1. me monent si erro < si erro, me monent
2. me monet si errant < si errant, me monet
3. mone me si errat < si errat, mone me
4. me bebes monere < bebes me monere || me monere bebes
5. me servare bebetis || bebetis me servare
6. non debent me laudare < me laudare non debent
7. lauda me si non erro, amabo te < si non erro, lauda me
8. si me amat, me laudare debet
Brilliant! Unfortunately, my mistakes usually come down to grammar rather than to typos. I wish it were otherwise.Arkan wrote:Sorry, it was a typo. Instead of "bebo", you should read "debes". Same for "bebetis" in 5. It should read "debetis". It was a long night, heh.
Brilliant! Laughing Unfortunately, my mistakes usually come down to grammar rather than to typos. I wish it were otherwise.
MarcusE wrote:Consider a sports analogy. It's good for a football player to spend some time in the weight room each week. But if he spent 2 hours a day lifting weights and 30 minutes a day playing football we would say that he has his priorities a little messed up.
Arkan wrote:When I said "most of my time is wasted studying grammar", I didn't mean Latin grammar, but basic Spanish and English grammar so I can understand Latin grammar. So when i see something like "...present and imperfect subjunctives, the perfect and the plueperfect..." i have no idea of what it means. I have then to stop with latin, look it up and study it, and then go back to Latin, therefore wasting time i should be using for Latin.
D&S, p.8 wrote:So for instance if you do not accept that there is such a thing as neutral word order in Latin, the question of whether Latin is a scrambling language does not even arise...
D&S, p.280 wrote:Noncontrastive topics also occur sentence initially and can be taken to be strong pronouns
(166) Me et tuae litterae... et exspectatio vestrarum litterarum Thessalonicae tenebat (Ad Att 3.11.1)
Me tuae litterae nunquam in tandem spem adduxerunt quantam aliorum (Ad Att 3.19.2)
Mihi in animo est legum lationem exspectare (Ad Att 3.26)
Ei negotium dedit ut... (Verr 2.4.51)
Ei statim rescripsi (Ad Att 8.1.2)
Ei cum ego saepissime scripsissem (Ad Att 10.10.1: app. crit.).
Nor are these classifications hard and fast:D&S, p.17 wrote:Tails serve to lexically instantiate arguments that are obligatorily projected but are not topics or foci, and at the same time to confirm the hearer's assumptions or refresh his memory about old or inferable information.
In D&S, pp 277-312 are about weak pronouns. Your rules are for weak pronouns (tails) and exclude pronouns which are topics or have focus (strong or weak).D&S, p.16 wrote:While topic is principally associated with old information and focus with new information, the correlation is not dependable. It is perfectly possible for old information to be (weakly or strongly) focussed whether it is topical or not, even pronouns
(22) uter nostrum tandem, Labiene, popularis est, tune...an ego?
(Pro Rab Perd 11).
you refer to pg. 280 of D&S which shows some non-contrastive pronouns going first in the clause, and suggest I should adjust my rules. I agree that these are exceptions but donâ€™t see how I can adjust my rules, because D&S do not give any objective criterion for why this happens.
By avoiding Terence, you avoid so many examples of Latin conversation and many examples of initial pronouns in short sentences (from someone whose latinity was admired by both Julius Caesar and Cicero, I think I remember)!cb wrote:I am limiting my searches to Golden prose to avoid influences of poetic metre or other factors in the results
Terence in Adelphoe wrote:"id mihi vehementer dolet et me tui pudet." "Tune has pepulisti fores?" "Ego dicam tibi" "Is venit ut secum avehat" "tu quantus quantu's nil nisi sapientia es" "id misero restat mihi mali si illum potest..." "me miseram" "tu cum illa intus te oblecta interim" "Me quaerit. num quidnam effert?" "Ellum, te exspectat domi" "Ei mihi, etiam de sorte nunc venio in dubium miser?" "Egon debacchatus sum autem an tu in me?" "Tu quod te posterius purges..." "Ego istam invitis omnibus" "Tu homo aadigis me ad insaniam!" "Is meus est factus" "Ego illi maxumam partem fero" "Te plura in hac re peccare ostendam" "Ei mihi, pater esse disce ab illis qui vere sciunt" "Ego hanc clementem vitam..." "Eam nos acturi sumus novam"
"eas non nosse te" (acc + inf inversion)
That statement makes great sense to me. But you want to rule for demonstrable contrastives and not for strong pronouns, so you leave the larger class minus the minority class as exceptional cases and the minority class as the norm. That won't do, surely, especially when you recommend casting "me monent" (Direct Object - Verb) over "monent me" (Verb - Direct Object) on the principle that "me" is a personal pronoun and according to your Rule 4, without reference to (general) neutral word order.D&S. p.279 wrote:Most instances of sentence initial pronouns in Latin seem to be strong. Some are demonstrably contrastive.
cb wrote:i have no stats on latin word order
2. In an infinitive phrase, a pronoun goes first, except when it doesn't,â€”which MIGHT be most of the time!
3. A pronoun governed by a preposition follows the preposition, except when it doesn't in particular cases.
4. Otherwise, pronouns go immediately after first position, except when they don't,â€”which MIGHT be most of the time!
Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot], Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot] and 81 guests