pronoums positioning

Here you can discuss all things Latin. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get help with a difficult passage of Latin, and more.
User avatar
calvinist
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 474
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 7:24 pm
Location: San Diego, CA

Post by calvinist » Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:03 pm

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.
I like the way you put that, and I have to agree... I've used Wheelock to get the grammar down, but I didn't let myself get bogged down too much. I think a traditional textbook is fine, but you should push through as fast as you can.. even if you don't understand everything the first time it's presented it will eventually start to fall together through constant exposure. Of course, I had previous exposure to Greek and Hebrew so the concepts of case, verb endings etc. was not new to me.

User avatar
Arkan
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 12:57 am
Location: Tenerife, Spain

Post by Arkan » Sat Sep 27, 2008 12:50 am

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. :)

In other words, my decison to learn Latin is forcing me to study stuff I managed to bypass when I should have learnt it, long ago.:oops:

But, anyways, as you can see in my first post above, I began using the Cambridge Latin Course book, that i believe follows Orberg's method, but when i got to lesson 6 i felt that I should get a better grammatical base, so i started using Wheelock too, and I'm very happy with the results. I'm so happy, to be honest, that i'm having a hard time going back ocasionally to the Cambridge course, opting for Wheelock most of the time.

Valete!

cb
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 411
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 3:52 pm

Post by cb » Sun Oct 05, 2008 6:38 pm

hi arkan, you asked initially if there was a pattern to pronoun positioning in latin. There are studies which do show patterns, but it is quite a complicated area. I have tried to turn these studies into a short set of rules, and will describe these below if you or anyone else wish to read about this further. (I will also scan for you copies of the authorities themselves so that you don’t need to rely on my summarisation.) as the others said above, you don't need to worry about this now if you don't want to: learning the spelling is hard enough.

The rules below suggest that the following changes should be made to Adrian’s versions of your answers: in 1 and 2, move ME one word to the right (i.e. after MONENT/MONET); in 4, choose the first of adrian’s versions; in 6, go back to your version; in 8, move DEBET two words to the left (i.e. before ME). In each case, this puts the pronoun ME in second position in its clause, and (where it falls in an infinitive phrase) first in its infinitive phrase.

Before trying to work out the rules of latin pronoun positioning, there is a complication: a latin pronoun like ME actually seems to represent two pre-latin pronouns which were spelled differently and went in different parts of the clause. Somehow these two pre-latin pronouns transformed/fused into a single latin pronoun ME, i.e. having a single spelling in latin, but nevertheless still going in different parts of the latin clause. The same complication also applies to the genitive and dative personal pronouns. The best authority I have on this is Sihler 1995: I have scanned from my copy the relevant section on this (remove spaces):

www . freewebs . com / mhninaeide / sihlerprons . pdf

So before you even try to figure out where is the “normalâ€￾ position of a latin pronoun like ME, you are faced with the complication that it seems to have at least two “normalâ€￾ positions (although it is spelled the same way in latin in each position).

Now for the word order rules: the latest authority I have on latin word order is Devine and Stephens 2006, “Latin Word Orderâ€￾. I have scanned from my copy the whole section on pronouns (remove spaces):

Link 1 of 2:
www . freewebs . com / mhninaeide / dsprons1of2 . pdf
Link 2 of 2:
www . freewebs . com / mhninaeide / dsprons2of2 . pdf

Below is my attempt to turn this into a short set of rules.

A. Definitions
"Contrastive" means contrasting with word(s) in the same case in another clause: e.g. MIHI is contrastive with CETERIS in "MIHI ENIM VOLO IGNOSCI, CETERIS IPSE NON IGNOSCO": De Orat. 1.130.
"First position" means the first word of a clause plus any adjacent:
(a) word(s) agreeing with the first word, or which are part of a periphrastic construction with the first word;
(b) connective particle(s) (e.g. -QVE, ENIM, etc.);
(c) contrastive word(s); and
(d) a demonstrative pronoun referring to word(s) in a previous clause.

B. Rules
1. A contrastive pronoun goes first in its clause.
2. In an infinitive phrase, a pronoun goes first.
3. A pronoun governed by a preposition follows the preposition.
4. Otherwise, pronouns go immediately after first position.
5. Insert the following “falseâ€￾ punctuation to get the word order right:
(a) if a clause begins with a particle (e.g. NAM) immediately followed by a separate inserted clause (subordinate, ablative absolute, etc.) put brackets around that separate clause and ignore it;
(b) after any separate inserted clause other than as described in paragraph (a), put a vertical bar | after it, and a new first position will start after the vertical bar; and
(c) if a clause begins with a QV- word immediately followed by a prepositional phrase, put a vertical bar | after the prepositional phrase, and a new first position will start after the vertical bar.

e.g.s of the above rules from Cicero:
Rule 1: "MIHI ENIM VOLO IGNOSCI, CETERIS IPSE NON IGNOSCO": De Orat. 1.130.
Rule 2: "CVM STATVISSES, VT AIS, TIBI CAVSAM ESSE DICENDAM": Verr. 2.5.78.
Rule 3: “HABEMVS SENATVS CONSVLTVM IN TE, CATILINAâ€￾: In Cat. 1.3.
Rule 4: “TERENTIA TIBI SAEPE AGIT GRATIASâ€￾: Ad. Att. 3.9.3.
Rule 5(a): "NEC[, SI CVPERES,] TIBI ID PER C. CVRIONEM FACERE LICVISSET": Philipp. 2.3.
Rule 5(b): "VERVM TAMEN VT ESSE POSSENT | MAGNO STVDIO MIHI A PVERITIA EST ELABORATVM": In Caec. 40.
Rule 5(c): "QVAMQVAM IN HAC PRAESCRIPTIONE SEMIHORAE | PATRONI MIHI PARTIS RELIQVISTI": Pro. Rab. Perd. 6.

C. Position of each MIHI in Cicero’s first Catiline
The rules above seem to work OK in latin texts I have tested them on: usually they get the pronoun word order right or miss by a word (which suggests to me that the definition of “first positionâ€￾ is where the most work needs to be done in order to make these rules work more accurately). I have given below as an e.g. each instance of MIHI in Cicero’s first Catiline, explaining whether the rules work or not in each case.

[5] SI TE IAM, CATILINA, COMPREHENDI, SI INTERFICI IVSSERO, CREDO, ERIT VERENDVM MIHI, NE NON POTIVS HOC OMNES BONI SERIVS A ME QVAM QVISQVAM CRVDELIVS FACTVM ESSE DICAT.
(This follows the rules. ERIT VERENDVM is a periphrastic passive construction, and so both words make up first position: see paragraph (a) of the definition of “first positionâ€￾.)

[6] MVTA IAM ISTAM MENTEM, MIHI CREDE, OBLIVISCERE CAEDIS ATQVE INCENDIORVM.
(This doesn't follow the rules, which would have given *CREDE MIHI, but MIHI CREDE appears to be the standard order in Cicero.)

[11] QVAMDIV MIHI CONSVLI DESIGNATO, CATILINA, INSIDIATVS ES, NON PVBLICO ME PRAESIDIO, SED PRIVATA DILIGENTIA DEFENDI.
(This follows the rules. QVAMDIV is in first position.)

[18] QVAM OB REM DISCEDE ATQVE HVNC MIHI TIMOREM ERIPE; SI EST VERVS, NE OPPRIMAR, SIN FALSVS, VT TANDEM ALIQVANDO TIMERE DESINAM.
(The rules would put MIHI one word to the left. ATQVE is in first position and so *ATQVE MIHI HVNC was therefore expected.)

[21] AT SI HOC IDEM HVIC ADVLESCENTI OPTIMO, P. SESTIO, SI FORTISSIMO VIRO, M. MARCELLO, DIXISSEM, IAM MIHI CONSVLI HOC IPSO IN TEMPLO IVRE OPTIMO SENATVS VIM ET MANVS INTVLISSET.
(This follows the rules. IAM is in first position.)

[23] QVAM OB REM, VT SAEPE IAM DIXI, PROFICISCERE AC, SI MIHI INIMICO, VT PRAEDICAS, TVO CONFLARE VIS INVIDIAM, RECTA PERGE IN EXILIVM; VIX FERAM SERMONES HOMINVM, SI ID FECERIS, VIX MOLEM ISTIVS INVIDIAE, SI IN EXILIVM IVSSV CONSVLIS IERIS, SVSTINEBO.
(This follows the rules. SI is in first position.)

[27] ETENIM, SI MECVM PATRIA, QVAE MIHI VITA MEA MVLTO EST CARIOR, SI CVNCTA ITALIA, SI OMNIS RES PVBLICA LOQVATVR:
(This follows the rules. QVAE is in first position.)

[29] ETENIM SI SVMMI VIRI ET CLARISSIMI CIVES SATVRNINI ET GRACCHORVM ET FLACCI ET SVPERIORVM COMPLVRIVM SANGVINE NON MODO SE NON CONTAMINARVNT, SED ETIAM HONESTARVNT, CERTE VERENDVM MIHI NON ERAT, NE QVID HOC PARRICIDA CIVIVM INTERFECTO INVIDIAE [MIHI] IN POSTERITATEM REDVNDARET.
(The rules would put the first MIHI one word to the left: CERTE is in first position and so *CERTE MIHI VERENDVM… was expected.
The second MIHI follows the rules: first, put a vertical bar after the ablative absolute “HOC … INTERFECTOâ€￾ pursuant to Rule 5(b), i.e. “…HOC PARRICIDA CIVIVM INTERFECTO | INVIDIAE MIHI IN…â€￾. INVIDIAE is then in new first position after the vertical bar pursuant to Rule 5(b).)

[29] QVODSI EA MIHI MAXIME INPENDERET TAMEN HOC ANIMO FVI SEMPER, VT INVIDIAM VIRTVTE PARTAM GLORIAM, NON INVIDIAM PVTAREM.
(This follows the rules. First position is made up of the first word QVODSI plus the demonstrative pronoun EA referring to INVIDIAE in the previous clause: see paragraph (d) of the definition of “first positionâ€￾.)

cheers, chad :)

adrianus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Post by adrianus » Mon Oct 06, 2008 12:58 am

Salve cb.
I have the Devine & Stephens, too, cb, and would you not say that "me" is a strong pronoun rather than a weak pronoun,—to use D&S's terminology,— in the above sentences? Weak pronouns, they argue, don't occupy a "first" position, but strong pronouns can.
Ego quoquè, cb, hunc librum habeo et pronomen "me" superis in contextibus tenerum esse negem. Nonnè illis locis id fortem esse censeas, —apud terminologiam auctorum Devine et Stephens? Negant tenero cum pronomine sententiam incipi posse. Non negant eam rem cum forte.[/b]

ard_righ_art
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 4:28 am

Grammar guide suggestion

Post by ard_righ_art » Mon Oct 06, 2008 5:03 am

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. :)
...
A book you may find helpful on the subject:
English Grammar for Students of Latin. Norma Goldman (et al?)

I thought it was UGA press, but see it is not. Amazon has several from under $4.00 up.

There are perhaps some simplistic explanations on some topics (mine, somewhere so special I cannot find it, is an older edition), but it makes looking up topics pretty simple, with some nice explanations.

cb
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 411
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 3:52 pm

Post by cb » Mon Oct 06, 2008 9:06 am

hi adrian, we can only apply the label "strong" or "weak" to a pronoun once we already know where it goes (on the basis of objective criteria). the only objective criteria I have found for pronouns which fall outside of Wackernagel position (i.e. which don't go immediately after first position, which is the the spot for clitics pursuant to Wackernagel's law) are those in my Rules 1 to 3. these are the only three i have found to date which are objective but i assume there are more.

you could label pronouns satisfying Rules 1, 2 or 3, or some of them, "strong", but this would simply define the word "strong" (as being a pronoun which satisfies Rule 1, 2 or 3) and would not allow you to apply the label in reverse (i.e. to say that this or that pronoun is "strong", and therefore it satisfies Rule 1, 2 or 3, and therefore can go at the start of the clause). the labels give you terminology to divide up pronouns into those which fall in a certain position and those which don't, but the labels can't help you work out which words they should themselves apply to. for this we need objective criteria.

i applied the rules above and suggested changes to your versions of arkan's answers on the basis of this; it had nothing to do with my sense of latin "style": i don't have one and am not in a position to correct anyone else's and certainly not yours, as you are far better at latin than me.

cheers :)

adrianus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Post by adrianus » Mon Oct 06, 2008 3:18 pm

OK. I'm very much a novice in linguistics, so I can only discuss from a common sense viewpoint and by seeking coherence in the arguments of what I've read in general and of Devine and Stephens (D&S, Latin Word Order: Structured Meaning and Information, Oxford University Press, 2006) on this in particular. So in putting this to you, cb, I'm merely simulating confidence and you could well imagine that I'm either misreading or misunderstanding because of inexperience.
Licet. Linguisticâ de scientiâ, tiro sum. Ideò ego disputans communem sensum credo, et contextum argumentorum quae et in universum et apud D&S super rem propositam legi. Sic coràm confiteor, simulo ut cum auctoritatem scribam. Rectè opinetur me scribere sine curâ magno labore partâ.

You are missing a rule from your list and that is the 'neutral' word order. By omitting it, you imply it doesn't exist,—maybe unintentionally.
Tabula tua hoc caret: ordinem verborum qui neuter est. Eo omisso, eum non exstare denotas, fortassè consilio siné.
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...
Neutrally, the verb comes at the end of the sentence so in a sentence with just a pronoun and a verb, the pronoun is the first word and the verb is the second.
Neutro casu, verbum sententiam terminat; itaquè cum sententia solùm pronomen et verbum habebit, pronomen primum erit et verbum secundum.

Also your first rule needs to be adjusted, because non-contrastive pronouns can also go first in a clause.
Regula prima etiam mutanda est, quià licet pronomen quod sine contrarietate stat clausulam incipiat.
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.).
Similarly, in common phrases like "Me paenitet" ("I am sorry", and "Me licet") the personal pronoun often precedes the verb.
Et saepè casibus dictorum ut "me paenitet" et "me licet", pronomen ante verbum ponitur.

Your second rule ("In an infinitive phrase, a pronoun goes first"), while generally true, is contradicted by certain examples in D&S which involve reported speech (accusative + infinitive) constructions. [I can't remember the specific examples for now but will cite them again.]
Sunt quoque quaedam exempla ad orationem obliquam pertinentia quae secundam regularum tuarum contradicunt, id mihi videtur.
Your third rule ("A pronoun governed by a preposition follows the preposition") forgets about enclitic "cum" as in "mecum tecum secum nobiscum vobiscum".
Tertia regula quam proponas mentionem "cum" enclitici omittit, ubi licet praepositionem pronomina personalia sequi, ut "mecum tecum secum nobiscum vobiscum".

According to D&S, word order is influenced by whether a word or collocation or phrase is a focus or a topic or a tail. A focus conveys new information, a topic old information and a tail old information that is more especially incidental or, as they themselves put it:
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.
Nor are these classifications hard and fast:
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).
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).

Take the sentences/ità vide: "If I make a mistake, they let me know. " and "If they make a mistake, he lets me know." In both sentences "me" has focus (and so does the verb, of course, as well). In the first you can read "They let someone know and that someone is me" or "the person that they let know is me" and in the second "the person he lets know is me" and "He lets someone know and that someone is me" In the second sentence "me" is new information certainly, but in the first it is old information. You cannot read "me" necessarily as a tail in those sentences in any way that fits D&S's definition of a tail. The sentence is just too short for the pronoun to be considered necessarily a tail. It can therefore be the first word in the sentence. It could of course come after the verb if you wanted to stress the verb, as in a command say or given some context.

Apud D&S, natura dictionis vel collocationis vel clausulae, seu est natura foci seu materiae seu caudae, ordinem verborum movet. Nec rigidas has categorias. Quod in paginis à ducentis septuaginta septem usquè ad trecentos duodecim (277-312) scribunt D&S ad pronomina tenera (et caudas) pertinet, nec pertinet ad pronomina quae focum habent—item tuae regulae. De sententiis "Si erro, me monent" et "Si errant, me monet", non licet "me" pronomen legere ut cauda continuó. Ergo id quidem clausulam incipere possit. Certè, aliter interim fiet si verbo vim dare voles, ut solet cum tempore imperativo vel contextu alio.

cb
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 411
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 3:52 pm

Post by cb » Mon Oct 06, 2008 8:11 pm

hi adrian, thanks for helping me with this. the change I will make to my rules is in Rule 3: I will change “follows the prepositionâ€￾ to “goes next to the preposition, no matter where the preposition is in the clauseâ€￾.

To respond to your other points:

(a) you said that I am missing a rule on neutral word order; describing this neutral word order for pronouns is what my rules as a whole are trying to do.

(b) you suggested that pronoun + verb should go in that order because, in neutral word order, the verb goes last. There are several reasons why I don’t think we can make this inference without further investigation of the evidence: the verb default position is not always last (see sections 2.1 “Verb initialâ€￾ and 2.2 “Verb secondâ€￾ in D&S), the pronouns section of D&S doesn’t suggest that a “verb lastâ€￾ rule always prevails over the patterns found in the pronouns section, and the e.g. I found of a clause with pronoun + verb only in Cicero’s first Catiline (s13) follows my rules: INTERROGAS ME, rather than the order you suggest. I will investigate this further; if you find some more clauses with only verb + pronoun in Golden prose, I would be grateful if you could give me the refs: I will modify my rules based on the results.

(c) 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 don’t see how I can adjust my rules, because D&S do not give any objective criterion for why this happens. here (and in other places) I have to acknowledge that the rules will always have exceptions. this is OK; my goal is to understand where pronouns generally go (rather than where they always go).

(d) you mention the phrases ME LICET and ME PAENITET: I ran some searches of these phrases (and their reverse) in Cicero (I am limiting my searches to Golden prose to avoid influences of poetic metre or other factors in the results) and didn’t find any which really ran counter to the rules, although in Tusculanae Disputationes 5.90 and Ad Atticum 3.3 I will need to do some further reading. Here are some of the results:

“ME LICETâ€￾
Cicero, Pro Ligario 25: GLORIEMINI PER ME LICET…
Cicero, De Oratore 3.147: VEL ME LICET EXISTIMES DESPERARE...
Cicero, Tusculanae Disputationes 4.47: DIGLADIENTVR ILLI PER ME LICET
Cicero, Tusculanae Disputationes 5.90: QVARE VT AD QVIETVM ME LICET VENIAS

“LICET MEâ€￾
Cicero, Pro Plancio 90: NAM QVI PRO RE PVBLICA VITAM EDIDERVNT—LICET ME DESIPERE DICATIS—NVMQVAM ME…
Cicero, Ad Atticum 2.8.1: QVAMQVAM LICET ME SAVFEIVM PVTES ESSE

“ME PAENITETâ€￾
Pro Cluentio 80: NEQVE ME PAENITET HOC TEMPORE POTIVS QVAM ILLO CAVSAM A. CLVENTI DEFENDERE
Ad Atticum 1.20: VEL QVOD, A SENATV QVANTI FIAM, MINIME ME PAENITET
Ad Atticum 3.3: ADHVC QVIDEM VALDE ME PAENITET.
De Natura Deorum 1.8: EOQVE ME MINVS INSTITVTI MEI PAENITET
De Senectute 84: NEQVE ME VIXISSE PAENITET

“PAENITET MEâ€￾
Ad Atticum 12.8.2: QVOD ME IPSE PER LITTERAS CONSOLATVS SVM, NON PAENITET ME QVANTVM PROFECERIM

If you have some specific Golden prose quotes in mind which run counter to my rules, please let me know and I will modify the rules accordingly. By contrast, MIHI CREDE which I found in the first Catiline (s6) seems like a clear exception to my rules, i.e. one worth remembering. I assume there are more of these.

(e) you talked about the terminology of topic, focus and tail, and mentioned that its classifications are not hard and fast. I agree; therefore I don’t use it. Even if others can apply these terms in an objective and consistent way, I doubt that I could, and so am happy to stick to the old terminology which I think I can apply more consistently, even if this limits what patterns I will be able to find.

cheers, chad :)

adrianus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Post by adrianus » Mon Oct 06, 2008 11:05 pm

Cb, if strong pronouns are unexplainable exceptions to your rules, then your rules must be wonky.*
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 don’t see how I can adjust my rules, because D&S do not give any objective criterion for why this happens.
In D&S (p.79) they propose (rather uncontroversially) that the neutral word order in Latin is Subject - Direct Object - Indirect Object or Oblique argument - Adjunct - Goal or Source argument - Non-referential Direct Object - Verb (Subj DO IO/Obl Adj Goal/Source Nonref-DO V).

When a pronoun functions in one of these identifiable roles and occupies its neutral position, it doesn't require in-depth analysis. "Ei statim scripsi" (Ad Att 8.1.2) isn't exceptional; it conforms to the neutral word order. "Ei" can be presumed strong, and presumed to have focus by default. "Me paenitet" conforms to the neutral word order. It is "paenitet me" which begs to be justified (as it can be, of course).
Once again, D&S very explicitly state that what they are addressing on pp.277-312 are weak pronouns (tails) and what is interesting and revealing about them. They certainly don't say that strong pronouns are exceptional or even mysterious. Strong pronouns reveal less because, by default, they will tend to conform to the neutral word order, and their departures from the neutral will be explained relative to the neutral default positions. So the position of the pronoun "ego" in "Egone non intellego quid sit... Latine voluptas? (De Fin 2.12) p.240.
Also the position of a relative pronoun in first position is not exceptional "qui praesidio navibus essent (BG 5.9) or "ii qui valetudine aut aetate inutiles sint bello" p.198
Also "id" in "Id est oppidum Parisiorum (BG 7.57)" is in first position, p.200, or "Id autem difficile non est (BG 7.23) p.202. "Id difficile non est..." (BC 3.86)

Of course, maybe I'm completely wrong and your rules are empirically sound. (They are, of course, correct for what they include—weak pronouns— but misleading for what they exclude, I think.)

Cum pronomina fortia tuas regulas contradicant, tunc illae regulae defectae sunt. Apud D&S, proponitur (et nonnè omnes accordemus) ordinem verborum latinè esse ità: Subjectum - Objectum Directum - Objectum Indirectum vel Argumentum Obliquum - Adjunctum - Argumentum Affectatum - Objectum Indirectum sinè Respectu - Verbum
In sententiâ ut "Ei statim scripsi (Ad Att 8.1.2)", ordo verborum regulam generalem vel neutram paret et, eâ ratione, specialiter conprobari non requirit. Denuò, cum pronominibus teneris (seu caudis) operantur D&S, quod expressim dicunt. Certè, negant pronomina fortia arcana vel exceptionalia esse. Et plures exempla pronominum fortium et incipientium eventitata per librum de quo disputamus.

Fortassè autem me oppidò errare et tuas regulas empiricè artias esse.


*Please don't be annoyed, cb. I just like to debate.
Amabo te, cb, ne iratus fueris. Solùm disputare amo.

adrianus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Post by adrianus » Tue Oct 07, 2008 1:14 am

cb wrote:I am limiting my searches to Golden prose to avoid influences of poetic metre or other factors in the results
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)!
Cum Terentium fuges, multa exempla sermonis Romanorum desideras, quae pronomina incipientia in sententiis brevibus ostendunt (a scriptore cuius latinitatem admirabantur et Cicero et Julius Caesar, ut credo)!
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)

Post Reply