric) use 1098 to mark autonomous relative clause as definite II.505 as demonstrative pronoun 49 anaphoric use 1139 neuter forms as summarizing device II.1157 referring to discourse participants II.1150 istud as preparative expression of argument clause II.31 istud as resumptive expression of argument clause II.36 deictic use 1137 preparative (cataphoric) use 1145 resumptive use 1145 used as substitute for third person pronoun 1118 combined with ecce 1093 compared with hic and ille 1094, 1097, 1137, 1140 compared with is 1097, 1140 diachronic developments of 1146 statistical data on frequency 1092, 1148 istic 808 istinc 1137 istuc 812 ita; see also ut . . . ita (sic) as correlative expression with conditional clause II.325 with conditional comparative clause II.349 with manner clause II.271 with result clause II.309 with stipulative clause II.306 with ut/ne clause II.313 as expression of similarity II.752 as preparative device II.1161 as preparative expression of argument clause II.35, 184 as summarizing device II.1159 in an expression of confirmation of a preceding statement II.1160 in elliptical interrogative sentences 346 in wishes 504 itaque as connector II.1208, 1212 position of II.973 item, combined with conjunctive coordinators II.655 iubeo accusative as object or pseudo-object 761 as two- and three-place verb II.180 double accusative construction II.179 expression of addressee II.179 statistical data on tense usage 394

with accusative and infinitive clause II.176, 178, 180 with nominative and infinitive construction II.177, 198 with prolative infinitive clause II.180, 204 with (ut) argument clause II.179 iungo 144 iuris consultus, as expression with fixed order II.1087 ius, ablative iure as subjective evaluation disjunct 348, 928 ius civile, as expression with fixed order II.1079 iuvo 104, 1191 iuxta (adverb) 1229 as expression of similarity II.752 iuxta (preposition) 806 judicial verbs 153, 912 jussive infinitive 358, 530 knowledge, general (encyclopedic) II.830 knowledge and memory, adjectives of 222, 227 laboro 91 lacking, adjectives of 219, 226, 1189 lacking, verbs of 110, 1189, 1193 last position, see position (in clause/sentence): last position lativus 1215 latus (adjective) 228 lavo 261, 280 left-dislocation II.850; see also theme constituents legal texts, see text types levior plumā, as hyperbolic expression II.730 lex repetition in relative clause II.529 with ut clause II.437 lexeme 36 lexical aspect 380 lexical categories 34–70 lexical negation, see negation libet 110 -libet compounds, introducing relative clause II.472 licet (subordinator) combined with quamvis II.375 introducing ablative absolute clauses II.374 introducing concessive clauses II.355 with conditional interpretation II.359 with constituents below the clause level II.357 licet (verb) 94 agreement of complements and secondary predicates 1270 development into concessive subordinator 663, II.373 in expression dixisse liceat 539 use of moods with 663 used in future perfect without anterior meaning 466 with accusative and infinitive clause II.181 with imperative clause II.148

1396

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words

licet clauses II.373–5 litotes 686, 712, 715, 721 loca lautia, as asyndeton II.614 local negation, see negation locative case former locative forms used as adverbs 841 to mark direction and goal adjuncts 814 to mark position in space adjuncts 803, 819 ‘locative’ object 92 loco with gerundival clause II.231 with object and gerundive as secondary predicate II.799 locus in ablative as position in space adjunct 803 repetition of noun in relative clause II.529 logical subject 1123, 1124 long distance reflexive 1122, 1124 longe as extent of space adjunct 829 as modifier of comparative expressions II.742 as position in space adjunct 808 combined with superlatives II.774 to express degree of dissimilarity II.761 longe lateque, as coordinated pair II.625 longius, in expressions of quantity and extent of space or time II.735 longus 228 loquor 283 luci (adverb) 841 macte 1225 magis as adversative adverb, ‘rather’ II.682 combined with ac/atque II.729 ‘corrective’ and pleonastic uses with comparatives II.743 in combination magis quam II.747 ‘corrective use’ II.749 in combination non magis quam II.725 in comparison of non-equivalence II.724 in proportional comparative pattern quam . . . tam II.769 magis atque magis II.632 with adjective/adverb in positive degree II.726 with comparative and ab prepositional phrase II.734 magister equitum, as expression with fixed order II.1087 magnopere 18, 890, 1085 main clauses 13, II.2 as reference point for tense of subordinate clause 552 relative order with respect to subordinate clause 560, 565, II.1047–62 male (adverb), indicating degree rather than manner 698 male speech 353 malo in comparison of non-equivalence II.724 with imperative clause II.139 malum, as exclamation II.922

malum quod (idiom) 1104 maneo, with dative or accusative 129 manipulation, verbs of as three-place verbs 183 with accusative and infinitive clause II.17, 173 with imperative clause II.129 with present infinitive 525 with so-called final infinitive II.386 manner adjuncts 28, 784, 858–71 compared with means and instrument adjuncts 874 compared with norm adjuncts 872 distinguished from accompanying circumstance adjuncts 899 distinguished from subjective evaluation disjuncts 861, 928 gerundial clauses as II.409 gerundival clauses as II.416 modifying adjectives 1078 object-oriented 859 subject-oriented 859 verb-oriented 860 manner clauses 663, II.270–8 as adjuncts II.271 as attitudinal disjuncts II.274 as illocutionary disjuncts II.277 conditional or ‘unreal’ manner clauses II.348 with reduction of constituents (‘condensed’) II.274 distinguished from comparative expressions of quality II.763 manner expressions as correlative expressions with conditional comparative clause II.349 with result clause II.308 manner (semantic function) 28 mare, ablative mari as position in space adjunct 803 maxime as correlative expression with conditional clause II.336 combined with conjunctive coordinators II.655 in affirmative answers 376 used as emphasizing particle II.900 me dius fidius, as swear expression II.922 means and instrument adjuncts 28, 152, 154, 874–81, 1193 compared with manner adjuncts 874 compared with price adjuncts 881 compared with respect adjuncts 914 distinguished from ablative arguments 146, 1196 gerundial clauses as II.409 gerundival clauses as II.416 human beings as instrument adjuncts 875 multiple means and instrument adjuncts in one clause 874, 877 use of ablative case to mark 1200 mecastor II.919 medical texts, see text types mediopassive voice 231; see also passive voice: autocausative passives medium (spoken or written) 32

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words 1397 medius partitive and non-partitive uses 1048 with partitive genitive 948 mehercle II.919 melle dulcior, as hyperbolic expression II.730 memini 448 tense of infinitive with 524 memor as secondary predicate in poetry II.786 with argument clause II.460 mens, ablative mente developing into adverbial suffix 871 mereo/mereor 283 with imperative clause II.145 with prolative infinitive clause II.212 merger 184, 288, 1185, 1215, 1237–9 merito (as preposition) 912, 1202 -met (suffix) 69, 1162 combined with ipse 1153 combined with personal pronouns and possessive adjectives II.907 combined with reflexive pronouns 273 metadirectives 349, 351, 519, 630 statistical data on frequency 513 ‘meta’-questions 315 metarogatives 630 metuo, with dative or accusative 129, 1189 middle voice 231; see also passive voice: autocausative passives mille, agreement of verb with 1300 mimetic narrative mode 402, II.1143 minime as emphasizing particle II.901 as strong negator 699 in negative answers 376, 377 minus (comparative adverb) combined with ac/atque II.729 in combination (non) minus quam II.725, 738, 747 in comparison of non-equivalence II.724 in expressions of quantity and extent of space or time II.735 with ablative of comparison II.730 minus (negative adverb) as mild negator 699 in combination quo minus introducing negative purpose clause II.304 in combination si(n) minus II.321, 330 miror use of moods in quod or quia clauses 626 with quod clause II.61 with si clause II.101 mirus impersonal mirum est with quod or quia clause 626 with si clause II.102 mirum quantum (idiom) 632 mirum with quin clause II.100 miseret 132 mitto valency of 142 with accusative and infinitive clause II.161

with gerundive as secondary predicate II.797 with infinitival purpose clause II.383 with quod clause II.61 with supine in -um as purpose adjunct II.421 mixing, verbs of 150 mobile words II.955 modal assimilation (attraction) 667 modal verbs auxiliary modal verbs 212, II.219 debeo 212, 386, 436, 439, 512, II.219 habeo 436 impersonal licet 94, 466, II.53 developing into concessive subordinator 663, II.373 impersonal oportet 94, 466, 512, II.53 in present subjunctive 483 in the imperfect 460 possum 212, 386, 439, 466, II.219 negated 724 with accusative and infinitive clause II.192 with infinitive 535, II.219 perfect infinitive 539 modality deontic 388, 651, 653 epistemic 388 assumptive 426, 431, 435, 471 deductive 426–7, 431, 435, 440, 471 moderor, with dative or accusative 131 modification (type of adversative coordination) II.680 modifiers 17, 933; see also adjective phrases; attributes grammatical agreement with compound constituent 1273 grammatical agreement with single noun 1272 multiple modifiers with one head referring to different entities 1277 notional agreement with head noun 1298 modo (particle) 841, II.875 combined with with si II.323, 343 in combination modo ut/ne II.306 in imperative sentences and relative clauses II.877 used to modulate directive expressions 355 modo (subordinator), introducing stipulative clauses II.306 modulation of assertions 309 of commands and prohibitions 350 of requests for information 341 modus, ablative nullo modo as negator 700 momentaneous (state of affairs) 23 use of perfect tense with 397 monovalent, see verbs: one-place verbs mood 50, 56 modal assimilation 667 statistical data on frequency 391 theoretical discussion of 386–90, 617 use of moods in conditional comparative clauses II.349 use of moods in cum clauses with concessive interpretation II.269 use of moods in etiamsi clauses II.372

1398

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words

mood (cont.) use of moods in etsi clauses II.370 use of moods in finite argument clauses 621–35, II.57 use of moods in licet clauses II.374 use of moods in nisi clauses of exception II.351 use of moods in quamquam clauses II.365 use of moods in quamvis clauses II.367 use of moods in relative clauses II.538, 547 use of moods in si clauses with temporal interpretation II.340 use of moods in subordinate clauses 617–71 use of moods in tametsi clauses II.371 morpheme 17 morphosemantic category 37 morphosyntactic category 37 mos est agreement of complements and secondary predicates 1270 with gerundial clause II.228 mos maiorum, as expression with fixed order II.1087 motive adjuncts, see reason adjuncts movement, verbs of 92, 102, 178, 813, 814, 1194 with direction and goal adjunct 808 with extent of space adjunct 826 with gerundive in bare accusative II.416 with purpose gerundial clause in bare accusative II.408 with purpose gerundival clause II.385 with purpose infinitival clause II.23, 383, 385 with source adjunct 815 with supine in -um as purpose adjunct II.385, 421 moveo 261 valency of 93 mox in combination mox ut II.258 use as subordinator II.264 mulier, with descriptive adjective, in apposition to proper name 938 multiple clauses 14 multo as modifier with adjectives II.1082 combined with superlatives II.774 to express degree of dissimilarity II.761 to express measure of difference II.740 multus neuter multum as degree modifier with adjectives 1080 as measure of distance 827 with genitive of quantity 1017 partitive use 1051 position with respect to head noun II.1075 with partitive genitive 946 nam as connector 68, II.1193, 1194–7 ‘affirmative’ nam combined with hercle II.1197 combined with quoniam II.289

compared with namque II.1198 in parenthetical sentences II.911 position of II.973, 1197 as enclitic question particle 341 combined with question words 337 in combination ecquidnam 335 in combination numquidnam 329 naming expressions agreement of gentilicium with two or more praenomina 1276 agreement with 1271 namque II.1193, 1197 position of II.973, 1198 narrative discourse mode II.1141 narrative texts, see text types nascor 283 natus, with expressions of comparison II.737 ne, as affirmative particle 309 nē, as question particle in pseudo-indirect questions II.108, 117 ne (negative subordinator) 675, 700–3, II.41 introducing argument clauses II.126, 149, 150, 442 with adjectives of fearing and worrying II.461 with verbs of fearing and worrying II.94 with verbs of hindering and preventing II.138 introducing purpose clauses II.297, 300, 303, 312 introducing result clauses II.312 introducing stipulative clauses II.306 ne clauses with correlative ita, sic, or tantus interpreted as purpose, result, or stipulative clauses II.313 ne (negator) 694–6 in imperative quī clauses II.155 in imperative sentences 348, 682 in imperative ut clauses II.57, 81, 82, 126, 147, 149 in prohibitions with perfect subjunctive 352 with present subjunctive 499 in purpose ut clauses II.297, 300 in stipulative clauses II.306 in wishes 359 ne + indefinite pronoun as alternative to zero quantifier 711 used in the sense of nedum II.701 -ne (question particle) 69, 316, 323 as emphasizer II.864 as non-mobile word II.956 attached to velitis iubeatis II.609 combined with igitur or ergo 317 combined with question words 337 in Christian authors 325 in exclamatory sentences 363 in the first part of multiple questions 339 in indirect questions II.108, 109, 110 with verbs of seeing II.115 in multiple indirect questions II.123, 125

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words 1399 in questions with indirect directive illocutionary force 345 in rhetorical questions 344 in ut clauses functioning as indignant questions 347 position of II.110, 999, 1029 ne clauses as arguments 700, II.94 imperative clauses (indirect commands) 567, 621, II.138, 150 with verbs of fearing 623, 702, II.94 with verbs of hindering, forbidding, and preventing 622, 701, II.138 as satellites as illocutionary disjuncts 566, II.299 pseudo-final ne clauses 566, II.299, 302 purpose (final) ne clauses 566, 573, 703, II.302 ne . . . quidem (emphasizing particle) 680, 695, 1153 combined with superlatives II.774 position of II.994 ne/nec . . . saltem, as emphasizing particle II.889 nec/neque 308, 692–4 as connector II.1166, 1170 as coordinator II.637–8 correlative nec . . . nec with discontinuity of conjoins II.1130 correlative nec/neque . . . ac/atque or et II.647 correlative nec/neque . . . nec/neque 1252, II.642 correlative nec/neque . . . -que II.647 in combination nec non 725 in epitactic coordination II.693 nec quisquam preferred to et nemo 1168 nec/neque + indefinite pronoun as alternative to zero quantifier 711 of argument clauses II.81, 127 of clauses II.588 of constituents II.637 of negative declarative clauses 308, 713 of negative imperative clauses 717, II.150 of result clauses II.312 so-called —.ăuztxzŪ use II.637 as local negator 685, 688 distribution of nec vs. neque 694 in negative answers 376 in non-coordinating function 675, 692 nec used in sense of ne . . . quidem as emphasizing particle 1153, II.873 omission of second conjoin (particula pendens) II.642 necesse est, with imperative clause 622, II.147 necne as negating expression in multiple indirect questions II.124 in the second of multiple questions 340 nedum as quasi-coordinator II.699, 700 as subordinator introducing purpose clauses II.303 negatio contrarii 686

negation 672–735; see also zero quantifiers (negative indefinites) clause negation 672 double negation 726 epexegetic negation 726 expletive use of negator 700 in comparison of non-equivalence II.725 in comparison non tam . . . quam II.746, 750 in conditional clauses with minus II.321 in conditional clauses with (si) non and nisi II.316 in declarative clauses II.57, 59 ut clauses II.81, 83 in declarative sentences 308, 675 in imperative clauses II.126, 149 ut clauses II.57, 81, 82, 144, 148 in imperative sentences 348, 682 in independent accusative and infinitive clauses II.186 in indirect questions with nē II.118 in indirect questions with si II.116 in interrogative clauses II.57 in interrogative sentences 681 in litotes or negatio contrarii 686, 712, 715, 721 in multiple indirect questions II.124 in ne clauses with verbs of fearing and worrying II.94 in participial clauses II.29 in prolative infinitive clauses II.204 in purpose clauses II.297 in result clauses II.312 in sentences with indirect directive illocutionary force 314 in si argument clauses II.101 in stipulative clauses II.306 in ut clauses with concessive interpretation II.375 in wishes 359 indefinite pronouns and determiners in negative sentences 1107, 1167 lexical negation 734 distinguished from negative verbs 734 local negation 672, 684–91 position of negators 731 multiple negators in one clause 721–30 double (or pleonastic) negation 727 negation adverbs 672, 674–708 position of 730 negative verbs 672, 712 combined with negation adverb 722 distinguished from lexical negation 734 negator climbing 683–4, II.7 pragmatic negation 673, 732, 1107, 1167; see also negation by implication resumptive negation 726 scope of, see scope: of negation semantic negation 673, 1107, 1167 with ablative of comparison II.730 with expressions of (dis)similarity aeque and aliter II.756

1400

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words

negation by implication (pragmatic negation) 673, 732 of sentences with num and numquid 328 in main clause of nisi clause II.353 in main clause of quin clause II.311 with comparison of non-equivalence 733, II.727 with expressions of (dis)similarity aeque and aliter II.756 with indefinite quisquam 1167 with ne, quin, and quominus 675, 700 negative imperative sentences (negative commands), see prohibitions negative indefinite pronouns, see zero quantifiers negative verbs, see negation nego sigmatic subjunctive negassim 491 with pleonastic negation in accusative and infinitive clause 730 neive, see neve/neu nemo 709 as determiner of head of restrictive relative clause II.482 combined with homo 973 combined with quisquam 709, 942, 1169 genitive and ablative supplied by nullus 710 nec quisquam preferred to et nemo 1168 use as determiner 973 nempe 310, II.1193, 1206 nequaquam 700 neque, see nec/neque nequeo 712 as auxiliary verb 212 in passive 255 with infinitive II.219 nescio 712 nescio an, as idiom II.114 with indirect question II.109, 113 nescio quis/quid, as idiom 632, 972, 1102 with infinitive II.219 nesting (hierarchical structure of noun phrase) 1031, 1047 of head and relative clause II.498, 499 of noun phrase attributes II.1094 neuter 709, 973, 989 neutiquam 700 neve/neu 697 as coordinator correlative neve . . . neve II.674 of negative imperative clauses 717, II.127, 150 of negative purpose clauses II.300 as subordinator of imperative clauses II.674 ni (negative conditional subordinator), as equivalent to si non and nisi II.317 ni (Early Latin equivalent to ne) 696 in interrogative sentences 681 nihil 709 accusative as degree adjunct 697, 709 accusative as measure of distance 827 combined with quicquam 1169

missing forms supplied by nulla res 710 nihilo to express measure of difference II.740 use as determiner 973 nihilominus (connective adverb) II.1172, 1189 with concessive clause II.356 with cum clause II.269 nimio to express measure of difference II.740 nimis, with genitive of quantity 1022 nimium, as degree modifier with adjectives 1080 nisi II.101 as adverb, ‘except that’ II.353 as comparative element in comparison of (dis) similarity, ‘except’ II.753 as connector, ‘except that’ II.352 as negative subordinator of conditional clauses II.320 combined with alius in expressions of dissimilarity II.761 in ablative absolute clauses 392 with quod or quia as complex subordinator II.381 nisi clauses 420 argument clauses with miror II.101 conditional clauses as attitudinal disjunct II.343 conditional clauses of exception II.350 ni/nisi conditional de rupture clauses II.341 nitor 112, 1193 nive, see neve/neu noceo 103, 1189 noctu 841 nolo 712 metadirective noli 349 noli + infinitive in prohibitions 352 compared with other directive expressions 513 nolito and nolitote + infinitive 519 with imperative clause II.139 nomen 1271 nomina interrogandi, investigandi, and declarandi II.444 sciendi and sentiendi II.445 nominal apposition 1053, 1054–66 ‘nominal’ clauses II.52; see argument clauses ‘nominal infinitives’, see infinitive clauses (‘substantival infinitives’) ‘nominal’ questions 316, see interrogative sentences: constituent questions ‘nominal’ or ‘nominalized’ relative clauses II.501; see autonomous relative clauses nominal sentences (without sum) 201 as exclamations 367 nominal (verbless) clauses II.25, 29 as arguments II.234–6 as satellites II.427–34 ablative absolute clause II.427 absolute clauses in cases other than ablative II.433 adjectival ablative absolute clauses II.430

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words 1401 complex ablative absolute clauses II.432 prepositional absolute clauses II.433 subordinators to make semantic relationship explicit II.432 substantival ablative absolute clauses II.427 nominative and infinitive construction 232, II.20, 194–200 as alternative to accusative and infinitive clause II.169 compared with accusative and infinitive clause II.21, 197 compared with impersonal passive construction II.20, 192 continued by accusative and infinitve clause II.199 distinguished from prolative infinitive clause II.23 resemblance between infinitival constructions with intransitive verbs and nominative and infinitive construction II.200 with arguo II.216 with impersonal apparet and constat II.200 with infinitive in the passive II.20 with iubeo II.177, 198 with passive verbs of perception, cognition, and communication II.194 with verbs of ordering and commanding II.131 with verbs of praising, blaming, congratulating, and thanking II.197 nominative case 1209–13 in exclamations 367, 1213, II.936 with ecce II.928, 931 in literal quotations 1212 independent use in names and titles 1210 nominativus pendens 1211, II.852 statistical data on frequency 1179, 1183 to mark address constituents 1209 to mark non-finite clauses as subject 1213 to mark subject complements 188, 767, 1186, 1209 to mark subjects 736, 1186, 1209 pseudo-subject in personal passive construction 761 to mark tail constituents 1209 to mark theme constituents 1209 used instead of accusative case to mark object complements 1211 used instead of oblique case for names 1212 used instead of vocative 1226 non 309, 691–2 archaic form noenum 692 as prosodic unit with word modified 732 combined with zero quantifier or negative verb 721 compared with haud 691 in combination nec non 725 in comparison non magis/minus . . . quam II.725 in comparison non tam . . . quam II.746 in conditional si clauses II.319 in declarative clauses II.57, 59

in declarative sentences 308, 675 with indirect illocutionary force 314 in imperative clauses II.126 in imperative sentences 348 in indirect questions II.57, 116, 118, 124 in interrogative sentences 326, 681 with indirect illocutionary force 345 in ne clauses with verbs of fearing and worrying II.94, 95 in negative answers 375, 377 in prolative infinitive clauses II.204 in result clauses II.311 in ut clauses II.81, 83, 143, 150 as equivalent to quin II.99 with concessive interpretation II.375 local negation 684 in declarative ut clauses II.83 non + indefinite pronoun as alternative to zero quantifier 711 non eo . . . quo as reason expression II.296 non modo/tantum(modo) . . . sed/verum (etiam) II.686 non . . . sed to mark contrastive elements II.859 non solum . . . sed/verum (etiam) II.586, 686, 844 position of 730, II.1000 nondum 856 non-dynamic (state of affairs) 22 perfect tense leading to negative interpretation 446 non-equivalence (of two terms under comparison) II.717 non-exclusivity (type of disjunctive coordination) II.657 non-factivity of gerundives 299, 550 of subjunctive mood 388, 571, 620 in argument clauses with verbs of fearing 623 in conditional periods 654 in quod and quia argument clauses 626 in satellite clauses 636 in space adjunct clauses 638 in time cum clauses 641 non-mobile words position of II.973 restrictions on placement II.955 non-momentaneous (state of affairs) 23 use of present tense with 397 nonne (question particle) 316, 321, 326 in indirect questions II.108, 111 position of II.1030 nonnulli, as determiner of head of relative clause II.482 non-referring noun phrases 1085, 1117 non-restrictive apposition 1055, 1061 non-terminative (state of affairs) 23 norm adjuncts 871–4 compared with cause and manner adjuncts 872 nos, see personal pronouns

1402

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words

nosco, perfect novi 448 ‘noun’ clauses II.52; see argument clauses noun phrases 16, 933–1175, 1203 adnominal arguments 44, 966, 1037–47, 1190, 1204, II.11; see also adnominal arguments applicability of concept to Latin 934 as host for parenthetical constituents II.915 asyndetic coordination distinguished from hierarchical structure II.607 asyndetic coordination of modifiers II.619 attributes (optional) 17, 965–1047; see also attributes compound noun phrases agreement of modifiers with 1273 agreement of pronouns with 1284 with one or more modifier(s) II.598 coordination of attributive noun phrases II.597 coordination with constituents belonging to different categories II.704 coordination with -ve II.662 correlative coordination with -que . . . -que II.638 definite noun phrases 1087, 1088–1101 statistical data on frequency 1091 diachronic developments in marking of modifiers 1240 discontinuity II.1097; see also discontinuity; hyperbaton generic noun phrases 1086, 1115 referred to by plural relative pronoun 1296 grammatical agreement within 1272 head (of noun phrase) 16, 934–65 types of constituents that may function as 934 hierarchical structure of (nesting) 1031, 1047, II.1094 in ablative of description or quality, as secondary predicate II.801 in genitive of description or quality, as secondary predicate II.799 indefinite noun phrases 1087, 1101–15 statistical data on frequency 1091 internal word order II.1062, 1093 non-referring noun phrases 1085, 1117 notional agreement within 1298 order of modifiers within 1047 referring noun phrases 1085, 1086–1117 relative order of head and attribute II.1066–93 position of adjective phrases II.1080 position of adjectives II.1076 in comparative and superlative II.1083 position of adnominal arguments II.1091 position of anaphoric and demonstrative determiners II.1067 position of eius, eorum, and earum II.1073 position of genitives II.1084 position of identifiers II.1074 position of indefinite determiners II.1071 position of modifiers of attributes II.1084 position of phrases of description or quality II.1090

position of possessive adjectives II.1072 position of quantifiers II.1075 position of relative and interrogative determiners II.1071 specific noun phrases 1086, 1087–1115 nouns as a word class 42 abstract nouns 43, 748, 937, 983, 1109, 1140 agreement of verb with 1254 agreement of verb with compound abstract subject 1248 as form of address II.944 of quality in ablative used instead of attributive adjective in Late Latin II.803 with gerundi(v)al clause II.452, 454, 456 agent nouns with gerundi(v)al clause II.452, 454, 456 as head of relative clause II.492 as secondary predicate 789–91 distinguished from apposition and tail constituent II.818 with conditional interpretation II.812 as subject or object complement with accusative and infinitive clauses II.183 with gerundial clauses II.228 with imperative clauses II.147 with prolative infinitive clauses II.213 as summarizing device II.1153 collective nouns 983 notional agreement with 1287–1301 common nouns 42 as head of noun phrase 937 compound nouns, order of nominal and verbal element II.966 concrete nouns with gerundi(v)al clauses II.452 count nouns 983 denoting inalienable entities 43 deverbal nouns agent rarely marked by ab 245 arguments of 44, 1037–47, 1190 compared with gerund 59 compared with gerundive 302 compared with infinitive 59 compared with substantival participles 955, 957, 960 compared with supine 64 from verbs governing non-accusative object 1190 in competition with gerundival clauses II.457 in competition with relative clauses II.502 one-place nouns 44, 1038 passive periphrasis with fio 253 retaining same case or preposition as at clause level 1041, 1204 three-place nouns 44, 1040 two-place nouns 44, 1039 kinship nouns as form of address II.942 mass nouns 983 of age or social position as secondary predicate II.789

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words 1403 of social relation, age, or profession as forms of address II.942 relational nouns 43 types of entities 43 first order entities (concrete) 43, 937 second order entities (events or situations) 43, 937 third order entities (mental constructs) 43, 748, 937, 1109, 1140 zero order entities (properties) 43, 748 valency of 21, 44, 966, 1037–47 with argument clause as attribute 436–59 accusative and infinitive clause II.448 distinguished from nouns as subject or object complement and from nouns with support verbs II.437 gerundi(v)al clause II.452, 454, 456 interrogative clause II. II.444 ne clause with nouns of fearing and worrying II.442 participial clause II.451 prolative infinitive clause II.449 quia clause II.441 quin clause II.443 quod clause II.440, 441 quominus clause II.447 tamquam and quasi clause II.443 ut clause II.446 with gerundi(v)al clause as satellite II.458 with participle, as equivalent to deverbal noun + genitive, see participial clauses (dominant participles) novus, superlative novissimus as partitive adjective 1050 NP, see noun phrases nubo, valency of 894 nucleus of clause 11, 19, 25 nugae/nugas 364 nullatenus 700 nullus 710 as floating quantifier negating sentence or clause 710 as subject complement 710, 770 genitive and ablative supplying missing forms of nemo 710 in nullo as negator 700 nulla res supplying missing forms of nihil 710 nullo modo as negator 700 nullum as equivalent to non 698 position with respect to head noun II.1075 used as determiner 973 num (question particle) 316, 328, 681 combined with igitur or ergo 317 in indirect questions II.108, 109, 111 position of II.1030 number (nominal category) 35, 36 number (verbal category) 50, 53 numerals as a word class 50 as subject complement 771 cardinal numerals 982

position with respect to head noun II.1075 with partitive genitive 946, 1006 with prepositional phrase with ex or de 1006, 1034 combined with aliquis 1105 coordination of complex numerals by et II.636 distributive numerals 982 numquam as frequency adjunct 852 as position in time adjunct 841 numquid 328 in indirect questions II.112 num quid vis, as closure formula II.1229 numquis 1165 nunc as connective adverb to mark sequence of events II.1217 nuntius, with accusative and infinitive clause II.435 nuper 841 nusquam as direction or goal adjunct 812 as position in space adjunct 808 o(h) (interjection) as summons 364, II.926 combined with swear words II.921 expressive use of II.935 ob (preposition) to mark direction and goal adjuncts 812 to mark position in space adjuncts 806 to mark purpose adjuncts 907 to mark reason adjuncts 911 gerundial adjuncts II.412 gerundival adjuncts II.419 ob eam causam/rem as correlative expression with conditional clause II.338 with purpose clause II.298 with reason clause II.283 ob hoc/id ipsum, as correlative expression with reason clause II.283 obeying, verbs of 104, 1192 object 29, 754–63; see also pseudo-objects affected objects 27, 101, 1190 clauses as object 755 conjunction reduction of II.592 verbs with different case pattern II.593 conventional reduction of 70, 80, 98, 756 effected objects 27, 101 in first position II.1006, 1010 in last position II.1022 ‘inner’ object 865 nouns and noun phrases as object 754 object-like constituent with ecce II.928 object-like constituent with em II.930 relative order of verb and object II.1135 shared objects in coordinated clauses II.611, 613 unexpressed object (zero-anaphora) II.1149

1404

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words

object clauses, see argument clauses object complements 30, 186–92, 787–96 adjectives, neuter singular with accusative and infinitive clause II.183 with gerundial clause II.229 with prolative infinitive clause II.212 with quod argument clause II.69 agreement with object 1264, 1265, 1267 notional agreement with collective object 1292 with pronominal objects 1278 autonomous relative clauses as II.514 distinguished from accusative and infinitive with esse omitted 789 distinguished from secondary predicates II.779 gerundival clauses as II.233 in first position II.1010 in last position II.1023 in nominative case 1211 non-referring noun phrase as 1085, 1117 with verbs of calling and entitling 191 with verbs of electing and proclaiming 191 with verbs of showing oneself as, behaving as 192 object incorporation 173 oblique cases 1209 obsecro 312 used as parenthesis in imperative sentences 353 used to increase urgency of questions 341 obviam 812 occīdo 262 odi 448 officium est, with imperative clause II.147 ohe (interjection) II.927 oiei (interjection) II.933 omission of object, see object: conjunction reduction of; reduction (conventional) of arguments; zero-anaphora omission of subject, see subject: conjunction reduction of; zero-anaphora omitto, imperative used as metadirective 351 omnino, co-occurring with sed or verum II.683 omnis 804, 985 as apparent secondary predicate (floating quantifier) II.820, 824 as determiner of autonomous relative clause II.512 as determiner of head of relative clause II.482 combined with idem 948 co-occurring with a determiner 971 omnium combined with nostrum and vestrum 1044 position with respect to head noun II.1076 so-called predicative use II.824 substantival use 1172 one-place verbs, see verbs opening, of conversation or letter II.1228 operam do, imperative used as metadirective 351 opinor 309 as parenthesis II.909, 917 compared with qualified truth disjuncts 926 oportet 94, 622

compared with other directive expressions 298, 512 used in future perfect without anterior meaning 466 used personally with infinitive II.201 with accusative and infinitive clause II.181 with imperative clause II.149 with perfect infinitive by attraction 540 oppido, in answers to questions 373 oppidum, in apposition to name 1058 agreement of verb with 1260 opposing, verbs of 622 with ne clause 701 with quin clause 704 with quominus clause 706 optative illocutionary force 348, 357, 357 opus est 116 used personally with infinitive II.201 with imperative clause 622 with nominal (verbless) clause II.236 with (past perfect) passive participle 256, II.224 oratio obliqua II.48; see indirect speech oratio recta (direct speech) II.48 ordering, verbs of with imperative clause II.131 with prolative infinitive clause II.204 oriundus 295 oro used as parenthesis in imperative sentences 353 with imperative clause II.133 with simple subjunctive clause II.151 paene, co-occurring with atque II.632 paenitet 132 palam (adverb) 869, 1229 palam (preposition) 806 paragraphs, as discourse units 32, II.1223 parallelism, as artistic word order pattern II.963 parataxis juxtaposition of two related words II.962 juxtaposition of two sentences II.6, 154 parco imperative used as metadirective 351 valency of 894 parenthetical constituents 26, II.909–19; see also swear words; interjections amabo, used as 353 containing supine in -u II.425 in complex clauses II.9 relative clause as II.911 sentence types of II.914 verbs of asking and praying, used as 353 verbs of perception, cognition, and communication, used as II.917 pariter, as correlative expression with conditional comparative clause II.349 pars in ablative as position in space adjunct 803 repetition of noun in relative clause II.529 with partitive genitive 1012 participant 11

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words 1405 participant tracking II.835, 1143 participation (monologue or dialogue) 32 participial clauses (dominant participles) II.25, 29, 31, 404; see also ablative absolute clauses; nominal (verbless) clauses as arguments II.220–4 compared with gerundival clauses II.229 distinguished from accusative and infinitive clauses without esse II.223 distinguished from noun phrases II.220 with neuter singular perfect passive participle II.222 with opus est and usus est II.224 as satellites 386–406 ablative absolute clauses II.386, 387 ablative participles without a subject II.400 absolute ablatives of one-place verbs II.402 absolute clauses in case forms other than ablative II.402, 403 prepositional participial clauses II.404 at adjective phrase level II.466 at noun phrase level II.451 containing question words 337 participial phrases 955 participium coniunctum II.394, 791; see also secondary predicates: participles participles 541–9 morphosyntactic properties of 60 ‘adverbial’ use II.791 as secondary predicate II.791; see also secondary predicates distinguished from afterthought and tail constituent II.858 position and pragmatic function of II.794 as subject complement 769 attributive use 546, 547, 994–8 distinguished from participial clauses II.220 distinguished from secondary predicates 994 future participle 531, 541, 546 as purpose expression 546 as secondary predicate 546, II.792 as substitute for missing subjunctive forms 433 attributive use 546, 998 gerundive developing into future passive participle 299, 435, 551 in ablative absolute clauses II.388 in participial clauses II.220 in result (consecutive) clauses 577 prospective value of 429, 553, 577, 581 substantival use 960 used as periphrastic future with sum 429–35 generic use of 1116 perfect participle 541, 547 as secondary predicate II.778, 792 various semantic interpretations II.813 attributive use 547, 997 in ablative absolute clauses II.387 in participial clauses II.220 lexicalized as noun 960

neuter singular (responsum) II.222 resulting state interpretation with terminative state of affairs 541, 547 so-called impersonal use II.402 substantival use 958 used as tail constituent 547 with habeo replacing active perfectum forms 478 with opus est and usus est 256, II.224 without anterior meaning 548 word order of complex forms with sum II.1122 present participle 541, 542–6 as competitor of agent nouns in ablative absolute clause II.428 as secondary predicate 542, II.777 compared with substantival use 958 compared with time cum clause 542, 643, II.807 various semantic interpretations II.813 as subject complement II.26 attributive use 995 combined with sto 545 genitive argument with 223 in ablative absolute clauses II.387 in accusative and participle construction II.796 in participial clauses II.220 so-called predicatively used participles II.3 substantival use 956 compared with secondary predicate 958 distinguished from deverbal nouns 957 used with forms of sum 544 with anterior meaning 543 with posterior meaning 544 statistical data on frequency 541 substantival use 954–61 lexicalized as noun 955 with arguments or satellites 955 temporal value of 541–9 particles II.37; see also connectors; coordinators as a word class 65 comparative particles in expressions of (dis) similarity II.754 comparative particles of nonequivalence II.726 consecutive particles as correlative expression with conditional si clause II.328 co-occurring with conditional si clause II.323 emphasizing particles II.865, 865–906 additive, exclusive, and particularizing particles II.866 certe ‘at least’ used as II.890 demum II.902 distinguished from adverbs II.866 dumtaxat used as II.893 equidem II.878 etiam, et, and quoque II.868, 872 iam used as II.904 imprimis used as II.899 maxime used as II.900 modo, solum, and tantum(modo) II.875

1406

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words

particles (cont.) potissimum used as II.901 praecipue used as II.896 praesertim II.894 quidem II.695, 877 saltem II.888 utique used as II.891 interactional particles 12, 68 connecting paragraphs II.1224 distinguished from connectors II.1165 enim 12, II.1201 ergo II.326, 1213 nempe II.1206 position of II.867, 994 causing discontinuity II.1101, 1102 particula pendens, omission of nec/neque 496 partim, notional agreement with implied plural 1300 partitive apposition, of measure expressions 1069 partitive attributes, see genitive case: of the whole; prepositional phrases: as partitive attributes of nouns parts of speech 34–70 passim (adverb) 808 passiva tantum 234 distinguished from deponent verbs 283 passive voice 54, 230–305; see also voice; passivization agentful passives 237 agentless passives 237 reflexive pronouns with 1123 autocausative passives 231, 254, 260–7, 288 in imperative sentences 520 choice between active and passive voice 250 compared with reflexive pronouns 272–9 decausative passive 231, 258–9 in imperative sentences 520 diachronic developments 257 frequency of agent expressions 239 impersonal passives 103, 232, 253, 254, 267–72 compared with personal passives II.192 of deponent verbs 284 of gerundives 290 with directive illocutionary force 314 passive imperative forms 520 passive verb forms in initial position II.1019 personal passives 232, 236–67 with pseudo-subject 761 statistical data on frequency 232, 239 third person passive forms in declarative sentences with directive illocutionary force 314 true passives 231, 236–58 passivization of compound verbs of motion 102 of idiomatic expressions 241 of one-place verbs 86 of three-place verbs 164 of verbs governing a non-accusative object 103, 240 restrictions on 239 with auxiliary verbs 211

with object incorporation 174 passus, instead of passuum 1069 pater familias, as expression with fixed order II.1087 path adjuncts 829–32 compared with manner and means/instrument adjuncts 831 patient (semantic function) 19, 27 patior 283 with accusative and infinitive clause II.176, 181 patres conscripti as asyndeton II.614 as expression with fixed order II.1079 pauci as determiner of autonomous relative clause II.512 as determiner of head of relative clause II.482 with partitive genitive 946 paulo, to express measure of difference II.740 paulum, with genitive of quantity 1017 pause, at sense boundary II.967 paveo, with dative beneficiary adjunct 893 pello (and depello), with dative beneficiary adjunct 894 per- (prefix), compounds with tmesis II.1133 per (preposition) 1202 in combination per se 1136 combined with discretive ipse 1154 to mark cause adjuncts 904 to mark extent of space adjuncts 828 to mark extent of time adjuncts 846 to mark intermediate agents 249, 875 to mark manner adjuncts 866 to mark means and instrument adjuncts 878, 1200 to mark path adjuncts 831 to mark position in time adjuncts 837 perception, verbs of 208 as parentheses II.917 use of moods in quod and quia clauses 627 with accusative and infinitive clause II.17, 162, 194 in Late Latin II.203 with accusative and participle construction II.796 with imperative clause II.141 with indirect question II.107 with infinitival constructions II.200 with nē in pseudo-indirect questions II.117 with nominative and infinitive construction II.194 with quia clause II.77 with quod clause II.63 with quomodo or quemadmodum clause II.80 with quoniam clause II.79 with ut clause II.92 peregre 812 pereo, as suppletive passive for perdo 234 perfect tense perfect indicative 442–55 compared with other narrative tenses 408, 528

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words 1407 in main clause with ni/nisi de rupture clauses II.342 in time dum clauses 615 origins of tense forms and meaning 444 resulting state interpretation with terminative state of affairs 446, 537 retrospective value of 445 shift of infectum to perfectum forms of sum 473 so-called authorial use 454 so-called citative use 398 so-called gnomic use 450 so-called negative use of perfect 446 supposed ‘ingressive’ interpretation 448 use of tenses in subordinate clauses after main clause in perfect 559 used in narration 451 perfect subjunctive difficulty of distinguishing from future perfect indicative 462, 491 in commands and prohibitions 352, 498 difference between present and perfect subjunctive 498 in concessions 509 in conditional periods 491 in declarative sentences (potential use) 490 rarely with anterior meaning 490 in interrogative sentences 493 in realizable wishes 505 jussive use of third person 502 retrospective value of 573 shift of infectum to perfectum forms of sum 476 sigmatic forms 491 use of tenses in subordinate clauses after main clause in perfect 559 without anterior meaning 491, 503, 579 perfectum stem 51, 382 diachronic developments of 473 in time clauses 609 perficio imperative used as metadirective 351 more often in perfect than historic present 445 performative use of verbs 354, 396, 630 perinde as correlative expression with conditional comparative clause II.349 in combination perinde atque in expressions of (dis)similarity II.756 period II.45; see also conditional periods periodus II.969 periphrastic constructions 74; see also support verbs with facio, ago, and committo II.93 periphrastic future, see future tense periphrastic verb forms 51; see also complex verb forms permitto with accusative and infinitive clause II.175 with imperative clause II.136 with prolative infinitive clause II.207

peropportune, as attitudinal disjunct in relative clause II.486 person (verbal category) 50, 53 personal hierarchy, as factor determining word order II.958 personal passive construction, see nominative and infinitive construction personal passives, see passive voice personal pronouns 738, 1118–20 agreement of verb with compound subject containing 1250 as head of relative clauses II.484 causing discontinuity II.1103 clustering of II.991 definiteness of 1087 first person pronouns in exclamations 365 in ut clauses functioning as indignant questions 347 plural nos 1118 forms of objective genitive 1044 genitive nostri 977 genitive nostrum replacing possessive adjective 977 used instead of singular (rhetorical plural and plural of majesty) 1119–20 singular ego 1118 as head of noun phrase 940 mei as objective genitive 1044 positioned after words that must come first in clause 741 position of II.984, 987 reduplicated forms II.865, 906 reflexive use 1120 required when explicit verb form is absent 742 second person pronouns favoured in commands 580 form of address 738 in ut clauses functioning as indignant questions 347 plural vos 1118 forms of objective genitive 1040 genitive vestrum replacing possessive adjective 977 used instead of singular for politeness 1120 singular tu 1118 as head of noun phrase 940 in imperative sentences 353 positioned after words that must come first in clause 741 tu as form of address II.942 tui as objective genitive 1044 used to underline urgency of question 341 substitutes for third person pronouns 1118 used for emphasis 740 usually expressed in accusative and infinitive clauses 743 persuadeo with accusative and infinitive clause II.168 with imperative clause II.135 with prolative infinitive clause II.168, 206

1408

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words

pessum, with eo or do 811, II.423 peto valency of 73, 167 with imperative clause II.133 phasal auxiliary verbs 212–4, II.227 philosophical texts, see text types phrase 16 distinguished from word 17 piget 132 with prolative infinitive clause II.215 pignus do/accipio, with si clause II.334 place arguments 28 place names, see toponyms place (semantic function) 28 placet used in future perfect without anterior meaning 466 with accusative and infinitive clause II.172, 182 plane, as degree adjunct 888 pleasing, verbs of 104, 1192 plebis scitum, as expression with fixed order II.1087 pleonastic negation, see negation plerique 1008 with partitive genitive 946 pluperfect tense pluperfect indicative 455–61 in conditional periods 495 in dum time clauses II.253 in time clauses 610 interpreted as a past state with terminative state of affairs 457, 610 modal use (to make state of affairs less direct) 460 shift of infectum to perfectum forms of sum 473 so-called shifted use as equivalent to imperfect 458 used in narration 453 to report words or thoughts of character 415 used instead of subjunctive in conditional periods 461 pluperfect subjunctive counterfactual use 496 in commands and prohibitions of the past 503 in conditional periods 496 in nisi clauses to mark interruption II.341 in unrealizable wishes 507 shift of infectum to perfectum forms of sum 476 so-called shifted use as equivalent to imperfect 459 use of tenses in subordinate clauses after main clause with pluperfect subjunctive 563 used instead of imperfect of volo and possum 460 plural of majesty 1120 rhetorical (sociative) plural 1119 plurale/pluralia tantum 36, 974, 989, 1059, 1259, 1265

pluralis maiestatis 1120 pluralis modestiae 1119 pluralis reverentiae 1120 plus as measure of distance 827 in age expressions with natus II.737 in combination (non) plus quam II.725 in combination plus quam II.738 in expressions of quantity and extent of space or time II.735 with adjective/adverb in positive degree II.726 plusquamperfectum 455; see also pluperfect tense poetry (and poeticizing prose) ablative of comparison with adjectives in comparative II.730 accusative case as respect adjunct 916 adhortative present subjunctive in the first person singular 498 adjectives in -ax with genitival arguments 225 adjectives with respect expressions 1076 adnominal relative clause preceding head II.497 agreement of verb with compound subject 1249 anteposition of adjectives before preposition II.1117 audio and sono, with subject complement 209 authorial use of simple future 425 bare ablative as source adjunct 816 bare accusative as direction adjunct 811, 822 bibo, with various entities as arguments 79 ceu in manner clauses II.270 clausal apposition 1073 complex forms of address II.946 concessive subordinators II.355 with -si avoided II.369 coordinated nouns sharing a modifier 1275 correlative combination of -que and et II.644 dative case as alternative to prepositional phrase 120, 122 as direction adjunct 1217 as illocutionary disjunct (dativus ethicus) 931 to mark agent arguments 248 with verbs of preparing 896 with verbs of sharing 162 disjunctive coordinators with conjunctive interpretation II.679 double discontinuity II.1108 eo and do with purpose infinitival clause II.385 expansion of arguments with one-place verbs 84, 88 extension of ablativus copiae 111 extension of dative case 151 extension of double accusative 168, 169 freedom of word order II.950 genitive case with verbs of separation 150 historic infinitive 527 historic present resembling the use of imperfect 408

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words 1409 ‘impersonal’ est 95 in + ablative as position in time adjunct 838 infinitival clauses with verbs of movement II.23 infinitival constructions with intransitive verbs II.200 infinitive as purpose adjunct II.383, 385 insertion of preposition between noun and modifier II.1113, 1114, 1118 interruption (de rupture) technique 420 inverse cum clause II.246 ita in wishes 359 long addresses with o II.936 multiple disjunctive coordination II.677 negation nec preferred over ne 437 negator ni in conditional clauses II.316 nominative case used instead of vocative 1226 omission of auxiliary sum 198 one-place adjectives with genitive case 216 with prolative infinitive clause II.464 passive participles with accusative objects 242 passivization of verbs with non-accusative objects 241 perfect infinitive with non-anterior meaning 539 perfect tense instead of pluperfect 443 position of at, atque, nam, namque, and sed II.974 preference for bare cases over prepositions 126, 179, 218, 1183 preference for coordination over cum inversum clause II.622 prepositions with finite clauses 1227–8 prohibitions with ne + present imperative 516 prolative infinitive as alternative to imperative clause II.129 prolative infinitive clause II.204 proleptic use of adjectives II.811 question particles in indirect questions II.125 reason clauses with quod II.287 reduction of preposition II.604 si non as alternative to nisi II.316 so-called final infinitive with verbs of manipulation II.386 so-called gnomic use of perfect tense 450 substantivally used adjectives with partitive genitive 948, 950, 1008 time clauses with simul II.260 transference of adjective (enallage adiectivi) 1051–3 use of adjectives as alternative to adverbs II.784 use of dative with compound verbs 106, 126 use of faxo 471 use of indicative in indirect questions 630, 635, 636 use of indicative in quia reason clauses 647 use of neve (neu) for coordination of negative imperative clauses 717 use of simple subjunctive (without ut) II.153 use of supines II.421 use of -ve II.657, 662, 672

venio with perfect passive participle 258 verbs denoting a position or state as alternative to sum 205 vocative case forms 1125 pol II.919 polemical questions, see rhetorical questions: repudiating questions politeness expressions II.345 pone (adverb) 1229 pone (preposition) to mark direction and goal adjuncts 812 to mark position in space adjuncts 806 porro, as connective adverb II.1164 posco with imperative clause II.134 with prolative infinitive clause II.205 position (in clause/sentence) first, intermediate, and last II.1003 first (or second) position as device contributing to discourse coherence II.1228 contrastive elements II.862 non-mobile words II.956, 973 first position ablative absolute clauses with connective relative II.560 affirmative particles and attitudinal adverbs 309 anaphoric constituents II.976 anaphorically used pronouns qui, is, hic, and ille II.1151 arguments in declarative sentences II.1006 as emphasizing device II.863 attributive genitives II.1085 ceterum II.1181 contrastive and emphatic constituents in interrogative sentences II.1028 emphatic words II.959 etenim II.1198 focus constituents II.832 itaque II.1213 nam II.1197 nempe II.1206 non 317, 676, 679, 731 passive verb forms II.1019 question words and subordinators II.954 quippe II.1201 relative words II.981 satellites in declarative sentences II.1012 secondary predicates in declarative sentences II.1013 subordinators II.978 topic constituents 31, II.832, 959 in subordinate clauses II.1038 various constituents in declarative sentences II.1005 verbs in declarative sentences 361, 409, II.1015, 1137 intermediate positions in declarative sentences II.1027

1410

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words

position (in clause/sentence) (cont.) last position arguments in declarative sentences II.1021 satellites in declarative sentences II.1024 subjects in subordinate clauses II.1039 verbs in declarative sentences II.950, 1020, 1025 verbs in sentence (yes/no) questions II.1029, 1031 verbs in subordinate clauses II.1037 second position autem II.1180 igitur II.1211 indefinite pronouns and determiners II.983 vero II.1190 Wackernagel’s law II.984 position in space adjuncts 182, 800–8 in apposition to toponym 1063 modifying adjectives 1077 multiple space adjuncts in a clause 801 towns and small islands in 819 with domus and rus 819 position in space arguments 123, 174, 1196 in apposition to toponym 1063 position in time adjuncts 833–42 modifying adjectives 1077 multiple position in time adjuncts in a clause 833 use of ablative case to mark 1199 positions (state of affairs) 22 possessive adjectives 48, 974–81 as adnominal argument 975 as attribute 974–81 as inherently contrastive elements II.860 as subject complement 772 with sum and ut clause II.91 corresponding to objective genitive 1045 corresponding to subjective genitive 1045 frequently unexpressed 976 in noun phrase modified by determiners 976 in noun phrase modified by quantifiers 976 position with respect to head noun II.1072 reflexive possessive suus, see reflexive possessive adjective suus replaced by genitive nostrum or vestrum 977 substantival use 945 with genitive noun phrase in apposition 1066 with interest and rēfert 135 possideo, compared with possessive dative 108 possum as auxiliary verb 211 in passive 255 negated with quin clause II.99 order of auxiliary and infinitive II.1126 possum + infinitive construction, as competitor of simple future 441 potisne ut/ne II.143 use of future perfect without anterior meaning 466 use of pluperfect for imperfect subjunctive 460 with infinitive II.201, 219

post (adverb) 1229 to mark sequence of events II.1216 with ablative indicating extent of time 842 post (preposition) in calendar expressions 841 to mark optional attributes of nouns 1030 to mark position in space adjuncts 806 to mark position in time adjuncts 840 posteriority, expression of 383 in secondary predicates II.811 future participles II.792 in time clauses II.242, 265 postponement as form of interlacing II.39 of connectors at, atque, nam, namque, and sed II.974 postpositions, see prepositions postquam clauses 609, 610, II.258 distribution of postquam and posteaquam II.258 use of subjunctive mood II.259 with causal or concessive interpretation II.270 postremo 841 to mark sequence of events II.1216 postridie, in calendar expressions 841 postulo with accusative and infinitive clause II.175 with imperative clause II.134 with prolative infinitive clause II.205 potential use of subjunctive mood 56, 388, 481, 482–94, II.340 in argument clauses 623 in clauses of qualification II.377 in clauses with indefinite pronouns 1165, 1166 in comparative constructions 664 in concessive clauses II.365, 370, 371 in conditional comparative clauses II.349 in conditional periods 484, 488, 491, 654 in indirect questions 570 in relative clauses II.539, 548 in si clauses II.753 in subordinate clauses 619, 629 in time clauses 654–6, 658 potentialis conditional 388, 482, 654, II.315 potior (verb) 115 potissimum, used as emphasizing particle II.901 potius combined with quam (corrective use) II.749 combined with -ve II.679 co-occurring with atque II.632 in combination sive potius II.665 in combination vel potius II.660, 679 potius quam, with subjunctive mood 665 prae (adverb) 1229 prae (preposition) prae prepositional phrase in comparative construction II.735 to mark cause adjuncts 904 to mark position in space adjuncts 806 to mark qualified truth disjuncts 926 with relative clause II.520 praeceptum, with ut/ne argument clause II.437

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words 1411 praecipue, used as emphasizing particle II.896–7 praedicativum 30, II.777; see also secondary predicates praenomen, agreement with 989 praesertim combined with cum II.266, 269 used as emphasizing particle II.894–6 praesto (verb), in comparison of nonequivalence II.724 praeter (preposition) combined with alius in expressions of disimilarity II.761 praeter prepositional phrase to mark replacing focus II.844 praeter quod (complex subordinator) II.16, 381 praetor urbanus, as expression with fixed order II.1079 praetereo with accusative and infinitive clause II.161 with quia clause II.76 with quod clause II.61 praeterquam quod (complex subordinator) II.381 pragmatic functions 31; see also focus; topic as motivation for use of explicit third person subjects 748 as motivation for use of first and second person pronouns 739 extraclausal pragmatic functions theme and tail II.849 intra-clausal pragmatic functions topic and focus II.827 of constituents in first position II.1005 of constituents preceding subordinators II.978 of noun phrases, influencing internal word order II.1063, 1077, 1085, 1089 of subordinate clauses II.1052 pragmatic negation, see negation; negation by implication praising, verbs of with accusative and infinitive clause II.170 with cum clause II.80 with nominative and infinitive construction II.197 with quia clause II.78 with quod clause II.66 prayers 517 praying, verbs of 185 performative use of 354 predicates 30; see also object complements; secondary predicates; subject complements predicative dative, see dative preferential host, attracting personal pronouns and forms of sum II.985, 991 preferring, verbs of in comparisons of non-equivalence II.724 with accusative and infinitive clause II.171 with imperative clause II.129, 139 with prolative infinitive clause II.209 pregnant use of intensifier ipse 1152 preparative (cataphoric) expressions of argument clauses II.31

as emphasizers II.908 distinguished from pronominal support (pro eo quod) II.32 neuter pronouns as II.31 noun phrases as II.33, 35 to announce state of affairs II.1161 use of demonstrative and anaphoric determiners 1098 use of demonstrative and anaphoric pronouns 1098, 1145 with accusative and infinitive clause II.158, 184 with argument clause governed by a noun II.437 with direct speech II.49 with est + quod II.75 with quia argument clause II.78 with quod argument clause II.60, 70, 73 with relative clause introduced by reason adverb II.580 with satellite clauses II.33 with si argument clause II.100, 101 with si indirect question II.115 with space clause II.240 with subject or object complement and argument clause II.33, 69, 89, 90, 147 with ut argument clause II.85, 92, 130 preparing, verbs of 896 prepositional phrases 17, 1227–35; see also prepositions ab urbe condita (dominant participles) II.803 as accompanying circumstance adjuncts 901 as arguments of adjectives 226 as arguments of nouns 1044 as arguments of verbs 119–23, 163, 1194, 1197 as attributes of nouns 1029, 1204 distinguished from secondary predicates 1033 as beneficiary adjuncts 897 as cause adjuncts 904 as degree adjuncts 890 as degree modifiers of adjectives 1085 as direction and goal adjuncts 812 as direction and goal arguments 141 as extent of space adjuncts 828 as extent of time adjuncts 846 as manner adjuncts 866 as means and instrument adjuncts 878 as norm adjuncts 873 as object complement 795 as partitive attributes of nouns 1034 as path adjuncts 831 as position in space adjuncts 806 as position in time adjuncts 837 as purpose adjuncts 907 as reason adjuncts 911 as respect adjuncts 917 as respect modifiers of adjectives 1075 as secondary predicate II.803 as source adjuncts 818 as subject complement 786 with sum and ut clause II.91

1412

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words

prepositional phrases (cont.) as subject or object complement with accusative and infinitive clause II.183 with prolative infinitive clause II.213 as time within which adjuncts 851 asyndetic coordination of constituents II.620 containing substantival neuter singular adjective 951 internal word order II.1108–20 discontinuity II.1120–2 insertion of preposition between noun and modifier II.1115, 1118 prepositional phrases with(out) modifier II.1109, 1113 introducing relative clauses with space meaning II.575 nominal (verbless) absolute clauses II.433 position of the coordinator -que 69, II.996 substantival use of 963 prepositions 67–8, 1227–35; see also prepositional phrases anteposition of adjectives before preposition in poetry II.1117 as non-mobile words II.956 cases and prepositions as a system 1176–1242 cases governed by 1230 combined with -que and -ve II.996 compound prepositions 1242 contribution to meaning of clauses and phrases 1177 coordination of different prepositions II.605 coordination with repetition or reduction of preposition II.600, 602 diachronic developments of 1236, 1241 governing argument clause II.15, 56; see also complex subordinators governing infinitives 944 governing non-finite clauses 1227, II.404 governing satellite clauses II.75 position of II.1108, 1120 monosyllabic prepositions II.1109, 1113 polysyllabic prepositions II.1111 position of preposition with restrictive apposition II.1119 reduction with relative pronoun (—.ă uztxzŪ figura) II.494, 605 relationship with adverbs 1228 relationship with cases 1231 choice between bare case and preposition 1233 relationship with preverbs 1234 statistical data on frequency 1179 with relative clause II.520 present tense present imperative 351, 512, 514 difference from future imperative 515 statistical data on frequency 513 present indicative 395–410 actual present 396 historic present 401 compared with other narrative tenses 408, 528

in relative clauses II.538 in subordinate clauses 605 so-called annalistic use 409 use of tenses in subordinate clauses after main clause with historic present 559 in conditional periods 401 in time dum clauses 615 praesens de conatu 410 praesens historicum 401 praesens pro futuro 399 referring to future events 399 so-called citative use 398 so-called conative use 409 so-called reproducing use 398 timeless present 396 present subjunctive adhortative use 497 compared with future indicative 427 in commands and prohibitions 351, 498 difference between present and perfect subjunctive 498 in concessions 509 in conditional periods 484, 659 in declarative sentences (potential use) 483 in interrogative sentences 485 in realizable wishes 505 jussive use of third person 502 presentative sentences 1114, II.828, 835, 844 with verb in first position II.1015 pretending, verbs of, with quasi clause II.103 preventing, verbs of 566, 622 with imperative clause II.138 with prolative infinitive II.208 with quin clause II.154 preverbs relationship with prepositions and adverbs 1228 relationship with prepositions and cases 1234 price adjuncts 881–5 as subcategory of means and instrument adjuncts 881 compared with arguments 882 use of ablative case to mark 1200 price or value arguments 113, 158 compared with adjuncts 882 pridie in calendar expressions 841, 1229 use of moods in pridie + quam clause 640 primary tenses 554 primo (adverb) 841 to mark sequence of events II.1216 primum (adverb) in combination cum primum II.258 in combination simul (ac/atque) primum II.260 in combination ubi primum II.261 in combination ut primum II.258, 262 used as subordinator II.264 primus 1050 as secondary predicate II.783 prius as equivalent to priusquam II.266

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words 1413 combined with quam (corrective use) II.749 priusquam clauses II.265 use of moods in 618, 638 use of tenses in 611 pro consule, as secondary predicate II.804 pro eo ac, as expression of similarity II.752 pro (eo) quod (complex subordinator) II.75, 289, 292 pro (interjection) II.921 pro (preposition) pro prepositional phrase to mark replacing focus II.844 to mark beneficiary adjuncts 897 to mark cause adjuncts 904 to mark position in space adjuncts 806 to mark subject complements 786 with causal intepretation II.292 probe, in answers to questions 373 process adjuncts 857–99, 1201; see also beneficiary adjuncts; manner adjuncts; means and instrument adjuncts processes (state of affairs) 22 proclaiming, verbs of 191 procul 1229 prodelision (contraction), of est and es II.993 producing a sensation, verbs of 91 profecto 309, 348, 924 as attitudinal disjunct in relative clause II.486 as correlative expression with concessive clause II.363 with etiamsi clause II.372 as emphasizing particle II.892 proficiscor, statistical data on tense usage 394 prohibeo with dative beneficiary adjunct 894 with imperative clause II.138 with prolative infinitive clause II.208 prohibitions 349–58, 497–504 commands and prohibitions of the past 503 containing metadirectives 351 coordination of 717 inhibitive use of present imperative 516 modulation of 350 ne + future imperative 519 ne + perfect subjunctive 352, 498, 683 ne + present imperative 516, 682 ne + present subjunctive 351, 499, 682 referring to mental activities 516 ne quis velit + perfect infinitive 538 noli + infinitive 352, 513, 683 nolito and nolitote + infinitive 519 non + perfect subjunctive 683 responses to commands and prohibitions 376 statistical data on frequency 513 use of tenses in subordinate clauses after main clause containing a prohibition 562 proin(de) as correlative expression with conditional comparative clause II.349 with manner clause II.271 as expression of similarity II.752 in combination proinde ac/atque II.273

used to modulate directive expressions 355 prolative infinitive 164, 183, 522, 526, II.23 prolative infinitive clauses II.22, 204–20 agreement of subject complement II.22 as attribute at noun phrase level II.449 compared with finite imperative clauses II.127 competing with gerundial clauses II.227 competing with ut or quod clauses II.204 distinguished from accusative and infinitive clauses II.18, 156 distinguished from infinitives with auxiliary verbs II.23 distinguished from nominative and infinitive construction II.23 with adjectives of cognition, volition, ability, and suitability II.464 with impersonal verbs II.149, 215 with passive three-place verbs II.23 with subject or object complement II.212, 213 with verbs facio II.142 of advising, warning, exhorting, reminding, and admonishing II.205 of begging and requesting II.133, 205 of causation II.211 of deciding and resolving II.211 of deserving II.212 of forcing II.208 of hindering and preventing II.138, 208 of inducing and persuading II.206 of ordering and commanding II.131, 204 of permitting, granting, and allowing II.207 of striving II.209 of wishing, desiring, and preferring II.209 persuadeo II.168 prolepsis (anticipation), of constituent before subordinator II.978 proleptic accusative 759 proleptic (‘anticipatory’) use of adjectives in poetry II.811 proleptic constructions 631; see also interlacing; pseudo-objects promising, verbs of 525, 567 pronominal support (of preposition + subordinator) II.15, 56; see also complex subordinators pronominals 50 pronouns 48, 49 anaphoric pronouns, see anaphoric(ally used) pronouns as head of relative clauses II.492 demonstrative pronouns, see demonstrative pronouns determinative pronouns, see idem; ipse; is indefinite pronouns, see indefinite pronouns interrogative pronouns, see interrogative pronouns personal pronouns, see personal pronouns preparative (cataphoric) use II.15, 31 relative pronouns, see qui (relative) prope (adverb) 1229 as position in space adjunct 808

1414

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words

prope (preposition) to mark direction and goal adjuncts 812 to mark position in space adjuncts 806 proper names 42 as form of address II.942, 943 as head of noun phrase 937 as head of relative clause II.483, 484, 492 as secondary predicate 940 combined with aliquis 1106 coordinators used with proper names II.632 definiteness of 1087 expressions with filius II.1088 modified by appositions 938, 1056 modified by evaluative adjectives 938 propius in expressions of quantity and extent of space or time II.735 proportional comparative pattern II.766 quam . . . tam + comparatives II.769 quo . . . eo and quanto . . . tanto II.766 without correlating element II.766, 768 proportional superlative pattern II.770 quam . . . tam and ut . . . ita II.770 proprius, compared with suus 980 propter (adverb) 1229 propter (preposition) to mark position in space adjuncts 806 to mark purpose adjuncts 907 to mark reason adjuncts 911 with gerundival reason adjunct II.419 propter quod II.15, 289 propterea 909 as connective adverb II.1208 as correlative expression with quod clause II.287 with reason clause II.283 prosodic unit 67, 69, 732 prospective value, of future participle 423, 553, 577, 581 prospicio with dative beneficiary adjunct 893 with dative or accusative 129 protasis II.315; see also conditional periods protinus atque, in time clauses II.261 provideo with dative beneficiary adjunct 893 with dative or accusative 129 proviso clauses 652, II.306; see stipulative clauses prox (interjection) II.924 proxime, as expression of similarity II.752 ‘pseudo-conditionals’ II.343 ‘pseudo-final’ ut/ne clauses 566, 930, II.299, 302 pseudo-objects 631, 759, 1188, II.7, 39; see also interlacing with facio II.142 with iubeo II.179 pseudo-partitive genitive 949, 1008 pseudo-subjects 761 -pte (suffix) 69 as emphasizing device II.865 combined with possessive adjectives II.908 pudet 132

agreement of complements and secondary predicates 1270 with accusative and infinitive clause II.161 with quod clause II.61 punctuation 15, 68 in antiquity 16 to mark non-restrictive apposition 1055 punishment, verbs of, with quare reason clause II.285 purpose (final) adjuncts 905–9 compared with cause adjuncts 903 compared with purpose disjuncts 905 compared with reason adjuncts 909 purpose (final) finite clauses 703, II.297–306 as adjuncts II.297 as competitors of prepositional gerundial purpose clauses II.406 combined with idcirco, ideo, and propterea 909 final interpretation of time clauses II.243 implying a controlled state of affairs II.302 ne clauses as equivalent to ut non II.302 negated clauses with ne II.312 quī clauses II.297, 305 quo clauses II.304 use of indirect reflexive pronoun and possessive adjective in 1127, 1131 use of subjunctive mood in 651 use of tenses in 566, 573 ut and ut (ne) clauses II.300 ut clauses combined with interrogative expressions II.303 with adjectives of helpfulness 218 with future participle 546 as attitudinal or illocutionary disjuncts 930, II.299 relative order with respect to main clause II.1049 purpose (final) non-finite clauses first supine (in -um) II.385, 421 gerundial clauses II.406 gerundival clauses II.385, 414 infinitival clauses II.383 purpose (semantic function) 28 ‘purpose’ si clauses II.333, 334 puto more often in perfect than historic present 445 putasne as parenthesis II.919 qua (interrogative) 336 quaero followed by indicative indirect question II.115 valency of 167 with indirect question II.106, 110, 111 si question II.115 quaeso typical of male speech 354 used as parenthesis in imperative sentences 353 used to strengthen questions 341 qualification clauses II.377–8 qualified truth disjuncts 924 qualis (interrogative) 336

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words 1415 qualis (relative) introducing relative clauses II.471, 571 qualiter (interrogative) 336 quam, as part of complex degree modifier (admodum quam) with adjectives 1080, 1083 quam clauses, with possum, as qualification disjunct clauses II.775 quam (comparative) clauses, see comparative constructions quam (comparative particle) II.725 combined with magis or minus II.747 combined with minus and plus to indicate extreme degree II.738 competing with ablative of comparison II.730, 732 co-occurring with ablative of comparison II.733 co-occurring with comparative and relative clause II.536 co-occurring with comparative and ut clause II.462 in combination non minus/magis/plus quam II.725 in comparison of (dis)similarity II.753, 756 in comparison of non-equivalence II.724, 727 with expressions of quantity and extent of space or time II.736 without a comparative element II.728, 751 quam (degree adverb); see also tam quam (potest) + superlative II.774 quam . . . tam + comparative II.769 quam . . . tam + superlative II.771 quam (interrogative adverb) 337 quam ob rem as connective relative phrase II.556 as prepositional phrase with anteposed modifier II.1115 quamobrem as reason adverb introducing relative clause II.580 quamobrem as summarizing device II.1160 quamdiu time clauses II.252, 255 quamlibet as scalar degree adverb II.369 as scalar degree modifier with adjectives 1082 quamobrem (interrogative) 336 quamquam as contrastive connector II.356, 1191 as subordinator of concessive clauses II.355 in accusative and infinitive clause II.1193 with constituents below the clause level II.357 quamquam clauses II.365–6 use of moods in 663 quamvis as contrastive connector II.1193 as scalar degree adverb II.366, 369 compared with etiamsi II.359 as scalar degree modifier with adjectives 734, 1082 as subordinator of concessive clauses II.355 combined with licet II.375 with ablative absolute clause II.392

quamvis clauses II.366–8 use of moods in 662 quando (indefinite adverb) II.983 quando (interrogative adverb) 336 quando (subordinator) II.43 (quidem) introducing reason clauses II.282, 284, 293 in combination quandocumque II.43 in combination quandoquidem II.880 introducing time clauses II.249 quando clauses II.249 as reason clauses 651 use of moods in 651 quandocumque time clauses II.249 quandoque reason clauses II.281, 284, 294 time clauses II.249 quantifiers 982–91; see also zero quantifiers; floating quantifiers adjectives of amount 46, 946, 982, 1006, 1017 ablative neuter form to express measure of difference II.740 accusative neuter form to express measure of difference II.741 in expressions of dissimilarity II.761 position with respect to head noun II.1075 anteposed before preposition II.1116 as apparent secondary predicate (floating quantifier) II.819 attributive use distinguished from ‘predicative’ use II.824 binary quantifiers 989 comparison of use as attribute and with partitive expression 1007 modifying noun phrase with possessive adjective 976 numerals, see numerals quantifying pronouns 1172–4 substantival use of 946 universal quantifiers 985 with partitive genitive 1006 quantity and degree adjuncts 885–92 compared with attitudinal disjuncts 889 derived from manner expressions 888 modifying adjectives 1079–85 quanto . . . tanto, proportional comparison II.766 quantopere (interrogative) 337 quantum as measure of distance 827 as part of complex degree modifier (mirum quantum) with adjectives 1082, 1083 in complex expressions of quantity 887 introducing clauses of qualification II.377 introducing degree clauses II.278 quantus (interrogative) 336 quantus (relative) introducing relative clauses II.554, 571, 572 quanto to express measure of difference II.740 quantuslibet introducing relative clauses II.472 quantusquantus introducing relative clauses II.472

1416

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words

quapropter (interrogative) 336 quare (interrogative) 336 quare (relative adverb) as summarizing device II.1160 introducing reason clauses II.285 introducing relative clauses II.575, 580 quasi (adverb), in combination quidam quasi 1109 quasi clauses with nouns of emotion, cognition, and communication II.443 with verbs of accusing, blaming, excusing, emotion, and communication II.104 with verbs of pretending II.103 quasi (subordinator) in comparative expressions of quality II.763 in comparison of (dis)similarity II.753, 760 introducing argument clauses II.103, 104, 443 introducing conditional comparative clauses II.348 negative by implication 733 with causal interpretation II.350 quasi-coordinators II.698–703 cum . . . tum II.701 nedum II.699 ut . . . ita (sic) II.190, 702 quatenus clauses II.252 as reason clauses 651 use of moods in 651 quatenus (relative adverb) 812 introducing degree clauses II.278 introducing manner clauses II.273 introducing purpose clauses II.305 introducing reason clauses II.282, 294 -que 69 as connector II.1166 as coordinator 68, II.621, 624–8 correlative combination of -que and atque II.646 correlative combination of -que and et II.644 correlative combination of -que and nec/ neque II.647 correlative -que . . . -que II.638 creating tmesis 735, II.1132, 1134 in epitactic coordination II.693 in legal texts II.621, 624 of negative declarative clauses 715 of subject constituents 1249 position of II.627, 995 in prepositional phrase 69, II.996 as emphasizing particle, ‘even’ II.871 as non-mobile word II.956 in expressions of (dis)similarity II.756 quemadmodum clauses in expressions of similarity II.758 with verbs of perception and cognition II.80 quemadmodum (interrogative) 336 quemadmodum (relative) in expressions of (dis)similarity II.760 introducing manner clauses II.270 queo

as auxiliary verb 212 in passive 255 with infinitive II.219 queror use of moods with quod or quia argument clause 626 with accusative and infinitive clause II.162 with quia clause II.77 with quod clause II.62 question (interrogative) particles 316, 322–33 in accusative and infinitive clause II.186 in indirect questions II.109–17, 123–6 position of II.982 statistical data on frequency 320 question words 336 as a test to distinguish types of adjuncts 799 combined with -ne and -nam 337 in exclamatory clauses II.155 in first position II.1031 in indirect questions II.119 in subordinate clauses 337 position of II.982–3 questions, see interrogative sentences; rhetorical questions qui (indefinite adverb), position of II.983 qui (particle), in wishes 359 qui (relative) 13, II.471 as determiner 969 anteposed before preposition II.1115 in combination with lexical repetition as cohesive device II.1147 position with respect to head noun II.1071 as pronoun 49 agreement with preceding compound constituent 1284 agreement with subject or object complement 1278 agreement in gender with subject complement II.552 connective use II.555 as part of ablative absolute clause II.560 compared with anaphoric pronouns 1139 grammatical agreement with preceding constituent 1282 in ablative absolute clauses as summarizing device II.1155 neuter form quod as summarizing device II.1157 notional agreement with preceding constituent 1295 referring to discourse participants II.1150 coordination with repetition of relative pronoun II.498 in ablative of comparison II.730 in proportional comparison quo . . . eo II.766 neuter quod with genitive of quantity 1019 quo as ablative of comparison co-occurring with quam II.733 quo as ablative of comparison of nonequivalence II.728 with partitive genitive 1005

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words 1417 with preposition, synonymous with relative adverbs of space II.575 coordination with repetition of relative pronoun II.562 quī (relative adverb) as subordinator of imperative clauses II.149, 155 in combination quippe qui II.1200 introducing purpose clauses II.297, 305 qui et (vocatur), as idiom II.490 qui(s) (indefinite) 1103 as determiner 972 as pronoun 1164 compared with aliqui(s) and quisquam 1103, 1164, 1165, 1167 in combination si qui(s) introducing indefinite relative clause 570 malum quod (idiom) 1104 position of II.983 statistical data on frequency 1102 qui(s) (interrogative) agreement with subject or object complement 1278 as determiner 49, 336, 974 anteposed before preposition II.1115 position with respect to head noun II.1071 as pronoun 49, 336, 1174 compared with uter 1175 neuter quid as reason adverb (‘why?’) 913 in elliptical interrogative sentences 346 introducing sentence questions 317, 326 with genitive of quantity 1019 with partitive genitive 1005 in first sentence position II.954 quia (interrogative) 336 quia (subordinator) 68 introducing argument clauses II.76, 440 introducing reason clauses II.281, 285 to translate Greek Ø~t II.64, 77 quia clauses as arguments II.76–9 as alternative to accusative and infinitive clauses 533, II.63, 77, 202 compared with quod clauses II.59, 64, 76, 78 statistical data on frequency II.60 use of moods in 626 use of tenses in 572 with accedit II.76 with adjectives of cognition II.460 with praetereo II.76 with preparative pronouns II.78 with verbs of blaming, praising, congratulating, and thanking II.78 with verbs of emotion 626, II.76 with verbs of happening II.73 with verbs of perception, cognition, and communication 627, II.77 as satellites combined with idcirco, ideo, and propterea 912 introduced by nisi quia II.381

reason clauses 647, II.285, 286 use of moods in 647 variation between authors 649 with complex subordinator (ex eo quia) II.379 quicumque as indefinite determiner 1112 as indefinite pronoun 1170 as relative pronoun 1113 introducing relative clauses II.472, 567, 568 quid est cur II.580 quid est quod II.75 quidam 49 as determiner 972 in qualitative sense 1109 in quantitative sense 1110 in specifying sense 1108 of autonomous relative clause II.511 of head of relative clause II.480 position with respect to head noun II.1071 supposed development into indefinite article 1114 to indirectly signal focus constituent II.843 to mark entity as non-identifiable II.832 as pronoun 1169 neuter quiddam with genitive of quantity 1169 statistical data on frequency 1102 uses in narrative discourse 1111 quidem (emphasizing particle) 926 II.862, 867, 878–84 as non-mobile word II.956 as sentence connexion device II.1165 combined with is as determiner of autonomous relative clause II.507 compared with equidem II.877 co-occurring with autem and tamen II.879 co-occurring with ceterum II.685 co-occurring with negation and utinam II.881 co-occurring with sed II.683, 879 co-occurring with verum II.685, 879 in combination quando quidem II.284, 880 in combination quoniam quidem II.289 in combination si quidem II.323, 880 in epitactic coordination II.695 in manner clauses II.274 in quod clauses of qualification II.377 in relative clauses II.486 in various subordinate clauses II.880 ne . . . quidem 680, 695, 1153, II.774, 994 position of II.994 causing discontinuity II.1102 to indicate scope of negation 674, 676 quidni 336, 682 quilibet as determiner 1112 as pronoun 1170 quin clauses as arguments 704–6, II.96–100 as attributes governed by nouns II.443

1418

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words

quin clauses (cont.) use of tenses in 567 with dubius II.461 with negated expressions of doubting 704 with negated expressions of necessity 705 with negated impersonal abest 704, II.96 with negated main clause II.96, 138 with negated possum II.99 with negated verbs of cognition and communication 705, II.98 with verbs of doubting 581, 733, II.96 with verbs of hesitating 705 with verbs of hindering, forbidding, and preventing 622, 704, II.138 as satellites 706 reason clauses II.295 result clauses II.311 with negated main clause 706 quin (interrogative adverb) 336, 682 used to modulate directive expressions 345, 355 quin (subordinator) 675, 703–5 as equivalent to ut non 705, II.99, 311 introducing argument clauses II.96, 149, 443 without negative meaning II.154 introducing reason clauses II.295 quippe as connector 68, II.1193, 1199–1201 combined with enim, etenim, and qui 911, II.1200 in combination quippe cum II.266 in combination quippe qui II.541 quippini 682 quispiam 49 as determiner 972, 1106 statistical data on frequency 1102 with potential subjunctive 483 quisquam 49 as determiner 972, 1107 as pronoun 1166, 1167 as substitute for nemo in comparison of non-equivalence II.728 combined with nemo 709, 942, 1169 combined with nihil 1169 nec quisquam preferred to et nemo 1168 used in negative clauses 1167 used in questions with num(quid) 328 compared with qui(s) and aliqui(s) 1103, 1167 not used with potential subjunctive 1168 statistical data on frequency 1102 quisque 987 as apparent secondary predicate (floating quantifier) II.820 as pronoun 1173 combined with unus 1173 in distributive apposition 1067 in ut . . . ita proportional superlative pattern II.771 inserted in ablative absolute clause as form of interlacing II.1059 notional agreement with 1290 verb agreeing with quisque as secondary predicate 1260

quisquis 988, 1112, 1170, 1173 as indefinite determiner 1112 as indefinite pronoun 1170 as relative pronoun 1113 introducing indefinite relative clauses II.567, 568 neuter with genitive of quantity 1019 used in sense of quisque 988 quivis as indefinite determiner 1112 as indefinite pronoun 1170 as relative pronoun 1113 introducing relative clauses II.472 quo clauses purpose clauses II.304 reason clauses II.296 quo (interrogative adverb) 336 quo (relative adverb) 812 as subordinator of imperative clauses II.149, 154 as summarizing device II.1160 in combination non quo II.296 in combination quo minus or setius introducing negative purpose clause II.304 introducing purpose clauses II.297, 304 introducing relative clauses II.534, 536, 579 referring to discourse participants II.1150 referring to human beings II.576 quo setius (subordinator) 706, II.304 quoad clauses II.252, 255 use of moods in 638 quoad (relative adverb), introducing degree clauses II.278 quod attinet/pertinet II.280 quod clauses ‘appositive’ quod clauses II.74 as arguments II.59–76 as alternative to accusative and infinitive clauses 533, II.44, 63, 202 as alternative to prolative infinitive clauses II.204 as attributes governed by nouns II.440, 441 compared with quia clauses II.59, 64 distinguished from reason clauses II.67 governed by a preposition II.59 position of II.64 preparative and resumptive expressions with II.73 statistical data on frequency II.60 use of moods in 626 use of tenses in 572 used as heading II.71 with accedit II.59 with adjectives of cognition II.460 with mitto and praetereo II.61 with subject or object complement II.69 with verbs of blaming, excusing, praising, congratulating, and thanking II.66 with verbs of emotion 89, 626, II.61 with verbs of happening II.71 with verbs of perception, cognition, and communication 627, II.63 with verbs of wondering 628

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words 1419 as satellites as theme constituents II.854 combined with idcirco, ideo, and propterea 912 degree clauses II.278 qualification clauses (disjuncts) II.377 reason quod clauses compared with quia clauses II.285, 287 respect clauses II.279 use of moods in 647 variation between authors 649 with sum and evaluative adverb II.848 with sum and reason adjunct II.849 with sum and time adjunct II.848 quod (relative) introducing apposition-like relative clauses II.554 introducing degree clauses II.278 introducing reason adjuncts (hoc est quod) II.75 introducing relative clauses with temporal meaning II.579 quod sciam, as restrictive expression II.377 quod (subordinator) II.41 as complex subordinator (cum eo quod) II.378 as conditional subordinator in Late Latin II.316 combined with nisi, praeter, tantum, or excepto II.381 in combination quod(si) as connector II.1173 introducing argument clauses II.59, 440 introducing clauses of qualification II.377 introducing reason clauses II.281, 287 introducing respect clauses II.279 meaning ‘provided that’ II.308 quodcumque, tmesis by preposition II.1116 quom, see cum (subordinator) quominus clauses 706 governed by nouns II.447 with expressions of preventing 707 with verbs of hindering, forbidding, and preventing 622, 707, II.138 with verbs of hesitating 707 quominus (subordinator) 675, 699, 706–8 introducing argument clauses II.149 quomodo clauses as arguments with verbs of perception and cognition II.80 in expressions of similarity II.758 quomodo (interrogative) 336, 857 quomodo (relative), introducing manner clauses II.270 quomodo (subordinator), introducing argument clauses II.80 quoniam clauses as arguments II.79–80 as alternative to accusative and infinitive clauses II.63, 202 with adjectives of cognition II.460 with verbs of perception, cognition, and communication II.79 as satellites II.289–92

combined with idcirco, ideo, and propterea 912 compared with quia reason clauses II.286 time clauses distinguished from reason clauses II.248 use of moods in 650 quoniam (subordinator) combined with connectors II.289 introducing argument clauses II.79 introducing reason clauses II.282, 284, 289 as equivalent to quod and quia II.291 introducing time clauses II.248 to translate Greek Ø~t and ot†~t II.79 quoque 1153, II.865, 866, 868, 872, 995 combined with atque II.632 combined with etiam II.870, 873 co-occurring with et II.635 correlative non modo . . . sed/verum quoque II.687 in combination quoque adhuc II.871 position of II.994 as prepositive particle II.871 to mark contrastive elements II.859 quor, see cur quorsum/s (interrogative adverb) 336 quorsum/s (relative adverb) 812 quot (interrogative) 336 quot (relative), introducing relative clauses II.571 quotation, see direct speech; indirect speech quotations (words quoted) case used for 1212 functioning as subject or object of clause 747 quoteni (interrogative) 336 quotiens (interrogative adverb) 336, 852 quotiens (relative adverb) 852 introducing time clauses II.250 quotiens(cum)que (relative adverb) 852 introducing time clauses II.250 quotienscumque clauses, use of moods in 638 quotumus (interrogative) 336 quotus (interrogative), combined with quisque 336 quotus (relative), introducing relative clauses II.571 raising, of the subject 1188, II.88, 197 reactive moves in discourse 370 realis conditional 338, 654, II.315 reason adjuncts 28, 909–13 compared with cause adjuncts 902, 909 compared with purpose adjuncts 909 distinguished from charge arguments with judicial verbs 912 prepositional gerundial clauses II.412 prepositional gerundival clauses II.419 reason (causal) clauses II.281–97 as adjuncts correlative expressions II.283 cum clauses interpreted as 578, 644 quia reason clauses 647 distinguished from quia argument clauses II.76, 78

1420

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words

reason (causal) clauses (cont.) distinguished from quod argument clauses II.61, 67 quin and quo clauses II.295 quod reason clauses 647, II.59 time clauses interpreted as reason clauses 609, II.243 as disjuncts distribution of quoniam, quando (quidem), quandoque, and quatenus II.284 quando (quidem) clauses 651, II.293 quandoque and quatenus clauses 651, II.294 quoniam clauses 650, II.289 siquidem reason clauses 651 distribution of quod, quia, quoniam, and quando II.282 relative order with respect to main clause II.1050 use of moods in 646 use of tenses in 566 with historic present 607 reason (semantic function) 28 recipient arguments 27, 141, 142, 1192 recipient (semantic function) 27 recipio, with reflexive pronoun 279 reciprocal expressions alius alium 1067 invicem 276 reciprocal interpretation of reflexive pronouns 276 recta (adverb) 832 recte (adverb), as subjective evaluation disjunct 348, 861 reduction (ellipsis of shared constituents) in comparative expressions II.721 in manner clauses II.274, 763 of preposition with relative pronoun (—.ă uztxzŪ figura) II.494, 605 of verb in relative clause II.495 reduction (conventional) of arguments 78, 80, 98, 756 referring vs. non-referring noun phrases 1085, 1086–1117 rēfert 135 with quod clause II.70 reflexive possessive adjective suus 1129 combined with sibi or other dative pronoun 980, 1136 compared with proprius 980 direct use 1129 in combination sua sponte 1154 indirect use 1124, II.7 non-reflexive use 979 referring to constituent other than subject 1132 replaced by genitive of is to avoid ambiguity 1134 replaced by genitive of reflexive pronoun 977 reflexive pronouns 272–9 as beneficiary adjuncts in ‘pleonastic’ use 894 autocausative use 272, 273 coreferential with subject 737 dative reflexives in Late Latin 894

decausative use 272, 275 first and second person used reflexively 1120 idiomatic uses with verbs 278 in accusative and infinitive clauses II.17 in indirect speech II.49 in purpose clauses II.298, 335 redundant uses 279 so-called passive use 278 statistical data on frequency 1122 third person 1121–9 dative sibi combined with suus or se 980, 1136 direct use 273, 1122, 1123 expressing coreferentiality at phrase level 1129 in combination per se 1136 combined with discretive ipse 1154 in genitive used instead of suus 977 indirect use 1122, 1124, II.7 reduplicated form sese II.906 referring to constituent other than subject 1124, 1137 referring to implied subject 1123 referring to ‘logical subject’ of impersonal verb 1123 replaced by is or ille to avoid ambiguity 1133 sui as objective genitive 1044 to avoid ambiguity between main and subordinate clause 1128 use of ipse to avoid ambiguity 1128 use of ipse to highlight subject or object 273, 1155 used in idiomatic expressions lacking coreferentiality 1136 true reflexive use 272, 273 with reciprocal interpretation 276 reflexive voice 231; see also passive voice: autocausative passives regio, in ablative as position in space adjunct 803 relative adjectives 570–5 relative adverbs II.43, 575–82 introducing relative clauses II.536, 575 position of II.981 reason adverbs II.580 space adverbs II.240, 534, 575 referring to human beings II.576 time adverbs II.242, 579 used at adjective phrase level II.578, 581 relative clauses 13, II.471, 473 adnominal clauses distinguished from autonomous clauses II.475 adnominal relative clauses II.5, 478; see also adnominal relative clauses agreement of verb with head in main clause 1262 anticipation or postponement (interlacing) II.79 as parentheses II.911 as secondary predicate II.779, 806 similarity to time cum clauses II.807 at adjective phrase level II.578, 581

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words 1421 at noun phrase level II.473 autonomous relative clauses II.5, 474, 501; see also autonomous relative clauses combined with apposition II.526 complex relative clauses containing another subordinate clause II.477 containing modo II.877 containing quidem II.880 coordination of clauses II.498; see also coordination: of subordinate clauses with anaphoric pronoun instead of second relative pronoun II.565 with repetition of relative pronoun II.498 without repetition of relative pronoun II.562 distinguished from connective relatives II.555 distinguished from indirect questions II.122 exceptional case marking of relative words (attraction) II.489 formal ambiguity with interrogative clauses (indirect questions) and comparative constructions 633 frequency of types of relative clauses II.475 in cleft constructions II.846 in combination quippe, utpote, and ut qui II.541 in indirect speech 670 indefinite relative clauses II.567; see also indefinite relative clauses inserted in another subordinate clause (interlacing) II.492 multiple relative clauses II.472 of ‘characteristic’ II.537, 545 of ‘purpose’ II.514, 522, 537, 806 relative words and phrases II.471 repetition of head noun in relative clause II.528, 530, 531 syntactic function of relative words and case marking II.487 use of future indicative with directive expression in main clause II.536 use of moods in 663, II.538 use of subjunctive and indicative moods in ‘causal’ relative clauses II.539 use of tenses in 566 subjunctive tenses II.537 with adversative/concessive interpretation II.542, 550 with causal interpretation II.537, 539 with conditional interpretation II.550 with consecutive interpretation II.537, 543, 545, 548 with ‘contained’, ‘incorporated’, or ‘omitted’ head II.475; see autonomous relative clauses with cum as time adverb II.245 with final (purpose) interpretation II.304, 543, 549, 550 with historic infinitive 608 with historic present 607 with qualis II.571, 572 with quod II.278; see degree clauses with quod with temporal meaning II.579 with relative adjectives II.570, 573

with relative adverbs II.575, 579, 580 without head (antecedent), see autonomous relative clauses without relative pronoun II.472 relative connexion II.555–62; see also connective relative pronouns; connective relative sentences containing a relative clause II.476 distinguished from relative clause II.485, 551, 555 distribution in authors II.556 in accusative and infinitive II.486 with particles or attitudinal disjuncts II.486 with qualis II.571 with quamobrem, quapropter, and quare 450, II.581 with quantus II.572 with relative pronoun or phrase II.556 relative phrases II.471 introducing relative clauses II.471, 502 in combination with a determiner II.506 in combination with a modifier II.513 syntactic function in relative clause and case marking II.487 with adjectival attribute II.503 with genitive of the whole II.502 relative pronouns and determiners, see relative words; qui (relative) relative use of tenses 552; see also sequence of tenses relative words II.471, 472, 501, 570 anticipation in main clause II.1055 as non-mobile words II.955 attraction of relative adverbs II.491 combined with comparative expression talis . . . qualis II.573 in non-finite clauses II.487 indefinite relative pronouns and adverbs II.472, 567 position of II.978, 981 preceding subordinators II.493 relative adjectives II.570–5 relative pronouns 13 agreement in gender II.488 with subject complement II.552 attraction II.489 combined with adjectives (apparent secondary predicates) II.500 combined with anaphoric or demonstrative pronouns in the same clause II.566 exceptional case marking (attraction) II.489 in ablative of comparison II.730 inverse attraction II.490 origin of II.504 reduction of preposition (—.ă uztxzŪ figura) II.605 syntactic functions and case marking II.487 relativization, compared with subordination II.4 relators 1176; see also agreement; case; prepositions; subordinators relinquitur, with ut clause II.82, 86 reliquus 981, 1051 with partitive genitive 1008

1422

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words

remembering, verbs of 117–18, 1222–3 tense of infinitive with 524 reminding, verbs of 160 with imperative clause II.134 with prolative infinitive II.205 renuntio, with quod clause II.63 repente co-ccurring with dum clause II.254 co-occurring with inverse cum clause II.246 repetition of noun in relative clause II.528 of preposition in coordinated phrase II.600 of relative pronoun in coordinated clause II.498, 562 of word or phrase to create coherence between sentences II.1144, 1146 reporting (form of narration) 451, II.1143 repraesentatio 569, 574, 593, 599 repudiating questions 344 use of tenses and moods in 486, 489, 493 request for information 315, 341 requesting, verbs of with imperative clause II.133 with prolative infinitive clause II.205 res; see also ob eam causam/rem anaphoric use 1096 as generic expression with autonomous relative clause II.509, 551 as summarizing anaphoric expression II. 1153 notional agreement with 1298 nulla res supplying missing forms of nihil 710 repetition in relative clause II.529 with determiner, as preparative expression of argument clause II.33 with determiner, as resumptive expression of argument clause II.36 res publica, as expression with fixed order II.1079 resolving, verbs of with imperative clause II.129, 144 with prolative infinitive clause II.211 respect adjuncts 914–18 compared with qualified truth disjuncts 914 gerundival clauses II.419 respect expressions modifying adjectives 1077 respect clauses II.59, 279–81 as theme constituents II.280 responses 368, 368–78 responses to directive utterances 376 responses to questions 370 restat, with ut clause II.82, 86 restrictive apposition 1067 ‘restrictive’ clauses, so-called II.306; see stipulative clauses restrictive relative clauses, see adnominal relative clauses result (consecutive) clauses II.308–14 distinguished from purpose clauses II.309 distinguished from stipulative clauses II.306 expansion (correlative) result clauses II.308 negation non and neque II.312 non-expansion result clauses II.309

quin clauses 706 use of moods in 653 use of tenses in 566, 574 ut clauses 623, II.311 with complex subordinator (in eo ut) II.382 with main clause in perfect tense 445 with verbs of causation 567, 624 resulting state interpretation of perfect indicative 446 of perfect participles 541 of pluperfect indicative 610 resumptive expressions anaphoric pronouns resuming theme constituents II.853 in epitactic coordination II.693 in the main clause II.36 resumptive use of anaphoric and demonstrative pronouns 1145 with adnominal relative clauses II.482 with autonomous relative clauses II.504, 506, 515 with quod argument clause II.73 with respect clauses II.280 with space satellite clauses II.240 resumptive negation 726 retrospective value of future perfect tense 467 of perfect tense 445, 573 ‘rheme’, as pragmatic function (Prague school) II.828 ‘rhetorical’ patterns, as factors determining word order II.962 rhetorical questions 319, 343, 374, 600 becoming accusative and infinitive clauses in indirect speech 510 negated with indefinite pronouns 1107 repudiating questions 344 use of tenses and moods in 486, 489, 493 use of indefinite pronouns in 732 rhetorical (sociative) plural 1119 rhythm as factor determining word order II.952, 953, 955, 960, 970 clausula and cursus as rhythmic patterns II.966 right-dislocation, see tail constituents rogo 164, 1185 followed by indicative indirect question 630 used as parenthesis in imperative sentences 353 with gerundive as secondary predicate II.797 with indirect question II.106, 110, 111, 113 with prolative infinitive clause II.205 with simple subjunctive, compared with clause with ut II.153 Romance languages ad phrase as alternative to the dative 1239 adverb male 698 certus, ‘a certain’ 1112 combination of ille and iste with ecce 1093 compound prepositions (abante) 1242 coordinator et II.621 demonstrative determiners and pronouns 1146, 1148

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words 1423 development of subordinators II.44 developments in marking of arguments 1191 developments of cases and prepositions 1236 disjunctive coordinator aut II.657 double negation 728 gerund as equivalent to present participle II.804 habeo + infinitive as competitor of simple future 435–40 habeo with perfect passive participle replacing active perfectum forms 478 infinitive as purpose adjunct with verbs of movement II.385 ipse 1162 magis, as adversative adverb, ‘rather’ II.682 -mente as adverbial suffix 871 ‘pleonastic’ use of reflexive pronouns 894 replacement of synthetic passive forms 257, 478 sedeo or sto as copula 207 shift of infectum to perfectum forms of sum 474, 478 si as indirect question particle II.115 so-called passive reflexives 278 subject verb object (word) order II.966 suus and its substitutes 980 unus, supposed use without a numerical meaning 1114 -urus + eram/fui resembling the conditional 431 use of genitive of description 776 word order II.1135 zero objects 758 route adjuncts, see path adjuncts ruling, verbs of 104, 116, 1192 rursus 853 rus ablative as source adjunct 816, 819 accusative as direction or goal adjunct 811, 819 locative as position in space adjunct 803, 819 sacrificing, verbs of 185 saepe 852 saltem as correlative expression with conditional clause II.326 used as emphasizing particle to mark contrastive element II.859, 888–90 sane 1081 as degree adjunct 888 as sentence connexion device II.1165 co-occurring with sed II.683 co-occurring with verum II.685 in answers to questions 373 in concessions 361 sarta tecta, as asyndeton II.614 satellite clauses 566, II.11, 237; see also individual clauses; disjuncts as adjuncts or disjuncts II.238 at adjective phrase level II.469 at noun phrase level II.458

finite clauses concessive clauses II.354 conditional clauses II.314 degree clauses II.278 manner clauses II.270 purpose clauses II.297 reason clauses II.281 respect clauses II.279 result clauses II.308 space clauses II.240 stipulative clauses II.306 time clauses II.241 non-finite clauses gerundial clauses II.406 gerundival clauses II.414 infinitival clauses II.383 nominal (verbless) clauses II.427 participial clauses II.386 supine clauses II.420 resembling argument clauses II.239 subordinators of II.40, 238 with preparative expressions II.33 without subordinator II.239 satellites 12, 25, 72, 797; see also adjuncts; disjuncts autonomous relative clauses as II.514 diachronic developments in marking of 1240 in first position II.1012 in last position II.1024 satis satin (ut) used to make questions more emphatic 341 satis superque as coordinated pair II.625 with genitive of quantity 1022 saying, verbs of, see communication, verbs of scalar particles additive particles II.872 combined with superlatives II.774 scilicet 310, 924 combined with conditional si clause II.322 scio 448, 552 haud scio an as idiom II.114 with indirect question II.109, 113 with infinitive II.219 with quod clause in subjunctive mood II.63 scope 318, 674 of emphasizing particles II.865 of focus II.843 of ipse 1153 of modifiers within noun phrase 1047 of negation 674, 676, 715, 731, 797, 1165 disjuncts excluded from 798, 925 ipse as scope of negation 1154 of sentence questions 318, 326 constituent scope 318 repeated in answer 371 sentence scope 318 with particle -ne 323 scribo, valency of 143 second person, see personal pronouns; subject

1424

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words

secondary predicates 30, 46, 187, 206, II.3, 777, 810; see also floating quantifiers adjective phrases as II.789 adjectives as II.780–9 as alternative to adverbs in poetry II.784, 788 combined with relative pronouns II.500 comparable to manner adverbs II.778, 780, 816 compared with attributes in poetry II.786 conditional interpretation of II.812 evaluative adjectives II.784 of amount 982 of mental or physical condition II.777 of physical condition, age, or socio-economic position II.782 of relative position II.783, 819 of size or substance in poetry II.787 of space or time II.782, 788 agreement 1264–9, II.779, 807 notional agreement with collective subject 1292 of verb with quisque as secondary predicate 1260 with implicit object 757 with non-subject arguments 1270 with unexpressed subject of accusative and infinitive 1265 ambo as apparent secondary predicate 987, II.823 autonomous relative clauses as II.514, 522 binary quantifiers as 989 comparative expressions of quality with ut II.762, 763 compared with cause adjuncts 903 compared with clausal apposition 1074 compared with distributive apposition 1067 compared with manner adjuncts 859, 861 compared with time cum clauses 643 containing question words 337 coordination with adjuncts II.708 distinguished from attributive participles 994 distinguished from subject or object complements 789, II.779 distribution of II.807 expressions to make semantic relationship to clause explicit 814 gerundives as 289, 293, II.231, 797 idem II.824 in first position II.1013, 1020 in infinitive clauses 746 in relative clauses II.472 in vocative case in poetry 1225, II.947 ipse 1161, II.824 medius as 1050 modified by adverbs 1037 multiple secondary predicates II.825 noun phrases as in ablative of description or quality II.779, 801 in genitive of description or quality II.799 nouns as II.789–91

conditional interpretation of II.812 in dative with verbs of giving or taking and going or sending II.800 of age or social position II.789 participles as II.791–6 compared with ablative absolute clauses II.394 distinguished from attributive participles 994 future participle 546, II.792 perfect participle II.778, 792 position and pragmatic function II.794 present participle 542, II.777, 791 various semantic interpretations II.813 with verbs of perception compared with accusative and infinitive clauses II.796 prepositional phrases as 1033, II.803 proper names as 940 quantifiers as adjectives of amount, omnis, and quisque II.820 attributive use distinguished from ‘predicative’ use II.824 omnis and cunctus 985 quisque 987 uterque 990 solus and unus II.822 totus as apparent secondary predicate II.823 transference of adjective to 1053 with verbs of standing, moving, finding, and perceiving II.779 secundum (adverb) 1229 secundum (preposition) 806 secus, as expression of dissimilarity II.752 sed as connector II.1172, 1184–6 combined with nempe II.1207 co-occurring with autem II.1177 in combination sed tamen II.1184 in parenthetical sentences II.911 as coordinator 68, II.586, 680, 682 co-occurring with quidem, omnino, sane, vero, and tamen II.683 correlative use with non + modo, solum, tantum, or tantummodo II.687 in epitactic coordination II.696 as correlative expression with conditional si clause II.319 position of II.973 sedeo, as copula 207 seeing, verbs of, with indirect question with si or -ne II.115 sei, see si (subordinator) semantic functions 26 diachronic developments in marking of 1236 marked by preposition vs. bare case 1176, 1201 of adjuncts 799 of arguments 26 of bare ablative 1199, 1206 of disjuncts 923 of genitive attributes 1000 of gerundial clauses II.406–13

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words 1425 of gerundival clauses II.414–19 of satellite clauses II.11, 238 of satellites 28, 798, 1207 with one-place verbs 82 with three-place verbs 137 with two-place verbs 99 semantic negation 673, 1107, 1167 semantic passives 231, 236–58 semantic reflexive 272, 273 semantic role hierarchy, as factor determining word order II.958 semel 852 combined with ubi II.261 in combination semel si II.339 in combination semel ut II.262 semideponent verbs 55 semper 852 senatus consultum, as expression with fixed order II.1087 senatus populusque Romanus, as coordinated pair II.625 sending letters, verbs of 142 sentence 14 complex sentence 552, 564, II.45; see also complex sentences compound sentence II.2, 585, 606, 610 connexion of sentences II.583 presentative sentence II.835 sentence combining II.583 simple sentence II.1002 sentence adverbs, see particles: emphasizing particles sentence scope 318 sentence types 16, 306–78 as factor determining word order II.951, 954 declarative, see declarative sentences exclamatory, see exclamatory sentences imperative, see imperative sentences; commands; prohibitions interrogative, see interrogative sentences of connective relative sentences II.559 of parenthetical sentences II.914 of relative clauses II.485 sentence valence, of adverbs 65 sentence (yes/no) questions, see interrogative sentences separation, verbs of 150 sequence of tenses 552–6 absolute use of tenses 552 ancient views on 555 deviation from 558, 568, 604 after main verb in imperfect or pluperfect subjunctive 563 after main verb in perfect tense 559 in cum clauses 578 in disjuncts 579 in indirect questions 570 in purpose adjunct clauses 573 in relative clauses II.537 in result adjunct clauses 574 semantic justification for retention of subjunctive tenses 579

diachronic development of 604 factors determining application 552–66 relative use of tenses 552 relevance to indicative subordinate clauses 602 relevance to subjunctive subordinate clauses 601 sequor 283 sequitur, with ut clause II.86 serving, verbs of 104, 1192 setius (negative adverb) in combination quo setius introducing negative argument clause 706 introducing negative purpose clause II.304 setting constituents II.856, 1005 ablative absolute clauses as II.1057 in first sentence position II.1005 participial secondary predicates II.794 preceding discourse topic II.837 preceding question words II.1032 space and time adjuncts resembling II.1012 subordinate clauses as II.1037, 1047, 1059–62 time, conditional, and reason clauses as II.1051 setting (pragmatic function) II.850, 856 seu, see sive/seu sharing and power, adjectives of 222 shift of imperfect to pluperfect of sum and habeo 458 of infectum to perfectum forms 474 showing oneself as, behaving as, verbs of 192 si clauses as arguments II.100–3 distinguished from conditional satellites II.101 negated by non II.101 with impersonal expressions II.102 with verbs of surprise II.101 with verbs of waiting in expectation and trying 627, II.100 as satellites, see conditional clauses purpose si clauses 652, II.334 resembling argument clause II.239 si (particle) as question particle in indirect questions II.108, 115 as question particle in Late Latin 334 development as question particle II.117 si (subordinator) 68, II.41 of argument clauses II.100 of conditional clauses II.314, 322 combined with modo and tantummodo II.323 combined with quasi, tamquam, ut, and ceu II.349 in combination extra quam si II.324 in combination semel si II.339 in combination si iam or si quidem II.323 in combination si minus II.321, 330 in combination si modo II.343 in combination si quando II.339 in combination si qui(s) II.570 in combination si tamen II.308, 323 meaning ‘to see if ’ 652, II.334

1426

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words

si me diligis, as illocutionary disjunct II.345 sic; see also ut . . . ita (sic), as correlative quasicoordinator as correlative expression with conditional clause II.325 with conditional comparative clause II.349 with manner clause II.271 with result clause II.308 with stipulative clause II.306 with ut/ne clause II.313 as preparative device II.1161 as preparative expression of argument clause II.35 as summarizing device II.1159 in wishes 505 sicut (subordinator), introducing conditional comparative clauses II.349 sicut(i) (relative adverb) in comparative expressions of quality II.763 in expressions of similarity II.758 in phrases of qualification II.765 introducing manner clauses II.270 sigmatic verb forms future indicative 462, 464, 470 of infinitives 532 of subjunctive 491, 506 similarity and suitability, adjectives of 217, 227 similis, as expression of similarity II.752 similiter, as correlative expression with conditional comparative clause II.349 simple clauses 14 simple sentences II.1003 simple subjects 1244 simple subjunctive clauses (without ut) II.10, 16, 149, 150 distribution in authors II.153 with cogo II.137 with decerno II.144 with facio II.142 with iubeo II.179 with licet II.149 with noun phrase as subject or object complement II.147 with verbs of ordering and commanding II.131 with verbs of striving II.140 with volo, nolo, and malo II.139 simul (ac/atque) clauses II.260 use of tenses in 589 simul (adverb) 1229 combined with correlative et . . . et II.641 simultaneity, expression of 50, 383 in secondary predicates II.778, 791, 810 in time clauses II.242 sin (subordinator), introducing alternative conditional clause II.330 sine (preposition) to mark accompanying circumstance adjuncts 901 to mark associative adjuncts 897 to mark manner adjuncts 866 to mark optional attributes of nouns 1030 to mark subject complements 786

singulare/singularia tantum 36 singuli 988 sino with accusative and infinitive clause II.176, 181 with simple subjunctive clause II.152 siquando II.339 siquidem (subordinator) II.880 with causal interpretation II.338 siquidem clauses as reason adjunct clauses 651 use of moods in 651 siremps(e), as correlative expression with conditional comparative clause II.349 sis (particle) 349, 356 as emphasizing device II.864 as illocutionary disjunct II.345 typical of male speech 354 sive/seu (coordinator) II.665 correlative sive/seu . . . sive/seu II.665, 672 introducing alternative conditional period II.331 introducing alternative conditional si clause II.346, 665 introducing alternative indirect question II.665 introducing alternative purpose si clause II.336 with conjunctive interpretation in Late Latin II.679 SoA, see state of affairs sociative plural 1119–20 sodes (particle) 356 typical of male speech 354 soleo as auxiliary verb 211 with infinitive II.219 solum, as emphasizing particle II.867, 875 solus, as apparent secondary predicate II.822 solvendo, as idiom II.226 somnio, valency of 77 sono, with subject complement 209 sortito (ablative absolute clause) II.402 source adjuncts 815–19 compared with agents in passive clauses 246 compared with respect adjuncts 914 domus and rus in 819 in apposition to toponym 1063 multiple source adjuncts in a clause 816 towns and small islands in 819 with verbs of asking 167 source arguments 28, 125, 178, 1196 in apposition to toponym 1063 with verbs of asking 167 with verbs of begging and requesting II.133 with verbs of demanding II.134 source (semantic function) 28 space adjuncts 800–32; see also direction and goal adjuncts; extent of space adjuncts; path adjuncts; position in space adjuncts; source adjuncts relative clauses as II.521 space clauses II.240–1; see also relative adverbs; space adverbs use of moods in 638

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words 1427 spatium, ablative spatio as extent of space adjunct 827 speaking, verbs of, see communication, verbs of species verbi 233; see also voice specific reference of noun phrases, see noun phrases spero 525, 581 sponte sua, combined with discretive ipse 1154 sprinkling, verbs of 163 st (interjection) II.927 standard of comparison II.717 state of affairs 11, 22, 51, 380 typology of 22 states (state of affairs) 22; see also resulting state interpretation statim 841 as subordinator II.264 co-occurring with quod clause II.848 co-occurring with secondary predicate II.814 in combination statim atque II.261 in combination statim ut II.258 stipulative clauses II.306–8 use of moods in 652 with quod, ‘provided that’ II.308 with ut or ne, in combination with cum eo tamen II.308 with ut, distinguished from purpose clauses II.306 with ut, distinguished from result clause II.306 sto as copula 207 combined with present participle 545 storytelling (form of narration) 451, II.1141, 1143 striving, verbs of with imperative clause II.129, 140 with prolative infinitive clause II.209 stulte 861 style 33 in choice between active and passive 251 variatio (inconcinnitas) II.704 suadeo, with imperative clause II.134 sub (preposition) choice between ablative and accusative 175 governing ablative to mark position in space adjuncts 806 to mark position in space arguments 175 governing accusative to mark direction and goal adjuncts 812 to mark direction and goal arguments 175 to mark position in time adjuncts 837 subito co-occurring with dum clause II.254 co-occurring with inverse cum clause II.246 subiunctivus (modus) 56 subject 28, 736 agreement of verb with compound subjects 1246–58, II.595 grammatical agreement 1244–72 notional agreement 1287 simple subjects 1244–5 apposition to unexpressed first and second person subjects 1068

as topic II.830, 1007 compound subjects 1244, 1246 conjunction reduction of II.591 first person subjects 738–43 generic use 743 use of plural instead of singular (rhetorical plural and plural of majesty) 1119–20 identity of subject in finite subordinate clauses II.13 in first position II.1006 in last position II.1021, 1039 in participial, gerundival, and nominal clauses II.27 of ablative absolute clause, distinct from constituents of main clause II.394 of accusative and infinitive clauses 1186, II.17 of prolative infinitive clause II.21 preceding subordinators II.1053 second person subjects 738–43 generic use 743 use of plural instead of singular for politeness 1120 shared subjects in coordinated clauses II.610, 611 so-called logical subject with reflexive pronoun and possessive adjective 1123, 1130 third person subjects 743–54 clauses as subject 745 demonstrative and anaphoric pronouns as third person subjects 1118 generic use 752 nouns and noun phrases as subject 744 quotations as subject 747 unexpressed (implicit) subjects (fused clauses) II.21 unexpressed subjects (zero-anaphora) 748–52, II.1144, 1148 agreement of verb with 1245, 1282 in accusative and infinitive clause II.18 reflexive pronouns referring to 1123 ‘subject’ clauses, see argument clauses subject complements 30, 195, 215, 710, 765–87 adjectives, neuter singular, as substantival adjectives 768 with accusative and infinitive clause II.183 with gerundial clause II.229 with prolative infinitive clause II.212 with quod clause II.69 with ut clause II.88 agreement in accusative and infinitive clause II.17 in prolative infinitive clause II.22 notional agreement with collective subject 1292 with non-subject arguments 1270 with subject 1264, 1265, 1267 with pronominal subjects 1278 with unexpressed subject of accusative and infinitive 1265 attraction of verb to agree with 1261 autonomous relative clauses as II.514 distinguished from secondary predicates II.779

1428

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words

subject complements (cont.) gerundival clauses as II.233 in ablative abolute clauses II.26 in first position II.1010 in last position II.1023 in vocative case 1225 manner clauses as II.271 marked by nominative case 1186, 1209 negation of 685 neuter singular adjective as 768 non-referring noun phrase as 1085, 1117 nouns as with accusative and infinitive clause II.183 with gerundial clause II.228 with quod clause II.69 with ut clause II.90 with verbs of perception 208 subjective evaluation disjuncts, see disjuncts subjunctive clauses without ut, see simple subjunctive clauses subjunctive mood 56, 481–511 adhortative use 349, 497 clauses in which subjunctive competes with indicative 601, 618 counterfactual use 388, 481, 494–7 imperfect as either potential or counterfactual 487, 655 in conditional periods 495, 496, 654, 660 deliberative subjunctive 485, 489 deontic use 56, 388, 481, 497–511 hortatory subjunctive 349, 497 imperfect subjunctive, see imperfect tense in argument clauses with verbs of fearing 623 in comparative constructions 664 in concessions 360, 509 in concessive clauses 662 in conditional comparative clauses II.349 in cum clauses reason cum clauses 644 time cum clauses 641 in time dum clauses 645 in etiamsi clauses II.372 in etsi clauses II.370 in imperative clauses 619, 621, 623, II.126 in imperative sentences 351, 497–504 commands and prohibitions of the past 503 difference between subjunctive and imperative 351, 498 in indirect speech 510, 668 in interrogative clauses 618, 628 in interrogative sentences 485 deliberative questions 485, 489 repudiating questions 486, 489, 493 in manner clauses 663 in purpose (final) clauses 651 in qualification disjunct clauses II.377 in quamquam clauses II.365 in quamvis clauses II.366 in quando clauses 651 in quatenus clauses 651 in quia argument clauses 626 in quin argument clauses 622

in quod argument clauses 626, II.63, 64 in quominus clauses 622 in quoniam clauses 650 in reason clauses 646 with quin and quo II.295 in relative clauses 618, II.481, 580 to modulate statements II.545 in relative clauses governed by two-place adjectives II.533 in relative clauses with tam or tantus + adjective II.534 in result (consecutive) clauses 623, 653 in si argument clauses 627 in si clauses with a time interpretation II.340 in si purpose clauses ‘to see if ’ 652 in siquidem clauses 651 in so-called causal relative clauses II.540 in so-called generic or consecutive relative clauses II.480 in space adjunct clauses 638 in stipulative clauses 652, II.306 in subordinate clauses due to modal assimilation 666 in subordinate clauses in indirect speech 668 in tametsi clauses II.371 in time clauses 638 with antequam and priusquam II.265 with dum and donec II.254 with postquam II.259 with quando II.249 with simul (ac/atque) II.261 with ubi II.261 with ut II.264 in ut clauses 347, 619, 651 in wishes 359, 504–9 realizable wishes 505 unrealizable wishes 507 jussive use of third person 502 modal assimilation (attraction) 667 non-factive value of 388 in argument clauses 626 in relative clauses II.539, 544, 548 in satellite clauses 636, 638, 641, 654 oblique use 620, II.544 optative subjunctive 359, 504–9 perfect subjunctive, see perfect tense periphrastic expression with future participle 433 pluperfect subjunctive, see pluperfect tense position of subjunctive verb forms in imperative sentences II.1035, 1036 potential use 56, 388, 481, 482–94; see also potential use of subjunctive mood imperfect as either potential or counterfactual 487, 655 in conditional periods 484, 488, 491, 654, 658 use of tenses in subordinate clauses after main clause containing potential subjunctive 562 with generic subjects 483, 487 present subjunctive, see present tense relevance of sequence of tenses 601

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words 1429 semantically justified (harmonic) vs. grammatical uses of 390, 617, 621 so-called causal and concessive/adversative subjunctives in relative clauses II.539 so-called consecutive subjunctive in relative clauses II.539, 545 so-called final subjunctive in relative clauses II.539, 806 used to modulate a request for information 341 used to modulate an assertion 310, 491 volitive subjunctive 388, 481, 497–510 with potius quam 665 with verbs of hindering, forbidding, and preventing 622 subjuncts 69, 693; see particles: emphasizing particles; see also the Preface of this volume subordinate clauses 13, II.1–31; see also coordination: of subordinate clauses arguments and satellites II.1 at adjective phrase level II.435, 459–69 at adverb phrase level II.469 at noun phrase level II.435, 436–59 causing discontinuity II.1106 constituent(s) of main clause preceding subordinate clause II.1051 constituent(s) of subordinate clause preceding main clause II.1053 containing question words 337 devices to strenghten coherence with superordinate clause II.31 distribution of II.12 finite and non-finite clauses II.1, 6, 237 finite argument clauses II.13, 56 declarative clauses II.57 exclamatory clauses II.155 imperative clauses II.126 interrogative clauses II.105 finite satellite clauses II.238 in indirect speech 668 incorporation into main clause II.1052 interlacing of relative clause with another subordinate clause II.492 internal word order II.1038–47 negator climbing II.7 non-finite clauses as arguments II.16 accusative and infinitive clauses II.157 gerundial clauses II.224 gerundival clauses II.229 nominal (verbless) clauses II.234 nominative and infinitive construction II.194 participial clauses II.220 prolative infinitive clauses II.204 as satellites gerundial clauses II.406 gerundival clauses II.414 infinitival clauses II.383 nominal (verbless) clauses II.427 participial clauses II.386 supine clauses II.420 preparative expressions II.31

relative clauses II.471 relative order with respect to main clause 560, 565, II.1047–62 use of moods in 617–71 use of tenses in 552–617 variation of tenses 601 used at various levels II.11 verbal and nominal (verbless) clauses II.6 with unexpressed (implicit) subject, see fused clauses subordination 14, II.1, 5, 583; see also interlacing cohesive devices II.37 compared with relativization II.4 history of II.5 lacking sentential properties II.9 resumptive expression in main clause II.36 subjunctive as subordination device 57, 387, 390, 617, 663 subordinators 13, 68, II.40–5; see also individual subordinators as non-mobile words II.955 combined with prepositions II.15; see also complex subordinators diachronic development II.41, 44 causal subordinators II.288 following connective relative expression II.556 following relative words II.493 negative subordinators 700–8, II.126, 138 of argument clauses II.40 of concessive clauses II.354 of manner clauses II.270 of purpose clauses II.297 of reason clauses II.281 of result clauses II.311 of satellite clauses II.40, 238 of stipulative clauses II.306 of time clauses II.242, 243 position of II.955, 978–81 causing discontinuity II.1103 relative adverbs II.43 with ablative absolute clause II.374, 392, 432 with both argument and satellite clauses II.41 subscriptio, as farewell formula II.1231 ‘substantival infinitives’, see infinitive clauses (‘substantival infinitives’) ‘substantival’ relative clauses II.501; see autonomous relative clauses substantival use of adjectives, see adjectives ‘substantive’ clauses II.52, 126; see argument clauses substitution (type of adversative coordination) II.680 subter (adverb) 1229 subter (preposition) 806 subtopic II.832 subtus (adverb) 1229 suesco, with infinitive II.219 sui, sibi, se (reflexive pronoun), see reflexive pronouns: third person sum 195–204 auxiliary use 197 forms of sum in last position II.1026 word order of complex forms II.1122

1430

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words

sum (cont.) combined with manner adverbs 860 copular use 195 est ‘to be the case’ with ut clause II.85 est with subject complement and gerundial clause II.228 est with subject complement and si clause II.102 est with subject complement and ut clause II.82 existential use 200 in presentative sentences II.844 future infinitive fore 532 fore ut as alternative to future passive infinitive 533 with perfect passive participle to form future perfect infinitive 536 future infinitive futurum esse 533 futurum esse ut as alternative to future passive infinitive 533 identifying use 195, 1085 idiomatic expressions with in + accusative abstract noun 809 imperative esto in concessions 361 impersonal est 95 with accusative and infinitive clause 95 with adverbs 96 with ut clause 95, II.85 in first position II.1018 in gerundive + sum construction 288, 296, 301, 472 in periphrastic future with -urus + sum 429, 472, 531 in possessive dative construction 107, 773 in possessive genitive construction 772 in predicative dative construction 778 non-existing forms supplied by exsisto 207 omission of 197, 201, 532 position of forms of sum II.984, 991 predicational use 195, 1085 shift of infectum to perfectum forms in auxiliary constructions 473 so-called shifted use of pluperfect for imperfect 458 statistical data on tense usage 394 used in future perfect without anterior meaning 466 used in identity statements distinguished from cleft constructions II.848 with adverbs 201, 785 with gerundial clause II.226 with gerundival clause II.233 with position in space argument 123 with present participle 544 with subject complement 765 summonses II.925, 938 summus partitive and non-partitive use 1048 with partitive genitive 948 super (adverb) 1229 super (preposition) 806 superiority, verbs of 113, 1193 superordinate clause II.2

supine clauses II.25, 420–7 first supine (in -um) II.421 as purpose adjunct with verbs of movement II.385, 421 as substitute for future passive infinitive II.421 second supine (in -u) II.423 as parenthesis II.425 with adjectives II.424 with nouns II.426 supines compared with deverbal nouns 64 distinguished from deverbal nouns II.426 morphosyntactic properties of 64 origin of -u supine II.427 supines in -u as source adjuncts with verbs of motion 818 supines in -um + iri as future passive infinitive 532 suppetias, with eo 811 supplying, verbs of 137, 146, 149, 169, 1195 support verbs 74, 1041, II.52 consilium capio II.450 potestatem do or facio with ut clause II.437 with argument clause II.53, 437 with predicative dative 780 supra (preposition) 806 surpassing, verbs of 151 surprise, verbs of, with si clause II.101 suscenseo, with quod or quia argument clause 626 suscipio, with gerundive as secondary predicate II.797 suspensio, to mark sense units II.967 susque deque II.640 suus (reflexive possessive adjective), see reflexive possessive adjective suus swear words II.919–23 combined with namque II.1198 di boni/immortales II.921 expressions related to Castor, Pollux, and Hercules II.919 ‘syllepsis’ (coordination of verbs with different case pattern) II.593 syncretism 1215 syndetic coordination II.585, 588–606; see also coordinators at adjective phrase level II.599 at noun phrase level II.597 conjunctive coordination of clauses or constituents II.588 conjunctive coordinators II.620 disjunctive and adversative coordination of clauses II.589 multiple coordination II.649, 650, 651 of prepositional phrases II.600, 605 of subject constituents 1249 of verbs sharing subject or object II.591 of verbs sharing third argument or satellite II.595 of verbs with different case pattern II.593 preferred in poetry II.622

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words 1431 syntactic functions 28 of arguments 28 of autonomous relative clauses II.508, 514, 515 of constituents in first position II.1006 of heads of adnominal relative clauses II.492 of participial and nominal (verbless) clauses II.29 of relative words and phrases in their clause II.487 of subordinating devices in their clause II.238 of satellites 30 synthetic verb forms 51 taedet 132 tail (pragmatic function) II.849 tail constituents 26, II.857 distinguished from adjectives or nouns as secondary predicates II.818 distinguished from afterthought II.858 distinguished from clausal apposition 1073, II.858 participles as secondary predicates resembling tails II.794 marked by nominative case 1209 perfect participle used as 547 Tail–Head linking construction II.1155 talis as correlative expression with result clause II.309 combined with autonomous relative clause II.535 in an expression of confirmation of a preceding statement II.1160 talis . . . qualis II.573 tam; see also quam (degree adverb) as adjective modifier II.1081 as correlative expression with result clause II.309 tam . . . quam combined with tantus . . . quantus II.745 tam . . . quam in comparison of equivalence II.745, 750 with adjective + relative clause II.534 tam diu, with dum clause II.251, 255 tamen as connective adverb 361, II.1165, 1172, 1188 as correlative expression with ablative absolute clause II.392 with concessive clause II.356, 360, 362, 363 with conditional clause II.326, 336 with cum clause II.269 with etiamsi clause II.371 with postquam clause II.270 with ut clause II.375 combined with coordinators II.655 co-occurring with correlative nec/ neque . . . et II.648 co-occurring with secondary predicate II.814 in combination sed tamen II.683, 1184 in combination si tamen II.323 in combination verum tamen II.685, 1188 in connective relative sentence II.669

in nisi clause of exception II.352 in relative clause II.486 tamenetsi, as subordinator of concessive clauses II.355 tamenetsi clauses II.373 tametsi as contrastive connector II.356, 1191 as subordinator of concessive clauses II.355 tametsi clauses II.371 tamquam 1109 in comparative expressions of quality II.763 in expressions of (dis)similarity II.760 tamquam clauses with nouns of emotion, cognition, and communication II.443 with verbs of accusing, blaming, excusing, emotion, and communication II.104 tamquam (subordinator) introducing argument clauses II.104, 443 introducing conditional comparative clauses II.348 with causal interpretation II.350 tandem, in questions 341 tantisper, with dum clause II.251, 255 tantopere 890, 1085 tantum as emphasizing particle II.875 as measure of distance 827 in combination tantummodo or tantum ne II.306 tantum quod (complex subordinator) II.381 tantummodo as emphasizing particle II.875 combined with si II.323 tantus as correlative expression with result clause II.309 as correlative expression with ut/ne clause II.313 in an expression of confirmation of a preceding statement II.1160 in proportional comparison quanto . . . tanto II.766 tanto as measure of difference II.740 tantus . . . quantus combined with tam . . . quam II.745 with adjective + relative clause II.534 -te (suffix), in combination tute II.908 teaching, verbs of 164, 167, 1185 telic 397 temperi 841 tempero, with dative or accusative 129 tense 50, 55 absolute and relative use of tenses 552 as grammatical device contributing to discourse coherence II.1226 historic tenses 554 primary tenses 554 sequence of, see sequence of tenses statistical data on frequency 391 theoretical discussion of 379–86 use of tenses in donec ‘de rupture’ clauses II.257

1432

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words

tense (cont.) use of tenses in dum clauses II.251, 253 use of tenses in finite subordinate clauses 552–617 use of tenses in indirect speech II.49 use of tenses in postquam clauses II.259 use of tenses in relative clauses II.536 use of tenses in simul (ac/atque) clauses II.261 tenus (preposition) 812 terminative (state of affairs) 23, 397 in perfect tense with resulting state interpretation 446, 537, 541, 547 in pluperfect tense with resulting state interpretation 437, 610 terms (of comparison) II.715 lexical categories of II.719 syntactic and semantic functions of II.720 used at various levels II.718 terra, ablative as position in space adjunct 803 terra marique, as coordinated pair II.625 text II.1138, see discourse text types 33; see also poetry (and poeticizing prose); discourse modes argumentative texts imperative sentences with concessive force 361 use of connectors etsi, tametsi, and quamquam II.1191 biographies, use of tenses 451 decrees, use of ne quis velit + perfect infinitive 538 didactic texts ablative absolute clauses II.387, 392, 397 adnominal arguments 1041 autocausative reflexives 274 decausative passives 281 declarative sentences with directive force 313 double accusative 172 gerundial adjunct clauses II.409 mixed coordination II.586 omission of auxiliary sum 198 omission of second arguments 97 relative infrequency of questions 326 support verbs 76 use of future imperative 513, 517 use of future indicative with directive force 312, 428 use of gerundive 298, 313 use of passive with directive force 238 use of so-called jussive infinitive 358 use of subjunctive 481 use of tenses 451 use of vero II.1190 interactive texts agentless passives 239 summonses II.925 use of ecquis and similar compounds 334 use of future indicative with directive force 427 use of indicative in indirect questions 630 use of personal pronouns 739

use of preparative expressions with argument clauses II.31 use of tenses 391 ut clauses as indignant questions 347 legal texts absence of prohibitions with present imperative 516 correlative neve (neive) . . . neve II.674 deviations from sequence of tenses 604 dumtaxat II.893 lex siremps(e) esto II.349 lexical repetition as cohesive device II.1144 mixed coordination II.586 natus + age expression in genitive II.738 prepositional gerundial purpose adjuncts II.406 quamdiu, ‘until’ II.255 quatenus, ‘as long as’ II.252 quod, ‘provided that’ II.308 repetition of noun in relative clause II.528 unspecified subjects 750 use of ast II.1174 use of correlative expressions II.283 use of future imperative 513, 515, 517 use of future indicative with directive force 312, 425, 429 use of future participle with directive force 546 use of present passive infinitive instead of supine + iri 525 use of -que II.621, 624 use of so-called jussive infinitive 358 use of -ve II.657, 662 medical texts declarative sentences with directive force 313 use of dative with iuvo 1191 use of enim II.1206 use of future indicative with directive force 428 use of present participle 996 narrative texts ablative absolute clauses II.387, 392, 397, 560 accusative and infinitive clauses II.157, 158, 186 cum clauses II.244 donec ‘de rupture’ clauses II.256 gerundial adjunct clauses II.409 inverse cum clause II.246 participles as secondary predicates II.794 prepositional participial clauses II.404 relative connexion II.555 relative infrequency of questions 326 so-called final gerundival clauses with nouns II.453 use of hic to close episodes II.1157 use of historic infinitive 527 use of quam without comparative expression II.728 use of subject pronouns 741 use of tenses 391, 409, 415, 416, 451 use of time clauses 616

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words 1433 philosophical texts agentful passives 239 support verbs 76 use of tenses 391 prayers, use of future imperative 517 technical texts adnominal arguments 1041 declarative sentences with directive force 313 relative clause as substitute for deverbal nouns II.502 variation in asyndetic connexion of sentences II.1163 concessive subordinators II.355, 369 connectors and interactional particles connecting paragraphs II.1224 consecutive connectors and particles II.1209 coordinators ac/atque, et, and -que II.621 correlative -que . . . -que II.638 discontinuity II.1100 disjunctive coordinators II.657 explanatory and justificatory connectors and particles II.1194 functions of address II.939 interjections II.924 omissibility of third person subjects 748 omission of auxiliary sum 202 question particles 321 subordination II.5 use of active and passive voice 233, 235, 239 use of autem II.1180 use of tenses 450 word order II.955, 1135 text, as suprasentential unit, see discourse thanking, verbs of with accusative and infinitive clause II.170 with cum clause II.80 with nominative and infinitive construction II.197 with quia clause II.78 with quod clause II.66 ‘theme’, as pragmatic function (Prague school) II.828 theme constituents 26, II.850 compared with pseudo-subject and -object 762 distinguished from respect adjuncts II.854 in first position II.1005 marked by nominative case 1209 respect clauses as II.280 sentence-initial relative clauses resembling II.483, 490, 504 theme (pragmatic function) II.849 ‘thetic’ sentences II.828 thinking, verbs of, see cognition, verbs of third person, see subject threatening, verbs of 104, 1192 three-place verbs, see verbs time adjuncts 833–56 gerundial clauses II.412 gerundival clauses II.418 prepositional nominal absolute clauses II.433 time clauses II.241–70; see also individual clauses or subordinators; relative adverbs; time adverbs

antequam clauses 611, II.265 cum clauses 611, 613, 641, 643, II.243, 258, 266, 269 difference between infectum and perfectum stems in 609 dum clauses 615, 616, 645, II.250, 251, 254, 268 ex quo clauses II.264 mox, primum, and statim clauses II.264 non-temporal meaning of II.243, 266 post(ea)quam clauses 609, 610, II.258, 270 priusquam clauses 611, 618, 638, II.265 quamdiu, quoad, and donec clauses II.252, 255 quando, quandoque, and quandocumque clauses II.249 quatenus clauses II.252 quoniam clauses II.248 relative order with respect to main clause II.1050 simul (ac/atque) clauses II.260 ubi clauses 609, II.261 use of et and atque in main clause II.623 use of moods in 638 use of tenses in iterative time clauses 602 ut clauses 480, 609, 610, II.262 variation in use of tenses 616 with historic infinitive 608 time of speaking 380, 383 freedom of speaker in determining 399 time within which adjuncts 849–51 combined with frequency expressions 852 timeo with dative beneficiary adjunct 893 with dative or accusative 129 tmesis 1231, II.989, 991, 1132–4 created by -que II.1134 of quodcumque by preposition II.1116 separation of compounds with per- and -cumque II.1133 separation of parts of compound verbs II.1132 tolerating, verbs of, with accusative and infinitive clause II.175 topic (pragmatic function) 31, 773, II.827, 829–39, 951 accusative pseudo-object as 759 associative anaphora (subtopic) II.832 contrastive topic 676, II.860 discourse topic II.836 formal properties of topic constituents II.839 general (encyclopedic) knowledge as factor for topic selection II.830 given topic II.835 with zero-anaphora II.1150 nominative pseudo-subject as 761 choice between active and passive 251 resumed topic II.836 subject as topic II.830 subtopic II.832 topic constituents in first position II.832, 1005, 1006 topic shift 271 types of constituents to function as topic II.838

1434

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words

toponyms grammatical agreement with 1281 modified by restrictive apposition 1058 agreement of verb with 1059, 1260 tot, in an expression of confirmation of a preceding statement II.1160 totiens 852 totus 804, 991, II.1076 as apparent secondary predicate II.823 co-occurring with a determiner 971 neuter totum modifying infinitive 943 with meaning ‘all’ 992 towns and small islands, in space expressions 819 trans (adverb) 1229 trans (preposition) to mark direction and goal adjuncts 812 to mark position in space adjuncts 806 transcategorial parallelism 21, 1191, 1204, 1215, 1217–18 transeo 172 transfer, verbs of as three-place verbs 137, 140, 763, 813, 1192, 1195, 1239 with accusative and infinitive clause II.166 with purpose infinitival clause II.383 transiectio (hyperbaton) II.957 transitive use of intransitive verbs 84, 172 transitive verbs 1190; see verbs, two- and three-place verbs; accusative case: to mark second arguments (accusative objects) transmitto 172 treatment, verbs of 137, 146, 1195 tremo, valency of 85 tribunus plebis, as expression with fixed order II.1087 trivalent, see verbs: three-place verbs true passives 231, 236–58 true reflexive 272, 273 trying, verbs of 627 implied with si clause II.335 with si clause II.100, 117 with si or ut clause II.100 tu, see personal pronouns tum 841; see also cum . . . tum: as correlative quasi-coordinator as connective adverb in combination tum autem II.1177 to mark sequence of events II.1216 as correlative expression with conditional clause II.326, 339 with time cum clause 641 with time quando clause II.249 tunc as connective adverb to mark sequence of events II.1217 turbidus, as secondary predicate in poetry II.786 tuxtax (interjection) II.924 two-place verbs, see verbs ubi clauses 610, II.261 use of tenses in 609

ubi (indefinite adverb), position of II.983 ubi (interrogative adverb) 336 ubi (relative adverb) 808, II.43 introducing relative clauses II.471 with a locative/temporal meaning II.240 ubicumque (adverb) 808 ubicumque clauses II.240 use of moods in 638 ubique 808 ubiubi, introducing relative clause II.472 ullus 972, 1107 as substitute for nullus in comparison of non-equivalence II.728 ultimus 1050 with partitive genitive 948 ultra (adverb) 1229 as expression of similarity II.752 ultra (preposition) to mark direction and goal adjuncts 812 to mark position in space adjuncts 806 umquam 841 unde (interrogative adverb) 336, 818 position of II.984 unde (relative adverb) 818 introducing relative clauses II.575–6 referring to human beings II.576 introducing space clauses II.241 undecumque 818 universal quantifiers 985 unus as apparent secondary predicate II.822 combined with aliqui(s) 942, 970 combined with quisque 987, 1173 combined with zero quantifier 973 co-occurring with superlatives II.774 developing into indefinite article 1114 non-numerical uses of 1115 unusquisque 987, 1173 urbs, in apposition to name 1058 agreement of verb with 1260 usquam 808 usque (adverb) 848, 1229 usque (adeo) with dum clause II.251, 255 usque (preposition) 837 usus est 116 with imperative clause 622 with (perfect) passive participle 256, II.224 ut (interrogative adverb) 336, II.44 ut (particle) in wishes 359 with subjunctive commands, similarity to ut clauses 500 ut (relative adverb) II.44; see also ut . . . ita (sic) in combination ut qui II.541 in comparison of (dis)similarity II.753, 760 in comparison of quality II.762 introducing manner clauses II.270 ut (subordinator) II.41, 44; see also ne (negative subordinator) as equivalent to ne non II.95 combined with nedum II.700

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words 1435 in combination modo ut/ne II.306 introducing argument clauses II.81, 126, 149, 441 with verbs of fearing and worrying II.95 introducing argument or satellite clause II.41 introducing purpose clauses II.297, 300 introducing result clauses II.308, 311, 312 introducing stipulative clauses II.306 introducing time clauses II.42, 262 omission of, see simple subjunctive clauses (without ut) ut epexegeticum II.442 ut . . . ita, in proportional superlative pattern II.771 ut . . . ita (sic), as correlative quasicoordinator II.190, 702 with causal interpretation to translate Greek Ø~t II.297 ut clauses; see also ut (subordinator); ne (negative subordinator) as arguments 651, II.81–93 as attributes governed by nouns II.441, 446 competing with prolative infinitive clauses II.204 declarative clauses distinguished from imperative clauses II.81 negated by ne or non II.149 preparative expressions 1099, 1145 similarity to cleft constructions II.91 use of indirect reflexive pronoun and possessive adjective in 1126, 1130 use of infinitive in II.16 use of moods in 619, 621–5 use of tenses in 567 with adjective + sum II.88 with adjective as subject or object complement II.145 with adjectives of cognition II.460 with comparative expression + quam II.462 with dignus II.462 with impersonal verbs 624, II.87, 148 impersonal est 95 with nouns as subject or object complement II.90, 147 with ‘periphrastic’ construction facio ut II.93 with possessive adjective or prepositional phrase as subject complement II.91 with verbs accedit 624, II.82 efficio 190 facio 190, II.142, 143 metadirective fac 351 of advising, warning, exhorting, reminding, and admonishing II.134 of begging and requesting II.133 of causation 567, 624, II.142 of communication II.92 of deciding and resolving II.144 of demanding II.134 of deserving II.145 of fearing 623, 702, II.94 of forcing II.137

of happening and befalling 624, II.83 of inducing and persuading II.135 of manipulation 183, II.42, 129, 170 of ordering and commanding II.131 of perception and cognition II.92, 141 of permitting, granting, and allowing II.136 of striving II.140 of wishing, desiring, and preferring II.139 relinquitur, restat, or sequitur II.86 sum ‘to be the case’ II.85 without ut II.10, 16, 149, 150; see also simple subjunctive clauses as indignant questions 347 as satellites as illocutionary disjuncts 566, 930 comparative clauses of quality II.762 in expressions of similarity II.758 manner clauses with causal interpretation II.274 pseudo-final ut clauses 566, 930 purpose clauses 573, 651, II.300 result clauses 574, 623, II.308 stipulative clauses II.306 time clauses 609, 610, II.262 with complex subordinator (in eo ut) II.382 with concessive interpretation II.375 with correlative ita, sic, or tantus II.313 ut epexegeticum II.442 ut opinor, as idiom II.274 ut phrases in comparative expressions II.763 of qualification II.765 ut quid/quo II.303 ut temporale II.42 ut videtur, as idiom II.274 uter (indefinite) as determiner 989, 1113 as pronoun 989, 1171 uter (interrogative) 336, 1174 as determiner 974, 989 as pronoun 989 compared with quis 1175 uter (relative) 989 uterlibet 1113, 1171 uterque 989 as attribute or secondary predicate 990 combined with et . . . et II.641 compared with ambo 991 notional agreement with 1290 used in plural 990 utervis 1113, 1171 uti, see ut utinam in wishes 359, 504 so-called elliptical use 360 utique as correlative expression with concessive clause II.363 used as emphasizing particle II.891–2 utor 115, 192, 292, 1193

1436

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words

utpote co-occurring with secondary predicate II.814 in combination utpote cum II.267 in combination utpote qui II.541 utrimque as position in space adjunct 808 compared with agent expressions in passive clauses 246 utroque (versum/s) 812 utrum (question particle) in indirect questions II.108, 113, 123 in simple questions 333 in the first part of multiple questions 340 vae (interjection) II.936 with dative II.924 valde 1081 as degree adjunct 888 in answers to questions 373 valency 19 of adjectives 21, 46, 215–29, 1074, 1204 methods of determining 215 of nouns 21, 44, 966, 1037–47; see also adnominal arguments; nouns: deverbal nouns of verbs 19, 51, 71–215 methods of determining 72, 756 statistical data on frequency 81 theoretical discussion 21 valeo imperative vale as greeting or farewell 357 valency of 114 value arguments 113, 158, 882 variatio (inconcinnitas), coordination of constituents belonging to different categories II.704 variatio (variation), of construction II.203, 252, 367, 649, 677 variation, of words or phrases as cohesive device II.1145 -ve (coordinator) 69, II.662 as non-mobile word II.956 combination of si and -ve II.665 combined with potius II.679 correlative -ve . . . -ve II.672 multiple coordination II.676 in negative neve (neu) 697 of conditional si and ni clauses and ne imperative clauses II.662 position of II.995 use in legal texts and poetry II.657 with conjunctive interpretation II.679 vel as coordinator II.660 combined with etiam and potius II.679 correlative vel . . . vel II.671 multiple coordination II.676 vel . . . vel as equivalent to et . . . et in Late Latin II.668 with conjunctive interpretation in Late Latin II.679

with locally negated constituents 691 as scalar particle II.874 combined with comparatives II.743 combined with imprimis II.899 combined with superlatives II.774 in combination vel maxime II.900 in combination vel praecipue II.896 introducing imperative sentences II.1172 velut(i) 1109 introducing conditional comparative clauses II.349 introducing manner clauses II.270 veneo, as suppletive passive for vendo 234 venio in suspicionem with infinitival construction II.200 with perfect passive participle 258 with supine in -um as purpose adjunct II.421 venum, with eo or do 811, II.423 verb forms; see also complex verb forms finite and non-finite 50 synthetic and complex (‘periphrastic’) 51 verb frames 20, 71–215 merger of 184 verba affectuum 998, II.76 declarandi II.107, 162, 194 interrogandi II.106 investigandi II.106 sciendi II.107 sentiendi II.107, 162, 164, 194 verbal nouns, see nouns: deverbal nouns verbs 50; see also individual (semantic groups of) verbs; auxiliary verbs; support verbs; verb frames absolute use 78, 80, 98, 447, 756 agreement with subject grammatical agreement 1244–72 notional agreement 1287 ‘assertive’ or ‘veridical’ use II.1015 convertible verbs 231 statistical frequency of active and passive forms 235 coordinated verbs with different case pattern II.593 copular verbs 204–10, 765–87 deponent verbs 54, 234, 282–5 gerundives of deponent verbs 284 used with passive meaning 283 governing indirect speech II.49 governing interrogative clause II.106 impersonal verbs 94–7, 132–6, 192 of obligation and permission with accusative and infinitive II.181 reflexive pronouns with 1123 used personally with nominative and infinitive II.200 with imperative clause II.148 with prolative infinitive clause II.215 with si clause II.102 with ut clause 624, II.82, 87

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words 1437 in first position in declarative sentences II.1015, 1137 in last position in declarative sentences II.1020, 1025 intransitive verbs with infinitival construction II.200 negative verbs, see negation one-place (monovalent) verbs 19, 81–97 autocausative use of active forms 280 with argument clause as subject II.53 position in sentence (yes/no) questions II.1027 requiring a space (position or source) argument 137, 174–83, 1196 sharing subject or object in coordinated clauses II.591 sharing third argument or satellite II.595 statistical data on tense and mood forms 391 three-place (trivalent) verbs 19, 137–92, 264 marking of arguments 1185 two-place (bivalent) verbs 11, 19, 97–136, 1189–95 decausative use of active forms 281 two- or three-place verbs with argument clause as object II.54 valency of, see valency zero-valent verbs 19, 192–5 vereor, with dative or accusative 129 verisimile est, with ut clause II.82 vero as adverb/connector II.1190 as connective adverb II.1172 co-occurring with correlative nec/neque . . . et II.648 co-occurring with verum II.1188 in combination at vero II.1176 in combination sed vero II.683 in combination sin vero II.330 position of II.973 used to modulate directive expressions 355 with nisi clauses of exception II.352 versus/m (preposition) 812 verto 280 verum as connector II.1172, 1187 co-occurring with vero II.1188 in combination verum tamen II.685, 1188 as coordinator II.680, 684 co-occurring with quidem, omnino, and sane II.685 correlative use with non + modo, solum, or tantum(modo) II.687 position of II.973 vescor 115 vesperi 841 veto, with accusative and infinitive clause II.171, 176, 181 videlicet 310, 924 with conditional si clause II.322 with relative clause as apposition II.524 video future perfect videro as idiom 469 imperative used as metadirective 351

mihi videtur with accusative and infinitive clause II.194 metadirective videto ne 519 passive videor as copula 208 videor with nominative and infinitive construction II.197, 199 visum est with accusative and infinitive clause II.172 with accusative and participle construction II.163 with nē in pseudo-indirect question II.117 with si indirect question II.117 vir, with descriptive adjective, in apposition to proper name 938 virgulae (oblique strokes) II.969 -vis compounds, introducing relative clause II.472 viso, with indirect question II.106, 117 vix, combined with inverse cum clause II.246 vocative case 1224–7 as form of address II.1103 development of vocative case forms 1225 to mark addressee 1224 to mark invocation of gods as swear expression II.922 to mark secondary predicate as form of address in poetry II.947 used instead of nominative in Late Latin inscriptions 1227 vocatives as extraclausal constituents 1224 voco, with supine in -um as purpose adjunct II.421 voice 50, 54, 230–305; see also passive voice active/passive variation as cohesive device II.1227 as factor determining topic selection II.830 active voice 54, 230–305 ancient terminology for 233 choice between active and passive voice 250 volition, verbs of 567 volitive, see deontic (semantic value) volo prohibitions with ne quis velit + perfect infinitive 538 subjunctive velim used as metadirective 349 used to modulate directive expressions 355 use of pluperfect for imperfect subjunctive 460 used in future perfect without anterior meaning 466 volo + infinitive construction, as competitor of simple future 441 velitis iubeatis, as idiom II.609 visne and velim with simple subjunctive clause II.151 with accusative and infinitive clause compared with prolative infinitive II.171 with dative or accusative 129 with imperative clause II.139 with personal object 169 with prolative infinitive clause II.23 vos, see personal pronouns

1438

Index of grammatical terms and Latin words

Wackernagel’s law, placement in second position II.976, 984, 1018 waiting in expectation, verbs of implied with si clause II.335 with si or ut clause 627, II.100 warning, verbs of with imperative clause II.134 with prolative infinitive clause II.205 weather conditions and attendant circumstances, adjuncts of 854 weather verbs 193 wishes, as imperative sentences with optative illocutionary force 348, 367, 359 internal word order II.1036 use of subjunctive mood in 504–9 realizable wishes 505 unrealizable wishes 507 wishing, verbs of with accusative and infinitive clause II.171 with imperative clause II.129, 139 with prolative infinitive clause II.209 wondering, verbs of 627 word 17 word classes 34–70 word order II.949; see also position (in clause/ sentence) as device contributing to discourse coherence II.1228 at clause/sentence level II.972 at noun phrase level II.1062 basic word order II.965 correlation with agreement 1243 determining factors II.954–66 artistic factors II.962 complexity II.960 domain integrity and head proximity II.956 euphony and rhythm II.960 iconicity II.961 mobile and non-mobile words II.955 personal and semantic role hierarchy II.958 pragmatic factors 31, 1038, II.959 sentence type II.954 syntactic factors II.959 text type II.955 diachronic developments II.1135 in Late Latin 1238 in ablative absolute clauses II.1044 in accusative and infinitive clauses II.1041 in complex sentences II.1047, 1050 in declarative sentences II.1003 in imperative sentences II.1033 in interrogative sentences II.1027 in main clauses II.1037

in prepositional phrases II.1108 in subordinate clauses II.1038 order of terms of comparison II.723 position of anaphoric constituents II.976 bound clitics 18, II.995 connectors and interactional particles II.973 emphasizing particles II.994 forms of sum II.984 indefinite pronouns and determiners II.983 objects with coordinated verbs II.593 personal pronouns 741, II.984, 987 question words II.982 relative pronouns II.981 subordinators II.978 Quintilian’s considerations about II.952 relative order of ablative absolute clause and main clause II.1057 accusative and infinitive clause and main clause II.1055 arguments, satellites, secondary predicates, and verbs II.1001 auxiliaries II.1122 habeo and infinitive 439 head and apposition 1055 relative clause and its head II.496, 497 subordinate and main clause II.1049 typological considerations II.965, 1135 word questions, see interrogative sentences: constituent questions worrying, verbs of, with ne clause II.94 yes/no questions, see interrogative sentences: sentence (yes/no) questions zero-anaphora (ellipsis of obligatory constituents) 757, 1150, 1152, 1159, II.835, 1148 zero-coordination II.585; see also asyndetic coordination zero quantifiers (negative indefinites) 672, 708 as negators of argument clause II.57 negated by non later in clause 724 negated by preceding non 721 negator + indefinite pronoun as alternative to 711 neuter with genitive of quantity 1019 used as determiners 973 with partitive genitive 1005 zero-valent verbs 19, 192–5 zeugma, as unconventional instance of coordination II.603, 711