MASTER NEGA TIVE NO. 92-80498 MICROFILMED 1992 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES/NEW YORK as part of the t^ • » "Foundations of Western Civilization Preservation Project Funded by the ^ NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES Reproductions may not be made without permission from Columbia University Library COPYRIGHT STATEMENT The copyright law of the United States - Title 17, United States Code - concerns the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material... Columbia University Library reserves the right to refuse to accept a copy order if, in its judgement, fulfillment of the order would involve violation of the copyright law. AUTHOR: ROWLAND, WILLIAM T. TITLE: ON THE POSITION IN THE CLAUSE OF NE AND UT... PLACE: NEW YORK DA TE : 1918 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT Master Negative U M^lUhil'-i. BIBLIOGRAPHIC MICROFORM TARGET Restrictions on Use: Original Material as Filmed - Existing Bibliographic Record 5-i}<3/Pfv'()0 r/ooks rUL/GI8 NYCG92-B9983 Record 1 of - Record added today + Acquisitions [D:NYCU92 R99r^3 CC:9668 BLT:afTi CP:nyu PC:s^ MhO: 100 i ?Ab 10 260 300 LDG DCF:? INT:7 RFYP CSC GPC REP DM: a Gfip MOD: BIO:? CPIr? nm SNR nc FSI COL MG EL: 7 ATC CON ILC EML NYCG-PT AD:02-li-92 U0:02-ll>92 '-. '■» '"I 7 97':' II GEN r BSE L renq PD:1918/ OR: POL: DM: RR Rowland, Williain Tingle, r O / e. e . (Aul. 458; Men. 250; Most. 74, 601, 771, 877, 886; Pseud. 889; Rud. 1030; Ten Phormio 635.) Most. 215, Scapha, id tu mihi ne suadeas. Most. 468, aedes ne attigatis. Most. 812, Ergo inridere ne videare et gestire admodum. Epid. 145, meam domum ne inhitas. Capt. 947, At ob earn rem mihi libellam pro eo argenti ne duis. Trin. 268, Amor, mihi amicus ne fuas umquam. Amph. 924, da mihi hanc veniam, ignosce, irata ne sies, Merc. 465, ad portum ne bitas, deico iam tibi. Merc. 614, quaeso hercle, animum ne desponde. Mil. Glor. 283, mihi ne dixis: scire nolo. Mil. Glor. 1423, de tunica et chlamyde et machaera wequid speres. Poen. 23, Servi ne obsideant, liberis ut sit locus. Poen. 553, nos tu ne curassis: scimus rem omnem. Pseud. 118, dabo: molestus nunciam ne sis mihi. Ter. Eun. 529, aut dicat quod volt aut molesta ne siet. Phorm. 419, Ohe, 'actum' aiunt 'ne agas\ Phorm. 514, unam praeterea horam ne oppertus sies. Cato V, 3, rem divinam nisi conpitalibus in conpito aut in foco ne facial. V, 4, politorem diutius eundem ne habeat die. LXVII, I, ligna in torculario ne caedant. LXXXXII, Frumento ne noceat curculio neu^ mures tangant. Many independent sentences, however, exhibit the par- ticle in the initial position with one or more words inter- vening between it and the verb. 'See Bruns, Pontes luris Romani Anliqui, pp. 8, 18, 34, 35. 36. < Neve ineu) always stands at the head of its clause. See Wenglein, Neve und Neque im dlteren Latein, S. 4. Sie stehen stets an der Spitze eines Satzes. 6 ON THE POSITION IN THE CLAUSE OF NE AND UT PI. Amph. 8io, Ne me appella. Amph. 330, vix incedo inanis, ne ire posse cum onere existimes.^ Rud. 941, ne tu mihi esse postules. Capt. 548, Hegio, hie homo rabiosus habitus est in Alide, ne tu quod istic fabuletur auris immittas tuas. Most. 1023, fides servanda est, ne ire infitias postules. Ter. And. 789, ne me attigas, sceleste. In addition to sentences of these two types one occasion- ally finds ne standing in the interior of the sentence and yet not immediately before the verb. E. g., PL 1 rin. 370, Tu modo ne me prohiheas accipere, si quid det mihi. This position may be called 'intermediate*. Examples with the particle appearing at the head of the sentence and immediately followed by the verb might be construed as ambiguous with reference to the position of the particle, for, with such an order of words, the par- ticle may be regarded as occupying either the adverbial position directly before the verb or the conjunctional posi- tion at the head of the clause. It should be obser\'ed, however, that this class of clauses tends to show the association of particle and verb. Viewed in this light, such clauses may add weight to the evidence for the preverbal position of the particle. Examples are numerous: PI. Most. 1097, Ne occupassis, obsecro, aram. Trin. 1012, Ne destiteris currere. Ter. And. 868, Ah, ne saevi tanto opere. Cato CXIV, 2, ne conmisceas cum cetero vino. Cic. Verr. II, i, 44, A^e sit hoc crimen in Verrem, fecerunt alii. Verg. Aen. IX, 1 14, ne trepidate meas, Teucri, defendere navis. A majority of the independent clauses examined have ne directly preverbal whether or not the verb stands at the beginning of the clause. Function and position, * Some would interpret this as an instance of the 'purpose of mention'. See p. 8. ON THE POSITION IN THE CLAUSE OF NE AND UT 7 therefore, correspond. The following table, which repre- sents our own collection exclusively, is based on Plautus*s Amphitruo, Captivi, Menaechmi, Mostellaria, Rudens, Trinummus; Terence^s Andria, Adelphoe, Hauton Timo- rumenos, Phormio; Cato's De Agri Cultura; Horace's Satires and Epistles; Cicero's Letters (Abbott's Selections), Philosophical Works, and Orations; Vergil's Eclogues and Aeneid.^ Unless otherwise specified, the statistical tables that follow have the same basis. Independent PL Cat. Ter. CICERO Verg. Hor. J ne-clause Letters PhiL 6 Oral. 4 Preverbal 19 25 3 13 49% 81% 50% 32% 19% 37% Preverbal (verb forward) 3 2 I I 4 5 5 5 8% 6% 16% 21% 24% 14% 55% Intermediate 2 5% 4 13% 2 11% 4 11% Initial 15 2 7 12 13 4 38% 33% 37% 57% 37% 44% Remarks. As indicated by this table, the preverbal position of ne in the independent clause in early Latin is the more common order. The figures will show to better advantage, however, if we contrast the extreme positions of the particle (that is, the preverbal and initial posi- tions) for the early period as a whole as represented by Plautus, Cato, and Terence. As a result, we find that seventy-three per cent, of the total number of examples have ne in the preverbal position and twenty- seven per cent, in the initial position. If we include the examples with the verb placed forward in the second position in the clause, seventy- six per cent, of this total have the preverbal position of we, while twenty-four per cent, have the initial position. In like manner, by contrasting the preverbal and initial positions for the later period as « Cicero's orations and Vergil are included to furnish a basis for the compari- son of colloquial Latin with standard Latin. 8 ON THE POSITION IN THE CLAUSE OF NE AND UT ON THE POSITION IN THE CLAUSE OF NE AND UT a whole (Cicero, Horace, Vergil) we see that fifty-five per cent, of the total (including the preverbal position with the verb standing in the second position in the clause) have the preverbal position, while forty- five per cent, show the initial position. Then finally by contrasting the earlier period, as a whole, with the later period, as a whole, it is clearly seen that the preverbal position is more frequent in early Latin. The particle is evidently felt as belonging more to its clause as a whole as time progresses. We may observe also the difference in Cicero between the preverbal position of the particle in the Philosophical Works and Orations. This difference is no doubt due to the more colloquial nature of the Philo- sophical Works. Statistics then corroborate what might be regarded as the natural situation, for adverbs in general tend to stand immediately before the words which they modify. It re- mains to explain the rather frequent placing of the parti- cle apart from the verb at the head of the sentence. Sev- eral factors seem to have cooperated in producing this result. The emphatic nature of the negative may account for the initial position away from the verb or the idea of negation may apply to the sentence as a whole, so that ne thereby becomes a sentence negative. C/., Hale-Buck, Lat, Gram,, p. 241, "The sentence negative for impera- tive, volitive or optative ideas is we." Another factor is the influence of subordinate clauses. Certain of these are in a stage of development where they may be regarded as either dependent or independent. Consider, for ex- ample, PI. Amph. 330, Vix incedo inanis, ne ire posse cum onere existimes {cf., also Ter. Adelph. 113, 160). Some might interpret this as a clause of the 'purpose of mention* while others would take it as an independent sentence. The fact that the clause might be felt as sub- ordinate would inevitably influence the position of the particle, which in a conjunctional use would tend to be drawn forward toward the verb of the main clause. FINAL CLAUSE WITH NE The independent sentence, then, which shows clearly the adverbial nature of ne, preserves in a majority of in- stances collected from early Latin the original preverbal position. At the opposite extreme, so far as the position of ne IS concerned, stands the pure final clause. The fol- lowing table gives conclusive evidence : Remarks. This synopsis of Negative Final Clauses shows clearly that the conjunctional position of the particle at the head of the clause was definitely fixed even in the time of Plautus. We may observe, moreover, that instances of the intermediate position are relatively very few, thus emphasizing the fact of the regularity of the initial con- junctional position. According to Schuenke's lists, the plays of Plautus and Terence in their entirety, out of the total of thirty-three instances of ne in the so-called transposed order with ne immediately before the verb exhibit but two instances of ne in a final clause, and these are possibly to be accounted for on rhetorical grounds. (See Schuenke, op. cit., p. 54-) The examples referred to are: Ter. And. 23, dehinc ut quiescant porro moneo et desinant maledicere, malefacta 10 ON THE POSITION IN THE CLAUSE OF NE AND UT ON THE POSITION IN THE CLAUSE OF NE AND UT II ne noscant sua; PL Stich. 554, *si vis/ inquit, 'quattuor sane dato, dum equidem hercle quod edint addas, meum ne contruncent cibum.' The conjunctional nature and con- junctional position of the particle are clearly seen, then, in the pure final clause. So much for the position of ne in the extreme types of clauses in which it is used, namely, the independent and pure final. Between the two extremes, as far as the position of ne is concerned, fall the substantive clauses, which it will be convenient to discuss in connec- tion with the substantive ^/-clauses. But first we must examine ut in independent and final sentences. This particle is employed much more exten- sively than ne and its classification with reference to the subject of trajection is correspondingly more complex. ETYMOLOGY AND FUNCTION OF UT The etymology of ut and its equivalent utl presents difficulty in several details, but the main features are fairly clear. The meaning of the word points to a con- nection with the relative-interrogative stem, and such a connection is quite obvious in the case of the correspond- ing Oscan puz {cf,, pui *qui') and Umbrian puze (cf.y pot *qui'). There is no doubt that ut is a derivative of qui, or rather of a stem quu- parallel to the stems qui- and q^O' which appear in the pronoun. The loss of the initial consonant of ut is to be explained in the same way as the similar loss in ubi beside ne-ciibi, sl-cubi, Oscan puf, and Umbrian pufe. Scholars are not agreed as to whether initial qu was regularly lost before u in Latin, or, on the other hand, ubi, etc., resulted from the incorrect division of sl-cubi as slc-ubiy etc. (See Brugmann Grundriss 2, II, 2, 350; Sommer, Handbuch der lateinischen Laut-und Formenlehre^y 185, and references.) In the case of ut the loss of qu may have been partly due to an inherited demonstrative uti cognate with Avestan u*ti *thus\ and this demonstrative may be actually preserved in uti-nam. The parallelism of ut and qui in independent optative sentences (see p. 13) is against this latter etymology, and we may safely disregard it in the sequel.^ The adverbial suffix in w/, uti-nam, uti-que is perhaps the -ti of Sanskrit i-ti 'thus*. The loss of the final short vowel in ut and also in Oscan puz (from "^pu-t-s) and Umbrian puze (from *pu-t'S-t) is due to syncope, as in Latin nee beside neque, Oscan puf beside Latin ubi-que, etc. The long vowel of utl (formerly a diphthong, utei) cannot be original. While the short vowel of utinam might be due to iambic shortening, the syncopated forms of Latin and especially of Oscan-Umbrian presuppose an original short vowel. Perhaps utei came to be used beside uti under the influence of ubei (later ubl) beside ubi (whose existence in prehistoric Latin is made probable by syncopated Oscan puf). The original meanings of ut and utei must have been (i) 'how?* (2) 'somehow', (3) 'how', relative, and possibly (4) 'thus*. This last meaning is preserved, if at all, in sentences of wish and probably, as we shall see, not even there. The other three meanings belonged also to the ablative qui and quo, which occur in early Latin in many of the sam t constructions. In the previous discussion of ne, its original office as a negative adverb was shown not only by its etymology and meaning, but also by its use in the independent clause ^ C/., ws. introducing wishes in Greek. See Brugmann Demonstrativ-pro- nomina i88, Grundriss^ II, 2, 731. Walde wrongly understands Brugmann as denying all connection between ut and qui. 12 ON THE POSITION IN THE CLAUSE OF NE AND UT where its adverbial position was found to correspond to its function in the majority of its occurrences in the Latin we have studied. In the case of ut the situation with reference to the independent sentence is more involved, and scholars are at variance as to the significance of the particle in certain of its uses. Before attempting to com- ment on its position, it will be necessary to make a brief investigation of its function. This, to repeat, is the problem at hand, to show that the position of the con- junction parallels its function and consequently refutes the opinion that 'trajection' is ordinarily due to consid- erations of emphasis. Dahl {Die lateinische Partikel ut, S. 293) does not accept an independent value of ut: Als Erklarung dieser w/-Satze glauben wir eine ursprungliche Ellipse statuiren zu mussen, bei Wunschen von volo, velim, opto u. dgl., bei Aufforderungen von vide, cura u. dgl. Schnoor on the other hand (Zum Gebrauch von ut bei PlautuSy S. i) recognizes the independent function: Bevor die den Konjunktionen jetzt innewohnende Bedeutung in sie eingezogen ist, bevor sie als wirkliche Bindeglieder, als Konjunk- tionen, die Beziehung zweier Satze zu einander vermittelten, wurden sie in fruhester Zeit selbstandig gebraucht. Es wurde durch Hin- zufugung einer Partikel zu einem Satze diesem nur mehr Kraft ver- liehen, wahrend der Sinn, der demselben zu Grunde lag, derselbe blieb, mochte die Partikel fehlen oder gesetzt sein. Dies ist besonders leicht an der Partikel ut zu erkennen, deren ursprunglichen Gebrauch wir beim Plautus deutlich ersehen. Folgende Beispiele Poen. 912, valeas beneque ut sit tibi! Men. 308, di illos homines, qui illic habitant, perduint! Aul. 778, ut ilium di immortales omnes deaeque quantumst perduint! Capt. 537, utinam te di prius perderent . . . ! zeigen, dass unbeschadet des Sinnes die Partikeln fehlen konnen. Das ut wie auch utinam sind in obigen Beispielen nichts weiter als ein kraftiger Ausdruck des Wunsches. ON THE POSITION IN THE CLAUSE OF NE AND UT 13 In der weiteren Entwicklung der Sprache wurde dann solchem selb- standigen, von der Partikel ut eingeleiteten Satze ein verbum regens vorgesetzt, wodurch die Hypotaxe aus der Parataxe entstand, wodurch die Partikel ut Bindeglied, Konjunktion wurde. The whole matter is discussed by Durham, The Sub- junctive Substantive Clauses in Plautus Not Including Indirect Questions , p. 6: Qui the adverb has relative, interrogative and indefinite functions. The relative and interrogative forces of ut are placed beyond dispute by a multitude of examples. The interrogative force is in classical Latin, to be sure, confined mainly to indirect questions, but in Plautus it is common as a direct interrogative, and it occurs here and there in classical times. C/., e. g., Hon Sat. 11, 8, i, and Kiessling, ad loc. Why should lit not complete the analogy and have an indefinite value cor- responding to that of qui 'in some way*, 'somehow*, 'just'? That ut did have this force seems clear from the fact that it is freely used inter- changeably with qui in independent optative and jussive uses in early Latin; c/., e.g., Terence, Phorm. 123, qui ilium di omnes perduint; with Eun, 302, Ut ilium di deaeque perdant. For further illustrations of the use of ut, see Plant. Capt. 115, sed uti adserventur magna dili- gentia: Ter. Ad. 280, At ut omnes reddat. In many of these sentences it is usual to explain the w/-clause as subordinate and dependent upon some verb to be supplied, such as /ac, cura, or the like. But this seems extremely unnatural and in many instances creates serious difficulty, e. g., in the case of optatives above cited. Moreover it involves taking ut in such sentences differently from qui, whereas the equivalence of usage of the two particles is manifest. In further support of the value of ut (qui) above maintained, cf., the use of modo, originally 'in a way', 'in some way*, 'only*; precisely the same development is main- tained for ut and qui as for modo; all are indefinite instrumental of manner. The evidence given below shows that the 'trajection* of ut is chiefly confined to clauses in which Durham calls ut 'indefinite'. At the very least, this state of affairs in- dicates that the ut which Durham calls 'indefinite* cannot be identical with relative or interrogative ut as Dahl and 14 ON THE POSITION IN THE CLAUSE OF NE AND UT ON THE POSITION IN THE CLAUSE OF NE AND UT 15 Others have supposed. We therefore have no hesitation in accepting Durham's conclusions. It will be convenient to consider first ut interrogative and relative, which rarely show 'trajection'. UT INTERROGATIVE Examples of interrogative ut in the independent sen- tence are not abundant, its more extensive use appearing of course in indirect questions. Its position, as is the case with interrogative words and particles in general in all languages, is naturally at the head of its clause: Plaut. Merc. 392, ut moratast mulier? Pers. 553, ut munitum muro visumst oppidum? Cas. 688, ut sunt sentes? Bacch. 208, ut eam credis? Cure. 59, ut illam censes? Horace, Sat. II, 8, I, ut Nasidieni iuvit te cenabeati? Ep. i, 3, 12, ut valet? ut meminit nostri? Closely allied to the direct interrogation is the exclama- tion, developing doubtless through the Vhetoricar ques- tion. The interrogative position is regularly retained. The following examples are taken from Dahl, op, cit., S. 9/. As. 982, ut osculutur carnufex! Aul. 52, ut scelesta sola secum murmurati Bacch. 795, ut verba mihi dat! ut nescio quam rem gerat! Cas. 463, ut ego hodie Casinam deosculahor! Mil. Glor. 467, ut suhlinetur os custodi cauto, conservo meo! Most. 163, ut lepide res omnes tenet sententiasque amantium! Poen. 1210, w/ pudice werbai fecit, cogitate et commode! Pseud. 552, ut mihi, quidquid ago, lepide omnia prospereque eveniunti Stich. 466, ut prae laetitia lacrumae prosiliunt mihi! Haut. T. 649, ut stultae et miserae omnes religiosae! Hec. 406, O fortuna, ut numquam perpetuo es data! Hor. Sat. II, 8, 62, ut semper gaudes illudere rebus humanis! Epod. II, 19, ut gaudet insitiva decerpens pira certantem et uvam purpurae! Verg. Aen. VIII, 154, «/ te, fortissime Teucrum, accipio agnoscoque libens ! ut verba parentis et vocem Anchisae magni vultumque recorder! Cic. Flacc. 12, cum dicit testimonium, ut se ipse sustentat! ut omnia. verba moderatur! The direct interrogation and exclamation, then, have 'interrogative' ut at the head of its clause and often very widely separated from the verb. Such sentences mani- festly preclude the discussion of transposition. Their form is stereotyped. Dependent interrogative ut, as would naturally be ex- pected, appears in the great majority of instances at the head of the clause. Our figures are based on examples of early Latin taken from Becker's elaborate treatise on the indirect question. (See Studemund's Studien des archa- ischen Lateins, 1, 115 Seq.) Clauses of only two words are of course not included in the count. Preverbal 14 (i3 per cent.) Preverbal (verb forward) 14 (13 per cent.) Intermediate 10 ( 9 per cent.) Initial 71 (65 percent.) The fourteen sentences with the particle transposed are the following: Amph. Rud. Poen. Trin. Capt. Merc. Cas. Pseud. 135, ibi nunc mens pater memorat, legiones hostium utfugaverit. 662, atque id se volt experiri, suom abitum ut desiderem? 744, Quis igitur nisi vos narravit mi, illi utfuerit proelium. 573, At vides me ornatus ut sim vestimentis uvidis. 195, abeamus intro, ut Collybiscum vilicum hanc perdoceamus utferat fallaciam. 460, quom scibunt, Veneri ut adierit leno manum. 698, Scio equidem te animatus ut sis. 292, proinde aliis ut credat vide. 14, sed ea ut sim implicitus dicam. 334, quasi tu nescias, repente ut emoriantur humani Joves. 683, stulti hau scimus, frustra ut sitnus. i6 ON THE POSITION IN THE CLAUSE OF NE AND UT ON THE POSITION IN THE CLAUSE OF NE AND UT 17 Bacch. 1 130, Viden limulis, obsecro, ut intuentur? Phorm. 224, Meministin, olim ut fuerit vostra oratio. Haut. T. 189, timet omnia, iram patris et animum amicae se erga ut sit suae. In these sentences it is well to note that 'trajection* is not so marked as is often the case in substantive volitive clauses which are introduced by indefinite* ut. (See p. 28.) In two of the examples cited, Amph. 662 and Haut. T. 189, the dependent clauses are appositional, a fact which may account for the transposition. (See p. 32.) For Rud. 573 and Trin. 698, c/., p. 35. The others are probably due to the analogy of substantive clauses. (See p. 27 ff.) Since indirect questions are them- selves substantive clauses, they were much more easily affected by the analogy of other substantive clauses than were the relative clauses. The striking and important fact is that nearly two- thirds of all the examples show ut in the initial position, that is, in the position regularly occupied by interrogative ut in independent clauses. UT RELATIVE Relative ut (modal, temporal, causal, concessive, re- strictive, etc.), which of necessity is confined to the sub- ordinate clause, has a very extensive use and the function, of course, is strictly conjunctional. And just as might be anticipated from its probable interrogative origin, its position in most instances is at the head of the clause: Capt. 228, Ero ut me voles esse. 261, Ut vos hie, itidem illic apud vos meus servatur filius. 314, uti te me hie habueris, proinde ilium illic euraverit. 885, Quia enim item asperae sunt ut tuom victum autumabas esse. Men. 206, Quattuor minae perierunt plane, ut ratio redditur. Most. 268. Ut speeulum tenuisti, metuo ne olant argentum manus. Trin. 311, nimio satlust, ut opust te ita esse. 713, si mihi tua soror, ut ego aequom censeo, ita nuptum datur. And. 421, Faeis ut te decet. 445, ut virum fortem decet. 590, ut hinc te intro iri iussi, hie fit mi obviam. 77, ita ut ingeniumst omnium hominum ab labore proclive ad lubidinem, aecepit condieionem. Adelph. 399, ut suom quisque esse volt. Haut. T. 212, ut tempus est diei. 686, ut ego nune non tam meapte causa laetor quam illius. Cic. Pis. 59, dices enim, ut es homo factus ad persuadendum. Tuse. I, 108, permulta alia eonligit Chrysippus, ut est in omni historia curiosus. Statistics on 'relative' ut show the conjunctional posi- tion greatly in the majority. CICERO Relative ut PI. 3 Cat. I Ter. I Verg. 6 Hnr Letters Phil. 4 Orat. 3 £1UT . Preverbal 2 3% 8% 2% 6% 3% Preverbal (verb 4 3 7 87 48 8 5 forward) 4% 6% 11% 14% 12% 7% 8% Intermediate 7 I I 8 15 23 6 6% 8% 2% 1% 4% 23% 10% Initial 94 10 45 56 535 339 64 47 87% 83% 90% 89% 84% 84% 63% 78% Remarks. Cicero's Letters, Philosophical Works and Orations have three, thirteen and eleven instances, respectively, of relative ut in the preverbal position. Our table shows a reduction of these figures, as we have excluded clauses which are introduced by relative pronouns, for it is obvious that ut cannot be regarded as 'transposed' in such sentences as De Re Pub. 1,25, qui ut scribit; VI, 14, quem ut vidi; VI,9, Ad quem ut veni; De Harusp. 42, Unde ut rediit. Summarized, the table shows that in the earlier period ninety-seven per cent, of the examples employing relative ut have the initial posi- i8 ON THE POSITION IN THE CLAUSE OF NE AND UT ON THE POSITION IN THE CLAUSE OF NE AND UT 19 tion of the particle, with three per cent, in the preverbal position. In the later period ninety-nine per cent, show the initial position of w/, with one per cent, in the preverbal position. Vergil shows a very large percentage of the intermediate position, which is undoubtedly due to metrical difficulties. (See also tables pp. 24, 30.) CONSECUTIVE UT In the opinion of Bennett {Syntax of Early Latin, I, p. 296), the ut used to introduce consecutive clauses 'seems to have been originally relative*. Nor does he believe with Schlicher {Classical Philology, II, p. 79 f-) and Dittmar {Studien zur lat. Moduslehre, S. 87) that this construction had its origin in the repudiating question. The position of the particle in the clause supports Ben- nett's view. As we shall point out below, p. 22, ut in the repudiating question is frequently 'transposed' in accor- dance with its indefinite adverbial function, while in the consecutive clause, ut normally occupies the conjunctional position at the head of the clause, a fact which points to an original relative (conjunctional) function. The fol- lowing table shows the frequency of occurrence of the initial position: Consecutive PL Cat. Ter. CICERO Verg. 1 1 or iit-claiises Letters Phil. Orat. Preverbal Preverbal (verb forward) Intermediate Initial I 3% I 3% 30 94% 2 15% 3 23% 8 62% 6 12% 3 6% 4 8% 36 74% 2 2% 8 8% 2 2% 78 87% 5 47 6% 12 2% 745 92% 5 47 4% 29 2% 1095 93% 7 58% 5 42% 4 9% 4 9% 35 81% INDEFINITE UT Indefinite ut is used with the jussive and optative sub- junctive. The independent jussive subjunctive clause in contrast with the independent interrogative exhibits many instances of the preverbal position of ut. The material for early Latin is given by Bennett, Syntax of Early Latin, I, p. 165. The majority of Bennett's examples show ut in the preverbal position. They are as follows: Bacch. 739, proin tu ab eo ut caveas tibi. Capt. 115, sed uti adserventur magna diligentia. Cure. 257, operam ut det. Poen. 29, domi ut procurent. Stich. 106, sed utraque ut dicat. Haut. T. 470, per alium quemvis ut des, falli te sinas. 572, at certe ut hinc concedas. Phorm. 212, em, istuc serva; et verbum verbo, par pari ut respondeas. Adelph. 741, id arte ut corrigas. Cato XXI I, I, librator uti statuatur. C. I. L. I, 196, 23, haice uti exdeicatis. The figures on this material are: Preverbal 1 1 (48 per cent.) Preverbal (verb forward) 2 ( 8 per cent.) Intermediate 2 ( 8 per cent.) Initial 8 (35 per cent.) In the optative independent clause the position of ut (the reenforcing particle) is normally initial. It is there- fore clearly at variance with the jussive position. Accord- ing to Bennett {Syntax of Early Latin, I, p. 192) the material falls chiefly under a few oft-recurring formulas. Examples : Aul. 785, ut ilium di immortales omnes deaeque quantum est per- duint. 20 ON THE POSITION IN THE CLAUSE OF NE AND UT Merc. 710, ut te omnes, Demipho, di perduint. Haut. T. 8x0, ut tequidem di deaeque quantumst, O Syre, cum istoc invento cumque incepto perduint. Cas. 238, ut te bonus Mercurius perdat. Pers. 298, tit ilium di perdant. Eun. 302, Ut ilium di deaeque senium perdant. Phorm. 687, Ut tequidem di deaeque omnes superi atque inferi malis exemplis perdant. Stat. 1 14, ut te di infelicent. As. 21, ut superstes uxor siet atque ut pestem oppetas. Pers. 290, Tandem ut liceat, quom servos sis, servom tibi male dicere. Rud. 82, ut hostes diffidant sibi. Mil. 141 7. w^ vivam semper intestabilis. The view that ut with the optative was originally inter- rogative has current acceptance. Hale (Hale-Buck Lat. Gram. J p. 269, footnote) says that wishes with ut were originally potential questions. ('how* . . . might?) Lane {Lat. Gram., p. 247) thinks ut in wishes was origi- nally interrogative 'how*. Gildersleeve (Lat. Gram., p. 172) maintains a similar opinion, and so Probst, Beitrdge zur Lat. Gram., S. 147. Bennett {Syntax of Early Latin, I, p. 165), on the contrary, lays stress on the original 'indefinite' function and thinks that the 'interroga- tive* origin has not been satisfactorily explained. Accord- ing to his contention, there is no difference in function between optative and jussive ut; it is the particle of re- enforcement (Probst's Versicherungspartikel). And this, we have already concluded, is in origin indefinite ut. As we have just pointed out, optative ut is usually initial while jussive ut tends to stand next to the verb. If, according to Bennett, the function of the particle is identi- cal, why should there be a discrepancy in position? This difference may be due simply to the form of sentence in ON THE POSITION IN THE CLAUSE OF NE AND UT 21 which it is used, jussive ut holding to the original adverbial position, while optative ut becomes fixed as a rule in the initial position from usage in interrogative-exclamatory sentences in which particles are necessarily drawn to the head of the sentence. As regards this exclamatory influ- ence on the position of the particle, we should remember that one of the strongest arguments for the original 'in- definite' character of ut is its parallelism with the indefi- nite adverb 'qui', and qui is used in imprecations only. (See Hale-Buck Lat. Gram., p. 269, and Lane Lat. Gram., p. 247.) In the substantive clause, of course, optative ut like jussive ut shows frequent 'transposition', but the exclamatory sentence as such could hardly be maintained in a dependent relationship, as it is scarcely possible for an exclamation to become dependent without losing its exclamatory character. Utinam, for example, though quite common in the independent clause, never functions in a subordinate clause. The fact that optative ut usually appears in the initial position might seem to point to an 'interrogative' origin, but granting this to be so, how can the preverbal position of jussive ut be explained? The only recourse apparently would be to reject altogether an independent value for jussive ut, and to accept the current explanation that such clauses are 'elliptical'. The indefinite value as urged by Bennett seems to us a very natural one, and position and function are made to correspond with the simple explanation we have suggested for the position of optative ut. REPUDIATING QUESTIONS WITH UT Another important independent use of ut is found in the question of indignation or repudiation (Die unwilligen 22 ON THE POSITION IN THE CLAUSE OF NE AND UT ON THE POSITION IN THE CLAUSE OF NE AND UT 23 Oder misbilligen Fragen).^ In these clauses ut tends to Stand next to the verb.^ Note that only one of the fol- lowing examples shows ut in the initial position. Amph. 694, Quid enim censes? te ut deltidam contra lusorem meum? Bacch. 842, Meamne hie Mnesilochus, Nicobuli filius, per vim ui retineat mulierem? Cist. 662, Nam hercle ego illam anum irridere me ut sinam? Cure. 616, meane ancilla libera ut sit, quam ego numquam ei.iisi manu? Men. 683, Mihi tu ut dederis pallam et spinter? numquam factum reperies. Trin. 378, Egone indotatam te uxorem ut patiar? True. 441, egone illam ut non amem? And. 263, ein ego ut adverser! And. 618, Oh, tibi ego ut credam? Haut. T. 1050, Egon mea bona ut dem Bacchidi dono sciens? Phorm. 992, Hicine ut tibi respondeat, qui hercle ubi sit nesciat? Phorm. 669, me ille ut inrideat? Phorm. 304, egone illam cum illo ut patiar nuptam unum diem? As. 884, egon ut non uxori meae suhripiam in deliciis pallam quam habet atque ad te deferam? Men. 683, ut mihi tu dederis pallam? Most. 10 1 7, mecum ut ille hie gesserit negotii? Classification of the particle in these sentences is an open question. Dahl/^ as seen before, is inclined to place sentences such as the foregoing under the head of 'ellip- tische w/-Satze* and consequently does not admit either an independent * indefinite* or an independent interroga- tive usage. Bennett {Syntax of Early Latin, I, p. 190) quotes as the prevailing view Morris {Anier, Journ. Phil., 8 Cf., Schnoor, Zum Gebrauch von ut bet Plautus. S. 3; Kraz, Modus der rheto- rischen Frage, S. 30/.; Muller, Uber die sogenannlen unwilligen oder misbilligen Fragen im Lateinischen. « Of the examples cited by Kraz in his discussion of the Repudiating Question about fifty per cent, show the preverbal position of ut. 10 Die tat. Partikel ut, S. 301. XI, P- 176) "it is plain that ut is interrogative in these questions.'' • Bennett takes issue, however, with this opinion, for he regards the sentence under discussion as of volitive origin, and the accompanying ut as of the strengthening or indefinite type. C/., Kuehner, 11,2, S. 209.^^ Apparently he is right; for the frequent preverbal position of ut in clauses of this kind points to z^/-indefinite and is exactly what would be expected as seen from the previous discussion of jussive ut. Whatever may have been the original function of the particle, it is reasonably sure that sentences of this kind are nearer the original order. (C/*., Dittmar, op, cit., S. 83, Dies alles sind noch parataktische Satze.) Even if re- garded as 'elliptische Satze', this would be true according to our discussion that will follow on the status of the sub- stantive clause. The form of these sentences is, to be sure, interrogative, or exclamatory, and, in view of the prevail- ing position of ut in other interrogative sentences, might be expected to present the particle in the initial position. They are not, however, absolute questions but quasi- exclamations and often take the form of an echo. (C/., Fay, Mostellariaj Introd. 67.) FINAL CLAUSES WITH UT The pure final clause, as in the case of ne, shows ut in the majority of instances in the initial conjunctional position. " Cf., also Dittmar, Lateinische Moduslehre, S. 82, Inzwischen war es gekun- stelt, bei alien in der Litteratur vorkommenden M/-Fragen einen derartigen Sinn anzunehmen, denn bereits in vorplautinischer Zeit war ut allmahlich zu einer der Frage etwas mehr Nachdruck gebenden Partikel herabgesunken, so dass es auch nicht mehr die erste Stelle im Satze behauptete. 24 ON THE POSITION IN THE CLAUSE OF NE AND UT ON THE POSITION IN THE CLAUSE OF NE AND UT 25 V T» /• l PL 18 16% Cat. 3 6% Ter. 1 10% CICERO Verg. I 4% TJnr Ut'final Letters Fhtl. 14 3% Oral. 23 3% ilUT . Preverbal 2 3% 3 8% Preverbal (verb forward) 18 16% 8 15% 12 18% 6 9% 39 10% 58 8% I 4% '9% Intermediate Initial 12 10% 67 58% 2 3% 39 75% 7 10% 42 62% 2 3% 57 85% 4 1% 351 86% 15 2% 625 87% 16 70% 5 22% 7 19% 19% 53 Remarks. Percentages on the preverbal position are subject to a reduction. See p. 27. The high percentage of the intermediate position in Vergil is again noteworthy and is to be explained on metrical grounds. C/., Remarks on table, p. 17. For chronological comparison, see p. 36. A comparison of this table on the affirmative final clause with that on the negative final clause (p. 9) shows that the preverbal position of ut is much more frequent than the preverbal position of ne. Such a difference we should naturally expect because of the original difference in the native force of the particles, ne being always defi- nite in meaning and ut vague. This same difference mani- fests itself both in the adverbial and conjunctional use of the particles. According to our tables (p. 7 and p. 19) y^ see that in early Latin the preverbal (adverbial) position of ne in the independent sentence stands at seventy-three per cent., while that of ut stands at forty-eight per cent. As final conjunctions the preverbal percentages are: ne, one per cent.; ut, thirteen per cent. In other words nc is more definite in meaning and consequently is more regular both in its adverbial and conjunctional positions than ut. The independent sentence with indefinite ut (except where analogy has been at work) represents ut in its origi- nal adverbial role with its position in the majority of exam- ples directly before the verb, while the pure final clause shows it as a conjunction with its position normally at the head of the clause. We may therefore safely regard these two types of clauses as representing extremes in usage and position in the development of indefinite ut. The preverbal position of the particle is the original order. Lindskog hints at this as a possibility in his treatise on parataxis, Quaestiones de Parataxi et Hypotaxi apud Priscos Latmos. Under a chapter division entitled : "In Colloca- tione coniunctionis vestigia parataxis reperire possumus," he says on p. 50: Et de particula ut res apertior: nam vix dubitari potest, quin ex initio secundariae fuerit; quod cum aliae res tum ipsa collocatio, quam apud Priscos videmus, satis comprobat. Nam ut cum persaepe in secundariam inseritur, tum saepissime ante verbum secun- dariae ponitur, ut haud sine causa suspicari liceat a prin- cipio hunc locum particulae ut fuisse. * CLAUSE POSITION Clause position, too, has a bearing on the position of the particle. When the main verb precedes, ut and ne tend to be initial, but when the main verb follows, ut and ne very frequently stand next to the verb of their clauses. It seems not unreasonable to explain this latter order as a survival of the original order, where, in the paratactic relationship, the particles had the position in keeping with their independent adverbial functions. Examples: Cist. 531, sed tamen ibo et persequar: amens ne quid facial, cauto opust. 26 ON THE POSITION IN THE CLAUSE OF NE AND UT 673, quae in tergum meum ne veninnt, male formido.^* Amph. 549, tanto brevior dies utfiat faciam. As. 914, atque interea ut decumhamtis suadebo. Cist. 662, nam hercle ego illam anum inridere me ut sinam, satiust mihi quovis exitio interire. Epid. 354, nunc iterum ut fallaiur pater tibique auxilium apparetur inveni. 463, Mi illam ut tramitlas, argenlum accipias, adest. Mil. 960' eius nunc mi anulum ad te ancilla porro ut deferrem dedit. Most. 876, ubi adversum ut eant vocantur ero. Persa 178, ego istuc placidum tibi ut sit faciam. 382, necessitate me mala utfiam facis. 526, probum et numeratum argentum ut accipiat face. Poen. 864, ilium ut perdant facere possum. Pseud. 549, Quin rus ut irem iam heri mecum statueram. 818, priusquam triverunt oculi ut extillent facit. Stich. 73, neque equidem id factura neque tu ut facias consilium dabo. Trin. 800, uxorem quoque eampse banc rem uti celes face. And. 456, ego istaec recte utfia^t videro. 592, gnatam ut det oro. Haut. T. 328, nam apud patrem tua amica tecum sine metu ut sit copiast. 948, Ac iam uxorem ut arcessat paret. Hec. 116, quom pater uxorem ut ducat orare occipit. Cato cm. Boves uti valeant . . . pabulum quod dabis amurca spargito. XIX, I, supra foramina arborum, pedem quoque uti absich fibulae locum facito. Cic. In Pisonem 51, ego tamen os ut videam hominis, expecto. Philip. I, 10, Hunc igitur ut sequerer, properavi. De Divin. 11,8, nihil ut adfirmem, quaeram omnia. Tusc. II, 14, quae ut effugias, quis est non modo recusandus, sed non ultro adpetendus . . . dolor? De Leg. II, 60, id quoque nefieret, lege sanctum est. " Among the substantive ne-clauses of fear which we have collected. Plautus and Terence have five instances of preverbal ne, four of which are in clause preceding the main verb. They are Capt. 91. quod mihi ne eveniat. non nu urn periculum est; Capt. 253. Edepol tibi ne in quaestione essemus cautum mtelhgo, And. 400, dicam. puerum autem ne resciscat mi esse ex ilia cautiost; Adelph. 421. piscis ex sententiae nactus sum: ei mihi ne corrumpantur cautiost. ON THE POSITION IN THE CLAUSE OF NE AND UT 27 De Off. 111,100, sententiam ne diceret, recusavit. Phil. 11,42, Haec ut cilligeres, homo amentissime, tot dies in aliena villa declamasti? Pro. Tull. Id ut intelligatis, recuperatores, quaeso, ut dili- genter attendatis. DeProv. Cons. 19, Bellum adfectum videmus et, vere /(/ (ficam, paene confectum. The table on the ut-final clause (p. 24) exhibits the proportionate occurrence of final clauses in which the conjunction takes the preverbal position, but if we subtract the clauses that precede the main verb and those that are parenthetically inserted, our table representing extremes in position of the particle stands thus: Ut-final PL 14 Cato I Ter. CICERO Verg. I TTnr Letters Phil. 4 Oral. 2 iiur. Preverbal 6 I 3 17% 3% 15% 2% 1% 1% 16% 14% Initial 67 39 42 57 351 625 5 19 83% 97% 85% 98% 99% 99% 84% 86% SUBSTANTIVE CLAUSES With this statement of the relation of function and posi- tion of the particle in clauses which furnish the extremes in usage, we may pass to the substantive clause in which the preverbal position of the conjunctional particle is of frequent occurrence and which, we shall presently argue, occupies an intermediate stage in clause development. Instances of the w^-substantive clause are few compared with those employing ut, but are of sufficient number to use in illustration. Examples with ut are quite numerous: As. 103, perficito, argentum hodie ut habeat filius. 462, vah, formido miser, ne hie me tibi arbitretur suasisse sibi ne crederes. 28 ON THE POSITION IN THE CLAUSE OF NE AND UT Capt. Most. Amph. 432, Saurea, oro, mea causa ut mittas. Bacch. 521, eadem exorabo, Chrysalo causa mea pater ne noceat. ^ 643, callidum senem, callidis dolis conpuli et perpuli, mi omnia ut crederet. 690, Ego patrem exoravi . . . Immo tibi ne noceat. Cure. 550, Quod mandasti feci, tui honoris gratia, tuom qui signum ad me attulisset, nuntium ne spernerem. 691, Delicatum te hodie faciam, cum catello ut acciibes. 696, obsecro, Planesium, et te Pliaedrome, auxilium ut feras. 337, Fac is homo ut redimatur. 443, opsecro, infidelior mihi ne Juas quam ego sum tibi. 511, hie extemplo orat obsecratque, eum sibi ut liceat videre. 1145, fac ego ne metuam ut tu meam timeas vicem. 54, eandem hanc, si voltis, faciam ex tragoedia, comoedia ut sit omnibus isdem vorsibus. 1085, At ego faciam, tu idem ut aliter praedices, Amphitruo, piam et pudicam esse uxorem ut scias. 443, ego te faciam miserrimus mortalis uti sis. 727, Oro te, Epidice, mihi ut ignoscas. 437, tum facito ante solem occasum ut venias advorsum mihi. 907, quia rogo, palla ut referatur rursum ad uxorem meam. 1006, Obsecro te, quisquis es, operam mihi ut des. 488, Achillem orabo, aurum ^it mihi del. 835, vobis mando, meum parentum rem bene ut tutemini. 1002, obsecro, satis iam ut haheatis. 70, orant, ambiunt, exobsecrant videre ut liceat. 1089, Philocomasio die, si est istic, domum ut transeat.^ 1395, facite inter terram atque caelum ut sit situs, discindite. 1405, Oratus sum, ad eam ut irem. Most. 78, facite, hue ut redeat noster quam primum senex. 424, facturum me . . . capite obvoluto utfugiat cum summo metu. 465, Metuo, te atque istos expiare ut possies. 529, Th. Hercules, ted invoco.—Tr. et ego tibi hodie ut det. senex, magnum malum. Persa 382, necessitate me mala utfiam facis. 526, probum et numeratum argentum ut accipiat face. .744, Ego pol te faciam, scelus, te quoque etiam ipsum ut lamenteris. Aul. Epid. Men. Merc. Mil. ON THE POSITION IN THE CLAUSE OF NE AND UT 29 Poen. 864, Me non perdent; ilium ut perdant facere possum, si velim meum erum ut perdant, ni mihi metuam, Milphio. 913, vale et haec cura clanculum ut sint dicta. Pseud. 113, Satin est, si hanc hodie mulierem efificio tibi tua ut sit. 128, omni poplo, omnibus amicis notisque edico meis, in hunc diem a me ut caveant. 164, haec, quom ego a foro revortar, facite ut offendam parata vorsa sparsa, tersa strata, lautaqne unctaque omnia ut sint. 549, Quin rus ut irem iam heri mecum statueram. 817, quae illis qui terunt priusquam triverunt oculi ut extillen facit. 921, dum ille dormit, volo tu prior ut occupes adire. 1227, dixin, ab eo tibi ut caveres, centiens? Rud. 602, rogare scalas ut darem utendas sibi. 695, ambae te obsecramus, aram amplexantes hanc tuam lacrumentes, genibus nixae, in custodelam nos tuam ut recipias et tutere. 834* Quaeso hercle, abire ut liceat. 1088, Fac sis aurum ut videam, post ego faciam ut videas cis- tulam. II 20, Ut id occepi dicere, senex, eam te quaeso cistulam ut iubeas hunc reddere illis. 12 15, Iam hie fac sit, cena ut curetur. Trin. 583, die Callicli, me ut conveniat. 800, Uxorem quoque eampse hanc rem uti celes face. And. 168, nunc tuomst officium, has bene ut adsimules nuptias. 335» ego id agam, mihi qui ne detur. 483, nunc primum fac istam ut lavet. 524, non impulit me, haec nunc omnino ut crederem. 577, et is mihi suadet nuptias quantum queam ut maturem. 603, feci hodie utfierent insperante hoc atque invito Pamphilo. 712, Hue fac ad me 7it venias, siquid poteris. Haut. T. 90, Sine me, vocivom tempus w^quod dem mihi laboris. T. 170, tempust monereme huncvicinum Phaniam. ad cenam ut venial. Eun. 266, et rogare ad cenam ut venial. 340, ut diligenter nunties patri, advocatus mane mi esse ut meminerit. 30 ON THE POSITION IN THE CLAUSE OF NE AND UT 579, in interiore parte ut tnaneam solus cum sola. 808, Tun me prohibeas, meam ne tangam. The following table shows the positions of ut in sub- stantive clauses: Suhst, PL Cato Ter. CICERO Verg. Hor ut-clauses ^' Letters PhiL Orat. Preverbal 43 33% 7 19% 43 50% 8 5% 12 2% 27 2% 5 18% Preverbal (verb forward) 16 12% 4 11% 15 17% 21 14% 37 5% 64 6% 3 15% 3 11% Intermediate 2 2% 3 8% I 1% 4 2% 7 10 6 46% 6 22% Initial 71 53% 22 61% 28 32% 121 79% 707 93% 1052 91% 5 39% 13 48% Remarks. This table shows the high percentage of the preverbal position of ut in substantive clauses in early Latin. As to the extreme positions for the early period, forty-four per cent, of the examples (in- cluding the preverbal position with the verb standing in the second position in the clause) show the particle in the preverbal position, with fifty-six per cent, in the initial position. For the later period nine per cent, have the preverbal position, while ninety-one per cent, show the initial position. On the intermediate position in Vergil, c/., Remarks on table, p. 17. Compared with other subordinate clauses in early Latin the substantive clause exhibits the largest proportion of ut in the preverbal position. It seems certain that the substantive clause in the relationship of clause to clause is less dependent syntactically than a pure final clause, for the use of the conjunctional particle is not always requisite. Instances are numerous (See Weissenhorn, " Including Appositional and Explanatory Clauses. ON THE POSITION IN THE CLAUSE OF NE AND UT 31 Parataxis Plautina, p. 9, and Holtze, Synt, II, 166, n. 20). A few examples will suffice: Pseud. 325, Immo vin etiam te faciam ex laeto laetantem magis? Cato R. R., c. 5, Opera omnia mature conficias face. Pers. 293, Amicus sum: eveniant volo tibi quae optas. And. 819, me nolo in tempore hoc videat senex. In the final clause, on the contrary, the conjunction is required. To illustrate: In the final clause PI. Men. 558, ibo et conveniam servom, si potero, meum, ut haec, quae bona dant di mihi, ex me sciat, the z^/-clause is fully de- pendent, both logically and syntactically. The particle, consequently, is a full conjunction and takes the initial position as usual. But PI. Men. 1007, Obsecro te, quis- quis es, operam mihi ut des, the main verb requires the complement of the z^/-clause. The logical interdependence is very close, while syntactical dependence is not so pro- nounced. It might be said that the z^/-clause here is practically independent and not objectively complemen- tary. The fact that it is susceptible of the two interpre- tations proves, at least, that the situation as between in- dependence and dependence is not definitely settled. (A better illustration, perhaps, may be found in a «e-clause, see Capt. 443.) The frequent preverbal position of the particle in the substantive clause is not without meaning, for the preverbal position simply points to the original adverbial use and unites with the fact just stated to show that the substantive clause is in a comparatively less advanced stage of development syntactically. EXPLANATORY CLAUSES Those substantive clauses, which are commonly defined as appositional or explanatory, are especially illustrative of the semi-independence, which substantive clauses tend 32 ON THE POSITION IN THE CLAUSE OF NE AND UT to manifest in general. Such clauses form a part of a familiar mechanism, in which a demonstrative pronoun, or some word of general significance (e. g., rem), or even a substantive of specific meaning in the main clause is fol- lowed by an appositional or explanatory substantive clause. As an illustration we may cite Capt. 443» haec per dexteram tuam te retinens manu obsecro, infidelior mihi ne fuas quam ego tibi. The substantive clause, which is the real object of the main verb, is represented in the main clause by the antecedent ^haec*, from which arrange- ment there results, as it seems to us, a certain semi-inde- pendence for the appositional clause and consequent free- dom for the position of the conjunctional particle. The need for the conjunction is less and there is, in effect, a tendency toward the original order. Examples: Cure. 550, Quod mandasti feci, tui honoris gratia, tuom qui signum ad me attulisset, nuntium ne spernerem. Cas. 1006, propter earn rem hanc tibi nunc veniam minus gravate prospero, hanc ex longa longiorem nefaciamus fabulam. Rud. 680, Si modo id liceat, vis ne opprimat. Trin. 105, Est atque non est mi in manu, Megaronides, quin dicant, non est; merito ut ne dicant, id est. And. 335, ego id agam, mihi qui ne detur. 168, nunc tuomst ofificium, has bene ut adsimules nuptias. 548, id te obsecro in commune ut consulas. 625, Hocinest credibile aut hercle memorabile tanta vecordia innata quoiquam ut siet, 701, id faciam, in proclivi quod est per me stetisse ut credat. Phorm. 379, primum abs te hoc bona venia peto, si tibi placere potis est, mihi ut respondeas. 832, nunc una mihi res etiam restat quae est conficiunda, otium ab senibus ad potandum ut habeam. Amph. 567, tune id dicere audes . . . tempore uno homo idem duobus locis ut simul sit. 662, atque id se volt experiri, suom abitum ut desiderem. ON THE POSITION IN THE CLAUSE OF NE AND UT 33 mm As. 802, si dixerit, haec multa ei esto, vino viginti dies ut careat. Capt. 515, nunc tu sequere me, ut quod me oravisti impetres, eum hominem uti convenias. Explanatory PL Cato Ter. CICERO Verg. Hor. Suhst. iit-clauses Letters PhiL Oral. Preverbal 6 I 13 I 6 I 2 26% 50% 52% 2% -5 erf 3 /v 20% Preverbal (verb 2 2 3 13 23 forward) 9% 8% 7% 7% 6% Intermediate 3 13% 4 16% 5 2% 3 3 30% Initial 12 I 6 36 157 404 2 5 52% 50% 24% 90% 87% 93% 50% SUBSTANTIVE CLAUSES ACCOMPANYING IMPERSONAL VERBS Substantive clauses accompanying impersonal verbs and such phrases as opus est are also shown by frequent pre- verbal position of the conjunction to be less perfectly sub- ordinate than are substantive clauses in general. Amph. 226, convenit, victi utri sint eo proelio, urbem agrum aras focos seque uti dederent. 494, non par videtur facere, delictum suom suamque ut culpam expetere in mortalem ut sinat. Men. 359, item hinc ultro fit, ut meret, potissimus nostrae domi ut sit. Mil. 956, nam hoc negoti clandestino ut agerem mandatumst mihi. Most. 173, Virtute formae id evenit, te ut deceat quidquid habeas. And. 916, itane attemperate evenit, hodie in ipsis nuptiis ut veniret. Phorm. 65, Evenit senibus ambobus simul iter illi in Lemnum ut esset. Aul. 434, me haud paenitet, tua ne expetam. Rud. 680, si modo id liceat, vis ne opprimat. Poen. 142 1, hie opus est aliquos ut maneas dies. Stich. 588, quid eo tibi opust, Hunc hercle ad cenam ut vocem. Mil. 1132, ad me ut veniat usust. 34 ON THE POSITION IN THE CLAUSE OF NE AND UT Bacch. 422, nego tibi hoc annis viginti fuisse primis copiae, digitum longe a paedagogo pedem ut efferes aedibus. As. 190, i4. non meumst, C. nee meum quidem edepol ad te ut mittam gratiis. Bacch. 329, signum id cum Theotimost, qui eum illi adferet ei aurum ut reddat. Trin. 486, id optumum esse, tute uti sis optumas. Bacch. 139, non par videtur neque sit consentaneum . . . praesen- tibus una paedagogus ut siet. The majority of substantive clauses in the natural course of development came to have ne and ut at the head of the clause. Capt. 727, Per deos atque homines te obtestor, Hegio, ne tu istunc hominem perduis. Men. 881, vosque omnis quaeso, si senex revenerit, ne me indicetis qua platea hinc aufugerim. Capt. 308, non verear ne inuste aut graviter me imperet. Most. 542, metuo ne de hac re quippiam indaudiverit. As. 39, Teque obsecro hercle, ut quae locutus despuas. Merc. 665, orabo, ut conquisitores det mihi. Men. 4, quaeso ut benignis auribus accipiatis. Bacch. 762, Metuoque ut hodie possiem emolirier. This forward shift in the position of conjunctional par- ticles in substantive clauses is due in part no doubt to the attraction exerted by the verbs of the principal clause. Starting, say, with obsecro, oro, metuo, etc., in parataxis with a subjunctive clause, the particles ut and ne would gradually come to be felt as belonging to the preceding orOy obsecro, metuo, etc., which functioned as main verbs when the subjunctive clauses containing ne and ut became syntactically subordinate to them. Hence there arose ultimately the stereotyped expressions obsecro ut, oro ut, metuo ut, etc., as affirmative and obsecro ne, oro ne, metuo ne, etc., as negative. i I ON THE POSITION IN THE CLAUSE OF NE AND UT 35 SENTENCES WITH ARCHAIC STRUCTURE Clauses such as the following are probably survivals of archaic sentence structure and doubtless indicate the original association of the particle and verb. Most. 558, sed eum videto ut capias. Adelph. 874, ilium ut vivat optant.^^ Haut. T. 84, atque istuc, quidquid est, fac me ut sciam. 493, porro te idem oro ut facias, Chremes. Cato XXXVIII, 2, ignem caveto ne intermittas quin semper siet. C/., also Adelph, 771, Exemplo omnibus curarem ut esses. Cato V, 6, terram cariosam cave ne ares. SUBSTANTIVE CLAUSES DEPENDING UPON VERBS OF FEAR Statistical evidence for substantive clauses of fear decid- edly favors the formulaic expressions timeo ne, metuo ne, etc., even in the time of Plautus. Suhst. CI. of Fear PI. Cato Ter. CICERO Verg. Hor, Letters Phil. Orat. Preverbal 2 2 2 15 I Intermediate 5% 3 7% I I I I % 5 2o /o I Initial 7% 35 88% 9 3% 25 89% 4% 25 96% 2% 58 98% /C 132 95% 3 75% 12% 7 88% A reason for the attraction of verbs of fear, caution, etc., for the particle is furnished by the very nature of the verbs themselves, for they carry an inherent idea of nega- tion. In the case of caveo, the notion of negation is so strong that the particle is even omitted at times. £. g., Cas. 530, Sed tu cave in quaestione mihi sis. Most. 1025, Tu cave quadraginta accepisse hinc te neges. ** Donatus refers to this as an archaism. *' Precede main verb. 36 ON THE POSITION IN THE CLAUSE OF NE AND UT ON THE POSITION IN THE CLAUSE OF NE AND UT 37 Capt. 431, Cave tu mi iratus fuas. Amph. 608, Cave quicquam . . . mihi responderis. Aul. 90, Cave quemquam alienum in aedis intromiseris. Men. 994 Cave quisquam vostrum flocci fecerit. Bacch. 1033, Cave tibi ducenti nummi dividiae fuant. Cure. 461, Leno, cave in te sit mora mihi. Rud. 704, Cave tu harum conchas spernas. The following outline is inserted for convenience in chronological comparison. Percentages are based on ex- amples exhibiting the particles in the extreme positions. Ne Preverbal Position Initial Position Independent Clauses Final Clauses Substantive Clauses of Fear Independent Clauses Final Clauses Substantive Clauses of Fear Ut Preverbal Position < Initial Position Substantive Clauses Final Clauses Relative ut-Clauses Consecutive Clauses Substantive Clauses Final Clauses Relative ut-Clauses Consecutive Clauses Earlier Later 76% 39% 1% 2% 5% 1% 24% 61% 99% 98% 95% 99% 43% 3% 16% 4% 3% 1% 7% 1% 57% 97% 84% 96% 97% 99% 93% 99% Remarks. The parallel columns in the above table, representing the earlier and later periods of Latin, show that preverbal ne and lit are relatively much more frequent in early Latin. Of the clauses em- ploying ne, the independent clause shows that a rather high percentage of the preverbal position is maintained for the later period, but quite naturally so, as the function of the word is strictly adverbial. In final clauses and substantive clauses dependent upon verbs of fear, caution etc., there is no appreciable change, the conjunctional position having been practically fixed in the earlier period. As to substantive clauses introduced by ne, other than those accompanying verbs of fear, etc., we have stated above that instances were too few in the material examined by us to form a basis of comparison. [//-clauses show a general drift in one direction toward the initial conjunctional position at the head of the clause. Substantive and final clauses have a marked reduction of the preverbal position for the later period. Relative ///-clauses and consecutive clauses show a slight re- duction in the preverbal position, no great change of course being possible, as the position of ut in these clauses was normally initial in early Latin. The greatest change is seen in substantive and final clauses, a situation which results from the conjunctional development of indefinite ut. Inasmuch, therefore, as a uniform development is seen in chronolog- ical outline for the historical period, we may safely assume that this is but a continuance of the development which began in the period previous to extant records. UT AND NE IN THE SAME CLAUSE Ut and ne are frequently combined in usage. Examples : Capt. 267, ne id quidem, involucrum iniccre, voluit, vestem ut ne inquinet. Most. 1053, pergunt turbare usque, ut ne quid possit conquiescere. Mil. 199, qui illam hie vidit osculantem, id visum ut ne visum siet. And. 259, aliquid facerem, ut hoc ne facerem. 899, hoc modo te obsecro, ut ne credas a me adlegatum hunc senem. Adelph. 354, mea Canthara, curre, obstetricem arcesse, ut quom opus sit 7ie in mora nobis siet. Phorm. 415, an, ut ne quid turpe civis in se admitteret propter egestatem. Cicero's Orations contain a total of seventy-six exam- ples. A few of these will suffice to illustrate. Rab. 37, Nihil alius vos orat, nisi iiti ne se . . . privetis. Sulla 27, sin quaeris, qui sint Romae regnum occupare conati, ut ne replices annalium memoriam. 38 ON THE POSITION IN THE CLAUSE OF NE AND UT Cluent. 6, haec postulo, primum id, quod aequissimum est, ut ne quid hue prae iudicati adferatis. Mur. 86, atque obsecro, iudices, ut ne hominis miseri ut cum corpori morbo . . . ohruatis. Cael. 8, deinde id ea in alterum ne dicas. Piso 17, Omitto enim illud, consulem edicere, ut senatus consulto ne obtemperetur. Plane. 92, sed etiam, si ruere vellem, boni viri me, tit id ne facerem rogarent. In the Latin we have studied, ut and ne do not appear in combination in the independent sentence, but in the sub- ordinate clause occurrence is moderately frequent. In the majority of instances the particles stand in juxtaposi- tion at the head of the clause, but sometimes they are separated. In that case, ut normally occupies the initial position, while ne has greater freedom and appears inter- mediately or directly before the verb, thereby pointing to its original adverbial nature. C/., Abbott, op. ciL, Ep. XXX, I, n, "originally ne had purely a negative force in this combination." (The compound ut ne is 'transposed' in the three following instances: And. 327, Capt. 267, Trin. 105. SUMMARY In the foregoing discussion it has been shown, we think, that the so-called 'trajection' or 'transposition' of the sub- ordinate conjunctions ne and ut is not due to an artificial word order adopted for the sake of securing emphasis by the forced and mechanical displacement of the conjunc- tional particles, but is rather an historical survival of the original order of words in the sentence, by which the con- junctional particles, originally adverbs and by nature closely associated with their verbs, were normally placed in the position directly preceding the verb. The position ON THE POSITION IN THE CLAUSE OF NE AND UT 39 of the conjunctional particles at the head of the clause, which is regarded as the normal conjunctional position in classical Latin, we interpreted as arising from various causes. We first discussed the adverbial nature of ne. Its ety- mology pointed clearly to its source in an Indo-European negative particle, which was later employed in the Italic languages as a prohibitive particle. Its use as a negative adverb in Latin, before its development into a subordi- nate conjunction, we found freely illustrated in the inde- pendent volitive sentence. The position of the particle was shown to correspond with its adverbial function, as it was placed immediately before the verb in the majority of sentences examined. This preverbal position we assumed as the original and normal position and as the source of what is called 'trajection* in the later conjunc- tional uses. It then remained to explain the frequent placing of the particle apart from the verb at the head of the sentence, so we suggested certain factors which tend to produce this result. We then turned to subordinate clauses to ascertain the position of ne as a conjunction. In the negative final clause, statistical evidence showed plainly that the con- junction was regularly initial, there being but two in- stances of the preverbal position in final clauses in the whole of Plautus and Terence according to the complete list of examples collected by Schuenke. Substantive clauses were relatively too few to form a basis of judgment, except those dependent upon verbs of fear, caution, etc. In these, the conjunctional position at the head of the clause was the rule with but exceedingly few exceptions. In the case of uty we met with a more complex situation and consequently our thesis that the position of the par- 40 ON THE POSITION IN THE CLAUSE OF NE AND UT tide should correspond with its function was subjected to a more thorough test. In respect to the frequent trans- position of ut, we discovered at the very outset that any remarks on its position would be meaningless if we did not take into consideration the fact of its separate and distinct functions. The interrogative and relative func- tions are beyond dispute. We presented citations of opinion from various scholars regarding a third func- tion, referred to by some as 'ellipticaF, by others as 'indefinite'. The opinion of those contending for an original indefinite value of ut seemed to us the niore natural one, and this was confirmed by investiga- tions with reference to our own subject, for evidence resulting from the study of the position of the particle showed that the preverbal position was confined chiefly to clauses in which the so-called indefinite tit was em- ployed. This state of affairs we accepted as indicating that the ut, which was called 'indefinite', is not identical with relative or interrogative ut, which stands normally at the head of the clause. Our discussion was then directed to showing that the position of ut in the great majority of instances paralleled its function, accordingly as this was interrogative, relative, or indefinite. Interrogative ut in its independent use as illustrated by direct interrogations and exclamations was shown to stand normally at the head of the sentence. The fact that the adverbial function and position were seemingly at variance in these sentences, we explained as being due doubtless to the prevailing tendency for interrogative and exclamatory particles of all kinds to stand in the initial position. In the dependent conjunctional use, also, interrogative ut generally held to the initial position. Relative ut (modal, temporal, causal, concessive, restric- ON THE POSITION IN THE CLAUSE OF NE AND UT 41 tive, etc.), in accordance with its probable interrogative origin, we found to stand at the head of the clause, its function of course being strictly conjunctional. The same was true of consecutive ut, which seems to have been originally relative. Indefinite ut, employed as an adverbial particle of reenforcement in independent sentences, w^as discussed under its subdivisions of jussive and optative. In its jussive use the posi- tion of the particle showed frequent instances of the preverbal position, while in its optative use the initial position was the more common. The jussive and optative functions of the particle being identical, it was necessary to offer an explanation for the discrepancy in position. This difference was explained as due to the difference in kind of sentence, jussive ut naturally holding to the ad- verbial position, while optative ut became fixed as a rule in the initial position, from usage in interrogative-exclama- tory sentences in which introductory particles from the very nature of such sentences stand at the head. In the repudiating question, also, it was pointed out that ut showed a strong tendency to stand next to the verb, a fact which we interpreted as pointing to a volitive origin for this type of sentence, the accompanying particle being the indefinite particle of reenforcement and corresponding exactly, as we should have expected, with the independent jussive use and position. Of the three functions of ut, then, the preverbal posi- tion appeared to be associated most regularly with the indefinite. This fact was further illustrated by con- trasting the position of the particle in independent volitive and final clauses. The independent sentence represented ut (except when analogy had been at work) in its original adverbial use as tending to stand directly 42 ON THE POSITION IN THE CLAUSE OF NE AND UT before the verb, while the final clause exhibited it in its conjunctional use with its position generally at the head of the clause. These two types of clauses we regarded as representing extremes in usage and position. The pre- verbal position in the independent clause we assumed to be the original order, while the conjunctional position at the head of the dependent final clause represented the opposite extreme in the development of the indefinite adverbial particle into the conjunction. Contrasted with final clauses, statistics showed that the preverbal posi- tion was of very frequent occurrence in the substantive clause. Indeed, of all the dependent clauses in early Latin examined by us the substantive clause exhibited the largest proportion of the preverbal position of ut, from which fact it was inferred that the substantive clause from the standpoint of clause development stands nearer the original paratactic order than other subordinate clauses. In further confirmation of this semi-independence of the substantive clause we called attention to the frequent omission of the conjunctional particle in contrast with the final clause, which does not function without it. The ultimate regularity of the conjunctional position of the particle at the head of the substantive clause in classical Latin we regarded as due to a natural evolution in clause- relationship, certain phases of which were then discussed. Finally, by chronological statistics, it was shown that the preverbal position of ne and iit was much more fre- quent in early Latin than in the classical period, the gen- eral drift of development, where an appreciable change was possible, having been in the one direction toward the head of the clause. This uniformityof development in the histor- ical period we accepted as but a continuance of the develop- ment which began in the period prior to our records. BIBLIOGRAPHY F. F. Abbott, Selected Letters of Cicero, Boston, 1897. Eduard Becker, De Syntaxi Interrogationiim Obliquarum aptid Priscos. Scriptores Latinos (Studemund, Studien des Archaischen Lateins, Ber- lin, 1873). K. Brugmann, Die Demonstrativpronomina der indogermanischen Sprachen, Leipzig, 1904. K. Brugmann, Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indoger- manischen Sprachen,'^ II, 2, Strassburg, 1911. Chas. E. Bennett, Syntax of Early Latin, Vol. I, Boston, 1910. Bruns, Pontes Juris Romani Antiquae, Tubingae, 1909. M. Porci Catonis De Agri Cultura, ed. Henrich Keil, Lipsiae, 1884. M. Tullii Ciceronis Scripta Qtiae Manserunt Omnia, ed., C. F. W. Mueller, Lipsiae, 1889. Bastian Dahl, Die lateinische Partikel ut, Kristiania, 1882. A. Dittmar, Studien zur lateinischen Moduslehre, Leipzig, 1897. C. L. Durham, The Subjunctive Substantive Clauses in Plautus Not Including Indirect Questions (Cornell Studies in Classical Philology, No.XIII), 1901. B. L. Gildersleeve, Latin Grammar, New York, 1905. W. G. Hale, Hale-Buck Latin Grammar, Boston, 1903. F. W. Holtze, Syntaxis Priscorum Scriptorum Latinorum Usque Ad Terentium, Lipsiae, 1861. Q. Horatius Flaccus, Carmina, ed. F. Vollmer, Lipsiae, 19 13. Kraz, Modus der rhetorischen Fragen, Stuttgart, 1862. R. Kuehner, Ausfiirliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache. (Carl Stegmann), II. Band, I. Teil, Hannover, 1912; II. Band, II. Teil, Hannover, 1914. G. M. Lane, A Latin Grammar, New York, 1898. W. M. Lindsay, Syntax of Plautus, Oxford, 1907. C. Lindskog, Quaestiones de Parataxi et Hypotaxi apud Priscos Latinos^ Lundae, 1896. E. P. Morris, On Principles and Methods in Latin Syntax, New York, 1901. Gustav Mueller, Uber die sogenannten unwilligen oder misbilligen Fra- gen im Lateinischen, Gorlitz, 1875. 44 ON THE POSITION IN THE CLAUSE OF NE AND UT Plautus, Comoediae.ed. F. Leo, Vol. I, Berlin, 1895; Vol. II, Berlin, 1896. . . E. A. Gutjahr-Probst, Beitrdge zur lateinischen Grammatik, Leipzig, 1883. J. J. Schlicher, Classical Philology, II, p. 79J7- Hermann Schnoor, Ziim Gebrauch von id bei Plautus, Neumunster, 1885. Emilius Schuenke, De Traiectione Coniiinctionum et Pronominis Rela- tivi Apud Po'elas Latinos, Kiliae, 1906. F. Sommer, Handbiich der lateiniscJien Laiit- und Formenlehre, Heidel- berg, 1902. E. H. Sturtevant, P. Terenti Andria, New York, 1914. Terentius, Comoediae, ed. A. Fleckeisen, Lipsiae, 1910. A. Walde, Lateinisches etymologisches Worterbuch, 2. Auflage, Heidel- berg, 1910. I. B. Weissenhorn, Parataxis Plautina, Burghausen, 1883. Carl Wenglein, Nei^e und Neque im alteren Latein, Tubingen, 1911. COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS Columbia University in the City of New York The Press was incorporated June 8, 1893. to promote the pubh- cation of the results of original research. It is a private corporation, related directly to Columbia University by the provisions that its Trustees shall be officers of the University and that the President of Columbia University shall be President of the Press. The publications of the Columbia University Press include works on Biography. History, Economics, Education, Philosophy, Linguistics, and Literature, and the following series: Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology. Columbia University Biological Series. Columbia University Studies in Cancer and Allied Subjects. Columbia University Studies in Classical Philology. Columbia University Studies in Comparative Literature. Columbia University Studies in English. Columbia University Geological Series. Columbia University Germanic Studies. Columbia University Indo-Iranian Series. Columbia University Contributions to Oriental History and Philology. Columbia University Oriental Studies. Columbia University Studies in Romance Philology and Literature. Records of Civilization: Sources and Studies. Adams Lectures. Carpentier Lectures. Julius Beer Lectures. Hewitt Lectures. Blumenthal Lectures. Jesup Lectures. Catalogues will be sent fre e on application. ^_ Lemcke & BuECHNER, Agents 30-32 West 27th Street New York COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY Edited by the Department of Classical Philology The Satire of Seneca on the Apotheosis of Claudius, Commonly Called the airoKoXoKVPTQiaLS. A Study. By Allan Perley Ball, Ph.D. i2mo, cloth, pp. vii + 256. $1.25 net. Stress Accent in Latin Poetry. By Elizabeth Hickman du Bois, Ph.D. i2mo, cloth, pp. v -f 96. $1.25 net. Studies in the Philosophical Terminology of Lucretius and Cicero. By Katharine C. Reiley, Ph.D. i2mo, cloth, pp. ix + 133. $1.25 net. Costume in Roman Comedy. By Catharine Saunders, Ph.D. i2mo, cloth, pp. X 4- 145. $1.25 net. De Infinitivi Finalis Vel Consecutivi Constructione Apud Priscos Poetas Graecos. By Charles Jones Ogden, Ph.D. 8vo, cloth, pp. 65. $1.00 net. The Bellum Civile of Petronius. By Florence T. Baldwin, Ph.D. i2mo, cloth, pp. viii + 264. $1.25 net. Religious Cults Associated with the Amazons. By Florence Mary Bennett, Ph.D. 8vo, pp. ix + 79. Cloth, $1.25 net, paper $1.00 net. A Study of Archaism in Euripides. By Clarence Augustus Manning, Ph.D. 8vo, cloth, pp. xi + 98. $1.25 net. Studies in Magic from Latin Literature. By Eugene Tavenner, Ph.D. 8vo, cloth, pp. x + 155. $1.25 net. Prolegomena to an Edition of the Works of Decimus Magnus Ausonius. By Sister Marie Jose Byrne, Ph.D. 8vo, cloth, pp. viii -f- loi. $1.25 net. The Dream in Homer and Greek Tragedy. By William Stuart Messer, Ph.D. 8vo, cloth, pp. ix + 105. $1.25 net. On the Position in the Clause of Ne and Ut in Certain Docu- ments of Colloquial Latin. By William T. Rowxand, Ph.D. 8vo, paper, pp. vii -f- 44- $1.00 net. COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS Lemcke and Buechner, Agents 30-32 West 27TH Street New York