hi, the agreement of multiple subjects with a verb in ciceronian latin is very thoroughly analysed in lebreton’s studies on the language and grammar of cicero (études sur la langue et la grammaire de cicéron, 1901), pgs 1-23. it's trickier than you might think.
the general patterns for how this agreement works in cicero are:
- pattern (1): if the multiple subjects each refer to persons, then the verb is most often put in the plural – e.g. A. ATILIVS ET L. ATILIVS
DIXERVNT, Caec.10.27 (see lebreton p.14 and following), and
- pattern (2): in any other case (i.e. if one or more of the subjects doesn’t refer to a person), then the verb most often agrees with the subject closest to it – e.g. GRAVITAS ET VIRTVS IVDICIS
CONSOLETVR, Quinc. 1.5 (see lebreton p.2 and following).
http://www.archive.org/stream/tudessurl ... 2/mode/1up
the patterns above are how the agreement usually works, although there are exceptions. e.g. there are some exceptions to pattern (1) where, even though the multiple subjects each refer to persons, the verb agrees with the subject closest to it (rather than being put in the plural in accordance with the usual pattern (1)):
- exception (A): where the verb falls in between the multiple subjects, it agrees with the subject falling before it – e.g. CATVLO
AVDIENTE ET CAESARE, De Or.2.10.40 (see lebreton p.17)
- exception (B): where the verb falls before the subjects – e.g. QVOD
AIT ARISTOTELES ET THEOPHRASTVS, Or.68.228 (see lebreton p.17)
- exception (C): where each person is qualified in a different way – e.g. SVAVITATEM SOCRATES, SVBTILITATEM LYSIAS, ACVMEN HYPERIDES ...
HABVIT, De Or.3.7.28 (see lebreton p.19)
- exception (D): where each person has before it the same word repeated – e.g. ET COTTA ET SVLPICIVS
EXPECTAT, De Or.2.7.26 (see lebreton p.21)
- exception (E): where AVT, VEL, VE OR SIVE connects the subjects – e.g. ARISTOPHANE AVT CALLIMACHO
TRACTANTE, De Or.3.33.132 (see lebreton p.22)
just also to note that, although the e.g. latin sentences given by Laura above all give the correct agreement, and the explanation “Latin will often drop repeated phrases which are in parallel structures” is a good one, i think that if someone memorises this explanation as a method/rule of thumb to figure out how to make the verb agree properly (i.e. by "collapsing" parallel structures), this could possibly lead to mistakes. e.g. if you look at the two e.g. sentences mentioned in patterns (1) and (2) above:
- A. ATILIVS ET L. ATILIVS
DIXERVNT, Caec.10.27
- GRAVITAS ET VIRTVS IVDICIS
CONSOLETVR, Quinc. 1.5
they both have multiple subjects and then a verb at the end, and so you might assume that these could “collapse” in a similar way and therefore would both take a singular verb, but this would be incorrect because it would not take into account that the first sentence has subjects referring to persons and the second sentence doesn’t (and so you need to follow patterns (1) and (2) respectively to get the agreement right in these sentences). alternatively, you could use Laura's explanation as a method/rule of thumb but remembering that it doesn’t always apply when the subjects all refer to persons.
cheers, chad