LINGUIST List 4.463

Tue 15 Jun 1993

Sum: Latin -que

Editor for this issue: <>


Directory

  1. , Latin -que summary

Message 1: Latin -que summary

Date: 14 JUN 93 19:05:15
From: <H00025sinet.ad.jp>
Subject: Latin -que summary

Thanks to Brett Kessler, Anna Morpurgo Davies, Linguini, Leo Connolly, and
Nancy Frishberg for responding to my query about the Latin conjunction clitic
-que. It appears that, as one might expect, prescriptive and descriptive
grammar part ways. Here are the responses:
>From: Brett Kessler <bkesslersanskrit.hpl.hp.com>
&
In response to your note in Linguist: it can go either way, i.e., on all
the elements but the first, or only on the last. In poetry, it could even
be added to the first element as well. The Oxford Latin Dictionary gives
the following examples from Cicero:
&
[fratris uxorem] [speratosque liberos] [fratremque ipsum]
&
[pacem], [tranquillitatem], [otium] [concordiamque] adferat
&
And Ovid has (although these aren't NPs):
&
per me, quod [eritque] [fuitque] [estque], patet.
&
I don't think any of these is particularly rare. I don't know if there are
any non-rhetorical factors influencing the choice, e.g., whether branching
NPs are more likely to have explicit connectives.
&
Brett Kessler
&
I was taught that in Latin you say X Yque Zque but in
fact X,Y,Zque is also possible. To find examples the
easiest way is to look at the Oxford Latin Dictionary
s.v. que 2 a and 2b, where you get Cicero's evidence
&
>From Anna Morpurgo Davies ( morpurgovax.ox.ac.uk)
&
I was taught that in Latin you say X Yque Zque but in
fact X,Y,Zque is also possible. To find examples the
easiest way is to look at the Oxford Latin Dictionary
s.v. que 2 a and 2b, where you get Cicero's evidence
&
>From: Linguini <LGUIN01ukcc.uky.edu>
in Classical Latin, -que always attaches to the last unit to be added. that
is, for three NP, you would have:
&
NP NP NPque
&
however, things may have been a little different in Old Latin.
&
>From Leo Connolly:
If I remember correctly, Latin -que cannot be used to connect more than
two items (which, by the way, need not be NPs). This is an inherited
trait, I think; again, if memory serves, the same is true of Sanskrit
-ca.
&
But -que is not the usual Latin equivalent of 'and'. More commonly we
find _et_, as well as forms like _necnon_. _Et_ is subject to no
restrictions on the number of times used; it is placed between the items
joined. _Necnon_ is a favored second 'and' in Late Latin, i.e. one to
use after an _et_ or two.
&
I hope that's right. I teach German, not Latin, for a living.
&
(Nancy Frishberg's response was essentially the same as part of Connolly's).
 Thanks, all!
Susan Fischer
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue