PA ■ 
 
 (&nu\\ %mm\ii Jiteg 
 
 BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME 
 
 FROM THE 
 
 SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND 
 
 THE GIET OF 
 
 Henril W. Sage 
 
 1S91 
 
 -B^.'+.G. .(£».. ^^ :G/^/^3.. 
 
PA 2293!m87" ""'""">' '■"'™^ 
 On ilj?,? „iSfAt£D<!^uestion In Plautus and 
 
 3 1924 021 617 554 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of this book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/cletails/cu31924021617554 
 
ON THE 
 
 SENTENCE-QUESTION 
 
 IN 
 
 PLAUTUS AND TERENCE 
 
 E. P. MORRIS 
 
 Reprinted from The American Journal of Philology, Nos. X 4 (40), XI i (41), XI 2 (42). 
 
 BALTIMORE, 1890 
 
A. 4-6,6 4-^ 
 
 i.UNiVERSirVv 
 
 PRESS AND BINDERY OF 
 ISAAC FRIEDENWALD, BALTIMORE. 
 
 Tm 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Pages 1-40 correspond to American Journal of Philology X 4 (40), 397- 
 436; pages 41-79 to XI I (41), 16-54; pages 80-116 to XI 2 (42), 145-181. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 Introductory i 
 
 I. Questions with ne . . 3 
 
 A. Verbs with ne 3 
 
 Indie, pres. ist pers. ; 3 
 
 2d pers. 5 
 
 3d pars 21 
 
 Impf. and fut 22 
 
 Perf. ist pers 22 
 
 2d pers 23 
 
 3d pers 25 
 
 Other moods and tenses 25 
 
 B. Pronouns with ne 26 
 
 (gone 26 
 
 tune 28 
 
 Other pronouns 31 
 
 C. Nouns with ne 34 
 
 D. Adjectives and Participles with ne 34 
 
 E. Adverbs with ne 34 
 
 adeon 34 
 
 sicine 35 
 
 iamne 35 
 
 etiamne 36 
 
 F. itane 36 
 
 G. satin 37 
 
 H. potin 39 
 
 I. nonne 41 
 
 K. Relatives with K< 41 
 
 On -B^ with Apparent Negative Force . . 44 
 
 II. num 46 
 
 numquis, numquid 49 
 
 numquid vis ? 5 ' 
 
 III. ecquis, ecquid S3 
 
 With imperative force 54 
 
 en umquam 56 
 
IV 
 
 IV. Questions without a Particle . . . . .56 
 
 A. Idioms, possum • 57 
 
 cesso 58 
 
 nempe 59 
 
 foriasse, scilicet 59 
 
 B. Repetitions .... 59 
 
 Without verb 60 
 
 With verb, indicative ... ... 61 
 
 subjunctive ... 63 
 
 C. rogas, negas, etc 64 
 
 Other verbs 66 
 
 D. non and other negatives 67 
 
 In repetitions 67 
 
 At the beginning of the sentence 68 
 
 At the end of the sentence .... 69 
 
 non and verb separated , ... 70 
 
 On the origin of the KOK««question 70 
 
 non with imperative force 72 
 
 Other negative words 73 
 
 E. iam, etiatn 73 
 
 Without time-force ... : 73 
 
 etiam with imperative force 74 
 
 etiam in exclamations 74 
 
 As interrogative particles 75 
 
 F. Continued Questions 77 
 
 Supplementary Questions 78 
 
 Introductory Questions 79 
 
 G. Sentences with the verb at the beginning 80 
 
 Indie, pres. ist pers 80 
 
 2d pers 81 
 
 3d pers 82 
 
 Other tenses 82 
 
 Subjunctive 83 
 
 H. With the verb at the end 84 
 
 Indie, pres. ist pers 84 
 
 2d pers 85 
 
 3d pers 87 
 
 Impf., f ut., perf 88 
 
 Other indie, forms 89 
 
 Subjunctive 89 
 
 V. Exclamations with ut go 
 
 Infin. with or without -ne . ' . , 91 
 
 VI. an AND Disjunctive Questions 92 
 
 In simple questions 53 
 
 At beginning of speech 53 
 
 After declarative sentence 96 
 
 After guis-qaestion ... . . 96 
 
 After num 97 
 
 After ne, etc 97 
 
Complete Disjunctive Questions 97 
 
 History of the o«-Question 99 
 
 Questions with Imperative Effect loi 
 
 The Early History OF the Interrogative Sentence . . . 103 
 
 Earliest stages 103 
 
 Earliest uses ol an 104 
 
 of rmm 105 
 
 oi ne 105 
 
 Probst on «« 106 
 
 Warren on «ir 107 
 
 ■ne with apparent negative force 108 
 
 The «(7«»«-question 109 
 
 iafUj etiam^ itane^ satin 109 
 
 Exclamations no 
 
 Subjunctive Questions , no 
 
 utine Ill 
 
 Differences between PI. and Ter 112 
 
 Questions Considered with Reference to their Functions 113 
 
 Questions of awakened interest 114 
 
 of doubt 114 
 
 of certainty nS 
 
 of repudiation IIS 
 
 Rhetorical questions 115 
 
STATISTICAL SUMMARY. 
 
 Plautus. Terence. 
 
 I. A. Verbs 431 146 
 
 B. 'Pronouns . 257 100 
 
 C. Nouns 21 13 
 
 D. Adjectives 44. 12 
 
 E. Adverbs 92 29 
 
 F. itane 19 30 
 
 G. satin 69 19 
 
 H. potin 31 3 
 
 I. nonne . . .24 12 
 
 K. Relatives 29 16 
 
 II. num . . 54 28 
 
 numquis ... 81 z6 
 
 III. ecquis .. •I13 9 
 
 en umquam 6 z 
 
 IV. A. Idioms 54 24 
 
 B. Repetitions 117 92 
 
 C. rogas, etc ... . ... 56 56 
 
 U. non 144 70 
 
 E. iam 40 10 
 
 etiam ... 54 14 
 
 F. Verb early 40 47 
 
 G. Verb late .... .... 132 
 
 V. A. ui 7 6 
 
 B. Infinitive 18 46 
 
 VI. an 162 72 
 
 1017 370 
 
 13s 54 
 
 119 
 
 637 394 
 
 25 52 
 
 162 72 
 
 2095 953 
 
 ZO95 
 
 3048 
 
ON THE SENTENCE.QUESTION IN PLAUTUS , 
 AND TERENCE. 
 
 Introductory. 
 
 The most complete discussions of the interrogative sentence in 
 Latin are by Holtze, Synt. Prise. Script. Lat. II 236-285, and 
 Kiihner, Ausf. Gram. II 989-1024. They begin with the dis- 
 tinction between direct and indirect questions; on this subject 
 Becker has now said all that is needful.' Sentence-questions are 
 divided by Holtze and Kiihner according to the particle that 
 introduces them, into sentences without a particle and sentences 
 with ne, nmme, num., utrum, an. Under each head are classed 
 the idiomatic uses, e. g. under ne, itane, ain tu, satin, scin quomodo, 
 etc. These cover the special cases; for the commoner kinds of 
 ne question Holtze makes no classification. Kiihner employs 
 the three-fold division into questions for information, questions 
 expecting an affirmative answer, and questions expecting a nega- 
 tive answer. Questions without a particle are divided according 
 to the presence or absence of emotion. 
 
 This system of arrangement is open to serious criticism. The 
 tests which it relies upon to distinguish emotional from unemo- 
 tional questions are entirely inadequate ; written language has few 
 
 'Syntaxis Interrog. Obliq. in Studemund, Studien, I pp. 115-316. As the 
 semi-indirect questions are in form and meaning exactly like direct questions, 
 and as I have wished to include everything which would throw light upon the 
 nature of the interrogative sentence, I have given in my lists many questions 
 which will also be found in Becker. 
 
signs for emotion. And even the arrangement of questions 
 according to the answer expected is too narrow and at times 
 actually misleading. See below the synopsis of the classification 
 of questions according to their function, proposed by Th. Irame. 
 The study of phrases with a view to discovering their functions 
 should be the last step, not the first, in the inductive process. 
 Further, Holtze and Kiihner have used at the same time two 
 systems of classification which are really distinct. Holtze, for 
 instance, divides questions without a particle into («) questions 
 for information, (^6) questions expressing emotion, (c) questions 
 equivalent to an imperative, (d) ?ton questions, (e) infinitive ques- 
 tions, etc., mixing form and function in entire confusion. Such a 
 sentence as non taces f would come under b, c and d. 
 
 It was, I suppose, partly a perception of the illogical and con- 
 fusing character of Holtze's system which led Draeger, V 333-351, 
 to adopt a more reserved and simple classification. Under ne, 
 for instance, he gives only a general statement of the meaning of 
 the particle, and then treats the words to which it is appended. 
 Questions without a particle, however, he classifies according to 
 the presence- or absence of emotion. 
 
 The treatment of the interrogative sentence in the Stolz-Schmalz 
 Grammar, pp. 298-300, is necessarily brief, but is noteworthy as 
 making no reference to the three-fold division according to the 
 answer expected, nor to the presence or absence of emotion. 
 Except for a brief paragraph on disapproving (missbilligende) 
 questions, the discussion deals wholly with the form, and not with 
 the meaning, of the interrogative sentence. 
 
 Concerning the other discussions of interrogative sentences 
 nothing need be said at this point, since their arrangement is in 
 the main that of Draeger or Kahner." 
 
 The history of the study of direct questions, therefore, since 
 1843, when Holtze issued his first program on the subject, shows 
 a gradual abandonment of the confusing system of classification 
 according to function, doubtless largely owing to the general 
 
 ' P. Schrader, de particularum -Ne, Anne, Nonne apud Plautum prosodia 
 Argent., 1885. — O. Wolff, deenuntiatis interrogativis apud Catullum, Tibullum, 
 Propertium. Halle, 1883. — P. Olbricht, de interrogationibus disiunctivis et an 
 particulae msu apud Taciturn. Halle, 1883. — A. Grabenstein, de interroga- 
 tionum enuntiativarura usu Horatiano. Halle, 1883. — C. Naegler, de particu- 
 laram usu apud L. Annaeutn Senecam pliilosoplium. Halle, 1883. — W. O 
 Gutsche, de interrogationibus obliquis apud Ciceronem. Halle, 1885. Also 
 Reisig-Haase, III pp. 299-314, with Landgraf's notes. 
 
acceptance of the principles and methods of historical philology. 
 Nothing-, however, has been done toward the substitution of a 
 better system. The, whole subject has been reduced, as in the 
 work of Schmalz, to a study of the particles, little attention being 
 paid to the wide differences produced by variations in the struc- 
 ture of the sentence. 
 
 In the following pages the attempt will be made to reach a fuller 
 understanding of the common forms of the interrogation by 
 carrying the analysis of the structure as far as possible, even at 
 the risk of unnecessary subdivision, in the belief that such a course 
 will in the end lead to the surest results. For convenience, ques- 
 tions with a particle have been taken up first ; in treating questions 
 without a particle, it is impossible to adhere strictly to the formal 
 analysis, for reasons which will be stated, and some confusion will 
 be found at that point. 
 
 It was at first my intention to include some special varieties of 
 the quis question {quis est qui, quid ais ? |1 quid vis ? quid in 
 repetitions, quid si, quid m) for which I have a collection of exam- 
 ples. But these, as well as a large number of examples from 
 Ribbeck's Fragmenta, I have found it necessary to omit. 
 
 The great length to which this paper has extended itself is also 
 my excuse for printing so few illustrations. Those which are 
 given are selected as typical cases, and I have tried to notice 
 briefly passages in which textual variations affect the form of the 
 question, and all cases which for any reason seemed deserving of 
 special notice. The lists are intended to be complete except 
 where the contrary is expressly stated ; that there should be no 
 errors in the collection of 3000 cases is scarcely to be hoped, but 
 I do not think they can be numerous. 
 
 I. Questions with -ne? 
 
 A. Ne appended to the verb. 
 
 Arranged according to the mood, tense and person of the verb. 
 
 sumne. Merc. 588, sumne ego homo miser, qui nusquam bene 
 queo quiescere? Men. 852, Most. 362, Rud. 1184, Pers. 75, 474. 
 All have a predicate adj., with a relative clause in the indicative, 
 ego is expressed except in Pers. 474, and ail are used in soliloquy. 
 Similar to these are Bacch. 623, sumne ego homo miser? perdidi 
 
 ' Disjunctive and infinitive questions with ne are not included in these lists, 
 but vi'iW be given separately. 
 
■me ac simitu operant Chrysali, and Cas. II 4, 24, except that the 
 secondary idea, explaining the main clause, is expressed in an 
 independent sentence. Also in Ps. 908, sumne ego homo insipiens, 
 qui egomet mecum haec loquar solus ? the sentence is similar in 
 everyrespect, except the mood oUoquar. For this Cam. suggested 
 loquor (Rit. "fortasse recte"), which brings this case into line 
 with the rest. 
 
 Mil. 12,^^, peril, sumne ego apudme? and Rud. 865, sumne 
 ibi? are different. They have no descriptive adj. and no con- 
 cluding clause, and are not in soliloquy. Bacch. 91, sumne autem, 
 nihili, qui nequeam, ingenio moderari meo f at first sight invites a 
 change to nequeo, but it is unlike the other sentences in sense as 
 well as in form, since it does not refer in the relative clause to an 
 evident fact, as do the rest. The sense is "Am I so far gone that 
 I can't control myself?" PI. 12, Ter. o. 
 
 In all the questions in soliloquy, as well as in Rud. 865, sumne 
 has the effect of nonne sum ; cf Lor. on Ps. 908 (885 L). The 
 cases in which ne produces the effect of nonne will be brought 
 together later, but it may be remarked here that when sumne is 
 used in soliloquy with a relative clause, the clause in all cases 
 virtually answers the question in the affirmative. " Am I a fool ? 
 I'm bothering about politics when there are people enough to 
 attend to them." " Am I born to bad luck ? I am standing here 
 when I ought to be running home at my best pace." So in Rud. 
 S6^, dixeram praeslo fore apud Veneris fanum : . . . sumne ibi f 
 the speaker was obviously on the spot, and when he asks " Am I 
 there ? " there is only one answer possible. It is therefore nothing 
 in the form of question which requires an affirmative answer 
 and produces the iionne effect ; it is the fact stated in the relative 
 clause, or, in Rud. 865, shown by the surroundings on the stage. 
 
 Other verbs with present sense are habeon, St. 566, Trin. 500, 
 in the phrase habeo.n {re-ni) pactum? cf. Poen. 1157. These 
 are formal questions for the conclusion of a bargain, and are asked 
 as if for information. 
 
 vincon. Amph. 433, quid nunc ? vincon argumeniis, te non 
 esse Sosiam ? has the effect of nonne, because the speaker thinks 
 he is proving his point. 
 
 repeton. Ad. 12,6, irascere ? \\ an non credis? repeion quern 
 dedi? Here num. might have been used, but, as the answer is 
 obviously in the negative, the -ne question produces the same 
 effect. This case is noteworthy as helping to explain the ne = 
 nonne cases. 
 
possumne. Eun. 712, possumne ego hodie ex te exculpere 
 verum ? vidistin . . .? Here also there is a shade of nonne 
 effect. The speaker realizes that the slave does not want to tell 
 the truth, but is determined to get it out of him. " Can't I force 
 the truth out of you ? " 
 
 videon. Epid. 635, satin ego oculis utilitatem optineo sincere 
 an parum ? videon ego Telestidem ie, . . . ? Aul. 813 {video 
 BDE, Goetz], St. 582, Eun. 724, Hec. 81, Ph. 50, 177. These are 
 all addressed by the speaker to himself when a new character 
 comes upon the stage, and are really meant as a kind of introduc- 
 tion to the audience, ieneone, Heaut. 407, is used with the same 
 general effect as videon. 
 
 Cas. Ill 5, 46 is best taken as a declarative sentence. Asin. 
 504 is given under an. PI. 6, Ter. 7. 
 
 It is important to notice how few of these, really only the two 
 with kabeon, have the effect of simple unemotional questions. 
 This is not because anything in the nature of the present tense or 
 of ne is emotional or inclines toward a negative, but because ques- 
 tions as to what the speaker is himself doing must, in the nature 
 of the case, have an obvious answer, which seems to give the 
 question itself a leaning toward the afiBrmative or the negative. 
 
 The present indicative is also used with future effect. See Lor. 
 Most.'' 774, Brix Trin.° 1062, Madvig, Opusc. II 40, Gram. 339, 
 obs. 2. The commonest form is quid ago? See Lor. on Most.^ 
 368. Most. 774, eonf voco hue hominem? 1| i, voca. Asin. 755, 
 Mil. 1036 (MSS voco^, Andr. 315, 497, Eun. 434. These are 
 answered by the imperative, if at all, but are not otherwise pecu- 
 liar. PI. 3, Ter. 3. 
 
 It will be noticed that except sumne, which is peculiar to PL, 
 the first person pres. is used more frequently by Ter. than by PI. 
 
 Indicative present, second person, abift. Amph. 857, abin 
 hinc a me, dignus domino servus ? 1| abeo, si tubes. Amph. 518, 
 Bacch. 1 168, 1 176, Cas. II 4, 23, Merc. 756, Most. 850, Pers. 671, 
 Poen. 160, Trin. 456, 989, Andr. 317, Eun. 861. Rud. 977, Sch., 
 is unlikely ; abin without hinc, a mc or dierectus is literal, Pers. 
 671. PI. II, Ter. 2. 
 
 A distinct imperative force is shown by the answer si iubes in 
 Amph. 857, as well as by the general sense. That the sense of a 
 pres. indie, and the questioning effect are not wholly lost is shown 
 by abin atque argentum petis ? Pers. 671, and by abin an non? || 
 abeo, Aul. 660. The full consideration of these imperative ques- 
 
tions must be reserved until all the forms have been examined 
 separately ; in the case of abin it is evident that a mere hint, such 
 as the question conveys, would be equivalent to an order. 
 
 accipin. Pers. 412, accipin ar.gentum ? accipe sis argentum, 
 inpudens? With imperative effect, in the midst of other forms 
 of command. 
 
 ain (aisne). Brief note in Langen, Beitr. p. 119. 
 
 (a). With dependent infinitive, Epid. 717, (ego) quoius opera 
 . . . inventast filia. || Ain tu te illius invenisse filiam ? || invent . . . 
 Amph. 799, Aul. 186, Asin. 851, Most. 964, 974, Poen. 961, True. 
 194, Hec. 415, Ad. 517. In True. 306 Schoell writes . . . lateres 
 si veieres ruont. || Ain tu vera ? veieres laieres riper e ? but, though 
 the sense is not quite perfect as one question, there is no instance 
 in PI. where the infin. stands in a separate sentence after ain, nor 
 could the indie, be repeated in an infin. I am inclined to think 
 that the mark after vero should be omitted. PL g, Ter. 2. 
 
 In these cases the infin. is repeated from a preceding statement. 
 The full logical form of the question would be, " Do you (now) 
 say that so-and-so is the case (as you did a moment ago) ? " In 
 the least emotional uses, therefore, the question is answered by 
 aio (Amph. 799, Most. 974) or inquam (Most. 964). But as the 
 emphasis is often upon the fact, the answer is frequently made to 
 that (Epid. 717, True. 194, Ad. 517), and ain becomes only a 
 kind of introduction to the real question. These questions all 
 expect an answer. 
 
 (J)). Followed by a question with a verb of saying or thinking. 
 Amph. 284, Ain tu vera, verbero ? deos esse tui similis putas ? 
 Capt. 551 (Bx. is better here than Sonnenschein), Capt. 892, Cas. 
 II 6, 45 (Geppert has period). Asin. 485 is in a passage so con- 
 fused that it may seem useless to add another to the guesses 
 already made, but I cannot think that ain tu ? standing alone, is 
 correct. As the last part of 485 almost necessitates the hypothesis 
 that a vs. has fallen out (so Fleck.), in which the Mercator charges 
 the slaves with intending to run away, and as the speakers are 
 uncertain, I should read. Quid, verbero ? || aintu,furcifer? erum 
 me fugitare censes ? giving the first part to Libanus, the second 
 to Leonida; cf Phorm. 510. PI. 4 [5], Ter. o. 
 
 These differ from the preceding in that the verb of saying or 
 thinking is a kind of substitute for and interpretation of ain, giving 
 such a color to the whole as to make the preceding statement 
 seem absurd. They imply a somewhat contemptuous rejection, 
 which questions of the preceding class do not necessarily do. 
 
(c). With repetition of a preceding phrase, either with or with- 
 out the verb. 
 
 Without the leading verb. Amph. 1089, . . . geminos peperit 
 filios. 11 ain tu ? geminos ? 1| geminos. Most. 383, 642, Cure. 323, 
 Rud. 1095. Heaut. 1014, ' subditum ' ain tu ? is peculiar in having 
 the quoted word first. 
 
 With repetition of the leading verb in the indie. Epid. 699, 
 lubuit ... 11 ain tu? lubuit? Pers. 29, 491, Trin. 987, Ph. 510, 
 And. 875, Eun. 392. In the last two the added phrase is repeated 
 from something said off the stage. PI. 9, Ter. 4. 
 
 Editions vary considerably in the punctuation of these passages, 
 most recent editors putting only a comma or no mark after ain tu. 
 That two separate exclamations are intended ih some cases is 
 evident from the double answer in Pers. 491, ubi nunc tua liber- 
 tastf II apud te. || ain? apud mest? 1| aio, inquam : apud test, 
 inquam. And the same thing is at least suggested by Phorm. 
 510, Ph. Pamphilam meam vendidit ? \\ An. quid? vendidii ? \\ 
 Ge. ain? vendidit? Trin. 987 must be two questions, and so all 
 edd. Where the verb is not repeated the case is less clear, but I 
 am inclined to regard ain tu here also as a separate exclamation, 
 something like the New England phrase, " You don't say ! " cf. 
 the separate use of quid, e. g. Ph. 5 10, above. This would make 
 this class similar to the following. 
 
 (a?), ain tu {vero, tandem) ? without any repeated phrase. 
 Amph. 344, ain vero ? 1| aio enim vero. Aul. 298, ain tandem, ? || 
 itast ut dixi. Asin. 721, 901 (but see Langen 119), Pers. 184, 
 True. 609, Ad. 405, Heaut. 890, 242, Eun. 567, 803, Ph. 373. 
 
 PI. 6, Ter. 6. 
 
 The large number of cases in Ter. points to a growth of the 
 exclamatory use of ain. PI. always uses ain vero ? or ain tandem, ? 
 Ter. has ain tu ? three times. 
 
 Doubtful or emended passages are rather common, owing to 
 the easy confusion with an. In Aul. 538, I should follow the MSS 
 and read an audivisti ? with hiatus in the change of speakers ; 
 cf. Merc. 393, St. 246. In Ps. 218 ain has been well changed by 
 Lor. to em. In Amph. 838 ain is very unlikely. Goetz-Loewe 
 read enim. True. 921, \airC\ hercle vero? |1 serio, is condemned 
 by the fact that hercle, an asseverative word, is nowhere found with 
 ain. Asin. 812 is emended to an by Ussing, with the approval of 
 Langenj Beitr. 119. With this passage must stand or fall the 
 precisely similar one in Phorm. 970. Bentley says, " cave vero 
 
8 
 
 pro Ain tu cum quodam substituas An tu!'- supporting himself by 
 Asin. 812 and Capt. 892. The latter is not parallel, and in spite 
 of Bentley I should read an tu in Phorm. 970. Ritschl's conjec- 
 ture, Most. 1012, quid, [ain iu] a Tranione ? is against the MSS 
 and the sense of aio. Lor." reads quid, a Tranione servo ? Rud. 
 1365 is added By Sch. to complete the vs. 
 
 In general it is worthy of note that ain never refers forward (as 
 quid ais ? does) to what is about to be said, but always backward, 
 to what has been said. As Langen remarks, it always stands at 
 the beginning of a speech, if we change Asin. 812, Phorm. 970. 
 When ain tu (vero, tandem) precedes a repetition, it becomes an 
 exclamation, calling attention to what follows. In PI. the follow- 
 ing question is without ne ; Cic. Brut. 41, 152 uses ne. Finally, 
 when no words are repeated with it, ain becomes a mere exclama- 
 tion of wonder, incredulity or indignation. As it is in its nature a 
 request for a restatement, it generally inclines toward the rejec- 
 tion of what has been said. 
 
 auden. Mil. 232, auden participarg me quod conmejMs ? A 
 conj. of Bugge, adopted by Ribbeck, Lor., Bx. MSS aut 
 inparte, 
 
 audin. This may refer backward to what has been said, always 
 by some third speaker, or forward to what the speaker is about to 
 say, and these two uses must be sharply distinguished, 
 
 (a). With direct object. Amph. 755, audin ilium? || ego vero 
 . . . And. 342. With infin. Most. 821, . . . empti/uerant olim. \\ 
 audin 'fuerant' dicere? Capt. 602, Poen. 999. With quis- 
 clause. Asin. 447, audin quae loquitur ? || audio et qiiiesco. The 
 same in Bacch. 861, Men. 909, Mil. 1222, Ps. 193. quid ait Asin. 
 884, Capt. 592, Pers. 655, Ps. 330, Eun. 1037. With ^/-clause. 
 Asin. 598, audin hunc opera ut largus est nocturna ? Men. 920. 
 
 Without dependent clause, but referring backward, audin, 
 Most. 622, Andr. 581 (MSS Speng. Wag. audin tu ilium), Heaut. 
 243. audin tu, Mil. 1058, Eun. 809. PI. 17, Ter. 5. 
 
 Logically these should be in a past tense, that is, they mean 
 " Did you hear that ? " But the same vividness which makes the 
 dependent verb {loquitur, ait) present, permits the present with 
 past reference in the main verb. When there is an answer, it is 
 generally audio, sometimes assent in a different form. Sometimes 
 no answer is waited for. 
 
 Becker, p. 270, discusses the passages in which audin has a 
 $r«w-clause. He calls questions with audin, viden, scin, "adul- 
 
terinae," saying that they are often used for the imperative, and 
 quoting in proof Mil. 1314 (audin), Trin. 457 (^abiri), and referring 
 to the frequency of quin with imperative effect, as well as to the 
 indiscriminate use of vide and viden. He says, " is, qui inter- 
 rogat, non propterea interrogat, quod aliquid ab aliquo scire vult." 
 On nearly all these points Becker is in error. Mil. 1314 refers 
 forward to what the speaker is about to say, and is not parallel 
 to audin quid ait f All that follows from the imperative uses 
 of abin, viden, quin is that certain questions may have imperative 
 effect, not that any particular question does have such effect. 
 Finally, the sense of these questions is generally distinctly inter- 
 rogative. This is shown by the large proportion which have a 
 regular and unemotional answer, and also by a consideration of 
 the situation, which is the same in all : A hears B saying some- 
 thing which he thinks C ought to notice, and therefore asks C if 
 he heard it. In some cases he does not know whether C heard 
 or not ; in others, he uses the question form as a means of calhng 
 attention to the remark, but even in these cases the leaning toward 
 - an imperative effect is very slight. 
 
 {b). audin refers forward to something which the speaker is 
 about to say. 
 
 As introductory to this class two cases deserve mention, in 
 which audin refers backward to a previous command which is 
 at once repeated. Hec. 78, . . . si quaeret me, . . . dicilo - . . 
 audin quid dicam, Scirte ? si quaeret me, . . . dicas . . . and 
 Eun. 706, concede istuc pcmlulum : audin f etiam nunc paulum. 
 Hec. 78 is also peculiar in the mood oi dicam, and for this reason 
 Becker, p. 282, calls it a genuine question. Except as the sub- 
 junctive may be considered an indication of this it is not more 
 interrogative than several of the audin quid ait sentences. Some- 
 what similar to these is Asin. 750, . . . translege. || audin? || 
 audio, " Are you listening ? " " Yes," in that it also refers forward, 
 but without any distinct imperative force. 
 
 The other cases, referring to and introducing that which the 
 speaker is just about to say, are the following: Asin. 116, audin 
 iu ? apud Archibulum ego ero argentarium, Cas. Ill 5, 62, Men. 
 254, Mil. 1088, Pers. 676 (Rit. uses period), Poen. 408, 1006, 
 1155, Ps. 172 (auditing, 665, Andr. 299, 865. 
 
 In the following some phrase expressing attention is interposed, 
 generally ^«zfl? z/w .^ Cf. quid ais? ^ quid vis? Men. 310, audin, 
 Menaechme ? ||' quid vis .^ || . . . iubeas . . ., Epid. 400, Mil. 131 3, 
 
lO 
 
 True. 331. Trin. 799, Poen. 407 {quid est?), Asin. 109 {ecce), 
 Poen. 406 (etiam), Merc. 953 (Jam dudum audivt). 
 
 PI. 20, Ter. 4. 
 
 In these cases, where no answer is expected and except for 
 comic effect (Merc. 953) none is given, the imperative force of 
 which Becker speaks is more distinct. Even in these it cannot be 
 said that the question is equivalent to audi. But the introductory 
 question serves its purpose without expecting a verbal answer ; 
 the increased attention is the answer. The imperative effect is 
 especially noticeable in atque audin ? used generally after one 
 imperative to introduce a second, Mil. 1088, Epid. 400, Asin. 109, 
 Poen. 406, 407, Ps. 665, Trin. 799, Andr. 299, 865. 
 
 It will be noticed that Ter. uses, beside the peculiar Eun. 706, 
 Hec. 78, only the form atque audin f never audin or audin tu 
 referring forward. 
 
 aufersne, an old conj. adopted by Rit. in Ps. 1315. MSS 
 auferre non. V. Lor. Krit. Anh. The passage is uncertain, and 
 aufersne improbable. Goetz auferen. 
 
 censen. With infin. Asin. 887, censen tu illunc hodie prirmim 
 ire adsuetum esse in ganeum? Aul. 309, Merc. 461, Ad. 579 (v. 
 notes in Speng. and Dz.), Andr. 256, Eun. 217, Hec. 662, Ph. 
 875. (The last four and Aul. 309 have some form oi posse in the 
 infin.) In Rud. 1269, censen hodie despondebit earn mihi, quaeso ? || 
 censeo, the indie, is used by parataxis ; cf Kiihner II, p. 758, 4. 
 Heaut. 591, censen vero ? is the only case without dependent 
 verb, but is not otherwise peculiar. Aul. 315 is so vague in sense 
 that it has given rise to much discussion. V. Langen, p. 141, 
 Goetz ad loc. If it is given to Anthrax, it harmonizes fairly well 
 with his somewhat incredulous attitude, and may then have the 
 same sense as the other cases : " You don't really think he lives 
 such a miserable life as that, do you ? " 
 
 Poen. 730, which Langen condemns, should have quid turn, 
 with A. PI. 5, Ter. 6. 
 
 These questions deserve especial notice from those who think 
 that the effect of nonne in certain «^-questions is due to the origi- 
 nal negative sense of ne. All the eases where censen is followed 
 by the infin. expect a negative answer, and are almost equivalent 
 to num. censes ? There are two reasons for this : first, the idea 
 expressed by the infin. is invariably one which the speaker wishes 
 to reject, so that any neutral form of question would be forced by 
 the circumstances into a rejecting meaning, that is, would seem to 
 
II 
 
 expect a negative answer. Second, censen has in these questions 
 the notion of erroneous opinion; but this lies not in the interro- 
 gative form, but in the verb censere. 
 
 cognoscin. Amph. 822, cognoscin tu me saltern, Sosia ? 1| pro- 
 pemodum. Poen. 1130. The woww^ effect is due mainly to j«/;f(?w, 
 partly to the circumstances of the question, as in Poen. 1130. 
 
 credin. Poen. 441, credin quod ego fabuler ? . Capt. 961, Eun. 
 812, 852. The first case is from a confused passage, so that it is 
 not possible to determine the sense precisely, but the rest have a 
 num. effect, like that in questions with censen, and resulting from 
 the same kind of half-ironical sense in the verb. It is noteworthy 
 that both censen and credin are used more frequently by Terence. 
 
 dan, datin. Cure. 311, datin isti sellam ubi adsidat cito . . .9 
 Asin. 712, True. 631. dan is not found in the MSS, but is read 
 by conj. in Asin. 671, True. 373, 911. The MSS Pall, have dant, 
 A da, and dan may be held to explain both readings. It is 
 entirely analogous to datin, all cases having an impv. or future 
 effect, like that oi abin. PI. 3 [6], Ter. o. 
 
 deridesne. Cure. 392, unocule, salve. || quaeso, deridesne me ? 
 Cure. 18 ; cf. rogas and similar questions below. 
 
 dicisne. Most. 660, dicisne hoc quod te rogo? || dicam. Pers. 
 281, answered by dico for comic effect. These have a tendency 
 to impv. force. 
 
 esne. Men. 1109, esne tu Suracusanus f \\ certo. Pers. 581. 
 Regular questions for information. 
 
 faterin. Capt. 317, sedfaterin eadem quae hicfassust mihi? || 
 ego . . . fateor. For information. 
 
 fugin. Aul. 660, fugin hinc ab oculis ? abin an non ? Andr. 
 337, answered by ego vera ac lubens. These are in all respects 
 similar to abin. 
 
 haben, habetin. Baech. 269, habetin aurum ? id primum m,ihi 
 did volo. Ps. 1 163, Trin. 89, 964, True. 680, Eun. 674. These 
 are all regular questions, without any nonne or future effect. 
 Asin. 579, argenti viginti minas habesne ? has been changed to 
 habes nunc, Miill. Pros. PI. 642, Nachtr. 103, because of the posi- 
 tion of habesne, which would be unparalleled. In the disputed 
 and difficult passage Mil. 1 1, 38 (68 Bx.") the evidence of the eases 
 above favors haben. So far as I am aware habes without -ne is not 
 used by PI.. PI. 5 [6]. Ter. i. 
 
 in{isne). Bacch. 1185, in hac mecum intro . . .? Eun. 651, 
 Ph. 930. There, is considerable variation in the MSS of Ter. ; cf. 
 
12 
 
 Heaut. 813. These also have impv. effect, though in Bacch. 1185 
 the questioning effect is also distinctly present. PI. i, Ter. 2. 
 
 iuben. Asin. 939, iuben hanc hinc abscedere ? |1 i domum. 
 Amph. 929, Mil. 315, St. 598. All have future or impv. effect, 
 that is, they mean " will you order," not " are you ordering." In 
 Eun. 389, iubesne ? {| iubeam ? cogo atque impero, there is no 
 impv. force : it means simply, " is it your command that I should 
 doit?" PI. 4, Ter. I. 
 
 ludin. Ps. 24, ludinme ludo tuo 9 SoA(Rit.); better /Ww 
 (A Loewe BCD and Goetz) with period. 
 
 manen {manesne). Most. 887, manen ilico, parasite inpure ? 
 With impv. effect, entirely similar to abin; cf. mane, 885. 
 
 mittin. True. 756, miitin me inlro ? With impv. effect. In 
 Ps. 239 (233 L.') miitin is a change on metrical grounds from m,itte 
 of the MSS. It is not quite parallel to True. 756. 
 
 negasne. Poen. 777, negasne apud te esse aurum nee servom 
 meum? || nego. This single case (cf. negas, below) is justified by 
 the formality of question and answer, which is unlike the exclama- 
 tory tone oinegas. 
 
 perdormiscin. Men. 928, perdormiscin tu usque ad lucem 9 
 Regular question for information. 
 
 pergin. With infin. present. Amph. 349, pergin argutier ? 
 Asin. 477, Capt. 591, Poen. 434, Mil. 380, Ps. 1300, True. 265,' 
 Ps. 1249 (pergiiin pergere?), Poen. 433 (^pergere), Eun. 817, 
 Heaut. 237, 1006, Ph. 372, 996. 
 
 Without infin., three times with autem ; cf. Langen, Beitr., pp. 
 315 ff. Amph. 52,9, pergin autem ? non ego possum, furcifer, te 
 perdere? Cure. 196, Mil. 300, Cist. IV i, 14, Ps. 238, Merc. 998, 
 Ad. 853 {pergisne), Eun. 380, 1007. In Men. 607, pergin tu is a 
 conj. of Rit. iorperge iu of MSS. V. Bx.' Anh. Heaut. 582, Ph. 
 806, have perdis in A (^pergis in most of the other MSS), and 
 this is the reading of Umpf:' and Dz. In Poen. 295, a passage 
 exactly similar, BCD h&\e perdis, while A appears to have perg 
 . . . This would be the only case oipergis without ne, and perdis 
 with period is therefore more probable. PI. 15 [16], Ter. 8. 
 
 Where the infin. is used, the question is almost regular, and, 
 though emotional, is uninfluenced in its use by the emotion, that 
 is, by a kind of sarcastic self-restraint, the speaker asks whether a 
 certain course of conduct is to be maintained, instead of demand- 
 ing that it cease. To this kind of irony it, is essential that the 
 simple form of question should be used, or else the appearance of 
 
13 
 
 a polite desire for information would be lost. It is the studiously 
 formal style of sarcasm. 
 
 When/ifr^/w is used alone, it degenerates into a kind of excla- 
 mation. The middle step is perhaps the feeling that it is unneces- 
 sary to specify the silly conduct which the other person is 
 continuing, because it is so evident, and it is noticeable that most 
 of the infinitives used with pergin are rather general, male loqui, 
 argutier, auris tundere, etc. So instead of saying " are you 
 keeping up your nonsense ? " the speaker says, " are you still at 
 it? " The same sort of degeneration is to be seen in the uses of 
 ain, above, to which pergin has several points of resemblance. 
 
 praeben. Pers. 792, fer aquam pedibus. praeben, puere? 
 With impv. effect. 
 
 properatin. Cure. 312, datin isti sellant . . .? properatin 
 actus ? With impv. effect. 
 
 recedin. Bacch. 579, adi actutum ad fores, recedin hinc die- 
 rede ? MSS recede with hiatus, recedin Bothe, Goetz. Future 
 or impv. effect. 
 
 rerin. Bacch. 11 27, rerin ter tu in anno posse has ionsiiari? 
 The verb-form is sure, the rest uncertain. An ordinary question. 
 
 reddin. Cure. 612, reddin eiiam argentum, aut virginem? is 
 an early conj. adopted by Uss. and Kienitz on quin, for redde 
 eiiam of the MSS. Langen, Beitr. 161, points out the fact that 
 etiamne reddis, not reddin eiiam, is the Plautine form, and pro- 
 poses redde mi iam, which is preferable. 
 
 scin. Cf. Lor. Ps. 263, Wag. Aul. 305, Kiihn. II 1005, 5, 
 Becker, 276 ff., 280 ff. 
 
 Questions with scin are divided according to the form of the 
 object. 
 
 (a). With direct object in accus. Epid. 207, scin tu istuc ? || 
 scio. Ad. 581. 
 
 With infin. Amph. 1082, agedum expedi: scin me iuom esse 
 erum Amphitruonem ? \\ scio. Cas. II 6, 68, Poen. 879, Mil. 339, 
 398, Eun. 744. 
 
 With indirect question in the subjunctive. Men. 530, scin quod 
 hoc sit spinter ? |1 nescio, nisi aureum. Trin. 373, Eun. 437, 
 Heaut. 820 (cf. Ad. 570). On all these see Becker, p. 282 f In 
 Eun. 1035, which would come here, the MSS distinctly favor 
 scis.' PI. 8, Ter. 4. 
 
 ' In this case, as in some others, I have thought it better to avoid the possi- 
 bility of obscuring differences in usage between Plautus and Terence, than to 
 bring the tvifo into conformity by changes in the text. The development of the 
 language betvi^een PI. and Ter. is one of the nicest problems in historical syntax. 
 
H 
 
 These are genuine questions in form, and are regularly answered 
 by scio (8 times), sentio, or by some other direct answer. In 
 Heaut. 820 the answer is to the indirect question. There is no 
 imperative effect, but the questions are intended to elicit an 
 acknowledgment rather than to obtain information, and they 
 have, therefore, an argumentative tone, which approaches the 
 effect of nonne; that is, is often expressed in English by " don't 
 you know ? " But if the questioner puts himself into a more 
 impartial and judicial attitude, he uses in English, as in Latin, the 
 form "do you know? " 
 
 {b). scin quid, with the indicative. Men. 677, scin quid est, 
 quod ego ad te vcnio ? 1| scio. Men. 207, 425, 11 54 {scitiii), Poen. 
 1167, Ps. 276, 538, 641, 657, Rud. 773, 1216, Trin. 350, Eun. 338, 
 Heaut. 494, Hec. 753. 
 
 The following have the subjunctive standing for a command in 
 direct discourse, independently of the indirect question, all with 
 the verb ya«a5. ¥&rs. i^^,sed scin quid facias ? cape . . . Cas. 
 II 8, 54, Mil. 1034, Men. 947. Cf also Men. 425, Hec. 753. 
 
 In Ad. 215 I should prefer scis ; cf. Eun. 1035, above. Ad. 83 
 is still uncertain, but is not scin. PI. 16, Ter. 3 [4]. 
 
 These cases are distinguished from the preceding, not only by 
 the mood of the subordinate clause, but also by its meaning. 
 The forms used are scin quid volo ego te adcurare, quid te 
 amabo ut facias, quid ego vos rogo, quid est, quid te oro, 
 etc., which have no independent- meaning like scin quod hoc 
 sit spinier, but are a kind of empty form, requiring some fur- 
 ther statement to fill them in, a kind of uncolored outline. 
 While, therefore, some of these questions are answered {scio, 
 sciam si dixeris, quid f propemodum, impera quidvis, die), and 
 the form of the answer in a few cases shows that some ques- 
 tioning effect is still felt, yet in most cases no answer is expected, 
 and the sentence which gives meaning to the ^we'if-clause follows 
 at once. The result of the indefiniteness and emptiness of the 
 ^Mz'tf-clause is that these questions have lost their independent 
 meaning, ceased to be genuine questions, and become merely 
 introductory to the following words of the same speaker. They 
 are like quid ais ? or the English, " I'll tell you what ! " The 
 clause which follows, being important enough to need an intro- 
 duction, is often adversative or corrective, a tone which is more 
 developed in the following classes. Where volo is used, the fol- 
 lowing sentence is an impv. or its equivalent. 
 
15 
 
 (f). san quam, quo pacta, quo modo, ut, with the indicative, 
 regularly if not invariably. 
 
 Pars. 139, . . . potest. 1| scin quam potest? Poen. 1319. Amph. 
 671 and Bacch. 594 have the subjunctive. Bacch. 1178 {quo 
 pacta), Aul. 47 {qua mado), Eun. 800 («/). PI. 6, Ter. i. 
 
 The mood in four of these is subjunctive. Bacch. 1178 is 
 entirely similar to facias above, i. e. is independent of the indi- 
 rect question. The same is true of Amph. 671, where sim is a 
 repetition of the impv. es ; cf. questions of repetition, below, IV B. 
 As to the others, Bacch. 594, Eun. 800, which Becker discusses, 
 p. 280 f., without reaching a definite conclusion, there is apparently 
 no reason for the subjunctive except the fact that the verbs are in 
 indirect question. These are, however, not genuine questions, and 
 therefore, according to Becker's law, should have the indicative. 
 It only remains to change the text, or to say, as I should prefer 
 to do, that the distinction between scin in genuine questions and 
 in introductory questions is so slight that it does not warrant a 
 change of text. In the transition from the indie, to the subjunct. 
 in indirect questions, there would inevitably be some exceptional 
 cases. 
 
 In sense these passages differ from scin quid by referring more 
 clearly to what precedes, and serving at the same time to intro- 
 duce what follows. The full logical expression would be, " Do 
 you know (let me tell you) in what sense or to what degree that 
 which you have said is to be accepted ? " Then follows the 
 explanation, which is never serious, as often with scin quid, but 
 has an exaggerated tone of correction under the guise of expla- 
 nation, often amounting to a threat. It is a further development 
 of the corrective effect, which, as has been said, appears not 
 infrequently with scin quid, as is attested by the common use of 
 at, sed, Ps. 538, 641, 657, Rud. 1216, Trin. 350, etc. 
 
 The lack of content in the subordinate clause, except as it is 
 supplied by repetition from the preceding, niakes these questions 
 suited to use for introduction, as in the case oi scin quid. 
 
 (d). Three passages deserve special mention, being used in 
 aposiopesis. Asin. 703, adsta . . . ut cansuetus es puer — scin ut 
 dicam ? Pers. 296, qui te di deaeque — scin quid dicturus fuerim, 
 "■nisi linguae moderari queam ? Ps. 1178, scin quid laquar ? The 
 mood appears to be subjunctive, and Becker, p. 283, is perhaps 
 right in calling them genuine questions. Yet in all respects except 
 the mood they resemble more nearly the examples under b and c. 
 
i6 
 
 (e). scin quomodo (^quam, quemadmodum, quoiusmodi, quid^ 
 without a verb in the subordinate clause. 
 
 Amph. 356, at scin quo modo f faciam ego hodie te super bum, 
 ni hinc abis. Aul. 307, 832, Mil. 1 162 {quemadmodum), Most. 
 642 {quoiusmodi), Poen. 438, 441 {quam), 376, Rud. 797, Heaut. 
 738 {quid), Ph. Ill {quam), Eun. 1063 {quam). In the last A, 
 Umpf. read scis ; cf. Becker, 279, n. PI. 9, Ter. 3. 
 
 These are a further development of b and c. In those the sub- 
 ordinate clause is almost without independent meaning ; in these 
 it has dropped off from lack of use, only the interrogative remain- 
 ing. They refer, as do the others, to a preceding speech, which 
 they correct {at, sed in eight cases) by adding an exaggerated and 
 often threatening explanation. Cases which are not threatening 
 are Aul. 307, Mil. 1162, Most. 642. 
 
 (/"). Rud. 382, scin tu f etiam qui it lavatum ... is the only 
 example in PI. of scin without object ; cf. audin, viden. Heaut. 
 297 is an irregular sentence, but seems to me similar to Rud. 382, 
 and I should read (after BCDEFP) scin tu ? hanc quam dicit, etc. 
 
 Upon the uses of scin, taken together, it may be remarked, 
 first, that the nonne effect in genuine questions (and to some slight 
 extent with scin quid) is due to the sense oi scire, not to the form 
 of the question or the particle ne. Second, there is a gradual 
 decline in the importance of the object clause, until in scin quid? 
 it becomes almost meaningless. But it is not lost altogether 
 (except in the one or two cases noticed), as in audin and viden, 
 because with audin the object is easily supplied from the words 
 which are being uttered, with viden from the object or action to 
 which attention is called, while with scin no such object is present 
 to the senses. Third, it is often said (e, g. Lor. on Ps. 263, 
 Becker, p. 276) that scin here unites with quis into an indefinite 
 like nescio quis. But it should be noticed that in nearly all these 
 phrases, nescio quis, nescio an, haud scio an, there is a negative, 
 and even if we admit the possibility of an indefinite scio quis (Aul. 
 174, scio quid diciura's, which Lor. quotes, is not to the point), 
 we have still only first pers. verbs. The first person and the nega- 
 tive seem to me to be essential ; it is the speaker's own ignorance 
 which makes his statement indefinite, and I do not see how nescis 
 quis could form one indefinite idea. Further, none of these 
 indefinite phrases appears to be used in questions, nor does it seem 
 possible to say nescione quid eit ? in a sense like esine aliquid f 
 Besides, all forms of scin questions except d and / are occasion- 
 
17 
 
 ally answered by some form of scire ; cf. Most. 642, sed sciii qiw- 
 iusmodi? l| qui scire possum? If the meaning of the verb is still ' 
 felt in a phrase so weakened as this, it cannot be that it is not per- 
 fectly clear in such a sentence as Men. 677, scin quid est, quod ego 
 ad te venio ? H scio. The weakening of meaning in all these 
 phrases is in the ^wz^-clause, not in the verb. 
 
 spondeit. Aul. 256, sponden ergo ? 1| spondeo. Capt. 898, Cure. 
 674, Poen. 1157, Trin. 1157, 1162 {sponden in the fifth place). 
 
 PI. 6, Ter. o. 
 
 All are answered by spondeo and illustrate .the formal, unemo- 
 tional question ; cf. dabin. 
 
 stasne. Cas. Ill 6, 20, stasne ? itu iam sis. So A (Geppert). 
 
 tenesne. Heaut. 'j'jZ, argenium dabitur ei ad nuptias, aurum 
 aique vestem qui — tenesne? \\ comparet? 1] id ipsum ; cf. nostin ^ 
 in Ter. 
 
 valen. Trin. 50, valen? valuistin f || valeo et valui rectius. 
 
 viden. {a). With direct object. Bacch. 834, viden convivium ? 
 II video exadvorsum Pistoclerum et Bacchidem. Bacch, 1161, 
 Most. 829. In Rud. 157, Eun. 836, the object is to be supplied. 
 In a number of passages the text is more or less uncertain. Most. 
 83,2, viden pictum, ubi . . .? (So Stud. Becker, 275-6. Lor.'' 
 reads vide tu, omitting pictum as a gloss.) Mil. Glor. 376 is very 
 uncertain, see especially Langen, p. 276. On Rud. 253, viden 
 amabo fanum videsne hoc, which has been variously punctuated, 
 Uss. rightly says, " duplex videsne ferri non potest." 
 
 These are all simple questions, generally answered by video, 
 and not inclining in any marked way either toward the impv. or 
 nonne. Epid. 221, viden veneficam? is like the others in form, 
 but entirely different in sense ; as the woman was not present, it 
 means something like, " What a witch ! " I should read vide. 
 
 PI. 6 [8], Ter. i. 
 
 {U). With the infinitive. Capt. 595, viden tu illi maculari 
 corpus totum maculis luridis? Men. 828, Mil. 219, 990, Poen. 
 979, St. 637, Andr. 616, Eun. 241, 754. PI. 6, Ter. 3. 
 
 These have in all cases the effect of nonne, produced by the fact 
 that they ask the person addressed whether he perceives a state 
 of things which the infin. with subject accusative in the same sen- 
 tence declares to be evident. That is, logically such a sentence 
 is equal to, " His body is spotted all over ! Don't you see it ? " 
 If in such a case one should say in English " Do you see it ? " 
 the mere use of the question in immediate connection with the 
 assertion would produce the nonne effect. 
 
i8 
 
 (c). With dependent clause introduced by u^ {quid, quani), 
 . sometimes with prolepsis of the subject of the subordinate clause. 
 
 Cure. 1 60, viden ut anus tremula medicinam facit ? Asin. 149, 
 636 iquid'), Bacch. 492, 1130, Capt. 557. Cure. 188, Men. 646, 
 Mil. 1045, Most. 1172, Pers. 812, Rud. 171, 869, 1093, Trin. 847 
 {quid'), Eun. 265 {quid), 783 {quam rem). Also Stich. 635, 636, 
 Poen. 314, partly on conjecture, and Cure. 311 {vide ut, Goetz). 
 In Most. 254, Mil. 1272 the MSS are misleading. True. 891 is 
 entirely confused. In Most. 817, viden vestibulum ante aedis hoc 
 et ambulacrum, quoiusmodi f the verb of the subordinate clause 
 is omitted, as in scin quam, quomodo, etc. PI. 20, Ter. 2. 
 
 These questions are discussed by Becker, 272-3. He concludes 
 that there is practically no difference in sense between viden ut 
 and vide ut, comparing St. 410 with Asin. 636, Phorm. 358 with 
 Eun. 265, and adding, " adhortationis vocabulum est, quo alterius 
 oculi ad rem vel personam, de qua verba hunt, conspiciendam 
 advertantur." While in general the correctness of this cannot be 
 doubted, it is worth while also to note some evidences that the 
 interrogative force is not wholly lost. In Rud. 869 the question 
 is answered by video ; in several passages, e. g. Capt. 557, Men. 
 646, the context shows that viden is much nearer in sense to nonne 
 vides than to vide ; the close similarity in other phrases between 
 an infin. and an M^-clause in Plautus supports the idea that viden 
 ut is not very widely removed from viden with an infin.; cf. Stich. 
 635, 636, viden benignitates hom,inum ut periere et prothymiae f 
 with 62,'], viden ridiculos nihili fieri . . .? It seems plain that, 
 though viden and vide were interchangeable, the impv. effect was 
 very closely allied to the nonne effect, and the question was still 
 felt in some cases and to some slight degree. 
 
 {d). viden without dependent words. Capt. 304, sed viden ? 
 fortuna humana fingit artatque ut lubet. Heaut. 252. In Cure. 
 93 the MSS have OT^fw ut aperiuntur aedes festivissumae ? 
 against the metre. Goetz reads viden? aperiuntur, but viden 
 alone is argumentative as is scin tu ? while vide ut is used to call 
 attention to a present occurrence. I should therefore read with 
 Botha, vide ut. Poen. 441 is in a passage where the speaker, in 
 utter confusion, pours out a stream of disconnected phrases, which 
 deserve the careful attention of the student of colloquial Latin. 
 A has scin quam ? — videtur — credin quod ego fabuler ? BCD 
 vide iu. Guyet conjectured viderv tu ? which suits the passage 
 better than videtur, as Goetz and Loewe read in their admirable 
 arrangement of these lines. 
 
19 
 
 With these cf. audtn, scin iu, nostin (Ter.) PI. 3 [4], Ter. i. 
 
 vin. Arranged according to the object, (a). With accusative. 
 Cure. 313, vin aquam? |1 . . . da, obsecro hercle. Cas. II 8, 61, 
 Cure. 96 (voUisne), Most. 309, 846, Rud. 1328. PI. 6, Ter. o. 
 
 The answer is generally a refusal, expressed by guid opust, 
 apage, dormis, never by nolo. That is, the verb necessarily sug- 
 gests an offer of service. The questions are simple and unemo- 
 tional. 
 
 {b). With infinitive active without subject accusative. Men. 141, 
 vin tu f acinus luculentum inspicere ? Merc. 769, Mil. 458, 535, 
 978, 979. Pers. 587 bis, 657, 660, Poen. 159, 161, 163, 308, 11 15, 
 1415, Ad. 906, Heaut. 585, Ph. 807, 1052. 
 
 The answers are volo, malo, nolo, cupio (the most common), 
 and the question is regular, without impv. or nonne effect. Mil. 
 Glor. I I, 38, Rud. loii are spoken of below. 
 
 Infin. passive with or without accus. Amph. 769, vin proferri 
 pateram ? i| proferri volo. Asin. 646, Men. 653, Pers. 803, Merc. 
 490, Rud. 1035 (the only one without accus.). Ad. 969, Ph. 811. 
 Bacch. 873 will be given below. PI. 22, Ter. 6. 
 
 These are genuine questions, the answers to which frequently 
 contain volo or its equivalent. Their only peculiarity is a kind 
 of challenging effect, not unlike the offer of service spoken of 
 above, especially with the infin. active. " Do you want to see 
 some fun ? " implies " I will show you some fun, if you will come 
 with me." This makes vin with the infin., especially when tu is 
 expressed, a phrase of encouragement or exhortation.' 
 
 {c). Infin. active with accus. me. Merc. 462, vin me tecum, ilto 
 ire ? II nolo. Merc. 485, Rud. 1406, Heaut. 624, Hec. 725, Ph. 
 810. PI. 3, Ter. 3. 
 
 These are separated from the other infinitives because they are 
 closely related in sense to the following class. They present in 
 
 ' The distinction between vin tu and vis tu, made by Bentley on Hor. Sat. 
 II 6, 92, and generally accepted by the editors of Hor., is not sup[jort.ed by the 
 cases of vin tu in PI. and Ter. Men. 141, Mil. 458, 978, 979, Poen. 159, 163, 
 308, Ad. 906, Heaut. 585, as well as several passages in which tit is not 
 expressed, have a perfectly distinct sense " orantis, hortantis, flagitantis, 
 iubentis," which Bentley would con6ne to vis tu. They .ire perfect parallels 
 to vin tu homines urbemque feris praeponere silvis ? except that an answer conies 
 between the question and the following imperative, as is natural in dialogue. 
 Whatever may be true of vis tu in Sen., Juv., and Mart., it is impossible to 
 exclude vin tu from Hor. Sat. on the ground of sense, when it is so abundantly 
 attested in the comedy. Cf. Cic. Fani, IV 5, 4, 
 
20 
 
 themselves no peculiarity except the rather remarkable position 
 of me in Merc. 485, Rud. 1406 (vi'n tibi conditionem luculentam 
 ferre mef), which is probably not significant. 
 
 {d'). vin with the first person of the present subjunctive. Capt. 
 360, vin vocem hue ad te ? || voca. Asin. 647, Capt. 858, Cas. Ill 
 2, 14, Men. 614, Merc. 486, 722, Mil. 335, 1399, Most. 322, Pers. 575, 
 Poen. 439, 990, 1226, Ps. 324, 522, St. 397, 486, 736, Trin. 59, 
 1091, True. 502, 924, Eun. 894, Hec. 787, Ph. 102 {volHsne). In 
 True. 751 BCD have omittes inea mitto intro, for which Schoell 
 reads omitte. || vin earn intro ? \\ ad te quidem. The sense, I sup- 
 pose, would be, "Are you willing to let me go in? " a sense which 
 vin with the subjunctive nowhere has. The passage is entirely 
 confused. PI. 23 [24], Ter. 3. 
 
 Beside these passages there are four in which the MSS give 
 vis. On the very doubtful Mil. Gl. I i, 38, vis rogare ? or tabellas 
 vis rogare? I will only remark that there is no parallel in Plautus 
 or Terence to this use of vis ; all other cases with infin. refer to 
 something to be done. It may be that vis is the centre of error. 
 Bacch. 873, Cas. II 3, 54 (169 Gepp.), Rud. loii all have vis, 
 which Geppert in Cas. II 3, 54 has changed to vin. As the 
 other cases are, in form and sense, entirely parallel to those 
 given above, I should read vin both in Bacch. 873 and Rud. loii. 
 
 The answers to vin with the subjunctive are volo, cjipio, licet, 
 censeo, and three or four times the imperative of the dependent 
 verb. This seems to show that, while vin may be neglected in 
 the answer, so that vin hue vocem ? is almost like eon ? voco hue 
 hominem ? its proper force is never wholly lost. The subjunctive 
 is always in the first person (except Most. 322, visne ego te ae tu 
 me amplectare f where the second person is, of course, due to 
 the previous use of the first person), and always in the sing, 
 except Trin. 59, Eun. 894, Ph. 102. 
 
 It appears from the foregoing that only the forms vin facere, 
 vin hoc fieri, vin me facere, and vin faciam are in use, the pas- 
 sive taking the place of the third person active. Between vin me 
 facere and vin faciam there is apparently no difference in mean- 
 ing (cf Merc. 462, vin me tecum illo ire ? with 486, visne earn ad 
 portum ? and also Asin. 646, 647). But it is remarkable that 
 while PI. uses vin faciam, the paratactic construction, 23 times, 
 and vin me facere, the hypotaxis, only three times, Ter. uses vin 
 faciam three times (two plur.) and vin me facere three times. 
 
 vivisne. Rud 243, die : vivisne, opsecro ? 
 
21 
 
 Indicative present, third person. 
 
 Most of the third persons of the present are entirely regular, 
 differing in no respect from similar questions in more formal and 
 later styles. They are amatne, Epid. 64; cognoscitne, Eun. 915; 
 daturne, Andv. 301; doletne,¥s. 155; egetne, Tr'm. 33o;/ifr/«^, 
 Bacch. 322 ; foetetne, Asin. 928 (second word in sentence) ; 
 licetne, Cas. II 8, 20, Cure. 401, Ps. 16 (MSS Bx. G. licet me), 
 Hec. 873, And. 893; without infin., Mil. 501, 521, Heaut. 973; 
 paenitetne. True. 533 (Ps. 305 is given under an) ; scitne, Ps. 
 745; valetne. True. 190; vivitne, Capt. 282, 989, Heaut. 660; 
 vivontne. Ph. 749. On Bacch. 188 see Goetz, Langen, Beitr. 131. 
 
 The effect of nonne appears plainly in Amph. 526, facitne ut 
 dixi? and Andr. prol. 11 , faciuntne iniellegendo ut nil intel- 
 legant; cf. Don. ad loc. It is less distinct in Most. 622, videturne 
 (MSS videtur). In all three cases it arises from the asking of a 
 question the answer to which is made evident from the context or 
 the action. In Most. 605 the MSS have date mihi (BC) or daturin 
 (A ?), for which Rit. substituted daturne faenus f with impv. effect. 
 This is not supported by any analogous case in PL or Ter. 
 
 PI. 17 [18], Ter. 8. 
 
 esine (juntne) is separated because of some special uses. 
 
 In regular questions hke the preceding, True. 189, estne intus 
 nunc Phronesium? Poen. 797, Rud. 1130, True. 309, Ad. 569, 
 Eun. 361, Heaut. 454. In Pers. 310 estne is preceded by an unfin- 
 ished question with ecquid. Men. 1107 estne (twice) is a con- 
 jecture of Rit. for est of MSS. See IV B. With perf. ptc., 
 Bacch. 1023, Epid. 471. Capt. 281, Rud. 719 have suntne. 
 
 In a soliloquy, expressing a partial recognition of some person 
 who has just come upon the stage. Bacch. 534, estne hie meus 
 sodalis ? II estne hie hostis quern aspicio meus ? || certe is est. || is 
 est. Cure. 230, 275, Merc. 866, Mil. 169, Most. 310, Poen. 1299, 
 Rud. 334 (twice), Trin. 432, Ad. 78, 438, Andr. 800, Eun. 848, 
 974, Ph. 740. In Capt. 788, Asin. 585 the proper name precedes 
 the verb. 
 
 In the following cases estne is equivalent to nonne est. Epid. 
 622, esine ita, ut tibi dixi? Amph. 780, Asin. 54, Bacch. 901, 986, 
 Cist. II I, 15, Pers. 225, Trin. 403, Ph. 896. The same effect has 
 been supposed to exist in some of the passages where estne is 
 used in soliloquy. The reason in all is the same, i. e. there is 
 some evident fact which compels an afifirmative answer, or some- 
 thing in the question itself, beside estne, which appeals to such a 
 
22 
 
 fact. So ut dixi Epid. 622, Ph. 896, ut {quod') dico, Asin. 54, 
 Bacch. 986, and some form oi hie in nearly all the others. In the 
 cases of estne in recognition, it is the presence of the other person 
 on the stage. The large extent of this usage is explained by the 
 fact that it served to introduce the new-comer to the audience. 
 
 PI. 29, Ter. 10. 
 
 Indicative imperfect. 
 
 conveniebatne, Ps. 1181. Other clauses precede, but this is 
 really the beginning of the question. 
 
 ibatne, Hec. 157. 
 
 These are regular questions. No other persons or numbers are 
 used. PI. I, Ter. i. 
 
 Indicative future. 
 
 negabon, Andr. 612, adibon, Mil. 1242. The latter is extremely 
 doubtful. For questions in regard to what one is about to do the 
 regular usage requires either pres. indie, with ne (see above) or 
 the pres. subj. The future tense, at least in questions, has a clear 
 reference to a future time; cf Andr. 612, Mil. 1021. The only 
 approach to a parallel is True. 206, ibo igiiur intra ? which, if it 
 is interrogative at all, asks for permission, not for advice. Leo's 
 adbitone? is in harmony with Plautine usage, or as no question 
 is absolutely required, any more than in True. 206, we might read 
 adibo. II minume, but it is not improbable that the whole passage 
 is corrupt, auferen, Ps. 1224. dabin, Bacch. 883, Ps. 117, 536, 
 1077, all in stipulatio. In accordance with the formal character of 
 these questions, they are answered by dabo or its equivalent, and 
 it is perhaps for the same reason that in two the verb comes at the 
 end. Cas. Ill 6, 9 is an improbable conjecture of Geppert. ibisne, 
 St. 612. Heaut. 813, ibin hinc quo dlgnus es? is a conjecture of 
 Bentley for MSS is hinc or i iu hinc. Ter. apparently uses the 
 future in such phrases as this, if the MSS are correct in Eun. 536, 
 but there is no case of the fut. with ne, nor does it seem possible 
 to express impv. eifect in this way. patierin, Epid. 148, and by 
 conj. Asin. 738, Cist. II i, 24 (325 Vss.), po/erin, Ph. 518 (near the 
 end of the sentence), reddeturne. Most. 580. eximesne, Rud. 
 233 is a conjecture of Schoell for eximes. It would have impv. 
 force, but the passage is wholly confused. PI. 8 [13], Ter. 2 [3]. 
 
 These are all genuine questions, without impv. or nonne effect, 
 and with a distinct reference to a future time, beyond the imme- 
 diate future. 
 
 Indicative perfect, first person. 
 
 cenavin, Amph. 823 ; dedin, Epid. 703, True. 935 (MSS dedt) ; 
 
23 
 
 (iixin,Bacch. 856, Cist. Frag. 27 (Ben.) = 251 Uss., Men. 283, 
 375, Ps. 489, 1227, Ad. 83, Eun. 1093, Hec.4g7 ; emin, Eun.691 ; 
 tussin, Cas. II 2, 4, Asin. 424, 425, 426; misine, Bacch. 561; 
 scivin, Ps. 976 ; tetigin, Ad. 178 ; vidin, Heaut. 563 ; votuin, Capt. 
 703. In Epid. 550, 7iovin ego te ? the verb is really present in 
 sense. Epid. 539 has a large lacuna, but no other case in PI. or 
 Ter. supports the omission olne, and it seems necessary to supply 
 it with Spengel, Ref. p. 372. In Andr. 495 edixin is the reading 
 (if I understand Umpf. rightly) of all MSS, and is required by 
 the sense. Bentley's edixi seems to be due to a misunderstanding 
 of the nonne effect, and Dz., Adn. Crit. xx, has apparently mis- 
 taken the app. crit. in Umpf PI. 17 [18], Ter. 7. 
 
 In nearly all these cases there is a perfectly clear nonne effect, 
 so that we must translate " didn't I tell you so? " " didn't I know 
 it?" "didn't I order you . . .?" Just as 5«« sometimes asks for 
 an acknowledgment, so dixin does not ask for information ("did 
 I say that ? "), but demands from the person addressed an 
 acknowledgment that a certain thing had been said or done by 
 the speaker; cf for similar effect estne ut dixif Epid. 622, Ph. 
 896, where there is the same reference to an undeniable fact. 
 
 That this efiect is not the necessary result of anything in the 
 form of the question appears from Cist. 251 (Uss.), dixui ego 
 istaec obsecro ? which the context shows to be a half-dazed ques- 
 tion for information, and still more clearly from Ad. 178, tetigin 
 tut qiiicquam f This is equivalent to num. tetigi . . .? that is, 
 it appeals in the same- way for an acknowledgment, but in this 
 case for a negative. The presence of quicquam may be due to 
 this negative demand, but does not produce it; cf Capt. 703, 
 votuin te quicquam. mi hodie falsum proloqui ? || votuisti, where, 
 however, qu'cquam is in the subordinate clause. The perfect is 
 aoristic in all cases, except perhaps Cist. 251, Ad. 178. 
 
 Perfect indicative, second person. 
 
 In the following passages ne is found in the MSS and is unob- 
 jectionable on metrical grounds. 
 
 accepistin. True. 791 ; adduxtin, Capt. 1016, Ph. 568; adfiuis- 
 tin, St. 224 ; audivistin (audistin), Amph. 748, 752, Andr. 785, 
 Ad. 539, Ph. 612; aufugistin, Eun. 851; cenavistin, Cure. 18; 
 convenistin, Ps. 1079 ; dedistine, Trin. 129 ; dixtin, Most. 552, Eun. 
 792, Hec. 45 t; emistin, Trin. 124; fuisiin, Capt. 628; incon- 
 ciliastin, Trin. 136; infellextin, Andr. 201, Eun. 768; iuravistin, 
 Ps. 352 ; meministin, Epid. 554, Asin. 333, Ps. 1089, Heaut. 626, 
 
24 
 
 Ph. 224; novistin, nostin, Bacch. 837, Cure. 423, Epid. 503, Men. 
 748, Poen. 1 121, Trin. 905, Ad. 177, 573, Eun. 328, 349, 351, 563, 
 Heaut. 180, Ph. 63. Also alone, after a partial interruption by 
 the speaker, Ad. 780, Eun. 405, Heaut. 527. perdidistin. Cure. 
 ^Z\; promisiin. Cure. 709; sensistin, Hec. 316; surrupuistin, 
 Men. 507 ; tetigistin, Most. 457, 466 ; valuisiin, Amph. 679, Cure. 
 16, St. 467, 586, Trin. 50 ; vidisiin, Amph. 616, Merc. 720, Mil. 546, 
 533. St. 393, Ad. 400, Eun. 349, 713. PI. 37, Ter. 26. 
 
 The following cases are conjectural, ne not being found in the 
 MSS. dedistin, Cure. 345, novistin, Trwc. 406, 726, qffirmastin, 
 Pers. 222, promisisti7i, Rud. 1384. 
 
 Beside these there are several places in which the MSS vary, 
 some of which can be settled upon metrical grounds. In Trin. 420, 
 A has accepistin, R' Bx. accepisli with period. In Andr. 975, 
 Heaut. 684, 731, Ph. 577 the MSS Call, have audistin, A audisti. 
 In Aul. 171 the MSS have wwzj/w, which is metrically impossible. 
 In Andr. 441, where all but D have nosti, I should prefer nostin. 
 Heaut. 884, Call. Dz. nuntiastin, A Umpf. nuntiavisti. Other 
 cases where the metre decides for the omission oine will be given 
 below. 
 
 It will be seen that the MSS do not distinguish with certainty 
 between forms with ne and those without it, nor does the metre 
 afford help in all cases, especially where syncopated forms (audisti 
 nosti) are possible. We must be satisfied here with a moderate 
 degree of probability, and must depend for our text more upon 
 metrical indications and the knowledge which can be obtained 
 from similar passages, than upon the MSS.' As will be shown 
 later, the cases where the MSS and the metre agree upon the 
 second pers. perf. without ne at the beginning of a question are 
 very few, not more than two or three. 
 
 ' For example, in Trin. 127, 129, and 136 the MSS give ne. In 127 R' and 
 Bx. omit ne on the ground that dedistin argentum? would be " eine ruhig 
 gehaltene und Antwort erwartende Frage " (Ex., and cf. Rit. Prolegg. CV. 
 adn.) But Andr. 785, Mbst. 552, Ps. 352, and especially Most. 457, 466 show 
 that the second pers. perf. with ne may be used in a highly emotional passage. 
 Again, in Trin. 129 and 136 Bx. regards ne as used " ira Sinne von nonne" 
 There are only two passages, Eun. 792 and Ps. 352, where the second pers. 
 perf. has clearly the sense of nonne ; both are verbs of saying, both aoristic, 
 and both challenge the hearer to acknowledge a past occurrence. While it 
 seems presumptuous to differ from such a Plautine scholar as Brix, I cannot 
 think that the sense oi nonne is possible either in 129 or 136, and sliould much 
 prefer to follow Bergk, Opusc. I, p. 619, and read dedisti (129) inconciliasti 
 ilium (136), making both declarative sentences. 
 
25 
 
 These sentences are for the most part regular and unemotional 
 questions, though they may be used without change of form, as 
 may any question, to express emotion. See list in note. In two 
 cases, Eun. 792, dixfin, and Ps. 352, iuravistin, they are used 
 with an appeal in such a way as to give the sense of nonne, and 
 there is a tendency to this effect in some cases of meminiUifi ^nd 
 nostin. The large number of cases from Ter. is noteworthy ; they 
 are mostly verbs of saying and perceiving, in syncopated forms, 
 audistin, intellextin, memimstin, nostin, sensisiin, vidistin. 
 
 Indicative perfect, third person. 
 
 accepitne, Bacch. 250; caruitne, Cure. 17; convenitne, Mil. 
 1 105 ; fuitne, Capt.' 633, Trin. 106 ; habuitne, Trin. 330 ; peperitne. 
 True. 504 ; rettulitne, Asin. 444 (last word in sentence, and cf. 
 432, 436, 441) ; venitne, Bacch. 247, True. 931, Ps. 1067. 
 
 PI. II, Ter. o. 
 
 Several of these, Trin. 106, Capt. 633, True. 931, have some 
 nonne effect, though it is not absolutely necessary to take any of 
 them so. They do not differ in form from the rest, which are 
 questions for information. 
 
 Indicative pluperfect. 
 
 norasne, Eun. 698. Cf. Ad. 465. 
 
 Subjunctive present. 
 
 adeamne, Andr. 639 ; aussimne, Merc. 301 ; loquarne. Ph. 186 ; 
 maneamne, Hec. 442 ; possin (^possisne), Merc. 518. experiarne. 
 True. 753, is an uncertain conjecture. PI. 2, Ter. 3. 
 
 The two cases from PI. have the subjunct. for reasons apart 
 from the interrogation. The cases from Ter. are, however, like 
 those to be given later, in which the speaker asks for an impera- 
 tive answer. 
 
 Subjunctive imperfect. 
 
 essetne, Capt. 714, Trin. 178 ; iuberen, Ps. 494. All conditional 
 and all with the sense oi nonne. 
 
 Subjunctive perfect. 
 
 noverisne, Trin. 952. Conditional. 
 
 Infinitive. 
 
 servirin iibi postulas viros ? Men. 795. V. Ex. n. 
 
 These are all regular questions. 
 
 Compound Forms^ 
 Future participle. 
 abiturun, Poeu. 432 ; daturin. Most. 63 (MSS daturi with bad 
 
26 
 
 hiatus), 604. Most. 605 has been discussed under daturne. ituran, 
 Eun. 462. Andr. 751 reads in the MSS and Priscian diciuran es 
 quod rogo ? for which Bentley from metrical necessity reads 
 dictura. While there seems to be no other way of healing the 
 verse, it should be noticed that impv. questions elsewhere require 
 ne, etiam or non. missurun, Cas. Ill 4, 20. Except Eun. 462 all 
 have impv. effect. 
 
 Perfect participle. 
 
 loquitalusne es, Bacch. 803 ; ratun es, Mil. 558. visun est, Merc. 
 202, visan est Mil. 462. Epid. 495 is doubtful ; A has mercatun or 
 -turn, Goetz mercatus with B. These are all deponent, with past 
 sense ; the following are passives and seem to have a present sense, 
 as if the ptcc. were adjj. capiusnest, Pers. 644 ; coctumnest, Bacch. 
 716 (cf Beck. 127); nuptanest, Bacch. 852. 
 
 Participle in -dus. 
 
 mirandumne, Hec. 65i. PI. 11 [12], Ter. 2 [3]. 
 
 B. Ne APPENDED TO PRONOUNS. 
 
 Arranged according to case and person of pronoun. 
 
 Egone. 
 
 (a). With the indicative. Amph. 747, ex te audivi . . . || egon 
 istuc dixif Amph. 743, Bacch. 806, Men. 389, 653, Merc. 761, 
 Ph. 999. True. 959 is a very probable conjecture ; Hec. 875 is 
 against A and the metre; Mil. 882, read quin. PI. 7, Ter. i. 
 
 The verb is in all cases repeated from a preceding speech, and 
 except in True. 959, Ph. 999 is in the perfect indie. These ques- 
 tions therefore reject or deny an assertion in regard to a past 
 occurrence, by repeating the assertion in an exclamatory way. 
 They are closely connected with the more numerous cases of 
 repetition without ne, to be given hereafter. The pronoun is 
 expressed and put first in order to emphasize the denial, as in 
 English, "/said that!" 
 
 {b). With verb in the subjunctive. These are further sub- 
 divided according to the construction of the preceding sentence. 
 
 Following an imperative. Most. 633, die te daturum. \\ egon 
 dicamdare?\\ die. Cure. 119, Pers. 188, Ps. 1327, Capt. 139, 
 Andr. 384, Heaut. 1016. After an impv. subjunct., second sing. 
 Bacch. 1 190, Epid. 574. True. 276 is an uncertain conjecture. 
 
 Following volo with infin., or other phrase equivalent to an 
 impv. Aul. 824, nunc volo me emitti manu. \\ egon te emittam 
 
27 
 
 manu? Bacch. iigaa, Cure. lo, 494, Mil. 685, 1276, Most. 301, 
 Trin. 515, True. 312, 443 (Sch. egone ut ; cf. Lang. Stud. p. 87), 
 775, And. 584, Eun. 153, Ph. 260, 431. The suggestion of an 
 impv. is least distinct in Most. 3QI, quor exprobras ? 1| egone id 
 exprobrem . . .? 
 
 The repeated word is in the infin., depending upon some verb 
 of general meaning. Ps. 290, . . . surruperes patri. \\ egon pairi 
 surrupere possim quicquam? So with ausim, Merc. 154, Most. 
 923, 924, Poen. 149; with sinam, Andr. 271, Hec. 852; queam, 
 Andr. 270 ; pattar, Men. 559, Andr. 943. 
 
 With subjunctive. PI. 24, Ter. 10. 
 
 A full consideration of these questions must be postponed until 
 the analogous forms without ne have been given ; meanwhile it 
 should be noted that all these cases differ from those with the 
 indie, in that they repudiate the will or the power to do some- 
 thing, while the indie, denies a past occurrence. This appears 
 from the fact that they repeat in an exclamatory way a command 
 or suggestion, and from the frequent use oi possim, sinam, queam, 
 etc. The negative is non. 
 
 (c). egone ut with the subjunctive. Aul. 690, egone ut te advor- 
 sum mentiar ? Asin. 884, Bacch. 196, 375, 489, Poen. 428, Rud. 
 1244, True. 441, twice (for 443 see above), Heaut. 784. 
 
 With verbs of general sense, as above, patiar, Asin. 810, Trin. 
 378, True. 758, Ph. 304; putein, Bacch. 637; nequeam, Ps. 516; 
 auderem. Mil. 963. PI. 15, Ter. 2. 
 
 These are like the preceding except that they do not follow and 
 repeat an impv. They have non for negative. 
 
 (a?), egone quid {queni) with the subjunctive. Cas. I i, 29, 
 quid tu mihi fades ? 1| egone quid faciam iibi? Eun. 191, Hec. 
 849. In Most. 556 all MSS give quid nunc faciundum censes ? || 
 egon quid censeam ? and in Eun, 651 all but A have quern quaeris, 
 Pythias f \\ ehem Phaedria. egon quern quaeram? .1 should 
 preserve the reading in both cases. PI. i [2], Ter. 2 [3]. 
 
 As the preceding classes deny a fact or repudiate a command 
 or suggestion, these repeat in an exclamatory way a preceding 
 question, and suggest that the question is absurd. There is no 
 negative used with them. 
 
 (if), egon without verb. With the pronoun may be used a few 
 words repeated from the preceding sentence. Asin. 899, ecquid 
 tnatrem amas? \\ egone illam? Asin. 609, Cas. II 3, 27, Merc. 
 317, 323, Mil. 1139, True. 898, And. 504, Eun. 65, 757. 
 
28 
 
 egone alone, answered by tune, tu isiic. tu ipsus, or unanswered. 
 Capt. 857, tute facias . . . || egone? 1| tune. Amph. 575, Cas. II 
 3, 49, V 4, 13, Epid. 575, Mil. 439, Men. 651, 937, Most. 634, 955, 
 Ps. 723, St. 635, Trin. 634, True. 586, Hec. 214, Ph. 504. 
 
 When egone follows a question, it is itself followed by an answer 
 to the question. Poen. 333, quo te agis ? |1 egone ? in aedem 
 Veneris. Cure. 664, Men. 162, Most. 1014, Rud. 1272, Heaut. 
 608, 740, 945, Eun. loi, 305, 778, 1026, Ph. 57, 938. (An answer 
 or retort follows also in some of the cases above, Asin. 899, 609, 
 Eun. 757.) In these the repudiating tone is lowered to a slight 
 surprise that the question should have been asked. This less 
 emotional use is more common in Ter. than in PL Without verb, 
 PI. 26, Ter. 14. 
 
 Leaving for future consideration the relation of these sentences 
 to other forms, the use of ut and the mood, we may notice here 
 that the pronoun is really, though slightly, emphatic in all cases. 
 As in English, this slight emphasis confines the repudiation to the 
 speaker's own conduct, as if he said " What may have happened 
 I don't know, but I had nothing to do with it." This is the reason 
 why in so many cases the verb is omitted ; the action is indifferent, 
 and the speaker is concerned only with his own connection 
 with it. 
 
 The idea of repudiation or rejection, which has led some Ger- 
 man grammarians to call egone ut and, e. g. egon dicam "unwil- 
 lige oder missbilHgende Fragen,'' is not confined to egone with 
 the subjunctive, but appears more or less distinctly in all questions 
 with egone. When egone without verb follows a question (after a 
 question, except with quid, the verb is always omitted), this rejec- 
 tion amounts only to a slight wonder that the question should be 
 asked, and these cases approach questions for information. Other- 
 wise egone never asks for information and is never, in meaning, a 
 genuine question. It has the verb late in the sentence, repeats 
 the words or idea of the other speaker, and is nothing more than 
 an exclamatory repetition, to which the interrogative particle has 
 been prefixed. 
 
 Tune. 
 
 These resemble questions with egone, having only those varia- 
 tions which necessarily result from the different person. 
 
 («). With the indicative. There is greater variety of tense and 
 usage than with egone. Present tense, Merc. 305, amo. || tun 
 
29 
 
 capite cano antas . . ,? Capt. 572, Men. 305, Rud. 1399 Sch., St. 
 326 twice, True. 609, Andr. gio, Hec. 549. 
 
 With es, Cure. 419, . . . istum quern quaeris ego sum. || quaeso, 
 tun is es? Asin. 57, Capt. 1021, Cist. 390 Uss., Epid. 556, 641, 
 Men. 1079, Ps. 607, 978, loio, 1143, Rud. 1055, 1377, Trin. 635 
 (MSS tu and so Bx. Krit. Anli., on ground that tun would be 
 unemotional. But ef. Rud. 1377). Hec. 803 is a conjecture of 
 Bentley, correct in form, but departing somewhat widely from the 
 MSS. PI. 20 [21], Ter. 2 [3]. 
 
 These partake of the nature of exclamatory repetitions in that 
 the idea has always been expressed or implied before. With 
 other verbs wonder and incredulity are also expressed, but with 
 es the emotion is less, amounting generally to nothing more than 
 doubt, which the speaker desires to have removed. But the order 
 of the sentence and the fact of repetition seem to connect these 
 questions with exclamatory repetitions. 
 
 (J)). With verbs of saying and feeling, in the present tense. 
 Most. 331, madet homo. \\ tun me ais ma- ma- m,adere ? Aul. 137, 
 Capt. 571, Mil. 366, Men. 820, True. 586. audes, Amph. 373, 565, 
 566, Bacch. 1 163, Men. 738, Poen. 271, 1310, Rud. 734. autumas, 
 Bacch. 822. diets, Amph. 758. loquere, Asin. 477. memoras, 
 Capt. 577. negas, Amph. 758, Men. 630, 821. (The MSS give 
 tun in 630, tu in 821 ; Bx.' tu in both, v. note and Krit. Anh. on 
 630.) nominas, Bacch. 253. postulas, Amph. 361, Rud. 709 
 (Sch. i hue), praedicas, Men. 515. vituperas, Aul. 325, Cure. 
 192. vocas, Cure. 191. tubes, Ad. 924. PI. 27, Ter. i. 
 
 As in the preceding classes, these refer to something which has 
 just been said, only instead of repeating the verb, the general 
 eflfect of the sentence is summed up in the single word, vituperas, 
 negas, nominas. When the verb requires a complement (ais, 
 postulas, vocas), it usually has the verb of the preceding sentence 
 in the infin. 
 
 (c). Other tenses of the indicative show no peculiarity, except 
 that they also are more exclamatory than interrogative. Imper- 
 fect, Hec. 340, Eun. 86, Ph. 945 (all tun hie {is) eras ? to express 
 surprise at the unexpected appearance of some person). Future, 
 Asin. 104, Rud. 748. Pluperfect, Ph. 613. Perfect, Amph. 717, 
 Mil. 368, 494, Most. 369, Ps. 625, 1 177, St. 373, Trin. 1179, Ad. 
 638. Perhaps also Andr. 742, as this is entirely like other cases 
 with the perf. Rit. Dz. read tu. Cist. I i, 88 should be tu en 
 umquam. Most. 593 is entirely uncertain. PI. 10, Ter. 5 [6], 
 
30 
 
 There is an evident advance between Pi. and Ter. in using other 
 tenses than the pres. 
 
 (af). With the subjunctive. Asin. 628, {volo) kunc . . . verbe- 
 rare. || tun verberes, qui pro cibo habeas verberari? Asin. 700, 
 Aul. 756, Cas. I I, 23, Ml). 497, Pers. 135, 295, And. 910, Eun. 
 808. These follow expressions of will or intention, volo, sine and 
 the future, and reject the idea as do questions with egone and the 
 present subjunct. 
 
 The imperfect is used in condition Ph. 932, and the perfect 
 Amph. 818. PI. 8, Ter. 3. 
 
 {/). tune without verb. Asin. 230, Merc. 158, 888, Mil. 290 
 {tutiii), Ps. 939, Ad. 127, Heaut. 343, Hec. 862. These are 
 entirely similar to eg07ie without verb. Three, Asin. 230, Merc. 
 158, Heaut. 343, follow a question and are followed by a brief 
 answer. PI. 5, Ter. 3. 
 
 Questions with tune are in several ways less distinctly marked 
 than questions with egone. In many cases the emphasis of tu is 
 plain, in others it is less evident. It is easy to see that ain tu 
 with infin. is less emotional than tun ais, and there is perhaps a 
 distinction between tun negas ? and negas ? but it is not so clear 
 with tune as with egone how the expression of the pronoun helps 
 to make the question emotional.' In the large majority of cases, 
 however, the pronoun is emphatic by contrast. Merc. 305, amo. || 
 tun capite cano amas ? means, " You, a grey-haired man, in 
 love ! (1 could understand it in a young man, but not in you.) " 
 
 The idea of rejection or repudiation, also, while it runs through 
 the various forms of question with tune, is subject to exceptions. 
 All questions with es express a hesitating desire for confirmation 
 of the previous statement. This is true even of Ps. \\i'],tune 
 solitus es. Men. 1079, tun meo paire' s prognatus ? Rud. 1377 
 and Trin. 633 are the only cases which decidedly reject. 
 
 Yet the reference to the preceding sentence, the emphasis upon 
 the pronoun, the late position of the verb and the idea of repudia- 
 
 ' It seems probable that the tone of many forms of question is somewhat 
 affected by the omission or expression of the personal pronoun, but it is impos- 
 sible to reduce these phenomena to any law without including declarative 
 sentences. With the two general principles that the pronoun is expressed for 
 emphasis, and that it may perhaps be expressed or omitted to help out the 
 metre, we do not advance very far. This subject, with the allied question of 
 the uses oi hie, iste and ille, in which Plautus seems almost capricious, would 
 well repay investigation. 
 
31 
 
 tion are so distinct in the large majority of cases that it seems 
 necessary to regard questions with tune as exclamatory repetitions, 
 like those with egone. 
 
 Personal pronouns in other cases than the nominative. 
 
 ■men (ace.) men rogasf Men. 614, Epid. 98, Heaut. 246. In 
 Merc. 633, Mil. 426 read me rogas. V. Bx. Anh. Other verbs, 
 Cist. II 3, 53, Men. 786, 1050, Cas. II 6, 29, III 5, 38, Capt. 121, 
 Bacch. 783, Epid. 139, Poen. 399, Ad. 543, And. 908, Ph. 448. In 
 Mil. 403 read m.e . . . arbitror. The leading verb is always in 
 the indie, but me sometimes depends upon an infin. or dependent 
 subjunctive, men without verb, St. 254, Trin. 69, Andr. 450, 
 Eun. 279, Heaut. 564, Hec. 692, 748. 
 
 mene (abl.), Poen. 368. 
 
 mein (gen.), St. 334. 
 
 mihin with verb. Cure. 571, Men. 868, Ps. 472, Trin. 957. True. 
 741 is entirely conjectural. Without verb. Cure. 422, St. 635, 
 True. 935 (MSS mihi), Andr. 476, 500, 849, 850, Hec. 523, Ph. 
 506. Ph. 1047, 1048 are doubtful. PI. 22, Ter. 15 [17]. 
 
 ten. With the indie, Rud. 235. With the present subjunctive, 
 Asin. 94, me defraudato. || . . • ten ego de/raudem, . . .? Asin. 
 700, 669, 697. In True. 276 by conjecture to fill out the vs. Ps. 
 371, Ph. 339, with infin. are given later. These are all rejecting 
 questions like egon dicam. Without verb, Merc. 504, Eun. 218. 
 
 iibine, Pers. 721, Eun. 577, Heaut. 102, Most. 925. 
 
 nosne, Andr. 804. vosne, St. 132, 135, PI. 11, Ter. 4. 
 
 Possessive pronouns with ne. 
 
 mens, with verb, Bacch. 842, Capt. 853, Cure. 616, Rud. 839, 
 True. 612, 925. Whhout verb. Cure. 357, Ph. 198. (Mil. 488 
 will be given with other infin. questions.) 
 
 noster, Trin. 512, Ad. 330. 
 
 tuos, with verb, Capt. 845, Pers. 338, 747. Also cf. Men. 792, 
 given below, IV H. Without verb, Epid. 688, Ad. 400. As 
 predicate of esse, Eun. 428, Rud. 1361, 1052, 1054. In the last 
 two Sch. omits ne, and so MSS in 1054. These questions with 
 esse are regular and unemotional. 
 
 suos, Andr. 932. On Most. 254 v. Lor. Anh. PI. 16, Ter. 4. 
 
 The forms of question with possessive pronouns are similar to 
 those with the personal pronouns, not, as might perhaps be 
 expected, to adjectives. They have a strong tone of repudiation, 
 because they repeat in an exclamatory way what the other person 
 has just said. They use the same classes of verbs, audes, censes, 
 
3"2 
 
 etc. The following have the subjunct. as with egone : Bacch. 842 
 (with uf). True. 925, Cure. 616 (with ut), Pers. 747, 338. 
 
 Demonstrative pronouns. 
 
 hicine. With verb in indie, either as subject, object or in other 
 construction. Most. 10, em, Jiocine volebas ? Amph. 514, Asin. 
 128, Bacch. 447, Most. 25, 26, 27, 508, Rud. 188 (2), Trin. 186, 
 Heaut. 1029, Ad. 237, 709, Hec. 282, 283, 70, Ph. 1012, 1013. With 
 M/and the subj., Eun. 771, Ph. 955, 992. 
 
 With est and infin. in predicate. Merc. 356, hocinest amare ? 
 Asin. 508, True. 893. With verbal adject, or phrase, Andr. 236 
 (twice), 625. 
 
 With est and proper noun or some definite phrase in predicate. 
 Amph. 362, haecine tua domusi? Merc. 753, Mil. 61, Pers. 545, 
 844, 845, Poen. 1 166, Andr. 907, Hec. 771. 
 
 hicinest without predicate can be used only where the antecedent 
 has just been mentioned. Epid. 621, Pers. 544, 830, Rud. 1143. 
 
 These two forms with est are unemotional and for information. 
 Of course hicine is emphatic. 
 
 hicine alone, Epid. 574, True. 959, Ph. 509. 
 
 The adverbs hicine, hucine are found Aul. 335, Cist. I i, 20, IV 
 2, 80, Mil. 181, St. 621, Trin. 1079, True. 359, 719, Ad. 183, in 
 uses similar to those of the pronoun. 
 
 In non-interrogative sentences hicine occurs Epid. 73, 541, Mil. 
 309, Ad. 304, 379, 758, Andr. 478. See Professor Warren " On 
 the enclitic ne in early Latin," Amer. Journ. of Philol., II 50-82. 
 
 Except the questions with est, hicine regularly introduces a 
 rejecting exclamation. The only doubtful cases are Most. 508, 
 perhaps Most. 10, and Ritschl's conjecture in Men. 1139. For 
 the last Bx. and MSB have hanc, which is better. 
 
 hicine (the pron.) PI. 27, Ter. 17. 
 
 isticine, in similar uses, Asin. 932, Merc. 620, Ps. 83, 847, Rud. 
 no Cadv.), Ad. 732, Eun. 830. 
 
 illicine, Ps. 954, True. 599, Heaut. 199 (MSS illene). 
 
 isne, Capt. 987, Cist. 288 Uss., Cure. 82, Epid. 107, 518, Merc. 
 598, Mil. 532, 534, St. 327, Andr. 629, Ad. 939, Eun. 415, Heaut. 
 616. With subjunct. Trin. 961, Andr. 263. 
 
 Other pronominal forms are illamne, Merc. 203; illumne, Eun. 
 356 ; mine, Ps. 205 G. ; ipsusne, Trin. 987, 988 ; ipson, Trin. 902 ; 
 nullumne, Capt. 154; nullamne, Heaut. 1006; nullon, Bacch. 479, 
 Andr. 247 ; nullan, St. 260, True. 285 ; nemon, Hec. 323, Ph. 152 ; 
 nilne, Amph. 933, nilne te pudet? same, Amph. Fragm. VIII, 
 
33 
 
 Pers. 424, and by conjecture True. 764 ; with other verbs, Bacch. 
 315, Ps. 78, 308 (tniseret), True. 542, Ad. 528. Without verb, 
 Andr. 435. eademne, Bacch. 422, Amph. 805 (MSS om. ne) ; 
 taniumne, Heaut. 75, Hec. 813; tanton, Trin. 609, 686 (MSS om. 
 ne). Other forms will be given with infin., under V. B. 
 
 PI. 38, Ter. 17. 
 
 With certain limitations, already noted in part, all pronominal 
 questions with ne have the characteristics which have been pointed 
 out in egone questions. They refer backward, taking up some 
 previous idea, which may have been distinctly expressed or merely 
 implied, and repeating it in an exclamatory way, so as to suggest 
 that it is untenable. They use frequently a class of words which 
 will reappear again in questions without a particle, vis, audes, 
 rogas, censes, postulas, ais, and they have often the subjunctive 
 with or without ut after an impv. or other expression of willing. 
 
 The limitations are these : sentences with est are regularly for 
 information, when they are asked about some definite person or 
 thing, especially something on the stage. Pronouns used alone 
 {egone ? tune ? hicine ?) are not asked for information and are 
 exclamatory, but they do not necessarily express rejection. Espe- 
 cially after questions they indicate only doubt or mild surprise. 
 Further, the pronouns which approach adjectives most nearly, e. g. 
 nullus, tanius, idem, seem to have the least rejecting force, and 
 sometimes lack it entirely. 
 
 The explanation which has been suggested in regard to the 
 rejecting tone of egone questions applies also to questions with 
 demonstrative pronouns. It is the contrast, expressed by the 
 emphatic pronoun, between the statement made and some evident 
 characteristic of the speaker or some well-known fact, which helps 
 the exclamation to take on a tone of repudiation, egone isiuc dixi ? 
 "/said that ! It must have been some one else." tun capite cano 
 amas ? " You, an old man, in love ! Leave that to boys." hocinesi 
 humanum factum ? " Is this what you call humanity ? " " Is 
 t/iis credible?" and so on. In every case there is an almost 
 violent emphasis upon the pronoun, which combined with the 
 fact that the whole sentence is exclamatory in form and tone, pro- 
 duces the repudiating effect. It is plain that the mood has nothing 
 to do with it. 
 
34 
 
 C. Nouns with ne appended. 
 
 As these present no difficulties or peculiarities, it is not worth 
 while to give full lists. The word which has ne is emphatic and 
 therefore stands at the beginning of the sentence. 
 
 With a verb PI. has 19 cases (Poen. 730, Pers. 26 with subjunct. 
 Bacch. 151, 629 with infin.) Ter. has 4 (Andr. 6og with infin.) 
 
 Without a verb PI. has Epid. 30, Most. 972 (BCD om. ne). In 
 Cas. II 5, 10 (214 Gepp.), Trin. 375, True. 805, Rud. 237 ne has 
 been added to a noun to help out the metre. This is a large num- 
 ber of conjectures to rest upon a basis of two cases, and the usage 
 of PI. is strongly against the addition of ne. Cas. II 5, 10 and 
 Rud. 237 are especially unlikely, nor is True. 805 satisfactory. 
 Ter. uses a noun without verb more freely, 9 times in all. This 
 corresponds to the more frequent use of pronouns {hicme, egone) 
 without verb in Ter. PI. 21 [25], Ter. 13. 
 
 D. Adjectives and Participles with ne. 
 
 Questions of this form are also for the most part regular. The 
 adj. is generally in the nomin., either subject or predicate. Of 
 other cases PL has only bonan fide (three times), bellan specie, 
 pro lignean salute (Ps. 47. So BC, Rit., Lor., but it is at least 
 unusual), iribusne, alienon, omnene (ace), omnian (ace.) twice. 
 Ter. has pro cerfon, multon, rufamne, duasne, binan, bonan. 
 
 In the nomin. PI. has alienus, cerium (7), dives, dignus, expec- 
 tatus, insanus, malus, molestus, parum, sanus (16), relictus, 
 tenax, verus. Ter. has cerium, dubium, parum, sanus (twice), 
 salva. 
 
 It is noticeable that Ter. does not use the phrases sanun es ? 
 and certumne esi ? which are so frequent in PI. ; esne, esine with 
 predicate adj. PI. uses very seldom {v. supra) and only when the 
 adj. is clearly unemphatic. PI. 44, Ter. 12. 
 
 If the two phrases with sanun and ceriumne are subtracted, it 
 appears that here as in many other ways Ter. shows a tendency 
 toward more varied forms of question than are used by PI. 
 
 E. Adverbs with ne. 
 
 The adverbs derived from demonstrative pronouns have been 
 given in connection with the pronouns, iamne, eiiamne, sicine 
 are so frequently used as to need separate treatment. 
 
 adeon. Andr. 277, 278, 469, 757, Hec. 547, Ph. 1040. The 
 
35 
 
 other cases have the infin. and will be given below. These have 
 the indie, and it is a confirmation of the explanation already given 
 of questions with pronouns that adeon, which is of course demon- 
 strative, gives the same rejecting tone which has been noticed in 
 pronominal questions with ne. 
 
 Other adverbs are advorsum (here governing ace), bene (3), 
 certo without verb (2), with verb (i), certe without verb (2), with 
 verb (i), see Langen, Beitr. p. 30. facile, hodie, ilico, Uidem, 
 male, modo (2, both Ter.), numquam (2), nunc {nuncin),perpetue, 
 plane, potius (St. 698. MSS cm. ne and are otherwise confused), 
 prius (2 with quam), recte, serio, tain (Jamine), vera (3), usque (2), 
 salve (3), St. 8, Men. 776 (twice), for all of which Rit. reads salvae. 
 V. Bx. on Trin. 1177. PI. 29, Ter. 13. 
 
 sicine is remarkable only for the fact that, like other strongly 
 demonstrative words, the q'uestions which it introduces are all 
 repudiating. It is found (beside the cases with infin.) Asin. 127, 
 Cist. I I, 115, II 3, 39, Merc. 158, Poen. 386, 512, Ps. 320, 1246, 
 Rud. 251, 884, Ad. 128, Eun. 99, 804, Heaut. 166, 691. 
 
 PL 10, Ter. 5. 
 
 iamne. With verb in the first pers. pres. indie. Cure. 132, 
 iamne dico? || quid dices ? Cure. 214, Cas. II 8, 67 (II 6, 64 is 
 uncertain). Mil. 1400, Eun. 492. All these except Cure. 214, the 
 verb of which is passive, have future sense and expect an impv. 
 answer. 
 
 With the pres. indie, second pers. PI. uses only three forms : 
 {a) iamne abis ? " are you going so soon ? " not as Geppert (Rud. 
 496, 58^ Sch.) renders, "fort mit dir!" Men. 441, Most. 991, 
 Pers. 50, Ps. 380, Poen. 678 (itis'), Rud. 584, True. 919 (MSS om. 
 ne) ; (5) iamne (aufeni) ut soles ? " are you still at your old tricks ? " 
 Aul. 819, Bacch. 203, Poen. 1410, True. 695 ; (c) iamne hoc tenetis 
 {scitis) ? " do you get the idea at last? " Amph. 485, Poen. 116, 
 Capt. 10 (MSS om. ne), all in prologue. Ter. uses second sing, 
 pres. only in Ad. 186, iamne me vis dicere . . .? 
 
 Also yif/'/ Cure. 50, licel Eun. 550, comessurus es Ps. 11 26. In 
 the perf. indie, second and third pers., Cas. Ill 3, 15, 16, IV 2, 15, 
 IV 4, 13, Men. 333, 550, 876, Merc. 791, St. 251, 632, True. 634, 
 Ad. 236, Eun. 914, Heaut. 848, Ph. 816. Rud. 1369 is doubtful. 
 
 The distinction between iam in the meaning "so soon, already " 
 and in the meaning " so late, at last " does not affect the form of 
 the question ; cf. St. 632 with Men. 550. See also below, IV E, 
 
 PI. 31, Ter. 7. 
 
36 
 
 etiamne. Cf. Becker, p. 176 f., Langen, Beitr. 160-161, and see 
 below on etiam. 
 
 In most cases eiiam has its ordinary sense. Without time- 
 force, i. e. meaning " also," " even," " again," Amph. 760, Asin. 
 40, Aul. 304, Bacch. 274, 567, Cas. Ill 5, 50, Merc. 751, Most. 
 272, Poen. 281, Ps. 1178, Rud. 1275 (the second case is doubtful. 
 MSS etiam, Cam. etiamne, Sch. anne), 1277, Eun. 143, Heaut. 742, 
 Ph. 238. With meaning " still," " yet," Most. 522 (Lor." compares 
 851), Cas. Ill 6, 8, Men. 710, Rud. 846, Ph. 774. Aul. 55 is 
 useless. 
 
 In sentences equivalent to an impv. etiamne is found Men. 697, 
 Most. 937, 938, Poen. 431, Rud. 467. Also with the first plu. 
 etiamne imus . . .? Cas. V 4, 8, like iam with first person in fut. 
 sense, expecting an impv., and so approaching the sense oi eamus. 
 
 PI. 22, Ter. 4. 
 
 F. itane. 
 
 Langen has discussed ita very fully in his Beitrage, pp. 210 f., 
 231 ff., 330 f , the last on itane. I have little to add. The passages 
 are as follows : 
 
 (a), itane ? alone, referring backward to what has been said. 
 Mil. 1278, Pers. 291, Eun. 1058, Heaut. 887, Ph. 542. itane vero ? 
 Cure. 725, Mil. 844, Rud. 971. With a question following, Merc. 
 918, 567, True. 292, Rud. 747, Ph. 392. 
 
 {U). With a verb, referring backward, and so having a definite 
 standard of comparison. Most. 72 L", Pers. 220 (twice). Mil. 66, 
 1 1 20, Men. 948, Poen. 557, 660 (474 is a conjecture to fill out the 
 vs.), Andr. 399, 909, Eun. 76, 1018, Heaut. 562, 948, Hec. 418, 
 847, Ph. 427, 527, 968. 
 
 {c). itane is followed by a clause of result which gives the 
 standard of comparison. Bacch. 477, Trin. 642, Andr. 243, 492, 
 916, Eun. 240. Andr. 492 (twice) also refers backward, thus form- 
 ing a connecting link between this class and the preceding. 
 
 id'). Thus far the reference of ita is distinct ; there remain 
 several cases, all in Ter., where the standard of comparison is so 
 indefinite that itane seems to have become weakened into a mere 
 interrogative particle. This use has no parallel in declarative sen- 
 tences. Langen mentions Andr. 926, itane vero obturbat? I 
 should add Ph. 536, itane hunc patiemur, Geta, fieri miserum, 
 . .. ? (ita does not go with miserum) and Ph. 315, itane patris ais 
 adventum veritum hinc abisse? Ph. 231 would also come in the 
 
37 
 
 same class, but might better be punctuated Uane tandem ? uxorem 
 duxit Antipho iniussu meo f In this way I should punctuate Ph. 
 413 and Heaut. 954. Also Andr. 643 should be inprudens . . • || 
 itane? inprudens f Andr. 803, in aposiopesis, appears to be 
 another case of weakened ita. It is possible that all these cases 
 are analogous to the paratactic use of ita, discussed by Langen, p. 
 
 231 fr. 
 
 Itane with infin. twice. In all PI. 19, Ter. 30. 
 
 G. satine. 
 
 See Brix on Trin. 925, Capt. 446, Men. 184 and Lor. Most." 76. 
 
 The main distinction is between uses which have parallels in 
 declarative sentences, retaining something pf the original sense of 
 satis, and uses in which the original sense seems almost or wholly 
 lost, and which have no parallels in declarative sentences. 
 
 (a), satis retains its original sense, and the questions are fre- 
 quently answered by satis. 
 
 With est. Men. 621, satin hoc est tibi? Men. 655, Ph. 2io> 211, 
 683, 1047. 
 
 With habes or est and conditional clause. Amph. 509, satin 
 habes, si feminarum nullast quam aeque diligam ? Bacch. 911, 
 Capt. 446, Mil. 1 173, Most. 389, Ps. 112, Ph. 856. 
 
 With adjectives, sanus, Amph. 604, satin tu sanus esf \\ sic 
 sum utvides. Cas. II 2, 34, Merc. 682, Men. 510, Trin. 454, Ad. 
 937, Andr. 749, Eun. 559, Heaut. 707, 986, Ph. 802; certum. Cist. 
 II I, 33, Ad. 329; plana et certa, Pers. 183; morigera, Cas. 
 V 2, 19. 
 
 With adverbs. Amph. 578, satin hoc plane, satin diserte esse, 
 ere, nunc videor tibi locutus ? 
 
 astute. Cas. II 8, 52; lepide, Cas. V 2, 53 ; plane, Trin. 107 1 ; 
 recte. Men. 736 (cf. Bacch. 509), Andr. 804; salve, Trin. 1177, 
 Eun. 978 ; sincere, Epid. 634 (disjunctive); ex sententia, Pers. i8, 
 Ph. 256. 
 
 With perfect participles, Bacch.. 1202, Capt. 638, Merc. 495, 
 Mil. 574, 1 173, Pers. 465, St. 517, Eun. 208. 
 
 With verbs, audis, Men. 602, satin audis quae illic loquitur f 
 II satis. (Ps. 166 is cut out by Usener, Lor., Langen) ; cerno, 
 Poen. 1299; habes (pztenes, intellegis, not as above with si) 
 Most. 831 ; intellegis, Most. 650, Poen. 171; meministi et tenes, 
 Pers. 183 ; tenes, Pers. 305 ; scis, Ad. 402; valuisti, Pers. 23. 
 
 The parallels to these may be found in any lexicon, sat est 
 
38 
 
 (Asin. 329), sat habeo (Most. 654), satis dives (Aul. 166), satis 
 audacter (Amph. 838), satis cum periculo (And. 131), neque audio 
 neque oculis prospicio satis (Amph. 1059) may suffice for PI. and 
 Ter., and the list might be indefinitely extended. 
 
 In the examples given there is a gradual weakening of meaning, 
 owing, as in ita, to a lowering of the standard of comparison in 
 satis. From "enough for this definite purpose or occasion," it 
 comes to mean " enough for practical purposes," " enough for 
 ordinary occasions," " well enough." We have the same tendency 
 illustrated in the Engl. " enough " and perhaps more clearly in 
 " quite," as used in America. With this loss of definite standard 
 there goes also a loss of definite construction in the sentence ; satis 
 affects the whole sentence rather than any single word in it. 
 
 {U). Uses which have no parallel in declarative sentences. Most. 
 76, satin abut, neque quod dixi flocci existumat ? Amph. 633, 
 Bacch. 1200 (punctuate satin, offirmatum quod mihi erat, id me 
 exorat f), Capt. 653, Cas. II 4, 24, III 4, 8, Cist. I 3, 2, Uss. period, 
 Epid. 664, Men. 522, Merc. 337, Mil. 393, 481, 999, Poen. 919, Ps. 
 1316, Rud. 462, 1 193, Trin. 925, 1013, True. 553. Some of these 
 have a clause with si, ut or the rel. pron. between satin and the verb, 
 but these should be carefully distinguished from satin si or satin 
 ut questions. All have the indicative, present or perfect; only 
 one, Trin. 553, is in second pers., addressed by the speaker to 
 himself; all are in soliloquy. 
 
 satin ut with the indie. Mil. 1134, satin ut commoditas usque- 
 quaque me adiuvat f Men. 181, Merc. 481, Pers. 658, St. 271. 
 In Bacch. 491 the subjunct. is the indefinite second person. These 
 are not, like the preceding, in soliloquy, and are in the second and 
 third persons. 
 
 As the lines which separate these two classes are necessarily 
 indefinite, there remain some cases about which one cannot be 
 certain. Bacch. 509 (cf. Epid. 634), Men. 945, Ps. 194, Pers. 549 
 I should place, with some hesitation, in the first class, on the 
 ground that they (except Bacch. 509) are not in soliloquy, and 
 that they might possibly have parallel declarative uses. If this 
 is correct, they illustrate well the weakening of sense and gene- 
 ralizing of construction of ia/w. The same is true of Eun. 851, 
 and perhaps of Ph. 636, which comes nearer to satin abiit than 
 any other case in Ter. Most. 1 109, Ps. 935 are indirect ; cf. also 
 Most. 166, 254, 282, and Becker, 140, 167-8. In Men. 478 read 
 satur. Ps. 1204 has non in MSS. 
 
39 
 
 In these questions the weakening oi satis has gone still further, 
 until the original idea of a standard of comparison is wholly lost, 
 and saUs has come to mean " really, actually," a sense which comes 
 easily from, e. g. saUs scio. In this meaning it was peculiarly fitted 
 for questions in which the speaker expressed his amazement at 
 some occurrence, something so strange that he could hardly 
 believe that it had actually taken place. In the same way I under- 
 stand that satin ut questions arose when satin was so weakened as 
 to be little more than a particle. The ut I should take to be 
 exclamatory. So Dahl, die Lat. Partikel vt, p. 15. 
 
 A different explanation of questions with satin is given by 
 Lorenz in the excellent note on Most.' 76. He says " satin abiit ? 
 enstand aus satisne est ? abut ? ' 1st es nicht genug ? (1st das 
 Mass nicht voll ?) Ging er fort ? ' =' Ging er denn wirklich fort ? ' " 
 With this view of the origin of satin abut I cannot agree, for the 
 following reasons : (i). satin est? is never used without a definite 
 subject, hoc, id or a clause. (2). The suggestion in the words 
 "ist das Mass nicht voll?" or, as Brix puts it on Trin. 925, " ist 
 es nicht genug um mich zum male dicere zu bringen? " seems at 
 first sight to suit the complaining tone extremely well, but it does 
 not meet such a case as Rud. 1193, satin, . . ., aUquo illud pacta 
 optingit optatum piis? Nor, I think, should the verb be in the 
 present. (3). The verb of the (supposed) second question would, 
 when the two questions became one, stand near satin, not at the 
 end of the sentence as it generally does. 
 
 The analogy between itane and satin is a close one. In both 
 there is a gradual loss of definite standard of measurement, so that 
 they become at last a form of interrogative particle. It is remark- 
 able that itan should be used in this way so largely by Ten and 
 not at all by PI., while satin is so used by PI. and only once or 
 twice, if at all, by Ter. It should be noticed also that itane is 
 seldom or never used in soliloquy, the weakened satin always ; 
 that itane is often used alone, but satin is never so used. 
 
 satin est and satin habes sometimes approach nonne satis est, 
 habes, but satin is never equal to nonne as Brix on Trin. 925 says. 
 
 PI. 69, Ter. 19. 
 
 H. potin. 
 
 Divided according to the form of the dependent clause. 
 («). potin ut with the subjunctive. Amph. 903, potin ut 
 abstineas ■manum ? Bacch. 751, Men. 466, Merc. 495, 890, Mil. 
 
40 
 
 926, Most. 396, Pers. 175, Ps. 235, 264, 393, 940, 942, Poen. 916, 
 Rud. 425, Trin. 628, Ad. 539. 
 
 In these potts is impersonal, as the answer /<?/«/ shows. 
 
 ((5). poiin ut . . . ne, with subjunct. Epid. 62,, fioHn ut molesius 
 ne siesf The same, sometimes with mihi, Men. 606, Merc. 779, 
 Pers. 287, True. 897. With other verbs, Bacch. 751, Merc. 441. 
 
 {c). potin ne, Pers. i']^,potin ne moneas ? 
 
 (d'). potin with the subjunctive. Pers. 2q'], potin abeas? The 
 same, Cas. Ill 6, 10. 
 
 These are all impersonal, that is, potin is for potestne, a form 
 which PI. does not use, and the dependent verb is in the second 
 pers. pres. subjunct. The use oine for the negative and the cor- 
 responding constructions in declarative sentences, e. g. Bacch. 35, 
 Ps. 633, show that this is a substantive clause, such as is used 
 after many impersonal phrases. Inpotin abeas, without ut, we have 
 the earliest paratactic form of the construction. PI. 26, Ter. i. 
 
 (e). potin with infin. Cure. 2^6, potin conieduram facer e, . . .? 
 Cist. 238 (Uss.) from Gell. VI (VII) 7, 3, Poen. 309, 1089, Trin. 
 759, Andr. 437, Eun. loi. PI. 5, Ter. 2. 
 
 These are personal iox potesne and are answered sometimes by 
 possum, tu is expressed Poen. 1089, Cist. 238. The number 
 does not quite warrant the statement of Draeger IP 269 that this 
 construction is " sehrselten bei den beiden Komikern." 
 
 To the cases above should be added Cure. 200, potine fieri ut 
 . . . modereris . . . .^ an early conjecture for hocine of MSS. It 
 is without parallel in PI. or Ter. 
 
 In all these cases the subordinate clause expresses something 
 easy to do, passivity or non-interference, abeas, taceas, abstineas, 
 sinas, molesius ne sis. In immediate connection with this potin 
 has a strongly sarcastic effect. Instead of " Let me alone ! " the 
 speaker says with elaborate formality " Is it possible for you to let 
 me alone? " This sarcastic effect is undoubtedly the reason why 
 PI. has made such large use of the phrase. 
 
 The answer may be either to the iorm., potest, possum, or to the 
 substance ; cf. Poen. 916, potin ut taceas ? || taceo et abeo ; cf. 
 quid agitur ? || statur. 
 
41 
 
 Second Paper. 
 I. nonne. 
 
 The theory that nonne was not used by PI. was proposed by A. 
 Spengel, Die Partlkel "nonne" im Altlateinischen, Progr. Miin- 
 chen, 1867. His grounds are three : First, as " ne = nonne " and 
 noft express sufficiently all shades of negative questioning, nonne 
 would be superfluous. Second, it is a priori probable that the 
 copyists changed non in some cases into 7ionne, and this accounts 
 for the cases where nonne is given in the MSS. Third, the cases 
 given are all but one before a vowel. This one is metrically incor- 
 rect, and the demands of sense and metre are satisfied by non 
 wherever nonne occurs. 
 
 These arguments are answered in detail by Schrader, de par- 
 ticularum -ne, anne, nonne apud Plautum prosodia, pp. 42-46. 
 First, the early and colloquial Latin is full of double and triple 
 expressions for practically identical ideas, e.g. rogasf merogas? 
 men rogasf tun rogas? Moreover, there must have been a time 
 when "ne-=.nonne" and non were still in use, while nonne was 
 beginning to crowd in by the side of them. The only question is 
 whether this had already begun in the time of PI. Second, not 
 only nonne but anne also is found in PI. only before vowels. The 
 explanation of this fact must apply to both cases, not, as does 
 Spengel's, to nonne alone, and is to be found in the very light 
 effect of -ne, which caused its shortening in nearly all possible 
 cases to -n. See the evidence in Schrader, especially the table 
 on p. 37, showing the preference of PI. for ne before vowels. 
 Omitting words ending in s, there are in PI. only 28 cases where 
 ne both follows and precedes a vowel. Schrader gives a full list 
 of the passages where the MSS support tionne, which need not be 
 repeated here. Ter. uses it in Ad. 660, Andr. 23S, 239, 647, 869, 
 Eun. 165, 334, 736, Heaut. 545, 922, Hec. 552, Ph. 768. 
 
 The distinction in sense between non and nonne, which Kiihner, 
 II loii, I, attempts to make, is valueless for PI. and Ter., at least. 
 
 K. Relatives with ne. 
 
 See Lor., Most." 738, Brix, Trin.' 360, Spengel, Andr. 768, 
 Warren on ne, Amer. Journ. Philol. II, pp. 79-80. 
 
 Relatives with ne divide themselves into two classes, according 
 as the antecedent is or is not expressed in the same sentence. 
 
 (a). The antecedent is not expressed. Most. 738, ventus navem 
 
42 
 
 nostram deseruit. || quid est? quo modof '>\ fiessumo. \\ quaenesub- 
 ducta erat tuto in terram? Cure. 705, . . . ne quisquam a me 
 argentum auferat. || quodne prowdsti ? \\firomisi? qui? Similar 
 to these are Amph. 697, Epid. 719, Mil. 13, Rud. 861, 1019, 1231, 
 True. 506, Andr. 768, Ph. 923. The following have the subjunc- 
 tive in the relative clause, independently of the question, but are 
 otherwise like the preceding : Bacch. 332, Merc. 573, Mil. 973 
 (MSS quae), Trin. 360. In Epid. 449 quemne is an early conjec- 
 ture for nempe quern, adopted on metrical grounds. 
 
 Here belong also a few cases with other relative words. Bacch. 
 257, dei quattuor scelesiiorem nullum inluxere alterum. || quamne 
 Archidemidem? \\ quaut, inquam, Archidemidem. Most. 1132, 
 ego ibo pro ie, si tibi non lubet. || verbero, etiam inrides? || quian 
 me pro te ire ad cenam autumo ? Also with quiane Pers. 851. 
 True. 696 is a very probable emendation by Spengel. 
 
 With these go the few cases of utin.^ Rud. 1063, animum 
 advorte ac face. \\ utin istic prius dicat? Merc. 576, iu ausculere 
 mulierem ? utine adveniens vomitum excuiias mulieri ? Hec. 66, 
 ■et moneo et hortor, ne quoiusquam miser eat, . . . || utine eximium. 
 neminem habeam ? || neviinem. Hec. igg, Ph. 874, Epid. 225. 
 The last is the only one lacking in clearness. 
 
 There are further two cases where /nwiw^ quam is used, which 
 are closely allied to the preceding. Mil. 1005, hercle vera iam 
 adlubescit primulum, Palaestrio. || priusne quam illam oculis 
 vidisti? True. 694, is quidem hie apud nos est Strabax : modo 
 rure venit. |J priusne quam, ad matrem, suam ? PI. 22 [23], 
 Ter. 5. 
 
 These clauses are in their nature, aside from the use of ne or 
 the interrogation, incomplete sentences. Some of them have the 
 subjunctive of characteristic, which they could have only as clauses 
 in themselves incomplete. Some few of them, e. g. Trin. 360 
 {<quin), Epid. 225 {utin), might, if taken alone, be understood as 
 complete sentences, but when all are put together and their simi- 
 larity is noted, I cannot see how they can be regarded as anything else 
 than ordinary relative clauses, separated from the main clause of the 
 sentence. The hypothesis of an ellipsis is made necessary, there- 
 fore, not by the use oi ne or its unusual connection with a relative, 
 nor by the interrogation, but by the relative. And it is plain that 
 ne is attached to the relative simply because the word to which it 
 would naturally be appended is not in the sentence. Most. 738 
 
 • A fuller diBcussion of these clauses is given below in connectio'n with the 
 history of the interrogative sentence. 
 
43 
 
 would be deseruiine ventus earn navem, quae ; Merc. 573, idne 
 non osculer quod amem f Or more briefly dicisne earn (id'), quae 
 (jjuod) . . .? So in Epid. 107, idne pudet te, quia captivam genere 
 prognatam bono de praeda's mercaius ? might have been quian, 
 if the other speaker had happened to say pudet me. So also Eun. 
 415, eone esferox, quia. 
 
 These questions have in all but two or three cases a rather dis- 
 tinct tone of rejection. This arises from the fact that they supple- 
 ment in an interrogative tone the statement of the other speaker. 
 This may be done inquiringly, as in Bacch. 257, Mil. 13, or with 
 astonishment, as in Epid. 719, without going so far as to express 
 dissent. But the natural tendenc)' of this, as of all supplementary 
 questions (cf. Engl. "Do you mean . . .?" "Do you mean to 
 say . . . ? "), is to become corrective or repudiating. In this way 
 these questions come very close to the corrective sense of quin, so 
 that it may in certain passages be difficult to distinguish between 
 them. 
 
 {p). In a few cases the relative clause precedes the leading 
 clause, and the antecedent is either expressed or plainly implied. 
 St. 501, quaene eapse deciens in die mutat locum, earn auspicavi 
 ego in re capitali mea ? Here the sentence is interrogative, but 
 with the leading clause after the relative, andne is simply appended 
 to the first word of the sentence. Rud. 272, quaene eiedae e niari 
 sumus ambae, opsecro, unde nos hostias agere voluisti hue ? (vis , 
 iibi hue, Sch.) This is similar except that in the leading clause a 
 new interrogative unde is introduced, by a second thought; that 
 is, the sentence ends with an anacoluthon. In the same way I 
 should explain Cist. IV 2, 6, quamne in manibus ienui alque 
 accepi hie ante aedis cistellam, ubi ea sit nescio. Here the substi- 
 tuted second clause is, of course, not interrogative, but it is one 
 which could easily be substituted for an interrogation. In Mil. 
 614, quodne vobis placeat, displaceat mihi ? Lor." omits ne because 
 there is no example of such a use of ne except where a demon- 
 strative or personal pronoun follows in the main clause. But we 
 are dealing here with unusual and infrequent forms of sentence, 
 and it seems to me that it is by no means necessary that they 
 should be alike in all points. The only essential is that the rela- 
 tive clause should precede; if PI. could write quod vobis placeat, 
 displaceat mihi ? as Ribbeck and Lor. read, then he could write 
 quodne vobis, etc. 
 
 Beside these there are some passages where y«z-«c is used after 
 
44 
 
 the leading clause. My collection of examples is not, I fear, com- 
 plete on this point, nor have I any new explanation to offer except 
 such general suggestion as comes in the line of the remarks to 
 follow upon the extent and variety of the uses of ne. True. 533 
 is classed by Lor. (Most.' 738) with Catull. LXIV 180, 182 f., as 
 a continuation ; rightly, as I think. On Rud. 767 I should agree 
 with Kienitz on quin, p. 2, in thinking quinine) ut impossible. For 
 Cist. IV I, I f. I know neither parallel nor explanation. On Ad. 
 261 {. see Dz. Krit. Anh., the ed. with notes. 
 
 On ne with Apparent Negative Sense. 
 
 Questions of this kind, in which, as it is commonly expressed, 
 ne=.nonne, are given by Holtze, II 256 ff., in the list of ques- 
 tions with ne, but without explanation. Kiihner, II 1002, gives a 
 short list of places where ne expects an affirmative answer, saying 
 in the index "scheinbar statt nonne," but giving no explanation. 
 Hand, Turs. IV 74, gives a partial explanation, but as he starts 
 from the thesis that ne has everywhere an appreciable negative 
 force, he says only that ne is here a briefer expression for nonne. 
 In the commentaries, where the usage is noticed (Bx. on Men. 
 284, Lor. on Ps. 340), a few illustrations are given. The only real 
 attempt to explain this kind of question is made by Professor 
 Warren in his article " On the enclitic ne in early Latin," Am. 
 Jour, of Philol., II, pp. 50-82. After quoting comments of gram- 
 marians on vidin, dixin, etc., he says " I infer that to them [the 
 Latin grammarians] the negative force of ne [in vidin, dixiii\ is 
 as clear and sharp as the negation in can't, won't, etc., is clear to 
 an English speaker." In other words, as the context shows, this 
 usage is to be regarded as a survival of the original negative 
 sense of ne. The problem of the origin of the ne- question will 
 be taken up later, in connection with the general history of the 
 interrogative sentence ; this seems a fitting point, however, to 
 gather together the cases in which ne has the effect of nonne. 
 
 They are these : suinne, mostly with a relative clause, videon (?), 
 vinconQ), possumneQ.), cognoscin (?), scin in a few cases, viden 
 with infin. and perhaps in some cases with ut c\a.\iLae,facitne,faci- 
 untne, videturne (?), estne in certain cases, the perf indie, first 
 sing, except one case, dixtin, iuravistin (no others in perf second 
 pers.), possibly two or three in perf. indie, third pers., the impf. 
 subjunctive in apodosis, and possibly two or three with satin. 
 
 These have been commented upon as they came up, and it has 
 
45 
 
 been shown in detail that they are always attended by some cir- 
 cumstance or expression which of itself shows that an affirmative 
 answer is expected. This attendant circumstance may be asserted 
 by a phrase in the question, or it may be obvious from the action 
 or situation of the speaker, sumne has a rel. clause, Merc. 588, 
 sumne ego homo miser, qui nusgicam bene queo quiescere ? "Am 
 I not a wretched man ? I can never be at rest ! " sumne ibi? 
 (Rud. 865) " I said I'd be at Venus' temple; am I there ? " =:"Am 
 I not there ? " because he was standing in plain sight in front of 
 the temple, viden with infin. asks in viden and answers in the 
 infin. Capt. 595, " His body is spotted all over ! Don't you see 
 it? " With an ut clause, which is less definite than the infin. (see 
 Bx. Trin. 1046 on the difference in independent questions), the 
 nonne effect is also less clear. Verbs in the third sing. pres. indie, 
 are almost invariably neutral ; the question is genuine; hut /aciine 
 (Amph. 526) has the effect oi nonne. The full question \sfaciine 
 ut dixi? "I said he would do it. Isn't he doing it?" So the 
 perf. indie, first sing., not simply with vidin, dixin, edixin, but in 
 every case but one {dixin, Cist. 251 Uss.), contains an assertion 
 in itself and demands an acknowledgment rather than an answer. 
 Beside these cases in which the nonne effect is rather clear, 
 there are others in which it is less distinct. Some of these are 
 marked in the list with a'question mark. Thus, vincon, Amph. 
 433, may be either "Am I proving my point?" or "Am I not 
 proving . . .?" The questions indicating recognition, wzVifow and 
 estne hie meus sodalis, etc., may be taken either way, according as 
 the recognition is more or less complete, estne haec iua domus ? 
 is a question for information, because there was nothing to show 
 whether it was iua domus or not ; estne haec manus ? (Pers. 225) 
 means " Isn't this a hand? " because the hand was violently thrust 
 into view, sumne apudme? Mil. 1345, spoken by a person just 
 recovering from a (pretended) swoon, means "Am I in mysenses?" 
 If it were used in angry argument it might be spoken with such 
 a tone- and manner as to make it mean "Am I not in full posses- 
 sion of my reason?" So dixin is the standing example of w^-^i 
 nonne, but in Cist. 251 Uss. (Fragm. 27, Ben.) we have haec tu 
 perversa omnia mihi fabulatu's. \\ dixin ego istaec, obsecro ? || 
 modo quidem hercle haec dixisti. Here the half-dazed speaker 
 really does not know whether he had said it or not, and so dixin 
 means " did I say that ? " and could not possibly mean " didn't I 
 say that ? " 
 
46 
 
 Further, there are questions like those already cited, having the 
 same degree of nonne effect, but not having ne. They will be 
 found below under IV G. Examples are And. 423, sum verus? 
 (cf. Rud. 865, sumneibi?), Eun. 532, dico ego mi insidias fieri ? 
 Even in quis questions a similar effect may be produced, e. g. 
 Asin. 521, quid ais in? . . . quotiens ie votui Argyrippum filium 
 Demaeneti conpellare . . .9 which is very nearly " Haven't I often 
 forbidden. . .?" 
 
 It seems clear that we have to do here with a shading or tone, 
 which is not always associated with ne and therefore cannot be 
 produced by it, but which is always associated with certain attendant 
 circumstances and varies in intensity as these circumstances vary. 
 If the nonne effect were really a negation, due to the negative force 
 of ne, there could be no half tones, no cases about which there 
 would be any doubt As to the presence of the nonne effect. But 
 in fact the same form passes through various gradations of mean- 
 ing : estne f rater intus ? estfie tibi nomen Menaechmo ? estne hie 
 meus sodalis ? estne haec manus ? Between dixin and dixin there 
 is nothing like the gap that there is between can and canH in 
 declarative sentences. If, however, we turn to English interroga- 
 tive sentences and compare, e. g. " Can I help you ? " with " Can't 
 I help you ? " we see that, though one question starts from the 
 affirmation and the other from the negation, they have both 
 approached neutrality of meaning, so that we can imagine circum- 
 stances which would permit the use of either.. But if can and 
 canH, in spite of their different forms, may be used almost indiffer- 
 ently in questions, much more must estne and estne, alike in form 
 and origin, have seemed to a Roman identical, even though the 
 circumstances may have given them slightly varying shades of 
 meaning. It seems to me, therefore, quite erroneous to hold that 
 the "nezzi. nonne " questions are distinctly negative in sense ; rather 
 they are neutral questions, with very slight (possibly negative) 
 shading, used in circumstances where the modern idiom employs 
 the neutral-negative question. Later I hope to show that dixin 
 :=" didn't I say?" is not in reality more immediately connected 
 with the original ne than is dixin = " did I say? " 
 
 II. num. 
 
 Of all the interrogative particles num and a?i are the most 
 difficult. 
 
47 
 
 In regard to the etymology of num two distinct opinions are 
 held. One (e. g. Corfesen, Kiihner, Landgraf Reisig-Haase, III, 
 p. 301, note) is that num is the accus. sing. masc. of the pronomi- 
 nal stem no- and bears the same relation to nunc as turn to tunc. 
 The other (Ribbeck, Lat. Partik., p. 12, Stolz-Schmalz, p. 299) is 
 that num. contains the negative ne and means '' nicht zu irgend 
 einer Zeit." This seems to be connected in the Stolz-Schmalz 
 grammar (p. 298) with a theory that all questions except the 
 disjunctive necessarily contain a negative word. 
 
 In regard to the meaning also of questions with num., there is a 
 considerable variety of opinion, though it is usually said that num 
 expects a negative answer. Kiihner, as usual, appears to test the 
 answer expected by the answer received, an error upon which I 
 have commented before. One reason for the uncertainty in regard 
 to num is that it has no special sets of phrases connected with 
 certain verbs or certain persons or numbers, like sumne, ain, vin. 
 Except numquid vis and num, moror it has formed no idioms 
 which could serve as a starting-point for investigation. It would 
 therefore be useless to divide num questions according to the 
 person and tense of the verb, as was done with ne, and the only 
 course left is to note the leading tendencies of meaning, applying 
 such tests as the context furnishes, and remembering that the 
 results must necessarily be somewhat uncertain. In doing this 
 one must take some pains to rid himself of the inclination, which 
 we get from familiarity with the classical Latin, to attach to num 
 the idea of a negative answer, and must endeavor to look at each 
 case without bias. 
 
 (a). There are many cases where the context shows that the 
 speaker could not possibly have held the negative opinion or 
 have expected a negative answer. Amph. 1073, numnam hunc 
 percusdt luppiter ? credo edepol. Andr. 477, nurn immemores 
 discipuli ? (" Your pupils have forgotten your instructions, 
 haven't they ? ") Aul. 389, strepitust intus. numnam ego conpilor 
 miser? Andr. 591, hem, numnam perimus? Eun. 947, quae 
 illaec iurbast? numnam egoperii? Aul. 242, sedpro luppiier, num 
 ego disperii? (Miill. Pros. 305, mine). Men. 608, num ancillae 
 aut servi tibi responsant? eloquere : inpune non erit. Men. 413, 
 pro luppiter, num istaec mulier illinc (from Syracuse) venit, quae 
 ie novit tarn cate ? Amph. 620, . . . quid ais ? num abdormivisti 
 dudum ? II nusquam gentium. || ibi forte istum si vidisses quendam 
 in somnis Sosiam. (So Goetz-Loewe.) Other sure cases are 
 
48 
 
 Amph. 709, 753, Cist. LV i, 6, Poen. 976, Eun. 286, Heaut. 
 
 517- 
 
 While the context shows that the speaker in several if not in all 
 of these held the affirmative opinion, this does not anywhere 
 appear to be so distincdy expressed as to make it possible to put 
 nonne in the place of num. They seem rather like neutral 
 questions : " Has Jupiter struck him ? I really believe he has! " 
 " What a noise there is ! Am I getdng robbed ? " 
 
 PI. 10, Ter. 5. 
 
 (U). In some cases the question is clearly asked for information. 
 Men. 890, num larvatust aut cerritus ? fac sciam. num. eum 
 veturnus aut aqua intercus tenet ? This is asked by a physician 
 who wants to know his patient's symptoms. Merc. 173, after a 
 vague but disquieting announcement of misfortune, a father whose 
 son is at sea asks, obsecro, num navis periit? 1| salvast navis. Asin. 
 31, die serio, quod te rogeni . . . num me illuc ducis ubi lapis 
 lapidem terit ? Merc. 215, num. esse amicam suspicari visus est? 
 Other passages are similar to these, but I have preferred to give 
 only those where the context makes the inquiring tone clear 
 beyond question. 
 
 In the following cases the context does not forbid the negative 
 sense, nor does it require it. If it is presumed on the evidence 
 of the later usage that num requires a negative answer, these 
 questions would not be inconsistent with the rule ; if it can be 
 shown that num is properly neutral in sense, there is nothing to 
 prevent these cases, from being so understood. They are Asin. 
 619, Aul. 161, Bacch. 212, Cas. II 6, 32, V 2, 31, 54, Capt. 658, 
 Merc. 131, Mil. 924, Most. 336, 905, 1109, Poen. 1079, 1258, 1315, 
 Rud. 235, 1304, True. 546, 602, Ad. 487, 697, Andr. 438, 971, Eun. 
 756, 829, Ph. 846. In Men. 612, Rud. 830 there is perhaps an 
 inclination toward the negative. 
 
 PL 27, Ter. 7. 
 
 {c). Rather sharply distinguished from the preceding uses is 
 the use of ttum in sentences which, like "ne = nojzne," challenge 
 the hearer to acknowledge something which the dialogue or the 
 action makes evident. This is always a negative, but it is not 
 quite accurate to say that num here "expects a negative answer." 
 It challenges the hearer to deny, if he can, but the denial is not 
 waited for. Capt. 632, meam rem, non cures, si recte facias, num 
 ego euro tuam ? Men. 606, potin ut . . . molestus ne sis ? num te 
 appello? Precisely similar to these is num moror? "I'm not 
 
49 
 
 delaying, am I ? " Cure. 365, Most. 794.' Ql. numquid moror ? 
 Epid. 681, quid vie quaeris? ecce me I num. te fugi ? num ab 
 domo absum f num oculis concessi a iuis ? Heaut. 793, 794 (twice) 
 is similar. Also with the first pers., Ps. 220, Men. 565, Mil. 291, 
 True. 379, Heaut. 738, Ph. 411, 524. 
 
 With second pers. less frequent. And. 496, 578, and probably 
 Eun. 854. I find no cases in PI. 
 
 With the third pers. Cure. 94, num. mutit cardo ? est lepidus. 
 Most. 345, num tnirum. aut novom quippiam, facit ? "There's 
 nothing remarkable in his being drunk, is there ? " True. 352, 
 num tibi nam amabo ianuast mordax mea, . . . ? " You don't 
 suppose my door will bite, do you ? " softened by nam and 
 amabo. Ps. 1289, Asin. 576, Poen. 866, Andr. 366, 877, Eun. 163, 
 575, Heaut. 514, Hee. 707, Ph. 848. PI. 17, Ter. 16. 
 
 The large proportion of these with the first person is noteworthy, 
 as supporting the analogy with '• ne-:=. nonne." (Cf. sumne, dixin.') 
 This analogy is further supported by the fact that the two kinds 
 of question occur together, e. g. Rud. 865, dixeram praesto fore, 
 numquid muto ? sumne ibi f 
 
 Num^uis, numquid. 
 
 Some of the same difficulties which attend the discussion of 
 num appear also in numquis, and the. arrangement is in general 
 the same. 
 
 (a). In some cases the context shows that a negative expec- 
 tation is improbable. Most. 999, numquid processit ad forum hie 
 hodie novi? (cf. 1004) j| qtdd tu otiosus res novas requiritas? 
 Most. 1031, perii, interii. || numquid Tranio turbavit? Lor. 
 transl. " Hat Tranio irgend einen Streich gespielt?" and the very 
 mention of T. shows that Simo thinks him the probable source of 
 trouble. Merc. 369, sed isiuc quid est, tibi quod commutatust 
 color ? numquid tibi dolet? Bacch. 668, numqui nummi, ere, tibi 
 excideruni, quod sic terram optuere ? Eun. 272, numquidnam hie 
 quod nolis vides? \\te. \\ credo: at numquid aliud? || quidum? 
 (= What makes you think so ?) || quia iristi's. Also Bacch. 538, 
 Andr. 943. 
 
 ' Kuhner, II 1008, 2, translates this "soil ich nochbleiben ? " taking this 
 rendering with time-force apparently from Draeger, I 342, who perhaps 
 took it from Haud. IV 319. In Cure. 365 the preceding words are eamus 
 nunc intra, ut tabellas consignemus? after which num moror? could not 
 possibly mean " soil ich noch bleiben ? " Nor is this sense any better in 
 Most. 794. 
 
50 
 
 The negative opinion is not so entirely impossible here as it is 
 in some cases with num., but it is unlikely. I think it may be said 
 that no one would suppose that these questions required a negative 
 answer, if he took them by themselves, apart from the influence of 
 later usage, as should of course be done. 
 
 The following cases are less clear: Capt. 172, Cure. 23, 25, 
 Merc. 642, 716, Men. 608, Most. 548, 750. PI. 13, Ter. 2. 
 
 (J)). A negative answer was probably expected in Asin. 830 (num- 
 quidnam), Men. 1146, Ps. 1330, Rud. 832, Eun. 994, Ph. 563, but 
 so far as a negative implication exists, it is due to the challenging 
 tone noticed above with num. These cases therefore form a middle 
 step to the following class. They are Cas. Ill 5, 41, Poen. 1355, 
 Ps. 728, Eun. 283, Hec. 865, Ph. 474, 509. With numquidnam, 
 Bacch. mo, Ad. 265, Andr. 325, Heaut. 429, Hec. 267. 
 
 The question numquis hie {ad)est? used when the speaker 
 wants to impart a secret, deserves special mention. It is used 
 Most. 472, Mil. 994, 1019, Rud. 948, St. 102, Eun. 549. Cf. also 
 Trin. 69, below. This seems to mean " Is there any one here ? 
 (I hope not) " andtobeinits form almost neutral. PI. 14, Ter. 11. 
 
 {c). numquis, with negative effect, in questions challenging the 
 hearer to deny an evident fact. 
 
 Pers. 462, 726, Cas. II 6, 70, numquid moror? Ci. num. 
 moror ? Rud. 865, quoted above, Rud. 736, fateor, ego tri- 
 furcifer sum ; . . . num,qui minus hasce esse oportet liberas ? Also 
 with numqui minus, Rud. 1020, Ps. 160, Ad. 800^ and numqui 
 nitidiusculum,, Ps. 219. Other cases of ww^z^Mzaf. are Mil. 1130, 
 Ps. 919, Pers. 551, Ad. 689, Eun. 163, 475. The challenging tone 
 is somewhat less distinct in Amph. 347, Bacch. 884, Eun. 1043. 
 Ps. 495 resembles Ps. 368, Most. 1141. In Epid. 593 there is an 
 affectation of humility and innocence, but the general sense is the 
 same. Trin. 69, iiumquis est hie alius praeter me atque te ? 
 is especially instructive. It is essentially the same in form as 
 numquis hie (ad)est ? Mil. 994, 1019, etc., but differs from them 
 in the circumstances. The passage is (venid) malis te ut verbis 
 multis multum. obiurigem. || men ? || numquis . . . ? || nemost. 
 The form of the question and the quiet answer nemost show that 
 it is properly oaly an ordinary question, " is there any one else 
 here?" but when brought into connection with men? "do you 
 mean me f " it assumes a challenging tone and seems to demand 
 a negative answer. 
 
 Similar in general effect to these are questions with numquae 
 causast quin used in slipulatio. See Lor. Einl. zu Ps. Anm. 9. 
 
51 
 
 Aul. 262, sed nupiias hodie quin faciamus numquae causast ? || 
 immo hercle optuma. Capt. 353, Amph. 852 {ntimquid causam 
 dicis quin), Ps. 533, Trin. 1188 numquid causaest quin . . . Here 
 the question expresses in interrogative form the fact to which the 
 previous dialogue has led up, that is, the readiness of the other 
 person to make the bargain. As numquid moror ? means " Isn't 
 it plain from my actions that I am not delaying? " so this means 
 " There is no objection on your" part, is there? to the bargain." 
 The negative sense thus forced upon the question justifies quin 
 and immo. PI. 21, Ter. 5. 
 
 (a?). 7iumquid vis ? On this formula abeundi Don. remarks, 
 Eun. II 3, 50 C341). " abituri, ne id dure facerent, numquid vis ? 
 dicebant iis, quibuscum constitissent." Brix, Trin.' 192, trans- 
 lates, " Wiiaschest du sonst noch etwas ? " and I should agree 
 with him in thinking that the words in themselves contain no 
 negative. The politeness of the question would be slight if it 
 meant " You don't want anything more, do you ? " It is like the 
 shopman's question, as the customer takes out his money, " Can 
 I show you anything else ?" The courtesy consists in making 
 the offer as if it were to be accepted ; the negative suggestion 
 comes from the readiness already shown by the other speaker to 
 bring the interview to a close. There is no challenge, and the 
 analogy to numquis hie adest is close. 
 
 Numquid vis? is used Amph. 542, 544, Bacch. 604, Capt. 191, 
 Cure. 516, 525, Men. 328, 548, Merc. 325, Mil. 1086, Ps. 665, Trin. 
 192, True. 883, Ad. 432, Hec. 272. 
 
 Other forms are numquid me vis ? n. aliud me v. ? and with 
 ceterum, Aul, 175, 263, Cist. I i, 121, Cure. 522, Epid. 512, Mil. 
 575, Pers. 692, 708, Eun. 191, Ph. 151, 458. 
 
 Without verb, numquid aliud {me')? Bacch. 757, Capt. 448, 
 Mil. 259, 1 195, Most. 404, Poen. 801, Eun. 363. 
 
 With infin., Capt. 400 (nuntiari), Ps. 370 {dicere). 
 
 With quin clause, Ci^t. I i, 119, Amph. 970, Ad. 247. 
 
 Other verbs are imperas, Eun. 213, me rogaturu's, Trin. 198, 
 me morare, Poen. 911. num quippiam is used Pers. 735, True. 
 432 (Miill. 463, numquid nunc.') PI. 33, Ter. .8. 
 
 When quid is in the ace. cognate or of " compass and extent," 
 it has very little weight in the sentence, and numquid becomes 
 nearly equivalent to num, serving merely as an interrogative 
 particle. So numquid moror? is about the same as num moror ? 
 and see Rud. 865, Pers. 551, Most, 750, Andr. 943, Ps, 1330, Asin, 
 830, Rud. 832, etc. 
 
52 
 
 The following passages have been passed over as conjectural or 
 too doubtful for use: — num, Amph. 321, Cas. II 2, 24, II 6, 22 
 (conj. Uss.), IV 3, 14, 620 Gepp., Soy Gepp. (Uss. 892, nunc), 
 Men. 823, Merc. 981, Poen. 258, Ps. 472, Trin. 922, True. 186, 
 546, 723, Ad. 395. nnmquid, Cas. 757 (Gepp. conj.), Most. 726, 
 True. 639. 
 
 The uncertainty in regard to the etymology of num and the lack 
 of sharply distinguished idioms makes the history of the uses 
 obscure, but the challenging use, which afterward became the use 
 " expecting a negative answer," seems to bear somewhat the same 
 relation to «MW in neutral questions that "nezzinonne" bears to 
 the ordinary ne. That is, the negative opinion of the speaker and 
 so the expectation of a negative answer are made apparent by 
 something in the action or, less often than with " ne-=.nonne" in 
 the words. This is so similar to the special use of ne that it needs no 
 further comment. Rud. 865, where num in the challenging sense 
 and ne in the sense of nonne are both due to the same influence, 
 is a good illustration. 
 
 The only question is whether num in this challenging use pre- 
 serves anything of its original force. 
 
 It is hardly possible that num has here any original negative effect, 
 since a negative force would require an affirmative answer. Nor am 
 I able to see in these questions the slightest trace of time-force, such 
 as Kiihner and Draeger find in mim moror and numquid vis. To 
 succeed in shoving an Engl, now or a German nun into the trans- 
 lation without destroying the sense, does not prove the existence 
 of any time-force in num. It seems probable also that the loss of 
 the time-force was a necessary accompaniment of the development 
 of an interrogative particle out of an adverb of time. 
 
 There is, however, another use of nunc, which seems to me to 
 be connected with the challenging num, that is, nunc in the sense of 
 " in view of this," " under these circumstances." This use appears 
 to be closely related to nam, in that it reasons from what precedes, 
 and as it shows the pronominal force of nunc it is probably an early 
 sense. At any rate, it is found in PL, and in q7ud nunc ago ? has 
 a distinct challenging force. Cf. the adversative use in Livy , pointed 
 out by Wolfflin' on XXI 13, 2. The circumstances which give a 
 challenging tone to questions, even when they have ne (Ad. 136), 
 would tend to preserve this tone in a word which already pos- 
 sessed it. 
 
 While the neutral num is found in later Latin, e. g. Hor. Sat. 
 
53 
 
 II 6, 53> numquid de Dacis audisti? it was, perhaps even in the 
 time of PL, a dying usage, being pushed aside by ne in its ordi- 
 nary sense. But so far as I can judge from the incomplete statistics 
 at my command, the challenging num increased in usage, and took 
 its regular sense of expecting a negative answer. 
 
 III. Ecquis, ecquid, en umquam. 
 
 The commonly received derivation of ecquis is from en-quis 
 with assimilation of en. Ribbeck, however, Lat. Partik. p. 42, 
 points out the difficulty of supposing that en {eni) could change to 
 ec, in view of forms like hunc, illunc, and prefers to leave ec- 
 unexplained. 
 
 Kiihner, II 995, makes two curious mistakes in classing ecquis 
 with quis interrogative, and in saying " in direkten Fragen zeigt 
 es an dass man mit Bestimmtheiteine negative Antwort erwartet." 
 
 As with numquis the variations in the form of the question are 
 not sufficient to serve as a basis for classification, and all that can 
 be done is to show the general function and note some of the 
 idiomatic uses. 
 
 (a). In the masc. and fern., and in the neuter as subject or 
 object; ecquis is a colorless interrogative-indefinite. Some few 
 exceptions to this will be noted below. 
 
 Amph. 856, die mihi verum serio, ecquis alius Sosia intust, . . .? 
 Rud. 1033, ecquem in his locis novisti? Asin. 514, Capt. 511, 
 Cist. IV 2, 42, Epid. 437, Men. 135, Mil. 782, Ps. 971, St. 222, 342, 
 True. 508. 
 
 When, as frequently happens, ecquis is in agreement with some 
 definite word or phrase, the indefinite quis has little more force 
 than the indefinite article. Poen. 1044, sed ecquem adulescentem 
 tu hie novisti Agorastoelem ? Esp. with the plural, Ps. 484, ecquas 
 •viginti minas paritas ut a med auferas? the special sense of 
 quis seems wholly lost. Merc. 390, Ps. 482, Rud. 125, 313, 316,' 
 Hec. 804. Also perhaps Mil. 794, Most. 770. These questions 
 could be about as well expressed by -ne. 
 
 ecquis est qui with the subjunct. occurs Cas. V 3, 12, Cure. 301, 
 Merc. 844, Most. 354, Rud. 949. 
 
 In three cases, Merc. 844, ecquisnam deust, qui mea nunc laetus 
 laetitia fuai ? Rud. 971, Eun. 1031, there is an expectation of a 
 negative answer, but it has nothing to do with ecquis, which is in its 
 ordinary sense. These are the only cases of ecquis masc. or fem. 
 except those given below, used in knocking at a door. 
 
54 
 
 ecquid as subject of est, with partitive gen. Asin. 648, ecquid 
 est salutisf Pars. 107, Poen. 257, Rud. 750, True. 897, Ph. 474. 
 Possibly True. 93. 
 
 ecquid as direct object. Men. 149, Pers. 225, Poen. 619, Ps. 739, 
 Rud. 1030, St. 338, Eun. 279, Heaut. 595, Ph. 798. Verb to be 
 supplied Merc. 282. PI. 40, Ten 6. 
 
 (Ji). ecquid in the accus. of " compass and extent." With 
 meminiiti, Bacch. 206, Mil. 42, Pers. 108, Poen. 985, 1062, Rud. 
 1310. With amas, Asin. 899, Cas. II 8, 19, True. 542, Eun. 456 ; 
 amare videor, Poen. 327; adsimulo, Men. 146; madere. Most. 
 319; placent, Most. 906; oneravit, Mil. 902; seniis, Men. 912; 
 facere coniecturam. Men. 163 ; ecquid te pudet, Cas. II 3, 26 ; Poen. 
 1305, Ps. 370, Andr. 871 ; ecquid lubet. Cure. 128 ; ecquid in men- 
 iemst tibi, Bacch. 161. 
 
 With adjectives, Mil. 1106, mi, Ps. 746, 748, True. 505. 
 
 PI. 26, Ter. 2. 
 
 In many of these cases ecquid has degenerated into an inter- 
 rogative particle (cf. numquid). It has generally a neutral effect, 
 indicating nothing as to the answer expected, but like ne or num ' 
 it may be used in circumstances which admit only one answer, and 
 so may seem to expect an affirmative or negative, ecquid matrem 
 amas ? (Asin. 899) is used where only the negative is possible ; 
 ecquid amas nunc me? (Cas. II 8, 19) hopes for an affirmative 
 answer, ecquid te pudet ? is not distinguishable in effect from non 
 te pudet? And in general ecquid not only resembles num, num- 
 quid, but is also frequently used in immediate connection with them. 
 
 (c). ecquid vi'ith pres. indie. 2d sing, in impv. sense. Aul. 636, 
 ecquid agis ? || quid agam ? Cist. IH 12, Epid. 688, Amph. 577, 
 ecquid audis ? Aul. 270, Pers. 488, Trin. 717 ; True. 584 is uncer- 
 tain, but ecqui auditis (Sch.) is without parallel. This use is less 
 marked with other verbs, yet some impv. force seems to be 
 present with all verbs in 2d pers., except where ecquid is defined 
 by a partitive gen. or other phrase. Cure. 519, ecquid das . . . ? 
 Poen. 364, ecquid ais ? Ps. 383, ecquid inperas ? So, somewhat 
 less clearly, in Poen. 385, Men. 149, Rud. 1030. In these ques- 
 tions ecquid has no new and special force ; the impv. effect is 
 produced, as in abin, audin, by the asking of an urgent question 
 about an action, which would be either going on or just about 
 to take place. It is not to be expected that there should be any 
 sharp line dividing impv. questions from others of similar form, 
 and Men. 149, Rud. 1030, form a kind of half-way point between 
 ecquid adportas bo)ii ? and ecquid agis ? 
 
55 
 
 (d). Like these in sense are a few questions in 3d pers. with 
 ecquis as subject. Asin. 910, ecquis currit pollinciorem arcessere ? 
 Bacch. II, Cas. II 2, 2, Men. 1003, St. 352, Cas. II 6, ^2, praecide 
 OS tu tin hodie. age, e c quid fit? h.'As, the same kind of sense, and 
 Uss. rightly compares quid fit? Bacch. 626, 879, to show that 7?/ 
 has really the effect of a 2d pers. active, ecquid fit ? ^=. ecquid 
 agis? very nearly. With impv. effect, PI. 21. 
 
 (e). One of the most common uses of ecquis is when the speaker 
 is impatiently knocking at the door of a house, and, while the 
 cases are not all alike in sense, I place them by themselves because 
 they illustrate the gradual transitions which questions with ecquis 
 make from one meaning to another. 
 
 ecquis hie est? Amph. 1020, Bacch. 582, Capt. 830, Men. 673 
 {e. h. e. ianitor?),M.\\. i2g'j, Most. 339, 899, Poen. 1118, Rud. 
 762, Eun. 530 (est om.). ecquis in villast, Rud. 413, in aedibust, 
 Bacch. 581. 
 
 With other verbs the impv. effect appears, as in d. ecquis (Jioc') 
 aperit {ostium) ? Amph. 1020, Capt. 830, Most. 900, 988, Bacch. 
 582, Ps. 1 139, True. 664. Most. 445 probably belongs here. Cf. 
 Lor.°, Krit. Anm. With exit, Bacch. 583, Most. 900, True. 255. 
 prodit, recludit, Rud. 413. PL 23, Ter. i. 
 
 The noticeable point is that these two kinds of questions are 
 frequently used together, e. g. Amph. 1020 f.. Most. 899 f., Rud. 
 413, Bacch. 581 ff. Cf. quin with impv. and with pres. indie. 
 ecquis in aedibust (yillast) ? evidently can have no impv. force. 
 But as the questions are alike in everything except the verbs, the 
 difference in sense must be due to the fact that the active verbs 
 aperit, exit answer themselves ; it is plain that no one is opening, 
 is coming out, and the underlying idea, " if no one is doing it now, 
 he should do it at once," becomes prominent, with its semi-impv. 
 force. 
 
 True. 255, Trin. 870, heus, ecquis his foribus tutelam gerit? 
 show how slight a variation of sense might turn an impatient 
 question into an impv. It seems to mean " Is any one guarding 
 this door?" (z^ecquis hie ianitor est? Cf. Trin. 1057 f.). If 
 the phrase tutelam gerere were in any degree active (" come to 
 the help of, save, protect "), it would be impv. And even with 
 «^ there is sometimes a shade of impv. effect, cf. Most. 899, heus, 
 ecqtiis hie est, maxumam qui his inuriam foribus defendat ? 
 
 (y ). In a few cases, by a kind of anacoluthon, ecquid is preceded 
 or followed by another interrogative word. Bacch. 980, quid quod 
 
56 
 
 te misi, ecquid egisti? Ps. 740, quid, si. . ., ecguid habetf In 
 Pers. 310 the MSS give ecquid, quod mandavi tibi, estne in te 
 speculae ? Rit. est nunc, with other changes metr. grat. There 
 are probably other cases; my list is not, I think, complete. 
 
 In Cas. II 6, 22 (270 Gepp.), Ps. 737, Pers. 534, ec is supplied 
 by conjecture. In Asin. 432 acquis is a corruption of a proper 
 name. 
 
 Upon ecquis in general Draeger, I, p. 344, acutely remarks, 
 " eine specielle Bedeutung hat diese Form der Frage nicht, docli 
 ist oft eine besondere Dringlichkeit bemerkbar." This urgency, 
 which is the main characteristic of ecquis, suggests a connection 
 with the vivid em or en rather than with the indefinite eque, but is 
 of course not decisive. 
 
 It is remarkable that Ter. uses ecquis so seldom ; he appears to 
 have anticipated the classical usage,_ in which numquis is much 
 more common than ecquis. 
 
 En umquam. 
 These words occur in the MSS Cist. I i, 88, Men. 925, Rud. 
 987, 1 1 17, Trin. 589, Ph. 329, 348. To these Brix adds by a very 
 probable conjecture Men. 143. To what has been said by Ribbeck, 
 Partik. p. 34, 1 have nothing to add, except that Brix seems right 
 in saying on Men.' 143 that the words are not necessarily emo- 
 tional. 
 
 IV. — Questions without an Interrogative Particle. 
 
 Questions without a particle occur about nine hundred times in 
 Plautus and Terence. Before proceeding to the consideration of 
 these in detail, some two or three points which have a general 
 bearing upon them must be noticed. 
 
 In the first place, as the line which divides declarative from 
 interrogative sentences is not clearly defined nor indeed capable 
 of clear definition, and as ne would be used mainly where the 
 questioning tone was rather clearly felt by the speaker, we must 
 expect to find among sentences without a particle many semi- 
 interrogative sentences ; about these we cannot always be certain 
 how much questioning eifect they may have had. These, with 
 some other sentences which omit ne for special reasons, I shall set 
 aside first, as contributing least to the history of the interrogative 
 sentence. 
 
 In the second place, there are three conceivable ways in which 
 an interrogative sentence might differ from the same sentence put 
 
57 
 
 declaratively : (i) it might omit words which the declarative sen- 
 tence would contain ; (2) it may contain words not found in the 
 declarative sentence ; (3) it may differ in the order of the words. 
 There is no other way in which a question may be marked in 
 writing. Omittirjg the first case, which of course does not occur, 
 we must include under the second not only the recognized inter- 
 rogative particles ne, num., an, ec-, with quis in all forms, but also 
 cases where a personal pronoun is expressed to help out the inter- 
 rogative emphasis (if I am right in supposing that such cases may be 
 found), as well as the cases where a word is used in meanings that 
 have no parallel in declarative sentences, e. g., ita, satis and per- 
 haps iam, etiam. In the third case, where the changed order is 
 the only thing to indicate the question, we have the questions 
 whose interrogative character may have been fully denoted in 
 speaking by voice-inflections and tones. We may in part recover 
 these inflections by the analogies of modern colloquial usage, but 
 such analogies are of course to be used only with great caution. 
 Most of the tone and inflection must escape us; only when the 
 emphasis was strong enough to affect the order of the words has 
 it left any mark upon the written language. And even when the 
 order is changed under the stress of interrogative emphasis, there 
 remains the difficulty of distinguishing this from other kinds of 
 emphasis, which so frequently cause variation from the so-called 
 normal order. 
 
 It is plain, therefore, that no perfectly logical classification of 
 questions without a particle is possible. In the following arrange- 
 ment I have placed first the sentences in which the interrogative 
 tone seems slight, the sentences which lie in the borderland 
 between questions and assertions; second, the sentences in which 
 the interrogative tone, though generally distinct, was not sufficient 
 to affect the order. After these I have gathered together a few 
 sentences in which the order of the words seems to mark the ques- 
 tion. These divisions overlap one another somewhat, but they 
 will at least serve as indications of certain groupings and tendencies 
 of usage, and in this way help toward an understanding of the 
 history of the ipterrogative sentence. 
 
 A. — Idioms and Sentences with Slight Interrogative, 
 
 Effect. 
 
 I. possum. St. 324, possum scire ex (e verum ? \\ poles, Amph. 
 346, Cas. Ill 5, 26 (Becker, 178 f.), Pers. 414, 423, all with depen- 
 dent infin. and \i\\}a. possum at the beginning of the sentence. 
 
58 
 
 These questions are strongly ironical, but they are in form 
 questions for information. The irony consists in using a formal 
 interrogation instead of a less courteous command. We should 
 therefore expect ne. Its absence is due to the compound nature of 
 possum; to say pos-sum-ne would have been against the usage, 
 which required, e. g., molestusne sum, not molestus sumne, and so 
 potis-ne sum, not potis sum-ne. Plautus therefore does not use 
 possumne at all ; Terence does not feel the compound nature of 
 possum so plainly, and uses it once in a sense exactly the same, 
 Eun. "^YZ, possumne ego hodie ex te exculpere verum ? 
 
 PI. 5, Ter. o. 
 
 potin in 2d and 3d pers. is perhaps preserved longer by its 
 idiomatic use with ut. potestne does not occur in PI. or Ter. 
 
 2. cesso. Aul. 397, sed cesso priusquam prorsus peril currere ? 
 Capt. 827, sed ego cesso hunc Hegionem onerare laetitia senem ? 
 Aul. 627, Cas. II 3, 20, III 6, 4, Epid. 342, Merc. 129, Mil. 896, 
 Pers. 197, Rud. 676, True. 630, Ad. 320, 586, 712, Andr. 845, Eun. 
 265, 996, Heaut. 410, 757, Hec. 324, Ph. 285, 844. 
 
 PI. II, Ter. II. 
 
 These are all in soliloquy and all have an infin. without subject 
 accus. The verb stands first or preceded only by sed, at and a 
 word or two, ego, eiiam, except in Epid. 342, when the infin. 
 comes first. 
 
 These sentences are generally punctuated with a question mark, 
 but single passages are marked with a period by Bent., Umpf., 
 Wagn., Speng., Uss. Taking them all together it is plain that 
 they are not questions for information ; in many cases, e. g. Capt. 
 827, Ph. 844, they have not even the hesitating tone of videon in 
 soliloquy nor the challenging demand -of sumne. I believe that 
 the position of cesso at the beginning of the sentence [cesso ego 
 three times in PI.) is due to non-interrogative emphasis, so that 
 the sentence means something like "This is regular shuffling — 
 foolish hesitation," or Hibernice " Sure it's delaying I am." 
 That this emphatic recognition of the meaning of the speaker's 
 action approached an exclamation is plain from Epid. 342, sed 
 ego hinc migrai'e cesso, . . . ? and the use in connection with 
 other exclamatory questions (Merc. 129, at etiam, asto ? at e Ham 
 cesso . . . f) shows a leaning toward the interrogation. But on the 
 whole the emphasis which caused cesso to stand at the head of the 
 sentence was not the questioning emphasis, and the cesso phrases 
 lie nearer the declarative than the interrogative sentence. There 
 is no connection with the use of the pres. indie, in fut. sense. 
 
59 
 
 Compare also the Terentian use o{ cessas, given below under D, 
 whi.ch in some respects resembles cesso. 
 
 3. nempe. To the full discussion of the uses of nempe by 
 Langen, Beitrage, pp. 125-132, I have nothing to add. Though 
 perhaps properly printed with a question mark, these sentences 
 are not really interrogative. They add an interpretation, more or 
 less hesitating aYid conjectural, of what has been said by the other 
 speaker. Langen calls such a sentence " eine als sicher richtig 
 bezeichnete Voraussetzung, resp. Behauptung." As with the 
 Engl. " doubtless," the tone and inflection might so far overcome 
 the proper sense of nempe as to give the sentence a half-interro- 
 gative effect. 
 
 The list below may not include all cases which in any edition 
 are marked with an interrogation point. 
 
 Aul. 293, Asin. 117, 339, Bacch. 188 [so Goetz, but cf. Lang. p. 
 131], 68g, Cist. II 3, 56, Cure. 44, Epid. 449 (Goetz quemne). 
 Men. 1030, Mil. 337, 808, 906, 922, Most. 491, 653, 919, Ps. 353, 
 1169, 1189, Rud. 268, 343, 565, 567, 1057, 1080, 1392, Trin. 196, 
 328, 966, 1076, True. 362, And. 30, 195, 950, Eun. 563, Hec. 105, 
 Ph. 307. PI. 31, Ter. 6. 
 
 4. fortasse {foriassis), scilicet, videlicet. Sentences with these 
 words are sometimes printed as questions. They are similar to 
 nempe questions, except that, from its proper meaning, yi?r/awi? is 
 more hesitating. I have noted the following cases : fortasse, 
 
 fortassis, Amph. 726, iu me hie vidisii? || ego, inquam, . . . || in 
 somnis foriassis ? (cf. Most. 491, nempe ergo in somnis f), Bacch. 
 671, Cure. 324, Pers. 21, 441, Rud. 140, And. 119, Heaut. 824, 
 Ph. 145, 901. 
 
 scilicet, Eun. 346, Heaut. 705, Ph. 695. 
 
 videlicet, Capt. 286. PI. 7, Ter. 7. 
 
 In a few cases sentences similar to these, containing a paren- 
 thetic credo, are punctuated as questions, but I have made no 
 record of them. 
 
 In all these cases, with cesso, nempe, fortasse, scilicet, videlicet, 
 we have sentences which lie between an assertion and a question, 
 and which could have either effect according to the inflection of 
 the voice. 
 
 B. — Repetitions. 
 
 When a speaker takes up and repeats words just used by the 
 other person in the dialogue, it is because these words in particular 
 have excited some emotion, surprise or incredulity or indignation. 
 
6o 
 
 The effect is not necessarily interrogative, but rather exclamatory, 
 shading off into interrogative. 
 
 1. The words are repeated without change, and the verb is not 
 expressed. 
 
 Amph. 692, . . .ut dudum dixeras. || dudum ? quam dudum 
 istuc fadumst ? Amph. 901, Capt. 838, 844, Men. 380, 615, Merc. 
 735, Mil. 376 (Bx. uses period). Most. 383, 477L», 493, 638, 642, 
 810, Poen. 474, Ps. 79, 305 (but cf. Lang. Beitr. 315), 345, 637, 717, 
 842, Rud. 799, St. 749, Trin. 941 twice. In Cure. 636 the repetition 
 is due to doubtful conjecture. In Trin. 375, . . . ducere uxorem 
 sine dote. \\ sine dote uxorem ? |1 ita, Ritschl's uxoremne has been 
 accepted by Brix, who quotes instances of ne with second or third 
 word in the sentence. His list might be somewhat enlarged, but 
 ths only cases where the MSS give ne with a noun in repetitions 
 are Epid. 30, armane, and Eun. 573, 992, pro eufiuchon. The 
 latter is the nearest approach to a parallel to uxoremne, and does 
 not give it much support. The passages from Ter. are Ad. 700, 
 753, And. 328, 663, 945 (Dz. only), Eun. 184, 318, 370, 856, 859, 
 908, 1073, Heaut. 192, 331, 587, 815, 861, 938, Hec. 432, 639, Ph. 
 300, 385, 553, 558, 642, 790, 981. 
 
 Cases where non is repeated are given below. 
 
 PI. 25 [27,] Ter. 27. 
 
 2. Slight changes are made in the repeated words, especially in 
 the person of pronouns. Cure. 582, tuom libertum. ||' meum9 
 Cas. II 6, 14, III 6, 12, Men. 282, Poen. 762, 1238, Ps. 715, 723, 
 True. 918, Ad. 697, 934, Eun. 745, 798, Hec. 209, Ph. 447. 
 
 In the following the changes are greater. Capt. 148, alienus 
 ... II alienus ego 9 alienus ille? Aul. 784, renuniiare repudium 
 iussit ... II repudium rebus paraiis exornatis nuptiis ? Eun. 224, 
 626, And. 928, Ad. 182, 960. Ph. 1047 is an improbable conjec- 
 ture. In Rud. 728 Sch. reads det. In Aul. 326 the only objection 
 to Wagner's text, fur ? etiamfur trifurcifer, is that it makes the 
 thought unnecessarily involved. Cas. II 5, 10, cum uxore mca? 
 is changed by Gepp. to uxoren, cf. Trin. 375. In Andr. 469, 
 Merc. 525, there is, strictly speaking, no repetition of words but 
 only of the thought. Cure. 323 ain tu ? omnia haec ? is similar.' 
 
 PI. 14 [16], Ter. 12. 
 
 ' Repetitions preceded by quid? are not included in these lists. They are 
 in many cases best punctuated with a comma after quid and cannot be clearly 
 distinguished from repetitions like Capt. 1006, . . . gnate mi. \ hem, quid gnate 
 mi ? (■' What do you mean by gnate mi ? "), or even like Ps. 46, salutem . . . \ 
 
6i 
 
 3. The verb, if it is in the 3d pars., may be repeated without 
 change, either with or without other words. Cure. 173, te prohibet 
 erus ... II prohibet? nee prohibere quit nee prohibebit. Aul. 
 720, Cas. Ill 5, 38, Epid. 699, Merc. 181, 534, Most. 376, 481, 554, 
 830, 946, 1079, Poen. 1309, Rud. 1095 (infin.), Trin. 969, True. 306, 
 Ad. 934, And. 876, Eun. 956, 984, 986, Heaut. 606, Hec. 100 (infin.), 
 Ph. 510 (twice). PL 16, Ter. 9. 
 
 4. The verb may be changed in person and other changes or 
 additions may be made. Aul. 761, quod subrupuisii meum? || 
 subrupui ego tuomf Aul. 652, Bacch. 681, 825, Capt. 611, Cas. 
 Ill 5, ID, Cure. 705, Epid. 712, Men. 394, Mil. 556, 1367, Most. 
 1029, Ps. 509, 711, 1203, True. 292, Ad. 565, And. 617, Eun. 162, 
 Heaut. 720, 1009, 1013, Hec. 206 and perhaps Hec. 72, Ph. 389, 
 Ad. 940, 950. Cf. also Trin. 127, above. In Aul. 720 nescis? is 
 used as if some spectator had said nescio in answer to the previous 
 question die igiiur, quis habet. In Men. 645, palla mihist domo 
 subrupta. || palla subruptast mihi ? the person of the pronoun is 
 intentionally unchanged; in Most. 375, . . , ego disperii. || bis 
 peristi? qui potest? the speaker is drunk. 
 
 Cases where the change is still greater cannot be classified 
 minutely, and the question whether the speaker is introducing a 
 new idea or catching up one which has been implied in the pre- 
 vious conversation can be settled only by a careful reading of 
 the context. Such cases are Ps. 344, Trin. 605, Ad. 726. Some- 
 times the repetition is in the thought, not in any one word, 
 and amounts to an interpretation of what has been said with 
 the intention of bringing out more clearly some one aspect of 
 it. So Ad. 747, domi erit. || pro divom fidem, meretrix ei mater 
 familias una in domo ? Capt. 262, ut vos hie, iiidem illic apud vos 
 meus servatur filius. 1| captus est ? (= " you mean that he is a 
 prisoner ? " not " is he a prisoner ? ") Ad. 538, lupus infabula. Ij 
 pater est? (Cf. Dz. note. Nearly equal to " what ! my father ? ") 
 So Men. 1058. When the idea has only been implied in a general 
 way, the whole passage must be read. So Bacch. 145, Cist. II i, 
 
 qiiam salutem? That is, they run over into quis in repetitions and ordinary 
 y«w-questions. They are Atnph. 410, Ba. 114, 569, 852, Merc. 542, 685, Mil. 
 27, 316, 323, 470, Pars. 741, Rud. 736, 881, St. 597, Andr. 765, Eun. 638, 
 Heaut. 3n. 
 
 There is something of the same difficulty when the verb is repeated ; so 
 erras. || quid erro? (Men. 1025) is very near to amat . . . || quid? amat? (Eun. 
 9S6), and without the help of the voice inflection it is impossible to draw per- 
 fectly sharp lines; cf. Mil. 819 with Ps. 711. 
 
62 
 
 24, Mil. 976, Rud. 752 (III 4, 47), in Par.; Sch. gives period. St. 
 599, Eun. 636; also, I think. Ph. 548, Ad. 433, though the previous 
 implication is less distinct. 
 
 Here belong also a few cases of exclamation, consisting of two 
 or three words in which an idea already suggested is summed up. 
 Asin. 487, nunc demum ? Andr. 474, hui, tarn cilo ? Also And. 
 755, Eun. 87, and Hec. 875, which would have had a verb if it 
 had not been interrupted. 
 
 In a few passages a long sentence is taken up in parts and 
 repeated interrogatively in order to get confirmation of each par- 
 ticular. The passages, which are too long to quote, are Capt. 879 
 ff., Ps. 1 152 ff., Rud. 1267 f., Eun. 707 {., Heaut. 431 f. 
 
 Repetitions with variation of phrase, PI. 31 [32], Ter. 23. 
 
 In all these cases there is a common element of repetition, 
 generally exclamatory, frequently though not necessarily rejecting 
 the repeated idea. When the repetition is plain, and no change is 
 made except in person of verbs or pronouns, there is really nothing 
 interrogative in the effect of the sentence, though it seems possible 
 that an interrogative effect might be produced as in English by 
 the voice-inflection. The common forms of reply, ita dico, id 
 volui dicere, or a repetition of the word (Capt. 838, cedo manum.\\ 
 manum ? || manum, inquam), show that there is no request 
 for information in this form of question. But the moment the 
 speaker adds to the repeated words some idea of his own, or 
 repeats not the precise words but some modification of them, he 
 introduces an element which in the full logical presentation of his 
 thought would require a separate question. Thus Ad. 726, scio. || 
 scis etpatere ? means in full " You know it ! And do you endure 
 it, too ? " Aul. 784, renuntiare repudium iussit . . . |1 repudiuni 
 rebus paratis exornatis nuptiis ? " Break the engagement ! 
 Does he propose that when everything is ready for the wed- 
 ding ? " In such cases the exclamatory structure of the first 
 words is carried over into the second part and the real question 
 is merged in the exclamation. Very possibly there would be in 
 the Latin, as in the English, a slight pause after repudium. 
 
 Further, when the idea only is repeated in words which amplify 
 or interpret it, the line which separates such exclamations from real 
 questions is easily passed. Thus in Ad. 950, agellist hie sub urbe 
 paulum . . . Wpaulum id autemst? does not mean " is that a little 
 matter ?" but " is that what you ta// a little matter?" In Capt. 
 262, given above, the change from capius est? "you mean that 
 
63 
 
 he's a prisoner?" to captusne est? "Is he a prisoner?" is so 
 slight that either might be used in such a conversation. In repe- 
 titions which are considerably changed, therefore, we cannot use 
 the principle here outlined as a basis for deciding text questions. 
 Especially in the long series of repetitions it is impossible to be 
 sure that wi? would not be used. Cf. Capt. 879, meum gnatum ? 
 MSS meumne, and so Bent, Fleck., Goetz. And generally in the 
 long-continued repetition the speaker swings away from the ex- 
 clamatory form, his emotion cooling, and tends to question facts 
 instead of statements of facts. 
 
 While the preceding classification is one of function rather than 
 of structure, it nevertheless corresponds pretty closely to a dis- 
 tinction in form. In nearly all the complete sentences, the verb is 
 near the end, or at least not near the beginning; that is, the order 
 is declarative, not interrogative. The exceptions are Aul. 652, 761, 
 Trin. 127, True. 747. In Aul. 652, cerio habes. || habeo ego? 
 quidhabeo? ("Have! have what ?") the verb is first for emphasis , 
 and so, I think, in Aul. 761, quod sub rupuisti meum. \\ subrupui ego 
 tuom? unde? aut quid id est ? Of Trin. 127 Ihave,spokenabove, 
 and in this passage, and in True. 747, non licet with infin., the 
 repetition is so precise andT immediate that the phrases cannot 
 be interrogative. But even granting these exceptions, it is plain 
 that the late position of the verb. in the sentence and the exclama- 
 tory nature of the repetition belong together. 
 
 The use of- atiiem with repetitions I have not thought it neces- 
 sary to notice, after the remarks of Langen, Beitr. 315 f Cases in 
 which ai?i ? precedes the repetition will be found also under that 
 word, which is more frequent in PI. than autem. 
 
 5. The repeated verb is in the subjuncfive. 
 
 (a). Repetitions of an imperative. Aul. 829, i, redde aurum. 
 II reddam ego aurum ? Mil. 496, ausculta, quaeso. || ego auscul- 
 tem tibi? Cist. 241 U, Merc. 749 twice, Most. 579, 620 L% Ps. 
 1315, And. 323 (only Umpf. ; better with period), 894. Twice 
 the reply is by a third speaker, and the verb is in the 3d pers.. 
 Ph. looi, tu narra. || scelus, tibi narret ? and Eun. 797. Besides 
 these, Asin. 93 is a dittograph of 94; St. 471 implies the omission 
 of a vs. containing an impv. or its equivalent ; Pers. 188 is con- 
 fused and probably not a repetition. Langen, Beitr. 123, objects 
 to Wagner's punctuation and explanation of Aul. 82, and proposes, 
 apparently with hesitation, quippini ego intus servem, ? I should 
 follow Wagner's text, . . . intus serva. || quippini? ego intus 
 
64 
 
 servem? understanding quippini to be the servant's assent to her 
 master's order, while the next line is spoken in agrumbhng under- 
 tone. Men. 198, salta sic cum palla . . . || eg-o saltabo? sanus 
 hercle non es, and Merc. 915 are remarkable as the only cases in 
 which the future repeats an impv. It must be connected with the 
 impv. use of the fut. indie. 2d pers. and with the original fut. sense 
 of the subjunctive. PI. 9, Ter. 4. 
 
 {U). The impv. is only implied, or is expressed in the form of a 
 question. 
 
 Bacch. 627 non taces, . . . f || taceam? With iubesne? Eun. 
 389; •^\'Ca non vide s? Eun. 676; vilth. quid dubiias dare ? Ps. 626. 
 Also Ad. 938, Andr. 231, Ph. 988. 
 
 (c). Repetitions ofa subjunctive, either impv. or in a subordinate 
 clause. In the former case the subjunctive is like the preceding ; 
 in the latter it is merely a ijuotation with change of person, as with 
 indicatives. Ps. 1226, saltern Pseudolum mihi dedas. \\ Pseudo- 
 lum ego dedam tibi ? Ps. 486, . . . paritas, ut a med auferas. 1| 
 abs te auferam? With other, tenses, Ps. 288, surruperes pairi.\\ 
 surruperet hie patri, .. .f Bacch. 1176, Cas. II 6, 14, II 8, 18, 
 21, Men. 1024, Merc. 567, 575, Most. 183, Rud. 842, Ad. 396, 
 And. 282, 382, 649, 900, Hec. 589, 670, Ph. 120, 382, 775. Also 
 Most. 895, though it is partly corrupt. 
 
 There remain several passages in which the idea which is 
 repeated and rejected by the subjunctive, is not distinctly expressed. 
 Capt. 208, at fugam fingitis . . . || nos fugiamus 9 quo fugiamus ? 
 Asin. 838, aw tu me tristem putas ? \\putem ego quern videam esse 
 maesium . . . ? Asin. 482 is an interpolation; Rud. 728, habeat, 
 si argentum dabit. \\ det tibi argentum ? is an early correction 
 now supported by A, Ps. 318, True. 625. Amph. 813, mi vir, 
 ... II vir ego tuos sim 9 (DEJ sum^ ; Hec. 524, mihine, mi vir 9 || 
 vir ego tuos sim9 {sum all MSS exc. AJ, Andr. 915, bonus est hie 
 vir. II hie vir sit bonus? ("Das soil ein Ehrenmann sein?" 
 Speng.). Cas. I i, 26, mea praeda est ilia . . . || tuapraeda illaec 
 sit 9 (est BJE). The passages support each other, in spite of the 
 variation in the MSS. It is plain, also, that vir ego tuos sum 9 
 would mean, " I am not your husband," while sim means " I am 
 not going to be your husband any longer" ; i. e., sum would deny 
 the fact, sim rejects the claim. PI. 22, Ter 17. 
 
 Q.—Rogas, negas, rogitas and Similar Verbs. 
 
 Somewhat closely connected with repeated sentences is a group 
 of verbs in the 2d pers. of the pres. indie, which sum up in a word 
 
65 
 
 or two the idea of the previous sentence. For example, in Aul, 
 764, nequi . . . dixt neque feci, the second speaker instead of 
 repeating the words in an exclamatory tone, non dixisti? sums 
 up the sentence in the single word negas ? This usage, though 
 distinct enough with a few verbs, shades off, as repetitions do, by 
 the addition of ideas not contained in the previous sentence, into 
 ordinary jjuestions or exclamations. 
 
 I. rogas alone. Aul. 634, quid tibi vis reddam? \\ rogasf 
 Epid. 64, amaine isiam . . , ? \ rogas ? deperit. Bacch. 206, 216, 
 980, Capt. 660, Cas. II 3, 35, Epid. 276, Pars. 42 (Ba. Rit. rogati), 
 107, Poen. 263, 386, 733, Ps. 740, Rud. 860, St. 335, Trin. 80, 
 Trjic. 505, Ad. 772, And. 163, 184, 267, 909, Eun. 324, 436, 574, 
 Heaut. 532, Ph. 574, 704, 915. PL 18, Ter. 12. 
 
 1 12. rogitas alone. Aul. 339, qui vera? 1| rogitas? Rud. 1361, 
 Ad. 558, Eun. 366, 675, 794, 897, 948, 1008, Heaut. 631, Ph. 156, 
 257. With at, Andr. 828, Hec. 526. PI. 2, Ter. 12. 
 
 T'he question which precedes rogas? rogitas ? has ne once, non 
 once, etiam once, ecquid four times ;. the other 37 cases, including 
 all from Ter., have some kind oiquis question. It is hardly likely 
 that this is accidental, but I can see no reason for it, unless it be 
 that a mere exclamatory repetition of e. g. quid ego deliqui ? in 
 the form quid tu deliquisti? woyld not be sufficiently differentiated 
 from the ordinary question quid'tu deliquisti ? This might lead 
 to the addition of rogas (see below) or to its substitution for the 
 repetition. 
 
 With some four or five exceptions the speaker makes no pause 
 for an answer after rogas, rogitas, but continues with some reply 
 to the previous question. No answer is needed, in fact ; the 
 apparent question is purely exclamatory, performing the same 
 function as exact repetitions, and differing little from the Engl, 
 " What a question 1 " 
 
 3. negas ? Cure. 711, non conmemini dicer e. || quid? negas ? || 
 nego hercle vero. Aul. 764, Men. 306, Mil. 829, Ph. 740. 
 
 PI. 4, Ter. I. 
 Though a pause is regularly made after negas and it is answered 
 in three cases by nego hercle vero, it is entirely similar to rogas, 
 rogitas. 
 
 4. rogas, rogitas, negas followed by other words. 
 rogitas etiam ? Cas. V 4, 18. 
 
 rogas me? Men. 713,' Amph. 571 (MSS rogasne. See O. 
 Seyffert, Philol. 29 (1870), 385-6), Ad. 82, 665, Eun. 653 ; rogitas. 
 
66 
 
 quodvides ? Ps. 1163 ; rogUas quid sit? Heaut. 251 ; negas, quod 
 oculis video ? Rud. 1067. negas novisse me ? (After novi cum 
 Calcha simuV) Men. 750. PI. 6, Ter. 4. 
 
 5. rogas, rogitas, negas preceded by other words. 
 
 eiiam rogas ? Bacch. 33 1 , Merc. 202, Andr. 762 ; etiam rogitas 9 
 Aul. 424, 437, 633; me rogas? Men. 640, Heaut. 780, Mil. 426; 
 quid negoti sit, rogas ? (cf. Becker, 198), Aul. 296, Mil. 317 ; quid 
 fiat, facias, agam, metuam, etc. Ad. 288, Eun. 837, Heaut. 454, 
 780, Merc. 633 (V. Beck., 209, MSS men rogas), Amph. 1025, 
 1028, Aul. 551, Bacch. 65, 1196, Cure. 726, Merc. 721, Most. 907 
 (ecquid"), Rud. 379, St. 333, Eun. 720, de istac rogas virgine? 
 
 tu negas? And. 909. Men. 630 (MSS tuii) and 821 (MSS tu) 
 have been given above under tun. Bx. reads tu in both, Rit. tun, 
 but it is entirely likely that PI. should use tu and tun negas with- 
 out discrimination. On Capt. 571 see Bx. Anh., Langen, p. 220. 
 tu negas med esse (sc. Sosiam) ? Amph. 434, Fleck, tun. etiam 
 negas? Merc. 763. PI. 23 [24], Ter. 8. 
 
 In all cases where rogas, rogitas has a dependent clause, the 
 clause is repeated from the preceding question, e.g. quid negoiist ? 
 \\ quid negoti sit, rogas ? In such cases both the repetition and the 
 verb rogas are exclamatory, and the implication is intended that 
 no such question should have been asked. But in the few cases 
 where new ideas are introduced the exclamatory rejection is less 
 prominent and the questioning effect appears. The most distinct 
 case is Eun. 720, quid faciundum censes? || de istac rogas vir- 
 gine? II ita, where there is no rejection. Other cases of negas 
 with infin. have a faint interrogative tone. 
 
 6. With a few other verbs in the 2d pers. pres. indie. These 
 are not clearly marked off from other verbs (esp. verba dicendi) in 
 the 2d pers., but a few cases will suffice to show that this exclama- 
 tory use is not confined to rogas, rogitas, negas, but extends also 
 to other words. Only the cases in which the verb stands alone, or 
 nearly alone, are given here, because with a dependent infin. or 
 clause the distinction is less clear. 
 
 Yi&z. ^21 , peperit filia ? hem,taces? ex quo? Bacch. yjy, quid 
 fit ? quam viox navigo . . . ? taces? Eun. 695, 821. In Merc. 
 164 taces is a conjecture of Ritschl, differing from all other cases 
 in not coming immediately after a question : the passage is, besides, 
 an interpolation, derides ? Merc. 907, Ad. 852. Ps. 1315 is improb- 
 able, inrides? And. 204. narras, Heaut. 520 nihil nimis.\\ 
 ' nihil' narras ? And. 367, non opinor, Dave. || • opinor ' narras ? 
 
67 
 
 non rede accipis ; certa res est. Also Ph. 401. To these Ad. 398, 
 vigilantiam iuam tu mihi narras ? bears the same relation that 
 repetitions of an implied idea bear to exact repetitions. With 
 these I should place Andr. 754, male diets ? Hec. 706, fugis ? 
 Heaut. 883, ehem, Menedeme, advents ? (cf. tu hie eras 9). Men. 
 166, agedum, odorare . . . quid olet? apstines? In Ph. 515 A 
 has optundis, the other MSS obtunde ; most editors follow Fleck, 
 and read optundes. Phaedria has been pouring out petitions to 
 Dorio, who does not trust his promises and epcpresses his deaf- 
 ness to prayers for mercy in this word, optundis, " You keep at 
 it ?" " You hammer away at my ears ?" The future is entirely out 
 of place, while the present is entirely in accord with the manner of 
 Ter., who uses this kind of exclamation, especially with single 
 words, very frequently. For parallel in sense, cf. Ad. 769, tu verba, 
 fundis hie sapientia ? and Andr. 348, optundis, tarn, e/si intellego ? 
 Ps. 943 R. meram iam mendaciafundes, is properly future. 
 
 Here also belongs cessas, with or without infin. Cf. cesso, above. 
 cessas ? Hec. 360, Ph. 565 ; sed (tti) cessas ? Hec. 814, Ph. 858 ; 
 with infin., Andr. 343, Ad. 916. Not in PI. PI. 3 [4], Ter. 19. 
 
 To these might be added a considerable number of cases 
 showing a less distinct relationship to rogas, and gradually 
 shading off till the reference to the preceding speech or act would 
 be imperceptible and the sentence would become distinctly inter- 
 rogative. These cases will be given under other headings. 
 
 As the repetitions were marked, though not quite invariably, 
 by having the verb near the end of the sentence, so in this class 
 the distinction of function is marked by a special form, the use of 
 the 2d pers. pres. indie, without dependent words, except me, 
 etiam and a clause or infin. repeated from the preceding speech. 
 The typical form is rogas and the departures from it are few and 
 unimportant. 
 
 D. — Questions with non and other Negative Words. 
 
 Questions without a particle containing a negative word occur 
 about two hundred times in PI. and Ter. Of these about 180 have 
 non. The problem in regard to these sentences is to see whether 
 they have any special interrogative form, and to determine their 
 relation to nonne. 
 
 I. non in repetitions. These may or may not have a verb. 
 Cist, n I, 35, non edepol . . . recipis. || non? hem, quid agis ? Ad. 
 65i, 803, And. 194, Heaut. 780. Asin. 445 is entirely uncertain. 
 quid? non? And. 587, Heaut. 894. 
 
68 
 
 Epid. 482, haec non est ea. 1| quid? non est? || non est. Most. 
 594, non dat, non debet. \\ non debet ? Asin. 480, Men. 302, 503, 
 Merc. 918, Poen. 173, 404, Ps. 326, Rud. 341, 1372, Ad. 112, Eun, 
 179, 679, Heaut. 612, Hec. 342. PI. 12, Ter. 11. 
 
 Other cases occur in which the repeated idea is so expanded as 
 to make it in part a new sentence, e. g. Most. 950, nemo hie habitat. 
 II non hie Philolaches adulescens habitat hisce in aedibus ? Cf. 
 cases above, IV B. But the line which separates these from other 
 wcw-questions is very indistinct, and I have preferred to place 
 them below with other sentences of like form. 
 
 2. The remaining questions with non, except those having 
 impv. effect, are arranged in three classes according to the position 
 of non and the verb: {a) non and the verb together at the 
 beginning of the sentence ; {b) non and the verb together at the 
 end ; {c) non at the beginning, the verb at the end. These three 
 arrangements 'do not, of course, cover all possible forms of 
 sentence ; non and the verb may be together in the middle of the 
 sentence ; they may be separated by a word or two, but generally 
 the main part of the sentence, especially if there be a dependent 
 infin., is not divided, but lies all together either after or before or 
 between non and the verb. 
 
 (a), non and the verb are at the beginning of the sentence. 
 Here are included some cases where quaeso, eho, quid or a vocative 
 precedes, some in which ego or tu comes between non and the 
 verb, and the short sentences consisting of non and the verb only. 
 
 non vides with infin. or clause. Asin. 472, inpure, nihili, non 
 video irasci ? Most. 811, non vides tu hunc voltu uti tristist senex ? 
 II video. Asin. 326, Bacch. 1136, Men. 947, Pers. 642, Ps. 1297, 
 Rud. 942, Heaut. 1013. Without clause, Eun. 675, ubi est? || 
 rogitas ? non vides ? 
 
 non tu scis with infin. or clause. Merc. 731, non tu scis quae 
 sit illaec? || immo iam scio. Men.. 714, 911, Mil. 1150, St. 606. 
 Without clause, Asin. 215, non tu scis ? hie noster quaestus ancupi 
 simillumust. So Asin. 177, Amph. 703. The second sentence 
 is here added paratactically, instead of being subordinated. 
 
 Other verbs in 2d pers. pres. indie, non audes with infin., Asin. 
 476, Ps. 1316 (A nonne'), True. 425; non audis, with clause Ps. 
 230, alone like non tu scis, Poen. ion ; non soles respicere te, Ps. 
 612 ; non intellegis ? Amph. 625 ; non quis . . . durare, True. 326 ; 
 Tvon amas me ? Cas. V 4, 9 ; non habes venalem amicam . . . 
 Ps. 341 (cf. 325) ; non ornatis . . .? Cas. HI 2, 16 ; -non arbit- 
 
69 
 
 raris . . . f Trin. 789 (MSS nonne) ; non clamas 9 non insanis f 
 Ad. 727 ; non cogitas . . . ? Heaut. 239 ; quid ? non obsecro es, 
 quern . . . ? Ph. 742. 
 
 Perf. indie. 2d pers. non nosU nomen meum ? Men. 294, True. 
 
 ' 595 ; non {con)meministi. Men. 533, 1074, Epid. 639 ; non audi- 
 
 visti . . . ? Rud. 355 ; non tu dixti , . .? And. 852 (MSS dixtiri). 
 
 Impf. indie. Epid. 599. Fut., in short sentences, Cist. II i, 31, 
 32, Mere. 750, Eun. 6g6. 
 
 Impersonals. non licet with infin. Mil. 1404, non licet mihi^ 
 dicere? Asin. 935, Ps. 252, Rud. 426, True. 747. non (te') pudet. 
 Men. 708, Poen. 1301, Ph. 525. Without infin. or gen. the order 
 indicates nothing; non ie pudet? Men. 741, and non pudet te? 
 Trin. 1017 are indistinguishable. 
 
 Other tenses and persons are less firequent. First pers. pres. 
 Cas. MI 6, 12. In Amph. 403 fF., where the MSS. give nonne in 
 several cases, the close connection of the questions with each 
 other obscures the effect of the order. There are three cases with 
 ist pers. I can see nothing to distinguish Amph. 539, non (MSS 
 nonne') ego possum, furcifer, te perdere ? from Rud. 11 25, 7ion ego 
 te conprimere possum sine malo ? though the order is different. 
 Ph. 543, non triumpho, si . , . ? has clear nonne force, and, less 
 clearly. Ph. 489, Trin. 1153. 
 
 Third pers. pres. indie. Hec. 360, non sciunt ipsi vidm . . .? 
 St. 393, Eun. 839. Impf., Aul, 294, quid? hie non poterat . . . ? 
 Bacch. 563. Plupf., Ph. 804. 
 
 Pres. subjunct., Hec. 341, quid faciam misera? non visam 
 uxorem Pamphili, . . . ? Eun. 46, Ph. 419, Heaut. 583. Rud. 969 
 is conditional. PI. 57, Ter. 18. 
 
 Many of the sentences just given might have been placed in the 
 preceding class as repetitions of a previously implied negative. 
 Thus non nosti follows quisquis es or some other expression of 
 uncertainty ; non amas me 9 Cas. V 4, 9 is distinctly impHed 
 before ; Ps. 341 has been asserted in 325 ; and so Ph. 742, Rud. 
 335, all cases oi {con)meministi and of the pres. subj. ist pers. 
 
 Further non vides, non tu sets, non licet, non pudet closely 
 resemble rogas 9 etc., in that they sum up in a single word the 
 effect of the previous sentence. Cf. Eun. 675, ubi est 9 || rogitas ? 
 non vides ? 
 
 (U). non and the verb together, but not at the beginning of the 
 sentence ; in most cases at or near the end. 
 
 None in indie, with ist pers. 
 
70 
 
 SecoTid pers. Epid. ^i/^, fides non reddis? Eun. 463, quid? 
 hunc non vides ? Amph. 659, 937, Cist. Ill 11, Trin. 810. Perfect, 
 Men. 505, tuom parasitum non yiovisti ? Aul. 772; Fut., Mil. 696. 
 Plupf., Ph. 384. 
 
 Third pers. Hec. 231, cum puella anum suscepisse inimicitias ' 
 non pudetf Cas. IV 4, 25 (A, Gepp. nonne). In Asin. 395 the 
 Goetz-Loewe text, sed post non rediit hue ? seems to me improb- 
 able on account of sed, which is not found elsewhere in non- 
 i^questions. 
 
 With subjunct., Eun. 798, ego non tangam meam ? Impf., Eun. 
 591. In Rud. 723 the subjunc. is independent of the question. 
 
 PI. 10 [11], Ter. 5. 
 
 These few cases are not different in sense from the preceding. 
 rion pudet at the end has the same relation to non pudet at the 
 beginning that quid sit me rogitas ? bears to rogiias quid siet ? 
 
 {c^. non and the verb are separated, non being at the beginning, 
 the verb generally at the end. 
 
 In the first pers., Amph. 518, carnufex, non ego te novi? the 
 same, Capt. 564, Men. 408. non . . . sum, Heaut. 920 ; non . . . 
 possum, Rud. 11 25. Amph. 406 has nonne in MSS. Perf. indie, 
 Men. 512, non ego te indutum foras exire vidi pallam ? Men. 631. 
 
 Second pers'. pres. Pers. 385, non tu nunc hominum mores 
 vides, . . .? Capt. 969, Cas. V 4, 28, Epid. 480, Men. 307, Merc. 133, 
 881, 913, 1014, Per's. 670, Rud. 347, 740, 870, And. 710, Ph. 492. 
 Perf. indie, Epid. 638, quis tu's homo, . . . ? || non me novisti ? 
 Mil. 428, Men. 438, Poen. 557, Rud. 1372, Heaut. 436. Impf. indie, 
 Ad. 560, non tu eum rns ktnc modo produxe aibas ? || factum.. 
 Capt. 662, Pers. 415, Ps. 500. Fut. indie. And. 921, non tu tuom 
 malum aequo animo feres ? Eun. 819, Hec. 603, Ph. 1002. 
 
 Third pers. Bacch. 1193, non tibi in mentemst, . . . ? Bacch, 
 1000, Cas. Ill 2, 17, Most. 950, Ad. 94, 754, Hec. 236, Ph. 392. 
 Amph. 406 is in a series of «ti«- questions, and in 404, 405, 407, 
 452 the MSS have nonne. 
 
 Pres. subjunct. ist pers. Epid. 588, non patrem ego te nomi- 
 nem . . . ? True 732, Eun. 223. Impf. subjunc, Trin. 133, Cure. 
 552, (B nonne'). Third pers.. Ph. 119 in apodosis. 
 
 In a few cases, Asin. 652, And. 149, 752, Ad. 709, the verb is 
 omitted. PI. 42, Ter. 18. 
 
 The following are corrupt or conjectural: Cas. Ill 5, 53, Men. 
 453, 823, Mil. 301, Most, 555, Poen. 258, True 257, 259. 
 
 As has been said, this division is not entirely precise, either for 
 
71 
 
 interrogative or for declarative sentences. Single words, mostly 
 conjunctions or interjections, occasionally precede non, a pronoun 
 or adverb (nunc) sometimes separates non and the verb, and in the 
 third class, under (c), the verb is frequently followed by two or three 
 words, instead of being at the end. Also, in using the order as a 
 basis for comparison, sentences consisting of nonand the verb only 
 must of course be thrown out, as well as other short sentences like 
 non te pudet? non me novisti? and perhaps _/?a^f^ non reddis? Cf. 
 non manuni abstines ? Even non nosti nomen meum ? cannot 
 differ greatly from tuom parasitum, non novisH? But longer sen- 
 tences fall pretty plainly into these three classes. 
 
 There are no statistics in regard to the position of non in decla- 
 rative sentences, but taking a single play, and counting only simple 
 sentences like those used in questions, there are in Trin. 33 cases, 
 divided as follows : 
 
 Declar, Interrog, 
 
 (fl) non and verb early, . . 6=: 18 per cent. 75 =50 per cent. 
 
 (b) «(?« and verb late, . . 1 1 = 33 per cent. 15::= 10 per cent. 
 
 (c) «<?« and verb separated, 16 ^49 per cent. 60 = 40 per cent. 
 
 Taking the first two classes, it appears that non and the verb are 
 put in the first place much more frequently in interrogative than 
 in declarative sentences. This is due mainly to the large number of 
 questions which resemble rogas ? viz., non vides, non tu sets, non 
 nosti, non licet, nonpiidet ; the rest are either repetitions or sen- 
 tences which would have non and the verb early for emphasis (Bx. 
 on Trin. 414), even if they were declarative. A consideration of the 
 order therefore strengthens the conclusion indicated by the mean- 
 ing, that these are not properly questions, but exclamations, which 
 presuppose a negative opinion on the part of the other speaker, 
 and express doubt or rejection by repeating the negation in an 
 exclamatory tone. In the cases under (a) only the verb and non 
 belong to the repetition, and these therefore stand first as the 
 starting-point of the speaker's thought. Cf. Aul. 784, .. . renun- 
 tiare repudium iussit . . . |1 repudium rebus paratis exornatis 
 nuptiis ? Where the verb and non stand at the end, the exclam- 
 atory tone is sustained through the whole sentence. 
 
 In the third class, {c), non comes at the beginning of a declarative 
 sentence almost invariably in order that it may go with some 
 single word. So in the Trin. with ita 6/^(),/ugitivos 1027, credibile 
 606, optuma 392, satis 249, 623, minus 409, edepol 357, iemere 
 
72 
 
 740. In 705 only enim separates non from the verb; in 341, 
 414, 976 7ton contrasts one clause with another. The only cases 
 in which it can go with the whole sentence are 480, 720' and 
 perhaps 211. But when such sentences as these become inter- 
 rogative they drop von, that is, they pass to the interrogation from 
 the affirmation, not from the nelgation (cf. Paul, Princip." p. no), 
 and appear in the iox-m% itan est ? fugitivosne est ? satin habes? 
 etc. On the other hand, of the 60 cases in questions there are 
 scarcely half a dozen in which non could be taken with any one 
 word. It is true that it very frequently stands just before a 
 personal pronoun, ego, tu, me, mihi, but it does not negative the 
 pronoun, nor would the pronoun be emphatic if the sentence were 
 declarative. This seems rather to be another instance of the 
 expression of the personal pronoun under the influence of the 
 interrogative inflection, and its presence and close connection with 
 non strengthen the hypothesis that this form of sentence is 
 properly interrogative, not exclamatory like (a) and {b). non is 
 placed first in order that it may go with the whole sentence (= " is 
 it not true that . . . ? "). 
 
 Schrader gives 24 cases in PI. and Ter. of nonne ; of these 19 
 have the verb late, 4 contain only nonne and the verb, and only 
 one CPs. 1317 nonne audes . . .) has non and the verb together. 
 In later Latin also, so far as I have been able to examine, non7ie 
 comes first and the verb at the end. I should therefore regard 
 this third form of the no7i sentence as a true interrogation and 
 the source of the no7ine questions. 
 
 To this distinction non with pres. indie, ist sing, seems to be an 
 exception. Whatever its form, it has generally the meaning of 
 7ionne. 
 
 3. non with the second pers. pres. indie, with impv. force, non 
 tacesf Amph. 700, Asin. 931, Bacch. 470 (non tu t.}, 627, Cas. V 
 4, 14, Cure. 712, Men. 618, 1026, Merc. 211, 484, 754, Most. 734, 
 Ph. 987, 1004; non tti {hinc, istinc) abis ? Men. 516, Ps. 1196, St. 
 603, Eun. 799 ; non mihi respondes ? And. 743, Ph. 992 ; non te 
 tenes ? Men. 824 ; non manes ? Ph. 849 ; non tu tecohibes ? non te 
 respicis? Heaut. 919; non omittitis? Ad. 942; non manum 
 abstines ? Ad. 781 ; non tu tibi istam praetruncari linguam 
 largiloquam iubes? Mil. 318. non taces? Ps. 889 (B, Goetz); I 
 prefer non places (CD, Lor.) PI. 17, Ter. 10. 
 
 That these have impv. effect is shown by the reply taceam ? 
 Bacch. 627, Ph. 987, as if after tace. But the questioning effect 
 
73 
 
 is also felt, as appears from the other form of answer non {hercte 
 vera) taceo, Cas. V 4, 14, Cure; 912, Men. 6i8. These do not 
 differ in any essential point from other questions with non, and 
 something of impv. force may be felt in non vides (cf. videsne), non 
 tu sets and even in non licet. 
 
 4. Other negatives used in questions without a particle are 
 these : 
 
 nil. nil respondes? Ad. 641, Eun. 152, Poen. 259. These are 
 like non taces ? with an impv. effect. The other cases oi nihil are 
 all in Ter.-, Ad. 244, And. 949, Eun. 735, Hec. 462, 811 ; I should 
 add Cas. prol. 78 and Merc. 912, generally punctuated with 
 period. 
 
 nullus, Bacch. 718, Ps. 294, 1002; nemo, Ad. 529; neque . . . 
 neque, Amph. 756, Pers. 131. PI. 6 [8], Ter. 8. 
 
 The negative word in these sentences (except nil respondes f) 
 is not at the beginning of the sentence and has no eifect upon the 
 question. Its presence is accidental, and the questions are like 
 other forms of interrogative sentence without particle, with which 
 they might have been classed. 
 
 E.— Questions with iam and etiam. 
 
 Questions without a particle, having iam at or very near the 
 beginning, occur 50 times, beside two (Ad. 700) without verb. 
 In most of these iam has the same sense as in declarative sen- 
 tences. Thus iam ferio forts ? Men. 176 is "at once"; Merc. 
 222, iam censes patrem abiisse a porluf " by this time, already." 
 So also with nunc, Ad. 290. With the perfect indie, the meaning 
 " by this time, already, so soon " is quite distinct. In a few cases 
 there is an approach to the impv. effect (cf. etiam'). Merc. 884, 
 prehende. iam tenesf || teneo. || tene. Most. 836, iam vides 9 
 Closely connected with this is a kind of assertive force, as if the 
 sentence were both interrogative and strongly declarative. So 
 most cases of iam tenes f iam vides? iam. scis? 
 
 There are also a few cases in which I can see no time-force. 
 Pers. 25, iam servi hie amant? Ps. 472, iam tibimirum. id vide- 
 tur? (Rit. num. Lor. an). Asin. 929, iam subrupuisti pallam^ 
 quam scorto dares f 
 
 The passages in which iam is found are, with pres. indie, ist 
 pers., Men. 176, Eun. 814; 2d pers., Amph. 798, Asin. 338, Capt. 
 prol. 10 (incomplete vs. Bx. iamne). Cist. II 3,69, Epid. 25, 401, 
 Merc. 222, 884, Most. 836 [III 2, 154 is a mere repetition], Pers, 
 
74 
 
 528, 589, Poen. 578, Trin. 780 (Jenes iamf), True. 881, Ad. 290, 
 Eun. 703, 1016; fut., Heaut. 350; perf., Amph. 962, Asin. 929, 
 Cas. II 3, 34, Merc. 658, Mi). 1344, Most. 668, Pers. 483 (MSS an 
 iam), 484, Rud. 1386, St. 317, Trin. 912, True. 378. Third pers. 
 pres., Pers. 25, 485, Poen. 590, Ps. 472, St. 529, True. 508 (twice), 
 Ad. 388, Eun. 704 ; perf., Amph. 957, Asin. 410, 437, 638, Mere. 
 823, Mil. 1429, And. 806, Ph. 525, 796. The text is doubtful in 
 Rud. 1383, 1369. Ad. 700 is without verb. Ph. 22 with period. 
 
 PI. 40, Ter. 10. 
 
 With etiam the ease is somewhat similar. It is used 68 times, 
 and in many of these the sense does not differ from the uses well 
 known in declarative sentences. Thus without time-force, " also, 
 again," Asin. ^i"] , furcifer , etiam me delusistif Amph. 394, etiam 
 denuo, Amph. 702, etiam tu quoque, Bacch. 127, etiam me advorsus, 
 Epid. 711, Mil. 1206, Pers. 849, St. 427, Poen. 1234, Rud. 817, Ad. 
 243, 246, Ph. 769, Merc. 538, etiam nunc, Merc. 829, Ph. 931, And. 
 644, Eun. 286, 710 (but with a redundant syllable ; Umpf. Dz. om. 
 nunc). With time-force, " still, yet," Merc. 129, at etiam asto f at 
 etiam cesso . . .f St. 574, etiam valet? 
 
 There are a few eases in which I do not see that etiam, has any 
 proper meaning. Baceh. 216, sed Bacchis etiam fortis tibi visast ? 
 cf. Mil. Glor. 1 106, ecquid fortis visast? Most. 553, etiam fatetur 
 de hospite ? Pers. 651, emam. leaml, opinor. 1| etiam ' opinor' ? 
 
 The remaining cases all have the verb in 2d pers. pres. indie, 
 and are of two distinct and well defined classes. First, etiam with 
 or without ne is used to express an impv. So etiam, (tu) taces ? 
 Cure. 41, Pers. 152, Trin. 514, 790, Ad. 550, dicis Pers. 278, 
 etiam quid respondetis mihi ? Bacch. 670 ; other cases are Baceh. 
 1 168, Cure. 189, Aul. 255, Asin. 715, Pers. 275, 413, 542, Most. 383, 
 Heaut. 235, Ph. 542. Also accepiura es, Rud. 469, and possibly 
 Most. 513 (Lor.'' etiam tu fuge, but the dialogue is confused). 
 Also Men. 422, etiam par asitum manes ? which Langen does not 
 include. PI. 16, Ter. 3. 
 
 Second, etiam is used with the 2d pers. pres. in an exclamatory 
 sentence. So etiam rogas ? (PI. 2, Ter. 3), etiam rogitas ? (PI. 3), 
 given above under IV C. These, like rogas ? alone, sum up a 
 previous sentence, and etiam does not mean " again " or " still, 
 yet," since the preceding question is frequently the first that has 
 been asked. In some of the following cases etiam might be taken 
 to mean " still " or " again." Mere. 896, etiam metuis ? " are you 
 still afraid ? " Merc. 982, etiam loquere ? " you still speak ! " But 
 
75 
 
 in most cases no such sense is possible, and these questions so 
 closely resemble those given under IV C that it is difficult to draw 
 any line between them. So etiam minilare ? Bacch. 785, True. 
 621; male loquere, Pers. 290; male loqui audes, Capt. 563; 
 quaeris, Merc. 981 ; mones, Bacch. 910; muitis, Amph. 381, Pers. 
 827 ; inrides, Most. 1 132 ; derides, Men. 499 ; clamas, Amph. 376 ; 
 negas, Merc. 763 (IV C) ; rides, Eun. 1017. In the following the 
 sense of " still " is possible or probable : Merc. 728, 896, 982, Rud. 
 877, Trin. 572, 708, 991, Eun. 668, Hec. 430, 507. Also Most. 
 851, at etiam restas ? (Rit. restas : Lor." restat .•) 
 
 PI. 20, Ter. 4. 
 
 Andr. 849 should be responde, Rud. 733 is entirely confused, 
 Rud. 711 might be included with the preceding, but is generally 
 marked with a period. Bacch. 321, etiam dimidium censes? is 
 condemned by Langen, p. 161, but retained, rightly, as P think, 
 by Goetz. PI. 54, Ter. 14. 
 
 As has been said, there are about 900 questions without a par- 
 ticle in PI. and Ter. ; it now appears that more than 100 of these 
 begin with iam and etiam. This raises two questions : (i) Were 
 iam and etiam put at the beginning of the sentence, as non appears 
 to have been, under the influence of the interrogative inflection? 
 (2) Or did they, being already at the beginning of the sentence, 
 take on an interrogative function ? 
 
 As to the first question, a rough count shows that there are 
 about 100 cases of iam in declarative sentences in the Amph., 
 Asin., Aul. and Capt. In 30 of these iam goes with a subordi- 
 nate verb or clause ; of the remaining 70 about 40 have iam at 
 the beginning. For etiam I have made no count, but believe the 
 facts to be about the same. It appears likely, therefore, that the 
 position of iam and etiam is not peculiar to questions, but is com- 
 mon to interrogative and declarative sentences. 
 
 The second question could be more surely answered if there 
 were any discussion of the early uses of iam and etiam. The 
 42 cases of iam in declarative sentences are divided as to persons 
 and tenses as follows : 
 
 
 Pres. 
 
 Impf. 
 
 Fut. 
 
 Perf. 
 
 Pres. subj. 
 
 I St pers. 
 
 8 
 
 ... 
 
 14 
 
 2 
 
 I =25 
 
 2d pers. 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 ... 
 
 ... 
 
 = 2 
 
 3d pers. 
 
 9 
 
 ... 
 
 6 
 
 ... 
 
 = 15 
 
 18 I 20 2 I =42 
 
76 
 
 In questions as follows : 
 
 
 Pres. Fut. 
 
 Perf. 
 
 
 1st pers. 
 
 2 (fut. sense) ... 
 
 ... 
 
 = 2 
 
 2d pers. 
 
 17 I 
 
 12 
 
 = 30 
 
 3d pers. 
 
 9 
 
 9 
 
 = 18 
 
 28 121= 50 
 
 Here is a marked tendency to use iam with the first pers. and 
 the fut. in declarative sentences, but with the 2d pers. and the 
 perf. in questions, the 3d pers. and the pres. remaining' unchanged. 
 This appears to indicate that iam expressed a kind of impatience 
 or urgency, which I suppose to be connected with its use " in 
 contrast with the time at which something was expected " (Har- 
 per's Lex., s. v., I. A, 2). A similar assertive force is plain in 
 etiani, "and even, even," and in its use in answers, "just so, yes 
 indeed." From the contrast between this subjective standard, 
 which iam and etiam express, and the actual occurrence result the 
 peculiar uses of these words in questiohs. Thus etiam tu taces ? 
 means "Are you keeping still at last? I should have expected it 
 long ago." etiam dicis ubist? "Are you going to tell me at 
 once ? I asked you long ago." With iatn this impv. force is much 
 less distinct, but cf. Merc. 884, prehende. iam ienes? || teneo, 1| 
 tene, with Pers. 413 ff., accipin . . .? accipe sis . . . tene sis . . . 
 etiam tu . . . tenes ? So in iam, scis ? iam vides ? there is a kind 
 of challenge or demand, in which the expressiori of contrast is 
 more important than the idea of time ; " now you know, now you 
 see, don't you ? though before you didn't." 
 
 Langen says, Beitr. 160, in commenting upon Bacch. 319, with 
 Ussing's note ' etiam interrogantis,' " etiam hat aber in der Frage 
 sonst immer seine besondere Bedeutung, hier wurde es zu einer 
 blossen Fragepartikel herabsinken." Below on'the same page 
 he says that the only case where etiam, serves merely to give a 
 special shading to the question is the impv. use. I have called 
 attention above to some instances of iam (Pers. 25, Ps. 472, Asin. 
 929) and etiam (Bacch. 216, Most. 553, Pers. 651), mostly with 
 the 3d pers., in which I can see no individual meaning for these 
 words, where they seem to me " der Frage eine besondere Niiance 
 zu geben," to use Langen's words. To these I should now add 
 etiam rogas, rogitas, minitare, negas, etc., as being questions in 
 which etiam has at the most only the meaning " actually, really," 
 
77 
 
 or, better expressed, has so far lost its proper sense as to serve 
 merely to give a particular shade of rneaning to the question, to 
 make the question urgent and impatient and exclamatory. That 
 is, etiam has almost and iam has less frequently assumed inter- 
 rogative functions,' It is worth noting that iam is used without 
 ne 50 times, with ne 38, while etiam, having more interrogative 
 effect in itself, is used without ne 68 times, with ne only 26 times. 
 
 F. — Continued, Supplementary, and Introductory 
 Questions. 
 
 Similar in a general way to the partially interrogative sentences 
 given above are certain forms of incomplete questions, which 
 depend upon either a preceding or a following sentence. These 
 for the most part explain themselves, and no full lists of them are 
 given, but it seems worth while to point out their relation to and 
 possible influence upon other forms of question. 
 
 I. To a previous question the speaker himself adds a second 
 thought, either in a phrase or a clause, in order to define the main 
 question more precisely. 
 
 The added words may follow the question immediately, and be 
 so clearly a part of it as to make it doubtful whether all should 
 not be considered one question. Ps. 617 ff., esne iu an non es ab 
 illo miliii Macedonia ? servos eius, qui . . . est mercatus . . . dede- 
 rat . . . debet? Mil. 994 f., numquis hicprope adest, qui rem alienam 
 potius curet quam suam ? qui . . . ancupet ? qui , . . vivat ? 
 So Men. 380, Poen. 557 ff., Rud. 1185, St. 97, Eun. 46 f., 794, Hec. 
 676, Ph. 156. 
 
 More frequently the continuation is added after an interruption 
 or a reply by the second speaker. In this case the interruption 
 may be almost entirely neglected, as in Poen. 879 f , scin tu erum 
 tuom meo era esse inimicum capitalem ? |1 scio. || propter amorem ? 
 Ph. 739, quis hie loquitur? || Sophrona. \\ et meum nomen nomi- 
 nat ? Or the speaker may continue his question because the 
 reply was inadequate, or because he desires to make his question 
 more precise and so compel a different answer. Aul. 773, die bona 
 fide: tu id aurum non subrupuisti? || bona, \\ neque scis quis id 
 abstulerit ? \\istuc quoque bona. Ps. 484 f , ecquas viginti minas 
 paritas ut auferas a me? || aps te ego auferam ? \\ it a : quas meo 
 
 'In Bacch. 670, etiam quid resfondetis mihi? the indef, quid is used after 
 etiam exactly as it is used after the recognized particles num, ec- and an. 
 
78 
 
 gnaio des, qui amicam liberet? See esp. Rud. IV 8 (1265 ff.) 
 Other examples are Most. 974 ff., Poen. 725, 732, Heaut. 894, etc. 
 — about 30 in all. In some cases the continuation begins with at, 
 correcting the previous question, and this may make the continua- 
 tion amount in sense to a new question, though in the form of the 
 original question. Heaut. 9,73, ere, licetne ? || loquere. || at tuto ? 
 (all edd. use period). St. 342, ecquem convenisti? || multos. 1| at 
 virum ? Hec. 804, es tu Myconius f |1 non sum. || at Callidemides ? 
 The string of names in Trin. 916 f. is entirely similar, though at 
 is not used. 
 
 When the original sentence is a ^«z5-question, the second part is 
 not so closely dependent upon the main sentence, but it implies, 
 in the full logical expression of the thought, a repetition of the 
 leading verb. Amph. prol. 52, quid contraxistis frontem? quia ' 
 tragoediam dixi futuram hanc ? Pers. 718, quo ilium sequarf 
 171 Persas ? nugas. About half a dozen cases. 
 
 In all continued questions the previous speech is itself a ques- 
 tion, and in the words added by the same speaker there is no real 
 interrogative force. They take over the interrogation, with what- 
 ever shading of genuine desire for information, of rejection or of 
 exclamation it may have, from the main question. This fact suffi- 
 ciently explains the absence of an interrogative particle. 
 
 2. Resembling these in form but differing essentially in char- 
 acter are the semi-interrogative phrases or clauses which supple- 
 ment a remark made by the other speaker. In these the inter- 
 rogation, so far as there is any, is not in the words but in the 
 unexpressed idea, " Do you mean your remark in this way, — if 
 this idea is added ? " Hec. 809, die me orare ut veniat. \\ ad ie ? 
 " (Do you mean) to you ? " Heaut. 778, argentum dabitur ei ad 
 nuptias, aurum atque vestem qui — tenesne? 1| comparet? "get 
 ready, do you mean ? " Amph. 805, ego accubui simul. || in 
 eodem lectof |1 in eodem. Aul. 148, Ad. 536, Heaut. 905 — about 
 12 in all. A relative clause may be added in this way, either with 
 (see I. K.) or without ne. So Epid. 700, Mil. 973, with Brix's 
 note, Ad. 530, Heaut. 1018. 
 
 There are a few places where a brief question is added, not 
 depending upon what has been said, but using the framework of 
 the previous sentence. Ph. 209, quin abeo ? || et quidem ego ? 
 Rud. 1 161, ubi loci sunt spes meae ? 1| immo edepol meae ? With 
 these I should class a few brief demands, consisting of a word or 
 two and immediately connected with the previous remark. Andr. 
 
79 
 
 928, ibi mortuost. || eius nomen ? Eun. 317, color verus, corpus 
 solidum — \anni? Eun. 810. 
 
 Here belong finally all questions with si {sin, verum si; at si 
 etsi). Ph. 492, nondum mihi credis ? || ariolare. |1 sin fidem do ? 
 Cf, esp. And. 348, nuptiae mi — || etsi scio ? || hodie — || optujidis, 
 tarn etsi infellego ? About 10 cases. 
 
 3. If the main verb is in the second part of the question, then 
 the first part may shrink away into an almost meaningless phrase, 
 whose only function is to introduce with vividness the main ques- 
 tion. This is the case with ain ? which introduces an exclamatory 
 repetition, with audin ? introducing a command, and sometimes 
 with scin tu f Also quid ? is nsed most frequently before excla- 
 mations, quid nunc f before questions, and quid ais ? before 
 regular and somewhat formal questions. All of these occur often 
 before questions without a particle, and it is probable that these 
 words of themselves marked the follo.wing sentence as interroga- 
 tive and made the particle unnecessary. In the same way, when 
 two independent questions of similar form are used together, ne 
 in the first would suffice for both ; cf. Capt. 139, egone ilium non 
 fleam ? ego 7ion defleam . . .? with Brix's note. These are only 
 continued questions, in which the second part has a main verb 
 and has become grammatically independent, but is still so far 
 dependent as to have no separate sign of interrogation.' 
 
 ' Continued questions are common in PI., but interruptions and supple- 
 mentary phrases seem to be used much more frequently by Ter. 
 
8o 
 
 Concluding Paper. 
 G. Questions without a Particle having the Verb 
 
 NEAR THE BEGINNING. 
 
 In the preceding divisions have been given all the varieties of 
 question which are marked by a distinct relation to the preceding 
 sentence or by the presence of some single word having interroga- 
 tive or partially interrogative functions. The questions which 
 remain can be distinguished only by peculiarities of order. 
 
 For an exhaustive classification it would no doubt be necessary 
 to consider all possible variations from the so-called normal order, 
 especially m the case of pronouns, personal and demonstrative. 
 But the instances would be few in number and the results slight, 
 and I have thought it sufficient to make two divisions according 
 as the verb does or does not retain its normal position at the end 
 of the sentence. A third division might be made of those sen- 
 tences which consist only of the verb, but most of these have 
 already been given under IV C, rogas, negas, etc. 
 
 Under the head of sentences in which the verb is near the 
 beginning are included all with at, sed, etc., and those in which a 
 subordinate clause precedes the main clause, if it seems clear that 
 the questioning begins only with the main clause. Absolute pre- 
 cision is impossible, e. g. Eun. 705 and 951 are classed here. 
 
 As these sentences are similar, except for the absence of the 
 particle, to those in which ne is appended to the verb, a compari- 
 son of the two kinds may be expected to shed light upon the uses 
 of ne, and perhaps upon the origin of the interrogative sentence. 
 
 Indie, pres., ist pers. Andr. 423, sum verus ? is the only case 
 of sum. Eugraph. seems to take it as a declarative sentence (id 
 est ■ vera dico '), like the Engl. " I told you so ! " As a question 
 it is parallel to Rud. 865, sumne ibi ? with strong nonne effect. 
 Eun. 532, dico ego mi insidias fieri ? refers back to 507 ff. and 
 means "Am I not right in saying that they are plotting against 
 me?" That is, it has a distinct nonne effect ; cf. Amph. 433, vincon 
 
8i 
 
 argumentis, te non esse Sosiam ? In other passages the pres. 
 has fut. sense : Most. 774, eon ? voco hue hominem ? |1 i voca, is 
 really only one question, eon, voco; Poen. 1224, pergo eiiam 
 temptare ? is confused in the MSS and the text is entirely uncer- 
 tain ; Most. 848, ergo eo igitur sine perductore ? 1| i, licet, is also 
 confused and is generally printed with a period ; Ph. 737, quid 
 o-S" -^ 11 • • • II oideo, maneo, dtim haec qucie loquitur magis cog- 
 nosco ? (MSS exc. A have adeon an). With -ne there are six 
 cases parallel to these. Cist. 288 Uss., And. 500 Speng. I should 
 print with a period. PI. [33, Ter. 2 [3]. 
 
 Indtc. pres., 2d pers., in alphabetical order. Hec. 458, advenis 
 ■modo ? "Just come ? " is a questioning comment, not a question ; 
 cf. Heaut. 883. Amph. 561, audes mihi praedicare id, domi te 
 esse nunc, qui Mc ades ? is similar to rogas. Pers. 214, sed quid 
 tu ? confitere, ut te autzvmo ? is a genuine question, " But what 
 about you ? Do you confess . . . ? " Also Heaut. 1015 Dz. Eun. 
 705, age nunc, bellua, credis huic quod dicat ? is precisely like the 
 cases of credin, with the same suggestion of num. effect. Hec. 
 803, adulescens, die dum quaeso, es tu Myconius ? would be similar 
 to esne Men. 1 109, but the vs. is imperfect ; tun es, an early 
 conjecture, is generally adopted. Trin. 318, exprobras, bene quod 
 fecisti ? would be parallel to rogas, but I should read quid expro- 
 bras with Bx. and MSS. Ps. 488, fatere ? die, is similar to Capt. 
 317, sed faterin . . .? but there is no necessity for changing to 
 faterin, as proposed by Becker, 132 ; cf confitere above. Heaut. 
 765, vah, gloriare evenisse ex senteniia ? is :not a question, but 
 like rogas. Also Heaut. 982, inrides in re tanta neque me consilio 
 quicquam adiuvas ? Poen. 1 103, intellegis ? at the end of a long 
 explanation, cf. tenesne, iam tenes, tenes, is a question, but with 
 some slight impv. effect. Heaut. 537, eho, quaeso, laudas, qui 
 eras fallunt? is like rogas. Pers. 357, quid? metuis ne te 
 vendam? Heaut. 1017, quid? metuis ne . . . ? are influenced by 
 quid? and are exclamatory rather tha<n interrogative. So also 
 Aul. 720, nescis? (though this may be a repetition). And. 791, 
 eho inepta, nescis quid sit actum ? and Andr. 348, obtundis, 
 tarn etsi intellego ? (Speng. uses period). Ps. 85, sed potes 
 nunc mutuant, drachumam mihi imam dare, ... .^ is precisely 
 parallel to potin with the infin. Pers. 733, redis tu tandem ? is 
 like advenis modo ? above. Pers. 379, scis nam tibi quae prae- 
 cepi? Eun. 952, 1035, 1036 (twice), Heaut. 529 and Ad. 215 are 
 all parallel to corresponding forms with scin. In Heaut. 529, 
 
82 
 
 sets esse factum ut dico ? the nonne effect is produced by ut 
 dico. Ps. 216 (Lor. Goetz, period), Heaut. 700, Ph. 214, tenes? 
 are like tenesne, Heaut. 778. Ps. 1157, vides, iam die {diem Lor.) 
 multum esse f is parallel to viden with infin. having nonne effect. 
 Most. 1 105, aspicedum contra me. || aspexi. || vides ?\ video is 
 not quite clear without the stage " business," but is apparently 
 exclamatory. Andr. 898, impera. vis me uxorem ducere ? hanc 
 vis mittere ? ut potero,feram ; the corresponding forms with vin 
 imply an offer of service, these are more nearly neutral, and so 
 have the effect of a protasis -with feram for apodosis. 
 
 PL 12 [13], Ter. 19 [20]. 
 
 Indie, pres. 3d pers. Ad. 924, iubet f rater ? These are the 
 first words of a scene and are probably meant as a repetition of 
 words supposed to have been spoken off the stage. Ph. 352, 
 negat Phanium esse hanc sibi cognatam, Demipho ? hanc Demipho 
 negat esse cognatam ? These are both exclamatory and similar 
 to repetitions. Men. 923, die mihi hoc : solent tibi umquam. oculi 
 duri fieri ? and Poen. 755, valent apud te quos volo ? are unemo- 
 tional questions for information, as are two cases oi licet, Cure. 621 
 and Mil. 1329, and one of placet. Ad. 736. Rud. 803, licet saltern 
 istas mi appellare f I should punctuate with period because of 
 saltern. 
 
 In Amph. 995, amat ? sapit, Eun. 252, negat quis ? nego : ait ? 
 ■aio, the questions stand for protases and may be punctuated 
 amat : sapit. The usage is well known. 
 
 Instances of est (sunt) are Aul. 357, Men. 1107 (twice), Merc. 
 563, Poen. 165, 253 (adsuni), Ad. 556,778, And. 789. In St. 186, 
 promitte vero : ne gravare : est commodum ? (so Rit. Goetz) I 
 should prefer a period. All these are regular questi,ons, abso- 
 lutely the same as similar forms with esine ; cf. e. g. Heaut. 454, 
 estne ea intus f with And. 789, est Simo intus ? 
 
 PI. II [13], Ter. 8. 
 
 Indie, impf. Ad. 693, quid ? credebas dormienti haec tibi con- 
 fecturos deos ? Ph, 902, verebamini ne id non facerem quod rece- 
 pissem semel? .(Dz. an rebamini, v. Krit. Anh.) Both are exclama- 
 tory. Ter. 2. 
 
 Indie, fut. True. 306, ibo igitur intra? |1 quippini? is parallel 
 to Mil. 1242, adibon ; both are unusual because of ihe tense. Hec. 
 672, quid dixti? ■eho, an non alemus, Pamphile ? prodemus, 
 quaeso, potius.f is exclamatory, as if repeated from a previous 
 
83 
 
 speecli. Cure. 73, Ad. 192 are exclamatory and properly future. 
 On obtundes ? or obiundis ? Ph. 515, see under IV C. 
 
 PI. 2, Ter. 2 [3]. 
 
 Indie, perf. In the ist person only Cas. V 4, 18, beside those 
 already given under IV B. In the 2d pers. the only clear cases 
 are Mil. 829, prompsisti iu vinum ? Poen. 723, vidistis leno quom 
 aurum accepitf and Rud. 378, cavistis ergo iu atque erus ne 
 abiret, . . .? In other cases the MSS vary. Most. 594, Epid. 539, 
 554, Cist. Ill 15 are entirely uncertain. In Aul. 171, And. 975, 
 Eun. 692, Heaut. 684, 731 the metrical probabilities favor the forms 
 without ne ; in Mil. 556 A has vidisti, and so Bx. Lor, In spite 
 of the uncertainty (see above I. A, ne with the perf. indie), it is 
 clear that the forms without ne are regular questions ; indeed, the 
 uncertainty itself shows that there is no difference in sense between 
 the questions with ne and those without ne. In the 3d pers. 
 Heaut. 978, abiit? is exclamatory, recognizing a fact, not asking 
 a question. Hec. 527, peperitfilia ? hem, taces ? is usually printed 
 with colon ; I can see no reason why a question mark should not 
 be used. Some other 'cases have been given under IV*B. 
 
 PI. 6, Ter. 6. 
 
 Plupf. Eun. 429 is exclamatory. 
 
 Periphrastic forms are Ad. 796, dictum hoc iniernos fuit . . .? 
 responde, And. 665, factum hoc est, Dave ? || factum, ; thesi are 
 regular questions, though the first has nonne effect. And. 751, 
 diclura es quod rogo ? has impv. force, but see above I. A, ne with 
 fut. ptc. • Rud. 982, quid ais, . . . f ausu's etiam conparare vidu- 
 lum cum piscibus ? (Seyffert, Scb., ausis). PI. i, Ter. 3. 
 
 Subjunctive pres. Men. 539, dicam curare ? Bacch. 65 ff., 
 adulescens homo penetremm-e huiusmodiin palaestram, . . .? Ad. 
 625, nunc quid faciam, ? dicam fratris esse hanc ? And. 640, Eun. 
 49, Ph. 186, quid remedium inveniam . . . f loquarne ? incendam : 
 taceam ? instigem : purgem me f laterem lavem. This last has 
 the force of a condition. In the 2d pers. Asin. SyS.possis, si 
 forte . . . videas, cognoscere ? cf. Merc. ^18, possin, with the same 
 sense. Asin. 814, 815. Impf. Ad. 395 ; Wag. Fleck. Dz. insert 
 n?im. All these have precise parallels with ne. 
 
 PI. 5, Ter. 5 [6]. 
 
 Summing these up it appears, in the first place, that about one- 
 third, including most of the sentences which consist of the verb 
 alone, are not properly interrogative, but exclamatory, and closely 
 related to repetitions and to rogas ? and negas ? So advents 
 
84 
 
 modo? means "Just come, have 3'ou ? " not "Have you just 
 come? " abut? means " He's gone ? " cf. satin abiit? and quid? 
 metuis . . . .^ is " What ! you're afraid that . . . ? " The large pre- 
 ponderance of cases from Ter. is partly due to the fact that he 
 uses exclamations (cf. rogas, rogitas) more frequently than PI. 
 These exclamations have few parallels among questions with ne 
 appended to the verb. 
 
 In the second place, of the cases which have parallels in ques- 
 tions with ne, nearly all are unemotional questions, asked for infor- 
 mation. These comprise about half of the whole number, and 
 the correspondence between tliem and forms with ne is so close 
 as to make it plain that ne is not at all necessary to an unemo- 
 tional question. PI. could say est or estne without difference of 
 meaning. Nor is ne essential in all idiomatic and emotional forms 
 of question ; the effect of num is given without it {credis r= credin), 
 and the effect of nonne in about half a dozen cases. Of impv. 
 questions, however, there are no clear cases, and there are com- 
 paratively few idioms, like those with ain, audin, scin, viden ; the 
 few cases that do occur are of the simplest sort. While, there- 
 fore, ne is not essential to the genuine question nor even to some 
 kinds of idiom, it appears that the widest development of idiomatic 
 questions is to be found only in connection with ne. But because 
 of the small number of questions without ne this' conclusion should 
 not be pushed too far. 
 
 H. Sentences having the Verb near the End. 
 
 Under this head are placed also the few cases in which the verb 
 is neither at the beginning nor at the end, for which it has not 
 seemed necessary to make separate classes. 
 
 So far as these sentences correspond to questions with ne, given 
 in the various sub-classes I. B-K, the parallels will be pointed out. 
 Of the sentences which have no parallels with ne, which are too 
 numerous to be given in full, sufficient illustrations will be given. 
 
 Indie, pres. ist pers. And. go6, Andrium ego Critonem video? 
 certe is est, corresponds in sense to videon in soliloquy. Heaut. 
 579, Clitlpho, haec ego praecipio tibi? is parallel to haecine, e. g. 
 Most. 25 f., with rejecting effect. There is no case parallel to Ph. 
 812, hanc igitur mittimus ? And. 921, ego istaec moveo aut euro ? 
 Eun. 179 (and Hec. 875 without verb) are exactly like Ph. 999, 
 egon iimeo f i, e. they repeat and reject an idea already suggested. 
 Merc. 172, tandem indignus videor? if the text is correct, is 
 
85 
 
 exclamatory, as is Andr. 500, inrideor ? which only Speng. prints 
 as question. Amph. 391, Cas. V 4,, 28, iuae fidei credo ? || meae, 
 are hesitating declarative sentences, " I trust to your honor?" not 
 as Uss. says, equivalent to credamne, and entirely different from 
 And. 497. PI. 3, Ter. 6. 
 
 Pres. indie.,, 2d pers. Ad. 596, id quia non est a me factum, 
 agis gratias ? has some questioning effect, due perhaps to the 
 fact that the verb stands first in the main clause. Ph. 985, rape 
 Mine. II sic agitis ? is exclamatory and rejecting, but has many 
 parallels with ne, e. g. Ad. 128, Eun. 99, sicine agis ? Men. 1108, 
 patrem fuisse Moschum tibi ais ? and And. 908 do not differ 
 greatly from ain with infin. Men. 741 {attines) is exclamatory. 
 Asin. 485 (see above under aiii), Men. 514, 924, Rud. 1099, Trin. 
 695, Hec. 675, And. 545, all with censes, are like censen in having 
 a rejecting force which comes partly from the sense of censeo, but 
 differ from censen in being less distinctly interrogative ; cf. also 
 And. 505. Eun. 897 (^cogitas) is like censes. Capt. 556, Trin. 
 649, Ad. 748, Eun. 245, Heaut. 729, all with credis, have an infin. 
 and exclamatory effect, except Capt. 556, which corresponds 
 pretty closely to Eun. 812, credin ? with interrogative force. Ps. 
 1315, a/ negabas daturum esse temihi: tamen das? is really 
 declarative, with slight interrogative inflection. All cases of dan 
 have impv. effect. Hec. 524, . . . m,i vir || vir ego tuos sim ? tu 
 virum m.e aut hominem deputas adeo esse ? is exclamatory and has 
 parallels with tun. Men. 1139, hanc tu dicis, /rater, pallam, . . .f 
 (Fleck. Rit. hancine, which would be equally correct in sense), 
 Merc. 912, Trin. 466, Heaut. 596, 888, all with dicis, are declara- 
 tive with slight questioning or exclamatory inflection ; dicisne, 
 used only twice, is impv. Ad. 104, tu nunc tibi id laudi ducis, 
 quod turn fecisti inopia? is exclamatory, like rogas. And. 321, 
 hodie uxorem ducis ? || aiunt, is almost declarative, with faint 
 questioning inflection. With es, Men. 1078, quae haec fabulast ? 
 tu's Menaechmus ? is an exclamatory repetition; Trin. 987, ipsus 
 es? and Poen. 866, malus es? are questioning; Rud. 1305 is so 
 nearly declarative that it might equally well be printed with a 
 period ; Trin. 635, tu mihi es melior quam egomet miki ? (Rit.' 
 tun) has been given under tun, but in either case it would be 
 exclamatory. I should read iu with Bx., but without accepting 
 his reason (Krit. Anh.), " da die energische Frage ohne 7ie fiir 
 den Ausdruck des Unwillens viel angemessener ist." Ad. 167, 
 ceterum hoc nili facis ? is exclamatory. Umpf. uses a period. 
 
86 
 
 Ad. 769, ohe iam : iu verba fundis hie sapientia ? is exclamatory. 
 Heaut. 718, tantum sat habes ? is exclamatory, not questioning 
 like satin habes, si. Asin. 579, hoc quod rogo responde. || rogita 
 quod vis. || argenti viginti minas habes nunc ? (so Miill., Goetz. 
 MSS habesne). The position of habesne is without a parallel in 
 PL, but Miiller's reading is not at all satisfying ; habes nunc 
 would be almost a declarative sentence, while the context calls for 
 a formal and unemotional question, like those with haben. Pers. 
 850, inrides, and Ad. 135, irascere, are like rogas. Heaut. 315, 
 hoc vide : in mea vita tu tibi is quaesitum, scelus ? is exclama- 
 tory ; in {isne') has impv. force. Asin. 593, salve. \\ salvere me 
 iubes, quoi tu abiens adfers morbum ? usually printed with period, 
 is like rogas, as is Eun. 1053, laudas. Merc. 160, dormientis 
 spectatores metuis ne ex sontvo excites ? is half-declarative. Ps. 442, 
 niirare, And. 764, nescis. Most. 16, obiectas, Rud. 876, opsecras 
 (Vulg. Sch. with period), Asin. 189, Cist. Frag. IX, '^e.w^postulas, 
 True. 413, procuras (Sch. prints as exclamation) are all either 
 exclamatory or declarative. Merc. 654, cedo . . . amorem te hie 
 relicturumputas ? has considerable questioning force, due probably 
 to cedo. Heaut. 741, dignam me pufas . . .? Amph. 284, are like 
 censes. Eun. 426, lepus tute es : pulpamentum quaeris ? might as 
 well be declarative; cf. Wagner's note. Amph. 816, quaeris, is 
 exactly like rogas. Asin. 398, iu id nunc refers ? is like cases with 
 tun, expressing rejection. Hec. 706, Ph. 684, respondes, are like 
 taces, rogas. Aul. 214, Poen. 724, Heaut. 181, scis {scitis), differ 
 from scin in that they take the knowledge for granted and are only 
 slightly interrogative. In Merc. 719, «V tu me temptas sciens? 
 there is less emphasis upon sic than in questions with sicine, but 
 the rejecting force is the same. Cist; Frag. II Ben., quid ? tuam 
 times amicam . . .? and Heaut. 910, quid? istuc times . . .? 
 are exclamatory. Ad. 233, nunc demum vcnis? is partially 
 declarative. Ph. 60, verere, is like metuis, times and other verbs 
 of emotion. With vis the case is less clear. Men. 1155, ergo 
 nunc iam vis conclamari auciionem fore ? Rud. 1074, And. 708 
 all have questioning force, and in all vis precedes the dependent 
 verb, infin. or subjunct. So also in Hec. 787, where A has . . . 
 ob earn rem. 1| vin ergo intro earn ? the other MSS || ob earn, rem 
 vis ergo intro earn ? which latter I believe to be correct. Heaut. 
 87, scire hoc vis ? takes up fac me ut sciam of 84, and has very 
 little questioning force. Pers. 681, quod te dignumst, me dignum 
 esse vis ? is exclamatory and rejecting. Most. 262, scita's tu qui- 
 
87 
 
 dem. nova piciura interpolare vis opus lepidissumum ? is so 
 clearly declarative that it might better have a period. Mil. 68 
 (I I, 38) and Ps. 47 have been given above. Men. 848, votas, is 
 like rogas, and Ritschl's conj. men is unnecessary. Ps. 826, utere, 
 is repudiating, with some slight questioning force from quid tu ? 
 
 In 2d pers. PI. 40, Ter. 32. 
 
 In the cases which follow it is not necessary to do more than 
 indicate the general group, questioning, exclamatory or declara- 
 tive, to which the sentence seems most nearly allied, and even 
 this general grouping cannot be precise, since these three tenden- 
 cies may all appear in a single sentence. 
 
 In the 3d pers. pres. indie. Ad. 246, omnes denies labefecit, 
 . . .: etiam insuper defraudat ? is the nearest representative of 
 the interrogation. Five with videiur, Ba. 854, Ps. 472, Rud. 983, 
 1230, Ph. 1033, and Ad. ^T^d, placet, are exclamatory and rejecting. 
 Cure. 572, Aul. 720, Hec. 500 (Wag. with period), and Merc. 714 
 are declarative with slight questioning or exclamatory force. In 
 Merc. 714 a period would express the sense equally well. Merc. 
 948, True. 585, Cas. 353 Gepp. are entirely uncertain. Eun. 733 is 
 given under muUon, Ps. 1002, And. 949 under non. 
 
 Cases with est are more frequent, and about half have an 
 introductory phrase or semi-parenthetic verb like quaeso, opsecro. 
 Interrogative are Amph. 774, salvom signumst ? 1| inspice. |1 rede, 
 Ba. 718, nulla, Epid. 643, Rud. 284, 1054. The exclamatory 
 sentences are mainly repetitions, Ad. 950, . . . paulum . . . || 
 paulum id autemst? Merc. 534, 974, Most. 628, Pers. 491, Rud. 
 740, 1399, And. 875; these are repetitions with est added. Ad. 
 707 is like ho cine ; Hec. 527 like istucine ; Bacch. 616, Rud. 960, 
 Heaut. 607 have slight interrogative force, and so resemble adjec- 
 tives with ne. Ps. 294 (2), Rud. 11 13, Ad. 388, Heaut. 583 are 
 rejecting exclamations. Most. 444, sed quid hoc ? occlusa ianuast 
 interdius ? is usually printed with period, but is like other par- 
 tially declarative sentences. So also Eun. 1040. 
 
 PI. 24, Ter. 12. 
 
 Indie impf. Eun. 155, aut ego nescibam quorsum tu ires ? (So 
 Umpf. at, with period, Bent. Wag; Dz.) This is an ironical 
 declarative sentence, and approaches a question, though not closely 
 enough to warrant the interrogative sign. Men. 1122, die miki : 
 uno nomine ambo eratis ? is clearly interrogative. Men. 625, Pers. 
 686, Ad. 901, Ph. 858 are exclamatory. Heaut. 907, hem, Clinia 
 haec fieri videb at? is a hesitating assertion. PL 3, Ter. 3 [4]. 
 
88 
 
 Indie, fut. Mil. 1021, quid ego? hie astabo . . .? Rud. 658, 
 Cure. 2t)4 are rejecting exclamations. Rud. 1270 has more ques- 
 tioning force. In 2d pers. Capt. 892, Mere. 649, Eun. 690, Hec. 
 232 are strongly repudiating. Aul. 773, 774 are in a series of 
 questions which demand a promise rather than ask for a reply. 
 They are imperative futures with slight interrogative inflection. 
 In Eun. 536 the MSS favor malam. rem hinc ibis f with impv. 
 effect; this is without parallel, but Ter. shows considerable 
 variety in impv. questions. In the 3d pers. Poen. 729, quid si 
 . . . ptiltem? II censeo. || si puUem, non recludet? is equivalent to 
 quid si pultem atque ilk non recludet ? Mere. 458, 459, Eun. 638 
 are exclamatory. In Gas. Ill 5., 38 ne is called for by the metre. 
 Men. 792, . . . ibi potat. || tua quidem ille causa potabit minus, 
 . . . .^ is exactly like Capt. 845, Pers. 747, arid Rit. has tuan here 
 also ; but ne is not at all necessary to the sense. 
 
 PI. 12, Ter. 4. 
 
 Indie, perf. Men. 394 is exclamatory and is in sense a repeti- 
 tion ; Cas. V 4, 16, ego istucfeci f is an exclamation with precisely 
 the same sense as egon. Asin. 410, hodie salvere iussi Libanwn 
 libertumf iam manu emissust? is an ironical assertion with 
 slight interrogative force. Eun. 420,, quidillud, Gnatho, quo paeio 
 Rhodium tetigerim hi convivio, numquam tibi dixi? involves 
 an anacoluthon, and the strong interrogative force is due to that 
 fact. 
 
 Indie, perf. 2d pers. Interrogative effect is somewhat distinct 
 in Epid. 596 (with quid), Mil. 1219 (with opsecro'), Poen. 759, 
 Heaut. 884 (both with die mihi),. Heaut. 830, On Andr. 742 see 
 tun; for Ph. 577 see perf. with ne. The following are repudi- 
 ating exclamations: Amph. 725 (cf 717), Asin. 926, Capt. 717, 
 Pers. 798, Rud. 993, Trin. 138, Eun. 241, Heaut. 685, Ph. 467. 
 The declarative force is prominent in Asin. 252 f. (only Uss. prints 
 as question), Asin. 416, Most. loio (both of these might as well 
 have a period, since the interrogative effect is barely perceptible), 
 Poen, 591, And. 586. Cist. II 3, 39 is entirely confused. 
 
 In the 3d pers. Asin. 432, eho, Coriscus pro vectura olivi rem 
 soluit? II soluit, 441, Dromo jnercedem rettulit? are interrogative, 
 but they have an intentionally peremptory tone, as from a superior 
 to an inferior ; cf. 444, where rettulitne is at the end of the sen- 
 tence.' Bacch. 502 is equivalent to a condition. MiL 1043, And. 
 
 ' Other cases where the omission of ne appears to be associated with an 
 urgent and peremptory tone are And. 665, factum hoc est, Dave i 751, die- 
 
89 
 
 241 are exclamations. Most. 977, 978, Pers. 131 are assertions 
 which get a slight interrogative tone from the context. 
 
 PI. 23, Ter. 8. 
 
 Indie, plupf. only in Ad. 465, noras, with declarative force. 
 
 Ter. I. 
 
 Indie, fut. pf. True. 547, where Speng. uses period. PI. i. 
 
 Compound forms are all in the perfect. Rud. 187 is exclama- 
 tory, but the text is somewhat uncertain. St. 372, hem, quid? 
 Epignomum elocutiCs? is like ais, referring to what has just been 
 said. Heaut. =,22, faceia haec meretrix. \\ sane. \\ idem visasi tibi f 
 " You think so too ? " has as much questioning force as any ; the 
 rest are clearly exclamatory or declarative, Cist. II i, 16, Epid. 
 650 {quid?'), Heaut. 580, Merc. 976, Asin, 330, Men.. 611, Capt. 
 568, Ps. 631 ; in the last four I should use a period. 
 
 PI. 9, Ter. 2. 
 
 With the subjunctive a dependent infin. is rarely used, and the 
 sentences are for the most part so short that the position of the 
 verb cannot be expected to have much influence upon the 
 meaning. 
 
 Subj. pres., ist pers. Bacch. 903, hodie exigam aurum hoc? \\ 
 exige, and Trin. 59, vi7i conmuiemus ? ttiam ego ducam et iu meam ? 
 are the only cases which have any questioning force. The rest 
 are all exclamatory and rejecting, like egone with the pres. subj. 
 They are Asin. 506 (Goetz ubi), Aul. 45, Capt. 139 (Sch. egone), 
 Pers. 26, Poen. 352, 730, Ps. 318, St. 297, And. 231, Eun. 798, 
 Heaut. 131, 413, Hec. 434, Ph. 419, 1022. 
 
 With the 2d pers. all eases are exclamatory and correspond to 
 tun with subjunct. They are Asin. 489, 812 (?), Merc. 575, And. 
 619, Eun. 460, Hec. 589. 
 
 With the 3d pers., all exclamatory, Cure. 193, True. 754, Heaut. 
 128 ff., Ph. 813. Also Hec. 878, Dz.; Urn. an. 
 
 In the impf. all are exclamatory, and repeat with more or less 
 of distinctness a suggestion already expressed : Most. 183, Rud. 
 842 (Sch. quid ego, etc., without any mark after quid). True. 625. 
 True. 501 is utterly confused ; Aul. 286 should have a period ; 
 Trin. 957, where the MSS have miki, Rit. Bx. mihin concrederet, 
 has been placed under mihin, I. B, because there is no precise 
 
 tttra es quod rogo ? Mil. 829, prompsisti tu illi vinutn ? 833, neque tu bibisti ? 
 I have noted no cases exactly like those in the Asin., and this suggestion 
 may be fanciful, but an assertive form of question might easily be rudely 
 and harshly employed. 
 
90 
 
 parallel without ne, yet I greatly doubt whether ne is at all neces- 
 sary. A few of these cases have been given above, IV B and D. 
 
 PI. 17, Ter. 13. 
 
 As has been remarked, these sentences exhibit three tendencies. 
 They are {a) declarative sentences with slight interrogative inflec- 
 tion, {b) exclamations, mostly with repudiating effect, or {c) ques- 
 tions like those in the preceding class. These are not different 
 kinds of questions, but merely different uses to which this one 
 kind of sentence may be put. Of the declarative sentences there 
 are about 40 cases. They are nothing more than ordinary declara- 
 tions, made with some hesitation, which was no doubt expressed 
 by the voice, but was not sufficiently strong or not sufficiently 
 concentrated upon any single word to bring about a change from 
 the normal position of the verb in a declarative sentence. In fact, 
 as in sentences with scilicet, fortasse or a parenthetic credo (see 
 IV A), the hesitation was not about any single word, but about 
 the correctness of the statement as a whole. The exclamations, 
 which include about 140 of the 200 cases, are like the other kinds 
 of exclamatory sentence already given and express doubt or 
 wonder or absolute incredulity by repeating with exclamatory 
 inflection the statement which has excited the emotion. In most 
 cases they repudiate the statement. Even in the third use, in the 
 20 or 25 cases which most nearly approach a real interrogation, 
 something of declarative or exclamatory effect generally appears, 
 indicating that these are essentially like the other uses, and differ 
 from them less widely than they do from sentences in which the 
 inflection has been strong enough to bring the verb to the first 
 place in the sentence. In most cases, also, the interrogation is 
 partly expressed by quaeso, die, opsecro and similar words, making 
 the question semi-indirect. 
 
 In general, therefore, there is in questions which have the verb 
 at or near the end a correspondence between form and function ; 
 they are declarative sentences with exclamatory inflection, or with 
 a questioning inflection too slight to bring about a departure from 
 the declarative order. 
 
 V. — Questions with «/ and with the Infinitive. 
 
 Questions with ut interrogative and the indie, are merely a 
 variety of the g'z^w-question, and of these I have made no lists. 
 Apparently, in passing over these, I have omitted also cases of 
 ut with the subjunct., which should have been noted for the sake 
 
91 
 
 of comparison with egon ut sentences, and I fear that the following 
 list is imperfect. Amph. 694, quid enim censes? te ut deludam 
 contra, . . . f Trin. 750, ut ego, nunc adulescenti thensaurum 
 indicem . . , f Cist. IV i, 10, And. 618, ok, iibi ego ui credam, 
 furcifer? Heaut. 1050, mea bona ui dem Bacckidi dono sciens ? 
 In 2d pers. pres., Poen. 316, perf. Men. 683, 3d pers. pres. Ad. 
 238, Ph. 669, perf. Most. 14 (L"), 1017, Ad. 530, Heaut. 954, 
 Hec. 138 f. Most, 1 172 is purely conjectural. Ad. 655 repeats 
 
 654- 
 
 Questions or exclamations with the infin. have been partly given 
 under hicine, itane and other words, but are repeated here in 
 order to bring all infin. questions together. 
 
 With adeon followed by an «/-clause, Bacch. 283, adeon me 
 fuisse fungum ut qui illi crederem . . .? And. 245, Eun. 225, 
 Heaut. 980, Hec. 532, Ph. 153, 497, 499. In And. 879 all MSS 
 have adeon against the metre, generally corrected to adeo ; it will 
 be seen from cases below that there is nothing remarkable in 
 the omission oine. 
 
 With itane. Ph. 810, itan parvam mihijidem esse apud te ? Ph. 
 466. With ita, Heaut. 503. 
 
 With sicine. Cure. 589, Pers. 42, And. 689 ; with sic. Ph. 528 U. 
 
 With some form of hicine, Asin. 226, haecine te esse oblitum .. .? 
 Cure. 694 (for Cure. 200 see I. H. e'). Mil. 626, Ps. 202, True. 537, 
 933, Ad. 237, 390, 408, 611, Eun. 644, Heaut. 401. The only 
 cases without ne which at all correspond to these are Ph. 503, . . . 
 turn hoc esse mihi obiectum malum ? and Hec. 613, hinc abire 
 matretn ? minume. (There is no case of hincine.") 
 
 Other pronominal forms are istacine Aul. 746, Ulan (abl.) Ad. 
 448, quemquamne Ad. 38, Heaut. 912, nemdnemne Eun. 553, nosne 
 Hec. 645, ten Ph. 339 (cf. Ps. 371), meamne Mil. 488, nullane 
 And. 425, tantamne And. 253, tantane Ph. 977. Also numquamne 
 (adv.) Eun. 360. Without ne, Capt. 783, ad ilium modum subli- 
 tum OS esse mi hodie? Also with tantum, tanfam. And. 870, 
 Heaut. 630, Ph. 884 ; in Heaut. 92, hui, tarn gravis hos, quaeso ? 
 the infin. is to be supplied. 
 
 With nilne. And. 716 ; with nil. Ph. 1042. 
 
 With non {nonne does not occur with the infin.), Trin. 1046, non 
 hoc puplice animadvorti? Cas. I i, i, Hec. 227, Ph. 231, 232, 978, 
 Ad. 562, 629, Dz. 
 
 With magistron Baech. 151, servon And. 609. 
 
 The other cases without ne are Asin. 127, which may be a 
 
92 
 
 continuation of the preceding question, Aul, 338, iibi rede facere ? 
 Cure. 623, servom antestari? Eun. 391, magnas vero agere 
 gratias Thais mihi? This appears to be a repetition of a pre- 
 ceding infin. which Gnatho had used just before the speakers 
 came upon the stage. Heaut. 94 is a repetition in infin. 
 
 Withwf, PI. 12, Ten 28. 
 Without ne, PI. 6, Ter. 18. 
 The use of the infin. in exclamations calls for no comment, but 
 it may be noted that the greater number of these exclamations are 
 associated with special words, adeo, ita, sic, hie and other demon- 
 stratives and the negative. This points to a close relationship to 
 the forms given under I. B. Also, while ne is more often used 
 than omitted, there is no form of question, except that with non, 
 which has not a moderately close parallel without ne. 
 
 VI. — An AND Disjunctive Questions.' 
 
 The received doctrine concerning an is thus summarized by 
 Schmalz, Syntax, p. 299: " Unstreitig die wichtigste Fragepar- 
 tikel ist an ; im vollstandlg ausgesprochenen disjunktiven Frage- 
 satze leitet es, wie wir gesehen, den zweiten Teil der Frage ein. 
 Aber wie wir nicht in vollstandigen Syllogismen sprechen, sondern 
 eine oder die andere Pramisse unterdriicken, so genijgt oft auch — 
 wie oben bei utrum bemerkt — ein Teil der disjunktiven Frage, in 
 der Regel der zweite. Und so steht an scheinbar in einer ein- 
 fachen Frage. Dieser Gebrauch findet sich sehon bei den 
 Komikern, hat aber seine hochste Ausbildung in der Sprache 
 Ciceros erreicht." 
 
 For reasons which will be given later, and especially because a 
 prejudgment of the case may be thus avoided, I shall give first 
 the simple questions with an, those which are commonly regarded 
 as the second part of an incomplete disjunctive question, and 
 afterward the complete questions with utrum — an. The connec- 
 tion between- aw and av,.and the derivation of both from a pronomi- 
 
 ' It was not until after the following pages were in tlie hands of the Editor 
 of this Journal that I obtained the dissertation of P. Hinze, de an partic. ap. 
 prise, script. Lat. vi et usu, Halle, 1887, also as program, Brandenburg, 1887. 
 Hinze classifies the examples according to the presence or absence of eho, 
 autem, etc., and includes the indirect questions, thereby adding considerably 
 to the weight of the argument. But in the main his classification and results 
 anticipate what is given here. I have left my own work as it was written, 
 with the addition of a note or two, partly for the sake of completeness, partly 
 in the hope of reaching a different circle of readers. 
 
93 
 
 nal stem an, " that " or " the other, the second," seems to be 
 generally accepted, and, in accordance with this etymology and 
 with the actual usage in Latin, the relation between the a«-ques- 
 tion and the preceding sentence is made the basis of the classi- 
 fication. 
 
 (a). The question with an is at the beginning of a speech and 
 refers back to what has been said by the previous speaker. 
 
 In these cases the leading verb of the preceding sentence is 
 never repeated without change in the aw-question. (For Bacch. 
 1162 see below.) If the idea of the leading verb is repeated, it 
 is always with some change of phrase, and this change seems to 
 be intentional and to be essential in a question with an. Generally, 
 however, the idea which is taken up and questioned is a subordi- 
 nate one in the preceding sentence. 
 
 The idea of the main verb is repeated with change of phrase in 
 Mil. 822, sorbet dormiens . . . |{ quid ' sorbet ' ? || illud stertit volui 
 dicere . . . || elio, an dormit Sceledrus intus ? Most. 454, paene 
 confregi . . . forts. || eho, an iu tetigisti has aedis ? 
 
 In most cases some secondary idea is questioned. Asin. 837, 
 credam . . ., si te hilarum videro. || an tu me iristem putas? 
 Mil. 419, . . . si quidem east. || an dubium id tibist earn esse hanc ? 
 Ps. 309, te vivom vellem. 1| eho, an iam mortuost? 
 
 The other cases, differing in no essential particular from these, 
 are Amph. 745, 773, 964, Bacch. 120, 143, 200, Epid. 506, Merc. 
 393, Mil. 840, Most. 1083, Pers. 855, Poen. 334, 991, 1067, 1136, 
 1227, Ps. 314, 851, 853, 872, 1 161, 1 172, Rud. 578 (1274 
 given below), St. 34, 246, Trin. 371, 637, 934, 942, 943, True. 
 141, 165, Ad. 128, 389, 672, And. 500, 784 [possibly ain tu haec 
 om,nia?\ Eun. 382, 604, 679, 733, Heaut. 81, 911, 990, 1057, Ph. 
 235. 259. 626, 902, 1009. 
 
 Also an quid, Asin. 717, Merc. 145, Ps. 29, Ad. 468, anquippiam, 
 Cas. Ill 5, 38. In Trin. 1018 ff., because of the long intervening 
 clauses, a question beginning with an is renewed with eosne. 
 
 The following are semi-indirect, i. e. they depend upon or con- 
 tain die, opsecro, quaeso: Asin. 894, Cist. I i, 70, II 3, 22, Merc. 
 145, 538, Most. 519, Poen. 475, Ps. 29, Rud. 351, Trin. 986, 
 Eun. 963. 
 
 With non, Bacch. 121, an deus est ullus Suavisaviatio ? || an 
 non putasti esse umquam? Mil. 301, Poen. 490, Ps. 969, Ad. 136, 
 And. 766, 781, 807, Eun. 959, Hec. 100. In Poen. 490 non is 
 separated from an, and there is no resemblance in any of the 
 
94 
 
 passages from PI. to an non in the second half of a disjunctive 
 question ; in the more numerous Ter. passages the verb is some- 
 times repeated and the questions are like the common an non use. 
 
 All the conditions of the use of an are satisfied in Most. 178 
 (MSS omit), Poen. 533 (MSS at, ad); in Mil. 217 the text is con- 
 fused and an is unlikely ; in Trin. 922 Spengel's emendation (v. 
 Bx.°) is at least as good as anything. In Ps. 472 I should retain 
 iam of the MSS, but an (Lor.) would give an excellent sense. An 
 is especially liable to confusion with ain ? both inform and in use. 
 The distinction is this, that ain ? introduces a repetition, generally 
 an exact repetition, while an introduces an interpretation with 
 changed phraseology. The two cases in which the reading of the 
 MSS is opposed to this rule are Bacch. 1162, quidmulta? ego 
 amo. II an amas ? where I should read ain ? amas ? and Asin. 
 812, ain tuf which Uss., Langen, Beitr. 199, change to an. In 
 Aul. 538, edi sermonem iuom. \\ an audivisiif Goetz follows 
 Gruter and Bentley in changing to ain? atidivisiif I should 
 follow the MSS, with hiatus in the change of speakers, because of 
 the change from a more involved to a plainer phrase ; cf. esp. 
 Mil. 822 and St. 246, eko, an audivisiif 
 
 At the beginning of a speech, PI. 58 [61], Ter. 25. 
 
 Looking at these questions by themselves, without reference to 
 the complete disjunctive sentence, the sequence of thought is this : 
 one speaker implies, in the course of what he says, an opinion 
 which excites the surprise or incredulity of the other, who in 
 the an sentence questions the correctness of the suggested 
 opinion. This he may do in such a way as to imply that he 
 himself was mistaken, or that the other speaker was mistaken, 
 or he may leave the matter entirely in doubt. In Most. 519, 
 an quaeso tu appellaveras? ita me di amabunt, mortuom ilium 
 credidi expostulare, Tranio at first pretends to believe that 
 the ghost had called him (heus, Tranio, 515), but when Theo- 
 propides says quicum istaec loquere ? he is convinced of his error. 
 So Amph. 964, me . . . dixisse per iocum. || an id ioco dixisti? 
 equidem hercle serio ac vero raius. In Poen. 334, . . . ut Vene- 
 rem, propitiem. || eho, an iratast? propitia here lest, in Trin. 371, 
 637, and elsewhere, the speaker implies that the idea taken up in 
 the ««-question was mistaken. But in the great majority of the 
 cases the question with an expresses no opinion, but only asks for 
 confirmation and direct assertion of that which has been indirectly 
 implied. 
 
95 
 
 If now we hold to the common doctrine that an by its nature 
 always expresses an alternative, it must be acknowledged that in 
 many of these cases it is not difficult to supply a first member like 
 " have I understood you rightly? " " is that the case or . . . ?" 
 Perhaps there is no case in which some form of first member could 
 not be thought out which would at once suit the context and be 
 an antithesis to the aw-question. But, on the other hand, there is 
 hardly a single one of these questions which naturally and easily 
 suggests a complete disjunctive question ; there is in most cases 
 something forced and artificial in the ellipsis, and in some cases, 
 e. g. Ps. 1161, 1172, Mil. 822, 840, Trin. 934, 942, 943, Eun. 733, 
 the awkwardness and artificiality are very clear. The full force of 
 this can be felt only by making an examination of all the cases in 
 the foregoing list. From such an examination, which I have no 
 space to give here in detail, it is clear to me, in the first place, that 
 it would be equally easy to supply a first member for all the ques- 
 tions having ne appended to the verb, and, in the second place, 
 that it would be easier to supply a second member to the aw-ques- 
 tions than to supply a first member, if it were not for the feeling, 
 which comes from the classical Latin, that an must necessarily 
 mean " or." In other words, it is logic, not language, which 
 requires the completion of every are-question, and the disjunctive 
 question thus formed is simply the logically complete question 
 into which any kind of sentence question may be expanded. 
 
 (3). The question with an, though not at the beginning of the 
 speech, refers back to the words of the other speaker and the 
 intervening sentence is parenthetic. 
 
 The interposed sentence may be a mere remark. Poen. 1194, 
 sicut nos . . . praestUimus pulcritudine. || stulta . . . es. an tu 
 eo pulcra videre, opsecro, si . . . f So Capt. 680, Hec. 878, Trin. 
 954. Or a question may come between. Hec. 671, . . . ego 
 alam? || quid dixti? eho, an non alemus, Parmeno? So with 
 quid ais ? Hec. 346, with some form of repetition Aul. 82, Ad. 
 661, Eun. 857, Hec. 209. Ps. 305 belongs in this general class, 
 whether we read credere auiem ? or with Bugge, Langen, p. 315, 
 aude. In Trin. 954 ff. the question with an refers either to the 
 preceding speech or to the interposed words, and, in general, the 
 clause is not wholly parenthetic, but is rather a preparation for the 
 a7?-question. This usage therefore forms a kind of connecting 
 link between the preceding class (a) and those which follow. 
 
 PL 5, Ten 6. 
 
■96 
 
 (c). The question with an refers to something which the speaker 
 has himself said. Under this head fall all the remaining questions 
 with an, both complete and incomplete, and in order to trace their 
 connection with each other I have subdivided them according to 
 the form of the preceding sentence. 
 
 (i). The preceding sentence is declarative. Amph. 102-], fiaene 
 ecfregisti , . . cardines. an f oris censebas nobis publicitus prae- 
 berier? Amph. 688, Asin. 528, Capt. 257, Men. 962, Most. 334 
 (the arrangement of speakers is not certain), 596, Poen. 265, St. 
 294, True. 88, And. 621, Hec. 215, Ph. 279 (the intervening speech 
 is an aside), 1024. PI. 10, Ter. 4. 
 
 These occur mostly in the midst of a long speech. They do 
 not express an antithesis or an alternative to what precedes, but 
 rather a possible interpretation of it which suddenly arises in the 
 mind of the speaker and causes him to change his previous opin- 
 ion, to look upon the matter from a new point of view. So in 
 Men. 962, Menaechmus hardly knows whether he is in his senses 
 or not, and is thinking over the reasons for hoping that he is sane, 
 when suddenly a new explanation of the strange events occurs to 
 him : an illi, perperam insanire qui aiunt me, ipsi insaniunt f 
 The awkwardness of supplying a clause with utrum is even greater 
 here than in the cases given above, thoug'h it is perhaps not pos- 
 sible to exclude the hypothesis of an ellipsis altogether. 
 
 (2). A ^M«-question precedes the sentence with an. Amph. 
 661, quid ilk revortitur . . .? an ille me temptat sciens, . . .? 
 Most. 7, quid tibi . . . clamitatiost? an ruri censes te esse ? Eun. 
 907, qziamobrem ? an quia pudet? Amph. 457, Asin. 524, Bacch. 
 676, Capt. 629, Cist. rV I, 17, Men. 231, 496, 722, Most. 35, Ps. 
 92, Rud. Ill, And. 888, Eun. 1017, Heaut. 334, 543, Hec. 293, 356, 
 436, 784, Ph. 602. Without verb. Most. 489, St. 549, 552. In 
 Rud. 1274 the speaker pays no attention to the meaningless 
 answer censeo. PL 17, Ter. 10. 
 
 In all these cases the sequence of thought is the same. In the 
 ^Mz'j-question the speaker asks in the most general way about 
 some preceding act ; then his mind, reviewing all possible answers, 
 suddenly settles upon one as most probable or most interesting, 
 and he inquires about it in the aw-sentence. So in Amph. 661 the 
 ideas come up in this way : " He has returned. Why ? Which 
 of all possible reasons has caused his return ? To try me ! Is ' 
 that it? Is he trying to find out how I bear his absence?" These 
 questions therefore resemble those already given in expressing 
 
97 
 
 the sudden turning of the mind to some new thought. It is pos- 
 sible to supply a first clause, but the sequence of thought indi- 
 cated above, one of every-day occurrence, is complete enough in 
 itself. 
 
 (3). A question with num. precedes. The only cases are Poen. 
 1315, Ph. 412, and by conjecture Merc. 981 ; cf Madvig, Opusc. 
 Acad. II, p. 230 ff., Kiihner, II, p. 1017. As Kuhner holds that 
 num always expects a negative answer, his remarks do not apply 
 to Poen. 1315. The small number of cases is due to the fact that 
 num frequently calls attention to an evident fact about which there 
 could be no further question. PI. i [2], Ter. i. 
 
 (4). A question with ne or without a particle precedes the an- 
 question. (The illustrations given here will be included in the 
 full list at the end of this division.) 
 
 (i). In some cases the preceding question is subordinate and 
 an refers back over it, as in the cases under b. Ad. 337, . . . nar- 
 remus quoipiam? || au, au, mi homo, sanun es? an hoc prof eren- 
 dum tibi videiur usquam ? So Aul. 424, Mil. 499. 
 
 (it). In certain passages the question with an is, if reduced to 
 its essential idea, nothing more than a repetition in different form 
 of the preceding question. Asin. 504, nequeon ego ted inierdictis 
 facere mansueiem meis ? an ita iu's animata ul qui expers matris 
 imperio sies ? These two questions amount to the same thing in 
 the end, but the variation of phrase, the emphasis laid in the one 
 case upon the mother's power, in the other upon the daughter's 
 disposition, introduce a kind of adversative or disjunctive idea ; 
 cf. also Poen. 1315, Asin. 509, Eun. ,47, 1013, Heaut. 505, Hec. 
 663, Ad. 782, Ph. 415, the last coming nearest to a complete dis- 
 junctive question. 
 
 Complete Disjunctive Questions. 
 
 Although we pass at this point across the line which is com- 
 monly held to separate the complete disjunctive question from 
 the so-called incomplete form with an, the distinction is so slight 
 that the preceding classification is continued. 
 
 (iii). The question with an is almost a perfect antithesis to the 
 . previous question, but has a different verb. 
 
 Mil. 1424, verberone etiam an iam mitiis ? The perfect dis- 
 junctive would be an nan verbero? and the question an iam 
 mitiis ? is not the alternative, but the suggestion of a new third 
 possibility which occurs to the slave as he speaks. As in Most. 
 
98 
 
 7, quidtibi . . . clamiiatiosi? an ruri censes ie esse? the ques- 
 tion with an selects one of the possibilities of the ^azaT-question, 
 so here an selects for expression, not the perfect alternative, but 
 merely a kind of second thought. So Ad. 336, Men. 319, Bacch. 
 1 168, Cure. 589, Merc. 902. In Trin. 468 ff. the antithesis is almost 
 perfect. 
 
 {iv). Even where the verb is the same for both clauses the dis- 
 junctive idea is sometimes only partially complete. Mil. 783, 
 ingenuamne an libertinam ? does not include the possibility of a 
 slave ; cf. Mil. 965 and 966. 
 
 (v). The use of an — an must also be regarded as a survival of the 
 independent are-question; cf. Draeg. I 347. Ps. 12/^1 , pedes, statin 
 an non? an id voltis, ut me hinc iacentem aliquis tollat? shows 
 clearly how, after the complete alternative of the first sentence, a 
 third possibility, explanatory of the an non, occurs to the speaker. 
 Other cases are Amph. 690, Epid. 223, Eun. 386, 986, 1044 {ne — 
 an — an — ayi). Cf, Aul. 730. 
 
 The illustrations thus far given show how indistinct is the line 
 which separates the independent aw-question, following another 
 question, from what would properly be punctuated as a single dis- 
 junctive question. The next step is the perfect disjunctive with 
 an non. 
 
 The passages in which an follows a question with ne, with an 
 or without a particle, whether punctuated as one sentence or as 
 two, are as follows : 
 
 ne — an, Amph. 343, Asin. 504, 509, 687, Bacch. 31 (anne), Capt. 
 270, Cas. II 6, 53, Epid. 634, Men. 198, 319, Merc. 130, 150, 602, 
 Mil. 499, 783, 961, 965, 1020, 1424, Ps. 610, Trin. 331, 332,468 ff., 
 Ad. 185, 336, 337, Eun. 1013, Heaut. 203, Hec. 663, Ph. 275, 415. 
 
 PL 23, Ter. 8. 
 
 ( — ) — aw, Aul. 424, Bacch. 162, 1168, Capt. 334, Cure. 589, 
 Merc. 902, Men. 915, Rud. 853, Trin. 349, Ad. 782, Eun. 47, Heaut. 
 505. PI. 9, Ter. 3. 
 
 ne — an non, Aul. 643, 660, Capt. 74, 846, Cure. 566, Epid. 538, 
 Mil. 416, 449, Pers. 533, Ps. 254, 616, 1246, Rud. 1399, Trin. 1071, 
 True. 4, 755, 825, And. 186, 201, Heaut. 405, Ph. 852. 
 
 PI. 16, Ter. 4. 
 
 These have impv. force in 2d sing. pres. except Aul. 643 and Ps. 
 616. The rest axe. mostly estne, 
 
 (— ) — an non, Mil. 787, Pers. 378, St. 264, Trin. 983, And. 762, 
 Eun. 546, 968, Heaut. ,595, Ph. 147. PI. 4, Ter. 5. 
 
99 
 
 an — an, Amph. 690, Epid. 223, Ps. 1247, Eun. 386, 986, 1044 ff. 
 
 PI. 3, Ter. 3. 
 
 The other forms of the complete disjunctive occur as follows : 
 
 ne — necne, Capt. 713. 
 
 utrum — ne-r-an, Bacch. 75, Men. 11 19, Ps. 709, Rud. 104, St. 
 liS, 703, Ad. 382, Eun. 721. PI. 5, Ter. 2. 
 
 utrum — an, Amph. prol. 56 (cf. Mil. 787), Cas. II 4, 10, Cist. 
 247 Uss. (Frag. 23, Ben.) Ill 10, Pers. 341, Ps. 878, Rud. 780, 
 Trin. 175. PI. 8. 
 
 On anne see Draeg. I 351, Kiihn. II 1016.' It is found Bacch. 
 31, Cist. II i^,'|2, Rud. 1 140,, 1275, True, 666, And. 851. True, 695 
 should be iamne. These are of course independent uses of an. 
 
 PI. 3, Ter. I. 
 
 In the following an has been added by conjecture: Cas. Ill 5, 
 S3, Cure. 129, Poen. 1130, Rud. 233, St. 330, True. 135, 723. 
 Found in the MSS, but ornitted for metrical reasons, Pers. 483, Ph. 
 737. True. 272 is somewhat doubtful, but has an in an indepen- 
 dent question. In Trin. 922 I have followed Speng. Ex. Ps. 124 
 is confused in the MSS, but utrum oculum anne aurem f (Bx. 
 Lor.) is probably correct. 
 
 This classification of an and disjunctive questions is not given 
 with the belief that it corresponds in detail to the order of devel- 
 opment, but it is meant to illustrate in a general way the fact that 
 the independent a«-sentence preceded the complete disjunctive 
 question. 
 
 1. In language simplicity comes before complexity. The proofs 
 of this are multiplying in all fields of philology, and it is a priori 
 extremely improbable that the disjunctive question arose at once 
 in complete form. To reverse the order and derive the simple 
 question from the compound is to confuse language with logic. 
 
 2. While in classical Latin the complete disjunctive question is 
 more common (so, at least, Draeger appears to state) than an 
 alone, especially in the forms with utrum, in PI. and Ter. the pro- 
 portion is reversed. In simple sentences an is used about 150 
 times, in compound sentences without utrum about 70 times, with 
 utrum 15 or 16 times. This proportion is explicable only on the 
 hypothesis that the utrum — an form was either a new type in 
 
 ' Hinze regards anne as the original form. The connection with dv and 
 Gothic an is, I think, a fatal objection to this view. I take an-ne to be a 
 further illustration of the extension of ne to sentences where it was not strictly 
 necessary. 
 
lOO 
 
 the time of PL and Ter. or was just dying out. Its later history- 
 contradicts the second alternative, since it can hardly be held that 
 the dialogue nature of comedy, favorable as it is to ellipses, can 
 account for a disproportion so great. 
 
 3. The difficulty of framing a first member to fill the supposed 
 ellipsis has been already pointed out, and with any one who will 
 make the actual test it will have great weight. 
 
 The history of the are-sentence I suppose to have been some- 
 thing like this : From its pronominal origin an must have derived 
 a strong demonstrative force, whether it meant simply " that " or 
 "the other, the second," and this demonstrative emphasis fitted it 
 for use in questions which began with the sudden perception, 
 either in the speaker's own mind or in the words of another, 
 of some new and interesting suggestion. So an selects a single 
 point in the stream of thought — " that ! do you mean that ? " 
 — for emphatic comment or question. Therefore when an followed 
 a guts-question it contrasted some single possibility with all the 
 others, when it followed a question with ne it contrasted some 
 second possibility with the first, and so passed from emphasis to 
 antithesis and to alternation, and finally to the forms in which the 
 verb would be the same in both members and to the perfect dis- 
 junctive with an non. 
 
 To the double question thus formed by mere juxtaposition, as 
 the indirect question was formed out of the direct, and all hypo- 
 tactic forms out of paratactic, ulruvt was prefixed as a clearer 
 expression of the alternative; cf. the introductory quid? As 
 Draeger remarks, I 346, utrum retains much of its original pro- 
 nominal force, e. g. in Men. 11 19, uter eratis, tun an ille, maior? 
 Bacch. 75, simulaio me amare. \\ utrum ego istuc iocon adsimulem 
 an serio ? 
 
 With the growth of logical habits of thought and expression 
 the use of the complete disjunctive question became more general, 
 and it is quite likely that the analogy of the independent a«-sen- 
 tence, which was never entirely suppressed, may have led to the 
 use of ««-questions, especially in rhetorical styles, e. g. in Cicero, 
 with a partially felt ellipsis of a first member ; cf the statistics for 
 Persius and Ovid given by Dr. Morris H. Morgan, Class. Rev., 
 Feb. 1889 (III i), p. 10. Persius has 5 cases of complete disjunc- 
 tive question, 2 in which the first member is " easily supplied " and 
 7 independent ; Ovid has 35 complete, 24 with first member 
 "omitted but easily supplied," 21 independent. Dr. Morgan has 
 
lOI 
 
 kindly sent me the references for these, and the cases in which a 
 first member is supplied from the context seem to me to be of a 
 kind not found in PI. and Ter. I should say the same of the 
 rhetorical uses so fully studied in Seyffert's Scholae Latinae. 
 
 Imperative; Questions. 
 
 Questions having something of the force of a command have 
 been noted as they occurred in the foregoing lists. They are abin, 
 accipin, audin when it refers to what is about to be said, dan datin, 
 dicisne, fugin, in (isne), iuben with infin., manen, praeben, pro- 
 peratin, recedin, reddin (text not sure), viden ut (not distinct), 
 datume (text improbable), ibin (text?), eximesne (MSS eximes), 
 fut. ptc. with esse except Eun. 462, etiamne (five cases), potin 
 ut or potin with subjunct., ecquid agis, audis, etc., ecquis currit, 
 aperit, etc., non iaces, abis, respondes, etc. (27 cases), etiam taces, 
 respondetis, etc. (19 cases), possibly a few times with iam. In 
 sentences without a particle having the verb late there is no impv. 
 force, and there are no clear cases with the verb early (IV G.) ; 
 an does not give impv. effect in any case, but in complete disjunc- 
 tive questions with an non some of these forms recur, e. g. abin 
 an ?ion ? 
 
 These fall into a few general classes, verbs with ne, ecquis ecquid, 
 non, potin ut, etiam(ne'), and fut. ptcc, and it is at once apparent 
 that these are so various as to exclude the hypothesis that the impv. 
 effect is produced by any single word or single form of question. 
 The only common element is the present tense (omitting the half 
 dozen futures), and it seemed to me possible that the explanation 
 might be found in a vaguely future use of the pres. ; cf. quid ago ? 
 eon f and the 2d pers. fut. for the impv. in assertions. But upon 
 this hypothesis the future itself should be frequently used with 
 impv. force (cf. quid ago ? with the much more frequent quid 
 agam f), whereas it occurs only six or eight times. Also the 
 2d pers. fut. has impv. force because its use expresses a confident 
 expectation, and this would correspond to the use of the ist pers. 
 in questions ; cf. the uses of iam. It is easy to translate abin ? 
 " will you get out? " but the Engl, will simply confuses the precise 
 sense of the Latin. I conclude, therefore, that the impv. ques- 
 tions cannot belong to the class of idioms which preserve a mean- 
 ing originally inherent in a word or phrase, but must be explained 
 as later deviations from the original and proper meanings of ques- 
 tions. In other words, they may be strictly called " questions 
 
I02 
 
 used instead of commands," and it remains only to discover, if 
 possible, the psychological motives which led to the use of the 
 interrogative sentence in imperative functions. 
 
 In the majority of cases, especially with ne, the impv. use lies 
 close to the ne = nomie usage, that is, it results from the employ- 
 ment of a formal question where only one answer is possible. 
 Thus abin, addressed as it usually is by a superior to an inferior, 
 is a hint so strong as to amount to a command ; accipin, in imme- 
 diate connection with tene and accipe, is like Engl. "Are you going 
 to take this?" So the other vefos, audin,dan, dicisne, fugini 
 praeben and the rest, all refer to some act which was plainly not 
 being performed, and about which the speaker could not ask for 
 information: "Are you running away ? are you giving me water ? " 
 The circumstances supplied the answer, so that there could not be 
 any real interrogation; only the urgency remained and gave a 
 partial impv. effect. 
 
 In a few cases certainly, perhaps in most, there is also an iron- 
 ical tone, produced or expressed by asking a very formal question 
 where the answer is obvious. So with pvtin ut, which almost 
 always hsls a verb of passivity depending upon it, quiescas, inolestus 
 ne sis, etc., like the Engl. " Will you be so kind as to attend to 
 your own business ? "" 
 
 With non taces ? non abis ? eiiam tu faces ? about 50 cases in 
 all; there is no formal questioning ; the sentences are exclamatory^ 
 and the impv. effect, which is not very strong, is only a slight 
 extension of the exclamation, non taces? means "You don't 
 keep still ! (I am suirprised; I had supposed you would)." etiam 
 tu taces ? means " Quiet at last ! (I expected you to keep still 
 long ago)." 
 
 While these questions may properly be said to be used " instead 
 of the impv." and may in some cases seem to be really equivalent 
 to it, they nevertheless retain a close connection with their original 
 use. Thus abin an non ? || abeo ; thus dicisne is answered once 
 by dicam, once by dico, fugin by ego vero ac lubens, viden by 
 video, potin ut by potest, non taces by non taceo. These show con- 
 clusively that a sense of the interrogation was still left, as indeed 
 must have been the case as long as audin, viden and others could 
 still be used in a pure interrogation. On ecquis hie est? and 
 ecquis aperit? used side by side (an especially instructive case) see 
 III, near the end. On the other hand, of the verbs given above 
 with ne having impv. force, abin, accipin, dan, dicisne, fugin, in, 
 
I03 
 
 manen, milHn, praeben, properatin, recedin, reddin are never used 
 without impv. force, in a pure interrogation. This is doubtless 
 due partly to the meaning of the verbs, but it seems to me to 
 indicate that, as they took on the impv. function, they tended to 
 lose the interrogative function and to become fixed in the impv. 
 sense. This is most distinct in abin, which became formulaic in 
 curses. 
 
 On the History of the Interrogative Sentence. 
 
 The early history of the Latin interrogative sentence must of 
 necessity rest largely upon inference, and the following sketch is 
 not supposed to be a final statement, but is intended as a working 
 hypothesis to be filled out at some future time. 
 
 It is a mistake to measure the interrogative sentence by the 
 Standard of the declarative. The earliest sentence was neither 
 declarative, nor imperative, nor exclamatory, nor interrogative, 
 but contained in itself the possibilities of all these, and could be all 
 of them by turns. It had no normal order and no normal voice- 
 inflection, but the earliest step toward differentiation must have 
 been the association of certain successions of words and certain 
 inflections with special meanings. So a sentence with the verb at 
 the end and with unemotional inflection became associated with 
 the simple declaration, and in the same way arose several forms 
 of sentence varying in meaning from the exclamation to the com- 
 paratively unemotional question: First, a sentence like the declara- 
 tive, but with emotional, perhaps rising, inflection, in which the 
 voice expressed sufficiently the very slight interrogative-exclama- 
 tory character. Second, sentences in which some form of the 
 pronoun stood first. These were considerably varied and included 
 or were the source of many later forms of the interrogative sentence. 
 Perhaps the most distinct were those in which the pronoun was 
 the subject and had not begun to change at all into an adverb or 
 particle. So hie, ille, iste and the personal pronouns ego, iu, which 
 not only stood at the beginning, but by the very fact that they 
 were expressed at all aided the exclamatory-interrogative character 
 of the sentence. With these was used a sentence in which the 
 indefinite (originally demonstrative) quis stood at the beginning.' 
 Further, there were sentences in which words of pronominal stem 
 
 ' It is of course possible to suppose that the interrogative function was 
 developed in this word before the indefinite, but see Kvicala, Unters. auf 
 dem Gebiete der Pron., p. 6 ff. ; Paul, Princ.^ p. log. 
 
I04 
 
 in the ace. or loc, perhaps already turned into adverbs, stood at 
 the beginning. Among these (for some may have been lost) were 
 «w, a word of such strong demonstrative force that it had a con- 
 trasting effect, and rium or nunc, of the same stem as nam. Third, 
 the verb itself took the first place in the sentence under the 
 influence of strongly marked interrogative inflection ; this strong 
 emphasis upon the most important word of the sentence doubtless 
 marked the widest departure from the declarative and the nearest 
 approach to the simple question. 
 
 Some of these forms, perhaps all, must have been very early. 
 The last, with the verb at the beginning, appears in German, and, 
 I am told, in Gothic also, but I have been unable to find out 
 whether the Sanskrit has any such interrogative form, and must 
 in any case leave to comparative philologists the question whether 
 this was an original I. E. form of sentence. I should conjecture 
 that it was. 
 
 At this stage there was no special form of question for the nonne 
 sense, but as this sense is really very close to the neutral question 
 it was expressed by the question with the verb early, e. g. sum 
 verus ? Cf. also the uses of ecquid above. Even for questions 
 expecting a negative answer, though nmn was used early, the 
 differentiation was so incomplete that this sense could be expressed 
 by sentences which had the verb at the beginning (credis) or by 
 ecquid. 
 
 From this second stage in the development of the interrogative 
 sentence arose three particles, that is, of the words upon which 
 the interrogative emphasis rested, three lost in large measure 
 their proper meaning, and, by constant association with questions, 
 seemed to be and therefore became mere signs of the interroga- 
 tion, though retaining traces of their original use. Of these the 
 most important was an, which, if not the earliest, was certainly 
 very early, and was entirely independent in its development, that 
 is, was not made interrogative by association with any other word, 
 but by the fact of its having stood as a strong demonstrative at 
 the head of the sentence. I cannot see that it makes any differ- 
 ence whether we say that the stem meant " that " or " the other, 
 the second," since the latter meaning is nothing but a develop- 
 ment of the strong contrasting demonstrative idea. The use of 
 an in corrective and adversative questions and its later disjunctive 
 force have already been discussed in detail. ' 
 
 The second particle which must be referred to this early stage 
 
I05 
 
 is mim. While acknowledging freely the obscurity which sur- 
 rounds the origin and proper meaning of this word, I consider the 
 connection with nunc more probable than that with ne, and sup- 
 pose that the challenging use (cf. St. 297, nunc ultra id deportem f) 
 was the earlier, from which the neutral sense came by further loss 
 of mearring. The later prevailing sense, expecting a negative 
 answer, would then come from the challenging use, and the use 
 in indirect questions would be descended from the neutral sense. 
 
 A third interrogative word, whose origin was apparently early, 
 was ec- or en, associated always with the indefinites ^uis and 
 unquam. Whatever may have been its original form, it was so 
 largely used by PI. that it can hardly have been a new word in 
 his time, but it was a neutral word and came into competition 
 with ne, so that even in Ter. its use had greatly decreased. 
 
 A third and very important step in the history of the interroga- 
 tive sentence was the development of the particle -ne. From the 
 locative na-i came three forms, ne, nei, ni, all containing already 
 the negative idea, which came from the strong demonstrative idea 
 Q^ that, not this"). For the negative see, among others, Ritschl, 
 Opusc. II 622 ff., Ribbeck, Partik., 16 ff. While w branched ofi' 
 with (negative) conditional sentences, ne became the earliest and 
 most widely used negative, appearing in classical Latin in the con- 
 junction, in non, etc. It did not originate a distinct form of ques- 
 tion, but was introduced into a question already formed, the ques- 
 tion in which the verb stood at the beginning. This was the most 
 neutral kind of question, and every neutral question suggests a 
 negation, is by its nature a wavering between affirmation and nega- 
 tion. Warren is wrong in the irony with which he says of Hand 
 that he intrenches himself " behind the profound philosophical 
 observation that every question implies doubt, and that all doubt 
 borders upon negation, and that hence every question contains a 
 negative element," p. 72; cf. Hand IV 71. No doubt Hand goes 
 much too far in supposing that the negative was always felt in -ne, 
 but the correctness of the general view that the interrogation and 
 the negationareclosely allied, psychologically, is placed beyond a 
 doubt by Imme, II, p. 6 ff., and clearly recognized by Paul, p. no. 
 This negative element was more and more clearly felt, as the inter- 
 rogative sentence swung away from the exclamation, until in the 
 balanced, neutral question, with the verb at the beginning, it found 
 expression in the negative word ne. Psychologically considered, 
 such a question as esine f rater intus ? was almost the same thing 
 as the later est /rater intus an non f 
 
io6 
 
 Having thus found a place in the neutral question, ne lost by the 
 law of association its proper negative force and became a neutral 
 interrogative particle. It was thus fitted for a wider use as the 
 sign of a question than an or num, and extended its sphere from 
 the sentence which began with a verb to all forms of question which 
 had not already some mark of interrogation, even to those in which 
 the interrogative tone was very slight. In this way are to be 
 explained the various kinds of exclamatory sentence with ne, tun 
 is eras ? nuncin demum ? egon dicam ? iian contemnor ? cine ego 
 ut adverser ? and the exclamatory infinitives haecine te esse obli- 
 tum ? mene efferre ? etc. This is also the reason why no certain 
 line can be drawn between, e. g. audisti and audistin, between 
 est and estne, etiam and etiamne. All these forms of sentence 
 continued to exist alongside of the more distinct interrogation, and 
 it was optional with the speaker in the time of PI. to use the older 
 form or to heighten somewhat the questioning tone of an exclama- 
 tory sentence by the use of ne. Yet this encroachment of the 
 interrogation upon the exclamation was not unchecked, since of 
 the 900 questions without a particle about nine-tenths are exclama- 
 tory. Finally, after ne became thoroughly neutralized, there was 
 a further development of idioms out of the pure question, such as 
 some of the uses oiain, audin, viden, vin, and especially the impera- 
 tive questions, abin, fugin, etc. 
 
 The process by which ne became an interrogative particle is 
 therefore essentially different from that which produced an and 
 num. These were independent pronominal words which the inter- 
 rogative-exclamatory inflection held at the beginning of the sen- 
 tence, and which became interrogative when the sentence did ; 
 ne was introduced into an interrogative sentence that was already 
 fully developed, as a fuller and, one might almost say, deliberate 
 expression of the interrogation. 
 
 I am acquainted with only two sketches of the early history of 
 ne. The first is by Probst, Beitrage zur Lateinischen Grammatik, 
 II, pp. 135-6, given as an illustration of his general view that con- 
 junctions get their meaning by association. After speaking of the 
 forms ne, nei, ni, he says, " Wir verfolgen hier nur die Form ' ne ' 
 weiter. Diesem 'ne' assoziierte sich der Gedankeninhalt der 
 Fragen, in denen es vorzugsweise verwendet wurde, d. h. es hatle 
 \>?i\6i positiven, bald negativen Sinn (Kiihner, II, p. 1002). Beide 
 Bedeutungen kamen dann auch offenbar durch Vermittlung der 
 rhetorischen Fragen (d. s. Aussagen) in der Aussage zur Geltung. 
 
107 
 
 So ergaben sich von einem einheitlichen Stamnie zwei der Be- 
 deutung nach verschiedene ' ne,' die der Herkunft nach jedoch 
 nicht von einander zu trennen sind (vgl. Deecke in Bursian's Jahres- 
 berichten XXVIII 226 [should be 216]). T>2s positive 'ne' (nae) 
 tritt noch z. B. in Verbindung mit ' edepol' u. ahnl. auf; aber 
 auch in dem Sinne von ' etiam, nempe, enim ' (Priscian II loi) 
 oder von ' ergo ' (Serv. zur Aen.)i vgl. Minton Warren in American 
 Journal of Philology II 5, 32, s. 8, 1881 [II 5, pp. 50 ff.], findet es 
 sich. Das negative ' ne ' zeigt sich z. B. in ' rteque, nee, non (ne- 
 oenum), neve ' u. s. f. als einfache Negation oder negative Kon^ 
 junktion." Taken in connection with the whole drift of the argu- 
 ment I suppose this to mean that ne, net, ni was originally neutral, 
 that ne got both negative and affirmative meanings in and through 
 its use in questions, that both meanings passed from questions into 
 declarative uses, and that ne the negative and conjunction is thus 
 descended from -ne the interrogative particle. Not to dwell upon 
 some obvious difficulties — e. g., it does not account for the nega- 
 tive sense of ni — the theory is sufficiently condemned by the fact 
 that'it leaves the Latin language without any negative at all tintil 
 after the interi-ogative sentence was fully developed. The fact, 
 of course, is that the negative sense of ne arose long before the 
 time when language began to be written down.' 
 
 The position taken by Professor Wdrren in the article referred 
 to above is, on the other hand, perfectly clear, though it is merely 
 suggested in the course of a paper devoted to other uses than the 
 interrogative. He starts with the egone si, hicine si sentences, in 
 which ne is apparently not interrogative. In this ne he sees the 
 remnant of a supposed nem, an affirmative particle parallel to nam 
 from the stem na, which passed over from declarative to interroga- 
 tive sentences, especially exclamatory sentences like egone ut, men 
 with the infin., etc. It did not come within the scope of Professor 
 Warren's paper to fix precisely the limits of this use — " the interim 
 rdgative use of the affirmative ne " — but the only form of ques- 
 tion in which he clearly recognizes the negative ne is where ne 
 seems to have the force of nonne. This theory has been accepted 
 
 ' The third part of this essay (Leipzig, 1888) contains various remarks upon 
 the interrogative sentence which I have not thought it worth while to refer to 
 in detail. The history of an, pp. 238 ff., deserves mention for the confidence 
 with which the author asserts that an was originally neutral in sense and was 
 driven into a negative function (which it nowhere has) by the competition of 
 ne and nonne (the latter of which did not come into existence till after the 
 functions of an were fixed). 
 
io8 
 
 in whole by Dahl, VT, p. 299, and as to the non-interrogative 
 sentences by Ribbeck on Mil. Glor. 309, Brix on the same (310) 
 and doubtless by others.' 
 
 I have tried to show above that the "nez^nonne" questions do 
 not constitute a special class marked off by definite lines from other 
 we-questions ; they indicate merely a use to which the neutral 
 question was put, one of the idiomatic offshoots of the ne-ques- 
 tion, like the impv. question. So audin " don't you hear ? " 
 audm"6.o you hear?" 3.nd audin "do you hear!" (impv.) are 
 really one and the same phrase. If this is correct, then ne is no 
 more negative in one audin than in the others ; all contain the ne 
 of negative origin, and the " ne-=znonne" questions take their 
 place with other idiomatic offshoots of the neutral question, from 
 which they differ only by the fact that this sense is not strictly 
 confined to we-questlons, and must therefore in part antedate the 
 use of ne. My reasons for thinking that the -ne used in exclama- 
 tions, iun is eras f nuticin demum ? men efferre . . . ? and the 
 rest, is simply an extension of the interrogative use to partially 
 interrogative sentences have been already given. In regard to 
 all these forms of sentence Professor Warren seems to me to be 
 following the scholiasts and grammarians too far. Their strength 
 lies in statements of fact ; in explanations they are weak. The 
 statement of a grammarian that in a certain sentence he felt a 
 shade of meaning which he expressed by erg;o is to be received 
 with respect ; his explanation of this meaning as due to ne I look 
 upon as a very natural error, especially if the same meaning 
 appears in other sentences without ne. All the shades of meaning 
 which Professor Warren illustrates by the ne : ergo, ne : vero 
 glosses I should attribute to the order, the mood, the voice-inflec- 
 tion, more than to the single word ne; in short, this appears to me 
 to be a case in which the sentence has influenced the meaning of 
 the particle far more than the particle has influenced the sentence. 
 
 The question whether ne first entered the interrogative sentence 
 through the " nez=.nonne " question or through the neutral question 
 
 ' Brix suggests another explanation, viz., that -nf in non-interrogative sen- 
 tences may come from tlie affirmative ne, shortened and made enclitic. I 
 venture to suggest a third hypothesis: as «^by association with neutral ques- 
 tions lost its negative force and became interrogative, so -«/ by being used 
 with an emphatic pronoun in exclamations was still further weakened into a 
 particle of exclamatory emphasis, and could be used with hicine, egone, tune in 
 sentences no longer interrogative. The word " affirmative " does not quite 
 express the idea. 
 
I09 
 
 is less important, since it must in either case have been extended 
 at once to all sentences with the verb at the beginning. But if it 
 began in the neutral question, it is easy to see how it lost its nega- 
 tive force, while in a question with the effect of nonne it would 
 tend strongly to retain a distinct negative force. Further, a true 
 «(7«we-question is a negative sentence turned into a question -; it 
 has a corresponding negative declarative sentence, non audio, non 
 dixi. But dixin is a question into which a negative has entered, 
 and corresponds to dixi, not to non dixi. The position, also, of 
 ne after the verb seems to distinguish these sentences from the 
 earliest form of the negative question, in which non comes at the 
 beginning and the verb at the end. 
 
 The fourth step in the history of questions resulted in several 
 minor forms of sentence, and in one which afterward had wide 
 use. This was the non, nonne question. It has already been 
 shown that the distinction between the negative exclamation and 
 the negative question corresponds to a difference in the position 
 of non, and that the question has non at the beginning and the 
 verb at the end. As non retained its independence and its nega- 
 tive meaning, ne could not be used with it until ne had itself lost 
 its negative sense. For this reason, as well as because the non- 
 question was itself of late origin, nonne was just beginning in the 
 time of PI. and is infrequent in Ter. Later, when the logical forms 
 of the literary language crushed out the free natural growths, 
 nonne played a great part in the interrogative sentence. 
 
 Imme points out (II, pp. 21, 26) the considerable influence 
 which words of precision (Frageworter der Bestimmtheit) have 
 upon questions. German examples are jetzt, immer, nock, je ; 
 the most evident case in Latin is num, but to this class I should 
 assign etiam, especially with imperative force, and the few cases 
 of iam mentioned above. Like the German wirklich, English 
 really, actually, are the cases of itane in which ita has lost its 
 standard of comparison ; satin is even clearer, and is an excellent 
 illustration on a small scale of the making of an interrogative par- 
 ticle. Of course these are not like an, since the interrogative force 
 lay from the beginning in ne, but the gradual change of mean- 
 ing from "enough" to "really, actually" shows that in sentences 
 like satin abiit ? satin was no longer felt as a compound, but had 
 become little more than a particle. 
 
 In all these cases the same linguistic impulse is still at work 
 that produced an and num ; but in the time of Pi. this impulse 
 
no 
 
 spent its force, and from this time on no new particles were brought 
 into use. 
 
 While the question had thus been developing various forms to 
 express various shades of meaning, the exclamatory sentence had 
 at no time ceased to be used, though it had, perhaps owing to its 
 kinship with the declarative sentence, been less prolific in evolv- 
 ing special forms. We might perhaps regard some of the inters 
 jections as signs of the exclamation, and certainly nempe,fort(isse, 
 videlicet, credo performed at times the function of indicating a 
 hesitating assertion. The sentence with cesso also maintained 
 itself as an idiom without ne ; possibly it is raised into unnatural 
 prominence, as videon certainly is, by the recurrence of a particular 
 dramatic situation. The examples of the exclamation will be 
 found mostly under IV. 
 
 As the exclamation is akin to the repetition, it often suggests 
 rejection or repudiation. In this way the pronominal questions 
 under I. B, either with or without 7ie, retain much of the exclama- 
 tory force, because they take up for question some single idea 
 already suggested. They pass over the main idea as correct, and 
 settle down with all the force of contrast upon one thing, ques- 
 tioning that alone with a severity which suggests a doubt of its 
 correctness. 
 
 All the forms of question thus far enumerated grew out of the 
 exclamatory-declarative sentence; from the sentence of will there 
 came a similar but much less extended development. The mark 
 of this kind of sentence, so far as questions are concerned, is the 
 subjunctive. 
 
 The deliberative question, addressed by the speaker to himself, 
 corresponds to the indicative question with the verb at the begin- 
 ning, and like that may have ne ; it is a simple question in regard 
 to the speaker's intention or ability, and the subjunctive retains so 
 much of its future force as to be in single cases indistinguishable 
 from a future. , 
 
 A sentence which expresses a wish, an exhortation, a command, 
 that is, the will of another person, is not in itself questioning, but 
 exclamatory. I have already shown that the forms in the ist 
 pers., which are the only ones at all noteworthy, follow all but 
 invariably an impv. or some other expression of willing, and are 
 closely allied to repetitions. In fact die. \\ dicam ? is simply an 
 exclamatory repetition with the necessary change of person, and, 
 except for the mood, exactly like dixisti. |1 dixi? That is, the 
 
Ill 
 
 repudiation is due to the exclamatory repetition ; all that the 
 mood does is to direct the repudiation upon the will. The simplest 
 form, e. g,, abi. H abeam ? is found, but this is more frequently, and 
 with ne invariably, used for deliberative questions. In repudia- 
 tion it is almost instinctive to add an interrogative or a pronoun 
 or both, as in English, though it is possible to express this idea 
 in a single word with peculiar circumflex accent (" speak 1 {{ 
 speak ? ")i it is more natural to add some further words. All 
 the intdrrogatives may be used, as with the indie. Compare Aul. 
 652, certe habes. || habeo ego ? quid habeo ? with Bacch. 406, 
 sequere. |{ quo sequar? Bacch. 630, habe bonum animum. || unde 
 habeam ? Eun. 610, muta^ vestem. 1| ubi mutem ? There is no real 
 difference between quo, ubi, unde in these sentences, and ut in 
 Amph. 694, te ut deludam contra . . .? But the form with ut 
 alone is not frequent ; generally the pronoun is added to dicam or 
 ut dicam, either alone or with ne. Cf. egon with the indie. And 
 as in English these sentences are expressed by a circumflex accent 
 upon both words, so in Latin the ordinary position of egon before 
 ut shows that it was not fully incorporated into the sentence. 
 When ne is used with these forms of exclamation, it expresses the 
 nearest approach to a real question. For an unemotional question- 
 ing of the will of another person, a leading verb in the indie, must 
 be introduced. So Aul. 634, redde hue sis. \\ quid tibi vis reddam ? 
 Most. 578, gere modum . . . || quid tibi ego vis geram ? are to be 
 regarded as extensions of quid reddam, geram ? in the direction 
 of unemotional questioning. 
 
 What is remarkable, therefore, in these much discussed ques- 
 tions ("die unwilligen oder missbilligenden Fragen ") is the con- 
 vergence upon them of two lines of influence, the mood, by which 
 they express will, and the exclamatory repetition, which makes 
 them repudiating.' 
 
 While it is plain that ut is interrogative in these questions and 
 similar to quid, unde, ubi, there is in questions with utine the diffi- 
 culty that this involves the use of -ne with an interrogative. This 
 anomaly is rare and late, occurring only once (Trin. 1095) in PL, 
 and not at all in Ter. If the utine questions are put by the side 
 
 'Kraz, die sog. unwillige oder misbilligende Frage, Stuttgart, 1862 ; Muller, 
 same title, G6rlitz, 1875 ; cf. Schnoor, zum Gebrauch von ut bei PI., Neu- 
 mllnster, 1885, p. 3. A discussion of the mood in these questions 'would be 
 profitless until the subjunctive in declarative sentences in PI. and Ter. has 
 been more thoroughly studied. 
 
112 
 
 of quaene, quodne, quiane and other relatives, it will be seen that 
 the kinship is hardly less close than that with ut, both in form 
 (except for the mood) and in repudiating effect. The explanation 
 I take to be this; The change from parataxis to hypotaxis is the 
 result, not so much of the putting together of two complete sen- 
 tences, as of the prefixing of an introductory verb to the clause 
 which thus became subordinate. Thus ne id accidat was the 
 original portion, and Hmeovias a prefixed introduction, an expres- 
 sion of the total intention of the clause ; so quid negoti est {sif) ? 
 was an exclamatory repetition to which rogas was prefixed. This 
 leading verb, the expression of a greater precision, struggled 
 slowly up from unconsciousness to consciousness and expression, 
 and there must have been a time with every construction which 
 passed from parataxis to hypotaxis, when the idea of the leading 
 verb was partially felt and could be expressed or omitted. Many 
 illustrations of this may be found in PI. and Ter., e. g., with ain, 
 audin, rogas, and cf. vis reddam, above. At this point stood the 
 ut questions, descended evidently and immediately from ut inter- 
 rogative, but with a faint consciousness that greater precision 
 required an introductory verb, and therefore just on the point of 
 changing from ut interrogative to ut relative. This is the reason 
 why these clauses with uiine so closely resemble quodne, quiane, 
 quam7ie, and also the reason why PL, to whom ne after an inter- 
 rogative was strange, could use ne with ut. Only half the truth 
 is expressed by classing utine questions with relatives, as I have 
 done, or by calling ut the Interrogativum-rhetoricum (Probst, p. 
 150) ; it partakes of the nature of both. 
 
 The differences between PI. and Ter are not as great as might 
 be expected. The slighter differences, such as may often be found 
 between two authors of the same period, have been noted as they 
 came up, e. g., the greater frequency in Ter. of the ist pers. pres. 
 except sum, of ain f pergin, itane, etc. Two points only deserve 
 special mention. In the first place, Ter. uses the exclamatory 
 forms more frequently than PL So of repetitions of all kinds, 
 including rogas, rogitas, he has almost as many cases in six plays 
 as PL has in twenty, showing especial fondness for single verbs 
 like tenes ? jiostin ? etc., as well as for the infin. In the second 
 place, Ter. employs with ne a much greater variety of questions 
 than PL, e. g., a greater number of verbs in the ist pers. pres., 
 more verbs in unusual tenses, a much greater variety of adjectives 
 and nouns, more pronouns in other cases than the nominative. 
 
113 
 
 These two tendencies indicate a widening distance between the 
 exclamation and the question, which had been originally one. The 
 exclamatory effect was going out of the question, and therefore 
 Ter. used distinctively exclamatory forms where PI. would have 
 felt a sufficient exclamatory force in the question. And, on the 
 other hand, the question was becoming stereotyped, and the 
 questioning force seemed more and more to reside in the parti- 
 cles, especially in ne, so that the particle could carry interrogative 
 effect into any form of sentence. The reign of the particle was 
 beginning. This I suppose to be the ordinary course of evolu- 
 tion ; the tendencies to variation become fixed in species, and the 
 intermediate forms, the connecting links, drop out of existence. 
 
 Questions Considered with Reference to their 
 Functions. 
 
 The principle seems to be generally adopted in our manuals of 
 Latin grammar that language is best presented to the student from 
 the psychological side. Therefore we have conditional clauses, 
 final clauses, even concessive clauses, rather than si clauses, ut 
 clauses, qui clauses. Carrying this idea over into interrogative 
 sentences, it has been the custom to divide them into questions for 
 information, questions expecting a negative answer, and questions 
 expecting an affirmative answer. This three-fold division has 
 doubtless had some support from its general coincidence with the 
 particles ne, num., and nonne, and it has also, unfortunately, reacted 
 upon our conception of the meaning and uses of these particles, 
 narrowing them too strictly within logical limits. ' 
 
 As a partial corrective of this too mechanical classification I 
 have thought it worth while to call attention to the two excellent 
 programs by Th. Imme, Die Fragesatze nach psychologischen 
 Gesichtspunkten eingeteilt und erlautert, Cap. I-III, Cleve, 1879, 
 Cap. IV-VI, 1881. In the first is given a general study of the 
 interrogation with a discussion of the pronominal questions (Bestim- 
 mungsfragen). In the second the author classifies the varieties of 
 sentence-question (BestStigungsfragen), using for illustration 
 mainly German, Greek and English examples. I give here a 
 brief outline of the second program with illustrations from PI. 
 and Ter." 
 
 ' Aside from their special object these programs are worth reading as illus- 
 trating the definite and valuable results which may be obtained from the 
 combination of psychology and philology. 
 
114 
 
 Questions differ according to the proportions in which they 
 contain two distinct lines of thought. In the first place, when the 
 mind conceives an idea imperfectly or dimly, or when an idea 
 once clearly grasped is rendered uncertain by the presentation to 
 the mind of a new idea inconsistent with the first, then the effort 
 to attain to clearness and certainty takes the form of a question, 
 especially if there be another person present. In the second 
 place, there may co-exist in the mind at the same time with the 
 uncertainty a somewhat distinct opinion in regard to the' matter 
 which is the subject of the question. According to the propor- 
 tions in which these two elements are present Imme makes five 
 grades of sentence-question. 
 
 1. Questions of awakened interest (or der aufstrebenden Er- 
 kenntniss), in which only the first element is present. These are 
 the pure questions, questions for information, in regard to matters 
 about which the speaker could not have any opinion. They are 
 very rare in ist pers., and not frequent in 2d pers. All forms of 
 stipulatio, habeon rem pactam ? sponden, dabin, come in this class, 
 and such forms as ain, audin, viden, scin, vin, with direct 
 object ; also cognoscin, esne, haben, ludin, valen. Almost all 3d 
 persons are of this kind, est(ne) f rater domif either with or 
 without ne, and most cases of nouns, adjectives and adverbs with 
 ne. So also many cases of num, numquis adest ? numquid de 
 Dacis audisti? (Hor.) and some few cases of an approach this 
 sense. 
 
 2. Questions of doubt (Zweifelfragen) are not the dubitative or 
 deliberative questions with the subjunctive, but questions where 
 the speaker's previous opinion has been shaken by some sudden 
 thought, so that he is thrown from certainty into doubt. Cases in 
 which no trace of the previous opinion appears are infrequent ; 
 generally it shows itself in a leaning in one direction or the other, 
 and according as the previous opinion was negative or affirmative, 
 the question will lean toward the affirmative or the negative. 
 From this result the two kinds of doubt-questions, those which 
 expect an affirmative and those which expect a negative answer, 
 or, as Imme calls them, yes-questions and no-questions. Examples 
 of yes-questions, which should regularly contain a negative word, 
 are cases of non at the beginning of the sentence with the verb 
 at the end, nonne, ne with the effect of nonne, and the few cases 
 without a particle which have nonne force; Imme's distinction 
 between non and nonne is incorrect for PI. and Ter. These are 
 
115 
 
 all rather clearly marked, because the previous opinion, being 
 negative, was distinguished by some clearly negative word. But 
 there is no single word to express affirmation, and no-questions 
 are therefore expressed in a great variety of ways. Words which 
 express actuality or existence may mark a strong affirmation, and 
 therefore in a question may indicate a leaning toward negation. 
 Such are itane vero, satin in some meanings, verbs of thinking 
 and believing like credin, censen, words expressing a moral or 
 aesthetic standard like sanun, duasne uxores habet, rufamne illam 
 virginem (Heaut. 1061), etc. Words of restriction or definition 
 are still more frequent ; num, iam and etiam in some cases, per- 
 haps adeon and other demonstrative words, though these pass 
 over into more distinct rejection. Even the circumstances, with- 
 out the help of any one word, may so restrict the possible answers 
 as to leave only a negative answer open, e. g. repeton quern dedif 
 Out of all these ways of expressing doubt of an affirmative opin- 
 ion only num clearly assumed the function of an interrogative 
 particle, though etiam came very near doing so. 
 
 3. Questions of certainty. In these the second element, the 
 opinion previously held, becomes still more prominent, and only 
 so much of the question is left as expresses a wish for assent 
 from the person addressed. Special forms of this are questions 
 with nempe, videlicet, fortasse, credo, and other illustrations may 
 be found among questions without a particle having the verb at 
 the end (IV. H.) Imme compares cAkovv. When the assent is 
 doubtful, this kind of question may be highly emotional, and 
 many kinds of exclamation and repetition lie in the borderland 
 between this class and the next, and may be used in either way. 
 
 4. Questions of repudiation or rejection, in which the previous 
 opinion is so strong that the question is asked only to be at once 
 repudiated or rejected. Here belong most forms of question with 
 demonstrative or personal pronouns, many cases with an, and 
 many repetitions, exclamations and supplementary questions. 
 For the most part the questioning effect is so slightly felt that ne 
 is not used with them. 
 
 Imme makes also a separate division for pedagogic questions, 
 but with these Plautus was happily unacquainted. 
 
 5. Rhetorical questions. In these the question has sunk away 
 to a mere form ; in the mind of the speaker there is no question, 
 nor does he suppose that there will be any question in the mind 
 of the hearer, but he uses the question form only to express with 
 
ii6 
 
 greater vividness the thought which instantly rises, as an answer, 
 in the mind of the hearer. The only rhetorical questions at all 
 frequent in the comedy are the imperatiye questions and the 
 closely allied uses of scin, viden, vin as introductions to the main 
 thought. Imme seems to me to go much too far in attempting 
 to draw sharp distinctions between rhetorical questions and ques- 
 tions used rhetorically. 
 
 The rhetorical question should be distinguished as to origin 
 from the emotional or exclamatory question; the exclamation is 
 one of the oldest varieties of question, in a sense the source of all 
 other forms, while the rhetorical question is a late offshoot from 
 the fully developed question through degeneration and loss of 
 meaning. 
 
 This outline of Imme's program may serve to illustrate the 
 difficulties of a classification of questions according to function. 
 All such classification introduces the delicate problem of deter- 
 mining just how much of its original sense may be still felt in a 
 phrase which has been long in use. At the same time it shows 
 the great variety of uses to which a single, form of question may 
 be put, and the large extension of usage which has taken place in 
 regard to some kinds of interrogative sentence. The question 
 having the verb with ne, for example, is found in all five classes, 
 and even in both subdivisions of doubt-questions, and of the 
 forms in general use in the time of Plautus hardly one is confined 
 to a single function. Especially in no-questions the great variety 
 of shadings in interrogative sentences is well illustrated (Imme 
 treats this at great length), and the extreme difficulty of fixing 
 the meaning of the sentence upon a single word is very apparent.