still another question. Why is et used in some places and atque in others. does And also have any sort of special significance? can it intesify words or does it place a special emphasis upon what comes next. It seems odd that Lating would have multiple words for a simple conjunction unless there was a reason behind it.
So I guess my question is
What is the difference between all of the following if they mean essentially the same thing.
Atque
Et
Que
Etiam
Item
quoque
and all of the other nice little prepositions and conjunctions that have simillar meanings in english.
My tranlations are equally good as yours, Chris. The nature of these words is in fact simple – however, they blend together quite a bit, and it takes not a little experience with the language to gain a true appreciation of their shades of meaning. My suggestions are a good place to start.
Tell me, Luce, have you read H. C. Elmer “Que, Et, Atque in the Inscriptions of the Republic, in Terence, and in Cato.” The American Journal of Philology vol. 8 no. 3 (1887): 292-328?
The inscriptions don’t agree with your assessment.
Wow. I came to textkit today to ask a very similar question. I’m using Lingua Latina as well, and sometimes, once the author has introduced a new way to say things, I think, Now I need to pay attention to how its used to get an idea of the subtleties. Then other times I think, He’s just throwing everything in there to get you used to seeing it, and it doesn’t really matter where for now. So - for those who have used LL - Should I pay attention to the ways words (such as those listed on this thread) are used in LL for indications of the ways they are used in original Latin? Or should I just try to get general meanings out of LL and wait for the real thing to try that?
I’m still early enough in LL that I’m not sure this matters, but I notice that I’m learning more and more ways to say essentially the same thing (and, for, therefore, also, etc). I know in English we have many, many different ways to say essentially the same thing - and different choices can be better than others considering the context. And the difference can be hard to explain without context, so does LL try to communicate this yet?
However, a distinction which can be made between “et” and “-que” is that typically “-que” does not connect whole ideas or clauses, but rather joins a pair of objects, or two things that are contained within the same overall idea or clause, e.g. “arma virumque cano.”
“et” can also mean the same thing as “etiam” “even, also.”
Actually, Rindu, clauses can indeed be introduced with -que:
Vivamus mea Lesbia atque amemus
rumoresque senum severiorum
omnes unius aestimemus assis
Here the -que binds a new clause; we are not estimating the rumors along with another direct object. The binding, coupling nature of -que, though, cannot be understated.
Angilee, do pay attention to those subtleties! They are indeed there puposefully, and mark for you the different usage. You don’t have to labor over them, but keep them in mind and you will go far.
Chris, you seem to be taking to contradict me even when we agree! You may want to reread my comments; you’ll find that I have stated as plainly as yourself the nature of these wonderfully various yet homogeneous particles. I have not read your compositions, my friend, by I assure you that I have written and continue to write and speak these little words while fully relishing their polychromatic intension as I employ them with all their true value and variation, as any Latinophile would.
Your Latin, Luce, might be able to be relished as delectable Latin, but is it the Latin that the Romani saw? And if so, at what point? I took the opening poster’s question to be a question of etymology - whence did these conjunctives originate?
You said for -que that it was a coupling conjunctive, which I took to mean the same thing that Rindu later said, but you denied, so I’m really unsure what you meant when you employed the phrase. I do know that in some older inscriptions, et is only used when using -que would change the meaning of the word, such as “et in” in loco “inque”.
All I’m saying is that the distinctions, originally, are much more complicated than you originally listed them to be.
Lucus, I know, that’s why I said -que is ‘typically’ so used in the way I characterised it. I didn’t say that it is only so used.
In my experience there aren’t any hard and fast ‘laws’ in Latin that are never ‘broken’ but we can discern some general tendencies. In my experience -que is more often used in the way I characterised than not, but when it comes down to it, it really is just equivalent to ‘et’. General tendencies aren’t exceptionless.
And I should add that I have read far more prose than poetry. things always change when we start talking about poetry since the poet has meter to consider. However, I’m reading the entire Aeneid this semester and it seems that the -que/et distinction I mentioned holds for vergil.
Of course I haven’t done any significant study of conjunctions to determine the statistical distribution of the two. I’m just going by intuition here.
