What’s the difference and when should you use each of “adeo” and “tam”? I’m going through North and Hillard right now and it seems like they just randomly choose between them.
Another thing that he seems fairly inconsistent about is word order with esse. Sometimes he separates the words being copulated, and sometimes not (is there an unemphatic ordering…?)
pax,
iacobus
speaking exclusively of adverbs:
tam = tamen (archaic). whetever you should use abeo or tam(en), I would recommend you to use “adeo” when you use it for comparison/to such a degree. adeo infelix ut ego sum. While “tamen” for corrections/petitions. both for yet, nevertheless and still.
what words do you sometime see copulated? esse and adeo?
salue iacobe
Generally speaking, the word order reflects the importance the writer wishes to give the words in a sentence. The general rule is therefore that the subject comes first, whereas the verb is the last word. Following this, I don’t think separating the subject and the predicate nominative is a problem. In that case, I infer that what is inserted is more important than the predicate nominative to the writer.
Let us see your examples - that facilitates the discussion 
Hope this helps.
From what I’ve been learning in Moreland & Fleischer, “tam” also functions as an adverb of comparison, roughly equivalent in meaning to “adeo.” For instance, “Currit tam celeriter ut nemo eum vincere possit” is a sentence that appears in Chapter 13, I believe it is. (I know this not because I am so obsessive that I have memorized the entire text but rather because I was reviewing this chapter today.)
So, it seems to me that “tam” in such a context is distinct from “tamen,” meaning “however,” “but,” or “nevertheless.”
Regarding the original question, Iacobe, I’m afraid that I haven’t noticed a distinction. At least, the text didn’t choose to alert me to one. Perhaps they are interchangeable? (One might point out that “adeo” is identical in form to “adeo,” the verb meaning “go to, approach,” a consideration that might affect its use.)
David
I agree with bellum paxque: neither tam nor tamen is archaic in the classical period from what I understand.
What makes you say that? My dictionary says that “tamen” is archaic form of “tam”.
Ioannes said:
My dictionary says that “tamen” is archaic form of “tam”.
I am baffled about the silence of your dictionary on this matter. Which dictionary is it? Not only Moreland and Fleischer’s textbook, but also Lewis and Short’s dictionary support what benissimus and I have alleged. At the bottom of the entry in L&S, there is a short example of “tam” being equivalent with “tamen.” Surely, this congruence is what you refer to, but the vast majority of their explanation of “tam” explains its status as an adverb of comparison.
What Lewis and Short say at perseus:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3D%2347433
It’s a Norwegian - Latin dictionary. I am afraid I might be using it wrongly, since it’s for you somehow incorrect, and I doub’t it is.
So, I double-checked again. I found two “tam”, one having its “own” meaning and the other refering to “tamen”, being an archaic form.
Thanks!