fHfc 
 
 UNIVERSITY 0> CAlffORNIA, SAN W60 
 U JdU. CALIFORNIA 
 
 PARATAXIS 
 
 IN 
 EARL.Y LATIN 
 
 BY 
 
 AXEL REYNOLD WALLIN, A.M. 
 
 NEW YORK 
 1910
 
 BRARY 
 
 i Y OF. 
 
 I I 
 
 N DIEGO
 
 PARATAXIS 
 
 IN 
 
 EARLY LATIN 
 
 BY 
 
 AXEL REYNOLD WAIXIN, A.M, 
 
 NEW YORK 
 1910
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 Preface 5 
 
 Introduction 9 
 
 Chapter I. Final Substantive Clauses 15 
 
 ,, II. Consecutive Substantive Clauses 20 
 
 ,, III. Indirect Question 24 
 
 IV. Indirect Discourse 26 
 
 V. Final Adverbial Clauses 32 
 
 , , VI. Consecutive Adverbial Clauses 35 
 
 ,, VII. Causal Adverbial Clauses 37 
 
 VIII. Temporal Adverbial Clauses 40 
 
 IX. Conditional Adverbial Clauses 41 
 
 X. Concessive Adverbial Clauses <. 45 
 
 ,, XL Relative and Comparative Clauses 47 
 
 XII. Conclusion . .50
 
 PEEFACE. 
 
 The theory that hypotaxis has developed from parataxis, was first 
 set forth by F. W. Thiersch in his Greek Grammar (Edinburg, 1831). 
 This theory was again discussed by Hermann in 1850. 1) During 
 the second half of the century the subject was studied by a large 
 number of syntactists. Holtze, in his Syntaxis Priscorum Scriptorum 
 Latinorum, (Leipzig, 1861 62), gave a new impetus to the study 
 by his large collection of paratactic sentences from early Latin writers. 
 This study was continued by Kiihner in his Ausfurliche Grammatik, 
 (Hanover, Halm, 1877 79), and by Draeger in his Historische 
 Syntax der lateinischen Sprache, (Leipzig, 2d ed., 1881). 
 
 More careful collections of paratactic material were made in the 
 eighties by Weissenhorn, 2 ) Weninger, 3) an d Becker, 4 ) and, a little 
 later, by Lindskog. 5 ) These scholars, however, did not exhaust the 
 subject. They either confined themselves to the classification of 
 paratactic sentences in Plautus or Terence, or, when the field from 
 which they drew their illustrations was wider, treated only a limited 
 portion of the subject. The work of Becker was the most ambitious 
 of them all. The aim was to embrace within one compass all sen- 
 tences in the ancient Eoman dramatic writers, which could be classed 
 as paratactic. This work was, however, never completed. Only the 
 first part, treating one class of substantive clauses, appeared. The 
 discussion of Claes Lindskog, which appeared in 1896, covers prac- 
 tically the same field, though it differs in arrangement, and in giving 
 more attention to origins. 
 
 Numerous discussions, in addition to the above, are found in 
 current periodicals and grammatical works both on the general sub- 
 ject of parataxis and on particular phases of the same. No work 
 has, however, appeared, so far as the present writer is aware, which 
 covers the whole field of parataxis. Neither do the following pages 
 aim to exhaust the subject. The main object will be to present to 
 view the whole field of parataxis as it is illustrated by the various 
 
 1) Hermann, C. Fr., De protaxi paratactica, (Gottingen, 1850). 
 
 2) Weissenhorn, J. B., Parataxis Plautina, (Burghausen, 1884). 
 
 3) Weninger, A., De Parataxis in Terenti fabulis vestiffiis, (Erlangen, 
 1888). 
 
 4) Becker. Ed., Beiordnende und unterordnende Satzverbindung bei 
 den altromischen Biihnendichtern, (Metz, 1888). 
 
 5) Ljndskog, Claes, Quaestiones de parataxi et hypotaxi apud priscos 
 Latinos, (Lund, 1896).
 
 6 
 
 kinds of paratactic sentences found in early Roman writers down to 
 the time of Lucilius, or about 100 B. C. 
 
 The present writer naturally owes much to his predecessors both 
 for suggestions which have helped him in the determination of 
 paratactic sentences and for methods of arrangement and discussion. 
 The sentences used for illustration are, however, mainly from his 
 own collection. The text is, on the whole, that given in the following 
 editions, but changes in punctuation have been made where this has 
 seemed necessary. 
 
 Ribbeck, 0., Scaenicae Romanorum Poesis Fragmenta, 2 vols., (Leip- 
 zig, 189798). 
 
 Keil, EL, M. Porci Catonis De Agri Cultura, (Leipzig, 1895). 
 
 Goetz, G., and Schoell, F., T. Macci Plauti Comoediae, (Leipzig, 
 190206). 
 
 Fleckeisen, A., P. Terenti Afri Comoediae, (Leipzig, 1901). 
 
 Marx, F., C. Lucili Carminum Reliquiae, (Leipzig, 1904). 
 
 Corpus Iiiscriptionum Latinarum, vol. I. 
 
 The following are the more important works and articles that have 
 been used for reference. They are arranged chronologically. 
 
 Jolly, J., Ueber die Einfachste Form der Hypotaxis, Curtius Studien. 
 
 VI., (1873), pp. 215246. 
 Wolfflin, E., Bemerkungen uber das Vulgdrlatein, Philologus, 
 
 XXXIV., (1875), pp. 137165. 
 Schnoor, H., Quaestiones Plautinae, (Kiel, 1875). 
 Kiihner, R., Ausfiihrliche Grammatik der Lateinischen Sprache, 
 
 (Hanover, Hahn, 187779), esp. vol. II., pp. 213 if. 
 Jordan, H., Kritische Beitrage zur Geschichte der Lateinischen 
 - Sprache, (Berlin, 1879). 
 Draeger, P., Historische Syntax der lat. Sprache, (Leipzig, 2d ed., 
 
 1881), vol. II., pp. 213 ff. 
 Rebling, 0., Versuch einer Charakteristik der romischen Umgangs- 
 
 sprache, (Kiel, 1882). 
 
 Abel, Carl, Linguistic Essays, (London, 1882), pp. 160 ff. 
 Gildersleeve, B. L., A. J. P., vol. IV., (1883), pp. 419420. 
 Probst, Arthur, Beitrage zur lateinischen Grammatik, (Leipzig, 1883). 
 Weissenhorn, J. B., Parataxis Plautina, (Burghausen, 1884). 
 Ballas, E., Grammatica Plautina, (Berlin, 1884). 
 Techmer, F., Sprachentwickelung, Spracherlernung, Sprachbildung, 
 
 Internat. Zeitschrift f. algem. Sprachw., vol. II., pp. 141 192, 
 
 (Leipzig, 1885).
 
 Ostendorf, A., Zum Gebrauch von ut bei Plautus, Vierzehnter Jahres- 
 
 bericht, Progr. Nu. 264, (Neumiinster, 1885). 
 Brugman, 0., Ueber den Gebr. d. condicionalen NI in d. alt. Lat., 
 
 (Leipzig, 1887). 
 Becker, Ed., Beiordnende und unterordnende Satzverbindung bei den 
 
 altrom. Biihnendicht., (Metz, 1888). 
 
 Eoby, H. J., Latin Grammar, vol. II., 5th ed., (London, 1888). 
 Kern, Franz, Die deutsche Skrtzlehre, Berlin, 1888). 
 Tylor, E. B., Anthropology, (London, 1888), and Primitive Culture, 
 
 (New York, 1889). 
 Weninger, A., De Parataxis in Terenti fabulis vestigiis, (Erlangen, 
 
 1888). 
 Morris, E. P., On the Sentence Question in Plautus and Terence, 
 
 A. J. P., X., (1889), p. 397. 
 
 Onions, J. H., Classical Review, III., (1889), p. 249. 
 Morris, E. P., A. J. P., XL, (1890), pp. 16145. 
 Strong, H. A., Introduction to the study of the History of Language, 
 
 (London, 1891). 
 
 Miiller, Max. F., The Science of Language, (New York, 1891). 
 Hentze, K. Die Parataxis bei Homer, (Gb'ttingen, 1888 91). 
 Miles, E. H., Comparative Syntax of Latin and Greek, (Cambridge, 
 
 1893). 
 Gildersleeve, B. L., and Lodge, G., Latin Grammars, (New York, 
 
 1894 and 1898). 
 
 Ries, J., Was ist Syntax? (Marburg, 1894), pp. 150 ff. 
 Elmer, H. C., A. J. P., XV., (1894), p. 2, 
 
 Lindsay, W. M., The Latin Language, (Oxford, 1894), pp. 598 ff. 
 Lindskog, Claes, De enuntiatis apud Plautum condicionalibus, (Lund, 
 
 1895). 
 
 Ueber die sogenant. Attractio inversa im Latcinischen, Eranos, 
 
 L, (1896), p. 48. 
 
 Beitrdge zur GescJiichte der Satzstcllung im Latein,(Ij\md, 1896). 
 Zur Erkldrung der Ace. mit inf. Constr. im Lat., Eranos, !. 
 
 (1896), p. 121. 
 Quaestiones de parataxi et hypotaxi apud priscos Latinos, (Lund, 
 
 1896). 
 Morris, E. P., The Subjunctive in Independent Sentences in Plautus. 
 
 A. J. P., XVIII., (1897), pp. 133 ff. 
 
 Ashmore, S. G., Trans. Am. Phil. Assoc., XXVIIL, (1897), p. viii. 
 Paul, PL, Principien der Sprachgcschichte, 3 aufl., (Halle, 1898). 
 Bennett, C. E., Critique of some Recent Subjunctive Theories, Cornell 
 
 Studies in Cl. Phil. IX., (1898), espec. pp. 66 ff.
 
 8 
 
 Lane, G. M., and Morgan, M. H., Latin Grammar, (New York, 1898 
 
 and 1903). 
 
 Schmalz, J. H., Lateinische Syntax, (Miinchen, 1900), pp. 341 ff. 
 Sweet, H., History of Language, (London, 1900). 
 Eiemann, 0., La Syntaxe Latine, 4th ed., (Paris, 1900). 
 Wundt, W., Die Sprache, (Leipzig, 1900), vol. II., pp. 326 ff. 
 Sjogren, H., De particulis copulativis apud Plautum et Terentium, 
 
 (Uppsala, 1900). 
 Durham, C. L., Subjunctive Substantive Clauses in Plautus, Corn. 
 
 Stud., XIII., (1901). 
 Morris, E. P., Principles and Methods in Latin Syntax, (New York, 
 
 1901), espec. pp. 113 ff. 
 Miiller, F. Max., Last Essays, (London and New York, 1901), vol. 
 
 XVII., pp. 63 ff., et al. 
 Delbriich, B., Grundfragen der Sprachforschung, mit Riicksicht auf 
 
 Wundts Sprachpsychologie erortet, (Strassburg, 1901). 
 Nutting, H. C., Trans. Am. Phil. Assoc., XXXIII., (1901), p. cv. 
 Gildersleeve, B. L., Problems in Greek Syntax, A. J. P., XXIII., 
 
 (1902), p. 253. 
 
 Sidgewick, A., Relative Parataxis, Cl. Kev. XVII., (1903), p. 402. 
 Nutting, H. C., Modes of Conditional Thought, A. J. P., XXIV., 
 
 (1903), pp. 25 ff. 
 
 Hale, W. G., and Buck, C. D., .4 Latin Grammar, (Boston, 1903). 
 Allen, J. H., and Greenough, J. B., New Latin Grammar, (Boston, 
 
 1904). 
 Gaffiot, Felix, Le subjonctif de subordination en Latein, (Paris, 
 
 1906). 
 
 Bennett, C. E., The Latin Language, (Boston, 1907). 
 Lindsay, W. M., Syntax of Plautus, (Oxford, 1907), espec. pp. 52 ff.
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Unfortunately there exists as yet no universally accepted definition 
 of parataxis. It is, therefore, necessary at the outset to gain a clear 
 understanding of what sentences are to be included under this term. 
 The kind of sentence-structure to which it should be applied will, 
 perhaps, best be seen after a few general remarks on the development 
 of language have been made. 
 
 The human mind is the ultimate source of all language Without 
 thought no language is possible. Human thought finds its means of 
 expression in words which are the instruments by which one man 
 communicates his thoughts to another, l) These instruments are 
 signs, either visible or audible, and were invented to represent the 
 thought elements that were to be communicated. 
 
 In primitive man these thought elements were very simple. Lan- 
 guage must, consequently, have been very simple, for a creation of 
 the human mind always exhibits the limitations of the latter. Lan- 
 guage, however, reacted on the mind. The power of the brain and 
 its capacity for thought were increased, so soon as language came into 
 use. Order was gradually brought into the chaos of the mind, and 
 man became able to correlate and classify. And thus spoken language, 
 which at first consisted of isolated vocal utterances, gradually evolved 
 the simple sentence. 
 
 But this simple sentence was not long used alone, for nothing 
 hindered primitive man from forming a number of related concepts 
 and from expressing them by an equal number of successive simple 
 sentences or propositions. 2 ) Two or more of these simple sentences 
 would, therefore, be joined to express thoughts that were related. 
 All sentences thus joined may be .called compound irrespective of the 
 nature of this relation. 
 
 Of these compound sentences two distinct groups must be recog- 
 nized. In the one group, which may be termed coordinate, the simple 
 sentences were merely placed side by side without the thought in the 
 several propositions being thereby modified. The relation between 
 propositions in coordinate sentences is, accordingly, not that of inter- 
 
 1) Cf. Miiller, F. Max.. On Thought and Language, Last Essays, 
 Vol. XVII.. pp. 85 ff. 
 
 2) The term propositions will at times be used, in this dissertation, 
 synonymously with simple sentences. The term clause Is used to denote 
 a proposition which is dependent or sutx>rdinate to a principal proposition.
 
 10 
 
 dependence, but, on the other hand, of a character similar to the 
 relation of successive thoughts. The multitudinous kinds of connec- 
 tions, which we can conceive as existing between successive thoughts, 
 can therefore also be conceived as existing between these propositions. 
 The relation may be that of coexistence, succession, contrast, contra- 
 diction, etc. 1 ) Thus in Most. 3, Venit imber, lavit parietes, per- 
 plvont, the relation is manifestly that of succession. 2 ) 
 
 The compound sentences of the second group may be called com- 
 plex. The propositions are here, so to speak, woven together. Their 
 relation is that of parts to a whole. The complex sentence contained 
 a principal proposition and one or more dependent propositions or 
 clauses which may be termed subordinate. 
 
 The relation between the simple sentences placed in juxtaposition 
 was then, according to the belief of the present writer, either co- 
 ordinate or complex. Some writers on Parataxis 3 ) have, however, 
 doubted that these relations existed from the beginning, and have 
 held that the simple sentences remained independent in thought as 
 well as arrangement. Others 4 ) grant that the coordinate relation 
 existed, but insist that the complex relation is a later development. 
 The absurdity of the first mentioned theory, that continuous state- 
 ments in connected discourse can be absolutely independent, has been 
 clearly shown by later syntactists, especially by KiesS) and Morris. 6 ) 
 In fact, all contiguous statements are related in some way. 7 ) This 
 relation which was, in the first place, indicated by the sequence of 
 the simple sentences, could, undoubtedly, also be quite clearly indi- 
 cated in spoken language by gestures and by what has been termed 
 "musical means", namely, pauses, accentuation, rhythm, and pitch. 8 ) 
 
 It is, of course, probable that primitive man did not at once analyze 
 these coordinate and complex sentences which he had formed. But 
 if lie did not feel that one sentence was coordinate and another com- 
 plex, we have nevertheless no right to say that these relations did 
 not exist. On the contrary, it is the belief of the present writer, that 
 we must concede the existence of the complex relation from the 
 beginning. This theory does not invalidate the commonly accepted 
 belief that complex sentences were a result of successive utterances 
 of simple sentences containing independent indicatives, subjunctives, 
 
 1) Cf. James, W., Psychology. (New York, 1904), p. 253 f. 
 
 2) For other examples see p. 39. note 2. 
 
 3) See Schmalz, Lat. Synt., 265; Kern, Die deutsche Satzlehrc; Reis, 
 Was ist Syntax? Anmerk. 30, et al. 
 
 4) E. g. Bennett, Corn. Stud., vol. IX., pp. 66 ff., and Lat. Language, 
 p. 223; and Durham, Corn. Stud., vol. XIII. 
 
 5) Ries. Was ist Syntax f pp. 31 ff. et al. 
 
 6) Morris, Lat. Synt., pp. 36 ff.. and pp. 115 ff. 
 
 7) See Strong, Introd. to the Study of Lang., pp. 121 ff. 
 
 8) Cf. Ries, 1. c. f p. 32.
 
 11 
 
 or imperatives. The purpose for which these simple sentences came 
 to be used in sequence, must have been to give expression not only 
 to coordinate thoughts, but also to thoughts that were mutually de- 
 pendent. It is inconceivable, for instance, that a speaker would say, 
 eum moneo : abeat, "I advise him : let him go away"-, without meaning 
 that the thought expressed by abeat constitutes his advice. It is, 
 of course, true that in a great number of the paratactic sentences found 
 in the following pages, the complex relation is not so easily seen as 
 in the sentence just quoted. But this is due to the fact that many 
 of these sentences have been taken from the fragmentary remains of 
 the dramatic poets, where the lack of connection of thought often 
 makes it impossible to determine the nature of the relation; or, 
 in the case of examples from Plautus and Terence as well , to the 
 fact that we have no means of discovering with what gestures and 
 voice-modulation speech was accompanied. Even if we did know this, 
 we would still be in doubt, if we did not know just what was the 
 conventional gesture and modulation of voice which would indicate 
 to the listener whether the subordinate thought was to be taken as a 
 condition, concession, cause, etc. 1 ) 
 
 From what already has been said it is evident that there is a dif- 
 ference between the inherent psychological relation of two or more 
 contiguous propositions and the linguistic expression of the same. 
 The relation may be merely indicated by gestures, quality of voice, 
 attendant circumstances, or even by a word, i. e. an adverb or a 
 pronoun, 2 ) or it may be clearly expressed by the form of the lan- 
 guage itself. The former was, undoubtedly, the earlier method of 
 indicating the relation of sentences, and was a method still in use 
 when language was first committed to writing. In the early Latin 
 writers we still find numerous examples of both coordinate and com- 
 plex sentences in which the relation between the simple sentences is 
 not at all indicated by the written language. Side by side with these, 
 however, are found other coordinate and complex sentences in which 
 the coordinate or complex relation is more or less clearly expressed by 
 the form of the language. 
 
 In the present dissertation it is not the intention of the writer to 
 deal with all the classes of sentence-structure described above. Co- 
 ordinate sentences are entirely aside from this discussion. Of complex 
 sentences we shall deal with only those in which the complex relation 
 is either not at all or only slightly indicated by the language. These 
 sentences are by the present writer included under the term parataxis, 
 while the term hypotaxis is applied to complex sentences in which 
 
 1) Cf. pp. 40 ff., 37 ff., and pp. 45 f. 
 
 2) Cf. pp. 50 f.
 
 12 
 
 the relation of the propositions to each other is expressed by a sub- 
 ordinate conjunction or a relative pronoun. The following classifica- 
 tion will show the position which parataxis holds relative- to other 
 compound sentences. 
 
 1. COORDINATE SENTENCES. 
 
 a. The coordinate relation is not indicated by the language, 
 e. g., Most. 49, Tu fortunatus, ego miser: patiunda sunt. 
 ( Asyndetic Coordination ) . 
 
 b. The coordinate relation is indicated by the language, e. g., 
 Asin. 543, Intro obi: nam te quidem edepol nil est inpu- 
 dentius. (Syndetic Coordination). 
 
 2. COMPLEX SENTENCES. 
 
 a. The complex relation is a) either not at all, ft} or only 
 slightly indicated by the language, i. e. by an adverb or 
 a demonstrative pronoun, 1 ) e. g., a) Phorm. 265, unum 
 cognoris, omnis noris; (3) Andr. 937, vix sum apud me: 
 ita animus commotust metu. (Parataxis). 
 
 b. The complex relation is indicated by a) subordinate con- 
 junctions or /?) relative pronouns, e. g., a) Asin. 654, Has 
 ego si vis tibi dabo; /8) Asm. 877, Nil ecastor est quod 
 facer e mavelim. (Hypotaxis). 
 
 There is no psychological difference between the two classes of co- 
 ordinate sentences described above. The difference between them is 
 grammatical. At first one simple statement was merely added to an- 
 other, and the coordinate relation was sufficiently indicated by the 
 juxtaposition. As the language developed, however, it became desir- 
 able to emphasize this relation, and the sense of unity found expres- 
 sion in coordinate conjunctions. As in the case of the coordinate 
 sentences, so also do the complex sentences, above mentioned, exhibit 
 the same psychological relation. These sentences differ only in the 
 way the complex relation is indicated. 
 
 It is the writer's intention, as was stated above, to discuss the kinds 
 of sentence structure which fall under the first class of complex 
 sentences. By parataxis, therefore, is here understood that juxta- 
 position of two simple sentences, of which one is subordinate in 
 thought to the other, though this subordination is either not at all 
 or only slightly indicated by the written language. There is, of 
 course, nothing in the etymological meaning of the term, parataxis, 
 which would hinder us from applying it also to asyndetic sentences. 
 The term has, however, by almost universal consent of the foremost 
 1) See chap. XII., pp. 50 f.
 
 13 
 
 writers on parataxis 1 ) been limited to the class of sentences just 
 described, and it is desirable that it should be so fixed. Two terms 
 are needed, one for the juxtaposition of simple coordinate sentences, 
 (Asyndeton), and one for the juxtaposition of simple sentences of 
 which one is subordinate, (Parataxis). 
 
 It has already been intimated that the complex relation in paratactic 
 sentences is not indicated in any one definite way. From the most 
 primitive form of parataxis there is, on the other hand, a steady 
 progression toward clearness in the expression of relations. It is 
 with this in view that Morris 2 ) defines parataxis: "It covers all that 
 lies between coordination and the suggestion of relation by musical 
 means as the upper limit, and the expression of relation by subor- 
 dinating words as the lower limit." Near the upper limit are in- 
 cluded a large number of sentences which partake of the nature of 
 asyndeton. That is, it is often impossible to determine whether the 
 thought is complex or coordinated. 3 ) Similarly it is also often 
 difficult to determine whether sentences are to be classed as paratactic 
 or hypotactic. This is especially true in cases where the original 
 meaning of the subordinate conjunctions is still seen. 4 ) 
 
 Kiihner distinguished two kinds of parataxis, the natural and the 
 rhetorical. He says, 5 ) "Wir miissen in dem Gebrauche der Para- 
 taxis zwei Arten wohl unterscheiden : die natiirliche und die kiinst- 
 liche oder rhetorische. Die natiirliche geht aus einer Bequemlichkeit 
 oder Nachlassigkeit in Denken hervor. Und das ist die wahre Para- 
 taxe. Die kiinstliche oder rhetorische Parataxe hingegen wird ab- 
 sichtlich angewendet um der Eede grosseres Gewicht zu geben." But 
 there is no need of postulating a category of rhetorical paratactic 
 sentences. Most of the paratactic sentences found in later writers, 
 though at times, no doubt, used for rhetorical purposes, are only 
 reminiscences of the early paratactic structure of language. 6 ) Many 
 expressions of this kind became by frequent use mere idioms, 7 ) and 
 thus could not have been employed to lend weight to the language. 8 ) 
 
 It is evident that a discussion of paratactic clauses may be based 
 either on the form of the sentence, i. e. the relative clearness with 
 which subordination is suggested by musical means, a pronoun, an 
 
 1) Weissenhorn, Becker, Lindskog, Morris, Sjogren and others. 
 
 2) Morris, Lat. Synt., p. 147. 
 
 3' Of. ch. VII., p. 39, note 2. and eh. XII., pp. 51 f. 
 
 4) Cf. pp. 46 f. and pp. 54 f. 
 
 5) Ausfiihr. Gram. p. 757. 
 
 6) For illustrations of paratactic sentences in later writers cf. KUhner's 
 Grammar, pp. 757 ff., and Lane's Grammar, pp. 285 ff. 
 
 7) Cf. Lindskog, Quaest., p. 37. 
 
 8) Cf. Draeger, Hist. Synt.. II, p. 206, 366; and Becker, Beiordn. u. 
 Unterordn. Satzverb., p. 2.
 
 14 
 
 adverb, etc., or on the nature of the subordination, i. e. causal, con- 
 ditional, temporal, etc. Both of these methods have their advantages 
 and disadvantages. A formal classification is valuable, as it reveals 
 the steps in the development of the complex sentence, but the almost 
 endless divisions and subdivisions that it necessitates, is not in favor 
 of clearness. A functional classification sets forth the varied rela- 
 tions which the subordinate clause holds to the principal. It is the 
 more tangible, though it is often difficult to determine the nature 
 of the subordination. 1 ) Most writers in treating the subject have 
 disregarded the form of the sentence, and have classified the para- 
 tactic sentences on a purely functional basis. The advantage gained 
 in clearness because of the natural tendency of the mind to seek to 
 establish the character of the relation between the subordinate and 
 the principal clause, makes it desirable to employ a functional classi- 
 fication. But the form need not therefore be neglected. The aim 
 will be to include both in the following pages. The function will 
 constitute the basis of division into chapters. In the discussion in 
 each chapter the development of each form of sentence will be touched 
 upon. The discussion will finally be summed up in the last chapter 
 where the formal difference will be more clearly pointed out. 
 
 1) Cf. Morris, Lat. Synt., pp. 31 ff., and p. 114.
 
 PART I. 
 
 SUBSTANTIVE CLAUSES. 
 
 In the early language two simple sentences, one of which served the 
 function of subject or object of the verb in the principal proposition, 
 were often arranged paratactically. The subordinate clause contained 
 the main statement, i. e. a wish, a question or an assertion. The 
 examples that have been collected, may be arranged as follows, Final, 
 Consecutive, Indirect Question, and Indirect Discourse. 
 
 CHAPTEE I. 
 
 FINAL SUBSTANTIVE CLAUSES. 
 
 Clauses of this kind are introduced by specific words, viz., volo, malo, 
 nolo, quaeso, caveo, obsecro, sino, licet, amabo, rogo, oro, cedo, oportet, 
 iiibeo, euro, metuo, etc. First will be given a few of the many ex- 
 amples collected, after which a discussion of the most important 
 principles of parataxis which they illustrate will follow. 
 
 volo. 
 
 Naev. Coroll. II, 37 E. diu vivat: volo. 
 Capt. 858. vin te faciam fortunatum? 
 Capt. 360. vin vocem hue ad te? 
 Most. 1074. nunc ego ille hue veniat velim. 
 
 Eud. 662. . Nimis velim: improbissumo homini malas edentaverint. 
 Eud. 877. Verum sit: velim. 
 Andr. 418. Hodie uxorem ducas: - - volo. 
 
 Heaut. 162. Apud me sis: volo. 
 Heaut. 1066. Syro ignoscas: volo. 
 
 nolo. 
 
 Most. 1176. nolo ores. 
 
 Pers. 245. nolo ames. 
 
 Andr. 819. me nolo in tempore hoc videat senex. 
 
 Heaut. 701. quin nolo mentiare. 
 
 malo. 
 
 Pseud. 209. taceas: malo. 
 
 Adelph. 782. an tibi iam mavis cerebrum dispergam hie?
 
 16 
 
 caveo. 
 
 Cato, E. B. V. 6. terrain cariosam cave ne ares. 
 Accius, Epig. I. 304 B. cave vestem attigas. 
 Capt. 431. cave tu mi iratus fuas. 
 Most. 1025. tu cave quadraginta accepisse hinc te neges. 
 Adelph. 458. cave dixeris. 
 Andr. 403. cave te esse tristem sentiat. 
 Heaut. 187. cave faxis. 
 
 Heaut. 302. et cave ne falsam gratiam studeas inire. 
 Cato, E. E. I. 4. caveto alienam disciplinam temere contemnas. 
 Cato, B. E. XXVIII. 1. Caveto, cum ventus siet aut imber, effodias 
 
 aut feras. 
 Cato, E. E. XX. 2. caveto ne laxi sient. 
 
 Ib. XXXII. 2. caveto ne vitem praestringas. 
 
 Ib. XL. 2. caveto: ne librum convellasD 
 
 Obsecro. 
 
 Heaut. 432. due me ad cum, obsecro. 
 Most. 460. fuge obsecro atque abscede. 
 Most. 618. obsecro hercle, tu iube obicere argentum ob os impurac. 
 
 beluae. 
 Amph. 923 seq. per dexteram tuam te, Alcumena, oro opsecro, da mihi 
 
 lianc veniam, ignosce, irata ne sies. 
 Most. 1156 seq. nunc te obsecro, stultitiae adulescentiaeque eius ig- 
 
 noscas. 
 Adelph 309. Propius obsecro accedamus. 
 
 Quaeso. 
 
 Most. 652. Absolve Tiunc quaeso. 
 Ib. 835. Quaeso hue ad me specta. 
 Ib. 1177. noxiam unam quaeso fac causa mea. 
 Eud. 1298. Di quaeso subvenite. 
 
 Pacuv. Ilion. I. 200 E. neu reliquias quaeso mias sireis. 2 ) 
 Heaut. 537. Eho quaeso laudas. 
 Andr. 305. Quaeso id veils quod possit. 
 
 amabo. 
 
 Most. 166. contempla, amabo. 
 Ib. 298. cedo amabo decem. 
 Ib. 324. duce me amabo. 
 
 Poen. 380. amabo, mea voluptas, sine te exorarier. 
 Eud. 249. Quo amabo ibimus? 
 
 1) Careto with ne is more frequent than without ne in Cato. Cf. 
 R. R. XLV. 2; XLVIIII. 2; LIII. ; CLXI. 2; CLXI. 4; etc. 
 
 2) Fleckeisen reads : neu tu reliquias sic meas sieris.
 
 Rogo. . 
 
 C. I. L. I. 1027. rogo te viator: monumento huic nil male fecerisD 
 Most. 680. roga circumducat. 
 
 Oro. 
 
 C. I. L. I. 1175. semol te orant se [v~\oti crebro condemn es. 2 ) 
 Capt. 1021. sed tu die, or a. 
 
 Sino. 
 Caecilius, Hymnis, II. 72. E. sine suam senectutem ducat usque ad 
 
 senium sorbilo. 
 
 Most. 11. sine modo adveniat. 
 Ib.1180. sine te exorem. 
 Bacch. 24. sine te amem. 
 Cato, R. R. LXXXXII. sinito tnacerescant. 
 Ib. CXVI. sinito arescat. 
 Ib. CIX. sinito conbibant noctem et diem. 
 Ib. CXII. 2. sinito bene coquantur. 
 
 Cedo. 
 
 Rud. 1380. cedo quicum liabeam iudicem.3) 
 Most. 478. quid istuc est, sceleste, aut quis id fecit, cedo. 
 
 iubeo. 
 
 Most. 930. curriculo iube in urbem veniat. 
 
 i 
 euro. 
 
 Cato, R. R. CXLIII. vilicae quae sunt officia curato faciat. 
 
 licet and licebit. 
 
 Titinius, Fullon. II. 27. nee noctu nee diu licet fullonibus quiescant. 
 Capt. 303. facto nunc laedat licet: 
 Phorm. 347. ludas licet. 
 Rud. 139. salvos sis licet. 
 Cato, R. R. CLVIII. 2. licebit bibas. 
 Ib. LXXXIII. 1. licebit faciat. 
 
 oportet. 
 Cato, R. R. XIV. 1. faber haec faciat oportet. 
 
 metuo. 
 
 Titinius, S'etina, II. 107. metuo - ne nimis stulte fecerim. 
 
 Asin. 743. ne uxor resciscat metuit. 
 
 1) Cf. C. I. L. XIV. 2535. per deos superos inferosque te rogo: ne 
 ossuaria velis violare. 
 
 2) Cf. Hor. Sat. II. 6, 35. orulat - adesses; Ib. 37; also wall 
 inscription of Pompeii, C. I. L. IV. 01. M MARIVM AED FACI ORO 
 VOS, i. e. M. Marium aedilem fariatift: oro vos; cf. C. I. L. IV. 171 et al. 
 
 3) Colloquial for, cedo habeam aliquem quicum ad iudicem earn. 
 
 Parataxis in early latin. 2.
 
 18 
 
 The preceding lists of final clauses belong to the class often called 
 complementer} 7 , that is, the subordinate clause is the complement of 
 specific verbs. 
 
 The verbs of will, volo, malo, nolo, are regularly construed with the 
 subjunctive without ut. The most probable origin of this construction 
 is the following. The desire or wish was at first expressed by the 
 subjunctive alone. Thus, Syro ignoscas was equivalent to, "may you 
 pardon Syrus." Volo was a later addition, employed to emphasize 
 the wish that was already expressed by the subjunctive. This emphasis 
 was again strengthened by the use of velim^) as in Most. 1074. The 
 adverbial particle uti, ut (later utinam) often preceded the sub- 
 junctive of wish,-) and finally developed into a subordinate conjunc- 
 tion. 3 ) In later times when ut had become thoroughly established as 
 a conjunction, it was often omitted for ease in expression, cf. the 
 English sentence, "I wish (that) he would come." This sort of para- 
 taxis Kiihner calls rhetorical. 4 ) 
 
 The imperatives cave and caveto are frequently found before a sub- 
 junctive either with or without ne. The two constructions evidently 
 developed side by side. The first was formed as was the construction 
 with volo. The prohibition was first expressed by ne (=non) with 
 the subjunctive, viz., ne falsam gratiam studeas inire. Cave was then 
 added, giving additional weight to the prohibition. The other con- 
 struction in which cave is used without ne is not a development of 
 the former, i. e. cave respexis, (Most. 523) is not at first equivalent 
 to ne respexis as has been held by some writers on parataxis. 5 ) 
 The explanation given by Lindskog 6 ) seems more probable. The 
 clause represented by faxis in cave faxis, (Heaut. 187), was originally 
 conditional, (=if you do this: beware). Cf. Andr. 752 seq. verbum 
 si mihi unum praeter quam te rogo faxis: caveJ) Later, however, 
 this origin was forgotten and cave became equivalent to ne or cave ne. 
 
 1) Cf. Morris, I. at. fiynt. p. 135, note; and Weninger, Parat. p. 55. 
 
 2) Cf. Poen. 912. valeas beneque ut tibi sit. 
 
 3) In liyi>otaxis volo, etc., are followed both by lit and the subj. and 
 
 ace. w. inf. e. g. Non. quoting Sext. Turp. s. v. fungi, sed volo ut 
 
 fiinuatur; Most. 032. velim ut petas; Lucil.,Sat. XXVI., 593 M. Persium 
 haec legere nolo; Andr. 898. vis me uxorem duceref Ut is not found after 
 volo (nolo, malo) in Terence, cf. Weninger, Parat. pp. 55 56. 
 
 4) Cf. Introd. pp. 13. 
 
 5) See Weuinger, de parat. vestig. p. 57, and Schmalz Lat. Synt. p. 171. 
 
 6) Quaest. p. 19, note 1. 
 
 7) Lindskog. Quaest. p. 19, note 1. "Hoc modo esse ortum coniunctivum 
 cum verbo cave eoniuiictuni concludere possumus et ex ea re, quod con- 
 iunctivus ad solam iiuperativi forma m (cave) legitur (at cetera verba 
 ut facio, fit no non solum post imperativi formam hunc coniunctivum 
 nudum habent, sed etiam post alias verbi formas) et ex eo, quod in 
 generibus usitatissimis dicendi (imprimis ad verbum facio: cave faxis) 
 semper fere perfecti. non praesentis coniunctivum legi." Cf. De enunt. 
 ap. PI. et Tor. Condic. pp. 28 ff.
 
 19 
 
 The ace. w. inf. was occasionally used after cave, e. g. Vaticinium 
 in Livy 5, 16, aquam Albanam cave lacu teneri, cave in mare manare. 
 
 At least three 1 ) different meanings of the verb obsecro may be 
 distinguished, viz., a) I beseech, (due me ad eum: obsecro) ; b) tell 
 me, I beg, (Most. 1083. Elio, an negavit sibi datum argentum: 
 obsecro?) ; c) I assure you, (Merc. 789, nesceis negoti quid sit uxor: 
 obsecro). Only when used in the first quoted meaning does a com- 
 plementary final clause follow. In origin it is similar to the above. 
 The final clause was at first a command or an exhortation expressed 
 by the imperative or the subjunctive either without or with ut. The 
 extant examples of ut with the subj. must, however, be classed as 
 hypotactic, e. g. Most. 1036. nunc te obsecro, ut me bene iuves 
 operamque des; Amph. 388 ; Asin. 38 ; Poen. 392 ; etc. The paratactic 
 origin is, however, evident if we resolve the sentence just quoted : 
 "May you kindly aid me and lend me your assistance; I .beseech 
 you." 2 ) When obsecro is followed by ne and the subjunctive, the 
 sentence may perhaps in some cases still be considered paratactic, e. g. 
 Heaut. 1048. mi vir, te obserco: ne -faciasp) ne being equivalent 
 to non. 
 
 Quaeso, like obsecro, is of very frequent occurrence 4 ) and is used 
 in a similar way. It is most frequently found with the imperative, 
 which its addition renders less harsh. 5 ) Rud. 1298. Di quaeso 
 subvenite, would be no prayer, if quaeso were omitted. The para- 
 tactic structure with the subjunctive and the indicative is not so fre- 
 quent, but the hypotactic sentence with ut and ne is often found. 6 ) 
 This verb is also often used parenthetically, e. g. Caecilius, Plocium 
 II. 158. sed tua morosane uxor, quaeso, est. 
 
 The paratactic construction with amabo is probably conditional 
 in origin like cave with the subjunctive treated above. Thus the 
 origin of the sentence, contempla: amabo may be understood by 
 translating it, "if you look, I shall love you." This expression first 
 
 1) Obsecro is also often used parenthetically, see Lindskog, Quaest. 
 pp. 8 ff. 
 
 2) For a discussion of this whole subject see Ostendorf, A. Zum 
 Gebrauch von UT bei Plautus, Vierzehnter Jahresbericht, ( Neumiinster, 
 1888), Progr. Nu. 264. 
 
 3) Cf. Capt. 319; Most. 1097; Phorm. 944; et al. 
 
 4) Obsecro occurs 216 times and quaeso 146 times in Plautus and 
 T^erence. Lindskog, Quaest. pp. 7 and 13. 
 
 5) Cf. Weissenhorn, Parat. Plaut. p. 8: "Huius imperativi vis debili- 
 tatur et ad precationis speciem revocatur verbis oraudi solute appositis." 
 
 6) With ut, Novius, Androm. II. 4, R. quaeso ut in pectuft tuum 
 demittas; Cato, R. R. CXLI. 2, sic dicito, 'Mars pater, te precor guaesoque 
 uti sies volens propitius mihi domo familiaeque nostrae; Capt. 1025; 
 Adelph. 275; etc. 
 
 With ne, Bacch. 1013 seq., quaeso, pater, ne me - - deseras; 
 
 Cure. 400, quaeso ne me incomities; Asin. 450, etc.
 
 20 ' 
 
 restricted in meaning and used only by women, 1 ) in time acquired 
 a meaning similar to quaeso,-) and was used by all without any 
 restrictions. The original of the hypotactic construction with ut s ) 
 may be understood from, sed scin quid te amabo: ut facias, "but do 
 you know what I ask you? may you do that," and quin (qui -f- ne) 4 ) 
 amabo accubas, "I ask you : why don't you take your place ?" 
 
 The verbs oro and rogo are used in the same way as quaeso. In 
 later Latin they are construed with ut and the subjunctive or with 
 the ace. w. inf. 
 
 The paratactic sentences, in which the subjunctive is joined to the 
 imperatives, sine, (sinito), cedo, iube, curato, are alike in origin. The 
 subjunctive at first expressed the wish independently of the impera- 
 tive. Later the imperative was added for the sake of emphasis or 
 to distinguish the subjunctive used as a wish from other uses. Thus 
 sine: adveniat originally meant, "may he come: let him." When 
 this use had .been established, other forms of the verbs were employed. 
 Occasionally the indicative 5 ) instead of the subjunctive is found in 
 the subordinate clause. These verbs are also followed by ut and the 
 subjunctive and occasionally by the infinitive. 6 ) 
 
 In addition to the verbs licet 7) oportet, and metuo, of which exam- 
 ples are given, other verbs are also found introducing complementary 
 final clauses. S'uch are opto, placet, precor, peto, hortor, postulo, etc. 
 
 CHAPTEE II. 
 
 CONSECUTIVE SUBSTANTIVE CLAUSES. 
 
 Verbs denoting bringing to pass and happening, i. e. facio, fio, 
 sum, etc., are often joined to an indicative or a subjunctive. Of 
 
 1) Blase, Archiv fur lat. Lex. IX. (1896) p. 491. "Es (i. e. amabo) 
 1st ein Schmeichelwort vorzugsweise der Frauen, freier und unfreier. nur 
 an wenigen Stellen lasst Plautus es, um eine komische Wirkung zu er- 
 ziehlen, von Mannern an Frauen riehten, ein einziges Mai aus demselben 
 Grande von einer mannlichen Person an eine andere." Cf. Lindskog, 
 Quaest. p. 20. 
 
 2) Weissenhorn, Parat. Plaut. p.- 9, "Eundem fere sensum. qnem 
 verbiim quaeso, accipit formula, amabo, quam Brixius explicat 'amauter 
 rogabo'." 
 
 3) Amabo w. ut: Cist. 104. nunc te amabo ut sinas; Eun. 537. 
 
 amabo ut illuc tranxcax; Men. 524; True. 872; etc. 
 
 4) Cf. Chapter III. p. 26. 
 
 5) See Morris. A. J. P. XVIII. p. 144. 
 
 6) E. g. Pacuv. Niptra I. 244, R. cedo tuum pedem mi - - ut 
 abluam lassitudinemque minuam; Cato, R. R. V, 4. opus ntsticum 
 
 omne curet uti sciat facere; Most. 12. sine modo venire salvuom, quern 
 absentem comes. 
 
 7) For the use of licet in concessive clauses see Chapter X.. p. 45. 
 Cf. discussion of constructions with licet in Archiv fur lat. Lex. XI. pp. 
 926.
 
 21 
 
 these verbs facio is by far the most common and will therefore be 
 treated at greater length. 
 
 fac or face. 
 
 Capt. 439. fac fidelis sis fideli. 
 Epid. 567. fac videam. 
 Most. 400. aedes iam fac occlusae sient. 
 Ennius, Sat. 30 f. V. fac amicos eas et roges veniant operamque 
 
 mutuam dent et messim hanc nobis adiuvent. 
 Ennius, Heduphaget. Varia, 39. V. Surrenti elopem fac emas. 
 
 Pacuv. II. I. 208 E. fac hanc operam mihi des. 
 
 Adelph. 813 seq. fac quam plurumum illis relinquas. 
 
 Trin. 174. fac sciam. 
 
 Cato, E. E. V. 7. opera omnia mature conficias face. *) 
 
 Cato, E. E. XXXII, 1. Vineas arboresque mature face incipias putare. 
 
 Most. 854. Tranio, age canem istam a foribus aliquis abducat face. 
 
 facito. 
 C. I. L., I. 198, Exempl. Meinian. 13 tab. facito det de consili maioris 
 
 partis. 
 
 C. I. L., I. 119, Lex Jul. Munic. 206. denuntietur facito. 
 C. I. L., I. 197, Tab. Bantin. 1. 10. facitoque ioudicetur. 
 Ib. 1. 11. aut bona eius poplice possideantur facito. 
 Most. 216. at hoc unum facito cogites. 
 Cato, E. E. XXV. 1. facitoque studeas bene percoctum siccumque 
 
 legere. 
 
 Cato, E. E. LXV, IX. 1. facito calescat. 
 Cato, E. E. XLI. 4. eos - - facito sint. 
 Adelph. 500. hoc tu facito cum animo cogites. 
 
 facite. 
 
 Heaut. 28. facite aequi sitis. 
 
 Adelph. 24 seq. facite aequanimitas 2 ) - -ad scribendum augeat 
 
 industriam. 
 
 Other forms. 
 
 Heaut. 398. tu nunc sola reducem me in patriam fads. 
 Cato, E. E. XX. 1. labeam bifariam faciat habeat. 
 
 faxo. 
 
 a) Capt. 1010. at nunc liber in divitias faxo venies. 
 Bacch. 715. iam faxo hie erunt. 
 
 1) Fac is followed by facio in inscriptions found at Pompeii, e. g. 
 "e. I. L., IV. 1071. MODESTVM -AED -PANS -FAG -FACIAS. "Pansa, see 
 
 that you elect Modestus for the aedileship." 
 
 2) Fleckeisen indicates a lacuna between aeqtianimitas and ad.
 
 22 
 
 Pseud. 49. faxo sties. 
 
 Andr. 854. iam facinus faxo ex me audies. 
 
 Eun. 285. ne tu istas faxo calcibus saepe insultabis frustra. 
 
 Rud. 365. scibis faxo. 
 
 Ib. 578. exaresccnt faxo. 
 
 Ib. 1351. iam ego faxo exibit senex. 
 
 b) Aul. 578. ego faxo et operam et vinum perdiderit simul. 
 Capt. 801. Qui mi in cursu opstiterit, faxo vitae is. opstiterit suae. 
 Men. 521. faxo hand inultus prandium comederis. 
 
 Poen. 346. deferto ad me, faxo actutum constiterit lymphaticum. 
 Trin. 60. faxo liaud tantillum dederis verborum mihi. 
 
 c) Amph. 972. faxo hand quicquam sit morae. 
 Bacch. 864. faxo se hand dicat nactam, quern derideat. 
 Most. 68. ervom tibi aliquis eras faxo ad villam adferat. 
 Most. 1133. ego ferare faxo, ut meruisti, in crucem. 
 
 Adelph. 209. cupide accipiat iam faxo ac bene dicat secum etiam 
 
 esse actum. 
 Trin. 882. et meum nomen et mea facta et itinera ego faxo scias. 
 
 Other verbs. 
 
 Bacch. 85. rapidus fluvius est hie: non hac temere transiri potest. 
 Most. 108. illud saepe fit: tempestas venit. 
 
 Lucilius, S'at. IV. 154, M. verum illud credo fore: in os prius ac- 
 cipiam ipse. 
 
 The examples of facio given above naturally fall into two groups, 
 viz., a) Simple sentences in the imperative (fac, facito, facile}, fol- 
 lowed by clauses in the subjunctive, to which may be added other forms 
 of facio in the second and third person, as facial and fads, which are 
 used in the same way as fac, etc.; b) the aoristic form faxo, followed 
 by the future or future perfect indicative and the present subjunctive. 
 
 Sentences like fac: videam, and fac: fidelis sis fideli reveal the 
 paratactic origin of the sentences in the first group. First a voli- 
 tive or optative subjunctive was used independently, i. e. "may I 
 see," and "be thou faithful to the faithful." The imperative was 
 then added, still leaving the clauses independent. 1 ) The subordinate 
 clause is also often found introduced by ut, a construction which 
 
 1) It should be remembered that by the term independent the present 
 writer here has reference only to the form, and to the fact that man 
 in an early stage of culture did not understand the nature of the relation. 
 This is, of course, what Schwalz means (Lat. Synt. 265). He does not 
 imply, as Morris thinks, (Lat. Synt. p. 117), that to us Surrenti clopem 
 fac emas, for instance, is not as much a complex sentence as fac tit rem 
 trades.
 
 23 
 
 originated from an independent use of ut with the subjunctive, 1 ) 
 and which became the formal way of expressing the subordination. 2 ) 
 
 Kegarding the use of faxo there are several points that call for 
 notice. Space does not allow a detailed discussion of the opposing 
 theories that have been held. The problem that has confronted the 
 syntactist is this. Faxo is found joined both with the future indica- 
 tive and the present subjunctive, but with no distinction in meaning. 
 The construction with the indicative predominates in the early 
 writers, the ratio being about 4 to 1 in Plautus. 3 ) In the later 
 writers this ratio is reversed. This fact caused Madwig 4 ) and others 
 who followed him, to suggest that the subjunctives were due to 
 errors in the codices, and for this reason changed all the subjunctives 
 in Plautus to indicatives. This was rendered more easy since most 
 of the subjunctives belong to the third and fourth conjugations, in 
 which the present subjunctive and the future indicative are alike 
 in the first person singular and differ only in a letter in the second 
 and third persons. 
 
 Another theory has also been held. It has been stated 5 ) that there 
 is no certain instance of a future indicative in Plautus, in other 
 words, that the indicatives might just as well be turned into sub- 
 junctives. The later prevalent use of faxo with the subjunctive, 
 and the fact that no other form of the verb facio is found used to- 
 gether with the indicative, have been held up as favoring this view. 
 
 There is, however, no good reason for questioning the codices. 
 Such forms as erunt, (Bacch. 715), sdbis, (Eud. 365), exibit, (Bud. 
 1351), insultabis, (Eun. 285 6 ) ), can not be accounted for by a mis- 
 take of the scribe. The predominence of the subjunctive after faxo 
 in later Latin is sufficient proof that also this reading is correct. 7 ) 
 The conclusion of Ashmore in the paper quoted above is undoubt- 
 edly right. "The indicative represents the earlier and more colloquial 
 use. The subjunctive came in by degrees, as the style of writing 
 .became more formal, until in the Augustan age it is the rule." It 
 
 1) Cf. volo, etc., followed by ut and the subj. Chapter I. p. 18. 
 
 2) Facio with ut and the subjunctive: Pomponius, Arusp. II. 10 11. 
 bucco, puriter fac ut rem tractes; Cato, R. R. XXII. \. facito uti ducas; 
 Ib. V. 6; VIII. 2; XXIII; XXV. 1; XXXI. 1; XXXIII. 1; XLVIII. 2; 
 LXX. 2 ; LXXXV ; CLI. 4, etc. ; Amph. 982 ; Capt. 337 ; Ib. 411 ; Most. 1145 ; 
 Andr. 37; 483; 712; Heaut. 925. See Sjogren, DC part, copul. pp. 77 ff., 
 and Persson, Adn. Plaut. pp. 8 ff. 
 
 3) Cf. Ashmore, Trans. Am. Phil. Ass. XXVIII, (1897), p. viii, "There 
 are 41 indubitable instances of faxo with the future indicative ; 12 indubit- 
 able instances of faxo with the present subjunctive ; 2 instances where 
 Ritschl records a variant reading with the present subjunctive." 
 
 4) Opusc. acad. II. 77. 
 
 5) See Freeman and Sloman, Andria, note 1. 854. 
 
 6) "The only instance of a future after faxo in Terence", Ashmore. ib. 
 
 7) Cf. Weninger, 1. c. pp. 43 ff.
 
 24 
 
 should be added, that the use of the subjunctive, undoubtedly, came 
 into vogue through analogy from the use of the subjunctive after 
 other forms of facio, and through the similarity of the forms of the 
 present subjunctive and the future indicative, mentioned above. 
 Faxo scias, etc., became a stereotyped formula and was used in all 
 periods. Ui, is never found in the later writers, 1 ) but forms other 
 than the first person were used. 2 ) 
 
 Faxo was also used with the future perfect, as is shown by the 
 examples given on page 54. Because of the similarity of this tense 
 to the perfect subjunctive, a difficulty has also here been caused sim- 
 ilar to the above. The original form, in all probability is, however, 
 the indicative. 3 ) 
 
 Other verbs are also found, contrary to the statement of Weissen- 
 horn, 3 ) which are followed by complementary consecutive clauses. 
 The sentences are, however, few and irregular in construction. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 INDIRECT QUESTIONS AND EXCLAMATIONS. 
 
 Numerous instances of paratactic indirect questions and exclama- 
 tions are found. They may be arranged in two classes: a) clauses 
 in which the indicative mood is used; b) clauses in which an origi- 
 nal 4 ) subjunctive is used. Only a few of the many examples can be 
 here given. 
 
 1. With the Indicative, 
 a) Sext. Turp., Epicl. II. 50, B. Quaeso, edepol: quo ante lucem te 
 
 subito rapis. 
 
 Most. 35. quaeso non sunt. 
 
 Most. 149. cor dolet, quom scio ut nunc sum atque ut fui. 
 Most. 478. quis id fecit: cedo. 
 Most. 614. vide: num moratur. 
 Capt. 623. die mihi: quis illic igitur est. 
 Eud. 333. opsecro: quis hie loquitur. 
 
 Bacch. 692. nunc hoc tibi curandumst quid vis curem. 
 
 Aul. 634. redde hue sis: quid tibi vis reddam. 
 Bacch. 558. die: quis est. 
 
 1) In Plautus it is found at least once. Asin. 902. faxo ut scias. 
 Cf. Ashmore, Trans. Am. Phil. Ass. Vol. 28 (1897), p. viii. 
 
 2) E. g. Seneca, Medea. 905, faxis sc'uint. 
 
 3) See the discussion of this in Weissenhorn, Parat. Plaut. pp. 11 12. 
 
 4) A question already in the subjunctive may become indirect, e. g. 
 Capt. 455. dubltavi: hos homines emerem an non emerem. The indirect 
 question was here originally deliberative.
 
 25 
 
 Amph. 421. signi die: quid est. 
 
 Rud. 156. ubi sunt hi homines: opsecro. 
 
 Most. 366. ubi is est: obsecro. 
 
 Accius, Dec. I, 12. R. dice: summa ubi perduellum est. 
 
 Cato, R. R. VI. 4. vineam quo in agro conseri oportet sic observato. 
 
 Adelph. 325. Eloquere ergo, te obsecro, quid actumst. 
 
 Heaut. 430. ubinam est quaeso. 
 
 b) Most. 829. specta quam arte dormiunt. 
 
 Ib. 855. aspice ut placid e accubat. 
 
 Ib. 1172. viden ut astat furcifer. 
 
 Stich. 410. videte, quaeso, quid potest pecunia. 
 
 2. With the subjunctive. 
 
 Most. 969. quo venerim: novi locum. 
 
 Capt. 455. dubitavi: hos homines emerem an non emerem. 
 
 Bacch. 745. loquere quid scribam. 
 
 Merc. 386. die quid velis. 
 
 Capt. 270. servosne esse an liber mavelis memora mihi. 
 
 Rud. 1070. nulla causast quin me condones cruci. 
 
 Amph. 559. tamen quin loquar haec uti facia sunt: hie nunquam 
 
 ullo modo me potes deterrere. 
 
 Andr. 600. quid causaest: quin in pistrinum recta proficiscar via? 
 Phorm. 272. non causam dico, quin quod meritus sit ferat. 
 
 Apparently direct questions in the indicative are found in the 
 early language joined paratactically to verbs of saying, knowing, and 
 the like. This construction is found at the side of the construction 
 with the subjunctive, and with no distinction of meaning. The only 
 difference between die: quid est? and die quid sit is in form, as is 
 the case with the English, "Tell me, what is it?" and, "Tell me 
 what it is." 1 ) The former was the primitive way of joining the 
 propositions, i. e. the indirect question did not differ from the direct 
 in form. Later, however, when the subordinate relation was more 
 clearly felt and it became customary to indicate this relation by the 
 language, the subjunctive was resorted to in the case of Latin, while 
 in English the same concept was expressed by transposition of words. 
 
 It is not to be denied that verbs like obsecro, quaeso, specta, etc., 
 very often may be understood as parenthetical. 2 ) That is, they were 
 often spoken incidentally with no connection with the question or 
 
 1) Cf. Lindskog. Quaest. p. 71, "saepe imprimis in populi ser- 
 mone (interrogationes) rectae et obliquae minimo dlscrimine secerne- 
 bantur." 
 
 2) E. g. Most. 209. Cur, obsecro, non curemf
 
 26 
 
 exclamation. But in many cases, even where this origin must be 
 conceded, these verbs assumed governing force as in the exclamation 
 specta: quarn arte dormiunt, and in ubinam est: quaeso, and ubi is 
 est: obsecro. 
 
 In the second group of sentences the subjunctive is not necessarily 
 a sign of subordination. This subjunctive was found in the inde- 
 pendent sentence, to which the introductory word was added. Thus 
 quid scribam? (deliberative subjunctive), "what shall I write?" when 
 joined to loquere, became loquere quid scribam. 
 
 The same is true of ^law-clauses that belong to this group. Quin 
 (i. e. qui -f- ne = why not) often introduced independent sen- 
 tences, cf. Phorm. 1015, sed ea quin sit ignoscenda! "Why should 
 it not be worthy of pardon!" 1 ) In the sentences quoted above quin 
 must be understood in this way; e. g. nulla causa est: quin me con- 
 dones cruci, is first equivalent to "why should you not deliver me up 
 to torture? There is no reason why you should not." 2 ) 
 
 The origin of the later general use of the subjunctive in these 
 clauses is to be understood as follows. When the originally delibera- 
 tive subjunctive, e. g. quid scribam: loquere, because of frequency of 
 use, came to be considered the vehicle of the relational concept, as 
 this was more fully understood, it was analogously employed in the 
 second and third persons and in tenses other than the present. 3 ) 
 
 In this connection it will be in place to remark that the use of the 
 subjunctive to denote subordination is comparatively late in the 
 development of language. Subordination is expressed by the sub- 
 junctive in late Latin, not because such a function is inherent in this 
 mood, but because subjunctives of wish and will, which were fre- 
 quently joined paratactically to other expressions, gave the impres- 
 sion, when felt to be subordinate, that this concept was expressed by 
 the mood. The use of the subjunctive in indirect questions was, 
 perhaps, the first step in this development. 
 
 CHAPTEE IV. 
 
 INDIRECT DISCOURSE. 
 
 In the early stages of language verbs of knowing, perceiving, think- 
 ing, and saying were joined loosely to the subordinate statement in 
 
 !) See Elmer's note on this line. 
 
 2) For the most complete discussion of quin see Schnoor, H., Quaest. 
 Plaut. pp. 10 39. 
 
 3) See Schmalz, Lat. Synt. p. 258, 270 et al. For various theories 
 regarding the early indirect question see Becker, Studia in priscos scrip- 
 tores Latinos collata, vol. I. fasc. 1, pp. 115 ff., and Lindskog, Quaest. 
 pp. 71 ff., and 92 ff.
 
 27 
 
 the indicative or an original subjunctive. 1 ) This construction we 
 find used side by side with the ace. w. inf. construction, and quod 
 clauses with the indicative, which in later Latin became the regular 
 forms. The question of the origin of the accusative with infinitive 
 construction is a subject apart from parataxis, 2 ) and would, there- 
 fore, be out of place here. 3 ) In the following list of clauses the order 
 used by Becker 4) will te partly followed. 
 
 1. Verbs of knowing. 
 scio. 
 
 Capt. 440. nam pater scio faciet quae ilium facere oportet omnia. 
 Adelph. 256, seq. satis certo scio: numquam ita magnifice quicquam 
 
 dicam. 
 
 Phorm. 636, seq. nam sat scio: - Iria non commutabitis verba. 
 
 Pseud. 1315. onerabis scio. 
 Adelph. 339. ille infitias ibit, sat scio. 
 Capt. 971. pauca effugiam: scio. 
 Pomponius, Pappus Praet. II. 106, E. refragant primo, suffragabunt 
 
 post scio. 
 
 Most. 1081. scio iocaris tu nunc. 
 Ib. 699. tota turget milii uxor, scio domi. 
 Ib. 334. scio: in mentem venit modo. 
 
 Capt. 326. scio ego, multos iam lucrum luculentos homines reddidit. 
 Adelph. 360. persuasit ille inpurus, sat scio. 
 Cure. 53. semper, tu scito, flamma fumost proxuma. 
 Heaut. 230, seq. si mihi secundae res de amore meo essent, iam dudum 
 
 scio venissent. 
 
 Hec. 756. quod pol, si essent alia- ex hoc quaestu, hand faceret scio. 
 Bacch. 635. scio dares. 
 
 novi. 
 
 Rud. 373. novi: Neptunus ita solet. 
 
 Pers. 243. novi: omnes sunt lenae levifidae. 
 
 1) Cf. Holtze, Synt. Priftc. Script. Lot. II. p. 227, "iuxta ponentur duae 
 enunciationes primariae in oratione recta ubi plerumque expectatur ut 
 altera e priore per oWiquam oratioticrn suspensa sit". 
 
 2) See A. J. P. IV. p. 420. 
 
 3) For discussions of the origin of the ace. w. inf. construction see 
 Herzog, Neu. Jahrb. (1873); Sclnnalz, Lat. 8ynt. 8224; and Lindskog. 
 Eranos, I. (189G) pp. 121 ff. The last article gives a resume of past and 
 modern theories on this subject. 
 
 4) Beiordn. und unterordn. Satzverb. bei den altrb'm. Buhnendichtcrn, 
 (Metz, 1888). Only the part treating the following construction was ever 
 published.
 
 2. Verbs of perceiving. 
 
 video. 
 
 Decimus, Lab., Cat. II. 23 R. video: adulescenti nostro caedis hirulam, 
 L. Pomponius, Macci Gem. Prior, II. 70 R. video: erepsti primiter 
 
 de pannibus. 
 
 Pers. 284. video ego te: iam incubitatus es. 
 Rud. 1331. Quid istic? necessumst video: dabitur talentum. 
 Eun. 713. non potest sine malo fateri: video. 
 Hec. 770. nosier socer, video, venit. 
 Ennius, Alex. I. 54 seq. R. videte: iudicabit inclutum indicium inter 
 
 deas tris aliquis. 
 
 Lucilius, 1340, M. vis est vita, vides, vis nos facere omnia cogit. 
 Cure. 325. vide: ne me ludas. 
 Heaut. 212. vide, sis, nequo hinc abeas longius. 
 Cato, R, R. IX. 1. et id videto: uti aut domino siet. 
 Cato, R. R. CVII. 2. videto: ne aduras. 
 
 audio. 
 
 Asin, 116. audin tu: apud Archibulum ego ero argentarium. 
 Andr. 228. audivi, Archylis, iam dudum: Lesbiam adduci iubes. 
 
 sentio. 
 
 Pseud. 466. -iam pridem tu me spernis: sentio. 
 Andr. 436. praeter spem evenit: sentio. 
 
 3. Verbs of thinking. 
 
 intellego. 
 
 Most. 280. verum illuc est: maxuma adeo pars vostrorum intellegit, 
 Pers. 802. ludos me facitis: intellego. 
 
 cogito. 
 Aul. 698, seq. nunc ego mecum cogito me illi irasci 
 
 iniuriumst. 
 
 Cato, Aul. Gell. 16, 1, 4. cogitate labor ille a vobis recedet. 
 
 Eun. 56, seq. etiam atque etiam cogita, ere: quae res in se neque con- 
 
 silium neque modum habet ullum, earn consilio regere non potest. 
 
 credo. 
 Caecilius Stat., Plocium II. 151 seq. R. nunc credo inter suas aequa- 
 
 lis, cognatas, sermonem serit. 
 C. Lutat. Catulus, Epigr. Aul. Gell. 19, 9, 10. credo, ut solet, ad 
 
 Theotimum devenit. 
 Amph. 297. credo misericors est. 
 Aul. 39. credo aurum inspicere volt.
 
 29 
 
 Most. 441. credo expectatus veniam familiaribus. 
 
 Most. 1080. credo hand negat. 
 
 Andr. 313. credo impetrabo. 
 
 Capt. 19-6. domi fuistis credo liberi. 
 
 Capt. 961. quod ego fatear, credin pudeat quom autumes? 
 
 Trin. 115. haec, si mi inimicus esset, credo haud crederet. 
 
 Hec. 129. si adesset, credo ibi eius commiserescerit. 
 
 censeo. 
 
 Heaut. 588. recte dicit, censeo. 
 
 Eud. 1269. censen hodie despondebit earn mini, quaesof 
 
 Andr: 578. num censes faceret? 
 
 opinor. 
 
 i 
 
 Asin. 151. opinor hie ante ostium meo modo loquar, quae volam. 
 Lucilius, Sat. 216 M. Me solus mgilavit, opinor. 
 End. 661. opinor, leno pugnis plectiiur. 
 End. 1202. accedam opinor ad fores. 
 
 spero. 
 
 Epid. 124. spero: servabit fidem. 
 Adelph. 411. salvos sit speroD 
 Andr. 314. interea fiet aliquid: spero. 
 Heaut. 553. non usus veniet, spero. 
 
 4. Verbs of saying. 
 
 dico. 
 
 Pers. 589. prius dico: hanc mancupio nemo tibi dabit. 
 Lucilius, Sat. XXVI., 651 M. ad enim dicis: clandestino tibi quod 
 conmissum foret neu muttires quicquam neu mysteria ecferres 
 foras. 
 
 Aul. 346. dicant: coqui abstulerunt. 
 Phorm. 334. dices: ducent damnatum domum. 
 
 interdico. 
 Capt. 694. nil interdico aiant vivere. 
 
 fateor. 
 
 Aul. 88. pauper sum: fateor. 
 Bud. 735. fateor: ego trifurcifer sum. 
 Heaut. 158. ita res est, fateor: peccatum a me maxumest. 
 
 1) Cf. C. I. L. passim O. S. T. T. L. opto sit tibi terra levis.
 
 30 
 
 moneo. 
 Most. 196. monco ego te: te ille deseret aetate satietate. 
 
 Im-personal verbs. 
 Amph. 1048. certumst: intro rumpam in aedis. 
 
 Capt. 778. nunc certa res est : coniciam in collum pallium. 
 
 Merc. 658. hoc mihi certissumumst : eo domum. 
 
 Asm. 448. nunc adeam: optumumst. 
 
 Poen. 1244. pro hoc mihi patronus sim necessest. 
 
 The verb scio is usually followed by the ace. w. inf. construction, 
 both in early and later Latin writers. In a number of cases, how- 
 ever, it is joined paratactically to the subordinate statement. Lind- 
 skogl) states that there are 33 instances of this construction in 
 Plautus and 20 in Terence. 2 ) 
 
 Though it must be admitted that this verb in a number of instances 
 is parenthetical, still the rule stated by Weissenhorn and Kiihner 3 ) 
 does not hold, that scio and other verbs of this class, are always 
 parenthetical when inserted in the middle of the sentence. Scio may 
 be parenthetical, when it stands first in the sentence as in Asin. 
 790, scio; capiiones metuis^) and on the other hand it may govern 
 another proposition when it is inserted as in Capt. 440, nam pater 
 scio faciet quac ilium facere oportet omnia. No one will deny that 
 the meaning will be the same, if the construction is changed to, 
 nam patrem scio facturum esse, etc. 5 ) Aside from this it has been 
 recognized by Schmalz and others, that the parenthetical sentence 
 ought really to be included under the definition of parataxis given 
 above. It is at least certain that many verbs of this kind, which 
 originally were thrown into speech here and there very much in the 
 way of exclamations, afterwards were understood to govern the 
 parallel simple sentence. 
 
 Scio is followed in most cases by the indicative. The tenses used 
 are the future, future perfect, present, and perfect. In the contrary 
 to fact conditions in which the subjunctive is used after scio, this 
 verb was, most probably, at first parenthetical. By continued use the 
 condition was gradually felt to be dependent on the verb. This then 
 
 1) Qiiaext., p. 24. 
 
 2) Kcio followed by ut is found in Men. 434. scio ut me dices: of. 
 Verg. Aen. XII. 343 seq. fids ut te cunctis praetulerim. 
 
 3) Parat. Plant, p. 5; Kiihner, Ansfuhrl. Or., p. 578, anm. 1. "Wenn 
 a her die genmmten Verhen (i. e. scio. etc.) innerhalb des Satzes stehen, 
 so gehoren sie nicht hierher. Denn nlsdann siiid sie als parentetisch ein- 
 geschaltete Ausdriicke aufznfassen." 
 
 4) See Lindskog, Quaest., p. 25. 
 
 5) For a discussion of this and illustrations of scio inserted followed 
 by ace. w. inf., see Becker, Beiordn. nnd itnterordn. Satsverb., p. 11, note 4.
 
 31 
 
 became the established construction, the ace. w. inf. being never used. 
 This explanation seems better, because more simple, than that given 
 by Paul Earth. l) 
 
 Verbs of perception, video, audio, sentio, and others, similarly in- 
 troduce a subordinate clause. Under these verbs two classes of con- 
 structions may be distinguished, viz. : a) the introductory verb is 
 in the indicative, generally the first person singular; b) the intro- 
 ductory verb is in the imperative or is an interrogative second 
 person; 2 ) e. g., a) video: erepsti primiter de pannibus; b) vide sis: 
 nequo Jiinc abeas 1 origins; cogitate: - - labor ille a vobis recedet; 
 
 audin tu: apud Archibulum ego ero argentarium. 
 
 A few of the numerous examples of these classes are given above. 
 In the sentence non potest sine malo fateri: video, the first proposition 
 was not at once felt to be dependent on video. This verb was an 
 afterthought and was added as such. In Hec. 770, nosier socer video 
 venit the insertion of the verb seems to indicate that its subordinating 
 function was partly felt. When video, sentio, etc., come first, the 
 sequence of thought is enough to indicate that the following proposi- 
 tion is dependent on the preceding. 
 
 In the second class we distinguish two groups, viz.: a) the verb 
 in the subordinate clause is in the indicative; and b) the verb in 
 the subordinate clause is an original subjunctive, either alone or 
 with ut or with the negative ne. The first group, which is similar 
 in origin to the class described above (viz. video, etc., followed by 
 the indicative) may be illustrated by audin tu: apud Archibulum 
 ego ero argentarium; and videte: iudicabit inclutum indicium inter 
 deas iris aliquis. In the second group the forms vide, audi, viden, 
 etc., take the place of an interjection and serve to direct the attention 
 of the hearer to what is to be said. 3 ) Still it cannot be said with 
 Becker that the statement following this form was independent. The 
 latter proposition in ei id videto: uti aut domino siet, is an exhortation 
 or, perhaps better, a direction. In early Latin ut with the subjunctive 
 was thus used in independent sentences, (cf. C. I. L., I. 196, 23. 
 
 1) De inflnitivi apud scaenicoft poctas latinos usu, p. 48, "Sententiae, 
 quibus continetur coudieio, qune vocatur Irrealis, rectae semper stant, 
 numquam in formam orationis obliquae rediguntur ; hoc nimirum fit ea 
 fie causa, quia in oratione obliqua coniuuctivus non certe dignoscl posset, 
 utrum propter statura condlcionalem an per conseontionem temporis positus 
 esset. infinitivus autem modi nota oinnino oareret ob eaniqne rein utriusque 
 membri status, qui dicitur irrealis obtegeretur omuino et occultaretur." 
 
 2) That the forms audin, viden, etc., are used similarly to the impera- 
 tive has been shown by LindskOg, Qitacat., pp. 27, and 40 ff. 
 
 3) Becker, Beiordn. und unterordu. Satzverb., p. 27, "audi dient iihn- 
 lich wie vide dazu den Angeredeten auf das Folgende iiufmcrksani zu 
 inachen und wirel dalier niemals mit dem ace. c. Inf. verbunden. sondern 
 hat den Inhaltswatz stets als unabhiingiges Anssage- (nuch Frage- oder 
 Befehls-) satz bei sich." Cf. Lindskog. Quaest., pp. 40 ff.
 
 32 
 
 HAICE VTEI IN CONVENTIONID EXDEICATIS, "this you 
 are to announce in the assembly"). Videto is an additional element 
 further emphasizing the direction. Similarly the sentence vide: ne 
 me ludas must be understood, "see to it; don't you fool me". 
 
 What has been said above regarding the constructions following 
 verbs of knowing and perceiving applies also in many particulars to 
 the other examples given above after verbs of thinking and saying. 
 For a full list of examples the reader is referred to the work by 
 Becker. S'chmalz and Lindskog have added valuable discussions of 
 the origin of the constructions with the several verbs. Especially is 
 to be noted Lindskog's chapters, "Parataxis ad sententias impersona- 
 liter usurpatas," 1 ) (i. e. certum est, etc.), and "Parataxis ad verbum 
 quod est dico". 2 ) 
 
 PART II. 
 
 ADVERBIAL CLAUSES. 
 
 The clauses described above in Part L, serve the function of com- 
 plements to certain verbs and expressions. They have the value of 
 a noun and may represent the nominative or an oblique case. In the 
 following chapters the subordinate proposition stands in the place 
 of an adverb, and is intimately connected with the principal proposi- 
 tion in thought, the latter containing the main statement. 3 ) 
 
 These clauses are of later origin and are less frequent. The concept 
 of adverbial relation is not formed with such readiness by the human 
 mind as the concept of subjective and objective relation. The nature 
 of the adverbial relation is, moreover, more difficult to determine. 
 Even where it is evident that an adverbial relation exists between 
 two propositions, it is often impossible to say whether it is conditional, 
 causal, temporal, etc. Each of the following six chapters will include 
 a discussion of one of the following adverbial relations : final, con- 
 secutive, temporal, conditional, and concessive. In Chapter XI. the 
 comparative and relative clauses will be treated. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 FINAL ADVERBIAL CLAUSES. 
 
 From the following examples it will be seen that this paratactic 
 construction is found especially after verbs of motion, viz. co, sequor, 
 
 1) Quaest. pp. 29 ff. and 41. 
 
 2) Ib. pp. 31 ff. 
 
 3) Cf. Substantive Clauses, p. 15.
 
 33 
 
 etc. Most frequent is the form ibo followed by the future indicative. 
 
 A number of other verbs, however, are also followed by final clauses. 1 ) 
 
 Asin. 382. i, puere, pulta. 
 
 Bacch. 1059. cape hoc till awum, Clirusale: i, fer filio. 
 
 Caecilius, Plocium II, 178. abi intro atque istaec aufer. 
 
 Mil. 1185. hue venito et matris verbis Philocomasium arcessito. 
 
 Amph. 300. dare advorsum fabulabor, hie auscultet, quae loquar. 
 
 Amph. 949. evocate hue Sosiam, - - Blepharonem arcessat. 
 
 Andr. 511. multa concurrunt simul qui coniecturam hanc nunc 
 
 faciam. 
 Aul. 500. enim mihi quidem aequomst - dari vehicla 
 
 qui vehar. 
 
 Adelph. 549. nunc redeo: si forte f rater redierit viso. 
 Most. 774. Eon voco hue hominem? 
 Heaut. 426. ibo: adloquar. 
 Heaut. 170. ibo: visam si domist. 
 
 Heaut. 608. ad Menedemum ibo: dicam hanc esse captain e Caria. 
 Capt. 126 seq. ego ibo ad fratrem ad olios captivos meos: visam ne 
 
 nocte hac quippiam turbaverint. 
 
 Pers. 77. nunc hue intro ibo: visam hesternas reliquias. 
 Capt. 764. sequere hac: redducam te ubi fuisti. 
 Most. 312. conveniunt manuplares eccos: praedam participes petunt 
 Cure. 312. da, obsecro hercle, obsorbeam. 
 Capt. 1003. aut anites aut coturnices dantur quicum lusitent. 
 Eun. 150. id amabo adiuta me: quo id fiat facilius. 
 Epid. 267. continue arbitretur uxor tuo gnato atque ut fidicinam 
 
 illam quam is volet liberare, quae illyw. corrumpit tibi, ulciscare 
 
 atque ita curetur, usque ad mortem ut serviat. 
 Stich. 207. dicam auctionis causam: ut damno gaudeant. 
 Eun. 941, seq. te - - ulciscar: ut ne inpune nos inluseris. 
 Bacch. 224. veniat quando volt atque ita: ne mihi sit morae. 
 
 The final sentence is, as Gildersleeve states, 2 ) ultimately an im- 
 perative sentence. An imperative or an independent volitive sub- 
 junctive was at first used to express the action desired on the part 
 of the speaker. 3 ) The final sentence in its simplest form is found 
 in sentences like i, puere, pulta, in which the second imperative plainly 
 denotes the purpose in the mind of the speaker for asking the servant 
 
 1) Cf. Weissenhorn, p. 13. who Rives only 3 examples from Plautus. 
 
 2) A. J. P. XXIII. p. 254. 
 
 3) Cf. Lane's Gr., (New York, 1903), S 1540. 
 
 Parataxis in early latin. 3.
 
 34 
 
 to go over to the house of Demaenetus. 1 ) When it was the desire of 
 the speaker, that the person addressed cause a third person to perform 
 some action, the subjunctive was naturally used, since the Latin 
 lacked a third person in the present imperative. 2 ) The following 
 
 sentence, evocate line Sosiam, Blepharonem arcessat, differs 
 
 therefore, from those just described onlv in that the performance of 
 the command is transferred from the second person to the third. 
 
 Final clauses in the first person after ibo and other verbs, did not 
 require the subjunctive. That is, the second clause is not an original 
 volitive subjunctive. Thus dabo in Bacch. 366. nunc ibo: erili filio 
 Jianc fabricam dabo was apprehended at first merely as the continua- 
 tion of the action of the speaker. He would, therefore, naturally use 
 the future indicative in this proposition as in the preceding. That the 
 latter proposition must often be considered as first expressing the 
 continuation of the action in the first proposition is more clearly 
 seen in propositions which are connected by the coordinate conjunc- 
 tions et, atque, etc., e. g. Men. 331, ibo intro et dicam; Ib. 1035, nunc 
 ibo in tabernam, vasa atque argentum tibi referam; Poen. 739, ibo 
 et pultabo ianuam?^) 
 
 Purpose clauses introduced by the relative pronoun quo, (early 
 form, qui), are best explained by a volitive origin. We may thus 
 understand Capt. 1002, seq. patriciis pueris aut monerulae aut anites 
 aut coturnices dantur: quicum lusitent, "jackdaws or ducks or quails 
 are given to patrician children; may they play with them" 4 ) Com- 
 pare the other examples of the same class given above, among which 
 qui, (quo), in the following sentence at least, is used as a conjunc- 
 tion, enim miJii quidem aequomst dari veliicla 
 
 qui vehar. 
 
 The established usage in classical times is derived from the inde- 
 
 1) Cf. Weisseuhorn, Parat, Plaut., p. 13. "Sed nolim haec exempla 
 excitare; nam hi imperativi non tain motionis quam cohortationis vim 
 habere rnihi videntur ut quodam modo cognati sint cum imperativis pro 
 interiectioue positis, age, agite." It is, however, not apparent why a 
 distinction should be made between Capt. 950, for instance, ite actutum: 
 Tyndarum hue arcetssite, and Asin. 913, ibo ad Diabolitm: mandata dicam 
 facta. Ite is as much a verb of motion as ibo. From the point of view 
 of the master of the slave the logical alternative of ibo is i or ite. In 
 other words, the master will either say, "I shall go", or "go thou", not 
 "let me go". Ite is, therefore, from the nature of things volitive and 
 not equivalent to aye, agite. 
 
 2) Because of the infrequency of commands in the third person pres., 
 no special form developed in Latin. A command in the second person 
 differs, however, from a command in the third person only in that it 
 affects but one iiersou. From the point of view of the speaker there is 
 no difference. 
 
 3) Cf. Sjogren. DC part. cop. apud Plaut. et Terent., pp. 77 ff. and 
 Appendix. Cf. Balhis. Gram. Plant., (Berlin, 1884), pp. 14 ff. 
 
 4) See Delbriick, Conjunctiv tmd Optativ, pp. 59 62.
 
 35 
 
 pendent use of ut with a volitive subjunctive. 1 ) The negative form 
 was at first ut ne (non), later ne. 1 ) The sentence quoted above, 
 Stich. 207, dicam auctionis causam: ut damno gaudeant, serves to 
 illustrate this. Originally this must have meant, "I shall proclaim 
 the reason of the auction ; may they rejoice in my misfortune". This 
 sentence, however, as well as the other three at the end of the list 
 given above, are hypotactic in form. It is because of the predomi- 
 nance of ut in these clauses, that also other final clauses, originally 
 differently expressed, adopted this form through analogy. The origin 
 of negative clauses is similar. Ne (or non) was inserted after ut. 
 Later ne was itself felt as a conjunction and ut was omitted. 2 ) 
 
 CHAPTEE VI. 
 
 CONSECUTIVE ADVERBIAL CLAUSES. 
 
 In consecutive clauses in early Latin the original indicative was still 
 often found. These clauses retained this early form longer than the 
 final clauses described in the preceding chapter. The subjunctive was, 
 however, gradually coming into use from the use of the potential sub- 
 junctive in clauses of characteristic, from which the relative clause of 
 result originated, and from the use of the subjunctive in independent 
 sentences. 
 
 The following examples illustrate the use of the early indicative or 
 an original subjunctive. 
 
 a) Most. 154 seq. parsimonia et duritia discipulinae alieis eram: 
 
 optumi quique expetebant a me doctrinam sibi. 
 Most. 566. hie ad me it: salvos sum. 
 Pseud. 75 seq. pumiceos oculos habeo: non queo lacnimam exorare 
 
 ut expuant unam modo. 
 Bacch. 85. rapidus fluvws est hie: non hac temere transiri potest. 
 
 b) Capt. 503 seq. ita me miserum, - - reddiderunt: vix ex gra- 
 
 tulando miser iam eminebam. 
 Most. 146 seq. ita haec tigna - putent: non videor mihi 
 
 sarcire posse aedes meas. 
 
 Mil. 1047. nam ita me occursant multae: meninisse kaud possum. 
 Asin. 390. ita haec moratast ianua: extemplo ianitorem clamat. 
 
 1) For an independent volitive use of ut with subj. see Cato, II. 6. 
 This and other examples are quoted by Lindskog, Qnnest., pp. 51 ff. ; for ne- 
 clauses see Schnoor, Quaest Plaut., pp. 7 ff. 
 
 2) See Lane Gr. 1947. For a discussion of ut ne and ut non in final 
 and consecutive clauses see Lindskog, Quaest., pp. 53 ff., and Schnoor, 
 Quaest. Plaut., pp. 7 ff.
 
 36 
 
 c) Bacch. 332 seq. tantas divitias habet: nescit quid facial auro. 
 Capt. 227. tanta incepta res est: hand somniculose hoc agundumst. 
 Cas. 341 seq. at ego sic agam: coniciam sortis in sitellam et sortiar. 
 Men. 573. morem habent hunc: clientis sibi omnes volunt esse multos. 
 Mil. 801. ille eius modist: cupiet miser. 
 
 Pseud. 1250. magnum hoc vitium vinost: pedes captat primum, luc- 
 tator dolosust. 
 
 d) Men. 683. mihi tu ut dederis pallam, numquam 
 
 factum reperies. 
 
 Pers. 795. quo modo me hodie vorsavisti: ut me in tricas coniecisti? 
 
 e) Heaut. 675. nil tarn difficilest: quin quaerendo investigari possiet. 
 Heaut. 783. ita tu istaec tua misceto: ne me admisceas. 
 
 The above quoted sentences fall into five groups. In the first we 
 have two simple sentences placed side by side with no indication in 
 language of their relation. These sentences stand on the lower limit 
 of parataxis. It is only from the thought or from the tone in which 
 they are uttered, that we can say that one of the simple sentences 
 expresses result, e. g. Most. 154 seq. would in later Latin have been 
 expressed, parsimonia et duritia discipulinae alieis eram, ut optimi 
 quique expeterent a me doctrinam sibi; and Bacch. 85, rapidus fluvius 
 est hie, ut non hoc temere transiri possit. 
 
 The principal proposition often has an adverb (ita, sic) or a pro- 
 noun (tantus, hie, is), which anticipates 1 ) the result in the second 
 clause. After the use of ut with the subjunctive became established 
 this adverb or pronoun was considered a correlative to ut expressing 
 degree or quality, e. g. Caes. B. G. I. 33. ipse autem Ariovistus 
 tantos sibi spiritus, tantam adrogantiam sumpserat, ut ferendus non 
 videretur. 
 
 Of the adverbs and pronouns of degree ita and tantus are of very 
 frequent occurrence. Sic is seldom found. In the third group hie is 
 more often found than is. For a further discussion of anticipatory 
 adverbs and pronouns, the reader is referred to Chapter XII. 
 
 Schmalz 2 ) discusses and gives examples of another kind of con- 
 secutive parataxis in which the subordinate clause originally represent- 
 ed a question. Thus in Men. 683 the ut first introduced a question, 
 viz. mihi -tu ut dederis pallam, etc. ? "you gave me the mantle and. 
 the bracelet?" The answer is then given, nunquam factum reperies, 
 "you will find that it was never done." Then the first clause was 
 
 1) Cf. Weissenhorn, Parat. Plaut. p. 14, and Bennett, Corn. Stud. IX, 
 (1892), p. 10. 
 
 2) Lat. Synt., pp. 400 ff.
 
 37 
 
 felt to be dependent, and the sentence was understood, "you will find 
 that it was never done that you gave me the mantle, etc." 1 ) 
 
 Quin 2 ) in Heaut. 675 is equivalent to qui (abl.)+ne (=non). In 
 later Latin it was used with the force of ut non. In this sentence the 
 last proposition is also best understood as an original question, viz., 
 quin quaerendo investigari possit? In the last quoted illustration ne 
 is not yet a conjunction, but is equivalent to non. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 CAUSAL CLAUSES. 
 
 Causal clauses in early Latin have the verb in the indicative. Two 
 propositions are often found side by side in which the thought is so 
 balanced, that it is difficult to determine which is the subordinate or, 
 if this is possible, to determine what the nature of the subordination is. 
 In the first group sentences of this character are given, but only those 
 in which it is reasonably probable that the relation may be causal. 
 The second group will include sentences in which the causal idea is 
 anticipated in the primary proposition by some word, usually some 
 adjective, as miser, salvus, stultus, etc. In the third group will be 
 given examples of clauses which are introduced by the adverbs ita 
 and sic and the pronoun tantus.3) 
 a) Most. 503 seq. nunc tu hinc emigra: scelestae hoe sunt aedes.*) 
 
 Ib. 243 seq. probus homo sum patronum liberavi. 
 
 Ib. 440 seq. triennio post Aegypto advenio domum: credo exspec- 
 
 tatus veniam familiaribus. 
 Lucilius, 678, M. homines ipsi hanc sibi molestiam ultro atque 
 
 aerumnam offerunt: ducunt uxores, producunt, quibus haec 
 
 faciant 5 ) liberos. 
 
 Amph. 836. mulier es: audacter iuras. 
 Most. 514. nil ego formido: pax mihist cum mortuis. 
 Sextus Turpilius, Leucadia, II. 109 seq. E. intercapedine inter- 
 ficior, desiderio differor: tu es mihi cupiditas, suavitudo et mei 
 
 animi expectatio. 
 
 1) Of. Hor. Epist. I. 18, 16. 
 
 2) Cf. Chapter III., p. 26. 
 
 3) No attempt will be made to explain the origin of quod, quta, quomam 
 and quando with the indicative and the subjunctive. The origin of these 
 constructions, which are found in early writers side by side with those 
 mentioned above, is still obscure. See Zander, De relat. pron. ea quae est 
 per QUOD et ID QUOD: Zimmermann, Gebraiich der Conjunctionen QUOD 
 und QUIA Im alteren Latein, (Posen, 1880) ; Lindskog, Quaest. III. Ratio 
 hypotactica in secundariae structura pp. 60 ff . ; Schmalz, Lat. 8ynt. t pp. 
 
 4) Cf. C. I. L. IV. 813. otiosus locus hie non est : discede morator. 
 
 5) Others read faveant.
 
 38 
 
 b) Amph. 331. salvos sum: non me videt. 
 Capt. 284. salva res est: philosophatur quoque 
 
 Pseud. 80. miser sum: argentum nusquam invenio mutuom. 
 
 Ib. 261. stultus es: rem actam agis. 
 
 Accius, Atreus, I. 214, B. vigilandum est semper: multae insidiae 
 
 sunt front's. 
 Ennius, Hecuba, I. 164, E. lieu me miseram, interii! pergunt lavere 
 
 sanguen sanguine. 
 
 c) Amph. 1056, seq. quid agam nescio: ita tanta mira in aedibus 
 
 sunt facta. 
 Trin. 543, seq. nemo exstat qui ibi sex menses vixerit: ita cuncti 
 
 solstitiali morbo decidunt. 
 Heaut. 978. vah, rogasse vellem unde mi peterem cibum: 
 
 ita nos abalienavit. 
 Capt. 464 seq. nam liercle oculos effodiam lubens: ita malig- 
 
 nitate oneravit omnis mortalis mihi. 
 Andr. 761. Di te eradicent: ita me miseram territas. 
 Most. 546. pergam turbare porro: ita haec res postulat. 
 Caecilius Stat., Synephebi, II. 207, E. nee quern dolum ad eum 
 
 aut macliinam commoliar scio quicquam: ita omnis meos dolos 
 
 faUacias praestigias praestrinxit commoditas patris. 
 Capt. 825. non ego mine parasitus sum, sed regum rex regalior: 
 
 tantus ventri commeatus meo adest in portu cibus. 
 Capt. 868. te hercle mi aequomst gratias agere ob nuntium: tantum 
 
 ego nunc porto a portu boni. 
 Ennius, Thyestes, I. 303 seq. nolite ad me adire : 
 
 meo tanta vis sceleris in corpore haeret. 
 Pseud. 1130. malum quod tibi di dabunt: sic scelestu's?} 
 
 It is not always possible, as was stated above, to be certain that the 
 idea of cause is present in loosely jointed sentences like those in the 
 first group. The nature of the relation can be known only from the 
 relative order of the propositions, and from their connection in the 
 play. Thus the sentence nil ego formido, pax mihi cum mortuis, 
 is probably causal and should not be explained as consecutive, i. e. 
 "I am at peace with the dead, so I have no fear", for, in consecutive 
 sentences, the subordinate clause originally followed the principal 
 statement. The following sentences, however, Eud. 1411, bene fads: 
 gratiam habeo magnam, which is quoted by Weissenhorn as causal !), 
 
 1) Cf. Pseud. 974. salvos sum: iam philoxophatiir. 
 
 2) Weissenhorn P. P., p. 1(5, "pro particula ita uno loco sic adhibitum 
 esse inveni."
 
 39 
 
 and Most. 353, erus advenit peregre: pcriit Tranio, should be classed 
 under asyndetic coordination, that is, the second proposition may be 
 understood as illative., viz., "You act well, therefore I am very grate- 
 ful", etc.2) 
 
 In the second group the causal relation is clearer. The expres- 
 sions salvos sum, miser sum, etc., presuppose a cause which is given 
 in the following clause: Verbal expressions like interii, peril, odi, 
 and the like are also used in the same way. 
 
 The order also of the propositions, as just stated, is often helpful 
 in determining their relation. The sentence from Accius, vigilandum 
 est semper: multae insidiae sunt bonis, cannot be understood, "There 
 are many snares set for the righteous, therefore we must always be on 
 the alert", for in illative sentences the explanation always follows. 
 Similarly in early Latin, causal clauses, whether coordinate or hypo- 
 tactic, generally follow the main statement. It is only after the causal 
 relation is fully understood, that this clause precedes. Even to-day 
 in colloquial language our reasons, as a rule, come second.3) 
 
 Clauses introduced by ita and tantus are very frequent. These 
 words serve almost the function of causal conjunctions. If quod 
 is substituted for ita in Capt. 464 seq., there is no change except 
 that the subordinate relation is more clearly seen, viz. nam hercle 
 - oculos effodiam lubens, quod malignitate oneravit omnis 
 mortalis mihi. With causal ita-, sic-, etc., clauses should be compared 
 the use of these words in consecutive clauses described in the pre- 
 ceding chapter (p. 35 ff.). In the consecutive sentence ita, etc., 
 are found in the principal proposition, 4 ) in causal sentences in the 
 subordinate clause. This may be well illustrated by Andr. 937. vix 
 
 1) Parat. Plaut. p. 17. 
 
 2) Great care must be taken to avoid confusion between parataxis 
 and asyndeton. Many sentences which are really asyndetic are quoted 
 in current textbooks sis examples of parataxis. Thus the sentence Most. 
 39, di omnes perdant: (nam) aboluisti quoted in Fay's Mostellaria, p. xliv, 
 is not paratactic, but an instance of causal asyndeton. Care is necessary, 
 because it is often difficult to distinguish coordination from subordination, 
 and because asyndeton is very frequent and is found in all kinds of coor- 
 dination, viz.: Copulative, Most. 111. venit imbcr (et) lavit; Adversative, 
 Most. 49 seq. tu fortunatus, (sod) cyo miser: patiunda Hunt, mcum bonum 
 me, (sed) te tuom maneat malum; Disjunctive, Heaut. <>43. melius (aut) 
 peius, prosit (aut) obsit, nil vidcnt, nisi quod lubct; Causal, Capt. 582. 
 non minim facifi, (nam) cxt miscrorum Ht malevolentes Hint; Illative, 
 Most. 601. nemo dat: age (iyitur) qtiidlitbct. 
 
 3) In sentences like, (quod) lectus mortui fertur, diccbant feretrum 
 nostri, (Varro L. L. 5, 1(56), and (qula) mulier en, audacter iuras the 
 second clause was originally added with illative force. The first sentence 
 was, therefore, at first equivalent to, "A lectus was brought for the corpse; 
 therefore our forefathers called it feretrum. Later the causal concept in 
 the first clause was apprehended. 
 
 4) This proposition always precedes. See pages 35 f.
 
 40 
 
 sum apud me: ita animus commotust metu. This is evidently a 
 causal sentence. If the arrangement had been, ita animus commo- 
 tust metu: vix sum apud me, then the latter clause would have been 
 equivalent to ut vix sim apud me. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 TEMPORAL CLAUSES. 
 
 The closeness of relation of temporal, conditional, and causal con- 
 cepts is even more marked than that of consecutive and causal men- 
 tioned in the preceding chapter. For this reason there occur in early 
 Latin writers numerous paratactic sentences, which are difficult to 
 classify. The following are probably all temporal, though several 
 may be understood either as conditional, or concessive. 
 
 Cure. 330. video tuom sodalem: argenti rogo uti faciat copiam. 
 Andr. 297. hanc mi in manum dat: mors continuo ipsam occupat. 
 Rud. 151 seq. quia post cenam, credo, laverunt heri: confracta navis 
 
 in marist illis. 
 Lucilius, XV. 504. M. cum tecum est, quidvis satis est; visuri alieni 
 
 sint homines: spiram, pallam, redimicula promit. 
 Bacch. 1023. em specta: turn scies. 
 Capt. 338. ausculta: turn -scies. 
 Ep. 286. scibis: audi. 
 
 The preceding examples are sufficient to illustrate temporal para- 
 taxis. These illustrations show the most primitive form of sentence- 
 connection. The sentences are joined loosely, and may in some cases 
 be coordinate. This form of speaking, which is purely colloquial, is 
 usually found in lively narration, in which the indicative is usually 
 used. An excellent example of this mode of speaking 1 ) is found in 
 Capt. 506. rogo syngraphum: datur mihi ilico: dedi Tyndaro: ille 
 abiit domum. . Though this narration, undoubtedly, even to-day, could 
 well be given in this loose way, it is easy to see that the subordinate 
 relation exists, even if it is not expressed in words. The sentence is 
 evidently equivalent to, "When I ask for the passport, he gives it 
 to me on the spot. I gave it to Tyndarus who left for home." 2 ) 
 
 1) Cf. Weissenhorn, Parat. Plaut, p. 22, who calls this construction 
 "asyndeton temporale." 
 
 2) Cf. Strong, Introd. to the Study of the Hist, of Lang., (London. 
 1891 ) , pp. 121 ff. ; who after showing that all contiguous clauses are more 
 or less dependent on one another, continues : "We already depart a step 
 further from mere coordination in the case where in grammatically abso- 
 lutely identical manner two or more sentences are coordinated in a story : 
 as, e. g., / arrived at twelve o'clock; I went to the hotel; they told me 
 there was not a single room to be had; I went to another hotel, etc., where
 
 41 
 
 Often when the relation of thought is not clearly seen, a sentence 
 will suggest different conceptions of the relation to different per- 
 sons. Thus Eun. 252. is, perhaps, better understood, (si) negat 
 quis, nego; (si) ait, aio, though the first clauses may be considered 
 temporal, viz., (quom) negat quis, nego; (quom) ait, aio. 
 
 The three sentences in which the imperative is used in the sub- 
 ordinate clause may also be conceived either as temporal or condi- 
 tional or even as causal, viz., ausculta: turn scies, may mean, "when 
 you listen," or, "if you listen, you will know," and scibis: audi may 
 be understood either, "when you listen," or, "if you listen," or, "since 
 you listen," etc. 
 
 Sentences like Ep. 337. fecisti iam officium tuum: me meum nunc 
 
 facere oportet; and Pers. 272. pensum confeci: nunc domum 
 
 propero, I omit. 1 ) The mere presence of the particles iam and nunc 
 do not make them temporal. Sentences of this kind can all be other- 
 wise explained. The first clause in Ep. 337 is more naturally ex- 
 plained as causal, or the latter clause as illative, viz., "since you have 
 now performed your duty, it is now meet for me to perform mine," 
 or "you have now performed - ; therefore it is now meet - 
 
 ." For a further discussion of temporal clauses see Schmalz, 
 
 Lat. Synt. II., p. 341. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 CONDITIONAL CLAUSES. 
 
 In the early stages of language the conditional relation of one 
 proposition to another, which later was expressed by the correlatives si 
 sic (si -f- ce), si - - turn, or merely si, was not indi- 
 cated in language. For the subordinate clause was used a command, 
 an exhortation, a question, or a direct statement. Examples of these 
 are given below, as well as of clauses introduced by ni, and by the 
 preposition dbsque, and instances of si - - sic (turn), which 
 still show traces of the early correlative use. 
 
 a) Merc. 770. eras petito: ddbitur. 
 
 Ep. 24. operam da: opera reddetur tibi. 
 
 Phorm. 410. abduce lianc: minas quinque acdpe. 
 
 each sentence to a certain extent expresses a cause or defines the time of 
 occurrence of the fact which is mentioned in the next. Now though this 
 additional meaning is clearly there, it is a meaning which at the moment 
 of uttering each clause is not necessarily, nay, not probably clearly present 
 in the speaker's mind: we might more fully and correctly but perhaps 
 more clumsily say, / - ; and when I had - ; but when - 
 
 and because ." 
 
 1) Weissenhorn considers these temporal, saying, "neque ab hac struc- 
 
 tura sunt aliena."
 
 42 
 
 Pacuvius. Ann. lud. I. 30, R. die quid faciam: quod me moneris. 
 
 effectum dabo. 
 Adelph. 123 seq. postremo aut desine aut cedo quemvis arbitrum: 
 
 te plura in hoc re peccare ostendam. 
 Heaut. 487. dare dcnegaris: ibit ad illud illico. 
 Rud. 1007. verbum etiam adde unum: iam in cerebro colaphos ab- 
 
 strudam tuo. 
 True. 614. tange modo: iam ego te hie agnum faciam et medium 
 
 distruncabo. 
 
 b) Phorm. 265. unum cognoris: omnis noris. 
 
 Adelph. 120. fores ecfregit: restituentur, discidit vestem: resarcictur. 
 
 Amph. 995. amat: sapitD 
 
 Most. 639. euge, Philolaches patrissat: iam homo in mercatura 
 
 vortitur. 
 
 Mil. 711. sacrificant : dant inde partem mihi maiorem quam sibi. 
 Most. 873. boni sunt: bonust; improbi sunt: malus fit. 2 ) 
 
 c) Pseud. 1015. argentum des: abducas mulierem. 
 
 Most. 912. nunc ferat sex talenta magna argenti pro istis praesen- 
 
 taria: numquam accipiam. 
 Pers. 836. nam hercle absque me foret et meo praesidio: hie faceret 
 
 prostibilem propediem. 
 Men. 1022. nam absqite te esset: hodie numquam ad solem occasum 
 
 viverem. 
 Capt. 754 seq. quod absque hoc esset, qui mihi hoc fecit palam usque 
 
 offrenatum suis me ductarent dolis. 
 Phorm. 188. absque eo esset: recte ego mihi vidissem. 
 
 Lucilius, XXVI. 685. M. si secubitet, sic quoque non impetret. 
 
 Liv. Andron., Achilles, I. 1, R. si malos imitabo, turn tu pretium pro 
 
 noxa dabis. 
 
 XII Tab. I. 3 ) ni it: antestamino. 
 Ib. I. ni pacunt: in comitio aut in foro ante meridiem caussam 
 
 coiciunto. 
 Ib. 3. ni suo vivit: libros f arris endo dies dato. 
 
 It has already been stated that sentences like those found in the 
 first group, in which the imperative is used, may often be understood 
 either as temporal or conditional. 4 ) In the sentences quoted here, 
 
 1) Cf. Bacch. 1165. si amant, sapienter faciunt, which is frequently 
 quoted in connection with this sentence. 
 
 2) The reading in Goetz and Schoell is t Bonis sum improbis sum, 
 malus fiiit 
 
 3) Schoell, Rudolf, Legis Duodecim Tabularum Reliquiae (Leipzig. 
 1866). 
 
 4) See Chapter VIII. esp. p. 41.
 
 43 
 
 however, the conditional idea is fairly clear. The meaning of eras 
 petito: dabitur cannot very well be made anything else than, "if you 
 ask for it to-morrow, it will be given," and the sentence abduc hanc: 
 minas quinque accipe is plainly equivalent to quinque minas tibi dabo, 
 si hanc abduxerisD These sentences, whether in the form of a com- 
 mand or a prohibition, have been understood as elliptical. It has 
 been supposed that the condition proper is left out, and that the 
 sentence above, for instance, should be understood, "ask for it to- 
 morrow, if you do, it will be given." 2 ) To-day, when conditional re- 
 lation is so clearly felt that the use of if is not always necessary, it is 
 true that these sentences may be regarded as elliptical. It is, however, 
 hazardous to judge the phenomena of early language by our standards. 
 The complexity of our language hampers us, when we attempt to 
 understand the primitive simplicity of language. It is not probable 
 that sentences of this kind, viz., "do it; you will be saved," and, 
 "don't do it; you will be hurt," were at first understood as con- 
 ditional. The command or prohibition was first given. Then the 
 following proposition was added as a reason why the person addressed 
 should act or refrain from acting. 
 
 Besides commands in the imperative, questions or direct state- 
 ments in the indicative were frequently used to indicate the con- 
 dition. Attempts have been made to show, on the one hand, that all 
 conditional clauses of this kind were originally questions, and on 
 the other, that they were all direct statements. 3 ) Most probable is 
 that both modes of expression were used. Eun. 252, for instance, 
 is best understood to have originated from a question, viz., negat 
 quis? nego; ait? aio, while Most. 873 need not necessarily be thus 
 understood. It is here more natural to suppose that the statement 
 boni sunt is followed upon reflection by bonust; cf. the so-called 
 rhetorical parataxis in later writers, e. g. Horace Ars Poet. 25 26, 
 brevis esse laboro : obscurus fio. In the developed conditional period, 
 all uses of the indicative in the protasis have been derived from the 
 above construction. 
 
 The use of the subjunctive has similarly been derived from the 
 independent use of the subjunctive in paratactic sentences. 4 ) The 
 
 1) See Elmer's note to this line. 
 
 2) Cf. Nutting A. J. P. 24 (1003), p. 35, who iu commenting on the 
 sentence. Don't do it; yon will In; hurt, says, "The first clause Is not con- 
 ditional It is :i prohibition. The condition is understood, i. e. If you do 
 that, you will he hurt, don't do it." Cf. Chapter XII., p. 53. 
 
 3) Cf. Ktihner. 1. c., p. 760, c. and Anmerk. 4; Weissenhorn, 1. c. 
 p. 19; and Allen and Grecnough's Gram. (Boston, 1004), 8511. 
 
 4) Cf. A. G. Gram., 511. See, however. Nutting, A. J. P., 24 (1903), 
 
 pp. 25 39, who questions the current theories which refer the protasis 
 
 (I. e. the subjunctive) to a volitive or like origin.
 
 44 
 
 i 
 
 sentence, nunc ferat sex talenia magna argenti pro istis praesentaria: 
 numquam accipiam was originally equivalent to, "let him now bring 
 six talents, etc., I will never receive them," and argentum des: ab- 
 ducas mulierem, was first understood, "pay the money; you may take 
 the woman away." 
 
 To these clauses belong also those which are introduced by the 
 preposition absque in conditions contrary to fact. 1 ) This usage had 
 in the time of Plautus and Terence acquired an established form, 2 ) 
 and the clause introduced by absque was used almost like a clause 
 introduced by si. 
 
 The ni and si (sic) sentences given above, may probably 
 
 be understood as hypotactic. We can, however, still see how the con- 
 ditional clause became subordinate. In sentences like ni it: antesta- 
 mino, the ni 3 ) unquestionably was at first a pure negative and the 
 sentence was equivalent to non it, etc., and thus ought to be grouped 
 with the sentences given under b) above. 
 
 The early use of si sic (turn, Ha), thus thus, 4 ) 
 
 may be illustrated by the two sentences given above, e. g. si malos 
 imitabo: turn tu pretium pro noxa dabis, i. e., thus I shall imitate the 
 wicked, then you, etc. It is through its use with the correlatives sic, 
 ita, turn, that si (originally demonstrative) acquired conditional force. 
 Lindskog gives the following sentences as illustrations of the early use 
 of si, without a correlative, Asin. 699, vehes pol hodie me, si quidem 
 hoc argentum ferre speres, and, Mil. 571. ne tu hercle,si te di amentp) 
 linguam conprimes. The first sentence could then be translated, 
 "By Pollux, you will carry me to-day, in that way indeed may you 
 hope to carry this money". The clause, si te di ament, is explained 
 similarly in analogy with Heaut. 463. sic me di amabunt.) 
 
 1) Cf. Ribbeck, Beitrdge zur Lehre von den Latein. Partikeln. (Leip- 
 zig, 1869), p. 23; and Jordan, Kritische Beitrdge zur Geschichte der Lat. 
 Sprache, (Berlin, 1879), pp. 313 ff. 
 
 2) Jordan, p. 313. "Die Grundform der plautinischen und terenzischen 
 Gebrauche ist eine feste: 
 
 f me ) ( esset ) ( facerem, -es, -et, etc, 
 absque j fe f j foret j j fec i SS em. 
 
 Der Vordersatz ist stehts impersonell ; die Grundform ist also zu iiber- 
 setzen: 'ohne mich (dich, diese Sache) ware es (wiirde es sein), ich (du, 
 u. s. w.) thate es (thatest es u. s. w.)', oder dem Sinne nach: 'ware ich 
 nicht da (dagewesen)' ". 
 
 3) For a discussion of this see Lindskog. Beitrdge zur Geschichte der 
 Satzstellung im Latein, (Lund, 189G), p. 20. 
 
 4) Cf. the earlier German, so so, e. g. so du willst. so veer den 
 wir fiehcn. 
 
 5) Others read amant. 
 
 6) Cf. Lindskog, Quaest., pp.55 ff., and De enunt. ap. Plaut. et Ten. pp. 
 28 ff. ; also Schmalz. Lat. Synt., p. 410, 335.
 
 45 
 CHAPTBE X. 
 
 CONCESSIVE CLAUSES. 
 
 The simplest form of concessive sentences are those in which the 
 concessive idea is expressed by the imperative and in which the main 
 proposition is found in the future indicative. The similarity of these 
 in construction to conditional and temporal clauses, in which the 
 imperative is used, often makes identification difficult. 
 
 Two propositions expressing fwo opposing ideas are often put in 
 the indicative. In these is seen the close relation existing between 
 coordinate adversative and concessive sentences. This class of para- 
 tactic concessive sentences is by far the most numerous. 
 
 In addition to illustrations of the above mentioned, the following 
 list will contain sentences showing the earlier use of quamquam 
 quamvis, and licet in independent sentences. 
 
 a) Rud. 1401. vel hercle enica: non tacebo. 
 
 Ep. 36. sine perdat: alia apportdbunt ei Nerei filiae. 
 
 b) Capt. 615. ornamenta absunt: Aiacem, hunc quom vides, ipsum 
 
 vides. 
 
 Capt. 575 seq. et tu quidem servos es: liber fuisti. 
 Beaut. 79. rectumst ego ut faciam: non est, te ut deterream. 
 C. I. L., I. 1010. FORTUNA-SPONDET-MULTA-MULTIS: 
 
 PRAESTAT NEMINT. 
 Men. 689. tute uliro ad me detulisti; dedisti earn dono mini: eandem 
 
 nunc reposcis. 
 Trin. 292. nam hi mores maiorum laudant: eosdem lutitant quos 
 
 conlaudant. 
 
 c) Merc. 287. quamquam negotiumst, si quid veis, Demipho, non 
 
 sum occupatus umquam amico operam dare. 
 
 Adelph. 205. id quoque - possum ferre, quamquam iniuriumst. 
 Merc. 687. quamveis insipiens: poterat persentiscere. 
 Bacch. 82. locus hie apud nos, quam vis subito venias, semper liber 
 
 est. 
 
 Trin. 554. quam vis malam rem quaeras, illic reperias. 
 Asin. 718. licet laudem Fortunam tamen ut ne Salutem culpem. 
 Capt. 303. memini quom dicto haud audebat: facto nunc laedat licet. 
 
 The first two sentences quoted show that the imperative was used 
 ,in the early language to express concession. The fact that the im- 
 perative was also used in clauses, which must be understood as temporal 
 and conditional, and the fact that to-day we are often at a loss to
 
 46 
 
 determine just what was the relation between the two simple sen- 
 tences, show that there existed in the primitive mind no clear concept 
 of any such relation. The first sentence, however, (Eud. 1401) is, as 
 Weissenhorn has shown, plainly equivalent to licet tu me enices, non 
 tacebo. In the second example sine perdat, which itself is parataxis 
 stereotyped, is equivalent to an imperative. 1 ) 
 
 These sentences, as well as the following in group b), represent 
 the most primitive form of parataxis. It is impossible to say, whether 
 they, at the time they were written, were conceived as compound or 
 complex. It is, however, easy for us in all these sentences to understand 
 one proposition as concessive, e. g. Heaut. 79, (etsi) rectumst, ego ut 
 faciam : non est, te ut deterream, but it is equally easy to suppose that 
 the two propositions are coordinate, one being adversative, e. g. C.I.L., 
 I. 1010, fortuna spondet multa multis, (sed) praestat nemini. The 
 former is clearly a more complicated concept, and, therefore, later 
 in being formed, that is to say, sentences which at first were con- 
 sidered to be adversative, were later understood as concessive. This is 
 corroborated by the fact that in the early Latin writers numerous 
 instances of these sentences occur which are syndetic, but which still 
 may be understood as belonging to concessive sentences. 2 ) 
 
 In some sentences 3 ) this adversative or concessive concept is em- 
 phasized by certain words in both clauses, serving as correlatives, viz., 
 
 is idem, hi - eosdem, tu ego, etc., e. g. 
 
 Trin. 292. nam hi mores maiorum laudant: eosdem lutitant quos con- 
 laudant. 
 
 No class of subordinate sentences, perhaps, show more clearly than 
 the concessive the development of parataxis to hypotaxis. The reason 
 for this is partly that the paratactic mode of expressing concession 
 with quamquam, quam vis, licet, etc., retained until a very late period 
 its original force, and partly that these verbs survive into classical 
 times as concessive conjunctions. Quamquam was at first an indefinite 
 adverb meaning "ever so much", or, "however much". This early 
 meaning can still be seen in the sentences quoted above under c). 
 The sentence, id quoque possum ferre, quamquam iniuriumst, thus 
 at first meant, "this also I can endure: it is ever so much unfair!" 
 When the concessive force of the exclamation was recognized, quam- 
 quam assumed the force of a conjunction. 
 
 1) Cf. sine vcniat and other examples of this kind. See Chapter I., 
 pp. 17. and 20 ff. 
 
 2) E. g. Pseud. 421. atque id iam pridem scnsi et subolebat mihi, sed 
 dissimulabam ; Most. 93 seq. atque hoc hand videtur veri simile voMs; at 
 ego id faciam ita esse ut credatis; Bacch. 463; Capt. 71. Cf. Weissenhorn, 
 page 20. 
 
 3) Trin. 292; Men. 689; Aul. 667; Asin. 408; Amph. 816.
 
 47 
 
 Similarly quamvis or quam vis was also at first used in independent 
 sentences. The early use is well seen in Men. 318. quam vis ridiculus 
 est, ubi uxor non adest, "he is as jolly as you please, when his wife is 
 not near". This early force is still seen in numerous instances in 
 early Latin. Quam vis was at first used either with the indicative 
 or with the subjunctive, until the latter became the rule because of 
 the frequent occurrence of the phrase quam vis, "as much as you 
 please", in paratactic sentences, of which one member was an inde- 
 pendent optative subjunctive.!) Thus Bacch. 82. locus hie apud nos, 
 quam vis subito venias, semper liber est, is equivalent to "you may 
 come as suddenly as you please; this place of ours is always open". 
 In this sentence, however, though the literal meaning of quam vis 
 was not lost sight of, it is probable that the concessive force was 
 already felt. The very fact that one proposition is inserted in an- 
 other tends to show that it was understood as subordinate. 2 ) 
 
 The development of licet from an impersonal verb to a concessive 
 conjunction went on side by side with the development of quamquam 
 and quam vis. Its early use is illustrated by the last two sentences 
 above. Compare with these the use of licet in substantive clauses. 3 ) 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 RELATIVE AND COMPARATIVE CLAUSES. 
 
 The statement of Weissenhorn that no certain indication of para- 
 tactic construction of relative and comparative clauses is found in 
 Latin, 4 ) was objected to by Becker in the work which he began. 5 ) 
 It is reasonable to suppose that the relative and the comparative sen- 
 tence should offer no exception to the rule, still it must be admitted 
 that instances of parataxis are here few and not easily determined. 
 
 1) The optative subjunctive was later also used without quamvis to 
 express a concession, e. g. Cic. Verr. V. 4, sit fur, sacrilcflits: at est bonus 
 imperator. Cf. A. G. Gr. 526, where this subjunctive is said to be of 
 hortatory origin, and Bennett, Lat. Lang., p. 219. 
 
 2) Cf. Lindskog, Beitrdge zur Oeschichte der Satzstellunff im Latcin, 
 (Lund, 1896), p. 36, "Es 1st aber selbverstandlich, dass Nebensiitze jeder 
 Art allmahlich in die Hauptssitze eingeschoben werden. Je mehr der ur- 
 sprungliche, parataktische Charakter verswindet und die Nebensiitze nur 
 wie Satzteile des iibergeordueten Satzes hervortreten, je natiirlicher ergiebt 
 sich, dass sie allmahlich den Platz derselben einnehmen." 
 
 3) See Chapter I., p. 20. This subject has been discussed by Kriege, 
 H., De cnuntiatis concessivis apud Plautum ct Tcrcntium, (Halle, 1884), 
 p. 47, and Lindskog, Quaest, p. 51. 
 
 4) Parat. Plaut.. p. 4. "Seiungenda sunt a nostra quaestione enuntiata 
 comparatlva et relativa, quippe quae certis exeraplis purntnctlcis carere 
 mihi videantur." 
 
 5) Beiordn. u. untcrordn. Satzverb., p. 6, note 1, "allein es lassen sich 
 doch wie ich spater zeigen werde. Spuren der Beiordnung auch bel dlesen 
 Satzen (i. e. comparativa et relativn) erkennen."
 
 48 
 
 The necessary conclusion in the case of the former is, that, while para- 
 taxis in the clauses described in the preceding chapters was still in its 
 infancy, the relative was already a real relative and not a demonstra- 
 tive, or an interrogative, or indefinite pronoun. This is also borne 
 out by the Sanskrit and the Greek, as has been pointed out with 
 clearness by Miles. 1 ) Although Sanskrit syntax was in a more primi- 
 tive state of development than Latin syntax of 100 B. C., no trace 
 of any original or early meaning of the relative can be found. Specu- 
 lations as to the origin of the relative are, therefore, with our present 
 knowledge futile. Plausible arguments have been given to prove 
 both that quod, for instance, in Phorm. 947. argentum quod habes 
 condonamus te is in origin an adjective interrogative pronoun, and 
 that it is an indefinite pronoun. S'chmalz's explanation is, "argen- 
 tum. Quod argentum? Habes! Condonamus te, d. h. der Sprechende 
 beginnt: argentum, er wird unterbrochen :quod argentum? antwortet 
 darauf, habes, und fiihrt dann den mit argentum begonnen Satz durch 
 condonamus te zu Ende." According to the other theory the sentence 
 was originally equivalent to argentum aliquod habes: condonamus te. 2 ) 
 If one of these theories is to be adopted, the latter seems to me the 
 most natural. The process of uniting the words of two speakers seems 
 too bizarre and is as Morris remarks a phenomenon entirely unknown 
 in language. 
 
 In addition to examples of the kind given above in which a relative 
 has been traced back to an interrogative or an indefinite pronoun, 
 colloquial sentences occur in which an independent clause, either with 
 or without a demonstrative, takes the place of a relative clause. A 
 few examples of each of these groups will suffice for illustration. 
 
 The relative pronouns in the following sentences may be explained 
 as either originally interrogative or indefinite according to which 01 
 the above given theories is adopted. 
 
 Cato, R. R. CXLVIII, 2. dominus vino, quid volet, faciat. 
 Cist. 703. quod periit: periit. 
 
 Pers. 75. sed sumne ego stultus qui rem euro publicam? 
 Bacch. 992. verum qui satis videat, grandes satis sunt. 
 Cato, R. R. VI. 4. qui locus vino optimus dicetur esse et ostentus soli 
 aminnium minusculum et geminum eugeneum conserito. 
 
 1) Comparative Syntax of Latin and Greek, (Cambridge, 1893), Part. 
 I., pp. 22 ff. and Appendix v. 
 
 2) For these theories see Zimmerman, Gebrauch der Conjunctionen 
 QUOD und QUIA im dlteren Latein, (Posen, 1880) ; Schmalz, Lot. Synt., p. 
 369; Bach, De Attractione quae dicitur inversa, (Strassburg, 1888) ; and 
 Lindskog's criticism of Bach in Eranos I., (1896), pp. 48 ff . ; also Quaest., 
 p. 62 ; Morris, Lat. Synt., pp. 107 ff. ; Sitzungsbericht d. Kais. Akad. d. Wiss. 
 (1870), p. 77; Deecke, Die ffriechischen und lateinischen Nebensatze, 
 (Buchsweiler program, 1887), p. 39.
 
 49 
 
 Most. 244. quae pro me causam diceret: patronum liberavi. 
 
 Aul. 716. hominem demonstretis: quis earn abstulerit. 
 
 Novius, Tabellaria, II. 86, E. qui habet uxorem sine dote, [ei] 
 
 pannum positum in purpura est. 
 Phorm. 947. argentum quod liabcs, condonamus te. 
 
 The statement found in grammars that the relative pronoun is n ?VF~ 
 omitted in Latin is not strictly correct. Numerous instances are found 
 both in colloquial and more careful language, in which the relative 
 is either omitted or replaced by a demonstrative. The following ex- 
 amples will serve to illustrate this. 
 
 Capt. 506. dedi Tyndaro: ille abut domum. 
 
 Pacuvius, Chryses, I. 93, E. mater est terra: ea parit corpus. 
 
 Most. 983 seq. unus istic servos est sacerrumus, Tranio: is vel Her- 
 
 culi conterere quaestum potest. 
 Most. 257. nunc adsentatrix scelestast: dudum advorsatrix erat. 
 
 This loose way of expressing the relative, found along side of the 
 fully developed hypotactic relative clause, is not offered as an explana- 
 tion of the early paratactic mode of expression, but to emphasize the 
 fact that the human mind, when not bound by rules, will tend to 
 depart from an established formal mode of expression to one that is 
 more simple. The characters in a play may neglect careful observance 
 of grammatical rules. Poetic license, again, allowed Vergil to write 
 in the same way, e. g. Aen. I. 12, urbs antiqua fuit: Tyrii tenuere 
 coloni, and Ib. 530, est locus: Hesperiam Grai cognomine dicunt. 
 
 No attempt will be made here to discuss parataxis in Comparative 
 clauses with any completeness. A few sentences will, however, be given 
 to show that traces exist of their paratactic origin. 
 
 Ep. 175. quoius quotiens sepulchrum vides: sacruficas. 
 
 Eud. 1301. quanta magis extergeo: - tenuius fit. 
 
 Eun. 474. ita me di ament: honestust. 
 
 Most. 170. ita me di ament: lepidast Scapha. 
 
 Mil. 974. quin tu illam iube abs te abirc quo lubet? sicut soror eius 
 
 hue gemina venit Ephesum. 
 Phorm. 591. ego hominem callidiorem vidi neminem quam Phormio- 
 
 nem. 
 Amph. 682. quid tu me sic salutas - - quasi (quam 
 
 -f-si) dudum non videris? 
 
 Merc. 897. amicior mihi nullus vivit: atque is- est. 
 Mil. 1251. si parem sapientiam habet ac formam. 
 
 Traces of parataxis are shown in the first four sentences by the 
 omission of the correlatives, totiens, ianto, and ut. In Eun. 474, and 
 
 Parataxis in early latin. 4.
 
 50 
 
 Most. 170, for instance, the first propositions are independent in form, 
 ita being frequently used in ejaculations, (cf. Most. 398. ita ille faxii 
 lupiter). To these were added the independent clauses, sacruficas, 
 and lepidast Scapha. When the two simple sentences were felt to be 
 correlative ut introduced the second clause, e. g. Aul. 496. ita me di 
 amabunt, ut ego Jiunc ausculto lubens, "so may the gods help me, as 
 I am glad to hear this man", and Most. 182. ita tu me ames; ita 
 Philolaches tuos te amet, ut venusta's. 
 
 In Phorm. 591, where quam expresses the comparison, the para- 
 tactic origin is seen, if understood as follows : quam Phormio est cal- 
 lidus! ego hominem callidiorem vidi neminem. 
 
 Atque (ac), originally a coordinate conjunction, acquired the force 
 of a comparative conjunction in sentences like Cic. Orat. II. 6, 24, 
 non dixi secus ac szntiebam. In the sentences given above, however, 
 the copulative force can still be felt, e. g. Mil. 1251, si parem sapien- 
 tiam habet ac formam, "if he has equal wisdom and beauty". The 
 translation of this sentence in A. G. Gram. 384, N. 2, "if he has 
 sense like as his beauty", is based on the false supposition that ac 
 already had acquired the meaning of than in all sentences of this class. 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 In summing up the result of the preceding discussion, it can be said, 
 that the relation between the two propositions in the paratactic sentence 
 varies from absolute independence in form to marked indication of 
 the hypothetic nature in sentences which still cannot be classed as 
 hypotactic. That is, parataxis includes the whole field which lies 
 between coordination on the one hand and the expression of subor- 
 dinate relation by subordinating conjunctions, on the other. 
 
 The development of means for expressing relation proceeded natu- 
 rally. A wish or an exhortation in the subjunctive, joined to a direct 
 statement, gradually came to be considered subordinate and the sub- 
 junctive was retained. If ut or ne preceded the wish or the exhorta- 
 tion, these were retained and assumed the function of conjunctions. 
 An adverb or a pronoun, inserted in one or both propositions, often 
 assumed the force of a conjunction by a similar evolution. Apparently 
 insignificant elements influenced the development this way or that. 
 Several means of expressing the same relation often came into use, 
 as connecting words which earlier had differed in meaning were em- 
 ployed for the expression of new concepts.
 
 51 
 
 In a formal classification of parataxis, therefore, the sentences natu- 
 rally fall into two groups: those in which there is no indication in 
 written language of the subordinate relation, and those in which the 
 relation of the clauses is suggested by the language. The following 
 scheme will make this clear. 
 
 I. Two simple sentences, placed side by side, one depending on the 
 other, but with no indication of the relation in written language. 
 1. Eelation expressed by musical means. 
 
 II. Two simple sentences, placed side by side, one depending on the 
 other, in which the relation is indicated by the written language. 
 
 1. Relation suggested by the tense and the mood. 
 
 2. Eelation suggested by the position of the simple sentences. 
 
 3. Relation suggested by ellipsis, pleonasm, and prolepsis. 
 
 4. Relation suggested by adverbs or pronouns inserted in 
 one or both simple sentences. 
 
 5. Relation suggested by the position and meaning of the 
 conjunction. 
 
 It is not my intention in this chapter to discuss with any pretense 
 at completeness this wide subject. A volume might well be devoted 
 to the discussion, in each class of subordinate sentences, of the means 
 employed in spoken and written language to indicate subordination. 
 The fact, however, that nothing, so far as I know, has been done in 
 this branch of the subject except the discussions of Lindskog 1 ) makes 
 it undesirable entirely to neglect it here. 
 
 I. In the early grouping of apparently independent sentences, the 
 relation was indicated by musical means. 2 ) Such elements as pauses, 
 accentuation, rhythm, and pitch were certainly employed to denote 
 the relation, even if this was done unconciously on the part of the 
 speaker. A sentence like amat: sapit, might, therefore, by the way 
 it was uttered, as well as by attendant circumstances of the conversa- 
 tion, be made to mean either, "he loves, for he is wise; he loves, 
 therefore he is wise; he loves, since he is wise; he loves, though he 
 is wise; he loves, if he is wise", etc. Amat can similarly be made the 
 explanatory, illative, causal, concessive, conditional, etc., clause, viz., 
 "he is wise, for he loves", etc., thus doubling the possible number of 
 relational concepts. This factor of musical means has been too much 
 neglected in the study of language, partly because of a prevalent notion 
 that only those elements which we have been accustomed to indicate 
 in writing, belong to language, but mostly because of the elusiveness 
 
 1) Quaest. parts II. and III., and Beitrage der Satzstellung im Latein, 
 passim. To his discussions I am partly indebted for subclasses 2, 3, and 5 
 
 2) See Introd. p. 10 and 11.
 
 52 
 
 inherent in the subject which makes classification difficult if not 
 impossible. If stable laws governed the relation of concepts and vocal 
 utterances, then a causal clause, for instance, would be uttered with 
 the same timbre, accent, and pitch to-day, as it was two thousand 
 years ago. The fact, however, is that this relation is not governed 
 by any law. It is rather convention that is the ruling element. Each 
 language has its mode of expressing these relations, and this varies 
 with time and culture. Elements, moreover, which in some languages 
 are left to the vocal organs for expression, are in other languages 
 expressed by written signs as particles and punctuation marks. Thus 
 in Greek and in German, for example, there exist many words which 
 in Latin and in English cannot be expressed in any other way than 
 by musical means. The absence in the ancient languages of punctua- 
 tion marks in our meaning of the term complicates the matter still 
 more. In determining the nature of these paratactic sentences in 
 Latin we are, therefore, practically limited to the attendant circum- 
 stances, i. e. the context, for determination of the meaning. For 
 numerous paratactic sentences of this sort, the reader is referred to 
 the preceding chapters. 
 
 II. When we come to the second class of clauses, in which the 
 relation is suggested by the language, we meet a number of elements 
 which are more tangible than those described above but which, never- 
 theless, though they may suggest the relation, do not always make 
 clear its nature. The following five subclasses do not aim to include 
 all that can possibly suggest the relation in paratactic sentences, but 
 will suffice to point out lines along which further work can be done. 
 
 1. In classical times there had been established an almost absolute 
 usage in the sequence of tenses and moods in subordinate sentences. 1 ) 
 This was, however, not the case in early Latin. When two inde- 
 pendent sentences were joined, as for instance an optative or volitive 
 subjunctive added to a direct statement, each sentence retained its 
 original tense and mood, e. g. Men. 787, quotiens monstravi tibi: viro 
 ut morem geras? Bacch. 558, die: quis est? Rud. 156. ubi sunt ei 
 homines: obsecro? The absence, therefore, of strict adherence to 
 classic usage is often an indication of paratactic origin. 2 ) 
 
 2. From the examples given in the preceding chapters it is seen 
 that the subordinate clause either precedes the principal statement, or 
 follows it, or is inserted in the same. This is evidently not without 
 some meaning. In the early paratactic sentence the latter proposition 
 
 1) Cf. Kluge, Die consec. temporum, praef. p. VI. et al. 
 
 2) See Lindskog, Quaest, pp. 88 ff.
 
 53 
 
 obtains its position from the logical sequence of thought, that is, the 
 second proposition is thought last. 1 ) This position obtains until one 
 proposition is felt to be a subordinate part of the sentence, i. e. a sub- 
 ject, an object, or an adverbial modifier. When this stage is reached, the 
 propositions may exchange places 01 one may be inserted. 2 ) Thus con- 
 ditional 3 ) and concessive clauses originally preceded, while causal, 
 final, and consecutive followed the main statements. If then we see 
 in the paratactic sentence the logical order retained, the nature of the 
 relation is more easily understood. 
 
 3. Ellipsis, pleonasm, and prolepsis suggest paratactic origin of sub 
 ordinate clauses. Ellipsis is characteristic of colloquial language and 
 disappears when language becomes more formal. Thus Eud. 1255, ego 
 tibi daturus nil sum, ne tu frustra sis, would in formal language be 
 expressed, ego tibi daturus sum; hoc tibi dico, ne tu frustra sis. The 
 elipsis of hoc tibi dico. is an indication of the original independence 
 of the two clauses. Pleonasm and prolepsis has similarly been shown 
 to originate in parataxis. This subject has been well treated by Lind- 
 skog in Quaest. pp. 64 88, to which the reader is referred. 
 
 4. A pronoun or an adverb is often inserted in one proposition to 
 direct the mind to a word or a phrase in the other. This is the origin 
 of correlation which in its turn is often the stepping stone to para- 
 taxis. 4 ) The following sentences will serve to illustrate this. 
 
 A. In substantive clauses. 5 ) 
 
 1) Final, 
 
 Heaut. 1048 seq. mi vir, te obsecro: ne facias. 
 
 2) Consecutive, 
 
 Adelph. 500. hoc tu facito cum animo cogites. 
 
 3) Indirect Question, 
 
 Lucilius, Sat. IX, 338 seq. M. non haec quid valeat, quidve 
 hoc intersiet, illud cognoscis. 
 
 4) Indirect Discourse, 
 
 Phorm. 137. unum hoc stio, quod fors feret, feremus aequo 
 animo. 
 
 1) Cf. Lindskog, Beitrdge zur Geschichte der Satzstellung, p. 16, "Wenn 
 der Nebensatz das logisch vorangehende 1st, 1st sein Plntz vor dem Haupt- 
 satze; 1st der Nebensatz das logisch nachfolgende, 1st seln Plats hinter 
 dem Hauptsatze." 
 
 2) Cf. Chapter X., p. 47, note 2. 
 
 3) nis/-clauses followed the principal clause, see Lindskog, Beitr&g., 
 p. 17. 
 
 4) See p. 44 on the origin of si sic. 
 
 5) Lindskog, Quaest., pp. 41 ff. gives examples of substantive clauses 
 only.
 
 54 
 
 B. Adverbial clauses. 
 
 1) Final, 
 
 Men. 331. ibo intro et dicam te hie adstare Erotio. 
 
 2) Consecutive, 
 
 Most. 146, ita haec tigna putent : non videor. 
 
 3) Causal, 
 
 Andr. 937. vix sum apud me: ita animus commotust metu. 
 
 4) Temporal, 
 
 Lucilius, Sat. V. 217, M. et cum id mi visus facere est, turn 
 retia nexit. 
 
 5) Conditional, 
 
 Livius Andron., Achilles, I. 1, K. si malos imitabo, turn tu 
 pretium pro noxa dabis. 
 
 6) Concessive, 
 
 Most. 93 seq., atque hoc hand videtur veri simile vobis: at ego 
 id faciam ita esse ut credatis. 
 
 7) Eelative, 
 
 Most. 983 seq. unus istic seruos est sacerrumus Tranio: is 
 vel Herculi conterere quaestum potest. 
 
 8) Comparative, 
 
 Ep. 175. quoius quotiens sepulchrum vides: sacruficas. 
 
 These illustrations of each group of sentences might be indefinitely 
 prolonged. They offer a large field for further research. Each class 
 of dependent clauses could be studied with the purpose of discovering 
 just what part these adverbs and pronouns have played in the de- 
 velopment of parataxis to hypotaxis. 
 
 5. The relation of the paratactic sentences, finally, may be seen 
 from the position of the conjunction and by its original meaning 
 where this still can be detected. The hypotactic conjunction has de- 
 veloped from adverbs, pronouns, and verbal forms. In some cases these 
 originally belonged to the proposition that became subordinate, in 
 other cases to the principal proposition. In still other instances the 
 conjunction is a compound formed of two words originally found in 
 the two propositions. Thus ut and ne, for instance, introduced the 
 clause that became dependent, while the conjunction quod in substan- 
 tive propositions belonged originally to the principal proposition. 1) 
 Quasi and quamquam, on the other hand are compounds (quam -\- si; 
 
 1) See Zimmermann, 1. c. p. 13, and cf. Paul, Princ, p. 251 " 'Ich 
 sehe, class er zuf rieden 1st', ist hervorgegangen aus einem : 'ich sehe das : 
 er ist zuf rieden' " ; also Erdmann, Untersuch. uber die synt. der Sprache 
 Otfrids, pp. 44 ff. and Lindskog Quaest. p. 61.
 
 55 
 
 quam -f- quam), the parts of which originally belonged to the two pro- 
 positions. It is evident from this that where conjunctions still keep 
 their original position this can be used as one factor in determining 
 paratactic sentences. 
 
 In the case of many conjunctions it is now impossible to determine 
 the original meaning. The meaning of several is, however, quite 
 certain. The conjunctions si (sic), quamvis, quasi, licet and others, 
 retained their early meaning longer than others, so that in the sen- 
 tences where these are used the paratactic origin is clearly evident. 
 
 In this last chapter merely an outline has been given of a subject 
 which by itself offers a field for many treatises. It is hoped, however, 
 that this rapid survey has more clearly set forth the principles which 
 have guided the writer in the preparation of the main portion of this 
 dissertation.
 
 ..i?.9. U J; RN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 A 000 737 992 8